This is something I have been dying to understand better. What is the real difference between the various rail based transport systems ? That is, the engineering aspect. Fundamentally arent they all wheels on a track.
Is it just a question of capacity ? Just scaling the strength of the supporting civil infrastructure ? Do we call a higher capacity LRT a METRO ?
I am not talking about grade here. Almost all (exception of Mono) can be made to run at grade (on surface), elevated or underground. Mono too, there is no reason why it cannot be run very close to the ground to be called at grade (well almost)
Any gyan is welcome
Suhas
Mass transit in Bangalore
BuckC
Why not integrate all of the rail transit plans within the city and design it so that all sections of the city and the suburbs are served by one type of rail system, viz. Metro rail?
BuckC
std metro is the way!
About laying new tracks and running LRT/monorail/brt, there has been prior discussions on it..
http://praja.in/bangalore/discuss/2008/04/light-rail-transit-lrt
to reiterate..allignment, route, passenger density should play a factor for deciding the mode and not the mode itself.
A retrofit like..
'mono is cool, lets have it from kattariguppe to national college!' or
'they(private cos) are anyways monorail for free, so whats the harm' etc.. is stupid!
LRT on the other hand is ideal but I have come to a conclusion that it is not practical for Bangalore!
regards to commuter rail..there are also many blogs/comments on praja already discussing this..however karnataka is not in good terms with the centre (railways) and they dont have time/resources to cater to local taffic in bangalore...or local anything..benniganahalli!
cost to build vs revenue from operations
Whats a few hundred coreres? If half the population of Bangalore pays 10 rupees a month, we pool 420 crores.
When I find discussions on Mono/Metro/LRT etc going to the details of per km cost, I think that's a wrong line to take. These things are meant to serve the city for half a century. The stress should be on revenues that usage will generate, and not on one time cost, which may look to be huge, but is still one time.
So, to me, Metro, mono LRT skybus etc = all are almost even on that front. Some say skybus is half or a third the cost of Metro, but there is no deployed proof yet.
About talk safety/security, that one is less safe than other - this is a bit much. There are standards meant to ensure the safety aspect. Its only with relatively unproven technologies (skybus) where this is an issue.
Sometimes, these debates happen because folks try to think one solution may fit all areas. The temptation use a standard mode all across the city is a valid one, because then you have one thing to maintain and integrate, and costs would be lower there than maintaining Metro/mono etc.
Lets talk the two separately. Integration first.
Even if you lay Metro on or under every other road in Bangalore, the routes will not be point to point. You will have to change trains once or twice to get to your destination. This change can happen across different modes of transport as well. The BMTC way of thinking (lots of point to point routes, resulting in very high number of routes) lays undue stress on integration.
Now about maintenance.
The costs of maintaining a metro, or a mono, or BRT could be brought down if government can lay down national standards for these. Costs are high if you get locked down to a proprietary technology. But if there are standards for everything, right from track width, to size of A/c vents to thickness, width and length of seat cushions, I bet maintenance costs would be a lot lower.
Revenue calculations depend on data collection about transportation patterns and sane assumptions. This should be the most important input to mode decision. Any mode that can guarantee 30-40 kmph end-to-end avg speed is probably good enough, but I assume there would be need for long distance (so high speed) vs short haul (so lower) routes, and mode decision may depend a bit on speed aspect of technology. But the key is - chase the market, not the technology.
Sustainable Transport is what we need
Std Metro is every planner says. But, what we need is a sustainable transport. A Metro system although highly attractive and fast is not sustainable in terms of the investment it calls.
Most of the cities are going to BRT since it is sustainable. There are many critics about BRT , and many critics on the Monorail, many on the light rail (lot many cities have dismantled it and are going to BRT instead of LRT (since BRT is lot faster and easier to maintain and can be self feeder).
A city in Canada ( I think Ottawa) which built a Metro for the Olympics become bankrupt since people were not using it after the Olympics and it proved costly to the Government.
We see lot of BMTC Vajras and Vayu Vajras running empty burning 1 litrle of diesel every 1.5 km with 2 or 3 passengers in it due to routing problem of BMTC. We cannot afford to have a Metro running like that because of the routing problems.
BRT is fastest,cheapest to implement and maintain. It can be self feeder to itself. People need not change modes of transport. Problem is it depends too much on how organized the implementation is. BRT buses has to wait in signals.
LRT comes second since it runs at grade. This also depends lot on how organized the implementation is since people have to cross the roads to access LRT stations. LRTs too have to wait in signals. Carrying capacity of one train of LRT can be higher than that of one BRT bus - but trailer BRT buses too has got excellent carrying capacity.
Problem with both these technologies is it needs road space equivalent to 2 buses / Train + 3-5et as buffer. Space is more needed near BRT or LRT stations.
Monorails are having shortest turning radius, suits very well for narrower roads. It runs on rubber tyres, so less wear and tear. Have smaller foot print since the piers are smaller since monorails are lighter than their counterparts metro. There are monorails built to run on solar energy as well. This is more expensive in terms of investment compared to BRT or LRT, but faster since it runs on rubber track. Does not depend on the traffic signals since it runs elevated. Has a carrying capacity raning from 5,000 - 30,000 PHPDT.
Metros elevated are expensive than Mono to implement since the Piers needs to be wider and larger in area. Needs straight lines preferrably since the turning radius is larger which needs land acquisitions thereby increasing the cost. We know the problems in Bangalore for land acquisition like the CMH Road where the shop keepers were telling 'Discard Metro and Implement Mono' since they were at the receiving end. There is a case filed against the namma metro project itself.
Underground Metro is the most expensive and highly time consuming because of the viaduct construction. People say why elevated Metro, it blocks the vision of the sky and damages the city look. But, at the cost of 1 km of underground Metro, 3-4 kms of elevated Metro can be constructed.
I would suggest Sustainable Transport is what we need. Wherever road width permits, BRT is a good candidate because of its nature of self feeding plus quick implementation. As Naveen suggested many routes to BMTC which can be quickly implemented within a year, but, not moving forward with our planners.
BRT not possible? Elevated Metro or Mono depending upon the PHPDT volumes. No biasing towards any technology please. Underground Metro only at the busiest places.
Re: cost to build vs revenue from operations
Bangaloreans have been paying 1 Rupee per Petrol and Diesel for last one decade. Looks like no one knows who has gobbled that huge amount of money. AFAIK the funding for Namma Metro comes from Japan Bank & Govt. Of Karnataka, none one talks about the special pool raised out of this petrol/diesel surcharge.
Ramesh.
Talking of BMRTL Cess...
here are some stats...
28/July/02 - TOI:
05/May/03 - Hindu:
16/Feb/05 - TOI:
First two links confirm a number close to Rs 430 cr from '95 thru '03. Last link adds Rs 729 cr to the total during just one year (03-04). Somehow doesn't sound right...
Praja Post in 2007: http://praja.in/discuss/2007/09/cess-raising-funds#comments
I'm sure someone out there knows what the number today is... Will we ever find out its fate?
Thanks,
Ravi
Not an engineering perspective
Not exactly what I was looking for. I had gone through the previous threads. I wanted to have a dedicated thread looking purely from an engineering perspective, not from end user or application or financial angle
Most of my doubts are unanswered. For eg : What exactly is the difference in engineering of an LRT at grade and a METRO at grade. Is it just the number of bogies ?
Most of you seem to assume an LRT means it runs at grade. Can it not be elevated. What is the difficulty ? In which case again what is the difference with other modes of transport
Anyway, will read up in my free time and post anything worthwhile
Suhas
Suhas
An LRT Idea
Heres one, and I would be interested in knowing why it wouldnt work.
Take an existing road. Dig up the footpath, go 12 feet deep and lay a single LRT track. On the top, cover it with cement concrete, so that the top becomes a pedestrian/bicycle track. Some reduction in road, but right of way acheived with minimum cost. The supporting structure of a pedestrian/bycycle will be much cheaper. Laying LRT track at grade is dirt cheap, and this should be similar cost. Since its a single track, my take is we should be able to get done in by loosing around 10ft of road space, not too much.
For the return, take a different road, so that the two meet only at stations. That way coverage is increased (more people can easily access the track) and you dont take too much of road space.
I am no train expert and this may not work out as well. Could anyone tell me why ?
Suhas
Suhas
some thoughts on lrt
wish digging up - place - cover was that easy task..itz very evident from the magic underpasses that we wanted to put in place..remember it was a 3-5 mts width
many things to be taken care of -
high cost
soil quality
water table
existing utility lines etc
LRT like the green line in Boston run at different grades, goes undergorund at Boston college and when its at park street..red line(metro) criss corsses below it..this was layed in the early 19th century!
The best advantage for going underground is, as you mention, nothing is disturbed on top..and speed is not hindered..in that case its more economical for planning a metro rather than a LRT underground!
LRT at grade is a good idea for Bangalore but needs tremendous dicipline from road users (vehicles/pedestrians)..we lack here and I dont see we improving anywhere in the near future..
Metro is the only way to go!
weight
quick comment.
conceptually, with Right of way(RoW) not much different. LRT = Metro. Some weight & width distinctions. and perhaps Metro comes with standardized guage and technology. LRT only distinction is it can potentially be designed to be part of mixed traffic without RoW. I dunno if that is a good thing.
i think overall, to make an impact, exclusive RoW systems are needed.
okay got it
LRT response
Suhas
Without Width There is no speed-Trucks may be parked on footpath
showpiece toy train?
LRT .. contd
Suhas
little more complex..
Re: LRT...contd
LRT .. money is all that matters
Suhas
Suhas
Missing the point
Good Website on Different Modes of Transport
"Mass" Transport = do we really need the "mass"
Suhas
Suhas
coverage, and predictability
Seeing that this didn't turn into engineering chat, I return to and argue another point. Lets borrow from the BMTC related surveys (M N Srihari's 'paper') and polls (right here, from Vasanth) that tell us that people want two things first
- reliability, as in predictablity if time. Point A to Point B in a given range of time. Say, Indiranagar to Madivala in 20-30 minutes, that type of range.
- coverage. How far is the nearest point of commute, and can I easily walk or drive up to it?
- comfort, speed etc come a bit later, and enter the debate indirectly, at least for the majority
Suhas, with these two being most important, I will buy your argument that Metro B (whatever it may be - elevated LRT, Railway's DEMU with bird cage like fences, Dedicated bus lanes on elevated roads - design your cost and space affective technology here) would be better option that 120 Cr/km Metro because you want "coverage" over speed.
These talks always tilts in favor of Metro due to speed. Speed is about how fast multiplied by how many. You can do with a high capacity, high speed mode for high density corridors. If the Metro corridors are not dense, you can make them high density by two means:
1) Selectively raise FAR around the Metro corridor
2) Design each Metro station as a hub for catchment area
Which of the two is easier for government to do? Yes, #1, and they have already done it! (Recently raised FAR around Metro corridor to 4)! However, the same high FAR thing is now hurting because its become harder to acquire land near the stations for the purpose of building them up as local transportation hubs (source: a recent chat with those in the know).
One metro station every 1 km may never happen, it probably doesn't deserver to as well. But transportation design for catchment areas for Metro needs to happen, and happen fast.
Its not good to hear that BMTC and BMRC are arguing over who should pay for and maintain (as in acquire) areas for buses to pick up passengers near the station. detailed plans for stations are not public (at least I haven't seen the plans, I am talking the full station area, not just the show peice building, which really doesn't matter). Catchment area, and station sorrounding area design will make or break the Metro.
Now, about catchment, I am with asj's philosophy here. Existing bus system, with some re-tuning to add local shuttles to extend the reach to deeper residential areas can do it. I would like us to exhaust that option before going into Monorail or Skybus or whatever.
But its sad to see no talk happening in public media and forums on this topic. Metro is going to be like BIAL, we will likely be disappointed because we are ot paying attention to details and scrutiny right now.
Sorry for the Metro heavy talk - will probably copy-paste it into a new Metro only thread.
[Suhas - did you read the PM?]
That is why Sustainable Transport is everyone is looking for
Risk is the Key
BRTS - Not proven technology
Suhas
Suhas
coverage, predictablity and planning, planning and planning
Suhas
Suhas
Naveen, Murali - want to help Suhas organize a Metro meeting?
Clearly, we are not satisfied with whatever plans we have seen for Metro so far. Aam aadmi may not be thinking beyond the most visible part - construction work, tracks, rail coaches, station designs. I am pretty sure BMRCL discusses and plans things like catchment area, and would be discussing bus route planning with BMTC. But we need to know more, and got to demand some analytical details and backings for the plan around each station.
Expected load at each station - peak passenger arrival departure rates?
Bus frequencies in tune with these peak passenger rates? Who owns the parking and waiting area for busses?
Any revenue sharing or single ticket arrangement (or incentives) for combined BMTC+BMRC travel?
Murali, Naveen - do you guys want to join in with Suhas and organize one such meeting. Can't wait for newspapers to carry all these details.
Meeting with Namma Metro
Suhas
Suhas