RITES report on Implementation of Commuter Rail for Bengaluru

The RITES report seems to be conservative on having fares that exceed current IR standards. With the telescoping fare structure, the Rs 10 from Hebbal to Hosur or the Rs 29 odd my buddy pays in passenger train fare from City station to Mandya is insanity!  There is no reason to provide that sort of subsidy.  In any JV or SPV, the fares should be reasonable / comparable to the extent that O&M costs are covered and a certain investment /expansion cost is covered.  Any RITES report should cover that fare structure.

IR may be foolish enough to stick to that fare structure, but there is no reason a SPV should support this.  We should ask RITES to estimate what sort of fare structure makes sense, assuming that we have full leeway in making those decisions.

The RITES report is a positive indication to bring CRS to Reality. It gives  clear details about how CRS can be implemented by proper communication & co-operation between Gok & IR. It also suggests Gok steps to be taken for speedy imoplementation of CRS by forming a SPV lie BCRC.  To provide early service to the public the Gok should take up certain projects which can be completed  within short time and provide maximum benefit to Public, and these projects should be 100% financed by Gok.

The O&M  Fare structure and timings at which the commuter trains will be run is decided by IR. Even if Gok levies subsidy the minimum fare will be Rs 5/ and the fares will be hiked only by rs 2/ if surcharge is levied.

The major hurdle pointed out is Crisscrossing of tracks at Byapanhalli and capacity of SBC to not accommodate any new trains. Considering the Present scenario a little delay is being caused for trains coming from Yelhanka towards byapanhalli mainly due to freight trains assing  byapanhalli and during Late running of regular trains sometimes. Also only about 7pairs of trains go towards salem crisscrossing BYPl and rest of trains towards Salem run bangarpet, jolarpet bypass line to Salem. Also only about 5pairs of trains cross to hebbal line at byapanhalli. So with automatic block signalling in Place criss crossing is only a minor problem when  freight trains are run. With automatic block signalling more trains can be Received & despatched quickly as Waiting Time for line availality reduces by more than 50% depending on number of blocks  between 2 intermediate stations.

The report says Banglore City Station cannot accommodate any new train unless a existing train is shifted out or by Remodelling the station by adding 2 or 3 new platforms. But with Block signalling the presnt Station can accommodate more trains and can  dispatch more trains in less time interval thereby reducing waiting time for incoming trains to get platforms. Also PF2 can be freed from Mor 7 to eve 5.30 by shunting Kachegudda Exp to nearby station on Mys sector and PF6 can be freed from Mor 10 to eve 5.30 by extending it upto Byapanhalli or Byapanhalli North and stabling it there. Also Weekly trains like ernakulam Exp, trivendrum Exp, kochuveli Exp which are stabled at Byapanhalli after offloading passengers at Banglore city can be made to start from byapanhalli north after the new coaching terminal is built.

The suggested trains to be made Demu/Memu takes more time as these services are run by rakes belonging to mysore div and rake sharing is done to minimise the Lie over time of these Rakes at Banglore City. The new time table is to be set for all these trains as tey are run in RSA with Arakonam Pass, Jolarpet Exp, Marikuppam Pass & Mysore Night queen Pass. At present Time table for this RSA is set in such a way that Pass train that arrives to banglore at mor4 waits for 3hrs at SBC , and after, no other Service of this train lies over at Banglore city for time ranging from 10 mins to max of 30 mins. Similarly converting mysore pass train to DEMU/MEMU affects its RSA with Shimoga Pass, Salem Pass & arsikere Pass Trains. So converting these trains to DEMU/MEMU will affect the timings of these Peak Hour trains.

Sec 3.2  - Potential in terms of Capacity

Maximum Peak throughput:

Rail - 60000 Passengers/Hr

Metro - 40000 passenger/Hr

BRT - 500 Passengers/Hr

Sec 3.4 - Potential in terms of Cheapest Alternative

• Metro costs 12000 Crores for 42.3 Km with carrying capacity of 1 Million (10 Lakhs) commuters per day.
• CRS with 8000 Cr investment will yield 405 Km of CRS network and would carry about 2.5 Million commuters per day.
• CRS could take the burden of 50% of greater Bangalore's total commuters population.

Sec 3.6 - Capacity Assesment Metro Vs CRS

•  By its Width - Metro coach is 2.88 meters, CRS BG Coach is 3.66, i.e. it is 26% more.
• By its length - Metro train - 6 Coaches, CRS train - 16 coaches, i.e. CRS train is 2.67 times of a metro train.

    Capacity of CRS train

                  1 CRS Train = 2.67 X 1.26 = 3.3 metro trains.

Sec 5 - Capacity Enhancement Strategies

[Mod Note: have moved most report summary like comments to this new wiki post. Readers are encouraged to develop the  summary into a good 2 minute read on the RITES report]

SB,

Yes. 8000 crores not a small amount. But that is the total cost of CRS for all 3 Phases (1A, 1B and 2) spread over 7 years if things goes fine on all front.

Here is the cost and phase breakup from RITES report:

Phase 1A - Rs. 3000 crores to be spend over 2 Years. To yield CRS carrying capacity from 1.8 lakhs to 5 Lakhs passengers per day

Phase 1B - Rs 2000 crores of works spread over 2 years. This would enhance the CRS capacity to 10 Lakhs passengers per day.

Phase 2 - Rs. 2500 crores of works spread over 3 years. This will enhance the capacity to 25 lakhs passengers per day.

Phase 3 - Cost and time frame not given in the report.

Note: Phase 1A delivers what PRAJA has demanded in its "Call to Action Report".

Let us try keep to feedback and practical suggestions related to this Report. I have created a separate "Project Wiki" and merged your comments there into an abstract of the RITES report. I will add a link to this wiki on the CRS Wikipedia page too.

Quite astonish to find that the report is silent on integration with other transit systems. There are references to feeder roads to stations but only as passing reference.

Can't imagine a PT system without proper integration with other modes of PT systems like Metro, BMTC, KSRTC, Taxis/Cabs/Autos.

contd..

c) the first JV of IR was in Konkan Rail wherein 4 state govts & IR formed a 50:50 venture. This project was executed more with as a result of dedicated efforts of persons like Mr George Fernandes who Union Rail Min in 70s saw to it that KRCL got registered as a company with state govts chipping in their contribution & Mr Errapalli Sreedharan who executed it doggedly.

the tkt structure of KRCL was left to the company to decide. we need persons of both the above calibers to take up BCRL work.

Coming back to the funding, it is to be noted that none of the infrastructure project SPVs r doing well in our country. this is mainly due to bureaucratic hold ups besides litigations & not because of viability.

IR has certain philosophy in pricing the tkts as seen from recent budget fiasco. The funding of the project shud be attempted from soft lending agencies inorder to make it viable

The phases of CRS in the report may be well thought off, but, based on the political situation in karnataka, 3000+ crores for 1st phase would be a pipe dream.  it may be required to create a phase one where like the metro, only one line is open (with may be few DMU rake) and only with couple of hundred crores.   Political party in power would be ready to throw in couple of hundred crores and take credit for initiating the project. if not, the project will be shelved until new government is sworn in.  

Santosh

Thanks for the link.

"...Bangalore Airport Rail Link (BARL) Director (Projects) C Jayaram says, irrespective of the rail or any public transport project, civic authorities have been directed by the government to be in tune with the Comprehensive Traffic and Transportation Plan (CTTP) as well as the Comprehensive Development Plan 2015.

“The CTTP is like the Bible for all civic agencies and we ensure that our plan didn’t violate the guidelines in it. For example, we have made sure that LRT intersects the Metro corridor and other mass rapid systems for better connectivity. Further, LRT and other rail projects have been drawn up after a detailed analysis of the traffic density and a field survey,” says Jayaram..."

Wow, CTTP is Bible!

Does this bible even considers rail as mass transit system that could be used for city/suburb commute? Anything on streamlining autorikshaw/cab service? Was HSRL part of the vision in CTTP?

JNNURM is perfect vehicle for funding CRS project.   In fact, it satisfies most of the mission eligibility criteria.   If part of the money is received as grants, there will be interest from Private investors on PPP model.  The mission started in 2005-06 will complete its 7 year duration in 2012-2013. we don't have much time to get this done.

it is possible to lobby the local Congress leaders to persue this option.  

http://jnnurm.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/PMSpeechOverviewE.pdf

Strange that we find 8000 cr for CRS too high figure for state investment. One should lookt at what will this 8000 cr would ultimately produce. 405 Km network, covering 70-100 Km in radius around B'lore with capacity to carry 20 Lakh commuters / day. More importantly with 99% on time arrival/departure.

Compare with this, GOK is willing to invest 8400 crores fro monorail, 6400 for HSRL. No qualms for these projects?

@rackstar, Why hung up on Praja report, time to endorse RITES report and move forward.It is time to push GOK to start implementing CRS ASAP. Time to act and demand CRS from politicians.

The current political musical chair game is not a good omen for CRS. If nothing happens in next 2-3 months, then rest assured nothing will happen till the state elections in 2013.

So lets do our part.

Though I agree that given the benefits of CRS and the amount of money proposed on other stuff, 8000 crores is not that much money.  However, it may be a good idea to develop a backloaded plan where future phases contain bulk of the expense...

According to Table 9.1 of the RITES report, Phase-IA costs 3433 crores and Phase 1B- 2363 crores.  Phases 1A, 1B and 2 comvbined work out to 8346 crores.  So Phase I, as per RITES report is 75% of the cost.

Hyderabad MMTS Phase-I, which was a lot less ambitious 43 km was 178 crores.

Whileit would be great if the 8000 crores of financing was arranged for and RITES process was followed, would there be a way to structure this to get maximum bang for the buck first and as people get excited about the advantages, make it easier to fund the future stages?  Just a thought.

Yes, but the big learning from this RITES report has been that major upgrades in railway ifrastructure are required.  Track doubling/tripling/ quadrupling, signaling upgradation, terminal/station development, flyover construction etc. seem to consume a large fraction of the budget.

While I whole heartedly agree that 8000 crores for 400 odd kilometers is nothing compared to what is being spent on the metro, the worry is the question of funding this amount.

What are the options? A. Part state funding B. Part central/railway funding C. Loans. If money comes from the railways, unless the railway minister is from your state and has some clout, the available funds are spread very thin across a variety of projects across the country.  The railways as an organization is in dire need of reform.  

State funding - from a quick check, 8000 crores is about the money the state collects from the Excise department in a year.  So it is not a small amount. 

Central funding - Does this qualify under JNNURM?

Loans - have to be repaid.

My worry is that somebody will balk at this amount.  If that happens, what is another approach?  Can we develop One or two lines?  For example, could we develop towards one or two directions? Say Tumkur and Bangarpet and then do the necessary infrastructure and terminal upgradation to accomodate these? If they prove popular, maybe pressure will build for the other lines?

Again, to reiterate, nothing like this getting funded through some mechanism at one go. I am just thinking of a plan B.

RITES has submitted a clean and decent report. If this seriously happens then it would be a blessing to all bangalorens. 

I pray and beg the god that atleast now the govt would turn its head towards commuter rail. They have a really worthy and intelligent report by RITES on thier table. I hope and wish they would give the go ahead for this project.

Atleast they can start of with phase 1 immediately and run trains towards whitefield and kengeri during peak hours.

To all the govt and non govt bodies who are responsible to sanction the project, please consider the report given by RITES as it is the best report for commuter railway for bangalore.

Yes, agree.  If they decide to fund the whole thing using grant, loan, bond etc., nothing like it.  Political will is what is required.  If that is missing, easiest way to cop out is to say that money is not available.

Phase-I A costs 3433 crores, they could finish it in 3 years with half the state expenditure and see patronage. And stations are far apart, so it will be like "fast passenger line" of mumbai railway, not slow passenger. State govt has 1 lakh crore budget, but i dont think it can give more than 500 crore for this, other tier-2 cities of karnataka get 100 crore fund overall every year.

Hyderabad MMTS has ridership of 160,000 and chennai suburban has 1,400,000. Expecting 2,000,000 ridership is 50% more than similar size city of chennai, that is unrealistic.

Updated by the Moderator - The comment has been converted into the Discussion post "Proceedings of DULT meeting on 2012 RITES Report on Bengaluru Commuter Rail Service".

Paper by   P C Sehgal and Teki Surayya

Innovative Strategic Mnagement: The Case of Mumbai Suburban Railway System

http://www.vikalpa.com/pdf/articles/2011/Vik361-05Note_Comments.pdf

Will our Bangalore counterpats in SWR and GOK learn liitel bit from MRVC project  learning.

When construction of the Metro project in Bengaluru commenced in June 2006, it was thought that the city would be able to deal with increasing congestion and provide a convenient alternative mode of transport for people. But works for Phase 1 itself started a good three years after the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation had submitted the Detailed Project Report.

As completion of Phase 1 gets delayed, there has been an explosion in the number of vehicles in the city, to around 50 lakh, bringing congestion to a peak. What is evident is that the Metro will not be able to single-handedly shift the majority of commuters off the roads.

Sanjeev Dyamannavar from the advocacy group Praja, which has been fighting fiercely for starting a Commuter Rail System (CRS), argues that a city should have all forms of transport — motorised and non-motorised — to have any serious impact on lessening the congestion on the roads.

There are different kinds of demands of people travelling every day. So, we are not merely looking at Metro as an alternative, but also services like commuter rail, proper pavements, foot overbridges, taxi bays and metered taxis. The government is investing so heavily on Metro and the cost overruns are scary enough on Phase-1. Phase 2 is going to be even more expensive,” he says.

While agreeing that Railways is working on outdated infrastructure, Sanjeev says modernising is also very important to introduce new services. “Take Byappanahalli for instance. The proposal to turn it into a world class station came in 2007, but even to this day, except for the Railways spending `15 crore and creating some infrastructure, nothing has happened. The state government, in all these years, has given it a mere `1 lakh. But spending on railways is a less expensive proposition than the Metro. “Byappanahalli will require two years and `105 crore to turn into a world class station, but under Phase 2 of Metro, each station will cost at least `300 crore,” Sanjeev contends.

Urban transportation expert Lokesh Hebbani says international agencies like Japan International Cooperation Agency have shown an interest in funding the suburban rail project. “The state government needs to pursue this and put pressure on the Central government. Otherwise, there is no way for it go forward.

With 3,000 new vehicles being registered every day, there is only so much you can do to avoid congestion. The government has to consider public transportation, which takes people off the roads. You cannot keep widening roads,” says Hebbani.

With connectivity to surrounding areas like Tumakuru, Kolar and Ramanagaram, it would encourage people to ditch their cars, he adds. “If stations can provide pay-and-park facilities, then people would readily shift to trains rather than bring their personal vehicles into the city,” he said.

Krishnaprasad, a retired Central government employee who is now involved in gathering consensus for the commuter rail project, says while both modes of transport are essential, there are certain advantages to commuter rail. “It is cheaper to execute and also inexpensive to the commuter as well. The kind of expenditure, expertise, technology required for Metro is not necessary for establishing a suburban train network,” he says.

Do Away With RITES, Say Officials

Supporters of CRS and Railway officials agree on one thing. That the state government should consider looking elsewhere if they want a proper study on feasibility of CRS.

A senior railway official said, “RITES is filled with retired railway officials aged around 70 who will not go to the field. The government can ask another agency to study the feasibility.”

In their reply to DULT on the RITES report, the Railways say that vital elements have not been brought out by RITES and a realistic assessment of multiple problems of land acquisition and demolition of built up area has not been presented.

“Similarly, critical analysis of dislocation of the existing services has not been presented,” it stated. They recommend that RITES should be impressed upon to prepare an in depth analysis supplementing in a cohesive manner on all aspects. The report further states, “At the same time, they may also explore possibility of adopting alternative economic cost effective solutions to bring down the cost of certain large scale investments so that viability of the project becomes better.”

http://www.newindianexpre...