Date post: | 06-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | akshaya147 |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 1/69
MRTS
State or Public Private Participation
Case study of Bangalore
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 2/69
1964 Study
CRRI carried out a comprehensive Transportationstudy for Bangalore in 1964
Bangalores population was 1.3 million
The trip components indicated that preferred modeswere pedestrians, bicycles, public transport systemand least for cars
70% of traffic consisted of bicycles
Estimated total number of vehicular trips 4.2 lakhs
Traffic problems crowded roads, accidents, pooraccessibility and mobility
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 3/69
1964 Study
Proposed construction of 138 km of ring roads,77.5 km arterial roads & various gradeseparators, pedestrian subways and truckterminals.
Concept - Outer and inner ring roads andrestricting the penetration of different types of vehicles
Plan for bicycles
Improve BTS
A circular railway and strengthening existingsystems were recommended in 1972
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 4/69
Road improvement Plan 1964 study
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 5/69
1984 Study
Town Planning Department carried out aTransportation study for Bangalore around1977-1979
A suggestion was to have an MRTS forBangalore
Bangalores population was about 3.25 million
In 1984, An MRTS study was proposed forBangalore
Tremendous two wheeler growth
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 6/69
Vehicles in Bangalore
year Cars Scooters Autos Others Total
1976-77 21760 62199 8699 16779 109437
% 19.9% 56.8% 7.9% 15.3% 100.0%
1981-82 32429 125600 10355 22269 190653
% 17.0% 65.9% 5.4% 11.7% 100.0%
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 7/69
Modal share 1982
Mode Percent share
Cars 3.5
Two wheelers 12.1
Cycles 16.1
Buses 55.0
Autos 4.7
Others 8.6
3%
12%
16%
55%
5%
9%
Percent share
Cars Two wheelers Cycles Buses Autos Others
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 8/69
1984 study
The thrust of the study was to plan for a MRTS forBangalore
Responsibility / authority to construct and
operate railway lines only with centralgovernment / ministry of railways
The study was carried out on behalf of BDA byMTT Madras. IIM was the traffic consultant
Since travel data was five year old, an updatingstudy to find travel characteristics was carriedout.
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 9/69
1984 study
1984 CDP data was used
Travel data indicated that in 1977, ± Mean trip length.. work 7.24 km, education 4.82
km, others 5.38 km ± Modal split fast moving 14.7%, cycle 21.1%,
buses 64.2%
± Trip purpose.work 26%, education 7%, others(health, recreation, shopping,..) 20%
± Peak hours 9.00 to 11.00, 17.00 to 19.00 hrs, peakflow per hour 11% of daily total
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 10/69
1984 study
A willingness to shift to metro survey indicated that
± About 98% of public transport users will shift If the trip issingle stage
±
About 50% of public transport users will shift If the trip isdouble stage
± About 2% public transport users will shift If the trip is triplestage
± Railway influence zone was 1.5 km
± A typical four stage modeling exercise was used ± Non-availability of computers was a big problem
± AVT computers at Chennai was used
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 11/69
Model
Lowry model for populationprojection
Regression model for Tripgeneration
Gravity model with negativeexponential distance function foreach trip purpose
Trip length frequencies for generalmodal split
MRT computation based on
100% between railwayzones,
50% between one railwayzone and one non railway
zoneNil between two non railwayzones
The above adjusted for 1.5km railway station influencearea
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 12/69
1984 study
2-corridor Metro of 23 km ± Rajajinagar to railway station to Hudson circle to
Jayanagar 12.2 km 239 crores
± Hudson circle to KR Puram 11 km 150 crores
3 commuter rail lines, and
58-km ring railway was proposed 190 crores
The plan was for a 15-year period
MRTS expected to carry 24.4 million trips by 2001 (48%of total trips)
The total estimated cost was about 650 crores
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 13/69
1984 MTT Proposals
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 14/69
1984 Study
Economic analysis was carried out, whichshowed an IRR of 21%
No financial analysis was carried out Resource availability was not considered
The perception that Railways not happy withsuburban transport system
There were no resources to take up anothersuburban line that too loss making
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 15/69
Reappraisal to save cost
Rajajinagar Jayanagar corridor is too costly
BG electric train, MG , LRT
12.2 km corridor along exiting track to have 3kmsurface, 7.5 km elevated, 4.3 km underground
6 elevated / underground stations and one on surface
Conventional emu coach with open doors cant beused.
Original Cost 240 crores including rolling stock cost
of 65 crores A suggestion from city officials to get rid of
underground stretch and to use overhead
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 16/69
1989 RITES study
The main emphasis was on the consortiumapproach
Centers contribution - 40%, state - 40% and
local body 20% Bangalores population was about 3.85 million
RITES carried out the main study. IIM was thetraffic consultant
A world bank specialist was involved
The study was a comprehensive Transportationstudy.
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 17/69
Vehicles in Bangalore
year Cars Scooters Autos Others Total
1981-82 32429 125600 10355 22269 190653
% 17.0% 65.9% 5.4% 11.7% 100.0%
1986-87 54885 236726 10524 27120 329255
% 16.7% 71.9% 3.2% 8.2% 100.0%
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 18/69
1989 study
Travel data indicated that in 1988,
±
Mean trip length.. work 7.57 km, education 6.16 km, others 6.48 km
± Trip purpose.work 24.34%, education
12.97%, others (health, recreation, shopping,..)
15.08%
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 19/69
Transport model
Conventional four stage land use transportmodel
Trip generation based on classification of zones
into core, intermediate and peripheral zones Regression model showed that population as
most significant variable in trip productions
Six alternate scenarios of transportdevelopment
2001 as the target date
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 20/69
Expected Modal share 2001
Total trips / day 8.5 million
Mode Percent share
Cars 9.2
Two wheelers 18.8
Cycles 5.2
Buses 56.3
Autos 10.4
Sub modal split (rail)
full ring roads, no
constraint on intercity train movement 24.0 (15.5)
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 21/69
MRTS Proposal
Commuter railway on Bangalore Kengeri line
Commuter railway on east west corridor of
Bangalore - Byappanahalli Commuter railway Bangalore city Yalahanka
- Byappanahalli thus forming a ring
Total estimated cost of all improvements inBangalore 1700 crores, with railway
component 310 crores
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 22/69
BTS performance 1981 to 1989
Year Cost/KM epkm Margin
80-81 373.3 323.1 -50.2
81-82 429.9 337.7 -90.2
82-83 436.9 333.7 -103.2
83-84 467.0 352.9 -114.1
84-85 511.0 381.0 -130
85-86 530.3 425.0 -105.3
86-87 552.5 480.9 -71.6
87-88 579.9 481.4 -98.588-89 547.0 484.6 -62.4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89
l o s s i n R
s .
L a k h s
BTS performance
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 23/69
1989 study
1400 households interviewed
Network
± Bangalore krishnarajapuram whitefield
dedicated double line for commuter line ± Bangalore city kengeri dedicated single line
± Bangalore city yeshwanthpur HMT Nagar dedicated single line
± HMT Nagar bayappanahalli - dedicated single line ± Many crossing stations
± Similar cost as bus system
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 24/69
Expected loads
Subject to Indian Railway sparing ROW to
proposals
No. line 2001 dailytrips
Peak hourone direction
trips
1 Blr-KR Puram 255433 15300
2 Blr - Kengeri 297523 17850
3. Blr HMT Nagar 280643 170804 HMT Nagar -
Bayappanahalli
211075 12660
Total 1044674 62890
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 25/69
Ring railway for Bangalore
Arguments with world bank about increasing
prices for Bus system
Ring railway impact was marginal Commuter system would carry a good load
but disinterest of railways lack of system
capacity
Bad economic situation in the country
Financial reforms and role of private sector
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 26/69
After a decade, in 1999
A PPP project was being designed
Railways did not want to be left out
Intermodal commuter Project
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 27/69
Suburban Railway 1999 - to start with
Suburban railway along with ELRTS
DMU services on 3 corridors during peak hours byrescheduling certain main line trains
3 trains during peak hours and at least 1 train during non
peak hours Passenger halt stations at kumara park, jeevanahalli, NGEF,
hosahalli, RPC layout, jnanabharathi, kengeri north, jakkarayanakere, subramanyanagar, jalahalli, HMT Nagar, indiranagar
Start with bare minimum, no additional land, etc canbe completed in 12 months
Start with DMU and change over to EMU
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 28/69
1999 study parameters
The study area was divided into 66 zones.
Out of this there were 14 zones having a railway station.
All the inter zonal vehicular trips between two railwayzones were assigned to suburban system.
For this 1.5 km influence zone of a railway station wasconsidered
The total cost of providing suburban railway system wasestimated as 638.19 crores to be spent in 10 years
The system was expected to carry 7.71 lakh trips in 2011,
and 9.87 lakh trips in 2021. Bottlenecks are: platform availability and capacity at city
railway station, In certain areas track capacity
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 29/69
1999 study parameters
Fare box revenue could just about cover
operating costs.
Rs. 20 surcharge on season ticket suggested. ERR was 6%. With certain economy measures
it could be increased to 11%.
ERR assumed: Rs.1
0/-
per person hour saved, Rs. 14/ - per bus km saved, 50% of certain
track costs only, etc.
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 30/69
Recommendations 1999
(iv)The fare structure of Indian railways isdecided by the parliament of India and as suchthere is no possibility for alteration in the existingrail fares. However, season ticket facility availablewith Indian railways works out cheaper than thebus services for suburban commuters
(v)To overcome fare problems, examine feasibilityof inviting corporate sector to build and operate
suburban system. They should procure rakes, maintain them, and fare structure will be decidedby railways and state government.
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 31/69
Issues
How does economic analysis relate to resourceavailability
How does economic benefits relate to cash flows
When there are so many competinginfrastructure demands why consider costintensive loss making MRTS, that too from theGovt. money?
Can private sector deliver the system efficiently?
Why not PPP?
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 32/69
1994 study
Bangalores population was about 4.4 million
ILFS carried out the main study. IIM was the
traffic consultant The mandate was to consider aMRTS project
which could be taken up by the private sector
An elaborate traffic survey was carried out
The main issue in the project was the
bankability
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 33/69
1994 study
Since the emphasis was on private sector,
profit is a criteria
Service was implicitly a criteria as withoutgood service, there wont be sustained profit
Financial feasibility had to be worked out
Costs had to be minimized and revenue had
to be maximized
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 34/69
1994 study cost minimization
Land is a major cost also time consuming to acquire whichmeans more cost interest costs.
Hence use the existing road alignments
Underground will be three times costlier than overhead.Surface is ruled out as there will be other traffic. So gooverhead
Stations require space. Use the government land and/orconstruct them right on the road at a higher level
Park and ride at only selected places where land was probably
available. This item was to be incorporated into the model An LRT system because ready technology was available.
Traditional railway would be too costly and may not negotiatecurves
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 35/69
1994 study - modeling
Bankable project meant rigorous scrutiny
A combination of category analysis and regressionmodel was used for trip generation.
Imbalance between production and attractions weresorted out by considering trip generation to be morereliable better R square value and variable could beprojected
A double constraint gravity model with a negativeexponential distribution function was calibrated andused as a feed back in the distribution as well asLowry model (pre trip generation stage)
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 36/69
1994 study modeling
A willingness to shift survey was the key item
of the model.
A Lowry model was used to get the probablepopulation distribution.
Modal split based on travel time distributions
MRTS share - Willingness to shift based on
survey data applied to modal split outputs
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 37/69
Proposed System
Total length 89.5 km
Line A Yesvantpur rajajinagar malleswaram railwaystation KR circle JC Road sarakki 24.14 km
Line B KR circle MG Road indiranagar Airport road
15.16 km Line C Yesvantpur Mekri circle cantonment Mayo
hall 10.50 km
Line D Jayanagar madivala koramangala mayo hall 9.40 km
Line E Chord road vijayanagar Banashankari Kanakapura road 14.75 km
Line F Ulsoor Bangalore East Hennur road Hebbal Mekri circle 15.70 km
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 38/69
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 39/69
Frequency of operation
A coach will have about 60 seating and 300 standing
1 to 5 coaches can be operated
Same frequency of 3-4 minutes through out the day
Indicative Capacity to be provided ± 0500 to 0800 25 to 33%
± 0800 to 1100 peak capacity
± 1100 to 1600 50 to 66%
±1600 to 1900 peak capacity
± 1900 to 0030 25 to 33%
± 0030 to 0500 No service
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 40/69
LRT Traffic demand 2011
Alternative 1 Passengers Passenger km
IA 1.397 million 13.74 million
I 1.289 million 13.04 million
II 1.03 million 10.78 million
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 41/69
Project costs (crores) 1994 prices
Civil works 912 crores
Vehicles 631
Traction and power 118
Signal and telecom 94
Automatic fare collection 22
Design and supervision 71
Preliminary expenses 178
Total 2025 crores
Price contingency (6%) 1243 crores
Interest during construction(18%) 732
TOTAL 4204
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 42/69
Financial Analysis
Project base cost 2025 crores
Landed costs 4200 crores
Equity ± GOK 220
± PRIVATE 600
± Commercial debt 2585
± Property development 320
± Subordinate debt 495
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 43/69
GOK contribution
Equity
Subordinate debt
Land free of cost
All the above to come upfront Tax exemptions to the project
System to operate on BOT principle
30 years lease
What will be transferred back?
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 44/69
Assumptions
Construction stage only expenses
First five year of operation propertydevelopment and subordinate debt will
sustain operating costs After five years of operation, higher traffic,
strong cash inflows can sustain commercial
debt and service equity Later service equity and repay subordinate
debt and generate profits
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 45/69
Resources
Economic rate of return 16.08%
Overall IRR financial 12% - insufficient for acommercial operation 20% required
GOK no resources to provide subordinate debtand equity
Should GOK pay and can they pay?
ELRTS cess of 5% on fuel consumption
Finally, About 550 crores were raised
TOR issued
Completion date visualized as 2006
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 46/69
Public reaction
Urban Arts Commission
Tree lovers association
Civic Public Hearing
Environmental clearances
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 47/69
Selection mechanism
About 22 firms expressed interest in the project, about 7 were selected to bid, 3 were shortlisted, UB selected
Project awarded prepare DPR, come withfinancial proposals
Detailed project responsibilities will be fixed upand construction can start.
1995 - April. GoK starts collecting a special BMRTcess on certain commercial transactions inBangalore
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 48/69
Selection mechanism
The UB consortium bagged the project in January 1996
Submitted its detailed feasibility study report to BMRTLin March 1997
Cost estimate of Rs 3,000 crore for 25-odd route km.
UB wants 10 km north south corridor in first phase.
The BMRTL commissioned a fresh ridership study andassigned it to the Danish firm Kampsax.
The ridership study forms the backbone of the fare
structure and in turn the cost and viability of theproject
Ridership study rejected later
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 49/69
Selection mechanism
Signed the initial agreement in January 1997
the two partners conceived a 25 per cent costshare for the State Government
but the consortium later suggested this be raisedto around 35 per cent.
More comments
± Civil Engg cost high compared to Delhi
± Ridership shown is low
± Revenue will be higher
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 50/69
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 51/69
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 52/69
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 53/69
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 54/69
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 55/69
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 56/69
Professional reaction
Traffic demand is too low. MRTS will carry at leastanother 10% more.
Private sector will make lot of money. GOK contribution should be a minimum
Private sectors reaction. can not work on 50%probability. 85% is better.
JICA concerned over too much of projecteddemand. Wanted all the station loading andparking facility details.
Different type of risks demand, project cost, interest rate, inflation, currency,..
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 57/69
1999 - May. World Bank expresses strong
reservations on the financial viability of the
project.
2000 - Feb. UBTSL submits DPR.
2000 - March. Expert team from Japan Rail
Technical Services (JARTS) gives stamp of
approval to the ELRTS project, raising hopes of a soft loan from Japan.
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 58/69
2001 cost sharing model
The UB led promoter consortium has now proposed an alternativecost sharing arrangement
to keep down the government exposure and get the project off themark.
the new option - Bangkok underground rail model - the State
Government would undertake the civil works and infrastructureincluding erecting the columns, viaducts, tracks and stations.
The consortium would take care of non-civil and operationalaspects such as rolling stock, signaling, ticketing andtelecommunications
The State's share of the project cost would be around 55 per centand the consortium's the remaining.
(ref:http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/200 1/10/09/stories/140960er.htm)
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 59/69
BMRTL cess
BMRTL cess collected by the State Government since 1-4-1995 to 1-4-98 in Bangalore has accrued to aroundRs 300 crore.
From 1-4-98, cess in the whole of Karnataka called
infrastructure cess, with 1/3 to go to BMRTL Karnataka has been collecting an infrastructure cess of
25 paise/per litre of fuel in Bangalore since 1994. Sofar, it has collected about Rs 800 crore to fund its publictransport project. The Karnataka government released
about Rs 400 crore to the Bangalore Metro RailCorporation Limited recently. ( ref:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/200 6-04-10/
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 60/69
Fares
The State Government will not interfere withthe tariff fixation mechanism till the projectbecame commercially viable providing a 16-
per cent rate of return on the net worth of thecompany.
This should enable the company to fix tariff which will be affordable to travelers and at the
same time make capital contributionsattractive. (Nov 2000) BMRTL chief
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 61/69
At DPR stage modified model
A triple constraint gravity model generations, attractions and mean trip lengthand minimizing standard deviation
Tij proportional to (Pi A j)/(tij n)*exp(btij) Model calibrated for each trip purpose
Modified normalized logit model for modal
split Pm=100/(1+A * (exp(Btij/100)),Pm = % by a mode, renormalized to 100.0 later
for all modes
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 62/69
Willingness to shift toMRTS
Mode A B CCompany Bus 55.54 -0.104 0.761
Autoricksha 25.96 -0.096 1.307
Two wheelers 48.22 -0.099 1.512
Bicycles 107.6 -0.105 0.761Public bus 58.95 -0.101 1.001
Car 39.38 -0.102 1.519
Other modes 4.74 -0.076 1.685
P=100/(1+A*(eBY)*(XC)),P = percentage willing to shift,
Y= percentage of travel time saved for the mode,
X= multiple of bus fare people are willing to pay
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 63/69
Meanwhile in 2004
Long discussions with GOK
Project costs went up and UB probably
wanted higher GOK involvement
Change in management philosophy core
competency ????
Delhi MRTS claims success
GOK approaches Delhi
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 64/69
Today , 2011Fare 1.5 times bus fare?
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 65/69
Project
Capacity
Total length of 42.3 km (18.1 for EW and 24.2 for NS)
8.82 km underground
Capacity of 40,000 Passengersper hour in peak direction.
Frequency - four minutes
Travel time from end to end ± East-west corridor - 33 minutes
±
North-south corridor - 44 minutes.
Total trips per day ± 16.10 lakhs in 2021.
Funding
Particulars Gol GoK Total
Equity 1223.7
(15%)
1223.7
(15%)
2447.4
(30%)
Subordinate
debt
815.8
(10%)
1223.7
(15%)
2039.5
(25%)
Sub-total(1+2) 2039.5(25%) 2447.4 (30%)4486.9 (55%)
4. Senior
Term debt
3671.1
(45%)
Grand Total 8158.0
(100%)
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 66/69
BangaloreMetro coach
Completely air-conditioned coach
Automated doors
Capacity of about 360 passengers 40 sittingand 320 standing
Each train to have three coaches
The number of coaches can be increased tosix.
Cost of each coach about Rs. 11 crores
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 67/69
Next phase
Expected completion dates. ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namma_Metro#Rolling_stock
The Eastern line by October 2011
The Northern line by the end of 2012
The Western and Southern lines March-June 2013
The underground lines will become operational by theend of 2014.
Next phase- 51 km, About Rs. 15000 crores
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 68/69
SPV the answer?
State starts it
Financial institutions contribute to debt
SPV can fix its own fares
If a commercial success, divest
If not, call it a beneficial project to society, likeroads
Consider whether operation can be hiked off? Securitization?
8/3/2019 Bangalore Metro Session 10
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bangalore-metro-session-10 69/69
calculations
Bangalore pop
1961 1206901
1971 1,654,000
1981 2,922,000
1991 4,130,000
2001 5,101,000
year est pop
annual
rate
1964 1326572 1.370452 0.032016
1989 3853861 1.413415 0.035206
1994 4400091 1.235109 0.02134