+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Pre Feasibility

Pre Feasibility

Date post: 04-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: aryangera
View: 248 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 21

Transcript
  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    1/21

    Pre-feasibility Analysis

    Case: Bus Rapid Transit, Hyderabad

    Nisha Jain (12Ex-029)

    Nitin Gera(12Ex-030)

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    2/21

    Purpose of Pre-feasibility Study

    The purpose of a pre-feasibility study is to select the preferred option(Base Case) for the project development.

    This base case option is then developed in sufficient detail to supportdecisions to commit the additional funds required to:

    collect additional information carry out a final project feasibility study complete the required project permitting efforts

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    3/21

    Pre feasibility Analysis includes:

    - Needs and options analysis

    - Legal feasibility

    - Technical feasibility

    - Scoping social/environment safeguards analysis

    - Preliminary financial viability including expectations of requiredGovernment financial support

    - Institutional capability analysis

    - Identification of next steps required

    The pre-feasibility study lays the foundation for the projectwork scope carried forward into the feasibility study

    https://www.minewiki.org/index.php/Feasibility_studyhttps://www.minewiki.org/index.php/Feasibility_study
  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    4/21

    Needs and options analysis

    Traffic flow is nearing capacity, so that any minor incident can bring

    traffic to a standstill for extended periods of time. The rapid growth in the private vehicle fleet means that if nothing is

    done, Hyderabads traffic condition will deteriorate further andresult in severe congestion

    The options available for addressing huge traffic problem are :

    - Elevated metro- Elevated monorail- Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

    Whatever measures are taken to improve mass transit in Hyderabad,

    they should be accompanied by policies to:- Restrain private vehicle use- Improve conditions for cycling and walking.

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    5/21

    Estimating Future Demand for BRT, Metro, and Monorail

    Because metro and monorail systems are expensive, theygenerally can not be expanded fast enough to keep pacewith urban dispersal and the growth of private motor vehiclefleets.

    Pphpd: peak period passengers per hour per direction

    PAX: passengers

    BRT Metro MonorailSys. Daily

    PAX

    Corr 1

    pphpd

    Sys.

    Daily

    PAX

    Corr 1

    pphpd

    Sys.

    Daily

    PAX

    Corr 1

    pphpd

    2008 854,001 14,441 653,862 11,057 482,362 8,157

    2011 905,221 15,307 693,093 11,720 511,303 8,646

    2021 1,076,042 18,195 873,298 14,767 607,776 10,277

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    6/21

    Effect of Fare and Travel Time on Demand for ThreeAlternative Systems

    Metro Monorail BRT

    Time Savings(min) 17 17 21

    Equivalent Value (INR) 2.8 2.8 3.4

    % savings 41% 41% 49%

    Effect on Demand +20% +20% +24%

    Travel Time Effect on Demand for Three Mass Transit Systems

    Travel Cost Effect on Demand for Three Mass Transit Systems

    Metro Monorail BRT

    Proj. Fare 10.5 14 7

    % difference from bus 50% 100% 0

    Effect On Demand -25% -50% 0

    The net effect of the differences in system characteristics betweenthe three mass transit systems analyzed on demand is -5% formetro, -30% for monorail, and a +24% for BRT.

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    7/21

    Estimated Costs and Financial Feasibility

    Metro Monorail BRT

    Capital Cost Companys Estimate 4204 2500 -

    ITDP Est. 5170 8910 408

    CapitalCost/Km

    Companys Estimate 110 45

    ITDP Estimate 135 162 17

    AnnualizedCapital Costs

    Annual Capital Subsidy

    (6 year financing)

    862 1485 68

    Annualized Capital Cost

    (20 year life)

    259 446 20

    Operating

    Costs

    Annual

    108 80 42

    Revenue Projected AnnualFarebox Revenue

    206 213 188

    Net OperatingProfit / Loss

    +98 +133 +146

    -161 -313 +126Annualized

    Profit / Loss

    Comparative First Year Profit / Loss for Hyderabad BRT, MRT, and Monorail(in Rs. Crore)

    *ITDP: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    8/21

    BRT can provide effective mass transit without requiring an

    increase in fare price. Thus, BRT has the highest potentialto increase public transit mode share and relieve congestionin Hyderabad

    BRT Metro Monorail

    Do not require large

    capital subsidies

    require large capital

    subsidies

    require large capital

    subsidies

    Adv: Low capital cost Adv: potentially highercapacity, but this level of

    capacity is unlikely to be

    required in Hyderabad

    Adv: minimize landacquisition

    Not so high fare price High Fare price whichwill suppress demand High Fare price whichwill suppress demand

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    9/21

    Environmental and Safety Benefits of BRT in Hyderabad

    BRT emissions benefits result from the use of cleaner buses, theshifting of passengers from private vehicles to public transit, andfinally the use of fewer buses per passenger trip (because thebuses have more capacity and are not stuck in congestion).

    BRT system would be constructed with safe pedestrianinfrastructure in the entire corridor. Traffic fatalities in the BogotBRT corridor dropped by 98% in the first year.

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    10/21

    Some Characteristics of BRT system

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    11/21

    System Design Recommendations

    BRT System capacity is a function of:

    a. The capacity of the vehicleb. The load factor (how many passengers are actuallyusing each bus at any given link)c. The frequency of the vehicles

    d. Average speed of the vehicle, determined by operatingspeeds, intersection delays, and time required for boardingand alighting

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    12/21

    Increasing Bus Capacity

    Bus capacity is basically a function of the length of the bus. The articulated busused in TransMilenio (above) has become the BRT standard because as the busesget any longer (bi-articulated) they become much more expensive and havedifficulties on turns.

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    13/21

    Increasing the Load Factor

    Another way to increase the actual capacity of the system isto increase the number of passengers per bus, or the loadfactor.

    Shifting the bus routing system to a trunk and feedersystem will increase the load factor of each bus.

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    14/21

    Increasing Bus Frequency and Reducing Headways

    Increasing the number of buses per hour that can pass through a

    corridor before the bus station congests Reducing the dwell time can help in increasing the no. of buses

    Dwell timeshave fixed as well as variable elementsFixed element: time it takes the vehicle to slow down, speed up, andopen and close its doors.

    Variable elements: passenger boarding and alighting time

    a functionof the number of passengers getting on and off the bus at any givenstation, and how long it takes them to get on and off per passenger.

    Together, these elements will determine the total dwell time.

    In order to increase capacity further, there needs to be anadditional lane in each direction at the bus station where thebuses can go around other buses that are stopped to loadpassengers

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    15/21

    Proposed Configuration options for BRT

    Configuration 2: BRT andMinimum Sidewalk OnlyExample, Quito, Ecuador

    Configuration I: BRT with Best Ped.Amenities. Example: Bogota,Colombia

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    16/21

    Configuration 3: Median Two-Way BRTand One Mixed Traffic Lane Perdirection. Example: Rouen, France

    Configuration4. Curb-side bus laneon One- Way Street. Example:Quito, Ecuador

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    17/21

    Configuration 5: Median One-Way BRTwith Two Lane, two-way mixed trafficstreet. Example: Quito, Ecuador

    Configuration 6. Side-Aligned Two-Way BRT Adjacent to Two Lane, one-way street. Example: Curitiba, Brazil.

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    18/21

    Hyderabad BRT Fare Collection System considerations

    Selecting an appropriate ticketing system is complex and relatesnot only to the speed and capacity of the BRT system but also tothe institutional structure of the BRT system

    Smart cardticketing systems may be adopted in order to: 1)allow easy discounted transfer to other systems or lines, 2) allow

    other commercial uses of the smart cards, 3) improve controlover the revenue stream

    For speed and capacity of the BRT system alone, the currentmanual collectionmethod with an independent collector insidethe bus is old fashioned but very efficient

    External collectionwould accelerate the boarding process atcritical points where many passengers board at the same time,like at terminals

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    19/21

    Assessment of Costs

    Estimated Capital Costs of 24km BRT Corridor in Hyderabad

    Per Km costs Lakh Rs/Km #per Km Total CroreRs.

    Footpaths & Pedestrian Amenities 15 2 7

    Pavement Cost - Mixed Traffic lanes 25 4 24

    Pavement Cost - BRT Lanes 19 2 91

    Moving Poles 2.5 2 120

    Moving Transformers 12 2 58

    Bus Stations 80 2 38

    Dividers & Medians 0.35 2 0.3

    Overruns, miscellaneous 50 1 12

    Sub-Total 98

    Additional Costs - Terminal Stations 1250 (Lakh Rs.each)

    2 (quantity) 25

    Total Infrastructure 123

    Bus Fleet Acquisition (averaged price of

    articulated and feeder buses)80

    Land Acquisition - per ha (estimated as

    per market value)

    10,000 205 205

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    20/21

    Projected Impacts of BRT in Hyderabad

    The BRT system could significantly improve current mixed traffic

    speeds. It is anticipated that mixed traffic vehicle speeds willincrease by at least 5kph on average

    The BRT system would lead to a significant reduction in airpollution by roughly 20% - 40% in the corridor

    Currently BRT Corridor I has an average of 60 fatalities a year, ofwhich 35 are pedestrians. The BRT system is likely to reducethese fatalities to fewer than 5 per year

  • 7/29/2019 Pre Feasibility

    21/21

    Next Steps

    Establish a permanent project management unit to oversee theimplementation of the project, and to appoint a director withsignificant powers to see the project through

    Complete the on-board origin-destination survey of buspassengers, and plug this into a traffic model to get more robustdemand estimates for each corridor, to make critical decisions

    about the importance of route changes

    Decisions about where land acquisition and road widening arepossible and where they are not possible, and to what extent,needs to be made quickly


Recommended