Bangalore Metro Session 10

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



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



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



Road improvement Plan 1964 study



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



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%



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



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.



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



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



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



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



1984 MTT Proposals



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



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



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.



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%



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%



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



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)



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



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



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



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



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



After a decade, in 1999

A PPP project was being designed

Railways did not want to be left out

Intermodal commuter Project



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



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



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.



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.



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?



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



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



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



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)



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



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





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



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



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



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



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?



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



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



Public reaction

Urban Arts Commission

Tree lovers association

Civic Public Hearing

Environmental clearances



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



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



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















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,..



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.



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)



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/



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



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



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



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



Today , 2011Fare 1.5 times bus fare?



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%)



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



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



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?



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

Documents

Bangalore Metro Session 10