CHAPTER 3 Transport Demand Forecast 3.1 Assumptions and ... · two stages of road assignment and two stages of transit (public transport) assignment are conducted to consider these

Preparatory Survey for New Integrated Urban Public Transport System Introduction Project

Final Report

49

CHAPTER 3 Transport Demand Forecast

3.1 Assumptions and Method of Demand Forecast

3.1.1 Overall Methodology

The demand forecast methodology is in line with the CoMTrans urban transport master plan. The CoMTrans master plan employed a four-step method which is empirically proven methodology with a number of applications in many countries. The flow of the analysis is shown in Figure 3.1.1

The initial input data to the demand forecast model is the population projection of the Western Province mentioned in Chapter 4 of the CoMTrans urban transport master plan, urban development projects and urban planning policies including transit-oriented development. Residential population, employed population and student population by income level are estimated by zone. These data are input to the trip generation model. Origin-destination (OD) tables by trip purpose and income level are estimated by the trip generation and distribution models developed for the Western Province.

As road traffic and public transport are closely related, these cross-relationships are taken into account in the demand forecast in addition to the conventional four-step modelling. For instance, bus travel speeds are dependent on the congestion level of roads. Slow travel speed of private motorised mode of transport can contribute to the modal shift to rail-based transport. Therefore, two stages of road assignment and two stages of transit (public transport) assignment are conducted to consider these relationships as shown in Figure 3.1.1.

As a monorail is a new transport mode for Sri Lanka, a Stated Preference (SP) survey was conducted. A stated preference survey is a survey method which requires respondents to indicate their preference in a certain fictive condition such as transport mode choice with a monorail system in the future. In contrast, a revealed preference (RP) survey collects actual choice results such as current mode of transportation.

RP-based modal choice models were developed to estimate the modal share without new policy interventions such as a modernised railway, BRT, monorail and electronic road pricing. The SP-based modal shift model was developed to estimate modal shift due to new policy interventions.

After the initial road and transit assignment; impedance tables, initial link travel speed and initial bus volume on the roads are estimated. These will be input to the second modal split and second road and transit assignment. Finally, link volumes and performance indicators are the final outputs of the assignment. Further detailed methodology of the demand forecast is available in the technical report of the CoMTrans master plan.


Final Report

50

Figure 3.1.1 Flow of Transport Demand Forecast

Estimation of Zonal Population

Output

Provincial Population Projection Residential, Student and

Employed Population by Zone Urban Planning Policy Intervention

Estimation of Trip Generation / Attraction

Estimation of Trip Distribution

Trip Generation/Attraction Model

Trip Generation/Attraction by income by purpose by zone

Trip Distribution Model OD by Trip Purpose by Income Group

Initial RP-Based Modal Split

Initial SP-Based Modal Split

RP-Based Modal Split Model Initial OD by Mode by Income without New Policies

Policy Framework of New Transits and TDM Initial OD by Mode by

Income with New Policies SP-Based Modal Split Model

Initial Road Assignment

Road Impedance by OD Pairs

Initial Bus Speed

Initial Transit Assignment

Road Network

Public Transport Network

Public Transport Impedance by OD Pairs

Bus Frequency

Input

Second RP-Based Modal Split

Second SP-Based Modal Split

Updated OD by Mode by Income without New Policies

Updated OD by Mode by Income with New Policies

Second Road Assignment

Link Volume and KPIs

Second Transit Assignment Link Volume, KPIs

RP-Based Modal Split Model

Policy Framework of New Transits and TDM

SP-Based Modal Split Model

Road Network

Public Transport Network

Process

Bus Speed

Source: CoMTrans


Final Report

51

3.1.2 Origin-Destination Table Estimation

(1) Socio-Economic Framework

Population and gross regional domestic product (GRDP) projections are consistent with the CoMTrans urban transport master plan. The projected population for the Colombo Metropolitan Area (CMA) which is defined in the CoMTrans master plan is illustrated in Figure 3.1.2. Employed population and student population were also the same as the master plan estimation.

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

2001 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Kalutara District

Gampaha District

Colombo District

Note: After 2015, the projected populations are shown in the High, Medium, and Low growth scenarios. Source: CoMTrans Study Team

Figure 3.1.2 Population Projections to 2035

GRDP assumptions utilised for the master plan as well as this feasibility study are summarised in Table 3.1.1. The IMF assumption is taken and the growth rate will gradually become lower after 2016 and drop to around 4% in 2035.

Table 3.1.1 Assumption of Gross Regional Domestic Products (GRDP) Growth

Year GDP Annual Growth Rate Note

2013 6.3% IMF Forecast


2015-2017 6.7% Assumption






Source: “World Economic Outlook - April 2013 - Hopes, Realities, Risks” by IMF

Source: CoMTrans Study Team


Final Report

52

(2) Zone System

The western province was divided into a total of 462 traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Outside of Colombo Metropolitan Area (CMA), one divisional secretariat division (DSD) comprises 2-3 TAZs. TAZs in Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) are consistent with Grama Niladhari (GN) Administration Division in general except for large GNs which are divided into multiple TAZs. The balance DSDs, DSDs in CMA but outside of CMC, are composed of more than 3 TAZs depend on the size of the DSD and its development level.

The Port of Colombo, Bandaranaike International Airport, Ratmalana Airport and Katukunrunda Air force Base have separate traffic analysis zone codes. In addition, 10 arterial roads connecting the Western Province are coded as cordon TAZs.

(3) Origin-Destination Tables by Trip Purpose by Income Level

In the CoMTrans urban transport master plan, origin-destination (OD) tables by trip purpose by income level and by year were prepared. This feasibility study utilised the same OD tables. In the master plan study, trip generation/attraction regression models were developed. The socio-economic framework including residential, employed and student population by income level by TAZs were input as explanatory variables of the trip generation / attraction model for the 3 projection years of 2020, 2025 and 2035. Figure 3.1.3 presents the projected trip production. The trip distribution is estimated basically utilizing the current trip distribution pattern. For the planned development area, a gravity model was also utilised.


Figure 3.1.3 Person Trip Demand by Region: 2013 – 2035


Final Report

53

(4) Modal Choice

Since the monorail, bus rapid transit (BRT) and modernised railway are completely new transport modes in Sri Lanka, special attention should be paid to the transport modal choice. Electronic road pricing (ERP) is also a currently non-existing policy option for CMA. In addition to the conventional revealed preference survey such as the Home Visit Survey (HVS) on travel behaviour, a stated preference survey was conducted to estimate modal shift from conventional mode of transport.

1) Revealed Preference Based Modal Choice Model Development

Based on the Home Visit Survey (HVS) results, mode choice models were developed using the discrete choice theory. A modal choice model using the discrete choice theory is a relatively stable modelling method in terms of space and time differences. Even though spatial location or time is not equal, individual choice of a certain group of people in a specific condition such as travel time and fare is empirically stable. With regard to the mathematical structure, a prevalent “multinomial logit model”, which can represent unique characteristics of each choice such as transportation mode, was employed for this study.

Four models were developed by trip purpose for home-based work purpose, home-based education purpose, home-based others purpose and non-home-based trips. Parameters were estimated by the maximum likelihood method utilizing the Home Visit Survey (HVS) results. Biogeme 2.3, an open source software for parameter estimation of discrete choice models developed by Prof. Bierlaire, M. of École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (Bierlaire, 2003), were utilised for parameter estimation.

Bierlaire, M. (2003). BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models, Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland.

The list of explaining variables and estimated parameters of the Home-Based Work purpose trips are shown in Table 3.1.2, Table 3.1.3 and Table 3.1.4 as examples. Since the adjusted rho-square which indicates the fitness of a model was 0.365, it can be concluded that this model has enough accuracy for the mode choice analysis. Parameter estimation results of other models are described in the Technical Report on Transport Demand Forecast.

Table 3.1.2 Parameter Estimation Summary of Home-Based Work Purpose Model

Number of estimated parameters: 13

Number of observations: 39,210

Null log-likelihood: -50,173.551

Cte log-likelihood: -44,934.210

Init log-likelihood: -50,173.551

Final log-likelihood: -31,867.354

Likelihood ratio test: 36,612.394

Rho-square: 0.365

Adjusted rho-square: 0.365

Source: Technical Report on Demand Forecast, CoMTrans Study Team


Final Report

54

Table 3.1.3 List of Variables and Parameter Estimation Results of Home-Based Work

Purpose Model

Name Value Std err t-test Notes

ASC_3W -0.827 0.0729 -11.33 Alternative specific constant for three wheelers

ASC_Car -1.81 0.0593 -30.47 Alternative specific constant for passenger cars

ASC_Mc -0.266 0.0577 -4.61 Alternative specific constant for motorcycles

ASC_NMT 0.00 fixed Alternative specific constant for non-motorised transport

ASC_Pub 0.626 0.0567 11.03 Alternative specific constant for public transport (Bus and Railway)

B_AvgInc 1.26 0.0222 56.72 Parameter of average monthly household income in 100,000 rupees

B_AvgPopD 0.511 0.0345 14.79 Parameter of average population density of origin and destination zones in persons per are (1 are = 100 m2)

B_Dist -0.301 0.00687 -43.81 Parameter of trip distance for non-motorised transport in km

B_Dist3W -0.159 0.00559 -28.35 Parameter of trip distance for three wheelers in km

B_DistMc -0.0354 0.00164 -21.63 Parameter of trip distance for motorcycles in km

B_HSRail 0.130 0.0346 3.76 Parameter of dummy variable of availability of high-service-level railway

B_LowInc 0.886 0.0507 17.48 Parameter of dummy variable of low household income group (less than 40,000 rupees)

B_RGT 0.246 0.0781 3.15 Parameter of ratio of generalised time (generalised time of private mode / generalised time of public transport)

B_Rrl2Rrl 0.415 0.0330 12.56 Parameter of dummy variable of non-CMA trip


Table 3.1.4 List of Alternatives and Utility Function of Home-Based-Work Purpose Model

Name Mode Specification

A1_Car Passenger Car ASC_Car * one + B_AvgInc * Avg_Inc3

A2_Mc Motorcycle ASC_Mc * one + B_Rrl2Rrl * Rrl2Rrl + B_DistMc * Distance

A3_3W Three Wheeler ASC_3W * one + B_Dist3W * Distance + B_AvgPopD * AvgPopD

A4_Pub Rail and Bus ASC_Pub * one + B_RGT * RGT + B_HSRail * RailRail

A5_NMT Non-motorised transport ASC_NMT * one + B_Dist * Distance + B_LowInc * LowInc

Note: Avg_Inc3 stands for average monthly household income in LKR 100,000. Distance stands for trip distance in km. RailRail is a dummy variable if both origin and destination zones are accessible to high-service- level railway.



Final Report

55

2) Stated Preference Survey

The stated preference (SP) survey for monorail, bus rapid transit (BRT) and modernised railway as well as electronic road pricing (ERP) were conducted for the evaluation of new transport policies. Respondents to the SP survey were sampled from the respondents of the Home Visit Survey in 2013 who provided their phone number. A surveyor telephones a potential respondent and requests cooperation with the survey. After approval of the respondent, the surveyor made an appointment and visited the respondent for an interview survey. For the purpose of evaluating the proposed monorail project and modernised railway, respondents were sampled from areas roughly 1km from Malabe corridor where the monorail is proposed and Galle corridor where modernised railway and BRT are proposed. The survey was conducted in February and March, 2014. Total sample size was 1,146 individuals. The number of samples by current mode of transport is shown in Table 3.1.5. As one survey form contains several questions on the stated preference under different conditions, the sample size is large enough to develop discrete choice model.

Table 3.1.5 Sample Size of SP Survey by Current Mode of Transport and Corridor

Transport

Mode

Malabe

Corridor

Galle

Corridor

Total

Public 366 318 684

Motorcycle 99 87 186

Three Wheeler 23 52 75

Car 124 77 201

Total 612 534 1,146

Source: SKYTRAIN Study Team

Prior to beginning the interview survey, the surveyors explained details of the planned new modes of transport including the modernised railway, the bus rapid transit (BRT) and the monorail. For each transport mode, routes and station locations were described to the respondent with pictures of each transport mode. It was also explained that the coaches of these three transport modes will be clean, safe and air-conditioned. Headway is assumed at five minutes during peak hour and fifteen minutes during off-peak hour. It is assumed that paid parking facilities are provided nearby the monorail stations.

The survey form consists of the 3 sections below.

Section 1: General information relevant to the present trips made by the respondent. Two different questionnaires for this section were prepared: 1) Commuter; and 2) Non-Commuter.

Section 2: Mode choice behaviour under hypothetical situations in which different future transport systems are shown to the respondents based on the main modes of transport they use at present.

Section 3: General opinion.

In section 2, the surveyor told the respondent where the nearest station would be located. The surveyor asked the respondent about his potential access/egress transport modes, time and cost.


Final Report

56

Several levels of in-vehicle travel time of the new transport modes were tested for each respondent.

3) SP-Based Modal Shift Model Development

Modal shift from conventional mode of transport to new transport modes of monorail, BRT and modernised railway were surveyed in the abovementioned SP survey. After data input and data verification, modal shift models were developed. Seven models were developed by existing mode and policy options. Table 3.1.7 is a list of the developed models. Choice set is binary; an existing transport mode and a new transport mode. Thus, a Binary Probit model was employed.

Table 3.1.6 List of Modal Shift Model

Model Name Current Mode New Policy Option

Car-Mono Passenger Car Monorail

Car-Rail Passenger Car Modernised railway and BRT

Mc-Mono Motorcycle Monorail

Mc-Rail Motorcycle Modernised railway and BRT

3W-Mono Three Wheeler Monorail

3W-Rail Three Wheeler Modernised railway and BRT

Pub-Mono & Rail Public Transport Monorail, modernised railway and BRT


Example of parameter estimation of passenger car to monorail modal shift model is shown in Table 3.1.7 to Table 3.1.9.

Table 3.1.7 Parameter Estimation Summary of Car to Monorail Modal Shift Model

Model: Binary Probit

Number of estimated parameters: 11

Number of observations: 4,555

Null log-likelihood: -3,157.285

Cte log-likelihood: -2,951.434

Init log-likelihood: -3,157.285

Final log-likelihood: -2,298.848

Likelihood ratio test: 1,716.874

Rho-square: 0.272

Adjusted rho-square: 0.268


Note: This is an example of car to monorail modal shift model. Please refer the Technical Report on Demand Forecast of CoMTrans for other models.


Final Report

57

Table 3.1.8 List of Variables and Parameter Estimation Results of Car-Monorail Model

Name Value Std err t-test Notes

ASC_NEW 0.00 fixed Alternative specific constant for monorail

ASC_NOCHANGE 0.00 fixed Alternative specific constant for current mode

B_AGE -0.0180 0.00162 -11.09 Parameter of age

B_AvgEmpD 1.43 0.223 6.43 Parameter of average employed population density of origin and destination zones in persons/are (1 are = 100 m2)

B_AvgPopD 1.12 0.250 4.46 Parameter of average population density of origin and destination zones in persons/are (1 are = 100 m2)

B_COST -0.00680 0.000460 -14.78 Parameter of total fare of monorail in rupees

B_DTYPE_13 0.532 0.0663 8.02 Parameter of dummy variable of destination type (workplace or other company)

B_ERP -0.00880 0.000289 -30.43 Parameter of ERP price in Rupees

B_INCOME -2.95e-006 2.93e-007 -10.07 Parameter of average household income in Rupees

B_MaxEmpD -0.575 0.115 -4.99 Parameter of higher population density of origin or destination zones in persons/are (1 are = 100 m2)

B_MaxPopD -0.653 0.148 -4.42 Parameter of higher employed population density of origin or destination zones in persons/are (1 are = 100 m2)

B_RailOr -0.425 0.0538 -7.90 Parameter of dummy variable of high service railway (either origin or destination)

B_TIME -0.00316 0.00109 -2.91 Parameter of travel time in minutes


Note: This is an example of car to monorail modal shift model. Please refer the Technical Report on Demand Forecast of CoMTrans for other models.

Table 3.1.9 List of Alternatives and Utility Function of Car-Monorail Modal Shift Model

Name Mode Specification

A1_NEW New Transit Mode (Monorail)

ASC_NEW * one + B_TIME * TOTAL_T_NEW + B_COST * TOTAL_COST_NEW + B_AGE * AGE_HVS + B_DTYPE_13 * DEST_TYPE_1_3 + B_RailOr * RailOr + B_AvgPopD * AvgPopD + B_MaxPopD * MaxPopD + B_AvgEmpD * AvgEmpD + B_MaxEmpD * MaxEmpD + B_INCOME * INCOME

A2_NOCHANGE Current mode

ASC_NOCHANGE * one + B_TIME * TOTAL_TT_RP_ERP + B_ERP * ERP

Note: Total_T_New and Total_Cost_New stands for total travel time and cost including access and egress. AGE_HVS means age; Dest_Type_1_3 is a dummy variable of destination type. 1 if destination is workplace or other companies and 0 if not. TOTAL_TT_RP_ERP means total travel time in the case of the existing transport mode.

This is an example of car to monorail modal shift model. Please refer the Technical Report on Demand Forecast of CoMTrans for other models.



Final Report

58

(5) Traffic Assignment

Assumptions and method of traffic assignment are shown in the sub-sections below.

1) Software and Estimation Procedure

The System for Traffic Demand Analysis (STRADA) is a Microsoft Windows based package; developed for which was started in 1993 by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) under the leadership of the Prof. Hideo Nakamura of Tokyo University with participation of some experts in the relevant fields.

In this traffic demand analysis, JICA STRADA version 3 is used for trip assignment of present transport demand and for the future forecast. STRADA is comprehensive, simple and cost effective software, which is also used by the Road Development Authority (RDA) in Sri Lanka.

User equilibrium assignment was utilised for road traffic assignment which is a prevalent and technically sound method based on Wardrop’s equal travel time principle. Iteration calculations were conducted by the Frank-Wolfe method until it reached convergence criteria. JICA STRADA’s Transit Assignment package was used for estimation of the public transport demand. As JICA STRADA’s transit assignment programme cannot estimate demand by income group in one assignment run, assignment was done by income group for public transport.

Although transit assignment and road traffic assignment are closely related, the methodologies of transit and road traffic assignment are different. For instance, while bus speed is dependent on road congestion level, road speed is dependent on frequency of bus operation. Therefore, iteration estimations of road-transit assignments are essential. In this study, 2 iterations of road-transit assignment were conducted considering resource availability and estimation time.

2) Assumptions for Traffic Assignment

Value of time

Value of time is specified by income group as shown in Table 3.1.10. Mean household income was estimated by the Home Visit Survey Results and adjusted by the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2012/2013. The value was converted to the worker’s time value. Although averaged time value by purpose is used for economic analysis, worker’s time value was used for the transport demand forecast. According to experience in other countries, time value of transport mode and route choice is higher than their salary per unit of time.


Final Report

59

Table 3.1.10 Value of Time for Traffic Assignment

Income

Level

Mean

Household

Income (Rs.)

Avg. No. of

Workers in

Household

Monthly

Working

Hours

Social

Security

Cost

Worker’s Time

Value (Rs./h)

Low 24,009 1.20 140 30% 186

Middle 56,810 1.72 140 30% 307

High 186,164 1.90 140 30% 909

All 70,366 1.36 140 30% 479

Note: “Avg.” stands for “average”.


Passenger Car Unit (PCU)

Passenger car unit by major category of vehicles are listed in Table 3.1.11. The values are adopted from the road geometric design standards of the Road Development Authority.

Table 3.1.11 Passenger Car Units for Traffic Assignment

Car 1.0

Motorcycle 0.4

Three Wheeler 0.8

Bus 1.8

Medium Truck 1.7

Large Truck 2.8

Container Trailer 4.0

Source: Geometric Design Standards of Roads, RDA, 1998

Average Number of Passengers

Average number of passengers was also estimated from various types of surveys and are summarised in Table 3.1.12.

Table 3.1.12 Average Number of Passengers for Traffic Assignment

Car 1.71

Motorcycle 1.22

3 Wheeler 1.42

Bus 38.8

Truck 2.2

Source: Car, Motorcycle and 3 Wheeler; CoMTrans Home Visit Survey, 2013 Bus: CoMTrans Screen Line Survey, 2013 Truck: CoMTrans Cordon Line Survey, 2013


Final Report

60

Daily Traffic and Peak Hour Traffic

Traffic assignment was conducted on a daily basis taking data availability and accuracy into consideration. After the daily traffic assignment, peak-hour values were estimated by multiplying daily volume by the peak-hour ratio. The peak-hour ratio is generally estimated by dividing peak one hour passenger volume by daily passenger volume. Figure 3.1.4 shows the hourly fluctuation of trip generation at trip destination in the Western Province. A clear peak is observed at 7-8 AM in the morning. The peak hour ratio of bus passengers in the Malabe Corridor is also estimated in the range of approximately fourteen to seventeen percent according to the screen line survey of CoMTrans Project conducted in 2013. In general, bus passenger peak hour ratio is lower than railway due to the constraints of road capacity. The hourly fluctuation of passenger demand estimation for monorail is assumed as Figure 3.1.5 taking the abovementioned aspects into consideration.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

No

. o

f T

rip

s ('

00

0)

Hour of Day

Home to Work Home to School Home to Other Work to Home

School to Home Other to Home Non-Home-Based

Source: CoMTrans Home Visit Survey

Figure 3.1.4 Hourly Fluctuation of Trip Generation by Purpose at Trip Destination


Final Report

61


Figure 3.1.5 Assumed Hourly Fluctuation of Passenger Demand for Monorail

3.1.3 Transport Network

The transport network setting is based on the public transport intensive scenario of the CoMTrans master plan. The network is prepared for 2013, 2020, 2025 and 2035. Details of the network condition of the public transport network and road network are mentioned in the sub-section below.

(1) Public Transport Network

Modernised railway, monorail, bus rapid transit (BRT), bus priority system and conventional bus service are simulated in the traffic assignment network as shown in Table 3.1.13. The Intensive Public Transport Development scenario was employed for the traffic assignment.


Final Report

62

Table 3.1.13 List of Projects Included in the Public Transport Assignment Network

Sub

Sector

Project ID Project Name 2020 2025 2035

TDM TM-ERP Electric Road Pricing (CMC)

BRT BRT-1 Moratuwa – Kelaniya* √ √ √

BRT-1 Wellawatta – Kirillapone - (Baseline) √ √ √

BRT-1 Kelaniya-(Kandy Road)-Kadawata √ √ √

BRT-1 Fort – Negombo and Katunayake √ √ √

BRT-2 Middle Ring Road √ √

Monorail RT-NT1 Line 1 (East West Line) (Malabe – Battaramulla – Town Hall – Fort – Kotahena)

√ √ √

RT-NT2 Line 2 (North - South Line) (Kollupitiya – Town Hall)

√ √ √

RT-NT3 and 4 Borella- Kirillapone-Homagama √

Railway RL-M1 to M5 Tentative signal improvement √ √

RL-M1 to M5 Electrification, Signal improvement, Procurement of Electric Cars

√

Note: * 2020 and 2025 are from Moratuwa - Kelaniya


Fares of public transport modes including bus, modernised railway, bus rapid transit (BRT) and monorail are assumed to be the same as current normal bus fares considering the policy of the Ministry of Transport. Low fare can attract more passengers compared with higher fare conditions during the initial stages while revenues from public transport will be limited. It also should be noted that low fare can be affordable to the poverty group. Current bus and railway fare structures are shown in Figure 3.1.6 and Figure 3.1.7.


Final Report

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Railway 1st Class

Railway 2nd Class

Railway 3rd Class

Distance (km)

Far

e (R

s.)

Source: Sri Lanka Railways

Figure 3.1.6 Railway Fare Setting in Sri Lanka Railways

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

0 10 20 30 40

Fare

(R

upee

s)

Distance (km)

Normal

Semi-Luxury

Luxury

Source: National Transport Commission, Annual Fare Revision of 14 February 2012

Figure 3.1.7 Fares of Buses by Distance by Class in Sri Lanka

Service levels of public transport, which are represented by travel speed, frequency and congestion level in the transit assignment, are summarised in Table 3.1.14. It is assumed that service level will be improved due to the projects proposed in the master plan.

Fare

(L

KR

) Fa

re (

LK

R)


Final Report

64

Table 3.1.14 Service Level of Public Transport by Mode

Item Bus Modernised

Railway

BRT Monorail

Frequency Dependent on demand Dependent on demand

Initial setting is 1 - 6 trains per hour

Dependent on demand


Dependent on demand


Capacity* 60 passengers per vehicle (average of medium and large buses)

2,000 passengers per one train set

180 passengers per bus (articulated bus)

800 passengers per one train set

Speed 80% of road speed, maximum speed is 20km/h

50 km/h for express service

35 km/h for local service

23 km/h for intra city routes

25 km/h for suburban routes

30 km/h for Line 1

25 km/h for Line 2

Note: *100% capacity is seating capacity plus comfortable standing passenger capacity. Standing passengers can hold a hand strap or a hand rail.


(2) Road Network

The road network setting is also in line with the intensive public transport development scenario. Several expressways and arterial roads are assumed to be completed based on the proposal of the master plan. The road network settings are summarised in Table 3.1.15.

Table 3.1.15 List of Projects Included in the Road Assignment Network

Sub Sector Project ID Project Name 2020 2025 2035

Arterial

Roads

RD-RN3 Base Line Extension √ √

RD-RN4 Marine Drive Extension * √ √

RD-RN2 Middle Ring Road √ √

RD-RN1,5,6,7and 8

Major Arterial Roads √ √

RD-RN9,10 Minor Arterial Roads * √ √

Urban Expressways RD-EX1 Kelani-Borella-Kirillapone- √ √

RD-EX3 Port Access √ √ √

Note * partially completed. Details are in the CoMTrans urban transport master plan


Capacity, toll and speed settings of expressways are summarised in Table 3.1.16.


Final Report

65

Table 3.1.16 Toll Setting of the Road Assignment Network

Operation

Year

Expressway Toll Rate

Rs/km

Car

Toll Rate

Rs/km

Truck

Velocity

(km/h)

Capacity

(PCU/both

directions/ day)

2012 Southern Expressway (SE) 4.20 15.60 100 72,000

2013 Colombo-Katunayake (CKE) 13.60 27.10 80 60,000

2013 Outer Circular Highway (OCH or Outer Circular Expressway) (Kottawa – Kothalawala)

9.10 27.27 100 72,000

2020 Outer Circular Highway (OCH or Outer Circular Expressway) (balance section)

9.10 27.27 100 72,000

2035 Northern Expressway (NE) 4.20 15.60 100 72,000

2020 Port Expressway 13.60 27.10 60 50,000

2025 Horana Expressway (proposed by CoMTrans)

13.60 27.10 60

(From Kottawa- Nugegoda 80km/h)

60,000


Capacities and speeds settings of roads are summarised in Table 3.1.17. The capacity and velocity of the road network were determined by the results of the screen line survey and travel speed survey. The traffic count surveys of the screen line surveys were conducted during January – March 2013. A travel speed survey utilizing the global positioning system (GPS) was conducted with roughly 200 vehicles including taxies, passenger cars, school vans, office transport and trucks in the same duration. Therefore, some survey vehicles of the travel speed survey pass traffic count survey points. By matching traffic count survey data and travel speed survey data, scatter graphs of quantity – velocity distributions were prepared. An example of traffic volume – capacity graph is shown in Figure 3.1.8.


Final Report

66

Table 3.1.17 Capacity and Velocity Settings Arterial Roads for Road Assignment

Road Type Capacity

(pcu/2dir/day)

Velocity

(km/h)

6 Lane Urban 61,000 60

6 Lane (Suburban) 79,000 60

4 Lane (Urban, Non-CMC) 40,000 45


2 Lane (Urban) 17,000 35


2 Lane (Street) 10,000 30

5 Lane (Urban, One way) 51,000 60





Note: Capacity of roads in the CMC was reduced to 70% considering interference by intersections and parked vehicles.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Ve

loci

ty (

km

/h)

Traffic Volume per Direction (PCU per hour)


Figure 3.1.8 Example of Traffic Volume – Capacity Scattered Graph (4-lane Suburban

Roads)


Final Report

67

In addition, LKR 200 per direction per vehicle was charged to the vehicles which cross the boundary of Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) as an electronic road pricing (ERP).

3.2 Results of Demand Forecast

Based on the methodology and assumptions described in section 3.1, a traffic assignment was conducted. The estimated results of the transport demand for the monorail are summarised in Table 3.2.1. Daily passengers and passenger kilometres are expected to drastically increase by 2035 due to urban development projects along the corridor and improvement of public transport network.

Table 3.2.1 Summary of Demand Forecast Result

Indicator 2020 2025 2035

PPHPD of Line 1

Peak passenger per hour per direction at max. section

7,800

at Union Place – National Hospital

9,200

at Union Place – National Hospital

16,800

at National Hospital – Punci Borella

PPHPD of Line 2

1,300

at Dharmapala Mawatha –

National Hospital

1,500


National Hospital

4,100


National Hospital

Daily Passengers

in total monorail network

307,000 379,000 700,000

Daily Passenger-kilometres

in total monorail network

1,190,000 1,480,000 2,840,000


Sectional daily passenger volume of public transport in 2020, 25 and 35 are illustrated in Figure 3.2.1, Figure 3.2.2 and Figure 3.2.3 respectively.


Final Report

68

Note: Numbers are daily both direction sectional passengers in 1,000s. Source: SKYTRAIN Study Team

Figure 3.2.1 Daily Sectional Passengers of Public Transport in 2020 (Stage 1)

Note: Numbers are daily both direction sectional passengers in 1,000s. Source: SKYTRAIN Study Team


4

9

194

156

195

169

159

170

190

193

2

16

7475

78

48

35

87

34

86

91

27

28

68

84

81

80

79

102

76

78

16

79

74

47

39

85

94

44

98

86

91

102

43

88

66

89

103

104

57

68

100

106

125

82

34

43

85

41

53

42

BRT Monorail Railway Bus

7

116

92

67

78

104

69

56

129

1

14

636254

59

42

30

57

68

66

6987

22

36

50

64 60

6859

30

14

64

37

17

91

84

103

46

100

57

40

54

74

6866

42

81

34

67

47

100

31

14



Final Report

69

Note: Numbers are daily both direction sectional passengers in 1,000s. Source: CoMTrans Study Team


Based on the estimated daily passenger volume, peak hour sectional passenger volume was estimated assuming eighteen percent peak ratio as mentioned in the subsection 3.1.2 (5) 2). Peak hour traffic volumes in 2020, 2025 and 2035 are shown in Figure 3.2.4, Figure 3.2.5 and Figure 3.2.6 respectively.

WTC

Fort

Malabe

Borella

Kotahena

Maradana

Town Hall

RajagiriyaKollupitiya Lumbini Temple

Punchi Borella

Sebastian Canal

Bandaranayake Mw

Palan Thuna Junc.

1300

5600

4800

5300

3800

2700

5100

6100

5900

62007800

2000

3200

5800 5400

2700

5600

1300

5300

5800

4500

5500

6200


Figure 3.2.4 Peak Hour Passenger Volume per Direction in 2020 (Stage 1)

282

21

23

18

27

259

223

289

251

227

243

286

284

45

68

64

28

122133174

53

60

46

170

148

183

157

186

156

175

132179

153

68

170

73

100

60

72

146

80

167

75

16893

169

138

98

143

149

223

222

192

104

217

163

162

120

100

75


IT Park

National Hospital


Final Report

70

WTC

Fort

Malabe

Borella

Kotahena

Maradana

Town Hall

Rajagiriya

Kollupitiya Lumbini Temple

Punchi Borella

Sebastian Canal

Bandaranayake Mw

Palan Thuna Junc.

1500

67006800

7000

4300

3200

7800

3000

81009200

2400

6100

7500

7300

7200

7100

7000

6700

1500

6800

7100

2500

73007800



WTC

Fort

Malabe

Borella

Kotahena

Maradana

Town Hall

Rajagiriya

Kollupitiya Lumbini Temple

Punchi Borella

Sebastian Canal

Bandaranayake Mw

Palan Thuna Junc.

4100

1100012000

15700

6100

5700

25004700

5400

10500

15300

13300

14100

16800

14000

15800

13000

16100

13800

10700

6100

15300

16400

11900



Boarding and alighting passenger volume by station and sectional passenger volume during peak hour in 2020, 2025 and 2035 are shown in Figure 3.2.7, Figure 3.2.8 and Figure 3.2.9, respectively.

IT Park

National Hospital

IT Park

National Hospital


Final Report

71

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Ko

tah

en

a

Arm

ou

r S

tre

et

Se

ba

stia

n C

an

al

Ma

rad

an

a

Tra

nsp

ort

Ce

ntr

e

Fo

rt

WT

C

Sla

ve

Isl

an

d

Un

ion

Pla

ce

Na

tio

na

l H

osp

ita

l

Pu

nch

i B

ore

lla

Bo

rell

a

Co

tta

Ro

ad

We

lik

ad

a

Ra

jag

iriy

a

Diy

aw

an

na

La

ke

Se

thsi

rip

ay

a

Ba

tta

ram

ull

a

Pa

lan

Th

un

a

Ro

be

rt G

un

aw

ard

en

a…

Lum

bin

i T

em

ple

Ta

lah

en

a

Ma

lab

e

IT P

ark

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Kot

ahen

a

Arm

our

Stre

et

Seba

stia

n C

anal

Mar

adan

a

Tra

nspo

rt C

entr

e

Fort

WT

C

Slav

e Is

land

Uni

on P

lace

Nat

iona

l Hos

pita

l

Punc

hi B

orel

la

Bor

ella

Cot

ta R

oad

Wel

ikad

a

Raj

agir

iya

Diy

awan

na L

ake

Seth

siri

paya

Bat

tara

mul

la

Pala

n T

huna

Rob

ert…

Lum

bini

Tem

ple

Tal

ahen

a

Mal

abe

IT P

ark

Alighting

Boarding

Section Volume

Passengers per hour per direction


Note: “Robert…” is “Robert Gunawardena Mawatha” station.

Figure 3.2.7 Peak Hour Passenger Loading by Station in 2020 (Stage 1)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Ko

tah

en

a

Arm

ou

r S

tre

et

Se

ba

stia

n C

an

al

Ma

rad

an

a

Tra

nsp

ort

Ce

ntr

e

Fo

rt

WT

C

Sla

ve

Isl

an

d

Un

ion

Pla

ce

Na

tio

na

l H

osp

ita

l

Pu

nch

i B

ore

lla

Bo

rell

a

Co

tta

Ro

ad

We

lik

ad

a

Ra

jag

iriy

a

Diy

aw

an

na

La

ke

Se

thsi

rip

ay

a

Ba

tta

ram

ull

a

Pa

lan

Th

un

a

Ro

be

rt G

un

aw

ard

en

a…

Lum

bin

i T

em

ple

Ta

lah

en

a

Ma

lab

e

IT P

ark

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Kot

ahen

a

Arm

our

Stre

et

Seba

stia

n C

anal

Mar

adan

a

Tra

nspo

rt C

entr

e

Fort

WT

C

Slav

e Is

land

Uni

on P

lace

Nat

iona

l Hos

pita

l

Punc

hi B

orel

la

Bor

ella

Cot

ta R

oad

Wel

ikad

a

Raj

agir

iya

Diy

awan

na L

ake

Seth

siri

paya

Bat

tara

mul

la

Pala

n T

huna

Rob

ert…

Lum

bini

Tem

ple

Tal

ahen

a

Mal

abe

IT P

ark

Alighting

Boarding

Section Volume






Final Report

72

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Ko

tah

en

a

Arm

ou

r S

tre

et

Se

ba

stia

n C

an

al

Ma

rad

an

a

Tra

nsp

ort

Ce

ntr

e

Fo

rt

WT

C

Sla

ve

Isl

an

d

Un

ion

Pla

ce

Na

tio

na

l H

osp

ita

l

Pu

nch

i B

ore

lla

Bo

rell

a

Co

tta

Ro

ad

We

lik

ad

a

Ra

jag

iriy

a

Diy

aw

an

na

La

ke

Se

thsi

rip

ay

a

Ba

tta

ram

ull

a

Pa

lan

Th

un

a

Ro

be

rt G

un

aw

ard

en

a…

Lum

bin

i T

em

ple

Ta

lah

en

a

Ma

lab

e

IT P

ark

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Kot

ahen

a

Arm

our

Stre

et

Seba

stia

n C

anal

Mar

adan

a

Tra

nspo

rt C

entr

e

Fort

WT

C

Slav

e Is

land

Uni

on P

lace

Nat

iona

l Hos

pita

l

Punc

hi B

orel

la

Bor

ella

Cot

ta R

oad

Wel

ikad

a

Raj

agir

iya

Diy

awan

na L

ake

Seth

siri

paya

Bat

tara

mul

la

Pala

n T

huna

Rob

ert…

Lum

bini

Tem

ple

Tal

ahen

a

Mal

abe

IT P

ark

Alighting

Boarding

Section Volume






Final Report

73

CHAPTER 4 Route Alignment and Station Locations

4.1 Criteria for Route Planning

The alignment of the monorail is in line with the proposal of the CoMTrans urban transport master

plans mentioned in Chapter 2. From this chapter, detailed alignments and station locations are

discussed in accordance with the technical aspects

The eastern part of route 1 is along with the Malabe Corridor as there is no transit line at this

moment. The Malabe corridor has the highest vehicle demand among the seven corridors

radiating from the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC). In addition, high population growth is

expected due to urban development projects and residential development projects along the

corridor such as universities, hospitals, government offices and residential areas.

The monorail is, therefore, expected to function as a catalyst to promote use of public transport

aiming alleviation of traffic congestion improvement of mobility of the area and economic growth

of the corridors and Colombo Metropolitan Area.

The line starts from Malabe of which the depot is located via Malabe, Battaramulla, Borella,

National Hospital, Fort, Maradana, Mattakuliya and reaches Kelaniya.While the Stage 1 of the

monorail stops at Kotahena, the line is expected to extend toward Kelaniya in the Stage 2 through

Mattakuliya.

Route alignment and station location is proposed in compliance with the following table.

Table 4.1.1 Criteria of Route Alignment and Station Location

Item Policy

Radius

The minimum horizontal curve radius shall be R=60m.

The station platform shall be installed in a straight section as much as

possible. In the case of a curving section, the minimum curve radius

shall be more than R=300m.

Longitudinal gradient The steepest gradient shall be less than 60‰.

Points of attention regarding

station layout

The station spacing shall be designed to be 0.5~1km in the urban areas

and 1~1.5km in suburban areas.

On selection of station location, the degree to which a station is close to

other transportation systems, major roads, and facilities with high

customer attraction capacity, shall be considered.


Final Report

74

4.2 Alternatives Analysis on Route Alignment and Station Locations

The route alignment and the station location are basically proposed in compliance with the above

criteria. However, several locations with particular features, such as accessibility to facilities

with high customer attraction, construction cost and restrictions on alignment, are examined

individually with alternative options.

In this section, alternative options and a comparative study for the alignment of the below stations

and sections are described.

• WTC Station

• National Hospital Station～Borella Station

• Borella Station～Welikada Station

• Sethshiripaya Station～IT Park Station

• North section (Armour Street Station ～ Kelaniya Station , MMC Station)

• Line 2

• Kollupitiya Station


Figure 4.2.1 General Route Alignment


Final Report

75

4.2.1 World Trade Centre (WTC) Area

(1) Summary

Regarding the selection of WTC Station, this study selected Option 1 as the optimum plan because

it shortens the whole route length and required travel time, but it has issues regarding the

constructability.

Option 2 has the advantage of better accessibility to the World Trade Centre but it obstructs the

private land and lengthens the route.

Table 4.2.1 List of Examined Options

Name Concept

Shorter Route length option

(Option 1) The station is located at east side to shorten the route length.

WTC adjoining option

(Option 2)

The station is located as close as possible to the WTC for the

improvement of customer convenience.



Final Report

76

So

urc

e: S

KY

TR

AIN

Stu

dy T

eam

Figure 4.2.2 WTC Route O

ptions


Final Report

77

(2) Shorter route length plan (Option 1)

In contrast to Option 2, Option 1

gives the shortening of route

length top priority. For that

purpose, the station is located

over a road adjacent to SLR on

the east side of the WTC.

Although the route length can be

330m shorter than Option 2, it

has an issue on constructability

because monorail piers may

obstruct a road bridge across the

SLR southeast of the station.

(3) WTC adjoining plan (Option 2)

Option 2 places the station

adjacent to and as close as

possible to the WTC. To secure

a length of straight section, the

station is located at a straight

section on the west side of the

crossing with SLR.

The station and the route partially

cross the road section and have to

pass over the private land.

Therefore, consultation about the

development plan of the

surrounding area is required.

It has an advantage regarding

constructability since the

grade-separated crossing with

SLR east of the station has no

impact on the road bridge.

The result of comparative study and drawings are shown in the next section.


Figure 4.2.4 Planned WTC Station Location of Option 2


Figure 4.2.3 Planned WTC Station Location of Option 1


Final Report

78

(4) Comparison table and map of WTC station location plan

Table 4.2.2 Comparison between WTC Station Location Options

Issues Option 1 Option 2

The distance to the

WTC

(Customer

Convenience)

The distance between the WTC and the

station is far, which worsens customer

convenience. The WTC is about approx.

300m away from the proposed station

location.

The distance between the WTC and the

station is close, which improves customer

convenience. The WTC is about approx.

190m away from the proposed station

location.

△ ○

Impact on the private

land

Coordination with the

development plan

There is no impact on private land

basically.

A part of the station and the route corridor

is out of the road section and passes

through private land. The coordination

with the development plan of the

surrounding area is required.

○ △

Impact on the route

length

The line length becomes shorter than

Option 2 by approx. 330m.

The route length becomes longer than

Option 1 by approx.330m.

○ ×

Construction Cost

Although the route is shorter, a road

bridge at the crossing with SLR needs to

be renovated, which increases total

construction cost.

The longer route increases the

construction cost. Because the corridor

passes through private land, land

acquisition is necessary.

△ ×

Crossing over SLR

(Constructability)

It causes difficulty for the installation of

piers near the crossing over SLR on the

south side of the WTC station. The pier

construction has an impact on the existing

road, and the road bridge crossing over

SLR needs to be renovated. Therefore,

additional cost would be incurred.

It is easy and feasible to construct piers

near the crossing over SLR on east side of

the WTC.

△ ○

Evaluation ○ △


Note: △○: Good/Desirable, : Fair, ×: Less Desirable


Final Report

79


Figure 4.2.5 WTC Station Location Option 1


Figure 4.2.6 WTC Station Location Option 2


Final Report

80

4.2.2 Sections between National Hospital and Borella

(1) Summary

The Option 1 which passes through Punchi Borella is selected because there are many hospitals

along National Hospital- Borella route. Although the space for monorail corridor is limited at

the section near National Hospital at the moment, more space can be secured following the

renewal plan of National Hospital.

The Option 2 is the shortest route connecting National Hospital with Borella, however, alignment

is constrained due to some narrow places on the existing road.

Table 4.2.3 List of Examined Options for National Hospital ~ Borella Section

Option Concept

Northern Route

(Option 1)

This route begins from Town Hall intersection, passing through the

National Hospital, and reaches Borella via Punchi Borella.

In regard of passenger demand, this is a critical route since there are

many hospitals and schools along it.

Southern Route

(Option 2)

This is the shortest route from the Town Hall intersection toward

Borella. Comparing the Option 1, this route takes advantages of route

length and construction cost, however, alignment is constrained due to

some narrow places on the existing road.



Final Report

81

So

urc

e: S

KY

TR

AIN

Stu

dy T

eam

Figure 4.2.7 Route Plan for Section between National Hospital St. and Borella St.


Final Report

82

(2) Northern Route (Option 1)

This route begins from the intersection at the Town Hall area, pass through the National Hospital,

and reaches Borella via Punchi

Borella. In regard to passenger

demand, this is a critical route

since there are many hospitals

and schools along this corridor.

Although the space for monorail

corridor is limited at the section

near National Hospital at the

moment, space can be secured

following the renewal plan of

National Hospital. Punchi

Borella Station is located in the

middle of this section.


Figure 4.2.8 National Hospital Station Location (Option 1)

(3) Northern Route (Option 2)

In contrast to Option 1, this is the shortest route from the Town Hall area to Borella.

Comparing with Option 1, this route is more preferable in term of commercial speed and

construction cost because it can be 400m shorter and there is no station in the middle.

However, it is not convenient for

passengers to access National

Hospital, which has negative

impacts on ridership.

In addition, this route is inferior

from the demand side. The

surrounding area is used for

residence, and there are neither

intermediate stations nor major

facilities with high customer

attraction.

The result of comparative

analysis and drawings are

summarised in the next section.


Figure 4.2.9 National Hospital Station Location (Option 2)


Final Report

83

(4) Comparison Table and Map of National Hospital Station ~ Borella Station Section

Table 4.2.4 Comparison between Options for National Hospital St. ~ Borella St. Section


Train operation

Commercial speed is lower due to

longer length and existence of a strict

curve and an intermediate station.

The route is shorter and there is no tight

curve in the section.

× ○

Impact on the

private land

Less private houses would be affected

compared to Option 2 since this route

go through hospital complex of which

land is owned by public.

Several private houses might be affected

by stations

○ △

Route length 400 m longer than Option 2. 400 m shorter than Option 1

△ ○

Constructability

The existing road inside National

Hospital is too narrow but it will be

possible to introduce monorail after the

renewal of this hospital.

The alignment is constrained due to

some narrow places on the existing road.

The construction of station is possible

but the placement of escalators,

stairways is difficult.

○ ×

Cost

Higher cost than Option 2 due to longer

route and more stations.

Lower cost than Option 1

△ ○

Convenience

It is convenience from the point of view

of better accessibility for passengers

since there are intermediate stations,

hospitals and schools along the route.

Not convenient for passengers due to

considerable distance to hospitals.

○ ×

Evaluation ○ △




Final Report

84


Figure 4.2.11 Option 2 of National Hospital Station ~ Borella Station Section


Figure 4.2.10 Option 1 for National Hospital Station ~ Borella Station Section


Final Report

85

4.2.3 Sections between Borella and Welikada

(1) Summary

Comparing to Option1, Option 2 requires higher investment because the route length is approx.

220m longer with its additional detour toward the south. Moreover, the trains have to slow down

because a tight curve is inserted in the middle between stations. Therefore, Option 2 represents

considerable challenges in the improvement of commercial speed. In consideration of

accessibility to SLR at the intermediate station (tentative name: Devi Balika Station), Option 1 is

better than Option 2. Therefore, Option 1 is selected for this section.

Table 4.2.5 List of Examined Options for Borella ~ Welikada Section

Option Concept

North Route

(Option1)

Option 1 is the shortest route plan. The route begins in Borella

Station, passing through SLR Cotta Road station and reaches Welikada

Station.

South Route

(Option2)

Option 2 is the route plan arranged on the south side of Borella station.

It passes through the north side of Borella General Cemetery before

reaching Welikada station. It is an alternate plan if the route plan of

Option 1 cannot avoid the Bo Tree on Borella street.



Final Report

86

So

urc

e: S

KY

TR

AIN

Stu

dy T

eam

Figure 4.2.12 Route Plans for Borella Station ~ W

elikada Station Section


Final Report

87

(2) North Route Plan (Option 1)

In the vicinity of intersection at Borella station, there is an important Bo Tree near the centre of

road section

Because the impact on the Bo Tree must be avoided, and an underpass is being constructed near

this tree, monorail piers must be arranged to avoid it. This causes difficulty in locating the

structures. For better transfer to

SLR, a station is located here since

the route crosses near Cotta Road

station of SLR Although the SLR

trains stop at this station several times

a day at present, this option is

proposed with consideration to the

future increase in the train frequency.

From Cotta Road station, the

monorail route follows the existing

road and terminates at Welkada

Station.


Figure 4.2.13 The Bo Tree near the Borella Station

(3) South Route Plan (Option 2)

Option 2 is an alternate plan if the Bo Tree near Borella Station cannot be avoided.

From the intersection near Borella station, the route turns south along BaseLine Road, passing

through A0 road, and then proceeds along the north of Borella General Cemetery until connecting

to the same alignment as Option 1. The intermediate station is located near the intersection with

SLR station (tentative name: Devi

Balika Station).

Although the alignment crosses over

the SLR line, there is no SLR station

nearby at present. Cotta Road

station of SLR is not so far; therefore,

the construction of a transfer station

is not realistic. The distance

between the existing Cotta Road

station and the Devi Balika Station is

approx.300m. It is possible to

transfer between monorail and SLR,

but the accessibility is low.


Figure 4.2.14 Baseline Road Intersection


Final Report

88

(4) Comparison table and Map of the Section between Borella Station and Welikada Station

Table 4.2.6 Comparison between Options for Borella St. ~ Welikada Section

Issues Option1 Option2

Impacts on Train

Operation

The route is shorter than Option 2, and no

tight curve is inserted in the middle

between stations. Therefore, it takes

advantages of commercial speed.

The route is longer than Option 1, and a

tight curve must be inserted in the middle

between Borella station and Devi Balika

Station. More journey time is required as

the commercial speed is lower.

○ ×

Impact on the

private land

Road is wide enough to accommodate

Monorail system.

Several private houses would be affected at

the intersection between Base Line Road

and A0 Road.

○ ×

Route length

The route is approx. 220m shorter than

Option 2.

The route is approx. 220m longer than

Option 1.

△ ×

Constructability・Feasibility

The issue on alignment is the evasion of the

Bo Tree near Borella station. Option 1

can be feasible if the route passes through

the bus terminal site at the north of the

Important Tree.

Although a minimum curve is inserted at

the intersection between Base Line Road

and A0 Road, it is still necessary to acquire

land for the monorail corridor in case of

normal horizontal double track alignment.

The land acquisition can be avoided by

using a two-layer structure in which one

track is above the other track to reduce the

corridor width. But when considering the

longitudinal slope, Borella station must be

a two-layer structure as well, which implies

challenges in both construction and

landscape.

This option remains in case avoidance of

the BoTree in Option 1 is impossible.

△ △

Cost Lower construction cost Higher construction cost

○ △

Accessibility

Cotta Road is adjacent to the SLR’s station,

so the passenger accessibility is higher.

However, the train frequency of the SLR is

low, so the demand for transfer is not

significant.

The passenger accessibility is fair. While

the Cotta Road station is 300m away from

the planned monorail station, accessibility

to Castle Maternity Hospital is high.

○ △

Selected Option ○ ×


△Note: ○: Good/Desirable, : Fair, ×: Less Desirable


Final Report

89


Figure 4.2.16 Option 2 for Borella ~ Welikada Section


Figure 4.2.15 Option 1 of Borella ~ Welikada Section

1

2


Final Report

90

4.2.4 Sections between Sethshiripaya and Malabe

(1) Summary of Result

The construction cost is higher in Option 1 because the route is 950m longer. In Option 2, it is

necessary to widen the existing road to construct stations. Additionally, Option 2 does not have

potential to capture high ridership along Malabe Road. Option 1 may have more ridership

because there will be transfer of various governmental bodies along its corridor.

Therefore, Option 1 is selected because it is easier to secure space for monorail line and higher

ridership is expected. However, the route passes through military lands, so consultation is

required to obtain approval.

Table 4.2.7 List of Examined Options for Sethshiripaya ~ Malabe Section

Option Concept

South Route

(Option1)

This route turns south at Sethsiripaya along Pannipitiya Road, and then

trends north at Palan Thuna Station. After passing Robert Gunawadena

Mw Station, the route returns to Malabe Road before reaching IT Park. In

future, various governmental bodies shall be transferred to Robert

Gunawadena Mw Station.

North Route

(Option2)

This route proceeds from Sethshiripaya along Malabe Road until reaching

IT Park.



Final Report

91

So

urc

e: S

KY

TR

AIN

Stu

dy T

eam

Figure 4.2.17 Sethshiripaya Station ~ IT Park Station Section


Final Report

92

(2) South Route (Option 1)

This route turns south at Sethsiripaya along Pannipitiya Road, and then trends north at Palan

Thuna Station. After passing Robert Gunawadena Mw Station to where various governmental

bodies shall be transferred, the route returns to Malabe Road near Lumbini Temple Station before

reaching IT Park. Although space for monorail is slightly narrow at Sethshiripaya- Palan Thuna

section, sufficient space is available for other sections. Because this route passes through the

land owned by Air Force at northern side of Buttaramulla intersection, it is necessary to have

further discussion about this issue.

Although the route in Option 1 is 950m longer than in Option 2, its ridership is expected to be

better because there will be transfer of various governmental bodies to the areas near Palan Thuna

and Robert Gunawadena Mw Station.

(3) North Route (Option 2)

This route proceeds from Sethshiripaya along Malabe Road before reaching IT Park. Comparing

to Option 1, this route is 950m shorter but space for station is more difficult to secure because

Malabe Road is not wide enough.

On adoption of this route, it is

necessary to widen this road;

otherwise, there are various

challenges with the existing road.

There are several small shops on the

road, but the density of population

in residential areas around the road

is not high, which causes

disadvantages in term of ridership.


Figure 4.2.18 Option 2 Malabe Road


Final Report

93

(4) Comparison Table and Map of the Section between Sethshiripaya Station and IT Park

Station

Table 4.2.8 Comparison between Options for Sethshiripaya ~ IT Park Section


Impacts on train

operation

More train journeys are required due to

950m longer route.

Route length is short, but there are many

tight curves, which decrease overall

commercial speed.

△ △


land

This route avoids narrow road sections

and require less land acquisition of

private land

The roads is too narrow and impact of land

acquisition is significant.

○ ×

Route length Longer than in Option 2 by 950m Shorter than in Option 1 by 950m

△ ○

Constructability

Sufficient space for monorail can be

secured, however, this route passes

through the land owned by Air Force at

northern side of Buttaramulla

intersection, it is necessary to have

further discussion about this issue.

During construction, negative impact on

traffic is expected due to lack of space in

some sections. Particularly, the road is too

narrow to construct station that widening the

road is necessary.

× ×

Cost

Higher cost due to longer route. Although the route is shorter, huge capital

expenditure associated with road widening

is required.

△ ×

Ridership

Ridership is expected to be better

because various government buildings

are moved to the area along the route.

Density of population in residential areas

around the road is not high, which is

disadvantageous in term of demand.

○ ×

Evaluation △ ×




Final Report

94

So

urc

e: S

KY

TR

AIN

Stu

dy T

eam

Figure 4.2.19 Option 1 Alignment for Sethshiripaya ~ IT Park Section


Final Report

95

So

urc

e: S

KY

TR

AIN

Stu

dy T

eam

Figure 4.2.20 Option 2 Alignment for Sethshiripaya ~ IT Park Section


Final Report

96

4.2.5 North Section between Armour Street and Kelaniya

(1) Summary

For the Armour Street Station – Kelaniya Station section, four route options are proposed.

Although most parts of the section are in the Stage-2, which is not the section for the construction

of Stage-1, alternative route options were examined.

Among them, Option 1 was recommended as the areas along the Option 1 are populated areas

which do not have enough public transport services. It is expected that the monorail system

expand the areas served by public transport system. .

However, the existing road at Kotahena- Mattakuliya section is too narrow for the monorail

corridor that road widening and land acquisition are necessary. For the Stage-2, further

examinations are to be required.

Table 4.2.9 List of Examined Options for Armour Street ~ Kelaniya Sectoin

Name Concept

Option 1

(via Mattakkuliya)

This alignment passes through Armour Street Station, Kotahena station

before heading north along the coast. After passing through

Mattakkuliya, it crosses Kelani River and terminates at MMC station

which is about 1km from northeast of Kelaniya Station of SLR. The

accessibility to SLR will be possible if a new station of SLR is

constructed at MMC.

Armour Street Station ~ MMC Station: 8.0km

Option 2

(via Negombo)

From Armour Street Station, the route follows Prince of Wales Ave,

crossing Kelani River via JFB (Japanese Friendship Bridge), and

proceeds to MMC. This route passes in between Option 1 route and

SLR line.


Option 3

(via 4th Mile Post)

From Armour Street Station to JFB, the route follows the same path as

in Option 2, but after crossing Kelani River, it proceeds along Kandy

Road and then reaches MMC after passing Kelaniya Station of SLR.


Option 4

(via Mattakkuliya and

terminating at Kelaniya)

The route follows the same path as in Option 1 except that the terminus

station is Kelaniya.

Armour Street Station ~ Kelaniya Station: 7.4km



Final Report

97


Figure 4.2.21 North Section Alignment Map


Final Report

98

(2) Option 1 (via Mattakkuliya)

From Armour Street Station, this alignment passes through Kotahena station before heading north

along the coast. After passing through Mattakkuliya, it crosses Kelani River and terminates at

MMC station which is about 1km from northeast of Kelaniya Station of SLR. The route length

is around 8km which is the longest among the four proposed routes.

However, the existing road at

Kotahena- Mattakkuliya section is

too narrow for monorail stations that

road widening is necessary.

There is road widening plan

undertaken separately. Once the

widening is completed, the

introduction of the monorail is

possible.


Figure 4.2.22 The Road near Mattakkuliya

(3) Option 2 (via Negombo)

From Armour Street Station, the

route follows Prince of Wales Ave,

crossing Kelani River by JFB

(Japanese Friendship Bridge), and

proceeds to MMC. This route

passes in between Option 1 route and

SRL line.

Density of population along this

route is lower than in Option 1,

which has negative impact on

ridership. However, route length

and journey time can be shortened.

As a result, the average operation

speed becomes faster than Option 1.


Figure 4.2.23 The Road near JFB (Japanese Friendship Bridge)


Final Report

99

(4) Option 3 (via 4th Mile Post)

From Armour Street Station to JFB, the route follows the same path as in Option 2, but after

crossing Kelani River, it proceeds along Kandy Road and then reaches MMC after passing

Kelaniya Station of SLR.

This route enables accessibility to

SLR at Kelaniya Station, which is

not possible in Option 2. It also

takes advantages of construction

cost as the route length is about

6.3km, which is the shortest among

four options.

From the north of JFB, the route

follows the Kandy Road, which is

spacious enough for construct

monorail. Nevertheless, it is

necessary to acquire land to avoid a

road bridge at intersection with SLR.


Figure 4.2.24 Road Bridge near Kandy Road

(5) Option 4 (via Mattakkuliya, and terminating at Kelaniya)

This route basically follows the

same path as the Option 1 except

that the terminus station is

Kelaniya. In contrast to Option 1

which connection to MMC is the

main purpose, this option takes the

connection with SLR as the first

priority.

Because the Kandy Road crosses

SLR line at right angles, it is

difficult to extend the monorail line

in the future.


Figure 4.2.25 Kandy Road in front of Kelaniya Station


Final Report

100

(6) Comparison table and Map of the Section between Armour Street ~ Kelaniya Sectoin

Table 4.2.10 Comparison between Options for Armour Street ~ Kelaniya Sectoin



* Although the impact on the private land is big, the option 1 is recommended as the areas are not covered by public

transport system at present. The section is mainly in the Stage-2 of the monorail system, therefore further examinations are required.

Issues Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Impact on train

operation

Longer journey from Armour Street Station to MMC Station due to longer route and more intermediate stations. Consequently, more journeys and number of vehicles are required.

Number of intermediate stations: 8 (north of Armour Street St)

The route is shorter, yet short interval between stations decrease commercial speed.


Shorter journey time and decrease in train numbers due to shorter route and less number of stations.


Longer journey time due to longer route and more stations. Number of intermediate stations: 8 (north of Armour Street St)

× △ ○ ×


land

More than 200 householders would be resettled.

Land acquisition is limited to area for stations

Land acquisition is limited to area for stations

More than 200 householders would be resettled.

× △ △ ×

Route length

Armour Street Station ~ MMC Station

8.0km

(the longest route)

Armour Street Station ~ MMC Station : 6.5km

Armour Street St ~ MMC Station: 6.3km

(the shortage route)

Armour Street Station ~

Kelaniya Station: 7.4km

× ○ ○ △

Constructability

The existing road at Kotahena- Mattakkuliya section is too narrow for monorail stations. Additionally traffic shall be badly affected during construction. Therefore, road widening is necessary.

Space is available for monorail corridor. There is no difficulty with the constructability.

Crossing with the road bridge near Kelaniya Station is the most problematic issue. Land acquisition is necessary.

The existing road at Kotahena- Mattakkuliya section is too narrow for monorail stations. Additionally traffic shall be badly affected during construction. Therefore, road widening is necessary.

× ○ △ ×

Cost

Higher capital expenditure is expected because of longer route. In addition, this route has to cross the wide part of Kelani river.

Shorter route decreases construction cost. This route has to cross the river, but the width of the river on the route is not wide.

Shorter route and less number of stations decrease construction cost. This route has to cross the river, but the width of the river on the route is not wide.

This option is basically similar to Option 1, in which higher construction cost is necessary.

× △ ○ ×

Ridership

High ridership is expected as the routes passes through populated areas

Ridership is low as population density along the corridor is low.

Ridership is low as population density along the corridor is low.

High ridership is expected as the routes passes through populated areas

○ × × ○

Connectivity with

MMC, SLR

Transfer to SLR will be convenient if a new SLR station is added at MMC.

Transfer to SLR will be convenient if a new SLR station is added at MMC.

Transfer to SLR is possible at both Kelaniya and MMC

Transfer to SLR is possible only at Kelaniya, which is inconvenient for bus passengers.

△ △ ○ △

Evaluation ○ * △ △ ×


Final Report

101


Figure 4.2.26 North Section (Option 1)


Final Report

102




Final Report

103




Final Report

104




Final Report

105

4.2.6 Route Alignment of Line 2

(1) Summary

Since the alignment of Line 2 has considerable impacts on Line 1, this study analyses three

options considering the connectivity between those two lines.

The Option 1, which connects Kollupitiya Station with National Hospital St., is selected as the

most feasible option. In both Option 2 and Option 3, it is necessary to build Line 2 to be

grade-separated with Line 1. Those higher structures have negative impacts on landscape.

This result places importance on the scenery since there are many historic buildings in the vicinity

of National Hospital St. (Town Hall area) where Line 1 connects to Line 2.

Table 4.2.11 List of Examined Options for Line 2

Option Concept

Option 1

Kollupitiya Station~National

Hospital Station

Monorail station is located on Galle Road in the vinicity of SLR

Kollupitiya Station. After passing Dharmapala Mawatha Station, the

route arrives National Hospital Station which is adjacent to Town Hall

area.

Option 2

Kollupitiya Station ~

Sebastian Canal Station

The route begins at Kollupitiya Station of SLR, intersects with Line 1

(multi-level crossing) near Town Hall area and reaches Sebastian

Canal Station.

Tracks are connected directly at Sebastian Canal Station while

passengers have to transfer at National Hospital St. to change between

Line 1 and Line 2.

Option 3

Kollupitiya Station ~

Transport Centre Station

The route begins at Kollupitiya Station of SLR, intersects with Line 1

(multi-level crossing) near Town Hall and reaches Transport Centre

Station.

In Option 2, because road width for Sebastian Canal Station is just

enough for the station, the arrangement of station is extremely difficult.

In comparison with Option 2, available land piece of SLR can be used

instead of private land acquisition.



Final Report

106


Figure 4.2.30 Line 2 Route Alternatives


Final Report

107

(2) Option 1 (Kollupitiya Station~National Hospital Station)

Monorail station is located on Galle Road in the vinicity of SLR Kollupitiya Station. After

passing Dharmapala Mawatha Station, the route arrives National Hospital Station which is

adjacent to Town Hall area. The line can be easily extended to Bambalapitya in case of

extension. The Kollupitiya monorail station is located on Galle Road which is 200m far from

Kollupitiya station of SLR, it is therefore necessary to build pedestrian deck between the two

stations to improve passenger convenience.

The route shall connect with Line 1 at National Hospital Station. In order to decrease height of

structures, two lines are connected on the same grade.

In order to decrease station section, platform of Line 2 (one side, one track) connects with

platform of Line 1 (separated platform, two sides, 3 tracks) at different level.


Figure 4.2.31 Line2 - Track arrangement at National Hospital Station

In contrast to Option 2 and Option 3, the route of Option 1 ends at National Hospital St. and does

not connect with Maradana Station of SLR. Because Maradana is an important hub, as an

alternative, Line 1 trends south at Transport Centre Station to connect with Maradana Station then

turn back to Sebastian Canal Station.


Final Report

108


Figure 4.2.32 Transport Centre St. ~ Sebastian Canal St. Line1 Route

(3) Option 2 (Kollupitiya Station - Sebastian Canal Station)

The route begins at Kollupitiya Station of SLR, intersects with Line 1 (multi-level crossing) near

National Hospital St. and reaches Sebastian Canal Station. Tracks are connected directly at

Sebastian Canal Station while passengers have to transfer at National Hospital St. to change

between Line 1 and Line 2.

In contrast to Option 1, the route in Option 2 starts from Kollupitiya Station and keeps stretching

toward the north side of National Hospital St. passing through Maradana Station then connects

with Line 1 at Sebastian Canal Station. For direct operation with Line 1, there are two proposals

of station layouts: Two-layer platform, and Horizontal partition platform. In Two-layer platform

proposal, height of station has negative impact on landscape. Therefore, Horizontal partition

platform is adopted.

The connection between Line 1 and Line 2 is proposed mainly for purpose of dead-head

operation; hence single connecting track shall be planned. Because the station of each line is


Final Report

109

separated from each other, these two stations are linked by pedestrian deck.

At the multi-level intersection at National Hospital St. between Line 1 and Line 2, it is

necessary to mitigate height of monorail beam with surrounding landscape.


Figure 4.2.33 Sebastian Canal Station: Image of Two-layer Platform


Figure 4.2.34 Sebastian Canal St


Final Report

110

(4) Option 3 (Kollupitiya Station ~ Transport Centre Station)

In Option 2, because road width for Sebastian Canal Station is too narrow, the arrangement of

station is extremely difficult. Therefore, land acquisition is necessary. To avoid land

acquisition, Option 3 proposes the connecting with Line 1 at Kesalwaththa Station. Because land

of SLR and public school is available nearby Kesewaththa intersection, land acquisition from

private owner is not necessary.

The connection between Line 1 and Line 2 at Transport Centre Station is proposed mainly for

purpose of dead head operation; hence single connecting track shall be placed. Because the

station of each line is separated from each other, these two stations are linked by pedestrian deck.


Figure 4.2.35 Transport Centre Station


Final Report

111

(5) Comparison table and Map between Options

Table 4.2.12 Comparison between Options for Line 2

Issues Option1 Option2 Option 3

Landscape

Better landscape – as there

is no multi-level

intersection.

Due to multi-level

intersection, higher

monorail beam at National

Hospital St. may cause

discomfort and negative

impacts on landscape and

surrounding historical

buildings.

Due to multi-level

intersection, higher

monorail beam at Town Hall

may cause discomfort and

negative impacts on

landscape and surrounding

historical buildings.

○ × ×

Impact on the

private land

No outstanding issue No outstanding issue No outstanding issue

○ ○ ○

Route length

2.1km

Option 1 is the shortest

route and cost saving can be

expected.

4.0km

Almost 2 times longer than

Option 1

4.0km

Almost 2 times longer than

Option 1

△ △ △

Constructabil

ity

No outstanding issue Because arrangement of

piers at the intersection

between Line 1 and Line 2

at National Hospital St. is

complicated, impact to road

traffic is expected.

Road section at Sebastian

Canal Station is narrow that

placement of stairs is

difficult

Because arrangement of

piers at the intersection

between Line 1 and Line 2

at National Hospital St. is

complicated, impact to road

traffic is expected.

Near Transport Centre

intersection, there is Bo Tree

in the corridor. It can be

avoided to some extent but

cutting some of its branches

may be necessary.

○ × △

Cost

Less capital expenditure as

its structures are less

complicated than other

options.

More capital expenditure- as

there are large-scale

structures such as piers at

intersection

More capital expenditure- as

there are large scale

structures such as piers at

intersection

○ △ △

Evaluation ○ × ×


Note: ○: Good/Desirable, △: Fair, ×: Less Desirable


Final Report

112


Figure 4.2.36 Line 2 - Option 1


Final Report

113


Figure 4.2.37 Line 2 -Option 2


Final Report

114


Figure 4.2.38 Line2 – Option 3


Final Report

115

4.2.7 Location of Kollupitiya Station

(1) Summary

Option 1 is selected for Kollupitiya Station because the line can easily extended to Bambalapitya

in the future.

In Option 1, Galle Road is large enough for monorail station and line extension to the south is

simpler. Though Option 2 offers better accessibility to SLR’s station, space for monorail station

is relatively smaller. Future line extension is also more difficult because the line ending is

adjacent to the sea.

In the selection of the station location, regarding the extension in the future and available space for

construction, the Option 1 is selected.

Table 4.2.13 List of Examined Options for Kollupitiya Station

Name Concept

Location On Galle Road

(Option1)

Monorail station is located on Galle Road for future extension to

Bambalapitya.

Location in front of SLR railway

station (Option2)

Monorail station is located in front of SLR’s station for convenience

to access SLR.



Figure 4.2.39 Options for Kollupitiya Station


Final Report

116

(2) Location on Galle Road Option

The monorail station is located on Galle Road which is 200m far from Kollupitiya station of SLR.

This road section is relatively wide for construction of monorails station. The line can be easily

extended along Galle Road in case of extension.

The line curves to the east at the intersection close to the north side of the station (National

Hospital direction). If turnout is installed at this side, there will not be enough straight length.

If the station is moved to the south, distance to SLR’s station shall increase. The turnout is,

therefore, installed at the south of the station so that train can turn back using the lead track.

Since there is approximately 200m distance to the SLR railway station, it is recommended to build

a pedestrian deck in order to improve the convenience of the transit passenger transferring

between monorail line and SLR.

(3) Location in front of SLR railway station

The monorail station is located close to SLR’s Kollupitiya Station. Since the road section for the

station is not wide enough and straight length for turnout is limited, island-typed station with

single track is appropriate. However, train operation with high frequency becomes difficult.

Moreover, line extension is not easy because the west side of the station is close to the sea.

Single track platform also causes difficulty for extension. It is further required to consult with

SLR because part of the monorail station is located above the SLR line.


Final Report

117

(4) Details of comparative study

Table 4.2.14 Comparison between Options for Kollupitiya Station

Issue Option1 Option2

Future extension

Extension to Bambalapitya is

simpler due to its location on Galle

Road

Future extension is difficult because

station is adjacent to the sea and station

platform has only single track.

○ ×

Distance to SLR station

(Passenger convenience)

Longer distance to SLR Kollupitiya

station lower passenger

convenience. Direct distance to the

SLR station is 200m. It is

recommended to build a pedestrian

deck in order to improve the

convenience of transit passengers.

Higher convenience to transit

passengers because the monorail station

is close to SLR Kollupitiya Station.

△ ○

Impact on private land

No effect on private land No effect on private land, however,

consultation with SRL is necessary as

part of the monorail station is located

above the SLR line.

○ △

Route length

Route length to station centre is

almost the same as Option 2.

However, because turnout and lead

track is required, the route is longer

by 200m

Route length to the station centre is

almost the same as Option 1.

△ ○

Cost

Longer route and bigger station

increase construction cost.

Shorter route and single track platform

decrease construction cost.

× ○

Track arrangement

Not any issues. Allocation of turnout is difficult due to

lack of straight section. Dual track

platform station is not feasible.

○ ×

Evaluation ○ △


Note: ○: Good/Desirable, △: Fair, ×: Less Desirable


Final Report

118


Figure 4.2.41 Option 2 for Kollupitiya Station


Figure 4.2.40 Option 1 for Kollupitiya Station

Documents

CHAPTER 3 Transport Demand Forecast 3.1 Assumptions and ... · two stages of road assignment and two stages of transit (public transport) assignment are conducted to consider these