8/12/2019 Comments of FS of Alternative Route FO 28-05-14 (1)

1/2

28 May 2014

Comments by Frits Olyslagers

Re: Feasibility study for the Alternative Route Alignment

A preliminary review of this document shows that it has not well articulated the case for or against the

alternative alignment.

In some cases unsupported assumptions are made (such as recommending elevated sections without

proper location analysis or traffic management. !ome parts of the document are totally irrelevant to

the feasi"ility of alternative alignments# such as evaluating$with% and without pro&ect scenarios.

'he pu"lic consultation results seem inconclusive and confusing and add nothing to the analysis.'he

environmental impacts such as dust from roc crushing is overrated as most construction wors will

"e in the nature of repaving# and station contraction) activities that are common in all cities.

'he entire Ch 5 Social Safeguards and Environmental study is irrelevant to the comparison of the

alternatives except if it were to identify certain environmental or social impacts caused by the actualalternative alignment, which it does not.

*urthermore as an e+ample of poor discussion# the section as follows seems not to mae any sense

at all,

What alternative alignment options? nly one is proposed.!he section between "oha#hali and

"oghba$ar is elevated with no sharp corners. !he second paragraph comments are completely

unsubstantiated, as the cost comparison shown in p%& show an increase on cost of less than '().

*urthermore 'a"le -.1- offers a poor comparison "etween alternatives# as does not properly evaluate

the issues and is also not in numerical agreement with the conclusion (such as length difference of

alternative alignment(1.2m vs.0.-m or num"er of stations, (/ost comparisons p# shows 8

stations for each alternative# whereas 'a"le -.1-. shows and 10 respectively.'he analysis has some pro"lems# including,

'he Mohahali *lyover would not need a 11 e+pansion (in 'a"le 4.- as the 3' could

share the flyover with mi+ed traffic (this methodology needs to "e evaluated to chec

feasi"ility. As such# the cost of the alternative alignment would reduce significantly.

ncertainty why *armgate needs an elevated section as the cross sections in section 2.2.

shows it to "e -.5m wide (as shown as section 676. 'his is in contradiction to the small

road width mentioned in section 4.2.2. used to &ustify the elevated section.

'he elevated section recommendation for !onargaon and !ha"ag is also insufficiently

supported. oting $heavy traffic% could "e applied to anywhere in 6haa.

8/12/2019 Comments of FS of Alternative Route FO 28-05-14 (1)

2/2

'he cost of the elevated sections have not "een included# nor has the 3' laneway "een

included. 'he cost comparison only shows station costs.

9hat this report is supposed to produce is a multi7criteria analysis and assessment of the alternative

route alignment against the original alignment.

'his would re:uire some discussion of,Meeting passenger travel demands (O-D), area coverage# local attractors# and what type of route

treatment is designed on the non73' route

Network benefits of connecting the BR to the MR(a positive aspect of the overlap of M3';3'

Operational implicationssuch as connectivity# access# impact on the operational plan (if any

raffic impacts!which route has a greater impact on traffic (positive, reducing it or negative,

contri"uting to it and what are the cost impacts of solving these issues.

"ase of constr#ctionin comparison to e+isting space and alignment# and time impacts.

$olitical %ss#es(sensitive areas and how this is to "e managed

Ideally each of these issues re:uires some weighting in order to evaluate the merits of meeting certain

o"&ectives and weighing up the relative difficulties and advantages.

Conclusion

9e need more discussion with the consultants on the individual issues# and hopefully they have

completed sufficient groundwor to "e a"le to in a relatively short time answer some of these

:uestions.

It should also "e clarified that this is a feasi"ility report on the alternative alignment and not the "asic

design report.