public mass transit system

7/31/2019 Public Mass Transit System

1/28

1

Planning Colloquium

Public Mass Transit System in Hyderabad

MRTS vs. BRTS

Aalekhya Kandala 080201

Anup Vennam 080208

Ch. Indira 080212

K. Naresh 080218R. Rohan 080225

R. Shiva 080231

Ch. Anusha Mounika 080238

VII Semester

B. Tech. Planning

JNAFAU


2/28

2

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3Master Plan 2030: ............................................................................................................................................... 4

Transit Oriented Development (TOD): ............................................................................................................ 4

Multiple Nuclei Theory: .................................................................................................................................. 5

Passenger & Freight Management: ................................................................................................................ 6

Logistics Hub: .................................................................................................................................................. 7

The still lingering Issue: ................................................................................................................................... 7

Public Mass Transit Systems: .............................................................................................................................. 8

Ridership ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Capital costs, Operational costs & Commuter fares ........................................................................................... 8

Time of travel .................................................................................................................................................... 11

The Accessibility ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Air Pollution .................................................................................................................................................. 15

Noise Pollution: ............................................................................................................................................. 16

The Visual Element............................................................................................................................................ 17

Resulting Mobility of private vehicles ............................................................................................................... 19

References: ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

Minutes to the colloquium held on 16th December 2011 ................................................................................. 22


3/28

3

Introduction

Hyderabad City is experiencing rapid growth and transportation issues have assumed critical

importance. Since the proportionate road length in the HMA area has been almost static,

Traffic congestion has increased leading to endless transportation gridlocks.

Multiple agencies are involved in supporting and facilitating traffic and transportation mechanism in

Hyderabad. Provision of road infrastructure is done by MCH and HUDA while the public transport is taken

care by APSRTC, a parastatal agency and MMTS. The traffic regulation has been the responsibility of the

police department. The NHAI, R & B, AP Transco, HADA, etc. are the other agencies that contribute to the

facilitation of transport system. No single agency is solely responsible and accountable for traffic and

transport management. This is giving rise to overlapping of functions and spatial and functional

fragmentation

Major transportation issue faced is the numerous commuters getting into the central core (MCH area) from

its hinterland through a high capacity radial network with the low capacity carriageway in the core area

being unable to accept the influx of these flows leading to traffic constrictions.

The city has radial and orbital form of road network development. The recent growth trend is more in the

west / south directions of Hyderabad. Three National Highways, NH9 (connecting Vijayawada in the eastern

side and Mumbai in the west), NH7 (connecting Bangalore in south and Nagpur in north) and NH202

(connecting Hyderabad to Warangal) pass through the CBD of the city. Five State Highways SH1, SH2, SH4,

SH5 and SH6 start from the city centre and diverge radially connecting several towns and district head

quarters within the State in all directions.

The citys transportation requirement is largely met by the following modes of transport.

Bus transport as the major public transport with modal share of 42% and merely 4% fleet.

Rail based Multi Modal Transport System (MMTS) catering to 1.7% of the share of public transport.

Three and seven seated autos acting as the Para transit contributing to nearly 10% of the transport

demand.

Private vehicles (two and four wheelers) mode share is about 50% of the total vehicular traffic.


4/28

4

Master Plan 2030:

Transit Oriented Development (TOD):

In the extended area of HMDA several urban growth pockets are identified which are located along

the major highways. According to the land potential analysis, most of the future growth pockets are

along the linear corridors (NH and SH). Within the city and along the peripheral areas, the city region has

experienced linear corridor based development along:

(a) NH 7 from the city towards Nagpur and towards Bangalore;

(b) NH 9 from the city towards Vijayawada and towards Mumbai; and

(c) NH202 from the city towards Warangal.

Recent developments like International Airport, ORR, Radial Roads, PVNR Expressway, MMTS,

Hardware Development Park, SEZs, FAB City etc., are moulding a different travel pattern. Since most

of the development is along proposed Outer Ring Road and radial roads,Transit Oriented

Development will help integrate at regional level the Outer Ring Road with the radial roads and

Proposed Regional Ring Road. Higher order facilities like commercial activities, IT parks generating

employment may be proposed in areas around the intersection of outer ring road and radial roads.

There are already a few proposals for passenger terminals and goods terminals along the railway

corridor. Transit oriented development will facilitate better connectivity of the city center of

45

11

29

11

34

16

50

21

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Public

Transport

Cars 2-

Wheelers

Para

Transit

Cycles

Modal Split Mode Split


5/28

5

Hyderabad with the peripheral area of HMDA. This will not only help take the pressure off the city

center of Hyderabad but will also provide strong connectivity to important growth pockets.

Advantages of TOD:

Greater mobility with ease of moving around.

Increased transit ridership.

Reduced traffic congestion and driving.

Healthier lifestyle with more walking, and less stress.

Greatly reduced dependence on foreign oil.

Greatly reduced pollution and environmental destruction.

Multiple Nuclei Theory:

A metropolitan area encompasses of persons and activities intensely "interrelated and integrated with

reference to daily requirements" by virtue of their diversity or differences . A metropolitan area performs

significant coordinating functions through specialization, usually requiring sufficient population and

infrastructure size. Creating Multiple nuclei centres/ sub centres will help to take the overload from the

center or core nuclei.

These nodes/ nuclei centres are identified as physical demarcation / accumulation of cluster of activities.

They are not the absolute population accumulation in a particular area but the service population with

different size/scale of the nodes. Various urban nodes proposed in Metropolitan Development Plan are

commercial, Transportation, Industrial nodes.


6/28

6

Passenger & Freight Management:

Hyderabad and Secunderabad are the two major divisions of the South Central Railways. There are three

major stations within the core area namely Secunderabad, Hyderabad (Nampally) and Kachiguda located

within a distance of 10km from each other. There are passengers who travel long distances to take the trains

at these stations as they reside far away from these terminals. South central railway realized the need of a

few more passenger terminals spread out in all the four directions and away from the existing terminals.

Each of the passenger terminals requires land to develop all associated railway infrastructure such as

adequate number of platforms, ticketing, station building, circulation area, passenger waiting area, parking,

coaches and locomotive maintenance facilities, etc.

South Central Railway intends to develop integrated freight terminals for the city, as the city is presently

served by a major freight terminal at Sanathnagar, which is already engulfed by thick growth of residential

colonies and other service centres, whereby it is becoming very difficult for the trucks to bring cargo to

Sanathnagar Freight terminal and evacuate cargo from there, moreover the growth of rail freight flowing

out of and into city has outstripped the capacity at Sanathnagar freight terminal, which calls for developing

at three freight terminals for Hyderabad city. Each of the freight terminals requires land to accommodate

adequate number of loading/unloading platforms, movement of road vehicles/cranes/material handling

equipments, container depot, maintenance facility for wagons and locos etc.

There are 4 proposals for passenger terminals and 3 proposals for freight/cargo terminals. Timmapur and

Bhongir has Passenger and Freight Terminal integrated

Timmapur

Rawulapalli

Edulangulapalle

Bhongir

Monaharabad


7/28

7

Logistics Hub:

There are total 12 logistic hub proposed in HMR.There are total 9 logistic hub proposed in

Rangareddy district, 2 in Medak district and 1 in Mahboonagar district. Logistics Hub will also prove to

provide better management of transport for logistics in the core areas and help reduce congestion.

The still lingering Issue:

All the above mentioned attempts by the HMDA will reduce the freight traffic and also control congestion

from worsening in the future, but it does not solve the existing congestion problem which is mainly due to a

rapid growth in the number of private vehicles.

Due to inability to expand road spaces in the core i.e. erstwhile MCH and a lenient private vehicle ownership

policy, the modal shift to more efficient modes of transit is the only likely remedy to the congestion woes.

The above illustration stands testimony to the fact that Public Mass Transit Systems are more efficient than

private modes in terms of road space.


8/28

8

Public Mass Transit Systems:

Cost cannot be the only criterion in choosing a mode for mass transport- B.I. Singhal, Director General of

Delhi bases Institute of Urban Transport (IUT.)

There are other factors such as comfort and convenience, benefits to the city, the need to conserve fossil

fuel, control pollution and to improve safety that may necessitate the use of other mass transit modes.

The choice of mode depends mainly on:

the future demand levels on a corridor,

the proven capacity of the mode,

speed of the mode,

cost,

engineering feasibility,

commuter convenience and other externalities.

The conventional rule-of-thumb is that the BRTS (Bus Rapid Transit System) will work the best in cities with

population less than 30 lakh people, and MRTS (Metro Rail Transport System) is feasible for cities with more

than 30 lakh population.

According to an anonymous senior Government official, the above norm should not be applied as a general

rule since it depends on various other factors like;

Demography,

Income,

Geographic spread,

Mobility and so on.

Hence arises the need to do a comparative study between the proposed and debated MRTS and the talk of

the past BRTS in Hyderabad, but only along the proposed metro corridors.


9/28

BRTS Vs. MRTS


10/28

7

The Comparative study will include:

Comparison of capacity of the modes.

Comparison of Capital and Operational costs.

Comparison of Transit costs for the commuters.

Comparison of time of travel.

Comparison of accessibility of stations.

Comparison of the environmental impacts.

Comparison of the traffic management of other modes during and after construction.

Ridership

For a public mass transit system to qualify for a comparison, it must 1st be deemed capable to carry existing

and proposed volumes with a feasible design. To project actual ridership for a new mass transit system in

Hyderabad, it is not safe to assume that even all of the current transit passengers in the corridor will use

the new system. -- ITDP, 2005.

The factors which determine the percentage of total transit trips that will actually be captured by a new

public transit system serving this corridor are:

Whether or not normal bus routes are allowed to continue on the corridor

The fare price of the new mass transit service relative to any competing mode

choices available in the corridor

The door to door travel time of trips utilizing the new mass transit service (inclusive of transfer time) relative

to other modal choice options in the corridor.

It is recommended that whatever mass transit system is designed for the corridor, the following measures

be taken:

80% of competing bus lines in Corridor I should be cut.

Free integration with mass transit service or bus services in trunk Corridor II and

III should be provided.

Feeder buses should be provided at the terminals of Corridor I and at some

intermediate points.


11/28

8

Estimated Rideship:

BRTS MRTS

Year Daily System

Pax

Corridor I

pphpd

Daily System

Pax

Corridor I

pphpd

2008 8,54,001 14,441 6,53,862 11,057

2011 9,05,221 15,307 6,93,093 11,720

2021 10,76,042 18,195 8,73,298 14,767

Source: ITDP Report, 2005

The Estimated Daily Ridership by the HMR for the Metro has been proposed at 14,76,000.

Capital costs, Operational costs & Commuter fares

The principal advantage of BRT over metro or monorail is cost. Based on the demand analysis and drawing

from their international experience, the Institute of Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) provide a

comparative analysis of cost and revenue to assist Hyderabad with its evaluation.

With a Rs 5000 crores capital investment, Hyderabad could build 294 km of BRT, about 37 km of metro, or

about 31 km of monorail. Once built, the BRT system would also be able to fully finance its rolling stock

(buses) out of the fare revenue, whereas the rolling stock in the metro and monorail system would have to

be subsidized. A comparative profit / loss analysis shows the advantage of BRT in not having to cover high

capital construction costs, and the increased revenue from higher ridership at lower fares.


12/28

9

Capital Costs (in Rs. Crores)

Capital cost MRTS BRTS

Company's own estimate 4204 _

ITDP estimate 5170 408

Capital cost/km

Company's capital cost/km estimate 110 _

ITDP capital cost/km estimate 135 17


The capital costs of the proposed Hyderabad Metro Rail is about Rs. 14,000 Crores with viability gap funding

(VGF) of 296 acres of land worth almost Rs. 2000 Crores by the State. The Capital costs of the BRTS do not

require a private investment.

The high capital costs and a profit seeking owner, for the proposed metro, will lead to an integrated

escalation of transit costs for the commuters.

Operational & Recurring Costs (in Rs. Crores)

MRTS BRTS

Annual Capital Subsidy

(6 yrs financing)862 68

Annual Capital Cost

(20 yrs life)259 20

Operating Costs (Annual) 108 42



13/28

10

Revenue (in Rs. Crores)

Revenue MRTS BRTS

Projected Annual Fares 21 27

Average Fare (in Rs.) 10 7

Projected Annual Fare box Revenue 206 188

Net Operating Profit/ Loss +98 +146

Annualized Profit/ Loss -161 +126


Fares (in Rs.)

Type Min Fare Max Fare

General Bus 4

Metro Express Bus 6

AC Bus 10 60

MRT (AC) 8 18

Source: HMR & APSRTC.

The Operational costs of MRT are more than 2.5 times the BRT.

The Capital Costs of MRT are almost 8 times BRT.

So logically, metro has to carry 2.5 times more passengers than present Bus system to offer tickets

at the present bus fares, which is practically not possible as already 44 out of every 100 are

travelling by public transport. Hence the degree of government subsidy is extremely high.


14/28

11

Travel cost effect on demand for three mass transit systems

Metro BRT

Project fare 10.5 7

Percentage different from bus 50% 0%

Effect on demand -25% 0%

Source: ITDP Report, 2005.

Time of travel

Considering average velocities of the existing Bus system, it will require 51 minutes of time in existing state

to travel a average travelling distance of 9.2km.

Door- to Door travel time

Metro BRT

Speed

(km/h)

Distance

(km)Minutes

Speed

(km/h)

Distance

(km)Minutes

Walking 4 0.5 7.5 4 0.25 3.8

Waiting _ _ 3 _ _ 2

Riding 34 9.2 16 26 9.2 21

Walking 4 0.5 7.5 4 0.25 3.8

Total time 34 31



15/28

12

It can be observed that the MRTS takes more time because of walking to and away from the stations as

compared to the BRTS.

The riding velocities are higher for the MRTS when compared to the BRTS. There is no issue of traffic signals

for the MRTS unlike the BRTS which have traffic stops at junctions.

Door- to- Door times for varying distances

Source: EPW, Jan 26, 2008

Travel by car or motorcycle will always give the least travel time compared to all other modes unless there is

congestion on the road.

Travel by any rail system (metro) that is underground or elevated has a minimum door-to-door trip time of

about 20 minutes.


16/28

13

Walking is faster than using the metro for distances of one to 2 km, and bicycling is faster for distances 3km

to 4 km.

BRT gives lower travel times than the metro for distances less than about 6 km.

The metro only becomes efficient for trip distances greater than 12 km.

These numbers make it quite clear that elevated and underground public transport systems do not provide

time saving compared to car or motorcycle use unless there is congestion on the road or the trip is very

long. Because of the time lost on escalators and long walking distances inside underground/elevated metro

and monorail stations, the use of BRT on dedicated lanes becomes more efficient for trips less than about

10-15 km.

Travel Pattern in Buses in Hyderabad

Distance No. of Passengers Percentage


17/28

14

Travel time effect on demand

Metro BRT

Time saving (min) 17 21

Equivalent value 2.8 3.4

Percentage savings 41% 49%

Effect on demand 20% 20%


BRT has a slightly larger effect because of the reduced time for walking due to stations being closer

together.

The Accessibility

The Accessibility plays a crucial role in the success of a Public mass transit system. The easier the

accessibility, the better the convenience provided and the more chances of people being attracted.

Metro Rail BRTS

Walk/ Drive till station.

Parking time and fares.

(or) Intermediate transit fare.

Climb up to platform.

Smart- Card Ticketing.

Walk to nearest bus stop.

Purchase ticket after boarding.

Accessing the MRT potentially takes more time, effort and money compared to the BRT. The private modes

of transport are faster for short distances even with congestion because their access time is negligible.

The other aspects that come as a disadvantage to MRT over the BRT are the potential parking / intermediate

transit fare and the access to the stations in elevators.

Along the transit lines, Metro stations are provided for almost every 1km, whereas bus stops are provided

for an average of every 750m stretch.


18/28

15

Environmental Impacts

Urbanization and environmental consequences have always moved hand in hand.

Odum in 1989 has called cities as parasites on natural and domesticated environment, since it makes no

food, cleans no air and cleans only a little amount of water for reuse.

The aim must be to drive deep, fast, cost-effective greenhouse gas emission cuts in the built environment

with sustainable developments.

Air Pollution

Ever since the emergence of a scientific consensus on global warming issues, concern about carbon dioxide

(CO2) and other greenhouse gases has taken centre stage. Transportation

is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and the most rapidly growing anthropogenic source and

needs to be controlled.

Air Pollution per Passenger per km

Source: EPW, Jan 26, 2008

Metro CO2 emissions turn out to be almost double (for coal, diesel or gas power plants) than for bus

because of extra efficiency loss at the power plant and transmission losses. This is why BRT systems are

being favoured over metro and personal transport in urban areas.


19/28

16

Noise Pollution:

BRT MRT

85db 85db

Source: Transport Canada,2000

Source: HMR

There are about 320 places (51 schools, 96 colleges, 118 hospitals, 54 religious places, and the

Secunderabad Courts and AP Judicial Academy all falling in the silence zone category on either side of the

three metro routes.

The HMR has proposed building of barriers which will cut out Noise pollution in sensitive areas.

The noise Pollution by Buses can be nullified by Green belts, which will also improve air quality.

Noise Pollution in different zones

Zones Noise level

standards

BRT MRT

Silence 50 db(D), 40db(N) 60db(D&N)Commercial 65db(D), 60db(N) 75db(D&N)

Industrial 75db(D) , 70db(N)Residential 55db(D) & 45db(N) 50-70

Source: Booklet- Hyderabad Elevated Metro by Mr. Ramachandraih.


20/28

17

The Visual Element

Hyderabad has a number of heritage buildings. The metro corridors are going to deface about 27 of the 137

listed heritage precincts of the city. Further, they are also going to affect about 44 buildings that are

identified as having potential heritage value.

The pedestrian shopping areas and historical landmarks like Sultan Bazaar and Badi Chawdi will have to be

demolished in a big way for metro rail construction.

Protests against HMR in the narrow streets of Visuals at the station

Sultan Bazaar

Architects and Urban Designers have debated the proposed overhead MRTS in Hyderabad. They have been

well supported by protests in areas like Sultan Bazaar where the overhead MRTS means demolition of the

market place and loss for business for the traders. There have been refurbished proposals for the MRTS to

go underground in these particular areas.

In Pune, the proposal for MRTS has been transformed for completely overhead to completely underground

after a yearlong strong opposition from architect Prasanna Desai and his group. The capital costs of

underground MRTS are higher compared to that of overhead MRTS. This economic advantage is a reason

why overhead is chosen over underground in Hyderabad.


21/28

18

Simulated MRTS station at Public Gardens, Hyderabad.


22/28

19

Resulting Mobility of private vehicles

BRT MRT

Dedicated 3.5m lane.

Lesser space available for pvt. Vehicles.

More Congestion.

Push factor from pvt. modes of transport.

Column requiring 2m road width.

Better from the pvt. Vehicles point of view.

Force of push is lower.

Flexible Lane Separators. Fixed Built Structures.

The construction of MRTS is an extremely

time consuming process during which the

traffic flow will be hampered due to:

Soil testing.

Fabrication.

Infrastructure Setup.


23/28

20

MRTS during construction

Functioning of BRTS Functioning of MRTS

The MRTS demand lesser road space compared to that of BRTS. This is the reason for the budding of the

thumb rule that MRTS is feasible if the population is more than 30 lakh.

The MRTS demands just 2m of road width whereas BRTS demand 3.5m for a single lane and 7m for a double

lane. The push factor in terms of space is greater in magnitude w.r.t BRTS than MRTS.

The BRTS also comes with a flexibility of possible varied lane widths wherever and whenever necessary.

The MRTS is a fixed setup of infrastructure that cannot be modified.

The bottlenecks along the proposed corridors have to be accommodated for by identifying alternative

routes even before the soil testing begins to avoid traffic management problems- C.V. Anand, Traffic Police

Commissioner, Hyderabad.


24/28

21

References:

HMDA vision 2030.

ITDP Report on pre feasibility study for BRTS in Hyderabad, 2005.

Infrastructure Today, Jan 2011.

EPW, Jan 26, 2008- Dinesh Mohan article.

Booklet- Hyderabads Elevated Metro- Undoing the City, by Mr. C. Ramachandriah.


25/28

22

Minutes to the colloquium held on 16th December 2011

Time: 2:30pm to 4:30pm

Date: 16th December 2011

Venue: Seminar Hall, Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning (URP),

4th Floor, SPA- JNA & FAU, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

With the participation of:

Stakeholders present:

Prof. C. Ramachandraiah

Prof. in Urban Studies at CESS, Hyd.

Prof. Lakshman Rao

Prof. in Transportation Engg., JNTU-CE, Hyd.

Mr. Shyam Sunder Reddy

Chief Planner, Sysplan Associates, Hyd.

Faculty of SPA:

Prof. Phanisree ; HOD of Dept. of URP.

Prof. Vinod Ganesh ; HOD of Dept. of Arch.

Prof. Ravi Anand Kamal ; Prof. in Arch.

Mrs. Tuhina Sinha ; Colloquium Co-ordinator & Faculty URP.

Mr. Nagaraju Ravadi ; Faculty URP.

Mrs. Mrunmayi ; Faculty URP.

Mr. Ramakrishnaiah, Faculty URP.

Students of I, II, III & IV years of B. Tech. Planning.


26/28

23

Students who presented:

Student Name Roll No.

Aalekhya Kandala 080201

Anup Vennam 080208

Indira Ch. 080

Naresh K. 080218

Rohan R. 080225

Shiva Ramavath 080231

Sesha Anusha Mounika 080238

Minutes:

The colloquium began with a welcome speech by the students of the group. The presentation was given on

the topic, Mass Transit System- A Multidimensional approach to Hyderabads Most Likely and Most

Desirable. The following are the topics dealt by each student:

Topics Student

Welcome Speech Aalekhya Kandala

Introduction Rohan R.

Existing Scenario Rohan R.

What is and What can be done Rohan R.

Spatial Planning to Decongest Rohan R.

Road Space Efficiency Rohan R.

How do we compare? Rohan R.

Ridership Shiva Ramavath

Economics of Transit Anup Vennam

Travel Time Anusha Mounika


27/28

24

Accessibility Rohan R.

Impact on Private Modes Naresh K.

Environment Impacts Naresh K.

Visual Element Aalekhya Kandala

Stakeholder Perspectives:

Mr. Shyam Sunder Reddy ; Chief Consultant, Sysplan Associates.

He opinioned that the technological changes which might bring about more energy efficiency and offer

better economics to the commuters have to be considered.

He also opinioned that the statistics from other cities cannot be directly applied as there will be differences

in the spatial structure of the city and the socio-economic characteristics of the population which are a huge

factor in determining the success or failure of a Mass Transit System.

He also felt the necessity for the students to end on one side of an argument rather than hang in the middle.

Prof. Lakshman Rao ; Prof. in Transport Engg., JNTU-CE, Hyderabad.

He opinioned that there was a need for a detailed primary survey to analyze the extent of need to expand

the existing infrastructure and check for the feasibility of the design.

He also opinioned that parameters that relate to Transportation like Land Use, Spatial Structure, etc had be

dealt with when accessing the Mass Transit System.

He also stressed on the use of modern techniques of surveying and analysis, which will be deemed accurate

in compliance with the existing professional scenario.


28/28

Prof. C. Ramachandraiah ; Prof. in Urban Studies, CESS, Hyd.

Mr. Ramachandraiah began by agreeing with the other stakeholders about the necessity to support or

suggest one side of the argument at the end of the analysis.

He stressed on the socio-economic parameters of the mass transit systems and brought to our notice

several real time data from the mass transit systems of other cities and also from the existing scenario in

Hyderabad.

He also stressed on the importance of the Urban design and Heritage of the city.

He also spoke of the manner of conduct of the proposed Metro Rail in Hyderabad and the scams and the

possible future scenario in terms of socio- economic issues.

He also brought forward the fact that successful Mass Transit systems also need successful and vigilant

administration like in Singapore, and that the Political will is a crucial parameter in determining the success

of a Mass Transit System.

The Colloquium concluded at 4:30pm with a Vote of thanks by Aalekhya Kandala.

public mass transit system

Documents