Planning Colloquium

Public Mass Transit System in Hyderabad

MRTS vs. BRTS

Aalekhya Kandala Anup Vennam Ch. Indira K. Naresh R. Rohan R. Shiva Ch. Anusha Mounika VII Semester B. Tech. Planning

080201 080208 080212 080218 080225 080231 080238

JNAFAU

Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Master 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

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.

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Public Transport Cars 4 11 16 45 29

50

21 11 3 2Wheelers Para Transit 9

Cycles

Modal Split

Mode Split

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 4

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.

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

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.

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.

BRTS

Vs.

MRTS

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.

Estimated Rideship:

BRTS
Daily System Pax
8,54,001

MRTS
Corridor I pphpd
14,441

Year

Daily System Pax

6,53,862

Corridor I pphpd
11,057

2008

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.

Capital Costs (in Rs. Crores)

Capital cost
Company's own estimate ITDP estimate

MRTS
4204 5170

BRTS
_ 408

Capital cost/km
Company's capital cost/km estimate ITDP capital cost/km estimate 110 135 _ 17

Source: ITDP Report, 2005

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
Annual Capital Subsidy (6 yrs financing) Annual Capital Cost (20 yrs life) Operating Costs (Annual) Source: ITDP Report, 2005
862

BRTS
68

259 108

20 42

Revenue (in Rs. Crores)

Revenue
Projected Annual Fares Average Fare (in Rs.) Projected Annual Fare box Revenue Net Operating Profit/ Loss Annualized Profit/ Loss Source: ITDP Report, 2005

MRTS
21 10 206 +98 -161

BRTS
27 7 188 +146 +126

Fares (in Rs.)

Type
General Bus Metro Express Bus AC Bus MRT (AC)
Source: HMR & APSRTC.

Min Fare
4 6 10 8

Max Fare

60 18

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.

10

Travel cost effect on demand for three mass transit systems

Metro
Project fare Percentage different from bus Effect on demand Source: ITDP Report, 2005.
10.5 50% -25%

BRT
7 0% 0%

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
Speed (km/h) Walking Waiting Riding Walking Total time
Source: ITDP Report, 2005 4 _ 34 4

BRT
Minutes
7.5 3 16 7.5 34

Distance (km)
0.5 _ 9.2 0.5

Speed (km/h)
4 _ 26 4

Distance (km)
0.25 _ 9.2 0.25

Minutes
3.8 2 21 3.8 31

11

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.

12

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
<10km 10km- 20km 20km- 30km 30km- 40km TOTAL Source: APSRTC, Sept. 2007

No. of Passengers
27389255 24500136 17644 75216 51982251

Percentage
52.69 47.13 0.03 0.14 100.00

If the share of passengers travelling <12km is huge its an advantage to BRTS argument, If the share of passengers travelling but >12km more is not an argument in favor of MRTS as the operational costs are 2.5 times costs of a BRTS with the advantage of a few minutes.

13

Travel time effect on demand

Metro
Time saving (min) Equivalent value Percentage savings Effect on demand
Source: ITDP Report, 2005 17 2.8 41% 20%

BRT
21 3.4 49% 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
Walk/ Drive till station. Parking time and fares. (or) Intermediate transit fare. Climb up to platform. Smart- Card Ticketing.

BRTS

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.

14

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.

15

Noise Pollution:

BRT
85db Source: Transport Canada,
2000

MRT
85db

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
Silence Commercial Industrial Residential

Noise level standards

50 db(D), 40db(N) 65db(D), 60db(N) 75db(D) , 70db(N) 55db(D) & 45db(N)

BRT

MRT
60db(D&N) 75db(D&N)

50-70

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

16

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 Sultan Bazaar

Visuals at the station

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.

17

Simulated MRTS station at Public Gardens, Hyderabad. 18

Resulting Mobility of private vehicles

BRT
Dedicated 3.5m lane. Lesser space available for pvt. Vehicles. More Congestion. Push factor from pvt. modes of transport. Flexible Lane Separators.

MRT
Column requiring 2m road width. Better from the pvt. Vehicles point of view. Force of push is lower. 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.

19

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.

20

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.

21

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. 22

Students who presented:

Student Name
Aalekhya Kandala Anup Vennam Indira Ch. Naresh K. Rohan R. Shiva Ramavath Sesha Anusha Mounika

Roll No.
080201 080208 080 080218 080225 080231 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
Welcome Speech Introduction Existing Scenario What is and What can be done Spatial Planning to Decongest Road Space Efficiency How do we compare? Ridership Economics of Transit Travel Time

Student
Aalekhya Kandala Rohan R. Rohan R. Rohan R. Rohan R. Rohan R. Rohan R. Shiva Ramavath Anup Vennam Anusha Mounika 23

Accessibility Impact on Private Modes Environment Impacts Visual Element

Rohan R. Naresh K. Naresh K. 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.

24

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.

25