by
Sudhir P Badami
Civil & Structural
Consulting Engineer, from IIT Bombay, A Concerned Citizen working actively for
Solutions to Urban Challenges such as Transportation, Noise, Disaster
Mitigation and Social Harmony
22 June 2006
Gilbert Buildings, 1
Babulnath 2nd Cross Lane Mumbai 400 007 India
badami
@vsnl.com
98 216 85072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mumbai is about 40 km North South and averages about 10 km East West. Four North South arterial routes and three East West routes of BRTS, totaling 200 km of BRTS at Rs 10 Cr/km, would cost Rs 2000 Crore. Two North South routes of Skybus totaling 80 km at Rs 50 Cr/km would cost Rs 4000 Crore. The Skybus BRTS combine would cost Rs 6,000 Crore.
With capacity of 45,000 person per hour per direction (pphpd) for BRTS and 54,000 pphpd for Skybus, there would be at least 33% excess capacity even after considering the current suburban railway load reduced to half and all coaches air-conditioned.
It would take only five years to put the Skybus BRTS alternative in place, costing only Rs 6,000 Crore as against 16 years for the Rs 61,000 Crore of MMMP.
Safety aspect of Mumbai Metro in the underground section is not being addressed herein below. We are trying to make case for the Skybus-BRTS Combine, hence there would be comparison with elevated section only. It should also be understood that our premise is that Skybus Technology will become a proven technology from safety and performance criteria, for which about 1 year of 5 km comprehensive test track will be constructed.
1. Overall cost of Skybus-BRTS combine is one tenth that of Mumbai Metro. (Rs 6000 Crore against Rs 61,000 Crore)
2. BRTS can be implemented within two years and the Skybus in five years, as against minimum 16 years for the entire 146.5 km of Mumbai Metro.
3. In two years, the carrying capacity would have reached 2% in excess of current suburban carrying load of 3,50,000 persons per hour with only the BRTS in operation additionally. With Skybus added in the next three years, the capacity would be 33% in excess. At that point of time, the Mumbai Metro, if taken up now, would have barely touched 20% of needed capacity and expended little more than 30% of the Rs 61,000 Crore MMMP cost, i.e. Rs 18,000 Crore.
4. Only 80 km of arterial roads will have an elevated structure of Skybus while in case of Mumbai Metro, there will be 106 km (after considering change of 8 km stretch between Mahalaxmi to Mahim from elevated to underground).
5. The column footprint of the Skybus (1000 + 2x 450 = 1900 mm) is slender as compared to that of Mumbai Metro ( 1800 + 2x450 = 2700 mm). Motorable space is much less encroached upon by Skybus column than the Elevated Metro.
6.
The underside of Skybus structure is 9.5 m above road level
while the Elevated Metro structure underside is at 6 m above the road. In the
cityscape, a permanent feature along the arterial
road at higher level means less claustrophobic effect and greater dispersal
opportunity for the vehicular emissions at the underside of the structure.
7. Platform level of Skybus is at 6 m above road while the Elevated Metro platform level will be at 10.5 m from road. From MMMP or as re-christened Mumbai Metro Project (MMP) project inaugural presentation, a shopping floor at 6 m level is being provided, taking the Metro platform to 14.5 m from road.
8. Platform length of Skybus would be barely 60 m (for 6 coach consist) while the Elevated Metro will need 180 m long platforms (8 coach consist). Since the headway of Skybus is small, the holding capacity needed too is small and hence Skybus stop will be compact as against the Metro station which will have to be meeting capacity for holding commuters over five minutes, hence bulky.
9. Skybus offers a walkway on the top at about 10.5 m level, an accessible open space created as a byproduct, which would be very useful during flooding of roads. Elevated Metro does not offer this. For a city with paucity of accessible open public space, this is a very good addition.
10. The noise generated by the wheel rolling over the rail gets confined and absorbed within the box of the Skyway of Skybus, within which the rails are located and the bogies run. Such noise does get dissipated in the environment in case of Elevated Metro, meaning by it that the residences and places of work get subjected to continuous noise at high decibels. It is suffice to say that, "Noise is not just nuisance but is a Health Hazard".
11. At station spacing of 5 km, Skybus would average 80 kmph speed, covering a distance between Borivali and Colaba in half an hour. This spacing is possible as much of capacity augmentation is from BRTS. Not having this flexibility, Mumbai Metro will be averaging at most 40 kmph, taking an hour for the Borivali-Colaba commute.
12. With one minute headway of Skybus and 20 seconds frequency of BRTS, the commuter spends practically no time at the bus stops in the Skybus-BRTS combine as against 3 to 5 minutes wait for Mumbai Metro.
13. Being of low capital cost, the fare structure becomes affordable, the facility would attract substantial number of commuters. Considerably higher capital cost results in higher fare structure for Mumbai Metro, keeping most suburban railway commuters still going to suburban railway stations. This would mean continued congestion of approach roads. The Skybus-BRTS combine will reduce road congestion on approach roads to present railway stations partly because of competitive fare structure and partly because of closer accessibility.
14. With early implementation of Skybus-BRTS combine, secondary measures of reducing road congestion could be successfully implemented - these measures would be, providing fleet taxi services, higher parking charges, low occupancy charges etc. Implementing such measures in absence of adequate, comfortable and safe public transport system would be unjustified. If Mumbai Metro is pursued with first, these traffic demand measures taken early, are bound to be ineffective and prone to strong protests from car users. Skybus-BRTS provides possibility of reduction in road congestion as the traffic demand measures can be implemented early and effectively.
15. Skybus is derail proof and capsize proof, which is not the case with the Metro. Capsizing of Elevated Metro means danger to road users too, cutting off two arteries simultaneously, besides causing injuries and casualties.
16. From fire point of view, the probable location of fire igniting being the bogie, Skybus is safer as flames would be above the coaches, in the box of the structure, giving ample time for evacuation. The Elevated Metro, coaches being above the fire igniting location, can get engulfed in flames; commuters jumping out of such trains can fall down 8.5 m or on the track of the up train.
(to
be followed by Expeditious Political Decision Needed)