Friday 27 April 2012

गोष्ट ७०० कोटीची

ऑक्टोबर २०११ मध्ये जगाच्या लोकसंख्येनी ७०० कोटींचा आकडा गाठला. ह्या अवाढव्य यादीत आपण कितव्या नंबरचे आहोत हे कळलं तर केवढी मजा येईल! किंवा हे जग सुरु झाल्यापासून आज पर्यंत जन्मलेल्या व्यक्तींच्या यादीमध्ये आपण कितव्या क्रमांकावर आहोत हे कळलं तर!?

बीबीसीच्या संकेतस्थळावर एक tool आहे ज्यात तुम्ही तुमची जन्मतारीख दिलीत तर जगाच्या लोकसंख्येत तुम्ही कितव्या क्रमांकाची व्यक्ती आहात हे तुम्हाला कळू शकतं. तुमचा देश दिलात तर देशातील त्या वेळची लोकसंख्या कळते. तुम्ही स्त्री आहात का पुरुष ते दिलत तर तुमची वयोमर्यादा कळते आणि शेवटी पुढच्या काही वर्षात तुमच्या देशात लोकसंख्येची वाढ कशी होणार आहे आणि त्याचे परिणाम कसे असतील ते दाखवते.

७ अब्ज ह्या आकड्यानी सगळ्यांनाच भुरळ घातली. त्याची दखल प्रसार माध्यमांनी अनेक प्रकारांनी घेतली. प्रसिद्ध नियतकालिक नॅशनल जिऑग्राफीक  हे जागतिक लोकसंख्येवर वर्षभर एक series  चालवणार आहे. त्या निमित्ताने त्यांनी तयार केलेली एक फिल्म ही इतरांपेक्षा वेगळी ठरते.

७ अब्ज ह्या आकड्याला मध्यवर्ती ठेवून त्याची अनेक परिमाणं अतिशय सुंदररीत्या दाखवली आहेत. ह्या ३ मिनिटांच्या फिल्म मध्ये एकही संवाद नाही. केवळ ग्राफिक्स आणि अप्रतीम soundtrack आहे. आकडेवारी केंद्रस्थानी असून आकड्यांच्या पलीकडे जात, लोकसंख्या ह्या विषयाला ही फिल्म एका वेगळ्याच उंचीवर नेऊन ठेवते. ही फिल्म बघण्यासाठी नॅशनल जिऑग्राफीकच्या संकेतस्थळावर “7 billion असं शोधा.

नक्की पहा:


मानसी ताटके
(२७ एप्रिल रोजी लोकमतच्या ऑक्सिजन पुरवणीमध्ये प्रकाशित http://onlinenews1.lokmat.com/php/detailednews.php?id=OxygenEdition-57-1-26-04-2012-b6398&ndate=2012-04-27&editionname=oxygen )

Monday 23 April 2012

Underground or elevated- making a right choice for Pune metro

More than a year and half now, we- the citizens of Pune are witnessing a major chaos that is going on with the Pune metro rail project. Everyone including consultant for the project, political parties, PMC administration, state government and the various NGOs have had their fair share in creating this chaos. And who is the sufferer? We, the citizens of Pune.
I am sure most of you must be as clueless as me on the various issues like
·         Is Metro railway the right public transport solution for my city?
·         Whether metro railway will be built in tunnels (underground) or on viaducts (elevated) and which is better for my city?
·         What problems will I face during the construction of this metro railway?
·         What problems am I likely to face once the metro railway is in operation?
Adopting metro railway as a public transport solution for the city should not be done in isolation. The metro railway should be a part of integrated urban public transport plan for any city for it to be successful. Such a plan comprises of Bus system (BRT and busses operating on normal routes), trams and metro railway. Here I am assuming that such an integrated plan is ready for Pune and only after such a plan is developed, the decision of adopting metro railway for Pune is taken.  I call it as a “benefit of doubt”
Now that the metro railway project is decided for Pune, the next question that created further chaos and confusion was “Whether to have underground or elevated metro corridors for Pune?” With the recent events it seems the issue is more political than techno commercial. In June 2010, Delhi Metro in their DPR recommended 15 Km of elevated corridor between Vanaz and Ramwadi. However on political front Shiv Sena, NCP and few corporators from BJP favour underground routes, while few others in BJP and the Congress support an elevated corridor. When chief minister Prithviraj Chavan promised speedy implementation of elevated metro, their partner NCP suddenly changed its view and favoured underground metro route. Shiv Sena then moved a proposal before the Standing Committee demanding an underground metro. The BJP later demanded that the issue should be decided purely on the advice from technical consultant. And couple of days ago NCP took a complete U turn on their stand and announced that the metro will be elevated.
I am sure there will be couple of more U turns on this issue.
I wonder on what grounds these coprporators decide which technology should be adopted for metro railway construction. Are they equipped enough (or at all) to make such a decision? I am not an expert on urban public transport planning or on the metro railway planning. However with the exposure I got to the metro railway industry though my profession, I thought of finding out how the decision of adopting the underground or elevated metro is made in other parts of the world. I would like to share these findings with all of you. Please note that these findings are not mine. I have taken references and inputs from various experts, organizations and papers published and have tried to collate the views. I hope it will help you to get fair insight into how the choice between “underground or elevated” metro is made.
The major factors that will generally influence the decision of “Underground Vs Elevated”  would be                          
Initial Capital Cost: Metro railway is most often the largest investment the city will ever make. Often these investments are significant compared to the economies of the city. So this decision is strongly influenced by the initial capital cost. Typically the underground construction will be 2.5 to 3 times more expensive than the elevated. So for Pune metro the cost of elevated section of 15 km estimated to be 2593 Crores may go up to about 7800 crores if full underground corridor is adopted. But with the advancement of technology in tunnelling and with the better productivity of TBMs (Tunnel boring machines) and especially in the cities where land cost his very high, this difference is fast narrowing down. For the newly developing areas of the city having wide roads, elevated corridors can be the choice due to lower initial construction costs and easy and cheaper land availability.                                                                                                                       
Visual and Aesthetics : It is true that the elevated metro structures (vaiducts/stations) strongly affect the visual character of the city. Whether this impact is good or bad depends on architecture and the perception of the citizens. The underground corridors do not have this impact. The fotos below show how the city aesthetics changes with underground and elevated corridors.
 
Khan Market Metro Station- Underground
 

KarolBaugh metro station- Elevated.
 

  








                                                                                                                                                                
Ridership:  In the thickly populated, densely constructed city areas having narrow roads generally it is not feasible to construct a new elevated corridor as it needs to follow the existing road network and the space is simply not available. Underground corridors do not need to follow this existing road network and hence can have a positive impact on ridership of metro rail because of more direct journeys requiring less interchanges reducing the travel time significantly. The interchange between two elevated lines is much more difficult for the passenger than the interchange between two underground lines. A new metro project will not automatically guarantee the ridership. It needs to be “won”. For enticing the potential passengers who have other modes of transport available to use the metro system it needs to be reliable and must reduce the travel time significantly. The right choice of elevated/underground corridor is must to win this ridership. In India, the underground corridors are adopted in areas like Connaught Place in Delhi and at Majestic in Bangalore where there are interchanges of different metro lines and also the metro corridor alignment is passing through the thickly populated and dense city areas.
Impact on existing adjacent properties and the development potential: In the thickly populated and constructed city areas, the elevated corridors will have a major negative impact on the frontage/ view of the existing properties. The elevated stations may also encroach some private properties. Some elevated corridors in Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore are so close to the residential properties that it may become impossible to stay there. This may result into the property value going down in such areas. Underground corridors do not pose this threat.
Impact during construction: There could be a major traffic disruption during the construction of elevated metro as it follows the road network mostly. And do we consider the loss as an additional cost arising from this disruption resulting into longer travel times? During the underground construction such impact is limited only at access shafts for machinery and at station entry construction sites.
Land acquisition issues:  The elevated corridors may face major delays and cost increase due to land acquisition issues (litigations and costs), physical relocation of some adjacent properties and residents and above all the political influence hampering speedy land acquisition and relocation. In our country this is a major threat. Mumbai Metro, Bangalore metro, all these projects have been delayed because of these issues. Underground corridors will have significantly less problems with this.
Vibration and noise: Vibration could be a major threat posed to residents, historical monuments and businesses in case of underground corridors. However advanced technologies like Mass Spring System at negligibly higher cost effectively mitigate this problem. Such systems are used all over the world. In India Delhi metro, Bangalore metro, Chennai Metro are using such solutions in their underground corridors. As far as noise is concerned elevated metro can emit a significant air borne noise due to rail wheel interaction. One needs to go for costly noise barriers to mitigate this problem. Underground metros are quietest when the proper track isolation methods are used.
Operating costs: The underground metro operation costs increase due to ventilation, lighting, station air-conditioning, escalator systems, fire safety systems and maintenance needs compared to elevated metro. Dr. E. Sreedharan of Delhi metro has quoted that the operation costs of underground metro are 50% higher than that of elevated metro. Also the passenger evacuation in case of emergency becomes a critical issue in case of underground metro.
You must have realised by now that making a choice between underground and elevated metro is not an easy A+B=C decision. It is a complex economic, urban planning, engineering and political decision. And it will vary from city to city depending on the specific conditions and needs.
So what is the right way forward for our city?
1.       For a city like Pune, a mix of underground and elevated metro would be the right choice. Many cities in the world have adopted this mix depending on their specific needs. The following table is an example.


City
% underground
% elevated
Delhi Metro (India)-Phase III
50
50
Bangalore Metro
25
75
Copenhagen Metro (Denmark)
42
58
Madrid Metro extension (Spain)
68
32
Washington DC metro (USA)
57
43
Singapore
30
70
Seoul metro (Korea)
80
20
Mexico City (Mexico)
25
75



2.        In the densely constructed city area the metro needs to be underground. If the elevated metro is built in the city area it will have major issues with construction as the roads are quite narrow. It will play havoc with traffic during construction. Once ready it will permanently decrease the road width. It will also put major hurdles in future expansion of road width, construction of flyovers etc. Also future expansion of the metro line would be extremely difficult with the elevated metro in the city area. Also issues with relocation of buildings, residents and land acquisition will delay the project significantly. In the city underground metro stations should be connected with the effective bus system. This will discourage people to use their vehicles to commute up to metro stations and will help increasing the ridership. The use of underground spaces for the commercial activity would also help in funding the project.
3.       The industrial, business areas outside the city limit such as Hinjewadi, Chakan, Talegaon, Nagar road, new airport at Rajguru Nagar, should be connected with the elevated metro corridors. Here the metro route can follow the existing highway. The elevated metro is a feasible and economical option on these corridors due to possibility of easy and cheaper land acquisition. Also there would be a potential for real estate development along the metro corridor which can be an opportunity for funding of these corridors.
4.       While considering the costs I am sure, the planners have considered the other costs associated with the metro rail project like maintenance, operations, security, land acquisition and rehabilitation along with the initial capital cost. However long term benefits like increased economic activity due to metro rail corridor and development potential are normally not considered. The decision should be based not only on initial capital cost but must be based on all short and long term costs as well as all short and long term benefits.
5.       Advice from technical consultants no doubt must be sought for the complex technical issues. However as the owner of the metro, PMC must decide how we want our metro to be as it would be probably the largest ever investment they would be making on any of the infrastructure project. They should take a firm stand on,
a.       How we want our city to look like after metro railway is constructed. Are we ok with the visual impacts the elevated corridors will have on the aesthetics of the city?
b.      How are we going to plan our metro corridors so that it will require minimum relocation of buildings/ residents and will have minimum land acquisition problems? This will avoid delays in time and cost overruns.
c.       What are we going to do about the problems and traffic disruptions that our citizens will be facing during construction
d.      Where would development of the city take place in the future and how metro should connect these locations to the city.
e.      How are we going to complement the metro railway corridors with effective bus system so that the need to use private vehicles will reduce and the patronage (ridership) of the overall public transport system will enhance.
f.        Ways of funding the metro railway project and how the potential development along the metro corridors and the use of commercial spaces in the underground spaces will help funding the project.
Just leaving these decision to consultants may be detrimental to the future of our city as the consultant’s scope is “metro railway project planning”. He is not the urban planner. It is PMC’s job to make metro as an integral part of Pune’s urban development plan and make it successful. It is PMC who has to find out solutions for Pune’s problems.
I hope our politicians go beyond a petty party politics, show strong political will and maturity and make an informed decision about underground/elevated corridors for the Pune metro railway project. This is the minimum they owe to the citizens of Pune.
- Sanjay Risbood
(Engineer by Profession. CEO- Getzner India, Advisor- GreenEarth)

Friday 20 April 2012

Would Pune ever need a Metro?

As we all know, Pune badly needs a good, reliable and attractive public transport system.  Pune is considering a Metro and the Metro is frequently talked about as the panacea of all ills of transportation.
But does Pune really need a Metro?  In fact, would Pune ever need a Metro?
Before we go into any technical issues, let us see a rather interesting point of view, which is suggested by Prof Dinesh Mohan of IIT Delhi, a transportation expert.

Growth of cities in medieval and modern times

Cities were the seat of power since medieval times.  The largest city was the capital and the royalty lived there.  The dukes and nawabs also lived in the smaller cities.  Their palaces and administrative offices defined the city centers.  They needed large gardens for leisure.  Roads around places visited by them were showpiece boulevards.
They needed staff to run their offices.  These servants of the state better stayed away from where the royalty stayed.  They lived in suburbs.  The city needed a system to bring them to work quickly every morning and pack them off to their quarters equally quickly every evening.  The servants lived in all directions around the city center.  Therefore all old cities had radial corridors, geography permitting, that need high capacity roads or rail lines.
Times changed, and the royalty was replaced by - well, modern centers of power.  The Members of Parliament worked in the parliament, and top bureaucrats worked in secretariats.  Their plush bungalows and flats were still in city centers.  Clerks and typists couldn’t afford to live there - they lived in suburbs.  Some such cities needed two high capacity local train services - Western and Central railways, for example.  Others needed radial roads like Ganeshkhind, Karve and Satara roads.
And times changed yet again.  A new class of “powerful” people has emerged, though they may not have entirely replaced the center of power.  This class has self-earned money.  This class is “the market”, and the economy depends on its purchasing capacity.  These people don’t work in city centers.  They don’t frequent the museums in the city centers too.  They earn high salaries in small and large companies in several MIDCs around Aurangabad, or IT offices in Hinjewadi or Kharadi or Magarpatta city, or in SEEPZ and Navi Mumbai.  They don’t even need to go to Tulshibag, as long as the nearby mall offers Braun appliances.
Now cities have several satellite centers all over the city and its periphery where people go to work.  The traditional radial corridors do carry a lot of traffic, but there are other roads which carry equal amount of traffic.  The city traffic pattern doesn’t look so much like a “star” any more, it has started looking more like a “mesh”.

Measuring traffic and capacities of systems

Let us now get into some traffic jargon.
Traffic densities are measured in “pphpd” - persons per hour per direction.  Roads like Karve Road carry about 8,000 pphpd in peak hour traffic.  The capacity of a typical 3+3 lane road is considered to be around 10-12,000 pphpd if all lanes can be used for traffic, i.e. if parking is not allowed on such arterial roads.
If road space is used even more efficiently by reserving one or two lanes for buses, and if buses ply at high frequency, the capacity of such roads can be increased to about 15-18,000 pphpd.  This is possible with a well designed BRT system.  In fact, the best BRT systems in the world have achieved throughputs of even around 30,000 pphpd.
Metro system have a much higher capacity than BRT.  They can easily carry 20,000 pphpd, and can even reach 75,000 pphpd.  There is no doubt that a Metro can carry very heavy traffic loads.
The question is, would Pune’s traffic demand on any corridor ever reach such numbers.

Pune’s traffic load: Today and tomorrow

As is seen earlier, Pune traffic is quickly moving from a “star” pattern to a “mesh” pattern.  The arterial roads already carry 8-10,000 pphpd.  However, we increasingly see that orthogonal roads like Senapati Bapat Road, the Bypass Highway are also carrying equivalent load of traffic.
It has also been observed that as cities grow, people tend to either live closer to their jobs or choose jobs closer to their homes.  A person living in Hadapsar now prefers a job in Magarpatta instead of driving every day across the city to Hinjewadi.  As a result, even very large cities seldom have roads that need to carry more than 15,000 pphpd.

What sort of cities need a Metro?

Then, one may ask, what sort of cities have corridors that need to carry, say, 20,000 or more pphpd and hence need a Metro or local trains?  Such cities include-
·         Cities that had geographical restrictions and hence could grow only in one direction, e.g. Mumbai.
·         Cities that have very large population densities - e.g. the daytime density of Manhattan is very high because of the skyscrapers covering every available inch.
·         Cities that could - well - just afford to build a Metro!  London built its Metro when the  English empire was at its peak and the cost of labour as well as cost of disturbing day to day life during construction was small.  Even the local train system in Mumbai was built in first quarter of 20th century, when most of Mumbai suburbs were sparsely populated.
·         Cities in China are also building Metro systems.  However, their ways of land acquisition and offering compensation to displaced citizens is not something that we Indians would like to adopt.

Will Metro solve our problem anyway?

Metros cost the moon.  Yet, for a moment, let us assume that Pune were able to come up with funds that the proposed Metro needs, and see whether it would solve the public transportation problem, after all!
The total volume of traffic in Pune Metropolitan Region is estimated to be more than about 75 lakh passenger trips per day.  Their actual and desired modal share is roughly as follows:
Mode
Modal share today
Desired modal share
Public transport
12%
50%
Rick-taxi
8%
10%
Personal vehicles
50%
8%
Bicycles
10%
12%
Walking
20%
20%
This implies that public transportation should support about 35-40 lakh trips.  If we assume that the total no of trips to be supported goes to 1 Cr, PT should support about 50 lakh trips.
As per the DPR of Metro, the ridership of Vanaz-Ramwadi corridor is estimated to be 2.9 lakh trips per day optimistically (and 1.4 lakh trips conservatively), which is about 4% of total number of trips.  This ridership could increase to some 4.8 lakh trips (optimistically)  by 2021 and 5.9 lakh trips by 2031.
The Metro would after all carry just 4% of the traffic.  45% trips still need to be supported by a bus based system, which would be PMPML + BRT.
In this connection, it should be noted that the actual ridership of Delhi Metro is less than what was estimated by DMRC.

The cost factor and alternatives

The Vanaz-Ramwadi Metro corridor is expected to cost Rs 2,294 Cr as per 2009 prices.  We all know that then the actual cost could be anywhere between Rs 6,000 to 10,000 Cr when this corridor completes, and yet it will carry only 4% of the traffic.
As against that, the cost to completely revamp PMPML to carry 45% of the city’s traffic would be approximately Rs 2,000 Cr.  This includes 5,000 brand new buses as well as good footpaths and a network of cycle tracks, so that people are provided viable alternatives to using personal vehicles.

Let’s talk about future - real future

A question that is frequently raised is, “the life of a Metro system is easily 100 years.  Won’t Pune need a Metro after 50 years?  Will it be possible to build a Metro that time?”
As seen above, the pphpd needs of traffic corridors today are between 8 to 12,000, and this is for a PMC + PCMC area with a population of about 50 lakhs.  If this population grows to 1 Cr, the pphpd needs will not double, but would be around 15,000 because of increased sprawl of the city.
However, transportation will not be the biggest problem of such a large metropolis!
Remember that today Pune gets about 225 l water per day per person.  If Pune manages to eliminate leakages in its water distribution system and manages within the prescribed quota of 150 l/day/person, it means Pune can still accommodate 50% more population.  That takes us to about 75-80 lakh.
Considering that the state has already used about 90% of the Krishna-Bheema basin water sanctioned to it, and rural Maharashtra doesn’t quite get even the prescribed 40 l/day/person, there is hardly any room for building more dams and using more water for Pune.  So the most acute problem a 1-Cr Pune will face is water shortage, not transportation.
We better stop Pune’s growth beyond 75 lakhs!
With the kind of sprawl Pune has even today, which is likely to increase, a 75-lakh or even 1 Cr Pune can never have traffic corridors that would need to support loads of 20 to 25,000 pphpd that could make a Metro necessary, let alone financially viable.
Pune’s growth to 75-80 lakhs could take about 20 years.  Hopefully, by then wisdom will dawn upon the Powers that Be, and Pune’s population will saturate.  Equally hopefully, that will also be because true economic growth reaches other smaller towns around Pune, and people can earn a decent living while enjoying urban facilities even in cities like Satara, Ahmednagar, even Shirur.

What is the alternative, then?

First of all, Pune should realize that the objective is not to build a Metro, but to build a transportation system where people of all ages and abilities can move around the city.  Considering that roads cannot be widened indefinitely and flyovers cannot be built to out-build the growth in number of vehicles, this transportation system will have to be based on priorities and visions in the following order:
1.      Pedestrians must be able to walk and cross roads safely.
2.      It should be possible to live without depending on a personal vehicle.
3.      If a road is too narrow to accommodate pedestrians and vehicles, generally pedestrians get the priority.
4.      Among vehicles, public transportation vehicles get priority.  If a road is too narrow to accommodate buses and personal vehicles, only buses get to use it.  Buses also get at least one dedicated lane on most roads.  Will it cause traffic jams?  Yes.  Jams are needed for good public transportation!  If you don’t like jams, board a bus!
5.      Pour very attractive, high quality buses in the system.  People should like to use the bus instead of their car.
6.      Bicycles get a priority after pedestrians and buses.  Accidents with bicyclists don’t kill people and bicycles don’t emit pollutants.  Develop a network of cycle tracks.
7.      Encourage rickshaws.  It is a shared vehicle and does not need as much parking space as a car.   A car sits idle for at least 22 hrs a day.
8.      If, and only if more space exists on roads after accommodating pedestrians, buses and cycles, allow personal vehicles to use it (for driving as well as parking).
9.      Personal vehicles must pay for the space they use for parking.  Also charge some 2-5% tax on fuel.  Fund the bus system through parking charges and fuel surcharge.
The whole system should be designed in such a way that walking, using a bus and using a cycle should be more convenient than using a personal vehicle.  Then, and only then, one can live without a personal vehicle in a city, yet commute freely and conveniently.
If you want to travel long distances, your preferred mode would be a bus - maybe a BRT bus.  For shorter distances, use a cycle if you can, or simply walk on the spacious, clean footpaths.  Those who can afford to use a car today can hire a rickshaw instead.  Those who still insist on using a personal vehicle should pay for the space they use for parking as well as for the pollutants they emit that damage the cyclists’ lungs.
- Harshad Abhyankar
(Founder- Save Pune Traffic Movement)