Thursday Dec 12, 2024
Thursday Dec 12, 2024
Thursday, 27 April 2017 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The areas selected are from Padukka to Colombo on the K.V. line/Kalutara South to Colombo on coastline/Colombo to Rambukkana on the main line and from Ragama to Negombo on the Puttalam line – all through the Ministry of Transport and Sri Lanka Railways; and the next project is the LRT on the Colombo Business District (CBD) through the Ministry of Megapolis catering to commuters in the densely populated areas in Colombo and suburbs.
Even though belated a vital decision has been arrived at by the Government to implement mass rapid transit systems in view of the congestion of roads faced within the Colombo city limits, political leadership as well as every single citizen has now realised that there is a wide gap in the countries transit capabilities; and improved carrying capacity – much higher than the upper limit of buses – is necessary to get over the issue, and Light Rapid Transit (LRT) is the solution.
However, it is regrettable that the same principle has not been applied to the city limits of Kandy where we see a worsening situation day by day. An attempt is being made to construct a by-pass underground road from Getambe to Katugastota area, for which conducting a Feasibility Study alone is a waste of time and money. Sri Lanka cannot afford the most expensive mode of going underground when at grade and elevated where required is a possibility.
To overcome the problem of congestion around the city, the Government has stepped forward with LRT projects which are very effective solutions of congestion. Besides this, LRT is an efficient alternative to reduce and avoid pollution since the system also used modern technology with electrically-powered trains. LRT network connected with important key positions such as banks, government offices, sport complexes, hotels, light industrial area and shopping mall which facilitate citizens for easy movement.
One idea behind adopting light-rail transit is that some automobile drivers will choose rail transit over their personal vehicles, thus alleviating traffic congestion, decreasing commute times and increasing highway safety.
In arriving at the above decision, pros and cons of the Metro Systems (MRT) and Light Rapid Transit (LRT) systems, monorail and underground metro constructed internationally have to be taken into consideration by the consultants by way of a comparison.
As a former SLR employee, I have given below information on various MRT and LRT systems installed the world over on BRTs and monorail. (It is an accepted fact that monorails are ideal only for short distance travel and BRTs form a feeder service to MRTs.) This article is intended to be a useful guide to civic leaders and to the general public as well as to assist the rail experts who have to explain these initiatives to a whole heap of stakeholders beforehand.
Rail transportation systems are characterised by their feeding of obligatory points or locations and the markets they serve, and how their infrastructure if configured, the types of vehicles they use and how they operate.
Light rail systems by and large, generally provide regional services connecting suburban communities with Central Business Districts (CBDs), typically in the range of 20-25 miles (32-40 Kms) with rail stations spaced at 700m to one km distances apart.
The countries or the cities in favour of MRT/LRT in the alphabetical order are:
Algiers; Buenos Aires; Yerevan; Vienna; Baku; Minsk; Brussels (7)
Belo Horizonte; Fortaleza; Porto Alegre; Recife; Rio de Janwiro; Salvador; Sao Paulo in Brazil; Sofia; Montreal; Toronto; Vancouver (in Canada); Santiago (19 – cumulative)
Beijing: Changsa; Chengdu; Chongquing; Dalian; Foshan; Guangzhou; Harbin; Hangzhou; Hong Kong; Kunming; Nanjing; Ningbo; Shanghai; Shengyang; Shenzen; Suzhou; Tianjin; Wuhan; Wuxi; Xi’ang; Shengzhou (all in China) (41)
Medellin; Prague; Copenhagen; Santo Domingo; Cairo; Helsinki (47)
Lille; Lyon; Marseille; Paris; Renes; Toulouse in France; Tbilisi (54)
Berlin; Hamburg; Munich; Nuremberg in Germany; Athens; Budapest (60)
Bangalore; Chennai; Delhi; Guragon; Kolkata; Mumbai in India; Mashhad; Tehran (68)
Bresica; Genoa; Milan; Naples; Rome; Turin in Italy (74)
Fukuoka; Hiroshima; Kobe; Kyoto; Nagoya; Osaka; Sapparo; Sendai; Tokyo; Yokohama (all in Japan) (84)
Almaty; Pyonggong; Busan; Daegu; Daegeon; Gwangju; Incheon; Seoul; Kuala Lumpur; Mexico city; Monterry; Amasterdam; Rotterdam; Oslo; Panama City; Lima; Manila; Warsaw; Lisbon; Bucharest; Kazan; Moscow; Nizhny Novgorod; Novosibirsk; Saint Petersburg; Samara; Yekaterinburg all in Russia; Mecca; Singapore (113)
Barcelona; Bilbao; Madrid; Seville in Spain; Stockholm; Lausanne; Kaohsiung; Taipei; Bangkok; (122)
Adana; Ankara; Bursar; Istanbul; Izmir in Turkey (127)
Dnipropetrovsk; Kharkiv; Kiev; Dubai (131)
Glasgow; London in UK; (133)
Atlanta; Baltimore; Boston; Chicago; Cleveland; Los Angles; Miami; New York City; Philadelphia; San Francisco; San Juan, Puerti Rico; Washington DC in United States (146)
Tashkent and Caracas (148)
In addition to the above, the following metro systems (either new or extensions) are under construction and completion targeted before 2019:
In China – cities of Changchung; Dongguan; Guiyang; Fuzhou; Hefei; Jinan; Lanzhou; Macau; Nangchang; Nasnning; Quindao; Shijiazhuang; Urumqui; and Xiamen (162)
In India – Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai;Guragon; Lucknow; Nagpur; Hyderabhad; Pune; Ludhiana; Ahamedabad; Jaipur; Kochi; Bhopal; Indore; Chandigarh; and Nava Mumbai (178)
In Iran – Ahvaz; Isfahan; Qom; Shiraz; and Tabriz (183)
In Russia – Chelyabinsk; and in Omsh (185)
In Taiwan – Taichung; and Taoyuan (187)
In Vietnam – Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (189)
In Doha – Qatar; and in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia (191)
It is observed that internationally 191 cities in the world will be boasting of their LRTs/MRTs by 2019.
LRT features
LRT is a low cost, low axle load, eco-friendly, electrically propelled system with no local pollution, and low noise and vibrations. Light Rail Vehicles (LRV) generally have a top speed of around 65 Mph or 100 Kmph, though mostly operating at much lower speeds, more akin to road vehicles. Passenger Vehicles are typically longer (80-95 ft) and wider to accommodate around 200 seated and standing passengers.
Utilisation of LRVs in short trains (four to six vehicles per train) in the right-of-way often separated from other traffic at regular intervals requires a signal system to maintain a safe distance between trains and possible control train speeds and at frequent intervals. In addition, traffic signals and level crossing barriers are required for road/rail crossings at grade, and requires significantly more communication equipment between trains and central control office linked by fibre optic cables.
Steel rail vehicles operating on steel rails and are almost operated by electricity delivered through overhead lines; with possibility of operating on batteries for short lengths; or with a centre third rail where it gets powered only under the vehicle; with high or low level platforms. Electric power provides greater acceleration, making it suitable for operations with closely spaced stations. Steel rails laid flush with road surface or ballasted like normal railway track making light rail the only system which can operate on both city roads and jointly with conventional rail services. There are several countries where main line railways and the LRTs operate on the same gauge which facility too should be considered in arriving at a decision.
nSharper track curves up to 82 feet/25 meter radius minimising the need for property acquisition and hence is ideal for urban environment.
nNegotiate (7%) grade – Steeper inclines than heavy rails much easily and faster due to traction motors in each axle.
nShares its operational space with other road vehicles (e.g. automobiles) and often runs on, across or down the centre of city roads; or elevated.
nGrade separation only in exceptional circumstances.
Use of low axle load 11 tons compared to 17 T of metro rail saves operating costs.
nOne benefit of light rail is its potential impact on nearby commercial and house and property values. There is much academic literature on this angle.
LRT differs from the metro rail in that the train length is short/segregated right of way is not essential/may have road level crossings/coaches can go around sharp bends.
When all these constraints are removed, the LRT becomes akin to metro rail. Indeed LRT is a flexible mode that fits between the bus and the metro rail and can behave like either of them. Additionally LRT in comparison with metro rail is cheaper to build and operate.
New stops can be added easily after construction. Since light rail runs on the street, new stops can go just about anywhere along the street generally spaced at 700 meter intervals, so that the maximum distance a passenger walks is 350 meters.
Other infrastructure consists of all items that feature in a rail project. It includes right-of way, tracks, stabling yards, workshops, passenger stations and LRT halts, electric power supply to trains, sub-stations, signal controls needed to provide safety of operations, communication equipment used for train operations, passenger information and fare collection equipment; passenger emergency phones and closed circuit television surveillance (CCTV). In wide open streets the LRT would have a totally separated strip of land; dedicated routes will cross roadways at grade, or elevated structures, overpasses and under passes or through cut and cover tunnels in city areas.
It’s usually composed of steel rails fastened to concrete “ties” or sleepers supported on a bed of metal ballast; at some instances say for platform areas and level crossings, at areas of change of gradients – rails are embedded in concrete in lieu of ballast.
It normally has highly developed stations with platforms suitable for train lengths and height. Platforms are outfitted with long canopies or shelters; seating arrangements, dedicated lighting (mostly with photovoltaic cells on roof top); signage; accommodation for communication, fare collection and passenger information systems. Stations would comprise of ‘park and ride’ lots; and intermodal – road vehicle and bus – transfer facilities.
The elements of power supply would embody sub-stations receiving high voltage commercial alternating current (AC) electric current from the local utility; and converted to medium voltage direct current (DC). DC power is distributed through overhead wires (catenaries) above the tracks and picked up continuously by LRV roof mounted collectors known as “pantographs” fixed on the vehicles.
Fare collection on LRT – it has a simpler fare structure, such that ticket choices are fewer and ticket vending machines are sized for fewer transactions; but are usually full service devices. Generally two ticket vending machine are placed at access points of stations with sufficient gates; and many at main stations where the passenger counts are high.
Proven technology
There are numerous successful light rail systems around the world and it has an excellent track record. But there are only a handful of monorail systems, outside of amusement parks or at airports; (most people’s experience with monorail is at Disneyland or Las Vegas or in Singapore) but adding a monorail stop requires constructing an elevated platform with stairs and elevators.
It’s a heavy-investment mode, requiring strictly separated rights-of-way, and mostly elevated construction. Elevated passenger stations get you into big-time construction costs, including elevators. In contrast, light rail is predominantly a surface mode, running on railroad rights-of-way, in grassy medians, even in streets. Light rail stations can be as simple as a bus stop.
Monorails are cumbersome. Vehicles and hardware are custom-designed and fabricated, not available off-the-shelf, whereas light rail equipment are readily available. To switch a monorail train to a different guideway, several tons of concrete support beam must be moved by powerful hydraulic machinery. In contrast, light rail uses standard, well-proven railway hardware (steel rails, crossties, etc.). Switching trains to a different track is easy – a simple lever moves two rails just a few inches.
Although monorail technology has been in existence for many decades, it has been used only in selected places like amusement parks, airports, and the number of cities in the world where monorails actually perform a general, practical urban transit function can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand – and even there, it’s usually a single-purpose, point-to-point operation.
Monorail, in Japan, where high densities, government policies, and financial peculiarities are among the factors favouring their deployment in a few situations, mainly shuttle-type services in very compacted, congested urban corridors (and the fact remains that in Japan conventional two-rail transit is seeing many times the level of development of monorails).
Why Japan decided on other modes than monorail at Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Kobe, Kyoto, Nagoya, Osaka, Sapparo, Sendai, Tokyo and Yokohama in itself is self-explanatory.
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. Modern light rail is a highly developed, readily available, tried-and-true transit mode that can be implemented relatively quickly and at reasonable cost and it’s proven that people want to ride it! Thus, a lot of caution should be taken if such a project is to be pushed forward. Studies conducted by these countries are available for comparison purposes in the field of cost savings by way of congestion reduction; road and parking costs; energy consumed per km; affordability of rates charged to the consumer; improved access for disabled people; accident prevention (safety) and security (losses to individual passengers and to the state); emission reduction; public health; strategic land use; land value increases; cost of construction; cost of operation and maintenance (O&M) and user convenience and comfort.
In my humble opinion use of fossil fuel energy/consumption; congestion reduction; environmental concerns; initial costs and O&M costs are vital issues that should be considered in detail when cost/benefit analysis is performed.
However, in implementation of above projects, especially the LRT projects,(through two different Ministries) the need of utmost importance that had gone unnoticed arises in the establishment of a Regulatory Body – Rail Infrastructure Development Enterprise (RIDE ) – consisting of knowledgeable experts in the field of rail transport decision making – for compiling a set of rules and regulations (A to Z of it – references, standards, regulations, codes and guidelines), formulation of a regulatory mechanism in planning and designs in the construction, in the procurement, in operation and maintenance, safety and security and for sustainability of electrified Light Rapid Transit system in Sri Lanka.
(The writer is retired personal assistant to G.M.R. and Engineer Headquarters and Author/Publisher of ‘Fascination of Railways – Rail Transport in Sri Lanka,’ ‘Golden Era of B.D. Rampala – Sri Lanka Railway – Challenges in its way forward’ and ‘Railway the British Built in Ceylon – Alternate route to Kandy & Badulla’ while ‘The greatest train tragedy in the world – Tsunami 2004” is in manuscript stage. He can be reached via 0717087916, 0718157271 or 0112844916 and on email via [email protected] or [email protected].)
