1

CRITICAL COMMENTS

ON

THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AND

THE DETAILED PROJECT REPORT (DPR)

(DATED 12TH

MARCH 2009)

OF DMRC,

ON

THE PROPOSED PUNE METRO RAIL PROJECT

BG -5’6” SG -4’8.5”

Coach Width 3.66m Coach Width 2.9m

BY

V.K.J.RANE - IRSE (Retd.)

Ex-MD/IRCON

Core Group Member –Metro Rail PUNE

28th

April 2009

2

INDEX

1) MAP OF PUNE SHOWING THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT

2) CRITICAL COMMENTS ON THE FORWARD OF DPR

3) CRITICAL COMMENTS ON THE SALIENT FEATURES OF DPR

4) CRITICAL COMMENTS ON THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & DPR

5) ANNEXURE

A) SALIENT FEATURES

B) COMPARATIVE COST OF CORRIDORS I & II FOR BG &

REVISED SG & DPR ESTIMATE ON SG

C) GUIDELINES OF MoUD FOR DPR PREPARATION

3

PROPOSED METRO RAIL FOR PUNE

Prepared by V K J Rane based on the DPR

4

Date 28th

April 2009

CRITICAL COMMENTS ON THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND

THE DETAILED PROJECT REPORT (DPR) (DATED 12TH

MARCH 2009)

OF DMRC, ON THE PROPOSED PUNE METRO RAIL PROJECT

By

V K J Rane – IRSE (Retd.)

Ex-MD/IRCON

INTRODUCTION--The project report dated 12.03.09 (DPR) received by PMC from DMRC,

comprise of a Foreword, Salient Features of the Project, Executive Summary and 15 Chapters of the

DPR, including A4 size plans without dimensions. Detailed drawings incorporating Index Plan and

Section, layout of Depot, layout of Stations Bridges, Alignment with locations of columns and other

details, in A2 size drawings, as prepared for Mumbai Metro and Hyd Metro, have not been received. Hence a detailed technical appreciation could not be made.

No reference has been made to the meaning of the Short Forms used at a large number of places. This

should have been done at the beginning of the chapter 1 as these reports will be read and seen not only by

experts within the country but also those at international levels. Generally all professional reports do cover

such clarifications.

1) Comments on Foreword –

1.1 Terms of Reference of PMC - Foreword does not indicate, any reference in DPR to the terms of

reference given by PMC to DMRC for undertaking the preparation of DPR of the project. Though the

foreword has been signed by MD / DMRC, he, nor his deputy, seem to have even glanced through the

attached report before submission to PMC, as seen from the obvious inconsistencies, deficiencies,

omissions, deletions of references to Ludhiana and Faridabad during copy pasting, and the general

substandard quality of contents and presentation. This report is to be presented to the State cabinet for

approval and sanctions and will be read by International experts & consultants.

1.2 Alternative Studies - The Foreword does not make any reference to DPR regarding alternative

studies of BG, with indigenous wider coaches or MG (LRT) with the indigenous technology, available

within the country. The State Cabinet, before taking techno-economic decisions on this project,

would have been, in a better position, to convince the citizens, the techno-economic merits of the

project and safeguarding the public interest, for its implementation. The report is biased in favour of

SG with imported coaches and adoption of technology not required for the performance stipulated in

the report. Our detailed para wise comments on the justification for adopting SG with imported

coaches, at exorbitant cost as given at para 4.3 of chapter 4 of the DPR, are given in our comments

under that chapter.

2) COMMENTS ON SALIENT FEATURES & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-

2.1 Details of the salient features - of this project as furnished in the DPR by DMRC are attached as

annexure 1 to this report, for ready reference. It is seen from this annexure that the total length of

these two corridors is 31.515 km with Corridor 1--PCMC to Swargate is 16.589 km and Corridor 2 --

Vanaz to Ramvadi all elevated (14.925 kms). Corridor 1 is underground for a length of 5.019 kms

with 6 UG stations, & balance 9 stations of Corridor 1 and 15 stations in corridor 2 are all elevated.

2.2 Track Connectivity - The salient features do not make a mention, that there is NO track

connectivity between the two corridors and that the Corridor 2 crosses Corridor 1 over its UG

section, at ASI station, necessitating physical interchange by commuters from 12.5 m above the

ground level to about 22m below the ground level. The salient features also do not indicate the

number and locations of the river crossings, the under river crossing alignment for Mutha river and

that the railway track crosses a number of lines across the middle of station yard. These are

important features deciding the technical feasibility, the period of construction and the cost of the

project and therefore should have been brought out in this para.

5

2.3 Traffic forecast up to 2031 - It is seen from salient features that the traffic forecast has been assessed

for the two corridors for two decades only up to the period 2031, the project has been planned to be

commissioned in the year 2014, so the assessment has been done only for a period of 17 yrs after

commissioning. This assessment should have been done for a period of at least 50 yrs or a minimum

of 30 yrs that is up to 2045. This would have covered the life cycle period of the rolling stock.

2.4 Contradictions in number of coaches - There is a contradiction in the figures given in the tables

presented at Table 0.5 at page 15/36 under para 0.6 –TRAIN OPERATION PLAN of the Executive

summary and at table 5 TRAIN OPERATION at page 2/4 of the Salient features. The number of

coaches as per table 5 at salient features for Corridor –I for the year 2031 work out to 25 x 4 = 100,

as against 88 mentioned for the same year in table 0.5 of the executive summary. Similar mistakes

are seen for the year 2011. Similarly for Corridor 2 the number of coaches required for the year

2011 should be 40 (10x4) instead of 28 and for the year 2021 it should be 48 (12x4) instead of 40, and

for the year 2031 it should be 80 (20x4) instead of 40. It is not clear on what basis the cost has been

assessed for the Rolling Stock in the project estimates. There are many such contradictions and

mistakes and the report need to be sent back to DMRC for corrections.

2.5 PERMANENT WAY—Justification given for adoption of SG for Metro systems in Pune is

neither convincing nor logical particularly in the context of capacity requirements, compatibility,

connectivity and existing standards in the country including economy. Para wise comments on this

justification have been included in the appropriate chapter of our comments on the DPR. It is

necessary to adopt the Track Structure for the Metro System, so as to provide connectivity with the

existing BG system in Pune Rly Division to enable commuters to travel without interchange from

Lonavala to Hadapsar and back. SG Structure proposed involves importation of rails and Turn outs.

2.6 SYSTEM TRACTION—Techno-economic justification for adoption of a costly 25 KV AC

overhead traction verses 750V DC system for such a low level of traffic has not been given in the

report. Adoption of a 3-phase AC induction motors for the drive is NO reason to opt 25 KV AC

supply Single Phase as the power has to be obtained through an inverter worked from a DC supply.

Features of Disc Brakes or Air Springs adopted are not required for slow speed trains on Metro as

these are required and are of advantage for high speed trains. Telecommunication and Fare

collection systems proposed can also be provided on BG systems and are locally available

2.7 ROLLING STOCK – It is seen from this chapter that the width of the imported rolling stock has been

limited to 2.9m wide only, as against 3.2m wide for Delhi, Mumbai , Hyd, Bangalore and other metros in

the country. The axle load has also been limited to 16T as against 17 tons for other metros. This affects

advantages of economies of standardization. There is NO provision for future adoption of wider Rolling

Stock (Coaches) and increasing the capacity for future conversion to BG, to accommodate additional

future traffic demand requirements beyond 25 yrs. This restricts the capacity permanently This

should be known to the citizens and must be mentioned in the salient features so that the Cabinet

members, are aware of the type of metro they would be approving, even though, it is against the

benefits of future citizens. The justification for selection of the SG rolling stock at para f at page 7/36 of

the executive summary is factually not correct and has not been proved with facts and figures and not

compared with indigenous rolling stock.

2.8 DEPOT – (MAINTENANCE FACILITIES) & ASI STATION -- The salient features must

indicate, for the benefit of the knowledge of the cabinet Ministers, that there is NO rail connectivity

between the two Corridors and hence between the two depots. And that certain maintenance facilities

required for Corridor 2 have been made provision of, at Corridor 1 Depot, and carried out by

transferring these coaches in dismantled conditions, in trailers by road. Similarly the need for

physical interchange of passengers at ASI stations from elevated to UG and vice versa, for a level

difference of 35m, and a costly station at ASI, due to non-connectivity of the two corridors, must be

mentioned in the salient features itself.

2.9 SIGNALLING – Mumbai suburban section trains have been running at 3min headway, on

automatic colour light signalling, without the use of ATP, ATC ATO etc. The need for Pune metro

with 3.5 and 8min service up to the period of 2031 with adoption of cab signalling and continues

6

automatic train control with ATP, imported at exorbitant costs, resulting in heavy fare structure, is

neither appreciated nor necessary technically & operationally. It only helps the international

vendors.

2.10 POWER SUPPLY— the source of power supply to the Metro system will be from the existing

sources which are drastically inadequate for the requirements of the city. Demand for Metro

operations without augmenting the existing supply will create additional problems to the citizens.

2.11 COST ESTIMATES— The Executive summary, in the chapter of Capital Cost Estimates under

Table 0.9, does NOT give the quantities and Unit rates against the various items of works mentioned

there in, though these are mentioned and available in the DPR.

2. 12 –UNDER ESTIMATION OF COSTS-The project costs have been grossly under estimated to

the extent of more than 25%. There is NO provision for various consultants and other charges

mentioned in the DPR. We have reviewed the item wise details of this estimate, based on costs of

similar items for other METRO projects under execution in the country and item wise revised cost

has been prepared and compared with DMRC project estimate. Similarly we have compared item

wise costs of the project if BG wider indigenous coaches with Air Conditioning, improved

furnishings, and air conditioned Stations and other identical facilities, provided in our costs. A

comparative statements of costs along with all details item wise have been enclosed in the chapter of

costs of this report It is seen from this statements that the BG wider coaches, indigenously

manufactured, with necessary inputs of technology and to equivalent standards of performance, and

stations, will cost 30% lower, with NO need for VGF subsidy and reduced fare structure by 30% and

NO long term dependence on overseas manufactures and without heavy Taxation on Pune citizens.

2.13 PARKING AREAS—Page 12/36 of the executive summary states that NO provision has been

made for parking of vehicles at stations and that the integration facilities at stations, is left to the

state GOVT and are NOT included in the cost of the project. This is an important aspect of the

system for smooth and efficient operations and the cost of the same, whether borne by DMRC or

PMC must be taken into account in assessing the viability.

2.14 LAND—Detailed assessment of land requirements has been done, but NO mention has been

made regarding the assessment of the rates assumed and compensation payable for private lands, has

been mentioned anywhere in the report.

2.15 CAPACITY OF TRAIN—

A 4 car train –1034 Passengers (sitting 186- Crush Standing-848) at 8 pass/sq m

A 6 car Train-1574 Passengers (sitting 286, Crush standing-1288) at 8 pass/sq m

For assessment of coaches a terminal reversal time has been taken as 6 min. This seems to be wrong

as this will depend upon the frequency for which the assessment of coaches is done. This needs to be

reviewed (Ref-page 15/36 of Exe. Summary)

For working out the project system cost for say 30 year life span of coaches, the number of coaches

should correspond to the system capacity provided by the corridors. These corridors are designed for

a 6 coach planned capacity at max of say 3min headway and at an ave speed of 30 to 33 kmph speeds

These corridors will need a max of 24 trains for each corridor, to match these capacities. With 6

coach train capacity planning, we will need 24x6=144 coaches per corridor. The comparison of

economics of the capacities for 2.9m wide SG coach and 3.66 m wide BG coach train systems has,

therefore, to be based on these fundamental assumptions for techno-economic comparison of the two

systems.

2.16 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS – The financial indices of the project, based on revenue from

FAR trading, indicate that the project FIRR is 1.93 % with central Taxes only, as against the

requirement of, at least, 15% at the cost of funds at 12% minimum. FIIR is negative if the additional

residual rental income accrued from property development is NOT considered. This is also based on

25% under estimated cost of the project. This shows that the project is grossly unremunerative and

would be a permanent burden on the citizens of Pune as well as the Maharashtra State and the

Nation, for heavy taxation and subsidy. FOR GENERATION OF FUNDS, ADDITIONAL

7

TAXATION ON THE CITIZENS OF PUNE IS RECOMMENDED AS UNDER—a) Professional

Tax at 1% of the salary of the employees. B) A Cess on petrol and diesel sale in the city c) Increase in

FAR to 4 and its trading d) A surcharge on the property tax in the city e) A surcharge on the Motor

Vehicle Tax in the city. f) An entry tax on the commercial articles entering the city. Hence

alternatives appropriate technologies will have to be investigated for handling the Mass

transportation problems of the city, including finding solutions for the daily inputs of additional 4

wheeler vehicles on the existing roads of this city.

2.17 FARE FOR COMMUTERS-- Fare structure for the year 2014-15 has been given at page 28/36

of the Exec Summary. This varies from Rs 7 to Rs 24 for 2km to 30 km. For a lead of 12-15 km it is

Rs 16. This is very high as compared to Bus and Mumbai Metro Fares.

2.18 LEGAL ASPECT-At this page without giving detailed justification, the project has been

recommended by DMRC for execution through the State SPV. Under the present constitution art,

366/20, States do NOT have legal Jurisdiction to construct even a tramway connecting two Municipal

Corporations. This power vests with the Centre only, unless the constitution is changed to exclude

Metro Rail from the definitions of a Railway.

2.19 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT—DPR at page 29/36 of Exe-Sum- state that 4Ha of depot land

at Agricultural University will be commercially exploited to support this project. This land of

10.4435 Ha will be given an FAR of 4. for commercial exploitation, with a up front yield of Rs 600

Crs. and further supplemented with a lease rental to the fare box collections. PMC has confirmed

additional FAR of 4 to DMRC. There is NO gazette notification on the subject and this is not yet

discussed with the citizens affected by such action. If this is not accepted, the project viability will be

grossly affected. FIRR without this revenue should be worked out to know the implications.

In addition to above earnings from sale of FAR along the corridor at Rs 5000 per SqM for 50%

length (31.514km –including UG portion) for a width of 500 m on either side, and collected over 20

years has been assumed. The practical feasibility of these assumptions needs to be debated.

2.20 PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION— the DPR should be debated with the citizens group

and approved by them before the same is forwarded to the State Govt for consideration. The legal

jurisdiction under the Constitution must be examined and steps taken before any approval to the

project. There is no BAR CHART planning shown for the period of construction in the DPR. The

quality of inputs and presentation of contents, including inconsistencies in the report and omissions

on detailing etc are much below the standards stipulated in the Preliminary reports stipulated by the

Indian Railway standards Engineering Codes for similar reports. This needs to be returned for

resubmission on professional standards.

3.0 COMMENTS ON DPR

8

Sr

No

REFERENCE TO PARA OF DPR COMMENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1

3.1.1--Para 1.1 Reference has been made in this chapter to Pune, as a birth place from Saint Tukaram to

great freedom fighters like Tilak, Agarkar and Gokhale including the current scientist Mr. Narlikar. But

a reference to the King of Deccan “Shivaji Maharaj” has been missed. He was a freedom creator and

“Established Independence and Promoted Swadeshi pride”, and has, therefore, great significance,

in the context of the recommendations of DMRC, for long term dependency on overseas

manufactures and adoption of Videshi culture, at the cost of the citizens of this city and the

country.

3.1.2 Para 1.1.2 LOCATION, --Details of maximum and minimum rainfall with its intensity and

period including the temperature variations, have not been indicated, since they form an important part

of the execution of railway project from considerations of working period, rail welding etc.

3.1.3 Para1.1.5 ROAD WORK-- “The following national highways passed through the district” -

details have been omitted in the summary though indicated in the DPR

3.1.4 Para 1.1.6 – Suburban Rail Network - Rail Network does not make a mention of an

important aspect of this rail network, that is, the suburban trains from Lonavala to Pune,

running at present at 15min service to meet present traffic demand, with future increase to 5min

service, after addition of coaches on the system. This suburban train would be extended, shortly,

up to Daund, as the demand exists. Though existing suburban train pass though Shivajinagar,

why efforts are not being made to provide connectivity to the proposed metro system, so that

passengers can have a seemless travel (without physical interchange) from Lonavala to Hadapsar

by adopting the Metro System to suite the existing system, for the benefit of the commuters. This

can be achieved, indigenously, at economical costs and at reduced fares to the commuters. This

aspect must be examined in the DPR in consultation with IR, C Rly Pune Rly division.

3.1.5 Para 1.4 – Typographical Mistake - Reference has been made in this para to PMC’s letter no 9002

dated 05.12.2009. This should have been 2008. Such typographical mistakes should have been

avoided, as these reports will be read and seen at international levels.

2 CHAPTER 2

TRAFFIC DEMAND FORECAST

3.2.1 The priority alignments selected are

COR-I PCMC – Swargate Corridor for a length of 16.69 kms with 15 stations

COR-II Vanaz to Ramvadi Corridor for a length of 14.93 kms with 15 stations.

The key plan showing the above two corridors supposed to have been shown in annexure 0.1 is not

enclosed. This should be done in the executive summary & DPR both.

3.2.2 – Population Forecast - The population forecast indicated in table 2.2 and 0.2 of Exe.

Summ.(E.S.)is restricted for a period of 17 years from 2014 to 2031. For such a heavy investment for a

rail corridor, the planning should have been extended at least for a period of 50 years if not for 30 years,

with provision for expansion, which has not been done in this case.

3.2.3. The figures for PHPDT in table 0.2 of E S indicate that we have to cater for the next 20 yrs

hourly peak traffic of 18000 to 20000 for corridor 1 and 6000 to 10000 for corridor 2.

The above shows that corridor 1, can be catered for by BG wider coaches with a capacity of 450

per coach in a 4 coach train at 5min service giving 21600 PHPDT (450x4x60/5=21600) and

And for corridor 2, BG wider coaches with a 2 coach train will provide a capacity of 10800

PHPDT, at 5min frequency. (450x2x60/5=10800)

3.2.4 This shows that if BG with wider coaches (3.66m) is adopted, there will be heavy savings in

9

the number of coaches and in depot length, in the platform length, station length, reduction in

signalling cost, resulting heavy reduction in initial capital cost, with consequent improvement in

IRR and reduction in VGF subsidy and reduced fares for the commuters.

3.2.5 The flow diagram for the Horizon year 2031- fig 2.2 at page 43/61 chapter 2 indicates that

the traffic density along line number 4 from Bund Garden to Ramvadi is much less compared to

the traffic densities on line no 5 & 6 towards Hinjewadi and towards Hadapsar. The selection of

line 2 in priority II, doesn’t seem to be justified at this stage. This needs clarification and review.

3 CHAPTER 3

NEED FOR METRO

3.3.1 It is stated in the report, that the road mixed traffic carries 8000 PHPDT. This means as per table

0.2 of E S, there is no need for corridor II, which has PHPDT of 8500 by 2021 and 11000 by 2031. This

can be achieved by improvement in the road sector by road mass transit, with dedicated corridors and

by BRT improvements. So far as corridor 1 is concerned, it would be prudent to consider, an elevated

road corridor, along the proposed rail alignment, with 22m wide (3 lanes in each directions of 11m

each) which will carry, the dedicated bus line of 2 lanes covering 7m in each direction and the

remaining 4m for 4 wheelers, in each direction. This will reduce the congestion of road traffic on

the existing ground level. So far as the pollution is concerned the latest technology allows pollution

free road vehicle transportation systems. This will reduce considerably the capital investment, for

metro rail and will take care of the daily inputs of road vehicles in the City, resulting in congestion on the existing roads.

3.3.2 In chapter 3 of the DPR – Need for Metro system - Comparison of the Dedicated Metro Rail

corridor has been made with mixed bus corridor which is not correct. A dedicated bus corridor with

comfortable, AC, 100% sitting capacity of 75 passengers per bus at a 30 sec frequency (headway) will

carry a PHPDT of 75 x2x 60 x 60 / 30 = 18000 PHPDT which is much more than what is required for

corridor 2 by 2031.

3.3.3 Para 3.2 at page 3/4 of Chapter 3 of the DPR – Limits the capacity of the LRT system up to

30000 PHPDT and states that “ in view of the present and projected PHPDT on the proposed corridors

of Pune City a medium capacity metro system is considered adequate to meet the traffic demand”. The

report does not state here, the year’s up to which, this demand will be met with and thereafter will need

an additional parallel line beyond such limiting demands as stated in the earlier para. On the other

hand it limits the capacity to 2.9m width coaches with no future provision for adoption of wider

coaches beyond 2.9m. The basis of its statement in the earlier para that “beyond the traffic level of

80000 PHPDT, additional parallel lines are normally planned”. The logic and the evidence of such a

statement, needs clarification. Common prudence of not making any provision in the existing model for

additional capacity beyond 25 yrs, in the planning stage itself, is NOT understood.

3.3.5 This chapter should have discussed the techno-economic merits of a BG wider coach as well

as a MG indigenously manufactured narrow width coach which would not need importation.

Metro systems on MG are in place in Japan and other countries.

4

CHAPTER 4

SYSTEM SELECTION

3.4.1 Para 4.1 of the DPR indicates – That the peak hour peak direction traffic (PHPDT) demand for

corridor 1 – PCMC to Swargate varies between 18000 to 20000 for the years 2011 to 2031 and for

corridor 2 between Vanaz to Ramvadi varies from 5800 to 11000 for the years 2011 to 2031. Further

stated that the road based system optimally carry a maximum of 8000 PHPDT, This may be true for a

mixed road base bus system but is not true for a dedicated road bus system, which not only

improves the average speed from 20km to 40kms and more, but also permits headway of 10 to

15sec. A 2 lane dedicated uni-direction road corridor will also permit running of express busses, thereby

10

further increasing the average speed and carrying capacity. The capacity of even one dedicated bus

corridor would be 75 x 60 x 60 / 15 = 18000 PHPDT. Thus a single lane per direction for a bus elevated

dedicated corridor will more than match the traffic demand of 11000 PHPDT by the year 2031 at a cost

of less than Rs 30 cr/km. A double lane per direction, elevated dedicated bus corridor will more than

match the requirements of 20000 PHPDT for corridor 1 proposed metro rail at a cost of less than Rs

40cr/km. (Excluding cost of busses)

3.4.2 DPR recommends a) A light rail metro system for a PHPDT in the range of 15000 to 30000

b) A medium capacity metro system for a PHPDT in the range of 30000 to 50000 and a Mass

Rapid Transit Rail System for a PHPDT in the range of 50000 to 80000. DMRC is guided by

standards probably laid down by the European countries or probably laid down by DMRC

themselves, to justify imported limited capacity rail systems. For Indian conditions where the

traffic demand is increasing in geometric proportion every year, and has no comparison with the

population growth in India, as compared to those in European countries. The application of these

standards to Indian conditions and environment, has absolutely no comparison with Indian

Standards and environment, and, therefore, not applicable to Indian conditions and requirements.

Hence the adoption of wider 3.66m coaches, indigenously manufactured at 1/3rd

the cost, should

be adopted for Indian conditions, which will not only be economical in initial and life cycle costs

but will permit adoption of this elevated corridors to be economically and effectively used for

more than 100 yrs without the need for laying another parallel corridor on SG on a new road to

be identified for achieving equal objectives. The additional investment required for such parallel

corridor needs to be taken into consideration in the techno-economic analysis for such

alternatives. Unfortunately DMRC has not compared in his report, the realistic on the ground

situation of indigenously manufactured wider coaches with that for imported narrow width

coaches, while justifying the case for the choice of gauge.

3.4.3 a) Permanent way � (i) Choice of gauge – SG is being justified for its worldwide adoption. What is good for

European standards of population is not suitable for Indian standards, where the two are not

comparable. The national gauge in the country exist since 1853 from its initial introduction

of a railway system, from compatibility, connectivity and for economy in its expansion,

construction and operation and maintenance and the available expertise within the

country. There is no wisdom, nor techno-economic merits, in adoption SG for Indian

Metro Systems. The justification given by DMRC, is neither valid, nor is, in the interest of

the nation. Item wise comments on the justification given in the DPR for adoption of SG under

the heading of Choice of gauge vide para 4.3.1, is explained below.

� (ii) Track Structure – The Track structure proposed for the metro involves importation of

points and crossings and head harden rails. Our existing track structure adopted on Mumbai

suburban section with elastic fastenings, ballast-less track and continuous welded rails, adopted

on the Indian Railway systems is equally efficient and economical for adoption on the BG

system. For track structure in depot, adoption of track with ballast, Indian Pre-stressed BG

sleepers can be economically adopted in lieu of SG PRC sleepers, which will have to be

imported at heavy costs, in addition to payment of royalty for design and drawings, or adoption

of alternative costly systems, with imported technology. All the requirements laid down for

safety, reliability etc. are available in existing BG track structure indigenously manufactured and

fits well into the standards required. The requirements of maintainability of track and riding

comfort are available indigenously in the design of ballast-less track.

� (iii) Turnouts – Adoption of SG involves importation of turnouts of different angles from those

adopted on BG indigenously manufactured and adopted on Indian suburban section as well as on

high speed lines. There is no need for importation of such turnouts at abnormally high costs for

the benefit of the International suppliers. Introduction of scissors crossovers on main lines, 1 in 9

type – imported, necessitating adoption of 4.5m track centres at stations approaches, as against

4m along the length, will involve introduction of reverse curves on the approaches of such

scissors cross over, which is not considered good for the track layout. Thus a uniform centre to

centre distance between the tracks of 4.76m proposed for BG will eliminate these permanent

problems in the alignment, imposed by occasionally required such scissors crossovers.

� (iv) Check Rails – It is stated that check rails of UIC- 33 rail section will be adopted on sharp

11

curves to reduce wear of outer rails on curves. However, the latest design of ballast-less track

does not cater for provision of such checkrails on the main line.

� (v) Ludhiana Metro - It is interesting to note, the reference to “LUDHIANA METRO” at

para 2/43 of chapter 4 and at page 13/43, and at many other places, reflecting, the quality

of presentation of DPR adopted by “COPY PASTE” technique from other reports.

Municipal Commissioner of Pune is reminded of his high confidence in DMRC, in

accepting the report without any application of mind, from his side, being ignorant on

metro technology, as stated by him in our personal interview with him, and paying a very

high price for such report, which probably included the “COPY PASTE” technology.

3.4.3 b) (i) Traction system – Under para 4.4 of traction system at page 14/43 reference has been made

to the traffic requirements of the Pune Metro Rail having been projected in the range of 25000 PHPDT

in the year 2031 by the traction expert while at table 4.1 under para 4.1 the same has been reflected to

20035 for corridor in the year 2031. This variation may also probably due to the adoption of “COPY

PASTE” techniques from Ludhiana report which needs to be looked into. The typical 25KV AC

category arrangement shown in fig 4.6 at page 14/43 is a photograph neither of an elevated track nor of

an underground track but of a track structure of the ground level. Copied from some other report not

applicable to the DPR for Pune Metro. The entire chapter 4 & 5 of the DPR gives at the bottom line the

date as Feb 2009, March 2009 and also at 1st page of chapter 6. This also appears to be of victim of

modern “COPY PASTE” technology.

(ii) It is seen that the project cost is based on the unit rate for power consumption assumed at a

concessional rate of 2.50 to 2.75 per unit on “no profit no loss basis” to the Govt. The FIRR of 1.93

is based on these unrealistic and unaccepted figures. This should have been got confirmed from

Govt. before incorporating in the report and under estimating the project cost and IRR

3.4.3 c) (i)Signalling and train control – The proposed metro system has been designed for a 3min

service with initial operations at 5min service. The Mumbai suburban section of W & C Rly is

being operated at 3min railway with high level safety and reliability. There is no justification

therefore, to adopt an alien system and import ATP, ATS, and ATO operations even for future

requirements at exorbitantly high cost. For the same operational requirements, there is NO need

for paying 3 times the cost for importation of SG smaller capacity trains and imported signalling

system which does not provide any specific advantage. This is a waste of money, based on the

advice of overseas manufactures to export their products, at high initial and operational costs. The

report does not clarify how the capacity is optimized by such imported coaches.

� (ii) All these advance systems of ATP,ATC, and ATO can also be adopted on a BG system

as can be seen from the provisions in the BART BG metro opened in the year 2003 with

best in the world technology at San Francisco in USA. What is required to be questioned

is whether such high technology at

abnormally high investment is required

to be provided for the level of traffic and

the headway and Indian

Environment, prevailing for Pune Metro

Rail as assessed for a traffic level of 2031.

This is being recommended by

International consultants under the advice

of the international manufactures to make a

provision to sale their equipments at a high initial cost which will not be utilized in the

next 20 yrs and will involved 70% of the parts to be replaced within a period of 16 yrs.

without use.

� (iii) With all the justification for a Fail Safe system of ATP, accidents have taken place in

Japan, as late as in the year 2006 due to human failures, as will be seen from the

photograph given below

12

� On 25 April 2006, in Japan, a seven-car metro train

derailed on a curve and smashed into a multi-storey

apartment building.

� “The derailment at the curve was allegedly caused by the

23-year-old driver’s over speed.”

(iv) Similarly the standard of signalling adopted for train depots and

their operation need to be reviewed in the context of the level of traffic and the number of coaches

control in such operation. The standard of signalling mentioned in table 4.2 can also be provided on

a BG system but is this required for the level of traffic demand, proposed to be operated? It appears

that the advice of foreign consultants / general consultant and others have been copied and inducted

without application of our technical knowledge on the subject and the need for such requirements at

such exorbitant cost. We have been running a high capacity heavy mass rapid transit system on the

Mumbai suburban section laid on the ground as well as on an elevated corridor of the Harbour

branch in the Mumbai suburban section and operated at 3min frequency with co-existence of the

main line trains on the fast tracks carrying about 5000 passengers in a 9 coach train with

outstanding reliability and punctuality and safety thought the year except those couple of days

affected by flooding of tracks in Mumbai. When we have within the Indian railway system an

operating force capable of managing such system efficiently we fail to understand why we should

pay heavy price to a private sector by providing more than 25% as a viability gap subsidy who

utilized this fund for payment to foreign manufactures and paying them more than 3 times price for

coaches than what we are at present procuring at 1/3rd

the cost through indigenous technology. Is

this policy, promoted by one organization against the public interest and against the advice of

Indian Railways, a rational policy promoted by the present govt. against the public interest

and at heavy cost to the ex-checker.?

3.4.3 d) & e) Telecommunication / Automatic Fare Collection – The telecommunication system

proposed in the report can be provided indigenously by Indian Engineers on BG coaches also and

there is no need for international consultant for such systems.

3.4.3 f) Rolling stock – (i) The BG rolling stock can also be provided, based on the criteria indicated in

the report. The BG rolling stock costs less and will have the added advantage of capacity and flexibility,

to meet increased traffic demand, which is not available in the proposed SG rolling stock, and which

reaches its limiting crush capacity in less than 25 yrs. and in view of the closed door systems and the

narrow width of the coaches, 3 to 4 pushers per door will have to be engaged

for peak hours of morning and evening, to push the commuters in the

compartments within 20 to 30sec dwelling time at stations, without which the

doors cannot be closed and the train cannot be started.

(ii) It is further seen that the width of the coach proposed for SG is 2.9m against 3.66m for BG.

This further limits the passenger carrying capacity of such corridor. The design further indicates

that the centre to centre distance of the tracks has been kept at 4m which will not allow future

increase in width of the coaches, if needed to meet traffic demand. This planning is neither in the

interest of the Pune citizens nor the nation. All the features indicated in this paragraph can also be

provided BG with wider coaches. The higher level of acceleration and deceleration are not required for

such corridors having lower speed less than 100kmph and where inter station distances are around 1km.

The analysis of lower cost of service has not been proved by calculations. For equivalent volume of

traffic the operating cost of BG wider coaches will be much less due to reduction in train length.

The capital cost of SG coaches increases almost 3 times due to imports and manufactured by overseas

companies, and the depot area for such train will be much more, resulting in higher cost of land

acquisition for depot as well the depot cost. I would emphasize that the life cycle cost of BG

indigenous wider coaches will be much less than these imported narrow width coaches, thereby

resulting in elimination of VGF subsidy and reduction in fares. The basis of indicating the

13

“optimum” size of the coaches has not been justified by calculations for alternative adoption specially

for BG coaches.

(iii) Carrying capacity and axle load for design of the corridor and system- Para 4.8.4 at page 31/43

of chapter 4 indicates that for the purpose of calculation of the maximum axle load, the system is

designed for a weight of 65kg per person. In earlier reports for Mumbai, it was assumed at 60kg per

person (probably this is based on the average weight of people in Ludhiana as compared to those

in Mumbai). In both these cases the average weight per person has been under estimated and as per

Codal standards including international standards, the weight has to be taken at 68 kg per person. (This

will also be seen as exhibited in the lifts used in buildings). Based on the axle load calculations given in

table 4.8 at page 33/43 under para 4.8., the axel load has been calculated at a crush capacity of 8 person

per sqm of standing area, which is equivalent to 343 passengers per coach. Based on an average of 343/8

= 42.87 sqm. Designing the structural units for 8/sqm is an under estimation as during

emergencies it is feasible to accommodate an over crush capacity of 10 to12 passengers / sqm.

Revising this at 10 passengers / sqm (adopted for design of mechanical systems as per annexure 1 at

page 40/43 of chapter 4 of the DPR) on an area of 42.87 sqm the total number of passengers for live

load would be 42.87 x 10 = 428.7 say 430 passengers calculating the total live load / coach as 68 kg/

person the total weight would be 430 x 68 = 29.24 T adding to this the tare weight of 39T (which is not

justified by calculations), the total load would be 39+29.24 = 68.24. This is equal to an axle load of

17.06 T under static conditions. Keeping a margin of additional load for dynamic conditions,

additional forces on curves and other factors the system should be designed for at least 18T axle load for

the design of the RCC corridor, which is supposed to have a life of 120yrs as per British Code BS 5400.

(iii) Specific attention is drawn at page 43/43 of chapter 4 of the DPR vide item 34 it is stated the

average cost per coach exclusive of taxes and duties and Oct 2008 price level is Rs 10cr while the

estimate for the project for corridor 1 and corridor 2 provides for a price of Rs 7.81cr as seen

from page 4/26 of chapter 11 cost estimates at Sept 2008 prices for corridor 1 & the same rate

adopted for corridor 2 as seen at page 6/26 of chapter 11

5 CHAPTER 5

CIVIL ENGINEERING

3.5.1 Geometric Design Norms – It is stated in the report that the design parameters have been worked

out based on detailed evaluation, experience and internationally accepted practices. It is commented

that, international practices and experience does not necessarily suite Indian conditions, environment

and requirements. What is “best suited” for them, is not necessarily best for Pune.

3.5.2 The horizontal curves for elevated section have been limited to 120m. The same limitation

can also be negotiated by BG alignment. The maximum permissible cant (Ca) of 125mm and Cant

Deficiency (Cd) of 100mm, for SG, limits the speeds on curves. Higher cant and cant deficiencies are

permissible on BG with resultant increase in maximum permissible speeds. This would reduce the turn

round time of the train and therefore, requiring less number of coaches. A computer simulation analysis

will give the realistic figures.

3.5.3 Elevated Section - The track centres for elevated section has been limited 4.0m through out

the length of the corridor, this will restrict future provision of wider coaches even beyond 2.9m

width. For BG wider coaches this should be 4.76m. This planning is against the future increase in

capacity and is not in public interest

3.5.4 Underground Section – The location, the approach gradient, the depth of the rail level, the

diameter of tunnel, has not been mentioned, in sufficient details. The justification for adoption of

underground alignment in this location has not been mentioned. This portion increases the cost of

the corridor exorbitantly and therefore, should have been given adequate importance for

describing in details in the summary, for proper appreciation by the citizens. In the absence of the

plan, to a bigger scale the exact route followed by the underground alignment is not understood.

Adequate justification, bringing out the road width above and the adjoining areas occupied by the

buildings, their types etc and inability to widen the road width in this stretch, to provide an

14

elevated alignment in this portion, should have been given in the DPR.. The details of the location

of the commencement and exit points of the underground section gradients, the problems of land

acquisition in this area and other technical details have not been mentioned at all.

3.5.5 River Crossings – The corridor 1 alignment crosses rivers at two locations, one near Mula &

Pauna confluence between Dapodi & Khadki and later Mutha river between Shivajinagar and

Swargate. This means the underground alignment crosses the river below its bed. The adequacy of

the depth for underground portion need to be justified. The details of bridge crossings across the

Mula river in terms of length, spans etc. have not been mentioned. These details are of great

importance for the construction, as well as, for the cost of the alignment. Unfortunately, the DPR

does not make any mention of the same.

3.5.6 Design Speed – The maximum sections speed of 80kmph can also be adopted for BG and has

been adopted on Mumbai Suburban section. It is necessary to carry out simulation studies to

work out the limiting frequency of train permissible for adoption on these corridors, with such

limiting grades, curves etc. of the alignment. This will bring out the limitations of the capacity of the alignment for future improvements. The rolling stock need not be designed for 95kmph. To attend

a speed of 80kmph for commercial operation, the design of the rolling stock can be based on a max.

speed of 90kmph. The unnecessary increase in cost to design the rolling stock for 95kmph can be

eliminated.

3.5.7 Route Alignment - The alignment is underground for length of 5 kms with both Shivajinagar and

Swargate station underground. The underground stations have island platforms throughout while

elevated sections have side platforms. The merits of provision of island platform for underground

alignment have not been discussed. The width of the platforms on elevated and underground

portion has not been indicated. The radius of curvatures on reverse curves with straight in between, in

the graded portion from elevated to underground, have not been indicated, even though these are

important aspects of safety. Similarly for UG corridor the approaches at all UG stations will have

reverse curves due to change in centre to centre distance for island platforms. The locations of open

foundations and the pile foundations and the depth of the piles assumed at various locations have

not been mentioned. This is an important factor affecting cost of the project. The section/profile of

viaduct structure proposed for the elevated portion has not been shown anywhere though this is an

important factor in cost, safety and period of construction.

3.5.8 The index plan and section need to be furnished at a bigger scale and the location of various

columns for the way structure indicating their spans, the number and size of piles and the depth of piles

should be indicated. The GAD showing the bridge elevation and cross section for each bridge crossing

should be shown to a bigger scale, indicating the rail level existing adjoining road level, the height of

piers the level of pile caps and the depth and diameter of piles and spans proposed, including the

geotechnical details based on borehole data collected and the approach curves and levels for the bridge

and its distance upstream of downstream from the existing bridge across these rivers should be indicated

and I presume the cost estimate have been separately evaluated for each bridge, based on the quantities

so assessed and the rates adopted, should be exhibited separately.

3.5.9 The DPR does not indicate a typical plan of a station premises with elevation, and longitudinal

section, with dimensions thereon. This should be shown on a bigger scale plans. It is interesting to note

that no parking areas for private vehicles have been proposed due to scarcity of land along the

alignment. In such a case how do you expect the road vehicle traffic be transferred to LRT. This is

important function of the planning for integrating the facilities at metro stations and feeder road

traffic. This needs to be incorporated.

3.5.10 Geotechnical Investigations – It is stated that 44 boreholes were drilled for geotechnical

investigations up to a depth of 30m. It is seen that the location and the details of the borehole data has

been incorporated in the detailed project report.

3.5.11 Utilities – It is stated that the detailed study of the underground and overhead utilities has

been carried out along the alignment. It is seen that the details of these utilities indicating the type,

15

the size, the depth and their alignments have not been shown in a detailed plan and the cost of

relocating these utilities have not been taken into account in consultation with the concerned

authorities and provided in the detailed report in the cost estimates of the project on a realistic

basis. As this is a time consuming work, affecting the period of construction of the project, it is

presumed that the detailed time schedule for relocation and their planning has been done in

consultation with the concerned authorities and the concerned data received from such authorities

regarding the cost and period of diversion of such utilities have not been incorporated in the

detailed project report for future reference during implementation.

3.5.12 Land requirement – It is seen from table 0.5, indicating summary of permanent land

requirement that the total land requirement for both corridors is 32.27Ha (Govt.) + 12.48 Ha (Pvt.) =

44.75 Ha. This equals approximately 112 acres. Out of the above, the major portion is a govt. land with

8.38 Ha, is commercial costly land with major portion falling in corridor 1.

3.5.13 It is mentioned in the DPR at page 3/97 under chapter 5 that the track centres on the elevated

corridor is kept at 4.1m while in the summary the same is mentioned at 4.0m at page 9/36 of executive

summary. The location of corridor 2 alignment crossing the railway track seem to be the most difficult

for execution crossing large number of tracks at the stations. It is presumed that the railway authorities

have been consulted to cross the alignment at this location. The location of the alignment crossing

Mutha river downstream of Yerwada bridge need to be exhibited to a bigger scale to appreciate the

alignment location from the at the existing bridge. The proposal of the state govt. for a road bridge

planned at this location has, we presume, been taken into account.

3.5.14 It is seen from the DPR that the platform width for elevated corridor is 4.5m wide side platforms,

and for the UG portion it is 10m wide with island platform (ref page 33/97 para 5.10.4 – Platforms of

chapter 5) while the executive summary at page 9/36 indicates 12m wide island platform for UG

section. This needs to be reconciled. The requirements of platform width staircases escalators and lifts,

ticketing gates etc are required to be justified with calculations regarding the assumptions made. It is

seen from para 5.10.2 of the DPR that the above facilities have been provided for the passenger forecast

for the horizon year 2031, to compute the maximum design capacity with no provision for increasing in

future. This means that after opening the corridor for 2014, the corridor capacity will reach the

maximum limits in a period of 17 yrs with no provision for expansion. This is not the way railway

corridors involving heavy initial expenditure are planned. The structural designs of the elevated corridor

are planned for 120 yrs of life while the passenger amenities have been limited to 17 yrs with no

feasibility for future expansions. This planning needs to be reviewed on top priority.

3.5.15 --5.11 of the “Traffic Integration of the DPR refers the corridors as Mass Rapid Transit

System (MRTS) – while the classification indicated in chapter 4.1 of the DPR, planned for the year

2031 falls under the category of Light Rail Transit (LRT) which limits the capacity to 30000 PHPDT.

By merely planning of platforms for running 6 coach train in place of 4 coach train in LRT the corridor

doesn’t become MRTS, as the other requirements of passenger movement planning width of platforms

staircases, escalators lifts etc. will also have to be made a provision for, to meet the capacity levels of 30

000 to 50000 PHPDT specified for MRTS. The entire planning needs are based on in consistencies

of assumptions and standards and need to be completely reviewed at the PMC’s level and the

entire DPR modified with corresponding changes in costs, FIRR, EIRR, and conclusions and

recommendations.

3.5.16 Park and ride facilities – Para 5.11.2 of DPR page 34/97 on traffic integration facilities

recommend the use of park and ride commuters. However, the metro system does not provide any

parking places or car parking buildings due to limited availability of land and leaves it to the State Govt.

to decide this issue. The planning and the financial implication of this corridor have assumed that

private car owners will patronize this LRTS and analysis based on these assumptions, which is

inconsistent with the planning.

3.5.17 Para 5.12 Civil structures of DPR page 34/97 – This deals with UG construction and UG

stations. This does not indicate the volume of earth work taken out by the Tunnel Boring machines

(TBM) and by cut and cover methods and the location at which the same will be dumped and the lead

16

involved thereon. In the absence of the bar chart and the CPM chart for such an important project, the

timing of these activities of the construction of the UG section simultaneously with other sections, have

not been co related. The presentation of the planning of this project in the DPR which is going to

the cabinet for approval has been done with the most unprofessional manner in spite of heavy fees charged for its preparation.

A priority works in the cut and cover method for the UG section is a diversion of UG utilities. Layout

plan with quantum of work methodology for execution and time period required, has not been indicated

nor a BAR chart for these activities have drawn to enable the public to appreciate the road diversion

plans in these heavily crowded areas. The environmental impact of this major activity affecting the

citizens of this city should have been given adequate importance in the planning of this activity of this corridor.

3.5.18 Supporting walls for “cut and cover” method – The report indicates the theoretical methods to

be adopted for different conditions of soil. Based on the geotechnical investigation carried out, the

DMRC engineers should have indicated the locations where alternative methods of support walls such

as RCC diaphragm, sheet piles etc. as specified in the report at pages 36/97 &37/97, should have been

shown in drawings and explained in the report to assess the realistic time schedules and performing

costs for these activities of these report.

3.5.19 Para 5.12.4 Elevated section & para 5.13 Construction Methodology page 38/97 of DPR -

This para describes different types of precast segmental construction and their advantages and

disadvantages including construction methodology and the area of land required of about 2.5 to 3 Ha for

each precast construction yard. What is more important to be indicated is which segmental method is

proposed to be adopted for working out the cost of the project and the quantum of work involved, the

time schedule for pre-casting, transportation and erection should have been worked out and reflected in

a bar chart, to enable the work to be completed for this activity within the overall framework of time

required for the completion of the entire project. This is essential as the volume of work, the time frame

mentioned and the cost assessed in the estimate chapter would be more realistic for appreciation by the

cabinet for sanctioning this project. The launching scheme paragraph does not indicate the methodology

proposed, the quantum of work, the time schedule for each span and the overall project, should have

been given in more details with sketches etc. The extra time required for launching of girders across the

railway tracks at Pune Rly station and the safety precautions to be taken for temporary supports if any

and the spans proposed at this locations and the traffic block required during launching operations due to

electrified section should have been covered more in details with necessary drawings. The technical

Report of the DPR appears to be superficial generalized and not specific to this project and

complied with “copy paste” technology from other projects. Similarly details of spans proposed to

be adopted for the various bridge crossings and have not been detailed out nor planned as

specifically applicable to the bridge site.

3.5.20 Substructure and Foundations – The details and sizes and the type of foundations piles / wells

proposed to be adopted for the river crossings the difficulties anticipated and the span proposed have not

been detailed out nor the time and cost assessment done, to these items of the work.

3.5.21 Construction of stations para 5.16 page 46/97 of DPR – Typical station layout do not indicate

the spans for the station area accept indicating the use of a single viaduct column along the alignment in

the station area. A dimension plan for the station area for structural arrangement should have been given

for better appreciation of the project planning in this DPR.

3.5.22 Para 5.16.3 – Road width required during construction page 47/97 of DPR – It is indicated

that a width of about 9m would be barricaded during construction by either widening the roads or by

introducing one way traffic. The detail planning of this area of activity has been left to the SPV by

DMRC by appointment of consultant for project management and another consultant for proof

checking. Simultaneously SPV will have to take action for detailed structural designs of elevated

corridor, every professional consultant appointed for preparation of DPR has to base his costs on a

general planning of the various structure location, widening areas required and one way traffic to be

planned. The detailed cost of this planning will depend upon an overall broad planning of these sub

activities by proper coordination with the counter part of the Municipal Corporation and involvement of

17

police transport department and overall broad plan of such planning and recording minutes of discussion

with the various local authorities shall form the basis of the broad planning in the right direction and the

cost estimates based on such planning. In this report of DMRC such professional method of

planning the corridor activities and sub activities and preparation of plan thereon and working out the cost thereof, have been missing in this report.

3.5.23 --5.17 – Geotechnical investigation page 48/97 of DPR – This report deals with the Bore Hole

details their location and depth below ground level and the test carried out by the specialized agency

with their recommendations has been covered. A location plan showing the chainages of these Bore

Holes including locations of these Bore Holes below the river beds crossed by the alignment, should

have been given for better appreciation and presentation.

3.5.24 --5.19 Utilities and service page 52/97 -This chapter is also based on “copy paste” technology

from the report for “Ludhiana”. The report says that the provision has been made in the project cost

estimate towards diversion of utility service line as these services would be diverted by concerned

department. The basis of incorporating the project cost has not been indicated nor the split up of the cost

for each of 7 departments mentioned at table 5.16 at 52/97 of the DPR, has not been indicated. It is

further stated, that “the details would be furnished in the final report”. This means that the present report

is not final for providing approval and sanctions by the cabinet. Such sanctions cannot be given on

preliminary under estimated and unrealistic report of DMRC. PMC need to specifically look into

this aspect.

3.5.25 Land for corridor para 5.20 page 54/97 The normal width of the viaduct structure of the elevated

metro is 10m edge to edge wide, for reasons of safety and margins 5m width on either side is provided

as a no structure zone. In special cases this width of 5m is reduced to 3.5m on either side. For

Switchover Ramps approaches to UG section a width of 11m including protection works has been

proposed, with the alignment gradient of 3 to 4%. The area of land required for stations and traffic

integration has been made at selected locations were land is available. Details of land required of 24282

sqm for stations and traffic integration has been given in table 5.18 land for traffic integration will be

paid by the State Govt.

3.5.26 The depot land of 11.51 Ha at Hill Range station has been identified for full fledged maintenance

depot at corridor 1. This depot needs earth filling being a low line area. The land required for corridor 2

at Kachara Depot at Kothrud is 12.11 Ha. Making a total depot land of 23.62 Ha. All these land is a

govt. land. The DPR gives under table 5.21, land requirements for running section the details of land

whether Govt. of Pvt., whether residential commercial, or offices etc. have been given in extensive

details at pages 60/97 to 66/97 of DPR chapter 5 for both the corridors, totalling 25319.5 sqm. It would

have been better appreciated, if these figures in tables were also represented on a plan showing

their locations. 4 pockets of land two on each corridor, total area of 9.5 Ha have been identified for

temporary acquisition for construction. This covers private land of 9 ha for corridor 1 and only 0.5 ha

for corridor 2. It is considered desirable to locate to some are in corridor 2 in the section ASI to Vanaz to

reduce transportation lead and costs. The land required for property development by builders or

developer has been assessed at 64435 sqm. Most of this land is privately owned and has been shown at

table 5.23. Major part of this area is at Wadgaon Sheri and Swargate. A location plan of this land and

the present price of land for development should have been indicated. Details of permanent land

required for this project totalling to about 45.75 ha for both the corridors has been indicated in table 5.24

at page 69/97 of the DPR.

3.5.27 The copies of the sketches furnished from page 70/97 under chapter 5 of the DPR up to

pages 97/97 are not legible, nor in sufficient details, being furnished in a smaller scale and cannot be appreciated nor commented upon.

6

CHAPTER 6

18

TRAIN OPERATION PLAN

3.6.1 It is seen from this chapter that the average speed for corridor 1, has been taken at 33kmph for corridor and

31kmph for corridor 2. The basis of arriving at these figures should be furnished as no reference to the basis of

these figures has been indicated in the detailed report. This is an important factor as the total turn round time of

the trains and the number of trains and coaches required at different frequency (headway) will be dependent on

these factors. It is desirable to make a simulation analysis taking into consideration, the station locations, the

stoppage time, the speed restriction on curves, gradients, and the reversal time at terminals, to arrive at these

figures. The details of this simulation analysis should be provided as annexure to the detailed project report.

3.6.2 Four car & Six rakes - It is further stated in the summary report that “the possibility of running trains with

composition of 4 car and 6 car trains, with different headways of 2.5min to 15min has been examined. The

methodology adopted for arriving at such composition will depend upon the hourly traffic data As stated

earlier the simulation analysis should be done to assess the limiting frequency at which the corridor is capable of

running the trains based on the alignment and other factors. The composition of cars namely 4 car and 6 car trains

for corridor 1 and corridor 2 respectively would also be during the non peak period and the adjustment is done by

changing the frequency. It would be desirable to compare the traffic hourly demand in each corridor and the

frequency to be adopted to ensure optimum utilization of assets for operational efficiency and operating economy.

This should be given in the detailed project report to reflect a professional approach in preparation of DPR.

A comparison of the above has to be made if BG wider coaches of 3.66m and SG wider coaches of 3.2m are

adopted on these corridors to assess the efficiency and economy in adopting the size of the coaches and the

train composition.

3.6.3 Coach composition – A 4 car train will have a capacity of 1034 passengers (sitting 186, crush standing 848)

,.and for a 6 car train 1574 passengers (sitting 286 and crush standing 1288). It is seen from the above that the ratio

of standing to sitting works out to a) for 4 car train 848 / 186 = 4.55 and b) for 6 car train the ratio of standing to

sitting works out to 1288 / 286 = 4.50.

3.6.4 Requirement of Coaches – Table 0.5 at page 15 of the summary indicates the requirement of coaches for

different years for different headways. It is seen that the requirement of coaches for both the corridors up to

the year 2031 is based on the requirement of 4 car trains at 3.5min headway for corridor 1 and 8min

headway for corridor 2.

3.6.5 A comparison and economics of assessment of coaches with 3.2m wide to SG and 3.66m wide for BG

should also be done to get of the techno-economic merits of the other alternatives. Similarly assessment of

demand for the next 30 years should also be done to cater for future increase in capacity. For corridor 2 it

may be worthwhile to assess the requirement of coaches with 3-4min headway so that the same can be better

patronized by the commuters. The entire planning seems to have been aimed at providing more imported

coaches at abnormally high costs to suite the overseas suppliers.

3.6.6 IT is seen that the number of coaches assessed at 88 nos for corridor 1 and 48 nos for corridor 2, is based on

the requirements of the traffic demand for the year 2031 only. That is for a period 17 yrs after commissioning the

corridors in 2014. This is not the correct way of assessment of the number of coaches, as the corridor has to be

fit to meet the traffic demand 30 yrs at least, with provision for future improvement in PHPDT.

3.6.7 It is seen from annexure 5 at page 19/22 of chapter 5 that for corridor 2 for the year 2031, the 48

coaches have been assessed on the basis of headway of 6.5 min, while at page 9/22 of the report for corridor 2

vide item ‘c’ a headway of 8min have been mentioned. This may be reconciled. Similarly at page 10/22 vide

para 6.5 of chapter 6 the number of rakes assessed for corridor 2 for the year 2031 has been shown as 10 nos

instead of 12 nos and the number of coaches should 48 instead of 40 nos.

3.6.8 At page 10/22 under the heading assumptions vide item vii the total turn round time is taken as 6min at

terminal stations. This will vary for each corridor and will be equal to the frequency that is 3.5min for corridor 1 at

each end and 8min for corridor 2.

7

CHAPTER 7

19

POWER REQUIREMENTS

3.7.1 The traction power at 25KV AC (single phase) is suitable and economical for mainline long

distance trains. There is hardly any advantage for utilizing this traction, for a localized system like the

metro rail. Such high voltage transmission entails more equipment items on the motor coach, such as,

pantograph, air blast circuit breaker, step down transformers, tap changer, rectifier for DC supply etc.

thereby making the motor coaches heavy and costly. When the final voltage for the traction motors is

going to be DC 600V – 750V or so, it is better to use say 900V DC for traction power to be drawn from

the third rail. This will render the motor coach design simpler and economical. This has been done for

Kolkata Metro and is being adopted by Hyd metro. This also eliminates the need for overhead catenaries

and the masts along side track, thereby saving in capital cost of the project. The merits of DC vs 25KV

AC supply and its economics have not been discussed in the report.

3.7.2 Even if the traction motor drives is 3 phase AC, that power shall have to be obtained through an

inverter worked from the DC supply. The use of 3 Phase AC induction motors for the drive cannot

therefore be any reason to opt for 25KV AC single phase supply as a traction power. The only

justification for 25KV would be to provide compatibility for the existing Lonavala – Pune Suburban

trains which are running under 25KV AC supply. As the project does not envisaged compatibility with

the suburban section of the central railway. The Merits of adoption of 25KV as applicable to Pune,

needs to be further analyzed in terms of techno economic advantages.

3.7.3 Incidentally a number of EMU formations running on Mumbai sub. System (using 1500 V DC for

traction), are running on 3 phase AC drive on power supplied through IGBT inverters which has been

talked about in the DPR. These formations have been supplied by ICF / Madras.

3.7.4 Rolling Stock Chapter 4.8 at page 30/43 System selection in table 4.8 (page 32/43) shows the tare

weight (max.39T.) With all the above mentioned equipments on the motor coach, its tare weights, the

basis of arriving at the tare weight of the coach at 39T has not been explained in the DPR. This is

important as it has a relation with the axle load for which the system has been designed.

3.7.5 The acceleration is achieved by the number of motor coaches adopted in a train set and has

nothing to do with Rolling Stock technology. It however increases the cost of the 4 car and 6 car units

considerably.

3.7.6 The features like disc brakes or air springs were introduced in the bogie design by the western

countries and Japan, for their long distance high speed trains like the ICE (Inter City Express) or TEE

(Trans European Express) trains which run at 160 to 200kmph. As the metro trains do not exceed 80 /

90kmph, there is no justification in providing these at exorbitantly high cost. This is probably on the

advice of overseas consultants to promote international business at our cost.

3.7.7 The velocity time operation curve shown at page 33/43 of chapter 4 does not mention the length

of the section. Rough assessment indicates a length of around 1.8km. As the inter station distance of

metro rail is generally at 1km or even less the scope for coasting or regenerative breaking doesn’t exist

on these corridors. The DPR should have carried out a section by section exercise to identify

whether the scope for regenerative is at all applicable and necessary for the metro. Regenerative

breaking is generally useful for long stretches of level / falling gradients and for high speed trains.

3.7.8 Considerable advantages would be available by making the metro rolling stock similar to 100s of

EMU coaches already running in the suburban areas of the country. Wheels, axles, couplers, Roller

Bearings, Motors, gears, wheels and many such components are vital for effective maintenance of the

rolling stock and the more of them can be made inter changeable, the greater shall be the economies of

maintenance. Para 4.8.6 at page 33/43 talks about “Low Life Cycle Cost” and the most effective

way of achieving it by ensuring a policy of interchangeability with existing stock and the

maximum use of unit replacement maintenance policy. The large number of railway workshops can

be effectively used for optimal maintenance of metro rail rolling stock.

3.7.9 Para 4.8.6 at page 33/43 of chapter 4 – also talks of “aesthetically pleasing interior and exterior”.

20

This apparently a useful thin end of the wedge to facilitate improving coaches at exorbitant cost. This

matter is highly subjective. But we have manufactured the “Palace on Wheels” which shows the level

of “aesthetically pleasing interior” which we can attend if demanded and specified. Stainless steel sheets

would be at least 10 times more costly than the normal deep drawing quality mild steel sheets used by

indigenous coach builders. There is no difficulty in indigenously providing stainless steel sheets

coaches if demanded by the citizens at exorbitantly high prices and necessitating higher fare rates

to the commuters.

3.7.10-- Air Conditioning – During peak hours with a crush capacity of 260 to 300 passengers packed

with doors closed and windows sealed, on the narrow width 2.9m coaches, the space envelope may not

be able to handle the removal of return air and effective addition of cooled fresh air into the coach. in

summer time without side ambient temperature as high as, 40 degree C of so, the air conditioning may

posed a formidable problem. This is seen from the press reports in Hindustan Times, that the

commuters a suffocated during peak hours and the air conditioning is ineffective in Delhi Metro.

3.7.11 At page 11/16 para 7.12 of chapter 7 Electric power tariff is based on in the range of Rs 2.5

to 2.75/unit propose at a concessional rate of Govt. Maharashtra on no profit no loss basis. This

would be a gross under estimation of costs and the financial implications shall be based on the

market rates which should be obtained from Pune Electricity Board.

3.7.12 The assessment of total traction and auxiliary power requirements of 34.2 MVA for corridor 1

and 15.9MVA for corridor 2 as indicated in annexure 7.1 &7.2 of chapter 7 at pages 12/16 and 13/16

need to be reviewed for the years beyond 2031. There is no uniformity in assessment of passenger

weight in different subsystems of this report as have been assumed at 67.2kg / person in chapter 7 while

65kg in other chapters. With the existing power shortage, this demand cannot be met with.

8 CHAPTER 8

VENTILATION AND AC

3.8.1 It is added here that Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, energy saving

majors, ventilation and AC systems can also be adopted on BG system with equal efficiency.

Assessment of tunnel ventilation fans requirements and other allied tunnel ventilation system

requirement need to be supported with detailed calculation for adequacy of provisions and to

confirm to CODES and Standards. Similarly, mechanically ventilated or AC equipment

assessment should be supported by calculations so that at a later stage, the costs are not exceeded.

Station AC, tunnel ventilation system and space requirement for VAC systems and control and

monitoring facilities can also be provided on BG systems.

9 CHAPTER 9

DEPOT MAINTENANCE

3.9.1 Two depots cum workshop have been proposed - near Hill Range station for corridor 1 and the other near Kothrud at Vanaz station (smaller in size) for corridor 2. It is indicated in the report

that the depot inspection and workshop sheds are being constructed for 6 car formation and the station

platforms are also being planned for 6 car formation, while the traffic demand and coach assessment has

been done on the 4 car requirements till 2031. This is an inconsistency in planning and investment

which could be made provision for, without capital investment initially for 6 car formation. The

estimate for costs does not provide details of actual provisions and gives LS costs. It is not possible

to appreciate what exactly has been provided in the costing exercise.

10 CHAPTER 10

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

3.10.1 Under the funding pattern specified in chapter 0.13 – Property Development is suggested that 500m on

either side of the alignment should be developed by providing 4 FSI and demolishing the existing buildings.

The social and environmental impact of the same should also be incorporated in the DPR. Environmental

impact of earth excavation for tunnelling and cut & cover method should be reflected.

11 CHAPTER 11

21

COST ESTIMATES

3.11.1 The capital cost estimates provided in the executive summary are scanty and provides LS

amounts against the various items, without providing quantities and rates for assessment of

detailed cost. A brief note need be given, explaining the basis of the rates and quantities, so as to

arrive at a realistic cost estimate of the project, at Sept 2008 prices. The details of the items and

sub items must be shown separately for items for elevated and underground portions. The basis of

P-way and ballasted and ballast-less tracks indicating the types of sleepers proposed for ballasted

tracks and the quantities of ballast thereof. The details regarding the provision of check rails on

sharp curves need to be indicated. The station building cost should be furnished more in details

separately for platform and platform covers, width of the platforms adopted both for side elevated

platform and island underground platforms. The rolling stock cost should be based on the

assessment of rolling stock for required for 30 yrs period (the life of such stock). Separate

signalling cost for ATC, ATP and ATO should be indicated. The depot cost should be worked out

in more details.

3.11.2 Under estimation of Cost - It should be realized that this is a detailed project report and the

cost should be worked out in as much detail, as possible, based on general arrangement drawings

for the entire corridor and quantities assessed and the unit rates provided, based on the price

structure for Pune. It is seen that the cost of the head quarter office Over Heads of the SPV,

interim consultant, the general consultants and the detailed designed consultant, the proof

consultant and the prime consultant for PMC who would oversee the work of the general

consultants and contractors, need to be separately indicated as they form a heavy element of the

total costs. The cost of land and the rate assessed, including that for compensation payable, should

be separately assessed and incorporated in the summary, so that adequacy of such provisions will

ensure the proper final project costs. The details of imports and custom duties and taxes etc.

should be separately worked out and shown in an annexure and provided for the total costs. The

financial charges of insurance, bid bonds, BG, risks factors etc. which are generally provided for

by contractors in their bid prices should be assessed and provided for. The provision should also

be made for price escalation and expected arbitration claims which are inevitable in such complex

constructions. Interest during construction should also be provided for and shown separately on

the basis of the annual cash flow. A detailed cash flow plan should be worked out to assess the

overdraft necessary for the contractors and the interest thereon, so that the bid prices and

estimates match reasonably. The detailed cost for rehabilitation of existing structures and

commercial units should be assessed in detail instead of providing as a LS item. The details of cost

of underground portion should be indicated separately to assess its impact over and above the

elevated portion. As the 500m width of adjoining area of the alignment is being provided for an

FSI of 4. a detailed drawing showing the layout of the alignment with structures required to be

dismantled be shown and their cost implications worked out. The elevated alternative, in lieu of

this underground alignment, showing existing width of road, adjoining area of development and

the additional width, if any, required for widening the road to provide for an elevated alignment

with additional cost of land for widening and expenses for compensation for adjoining area be

worked out, so as to compare the techno-economic feasibility of alternative elevated alignment on

this stretch.

3.11.3 Separate cost of operation and maintenance for period of say 30 yrs after completion, with

specific reference to the staff costs for operation, the training of staff initial and regular,

infrastructure for the same, energy consumption cost, replacement cost, repairs and maintenance

cost and additional water requirement cost during construction & operation both and any other

costs required, should be worked out to get a realistic assessment of the life cycle cost and the

internal rate of return

The cost of SG has been under estimated and need s to be reviewed. The cost of BG wider coaches

has also been worked out. All the working sheet of the comparative costs of BG with wider

coaches, SG revised cost and the cost as worked out by DMRC is attached as annexure to this

report and the summary of comparison is given below

3.11.4 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE COSTS OF SG & BG

22

DMRC Estimate – SG (As per DPR)

Core Group Estimate SG (Rev.)

Core Group Estimate BG

Cost Cost/km Cost

Cost/km

% Change Cost

Cost/ km

%change from core group SG

Corridor I 4930 297 6186 373 24 5089 307 (-) 21

L= 16.589

Corridor II 2217 148.5 2841 190 27 2104 141 (-) 34

L=14.925

Total I+II 7147 227 9027 286 25 7193 228 (-) 25

L=31.511 DMRC cost under estimated by 25% (286-227=59/227=25)

CHAPTER 12

FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND FARE STRUCTURE AND FINANCING

3.12.1 It is seen that FIRR works out to 3.23% without taxes and 1.93 with taxes. This is further based

on under estimated cost of the project & at a concessional rate of power tariff of Rs 2 to 2.5 per unit.

This shows that the project is financially not remunerative and is a burden on the citizens by generating funds by heavy taxation on the citizens of Pune. The fare structure as indicated also is

abnormally high compared to the one adopted for metro one Mumbai. Which is Rs 8/- for 3-8 km

corridor and Rs 10/- beyond it. While the fare proposed in the year 2014-15 for 6-9 kms is Rs 14/-.

Compared to the bus this is abnormally high and needs a second look, regarding the need for such

construction and to find alternatives.

3.12.2 The proposal for acquiring 500m Radius land on either side of the corridor with an FSI of 4

will not be accepted by public, as it involves heavy demolition of buildings. Without actually

assessing the areas with minimum inconvenience to commercial traders and residents of these

areas, the planning of the corridor is incomplete and will result in agitation by the public. The

Mumbai is already facing similar problems for Charkop-Bandra, Chembur-Mankhurd areas,

where heavy agitation by public is being faced by MMRDA.

3.12.3 In view of the above it is felt that instead of an elevated metro rail corridor, the alternative

of an elevated road based corridor, of 3 lanes in each directions, with entry exit points at major

inter sections be considered as an alternative, all along this route, by provision of a double lane in

each direction for a dedicated bus corridor which will enable running of express buses and can

provide, in addition, one lane in each direction , for car and other vehicular traffic. This will also

meet the requirements of additional road width necessary for the daily inputs of cars in the city

and cannot be provided at the ground level. This will also improve the average speed of busses

and provide adequate space for pedestrian to walk on the existing roads and reduce traffic density

of vehicles on the existing roads underneath and later, if at all metro system is justified, the same

can be provided underground as the width for the rail system is much less than that for road

system, and would be more economical for underground than that for a road system. This

alternative needs to be given a thought and the proposed metro rail corridor should be stopped

forthwith. Alternatively as LRT is proposed, an indigenous MG Metro system may be investigated

and compared with BG indigenous wider coach Metro rail analyzed.

13 CHAPTER 13

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

3.13.1 The EIRR of 18% assessed needs to be investigated in more details as the assumptions

made, appear to be theoretical and the financial experts need to look into this subject.

14

CHAPTER 14

23

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

3.14.1The so called DPR has not been prepared in detailed to cover the standards laid down by the

Ministry of Urban Development for preparation of such DPR’s and Govt. of India and need to be

revised so as to work out the cost in sufficient details, based on the general arrangement drawings

for various subsystems and assessment of realistic quantities and performing rates for Pune, so as

to get an idea of the total final costs and its implications for generation of funds, to enable to Govt.

to decide whether the project is to be taken up and recommended for construction.

3.14.2 Before the PMC & PCMC submit the report to Maharashtra State Cabinet, the citizens

approval should be taken on priority and their observation should be recorded and furnished to

the State Govt. for the information of the cabinet so that there is a minimum disturbance after

sanction of the project.

3.14.3 The methodology of financing the project must be debated with the citizens group before

forwarding to Urban Ministry.

3.14.4 The legal provisions under the present constitution regarding the jurisdiction of the state to

connect two Municipal jurisdiction – PMC & PCMC by a metro rail or even by tramway needs to

be approved by the law Ministry of the Centre as it is not in conformity with the constitution

article 366/20, article 246 VIIth schedule List –I, Indian Railways 1989 act and the Indian

Tramways act. 1886. Unless proper legal cover for construction, operation and maintenance of the

metro rails are enacted in advance by modification of the constitution, the same should not be

taken up, as the same would be declared void under art. 254 of the constitution.

3.14.5 We are glad to note that the report at page 33 states that “metro comes under definition of

railways under the railways act 1989”. The State Govt. has declared that the metro rail within one

municipal jurisdiction can be enacted under the Indian Tramways act needs to be further debated

under the constitutional provision.

3.14.6 Your attention is drawn to the last sentence of legal cover for Pune metro rail at page 33 “when

this act is processed and enacted, it will give the required legal cover for operations and maintenance of

Ludhiana metro” This indicates that the DPR is based on “copy paste” of document prepared for

Ludhiana metro. This is an unfortunate part when PMC commissioner states that they have paid

heavy fees in crore of Rupees to DMRC for preparation of such a report. And that they will accept

their recommendations as they do NOT understand this subject

15 CHAPTER 15

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.15.1 From the traffic data and the financial implication furnished, it is seen that the project, as

proposed, is not financially remunerative and is not justified for taking up by heavy imposition of

taxes on the citizens of this city and country.

3.15.2 FOR GENERATION OF FUNDS, ADDITIONAL TAXATION ON THE CITIZENS OF

PUNE ARE RECOMMENDED AS UNDER—a) Professional Tax at 1% of the salary of the

employees. B) A Cess on petrol and diesel sale in the city c) Increase in FAR to 4 and its trading

d) A surcharge on the property tax in the city e) A surcharge on the Motor Vehicle Tax in the city.

f) An entry tax on the commercial articles entering the city. THESE WOULD NOT BE

ACCEPTABLE TO PUNE CITIZENS

3.15.3 The limited capacity of 2.9m wide imported coaches (as against 3.2m wide for Mumbai

metro one and for other States) on SG at exorbitant costs, with no future provision for increasing

its width, and having a limited capacity life of less than 25yrs, is against the national interest.

3.15.4 If at all a rail corridor is required it must be on BG with provision for wider indigenous

coaches of 3.66m wide, with the necessary technological inputs and can be constructed in less than

24

30% of the above cost without the need for VGF subsidy and at reduced fare structure acceptable

to the citizens and would provide compatibility and connectivity with the existing rail system and

will be in line with the national policy of the country on rail gauge issue. If BG is not justified on

traffic demand, a MG (1m) corridor with indigenous appropriate technology with indigenously

manufactured coaches by ICF, as adopted on Kolkata Metro should be explored with provision

for future expansion to BG with wider coaches as the traffic increases after 30 to 50yrs. and

feasibility of elevated corridor in lieu of underground should be investigated.

3.15.5 Calculations of EIRR needs to be reviewed by experts.

3.15.6 The alternative of an elevated dedicated road alignment in lieu of elevated metro rail may

be more economical and will be able to provide a dedicated elevated bus corridor and in addition

cater for the provision for additional road width for heavy inputs of 4 wheelers in the city.

3.15.7 The DPR must be discussed by PMC with the core committee of senior railway experts and

their views, on behalf of the citizens, must be taken into consideration, before the clearance of this

project by PMC and PCMC for forwarding it to the state govt.

3.15.8 This project report is not only defective and deficient in many major aspects but is biased in

favour of SG with imported coaches on the advice of international consultants and vendors and

with complete disregard to the techno economic merits, resulting in heavy financial burden on the

citizens of this city and is being adopted against the recommendations of the Ministry of Railways,

who have the legal jurisdiction under the constitution for deciding this issue.

V K J Rane – IRSE (Retd.)

Ex-MD/IRCON

Vkjrane1930@hotmail.com

Te.(020) 2685 4132,Cell-93710 05396

●=●=●=●=●=●=● 28th

April 2009

Annexure 1

25

SALIENT FEATURES – PUNE METRO RAIL

1. Gauge (Standard) 1435mm

2) Route Length (Between Dead ends)

Description Underground (km) Elevated (km) Total (km)

Corridor 1

PCMC – Swargate

5.019 11.570 16.589

Corridor 2

Vanaz to Ramvadi

Nil 14.925 14.925

Total 31.515

3) NUMBER OF STATIONS

Description Underground (km) Elevated (km) Total (km)

Corridor 1

PCMC – Swargate

6 9 15

Corridor 2

Vanaz to Ramvadi

Nil 15 15

Total 30

4) TRAFFIC FORECAST ( in lakhs)

Year Corridor 1 Avg. Lead (in km) Corridor 2 Avg. Lead (in km)

2011 348387 9 136309 5

2021 397228 8 212020 5

2031 443849 7 290515 5

5) TRAIN OPERATION

Corridors year Headway (min.) No of rakes Train composition Coaches req.

Corridor 1

PCMC – Swargate

2011 4.5 22 4 car 72

2021 3.5 22 4 car 88

2031 3.5 25 4 car 88

Corridor 2

Vanaz to Ramvadi

2011 12 10 4 car 28

2021 8 12 4 car 40

2031 8 20 4 car 40

6) SPEED

Designed speed 95kmph

Schedule speed 33 kmph for corridor 1 - 31 kmph for corridor 2

7) Traction power supply

a) Voltage 25 KV ac

b) Current collection Overhead current collection

c) Power demand (MVA)

Year 2011 2021 2031 Corridor 1 25.7 27.6 34.2

Corridor 2 8.0 10.9 15.9

d) Grid sub stations

Corridor 1 i) Chinchwad GSS (220…. - ii) Ganesh Khind GSS 220 …

Corridor 2 i) By LILO from 132 KV transmission line at Kothrud

ii) Kharadi GSS (220..

e) No. of traction substations

Corridor 1 2 Nos

Corridor 2 2 Nos

f) SCADA system Provided

8) Rolling Stock

26

2.90m wide modern rolling stock with stainless steel body.

a. Axle Load 16T

b. Seating arrangement Longitudinal

c. Capacity of 4 coach unit 1034 Passengers

d. Class of accommodation One

9) Maintenance facilities

Maintenance depot for Corridor 1 Depot Hill range station

Maintenance depot for Corridor 2 Kothrud Depot near Vanaz Station

10) Signalling, Telecommunication & Train control

a) Type of signalling Cab signalling and continues automatic train control with Automatic

train Protection (ATP)

b) Telecommunication i) Integrated system with Fiber Optic cable, SCASA, train Radio, PA

system etc

ii) Train information system, control telephones and centralized clock

system

11) Fare collection Automatic fare collection system with POM and Smart car etc

12) Construction Methodology

Elevated viaduct consisting Prestressed concrete “Box” shaped Girders on single pier with pile/open

foundations, and underground section with tunnel …. And station in UG station cut and cover.

13) TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (AT SEPT 08 PRICES) WITHOUT TAXES

Corridor 1 Rs 4930 crores

Corridor 2 Rs 2217 crores

Total Rs 7147 crores

14) Total estimated completion cost: Rs 8401 crores (without taxes) Rs 9534 crores (with central taxes only)

15) FUNDING PATTERN UNDER DMRC MODEL (WITH CENTRAL TAXES)

Particulars With Central taxes only

% of Contribution Amount (Rs/ Crore)

Equity by GOI & Govt. of Maharashtra 40% 3814

SD for land cost by GOI & Govt. of Maharashtra 9% 890

Additional SD for Central Taxes by GOI & Govt. of Maha. 12% 1112

From PD upfront 6% 600

JICA loan @ 1.20% PA/Market borrowing @ 12% PA 33% 3118

Total 100.00% 9534

16) FINANCIAL INDICES

a) FIRR

Particulars Completion cost without taxes Completion cost with central tax

only

FIRR 3.23% 1.93%

b) EIRR – The EIRR (without taxes in economic terms work out to be 18.04 % for the project

27

Annexure 2 –Corridor I-SG -1/3

REVISED ABSTRACT COST OF AN ELEVATED AND UNDERGROUND METRO AT PUNE

(Total length 31.511km = elevated 26.495 km and underground 5.019 km) – Total Stations =31 = Elevated 25 nos. Underground 6nos

SG

Elevated & UNDERGROUND (11.570km Elev. – 5.019 km UG)

Pimapri – Swargate (16.589 Km. & 15 Stations 9 Elev. & 6 UG

Unit Qty Rate Cost cost Revised by core

group for SG – I Remarks

Sno.

1)

Item (Rs. In

Crores)

(Rs. In

Crores)

Land L.S. 522.71

Detailed cost analysis has not been prepared in the DPR. This

needs to be done.

Subtotal (1) 522.71 522.71

2 Alignment and Foundation/Way

corridor

2.1 Underground section by BM

excluding station length (260m

each.

RKM 3.074 178.69 549.29

Basis of Unit rate need to be justified with separate analysis

for cost / RKM and attached as appendix

2.2 Underground section by cut and

cover excluding station length

(260m each)

RMK 0.385 95.3 36.69

Basis of Unit rate need to be justified with separate analysis

for cost / RKM and attached as appendix

2.3 Elevated section including station

length RKM 11.57 35.74 413.51

Basis of Unit rate need to be justified with separate analysis

for bridge cost / RKM and attached as appendix. Each major

bridge cost to be worked out separately and added.

2.4 Entry to depot at grade RKM 1 11.91 11.91 Basis to be indicated

Subtotal (2) 1,011.41 1,011.41 Basis of unit rate need to be explained.

3 Station Buildings Civil +EM) Elev.

3.1 UG station (260m length) incl. EM

works, lifts, escalator VAC Each

a) Underground station civil works

Each 6.00

166.78 1,000.68

Basis of unit rate not given. The cost of UG station at ASI

being a junction station with elevated corridor would be

higher than the cost of other stations. A uniform rate of

166.78/station needs to be justified with details.

b) Underground station – EM work

etc Each 6.00 65.21 391.26

Basis of unit rate not given. The cost of UG station at ASI

being a junction station with elevated corridor would be

higher than the cost of other stations. A uniform rate of

65.21/station needs to be justified with details.

3.2 Elevated stations Each

a) Type A way side -Civil works Each 5.00 12.15 60.75 Basis of unit rate not given

b) Type A way side -EM works etc Each 5.00 9.96 9,080.00 Basis of unit rate not given

c) Type B way side with signalling -

civil works Each 2.00 13.16 26.32

Basis of unit rate not given

d) Type B way side with signalling -

EM works etc Each 2.00 2.12 4.24

Basis of unit rate not given

e) Type C terminal station civil works Each 2.00 20.25 40.50 Basis of unit rate not given

f) Type C terminal station -EM works Each 2.00 3.26 6.52 Basis of unit rate not given

3.3 Metro Bhavan and OCC building LS

a) Metro Bhavan and OCC building

civil works LS Nil nil 85.00 total sqm area and the unit rates/swm should be given to

arrive at reasonableness of the provisions made

b) Metro Bhavan and OCC building

EM works etc LS Nil nil 15.00

The basis of LS provision should be given

Underground 6 Nos 130.00 780.00 Basis of unit rate not given

Subtotal (3) 1,640.07 1,721.07

4 Depot

Annexure 2 –Corridor I-SG -2/3

CORRIDOR - I -

SG

28

a) Civil Works

LS Nil Nil 50.00 75.00

Provision seem to be grossly under estimated. An annexure

giving the details of this provision should be worked out on

the basis of facilities provided and heavy earth filling

required at the site necessitating deeper foundation for

structures and their cost. (It is seen that LS provision of 50

has been made for depot civil works for Mumbai as well as

Kolkata metro for 2004 price level and 180 for + EW works

for Mumbai metro at 2005 price levels).Hence provision of

150 for Civil + EW works for Oct 08 price level is inadequate.

b) EM Works

LS Nil nil 100.00 150.00

The basis of such high value LS provision should be based on

details to be attached as an annexure to support the

provision made

Subtotal (4) 150.00 225.00

5 P-Way RKM

5.1 Ballast-less track for elev. & UG section

RKM 16.59 6.55 108.66

The details of cost of P way per unit RKM should be attached as annexure to the report. Unit rate of 6.55 is highly inflated due to imports and import of material and technology, there is scope for reduction if indigenous technology available with the country is adopted. Heavy scope for reduction in the unit rate, if BG standards are adopted

5.2 Ballasted track at grade alignment in depots RKM 5.00 1.91 9.55

Heavy scope for reduction in the unit rate, if BG standards are adopted

Subtotal (5) 118.21 118.21

6 Traction and power supply Incl. OHE, ASS etc. exl. Lift and escalators for UG section

6.1 UG section

RKM 5.02

11.41 57.27 75.29(15x5.019)

Unit rate of 11.41 underestimated needs to be looked into with details to be attached as annexure. The unit rate of 10.5 has been adopted for July 2005 prices of Charkop project for UG at 2005 prices, as well as for Kolkata metro for 2008 prices this needs to be increased to at least 15

6.2 Elevated and at grade section RKM 12.57 5.43 68.26 7.5x12.570 =94.27

Unit rate seem to have been grossly underestimated needs to be looked into with details attached as annexure.

6.3 Lifts for elevated stations each 36.00 0.22 7.92 0.30x36 =10.8

This is also under estimated provision of 0.30 for unit rate appear reasonable needs to looked into

6.4 Escalator for elevated stations Each 36.00 0.87 31.32 1.15x36 = 41.4

The unit rate seem to be under estimated and should be around 1.15 each

Subtotal (6) 164.76 517.02

7 Signalling & telecom

7.1 Signalling and telecom RKM

17.59

13.04 229.36 15x17.58 263.7

Unit Under estimated and should be around 15.00 9 (A unit rate of 12 was adopted in the yr 2004-05 for Mumbai metro.

7.2

Automatic fare collection

a) UG station each 6.00 3.53 21.18 21.18 Nil

b) Elevated station Each 9.00 2.72 24.48 24.48

Nil

Subtotal (7) 275.00 309.36 Nil

8 R & R including hutmates etc LS Nil Nil 30.00

The basis of arriving at the LS should be furnished in an annexure to appreciate reasonable of provision

Subtotal (8) 30.00 30.00

9) Misc. Utilities, road works other civil works such as median stations, signage's, environmental protection

Annexure 2 –Corridor I-SG -3/3

29

a)

Civil works + EM wrks

RKM

16.59 3.50

58.06 58.06

The basis of arriving at the unit rate should be furnished as an annex. Based on the details given in the DPR

Subtotal (9) 58.06 58.06

10 Rolling stock

Each 76.00 7.81 593.56 1440 (144x10)

This is grossly under estimated under qty as well as for unit rate. The qty should be based on the requirements of 30 yrs life cycle that is the requirement in the year 2045. The requirement of Rolling stock in the year 2031 has been assessed at 88 in the report. The unit rate / coach of 7.81/coach has been under estimated as the price/coach quoted for Mumbai metro in the year 2006 was Rs 9 cr each. The DPR indicates a rate of Rs 10cr each at page...... in the DPR

Subtotal (10) 593.56 1,440.00

At Rs 10/coach and 1931 requirements of 88 coaches, the total amount workout to 880cr. Assuming that the capacity reaches a 6 coach requirement at 3min frequency in the year 2045, the number of coaches required would be 144x10 = Rs1440cr, assessed as under 15.69/33x60x2 = 57.05+6 for turn round = 63.05/3 (frequency) = 21+3 (for spare and maintenance) = 24 trains @6 coaches/train = 144

11 Capital expenditure on security

a) Civil works LS 12.00

b) EM Works LS 8.00

Subtotal (11) 20.00 20.00

12 Total of all items except land 4,061.09 5,236.00 Grossly under estimated based on remarks above

13 General charges incl. design charges @ 5% on all items except land

203.05 262.00 This will get further increased due to revision of total item 12

14 Total of all items incl. GC except land

4,262.14 5,498.00

15 Contingency @ 3% 127.92 165.00 This will change due to change in item 14

16 Gross total 4,392.07 5,663.00

Cost without land =

4,392.00 5,663.00

Cost with land =

4,930.00 6,186.00

4930/16.589 = 297

6186-5089=1097/6186=17

5916 = 356cr/km

373cr/km

The above total cost does not include the overhead cost of the SPV, the fees charged by the interim consultant for location survey, the general consultant, the prime consultant, supervising the work of general consultant, the proof consultant and the extra OH charges of the contractors submitting the bids to include bid bond charges financing charges, insurance charges and the charges for risk element involved in the project. The provision for Arb. expenses involved in such large number of complex contract based on previous experience need to be provided at least 5% OF THE PROJECT COST (though such costs are not provided in normal estimates, but form a part of the total completion cost of the project, interest during construction should also be assessed and shown separately based on the based on the bar chart for construction activities. Provision for legal charges and the overseas consultants forming JV with local parties charged their consultancy charges at 10 to 12% of the cost of the project. All these charges need to be added in a realistic estimate for the project.

Annexure 2 – Corridor II SG– 1/3

REVISED ABSTRACT COST OF AN ELEVATED AND UNDERGROUND METRO AT PUNE

(Total length 31.511km = elevated 26.495 km and underground 5.019 km) - Total Stations =31 = Elevated 25 nos. Underground 6nos

30

SG = 2.9m wide coach

Elevated corridor ( 14.925km) UG = 0

Vanaz - Ramvadi (14.925km & 16 stations elevated)

S.No Item Unit Rate Qty Amount

cost

Revised by

core group

for SG - II

Remarks

(Rs in cr.) (Rs in cr.)

1 Land 282.77

Detailed cost analysis has not been

prepared in the DPR. This needs to be

done.

Subtotal (1) 282.77 282.77

2 Alignment and formation

2.1 Elevated section incl. Station length RKM 35.74 14.925 533.42

Basis of Unit rate need to be justified with

separate analysis for bridge cost / RKM

and attached as appendix. Each major

bridge cost to be worked out separately

and added.

2.2 Entry to depot at grade RKM 11.91 1.000 11.91

Subtotal (2) 545.33 545.33 Basis of unit rate need to be explained.

3 Station building

3.1 Elevated stations Each

a Type (A) way side-civil works Each 12.15 9.000 109.35 Basis of unit rate not given

b Type (A) way side-EM works etc Each 1.96 9.000 17.64 Basis of unit rate not given

c Type (B) way side with sig. - Civil works Each 13.16 4.000 52.64 Basis of unit rate not given

d Type (B) way side with sig. - EM works etc Each 2.12 4.000 8.48 Basis of unit rate not given

e Type (C), Terminal station - Civil works Each 20.25 2.000 40.50 Basis of unit rate not given

f Type (C), Terminal station -Em works Each 3.26 2.000 6.52

Basis of unit rate not given

Subtotal (3)

Total

wrong

235.13

249.24 235.13 Basis of unit rate not given total of 249.24

is not correct.

4 Depot LS

a Civil works LS 50.00

Provision seems to be grossly under

estimated an annexure giving the details of

this provision should be worked out on the

basis of facilities provided and their cost.

b EM works LS 100.00

The basis of such high value LS provision

should be based on details to be attached

as an annexure to support the provision

made

Subtotal (4) 150.00 150.00

5 P-Way

5.1 Ballast-less track for Elv. & UG section RKM 6.55 14.925 97.76

The details of cost of P way per unit RKM should be attached as annexure to the report. Unit rate of 6.55 is high due to import of material and technology. There is scope for reduction, if indigenous technology available with the country is adopted. Heavy scope for reduction in the unit rate, if BG standards are adopted

5.2 Ballasted track for at grade alignment in depot RKM 1.91 5.000 9.55

Annexure 2 – Corridor II SG– 2/3 Heavy scope for reduction in the unit rate, if BG standards are adopted

Subtotal (5) 107.31 107.31

6 Traction & power supply incl.

Corridor II - SG

31

OHE, ASS etc, Exl. Lifts

6.1 Elevated & At grade section RKM 5.43 15.925 86.47

7.5x15.925

=119.44

Unit rate seem to have been grossly underestimated needs to be looked into with details attached as annexure.

6.2 Lift for elevated stations Each 0.22 64.000 14.08 0.30X64 =

19.2

This is also under estimated. Provision of 0.30 for unit rate appears reasonable. Needs to be looked into

6.3 Escalator for elevated station Each 0.87 64.000 55.68 1.15 X 64

=70.4

The unit rate seem to be under estimated and should be around 1.15 each

Subtotal (6) 156.23 209.04

7 Signalling & Telecom.

7.1 Sig. & Telecom. RKM 13.04 15.925 207.66 15 X

15.925 =238.875

Unit Under estimated and should be around 15.00

7.2 Automatic fare collection Stn

b) Elevated stations Each 2.72 16.000 43.52 43.52

Subtotal (7) 251.18 282.400

8 R & R incl. hutments etc LS 44.11

Subtotal (8) 44.11 44.11

The basis of arriving at the LS should be furnished in an annexure to appreciate reasonable of provision

9 Misc. utilities, roadwork, other civil works such

as median stn. Signages env. Protection

a Civil works + EM Works RKM 3.50 14.925 52.24

The basis of arring at the unit rate should be furnished as an annex. Based on the details given in the DPR

Subtotal (9) 52.24 52.24

10 Rolling stock Each 7.81 28.000 218.68

This is grossly under estimated under qty as well as for unit rate. The qty should be based on the requirements of 30 yrs life cycle that is the requirement in the year 2045. The requirement of Rolling stock in the year 2031 has been assessed at 48 at 6.5min headway at page 19/22 chapter 6 of the DPR. (As against 40 indicated for the year 2031 at 8min headway in the table para 6.5 at page 10/22 of chapter 6.) The cost estimates make a provision of only 28 coaches, which is not a representative of the number of coaches for life cycle requirements of 30 yrs. The unit rate / coach of 7.81/coach has been under estimated as the price/coach quoted for Mumbai metro in the year 2006 was Rs 9 cr each. The DPR indicates a rate of Rs 10cr each at page 43/43 chapter 4 in the DPR

Subtotal (10) 218.68 720

(72x10)

Annexure 2 – Corridor II SG – 3/3 At Rs 10cr/coach and 1931 requirements of 48 coaches, the total amount workout to 480cr. As this corridor has 50% traffic demand of that for corridor 1, it is assumed that in the year 2045 (30yr life cycle requirements), we may considered the requirement to meet traffic demand at 12 trains of 6 coaches at 3min frequency, requiring 72 coaches. The

32

cost for coaches required would be 72 X 10 = Rs720cr,

11 Capital expenditure on security LS

a Civil works LS 12.00

b EM works LS 8.00 The basis of arriving at the unit rate should be furnished as an annex. Based on the details given in the DPR

Subtotal (11) 20.00 20.00

12 Total of all items except land 1780.21 2504.2

Grossly under estimated based on remarks above

13 General charges incl. design charges @ 5% 89.01 125.21 This will get further increased due to revision of total item 12

14 Total of all items incl. G. charges exl. Land 1869.22 2,629.41

15 Contingencies @ 3% 56.08 78.88 This will change due to change in item 14

16 Gross total 1925.30 2,708.29

Cost without land = 1925.00 2,708.00

Cost with land = 2217.00 2,990.00

2217/14.925=148.5

2991/14.925 = 200.40 say 200

2217x1.20=2660.4 2991x1.2=3589 = 240cr/km

2660 178cr/km

The above total cost does not include the overhead cost of the SPV, the fees charged by the interim consultant for location survey, the general consultant, the prime consultant, supervising the work of general consultant, the proof consultant and the extra OH charges of the contractors submitting the bids to include bid bond charges financing charges, insurance charges and the charges for risk element involved in the project. The provision for Arb. expenses involved in such large number of complex contract based on previous experience need to be provided at least 5% OF THE PROJECT COST (though such costs are not provided in normal estimates, but form a part of the total completion cost of the project, interest during construction should also be assessed and shown separately based on the based on the bar chart for construction activities. Provision for legal charges and the overseas consultants forming JV with local parties charged their consultancy charges at 10 to 12% of the cost of the project. All these charges need to be added in a realistic estimate for the project.

Annexure 3 Corridor 1 BG – 1/3

REVISED ABSTRACT COST OF AN ELEVATED AND UNDERGROUND METRO AT PUNE

(Total length 31.511km = elevated 26.495 km and underground 5.019 km) - Total Stations =31 = Elevated 25 nos. Underground 6nos

33

BG - 3.66m wide coaches

Elevated & UNDERGROUND (11.570km Elev. - 5.019 km UG)

Pimpri - Swargate (16.589 Km. & 15 Stations 9 Elev. & 6 UG

Unit Qty Rate Cost BG

3.66m

wide

coach

cost Revised by

core group for

SG - I

Cost of DMRC for SG -I

Remarks

Sno. Item (Rs. in

Crores)

(Rs. in

Crores)

1 Land L.S. 522.71 522.71 522.71 No reduction in land is proposed

though there will be a reduction

in depot land to the extent of 33% due to reduction in

the train length

Subtotal (1) 522.71 522.71 522.71

2 Alignment and Foundation/Way corridor

2.1 Underground section by BM excluding

station length (260m each.

RKM 3.074 190 584.06

549.29 549.29

2.2 Underground section by cut and cover

excluding station length (260m each)

RMK 0.385 100 38.50

36.69 36.69

2.3 Elevated section including station length RKM 11.57 38 439.66 413.51 413.51

2.4 Entry to depot at grade RKM 1 11 11.00 11.91 11.91

Subtotal (2)

1,073.22

1,011.41 1,011.41

3 Station Buildings Civil +EM) Elevated

3.1 Underground station (260m length)

including EM works, lifts, escalator VAC

Each

a) Underground station civil works Each 6.00

180.00

1,080.00

1,000.68 1,000.68 Rate for BG increased due to

wider coaches

b) Underground station - EM work etc Each 6.00 70.00 420.00 391.26 391.26 Rate for BG increased due to

wider coaches

3.2 Elevated stations Each

a) Tye A way side -Civil works each 5.00 11.25 56.25 60.75 60.75 Reduction due to reduced length

Of plat. & cover

b) Tye A way side -EM works etc Each 5.00 9.96 49.80 90.80 90.80 No change proposed

c) Type B way side with signalling - civil

works

Each 2.00 11.84 23.68 26.32 26.32 10% reduction due to

reduced length of platforms

d) Type B way side with signalling - EM

works etc

Each 2.00 2.12 4.24 4.24 4.24 No change

e) Type C terminal station civil works Each 2.00 18.22 36.44 40.50 40.50 10% reduction due to

reduced length of platforms

f) Type C terminal station -EM works Each 2.00 3.26 6.52 6.52 6.52

3.3 Metro Bhavan and OCC building LS

a) Metro Bhavan and OCC building civil

works

LS Nil nil 85.00 85.00 85.00 No change proposed

b) Metro Bhavan and OCC building EM

works

LS Nil nil 15.00 15.00 15.00 No change proposed

Subtotal (3)

1,776.93

1,721.07 1,640.07 The total 1640.07is wrong and

it should be 1721.07

(Mistake of 87.cr)

4 Depot Annexure 3 Corridor 1 BG – 2/3

a) Civil Works LS Nil Nil 50.00 75.00 50.00 Due to reduction in number of

coaches there will be a reduction

in the overall facilities in the depot

b) EM Works LS Nil nil 100.00 150.00 100.00 Due to reduction in number of

coaches there will be a reduction

in the overall facilities in the depot

Corridor I - BG

34

Subtotal (4) 150.00 225.00 150.00

5 P-Way RKM

5.1 Ballast-less track for elev. & UG section

RKM 16.59 5.00 82.95 108.66 108.66 There is scope for reduction if indigenous technology available with the country is adopted. Heavy scope for reduction in the unit rate, if BG standards are adopted

5.2 Ballasted track at grade alignment in depots

RKM 5.00 1.60 8.00 9.55 9.55 There is scope for reduction if indigenous technology available with the country is adopted. Heavy scope for reduction in the unit rate, if BG standards are adopted

Subtotal (5) 90.95 118.21 118.21

6 Traction and power supply Incl. OHE, ASS etc. exl. Lift and escalators for UG section

6.1 UG section RKM 5.02 15.00

75.30 75.28 (15x5.019)

57.27

6.2 Elevated and at grade section RKM 12.57 7.50 94.27 7.5x12.570 =94.27

68.26

6.3 Lifts for elevated stations each 40.00 0.30 12.00 0.30x36 =10.8 7.92

6.4 Escalator for elevated stations Each 40.00 1.15 46.00 1.15x36 = 41.4

31.32

Subtotal (6) 227.57 221.76 164.76

7 Signalling & telecom

7.1 Signalling and telecom RKM 17.59 10.00

175.90 15x17.58 263.7

229.36

7.2 Automatic fare collection

a) UG station each 6.00 3.00 18.00 21.18 21.18 Nil

b) Elevated station Each 9.00 2.00 18.00 24.48 24.48 Nil

Subtotal (7) 211.90 309.36 275.00 Reduction as no ATC & ATP required for 3min service

8 R & R including hutmates etc LS Nil Nil 30.00 30.00

Subtotal (8) 30.00 30.00 30.00

9) Misc. Utilities, road works other civil works such as median stations, signages, environmental protection

a) Civil works + EM wrks RKM 16.59 3.50 58.06 58.06 58.06

Subtotal (9) 58.06 58.06 58.06

10 Rolling stock

Each 96.00 3.00 288.00 1440 (144x10) * 593.56

Annexure 3 Corridor 1 BG – 3/3 The provision has been made for the year 2045 at 3min frequency for 4 coach train (24 train X 4 coaches/train = 96 coaches) as compared to SG requirements of 2045 at 3min frequency at 24train X 6coaches/train = 144 coaches for 3min service. The rate of rs 2cr/coach non AC indigenous has been increased to Rs 3cr/coach for improved furnishings, body and AC and other

35

standards adopted as for SG. *(Provision has been made only for 76 coaches at 7.81cr/coach - grossly under estimated)

Subtotal (10) 288.00 1,440.00

593.56

11 Capital expentiture on securit

a) Civil works LS 12.00 12.00 12.00

b) EM Works LS 8.00 8.00 8.00

Subtotal (11) 20.00 20.00 20.00

12 Total of all items except land for BG with 3.66m wide coaches

4221.91 5,236.00

4,061.09

13 General charges incl. design charges @ 5% on all items except land

211.10 262.00

14 Total of all items incl. GC except land 4,433.01

5,498.00

15 Contingency @ 3% 132.99 165.00

16 Gross total 4,566.00

5,663.00

Cost witout land =

4,566.00

5,663.00

Cost with land (523) =

5,089.00

6,186.00 6186-5089=1097/6186=17%

6098x1.2 = 7318 = 442cr/km

Cost / km with land L = 16.589km

306.76 373.cr/km

Annexure 3 – Corridor II-BG 1/4

Capital cost estimate of Vanaz - Ramwadi

Total length = 14.925km, UG=0 Elv. = 14.925km

Total station = 16nos, UG = 0, Elv. = 16

S.No Item Unit Rate Qty Amount

cost Revised by

core group for

SG - II

Cost of

DMRC for

SG -II Remarks

Corridor II BG

36

(Rs in cr.) (Rs in cr.)

1 Land 282.77 282.77 282.77

Subtotal (1) 282.77 282.77 282.77

2 Alignment and formation

2.1 Elevated section incl. Station length RKM 38 14.925 567.15 533.42 533.42

2.2 Entry to depot at grade RKM 11 1.000 11 11.91 11.91

Subtotal (2) 578.15 545.33 545.33 Additional cost for BG

3 Station building

3.1 Elevated stations Each

a Type (A) way side-civil works Each 11.25 9.000 101.25 109.35 109.35

Reduction due to

reduced length of

platforms

b Type (A) way side-EM works etc Each 1.96 9.000 17.64 17.64 17.64 No change

c Type (B) way side with sig. - Civil works Each 11.84 4.000 47.36 52.64 47.36

10% reduction

due to reduced length

of platforms

d Type (B) way side with sig. - EM works etc Each 2.12 4.000 8.48 8.48 8.48

e Type (C), Terminal station - Civil works Each 18.22 2.000 36.44 40.50 36.44

10% reduction

due to reduced length

of platforms

f Type (C), Terminal station -Em works Each 3.26 2.000 6.52 6.52 6.52

Subtotal (3)

Total

wrong

235.13

217.69 235.13 249.24 235.13

4 Depot LS

a Civil works LS 40.00 50.00 50.00

Reduction in cost for

BG due to reduce length

of trains for equivalent

volume of traffic for

SG no earth filling

required for depot site.

b EM works LS 80.00 100.00 100.00 Reduction in cost for

BG due to reduce facilities provided

Subtotal (4) 120.00 150.00 150.00

5 P-Way

5.1 Ballastless track for Elv. & UG section RKM 5 14.925 74.62

97.76 97.76 There is scope for reduction if indigenous technology available with the country is adopted. Heavy scope for reduction in the unit rate, if BG standards are adopted

5.2 Ballasted track for at grade alignment in depot RKM 1.6 5.000 8.00

9.55 9.55 Annexure 3 –

Corridor II-BG 2/4 There is scope for reduction if indigenous technology available with the country is adopted. Heavy scope for reduction in the unit rate, if BG standards are adopted

Subtotal (5) 82.62 107.31 107.31

6 Traction & power supply incl.

OHE, ASS etc, Exl. Lifts

37

6.1 Elevated & At grade section RKM 7.5 15.925 119.43

7.5x15.925 =119.44

86.47 Unit rate seem to have been grossly underestimated for SG needs to be looked into with details attached as annexure.

6.2 Lift for elevated stations Each 0.3 70.000 21.00 0.30X64 = 19.2 14.08

This is also under estimated. Provision of 0.30 for unit rate appear reasonable. Needs to be looked into

6.3 Escalator for elevated station Each 1.15 70.000 80.50 1.15 X 64 =70.4 55.68

The unit rate seem to be under estimated for SG and should be around 1.15 each

Subtotal (6) 220.93 209.04 156.23

7 Signalling & Telecom.

7.1 Sig. & Telecom. RKM 10 15.925 159.25 15 X 15.925

=238.875 207.66

Unit Under estimated and should be around 15.00

7.2 Automatic fare collection Stn

b) Elevated stations Each 2.72 16.000 43.52 43.52 43.52

Subtotal (7) 202.77 282.400 251.18

8 R & R incl. hutments etc LS 44.11 44.11 44.11

Subtotal (8) 44.11 44.11 44.11

The basis of arriving at the LS should be furnished in an annexure to appreciate reasonable of provision

9 Misc. utilities, roadwork, other civil works such

as median stn. Signages env. Protection

a Civil works + EM Works RKM 3.50 14.925 52.24 52.24 52.24

The basis of arriving at the unit rate should be furnished as an annex. Based on the details given in the DPR

Subtotal (9) 52.24 52.24 52.24

10 Rolling stock Each 3.00 48.000 144.00 720 (72x10) 218.68

Annexure 3 –

Corridor II-BG 3/4 This is grossly under estimated under qty as well as for unit rate. The qty should be based on the requirements of 30 yrs life cycle that is the requirement in the year 2045. The requirement of Rolling stock in the year 2031 has been assessed at 48 at 6.5min headway at page 19/22 chapter 6 of the DPR. (As against 40 indicated for the year 2031 at 8min headway in

38

the table para 6.5 at page 10/22 of chapter 6.) The cost estimates makes a provision of only 28 coaches, which is not a representative of the number of coaches life cycle requirements of 30 yrs The unit rate / coach of 7.81/coach has been under estimated as the price/coach quoted for Mumbai metro in the year 2006 was Rs 9 cr each. The DPR indicates a rate of Rs 10cr each at page 43/43 chapter 4 in the DPR

Subtotal (10) 144.00 720.00 218.68

At Rs 10cr/coach and 1931 requirements of 48 coaches, the total amount workout to 480cr. As this corridor has 50% traffic demand of that for corridor 1, it is assumed that in the year 2045 (30yr life cycle requirements), we may considered the requirement to meet traffic demand at 12 trains of 6 coaches at 3min frequency, requiring 72 coaches. The cost f or coaches required would be 72 X 10 = Rs720cr,

11 Capital expenditure on security LS

a Civil works LS 12.00 12.00 12.00

b EM works LS 8.00 8.00 8.00

Annexure 3 –

Corridor II-BG 4/4 The basis of arriving at the unit rate should be furnished as an annex. Based on the details given in the DPR

Subtotal (11) 20.00 20.00 20.00

12 Total of all items except land 1682.51 2,365.56 1,780.21 Grossly under estimated based on remarks above

13 General charges incl. design charges @ 5% 84.10 118.28 89.01 This will get further increased due to revision of total item 12

14 Total of all items incl. G. charges exl. Land 1766.61 2,483.84 1,869.22

15 Contingencies @ 3% 53.00 74.51 This will change due to change in item 14

16 Gross total 1819.61 2,558.35

Cost without land = 1820.00 2,558.00

39

Cost with land = 2103.00 2,841.00

2104/14.925=141/lm 2841/14.925=190.34/km

The above total cost does not include the overhead cost of the SPV, the fees charged by the interim consultant for location survey, the general consultant, the prime consultant, supervising the work of general consultant, the proof consultant and the extra OH charges of the contractors submitting the bids to include bid bond charges financing charges, insurance charges and the charges for risk element involved in the project. The provision for Arb. expenses involved in such large number of complex contract based on previous experience need to be provided at least 5% OF THE PROJECT COST (though such costs are not provided in normal estimates, but form a part of the total completion cost of the project, interest during construction should also be assessed and shown separately based on the based on the bar chart for construction activities. Provision for legal charges and the overseas consultants forming JV with local parties charged their consultancy charges at 10 to 12% of the cost of the project. All these charges need to be added in a realistic estimate for the project.

Annexure – 4

No.14011/44/2006-UT

Government of India

Ministry of Urban Development

( UT Division)

******

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, 01st

November, 2006

To

The All Chief Secretaries,

All Principal Secretaries (Urban Development)

All Principal Secretaries (Transport)

Sub: Guidelines for preparation of Detailed Project Report for Integrated Mass Transit System development plans (Bus

based/Rail based).

…….

Sir,

Recognizing the problem of Urban Transport a number of cities are coming up with Mass Transit System proposals(Bus Based/Rail

Based) to be funded under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, Viability Gap funding or budgetary support from

Government of India. While going through the Detailed Project Reports of various proposals, it has been noticed that in the absence of

proper guidelines, Project Reports are being prepared which are not in line with the National Urban Transport Policy, approved by the

Government of India in April, 2006.

2. It has also been noticed that the individual proposals are not part of an overall transport/mobility plan. This should be an integrated

transport and land use plan. In view of all this, a common set of guidelines have been prepared addressing all the important issues

40

related to preparation of Detailed Project Reports for Mass Transit System proposals (Bus based/Rail based). These guidelines shall

not only help in preparation of proposals, but also in more objective appraisal of these proposals. Since number of cities are coming up

for BRT proposals, these guidelines are explicitly worded for BRT proposals. However, the structure listed in the guidelines is broad

based and will be applicable for any Mass Transit proposal by suitably substituting BRTS by Metro/LRT/Mono Rail etc. 3. It is

expected that all the DPRs for Mass Transit Systems seeking assistance from Government of India under JNNURM or any other

scheme shall be prepared on the prescribed format which is enclosed. Any suggestions for improvement of these guidelines are

welcome and may kindly be forwarded within 15 days by email/FAX.

Yours faithfully,

( S.K. LOHIA )

DIRECTOR (UT)

Email: sklohia65@ gmail.com

dir-mrts-mud@nic.in

FAX: 011-23061102

Tel: 011-23061114

copy to : Secretary, Planning Commission, Yojana Bhawan, New Delhi.

Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.

Guidelines for preparation of Detailed Project Report for Integrated Mass Transit System development plans (Bus based/Rail

Based) Recognizing the problem of Urban Transport a number of cities are coming up with Mass Transit System proposals(Bus Based/Rail

Based) to be funded under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, Viability Gap funding or budgetary support from

Government of India. While going through the Detailed Project Reports of various proposals, it has been noticed that in the absence of

proper guidelines, Project Reports are being prepared which are not in line with the National Urban Transport Policy, approved by the

Government of India in April, 2006.

2. The National Urban Transport Policy primarily focuses on “Mobility of people” rather than “Mobility of Vehicles” and encourages

implementation of sustainable transport solutions in cities of various sizes. It seeks to do this by encouraging improvements in public

transport and facilities for the use of non-motorized modes. It suggests greater involvement of the private sector and innovative

financing mechanisms to enhance efficiency and reduce the impact on the public budget. It seeks to reduce travel demand by

encouraging a better integration of land use and transport planning. It seeks to encourage the use of cleaner technologies. It also seeks

to create better awareness amongst the people so that there is support for the initiatives that need to be taken and some compromises

that people may need to make.

3. Apart from this, the city is required to prepare overall transport / mobility plan. This should be an integrated transport and land use

plan and should spell out the projected mobility needs and also the manner in which such mobility needs are proposed to be met. An

integrated land use and transport plan is a pre-requisite to receiving funds from Government of India for any major transport projects.

4. In view of all this, a need was felt for having a common set of guidelines for preparation as well as appraisal of Detailed Project

Reports for Mass Transit System proposals (Bus Based/Rail Based) so that all the important issues are properly addressed. Since

number of cities are coming up for BRT proposals, these guidelines are explicitly worded for BRT proposals. However, the structure

listed in the guidelines is broad based and will be applicable for any Mass Transit proposal by suitably substituting BRTS by

Metro/LRT/Mono Rail etc.

5. The guidelines list the various Chapters and sub-topics which are to be included in the DPR along with an explanatory

memorandum wherever required. The DPR itself is planned to be prepared in two phases, DPR-I relating to feasibility report, project

41

identification, concept description and development. DPR-II shall be more in the nature of design reports required at the stage of

implementation.

6. It is expected that all the DPRs for Mass Transit Systems seeking assistance from Government of India under JNNURM or any

other scheme shall be prepared on the prescribed format. DPR-I shall form the basis for appraisal and sanction of the project. Release

of Central grant at various stages shall be linked to fulfilling various conditions relating to planning, design and implementation. For

this, separate check list would be issued subsequently. Based on the plan outline, projects are to be detailed out, 4 conceptually

designed, costs worked out, financial and economical feasibility examined and environmental and social impacts analysed and

mitigation measures planned. This would include overall funding plan, including risk analysis. Institutional framework and

implementation plan would also form a part of this report. The various Chapters and sub-headings in the report shall be as detailed in

the subsequent pages. Any suggestions for modifications/improvement on these guidelines are welcome.

Detailed Project Report- I Chapter

Chapter Content

Executive Summary

As the name suggests, this should contain overall summary of the project, giving all the salient features of the project. This should

include a brief explanation of the city growth, existing transportation situation, land use – transport trends, alternative strategies,

choice of strategy and its justification, brief description of the proposed network and how the proposal will help the current

situation. While some figures may be used to make a point, all extra details must be avoided.

1.0 A Profile Of The City A brief overview of the city in terms of its growth, economy, spatial structure and trends are analysed and

perspectives on the future growth are presented.

1.1 General/historical background

1.2 Location, climate, physical setting, regional linkages

1.3 Demographic and socio economic profile: population growth, density, migration patterns, spatial patterns of growth,

projections for next 20 years

1.4 Urban Land Use Structure / Activity Distribution

Planning study areas and existing plans, existing land use distribution, review of zoning Regulations (zoning and FSI

pattern and its appropriateness), employment distribution by Traffic Zones, activity locations (Business areas,

University, Hospitals, Transport Terminals,..), land use plan proposals (Master Plan & CDP strategy), road network

pattern, evaluation w.r.t land use-Transport Integration

2.0 Existing Transportation System In The City Describes the components of urban transport system in terms of status, trends and gaps.

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Vehicular growth and composition

2.3 Road network Characteristics

Network Inventory including length, width, Bridges, Robs, Flyovers, Network pattern, missing links, issues

2.4 Major Transportation nodes e.g. Railway. Station, ISBT, Airport And Traffic handled

2.5 Pedestrian and NMV facilities

2.6 Traffic Management Including Parking Management

2.7 Traffic Characteristics

Volume, traffic composition, speed and delays, pedestrian and NMV movement

2.8 Traffic Safety

2.9 Intermediate Public Transit System: Composition, Status and Role

2.10 Public Transportation System

Type, status and trends in terms size, service, routing, fare, patronage, financial performance, institutional framework,

responsible agency & Act, constraints, past proposals

2.11 Issues And Prospects

3.0 Travel Characteristics

Based on primary survey data present travel patterns and forecast the future travel demand.

3.1 Details of various traffic and transportation studies undertaken for the city:

Study Area, Zoning, Land Use Surveys, Transportation Surveys: Classified volume counts, road side interviews, OD

Surveys, Willingness to pay/use Surveys, Traffic Surveys, Speed-Delay Surveys, Parking Surveys (Survey Details in

terms of sample framework, survey design, formats etc., to be attached as Annexure)

3.2 Socio-Economic Characteristics

Age Wise Distribution of Population, Activity Status (Work, Education,..), Income Distribution, Vehicle Ownership

Travel Characteristics

Trip Rate, Trip Purpose, Mode Choice, Trip Length, Monthly Expenditure On Travel, Spatial Pattern of Passenger

Movement, Mobility Patterns and Needs of Women, Old Aged, Physically Challenged

42

3.3 Travel Demand Analysis

Model Framework, Model Calibration, Summary of Travel Demand Patterns

4.0 Comprehensive Mobility Plan Developing an integrated plan is the theme of this chapter. Integrated plan would imply integration wrt landuse and

transport, integration of various modes (fares, routes, facilities) and institutional framework for coordination

4.1 Future Travel Demand Scenarios

4.2 Challenges and opportunities, goals and objectives

4.3 Alternative Analysis

Evaluation of various alternative technologies to solve the existing problems with cost benefit analysis, technical

feasibility including evaluation of lowest cost options like Traffic Management, Rationalization etc., rationale for

choosing a particular Technology / system concept

4.4 Stake holder consultations including Workshops held if any

4.5 Transport Master Plan

It should focus on moving people and not vehicles. It should integrate land use with transport plan including mass

transit systems connectivity to all new/ future Satellite Townships/emerging activity centres (SEZ’s), main network

and Feeder network including pedestrian & NVSs, phasing of implementation

4.6 Integration of Master Transport Plan into the Master Plan of the city

enclose soft & hard copy of approved Master Plan of the city and if not approved, provide time limits for approval.

5.0 BRT System Design – Network & Roadway

Discusses various policy issues related to roadway design and presents a conceptual design to include all elements for the entire

BRT network

5.1 Network/Corridor Assessment, Selection

Existing Right of way, DP/Master Plan of road , BRT Roadway concepts number of junctions along each corridor,

Existing no. of lanes, Location and Number of existing Bus/Para Transit stoppages, Access to Bus Stop, Number and

frequency of Bus, Para Transit routes serving the corridors, number of pedestrians and NMV trips being carried by

these corridors

5.2 Land Ownership of the Corridor

5.3 Roadway and service design concept: median vs side lanes, open vs closed system, exclusive/dedicated vs mixed

corridor

5.4 Geometric design of Corridor including design for NMVs & pedestrians evolving alternative cross sections including

NMVs tracks, pedestrian facilities, plan/profile for typical sections

5.5 Pavement design consideration like design period, traffic, sub grade strength design, drainage arrangement

5.6 Street Lighting, Furniture

5.7 Relocation of existing services/utilities

5.8 Bus Stops Proposed

Provide sample design of proposed Bus Stops Based on Ridership demands & projections

5.9 Block cost estimates for roadway development

6.0 BRT System Design – Vehicle, Services And Operations

Presents choice of bus technology and designs services and operation systems.

6.1 Bus Types And Detailed Specifications

Vehicle Length, Width, Low/Semi-Low/High Floor, Door Width & Location, Fuel etc. Include rationale for choosing

any particular type & specifications

6.2 BRTS Service Types

All Stops, Limited Stops, A.C/Non-A.C

6.3 Routine & Frequency

6.4 Fleet Requirement

6.5 System of Procurement

6.6 Feeder Services

6.7 Ticketing and Passes System

6.8 Vehicle Tracking & Monitoring

6.9 Integration Of BRT With Other Transit Services – Physical And Ticket Integration

6.10 Setting up of Common Utility Offices at Terminals/Major Interchange Points,

eg: Submission of Bills, Taxes Etc.

6.11 Fare Fixation And Collection System

6.12 Cost Estimates

7.0 BRT System Design: Feeder Network & Infrastructure

Feeder services are designed. Integrating vending within the street is explored.

7.1 Feeder Services Planned

43

7.2 Parking For Para Transit Facilities

7.3 Hawkers & Vendors Reorganization

Space for hawkers and vendors has to be provided in such a manner that they do not encroach upon the right of way

meant for uninterrupted movement of vehicles. Include sample designs for parking areas as well as for space meant

for hawkers and vendors, provide rationale for amount and location of space being provided for both functions

7.4 Cost Estimates

8.0. Integrating Land Use & Transportation and Using Land as a Resource

Actions to achieve Transit Oriented Landuse Structure are contemplated. While doing so opportunities for using land

as a resource for mass transit development are also explored.

8.1 Inventory (Within 500 M either side) And Overall Activity Pattern

Also Include List Of All The Vacant Surplus Govt. Land, Existing Govt. Buildings With Their Areas Along Each

Identified Corridor

8.2 Assessment Of Development Potential

List Land/Buildings amenable for change in near future e.g. vacant land, Low rise development relocation etc., Use

type, Densification of corridor by increasing FSI

8.3 Land value assessment & Revenue potential

8.4 PPP Potential

8.5 Impact assessment

Traffic & Other Services Desired

8.6 Implementation Mechanisms

9.0 Terminals and Parking

Planning, design, costing and mode of development and operation of BRT terminals and parking facilities along the

corridor are presented.

9.1 Locations & Area

9.2 Parking Policy – Existing and Proposed

9.3 Block Cost Estimates

9.4 PPP Potential

10.0 ITS and Passenger Information System, Traffic Information Centre ITS is used to provide user information, monitor system operations, compliance to schedules and service quality,

minimize revenue leakages, reduce costs, enhance safety and also to generate valuation traffic information for fine-

tuning mobility plans. Planning and design of ITS applications is presented in this chapter.

10.1 Roadway Applications Design

10.2 Bus Applications Design

10.3 Bus Station Applications Design

10.4 Fare Collection System

10.5 Traffic Information Centres

10.6 System Integration

10.7 Other Information Systems (Signage, Time Tables, Posters etc.,)

10.8 System Management Plan

10.9 Physical and IT Infrastructure Development and Operations’ Costs & Revenue Generation

11.0 Proposed Phasing Of Entire Project

Various identified corridors making up the complete network need to be prioritized using appropriate rationale.

Provide a brief on all factors that were looked into, to determine priority list and explain the method that was used.

44

12.0 Agency/Agencies For Implementation, Operation And Maintenance

Detail their structure, role, functions & setting up of UMTA

13.0 Financial Planning And Cost Estimates

13.1 Costing of entire project and for each of the phases

detailed cost estimates to be attached as Annexure

13.2 Revenue From Different Sources

Fare box, advertisement, route bidding etc., taxes and property development etc.

13.3 FIRR & EIRR With – 15 Yrs Time Horizon

Detail all the assumptions made to arrive at final figures

13.4 Financial Structuring Of The Project

Explore All Possible Ways Of Funding The Project Using Different Approaches Like PPP, BOT, Developer Finance

Model Etc. And Proposed Funding Model.

14.0 Sustainability Analysis Of The System

For both Infrastructure and the Rolling Stock.

Detailed risk analysis at various stages of the project to be analysed and mitigation strategies suggested.

THANK YOU

SWADESHI vs VIDESHI

1947 2009

V. K. J. RANE – IRSE (Retd.) Ex-M.D./IRCON F-5, 2nd floor, 48/49 Grafikon Paradise, NIBM Road, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune - 411 048

Tel: (020) 2685 4132, Mobile: 093710 05396 Email: vkjrane1930@hotmail.com