Naveen - 30 August, 2010 | Bangalore | Praja | railways | CRS | SWR | Meeting | CiSTUP | Transportation | public transport | Namma Railu | Commuter rail

Praja thanks all participants for making it to the meeting & sharing their opinions. Special thanks to Prof.Sitharam (Chairman, CiSTUP) & staff of CiSTUP for their hospitality & for graciously hosting the event.

The meeting was well attended & proved very useful for (re)examining Commuter Rail as a means of mass transportation to supplement the Metro & also to connect the nearby towns. Dr.A Ravindra (Advisor to Hon’ble CM, Urban Affairs) chaired the meeting.

The need for Namma Railu was undisputed - there was clear consensus amongst all participants that a suburban rail system was a pressing need for the city & the nearby towns.

Amongst the participants, the following officials expressed their views during the discussions (The list below is in the order that they began expressing views - apologies, if any names have been excluded mistakenly) :

1) Shri V Madhu, Principal Secretary, Infrastructure Development Dept, Govt of Karnataka

 2) Shri Haldar, Chief Passenger Traffic Member, Hubli

 3) Prof.M N Sreehari, Advisor to Government, Traffic, Transport & Infrastructure

 4) Dr.Ashwin Mahesh, ABIDe, IIM, Bangalore

 5) Shri B S Sudhir Chandra, Director (P&P), BMRC

 6) Shri N P Sharma, CE, BMRC

 7) Shri Prakash Mundoth

8) Shri N Sivasailam, IAS, Managing Director, BMRC

 9) Shri Krishna Byregowda, MLA

 10) Shri M K Shankar Linge Gowda, IAS, Secretary to Govt, Transport Dept.

 11) Shri P E Vivek Menon, Managing Director, Invicus Engineering Co.

 12) Mr Sudhanshu Mani, DRM, SWR, Bangalore Div.

 13) Mr Babu, Sr.DOM, SWR, Bangalore Div.

A brief presentation was initially made by Satya (IDS) about Namma Railu, following which Mr Ravindra requested participants to commence discussions. Following is a summary of the discussions as they occurred in chronological order :

---

Mr Madhu – Briefly outlined CTTP recommendations, explained about poor progress since last IDD /Praja meeting. Explained that efforts were taking time since Mr K H Muniappa, Minister for Railways, hadn’t responded to his call for a meeting.

Mr Haldar – Explained about constraints for expansion within Bangalore urban (land, excessive number of inter-city trains, etc), focussed on need for automatic signalling when tracks are to be shared - costs must be borne by state. Explained that in the long term, this has to be done with dedicated lines. Yesvantpur-Yelahanka & Yelahanka-Channasandra tracks doubling had been sanctioned, State must chip in for tracks doubling elsewhere. Due to crowded train infrastructure in Bangalore, it was not possible to run any more trains, Baiyappanahalli as hub makes it easier since city station is already over-crowded, NGEF land was necessary for railways, Yesvantpur-Yelahanka
was already full, & SWR cannot operate more trains. Addnl stns were not necessary since stations were already in place at necessary locations.

Mr Sreehari & Mr Ashwin - Explained that the world over, trains were being operated on shared tracks, with frequent stations.

Mr Sudhir Chandra - Explained about Mumbai suburban system, & about the need for separate corridors for an efficient system.

Mr Madhu – BARCL was to invest in airport rail.

Mr N P Sharma – Operations along City-Baiyappanahalli corridor would be difficult. Baiyappanahalli had to be the main hub.

Mr P Mandoth – Stated that development by railways in the last 10 years in areas around bangalore were very poor.

Mr Sivasailam – Stated that despite the long history, commuter rail hadn’t materialized. He stated "Where there is a will, there is a railway. Where there is no will, there is a survey" !

Mr Ashwin – Need for city mobility must be decided by state & taken up, whereas currently rail systems are controlled entirely by the railways.

Mr Sivasailam – Stated that it was better to have an independent system, but even this was subject to regulatory frameworks since rail operation outside urban areas has to be by railways.

Mr Sudhir Chandra – It was feasible to run more trains, but in India, efficiency was low due to the variety of different trains that were being run on the same tracks.

Mr Byregowda – Roads were not being used efficiently, optimization of existing infrastructure was necessary. Hubs must be developed out from city where commuter rail must integrate. 4-5 industrial areas were coming up past whitefield. The need for commter rail is being felt by all, commuter rail cannot be a standalone system & must integrate well with other systems.

Mr Ravindra – A consensus was needed to move anywhere further ahead.

Mr Ashwin – The system will be used for mobility between other points too, such as between Malur & Bangarpet. He quoted an example from London where people used the suburban system to move between suburban towns & not always to /from the city.

Mr Byregowda – Outsource growth (& related problems) to the exteriors by providing connectivity, Place infrastructure ahead of growth rather than growth ahead of infrastructure, as at present. Baiyappanahalli could be a major hub, ensuring reliable connectivity even if the hub is outside the city. This would be accepted by people, assuming bus or Metro services are well integrated.

Mr Ashwin – People must be discouraged to live on opposite side of town to their places of work.

Mr Sudhir Chandra – EMUs most suitable for quick acceleration /deceleration & must be used for Commuter Rail.

Mr Shankarlinge Gowda – An older Rites study had recommended Commuter rail, but IR had rejected, stating that system was choked. Two lines were started recently, but apart from that there has been no change in the last 10-12 years. Ramnagaram /Tumkur services can be run due to doubled tracks.

Mr Madhu – About 46 traffic hubs were planned, out of which 6 were major hubs (Baiyappanahalli, Yesvantpur, Peenya, etc).

Mr N P Sharma – To commence, a survey can be arranged from an agency, but not thro' the railways due to possibility of further delay/s.

Mr Sivasailam – Stns must be built by state, & it must be left to the state to design world class stns, & other such facilities.

Mr Madhu – Permission was needed to conduct DPR, since costs are involved.

Mr Haldar – It was not possible to operate suburban trains during peak hours due to frequent inter-city trains. Funding by state was necessary for upgrading signalling systems.

Mr Krsihna Byregowda – State does not have expertise in running trains. State can contribute if SWR requires it to.

Mr Ravindra – Any type of financial arrangements between state & railways & the modalities could be worked out.

Mr P Mandoth – State had been very generous to railways in the past.

Mr Ravindra – There is the possibility that some suburban towns might not necessarily take off & develop. Networking of transport in BMRDA regions was needed.

Mr Sivasailam – Commuter rail will result in a different pattern of development. BMRDA study may not reveal traffic patterns.

Mr Krishna Byregowda – There can be many uncertainities in development since development is unpredictable. The needeed areas must be provided connectivity.

Mr Ravindra – Basic issues have been summarized well, we need to explore a consensus.

Shankarlinge Gowda – BMRDA towns were not very well planned. Water availability was a question mark for some towns. Commuter rail will have guaranteed ridership in the years to come.

Mr Haldar – It was not possible to run trains to Tumkur or Ramnagaram.

Mr Sudhanshu Mani – Rail infrastructure has been over-stretched even for inter-city trains. They are facing problems since it was difficult to start new inter-city trains.

Mr Krishna Byregowda – We need to first understand if the railways are prepared to work with the city /state for solving the city's congestion problems & for running commuter rail services.

All participants – Commuter rail was a necessity for the city !

Mr Sreehari – Trains were promised from City & Cantt in Dec-2009, but were not started.

Mr Babu – Infrastructure had been insufficient in Dec-2009.

Mr Sreehari – But railways had stated then (in Dec-2009) that they could run these trains.

Mr Babu – Stated that they had started services to Devanahalli.

Mr Menon – Satellite towns were not taking off well, eg. Bidadi. Consensus about commuter rail was encouraging. It was best to agree on timelines. DPR is a good start. Timelines must be agreed for all - Metro, Satellite towns, Monorail, etc. Include commuter rail also into these plans.

Mr Ashwin – As regards the need for commuter rail, even railways would not say no, but they may not say yes either ! Two DPRs must be prepared – one in which SWR is included as a participant, & the other without SWR. Railways must co-operate for DPR preparation.

Mr Sivasailam – Provisions are already there in urban development system, Metro to airport plan is an example, Pre-feasibility study option is available for a start without involving railways.

Mr Krishna Byregowda – There is the possibility of railways later rejecting a study conducted without their involvement.

Mr Sudhir Chandra – If Rites do it, it might be acceptable to railways since Rites is an organ of the railways.

Mr Krishna Byregowda – We have come across such situations earlier.

Mr Sudhanshu Mani – It is not about tech or structure of the study. Railways will accept, but the problem is that of strained infrastructure.

Mr Sudhir Chandra – Can commuter rail work from hubs such as Byp from Bangarpet, etc ?

Mr Babu – Byp was decided as a hub about 3-4 years, for long distance trains & is a necessity for long distance trains. Probability for using it as a hub for commuter rail is about 2% !

Mr Sudhir Chandra – Quick solutions needed, World class stns will take time since even Delhi has not got one yet.

Mr Ravindra – Can we get a DPR done ? Discussion between railways & state can be done later.

Mr N P Sharma – Railways had many plans for the last 25 years, none of which have materialized.

Mr Ravindra – Continue with efforts, involve all interested parties for TOR in about six weeks time.

The meeting ended with an agreement to work on a TOR (Terms of Reference).

---

 

---

COMMENTS

---

PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES

Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!