At the risk of sounding repetitious, I reiterate: do not exclude BMTC/KSRTC from the TOR and planning.  One additional specialist from BMTC/KSRTC could be included in the TOR.  They will play the very important role of popularizing and "feeding" the train stations (not everyone has a private vehicle) and will have to be on board as a stakeholder. They may have limited say but if there is something that absolutely cannot be done, then it has to be considered.  Imagine that you run a state transport organization and another mode of transport that spent more money suddenly wants you to "serve" them and expects you to change routes, stops, frequency and bend to their will - won't you be resentful? This is the state with metro phase I where the consultant (DMRC) was an outsider; hopefully more coordination occurs in the future.

• favorite 89 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

 So how are you suggesting they be "included" in the TOR?

• favorite 100 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

If BMTC/KSRTC local shuttle service (circular, inter-station etc.) is not mentioned anywhere in the TOR, how/why will they be included in the study team or subsequent meetings?  The services should be mentioned as being an important part of making suburban and/or circular rail accessible/visible to the masses and financially viable. Read the last para in the TOR; one specialist with BMTC/KSRTC knowledge can be added as part of the study team.   Either (recent) ex-official or current official should be able to provide input.  To summarize, these can be included in TOR:

- Commuter rail SPV with SWR; popularized and "fed" by buses
- Buses to provide closest connectivity to surrounding residents.
- Buses improve financial feasibility by providing connectivity to more people at affordable rates.

No point in exclusively looking at railways as a panacea; have to look at it holistically (rail, metro, proposed mono, HSRL interaction/transfer, rail-road transfer, parking at stations etc.).  Witness bus services, bicycles for hire started by Delhi metro than having MoUs in place before-hand.

• favorite 103 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

If BMTC/KSRTC local shuttle service (circular, inter-station etc.) is not mentioned anywhere in the TOR, how/why will they be included in the study team or subsequent meetings? 

TOR is to commission a DPR which will come out with the appropriate stakeholders along with other financial details and operational structure. The reason study team needs a train specialist is to tackle solutions to the train running related issues and propose solutions to make the RAIL happen.

If you look at the TOR, in objectives, a reference is made to the SPV (BCRAL) as we have defined in the call to action report which includes BMTC as a stakeholder. The reason we put it is for the reasons you have mentioned.

But that needs to be validated with BMTC as an SPV is a financial vehicle where capital needs to be brought into the SPV as equity. A non-equity operational MoU with BMTC can be done by the financial vehicle when it rolls out as a legal entity. Example BIAL does not have BMTC as shareholder but they still run buses, its an operational arrangement. 

• favorite 91 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

 I would like to congratulate Capt. Naveen for coming out with the draft TOR. It is being used as input by CiSTUP for preparing the final TOR taking inputs from other stakeholders.

• favorite 102 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

IDS: Many thanks.

N: Your point is very valid - thanks for pointing out. As IDS mentioned, the draft TOR was based on the "Call To Action" report, which includes BMTC also as a stake holder. Reps from BMTC /KSRTC /BMRC /HSRL /Mono as consultants for multi-modal integration at Commuter rail stations is a good idea. I don't think they need to be part of the actual study team, though since the study will involve matters related to the SPV & operation of CRS.

• favorite 105 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

I think the confusion is between shareholders in SPV vs stakeholders in the project. Almost everybody in the city is a stakeholder in the project including BBMP for the accessibility items they have to build. So appropriate wording may be required in the TOR as inputs from our side. But i dont think it will be appropriate for the DPR to go into bus alignment details for each station. It is best handled operationally, as long as it is acknowledged that multimodal connectivity and all round accessibility to the stations is ensured by the system

• favorite 99 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Have embedded the revised TOR to the original blog post above. Retained the draft as attachment.

• favorite 109 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

IDS,

Looked through the updated TOR, but couldn't find nay mention or reference to provisions for interchanges with other mode of transport services like BMTC, KSRTC, Metro, Monorail etc.

• favorite 101 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

 but couldn't find nay mention or reference to provisions for interchanges 

Page 5 point 3

• favorite 94 Likes
• | login or register to post comments