Comparative Evaluation between Elevated and Underground Metro

Charkop-Bandra-MankhurdLink 5-6

1

ByHitesh L Bhanushali

Under guidance ofProf. S.L.Dhingra

Overview of presentation

2

IntroductionStudy AreaComparison of Underground and Elevated

MetroEconomic Evaluation of Fifth Link of Metro

line IIConclusion

Introduction

3

Mumbai MetroMain objective is to provide a rail based mass

transit connectivity to people within an approach distance of 1 to 2 Km.

Need of Metro ProjectThe existing public transportation systems

viz. sub-urban trains and BEST buses are saturated.

The existing sub-urban trains connect the northern and southern parts of the city and there is huge gap in connectivity between eastern and western suburbs of the city.

Cont……

4

Phase I (2006 – 2011) Versova - Andheri – Ghatkopar - 11.07 Km Colaba - Bandra – Charkop - 38.24 Km Bandra - Kurla – Mankhurd - 13.37 Km Total - 62.68 Km     Phase II (2011 – 2016)   Charkop - Dahisar - 7.5 Km Ghatkopar – Mulund - 12.4 Km     Phase III ( 2016 – 2021)   BKC - Kanjur Marg via Airport - 19.5 Km Andheri(E) - Dahisar(E) - 18 Km Hutatma Chowk – Ghatkopar - 21.8 Km Sewri – Prabhadevi - 3.5 Km     Total Length 146.5 km

Study Area

5

Metro II (Charkop-Bandra-Mankhurd)Link 5-6 Oshiwara to samartha nagar Length: 1.81mTotal length of metro lineII is 31.87 m

6Fig: Map showing all station for Charkop – Bandra -Mankhurd

corridorSource: (

http://www.mumbaimetro1.com/HTML/project_update.html)

Economic Evaluation

7

Total Transportation Cost1. Cost of construction of the facility initially2. Periodic cost of maintaining the facility

over its design life3. Road User Cost

a) Vehicle Operating Costb) Time Costc) Accident Costd) Pollution emission Cost

Outline

8

IntroductionStudy AreaNeed of Metro and comparison of elevated

& undergroundTotal transportation CostEconomic Evaluation –methodsNPV method & ResultsConclusions

Construction Cost

9

Year Land Cost Construction cost at

March 2007 Prices

Present Costruction

cost With 5%

Escalation

Completion cost

2010 200 1385 1835 1835

2011 125 4156 4956 5204

2012   4156 4811 5304

2013   2771 3208 3714

2014   1385 1603 1948

Source: Comparative Evaluation between Elevated and Underground Metro report, Dr. S.L Dhingra

maintenance cost increases at 3% rate with the number of years

Table: Land and construction cost for metro II

VOC

10

VOC (per annum) = VOC (Per day per vehicle per Km) * Daily vehicle utilization in Km *365*Total traffic*traffic proportion for the link

10% of total traffic (source: From model of greater mumbai for BRT project)

11

Mode

DAILY VEHICLE

UTILIZATION IN

KM

VEHICLE

INFLUENCE

OCCUPANCY /

VEHICLEYEAR / MODE

Total No. of

Vehicles

2010

BUS 211 30% 34 BUS 7796

CAR 30 30% 2 CAR 526239

2 W 30 30% 1.2 2 W 702282

3 W 100 30% 1.8 3 W 122061

Total 1358378

  in 2003 in 2009

Speed Buses CarsTwo

WheelersAuto Buses Cars

Two

WheelersAuto

8 29.27       41.52      

10 26.11 6.63 1.98 5.39 37.04 9.40 2.81 7.65

15 21.3 4.94 1.68 3.84 30.21 7.01 2.38 5.45

20 18.25 4.07 1.53 3.07 25.89 5.77 2.17 4.35

Source: Detailed project report Mumbai Metro Project” DMRC (NOV 2006)

Table: Number of Vehicles

Table : Average Speed for different Modes

VOT

12

Time Cost or Value of timeVOT (per annum) = VOT

(Rs./hr./Vehicle)* Daily vehicle utilization in Km *365*Total Traffic*traffic proportion for the link /Average Speed

Table: Value of time for Different Modes

S. No. ModesVOT(Rs./hour/

person) in 2003

VOT(Rs./hr./

Vehicle) in 2003

VOT(Rs./hour/

person) in 2009

VOT(Rs./hr./

Vehicle) in 2009

1 BUS 13.01 442.34 15.53 528.18

2 CAR 33.18 66.36 39.62 79.24

3 2 W 20.47 24.564 24.44 29.33

4 3 W 19.63 35.334 23.44 42.19

Source: Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project (MUIP) Document: 2002114/RH/REP-006 page 18 of 33

Accident cost

13

Accident cost (per annum) = accident cost per each *number of accidents*traffic proportion factor the link

Table: Cost of Accident (lakhs) Table: No. of Road Accidents

Year /

Accidents

2001 2002 2003

Fatal 523 462 377

Serious 1794 1409 1391

Minor

Slight

4799 4886 4471

Year Fatal Serious Slight

1990 210000 32000 1100

2003 447915 68254 2346

2009 635376 96820 3328

Source: Manual of Economic Evaluation.SP-30, IRC 1993 and updated to 2003 @ 6% inflation rate.

Pollution Emission Cost

14

Pollution cost = Pollution emission (Kg / 1000 Liters Daily)*cost per kg emission* vehicle utilization in Km *365*Total Traffic*traffic proportion for the link /1000

cost per one Kg of emission of pollution as Rs.42 /-

Mode Fuel Consumption

(Litre / Km

Reduction Fuel

Consumption to

decongestion effects

(Litre / Km)

Pollution emission

(Kg / 1000 Litres

Bus 0.279 0.0682 96.5

Car 0.077 0.0287 447.6

2 Wheeler 0.029 0.0096 447.6

3 Wheeler 0.054 0.0192 447.6

Table: Pollution emission table my different modes

Source: SP 30

Methods of Economic Evaluation

Net Present Value (NPV) Method

15

Cont……

Benefit-Cost (B/C) Ratio MethodThe benefit-cost ratio is the ratio between

discounted total benefits and costs. For a project to be acceptable, the ratio must

have a value of 1 or greater.

16

Cont……

Internal Rate of Return MethodThe Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is the

discount rate which makes the discounted future benefits equal to the initial outlay.

In other words, it is the discount rate which makes the stream of cash flows to zero.

17

Results

18

NPV IRR B/C

With underground562.07 17.17

1.51

With Elevated682.07 20.83572

1.97

Table: Results comparing with metro and without metro

Sensitivity analysis for elevated vs without metro

19

NPV IRR

No change

562.07 17.17%10 increase in construction

cost 529.69 16.0720% increase in construction

cost 497.31 15.8710%decrease in construction

cost 569.96 17.9520%decrease in construction

cost 602.34 18.7810% increase in O/M cost

643.94 17.2920% increase in O/M Cost

661.39 17.4510% decrease in O/M cost

772.69 17.5420% decrease in O/M cost

763.74 17.48

20

Base

Case

10%

incr

ese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

20%

incr

ese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

10%

incr

ese

in O

& M

cos

t

20%

incr

ese

in O

&M c

ost

10%

dec

rese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

20%

dec

rese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

10%

dec

rese

in O

& M

cost

20%

dec

rese

in O

&M c

ost

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

562.07529.69 497.31

569.96602.34

643.94 661.39 772.69 763.74

Scenario Vs NPV when Elevated challenges without

Series1

scenario

NP

V

21

Base

Case

10%

incr

ese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

20%

incr

ese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

10%

incr

ese

in O

& M

cos

t

20%

incr

ese

in O

&M c

ost

10%

dec

rese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

20%

dec

rese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

10%

dec

rese

in O

& M

cost

20%

dec

rese

in O

&M c

ost

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

17.17

16.07 15.87

17.95

18.78

17.29 17.4517.54 17.48

Scenario Vs IRR when Elevated challenges without

Series1

Scenario

IRR

Sensitivity analysis for Under ground vs without metro

22

NPV IRR

No change682.07 20.83572

%10 increase in construction cost 649.69 19.7106

20% increase in construction cost 617.31 19.6994

10%decrease in construction cost 689.96 21.72922

20%decrease in construction cost 722.34 22.5214

10% increase in O/M cost763.94 20.51205

20% increase in O/M Cost781.39 20.61604

10% decrease in O/M cost892.69 20.26398

20% decrease in O/M cost883.74 20.2265

23

Base

Case

10%

incr

ese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

20%

incr

ese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

10%

incr

ese

in O

& M

cos

t

20%

incr

ese

in O

&M c

ost

10%

dec

rese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

20%

dec

rese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

10%

dec

rese

in O

& M

cost

20%

dec

rese

in O

&M c

ost

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

562.07529.69 497.31

569.96602.34

643.94 661.39 772.69 763.74

Scenario Vs NPV when UG challenges without

Series1

scenario

NP

V

24

Base

Case

10%

incr

ese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

20%

incr

ese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

10%

incr

ese

in O

& M

cos

t

20%

incr

ese

in O

&M c

ost

10%

dec

rese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

20%

dec

rese

in ca

pita

l cos

t

10%

dec

rese

in O

& M

cost

20%

dec

rese

in O

&M c

ost

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

21.5

22

22.5

23

20.83572

19.7106 19.6994

21.72922

22.5214

20.51205 20.61604

20.26398 20.2265

Scenario Vs IRR when UG challenges without

Series1

Scenario

IRR

Result: Comparison between underground with elevated metro

25

NPV B/C IRR

112.17 1.08 4%

Table: Comparing Underground with Elevated

NPV IRR

No change112.17

4%

%10 increase in construction cost 110.81 3.92%

20% increase in construction cost 106.67 3.87%

10%decrease in construction cost 115.67 4.87%

20%decrease in construction cost 122.18 5.34%

Table: Sensitivity analysis

Conclusion

26

NPV & B/C ratio for both elevated and underground for link 5-6 of metro II is feasible.

Comparing Under ground metro with elevated metro, underground is beneficial but its IRR and NPV values are not very high.

27

Thank you