Post on 17-Jan-2016
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