Pune Metro Rail (Reply)

V. K. J. RANE – IRSE (Retd.) Ex-M.D./IRCON
Date 12th June 2010
Dear Dr. Sreedharan
(MD/DMRC)


Sub – Pune Metro Rail
Ref – Your Email No. DMRC/89/10 dated 08.06.10 in response to my e- mail dated 02.06.10


Thank you very much for your above e-mail and for your quick response for the same, clarifying issues brought out in my e-mail. I have, however, a few observations on the statements made by you, in your mail and shall be grateful, if a similar quick response is received from your end.

1 I am happy to note that the entire alignment has been personally seen by you and that the technical Feasibility has been ascertained by you. The DPR, however, does not provide the Technical Feasibility of the alignment near Paund Phata and crossing the Railway Tracks above the Pune Station and a large number of yard lines. The gradients and the track levels at these locations and a layout plan would have clarified the doubts in our minds. In addition DPR does not indicate, if any meetings were held with the Pune Railway Authorities for acceptance the alignment and its Technical Feasibility. A visual feasibility is done in a Reconnaissance Survey (PPR) and not in a DPR Survey, where the feasibility is checked at site by pegging the alignment at site.

1.1 You have stated that a Detailed Topographical Survey of the Alignment has been carried out by DMRC for Pune Metro Rail Corridors. The DPR does not show to proper scale, a Detailed Plan and Section of the alignments along these routes, indicating levels, gradients, curvature etc. These were not furnished along with the DPR copy given to us. I would be thankful, if these could be furnished for our information.
1.2 Unit Block System- This method of costing is adopted for Reconnaissance survey reports. (Paper Project Report – PPR), to decide whether further detailed investigation in necessary for preparation of a Detailed Project Report (DPR-1) and sanction to the project. There is, however, no reservation for projecting the cost on the basis of “Unit Block Cost”, provided the same is prepared on the basis of preliminary Broad Engineering Drawings, Assessment of Broad Quantities & Unit Rates and costs worked out for Block Units (per Km / per Unit). This basis of working out Unit Block Cost, is attached to the report for assurance to the Client that the costs will not very, by plus or minus 10 %. You have stated that you have worked these cost on the basis of accepted rates for Phase-I & Phase-II of the Delhi Metro Rail. As these cost were not available with us, it is difficult to conclude that they are realistic, as we notice that these costs are far lower than the accepted prices quoted for Mumbai Metro Rail One (where, I was associated in pricing and submission of the bid on behalf of MTR (Hong Kong Metro Rail Consultancy Group) and Reliance Energy Ltd (REL). Mumbai). There are a large number of items where costs have been grossly underestimated and number of items not provided which have been recommended in the DPR for provision. (Such as the Consultancy Charges of General Consultants, DMRCs Consultancy Charges, Design Charges, Proof Consultancy Charges, & Testing Charges and similar charges for other services for electrical signaling, Telecommunication and Rolling Stock etc). These charges together would work out to not less than 15% to 20% of the Project Cost. A provision of only 5% has been made in the estimate, which will cover the SPVs Management, Tender & Legal Charges etc. My assessment of cost are based on the item wise calculations presented by you in the DPR, based on my experience in preparation of project cost of Mumbai Metro Rail One, and large value complex projects executed by me in India & Internationally by participation in bidding as a contractor (IRCON).
1.3 Assuming your costs projected are realistic for sanctions of the project, can you confirm that the liability of excess costs beyond 10% of your estimate, for the same scope of the work, would be borne by DMRC?
1.4 Adoption of NATM Technique for tunneling resulting in reduced cost of the UG alignment would support the suggestion of the Pune Citizens for adoption of the entire section of the Metro Rail, as UG system for the Economic Benefits to the city, as brought out by them in their recommendations. (A copy of the accepted tendered rates received for the UG portion of Delhi Metro Rail for the Airport Line would be useful for our discussions)
1.5 Nobody disputes the capability of DMRC in preparation of Detailed Project Reports. But I wonder why the Project Cost for Mumbai Metro Rail One -Varsova-Andheri-Ghatkopar (VAG) Corridor, estimated at Rs 1500cr was accepted at Rs 2356 cr i.e. 58% higher than cost estimated by DMRC. It would be appreciated if the comparison of the estimated cost initially presented for sanction of the Govt. and the actual tendered cost finally accepted for various projects are produced. This would justify your statement made in this respect.
1.6 Paper Project Report – The reasons for stating your DPR as PPR is because of the extent of detailing which is required to be given for a DPR for sanction of the project has not been exhibited in the DPR. The guidelines laid down by the Union Ministry of Urban Development for Preparation of the DPR for Metro Rail have not been followed. Your statement to the Pune Municipal Commissioner that similar reports were prepared for sanction of the Mumbai Metro one project, does not seem to be factually correct, if the two are compared.
1.7 I further reiterate that, the adoption of the basis of accepted rates for Phase-I & II of Delhi Metro Rail for Pune Metro Rail Area is fundamentally wrong, particularly when you have the Mumbai Metro Rail costs available. Underestimation of project cost for Govt. sanctions is not in the larger interest of the Project and the Citizens.
1.8 I am not aware of the Facts and Details of the observations of the Pune Core Group, taken into account by you, for preparation of DPR for Pune & PCMC in the month of July 2009. The Pune Core Group would appreciate, if these details are communicated to us for our Professional Satisfaction.


2 Your DPR has given the following priorities of the corridors as recommended by IIT Mumbai on the basis of PHPDT, as per the table & Density Chart given below.
It is seen from the above that the traffic density priorities are as under for 2031. Selected priorities are 3,5,& 6
Priority – 1 Line No 6 32325 PPHPD Katraj
Priority – 2 Line No 5 29950 PPHPD Hinjewadi
Priority – 3 Line No 1 26750 PPHPD Nigdi
Priority – 4 Line No 3 16956 PPHPD Hadapsar
Priority – 5 Line No 4 12738 PPHPD Ramvadi – Wagoli
Priority – 6 Line No 2 9614 PPHPD Kothrud – Warje

It is seen from the above that the corridor – II selected now (Vanaz to Ramwadi) is the Least Density and the Least Revenue Corridor. Your DPR does not give satisfactory justification for adopting the Least Priority Corridor in lieu of the High Priority Corridors given in the table above (extracted from your DPR)
2.2 FUNDING – I am aware that the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) is important for sanction of the project on the basis of long term overall economic development of the city. We are concerned about the priority given to this corridor and the basis of assessment of the EIRR have not been quantified and justified in detail and have therefore, reservations regarding 18 % EIRR accessed by you. A low FIRR of 1.93% for this corridor indicates that the same is not financially remunerative being the Least Revenue Corridor as compared to other corridors, resulting in the inability of the a private sector investor for taking risk of investment without 70 to 80% of Financial Viability Gap Funding (VGF) subsidy. Your funding proposal does not indicate the calculations for the quantum of VGF amount necessary, for implementation of the project through private sector investment. Your funding proposal with heavy taxations to the public is resisted by the citizens of Pune and hence an alternative economic proposal of Broad Gauge (BG) with indigenous wider coaches should be adopted with the same standard of fixed infrastructure as proposed by you and incorporating savings in the Mobile Assets, by adopting BG with indigenous wider Rolling Stock. Adoption of BG Indigenous coaches will save around Rs 100cr / km in the project cost.
2.3 With the withdrawal of PCMC for participating with PMC in the Metro Rail Project, the PMC is recommending to go ahead with corridor 2 only, for sanction of the Govt. They should be explained that the Depot facilities and cost of corridor 2, on Stand Alone basis, will need modifications and additional cost for major maintenance of trains for corridor 2, by transferring these provisions from Corridor-1 to Corridor-2
2.4 I am glad that you agree, that the project costs need a revision. It is necessary to indicate at this stage a revised realistic cost and further update the same to 2010-11 levels, to enable the PMC & the Govt. to appreciate the extent of this revision, to enable them to give sanction to the project and that they should not be kept in the dark on this issue.

3 Paras 3 to 12 – Pune Citizens do not agree to your statement that BG indigenous coaches will not be accepted by them. For PMPML buses for Pune the citizens have accepted lower costs, non air conditioned buses on capacity considerations in preference to high cost air conditioned coaches. You should have in the DPR calculated the techno-economic merits of this alternative of BG Indigenous Coaches which have 74% more capacity and costs 70% less and provide 100 years of Capacity Life against 25 years suggested by you, for SG. Mumbai Suburban Section of the Harbor Branch Metro Railway is a BG Elevated Metro Rail running for many years in the city. Similarly Chennai BG Elevated Metro Rail, Constructed by the Indian Railways is also running successfully, Kolkata BG UG Metro Rail Constructed by the Indian Railways is being operated efficiently. Hence your statement that “these railways systems have created a mess” is DMRCs personal impression. DMRC have determined to induct SG Imported Narrow Width Coaches of Limited Capacity in the city, irrespective of the techno-economic merits in favour of BG. It is not obligatory that the Metro Trains should be air Conditioned as Air-Cooled Indigenous Coaches have recently been introduced on the Western Railways. There is no need for introducing sophisticated Signaling for running 3 min service which is being operated on Mumbai Suburban Section. Moreover, the Techno-Economic Merits of increasing Capacity by adopting wider coaches (3.66m) of BG are superior to that of SG by increasing the frequency of SG from 3min to 2min.
3.1 The Axle Load necessary for BG for carrying 500 passengers per coach will be only 18 tonnes. It is no use making economy by adopting a marginally lower Axle Load of 16 tonnes, at the cost of future limited capacity life.
3.2 The mess created by elevated Chennai BG Metro Rail is your personal perception. The citizens in Bangalore and Mumbai are agitating for the mess created by the elevated Metro in these cities. Let the citizens of Pune, for whom this Metro Rail Project is planned, decide the Type of Metro Rail they want instead of thrusting DMRCs views on them.
3.3 The carrying capacity of Metro Rail, not only depends on the number of coaches per train and the frequency but also on the capacity of each coach / train, for carrying passengers. The Pune Metro Rail corridor has been designed by you, for a 3min service with a maximum of 6 coaches per train. Increasing the frequency from 3min to 2min, will be costlier in terms of the additional number of imported SG (2.9m) coaches, required at Rs 10cr per coach and will carry less number of passengers per hour than by adoption of wider BG 3.66m coaches at 3min service and will cost less than that required for increasing the frequency to 2min for SG. This economics can be worked out and shown to you if required. I therefore, do not technically agree with your conclusions in this respect.
3.4 As a Consultant to PMC, DMRC should have worked the techno-economic merits of SG with 2.9m wide imported narrow width coaches at exorbitant cost, as against wider indigenous BG coaches, where all the technology is available. You have not done this and you can still do it. We can prove with calculations that your statement that techno-economic merits are in favour of SG is technically wrong and in not in the interest of the city and has misguided the State Govt. for taking technically and economically wrong decisions.

3.5 Regarding your statement that “my assumptions and presumptions of the cost of BG vs SG is totally wrong” need to be justified with supporting evidence and calculations. I have full details of the costs worked out by me, which are based on the accepted cost for Mumbai, Kolkata and your proposed metro rail costs. The costs worked out by me for Mumbai Metro on behalf of MTR (Hong Kong) for Reliance (REL) were accepted by MMRDA Mumbai for whom you were the Consultant.
3.6 Regarding the funding pattern, you as a consultant should have given to the State Govt. alternatives of funding on “DMRC Model”/ “PPP Model” or other alterative models. But the same was not done and you have proposed “DMRC Model” only which the citizens of Pune have reservations, particularly in the context of the recent accidents on the Delhi Metro Rail (with 87 concrete cantilevers and 18 columns severely cracked) and creating a low durability unsafe Metro Corridor. In this connection the citizens of Pune have read the CAG Report of Sept 2008 for Delhi Metro Phase-I, and would like to have DMRCs, confirmation to avoid similar shortcomings for Pune Metro Rail.
4 Legal Aspects - Metro Railways (Amendment) Act 2009 - I am not aware, if the provisions of the Constitution under Article 366/20 and Article 246 – (VIIth Schedule list – 1), have been modified by the Parliament, to change the Definitions of “Railways” to “exclude Metro Railways” and made Amendments to list one of the VIIth Schedule of Article 246, for the purpose of the Legal Jurisdictions of the States under the Constitution for Planning, Constructing, Operating & Maintaining such Metro Railway Systems. No Act will have superior a Legal Authority over the provisions of the Constitutions.
4.1 The directions issued to the State Govts. by the Union Urban Ministry under the advice of the Group of Ministers, authorizing the states to decide the issue of Gauge and Construct and Operate the Metro Systems, is not inconformity with the provisions of the constitution. The Centre has, therefore, no Legal Authority to issue such policy directions against the provisions of the Constitution and the advice and recommendations of the Indian Railways, who are the competent authority to operate the provisions of the Indian Railways Act.
4.2 DMRC has stated that Metro is “a Railway” in chapter 14 of the DPR, while the State Govt. is implementing the Project in Mumbai under the Indian Tramways act, treating the Metro Rail in one Municipal Jurisdiction as “Tramways”, though the Metro Railway is “a Railways” in “Structure and Operation”.
4.3 These Legal Jurisdictional Provisions need to be settled, once for all, at the highest Legal Authorities of the Country.
5 You have not given any comments on Para – 15, which gives a copy of the PPT presentation in defense of BG Metro Rail and the merits of UG BG vs Elevated SG with the photo of New BG coach for Mumbai Suburban Train. We, therefore, conclude that you have no valid grounds to comment on our observations. In spite of this, you want to promote, through DMRC induction of Imported Technology of SG against the wishes of the citizens and thereby promote the commercial interests of the overseas manufactures. Technology is Independent of Gauge and can be inducted progressively on BG as necessary to match the increased traffic demand. On one side you need MRTS system, because of the rapid and accelerated traffic demand for Mass Transit and at the same time you want to recommend a limited capacity imported technology on SG which does not match the future traffic demand.
6 Conclusions - I fully agree with you that the “opinions of individual are not always in the larger interest of the city” This applies to you personally, as you have determined to bring a foreign SG Metro Rail with imported coaches, supporting the commercial interest of overseas suppliers, at exorbitant cost to the exchequer, against the advice of the Indian Railways, and the Citizens of Pune, resulting in higher taxation and fare structures on the Citizens of Pune. The Pune Citizens would prefer, Not to have the Type of Metro Rail, DMRC have proposed for Pune and thrust your personal views by misguiding the Govt. on Technology Issues. We request you to have an open mind and guide the nation and the Politicians for adoption of Technology for Metro Rail in the larger interest of the Citizens, Pune City and the Nation.
7 A line in reply would be appreciated.

With warm regards

V K J Rane – IRSE (Retd)
Ex-MD/IRCON