LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM

PROPOSED METRO LITE IN BANGALORE

Metro Neo
 a new low-cost electric trolleybus-based transit system aimed to be built in cities with a population of less than 10 lakh (tier-3) and suburbs of bigger

cities.

 Metro Neo is 25 % cheaper than the conventional metro systems but with similar facilities and also cheaper than Metro Lite.

 Metro Neo stations - The stations will be similar to other Metro rail stations. They will have a staircase, lift
and escalators with passenger information display. The station's entrance and exit will be provided on both
sides of the road.
Features of Metro Neo

 Dedicated RoW at grade/elevated Length of coaches 18m or 24 m

 Can run on battery up to 20 km

 Safety and comfort at par with metro

 Depot away from alignment

 Cost reduction, No AFC,No PSD,small stations

 ATP signaling with anti-collision features

Broad Metro Neo specifications approved

Dedicated RoW of 8m

Platform width of 1.12m, emergency side evacuation

Low floor rolling stock around 10T axle load

Caters PHPDT 8,000 and extendable up to PHPDT 10,000

Up to 250 pax capacity for 24m coach and 200pax for 18m coach at AW3 loading

650-750VDC OHE twin wire electrification. Coaches can run on battery where OHE is not feasible.

ATP signaling with anti-collision features and central control, CCTV surveillance in stations

Cost aspects of Metro Neo compared to conventional Metro
Metro Lite
Planned Life span - LRT trains last a minimum of ~30 years and can be refurbished to extend their lifespan between 10 to 15 years more.

Features of Metro Neo

 Dedicated RoW at-grade/elevated

 Min length of train –33m
 Can increase coaches for 15000 PHPDT
 Safety and comfort at par with metro
 Cost reduction smaller station
 Cost reduction, No AFC,No PSD
 Only ATP signaling
Broad Metro Lite specifications

 RoW of 7.6m, standard gauged track

 Platform width of 1.12m, side evacuation between tracks.
 Up to 300 pax capacity at AW3 loading, max operation speed is 60kmph
 750VDC traction power supply
 The system shall have a dedicated path separating the road traffic from the metro lite system
 Road width - at- grade for single line is minimum – 3.5 m, minimum 5.5 m inside the metro lite
shelter

Cost aspects of Metro Lite compared to conventional Metro

Potential funding options for Metro lite
Proposed Metro Lite in Bangalore (2031)

Routes
Line-1: Hebbal – JP Nagar (ORR-West Line –approx. road width – 50 m)
 Length: 30 km
 Type: At-Grade
 Line Color: Orange (assigned by BMRCL)

Line-2: Magadi Road Toll Gate – Kadabagere (Magadi Road – approx. road width – 22 m)
 Length: 14 km
 Type: At-Grade
 Line Color: Not assigned yet

Line-3: Whitefield – Domlur (–approx. width – 30 m)

 Length: 16 km
 Type: At-Grade
 Line Color: Not assigned yet

New Line: Katamanallur Gate (Hoskote) – Sarjapur Road – Hebbal

 Length: 52 km
 Type: At-Grade

New Line: Proposed Metro lite (traction guided at-grade public transport system) on NICE Road
and PRR – Total 107 kms
 NICE Road - 41 km
 PRR - 66 km

Access and Integration –public transport

Intermodal transit hubs are going to come up in Challaghatta-Mysore Road (West direction), Baiyyappanahalli-
Existing BMRCL terminal, KR Puram (East direction), Peenya- Existing BMTC Terminal (North-West Direction),
Bommasandra in existing BMRCL land (South direction).
The DULT has yet to identify the location for three more transit hubs in Old Madras Road and Peripheral Ring Road
(PRR) junction (East direction), Bellary Road and PRR junction (North direction), Kadugodi (East direction).

Metrolite mentioned in the Comprehensive Mobility Plan Draft (2019)

The BRTS or Metrolite system has been suggested for Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) and NICE Road
Peripheral Ring Road of 78 km length and 80-meter width is proposed on the northwest periphery of the city with
complementary connectivity to NICE Road on the south-east periphery and provision in the middle for BRTS or traction
guided at-grade Metrolite.
 SN Projects UNIT QUANTITY RATE (Rs in TOTAL COST (Rs in
crores) crores)
1 Metrolite (Elevated) km 13 180 2340
Phase 3
2 Metrolite (Elevated) km 68 180 12,240

Design Considerations

(( Metrolite lanes and staggered platforms – 3.5 +3.5+3=10

Mixed vehicular lanes – (3.5+3.5) + (3.5+3.5) =14
Footpath –2+2 =4
The minimum road width required will be 28 m for the at-grade metrolite system. ))

Planning Considerations

 Population density along the planned route (the denser, the higher occupation of transit, thus LRT is better)

 Shelter platforms shall be planned in a staggered manner in the alternate sides for up and down
lines to reduce the actual road space. In this plan, the road width occupied shall be minimum of
8.5 m.
 The road width occupied by the system "at grade" for both up and down lines is a minimum of
7.6 m outside the Metro Lite shelter location.
 In case the road width is not permitted, one line can only be provided on a particular road and the
other line can be provided on a parallel road also.
 Look for parallel roads - Respective municipal corporations shall identify all possible paths for
providing at least single-track operation of Metrolite trains between two parallel roads.
 Elevated station - An elevated Metrolite system shall be planned only when the At-Grade system
is not possible. Road space occupied at the median shall be maximum 2.2 m for Piers

Lessons to be learnt from the failure of other similar public transportation systems
 Inflexibility of route e.g., in case of breakdown or a temporary street closure due to a special event or
parade
 Designing interchanges between the different public transport systems and not in isolation
 Greater capacity of vehicles may mean reduced frequency compared to buses,low frequency can lead to
crowding and longer duration of waiting which will eventually lead to reduction in the number of users.This will
also encourage people with private vehicles to enter the metrolite lane.
 If coal-fired electricity is used, greenhouse emissions per passenger-km may be higher than buses and will
not be a sustainable public transport system.
 Integrated Road and rail signaling system to be provided with priority for Metrolite system. Traffic marshals can
be posted initially at crossings to enforce discipline.
 The Local body should promote public transport and work on increasing cities’ willingness to restrict car usage.
(This was one of the major issues that affected the BRTS and other public transportation systems.)
 To avoid any procedural delays of traditional government agencies ,SPV can be formed but it also needs to
have sufficient staff to plan ,execute and operate.
 Lack of Public Transport Authorities (PTA) with legislative support – Metrolite require stong support rom its
implementing agency with a long-term vision for the need of the project, which the project specific SPVs
couldn’t provide.Bangalore need to eastablish a UMTA or PTA that focuses just on mass-transit, city bus and
other paratransit services may yield better results.
 The need for overhead wires is the principal drawback of metrolite.They represent a significant capital
investment (particularly the copper wire itself, which wears out), and there are considerable engineering
and construction efforts involved in keeping them on top of busy streets at an even and constant elevation.
 Number of trees that have to be cut for this project
 Building an entire system of elevated lanes would be very expensive, this cost can be further reduced by
using the existing infra.
 Density around station should be higher. Low density around transit stations have led to lower
frequency, lower passenger traffic, and lower profits from many metro routes.
 In India ,the LRT lane will be in the middle of the road with traffic moving on both sides of the metrolite
lanes,making it difficult and dangerous for the users to cross the road.FOB were introduced but of no use. To
avoid accidents, traffic signals can be introduced for passenger-crossings.But this will lead to slow down of
traffic outside the Metrolite lanes.
 Financial Strategy –A financial strategy needs to be made to continue running the metrolite system after the
introductory governmetn assistance has ended.
 Operational Integration Application of management techniques to optimize allocation of transit
resources and coordinate services.
 Institutional Integration Creation of organizational framework for joint planning and operation
of transit services.
 Physical Integration Integration of public transport modes with provision of jointly used
facilities at intermediate points or at terminals with interchange facilities.
 Traffic Management Strategy As the metrolite system will be moving with other vehicles, there
should be a traffic management strategy
 Branding strategy