Annexure-VII - Greenline Rapid Transport Systemgreenline.gov.pk/doc/NESPAK-REVIEW-REPORT-OF-JICA-STUDY.pdf · 1.2 Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) Concept Bus Rapid Transit System

Construction of Infrastructure for BRT Green Line, Karachi PC-1 Form – September 2014

Annexure-VII

Review Report

JICA Study For Karachi Transport Improvement Project Prepared In December 2012

Review Of Green Line Route of Bus Rapid Transit

September 2014

Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) – Green Line Review of Green Line Route of Bus Rapid Transit

i September, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 NESPAK’s Scope of Work .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) Concept ............................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Green Line BRT Route ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.4 The Project of Green Line BRTS ..................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4.1 BRT Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.4.2 Revenue Generation / ITS System ................................................................................................ 1-2

1.4.3 Rolling Stock .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2

2 Review of Green Line BRT Route ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 JICA Proposal ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 NESPAK’s Comments, Suggestions and Recommendations ............................................... 2-1

3 Intersections and U-turns .......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 U-turn / Rotary at Municipal Park (Aurangzeb Park) .......................................................... 3-1

3.2 Gurumandir Intersection .................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.3 Intersections along Nawab Siddique Ali Khan Road ............................................................. 3-3

3.4 Intersections along Shahrah-e-Sher Shah Suri Road............................................................. 3-3

3.4.1 A.O Clock Tower Intersection ................................................................................................ 3-3

3.4.2 KDA Roundabout ........................................................................................................................ 3-4

3.4.3 Five Star Chowrangi .................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.4.4 Sakhi Hassan Chowrangi ......................................................................................................... 3-6

3.4.5 U-Turn along Shahrah-e-Sher Shah Suri ........................................................................... 3-6

3.4.6 Intersections along Shahrah-e-Usman .............................................................................. 3-6

3.4.7 Nagan Chowrangi ....................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.8 Powerhouse Roundabout ....................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.9 Surjani Chowrangi ..................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4.10 U-turn along Shahrah-e-Usman ............................................................................................ 3-8

3.4.11 Access to BRT Depot ................................................................................................................. 3-8

4 Selection of Vehicles ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 JICA Proposal ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 NESPAK’s Comments and Suggestions ....................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.1 Type of Bus ............................................................................................................................................. 4-2


ii September, 2014

4.2.2 Air-conditioned & Non-Air-conditioned Buses ....................................................................... 4-2

4.2.3 Fuel Selection ......................................................................................................................................... 4-3

5 Green Line BRT Stations ............................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 JICA Proposal ......................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 NESPAK’s Comments and Suggestions ....................................................................................... 5-1

6 Preliminary Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 JICA Proposal ......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Base Year ....................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Currency ......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.3 Exchange Rate .............................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1.4 Construction Cost ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.5 Procurement Cost....................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.6 Project Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................ 6-2

6.2 NESPAK’s Review of Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 6-2

6.2.1 Infrastructure Cost Estimate ................................................................................................. 6-2

6.2.2 Revenue / ITS System Cost Estimate ................................................................................. 6-3

6.2.3 Bus Procurement Cost Estimate........................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 Infrastructure Maintenance Costs ................................................................................................ 6-5

7 Economic Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 JICA Proposal ......................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 NESPAK’s Review of Economic Analysis .................................................................................... 7-1

7.2.1 Quantitative Impacts ................................................................................................................. 7-2

7.2.2 Qualitative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 7-3

7.2.3 Project Cost ................................................................................................................................... 7-4

7.2.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost (O&M) ......................................................................... 7-4

7.2.5 Vehicle Operating Costs ........................................................................................................... 7-6

7.2.6 Value of Time Cost for Users .................................................................................................. 7-9

7.2.7 Benefit and Cost Flow ............................................................................................................ 7-11

7.2.8 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................. 7-13


iii September, 2014

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

AFCS Automated Fare Collection System

AVL Automated Vehicle Location

B/C Benefit-Cost

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

BRTS Bus Rapid Transit System

CKD Complete Knock Down

CNG Compressed Natural Gas

EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KCR Karachi Circular Railway

KMC Karachi Metropolitan Corporation

KMTC Karachi Mass Transit Cell

KTIP Karachi Transportation Improvement Project

KUTC Karachi Urban Transport Corporation

MRT Mass Rapid Transit

NESPAK National Engineering Services (Pvt.) Limited

NPV Net Present Value

OD Origin-Destination

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PCU Passenger Car Unit

PIS Passenger Information System

ROW Right-of-Way

TOR Terms of Reference

VAT Value Added Tax

VOC Vehicle Operating Cost

VOT Value of Time


iv September, 2014

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6-1: Summary of Infrastructure Cost Estimate .............................................................................. 6-4

Table 6-2: Summary of Revenue / ITS System Cost Estimate .............................................................. 6-4

Table 6-3: Summary of Articulated Buses Procurement Cost Estimate ........................................... 6-4

Table 7-1: Estimation of Economic Cost of Construction & Procurement ....................................... 7-5

Table 7-2: VOC Cost Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 7-7

Table 7-3: Yearly Estimation of Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) Savings of Users ......................... 7-8

Table 7-4: Yearly Estimation of Value of Time (VOT) Savings of Users ........................................ 7-10

Table 7-5: Cash Flow Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 7-12

Table 7-6: Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 7-13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1: U-turn Proposal at Municipal Park (JICA) ............................................................................. 3-1

Figure 3-2: Alternatives for Busway at Roundabouts (JICA) ................................................................ 3-5

Figure 4-1: Proposed Vehicle as per JICA Study ......................................................................................... 4-1

Figure 4-2: Typical Articulated Bus ................................................................................................................. 4-2

Figure 5-1: BRT Station as per JICA study..................................................................................................... 5-1

LIST OF ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A - BRT Route proposed in JICA Feasibility Study

ANNEXURE B - BRT Corridor

ANNEXURE C - BRT At-grade / Elevated Sections Proposed by NESPAK

ANNEXURE D - Typical Cross-sections proposed by NESPAK

ANNEXURE E - Elevated Rotary at Municipal Park

ANNEXURE F - Green Line and Blue Line Corridor Merging at Gurumandir

ANNEXURE G - Typical BRT Station Layout


1-1 September, 2014

1 Introduction

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has studied the public transport system of

Karachi and prepared a Feasibility Report for Karachi Transportation Improvement Project

(KTIP) (Volume-II), in December 2012. The JICA report contains feasibility study of two of the

six (6) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes; i.e. Green Line and Red Line, and also conducted the pre-

feasibility study of a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) corridor, the Blue Line. Green Line BRT route is

planned to facilitate the passengers to and from the densely populated residential area in the

North of Karachi to Central Business District in the South of the city.

1.1 NESPAK’s Scope of Work

Karachi Mass Transit Cell (KMTC) appointed National Engineering Services (Pvt.) Ltd. (NESPAK)

as Consultant to prepare PC-1 of the Green Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System. KMTC also

requested NESPAK to review the JICA feasibility report in view of the ground conditions and

the recent developments along the route as well as the construction of Blue Line route with

respect to construction of Blue, Yellow, Red and Orange line BRT routes.

NESPAK’s review is limited to the proposals of JICA without disputing and analyzing the data

adopted by JICA related to field surveys and travel demand modeling.

1.2 Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) Concept

Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) is an innovative, high capacity, low cost public transit

solution that can significantly improve urban mobility. This permanent, integrated system

uses buses on roadways or dedicated High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) lanes to quickly and

efficiently transport passengers to their destinations, while offering the flexibility to meet

transit demand. BRT systems can easily be customized to local needs and incorporate state of

the art, low-cost technologies that result in more passengers and less congestion on roads.

1.3 Green Line BRT Route

The proposed route for Green Line runs from Municipal Park near Eidgah in Saddar to KESC

Power house in Surjani. The alignment of Green Line has been proposed along M.A Jinnah

Road toward northeast up to Gurumandir, and after Gurumandir the Green Line will turn

northward along Business Recorder Road, Nawab Siddique Ali Khan Road, Shahrah-e-Sher


1-2 September, 2014

Shah Suri and Shahrah-e-Usman, passing by some of the major landmarks such as Numaish,

Gurumandir, A.O. Clock Tower, Board Office and Nagan Chowrangi.

1.4 The Project of Green Line BRTS

The Project comprises of three (3) components, namely:

1.4.1 BRT Infrastructure

Construction of BRT infrastructure shall include at-grade and elevated corridors, excavation

works, piling works, concrete works for foundations / piers / slabs / girders, asphalt and

concrete pavements, BRT stations including finishing works, pedestrian structures,

installations of lifts at stations, lane markings, signage, and other allied facilities.

1.4.2 Revenue Generation / ITS System

Procurement and installation of Revenue generation and Intelligent Transportation System

(ITS) is an integral part of the scope of works. Revenue generation will include Automated

Fare Collection System (ACFS), workstations, fare media, fare gates, handheld ticket

machines, software etc.

ITS system shall include Automated Vehicle Location (AVL), real-time Passenger Information

System (PIS), operating system, database application, software and related components.

A security surveillance system shall also be procured and installed as part of the project.

1.4.3 Rolling Stock

Procurement of roling stock is part of the project.


2-1 September, 2014

2 Review of Green Line BRT Route

2.1 JICA Proposal

JICA has proposed that the Green Line BRT shall be constructed at-grade along the entire

route. As per the available data, JICA considered that sufficient space is available along the

entire route. The route proposed by JICA is attached as Annexure – A.

2.2 NESPAK’s Comments, Suggestions and Recommendations

NESPAK has reviewed the JICA proposal and considering the specific issues of each stretch

like existing traffic volumes, parking spaces permanently occupied by the users/encroachers

and limited availability of lanes after the construction of Green Line BRT for rest of the traffic,

the entire route proposed by the JICA has been divided into the following four sections. Each

section along with the issues related to them are given hereunder:

Section – 1: Municipal Park to Gurumandir

This section of BRT Green Line runs from Municipal Park near Eid Gah to Gurumandir via

Radio Pakistan, Garden Square, Taj Medical Complex, Purani Numaish and west of Quaid-

e-Azam Mausoleum.

There are four closely spaced signalized intersections in this section with heavy traffic in

all directions. These intersections / signals remain heavily congested / jammed almost

the whole day. The signalized at-grade BRT system at the four locations will cause

substantial delays to the BRT and the existing / future mix traffic, which will negate the

very purpose of the proposed intent of BRT. Introduction of Transit Signal Priority (TSP)

at these intersections will further delay the mix traffic. At the same time, due to heavy

congestion, the intersection may not be clear for the BRT service to benefit from the

priority signaling concept.

Section – 2: Gurumandir to Lasbela Bridge

This section of BRT stretches from Gurumandir to Lasbela Bridge.

Although the Right-of-Way (ROW) for at-grade Green Line BRT is available as per the data

provided in JICA Feasibility Report, however, after the implementation of Green Line


2-2 September, 2014

corridor with at-grade arrangement, the available ROW for the existing traffic will be

reduced considerably, resulting in significant pressure on the lanes available for rest of

the traffic. The lanes available after completion of BRT which are already operated at low

Level of Service (LOS) are occupied by parked vehicles and roadside business activities. If

the government agencies employ force to get rid of encroachments, the resistance from

encroachers may lead to undesirable political / social issues.

Section – 3: Lasbela Bridge to No. 1 Chowrangi (Golimar Chowrangi)

This section of BRT Green Line is from Lasbela Bridge to No. 1 Chowrangi (Golimar

Chowrangi) via Sanitary Market.

The reservations regarding ROW of this section are the same as given in section 2 above.

Section – 4: No. 1 Chowrangi (Golimar Chowrangi) to KESC Power House

This section of BRT Green Line runs from No. 1 Chowrangi (Golimar Chowrangi) to KESC

Power House via Model Park, Baqai Hospital, Public Park near Nazimabad Flyover, Metric

Board Office, KDA Chowrangi, Hydri Market, Five Star Chowrangi, Erum Shopping

Emporium, Nagan Chowrangi, U.P. Mor Intersection, Road 2400, Power House Chowrangi,

Jumma Bazar, Sakhi Hasan Chowrangi, Road 4200, 2 Minutes Chowrangi, Surjani

Chowrangi and KDA Chowrangi, Surjani Town.

There are U-turns, intersections and roundabouts in this section, which shall cause

disturbance for at-grade Green Line BRT once developed.

Refer Annexure – B showing the four sections of Green Line BRT.

After studying all the sections, NESPAK is of the view that Green Line needs to be elevated for

Sections 1, 2 & 3 i.e. Muncipal Park near Eid-gah to Chowrangi No. 1 (approximately 6 KM,

refer Annexure – C) in view of the reasons mentioned above.

As per the JICA study, Green Line BRT Section 1 from Municipal Park near Eid-gah to

Gurumandir was run at-grade where Blue Line Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) will either be

underground or elevated. In view of constructions / obstructions discussed above for the

Green Line BRT in this section i.e. Municipal Park to Gurumandir, NESPAK is of view that


2-3 September, 2014

Green Line BRT should be elevated to avoid the delays due to these four intersections. In case

Blue Line will be planned to be constructed as an elevated section, it will become the common

corridor. Keeping the planning of Blue Line, it is suggested that the elevated section from

Municipal Park to Gurumandir shall be designed to take the loads of MRT.

NESPAK’s recommendation for elevated Green Line BRT for Section 1 is in line with Final Pre-

Feasibility Planning Study Report prepared by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in

September 2007.

An additional parking space for at-least six buses is also proposed near Gurumandir to

facilitate the commencing of operations of Green Line BRT from Municipal Park near Eidgah

in the morning.

Refer Annexure - D for typical cross sections of Green Line BRT.


3-1 September, 2014

3 Intersections and U-turns

All the significant intersections and U-turns of the Green Line are discussed below along with

JICA’s proposal:

3.1 U-turn / Rotary at Municipal Park (Aurangzeb Park)

i. JICA Proposal

The turning point of Green Line along M.A. Jinnah Road is proposed at Municipal Park having

an area of 850 Sq. Meters, which is sufficient to accommodate for the U-turn lane of BRT,

however, the park needs to be demolished to accommodate this U-turn.

The present mix traffic lanes for the straight direction to Tower will be diverted to the outer

of the bus way to avoid the interruption between the bus way and the mixed traffic lanes. A

traffic signal will be installed before the turning point.

The terminal station is planned to be located at the U-turn point.

Source: JICA study team

Figure 3-1: U-turn Proposal at Municipal Park (JICA)


3-2 September, 2014

ii. NESPAK’s Comments and Suggestions

As suggested by NESPAK that Green Line BRT should be constructed as elevated section,

therefore, this U-turn / Rotary will need to be elevated with the consideration of Blue Line in

the future. This rotary is proposed to accommodate space for providing relief to bus drivers

against fatigue and it will also help in commencing the operations from Municipal Park near

Eidgah in the morning.

Refer Annexure - E for rotary proposed for Green Line BRT at Municipal Park near Eid-gah.

Annexure ‘E’ shows two options for the elevated Rotary at Municipal Park with Blue Line

consideration. The final option will be decided at detail design stage.

3.2 Gurumandir Intersection

i. JICA Proposal

This is one of the busiest intersections along the study corridor. Presently, vehicles from

Business Recorder Road to M.A. Jinnah Road circulate Gurmandir instead of making a right-

turn. The bus way is proposed to be directly connected between the two roads north and

south to avoid delay of BRT vehicles at the intersection. Traffic movements of existing mixed

traffic lanes will remain the same as existing movements. Considering the heavy traffic at the

intersection, an underpass or flyover is proper for the bus way. However, this was not

proposed because of the future plan of the railway system (Blue Line) along M.A. Jinnah Road.


As discussed earlier, Green Line and Blue Line (MRT) will be merged at this point in future.

Green Line will run elevated at Gurumandir to meet the elevated structure of Blue Line.

Additionally, the elevated infrastructure for Green Line at Gurumandir is proposed to

accommodate space for parking of six buses and will help in commencing the operations from

Municipal Park near Eidgah in the morning. This parking space shall be used for the stacking

of buses to meet the service demand at Municipal Park.

Refer Annexure - F for the merging / diverging arrangement of Blue and Green Lines at

Gurumandir.


3-3 September, 2014

3.3 Intersections along Nawab Siddique Ali Khan Road

i. JICA Proposal

There are three signalized intersections along this road, namely, Lasbela Chowrangi,

Nazimabad Chowrangi, and Nazimabad No.7 Chowrangi. BRT stations are proposed to be

located near Lasbela Chowrangi and Nazimabad Chowrangi. Signaling phase should be

changed at these intersections for right-turn movements.


JICA proposal was valid for at-grade intersections only and after elevating the Green Line

between Chowrangi No. 1 (Golimar Chowrangi) to Gurumandir, provision of Signals at these

two intersections is no more required. Similarly, the intersection at Nazimabad No. 7 is also

not required after restricting of movement from Paposh Nagar to Imtiaz store for improved

traffic management.

3.4 Intersections along Shahrah-e-Sher Shah Suri Road

3.4.1 A.O Clock Tower Intersection

i. JICA Proposal

Upward and downward lanes are located in the median of roads separated only by chatter

bar and pavement marking between Municipal Park and A.O. Clock Tower. On the other

hand, both lanes are separated by the wide median space from A.O. Clock Tower to the north.

The intersection should be modified and A. O. Clock Tower (Board Office Chowrangi) should

be removed for the bus way.

In the master plan, another BRT line is proposed from this intersection to Orangi Town along

Dr. Adeeb Rizvi Road, namely Orange Line. Although the layout change in the intersection is

not so large, it will be necessary to modify the intersection again when Orange Line is

introduced.


3-4 September, 2014

JICA stated in its report that "KMTC proposed demolishing the flyover and constructing KCR as

elevated structure to KUTC (Letter No. 63-1/KMTC/KUTC-KCR/2012/10). If KCR is elevated

over the crossing road, the transfer between KCR and BRT will be more convenient.


As mentioned by JICA in the study, it has been decided in principle that the bridge over

railway track between Nazimabad Chowrangi No. 7 and A.O. Clock tower (Board Office

Chowrangi) needs to be demolished to accommodate the elevated KCR track.

The existing bridge is not only used by the traffic using Sher-Shah Suri Road but also

facilitates traffic coming from Paposh Nagar and other adjoining areas that intend to go

towards Nazimabad Chowrangi No. 1 and onwards. It is therefore recommended that before

demolishing this bridge, another bridge should be constructed at A.O. Clock Tower (Board

Office Chowrangi) which will accommodate not only the existing traffic but all the traffic from

Baldia Town can also be facilitated with this bridge and U-Turn between A.O. Clock Tower

and KDA Chowrangi can be closed.

3.4.2 KDA Roundabout

i. JICA Proposal

KDA Chowrangi is a non-signalized roundabout. Converting it to a signalized intersection like

Five Star Chowrangi is proposed. However, there is a concern to remove the monument in

the roundabout. There are three alternatives to introduce bus way to the roundabout to keep

the monument. First, the lanes of both sides of median will merge before crossing at the

roundabout, and then split at middle of the roundabout to avoid some important monument,

if necessary, and merge again before totally leaving the roundabout and after fully passing the

roundabout area, the lane will be separated again. Second, the bus way will pass straight

through the roundabout keeping the same distance between both lanes. The third alternative

is that the bus way will run along the fringe of the roundabout like the mixed traffic lanes, but

utilizing the outer parts of the roundabout so that width of the existing carriageway should

not be affected by the new bus way. Signalization is necessary for all alternatives.

Since there are dead spaces in case of the alternative 2 and 3, alternative 1 is recommended.


3-5 September, 2014

Figure 3-2: Alternatives for Busway at Roundabouts (JICA)


Relocation of this monument may also be considered and in this case Alternative 2 can be

implemented.

3.4.3 Five Star Chowrangi

i. JICA Proposal

The separated lanes with the wide median will be merged in the intersection to enable

signaling control. Existing island in a circle shape at the middle of intersection should be

removed.


The JICA proposal is found feasible.


3-6 September, 2014

3.4.4 Sakhi Hassan Chowrangi

i. JICA Proposal

This is a roundabout similar to KDA roundabout. It is proposed to convert this roundabout to

a signalized intersection like Five Star Chowrangi.


The JICA proposal is suitable.

3.4.5 U-Turn along Shahrah-e-Sher Shah Suri

i. JICA Proposal

U-turns along Shahrah-e-Sher Shah Suri cannot be closed and should be retained. Traffic

signals will be installed at all U-turns to separate BRT vehicles from the U-turn vehicles.

Since the bus way will pass in the middle of the road, provision of storage lanes along U-turn

section is necessary so that the vehicles taking U-turn have proper space to wait, particularly

when BRT vehicles are passing in this area. The storage lanes should be properly painted

with marking on a specified location so as to give warning to the other vehicles approaching

the storage lane and to the vehicles travelling in the same direction.


The JICA proposal is acceptable for the above discussed U-Turn.

3.4.6 Intersections along Shahrah-e-Usman

i. JICA Proposal

There are power pylons along the median of Shahrah-e-Usman, which makes it difficult to use

the median space for BRT system. Due to this, it is necessary to use existing lanes located

outside the median for the bus way. However, the width of mixed traffic lanes will reduce to

less than 10m at some sections. It is recommended to widen arriageway along the road by

utilizing some parts of the existing frontage road or even sidewalk on both sides, if necessary.


3-7 September, 2014


The JICA proposal is acceptable.

3.4.7 Nagan Chowrangi

i. JICA Proposal

Flyovers provide right-turn movements from Shahrah-e-Sher Shah Suri to Rashid Minhas

Road and from Rashid Minhas Road to Shahrah-e-Usman. There are two alternatives for the

location of the bus way in relation to the flyover ramp. The first alternative is that the bus

way is separated into both sides of flyover to the south of Nagan Chowrangi. This will cause

interruption between BRT vehicles going to Nagan Chowrangi at-grade and mixed lane traffic

going to the flyover. Signaling control will be necessary for the first alternative. Moreover,

the frontage road should be used to provide space for mixed traffic lane. The second

alternative is that the bus way will run east side of the flyover. In this case, the entire median

space should be used for bus way. The second alternative was selected for the plan because

the negative impacts on traffic is smaller than that of first one.


The JICA proposal is feasible.

3.4.8 Powerhouse Roundabout

i. JICA Proposal

The bus way is planned to pass straight through Powerhouse Roundabout as separated lanes

due to existing electric tower in the middle of the existing Central Island.




3-8 September, 2014

3.4.9 Surjani Chowrangi

i. JICA Proposal

This roundabout should be converted to a signalized intersection.



3.4.10 U-turn along Shahrah-e-Usman

i. JICA Proposal

All U-turns along this section are proposed to be closed due to narrow width of the road

carriage way. Instead, intermediate T-intersections should be converted to 4-leg signalized

intersections to provide access to both sides of the road except for the intersection of

Shahrah-e-Usman and 2200 Road (old U.P More Roundabout) where a power pylon stands in

the center of the intersection.



3.4.11 Access to BRT Depot

i. JICA Proposal

The bus way for the depot access will be in combined lane as same as that of the beginning

point. It will be separated only by chatter bar and pavement marking.


The JICA proposal is feasible.


4-1 September, 2014

4 Selection of Vehicles

4.1 JICA Proposal

Proposed vehicle type is the standard bus of 12m length, platform-level boarding type high-

floor bus with floor height of 1,000-1,100mm. Two doorways which have 1,100mm width

and bridge plate are placed on the right-hand side. Propulsion system is CNG engine. Car

interior of bus is divided into the ladies section on front side, and gentlemen section in rear

side, separated by a transparent partition, and the seats, a doorway and the wheelchair

position are allocated in each section.

Figure 4-1: Proposed Vehicle as per JICA Study

Vehicle specifications Item

Dimension Length: 11.0-12.0m

Width: Maximum 2.5m

Vehicle capacity: More than 80 passengers

Floor height: 1000mm- 1100mm

Fuel type: CNG

Door arrangement: 2 doorway with width 1100mm

Air conditioner: Not equipped


4-2 September, 2014

4.2 NESPAK’s Comments and Suggestions

4.2.1 Type of Bus

JICA has proposed standard bus for the Green Line BRT running in convey of three buses.

JICA has considered the future demand of year 2030 but the trend of conversion from

residential areas to commercial areas will increase ridership significantly and a large number

of standard buses will be required to meet the future demand of Green Line. These large

number of buses may lead the Green Line BRT system towards congestion.

In light of the above, it is suggested that articulated bus is more suitable than standard buses

due to its large capacity although articulated buses are not assembled / manufactured in

Pakistan and will need to be imported. We understand that by using articulated buses in

place of standard buses, as proposed by JICA, the fare may be increased and the proper

operation and maintenance of these imported buses would need to be ensured before

selecting the articulated buses.

Furthermore the Blue Line BRT (convertible to MRT in the future), which is also under

consideration as a separate project, is also adopting articulated buses. The Green Line BRT

and Blue Line BRT will use the same corridor from Municipal Park to Gurumandir in the

future. Adopting the articulated buses for Green line BRT system will facilitate the integration

of the Green Line and Blue Line systems between Municipal Park and Gurumandir.

Figure 4-2: Typical Articulated Bus

4.2.2 Air-conditioned & Non-Air-conditioned Buses

Non air-conditioned buses are proposed in JICA study, however, due to hot and humid

environment of Karachi air-conditioned busses for BRT may be considered, as it will have


4-3 September, 2014

cost implications which can be further evaluated during the preparation of financing plan of

the project. Air-conditioned busses will also provide better service to passengers in an

improved travel condition. These busses are expected to run on full capacity and therefore to

provide better environment, air-conditioned buses are recommended.

4.2.3 Fuel Selection

JICA has proposed CNG buses for Green Line BRT. CNG is the most economical fuel available

but use of CNG as fuel has many drawbacks e.g., intermittent availability of CNG, frequency of

refueling is much more as compared to other fuels, pressure at several CNG stations is lower

than 200 bars and fuel dispensing takes longer time. Details of these drawbacks are discussed

below:

Due to acute shortage of natural gas in Pakistan, availability of CNG has become

unreliable. Nowadays availability of CNG is limited to alternate days and unless

special provisions are made to ensure continuous availability of CNG to the proposed

buses, its use cannot be suggested.

Fuel dispensing time of CNG is not only longer as compared to diesel but the reduced

pressure at several stations will aggravate the problem to greater extent.

To mitigate the above problems of availability of CNG, a dedicated facility may be developed

to exclusively supply CNG to Green Line BRT buses without interruption.

In case the above arrangement could not be feasible then only diesel may be used as an

alternate fuel though it is expensive than CNG and causes more pollution. When diesel oil

burns in engine, sulphur contained in diesel oil is changed to the particulate matter, and is

discharged as black smoke causing pollution of the environment. It is therefore suggested

that before selecting diesel as fuel it must be ensured that all the buses will comply at least

Euro-III specifications. The cost and other related factors must also be reviewed before

selecting the type of fuel. Time required for refueling should also be considered before

making any decision regarding fuel.


5-1 September, 2014

5 Green Line BRT Stations

5.1 JICA Proposal

Stations for BRT will be located in the center of road in conformity with the dedicated bus

way location. The passengers’ access to the BRT station will be through pedestrian bridges in

order to avoid traffic accidents.

Fare collection should be made when passenger enters into the station in order to maintain

operation speed and time as well as uniform revenue management.

Due to limitation of ROW, it is not realistic to provide passing lanes. Instead, three slots for

boarding and alighting are proposed to apply convoy operation, so that two or more buses

can be operated in a group for arrival and departure at the same time.

Figure 5-1: BRT Station as per JICA study

5.2 NESPAK’s Comments and Suggestions

The locations and numbers of stations on Green Line BRT route proposed by JICA are

acceptable. Station layout recommended by JICA is not suitable for Green Line BRT because

these have been designed on basis of standard bus, whereas, NESPAK suggested to use

articulated buses due to potential increase in ridership in the future as the north area gets

populated and due to land restructuring.

Furthermore, the width of 4.0 meter as proposed by JICA for the station is insufficient and in

NESPAK’s opinion it should not be less than 5.0 meters to cater to the demand in the future.


5-2 September, 2014

NESPAK also recommends provision of passing lane at stations to increase system capacity.

This will be beneficial to the public once more mass transit systems are constructed so that

express / direct services can be run between high demand stations. The layout of a typical

station for articulated buses with passing bays at each station is attached as Annexure – G.


6-1 September, 2014

6 Preliminary Cost Estimates

6.1 JICA Proposal

The project cost estimate prepared by JICA consists of components such as construction cost,

consultant cost, and taxes etc. In addition to these items categorized as initial cost, operation

& management cost (O&M cost) were also considered as part of project cost that will

continuously accrue after the commencement of BRT operation.

6.1.1 Base Year

The base year of the project cost estimate was set in 2011. The cost information obtained

through the past projects in different years before 2011 were adjusted in the way price

escalation in each year is considered.

6.1.2 Currency

The project cost was estimated both in foreign and local currencies. For the civil works, all of

the costs were estimated in local currency (PKR), since there will be no special construction

method and techniques required, and all the materials, labor, equipment can be locally

procured. On the other hand, some of the equipment, devises and machineries, which are at

present not available in Pakistan and to be imported from foreign countries or to be

manufactured on Complete Knockdown (CKD) basis, were estimated in foreign currency

(Japanese Yen).

6.1.3 Exchange Rate

The official exchange rate of December, 2011 (average monthly rate), issued by State Bank of

Pakistan was used in the project cost estimate. The exchange rate between currencies used

was: US$ =PKR 89.340 and JPY = PKR 1.148.

6.1.4 Construction Cost

Construction cost was estimated based on the preliminary engineering design and has been

described Chapter 6 of JICA Feasibility report.

6.1.5 Procurement Cost

Bus cost, station facility cost, workshop equipment and products of operation system were

categorized as procurement cost. Since these items are not very common in Pakistan, it is


6-2 September, 2014

expected most of the products will be imported or locally assembled using imported parts

(for buses). For these reasons, estimation for procurement cost was made based on the

market price and cost information from similar projects in past, or if not, general cost data

from “BRT Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide” (June, 2007) by ITDP were used.

6.1.6 Project Cost Estimate

The project cost estimate for the Green and Red lines was Rs. 21.147 billion.

6.2 NESPAK’s Review of Cost Estimate

The objective of the cost estimate is to obtain feasible options for the implementation of the

BRT project by evaluating feasibility of the project under various potential options, which

could be applied by changing conditions such as magnitude of equity investment, government

subsidy, fare levels and so on.

JICA’s cost estimate was based on at-grade corridor for Green Line BRT project, whereas

NESPAK has proposed approximately 6km of elevated section. The base year of the project

cost estimate is 2014. The basis of the cost estimate was current market prices. An escalation

of 10% per annum based on current market trends was used to escalate the project costs.

6.2.1 Infrastructure Cost Estimate

The infrastructure cost primarily consists of the cost of Construction which includes:

a) At-grade BRT Corridor Development

Stations and Allied facilities,

Pedestrian Bridges including elevators for the elderly and disabled,

Mini Barrier / Fence,

Road Pavement,

Covering of Drains, and

Culverts.

b) Elevated BRT Corridor Development

Elevated section along M.A. Jinnah Road (between Municipal Park and

Gurumandir),

Elevated section along Business Recorder Road (Gurumandir to Lasbela Bridge),


6-3 September, 2014

Elevated section along Nawab Siddique Ali Khan Road (Lasbela Bridge to Golimar

Chowrangi No. 1),Widening of Proposed Flyover at Gurumandir for Stacking of

Buses,

Elevated U-Turn at Municipal Park

Stations and allied facilities,

Road Pavement, and

Pedestrian Bridges including elevators for the elderly and disabled.

Other main components of infrastructure cost are:

Depot Civil Works,

Cost of Geotechnical Investigations,

Cost of EIA,

Cost for Detailed Designing,

Cost for Relocation of Utilities (if any),

Cost for Detailed Construction Supervision, and

Cost for Hiring Independent Engineer.

6.2.2 Revenue / ITS System Cost Estimate

The procurement of Revenue / ITS system is part of this project. The cost would include the

software, hardware, equipment / machines, fare collection gates, system, etc.

6.2.3 Bus Procurement Cost Estimate

The buses shall be procured as part of the project. As per JICA study, the requirement of

buses is 210 standard buses with 80 passenger capacity. The capacity of articulated buses is

160 passengers, which would require procurement of 105 buses within the first three years

of operations. The unit cost of each articulated bus is estimated at Rs. 30 million in current

prices including VAT and Custom Duty.

The total cost in year 2014 prices comes out as Rs. 19.893 billion. . The total escalation

adjusted cost comes out to be Rs. 23,242 billion. The summary of Cost Estimates for the three

components is given in Tables 6-1 thru 6.3.


6-4 September, 2014

Table 6-1: Summary of Infrastructure Cost Estimate

S. No. INFRASTRUCTURE COST Cost (Rs.)

1 Total Construction Cost (Year 2014-15) 13,566,648,568

2 Design Cost (1% of Construction Cost) 135,666,486

3 Geotechnical Investigations 5,000,000

4 Environmental Impact Assessment 5,000,000

5 Detailed Supervision (2% of Construction Cost) 271,332,971

6 Independent Engineer (1% of Construction Cost) 135,666,486

7 Utility Relocation (Provisional sum) 500,000,000

Sub-total 14,619,314,511

8 Contingency (5%) 730,965,725.55

Total Cost (Infrastructure Design & Construction) (Year 2014-15) 15,350,280,237

Construction Cost Expense (12.5%) - (Year 2014-15) - No Escalation 1,918,785,030

Construction Cost Expense (50%) - (Year 2015-16) - Escalation Adjusted 8,442,654,130

Construction Cost Expense (37.5%) - (Year 2016-17) - Escalation Adjusted 6,965,189,657

Table 6-2: Summary of Revenue / ITS System Cost Estimate

S. No. FARE COLLECTION / ITS COST Cost (Rs.)

1 System Cost (Year 2014-15) 1,118,793,870

2 Design Cost (1% of System Cost) 11,187,939

3 Independent Engineer (1% of System Cost) 11,187,939

Sub-total 1,141,169,747

4 Contingency (5%) 57,058,487

Total Cost (ITS System Design & Installation Works) (Year 2014-15) 1,198,228,234

Revenue / ITS System Cost Expense (Year 2016-17) - Escalation Adjusted 1,449,856,163

Table 6-3: Summary of Articulated Buses Procurement Cost Estimate

S. No. VEHICLE PROCUREMENT COST Cost (Rs.)

1 Fleet Cost (105 buses in year 2014-15) 3,153,983,175

2 Independent Engineer (1% of Cost) 31,539,832

Sub-total 3,185,523,007

3 Contingency (5%) 159,276,150

Total Cost (Bus Procurement) (Year 2014-15) 3,344,799,157

Fleet Cost (35 buses in year 2016-17) - Escalation Adjusted 1,349,068,993




6-5 September, 2014

6.3 Infrastructure Maintenance Costs

Routine maintenance works need to be undertaken each year and constitute cyclic as well as

reactive works. The need of these works is dependent on environmental as well as traffic

effects. The annual cost of routine maintenance was taken as 1% of the infrastructure cost of

the project. The works will generally involve:

Repair of cracks / potholes,

Edge Repair,

Road sign maintenance,

Clearing drains and culverts,

Operations Office maintenance, and

Utility infrastructure / communications maintenance.

Periodic maintenance is planned to be undertaken at intervals of ten (10) years. These works

can take the form of preventive, resurfacing or overlay works and involve:

Overlays on Roads / Bridge Decks,

Replacement of Road traffic control devices, where required,

Replacement of expansion joints / bearing pads, where required, and

Utility infrastructure / communications up gradation, where required.

For the purpose of this analysis, condition responsive treatment rule is assumed whereby

work is triggered when condition reaches a critical threshold, known as an "intervention

level”. The cost of Periodic maintenance is taken as 8% of the infrastructure cost. It is

assumed that the periodic maintenance will be required thrice in the 30-year analysis period,

i.e. after every 10 years.


7-1 September, 2014

7 Economic Analysis

The economic analysis appraises the project contribution to the social and economic welfare of the

city, region or country. It is made on behalf of the whole society (region or country). The objective

of the economic analysis is maximizing public benefits. Taxes, subsidies and interest payments are

excluded from economic analysis.

The BRT project will bring about positive benefits to Karachi, while it will consume national

resources to some extents. The project should be evaluated by comparing its economic benefit and

economic cost in view of the country’s economy.

The major economic benefits of the project are: (1) travel time savings, (2) vehicle operating cost

(VOC) savings, (3) reduction in vehicle emissions, and (4) indirect benefits such as comfortable ride

on modern air-conditioned buses from stressful minibuses and improvement of the city’s image.

The BRT Green line project involves negative benefits for car users from reduction in the number of

lanes in at-grade sections and transit priority signaling control at all intersections. The negative

benefits were deducted from travel time saving for the analysis.

7.1 JICA Proposal

JICA feasibility study calculated the economic benefits of the project which included the operations

also. The fare was proposed as flat fare of Rs. 20 per trip. Revenue from advertisements was

assumed as 5% of the total revenue.

It was assumed that the construction period is three years from 2017 and the service of BRT will

start in 2020. The cost allocation was based on the analysis of Chapter 10 of JICA feasibility report.

Table 8-4-15 shows the flow of benefit and cost.

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) was calculated as 24.4%. Net present value (NPV) at 12%

discount rate was calculated as Rs. 8.4 billion. The result shows that this project would be

economically feasible.

7.2 NESPAK’s Review of Economic Analysis

JICA’s economic analysis included operations and maintenance of the BRT corridor. The scope of

this study only includes the procurement of Revenue / ITS system and buses along with

construction and maintenance of BRT infrastructure.


7-2 September, 2014

Travel time savings and VOC savings were estimated as economic benefit of the project and

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) was calculated based on the two. The indirect benefits

were not taken into account since it is difficult to estimate such benefits. The evaluation period will

be 30 years considering the project life of BRT Green line system.

Based on above, a “With” &“Without” analysis is the basis of economic evaluation for the project.

There are some measurable impacts of the BRT project such as reduction in total travel time,

reduction in vehicle operating costs, and reduction in vehicle emissions. The negative impact shall

be in at-grade sections where the BRT corridor will use existing traffic lanes.

The BRT system will provide several quantitative and qualitative impacts. The following

quantitative impacts are expected by the BRT project:

7.2.1 Quantitative Impacts

i. Traffic Impacts

The capacity of the proposed BRT system with articulated buses of 160 passengers is 29,400

without passing lane while passengers per hour per direction with a passing lane (assuming 25% of

the services will use direct / express service) is 34,500. This is equivalent to nearly 840 minibuses

(35 passengers per minibus) or 1,680 passenger car units (PCUs). In case that the capacity of a lane

of a road is less than 1,680 PCUs, converting the lane to the BRT lane will increase the road capacity.

Generally, the capacity of a lane is 2,200 PCUs if there is no intersection, and converting such lane to

the BRT lane will reduce the road capacity.

ii. Travel Time Reduction of Bus Passengers

Presently, the average speed of a minibus is approximately 17km/h in Karachi as per KTIP, 2030. It

is expected that the BRT system will be operated at an average speed of 25 km/h. This will reduce

the travel time of bus passengers.

iii. Reduction in Vehicle Operating Cost

Introduction of large buses for the BRT system will reduce the number of buses, which will save

fuel consumption and vehicle operating costs.


7-3 September, 2014

iv. Environmental Impacts

As discussed in JICA Feasibility Report Section 8.2, the BRT system will improve environment.

7.2.2 Qualitative Impacts

The following qualitative impacts are expected by the BRT project, although measuring the impacts

in numeric units shall be difficult.

i. Improvement of City’s Image

Megacities in the world have introduced mass transit systems including BRT systems in recent

years, which have impressed the world that the cities are economically growing. Mass transit

system in these cities became a symbol of the steady growth of the city. BRT system with modern

type vehicles will improve the image of Karachi.

ii. Increase in Women’s Trips

Presently, the trip rate of women in Karachi is very low because of the social and cultural

background. However, poor transport system can also be attributed as one of the reasons. BRT

system will provide a safer transport system as compared to the existing minibuses. The project

will encourage women to make more trips to participate in social activities.

iii. Possible Crime Reduction

BRT system will ensure transparent fare collection by installing electronic ticket gates and

monitoring cameras to discourage free riders. Presence of cameras at major intersections and at

stations can help in reducing crime in the city. Lighting at stations and along the corridor will also

contribute to reducing crime at night time.

iv. Pedestrian Safety

Pedestrian bridges will be constructed to access BRT stations. People can use these bridges even if

they do not use intend to use BRT. The new pedestrian bridges will increase the number of crossing

points along the route, which will encourage people to use the bridges instead of crossing roads

against heavy traffic. It can expected that traffic accidents on roads involving crossing pedestrians

and cars will decrease.


7-4 September, 2014

v. City Development

The BRT corridor will connect the north of the city to the center of the city (Saddar), thereby

inducing and promoting urban development to the north.

7.2.3 Project Cost

The project cost was estimated as Rs. 23,241.90 billion in total after impact of project cost

escalation up to the financial year 2018-19 (Section 6 of this report). In economic evaluations, price

escalation and transfer items such as tax and subsidy should be excluded. The project cost does not

include opportunity cost of carriageways and medians of roads which will be consumed for BRT

lanes.

The cost of carriageways is considered as negative benefit of road users due to reduction in travel

speed. Median spaces of roads are reserved for future development of infrastructure. However, it is

considered that the median spaces will remain in the future without producing economic benefits if

it is not used for BRT this time. Therefore, these costs can be excluded from the economic cost.

Shadow wage rate to adjust unskilled labor cost is not applied because unemployment rate of Sindh

is not so high (5.00% in urban area of Sindh, 2012-13 as compared to 6.2% for whole of Pakistan as

per Pakistan Bureau of Statistics) to consider the real cost of unskilled labors.

The economic cost of the initial investment (infrastructure construction and procurement of

Revenue / ITS system and buses) was estimated as Rs. 16,312.22 million as shown in Table 7-1.

7.2.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost (O&M)

In O&M costs, only infrastructure maintenance costs are included. Personnel cost, administrative

cost, and infrastructure maintenance cost are not considered as O&M cost for the economic analysis

since this is an infrastructure construction project. The annual maintenance cost for the

infrastructure was assumed as 1% of total infrastructure construction cost per year for routine

maintenance (JICA Feasibility Report).

The periodic maintenance cost (every 10 years) was assumed to be 8% of the construction cost.


7-5 September, 2014

Table 7-1: Estimation of Economic Cost of Construction & Procurement

Item Rs.

Million

Total Construction Cost (2014/15) 15,350.28

Revenue / ITS System Cost (2014/15) 1,198.23

Bus Procurement Cost (2014/15) 3,344.80

Grand Total (Year 2014/15) 19,893.31

Expense (Escalation Adjusted)

Construction Cost Expense (12.5%) (Year 2014-15) - No Escalation

1,918.79

Construction Cost Expense (50%) (Year 2015-16) - Escalation Adjusted

8,442.65

Construction Cost Expense (37.5%) (Year 2016-17) - Escalation Adjusted

6,965.19

Revenue / ITS Cost (FY 2016-17) - Escalation Adjusted 1,449.86

Bus Procurement Cost (FY 2016-17) - 35 buses - Escalation Adjusted

1,349.07


1,483.98


1,632.37

Grand Total (Escalation Adjusted) (a) 23,241.90

VAT (17%) (b) 2,890.48

Custom Duty for the Transport of more than 10 persons (@20%)1 (c) 557.47

Import Duty on ITS Equipment (@12.5%)2 (d) 133.14

Price Escalation (Construction of Infrastructure & Procurement of buses / ITS equipment)

(e) 3,348.60

Economic Cost of Green Line System (a)-(b)-(c)-(d)-(e) 16,312.22

Note:

1) Pakistan Customs Tariff, 2014-15 (Section 8702.1010)

2) Pakistan Customs Tariff, 2014-15 (Section 87.15) varies between 1-25%. 12.5% taken as average


7-6 September, 2014

7.2.5 Vehicle Operating Costs

i. Components of Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC)

In usual economic evaluation of a transport project, VOC consists of 1) depreciation of vehicle, 2)

fuel consumption cost, 3) lubricant cost, 4) driver’s cost, 5) maintenance worker’s cost, 6) spare

tyre cost, and 7) spare parts cost. In addition, drivers and maintenance workers costs are

considered in O&M cost.

ii. Vehicle Operating Cost of Motorcycles

The shift from motorcycles to the BRT system will reduce the VOC of motorcycles. The major VOC of

a motorcycle is fuel consumption and capital cost. Fuel consumption rate was assumed as 40 km

per liter (JICA Feasibility Report). Petrol price is approximately Rs. 109 in current prices. The

economic cost of the fuel consumption of a motorcycle was calculated at Rs. 2.33 per km. The

capital cost per km was estimated at Rs. 2.00 per km based on the assumption that price of a

motorcycle was Rs. 100,000 and mileage life was 50,000 km. VOC was calculated at Rs. 4.33 per km.

iii. Vehicle Operating Cost of Private Cars

Vehicle Operating Cost savings of cars by shifting to the BRT system was estimated as same method

as that of motorcycles. VOC was estimated as Rs. 12.88 per km based on the assumption that: 1) fuel

consumption rate = 15 km per liter, 2) price = Rs. 1,000,000, and 3) car mileage life = 150,000 km.

iv. Vehicle Operating Cost of Public Buses

Fuel consumption rate of buses varies with size of buses, passenger loading, speed, acceleration etc.

The average fuel consumption rate of BRT buses was assumed as 2.9 km per liter based on

information from a bus manufacture in Karachi for standard bus as per JICA Feasibility Report. The

average fuel consumption rate of articulated buses based on international reviews is around 2.0 km

/ liter. The vehicle operating cost is taken as Rs. 50.9 per km as provided by KTIP, 2030 (Volume-1).

v. Vehicle Operating Cost Savings

JICA Feasibility study section 3.5.6 states that in the traffic assignment, it was assumed that

motorcycle and car passengers would not use feeder bus system. Therefore, only Origin-Destination

(OD) pairs which are directly connected by BRT links were assigned in case of motorcycle and car

passengers. The result shows that not all passengers will shift to BRT.


7-7 September, 2014

The passenger shift from various modes i.e. public transport, motorcycle and private cars is

provided in Tables 3-5-7 and 3-5-8 of JICA Feasibility Report. The shift from public transport,

motorcycles and private cars for year 2010 is 4.20%, 1.40%, and 0.00% respectively. For the year

2020, the same are 53.41%, 8.38% and 4.73%. The various parameters used in the vehicle

operating cost calculations are shown in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2: VOC Cost Assumptions

Item Unit Mode of Transport

Source PT MC Car

Vehicle Operating Cost Rs. / Km 50.3 4.33 12.88 Calculated for MC & Car. Table 8-8 (JICA) for PT

Vehicle Operating Cost Rs. / Km / Pax

1.44 2.89 3.79 Calculation

Average Distance Traveled on BRT per Trip

KM 8.9 KTIP, 2030

Number of Days of Service per Year

Days 300 KTIP, 2030

Potential Diversion to BRT (2017)

% 4.20% 1.40% 0.00% JICA Feasibility Study, Page 3-39

Potential Diversion to BRT (2020)

% 53.41% 8.38% 4.73% JICA Feasibility Study, Page 3-39

Average Vehicle Occupancy Pax / Veh 35 1.5 3.4 JICA Feasibility Study page 8-12

Passengers (Daily) - 2017 without BRT

Pax 184880 89239 149721 JICA Feasibility Study, Page 3-39

Passengers (Daily) - 2020 without BRT

Pax 315798 144797 263257 JICA Feasibility Study, Page 3-39

Passengers (Daily) - 2017 Shift

% 404712

Passengers (Daily) - 2020 365376

Passengers (Daily) - 2030 640768

Yearly Increase in Traffic - (from 2020 onwards)

% 4.15% JICA, KTIP, 2030

The analysis of Yearly Estimation of Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) Savings of Users is shown in

Table 7-3.


7-8 September, 2014

Table 7-3: Yearly Estimation of Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) Savings of Users

S. No.

Year

VOC Before BRT (Rs. Million per year)

VOC After BRT (Rs. Million per year)

Yearly VOC Savings

(PKR Millions)

Public Transport

MC Car Total Public

Transport MC Car Total

1 2016/17 177.35 171.91 378.52 727.78 169.91 169.51 378.52 717.93 9.86

2 2017/18 522.16 486.53 1139.75 2148.44 301.45 453.78 1097.82 1853.05 295.39

3 2018/19 866.97 801.15 1900.98 3569.10 432.99 738.05 1817.12 2988.16 580.93

4 2019/20 1211.77 1115.76 2662.22 4989.75 564.53 1022.32 2536.43 4123.28 866.47

5 2020/21 1262.06 1162.07 2772.70 5196.83 581.47 1052.99 2612.52 4246.98 949.85

6 2021/22 1314.44 1210.29 2887.77 5412.50 598.91 1084.58 2690.90 4374.39 1038.11

7 2022/23 1368.98 1260.52 3007.61 5637.11 616.88 1117.12 2771.62 4505.62 1131.49

8 2023/24 1425.80 1312.83 3132.42 5871.05 635.39 1150.63 2854.77 4640.79 1230.27

9 2024/25 1484.97 1367.32 3262.42 6114.70 654.45 1185.15 2940.41 4780.01 1334.69

10 2025/26 1546.59 1424.06 3397.81 6368.46 674.08 1220.70 3028.63 4923.41 1445.05

11 2026/27 1610.78 1483.16 3538.82 6632.75 694.31 1257.32 3119.49 5071.11 1561.64

12 2027/28 1677.63 1544.71 3685.68 6908.01 715.13 1295.04 3213.07 5223.25 1684.77

13 2028/29 1747.25 1608.81 3838.64 7194.70 736.59 1333.89 3309.46 5379.94 1814.75

14 2029/30 1819.76 1675.58 3997.94 7493.28 758.69 1373.91 3408.75 5541.34 1951.93

15 2030/31 1895.28 1745.12 4163.85 7804.25 781.45 1415.13 3511.01 5707.58 2096.66

16 2031/32 1973.93 1817.54 4336.65 8128.12 804.89 1457.58 3616.34 5878.81 2249.31

17 2032/33 2055.85 1892.97 4516.62 8465.44 829.04 1501.31 3724.83 6055.18 2410.26

18 2033/34 2141.17 1971.52 4704.06 8816.76 853.91 1546.35 3836.57 6236.83 2579.93

19 2034/35 2230.03 2053.34 4899.28 9182.65 879.53 1592.74 3951.67 6423.94 2758.72

20 2035/36 2322.57 2138.56 5102.60 9563.73 905.91 1640.52 4070.22 6616.65 2947.08

21 2036/37 2418.96 2227.31 5314.36 9960.63 933.09 1689.74 4192.33 6815.15 3145.47

22 2037/38 2519.35 2319.74 5534.91 10373.99 961.08 1740.43 4318.10 7019.61 3354.38

23 2038/39 2623.90 2416.01 5764.61 10804.51 989.91 1792.64 4447.64 7230.20 3574.32

24 2039/40 2732.79 2516.27 6003.84 11252.90 1019.61 1846.42 4581.07 7447.10 3805.80

25 2040/41 2846.20 2620.70 6253.00 11719.90 1050.20 1901.81 4718.50 7670.52 4049.38

26 2041/42 2964.32 2729.46 6512.50 12206.27 1081.71 1958.87 4860.06 7900.63 4305.64

27 2042/43 3087.34 2842.73 6782.76 12712.83 1114.16 2017.63 5005.86 8137.65 4575.18

28 2043/44 3215.46 2960.70 7064.25 13240.41 1147.58 2078.16 5156.03 8381.78 4858.64

29 2044/45 3348.90 3083.57 7357.41 13789.89 1182.01 2140.51 5310.71 8633.23 5156.66

30 2045/46 3487.88 3211.54 7662.75 14362.17 1217.47 2204.72 5470.04 8892.23 5469.94


7-9 September, 2014

7.2.6 Value of Time Cost for Users

Value of time (VOT) for motorcycle and bus passengers was estimated as Rs. 49.65 per hour, while

that of car passengers was Rs. 110 (Refer to VOL-1, Chapter 9 of JICA’s Karachi Transportation

Improvement Project (KTIP), 2030).

The average operating speed (km / hr) as provided by JICA for motorcycle, car and public transport

is 20, 30 and 15, respectively. This was used in the calculation for value of time savings.

The analysis of Yearly Estimation of Value of Time (VOT) Savings of Users is shown in Table 7-4.


7-10 September, 2014

Table 7-4: Yearly Estimation of Value of Time (VOT) Savings of Users

S. No.

Year VOT Before BRT (Rs. Million per year)

VOT After BRT (Rs. Million per year)

Yearly VOT Savings

(PKR Millions)

Public Transport

MC Car Total Public

Transport MC Car Total

1 2016/17 408.48 591.50 366.44 1366.42 391.32 145.80 366.44 903.57 462.85

2 2017/18 1202.63 714.25 1103.39 3020.27 694.29 390.33 1062.80 2147.41 872.85

3 2018/19 1996.78 837.00 1840.34 4674.12 997.26 634.85 1759.15 3391.26 1282.86

4 2019/20 2790.93 959.75 2577.28 6327.97 1300.22 879.37 2455.51 4635.11 1692.86

5 2020/21 2906.75 999.58 2684.24 6590.58 1354.18 915.87 2557.41 4827.46 1763.11

6 2021/22 3027.38 1041.07 2795.64 6864.09 1410.38 953.88 2663.54 5027.80 1836.28

7 2022/23 3153.02 1084.27 2911.66 7148.95 1468.91 993.46 2774.08 5236.46 1912.49

8 2023/24 3283.87 1129.27 3032.49 7445.63 1529.87 1034.69 2889.21 5453.77 1991.86

9 2024/25 3420.15 1176.13 3158.34 7754.62 1593.36 1077.63 3009.11 5680.10 2074.52

10 2025/26 3562.09 1224.94 3289.41 8076.44 1659.49 1122.35 3133.99 5915.82 2160.61

11 2026/27 3709.91 1275.78 3425.92 8411.61 1728.36 1168.93 3264.05 6161.33 2250.28

12 2027/28 3863.87 1328.72 3568.10 8760.69 1800.08 1217.44 3399.50 6417.03 2343.66

13 2028/29 4024.23 1383.86 3716.17 9124.26 1874.79 1267.96 3540.58 6683.33 2440.93

14 2029/30 4191.23 1441.29 3870.39 9502.92 1952.59 1320.58 3687.52 6960.69 2542.23

15 2030/31 4365.17 1501.11 4031.02 9897.29 2033.62 1375.39 3840.55 7249.56 2647.73

16 2031/32 4546.32 1563.40 4198.30 10308.03 2118.02 1432.47 3999.93 7550.42 2757.61

17 2032/33 4734.99 1628.28 4372.53 10735.81 2205.91 1491.91 4165.93 7863.76 2872.05

18 2033/34 4931.50 1695.86 4553.99 11181.34 2297.46 1553.83 4338.82 8190.11 2991.24

19 2034/35 5136.15 1766.23 4742.98 11645.37 2392.81 1618.31 4518.88 8529.99 3115.38

20 2035/36 5349.30 1839.53 4939.82 12128.65 2492.11 1685.47 4706.41 8883.99 3244.66

21 2036/37 5571.30 1915.87 5144.82 12631.99 2595.53 1755.42 4901.73 9252.67 3379.32

22 2037/38 5802.51 1995.38 5358.33 13156.22 2703.24 1828.27 5105.15 9636.66 3519.56

23 2038/39 6043.31 2078.19 5580.70 13702.20 2815.43 1904.14 5317.01 10036.58 3665.62

24 2039/40 6294.11 2164.44 5812.30 14270.84 2932.27 1983.16 5537.67 10453.10 3817.74

25 2040/41 6555.31 2254.26 6053.51 14863.08 3053.96 2065.47 5767.48 10886.90 3976.18

26 2041/42 6827.36 2347.81 6304.73 15479.90 3180.70 2151.18 6006.83 11338.71 4141.19

27 2042/43 7110.70 2445.25 6566.38 16122.32 3312.70 2240.46 6256.11 11809.27 4313.05

28 2043/44 7405.79 2546.72 6838.88 16791.39 3450.17 2333.44 6515.74 12299.35 4492.04

29 2044/45 7713.13 2652.41 7122.69 17488.24 3593.35 2430.27 6786.15 12809.77 4678.46

30 2045/46 8033.23 2762.49 7418.29 18214.00 3742.48 2531.13 7067.77 13341.38 4872.62



7.2.7 Benefit and Cost Flow

It was assumed that the construction period is two (2) years between April 2015 and March 2017

and the service of BRT will start in the April 2017. The cost allocation was based on analysis in

Section 6.

The following tables show the flow of benefit and cost. As per JICA Feasibility Study, the master plan

network was assumed for the estimation of benefits and cost in 2030. Since the difference of

benefits and costs between 2020 and 2030 was small and there would be uncertainness about the

master plan project, these values were fixed at the same values in 2020.

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) was calculated as 15.05%. Net present value (NPV) at

10% discount rate was calculated as Rs. 4,829.34 million. The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is calculated

as 1.38. The result shows that this project would be economically feasible.

The analysis of Cash Flows and the calculation of IRR, B/C and Net Present Value (NPV) of the

project are shown in Table 7-5.



Table 7-5: Cash Flow Analysis

FY

Yearly Costs (Rs. Millions)

Yearly Benefits (Rs. Millions)

Yearly Cash Flow (Rs. Millions)

Economic Indicators

Capital Routine

Maintenance Periodic

Maintenance Total Cash

Outflow VOC

Savings VOT

Savings Total Cash

Inflow BCR EIRR

NPV (Rs. Million)

2014/15 1639.99 1639.99 0.00 -1639.99

1.38 15.05% 4,829.34

2015/16 6559.95 6559.95 0.00 -6559.95

2016/17 6578.06 6578.06 0.00 -6578.06

2017/18 767.11 131.20 898.31 9.86 462.85 472.71 -425.61

2018/19 767.11 131.20 898.31 295.39 872.85 1168.25 269.94

2019/20 131.20 131.20 580.93 1282.86 1863.79 1732.59

2020/21 131.20 131.20 866.47 1692.86 2559.33 2428.13

2021/22 131.20 131.20 949.85 1763.11 2712.96 2581.76

2022/23 131.20 131.20 1038.11 1836.28 2874.39 2743.19

2023/24 131.20 131.20 1131.49 1912.49 3043.98 2912.79

2024/25 131.20 131.20 1230.27 1991.86 3222.12 3090.93

2025/26 131.20 131.20 1334.69 2074.52 3409.21 3278.01

2026/27 1049.59 1049.59 1445.05 2160.61 3605.66 2556.07

2027/28 131.20 131.20 1561.64 2250.28 3811.92 3680.72

2028/29 131.20 131.20 1684.77 2343.66 4028.43 3897.23

2029/30 131.20 131.20 1814.75 2440.93 4255.68 4124.48

2030/31 131.20 131.20 1951.93 2542.23 4494.16 4362.96

2031/32 131.20 131.20 2096.66 2647.73 4744.39 4613.19

2032/33 131.20 131.20 2249.31 2757.61 5006.92 4875.72

2033/34 131.20 131.20 2410.26 2872.05 5282.31 5151.12

2034/35 131.20 131.20 2579.93 2991.24 5571.16 5439.97

2035/36 131.20 131.20 2758.72 3115.38 5874.09 5742.89

2036/37 1049.59 1049.59 2947.08 3244.66 6191.74 5142.15

2037/38 131.20 131.20 3145.47 3379.32 6524.79 6393.59

2038/39 131.20 131.20 3354.38 3519.56 6873.94 6742.74

2039/40 131.20 131.20 3574.32 3665.62 7239.94 7108.74

2040/41 131.20 131.20 3805.80 3817.74 7623.54 7492.34

2041/42 131.20 131.20 4049.38 3976.18 8025.56 7894.36

2042/43 131.20 131.20 4305.64 4141.19 8446.83 8315.63

2043/44 131.20 131.20 4575.18 4313.05 8888.23 8757.03

2044/45 131.20 131.20 4858.64 4492.04 9350.68 9219.48

2045/46 131.20 131.20 5156.66 4678.46 9835.12 9703.92

2046/47 1049.59 1049.59 5469.94 4872.62 10342.56 9292.97



7.2.8 Sensitivity Analysis

To evaluate the calculated EIRR in view of uncertainty of benefit and cost, a sensitivity analysis was

conducted by changing input values such as cost and benefit. Table 7-6 shows the result.

The result shows that the project will be economically feasible even if the cost is high by 10% or the

benefit is low by 10%.

Even in the case that the cost is 10% high and benefit is 10% low, EIRR will be still high at 13.02%,

which is higher than the cost of capital. This means that the project feasibility would be stable

enough against cost and benefit risks.

Table 7-6: Sensitivity Analysis

Case Base +10% in Cost -10% in Benefits +10% in Costs and -

10% in Benefits

EIRR 15.05% 14.07% 13.96% 13.02%

NPV (Rs. Million) 4,829.34 3,494.24 3,011.30 1,676.20

BCR 1.38 1.25 1.24 1.13


September, 2014

ANNEXURE


September, 2014

ANNEXURE – A

BRT ROUTE PROPOSED IN JICA FEASIBILITY STUDY


September, 2014

ANNEXURE – B

BRT CORRIDOR


September, 2014

ANNEXURE – C

BRT AT-GRADE / ELEVATED SECTIONS PROPOSED BY NESPAK


September, 2014

ANNEXURE – D

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS PROPOSED BY NESPAK


September, 2014

ANNEXURE – E

ELEVATED ROTARY AT MUNICIPAL PARK


September, 2014

ANNEXURE – F

GREEN LINE AND BLUE LINE CORRIDOR MERGING AT GURUMANDIR


September, 2014

ANNEXURE – G

TYPICAL BRT STATION LAYOUT

Documents

Annexure-VII - Greenline Rapid Transport Systemgreenline.gov.pk/doc/NESPAK-REVIEW-REPORT-OF-JICA-STUDY.pdf · 1.2 Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) Concept Bus Rapid Transit System