LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT

SYSTEM
PROPOSED METRO LITE IN BANGALORE
Light rail transit system
Depending on the country, it is sometimes called “LRT”, “Streetcar”, “Tramways”, “Tram”, “Light Rail” and “Light Rapid Transit”. “Light Rail
Transit (LRT) is an electric rail-borne form of transport which can be developed in stages from a tramway to a rapid transit system operated partially
on its own right-of-way.” MRT plays a role of trunk mass transport system for longer trips and high demand; BRT is feeder service as mid-capacity
system; Monorail seems small-scale system and smaller capacity than BRT; LRT is the same capacity as Monorail and transports a passenger with
longer trip. Metrolite would also act as a feeder system to high-capacity metro. In addition to less capital cost, the operation and maintenance cost
of Metrolite would also be less, making the system more viable. Therefore, LRT could be adopted to the cities where do not have high demand
but plays a role as trunk system. It should be noted that LRTS has a flexibility of its application range city by city, and country by country.

Metro Neo
The ministry had issued standard specifications for 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 about 25% cheaper than the conventional metro
systems but with similar facilities and are cheaper than the other budget option Metrolite, which costs about 40 % of the normal metro.
The rail-based LRT, Metro Lite address traffic requirements up to 15,000 PHPDT.

Features of Metro Neo

• Dedicated RoW at grade/elevated
• Tyred electric coaches on concrete slab
• Length of coaches 18m or 24 m
• Can run on battery upto 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
• 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

The Metro Neo service consists of electric bus coaches – their lengths varying from 18 to 25 meters – with a
carrying capacity of 200 to 300 passengers at a time. The buses will have rubber tyres and draw power from
an overhead electric wire with 600-750 V DC supply, similar to railways or trams. The buses will be air-conditioned,
with automatic door closing system, level boarding, comfortable seats, passenger announcement system, and an
information system with electronic display.

Feeder Bus Service

A Feeder Bus of 12-metre length will be battery-powered and run on the existing road on the two feeder routes.
The feeder bus batteries will get charged while operating on the main corridors that will enable seamless travel with
a wider coverage. No separate charging facility will be required.
Frequency of Service
The capacity of the main corridors will be 15,000 PHPDT (peak hour peak direction traffic). The system has
been designed in such a way that there will be a train service every two minutes.
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.

Metro Lite
• The ‘Metrolite’ system will have a dedicated path separating the road traffic from it. For segregation
with road traffic, fencing can be provided on either side of the network.
• The three-coach train will have a capacity of carrying 300 passengers. Sources said the government
would provide financial assistance to states to implement the light urban rail transit system.
• The maximum operational speed of the Metrolite is 60 KMPH. In any case, even with failure of On-board
signaling, the speed is restricted to 25 Kmph.
• The ‘Metrolite’ train will comprise three non-separable coaches with low floor height of about 300-350
mm. Unit length should be of minimum 33 m.The car structure material will be stainless steel or aluminium.
• The ‘Metrolite’ system will have shelter platforms. Metrolite platforms will not have AFC gates,
platform screen doors, X-ray or baggage scanner.
Features of Metrolite
• 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 metrolite specifications

• RoW of 7.6m, standard gauged track
• Platform width of 1.12m, side evacuation between tracks.
• Low floor rolling stock, max 12T axle load with PHPDT upto 15,000
• Upto 300 pax capacity at AW3 loading, max operation speed is 60kmph
• 750VDC traction power supply
• ATP only signaling (GOA1) integrated with road signals, CCTV surveillance in stations.
•
Standard Specifications for at- grade Metro lite system (NIUA)
•
At-grade alignment needs to be planned to bring down the civil construction cost and time
•
The system shall have a dedicated path separating the road traffic with metrolite system
•
For segregation with road traffic, continuous plinth/fencing can be provided on either side of the network
•
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 Metrolite 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.
•
The road width occupied by the system "At Grade" for single line is minimum of 3.5 m outside the shelter
location and minimum of 5.5 m inside the metrolite shelter.
•
Metro Lite shelter roof can be optimized to 1I3rd of train -length in the platform area instead of providing
roof in the entire shelter length
•
Zebra crossings shall be provided on either side of the platforms for passenger movement from the side foot
paths
•
Respective municipal corporations shall identify all possible paths for providing at least single-track
operation of Metrolite trains between two parallel roads.
•
Ring network shall be planned to reduce the head way.
•
Only at the location of cross-overs, signaling equipment rooms are required at the nearest Metrolite shelter.
This equipment shall be planned in an underground container below the platform with required access and
ventilation.
•
AFC gates, Platform screen doors, X-ray baggage scanner and DFMD are not suggested in the Metrolite
shelter. This will remove any signaling and PSD equipment rooms in the Metrolite shelter platform making
it un-attended shelter
•
Ticket validators could be installed inside the Metrolite train and shelter with NCMC / other ticketing
systems

Road traffic 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.

Elevated station
An elevated Metrolite system shall be planned only when the At-Grade system is not possible. b) Road space
occupied at the median shall be maximum 2.2 m for Piers

• A platform width of 1.12 m shall be proposed on either side of the track. (NFPA 101)

• Concept of Concourse shall be avoided and only Platforms shall be used for passenger area. The station
will be on a single level platform with an under bridge (FOB) below the rail level

• Access to the Under bridge (FOB) could be planned with one entry/exits on the road. The vertical clearance
of FOB shall be maximum 5.5 m above road level and shall be used for road crossing for general public.

• The station area can be planned with more natural lighting and natural ventilation instead of heavy closed
structures

• The station area can be planned with more natural lighting and natural ventilation instead of heavy closed
structures

• Ticket validators could be installed inside the train and in shelters with NCMC or other ticketing systems.

Track

a) Rail Gauge to be adopted is standard gauge of 1435 mm width.

b) The track curves of radius up to 25 m shall be adopted.
c) Ballast-less track proposed in elevated sections and embedded track on road for At-grade sections
d) Concealed Point machines for operation of cross-overs shall be provided below the embedded tracks.
Rolling stock
Train Configuration:
a) Metrolite trains with maximum 12T axle load is to be adopted for passenger PHPDT capacity from 2,000 to
15,000.
Unit shall consist of three non-separable coaches with low floor height of about 300-350 mm. Unit length shall be of
minimum 33 m.
The track curves of radius up-to 25 m are adopted. Hence, the car body width of2.65 m is to be adopted as the
standard dimension.
The car structure material shall be stainless steel or Aluminium
The train configuration will be of 3 car unit. Number of additional coaches of train may be decided by the Metrolite
authority based on PHPDT in the initial design stage itself.
Train shall be capable of carrying full load passengers up-to a gradient of 6%. Individual metro authorities can
decide the gradient requirements based upon the site conditions as Metrolite is predominantly planned At-grade.
Up-to 300 number of Passenger loading for 3-coach train unit. @ AW31 loading conditions.
h) Train shall be capable of travelling in elevated, at grade and tunnel sections.
i) Motorisation - Minimum 50 % motorized axles for the unit of 3 nonseparable coaches.
j) Maximum operational speed is 60 KMPH. k) Safety certified Obstruction detection system shall be employed for
the trains.
Cost aspects of Metro Lite compared to conventional Metro

DISADVANTAGES of light rail

Compared to buses:

• Higher capital costs

• Generally lower proportion of seats to standees
• Inflexibility of route e.g. in case of breakdown or a temporary street closure due to a special event or parade
• Inflexibility - one tram cannot overtake another
• Disruption to traffic and local businesses during construction
• Permanent inconvenience to motorists where lanes are lost or the motorists are required to wait behind a tram
while its passengers are getting on and off.
• Cost of construction means that interchange with buses will be necessary on some routes or outer ends of
routes
• Greater capacity of vehicles may mean reduced frequency compared to buses
• If coal-fired electricity is used, greenhouse emissions per passenger-km may be higher than buses
• May lead to neglect of bus routes in areas away from LRT
• Aesthetic - overhead wires and their supporting structures are disliked by many people
• Very long tramsets (over 60 metres in some cases) are awkward to accommodate in cities with short blocks.
A second tramset cannot begin to enter a short block until it is certain that the tramset in front will move.
Entering, crossing then clearing an intersection can require more than 15 seconds and with frequent services
can amount to an unacceptable obstruction to cross traffic. The time taken will be longer if the intersection
is large, if the LRV is crossing after stopping at traffic signals, or if the LRV has to stop immediately after
crossing.
• The smooth ride in LR vehicles, especially if separated from other road traffic, can attract so many passengers
that the spare capacity is exhausted
Proposed Metro Lite in Bangalore (2031)
Line-1: Hebbal – JP Nagar (ORR-West Line –approx 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 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

Proposed Metrolite(traction guided at-grade public transport system) on NICE Road and
PRR – Total 107 kms
NICE Road - 41 km
PRR - 66 km
Metrolite mentioned in the Comprehensive Mobility Plan D
raft (2019)
Road based Public Transport
11 corridors with high demand have been identified as priority corridors (202 kms) with exclusive lanes for public
transport buses. The bus fleet size is proposed to be expanded to 15000 by 2031. 40 new depots and TTMC/Bus
Terminals have been identified within the newly planned areas of BMA. The BRTS or Metrolite system has been
suggested for Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) and NICE Road
Elevated Road Corridors

92 kms of arterial roads have been proposed for elevated road designed with prioritizing movement of public transport
vehicles, regulation on private vehicles and facilitation of inter-modal mobility. The north south corridor and the
central ring corridor of the elevated roads require a more rigorous study to confirm the feasibility with
reference to alternate modes including metrolite (elevated) and impact on the traffic flow
Peripheral Ring 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. The entire road should be access-controlled, signal free, elevated U &
right turns. In addition, the area of 2 km width on either side should be developed following TOD norms.

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

Potential funding options for Metrolite

Study of similar transit systems existing in India

BRTS and LRTS

• Distance between stops - this is very important; a BRT may have short distances between stops and the LRT may have the same
or longer.
• Population density along the planned route (the denser, the higher occupation of transit, thus LRT is better)
• Number of trips back and forth (origin and destination) - where people go
• Development status of the infrastructure (if there are historical buildings, archaeological sites, relevant infrastructure like highways,
parks, monuments, touristic attractions, etc.)
• Budget - BRT has a lower CAPEX but a way higher OPEX than LRT.
• Planned lifespan - BRT buses may last from 5 to 10 years, depending on the wear and tear. LRT trains last a minimum of ~30
years and can be refurbished to extend their lifespan between 10 to 15 years more.
• Right of way availability (if there are no places to locate LRT stops, it is easier to build a BRT if the demand does not require LRT
capacities)
• The orography along the track (BRT may go up steeper streets)
• The planned urbanization along the track (if there will be a boom of housing/condos, maybe it is better to plan a LRT)
• At the end, BRT and LRT should be complementary systems, not compete against each other. A good transit system would use BRT to
feed passengers to LRT and maybe also LRT feeds passengers to subways.
• Also, a BRT may be used to bring passengers from suburbia to city cores, but once a higher demand is used, their lanes may be
upgraded to LRT, which is a higher capacity system.

Study of the reasons for BRTS failure to enable success of the Metrolite system (As both of these systems
are very similar)

The typical reasons given for cities’ declining interest in BRT are common-that there is more ‘traffic’ on the corridor, that it is difficult to access
bus lanes in the centre of the road, that there are more accidents on the roads after BRT. Most of these arguments are perception based but not data
backed. The real cause for cities backtracking on their BRT commitments is more than such simplistic arguments. The following systemic issues
need to be addressed in cities, to revive the current BRTs and to enable success of upcoming ‘Metrolite’ systems.

i) Let’s face it, we still love our cars! – The Delhi BRT received much bad press which eventually led to its scrapping. While a lot of time and
effort was spent by experts criticising the design elements of the system, many forget that the bus users’ perception of the system was positive and
the backlash was from car users protesting their space being taken away for buses. We now see in Pune and Bhopal as well that when the congestion
reaches beyond a certain level of inconvenience for car users, cities think exclusive bus lanes are dispensable. Cities’ willingness to restrict car
usage hasn’t emerged yet and that’s at the heart of the problems being faced in sustaining existing BRTs and other public transport
systems.

ii) Special Purpose Vehicles - Tradeoff between pace of implementation and institutional ownership? JNNURM mandated all its BRTs to be
implemented through a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) formed specifically for the project. This was inspired by the success of the Delhi Metro
Rail Corporation (DMRC) which operates India’s largest metro network and Transmilineo-the world’s most popular BRT system which were both
established as SPVs. The BRT SPVs were intended to avoid the procedural delays of traditional Government agencies by focusing only on the
project. However, most SPVs were understaffed to plan, execute and operate a successful BRT while some just existed on paper while
implementation was done by Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) (eg. Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada). This resulted in limited institutional and
financial support for BRT execution and upkeep.
iii) Lack of Public Transport Authorities (PTA) with legislative support - Executing BRTs is often a complicated exercise since it involves
retrofitting existing high demand streets to a new pattern of usage. This typically delays the execution of projects as extensive stakeholder
consultations and integration of various users’ needs need to be taken up along with site-specific issues like shifting utility infrastructure.
Therefore, BRTs require strong support from its implementing agency with a long-term vision for the need of the project, which the project
specific SPVs couldn’t provide. A recent report by the Volvo Research and Education Foundation (VREF), UITP and BRT Centre of Excellence,
Santiago, Chile presents a global overview of successful BRT systems. It highlights how BRT implementation benefited greatly from being
implemented under a PTA with the mandate for long-term public transport vision for the city and integration across modes. Given that the Indian
cities had limited success in establishing Unified Metropolitan Transport Authorities (UMTA), establishing PTAs focusing just on mass-transit,
city bus and other paratransit services may yield better results

iv) Financing a BRT-Too big for the city, too small for a donor? As stated earlier, none of the JNNURM funded BRTs were extended further
even in cities where it was received positively. One of the reasons for this continues to be the lack of access to finances for expansion. BRTs
are in an ‘in between’ financing requirement where most proposals are in the cost range of INR 400-500 crores. Many cities are unable to
pay for it within their local budgets while at the same time international financing institutions find it too small. Providing access to low-cost
finance is a key prerequisite to provide high-quality BRT systems across the country.

While the existing BRTs are systematically neglected, many cities across India are investing in metro rail systems which are even more capital
intensive. Additionally, GoI is now promoting Metrolite/ LRT systems which are also going to be more capital intensive compared to BRTs. Its
about time that our cities address the systemic issues hampering mass transit systems. Taking a project financing and execution approach is likely
to see Metrolite's facing the same fate as the current BRTs, at a much higher cost!

Drawbacks of Trolleybus/tram system with OHC systems and the reasons it might not work in
India effectively

• The need for overhead wires is the principal drawback of trolleybus systems that generates most
of the specific negative features
• 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.
• What will happen to the trees and on the roads where these transit systems are proposed as these
need OHC to operate.

Magadi Road
As mentioned earlier the total width of the Magadi road is approximately 22 m or more in some parts.
This will only allow us to have two lanes of Metrolite and two vehicular lanes on the side.
Metrolite lanes are 3.5 m in width each with a 3m width platform in the middle.