Comments for Misconceptions on KV Rail Line

Prepared by:

Dr. Dimantha De Silva Ph.D(Calgary), P.Eng.(Alberta),CIMLT

Senior Lecturer
Transportation Engineering Division
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Mobile: +94 767639142 +94 711639142
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

The Travel Time Saving and Demand

1. Travel Time Saving is only 5 minutes

• It’s a complete misinterpretation and misinformation

• The Travel time saving is not fixed. It is based on the origin and destination
• It is also based on the existing mode of the future KV line traveler and on time of travel
• The Current travel time of KV line between homagama and maradana is 68 mins.
• However, based on 2019 delay tables, 15% of the morning trains delay more than 15 minutes,
29% evening trains delay more than 15 minutes. 10% morning trains delay more than 20
minutes and 19% evening trains delay more than 20 minutes
• Following table shows the comparison travel times between Homagama and Maradana
during Evening Peak (the highest savings)

Existing users Existing Travel Future Travel Time by Travel Time Saving
Time KV Line (min) (min)
(min)
Train 68 26 min
Car 113 42 71 min
Bus 130 88 min
• The limited stop train between Maradana and Homagama travel time is 25 min for the
modernized KV line.
• The 26 min saving for existing users but they are only 30,000 train passenger trips on KV line
• Therefore, majority of future users are transferred from Car or Bus therefore having either a
71 min or a 88 min saving based on current travel time.
• However, with the passengers moving out to railway, the roads will be faster, therefore the
effective travel time saving will be less for passengers transferring from cars and buses.
 2. People will not use the Railway as they are not using even now

• Its true that there are only 30,000 passengers using the KV line as of 2018 Ticket sales data.
• There is already an advantage to use the Trains over car or bus if only travel time is
considered. (Car 113min, bus -130 min and Trains 68 min in evening peak)
• The reason the people don’t use it now is because
o They can’t even if they want. The trains are already at full capacity. The single track
and the signal system and does not allow even a single train to be added to the
schedule to provide more supply of trains
o The trains in current KV line are very unreliable, the delays data shown above shows
that they have delay close to 20-30 minutes
o The connectivity to the train stations are poor, if a breakdown happens in an isolated
station then it is hard to get to an alternate transport mode.
o The conditions of the trains, stations, services are very poor.
• However, with the modernization of the track and system the number of trains will increase
to

3. Passenger Demands estimated are too high

o The current demand is 30,000 passenger trips per day

o The KV line mainly caters for 8 Trains in the morning ( 3 in the peak hour) and 8
Trains in the evening (3 in the peak hour)
o Therefore, the majority of the trips are taken during this 3 hour peak period morning
and evening.
o With number of trains increasing by 3 times to 60 trains and train headway reducing
from average 20 minutes to every 7 minutes, there is enough supply to attract the
demand. The reliability, the station upgrade, better connectivity to stations and
comfort with AC will attract the passengers to the train
o The Computer simulation and modelling undertaken based on scientific methods
estimated that the demand in 2025 at maximum section will be 176,000 passenger
trips (6 times what it is now) and 202,000 passenger trips by 2035 (7 times what it is
now)
o But since majority of the trips are now in the peak hour, the trip will only effectively
increase by 4 times in 2025 and 5 times in 2035
o These numbers are similar to any modern urban rail system.

trips

Maximum section

o
The Cost
1. The cost was Initially estimated as 2.5 USD Billion and then reduced to 1.5 USD Billion

• The Project cost of 2.52 USD billion was estimated on the Draft Report Submitted to the
Steering Committee on 9th September 2018.
• The cost above was an initial cost based on initial estimates not based on detailed costing
• The ADB, the PMU and then IESL all commented that the cost was too high and that it needs
to be reassessed
• The project completed the detail design and the final project cost was reported in the final
report 11th April 2019 as 1.424 USD Billion.
o Construction Cost – 1.245 USD Billion
o Construction Supervision – 49 Million USD
o Contingency – 65 Million USD
o Price Escalation – 65 Million USD
• The reason for 2.52 USD Billion and reduction to 1.424 Billion
o The price estimated in LKR and at 150 LKR/USD. When the final price corrected at 179
LKR/USD the cost reduced.
o Once the detail cost estimations were done refining the estimated costs the cost
reduced

2. The Construction cost is too high.

• The proposed construction is (total Length 58.5km)

o Double track elevated section between Maradana and Makumbura (19.5km)
o Double track at grade between Makumbura and Padukka (15.5km)
o Single track at grade between Padukka and Avissawella ( 23.5 km)
• The Construction Cost Breakdown
o Maradana to Padukka Elevated section (35km) - 879 USD million
o Padukka to Avissawella at single track at grade section (23.5 km) – 112 USD Million
o Rolling Stock – 300 USD Million (cost included in section cost)
o Depots and Maintenance yards – 81 USD million
o Total Construction cost – 1299 USD Million
• If you consider only the Elevated section per km cost
o Without Rolling stock - 25.1 mill. USD/km
o With Rolling Stock – 33.7 mill. USD/km
• If you consider Full section up to Avissawella the per km cost
o With Rolling Stock – 21.3 mill. USD/km
• These are well within the standard per km rates for railway construction.
The Vertical Alignment
1. Elevation is a waste of money and going at grade is less costly and a better option

• There are 148 Railway level crossings from Maradana to Avissawella

o 56 crossings up to Homagama and 75 crossings up to Padukka
o 20 major road crossings currently have more than 12,000 vehicles per day crossing the level
crossing. (locations shown in Annex 1).
o Need of Grade separation analyzed based on the number of vehicles crossing during peak
hours and based on UN Criteria to determine grade separation . (TVU>100,000 will need
grade separation)
o If at grade level crossings, the delay to road network very high. For example baseline road
that closes for trains running every 20 minutes in the peak time creates close to 450m
vehicle queue.
o With trains every 7 minutes in the future, it is simulated that close to 800m queue with
current traffic flow and around 1km of queue length with future traffic flow at Baseline road
o Similarly the existing road network will be highly congested if not grade separated.
o It was found that 20 of the crossing up to Malapalla will need either the road flyover or the
railway flyover.
o Considering close proximity of the road crossings, the railway is unable to elevate only at
the road section thus the best option is to elevate the rail throughout or provide road
flyovers.
o Some of the road flyover cannot be built since of the road geometry with high level road
and other road running parallel. (eg. Kirimandalamawatha, Narahenpita , Pamunuwa road,
Mirihana road, Udahamulla road).
o If fly overs are not included the Safety concerns at grade level crossings and the cost to the
society must be considered separately
• The alternate option of going at grade with road flyovers is estimated 200 million USD extra.
o At grade construction cost is 1.465 USD Billion compared to 1.245 USD Billion of going
elevated
o The right of way width for at grade is 14.5m, while 12m right of way width is needed for
elevated viaduct. Therefore going at grade will require additional acquisition
o 9 kms of parallel roads such as Navinna-kottawa, Railway avenue will have to be acquired
for at grade option and thereby access to houses and commercial properties will be blocked
o The need of road fly over to grade sperate the rail crossing add on to the extra cost.
o Additional land acquisition needed for station development, parking and new access road
construction.
o Running through properties with high land value.
• The benefits not accounted or quantified.
o The space created underneath the elevated viaduct can be used as bicycle paths and
walking paths connected with public spaces. The additional land could be leased for
commercial activities such as kiosks used as additional income generators
o The electrification will require fencing if going at grade and the railway track itself will be
physical barrier separating the communities. The extra connectivity is established between
the communities in a highly urbanized area by going elevated.
The Horizontal Alignment
1. The new alignment does not straighten the line. Therefore speeds are lower

• The current alignment has many curves. In the 35 km from maradana to Padukka have 115
curves and total curve length is 16 km.
• The rail stations are located very close to each other. There are 24 stations in 35 km length
between Maradana and paduka. The distance between the stations vary from 0.6 to 1.9kms
• Two options for horizontal alignment were considered
o Option 1: (proposed development. The curves to be straightened as much as possible
within the existing ROW with minimum curve radius at 120m. Minimizes additional
acquisition. The land Acquisition cost is USD 8.5 million
o Option 2: maximum speed up o 70km/h and minimum curve radius of 300m. Cause
considerable land acquisition. The land acquisition cost is USD 32 million.

• The current speed of 23.5 km/h is increased to 35.2km/h in the current proposed design.
There is no notable speed gain even with straightening the curves with option 2 with speed
gain up to 37.5km/h due to station been close to each other and thereby not been able to
gain the maximum speed.
• The Travel time from homagama to maradana in proposed alignment is 42min while by
straightening the curves the travel time is only reduced by 5 min.
• The cost of reducing travel time by 5 min by going to a option that requires high acquisition
cost is not viable
• Therefore Option 1 with proposed alignment was selected.

Freight Movement
1. Freight movement is not possible by elevation and loading unloading cannot be done.

• Less than 2% of Sri Lanka good transport done with rail, where Freight traffic has declined
since 2010
• 98% of the freight handles by rail is for cement inputs and oil products
• There is no current demand for freight movement along the KV corridor except for parcel
delivery and there is no demand projected for future as well
• The short distance fright hauling is anyways more economical by trucks
• There is no need to provide loading unloading provisions at elevated section. If a need arises
then a ramp down or a separate design can be made
• The freight connection towards Avisawella is planned in the masterplan through Kelaniya
Kosgama Aviasswella which is a direct connection to the port. In case of freight to be
considered the above option is also available
Annex 1