Connect with us

Features

Cancellation of light rail project:

Published

on

Some alternatives to reduce congestion

By Dr Janaka Ratnasiri

 

The Cabinet, at its meeting held on 29.09.2020, decided to cancel the proposed light rail transit (LRT) project for which Cabinet approval had been granted previously, both on environmental and financial grounds. The project was initiated by the Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development (MMWD) of the previous regime and the Cabinet approval for the project was granted in 2017. An Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) study prepared jointly by a Japanese and a Sri Lankan company was completed in April 2018. After public consultations and addressing the complaints received, the EIA of the project was approved.

 

THE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT

The proposed LRT route extends from Malabe to Fort, a distance of 16 km, which is the first phase of a system covering North and South areas of the city as well. The LRT System connects Malabe, Battaramulla, Rajagiriya, Borella and Fort/ Pettah. The LRT includes 16 stations and one Depot at Malabe terminal. It is mainly built on existing national roads of class A and B. The number of houses and commercial establishments to be relocated due to the proposed project is relatively low, since a major portion of the LRT route traverses in the middle of the already existing road network.

According to the EIA report, the Government of Sri Lanka made an official request for an ODA loan to the government of Japan to fund the section which runs along Malabe corridor. The proposed Colombo LRT system will be under the Special Term for Economic Partnership (STEP) between the two governments of Sri Lanka and Japan. The project is not an unsolicited proposal.

The Colombo LRT project which is the first of its kind in Sri Lanka, would be constructed with the financial and technical assistance from Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), by the end of 2024 and would be ready for commercial operation by early 2025. The project is to be constructed with an estimated total investment of US$ 2.2 billion, where investments for direct costs is provided by JICA.

The heart of the road would be occupied for construction of the rail track which is 16 km in length.

The project is planning to operate 25 trains including four cars in each, which are scheduled every three minutes during peak hours. One car could carry a maximum of 200 passengers, which enables to carry 800 passengers in each train.

 

CABINET DECISION TO CANCEL

THE PROJECT

Among the reasons given by the Cabinet to cancel the project, according to the press briefing issued after the Cabinet decision, are the following:

The proposed project is a deviation from the initial plan of the project, which had been proposed to introduce a Light Rail Service with facilities to travel along the overland railway tracks as an alternative mode of transport.

Implementing the proposed Light Rail Transit System on a railway track built on pillars that may cause huge environmental damage.

It has been found that if the project is implemented, a large number of buildings including houses and business premises will have to be demolished.

A very high cost will have to be incurred for constructing the railway track on pillars.

It has also been found that if the proposed Light Rail Transit System Project is implemented, a heavy operational cost will have to be incurred for the same.

The press briefing made by the Cabinet Office in announcing the Cabinet Decision does not say who had undertaken a second unofficial EIA study and came out with the above observations which had been accepted by the Cabinet. However, the official EIA study undertaken for the proposed project has revealed something different.

 

FINDINGS OF THE EIA STUDY

According to the official EIA, the potential impacts of the project take place mainly during the construction phase, and that the possible environmental impacts during the operational stage is minimal. However, there are landscape impacts due to the presence of LRT system such as on ceremonial access to Parliament from Diyatha Uyana area. Any building demolition is needed mainly in the bends of the LRT at road intersections. Most of the affected structures are commercial in nature and livelihood of owners, tenants and employees in those structures will be affected.

The environmental impact of the LRT during the operational period will be minimal except for the noise and vibration which too could be mitigated. It could be concluded that the project will have some mitigable impacts during construction and mitigable low impacts during the operational stage.

On the other hand, the LRT project could have positive impacts on ambient air quality due to the reduction in the number of vehicles on the road. The LRT is a low-emission solution by itself compared to even a usual fossil fuel driven train.

The EIA study recommended that the proposed LRT project from Colombo Fort to Malabe is implemented as a solution to the traffic congestion of Borella-Malabe corridor, to provide passengers with a safe comfortable quick mode of transport, which has the added benefit of being environmentally friendly.

Although the EIA study concluded that the LRT will provide a comfortable ride, only 42 or 52 seats are provided in each coach and 85 passengers are expected to keep standing. Also, all the seats are fitted longitudinally, which will cause passengers to push against those seated next to them whenever the train accelerates or decelerates. As such, the ride will certainly not be a comfortable one.

 

FINDINGS OF THE FINANCIAL

ANALYSIS

The Extended Cost Benefit Analysis (ECBA) of the project indicated that the proposed LRT project for Malabe traffic corridor can be considered as an economically viable project suitable for implementation. The results of the ECBA show the Economic Net Present Value (ENPV), Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) values of the project under the base case and three selected adverse scenarios.

 

It indicates that even under the worst scenario of 10 % cost escalation plus 10% benefit reductions; the BCR values are greater than 1.75. The EIRR value (17.8%) is higher than the discount rate and the project reports a positive ENPV of LKR Billion 122.7.

Therefore, according to the EIA Report, the proposed LRT project in Colombo can be considered as an economically viable project that can be recommended for implementation.

 

CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EIA AND THE CABINET DECISION

The initial proposal to “introduce a Light Rail Service with facilities to travel along the overland railway tracks” is difficult to conceive. There are only 4 railway corridors – coastal, KV line, main line and Negombo line. However, the feasibility study of the project has found that the highest density of private cars and the lowest travel speed at peak hours are on the Malabe corridor which does not have a railway corridor. Hence, building a new LRT along existing railway corridors will not solve the main problem.

Building an LRT line on the surface whether along railway reservations or otherwise will not help in easing the congestion on roads but will worsens it. This is because an LRT train is supposed to travel once in 3- or 5-minute intervals which means every railway crossing will have to be closed at this frequency. This will result in increasing the traffic congestion on every major and minor road as well as on many lanes and by-lanes that cross the LRT line.

That is the reason why in other countries urban train services are built either elevated or underground. The writer believes that in Colombo, the latter is not feasible both technically because of high-water table and exorbitant cost. Hence, the only option is to have an elevated system. The claim made in the Cabinet decision that such a system will result in causing a huge environmental damage has been disproved in the EIA study. Also, the claims of demolishing large number of buildings and financially not viable have also shown to be not valid. If the Cabinet feels that there are shortcomings in the present EIA Report, the correct procedure would have been to get a fresh EIA study undertaken rather than the Cabinet taking a decision in an ad-hoc manner based on hearsay. (To be concluded)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Immediate industrial reforms critical for Sri Lanka’s future

Published

on

Sri Lanka’s industrial sector has historically been an engine of growth, employment, and exports. Yet today, many industries face structural challenges, outdated practices, and intense global competition. Immediate and comprehensive policy reforms are, therefore, both urgent and essential—not only to revive growth but also to secure the future prosperity of the country.

Strengthening economic growth and diversification

Industries contribute significantly to GDP and export earnings. They create value-added products, reduce import dependency, and improve trade balances. Sri Lanka’s economy remains overly reliant on a few traditional sectors, such as garments and tea. Industrial reforms can encourage diversification into higher-value manufacturing, technology-driven production, and knowledge-based industries, increasing resilience against global shocks.

Job creation and social stability

The industrial sector is a major source of formal employment, particularly for youth and women. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) provide both direct and indirect jobs. Without reforms, job creation is limited, pushing young people to seek opportunities abroad, which drains talent and exacerbates social and economic inequality. By modernising industries and supporting SME growth, the country can create high-quality, sustainable employment, reduce migration pressures, and promote social stability.

Competitiveness and export expansion

Sri Lanka faces stiff competition from countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India in textiles, garments, and other manufacturing exports. Many local industries struggle with outdated technology, high production costs, and weak supply chains. Urgent reforms—such as improving industrial infrastructure, incentivising technology adoption, and simplifying trade regulations—are critical to enhancing competitiveness, retaining market share, and expanding exports.

Attracting domestic and foreign investment

Investors require clarity, stability, and efficient regulatory processes. Complex licensing, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistent policies deter both domestic and foreign investment. By implementing transparent and predictable industrial policies, the government can attract capital, encourage innovation, and accelerate industrial modernisation. Investment is not just about funding production—it is also about transferring technology and upgrading skills, which is essential for long-term industrial development.

Promoting innovation and technological upgrading

Many Sri Lankan industries continue to rely on outdated production methods and low-value processes, limiting productivity, efficiency, and global competitiveness. Comprehensive industrial reforms can incentivise research and development, digitalisation, automation, and adoption of green technologies, enabling local industries to move up the value chain and produce higher-value goods. This is particularly urgent as global competitors are rapidly implementing Industry 4.0 standards, including AI-driven production, smart logistics, and sustainable manufacturing. Without modernisation, Sri Lanka risks not only losing export opportunities but also falling permanently behind in technological capabilities, undermining long-term industrial growth and economic resilience.

Strengthening supply chains and local linkages

Effective industrial reform can improve integration between agriculture, services, and manufacturing. For example, better industrial policies can ensure that local raw materials are efficiently used, logistics systems are modernised, and SMEs are integrated into global supply chains. This creates multiplier effects across the economy, stimulating productivity, innovation, and competitiveness beyond the industrial sector itself.

Environmental sustainability and resilience

Global trends demand green and sustainable industrial practices. Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore climate-friendly production methods, energy efficiency, or waste management. Reforms that promote sustainable manufacturing, circular economy principles, and renewable energy adoption will future-proof industries, improve international market access, and ensure compliance with global trade standards.

Institutional capacity and governance

Industrial reforms are not just about incentives; they require strong institutions capable of policy design, monitoring, and enforcement. Weak governance, policy inconsistency, and politicisation have historically undermined industrial development in Sri Lanka. Strengthening industrial institutions, simplifying bureaucracy, and ensuring accountability are essential components of meaningful reform.

Responding to global technological and trade shifts

The industrial landscape is rapidly changing due to digitalisation, automation, AI, and new global trade patterns. Sri Lanka must adapt quickly to benefit from global industrial trends rather than risk falling behind regional competitors. Immediate reform will allow industries to adopt modern production systems, integrate with global value chains, and improve export competitiveness.

Conclusion

Industrial policy reforms in Sri Lanka are urgent because delays threaten employment, competitiveness, and investment. They are important because a modern, resilient industrial sector is crucial for economic growth, export expansion, technological advancement, social stability, and environmental sustainability. Strategic, forward-looking reforms will not only save existing industries but also position Sri Lanka for a prosperous, resilient, and inclusive future.

(The writer is a former senior public servant and policy specialist.)

BY Chinthaka Samarawickrama Lokuhetti

Continue Reading

Features

How to insult friends and intimidate people!

Published

on

Trump in Davos

US President Donald Trump is insulting friends and intimidating others. Perhaps. Following his rare feat of securing a non-consecutive second term, one would have expected Trump to be magnanimous, humble and strive to leave an imprint in world history as a statesman. However, considering the unfolding events, it is more likely that he will be leaving an imprint but for totally different reasons!

From the time of his re-election, Trump has apparently been determined to let the world know who the ‘boss’ is and wanted to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by economic measures that were detrimental even to his neighbours and friends, totally disregarding the impact it may have on the world economy. Some of his actions were risky and may well have backfired. Businessmen are accustomed to taking risks and he appears to behave as a businessman rather than as a politician. There was hardly any significant resistance to his arbitrary tariff increases except from China. He craved for the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming to have ended and prevented wars and, and unashamedly posed for a picture when the Nobel Peace Prize was ‘presented’ to him by the winner! To add insult to injury, Trump demonstrated his ignorance by blaming the Norwegian Prime Minister for having overlooked him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He should surely have known, before the Norwegian PM pointed out, that the awardee was chosen by a non-governmental committee.

Trump’s erratic behaviour reached its climax in Davos. He came to Davos determined to railroad the European leaders into accepting his bid to acquire Greenland and seemed to do so by hurling insults left, right and centre! Even before he started the trip to Davos, Trump had already imposed a 10% tariff on imports from seven European countries including the UK, increasing to 25% from the beginning of February, until he was able to acquire Greenland. In a rambling speech, lasting over an hour, he referred to Greenland as Iceland on four different occasions.

Exaggerating the part played by the US in World War II Trump proclaimed “Without us right now, you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese”. After making a hideous claim that the US had handed Greenland to Denmark, after World War II, Trump said, “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember”. A veiled threat, perhaps!

However, the remark that irked the UK most was his reference to the war in Afghanistan. He repeated the claim, made to Fox News, that NATO had sent ‘some troops’. but that they ‘had stayed a little back, a little off the front line’. On top of politicians, infuriated families of over 500 soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the front-lines in Afghanistan, started protesting which forced the British PM Keir Starmer to abandon the hitherto used tactic of flattery to win over Trump, to state that Trump’s remarks were “insulting and frankly appalling.” After a call from Starmer, Trump posted a praise on his Truth Social platform that UK troops are “among the greatest of all warriors”!

The resistance to Trump’s attempts at reverting to ‘unconstrained power of Great Powers’, which was replaced by the ‘rule-based-order’ after World War II, was spearheaded from an unlikely quarter. It was by Mark Carney, financier turned politician, PM of Canada. He was the Governor of the Bank of England, during the disastrous David Cameron administration, and left the post with hardly any impact but seems to have become a good politician. He apparently has hit Trump where it hurts most, as in his speech, Trump stated that Canada was living on USA and warned Carney about his language!

Mark Carney’s warning that this was a moment of “rupture” with the established rules-based international order giving way to a new world of Great Power politics and his rallying cry that “the middle powers” needed to act together, need to be taken seriously. What would the world come to, unless there is universal condemnation of actions like the forcible extraction of the Venezuelan President which, unfortunately, did not happen maybe because of the fear of Trump heaping more tariffs etc? What started in Venezuela can end up anywhere. Who appointed the US to be the policeman of the world?

With words, Trump gave false hope to protesters rebelling against the theocracy in Iran but started showing naval strength only after the regime crushed the rebellion by killing, according to some estimates, up to 25,000 protesters. If he decides to attack, Iran is bound to retaliate, triggering another war. In fact, Trump was crass enough to state that he no longer cares for peace as he was snubbed by the Nobel Peace committee! Trump is terrorising his own people as is happening in Minnesota but that is a different story.

Already the signs of unity, opposing Trump’s irrationalities, are visible. Almost all NATO members opposing Trump’s plans resulted in his withdrawal from Greenland acquisition plans. To save face, he gave the bogus excuse that he had reached an ever-lasting settlement! Rather than flattery, Trump’s idiosyncrasies need to be countered without fear, as well illustrated by the stance the British PM was forced to take on the Afghan war issue. For the sake of world peace, let us hope that Trump will be on the retreat from now.

 Mark Carney’s pivotal speech received a well-deserved and rare standing ovation in Davos. One can only hope that he will practice what he preached to the world, when it comes to internal politics of his country. It is no secret that vote-bank politics is playing a significant role in Canadian politics. I do hope he will be able to curtail the actions of remnants of terrorist groups operating freely in Canada.

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Continue Reading

Features

Trump is a product of greed-laden American decadence

Published

on

One wonders why the people of the US, who have built the most technologically and economically advanced country, ever elected Donald Trump as their President, not once, but twice. His mistakes and blunders in his first term are too numerous to mention, but a few of the most damaging to the working people are as follows:

Trump brought in tax cuts that overwhelmingly favour the wealthy over the average worker. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law, at the end of 2017, provides a permanent cut in the corporate income tax rate that will overwhelmingly benefit capital owners and the top one percent. His new laws took billions out of workers’ pockets by weakening or abandoning regulations that protect their pay. In 2017 the Trump administration hurt workers’ pay in many ways, including acts to dismantle two key regulations that protect the pay of low- to middle-income workers. These failures to protect workers’ pay could cost workers an estimated $7 billion per year. In 2017, the Trump administration—in a virtually unprecedented move—switched sides in a case before the US Supreme Court and  fought on the side of corporate interests and against workers.

Trump’s policies on climate change could ruin the global plans to cut down emissions and reduce warming, which has already affected the US  equally badly as anywhere else in the world. Trump ridiculed the idea of man-made climate change, and repeatedly referred to his energy policy under the mantra “drill, baby, drill”. He said he would increase oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers, and stated his goal for the United States to have the lowest cost of electricity and energy of any country in the world. Trump also promised to roll back electric vehicle initiatives, proposed once again the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and rescind several environmental regulations.  The implementation of Trump’s plans would add around 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2030, also having effects on the international level. If the policies do not change further, it would add 15 billion tons by 2040 and 27 billion by 2050. Although the exact calculation is difficult, researchers stated: “Regardless of the precise impact, a second Trump term that successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy would likely end any global hopes of keeping global warming below 1.5C.” ( Evans, et al, 2024). Despite all these anti-social policies Trump was voted into power for a second term.

Arguments suggesting the USA is a decadent society, defined as a wealthy civilisation in a state of stagnation, exhaustion, and decline, are increasingly common among commentators. Evidence cited includes political gridlock, economic stagnation since the 1970s, demographic decline, and a shift toward a “cultural doom loop” of repeating past ideas (Douthat, 2024, New York Times).

First, we will look at the economic aspect of the matter though the moral and spiritual degradation may be more important, for it is the latter that often causes the former . The reasons for the  economic decline, characterised  by increase in inequality, dates back to the seventies. Between 1973 and 2000, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of US taxpayers fell by seven percent. Incomes of the top one percent rose by 148 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 343 percent, and the top 0.01 percent rose by 599 percent. The redistribution of income and wealth was detrimental to most Americans.

If the income distribution had remained unchanged from the mid-1970s, by 2018, the median income would be 58 percent higher ($21,000 more a year). The decline in profits was halted, but at the expense of working families. Stagnant wages, massive debt and ever longer working hours became their fate.

Since 1973, the US has experienced slower growth, lower productivity, and a diminished share of global manufacturing, notes the (American Enterprise Institute). Despite the low growth, the rich have doubled their wealth. In our opinion this is due to the “unleash of a culture of greed” that Joseph Stiglitz spoke about.

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has frequently argued that the United States has unleashed a culture of greed, selfishness, and deregulation, which he blames for extreme inequality, financial crises, and environmental destruction.

Income stagnation is not the only quality of life indicator that suffered. In 1980, life expectancy in the US was about average for an affluent nation. By the 2020s, it dropped to the lowest among wealthy countries, even behind China or Chile, largely due to the stagnation of life expectancy for working-class people. With regard to quality of life the US has fallen to 41st in global, UN-aligned, sustainable development rankings, highlighting issues with infrastructure and social systems, (The Conversation). The political system is described as trapped in a “stale system” with high polarisation, resulting in inaction rather than progress, (Douthat, New York Times).

It is often the moral and spiritual degradation that causes an overall decline in all aspects of life, including the US economy. Statistics on crime, drug and alcohol addiction, suicide rate and mental health issues in the US, which are the indicators for moral and spiritual status of a society, are not very complimentary. The Crime Index in the US is 49 while it is 23 in China and 32 in Russia. Drug abuse rate is 16.8% in the US and alcohol addiction is 18%. Mental illness in adults is as common as 23%. Only about 31% follow a religion. Erich Fromm in his book, titled “Sane Society,” refers to these facts to make a case that the US and also other countries in the West are not sane societies.

Let us now look at Joseph Stiglitz’s thoughts on greed which is the single most important factor in the aetiology of moral degradation in the US society. Stiglitz has directly linked corporate greed and the pursuit of immediate, short-term profits to accelerating climate change and economic failure for the majority of Americans. He argues that “free” (unregulated) markets in the US have not led to growth, but rather to the exploitation of workers and consumers, allowing the top 1% to siphon wealth from the rest of society. Stiglitz argues that neoliberalism, which he calls “ersatz capitalism,” has fostered a moral system where banks are “too big to fail, but too big to be held accountable,” rewarding greedy, risky behaviour. He contends that US economic policies have been designed to favour the wealthy, creating a “rigged” economy where the middle class is shrinking. In essence, Stiglitz argues that the US has allowed a “neoliberal experiment” to turn capitalism into a system focused on greed, which is harming the economy, the environment, and the social fabric.

Big oil companies spent a stunning $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Donald Trump and Congress, a new analysis has found. These investments are “likely to pay dividends”, the report says, with Republicans holding control of the White House, House and Senate – as well as some key states. Trump unleashed dozens of pro-fossil fuel executive actions on his first day in office and is expected to pursue a vast array of others with cooperation from Congress (The Guardian, Jan 2025). 

Trump himself has accumulated wealth just as much as the rest of billionaires, and his poor voters are becoming poorer. He is greedy for wealth and power. He is carving up the world and is striving to annex as much of it as possible at the expense of sovereignty of other countries, the US allies, and international law.

Greed is an inherent human character which when unfettered could result in psychopathic monsters like Hitler. A new world order will have to take into serious consideration this factor of greed and evolve a system that does not depend on greed as the driver of its economy.

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga

Continue Reading

Trending