Cancellation of light rail project:

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)