answers by panelists to questions sent by participants

©SLSTL Page 2 of 18

ANSWERS BY PANELISTS TO QUESTIONS SENT BY PARTICIPANTS

Answers to Questions posed but not answered by the panel due to lack of time at the

Webinar on ‘Why the KV Line Electrification Project shout not derail’ organized

by the Sri Lanka Society of Transport & Logistics (SLSTL), held Online on 3rd

November 2020 from 6:00 – 8:00 pm.

There were over 320+ logged in viewers at one time at the webinar and more than 300 even at the end

of the presentations. We received over 100 questions of which a number were combined or asked as

separate questions during the 50-minute Q&A session. The moderator agreed for the Sri Lanka Society

of Transport & Logistics (SLSTL) to provide written answers to the rest as a part of its professional

obligations. The following provides brief responses to 72 questions that were not answered in full. The

questions that were substantially answered during the Q&A session have not been included as they are

in the video. The video of the webinar is available at YouTube

GENERAL MATTERS

Q1. Wonder why project personnel have not been invited to the webinar

This webinar was open to the public and anyone interested could participate. We have not ‘invited’

anyone specially. It was intended only to present the facts to anyone interested as opposed to contents of

promotional material circulating in media especially by personnel associated with the consulting team.

Q2. Was the PMU not given a chance to explain the findings to the Committee

Most of this material has been communicated in writing by the IESL to the PMU, MOT, MoF, and

to the ADB. We have not had any responsible and satisfactory response either in writing or in the several

meetings. We were able to present these issues in person to the PMU and the consultants. Moreover,

project personnel and all consultants were invited to a previous seminar held by the IESL in Sept 2019,

to which they agreed to attend and present their case but pulled out at the last minute.

Q3. Why can’t these feasibility studies be conducted using local consultants?

It can be done. In fact, much of the work has been done by local consultants, working under foreign

consultants. Inviting a foreign consultant would have been a decision by the Ministry of Transport and

the ADB.

Q4. What is the position of electrification of the mainline from Veyangoda to Panadura? When

will this be completed? Are funds available?

The status is that feasibility studies for the remaining three sectors: Colombo to Rambukkana,

Colombo to Kalutara South, and Ragama to Negombo have been completed by the consultant very

https://slstl.lk/

https://youtu.be/VQIIPGZlXak


recently. The project web site has the reports and says, "Please send your comments". For the convenience

of readers, we give below the project web address: www.csrp.lk. Veyangoda- Panadura feasibility report

would have to be approved by the government and presented to financiers.

Q5. Can you clearly mention if the KV line is going to be developed as an electric line? If yes, when

is it going to happen? And from where are we going to get the funds if ADB funds are already

stopped? Do we have the expertise, infrastructure, and previous experiences to do it locally?

The CSRP project is on railway electrification. Hence the objective of the KV line is not only to

electrify but also to ensure that it has a design where the maximum potential of electrification is provided

to the passengers. The ADB has informed IESL that the Govt has taken this project off the priority project

pipeline together with many other projects, possibly due to the current economic situation. As the

technology is new to Sri Lanka, there would be many aspects for which foreign expertise, imported

material including EMUs would be necessary. However, there would also be substantial inputs both in

personnel and construction that could be delivered locally.

Q6. Now we can understand why the development of Sri Lanka Railways is at a standstill or only

at snail speed!! What a shame you all are dwelling upon finding faults with consultants rather

than proposing pragmatic and productive futuristic development of locomotion in this

country while other countries are centuries ahead of us

That is precisely what has been done by IESL, and now by SLSTL. Proposing a solution to the

transportation problem in the city, with the first priority being to make existing networks efficient. The

entire railway project commenced as a result of pressure from professional institutions. However, when

the design is incorrect and too expensive, professionals have to point that out and propose revisions, but

still press ahead for implementation. We have at this webinar also presented how this project should be

redesigned to ensure its fullest potential is met.

Q7. If nothing changes, then why are you still advocating electrification???

Electrification provides energy-efficient, noise, and pollution-free mobility, with easy access to

renewable energy through the grid. Air conditioning is available by default. Suburban trains recover up

to 30% of the electricity used for propulsion through regenerative braking. Trains are lighter, maintenance

costs are lower.

Q8. The electrification would impact the existing electricity production and distribution network:

ex: necessity of reinforcement? Impact on the overall quality of power supply? Etc.

Electricity supply will be from the transmission network through dedicated traction substations,

without any connection to local distribution networks. There will be no impact on the quality of supply

to other customers owing to railway electrification.


Q9. In case the electrical reinforcement is necessary, are these topics already discussed among the

relevant stakeholders and if so, do you have feedback from these stakeholders (CEB among

others).

The feasibility report includes details of traction substation locations, stated to have been agreed

with CEB.

Q10. Whether the feasibility has considered a design alternative with all curves improved to satisfy

the planned design speed including respective cost of land acquisition? because land

acquisition shouldn’t be the deciding factor?

Curve straightening has been considered in the feasibility study but dropped as being "too

expensive", citing frequent stations preventing higher speeds. That means express and long-distance

services have not been considered by the designers.

Q11. Dr. Tilak Siyambalapitiya Presentation: Why a RIGOROUS ASSESSMENT is needed once

feasibility has been done? Aren’t the PMU and the Consultants and the Steering Committee

competent to do that rigorous analysis??

A rigorous assessment is required for any project, and most importantly, for projects estimated to

cost hundreds of millions of dollars (in this case 1400 million dollars). It is up to the PMU of the Transport

Ministry to check the consultants’ work against the TOR. The concerns expressed in the webinar were on

the material presented in the public domain, which indicates less than a rigorous assessment of passenger

forecast, line design, and cost estimation.

Q12. Yesterday there was a news item on Monorail to be introduced in place of LRT, in four

corridors. How would the panel view this option?

The panel has no information on the latest monorail proposal. Project proponents approach

politicians and frequently submit such proposals, which attract media attention for a short while. It has

been our experience that most such projects so announced to the public without rigorous demand

forecasting and economic analysis are later abandoned as they are not viable and should never have been

announced publicly.

Q13. I have a question regarding this KV line project. What is the mechanism for relocating of

project affected families who are living along the Kelani Valley line? How the project team is

going to overcome these relocating issues?

The feasibility study presents a count of 2200 families to be relocated, mostly to clear the legitimate

railway right of way, and has reported that such families will be provided with improved quality

accommodation elsewhere. The costs are already included in the project costing. The panel has no

reservations on the policy or costs of meeting such social and environmental obligations, which require

to follow both government and ADB guidelines.


Q14. This is also regarding the Resettlement Plan for the people who are affected by this KV line

project and how the PMU will give an effective resettlement plan for these people and what

are the strategies that you will give to use for an effective relocation?

See the answer given above.

Q15. How many people have to be relocated to change the curves and double-tracking at ground

level. What would be the cost like?

The PMU has counted the need to replace about 2200 families for double-tracking.

Q16. Thanks for all clarifications and facts presented to the public and well-wishers of the

transport sector development. My question is not on KV line project but on Kandy Suburban

Railway Project (KSRP). Please do this kind of awareness for KSRP also.

Our information is that the Kandy suburban railway project feasibility study and designs too have

commenced in February 2020. Except for press reports on the commencement of feasibility studies on

KSRP, no progress has been reported by the Ministry of Transport. No Steering Committee has been

appointed.

Q17. Why all these good (as it seems) plans in railway electrification didn’t come out until the CRSP

went some distance?

Previous studies did not go as far as setting up a "project" to implement them. It is the 2008 study

by IESL that finally resulted in a belated Cabinet decision in 2015, from which the CSRP was established.

Hence CSRP is the closest that electrification got to implementation, and if correctly positioned and

managed, it has the potential to be fully implemented. It is not only electrification of railways;

modernization is included.

Q18. Dear sirs, is there any method to complain about this type of misleading fraud estimation and

statistics, by officers or hired consultants to the funding agency or any other for the

betterment of our country in the future.

No such mechanism exists. However, Secretary of the Ministry would be the responsible person to

accept any complaints and resolve them at the Ministry level. The Department of National Planning

should be re-examining the costs, benefits, and viability of such projects, while the Department of

External Resources is required to examine them when allocating foreign financing, for consultants as well

as for project implementation.


Q19. As there are conflicts between the CSRP consultants' plan and IESL suggestion on various

matters of this project, has IESL done any feasibility study on their suggestions? If yes, how

can we see it?

The IESL as a member on the Steering Committee appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers is only

providing comments on invitation by the MoT, to the Consultants’ Feasibility Study for which the

consultants have been hired by the government. However, as many of the forecasts, design, and cost

provided in the consultants’ report were found to be unsubstantiated by the consultant and since the

reports have continued to be considered and proceeding based on these incorrect calculations and

conclusions, the Transport Sector Committee of the IESL has been doing its own analyses and their

findings were presented at the webinar.

Q20. I have a question for Prof. Amal Kumarage regarding public transport. It is a well-known

fact that former CTB was one of the world's biggest public transportation entities. Even

though there were weaknesses, its structure, objectives, functions, quality of services were far

better than today’s public transport (SLTB and private buses). It was to serve people rather

than earning a profit. We can see that there were so many seminars, forums over 4 decades

to improve public transport but the transport system became worse and people were

distanced from public transport and depended upon private transport such as three-wheelers,

scooters, etc., if they can't afford a car or cab service. What is the future plan for a reliable

public transport system together with SLTB, private busses and trains, and monorails, etc?

In the current economic context, the Colombo Metropolitan Regional Transport Masterplan that

was formulated by the University of Moratuwa as an implementation strategy of the JICA-funded

Masterplan for the Ministry of Transport in 2015 outlined the modernization of the bus sector as the most

viable short term strategy, followed by the railway electrification and modernization for the medium term.

This plan is still the most appropriate for the present even though it is now delayed by 5 years. The

Sahasara Bus Reform Program which has been developed in parallel has an all-island bus improvement

strategy for which the total cost is estimated at Rs 70 billion over 5 years, which would cost only around

1/4th of the cost of the KV line project which is just for one corridor in Colombo.

Q21. If this project will not go ahead what are the options to improve transportation in the short

term, medium-term, and long term?

See the answer above.


Demand Estimation

Q22. You claim that you require only between 02 to 04 trains per hour. Why do you need double

tracks in that case? Still, if you see the SLR timetable for the KV line you can see that there

are no crossings arranged during peak hours. By carefully adjusting the timetable double-

tracking could be avoided. Please explain why you suggest double tracking for KV line as a

short-term solution?

Double tracks are suggested by the consultants. This is due to the high number of passenger trips

that they forecast. If as you say, the demand is not high, frequent crossing loops can be arranged instead

of double-tracking all the way, if indeed the number of trains in the opposite direction is not that many.

The most important requirement is not to just increase the number of trains, but to make the travel faster.

Therefore, it is agreed that straightening curves are more important than double-tracking. However, if the

curves are straightened then the travel times will reduce and the demand will increase requiring more

trains for which double tracks will be necessary. In the interim, frequent crossing loops can be arranged

instead of double-tracking. The consultant’s report has closed such options and proposed an elevated,

double-tracked railway, while retaining the severe curves.

Q23. COVID - 19 has shown that telecommuting has become a norm for many office workers. Can

we close Sethsiripaya, Isurupaya, other-payas and spend say USD 100 million at Gampaha,

Kottawa, Kalutara, Kurunegala and get all these people working from those places?

Of course, there will be no continuous flow of traffic to Colombo City when there is no demand

and supply equilibrium. That’s one reason the experts tried to explain in this seminar that excessively

optimistic forecasts appear in the consultant’s report, which have in turn been used to justify an elevated

infrastructure at a huge cost, with no accurate and technical justification presented in the feasibility study.

The suggested type of satellite workstations is already taking place in the private business sector, with

most workplaces going out of Colombo City. Similarly, the government sector, too, has to follow up,

since there is not much freedom to go into Colombo using road infrastructure unless we provide faster,

mass passenger transport systems. Hence, this should be looked into when UDA plans the land use in

post-COVID-19 scenario,so that these issues can be included in the design of future transportation

requirements for Colombo.

Q24. Has the impact of the elevated highway from Peliyagoda to Athurugiriya been taken into

account? I believe this project is already on the cards.

This project is in the feasibility stage. Generally, in a feasibility study, all such potential future

projects that can have an impact on a proposed development should be considered under scenarios. In the

consultant’s computation, while scenarios have been considered, it is not clear what projects have been

included and what has been excluded as the level of details provided is not adequate for such a conclusion.


Q25. Good session, thanks. One final question. Won't you consider the post COVID19 mobility

shrink, remote work, virtual workers, etc in your demand modeling? And the new trends are

to stay forever other countries predict! Thank you!

The work from home was encouraged as a solution for congestion in City areas even before the

COVID 19 pandemic, as if we go back two decades back. This is why the road traffic growth in urban

areas, especially in Colombo has not exceeded 3% per year (often this has been 2- 2.5%) even though the

car population grew at higher rates (6%-7% per year). It is expected that there should be a rapid reduction

of commuter travel in urban areas other than walking and mass transport modes, where people may not

spend more time as we spend now. This will also happen due to restrictions imposed by authorities for

carbon-driven vehicles with the threshold of environmental degradation by CO2 emissions being reached

in the near future. This is also why the high growth of passengers estimated by the consultants to justify

the high expenditure on the KV line, is being contested.

Q26. Have this feasibility considered the benefit of deducting traffic congestion? Like a reduction

of CO2 emission (air pollution reduction) and medical benefits due to increasing good air and

reduction of vehicle parts by private and fuel reduction from a private vehicle?

None of these benefits would be foregone by electrification and improvement of the track at grade.

All environmental benefits could be secured even if the track is not elevated. Thus, these benefits do not

become decisive in choosing between elevation or at-grade development.

Q27. Colombo-Malabe being the most congested path to Colombo, what is the most suitable

transport mean.

Actually, the reason why the Malabe corridor is most congested for road traffic is that because it

does not have a rail line. The LRT systems proposed are very costly. In 2015, the CMR Transport

Masterplan proposed a railway link between Dematagoda and Battaramulla that has not been considered

seriously since then, by the Ministry of Transport. A Bus Priority lane was also piloted, and instead of

strengthening the concept with more buses with comfort, regularity, and further priority at intersections,

this was also abandoned over preference for the much more costly LRT. Sadly today, neither the surface

rail line, the Bus Priority Lane nor the LRT is proceeding. Hence the importance of fully investigating

the lower cost and viable options, before proceeding with expensive and flashy projects which may be

politically more attractive but do not solve the problem in an economically efficient manner.

Q28. Prof Kumarage once mentioned the whole countries public transportation can be done with

1/8th of the cost of the JICA LRT cost of 2.2 BN which is now stopped. Why not present at

least a framework for this, please?


As mentioned above, the Sahasara Bus Reform project and other interventions set out in the CMR

Transport Masterplan prepared in 2015 clearly sets out the process of selective interventions to bring

incremental benefits all over the country.

Q29. My suggestion is not to double-track the KV line. We should get maximum capacity using the

single line and by increasing platform length and adding more compartment to trains.

The number of trains and passengers on a single track would be limited. While this can be the first

step, the project intends to improve train speeds so that more passengers would be attracted to the railway,

including travel at peak-time in the off-peak direction. If this were to happen, then a single track would

be inadequate.

Q30. Has the feasibility considered a design alternative with all curves improved to satisfy the

planned design speed including irrespective cost of land acquisition? Land acquisition

shouldn’t be the decision factor?

There is only one demand estimation which is for the proposed line with the curves as they are.

They have dismissed the straightening option by simply stating it is too costly. We also have noted that

if the consultant did an incremental analysis investigating the benefits of straightening the curves, longer

trains, and longer platforms, then that would have been a more viable first stage for the project.

Q31. Does the Feasibility Report meet the requirements of the TOR? Has the TOR specified what

was required by the study? If the TOR has not been satisfied, then why should the PMU accept

the report?

While the Feasibility Study generally covers the scope of the TOR, the review by the IESL has

found it wanting in terms of accuracy and acceptability of methodology in the areas of passenger demand

estimation, railway gate closure assumptions, assessment of benefits, economic evaluation, and in the

train operation and safety features.

Q32. Do we have a passenger and freight requirements forecast say for the next 20 years?

The consultants have made forecasts for passenger traffic till 2035. There is no forecast for freight.

However, the assumptions used for such passenger forecasts, as well as the glaring absence of the use of

baseline actual data and departure from acceptable demand estimation procedures, and frequent changes

to forecasts with no reasons given, have rendered the forecasts unrealistic and unreliable.

Q33. We need to factor in developments in other streams in technology such as telemedicine, zoom,

and other platforms for interaction, robotics, automation, smart technologies based on

Artificial intelligence, etc. and then check what should be the movement of the people. Who

is doing that?


Agreed. Particularly in a post COVID19 economy, travel patterns are likely to be different and

many existing trips are likely to be suppressed or replaced by work from home and other IT-based

solutions. Hence the extremely high demand forecasts used by the consultant to justify the investment of

USD 1400 million on the project are unlikely to be realized. Hence the call for a review of the forecasts,

review of the engineering design, and careful reassessment of the cost estimates.

Q34. Has the benefit of savings from the avoidance of widening of the roads for motor traffic taken

in the analysis?

An alternate project to compare with options such as road widening, bus lanes, or improvement of

buses has not been evaluated by the consultant as is expected in a study for such a large investment. The

economic analysis has rated that savings in vehicle operating costs to constitute around 90% of the

economic benefits which is again quite unusual for a project such as this, casting doubt on the economic

analysis as well.

Q35. Question to Dr. Siva: When calculating the number of trains per hour, have consultants

considered the passenger estimation for the completed distance (i.e. Maradana to Avissawella)

or breaking the total distance into 2 or 3 sections? (from Maradana to Malapalla, Malapalla

to Padukka, and Padukka to Avissawella. I'm asking this because 7 minutes interval between

trains is a concern for road traffic congestions and impact is not the same throughout the total

distance. This is not an issue for the elevated section. (Also only during the peak hour and

towards peak direction, of course.)

The consultant has taken the demand for each section of the line from Avissawella to Maradana.

The 2 trains per hour are what will be needed if the curves are not straightened and there is no

improvement to train travel times. Trains are however assumed to be longer (12 carriages) than what is

used currently. With improved travel times, the service can increase to 4 trains per hour by 2025 and

increased gradually thereafter.

Q36. Should we ignore the Port city and other megapolis development in the forecast?

There is no necessity to ignore any either confirmed or likely development. However, it should be

noted that many Megapolis developments are not happening and the feasibility study should not blindly

assume that all of the Megapolis Masterplan is still happening.

Q37. Will there be a time advantage because of the increase in train frequency?

The frequency will provide a time advantage since the waiting time will reduce with the increase in

train frequency.

Q38. There are other roads running parallel (Piliyandala-Colombo). Shouldn't we take those all

into consideration?


The traffic demand used by the transport demand modeler should technically include all other

transport services. However, the assumptions regarding their travel times, etc, which is the most critical

factor to be used to obtain a realistic idea of how many passengers will switch to the new mode, has not

been reported, to determine if the consultant has examined all these different services. Only the travel

time on KV line has been used. However, it is assumed as very high so that the proposed train times

appear to be very beneficial. There are no details of any comparative travel time studies.

Q39. To Dr. Sivakumar - what is the actual and forecast figures for Southern Expressway? Have

your forecasts worked?

It is correct that most public transport sector investments in Sri Lanka have over predicted demand.

This seems to be the trend that has been included in the consultants’ report, which if not corrected, will

lead to the overestimation of benefits leading to the project being uneconomical and a problem to the

country’s economy.

Q40. Based on your prediction, 30 mins headway is adequate for KV line. It means two trains per

hour. The fuel consumption of a DMU is approx. 3 liters/km. How you are going to justify

electrification?

The greatest economic benefit of the KV electrification project would not be fuel savings. It would

be travel time savings for the passengers. Hence the most important aspect of this project should be the

minimization of travel time. There is a clear justification for the electrification of the main and coastal

lines where existing passenger numbers are high. We support the electrification of the KV line too, to

ensure seamless movement of trains between all the four suburban lines accompanied by the potential

speed gains.

Engineering

Q41. It is revealed that there are curves in the rail line section between Colombo and Maharagama

and therefore rail speed would be only around 40km/hr then why is this proposed KV line not

designed after realigning all narrow curves and keep the existing line at ground level for

container transport?

Agreed. As explained in the webinar, the speed of travel is very essential in the modern era whether

it be freight or passenger. Therefore, the curves must be straightened for faster speeds. This is the most

important first step irrespective of the design being elevated or not. Of course, if you elevate before

straightening the curves, you are stuck with the current speed, compromising future development of long-

distance express services and potential freight transport development, to Avissawella and beyond. No

design or construction in railways should create new bottlenecks to future developments, especially when

UD 1,424 million is being spent for such ‘improvement’.


Q42. It was also stated that the KV line is expected to reach Hambantota in the future. Given all

that Maradana to Homagama would still remain a bottleneck and the bends will still affect

the optimal usage of the line. Given that, would a fresh corridor between Maradana and

Homagama be a solution?

Some of the curves can be straightened within the Railway reservation. The consultants indicate

they prefer not to even disturb some of the encroachments on the rail reservations but to go for an

expensive elevation. A completely new trace will require much more acquisition as this section is highly

built-up, with a high population density.

Q43. Definitely keeping container carriers away from roads is the best for road users. Heavy

vehicles such as container carriers are very disruptive to other vehicle users and also do more

damage to roads making more maintenance cost. So, shifting more goods transportation to

rail is the best option. If the elevation of the line will kill that option in the future that should

be reviewed.

Agreed.

Q44. Eng. Priyal de Silva says people would want to travel in the same compartment, without

having to get down and use another team? But in many countries, people regularly shift

between lines. Is Sri Lanka different?

No Sri Lanka is not different. What was mentioned was that in this case, people have to change

trains on the same line- not between lines. That is not usual in most countries. In congested city centres

when there are multiple rail lines, it is usual for many passengers to change from one line to another as

one line cannot serve all destinations. What has been proposed by the consultant is that a passenger going

to/from Avissawella would have to change from the diesel train to an electric train simply because the

line is not electrified all the way. Given the marginal cost of electrifying, this is unacceptable especially

since the railway is most attractive to longer distance passengers and the line should be designed to

compete effectively with road transport from Avissawella.

Q45. Can passengers cross the track at ground level?

No. It would be fenced-off. Fencing-off is practiced in Sri Lanka’s expressways with good results.

Crossing the lines will only be at level crossings, underpasses, or over-passes.

Q46. What happens when the track is at ground level and people have to walk across the 7m track

to go to the other side or getting from one platform to another at a station

It is usual in other countries to provide walkable 2.1 m height clearance underpasses or 2.5 m

motorable underpasses for light vehicles at regular intervals to ensure that community connectivity is not

disrupted. At busy level crossings and stations too, connectivity can be provided with underpasses, which

are already seen in many newly-built stations in Sri Lanka.


Q47. Will electric trains provide a safety mechanism so that the station waiting time could be

reduced to 30 seconds?

A modern train set has automated wide doors, to enable fast alighting and boarding. The platform

is at the correct elevation allows such quick movement. To provide these, trains do not necessarily have

to be electric.

Q48. Suppose you are electrifying the KV line at ground level, how are you are going to put

overhead catenary lines over level crossings? It limits the height of the vehicles can pass the

level crossings. How you are going to overcome this issue?

The electric catenary will cross the roads at level crossings. The height will be about 7 m. Sri

Lanka’s roads have a vertical clearance of 5.5 m. No vehicle taller than 5.5 m can travel on Sri Lanka

roads.

Economic Evaluation

Q49. While you discourage mega projects like this which are currently too heavy for our economy,

why not propose and push small and medium scale projects. For example, building passenger

compartments in the country, etc.

Any project whether they are large- Mega as you called them or small, should ensure that they are

economically productive. Indeed, a megaproject that is poorly planned and fails to deliver the promised

benefits will have a much larger negative impact, especially if the investment is from borrowings that

have to be made for an asset that may be only a showpiece but does not deliver the intended volume of

economic benefits. When a country is dependent on foreign borrowings there is a value in taking up

smaller less risky projects. This project for which USD 1,424 million has to be borrowed will only impact

people living in one of seven corridors to reach Colombo. Thus, such expensive treatment of traffic

congestion will be unsustainable when similar problems exist on all the corridors to Colombo and even

in other cities such as Kandy. The building of train compartments locally is a good value addition to the

economy. There are many components in these projects that should be earmarked at the planning stage

itself to ensure that local contributions are maximized.

Q50. Why not our professionals propose the government to liberalize locomotive transportation

paving bay for a healthy competition since the infrastructure cost of locomotion is colossal!

Many countries do not completely liberalize railways, since the investments cannot be recovered

from the collection of passenger fares alone. More and more countries open up goods transport by rail for

private investment as there is financial profit especially in geographically larger countries. In passenger

transport, it should be a part of overall government policy rather than profit-making since pricing and

quality of service are key parameters that will determine the balance between road and rail use and the


management of traffic congestion. In developing economies, equity issues also need to be considered in

allowing total market-based pricing for train services. Moreover, actual costs may be unaffordable to a

population in low- or middle-income countries.

Q51. Do you think all these development projects need to be undertaken by the State?

See the answer provided to the above question.

Q52. Profitability and losses of using different modes of transport systems (PPP, Full Private, Full

Public)

See the answers above.

Q53. What are the decisions that you have made currently for current problems in public

transport, It is highly crowded and they do not work on time? If you guys can use public

transport before taking decisions, it will be good for passengers.

While all the speakers have first-hand experience in using as well as managing public transport, on

the other hand, no patient asks the doctor they visit if they have had the same sickness that they have

before they allow the doctor to treat them? It's time that people understand that transport solutions come

from careful study of the problem and the careful design of solutions based on scientific and economic

principles. The objective of the webinar was to show how the proposed design was inadequate to meet

these requirements that passengers require for the project to be useful especially for train travelers.

Q54. Prof Gunaruwan: I have seen a letter from Project Director, CSRP to MOT Secretary

claiming that Consultants were not given attention or a chance to explain to the committee

and Chairman was just manipulating the meeting to push his personal claim. Any comment

on this by Prof. Gunaruwan?

The Committee appointed by the Ministry of Finance discussed with officials and Project

Management staff paid by the Government of Sri Lanka, who should take the “ownership” of the Project

proposal and take care of national interests. The committee expected them to be FULLY aware of all

aspects of the Project and be capable of answering the committees’ basic questions. If they needed, they

could have discussed with their Consultants, be fully aware and ready to face a review Committee

appointed by the Ministry of Finance.

Q55. To Prof Gunaruwan: Kindly, expand on “incremental benefits” as what’s included in it, net

profit, or some other parameter set?

“Profits” are not considered in Economic Analyses- but only the economic benefits and costs. The

committee reviewed the viability of incremental costs by comparing incremental benefits. All data used

was obtained from the feasibility reports issued by the Ministry of Transport (which in turn have been

prepared by the consultants). The committee did not perform any feasibility exercise by itself, which


anyway is not possible. It only checked the conclusions of the consultants. The committee's finding was

that the incremental investment on track elevation did not emerge justified through associated incremental

benefits.

Q56. Prof Gunaruwan: Is it possible to see a detailed analysis of freight transport demand forecast

in this corridor which the committee is making a strong point on future potential? (not

parcels, other freight)

It is not the duty of the Committee to conduct Feasibility Analyses. That is the task expected from

the consultants hired for the purpose. The Committee simply found that no such freight transport potential

of KV line has been even studied. If so, the design recommendation could have been different, and

attention would have been given to the freight transport role the KV line could (and should) play to

alleviate road transportation of not only parcels/ but heavy freight, and more so in the future when the

line is extended to Rathnapura and Embilipitiya/Hambantota. An elevated track up to Malapalla would

deprive such potential forever.

Q57. Prof. Gunaruwan: This government and a couple of the previous govts extensively took

commercial loans from China and did/did not do projects. Why aren’t you mentioning those

projects even they are not under your committee review? Any thoughts about that?

Prof Gunaruwan has written extensively on such projects/loans and expenditures. Many

publications are available in the research literature, too. However, this particular exercise was focusing

on current proposals. The particular reference that were made was regarding the importance of deploying

local skills, knowledge, and implementation capability of our Engineers/construction organizations in

development projects, which would help enhance capital efficiency; and the KV line project was just an

example used to highlight that importance. Almost all past foreign-funded projects also could be used to

support the same policy recommendation.

Q58. What is the good that Gunaruwan has done for railways as the GM that has been felt by the

rail passengers? Any extraordinary facilitation done to improve locomotion?

Those train travelers and railway officials know what Gunaruwan as GM has done. He need not

defend himself. It might be worth recalling that Gunaruwan was GMR during (2007-2009) the peak of

terrorist activities, and all that he has delivered was amidst facing such huge security challenges and

capital constraints. Just as an example, the very railway electrification project was conceived by SLR in

2008 under his leadership and resurrected again in 2015 when Gunaruwan became Secretary. Many more

could be cited.

Q59. I think that Dr. Gunaruwan was not very convincing when he dealt with freight. I have no

knowledge if electric trains can carry heavy freight.


Gunaruwan did not say that "EMUs should carry freight". It should be idiotic to think that way.

Forget about EMUs, in the KV line design, not even DMUs carry freight. What Gunaruwan said was

about the LINE, and not about the Electric Multiple Units. Freight trains are hauled in other countries

also by electrical locomotives or diesel locomotives on electrified track, while EMUs / electrically hauled

passenger trains move. Why constrain that by "elevating"? That was the simple question Gunaruwan

raised.

Q60. Prof Gunaruwan: Why has the government has scrapped the soft financed Japanese LRT

project.

The LRT proposal did not come for the committee’s review, and thus, we are unaware of anything

related to it. The only thing we knew was that it was proposed somewhere in 2016, and when that was

entertained, the BRT proposal and the Dematagoda-Battaramulla ordinary new railway proposal were

disregarded. I am concerned as to why the public does not question about sidelining those locally groomed

project proposals, which could have been implemented at a fraction of the cost and without the country

getting into foreign debts.

Q61. There should be an in-depth analysis of freight traffic. The mere consideration of the freight

carried during the past years is not sufficient. Whether there is a real demand for it should

be studied as road transport of freight has now been thoroughly established in this corridor.

Many companies, vehicles, and people are involved, and these have value. Even after the

investment if there is no adequate freight as expected it will incur losses. This is a specific

subject and I am not sure the expert panel at IESL has sufficient knowledge on this.

Freight demand has not been studied by the consultant and needs to be studied further; it also has

to be "promoted". If one is worried about "private freight hauling vehicles", those people must be

"biased". From those people who are so worried about "freight haulers on road", it must be asked why are

they not worried about "passenger haulers on-road" when the railway line is promoted??? Our policy

should be to encourage both passengers and freight to move away from road to rail. If anyone is against

that, he knows only a little about the transportation problem, and economics pertaining to it.

Q62. Even the garbage transport issue should be discussed with the Solid Waste Management

Authority.

Of course, yes. Have these planners proposed track elevation after having discussed with such

authorities? Regardless of any specific opinion, they may express at present, WHY NOT transporting

garbage by train on the KV line, if garbage is to be rail-hauled to Aruwakkalu? From where would

Maharagama/Nugegoda garbage be loaded to train otherwise? Trucking to a location on the outskirts,

congesting all city roads???? One does not need any "consent" from any Solid Waste Management

Authority to ask such questions and suggest appropriate policy interventions. Until such time, the KV


line's capacity to do so should be kept alive. By elevating the track, one would kill that capacity forever!

That was Gunaruwan's concern!

Q63. There were proposals to use the KV line for container transportation of household waste from

Colombo to landfill sites. So if the elevated KV line is only designed for passenger

transportation up to Maharagama can this be done?

See the answer given above.

Q64. Incremental analysis must be done with sequencing and synergy as well and using the

principal of low hanging fruits. In that can we set the incremental projects to achieve the end

result and launch them progressively?

This was mentioned in the presentation. There are many low-hanging fruits, starting with simple

track improvement and signaling improvement. Electrification and double-tracking investment emerged

incrementally beneficial over incremental costs, but track elevation did not.

Q65. Can we compare this cost with a railway project (with an electrifying, double line, elevated,

etc) rather than comparing it with a harbor project?

We have not compared this project with a harbor project. The mention regarding the Hambantota

harbor is merely to show that this project costs even more than that. Independent estimates made by

engineers for double tracking, signaling, station improvement, and electrification (as presented in the

slides) should be based on such international railway cost benchmarks, which amounted to approximately

USD 600 Mn, but WITHOUT track elevation. Even based on the Consultant’s own estimates, USD 420

Mn could have been saved if the option of at-grade development was selected. Since the consultant’s cost

estimates for other activities too are excessive, we estimate the same benefits can be achieved with an

investment of USD 600 Mn. If passenger forecasts are further revised downward, these costs would

reduce further.

Q66. Will the LRT be back with Chinese funding / PPP?

This is beyond the scope of the webinar on the KV line and is likely to be a government policy

decision.

Q67. The main point under arguments in recent times on this project is the predicted saving in

travel time. What is the time saving as per your assessment which you can substantiate? I

think this is what makes the project not viable

Evidence was already clearly provided in the presentations by Eng. Priyal de Silva, and Dr. Tilak

Siyambalapitiya. Even if one believes that the trains would be able to make a slow run between MDA-

HMA in 42 minutes as estimated in the Feasibility Report, and even if other possible time-related


disadvantages are ignored, the direct time saving could not be more than 5 and a half minutes, when

compared against the scheduled time table that prevailed since 2017 till mid-2020.

Q68. I have noted in the project report that there is a dedicated line for goods transport and is this

a new railway line? If so has the cost of that line added to the cost of the project? If not how

will that project be done?

Yes. Technically the cost of that line too line should have been added when comparing with a

ground-level track.

Q69. Prof. Lalithasiri Gunaruwan, Sri Lanka’s GDP is around USD 88 -90 Bn whereas country

debt is USD 13 trillion isn’t it?

Sri Lanka’s total outstanding central Govt debt is around Rs 13 Tn (trillion) of which 6.4 Tn is

foreign debt, and 6.6 Tn is domestic debt). There is another Rs 4.6 Tn of foreign debt by others than the

central Govt. private sector. So, one may compile that the total foreign debt (both central Govt and others)

to be around Rs 10.1 Tn, and total debt (both local+foreign) to be approximately Rs 17.6 Tn. The

country’s GDP at market prices in 2019 was Rs 15 trillion (USD 84 Bn) – Ref: CBSL Annual Report

Statistical Appendix (Tables 91 and 110), and Special Statistical Appendix (Table 2).

Q70. Is it justified to present EIRR, FIRR, etc. to 4 significant decimal figures?

Usually, EIRR % is presented as an integer. FIRR%, since the figure is very low for projects of this

nature, may be presented with one or two decimals.

Q71. Shouldn’t the cost-benefit analysis contain a sensitivity analysis and a RANGE of values for

FIRR, EIRR, etc.?

Yes, it should. It includes sensitivity studies. Please see the feasibility study report.

Q72. I hate to comment that: this kind of “hoodwinking” had been going on for quite some time in

all projects even in other sectors, where parallel projects are being mooted by many interested

parties and finally since all these projects are not based on realistic estimates, most of these

projects fall by the wayside just because, before any of these projects materialize they have to

stand the economic justification and at this stage, most of these projects fail, This has been

our legacy are we going to continue this.

Agreed.

answers by panelists to questions sent by participants

Documents