India’s Metro conundrum

We are building many fancy Metro systems; the task is to make them viable

Alok Tiwari

Some months back, an international publication came up with a critique of India’s Metro building spree. It pointed out that while India has rolled out Metros, basically rail-based urban mass transit systems, at an impressive pace, most of the system were failing to live up to their promise. Even in bigger cities like Bengaluru and Hyderabad, metro utilization remains below par. Indian government, thin-skinned to any foreign criticism, quickly came out in defence. While not disputing the figures in original report, it pointed to growing utilization of Metro systems, the suggestion being that with time utilization will improve.

Then came the completion of first phase of Pune Metro where the same old story was reported. The ridership barely reached a third of what it was projected. The figures at smaller cities like Jaipur, Nagpur, Lucknow, Kochi are still worse. Yet, many of these cities are now doubling down with second and third phases of Metro expansion. Many more are in the pipeline as central government has a policy of supporting Metros for all cities having more than 20 lakh population.

This bodes ill for our urban planning and macro finances. The Metro projects are prohibitively expensive. Even for elevated systems that most cities are building, it can be upwards of Rs225 crore per km. For underground systems, part of many ongoing projects, it is significantly higher. These projects are financed with contributions from the Centre and respective state governments and local bodies, but half the money is pure debt. Since central and state governments themselves are net borrowers, the projects are adding up big time to national debt. It is critical therefore that they be financially viable.

It is notoriously difficult to make urban transit system profitable. If fares are increased beyond a point, people simply shift to personal transport. Hence most of them rely on non-fare revenue like money from leasing commercial space in stations. Some cities have provided for cess on property transactions and premium of extra FSIs along Metro corridors to provide revenue stream for Metro systems. Yet, they are so far proving inadequate. It is conceivable these systems may degrade in quality once bad finances begin to bite. This can already be seen in decreasing levels of cleanliness and maintenance at several relatively new Metro systems.

The fact is that most of the cities building Metros in India do not need them. At least not immediately. These are mostly prestige and ego projects. And once a few cities started building them, leaders in every state wanted them to project their achievement. These cities could have run a far more extensive and efficient bus service with the same amount of money. It would have proved far more useful mode of public transport. But buses are not seen nearly as sexy as shiny trains zipping across the skyline.

Trains are highest capacity urban transit solution. A rail-based system needs movement of more than 20,000 people per hour per direction to be viable. That is a lot to sustain for any city save the largest ones. Also, the systems work best where they connect very large business districts with very large residential clusters. Most smaller cities are neither linear like Mumbai nor having enough economic heft like Delhi to generate that kind of movement of people. They are spreading in all directions and have mixed use areas.

Their population density is also not enough. Typical trips do not run along one or two corridors of Metro. They do not have good last mile public transport connectivity in places far from Metro stations. It is much easier for citizens to take a two-wheeler instead of having to deal with ramshackle public transport at both ends of their Metro ride. That the Metros have not eased the traffic problem is already evident. In several cases, there is now increased congestion along the Metro corridor because the viaduct has eaten into road space and traffic has not reduced after Metro became operational.

Proponents of the Metro systems argue it is much better to build infrastructure along with a city’s growth instead of allowing it to first collapse and then find solution. After all world class cities build their urban transit systems as they grew. There is merit in this argument, but it is worth remembering those cities had money to burn when they build their systems. Also, they did not neglect other modes of public transport that feed into the Metro systems. Along with subway or tubes, these cities also have first class buses and reasonable cabs.

Their merit apart, the Metro systems in our cities are a fact of life. So, how can they be made more useful and relevant to citizens? Luckily many of these systems are in state capitals and thus enjoy backing of a state government. They can change land-use and development rules to ensure better Metro ridership. Some have done so by offering more FSI along corridors. In the long term this will increase population density along the corridor just as sale of FSI brings revenue for Metro systems.

This step alone will not be enough. Lifeblood of a Metro system are daily commuters. As of now, most of the smaller cities do not have enough number of them in all, let alone along one or two corridors. This is because they just do not have enough jobs. Most of the economic development has happened and is happening around a handful of big cities. Both central and state governments need to work together to change this. They need to incentivize new investments in these cities and direct them to come up at places with Metro connectivity. Done on a large enough scale, it will help these systems become viable. Hopefully, it will also make life easier in our overcrowded megapolises.

This column appeared in Lokmat Times on Nov 27, 2024