Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India under R.N.I 53640/91
Vol. XXVIII No. 8, August 1-15, 2018
Will Metro offer City decongestion?
By A Special Correspondent
Chennai Metro is in the news again. More new underground metro rail stations are open. A single train can now take commuters to all major transport hubs in the City. From Central, you can reach the Airport in 50 minutes. About 75 per cent of Phase 1 is now functional. Average daily usership has risen to 45,000 from 27,000. To a cursory observer, these are cheerful developments. Admittedly, these are good but not all, nor enough. A closer study of the present status does not afford room to hope that Metro would complete its promise by 2025.
In Phase 1, against the target of July 2014 for two segments of the project, completion was only by June 2015 and September 2016 – late by 11 and 26 months respectively. For five other segments the delay ranged from 17 to 29 months, except one with a 9-month delay, all against the target of December 2015. The remaining segment is already delayed by 30 months and is yet to be commissioned which is the Washermenpet – AG-DMS section. Estimated duration for Phase 2 was 10 years from 2015. This Phase is still in an embryonic stage. Phase 1 is 45 km of which 35 are operational. Phase 2 would cover 108 km when completed. Because 45 out of 153 km is likely to be completed shortly we cannot expect to derive proportionate benefit of 30 per cent. The truncated project will not yield proportionate benefits as commuters who must necessarily pass through Phase 1 corridor to gain access to other areas in the proposed Phase 2 would not use Phase 1 facility till Phase 2 is completed.
On Phase 2, the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs has raised important issues to be clarified by the State government. Why is ridership very low for Phase 1 compared to expectation and how does it affect the viability of Phase 2? The DPR (Detailed Project Report) submitted by the State was found unacceptable by the Centre without this and other aspects being addressed properly. This has been going on for some time now. It is disappointing that the State Government has been delaying its response to the Central Ministry.
Continued delay of Phase 2 would cause substantial project cost over-run. The original estimate was Rs. 85,000 crore. Consequential increase in the fare might make it unaffordable. Even at full capacity, the two phases can meet only about 20 per cent of present demand and a much less proportion of the demand that would have enlarged by the time the Phase 2 is completed.
The State government must take up Phase 2 on highest priority and resolve the differences with the Centre to be able to start construction without the slightest delay. If project officials can keep their promise of six years’ completion, instead of the original construction time of ten years, they will have retrieved the situation. Going by the track record on deadlines, however, it is doubtful if that is practical.
Ridership for Phase1 has recently grown to 45,000 per day which is hardly 15-20 per cent of the rated usage capacity of 2.5 to 3.5 lakh users per day. Delhi Metro is reporting a ridership of 2.76 million per day which is indicative of full utilisation of its carrying potential. Delhi Metro has the lowest average fare, at 50 paise per km. For example, the commuters can travel from Dwarka Sector 51 to Huda City Centre, a distance of 60 km, paying a fare of Rs. 30. Chennai Metro is the costliest in the country with average fare of Rs. 4 per km compared to about Rs. 2.50 – 3.00 per km to motor cycle users. The running cost of Metro is a fixed cost as services must run irrespective of the traffic volume. This cost can be mopped up only by making the fare attractive and enlarging the traffic volume to fill the bogies. As traffic increases more bogies could be added. There seems to be no other route to improving financial viability. This approach to pricing is worth trying.
The Metro Railway (Operation & Maintenance) Act, 2002 Section 33, Metro Rail Administration (MRA) has a Fare Revision Committee (FRC) under Section 34(1) of the Act. The first phase provides an opportunity for pricing experiments to identify a fare that facilitates high utilisation of the rolling stock for viable operation. The Act provides for a bureaucratic mechanism for fare fixation as can be seen from the composition of the FRC with a Judge and one representative each from the State and the Centre. CMRL should put up to the FRC a forceful case for a graduated pricing model. Pricing of utilities that affect the living cost of the lower strata calls for affordable pricing. No-profit-no-loss of cash should be the first aim. A set of pre-defined eligibility norms for subsidising for mass transport should be considered as a general policy for all Metros to keep living costs low for the economically weaker classes. The subsidy is recovered many times over through lower pollution, reduced congestion and wider employment opportunities. Transport security ranks with food security. Poor utilisation in response to unrealistic pricing will not be good for the Metro. It could reduce the Metro to the status of a week-end novelty for recreation.
Without the full Metro network in Phases 1 and 2, substantial reduction in congestion is not possible. Imaginative pricing and taking up the construction of Phase 2 immediately are of high priority to retrieve the situation. Delay would leave us permanently chasing a rapidly growing aggregate need.
