Metro : Reality Check for Speed, Money and Hopes

Summary: This article tries to analyse Metro project and expectation from it. If they are reasonable? Also have the people who decided for metro really considered existing system's potential and limitation correctly? If yes than what was cost and efficiency prompted them for alternative. Its a hard to answer but it will be true reality check for metro.

Let me start with defining Metro. Metro is unidirectional transportation medium making it simple to operate. Metro has no signals or crossing and hence very fast. In other words, just to get similarity, a dedicated lane for the 4 buses. 

Lots of advantages and everyone cites example of success of Delhi metro. 

http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/jun/19metro.htm

(Its an old article but still my point will be valid if we double the numbers in favor of metro)

If you read this article note the facts about Delhi metro

1. Projected commuter numbers were 21,80,000 == actual is 500,000
2. Operational profit Rs 346.52 Cr ( 60% from fare and rest from adv etc)
3. Cost of Metro is Rs 10,571 Cr
4. Most of projected/promised data points is not achieved. ( Not even 20% of it) 

 So now lets start concentrating on the promise of Speed, Money and Hopes.

1. Speed : Metro covers a specific route. We have metro starting from center extending in 4 direction. One moves out of center more people will have to come to road and travel. If one considers P2P (point to point) connectivity time elapsed in journey using metro it will not be significant gain. People in Delhi avoid social problems like goons etc. Lot more people leverage Public transport to avoid driving stress. Speed is serious delusion which Bangalore has to think, considering how people will come to metro stations. In the end I would like to add one can have Jet speed to travel but what is appropriate is our decision.
2. Money: From above fact please note Delhi metro is making "operational profit". If you consider 10,000 Cr (cost of Metro) at 3% per annum interest rate, interest itself will be 300 Cr. Do I need to add more on this point?
3. Hopes: An important fact about metro is that it keeps on moving. Giving a false/delusion that they are not wasting any time. One observation which anyone can see themselves, in peak hour what is the difference in time on road when one is using Volvo and Car. I can assure you its not more than 7 min for 5 Km.  Considering strong support system required around metro station, one has to do lot more planning.

 So what is Metro? A delusion to hide existing inefficiencies and obsolete system. And like most of the things they give us more expensive alternatives. These alternatives are bigger and more complex "fakes". 

In the end I would like to answer following comment which I had from one reader from my previous blog (excerpt)

"Come Metro, you will see commuters having a good estimate of their travel time. And not just that Metro will reduce the travel time by more than half
between the most important points in the city. Metro is clean, efficient and
sustainable mode of transport. Let welcome it and not doubt it utility."

 I will answer point by point. 

1. At cost of 10000 Cr investment if I get good estimate of travel time, is it worth? In existing system is it possible and how much it will cost?
2. Regarding reducing travel time I think one should be fair here. If one assumes today we have made all our best effort to improve and no chance of improvement then I agree. But I do not agree with the assumption that we have achieved best from existing system. Hence comparing travel time with rotten system to more sophisticated system is not fair.( Give Public Transport Buses another chance was the point of my last blog   http://praja.in/en/blog/bharatm/2009/11/24/public-transport-buses-do-we-need-metro ) .
3. Metro is clean, I think group already know number of trees cut for the same. Also cleanliness at metro stations will be maintained at huge cost ( See Delhi Metro). If we spend same amount and dedication we can clean our whole city.
4. Efficient, once again I will say that comparing rotten system with sophisticated one is not appropriate.
5. Sustainable: Amount of time it take to develop, I doubt by the time we have full fledge metro we will have another rotten system (called metro) to be replaced by the new one. 

Extending my response to gentleman, I can challenge that I can make Volvo profitable within 3 months to prove my point. I would say that how to get that chance I do not know but making profitable I certainly know. I can reveal my plan to respectable authorities if they are interested genuinely. So lets do reality check and balance speed, money and hopes. Be fair and lets not get hypnotized by the Metro. 

A relevant must read article a very thorough analysis of my points are already done. 

http://web.iitd.ac.in/~tripp/media/dmarticles/SquanderingPublicFundsDM.htm (excerpt)

"Let us put this in perspective of travel demands of Delhi. According to the Transport Department of Delhi, the total number of trips per day in the city total to about 1.2 crore. This means that Delhi Metro is benefiting only 3 per cent to 4 per cent of the citizens of the city, with no benefit to anyone else in the country. If we take a modest 8 per cent as the cost of interest plus depreciation on the project’s capital expenditure, we get a subsidy of Rs 35,000 per passenger per year. This certainly cannot be justified as a public expenditure in a cash-poor society. The obvious question that arises is, why does a small minority of Delhi’s population deserve such a huge national subsidy?"