Public transport in Chennai - can we have more debate?

A friend sent me this piece, that was actually written by him and sent to a newspaper, but it was not published. I thought it was interesting - so here it is. This is in the context of the proposed monorail for Chennai! A monorail network of 300 kilometers! My first impression was, hmm, it sounds scary...nowhere in the world can you see such a huge network. Even the Seattle monorail is not too popular with the locals...

True, Chennai badly needs some mega solution to the transport problem. But our history has been such that we can't even get minor modificaitons and expansions done on time - now this should really be on top of my 'to do' list of things that I plan to write on....
Anyway, here is the article:
********************************************************************************************************

Needed: A fresh look and more debate on public transport

Public transport and traffic management issues the world over involve hot debates over various options – and they should, since not only huge sums of public funds are involved, but decisions affecting a large number of people for decades to come are at stake. This is all the more important in Indian cities due to the much higher population densities, scarcity of funds and lack of adequate co-ordination between the various agencies involved. But the biggest problem is the absence of an open debate involving the affected parties or stakeholders. Add to this mix, factors such as bureaucratic apathy, political one-upmanship and the ever-present lobbying by vested interests – what we get is a regrettable state of affairs. It is deeply regrettable because each of the so-called constraints when it comes to public transport can be shown to be imaginary ones, or, at the very least, easily manageable with a bit of political will and a vision driven by nothing but the greater common good.

If we take the case of Chennai (or Tamilnadu as a whole), there was a time when bus transport in the state in terms of quality of buses and that of the service – both city transit as well as inter-city – used to be far better than in most parts of India. This was all the more important because rail transport in the state did not see any significant improvement and investment after independence. The state government hardly has any say in the running of trains within the state or even within the city. For example we are not even talking of an integrated transport system for the city of Chennai involving buses and trains, as even the local train service comes under the Indian Railways. The city has changed so much since the time the train service was introduced – before independence, yet the train and bus services have largely remained independent of each other. While it would be preferable to integrate the ticketing of both services, even simple but important factors such as the location of bus stops near the train stations and the construction of subways or overpasses have become complicated and controversial affairs. If we consider the state as a whole, the only major new construction project undertaken after independence was the Karur-Dindigul broad-gauge line. Other basic and obvious enhancements such as the doubling of Chennai-Madurai-southern districts line and its electrification have not been done, despite the enormous increase in travel requirements. The bus transport sector has bravely stepped up to the challenge, and the state and local governments over the years have done their part to keep up with the rising demand, often under severe space constraints for expanding roads, bus stations, etc. The shifting of the location of bus stations and the construction of new bus stations in almost all major towns and cities in Tamilnadu – often at the outskirts of the cities and towns, repeated modifications of traffic routes, lanes and the location of bus stops, etc. point to state and local administrations on their toes trying to meet the growing challenge of managing road traffic. All this while, rail transport in the state saw hardly any expansion. About the only sector in the state that has double-tracks and electrification happens to be connected to the Delhi-Mumbai routes. Even a simple linking of Chennai Central and Egmore stations has not been done – forcing passengers to travel by road to transfer to connecting trains.

The single biggest reason for this seems to be the complete, unquestioning acceptance of the status quo – especially when it comes to the involvement of the local government in the running of train services. It is important to objectively look at the status-quo, and ask questions of ‘why not’, if we are to move towards improved, and hopefully a sustainable form of transportation. As mentioned above, on closer look, all the so-called constraints and limitations can be shown to be manageable if we start with the right questions and an open mind towards solutions. Fortunately, we have world-class experts within the country who would be only too willing to lend their expertise and services towards achieving a sustainable transport system.

Integrated planning is crucial for the city of Chennai, which does not have the luxury of large open spaces for new constructions. This planning should include all modes of transport such as trains, buses and even mini-buses, taxis and autorickshaws, as well as the movement of goods. The presence of an international airport, large and small industries, educational and research institutions, not to mention the headquarters of the state government, all make it vitally important to take a holistic approach. A holistic approach can often lead to much simpler and highly cost-effective solutions. As an example, a subway leading from the Tirusulam station right up to the airport that is designed to allow luggage trolleys, or perhaps even a conveyor belt, could encourage a large number of people to take the electric train – provided the train service is also improved. Similarly a convenient and direct rail link between Chennai Central and Egmore stations would avoid so much road traffic. Mambalam and Saidapet stations, for example, can be far more attractive if they have bus-connectivity (feeder lines) right outside the stations. The involvement of the local government in the running of the train service and close coordination with the airport authority are clearly important, rather than the almost independent and un-coordinated functioning of these entities as is the case now. Sharing of the construction costs by the state government need not be frowned upon, if revenue-sharing also can be worked out. Other long-term solutions include the reduction or elimination of tanker lorries by expanding the drinking water network and sewage handling, implementation of fuel pipelines for transporting and distributing automotive fuels and cooking gas, etc. A great deal of commuting for paying bills and visiting government offices can be eliminated through streamlining of services, e-commerce and e-governance.

Whichever way one looks at it, it becomes evident that public transport should become the primary means of commuting once again. Economic and environmental implications of an unchecked growth in personal transportation over public transport are all too obvious. What seems to be overlooked is social equity. When a limited amount of road space has to be shared by a large population, equitable use of public land and roads should be a primary consideration in any planning, regulation and enforcement. For example, it has been estimated that the roadspace occupied by a single-occupant car driver is 1500 square feet, whereas for a two wheeler rider, it is 50 sq.ft. and for a bus passenger, it is 75 sq.ft. While these numbers are estimated on the basis of safe transport models for largely western conditions (where the buses are not that crowded either), it can be clearly seen that the road space occupied by a passenger in a bus carrying 60+ people (a relative luxury) in Chennai occupies far less road space, and pollutes (air, noise) less than a single occupant car driver or a motorcycle rider does. The argument can be stretched to include the outflow of foreign exchange due to various modes of commuting. While it may be legally difficult to prevent people from driving their own cars to work, they can at least be made to pay a reasonable and equitable share in the form of road tax and petrol tax for occupying this limited road space. Of course, it is critical here to offer convenient and comfortable alternatives in the form of improved public transportation. Many Chinese cities, for example, have ‘luxury’ buses in addition to their regular city buses. A variation of this, in the form of ‘chartered’ buses also exists in Delhi. The bottom-line should be that all those who have to commute pay their fare share for utilizing the limited road space and parking space.

Other factors that are closely related to social equity are public safety and public health. Too many cars on the road clearly endanger those who commute by motorcycles or bicycles, as well as pedestrians. Inhaling polluted air is the price paid by countless number of shopkeepers, roadside teashop and restaurant owners, and the hapless traffic policemen who do a thankless job in sweltering heat and dust. While everyone is familiar with the so-called subsidy for public transport, not many are familiar with the enormous, but invisible, subsidy that is going into the use of cars and personal vehicles for commuting. Vehicle insurance costs, petrol prices, parking fees, penalties for traffic violations, etc., are relatively much more expensive in several countries. Ensuring public safety and health cannot be left to ‘market forces’.

Through a combination of equitable pricing, taxation, regulation coupled with enforcement, and education of the public, there is no reason why Chennai and the state of Tamilnadu cannot have a world class public transport system such as those in Singapore or Seoul. On closer analysis, it can be seen that the lack of sufficient funds is the least of the constraints. Far more difficult, but vitally important, is to come up with an integrated transport policy and a master plan for the city and the state. Prior to committing to any new project, it would be extremely worthwhile for an expert group free from bureaucratic constraints, and with the backing of the political executive, to take a fresh look at all options available – on the technology as well policy sides. For this, the state government should start with the questioning of the status-quo, so that it leaves out no solution such as an integrated transport system as impractical, and moves beyond the traditional interpretation of ‘subsidy’. We should not limit the debate to an either-or scenario such as the one involving metro-rail, monorail and bus transit. Any time spent looking at all the options should not be considered a ‘delay’ leading to some imagined ‘cost overruns’.