M Ramachandran: Suburban rail systems are vital for cities

City transport infrastructure continues to be under increasing strain, with congestion visible everywhere. The number of private vehicles is going up fast, while the share of public transport is not reaching the dominant share it should take, considering the constraints on available road space. Despite significant initiatives to better organise mobility within cities — the National Urban Transport Policy of 2006, and more central support for metro rail systems in cities and bus rapid transit systems, for example — mobility and congestion issues are being addressed only at the fringe.

Larger long-term initiatives that need to be taken by positioning empowered unified metropolitan transport authorities for at least the million-plus population cities, making public transport efficient and easily accessible, and above all assigning responsibility for city transport to elected urban bodies, all seem to be still lacking in our city governance systems.

It is in this context that the ministry of Railways has formulated a suburban rail system policy which, when finalised and implemented, can add much-needed additional transport systems in our big cities, to start with. For once the key role of the state governments in identifying solutions to urban mobility problems has been recognised. We know how much suburban rail services contribute to the effective functioning of Mumbai. There has been demand for such a transport mode from capital cities such as Thiruvananthapuram, which did not find favour because the Railways have their own considerations. 

Delhi did not get the benefits of such a system despite having a circular railway, again because the Railways wanted priority for freight movement. Hence the recent decision to go in for a Rapid Rail system connecting nearby cities with Delhi, though this is not the same as utilising existing rail tracks for better commutes to and within Delhi. Karnataka already has proposals to improve suburban connectivity, involving conversion of diesel-electric multiple unit trains to mainline electrical multiple unit (or MEMU) cars and the starting of new MEMU services during peak hours.

Most of our mega cities and million-plus population cities would have benefitted considerably if existing rail tracks could also be used for city and peri-urban area transportation. But the proposed policy has closed this option, because the Railways say they cannot spare existing infrastructure for suburban services.
 

Proper implementation of the proposed policy is critical for our cities. The draft policy stipulates that the state concerned must ask for the formation of a SPV for running suburban services; it must contribute 40 per cent of the equity; it must provide the required land, and only when 70% of the land is made available will the Railways cough up equity; state governments on their own have to conduct feasibility studies, which will then be examined by the Railways; and the Railways will collect the revenue, and if only there is a surplus will it come to the SPV.

This is one-sided. The foremost point to be kept in view is that we are making a new beginning to facilitate better urban mobility and reduce road congestion. As such, this is more a joint venture between the Railways and the Union ministry of urban development, along with the concerned state government. While taking this exercise forward it would be worthwhile examining how the setting up of metro rail systems in cities through equal joint ventures between the Centre and the state concerned is working, with the duly constituted boards of directors effectively running the show.

If this proposed policy of promoting suburban rail networks has to work well, the Union ministry of urban development has to be actively involved in the exercise and should be an active partner as well, thereby also moving out of the “silo” approach. Also, urban transport as a subject is rightly allocated to the ministry of urban development. Railways have a much larger portfolio to run and if experience is any guide, then, as can be seen from India’s first metro experiment in Kolkata (which the Railways piloted and continue to run), their role in city transport has not been distinctive.

It would also help if the National Urban Transport Policy is modified, bringing in the excluded subject of suburban rail services, and a clearly defined role for urban metropolitan transport authorities is incorporated, to actively bring about integration of all city transport services including suburban rail systems, metro services and initiatives to improve and integrate inland water systems wherever feasible, along with other modes.

There could be concerns about how much priority the Railways will assign to time-bound completion of city projects when they already have a bigger portfolio to implement. This aspect must be clearly specified if the purpose of the new initiative is to be fulfilled. The government of Uttarakhand had deposited funds with the Railways some 10 or 12 years back for a small new rail segment that would have reduced the travel time between Delhi and Dehradun. What would have made a critical difference to increasing the growth potential of the then newly-created state remains unimplemented even today. The MRTS in Chennai, the initiative of the Railways alone, has failed to make any difference. If it integrates with the city’s Metro, the result may be better mobility in and around the city. 

The writer is a former secretary for urban development