Do you want Metro or not, MP Manish Tewari’s poser to Chandigarh, Punjab, Haryana

Chandigarh MP and former Union Minister Manish Tewari has asked the UT Administration and the governments of Punjab and Haryana to clarify whether the city, along with its periphery towns of Mohali, New Chandigarh and Panchkula, needs the Metro project or not.

Tewari’s query came after the Union Government replied to his question in the Lok Sabha on Thursday that the Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority (UMTA), comprising Chandigarh, Punjab and Haryana (formed over two years ago), is yet to submit the detailed project report of the proposed Chandigarh Metro.

“In response to my question about the latest status of the Chandigarh Metro project, the answer underlines the utter inefficacy of the Unified Metro Transport Authority. Despite being in existence for over two years, they have failed to even prepare a detailed project report (DPR),” the senior Congress parliamentarian told The Tribune over the phone.

The time has come for the Chandigarh Administration and the Governments of Punjab and Haryana to clearly say whether they want a Metro project for the four cities or not, he said.

“Procrastination, vacillation, obfuscation and dissimulation will no longer do,” he asserted, while adding that the bottom line is, “do you want Metro or not? Yes or no?”

Advocating the need for the project, the local MP said the four cities need Metro as soon as possible. “It is not a connectivity project alone but also an economic multiplier to leverage the commercial potential of the region,” he opined.

Training guns on the bureaucracy, Tewari said in the past 11 years, Nagpur, Mumbai, Kochi, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and many more cities across the country have operationalised their Metros, while the Chandigarh Metro project has been stymied because of sheer bureaucratic inertia.

Replying to his unstarred question in Parliament, the Union Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs Tokhan Sahu said the Chandigarh Administration had informed that the UMTA was constituted on April 28, 2023, and it had so far held three meetings in July and December 2023, and September 2024.

On whether the government has reviewed the findings of the latest RITES-led feasibility committee constituted and if any joint proposal has been submitted by Chandigarh, Punjab and Haryana to the Union Government regarding the Metro project, the Union Minister informed Parliament that the respective Union Territory Administrations are responsible for planning, initiating and developing urban transport infrastructure, including integration amongst various modes of public transport in the UT.

“The Central Government has formulated National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP), 2006, Metro Rail Policy, 2017, and Transit Oriented Development Policy, 2017, which act as a guide to the state governments/ UT Administrations for the integrated planning and implementation of urban transport systems,” said Sahu. The Centre considers financial assistance to urban rail-based system on the basis of feasibility of the proposal and availability of resources, as and when posed by the state governments and UT Administrations concerned, he added.

The Union Minister clarified that no DPR for the Chandigarh Metro has not yet been submitted to the Central Government.

Metro needed urgently: MP

"Chandigarh, Mohali, New Chandigarh and Panchkula need Metro as soon as possible. It is just not a connectivity project but also an economic multiplier to leverage the commercial potential of the region. The project has been stymied because of sheer bureaucratic inertia," said Manish Tewari, Chandigarh MP.

RITES yet to submit revised report

Chandigarh: The consultant for the Chandigarh metro project RITES is yet to submit the revised scenario analysis report (SAR) for further deliberations. On June 17, the UT Administration had discussed the SAR submitted by the RITES and had sought for the revised report, which is still awaited.

In its initial report, RITES had submitted key elements of the project, including transport demand assessment, traffic analysis zones and highway network, development and validation of the base year travel demand model, projections of future travel demand, train operation plan, power supply system, geometric design parameters, economic viability etc.

It had also shared calculations of the Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) and Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR), along with an analysis of the economic costs and benefits of the proposed Metro project.

However, it lacked explanation regarding the methodology used to extrapolate daily ridership from PHPDT, a comparison between actual and projected ridership figures as per the CAG report, data on the operational ratio, and the reliability of software modelling projections.

Additionally, no conversion factor indicating how many people are expected to board the Metro was provided, the justification for the 3% annual traffic growth rate was not explained, inconsistencies in the economic analysis figures, especially in the scenario summaries, were not addressed. Also, the impact of isolated corridors on the overall EIRR of the network was not clarified.