Metro no silver bullet to ease traffic woes of tier-II cities

AS the demand for the Metro spreads to India’s tier-II cities, it is time

to reflect over whether this is a silver bullet to tackle the traffic chaos in our rapidly growing cities.

Compared to the developed world, we are far behind in this regard. In most cities of Europe and North America, underground railway started as early as the 19th century. The first, hauled by steam locomotives in London in 1863, was a huge success; it carried 38,000 passengers on the opening day — never mind the gas-lit rickety wooden carriages and smoke-choked tunnels. They switched over to electric traction trains in 1890.

The Budapest Metro, opened in 1896, holds the distinction of being the world’s second-oldest Metro system. The other pioneering Metros in 19th-century Europe were established in Istanbul, Glasgow and Paris. In North America, the subway started in Boston in 1897 and in New York in 1904; they were built by private companies.

India got its first underground Metro in Kolkata in 1984, and thereafter Delhi in 2002. In a short time, it expanded to become the largest network in India. The concept of urban transit systems was considered essential in view of future urbanisation of the country. At present, India has rapid transit (popularly known as ‘Metro’) in 16 cities across the country. Besides, these there are 15 under construction. And Chandigarh is the latest city to make a pitch for a Metro system.

My first ride on a Metro was in Montreal in 1990; it was then considered a state-of-the-art technology and one of the most aesthetically pleasing systems worldwide. In comparison to it, the New York City Subway and the Chicago Loop railway looked rather run-down. Subsequently, my experiences of taking the ‘tube’ in London and travelling in trams and electric trolleybuses in Zurich, Salzburg and Vienna have convinced me that the Metro alone is not the panacea for traffic woes. For comprehensive effectiveness, it should be complemented by other modes of transportation, incorporating features such as cycle tracks and pedestrian walkways. Considering alternatives like electric trams and trolleybuses becomes crucial to ensuring last-mile connectivity. While the Metro is undoubtedly essential for large metropolitan cities with huge traffic, there is a flip side too. They are frightfully costly — especially the underground which in our crowded old cities is the only option — and must generate a minimum of 40,000 to 70,000 peak-hour passenger traffic to make them operationally viable.

Contrary to the impression that trams — with a tangle of overhead electric cables and rails on roads — create urban blight, they actually add to the charm of the city, if established aesthetically. In Zürich, which has many old buildings, trams are the backbone of public transport, supplemented by urban trolleybus and bus routes. Additionally, boat lines operate on the Limmat river, providing a diverse and comprehensive public transportation network.

Salzburg is one of the quaintest ‘old-world charm’ cities globally, with the scenic Alps making for a panoramic view. The Sound of Music, a Hollywood classic, was mostly shot in this town. The Salzburg trolleybus system, established in 1940 to replace the city’s tramway network, has become one of the largest in Europe, serving an impressive 4 crore passengers annually. The advantage of trolleybuses over trams is that they do not require steel rails, making them much more cost-effective. In Salzburg, I saw twin trolleybuses easily negotiating curves along small flower-laden roundabouts. Their advantage over battery-run electric buses lies in the running cost as the batteries are very expensive. The moot point is that while expanding the Metro network in India, we must consider all alternative modes of transit systems.

In 2015, the Central government approved a proposal to implement Metro rail systems in 50 cities with a population exceeding 10 lakh. However, in a new policy unveiled in 2017, it reversed that decision. It wanted state governments to consider Metro rail as the ‘last option’ and implement it only after considering all other possible mass rapid transit systems. The decision was made in response to the high construction costs associated with Metro projects.

The Chandigarh Administration has revived the Metro project, which was shelved in 2017, with plans to connect it to the adjoining townships of Mohali, New Chandigarh and Panchkula. The revival has been apparently necessitated by frequent traffic jams in the tricity, which now has a combined population of around 30 lakh. In March this year, the project was given in-principle approval by the Union government.

The project consultant, RITES (Rail India Technical and Economic Service), has presented two alternative sets of alignments: one entirely elevated and the other a combination of elevated and underground segments. A fully elevated Metro network would adversely impact Chandigarh’s heritage status, accorded by UNESCO, and the aesthetic charm of its low-rise, tree-laden skyline. Media reports suggest that the city’s Madhya Marg would have a fully elevated track. Can a modern heritage city like Chandigarh ever think of an overhead Metro? Its UNESCO heritage tag and the Supreme Court’s validation of its urban excellence have to be respected at all costs.

Jaipur has successfully constructed its Metro system without encroaching upon the heritage of the Pink City. Even the Delhi Metro runs underground in heritage areas like Connaught Place, Chandni Chowk and Central Vista. And so will be the case in old cities like Varanasi, Agra and Lucknow, where work is in progress. No doubt, underground tracks increase the project cost by over 70 per cent, but can we afford to lose the quintessential city of ‘universal outstanding value’ to save some money?

Citizens of Chandigarh are proud of its skyline and ‘garden city’ identity. An overhead Metro running over monstrous concrete columns and slabs, slicing the city, will make its landscape dystopian.