The world’s cities develop a culture of commuting, in which the trains, buses, stations, rickshaws and even pavements acquire a personality for the commuter.
I live in Chennai, where the transport landscape has been evolving without much help from the government. The Chennai Metro, a modern train system but one without a distinct identity – not even a bright logo – is experiencing a long gestation. In the case of the MTC bus system, the only help it received was during the JNNURM scheme of the UPA, when deluxe and air-conditioned buses were added to an ageing fleet. But the A/C option quickly vanished from core city routes and was either diverted to suburban routes or deployed in the upmarket IT corridor.
The other big cultural shift was towards shared transport, in the form of “Share Autos”, the description for 7-seater mini vans owned by entrepreneurs, most of whom have some political patronage. On paper, these share autos with commercial taxi permits are illegal, since they transport passengers just like the buses do, along a route, exhibiting major stops. After dark, some of them take even 12 passengers in space meant for 7. The culture of Chennai takes care of all that: the authorities levy a token fine almost everyday, which the Share Auto cabbie is happy to pay, and the passengers are grateful for the service in a global city where real bus numbers have remained stagnant for the better part of a decade.
These are familiar features of Chennai’s transport scene. More recently, Ola and Uber swooped down on the city, taking the hardened autorickshaw mafia by surprise. Ola even launched an autorickshaw service. The smartphone universe has loved all this.
But the promised icon of the Chennai transport universe, the Chennai Metro, remains a disappointment. It is not yet complete, and the first leg now in operation shows that it may be cold and aloof even in the future. Here’s what I think is making it obscure already: There is none of the excitement or pride of a major Metro rail system even among the people running it. In contrast to, say, Kochi Metro, Chennai has little visibility. No emphasis on identifying colour, no symbol. The only things visible are its barely-literate security personnel, who seem to have a sense of crude ownership of the system, especially since they are asked to do 100 per cent frisking. Like the MTC, they also feel they are doing passengers a favour.
Chennai is also unique in having a Metro with a First Class, in which you have to pay double fare – perhaps a global first, and an amusing decision, because Metro trains are intended to transport people quickly in a span of 10 to 20 minutes, rather than replicate long distance trains in which you sit for an hour or more.
What I would do
If I were running the Chennai Metro, I would have created a bright map by now, explaining to the public how it could be used in conjunction with the Beach-Tambaram and MRTS suburban rail lines. Nicely made maps are icons for the culture of the Metro systems, and I have had the pleasure of experiencing this in London, Paris, Berlin, Munich and New York.
System maps, and smartphone apps, of course, flow from a visual identity. There has to be an emblem for a system, but Chennai Metro has none. It has a funny logo that looks unfinished, is not adequately popularised and is simply not found anywhere in the city, even along the truncated route it operates currently [Koyambedu – Alandur]. That is a pity because Chennai Metro has comfortable climate-controlled coaches from Alstom.
I would also have had a few meetings with the user public, which would have effectively brought out the fact that the AIADMK government has not thought it necessary to properly integrate MTC bus operations with the Metro stations, particularly in Alandur.
The half-hearted operation of mini-buses from some of the stations like Ashok Nagar and Alandur should have been replaced by a well-supplied system of small buses going to the surrounding neighbourhood, specifically called Metro Link to brand them. Since no one of consequence uses public transport in Chennai, such integration plans spoken about in the early days of the Chennai Metro lie by the wayside. Things are, of course, worse with MRTS and suburban railways.
I use the description of half-hearted for the Small Buses of MTC because there is only one every 20 or so minutes, with no real time information on when the next one is expected. In some cases, such as S30 [Mahalingapuram to Ashok Pillar], there are only two buses in operation, so you might get one only in 30 minutes if you are lucky.
So currently, you have neither sufficient connectivity nor information about buses that connect the Metro stations, and the Chennai Metro itself is ‘App-less!’ Such neglect calls into question the commitment of our politicians to global goals such as reduction of carbon emissions and mitigation of climate change, through a “modal shift” from personal vehicles to public modes.
The culture of the Chennai commute is evolving under the influence of deprivation – of information, of service, of integration.
A report in The Hindu says the Metro operator, CMRL doesn’t know the reasons for low ridership. Obviously it doesn’t believe in commuter surveys even using their own website + social media.
I said some of these things on Twitter, as a discussion was sparked off by the news report on low Metro ridership:
One of the arguments was that if the alignment had been along the OMR, commuters in the upper echelons living there would have patronised the Metro more, as they could pay higher fares.
That is certainly true from a purchasing power standpoint, but OMR also needs mass transport connectivity because it is a growth corridor. It needs orderly development.
Since there is no one with responsibility to take a complete view of the city’s networks, all individual parts are neglected. Take my own case. I would like to use trains and buses more and feeders in between, but the costing is such that a shared taxi provided by an App-based company like Ola often does the job better, offering door-to-door ride in an A/C cab, at comparable rates during leaner hours of the day. At other times, they resort to surge pricing, which shifts the advantage back to trains and buses.
It is also interesting that in spite of losing customers to App-based taxis and unauthorised shared vehicles (“Share Autos” in local terminology), the state government networks fail to respond. There is no expansion, no demand assessment. That makes me think something is going on behind the scenes that I cannot see!
Meanwhile The Metro Rail Guy raised the unresolved issue of the Metro station in Alandur being hostile to the very people that it hopes to serve, with no facility to easily cross the wide GST Road outside the station. That’s something I have personal experience of!
At the end of the 5 year term of the AIADMK government in Tamil Nadu, we look at the state of the bus transport network operated in Chennai by Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC)
What we found causes a lot of dismay: Nearly two-thirds of the fleet is made up of buses which are more than 7 years old – 2125, to be exact. The addition of new buses has apparently been minimal, and old buses have been running as deluxe and express services without necessary repairs or full maintenance.
It is by now familiar to travellers in Chennai that MTC buses are in a dilapidated condition, and continue to charge deluxe fares even when seats are broken, doors do not work, sharp metal and crude bolts protrude from seats. The LED route boards of the buses have either dimmed beyond usability, or are being obscured by crude painted route boards for some strange reason. Such neglect has happened in a year when the price of diesel was mostly going down.
Many of these deluxe buses were acquired under the Union government’s Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission of the UPA government, when the DMK was in power. A few were introduced by the DMK government even prior to that scheme, the first deluxe services in the city. No major initiative was proposed to augment the Chennai bus fleet during the AIADMK government.
The introduction of small buses was a highlight of the last five years, but even that was delayed. It was originally proposed for Chennai by the DMK, based on the small bus scheme that was introduced in the districts.
The following are other data highlights for MTC, obtained by this blog under the Right to Information Act.
As of January 2016, MTC operated 3,585 scheduled services and during the year January 2015-January 2016, the Corporation added a mere 54 buses to its schedule of services.
No service was removed during this period. Buses were apparently added to the Chennai operations from other state transport corporations, although details were not furnished by MTC. This indicates the low priority accorded to city commuters by the AIADMK government, since these are mofussil buses not designed for city use (wide aisles and entry-exit).
At the Paris Climate Change Conference of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change, India told the world that it intends to cut carbon emissions by modernising its transport system.
On the ground, though, the reality is one of low quality bus systems being operated in even the Metropolitan cities. Now that the NDA government of Narendra Modi has an updated Urban Bus Specification-II, will MTC be compelled to make future acquisitions only in conformity with that? Chennai’s bus system is part of the International Association of Public Transport or UITP.
Here is a graphic on the MTC fleet strength (note the last bar on the number of buses over 7 years old):
The time is approaching when we must choose a new government for Tamil Nadu. For commuters, the past five years under the AIADMK have been literally expensive in the following ways:
The failure of the AIADMK government during the past five years has hit the consumer in terms of inflation in transport costs, unpredictability of travel, inefficiency, risk of accidents, pollution and loss of quality of life. There is no law that compels State governments to provide a measurable level of public transport, both in terms of quantity and assessed satisfaction of users. The gaps in the system are filled by companies like Uber, Ola (with cabs, discounted shared cab rides and autorickshaws), and unregulated share autorickshaws that do a lot of service, but illegally, by operating cramped 7-seater carriages that carry up to 15 people sometimes.
We need a revamp of Chennai public transport. I intend to write more on this in coming weeks before the elections. Five years ago, I wrote this post on who would give us better wheels, Karunanidhi or Jayalalithaa? What do you think?
A spate of newspaper reports and analyses in recent weeks on the tattered state of Chennai public transport should ordinarily evoke a strong governmental response to set things right. The Hindu has highlighted the poor planning that could bedevil the upcoming Metro and Monorail infrastructure in this piece. There is some attention devoted to the crucial issue of pedestrian mobility that is so vital for the new rail infrastructure to attain critical mass. It would have served the purpose to also point out that even for existing suburban rail and MRTS, this aspect has been ignored completely, with very visible consequences.
That point is made in a superbly laid out spread of stories in The New Indian Express today. The story on the scary nature of MRTS stations is here, and the collapse of walkability in Chennai is here.
What is disturbing is that both The Hindu and The New Indian Express reinforce, subtly, the point that public transport options ought to turn a profit in some way. This is what The Hindu’s piece says: “Some Metropolitan Transport Corporation buses, especially the deluxe and AC services are also likely to be rerouted to avoid two premium category public transport services along the same road corridor” (emphasis added).
This kind of statement stems from the belief, even among some so-called experts, that the general public is entitled only to sub-standard transport options, which is quite the reverse from public transport advocacy in more mature countries. It is also of a piece with the view of the two leading “Kazhagams” in Tamil Nadu, that public facilities must be bare, badly maintained, poor in information systems and generally not provide comfort. This sort of attitude is straight out of the “Car Industry Bible”, which requires bad public infrastructure to exist, in order to keep attracting new users.
In the case of The New Indian Express, the writer falls for the well-worn argument that public transport should produce a profit. That the MRTS does not generate enough funds due to lack of station infrastructure, connectivity options and lack of service orientation is not sufficiently stressed.
Our transport operators and the media covering urban mobility issues would find it illuminating to read the recent interview given by Dr. Hans Rat, the Secretary-General of the UITP, which is the 92-country, 3,400 member union of international transport operators.
The key point that Dr. Rat makes in the context of service provision is this: “Transport Operators must have a customer-oriented service culture. ” The place that is doing that, he says, is Dubai in the Asian region. Crucially, it is able to get the best returns for the system because of integration. Bangkok, Hong Kong and some other cities are also moving ahead. This is all so different from the Indian experience.
What the Indian media now must do is to ask why cities that were provided massive funding by the UPA government under JNNURM with the caveat that they must have Unified Transport Authorities have put the issue on the back-burner.
The Times of India today reports on the order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission to Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation, directing it to provide a copy of its Detailed Project Report for bus service to us.
Although the one week deadline set by the Commission has expired and MTC is expected to report compliance, it has chosen to disregard the order.
This will naturally entail legal consequences.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 is meant to make government transparent, but Chennai’s monopoly, government-owned bus operator Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) refuses to see the law that way.
In response to a Right to Information Act application seeking the Detailed Project Report of the Corporation for acquisition of buses under the Centrally-funded Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), it has taken cover under Section 8 (1) (d) of the Act to refuse disclosure.
Section 8 (1) (d) states as follows: information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
It is amusing that a government-run bus utility that is funded with taxpayer money has taken recourse to such a provision. Since the disclosure is likely to harm a third party, is it likely that MTC has planned some privatisation, and is in the process of firming up some deal?
We will no doubt be appealing the refusal, and taking MTC to the Information Commission if it continues with its obdurate ways. The position taken by MTC is untenable, because similar DPRs of other states are available in the public domain, and on the Internet, and the funding agency, JNNURM hosts some documents suo motu. For example, here is a link to the DPR of the Airport Link project for Bangalore.
Other questions that MTC has refused to answer, citing the same provision of the Act, are as follows:
1. The number of buses purchased by MTC using the JNNURM grant, and the value of the grant.
2.Do the JNNURM grant conditions stipulate that the buses should only be operated in the city covered by DPR, and not diverted for other use?
In reply to a question on integration of transport under the Government of India’s Total Mobility Plan for cities, the MTC answers “brief details may be furnished” but provides nothing.
It is our view that MTC is clearly in breach of the RTI Act. We urge other transport activists to also file RTI petitions, both with the MTC and the Ministry of Urban Development of the Union Government, seeking the DPR on Chennai transport.
The attitude of MTC confirms our belief that the DMK Government is using transport as a pocket borough, and a tool for political activity, rather than as a modern transport network serving the people of Chennai.
This is furtheraffirmed by the responses given by MTC in response to our queries on why it is not widely advertising its bus passes, including Travel as You Please for daily use. We are posting that information separately on this blog.
Anyone visiting Bangalore today can see that there is more being done for public infrastructure in that city than in Chennai. It becomes evident from the time one arrives in the City station or the international airport. An accessible and comfortable air-conditioned service is available, unlike in Chennai, where successive governments have deprived travellers of good bus services.
Once you leave the City station, for example, and take the pedestrian subway to the Kempegowda Bus Station across the road, you can head to the BMTC area where clear markings on Platforms 1 to 4 indicate destinations for the ‘Vajra’ Volvo services. To a visitor from Chennai, this is quite a different experience from Central Railway station, where only buses bound for Broadway/High Court from various destinations pass through. The only exception is route A1, which covers only one very small segment of the city between Central and Thiruvanmiyur.
For many people, the buses offer a good alternative to the expensive autorickshaws and taxis. A ride on Route 365 to Hulimao Gate, en route Bannerghatta, for example, costs Rs. 30 and is achieved in cool comfort. If you are bound for Marathahalli or Kadugodi, there is a frequent route 335E service.
When you want to reach the City station (Majestic, or KBS) it is equally easy to identify these Vajra services on various routes. What I found most interesting is the facility of buying a daily ticket for Rs. 75, which enables one to ride on any bus in the city, except the BIAL airport services (Vayu Vajra). It is prominently advertised through a poster inside the bus.
There is no comparable day pass in Chennai, that includes Volvo service travel.
Bangalore is head and shoulders above Chennai with these services, although, naturally, there is scope to do more. Take the basic statistic. Although the DMK greats keep patting themselves in the back for incremental additions to Chennai’s bus system, they have never been able to scale up. Chennai has a declared fleet of 3280 buses as of March 31, 2010 (MTC website, www.mtcbus.org). Bangalore, which is generally sneered at by the Dravidian Kazhagam greats, has some 5,000 buses available.
The low scale of the DMK government’s ambitions can be seen from the fact that it proposes to operate just 100 mini-buses in Chennai, to tackle the serious supply-deficit and the inflation caused by the unregulated autorickshaw operation.
If you took the ‘not-run’ figures into account (buses on the fleet that are not run on a given day), Chennai’s MTC scores very low marks. The absenteeism officially acknowledged is 8 per cent, and if that is directly applied to services not operated, more than 300 buses on MTC’s fleet are simply not operated per day. Apply that same metric to the mini-buses, and the number of vehicles in service drops to 92.
These factors clearly point to the reluctance of the DMK Government to give up its monopolistic and opaque bus operations in Chennai, a city that clearly needs a new model of transit regulation. For the moment this self-serving system can learn from Bangalore.
Lastly, it should also be pointed out that the AIADMK government under Ms. Jayalalithaa fared much worse in handling Chennai transport.
It provoked the employees to go on strike, and then tried to break it by encouraging carpetbagging bus operators to enter the fray.