- Remove RTC buses: In a retrograde step, the DPR-2006 for Hyderabad metro, prepared by the DMRC headed by Shri E. Sreedharan, recommends that for the pollution levels in the city to decline with the advent of the metro, the “system should be popularized/forced on the commuters”. This is should “be coupled with the reorganization of the service sectors of the public transportation (APSRTC) by eliminating the long distance services which they are operating presently” (emphasis mine). (The Competing Facility clause in the Concession Agreement with L&T prohibits the state govt from developing any facility that would adversely affect the metro. this clause would sound a death knell to RTC). It may be noted that a study by the Hazards Centre in 2006 found that 165 buses were removed along the metro rail routes in Delhi because they were competing with the metro with low fares). - CR
Dude, I am Delhiite, and I can ensure you that none of the buses were "removed" because they offered lower fares.
ReplyDeleteNone of the buses could compete with the kind of facilities & time-bound running which Metro provided (& continues to provide) in Delhi at much cheaper a fare. Most of these buses which you probably are referring to were old, dilapidated blue-liners which were known for their frequent accidents.
Infact there is a push to add modern buses with affordable fares in Delhi to complement Metro. Please don't incite reactions by drawing parallels which don't exist.
Mr Anonymous, I know Delhi. I studied there. The removal of buses mentioned in my post was based on a study by a reputed NGO in Delhi. Metro has become a hit only for long distance passengers in Delhi. On any day, buses carry more people in Delhi than the metro. A lot more should have been done in Delhi to strengthen and modernise the bus system but there no father to promote buses. Whereas international railway companies, consultants, big contractors promote the metro. The truth regarding metro/bus realities in Delhi has several angles.
ReplyDeleteMr. Ramchandraiah , you may have only studied in delhi, but I have lived my whole life in Delhi.
ReplyDeleteI never said that buses should have been removed, infact if you go through my post again, I indicated that they went out of business b/c of the quality service (& low cost at that one) of metro. And there is already a strong effort to modernize Delhi's bus fleet, which is despite the metro being there. Nothing is stopping the two to complement each other.
Maybe, you would just once come pay a visit to Delhi again, and see the change for yourself.
And just to add, I & I think everyone who is reading this blog of yours would love to see the NGO report.
ReplyDeleteI think there would be some finer points that you have unintentionally missed out in the same.
On a separate note, do you have any link to the concession agreement. I would really love to go through the same.
ReplyDeleteI do keep visiting Delhi, thanks for the invite. I don't have the link to the study mentioned in the blog, will try for it. The reason mentioned by you for the removal of those buses is not correct. Mr. Sreedharan has already recommended, in the capacity of the then prime consultant, for removal of long-distance RTC buses along the metro routes in Hyderabad (in the Detailed Project Report of 2006). As someone who knows the travel patterns in Hyderabad much better than Sreedharan, I consider it atrocious and irresponsible on his part to make such a recommendation. But he was already projected as infallible and a messiah (because of Delhi metro). By the way, where can you find a safe footpath and cycle paths in Delhi? Not along the metro routes where thousands of crores are spent, but only on the BRTS corridor. Hope you visit that stretch and spend a few minutes. There is no soft copy of the Concession Agreement as of now.
ReplyDeletePoint well taken. Delhi hardly has any safe footpaths and cycle paths, neither along metro, nor along the BRT. The ones that are there are encroached upon by hawkers.
ReplyDeleteBut how can that be a criticism of metro ?
And thousands of crores spent on 100s of km, at least if you look from Delhi example, are well spent... even when you compare it to 100s of crore spent on BRT
You are not true when you say neither along BRT (reg footpaths and cycle paths). Pl correct yourself. Make a visit to the BRT corridor near Ambedkar Nagar junction and spend some time. You will see how many thousands of cyclists use the dedicated cycle path and how safe is the footpath. Compare the cost per km. BRT costs Rs. 10-15 cr/km as against Rs. 200 cr/km of metro (much more in case of Hyd). Still I am not putting one against the other & they must complement each other. Ultimately a citizen should be able to travel by a single ticket while changing modes. Delhi is supposed to have about 200 km of BRT by now (or a little more from now) but not going beyond the 5.5 km that is already running. Reason? The pro-metro (Mr. Sreedharan and big contracting companies) and car lobbies have been aggressive aggressive against BRT. Coming to Hyd, BRT was accepted for implementation in about 70 km but not an inch has moved forward ever since the metro proposal has come to the fore. All the interest is only metro. And the RTC, which is the backbone of public transport, is being systematically decimated (the analogy I was drawing to the removal of buses on metro routes in Delhi). Each city is different in its history, physical form and travel patterns. The metro is a 'copy & paste' model thrust on each city by a combination of international rly companies, consultants and big contractors. Nice to see someone (though 'anonymous') responding to this blog. I request you to take a look at our website www.citizenhyderabad.in and read a booklet available in the Downloads. There are some more of our campaign items and articles if you are interested.
ReplyDeleteSince you agreed to the fact that both BRT & Metro should complement each other, I can hardly contradict that point.
ReplyDeleteBut I would like to clarify that the extension of BRT was stopped not because of any secret lobbies (though behind the scenes they would have played a part) but because of the vast discontent in general populace regarding the same. Now with the learnings from their first implementation, and with new fleet hitting the road, the extension should be up any time soon. So it was more a problem of Delhi not being ready for BRT then rather than anything else.
And I would certainly agree to the fact that the success of the metro model in delhi may have provided for a certain push to "copy-paste" the model in other cities, but I believe that is where presence of a private contractor actually ensures that the metro is beneficial for the consumer as otherwise it would be a disaster for the private contractor ! And going by the DPRs etc regarding the project available in public domain, I am sure a lot of serious work went in from the government's side too, even if popularity may have been the intention initially.
Finally, What I strongly disapprove of is When "Freedom of Expression" is converted into "Freedom of throttling" the other's view. The point is that even though I don't go with of your views, I certainly believe that channels like yours are required to ensure that the speech of freedom remains in this country.
ReplyDeleteSo people like you in that sense have a duty to not only highlight the negatives of the project, but also the positive side of it.
Your blog, and probably several news articles which I have seen, bring out only one side of the story. The point is simple. Every decision has both positives & negatives, especially for a decision which affects so many people.
So you probably need to look at both sides of the coin before deciding which one outweighs the other.
And probably, if you highlight both in forums like yours, and then show how it is more negative or positive, it would help people on the other side of the road to come and join you too !
I would have a look at the site you mentioned, though if there is anything specific that you are talking about, a link may be really helpful !
You are evading certain fundamental issues raised by me. While the BRT had initial problems (much of which due to lack of trial runs - B'lore metro took five months of trial runs before opening) now that it is doing excellently well, we don't find much political enthusiasm compared to that shown on the metro. A lot of crucial things take place behind the scenes.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have no problem with lack of transparency in these mega projects. I can make out where your heart lies. We will continue to fight and expose the unfolding scam called elevated metro in Hyderabad. Anyway, thanks for the debate.
No sir, I am certainly not favoring any "lack of transparency", in fact if you read what I said above, I want everyone to be transparent when they are talking about an issue, and this includes any of the activists who are either standing for or against the project !
ReplyDeleteAlso, regarding the BRT, if you read my post again, the new fleet of Buses which the Delhi government is set to recruit into the DTC are the ones which are would provide the required push & justification for any new corridors.
Finally, as I said earlier, you ought to continue to fight, but you should ensure that you are not misleading the populace by highlighting only one side of the things.
The most non-transparent people and those who mislead the public by projecting only one side of the story are the officials and consultants who keep documents to themselves, have enormous resources at their command, and are in hand-in glove with the big companies/contractors. They evade any public debate but keep on reeling out false statistics without allowing anybody to scrutinise them.
ReplyDeleteSir, Just consider what you have just commented. You say that the officials have been non-transparent & are trying to mislead the public by projecting only one side of the story. But you justify your projecting only the one side which you are interested in projecting based on their actions ?
ReplyDeleteYou can't equate the officials and the activists. They hold all the information. DPRs are the basic documents. Can you imagine HMR officials refuse to share them even under the RTI Act? And you say they are for transparency? There has not been even one public debate with all the stake holders on this project so far.
ReplyDeleteNo, I didn't contend that they were transparent.. What I am & would continue to emphasize is even if you believe that they are not being transparent, that doesn't justify your hiding the good part of the project, & only highlighting the ills..
ReplyDeleteAnd if HMR didn't share it under RTI, why did you not file a complaint against them in office of CIC? If HMR is actually withholding information that should be available to public, I am sure that CIC would ensure that it is made available. And CIC's backing, in case HMR continues to refuse, would only add validity to your claim of opaque & fishy transactions...
The officials and consultants are paid for doing the job of highlighting the positives of the project (with some truths, half-truths and lies). It can't be the job of the activists to do that. The booklet that I mentioned in my earlier posts contains a table of alternatives that can be done for improving public transportation. Those alternatives include rail also. We are not opposed to rail-based transport per se, we are opposed to this particular model of the project and the way it is pushed.
ReplyDeleteMy petition has been pending for a year in the State Info Commission in Hyd. For the last one year, Info Comn has been functioning only with the Chief Info Commissioner. We have a petition in the AP High Court filed in Feb 2011. The respondents have not filed the counter affidavits so far though they were given two weeks. Democracy is functioning by leaps and bounds in AP!