Joined
·
16,522 Posts
I think you haven't got the context right....Yes, China has certain unique advantages that will be difficult to replicate. Also agreed that the feasibility studies should be done, if even just to ensure that lines are optimally aligned instead of going over areas that shouldn't have them.
However, India doesn't need authoritarianism or massive financial muscle to rezone the land around stations and then allow the private sector to naturally take advantage of it. Zone for high density, increase FSI, and create the conditions that allow private sector builders to bring the ridership to your system. Here's a great example from Hong Kong- an empty land parcel turned into an entire neighborhood, clustered around a single station.
View attachment 6958122
Another reason to look at China is because India will have many massive "lower tier" cities in the future, and the only nation which compares in scale is China. So, how do they make their many cities of between 5-10 million work?
For cities with more than 5 million people, there's basically three broad groups. Megacities in developing nations, which are generally not nice places to live. The likes of Dhaka, Kinshasa, Karachi.
Then, developed megacities across Europe and Asia, which almost all rely heavily on using both metro and bus networks to reduce congestion, pollution and basically make their cities livable. Everything from Tokyo at the high end of the population scale, to St. Petersburg and Qingdao.
Then you have a handful of extremely sprawled out North American cities which rely on personal cars, like Houston or Phoenix.
If we know that places like Surat, Jaipur, Lucknow etc will end up with massive populations between 6-10 million in the next couple of decades, there is nothing wrong with building up infrastructure in advance of those people arriving. And yes, that quick urbanization happens naturally and will occur even in democratic India, Chinese cities didn't become what they are because people were forced into them by the CCP. Urbanization is natural with industrialization.
India's problem since independence has been that it waits too long to build the things that the population desperately needs. Doing the opposite has its own unique issues (such as building out lines that are currently underutilized) but I'd take it any day over the former.
The print article is rightly pointing out that enormously expensive metro systems is not the way to start public transport services in most Indian cities because Indian cities do not even have basic bus services, let alone proper bus services, which is where the quest for a city's public transport must begin.
Instead, most Indian cities are jumping headlong to very high cost, very high-capacity metro systems without having the basics of urban transport in place, which at the very least, is a vast network of buses that can enable movement & feed passengers from one mode to the other. The reason why the metro is being chased is for status /bragging & for vote-bank politics & does very little to solve city transport issues.
For example, Jakarta has an extensive & far cheaper BRT system with over 250km routes, also commuter rail (over 200km), light rail (over 60km). They have started building a metro system after building & operating all the above cheaper options & developing a network that can eventually feed the metro rapid transit.
But most Indian cities are chasing metro without any other public transport modes, mostly for status /bragging /politics is the point of the article.