Metrorail vs MRTS or Metrorail and MRTS?

There is no doubt that at present very few will realise that the Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS) in the city, envisaged in 1983, is still work in progress. On the other hand, Chennai Metrorail (CMRL) is the high-profile modern-day equivalent and seems much faster in terms of its actual execution. While infrastructure projects, especially those in areas such as public transport can never really be in any sense considered complete, MRTS and CMRL seem studies in contrast in every way. And though their route is the same over a long stretch, they do not seem in any way connected to each other.

The MRTS was considered a pioneer in its time. Envisaged as an elevated rail corridor to connect the then southern extremity of the city to its northern end, namely Ennore, it was proposed in 1983 though work began only in 1991. It is interesting to note that by then, the city had gone far beyond what was the planned southern end of the MRTS namely, Thirumayilai. But such is the way Governments work that phase I of the MRTS proceeded exactly as planned, beginning at Beach and ending at Thirumayilai. Even here, there were numerous delays and by 1995, only a very short stretch, between Beach and Chepauk was complete. The planned completion of phase I, at Thirumayilai happened only in 1997.

The MRTS had lost its meaning given the delays. By then, with the city extending far into Velachery and beyond, the population there had made its peace with the existing transport systems, which essentially meant usage and clogging of roads. When phase II began, connecting Thirumayilai to Thiruvanmiyur, talk had started veering towards other form of transport including monorail. And when phase II was completed, which was in 2004, the Metro was already a dim possibility. It began firming up in 2007, by which time, phase II had extended to Velachery, at last.

The next development at MRTS, extending it to St Thomas Mount, is the stuff of which tragi-comedies are made. Announced in 2007, land acquisition of just 500 metres of the stretch held up the project indefinitely, and once that was done, CMRL was already digging in the area and so the extension is still work in progress! Eighteen years have gone by! As a consequence of all this, and with CMRL moving forward rapidly, the intended and logical conclusion of the northern end of MRTS at Ennore, has been abandoned. Planned for a distance of 59km, the MRTS today is functional for 19km.

It was a project that was very much a product of its times. Phase I for instance was exclusively funded by the Central Government and so the State evinced very tepid interest in it. By the time of the second phase, the State Government too began involving itself, financially and otherwise but with the execution being by the Indian Railways, there was plenty of working at cross purposes that delayed matters endlessly.

There were also functional flaws. In order to avoid the hassles of land acquisition and construction in crowded areas, the MRTS was planned along the coast, and rather shortsightedly, on the bed of the Buckingham Canal. It has thus become an environmental disaster. Its stations were another blunder. Once envisaged as commercial spaces, these were built to enormous size. But such being the delays in execution, and so limited the distance covered that the MRTS has consistently functioned at far below capacity. Commercial interest in the stations was therefore non-existent. They remain huge barn-like structures, with poor maintenance. Their cavernous size and old infrastructure have also led to law and order problems. There have also been numerous complaints on accessibility.

Unlike MRTS, which nobody seemed to own anyway, the CMRL has been the showpiece. It is considered a measure of progress and a harbinger of the new world. Being a 50-50 venture between Centre and State, it has joint ownership and the fact that the two stakeholders are forever at loggerheads seems to have worked in its favour. The State Government is keen to see it progress and the Centre, hankering to come to power in the State, has also moved matters forward, apart from holding up funds once in a while to show its muscle. That the CMRL is a special purpose vehicle and a corporate entity, also means it has better accountability unlike the MRTS which was just one project of the railways.

It is interesting to see that CMRL has boldly ventured into precisely the problems that MRTS sought to avoid. Its route runs through the most congested areas of the city. Land acquisition issues were very speedily dealt with and work has progressed among many challenges. And rather than skirt the city, which was always the MRTS’ weakness, CMRL connects through it. The stations are smarter, accessible, and functional. Most importantly, they do not tower over the surroundings. They are well lit and thus far litter free. The first phase, covering 54 km (roughly what the MRTS ought to have been), was completed in 12 years and the second phase is ongoing.

This is not to say that CMRL is flawless. Certainly land acquisition was pushed through, much heritage and greenery was sacrificed, and the hardships that commuters are put to owing to faulty planning of alternative routes by the traffic police are all major faults. Safety while in execution has also been a challenge with numerous accidents. The fare is considered high. But if the service is as good as it is promised to be, especially when phase II is completed, all will be well. Care needs to be taken that the project does not get overly delayed.

And it needs to rapidly grow even after that, so that it maintains efficiencies of scale. The problem of high fares too can be tackled this way, if the network is good and patronage rises thereafter. What is clear however is that the era of subsidised travel, the kind that has brought road transport entities to their knees, cannot be considered in CMRL. And if the motive anyway is to make sure private vehicle owners shift to this mode, then the question of fares is somewhat easier to tackle. And once again, even from viability point of view, if CMRL needs to be self-sustaining, it ought to be looking at scales on the lines of the Delhi Metro. An era where a 59km MRTS becomes reality after 30 years with a 19km operational distance cannot be countenanced now.

Last mile connectivity is as much a challenge with CMRL as it is with the MRTS. While this is the responsibility of the Chennai Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority (CUMTA), that august body has thus far shown very little reason to believe in its existence. The CMRL will do well to plan on its own and not depend on a new agency that may end up working at cross purposes. That said, CUMTA has to wake up and realise that a major transport system is fast coming into use and ponder over how this can be integrated with MTC and other services.

Which brings us to the last and most serious question. Why has CMRL not thought of integrating into itself the MRTS? Given that the latter’s infrastructure, whatever be its faults, already exists, why can it not be a part of CMRL itself? That way, the routes will be functional much faster and the sunk investment in the MRTS too can be recovered to an extent. It must be remembered here that in much of the southern sector, the two systems will run parallel to each other. It will also be an example of how Chennai’s transport systems, hitherto operating in silos, can be integrated.