A Tale of Two Metros

This has been on my mind since morning when I travelled on the Kolkata metro after seven years. The last memory was blurred with images of the Kolkata suburban 'local' trains, and today I realised why. For Delhi metro rail travellers, the Kolkata metro rail is like a local train - there are no electronic displays, no advertisements anywhere on the train (and I don't think even on the station there are any) and no airconditioning. What there are, instead, are fans and the dull, steely look that reminded me of those movies in which I saw prisoners transported from place to place. But to be fair to the Kolkata metro, it was built under a completely different set of constraints than in Delhi, and hence in this post I attempt to compare the two.

1. Indigenously built (Kolkata) V/s. Most Imported (Delhi)

The Kolkata metro was almost entirely an indigenous effort - right from the coaches, equipment to the funding. The Delhi metro, in contrast, was constructed using imported coaches and equipment and foreign aid from Japan. In this regard, the Kolkata metro was tougher. But ask any economics student, and they'd let you know it's not much of an excuse. The Kolkata metro, by being constructed almost entirely in India, might have created some jobs in the short run, but because it was essentially inefficient, it is in the long term draining the taxpayer's money by making losses repeatedly. If professionalism comes by importing stuff from abroad, so be it. Yes, the Delhi metro cost a bomb w.r.t the Kolkata metro, but it served its purpose efficiently and hey, makes an operating profit!

2. Alternative transport systems

A major reason for the 'failure' of the Kolkata metro was the easy availability of alternative transport, such as buses, taxis and suburban trains, which are much cheaper in Kolkata. In Delhi, in contrast, the only 'economical' alternative are the buses, which are irregular and quite inefficient in themselves. Hence, Delhi had there pockets of high-density traffic that the metro could utilise. No such 'corridors' existed in Kolkata, and hence the Kolkata metro was killed by the very competition that it sought to complement.

3. Subsidy

All said, the Delhi metro was heavily subsidized by the Central and Delhi Government. However, as a welfare measure, the Delhi metro does have to get subsidies from the Government. Plus, if you come to think of it, with an operating ratio of 1:1.95, the Kolkata metro makes expenditure of 1.95 unit for every 1 unit of revenue. Isn't that a form of subsidy in keeping this metro system running?

4. Safety

Most Kolkattans felt proud of their metro when the Delhi metro was beset by a series of accidents. True, the utmost safety standards have to be met, and there can be no condoning of any lapses on this part. The Kolkata metro has a much better safety track record, so let us be sure of that. However, the accidents took place while construction was on, and not during operations. the Delhi metro, too, has impeccable operational safety.

Finally, some news snippets:

(1) Around 100,000 passengers are reported to be using the Kolkata Metro daily without tickets, as the ticket-checking infrastructure is in a shambles

(2) the underground Kolkata Metro was constructed at a cost of just over Rs 100 crore per km as against the first phase of the Delhi Metro — with a 13.01-km underground corridor and a 52.10-km elevated track — that was completed at the average cost of Rs 162.63 crore per km.

(3) While the Delhi Metro system pays a subsidised Rs 3 per unit for its power, the Kolkata Metro has to do with a non-concessional industrial rate which hovers around the Rs 4 per unit mark.