Is Delhi Metro a Costly Mistake

I do not understand why are they flogging Delhi metro, terming it a mistake before allowing it to settle. According to me metros are the only way a mega city can overcome the growing pressures of population. The references are also misleading.

I've stayed in Tokyo and I've spent some time in Shanghai. The former already has a network of more than 34 lines crisscrossing the city and the second one is building it. Metro can work well only when its well connected to people's working place and place of residence. That can be seen in Tokyo. You can travel between any two points in the city using the rail network. Also you need not walk for more than 500 mts to reach a railway station. That kind of accessibility drives usage.

In Shanghai they are still building the Metro. Currently there are 4 lines operational. In the next 5 years they will build another 5 lines to cover city in a mesh of tracks. In Shanghai also a lot of people walk, ride a battery operated bicycle or ride a bus to their place of work. Metro is more expensive than any of the above and yet the metros are bursting at its seams during the rush hour. If you exclude the rush hour, even Mumbai sub-urban rails are not fully utilized.

I am not sure of what should be average capacity utilization of a metro for a day, but I suspeect it could not be more than 30-50%. 100% util would not be for more than 3 hrs in the morning and 3 in the evening. For the rest of the day it could be substantially less. I believe such networks should be built considering the peak load they will have to supportand not the average.

I agree with the point that for the rail system to be successful the feeder system should be perfected. Unless people have easy access to the mode of transport they may not use it. Take a look at Mumbai. Every major station has a bus terminal nearby that connects the station to offices and residences. Though I've been to Kolkata I'm not sure if their metro has a good feeder system.

Its wrong to assume that people will not travel by metro if its expensive. I think convenience, time of travel and accessibility also play a very important role. I'm not suggesting that you charge an arm and a leg (figuratively) for a metro ride. So long as the cost is similar to lets say shared auto, people will use it.

When it comes to a government choosing between building hospitals, schools and transport systems my vote would go to transport system. Its easier to build the first two and to get private participation for them, but to build a decent public transport system, only the govt can do it.