The Delhi High Court order dismissing a challenge to the Bus Rapid Transit System in the national capital is praiseworthy for its assertion that the urban commons, represented by road space, is a public good. The judgment correctly observes that governments pursue the principal purpose of promoting welfare of the maximum number of people, rather than distributing public goods in a restrictive manner. Delightfully, the court makes short work of the NGO petitioner’s elitist argument, that wealth creators who ride in cars deserve special consideration — in the form of more road space — over those who take public transport. In Delhi, the opening of the 5.6 km section of the new bus system has met with fierce resistance from car users on the ground that they now have less space. It is now for the Delhi government to remove any road engineering bottlenecks in the system that threatened to overturn the egalitarian BRT idea. But another important part of the court’s order pertains to the evidence on lopsided official transport priorities. Delhi has deployed most of the funds from the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission to create facilities for cars and private motorised vehicles. This is the national pattern now and it is starving public transport, walking and cycling facilities of investments. What this exposes is cynical contempt among policymakers towards the needs of the largest number of road users. Clearly, they have been failed by the UPA government which announced the National Urban Transport Policy six years ago.
In what now appears to be nothing more than a pious declaration, the NUTP said it would bring about “a more equitable allocation of road space with people, rather than vehicles, as its main focus.” Central funding would be offered to encourage more people to use public transport. But very little action has followed. It is time the Centre took its own policy seriously and introduced firm conditions that the States must meet while accessing funding under JNNURM and other Plan schemes. Integrating various modes of transport for seamless city travel covering train, bus and feeder systems is an important NUTP goal. Again, hardly any progress has been made on this. Enhancing comfort and safety is important to shift commuters from personal vehicles to public transport. The way forward is to introduce a congestion charge for personal cars and use the funds to cross-subsidise modern public transport in cities. The idea is not new, and remains on the list of gridlock-reducing measures for Delhi since last year. Car and two-wheeler users do have a point about poor quality and supply of public mobility options. Integration, sensible fares, adequate infrastructure and pedestrianisation can win them over.
Keywords: Delhi public transport, Delhi High Court order, Bus Rapid Transit System, public good, road space issues
I'm a car owner based at Hyderabad. I generally prefer to travel by local train and auto when going to city center. But to my surprise, the cost of traveling using public transport comes out to be very high and risk prone. First, the reach of local train and buses is limited which force me to hire autos who never go by meter and charge anywhere between Rs.50 to Rs.100 even for smallest of distance. Second, even if bus service is available, the condition of most of buses is very poor, they rarely stops properly at bus stop and worst slow down in the middle of the road and expect passengers to alight there only. If one prefer to walk, no proper footpath exists along roadside and even if there is one, it is encroached by hawkers and shopkeepers. This seriously discourage me to use public transport even if traveling alone, forget about traveling with family. Until we address these issues, the idea of using public transport will remain a distant dream.
I wonder if allowing congestion to stifle the car users out of road-
space is actually a good policy -- given how badly they behave, if the
argument of the petitioner is any indication.
Agree with the writer. Fund utilisation should be audited well to ensure right deployment of resources. Further funding should be stopped in case of mis-utilization. Also those held responisble should be punished and money should be recovered from them.
Welfare of the largest number of people is the ultimate objective of
all activities of the State in a democratic setup. BRT is just
reiteration of that objective and it is satisfying to note that the
Delhi High Court has accepted that BRT is indeed for the welfare of
the public as against welfare of the car owners. Just because the car
owners are in a position to influence government decisions, they
cannot be allowed to have their say in the matter of BRT. On account
of neglect of public transport and poor management of such transport,
people are compelled to use private vehicles. More the number of such
vehicles, the society have to bear the burden of social cost in the
form of more hospitals for road accident victims, healthcare cost on
account of increased air and noise pollution and so on. It is time we
citizens realize this and demand a very efficient public transport in
all metros, cities and towns.
At a time when, much to the chagrin of the urban commons, a major part of the funds from sources like the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Rural Mission is being utilised for creating facilities for cars and other private motor vehicles, not only in the national capital but in the other major cities too, the Delhi High Court's dismissal of the challenge to the Bus Rapid Transit System in New Delhi is most laudable. It being common knowledge that the have-nots constitute a huge majority in the country with a population close to 1.2 billion, there is absolute logic and justification in the editorial view that the govenrment should accord due priority to their basic needs while utilising the funds from such national welfare schemes. Kudos to The Hindu for championing the cause of the common man.
Please Email the Editor