Centre for Financial Accountability

Riding on Debt
Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro
After Phase-III

by

Nishant | Rajendra Ravi

Centre for Financial Accountability

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

Published by: Centre for Financial Accountability
R-21, South Extension II, New Delhi – 110049
www.cenfa.org | [email protected] | +91-11-49123696

Cover: Joe Athialy

Page Layout: Shibi Peter

June 2018

Copyleft: Free to use any part of this document for non-commercial purpose,
with acknowledgement of source.

For Private Circulation Only

Centre for Financial Accountability

Index

Preface
Forward
Delhi Metro: Financing sustainability or sustaining the finances?...... 01
Airport Express Line: A Love Story Turned Tragic ............. 14
If Not Metro: Opportunity Cost of Delhi Metro .......... 18
Delhi and Its Metro: Now What? ................. 24
Preface

Ha-Joon Chang, the Cambridge economist, holds that ‘95% of economics is common
sense, made to look difficult, with the use of jargons and mathematics’. That may
explain why common people engage less with matters of finance. Governments
announce new projects, schemes and programs involving large spending of public
money, all justified in the name of ‘development’ and improving lives of citizens.
Very rarely questions are raised about the sources of financing, financial viability
of the projects or the financial burden it can cause to public exchequer. Those are
left to the ‘experts’. A few instances where some of these questions were raised it
was silenced by the argument of public good and progress.

Delhi Metro is one such, where not many critical questions were entertained and
the glitter and the ‘convenience’ of Metro made it easy to make one feel all is well.

Without a critical study of Delhi Metro for its efficacy, success in decongesting the
city, affordability, financial viability and comparison with other modes of transport
and mobility, it is being promoted and ‘replicated’ in other cities.

The overall cost of any projects is beyond the financials. There are many other
costs which cannot be monetized, such as the social and environmental costs.
Acknowledging that, this study is looking only at the financial costs and viability
of the Delhi Metro.

We thank Rajendra Ravi and Nishant for undertaking this important study and
publishing the critical numbers in a manner which is comprehensible for common
people, not just experts. Prof. Geetam Tiwai was kind enough to write a foreword

Centre for Financial Accountability

for this. We thank Sujit Patwardhan of Parisar, Pune and Priya Dharshini for their
comments on the draft and Tani Alex in helping with the copyediting.

We hope that this study will help common people understand the financials of
Delhi Metro and contribute to a healthy public debate on the ‘costs’ of Metro in
other cities, before they are made a fate accompli on the citizens. Going beyond,
we also hope that this will help raising the fundamental questions about ‘whose
money’ and ‘how is it spent’.

Joe Athialy
Centre for Financial Accountability
Foreword

Delhi metro is the largest metro system in India, and is also considered one of
the most “successful” public transport projects. After nearly three decades of
construction and operation in Delhi, the demand for creating metro systems in all
million plus cities has grown despite being a capital intensive project. Few scholarly
articles published in the last decade which have questioned the relevance of
metro system in Indian cities have often been dismissed by the policy makers, and
popular media. Requirement of high investment has not deterred the demand for
metro systems by the state politicians, though state support for bus based public
transport systems has been questioned. This short note raises important concerns
about the financing and expected benefits of Delhi metro.

Delhi metro story began in 1969 when the first plan for metro was proposed
in the study of traffic and travel characteristic of Delhi. However, in 1996 new
plans for a mass rapid transit system (MRTS) took life and serious discussion was
initiated. For implementation and operation of the metro Project, Delhi Metro
Rail Corporation Limited was registered in May 1995 as a joint venture between
the Ministry of Urban Affairs and the GNCTD. It started its operation in December
2002 with an 8-km line (CAG, 2008). The MRTS, it was claimed, would alleviate
the congestion problems of Delhi and reduce pollution dramatically. This note
highlights the hollowness of such claims after the system has been in operation for
25 years. Due to high capital requirement of metro projects, government support
is required in the form of equity shares, grants and various tax exemptions. With
increasing number of million plus cities in India it needs to be evaluated whether
state governments can sustain such financial burdens to run metro systems in
many of its cities. As highlighted by the authors, a major part of revenue of metro
systems comes from sources other than fare-box revenue. This has a significant
implication on the self-sustainability of metro systems. This leads to dependence
of metro systems on real-estate development which often occurs at the cost of
displacement of poor households.

Delhi metro has been planned and implemented as an independent project with
very little integration with bus or other modes of transport. It has become more
of a construction project instead of an integrated transport system which meets
the mobility needs of the majority commuters. Metro projects which are under
construction in other cities are following the same pattern. Moreover budget
analysis of selected cities shows lack of investment in infrastructure required for
pedestrians, bicyclists and buses.

The current note is timely and requires in-depth discussion in understanding the
motivation of forces which are behind the promotion and construction of metro
projects.

Geetam Tiwari
MoUD Chair Professor
Department of Civil Engineering & TRIPP
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
 1

Delhi Metro
Financing Sustainability or
Sustaining the Finances?
At present, metro projects with a total length of 370 km are operational in 9 cities.
26 other cities have already planned or proposed metro rail projects with a total
length of 1132 km. Per km cost of a metro project varies between 200 to 300
crore rupees. What this means is that the country is going to witness 2.8 lakh
crore rupees (nearly 2% of India’s current GDP and more than the average annual
budgetary allocation to infrastructure sector) pumped into these vanity projects
across the metropolitan areas.

Cities which have operational metro rail network:

Kolkata, NCT of Delhi, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Jaipur, Chennai, Kochi,
Lucknow, Hyderabad

Cities which have planned or proposed metro rail network:

Nagpur, Pune, Ahmedabad-Gandhinagar, Noida, Navi Mumbai,
Kanpur, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam, Surat, Nasik, Patna,
Coimbatore, Guwahati, Bhopal, Agra, Meerut, Varanasi, Gorakhpur,
Thiruvananthapuram, Guwahati, Bhopal, Indore, Gwalior, Chandigarh,
Dehradoon, Srinagar
Source: metrorailnews.in

Centre for Financial Accountability

2 Is this because of the myth that metro will solve the transport problems in Indian
cities, or is it just because metro looks glamourous? But then, why does the metro
have a glamourous appeal? Do the other transit options are inherently not as
good as metro? Or, is it just a perception reinforced by dominant ideologies?

Over the years, Delhi Metro has become a role model for many things. To urban
dwellers, it promises “modern” and “high-tech” public transport system. To
governments, it is an easy way out to earn “development credits” along with
“public welfare”. To private sector, this has clearly a lot to offer because a lot of
money is at stake. This also gets goody-goody media coverage because of a strong
public relations (PR) management and it is honored by variety of national and
international agencies for its “achievements”. But how did this happen? More
importantly, what is actually going on?

The Story
in a Nutshell
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) Limited was established in
the mid-1990s as a company owned 50 percent by the national
government and 50 percent by the local Delhi government.
It was set up to oversee the construction and operation of a metro system for the
city of Delhi. Delhi Metro Phase-I with route length of 55.3 km was sanctioned by
the Union Cabinet in 1996. RITES Limited, which was set up to study the feasibility
of Integrated Multi-Modal Mass Rapid Transit System for Delhi in 1989, prepared
the Detailed Project Report (DPR) for phase-I. Construction began in 1998. The
first line opened in 2002 and DMRC has been operating and implementing the
Delhi Metro project since then.

The first and the second phase became operational in the years 2006 and 2011
respectively. Now it is the third phase of Delhi Metro which is expected to get
completed in next few years. Total route length of Delhi Metro (including the
recently opened Pink and Magenta lines) is currently 277 km with 202 stations
spread across 8 different routes. Delhi Metro claims carbon credit for reducing
6.3 lakh tons Green House gases (GHGs) per year1 . In 2016-17, Delhi Metro’s total
annual ridership reached the mark of 1 billion passengers2.

1 DMRC
2 DMRC Press Release: http://www.delhimetrorail.com/press_reldetails.aspx

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

Bearing the Capital Cost 3
Total cost of this infrastructure giant is estimated to be 70,433 crore rupees. Major
part of the cost has been met by loan from Japan International Cooperation Agency
(JICA). Second important source is equity contributions by GOI and Government
of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). Other sources include property
development, interest-free loans and grants.

 
Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV
Figure 1: Sources of funding in different phases of Delhi Metro (Source: Delhi Metro)

Delhi Metro is also the second largest infrastructure project funded by JICA
in India3. The Japanese agency has already given “assistance” of 38,300 crore
rupees to various phases of Delhi Metro at interest rates varying from 1.2% to
2.3% 4. The lending agency has also funded other megaprojects in India such as
Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, Western Dedicated Freight Corridor and more
recently the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail Corridor (bullet train). JICA
loans have funded numerous other projects across India in various other sectors
like water supply, forest and agrarian management, sanitation, and biodiversity
conservation5.

Project cost per km is dramatically high for Phase-III of Delhi Metro. The per km
cost for Phase-I was 162.6 crore rupees which came down to 150.7 crore rupees
in Phase-II. It increased by 90% in Phase-III and is estimated to be 286.2 crore
rupees. Price-adjusted real cost (Wholesale Price Index with base year 2005)
reveals that per km capital cost of Delhi Metro has remained same and not gone
3 The largest funding of 88,000 crore rupees was recently announced by JICA for Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed
Rail corridor.
4 https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/charting-the-rise-and-spread-of-japanese-funding-in-
india-115090200120_1.html
5 https://libportal.jica.go.jp/library/Data/PlanInOperation-e/EastSouthAsia/054_India-e.pdf

Centre for Financial Accountability

4 down contrary to popular theory (refer to figure 2). It is believed that per km cost
of the projects should decrease as the network length of the system increases.
Yes, that happened for phase-II but not for phase-III. This is because fluctuation in
cost depends mainly on the share of underground route and stations, complexity
of terrain, and amount of land acquisition .

Source: DMRC

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

down contrary to popular theory (refer to figure 2). It is believed that per km cost
of the projects should decrease as the network length of the system increases.
5
Yes, that happened for phase-II but not for phase-III. This is because fluctuation in
cost depends mainly on the share of underground route and stations, complexity
of terrain, and amount of land acquisition.6

Figure 2: Initial per km cost in various phases of Delhi Metro7 , Delhi BRT8 and
Ahmedabad BRT9

How (much) Do You Earn, Delhi Metro?

Revenue generated by Delhi Metro has grown steadily but has remained well
below the total expenses. According to the latest annual report of DMRC, Delhi
Metro has following sources of revenue:10

• Traffic Operations
• Real Estate/Property Development
• Consultancy
• External Projects
• Other Sources such as grants and interests
6 http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14076659/Comparison_of_Capital_Costs.pdf
7 Author’s calculation based on DMRC statistics
8 https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/aap-govt-may-give-brt-a-lift-in-north-and-northeast-del-
hi-305821-2016-01-28
9 https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/aap-govt-may-give-brt-a-lift-in-north-and-northeast-del-
hi-305821-2016-01-28
10 DMRC Annual Report (2017-18)

Centre for Financial Accountability

6

Figure 3: Share of different revenue sources in DMRC’s total income

Figure 4: Share of traffic revenue in total income of DMRC

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

 7

Figure 5: Decline in farebox recovery ratio of Delhi Metro

Year-wise variation in total income and shares of different revenue sources in total
income of DMRC is charted in figure 3. From figure 4, it is clear that share of traffic
revenue in total revenue has sharply decreased rather than increasing in last few
years. This is because the revenue from operations has remained nearly stagnant,
and the increase in overall income is driven by income from external projects.

It seems that the Delhi Metro will increasingly rely on real estate and external
sources to meet its cost. As the trend shows, financial health of Delhi Metro is
most likely to remain contingent on its role in the birth of other metro projects.
This would indirectly promote the current race for metro in each Indian city.
If revenue stream relies too heavily on real estate development, it can lead to
permanent restructuring of the city and related consequences11 .

Farebox recovery ratio, defined as the percentage of operating expenses met by

fare collection, has also dipped (see figure 5). This raises serious doubts on the
identity of Delhi Metro as a public transport service provider.

Contrary to the promise of economically self-sustaining public transit, Delhi Metro

has remained a loss-making entity since its inception. Figure 6 shows the variation
in annual losses of DMRC. Though ridership has increased over these years,
average daily ridership per km per day has remained stagnant (see figure 7).
11 Goel, R., & Tiwari, G. (2014). Promoting Low Carbon Transport in India: Case Study of Metro Rails in Indian Cities.

Centre for Financial Accountability

8

Figure 6: Annual profit (loss) in Delhi Metro over the years

If these indicators do not support the enthusiasm for Delhi Metro, why is Delhi
Metro still branded as a success story?

DMRC evaluates its annual performance by ‘operating profit’, DMRC’s own

“indicator of progress”. Rather than calculating farebox recovery ratio, a standard
metric in the field of public transport operations, DMRC has consistently used
‘operating profit’ in its financial highlights to claim success. While farebox recovery
ratio is percentage of operating expenses met by fare income, operating profit (as
defined by DMRC) is income from traffic operations minus expenditures against
that, not operating expenses. This little trick has helped DMRC continue to weave
a success story.

Fare Fixation: Fixing What is Fixed?

Fares for passenger services in Delhi Metro can be revised according to the
recommendations by Fare Fixation Committee constituted by the Central
Government. This process is guided by the Delhi Metro Railway Act, 2002. Four
such FFCs have been constituted since the inception of DMRC. All of these
committees have been chaired by a retired judge of High Court with one member
representing Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India and another
member from Government of NCT of Delhi. Revisions in Delhi Metro fares are
shown in figure 8.

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

 9

Figure 7: Average ridership per km per day (lakh persons)

Figure 8: Revisions in Delhi Metro fares

Centre for Financial Accountability

10 Delhi Metro boasts of more than 25 lakhs average daily ridership. But, when the
Fare Fixation Committee decided to conduct a survey to collect the opinions of
its passengers, they could gather only “498” responses- a meagre 0.02% (or, 2
per 10000) daily rides. Among these small number of respondents, almost three-
fourth people said they wanted the fares to increase! This might have been
because the last FFC met way back in 2009. Well, that itself is a question- why did
none of the previous FFCs prescribe for regular fare revisions in agreement with
general public? Why was a fresh FFC not constituted between 2009 and 2016?

FFCs have been constituted only four times in Delhi Metro’s history of more than a
decade. There was a major lapse of 7 years between the third FFC (2009) and the
fourth FFC (2016)- possibly because there was no rule before 2016 to guide the
Government of India about when to constitute a fresh FFC.

Fare collection is not only important for generation of sufficient revenue, but it
is also instrumental in shaping people’s travel behavior. Access to the transport
system is denied if the fares are not consistent with the prices that its potential
users can afford. This is the dichotomy of urban rail finance. Share of fare-box
revenue, i.e. revenue coming from fare collection, is the principal component of
total income but it also has to be attractive enough so that the potential users do
not shift to available alternatives.

Fare fixation formula

The Fourth Fare Fixation Committee (2016) has recommended the following for-
mula for annual revision in Delhi Metro fares.

For each slab -

% Increase in fare = {[WE(FEN – FE0)/FE0] + WS[CPIN – CPI0]/CPI0 + WM[AMCN –
AMC0]/AMCN]}*100

Where:
WE, WS and WM are respectively the weights for energy, staff cost and mainte-
nance & other expenses based on audited accounts of previous financial year
FEN and FE0 are average unit costs of energy at the time of current fare revision
and previous fare revision, respectively
CPIN and CPI0 are the consumer price index at the time of current fare revision
and previous fare revision, respectively
AMCN and AMC0 are per-km maintenance and other costs at the time of current
fare revision and previous fare revision, respectively.

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

If the fares are increased beyond a certain value, people might shift to other
cost-effective modes of transport. Or in a worse case, people who can’t afford
11
high fare prices would not be able to travel to the destinations of their choice.
According to the official reports, monthly ridership of Delhi Metro had plunged
significantly to a four-year-low when the fares were revised in October 201712.
At the same time, daily ridership of DTC and DIMTS buses had increased by
almost 2 lakh and crossed the 40 lakh mark13.

Generating sufficient revenue to meet the expenses - capital, operations and

maintenance (O&M), and financial - has remained a challenge for urban rail (metro)
systems throughout the globe. Only few Metro operators worldwide have been
successful in generating enough revenue through fares to meet the operational
expenses. Hong Kong and Singapore have maintained exceptionally high farebox
recovery ratio, i.e. percentage of operational expenses met by fares14 . Generally,
a capital-intensive project like metro rail network cannot be sustained by fare-box
revenue alone. Moreover, fare cannot be fixed keeping in view only the operational
costs. A sustainable transport system should also consider variety of factors
including affordability, equity and social responsibility15.

Optimistic Projections or Lies

Delhi Metro ridership has remained well below the estimates claimed in the
detailed project report despite multiple corrections in predicted ridership by
DMRC. This has been the case since the Phase-I of the project which the CAG
had lambasted for recording less than 30% of the revised projection16.

Is it a surprise that actual demand has continued to defy the ridership predictions?
Why is a “popular” and “speedy” transit system not being able to attract the
desired volume of trips while remaining operational for the last 15 years? Is a
technical error of some kind responsible for this flaw in planning of Delhi Metro?
Or, is there something more systematic behind this?

Extensive research on megaprojects planning has shown that the problem is

not specific to Delhi Metro. Flyvbjerg (2007) studied cost escalation in 258
transport infrastructure projects and found that urban rail projects had average
cost escalation of 45% and average ridership shortfall of 40%17. Thus, urban rail
projects are risky in terms of not only their cost but also their revenue prospects.
12 Goel, R., & Tiwari, G. (2014). Promoting Low Carbon Transport in India: Case Study of Metro Rails in Indian Cities.
13 https://www.siasat.com/news/ridership-delhi-metro-falls-buses-1332699/
14 https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/09/the-unique-genius-of-hong-kongs-public-transportation-
system/279528/
15 https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/09/the-unique-genius-of-hong-kongs-public-transportation-
system/279528/
16 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/cag-raps-delhi-metro-for-shortfall-in-ridership-398252
17 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/cag-raps-delhi-metro-for-shortfall-in-ridership-398252

Centre for Financial Accountability

12 This is ‘systematic underestimation of risks’ and this is routine practice in
planning of infrastructure megaprojects18 . Projects are made to look good on
paper and the cost-benefit analyses involve grossly inaccurate assumptions and
lack methodological rigor. Projects worth thousands of crore of public money
are sold by institutionalizing lies.

Metro Rush: State Governments Getting Starved of Funds

Metro projects are expensive and irrelevant. While other low-cost alternatives
to sustainable mass transport are available, development of metro in only one
city is enough to create exceedingly high fiscal burden on state governments. Yet,
metro is a charming delusion which continues to be exploited by demagogues
across the political parties for achieving petty electoral gains. Political masters’
preoccupation with metro is bound to harm the economies of state and municipal
bodies 19.

Example of Delhi Metro shows that metro projects in other Indian cities will
require Central and State governments to not only provide the capital funding
but also subsidize the operational costs for a very long time, or possibly for ever.
On top of that, metro rail projects are funded by huge amounts of foreign debt
(not interest-free) and governments will find it hard to pay back the interest and
loan amount. Poorer metro corporations are very likely to end up into ‘debt trap’
creating a situation for public money to be used for their rescue.

After All It’s Our Money!

As discussed, Delhi Metro has been receiving central and state governments’
assistance in the form of equity as well as grants. Approximately 25,000 crore
rupees (18.1 thousand crore in form of equity, 4.9 thousand crore in form of grants,
and 1.8 thousand crore in form of subordinate debt) have been allotted to DMRC
by the Centre and the State Governments towards its three phases. JICA loans
worth 38.3 thousand crore rupees at an average annual interest rate of 1.8% are
sovereign backed which means that ‘public’ money has guaranteed the payback.

Thus, whether it comes directly through allocations in annual budget or it comes

from a foreign borrowing, it is fundamentally the public money that is being
offered to the metro projects. Indirectly offering the public money in form of loans
to finance these projects is more harmful than direct budgetary allocations. This
channel of funding, called ‘debt financing’, serves the interests of the multilateral
18 Bent Flyvbjerg; Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it,
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 25, Issue 3, 1 October 2009, Pages 344–367, https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxrep/grp024
19 Bent Flyvbjerg; Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it,
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 25, Issue 3, 1 October 2009, Pages 344–367, https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxrep/grp024

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

financial institutions and it puts the national economy of the borrowing country
under the weight of interest payment.
13
India is global leader in receiving cross-border funding from international agencies.
India accounted for 38 percent of overall ‘fintech’ investment in Asia during 2010
to 201520 . According to the official data, India currently has to pay more than 50
thousand crore rupees per year as interest of external debt. Major portion (more
than 50%) of this government debt is held by local banks in India21 .

Such enterprises may be additionally instrumental for the economic and geopolitical
interests of the patrons of these financial institutions. Domestic economy of these
developed countries is undergoing stagflation and it is in the interest of their
economy to earn through debt financing. This explains the desperate search for
new markets where they can sell their technology irrespective of the need.

20 Bent Flyvbjerg; Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it,
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 25, Issue 3, 1 October 2009, Pages 344–367, https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxrep/grp024
21 Gopinath S (2007). Development of Local Currency Bond Markets: The Indian Experience. Mimeo, Federal Re-
serve Bank of India.

Centre for Financial Accountability

14

Airport Express
Line: A Love Story
Turned Tragic
Airline travel has increased rapidly in India during the 21st century. Statistics
show that daily passenger traffic on Delhi Airport averaged 1.8 lakhs in the year
2017-18 while it was merely 10.5 thousand passengers per day in 2002-03 and
less than 1 lakh in 2012-13. Delhi Metro Airport Express Line was planned due
to increasing demand of public transport services to and from airport. This was
supposed to deliver two key benefits- cutting the travel time to reach Delhi
Airport, and reducing congestion on routes joining Delhi Airport with rest of the
city. The Delhi Metro Airport Express is 22.7 km long – 16 km underground and
7 km elevated – with 6 stations. It is currently being operated and maintained by
DMRC. But, it wasn’t planned this way.

History
Delhi Metro routes in its Phase-I and Phase-II did not provide network connectivity
to the airport. Considering the high demand, DMRC proposed high speed metro
line joining New Delhi and IGI Airport. DMRC also offered the project as Public-
Private Partnership (PPP) in which DMRC was responsible for all the civil works
and private concessionaire for operations. Delhi Metro’s Airport Express line was
awarded to Reliance-led consortium in 2008. This arrangement was implemented
through a special purpose vehicle (SPV) – the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

Limited (DAMEPL). The civil works were carried out by the Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation (DMRC), while the operations infrastructure was supplied, installed,
15
operated and maintained by DAMEPL. It was decided that DAMEPL will operate
the line for 30 years.

Figure 9: Source of funding in Delhi Airport Express Line

The total cost of project was 5700 crore rupees and it was financed through
a mix of debt, equity and grant. Reliance Infra. Ltd. paid 2800 crore rupees of
which 980 crore rupees were mobilized as domestic debt and the rest was equity
contribution. Airport operator paid 680 crore rupees as grant towards civil works
inside the airport. See Figure 9 for the distribution of funding from different
sources.

The project was to be commissioned by October 2010 i.e. before the Delhi
Commonwealth Games. However, construction took longer and the operations
could start only in February 2011.

Dispute and The Legal Case

Almost a year after the line became operational in February 2011, DAMEPL
noticed defects in bearings and girders in May 2012 and informed DMRC about
it22. Operations were temporarily shut down by DAMEPL due to public safety
22 https://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2923/stories/20121130292304500.htm

Centre for Financial Accountability

16 concerns. Joint Inspection Committee (JIC) reported that 91% bearings were
defective and 7% of the girders had cracks.

This led to blame game between DMRC and DAMEPL. While DMRC alleged that
Reliance was planning to step out of the agreement, DAMEPL blamed DMRC for
shoddy work in civil construction.

Central axis of this debate was possibly only a tip of the iceberg. Low ridership and
failure of retail development plan were two major challenges that Reliance had
to struggle with. DMRC had forecast that average daily ridership would be 46000
soon after commissioning and it was predicted to increase up to 86000 by 2020.
However, at the time of temporary closure, average daily ridership was slightly
more than 11000 passengers per day, less than 25% of the predicted volume.

In June 2013, Reliance officially sent a notice to terminate the contract which the
DMRC rejected. The matter went into arbitration. DMRC-nominated arbitration
panel awarded DAMEPL (Reliance Infra.) a compensation of 2950 crore against
DMRC in May 201723 . Note that Reliance had invested 2800 crore rupees from
equity and domestic debt.

That Magic Stick Named ‘PPP’

Dispute in Delhi Airport Express Line was a high-profile case because it was the
first PPP in urban rail project. The love story could not live up to expectations and
the ownership got transferred to DMRC in July 2013. Yet, the charm of PPP does
not seem to vanish. Why is it so?

Infrastructure projects like Metro follow one of these broad models of ownership:

1. Government-owned project
a. Central government has full ownership
b. State government has the full ownership
c. Joint ownership of Central and State governments
2. Privately-owned project
3. Public Private Partnership (PPP)

Most of the metro rail projects being planned or proposed in Indian cities are
government-owned projects. Exceptions are Mumbai Metro line-1 and Hyderabad
Metro (PPP) and Rapid Metro Gurgaon (privately owned by DLF). Government-
owned projects are following 50:50 equity formula in which Central and State
government form a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to contribute equity and interest-
23 https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/reliance-infrastructure-wins-rs-2950-cr-arbitra-
tion-award-against-dmrc/664367/

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

free debt for capital expenditure. Money also gets poured in from international
financing agencies such as JICA, ADB, EIB, KFW in the form of Official Development
17
Assistance (ODA).

Metro Rail Policy and PPP

Union Cabinet approved the new Metro Rail Policy in August 201724 . This Policy
has made Private partnership compulsory for the new metro proposals. Central
assistance in financing the project mandates private participation. The Policy
makes it clear that-

“Private participation either for complete provision of metro rail or for

some unbundled components (like Automatic Fare Collection, Operation &
Maintenance of services etc.) will form an essential requirement for all metro
rail projects seeking central financial assistance.”

The objective of the Policy was to ‘enable the realization of growing metro
aspirations’ of many cities in India. The Policy document has acknowledged
the ‘huge resource demand’ in metro projects. To ensure financial viability
of metro rail projects, the Policy has mandated value capturing by Transit
Oriented Development (TOD). It demands the States proposing metro projects
to maximize the non-fare revenue through commercial development at stations,
advertisements, lease of space etc. According to the Policy, metro projects are
not ‘urban transportation’ projects but ‘urban transformation’ projects. Thus,
the Policy reinforces the fears of permanent restructuring of the city.

The Policy also asks the States to ‘promote dense urban development along
metro corridors’. Indian cities already have very high population density.
Promotion of density is certain to make living conditions worse, not better, for
the urban residents. Then, is the Policy in tune with realities of urbanization in
India? 

24 http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=170009

Centre for Financial Accountability

18

If Not Metro:
Opportunity Cost
of Delhi Metro
Delhi Metro involves huge economic costs. The benefits of Delhi Metro are well
documented and popularized. However, the discussion on the opportunity cost
of Delhi Metro has been set aside. There is a possibility that better outcomes
in terms of accessibility could have been achieved by spending much smaller
amount of money in alternative manner. Bus-based regular and rapid transit
systems are most obvious cost-effective choices against metro rail transit. Thus,
any discussion on economics of Delhi Metro is incomplete without a comparative
analysis of DTC and Delhi Metro.

DTC and DMRC: Is there a Level Playing Field?

Not a single bus has been added to the DTC fleet since 2011. Delhi Government
has repeatedly said that procurement of buses has been the major issue. It
alleges that manufacturing companies have not shown interest in supplying
buses. However, some manufacturing firms disagree25 . Manufacturers claim
25 http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/why-is-no-one-bidding-for-dtc-tenders-for-low-floor-buses/arti-
cle24018430.ece

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

that no tender was floated and maintenance cost was not settled. 19
DTC also says that sufficient parking facility is not available. This must be treated
as another excuse. DTC currently has 43 bus depots which are under capacity.
Even when these depots work at full capacity, there is possibility to expand the
capacity by building multistorey bus depot.

Figure 10: Year-wise changes in rolling stock of Delhi Metro and fleet size of DTC

DTC has not been able to upgrade their system capacity for more than a decade. But
their trouble has aggravated as it has not been able to maintain whatever capacity it
had. DTC’s fleet size has sharply reduced over the years (see figure 10) while DMRC
has been able to procure new rolling stock every year.

It is not surprising that ridership of DTC has declined over the years (see figure
11). However, the chart also makes it clear that decline in the ridership of DTC has
coincided with increase in the ridership of Delhi Metro. Yet, more people travel in
DTC buses than in Delhi Metro. This underlines why the importance of bus transit
systems in a city like Delhi cannot be undermined.

Apart from the bus transport operators - DTC and DIMTS26 – Indian Railways runs a
26 DIMTS also operated the Delhi BRTS before it was dismantled by Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party government, despite
the Delhi High Court’s decision to preserve and improve the BRTS.

Centre for Financial Accountability

20 ring rail corridor in Delhi. This is a 35km-long circular network which started operation
in 1975 and the suburban passenger train service were started during 1982 Asian
Games27 . Since then the frequency has dropped to five trains per day with huge
delays. Some stations don’t even have ticket counter and there is no ticket-checking
on the route. Daily average ridership has dropped to 3700 and people cite delays,
lack of feeder service and presence of anti-social elements as the reasons of not
using this service28 . This service would have provided a large population with a less
costly mode of commute if this service could have been maintained and operated
without delays, and a feeder network of Intermediate Public Transport (IPT) were
allowed to flourish.

Figure 11: Daily average ridership in DTC and DMRC during last five financial years

Modal share and network utilization (passengers per km per day) statistics show
that urban rail transportation systems play a very limited role in most of the large
cities of the world29 . Cox (2004) has argued that metro systems are appropriate
for the cities such as New York and Tokyo which have single dense central business
district with high concentration of employment opportunities. It is not suitable for
polycentric urban agglomerations such as NCT of Delhi, Hyderabad and Bangalore.
Therefore, extensive bus network has to play the central role in urban mass transit.
27 https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/ring-railway-in-an-ever-expanding-delhi-a-ghost-railway-service-
lingers/
28 https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/ring-railway-in-an-ever-expanding-delhi-a-ghost-railway-service-
lingers/
29 Mohan, Dinesh. 2008. “Mythologies , Metros & Future Urban Transport.” Economic and Political Weekly, no. Janu-
ary: 41–53.

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

Opportunity Costs 21
Per km construction cost of Delhi Metro has reached 286 crore rupees in phase-III.
In comparison to this, at-grade BRTS would have cost not more than 10-15 crore
rupees per km. Operating expenses of Delhi Metro have grown from 4.3 crore per
km in 2011-12 to 13.8 crore per km in 2016-17. Existing mass transit operators –
DTC and DIMTS – have equivalent operations cost per km30 .

Metro project requires fresh acquisition of land. Constant push for PPP and fully
private metro projects shows that Metro is becoming a for-profit (but not profitable)
enterprise. Delhi Metro has become more like a real estate project31 rather than
transport infrastructure.

In contrast with this, DTC is not for-profit. DTC owns large area that remains
underutilized. Therefore, land acquisition is not an issue. Lot many people in
erstwhile villages of Delhi had given up their lands for DTC depots and terminals
because they were promised accessibility benefits and social welfare. Isn’t DTC
responsible to deliver what it had promised?

In fact, DTC does not even claim the ownership of bus stop area. While Delhi Metro
controls the entry, exit and presence of citizen on its compound with the help of
CISF and Delhi Police, we are not aware of any measures taken by DTC to ensure
safety and comfort of its users inside the buses and waiting at the bus stops.

New Metro Policy is mute over the concerns of environmental and social
accountability32 which form the core principles of sustainable urban transport. The
Policy pursues a narrowed focus on financial viability and commands the States
on how to get more MRTS running in new cities. It ignores the environmental
and social cost that these future projects will incur. Huge amount of urban land
acquisition will be the prime agenda under the metro programs. This will not only
force thousands of people out of their current residences but it will also exclude
vast majority of citizens from accessing their right to the city.

Obsession with metro rail has led to great push for “innovative” financial
management in Delhi Metro and other expensive metro projects while some basic
measures and timely actions could have reinstated the financial self-sustainability
of DTC.

Despite that DTC has suffered rapid degradation over the years, it has not dismissed
30 http://shaktifoundation.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Role-of-Bus-Aggregators-in-improving-city-bus-servic-
es-in-India.pdf
31 Hazards Centre (2006), “Delhi metro Rail - A New Mode of Public Transport”, Hazards Centre, a unit of Sanchal
Foundation, New Delhi.
32 http://urbanmobilityindia.in/Upload/Conference/479674d4-8fe6-4e4b-aeb6-19a3c037a4d4.pdf

Centre for Financial Accountability

22 the social responsibility and obligations. It has kept its institutional structure intact.
DTC continues to provide concessions to senior citizen, school transport services
and transit passes. Police personnel do not pay for journey on DTC buses despite
that they are given travel allowance. These are the social benefits that DTC incurs
and Delhi Metro doesn’t. In a response to the question on discount to elderly,
DMRC told the 4th FFC that Delhi Metro is a different system and it is not possible
to provide transit passes or discount to particular sections of society.

The point is precisely that. Delhi Metro is immune to the concerns of social justice.
Blanket concessions provided to smart card holders or for traveling at specific
times (non-peak, Sundays and national holidays) have single purpose- attracting
more people to travel. Delhi Metro should have provided the concession passes to
elderly, children, women, disabled, people from BPL households and other people
from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups.

It is also not obvious if Delhi Metro can be called a public space. Certain things and
certain kinds of actions which are otherwise legally sound are not permitted inside
the Metro compound. For example, Delhi Metro prohibits eating, photography
and even carrying matchboxes33 . It certainly does not allow hawkers and vendors.

Delhi Metro and the Claims that Never Got Achieved

One of the most publicized claims of Delhi Metro was reduction in road traffic. Thus,
it promised to solve some of the biggest urban issues of our time- traffic congestion,
air pollution and traffic fatalities. The situation is perceptibly opposite and the road
traffic has continued to grow. This is not accidental at all. In fact, this phenomenon,
‘induced demand of travel’ as it is called, has now been acknowledged to work
almost like a law. When a new system like metro or a new flyover adds to the
existing capacity of transport network, it reduces the traffic by redistribution but
temporarily. Very soon, new traffic is “induced” to enter into the system and the
system becomes congested again. Thus, the demand for further capacity expansion
is regenerated and the cyclical dumbness of wasteful planning continues.

Second claim was about reduction in pollution levels. But the pollution levels in
Delhi have not come down and have rather increased. The mechanism at play here
is same as explained before. Because of continuous neglect of bus services, number
of people in car, hired taxi/auto and other motorized vehicles have increased on
Delhi’s roads. Increasing number of automobile ownership is another evidence
that Delhi Metro has failed to create an inclusive and appropriate public transport
system which can bring people out of cars and other types of personal motor
vehicles.

33 https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/travelling-by-delhi-metro-this-is-what-you-cannot-carry-anymore-
with-you/868698/

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

Third, overall levels of accessibility could have been improved drastically by
prioritizing regular and rapid bus transit system over rail-based MRTS. As discussed
23
earlier in this report, most people in Delhi travel quite small distances in their
regular travel. Thus, a closer-to-home public transport service could have achieved
exceedingly high accessibility benefits at much lower capital and operations cost.

Therefore, the opportunity cost of investment in Delhi Metro looms large when its
non-achievement in response to these claims is considered.

Centre for Financial Accountability

24

Delhi and Its Metro:

Now What?
No Further Expansion
Elevated and underground urban rail systems are too expensive for Indian cities
and previous experience suggests that such projects struggle for economic
self-sustainability 34. Therefore, no further expansion of Delhi Metro should be
undertaken.

Correct the Investment Priorities

Extent and equity of access to transit can not be realized by a transportation
system dominated by metro network. Different surveys in Delhi have consistently
shown that most people cover short distances in their regular journeys. According
to the Census of India data on work travel, more than 25% workers walk to work
and more than 10% workers ride a bicycle to work. A study of Delhi Metro found
that more than 80% Metro trips were longer than 10 km while the trips longer
than 10 km are merely 17% of all trips in Delhi35 . This underlines the mismatch
between priorities of investment and real demand of transportation infrastructure.
Whatever technology we need to end the urban transport crisis is right before us-
bicycles. Despite finding place in National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP), promise
of infrastructure for non-motorized modes of transport (walking, bicycle, cycle-
rickshaw) has remained mere rhetoric.

34 Mohan, Dinesh. 2008. “Mythologies, Metros & Future Urban Transport.” Economic and Political Weekly, no.
January: 41–53.
35 Goel, R., & Tiwari, G. (2014). Promoting Low Carbon Transport in India: Case Study of Metro Rails in Indian Cities.

Riding on Debt: Financial Analysis of Delhi Metro After Phase-III

Bring the Focus Back on BRTS 25
There is need to bring focus back on planning a Bus Rapid Transit System in
Delhi. BRTS is not only “rapid” but it is also more accessible to every section of
society. Experiments in other Low-Middle Income Countries (LMIC) show that BRT
systems face great amount of resistance in their beginning because they break the
hegemony of cars and private vehicles on roads. Yet, a well-planned BRTS increases
the equality of access to opportunities without taking heavy toll on environment
and communities.

Invest in Integrated Transportation

It is the need of the hour to think of urban transport systems as an integrated
whole. The objective of transport system should be to ensure access for every
citizen without creating unsustainable impacts on the environment. This requires
that the needs and the roles of every mode of transport, whether it be non-
motorized (pedestrians, bicycles, cycle rickshaw and others), intermediate public
transport (aka IPT such as auto-rickshaw, tempo, taxi), bus transit (BRT and regular
bus transit), rail-based mass transit (suburban railway and metro/mono rail), or
private motorized vehicles (motorcycles, scooters and cars).

Investment priorities must be set according to their ability to satisfy the needs of
maximum number of passengers and not as per the interest of investors. All the
statistical records indicate that modal share of pedestrians is the highest among
the passengers of Delhi’s intra-urban transport. Walking is also the main way to
access the metro and bus network nodes (stations, stops etc.). Therefore, ensuring
the best infrastructure for walking should be the top priority. Buses already carry
major fraction of public transport users but they also have untapped potential
because their resources remain underutilized in a hostile policy environment.
Buses and bicycle infrastructure should also be on the top priority when investing
public money. IPT has a key role in Delhi’s transport situation as they act as feeder
mode to not only the metro rail but, is some instances, also the bus network.
Therefore, investment decisions must be taken while considering the needs of
this sector.

Investment priorities must demote the use of private vehicles to the extent
possible. Pouring huge public money in road expansion and flyover construction is
detrimental to the objective of transport set in the beginning of this section.

These recommendations must be taken seriously and a new policy viewpoint must
be adopted when deciding on financing the transport projects.

Centre for Financial Accountability