Why Mumbai never got an underground metro

[echarcha]

This is an interesting story about how Mumbai could have had an underground metro like other major world cities - New York, San Francisco, etc.

Why Mumbai never got an underground metro
Published: Thursday, Jun 23, 2011 on 8:00 IST


BN Desai

Whenever he reads reports about the proposed Colaba-Bandra metro, plans for which are stuck for want of funds, BN Desai’s mind goes back to the 1970s, when he and a team of nearly 40 officers of the Indian Railways were working on a project to build an underground metro along the same route up to the Santa Cruz airport.

Desai, who worked with the railways for over 30 years, says they were close to performing a bhoomipujan for the project, but for some reason it did not happen.

Today, the cost of the underground metro between Colaba and Bandra is estimated to be a whopping Rs12,000 crore. But the Bombay Metropolitan Transport Project (Bombay MTP), planned by Desai and his team, would have cost just Rs375 crore.



“We had everything in place, from the techno-economic feasibility study to the detailed project report (DPR). We worked on the project from 1972 up to 1975. The project was to be carried out by the railways,” said Desai who is on the threshold of turning 80.

According to the DPR — a set of 40-odd pages typed in the old format — the railways planned to run 46 trains with eight coaches each between Colaba and Santa Cruz. Interestingly, the line was to start at Colaba and cover both the central and western areas of the island city.

From Colaba, the metro was to head towards Backbay, then move on to Mantralaya, Churchgate, and Azad Maidan. From there, it would have moved to Bombay VT (or CST, as it is called now), Crawford Market, Mumbadevi, Bhendi Bazaar, Nagpada, Byculla and then to Mahalaxmi.

“This was the first phase. The second phase would have been from Mahalaxmi to Kurla, and the last one was connecting the underground metro to the domestic airport,” Desai told DNA.



Why was such an ambitious project shelved? “Only one person can answer the question - former prime minister, the late Indira Gandhi.

The then railway minister Mohammad Shafiq Qureshi as well as the railway board had cleared all files related to the project after the plan was submitted in November 1972.

Subsequently, the project was discussed at length in April 1973 with members of the planning commission.

There were some minor issues such as foreign funding (of Rs64 crore). We also did some site surveys for the bhoomipujan. However, all went wrong somehow. We were dispersed and transferred to various locations,” recalled Desai, the disappointment still showing on his face.

LINK

[sarv_shaktimaan]

Kangress ki India ko ek aur gift.. apart from modern day inflation, corruption and Italian mafia.

[Parijataka]

Originally Posted by echarcha

This is an interesting story about how Mumbai could have had an underground metro like other major world cities - New York, San Francisco, etc.

Might hv been a lack of funds, India in those days was not relatively better off as it is today ?

[Soorma Bhopali]

My first point -

Why everything in Mumbai ? Leave that city alone if you don't want it to crumble with more population ..You 've got three suburban lines and 2 crore ppl to feed but come monsoon,everything goes haywire due to 150-year old drainage system .

Getting an underground metro in Mumbai is NOT FEASIBLE and there have already been studies on it .

For God's sake , do not allow any more new offices in Mumbai and develop infrastructure in some other cities like Nasik/Nagpur or Kolhapur .......I fail to understand this city-fixation on why everything has got to be in MUMBAI ONLY ..For God's sake, if you don't want that city to DIE with additional burden , work for a more equitable growth ..no wonder , this city fixation has allowed growth of naxalism in some of the Vidarbh areas,Chattisgarh and parts of Orissa/WB/Jharkhand .:doh


Second point -

It would have been worthwhile having that project there . I suspect it might have been shelved due to the split in Congress around the same time in late 60's and early 70's between Indira group vs. Syndicates . Some of the Maharashtra politicians like Vasant Dada Patil , Pawar and also socialists like Madhu Dandavate had a good hold in Maharashtra around the same time . There was also George Fernandes , firebrand Trade Union leader at that time in Bombay in the heady days of Emergency .

May be, Indira Gandhi would have thought that having a successful Metro project there may strengthen their hands and instead she wanted the funds deployed better in the areas where she and her loyalists were strong .

What do you say ?

[sgars]

IG probably wanted to squeeze Bombay* and build up Delhi. She wanted to dislodge the 'Bombay club' - old rich. Hence she encourged Delhi based businessmen like Nandas as also newer ones like Dhirubhai.

Hence you saw all the flyovers and clean roads in Delhi and all slums and sqalor in Bombay.

* as the city was known thenn.

[AmthaLal]

Originally Posted by Parijataka

Might hv been a lack of funds, India in those days was not relatively better off as it is today ?

Really!

How come kolkaata got theirs?
Saalaa WB is like a bhikhari compared to MAha. Atleast in those days.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata_Metro

[Parijataka]

Originally Posted by sgars

IG probably wanted to squeeze Bombay* and build up Delhi. She wanted to dislodge the 'Bombay club' - old rich. Hence she encourged Delhi based businessmen like Nandas as also newer ones like Dhirubhai.

Hence you saw all the flyovers and clean roads in Delhi and all slums and sqalor in Bombay.

* as the city was known thenn.

Mumbai is the only city in India where poor people from South and North and East and West can come in and be assured of a living, hence the massive slums. Delhi is not such an attractive destination for the poor (like many other cities).

Originally Posted by AmthaLal

Really!

How come kolkaata got theirs?
Saalaa WB is like a bhikhari compared to MAha. Atleast in those days.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata_Metro

Agree , I'll go with Indiramma not wanting to over burden Mumbai with too many facilities or with city planners assuming Mumbai's local trains and efficient bus system were enough or some eco problem!

[jeetiaf]

Originally Posted by sgars

IG probably wanted to squeeze Bombay* and build up Delhi. She wanted to dislodge the 'Bombay club' - old rich. Hence she encourged Delhi based businessmen like Nandas as also newer ones like Dhirubhai.

Hence you saw all the flyovers and clean roads in Delhi and all slums and sqalor in Bombay.

* as the city was known thenn.

it is luck of delhi that it always remained capital of india, from khandavprastha in mahabharat to last 100 years as capital

delhi faced highest influx of partition refugee when India achieved independence against mumbai which was almost untouched of partition like things, but delhi pulled off and became what it is.

ambanis, tatas and birlas are all mumbai based and so is whole of film industry but still delhi comes in comparison with Mumbai and that is great



jeetIAF

[sgars]

Jeet bhai, Delhi has also enjoyed a very liberal spending by the central govt on it. The funds it gets are comparable to larger states (e.g. long back it got 800 crore as compared to 1400 crore for AP).

I am not aware of how much revenue is generated from Delhi, but in case of Mumbai, a good part of the taxes collected are spent elsewhere .

From what i hear, it was a very clean city in the 60s with all the good roads, but during Indira G's rule, a lot changed.

Almost all the infrasructure till 90s was British Legacy.

In general, Mumbai represented Capitalism - something that old generation cngressis did not like. Hence the step motherly treatment..

Now any way, it is just the financial centre - Mills have closed down. The IT industry is in South annd manufacturing has moved elsewhere. Other cities are growing much faster and probably there is a good revenue generated from Delhi also now.

When i was staying in Delhi in 90s what it lacked was a good number of Bars. But guess in Sheila Dixit's rule, a lot have opened up.

[echarcha]

Originally Posted by jeetiaf

it is luck of delhi that it always remained capital of india, from khandavprastha in mahabharat to last 100 years as capital

delhi faced highest influx of partition refugee when India achieved independence against mumbai which was almost untouched of partition like things, but delhi pulled off and became what it is.

ambanis, tatas and birlas are all mumbai based and so is whole of film industry but still delhi comes in comparison with Mumbai and that is great



jeetIAF

Ahem ... you are forgetting the Sindhis from Pakistan who came here during paritition. Max settled in Ulhasnagar in army barracks near Mumbai.

[kkkk]

Originally Posted by AmthaLal

Really!

How come kolkaata got theirs?
Saalaa WB is like a bhikhari compared to MAha. Atleast in those days.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata_Metro

kolkata metro is entirely a gift from Russia... commy commy mil ke bana diya tha unhone apne bong bhaiyo ke liye...

[kkkk]

Originally Posted by Soorma Bhopali

My first point -

Why everything in Mumbai ? Leave that city alone if you don't want it to crumble with more population ..You 've got three suburban lines and 2 crore ppl to feed but come monsoon,everything goes haywire due to 150-year old drainage system .

Getting an underground metro in Mumbai is NOT FEASIBLE and there have already been studies on it .

For God's sake , do not allow any more new offices in Mumbai and develop infrastructure in some other cities like Nasik/Nagpur or Kolhapur .......I fail to understand this city-fixation on why everything has got to be in MUMBAI ONLY ..For God's sake, if you don't want that city to DIE with additional burden , work for a more equitable growth ..no wonder , this city fixation has allowed growth of naxalism in some of the Vidarbh areas,Chattisgarh and parts of Orissa/WB/Jharkhand .:doh


Second point -

It would have been worthwhile having that project there . I suspect it might have been shelved due to the split in Congress around the same time in late 60's and early 70's between Indira group vs. Syndicates . Some of the Maharashtra politicians like Vasant Dada Patil , Pawar and also socialists like Madhu Dandavate had a good hold in Maharashtra around the same time . There was also George Fernandes , firebrand Trade Union leader at that time in Bombay in the heady days of Emergency .

May be, Indira Gandhi would have thought that having a successful Metro project there may strengthen their hands and instead she wanted the funds deployed better in the areas where she and her loyalists were strong .

What do you say ?

yep.. why does everything have to be in or around mumbai? this city has such a hold on all of us - whether we are from there or not. 4 log mil ke group bana lete hai mumbai mein sala akkha maha ka budget control karte.

we have what I call Lagaan mentality. There is a scene in lagaan where a firang batsment hits the ball and the whole Indian team starts running after the ball.... The captain then has to remind them ki gend jiski taraf jayegi, vahi uske pichhe bhagega... we all tend to follow the ball around - even our key decision makers are content with letting the situation remain the same.

[sarv_shaktimaan]

found something related..

the first pic is very interesting to me.. Having worked on centre of gravity analysis calculations and design of lug locations for lifting large objects with cranes.