Road to nowhere: The flawed logic of Bengaluru's tunnel project

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike’s (BBMP) underground vehicular tunnel project from Hebbal to Silk Board Junction, intended to decongest Bengaluru’s traffic, has faced criticism from many quarters due to errors in its detailed project report (DPR). These bloopers apart, a more pressing concern is that the state government would need to stand as guarantor for a whopping Rs 19,000-crore loan that the BBMP plans to secure for the project under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model. The tunnel road project will primarily benefit Bengaluru’s 23 lakh private car owners, or 2.7% of the state’s population, while potentially placing the loan repayment burden on Karnataka’s seven crore residents, most of whom may not use the tunnel road at all.

There are serious doubts about the project’s ability to fulfil its purpose of decongesting traffic. During a recent discussion, Prof Ashish Verma from the Indian Institute of Science highlighted the inefficiency of double-decker and tunnel roads compared to Mass Rapid Transport Systems (MRTS). For instance, the ‘Passengers Per Hour Per Direction’ (PPHPD) capacity for a tunnel road is only 1800, whereas it is 69,000 for a metro and 89,000 for suburban rail. Financially, the tunnel road is also far less viable. The Metro’s average cost (for elevated and underground) is Rs 500 crore per kilometre, and suburban rail costs Rs 110 crore per km. In contrast, the tunnel road is estimated to cost a prohibitive Rs 1,000 crore per km, amounting to Rs 40,000 crore for 40 km—with negligible returns. 

When analysing return on investment, the at-grade Bus Rapid Transport System (BRTS) offers the highest value, transporting 3,750 passengers per crore of investment per kilometre. The Metro follows with a return of 460 passengers (single track per direction). In stark contrast, an elevated corridor (assuming two lanes for each direction) serves only 22 passengers per crore of investment. The tunnel road, which is costlier than the elevated corridor, focuses on moving vehicles, not people, making it a poorly justified choice. Hence, it is illogical to opt for the tunnel road when far cheaper and more efficient options are available for decongesting traffic. 

Tunnel road will undermine Metro’s viability: Adding to its drawbacks, the tunnel road competes with a Metro line already planned along the same Hebbal-Silk Board corridor, which leaves little justification for having the tunnel road for private vehicles as well. Prof Verma warned that the tunnel road could reduce Metro ridership by over 5%, undermining its viability. If Metro ridership falls short of targets, the resulting deficit—unaddressed by the Union government—would burden the state’s finances further.

Increase use of public transport: With the number of private vehicles in the city reaching 1.2 crore, there is almost one vehicle per person in Bengaluru with its population of 1.3 crore. This contrasts sharply with cities like Singapore and Tokyo. Singapore, with a population of 57 lakh, has only 6.24 lakh cars, while Tokyo, with a population of 3.6 crore, has just about 30 lakh private vehicles. Daily rail ridership on mass transit in Tokyo is four crore, compared to Bengaluru’s meagre six lakhs.

Currently, only 36% of Bengaluru’s commuters use public transport, whereas cities like London, Singapore, and Tokyo boast figures exceeding 75%. The focus must be on expanding the public transport network. It is noteworthy that Singapore, often cited as a model for Bengaluru, cancelled its underground road project in 2017 and shifted its focus to expanding public transport.

Disincentivise private car usage: The government cannot keep adding new roads, flyovers, or tunnels and incentivising private vehicles, which will not decongest traffic and is also against the National Urban Transport Policy.

Following Singapore’s example—it is targeting a ‘Zero Car by 2065’ policy—Karnataka could implement policies to discourage private vehicle usage. Singapore has reduced private vehicle ownership to one third under its Car-Lite policy, which involves upfront planning of Car-Lite areas with excellent public transport and extensive walking and cycling path networks. Singapore also imposes heavy taxes and congestion charges on private vehicles, making them almost unaffordable to own. 

Hence, the solution for decongesting the city is to disincentivise usage of cars by imposing a congestion tax, implementing a parking policy with graded parking fees even in residential layouts, and preventing purchase of second and third cars if the owners cannot show parking space for them. Such ‘push measures,’ according to experts, are equally important to be introduced alongside ‘pull measures’ to achieve sustainable mobility solutions.

Make public transport fast, frequent, and reliable: The money that the government estimates to spend on the tunnel roads project can instead be spent on developing an entire multi-modal infrastructure for Bengaluru, encompassing Mass Rapid Transit Systems (such as Metros, suburban rail, and BRTS) on major arterial roads. This investment can also increase the bus fleet, add mini-buses and nano-buses, create cycling lanes, improve footpaths, and provide pot-hole-free, motorable surface roads with proper drainage, benefiting all Bengalureans.

While the bus fleet of BMTC has remained almost constant at around 6,775 between 2013-14 and 2022-23, the number of vehicles in Bengaluru has increased from 58.9 lakh to 1.09 crore during the same period. Experts opine that Bengaluru needs 18,000 buses to enable a shift from private vehicles to public transport, which requires increasing frequency and reliability, re-routing buses using the hub-and-spoke method, and providing last- and first-mile connectivity.

Moreover, making public transport cheaper than two-wheelers—or even free, as in some South American cities—could significantly boost ridership.

(The writer is the Executive Trustee of CIVIC-Bangalore)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.