Mass Transit And Compact Development Should Go Hand In Hand In Mumbai

Mass transit works well when a city is dense and compact. The residential developments near metro stations should be sufficiently tall to make such networks a success. Transit would not be profitable, if enough people do not live near mass transit stations. While the work is in progress to expand Mumbai's rapid transit system, let's look at how ideal the city is for such a network. Mumbai is a dense city. Over 20 million people live within the Mumbai metropolitan area, and the urban density is 20,694 people per square kilometer.

However, it is not compact. In much of central Mumbai, the maximum permissible floor space on a 1,000 sq ft plot is 1,330 sq ft, this is an FSI of 1.3. The Greater 's draft development plan proposes an FSI of five-six near metro transit corridors. The status of the proposal is, at present, uncertain.

Meanwhile, the Maharashtra government has decided to charge an additional premium of 100 per cent of the ready reckoner rate along metro lines-II and IV. (ady reckoner rates are the minimum rates at which one can register the sale of a property.) These metro lines will run through -Charkop-Bandra-Mankhurd Corridor Phase I- East-DN Nagar and - East. This is expected to make apartments in Mumbai along metro routes more expensive.

What should be the ideal FSI policy among metro lines be like?

Mumbai is too densely populated that it is ideal for mass transit. But, for mass transit to be more efficient and profitable, Mumbai ought to become a more compact city. Currently, Mumbai's build up area is spread over a very large area, and this is not true of other large cities like New York or Tokyo. In Western line of Mumbai's suburban network, there are 3.6 million boardings each weekday. This means that mass transit is very valuable to Mumbai's residents. In cities that have spread out, mass transit faces major constraints. A higher FSI is essential for Mumbai's citizens to get the most out of the system.

The profitability of metro lines have more to do with compactness than with population density. While Atlanta and Barcelona are two cities with similar population, only three per cent of the total population in Atlanta use mass transit; the number is as high as 30 per cent in Barcelona. This is because in Atlanta population has spread out despite having one of the best mass transit systems in the world, whereas Barcelona is more compact. The FSI policy should encourage compactness wherever there is demand for compactness.

High FSI along metro corridors in Mumbai is considered too high by many policy analysis, but urban local authorities or state governments cannot determine the height of buildings. Despite having an excellent mass transit system, households near transit stations in Atlanta have moved farther to the periphery. So, if the government stipulates a high FSI, developers of real estate in Mumbai would build tall buildings, only if there is demand for greater floor space. In a city where population density is high, not allowing a high FSI when demand for floor space is great would at best lead to overcrowding in existing apartments.

The Maharashtra government decided to raise the ready reckoner rates by 100 per cent to raise revenues to build the metro project. But, when government raises FSI in areas where transportation networks are not yet properly developed, this would raise FSI in areas where demand for floor space is relatively lower. Compact development should be encourages in the densest parts of the city, and the FSI policy should ideally be driven by the need for greater floor space, and not by the state government's need for greater revenues.