Tamil Nadu needs to think beyond the metro
L.Last month, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin criticized the Union government for rejecting metro rail projects to Coimbatore and Madurai. This sparked some political controversy and also led to a wave of urban aspirations. For many people, ostentatious metropolises have become symbols of progress and modernity. The absence of subways feels light; Their approval is a seal of arrival in the city.
But we need to step back and ask a very important question: Do cities like Madurai and Coimbatore really need metro rail systems? Or has the metro become an elite-driven aspiration that is fundamentally incompatible with the way Indian cities operate and live?
Metro: not a mobility solution
India’s obsession with the metropolis is relatively new but powerful. Over the last 15 years, metros have become the largest item in the urban budget, consuming almost 40% of all urban development funds. However, their contribution to mobility remains surprisingly limited. In most metropolises, only 5-12% of daily trips are made by metro. The overwhelming majority of people still walk, cycle or take buses and small paratransit vehicles.
This gap arises from the mismatch between metro systems and the daily mobility pattern in India. Almost 90% of India’s urban workforce is informal, and most workers have an average daily commute of just 4-5 kilometers. These are short and intense trips. They do not require high-speed, capital-intensive corridors designed for long-distance travel. Therefore, metros do not serve the functional needs of the majority; They serve the elite imagination of a “world-class” city.
Tamil Nadu is one of the most urbanized states in India. The middle class is rising rapidly and so is the elite. With this comes a new language of visual development: sparkling airports, overpasses, elevated corridors and always subway lines. But elite desire cannot replace public need. Medium-density, mixed-use and compact cities globally comparable to Madurai or Coimbatore are not dependent on metro systems. Successful examples include buses, surface-level rapid transit, bicycle highways, pedestrian-first planning and integrated feeder systems.
Singapore and Dubai, the oft-cited models, are not comparable in terms of scale, governance, land control or economic structure. Its subways work because entire urban systems are built around them. Indian cities cannot easily copy and paste such models.
Subways are also extremely expensive. The cost of a metro is ₹300 crore-900 crore per kilometre, depending on whether it is elevated or underground. Operating costs are equally high. Almost no Indian metro can cover its expenses through fares. Massive public subsidies keep them afloat. For cities like Coimbatore and Madurai, metro systems would mean decades of financial hardship as scarce funds are diverted from schools, water supply, local roads, housing, public health and basic neighborhood infrastructure. Interpreting the lack of metro allocation as a lack of development is to miss the real opportunity: getting rid of a financially draining model.
Madurai’s radial street system and Coimbatore’s industrial neighborhood clusters are inherently walkable and compact. The majority of workers move within short neighborhood cycles. Imposing metro systems on such cities destroys their organic form. What they need instead are high-frequency electric buses, dedicated bus lanes on major corridors, shaded pedestrian networks, protected bike lanes, better integrated automobiles and shared mobility, and last-mile systems at the neighborhood level. These are quick to create, cheaper, and useful.
The cities that have redefined urban mobility in the last 30 years (Curitiba, Bogota, Copenhagen, Freiburg, Medellín) did not rely solely on metros. In fact, many of them did not build subways. They invested in Bus Rapid Transit, which carries more people per rupee than any metro; cycling on superhighways; walkable neighborhoods; hill connection via cable car; Multi-modal integration rather than one large system. Modern mobility should be defined not by the scale of infrastructure but by access, affordability and last-mile connectivity and quality. India’s own mobility patterns reflect these best practices much more than the metropolitan-dominated model.
Tamil Nadu’s opportunity
Mr Stalin’s disappointment over the rejection of metro projects for Madurai and Coimbatore is politically understandable. But it also inadvertently gives Tamil Nadu the opportunity to redesign Coimbatore with a network of fast, frequent electric buses connected to industrial clusters; Madurai, with pedestrian-first temple circuits, cycle paths and seamlessly integrated shared cars; and cities where neighborhoods are built into 15-minute communities, where jobs, schools, health care, and markets are a short walk or bike ride away. These create infrastructure that is modern, climate-smart, affordable and socially inclusive. They match how people actually act. And most importantly, they won’t bankrupt cities.
Tamil Nadu must resist the pressure to equate development and modernity with metropolises. Instead, it must create mobility systems that reflect the realities of its workers, the densities of neighborhoods, and the constraints of municipal finances. If Tamil Nadu dares to think beyond the metro, it could set a new template for the rest of the country.
Tikender Singh Panwar is the former Deputy Mayor of Shimla and currently a member of the Kerala Urban Commission.
It was published – 29 December 2025 01:12 IST
