Speed for the Few or Mobility for the Many? Rethinking India’s Rail Priorities

 

 

            - Ganadhish Kamat

India’s push toward high-speed rail—epitomized by the Mumbai–Ahmedabad bullet train—represents technological ambition and global aspiration. Yet, beneath the symbolism lies a critical question: is this the most effective use of scarce public capital in a country where the vast majority still relies on slow, overcrowded conventional trains?

The Scale of Investment: A ₹2 Lakh Crore Question

The Mumbai–Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail (MAHSR) project, spanning 508 km, is now estimated to cost nearly ₹1.98 lakh crore, almost double its original estimate of about ₹1.1 lakh crore. This translates to roughly ₹390–400 crore per km, making it one of the most capital-intensive transport projects in India’s history. Even more telling is that ₹86,000+ crore has already been spent, with years still to go before full completion. 

Recently many new bullet train routes have been announced. The cost estimates for which are not yet been made public. 

Such massive capital allocation inevitably raises opportunity cost concerns—what alternative improvements could this money have funded?

Ticket Pricing: Premium Service by Design

Officially, the government has stated that fares will be “competitive with rail and air travel.” 

However, available estimates suggest:

• Around ₹3,000 for Mumbai–Ahmedabad (economy class baseline). Likely higher for business class.
• Some projections indicate ₹3,000–₹5,000 may be needed for financial viability (based on comparable systems and cost recovery expectations)

This places bullet train fares closer to 

• AC First Class / Executive Class fares on premium trains air
• Budget airline fare.

In a country where a large segment of long-distance travelers still prefer sleeper class tickets costing a few hundred rupees, this pricing inherently targets a narrow, higher-income demographic.

Who Benefits?

The bullet train’s value proposition is clear:

• Travel time reduction (Mumbai–Ahmedabad in ~2–3 hours)
• Comfort and reliability
• Prestige and technological advancement

But its primary beneficiaries are likely to be:

• Business travelers
• High-income commuters
• Time-sensitive passengers

This is a relatively small fraction of India’s rail users.

The Reality of Indian Railways: Slow and Overburdened

India’s conventional rail system carries over 20 million passengers daily (7-7.2billion annually), the majority in non-premium segments.

Yet:

• Average speeds for long-distance trains hover around 50–55 km/h, even after 10 years of project Raftaar
• Delays, congestion, and outdated infrastructure remain widespread
• Capacity constraints limit frequency and reliability

For the vast majority, the issue is not speed from 200 km/h to 320 km/h—it is improving from 50 km/h to even 80–100 km/h.

A Compelling Alternative: Incremental Modernization

Consider what ₹2 lakh crore could achieve if redirected:

1. Doubling and Quadrupling Tracks

• Reduces congestion
• Enables faster and more frequent trains (Higher frequency will reduce the rush and improve ease of getting tickets)

2. Upgrading Signaling Systems

• Automatic signaling can dramatically increase throughput and improve safety.

3. Eliminating Level Crossings

• Improves both speed and safety

4. Track Modernization

• Higher speeds on existing routes (100–130 km/h) 

5. Rolling Stock Improvements

• Expanding semi-high-speed trains like Vande Bharat

 6. Fast trekking KAVACH roll out

• Reduce accidents and improve safety

These interventions would:

• Benefit millions daily, not thousands
• Improve affordability and accessibility
• Enhance freight efficiency (critical for economic growth)

The Vande Bharat Contrast

Semi-high-speed trains like Vande Bharat operate at:

• Lower capital cost (using existing tracks with upgrades)
• Speeds of 130–160 km/h
• Significantly lower fares than aviation

They represent a middle path—faster than conventional trains, yet accessible to a broader population. These too however are not affordable to large section of commuters. Currently around 40 million (1.2%) people travel by Vande Bharat annually. Government has refused to disclose the profitability of these trains, so we don't whether operating these trains is economically viable. A mass transit system may not be profitable but such information would have helped in predicting the viability of bullet trains. 

The Core Argument: Equity vs Aspiration

The debate is not about rejecting modern technology—it is about sequencing priorities.

Bullet trains offer:

• Prestige
• Technology transfer
• Long-term network potential

But they also:

• Lock massive capital into a single corridor
• Serve a limited user base
• Require sustained subsidies or high fares

In contrast, upgrading conventional rail:

• Delivers widespread benefits
• Enhances economic productivity
• Improves daily life for millions

Conclusion: A Question of Strategic Focus

India stands at a crossroads in transport policy.

Should it:

• Invest heavily in cutting-edge systems for a select few, or
• Focus on broad-based improvements that uplift the majority?

The answer may not be binary. But current priorities appear skewed toward high-visibility projects rather than high-impact reforms.

A more balanced strategy would:

• Continue limited high-speed rail development
• Aggressively modernize the existing network

Because in a country of India’s scale, the true measure of progress is not the top speed achieved—but how many people move faster, safer, and more affordably every day.