Mumbai Day 12: Interview with Binoy Mascarenhas
Yesterday I had the privilidge of interviewing Binoy Mascarenhas, an Urban Transport associate at EMBARQ India. EMBARQ is a not-for-profit think tank with centres in Mexico, Brazil, India, and Turkey; it works with local transit authorities to improve urban transportation in these disparate regions. I spoke with Mr. Mascarenhas at EMBARQ's headquarters in Lower Parel, Mumbai.
Taylor Cornelson: How did EMBARQ become involved in India, and in Mumbai? It's fascinating that there is an external organization such as EMBARQ working with the government to develop successful strategies for public transit.
Binoy Mascarenhas: Firstly, we actually don’t see ourselves as an outside organization. EMBARQ was first established in Mexico, and at this point in time there was a gentleman by the name of Lee Schipper who really steered the functioning of EMBARQ and defined what it should be. In Mexico, the organization really took off, and then it grew to Brazil and then India. Each of these centers functions largely independently.
We have a larger vision which encompasses all of EMBARQ’s outposts, but it’s quite democratic––all the centers have come together to agree on certain agendas and priorities. But each center functions on its own, where we benefit from being part of the network but maintain our independence from the whole. We make sure we project ourselves as such, that we are an Indian organization with Indian staff, people who work in India, so we have a level of local expertise. But on the other hand we do get the best-practice expertise of our affiliates in Mexico, in Brazil, and so on.
EMBARQ is part of the WRI program, and was established by only two staff at first. With a limited amount of seed funding we engaged in our first small-scale project, and from that point it’s grown to include work in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Delhi, many different locations in India. In 2008 I joined EMBARQ, at which time we were about six or seven people. Now we’re about thirty or thirty-five, so we’ve grown quickly.
TC: How has the public transit system grown in the last twenty or thirty years in Mumbai? In what areas is EMBARQ hoping to make the most difference?
BM: Until seven or eight years ago, there wasn’t much change in terms of gauging the events that happened in the last twenty, twenty-five years or so. But in the last seven years the government, in collaboration with NGOs such as EMBARQ, have been testing new strategies. These include the metro and monorail projects, which I’m sure you’ve heard of. But, by and large, the existing transit systems have become bigger, they’ve become more intensive, but there hasn’t been a lot of radical change; mostly the same strategies implemented at a larger scale, with more funding and more resources.
TC: Has there been a shift among Mumbai’s residents to using public transit more in this same period of time?
BM: Numbers show that the public’s use of these public transport systems has remained about the same. Ridership in Mumbai is actually quite high when compared to many Indian cities, certainly much greater than many American or European cities. It might be comparable to Hong Kong or London. In the past few years there’s been some concern regarding the percentage of new riders using the system, but that’s largely because the city has grown in area; public transit isn’t able to reach these new developments yet. Within the core area, the ratios have remained constant, by and large.
TC: Are there plans being made to extend into these new areas, into the suburbs?
BM: Yes––the new metro system is under construction, which will be one line connecting east and west sections of the city. The city has plans, which are somewhat firm, to connect three additional lines which would begin operations in another four or five years. But in Mumbai everything that is said has to be taken with a grain of salt, there are lots of changes that could happen between what they say and what actually does happen. This current metro line was supposed to be operational as of two years ago, and today it still hasn’t been completed. Now they’re saying it will be operational by the end of this year.
There’s also a plan in the works for a Sea Bus linkage from the suburbs to the city centre, which will terminate at Nariman Point [the first major business district in Mumbai]. There’s also the expansion of the BRT [Bus Rapid Transit] which EMBARQ is supporting. All of this is in addition to an augmentation of all existing services. For example, there are plans to increase the number of coaches on the public rail lines, along with an extension of the rail lines to reach further into the suburbs, along with the new developments of Navi Mumbai.
TC: Do you think capital-intensive urban transit strategies, such as the construction of the metro and monorail system, are an effective way to increase residents’ access to affordable public transit within the city?
BM: I actually think that the existing rail system is perfectly adequate in this respect; you can improve the quality of service easily because the most capital-intensive infrastructure––rail lines, stations––is already there. Augmenting this with new rail systems however, such as the metro and monorail, might not be the most efficient use of time or money. If you can increase ridership capacity by other means for a lower cost, it makes sense to put public funding where it will have the largest and most immediate impact.
The geography of Mumbai is very particular. It’s a linear city, and you have three rail lines which extend in the north/south direction. These three lines accommodate an amazing number of passengers, over six million people per day. I think Moscow is about the same in terms of numbers, but with twelve lines serving a much larger area. You can imagine the volume of people that Mumbai’s system has to deal with. These three lines, for the moment, are adequate, but we should investigate a comprehensive strategy which incorporates an expanded bus schedule, the monorail, and other forms of private and public transit all feeding into a larger comprehensive whole.
TC: From what you’ve just said, it sounds like there is a developing focus on providing different modes of transportation that all compliment one another, rather than developing any single system––rail lines, the bus system––to serve the city’s growing population.
BM: You’re absolutely right. Firstly, given the size and age of the city, it means that you already have a lot of transportation systems in place. You can’t simply say, “okay, let’s start from scratch.” We have a legacy here, we have the broad-gauge service already in place. It will become prohibitively expensive to develop this existing framework into something more modern, so let’s try and make the most out of what we have already.
The second thing is that, given the city’s layout and size, you can’t hope to serve all of the city with one form of public transit. You have to create tailor-made solutions for different areas. Where you have narrow streets, use a system such as a monorail, for example. But you’re right, there has to be a larger, comprehensive vision so that all of these different systems can integrate with one-another. This approach, to some extent, has been missing; we’ve only recently started to look at how these disparate systems can form a cohesive whole, rather than looking at each as an isolated solution.
TC: I suppose another challenge, as you mentioned earlier, is having your strategies and recommendations enacted by different departments and levels of government. It seems like, with many of the architects and urbanists that I’ve spoken with so far, it is easy to plan and to design in a vacuum, but implementation is a completely different game.
BM: One of the largest problems to this end is that, in Mumbai, different political structures are very much removed from one another. We have a municipal corporation, which is like a city government, which controls certain aspects of development within the city. We then have a planning authority, which is a state government and has the planning authority for Mumbai. To make matters worse, there’s a different political party which is ruling both the city and the state government. As a result there are many political disagreements between these two bodies; both have different levels of authority regarding what they can and cannot approve when it comes to public transit projects in Mumbai.
Typically, when there are very large investment projects taking place, it’s handled by the state government. But the maintenance of these projects, and other issues such as road improvements, are done by the city government. Obviously these two need to see eye-to-eye, there needs to be some form of collaboration and common ideology for the development of the city. At the present moment it seems this is very much lacking, and there’s a very great difference in opinion between these two organizations. I’m sure this is also an issue in other cities, but it seems to be present in Mumbai to a much larger extent.
TC: Do you think the plans that are being made now, in terms of public transportation and the city’s infrastructure, are adequate for Mumbai as it continues to grow over the next twenty years?
BM: I’ve actually not yet seen the plan for the next twenty years––it’s currently underway. That’s the master plan, something the government commissions every twenty years to guide development in the city. In terms of having a grand vision, it’s there, but in terms of having the building blocks to make the grand vision a reality, it’s slightly lacking. Apart from that, there are many smaller roadmaps or individual projects that are announced sporadically, which are good in pockets but lack any coordination as to how these different smaller visions and interventions will come together. The Sea Link is an example of this smaller planning strategy, and it doesn’t seem to tie in well with many of the other systems that are already in place.
TC: This is actually the first time I’ve heard of this twenty-year planning strategy. Have these roadmaps been realized in the past, or are they largely ignored?
BM: Surprisingly, to a large extent they are realized; they define land use, prescribe where arterial roads should be built. But there are some major projects identified in each plan which are never realized, projects which are critical components of the larger urban vision for the city. For example, the last document envisioned the international airport moving to Navi Mumbai––as you can see, this has still not happened, even after twenty years.
TC: How does the urban transportation system in Mumbai compare with other major centers in India?
BM: If you asked me this question ten years ago, I would easily say that Mumbai has the best public transit system in the country. But now, other cities are catching up in a big way. Delhi now has an excellent rail system, Ahmedabad and Bangalore have each instituted a BEST-operated transit system. A decade ago, Mumbai’s bus system was easily the best in the country. Now, I’d say Bangalore’s is perhaps more comprehensive, and does a better job of serving its population. So that’s where it is at the moment, Mumbai is slowly losing its position in being the best in the country.
It’s also losing its position as a first choice for employment opportunities; there was a point in time where Mumbai was easily the employment capital of the country. Now, job opportunities are flourishing in many other cities, and Mumbai has become prohibitively expensive. There isn’t quite the draw that there used to be for people to come here.
TC: In my discussions so far, many people seem adamant that the best way to help improve many of the urban issues in the city is to simply slow migration of people into the city, and to provide incentives for new employment opportunities in other areas of the country.
BM: I agree with what they say, but I don’t agree with people who support that approach. As a democratic country, we don’t have the right to tell people not to come into this city; it goes against our constitution. You can take an affirmative approach to this problem and ask why people are moving here––is there a lack of growth centers closer to where they live? Is this why they decide to immigrate to a city where they don’t speak the language, and still try to make a living? Why aren’t they doing this in their own cities?
If people are telling you that the immigration problem is still a major concern, I think they might be living in the past, probably about ten years ago. If you look at the recent census data, almost no one is coming into Mumbai.
TC: Really?
BM: Well, they are, but certainly not at the levels we’ve seen in the past. In fact, if you look at the old city––what was originally considered to be Mumbai, obviously it’s increased in size due to the development of the suburbs––the population has actually declined slightly. This said, there’s major population growth in the suburbs, which are still developing. But if you compare Mumbai’s population growth to Tier Two cities in India, like Ahmedabad, many other centers are suddenly swelling in the last decade or so. The growth of Tier Two cities’ states have out-ranked Maharashtra’s growth for almost the last seven or eight years––all these typically poorer states are suddenly experiencing dramatic growth. So I think the population of Mumbai will eventually plateau; it’s on a decreasing curve now and it will become less and less dramatic every year.
Mumbai has also––perhaps unintentionally––adopted a more polycentric approach to urban planning. The business district, which used to be in South Mumbai, has moved into the Bandra Kurla Complex. Where we work right now [in Lower Parel] is also a center. Navi Mumbai is also becoming a center. Immigration, at the moment, is not as big of a problem; I’ve been living here for many years and, when I used to travel by train to go to college, the trains were far more crowded than they are today, even though the population has grown. Obviously the quality of service has increased as well, but not nearly as many people are moving into the city and are traveling to areas such as Churchgate and Fort.
TC: That’s very interesting, because Mumbai still projects the image of a city in the midst of explosive population growth, a flood of new residents which can’t easily be stopped.
BM: Yes. Well, if you compare it to many other global centers, it is still growing rapidly, certainly much faster than London or New York, for example. But take it in the context of Indian cities. Even if Mumbai is still growing faster than these other global centers, the proportion of difference today, when comparing Mumbai with other developing Indian cities, in relation to a decade ago has greatly diminished.
Ten years ago, Mumbai was growing at a truly incredible pace, with other Indian centers experiencing a much slower rate of growth by comparison. There were only two major cities in India: Delhi and Mumbai. But now there is Bangalore, there is Hyderabad, there is Ahmedabad, and several other centers which are attracting a lot of growth and investment. In fact, industrial activity has almost completely left Mumbai. It still happens to some extent around the periphery, but Mumbai has largely become a service city, on par with what you’d find in any other developed country. Because of this, there’s growth in many of these other centers which still house a lot of industrial activity, and they are absorbing a very good percentage of the population by comparison. I understand the international perception might be that there is still an extreme amount of growth here; definitely there is but I would think that their understanding of the situation is not entirely correct.
TC: I’m curious to hear your thoughts regarding the informal development you see in Mumbai. This seems to be one of the most highly-publicized urban issues in the city at the moment, especially from a land-ownership perspective.
BM: I’m sure you’ve seen the conditions that many people in these developments live in, and that’s most definitely not the way you dream for Mumbai to be. Having said that, one cannot try to evict residents in these informal developments simply because this is not how the city should be used. There needs to be a more holistic approach, a more comprehensive redevelopment strategy. Unfortunately, I don’t think I have the answer. What many others are saying is that you need to create enough incentive for people who are living in informal developments, who are living in slums, to move out of the kind of lifestyle that they’re currently living. You cannot force them out, but you need to create new growth centers in the periphery, new housing developments in the periphery. And then, perhaps, many would think of moving there.
Right now new housing developments are erected in the periphery of Mumbai, but many jobs––especially those jobs occupied by the lowest-income earners in the city––are still in the heart of Mumbai. So, naturally, no one wants to move to the outskirts in order to travel for two or three hours every day just to get to work. One of the great things about India is that we are a democratic country, but the flip-side of this democratic nature is that you simply can’t force people to behave in a certain way, even though you might understand that, in the long run, relocation might be better for many of Mumbai’s residents. You have to simply create incentives for people to live in the outskirts of the city, and I think, if implemented successfully, such incentives would go a long way towards taking care of a lot of informal housing currently within the city.
On the other hand, we need to distinguish between the “informal” and “slum” developments in Mumbai. Informal developments are fine, many of them are situated in old housing constructions, but many residents who live in them may get taken advantage of by landlords. We need to see how we can formalize their housing, to make them part of the system because they are not really living a life of squalor.
With the slum population, yes, you can see that they’re trying methods around rehabilitating slum developments, or moving residents into high-rises with any remaining land being used to build housing towers or other complexes. I don’t know if that works, though; developers have tried and they are not very happy with that model. To me––and I think Chicago tried this with the Projects––low-income residents can’t afford many of the variable costs involved with newly-constructed, high-rise projects in the center of the city. Costs of maintenance, costs of repair, they’re all far greater than what many residents can afford on their own.
A lot of developers, unfortunately, are getting away with developing very sub-standard housing relocation projects for displaced slum-dwellers in Mumbai. You will see fifteen-story resettlement projects next to fifty-story apartment complexes, with an enormous income disparity between the two groups. If you take a train and move towards Bandra, you can see many of these recent development projects that have come up. It’s not good architecture, it’s just developing block after block, mile after mile.
TC: I’d like to ask you about public spaces in Mumbai. It seems like there are very few public spaces in the city, and it also seems an enormous challenge to ossify their intended use, to keep them truly public.
BM: Definitely. The British––for all the negative impacts they had in India––used at least one excellent planning strategy when they built Bombay. Within what was considered to be the city many years ago, the British ensured there were ample public spaces integrated into the fabric of Mumbai. If you go into any of the old British portions of Mumbai, you’ll notice enormous open Maidans, huge open grounds, public squares. They didn’t bother with the rest of the city because, at the time, it was simply where the natives lived, outside the formal zone of development. The rest of Bombay was simply ad-hoc growth, house after house after house, and thus these portions of the city don’t incorporate public space in the same way that South Bombay does. As the city grew, these ad-hoc houses were simply replaced by apartment buildings––there was no real zoning of public space in these more suburban areas. At the moment, our ratio of public space to residents is among the lowest in the world (one meter for sixteen people, if I remember correctly). We very much need to protect each and every square inch of land which is currently zoned as public, or that is not otherwise developed in some way.
TC: Speaking of zoning, I’d be curious for you to share a history of zoning and other developmental policies in Mumbai, and how they’ve impacted the growth of the city.
BM: As I mentioned, the development plan which happens every twenty years typically determines what each plot of land can and cannot be used for. When a developer decides to build something on a given parcel, he has to abide by what this development plan states should be built there, and what the maximum height of the building can be, the minimum and maximum FAR, and many other detailed regulations. Once a building is actually constructed, however, it’s very difficult to say whether it will be used for its documented and intended purpose––there is unquestionably a lack of enforcement when it comes to development guidelines and realized programs.
Though many consider this lack of enforcement to be something which must be improved, it actually positively affects the city in that it allows development to respond to the market, to adapt to circumstances planners may not have taken into account. For example, a lot of residential areas are converted into commercial districts; this may not be entirely legal, but it simply happens.
Where I live, the most major thoroughfare is supposed to be entirely residential, but has now, by and large, become a commercial district, because it is responding to the market. A lot of old apartment buildings have been carved out from within, and have been transformed into shops––you’ll have to climb up a staircase inside to access a restaurant on the second level. A lot of this is not by the law, small businesses have simply circumvented the law. Because bureaucratic structures within the city are not as strong as they should be, the city is left to respond to market forces, to adapt and change despite what official planning documents might otherwise intend.
This is why Mumbai has become the city that it is. If it was a very rigid, strong city, such as what Delhi was at one point, then it doesn’t respond in this fluid way. I think the best part about Mumbai is that it wasn’t planned. It seems like every city that was planned in India has not grown as well as Mumbai; this city has simply evolved in response to many forces, and it results in what you see around you today.
You can read more about EMBARQ, their work, and their initiatives in India here.