THIS refers to the letter ‘Why is KCR being considered again?’ (Dec 23). The writer is against the revival of the KCR because of its wrong design and its previous operational losses.
Earlier, the World Bank studies had also recommended the closure of the KCR in view of its design problems. To reduce these losses, the government had to subsidise the KCR, close the organisations responsible for running it, the KTC and the SRTC, and had to invite private parties to run the KCR on a BOT basis. Now since there is no possibility of the government’s subsidy, the revival of the KCR will be wasteful.
Notwithstanding the above, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is providing assistance for the revival of the KCR project.
A feasibility study of the project is now being undertaken by a consultant appointed by the JICA. In 2005, the JICA had agreed to a loan of $1.5 billion to revive the KCR tracks to fulfil the growing transportation needs of Karachi. But due to non-implementation of the project the revised estimate is now $2.5 billion.
It may be noted that plans have been in the offing for the KCR revival for the last 15 years but nothing has happened on the ground.
Why was the KCR project not implemented? This is just due to the vested interests against the KCR.
The KCR was, in fact, operating in 1969 but with a limited track from the Drigh Road station to the Karachi city station carrying six million passengers annually. It was making profit with 104 daily trains in the 1980s.
But those who were against the operation of the KCR did not allow it to operate and hence major trains were discontinued and KCR operations were stopped in 1999.
The present revival plan expects to carry on an average of 700,000 passengers on 246 trains daily. This plan envisages the operation of the KCR through private-public partnership by the Karachi Urban Transport Corporation (KUTC), with technical and financial assistance from JICA.
Why is the KCR revival being considered again? It is because of the demand of 700,000 passengers who at present travel by various means to their workplaces. These passengers are mostly lower class and lower middle class people, living in suburbs of Karachi who cannot afford alternative higher cost transport such as a taxi or a rickshaw.
Thus the KCR is for the poor, not for the rich. The government should help the poor to mitigate their sufferings. The KCR revival project will do exactly that.
A. RAHIM Karachi