vijaypadiyar - 2 January, 2011 | Bangalore | Autorickshaw | suggestion | Transportation | public transport | public transport | regulations

There is a growing realisation among government circles that there has to be a big push towards promoting public transport in the country, together with steps to disincentivise private transport. But while there is no doubt that public transport is clearly the need of the hour and the future, it is very disappointing that the government has chosen to restrict its agenda to include only mass transport media, such as buses and metro trains. It has not focused on other forms of public transport such as taxis and auto-rickshaws, which provide a more "personalised" service to passengers.

What differentiates autos and taxis from buses and metros, and indeed what makes them more important, is the fact that they offer an end-to-end service. That is, you can hire an auto or taxi directly from outside your house or wherever you may be, and it will drop you right to the doorstep of your destination. And generally the waiting time is also less, as any auto or taxi can ply to any part of the city.

By contrast, if you are commuting by bus or metro, you need to first go to the nearest bus stop or metro station. Once there, you need to wait for the appropriate bus or train to arrive. And lastly, you need to get off at the stop nearest to your destination and then make your way from there.

So clearly, in terms of convenience, buses and trains cannot possibly compete with autos and taxis which come to the customer rather than expecting the customer to come to them, and also act as a single mode of transport from start to finish. And for this reason alone, I would personally rate autos and taxis as much more important than buses and metros.

So why has there been (and still is) utter neglect of this form of public transport?

I live in Bangalore. Auto drivers here are infamous for grossly overcharging, refusing to ply, and being rude and verbally/physically abusive in general. And the scenario is pretty much the same in most Indian metros, be it Mumbai, Delhi or Chennai. Honestly, I do not know whether the auto drivers overcharge in order to make more money for themselves, or whether they are forced to do so to recover the costs of hiring the auto/taxi imposed by unscrupulous owners, many of whom are, or have contacts to, powerful people in the establishment. And therein lies the answer to the above question: no one is interested in fixing the problem because it suits those who are in power, and because there is no serious political impact of not fixing it.

Which begs the question: is it time to corporatise autos and taxis in India?

There is already limited corporatisation in case of taxis in select Indian cities. For example, Meru Cabs and Easy Cabs run taxis in Bangalore, Mumbai and other cities. Apart from these, there are various lesser known local entities which operate taxis in the respective cities. And while the fares are indeed higher than the Government-approved fares of taxis, anyone who has travelled by these taxis can vouch for the fact that there is far greater transparency in terms of a clear fare structure, which results in a hassle-free travelling experience.

But unfortunately, taxis will always remain less popular than rickshaws in India due to the higher fares, and therefore it is very important to extend this trend to autos to have a real impact on the ground situation.

Corporatising autos and taxis has several immediate benefits, as outlined below:

1. Benefits for passengers:
   
   a. Transparency of ownership: If autos were corporatised, then a corporate entity would own the rickshaws and hire drivers to drive them. Thus, the ownership would be clearly defined and transparent, and the auto drivers would have no more incentive to demand exorbitant fares. This is unlike the present scenario, where no one knows who actually owns the rickshaw, and therefore the public anger is not directed at any one entity , which makes it easier for the authorities to do nothing. If the ownership was well-defined and known, then people and the media would agitate in a more focused manner, which would then compel the authorities to take action.
   
   b. Transparency in fares: When a corporate entity runs a taxi service, there is a transparent fare structure that is widely advertised and thus well-known. People are therefore more aware of what they need to pay. By contrast, when it comes to autos today, the official fare structure fixed by the government remains only on paper, because the auto drivers demand much higher fares and refuse to ply if you don't pay up.
   
   c. Accountability: Any corporate entity's future depends on its acceptability with the general public, especially when there is competition. Therefore, corporate entities are inherently accountable to the people, and so have to focus on maintaining their brand image. Thus, it would be much more unlikely for rickshaws operated by corporate entities to indulge in overcharging, denying service, etc., because then the brand image would suffer in the long run. Also, an auto service run by corporates would also have a well-defined grievance redressal structure that would generally be better operated than the RTO or Traffic Police's Complaints Department.
   
   d. Technology-driven experience: If autos were owned by corporates, they would have the money to invest in technology to offer a superior experience to customers. This could be in the form of websites and call centers to connect to customers, tamper-proof GPS-based or electronic meters, additional payment options (credit card, any local/national unified travel card, vouchers, etc.), entertainment options (newspapers/magazines, TV/radio, etc.) and so on. Individual auto drivers could not possibly think of offering these kind of facilities or services to customers.
    
2. Benefits for auto drivers:
   
   a. Assured income and benefits: An auto driver employed by a corporate entity would get a salary which would likely have a fixed component as well as a variable component (based on his earnings). Not only this, he would also be eligible for other benefits such as pension and provident fund, medical benefits, various allowances, leaves, etc. This would go a long way in meeting the Government's agenda of bringing more people under the social and medical security net.
   
   b. No credit hassles: Since the auto drivers would be employees and not debtors, they would be free of any worries of repayments, etc. and would not be under the grasp of unscrupulous owners or lenders.
    
3. Benefits for the Government:
   
   a. Freedom from regulating fares: Every now and then, auto and taxi drivers go on strike to demand a hike in the fare structure. This puts an unnecessary burden on the local Government and also inconveniences passengers. With corporatisation, the companies running the rickshaws would be free to decide their own fares, and the Government could play the role of a watchdog to ensure that there is no cartelisation or arbitrary charging of fares.
   
   b. Higher tax income: If corporates were to run rickshaws, they would pay taxes to the Government based on their profits. And since the salaries of the rickshaw drivers would also be known (unlike what it is currently), they could also potentially be eligible for paying income tax. Currently, no one knows who owns the auto, and what is the owner's income. Even the net income of rickshaw drivers is unknown.
   
   c. Widened social and medical security net: As explained above, rickshaw drivers would be eligible for social security and medical benefits, in line with other salaried professions. This would meet the Government's social agenda of widening the social and medical security net.

As can been seen, the potential benefits are immense and widespread, and far outweigh any concerns anyone may have regarding corporatisation in general. I genuinely feel the time has come to relook our antique policies and free public services from the inefficiencies of Government control.

Your thoughts and comments please...

---

COMMENTS

---

PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES

Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!