Metro fare cut sparks funding debate

CDA defends 100% fare hike as necessary response to rising fuel, maintenance costs

ISLAMABAD:

The recent rollback of the Metro Bus fare from Rs100 to Rs50, following public outcry and the prime minister's intervention, has offered immediate relief to thousands of commuters in Islamabad and Rawalpindi.

But behind the applause lies a more complex challenge: how to sustain quality public transport while keeping it affordable for the masses. Initially, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) defended the 100% fare hike as a necessary response to rising fuel and maintenance costs.

The aim was to maintain the Metro's standards, cleanliness, punctuality, air conditioning, and consistent service, which many consider superior to other public transport options. However, the sudden doubling of fares triggered backlash from students, daily-wage earners, and elderly citizens who rely on the Metro for their essential travel.

"I spend Rs3,000 a month just commuting to work," said Ghulam Abbas, a construction worker. "That's a major hit to my grocery budget." Similarly, schoolgirl Asma shared with this scribe how she considered skipping lunch to manage travel costs.

The government ultimately reversed the decision on June 5, reinstating the original Rs50 fare.

Commuters welcomed the move, and for many, it reaffirmed faith in responsive governance. But this solution, while popular, raises an important question: can the Metro sustain quality service on its current fare model? Metro drivers, too, expressed concerns, not just about wages, which remained unchanged, but about increasing frustration from both management and passengers. "The fare change came overnight," said driver Zahid Khan. "We didn't get more pay, and now we're blamed when people are angry about delays or crowded buses.

From a sustainability standpoint, experts argue that rather than doubling fares in one go, a phased or incremental approach would have been more practical and politically acceptable. "Even a Rs10-20 quarterly increase, spread over time, would be easier for people to absorb and for the authority to justify," noted a senior urban transport planner.

While affordability is vital, especially during times of inflation, so is the long-term health of the transit system. A sharp rollback without any adjustment plan may risk underfunding maintenance, delaying upgrades, or cutting services in the future.

Already, questions are being raised about whether buses will continue to be as clean, on time, and safe if funding gaps widen. Senior citizens like Rukhsana Bibi, who travel regularly for medical needs, suggested middle-ground solutions. "Maybe there could be concession passes for students, pensioners, and laborers, while others could pay slightly more."

Such targeted subsidies could help balance the financial model without punishing the most vulnerable riders.

Raziq Ali, who travels daily from Jinnah Garden to Islamabad G-7, and Hasnain Raza, a frequent commuter from Gulberg Greens, both agree that the Metro Bus is an affordable and comfortable option. However, they warned that a sudden 100% fare increase would push many to switch to bikes, which are cheaper but come with safety risks and are uncomfortable in bad weather.

A gradual, balanced fare increase, aligned with inflation, fuel costs, and service improvements, can ensure the Metro's long-term sustainability without burdening commuters. This would help maintain vehicle conditions, service quality, and fair employee pay.