The expansion of the Metro bus fleet last week took me back to my university days. I live between Moratuwa and Panadura, along the old Galle Road. Route 100 buses stop almost everywhere, so whenever I travelled home I preferred an outstation bus. They were much faster, but accepted only passengers travelling beyond Panadura.
My solution was to buy a ticket to Panadura and get off at Moratuwa. Conductors disliked this because the bus was usually packed by Moratuwa. So I stood close to the footboard and slipped out when the bus stopped at the main bus stand.
One day, just before a long weekend, my strategy failed. The bus was completely full and the driver decided not to stop at Moratuwa. I could not admit that I wanted to get down there because I should not have been on that bus in the first place. The only excuse I could think of was to shout that I had a stomach ache. Fortunately, the driver stopped.
It is a funny memory now, but it explains something serious about public transport. Passengers constantly adjust their lives to a system designed around routes, permits, and operators rather than the full journey they need to make.
Real tests facing Metro
The launch on Tuesday (29 September) added 112 Metro buses to seven routes in the Western Province. The low-floor, air-conditioned buses, better accessibility, and fixed schedules are welcome. The renewed enforcement of bus priority lanes is also important. But new buses alone will not solve Colombo’s congestion.
The real test is whether Metro can persuade someone who now drives a car or takes a taxi to use public transport. If a passenger merely moves from an ordinary bus to a Metro bus, that passenger will travel more comfortably. But the number of vehicles on the road will not fall. Congestion declines only when people leave private vehicles at home and travel together.
The economics of a bus lane is simple. Road space is scarce, so it should be used to move the greatest number of people, not merely the greatest number of vehicles. A full bus can carry dozens of people in the road space used by a few cars. Giving buses priority makes sense only if the lane is properly enforced and buses actually move faster and reliably.
We have tried this before. Bus priority lanes were introduced in Colombo in 2017 and enforced again in 2020. The National Audit Office later found that the system on Parliament Road was no longer operating, even after money had been spent on roads, stops, signs, and consultancy.
This time, enforcement cannot be a ceremony that lasts a few weeks. Illegal parking, loading, and other vehicles blocking the lane must be dealt with every day. The lane should serve all eligible passenger buses, not Metro alone.
A commuter also judges a journey from door to door. The ticket price is only one part of the decision. Waiting time, reliability, the number of transfers, safety, walking distance, and the final kilometre all matter. A comfortable bus that may or may not arrive is less useful than a simpler bus that arrives every 10 minutes without fail.
Direction of Govt. focus
The Transport Minister is correct to focus on park-and-ride facilities. But buying expensive land near every urban stop would make little financial sense. Parking is most useful at outer terminals and interchange points, before cars enter the congested area. Existing public land can be used, while local authorities can register private parking operators and allow nearby businesses and landowners to offer space for a fee.
Parking cannot be the only answer. Many passengers should be able to reach Metro by feeder bus, three-wheeler, ride-hailing service, bicycle, or on foot. Metro should publish reliable timetable and live-location data so trip-planning and ride-hailing apps can connect the first and last part of the journey.
A passenger should be able to plan, book, and pay for the complete trip as easily as possible. The Government need not choose one favoured app. It should set common standards and allow different platforms to connect.
The same principle should guide the operating model. The Government does not have to buy and run every bus. It should set routes, frequencies, fares, safety rules, accessibility standards, and service quality. Private operators can then provide buses and crews under clear contracts and compete to meet those standards. They can be rewarded for punctuality, cleanliness, and kilometres operated, and penalised for cancelled trips, unsafe driving, and poor maintenance.
This is not far from the Government’s own plan. Lanka Metro Transit’s digital platform documents already propose dry lease and wet lease models for private participation. That is the right direction. It would bring in private capital, expand routes faster, and avoid placing the entire cost on taxpayers, while Metro protects a common service standard.
The permit rules must also be fair. The low-floor Metro model has 33 seats but capacity for about 80 passengers, so it is designed to carry standing passengers. Meanwhile, the current National Transport Commission (NTC) definitions for semi-luxury and luxury services allow only seated passengers.
Building a reliable network
Urban mass transit needs a separate, clear permit category open equally to State-owned and private operators. If Metro operates under such a category, private operators that meet the same safety and service standards should be able to use it too.
Public transport may still require some public funding because it reduces congestion and widens access to jobs and education. But any support should be transparent. Metro should publish route-level data on passenger numbers, punctuality, cancellations, operating costs, fare income, and the subsidy per passenger. Without those numbers, a popular new service can quietly become another financial burden.
Buying buses is the visible part of reform. Building a reliable network is harder. Metro will succeed when passengers no longer need tricks, excuses, or a sudden stomach ache to complete an ordinary journey. The best sign of a developed transport system is not that everyone can afford a car. It is that even people who can afford one choose to take public transport.
(The writer is the Chief Executive Officer of Advocata Institute. He can be contacted via dhananath@advocata.org)
(The opinions expressed are the writer’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute)