This argument shows a fundamental failure of understanding poverty and access to opportunities. Perhaps an outcome of seeing poverty alleviation through the lens of social protections/cash transfer programs.

Let me try and explain: https://twitter.com/MashwaniAzhar/status/1350754851295260673

I think all wld agree human dev = investment in health, education, & economic opportunities.

HIES data shows that low income quintiles spend the most on food, & do so by saving on transport & housing. I.e transport is a luxury good, richer a HH is, more they spend on transport

What's the implication?

Poverty has a KEY spatial dimension. If you are poor, you may not be able to reach the school and hospital you need. This is also why people live in katchi abadis or informal housing, if you can't afford to travel to jobs, you are out of luck.

That's why significant % of work trips happen on foot, & drivers & maids live in areas next to rich gated communities. If a job is further away, these HHs have to forego the opportunity.

In short, absolutely rubbish to say investing in cheap transport is NOT human development.

Things I'd like to know:

What is the potential for generating revenue for govt capturing land value gains that will occur becuz of the investment in orange train corridor. Also monetizing the stations.

Could a BRT corridor have been more suitable instead of the orange line?