Introduction

The Mumbai Metro Line 1 – connecting Versova, Andheri and Ghatkopar – was India’s first urban rail project delivered via a Public-Private Partnership (PPP). A PPP is a collaborative arrangement between the public sector and private entities used as a method of procuring and delivering infrastructure and services. In developing economies, PPPs are particularly advantageous as they bring in essential private sector expertise, knowledge and efficiency. However, they tend to be more susceptible to failure due to inefficient risk management, poor stakeholder coordination and exposure to political and economic volatility.

The project was conceptualised under a Design, Build, Finance, Operate, and Transfer (DBFOT) model with a 35-year concession period (5 years’ construction and 30 year’s operation), during which the private party would recover its cost through farebox revenue and limited viability-gap funding. A Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), Mumbai Metro One Private Limited (MMOPL) was established as a joint venture between Reliance Infrastructure and the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), holding 74% and 26% equity respectively. The project was implemented as a fully bundled PPP model, transferring responsibility for design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance entirely to the SPV.

However, despite successfully cutting travel times across Mumbai’s east–west corridor, the project soon faced serious financial and operational challenges. Over-optimistic ridership forecasts, cost overruns, revenue disputes, and other hurdles turned Mumbai Metro One into a cautionary tale. For private equity and infrastructure investors, the line’s rocky journey offers valuable lessons on risk allocation, revenue modelling, and stakeholder alignment in emerging market infrastructure deals.

The Investment Case That Looked Right - on Paper

From an investor perspective, the fundamentals appeared attractive:

• Strong latent demand in one of the world’s most congested cities
• Significant travel-time savings (over 50 minutes per journey)
• A long concession horizon aligned with infrastructure-style capital
• A farebox-led revenue model supported by demand forecasts exceeding 500,000 daily riders

In practice, the project exposed how forecast-driven equity stories collapse when regulatory control, political constraints, and institutional capacity are underestimated.

Where Returns Broke Down

Demand Overestimation and Revenue Shortfall

Once operations began, ridership levels failed to meet the rosy projections that underpinned the project’s financial model. Planners had forecast over 500,000 daily passengers by 2016, but in reality daily ridership reached only around 300,000 – roughly 60% of the estimate. This shortfall immediately strained revenues, as farebox income fell far below what was needed to service debt and provide returns. Various factors contributed to the overestimation, from optimistic traffic models to limited consideration of competing transport options and last-mile connectivity issues. For investors, this was a stark reminder of demand risk: over-optimistic usage forecasts can quickly undermine an infrastructure project’s finances.

Over-Reliance on Farebox Revenue

The Line 1 concession’s revenue model depended overwhelmingly on passenger fares, with minimal diversification into other streams. Non-fare sources – such as station retail, advertising, and real estate development around stations – were negligible. With the metro’s fortunes tied almost entirely to ticket sales, there was virtually no buffer when ridership fell short.

Unlike some other metro projects worldwide, Mumbai’s PPP did not effectively leverage land value capture or other ancillary revenue opportunities along the corridor. In other words, the project had placed all its eggs in the farebox basket – a fragile position. A more balanced revenue mix could have provided much-needed resilience.

Regulatory Hurdles and Fare Disputes

While the concession agreement allowed fare increases to maintain viability, raising fares on an urban metro proved politically sensitive and legally fraught. Soon after launch, the operator tried to hike ticket prices beyond the initial ₹10–40 range, sparking a showdown with state authorities. Concerned about public backlash, the government resisted any significant fare increase, resulting in a protracted standoff and legal arbitration over fare setting.

This uncertainty kept fare levels frozen for years even as operating costs mounted, worsening the financial crunch. The saga underscored the institutional risk in such projects: unclear regulatory frameworks and political interference can derail a PPP’s economics. Investors must account for these possibilities by securing robust contract provisions for tariff adjustment and dispute resolution, to prevent stalemates that jeopardize viability.

Cost Overruns and Imbalanced Risk Allocation

The project’s troubles were not limited to revenue. Mumbai Metro Line 1 also suffered major cost overruns and delays during construction. The metro was originally budgeted at ₹2,356 crore, but ultimately cost around ₹4,321 crore – an increase of about 83% over the initial estimate. The line opened over three years behind schedule, missing the original December 2010 target and launching in June 2014. Multiple factors drove this blowout – from shifting utility lines and design changes, to slow land acquisition and macroeconomic pressures like inflation and rupee depreciation.

Crucially, the fully bundled contract left the private consortium bearing the brunt of these delays and cost escalations. Many issues were outside the private developer’s direct control, yet the concession placed those risks largely on their shoulders. As a result, the project’s finances came under severe strain. The operator eventually filed claims seeking compensation for the cost overruns and losses, and years of disputes led to arbitration. In 2023, a tribunal awarded the company hundreds of crores in damages, and by 2025 the courts directed the government (MMRDA) to pay out a substantial sum.

For investors, this outcome highlights the need for balanced risk allocation in PPP contracts. Expecting the private sector to shoulder all construction, land acquisition, and macroeconomic risks is a recipe for distress. Future deals should include provisions to share or mitigate uncontrollable risks – for example, the government taking responsibility for land acquisition or granting concession extensions/compensation for major delays – so that one party is not solely liable for every setback. Risks that cannot be priced or hedged should not be fully transferred.

Missed Opportunities: Positive Externalities in Public Goods

Transport economic theory suggests that infrastructure development creates a multiplier effect for economic activity by improving connectivity, reducing congestion and increasing productivity. A study which evaluates the impact of Transit Orientated Development (TOD) of the DN Nagar Station along the Metro Line 1, concluded that if the planned Floor Space Index (FSI) increases from 1 to 4 within a 500m radius, then employment will increase by nine times the existing whilst also doubling the population by 2036 (Shirke, Joshi, Kandala, Arkatkar. 2016). This is due to the accessibility of the area, agglomeration of economies, and increase in land value appreciation – demonstrating the multiplier effect resulting from the metro. In addition to this, a Hedonic Price Model (HPM) calculated the amount of land value uplift as a result of the Mumbai Metro Line 1 and showed a windfall gain of 14% in the properties located within 1km-2km from metro stations (Sharma, Newman. 2018).

However, these positive externalities were unable to be charged for by the private operator as they were neither reflected in the project’s financial structure nor incorporated into its pricing mechanisms. Although the metro, as a quasi-public good, generated social benefits such as improved air quality and reduced congestion, these were undermined by low ridership levels at 60% and poor last-mile connectivity caused by weak integration with other modes of transport. As a result, the financial model became overly reliant on farebox revenue, missing opportunities for alternative funding and value capture.

Key Takeaways: What This Means for Infrastructure Investors

Mumbai Metro Line 1 illustrates that PPP failure is rarely about the asset — it is about contract design, governance, and incentive alignment.

Key takeaways for investors include:

1. Price Institutional Risk Explicitly
   When investing in large infrastructure projects, factor in the risk of political and regulatory hurdles. Build in contractual safeguards and contingency margins for delays in approvals, policy shifts, or government inaction.
2. Avoid Fully Bundled Risk Transfer
   Long-dated concessions require flexibility. Periodic reallocation of risk across the lifecycle is preferable to rigid, front-loaded transfer.
3. Diversify Revenue Streams Beyond Farebox
   In dense emerging cities, value creation occurs beyond ticket revenue. Investors should insist on embedded land value capture or TOD participation. A broader income base provides a cushion if primary ridership or usage revenues fall short of projections.
4. Align Public-Private Incentives
   Structure partnerships so that both the government and the private operator have skin in the game and mutual benefits in the project’s success. For example, include revenue-sharing or co-investment arrangements that motivate the public authority to support measures (such as fare adjustments or better integration with other transport modes) that boost viability. When both sides share upside and downside, they are more likely to collaborate to keep the project on track. Contracts should reward integration, efficiency, and long-term optimisation — not just construction delivery.

Closing Thoughts

Mumbai Metro Line 1 did not fail as a transport system — it failed as a financial structure.
For private equity and infrastructure investors seeking exposure to emerging-market growth, the lesson is clear: returns are determined less by demand density than by governance density.

Future PPPs that recognise this — by sharing uncontrollable risks, diversifying revenue streams, and aligning incentives across stakeholders — can still offer attractive, resilient returns. Those that do not risk becoming stranded assets with strong social outcomes but weak investor economics.

Bibliography

Almeile, A. M. et al. (2022) ‘Project-focussed literature on public-private partnership (PPP) in developing countries: a critical review’, Production Planning & Control, 35(7), pp. 683–710. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2022.2123408. [Accessed 4 November 2025].

Bhat, S. (2019) ‘Public Private Partnership in India Sectoral Analysis.’ Available at: https://ceerapub.nls.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NLSIU-Book-Series-5-Public-Private-Partnership-in-India.pdf

Business Standard (2025) ‘MMRDA deposits Rs 560 cr in Metro arbitration case with Reliance Infra’ Available at: https://www.business-standard.com/companies/news/mmrda-deposits-rs-560-cr-in-arbitration-row-with-reliance-infra-arm-125072901027_1.html

Garg, S. and Garg, S. (2017) ‘Rethinking Public-Private Partnerships: An Unbundling Approach’, Transportation Research Procedia, 25, pp. 3789–3807. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.241

McIntosh, J., Trubka, R. and Newman, P. (2014) ‘Can value capture work in a car-dependent city? Willingness to pay for transit access in Perth, Western Australia’, Transport Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 67, pp. 320-339. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.07.008.

Naveen, C.G., Devkar, G. and Shah, R. (2019) ‘Analyzing Risk Allocation of PPP Metro Rail Projects in India.’ Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333618453_Analyzing_Risk_Allocation_of_PPP_Metro_Rail_Projects_in_India [Accessed 5 November 2025].

Pithale, R.K. (2025) ‘The Economics of Public Transport in Mumbai: A Critical Analysis of Inefficiencies and Policy Failures’. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 7(1), pp. 1–10. Available at: https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/1/37881.pdf [Accessed 4 November 2025].

Sharma, R. and Newman, P. (2018) ‘Can land value capture make PPPs competitive in fares? A Mumbai case study’, Transport Policy, 64, pp. 123–131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.02.002.

Sharma, R. and Newman, P. (2018) ‘Does urban rail increase land value in emerging cities? Value uplift from Bangalore Metro’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 117, pp. 70–86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.020

Shirke, C., Joshi, G.J., Kandala, V. and Arkatkar, S. (2017) ‘Transit Oriented Development and Its Impact on Level of Service of Roads & METRO: A Case Study of Mumbai Metro Line-I’, Transportation Research Procedia, 25, pp. 3035–3054. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.297

Stiglitz, J.E. (1989) ‘Markets, Market Failures, and Development’, American Economic Review, 79(2), pp. 197–203. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1827756