[Urbanstudy] STEEL FLYOVER PROJECT: WHEN FLYOVER ISSUE’S BURNING, VISION GROUP’S FIDDLING

[Vinay Baindur]

http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/cover-story/Steel-flyover-project-When-flyover-issues-burning-vision-groups-fiddling/articleshow/54838980.cms



STEEL FLYOVER PROJECT: WHEN FLYOVER ISSUE’S BURNING, VISION GROUP’S FIDDLING
Bangalore Mirror Bureau | Oct 14, 2016, 04.00 AM IST
[image: Steel flyover project: When flyover issue’s burning, vision group’s
fiddling]
BENGALURU UPROOTED: The proposed Rs 1,761-crore flyover to cover a distance
of 6.72 km will connect Chalukya Circle and Hebbal

*By: Kushala Satyanarayana*


*Questions are being raised over the state government’s steel flyover plan
to Hebbal. But the city has just one poser for its ‘silent’ icons, NR
Narayana Murthy and Azim Premji...*


They say when Rome was burning, Nero was fiddling. And when Bengaluru’s
burning issue – the proposed Rs 1,761 crore steel flyover project over a
distance of 6.72 Km from Basaveshwara Circle (Chalukya Circle) to Hebbal –
is reaching a crescendo, the main honchos of Bengaluru Vision Group (BVG) –
NR Narayana Murthy of Infosys and Azim Premji of Wipro – are mute. The two
big IT giants, and also the forces to reckon with, are nowhere in sight –
in action or in words. And neither are prominent, old-time Bengalureans,
nor are industry magnates who spearheaded the city’s growth.


An open letter, addressed to all BVG members, by the citizens’ group
crusading for #SteelFlyoverBeda, seeking their stand, has received cold
responses so far.
And another prominent BVG member Kiran Mazumdar Shaw’s reply to the letter
that “(the) steel flyover has not been a subject of discussion at BVG’’
brings us to raise pertinent questions: Why at all have a vision group when
its members do not deliberate? Or why have a vision group when members are
not consulted? Or even, why should those disinterested be a part of the
vision group at all?


The BVG, headed by chief minister Siddaramaiah, was constituted with a
purpose. Reads the April 28, 2016-dated government order about the
objectives of BVG: “...to improve life of Bengalureans by ushering in
reforms in infrastructure and systems, resource mobilization, transparent
governance, especially e-governance solutions, and increased participation
of citizens, organisations and industry members.’’


Today, where do the members stand on this issue? A majority of the group
representatives are either mum, non-committal, or a few vocal, against the
project, and are somewhat like fence-sitters.


The question on everyone’s mind is obvious – as a vision group member, if
you have nothing to offer to the city, then why be in the group? Or if the
government’s purpose of this group is only an optical illusion – for the
record, only one meeting was held after the group was constituted – then
disband the group.


“If members have signed up for the vision group, then you are duty bound to
address the key issues of the city; and the steel flyover is one such key
issue. How can you say you are a part of BVG and not have a view on the
subject? In that case, quit the BVG. Looks like the group is almost dead,’’
points out a close observer from the citizens’ group battling against the
proposed steel flyover.


BVG members like NR Narayana Murthy, Azim Premji, Sachin Bansal, NS
Ramakanth and Vivek Menon did not reply to the mail sent out by Bangalore
Mirror seeking their comments on this issue till this paper went to press;
while Ramesh and Swati Ramanathan, and Kalpana Kar are all travelling.




















*QUESTIONS TO VISION GROUPWhat the citizens wanted the BVG group members to
answer(Questions posed by Prakash Belawadi, Bimal Desai, Dr Sumitra
Iyengar, Anand Varadaraj et al)* As Vision Group members, you are perceived
as custodians and trustees of citizens’ interests – now and in the future.
We trust and presume that you have applied your mind on the proposed steel
flyover and have assessed the pros and cons of going ahead with it. We look
to your opinion on the proposed steel flyover project. In keeping with your
reputation and professionalism, would you classify the process and data
analysis followed as the gold standard for evidence-based decision making?
It is your vision that will help shape this city for our future generations
and we look up to you for leadership in this matter.* Is this steel flyover
the answer? Is it part of a larger mobility plan? And what are the contours
of the larger mobility plan?* Did you all, severally or individually,
discuss and approve this plan?* Have you considered alternative ideas like
Namma Railu, more buses, dedicated bus lanes, alternative alignments,
alternative roads towards the airport, Peripheral Ring Road, surgical fixes
of bottlenecks like Cauvery Junction, etc? Why is the steel flyover along
this alignment the chosen solution?* Was due diligence and process followed
by the government in this matter?* This steel flyover proposes to chop down
812 trees in its path, shrink public spaces, and erase heritage memories.
Has the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) been made with due
public hearings?*



*WHAT OTHER BVG MEMBERS SAID*


*Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw: The steel flyover has not been a subject of
discussion at the Vision Group. In fact, those of us who are privy to this
proposal have objected to the proposed alignment and have asked for
alternatives. We had suggested that if the sole aim is to get to KIAL from
the city, there are other options that would spare heritage sites and
felling of trees. We were assured that the bureaucrats would evaluate such
options but nothing has happened so far. We are opposed to the present
construct and we are with you and other citizens on this matter. RK Mishra
has even proposed an alternate route via Jayamahal Palace Road.(This was
her reply given to the open letter by the citizens’ group)*





*V Ravichandar: In my personal capacity I have reservations about the steel
flyover project and voiced them in public and to concerned government
officials when my opinion have been sought. As far as the Vision group is
concerned, this has not been on the formal agenda of the proceedings in the
meeting held thus far. There is a trust deficit between citizens and
government. Citizens will get cynical if a vision group is set up with
fanfare and then nothing happens. Some may see it as a smoke screen of
implied approval for government projects and a convenient proxy for
consultation process that is actually needed with the citizenry at large.
The onus is on government should they choose to set up vision groups to
utilise its services appropriately, transparently and act on the
suggestions wherever feasible. Vision group members have a trusteeship
responsibility when they accept serving on the platform.They need to be
sensitive to citizen concerns, find the time and engage with government to
provide meaningful, relevant inputs that make the city better. With vision
group membership comes responsibility.(As told to Bangalore Mirror)*



*Siddaiah: It is a cabinet decision and they would have taken technical
inputs and feasibility report into consideration. How do we say that
government has taken a decision blindly? I am a part of the BBMP
restructuring committee and by the virtue of that, I have been made a part
of the vision group.(As told to Bangalore Mirror)*


*Mohandas Pai: As far as I know this is a project of the BDA and the
government. As far as I know, from the minutes, this was not a subject
matter which was discussed. I could not attend meetings since I was
travelling… I am of the opinion that many concerns are valid and need
consideration of the BDA, especially on its utility and its expense. Vision
group has a limited mandate – to advise the government on objectives. It
does not approve projects, nor has executive responsibility. Its scope is
limited. From our understanding, the government too is not bound by its
advice and considers it one of the many inputs it seeks.*



*K Jairaj: The matter hasn’t come up before BVG. But as a concerned
Bengalurean and as a former BBMP commissioner, I want to know the value and
utility of the flyover. Does it really alleviate congestion? I have read
media reports that it deposits congestion from one point to the other. I
would like to see some answers to these questions. Cost is another factor –
there is a need to do some cost proofing carefully. It is advisable for the
government to have a full length discussion though I don’t doubt the
sincerity.”(As told to Bangalore Mirror)*


*RK Misra: A few members of BVG (myself and Kiran Mazumdar Shaw included)
attended a review meeting by city minister KJ George to discuss this
project a few months ago. We disagreed with the proposed alignment and had
suggested an alternative. We were promised that this alternative will be
considered by BDA and they will get back to us. That meeting is still
awaited. I also believe no permanent solution to congested roads can be
found without a mass rapid transport like Metro.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mail.sarai.net/pipermail/urbanstudygroup_mail.sarai.net/attachments/20161016/90b429e1/attachment-0001.html>