After Basavanagudi underpass crisis, BBMP tech committee strikes out

Differences over the proposed Tagore circle underpass has led to the BBMP’s technical advisory committee to take matters into its own hands. The body will now oversee approval for all major road projects in Bengaluru.

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the BBMP will soon begin to decide and approve all major road projects in Bengaluru’s limits. This is confirmed by the Technical Advisor to the BBMP Commissioner and Member of TAC, H Raja Simha. So far, the TAC was approving grade separator and road widening works for the BBMP along the 12-arterial corridors (major roads going out of the city) only. For grade separator projects outside the corridors, TAC was not involved. But now, Simha says a decision has been taken for all such projects to be sent to TAC for approval. Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Praveen Sood, also a member of TAC, confirms this.

Scene at the Tagore Circle underpass. Pic: Supreet S, Nikhil B N.

This move comes in the light of the controversy surrounding the Tagore circle underpass in Basavanagudi. This proposed underpass has kicked up a storm as citizens, politicians and some traffic experts in the city question the reason for constructing the underpass. Most of the resentment is centred around the opinion that traffic at the intersection may not warrant an underpass at all.

The project was approved in 2006 but work started only very recently and ran into citizen resentment. “The Commissioner referred the problem to us after all the hue and cry”, says Dr B R Srinivasa Murthy, Former Professor at the Indian Institute of Science and Acting Chairperson of TAC. At the time of approving this project (in 2006), TAC was not formed. Murthy says that the TAC members visited the project site on Tuesday (November 3rd 2009) and spent around two hours there. “We then arrived at what should be done. It is not prudent to close it now”, he says.

Experts quarrel over BBMP commissioned traffic estimates

Underpasses are a type of grade separator like flyovers and are built when traffic flow reaches a certain level. Simha says that according to the study by Stup Consultants (who were assigned to carry out the study), the peak load at Tagore circle in the morning is 10,645 pcu (Passenger Car Unit) per hour and therefore the underpass is justified. Traffic expert and member of Agenda of Bengaluru Infrastructure Development (ABIDe) Task Force, Professor M N Sreehari rubbishes these numbers. “If it is 10,000 vehicles per hour, that’s about 300 vehicles per minute. How is that possible? They are just trying to fool somebody. We want to know how they got these numbers. Why should they cheat people like this?”, he asks. (10,000 pcus per hour translates to 166 pcus per minute.)

Sreehari says the current traffic flow at Tagore circle is around 4750 pcus/hour and therefore does not require an underpass. On asked how he arrived at the figure, he says, “Generally we calculate through random surveys”. He alleges that consultants would project the numbers wanted by the client, in this case the BBMP.

TAC claims to use general transportation guidelines for its decision making. Pcus (passenger car units) per hour as well as turning movements are studied.

Upto 3000 pcu/hour – nothing is needed at a junction

Over 3000 pcu/hour – a rotary is needed (circle). A circle allows traffic movement through a junction by space sharing at the circle.  

Over 5000 pcu/hour – a signal is needed. Signal allows the junction to be time-shared between the different directions of traffic.

Over 10,000 pcu/hour – grade separators of some kind or other are needed. Grade separators are underpasses, flyovers, etc.

• 10,000-12000 pcu/hour can still be handled by managing the signal and directions differently. For e.g. by converting two-way to one-way or by blocking right turns at the signal, an intersection can be used to handle higher traffic volume until 12,000 pcu/hour.

Source: Praveen Sood, Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic).

Sood says that TAC uses general transportation guidelines used around the world for decision making. “Both pcus per hour in the master directions of traffic as well as turning movements are studied”, he says, adding that these guidelines say that for about 10,000 pcus/hour, a grade separator of some kind is required at a junction. Sreehari agrees that a grade separator is required for pcu above 10,000 as per Indian Roads Congress (IRC) guidelines. And if the 10,000 pcu as per the BBMP is a projected figure, five to ten years from now, Sreehari says that the project should be executed then. “Why build it now? Don’t waste public money”. Simha of TAC was unsure if the BBMP’s figures were projected. “They must be for future. I’m not sure”.

Sreehari also argues that there are other junctions in the city which have worse traffic and would require an underpass. He cites examples of South End Circle, Minerva Circle and Peenya junction. On questioning Simha on this, he says, “There could be. No, I won’t be able to name them”.

Murthy argues that it is not just about pcus. “This underpass will provide a link to K R Road, Banashankari, Mysore Road and so on”.

Citizen Matters was unable to reach officials at Stup Consultants to confirm the numbers mentioned in their study.

Other problems with the Tagore Circle underpass

BBMP’s TAC has found issues with the way the underpass is being built. Murthy explains that one key problem is that BBMP has not acquired land for the slip road. A slip road is the road on either side of the underpass, on ground level. He says the entire width of the road should be 33m but is currently around 27m to 28m. He also says that there should be space for footpath of 2m on either side, 0.5m for storm water drain, and 0.5m for the crash barrier. The people traveling on the slip road should be able to take a left or a right turn at the junction, he says. “Right now the slip road is small. For this they should acquire land. So the blunder committed by the BBMP is they haven’t acquired land”.


So what will happen to the Tagore circle underpass? Simha remains non-committal as he says, “I have some new plans. We need to get clearance from the Commissioner. I can’t comment till then. We want to do a holistic review. I’m suggesting some modifications to the Commissioner. We want to improve it”.

He added that TAC agrees that by the new pre-cast element magic-box technology, the cost of the underpass could have been lower than Rs 19 crores. “It may come to Rs.10 crores or so by this method”, he says, but was not categorical. (Rough calculation: add the cost of the pre-cast 7.5 m magic box elements with junction treatment costs to arrive at an alternate total.)

Murthy, on the other hand, says that the committee has laid down conditions for implementation (for similar projects it oversees on the arterial corridors). This should include land acquisition, slip road, and footpath and that the project should be completed in six months time, he says. An agitated Sreehari says that the public will take the matter to court. “It’s a tranquil area. Why do you want to spoil it?”, he asks.

What is the Technical Advisory Committee?

BBMP’s TAC was set up in 2007 after an order by the Karnataka High Court to set up a committee to look into road construction projects of the BBMP, says Murthy. He says that initially there were three members, himself, B P Nithyananda and Prof C E G Justo.

The committee today has Murthy as the Acting Chairperson, BBMP Executive Engineer B L Narasarama Rao is the Convenor, and members include H Raja Simha (Technical Advisor to Commissioner), B P Nithyananda, Chief Engineer with the Government of Karnataka, B L Balakrishna, Capt S Raja Rao, Retired Chief Engineer, ACP of Traffic Praveen Sood, Shivashankara Rao, Retired Chief Engineer, A K Gopalaswamy, BBMP’s Engineer-in-Chief and Prof C E G Justo, a traffic expert and professor with Bangalore University.

Earth moving equipment lined up for work near the closed road. Pic: Supreet S, Nikhil B N.

Simha says the committee meets once a fortnight to approve projects on the 12 arterial roads, to convert them into signal-free corridors. For these projects, the BBMP’s Engineering Department prepared the designs and sent it to TAC for approval, says T N Chikkarayappa, Chief Engineer (Major Roads).

Simha explains that TAC comes in at the planning stages when they review the project, discuss it and take a decision. If they approve it, it then goes into the engineering department of the BBMP for tendering and execution. As part of their work TAC commissions traffic studies based on which decisions are made. If underpasses are not technically feasible, they will consider doing overpasses.

This is an evolution of TAC’s powers with the BBMP itself, since this wasn’t how the TAC had originally been functioning. Earlier, it appears TAC was an optional part of the process. Murthy says, “If BBMP and its administration wants advice or wants to consult us, we’ll suggest a sequence of operations. Detailed Project Reports (DPR) will be prepared by the consultants”. He goes on add that in the case of the magic-box underpasses by S Subramanya (Former BBMP Commissioner), he did not consult the TAC. “They can consult us if they want to”.

In the 12 arterial corridors of the city, “around 225 junctions are proposed to have underpasses”, says Simha indicating the number of candidate intersections under consideration. Of these, 80 junctions have been actually been approved by TAC for grade separator projects. 80 (DPR) have been prepared, all with the approval of TAC. TAC members Simha and Sood, as well as BBMP Chief Engineer Chikkarayappa confirm this to Citizen Matters.

If the TAC, as one central technical body within the BBMP is made responsible for all such project approvals, as opposed to the way it was earlier, accountability on decision making could become easier to track.

Even so as TAC proceeds forward with its revised approach for new projects around the city, controversy is inevitable for older projects being implemented now. At Tagore Circle, citizens and traders of Basavangudi are holding a protest at the underpass on November 7th 2009. Citizens are clearly sending a strong signal that they do not want the underpass.  


  1. Pramod Naik says:

    Great article by CM! Shows how the city is run by a bunch of dunces and clowns with fancy titles and committees. How do we get rid of this mass of incompetent and less-than-mediocre debris?

  2. Vinay Sreenivasa says:

    The composition of the TAC shows only tech guys – no urban planners! i wonder if these giys ever think of how pedestriabs, cyclists are affected by these underpasses/overpasses/magic boxes etc. in our city roads are designed without keeping in mind the people who use it, only cars are kept in mind.

    good stuff, uncovering the TAC and their deliberations! thanks.

  3. BN Gundu Rao says:

    It is true that Tagore circle junction is facing traffic problems with the addition of two,three, four wheelers in addition to the city transport buses over the past 2-3 years. Crossing the roads is almost difficult and one has to wait cautiously for 3-4 minutes.The traffic is not much from the BP Wadia road towards Gandhibazaar main road, but it is heavy on the KR road in both directions.The traffic from Gandhibazaar main road towards KR Road is considerable. The pedestrians are at risk in crossing the roads. Fuether, the traffic situation in the coming years in this place is bound to worsen within a year from now. Now that the work has started since 5 days and digging is taking place, the only alternative would be to implement completion within a year from now,taking care of the easy crossing the roads in this place. Proper thinking to solve the problem is welcome

  4. Srikanth Parthasarathy says:

    Very good article. And very good information on the TAC and its decision making. Good that we now know who is doing such things. However, now that they have already started, I just hope that they do not create problems for the transport system at the Tagore circle junction. It is very good now and let them not make it worse by unnecessary underpass and construction work. While we are thinking of better solutions for infrastructural problems, these guys are creating problematic solutions.

  5. Vaishnavi Vittal says:

    Citizen Matters contacted Prof C E G Justo, a traffic expert and professor at Bangalore University, also a member of TAC. Here are excerpts from his e-mail interview:

    The ‘Underpass project at Tagore circle’ was not seen by TAC earlier. However on October 30th 2009, the Commissioner – BBMP requested the TAC to visit the project site and report after examining the details. There after the Chairman TAC called for DPR and the working drawings pertaining to the project. The DPR was prepared by the Consultants in the year 2006 and the traffic data presented in the report are based on the prior studies. Some deficiencies were observed in the DPR. The working drawings have been prepared recently by the Consultants of the Contractors and one of the major deficiencies (of 6.0 m width of carriageway at the underpass along the arterial road) has been upgraded to the standard width of 7.5 m However no further traffic study was conducted by the Consultants before starting the work at the site in October 2009..

    The TAC members inspected the site along with the Engineers of BBMP, the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) and the representatives of the Contractors and the Supervision Consultants on November 3rd 2006 and examined various issues. As the construction work had already started and traffic diversions were also implemented, keeping in view the present situation, the TAC gave some suggestions for improvement (such as up-grading the widths of the foot paths and slip roads to minimum acceptable levels). Also a brief Report of the TAC was sent to the Commissioner- BBMP.

  6. Vaishnavi Vittal says:


    The Commissioner, the Engineer-in-Chief, the Chief Engineers and the Technical Advisor of BBMP may refer any of the issues connected with city roads, the up-gradation of road corridor or intersections including introduction of new grade separators (flyover & underpasses) to the TAC. Generally the Feasibility Study Reports and Detailed Project Reports prepared by the Consultants are presented to the TAC. The TAC examines the presentation made by the Consultants and the study report. Discussions are held if any deficiency is noticed by the TAC members in any of the aspects (such as the field studies, quantum of data, quality of data, analysis of data, interpretation and recommendation of Consultants. Based on the decision / consensus of the TAC, the Consultants are advised to fulfil the deficiencies by carrying out further studies / analysis and also to make another presentation if found necessary.

    One of the Commissioners of BBMP had suggested that any road project costing more than Rs.2 crores should be referred to the TAC. Several on-going road projects / works and grade separators including those which are funded by JNNRUM have not been referred to or examined by the TAC, probably because these works were approved earlier / prior to the formation of the TAC. The underpasses that were constructed during the last two years using pre-cast RCC elements (so called “Magic Boxes”) were also not referred to the TAC, probably because the cost of each individual underpass was less than Rs. 2.0 crores.

    All professionals dealing with roads and road bridges in India are expected to follow the relevant Specifications, Standards and Guidelines of the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) and also the Specifications of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways published by the IRC. The suggestions that are being made from time to time by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of BBMP are also based on these Specifications, Standards and Guidelines

  7. Palahalli Vishwanath says:

    I had written a letter to DH about the Tagore circle problem recently and it was published. One of the points i was trying to make was that the obsession of some traffic planners about the so called “obstructionless” traffic has to be gotten rid of. That obsession could be alright in the case of a ring road but it does not make sense in the part of the city which is dominated by pedestrians. This obsession stems from the fact that one has no patience . Lack of patience in these matters is symptomatic of a small town mentality. In big cities we have to learn to wait. This same lack of patience is seen when two wheelers do not want to wait in the regular traffic and go on to footpaths causing danger to pedestrians.
    Dense parts of the city have to learn to live with more traffic lights. It is also another matter that pedestrians feel safer when there are traffic lights.
    I would also like to point out that Basavangudi residents had heard of this scheme (uderpass at Tagore circle + flyover near ashram etc) 2-3 years ago. I rememer writing a letter to the newspaper pointing out that it was not needed. Sorry to say that letter was not published at all !

  8. Syed Tanveeruddin says:

    Director of Grievance, MoUD’s acknowledged my petitions on Tagore Circle underpass

    Re: Petition against Tagore Circle underpass, Bangalore to the MoUD

    Friday, 20 November, 2009 10:47 AM

    From: Director Grievance Urban Development

    To: Syed Tanveeruddin

    Dear Sir,

    This is to acknowledge your mail.

    A copy of the mail has been retained in the Public Grievance Cell.

    Kindly note that further correspondence on this petition from public grievance side will be made only by post due to logistic reasons.

    Yours faithfully,

    Director of Grievance
    Ministry of Urban Development MoUD

    On Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Syed Tanveeruddin wrote (only a condensed version’s been reproduced here):

  9. Pramod Naik says:

    So what is the status of the underpass now? Are we passing on the underpass?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Similar Story

Alternative to Bengaluru’s tunnel roads: Improve public transport, enhance mobility, complete projects

Instead of expensive tunnel roads, Bengaluru needs better mobility, metro, suburban rail and buses. Sustainable mobility is the way forward.

Part 1 of this series looked at the cost, risks and challenges of tunnel roads. Part 2 will focus on the alternatives to tunnel roads, and how they can be implemented.  Improve traffic flow: BMTC, Namma Metro and Suburban Rail Metro to Airport:  Namma Metro is extending its Blue Line to Kempegowda International Airport (KIAL) as part of Phase-2B. This metro line, connecting Kasturinagar to KIAL, is expected to be operational by June 2026. Once completed, it will significantly reduce traffic on the road to the airport. Namma Metro Blue Line to Kempegowda International Airport (KIAL). Graphic: Rajkumar Dugar Suburban…

Similar Story

Tunnel roads will not fix Bengaluru’s traffic problem: Here’s why

The tunnel road planned between Hebbal Flyover and Mekhri Circle will cause disruptions and encourage the use of private vehicles.

In October 2023, Deputy Chief Minister/Bengaluru Development Minister, DK Shivakumar, had announced a 190 kilometre-tunnel road as a solution to ease Bengaluru traffic. In May 2024, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) announced its initial phase plan to construct an 18 kilometre-tunnel road connecting Hebbal and Central Silk Board. This road will include five entry and exit points for vehicles. A tunnel road is an underground passageway for vehicles to travel through. It provides a direct route through an obstacle, such as a mountain or body of water, which would be otherwise impractical or impossible to traverse through by vehicle.…