Why the Court stopped BDA’s work

Though the CM and BDA agreed to stop the work, they started again in January. Residents decided to take it to court.

BDA can no longer work on the five grade separator projects planned in Koramangala. On February 27th, High Court ordered a stay based on a PIL filed by Koramangala residents.

Pic: Deepthi M S

Residents had been in discussions with BDA for over six months to re-consider flyover and underpass projects at Koramangala water tank, Krupanidhi college, 80-feet road – Sarjapur road intersection and Jakkasandra junctions. These works alone cost Rs 120 cr. This is part of the larger signal-free corridor project from Agara to Sirsi Circle, planned by BBMP in 2009. The project is implemented by BDA.

Residents had filed the PIL as BDA was responding to their objections. Though BDA stopped works after discussions, it restarted works soon after, discreetly.

In a meeting in December, Chief Minister told residents and BDA that the project will be stopped until a detailed review is done. But in January, work started again and had to be stopped by residents.

Residents’ objections to the project

  • The project had no proper traffic study and feasibility study.
  • Disrupt local traffic and ruin Koramangala’s residential character.
  • No Environment Impact Assessment clearance for cutting 88 trees for the four junction works.
  • No planning for pedestrian, non-motorised traffic.

In the petition, residents have not demanded termination of the project, but have said that detailed studies should be done and alternatives considered.

Vijayan Menon, one of the petitioners, says, "We are using this case to highlight problems in all infrastructure projects in the city. Residents should be consulted and information disclosed for every project."

In the PIL, petitioners point out that BDA had not completed feasibility study for the project even six months after tenders were invited and awarded in June. Also, work was started without completing the DPR (Detailed Project Report) for 16 other junctions in the corridor. The DPRs were prepared only for the Koramangala junctions, and is still being prepared for other junctions. BDA’s reason for starting works was that land acquisition would be minimal in Koramangala. However, residents allege that these works have been started in a hurry to benefit builders of upcoming projects in Sarjapur.

Another major aspect of the PIL is the varied data in different traffic studies. Due to residents’ protest, BDA had done a second traffic study in November 2011, whose numbers varied highly from its initial October 2010 study.

Who are the petitioners
Civil society group CAF (Citizens Action Forum), RWAs of Koramangala 1st and 3rd block, Kuvempu Nagara and Visvesvaraya Nagara, and three individual residents of Koramangala. Case is against BBMP, BDA and traffic police.

Take the case of Krupanidhi College junction. Here BDA’s old figures had shown that the 7.5 m underpass would carry 64% of the traffic, and that the 5.5 m slip road towards Madiwala will carry 36% of traffic. These numbers are almost reversed now, with only 35% vehicles going towards underpass direction and 65% vehicles going in slip road direction to Madiwala.

PIL also says that congestion on Sarjapur road is caused mainly by vehicles coming from Hosur road and IRR; and that if these roads are improved, the new project would not be required.

There are also concerns that the while the corridor will bring arterial road connectivity, it will affect local traffic. Slip roads planned for the grade separators are too narrow and will cause congestion of vehicles that are moving around in Koramangala, petitioners say. Hence they demand elevated corridor instead of grade separators, as elevated corridors consume lesser space and do not affect on-ground traffic. Congestion will affect the residential character of Koramangala, they say. BDA had earlier rejected the elevated corridor plan, citing paucity of funds, but CM had agreed to consider it.

A BDA engineer in charge of the project has confirmed that the project has been suspended. "Since the stay is on the entire corridor, we are not working on the DPR for the other junctions also," he says. Next hearing of the case is on March 20th.

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

Effective speed management critical in India to reduce road crash fatalities

Speeding accounts for over 71% of crash-related fatalities on Indian roads. Continuous monitoring and focussed action are a must.

Four hundred and twenty people continue to lose their lives on Indian roads every single day. In 2022, India recorded 4.43 lakh road crashes, resulting in the death of 1.63 lakh people. Vulnerable road-users like pedestrians, bicyclists and two-wheelers riders comprised 67% of the deceased. Road crashes also pose an economic burden, costing the exchequer 3.14% of India’s GDP annually.  These figures underscore the urgent need for effective interventions, aligned with global good practices. Sweden's Vision Zero road safety policy, adopted in 1997, focussed on modifying infrastructure to protect road users from unacceptable levels of risk and led to a…

Similar Story

Many roadblocks to getting a PUC certificate for your vehicle

Under new rule, vehicles owners have to pay heavy fines if they fail to get a pollution test done. But, the system to get a PUC certificate remains flawed.

Recently, there’s been news that the new traffic challan system will mandate a Rs 10,000 penalty on old or new vehicles if owners don't acquire the Pollution Under Control (PUC) certification on time. To tackle expired certificates, the system will use CCTV surveillance to identify non-compliant vehicles and flag them for blacklisting from registration. The rule ultimately has several drawbacks, given the difficulty in acquiring PUC certificates in the first place. The number of PUC centres in Chennai has reduced drastically with only a handful still operational. Only the petrol bunk-owned PUC centres charge the customers based on the tariff…