I have now spent quite a few months back in Bangalore and it looks like I will be here for some time now. Over the years, this city has changed quite a lot and as an old-time Bangalorean (or at the very least, someone who is constantly exposed to complaints from old-time Bangaloreans), I can't help noticing these changes every time I pass through areas that I remember quite clearly from the past (damn, I sound old...I wonder what I'll be like in another twenty years).
South Bangalore, in particular, has changed drastically - the traffic has become insanely horrendous, much of what I remember of areas like Jayanagar and Basavangudi no longer exist and there is an infestation of flyovers, underpasses and similar pieces of construction happening all over the place. The last is something that is particularly dramatic. I think planning authorities in Bangalore have become unhealthily obsessed with constructing these pieces of gargantua in every nook and cranny they can find and these pieces of concrete dot the landscape with as much frequency as roadside temples used to, once upon a time. This particular blog post tries to address this last issue. It's a collection of arguments that I have been having with myself for a long time now (in fact, something that began during my years in Mumbai) and I have tried to put them down in as concise a manner as possible. Let me begin with a criticism of these road projects.
One of the fundamental drawbacks that I see with flyovers and underpasses (or similar constructions) is not a technological or engineering flaw but a sociological one. In order to understand this drawback, let us first begin by considering the area upon which a flyover is constructed (and often ignored later) - the city street. What exactly is the function of a city street? A normal city street isn't just a stretch of concrete that allows for the passage of vehicles from one point to another. Like any other feature of the urban landscape, it forms a fundamental component of the ecosystem around which social evolution takes place. Carefully observe any road in a city and you will be able to make out the delicate socioeconomic system that has woven itself around it.
The most visible examples of such systems can be seen in old market areas such as Mumbai's Crawford Market or Bangalore's Gandhi Bazaar. In such areas, the function of roads is no longer to smoothly facilitate the movement of vehicles but to serve as a common public area where pedestrians can obtain access to the multitude of shops and stalls that line the sides. The movement of vehicles is a secondary, perhaps even a tertiary function, no matter what is said in official records.
Market areas are not the only places where such socioeconomic structures evolve into being. Residential areas have such systems too, though they are far more subtle and much more difficult to observe. The relatively smaller streets often serve as common ground in closely bound neighbourhoods where evenings witness local children playing cricket, residents going out for walks or even simply indulging in conversation with each other. Somewhat larger streets serve as local markets, being home to shops that supply residents with daily provisions or stationery. The relationship between vehicular traffic and the local area is somewhat more amicable in these places, but increase the value of just one factor - say, the number of shops or the volume of traffic - and you will quickly witness a degradation of this amicability. Within cities, roads aren't just agents of communication; they're spaces for competition.
The biggest drawback of new transport solutions such as flyovers or underpasses is that planners or builders rarely take the above argument into account. The construction as well as the very existence of flyovers drastically distort the local socioeconomic systems and sometimes, this may result in losses that are far more immense than any loss subverted by the flyover itself. Let's consider the local economic impact, for example. What sort of effects are perpetrated, do you think, when a massive flyover is constructed on the top of the main market street in a fairly residential locality?
I personally don't even need to theorize, because an excellent example of such an event occurred a few years ago in my neighbourhood, when the city authorities decided to build an underpass to replace a prominent traffic junction (or 'circle' as it's called in Bangalore). Prior to the construction of this underpass, the circle was a prominent landmark in the locality and was home to a string of shops selling various articles as well as a sizeable number of small restaurants. These commercial establishments were fairly prominent, easy to spot and relatively easy to access. However, the construction of the underpass changed all that. It resulted in a drastic widening of the main road as well as its division into four lanes - two wide lanes that simply went below a bridge and two, extremely narrow lanes at the sides, which served as connectors to the intersecting road. As a result, a majority of the traffic which was, effectively "passing through" was diverted to the wider lanes while a smaller segment filtered through to the narrower lanes in order to access the intersection.
 |
| Courtesy: The Hindu |
Now, I haven't conducted a formal study of this case, so I may be completely wrong on my following point. However, simple logic coupled with regular observation told me two things. First, the percentage of commuters who could see these shops and restaurants from the road was effectively cut down to that segment which accessed the narrower side lanes. This naturally means a loss of brand visibility for these establishments. Second, access to these shops from the road was severely reduced. The road-widening brought about by the construction of the underpass also damaged the footpaths and discouraged a large number of pedestrians from walking on that street (in fact, this is a common phenomenon - how often does one see pedestrians trying to navigate their way around flyovers or underpasses?). Additionally, the narrow width of these lanes also eliminated parking space and induced vehicles to move through as quickly as possible, in order to avoid getting stuck in potential jams. So, based on these two points, I may be able to claim that the construction of the underpass must have resulted in some fairly large losses for local businesses.
I am pretty sure these arguments can be applied to almost every major place affected by the construction of these structures. As one of my economics professors was fond of saying "flyovers literally fly over everything", conveniently ignoring the often drastic distortions caused to the local economic ecosystems by their very existence. Along with this, factor in the damage caused to the physical environment (in Bangalore, this is usually most visible through tree felling), the long gestation period before these things become operational and the torment that local residents go through during this period and one begins to wonder whether such things are really worth the effort.
Are they worth all the drawbacks? It's impossible to make a universal judgement on this matter but whenever I think of things like this, I try and come up with counter-arguments to justify the opposite side. One of the first counterpoints that occurred to me (apart from the obvious "smoother traffic" argument) was that the construction of these things probably benefits local residents and businesses by increasing the value of local real estate. Businesses may find themselves sitting on more valuable land caused by demand for proximity to smooth, efficient roads and they might be able to use this value to obtain better loans to finance their ventures. Now, once again, I haven't made any formal studies but I don't accept this argument to be universal in nature. Certain road projects may indeed push up the prices of local land - a superb example of this is the inflation of real estate prices caused by the construction of metro-rail bridges, since proximity to a mass transit system usually always increases the value of land. Someone who owns such a plot of real estate can consider himself to be very lucky.
However, this may not apply in cases such as the underpass mentioned above. Such projects don't really give any physical benefits to nearby residents or entrepreneurs - they largely cater to people who are coming from somewhere else and passing through to get to some other place. In fact, as I mentioned above, such projects may make access to road systems less efficient for local residents and as a result, there may not be much of an increase in real estate prices; not enough for businesses to effectively utilize anyway. Under such circumstances, the costs of putting up with the construction and existence of a flyover may simply not be worth it.
But there is a very strong argument in favour of flyovers and underpasses that I am perfectly willing to accept. This argument is simply one that flyovers do often smooth traffic effectively. Take, for example, the J.J. Flyover in South Mumbai, the numerous flyovers on Mumbai's Western Express Highway, the flyover constructed on New Airport Road in Bangalore that separates airport travellers from other road users, the Mekhri Circle underpass and so on. There is no denying the fact that these constructions have smoothened the flow of traffic considerably, increased the efficiency of road travel and have probably resulted in high economic benefits to numerous citizens over the course of time. Even in the case of the underpass mentioned above, traffic conditions have certainly improved.
An additional point is that a lot of damage to local communities can be simply reduced with better design. A good architect or civil engineer will realize the adverse effects that the project may have upon neighbouring localities and modify the design of the project to reduce these effects. Thus, much of the costs of such projects can be reduced (though never eliminated), thereby increasing the overall benefit.
The ultimate issue therefore becomes an act of comparing the benefits of such construction with the costs of the damage caused in the process. Now, first of all, this is not an easy task for the first question that needs to be asked is "Whose benefits or losses should we prioritize?" - those commuters passing through an area or those residents living in the locality? Also, calculating the benefits and costs cannot be done very easily since both are often intangible and difficult to formulate effectively. But what bothers me most is that, second of all, few are attempting to undertake this task. Difficult as the process may be, it's something that needs to be done. But we rarely see planners and city authorities indulge in this task, at least in public. Occasionally, a local politician may cause a ruckus or some resident welfare association may go on protest but there are no formal processes for assessing the views of residents or taking their prior approval before commencing a project. This is unfortunate, because in order to calculate costs and benefits effectively, the views of residents and local businesses must be taken into account.
Ultimately though, we must see some sort of (I hate using this term but I think it's relevant) paradigm shift (aargh, aargh) in our approach towards designing and maintaining city roads. Planners need to understand that city streets aren't the same as highways and most of them never ought to become like highways. Streets serve a variety of functions in a city and many times, these might even have to take precedence over simple traffic movement because the overall social benefits may be greater. Some roads may be better off with narrower concrete strips and wider footpaths. Some streets might be better off without certain types of traffic and others might not need traffic moving on them at all (consider Mall Road in Shimla, for example. Traffic is banned in this place and yet, it's the most vibrant street in the entire city). On the other hand, there have to be roads where the movement of traffic takes priority over everything else and the construction of projects that increase traffic efficiency is fully justified. All this requires better and smarter planning but first, we need a drastic change in perception.
---
PS - Does anyone know if there have been studies conducted on the impact of flyover construction on local economies? I am curious to see how right or how wrong I am, empirically :)
Image Courtesy: funonthenet.in
0 comments:
Post a Comment