Blatant in its unilateral march to build the controversial steel flyover, the government has unwittingly sparked a massive public interest in the project. Clinical examination of the structure, both by activist citizens and mobility experts, has triggered an unprecedented exchange of ideas, opinions and alternatives.
Vociferous, collective and well-articulated, the widespread opposition to the project on online and offline platforms has forced the government to respond publicly. An open letter to the Bengaluru Development minister, for instance, has had its desired effect: The minister responded, sparking another open debate.
The government, as a public policy expert feels, might eventually backtrack. But what the waves of protest have achieved is clearly this: An acknowledgement that opaque decision-making on public infrastructure projects will not go unchallenged. Transparency in governance is now firmly in public glare.
Public no pushovers
Sunday's human chain protest along Ballari road is bound to demonstrate the groundswell of public anger against the project. Beyond its symbolism, the chain will also drive home a potent point to the government: That projects that bank on taxpayers' money can no longer be bulldozed through.
Indeed, as the state and Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) assert, the flyover project has been in the pipeline for the last two years. But repeated attempts by the media and Right to Information (RTI) activists had failed to get the Detailed Project Report (DPR) in public domain.
Only the spectre of an unprecedented citizen's movement forced BDA to put up the DPR on its official site. Urban policy experts wonder what took the Authority so long. After all, the public had been seeking an explanation why a whopping Rs 1,791 crore was being spent on a project they never asked for.
Pre-project public consultation has never been an official forte. But, BDA had a claim: It had got 299 emails from the public favouring the project.
Dubious project
Dubbing the entire process as 'dubious,' Namma Bengaluru Foundation (NBF) had a counter: How do 299 responses, secured in 24 hours, represent the views of nine million Bengalureans? NBF's conclusion: The consultation was designed to hide and not to consult.
Negative feedback will have scuttled the project. But by escalating the cost from Rs 1,100 crore to Rs 1,350 crore to Rs 1,791 crore without any justifiable reason in two years, the official intention was to build the flyover at any cost.
Through very transparent online platforms and letters to DH (many published here), citizens in their thousands have already articulated their near-unanimous opposition to the project.
VIPs only beneficiaries
Terming the flyover a 'VIP project' that benefits only a micro-minority, they have sought more sustainable, cheaper, alternatives. The NBF counter echoes this view. It notes, "The flyover is not for normal transportation of residents. It is not part of any comprehensive 'transport and mobility plan."
Besides, no cost-benefit analysis has preceded the project. "One-time cost versus life-time maintenance cost has not been done. Concrete is a one-time cost, steel is a recurring cost as it gets depleted due to corrosion."
The project's environmental costs have had everyone screaming 'why?' How can 60,000 ornamental trees planted elsewhere compensate for the axing of 812 fully grown trees, they demand to know. Braving odds, these trees have survived to give the city a semblance of green cover in the face of rising pollution.
Car-centric vision
Looking ahead, several concerned citizens have sensed the danger in following a 'deeply problematic' car-centric mobility vision for the city.
In an open letter to the minister concerned, they articulated their vision for a city that is friendly to walkers, public transport and cyclists. They contended: "There is plenty of evidence from around the world that this vision is the right one. Instead, you are proposing solutions that fundamentally ignore what the people want."
Vociferous, collective and well-articulated, the widespread opposition to the project on online and offline platforms has forced the government to respond publicly. An open letter to the Bengaluru Development minister, for instance, has had its desired effect: The minister responded, sparking another open debate.
The government, as a public policy expert feels, might eventually backtrack. But what the waves of protest have achieved is clearly this: An acknowledgement that opaque decision-making on public infrastructure projects will not go unchallenged. Transparency in governance is now firmly in public glare.
Public no pushovers
Sunday's human chain protest along Ballari road is bound to demonstrate the groundswell of public anger against the project. Beyond its symbolism, the chain will also drive home a potent point to the government: That projects that bank on taxpayers' money can no longer be bulldozed through.
Indeed, as the state and Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) assert, the flyover project has been in the pipeline for the last two years. But repeated attempts by the media and Right to Information (RTI) activists had failed to get the Detailed Project Report (DPR) in public domain.
Only the spectre of an unprecedented citizen's movement forced BDA to put up the DPR on its official site. Urban policy experts wonder what took the Authority so long. After all, the public had been seeking an explanation why a whopping Rs 1,791 crore was being spent on a project they never asked for.
Pre-project public consultation has never been an official forte. But, BDA had a claim: It had got 299 emails from the public favouring the project.
Dubious project
Dubbing the entire process as 'dubious,' Namma Bengaluru Foundation (NBF) had a counter: How do 299 responses, secured in 24 hours, represent the views of nine million Bengalureans? NBF's conclusion: The consultation was designed to hide and not to consult.
Negative feedback will have scuttled the project. But by escalating the cost from Rs 1,100 crore to Rs 1,350 crore to Rs 1,791 crore without any justifiable reason in two years, the official intention was to build the flyover at any cost.
Through very transparent online platforms and letters to DH (many published here), citizens in their thousands have already articulated their near-unanimous opposition to the project.
VIPs only beneficiaries
Terming the flyover a 'VIP project' that benefits only a micro-minority, they have sought more sustainable, cheaper, alternatives. The NBF counter echoes this view. It notes, "The flyover is not for normal transportation of residents. It is not part of any comprehensive 'transport and mobility plan."
Besides, no cost-benefit analysis has preceded the project. "One-time cost versus life-time maintenance cost has not been done. Concrete is a one-time cost, steel is a recurring cost as it gets depleted due to corrosion."
The project's environmental costs have had everyone screaming 'why?' How can 60,000 ornamental trees planted elsewhere compensate for the axing of 812 fully grown trees, they demand to know. Braving odds, these trees have survived to give the city a semblance of green cover in the face of rising pollution.
Car-centric vision
Looking ahead, several concerned citizens have sensed the danger in following a 'deeply problematic' car-centric mobility vision for the city.
In an open letter to the minister concerned, they articulated their vision for a city that is friendly to walkers, public transport and cyclists. They contended: "There is plenty of evidence from around the world that this vision is the right one. Instead, you are proposing solutions that fundamentally ignore what the people want."
Blatant in its unilateral march to build the controversial steel flyover, the government has unwittingly sparked a massive public interest in the project. Clinical examination of the structure, both by activist citizens and mobility experts, has triggered an unprecedented exchange of ideas, opinions and alternatives.
Vociferous, collective and well-articulated, the widespread opposition to the project on online and offline platforms has forced the government to respond publicly. An open letter to the Bengaluru Development minister, for instance, has had its desired effect: The minister responded, sparking another open debate.
The government, as a public policy expert feels, might eventually backtrack. But what the waves of protest have achieved is clearly this: An acknowledgement that opaque decision-making on public infrastructure projects will not go unchallenged. Transparency in governance is now firmly in public glare.
Public no pushovers
Sunday’s human chain protest along Ballari road is bound to demonstrate the groundswell of public anger against the project. Beyond its symbolism, the chain will also drive home a potent point to the government: That projects that bank on taxpayers’ money can no longer be bulldozed through.
Indeed, as the state and Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) assert, the flyover project has been in the pipeline for the last two years. But repeated attempts by the media and Right to Information (RTI) activists had failed to get the Detailed Project Report (DPR) in public domain.
Only the spectre of an unprecedented citizen’s movement forced BDA to put up the DPR on its official site. Urban policy experts wonder what took the Authority so long. After all, the public had been seeking an explanation why a whopping Rs 1,791 crore was being spent on a project they never asked for.
Pre-project public consultation has never been an official forte. But, BDA had a claim: It had got 299 emails from the public favouring the project.
Dubious project
Dubbing the entire process as 'dubious,’ Namma Bengaluru Foundation (NBF) had a counter: How do 299 responses, secured in 24 hours, represent the views of nine million Bengalureans? NBF’s conclusion: The consultation was designed to hide and not to consult.
Negative feedback will have scuttled the project. But by escalating the cost from Rs 1,100 crore to Rs 1,350 crore to Rs 1,791 crore without any justifiable reason in two years, the official intention was to build the flyover at any cost.
Through very transparent online platforms and letters to DH (many published here), citizens in their thousands have already articulated their near-unanimous opposition to the project.
VIPs only beneficiaries
Terming the flyover a 'VIP project’ that benefits only a micro-minority, they have sought more sustainable, cheaper, alternatives. The NBF counter echoes this view. It notes, "The flyover is not for normal transportation of residents. It is not part of any comprehensive 'transport and mobility plan.”
Besides, no cost-benefit analysis has preceded the project. "One-time cost versus life-time maintenance cost has not been done. Concrete is a one-time cost, steel is a recurring cost as it gets depleted due to corrosion.”
The project’s environmental costs have had everyone screaming 'why?’ How can 60,000 ornamental trees planted elsewhere compensate for the axing of 812 fully grown trees, they demand to know. Braving odds, these trees have survived to give the city a semblance of green cover in the face of rising pollution.
Car-centric vision
Looking ahead, several concerned citizens have sensed the danger in following a 'deeply problematic’ car-centric mobility vision for the city.
In an open letter to the minister concerned, they articulated their vision for a city that is friendly to walkers, public transport and cyclists. They contended: "There is plenty of evidence from around the world that this vision is the right one. Instead, you are proposing solutions that fundamentally ignore what the people want.”
Vociferous, collective and well-articulated, the widespread opposition to the project on online and offline platforms has forced the government to respond publicly. An open letter to the Bengaluru Development minister, for instance, has had its desired effect: The minister responded, sparking another open debate.
The government, as a public policy expert feels, might eventually backtrack. But what the waves of protest have achieved is clearly this: An acknowledgement that opaque decision-making on public infrastructure projects will not go unchallenged. Transparency in governance is now firmly in public glare.
Public no pushovers
Sunday’s human chain protest along Ballari road is bound to demonstrate the groundswell of public anger against the project. Beyond its symbolism, the chain will also drive home a potent point to the government: That projects that bank on taxpayers’ money can no longer be bulldozed through.
Indeed, as the state and Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) assert, the flyover project has been in the pipeline for the last two years. But repeated attempts by the media and Right to Information (RTI) activists had failed to get the Detailed Project Report (DPR) in public domain.
Only the spectre of an unprecedented citizen’s movement forced BDA to put up the DPR on its official site. Urban policy experts wonder what took the Authority so long. After all, the public had been seeking an explanation why a whopping Rs 1,791 crore was being spent on a project they never asked for.
Pre-project public consultation has never been an official forte. But, BDA had a claim: It had got 299 emails from the public favouring the project.
Dubious project
Dubbing the entire process as 'dubious,’ Namma Bengaluru Foundation (NBF) had a counter: How do 299 responses, secured in 24 hours, represent the views of nine million Bengalureans? NBF’s conclusion: The consultation was designed to hide and not to consult.
Negative feedback will have scuttled the project. But by escalating the cost from Rs 1,100 crore to Rs 1,350 crore to Rs 1,791 crore without any justifiable reason in two years, the official intention was to build the flyover at any cost.
Through very transparent online platforms and letters to DH (many published here), citizens in their thousands have already articulated their near-unanimous opposition to the project.
VIPs only beneficiaries
Terming the flyover a 'VIP project’ that benefits only a micro-minority, they have sought more sustainable, cheaper, alternatives. The NBF counter echoes this view. It notes, "The flyover is not for normal transportation of residents. It is not part of any comprehensive 'transport and mobility plan.”
Besides, no cost-benefit analysis has preceded the project. "One-time cost versus life-time maintenance cost has not been done. Concrete is a one-time cost, steel is a recurring cost as it gets depleted due to corrosion.”
The project’s environmental costs have had everyone screaming 'why?’ How can 60,000 ornamental trees planted elsewhere compensate for the axing of 812 fully grown trees, they demand to know. Braving odds, these trees have survived to give the city a semblance of green cover in the face of rising pollution.
Car-centric vision
Looking ahead, several concerned citizens have sensed the danger in following a 'deeply problematic’ car-centric mobility vision for the city.
In an open letter to the minister concerned, they articulated their vision for a city that is friendly to walkers, public transport and cyclists. They contended: "There is plenty of evidence from around the world that this vision is the right one. Instead, you are proposing solutions that fundamentally ignore what the people want.”