[sustran] Re: World Bank loan for MUTP

[Bina CBalakrishnan]

Hi everyone,
The following is the first part of Mr Kisan Mehta's letter, in response to Walter's queries, and to which I have added my comments, at specific areas.

The second part follows immediately.

Bina C. Balakrishnan
Consultant 
Transportation Planning and Engineering
Mumbai
e-mail: binac at rediffmail.com

Dear Walter, Paul and Sustran Friends, 
We must record our appreciation of Walter's approach and strategy that helps to get the World Bank support. We now take up issues raised by Walter. 

Walter:. are you against any World Bank loan for mumbai? My impression is that the vast majority of funds ($600 million!) is directed at improving rail services, which given Bombay's structure would seem to be desperately needed. If you are against the whole thing, can you explain to me why? 

K.M:-We are not opposed to the Bank loan per se. We are opposed to the way subprojects are included and implemented or under implementation. Road subprojects cannot be justified at all as 50 and odd flyovers and elevated roads implemented without simultanously implementing programmes for mitigating damage to environment and hardship to citizens. Two road subprojects proposed for inclusion are already under construction by MSRDC, govt agency building flyovers, and by the MMRDA. 

Bina:-The flyovers you mention are in no way connected to the World Bank loan, and have been designed and implemented independently by the MSRDC. As for the road sub-projects that you mention, may I know which ones you are referring to? If they are the SCLR- i.e. the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road, and  the JVLR- i.e. the Jogeshwari -Vikhroli Link Road, then you as an old resident of Mumbai should know how very badly the city needs these East West Connectors. The absence of any arterial road in the East-West direction in the suburbs- or for that matter, even in the Island City, puts tremendous strain on the road network, as everyone is aware.
In fact, these roads were recommended for Mumbai (then Bombay), as far back as 1962, by the then transportation consultants, Wilbur Smith and Associates.

K.M.:- The MSRDC project for six lane road without pavements going on for ten years is made to pass through some of the green areas abutting two lakes. The natural and more used route is shorter and more convenient yet the MSRDC alignment is through green areas. The MMRDA is a special planning authority appointed to develop Bandra-Kurla Complex where it has earned over Rs 20 billion by selling land with double the normal FSI (increasing crowding and citizen hardship). 

Bina:- The entire EIA of all the projects and subprojects of the MUTP is available on the Net.

K.M.:-This road built within the Complex too is sans pavement. The MMRDA has the primary obligation to provide link roads. In the citizen consultation, we raised these issues yet not a single Bank official uttered a word to show the Bank concern on these two dangerous subprojects. Bank officials are a party in finalising the present MUTP. How can the Bank justify extending of loan to road subprojects where monitoring is not possible and which will result in more hardship? 

Bina:-Why do you say that Monitoring is not possible, and what are the hardships that will result from the construction of these roads? Can you give me the names of these roads? And can you also mention the hardships that would result? 

K.M:- Should public authorities abdicate the duty to provide roads from their funds? Road overbridges over railway tracks are not provided with pavements the yet allow ingress of more personal cars in the crowded areas. Level crossings were picked up selectively for grade separated road overbridges to facilitate car accessibility. Unless all level crossings are replaced by overbridges, rly service cannot improve.

Bina:- The Road over- bridges, where they have been provided in a location slightly away from the existing level crossing, have been provided with minimum footpaths, as per standards. And at the original location of the level crossings, the pedestrians have been provided with foot-over bridges, so that they do not have to deviate from their regular route.
You also do not seem to be aware that all but three of the level crossings have already been/ are being replaced by ROBs by the BMC at their own cost, and these remaining three are those that have been included in the World Bank aided Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP). 

K.M:- The railway subprojects have to be evaluated from the point of their capability to reduce crash overcrowding of average 3000 persons. 

Bina:- This is exactly what the MUTP is attempting to do, with the assistance of the World Bank, if you will permit them, Mr. Mehta. And incidentally, that figure is 4500 persons per 9-car train, not 3000. These projects were selected based on the study made by W.S. Atkins International et al -  the Comprehensive Transport Plan for Bombay Metropolitan Region. If you have taken the trouble of going through the report, you will find that its recommendations contain a phased program of implementation, separately for Railway System Development, Bus and Ferry System Development, and Highway Schemes, which include the ROBs that you are speaking against. 

Please refer to chapter 7, Transport Investment Programme, of the Final Report. This is available at the library of the MMRDA, on the 6th floor. The library is open to all members of the public, and there is no membership fee.

Para 7.3 starts: " The strategy is aimed at strengthening public transport services in the region so as to maintain their role in the face of ever increasing availability of private vehicle modes
.."

K.M.:- One has to visualise quantum change and not talk of normal extension. What is the use of developing a single track instead of a pair when the object is of increasing the frequency by cutting down headway from 4 to 3 minutes? Our suggestions with complete drawings are summarily rejected. Road overbridges have not improved train frequency. 

Bina:- The frequency of trains has already been increased from 5 minutes to 4 minutes, if you check with the railways.

K.M:- Public buses are subjected to severe restrictions. They are not allowed to use flyovers. 

Bina:- They are at full liberty to use the flyovers, if they so decide to route the buses. However, they choose not to use the flyovers, because the bus- stops are located at -grade, since the movement of pedestrians - and the origins and destinations of pedestrians - is at -grade. The speeds of buses on roads that have had flyovers constructed have improved because the rest of the traffic uses the flyovers, and therefore there is substantial reduction of vehicular traffic on the bus routes. 

K.M:-  Many roads closed to buses are open to private cars even for parking. Bus fares include 15-17% of passenger tax not charged to car owners. Money spent on flyovers is not being recovered from cars. We do not wish to be hostile but there is no go. We try to talk to the MMRDA but no success. We have met Bank teams one after another for over 8 years now but no result. We value your suggestion to not to be hostile. 

Walter:-  you are against the inclusion of some road elements. My understanding has been that the road elements are intended to separate surface-level road and rail traffic. This seems quite reasonable. Am I missing something here? I mean, the World Bank isnt proposing to fund these 50 flyovers that Mumbai and many other Indian cities are building, quite disasterously 

Bina:- I have already answered these statements earlier.

K.M:- Road subprojects comprise of road overbridges for grade separation (but included in railway subprojects). Some (not all) level crossings are changed to road overbridges without pavements.  With old level crossings closed, pedestrians trespass on railway tracks instead of using far away stepped foot overbridges. Average five persons die daily due to track crossing and fall from overcrowded trains. Two road subprojects that we oppose are 6 lane 8-10 km long carriageways without pavements passing through crowded residential areas, under implementation by MSRDC and MMRDA. The Bank has not insisted on pavements or natural alignment. Flyovers built earlier are paid for from public funds. Authorities should find money (if it all they prove that such roads are unavoidable) from elsewhere. The Bank cannot extend loan for pavementless roads yet the Bank officials are actively supporting such projects.

 Bina:- I myself was in a meeting with the visiting World Bank team, where they clearly told us that they were allocating funds separately for grade separated pedestrian crossings as well as for footpaths at grade. 

(Message continues in second part)
Bina C. Balakrishnan