With reference to Apurva Venkat’s report, “Why Bengaluru doesn’t want a Rs 2,000-cr flyover” (October 28), the controversy over that city getting a shiny, new, steel flyover, which will allow people to cover the distance between the airport and the tech hub in seven minutes — as Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah proclaims — is refusing to die down. The report reveals that the flyover will involve uprooting 812 trees and razing heritage structures.
Environmental experts say the steel bridge would increase the temperature of the city by one or two degrees, as the material absorbs heat and releases it back into the surroundings.
The question is: Of the two, which is more important? The matter has to be rationally evaluated: Long-term ecological costs versus a political decision to benefit people bound for the airport.
It’s intriguing to learn that the state government is going ahead with its plan to construct the flyover based on comments received from the public by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). Around 73 per cent of the 399 responses received favour the project. So, 292 residents of the city will decide the fate of all others?
Perhaps, the high court could be approached through a public interest litigation plea to settle the issue if the government goes ahead with its plan.
Also Read
But the BDA’s proposal of planting 60,000 saplings to compensate for the loss of 812 trees does not seem reliable.
The environmentalist’s view needs to be heard, too: Is the flyover a need or a want?
S Kumar, New Delhi
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201 · E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number
