While deputy chief minister G Parameshwara is thinking of suspending the registration of new vehicles in Bengaluru due to rapid deterioration in air quality, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority has initiated environmental clearance for the controversial 92-km elevated corridor project that will only add more vehicles and pollution to the City. ET nails the contradiction and wonder why — as when the government promoted the steel flyover project between Basaveshwara Circle and Hebbal — sustainable mobility, public consultation and socio-environmental impact assessment are being disregarded yet again:Techie Vishal R thinks that the proposed elevated corridor project is a good idea. The 26-year-old navigates peak traffic to travel from his BTM Layout home to his workplace in Bellandur every day. “How else can so many vehicles ply on the city’s roads, say, 10 years from now? As the number of cars and bikes increase, traffic will only worsen,” he reasons. He quickly adds he is not sure if the project will benefit him directly if implemented.Many others believe that a six-lane elevated corridor criss-crossing the city is a sure-shot solution to traffic congestion. Chief minister HD Kumaraswamy, who has called the corridor an important part of his “long-term vision” for Bengaluru, has already earmarked Rs 1,000 crore for the project in the current financial year. The detailed feasibility report (DFR) has budgeted it at Rs 19,265 crore, excluding the cost of acquiring nearly 141 acres of prime real estate and 1,130 buildings, most of them commercial structures.Like Vishal, many Bengalureans are not aware of the likely socio-environmental impact of a project of this scale: for one, it stands to potentially alter the landscape of the city; the 92-km concrete structure would violate the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order on lake buffer zones by running above the Halasuru lake, and close to Kadirenahalli, Benniganahalli, Chelekere, Hebbal and Agara lakes; it requires chopping of over 3,820 trees and pruning another 2,000; its construction stands to impact 1,130 structures and breaches over 60 air and noisesensitive localities like hospitals, libraries, educational institutions and hostels.An Indian Institute of Science (IISc) report published in August questioned the usefulness of the corridor, since Bengaluru’s vehicle growth is likely to overshoot road capacity as early as 2020. Then, a fortnight ago, the deputy chief minister said that drastic measures — such as suspending registration of new vehicles in Bengaluru — are required to improve air quality and prevent the city from going the Delhi way.Seemingly contrarian to both these developments is a recent approval of the terms of reference of the elevated corridor project (an initial step for environmental clearance) by the State Environment Impact Assessment Agency (SEIAA). The body has suggested a host of recommendations, including the possibility of translocating 760 (20%) of the 3,820 trees that will be cut, budget backup for maintenance of these trees for at least 10 years, compensating for the loss of other tree cover, solar energy harvesting potential of the structure railings and creation of vertical gardens to offset vehicular pollution. Authorities have also been asked to study changes to the micro-climate because of the project.“In multi-year construction projects like these, it is important to assess environmental impact comprehensively. While trees are an important metric, one must also take into account the possible impact to air quality, how construction will affect the health of people nearby, traffic reorientation and even the additional traffic burden a project like this is likely to put,” said Ankit Bhargava, co-founder of environmental think tank Sensing Local.According to him, the government should make comparisons with other possible mobility alternatives. “The issue is to create transit solutions to improve air quality. If an elevated corridor does not positively answer questions around that, and if there are alternatives providing better results, it only means that the project is jeopardised at a fundamental level.”Maitreyi Krishnan, an advocate at Manthan Law, is participating in a forum this weekend to discuss possible mobility alternatives to the corridor. “While the project’s impact on trees is obvious, there are other factors to be considered: how it will impact zoning plans, lake and lake beds, and the master plan,” she said. “The SEIAA should settle for nothing less than a comprehensive impact assessment of multiple ongoing infrastructure projects. This will give a clear picture of how this ‘development’ impacts the city.”Authorities said that they will soon prepare a comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment Report that will include all the terms of reference made by the SEIAA. M Ganesh, managing director of the Karnataka Road Development Corporation that is implementing the project, said, “We will fulfil their recommendations first to receive environmental clearance. This is a long process and will take some time.”Leo Saldanha, the coordinator of Environment Support Group (ESG), pointed out that the project will be in direct violation of judicial orders, as both existing and proposed master plans for Bengaluru do not accommodate the elevated corridor. “This goes against the Karnataka High Court order (dated November 2010), which directed the government agency to follow land use patterns depicted in the master plan,” said Saldanha. “The SEIAA should not entertain the environment clearance application until the project is brought under the purview of the master plan.”Experts also gave a thumbs down to other recommendations like translocation and vertical gardens, saying they are economically unsustainable. Vertical gardens, they said, need sustained investment for pillars, pumping machines, pots and daily maintenance.“Namma Metro’s experiment with vertical gardens on MG Road failed miserably. Reality is that the government does not have the money or the inclination required to maintain it,” explained Bhargava.BBMP DCF Chola Raj admitted that while survival of translocated trees can be as high as 60% if maintained well, “a transplanted, healthy tree could die after a year, for various reasons.” A spot survey conducted by ET for two such translocation projects proved this point. While the 80-odd trees translocated to the Sathya Sai Hospital in Whitefield last November are doing well, none of the 10-odd trees translocated to Jayamahal Road in May 2017 have survived.An expert from the Institute of Wood Science and Technology said that the government has no database to record success and failure rates of tree transplants, and that all ongoing initiatives are largely trial and error.Tara Krishnaswamy, member, Citizens for Bengaluru (CfB), which successfully stalled the steel flyover project and is campaigning for strengthening the city’s suburban rail network, said that public consultation should be the centre of such a project, since it impacts people’s privacy and livelihoods in a major way.“For this, the government should put all documents about the project in public domain beforehand, along with comparisons with other mass mobility transit options,” she said. “The SEIAA and other agencies are operating with the premise that such a project is required when they talk about translocation, compensatory planning, etc. This deflects attention from the core issue of whether such a project will benefit people in the first place.”Environmentalist AN Yellappa Reddy said that such projects cater to real estate builders, cement, steel and automobile businesses. “If this is development, then could they create technology that grows trees, provides oxygen and shade?” he asked. “Authorities have clearly learnt no lessons from Delhi about community-focussed development and basic liveability. Short-sighted infrastructure boom at the cost of the environment will ultimately make it difficult for people to find good air to breathe.”(With inputs from Anirudh Kumar)