Hyderabad: Lacking foresight and driven by hindsight appears to have become the defining feature of the Telangana government’s approach to traffic management around KBR Park.
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), under the Hyderabad City Innovative and Transformative Infrastructure (H-CITI) project, had proposed a series of flyovers, underpasses and grade separators around the park to create signal-free traffic movement. The project, initially sanctioned at Rs 826 crore, was subsequently revised to Rs 1,090 crore.
Work began at several locations, involving excavation and other preparatory activity. The construction disrupted traffic and also triggered concerns over tree felling and the environmental impact on the green belt around KBR Park. Progress was subsequently affected by legal proceedings relating to permissions for tree felling.
The reassessment of the project has now raised questions over whether a more measured approach could have been adopted in the first place. While mid-course corrections are welcome, changes after substantial preparatory work inevitably raise concerns over the efficient use of public resources.
The original approach sought to address congestion through multiple structures at different junctions. The revised plan, however, envisages a continuous elevated corridor from Jubilee Hills Check Post to NFCL Junction, replacing several fragmented grade separators. The change follows the implementation of a clockwise one-way traffic system around KBR Park, which officials have said has helped improve traffic movement.
The new proposal comprises two packages. The first is a steel flyover from Jubilee Hills Check Post Junction to Mugdha Junction at an estimated cost of Rs 580 crore. The second, costing Rs 510 crore, will extend from Mugdha Junction to Muffakham Jah College and include a connecting ramp to Banjara Hills Road No. 1. Together, the two packages are estimated to cost Rs 1,090 crore.
According to GHMC, the unified design is expected to save about Rs 800 crore in land acquisition and another Rs 400 crore in construction costs compared with the earlier multi-component proposal. The civic body has put the estimated total savings to the public exchequer at around Rs 1,200 crore.
The larger question, however, goes beyond the arithmetic of the revised project.
Complex urban traffic problems do not necessarily require equally complex infrastructure. The one-way system introduced around KBR Park in August was initially necessitated by the reduced carriageway during construction, but the traffic arrangement has since prompted the authorities to consider it as part of the longer-term solution.
That experience offers an important lesson in urban planning: infrastructure must be preceded by careful assessment of traffic patterns, environmental costs, land requirements and less intrusive alternatives. Large projects can provide lasting solutions, but their scale alone cannot be a substitute for sound planning.
For a city facing growing traffic pressures and competing demands on its public finances, the priority should be solutions that are effective, sustainable and proportionate to the problem. The KBR Park experience underlines why such questions are best answered before excavation begins, rather than after plans have to be substantially reworked.