As the name implies, flyovers merely fly the traffic over to the other side and transfer the mess to the next crossing. They are only suitable for crossings of two highways or crossings of a highway and rail track which are not punctuated with crossings after descending from slopes. They are unsuited for city roads which have numerous crossings & junctions for movement traders, shoppers and residents (behind the shops) from one side to the other. By providing a flyover at Kalma Chowk, the planners & decision makers have simply shifted the congestion from Kalma to the stadium on one side and Model Town fork at the other. We should now expect congestion & hold ups at the stadium/canal and Model Town fork after the flyover is in place. So a vicious circle or chain reaction will be started requiring another flyover, removal of another avenue of trees, increasing noise pollution and extending stretches of barren roads to reflect solar heat all around and increase overall thermal discomfort in the area.
Another problem at Kalma Chowk is that it has about 40′ high Kalma minaret at its center, estimated to weigh about 400 tones (including its 30′ wide base) which must be dismantled as it is impossible to transport such an odd shape concrete structure which is bound to crack during handling.
From the economic stand point, flyovers are extremely expensive, particularly those designed by the consultants who have only used this most expensive option of one central column (pier) with cantilevered arms to support 100 long girders at cavalry ground & ring road. The cheaper alternative of 2, 3 or 4 column for a pier and shorter (50 or 60 ft) span was never considered or presented. So we end with much higher decks increasing the length of approaches and the cost as well.
According to writers estimate, based on over 12 years experience of vetting development schemes of all sectors in the Province as well as the CDA, a row of columns for each pier would have reduced the height of bridge by about 5 ft. & thus reduced the length of bridge by about 350 ft. This would have reduced the construction by at least Rs175 million. Since it would have also reduced contractors profit by at least Rs35 million and reduced the consultants remuneration by Rs17.5 million, both parties insist on the expensive alternatives on which no objection has been raised by the establishment.
Had the above facts been brought to the notice of our dynamic CM, he would certainly not have okayed the proposed expensive design. The writer fervently hopes that the CM would take notice of the colossal wastage of public money before it is too late.
Coming back to the basics of the project, the daily traffic volume at Kalma Chowk was reported as one million by one of our elected representative on a local TV channel. He then went on to say that 70% of the traffic runs along Ferozepur Road to justify flyover in that direction.
This is not correct. According to traffic count of 1999 conducted by these very consultants, maximum peak hour traffic was reported as 13,000 and that of off peak as 9,000 vehicles which gives daily traffic of 240,000 assuming 6 hours of peak and 18 hours off peak per day. The consultants had projected a figure to 346,000 up to 2011 in their 1999 report to justify tackling of E-W direction to appease the then rulers. The previous projection in 1999 showed the expected increase of 45% in 11 years i.e. 4% per year but the present figure shows an increase of 300% which give an annual increase of 28% and is unbelievable.
Now they have come up with traffic count of 1 million besides showing heavier traffic along N-S to appease the present rulers. This too does not seem to have been scrutinised by the establishment. Obviously, there is a serious mistake somewhere. It is a pity that Pakistani politician and bureaucrats have got used to taking decision on one sided summaries and presentations without allowing prior scrutiny as result of which colossal losses are being inflicted.
Kalma Chowk or any other city chowk, will always get choked. This is a natural consequence of stoppage of traffic of one direction, turn by turn, to make room for lateral traffic of another direction. In other words, traffic of each direction must stop for 3 times the flow interval of one direction before starting to move again. This is typical of city roads everywhere and must be tolerated. If this situation is to be avoided, you need a series of 2 or 3 storey flyovers along all the city roads and forget about the city dwellers and urbane activity. But even so, the congestion will merely be transferred from one crossing to the next.
The question is how to reduce congestion? The writer suggests the following 9-point agenda:
i) Synchronise traffic signals on major roads.
ii) Open and maintain more side (lateral) roads for free entry and exit from main road to disperse traffic.
iii) Introduce cuts in the median between two crossings, to permit traffic to turn about without having to travel to chowk for a U-Turn.
iv) Widen the mouth of each chowk by reducing lane width to 9 ft to 10 ft to speed up clearance at chowks and strictly prohibit traffic police from placing PVC cones or long fence along traffic lanes which choke the mouth.
v) Prohibit manual control of traffic and provide generators or alarm wrist (or necklace type) watches set at 20 30 seconds interval with a direction not to allow one side traffic beyond 30 seconds.
vi) Direct the traffic police to keep patrolling straight portion of road to check speed violators for which medians be paved and painted. This will also provide additional lane at rush hours besides being useful for ambulances, fire fighting, security or chasing a suspect.
vii) Removing studs to improve flow.
viii) The maximum speed limit on Lahore city roads be brought down to 50 km for safety to encourage urban activity.
ix) The fencing along medians be removed as overhead pedestrian crossings have not caught fancy of Lahoriites since it involves climbing up 50 steps.
Incidentally, the canal widening project in the name of heavy traffic is also highly controversial requiring special attention of our CM. The widening will not solve the problem as underpasses will continue to be real bottlenecks. The solution lies in providing additional tracks below the existing high banks & on ground level for motor cyclists and rickshaw traffic only. They should have narrow and low under passes & ramps to mount the main roads which alternative will not only be cheaper but will also remove congestion on canal roads.
