Coordination, not super-bodies, key to mobility

IN PERSPECTIVE

Seamless mobility can be achieved only with the integration of various modes of transport in the city. However, in Bengaluru, traffic, incessant roadworks, expensive and inaccessible transport, have become exceedingly commonplace. Just last month, BBMP gave its nod to BMRCL to dig up roads on the Outer Ring Road (ORR) for metro works. This comes only two years after the BBMP spent Rs 15 crore per kilometre to do up the same stretch.

With the Assembly in session, the BMLTA Bill is likely to be tabled. Citizen groups are constantly pointing out transport woes – from encroached footpaths to outdated BMTC bus schedules and perilous travels to and from metro stations — end-to-end integrated transport seems a bleak possibility of the distant future, unless changes in mobility governance materialise at the earliest.

Solving this mobility problem requires an understanding of the complex network of functions undertaken by parastatal agencies and Urban Local Bodies. Each body in the city derives powers from its own regulation and each agency whether BBMP, BESCOM, BWSSB, BDA, BMTC or BMRCL, has a well-defined scope of work. While the number of agencies is numerous, due to the gamut of subjects within the scope of urban governance, each of them have been developed to perform specific roles.

The Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority (BMLTA) draft Bill is an attempt to solve transport woes. The Bill envisions the BMLTA as a superseding authority with wide powers to direct all urban agencies on any matter that may touch transport. One of the biggest concerns with this Bill is the overarching powers that it vests with the authority. The BMLTA may potentially control city planning and allied developmental activities that are otherwise vested with respective agencies. This Bill, if implemented, may contribute to further delay in approval processes and project implementation by creating an additional layer of bureaucracy.

There have been a number of ad hoc efforts at inter-agency coordination bodies in the past — from the high-powered committee headed by the Chief Secretary in 2015 to MARCS (Multi-Agency Road-Cutting Coordination System) to the inter-agency coordination committees mooted by various CMs, to the BMLTA itself which was established originally in 2007 through a government order, all of which have failed to bring about cohesion between these bodies. So, a legislative mandate might be the right step to enforce cooperation.

The city needs a co-ordinating body — a platform where all agencies can interact effectively — but not a body to which agencies are subordinate. Every time the city is ailing, adding another super-body to the existing authorities, is an attempt at a quick fix solution to a long festering problem.

Instead, building institutional capabilities at the grassroot level, enabling existing bodies to communicate through platforms for coordination, is likely to improve governance in the longer run. The Bill is lacking because it fails to clearly delineate the jurisdiction of BMLTA from that of its component agencies and outline limits to the exercise of its powers. Even if passed, this Bill is prone to administrative dilution, where one body may dominate over others even within the Authority.

The current structure of BMLTA makes it a highly bureaucratic body with very few elected representatives. It has been envisioned as a state government-dependent authority and remains far from genuine de-centralisation. The BMRDA, which was similarly established as a super-body with overarching powers to bring numerous parastatal agencies under one authority headed by the CM, has failed to ensure planned development. The principal reason for this being the reporting structure. In a highly undemocratic fashion, all parastatal agencies — BDA, BMTC, BMRCL, BESCOM, BWSSB, BMRDA — report to the state government, not the city government. The BMLTA does not change much for Bengaluru in this regard.

A city body with overarching powers, as vested under this Bill, must ideally be accountable to an elected Mayor. Attempts have been made to model BMLTA on consolidated transport agencies in cities like London and Singapore. However, TFL (the London City Transport agency) is owned by the Greater London Authority (the London equivalent for BBMP), and is chaired by the London Mayor, but under the BMLTA Bill, the CM has been designated as Chairman.

This brings us to the issue of citizen involvement. Ensuring a robust selection mechanism for non-official members is crucial to guaranteeing true and effective citizen participation in the functioning of the Authority. Developing rules outlining a transparent selection process through public calls for participation, prior outlining criteria for selection, and creating timelines for end-to-end selection process is necessary for accountability and citizen buy-in.

While the BMLTA Bill aims to improve mobility systems and make the city commuter-friendly, ignoring crucial considerations such as citizen participation, governance structure and line of responsibility, makes this Bill a lost opportunity for Bengaluru.

(The writers are Research
Fellows, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)