Those in charge of traffic planning, if indeed such personnel exist, have not exactly covered themselves with glory in the last few weeks. Two major initiatives were undertaken to ease congestion in Adyar and George Town and while the first was an instantaneous failure, the second was seen as a half-baked exercise at best. What was common to both was that they focussed only on vehicle users, ignoring the interests of all other stakeholders – local residents, hawkers and, above all and as usual, the pedestrian who, it would appear, does not even figure in such plans. To what use then these schemes and their flawed execution?

The first of these was a high profile idea. Based on the advice of a well-known cinematographer, who it would appear had based his calculations entirely by flying over the land and not bothering to set foot on the ground, it concerned the Lattice Bridge Road and its environs. A series of one-ways and a major circular route were at the core of the system, all focussed on ensuring “smooth vehicular flow”, to the exclusion of everyone else. This was implemented without any consultation with those who would be affected by such an arrangement – residents in the area.

What emerged was a major gridlock and spirited protests from at least the residents of one of the streets who found that what was at best a narrow thoroughfare had overnight become a major arterial road. It goes without saying that the street was in no way equipped to handle the suddenly increased traffic volume, the noise and the congestion. To make matters worse, there were no signboards at any place to inform commuters well in advance of the new arrangements, causing several to reach particular junctions and then being made to take several diversions. A series of gridlocks ensued and the plan was withdrawn almost within a day of its implementation. The impact on the pedestrian was, of course, completely overlooked in this plan. Continuously moving traffic meant no traffic lights and that meant pedestrians had no place to cross. This, in fact, is a common feature across most of the one-ways, some of which have been in place for years now. But nobody appears to have woken up to the plight of the pedestrian who has to commend his/her soul to God and take the plunge amidst traffic in case he/she needs to cross. This is particularly so in the Panagal Park shopping area.

The second instance was on NSC Bose Road where, following a High Court directive, hawkers were evicted to ensure smooth traffic flow. That these hawkers were not authorised to occupy the roads is a well-known fact. But what is noteworthy is that each time it requires the intervention of the Court to make our civic body wake up to this reality. The eviction this time was ostensibly to clear the space to ensure smooth traffic flow in an area that has become severely congested thanks to the ongoing Metro Rail work. But when hardly the hawkers had been evicted, the cars and buses came to monopolise occupation of the spaces cleared, converting the area into an irregular parking lot. The hawkers are now demanding alternative space, something that nobody has in his powers to give, for George Town simply does not have any open space. By nightfall the hawkers were mostly back. Congestion was the end result once again, with pedestrians having to compete for space with vehicles.

In fact, if there is one set of road-users who are exposed to the maximum risk in connection with the Metro, it is the pedestrian. In several places, people walk in between protective but apparently very ineffective railings, often under the nose of heavy equipment. And as the pace of work increases, it does not look as though matters are going to become anyeasier.

Traffic arrangements, it would appear, have become ad-hoc exercises. Someone has what he thinks is a workable plan or some authority cracks a whip and action is taken on this basis. There is no thought given to what impact it is likely to have on multiple stakeholders and there is no attempt at having a dialogue with all those who are likely to be affected. There is, moreover, no effort in involving the local resident and sensitising him/her on how or what he/she can contribute. Can a city hope to operate on such knee-jerk reactions without any long-term policy or plan? Or is fire-fighting to be our only policy?