No BRT’ report elitist: Government

NEW DELHI: Faced with the prospect of the experimental BRT corridor being scrapped, Delhi government on Monday targeted both CRRI and its report which had said that mixed lane usage or the “no BRT” option was the best. Dubbing the report “elitist” , it took on car users.

“The anger and arrogance of cars may not be permitted to wipe out the fragile protection for common good,” the government stated in its affidavit submitted before Delhi High Court, calling the report “unconstitutional” .
It added that “even if cars on the BRT corridor during peak hours are running at a slower speed, the concept of BRT has achieved the largest good of the largest number-… right of people above rights of vehicles” and blamed CRRI for ignoring the central objective of BRT – buses should travel faster.

Appearing for the government , senior advocate K T S Tulsi questioned the research methodology adopted by CRRI and quoted from the affidavit that claimed CRRI was neither an expert agency for traffic management, nor does it have any expertise in designing a public transport system.

Tulsi said CRRI’s only concern was the problems faced by car users and not bus users who form the majority. “Is a poor person who doesn’t own a car not entitled to travel fast?” Tulsi argued , prompting a division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice A K Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, to remark, “you can’t jump to conclusions on the basis of the report, a balance has to be drawn.”

Tulsi contended CRRI had adopted a completely irrational approach. “For them, a poor person is not entitled to travel fast. The value of time for poor is less important for them. Bus users are non-persons to them as they have not taken the opinion of the bus users while conducting the trial run for mixed vehicles on the corridor” the senior lawyer said, urging HC to rope in Environmental Protection and Conservation Authority (EPCA) and other agencies, including DIMTS.

B B Sharan, president of NGO Nyaybhoomi, opposed the Delhi government's stand, pointing out though it says it wants to encourage shift to public transport by car users, it has failed to provide the minimum required infrastructure in the form of proper bus stops and crossing points.

He described the affidavit as a “delaying tactic" and cited a parliamentary committee report that termed BRT a failure. He further urged the bench to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the transport department officials for not complying with its earlier order which had said the corridor should be opened for mixed vehicle use. HC has now listed the case for extended hearings on August 13 and 14.