Journalism of Courage
The Chandigarh engineering department has opposed even the last shortlisted alternative to the Tribune flyover. Of the seven proposals, six were rejected and for the last one, a meeting with the structural engineer who had proposed the alternative, was convened again on Thursday.
Before the High Court hearing, UT officials are preparing to table their conclusions of all the meetings convened on the alternatives suggested by people. The hearing is scheduled for February 12. The High Court had directed the Chandigarh Administration to look for alternatives to the Tribune flyover but the administration has been terming almost all the solutions not workable.
In the meeting on Thursday where structural engineer Tarun Mathur’s proposal was the only alternative approved, officials concluded that it is not a workable solution. Mathur’s father has worked with Pierre Jeanneret, cousin of Le Corbusier.
“It was discussed that this solution is not workable at all because it requires land acquisition and the curves suggested in the proposal are against IRC norms,” an engineer who attended the meeting said.
Engineers and STUP consultants that have been hired by the engineering wing for the Tribune flyover raised various objections to the plan of signal-free junction proposed by the structural engineer.
“They raised objections like turning radius of curve should be 65m as per norms and that this is the design speed of only 40 kmph. Also, they are considering 8.5m height difference, whereas my height difference is 7m only,” Mathur said.
Sources said that the engineer requested that minutes of the meeting be issued but the officials were non-committal. He also asked that he be permitted to voice record the meeting but it was denied. Among those who were present in the meeting were STUP designer, Chief Engineer Mukesh Anand, Punjab chief engineer, Haryana chief engineer, Housing Board chief engineer, Municipal Corporation, senior architect, town planner, Senior Superintendent of Police (Traffic) and other engineers of the Chandigarh Administration.
When the structural engineer and his team pointed out that heritage was being affected, the engineers said that “they are not concerned with the heritage and the architect should just focus on his alternative”. When contacted, Mathur said, “My proposal has been examined which is low in height and not in violation of the heritage norms. The consultant suggested larger curves as per the highway norms. I pointed out that the curves are only branches of the highway and should be classified as urban roads where smaller radius is permissible.”
Mathur added, “It was further pointed out that my radius was as much as that of the existing Rose Garden roundabout and should be sufficient. With larger curves suggested by STUP, the area for land acquisition increases three times and I feel that may be difficult to implement.”
In the meeting, the structural engineer stressed that his proposal was only “25 per cent of the cost of STUP proposal and the Administration should examine it more thoroughly”.
Mathur’s proposal Mathur had proposed that congestion can be eased by just having a “signal-free junction”. “We proposed an interchange which is a grade-separated intersection with roads passing over one another and with ramps to connect them. The ramping mechanism will allow traffic to flow from one or more sides without actually crossing it or without disturbing the movement of other traffic streams.
The net result is a completely signal-free junction which altogether avoids the need for traffic lights or the need to stop at the junction,” Mathur said.
