In 2024, the Karnataka government proposed major transport infrastructure projects in Bengaluru that include a six-lane, 40-km twin underground tunnel, road widening work and elevated corridors. The work on the twin tunnel alone is pegged at Rs 40,000 crore of the total project cost of Rs 54,964 crore, according to the agency preparing the feasibility report for Bengaluru's civic body.The civic body has also proposed a Rs 500-crore Skydeck as a tourism project.
Citizens, activists, geologists and urban planners said these projects are likely to cause ecological damage and worsen Bengaluru’s chronic traffic problems.
There is overwhelming evidence that road widening, tunnels and flyovers offer temporary relief and benefit private vehicles but infrastructure projects such as these continue to dominate the urban landscape. What does this say about the state of transport governance in Bengaluru?
Three key issues are at the heart of this: fragmented authority over transport decisions, limited opportunities for inputs from the public and experts, and opaque governance. Together, these allow political, business and real estate interests to drive megaprojects with little accountability.
The result is a fundamentally broken system that fuels a parallel network of vested interests that prioritises the few over the many while persistently ignoring Bengaluru’s most pressing problems.
Overlapping agencies, limited local authority
Bengaluru’s transport planning suffers from an absence of coordination between the agencies responsible for the task. Entities operate in silos under the state government. Despite the 74th Constitutional Amendment to decentralise urban governance, the state maintains control through organisations such as the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited and the Directorate of Urban Land Transport.
These agencies operate under overlapping mandates, leading to gaps in accountability. For example, the Directorate of Urban Land Transport was established in 2007 as a specialised nodal agency to coordinate urban transport planning but it has no legal and regulatory backing to do so or ensure coordination among agencies.
Attempts at inter-agency coordination have failed to bring about meaningful integration. The Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority Act passed in 2023 was intended to coordinate these agencies and centralise transport planning and decision-making. However, the act is still not operational – political and real estate interests have opposed it, say news reports.
A glaring example of this fragmentation is the drafting of the Comprehensive Mobility Plan, to increase public transport use, in conjunction with the Master Plan prepared by the Bangalore Development Authority. To access central government funding, the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation took up a vital part of drafting the mobility plan, with support from the Directorate of Urban Land Transport. Sandeep Anirudhan, founder of Citizens Agenda for Bengaluru, compared it to a telecom company drafting the national telecom policy, indicating a conflict of interest.
Rather than being accountable to the city, these bodies function under the direct oversight of the state government. This top-down control sidelines local governance, stripping the city of any real authority over its planning and infrastructure. Fragmentation is exacerbated by a revolving door of bureaucrats who move between agencies without the technical expertise required for urban planning and transport management.
This centralised governance model, combined with the limited powers of local administrative bodies – such as the largely ceremonial role of the mayor – reinforces state dominance over urban transport planning in Bengaluru.
The absence of a functioning local government further limits democratic participation – it is more than four years since the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike has had an elected council. Citizens have no legitimate avenue that can address their concerns, undermining the principles of democratic governance and local autonomy.
Missing public and expert inputs
Public consultations in urban development decision-making are largely symbolic, mandated only for certain Bangalore Development Authority projects under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and are generally limited to the masterplan process. Agencies like the
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited face no such legal obligations, allowing major transport projects to bypass public scrutiny altogether.
When consultations do occur, there are instances where the notice has come a night before the event. If citizens manage to participate, there is no update on changes or arguments for or against a project. There also is no transparency on whether a planning authority is considering or rejecting a public suggestion. Moreover, the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act also authorises the state government to make changes to the master plan.
The steel flyover project proposed in 2017 serves as a cautionary tale. The 6.9-km flyover was set to pass through Bengaluru’s greenest areas, chopping down 800 trees. After initially ignoring public inputs, the government hastily organised a consultation where several thousands opposed the project. Despite this, the government claimed to have received emails in favor of the project. The project was eventually shelved due to massive citizen protests and corruption allegations but it brought to light the systemic failures in engaging citizens meaningfully.
The sidelining of technical expertise in urban governance is perhaps the most flagrant issue. Key institutions do not have professionals, like urban or transport planners, and are instead staffed with bureaucrats who have no specialised knowledge yet lead critical projects. Inter-agency meetings are often superficial and competitive as agency heads seem to prioritise hierarchy and rank over collaboration. Independent Urban Mobility expert Satya Arikutharam described internal meetings as “cashew biscuit chai meeting”, or “CBC” meetings – mere formalities where decisions are pre-determined and technical experts are excluded or ignored.
Private interests
Private lobbies wield significant influence over Bengaluru’s urban policies. Developers and builders often work with politicians to secure land deals, zoning permits, and regulatory approvals that fuel rapid urban expansion and high-profit real estate projects. The development lobby has reportedly opposed the Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority Act due to the legislation’s potential for stricter scrutiny on the traffic effect of large-scale real estate projects.
Politicians also view urban infrastructure projects as part of their legacy. For example, metro inaugurations are frequently postponed to align with VIP schedules, prioritising political optics over timely public access. Similarly, ambitious projects are driven by interests outside mobility expertise. For instance, the tunnel road project did not originate from urban planners but real estate developers. Projects like the Sky Deck, thus, reflect the government’s tendency to prioritise symbolic, high-profile ventures over urban planning.
The elements of a non-deliberative, opaque governance approach are clear: hire high-ranking officials lacking expertise, create a complex structure with many decision-makers, and hide the true authority, ie, private lobbies, behind layers of bureaucracy. This helps maintain an illusion of transparency while pushing hidden agendas by offering token gestures of accountability to calm public concerns without giving up power. By prolonging legitimate processes, this approach banks on the public forgetting and allowing unchecked actions to continue.
A promising starting point is a collective intention to make Bengaluru livable – a goal its active citizenry has long fought for. A recalibration towards transparency, genuine citizen engagement and the elevation of technical expertise is essential to steer the city toward ensuring the residents’ right to the city.
Sharanya Menon is a lawyer and policy researcher, with a focus on urban governance and gender.
