The smart cities project lacks consideration for small towns — class III to VI — that have populations lower than 49,999 and which account for 29 per cent of the total urban population.

SUMMARY

It is important to look at what went wrong with the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission.

 Israelis and Palestinians must stop circling the grindstone of violence, remember the future

At A time when the contours of the new scheme for 100 smart cities are being decided, it is important to look at what went wrong with the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), launched in 2005 to improve infrastructure and governance in cities. With an overall investment of more than Rs 1 lakh crore, it covered both small towns and big cities. Amid all the criticism of the scheme, it is imperative to look at what went right and what didn’t.

One of the major drawbacks of the JNNURM was that it focused too much on big cities, directing fewer funds towards small and medium ones. In principle, it was meant to include all cities/ towns as per the 2001 Census. One of the things it did right was provide funds for class V and VI towns, which have populations of less than 10,000 people. Though their share in resources was dismal, it started a process that could have been taken forward in the future.

Another criticism was that access to JNNURM funds was linked to the achievement of mandatory reforms. Many feel this kind of incentivising did not work because a number of states and cities refused to comply. The Centre had no choice but to release funds after being given assurances on paper. However, many states did comply. As of January 2014, states like Himachal Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu had completed 19 out of the 23 reforms. Others like J&K, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal had completed 16. Bigger cities like Delhi did not perform as well and managed to complete only 15 reforms but still received the highest funding under the JNNURM.

The constant dependence of urban local bodies (ULBs) on state or parastatal agencies was another criticism. The JNNURM was supposed to encourage the role of ULBs in project preparation and implementation. However, in practice, the role of the ULB was reduced to that of quiet spectator in some cases and appointing agency in others. The funding pattern did encourage cost-sharing between the Centre, state and ULBs. However, in some cases, smaller towns were unable to contribute their share of the project cost.

Underutilisation of funds was another issue. Since the smaller ULBs are not financially independent, implementing reforms can be difficult, which leads to delays in the release of funds. Also, since a number of smaller ULBs lack capacity, the funds, even when released, were not enough to realise their potential or utilised optimally. This leads to a vicious cycle of poor performance stemming from poor capacity and lack of funds.

While the JNNURM is likely to be discontinued, the new concept of “smart cities” doesn’t hit the nail on the head either. As enunciated in the Union budget speech, the development of satellite towns and modernisation of existing mid-sized cities seems to be the plan. But this lacks consideration for small towns — class III to VI — that have populations lower than 49,999 and which account for 29 per cent of the total urban population. Many of these towns may not be near big cities but may actually possess enormous growth potential. Consider this, between 2001 and 2011, the population living in class I (1,00,000 and above) and class II (50,000-99,999) towns has increased by 27 and 20 per cent respectively. Whereas the population in class III (20,000-49,999) and class IV (10,000-19,999) towns has increased by 40 and 41 per cent respectively. Further, the population in class V (5,000-9,999) and class VI towns (less than 5,000) has doubled. This increase in small-town populations needs to be backed with investment to sustain urbanisation as it will contribute majorly to economic clusters.

The investment allocation for the 100 smart cities project, Rs 7,060 crore, is 6 per cent of the total estimated investment of the JNNURM. As of March 2012, the JNNURM covered 1,274 small towns and 65 big cities. In terms of both investment and coverage, the JNNURM was a much larger scheme. It had a definitive structure that got lost in implementation. What is needed is capacity building at the local level. Until ULBs are empowered to carry out their functions properly, no new scheme can achieve its objectives. When a large number of our cities struggle with even the delivery of basic services, creating technologically advanced cities may not be attacking the root of the problem. What is required is the equitable distribution of funds and resources to small and medium cities instead of identifying a few smart cities.

The writer is a research associate at the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi

[email protected]

Source-http://indianexpress.com/

TNN |

Funds are also allocated for constructing workshops and assistance in implementation of ITS for BMTC.

Source – http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) has sanctioned another 400 buses for the State to be operated under the JNNURM extended scheme.

For the State, it is a big disappointment, as it had pitched for 1,011 buses at an estimated cost of Rs.649.55 crore to extend the highly popular low-floor JNNURM buses to the remaining 12 districts. Since 2009, 313 buses have been sanctioned for the State. These ply in the State capital and Ernakulam under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC).

The State is in receipt of the minutes of the Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee (CSMC) meeting, chaired by Union Urban Affairs Secretary Sudhir Krishna, in New Delhi on September 26 that cleared the 400 buses for the State, official sources told The Hindu. Among the 2,433 buses allotted to six States, Maharashtra has got the most (900), followed by Kerala and Rajasthan (286). The mission sanctioned 73 buses for Andhra Pradesh, and 50 each for Chhattisgarh and Puducherry.

In addition to the purchase of the buses, the mission will now provide funds to the State for support infrastructure such as bus depots as it wants to replicate the metro rail experience on buses to uplift the brand image of public transport by bus.

The Detailed Project Report for the procurement of the buses was made by Rajan Khobragade, Secretary (Urban Affairs), Local Self-government Department, and Kerala Sustainable Urban Development Project Director U.V. Jose before Mr. Krishna.

The main hurdle before the State is how to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for operating and taking care of the buses procured with the JNNURM assistance.

The KSRTC has hinted that it is ready to hand over the 313 buses to the SPV.

Main condition

Setting up the SPV is the main condition put forward to the Local Self-government Department by the CSMC to release the first tranche of funds to the State under the JNNURM extended scheme.

The State had proposed to operate the buses in major towns and cities of 12 districts that were grouped under five clusters for smooth fleet operation.

A semi-low-floor non-air-conditioned bus (900-mm long) will cost Rs.30 lakh, semi-low-floor non air-conditioned bus (650 mm) Rs.40 lakh, and a premium standard air-conditioned bus Rs.90 lakh.

Compared to the scheme launched five years ago, intelligent transport system, upgrade of depots, and installation of central control room will form part of the JNNURM funding now

The mission will provide 80 per cent of the estimated cost, and the State will have to bear the rest.

Source- http://www.thehindu.com

Under this situation, now the local body has to identify fresh projects that could get Centre’s funding.

Sources said though the city requires major infrastructure projects, including road development, the corporation will not be able to take up projects without the state government’s support as it requires huge funding for massive land acquisitions. Though the corporation stated that it had planned to take up projects – such as canal and waterway protection, construction of Vathuruthy railway overbridge, heritage conservation project for Mattancherry and Fort Kochi, water transport development – for availing of the funds, the local body has not yet prepared the DPRs.

“The irrigation department has drawings which can be used for preparing detailed reports of canal and waterway protection projects. For Vathuruthy railway overbridge, the Roads and Bridges Corporation-Kerala (RBDC-K) has prepared drawings. The Indian Navy has to give nod for these drawings. Once the Navy gives its approval, the corporation can go ahead with plans to prepare the DPR,” said town planning committee chairman K J Sohan.

Meanwhile, the council had given its approval for some of these projects.

Source-http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/

One of the components of the Jawarhalal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) was introduction of attractive buses in a bid to make members of the public use the public transportation system extensively, but the manner in which the scheme was implemented proved to be counter productive.

The fares fixed for travel in JNNURM buses are 200 per cent more than the normal buses and this has discouraged people from using the facility.

In a memorandum to the Union Urban Development Ministry, Secretary of Coimbatore Consumer Cause (CCC) K. Kathirmathiyon, said that of the 2000 buses in Tamil Nadu, 1,064 were plying in Chennai, 213 in Madurai and 192 in Coimbatore.

In Coimbatore, the Ministry of Urban Development had approved Rs.44.39 crore in 2009, as its share (Additional Central Assistance – ACA) for purchase of 300 buses and an amount of Rs.22.19 crore was released earlier with 70 per cent of cost as Central Government assistance under JNNURM.

With the funds, the TNSTC purchased buses termed as “Luxury”, “Low Floor” and “Semi-Low Floor.”

But all these buses were operated with just ‘ordinary’ and not ‘luxury’ permits. These buses were in operation without the fare table approval by a competent authority. Ultimately, people from the middle-income and low-income group avoided travelling in JNNURM buses, as the fares were very high.

Interestingly, all private buses are being operated with ordinary fare only. The occupancy ratio of JNNURM buses compared to other ordinary buses (both private and State owned) could reveal the poor patronage for the former.

CCC has requested the Government to go in for ordinary buses only.

Since the cost of ordinary buses was lesser, more buses could be purchased with the funds. It would result in more buses for the people on different routes with ordinary fare.

Source-http://www.thehindu.com

The Union Ministry of Urban Development has asked the State government to designate the Urban Development Department (UDD) as the nodal department for all urban transport-related matters.

The Ministry said no planned urbanisation could be successful without an effective and efficient urban transport system.

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), which caters to the public transport requirements of Bangalore, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), North Western KRTC and North Eastern KRTC come under the Transport Department.

In a recent communiqué to the Chief Secretary, Union Urban Development Secretary Sudhir Krishna said the State UDD should also be responsible for planning land use for urban transport. Urban transport and planning should go together. However, in many States these two are segregated between the Transport Department and the UDD, he said. It had been well recognised that urban transport was the key for urban development as more than 70 per cent of the country’s GDP comes from cities.

ONLY FEW FOLLOWED

Mr. Krishna said, “It is a matter of concern that despite this being one of the conditions of reforms at the State-level under the scheme for funding of buses for urban transport under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and in spite of issuing two advisories from the Ministry to chief secretaries of all States and Union Territories earlier, only a few States — Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha and Rajasthan — have brought urban transport under one nodal department, i.e., urban development department.”

Designating the UDD as the nodal department for urban transport was necessary for the integration of land use and transport plans as envisaged in the National Urban Transport Plan, Mr. Krishna said. With this, urban transport remains as an integral part of urban planning at all levels and cities could be planned in a holistic manner, he said.

Responding to this, a senior Transport Department official said the department would have no objection to the move. The government had to take the decision, he said.

Mr. Krishna said failure to comply with the advisory, however, would not attract any penalty. There were about 30 conditions for funding under the JNNURM. Some of them are mandatory and some, including a single agency for urban planning and transport, are desirable. Karnataka, at least, had a Directorate of Urban Land Transport to plan for urban transport under the UDD, he said.

http://www.thehindu.com