AGL 38.27 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.13%)
AIRLINK 136.19 Increased By ▲ 7.22 (5.6%)
BOP 8.78 Increased By ▲ 0.93 (11.85%)
CNERGY 4.76 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (2.15%)
DCL 8.65 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (3.97%)
DFML 39.51 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (1.46%)
DGKC 84.54 Increased By ▲ 2.60 (3.17%)
FCCL 34.70 Increased By ▲ 1.28 (3.83%)
FFBL 76.00 Increased By ▲ 0.29 (0.38%)
FFL 12.93 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.86%)
HUBC 110.70 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (0.31%)
HUMNL 13.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.14%)
KEL 5.40 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (4.85%)
KOSM 7.75 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.04%)
MLCF 41.53 Increased By ▲ 1.73 (4.35%)
NBP 70.79 Decreased By ▼ -1.53 (-2.12%)
OGDC 190.52 Increased By ▲ 2.23 (1.18%)
PAEL 26.21 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (2.26%)
PIBTL 7.43 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.81%)
PPL 157.65 Increased By ▲ 4.98 (3.26%)
PRL 26.16 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (3.03%)
PTC 18.86 Increased By ▲ 1.16 (6.55%)
SEARL 82.45 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.04%)
TELE 7.83 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (3.16%)
TOMCL 34.50 Increased By ▲ 1.93 (5.93%)
TPLP 8.43 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.12%)
TREET 17.20 Increased By ▲ 0.42 (2.5%)
TRG 56.80 Increased By ▲ 0.76 (1.36%)
UNITY 29.26 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (1.67%)
WTL 1.35 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BR100 10,698 Increased By 39.2 (0.37%)
BR30 31,887 Increased By 555.4 (1.77%)
KSE100 99,678 Increased By 408.8 (0.41%)
KSE30 31,021 Decreased By -11.4 (-0.04%)

The increasing traffic mess has created immense problems to people/commuters in the absence of mass transit system in Karachi, Sindh Government has turned down the request/proposal of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) for allocation of funds for its Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project in the forthcoming provincial budget.
BRT, a high quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast, comfortable, and cost effective urban mobility, was needed an estimated amount of at least Rs 5.1 billion. Through a letter, the Mass Transit Cell of KMC had requested the provincial government to allocate funds for Bus Rapid Transit project, which had already gone through the required studies and documentations.
However, the concerned department of the provincial government had refused to spare money for the project which aimed to provide a better source of transportation through the provision of segregated right-of-way infrastructure, rapid and frequent operations and excellent in marketing and customer service. Though there were 6 lines of the BRT system, KMC was initially proposing to start the project on one line with the travelling distance of 20.4 kilometres with at least 200 CNG powered buses.
Collectively, through the BRT projects with the estimated cost of Rs 21.5 billion, 425 buses were proposed to be run on various lines while lifting 12,000 passengers per hour per direction and 7,00,000 passengers boarding per day. The proposed transit routes follow as: Route 1 from Surjani Town to Saddar, Route 2 from Safoora Goth to Saddar, Route 3 in Korangi Industrial Area to Saddar. The Line-4 starts from Hawksbay to Gulberg, Routes-5 starts from Baldia to Shershah and Line-6 between Orangi Town and Board Office.
However, despite the complete study preparation of documents by Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) along with the first ever Master Plan of Transport of Karachi, the transport related projects were facing the negligence on the part of the government (federal, provincial and local). Particularly, as sources claimed, Sindh Government was reluctant to support the mega project and the transport schemes have so far been left only in papers due to the row between the two governments.
Asian Development Bank (ADB), which had agreed to finance the new concept in urban transport systems with the allocated $223 million for the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS), had later, deferred the investment programme in December, 2008 for following reasons: 1) No consensus within the government to proceed with the programme, 2) Despite lapse of 4 years, there was continuous problem of government approvals, 3) Major changes in focus, scope and direction of the programme, 4) In July 2008, the programme was re-configured with new implementation arrangements, 5) Approval of PC-land and other status could not be achieved and 6) Scope of the programme could not be agreed on project progress.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2012

Comments

Comments are closed.