Focus on technology and private-public partnership model as innovations in building infrastructure for our cities is not “smart”. Innovation in city planning and infrastructure development cannot just be technology enabled solutions, says Shashi Shikha, Senior Program Officer. City planners need to take the lead in building citizen-engaged, innovative planning for our cities.
For the past two months, every morning on my way work, I have noticed overflowing drain water on a broad stretch of National Highway. The drain is clogged, though some portion of it looks as if the stones have been moved to open it up. Since the puddle is right on the highway, it is hard to believe this overflowing sewage water has gone unnoticed by the municipal authorities. But, seemingly, no corrective action has been taken. It’s been less than three years since this stretch of the highway was widened. Construction debris remains. Every now and then sewage water overflows, collecting in puddles. What will happen when the monsoon rains arrive? Another Gurujam? The nightmare of 2016 when a particularly heavy downpour gridlocked traffic on MG Road and the NH8 for nearly 24 hours because of waterlogging and two road cave-ins. This brought the realization that Millennium City could just as easily “drown” because of its poorly designed and ill maintained civic infrastructure.
On the one hand, our current government has been promoting SMART cities, innovative solutions and use of technology to improve urban living. On the other, Indian cities remain plagued by lack of infrastructure such as drainage and quick response to emergency situations. It is evident that our city authorities are not prepared to provide basic services to the millions that make their home in urban India.
Is this because we have lost sight of the fundamental, integrative principles of city planning? When we plan the layout of roads, do we think of rainwater harvesting? When constructing sewers, do we plan what will happen to the debris and waste construction material? Are the systems and mechanisms for repair and maintenance of roads charted out when planning a highway? Are these things difficult to do, or do we ignore them because they are expensive? Is it just lack of foresight? Or even worse, sheer negligence?
Recently, I attended a consultation on ‘Innovative solutions for scaling up sanitation services’ in Jaipur. The principal secretary, urban housing and development, of the Rajasthan government raised a very valid issue for the future planning of our cities: before we can even begin to talk about innovation in planning, we need to be clear that the fundamentals are in place. Citing the example of upgrading sewerage systems in a city, he explained that for a sewer to be constructed, three different contracts are awarded – one for constructing outfall drains, one for lateral drains and a third for constructing the Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP). Tendering to multiple contractors complicates coordination at different stages of construction, because of which delivery suffers. Moreover, the contracts do nothing to ensure that citizens are made aware and enabled to take individual sewerage connections for their houses. The fact that any infrastructure remains defunct without human response towards its acceptance, usage and maintenance is overlooked.
Construction of drains should be undertaken in a manner that day-to-day life in the city remains unaffected, or is at least managed with least disruption, and the job is considered complete only when the road has been re-laid. Moreover, every city has unique psychographic patterns and geographical limitations. Innovative solutions for sewerage systems require availability of water. A well-functioning STP needs 135 litres of water per person in the city. In cities which lack water availability owing to depleted water tables, the STP sanitation model will not be successful. However, in the name of innovative solutions, international infrastructure funding agencies and consultants recommend STPs as the best sanitation model. Such recommendations sadly remain undisputed. Nowadays, an alternative sanitation model that is being discussed is on-site Faecal Sludge and Septage Management (FSSM).
How a city chooses to develop its infrastructure and the “innovative solutions” it picks must be contextual, based on a city’s resources and be inclusive of people’s participation. Planners must focus on the nuances of huge infrastructure investment decisions, such as leveling of roads across patches when roads are constructed, covering drains after construction, and providing for rainwater harvesting or outlets when building concrete roads. Lack of foresight has resulted in underpasses in Chennai and Mumbai during the rainy season becoming ponds so deep that they submerge cars. Are we really such poor planners?
Focus on technology and private-public partnership model as innovations in building infrastructure for our cities is not “smart”. Innovation in city planning and infrastructure development cannot just be technology enabled solutions. It requires new ways of thinking, processing and building people’s participation in the planning process. City planners must take on this responsibility, of demystifying planning and enabling citizen participation, if our cities are to become genuinely SMART.
(Courtesy blog on Engaged Citizens, Responsive City, Participatory Research In Asia (PRIA))