SHILLONG, July 1: The state government has hired an international body of experts to effectively manage the burgeoning traffic woes in the city. The team has already submitted its initial report and the government is looking at ways and means to implement the short-term goals and obtain resources for long-term action as suggested by the experts.
The state government made the disclosure before the High Court of Meghalaya during the hearing on a public interest litigation filed by Philip Khrawbok Shati in 2021 pertaining to the traffic congestion in Shillong, particularly around the central business district and Kachari area.
The Advocate General submitted before the court that a tender has been floated to acquire mini buses so that a large number of schoolchildren may be ferried to and from school in such buses without individual cars being used for the purpose.
The court observed that several of the buses that were once used as part of the public transport system in the city have been dumped in various areas and are in an advanced state of disrepair.
The Advocate General assured the court that appropriate steps would be taken to dispose of the condemned buses in accordance with law so that additional funds may be obtained for augmenting the public transport system in and around the city.
The state also submitted that a proposal has been sent to the World Bank to finance 21 e-buses to ply within the city limits.
Some of the parties involved in the case suggested that the authorities should create adequate parking space in key areas to dissuade parking in the already congested and narrow streets.
“The state may also consider construction of ropeways and other forms of transportation to the extent feasible and subject to availability of resources,” the court said.
Meanwhile, in another case pertaining to street vendors, the state government on Friday submitted before the court that the cabinet has approved the repeal of the state enactment so that the central statute pertaining to street-vending may be applicable in the state.
However, since the rule-making activity will require some time, the court decided to hear the case again after six weeks.
