The way to go: A dedicated bus carriageway will ensure optimum usage of public transport. According to a recent news report Tamil Nadu Urban Infrastructure Financial Services Limited (TNUIFSL) has decided to take up the Adyar River Front Project as the first part of the Rs. 2,300-crore Chennai Circular Corridor. The financial services firm has decided to clean up the Adyar, use the Adyar Creek, and build a dedicated carriageway on both sides of the river for a Bus Rapid Transport System (BRTS) to reduce traffic congestion. From Ramapuram to Porur-Poonamallee, t he BRTS would be on an elevated corridor that would connect with the Chennai bypass (Maduravoyal to Manali).' The TNUIFSL has brought out a 10-minute video to promote this project and has also asked for international consultants to draw up a feasibility plan. At first glance, all right thinking citizens would hail this shift to endorse and encourage public transport and especially of buses. A dedicated bus carriageway which would ensure speed and comfort is no doubt the best way to wean the public from two and four wheelers and ensure optimum usage of public transport. After all any reduction in the number of vehicles on the roads daily would reduce the need for importing fossil fuels which are both economically and environmentally damaging to the country. In general creating an exclusive path for the BRTS that prioritises its needs and the needs of its users over private transport is the key to ensure its success. Why then some find the TNUIFSL proposal will actually cause more damage than good? Why the unease about the Chennai Circular Corridor project? First, Chennai was presented with a Draft Second Master Plan only in April 2007 by the city's planning agency, Chennai Metropolitan Planning authority (CMDA). Despite being discussed threadbare in public fora and revised to include future projects and plans before being finalised this year, there is no mention of this Circular Corridor project or even its necessity in this master plan. There is, on the other hand, an entire chapter on transportation, that discusses the metro rail and other projects. Did the premier planning agency, the CMDA fail to identify the need for this "critical project' or is the TNUIFSL, which is basically a fund manager, projecting this project as "critical'? Does public limited company co-owned by three financial institutions and the state government have more planning expertise than the CMDA? Unforeseen problems Second, is this really a BRTS project or a much bigger transport project? Either way, city planners will agree while projects are necessary to kick start certain planning objectives, stand alone projects not integrated with a holistic vision of the metropolis are likely to cause unforeseen problems. Third, experts and citizens contributed time and effort in participating in the public consultation. After all, the space for public discourse in planning has been provided only in the Town and Country Planning Act. Large projects, such as this, promoted by Special Purpose Vehicles such as the TNUIFSL, are not mandated to provide the same, which leaves the citizen yet again at the receiving end of a top down approach. As we are all aware, fund managers are accountable only to the investors. How can such large projects be discussed and decided without public discussion? Further, curiously, tenders for the feasibility plan for this transport project have been called for by the Adyar Poonga Trust. The Adyar Poonga Trust, the public was made to understand, was to protect, improve and restore the degraded Adyar Creek and Estuary area and also improve the condition of the Adyar River which impacts this creek. NGO efforts have resulted in the High Court clearly stating that the Creek and Estuary area must be restored as a wetland. Why then is the Adyar Poonga Trust calling for studies to set up roads and flyovers across and along the waterways of Chennai? Fifth, an easy but environmentally destructive solution of land identification for the MRTS was the Buckingham Canal some years ago. As is well known, the alignment for the MRTS was not based on transportation needs, but land availability