Of late, one has come across a number of infrastructureprojects which, to say the least,, have been badly conceived. Looking at some of these projects it seems noserious thought was given at the time of conceiving and planning theseprojects. Here I intend to discuss one such project – the multi-level parkingthat is being constructed by Tourism Department through JKPCC at DargahHazratbal, Srinagar.
To get details of the project I filed an RTI applicationwith JKPCC and requested for the Detailed Project Report (DPR) of the Project.Very promptly I got a 13 page ‘document’ which incidentally had differenttitles (Application for Administrative Approval, DPR and Cost Offer) ondifferent pages. The cost of the project as estimated a few years back is givenat Rs 13.18 crores. However, being a JKPCC project a 100% cost overrun by thetime it is completed would not surprise anyone.
On a very quick perusal of the document (I do not intend todemean the acronym ‘DPR’ by calling these few pages a ‘DPR’) one could findnumerous inconsistencies in it. While specifications under its ‘Proposal’section are for a standard load bearing two storey office / residentialbuilding, the bill of quantities and cost offer is for a four storey RCC framedstructure. Besides, there is a huge mismatch in the items of work between theproposal and the cost offer. In any case, from whatever one could gather fromthe sketches it looks like a typical concrete monstrosity found in any largecity and would be an eyesore if constructed.
Except for the 4 pages of sketches and the abstract of thebill of quantities, the document provides no technical details specific to theproject – all the text is very general and could be pertaining to any buildingconstruction project. It misses out on providing even the number of parkingslots that the structure would have, not to talk of giving details of currentparking needs, future projections and the viability of the project. Only whenyou strain your eyes to read the ‘virtually unreadable’ so called drawings doesone note that there are 40 bays on each floor adding up to 160 bays in the fourstorey structure.
Looking at the project as such, there were two issues whichstrike out and merit a deeper study. One, to check whether the option of providingmulti-level parking itself is an appropriate solution – is some better option available. Two, given the likelylimited usage of the facility, to assess, on a high level, the overallutilization of the facility and evaluate the viability of this project; thecost of construction, the operation and maintenance costs. I have attempted tobriefly answer both these issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
Is multi-level parking an appropriate solution?
It is not clear as to what options were studied at the timeof conceptualizing the proposal but considering a plot size of 12 kanals could only provide 160 parking slots on 4 floors made onedoubt the efficiency of the layout. Accordingly, starting with the least costalternative, the first option was to explore a surface parking.
Considering surface parking and using the same philosophy oflayout as adopted in the sketches and the standard design parameters led tosome very interesting revelations – the surface parking in the plot of land onecould actually accommodate a total of 176 parking bays, that is, 10% moreparking bays than in the proposed 4 storey multi-level parking. And with noinvestment at all in case of surface parking the choice of the preferred optionis a no brainer. So, the question that begs an answer is why are we spendingtens of crores of rupees to construct this monstrosity when surface parkingwill provide 10% more bays at no investment at all?
Is the usage and the revenue collection thereof likely tocover the cost of its operation and maintenance?
As mentioned earlier, the document is silent on the demandof parking in the area, future demand projection and the likely usage of thefacility. However, from local knowledge one knows that the usage would be onlyaround the five prayer times on Urs days and Fridays – possibly for less thanthree months in a year and with at best an average two third occupancy rate.Not to talk of returns on capital cost, the revenue generated thereof would bea fraction of the amount that would be spend on staffing the facility and itsoperation, maintenance and upkeep. Compared to this surface parking couldgenerate similar or better revenue with virtually no investment or maintenancecost.
Clearly, the best and most logical option is to abandon theconstruction, notwithstanding whatever has been spent so far, and to developthis premium piece of land as surface parking. During the remaining ninemonths, when there is not really a huge demand for parking there, the areacould be used as an exhibition or sale area or even as a flea market housed intemporary kiosks and booths.