Kerala's highway widening controversy

While in Trivandrum for a few days, I came across the raging controversy about w
hat should be the width of the National Highways (NH), and could not resist wadi
ng into the debate. These quick comments about the specific situation in Kerala
is from a cursory understanding, though its general thrust is relevant for all r
oad-widenings.
The crux of the issue is that while the National Highway Authority of India (NHA
I) has proposed widening NH 17 and 47 to a width of 45 m, public opinion (crysta
llized in an all-party meeting) favors restricting it to 30 m.
In this context, I am reminded about an old post, in the context of Vijayawada r
oad-widenings, that argues in favor of framing road widening debates in terms of
lanes rather than road widths. I am inclined towards the view that the debate s
hould have been formulated as a requirement of 3/6 (or 4/8) lane carriageway wit
h a 4-5 m wide service road, instead of the 30-45 m width choice.
Taking cue from behavioural psychology, it is far easier to bargain for a reduct
ion in road width by 5 or even 15 m, as opposed to negotiating for reduction in
one lane or dispensing with the service road. One carriage lane or a service roa
d has a much greater cognitive salience than 5 or 15 m. Anybody who has done roa
d widenings on scale would appreciate this dimension of collective psychology.
In many respects, road-widening is a classic collective bargaining game where fr
aming the context of the negotiations is critical. An appropriate formulation of
the choices can considerably increase the odds of achieving a successful result
. Therefore, and in view of the aforementioned political dynamics, a more realis
tic final goal should have been to push through atleast a six lane carriageway p
roposal, even if without any service lanes.
Given the fact that existing roads are 10-15 m wide, a 45 m road widening propos
al would have meant an effective tripling of the existing width, a difficult pro
position in a densely populated and urbanized context, as in Kerala. At best of
times Kerala is a difficult place to push through such measures. The numerous ex
amples of tortuously slow road-widenings in Trivandrum city is a reflection of t
his difficulty.
In a state where travelling 60 km on NH 47 from Trivandrum to Kollam takes more
than 90 minutes, the impact of even a 30 m road widening on Kerala's economy can
be dramatic. To the extent that road transportation is one of the critical infr
astructural engines of economic growth, substantial economic activity in the sta
te remains suppressed/disincentivized by the narrow highway roads.
A 30 m (or 100 ft) road will have 1.2 m (5 ft) central median, with 10.5 m (=3.5
x3) (or 33 ft) of three-lane carriageway, about 2.5-3 m of drainage, and 0.6-1.1
m of shoulders on either side. This specification would be adequate to meet the
basic requirements. All the more so, since unlike other states, Kerala does not
serve as a transit pathway for the North-South or East-West passenger and freig
ht traffic. Further, given its limited industrial base, a wider NH would be more
useful in facilitating the growth of the state's services sector than promoting
freight traffic. While a 60 m width would have been a luxury, and 45 m width id
eal, the aforementioned practical considerations means that a 30 m width should
be a good second-best solution.
Further, the success or otherwise of road widenings are critically dependent on
the flexibility in the widths across stretches (without compromising on the esse
ntials) and compensation payment strategies. This is all the more so since given
 the urbanized nature of the state (especially adjoining the NH), the NH widenin
g across a major length (and from where resistance is likely to be most vocal) w
ill be similar to widening of city roads. In such environments, decentralized ne
gotiations (at official level, as is done in states like Andhra Pradesh) can yie
ld quick and fairer results, though it carries the risk of politicization and co
rruption.
Though, in comparison to the regular land accquisition process, the NHAI's proce
dures are faster and its compensation amounts larger, such urban land accquistio
n will have to embrace more innovative approaches like transferable FAR bonds (T
DRs), waival/concessions on building fees, impact fee concessions etc. Further,
there should be a distinction made between those losing the major share of their
property (as to leave the remaining extent virtually useless) and those who los
e only a smaller share of their property; houses and commercial establishments;
and owners and tenants.
There is an Econ 101 arguement in favor of the 30 m proposal. Even with the 45/6
0 m widening, the carriageway will be no more than 4 or 6 lanes, and the remaini
ng land will be left barren as shoulders to be brought to use when required. In
any case, the NHAI roads do not have any drains and the concept of ducting to la
y utility lines is yet to catch up even in the metropolitan cities.
In the circumstances, we are looking at accquiring and leaving 15 m (or 50 ft) o
f road width for a length of 500 km (i am not sure of this figure) virtually unu
sed for a considerable period of time (let us say 10 years). Leave aside the vir
tual certainty of its encroachment, especially in the densified and urbanized co
ntext of Kerala, the sheer economic waste incurred by leaving 7.5 million sqm (o
r around 16000 acres) of valuable real estate (in fact, the most valuable lands
in the respective towns/villages) area unproductive is staggering.
Back of the envelope calculations assuming a very conservative rate of Rs 5 m pe
r acre would yield an asset worth Rs 80 bn (or Rs 8000 Cr) proposed to be left i
dle. The net present value of this investment, over a period of 10 years and ass
uming a discount rate of 10%, would surely be many times more than the cost of a
ccquiring the same land after ten years. This calculation ignores the net econom
ic return components like tax revenues from any prospective economic activity (w
hich would be imminent once the widening is completed) on these lands and the co
ntribution of the local economic multiplier due to this activity.
Even assuming sky-rocketing land values with road widening, there is surely some
broad limit beyond which land values cannot just shoot. Though these calculatio
ns are also valid for other states, the virtually rural and uninhabited nature o
f their (say Andhra Pradesh or Orissa) NH stretches means that the opportunity c
ost of leaving them idle is not very large.
If the 30 m width is finally agreed to, the government should immediately demand
consent letters from all those affected, and the demolitions should be done at
the earliest. The momentum generated by the width concession should be leveraged
to complete the widening and construction in quick time.
In light of this, a more practical choice facing the government now is between a
swiftly executed 30 m widening and a lingering 45 m widening entangled in endle
ss litigation. Take your pick.