Fearing that Bengaluru flyover project has undercounted trees to be cut, residents move court

Bengaluru residents approached the Karnataka High Court because they suspected the proposed flyover’s tree assessment did not match conditions on the ground. The concern mattered because the project could remove or affect trees in a city already losing green cover to infrastructure and urbanisation.

I Change Indiranagar independently mapped trees along roughly 3.5 kilometres of the proposed route. It counted 1,001 trees. The project report listed 89 trees for felling and 235 trees within the construction width across the full 13-kilometre alignment. Residents also said their count excluded trees inside a metro station, church and temple.

Four residents’ associations filed a petition challenging the discrepancy. While the case is being heard, B-SMILE dropped one flyover stretch and continued the rest. Its official said the agency would follow the court’s decision, making the legal review important for both the project’s design and tree protection.

The project report estimated that 89 trees would be felled and that 235 trees fell within the construction width of the entire 13-kilometre flyover alignment. Being within that width does not necessarily mean a tree would be cut. The report’s figures therefore describe the whole project corridor, with separate categories for removal and construction exposure.

Residents surveyed only about 3.5 kilometres, not the full route. Their independent count found 1,001 trees along that section. They counted every tree they saw because they could not determine which ones construction would directly affect. Their total also excluded trees inside Swami Vivekananda Metro Station and nearby religious premises.

The figures cannot be treated as a direct like-for-like comparison. Still, the large difference raised questions about selective counting and prompted a court petition. The article notes that smaller and overmature trees are often left out of detailed project reports.

A detailed project report is a formal planning document for an infrastructure project. It sets out the proposed alignment, engineering design, construction requirements, estimated costs and likely impacts. Authorities and implementing agencies use it to assess feasibility, seek approvals and organise construction. Its estimates can also shape public debate and legal challenges.

For Bengaluru’s proposed flyover, the report covered a 13-kilometre route from Swami Vivekananda Metro Station to Silk Board Junction. It estimated that 89 trees would be felled and that 235 trees lay within the construction width. The second figure means trees inside the designated work area, not necessarily trees that would be removed.

The article shows why the report’s method matters. Residents counted 1,001 trees on only 3.5 kilometres, including trees they could not confirm would be affected. Harini Nagendra says such reports may omit smaller and overmature trees, producing lower estimates than independent surveys.

When a court examines whether a tree assessment is accurate, it can affect the project’s pace, design or specific sections. The legal process may prevent agencies from moving ahead with disputed tree removal. It can also encourage agencies to wait for a ruling before finalising work in the contested area.

That happened with the Indiranagar flyover. Four residents’ associations challenged the difference between the official and independent counts. B-SMILE dropped one stretch of the flyover while the petition was being heard, but continued the rest of the project. Its official said the agency would abide by the court’s decision.

A separate Hebbal tunnel case shows a narrower intervention. The National Green Tribunal ordered that no trees be cut until the case is decided, but other tunnel work continued. Thus, a court review may protect disputed trees or alter one project section without automatically halting all infrastructure construction.

Residents and environmental researchers question flyovers because they may not solve congestion across an entire road network. A flyover can move vehicles through one junction faster, but the traffic may encounter another bottleneck soon afterward. This makes the investment’s wider effect important, especially when construction also affects trees and public spaces.

The “Dear Dr DK, Flyover Yaake?” campaign argues that authorities should reconsider the approach and redirect funds towards public transport. Organiser Asadullah MA Ansari points to the double-decker flyover between Silk Board and Ragigudda. Although it opened recently, critics say congestion was shifted to the next junction rather than eliminated.

The scale increases the stakes. Bengaluru has 11 proposed elevated corridors spanning 75.6 kilometres, at an estimated cost of Rs 13,000 crore. Residents’ protests connect traffic planning with green-cover protection, while researchers question whether project reports fully account for affected trees.

The exact changes in Bengaluru’s built-up area, vegetation and water bodies are not provided in the supplied article. Therefore, no reliable figures can be given for those three changes from this source. The article only establishes the direction of change: urbanisation has caused the city’s once-vaunted green cover to thin.

It gives related evidence about the pressure on nature. Infrastructure proposals include 11 elevated corridors across 75.6 kilometres, a flyover route where residents counted 1,001 trees, and a Hebbal tunnel requiring the proposed removal of 1,128 trees. These figures show the scale of current development pressure, but they do not measure built-up growth or water-body loss.

A precise answer would require the land-use or environmental study containing those measurements. The article does not identify such figures in the provided text. Its stated point is that shrinking green cover has far-reaching consequences, including limited carbon sequestration in a growing city.

The urban heat island effect is the tendency for dense built-up areas to become warmer than nearby less-developed surroundings. Concrete, asphalt and buildings absorb heat during the day and release it slowly. Fewer trees and water bodies reduce natural cooling. The article does not define this effect directly, but it describes Bengaluru’s thinning green cover and the consequences of urbanisation.

Mature trees help by shading roads and buildings and releasing water vapour through their leaves. Their cooling value can continue as they grow, while their carbon-sequestration potential is also important. Harini Nagendra specifically says “overmature” trees deserve more attention, rather than being excluded because they may soon die.

Water bodies can cool nearby areas as water evaporates and can interrupt large stretches of heat-absorbing surfaces. The supplied article does not provide figures on water-body loss or heat levels. It does show why protecting urban natural features matters as infrastructure expands and tree removal becomes contested.