The debate over the proposed flyover on Vinoba Road and J.L.B. Road in Mysuru has intensified after the city’s Member of Parliament publicly opposed the project, calling it unnecessary, disruptive, and misaligned with the city’s urban character. The MP argues that while Mysuru certainly requires mobility solutions, the proposed elevated corridor is not the right intervention to improve traffic movement in one of its most culturally sensitive neighbourhoods. The remarks have sparked a wave of discussions among engineers, planners, citizens, and heritage advocates about how a growing city should negotiate between development pressures and heritage preservation.
The MP asserts that Mysuru has its own unique rhythm that cannot be addressed through routine metropolitan templates. A flyover in this core zone, he says, would fail to fix congestion at its root while creating new physical and social challenges. Officials who back the project claim it will ease traffic between the Railway Station circle, Hunsur Road, and surrounding institutions. However, the MP counters that traffic flow patterns in the area do not justify a permanent, large-scale, high-cost structure that irreversibly alters the neighbourhood. He suggests alternative mobility tools offering incremental improvement instead of drastic infrastructure.
The controversy has widened into a dialogue about the future of Mysuru — whether it should emulate major Indian metros or carve its own planning philosophy rooted in balanced growth. The MP notes that Bengaluru-type solutions may not be appropriate, given Mysuru’s smaller scale, historic built form, and tourism-driven identity. At the heart of his argument is a belief that solutions must reflect local character. For him, heritage-sensitive planning is not anti-development; it is simply development done mindfully, acknowledging the delicate weave of history, ecology, and civic life.
The location proposed for the flyover is extremely sensitive: a zone filled with public institutions, dense residential clusters, small businesses, and heritage properties. Residents fear that a flyover would create a concrete tunnel effect, diminishing natural light, weakening property value, and creating long-term pollution concentration under the structure. Concerns also extend to pedestrian movement. The MP emphasises that Mysuru’s city centre must prioritise walking and equitable mobility before turning to large automobile-focused structures. He calls congestion a product of habitual car dependence rather than inadequate roads.
Heritage scholars have expressed strong disappointment about the project’s hasty conceptualisation. They argue that the area houses urban fabric that reflects Mysuru’s historic planning ethos — shaded avenues, low-rise structures, and pedestrian-friendly streets — all of which contribute to its status as a model Indian city. Installing a flyover, they warn, risks undoing decades of civic stewardship. The MP has amplified these sentiments, adding that Mysuru is celebrated by visitors precisely because it remains breathable and visually harmonious. Tampering with that balance, he suggests, may bring irreversible consequences.
Local traders, however, are divided. Some welcome the project, believing it will shorten travel time and ease deliveries. Others express fear that flyover construction will block storefronts, reduce footfall, and disrupt business long before the project’s completion. Restaurants, stationary shops, and small service establishments depend on walk-in customers. Many remain anxious about prolonged construction periods that often exceed initial timelines, bringing dust, noise, and accessibility nightmares. The MP says such anxieties must be addressed openly instead of being dismissed as collateral in the name of development.
A GROWING CITY’S TRANSPORT DILEMMA
Mysuru continues to experience population growth, partly driven by educational expansion, tourism, and Bengaluru spillover. As more residents rely on personal vehicles, existing junctions strain during peak hours. Planners argue that structural interventions like flyovers provide swift, long-term relief. The MP responds by questioning whether capacity-building for cars is the only measure. He advocates for stronger bus networks, corridor-based transit management, better signal synchronisation, and cycling infrastructure rather than heavy, irreversible construction that locks the city into automobile dependence for decades.
According to urban observers who support the MP’s stance, flyovers represent a bygone logic. Cities globally are turning to surface-based public mobility and people-first street design. They argue that constructing elevated corridors often induces more traffic rather than resolving it. Beneath such flyovers, poor lighting, unplanned parking, commercial encroachments, and safety risks emerge over time. Instead, investments in bus rapid transit, signal redesign, pedestrian smart zones, and staggered traffic timings often yield more equitable outcomes. The MP believes Mysuru could be a model for such progressive mobility.
Questions have also been raised about the project’s alignment with Mysuru’s Smart City goals. The city has recently invested in redesigning public spaces to support walking and cycling. Installing a flyover contradicts this direction, wiping out gains from earlier initiatives. The MP asserts that policy coherence is essential. A flyover is physical proof of car-first planning, while the city’s sustainability tasks demand the opposite — clean mobility, breathable streets, and accessible junctions. Critics note the contradiction could also invite administrative confusion and budget overlap.
Residents cite examples from India and abroad where flyovers ultimately failed to reduce congestion. Studies show that traffic frequently bottlenecks at the entry and exit points of flyovers, creating new hotspots. The MP points to these cases, insisting Mysuru must learn from lessons rather than repeat them because these structures appear visually modern. The congestion at major Bengaluru flyovers, for instance, features in many discussions as a cautionary tale; commuters endure unpredictable delays even with multi-level infrastructure. The MP warns that repeating mistakes wastes funds and erodes citizen trust.
Another dimension of the MP’s opposition emerges from environmental concerns. Trees lining Vinoba Road and J.L.B. Road help regulate temperature, improve air quality, and provide shade — elements crucial for Mysuru’s pleasant climate. The MP fears that a flyover may call for large-scale tree loss, contradicting ongoing environmental stewardship. Green cover forms part of Mysuru’s identity; residents enjoy streets softened by canopies. A concrete structure, he argues, will degrade this sensory experience. Tree loss, too, carries ecological and emotional cost seldom reflected in project documents.
The flyover’s proposed alignment cuts through high-pedestrian zones, including educational institutions and healthcare facilities. Parents are worried about student safety amid long-term construction. Noise and dust pollution near campuses could hinder learning, while restricted access might result in dangerous student spillovers into traffic. The MP brings attention to such lived realities, saying development should not create hazard for children, the elderly, and vulnerable groups. He encourages planners to prioritise Universal Design and accessibility — principles easily neglected in infrastructure-led conversations.
The MP has urged officials to conduct transparent studies before announcing major interventions. He notes that proper traffic audits must consider peak movements, pedestrian density, modal share, and projected growth before deciding on solutions. Critics observe that officials rushed into preliminary announcements, prompting confusion among residents. The MP insists that public consultation must precede even conceptual approval. For him, the absence of participatory planning raises serious concerns about institutional accountability.
HERITAGE, COMMUNITY, AND URBAN FUTURES
Mysuru’s appeal rests on its harmonious blend of heritage and modernity. The MP insists that any mobility project must respect this identity. He urges the administration to imagine traffic solutions that are subtle and reversible, rather than bold concrete gestures. Urbanists supporting this stance add that Mysuru’s low skyline, wide boulevards, and generous public space are invaluable assets. A flyover may interrupt the visual rhythm of these streets, reducing the city into mere convenience corridors rather than civic landscapes rich with culture.
The city’s tourism economy relies heavily on its graceful planning. Visitors arrive not only for monuments but also the unique calm of navigating streets shaded by decades-old trees. The MP argues this ambience is itself an economic asset. Future mobility plans must recognise such intangibles. If tourism declines because Mysuru begins resembling other overbuilt Indian metros, the city would lose far more revenue than what congestion relief could earn. Thus, protecting heritage is not just emotional—it is financially responsible.
Aesthetic consequences also matter. Flyovers often dominate skylines, imposing sculptural bulk that feels disconnected from surrounding architecture. Mysuru’s identity is shaped by Indo-Saracenic and colonial-era facades—curved verandas, pastel colours, and human-scaled design. A flyover, by contrast, brings hard angles, grey concrete, and industrial tone. The MP argues that cities build when they must—but they must also protect what makes them human. He believes civic beauty is not indulgence; it is the soul of a community.
This debate has inspired more nuanced thinking among residents. Many now argue for scaled solutions: micro-mobility infrastructure, school bus reforms, last-mile connectivity, parking regulation, and mixed-use zoning. Experts say these measures tackle congestion at source by reducing vehicle dependence. The MP champions this approach. He believes Mysuru’s sophisticated civic consciousness can embrace systems thinking over brute-force infrastructure. He reminds that leadership means listening, learning, and adjusting—not imposing.
On financial grounds, the MP questions whether the flyover is an efficient public investment. High-cost projects require strong justification through detailed feasibility study. Without conclusive data, such spending risks diverting funds from urgent needs like stormwater management, public health, and local entrepreneurship support. As public resources remain limited, careful prioritisation is essential. The MP warns against inertia-driven expenditure: projects pursued simply because funding became available. Instead, he urges building where benefit is genuinely transformative.
The debate has grown deeply personal because it touches everyday urban life. For many citizens, preserving the city’s atmosphere is non-negotiable. The MP finds resonance because his stance aligns with emotional connection residents feel toward these streets. They remember childhood walks, festival processions, and canteen stops along these roads. A flyover threatens to overwrite these memories, replacing them with faceless speed. In this sense, opposition is not just technical—it is emotional testimony.
As pressure mounts, officials have promised more deliberation. Committees may reassess feasibility and consult independent experts. The MP calls this a positive step. For him, successful cities evolve through dialogue, not decree. He acknowledges that traffic is a problem, but insists that solutions must honour community wisdom. The MP encourages young citizens to participate actively; after all, they inherit the outcome. He hopes civic conversation will lead to creativity rather than polarisation.
Follow: Karnataka Government
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
