The government’s decision to reopen the entry and exit points of the Porvorim elevated corridor and install traffic signals, rumble strips, cameras and speed limit signs raises a very uncomfortable question: Why were these basic safety arrangements not ready when the flyover was opened?
This is a Rs 641 crore project that was inaugurated with considerable fanfare. Yet within days, access points were closed, two wheelers were restricted and traffic arrangements had to be reconsidered after a fatal accident. Now the government is preparing to reopen the same points with additional safety measures.
This is not how a major public infrastructure project should be rolled out.
Safety cannot be an afterthought. Traffic signals, proper signage, speed controls and clearly designed entry and exit points should have been part of the planning and commissioning process. The public should not have to become the testing ground for an expensive infrastructure project.
The government is now consulting experts and studying traffic movement. That is welcome, but it should have happened before the corridor was opened to thousands of motorists.
There is also a bigger question of accountability. If the design required changes immediately after opening, who approved the original traffic arrangements? Who certified that the corridor was ready for public use? And why were motorists exposed to confusion over access, exits and restrictions?
The government must stop treating every problem as something to be corrected after it occurs.
Goans paid for this project. They deserve a flyover that is safe, functional and properly planned from day one, not one that is repeatedly modified after accidents and public pressure.
A Rs 641 crore flyover should not need a trial run on the public.
Francisco D’Souza,
Porvorim
Can this unnatural alliance
survive the Goa heat?
The AAP and Goa Forward Party alliance was announced with much fanfare as the “Goa First” alternative to both BJP and Congress. But barely days later, questions over its future have begun surfacing. GFP has now reiterated its “Goa First” position amid speculation that it could rethink the arrangement and reopen discussions with Congress.
That itself raises the biggest question: How strong was this alliance in the first place?
AAP and GFP may have found common ground in opposing the BJP, but politics is not sustained merely by a common opponent. The two parties have different political histories, different organisational structures and different ambitions in Goa. GFP is built around a regional identity and the political relevance of Vijai Sardesai, while AAP is a national party attempting to expand its footprint in the state.
The alliance may look attractive on paper, but seat sharing, leadership questions and constituency interests could become much more difficult once the actual election arithmetic begins.
There is also a trust deficit within the opposition camp. GFP was with Congress in the previous Assembly election and is now with AAP, while Congress and Revolutionary Goans have already moved towards an understanding for 2027.
For voters, this constant movement raises a basic question: Is this about ideology or electoral convenience?
GFP’s repeated emphasis on “Goa First” suggests the party wants to retain flexibility. But an alliance cannot remain permanently flexible. At some point, both partners will have to decide whether they genuinely want to fight the election together or merely want to keep every political door open.
The real test will come when candidates and constituencies are discussed.
Until then, “Goa First” remains more a political arrangement than a settled alliance.
In Goa politics, alliances are announced with microphones, but they survive only after the seat-sharing table.
Miguel Fernandes,
Margao
