“Was the traffic model not adequately studied during the planning stage? Were traffic simulations carried out for different vehicle categories, peak hours, accident scenarios and possible restrictions? Were the interactions between the Porvorim elevated corridor, the Mandovi bridges, Atal Setu and surrounding junctions properly assessed?
These are not minor details. They are the very fundamentals of traffic planning.
The National Highways Authority of India, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Goa’s Public Works Department have access to engineering expertise and consultants. The project itself involved significant technical planning and expenditure. So why has the government reached the stage where another institution has to be brought in to figure out how traffic should move after the flyover has already been constructed and opened?”
The ₹641 crore Porvorim flyover was inaugurated with much fanfare and presented as a major solution to Goa’s growing traffic problems. But barely has the dust settled, and the project is already raising uncomfortable questions about planning, execution and traffic management.
For Porvorkars, the last three years have been anything but smooth. Dust pollution, traffic congestion, diversions, vehicle damage, delays and accidents became part of everyday life during construction. People were repeatedly told that the hardship would eventually be worth it because the elevated corridor would transform traffic movement through Porvorim.
Today, that promise appears increasingly difficult to defend.
The most troubling aspect is that two freak accidents were enough to trigger major changes in the traffic system. Two-wheelers were banned from the flyover, while entry and exit points around Porvorim were closed. The result has been a familiar nightmare on the roads.
Traffic pressure has once again shifted towards the Mandovi bridges and adjoining junctions. For people travelling from Mapusa towards Panaji, the problem is even more complicated because access to both the Porvorim flyover and the Atal Setu has been affected by the restrictions.
The Panaji Kamatamba Circle and Merces Circle are now feeling the additional burden.
This raises a fundamental question. If the ₹641 crore elevated corridor was designed to take a substantial share of traffic, why is the system struggling when it needs its capacity most?
The government has maintained that the flyover would significantly ease congestion. It was expected to carry around 60 per cent of the traffic movement through the corridor. Yet with restrictions on two wheelers and changes to entry and exit points, a project designed to improve traffic flow is now operating with reduced utilisation.
That is not merely a traffic management problem. It is a planning question.
And now comes another curious development. The government reportedly wants IIM Nagpur to study the traffic movement and suggest solutions.
There is nothing wrong with seeking expert advice. In fact, complex infrastructure projects should be subjected to independent technical review. But the timing raises serious questions.
Why was this exercise not undertaken before the flyover was opened?
Was the traffic model not adequately studied during the planning stage? Were traffic simulations carried out for different vehicle categories, peak hours, accident scenarios and possible restrictions? Were the interactions between the Porvorim elevated corridor, the Mandovi bridges, Atal Setu and surrounding junctions properly assessed?
These are not minor details. They are the very fundamentals of traffic planning.
The National Highways Authority of India, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Goa’s Public Works Department have access to engineering expertise and consultants. The project itself involved significant technical planning and expenditure. So why has the government reached the stage where another institution has to be brought in to figure out how traffic should move after the flyover has already been constructed and opened?
And who will pay for this additional study?
More importantly, what happens if IIM Nagpur recommends changes that require further expenditure, reconstruction or alterations to the existing road network?
Goa cannot afford a cycle where a massive project is announced, constructed at enormous public cost, inaugurated with political fanfare and then subjected to basic operational corrections after opening.
Infrastructure cannot be judged merely by its size, cost or appearance. It must be judged by whether it actually solves the problem for which taxpayers paid.
The Porvorim flyover was built to reduce congestion. If its opening has instead shifted congestion to Mandovi, Kamatamba, Merces and other junctions, the government needs to explain why.
The people of Porvorim have already paid a price through years of construction disruption. They should not now be asked to pay again through additional studies, modifications and traffic experiments.
Calling the flyover a white elephant may still be premature. But the warning signs are clearly visible.
A ₹641 crore project cannot be allowed to become an expensive monument to poor coordination between planning and execution.
The government must publish the original traffic projections, the expected utilisation of the corridor, the traffic studies conducted before construction, the reasons for the present restrictions and the projected cost of the IIM Nagpur study.
Goans deserve answers before another rupee is spent.
Because the real question is no longer whether Porvorim needed a flyover.
The question is whether Goa built the right flyover, with the right traffic plan, at the right time and with the right expertise.
