<p>The Karnataka Cabinet’s approval to procure 46 mechanical sweeping machines on a seven-year rental basis, at a total cost of Rs 613.25 crore, marks one of the costliest sanitation interventions Bengaluru has seen in recent years. The decision raises serious questions about financial prudence, technological suitability, and the government’s unwillingness to learn from past mistakes. </p><p>Bengaluru already operates around 26 mechanical sweepers, but their performance has been anything but reassuring. Several remain under-utilised, prone to breakdowns, or operate only on select arterial routes. Commuters routinely complain that they merely stir up dust rather than remove it, worsening air quality. </p><p>Maintenance has been inconsistent, performance audits perfunctory, and there has been no credible explanation of how the new fleet will avoid the same shortcomings. </p><p>The obvious question remains unanswered: why commit over Rs 600 crore to additional machines when the city has not honestly examined why the existing ones failed? Was the technology unsuitable for Bengaluru’s mix of fine dust, debris and construction waste? Were contracts poorly structured? Were operators inadequately trained? Unless these issues are addressed, the new machines risk repeating old mistakes at a far higher cost.</p>.Mass cleanliness drive held in Central, East Bengaluru Corporation limits .<p>The procurement process itself has raised concerns. The original plan for 59 machines was pared down to 46 by the Urban Development Department, even as the cost per unit increased. A technical committee headed by Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC) managing director R Selvamani had recommended outright purchase, supported by a separate agency for operations and maintenance. It did not endorse a rental model. </p><p>Later, the Boston Consulting Group suggested a hybrid model with partial upfront payment and the remainder linked to performance per kilometre. Renting, it noted, would be costlier per vehicle. Despite this, the Cabinet chose the rental route, citing the need to avoid heavy initial expenditure. In effect, the burden has merely been deferred, not reduced.</p><p>None of this diminishes the urgency of Bengaluru’s cleanliness challenges. The city struggles with roadside dust, construction waste, and debris that manual sweeping cannot manage. Mechanical sweepers may be the answer only if they suit local conditions, are maintained reliably, and are deployed effectively. Before locking itself into a seven-year rental contract worth over Rs 600 crore, the government should have conducted a transparent, evidence-based review of the current fleet’s shortcomings. </p><p>Bengaluru needs cleaner roads, not another costly experiment. Accountability and clarity must guide procurement, or the city risks signing away public money on machines that may once again gather more dust than they clear.</p>
<p>The Karnataka Cabinet’s approval to procure 46 mechanical sweeping machines on a seven-year rental basis, at a total cost of Rs 613.25 crore, marks one of the costliest sanitation interventions Bengaluru has seen in recent years. The decision raises serious questions about financial prudence, technological suitability, and the government’s unwillingness to learn from past mistakes. </p><p>Bengaluru already operates around 26 mechanical sweepers, but their performance has been anything but reassuring. Several remain under-utilised, prone to breakdowns, or operate only on select arterial routes. Commuters routinely complain that they merely stir up dust rather than remove it, worsening air quality. </p><p>Maintenance has been inconsistent, performance audits perfunctory, and there has been no credible explanation of how the new fleet will avoid the same shortcomings. </p><p>The obvious question remains unanswered: why commit over Rs 600 crore to additional machines when the city has not honestly examined why the existing ones failed? Was the technology unsuitable for Bengaluru’s mix of fine dust, debris and construction waste? Were contracts poorly structured? Were operators inadequately trained? Unless these issues are addressed, the new machines risk repeating old mistakes at a far higher cost.</p>.Mass cleanliness drive held in Central, East Bengaluru Corporation limits .<p>The procurement process itself has raised concerns. The original plan for 59 machines was pared down to 46 by the Urban Development Department, even as the cost per unit increased. A technical committee headed by Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC) managing director R Selvamani had recommended outright purchase, supported by a separate agency for operations and maintenance. It did not endorse a rental model. </p><p>Later, the Boston Consulting Group suggested a hybrid model with partial upfront payment and the remainder linked to performance per kilometre. Renting, it noted, would be costlier per vehicle. Despite this, the Cabinet chose the rental route, citing the need to avoid heavy initial expenditure. In effect, the burden has merely been deferred, not reduced.</p><p>None of this diminishes the urgency of Bengaluru’s cleanliness challenges. The city struggles with roadside dust, construction waste, and debris that manual sweeping cannot manage. Mechanical sweepers may be the answer only if they suit local conditions, are maintained reliably, and are deployed effectively. Before locking itself into a seven-year rental contract worth over Rs 600 crore, the government should have conducted a transparent, evidence-based review of the current fleet’s shortcomings. </p><p>Bengaluru needs cleaner roads, not another costly experiment. Accountability and clarity must guide procurement, or the city risks signing away public money on machines that may once again gather more dust than they clear.</p>
