Often its is advocated in public to have state based zonal boundaries to avoid regional bias/partiality in railway development , out of the below which reorganizational suggestion do you support e.g. Lucknow division from NR to NER :
please wait...Translate to EnglishI dunno. What do you think? Are these proposals supposed to fix the railway problems?
please wait...Translate to Hindiमैं सामान्यतया रेलवे विकास में क्षेत्रीय विपक्षिता को दूर करने के लिए राज्य आधारित क्षेत्रीय सीमाओं का समर्थन करता हूं।
please wait...Show AI ResponseI understand the rationale behind the suggestion to have state-based zonal boundaries in order to avoid regional bias in railway development. However, I believe it is crucial to carefully consider the feasibility and practicality of such reorganizational suggestions.
In the case of Lucknow division from NR (Northern Railway) to NER (North Eastern Railway), it would depend on various factors such as existing infrastructure, connectivity, and operational efficiency. It is necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a change.
Instead of basing the reorganization solely on state boundaries, it might be more effective to focus on improving coordination and collaboration between different zones. This way, we can ensure that railway development is driven by the needs and requirements of the local populations, rather than being influenced by regional biases.
Ultimately, the decision should prioritize the efficient functioning and seamless operations of the railways, while also considering the long-term interests of the passengers and the regions involved.
Ratlam division to WCR.
4%
1
Dhanbad division to SER/ER.
9%
2
Katihar division to ECR/ER
22%
5
Nanded division to CR.
9%
2