Greater Noida to hire private consultants for urban revamp
The move is aimed at improving public mobility, regulating street vending, modernising infrastructure, and boosting revenue through more efficient use of public spaces, they added.
'A key focus of the consultant's work will be developing designated vending zones across sectors,' said Greater Noida Authority's chief executive officer (CEO) Ravi Kumar NG.
With unauthorised kiosks and roadside stalls on the rise, the authority aims to identify legal vending areas based on local demand and traffic movement. Simultaneously, high-congestion areas will be designated as non-vending zones to ensure smoother flow of traffic and safer pedestrian movement, officials said.
The consultant will also assist in planning small food kiosks and micro-markets to support local vendors in a structured and hygienic manner.
Additionally, the scope of work includes planning and upgrading bus shelters, including integration of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, in view of the authority's upcoming electric bus initiative. As part of a broader regional push, Greater Noida plans to roll out 100 electric buses under a joint 500-bus plan with the Noida and Yamuna Expressway authorities, officials said.
The last date for submitting EOIs is August 19, with applications set to be opened the following day. Interested firms must email detailed proposals outlining their credentials, technical approach, budget estimates, and a declaration of good standing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Businesses must pay more: OpenAI's new GPT-5 era marks subscription evolution
OpenAI's Plus subscription, priced at $20 per month or ₹1,999 per month in India, has undergone significant changes ushering in the new GPT-5 dominated landscape. It is now considerably watered down for subscribers, with theoretical usage limits and access to only the latest models now. A case of lost sheen? Undoubtedly, OpenAI's Plus subscription represented a best-value tier for AI users, and remained versatile enough for some level of professional usage too. Now however, the pricier Pro subscription (that's $200 per month, or ₹19,900 in India) becomes more valuable, which makes business sense at a time when OpenAI is talking about PhD-level intelligence and agentic AI capabilities. OpenAI's Plus subscription represented a best-value tier for AI users. (Official photo) The first change that Plus subscribers will notice is that only three models are listed, of which two are accessible — GPT-5 flagship model for most queries, GPT-5 Thinking for more detailed responses, while GPT-5 Pro remains exclusive to Pro subscribers. Previously, a much wider range of the then latest gen as well a generation older models were available for Plus subscribers. Before the switch a few hours ago, HT noted GPT-4o, o3, o4-mini, o4-mini-high, GPT-4.1 and GPT-4.1-mini available — among this, GPT-4o was the default model. Access to these models is gone, for now, for Plus users. If you want that, pay for the Pro subscription. Also Read: AI now sits atop of the food chain, and domain knowledge is key: Nitin Seth 'As with GPT-4o, the difference between free and paid access to GPT-5 is usage volume. Pro subscribers get unlimited access to GPT-5, and access to GPT-5 Pro. Plus users can use it comfortably as their default model for everyday questions, with significantly higher usage than free users. Team, Enterprise, and Edu customers can also use GPT-5 comfortably as their default model for everyday work, with generous limits that make it easy for entire organisations to rely on GPT-5,' the company details, in an official statement. Secondly, the usage limits for Plus subscribers, across GPT-5 and GPT-5 Thinking models, are now listed as 'Expanded'. This isn't a hard-cap, which is why I don't have a specific number to share with you, but dynamic based on a number of factors. OpenAI explains that Plus subscriptions may include usage limits such as message caps, especially during high demand, and these limits may vary based on system conditions. Also Read: Fidji Simo, OpenAI's new CEO, insists AI can put power in the hands of people At the time of the GPT-4o release a few months earlier, OpenAI had noted, 'We are making GPT‑4o available in the free tier, and to Plus users with up to 5x higher message limits'. Business case, enterprise pricing From OpenAI's perspective, these subscription changes represent a sophisticated revenue optimisation strategy that does well to recognise a significant disparity in usage and therefore value derived, when comparing individual consumers and enterprise users. By restricting GPT-5 Pro access to the highest tier, OpenAI is essentially implementing enterprise software pricing principles where the most advanced capabilities — PhD-level reasoning and sophisticated agentic AI, which anyways are positioned as premium enterprise tools rather than consumer products. Businesses and organisations that wish to replace humans with AI agents, must pay more than a regular user. Companies, be it a consulting firm using GPT-5 Pro to analyse market trends, a biotech company leveraging its reasoning capabilities for drug discovery research, or a law firm utilising its advanced document analysis features, must find justifications for paying significantly more for AI access now. Also Read: Tech Tonic: God complex is why AI chiefs can't see the humans they'll displace The 128K context window (it's a 32k window on Plus subscriptions) is crucial for enterprises processing lengthy contracts, research papers, or technical documentation. At the same time, unlimited access limits should be idea for workplace workflows, which would do well without encountering dynamic usage caps. Token pricing for API, or the application programming interface, too have been slightly tweaked. For instance, GPT-5 for 1 million output tokens costs $10, while the cost with GPT-4.1 was $12 for the same. By nudging enterprises toward Pro subscriptions, OpenAI is attempting to make a clear distinction between consumer-esque pricing as well as something akin to an enterprise software licensing approach. This strategy also creates a natural and useful customer segmentation, where casual and semi-professional users remain on Plus with 'expanded' access limits (ideally, many users may never hit these dynamic limits), while businesses that require AI as a core operational tool must invest more for Pro subscriptions. Yet, there are often two sides to any coin. From a consumer perspective, the GPT Plus subscription no longer unlocks access to OpenAI's best model at this time, but a hint of it. This is in stark contrast to the $20 per month outlay for consumers that essentially unlocked the best of AI capability that was on offer. Not to forget, ambiguous (a nicer word is dynamic) limits of usage, before you'll be sent to the back of the queue. It is clear and understandable that OpenAI is giving its subscription tiers more meaning and differentiation. But as the contrast currently stands, a Plus plan seems to be leaning more towards something that risks being classified as 'freemium' — attractive in theory, but limited in practice.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
One tragedy no reason to run down Air India: SC
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought an independent audit of Air India's safety practices and maintenance procedures in the wake of the June 2025 Ahmedabad plane crash, cautioning that one tragic incident should not become an occasion to single out the airline. The petition was filed after flight AI 171, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, crashed within minutes of take-off from Ahmedabad on June 12. (HT file photo) A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told petitioner Narendra Kumar Goswami, a lawyer, that if the aim was to ensure passenger safety, the scope could not be confined to one carrier alone. 'One unfortunate event cannot mean you go after just one airline,' said the bench during the hearing. 'Why only Air India? Should there not be such a mechanism for all airlines? There was a very unfortunate tragedy but that should not become an opportunity to run down the airline. We also travel very frequently.' The petition was filed after flight AI 171, a Gatwick-bound Boeing 787 Dreamliner, crashed within minutes of take-off from Ahmedabad on June 12, killing 241 of the 242 people on board. The crash claimed life of another 19 people on the ground. Among the deceased were 181 Indian nationals and 52 UK citizens. Air India, now owned by the Tata Group, had been in the midst of a major operational overhaul when the crash occurred. Goswami's plea sought a comprehensive safety audit of Air India's entire fleet by an international aviation safety agency accredited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), under the supervision of a former judge of the Supreme Court. It also asked for the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to be directed to put in place a 'robust mechanism' for ensuring the airline's operational safety. The bench, however, questioned the limited focus. 'If you want a regulatory mechanism, you must implead all airlines, including foreign airlines. You should first go to the authorities concerned with persuasive suggestions and we are certain they will pay heed,' the court said. When the petitioner replied that he had an 'exceptionally bad experience' with Air India, the bench noted that complaints by individual passengers could be pursued under consumer protection laws, rather than through a PIL targeting one operator. The judges also cautioned that singling out one airline in such litigation could raise doubts about the petitioner's motives. 'If you are going to pick on just one airline, it may also give an impression that you have been set up by a competitor,' the bench remarked. In its brief order, the court recorded that the petitioner had sought to withdraw the PIL to first approach 'appropriate authorities' with his suggestions. 'The petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition to avail of appropriate remedies before appropriate authorities first,' the order stated. Also Read:Air India to fully resume international flights by October 1: CEO Campbell Wilson The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau of India led the inquiry into the incident, with participation from the US National Transportation Safety Board, the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and Boeing representatives. The preliminary report by India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) revealed that both engine fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF seconds after takeoff, resulting in a loss of thrust. The cockpit voice recorder captured one pilot questioning the fuel cutoff, with the other denying responsibility. The Ram Air Turbine, a backup power system, deployed automatically, and although one engine began to recover after the switches were returned to RUN, the aircraft could not regain altitude. A Mayday call was recorded moments before the crash. The Tata Group offered ex gratia compensation of ₹1 crore for families of deceased passengers and ₹25 lakh for families of ground victims. Additionally, Tata has established the AI-171 Memorial and Welfare Trust with a total corpus of ₹500 crore, funded by contributions of ₹250 crore each from Tata Sons and Tata Trusts to support the long-term needs of affected families.
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Chandigarh: ₹1.5L income criterion for EWS admissions to group home unreasonable, says HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that the income criterion set by the Chandigarh administration for economically weaker sections (EWS) seeking admission to the group home facility for persons with mental and intellectual disabilities 'appears unreasonable'. The UT's counsel had not disputed the ₹ 1.5 lakh annual income cap and informed the court that it is based on a May 2016 order of the department of food supplies, consumer affairs and legal metrology. (HT photo for representation) These observations from the high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sanjiv Berry came during a hearing in a public interest litigation (PIL), in which various conditions set by the administration for admission to the group home in Sector 31 were challenged in April this year. During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner had informed that under the EWS quota, where 25% of the twin-sharing rooms are reserved, the annual income fixed is of not more than ₹1.5 lakh. Hence, those earning more than this can't apply. The UT's counsel had not disputed the ₹1.5 lakh annual income cap and informed the court that it is based on a May 2016 order of the department of food supplies, consumer affairs and legal metrology. Chandigarh: ₹1.5L income criterion for EWS admissions to group home unreasonable, says HC 'This order was issued nearly a decade ago, based on some data collected even earlier. But, despite the passage of more than a decade, the said criteria has not been revised, which appears to be quite unreasonable, especially considering the inflationary trends in the past ten years,' the bench observed, asking UT to reconsider the issue. UT's counsel had further informed that a meeting, to be chaired by the administrator, is likely to be held in the near future, during which the issues raised in the petition would be taken up. The court has fixed the next date of hearing on September 11. It observed that it has no doubt that the welfare objectives under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, would be duly considered by the administration and the shortcomings, anomalies and loopholes pointed out by the petitioners will be considered. Besides the EWS admissions' issue, the petitioner has also challenged the condition of demanding ₹20 lakh as security for general category admissions by the administration. Lying locked since July 2024, plea seeks to make it operational The plea also says UT be directed to make the group home, which has been lying locked since July 2024, operational at the earliest as deserving and needy candidates are desperately waiting for the admission. The construction of the facility was completed last year but it is yet to be opened by the administration. The UT had invited applications for admission from February 17. Can accommodate 90 residents Built at a cost of over ₹35 crore, the facility includes accommodation for 90 residents, courtyards, landscaped gardens, and a therapeutic campus for residents dealing with mental health challenges. The social welfare department has set monthly charges of ₹16,000 for a twin-sharing room, ₹25,000 for a single room and ₹35,000 for a suite room. In addition to the monthly fee, electricity, vocational classes and cross subsidy charges will be added and the yearly fee would increase by 5%. During admission, a one-time security fund of ₹20 lakh will have to be deposited.
