With a few simple steps, we could make Dhaka more livable. The first step is to change our priorities, by emphasizing access, not mobility, short rather than long distance travel, children, not cars, and livable environments, not just transport. “We need a model in which happiness, rather than consumption levels, is the measure of success.”
Monday, December 15, 2014
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Breaking records: Dhaka rickshaws make the Guinness Book of World Records
For
years, city officials have complained that “no other city has as many rickshaws
as Dhaka,” somehow equating
rickshaws with poverty and backwardness. Now, with Guinness recognizing Dhaka as an exceptional city for
its many lakh non-polluting, truly green rickshaws, we can proudly say that “no
other city has as many rickshaws as Dhaka!”
The
city streets of Dhaka are choked with cars,
despite only 5% of trips being made by car. Imagine if that figure doubled to
10%? Traffic would come to a complete standstill, or we would have to bulldoze
more and more buildings in order to build ever wider roads, thus making
destinations ever farther apart and generating even more traffic. Rickshaws,
meanwhile, fit easily down all but the narrowest lanes. They move about as
quickly as the average car in crowded streets. They require no fuel to operate
and spew out no poisonous fumes. They provide much-needed employment to
countless people, and offer the comfort and convenience of door-to-door
transport to city dwellers.
European
transport officials talk proudly of the high percentage of trips that are made
by bicycle in their cities. Bicycles represent green transport, requiring no
fuel to operate and very few resources for their construction or disposal. The
“cleanest” car is still dirty when we consider the source of its fuel
(electricity often comes from coal, which is even worse than petrol) and all
the resources needed to build and dispose of it. And what is a rickshaw but a
three-wheeled bicycle?
The
fact that we can still breathe the air in Dhaka, and that it is still
possible to move about the city (albeit slowly and with difficulty) is in large
part thanks to the presence of the rickshaws. Even if we get a great system of
public transit, people will still need “last mile connectivity”: a way to get
to and from the public transit stops. Rickshaws will be essential for that
service. They are also essential for short trips, especially given how miserable
and dangerous the conditions currently are for walking and cycling. Rickshaws
offer a relatively independent mode of travel for people with disabilities. And
all without generating pollution.
The
eyes of the world are now turning to Dhaka. For many years, the
rickshaw has been a symbol of pride, an example of local art cum transport. It
is exhibited in the Dhaka airport, at various hotels,
and at local and international events. Yet there are those who have been keen
to see it banned or restricted on city streets, despite the mounting evidence
that reducing the rickshaw has absolutely no beneficial effect whatsoever on
the flow of traffic, and that rickshaw bans likely contribute to
ever-increasing air pollution. With this welcome recognition from Guinness, it
is time to match our actions to our gestures. The rickshaw should indeed be a
source of national pride, and it should be welcomed and encouraged on our city
streets. We all need to recognize that the rickshaw is a solution, not a
problem, in terms of traffic congestion, pollution, affordable transport, and
employment. 
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Guinness World Records as the city with the most cycle rickshaws.
I can't express how much happy I am to see this great message Nick !
Thank you so much dear.
Hi Syed,
I sought your expertise earlier this year regarding cycle rickshaws in
Dhaka. I just wanted to inform that Dhaka has been added to the Guinness
World Records as the city with the most cycle rickshaws.
http://goo.gl/CtkB0Z
I sought your expertise earlier this year regarding cycle rickshaws in
Dhaka. I just wanted to inform that Dhaka has been added to the Guinness
World Records as the city with the most cycle rickshaws.
http://goo.gl/CtkB0Z
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Efficiency on Wheels
 |
| Dhaka Cycle Rickshaw |
Ironically,
while Western Europeans, some of the richest people in the world, are happy to
cycle for transport, here in Bangladesh
Why
the contempt for the rickshaw? One reason is that the rickshaw provides safe,
convenient, door-to-door transport, and thus makes life easy for those who do
not have a car. Those in the business of selling cars know that the existence
of the rickshaw decreases the demand for a car. Why take out a loan to buy a
vehicle you can’t afford when you can easily move about without one?
Judging
from Western Europe , there is absolutely
nothing outdated or backward about the rickshaw. In fact, the rickshaw, like
the bicycle, is at the peak of civilization and modernity, a vehicle
appropriate for an age of concern about climate change and environmental issues
in general. Just as Europeans—Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Germans, and so
on—appreciate the many advantages of their fuel-free travel option, so we too
should appreciate and value the rickshaw.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Traffic congestion: are trains the culprit or the solution?
Traffic congestion: are trains the culprit or the solution?
Traffic congestion: are trains the culprit or the solution?
A news item in the New Age newspaper on 24 March states that “Bangladesh Railway has agreed to suspend rail operations between Tejgaon and Kamalapur stations during the peak travel hours to reduce tailback in the capital. The move follows a recent request from the Dhaka Metropolitan Police to the railway authorities for assistance in mitigating huge tailbacks that have become a common feature in the capital city.
According to DMP, many of the city’s roads are too frequently blocked for trains arriving at or leaving Kamalapur Railway Station.”
The question naturally arises as to whether we wish to carry out a symbolic measure to reduce congestion on the city’s roads, or actually to facilitate transport of our city’s residents?
If the aim of transport policy is the movement of people not cars, then the decision is counter-productive. After all, trains (like cars and buses) move people. But a train can move 20 times as many passengers as cars per land space. Even without trains, there will be traffic jams, but trains do ensure a large number of people moving in small space while using far less fuel than if they were traveling by car.
Further, by giving priority to rail, traffic congestion would actually decline, whereas giving priority to cars will only increase driving and thus congestion—and all the related costs in terms of traffic fatalities and pollution.
A recent comprehensive analysis of transportation system performance in 130 U.S. cities identified a number of benefits to those cities connected by rail rather than only by bus and car. The study found that cities with large, well-established rail systems have lower per-capita traffic congestion costs, lower per-capita traffic fatalities, and lower per capita consumer and government transportation expenditures.
The study also found that residents in cities with large, well-established rail systems experience about half the per capita traffic congestion delay as people who live in comparable size cities that lack rail.
This occurs because residents of cities with good train service drive less.
Cities with large rail systems have about a third lower per capita traffic fatality rates, as travel is far safer by rail than bus or car. Residents of these cities save approximately $450 annually per capita in transportation costs compared with consumers living in cities that lack rail systems.
The study concludes that rail service costs are repaid several times over by reduced congestion, road and parking facility costs, reduced traffic accident costs, and consumer cost savings.
Why, then, the priority in Bangladesh of cars and other road-based transport over trains? When people cannot easily travel by rail, they are likely to shift instead to bus or–for the few who can afford to–private car.
This raises the question of whether the policy is indeed intended to reduce congestion, or simply to raise the profits of bus owners and car salesmen.
Rather than cancel trains, rail service should be expanded to give people a positive choice over the use of cars. This would reduce not only traffic congestion but also fuel use, transport costs, and road deaths and injuries. With the possibility of saving lives, reducing costs, and effectively reducing congestion, the choice is clear: it is private cars, not trains that need to be taken out of service at peak hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)