RICKSHAW

Showing posts with label Private car free. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Private car free. Show all posts

Monday, June 1, 2009

অর্থনীতি, জ্বালানী সঙ্কট ও রিকশা




পরিবেশ বাচাঁও আন্দোলন (পবা)র একদল সেচ্ছাসেবক রিকশা বিষয়ক পেপার তৈরি করেছে। রাজধানী ঢাকার রিকশা চলচলের সুবিধা, সম্ভবনা, চলাচলে প্রতিবন্ধকতা, বৈজ্ঞানিক ভিত্তি, চলাচলের যুক্তিকতা, পরিবহন পরিকল্পনা, অর্থনীতি, পরিবেশ, রাজনীতি, সামাজিকতা, দারিদ্র বিমোচনসহ অনেকগুলো বিষয়ই উঠে এসেছে। তারপরও নেহাতই সময় সল্পতা, পেপারটির আকার নিয়ন্ত্রণ করার বাধ্য বাধ্যকতা থাকায় বেশ কিছু বিষয় বাদ দিতে হয়েছে। কিন্তু কোন অংশেই সেই বিষয়গুলো ছোট করে দেখার কিছু নেই। এই পেপারটি তৈরি পেছনে থাকা সকলের প্রতি আন্তরিক কৃতজ্ঞতা প্রকাশ করছি। পাশাপাশি আশা করি এই ব্লগের অনেকেরই বিভিন্ন সময় মন্তব্য প্রকাশের মাধ্যমে এই লেখাটিকে সমৃদ্ধ করেছেন এবং নানা ভাবে সমর্থন দিয়ে সহয়তা করেছেন তাদের প্রতি কৃতজ্ঞতা প্রকাশ করছি। আমরা বিশ্বাস করি এই লেখাটি যদি বিভিন্ন পযায়ে মানুষের কাছে পৌছে দেওয়া যায় তাহলে ঢাকার আগমীর পরিবহন পরিকল্পনায় বিশেষ ভূমিকা রাখবে।










রিকশা অর্থনীতি
ঢাকা শহরের অধিকাংশ যাতায়াত স্বল্প দূরত্বের। আর স্বল্প দূরত্বে বিরতীহীনভাবে যাতায়াতের জন্য রিকশা হচ্ছে সাশ্রয়ী ও জনপ্রিয় বাহন। রিকশা জ্বালানীমুক্ত, পরিবেশবান্ধব ও নিরাপদ বাহন। এর মাধ্যমে প্রচুর মানুষের কর্মসংস্থানের সুযোগ রয়েছে। সুতরাং রিকশা চলাচলকে কিভাবে সুষ্ঠু ব্যবস্থাপনার আওতায় আনা যায় সেই ধরনের পদক্ষেপ গ্রহণ করা প্রয়োজন। রিকশা দেশের পরিবহণ খাতে প্রতি বছর ৫ হাজার কোটি টাকার জ্বালানী সাশ্রয় করছে। রিকশা পরিবেশের ক্ষতি থেকেও রক্ষা করছে, যার মূল্য বছরে ১০ হাজার কোটি টাকা। হিউম্যান রিসোর্স সেন্টার (এইচডিআরসি) এর সমীক্ষায় দেখা যায় বাংলাদেশ বিমান, রেল, সড়ক ও নৌপরিবহণ খাত থেকে বছরে যত টাকা আয়, রিকশা থেকে এককভাবে তার চেয়ে বেশি অর্থ আয় হয়। ঢাকার রিকশা চালকরা প্রতি মাসে ২শ কোটি টাকা গ্রামে পাঠান। বাংলাদেশ পরিসংখ্যান বু্যরোর তথ্যমতে ২০০৪-০৫ অর্থবছরে রিকশা থেকে সরকার আয় করেছে ১ হাজার ৯শ ৮০ কোটি টাকা। প্রাইভেট কার জিপ ও ট্যাক্সি থেকে ৬৪ কোটি টাকা।


জ্বালানী সঙ্কট ও রিকশা :
বর্তমানে সারা বিশ্বে জ্বালানী অত্যনত্দ আলোচিত একটি বিষয়। দিন দিন জ্বালানী চাহিদা বৃদ্ধির ফলে দেখা দিয়েছে নানাতর সঙ্কট। এছাড়া বিশেষজ্ঞরা বিশ্বে জ্বীবাশ্ম জ্বালানীর মজুদ নিকট ভবিষ্যতে ফুরিয়ে যাবার আশঙ্কা প্রকাশ করেছেন। সেক্ষেত্রে জ্বালানী নিরাপত্তার জন্য এর চাহিদা নিয়ন্ত্রণ করা জরুরী হয়ে পড়েছে। এক্ষেত্রে ঢাকার বিভিন্ন সড়ক থেকে রিকশা নিষিদ্ধ করায় পরিবহণ খাতে জ্বালানীর ব্যবহার বৃদ্ধি পাচ্ছে। পত্রিকার সংবাদের ভিত্তিতে জ্বালানী সমস্যা সম্পর্কে জাতীয় ও আনত্দর্জাতিক পর্যায়ের কিছু বিষয়ে আলোকপাত করা হলো।

১.দি নিউইয়র্ক টাইমস এর ওয়েবসাইট সংস্করণে বিশেষজ্ঞদের মতামত শিল্প কলকারখানার চিত্র তুলে ধরে জানায় জ্বালানী তেল রফতানীকারক কয়েকটি নেতৃস্থানীয় দেশ আগামী দশ বছরের মধ্যে নিজস্ব জ্বালানী চাহিদা মেটাতে তেল আমদানীকারক দেশ হিসেবে পরিণত হতে পারে। ইতোমধ্যেই ইন্দোনেশিয়া এরকম পরিস্থিতির সম্মূখীন হয়েছে, অন্যদিকে মেক্সিকো আগামী পাঁচ বছরের মধ্যেই তেল আমদানীতে যেতে পারে। (আমাদের সময়, ১০ ডিসেম্বর ২০০৭)

২.ইন্টারন্যাশনাল এনার্জি এজেন্সি (আইইএ) জানিয়েছে ২০০৮ সালে গড়ে প্রায় ২.২ মিলিয়ন ব্যারেল তেলের চাহিদা বাড়বে, যা এ বছর রয়েছে ১.৫ মিলিয়ন ব্যরেল। এ ক্রমবর্ধমান চাহিদা সামাল দিতে ওপেক অনত্দর্ভূক্ত দেশগুলোকে তেল উৎপাদন বাড়াতে হবে বলে আইইএ জানিয়েছে। (যায়যায়দিন, ১৪ জুলাই ২০০৭)

৩.পেট্রোবাংলার হিসেবে ২০১১ সাল থেকে গ্যাসের সংকট শুরু হবে। আর ২০১৫ সালের মধ্যে আবিস্কৃত মজুদ শেষ হয়ে যাবে। ফলে ব্যাপক হারে নতুন গ্যাস আবিস্কার ও কয়লা খনি উন্নয়ন করতে না পারলে বাংলাদেশে জ্বালানী সংকট ভয়ঙ্কর রূপ নেবে। (সমকাল, ৮ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০০৭)

৪.পেট্রোল-অকটেনের দাম আকাশচুম্বী হওয়ায় সিএনজি এর চাহিদা বাড়ছে। প্রতিদিনিই অসংখ্য গাড়ি সিএনজিতে কনভার্ট করা হচ্ছে। দেখা যায় রিফুয়েলিং স্টেশনগুলিতে সকাল থেকে রাত্রি পর্যনত্দ দীর্ঘ লাইন পড়ে। ফলে যাত্রীদের শ্রমঘণ্টা নষ্ট হওয়ার পাশাপাশি বাড়ছে নানাবিধ বিড়ম্বনা ও দূর্ভোগ। (যুগানত্দর, ২১ আগস্ট ২০০৬) ৫.২০০৪-০৫ অর্থবছরে জ্বালানী তেল আমদানীতে ব্যয় হয়েছিল ২৫০ কোটি ডলার। আমদানী করা জ্বালানীর মধ্যে পরিবহণ খাতে ৫৫ শতাংশ, কৃষি খাতে ২১ শতাংশ ও বাকী ২৪ শতাংশ ব্যবহার করা হয় ক্ষুদ্র বিদ্যুৎ কেন্দ্র ও জেনারেটরে। (যায়যায়দিন, ২১ আগস্ট ২০০৬) ৬.রিকশার কারণে বাংলাদেশে পরিবহণ খাতে কমপক্ষে ৫ হাজার কোটি টাকার জ্বালানী সাশ্রয় হয়।

এছাড়া বিশ্ব ব্যাংকের হিসাবানুযায়ী আমাদের দেশে প্রতিবছর শুধু রিকশাকে কেন্দ্র করে ১০ হাজার কোটি টাকা আয় হয়ে থাকে। (দৈনিক ইনকিলাব, ২ আগষ্ট ২০০৭) জ্বালানী সঙ্কট উত্তরণের লক্ষ্যে পরিবহণ ব্যবস্থায় রিকশার গুরুত্ব অনুধাবন সাপেক্ষে এর চলাচল আরো সুদৃঢ় ও সুসংহত করা বাঞ্ছনীয়।




www.dhaka-rickshaw.blogspot.com/ Dhaka Ricksha
wwww.dhaka-transport.blogspot.com/ Pro-people Transport Plan www.dhakanewspapers.blogspot.com/ All Newspapers on one click

Syed Saiful Alam
Save The Environment Movement
shovan1209[at]yahoo.com

Saturday, August 30, 2008

What If We Loved Our Kids More than Our Cars?

What If We Loved Our Kids More than Our Cars?

For it must be a sick society indeed that can, and does, and continues to, love its cars more than its children.

WITHIN just one generation, the lives of children throughout the world have changed radically, with just one indication among many being that so many children are now driven to school rather than walking. The same change that occurred in the United States has also happened where I now live, in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Even though car owners are very much the minority, children’s freedom has been greatly curtailed by those cars. Those whose parents do have cars are driven everywhere; those whose parents do not, unless they are very poor, are escorted by adults and strictly prohibited from playing outdoors. It sometimes seems the only children in the city who have the opportunity for wholehearted pleasure, and who have confidence and skill in negotiating the streets, are the slum children.


One could, of course, sit back quietly and watch these changes, reflecting that surely it isn’t as bad as it appears or that something else will come along to make things better or that children perhaps don’t need to play outdoors or meet and interact with strangers or get to know those of other social classes or learn how to get around on their own. It is easy to be defeatist and say who am I to fight such changes? And there are those who feel the changes are inevitable, because the only response is to curtail cars – and that is a ‘freedom’ or enjoyment we could never part with. It isn’t that bad, people may argue; in some parts of the world children have access to parks and playgrounds, and while structured sports for children may not deliver all the benefits of street play, it is the best we can do in the modern world and surely nobody wishes to give up the benefits of modernity.


We too, here in Dhaka, watched the changes and despaired. Later, I found inspiration in reading David Engwicht’s Street Reclaiming; we bought sports equipment to give to the children on the street where our office is – a ‘residential’ neighbourhood with homes, NGO offices, a private university, a pharmaceutical company, a car repair centre and a fair amount of traffic – and made signs to put in the streets with such messages as ‘Love us, let us play.’ The kids took the sporting equipment and played on the roof of their apartment building; the signs seemed likely to turn rusty in our office.


Then one day, a few months later, a couple of my colleagues came into my office and announced that on that very afternoon they were starting a cycle training programme. A what? We have been working to promote cycling, and fighting with transport officials on the issue of cycle rickshaw bans in Dhaka; in the process we have collected a good number of small, folding bikes. Out came the bikes. We bought a few more for little kids, and taped paper with the message ‘Cycle training’ over our old signs, and put up a banner, and later made a large sign showing Einstein on a bicycle – an amusing choice, I had to think, in a Muslim country – all to make the car drivers pay attention, slow down, and yield a lane or two to the kids.


The first day we arranged for some friends to come cycle; almost nobody from our street showed up. Curious children and sceptical adults watched from their balconies. Later, a neighbour told us that people believed we couldn’t be offering free cycle training without an underlying motive –which they took to be that we were planning to kidnap their children. How effective the media has proved in frightening parents out of allowing their children freedom of movement or opportunity to play! If only we could compare the likelihood of children being harmed by being kept under lock and key to the likelihood of being kidnapped. But the woman who told us this was brave, or had a better feeling towards humanity, and brought her children, and reported to her neighbours, and the numbers began to increase. We advertised the programme (for free) in newspapers and through handbills, and children and adolescents (and even adults) from different parts of town began to come, and a regular group of children showed up for the inestimable pleasure of riding a bike with other children.


Other organisations have started similar initiatives, though on small fields rather than on streets. Less than a year has passed, and we hope eventually people will realise the good sense of converting quiet streets into temporary children’s playgrounds. In the meantime, other stunning and unanticipated results have occurred. Prior to the programme, no children on the street knew each other, having always being escorted by parents, usually by car; now many friendships have developed.


One of our volunteers, Topon Shikder says: ‘We have created a platform which allows children from different apartment buildings to get to know each other, breaking the isolation which existed, in which everyone lived their separate lives. So now if someone is in trouble – is sick, or there is no male around – they can turn to each other for help. And of course the kids love it, they keep asking me, “give me a bike, give me a bike, when is it my turn?” It’s wonderful to see their excitement.’


We have slum children helping to run the programme and fix the bicycles; like it or not, if you want to ride, you have to interact with these kids, and interact they do. A couple of child servants who have no other opportunity for recreation sneak away to join and revel in being treated the same by our staff as the rich neighbourhood kids. The children who repair the bikes have gained confidence as well as new skills, marching about with great authority; twice a week a few of them eat lunch with our office staff. During school holidays, children from the street come to our office to borrow bikes, usually in groups; it is now perfectly normal to have children moving around as freely as if it were their office.


Another of our volunteers, Muminul Islam says, ‘Street children – those who pick rags or papers, or sell peanuts at the nearby lake, to make a little money – often wander to our street to watch, and stand with their mouths almost hanging open. So I send one of our kids with a bike to ask the child if he wants to ride for a few minutes. I can’t express how happy they are! Sometimes afterwards they get so excited that they come up to me and grab my hand, calling me uncle or brother, and thank me profusely.’


I wish I could say that the adults on our street have also thanked us warmly for the initiative, and that drivers slow down, or avoid entering our dead-end street altogether so as not to disrupt the children. Most adults, including the parents whose kids participate, are delighted; when they see drivers racing on the street, or honking loudly at the kids, they complain about how uncivilised they are. But other adults tell us we should take the programme elsewhere, and one woman – a paediatrician –complained that it’s hard on drivers because ‘we have to slow down;’ others ask why we take so much space (blocking one or two lanes of a three-lane street). Our volunteers shake their heads in wonder – it really seems that people love their cars more than their children, they say.


What we are giving to the children at one level seems so minor – the chance to ride a bike up and down a stretch of road, while passing drivers blare their horns. On the other hand, we are giving them the freedom to leave their homes unescorted, to gain a new skill, to form friendships, to interact with different kinds of people...and to have fun. Perhaps, if things go well, if we are able to continue and expand, we will even succeed in communicating our key message: cars should not be allowed to destroy the joy in children’s lives. Perhaps, people will see that children don’t have to grow up trapped in cars and behind TV, helpless and dependent, growing up in fear of strangers and of the world around them. Perhaps, they will come to see the harm in the mentality that has developed; in which any sacrifice of children’s natural state seems preferable to restrictions on cars. For it must be a sick society indeed that can, and does, and continues to, love its cars more than its children.

Transport, Environment, Economics and Health: Promoting an All-Win Situation

Transport, Environment, Economics and Health:Promoting an All-Win Situation
Syed Shamsul Alam


While economic gains may be sufficient in themselves—assuming a reasonably fair distribution of those gains—to improve conditions in health and education, the opposite tends to happen with transport. Market economies support transport investments and infrastructure that actually lead to worsening traffic conditions, and richer cities tend to suffer from worse transport problems—including more traffic congestion, more pollution, and more injuries and deaths from road crashes—than poorer cities.

As i**es increase, if the government does not intervene, then car use will increase. In the case of Hong Kong and Singapore, the governments quickly realized that a drastic increase in car use in proportion to rising i**es would lead to an impossible situation on the streets, and thus instituted strict measures for car control, such as mandating that car owners first buy parking spaces, or charging very high fees for licenses. Where governments have not taken such proactive steps—or where such steps are taken and then loosened under pressure of car manufacturers and others—the traffic situation will invariably decline as i**es rise.

While we often hear of the subsidies given by government for mass transport, few talk of the subsidies governments give for cars. Yet such subsidies play an important role in increasing car ownership, and can represent vast sums of money being spent providing free parking, road space, and other infrastructure (such as elevated expressways) for cars, or on fuel subsidies largely used by car owners. Meanwhile, the increase in cars and government moves to increase road space for them—often by limiting or banning other transport—result in a decrease in fuel‐free transport (mostly walking, cycling, and cycle rickshaws), due to danger, lack of road space, and the unpleasantness of trying to use such modes adjacent to noisy and polluting motorized vehicles.

The “free” market thus fails us by resulting in more fuel-dependent transport (FDT), with serious consequences for the environment and health. (Of course if the market were really “free”, there would not be huge subsidies for cars, and car owners would be expected to pay in real terms for the damage they cause, so that a very different picture would likely result.) Damage to the environment of fuel-dependent (motorized) transport includes air and noise pollution, space used for roads and parking that could have been green space (for agriculture, parks, and nature), and contribution to climate change. Damage to health includes rising rates of respiratory and other disease from pollution; injuries and deaths from road crashes; lack of physical activity caused both by more time spent in cars, and the inability to walk or cycle due to the presence of so many cars; increases in obesity due to lack of physical activity; and the reduced possibility of interacting with neighbors, or of children and youth enjoying outdoor recreation, due to the conversion of open spaces to parking and the danger from so many fuel-dependent vehicles.


Other problems caused by fuel-dependent transport include economics, poverty, and insecurity. For example, the average American spends $6,000/year for car costs, or 20% of gross earnings for the ʺprivilegeʺ of owning a car. Given that one main reason to own a car is to drive to work—so that one can then pay for one’s car—the futility and wastefulness of the current system is obvious. People b**e further impoverished due to high expenses on transport, which can represent a significant portion of monthly i**e. For instance, traveling by bicycle is essentially free, whereas bus fares can prove very costly to the low‐i**e. Those whose i**e is dependent on fuel‐free transport are also affected by bans on their livelihood, including rickshaw and van pullers and handcart peddlers. Finally, global insecurity is increased due to dependence on foreign oil and the wars that result as countries fight for control over existing oil supplies.


Shifting from the “free” market focus, with its emphasis on further enriching wealthy corporations, to a focus on transport for development, would lead to significant changes and gains—not only for the poor, but for everyone. Namely, such a focus would emphasize the need for more fuel-free transport (FFT). FFT has many benefits, including the facts that it is inexpensive, does not cause air or noise pollution, generates employment, provides convenient exercise (allowing people to incorporate physical activity into their daily routine, rather than having to make extra time and spend extra money on it), and increases equity by giving people of different i**e equal rights on the street (or prioritizing the poor over the rich, which would make a small contribution towards balancing the great inequalities favoring the rich).


In working to achieve change in the transport‐health‐environment‐economics equation, our overall goal is to create people‐friendly cities. Given the significant role transport can play in increasing or decreasing quality of life in a city, transport must play a significant role in making cities more livable. Needed changes include an increase in fuel‐free transport (walking, cycling, cycle rickshaws), an increase in public transport, a decrease in car use (brought about by high parking fees reflecting actual land values, license controls, and car‐free areas), and encouragement of high-density, mixed‐use areas, which in turn would lead to a reduction in traffic demand as access is emphasized over mobility.Of course bringing about changes in transport, affected as such changes are by economics and politics, is by no means easy. Significant opposition arises from a number of sources, for rather obvious reasons; such opponents include those manufacturing and selling cars, road and highway construction**panies, media (consider the role of car advertisement in electronic and print media), much of government, and some international agencies.


While there is no one set of working methods guaranteed to bring success, a mix of approaches modified for one’s own political environment is likely to include at least some of the following: signature campaigns, letter writing (to newspapers and policymakers), meetings with journalists and other ways of giving journalists information, research and publications, meetings and other**munication with government officials, seminars, press conferences, and demonstrations.Local, regional, and international alliances can also help support the work. Such alliances can include local NGOs working on the issues of environment, rights of the poor, and public health; a regional network with HealthBridge partners; and international support from such networks or groups as the World Carfree Network (WCN) and possibly the Institute for Transportation & Development Policies (ITDP).


While success is difficult in this area, it is by no means impossible. For instance, successes in Bangladesh included a major slowing of rickshaw bans, and an expressed reversal of World Bank policy in Dhaka regarding those bans. In the words of World Bank Country Director, Christine Wallich: “Any future support from the World Bank would be possible only if it can be demonstrated that aggregate positive impacts of NMT‐free conversion on transport users and transport providers outweigh the aggregate negative impact.” Other countries within theHealthBridge network and beyond have also experienced significant successes.


There is much to learn from the work, and while the difficulty is great, there is still much cause for optimism. Significant lessons include the obvious—that accepting that defeat is inevitable guarantees defeat. That is, if we believe before we start that we will fail, and thus don’t even try, we will indeed fail. Only by trying do we at least have the possibility of success—a possibility that can, surprisingly, materialize at times! After all, as we have also learned, policies serving only a powerful elite will, necessarily, have limited appeal among the masses. While the rich have access to resources that may seem overwhelming, there is tremendous power in public opinion. Therefore, supporting the masses can succeed—if, of course, the work is done wisely.
In sum, we need to work together to guarantee a major role for fuel‐free transport (and to reduce transport needs overall by emphasizing proximity over mobility), and to reduce fuel‐dependent transport. By reducing car use, we can create an all‐win situation, in which even car users benefit. How? By supporting jobs and inexpensive transport for the poor; by decreasing pollution, congestion, and noise; by increasing levels of physical activity and thus improving health; by increasing access to convenient transport for all groups, and by increasing availability of and access to safe outdoor play spaces for children. The result of all these measures is friendlier, people‐focused cities—cities in which all inhabitants will gain.

Syed Saiful Alam
Save the Environment Movement

Friday, August 15, 2008

Knowledge-based Transport Planning and More Rickshaw Bans in the Dhaka City

Knowledge-based Transport Planning and More Rickshaw Bans in the Dhaka City

Dr.Mahabubul Bari

For several years, discussion of transport issues and problems in Dhaka has had a singular focus on the supposed contribution of cycle rickshaws to traffic congestion, and the need to facilitate movement of automobiles. In line with this analysis of the transport situation, various projects have been undertaken, focusing on banning rickshaws and rickshaw vans from major roads, and sometimes relegating them to narrow rickshaw lanes. The problem of car parking has been addressed mainly through insistence on provision of separate parking places by offices, shops and restaurants even by enacting law under the building code. It is a matter of deep regret that not a single transport policy decision was undertaken after conducting a proper scientific or knowledge-based analysis of the transport problems of the city. It has become a standard norm to take important policy decisions rather arbitrarily, whether it is rickshaw ban or Strategic Transport Plan (STP) for the city.

The results of these various initiatives have been made clear through government-mandated studies, including the HDRC report on the rickshaw ban on Mirpur Road (HDRC 2004), and the DUTP after-study report (DUTP 2006). The results, almost astonishingly negative, would suggest that the basis for the policy decisions and transport plans are flawed. This would be less than surprising when considering the fact that important transport policy decisions were taken without employing any knowledge-based approach or scientific study.

Moreover, despite the strong evidence of increased travel costs and traffic congestion, transport planning continues to focus on expanding the role of the automobile and reducing that of fuel-free transport. That pattern has been reflected by the further extension of the rickshaw bans on more city roads. In this connection, readers are requested to draw their attention to the following news item:

Paltan-Bijoynagar Road made off-limits to rickshaws
Staff Correspondent
“Traffic Division of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police made Purana Paltan-Bijoynagar Road off-limits to rickshaws from Thursday. The decision was taken at a meeting on Wednesday. All the deputy commissioners of four traffic divisions were present at the meeting. M Sayedur Rahman, deputy commissioner (south) of traffic division, told New Age on Thursday that the authorities banned plying of non-motorised vehicles on the stretch between Purana Paltan and Bijoynagar to ease traffic congestion.” The New Age, Dhaka, Friday, October 19, 2007”.

This arbitrary decision making process as depicted in the news item draws attention to a number of disturbing questions as follows:
Do the police have the authority to ban or restrict rickshaw movements?
If yes, from whom do they get that authority?
Do the police have similar authority to limit the movement of motorised vehicles when there is not sufficient road capacity for them, e.g. narrow lanes, which cannot accommodate cars without causing traffic jams?

Probably not, it is therefore clear that such misguided policy actions are being pursued just to give absolute priority in the transport system of the city for a tiny minority of car owners, i.e. the so called elite section of the society.

Do the police have requisite training to make proper transport decisions?
If so, why dies Dhaka needs organisation like DTCB, when the police can do the job better?
The rickshaw bans are being extended beyond Mirpur Road, but it seems unlikely that those bans were carried out by the police, rather than by a section of the powerful bureaucrats behind the scene. It may be mentioned here that after failure of the rickshaw ban in the demonstration project of the Mirpur Road, the World Bank has set the standard of extending further bans on the condition that: “Any future support from the World Bank would be possible only if it can be demonstrated that aggregate positive impacts of NMT-free conversion on transport users and transport providers outweigh the aggregate negative impact”.

It is matter of deep regret that policies continue to give car owners absolute priority, while ignoring the fundamental principle of any transport project appraisal, that is, that net user benefits of any transport intervention must exceed net loss.

Now, it may be appropriate to concentrate on, possibly, the most important argument in the news item, that is, “the authorities banned plying of non-motorised vehicles on the stretch between Purana Paltan and Bijoynagar to ease traffic congestion.” In the following paragraphs answer to this question and other related aspects of such transport policy interventions, will be analysed in the light of knowledge-based and participatory decision-making approach.
Did the previous rickshaw ban in Dhaka City ease traffic congestion?

The answer lies in the “After Project” report of the government mandated study of the Mirpur Road Demonstration project (DUTP 2006), where fuel free transport was banned.
It might be appropriate to look into the issue considering a number of key congestion indices with respect to before and after scenarios of the Mirpur Road Demonstration project as follows:

Average journey time per vehicle
Average journey time per person
Journey reliability
Throughput (total number of vehicles per time interval that pass a point on the carriageway)
Average Journey time per Vehicle
The Table 1 shows the comparison of travel times of fuel dependent (motorised) vehicles between 2000 and 2005. Considering large variability of the travel time data, it is evident that there is no statistically significant difference of travel times of fuel dependent or motorised vehicles between pre and post rickshaw ban scenarios. This means that no travel time gain for fuel dependent vehicle was achieved due to rickshaw ban.

Table 1: Comparison of 2000/2005 Travel Times (average of two directions) in Mirpur Road Corridor (Source: DUTP 2006)
Year
Average Speed (km/h)
Travel Time (min.)
Delay (sec)
No of Stops
Delay in Stop (sec/stop)
Gabtoli - North South Road (Demonstration Corridor)
2005
19.9
36.1
717
20
36
2000
19.2
38.3
720
17
42
% Difference
3.6%
-5.7%
-0.4%


The Table 2 demonstrates the comparison of travel times of buses between 2000 and 2005. Although there is no statistically significant difference of travel times for fuel dependent vehicles between pre and post FFT ban scenarios, the travel times for buses did undergo significant deterioration with a 26.1% increase of travel times. This means that bus congestion has increased significantly due to imposition of rickshaw ban in the Mirpur Road demonstration corridor.

On balance average vehicle congestion in terms of journey time per vehicle has increased significantly due to the rickshaw ban.
Table 2: Comparison of 2000/2005 Travel Times for Buses in along Mirpur Road Corridor (Source: DUTP 2006)
Bus Line
Year
Speed (km/h)
Travel Time (min)
No of Stops
Line 7: Gabtoli to Gulistan Via Neel Khate
2005
13.2
50.2
45.2

2000
17.0
39.8
45.2
% Change

-22.4%
26.1%

Average journey time per person
Bus travel has worsened following the FFT ban, with a 26.1% increase in travel time; passenger travels by bus has become slower than by rickshaw. Thus all the bus passengers (28.1% of total passengers)—both those who continue to travel by bus in pre- and post-project scenarios, and those who were forced to shift from rickshaws—have experienced significant increase in travel times.

Impacts of the project on car passengers who have been riding a car both pre- and post-project are more or less neutral, as there is no significant difference in travel time.
The passengers of motorised para-transit who continue to travel both in pre- and post-project scenarios are likely to suffer increase in average journey times. While there is no significant difference in travel times between scenarios, the times required to find a driver who would be willing to go for short trips have gone up substantially as per HDRC report (HDRC 2004) thereby increasing average travel times per person.

Despite being subjected to a ban on Mirpur Road, rickshaws remain the most popular means of transport in the corridor, accounting for 30% of all trips. Rickshaw passengers have become net losers, being forced to take long detours using congested side roads, and thereby substantially increase their travel time.

These evidences from the after project studies prove that congestion in terms of average journey time per person have increased significantly after rickshaw ban in the Mirpur Road demonstration corridor.

Journey Reliability
Both DUTP after project study (DUTP 2006) and HDRC studies reported significant deterioration of waiting times for bus passengers. Again, as reported in the HDRC report, baby taxi operators are reluctant to take short trips, causing significant increases in waiting times for passengers. Similarly, finding suitable taxicabs at an affordable cost has become increasingly troublesome and time-consuming for short trips.


It is therefore clearly evident that journey reliability of the Mirpur Road demonstration project deteriorated significantly due to imposition of rickshaw ban. This in turn represents increase of congestion.
Throughput (total number of vehicles per time interval that pass a point on the carriageway)
Although it might not be appropriate to compare throughputs between a FFT free road and a mixed vehicles road, it is obvious from the Table 3 that number of vehicles that pass at North of Dhanmodi R#2 of Mirpur Road, decreased significantly both in terms of absolute number of vehicles and passenger car equivalents due to rickshaw ban. This indicates the congestion in terms of throughput has increased significantly due to rickshaw ban in Mirpur Road.
Table 3: Comparison of 2000/2005 throughputs at North of Dhanmondi Road #2 Section of Mirpur Road (Source: DUTP 2006)
Road section of Mirpur Road
Year
Vehs/hr
PCE/hr
North of Dhanmondi R#2
2000
167235
96112
North of Dhanmondi R#2
2005
55822
55930
Difference %

-66.62%
-41.81%
Again, although passenger carrying capacities of the whole network under investigation were found to increase on average by 30% due to a significant increase of bus services under a private sector-driven initiative, increase in passenger capacity for the demonstration project was only 15%. Again, a careful analysis of data reveals that nearly total elimination of FFT combined with a very high increase in bus service resulted in only a 15% increase in passenger capacity, whereas a small decrease in cars combined with only a modest increase in bus service resulted in a 27% increase in passenger capacity in a VIP road, which has been under FDT-only operation in the base case, indicating that as far as road capacity is concerned the problem is cars, not rickshaws.


Whether car more efficient than rickshaws in terms of road space occupancy?
Despite constant claims of the city officials that rickshaws are the main source of traffic jams, data indicate that rickshaws are far superior to cars as far as road space occupancy is concerned (see Table 4). In the base case i.e. before fuel free transport ban, rickshaws made up 69.8% of vehicles, yet utilised only 43.5% of road space to transport 59.4% of passengers (all trips). Cars made up only 6.4% of vehicles, yet occupied as much as 29.9% of the road space in the base case to transport far fewer passengers (5.5%) than by rickshaw.


Despite being removed from the main roads, rickshaws are still the most popular mode of transport, serving 30% of the passengers, whereas cars serve only 8.5% of all trips (11% of vehicular trips) while requiring the greatest share of road space (54.2%). Although the modal share of cars in overall has gone up only 3.0%, they now claim about 25% more road space than prior to FFT ban. If one considers the additional parking space required for them, total road space required would be much higher. It is clear that a combination of fuel-free transit and public transit would be far superior to a fuel-dependent transport and public transit option.
Table 4: Road Space Occupancy Impacts of DUTP on Mirpur Demonstration Road (Sources: DUTP 2006, STP 2005 and HDRC 2004)
Year
Attribute
Light 4-whl.
Buses
Cycle Rickshaws
2000
% Modal Share of All Trip (HDRC 2004)
5.5%
10.7%
59.4%
2000
% Modal Share of Vehicular Trip (HDRC 2004)
6.4%
12.6%
69.8%
2000
% Space on the Main Road Link
29.9%
5.2%
43.5%
2000
% Passenger on the Main Road Link
13.6%
37.4%
30.6%
2005
% Modal Share of All Trip (HDRC 2004)
8.5%
20.8%
29.5%
2005
% Modal Share of Vehicular Trip (HDRC 2004)
11.0%
26.9%
38.1%
2005
% space on the Main Road Link
54.2%
21.3%
0.1%
2005
% Passengers on the Main Road Link
12.5%
79.9%
0.0%
It may be mentioned here that despite 50% traffic growth of motorised vehicles during 2000 to 2005 period, the traffic in terms of PCE (passenger car equivalent) in Mirpur Road Demonstration corridor was lower in 2005 in comparison to that of 2000. However, despite having less number of traffic in 2005, the performance of the corridor was significantly worse under FFT free condition after the ban.

It is therefore clearly evident from the data analysis of the DUTP after project study that congestion in terms of all major congestion indices has increased significantly due to imposition of fuel free transport ban in the Mirpur Road demonstration corridor.
Whether net economic benefit of previous rickshaw ban in the Mirpur Road Demonstration Corridor was positive?

The economic impact of fuel free transport ban on the demonstration corridor has been quite devastating; even DUTB’s figures indicate an enormous net loss. Revised figures suggest a colossal loss as high as Tk 1.52 billion per year for the demonstration corridor. Not a single item produced any positive benefit.

Although banning rickshaws means that many former rickshaw passengers will now have to travel by foot, including to access buses, absolutely nothing was done to improve the situation of pedestrians. The banning of FFT in the demonstration corridor has deteriorated accessibility of the majority of road users by cutting access to side roads, destroying the continuity of the transport system, and hampering door-to-door mobility of passengers.
The fuel free transport ban has been proved to be highly regressive in economic terms, with 83% of the road users becoming the ultimate losers as against only 1%, those who shifted from rickshaws to cars, emerging victorious.

Figure 1 Impact of Mirpur Road Demonstration Project on Road Users
Can fuel free transport ban ensure social equity and protect the right of the most vulnerable sections of the society?


Any city development initiative should contribute positively to social equity and protect the right of the most vulnerable sections of the society. On the contrary the fuel free transport ban created serious social exclusion problems by depriving the most vulnerable section of the society like women, children, the elderly, the disabled and the infirm of a feasible mode of transport.
Again, the initiative has generated undue advantages to a tiny minority of the urban elite, that is, car owners, by allocating them absolute priority in all spheres of the city transport system at the expense of mobility and convenience for the majority of the road users, i.e. pedestrians and rickshaw passengers. In the demonstration corridor, cars now make up only 8.5% of all trips but they occupy 54% of road space. Moreover, undue privilege to cars has also been manifested in terms of providing them with unlimited space for parking free of cost, giving preferential access along road links, ensuring uninterrupted movement at pedestrian crossings and giving undue long green times at traffic signals, etc.

Above all, the FFT ban project shattered the life of the vulnerable rickshaw pullers and operators by reducing their income by 32-41% despite being forced to adopt longer working hours, caused them to take less food, and above all deprived them from their fundamental right of earning a living by a legal means.

Knowledge-based and participatory decision-making approach for transport planning for Dhaka City

Given the complexity of the enterprise and the fact that transport and urban planning have significant effects on the economic and overall well-being of a city’s residents, it is important not to undertake any important transport policy initiative, such as fuel free transport ban arbitrarily. It is high time to institutionalise a knowledge-based and participatory decision-making process for the Dhaka City. It is a matter of deep regret that important transport policy decisions are being taken without conducting any knowledge-based analysis by involving people who do not have proper training on transport or urban planning process. In this connection lessons can be learnt from the arbitrary decision making process of STP where a top-down planning process was adopted by involving a number of part-timers mainly drawn from the section of the urban elite without wider participation of major stakeholders and socially deprived sections of the city. As is always the case in such scenarios, the tendency to allocate resources rather arbitrarily for car-friendly (pro-rich) and capital-intensive projects becomes evidently clear from the STP approach. The experiences of different cities of Brazil prior to participatory budgeting were more or less similar, when decisions regarding urban developments were the exclusive right only for the elite and the powerful. Participatory budgeting, which has been in operation in Brazil since 1989 (Souza 2001), is emerging as an innovative urban development management theme with enormous potential to support cities in the adoption of socially integrated, inclusive, accessible, transparent, participatory and accountable urban governance and management, with a view to ensuring equitable and sustainable urban development. There is no reason why such approaches could not be institutionalised and integrated with appropriate knowledge-based process ensuring people-oriented transport developments.

In this connection, some of the major recent transport policy decisions is worth discussion. The government has recently undertaken an initiative to build 52 kilometres of subway in Dhaka City on commercial basis using private sector financing. A similar initiative on building of a system of elevated expressway under a commercial venture is probably also in the agenda. Any move to build a mass transit system for Dhaka City is long overdue and welcome. However, there are number of issues which demand especial attention prior to undertaking major policy initiatives as follows:

· It might not be appropriate to build a mass transit system as a commercial enterprise under a profit or loss system. A profit making public transit system would likely to be expensive and beyond the reach of the ordinary people despite some fancy claims from the investor. A profit making enterprise would have an adverse impact on social equity and integration. Such a transport system will definitely deny the most vulnerable section of the society about the right to accessibly and mobility. The very objective of the development of mass transit system, i.e. to provide an affordable public transport system for the majority will be defected if it is run on a commercial basis.

· Despite some over optimistic claims, the underground metro will not be able to solve the transport problem of the Dhaka city on its own. Without a proper integrated demand and supply management approach it is unlikely that only an underground metro will solve the transport problem of Dhaka City.

· It is essential that any mass transit system, such as underground metro, should be integrated appropriately with other transport sustainable transport modes, like pedestrians and FFT to make it effective.

· The bitter experience of STP planning process should not negate the need for implementing a well-integrated mass transit system under a knowledge-based and participatory transport planning process.

· The implementation of car incentive project like elevated expressway system would likely to eat up some of the potential benefits of the proposed mass transit system. Current anti-FFT and pro-car transport initiatives would likely to be counter-productive for the development a sustainable transport system for Dhaka City.

Concluding Remarks
The truism “history repeats itself” applies to those who ignore the lessons of the past and insist on forging ahead, committing the same mistakes, and experiencing the same results. It is hoped that, city authority will learn form the mistakes of the Mirpur Road Demonstration project and try to assign due importance of FFT as it deserves. Given the small modal share of autos and the many problems they cause, there should be no provision for creating more auto-only roads within urban areas, and all existing auto-only roads should be converted into mixed-use roads by properly integrating public transit, FFT and fuel-dependent transport (FDT).
Again, while developing mass transit system for a mega city like Dhaka, efforts should be made to develop an affordable system for the majority under a well-integrated multi-modal system. It would be rather unfortunate to develop a mass transit system mainly as a profit making enterprise.


Given the complexity of the transport planning process and the fact that transport and urban planning have significant effects on the economic and overall well-being of a city’s residents, it is important adopting a knowledge-based and participatory approach involving all segment of the stakeholders. Such participatory planning process should take into account not only technical issues about feasibility and efficiency, but also the likely effects of policies on mobility, accessibility, and quality of life for all those affected, with a particular focus on vulnerable groups, those most likely to be left out of, and highly affected by, the existing planning process.


References:
DUTP (2006), “Impact Assessment of DUTP: After Project”, Final Report submitted to Dhaka Transport Coordination Board, by DHV Consultants BV, the Netherlands, Japan Overseas Co., Ltd., Japan, Finnroad Oy, Finland, Operation Research Group, India, SARM Associates Ltd., Bangladesh, Desh Upodesh Ltd., Bangladesh, DevConsultants Ltd., Bangladesh in Dhaka Urban Transport Project (DUTP), Dhaka, February 2006.

HDRC (2004), “After Study on the Impact of Mirpur Demonstration Corridor Project (Gabtoli-Russell Square)” Report prepared for Dhaka Transportation Coordination Board (DTCB), Human Development Research Centre, August 2004, Dhaka

Souza, C. (2001) “Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions.” Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 13 No 1, April 2001.

It is important to have an open discussion to explore the scientific validity of the further extensions of fuel free transport bans and the justification of the building a mass transit mainly as a profit making enterprise under the perspectives of sustainable transport development in the Dhaka City. We, the proponents of sustainable transport development, would be very keen to discuss the issues at lengths at any place in Dhaka in between December 29 2007 to January 21, 2008. Active participation of DTCB, DCC, police, high officials from the Ministry of Communications, academic from universities, representatives from the development partners and members of STP advisory committee would be highly appreciated.

This article also pulished
  1. The Finacial Express Dhaka needs proper transport planning
  2. The Daily New Nation Knowledge-based transport planning and rickshaw bans


Syed Saiful Alam Shovan
shovan1209[at]yahoo.com

Dhaka Rickshaw Pro-people Transport Plan All Newspapers on one click