Voice of South

Posted in Opinion | Tagged Dhaka, Rickshaw | 38 Comments

38 Responses to “Fuel Consumption and Environmental Impact of Rickshaw Bans in Dhaka”

1. on January 11, 2008 at 4:25 pm1 Linda Lonnqvist

   Has a ban actually taken place? Hope not. Good luck campaigning!

   
   
2. on February 19, 2008 at 2:50 pm2 Yasmin Chowdhury

   Pricing public transit: learning from Bangkok
   Yasmin Chowdhury
   yasmin_cho@yahoo.com

   When I first visited Bangkok in 1994, I got around the city mostly by bus. The buses were slow, the streets congested, and I soon learned that I could only make one plan for the morning and one for the afternoon, as it might take a couple hours to move about.
   Then the city started to build their skytrain. I waited with great anticipation for its completion. It seemed to require a lot more time and a lot more money (OK, just two years of delay and three times over budget) than originally anticipated, and the fares are admittedly quite high, but it was finally built—if never finished. (I saw an article in a Thai newspaper about people very upset that the planned line to their area had never been built; meanwhile, the pilings leading to the now domestic-only airport have been converted into advertising posts.)
   To be quite honest, I love the skytrain. Sure, the cement structure looming overhead is ugly. Sure, most of the stations lack escalators, making them inaccessible to those in wheelchairs, and exceedingly difficult for those lugging heavy bags or luggage. Sure, the two lines only cover a very limited portion of Bangkok. Sure, it’s expensive. Sure, despite all the hassles, the trains are often packed. Sure, the stations are congested and I sometimes have to push through people to reach my train. But at least I can see a little of the city while I travel, and I can now get around to the stops on the line quickly, allowing myself to visit far more places in a day.
   Though the skytrain certainly makes moving around the city much easier (if you can afford it), it obviously didn’t alleviate the congestion, as the government then opened a very limited subway system. The first time I tried to ride it, about a year after it opened, it was closed for two weeks due to an accident. I finally rode it a couple years after that, and discovered that it cost about US$0.50 to ride what it would take me ten minutes to walk. That seemed outrageous, and I don’t love riding up and down long escalators and traveling in tunnels. Since the Metro doesn’t seem to go much beyond the skytrain, I stick to the skytrain.
   But now, after spending billions of dollars on those mass transit systems, and despite having an existing extensive bus system, and more roads than most Asian cities of their level of economic development, the government is now planning bus rapid transit—a bit like a street-level trolley, but with buses instead of trams. Of course, that too is delayed—but the cost is a fraction of that for the skytrain and Metro.
   A more careful look at those costs reveals something interesting and of considerable relevance as Dhaka plans its public transit system. According to various Web sites, the skytrain, which opened in 1999, cost about US$1.5 billion for 24 kilometers. That amounts to US$62.5 million per kilometer. Of course, things were cheaper back then.
   Construction of the Metro began back in 1996, but it wasn’t finished until 2004. According to Wikipedia, “The project suffered multiple delays not only because of the 1997 economic crisis, but also due to challenging civil engineering works of constructing massive underground structures deep in the water-logged soil upon which the city is built.” Interesting. Fortunately we don’t have those troubles in Dhaka (ahem!).
   As for cost, the Metro cost a mere US$ 2.75 billion for 21 km, or US$130.95 million per kilometer—just over twice that of the skytrain. Apparently burrowing underground, dealing with flooding issues, providing ventilation, and so on is much more expensive than building above our heads. Meanwhile, again quoting Wikipedia, “ridership has settled down to around 180,000 riders daily — considerably lower than projections of over 400,000, despite fares being slashed in half from 12-38 baht to 10-15 baht per trip. As of 2006, fares range between 14-36 baht per trip.” With an exchange rate as I write of 32 baht to one US dollar, that’s a mighty high fare. Good thing Bangladeshis are wealthier than Thais (??).
   Meanwhile, the anticipated cost for the BRT is 33.4 million for 36 kilometers. Admittedly, anticipated costs are often far less than actual costs, but still, at US$0.93 million per kilometer, that’s a bargain compared to the Metro or the skytrain—even more so when considering it’s being built last, when prices are highest. At 67 times less than the skytrain and 141 times less than the Metro, even with significant cost increases, it will still be far more affordable than its public transit predecessors.
   Of course, operational costs are another issue. Buses require fuel, trains electricity. Buses tend to require more maintenance, tires wear down frequently, and buses have to be replaced far more often than trains. While it is cheaper to build a BRT system initially, the higher operational costs might mean that, in the long term, a tram system would be more affordable—tram meaning street-level light rail, not something up in the sky or underground, which greatly multiplies the costs.
   Which is all to say, I’m all for public transit. So, apparently, are Thais: last I checked, hotels and housing advertise their proximity to the various public transit options. Apparently people are sick and tired of sitting in cars stuck in traffic jams. In public transit, you can sit back and read a book while you ride, look out the window (preferably not at tunnels), eavesdrop on your neighbor’s conversation, and otherwise amuse yourself without risking crashing into someone once the traffic moves again.
   But when considering spending millions or billions on public transit, it would make sense to invest it wisely, in a system that will be the most extensive and least expensive, and thus offer the best value for the money. At 141 times per kilometer less to build BRT than Metro, we could both have a far more extensive system, meeting far more people’s needs, and lower fares. Sounds like a bargain to me!

   
   
3. on February 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm3 Yasmin Chowdhury

   Thoughts on Metro, from a well-traveled resident
   Yasmin Chowdhury
   yasmin_cho@yahoo.com

   The recent decision to build a Metro (underground rail) system in Dhaka has met with a range of responses. On one side is the “halleluyah” response—at last, government is taking public transit seriously, with plans to invest serious funds (at least $3.2 billion US dollars) into making life easier for the masses.
   On the other side rises the practical question: how feasible is the plan, how much will eventually get built, will it actually function, and might not a different form of public transit—say, a tram or trolley, or Bus Rapid Transit—achieve similar benefits for about a hundred times less money per kilometer?
   On the bright side, traveling in cities with a Metro is a far different experience from traveling in those without one. Where I grew up, there is no developed system for public transit, and it is virtually impossible to get around without a car. Since I let my driver’s license expire about a decade ago, I feel like a child when I visit, reliant on adults to take me places. Meanwhile, when I visit big modern cities, like Boston, Washington D.C., Chicago, New York City, or San Francisco, or any number of European cities, I can easily move around on my own.
   But while the independent mobility is a blessing, with it comes a significant downside. When traveling underground, we fail to experience the city we are in. Living in Boston and frequently traveling by subway, I had many of the stops memorized, and could easily get around underground—but I had no idea what was over my head. When I finally got into the habit of walking through the city following the subway lines but above ground, I realized that only now was I gaining a perspective of where buildings, monuments, and important parts of the city are in relation to each other—not in terms of a subway map, but in terms of actual physical layout. In the process, I realized how little I had actually understood, all those years of living there, about the true layout of Boston—or of what is to be found in various neighborhoods that I had ever only passed under. The parts of the city I knew best were those I walked in, or where the subway emerged into a street-level trolley, and there was a sense of connection between the passengers and the street life out our windows.
   When traveling underground, we are unaware—and thus often unconcerned—about the situation at ground level. Passing under a slum, we don’t pause to reflect on the lives of the people there, and whether something couldn’t be done to make it better, or on why trash is thrown here and there, or how desolate some of the streets look…but we do notice those things when traveling on the surface, and there is the possibility that from noticing, we will go on to change it.
   This has a direct practical side as well for business owners; when traveling at ground level, we can see shops and other amenities. Oh, that’s where I can buy that—or oh, that looks like a pleasant restaurant! And knowing where it is and how to access it, there is the possibility of going back someday. This is both a far more amusing way to pass the time when traveling then in looking at tunnel walls, but also is good for the businesses we pass.
   Then of course there are the practical matters. I remember seeing a map of the subway system in Washington, D.C. which showed various “planned” routes. I remember seeing the same map year after year, and being surprised that they were never built. Short on funds? Similarly, I read in the newspaper in Bangkok that the sky train was supposed to extend far beyond the existing network. That hasn’t happened, and the sky train itself took many years to build in part, I hear, due to corruption. Meanwhile, the new Metro in Bangkok doesn’t go much beyond the sky train. What then are the chances that Dhaka will succeed in building all it plans? If the existing plans prove unaffordable, as the price of materials continues to rise, how much will a very limited system do to reduce traffic congestion or make traveling easier?
   Meanwhile, building a subway system requires building a lot of tunnels. The funny thing about tunnels is, they have to be accessed from the street. This involves a lot of big holes, and while those holes are in place, streets are closed down. So congestion will be significantly worse for the years during which the Metro system is built.
   There is also the issue of crowding on the subway. I was in New York City recently, and given the intense street-level congestion, when going too far to walk, I tried the subway. It was certainly better than being stuck in traffic, but of course I had no idea where I was, and I couldn’t decipher the thick New Yorker accent of the conductor. On one trip, the train was so packed that I couldn’t see out the windows to read the names of the stops. This made arriving at my destination a bit of a challenge, and left me as clueless as ever about the geography of Manhattan.
   The sky train is often packed in Bangkok, with barely room to stand. Thais are polite, and I have never had a man grab me. Unfortunately, I can’t say that for my experience of riding in crowded subways in Boston, and I have heard horror stories about the system in Mexico, which apparently had to provide separate carriages for women to prevent sexual harassment on the packed trains.
   Then there are those lovely escalators down to the stations. Where there are hills, or where the system must go under high rise buildings, stations must be built far below ground. Some of those escalators seem to go on forever. Stepping onto those moving stairs with the ground so far below as to seem to belong almost to another planet always makes my head spin. I was relieved, on a recent trip to D.C., to discover that a Bangladeshi colleague had the same experience, only worse. He insisted on taking the lift. Of course the lifts are intended mostly for the disabled, those with small children, or those with luggage, so one sometimes must wait a long time for it. Between long lines for lifts and the crowded situations of the trains, it sometimes feels as if we have simply shifted a portion of our traffic congestion below ground.
   Speaking of traffic congestion, it helps to remember that people need to be able to get to and from the public transit stops. Getting from one stop to another in little time is a great convenience, but the benefits of that convenience are rapidly diminished when it is difficult to get from public transit to one’s actual destination. I made a mistake in Bangkok once and got off at the wrong subway stop. As I came up to the street, I realized that where I needed to go was on the other side of a highway, with no provision for crossing. I could either go back underground, pay again, then wait for another train to come along to take me just one more stop, or I could risk my life running across the highway. Needless to say, I ran.
   In cities with broken sidewalks, and sidewalks blocked by parked cars, and barbed wire and cement medians to prevent people from crossing the street, getting to and from public transit becomes a daunting challenge. Anyone in their right mind would choose to drive instead, if they had the option, thus defeating in large part the point of the public transit in the first place: to woo people away from their cars. That is, public transit doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it is part of the city, and it is meant to connect places not just along the tracks, but throughout the city. If people can’t easily get to the stops on foot, or on rickshaw, then there is little point in building the system in the first place.
   Then there is that lovely dream of the uncongested streets of Dhaka, once our Metro system is built. How many large, crowded cities with crowded Metros have streets free of traffic jams? Let’s face it, moving through a city—even at a good pace—underground just isn’t that pleasant an experience. Subway stations are often hot and smelly. Homeless people tend to use them as urinals, and there are always those aggressive people who insist on smoking despite all the signs. If subways freed up the streets, then all the passengers who could afford a car or taxi would go back to riding in one.
   I remember once being late for the airport in Boston and figuring that rather than go all that way below ground, and change trains twice, and move at the snail’s pace the Boston subway often goes at—it is the oldest subway system in the US and thus the least modern—I would take a taxi. Oops. Of course it took even longer, thanks to all the traffic, and I missed my plane. Yet Boston’s subway system is far more extensive than Dhaka’s is likely ever to be, and it is easy to walk in Boston, and there is a good bus system to complement the subway, and the population is a fraction of Dhaka’s. So why are there still traffic jams, when the Metro is supposed to eliminate them?
   I’m sure the decision was made in good faith. Perhaps the planners involved have not spent much time in the major cities of the world, and experienced both their subways and the traffic situation above ground. Perhaps they feel that people enjoy being below ground, or that the city is best experienced as little as possible—that is, either underground, or safely insulated in a steel box. No doubt they consider the expenditure of a mere few billion dollars quite reasonable, pocket change really. Perhaps they are too busy to read the Strategic Transport Plan which was meant to map out the best transport plan for the future, and which found that a Metro would offer no significant improvements over surface public transit, and thus there is no justification to build it.
   Even allowing that a few billion dollars is a minor sum which should involve little thought or planning before expending, I would still suggest that when Dhaka’s city planners make their final decision about an efficient, fast, affordable, high quality system of public transit, they should be careful not to miss the boat. It’s a lot more expensive and more technically difficult to build and operate an underground system than a surface one.
   We would get a far more extensive system, with far lower fares or less government subsidy, if we built a surface rather than an underground system. The system could be built a lot faster than a Metro, and with a lot less disruption of traffic during its construction. That issue of fares is important—around the world, public transit tends to be expensive, and yet still highly subsidized by government. The more expensive the system is to build and maintain, the higher the fares and the subsidies, and the less that will eventually get built.
   People could see their city out the windows while riding, gaining both a sense of perspective and of knowledge of what is happening around them. A less expensive system could be started quickly, and gradually expanded. Ensuring that people can walk around the city would not only make the public transit system viable, but would help reduce congestion by shifting some short distance trips to walking. The money to fix our footpaths, and the political will to ban car parking on them, should not be more difficult to find than the billions planned for the Metro.
   Public transit is definitely the way to go—but not all public transit was created equal, and leaping onto the wrong train won’t help us reach our final destination.

   
   
4. on February 29, 2008 at 9:41 pm4 THE BENGAL GAZE: The Rickshaw as an Endangered Species : Pedicab News

   [...] In 1998 the data showed that Rickshaws took up 38% of road space while transporting 54% of passengers in Dhaka . The private cars on the other hand, took up 34% of road space while only transporting 9% of the population — Voice of South.org. [...]

   
   
5. on March 6, 2008 at 2:16 pm5 Maruf Rahman

   The ground floor: for parking or for people?
   Maruf Rahman
   marufrbd@yahoo.com

   Traveling through a section of Dhaka recently, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. A new building, going up on one side of the road, was true to the new theory and rules of construction: the ground floor is left empty and open, for parked cars, while the upper floors are meant for people (homes, workplaces, shops, etc.). On the other side of the street were existing buildings, with the ground floor occupied by shops, and dwellings above. Despite the poor condition of the footpath, many people were outside, walking and milling about. The street was lively, with much to see and look at.
   As I continued along, I passed other new buildings where the ground floor is occupied by car parking. Anyone wishing to access a service along that portion of the street must first climb up at least one flight of stairs. A popular restaurant spans the 2nd and 3rd floor of a building, while a handful of cars occupy the ground floor—and of course still spill out over the footpath. When we discover that simply vacating the ground floor for car parking isn’t enough, then what—will we keep moving higher and higher up, giving more and more space to cars? Will we build expensive underground parking lots for cars, even though we can’t provide affordable housing for all our people?
   I thought about my own situation, in a ground floor office with a constant flow of visitors. The ready access to the street makes it inviting, and those visitors are the lifeblood of our work. I thought about the people I know who live or work on the ground floor, and the shortage of housing for different people’s needs, and the current trends to shift people to the upper levels and reserve the ground floor for parked cars. Where would we all go, if we are evicted by car parking?
   In shopping malls and in multi-storey buildings, the shops on the lower floors command the highest rents. When people walk, they don’t look up; they observe what is at their level. The ground floor is of great commercial importance, because it is the most visible and the most accessible. People will only notice upper-floor shops and businesses if they make an effort, and a further effort is required—even if there is a lift—to access them. They will never attain the easy flow of those on the ground floor. Why give our most valuable commercial real estate to cars?
   When we live on the ground floor, or on a lower floor, it is easy for us to go in and out. If we return home and discover we have neglected to buy milk or eggs, we can easily go out to the neighborhood shop. We can visit others, or partake of the street life. When we live high up in an apartment building, the prospect of waiting for the lift, and riding it for many floors, is often enough to convince us to stay home in front of the TV rather than venturing back out again.
   Further, when the ground floor is occupied by parked and moving cars, there is little room or safety for those on foot. Even on the footpath, we must always be on the alert for cars driving onto the footpath to park, or over it to access a building. As we walk along, we see not shops or restaurants, not signs of human life, but rather parked cars. Rather than interesting and lively streetscapes that give us incentive to walk—and inspire affection for our surroundings—we face steel and cement. When we enter buildings, we pass not through doors meant for people, but through parking lots full of cars.
   In parks and empty lots, people seeking recreation and enjoyment must vie for space with the cars. We begin to suspect that the city was created not for us, but for our vehicles. We are encouraged to cross streets underground or by bridges, because the street level is for cars. We are told that our problems will be solved by building public transit—below ground. Our housing, shops, restaurants, and workplaces are shifted to the upper floors. As human life at ground level gives way to cars, we begin to feel that we are the invaders of the city, and it is cars who fully belong. Certainly this is evident on many streets, where people are prevented from crossing by barbed wire, giving a prison-like environment to our streets and a very clear message to those on foot.
   But as we give more and more of our space away to cars, as we retreat further and further from the streets and the street level in order to make space for cars, perhaps we should question how much we gain, and how much we lose, by doing so. One thing should be clear by now: there can never be enough space for cars. However much we give them, they will always demand more. No city has solved its traffic or parking problems by building more roads or providing more parking; demand always outpaces supply.
   But those cities who have reversed the trends, and actively taken space away from cars and given it back to people, have discovered that, ironically, their parking and congestion problems actually lessen. When people can no longer easily park for free throughout the city, they question the need to take the car for short trips. When there is less space on the road for cars and more for pedestrians and cyclists, more people walk and cycle. When we reassert that the streets are for people, people regain the streets—and the city.
   Perhaps it’s all a bit like the schoolyard bully. He demands lunch money from his peers, and they hand it over. He and his friends take over the yard, and send everyone else into a corner. The more you give him, the more he takes. How can we make him stop? Isn’t he ever satisfied? Then one day, the other kids get together and take him on, and he relents. The kids again get to spend their lunch money on themselves, and play freely in the yard. They look at each other, and shrug, and laugh: how could we ever have been so foolish, to think that he would become satisfied and stop demanding more? And now that we are back in control, enjoying what always should have been ours, we are never going back! We will reoccupy the ground floor, reoccupy our cities, and only give to cars what extra space we can afford to give away, without losing our rights, our footpaths, our streets and the most essential parts of our buildings.

   
   
6. on March 6, 2008 at 2:23 pm6 World Carfree Network

   PRESS RELEASE – Aug. 16, 2005

   DHAKA CONTINUES WITH RICKSHAW BANS, DESPITE NEW WORLD BANK POLICY

   Five months ago the World Bank reversed its policy and stopped supporting bans of cycle rickshaws on the main roads of the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, after an international campaign led by World Carfree Network. Despite the Bank‘s change in policy, the Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) is planning to ban rickshaws from two more major routes (Elephant Road and Shapla Chattar) by the end of this month. The DCC also has plans to ban rickshaws from three other major thoroughfares, Progasti Sarani, Bangla Motor and Rokeya Sarani.

   World Carfree Network is dismayed by this new step backward in Dhaka. Our hopes were raised by the World Bank decision earlier this year to change its anti-rickshaw policy because cycle rickshaws are a key form of sustainable and affordable transportation in Bangladesh. Rickshaw bans betray a policy bias in favor of the wealthy minority (only 9 percent of Dhaka’s population) who own cars. The importance of Dhaka’s 300,000 to 500,000 rickshaws to the local economy and to the lives of many low-income pullers, as well as to women, children and the elderly, who rely on rickshaws for transport, should not be overlooked.

   The Bangladeshi Daily Star quotes Dhaka Deputy Traffic Commissioner Anser Uddin Khan Pathan saying that the ban will make commuters “happy” because it will reduce traffic congestion, but he adds that no new busses will be added to provide for rickshaw passengers. In fact, past experiences with Dhaka roads where rickshaws have been banned indicate that in some cases congestion actually increases and air quality almost certainly decreases. The fact is that cycle rickshaws produce no toxic emissions and take up far less road space than motorized vehicles, as observed by a policy paper of the Dhaka transport authority.

   A February 2, 2005 letter from the World Bank’s director Christine Wallich to the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board stated unequivocally that the bank would not support future transport projects banning non-motorized transport when the costs outweigh the benefits. World Carfree Network believes Dhaka’s city government could much more effectively curb congestion and increase air quality by barring cars from central areas, prohibiting parking on major streets, creating separate lanes for buses and rickshaws, and promoting bicycles.

   With oil prices skyrocketing, numerous cities in the developed world are scrambling to obtain sustainable, non-motorized transport. In the European Union, climate change and energy security are crucial policy concerns and several cities have moved to limit or ban cars from central streets. For example, Paris is considering a carfree zone that would cover four entire districts of the downtown area.

   International sustainable-development experts and environmental-protection groups are urging developing countries, such as Bangladesh, to retain their non-motorized transport advantage, rather than repeating first-world planning mistakes which will be costly to reverse in a few years. World Carfree Network and our member groups in the region will continue to work with Dhaka authorities and World Bank officials in hopes of halting any further bans on cycle rickshaws and overturning earlier bans.

   Press inquiries: Steven Logan may be reached at ++420 274816727 or ++420 736157762 and info@worldcarfree.net

   
   
7. on March 16, 2008 at 1:59 pm7 Syed Shamsul Alam

   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 the
   HealthBridge 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.

   
   
8. on March 27, 2008 at 8:36 pm8 Roky

   nice very nice

   
   
9. on March 27, 2008 at 8:52 pm9 Carfree

   Hi All,
   I thought this was pretty interesting:
   http://news. theage.com. au/sydney- 2050-highrise- and-carfree/ 20080319- 20gw.html

   Sydney 2050: high-rise and car-free
   March 19, 2008 - 5:19PM

   Jump off a whisper quiet tram, check on your hydroponic vegies and take an express lift up to your penthouse in a pencil-thin city skyscraper built in the middle of the street.

   Sound like the Sydney you know and love?
   Well this could be the everyday routine for Sydneysiders in 2050, according to a futuristic architectural vision of the city on display at Customs House in central Sydney.

   The display, which opens on Wednesday night, showcases the visions of six emerging architectural teams from around Australia, and the results are confronting.

   In 42 years time, Sydney will have lost its sprawling car-clogged suburban layout and taken on a car-free, high-rise, public transport focused configuration out of necessity, Sydney Futures Exhibition creative director Richard Francis-Jones says.

   “It seems unlikely that Australia and other `advanced’ nations will respond adequately to the challenge of carbon emissions reductions and therefore we will need to deal with the effects of climate change, temperature increases, rising water levels, flooding shortages, storms and damaging climatic events,” Mr Francis-Jones said.

   The architectural teams were asked to consider the possible consequences of climate change, social inequity, urbanisation, displacement and growth.

   Most of the displays focus on Sydney’s transport infrastructure and show the city moving away from its current obsession with the car.

   Some of the submissions portray trams running through the existing major city arteries, shard-shaped towers erected on unused city streets and abandoned carpark’s converted into green zones.

   “Common to many submissions is a radical rethink of our current transport infrastructure away from the domination of the private automobile to more shared and sustainable systems,” Mr Francis-Jones said.

   The display critiques the suburb and advocates increasing densities and integrating ecological systems and landscapes.

   “Many of these visions also speculate on the promises of new technologies, not only in terms of clean energy generation, sustainable systems and building advances but also in the very mechanisms of planning and political decision-making. ”

   A submission by Tribe Studios depicts the Sydney CBD as a dense, pedestrian-friendly place where cars are banned, where light rail moves residents around and concrete carpark’s are filled with flourishing hydroponic agriculture.

   “It will be a truly 24-hour city, with a mix of commercial, retail, public and residential typologies,” Hannah Tribe said.

   Sydney Future Exhibition is on display at Customs House, Circular Quay, Sydney from March 19 to April 13.

   © 2008 AAP

   —– ### —–
   J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
   mailbox@carfree. com http://www.carfree. com

   
   
10. on March 30, 2008 at 12:55 pm10 Aminul Islam Sojun

    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.

    Aminul Islam Sojun

    Journalist

    aisojun@gamil.com

    
    
11. on April 5, 2008 at 8:45 pm11 Dr. Mahbubul Bari

    Knowledge-based Transport Planning and Rickshaw Bans : Pedicab News

    BANNING RICKSHAWS: Rich Blaming Rickshaws for Traffic
    By Mahbubul Bari
    Dhaka, Bangladesh - The New Nation

    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:

    “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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Comments
    3 Comments so far

    Syed Saiful Alam on December 31, 2007 12:20 am Fuel Consumption and Environmental Impact of Rickshaw Bans in Dhaka

    Dear all
    Most trips in Dhaka are short in distance, usually one to five kilometers. These trips are perfect of Rickshaws. Rickshaws are cheap and popular mode of transport over short distances. Rickshaws are safe, environmentally friendly and do not rely on fossil fuels. Rickshaws support a significant portion of the population, not only the pullers, but also their families in the villages, the mechanics who fix the rickshaws, as well as street hawkers who sell them food. From the raw materials to the finished product the Rickshaw employs some 38 different professions. Action needs to be taken to support the Rickshaw instead of further banning it in Dhaka. The combined profits of all Rickshaws out earn all other passenger transport modes (bus, rail, boats and airlines) combined. In Dhaka alone, Rickshaw pullers combine to earn 20 million taka a month.

    We think that over the coming holiday of Eid du Ajah, new Rickshaw bans will be put into action on roads in Dhaka. Eid was used in the past to place new bans on roads in Dhaka. Last Eid many roads were declared Rickshaw free without public support or approval. By banning Rickshaws roads are clogged with increased private car use as well as increased parking by cars. Banning of Rickshaws on major roads increases the transportation costs for commuters. Not only due to longer trips to avoid roads with bans in effect, but also due to actually having to take more expensive forms of transport such as CNG or Taxi, where in the past a Rickshaw would suffice. The environmental impact of banning Rickshaws is obvious because it exchanges a non-motorized form of transport for a motorized form of transport, thus increasing the pollution and harming the environment. Rickshaw bans harm the most vulnerable in society, mainly the sick, poor, women, children and the elderly; generally those who can not afford or do not feel comfortable on other forms of public transport. To ban Rickshaws also hurts small businesses that rely on them as a cheap and reliable form of transporting their goods. Rickshaws are ideal for urban settings because they can transport a relatively large number of passengers while taking up a small portion of the road. In 1998 the data showed that Rickshaws took up 38% of road space while transporting 54% of passengers in Dhaka . The private cars on the other hand, took up 34% of road space while only transporting 9% of the population (1998 DUTP). This data does not include the parking space on roads that cars take up in Dhaka . If included this would further raise the amount of space taken up by private cars. Every year the Rickshaw saves Bangladesh 100 billion taka in environmental damage.

    The government makes many efforts to reduce traffic congestion in Dhaka but with no success. Blaming Rickshaws for traffic congestion and subsequently banning them from major roads has not had the desired affect. Traffic is still as bad now as it was before the Rickshaws were banned on major roads. Rickshaws thus can not be seen as the major cause of traffic congestion. Instead one should look towards private cars and private car parking on roads as the major cause of traffic congestion. The space gained by banning Rickshaws is often used for private car parking. The current trend in transport planning reduces the mobility of the majority for the convenience of the minority. The next time a ban on Rickshaws on another road is discussed please take into consideration who is being hurt and who is being helped. For a better transport system in Dhaka we need to create a city wide network of Rickshaw lanes. If this is done Dhaka can reduce its fuel usage dramatically as well its pollution. We ask your help in our fight to keep Dhaka a Rickshaw city. Any information or help is very much appreciated and sought after. I write you this letter to describe the difficulties we are facing and some solutions but they are by no means exhaustive and we look forward to your help and input.

    Syed Saiful Alam Shovan
    Volunteer
    Save Environment Movement
    House # 58/1, Kalabagan 1st lane
    Dhanmondi, Dhaka,Bangladesh
    Email shovan1209@yahoo.
    http://www.environmentmovementbd.org

    Yasmin Chowdhury on March 1, 2008 7:43 am Pricing public transit: learning from Bangkok
    Yasmin Chowdhury

    When I first visited Bangkok in 1994, I got around the city mostly by bus. The buses were slow, the streets congested, and I soon learned that I could only make one plan for the morning and one for the afternoon, as it might take a couple hours to move about.
    Then the city started to build their skytrain. I waited with great anticipation for its completion. It seemed to require a lot more time and a lot more money (OK, just two years of delay and three times over budget) than originally anticipated, and the fares are admittedly quite high, but it was finally built—if never finished. (I saw an article in a Thai newspaper about people very upset that the planned line to their area had never been built; meanwhile, the pilings leading to the now domestic-only airport have been converted into advertising posts.)
    To be quite honest, I love the skytrain. Sure, the cement structure looming overhead is ugly. Sure, most of the stations lack escalators, making them inaccessible to those in wheelchairs, and exceedingly difficult for those lugging heavy bags or luggage. Sure, the two lines only cover a very limited portion of Bangkok. Sure, it’s expensive. Sure, despite all the hassles, the trains are often packed. Sure, the stations are congested and I sometimes have to push through people to reach my train. But at least I can see a little of the city while I travel, and I can now get around to the stops on the line quickly, allowing myself to visit far more places in a day.
    Though the skytrain certainly makes moving around the city much easier (if you can afford it), it obviously didn’t alleviate the congestion, as the government then opened a very limited subway system. The first time I tried to ride it, about a year after it opened, it was closed for two weeks due to an accident. I finally rode it a couple years after that, and discovered that it cost about US$0.50 to ride what it would take me ten minutes to walk. That seemed outrageous, and I don’t love riding up and down long escalators and traveling in tunnels. Since the Metro doesn’t seem to go much beyond the skytrain, I stick to the skytrain.
    But now, after spending billions of dollars on those mass transit systems, and despite having an existing extensive bus system, and more roads than most Asian cities of their level of economic development, the government is now planning bus rapid transit—a bit like a street-level trolley, but with buses instead of trams. Of course, that too is delayed—but the cost is a fraction of that for the skytrain and Metro.
    A more careful look at those costs reveals something interesting and of considerable relevance as Dhaka plans its public transit system. According to various Web sites, the skytrain, which opened in 1999, cost about US$1.5 billion for 24 kilometers. That amounts to US$62.5 million per kilometer. Of course, things were cheaper back then.
    Construction of the Metro began back in 1996, but it wasn’t finished until 2004. According to Wikipedia, “The project suffered multiple delays not only because of the 1997 economic crisis, but also due to challenging civil engineering works of constructing massive underground structures deep in the water-logged soil upon which the city is built.” Interesting. Fortunately we don’t have those troubles in Dhaka (ahem!).
    As for cost, the Metro cost a mere US$ 2.75 billion for 21 km, or US$130.95 million per kilometer—just over twice that of the skytrain. Apparently burrowing underground, dealing with flooding issues, providing ventilation, and so on is much more expensive than building above our heads. Meanwhile, again quoting Wikipedia, “ridership has settled down to around 180,000 riders daily — considerably lower than projections of over 400,000, despite fares being slashed in half from 12-38 baht to 10-15 baht per trip. As of 2006, fares range between 14-36 baht per trip.” With an exchange rate as I write of 32 baht to one US dollar, that’s a mighty high fare. Good thing Bangladeshis are wealthier than Thais (??).
    Meanwhile, the anticipated cost for the BRT is 33.4 million for 36 kilometers. Admittedly, anticipated costs are often far less than actual costs, but still, at US$0.93 million per kilometer, that’s a bargain compared to the Metro or the skytrain—even more so when considering it’s being built last, when prices are highest. At 67 times less than the skytrain and 141 times less than the Metro, even with significant cost increases, it will still be far more affordable than its public transit predecessors.
    Of course, operational costs are another issue. Buses require fuel, trains electricity. Buses tend to require more maintenance, tires wear down frequently, and buses have to be replaced far more often than trains. While it is cheaper to build a BRT system initially, the higher operational costs might mean that, in the long term, a tram system would be more affordable—tram meaning street-level light rail, not something up in the sky or underground, which greatly multiplies the costs.
    Which is all to say, I’m all for public transit. So, apparently, are Thais: last I checked, hotels and housing advertise their proximity to the various public transit options. Apparently people are sick and tired of sitting in cars stuck in traffic jams. In public transit, you can sit back and read a book while you ride, look out the window (preferably not at tunnels), eavesdrop on your neighbor’s conversation, and otherwise amuse yourself without risking crashing into someone once the traffic moves again.
    But when considering spending millions or billions on public transit, it would make sense to invest it wisely, in a system that will be the most extensive and least expensive, and thus offer the best value for the money. At 141 times per kilometer less to build BRT than Metro, we could both have a far more extensive system, meeting far more people’s needs, and lower fares. Sounds like a bargain to me!

    Syed Saiful Alam on March 2, 2008 10:29 am March 2, 2008
    DMP’s plan for better traffic
    management fails
    The Daily New Age March 2, 2008
    http://www.newagebd.com/met.html#1
    Abdul Kader

    Though the Dhaka Metropolitan Police has made efforts from time to time for better traffic management in the capital city, they fail due to lack of proper enforcement of traffic rules, said a traffic engineer.
    The DMP commissioner at a meeting in October last year with four deputy commissioners of traffic division decided to strengthen the enforcement of laws against the banned 20-year-old vehicles and illegal parking, but no progress was found visible as a huge number of unfit vehicles still ply the city streets.
    The communications ministry in collaboration with DMP imposed the ban on plying of 20-year-old buses and minibuses in 2002. Even though the DMP seized a good number of outdated vehicles in few months since the imposition of the ban, now many unfit vehicles ply the streets.
    The DMP authorities also decided to take stern action against illegal parking, but it still continues in the city for lack of implementation of the decision.
    A traffic sergeant said a vehicle is fined Tk 200 for illegal parking under Section 137 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance. ‘The range of fine should be increased to stop violation of the rules.’
    Officials of Bangladesh Road Transport Authority said the revised ordinance had been submitted to the government with proposal for increasing the existing fine which was at final stage.
    Shakil Kashem, lecturer of urban and regional planning department at BUET said, ‘The authorities concerned have showed their eagerness to remove bus counters from footpaths, but they don’t dare to take steps against illegal car parking on roads and footpaths.’
    Besides, the DMP authorities from February, 2007 imposed a ban on honking on Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue stretching from Shahbagh crossing to Shaheed Jahangir Gate.
    Since May 6, 2007, it was extended to different areas, including Shaheed Jahangir Gate to Abdullahpur in Uttara via Mohakhali, Kemal Ataturk Avenue to Phoenix Building via Gulshan-1 and Gulshan-2, Gabtali to Azimpur via Russell Square, Bijoy Sarani to Mohammadpur Traffic Office via Lake Road, Sheraton Hotel crossing to Kakrail crossing, Matsya Bhaban to Rainbow crossing via Kakrail Church, Science Laboratory to Matsya Bhaban via Shahbagh and Matsya Bhaban to Golap Shah mazar via old High Court crossing and Phoenix Road.
    At the beginning, traffic sergeants filed over 2,000 cases against the violators, but now there is no effective enforcement of the ban.
    A traffic engineer of a government agency said, ‘We take many good decisions regarding to traffic management, but cannot implement those decisions. As a result, the decisions that came from meetings don’t bring any fruitful result.’
    When contacted a traffic division top official said manpower for traffic management is very less than that of requirement. ‘All the sergeants and traffic police have to work on priority basis and keep themselves busy with traffic management.’
    Sayedur Rahman, deputy commissioner of Traffic Division (south) of DMP told New Age, ‘The enforcement of laws is on as usual. Every day cases are filed against illegal parking and violating the honking ban.’
    Yet people are violating the rules. An increase in the fine for violating the motor rules may prevent people from the violation of rules, he added.
    A traffic sergeant in Paltan area said, ‘The trend for violating the traffic rules is very high among the drivers. We have filed many cases, but they don’t pay heed because the amount of fine is very minimal.’
    A traffic police said bus owners association would have to take steps as their drivers abide by traffic rules. ‘Most bus companies or owners employ drivers on contractual basis who frequently violate traffic rules to save times.’
    The government has taken an initiative to amend the motor vehicles ordinance 1983 with an increase in fine apart from a citizen’s charter. The amendment process was at final stage, a BRTA official said.

    
    
12. on April 10, 2008 at 3:20 am12 Md. Abdullah Al Mamun

    I enjoy the debate and I am encouraged to see that lots of intelligent persons have put their heads to solve transport problem of Dhaka city. I got this idea as lots of comments are coming in the daily news papers for the solution of transport problems of Dhaka. Lots of issues have been covered in this discussion including technical, financial, institutional, environmental aspects and decision making process for the transport management of Dhaka city. No doubt those are valuable input for the policy makers if they want to consider. I want to shed light on the economic aspects of the issue for the sustainable mode choice for the transport system of Dhaka.

    The question of the debate is the choice of transport mode for road users of Dhaka. As the road space is a scarce resource the space should be allocated among the competing modes in such a way that welfare of road users and the residents of Dhaka as a whole is maximized which is again a challenging task for the policy makers and/transport professionals.

    At first, in absence of the (rather ignoring) public transport system the debate is not complete as this mode has the most important role to play in the transport system of Dhaka. Yes, there is a role of public transport, but it doesn’t mean it should be the most expensive (luxurious!!) options like underground metro or sky rail, there are more effective and efficient at-grade modes like BRT or Tram system. I am not going in this area as this issue has clearly been discussed by Yasmin Chowdhury which is very important for the consumption of decision/policy makers.

    As mentioned in previous paragraph, in absence of dependable and reliable public transport system there exists a serious inefficiency in the transport system of Dhaka. The travel demand is suppressed due to the poor economic condition, this latent demand can be effective with economic growth and the reduction in car prices which can contribute to more congestion in years to come if proper attention is not given immediately. Due to the absence public transport the rickshaw and other motorized modes are enjoying higher shares let alone the inefficiency due to the subsidized fuel price.

    STP (2005) reports that from the perspective of Travel Demand Management (TDM), Dhaka provides a promising picture that most developed countries strive to achieve which had occurred organically not by careful design. One of the reasons is that people live close to the work-place so they can walk to their work-places. The report also argues that ‘some of these achievements may be unintended consequences of poor economic conditions rather than planned transport related actions, are in effect reducing travel demand’ (pp chapter 3-27). But there is no clear guideline for the use of TDM measure in the STP (2005) for even maintaining this promising picture.

    So, for the allocation of the scarce road space the economic tools must be used in the form of market-based or non-market based approach. As market is often seen as an efficient method of allocating scarce resources, with the price mechanism acting as signal to the consumer, in this case the transport user. As such market can be utilized in order to provide incentives to bring about a socially optimum use of environmental resources. Alternatively the non-market (command and control) mechanism can be utilized making use of regulations establishing specific standard for different modes. This market tools are being tried in developed cites in different form like congestion charging, parking charge, high fuel duty, area licensing, car free zones etc. I think time has come to look at the economic tools for the solution of traffic problems of Dhaka. But for that deeper understanding is required to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, equity and acceptability issues in the context of Dhaka. Finally, the people of Dhaka will not be able to afford the cost of learning from mistakes in case of formulating transport policy options for our beloved Dhaka.

    
    
13. on June 5, 2008 at 7:58 pm13 Eng. Ziaur Rahman

    A pro-people transport plan for Dhaka

    Eng. Ziaur Rahman

    Day by day the number of private cars increases in Dhaka City. This is fuelled by the fact that the private cars have been given priority in transport planning. More private cars, however, means more pollution, both noise and air. Not only does a car dependent transport system hurt the environment; it also uses up a lot of fuel, making our economy heavily fuel dependent. Transport planning that focuses on private cars benefit only a tiny portion of the population while making it harder for the majority to get around. If the current transport plan is implemented about 80% of the population will be neglected. For the 80% of the population that will be left out of the current transport plan one would need to develop pedestrian, fuel-free transport, and public transport infrastructure. For these we need to combine city planning with transport planning. Neighborhoods should contain everything needed for daily life such as, schools, jobs, shops, hospitals and entertainment. This would reduce the number of long trips between neighborhoods and lessen the volume of traffic on the roads. The short trips that would be needed within the neighborhoods walking and cycle rickshaws should suffice and if the infrastructure is improved it would increase speed and safety. For long distance travel out public transport must be developed. It is very necessary to control the number of private cars in order to create a better transport system as well as creating a more livable city. The Strategic Transport Plan (STP) for Dhaka must take pedestrians, fuel- free transport, inclusive neighborhoods and public transport into consideration in order to create a just transport system for all.

    The current transport plan encompassing the next 20 years, that is about to be approved, needs to be revised taking some of the before mentioned problems into consideration. The proposed STP for· Dhaka, if implemented, would only increase travel time and transport costs, pollution and fuel dependency, infrastructure and maintenance costs.

    The STP proposes 11 options to solve the current and future transport problems in Dhaka. The sixth option was chosen. This option includes constructing a metro rail system, a bypass, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The question is why the option ranking sixth was chosen, while the first five were rejected. If one is not to follow the outcome of a detailed evaluation, but rather to introduce new terms on which the decision was supposedly made, then what is the point of a detailed evaluation in the first place?

    Further questions arise. A decision had previously been made to approve a 6,000 crore Metro rail project. Now a second decision has been made to approve a 23,000 crore Metro rail project. Why the two projects? And why such large expenditures for Metro when it is anticipated that relatively few passengers will use it? While public transit is undoubtedly important, a surface system would cost about 100 times less per kilometer, allowing for both lower cost and a far more extensive system. Further, if pedestrians are, as STP claims, to be given priority, why is there almost no expenditure and no plans for improving the situation for pedestrians-without whom, in any case, a Metro rail cannot function, as people must be able to reach the Metro stops in the first place.

    Research shows that if we invest in more roads all the problems associated with them, pollution, noise, fuel dependency, and traffic congestion will only increase. In proposal number 6, 3 elevated road ways are to be built at a cost of 614 million US dollars, an increased expenditure of 64% over option 1. We spend 64% more and get only more problems with traffic congestion and the environment. All 11 STP options claim to put pedestrians first but they only allocate 0.24% of the budget to pedestrian facilities. This is a tiny amount of money for a transport mode that is supposedly to get special consideration. The STP also claims that a waterway would be an environmentally friendly way to transport goods around Dhaka, but they only budget 1.11 % towards the building of such a waterway. Similarly 34% of trips in Dhaka are made by fuel-free transport but they only budget 0.44% to building up this transport mode. STP praises pedestrians, waterways and fuel-free transport as great modes of transport, yet allocates them next to nothing in all of their proposals. Their importance should be reflected in the amount of money allocated but sadly it is not.

    The Bangladesh Railway should play a major role in the transport sector of Dhaka. Its ability to move large numbers of people cheaply and fuel efficiently is a major plus to any transport plan. The STP proposal 6, suggest moving the main railway station, Karmalapur, to the outskirts of Dhaka City. This would only increase the traffic problems in Dhaka City because instead of taking the train all the way to the heart of the city, the many train passengers coming to Dhaka from other cities, would have to take road transport from the outskirts into the heart of the city. The road transport would increase the pollution in Dhaka City as well as the travel costs of the passengers. In a report of the Dhaka Urban Transport Project (DUTP) showed that a rickshaw-ban on Mirpur Road decreased public transport movement along the road by 26%. Yet they claim that they banned rickshaws in order to increase the mobility of public transport. After the implementation of the DUTP, the economy of the Mirpur Road corridor lost 700 million Taka per year due to wasted time sitting in traffic. This figure does not include the money spent on wasted fuel a or the environmental costs of burning so much fuel, which would be another 1.5 billion Taka.

    Before the STP proposal gets approved, we request the government to take steps to implement demand management and mixed use neighbourhoods. Also we request that the transport planning is not focused on cars but rather people. We would like to reiterate that Dhaka City should develop pedestrian, rickshaw, bicycle and public transport infrastructure. We also hope that facilities are created outside of Dhaka to alleviate the burden placed on the Dhaka City transportation system by people traveling to Dhaka for health care, education etc.

    
    
14. on June 14, 2008 at 12:11 pm14 syed Saiful alam shovan

    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.

    Syed Siful Alam Shovan

    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 US has happened also 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” neighborhood with homes, NGO offices, a private university, a pharmaceutical company, a car repair center, 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 program. 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 skeptical adults watched from their balconies. Later, a neighbor 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 neighbors, and the numbers began to increase. We advertised the program (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 organizations have started similar initiatives, though on small fields rather than on streets. Less than a year has passed, and we hope eventually people will realize 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 program, 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 program 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 neighborhood 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, 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 uncivilized they are. But other adults tell us we should take the program elsewhere, and one woman–a child physician–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: that 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.

    (Syed Siful Alam Shovan. E-mail:shovan1209@yahoo.com)

    
    
15. on June 14, 2008 at 12:48 pm15 Yasmin Chowdhury

    Going Underground

    Yasmin Chowdhury digs deep into Dhaka’s proposed metro system

    The recent decision to build a metro (underground rail) system in Dhaka has met with a range of responses. On one side is the “Hallelujah” response — at last, the government is taking public transit seriously, with plans to invest serious funds (at least $3.2 billion) into making life easier for the masses.

    On the other hand, the project raises practical questions: how feasible is the plan, how much will eventually get built, will it actually function, and might not a different form of public transit — say, a tram or trolley or rapid bus transit — achieve similar benefits for about a hundred times less money .

    On the bright side, travelling in cities with a metro is a far different experience from travelling in those without one. Where I grew up, there is no developed system for public transit, and it is virtually impossible to get around without a car. Since I let my driver’s license expire about a decade ago, I feel like a child when I move around, relying on adults to take me places. But when I visit big modern cities like Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, or any number of European cities, I can easily move around on my own.

    However, while the independent mobility is a blessing, it comes with a significant down-side. When travelling underground, we fail to experience the city we are in. Living in Boston and frequently travelling by subway, I had many of the stops memorised, and could easily get around underground — but I had no idea what was over my head.

    When I finally got into the habit of walking through the city following the subway lines, above ground, I realised then that I was gaining a perspective of where buildings, monuments, and important parts of the city were in relation to each other — not in terms of a subway map, but in terms of an actual physical layout. In the process, I realised how little I understood, after all those years of living there, about the true layout of Boston — or of what was to be found in various neighbourhoods that I had ever only passed under. The parts of the city I knew best were those I walked in, or where the subway emerged into a street-level trolley, and there was a sense of connection between the passengers and the street life outside our windows.

    When travelling underground, we are unaware — and, thus, often unconcerned — about the situation at ground level. Passing beneath a slum, we don’t pause to reflect on the lives of the people there, and whether something could be done to make it better, or why trash is thrown here and there, or how desolate some of the streets look. But we do notice those things when travelling on the surface, and there is the possibility that from noticing, we will go on to change it.

    This has a direct practical side as well for business owners: when travelling at ground level, we can see shops and other amenities. Oh, that’s where I can buy that — or, oh, that looks like a pleasant restaurant! And knowing where it is and how to access it, there is the possibility of going back someday. This is both a far more amusing way to pass the time when travelling than looking at tunnel walls, and also good for the businesses we pass.

    Then, of course, there are the practical matters. I remember seeing a map of the subway system in Washington, DC, which showed various “planned” routes. I remember seeing the same map year after year, and being surprised that they were never built. Short on funds? Similarly, I read in the newspaper in Bangkok that the sky-train was supposed to extend far beyond the existing network. That hasn’t happened, and the sky-train itself took many years to build, in part, I hear, due to corruption. Meanwhile, the new metro in Bangkok doesn’t go much beyond the sky-train. What then are the chances that Dhaka will succeed in building all that it has planned? If the existing plans prove unaffor-dable, as the price of materials continues to rise, how much will a very limited system help to reduce traffic congestion or make travelling easier?

    Meanwhile, building a subway system requires building a lot of tunnels. The funny thing about tunnels is, they have to be accessed from the street. This involves a lot of big holes, and while those holes are in place, streets are closed down. So congestion will be significantly worse during the construction of the metro system.

    There is also the issue of crowding on the subway. I was in New York City recently, and given the intense street-level congestion, when it was too far to walk, I tried the subway. It was certainly better than being stuck in traffic, but, of course, I had no idea where I was, and I couldn’t decipher the thick New York accent of the conductor. On one trip, the train was so packed that I couldn’t see out the windows to read the names of the stops. This made arriving at my destination a bit of a challenge, and left me as clueless as ever about the geography of Manhattan.

    The sky-train is often packed in Bangkok, with barely room to stand. Thais are polite, and I have never had a man grab me. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same about my experience of riding in crowded subways in Boston, and I have heard horror stories about the system in Mexico, which apparently had to provide separate carriages for women to prevent sexual harassment on the packed trains.

    Then there are those lovely escalators down to the stations. Where there are hills, or where the system must go under high-rise buildings, stations must be built far below ground. Some of those escalators seem to go on forever. Stepping onto those moving stairs, with the ground so far below as to seem to belong almost to another planet, always makes my head spin. I was relieved, on a recent trip to DC, to discover that a Bangladeshi colleague had the same experience, only worse. He insisted on taking the lift. Of course, the lifts are intended mostly for the disabled, those with small children, or those with luggage, so sometimes one must wait a long time for them. Between the long lines for lifts and the crowded situation on the trains, it sometimes feels as if we have simply shifted a portion of our traffic congestion below ground.

    Speaking of traffic congestion, it helps to remember that people need to be able to get to and from the public transit stops. Getting from one stop to another quickly is a great convenience, but the benefits of that convenience are rapidly diminished when it is difficult to get from public transit to one’s actual destination. I made a mistake in Bangkok once and got off at the wrong subway stop. As I came up to the street, I realised that where I needed to go was on the other side of a highway, with no provision for crossing. I could either go back underground, pay again, then wait for another train to come along to take me just one more stop, or I could risk my life running across the highway. Needless to say, I ran.

    In cities with broken sidewalks, and sidewalks blocked by parked cars, barbed wire and cement medians to prevent people from crossing the street, getting to and from public transit becomes a daunting challenge. Anyone in his right mind would choose to drive instead, if he had the option, thus defeating in large part the point of the public transit in the first place: to woo people away from their cars. Public transit doesn’t exist in a vacuum — it is part of the city, and it is meant to connect places not just along the tracks, but throughout the city. If people can’t easily get to the stops on foot, or on rickshaw, then there is little point in building the system in the first place.

    Then there is that lovely dream of un-congested streets in Dhaka once our metro system is built. How many large, crowded cities with crowded metros have streets free of traffic jams?

    Let’s face it, moving through a city underground — even at a good pace — just isn’t that pleasant an experience. Subway stations are often hot and smelly. Homeless people tend to use them as urinals, and there are always those aggressive people who insist on smoking despite all the signs. If subways freed up the streets, then all the passengers who could afford a car or taxi would go back to riding in one.

    I remember being late for the airport in Boston once, and figuring that rather than going all that way below ground, changing trains twice, and moving at the snail’s pace the Boston subway often goes at — it is the oldest subway system in the US and thus the least modern — I would take a taxi. Oops. Of course it took even longer, thanks to all the traffic, and I missed my plane. Yet Boston’s subway system is far more extensive than Dhaka’s is ever likely to be, it is easy to walk in Boston, there is a good bus system to complement the subway, and the population is a fraction of Dhaka’s. So, why are there still traffic jams, when the metro is supposed to eliminate them?

    I’m sure the decision was made in good faith. Perhaps the planners involved have not spent much time in the major cities of the world, and experienced both their subways and the traffic situation above ground. Perhaps they feel that people enjoy being below ground, or that the city is best experienced as little as possible — that is, either underground or safely insulated in a steel box. No doubt they consider the expenditure of a mere few billion dollars quite reasonable, pocket change really. Perhaps they are too busy to read the Strategic Transport Plan, which was meant to map out the best transport plan for the future, and which found that a metro would offer no significant improvements over surface public transit, and thus there was no justification for building it.

    Even allowing that a few billion dollars is a minor sum, which should involve little thought or planning before being spent, I would still suggest that when Dhaka’s city planners make their final decision about an efficient, fast, affordable, high quality system of public transit, they should be careful not to miss the boat. It’s a lot more expensive and technically more difficult to build and operate an underground system than a surface one.

    We would get a far more extensive system, with far lower fares or less government subsidy, if we built a surface rather than an underground system. The system could be built a lot faster than a metro, and with a lot less disruption of traffic during its construction. The issue of fares is important — around the world, public transit tends to be inexpensive, and yet still highly subsidised by government. The more expensive the system is to build and maintain, the higher the fares and the subsidies, and the less that will eventually get built.

    People could see their city out the windows while riding, gaining both a sense of perspective and of knowledge of what was happening around them. A less expensive system could be started quickly, and gradually expanded. Ensuring that people can walk around the city would not only make the public transit system viable, but would also help reduce congestion by shifting some short distance trips to walking. The money to fix our footpaths, and the political will to ban cars parking on them, should not be more difficult to find than the billions planned for the metro.

    Public transit is definitely the way to go — but not all public transit is created equal, and leaping onto the wrong train won’t help us reach our final destination.

    Yasmin Chowdhury is a freelance contributor to Forum.

    
    
16. on June 30, 2008 at 8:11 am16 heritage

    Private car Control
    by Edwin J.Feulner, Ph.D.

    Cars are a menace to society. Every year they lead to thousands of deaths. Criminals use them in committing crimes. And when mixed with drugs or alcohol, their deadly potential increases. In short, cars should be banned.
    Sounds crazy, right? But substitute “guns” for “cars” and you have the gun-control argument in a nutshell.
    Gun-control advocates will argue that the comparison is unfair, and it is: To guns. The truth is, cars are more dangerous than firearms. In 1997 there were 43,458 motor vehicle deaths in the United States, according to the National Center on Health Statistics. By comparison, there were 32,436 firearms deaths—and fully half of those were suicides.
    Notice I said motor vehicle deaths, not motor vehicle accidents. Some will say that gun victims are murdered while car-crash victims are “accidentally” killed, an argument designed to make guns look “bad” and cars “neutral.” But 39 percent of all fatal crashes involve drunk drivers using their cars as deadly weapons. By the numbers, criminals kill about 15,000 people a year with guns, and drunk drivers kill about 15,000 people a year with two-ton machines that can travel at more than a hundred miles per hour. Perhaps we should pass a law banning “Saturday Night Chryslers.”
    Not only do guns cause fewer deaths than the activists would have us believe, they can also be life-savers. According to John Lott, a professor at the University of Chicago, as many as 2 million crimes a year are prevented in the United States because the potential victim is armed. In Canada and Great Britain, for example, where gun controls are stringent, 50 percent of all break-ins occur while the victims are at home. In the United States, where many homeowners own weapons—and the criminals are aware of this—87 percent of all home burglaries occur when the residents are away, Lott notes in his book “More Guns, Less Crime.” Is there a lesson here?
    For his contribution to the gun-control debate, Professor Lott has become an intellectual pariah. Elite opinion-shapers, who have embraced gun control with religious fervor, want nothing to do with him. In their view, if you have something nice to say about guns you’re one of those people—the kind who hunt ducks with bazookas, worry about Communists invading their cul-de-sac, and name their kids “Smith” and “Wesson.”
    Of course, gun-control snobs are seldom at risk of serious crime themselves. It’s easy to preach against guns from gated communities protected by private police forces. But suggest that the $8-an-hour rent-a-cop who guards these neighborhoods be allowed to have a gun to protect his own family, and the gun-control zealots wax hysterical.
    Witness today’s political debate, which is rife with talk of rights—a “Patients’ Bill of Rights” for those who want their insurance plans to cover liposuction, an “Airline Passengers’ Bill of Rights” for those who want more (or fewer) peanuts in their in-flight snacks. Mention constitutional rights, however, including the right to own a gun, and you’ll be accused of being a Neanderthal.
    In Maryland, Attorney General Joseph Curran can’t be bothered with the Second Amendment. He wants laws that would ban all handguns in the state. Never mind that Curran is sworn to uphold the Maryland constitution, which guarantees Maryland citizens the protections of the U.S. Constitution. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, some politicians defend only the parts they like.
    That’s the way the gun-control crowd wants it. No 225-year-old scrap of parchment will stand in the way of their drive to banish guns—but not cars, rocks, knives, baseball bats, or any other object used to inflict harm—from the face of the earth. It’s that kind of thinking that poses the real threat to Americans.
    Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), a Washington-based public policy research institute.
    Distributed nationally by the Scripps Howard News Service
    http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed113099b.cfm

    
    
17. on June 30, 2008 at 8:25 am17 Suman Kumar Mitra

    Talk on
    LET US MAKE OUR CITY HAPPIER

    Venue: URP Seminar Room

    Organized By:Padatik

    Dear all,
    We have introduced a group at BUET named as Padatik. The main goal of this group is to introduce a Car Free Day in BUET Campus and finally in Dhaka City.

    Initially all the members of this group have decided to come to campus on foot every Monday. This group is going to organize a talk on “Let Us Make Our City Happier”. Please see the attached file for time and venue. You are cordially invited to join the group and enjoy the talk.

    Mr. Suman Kumar Mitra
    Lecturer
    Department of Urban and Regional Planning
    Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
    Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh

    Phone: 880 2 966 5650 (PABX)
    FAX: 880 2 861 3026, 880 2 861 3046

    
    
18. on July 6, 2008 at 2:21 pm18 Martin Fackler

    Japan set to show off its expertise on energy frugality

    By Martin Fackler
    Published: July 4, 2008

    KUMAGAYA, Japan: With its towering furnaces and clanging conveyer belts carrying crushed rock, Taiheiyo Cement’s factory looks like a relic from the Industrial Revolution. But it is actually a model of modern energy efficiency, harnessing its waste heat to generate much of its own electricity.

    Engineers from China and elsewhere in Asia come to study its design, which has allowed the company to slash the amount of power it buys from the grid.

    The plant is just one example of Japan’s single-minded dedication to reducing energy use, a commitment that dates from the oil shocks of the 1970s that shook this resource-poor nation.

    Now, with oil prices hitting dizzying levels and the world struggling to deal with global warming, Japan hopes to use its conservation record to assume a rare leadership role on a pressing global issue. It will showcase its efforts to export its conservation ethic - and its expensive power-saving technology - at the summit meeting of the Group of 8 industrial leaders that Japan is playing host to, starting Monday.

    “Superior technology and a national spirit of avoiding waste give Japan the world’s most energy-efficient structure,” Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said in a recent speech outlining his agenda for the summit meeting. Japan, he said, “wants to contribute to the world.”

    Fukuda has already urged the leaders of the Group of 8 nations to adopt numerical targets as they discuss new ways to curb carbon dioxide emissions, a focus of treaty talks aimed at a new global agreement by the end of 2009. The existing pacts, the original climate treaty from 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, have been widely described as failures by energy and climate experts.

    The rising cost of energy is expected to dominate the meeting, which will be held on Hokkaido, Japan’s northern island. President George W. Bush and other leaders are facing calls to try to increase oil supplies by expanding offshore drilling and to rein in hedge funds and other investors who speculate on world energy markets.

    Japan, by many measures, is the most energy-frugal country among the world’s developed nations. After the energy crises of the 1970s, the country forced itself to conserve with government-mandated energy-efficiency targets and steep taxes on petroleum. Energy experts also credit a national consensus on the need to consume less.

    It is also the only industrial country that sustained government investment in energy research even after oil prices fell.

    “Japan taught itself decades ago how to compete with gasoline at $4 per gallon,” said Hisakazu