[sustran] Re: World Bank on Dhaka transport

[karl at dnet.net.id]

Dear all,

The whole premise of this argument that rickshaws have to be banned to
improve the bus system is disingenuous, firstly in suggesting that the
DUTP has been genuinely focusing on bus system improvements (they
haven't), and secondly in suggesting that it is not possible to
accommodate high volumes of buses and rickshaws in the same main corridors
(it is).

I reviewed the DUTP bus recommendations and they were quite weak. Their
main thrust was to try to promote a few new 'premium', air-con routes
while there was no attention given to on-street bus priority, bus stop
design, or how to design corridors to accommodate both NMT and high
volumes of buses. The only bus system recommendation of the DUTP actually
implemented had no impact on the bus system. It was route tendering pilot
which was not seriously bid for and which the 'winner' will not operate.

I talked to the directors of one new private bus operator. They have
several routes, and all are profitable except for one. Which one? The NMT
free route from Uttara to Motijheel. The main reason for the loss? Severe
congestion. So does making the road NMT free solve congestion?? Operating
speeds for buses on this 'NMT free' route are often less than 10km/hr.

The claim that rickshaws are the main gripe of the bus operators are not
true according to my recent experience there. I spoke to directors of both
of the new major new bus operators in the city. They have many concerns,
the most serious of which is the poor operating conditions caused by
congestion (especially on the rickshaw free route mentioned above),
difficulties in licensing / permits, a 'fare war', and other issues. Of
course there are many conflicts between buses and rickshaws, but also
between buses and every other mode given the total lack of priority for
buses in Dhaka.

The claim that bus operators are 'standing by' waiting for the government
to ban rickshaws is also untrue in my view. There is a lot that can be
done to improve bus services in Dhaka and there is absolutely no reason
that high volumes of buses and high volumes of rickshaws cannot operate in
the same corridor. Kunming provides a good example of high volumes of
buses & NMT in the same street. Instead of talking about 'nmt free' what
they should do is come up with good designs to accommodate the high
volumes of rickshaws, as well as measures to better regulate rickshaws. If
they need to ban anything from congested corridors, start with private
cars (used for only a very small percentage of trips in Dhaka).

So don't be misled; it's not about buses. I worked on bus system
improvements in Dhaka and the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (under
the previous executive director; maybe things have changed with the very
recent appointment of a new ED) showed no interest in the topic. They want
a metro and elevated road network. As for the real reason for this
preoccupation with NMT free roads being driven by a few WB staff against a
generally reluctant mayor and transport minister: it seems to be part of
the general transport planning preoccupation of the DUTP in Dhaka which
has been to improve the flow of traffic for the small minority of people
using cars (around 7 people out of 1000 in Dhaka own a car; the 993 others
don't) regardless of the consequences for the very large majority who are
walking, using rickshaws, or using buses.

The good news, though, is that it is not too late to change this. Dhaka
still has a huge majority of people using the 'sustainable' modes of
buses, walking, and rickshaws, and most of the NMT bans have not yet been
implemented. One of the very recent studies under the DUTP has recommended
Bus Rapid Transit combined with rickshaws - including on the main
arterials, not just as feeders to the BRT - and pedestrian facility
improvements. The WB staff involved on their part have to their credit
been open to receiving feedback on the 'NMT free' policy in Dhaka and
shown a willingness to engage in a dialogue on it.

regards, Karl Fjellstrom

(views expressed do not necessarily represent those of any employer)





>
> Here is the World Bank position on Non Motorized Transport in Dhaka.
> Any comments? --Jonathan
>
>
> Summary of NMT strategy under DUTP
>
> A fundamental component of the strategy to improve traffic conditions and
> circulation in Dhaka under the Dhaka Urban Transport Project (DUTP) is the
> segregation of motorized and non-motorized traffic. This is achieved
> through the creation of a network of NMT-free arterial roads, where
> existing road space does not allow the physical separation of slow and
> fast moving modes of traffic within the existing roadway.
>
> In January 2003 , the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB) approved a
> network of 120km of main roads (about 6% of the total city network) from
> which it was proposed that NMT would be progressively restricted over the
> period up to December 2005. This core network is intended to provide for
> more efficient operation of motorized traffic, in particular, public
> transport services. It will also improve road safety for all modes.
> Integrated improvements on six corridors (about 50 km) within this network
> are funded under the Bank assisted DUTP.
>
> An initial section of the arterial network was improved under the project
> and converted to NMT-free operation in December 2002, following a social
> assessment and stakeholder consultations. This 'demonstration' corridor
> (Mirpur Road - Gabtali-Russell Square) continues to operate NMT-free and
> is generally adjudged to have been a success, with higher vehicle
> operating speeds, increased numbers of buses operating and a reduction in
> the number of reported road accidents. The traffic police have been
> supportive and it has proved possible to operate traffic signals
> successfully over the past 24 months, with increased driver compliance and
> understanding in an NMT-free environment. No additional sections of the
> NMT-free network have been introduced since December 2002.
>
> A comprehensive and in-depth impact study of both users and rickshaw
> pullers was  undertaken by DTCB in mid-2004 through independent
> consultants to assess the overall impact of the conversion. Key results
> indicate that few difficulties have been experienced by users and that
> journey times in the corridor have been dramatically improved. The
> majority of users support the decision to move to NMT-free operations, as
> this reduced travel time by about 30% (8-10 minutes) per trip. Commuters
> using walking and buses reduced their transport cost, but it  increased
> for others. There is a shortage of buses on the corridor, since bus owners
> do not find it commercially viable to ply modern large buses unless the
> total artery (Gabtoli-Azimpur-Press club) is made NMT-free. Reduced
> incomes were reported for rickshaw pullers as a result of the
> restrictions: those interviewed requested that Government provide some
> form of rehabilitation for rickshaw pullers prior to the introduction of
> the ban on NMT.  BRAC (a leading NGO) is currently working with DTCB on
> the design of an appropriate safety net.
>
> This approach has now been mainstreamed by the Government of Bangladesh in
> the National Land Transport Policy which was adopted in early 2004, after
> a fairly extensive consultation and review process. The Policy includes
> under Section 9: Policies for Dhaka
>
> 9.2 Non-motorized transport
>
> 9.2.1 A progressive ban on the use of rickshaws on major arterial roads
> will be continued. Rickshaws will be allowed to cross such roads from and
> to minor side roads at selected crossings.
>
> 9.2.3  To encourage rickshaw use in suburban areas, where the bus network
> is less dense and/or frequent, as feeder services to the bus network.
>
> Survey and stakeholder consultations on the proposed next sections of the
> NMT-free corridor (the remainder of the Mirpur Road Corridor (Russell
> Square-Azimpur) and New Elephant Road) were completed in March 2004
> through the Bangladesh Transport Federation. These indicate that if
> adequate and women friendly bus services are available and pavements are
> cleared and made secure, taking buses/walking would not create additional
> hardship for daily commuters, especially women as their commuting cost and
> time will be reduced by motorized transport. Separate interviews with bus
> operators indicated a strong support for the concept of expanding the
> network of NMT-free roads. It is evident that additional private operators
> are waiting and are willing to introduce additional new services on
> NMT-free corridors: the increased operating speeds make services
> financially attractive . The slow extension of the NMT-free network has
> resulted in some bus operators deferring their expansion plans.
>
> DTCB had originally proposed to convert these next to NMT-free operation
> in November 2003. This was subsequently deferred (now planned for Dec
> 2004). The Bank has requested that in order to fully benefit from the
> transport infrastructure investments made under the DUTP, the next phase
> of the NMT-free network be initiated without further delay.
>
> The Bank has also been emphasizing the importance of developing a network
> of parallel or complementary routes that can be used by NMT in order to
> mitigate the impact of the progressive restrictions on NMT using the main
> arterial network. The July 04 supervision mission was provided with a
> phased programme for the continued expansion of the NMT-free network,
> together with a proposed comprehensive network for NMT, some new dedicated
> NMT roads (or lanes), and a series of proposed NMT crossing points of the
> NMT-free arterial network. The mission stressed the importance of these
> alternative complimentary measures for NMT: in particular the provision of
> NMT crossing points of the arterial network have been consistently
> requested by representatives of NMT operators. Some 20 km of complementary
> NMT road sections and NMT parking areas associated with these arterial
> corridors, along with NMT-friendly junction redesigns and traffic
> signalling have been financed under the project.
>
>
> -----
>
> Jonathan E. D. Richmond                               02 524-5510 (office)
> Visiting Fellow                               Intl.: 662 524-5510
> Urban Environmental Management program,
> School of Environment, Resources and Development
> Room N260B                                            02 524-8257 (home)
> Asian Institute of Technology                 Intl.: 662 524-8257
> PO Box 4
> Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120                        02 524-5509 (fax)
> Thailand                                      Intl:  662 524-5509
>
> e-mail: richmond at ait.ac.th               Secretary:  Kuhn Vantana
> Pattanakul
>         richmond at alum.mit.edu		              02 524-6368
> 					      Intl:  662 524-6132
> http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
>
>