[sustran] Responses to World Bank on Footover Bridges

Syed Saiful Alam shovan1209 at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 27 23:06:07 JST 2016


Responsesto World Bank on Footover BridgesTheWorld Bank says that in order to improve air quality and safe mobility inDhaka, one needed measure is more footover (pedestrian) bridges. On a recentvisit, the World Bank explained to us that in addition to building 70 km offootpaths, an initiative for which we congratulate them, they are also buildinga number of footover bridges. When pedestrians cross the street they slow downcars, which makes the cars pollute more, they told us. Also, since there is littleor no enforcement at zebra crossings and intersections, the only safe way toallow people to cross the street is through the use of the bridges. Theyexplained that the project began many years ago when the World Bank had not yetspelled out a policy on universally accessible design, and in any case, withvirtually no other facilities for people with disabilities in Dhaka, why notspend money building new infrastructure that is also inaccessible? They alsomentioned that the directors of one hospital had requested a footover bridgebecause of staff being hurt or killed crossing the street. (Apparently thepatients visiting that hospital are sufficiently strong and healthy to make useof the bridge. Or maybe since they’re already sick, it’s OK if they get runover.)
Whenwe pointed out that they seemed to be saying that pedestrians are an obstacleto cars, they explained that pedestrians also slow down other traffic on thestreet, including buses. But they hastened to assure us that they had not said that pedestrians are the reasonthat buses move so slowly.
Theyfurther commented on the limited amount of road space in Dhaka, at about 7%whereas they feel that over twice that is the minimum necessary. When wecommented that in a situation of limited road space, one should discourage,rather than encourage, the most space-inefficient means (the private car) theydropped that topic.
Throughoutthe conversation, one thing was clear: the World Bank officials only regardmotorized trips as trips. They are trapped in car-based thinking. They considerall non-motorized forms as unimportant and, worse, an obstacle to all thoseimportant trips that are occurring with the use of fuel. Further, sincefuel-burning vehicles pollute, they suggested that non-motorized transportincluding walking causes pollution by slowing down the otherwise smoothlymoving motorized transport. That cars are the main reason that cars and busesare stuck in traffic does not appear to have occurred to them, nor did theyseem aware of the abundant work that has been done in the past few decades onenvironmentally-friendly and people-focused transport policies to replace theold car-based ideas. We can only imagine two possible explanations for theWorld Bank’s refusal to acknowledge a more people-focused andenvironmentally-friendly approach to transport: either they are unbelievablyignorant that such possibilities exist, or their real interest is in sellingcars and car-based infrastructure.
TheBank officials also mentioned that they are not in a position to tell thegovernment what to do; rather, they must respond to the government’s request.Which is fine up to a point. But obviously funders have policies about whatthey will and will not fund. Under a Clean Air and Sustainable Environment initiative, theyobviously could agree to fund footpaths and refuse to fund footover bridges.Conversations with officials at the World Health Organization and the AsianDevelopment Bank have also made clear that while they cannot dictate whatgovernments do, they do have significant scope to engage in persuasion to adopt(or not) more enlightened approaches. Finally, the holder of the purse stringsis obviously not without influence on the recipient.

TheBank officials also said that they must listen to different perspectives andthat there are different views on this matter. We could not agree more. Thereare people who have worked for years on transport and urban planning issues andwho have done research on successful and failed policies in cities around theworld. There are people who simply approach the issue with blind prejudice thatthe car is the only means of transport. There are people who care about theenvironment, about safety, about access for those with disabilities (specialneeds), and about the poor, and there are people who only care about sellingcars. We personally do not feel that all opinions should be accorded equalvalue.Andnow to have a little fun with what they said...
Accordingto the World Bank: Cars pollute. Cars main and kill. Let’s treat cars as thekings of the road!
Accordingto the World Bank: There is not enough road space in Dhaka, so let’s prioritizethe most inefficient users, the car, while making life difficult for the moreefficient users, including pedestrians, bicycles, and rickshaws.
Accordingto the World Bank: People in cars are making trips. People on foot are creatingobstacles.

Accordingto the World Bank: Enforcement of road rules in Dhaka is poor. It is obviouslyimpossible to improve enforcement, so let’s just reward those causing theproblem and punish the victims. (More simply put: Drivers behave badly, solet’s punish pedestrians.)
Accordingto the World Bank: We must listen to different sides and then ensure that thosebeing hurt are kept safe. Let’s say we had a problem with sexual harassment(eve teasing) on the streets. We will invite men and women to discuss theproblem, in order to involve different stakeholders. The women complain thatthey can’t move about the city without being subjected to rude remarks. The mensay that they are just being men. Hmm...it is difficult to make men behave andrespect women. Hmm...ah, I know! Let’s ban women from moving about the city!!
Accordingto the World Bank: Simple logic works. For example: cars pollute; pedestriansslow cars; pedestrians pollute. This is akin to saying that tobacco createsjobs; we need jobs; so let’s promote tobacco use. Just because a few statementsseem to lead to a logical conclusion does not mean that those statements are infact logical!
Accordingto the World Bank: It is difficult to create universally accessible design inDhaka so let’s start by adding more infrastructure that is obviously notaccessible!
Accordingto the World Bank: The long term is far away so let’s forget about it and focuson the short term.
Accordingto the World Bank logic: If the thief is breaking your windows, hand him a keyto the door.
Accordingto the World Bank: Cars do not stop at intersections. Cars do not have to stopto allow other cars to go. Too many cars in limited road space does not createcongestion. The main obstacle to the smooth movement of cars is pedestrians.
Accordingto the World Bank: If you’re only traveling a short distance and doing itwithout the use of fuel, you may as well just stay home and make space for allthose important people moving about while using fuel, e.g. creating pollution,congestion, and danger for everyone else.
Accordingto the World Bank: Pedestrians should not be on any road that is arbitrarilylabelled a highway, but it is OK for cars to enter the narrow lanes of Dhakaeven if that causes a long line of rickshaws to become stuck in traffic.Accordingto the World Bank logic: If people surrendered their wallets to thieves, thenthieves wouldn’t need to carry a gun. So victims of crime make thievesdangerous. (While this is possibly true, it is obviously utterly irrelevant!)
Accordingto the World Bank logic: If small kids can’t play on the playground because abig bully keeps beating them up, and if you’ve repeatedly asked the bully tostop but he has ignored you, then you should tell the children to stop playingthere...and declare the problem solved.
Anda final suggestion: If the real objective of your project is to promote thesmooth movement of cars in Dhaka, then change the name of the project to“Promotion of Cars for a Polluted, Congested, & Unsafe Dhaka (PCPCUD).”After all, if you accept, or worse, promote the idea that facilitating themovement of cars is good for safety and the environment, you are damaging notonly the situation in the present, but for many years to come. This may be newsfor you, but whether on foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or by motorized means, a tripis a trip. The main difference is that some non-motorized modes do not pollute,do not hurt or kill others, are good for the environment, and require littleroad space, in direct contrast to motorized transport and especially to thecar. Treating the car as the king of the road will simply encourage more peopleto drive and thus make all the problems caused by the car worse, not better.
Responses to World Bank on Footover Bridges





More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list