[sustran] Re: Responses to World Bank on Footover Bridges

[Madhav Badami, Prof.]

Dear Syed Saiful Aslam,

Many thanks for sharing your responses to the World Bank regarding pedestrian over-bridges; I agree with you 100%.

Back in 2009, I wrote an article titled "Urban Transport Policy as if People and the Environment Mattered: Pedestrian Accessibility the First Step", which was published in the Economic and Political Weekly, and which I have attached for your reference.

In the article, I argue why pedestrian accessibility has to be the very foundation of urban transport policy and planning, generally, but particularly in contexts such as South Asia's; and toward the end of the article, I offer a critique of conventional urban transport planning (and its analytic underpinnings).

On the subject of pedestrian over-bridges (and underpasses), this is what I had to say in the article:

"One hopes that these funds, and those forthcoming from international funding agencies, will be used strategically to ensure that infrastructure and facilities for pedestrians and cycling are incorporated in urban transport projects. While these funds hold great potential for promoting pedestrian accessibility, it is not at all certain that they will have the desired outcomes, even if they are deployed to that end. Unfortunately, pedestrian infrastructure is often poorly designed and implemented; besides, there appears to be an increasing tendency, in the name of providing pedestrian infrastructure, to make inappropriate, and needlessly expensive, technological choices, by way of, for example, pedestrian over-bridges and underpasses. There might indeed be situations in which such facilities may be called for, but what is needed is not a few pedestrian over-bridges or underpasses, which is what would be possible given their very high cost, but for pedestrians (and cyclists) to be able to cross roads conveniently and safely, at grade, across the city, and to make it possible for them to do so at low cost. Apart from the unattractiveness and very limited utility
– from the point of view of pedestrians – of a small number of over-bridges and underpasses, there is a more fundamental issue. Underlying such facilities is the assumption that motor vehicle traffic is primary, and something which pedestrians should not disrupt."

BTW, since I see that Sudhir Gota is copied on your message -- he has an absolutely hilarious photo of a totally needless pedestrian over-bridge from Cebu (??), which I would invite him to share with us all ...

Very best wishes,

Madhav

************************************************************************

"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair

Madhav G. Badami
School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment
McGill University

Room 403, Macdonald-Harrington Building
815, Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, QC, H3A 0C2, Canada

Phone: 514-398-3183; Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643
URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning; www.mcgill.ca/mse
e-mail: madhav.badami at mcgill.ca
________________________________________
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca at list.jca.apc.org [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca at list.jca.apc.org] on behalf of Syed Saiful Alam [shovan1209 at yahoo.com]
Sent: 27 February 2016 09:06
To: sudhir at cai-asia.org; ianenvironmental at googlemail.com; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org; editor at ecoplan.org; Holger Omlor; callforpapers at walk21hk.com; Carfreesonomacounty Info
Subject: [sustran] Responses to World Bank on Footover Bridges

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



--------------------------------------------------------
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Badami 2009 -- UT Policy as if	People and Environment Mattered.pdf
Type: binary/octet-stream
Size: 174662 bytes
Desc: Badami 2009 -- UT Policy as if People and Environment
	Mattered.pdf
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20160227/799db9e2/Badami2009--UTPolicyasifPeopleandEnvironmentMattered-0001.bin