Should rickshaw be banned in Dhaka city?
Rickshaw
should be banned in Dhaka city
[Abstract:
Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, has a unique problem in managing large
volumes of cycle rickshaw traffic. This problem can only be solved by an
integrated approach to urban and transportation planning which respects and is
sensitive to the underlying social and economic role of this unique form of
affordable door-to-door mode of transportation. This paper examines the
reasoning behind some of the necessary measures to ensure that rickshaws can
continue to play an important role in the city's life. These measures include
an improvement in traffic management and enforcement schemes as well as an
upgrading of the current rickshaws design for better passenger safety and to
improve the welfare of the drivers.]
Introduction
Fuel-free transport (FFT, often referred to as
non-motorised transport or NMT),
including rickshaws, is the main mode of transport in Dhaka City. Fuel-free
vehicles (e.g. rickshaws, rickshaw vans, and bicycles) are ecofriendly, energy
efficient, economically viable, require significantly less road space than
their motorised counterparts, and provide very efficient door-todoor service
for the majority of vehicular trips in Dhaka City, which are predominantly
short trips. However, it is a matter of deep regret that many transport
officials years ago began an anti-rickshaw propaganda campaign which they
successfully carried out in the media, turning popular opinion against
rickshaws. According to the misinformation spread through the media and other
channels, rickshaws, as slow-moving vehicles, are the main cause of Dhaka’s
traffic jams, and should be banned from major roads. Since rickshaws are
considered to blame for traffic jams—despite the heavy traffic jams on streets
that have banned rickshaws—they are also blamed for the increasing levels of
air pollution in Dhaka city. Apparently the one thing for which they are not
entirely to blame are the completely unacceptable levels of noise pollution,
though no doubt many would like to blame them for the honking of car drivers as
well.
With direct encouragement from some officials
of the World Bank, the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB) put forward a
plan to ban all fuel-free vehicles from a series of major roads, following on
previous bans from many roads in Dhaka. The new series of bans began with the
Russell SquareAzimpur portion of Mirpur Road on 17 December 2004. Thanks to
pressure placed on the World Bank and DTCB by environmentally-concerned
activists around the world, no further rickshaw bans have taken place since.
Meanwhile, the press have finally begun at least limited coverage on the
benefits of rickshaws (see Appendix).
However, this by no means indicates that
transport officials or others have become convinced that eco-friendly,
fuel-free transport is a good thing for the city, despite the obvious evidence
and the international condemnation of the Mirpur Road rickshaw ban (Efroymson
2005). The long-awaited report of the Strategic Transport Plan (STP), apparently
completed in July 2005 but for some reason not given to those requesting it,
recommends reviving the ban of fuel-free transport from major roads. Transport
planning in Dhaka should be based not on groundless prejudice, but rather on
study of international experience about what works and what doesn’t, and the
vast information available on fuel-free and fuel-dependent transport. This
paper attempts to discuss critically the scientific validity of opinions put
forward by Dhaka City transport officials. Moreover, this paper
argues
for the development of a sustainable transport system which would generate net
overall benefits for all transport users and providers, ensuring maximum
door-to-door mobility and other advantages such as a less polluted, more
affordable, friendlier city with fewer traffic jams.
1 Mahabubul Bari and Debra Efroymson - An
Overview of the Arguments For and Against (Roads for People), article- publish ,August
2005 .
The
rickshaw has for decades been attacked by the media and others in Bangladesh as
being slow, causing traffic jams and thus congestion, being an inhuman
occupation for the pullers, and holding Dhaka back from modernization. Just how
true are those claims?
First,
does the experience with rickshaw bans to date suggest that such bans
effectively reduce traffic congestion? On the contrary; even government reports
show that rickshaw bans do nothing to improve traffic, and sometimes traffic
speed even further deteriorates following rickshaw bans. In addition, people’s
travel cost as well as time increase. Are VIP roads free of traffic congestion?
Will the government blame rickshaws for congestion until there are no rickshaws
left, and then what will they blame? Cities around the world with no rickshaws
waste millions of dollars in lost time and wasted fuel due to traffic jams
caused entirely by cars. Why are we so eager to join them?
Are rickshaws slow? Government reports indicate that in many
cases, it is faster to walk than to take a bus. Average car speed in many Asian
cities is no greater than the speed of a rickshaw. The fact that cars can on
empty streets move faster than rickshaw is meaningless in Dhaka traffic
situations, except in the danger it implies: when cars race on empty roads,
they regularly kill pedestrians. How many fatal accidents are caused by
rickshaws? Meanwhile, congestion makes cars slow; too many cars cause
congestion. Rickshaws not only do not kill pedestrians, but they play a very
important role in reducing pollution, as they themselves are completely
emission-free vehicles, even when stuck in traffic.It is not just the
(potential) speed of a vehicle that matters; vehicles also take up space when
parked. Cars are typically parked for most of the day, so the road or other
valuable urban space they occupy is the space not only on the streets when
moving but space for parking space. Imagine taking a series of short trips
around Dhaka by car: everywhere you go, you must park the car somewhere.
Although many apartment units now have car parking, they do not allow visitors
to use the spaces, even if the lot is empty. So parked cars clutter the
streets. As an alternative, we could work on turning our city into a series of
high-rise parking lots (as Bangkok has done, much to the detriment of its
liveability), or we could maintain a city with many urban amenities by reducing
car parking and making conditions good for taking short trips by rickshaw,
which require little space when parked and in any case spend most of the day
carrying people about.
It
might not be a profession most of you reading this article would like to have,
but neither is it likely you would wish to spend hours a day standing in water,
bent at the waist, transplanting rice. The measure of whether a profession is
inhuman is not whether or not we are willing to engage in it, but rather what
those working in it feel about it and what their alternatives are. Rickshaw
pulling is a huge source of needed jobs; the pullers themselves clearly prefer
it to begging or starving. Further, unlike many other professions, it is fairly
well-paid, involves a good deal of independence, and gives the pullers a chance
to choose their hours and to rest when they wish. It is thus far less inhuman
than many other professions. What is inhuman is denying people the right to
earn a living.
How well can we manage without the
rickshaw in Dhaka?
It is important to remember that many trips
taken are short. Does it make sense to wait 10-20 minutes for a bus in order to
travel 3 kilometres? What if you have many destinations: say a woman taking her
child to school, going to a shop, visiting a relative, going home, then going
back to pick up her child? If she had to buy separate bus tickets for each trip
segment, the expense would be exorbitant. No wonder 41% of trips to take
children to school occur by rickshaw; it is a safe, convenient, and affordable form
of door-to-door transport. As for walking as an alternative, we are all for it:
but first there needs to be a better environment for walking. The problems
faced by those on foot in Dhaka are numerous: footpaths in bad condition, often
occupied by parked cars, and used at times by motorbikes; lack of safe street
crossings; bad smells due to the lack of public toilets; lack of safety at
night; and the exposure to continual fumes and noise from the traffic on the
streets. Rickshaws provide a fairly pleasant alternative to the dismal business
of walking in Dhaka; it is unfair to the middle class to take away that option
in the assumption that they should either buy a car or suffer on buses, which
themselves involve a number of obstacles to comfortable travel and of course
only operate on certain routes, causing problems for those traveling with
children, carrying heavy items, and so on.
Speaking
of the popularity of rickshaws, it is helpful to compare the percentage of
trips that occur by rickshaw versus car. No measures have been taken to ban
cars from narrow lanes, despite the obvious fact that cars create congestion in
the lanes, blocking the easy movement of hundreds of people traveling by
rickshaw. Far from it: the building code is insisting on the provision of ever
more car parking, providing incentive for ever more cars, even on narrow
streets. But how popular is the car versus the rickshaw? According to the
latest government figures, for overall trips in the Dhaka Metropolitan Area and
Dhaka City Corporation, 4-5% are made by car versus 29-39% by rickshaw. While
men make 32% of their trips by car, that figure is 47.4% for women. As
mentioned, 41% of trips to school occur by rickshaw; only 4% are taken by car
(yet cars already create hideous congestion around schools and during the times
when children go to and from school). While car use is far higher among the
wealthy (here defined as those earning over 50,000 taka per month), at 18% of
trips, that figure is still dwarfed by rickshaw trips: 35% of trips taken by
the wealthy are by rickshaw. That is, rickshaws account for twice the number of
trips as cars even among the wealthier, and up to ten times as many trips
overall.
 |
3 The politics of
(im)mobility: Rickshaw bans in Dhaka, Bangladesh
4 https://www.academia.edu/37259008/The_politics_of_im_mobility_Rickshaw_bans_in_
Dhaka_Bangladesh
Conclusion
It
is time to raise our voices in support of smart traffic planning: to ensure
that all people, not just those with a car, can move about safely and
conveniently; that non-polluting modes are given priority; and that
international experience in addressing traffic congestion is put to good use
here. It is time to say no to further rickshaw bans, to overturn the recent
ones, and to work together to make Dhaka a city in which people can move about
safely, comfortably, and conveniently on foot, on 2- and 3-wheeled bicycles
(rickshaws), and on public transport. We would all benefit from the improved
air quality, safety, and convenience.
No comments