Rickshaw Bans in Dhaka City: An Overview of the Arguments For and Against

Mahabubul Bari Debra Efroymson

Roads for People August 2005

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 Dhakas traffic jams, and should be banned from major roads. Since rickshaws are considered to blame for traffic jamsdespite the heavy traffic jams on streets that have banned rickshawsthey 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 doesnt, 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.

Slow vs. fast moving vehicles

The much-maligned rickshaw is in fact one of our precious assets. Rickshaws are very affordable, eco-friendly, and carry more passengers daily than the London Underground. Yet they have been banned on many streets in favour of so-called VIP (Very Important Person) roads. What is the reason? That they are labelled slow moving and have a serious image problem with our policy makers.

Is it true that rickshaws in Dhaka city are slow moving vehicles?

Let us remember Albert Einsteins famous Theory of Relativity. All motions are relative indeed! How could travel speeds be an exception? Would you like to travel to the moon? A rocket is fast but an aeroplane is slow. Do you fancy going to Rajshahi from Dhaka? A car is slow and an aeroplane is fast. Are you commuting regularly between Mirpur and Motijheel? A rickshaw is slow but a car is fine. What about travelling from BUET to New Market? Walking is slow but a rickshaw is fast.

Whether a vehicle is considered slow or fast depends on trip distance. How can rickshaws be termed as slow moving vehicles when 70% of trips in Dhaka are short trips (UN ESCAP 1998)? Most of the trips are even shorter than two km. Modal share of pedestrians and fuel-free transport combined represents 84% of total trips (DUTP 1998). Most of these trips are obviously short trips. In fact rickshaws are the one of the most appropriate and economical means of transport for such trips. According to a study on the issue, rickshaws are highly competitive and operate under long-run marginal equilibrium conditions, i.e. they are economically efficient (Bari 2000). When someone quotes the example that for a trip of less than 5 km, a bicycle is the fastest mode of transport in Delft, Netherlands, this does not necessarily mean that bicycles can move faster than cars. It implies that the average journey time between an OD (Origin Destination) pair is less for a bicycle than for a car. We should not confuse journey time of a trip that constitutes invehicle time, walking time and waiting time with the link travel times or invehicle times, which are only a part of the total journey. As far as journey times

between typical OD pairs in Dhaka are concerned, rickshaws are by no means slow moving vehicles.

Is the decision to ban rickshaws on major streets an outcome of adequate scientific studies?
As shown above, slow moving is a relative term. Whether a vehicle is slow or fast should be judged on the basis of trip distance, not by link journey time only. Any traffic appraisal should take into account generalised time (invehicle, waiting and walking time, transfer penalty, etc.) or generalised cost while travelling between an OD pair, not in-vehicle time only. Consider the difference between taking a bus and a rickshaw. One can catch a rickshaw almost immediately from most areas and take it all the way to ones destination (to the extent they have not yet been banned from all major streets). But if one is to travel by bus, one must first travel to a bus stop, then wait for the bus, then travel from the bus stop to ones destination. If the trip is short, it is highly unlikely that travelling by busdespite the faster speed of buses as compared to rickshawswill be faster than travel by rickshaw, and it will certainly be far less convenient for the passenger. It is very unfortunate that the decision to ban rickshaws has been the outcome of a number of inadequate studies, which considered in-vehicle time only. Since the numbers of short trips are very high in Dhaka, it is highly unlikely that a comprehensive study based on real door-to-door journey times would be able to justify any rickshaw ban.

Do we need any VIP roads?

In a civilised society every citizen should be treated as a VIP by his or her own merits, irrespective of social or economic status. No public infrastructure such as roads should be designated for a specific privileged class. Rather than assigning roads for a few advantaged sections of the society, functional classifications should be decided on the basis of scientific approaches. Consider the irony of feeling that rickshaws are the source of our image problems. In contrast, widespread corruption, illiteracy, erosion in social norms and values, unacceptable rates of noise pollution, and lack of good governance should be our sources of shame. After all, wealthy countries have rickshawsbut Dhaka constantly outscores the rest of the world on corruption. A city is more civilised not when it has highways, but when a child in a tricycle is able to move about everywhere with easy and safety. --Enrique Pealosa, former mayor of Bogot, Colombia, April 2002

Have any other cities of Asia become successful in solving transport problems by banning fuel-free transport (FFT)?
It appears that we are going to commit the same mistake as General Suharto, the then-dictator of Indonesia did by banning rickshaws (locally known as becak) from Jakarta during the 1980s and thereby turning the city into a travellers nightmare. Be it total or partial fuel-free transport (FFT) bans, past experiences in other cities of Asia were not very pleasant either. Manila banned FFT initially in the 1950s but some FFT re-emerged in the 1990s. Bangkok banned FFT in 1960 and Karachi in 1962. Jakarta and New Delhi followed suit and banned FFT during the 1980s. Transport statistics suggest none of the cities that imposed FFT bans were able to solve their transport problems by banning FFT. In most of the cases the situations became even worse. From the modal shares of different vehicles, it is evident that fuel-free vehicles (FFV) were replaced by either motorcycles or motorised three-wheelers. The modal share of motorcycles or motorised three-wheelers in these cities accounts for 35% to 70% of the total vehicles (World Resource Institute 1996), which is more or less similar to that of rickshaws in Dhaka. The high growth of motorcycles and motorised three-wheelers contributed to unbearable congestion and air pollution in the cities that banned FFT. The alarming rates of growth of motorised two or three wheelers have become a cause of serious concerns for the authorities of almost all FFT-free cities of Asia. It is not surprising that banning of FFT promotes growth of such kind of motorised monsters, which are obviously less efficient both from the perspectives of traffic management and pollution control. Unlike fuel-free vehicles, fuel-dependent (motorised) vehicles of all kinds utilise fuel which is often heavily subsidised by the government and which emits carbon, the major cause of global warming. The average travel speeds in most FFT-free cities are generally lower than in Dhaka. Bangkok and Jakarta are notorious for traffic congestion and pollution. After almost two decades of suffering due to the ban, about 70% of residents in the low income neighbourhoods of New Delhi and Jakarta now favour reintroduction of FFT (Hook 2002). Surabaya, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City restricted FFT movements on certain major roads in the 1990s. However, banning of FFT from the major roads has proved to be a disaster for these cities. Hanoi is now trying to limit motorcycle ownership and create bicycle lanes, as motorcycles are clogging the streets, creating major air and noise pollution, causing formerly unheard-of traffic jams, and making it difficult for buses to ply the roads. Surabaya, the second largest city of Indonesia, has also taken initiative to reverse the trends towards ever-greater motorisation.

It may be pointed out that in Surabaya, 60% of trips of under 3 km are made by motorised transport, while in Germany, less than 20% of such trips are motorised, the remaining being made by foot or bicycle. Yet incomes in Germany are 40 times higher than in Surabaya (Hook 2002). Banning FFT from main arterials severs continuity of large numbers of short trips, which results in a significant increase in journey times, expense, and sufferings to common people. It is very encouraging that the Mayor of Surabaya has started the process of reintroducing FFT in major roads, where they were previously banned (GTZ 2000). Being much weaker economically, how could Bangladesh expect to solve its traffic problems by banning FFT when the other cities of Asia have failed to do so? And how does Dhaka anticipate dealing with the again-increasing incidence of air pollution, not to mention the completely unacceptable levels of noise pollution from all the cars and motorised three-wheelers?

Could banning of rickshaws from Dhaka city bring overall economic or transport benefits?
Traffic jam in Dhaka metropolis: Loss Tk 1000 cr a year cautioned the Executive Director of DTCB. The New Nation Aug 10, 2004. Who is to blame? Who else? It is rickshaws again. It is unfortunate that rickshaws were made a scapegoat once again for all the transport problems in Dhaka. Do you think it is reasonable to attribute a loss of Tk 1000 crore a year mainly to rickshaws? In order to gain a clearer idea about the conceptual fallacy of the process, let us now have a look at how traditional link-based traffic appraisal methods operate. Transport alternatives should always deal with cases of trade-offs between total benefits and costs. However the treatment of FFT in traditional transport appraisal methods has long been a one-sided affair with complete bias towards motorised transports. Until recently, the only way that the impact of non-motorised vehicles could enter into World Bank cost-benefit analysis was as a negative externality on motorised transport. This means that nonmotorised transport has been considered so far only as an impediment to the development of motorised transport along with other negative impacts like low pavement quality and insufficient road width. Since the negative impacts imposed by non-motorised transport are sometimes real, they should be incorporated in the model. In the same context, the economic costs imposed on non-motorised transport by the presence of motorised vehicles in the traffic stream or increase in door-to-door journey times due to any FFT ban should also be included. Thus, economic impacts of a transport improvement policy on a mixed mode situation should

be evaluated considered from the viewpoints of the movements of people and goods, not just on the impacts of the journey times of motorised vehicles. Traditional economic appraisal tools like HDM-4 and COBA, which consider in-vehicle times or link journey times only, are not appropriate to evaluate transport systems under multimodal or mixed mode situations. Considering the limitations of the link-based approaches, the Department for Transport (DfT) of the UK no longer considers COBA as a valid tool for multimodal transport appraisal. COBA has been replaced with the Transport User Benefit Appraisal (TUBA) model (White et al. 2001). TUBA can evaluate alternative transport options with respect to door-to-door movements within each OD pair. A comprehensive traffic appraisal within the network of Dhaka Road Circle of RHD was conducted under direct guidance of one of the authors (Bari). A multimodal traffic model including road and walk networks, and public transport lines and stops, was developed using CONTRAM and VIPS models. Finally economic appraisal was undertaken using both link-based (HDM-4) and trip based approaches (TUBA). Three alternative modelling scenarios were considered. 1. 25% Ban of FFT 2. 50% Ban of FFT 3. Banning of FFT on major roads As expected, the link-based approach, which considers in-vehicle times only, predicted huge benefits. On the other hand, none of the alternatives were proved to be viable from the viewpoints of either traffic or economic perspectives, when a more comprehensive, i.e. trip-based, approach was adopted. We should therefore be very careful when presenting outcomes from an either inadequate or biased transport appraisal. The potential economic disadvantages due to rickshaw bans could be much higher than the quoted figure of Tk 1000 crore, because economic disutilities due to waiting and walking times are generally higher than those attributed to increase in invehicle times. The Department for Transport, UK currently adopts the disutility value of waiting times as twice those of in-vehicle times (Mackie et al. 2003). In Dhaka city the values are also likely to be higher. That is, people are more willing to waste time within a vehicle than while walking, so walking should be prioritised over vehicle speed. In addition, it is important to remember, as above, that:

a) Banning FFT by no means increases traffic speed. While average speed

of cars in Asian cities in 1990 was only 25 km/hr, and only 15.3 km/hr for buses, Bangkok was by far the slowest city, with an average car speed of a mere 13.1 km/hr, while buses crawled along at only 9 km/hr (Newman and Kenworthy 1999). Bangkoks traffic is slowed by

private cars, not FFT; allowing private cars to increase without limits has simply worsened the situation. Since more people could travel using less space by rickshawand rickshaws would not be much slower than motorised traffic given the congestion (and bicycles would be even faster)it would appear that Bangkok could actually reduce its congestion and increase travel speeds by re-introducing FFT.

b) Banning FFT carries other costs, including higher travel costs for

passengers. HDRCs evaluation of the Gabtoli-Russell Square FFT ban on Mirpur road found an average increase in travel costs of at least 10%, as well as serious economic deprivation of the rickshaw pullers and their families (HDRC 2004). That is, the costs to society particularly of the poorestof banning rickshaws must be weighed against the advantages to societyin this case generally the richestof possibly facilitating the movement of private cars. If the actual goal were to increase public transport, that is, buses, then rather than banning rickshaws from major streets, separate bus lanes should be created. Separate bus lanes would mean that buses would not have to get stuck in traffic jams created mainly by private cars and motorised three-wheelers, as is currently the case on many so-called VIP roads. Simply by allocating buses a separate lane, travel time was cut by half, carrying capacity increased six-fold, and travel time variation decreased by a factor of five (that is, with more certainty as to when they would arrive, bus passengers could save additional time by not having to plan extra time for important trips to ensure arrival at a certain time) (ITDP 2005).

It is helpful to remember that transportation policy can reduce poverty and increase social equityor do exactly the reverse (Efroymson and Rahman 2005). Transportation policy should support other social objectives, not counter them. Among the manifold benefits of non-motorised transport, especially rickshaws, are their excellent employment-generating qualities (Gallagher 1992), which transfers wealth from the middle class to the poorest. Since Dhaka rickshaw pullers send a significant portion of their earnings back to their villages, and may work seasonally as rickshaw pullers in order to raise money for farming, Dhaka rickshaw pullers are actually supporting families in the countryside and agriculture as well. Harming rickshaw pullers means harming poor villagers throughout the country, and potentially our agricultural system as well.

Is it justified to push rickshaws into side roads?

Time has come to push non-motorised vehicles, in particular rickshaws, to use side lanes of the main roads, argued one transport expert from the World Bank. The Daily Star July 13, 2004

WB argued that after banning rickshaws from these routes, the flow of traffic will increase and traffic congestion will decrease. The Daily Star June 25, 2003. It is a popular notion that FFT should be restricted to minor side roads, leaving the main roads exclusively for motorised vehicles. (Interestingly, no similar proposal has been put forward by transport officials to deal with the problems caused by motorised vehicles, that is, to ban motorised vehicles from minor side roads and thus allow non-motorised traffic to move freely and quietly in those roads.) Lets now consider the concept from the viewpoint of road classification on the basis of trip hierarchy, continuity of the transport system, traffic mobility and experiences in other countries.

Designation of roads on the basis of trip hierarchy

Since its modest beginning as a fort city of the Mogul era, the growth of Dhaka towards a full-fledged capital city has never been very organised or planned. The land use patterns are such that it is not possible to demarcate different areas as separate functional units or zones, such as commercial, residential, or industrial areas. Commercial, industrial, residential or retail shopping areas intermingle within the same geographical districts of Dhaka. It is thus not possible to distinguish between zones that produce short vs. long trips, or zones of production vs. recreation. It is therefore almost impossible to assign roads on the basis of trip hierarchy (i.e. trip distances). The numbers of short trips are high both in main arteries and on minor side roads. If rickshaws were banned from main thoroughfares, it is highly likely that a large number of short trips would be severed and short-distance commuting would become a nightmare for the majority of city dwellers. The idea of banning rickshaws from main arteries therefore does not seem to be very logical considering land use patterns in Dhaka. The land pattern of Dhaka is actually almost ideal given enlightened views of traffic management and urban planning. When different uses are separated, longer trips are encouraged than when each area of the city contains a mix of uses. When people are able to live near shops, businesses, offices, and recreational opportunities, they are likely to travel less and for shorter distances, making the environmentally-friendly non-motorised transport options possible, unlike segregated cities that involve large travel distances and generate dependence on cars. While other cities are trying to reshape themselves to become more mixed in structure, it would be unfortunate if Dhaka attempted to generate more traffic, and thus more congestion, by such moves as banning small neighbourhood shops or otherwise destroying the diversity of the city structure. Banning rickshaws from many streets would have a similar negative effect: if it becomes easier to travel longer than shorter distances (by prioritising motorised over non-motorised travel and

disregarding the importance of walking), travel demand and the pressure on the transport system will increase, as will traffic congestion.

Continuity of transport system

No transport system can remain competitive if it loses its continuity. If rickshaws were banned from main arterials, they would lose their efficiency and economic viability. It would amount to putting a nail in the coffin of an economically efficient transport mode. FFT does not usually compete with public transport. On the contrary, it acts as a supporting or supplementing mode to public transport by transporting people to and from their houses and the centres of mass transit. Banning FFT from main roads will definitely sever interconnectivity between FFT and public transport. In order to be successful and economically viable, it is a prerequisite that FFT networks be continuous, allowing people to travel easily along main arteries as well as to and from them. In many parts of Europe, cycling has become a popular mode of transport. In Delft, the cycle capital of Europe, about 50% trips are made by bicycle. In Europe, that is considered enviable, positive modal share; for some reason in Dhaka, we consider travel without an engine as somehow bad. One of the main reasons for the popularity of the cycle network in Delft is that it is continuous and any cyclist can travel to every destination within the city without any disruption of their journey. Dhaka should learn from the wealthy, civilised cities of Europe and create positive conditions for FFT movement throughout the city, rather than attempting, as many Asian cities have done, to ban or restrict FFT and thus only worsening the traffic situation.

Mobility of People
Since the numbers of short trips are very high, restrictions on FFT on major arterials would split numerous short OD pairs, thereby severely hampering person-mobility. Banning of FFT would no doubt induce some travel benefits to the motorised vehicles, as predicted by the experts in the World Bank. However as mentioned earlier, reduction in link journey time represents only a portion of total generalised travel time. The overall door-to-door journey times for the majority of people would likely increase significantly, due to significant increase in waiting and walking times. Evidence of significant disruptions from previous bans have already emerged. A few such examples are quoted below: Restriction on movement of rickshaws on some city roads has made shortdistance commuting a veritable nightmare, complain many residents. A government plan to bring some more roads under the purview of the ban will make it even worse, they fear. The New Age July 14, 2003.

10

Rickshaw provided affordable means of transport for many middle class and lowerincome people. The rickshaw ban resulted in many journeys being made either impractical or very lengthy along congested small streets. (Khandoker and Rouse 2004) Pushing rickshaws into chaos: Lanes and by-lanes in the city, already jammed with thousands of rickshaws, will plunge into more traffic tangles, as a move is on to phase out rickshaws from six major roads from November in the latest such attempt. Rajabazar area is facing serious traffic tangles mostly of rickshaws as a trickle-down effect of the ban on rickshaw-plying on Mirpur Road. But Rajabazar is not alone. It is equally true of Tejkunipara, Tejgaon, Dhanmondi, Mohammadpur, Central Road, Old Dhaka, Jatrabari, Kamalapur, Malibagh, Moghbazar, Khilgaon and Bashabo. The Daily Star, Monday, September 29, 2003. The question remains: if the goal is to improve public transport, or more broadly peoples ability to move about in the city, why not simply create separate median lanes for buses, rather than banning rickshaws? Experience makes it clear that buses, when not caught in rickshaw jams, are caught instead in traffic jams consisting mainly of private cars. Rather than banning a popular and pollution-free form of transport, it would make far more sense to give buses priority (a separate lane) so that they can move smoothly, while allowing rickshaws to continue plying the roads in their own lane, and also making provisions for bicycles. Our roads are crowded not because of too many rickshaws, but rather because of too many private cars, both moving and parked. Limiting the space for private cars and prioritising less polluting and less space consuming vehicles (rickshaws, bicycles and buses) will reduce traffic congestion as well as air and noise pollution and transport costs.

Experiences from other countries

As mentioned earlier, FFT bans on selective major arterials were imposed in Surabaya, Indonesia in the 1990s. However, they proved to be an impediment for the mobility of the majority of people. Of late the city authority has started the process of reintroduction of FFT in roads where they were previously banned. Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi also curbed FFT movements in certain major roads in the 1990s. However, the ill effects of the FFT ban soon emerged. High growth rates and FFT bans have led to almost geometric growth in motorcycles, and extreme air and noise pollution. Now a number of transport experts favour lifting of FFT bans. Meanwhile, throughout Europe and parts of Canada and America, as well as other parts of the world, intensive efforts are in force to increase the non-motorised modal share and decrease the motorised modal share. It is a pity that Dhaka authorities insist on acting contrary to world trends that favour efficiency, pollution reduction, and sustainability, and instead are making policies that will only worsen congestion and the suffering of our population. 11

Is it appropriate to apply administrative force to restrict the number of rickshaws?

Our city authority seems to be unreasonably harsh in controlling the number of rickshaws and the production of new rickshaws. Now they have come up with a number of 89,000 as the official legal number of rickshaws that will be allowed to ply in the Metropolitan area. It is a mystery from where the magic number of 89,000 appears. According to two studies on rickshaws, they are very efficient economically and have been operating under long run marginal equilibrium conditions. This implies that as far as economic efficiency is concerned, the number of rickshaws is optimal, be they legal or illegal. There is no need to control their number. Any sub-optimum number may promote corruption, monopolies or unfair fare regimes. However, economic efficiency of a single transport mode does not necessarily guarantee overall efficiency of the transport system as a whole. A number of expert-based approaches are now available to derive optimum number of rickshaws from the viewpoint of human mobility. Nevertheless, it might not be appropriate to impose a number externally. We can use market force to our advantage to set a reasonable number. A number of transport policy measures, viz. development of an integrated mass transit system, supporting public transport with subsidies, allocating designated lanes for FFT, etc. may be employed. A good number of such policy measures can be found in the abstract of a research paper in the web site of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, BUET: http://www.buet.ac.bd/daers/mscthesis/mscurp.htm#samah. It is difficult to understand the rationale behind the imposition of a ban on the production of new rickshaws. How can we improve the safety and operational efficiency of rickshaws, and make them less of a burden on their pullers, if rickshaws are not allowed to grow technologically? We should learn lessons from the ongoing rickshaw modernization and improvement projects of India and Indonesia. Rather than adopting negative strategies, the interest of the majority of the city dwellers would be better served by investing money for the development of our technologically obsolete rickshaw fleets.

Do rickshaws occupy more road spaces than they should? Are rickshaws the only vehicles that contribute to congestion?
Rickshaws occupy 60 per cent of the road space, which causes congestion, argued the Executive Director of DTCB. He said that rickshaws, which are responsible for about 60 per cent of the city traffic jam, will be phased out, initially from six major thoroughfares. The New Age, Tuesday, September 16, 2003.

12

There are actually two issues here: relative space occupancy, and congestion. To begin with, lets have a look the relative space aspects of rickshaws. The relative space that any vehicle class occupies in relation to a standard passenger car is determined by Passenger Car Space Equivalence (PCSE). If the statement by DTCB were true, it would imply that rickshaws, with about 54% of the modal share of vehicular modes (that is, excluding walking), occupy 11% more space than their legitimate share. However, I am not sure from where the apparently erroneous figure of 60% comes from. I would rather suspect PCSE values were taken either from a foreign country or from an outdated source. Contrary to usual beliefs, FFT requires relatively less space in comparison to their motorised counterparts like cars, auto-rickshaws, etc. Because of relatively slower speeds, FFT can move within a comparatively small space, maintaining fairly low headways (bumper to bumper time separation between two consecutive vehicles). PCSE values under the mixed traffic environment of Bangladesh were derived by conducting two large-scale studies under the sponsorships of the Road & Highways Department (RHD). A number of comprehensive audio and video surveys were undertaken involving about 75 road sections. The typical PCSE values for different modes were (Bari 2000 and Ali 2004): auto-rickshaw: 1.17 bicycle: 0.10 bus: 1.80 car: 1.00 rickshaw: 0.18 tempo: 0.88 If we calculate the space occupied by rickshaws for a typical vehicular modal share of auto-rickshaw (3.98%), bicycle (2.53%), bus (28.03%), car (8.73%), rickshaw (53.90%) and tempo (2.83%) in Dhaka city (DUTP 1998), the amount of space claimed by rickshaws turns out to be only 38.26% under moving conditions. Under standstill-congested conditions, the proportional share of space occupied by rickshaws would definitely increase, but would always be likely to remain less than their legitimate share of 53.90%. Private cars are in fact the least efficient users of road space; rickshaws require far less space per passenger, and the carrying capacity of roads will actually be increased if multiple modes are allowed to operate, preferably separated for safety and convenience.

13

2.5 Road Space per Person Trip in sq.m

1.5

0.5

0 Baby Taxi Tempo Bus Rickshaw Car

Vehicle Type

Figure 1. Road Space Required Per Person Trip (DTCB 2005) As the above figure shows, even DTCB acknowledges that cars waste far more space per passenger moved than cars; why then the focus on banning rickshaws rather than private cars? The maximum passenger flows for different modes vary widely, from a low of 370 people per metre-width of road per hour for cars in mixed traffic, and 470 people for cars on a one-way street, to 1,000 people for rickshaws in a rickshaw lane, 1,500 people for bicycles in a bicycle lane, 3,600 for pedestrians, and 6,600 people for buses in a separate bus lane (Gallagher 1992). An arterial in Taipei that allows only motorised transport serves 14,000 passengers per hour, whereas a similar sized arterial in Kunming which allows for mixed traffic (about half of the total space is allocated for FFT only) serves 24,000 passengers per hour (Hook 2002). That is, if the goal is to allow more passengers to travel on a road, then priority should be given to nonmotorised vehicles. As far as congestion is concerned, it is helpful to remember that it is the least space efficient vehiclesthat is, private carswhich are the main cause, whereas those that move more passengers in less space (buses, rickshaws, and bicycles) are the necessary means of transport which should be encouraged. Even were we to succeed in developing a high quality and high capacity mass transit system, most of the services provided by FFT cannot be fulfilled by public transport. As mentioned earlier, in all cities where non-motorised vehicles were banned, they were in fact replaced mainly by motorised two- or three-wheelers. If we assume, which is more logical than any other hypothesis, that an FFT ban would result in vehicular modal share similar to that of other cities in Asia which have banned rickshaws, then we see that no 14

gain in congestion reduction can possibly be achieved. On the contrary, the FFT ban will simply increase pollution levels significantly. Given the nature of trips and demand levels in Dhaka, it is difficult to devise any plausible modelling scenarios where an FFT ban could reduce congestion. Any gain in in-vehicle time reductions would be very short-lived and roads would soon become congested again.

35 cars

bus

35 cars

mixed mode

source: http://www.denvergov.com/Blueprint_Denver/1323photo.asp?cview=2 It is true that in a mixed traffic stream, the presence of FFT reduces overall road capacities and average speeds. Nevertheless, there are always trade offs between reductions of in-vehicle times vis--vis increases in waiting times, walking times, and transfer penalties, etc., as parts of overall generalised time of a trip. Whether in-vehicle times or the other parts of the generalised times would be dominant depends on trip distances. The higher the trip distance, the higher the contribution from in-vehicle times. After a certain break-even distance, the contributions of in-vehicle time would be greater than that of

15

waiting time, walking time and transfer penalty, etc. Our experiences suggest the break-even distance lies between 3 to 4 km. If the majority of trips are less than the break-even trip distance, which is obviously the case in Dhaka, the reductions in in-vehicle times would be less than the corresponding increases in waiting and walking times, and no gain from banning of FFT would be achieved. In any case, it is already evident from our existing VIP roads that banning FFT by no means results in an end of traffic congestion or great increases in traffic speed. Any vehicle on the street can cause congestion, including buses and both parked and moving cars. Banning FFT while doing nothing to address other traffic problems will simply make congestion worse and the population more frustrated, and will raise questions as to the intended beneficiary of government policies. Rather than banning FFT, the government should demonstrate its intention of improving traffic conditions and living conditions in Dhaka by providing separate lanes for different types of vehicles, and greatly restricting private car parking and use through a variety of measures.

Are the main roads of Dhaka city wide enough to integrate FFT and FDT?
Contrary to usual beliefs, most of the major roads of Dhaka are wide enough to implement appropriate designs for proper integration of FFT and fueldependent transport (FDT, also known as motorized transport or MT). Despite initial setbacks of such attempts because of inappropriate design standards, lack of coordination, and administrative difficulties, we should not abandon our endeavours for finding appropriate solutions for the integration of FFT within our transport systems. Blaming the rickshaw pullers, who do not follow lane discipline, is merely an excuse; it is helpful to recall that no efforts were made with previous rickshaw lanes to prevent the parking of cars within those lanes, thereby making them unusable by rickshaws. In reality it is the administrative difficulties and lack of a concerted effort to enforce rules that is at the root of the problem. Significant progress has been achieved over the last couple of years in the designs of lanes, roundabouts, and priority or signalised junctions under heterogeneous traffic systems. Appropriate technologies are now available to integrate FFT efficiently within a multimodal transport system without severing continuity of the transport networks. Rather than banning FFT, plans should be elaborated to allow the continuation of this environmentallyfriendly and space-efficient mode.

16

Is rickshaw travel costlier? Can rickshaws reasonably be considered a major headache for city planners?
Rickshaws have become a major headache for city planners. The Dhaka Integrated Transport Study (DITS), a government survey funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), found that rickshaw fare is almost double in comparison to bus fare for the same distance. But some 19.2 percent passengers use rickshaws as their favourite mode of transportation while only 9.5 percent travel by buses. The Daily Star, Monday, August 02, 2004. It is really surprising how an efficient mode of transport in Dhaka could become a source of major headache for our experts. It appears that our planners tend to ignore the same conceptual aspects again and again. People make travel decision on the basis of the generalised time or cost of a trip, which is composed of in-vehicle time, waiting time, walking time, fare, transfer penalty, etc. Like in-vehicle time, one should not consider fare in isolation of the other attributes of the generalised costs. Since for short trips rickshaws offer greater advantages in terms of reduction of walking time, waiting time, transfer penalty, discomfort, etc., people are willing to pay more. Since rickshaw fares are completely governed by market forces, we cannot term them as costlier. We should rather acknowledge that the rickshaw fares are perfectly legitimate considering better services provided by them. In fact, public perception of rickshaw fares is that they are inexpensive. According to the HDRC report on the rickshaw ban on Mirpur Road, The second most cited advantage perceived by the [rickshaw] users is the cost of travelling by rickshaw. They perceive rickshaws as an inexpensive mode of transport (HDRC 2004). Why? Because passengers look not at distance but at convenience; rickshaws provide safe, comfortable, convenient door-to-door transport, which buses do not. In terms of fare, the perceived alternative to rickshaws, therefore, is not buses but rather taxis and CNG baby taxis, both of which are far more expensive than rickshaws. Once again, looking only at distance is meaningless; what matters to people is travelling between two destinations, and rickshaws are the cheapest convenient mode for doing so.

Do rickshaws contribute to an increase in pollution levels?

"Rickshaws are not an environment-friendly vehicle at all. They create traffic jams that cause vehicles to burn more fuel which in turn greatly increases the pollution levels in the city", said the Executive Director of DTCB. The Daily Star, Monday, September 08, 2003. It is really confusing what could be the source of such contentions. Similar sentiment is also echoed by an M.Sc. thesis of the Dept. of Civil Engineering, BUET (Habib 2002). If that were in fact DTCBs source, then we must say that 17

it represents a good example of how inappropriate use of an unsubstantiated and inadequate model could lead to misleading conclusions. First of all, there is no doubt that the author deserves highest appreciation for conducting a research of quite significant magnitude within the purview of an M.Sc. Nevertheless, one should not unnecessarily transgress the limit of the domain of a particular type of model. To begin with, it is evident from the statistics of the observed and the estimated flows that the model cannot be termed a valid one. According to standard practices, GEH statistics of the observed and the estimated flows (as shown in Table 4.3 page 83) were calculated by the author to determine the validity of the model. Average GEH is 18.7, which is well above the allowable limits of either 4 or 5, depending on the locations of the links in the network. GEH < 5 are only 25%, whereas standard requirement is that it should be at least 85%. However, this is not the main issue here. Banning FFT is a multimodal issue and a model that deals only with vehicular movements within road links, completely ignoring walking and waiting times of journeys, should not be used to assess such impacts. Inappropriate use of a unimodal model (model that deals with in-vehicle times only) to predict multimodal trade off situations could lead to misleading conclusions. Again, another fundamental problem of the model arises in a conceptual fallacy while developing the modal split model of the research. It is clearly evident that the outcomes of the model were mainly dependent on the assumptions about modal shifts. Unfortunately, the same modal split parameters were used for the existing as well as for the proposed FFT ban scenarios. In the case of introduction of a new mode or banning of an existing mode, the existing modal shift models no longer remain valid due to fundamental changes in available probabilistic choice sets. In the cases of either introduction of a new mode or termination of an existing mode, it is therefore logical practice to conduct stated preference surveys to develop new modal split models with respect to all the possible modelling scenarios. Since the original modal split model was developed for different types of vehicular modes, ignoring walking as a mode even after the imposition of the rickshaw ban, no people were assigned to walking, which is unrealistic and inappropriate. Since walking represents about 62% of the total trips, allocation of a similar magnitude of rickshaw passengers to walking due to rickshaw bans, which is a more logical proposition than allocating them only to motorised vehicles, would render all the conclusions of the thesis untenable. We should therefore be very careful not to use an inadequate model to assess a complex issue such as a rickshaw ban. It is obvious that it is not only FFT that creates congestion. Heavy use of any traffic network can create congestion, no matter whether it be composed of FDT or FFT. Are FFT-free cities of Asia or VIP roads in Dhaka free of 18

congestion? Why do Los Angeles and Bangkok, with their extensive network of roads and absence of non-motorised vehicles, suffer from such intense traffic jams, low traffic speed, and severe air pollution? Again, why should one rely on studies based on a set of rather absurd hypothetical scenarios, when sufficient evidence exists of the effects of banning FFT? Can anyone cite a single example where banning FFT resulted in a cleaner environment? Meanwhile, the hypothesis of the study, that FFT will be replaced by more eco-friendly motorised vehicles, is impossible; since FFT produces no vehicle emissions and uses no fuel, FFT is by definition more eco-friendly than even the cleanest motorised vehicles. What is likely to happen is clearly evident from the modal share figures (35% to 70%) of highly pollutant motorised twoor three-wheelers in Asian cities where FFT was banned. Since most of the door-to-door services rendered by FFT cannot be provided by public transport, FFT is highly likely to be replaced by polluting motorised vehicles. It is also helpful to remember in this regard that motorised vehicles pollute not only when sitting in a traffic jam or moving slowly, but all the time they are operating. There is no such thing as a pollution-free motorised vehicle; even electric vehicles, which have no emissions, create pollution when the electricity to operate them is generated. This is why cities around the world are working to reduce their air pollution by imposing limits on car use and by increasing the modal share of non-motorised, entirely non-polluting modes.

Is rickshaw pulling an inhuman profession?

Many consider rickshaw pulling an inhuman profession. Even the communist government of West Bengal in India did not ban rickshaws? added DTCB Director. The Daily Star, Monday, September 08, 2003. "After creating these roads off-limit to rickshaws, one may argue that many in the industry will become unemployed. This is not entirely true. Dhaka is a city where these people can find alternative informal employment," said the Executive Director of DTCB. The Daily Star, Monday, September 08, 2003. Whether any trade can be regarded as humane or inhumane is relative. It depends on the economic condition of the person as well as the city concerned. There is a very fine line between our so-called inhumane professions and starvation, malnutrition, homelessness, etc. Alternatives to rickshaw pulling can be even more inhumane. Gruelling work at garment factories from very early in the morning to late evening, brick breaking, and working as maidservants may well be considered inhumane. Even the backbreaking work of farming rice paddy could easily be labelled inhumane; should we thus ban farming? These are the harsh realities of life. Alternative to these professions could be even more onerous and appalling, and no doubt more inhumane. We can gain some insights into how humane the alternatives to rickshaw pulling can be from a recent study on the life of rickshaw pullers after rickshaw bans. 19

Rather than eating three times a day, the family now eats twice in the morning and the evening. Now a-days they cannot afford to eat fish, which they used to eat quite regularly. In an attempt to raise the family income, one of the daughters was taken out of school and began working in a garment factory. This work from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. was so gruelling that she could not continue. Before the ban I sent Tk400 home every month, but now I can only manage Tk300. My life has become very hard day by day. I always wanted my children to be literate but now I may need to take my 10-year old son out of education in order that he can work. (Khandoker and Rouse 2004) The HDRC report on the Gabtoli-Russell Square rickshaw ban on Mirpur Road finds that following the ban, FFT pullers earned 34% less than before the ban; that they sent 41% less money to their villages than previously; that they reduced their consumption of nutritious foods such as meat and fish; that some of their children dropped out of school to go to work; that they worked more hours per day and more days per month; and that only 14% reported no loss of income due to the ban (HDRC 2004). So much for easy alternatives and available jobs. Do you think forcing someone to have less food or depriving a child of an education is humane? Rather than banning rickshaws, we should make them more humane by improving them technologically so that they require far less muscle power to pull. Many cities of Europe and North America have rickshaws, which are obviously very well designed, making rickshaw pulling a pleasant profession rather than an inhumane one. As far as banning of rickshaws by the Communist government in West Bengal is concerned, this parallel is not very relevant here. To begin with, rickshaw bans in Calcutta were imposed by the city authority, which has been under the control of the Congress party for a long period of time, not the Communist Party of India. Nevertheless, it matters less who does what, than what is done. By comparing rickshaws in Calcutta with those in Dhaka, we are probably not comparing an apple with an apple. Rickshaws in Calcutta are in fact two-wheeler trolleys pulled forward by a walking driver, in no way comparable with those in Dhaka. If some authority bans such an inefficient mode of transport, no one should have much to complain about. Again, we should not follow some actions simply because they have been initiated by some specific authority. Can we also support the banning of trams from a number of routes in Calcutta? On the other hand, lessons could be learned from their very good commuting rail services. It is fine to be optimistic. However, how could we be so complacent about the prospects of creating a huge number of extra jobs required in the postrickshaw ban scenario in a city where about 40% of the active labour force is currently unemployed? A number of recently-conducted studies on the impacts of job opportunities after rickshaw bans do not help us to be very 20

hopeful either. As for the possibility of switching to alternative informal employment, as suggested by the DTCB Executive Director, it is helpful to remember that while, according to the HDRC study, many rickshaw pullers would be happy to become hawkers, the government is also acting to limit the number of hawkers and the places they can operate. If we are to ban or greatly limit all forms of employment for the poor and uneducated, how exactly are they expected to survive?

Do we need to build our transport infrastructure in an FFTfriendly way?

Building transport infrastructures in an FFT-friendly way is very important, and given that most of the country is flat, there is huge potential to develop a very efficient system of transport centring on FFT. If infrastructure is not built compatible to the requirements of FFT, we might in future have to face similar problems as we are currently facing in our attempts to revitalise the water transport of Dhaka. Making mistakes while developing appropriate transport strategies has not been limited to developing countries. Many cities in Europe banned trams to give preference to cars, and subsequently transport infrastructures were built in a car-friendly way. Often when planners realise that mistakes have been made, it becomes too late to correct them easily. Now the same cities are having difficulties to reintroduce trams and to discourage private cars in favour of FFT. Our aim should be to reduce FDT, not to phase out FFT, as most of the services and advantages offered by FFT cannot be substituted by FDT or public transport. In order to make these transitions hassle free, it is imperative that we build all transport infrastructure, such as new roads and bridges, in such a way that the continuity of FFT networks are not severed by any meansand we should consider making investments to improve FFT, rather than expanding the space for cars. That is, we should be building separate bicycle lanes and bicycle trackways, and creating separate lanes for rickshaws and buses. These measures will be far less expensive and allow the movement of far more vehicles at low cost and generating no pollution. This is a far wiser option than widening of existing roads or building more roads/elevated expressways for more cars, which, inevitably, simply increases car traffic and thus congestion and pollution.

Have rickshaw bans become a potential vote loser?

While officials claim that rickshaw bans will decrease traffic congestion, this has no way proved to be the case. Meanwhile, the travel of the non-carowning majority becomes more difficult, expensive, cumbersome and timeconsuming. It is thus no wonder that rickshaw bans are perceived as vote

21

losers. If only politicians would learn their lesson and provide people with better traffic conditions instead of catering to the elite. Instead, they sometimes play petty politics with the sufferings of the people, as evident from some of their recent actions. Broken promises: People in the Karwan Bazar area of the city and rickshaw pullers as well are unhappy at the way a promise made by Mosaddek Ali Falu has been broken. Politics, you might suggest, is all about promises and not keeping them. But there are people, such as the hard-working rickshaw pullers, who take promises seriously. When the BNP candidate at the Dhaka10 by-election promised people that the road leading from Satrasta to Karwan Bazar through Panthapath would be re-opened to rickshaws, there was hardly any reason why the pullers of the three-wheelers would not vote for him. But things went back to what they were on 2 July, Internet Edition Holiday, Friday, July 23, 2004. How could we possibly consider any transport decision logical and technically sound when it causes more suffering to the majority of voters/people? Why should anyone need to indulge in immoral politics? If it is proved that the majority of people have been suffering due to some shortsighted and illogical actions, then the lessons should be learned and the damage reversed. To lessen the suffering of travellers and rickshaw pullers, authorities should abolish these so-called VIP roads permanently without further delay.

Are real beneficiaries of rickshaw trade the criminal elements?

"The real beneficiaries of the rickshaw trade are the criminal elements. We should also target them, alleged DTCB Director. The Daily Star, Monday, September 08, 2003. The honest desire of someone who believes in the legitimacy of his cause should be appreciated. Nonetheless, it might not be wise to tender wholesale or blind accusations to the entire section of hard-working small entrepreneurs like rickshaw operators without any valid reasons. As mentioned earlier, rickshaw operations are highly competitive, economically efficient and running under long run marginal equilibrium condition. When marginal benefit becomes equal to marginal cost, there remains hardly any scope to franchise extra money in criminal activities. In reality the tiny margin of rickshaw operations are perfectly legal incomes achieved in a very stiff competitive environment. The real criminals are those (few, we hope) politicians and bureaucrats who build their career by misuse of public position, squander billions of taka of public money, enjoy disproportionately higher living style compared to their actual salaries, and do not hesitate to indulge in criminal activities for the sake of their own selfish goals. It is not the rickshaw traders who earned

22

Bangladesh the fame as the most corrupt nation on earth for three consecutive years in a row; rather it is those immoral white collar aristocrats who imprinted the infamous spot on our forehead. Of course if we really wish to encourage illegal activity, we could continue with rickshaw bans, thereby likely forcing at least some small section of the former rickshaw pullers, desperate for a way to feed themselves and their families, into begging and possibly crime. By most counts, it is more moral to earn a living through hard work than to beg or steal. On a similar line, it is more moral to allow people to earn a living through honest means than to force them into unemployment, but apparently some officials perceive it to be otherwise.

Should we follow blindly instructions from a few so-called experts of a multinational lending agency?
The initiatives of the World Bank to implement long awaited reforms in our country are no doubt commendable. However, we should not follow blindly every instruction of the Bank, which might not be technically sound and not in the economic interest of our country. Rather, we should follow the example of the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammad, who courageously refused to accept the bailing out programme of the World Bank and became most successful in handling the economic crisis. The Chief Executive of the World Bank later conceded that Mahathir had been right all along not to follow the Banks prescriptions. The banning of FFT from major thoroughfares is not technically sound from the viewpoints of sustainable transport development and, for the greater economic interests of the country, should not be adopted. It is here also helpful to remember that after finally obtaining the delayed HDRC report on the consequences of the rickshaw ban on Mirpur Road from Gabtoli to Russell Square, the World Bank changed its position on the ban. The World Banks country director, Christine Wallich, was quoted in New Age Metro on 9 February 2005 as saying that Any future support from the World Bank would be possible only if it can be demonstrated that aggregate positive impacts of FFT-free conversion on transport users and transport providers outweigh the aggregate negative impact. Guang Chen, a transport specialist of the World Bank, was quoted in the same paper on 11 February 2005 as saying that Only the rich people gain benefit from ban on the rickshaws. Further, if the government were to consider any further rickshaw bans, the World Bank explained they should carry out various measures first, including enforcement of parking restrictions and some bus-prioritization measures, designing some FFT routes adjoining the converted roads for FFT use only, and re-establishing FFT-network continuity where this has been severed. Further, the World Bank in its press statement of 12 February 2005

23

stated that We have also indicated that it is very important that DUTP be fully compliant with Bank safeguard policies if the government wishes to see continuing Bank engagement in the sector in future (Efroymson and Bari 2005). In fact, none of those measures occurred. It is thus clear that the World Bank could not support these continuing bans, and implies that the government is at risk of receiving no further support from the World Bank for transport projects unless it remedies the problems caused by previous bans.

Can we learn lessons from other successful transport models for urban developments?
It would seem sensible to learn not from textbooks and formulas, but from successful urban planning measures in various cities around the world. One such city, internationally recognised as a major success, is Bogot, which was transformed into a model of sound transport infrastructure during the tenure of Mayor Enrique Pealosa (Pealosa 2002). The Bogot model is under active consideration for implementation in a number of major developing cities, e.g. Dakar, Senegal; Cape Town and Pretoria, South Africa; and Accra, Ghana; similar transformations have occurred and are underway in such cities as Curitiba, Brazil; Mexico City, Mexico; Quito, Ecuador; and Seoul, Korea. Within three years, Pealosa transformed his city from a congested and dangerous mess, where many citizens did not have access to transportation, into the world's leading model for sustainable urban design. Under Mr. Pealosas leadership from 1998-2000, innovative transportation strategies such as a successful bus-way, the worlds largest pedestrian zone, bicycle paths, and restrictions on private car use were used to equalize all citizens' mobility and to relieve the traffic congestion and air pollution that was choking Bogot. The Bogot approach demonstrated how fuel-free vehicles, pedestrian mobility, and public transport facilities could be integrated for the development of a sustainable transport system. It also showed the popularity of planning for people, not for motorised vehicles; the ban of motorised transport on 120 km of main city arteries for 7 hours each Sunday attracts 1.5 million people to ride bicycles and walk (Pealosa 2002 in GTZ). One of the main reasons other cities are following Bogots lead is that politicians see it as a chance to become extraordinarily popular, by giving people what they want: a liveable, quieter, less polluted, and less congested city. We can also learn lessons from very efficient integrated transport systems of cities like Delft, the Netherlands. Delft has a number of geographical similarities with Bangladesh. It has very flat terrain full of numerous water bodies (rivers and canals). The City of Delft has become one of the leading models of a very efficient urban transport system by incorporating FDT, FFT, pedestrians, mass public transit and water transport within an integrated

24

transportation network. Not only is Delft efficient, but it is also a pleasant place to live, something which further motorisation can never hope to achieve.

How can we conduct comprehensive transport studies free from prejudice?

It is very encouraging that DTCB has taken the initiative to undertake a number of transport studies. Nonetheless, one contradicts the validity of any study by prejudging the outcomes and, for example, devoting most of ones energy to discovering the negative impacts of FFT. Learning from Bogots extremely successful and popular (vote-winning) approach, among other options, the studies should also consider the following: Potential transport and economic benefits of re-introduction of rickshaws in roads where they have been banned, i.e. no roads should remain off limit to rickshaws. Improved situation for cycling through provision of separate lanes and cycleways, thereby shifting some modal share to a completely environmentally-friendly, space-saving mode that has the further benefit of providing much-needed physical activity and being an affordable mode of travel for Dhakas residents. Introduction of pedestrian- or FFT-only zones in the central commercial or retail shopping districts of Dhaka, based on international experience that pedestrianising streetsthat is, banning all forms of transportgreatly increases shopkeepers income on those streets due to their vast popularity. Revitalization of old canals and excavation of new ones to integrate surface and water transports (as is predominant in the Netherlands).

All future transport studies should focus on the overall impacts of any transport alternatives from the viewpoints of mobility of people and goods by assessing real door-to-door travel times, not just concentrating on the movement of vehicles.

What should be the way forward for a sustainable transport development in Dhaka city?
Mobility management, otherwise known as transport demand management, aims to make the best use of existing infrastructure by managing the demand for transport. The starting point for mobility management is that a citys transport system should focus on moving people and goods, not vehicles. This differs from the approach currently being taken in many developing cities, which is supply-oriented and involves ever-more road building, thus leading towards a disastrous vicious cycle of congestion and pollution. A sustainable transport system that ensures maximum mobility of people and 25

goods can only be achieved by incorporating FDT, FFT, pedestrians, water transport and mass public transit systems within an integrated transport framework, supported by stable land use patterns. As has been discussed in detail elsewhere (e.g. Bari and Efroymson 2005), a system can and must be designed that will benefit the great majority of the population, and improve the environment as well. Designing a city only for cars will not only harm all non-car owners, but even the car owners themselves, as they sit in relentless traffic jams and spend their days subjected to the noise and stench of motorised vehicle-generated pollution. Banning rickshaws is not a solution; it simply will make our existing problems, and our populations current suffering, even worse. For the sake of our peoples health and well-being and the state of our environment, non-motorised transport must gain priority in planning and infrastructure development.

References
Ali, S.A. (2004) Development of Speed-Flow Relationship Under Mixed Mode Traffic On going research in the University of Birmingham, UK. Bari, M. (2000) Quantification of the Impacts of Non-motorised Transport and Roadside Activities PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, the University of Birmingham, UK. Bari, M. and D. Efroymson (June 2005) Efficient Use of Road Space and Maximisation of Door-to-Door Mobility: Suggestions for Improvements in Dhaka. Unpublished paper, WBB Trust, Dhaka. Barkut, A., Karim, W. et al. (2004) After Study on the Impact of Mirpur Demonstration Corridor Project (Gabtoli-Russell Square). Human Development Research Centre (HDRC). DTCB (2005), Parking Policy For The Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan Area, Second draft. DUTP (Dhaka Urban Transport Project), Phase II (1998), Draft Final Report Efroymson, D. (2005), Dhakas Rickshaws Under Threat in CarBusters Issue 22. Efroymson, D. and Bari, M. (2005) Improving Dhakas Traffic Situation, Lessons from Mirpur Road. WBB Trust, Dhaka. Efroymson, D. and Rahman, M. (2005) Transportation Policy for Poverty Reduction and Social Equity. WBB Trust, Dhaka.

26

Gallagher, R. (1992) The Rickshaws of Bangladesh. University Press Limited, Dhaka. GTZ (2000) Improving Conditions for Non Fuel-dependent Transport in Surabaya, Indonesia: A Pilot Project in Two Neighborhoods, GTZ Transport and Mobility Group, Germany Habib, K.M.N (2002) Evaluation of Planning Options to Alleviate Traffic Congestion and Resulting Air Pollution in Dhaka City, M.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University & Technology, Dhaka. Hook, W. (2002) Preserving and Expanding The Role of Non-motorised Transport, Module 3d of GTZ: Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policymakers in Developing Cities. ITDP (2005) Dedicated Bus Lanes Central to Renewal of Seoul Transit in Sustainable Transport E-Update 17, June 2005 (http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste17/). Khandoker, N. and Rouse, J. (2004) Urban development and livelihoods of the poor in Dhaka paper presented in the 30th WEDC International Conference, Vientiane, Lao PDR. Mackie, P.J., Wordman, M., Fowkes, A.S., Wholan, G. and Nellthorp, J. (2003) Values of Travel Time Savings in the UK Summary Report a report submitted to the Department for Transport, UK. Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999) Sustainability and Cities, Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Pealosa, E. (2002) Urban Transport and Urban Development: A Different Model, Urban Forum, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pealosa, E. (2002) The role of Transport in Urban Development Policy. Module 1a of GTZ: Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities. UN ESCAP (1998) Integration of Non-motorised Transport in the Overall Urban Transport System of Dhaka: Traffic Management Plan for Zone 4, Draft Final Report prepared for UN ESCAP. White, C., Gordon, A., and Gray, P. (2001) Economic Appraisal of Multimodal Transport Investments: The Development of TUBA A report prepared for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, UK. World Resources Institute (1996) United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank, World Resources, 1996-1997 Oxford University Press, New York.

27

Appendix: Newspaper Coverage

Various newspaper articles have been published in recent months questioning the claim that rickshaws cause traffic jams, and pointing out the many advantages of rickshaw travel. A sampling follows.

28

29

30

31

32

33