Saturday, April 5, 2008

[noakhaliweb] Knowledge-based Transport Planning and Rickshaw Bans

Knowledge-based Transport Planning and Rickshaw Bans


By Dr.Mahbubul Bari
Dhaka, Bangladesh - The New Nation

For several years, discussion of transport issues and problems in
Dhaka has had a singular focus on the supposed contribution of cycle
rickshaws to traffic congestion, and the need to facilitate movement
of automobiles. In line with this analysis of the transport
situation, various projects have been undertaken, focusing on banning
rickshaws and rickshaw vans from major roads, and sometimes
relegating them to narrow rickshaw lanes. The problem of car parking
has been addressed mainly through insistence on provision of separate
parking places by offices, shops and restaurants even by enacting law
under the building code. It is a matter of deep regret that not a
single transport policy decision was undertaken after conducting a
proper scientific or knowledge-based analysis of the transport
problems of the city. It has become a standard norm to take important
policy decisions rather arbitrarily, whether it is rickshaw ban or
Strategic Transport Plan (STP) for the city.

The results of these various initiatives have been made clear through
government-mandated studies, including the HDRC report on the
rickshaw ban on Mirpur Road (HDRC 2004), and the DUTP after-study
report (DUTP 2006). The results, almost astonishingly negative, would
suggest that the basis for the policy decisions and transport plans
are flawed. This would be less than surprising when considering the
fact that important transport policy decisions were taken without
employing any knowledge-based approach or scientific study.

Moreover, despite the strong evidence of increased travel costs and
traffic congestion, transport planning continues to focus on
expanding the role of the automobile and reducing that of fuel-free
transport. That pattern has been reflected by the further extension
of the rickshaw bans on more city roads. In this connection, readers
are requested to draw their attention to the following news item:

¡°Traffic Division of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police made Purana Paltan-
Bijoynagar Road off-limits to rickshaws from Thursday. The decision
was taken at a meeting on Wednesday. All the deputy commissioners of
four traffic divisions were present at the meeting. M Sayedur Rahman,
deputy commissioner (south) of traffic division, told New Age on
Thursday that the authorities banned plying of non-motorised vehicles
on the stretch between Purana Paltan and Bijoynagar to ease traffic
congestion.¡± The New Age, Dhaka, Friday, October 19, 2007¡å.

This arbitrary decision making process as depicted in the news item
draws attention to a number of disturbing questions as follows: Do
the police have the authority to ban or restrict rickshaw movements?

If yes, from whom do they get that authority?

Do the police have similar authority to limit the movement of
motorised vehicles when there is not sufficient road capacity for
them, e.g. narrow lanes, which cannot accommodate cars without
causing traffic jams?

Probably not, it is therefore clear that such misguided policy
actions are being pursued just to give absolute priority in the
transport system of the city for a tiny minority of car owners, i.e.
the so called elite section of the society.

Do the police have requisite training to make proper transport
decisions?

If so, why dies Dhaka needs organisation like DTCB, when the police
can do the job better?

The rickshaw bans are being extended beyond Mirpur Road, but it seems
unlikely that those bans were carried out by the police, rather than
by a section of the powerful bureaucrats behind the scene. It may be
mentioned here that after failure of the rickshaw ban in the
demonstration project of the Mirpur Road, the World Bank has set the
standard of extending further bans on the condition that: ¡°Any future
support from the World Bank would be possible only if it can be
demonstrated that aggregate positive impacts of NMT-free conversion
on transport users and transport providers outweigh the aggregate
negative impact¡±.


It is matter of deep regret that policies continue to give car owners
absolute priority, while ignoring the fundamental principle of any
transport project appraisal, that is, that net user benefits of any
transport intervention must exceed net loss.

Now, it may be appropriate to concentrate on, possibly, the most
important argument in the news item, that is, ¡°the authorities banned
plying of non-motorised vehicles on the stretch between Purana Paltan
and Bijoynagar to ease traffic congestion.¡± In the following
paragraphs answer to this question and other related aspects of such
transport policy interventions, will be analysed in the light of
knowledge-based and participatory decision-making approach.

Did the previous rickshaw ban in Dhaka City ease traffic congestion?

The answer lies in the ¡°After Project¡± report of the government
mandated study of the Mirpur Road Demonstration project (DUTP 2006),
where fuel free transport was banned.

It might be appropriate to look into the issue considering a number
of key congestion indices with respect to before and after scenarios
of the Mirpur Road Demonstration project as follows:

Average journey time per vehicle

Average journey time per person

Journey reliability

Throughput (total number of vehicles per time interval that pass a
point on the carriageway)

Average Journey time per Vehicle

The Table 1 shows the comparison of travel times of fuel dependent
(motorised) vehicles between 2000 and 2005. Considering large
variability of the travel time data, it is evident that there is no
statistically significant difference of travel times of fuel
dependent or motorised vehicles between pre and post rickshaw ban
scenarios. This means that no travel time gain for fuel dependent
vehicle was achieved due to rickshaw ban.

The Table 2 demonstrates the comparison of travel times of buses
between 2000 and 2005. Although there is no statistically significant
difference of travel times for fuel dependent vehicles between pre
and post FFT ban scenarios, the travel times for buses did undergo
significant deterioration with a 26.1% increase of travel times. This
means that bus congestion has increased significantly due to
imposition of rickshaw ban in the Mirpur Road demonstration corridor.

On balance average vehicle congestion in terms of journey time per
vehicle has increased significantly due to the rickshaw ban.

Average journey time per person : Bus travel has worsened following
the FFT ban, with a 26.1% increase in travel time; passenger travels
by bus has become slower than by rickshaw. Thus all the bus
passengers (28.1% of total passengers)-both those who continue to
travel by bus in pre- and post-project scenarios, and those who were
forced to shift from rickshaws-have experienced significant increase
in travel times.

Impacts of the project on car passengers who have been riding a car
both pre- and post-project are more or less neutral, as there is no
significant difference in travel time.

The passengers of motorised para-transit who continue to travel both
in pre- and post-project scenarios are likely to suffer increase in
average journey times. While there is no significant difference in
travel times between scenarios, the times required to find a driver
who would be willing to go for short trips have gone up substantially
as per HDRC report (HDRC 2004) thereby increasing average travel
times per person.

Despite being subjected to a ban on Mirpur Road, rickshaws remain the
most popular means of transport in the corridor, accounting for 30%
of all trips. Rickshaw passengers have become net losers, being
forced to take long detours using congested side roads, and thereby
substantially increase their travel time.

These evidences from the after project studies prove that congestion
in terms of average journey time per person have increased
significantly after rickshaw ban in the Mirpur Road demonstration
corridor.

Journey Reliability: Both DUTP after project study (DUTP 2006) and
HDRC studies reported significant deterioration of waiting times for
bus passengers. Again, as reported in the HDRC report, baby taxi
operators are reluctant to take short trips, causing significant
increases in waiting times for passengers. Similarly, finding
suitable taxicabs at an affordable cost has become increasingly
troublesome and time-consuming for short trips.

It is therefore clearly evident that journey reliability of the
Mirpur Road demonstration project deteriorated significantly due to
imposition of rickshaw ban. This in turn represents increase of
congestion.

Throughput (total number of vehicles per time interval that pass a
point on the carriageway)

Although it might not be appropriate to compare throughputs between a
FFT free road and a mixed vehicles road, it is obvious from the Table
3 that number of vehicles that pass at North of Dhanmodi R#2 of
Mirpur Road, decreased significantly both in terms of absolute number
of vehicles and passenger car equivalents due to rickshaw ban. This
indicates the congestion in terms of throughput has increased
significantly due to rickshaw ban in Mirpur Road.

Again, although passenger carrying capacities of the whole network
under investigation were found to increase on average by 30% due to a
significant increase of bus services under a private sector-driven
initiative, increase in passenger capacity for the demonstration
project was only 15%. Again, a careful analysis of data reveals that
nearly total elimination of FFT combined with a very high increase in
bus service resulted in only a 15% increase in passenger capacity,
whereas a small decrease in cars combined with only a modest increase
in bus service resulted in a 27% increase in passenger capacity in a
VIP road, which has been under FDT-only operation in the base case,
indicating that as far as road capacity is concerned the problem is
cars, not rickshaws.

Whether car more efficient than rickshaws in terms of road space
occupancy?

Despite constant claims of the city officials that rickshaws are the
main source of traffic jams, data indicate that rickshaws are far
superior to cars as far as road space occupancy is concerned (see
Table 4). In the base case i.e. before fuel free transport ban,
rickshaws made up 69.8% of vehicles, yet utilised only 43.5% of road
space to transport 59.4% of passengers (all trips). Cars made up only
6.4% of vehicles, yet occupied as much as 29.9% of the road space in
the base case to transport far fewer passengers (5.5%) than by
rickshaw.

Despite being removed from the main roads, rickshaws are still the
most popular mode of transport, serving 30% of the passengers,
whereas cars serve only 8.5% of all trips (11% of vehicular trips)
while requiring the greatest share of road space (54.2%). Although
the modal share of cars in overall has gone up only 3.0%, they now
claim about 25% more road space than prior to FFT ban. If one
considers the additional parking space required for them, total road
space required would be much higher. It is clear that a combination
of fuel-free transit and public transit would be far superior to a
fuel-dependent transport and public transit option.

It may be mentioned here that despite 50% traffic growth of motorised
vehicles during 2000 to 2005 period, the traffic in terms of PCE
(passenger car equivalent) in Mirpur Road Demonstration corridor was
lower in 2005 in comparison to that of 2000. However, despite having
less number of traffic in 2005, the performance of the corridor was
significantly worse under FFT free condition after the ban.

It is therefore clearly evident from the data analysis of the DUTP
after project study that congestion in terms of all major congestion
indices has increased significantly due to imposition of fuel free
transport ban in the Mirpur Road demonstration corridor.

Comments
3 Comments so far

Syed Saiful Alam on December 31, 2007 12:20 am Fuel Consumption and
Environmental Impact of Rickshaw Bans in Dhaka

Dear all
Most trips in Dhaka are short in distance, usually one to five
kilometers. These trips are perfect of Rickshaws. Rickshaws are cheap
and popular mode of transport over short distances. Rickshaws are
safe, environmentally friendly and do not rely on fossil fuels.
Rickshaws support a significant portion of the population, not only
the pullers, but also their families in the villages, the mechanics
who fix the rickshaws, as well as street hawkers who sell them food.
From the raw materials to the finished product the Rickshaw employs
some 38 different professions. Action needs to be taken to support
the Rickshaw instead of further banning it in Dhaka. The combined
profits of all Rickshaws out earn all other passenger transport modes
(bus, rail, boats and airlines) combined. In Dhaka alone, Rickshaw
pullers combine to earn 20 million taka a month.

We think that over the coming holiday of Eid du Ajah, new Rickshaw
bans will be put into action on roads in Dhaka. Eid was used in the
past to place new bans on roads in Dhaka. Last Eid many roads were
declared Rickshaw free without public support or approval. By banning
Rickshaws roads are clogged with increased private car use as well as
increased parking by cars. Banning of Rickshaws on major roads
increases the transportation costs for commuters. Not only due to
longer trips to avoid roads with bans in effect, but also due to
actually having to take more expensive forms of transport such as CNG
or Taxi, where in the past a Rickshaw would suffice. The
environmental impact of banning Rickshaws is obvious because it
exchanges a non-motorized form of transport for a motorized form of
transport, thus increasing the pollution and harming the environment.
Rickshaw bans harm the most vulnerable in society, mainly the sick,
poor, women, children and the elderly; generally those who can not
afford or do not feel comfortable on other forms of public transport.
To ban Rickshaws also hurts small businesses that rely on them as a
cheap and reliable form of transporting their goods. Rickshaws are
ideal for urban settings because they can transport a relatively
large number of passengers while taking up a small portion of the
road. In 1998 the data showed that Rickshaws took up 38% of road
space while transporting 54% of passengers in Dhaka . The private
cars on the other hand, took up 34% of road space while only
transporting 9% of the population (1998 DUTP). This data does not
include the parking space on roads that cars take up in Dhaka . If
included this would further raise the amount of space taken up by
private cars. Every year the Rickshaw saves Bangladesh 100 billion
taka in environmental damage.

The government makes many efforts to reduce traffic congestion in
Dhaka but with no success. Blaming Rickshaws for traffic congestion
and subsequently banning them from major roads has not had the
desired affect. Traffic is still as bad now as it was before the
Rickshaws were banned on major roads. Rickshaws thus can not be seen
as the major cause of traffic congestion. Instead one should look
towards private cars and private car parking on roads as the major
cause of traffic congestion. The space gained by banning Rickshaws is
often used for private car parking. The current trend in transport
planning reduces the mobility of the majority for the convenience of
the minority. The next time a ban on Rickshaws on another road is
discussed please take into consideration who is being hurt and who is
being helped. For a better transport system in Dhaka we need to
create a city wide network of Rickshaw lanes. If this is done Dhaka
can reduce its fuel usage dramatically as well its pollution. We ask
your help in our fight to keep Dhaka a Rickshaw city. Any information
or help is very much appreciated and sought after. I write you this
letter to describe the difficulties we are facing and some solutions
but they are by no means exhaustive and we look forward to your help
and input.

Syed Saiful Alam Shovan
Volunteer
Save Environment Movement
House # 58/1, Kalabagan 1st lane
Dhanmondi, Dhaka,Bangladesh
Email shovan1209@yahoo.
www.environmentmovementbd.org

Yasmin Chowdhury on March 1, 2008 7:43 am Pricing public transit:
learning from Bangkok
Yasmin Chowdhury

When I first visited Bangkok in 1994, I got around the city mostly by
bus. The buses were slow, the streets congested, and I soon learned
that I could only make one plan for the morning and one for the
afternoon, as it might take a couple hours to move about.
Then the city started to build their skytrain. I waited with great
anticipation for its completion. It seemed to require a lot more time
and a lot more money (OK, just two years of delay and three times
over budget) than originally anticipated, and the fares are
admittedly quite high, but it was finally built¡ªif never finished. (I
saw an article in a Thai newspaper about people very upset that the
planned line to their area had never been built; meanwhile, the
pilings leading to the now domestic-only airport have been converted
into advertising posts.)
To be quite honest, I love the skytrain. Sure, the cement structure
looming overhead is ugly. Sure, most of the stations lack escalators,
making them inaccessible to those in wheelchairs, and exceedingly
difficult for those lugging heavy bags or luggage. Sure, the two
lines only cover a very limited portion of Bangkok. Sure, it¡¯s
expensive. Sure, despite all the hassles, the trains are often
packed. Sure, the stations are congested and I sometimes have to push
through people to reach my train. But at least I can see a little of
the city while I travel, and I can now get around to the stops on the
line quickly, allowing myself to visit far more places in a day.
Though the skytrain certainly makes moving around the city much
easier (if you can afford it), it obviously didn¡¯t alleviate the
congestion, as the government then opened a very limited subway
system. The first time I tried to ride it, about a year after it
opened, it was closed for two weeks due to an accident. I finally
rode it a couple years after that, and discovered that it cost about
US$0.50 to ride what it would take me ten minutes to walk. That
seemed outrageous, and I don¡¯t love riding up and down long
escalators and traveling in tunnels. Since the Metro doesn¡¯t seem to
go much beyond the skytrain, I stick to the skytrain.
But now, after spending billions of dollars on those mass transit
systems, and despite having an existing extensive bus system, and
more roads than most Asian cities of their level of economic
development, the government is now planning bus rapid transit¡ªa bit
like a street-level trolley, but with buses instead of trams. Of
course, that too is delayed¡ªbut the cost is a fraction of that for
the skytrain and Metro.
A more careful look at those costs reveals something interesting and
of considerable relevance as Dhaka plans its public transit system.
According to various Web sites, the skytrain, which opened in 1999,
cost about US$1.5 billion for 24 kilometers. That amounts to US$62.5
million per kilometer. Of course, things were cheaper back then.
Construction of the Metro began back in 1996, but it wasn¡¯t finished
until 2004. According to Wikipedia, ¡°The project suffered multiple
delays not only because of the 1997 economic crisis, but also due to
challenging civil engineering works of constructing massive
underground structures deep in the water-logged soil upon which the
city is built.¡± Interesting. Fortunately we don¡¯t have those troubles
in Dhaka (ahem!).
As for cost, the Metro cost a mere US$ 2.75 billion for 21 km, or
US$130.95 million per kilometer¡ªjust over twice that of the skytrain.
Apparently burrowing underground, dealing with flooding issues,
providing ventilation, and so on is much more expensive than building
above our heads. Meanwhile, again quoting Wikipedia, ¡°ridership has
settled down to around 180,000 riders daily ¡ª considerably lower than
projections of over 400,000, despite fares being slashed in half from
12-38 baht to 10-15 baht per trip. As of 2006, fares range between 14-
36 baht per trip.¡± With an exchange rate as I write of 32 baht to one
US dollar, that¡¯s a mighty high fare. Good thing Bangladeshis are
wealthier than Thais (??).
Meanwhile, the anticipated cost for the BRT is 33.4 million for 36
kilometers. Admittedly, anticipated costs are often far less than
actual costs, but still, at US$0.93 million per kilometer, that¡¯s a
bargain compared to the Metro or the skytrain¡ªeven more so when
considering it¡¯s being built last, when prices are highest. At 67
times less than the skytrain and 141 times less than the Metro, even
with significant cost increases, it will still be far more affordable
than its public transit predecessors.
Of course, operational costs are another issue. Buses require fuel,
trains electricity. Buses tend to require more maintenance, tires
wear down frequently, and buses have to be replaced far more often
than trains. While it is cheaper to build a BRT system initially, the
higher operational costs might mean that, in the long term, a tram
system would be more affordable¡ªtram meaning street-level light rail,
not something up in the sky or underground, which greatly multiplies
the costs.
Which is all to say, I¡¯m all for public transit. So, apparently, are
Thais: last I checked, hotels and housing advertise their proximity
to the various public transit options. Apparently people are sick and
tired of sitting in cars stuck in traffic jams. In public transit,
you can sit back and read a book while you ride, look out the window
(preferably not at tunnels), eavesdrop on your neighbor¡¯s
conversation, and otherwise amuse yourself without risking crashing
into someone once the traffic moves again.
But when considering spending millions or billions on public transit,
it would make sense to invest it wisely, in a system that will be the
most extensive and least expensive, and thus offer the best value for
the money. At 141 times per kilometer less to build BRT than Metro,
we could both have a far more extensive system, meeting far more
people¡¯s needs, and lower fares. Sounds like a bargain to me!

Syed Saiful Alam on March 2, 2008 10:29 am March 2, 2008
DMP¡¯s plan for better traffic
management fails
The Daily New Age March 2, 2008
http://www.newagebd.com/met.html#1
Abdul Kader

Though the Dhaka Metropolitan Police has made efforts from time to
time for better traffic management in the capital city, they fail due
to lack of proper enforcement of traffic rules, said a traffic
engineer.
The DMP commissioner at a meeting in October last year with four
deputy commissioners of traffic division decided to strengthen the
enforcement of laws against the banned 20-year-old vehicles and
illegal parking, but no progress was found visible as a huge number
of unfit vehicles still ply the city streets.
The communications ministry in collaboration with DMP imposed the ban
on plying of 20-year-old buses and minibuses in 2002. Even though the
DMP seized a good number of outdated vehicles in few months since the
imposition of the ban, now many unfit vehicles ply the streets.
The DMP authorities also decided to take stern action against illegal
parking, but it still continues in the city for lack of
implementation of the decision.
A traffic sergeant said a vehicle is fined Tk 200 for illegal parking
under Section 137 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance. ¡®The range of fine
should be increased to stop violation of the rules.¡¯
Officials of Bangladesh Road Transport Authority said the revised
ordinance had been submitted to the government with proposal for
increasing the existing fine which was at final stage.
Shakil Kashem, lecturer of urban and regional planning department at
BUET said, ¡®The authorities concerned have showed their eagerness to
remove bus counters from footpaths, but they don¡¯t dare to take steps
against illegal car parking on roads and footpaths.¡¯
Besides, the DMP authorities from February, 2007 imposed a ban on
honking on Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue stretching from Shahbagh crossing
to Shaheed Jahangir Gate.
Since May 6, 2007, it was extended to different areas, including
Shaheed Jahangir Gate to Abdullahpur in Uttara via Mohakhali, Kemal
Ataturk Avenue to Phoenix Building via Gulshan-1 and Gulshan-2,
Gabtali to Azimpur via Russell Square, Bijoy Sarani to Mohammadpur
Traffic Office via Lake Road, Sheraton Hotel crossing to Kakrail
crossing, Matsya Bhaban to Rainbow crossing via Kakrail Church,
Science Laboratory to Matsya Bhaban via Shahbagh and Matsya Bhaban to
Golap Shah mazar via old High Court crossing and Phoenix Road.
At the beginning, traffic sergeants filed over 2,000 cases against
the violators, but now there is no effective enforcement of the ban.
A traffic engineer of a government agency said, ¡®We take many good
decisions regarding to traffic management, but cannot implement those
decisions. As a result, the decisions that came from meetings don¡¯t
bring any fruitful result.¡¯
When contacted a traffic division top official said manpower for
traffic management is very less than that of requirement. ¡®All the
sergeants and traffic police have to work on priority basis and keep
themselves busy with traffic management.¡¯
Sayedur Rahman, deputy commissioner of Traffic Division (south) of
DMP told New Age, ¡®The enforcement of laws is on as usual. Every day
cases are filed against illegal parking and violating the honking
ban.¡¯
Yet people are violating the rules. An increase in the fine for
violating the motor rules may prevent people from the violation of
rules, he added.
A traffic sergeant in Paltan area said, ¡®The trend for violating the
traffic rules is very high among the drivers. We have filed many
cases, but they don¡¯t pay heed because the amount of fine is very
minimal.¡¯
A traffic police said bus owners association would have to take steps
as their drivers abide by traffic rules. ¡®Most bus companies or
owners employ drivers on contractual basis who frequently violate
traffic rules to save times.¡¯
The government has taken an initiative to amend the motor vehicles
ordinance 1983 with an increase in fine apart from a citizen¡¯s
charter. The amendment process was at final stage, a BRTA official
said.

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noakhaliweb/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noakhaliweb/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:noakhaliweb-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:noakhaliweb-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
noakhaliweb-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ Noakhali Online Group ] Important Massage

 

Dear All

Saudi council of Muftis have given an unanimous Fatwa that ring tones

on QURAN AAYAT are haraam because the AAYAT are not complete when we pick the phone and meanings of AAYAT changes when they are not complete. QURAN is for Hidayat and not for ring tones,

Please inform others
BE ADVISED
Don't say 'Mosque'   Say always ' Masjid' 

Because Islam organization has found thats mosque = mosquitoes

Don't write ' Mecca'  Write always correctly ' Makkah'

Because Mecca = house of wines
Don't write ' Mohd'  Write always completely as ' Muhammad' 

Becasue Mohd = the dog with big mouth.

Forwarded it as many Muslims as you can for Sawaab. Nothing bad will happen if you don't forward this but these points are  impotant and it is our duty to educate our brothers and sisters



You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. __._,_.___

<*> To visit our associated site, go to:
    http://www.DeshiHost.com/

<*> To visit our associated community portal go to:
    http://www.Noakhali.org/





Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___