The reality on the ground concerning road transport

The unbearable traffic situation, day in and day out, is costing the nation very dear, in terms of the time and energy wasted, the physical and psychological stress and the long-term health implications for commuters. Suggestions have been coming in from diverse quarters about what is immediately do-able to reduce the jams at the minimum possible time and cost. And almost always, the pro-people and environment-friendly rickshaw gets blamed for the horrendous jams, and selected roads are declared off-limits, regardless of the reality on the ground. As any dispassionate observer would point out, the villain is rather the increasing fleet of private cars that crowd out other modes of public transport. A bird's eye view of rickshaw-free roads during peak periods would establish this glaring fact beyond doubt, although the car-owning class in only a 'tiny' minority. Neither have jams become bearable nor have movement become fast enough. Even then, the prejudice against rickshaws prevail, as evidenced in the Home Minister's recent declaration that the capital would eventually be made totally rickshaw-free. This is neither wise nor fair, given the fact that city-dwellers use the rickshaw up to ten times more than motorized vehicles -- according to a recent report in a contemporary -- and that it is a means of livelihood for a considerable number of the poor who have been forced out of rural areas. When most advanced countries are choosing to use bicycles or walk, to reduce fumes, noise and travel expense, policy makers here seem bent on banishing the cleanest and most convenient vehicle, thus making life for non-car-owning city dwellers more difficult. And they are doing it without any technical understanding of the situation or appreciation of the fact that 41 per cent of the trips to school are made by rickshaws and only four per cent by car. Even the wealthy have been found to use these non-polluting tricycles twice as many times as they do cars. Rickshaws deserve to be patronized -- creatively -- instead of being thrown out, while other, economically and environmentally rational, and 'speedy' modes of transport, are put in place to carry the maximum at minimum cost. There was talk of going for metro rail. The chief representative of JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) in the course of a seminar a couple of years ago, specifically cautioned Bangladesh against it, pointing out that such a mass transit system had failed to work even in countries like Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, because it could not draw enough passengers. If that is the experience of countries known to be economically more advantaged than Bangladesh, it clearly deserves to be binned. But one of the unpalatable truths about 'development' in Bangladesh is that wheeler-dealers are often bent on peddling projects that pay them the highest kickbacks regardless of whether or not these are affordable and yield the promised results. It must be kept in mind that the most important objective of urban transport development is to introduce services capable of carrying the maximum numbers smoothly and swiftly enough and to ensure that such services can be accessed by people in the new settlement areas as well. It is time to consider seriously how the suggestion for a circular shuttle train service, parallel to the existing lines from Kamalapur, up to Gazipur, touching all key points, would be feasible, keeping in view the need for serving the people first and foremost.