“Dhaka’s BRT Walkability Strategy"

Dhaka’s BRT Walkability Strategy

Ensuring that Dhaka’s Transportation Infrastructure is Pedestrian-Friendly

Contract Number: S71711 TA‐6350 (REG): Sustainable Urban Transport Report Submitted by: Debra Efroymson, August 2011 Report Submitted to: Regional and Sustainable Development Department, Sustainable Infrastructure Division, Asian Development Bank

Revised Version: November 2011


Page i

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. v List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. viii

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2 The Importance of Including a Walkability Strategy in Dhaka’s Transportation Planning ........... 4 2.1 Walkable Communities are Livable Communities ...................................................................... 4 2.2 The Environment .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Better Coordination ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Health ........................................................................................................................................... 7

3 The Current Transport Situation in Dhaka ........................................................................................ 8 3.1 Walking in Dhaka .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Study of Dhaka’s Pedestrian Environment ................................................................................. 8

3.2.1 Land Use Diversity .................................................................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Footpath Availability ............................................................................................................... 11 3.2.3 Footpath Quality ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.2.4 Safety ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2.5 Facilities for the Disabled ......................................................................................................... 18 3.2.6 Pedestrian Amenities ............................................................................................................... 18 3.2.7 Community Life (Including Hawkers) ...................................................................................... 19 3.2.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Policy Context ............................................................................................................................. 21

4 Improving Walkability in Dhaka ....................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Non‐Motorized Transportation Cell, Tools, and Training ........................................................ 27 4.2 Fiscal Policies .............................................................................................................................. 29 4.3 Land Use Policies ....................................................................................................................... 32 4.4 Infrastructure Improvements ................................................................................................... 33 4.5 Parking Control Policies ............................................................................................................. 35 4.6 Maintenance Policies ................................................................................................................. 36 4.7 Hawker Policies .......................................................................................................................... 39 4.8 Education and Celebrations ...................................................................................................... 41 4.9 Pedestrian‐First Policies and Laws ............................................................................................ 42

5 Implementing the Recommended Actions ..................................................................................... 43 5.1 Recommendations and Responsibilities ................................................................................... 43 5.2 Political Mapping ....................................................................................................................... 45 5.3 Processes .................................................................................................................................... 46

6 Proposed Pilot Projects .................................................................................................................... 48 6.1 Uttara Pilot Project .................................................................................................................... 48

6.1.1 Site Selection ........................................................................................................................... 48 6.1.2 Pilot Project Design .................................................................................................................. 51 6.1.3 Pilot Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 53 6.1.4 Pilot Project Design Recommendations .................................................................................. 54 6.1.5 Implementation of the Pilot Project ....................................................................................... 64


Page ii

6.2 Gazipur Pilot Project .................................................................................................................. 65 6.2.1 Site Selection ........................................................................................................................... 65 6.2.2 Pilot Project Design ................................................................................................................. 65 6.2.3 Pilot Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 66 6.2.4 Pilot Project Design Recommendations .................................................................................. 67 6.2.5 Implementation of the Pilot Project ....................................................................................... 69

6.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 70

7 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 71

References ................................................................................................................................................. 73

Appendices Appendix 1: Summary and Analysis of References to Pedestrians in Dhaka’s Existing Transport Plans Appendix 2: Methodology and Results – Observation Survey Appendix 3: Methodology and Results – Perception Survey Appendix 4: Methodology and Results – Focus Groups Appendix 5: Draft Rights‐based Pedestrian Charter for Bangladesh Appendix 6: Improving the Situation for Pedestrians: 3D (Density, Diversity, and Design) Appendix 7: Government of India National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 Appendix 8: Government of India Model Street Vendors Bill‐2009 Appendix 9: Proposed Pilot Study Maps (Larger Scale) Appendix 10: The Importance of Walking

List of Tables

Table 1: Overview of issues addressed, research findings, and recommendations ................................ ix Table 2: Overview of TORs and report ........................................................................................................ 2 Table 3: Agencies responsible for transportation and urban planning in Dhaka ..................................... 5 Table 4: Results of previous pedestrian studies ......................................................................................... 8 Table 5: Research methods and parameters .............................................................................................. 9 Table 6: Transport‐related plans and key issues raised ............................................................................ 21 Table 7: Summary results of stakeholder and advocacy meetings ......................................................... 24 Table 8: BRT Walkability Strategy recommendations and responsibilities ............................................ 26 Table 9: Recommendations and responsibilities (details) ....................................................................... 43 Table 10: Uttara pilot design recommendations ...................................................................................... 54 Table 11: Proposed breakdown of street space, Shahajalal Avenue ....................................................... 57 Table 12: Gazipur pilot design recommendations .................................................................................... 67

List of Graphs, Figures, and Maps

Figure 1: Walkable communities are livable communities ......................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Shared road space makes a community more walkable and cleaner ........................................ 5 Figure 3: In Dhaka, pedestrians must compete with cars for mobility space ........................................... 7 Figure 4: Most trips in the DMA are by foot ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Overview map of study area ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 6: Observation surveyor at work ................................................................................................... 10 Figure 7: Focus group, Uttara .................................................................................................................... 10


Page iii

Figure 8: Lack of footpath, Old Dhaka ....................................................................................................... 11 Figure 9: Map: Footpath availability .......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 10: Poor quality footpath, Mirpur ................................................................................................... 12 Figure 11: Map: Footpath quality ................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 12: Hindrances to walking, perception survey results ................................................................... 13 Figure 13: Dirty, obstructed footpath ....................................................................................................... 14 Figure 14: Percentage of obstructed footpaths, by type of obstruction ................................................ 14 Figure 15: Footpath obstructed by cars, Uttara ....................................................................................... 14 Figure 16: Footpath obstructed by construction rubbish, Mirpur ............................................................ 15 Figure 17: Percentage of segments with disordered footpaths, by type of disorder ............................. 15 Figure 18: Unsafe roadway in Dhaka ......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 19: Challenges using a footover bridge ......................................................................................... 16 Figure 20: Poor quality footpaths decrease pedestrian safety ................................................................ 17 Figure 21: Recommended improvements, perception survey ................................................................. 18 Figure 22: Footpath with non‐curvilinear curb cut, Gazipur .................................................................... 18 Figure 23: Vendors providing "eyes on the street", Gazipur ................................................................... 19 Figure 24: Dangerous crossing .................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 25: Stakeholder Meeting With Gazipur Poroshova Mayor, Councilors, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Engineer, June 2011 ............................................................................................................ 23 Figure 26: Supporting NMT is key to a successful walkability strategy .................................................. 27 Figure 27: Fiscal policies can be used to eliminate illegal parking on footpaths .................................... 29 Figure 28: Map: Illegal parking .................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 29: Footpath obstructed by vehicles, Uttara ................................................................................. 31 Figure 30: Mixed land uses increase pedestrian opportunities ............................................................... 32 Figure 31: Play spaces and parks provide opportunities for exercise and socialization ......................... 32 Figure 32: Roads with high and medium traffic volumes need safe pedestrian crossings at grade ..... 33 Figure 33: Children learning to ride bicycles on a closed street, Dhaka .................................................. 34 Figure 34: Map: Low volume of vehicular traffic and many pedestrians ................................................ 35 Figure 35: Footpath obstructed by vehicles, Uttara ................................................................................ 36 Figure 36: Footpaths made of dirt need to be upgraded ........................................................................ 36 Figure 37: Construction debris blocking footpath, Tongi ........................................................................ 37 Figure 38: Map: Footpaths in poor condition and with obstructions ..................................................... 37 Figure 39: Map: Footpaths with construction debris .............................................................................. 38 Figure 40: Map: Footpaths with a high degree of physical disorder ...................................................... 39 Figure 41: Hawkers providing "eyes on the street", Gazipur ................................................................... 40 Figure 42: New York City anti‐speeding billboard .................................................................................... 41 Figure 43: Putting pedestrians first ........................................................................................................... 42 Figure 44: Advocating for better walking conditions .............................................................................. 47 Figure 45: Map: Overview of BRT corridor and study areas .................................................................... 48 Figure 46: Map: Shahajalal Avenue, pilot site .......................................................................................... 50 Figure 47: Before shots of Shahjalal Avenue ............................................................................................ 50 Figure 48: Map: Footpath availability, Shahajalal Avenue ........................................................................ 51 Figure 49: Map: Footpath quality, Shahajalal Avenue ............................................................................. 52 Figure 50: Map: Footpath safety, Shahajalal Avenue .............................................................................. 52 Figure 51: Map: Proposed changes, Shahajalal Avenue ........................................................................... 55 Figure 52: Map: Travel infrastructure, Shahajalal Avenue ....................................................................... 56 Figure 53: Map: Main intersections, Shahjalal Avenue ............................................................................ 57


Page iv

Figure 54: Cross‐section of proposed major intersection ........................................................................ 58 Figure 55: Map: Minor intersections, Shahjalal Avenue ........................................................................... 58 Figure 56: Cross‐section of proposed minor intersection ....................................................................... 59 Figure 57: Raised intersection ................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 58: Waste bins (photo courtesy of Todd Mecklem) ..................................................................... 60 Figure 59: Bicycle parking (photo courtesy of David Shay) ..................................................................... 60 Figure 60: Bench (photo courtesy of www.outdoorfromchina.com ..................................................... 60 Figure 61: Awning ....................................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 63: Signpost (photo courtesy of Calori & Vanden‐Eynden Designs) ........................................... 61 Figure 62: Outdoor exercise equipment (photo courtesy of Ben Graville) ............................................ 61 Figure 64: Cross section, Western Market ............................................................................................... 62 Figure 65: Cross section, Eastern Market ................................................................................................. 63 Figure 66: Cross section, cemetery ........................................................................................................... 63 Figure 67: Gazipur pilot site ....................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 68: Before‐after artistic renderings of Gazipur pilot design ........................................................ 68


Page v

Acknowledgements

Many people and organizations have contributed to the design and completion of this study in various ways. Of those in Bangladesh, we would particularly like to express our thanks to:

Advocate Md. Azmat Ullah Khan, Mayor, Tongi Pourashava

Md. Ismail (Deputy Secretary), Chief Executive Officer, Tongi Pourashava

Md. Khairul Islam, Superintending Engineer, Tongi Pourashava

ABM Siddiqur Rahman Khan, Executive Engineer, Tongi Pourashava

Md. Moinul Islam, Town Planner, Tongi Pourashava

Abdul Karim, Mayor (In Charge), Gazipur Pourashava

Muhammad Mahfuzur Rahman, Chief Executive Officer, Gazipur Pourashava

Md. Akbar Hossain, Executive Engineer, Gazipur Pourashava

Engr. S.K. Amzad Hossain, Project Director, Secondary Towns Integrated Flood Protection Project (STIFPP‐2), Local Government Engineering Department (LGED)

Harunur Rashid Sikder, P.Eng. Municipal Infrastructure Specialist

Md. Abdullah Al Mamun, P.Eng, Deputy Project Director‐Third Shitalakhya Bridge Construction Project (Executive Engineer), Roads and Highways

Md. Anisur Rahman, Traffic Engineer and Project Director (CASE), Dhaka Transport Coordination Board

Mohammad Sirajul Islam, Chief Town Planner, Dhaka City Corporation

M.A. Salam (Deputy Secretary), Zonal Executive Officer, Zone‐10 (Uttara), Dhaka City Corporation

Kazi Hazrat Ali, Ward Commissioner (17 No.), Dhaka City Corporation

Suman Kumar Mitra, Assistant Professor, Urban and Regional Planning Department, BUET

Muhammad Jasim, MSC in Geography and Environment, Jagannath University

Gazipur Porashava

Tongi Pourashava

Dhaka City Corporation, Zone‐10 (Uttara)

M. Khaliquzzaman, Environmental Scientist (Consultant), The World Bank

Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmad, Transport Specialist, The World Bank

Staff at WBB Trust

Of those outside Bangladesh, we would like to acknowledge the special support from and contributions by:

Jitendra (Jitu) Shah, Advisor, Office of the Director General, Regional and Sustainable Development Department, Asian Development Bank (ADB)

David Margonsztern, Urban Development Specialist (Transport), Urban Development and Water Division, South Asia Department, Asian Development Bank (ADB)

Ron H. Slangen, Urban Development Specialist, Urban Development and Water Division, South Asia Department, Asian Development Bank (ADB)

Sergi Tió, Advanced Logistics Group, Barcelona, Madrid

Camilla Richter‐Friis van Deurs, Architect MAA/ Urban Designer/ Project Manager, GEHL ARCHITECTS ApS

Staff at the HealthBridge Foundation of Canada


Page vi

The project team was comprised of the following people:

Team Leader: Debra Efroymson, Regional Director, HealthBridge

Technical Advisers:

Saifuddin Ahmed, Executive Director, WBB Trust

Kristie Daniel, Program Manager, Livable Cities, HealthBridge

Research Team:

Syed Mahbubul Alam, Director, Programming and Planning, WBB Trust

Gaous Pearee Mukti, Director, Administration, WBB Trust

Aminul Islam, Project Coordinator, WBB Trust

Maruf Hossain Rahman, National Advocacy Officer, WBB Trust

Najnin Kabir, Senior Project Officer, WBB Trust

Ziaur Rahman, Project Officer, WBB Trust

Brendan Azim Rahman, Intern, HealthBridge and student, Urban Planning, McGill University

Field Researchers:

Md. Abu Hanif, Student, Urban and Regional Planning (URP), Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Md. Rifat Hossain, Student, Urban and Regional Planning (URP), Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Neaz Rassel Shaikh, Student, Urban and Regional Planning (URP), Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Arnab Thakur Roni, Student, Urban and Regional Planning (URP), Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Syed Rezwanul Islam, Student, Urban and Regional Planning (URP), Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Fuad Hasan Ovi, Student, Urban and Regional Planning (URP), Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Md. Sakib Hossain, Student, Department of Architecture, University of Asia Pacific (UAP)

Azher‐ul‐Islam, Student, Department of Architecture, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Nazmul Ahmed, Student, Department of Architecture, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Muhammad Abu Zobayer, Student, Department of Architecture, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Ashiq Mahmud, Student, Civil Engineering Department, University of Asia Pacific (UAP)

Md. Jashim Uddin, Student, Urban and Regional Planning (URP), Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Data Entry: Shamsia Akther Jenny, Sharmin Akther Rini

Design Team: Brendan Azim Rahman, Prodip Biswas Md. Robiul Islam, Sagor Das

Report Editing, Layout, and Formatting: Lori Jones, Director (Special Projects), HealthBridge


Page vii

List of Acronyms

ADB: Asian Development Bank

BR: Bangladesh Railways

BRT: Bus Rapid Transit

BRTA: Bangladesh Road Transport Authority

BRTC: Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation

BUET: Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology

DAP: Detailed Area Plan

DCC: Dhaka City Corporation

DITS: Dhaka Integrated Transport Study

DMA: Dhaka Metropolitan Authority

DMDP: Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan

DMP: Dhaka Metropolitan Police

DTCB: Dhaka Transport Coordination Board

DUTP: Dhaka Urban Transport Plan

LGED: Local Government Engineering Division

LGRD: Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development

NGO: Non‐governmental Organization

NMT: Non‐motorized Transport

RAJUK: Capital Development Authority

RHD: Roads and Highways Department

STP: Strategic Transport Plan

UAP: University of Asia Pacific

WASA: Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority

WBB: Work for a Better Bangladesh Trust


Ensuring that Dhaka’s Transportation Infrastructure is Pedestrian‐Friendly Page viii

Executive Summary The vast majority of trips in Dhaka are done by foot, rickshaw, or public bus. To ensure that ADB’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor not only improves the growing traffic problems in Dhaka but also addresses the needs of pedestrians, this report presents a BRT Walkability Strategy which provides policy and infrastructure recommendations aimed at creating an environment in which walking is an appealing, safe, and convenient experience for people along the BRT corridor. The Strategy can be used as a model for other neighbourhoods in Dhaka and for other cities throughout Bangladesh, to assist decision‐makers as they strive to create safer and more convenient pedestrian‐friendly transportation options. The recommendations included in the Strategy are based on the results of primary and desk‐top research, as well as extensive discussions with policy‐makers and citizens.

An analysis of transport policy documents, including the Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP), the Dhaka Integrated Transport Study (DITS), the Dhaka Urban Transport Plan (DUTP) and the Strategic Transport Plan (STP), demonstrated that while 13 agencies within five Ministries have responsibilities which impact on the pedestrian environment in Dhaka, no single body exists to look after the situation of pedestrians. There is also little coordination between and among those responsible for urban planning and those responsible for transport planning. Although many existing policy documents make reference to the need to accommodate pedestrians, few have yet to put suggestions into action.

By 2008‐09, pedestrians accounted for 86% of road fatalities. An observational study was conducted of 1,055 road segments in Uttara, Gazipur, and Tongi – areas located directly along the proposed BRT Line – and in Mirpur and Old Dhaka – areas which would be served by a proposed World Bank‐funded BRT line to be connected to the airport/Gazipur corridor. The study revealed that almost half of the observed streets had no footpaths. Where there were footpaths, more than half were made of dirt, 85% were obstructed, and less than one‐fifth were of sufficiently good quality to be given a “good rating.” Pedestrians also face significant challenges in crossing streets. Very few service amenities existed for pedestrians in the observed segments, and virtually all of the roads observed during the study were inhospitable for people living with disabilities. Surveys with 1,850 pedestrians and focus group discussions with garment workers and mothers of young children corroborated the findings of the observational study, highlighting that in spite of the desire or need to walk from one destination to another, few people in Dhaka are able to do so safely or conveniently. A survey with 64 hawkers also highlighted the mostly unrecognized contribution of these people to the city’s economic vitality and safety.

The key policy‐related recommendations made as a result of the research results include:

Create a Non‐Motorized Transportation Cell (NMT Cell)

Develop Methods for evaluating pedestrian impacts

Develop staff training programs (transportation & urban planning)

Develop a Transportation Equity Analysis

Develop fiscal policies related to road pricing, vehicles taxes etc

Develop land use policies – no parking on ground floor

Prohibit construction rubbish

Ensure playgrounds in all new development


Ensuring that Dhaka’s Transportation Infrastructure is Pedestrian‐Friendly Page ix

Build footpaths on all roads with high and medium volume of motorized traffic

Build safe pedestrian crossings

Upgrade dirt and sand footpaths

Develop a Family‐friendly streets project

Establish Parking controls (space and fines)

Parking charges

Develop a maintenance schedule

Develop a street furniture program

Develop a Hawker support and management policy

Organize Car‐free Days

Organize a driver education campaign

Develop a Pedestrian Charter of Rights

Table 1 provides an overview of the specific issues addressed in the primary research, the research findings, and issue‐specific recommendations that are made on the basis of those findings. More detailed information about each issue, finding, and recommendation is found in the body of the report and the appendices. The recommendations have also been integrated into two proposed pilot projects in Uttara and Gazipur which, if implemented, will showcase the design upgrades that can be made in Dhaka to improve the pedestrian‐environment while still supporting other modes of transportation.

Table 1: Overview of issues addressed, research findings, and recommendations

Issue Finding (observation study)

Finding (perception survey /FGD)

Recommendation

Road construction

6.5% of roads studied were under construction

n/a Maintenance of decent conditions for walking are important during construction (provide walkways, signs).

Changes to the pedestrian environment should be included in all road construction projects.

Traffic volume Low traffic volume: 54%

Medium traffic volume: 22%

High traffic volume: 15%

No road present: 9%

n/a Prioritize improvements to footpath availability on all high and medium traffic volume roads.

Land use mix Most segments had little (48%) or no (36%) land use mix

n/a Land use mix should be increased, as it makes walking a more viable mode of transport

Land use specifics – type of land use

Residences: 85% Shops: 58% Offices: 24%

Desired destination is too far to walk: 38%

Want to walk to entertainment: 21%

As people need more than a place to live, increased neighbourhood diversity, especially neglected aspects like parks/playgrounds,


Ensuring that Dhaka’s Transportation Infrastructure is Pedestrian‐Friendly Page x



Recommendation

Schools: 17% Parks/playgrounds: 2% Entertainment: 1%

Want to walk to park: 16%

should be prioritized

Footpath availability

Both sides of street: 37% One side of street: 19%

No footpath: 44%

39% of respondents noted that they could not walk where they wanted to because there was no footpath

All high volume roads should have footpaths on both sides of the road.

All medium volume traffic roads should have a footpath on at least one side of the road

Footpath composition and quality

Dirt & sand: 55% Footpath smooth: 18%

Footpath condition fair or poor (broken/ unsmooth): 82%

“The worst/bad”: 79%

OK: 17%

Good: 4% Top request of garment workers (62%): wider/more level footpaths; muddy footpaths a big complaint

Those footpaths currently made of dirt and sand should be upgraded to bricks or concrete

Footpaths should be made smoother and more level

Footpath obstructions

Free of obstruction: 15% Few obstructions: 36% Some obstructions: 34%

Many obstructions: 16%

Needed to leave footpath at least once due to obstructions: 65% of segments

31% of those surveyed had been injured walking in the last month

It is not enough to have footpaths; they must be kept free of obstructions or people will not be able to walk. This is a major area of concern.

Footpath obstructions, type

Car exit/entry cuts: 52% Shop goods: 42% Cars/motorbike: 39%

Rubbish: 39% Pillars/cables: 25% Vendors: 22% Trash cans: 16% Trees: 14% Trucks: 8%

53% of respondents said that it is a priority to remove obstructions from footpaths

Policies to prevent these sorts of obstructions on footpaths are needed to be established and enforced, involving fines to violators.

Vendors are a minor source of obstruction and, unlike other forms, actually make a positive contribution; they should not be targeted for removal.

Footpath disorder, quantity

Much disorder: 34%

Some disorder: 51%

Little disorder: 15% 58% of respondents mentioned cleaner footpaths as a priority concern

Regular cleaning of footpaths is needed

Footpath disorder, types

Cigarette/bidi butts: 92% Cans/bottles: 58% Garbage: 58% Graffiti: 28% Urine smell: 16%

Broken glass: 16%


Ensuring that Dhaka’s Transportation Infrastructure is Pedestrian‐Friendly Page xi



Recommendation

Street crossing barriers

Mixed traffic: 46%

High median: 7%

More than 2 lanes of traffic: 4%

Barbed wire: 3%

Trees/plantings: 3%

More and safer crossings noted as a high priority by 42% and 33% of respondents, respectively.

48% of respondents feared crossing the road Foot‐over bridges are a serious

obstacle to pedestrian movement and are unlikely to improve traffic flow. Instead, the number of zebra crossings should be increased, with attention to enforcement.

Street crossing facilities

Special lights: 16% Wheelchair accessible: 4%

Curb cuts (to facilitate crossing): 3%

Cars obey the laws or yield to pedestrians: 1.3%

Police enforcement: 1%

Signs: 0.6% Foot overbridge or underpass: 0.2%

Zebra crossing: 0.1% No crossing safety: 97%

Desires of perception survey respondents

Better police enforcement: 30%

Foot over‐bridges: 28% Zebra crossings: 26% Foot‐over bridges mentioned as a serious obstacle for women and the elderly

Aggressive drivers

Aggressive drivers who were speeding or not giving pedestrians the right of way: 51% of roads

Cars/motorbikes and buses were a major source of fear for pedestrians: 58% and 73%, respectively

Buses should run in dedicated lanes only.

City should consider establishing and enforcing speed limits

Traffic calming No traffic calming: 93%

Lane width restriction: 16%

Speed humps: 5.5%

Signs: 1% Traffic signals: 0.4% Roundabout: 0.2%

Top priority of surveyed pedestrians is reducing and slowing traffic: 79%

Reducing speed is one of the most powerful instruments to reduce road trauma and measures to do so should be implemented. investments made to calm traffic are considered highly cost effective and would prove very popular

Service amenities

Tree shade: 38% Vendors: 20% Seating: 1.4% Trash bins: 0.9% Toilet: 0.1% No service amenities (except trees): 79%

n/a Service amenities are lacking and need to be increased.

Lighting Lighting from surrounding buildings: 73%

Road‐oriented: 67%

Lack of adequate lighting causes pedestrians to be afraid of being robbed

Adequate lighting prevents both crime and injury. Pedestrian‐oriented lighting should be increased.


Ensuring that Dhaka’s Transportation Infrastructure is Pedestrian‐Friendly Page xii



Recommendation

Pedestrian‐oriented: 3% None: 8%

by someone with a weapon: 50%

Sexual harassment was identified as a serious issue by FGD participants. This is a serious issue for them; as a result, many avoided walking with their daughters. Garment factory workers felt fear as a result of harassment, and they felt powerless to protest against unwanted touching.

Vehicle parking Cars and motorbikes illegally parked: 45% of roads

Trucks illegally parked: 11%

Legal, on‐street parking for cars/motorbikes: 4%

n/a Vehicles parked on the road potentially provide a buffer between pedestrians and moving traffic, creating both safety and comfort. Provision for paid parking on some streets could improve pedestrian safety.

Illegal parking should be monitored and fines enforced

An improved environment for pedestrians would, in addition to being a precondition for making the BRT feasible, generate a broader positive change – not only terms in enabling people to reach their destinations safely, affordably and conveniently, but also in terms of improving traffic flow and creating a more congenial living environment. Current challenges to the creation of a pedestrian‐friendly environment include a weak policy framework, an unsupportive infrastructure, and a transportation environment that is more focused on cars than on people. There is, however, tremendous opportunity for Dhaka’s residents to demand improved pedestrian conditions and for the city’s decision‐makers to show real leadership and make investments in pedestrian‐friendly environments. This leadership is already being shown in some areas, as evidenced by the support given to the proposed pilot projects.

Pedestrians are of vital importance to a city and yet face many obstacles to their safe, easy and convenient movement. Those problems cannot be adequately addressed without first giving pedestrians priority within urban and transport planning. Until this happens, their situation will not improve. The BRT Walkability Strategy provides the framework within which a pedestrian‐friendly city that values walking can be created. The strategy includes drafting, passing, and implementing a pedestrian‐first policy that recognizes the importance of walking to the city, to health, to economics, and to the environment.


Ensuring that Dhaka’s Transportation Infrastructure is Pedestrian‐Friendly Page 1

1 Introduction To improve the growing traffic problems in Dhaka, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is currently supporting the development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor that will run between the airport and Gazipur. It is anticipated that the BRT will carry up to 100,000 passengers daily along the 20‐kilometre corridor.

In addition to easing traffic congestion, the needs of pedestrians must be addressed if the BRT is to create a positive and efficient public transit experience. Walking is a basic form of mobility in Dhaka and is an important component of almost every journey taken. When the BRT is fully operational, passengers will need to walk to and from the stations safely and comfortably.

The BRT Walkability Strategy provides policy and infrastructure recommendations aimed at creating an environment in which walking is an appealing, safe, and convenient experience for people along the BRT corridor. The BRT Walkability Strategy can be used as a model for other neighbourhoods in Dhaka, as well as for other cities throughout Bangladesh, to assist decision‐makers as they strive to create safer and more convenient pedestrian‐friendly transportation options.

The BRT Walkability Strategy builds on the results of primary and desk‐top research, as well as extensive discussions with both policy‐makers and citizens. A multi‐pronged observation and perception study was designed both to generate a clearer picture of the actual and perceived problems faced by pedestrians in Dhaka and to identify and document the specific challenges that they confront on a regular basis. In May and June 2011, direct personal observations of pedestrian environments were conducted in Uttara, Gazipur, and Tongi – areas located directly along the proposed BRT Line. Observations were also made in Mirpur and Old Dhaka, as these areas would be served by a proposed World Bank‐funded BRT line which will ultimately be connected to the airport/Gazipur corridor. A total of 1,055 road segments were observed and photographed to provide information about the current state of the walking environment along the corridor and in surrounding areas.

The observational study was complemented by a perception study undertaken concurrently that included a survey of a random sample of 1,850 people, a series of surveys among 64 hawkers, and two focus groups. The perception survey was conducted among residents of and visitors to various locations in Uttara, Tongi, Gazipur, Mirpur, and Old Dhaka who were asked about how they felt about current street and walking conditions. In addition to complementing the observations made by the research team, these interviews were important to gauge people’s perception of their walking experiences. The focus groups, held with mothers of school aged‐children and female garment workers, explored some of the perceived problems in more depth, particularly those related to perceptions of safety when walking. The hawker survey focused on identifying the priorities of these vendors, in terms of facilities and supports, which could improve both their immediate working environment and the broader pedestrian environment.

An analysis of transport policy documents was also carried out, including the Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP), the Dhaka Integrated Transport Study (DITS), the Dhaka Urban Transport Plan (DUTP) and the Strategic Transport Plan (STP). The purpose of this review was to identify sections in the existing plans that addressed pedestrians, to determine who is responsible for which aspects of the pedestrian environment, to flag potential institutional and coordination barriers to pedestrian safety, and to acknowledge key stakeholders who must be involved in improving the pedestrian environment. Further Information was garnered from a series of workshops and information sessions held with local‐policy makers and stakeholders.



The BRT Walkability Strategy reflects the results of the research and provides plans for possible pilot projects in Uttara and Gazipur which could illustrate the types of improvements that could realistically be made in Dhaka. These pilot projects address two road segments that connect to the BRT and redesign them to be supportive of all mobility modes to create a safe, clean, and comfortable pedestrian experience. The Strategy also highlights broad policies and actions that need to be taken to create more pedestrian‐friendly cities generally. These policies and actions build on existing best‐practices. Finally, an implementation plan is suggested that explains both the next steps and who needs to be involved in the development of pedestrian‐friendly areas.

Table 2 provides an overview of the study’s terms of reference, and where the corresponding information can be found in this report.

Table 2: Overview of TORs and report

Task in TOR Where addressed in report 1. Policies and institutional arrangements for pedestrians (pedestrian‐first policy) and vendors/hawkers. These would be based on international best practice but modified to suit the Dhaka/Bangladesh situation. Institutional analysis for pedestrian mobility and safety that includes:

Primarily Sections 3, 4, and 5, and Appendices 5‐7.

Hawkers specifically addressed in Section 4.7 and Appendices 4 and 7.

Draft pedestrian policy in Appendix 5.

1.1 Reference the sections on pedestrians in the relevant plans as a summary and budget allocation – who is responsible for new and upkeep of sidewalks, etc.

Section 3.3 and Appendix 1

1.2 Who is legally responsible for what aspects and who is supposed to do what?

Sections 2.3 and 3.3

1.3 What are the major institutional and coordination reasons for lack of actions to improve pedestrian access and safety?

Sections 2.3 and 3.3

1.4 What are considered as “Best practice institutional models” in Asia which Dhaka may consider adopting?

Sections 4.1 and 4.7; Appendices 6 and 7

1.5 Political mapping/advocacy plan for passage and implementation of policies, including plans for rules and

regulations and a feasible implementation plan. This would include a charting of the key stakeholders who need to be

involved to gain passage of the policies and their implementation, and ways of gaining support.

Section 5.2; Appendix 5

1.6 Establishment of institutional capacity and training needs for on‐going pedestrian planning and maintenance

Section 4.1

2. Data Collection and Analysis. Gather information, conduct surveys and evaluate current pedestrian conditions along the proposed BRT corridor and in other key areas in Dhaka. Review past projects and programs for lessons learned.

Section 3 and Appendices 2, 3, and 4

2.1 This would involve selecting a number of roads in low‐income areas including on the planned BRT corridor feeder

roads, documenting the difficulties faced by pedestrians, and showing how those difficulties could be overcome.

Section 3.2; recommendations in Section 4; methods and results details in Appendices 2, 3, and 4

2.2 Could include such methods as pedestrian counts; inventory of the current situation; interviews with pedestrian,

vendors, traffic police, shopkeepers etc.; observation; photography (still and video); and modeling of potential

changes.

Section 3.2 and Appendices 2, 3, and 4

Recommendations in Section 4, modeling in Section 6.

Public toilets and vendor inventory and video photography not completed due to limited time and budget. Suggest that they be included in future studies.



Task in TOR Where addressed in report 2.3 Conduct origination‐destination survey of pedestrians

along the BRT corridors and feeder roads. N/A ‐ This has already been completed by other consultants

2.4 Accident data for vulnerable road users Section 3.2.4

2.5 Conduct “walkability surveys” along the BRT corridors and feeder roads to establish a baseline ‐ see CAI‐Asia link for

details ‐ www.cleanairinitiative.org

Section 3 We chose to conduct the research using neighbourhood‐level surveys rather than city‐wide surveys. This more closely aligned with the goals and objectives of this project.

2.6 Based on information gathered on space allocated for sidewalks vs utilization, carry out economic and utilization

analysis of this “prime real estate”. This will guide discussion on how to improve current situation and possible role of

private sector.

Included primarily in discussion of recommendations related to Hawkers, sections 4.6 and 4.7

We were unable to address this issue in full given limited resources. However, wasted space is addressed in terms of prevalence of car parking, motorcycles, and other obstacles on footpaths.

3. Pilot project(s) Plans. Based on the data and information collected as well as institutional analysis, identify ways to improve pedestrian access and safety along the BRT corridor and other key selected areas in Dhaka, as possible demonstration projects. Its implementation would involve collaboration with local residents, vendors, shopkeepers’ traffic police, etc.

Section 6 and Appendix 9.

3.1 Design at least two pilot projects to improve the situation for the poorest of the poor ‐ one along the planned BRT

corridor and one elsewhere in Dhaka.

Section 6

3.2 The pilot projects design would depend on the above findings but could include Construction of new sidewalks, adding benches and shade/shelter, installing public toilets (for women and men), and installing zebra crossings and

pedestrian signage/ signals for street crossings., improving and/or adding drainage, paving, elimination of obstructions,

ease linkage to other modes of transportation, etc.

Section 6

Design includes sidewalks, street furniture, public toilets, raised intersections, signage, drainage, trees, vendor zones, car parking, rickshaw and bike parking, lighting, information kiosks.

3.3 Provision of safety and amenities Section 6

3.4 Install adequate lighting, police presence. Section 6

Presence of people noted as a better guarantor of safety than police presence

3.5 Ensure tree / arcade coverage for shade and dryness. Section 6

3.6 Provision of adequate public toilets as oppose to current. Section 6

3.7 Ensure safety measures for disabled, pregnant women, and young children (guard rails, ramps, etc.).

Issue discussed in 3.2.5; also included in Section 6

3.8 Licensing schemes or special areas for hawkers and vendors.

Sections 4.7 and 6

3.9 Suggest ways to align this to a policy (or institution) and budget item to ensure these are maintained and managed once made available. It is more the lack of management as

opposed to the facilities themselves that is the major barrier to good access.

Section 6

3.10 Identify possible roles of private sector and other stakeholders for sustainability.

Addressed throughout the report



2 The Importance of Including a Walkability Strategy in Dhaka’s Transportation Planning

“A pedestrian is a person moving from place to place, either by foot or by using an assistive mobility device. Pedestrians include residents and visitors of all ages and abilities.” (Proposed Dhaka Pedestrian Charter).

The BRT Walkability Strategy envisions a city in which citizens and visitors participate in a culture of walking. It envisions a city in which streets, parks, public spaces, and neighbourhoods are accessible, secure, vibrant, and enjoyable so that people choose to walk more often. The importance of walking and of pedestrians cannot be overrated: walking does not harm the physical environment, it is free, it requires little infrastructure, it can save time, and it requires no fuel.1 In addition to its focus on walking, the BRT Walkability Strategy also recognizes that public transit, cycling, rickshaws, and other sustainable modes of travel complement walking and are important parts of a sustainable, accessible transportation network.

What makes the Walkability Strategy necessary?

2.1 Walkable Communities are Livable Communities

As Dhaka’s commercial streets depend on high levels of foot traffic, designing communities that facilitate more people walking will benefit local businesses. In addition, creating a walkable community around the BRT corridor will contribute to the success of public transit more generally, as most transit trips begin and end with walking. Finally, supporting and building pedestrian‐friendly environments will encourage more people to choose walking as a regular mode of travel, creating lively streets and thus making the city more livable.

1 A longer discussion of the importance of walking is found in Appendix 10.

Figure 1: Walkable communities are livable communities



2.2 The Environment

The transportation sector, and the necessary infrastructure to support it, can create significant environmental problems when its primary focus is on moving private automobiles, rather than on moving people. The transportation sector is known to be one of the most important sources of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. An increasing number of private vehicles on the roads create additional noise pollution, which has been demonstrated to affect mental health and learning abilities in children. Creating a transportation system focused on automobiles requires significant space for both road capacity and origin and destination parking. Space allocated to cars and motorbikes means less space is available for other, more people‐friendly venues such as parks, schools, and community centres.

One of the best strategies for dealing with the transportation sector’s environmental impacts is to reduce the vehicle kilometres travelled. This can be done by both encouraging active transportation and by building communities that reduce the distances people must travel between homes and jobs, homes and schools, and homes and services. Active forms of travel such as walking and cycling do not emit air pollutants, require significantly less space, and do not generate the level of noise that vehicles produce. Building more walkable communities will contribute significantly to reducing the air pollutants that contribute to poor air quality, climate change, and poor quality of life.

2.3 Better Coordination

Transport and urban planning in Dhaka and the surrounding areas is the responsibility of many separate departments, agencies, and international organizations – many of which do not naturally work together. Devising and implementing a BRT Walkability Strategy that engages all of these organizations would go a long way to encouraging and facilitating coordination. Table 3 provides information about the key agencies responsible for various aspects of transport and urban planning.

Table 3: Agencies responsible for transportation and urban planning in Dhaka2

Organization Responsibilities

Ministry of Communication Responsible for ensuring good travel conditions throughout the country. Ministry typically emphasizes roads, highways, and motorized vehicles.

Roads and Highways Department (RHD)

Builds and maintains national, regional, and zilla roads and bridge networks throughout the country.

Bangladesh Railways (BR) Oversees railway development, operation, and maintenance.

Dhaka Transportation Coordination Board (DTCB)

Formulates strategic transport planning and urban transport policy. Coordinates transport‐related activities in the DMA (Dhaka Metropolitan

2 Information collated from Ahmed 2008 and DevCon 2009.

Figure 2: Shared road space makes acommunity more walkable and cleaner



Organization Responsibilities

Area). Develops public transport policies and guidelines. Oversees traffic management planning and monitoring. Develops traffic safety initiatives.

Bangladesh Road Transportation Authority

(BRTA)

Oversees constitution and appointment of each Regional Transport Committee. Conducts pre‐registration and annual vehicle fitness tests. Certifies compliance to construction rules and roadworthiness.

Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation (BRTC)

Responsible for the operation of bus and truck fleets and driver training

Ministry of Housing and Public Works

Builds and maintains important national buildings, such as the DC office, Circuit house, jails, Thana, hospitals, and other government buildings.

Capital Development Authority (RAJUK)

Responsible for overseeing and granting permission for urban land use, including for the building of apartments, and for developing and implementing the city’s Structure Plan.

Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co‐operatives (LGRD)

Strengthens local government systems and institutions and implements activities for social, economic and infrastructure development, including those related to water supply, sanitation and sewerage facilities, upazila, municipality, union, and village roads (bridges/culverts), and bazaars.

Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) Creates and maintains roads and road transport infrastructure. Also responsible for a wide range of urban development planning, including sewage, sanitation, bazaars, and community centres. Keeps urban footpaths clean, provides street lights, and maintains waste management. DCC maintains about 1300 km of roadways, including nearly all of Dhaka’s arterial roads, as well as three intercity / interchange bus terminals and the main bus terminal at Fulbaria for buses travelling on suburban routes).

Pourashava (local government)

In district and sub‐district towns and cities, the pourashava plays a role similar to that of the City Corporation.

Local Government Engineering Division (LGED)

Constructs small roads for local areas.

Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (WASA)

Provides water and sewerage services, including cutting roads and footpaths.

Home Ministry Creates safe human environments by ensuring peace and security.

Dhaka Metropolitan Police Influences public transport policy, planning, and on‐street enforcement activities. Plays a dominant role in regulating public transport.

T & T and Electricity Providers Provides electricity, telephone, and telegram services, which involves cutting roads and footpaths and hanging cables.

Ministry of Environment and Forests

Oversees all environmental matters in the country.

Directorate of Environment (DoE)

Responsible for improving air quality in the city, including building footpaths and foot over‐bridges.

Although the Mayor of the Dhaka City Corporation is also the Chairman of the Dhaka Transportation Coordination Board (DTCB), which was intended to ensure that transport planning and infrastructure development was harmonized at the highest level of the city’s governance (DevCon 2009), this



coordination has not really occurred. Likewise, although the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) of DTCB consists of a full‐time Project Director and representatives from the five relevant government organizations (DTCB, DCC, RAJUK, DMP and BRTA), attempts to bring all of the organizations together to work collaboratively have yet to foster real coordination between them (Ahmed 2008). There is a lack of coordination between and among those responsible for urban planning and those responsible for transport planning. No single body exists to look after the situation of pedestrians, despite their having the highest modal share in Dhaka.

According to Ahmed (2008), “The problems relating to the transportation system in Dhaka city have been increasing for decades and can be attributed to the lack of co‐ordination among the agencies involved in transportation: the lack of enforcement in traffic rules, poor traffic management and safety regulations, lack of a functional road classification system, and poor institutional efficiency of the organizations responsible for the transportation system. ... neither the recommendations of [various government studies including DMDP] nor the intended integration of transport and land use planning were implemented.” He goes on to note that within the DTCB, land use planning is separated from transportation planning. “Currently, traffic control and transport management are also being performed by different organizations such as DCC, DMP, and BRTA in an un‐coordinated manner. There is no central database for traffic, road incidents etc. which can be shared with other concerned agencies. ... For better coordination of such activities, there should be a focal organization, which will be provided with all the relevant information and will have general control over transport management and control together with transportation and land use planning.”

In addition to the lack of coordination among agencies are the lack of a central database for traffic, road incidents, pedestrian movements, and the condition of footpaths. The BRT Walkability Strategy attempts to overcome this problem by linking these organizations and their functions through a single integrated plan that reflects the needs of pedestrians in the BRT corridors.

2.1 Health

People are not healthy if they are not active. Low levels of physical activity contribute to increased levels of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic health problems. Each of these problems is rapidly increasing in Bangladesh, as opportunities for physical activity are decreasing. One of the easiest ways to be active is through purposive physical activity: trips made on foot would reduce the risk of NCDs and their resulting high social and economic costs. International research shows that people who live in walkable communities walk more often. Creating a walkability strategy for Dhaka’s BRT corridor has the potential to increase both the desirability and the possibility of walking for those living in, working in, or visiting the area.

Although available data on road injuries are not consistent, the data as a whole point to some important issues. In Dhaka and throughout Bangladesh more broadly, pedestrians are the main victims of road fatalities. The Bangladesh Health and Injury Survey estimated there were approximately 13,200 reported road traffic deaths and 403,000 road traffic injuries in 2006 alone. Of those deaths, 54% were pedestrians; 20% of pedestrian accidents occur while people are waiting for a bus and 12% while people are walking along the roadway (Khan et al. 2005).This trend is expected to increase as more and more vehicles are added to the road. A walkability strategy for the BRT corridor is therefore crucial if the city’s significant pedestrian safety issues are to be adequately addressed.

Figure 3: In Dhaka, pedestrians mustcompete with cars for mobility space



3 The Current Transport Situation in Dhaka

3.1 Walking in Dhaka

The vast majority of trips in Dhaka are done by foot, rickshaw, or public bus. Within the Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) area, 38.7% of trips are made by rickshaw, 28.5% by public bus, and 19% by foot. In the greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area (DMA) excluding the DCC itself, walking is the main form of transport, accounting for 37.2% of trips, followed by rickshaws (28.5%) and public bus (24.4%). In both

areas, the percentage of trips taken by private car is very low: 5.2% in DCC and 3.8% in DMA.3

Those modal share numbers are not currently reflected in transportation‐related planning and budget allocation. Far more can be done to improve conditions for these travel modes – not only because they are space‐efficient, low‐ or non‐polluting, and suitable for those of different incomes and physical abilities, but also because they are the main mode of transport for the majority of the city’s residents. Although financing schemes cannot, of course, depend entirely on modal share, this study’s research

results highlight the importance of considering the most common forms of transport when determining how to allocate funds and what infrastructure should be prioritized.

3.2 Study of Dhaka’s Pedestrian Environment

Hoque et al. (2008) and DevCon (2009) have previously studied the issues and challenges faced by pedestrians walking in Dhaka. The key issues raised by these two studies are noted in Table 4.

Table 4: Results of previous pedestrian studies

Source Key findings

Hoque et al. , 2008

Discontinuity of walkway (dips at building entrances for cars) and poor pavement design

Use of low quality construction materials, exacerbating walking during the rainy season

Use of the footpath as a toilet

Physical conditions and poor visibility of zebra crossings

Haphazard roadside stoppages by buses due to the lack of designated places

Medians that are not usable by pedestrians

Planting of trees on medians (which block visibility)

Footpath obstruction by vendors, vehicle parking, garages, dustbins, and building waste

DevCon 2009

Holes in the footpaths and surface irregularities, making waking dangerous

Lack of traffic signals

Cars parked on the roadside block one or sometimes two lanes

Lack of significant efforts to mitigate the effects of roadside activities

3 Data taken from Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB), Ministry of Communications (MOC), Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Preparatory Survey Report on Dhaka Urban Transport Network Development Study (DHUTS) in Bangladesh Final Report (Appendix Volume). JICA, March 2010.

Figure 4: Most trips in the DMA are by foot



To gain a better understanding of the problems faced by pedestrians in Dhaka and to identify and document the specific challenges that they confront on a regular basis, we conducted a multi‐pronged observation and perception study using a variety of methods. Table 5 provides an overview of the research study, while Figure 5 provides a map in which the study areas are highlighted.

Table 5: Research methods and parameters

Research Method Location Dates Parameters

Observation Study Uttara, Tongi, Gazipur, Mirpur, and Old Dhaka

9 May – 9 June 2011

1,055 road segments (section of roadway that occurs between intersections)

Combination and adaptation of Analytic Audit tool and PEDS

Still photographs and personal observations

Perception Survey Various locations in Uttara, Tongi, Gazipur, Mirpur, and Old Dhaka

20 May – 14 June 2011

Random sample of 1850 residents of and visitors

Focus Group Discussions Uttara

Uttara

5 July 2011 22 July 2011

8 mothers of school‐aged children

12 female garment workers between the ages of 25 and 45

Hawker Survey Uttara, Gazipur, Tongi, Mirpur, Old Dhaka

09, 12, 19 May 2011; 02, 07, 08, 09 June 2011

64 hawkers of tea, biscuits, betel leaves, and cigarettes

The development of the observation component was initially predicated on the Walkability in Asian Cities Field surveys used by the Clean Air Initiative.4 However, our research was intended to identify specific neighbourhood‐level issues and the Walkability in Asian Cities Field survey is intended to be used as a city‐wide survey tool. The level of analysis differs as a city‐wide survey is more general in nature and we wished to present a far more comprehensive picture. Thus, to more reliably assess

4 www.cleanairinitiative.org

Figure 5: Overview map of study area



existing road and walking conditions, we developed an observation analysis tool that represented a combination and adaptation of the Analytic Audit Tool with the PEDS.5 Using this tool, the project team conducted an analysis of road segments (the section of road between two intersections) in Uttara, Tongi, Gazipur, Mirpur, and Old Dhaka. Each of these five geographical areas was divided into smaller sections that were approximately 400m by 400m in size; each section was then further sub‐divided into segments, with each segment representing a section of roadway that occurs between intersections. In May and June 2011, a team of trained urban planning students from the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) analyzed 1,055 road segments.6 In each segment, the student volunteer completed one Observation Survey Form after walking the segment several times. Still photography was taken to document the current situation and to provide a baseline that could demonstrate what changes would be possible given the existing road conditions and space. Accident data for vulnerable road users was also collected.

These personal observations were supplemented by perception intercept surveys conducted with a random sample of 1,850 residents of and visitors to the same five study areas as the observation study. These perception surveys allowed us to gain an understanding of how a random group of people in the street felt about street conditions. Thus, in addition to complementing the actual observations, these interviews were important to gauge people’s perception of their walking

experiences. The same twelve urban planning students from BUET who conducted the field survey also conducted the perception survey.

To gain a more in‐depth understanding of the issues facing pedestrians – and particularly female pedestrians – in Dhaka, the research team hosted two focus groups discussions (FGDs). The focus group discussions focused on mothers of school‐aged children and female garment factory workers. On 5 July 2011, 8 mothers attended a focus group session

facilitated by two female staff members of WBB. A further focus group was conducted on 22 July

2011 with 12 female garment workers. FGDs provide the advantage of allowing for issues to be explored in depth and reasons for reactions to be investigated. The project team also conducted a series of surveys with hawkers of tea, biscuits, betel leaves, and cigarettes between 9 May and 9 June 2011 to identify the priorities of these vendors, in terms of facilities and supports, which could improve both their working environment and the broader pedestrian environment.

5 Full information on the analysis and selection of research tools is found in Appendix 2. 6 The students visited a total of 1,055 road segments; however, 87 segments were under construction and were not

analyzed. This left 968 segments in the study.

Figure 6: Observation surveyor at work

Figure 7: Focus group, Uttara



For a full description of the methodologies used and results achieved by each of these approaches, please refer to Appendices 2‐4.

The following categories were then used to analyse the research results:

Land use diversity Footpath availability and quality Safety Facilities for the disabled Availability of pedestrian amenities Community life (including hawkers)

3.2.1 Land Use Diversity

Most observed roads had either a low‐volume of motorized traffic (54%) or medium‐volume of motorized traffic (22%). Eighty‐four percent of the road segments were either single use (36%) or primarily single use with a few instances of another use (48%). Residences were the primary land‐use in the surveyed segments (85%); shops were found in 58% of the segments, offices in 24%, and schools in 17%. Very few segments included entertainment options (1%) or parks/playgrounds (2%). This lack of mixed‐use was also identified by some of the respondents during the perception survey. Thirty‐eight percent said that a desired destination – meaning to one of the noted land uses – was “too far”. Of particular note is the fact that 21% indicated that they wanted to – but could not – walk to entertainment options and 16% wanted to walk to a park. This noted dissatisfaction among residents echoes the reality that so few segments included entertainment uses or parks.

3.2.2 Footpath Availability

Many pedestrian deaths occur while the person is standing beside the road or walking alongside it because there are no footpaths or the footpaths are in such poor condition that they are unusable. The most ideal pedestrian facility is to have footpaths on both sides of the street. By providing sidewalks on both sides of the street, people would not be forced to walk on the road and the numerous midblock crossing crashes could be eliminated (FHWA 2010). However, only 37% of observed roads had footpaths on both sides of the street; 19% had footpaths on one side of the street, while almost half (44%) had no footpaths at all (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). This result supports the DevCon (2009) report which suggests that although walking is the highest modal share in Dhaka, there are only about 400 kilometres of footpaths within the DCC area compared to a road network of 1,293 km.

Figure 8: Lack of footpath, Old Dhaka



3.2.3 Footpath Quality

To encourage and support pedestrian activity, it is important to have not only footpaths, but ones of good quality that are free of obstructions and debris. Footpath quality was analyzed in 549 segments (those segments with no footpaths were excluded). The type of material used for the footpaths varied throughout the segments, with many segments having footpaths constructed of a mix of more than one type of material. Dirt and sand (55%), paving bricks (48%), and concrete (44%) were the most common materials used for footpaths, followed by slabs (31%) and tiles (18%). Dirt and sand are not appropriate footpath materials in a city setting, as they are prone to becoming muddy and virtually unusable during wet weather.

In addition to the construction materials used, the quality of footpaths was assessed by how easy it was to walk on them. A poor quality footpath is uneven and has lots of heaves and broken sections, which make it both difficult to walk on and more likely that a pedestrian will experience an injury (see Figure 10). Only 18% of observed footpaths were given a “good rating”, which refers to the evenness of the footpath. Most footpaths were given either a fair (42%) or poor (40%) rating).

Figure 9: Map: Footpath availability

Figure 10: Poor quality footpath,Mirpur



The project team’s observations about footpath quality were corroborated during the perception study and focus group discussions. Most pedestrians noted that the lack or poor quality of footpaths were the primary reasons why they could not walk to their desired destinations. When asked to rate the quality of pedestrian facilities in Dhaka, 79% of respondents said that they were “the worst” or “bad” (39% and 40%, respectively). Seventeen percent said the footpaths were okay and only 4% of respondents said that pedestrian facilities were good. These views were reinforced during the focus groups with garment factory workers and mothers. When respondents were asked to pick the top five improvements that could be made to the pedestrian environment, 62% indicated that they would like to see wider, more level footpaths. The garment workers also specifically mentioned the often‐muddy pathways as a cause of concern and hardship when walking.

Figure 11: Map: Footpath quality

Figure 12: Hindrances to walking, perception survey results



The observation survey also identified the quantity and type of obstructions occurring on footpaths. Figure 14 shows the percentage of segments that have footpath obstructions by the type of obstruction. The literature review suggested that even when footpaths are available they are commonly obstructed, thereby reducing their usefulness (DevCon 2009). Consequently, pedestrians are often forced to walk in the street instead of on the footpaths, even in areas where footpaths are provided. Pedestrians walking on the road not only increase road congestion but also increase the risk of traffic‐related pedestrian injuries or deaths. The results of the observation study support the findings of the DevCon (2009) report. Only 15% of all footpaths observed were free of obstructions. Thirty‐six percent of footpaths had a few obstructions, 34% had some obstructions, and 16% had many obstructions. In addition, in 65%

of the segments, the observer needed to leave the footpath at least once because of obstructions.

Car exits/entries cut into footpaths are a significant problem, with more than half (52%) of all footpaths observed being interrupted by this type of obstruction. It is, not surprising that this is a

problem as RAJUK by‐laws allow this type of design to accommodate vehicles. In addition, cars/motorbikes were observed blocking 39% of the footpaths (see Figure 15). The prevalence of these two specific obstructions suggests that space designed for the ease and comfort of pedestrians is being used instead to support the city’s car culture. This trend needs to be reversed. Respondents also supported the idea of removing obstacles along footpaths, with 53% identifying this as a priority for infrastructure improvement.

A common concern expressed in much of the literature is that vendors and shop‐keepers block footpaths, making them unusable for pedestrians. The observation results did

Figure 15: Footpath obstructed by cars,Uttara

Figure 14: Percentage of obstructed footpaths, by type of obstruction

Figure 13: Dirty, obstructed footpath



not support this claim. Instead, they showed that although shopping goods do block a significant number of footpaths (43%), vendors are much less of a problem, with only 22% of segments having vendors who blocked footpaths. A more important observation here was that vendors and shop‐keepers can play the very important role of providing “eyes on the street”. This is discussed further in Section 3.2.7 Community Life.

A final important and significant obstruction on many footpaths is construction rubbish, with 40% of all footpath segments observed being obstructed in this way (see Figure 16). Not only does construction rubbish typically completely cover a footpath, rendering the walkway unwalkable, it also creates an unpleasant visual environment for pedestrians.

In addition to the negative role of obstruction, a footpath’s degree of cleanliness can make walking appealing or unappealing. The majority of the observed footpaths had either a lot of physical disorder (34%) or some physical disorder (51%). Only 15% of roads were considered “good” in terms of their level of cleanliness. Figure 17 illustrates the most common physical disorders observed on footpaths. Bidi/cigarette butts are the most commonly observed disorder (92%), followed by cans and bottles (58%), and garbage (58%). Graffiti also appears to be a concern in 28% of the segments. The cleanliness of footpaths was noted as a major issue by the perception survey respondents: when asked to identify priority pedestrian improvements, 58% said that they would like cleaner footpaths.

Figure 16: Footpath obstructed by constructionrubbish, Mirpur

Figure 17: Percentage of segments with disordered footpaths, by type of disorder



3.2.4 Safety

Pedestrian injury and death is a significant concern in Bangladesh; safety measures and proper pedestrian facilities are needed to reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. While in 1986‐87 pedestrians accounted for 43% of road deaths, that figure has increased steadily. By 2006, pedestrians accounted

for 54% of road fatalities,7 and the number continues to climb. Research conducted by Hoque et al. (2008) found that the most dangerous places for pedestrians were on the road (47.3% of fatalities) and at the side of the road (47.3%). In terms of what pedestrians were doing at the time of their accident or fatality, the most dangerous activities were crossing the road (46%) and walking along the road edge (35%). Only 3% of fatalities occurred at designated pedestrian crossings, suggesting

that when pedestrian crossings – such as zebra crossings and signalized pedestrian crossings –

exist, they provide significant protection for the pedestrian. Nevertheless, concern about crossing the street was a serious issue for the perception survey respondents, with 48% saying that they feared crossing the street.

The obstacle that makes it most difficult or impossible for a pedestrian to cross the street is the presence of mixed traffic8 (46% of segments). However, despite the presence of mixed traffic, there were virtually no crossing aids (97%) in the segments reviewed to help pedestrians cross the street. Only 1% of the roads had police enforcement and 1% had signs. In only 1% of the observed roads did cars obey the laws or yield to pedestrians. In terms of assistance crossing the street, 30% of the perception survey respondents indicated that they would like better police enforcement, 28% indicated that they would like foot over‐bridges, and 26% would like zebra crossings. However, during further discussions with the focus groups, it became clear that most people were unaware of the various types of pedestrian crossing aids that are available. Given the challenges associated with getting people to use foot over‐bridges, the focus groups were specifically asked about the bridges as aids to mobility. Although the focus group participants felt that the foot over‐bridges did increase safety, women and the elderly in particular identified them as being a serious obstacle to their

7 World Health Organization, Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for Action. Geneva: World Health Organization,

2009, p. 9. http://www.un.org/ar/roadsafety/pdf/roadsafetyreport.pdf 8 Mixed traffic refers to the simultaneous presence of different of vehicle types: buses, cars, rickshaws, and CNGs (3‐

wheeled green buggy‐like vehicles powered by compressed natural gas). This is problematic because each vehicle

travels at a different speed, which makes it very difficult for pedestrians to cross the road. At the same time, the

variety of vehicle sizes often results in lane lines being ignored.

Figure 18: Unsafe roadway in Dhaka

Figure 19: Challenges using a footoverbridge



movement by foot, particularly when they are unwell or tired, when they are wearing saris, when they have children with them, and/or when they are carrying bags or boxes.

Aggressive drivers were observed on the roads. Of the roads where moving cars were visible, 51% of the surveyors reported

aggressive drivers who were speeding or not giving pedestrians the right of way. Aggressive drivers were also a noted major concern for residents. When participants were asked what made them fearful when walking, 58% indicated that cars or motorbikes caused them fear at least once a week, with 17% fearing cars/motorbikes every day. Seventy‐three percent feared buses, which supports the need to have buses in dedicated lanes and to consider establishing and enforcing speed limits within city limits. Poor quality footpaths that were unusable only increased the dangers posed by vehicles.

Despite the significant presence of aggressive drivers, very few roads had traffic calming or controlling measures (93% with no traffic calming devices). Six percent of roads had speed humps,

with other possible traffic calming measures being negligible. Hoque et al. (2008) recommended reducing speed as one of the most powerful instruments to reduce road trauma. Investments made to calm traffic are considered highly cost effective and this was clearly an option that residents supported. Reducing and slowing traffic was the number one priority of those individuals surveyed, with 79% rating it as their top priority.

Vehicles parked on the road potentially provide a buffer between pedestrians and moving traffic, creating both safety and comfort. However, only 4% of the observed roads had legal, on‐street parking for cars/motorbikes. On the other hand, in 45% of the roads cars and motorbikes were illegally parked, while in 11% trucks were illegally parked.

A final important noted safety concern relates to crimes experienced by pedestrians. The perception survey respondents identified personal safety as a concern, with 50% being afraid of being robbed by someone with a weapon. Sexual harassment was also identified as a serious issue by the focus group participants. Focus group participants told stories of being teased and harassed by boys/men. This was a serious issue for them, and as a result of their negative experiences many avoided walking in the streets and on footpaths with their daughters. The garment factory workers also spoke of the harassment they experienced. As poor women, they felt powerless to protest against unwanted touching.

All of these problems were echoed in the improvements recommended by the perception survey respondents. As shown below, the most commonly suggested improvements involved reducing traffic speed and making footpaths and road crossings safer to use.

Figure 20: Poor quality footpathsdecrease pedestrian safety



Although the problems identified by the women speak to a larger cultural issue that cannot be solved through infrastructure improvements alone, there are measures that can be taken in the pedestrian environment to improve crime‐related safety. Pedestrian lighting, for example, is important from both a safety‐from‐crime and a safety‐from‐injury perspective. Sixty‐seven percent of the road segments had road‐oriented lighting and 73% had lighting that came from surrounding buildings. However, only 3% of the segments had pedestrian‐scale lighting. In addition, ensuring there are many “eyes on the street” also has the potential to reduce opportunities for crime. This will be addressed in more detail in Section 3.2.7 Community Life below.

3.2.5 Facilities for the Disabled

Virtually all of the roads observed during the study are inhospitable for people living with disabilities. Ninety‐seven percent of roads did not have curvilinear or curb cuts, and 96% of the footpaths would be unusable for a person in a wheelchair (see Figure 22). Providing facilities for persons living with disabilities was noted as important by the perception survey respondents: fifty‐eight percent wanted to see better facilities for those living with disabilities.

3.2.6 Pedestrian Amenities

Very few service amenities exist for pedestrians in the observed segments. Examples of such services include the provision of seating, trash cans, and public toilets. The most common available service amenity was the presence of vendors, but even this service was observed in only 20% of the segments. A full 79% of segments had no service amenities at all. The lack of trash bins explains, in part, the significant presence of physical disorder in the majority of segments.

Figure 22: Footpath with non‐curvilinear curbcut, Gazipur

Figure 21: Recommended improvements, perception survey



Trees are also a very important pedestrian amenity as they provide shade and, depending on their placement, they can provide a physical separation between pedestrians and traffic. Only 9% of streets surveyed had many trees/dense tree cover, while 62% of streets had few or no trees.

3.2.7 Community Life (Including Hawkers)

Pedestrian‐friendly environments encourage more people to choose walking as a regular mode of travel, creating social, lively streets while reducing traffic congestion. Given Dhaka’s high population density, one would expect to see many people on the streets. The observation study found this to be the case, with a high number of pedestrians being observed in most of the segments (85% of the segments had more than 7 people on the move by foot during the time of the observation). Having many people out on the street creates safety and helps create a convivial community. This premise was supported by the survey, during which the field researchers observed that in 88% of the segments people stopped to talk to or to greet one another. However, there were very few children seen playing in the streets (in only 9% of segments were children observed playing). This could be because of the time of day the survey was conducted. However, given that only 2% of the segments had a park or playground, the streets provide children with the best opportunity for playing outdoors and the absence of children outdoors more likely speaks to the lack of outdoor play space.

The role of hawkers and other vendors deserves special mention here. In addition to questioning pedestrians about the role of hawkers on the streets, the project team also interviewed hawkers about their revenues to determine what they contributed to the community economically. As noted above, the observation study found that vendors did not obstruct the footpaths to the extent that

the research literature and policy documents suggest. Given that 90% of the people surveyed indicated that they felt safer when other people were on the street, maintaining a hawker/vendor presence in the pedestrian environment makes sense. However, focus group participants expressed mixed reactions to hawkers. Both mothers and garment factory workers felt that hawkers/vendors blocking the footpath were a problem. On the other hand, women also identified the key benefits of having hawkers/vendors on footpaths: vendors acting as “eyes on the street” made women feel safe and their presence increased the convenience of buying goods, which in turn reduced women’s travel time and distance.

The economic analysis of hawkers was quite informative. On average, hawkers earned 250 taka per day after expenses. Assuming a 30‐day month, as hawkers rarely take days off, the project team estimated that they earn, on average, 7,500 taka per month. To give an idea of the importance of this income, consider that many security guards earn just 3,000 to 3,500 taka per month.

Proper hawker management seems to be a solution that is widely accepted as a good idea, with 94% of perception survey respondents saying they would like to see some type of management system implemented.

Figure 23: Vendors providing "eyes on thestreet", Gazipur



3.2.8 Conclusion

A few issues become clear during these studies. While there is a very high modal share for walking, little attention has been, or is being, paid to this important mode of transportation in existing transport plans. Despite the far lower modal share, far more attention is devoted to the movement of automobiles. Furthermore, where walking is discussed, the issues addressed are not based on research but rather on perceptions of the pedestrian environment. For example, despite the fact that they actually represent a barrier to convenient pedestrian movement, the main pedestrian infrastructure recommended and planned is foot over‐bridges and underpasses. Meanwhile, the research conducted for this project identifies a number of other issues that need to be addressed, including the availability and quality of footpaths, cleanliness, facilities for the disabled, amenities such as public toilets and shade, and community life which provides both enjoyment and safety for those traveling by foot.



3.3 Policy Context

Historically, the highest number of trips in Dhaka has been by foot. A number of studies have examined the issues faced Dhaka’s pedestrians and have made suggestions on how to mitigate the challenges they face. These issues and potential solutions, however, have yet to be addressed to any great extent in Dhaka’s official transport plans and policies. References to pedestrians are typically only a few paragraphs and are mostly repetitive across the various documents. Table 6 identifies existing transportation‐related plans and studies and the key issues raised within them, and summarizes how pedestrians are considered. More details on this are found in Appendix 1.

Table 6: Transport‐related plans and key issues raised

Plan Years Covered

Key issues Pedestrian issues9

Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP)

1995‐2015 The basis for Dhaka’s master city plan

Only 11% of funding is allocated to pedestrians, despite their having the greatest modal share.

Dhaka Integrated Transport Study (DITS)

Early 1990s Explores the transport‐related problems within the Dhaka Metropolitan Area and suggests solutions to them

The importance of pedestrians is acknowledged, and good measures are suggested. However, most papers mostly ignore pedestrians.

Dhaka Urban Transport Plan (DUTP)

1990s Designed to provide Immediately visible and implementable activities

Bus infrastructure activities falling under the DUTP ignore pedestrians, even though most bus passengers will walk to/from the stations.

Strategic Transport Plan (STP)

2004‐2024 Evaluates the appropriateness of various transport options. The recommended option was among the lowest‐ranked and most expensive.

Although it mentions a need for pedestrian policies, virtually no funding is allocated to pedestrian issues.

Detailed Area Plan (DAP)

1995‐2015 (Published 22 June 2010)

Emphasizes the building of high‐end housing (at the expense of the poor).

The only pedestrian measure included is the construction of 41 foot over‐bridges and 5 underpasses.

Clean Air and Sustainable Environment (CASE) Project

April 2009 to June 2014

One of the project’s objectives is to catalyze the adaptation of Sustainable Environment Initiatives (SEIs) in the urban transport sector, with a focus on abating air pollution and introducing energy efficient technologies.

The project aims to expand footpaths and to build foot over‐bridges.

9 This table has been adapted from Ahmed 2008. The column on pedestrian issues is our addition.



A review of these various transport and urban plans reveals a number of issues10:

The various policy documents point to walking having a high modal share. The DITS for example, indicates that more than 60% of the trips taken in Dhaka consist solely of walking, with a further 11% including a walking segment. The second key issue mentioned in the STP is pedestrians.

All of the policy documents acknowledge that current pedestrian conditions are very poor.

Despite their stated good intentions, little detail is actually provided in the documents about pedestrians. For instance, of 40 working papers listed in the 1994 DITS, not a single study is listed that specifically addresses pedestrians.

The policy documents typically treat walking as a form of transport used exclusively by the poor. Virtually nothing is said about why walking is important as a mode of transport. In only one case, in the DUTP After Project Report, was the fact that walking can be fast and pleasant mentioned.

The transport policy documents acknowledge the need for pedestrian facilities and include some useful and important recommendations. Key issues addressed include integrated transportation and land use planning, inter‐agency coordination, street designs and policies that prioritize pedestrians over motorized vehicles, street‐level crossings, slowing of vehicular traffic speed, the important role of vendors as “eyes on the street” for safety and attraction, giving people a reason to walk, and the need for a pedestrian‐first policy.

In spite of these issues and recommendations, virtually all funding mentioned in the various plans is allocated to other road users. For example, while the STP allocates hundreds of millions of dollars for road schemes, there is almost nothing set aside for pedestrians.

Although each of the plans acknowledges the importance of pedestrians, the direction and deliverables in each is focused on moving automobile traffic. Evidence of the automobile focus can be seen with the increasing use of flyovers. However, such “solutions” are extremely negative for pedestrians: those traveling by foot lose easy walking access to nearby destinations and are often forced to take motorised transport to get around the flyovers. Access to buses becomes more difficult and riding a bike virtually impossible. Meanwhile, flyovers simply induce more traffic rather than reduce congestion. Furthermore, the construction of flyovers takes up space that then makes it difficult to implement public transport projects in the future, whether they be rail or bus. This lack of focus on pedestrians is clearly visible when the pedestrian environment is observed in action. Significant work needs to be done to embed true pedestrian‐supportive initiatives into the legal and policy frameworks.

10 For the full review of the transport policies, please see Appendix 1.

Figure 24: Dangerous crossing



4 Improving Walkability in Dhaka An improved environment for pedestrians would, in addition to being a precondition for making the BRT feasible, generate a broader positive change – not only terms in enabling people to reach their destinations safely, affordably and conveniently, but also in terms of improving traffic flow and creating a more congenial living environment. As such, improving the pedestrian environment would be one of the most popular measures that a politician could take. While at the moment there are many challenges to be addressed, there are also many opportunities. Challenges to the creation of a pedestrian‐friendly environment include a weak policy framework, an unsupportive infrastructure, and a transportation environment that is more focused on cars than on people. However, there is significant reason to be hopeful. Despite the problems that pedestrians face on a daily basis, Dhaka is a city where walking comprises a significant part of the modal share. While the DITS indicates that more than 70% of trips in Dhaka consist solely or partially of walking, the perception survey results suggest that walking is even more common: 88% of the respondents indicated that they would be walking for at least part of their trip. Given that most people currently walk – in spite of the poor conditions – there is a tremendous opportunity for Dhaka’s residents to demand improved pedestrian conditions and for the city’s decision‐makers to show real leadership and make investments in pedestrian‐friendly environments. By reacting positively to the needs of the majority of the city’s population, decision‐makers could help Dhaka to mitigate at least some of the serious problems that have developed in other Asian cities that promote a transportation culture focused almost exclusively on the private motorized vehicle, such as congestion, pollution, and poor health.

Meeting, exchanging ideas with, and advocating to more than 150 policymakers and other stakeholders was a key part of the current study (see Table 7).

The results of the discussions suggest that decision‐makers are prepared to show that leadership. A number of solid ideas were generated during the meetings; for example, recognizing the intense congestion and slow movement

on many roads, participants spoke strongly of the need to improving conditions for walking, both for health and for convenient, relatively rapid transport. Support was garnered from government officials to move forward with planning pilot pedestrian sites that could demonstrate what sorts of pedestrian improvements are possible. They also agreed that the pilot sites would be designed based on the current research – that is, based on the problems actually identified through surveys and interviews rather than through pre‐existing assumptions about the current situation and needed pedestrian improvements.

Figure 25: Stakeholder Meeting With Gazipur Poroshova Mayor,Councilors, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Engineer, June 2011



Table 7: Summary results of stakeholder and advocacy meetings

Date Place Participants Comments 19/5/11 Agargaon 12 people of mixed

occupations. General advocacy meeting with different stakeholders to the ADB Office. Support for pedestrian‐friendly areas evident among those who participated.

30/5/11 Dhaka 85 people, including: Civil society organizations, World Health Organization (WHO) University of Engineering and Technology Bangladesh (BUET), and journalists

General advocacy meeting designed to raise awareness among a variety of groups about the importance of pedestrian‐friendly areas

6/6/11 Gazipur 4 people, including: Mayor, Councilors, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Engineer

Overall comments:

Mayor, councilors and officials are aware of importance of walking and of the need to create a supportive walking environment.

Other stakeholders indicated a desire for better walking facilities.

Recommendations:

Ensure that there is financial and design support to create some pedestrian‐friendly areas;

Designate some streets as pedestrian‐only;

Build public toilets on walkways;

Improve the management system for allocating space to vendors to keep walkways clear and safe.

Set aside park space.

14/6/11 Gazipur 75 people including: Mayor and Treasurer, executive engineer, councilors, civil society representatives, business owners, representative of Garment Workers Association, representative of Rickshaw Owner and Puller Association, journalists, teachers, and Gazipur residents

6/6/11 Tongi 2 people, including: Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer

Overall comments:

Mayor, councilors and officials are aware of the importance of walking and of the need to create a supportive walking environment.

Mayor expressed interest in including pedestrian‐friendly environments in 70 new road projects.

Other stakeholders indicated a desire for better walking facilities.

Recommendations:

Implement at least one pedestrian‐first pilot project;

Dedicate certain times of the day as pedestrian‐only;

Provide public toilets, drinking water, and benches along the walkways;

Create walkways along the Turag riverbank and along the pond bank.

11/7/11 Tongi 95 people including: Pourashava Mayor, Chief Executive Officer, superintending engineer, treasurer, executive engineer, councilors, civil society representatives, business owners, representative of Garment Workers Association, journalists, and Tongi residents

25/7/11 Uttara 35 people, including: Dhaka City Corporation Commissioner (1 & 17 No.

Overall comments:

Implementing a pilot project in Uttara would require permission from the DCC central office.



Date Place Participants Comments Ward), zonal executive officer, other officials, civil society representatives, police, president and secretary of Uttara Sector Welfare Association, and journalists

The Sector Welfare Association leaders are very influential.

DCC’s Commissioner (1 & 17 No. Ward), zonal executive officer, and other officials are aware of the importance of walking and of the need to create a supportive walking environment.

These officials will provide the necessary support to implement a pilot project to create a pedestrian‐friendly environment along Shahjalal Road in Uttara.

Recommendations:

The pilot project should be implemented under an umbrella group consisting of the Ministry of Communication, LGED, RAJUK, WASA, Titas Gas, the Electricity Board, the Telephone Board, DMP, and other service‐oriented agencies;

Generate a localized study report;

Eliminate ramps or car exit/entry cuts, garbage, construction materials, gardens, and other obstruction from footpaths;

Provide space for parks;

Improve the public transportation system to reduce car use and diminish congestion;

Better control cars to eliminate congestion;

Create a better vendor management system.

04/07/2011 Dhaka Chief Town Planner, DCC Overall comments: He expressed his commitment to supporting the creation of a pedestrian‐friendly environment in Dhaka.

Recommendations:

Give the Uttara pilot project application to the City Mayor for approval.

Creat a MoU be created between DCC and WBB Trust for this pilot project.

04/07/2011 Dhaka Project Director, DTCB Overall comments: There are two ways to implement the pilot project. First, following permission from DCC, WBB Trust could issue a tender call to construction companies to implement the project. Alternatively, donor funds could be transferred to the DCC, which would then manage the project itself.

Recommendations: The first option is preferable, as DCC already has a heavy workload with many kind of service‐oriented projects. At the end of the project, responsibility for maintenance could be handed over to DCC.

09/07/2011 Dhaka Executive Engineer, Roads and Highways

Overall comments: All transport‐related decisions are made by the Ministry of Communication. DCC is responsible for improving and maintaining the roads and footpaths within the Dhaka City area. The DTCB has recently been created under the



Date Place Participants Comments MoC to coordinate transportation projects in Dhaka. Sometimes, RAJUK (city development authority), BBA (Bangladesh Bridge Authority), and LGED also implement transport‐oriented projects.

Recommendations: Gain permission from the DCC to implement the pilot project before proceeding with its full design.

21/07/2011 Dhaka Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Bangladesh

Overall comments: The Chairman expressed his commitment to vocally support the creation of a safe and convenient walking environment in Dhaka city.

Recommendations: Street crossings should be at grade and zebra crossings are needed for safe and convenient street crossings.

To support both proposed pilot projects (see Section 6) and improved pedestrian‐friendliness throughout the entire city, several actions are recommended as part of the BRT Walkability Strategy. Given the importance of pedestrians for the successful operation of the BRT, and the high modal share and advantages of this mode of transport, we have made recommendations to address the multi‐faceted issues identified in this report. These include recommendations related to policy, law, government structures, infrastructure, maintenance, and implementation. No single measure will be sufficient to improve the condition of pedestrians in Dhaka to the point where walking can become a popular mode of transport that reduces road congestion and ensures the successful operation of mass transit. Given the wide range of issues that must be addressed, a broad and integrated approach is needed. Furthermore, given the limited scope of this study, it is necessary to conduct further research, including on the feasibility of the recommended options, before moving forward. Each recommendation included in the BRT Walkability Strategy is discussed in detail below, following Table 8, which provides a summary. Implementation information is provided in Section 5.

Table 8: BRT Walkability Strategy recommendations and responsibilities

Recommended Action Level of Government Responsible

Agency Responsible

Create a Non‐Motorized Transportation Cell (NMT Cell) DMA LRGD

Develop methods for evaluating pedestrian impacts DMA NMT Cell

Develop staff training programs DMA NMT Cell

Develop a Transportation Equity Analysis DMA NMT Cell

Develop fiscal policies related to road pricing, vehicles taxes etc National Ministry of Finance

Develop land Use policies – no parking on ground floor DMA RAJUK

Develop policy prohibiting construction rubbish City City Corporations

Ensure playgrounds in all new development DMA RAJUK


City City Corporations/ Pourashava

Build safe pedestrian crossings City City Corporations/ Pourashava



Recommended Action Level of Government Responsible

Agency Responsible

Upgrade dirt and sand footpaths City City Corporations

Develop a Family‐friendly streets project City DTCB

Establish Parking controls (space and fines) City

City Corporations/ Pourashava

Parking charges City City Corporation Pourashava

Develop a maintenance schedule City City Corporations/ Pourashava

Develop a street furniture program City City Corporations/ Pourashava

Develop a Hawker support and management policy National Ministry of Labour and Employment

Organize Car‐free Days City NGO

Organize a driver education campaign National BRTA

Develop a Pedestrian Charter of Rights DMA LGRD

4.1 NonMotorized Transportation Cell, Tools, and Training

We recommend that a Non‐motorized Transportation Cell be created within LRGD that is responsible for working with and across all departments on non‐motorized transportation issues.

We recommend that tools and methods for evaluating the potential impacts on pedestrians of any road construction project be developed and implemented.

We recommend that all staff involved in transportation and urban planning receive ongoing training on innovative practices for pedestrians and non‐motorized travel.

As noted above, fostering coordination among the various agencies involved in Dhaka’s transportation and urban planning system has proven to be challenging. A review of international examples shows that there is no single best‐practice for addressing the problem of weak coordination. Many cities have attempted various methods to organize themselves, but lack of coordination and/or communication often continues to be an issue even following re‐organization. The city of Pune (India), however, has seen some success in creating a Non Motorized Transportation Cell (NMT Cell) that functions within the transportation system but has assigned resources and is responsible for ensuring that improvements in non‐motorized transportation are made and maintained. The City of Toronto (Canada) has taken a similar approach by creating a section within the Transportation Services Division called “Public Realm Section” whose role is to coordinate all departments and to monitor the implementation of the city’s Walking Strategy, Bike Strategy, and Community Improvement Strategy.

Figure 26: Supporting NMT is key to asuccessful walkability strategy



Such a NMT Cell would work within Dhaka's current structure and would be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the BRT Walkability Strategy. It would work with all staff involved in transportation and urban planning to improve the pedestrian realm. The suggested NMT Cell would also be responsible for developing and overseeing the implementation of tools and methods to evaluate pedestrian impacts and opportunities related to other transportation and urban planning activities. The intention of this cell is to be a resource for staff across all departments concerned with issues related to non‐motorized travel. The hope is that, ultimately, all staff in each relevant agency would have “supporting non‐motorized travel” as part of their job description.

It is also recommend that continuous training be provided to equip staff with innovative and sound best practices from around the world in pedestrian planning, design, and engineering principles. Capacity and training could focus on building a greater understanding of the following issues:

The role of walking as a significant form of transport, not just for the percentage of trips it involves but for its efficiency in moving people (in terms of road and terminal capacity, lack of fuel, lack of pollution, enhanced safety on the streets, etc.);

When measuring modal share, the need to separate pedestrians from other non‐motorized transport (often they are lumped together);

The various aspects of streets that affect the pedestrian experience (not just presence/absence and condition of footpaths and crossing facilities);

The feasibility of walking in terms of origin‐destination distance and convenient linkages;

The overall pedestrian experience, including noise, smell, exposure to traffic danger and crime, places to rest, shade, and visual amenities e.g. blank walls, parking lots, etc.;

The specific roles of various agencies in improving the pedestrian experience and maintaining and increasing pedestrian modal share.

In addition, a number of skills need to be acquired by and strengthened among those working in transport‐ and pedestrian‐related positions, including:

Designing and conducting research on the pedestrian situation and experience, including observation and perception;

Analysing and interpreting data on the pedestrian situation and experience;

Designing, implementing, monitoring, maintaining, and evaluating practical activities and programs that would improve pedestrian safety, comfort and convenience.



4.2 Fiscal Policies

We recommend that parking charges be introduced on streets that do not currently have parking charges, that the cost of parking be increased, and that fees be based on the amount of space use and time taken, with areas of higher demand charging more and/or by smaller units of time.

We recommend that tools be developed to help staff review, develop, and/or revise current and future transportation budgets using a transportation equity analysis.

We recommend that policies be introduced to reduce motorized traffic, such as road pricing, vehicle taxation, and licensing.

One extremely effective tool to address congestion and improve walkability is to implement financial instruments which deliver multiple benefits at low cost. International experience indicates that particularly effective is a combination of “carrots” and “sticks”: fiscal measures to improve non‐motorized modes of transport together with measures designed to discourage private automobile use. Using a combination of carrots and sticks can be particularly effective in that the funds raised by discouraging one mode of transportation – such as fuel taxes, licensing, parking fees, and congestion charges – could be used to off‐set the cost of measures needed to encourage non‐motorized transportation, such as tax incentives for bicycles, subsidies for public transit, and infrastructure improvements including bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, and footpaths. At this time, Dhaka has in place virtually no fiscal policies that would either encourage walking or discourage private automobile use. Based on our studies and policy scan, three fiscal policies emerge as reasonable inclusions in the BRT Walkability Strategy which can be implemented over the short, medium, and long terms: (i) parking pricing, (ii) budget reviews and revisions to address greater equity, and (iii) introducing fiscal policies intended to reduce private automobile use.

Parking pricing (charging high prices by unit of time) is one obvious policy that has successfully been implemented in many large cities and which could be easily implemented in Dhaka to potentially reduce both parking demand and the amount of space that needs to be assigned to it. It would also

provide needed revenue to help improve the pedestrian realm. San Francisco charges a 25% tax on commercial parking transactions. Bogotá increased public parking fees and removed limits on the fees that private parking companies could charge. The revenue thus earned is used for road maintenance and public transit service improvements.

As stated earlier in this report, only 4% of the surveyed road segments provided legal on‐street car parking. These are locations where fees to park would be charged, but only at a nominal rate of 20 taka per day (less than US$0.30). On the other hand, more than 45% of the roads in the observed areas

had illegally parked cars or motorbikes. Increasing the cost of parking per hour while at the same increasing the number of places where parking fees are charged should be explored throughout the study area. The map below shows all the roads in the five study areas that currently have illegal on‐street parking.

Figure 27: Fiscal policies can be used to eliminateillegal parking on footpaths



One parking mechanism to consider is to introduce parking tokens that can be used at parking facilities throughout the city. Hawkers could be employed to sell the tokens, which could be used at both parking facilities and for public transit once a vehicle is parked. Such a system is used in Bremen (Germany), where parking tokens can be used as public transport tickets for trips within the city centre while one’s private vehicle is parked (that is, after paying for parking, one does not have to pay an additional amount for public transport).

Additional recommended fiscal measures include re‐allocating funds currently allocated to building roads and highways to improving pedestrian areas. In Dhaka’s Urban Area Plan, Tk. 100 crore (equivalent to about US$14 million) was planned to be spent on off‐street walkways and pedestrian facilities, out of a total budget of Tk. 909 crore (US$130 million), which represents about 11% of the total budget. However, this budget does not represent an equitable distribution of funds for pedestrians, given that almost every trip involves walking and very few trips involve private‐automobiles. We recommend that tools be developed to help city staff review and revise transportation budgets using an equity lens, which will ultimately bring the budget into a more balanced state instead of being significantly biased towards motorized travel. The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (Canada) has produced a paper that explains how to conduct a transportation equity analysis (www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf), which may prove useful.

Policies to reduce and slow traffic should be studied further and ultimately introduced, given that this was the number one pedestrian intervention that perception survey respondents identified as desirable. Road pricing strategies have been successfully introduced in many cities – such as

Figure 28: Map: Illegal parking



Trondheim, Oslo and Bergen (Norway), Singapore, Seoul (Korea), London (England), and Melbourne (Australia) – as a way to reduce traffic congestion. For example, in Singapore, the number of commuters driving to the Central Business District (CBD) declined from 56% in 1975 to 23% in 1983 after road pricing was introduced. Over the same time period, the use of buses rose from 33% to 69% of commuters. Building roads to achieve the same benefit in Singapore would have cost US$1.5 billion. There was an estimated reduction in the number of cars from a potential 300,000 to 184,000, meaning a prevented rise in the car population by almost 60%. Singapore now uses an effective electronically‐monitored and charged Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system.

Another famous example of road pricing is the congestion charge in London England. The congestion fee in central London has resulted in a 30% reduction in car movements, a 10% reduction in lorry movements, and a 34% reduction in vehicle kilometres traveled by cars. The average speed of traffic during charging days has increased by 37%. There has been a 30% reduction in peak period congestion delays and a 50% reduction in bus congestion delays. Furthermore, ridership on buses has increased by 14%. Other aspects of London’s success include integration of land use planning, settlement planning, and urban transport planning

In addition, vehicle registration taxes, vehicle import taxes, sales taxes, and annual vehicle registration should be considered. In Singapore, such taxes include a 45% import duty on the car’s open market value, a registration fee of US$1,000 for a private car and $5,000 for a company registered car, and an additional fee of 150% of the vehicle’s open market value. The total tax is thus 200% of the vehicle’s open market value. Furthermore, annual road taxes are assessed based on engine capacity, and are twice as high on company‐registered cars as on private ones. For diesel cars, the tax is six times that of equivalent petrol vehicles. There is also an absolute quota system that limits the total number of vehicles to the 1990 level. Before buying a car, the would‐be owner must buy the right to own a car (certificate of entitlement); the certificate must be renewed, at the currently prevailing registration price, every ten years. As a result of such fiscal policies, Singapore has been able to maintain revenues that significantly exceed the annual capital and operating costs of the road network (while at the same time keeping the amount of private vehicle use to a minimum). This, in turn, has helped planners to fund expenditures on public transport and facilities for non‐motorized transportation.

Figure 29: Footpath obstructed by vehicles, Uttara



4.3 Land Use Policies

We recommend that Dhaka reverse the requirement that all new buildings have parking at ground level. Policies should also be developed to make car exit/entry cuts in footpaths and disposal of construction waste in the pedestrian realm illegal and subject to fines and punishment.

We recommend that the policy requiring playgrounds in all new developments be enforced. It is further recommended that when no playgrounds or community parks exist, local streets be converted to family‐friendly areas.

We recommend that opportunities to further mixed‐uses be explored in upcoming urban plans with an emphasis on increasing the number and size of parks and entertainment spaces.

International studies have demonstrated that mixed land use (retail businesses within residential areas) is the strongest urban design factor affecting residents’ propensity to make walking trips. The STP specifically recognizes the important influence land use planning has in determining people’s mode of travel: “The inefficiencies in the transportation system result in longer distances between linked origins and destinations such as between residential and work places…” Ensuring that each neighbourhood has a diversity of uses will have a positive impact on the city’s walkability.

Many cities achieve diversity by establishing building codes that require a mix of uses within the same building so that retail space, for example, is at ground level in close proximity to a footpath. This not only creates opportunities for “eyes on the street” but also creates visual interest for pedestrians and commercial opportunities for retailers. Unfortunately, RAJUK currently

implements a policy that requires parking spaces at the ground level of all new residential buildings. This policy not only prevents the opportunity for ground floor apartments, which are important for the elderly and the disabled who are unable to climb stairs, but is also eliminates an opportunity for retail and other commercial spaces to be connected directly to pedestrian facilities. This policy should be removed and ground floor apartments and retail or commercial space at grade encouraged instead.

Our study highlighted the significant lack of play space and park areas in the observed segments. Parks and play spaces provide opportunities for children and adults to exercise and socialize with neighbours. Parks also act as destinations in themselves. According to the perception survey results, 16% of survey respondents would like to be able to walk to a park but cannot do so. If the survey had been conducted among children and youth, the results would likely have been much higher. The DMDP specifies that there

Figure 30: Mixed land uses increase pedestrian opportunities

Figure 31: Play spaces and parks provide opportunitiesfor exercise and socialization



should be 4 acres (1.6 hectares) of parks per 25,000 inhabitants. This is well below what park advocates would recommend 10 acres (4 hectares) of parks per 10,000 inhabitants. We recommend that all opportunities to increase parks and play spaces should be explored. However, given Dhaka’s high population density, achieving a higher park to inhabitant ratio may prove very difficult. An alternative policy is to consider using streets as children’s play spaces and “family‐friendly areas”. This idea is explored in more detail in Section 4.4. In the meantime, efforts should be made to ensure that existing parks and playing fields remain as such and not be taken over by buildings, car parking, or used as car ‘haat’ (markets to sell used cars).

4.4 Infrastructure Improvements

The pilot project provides a specific example of the various ways in which the pedestrian realm can be improved in terms of footpath availability, footpath quality, safety, and access to amenities. The observation study also provides a good starting point for making recommendations about broader infrastructure improvements in the study area and the city as a whole.

We recommend that all roads with high and medium volumes of motorized traffic have footpaths on both sides of the street. Priority should be given to streets that currently have no footpaths but a high volume of pedestrians.

We recommend that all roads with high and medium volumes of motorized traffic have safe pedestrian crossings at grade.

We recommend that all footpaths that are dirt or sand be upgraded to concrete. Priority should be given to those roads with high volumes of pedestrian traffic.

We recommend that low‐volume roads with high pedestrian traffic and no footpaths be candidate “family‐friendly” roads.

Pedestrian safety and comfort is critical to encourage walking. Roads with high and medium volumes of traffic need to have pedestrian facilities. In the study area, 87 roads with high and medium traffic volumes had no footpaths. Research has found that only 3% of fatalities occur at formal pedestrian crossings (Hoque et al. 2008) suggesting that when pedestrian crossings exist – including zebra crossings and signalized pedestrian crossings – they provide significant protection for the

pedestrian. Crossing the street represented a serious concern for the respondents of the perception survey, with 48% saying they fear crossing the street.

To date, the common response to concerns about pedestrian safety at street crossings has been to build foot over‐bridges. However, for a number of reasons this is not an appropriate response to the problem. As evidenced through the perception study, mothers and the elderly find these types of crossings to be particularly problematic to navigate. In addition, people living with disabilities can face insurmountable difficulties as they are unable to go up and down the stairs. When traffic is already slow moving

Figure 32: Roads with high and medium trafficvolumes need safe pedestrian crossings at grade



(as is the case on most roads in Dhaka), at‐grade crossings can actually improve traffic flow by giving vehicles the opportunity to advance. They certainly do not impede traffic flow given Dhaka’s typically congested situations. The current reality is that although foot over‐bridges exist, many (if not most) pedestrians choose to cross at grade along the street (instead of at specific locations), thereby creating a haphazard and dangerous situation. By providing at‐grade crossings at regular intervals, predictability is created for both pedestrians and motorists, which in turn has the potential to simultaneously increase traffic flow and pedestrian safety.

All high and medium motorized traffic volume roads should have safe pedestrian crossings spaced every 100‐150 metres to ensure comfort and safety. It is further recommended that an additional analysis be conducted of the high and medium volume roads in the study area to determine which roads should be prioritized for such crossings. The easiest and least expensive treatment is to use zebra crossings. However, zebra crossings need to be combined with community police enforcement and driver education to be successful.

As a city rapidly develops, public spaces disappear, resulting in fewer opportunities for residents to engage in health‐promoting activities. This creates problems for every resident, but is of particular concern for children who need opportunities to play with and learn from others in an unstructured environment. Children who are deprived of the opportunity to participate in play experience a negative impact on their overall health and well‐being. Ideally, there would be a park or a playground in every neighbourhood within easy walking distance of residents. However, in a built‐up city, this is not always possible. Therefore, other public space needs to be usable for play opportunities; the most obvious and readily available public space in all cities is public streets. We recommend that a pilot project be initiated to examine the feasibility of creating “family‐friendly” streets. These streets would be initiated on low motorized traffic volume roads, would limit or prohibit vehicular traffic at certain times of day, and would be designed to allow children and families to play. Low‐volume roads with no footpaths and high volumes of pedestrian traffic would be candidate sites. A similar project has been implemented by WBB Trust in the past, in which a local street is closed temporarily to traffic so that children can be taught to ride bicycles (see Figure 33). It is suggested that this idea be expanded and piloted on 4 roads of the 340 already‐identified roads that could be examined as candidate “family‐friendly” roads.

Figure 33: Children learning to ride bicycles on a closed street, Dhaka



4.5 Parking Control Policies

We recommend that policies be developed to regulate car parking by designating specific areas and ensuring enforcement.

We recommend that strict fines be issued to anyone parked in a pedestrian or hawker spaces.

Parking in Dhaka, as in many Asian cities, is a source of conflict and inefficiency. Private automobile travel is unique in the transportation sector in that most of the time vehicles are stationary (parked) and space is needed at both the journey location and at the destination. Private automobiles contrast with public transit and rickshaws that spend the majority of time moving about the city. In Dhaka, most parking is free or so inexpensive that parking costs offers little disincentive to driving. This “free” parking comes at great social cost, however. Not only does free parking encourage vehicle travel, but also the significant amount of space required for car parking comes at the expense of parks, playgrounds, housing, and the pedestrian realm. As such, “free” parking comes at the expense of everyone, not just automobile owners. In a city where less than 2% of the population owns a private car, this sharing of costs represents a great inequity.

Parking controls are used in many cities to help deal with parking problems. Parking controls include charging for parking (as described above in Section 4.2 Fiscal Policies) and limiting the places and the times cars are able to park. For example, in several German cities, the number of parking lots in city centres has been reduced. Several cities have closed particular streets or areas to passenger cars and restricted certain parking areas for residents only. Bremen (Germany) has implemented a combination of measures: strict parking controls and highest parking fees in the places with the highest demand. The city makes sure that driving is more expensive than public transit. As a result,

Figure 34: Map: Low volume of vehicular traffic and many pedestrians



50% of trips to the city centre are by public transit and 22% by bicycle. Public transport is used by 58% of shoppers in the central district. In Copenhagen, the main way of arriving at the city center is by public transport (45%), while 19% arrive by bicycle and 14% on foot. Within the city center, only 5% travel by bus, 4% by car or taxi, 14% by bicycle, and 80% on foot.

Another mechanism is to set maximum parking requirements for new development (rather than setting minimum parking standards). Some cities in the United States (including San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, New York City, and Boston) have successfully implemented such policies, in some instances combining them with high parking fees and good provision of other transport options (for example, buses within the Seattle central business

district are free of charge). Bogotá (Colombia) uses pricing policies combined with strong measures to prevent car parking on footpaths. As former mayor

Enrique Peñalosa has observed, “Parking is not your constitutional right.” In Copenhagen (Denmark), parking control policies have resulted in a livelier city centre, with parking spaces being reduced by about 2% a year over 20 years. As Gehl and Gemzøe (2004) explain, “The number of parking places has been reduced, and it is harder to come into the city center by car. In contrast, there is now more reason to come, as the city center has been made much more attractive.” Meanwhile, only 4% of visitors to the Copenhagen central business district say that “lack of parking spaces” is a problem. Copenhagen also transformed its squares and public plazas from parking lots to attractive public places, thereby increasing amenities in the city without worsening its traffic.

4.6 Maintenance Policies

We recommend that the local City Corporations be given clearly stated responsibility for both building and maintaining footpaths, including removing obstacles.

We recommend that a footpath maintenance program be developed and that possibilities associated with involving the private sector in footpath maintenance and street furniture provision be explored.

If mixed‐use community design provides people with opportunities to walk because destinations and origins are within close proximity, the quality of the pedestrian environment is the key variable that makes people want to walk. Quality pedestrian environments make walking a safe and pleasurable experience. Maintaining the pedestrian realm is critical and involves ensuring that footpaths are level, free of cracks and holes, and clean and clear of obstacles.

A number of cities have undertaken initiatives to support their maintenance programs. The two critical components of such programs are regular monitoring and adequate funding. Regular monitoring includes regular reviews conducted by city staff. However, because of the scope of the maintenance issues in City Corporations, the monitoring role could also be

Figure 35: Footpath obstructed by vehicles, Uttara

Figure 36: Footpaths made of dirt need to be upgraded



played by outside observers through regular pedestrians audits (such as was done in the study areas during the observation research). For example, the observation study identified key roads where the

footpaths are rated “poor” and have a quantity of “obstacles” (see Figure 38).

Footpaths rated “poor” would be obvious first places to begin a maintenance program. Funding for such improvements then becomes a critical issue. Possible ways of raising revenue were addressed above in Section 4.2 Fiscal Policies. However, there may also be an opportunity to raise funds for maintenance through the private sector. Many cities have initiated “Business Improvement Districts”, which are defined as areas where businesses pay additional fees to fund

improvements within the district’s boundaries. Business Improvement Districts provide services such as cleaning streets, providing security, making capital improvements, and constructing pedestrian and streetscape enhancement.

The observation and perception studies also highlighted the prevalence of construction rubbish on footpaths as a serious concern. Figure 37 shows an example of construction rubbish blocking a footpath, while Figure 39 shows all of the roads in the study area that were observed to have construction debris. Clear policies should be enacted and enforced that make dumping construction material on footpaths illegal.

Figure 38: Map: Footpaths in poor condition and with obstructions

Figure 37: Construction debris blockingfootpath, Tongi



In addition to maintaining footpaths, it is also important to ensure that footpaths are free of debris. There were virtually no trash bins visible in the study area, which would account for the significant volume of physical disorder visible throughout the study areas. Figure 40 shows all of the roads in the study areas that were observed to have a lot of physical disorder. To address this issue of trash, we recommend that waste receptacles be placed throughout the city. Waste receptacles fall under the category of “street furniture” which would also include benches, transit shelters, bicycle racks, and community information kiosks. Many cities have chosen to contract the private sector to provide for the design, fabrication, installation, maintenance, and replacement of the street furniture. The private sector provides the street furniture at no cost to the city in exchange for right to sell advertising that is displayed on that furniture. If the city decides that it would like to explore the possibility of having private companies provide street furniture, we recommend that it develop a set of clear street furniture design guidelines to which the private sector must adhere. These guidelines would garner community input to establish a common vision for the design, function, and placement of the furniture and to establish clear design requirements for what is and what is not allowed to ensure an attractive public realm.

A mechanism that could be explored for maintaining pedestrian footpaths and ensuring they stay clear of debris is to involve vendors/hawkers. Rather than paying a fee to use public space, hawkers/ vendors could be required to maintain their work area in exchange for rights to work in that space.

Figure 39: Map: Footpaths with construction debris



4.7 Hawker Policies

We recommend that a hawker policy be researched and developed to properly support and manage hawkers and other street vendors.

The current situation of hawkers (street vendors) throughout Bangladesh represents a case of poor private sector management. The location of hawkers on footpaths raises a number of interesting points considering the economic rationality of footpaths themselves. Consider two common options for the utilization of public space. The first is car parking. Despite its questionability legality and occasional efforts to eliminate car parking from footpaths, vehicle parking on footpaths continues to be a problem throughout Dhaka. At the moment, such parking also involves the storage of private vehicles in public spaces at no charge, representing a subsidy to the wealthiest urban residents at the expense of all those who wish to move about by foot or use the footpath to conduct business.

Alternatively, footpath space is sometimes occupied by hawkers (vendors). In this case, while some obstruction may prevent the easy movement of pedestrians (which was shown in our research to be a less common obstruction than cars), the presence of hawkers at the same time provides certain benefits to pedestrians, which is not the case with vehicle storage. Hawkers provide something to look at while walking. As the focus group participants mentioned, hawkers provide “eyes on the street,” thereby playing an important safety role. Their existence also reduces the travel time needed by their customers. They ensure access to needed products and services for those who cannot afford to shop at fancier stores. The hawkers themselves are an important part of the private sector, generating employment and making important goods and services available at low prices.

Figure 40: Map: Footpaths with a high degree of physical disorder



One must also consider the issue of economic return for the use of valuable urban real estate. A parked car may or may not generate business for the nearby shops or restaurants; in some cases the owner of the car may not make a purchase, or may own a place of business. Given that parking is not charged, there is no incentive for the owner to move his car quickly, so one space may only mean one customer for an hour or more. If car parking were charged even minimally (adjacent to, not on, the footpath) at 20 taka per hour, with a change in vehicle every hour, 200 taka could be generated over 10 hours. This compares unfavourably to hawkers, who earn on average 250 taka per day.

Furthermore, the business generated by the parked car is likely to benefit only one or two shopkeepers and potentially the collector of parking fees. Meanwhile, two vendors could fit into the space of one parked car. Thus 500 taka could be generated daily from one parking space. That money goes directly to support the families of the hawkers, without the overhead expenses generated by other businesses, meaning a direct contribution to poverty alleviation and income generation for the most vulnerable. Further, the money made by hawkers, as with that made by rickshaw wallah, is likely to continue to circulate at the lower rungs of the economy, thereby providing benefit to other vulnerable populations as well.

When considering the potential role of the private sector in managing footpaths, the importance of vendors both to pedestrians and to a healthy local economy should be considered. Vendors could be given a role in maintaining cleanliness and order in the space surrounding their stall. Such a role would facilitate proper footpath management without added expense, could be deducted from their licensing fee, and would contribute to a safe, lively, healthy, and economically‐vibrant city.

We recommend, therefore, that policies and infrastructure interventions be developed for proper hawker management that continue to support shop‐keepers and vendors in the pedestrian environment, while at the same time protecting pedestrian space.

The current situation in Dhaka is such that while licensing occurs in some parts of the city, vendors are largely unlicensed. They are vulnerable to corruption, as those who de facto control footpath space often require payoffs to allow vendors to use the space. Vendors must also often pay‐off the police for permission to ply their trade. One possibility is to consider the use of trade licenses, which should be based on the type and size of the business, as is done for other trade licenses. Key points that can be found in other vendor policies include:

All vendors should be licensed. A key principle is that the licensing system must not be used to restrict or reduce the presence of vendors on the streets.

Designate three categories of space on and adjacent to footpaths: a restriction‐free vending zone, a restricted vending zone, and a no vending zone.

Public involvement is necessary for decisions about vendor licensing and vending establishments, including how areas should be designated or zoned, so that errors are not made in either direction (allowing vendors where space is too limited or being excessively restrictive and thus harming the ability of low income earners to make their living).

Figure 41: Hawkers providing "eyes onthe street", Gazipur



Trade licenses appear to be a viable option. However, we do not yet have enough information to formulate a policy, as this is a complicated issue that requires further study. Recommendations should be based on further research and international experience. Possibilities include establishing a new government department, adding to the responsibilities of an existing department, looking for ways to involve the private sector, infrastructure changes, or doing nothing. All of the options (as well as other ideas) need to be adequately studied and compared before specific recommendations can be made. To help guide discussion on this issue, the Government of India’s policy and bill on street vendors are included in Appendices 7 and 8, respectively, as examples.

4.8 Education and Celebrations

We recommend that the city organize car‐free days to celebrate walking and consider implementing driver awareness campaigns.

Infrastructure changes and policies will significantly improve the pedestrian‐friendliness of the city and make walking and other forms of non‐motorized transport much safer and more comfortable. But, infrastructure changes alone will not create a culture of walking in Dhaka. The BRT Walkability Strategy also needs community education and community celebrations.

In October 2000, residents of Bogotá (Colombia) voted to keep cars off the streets every weekday from 6 am to 9 am and 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm from Jan 2015 onwards. While the referendum did not take effect, it showed public frustration with traffic congestion and an eagerness for a limit to car use. Worldwide, the popular Carfree Day is celebrated on 22 September. In Paris, there has been a 30% drop in carbon monoxide levels and a 15% drop in nitrogen dioxide; more than 80% of respondents in a 2000 French poll supported the idea of car‐free days and 44% wanted it to become a weekly event. Opinion surveys in Italy and France show approval for car‐free days at 85%.

New York City’s Department of Transportation has recently started using electronic message boards saying “Speed Limit 30” and “Slow Down.” The city has also unveiled a billboard showing a half‐skull, half‐child's face image to bring home the message that when someone is hit at 40 mph (64 kmh), there is a 70% chance that they will be killed; at 30 mph (48 kmh), there's an 80% chance that they will survive (see Figure 42). Other initiatives include pilot 20 mph (32 kmh) zones and enforcing speeding laws.11

Many of these policies, and others like them, could be adapted to Bangladesh and incorporated into the Walkability Strategy. This could include the organization of car‐free day events to celebrate walking, driver education programmes, and the designation of low‐speed zones and/or pedestrian‐only zones. Large public events could also be organized to inform and educate the public about the importance of pedestrian safety.

11 Source: http://www.grist.org/transportation/2011‐05‐13‐should‐we‐label‐cars‐the‐way‐we‐label‐cigarettes

Figure 42: New York City anti‐speeding billboard



4.9 PedestrianFirst Policies and Laws

We recommend that a Pedestrian Charter of Rights be adopted and used as the basis of pedestrian‐first policies and/or laws.

The current transportation policy framework, particularly the Strategic Transport Plan (STP), repeatedly refers to the need for pedestrian‐first policies. However, no such policy has yet been drafted. We therefore recommend that the local City Corporations adopt a Pedestrian Charter of Rights. Pedestrian Charters serve as a reminder to decision‐makers that walking must be valued as the most sustainable of all forms of travel, and that it has enormous social, environmental, and

economic benefits for the community. A Pedestrian Charter of Rights could also be used to mobilize community organizations, and to create greater awareness about the importance of pedestrians and the improvements that need to be made.

A draft Rights‐based Pedestrian Charter is found in Appendix 5.12 This draft is based on existing charters that were analyzed and adapted for the Bangladeshi context (the Australian Pedestrian Charter, the European Charter of Pedestrian Rights, the International Charter for Walking, and the

Toronto Pedestrian Charter). The Bangladesh Pedestrian Charter shows how a culture where people choose to walk can be created, identifies the needs of people on foot, and provides a framework to help authorities refocus their existing policies, activities, and relationships to support pedestrians.

A charter itself is very difficult to get enacted as law as it has too many components and is far‐reaching. However, acting as a visionary, strategic document, a charter provides the foundation upon which subsequent laws can be based. The process of public and policy debate around the charter’s contents will provide a significant educational and mobilizing opportunity, will generate media attention, and will raise the profile of pedestrians. This will, in due course, create the necessary support to make the development, passage, and implementation of pedestrian‐first laws easier. Thus, the passage of a pedestrian charter is but an important first step; following its adoption, opportunities should be explored to develop specific laws that implement the Pedestrian Charter, including the specific recommendations made below.

12 In Addition, in Appendix 6, additional information can be found about improving the situation for pedestrians.

Figure 43: Putting pedestrians first



5 Implementing the Recommended Actions This report has suggested many potential actions that, if implemented, will help realize the vision of the BRT Walkability Strategy. These recommendations, and the assignment of responsibility, are based, in part, on our discussions with the various stakeholders. In other instances, assignment of responsibility was extrapolated from the existing responsibilities of the respective agencies. More work will need to be done in the future to garner buy‐in and support from these agencies.

Many of these recommendations extend beyond the boundaries of the study areas and will benefit the city as a whole. The recommended actions are general in nature and are intended to serve as a starting point for discussions. Successfully introducing and implementing these actions will require the involvement of decision‐makers, non‐governmental organizations (local and international), academics, and citizens.

5.1 Recommendations and Responsibilities

The implementation of the pilot project is addressed in the next section. Table 9 provides more detailed information about each of recommended actions noted in Section 4.

Table 9: Recommendations and responsibilities (details)

Recommended Action

Type of Action

Level of Government Responsible

Agency Responsible

Agencies to be consulted

Enforcement Plan needed


Institutional Arrangement

DMA

LRGD n/a No


Tools and Guidelines

DMA

NMT Cell NGOs Academics

City Corporations

Yes


Training DMA


City Corporations

Yes


Tool DMA


City Corporations

No


Legislation National Ministry of Finance

.

BRTA Ministry of

Communication NGOs

Yes


Legislation DMA RAJUK LRGD NGOs

Urban & Regional Planners

Universities Professional Associations

Yes


Legislation City City Corporations

LRGD

Yes



Recommended Action

Type of Action


Agency Responsible



Ensue playgrounds in all new development

Policy enforcement

DMA RAJUK

Children’s Academy Ministry of Women and

Children’s Affairs

Yes


Infrastructure improvement


Local community Yes




.

Police Department Local community

Yes



City City Corporations,

n/a No


Pilot Project City DTCB Ministry of Communication


LGRD NGOs

No


Legislation City


City Corporation Pourashava

Yes

Parking charges Legislation City City Corporation Pourashava

LGRD Traffic Department of Bangladesh Police

Yes


Program City City Corporations/ Pourashava

Local Community Yes


Guidelines City City Corporations/ Pourashava

Local Community Local Business leaders

NGOs

Yes


Legislation National

Ministry of Labour and Employment

Ministry of Housing and Public Works

LGRD NGOs

City Corporation Pourashava

Yes


Program City NGO

Ministry of Communication

Metropolitan Police City Corporation/

Pourashava

No


Program National BRTA

Ministry of Communication

BRTC DTCB

No



Recommended Action

Type of Action


Agency Responsible



Metropolitan Police Transport Owner and Labour Association


Guiding Framework

DMA LGRD

City Corporations NGOs

Academics Citizens

No

We suggest, as the final step, the Pedestrian Charter of Rights should be fully developed, as it provides the framework within which all of the suggested pedestrian‐friendly policies and actions can be made. A Hawker Charter should also be developed, following further study of the issue. It is particularly important that these first steps involve significant stakeholder involvement. Various meetings and other events should be organized to gain their input and support. Steps could include:

a. Solicit opinions and recommendations from various interest groups, agencies, and individuals to inform the drafting of a pedestrian first policy.

b. Involve the media to inform the general public and policymakers about the process.

c. Involve the public in various campaigns related to the passage of the policy, including letter or postcard campaigns and demonstrations.

d. Involve the public in monitoring and implementing the policy.

5.2 Political Mapping

By involving stakeholders in the process, not only will specific agency issues be addressed in the Charter but will also raise awareness about the importance of the issue and garner support for the passage of the Charter. Experience has demonstrated that successful implementation is often a result of the NGO and academic communities drafting policies and legislation, which are then submitted to government for finalization. This allows government officials to benefit from the particular expertise of non‐governmental organizations while not overburdening already busy staff. It is suggested that NGOs and academia work closely with government throughout the process of developing pedestrian‐friendly policies to ensure both that things move smoothly and that different agencies honour their commitments. In addition to policy makers, examples of key stakeholder groups include:

Universities

The professors, researchers, and students of a number of universities, including Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Institute of Diploma Engineers Dhaka University, Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna University, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology (CHUET), and Brojo Mohon University College‐Barisal, regularly advise government on a number of issues, including urban planning and transport. They can demonstrate the primary components of a safe and comfortable environment for walking.

Environmental Organizations

Environment‐focused organizations could pay more attention to the issue of walking. The more people walk, the more pollution can be reduced. The Bangladesh Environment Movement (BAPA),



Save the Environment Movement (POBA), and the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers’ Association (BELA), for example, could regularly organize events to demand a more attractive and safe environment for walking. They can also promote the environmental benefits that would be included in a pro‐pedestrian policy.

Professional Associations

Trade and professional associations such as the Bangladesh Institute of Planners (BIP) and the Engineer Institute of Bangladesh (IEB) could play an important role in helping to advise the government and support their members in learning about issues related to pedestrians. They can participate in training development and education.

Health Movement

The Health Movement, with its emphasis on the prevention of disease, can utilize its experience from commenting on the draft National Health Policy to provide feedback to a pedestrian policy, particularly related to the links between lack of physical activity and NCDs.

World Health Organization

The WHO has taken the lead internationally in promoting environmental changes that would lead to healthier lifestyles, through its background research for and drafting of the Global Strategy for Diet, Physical Activity and Health. WHO country and regional offices have produced many documents that address the importance of changing urban environments to enable and encourage active lifestyles and particularly active transport. Its help will be essential in preparing the policies.

The Media

There are many daily newspapers in Bangladesh, as well as weekly magazines, radio programs, and TV, all of which reach wide and varied audiences. More media messages about the importance of walking and the need for a proper environment to facilitate walking would serve both to educate the public and to inform policymakers. In addition to news, newspapers publish articles on health, environment, women and children, and other issues related to walking. They can all be encouraged to pay more attention to various issues related to pedestrians.

The various other agencies mentioned above can play an important role in bringing information to the press about pedestrian issues, including international experience, local research, an analysis of the current situation, and the impact of various urban and transport policies on the walking environment. This can be done through meetings, letters, press conferences, demonstrations, provision of materials and so on.

5.3 Processes

The process of passing the Pedestrian Charter involves:

1. The policy is drafted by the relevant ministry

2. A committee is established that includes different government agencies to review the policy

3. Public comment is solicited

4. The policy goes to the Law Ministry to be rewritten in legal language

5. The policy is approved by the Cabinet Ministry

6. The policy is implemented



Following its passage, the policy should be printed and distributed as quickly as possible. The Ministry of Communications should then issue letters to the different government agencies to inform them of their respective responsibilities. This is also an excellent time to organize a press conference or other media events to publicize passage of the policy. NGOs can again play an important role in supporting government awareness‐raising activities.

In addition, several of the recommended actions involve passing legislation. Legislation requires a more formal process and, using the Hawker Policy as an example, would involve:

1. One ministry starts the process; in this case we recommend the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The Ministry of labour and Employment would then establish a committee with members from different ministries and other government agencies to discuss and draft the bill.

2. Public comment is solicited.

3. The draft legislation is sent to the Law Ministry, which rewrites the bill in proper legal language.

4. The Cabinet Ministry approves the draft bill.

5. After approval by the originating Ministry, the bill is sent to Parliament. If more than half of the MPs approve the legislation, the law is passed.

6. The bill then goes to the President for signature, and the gazette is released and disseminated.

7. The law is implemented.

Many people in Bangladesh say that new laws are not needed because the existing ones are not enforced. Often the most difficult part of the policy process comes after the law’s passage; it is important that the government is supported to conduct proper monitoring and enforcement. Each existing and new law that addresses non‐motorized transportation should have an accompanying enforcement plan. In addition, tools, trainings, and additional pilot projects should be initiated to increase the chance of successful monitoring and implementation. This work can be done by the individual responsible agencies themselves, or the NGO community can be involved.

Figure 44: Advocating for better walking conditions



6 Proposed Pilot Projects The study results and the institutional analysis clearly demonstrate that there are significant improvements that need to be made in the pedestrian environment surrounding the proposed BRT Corridor. To illustrate the possible improvements that could be made, and to outline the concrete steps that could be taken to make those improvements, the project team designed two pilot projects, one for a road segment in Uttara and another for a road segment in Gazipur.

The pilot designs were developed only after detailed analysis of the research was undertaken, extensive discussions held about the goals and objectives of the pilots based on the research findings, and repeated planning sessions conducted to respond to the expressed concerns and observed problems. Feedback from a range of stakeholders was also incorporated into the project designs. The two projects – outlined below – include different levels of detail. The Uttara project includes detailed site plans and road cross sections; however, no artistic renderings were created. The Gazipur project, on the other hand, includes a series of artistic rendering but lacks a site plan and road cross sections. If further developed and implemented, the pilot projects will create a positive pedestrian environment and can be used to determine the feasibility of such changes. Although the pilots address design changes on two specific roads, the pilots are sufficiently generic that they could be applied more broadly throughout the Dhaka Metropolitan Area and in Gazipur‐Tongi.

Due to time constraints, the project team was not able to engage local residents in design charrettes. Public participation is a critical aspect of pilot project design. However, it is an issue that needs to be treated with care because it can be difficult for people to envision something that they have never experienced. Our suggestion is that in the future design charrettes will be conducted with a variety of local residents and street users to provide them with images of potential improvements to facilitate richer discussion.

6.1 Uttara Pilot Project

6.1.1 Site Selection

Uttara was selected as the site for one of the pilot projects; it is located immediately north of Dhaka's international airport and is the southernmost area through which the BRT Corridor will pass.13

13 All maps in this section are reproduced in Appendix 9 in a larger format.

Figure 45: Map: Overview of BRT corridor and study areas



The Uttara section of the BRT Corridor will connect with the World Bank proposed BRT Corridor and will be the first section built. Uttara presents two main advantages over other sites along the BRT corridor. First, its gridiron street pattern will allow policy makers to easily apply our design recommendations to neighbourhoods with similar street configurations. For example, Mirpur, Pallabi, Mohammedpur, and the north end of Tongi exhibit similar street patterns. Second, Uttara reflects a number of key issues that affect pedestrian accessibility. On one hand, it hosts several garment factories, whose workers generally walk to their place of employment. These workers are considered the urban poor, and as the female garment factory workers noted in the focus groups, they are often powerless to make changes. On the other hand, Uttara itself is not a low‐income neighbourhood. As such, it is not uncommon for residents to own and use cars for personal transport. The combination of broad applicability and potential for car‐pedestrian conflict made Uttara an ideal site for a pedestrian improvement pilot project.

Criteria for Pilot Site

Within Uttara, we developed several decision criteria by which to identify the most suitable area for the pilot project. In terms of size, we preferred a linear area (e.g. one or more street segments) over an individual point (e.g. an intersection). A linear area allowed us to make recommendations that affect mobility across space rather than mobility at a specific point. We then used responses from the observation survey to isolate segments with poor pedestrian accessibility. Specifically, we sought segments with:

1. a high volume of pedestrians, 2. poor footpath quality or no footpaths, 3. street vendors, 4. illegal car parking, 5. construction rubbish, and 6. car entry/exit cuts

These criteria provided both the greatest number of challenges and the greatest number of opportunities to demonstrate how design could alleviate many pedestrian problems. Finally, we opted for segments near the proposed BRT stations and garment factories, as well as segments with high volumes of garment workers walking to and from their places of employment.

Pilot Site Selection: Shahajalal Avenue

After reviewing the various road segments in Uttara against our critiera, we selected Shahajalal Avenue as the pilot site.

It feeds into a proposed BRT station as well as a multi‐storey garment factory.

Although not every segment along Shahajalal Avenue fulfils each of the six criteria, combined the segments created our ideal pilot site.

Shahajalal Avenue spans several different widths along its 550 metre length. At its western edge, the road measures thirty metres wide. Midway between the BRT and the railroad, the width briefly shrinks to eighteen metres to accommodate a pre‐existing cemetery on the south side of the street. The eastern end of Shahajalal Avenue hairpins to the south where its width drops to sixteen metres.

The mix of widths allowed us to demonstrate the types of pedestrian improvements that could occur on a variety of street types; it also poses challenges that may be applicable to other road segments in the city.



Finally, little hard infrastructure has been developed on Shahajalal Avenue. A two‐lane carriageway and certain swaths of footpath have been built. The lack of cohesive and contiguous infrastructure makes the avenue a prime candidate for intervention.

Figure 46 presents Shahajalal Avenue, existing buildings along the pilot corridor, and nearby transportation facilities, while Figure 47 provides a series of “before” shots of the pilot area.

Figure 46: Map: Shahajalal Avenue, pilot site

Figure 47: Before shots of Shahjalal Avenue



6.1.2 Pilot Project Design

Identified Problems

For the design team to adequately address the problems on Shahajalal Avenue, we reviewed the results of the observation and perception surveys. These surveys uncovered the many concerns facing pedestrians along the street. The figures below show selected results of the observation survey undertaken along Shahajalal Avenue.

Figure 48 identifies the footpaths that are available along Shahajalal Avenue, and whether these are on one side or both sides of the street. Of the eight segments surveyed, four had footpaths on both sides and two had footpaths on one side. The remaining two segments did not have footpaths. Figure 49 illustrates the state of footpaths along Shahajalal Avenue. Footpath quality relates to the contiguity, flatness, and overall condition of existing footpaths. Where footpaths exist, no segments were rated "good". Five segments were rated "fair", and the remaining segment was rated "poor".

Figure 48: Map: Footpath availability, Shahajalal Avenue



The project team constructed an overall footpath safety measure comprised of variables used in the observation survey. This composite safety variable describes segments with (1) narrow footpaths, (2) many footpath obstructions, (3) no street crossing aides, (4) no traffic calming facilities, and (5) the presence of cars. Four segments along Shahajalal Avenue were rated "unsafe" according to our composite safety measure (Figure 50).

Figure 49: Map: Footpath quality, Shahajalal Avenue

Figure 50: Map: Footpath safety, Shahajalal Avenue



In terms of walkability, therefore, Shahajalal Avenue is unsafe, inconvenient, uncomfortable, and unattractive for pedestrians. These factors affect those who walk as their primary mode, as well as those whose transit access and egress involve walking.

6.1.3 Pilot Project Overview

Goal

The goal of the proposed pilot project is to improve walkability and safety, and ensuring pedestrians the right of way and space. Emphasis has been placed on pedestrian mobility for the poor and vulnerable, as well as transit users' access and egress.

Guiding Principles

We employed four guiding principles for the Shahajalal Avenue pilot project design.

1. Safety: The safety of pedestrians would take precedence over all other modes of transportation.

2. Convenience: Barriers to pedestrian mobility must be minimized or eliminated.

3. Comfort: Adequate space must be provided for pedestrian transport, as well as non‐transport pedestrian activities. Wherever possible, the pedestrian environment must provide shelter from inclement weather.

4. Aesthetics: The pedestrian environment must be attractive.

Objectives

Based on the above goal and guiding principles, the pilot project objectives are to:

Accommodate pedestrian traffic

Reduce pedestrian‐vehicle conflicts

Eliminate barriers to mobility for pedestrians with temporary or permanent physical disabilities

Increase shade cover and protection from precipitation

Reduce the incidence of storm water flooding

Reduce the incidence of public urination and defecation without compromising the health of individuals

Legally accommodate street vendors

Establish an orderly flow of two‐way vehicular traffic

Encourage non‐transport pedestrian activities

Ensure visibility for pedestrians at night

Reduce the incidence of public littering

Each of these objectives is addressed in the pilot through proposed infrastructure or design changes.



6.1.4 Pilot Project Design Recommendations

Based on the above objectives, we propose a set of related action items, which are summarized in Table 10. Each of these is discussed in more detail below.

Table 10: Uttara pilot design recommendations

Objective Suggested Improvement Suggested Materials Accommodate pedestrian traffic

Ensure an unobstructed width of three metres on each footpath for pedestrian movement

4,148 metres of pedestrian area paving tiles

2 street archways

4 local area maps and way‐finding aids

Reduce pedestrian‐vehicle conflicts

Use bicycle lanes as a buffer between pedestrians and other vehicles

Extend sidewalk widths at intersections to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and to slow vehicular traffic

Raise well‐used intersections to the level of footpaths to slow vehicular traffic

2,684 metres of cycle way paving

1,220 metres of cycle way delineators (buffer)

36 cycle way road markings

20 cycle way signs

4 cycle way awnings at major intersections

200 LED lights for cycle way

4 raised intersections

Eliminate barriers to mobility for pedestrians with temporary or permanent physical disabilities

Construct level footpaths

Construct raised crosswalks along Shahajalal Avenue or, where raised crosswalks are impractical, cut curbs at intersections with wheelchair‐friendly slopes (1:12 rise‐run ratio)

Retrofit existing car entry/exit cuts to accommodate wheelchair access along affected footpaths

5 raised crossings

3 curb extensions

8 drop curbs

1 signalized pedestrian crossing

45 parking bays (signage and markings)


Where tree shade is lacking, plant trees (preferably fruit‐bearing, broad leaf trees) at six‐metre intervals along the footpaths’ outside edge

Plant banyan trees at places of gathering, e.g. bazaar entrances

Erect planted trellis shades above bicycle parking, as well as above rickshaw stands

Plant trees between vendors at the bazaar near the BRT corridor

100 trees (including tree, planting base and grating)

50 planters (including structure and vegetation)

30 points for irrigation facility provision

4 bicycle parking facilities (covered)

4 pedicab station awnings

Reduce the incidence of storm water flooding

Construct a permeable buffer between the bicycle lane and the parking lane

Use permeable pavers where possible

1,220 storm water enhancements


Provide serviced public toilets with male and female stalls at the two bazaars (at the eastern and western edges of Shahajalal Avenue)

Allocate space for rickshaw stands near proposed public toilet facilities

2 public toilet facilities

2 information kiosks/ stations

8 electrical connections to facilities

2 water connections to public toilets

4 ranks of pedicab (cycle



rickshaw) station: Paving tiles

4 pedicab stations: signage/ markings)

4 pedicab station totems


Designate additional 1‐metre footpath width at the edge of non‐retail buildings for street vendors

6 paved vendor zones

6 vendor areas: signage/ markings

40 vendor stalls

Establish an orderly flow of two‐way vehicular traffic

Designate two 3.2‐metre lanes of road space for single‐lane vehicular traffic in both directions

Provide limited pay parking spaces for cars in designated areas only

n/a


Place street furniture on the footpath, where space permits

Place bollards at strategic locations to both block car traffic where car traffic is not allowed and to provide leaning surfaces for pedestrians

10 benches

3 street sculptures

1 child play facility

1 exercise facility

1 games facility (street chess)

5 street wifi provisions


Use existing utility poles to mount low‐lying LED bulbs

Use existing utility poles to string LED bulbs at ten‐metre intervals

118 energy‐efficient street lights (posts and lamps)


Place concrete waste bins at regular intervals and ensure that they are emptied regularly.

10 recycling stations

The following Site Plan shows an overview of the proposed changes for the entire street. For a larger version of this Site Plan, please refer to Appendix 9.

Figure 51: Map: Proposed changes, Shahajalal Avenue

Several action items cover more than one objective. In these cases, we included the proposed action in the most relevant category. For the purposes of this document, our design recommendations are grouped into four major categories:

Travel infrastructure: outlines our proposed allocation of street space to a variety of users;

Intersections: describes our proposed treatment of crosswalks;

Street furniture, landscaping, and lighting: deals with auxiliary pedestrian (and cyclist) amenities, whether for safety, convenience, or comfort;

Special areas: deals with the two markets and cemetery within the study area.



Travel Infrastructure

Along Shahajalal Avenue, the major travel modes are (1) walking, (2) non‐motorised vehicles (rickshaws, rickshaw vans, and bicycles), (3) informal mass transit (human haulers), and (4) motorised vehicles (cars and CNGs). The team noted that each mode of existing traffic could be accommodated within the existing 30‐metre right‐of‐way; in other words, the existing width of the road is sufficient to ensure a pedestrian‐friendly environment if changes are made to how the road’s width is utilized.

Figure 52: Map: Travel infrastructure, Shahajalal Avenue

The first design change is to ensure a wide right‐of‐way footpath for pedestrians, raised 20 centimetres from the carriageway. This includes walking space (3.4 m wide), as well as space designated for vendors and utilities (1.4 m wide), and trees and seating (1.2 m wide). The right‐of‐way would ideally be constructed of concrete or tile. To provide a buffer between pedestrians and faster vehicles, we placed a bike path (1.8 m wide) next to the footpath. The bike lane should be raised 10 centimetres from the carriageway to remind both drivers and pedestrians of its presence.

Between the bike lane and car parking, we placed a planted storm water buffer (1.2 m wide) both both prevent car doors from hitting cyclists and to reduce the incidence of flooding. The resulting carriageway is 11.2 metres, of which two 2.4‐metre lanes provide parallel car parking, store loading (during prescribed hours), and, where designated, rickshaw parking.

The remaining 6.4 metres provide one mixed traffic travel lane operating in both directions. A 3.2 metre lane is sufficiently narrow to discourage speeding and sufficiently wide to accommodate both a rickshaw and a car abreast. Because it is very difficult to cycle next to rickshaws due to their easy maneuverability, we prefer to separate bicycles and have rickshaws operate in the same lanes as motorized vehicles. There is little concern that rickshaws will slow down traffic, as current speeds are already well below the speed at which a rickshaw can travel. In addition, we do not want the overall speed to be too high, as high‐speed traffic poses a high safety risk to pedestrians. Table 11 summarizes the proposed breakdown of street space.



Table 11: Proposed breakdown of street space, Shahajalal Avenue

Width (ea) Number Description

3.2 m 2 Car and rickshaw travel lanes

2.4 m 2 Parking and loading lanes (or rickshaw stand where designated)

1.8 m 2 Bicycle lane

3.4 m 2 Unobstructed footpath

1.2 m 2 Planted buffer (between parking and bike path)

1.2 m 2 Trees and street furniture (between footpath and bike path)

1.4 m 2 Vendor and utilities space

30 m Total right‐of‐way

Intersections

Ensuring that there were sufficient intersection crossings was a design priority. We propose four main intersections along Shahajalal Avenue, excluding the BRT corridor and the railroad crossing:

(1) a T‐intersection 90 metres east of the BRT corridor;

(2) a four‐way intersection at Shahajalal Avenue and Road 16;

(3) a four‐way intersection at Shahajalal Avenue and Road 20A; and

(4) an L‐shaped intersection where Shahajalal Avenue becomes narrow at its eastern edge.

At each of these intersections, we propose:

A speed table to raise the carriageway (20 centimetres) and bicycle path (10 centimetres) to footpath height;

2.4‐metre footpath curb extensions (the space otherwise occupied by parking and loading) to (1) shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians, and (2) make room for larger‐

Figure 53: Map: Main intersections, Shahjalal Avenue



scale bicycle parking facilities;

Different surface material or colours for the speed table; and

Street signs indicating street names at least two corners of each intersection. We suggest that the utility poles could be used to erect street signs where available.

A further five minor intersections already exist along Shahajalal Avenue.

Figure 54: Cross‐section of proposed major intersection

Figure 55: Map: Minor intersections, Shahjalal Avenue



For these, we recommend raising the footpath along Shahajalal Avenue, but not across it. This makes it easy for pedestrians to access the BRT station without unnecessarily obstructing motorised and non‐motorised traffic. Finally, we also recommend raising the footpath in a similar manner at the five minor intersections for car entry/exit cuts, as well as at service entries to the eastern market (see Figure 57).

Figure 56: Cross‐section of proposed minor intersection

Figure 57: Raised intersection



Street Furniture, Landscaping, and Lighting

Although it was beyond the scope of the project to actually design it, we recommend that street furniture be included in the pilot project to create an attractive and comfortable pedestrian environment. Street furniture guidelines should be developed with community input. However, the design team did make decisions about the types of street furniture that should be included in the Shahajalal Avenue pilot and include the following illustrative examples.

Waste bins adjacent to existing utility poles at roughly 100 metre intervals

Bicycle parking at curb extensions

Seating

Awnings at curb extensions to protect bicycles from rain and to provide shade to passers‐by

Exercise equipment

Signposts at each market indicating the location of the BRT station, public toilets, etc.

Figure 59: Bicycle parking (photo courtesy of David Shay)

Figure 58: Waste bins (photo courtesyof Todd Mecklem)

Figure 60: Bench (photo courtesy of www.outdoorfromchina.com

Figure 61: Awning



Landscaping is an important component of any street design. Not only does it create a comfortable, attractive environment, but landscaping also serves the practical purpose of helping to address flooding. The following are the pilot project’s recommended landscape features:

1.2 metres of space on the edge of the sidewalk for trees and street furniture

Additional trees where gaps in the canopy exist

Planted 1.2 metre buffer between car parking and the bike path, providing storm water and cyclist protection

Although pedestrian‐scale lighting is an important safety feature, the observation study showed that such lighting is very rare in the study areas. For the pilot site, we recommend the following:

LED lighting fixed to existing utility poles at a height of 3 metres

LED lighting strung between existing utility poles, ideally at 10 metre intervals

Low‐lying LED lights should also be placed on the storm water buffer to light the way for cyclists (approximately every 10 metres)

Special Areas

There are three areas along Shahajalal Avenue that were unique and need to be accommodated in the pilot. At both the western and eastern ends of the road segment there is a market, and midway down the segment there is a cemetery. Each of these areas needs specific design attention.

Western Market

We make several key recommendations for the western market including:

o Eliminate the north‐side parking spaces and instead provide two rows of vendors.

o Public toilets

Two urinals, two men's stalls, two women's stalls, two basins, attendant

o Information kiosk including a neighbourhood map, a signpost, and an awning (for shade).

Figure 63: Outdoor exercise equipment(photo courtesy of Ben Graville)

Figure 62: Signpost (photo courtesy of Calori& Vanden‐Eynden Designs)



o Large bike parking stand across the street

o Rickshaw stand across the street

Eastern Market

We determined that the existing configuration of vendors was appropriate and therefore do not suggest any changes to where the vendors themselves will be. However, we suggest that the market include:

o Public toilets at the back of the market

Two urinals, two men's stalls, two women's stalls, two basins, attendant

o Information kiosk including a neighbourhood map, a signpost, and an awning (for shade).

o Large bike parking stand at the back of the market

o Rickshaw stand across the street

Figure 64: Cross section, Western Market



Cemetery

The cemetery provides a unique challenge in that the road narrows by 12 metres at this location. We determined that the northward kink in the road acts as a traffic calming feature. The only additional changes we suggest for the cemetery area is the removal of parallel parking, and the slight narrowing of bike lanes and footpaths.

Figure 65: Cross section, Eastern Market

Figure 66: Cross section, cemetery



6.1.5 Implementation of the Pilot Project

Shahjalal Avenue is situated within the Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) area. According to a DCC official interviewed during the pilot project design, there are two different ways in which the proposed pilot could be implemented in the DCC area.

The first option would be for the pilot project initiator to apply to the City Mayor for approval of the proposed plan design. The initiator would then be responsible for overseeing the pilot implementation and taking all necessary actions, including finding the necessary resources and managing the tendering process, construction, evaluation, etc. After the pilot is completed, and assuming a favourable review of its results, the DCC would take responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure changes.

A second option would be for the initiator, after finding the necessary resources, to provide the design to DCC, which would then use the resources itself to issue tenders and manage the implementation of the pilot. The initiator would still monitor the implementation of the pilot project, to ensure that it remains true to the original design. The DCC would be responsible for ongoing maintenance after the pilot’s completion and evaluation.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the initiator, the donor, and the DCC would be required for either implementation option. Based on the suggestions from the DCC officials themselves, given the low priority currently given to the pedestrian environment, the first implementation option is recommended over the second.



6.2 Gazipur Pilot Project

6.2.1 Site Selection

The road segment selected for the project design is called “Hospital Road” and connects the Gazipur pourashava (local government office) with the Joydebpur Railway station and the last BRT station. This site is considered particularly suitable as a pedestrian area pilot site because it is visited frequently by a variety of officials, decision‐makers, and local residents. This area also sees heavy foot traffic by garment factory workers and other low‐income people. Finally, this site was selected based on the enthusiasm of the current Gazipur mayor to improve the pedestrian environment.

Figure 67: Gazipur pilot site

6.2.2 Pilot Project Design

Identified Problems

Despite the low level of motorized traffic and high pedestrian volume in this area, there are few amenities to facilitate walking and the area roads are unsafe and unattractive. The street is too narrow to accommodate both footpaths and vehicles. Although space is available for other amenities, there are no trees, public toilets, street lights, seating arrangements or trash cans. Finally, significant space is being occupied in a haphazard fashion by human haulers and rickshaw drivers for parking. These factors affect those who walk, as well as those whose transit access and egress involves walking.



6.2.3 Pilot Project Overview

Goal

The goal of the proposed pilot project is to improve walkability and safety, and ensuring pedestrians the right of way and space. Emphasis has been placed on pedestrian mobility for the poor and vulnerable, as well creating a lively public space in this well visited area of strategic importance.

Guiding Principles

We employed four guiding principles for the Gazipur pilot project design:

1. Safety: The safety of pedestrians would take precedence over all other modes of transportation.

2. Convenience: Barriers to pedestrian mobility must be minimized or eliminated.

3. Comfort: Adequate space must be provided for pedestrian transport, as well as non‐transport pedestrian activities. Wherever possible, the pedestrian environment must provide shelter from inclement weather.

4. Aesthetics: The pedestrian environment must be attractive.

Objectives

Based on the above goal and guiding principles, the pilot project objectives are to:








Each of these objectives is addressed in the pilot through proposed infrastructure or design changes.



6.2.4 Pilot Project Design Recommendations

Based on the above objectives, we propose a set of related action items, which are summarized in the following table.

Table 12: Gazipur pilot design recommendations

Objective Suggested Improvement Suggested Materials


Create a pedestrian priority road with signs. The intention is to allow motorized and non‐motorized vehicles, but given that the road is not wide enough for footpaths, the pedestrians will be given priority with the expectation that vehicles must accommodate them and not vice versa.

10 aluminum street signs to act as pedestrian way‐finding aids, 10 cm x 50 cm, one at each intersection

1 aluminum map including concrete brace

10 Aluminum traffic signs, four at each intersection, 50 cm x 50 cm to indicate pedestrian priority road


Where tree shade is lacking, plant trees (preferably fruit‐bearing, broad leaf trees) at five‐metre intervals

Plant banyan trees in the proposed public square

150 Trees


Provide serviced public toilets with male and female stalls

One public toilet consisting of two urinals, two men's stall, two women's stalls, two basins


Designate specific space along the edge of the street for street vendors

Provide awning to vendors and customers from inclement weather

Landscaping and amenities including awnings


Place street furniture along road and in the public square

Provide public art and places of visual interest for pedestrians

20 benches equivalent to 20 cubic metres of concrete

4 public art installations 400 planters 600 square metres of concrete pavers


Provide lamp posts and low‐lying LED bulbs at ten‐metre intervals

35 small concrete lamp posts

70 solar powered bulbs and brackets


Place concrete waste bins at regular intervals and ensure that they are emptied regularly.

10 concrete waste containers with dimensions 1m x 0.5 m x 0.5 m placed every fifty metres



Before and After Pictures

The following preliminary artistic renderings of a before‐after situation are meant to illustrate the possible changes that would be evident following the implementation of the pilot project. Before implementation, the viewpoints of local residents will need to be solicited to improve the likelihood of project success.

Figure 68: Before‐after artistic renderings of Gazipur pilot design

Before After‐ Note street lights, benches and trees

Before

After‐ Note Wwy‐finding sign and public toilet

Before After – Note public art and space for vendors



Before After – Note pedestrian priority sign

Before

After‐ Note trash cans, awnings, and seating

6.2.5 Implementation of the Pilot Project

The Gazipur mayor and local city officials are well placed and have expressed their interest in implementing this pilot. To increase the chances of successful implementation, assistance should be provided in the areas of community engagement, development of site maps and street crossing sections, as well as oversight of the intended changes.



6.3 Conclusion

The pilot projects represent a great opportunity to showcase the design upgrades that can be made to improve the pedestrian‐environment while still supporting other modes of transportation. We recommend that the pilots be implemented as early as possible so that their impacts on pedestrian convenience, safety, comfort, and attractiveness can be evaluated. Evaluation measures could include a repeat of the observation, perception, and focus group studies, with the original studies counting as a baseline against which post‐implementation impacts could be measured. If successful, the pilots could be expanded to other priority areas surrounding the BRT Corridor and eventually the entire Dhaka Metropolitan Area and beyond.



7 Conclusions

Until pedestrians are treated as valuable and a significant part of traffic, measures to improve their conditions will not prove successful.

To ensure that ADB’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor not only improves the growing traffic problems in Dhaka but also addresses the needs of pedestrians, this report presents a BRT Walkability Strategy which provides policy and infrastructure recommendations aimed at creating an environment in which walking is an appealing, safe, and convenient experience for people along the BRT corridor. The Strategy can be used as a model for other neighbourhoods in Dhaka, as well as for other cities throughout Bangladesh, to assist decision‐makers as they strive to create safer and more convenient pedestrian‐friendly transportation options.

The recommendations included in the Strategy are based on the results of primary and desk‐top research, as well as extensive discussions with both policy‐makers and citizens. The vast majority of trips in Dhaka are done by foot, rickshaw, or public bus. Although 13 agencies within five Ministries have responsibilities which impact on the pedestrian environment in Dhaka, no single body exists to look after the situation of pedestrians. There is also little coordination between and among those responsible for urban planning and those responsible for transport planning. Although many existing policy documents make reference to the need to accommodate pedestrians, few have yet to put suggestions into action.

By 2008‐09, pedestrians accounted for 86% of road fatalities. The observational study of Dhaka’s walking environment revealed that almost half of the observed streets had no footpaths. Where there were footpaths, more than half were made of dirt, 85% were obstructed, and less than one‐fifth were of sufficiently good quality to be given a “good rating.” Pedestrians also face significant challenges in crossing streets. Very few service amenities existed for pedestrians in the observed segments, and virtually all of the roads observed during the study were inhospitable for people living with disabilities. Pedestrian surveys and focus group discussions corroborated the findings of the observational study, highlighting that in spite of the desire or need to walk from one destination to another, few people in Dhaka are able to do so safely or conveniently.

An improved environment for pedestrians would, in addition to being a precondition for making the BRT feasible, generate a broader positive change – not only terms in enabling people to reach their destinations safely, affordably and conveniently, but also in terms of improving traffic flow and creating a more congenial living environment. Current challenges to the creation of a pedestrian‐friendly environment include a weak policy framework, an unsupportive infrastructure, and a transportation environment that is more focused on cars than on people. Simply put, cars are put before pedestrians in policy after policy due to misconceptions about speed, economics, and traffic flow considerations. There is, however, tremendous opportunity for Dhaka’s residents to demand improved pedestrian conditions and for the city’s decision‐makers to show real leadership and make investments in pedestrian‐friendly environments. This leadership is already being shown in some areas, as evidenced by the support given to the proposed pilot projects.

The report provides a series of action‐based recommendations related to policy, law, government structures, infrastructure, maintenance, and implementation. No single measure will be sufficient to improve the condition of pedestrians in Dhaka to the point where walking can become a popular mode of transport that reduces road congestion and ensures the successful operation of mass transit. Given the wide range of issues that must be addressed, a broad and integrated approach is needed. These recommendations have thus been integrated into two proposed pilot projects which



if implemented, will showcase the design upgrades that can be made in Dhaka to improve the pedestrian‐environment while still supporting other modes of transportation.

Key recommendations made in this report include:








Ensue playgrounds in all new development






Parking charges








Improving walking conditions throughout Dhaka should be given the utmost importance. Policies should improve accessibility to needed destinations, reduce trip distances, and improve the liveability of the city. The BRT Walkability Strategy suggests an integrated, comprehensive approach and, if implemented, would do much to improve life not only for those traveling by foot, but for all residents of Dhaka. Knowledge of what to be done is not lacking. What is now needed is the determination and political will to take the problems of pedestrians seriously and to enact measures that would benefit the poor and other vulnerable groups.



References Ahmad, SA et al., Assessment of Impact of Air Pollution Among School Children in Selected Schools of Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Malé Declaration on Control and Prevention of Air Pollution and its Likely Transboundary Effect for South Asia, August 2008.

Ahmed, I, “Urban Transport and Institutional Issues in the Developing Cities” in Alam 2008.

Alam, JB, “Concerns, Challenges and Options for Sustainable Transport in Developing Countries” in Alam 2008.

Alam, Md. Jobair Bin, ed., Sustainable Transport for Developing Countries: Concerns, Issues and Options. BUET, British Council, Loughborough University and Hiroshima University, 2008.

American Public Health Association, The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation. February 2010.

Anjuman, T, S Hasanat‐E‐Rabbi and CKA Siddiqui, “Necessity of Providing NMT Facilities: Towards Accident Free Sustainable Transport in Metropolitan Dhaka” in Alam 2008.

Bari, M and D Efroymson, Detailed Area Plan (DAP) for Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP), A critical review. WBB Trust, Dhaka, March 2009.

Bari, M and D Efroymson, Efficient Use of Road Space and Maximisation of Door‐to‐Door Mobility: Suggestions for Improvements in Dhaka. WBB Trust, Dhaka: June 2005.

Bari, M and D Efroymson, Rickshaw Bans in Dhaka City: An Overview of the Arguments For and Against. Roads for People, Dhaka: August 2005.

Bari, M and D Efroymson, Vehicle Mix and Road Space in Dhaka: The Current Situation and Future Scenarios. WBB Trust, Dhaka: December 2005.

City of Copenhagen, “A Metropolis for People: Visions and Goals for Urban Life in Copenhagen 2015.”

Centre for Urban Studies (CUS) and The World Bank, “Technical, Environmental and Social Survey of Proposed FOBs and Sidewalks in Dhaka city, FINAL REPORT.” March 2008.

Daniel, K and D Efroymson, Urban Planning for Livable Cities: Density, Diversity and Design. HealthBridge 2010.

Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (1995‐2015), Volume I and II.

Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB), Ministry of Communications (MOC), Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Preparatory Survey Report on Dhaka Urban Transport Network Development Study (DHUTS) in Bangladesh Final Report (Appendix Volume). JICA, March 2010.

DSM Consultants, Impact Assessment of DUTP “After Project”, February 2006.

Efroymson, D and K Munna. Addressing Climate Change: Can we reduce carbon emissions while increasing quality of life? WBB Trust, January 2011.

Efroymson, D and M Bari, Dhaka Strategic Transport Plan (STP), A Critical Review. WBB Trust, Dhaka: May 2007.

Efroymson, D, Hafiz, RH, and Jones, L, ed. Ecocity Planning: Images and Ideas. WBB Trust, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, and Health Bridge 2008.

Efroymson, D and M Bari, Improving Dhaka’s Traffic Situation, Lessons from Mirpur Road. WBB Trust, Dhaka: February 2005.



Efroymson, D, M Rahman and R Shama. Making Cities More Livable. HealthBridge and WBB Trust 2009.

Efroymson, D, TTKT Ha and PT Ha, Public Spaces: How They Humanize Cities. HealthBridge 2009.

Efroymson, D and M Rahman, Transportation Policy for Poverty Reduction and Social Equity. WBB Trust, Dhaka: May 2005.

Efroymson, D. Using Media and Research for Advocacy: Low Cost Ways to Increase Success. HealthBridge, June 2006.

Fabian, H, S Gota, A Mejia, and J Leather. Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities: State and Issues. Draft Report, ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series. Asian Development Bank, 2010.

Federal Highway Administration (2010). Safety Benefits of Walkways, Sidewalks, and Paved Shoulders. Accessed on July 27th, 2011 from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/walkways_brochure/

Gallagher, R, The Rickshaws of Bangladesh. Dhaka: The University Press Limited, 1992.

Gehl, J, LJ Kaefer and S Reigstad, “Close Encounters with Buildings”. Centre for Public Space Research/Realdania Research, Institute for Planning, School of Architecture, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, 2004.

Gehl, J and Gemzøe, L, Public Spaces ‐ Public Life, Copenhagen. The Danish Architectural Press & The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture Publishers, Copenhagen, 2004.

Government of Bangladesh Planning Commission, UNDP and Department of Development Support and Management Services, Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area Integrated Transport Study Final Report Volume 1, Database and Immediate Actions, November 1994.

Government of Bangladesh Planning Commission, UNDP and Department of Development Support and Management Services, Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area Integrated Transport Study Working Paper Volume VI Special Studies, January, 1994.

Government of Bangladesh Planning Commission, UNDP and Department of Development Support and Management Services, Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area Integrated Transport Study Final Report: Volume 2, Strategic Directions¸ November 1994.

Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Department of Environment (DOE), Clean Air and Sustainable Environment (CASE) Preparation Project Final Report. DevCon, June 2009.

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Road Transport Authority, Dhaka Urban Transport Project Phase I Working Paper on Bus Transport and Affordability, December 1996.

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Communication Bangladesh Road Transport Authority, Road Safety Cell, National Road Traffic Accident Report 2004.

Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Communications, Dhaka Transport Co‐ordination Board, Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka.

Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Communications, Dhaka Transport Co‐ordination Board, Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka Urban Transport Policy Final Report, September 2005.



Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Communications, Dhaka Transport Co‐ordination Board, Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka Final Report, December 2005.

Guitink, P, S Holste, and J Lebo, “Non‐Motorized Transport: Confronting Poverty through Affordable Mobility”. World Bank discussion paper, April 1994.

Hoque, MM and SMS Mahmud, “Road Accidents Involving Children in Bangladesh” in Alam 2008.

Hoque, MM, S Anowar and MA Raihan, “Towards Sustainable Road Safety in Bangladesh” in Alam 2008.

Human Development Research Centre (HDRC), After Study on the Impact of Mirpur Demonstration Corridor Project (Gabtoli‐Russel Square). Prepared for Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB), August 2004.

Jacobson, J and A Forsyth, “Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in Transit‐Oriented Development Projects.” Journal of Transport and Land Use 1:2 (Fall 2008), pp. 51‐88.

Khan, RR, N Ohmori and N Ohmori, “Evaluation of the Roadside Walkway Environment of Dhaka City.” Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 1751 ‐ 1766, 2005.

New York City Department of Transportation, “Green Light for Midtown Evaluation Report,” January 2010.

New York City Department of Transportation, World Class Streets: Remaking New York City’s Public Realm.

Shoup, D, The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2005.

World Health Organization, Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for Action. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009, p. 9. http://www.un.org/ar/roadsafety/pdf/roadsafetyreport.pdf

Zohir, SC, P Paul‐Majumder, K Alam and WH Shah, “Gender Analysis for Improving Mobility in Dhaka City.” Report prepared for the Dhaka World Bank Office, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, September 2008.

Moving Dangerously, Moving Pleasurably:

Improving Walkability in Dhaka

Using a BRT Walkability Strategy to Make Dhaka’s Transportation Infrastructure

Pedestrian-Friendly

SSuummmmaarryy RReeppoorrtt

Moving Dangerously, Moving Pleasurably

Page i

Table of Contents

OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 THE IMPORTANCE OF A WALKABILITY STRATEGY ......................................................................................... 3 2 THE CURRENT TRANSPORT SITUATION IN DHAKA ........................................................................................ 4 3 IMPROVING WALKABILITY IN DHAKA .......................................................................................................... 9 4 PROPOSED PILOT PROJECTS ..................................................................................................................... 12 5 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 20 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 21

List of Tables

Table 1: BRT Walkability Strategy recommendations and responsibilities ............................................. 10 Table 2: Proposed breakdown of street space, Shahajalal Avenue ........................................................ 14 Table 3: Overview of issues addressed, research findings, and recommendations ................................ 17

List of Graphs, Figures, and Maps

Figure 1: In Dhaka, pedestrians must compete with cars for mobility space ............................................ 1 Figure 2: Walkable communities are livable communities ......................................................................... 2 Figure 3: Shared road space makes a community more walkable, cleaner, and healthier ...................... 3 Figure 4: Most trips in the DMA are by foot ............................................................................................... 4 Figure 5: Overview map of study area ........................................................................................................ 4 Figure 6: Focus group, Uttara ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 7: Map: Footpath Availability ........................................................................................................... 5 Figure 8: Poor quality footpath, Mirpur ..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 9: Dirty, obstructed footpath ........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 10: Unsafe roadway in Dhaka ........................................................................................................... 7 Figure 11: Recommended improvements, perception survey ................................................................... 7 Figure 12: Footpath with non‐curvilinear curb cut ..................................................................................... 7 Figure 13: Vendors providing "eyes on the street", Gazipur ...................................................................... 8 Figure 14: Dangerous crossing in Dhaka ..................................................................................................... 9 Figure 15: Mixed land uses increase pedestrian opportunities ................................................................. 9 Figure 16: Map: Shahajalal Avenue, pilot site ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 17: Before pictures of Shahjalal Avenue ......................................................................................... 13 Figure 18: Map: Travel infrastructure, Shahajalal Avenue ....................................................................... 14 Figure 19: Before‐after artistic renderings of Gazipur pilot design .......................................................... 15


Page ii

Acknowledgements

Many people and organizations have contributed to the design and completion of this study in various ways. Of those in Bangladesh, we would particularly like to express our special thanks to political and civic leaders in and residents of Tongi Pourashava and Gazipur Pourashava, to experts and project staff in the Dhaka City Corporation, the Local Government Engineering Department, the Transport Coordination Board, and the Roads and Highways Department, to professors and students at BUET and Jagannath University, to World Bank specialists, and to staff at WBB Trust. Of those outside Bangladesh, we would like to acknowledge the special support from and contributions by specialists at the Asian Development Bank, the Advanced Logistics Group, Gehl Architects, and the HealthBridge Foundation of Canada.

The project team was comprised of the following people:

Team Leader: Debra Efroymson (Regional Director, HealthBridge)

Technical Advisers: Saifuddin Ahmed (Executive Director, WBB Trust) and Kristie Daniel (Program Manager, Livable Cities, HealthBridge)

Research Team: From WBB Trust: Syed Mahbubul Alam (Director, Programming and Planning), Gaous Pearee Mukti (Director, Administration), Aminul Islam (Project Coordinator), Maruf Hossain Rahman (National Advocacy Officer), Najnin Kabir (Senior Project Officer), Ziaur Rahman (Project Officer); from HealthBridge and McGill University: Brendan Azim Rahman (Intern and student)

Field Researchers: From Urban and Regional Planning, BUET: Md. Abu Hanif, Md. Rifat Hossain, Neaz Rassel Shaikh, Arnab Thakur Roni, Syed Rezwanul Islam; Fuad Hasan Ovi, Md. Jashim Uddin; from the Department of Architecture, BUET: Azher‐ul‐Islam, Nazmul Ahmed, Muhammad Abu Zobayer; from the Department of Architecture, UAP: Md. Sakib Hossain; and from the Civil Engineering Department, UAP: Ashiq Mahmud.

Data Entry: Shamsia Akther Jenny, Sharmin Akther Rini

Design Team: Brendan Azim Rahman, Prodip Biswas Md. Robiul Islam, Sagor Das

Report Editing, Layout, and Formatting: Lori Jones, Director (Special Projects), HealthBridge

List of Acronyms

ADB: Asian Development Bank BR: Bangladesh Railways BRT: Bus Rapid Transit BRTA: Bangladesh Road Transport Authority BRTC: Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation BUET: Bangladesh University of Engineering and

Technology DAP: Detailed Area Plan DCC: Dhaka City Corporation DITS: Dhaka Integrated Transport Study DMA: Dhaka Metropolitan Authority DMDP: Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan DMP: Dhaka Metropolitan Police DTCB: Dhaka Transport Coordination Board

DUTP: Dhaka Urban Transport Plan LGED: Local Government Engineering Division LGRD: Ministry of Local Government and Rural

Development NGO: Non‐governmental Organization NMT: Non‐motorized Transport RAJUK: Capital Development Authority RHD: Roads and Highways Department STP: Strategic Transport Plan UAP: University of Asia Pacific WASA: Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage

Authority WBB: Work for a Better Bangladesh Trust


Dhaka’s BRT Walkability Strategy Page 1

Overview To improve the growing traffic problems in Dhaka, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is

currently supporting the development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor that will run between the airport and Gazipur. It is anticipated that the BRT will carry up to 100,000 passengers daily along the 20‐kilometre corridor. However, since a large proportion of trips in Dhaka are currently made by foot, the needs of pedestrians must be addressed if the BRT is to create a positive and efficient public transit experience. Walking is, in fact, a basic form of mobility in Dhaka and is an important component of almost every journey taken. When the BRT is fully operational, passengers will need to walk to and from the stations safely and comfortably.

To ensure that the BRT corridor not only improves traffic problems in Dhaka but also addresses the needs of pedestrians, this report presents a BRT Walkability Strategy which provides policy and infrastructure recommendations aimed at creating an environment in which walking is appealing, safe, and convenient. The BRT Walkability Strategy can be used as a model for other neighbourhoods in Dhaka, as well as for other cities throughout Bangladesh, to assist decision‐makers as they strive to create safer and more convenient pedestrian‐friendly transportation options.

The BRT Walkability Strategy builds on the results of primary and desk‐top research, as well as extensive discussions with both policy‐makers and citizens. An observation and perception study was designed to generate a clearer picture of the actual and perceived problems faced by pedestrians in Dhaka and to identify and document the specific challenges that they confront. In May and June 2011, direct personal observations of pedestrian environments were conducted in Uttara, Gazipur, and Tongi – areas located directly along the proposed BRT Line. Observations were also made in Mirpur and Old Dhaka, as these areas would be served by a proposed World Bank‐funded BRT line which will ultimately be connected to the airport/Gazipur corridor. A total of 1,055 road segments were observed and photographed. The study revealed that footpaths were often non‐existent or in very poor condition, while crossing streets is both difficult and dangerous.

The observational study was complemented by a perception study of a random sample of 1,850 people and two focus group discussions. The perception survey was conducted among residents of and visitors to various locations in Uttara, Tongi, Gazipur, Mirpur, and Old Dhaka who were asked about how they felt about current street and walking conditions. In addition to complementing the observations made by the research team, these interviews were important to gauge people’s perception of their walking experiences. The focus groups, held with mothers of school aged‐children and female garment workers, explored some of the perceived problems in more depth, particularly related to safety when walking. The surveys and the

discussions highlighted that walking in Dhaka is often neither safe nor convenient. A corresponding survey of 64 hawkers focused on identifying facilities and supports which could improve the pedestrian environment; it also highlighted the mostly unrecognized contribution that hawkers make to Dhaka’s economic vitality and safety.

An analysis of transport policy documents was also carried out. The purpose of this review was to identify sections in the existing plans that addressed pedestrians, to determine who is responsible

Figure 1: In Dhaka, pedestrians must competewith cars for mobility space



for which aspects of the pedestrian environment, to flag potential institutional and coordination barriers to pedestrian safety, and to acknowledge key stakeholders who must be involved in improving the pedestrian environment. Further information was collected during a series of workshops and information sessions held with local‐policy makers and stakeholders. While thirteen agencies within five Ministries have responsibilities which impact on the pedestrian environment in Dhaka, no single body exists to look after the situation of pedestrians. There is also little coordination between those responsible for urban planning and those responsible for transport planning. Although many existing policy documents make reference to the importance of pedestrians, few have put suggestions into action. The situation is serious: by 2008‐09, pedestrians accounted for 86% of road fatalities.

Many policy‐related recommendations emerged from the research, including the need to create a Non‐Motorized Transportation Cell (NMT Cell), evaluate pedestrian impacts of road projects, train staff on pedestrian issues, build and maintain footpaths, create safe, at‐grade pedestrian crossings, establish parking controls and charges, develop a maintenance schedule for footpaths, develop a Hawker support and management policy, develop a Pedestrian Charter of Rights, and organize driver education campaigns.

The BRT Walkability Strategy reflects the results of the research and provides plans for possible pilot projects in Uttara and Gazipur which could illustrate the types of improvements that could realistically be made in Dhaka. These pilot projects address two road segments that connect to the BRT and redesign them to be supportive of all mobility modes to create a safe, clean, and comfortable pedestrian experience. The Strategy also highlights broad policies and actions, based on existing best‐practices, which need to be taken to create more pedestrian‐friendly cities generally.

An improved environment for pedestrians would also result in improved traffic flow and would help create a more congenial living environment. Current challenges to the creation of a pedestrian‐friendly environment include a weak policy framework, an unsupportive infrastructure, and a transportation environment that is more focused on cars than on people. There is, however, tremendous opportunity for Dhaka’s residents to demand improved pedestrian conditions and for the city’s decision‐makers to show real leadership and make investments in pedestrian‐friendly environments. This leadership is already being shown in some areas, as evidenced by the support given to the proposed pilot projects.

Pedestrians are of vital importance to a city and yet face many obstacles to their safe, easy and convenient movement. Those problems cannot be adequately addressed without first giving pedestrians priority within urban and transport planning. The BRT Walkability Strategy provides the framework within which a pedestrian‐friendly city that values walking can be created.

This report is a summary of the original report. For more information, please contact the ADB ([email protected]), WBB ([email protected]) or HealthBridge ([email protected]).

Figure 2: Walkable communities are livable communities



1 The Importance of a Walkability Strategy

The BRT Walkability Strategy envisions a city with a culture of walking. It envisions a city in which streets, parks, public spaces, and neighbourhoods are accessible, secure, vibrant, and enjoyable so that people choose to walk more often. Walking does not harm the physical environment, it is free, it requires little infrastructure, it can save time, and it requires no fuel. But what makes a Walkability Strategy necessary?

As Dhaka’s commercial streets depend on high levels of foot traffic, designing communities that facilitate walking will benefit local businesses. In addition, creating a walkable community along the BRT corridor will contribute to the success of public transit, as most transit trips begin and end with walking. Finally, supporting and building pedestrian‐friendly environments will encourage people to choose walking as a regular mode of travel, creating lively streets and making the city more livable. In other words, walkable communities are livable communities.

The transportation sector creates environmental problems when it prioritises moving private automobiles rather than people. Space allocated to moving and parking cars and motorbikes means less space for housing, parks, schools, and playgrounds. Negative environmental impacts can be lessened by reducing vehicle kilometres travelled, encouraging active transportation, building communities that reduce the distances people must travel. Walking and cycling do not emit air pollutants, require significantly less space, and generate little if any noise. Walking and cycling are environmentally‐friendly modes of transport.

Low physical activity levels contribute to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic health problems. One of the easiest ways to be active is through purposive physical activity: trips made on foot could reduce the risk of diseases and their high social and economic costs. However, walking safely requires a safe walking space. In Bangladesh, pedestrians are the main victims of road accidents. In 2006, the Bangladesh Health and Injury Survey estimated there were approximately 13,200 reported road traffic deaths in the country and 403,000 injuries; 54% of the dead were pedestrians.1 In Dhaka, the proportion of road deaths that are pedestrians is even higher, at 86%. Almost half of pedestrian‐related accidents occur while people are waiting for a bus or walking along the roadway. A walkable community is more than a place where people walk; it is an environment in which people walk often, securely, and conveniently. Walkable communities are therefore safer and healthier communities.

Transport and urban planning in Dhaka and surrounding areas is the responsibility of many separate departments, agencies, and international organizations whose work is not coordinated. No single body exists to oversee pedestrian issues. By engaging all of these organizations, the BRT Walkability Strategy could encourage and facilitate coordination.

1 World Health Organization, Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for Action. Geneva: World Health Organization,

2009, p. 9. http://www.un.org/ar/roadsafety/pdf/roadsafetyreport.pdf

Figure 3: Shared road space makes a community more walkable, cleaner, and healthier



2 The Current Transport Situation in Dhaka

2.1 Walking in Dhaka

The vast majority of trips in Dhaka are done by foot, rickshaw, or public bus. Within the Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) area, 38.7% of primary trips are made by rickshaw, 28.5% by public bus, and 19% by foot. In the greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area (DMA) excluding the DCC itself, walking is the main form of transport, accounting for 37.2% of trips, followed by rickshaws (28.5%) and public bus (24.4%). In both areas, the percentage of trips taken by private car is very low: 5.2% in DCC and 3.8% in DMA.2

These numbers are not currently reflected in Dhaka’s transportation planning and budget allocation. This study’s research results highlight the importance of considering the most common forms of transport when determining how to allocate funds and what infrastructure should be prioritized.

To gain a better understanding of the problems faced by pedestrians in Dhaka and to identify and document the specific challenges that they confront on a regular basis, we conducted a multi‐pronged observation and perception study using a variety of methods.

Using an observation analysis tool developed specifically for this study, the project team analysed 1,055 road segments (the section of road between two intersections) in Uttara, Tongi, Gazipur, Mirpur, and Old Dhaka. A team of twelve urban planning students completed one Observation Survey Form per segment after walking each segment several times. Still photography was also taken to document what the students had observed.

These personal observations were supplemented by perception intercept surveys conducted with a random sample of 1,850 residents of and visitors to the same five study areas; these perception surveys collected information about how people in the street felt about the street conditions which they experienced every day.

2 Data taken from Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB), Ministry of Communications (MOC), Government

of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Preparatory Survey Report on Dhaka Urban Transport Network

Development Study (DHUTS) in Bangladesh Final Report (Appendix Volume). JICA, March 2010.

Figure 5: Overview map of study area

Figure 4: Most trips in the DMA are by foot



For a more in‐depth understanding of the issues, the research team hosted two focus groups discussions (FGDs), one with mothers of school‐aged children and one with female garment factory

workers. The project team also conducted a series of surveys with hawkers to identify ways to improve the pedestrian environment. The following categories were then used to analyse the research results:

Land use diversity Footpath availability and quality Safety Facilities for the disabled & pedestrian amenities Community life (including hawkers)

2.1.1 Land Use Diversity

Three‐quarters of the observed roads had either a low‐ or medium‐volume of motorized traffic, which was reflective of the fact that eighty‐four percent of the analysed segments were completely or primarily single use – mostly residences. Almost no segments contained parks or playgrounds. This lack of mixed‐use was identified as a problem by some perception survey respondents. Thirty‐eight percent said that a desired destination was “too far” to reach by foot conveniently or safely.

2.1.2 Footpath Availability

A major factor in pedestrian deaths is the lack of good quality footpaths, as people are forced to walk on the road. A previous DevCon (2009) report notes that there are only about 400 kilometres of footpaths within the DCC area, compared to a road network of 1,293 km. Ideally, footpaths should exist on both sides of a street; this suggests that Dhaka should have almost 2,600 km of footpaths. However, only 37% of observed roads had footpaths on both sides, and almost half had none at all.

Figure 6: Focus group, Uttara

Figure 7: Map: Footpath Availability



2.1.3 Footpath Quality

Most of the observed footpaths were constructed of dirt and sand, materials which are inappropriate in a city setting as they become virtually unusable during wet weather. Almost three‐quarters of the footpaths constructed of better materials were still of poor quality and likely to cause pedestrian injury. Only 18% of the observed footpaths were given a “good rating.”

Surveyed pedestrians complained that the absence or poor quality of footpaths meant that they could not walk to their desired destinations. During focus groups, 62% of garment factory workers and mothers indicated that they would like to see wider, more level footpaths. The garment workers mentioned the often‐muddy pathways as a particular hardship when walking.

The literature review suggested that even when footpaths are available, they are commonly obstructed, thereby reducing their usefulness (DevCon 2009). Consequently, pedestrians are often forced to walk in the street instead of on the footpaths, even in areas where footpaths are provided. This was corroborated by the observation study, which found that only 15% of all footpaths were free of obstructions. In 65% of the observed segments, the observer had to leave the footpath at least once because of obstructions.

Car exits/entries cut into footpaths are also a significant problem, affecting more than half of all observed footpaths. The Capital Development Authority (RAJUK) by‐laws allow this type of design to accommodate vehicles. In addition, cars/motorbikes were observed parking on 39% of the footpaths. Thus, even where space is designed for pedestrians, it is being used for cars.

A common concern expressed in much of the literature is that vendors and shop‐keepers block footpaths. The observation results did not support this claim. Instead, we observed that although goods from shops do block almost half of footpaths, vendors are much less of a problem, with only 22% of segments blocked by them. Meanwhile, vendors and shop‐keepers can play

the very important role of providing “eyes on the street”. A final significant obstruction on many footpaths is construction rubbish; 40% of all footpath segments observed were almost completely covered by construction rubbish, rendering them unwalkable.

2.1.4 Safety

Research conducted by Hoque et al. in 2008 found that the most dangerous places for pedestrians were on roads and at the sides of roads – precisely where pedestrians are often forced to walk due to absence, obstruction, or poor quality of footpaths. The most dangerous activities were crossing the road (46%) and walking along the road edge (35%). Only 3% of fatalities occurred at designated pedestrian crossings, suggesting that when pedestrian crossings – such as zebra crossings and signalized pedestrian crossings – exist, they provide significant protection for the pedestrian. Among perception survey respondents, 48% said that they feared crossing the street.

Despite the high level of pedestrian injuries and deaths, there were almost no crossing aids seen in the observed segments; in only 1% of the observed roads did cars yield to pedestrians. During focus

Figure 9: Dirty, obstructed footpath

Figure 8: Poor quality footpath,Mirpur



group discussions, it became clear that most people were unaware of the types of pedestrian crossing aids available. Although some participants felt that the foot over‐bridges increased safety, women and the elderly in particular identified them as being a serious obstacle to their movement by foot, particularly when they are unwell or tired, when they are wearing saris, when they have children with them, and/or when they are carrying bags or boxes.

Observers noted aggressive drivers who were speeding or not giving pedestrians the right of way on 51% of the roads. Fifty‐eight percent of participants indicated that cars or motorbikes caused them fear at least once a week, while 73% feared fast‐moving buses. Very few roads had traffic calming or controlling measures. Reducing and slowing traffic was the number one priority of those surveyed. Poor quality, unusable footpaths increased the danger from vehicles. While vehicles parked on the road may provide a safe buffer between pedestrians and moving traffic, only 4% of the observed roads had legal, on‐street parking. In most cases, vehicles were illegally parked. The most commonly suggested improvements involved reducing traffic speed, making footpaths and road crossings safer, and increasing/improving street lighting.

2.1.5 Facilities for the Disabled and Pedestrian Amenities

Virtually all of the roads observed during the study were inhospitable for people with disabilities. Few had curvilinear or curb cuts or were usable for a person in a wheelchair. Fifty‐eight percent of the perception survey respondents desired better facilities for those living with disabilities.

At the same time, very few amenities (such as seating, trash cans, and public toilets) existed for pedestrians.

The most common service amenity was the presence of vendors, observed in only 20% of the

Figure 12: Footpath with non‐curvilinear curb cut

Figure 11: Recommended improvements, perception survey

Figure 10: Unsafe roadway in Dhaka



segments. Trees are also a very important pedestrian amenity as they provide shade and can provide a physical separation between pedestrians and traffic. Only 9% of streets surveyed had many trees/dense tree cover, while 62% of streets had few or no trees.

2.1.6 Community Life (Including Hawkers)

Pedestrian‐friendly environments encourage more people to walk as a regular mode of travel, creating social, lively streets while reducing traffic congestion. Many pedestrians were observed in most segments, where people stopped to talk to or to greet one another. However, in only 9% of segments were children observed playing in the streets. No parks or playgrounds mean that the streets provide children with their only opportunity for outdoor play.

Given that 90% of people indicated that they felt safer with other people on the street, it is important to maintain a hawker presence. While both mothers and garment factory workers felt that hawkers blocking the footpath were a problem, women also identified the key benefits of having vendors on footpaths: they act as “eyes on the street”, making women feel safe. Their presence not only increased the convenience of buying goods, which in turn reduced women’s travel time and distance; hawkers also contribute significantly to the local economy. An economic

analysis of hawkers showed that, on average, hawkers earned on average 250 taka per day (7,500 per month) after expenses; in contrast, many security guards earn just 3,000 to 3,500 taka per month. Almost all of the perception survey respondents said that they would like to see some type of hawker management system implemented. For example, hawkers could be recruited to maintain cleanliness along their segment of the footpath.

2.2 Policy Context

Several studies have examined the issues faced by Dhaka’s pedestrians and have made suggestions to mitigate these challenges. These issues and potential solutions, however, have yet to be addressed to any great extent in Dhaka’s official transport plans and policies. A review of various transport and urban plans3 made it clear that while policy makers acknowledge that more than 70% of the daily trips taken in Dhaka include walking and that current pedestrian conditions are very poor, virtually all funding is allocated to moving motorized vehicles. Little attention is given in the plans to pedestrians or pedestrian issues. For instance, of 40 working papers listed in the 1994 Dhaka Integrated Transport Study, none specifically addresses pedestrians. The policy documents typically treat walking as transport for the poor. While some reports recognize the need for a pedestrian‐first policy and include suggestions for policies to prioritize pedestrians over motorized vehicles, to provide street‐level crossings, and to slow vehicular traffic, the focus remains on moving automobile traffic. Unfortunately, when pedestrian issues are addressed, it is typically not based on research but rather on perceptions of the pedestrian environment. For example, despite the fact that they actually represent a barrier to convenient pedestrian movement, the main pedestrian infrastructure recommended and planned is foot over‐bridges and underpasses. Significant work needs to be done to embed pedestrian‐supportive initiatives into the legal and policy frameworks.

3 Such as the Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan, Dhaka Integrated Transport Study, Dhaka Urban Transport Plan, Strategic Transport Plan, Detailed Area Plan, and the Clean Air and Sustainable Environment Project.

Figure 13: Vendors providing "eyes on the street",Gazipur



3 Improving Walkability in Dhaka Improving the environment for pedestrians would, in addition to being a precondition for making

the BRT feasible, generate a broader positive change. It would help people to reach their destinations safely, affordably, and conveniently. It would also improve traffic flow and create a more congenial community. As such, improving the pedestrian environment would be one of the most popular measures that a politician could take. The many challenges to be addressed are accompanied by exciting opportunities.

Current challenges to the creation of a pedestrian‐friendly environment include a weak policy framework, an unsupportive infrastructure, and a transportation environment more focused on cars than on people. However, there is significant reason to be hopeful given high modal share by walking; 88% of respondents indicated that they would be walking for at least part of their trip.

Given that most people currently walk, there is a tremendous opportunity for the city’s decision‐makers to show real leadership and make investments in pedestrian‐friendly environments. This would mitigate some of the serious problems that occur in cities that focus almost exclusively on the private motorized vehicle, such as congestion, pollution, and poor health.

Meetings with more than 150 policymakers and other stakeholders suggest that decision‐makers are prepared to show leadership to improve pedestrian conditions. Stakeholders spoke of the need to improving conditions for walking, both for health and for convenient, relatively rapid transport. Support was garnered to move forward with planning two pilot sites to demonstrate possible pedestrian improvements. Stakeholders agreed that the pilot sites should be designed based on the problems identified through surveys and interviews rather than through pre‐existing assumptions about the situation.

Several actions are recommended as part of the BRT Walkability Strategy. No single measure will be sufficient to improve the condition of pedestrians in Dhaka to the point where walking can become a popular mode of transport that reduces road congestion and ensures the successful operation of mass transit. Given the wide range of issues that must

be addressed, a broad and integrated approach is needed. Furthermore, given

the limited scope of this study, it will be necessary to conduct further research, including on the feasibility of the recommended options, before moving forward.

Figure 14: Dangerous crossing in Dhaka

Figure 15: Mixed land uses increase pedestrian opportunities



Table 1: BRT Walkability Strategy recommendations and responsibilities

Recommended Action Government Level and Agency Responsible

Comments/Recommendations


DMA ‐ LRGD This cell should be responsible for overseeing implementation of the BRT Walkability Strategy, and should work with all staff involved in transportation and urban planning to improve the pedestrian realm. The cell would be a resource for all issues related to non‐motorized travel.

Develop methods to evaluate pedestrian impacts

DMA – NMT Cell Develop and implement tools and methods for evaluating the potential impacts of any road construction project on pedestrians.

Develop staff training programs DMA ‐ NMT Cell Train all staff involved in transportation and urban planning on innovative practices for non‐motorized travel, including walking.

Develop a Transportation Equity Analysis DMA ‐ NMT Cell Ensure an equitable distribution of transport funds, noting that almost every trip involves walking but very few trips involve automobiles. Tools should be developed to help city staff equitably review and revise transportation budgets.

Develop fiscal policies related to road pricing, vehicle taxes, etc.

National ‐ Ministry of Finance

Utilizing international experience, develop a series of fiscal policies to reduce incentives for owning and driving a private car; this could include congestion charges, vehicle registration taxes, higher vehicle import taxes (but lower taxes on bicycles), sales taxes, and/or annual vehicle registration fees.

Develop land Use policies – no parking on ground floor

DMA ‐ RAJUK Reverse the requirement that all new buildings provide car parking, thus freeing up valuable urban space for retail and housing.

Develop policy prohibiting construction rubbish

City ‐ City Corporations Develop policies to make car exit/entry cuts and construction waste disposal on footpaths illegal, with violators subject to fines and other punishments.

Ensure playgrounds in all new development

DMA ‐ RAJUK Enforce a policy requiring playgrounds in all new developments. Where no playgrounds or community parks exist, local streets should be converted to family‐friendly areas to reduce traffic and improve liveability.


City ‐ City Corporations/ Pourashava

Ensure well‐built and properly maintained footpaths on both sides of all roads with high and medium motorized traffic volumes. Priority should be given to roads with no existing footpaths and a high volume of pedestrians.

Build safe pedestrian crossings City ‐ City Corporations/ Pourashava

Ensure safe at‐grade pedestrian crossings along all roads with high and medium motorized traffic volumes. At‐grade crossings improve traffic flow by rationalizing crossings and traffic. FOBs are not practical or safe.

Upgrade dirt and sand footpaths City ‐ City Corporations/ Pourashava

Upgrade all footpaths made of dirt or sand to concrete. Give priority to roads with high volumes of pedestrian traffic.



Recommended Action Government Level and Agency Responsible

Comments/Recommendations

Develop a Family‐friendly streets project City ‐ DTCB Designate low‐volume roads with high pedestrian traffic and no footpaths as “family‐friendly” roads. This would limit or prohibit vehicular traffic at certain times of day and allow people to play in the streets (given lack of other play/recreational areas in most neighbourhoods).



Develop policies to regulate and enforce car parking in designated spaces. Issue fines to anyone parked in a designated pedestrian or hawker space.

Parking charges City ‐ City Corporations/ Pourashava

Introduce parking charges on streets that do not currently have them. Increase the cost of parking. Base fees on the amount of space use and time taken: in areas of higher demand higher charges or smaller units of time are reasonable.

Develop a maintenance schedule for footpaths


Give local City Corporations clearly stated responsibility for building and maintaining footpaths. Develop a footpath maintenance program, including regular monitoring and adequate funding.

Develop a street furniture program City ‐ City Corporations/ Pourashava

Involve the private sector in footpath maintenance and street furniture provision. The private sector could provide street furniture in return for advertising space. If considered, the city should develop a set of clear street furniture design guidelines to which the private sector must adhere to ensure an attractive public realm.


National ‐ Ministry of Labour and Employment

Research and develop a hawker policy to properly support and manage hawkers and other street vendors; this would allow them to do business and increase safety and attractiveness for pedestrians without impeding their movement.

Organize Car‐free Days City ‐ NGO Organize car‐free days to celebrate walking. Such days are celebrated internationally, reduce pollution, and are popular. Organize large public events to inform and educate the public about the importance of pedestrian safety.

Organize a driver education campaign; other programs

National ‐ BRTA Implement driver awareness campaigns. Train drivers about the importance of respecting pedestrians and allowing them to cross streets safely. Designate low‐speed zones and/or pedestrian‐only zones.

Develop a Pedestrian Charter of Rights DMA ‐ LGRD Adopt a Pedestrian Charter of Rights. Use it as the basis of pedestrian‐first policies and/or laws. It would serve as a reminder to decision‐makers that walking must be valued as the most sustainable of all forms of travel, with enormous social, environmental, and economic benefits. Explore opportunities to develop specific laws to implement the Pedestrian Charter, including the specific recommendations made in this report.



4 Proposed Pilot Projects The study results and the institutional analysis clearly demonstrate that significant practical and

policy improvements must be made to Dhaka’s pedestrian environment if people are to be moved safely. The project team designed two pilot projects, one in Uttara and one in Gazipur, to illustrate such improvements. The pilot designs were developed following a detailed analysis of the research results, extensive discussions with a variety of stakeholders, and numerous planning sessions. Although the pilots address design changes along two specific roadways, they are sufficiently generic as to be applicable more broadly throughout the entire Dhaka Metropolitan Area.

4.1 Uttara Pilot Project

Uttara is located immediately north of Dhaka's international airport. It is the southernmost area through which the BRT Corridor will pass and will provide a connection to the World Bank’s proposed BRT Corridor. As the first section that will be built, Uttara provides an important test case for addressing key issues that affect pedestrian accessibility. It hosts several garment factories, whose workers generally walk to their place of employment. Although these workers are considered to be the urban poor, Uttara itself is not a low‐income neighbourhood. As such, it is not uncommon for residents to own and use cars for personal transport. Uttara’s mix of local residential and industrial areas and the potential for car‐pedestrian conflict made it an ideal pilot site.

In terms of walkability, Shahajalal Avenue currently is unsafe, inconvenient, uncomfortable, and unattractive. Figure 12 presents Shahajalal Avenue, which was selected as the specific pilot site because it feeds directly into a proposed BRT station and also hosts a large, multi‐storey garment factory. Little hard infrastructure currently exists on the street, which is not uniform in width along its length. Figure 13 provides a series of “before” shots of the pilot area.

Figure 16: Map: Shahajalal Avenue, pilot site



Figure 17: Before pictures of Shahjalal Avenue

The goal of the proposed pilot project is thus to improve walkability and safety, and ensure pedestrians have the right of way. Emphasis was placed on pedestrian mobility for the poor and vulnerable, as well as transit users' access and egress. The following recommendations are made to improve the walking situation along Shahjalal Avenue:

To accommodate pedestrians, ensure an unobstructed footpath width of three metres.

To reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, use bicycle lanes as buffers, extend sidewalk widths at intersections, and raise well‐used intersections to the level of footpaths.

To eliminate mobility barriers for pedestrians with physical disabilities, construct level footpaths, ensure crosswalks are raised (or, where this is impractical, cut curbs at intersections with wheelchair‐friendly slopes (1:12 rise‐run ratio)), and retrofit existing car entry/exit cuts to accommodate wheelchairs.

To increase shade cover and protection from precipitation, plant trees (preferably fruit‐bearing, broad leaf varieties) at six‐metre intervals along footpaths’ outside edge and between



vendors at the bazaar near the BRT corridor, plant banyan trees at gathering places, and erect planted trellis shades above bicycle parking and rickshaw stands.

To reduce the incidence of storm water flooding, construct a permeable buffer between the bicycle lane and the parking lane, using permeable pavers where possible.

To reduce the incidence of public urination and defecation, provide serviced public toilets with male and female stalls at the two bazaars (at the eastern and western edges of Shahajalal Avenue) and allocate space for rickshaw stands near the facilities.

To legally accommodate street vendors, designate an additional 1‐metre footpath width at the edge of non‐retail buildings where they can work.

To maintain an orderly flow of two‐way vehicular traffic, designate two 3.2‐metre lanes for single‐lane traffic in both directions and provide limited pay parking spaces in designated areas.

To encourage non‐transport pedestrian activities, place street furniture along the footpath, where space permits. Also place bollards to block car traffic and to provide leaning surfaces.

To ensure visibility for pedestrians at night, use existing utility poles to mount or string low‐lying LED bulbs at ten‐metre intervals.

To reduce the incidence of public littering, place concrete waste bins at regular intervals and ensure that they are emptied regularly.

Figure 14 shows an artist’s rendition of the proposed redesign of Shahjalal Avenue. A detailed legend follows in Table 1.

Figure 18: Map: Travel infrastructure, Shahajalal Avenue

Table 2: Proposed breakdown of street space, Shahajalal Avenue

Description Description

Two 3.2m car and rickshaw travel lanes Two 1.2m planted buffers (between parking & bike

path)

Two 2.4m parking and loading lanes (or rickshaw stand where designated)

Every 1.2m, trees and street furniture (between foot & bike paths)

Two 1.8m bicycle lanes Every 1.4m, vendor and utilities space

Two 3.4m unobstructed footpaths 30m total pedestrian right‐of‐way



4.2 Gazipur Pilot Project

The road segment selected for the second pilot site is called “Hospital Road” and connects the Gazipur pourashava (local government office) with the Joydebpur Railway station and the last BRT station. This site was chosen because it is visited frequently by a variety of officials, decision‐makers, and local residents. This area also sees heavy foot traffic by garment factory workers and other low‐income people. The current Gazipur mayor also showed great enthusiasm to improve the pedestrian environment in this area.

Despite the area’s low level of motorized traffic and high pedestrian volume, there are few amenities to facilitate walking and the roads are unsafe and unattractive. The street is too narrow to accommodate both footpaths and vehicles. Although space is available for other amenities, there are no trees, public toilets, street lights, seating arrangements, or trash cans. Significant space is also occupied in a haphazard fashion for parking by human haulers and rickshaw drivers. These factors affect those who walk, as well as those whose transit access and egress involves walking.

The recommendations made for this pilot site are very similar to those noted above for the Uttara pilot project, and are not repeated here. However, the following preliminary ‘before‐after’ artistic renderings are meant to illustrate the possible changes which would follow the implementation of the pilot project. Before implementation, the viewpoints of local residents will need to be solicited to improve the likelihood of project success.

Figure 19: Before‐after artistic renderings of Gazipur pilot design

Before After



4.3 Recommendations

Based on the pilot project objectives, the following action items are recommended.

Table 3: Overview of issues addressed, research findings, and recommendations

Issue Observation study Perception survey /FGD

Recommendation

Road construction

6.5% of roads were under construction

n/a Provide walkways or signs during maintenance/construction periods.

Improvements to the pedestrian environment should be included in all road construction projects.

Motorized traffic volume

Low: 54%

High: 15% No road present: 9%

n/a Prioritize improvements to footpath availability on all high and medium motorized traffic volume roads. Make streets with little motorized traffic either free of motorized vehicles or pedestrian priority streets.

Land use mix Most segments had little (48%) or no (36%) land use mix

n/a Land use mix should be increased to make walking more viable.

Land use specifics – type of land use

Residences: 85% Shops: 58% Offices: 24%

Schools: 17% Parks/playgrounds: 2% Entertainment: 1%

Desired destination too far to walk: 38%

Want to walk to entertainment or to park: 37%

Increased neighbourhood diversity, especially neglected aspects like parks/playgrounds, should be prioritized.

Footpath availability

Both sides of street: 37% One side of street: 19%

No footpath: 44%

39% of respondents could not walk where they wanted to because there was no footpath

High volume roads should have footpaths on both sides of the road.

Medium volume traffic roads should have a footpath on at least one side of the road.

Footpath composition and quality

Dirt & sand: 55% Smooth: 18%

Broken/uneven: 82%

Very bad: 79% OK: 17%

Good: 4%

Dirt or sand footpaths should be upgraded to brick or concrete. Footpaths should be made smoother and more level.

Footpath obstructions

Free of obstruction: 15% Many obstructions: 16%

Had to leave footpath due to obstruction: 65% of segments

31% of those surveyed had recently been injured while walking.

Footpaths must be kept free of obstruction.

Footpath obstructions, type

Car exit/entry cuts: 52% Shop goods: 42%

53% of respondents said that it is a priority to remove obstructions

Policies to prevent obstructions on footpaths should be established and enforced, with fines for violators.




Recommendation

Cars/motorbike: 39%

Rubbish: 39% Pillars/cables: 25% Vendors: 22% Trash cans: 16% Trees: 14% Trucks: 8%

from footpaths. Vendors should not be targeted for removal; they are a minor source of obstruction and make a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment.

Footpath disorder, quantity

Much disorder: 34%

Little disorder: 15%

58% of respondents mentioned cleaner footpaths as a priority concern

Regular cleaning of footpaths is needed.

Footpath disorder, types

Cigarette/bidi butts: 92% Cans/bottles: 58% Garbage: 58% Graffiti: 28% Urine smell: 16%

Broken glass: 16% Street crossing barriers

Mixed traffic: 46%

High median: 7%

More than 2 lanes: 4%

Barbed wire: 3%

Trees/plantings: 3%

More and safer crossings were a high priority for 75% of respondents.

48% feared crossing the road

Foot‐over bridges (FOBs) should not be used as a solution; they are a serious obstacle to pedestrian movement and are unlikely to improve traffic flow. Instead, the number of zebra crossings should be increased, with attention to enforcement.

Street crossing facilities

Special lights: 16% Wheelchair accessible: 4%

Curb cuts: 3% Cars obey the laws or yield to pedestrians: 1.3%

Police enforcement: 1%

Signs: 0.6% FOB or underpass: 0.2%

Zebra crossing: 0.1% No crossing safety: 97%

Desires of perception survey respondents

Better police enforcement: 30%

FOBs: 28%

Zebra crossings: 26% FOBs as a serious obstacle for women and the elderly




Recommendation

Aggressive drivers

Aggressive drivers speeding or not giving pedestrians the right of way: 51% of roads

Motorized vehicles a major source of fear for pedestrians: more than 75%.

Buses should run in dedicated lanes only. City should establish and enforce speed limits of 30 km/hour.

Traffic calming No traffic calming: 93%

Lane width restriction: 16%

Speed humps: 5.5%

Signs: 1% Traffic signals: 0.4% Roundabout: 0.2%

Top priority of surveyed pedestrians is reducing and slowing traffic: 79%

Measures to reduce speed should be implemented. This is one of the most powerful instruments to reduce road trauma. Investments made to calm traffic are considered highly cost effective and would prove very popular.

Service amenities

Tree shade: 38% Vendors: 20% Seating: 1.4% Trash bins: 0.9% Toilet: 0.1% None: 79%

n/a Service amenities are lacking and should be increased.

Lighting Lighting from surrounding buildings: 73%

Road‐oriented: 67% Pedestrian‐oriented: 3% None: 8%

Lack of adequate lighting causes pedestrians to be afraid of being robbed: 50%

Sexual harassment was identified as a serious issue by FGD participants.

Pedestrian‐oriented lighting should be increased, as it prevents both crime and injury.

Vehicle parking Cars and motorbikes illegally parked: 45% of roads

Trucks illegally parked: 11% Legal, on‐street parking for cars/motorbikes: 4%

n/a Illegal parking should be monitored and fines enforced

Limited legal paid on‐road parking should be permitted to provide a buffer between pedestrians and moving traffic.



5 Conclusions

Until pedestrians are treated as valuable and a significant part of traffic, measures to improve their conditions will not prove successful.

To ensure that ADB’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor would not only improve the growing traffic problems in Dhaka but also address the needs of pedestrians, this report presents a BRT Walkability Strategy which provides policy and infrastructure recommendations aimed at creating an environment in which walking is an appealing, safe, and convenient experience for people along the BRT corridor. The Strategy can be used as a model for other neighbourhoods in Dhaka, as well as for other cities throughout Bangladesh, to assist decision‐makers as they strive to create safer and more convenient pedestrian‐friendly transportation options.

The recommendations included in the Strategy are based on the results of primary and desk‐top research, as well as extensive discussions with both policy‐makers and citizens. By 2008‐09, pedestrians accounted for 86% of road fatalities. The observational study of Dhaka’s walking environment revealed that almost half of the observed streets had no footpaths and, where there were footpaths, less than one‐fifth were of sufficiently good quality to be safely useable. Pedestrians also face significant challenges in crossing streets and virtually all of the roads observed during the study were inhospitable for people living with disabilities. Pedestrian surveys and focus group discussions corroborated the findings of the observational study, highlighting that in spite of the desire or need to walk from one destination to another, few people in Dhaka are able to do so safely or conveniently.

An improved environment for pedestrians would, in addition to being a precondition for making the BRT feasible, generate a broader positive change – not only terms in enabling people to reach their destinations safely, affordably and conveniently, but also by improving traffic flow and creating a more congenial living environment. Current challenges to the creation of a pedestrian‐friendly environment include a weak policy framework, an unsupportive infrastructure, and a transportation environment that is more focused on cars than on people. There is, however, tremendous opportunity for Dhaka’s residents to demand improved pedestrian conditions and for the city’s decision‐makers to show real leadership and make investments in pedestrian‐friendly environments. This leadership is already being shown in some areas, as evidenced by the support given to the proposed pilot projects.

The report provides a series of action‐based recommendations related to policy, law, government structures, infrastructure, maintenance, and implementation. No single measure will be sufficient to improve the condition of pedestrians in Dhaka to the point where walking can become a popular mode of transport. Given the wide range of issues that must be addressed, a broad and integrated approach is needed. These recommendations have thus been integrated into two proposed pilot projects which, if implemented, will showcase the design upgrades that can be made in Dhaka to improve the pedestrian‐environment while still supporting other modes of transport.




References Ahmad, SA et al., Assessment of Impact of Air Pollution Among School Children in Selected Schools of Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Malé Declaration on Control and Prevention of Air Pollution and its Likely Transboundary Effect for South Asia, August 2008.

Ahmed, I, “Urban Transport and Institutional Issues in the Developing Cities” in Alam 2008.

Alam, JB, “Concerns, Challenges and Options for Sustainable Transport in Developing Countries” in Alam 2008.

Alam, Md. Jobair Bin, ed., Sustainable Transport for Developing Countries: Concerns, Issues and Options. BUET, British Council, Loughborough University and Hiroshima University, 2008.

American Public Health Association, The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation. February 2010.

Anjuman, T, S Hasanat‐E‐Rabbi and CKA Siddiqui, “Necessity of Providing NMT Facilities: Towards Accident Free Sustainable Transport in Metropolitan Dhaka” in Alam 2008.

Bari, M and D Efroymson, Detailed Area Plan (DAP) for Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP), A critical review. WBB Trust, Dhaka, March 2009.

Bari, M and D Efroymson, Efficient Use of Road Space and Maximisation of Door‐to‐Door Mobility: Suggestions for Improvements in Dhaka. WBB Trust, Dhaka: June 2005.

Bari, M and D Efroymson, Rickshaw Bans in Dhaka City: An Overview of the Arguments For and Against. Roads for People, Dhaka: August 2005.

Bari, M and D Efroymson, Vehicle Mix and Road Space in Dhaka: The Current Situation and Future Scenarios. WBB Trust, Dhaka: December 2005.

City of Copenhagen, “A Metropolis for People: Visions and Goals for Urban Life in Copenhagen 2015.”

Centre for Urban Studies (CUS) and The World Bank, “Technical, Environmental and Social Survey of Proposed FOBs and Sidewalks in Dhaka city, FINAL REPORT.” March 2008.

Daniel, K and D Efroymson, Urban Planning for Livable Cities: Density, Diversity and Design. HealthBridge 2010.

Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (1995‐2015), Volume I and II.

Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB), Ministry of Communications (MOC), Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Preparatory Survey Report on Dhaka Urban Transport Network Development Study (DHUTS) in Bangladesh Final Report (Appendix Volume). JICA, March 2010.

DSM Consultants, Impact Assessment of DUTP “After Project”, February 2006.

Efroymson, D and K Munna. Addressing Climate Change: Can we reduce carbon emissions while increasing quality of life? WBB Trust, January 2011.

Efroymson, D and M Bari, Dhaka Strategic Transport Plan (STP), A Critical Review. WBB Trust, Dhaka: May 2007.

Efroymson, D, Hafiz, RH, and Jones, L, ed. Ecocity Planning: Images and Ideas. WBB Trust, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, and Health Bridge 2008.

Efroymson, D and M Bari, Improving Dhaka’s Traffic Situation, Lessons from Mirpur Road. WBB Trust, Dhaka: February 2005.

Efroymson, D, M Rahman and R Shama. Making Cities More Livable. HealthBridge and WBB Trust 2009.

Efroymson, D, TTKT Ha and PT Ha, Public Spaces: How They Humanize Cities. HealthBridge 2009.

Efroymson, D and M Rahman, Transportation Policy for Poverty Reduction and Social Equity. WBB Trust, Dhaka: May 2005.



Efroymson, D. Using Media and Research for Advocacy: Low Cost Ways to Increase Success. HealthBridge, June 2006.

Fabian, H, S Gota, A Mejia, and J Leather. Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities: State and Issues. Draft Report, ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series. Asian Development Bank, 2010.

Federal Highway Administration (2010). Safety Benefits of Walkways, Sidewalks, and Paved Shoulders. Accessed on July 27th, 2011 from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/walkways_brochure/

Gallagher, R, The Rickshaws of Bangladesh. Dhaka: The University Press Limited, 1992.

Gehl, J, LJ Kaefer and S Reigstad, “Close Encounters with Buildings”. Centre for Public Space Research/Realdania Research, Institute for Planning, School of Architecture, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, 2004.

Gehl, J and Gemzøe, L, Public Spaces ‐ Public Life, Copenhagen. The Danish Architectural Press & The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture Publishers, Copenhagen, 2004.

Government of Bangladesh Planning Commission, UNDP and Department of Development Support and Management Services, Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area Integrated Transport Study Final Report Volume 1, Database and Immediate Actions, November 1994.

Government of Bangladesh Planning Commission, UNDP and Department of Development Support and Management Services, Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area Integrated Transport Study Working Paper Volume VI Special Studies, January, 1994.

Government of Bangladesh Planning Commission, UNDP and Department of Development Support and Management Services, Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area Integrated Transport Study Final Report: Volume 2, Strategic Directions¸ November 1994.

Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Department of Environment (DOE), Clean Air and Sustainable Environment (CASE) Preparation Project Final Report. DevCon, June 2009.

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Road Transport Authority, Dhaka Urban Transport Project Phase I Working Paper on Bus Transport and Affordability, December 1996.

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Communication Bangladesh Road Transport Authority, Road Safety Cell, National Road Traffic Accident Report 2004.

Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Communications, Dhaka Transport Co‐ordination Board, Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka.

Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Communications, Dhaka Transport Co‐ordination Board, Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka Urban Transport Policy Final Report, September 2005.

Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Communications, Dhaka Transport Co‐ordination Board, Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka Final Report, December 2005.

Guitink, P, S Holste, and J Lebo, “Non‐Motorized Transport: Confronting Poverty through Affordable Mobility”. World Bank discussion paper, April 1994.

Hoque, MM and SMS Mahmud, “Road Accidents Involving Children in Bangladesh” in Alam 2008.

Hoque, MM, S Anowar and MA Raihan, “Towards Sustainable Road Safety in Bangladesh” in Alam 2008.

Human Development Research Centre (HDRC), After Study on the Impact of Mirpur Demonstration Corridor Project (Gabtoli‐Russel Square). Prepared for Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB), August 2004.

Jacobson, J and A Forsyth, “Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in Transit‐Oriented Development Projects.” Journal of Transport and Land Use 1:2 (Fall 2008), pp. 51‐88.



Khan, RR, N Ohmori and N Ohmori, “Evaluation of the Roadside Walkway Environment of Dhaka City.” Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 1751 ‐ 1766, 2005.

New York City Department of Transportation, “Green Light for Midtown Evaluation Report,” January 2010.

New York City Department of Transportation, World Class Streets: Remaking New York City’s Public Realm.

Shoup, D, The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2005.

World Health Organization, Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for Action. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009, p. 9. http://www.un.org/ar/roadsafety/pdf/roadsafetyreport.pdf

Zohir, SC, P Paul‐Majumder, K Alam and WH Shah, “Gender Analysis for Improving Mobility in Dhaka City.” Report prepared for the Dhaka World Bank Office, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, September 2008.

Dhaka’s BRT Walkability Strategy - Appendices

Appendices Page 1

Appendix 1: Summary and Analysis of References to Pedestrians in Dhaka’s Existing Transport Plans

Several policy documents point to high modal share by walking.

The first user group mentioned in the Dhaka Integrated Transport Study (DITS) is pedestrians: “this is by far the largest identifiable group. Over 60% of trips in Dhaka involve walking alone. Of the remaining trips, some 11% include a walking component.”

The second key issue mentioned in the Strategic Transport Plan (STP) is pedestrians, and the plan recognizes that walking is currently a common mode of transport in Dhaka. “Pedestrian volumes of 10,000 to 20,000 per day are common and reach as high as 30,000 to 50,000 per day in the Old City area. During the peak hour pedestrian counts of 1,000 to 3,000 per hour are common and reach as high as 5,000 in the Old City area.”

The policy documents typically treat walking as a form of transport used exclusively by the poor; virtually nothing is said about why walking is important as a transport mode (e.g. space efficient, involving no fuel, promoting health among those who walk, etc.).

The STP acknowledges that a large number of journeys in Dhaka take place by walking, but suggests that this is due to the fact that the majority of people in the city are not able to pay for transportation, and that most of them are unskilled and illiterate. “Walking is a commonly used mode of transport in Dhaka. The proportion of trips made by walking is substantial and, for some people, walking is a matter of choice and convenience. However, the reality is that, for many people, walking is a matter of economic necessity.” (STP)

Rare mention is made of the fact that walking can be fast and pleasant.

One such comment is found in the Dhaka Urban Transport Plan (DUTP) After‐Project Report. “One could ask why a person should pay the bus fee when in many places, it takes the same time to walk or take a rickshaw, and in both cases the travelling is more enjoyable.”

Unusually, STP points out the role that walking could have in reducing traffic congestion: the fact that children cannot travel to school by foot or bicycle creates both unnecessary journeys back and forth and congestion on the roads, particularly near schools and colleges.

The policy documents universally acknowledge that very poor conditions currently exist for pedestrians, though the problems mentioned tend to be limited to safety and the presence of hawkers on the footpaths.

Also mentioned is lack of coordinated planning, the absence of any facilities for the disabled, poor conditions for street crossing, and lack of recognition that transit passengers typically must walk at least part of each trip. Attention to blocked footpaths is not entirely based on concern for pedestrians, however, but rather on the possibility that pedestrians will take up road space when they cannot access footpaths.

Typically no mention is made of other problems such as exposure to the noise and fumes of cars, the fact that vehicle parking also blocks footpaths, the role played by vendors in ensuring safety on the footpaths (through “eyes on the street”), the lack of safe and readily accessible street‐level crossings, and the lack of shade, benches, and other amenities for pedestrians. Suggested solutions are thus typically limited to removing hawkers and building pedestrian overpasses (known in Dhaka as foot over‐bridges or FOBs). Other not particularly useful


Appendices Page 2

measures such as educating people on how to walk safely are also made. Genuinely pedestrian‐friendly measures are given little or no attention.

Despite the high modal share, “...the needs of pedestrians seemed to be largely ignored despite pedestrians accounting for two thirds of all reported fatalities.” (DITS)

“Problems currently affecting pedestrians range from discontinuous sidewalks, unmaintained sidewalks adjacent to unprotected open sewers and sidewalks blocked by hawkers and illegal structures to the very real dangers associated with crossing the road in an environment where drivers blatantly disregard safety concerns for pedestrians, even at recognized crossing points. At certain locations pedestrians mix inharmoniously with traffic, whilst they inhale high levels of burnt‐fuel fumes.” (DITS) In response, DITS recommends pedestrian awareness programs in the form of short films played in cinema halls.

“Pedestrians are the most vulnerable of all road users and require special facilities for their protection. ... The absence of a clearly defined priority system makes journeys by this mode of travel unpleasant and hazardous. Some of the important factors which need to be addressed are: the lack of a pedestrian priority policy; the absence of continuous footpaths on both main routes and neighbourhood streets; poorly designed, badly located and ill‐advertised pedestrian crossings; encroachment on the footpath from traders and equipment; and the absence of facilities for the movement of disabled persons. All of these factors contribute to a dangerous situation.” (STP)

“There are many factors contributing to this situation including...lack of pedestrian education and poor driver awareness of the rules of the road; lack of recognition that transit passengers are also pedestrians at both the beginning and the end of their trips; lack of co‐ordination between different agencies before undertaking development works on the roads.” (STP)

“Despite a high preponderance of walking, suitable pedestrian facilities have been neglected and have, in most cases, only been added as an afterthought to road improvements. It has been estimated that there are only about 400 kilometres of footpath within the DCC area. Where footpaths have been built, there are frequent obstructions that block or otherwise reduce their overall usefulness” including vendors, hawkers, parked cars, “solid waste skips”, building materials and debris, holes, surface irregularities and water accumulation. (STP)

“According to some estimates, nearly 40% of the footpaths are being occupied illegally. As a consequence, pedestrians are often forced to walk in the street instead of on the footpaths. Pedestrians walking on the road increase the risk of traffic‐related pedestrian injuries and also have an adverse effect on the capacity of the road, thereby increasing congestion.” (STP)

Few of the documents acknowledge the need for pedestrian facilities and a pedestrian first policy.

“The urban poor who must travel on foot face higher risks than the rest of society. In consequence the Government will enact a “Pedestrian First Policy” [P#1] which will entail a review of existing legislation. “Many footpaths and crossings will be re‐designed and the new regulations will be enforced more strongly following a city‐wide awareness program [P#2]. ... There will also be a programme of streamlining the interfaces between modes to avoid dangerous walking connections...”

The city roads will be re‐planned to permit good quality footpaths and crossings and ramps for the disabled. (STP)

“A major commitment to improve all types of pedestrian facilities is recommended. Not only is


Appendices Page 3

this aimed at serving those who have no choice but to walk, it is also to encourage others who have such a choice, to walk more often.” (STP)

Despite stated good intentions in the documents, little detail is provided about pedestrians and much detail about other modes of transport.

Of 40 working papers listed in the DITS 1994 – which included separate reports on rickshaws, bicycles, cars, parking, vehicle population, traffic counts, flyovers, buses and mass transit, and waterways and waterborne traffic – not a single study specifically addressed pedestrians.

In DITS Final Report Volume 2, Strategic Directions, eighteen transport project options were evaluated, of which “Walkways and Pedestrian Facilities” ranked as the first priority. According to the report, “from now on the walk mode should be given the highest priority throughout Dhaka... Emphasis on providing for the needs of pedestrians is hardly surprising as the majority of all trips made in Dhaka are on foot, and many of these are made by the poorer sections of society” (p. 67). While much is said about other modes being lower ranked, little further is actually said about pedestrians and how walking would be prioritized or made safer and more convenient.

In the Working Paper on Bus Transport and Affordability (DUTP Phase I, Dec. 1996), discussions on bus services barely address the convenience and feasibility of reaching bus stops by foot.

Included in the 18 pages of definitions listed in the Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP) (Vol. II Appendix 1, pp. 1‐18) are automobile service station, carport, cause way, commercial parking lots and garages, flyover, and public street. However, pedestrians and any infrastructure related to them are not mentioned.

The STP addresses Transport for the Poor & Needy: “Every citizen of the country shares the same basic rights provided under the provision of the Constitution of the country. Under the Constitution the fundamental human rights and freedom, equality and justice, political, economic and social, will be secured for all citizens. While the rich have the right to ride in their private automobiles, the poor have an equal right to claim uninterrupted and safe movement in the city.” That the “right” to ride in automobiles can clash with the right to walk safely is ignored. As usual, the report focuses on cars and other motorized modes, ignoring pedestrians.

In terms of the “right to ride in their private automobiles”, it is important to remember:

In low‐income cities where most of the population cannot afford a car, the “right” of the minority to move by automobile directly interferes with the right of the majority to move about safely—not to mention to breathe clean air and sleep peacefully at night.

Owning a car is a privilege, not a right; when the car is seen as a deadly weapon, killing human and animal life and destroying the environment, it is easy to see why they cannot always be tolerated, especially in the high density environment of cities. When allowed, it should only be at low enough speeds to prevent injury and death, and within strict limits of space so as to ensure the rights of the non‐car‐using majority (it is a minority that owns a car not only in low‐income cities but even in such famously densely‐populated cities as Paris and New York City). (Efroymson, Rahman and Shama 2009)

Planned projects typically ignore pedestrians almost entirely and virtually all funding goes to other road users.

The goals of DITS (in DMDP Vol. II) include “doing more with less” and “making better use of


Appendices Page 4

what we have rather than wishing for what we cannot afford or do not really need”. Despite this, plans in DITS include new road links, relocation of heavy rail lines, waterways for water‐based transport, relocation of major markets, road/rail overpasses/underpasses, low‐cost grade separations for slow/motorized vehicles, a ring road, and urban rail. Nothing is included specifically for pedestrians, despite their having the highest modal share and despite the report’s language about cost savings.

“Despite the high preponderance of walking, pedestrian facilities have traditionally been an afterthought to road improvements. The consequences of this policy can be seen in the city’s accident records where pedestrians are involved in half of all road accidents and represent two thirds of all road accident fatalities.” (DITS 1994)

DITS Working Paper No. 33 (in Working Paper Volume VI, Special Studies) on Mobility of the Low‐Income specifically discusses pedestrians, pointing out that “This disregard for the mobility of the urban poor is also aggravated by the tendency of transport planning to focus on motorized modes and give little thought to non‐motorized modes or pedestrians.” The recommendations made in the same report, however, focus mostly on improved bus services.

In the Urban Area Plan, Tk. 100 crore was planned to be spent on off‐street walkways and pedestrian facilities, out of a total budget of 909 crore: that is, about 11% of the total budget shown (p. 29 in DMDP Vol. II).

Among the ten objectives listed in the STP, the eighth is “The creation of a ‘Pedestrian First Priority’ system to enhance the provisions and protection for pedestrians.” However, the other objectives clearly focus on vehicles; for instance, the first objective refers to public transport, the second to roads and streets, the third to different modes of transport, the fourth to transport systems, the sixth to the private sector, the seventh to drivers and vehicles, the ninth to “the creation of a clean environment by placing emphasis on noise and exhaust emissions controls”, and the tenth to reconstruction of city roads with modern traffic management techniques. (The fifth refers vaguely to “the needs of special sectors of the community”.)

While the STP recognises the need to adopt a “Pedestrian First Policy” as an essential part of a balanced multimodal transport system (“The creation of a “Pedestrian First Priority” system to enhance the provisions and protection for pedestrians”), the policy was later abandoned when different alternative transport strategies were developed. In the preferred (though by no means top‐ranked) alternative Strategy Modified 2b, of a total of US$5.2 billion, less than US$10 million are designated to pedestrian facilities, i.e. less than 0.2% of the total investment. Many of those developments likely would be FOBs, which are meant to improve the convenient movement of cars rather than facilitate street crossings for pedestrians. What money is allocated to pedestrian facilities is specified as “Investment on arterial roads and those used heavily by pedestrians”, while a further US$10 million are designated for non‐motorized transport (NMT), specifically “Development of NMT lanes”. It is not clear that a single dollar is intended for footpaths.

In the organizational functions spelled out in the STP, pedestrians are not mentioned. A large number of other issues are mentioned, such as: highways, street lighting, passenger protection, bus priority schemes, traffic signal systems, traffic management schemes, upgrading of all highways and roads, noise regulations, exhaust emission regulations, truck bans and controls, truck terminals, truck parking areas, mass transit, bus operations, bus design, land uses, driver licenses, vehicle roadworthiness, safety cells, highway codes, road signs and markings, emission controls, vehicle inspections, air quality, rail system, ferry service,


Appendices Page 5

ground transport, and so on.

In several phases of the STP, pedestrian improvement measures have been ignored.

Phase 1: work on highway schemes, 6 road projects, 2 flyovers, 1 expressway, a traffic management system, bus operations, BRT lines, Metro systems

Phase 2: upgrading of regional highways, 12 road projects, 2 flyovers, 1 elevated expressway, BRT, Metro, regular bus services

Phase 3A: upgrading of regional highways, 15 road projects, Metro lines

Phase 3B: 15 road projects, Metro projects, one small NMT road

Key problems noted in the STP are echoed in the Detailed Area Plan (DAP). The first is the unwillingness to assign a reasonable proportion of resources to the most common mode of travel in Dhaka City (walking). The second problem is the lack of understanding of what constitutes a pro‐pedestrian measure: simply paying lip service to pedestrians does not improve the infrastructure from which they would benefit.

DAP tends to give emphasis to the private realm such as yards, shopping malls, gated communities, car parking facilities, and private land developments rather than to the public realm of streetscapes, pedestrian environments, public parks, and public facilities. The roads in the DAP are designed as wide as 170 feet, yet the widest footpaths are only 6 feet; the minimum road size is 12 feet (for non‐motorized roads) while for footpaths the minimum is a scanty 3 feet.

In addressing the social and political aspects of transport, the STP notes: “...expensive highway schemes tend to benefit a small section of the population who are independently mobile. It is an unfortunate fact that the inequality in this situation adversely affects the poor and needy more than the better‐off sections of society.” And yet, in several pages describing STP projects, walking facilities are not mentioned. Millions of dollars are suggested for various projects in the highway schemes for Phase 1 (2005‐2009) including highways, roads, tunnels, elevated expressways and flyovers, for a total of US$226 million (Chapter 10‐3 to 10‐8). There are a further US$188 million of transit schemes, and US$900 million of highway schemes in Phase 2 (2010‐2014), $1,200 million for transit in Phase 2, and $338 million for highway schemes in phase 3a (2015‐2019) and so on. (STP)

The only pedestrian measure included in the DAP was the construction of 41 FOBs and 5 underpasses.

As Alam (2008) observes, “It is evident that transport system providers have been pursuing traditional approach for solving transport problems of the country. Pursuing the supply‐side policy more than 80 percent of national investment in transport sector has been allocated in road construction which experienced a ten fold expansion in the last three decades. Over reliance on road sector resulted in problems like congestion, pollution and accident.”

Many urban and transport plans and policies result in worse, not better, conditions for pedestrians.

In plan after plan, priority is given to users of motorized vehicles. As a result, traffic congestion increases, as does pollution and wasted space. As the situation becomes ever more unpleasant, life becomes worse (unpleasant, unsafe) for those traveling by foot, exposed to increasing levels of air and noise pollution and facing the risk of injury or death. That is, not


Appendices Page 6

only do most of the transport expenditures do nothing to improve the situation of pedestrians, but they often make it worse by increasing motorised traffic and congestion. Some infrastructure, such as elevated expressways and flyovers, ban pedestrians; thus, while offering no advantages and increasing pollution, such “improvements” may also increase trip distances when new infrastructure becomes an obstacle to those traveling by foot. Similarly, planned policies to force pedestrians to use foot‐over bridges make trips longer and more difficult for pedestrians, all to increase the potential speed of vehicles.

Similarly, parking policies that mandate the provision of car parking in commercial and residential buildings have resulted in a situation that inconveniences pedestrians. People are expected to enter buildings by car, despite the extremely low modal share of cars in the city. Passing through a parking lot to enter a building is unpleasant as well as unsafe, and sends a clear message to pedestrians that they are not welcome.

Within the transport policy documents, acknowledgement of pedestrians does include some useful and important recommendations which should go beyond policy statements to actual implementation. Key issues include:

Integrated transportation and land use planning

Land use and transport are inextricably linked: people’s mode of transport has far more to do with their environment than with personal preferences. Sprawl does not support public transit, as density is too low to make such modes viable; similarly, sprawl discourages walking and cycling, as distances are too great to make such modes practical. Meanwhile, mixed‐use high‐density urban settlements make walking, cycling, and public transit all viable transport modes, thereby reducing congestion and improving air quality. Further benefits of a land use model that encourages NMT and public transit are the lower fatality rates from traffic crashes and the more lively and sociable environments that emerge when people are present on the footpaths and (outside of cars) on the streets. Since public transit, walking, and cycling are also vastly more space efficient modes than cars, requiring little space both for movement and for storage of vehicles, such modes also free up far more valuable urban space for other uses, such as parks, playgrounds, outdoor markets, and other precious urban amenities.

The development of a city through sustainable smart growth demands adherence to a number of key features, such as:

Development of mixed land use Provision for a variety of transport choices (including a variety of NMT) Reduction of the need to travel Creation of walkable environments

Segregating Dhaka along functional lines by removing markets, shops, workplaces and schools into designated areas will simply increase demand for long distance travel and thus generate ever more congestion. It will also vastly increase the suffering of the poor, who cannot afford the high transport costs to reach needed destinations.

The DAP’s implementation, meanwhile, runs counter to the original Structural Plan, which involved a concentrated and mixed land use development strategy. The original Structural Plan would have required far fewer roads, fewer parking facilities, and would have encouraged rather than discouraged the creation of liveable and walkable neighbourhoods. The provision of general public services and social institutions within walking distance of


Appendices Page 7

residences is vital for the development of a lively city and for reducing traffic congestion, and pollution. Instead, the DAP plans to provide consolidated, regional, and larger facilities to divide Dhaka City into functional units. This would both inconvenience the population and lead to greater congestion and pollution than would a more decentralized approach.

The selection of the Growth Pole/Satellite Community land use policy as the basis for transport planning is likely to encourage the development of numerous small townships within a loose boundary of the mega city, which in turn requires the development of a large number of pole connectors, as demonstrated by the STP report. The creation of numerous connectors, be they roads or public transit links, is not desirable from the view of the fundamental transport policy objective, which seeks to minimize the need to travel. Rather than minimizing travel, the chosen land use policy would encourage sparsely‐spaced centres of development, favour long‐distance as opposed to short trips, require more road building, and discourage the creation of liveable and walkable neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is not only economically less efficient than a less transport‐dependent model, but it inherently favours the urban elite and car owners while ignoring the travel needs of the poor and vulnerable sections – and indeed the majority – of society.

The need to integrate transport planning with land use planning is mentioned in the STP and the DITS, in terms of the generated transport demand due to poor planning.

The Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMP) states that “The DITS estimates that 74% of all work trips are on foot or by rickshaw. ... Without major transport changes, assuming these could be afforded, the future shape of the city will still be constrained by the need of most people to live near to their workplace.” It specifies “target standards for provision of community services” (Vol. II, Part 2, p. 14): primary schools (1 acre per 15,000 inhabitants and 1 school per 7,000 inhabitants), secondary schools (2 acres per 23,000 inhabitants), colleges, playgrounds, parks (4 acres per 25,000 inhabitants), graveyards, neighbourhood centres, health post, welfare centre, hospital, markets, and police/fire station.

The STP likewise notes “The inefficiencies in the transportation system result in longer distances between linked origins and destinations such as between residential and work places and the need to provide long haul transportation systems and other infrastructure to serve the land use developments.” “It must be appreciated that the provision of pedestrian routes alone will not suffice. In a well‐planned city properly designed pedestrian ways must be integrated closely with other transportation elements so that walking becomes a recognized mode; it should become a pleasure and footpaths should be places for brief social gatherings for the city dwellers.” This is extremely important recognition of the fact that streets should serve three purposes: movement, marketplace and meeting place. Proper street design will allow for all three, with provision not only for movement but for street vendors and some socializing/relaxation on or adjacent to footpaths.

The eight primary goals of the STP are important to maintain in transport policy: efficiency, mobility & accessibility, safety, affordability, achievability, economic development, social development, and environment.

Inter‐agency coordination

Various attempts at inter‐agency coordination appear to have failed thus far. In the words of Alam (2008), “...it is evident that the country requires a comprehensive paradigm shift in the approach of dealing with the system. ... Assignment of responsibility of the system as a whole: Although a number of agencies are involved in transport sector in Dhaka city, there does not


Appendices Page 8

exist any specific agency which can be held responsible for its failure.”

The problem is particularly aggravated in the case of pedestrians, due to their lack of perceived priority, so that even where some coordination may exist, the issue of pedestrians is unlikely to arise.

Street design and policies that prioritize pedestrians over motorized vehicles

The DITS mentions that walking distances should be minimized by reducing pedestrians’ need to detour around obstacles created for the convenience of vehicular traffic. It indicates that pedestrian crossings should receive priority consideration in road lighting provisions, and that pedestrians need to be considered in not only the location of street lights but also with the light’s direction.

The STP notes “For shorter distances, where vehicular transportation is not required, there is a lack of understanding in the local plans about the need to improve non‐motorized transport and pedestrian facilities.” “The new plans for all forms of transport will address this issue [safety] and will specifically look at pedestrian systems and appropriate rules. There is a need to re‐focus the priorities between people and vehicles and the new plans will emphasise priority preferences for the pedestrian. There will be new and more stringent rules enacted and a new force of traffic wardens will monitor and enforce the regulations to ensure that vehicles give preference to pedestrians.”

Slowing vehicular traffic

Measures to discourage through traffic and to encourage lower motor vehicle speeds in local streets are addressed by the DITS. It recommends that reduced speed limits be introduced and enforced in areas of high pedestrian activity, such as schools and market areas.

The need to maintain hawkers, as they provide safety (“eyes on the street”) and attraction, giving people a reason to walk

DMDP Vol. II states that the government should address the problem of occupied footpaths and roads through the “provision of hawkers/peddlers/services industries use at strategic locations” and “improved management or else re‐location”, not bans. In Policy SE/5 – Informal Sector Activities, it states that “The MPA will actively seek to encourage informal private sector economic activities by means of relaxing those regulations which tend to stifle these initiatives, and providing opportunities to enhance conditions and productivity. Reason: To stimulate and promote economic activity and the proliferation of informal sector work opportunities, particularly among the lower income groups.”

The need for a pedestrian first policy

The STP states “In order to address these problems, a ‘Pedestrian First Policy’ is needed to encourage walk trips and safeguard pedestrians.”

Comments on STP’s proposed pedestrian policy

Policy 1: The Government will enact a Pedestrian First Policy to ensure the construction of properly designed and continuous footpaths with well‐defined and maintained pedestrian routes in the city, the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities giving the pedestrian priority over all other traffic and the prohibition of unauthorised encroachment on the footpath by street vendors and others. In particularly busy pedestrian areas, the Government will consider introducing car‐free zones and/or pedestrian overpasses or underpasses.


Appendices Page 9

Comment: A Pedestrian First Policy is indeed needed. Pedestrian routes throughout the city should be established. Pedestrian crossing facilities should give pedestrians priority over all other traffic; this is not, however, achieved by building overpasses and underpasses, but rather by increasing the number of zebra crossings and crossing lights (traffic signals). Allowance needs to be made for street vendors as, while they can prove an encroachment on the footpath, they also improve safety and attraction and should be allowed where possible. Other encroachments such as car parking and construction and other waste should be absolutely prohibited. Public toilets should be provided throughout the city to reduce the problem of urination on and directly adjacent to footpaths. Car‐free zones would greatly enhance the pedestrian experience and should particularly be considered in the busiest, most congested areas, as pedestrian zones would allow far more people to reach the relevant businesses and other destinations.

Policy 2: The Government will support the launching of a comprehensive city‐wide awareness program as a part of the implementation of a road safety campaign with special emphasis targeted at children, women and disabled persons. Safety instruction for school children will be included in the school’s syllabus.

Comment: While increasing public safety is a priority, it is not clear how this policy contributes to Pedestrian First. It suggests that the onus for increasing safety should be on pedestrians rather than on the drivers of motorized vehicles. While it is important to provide basic road safety education to the public at large, the focus of such education should be on the drivers of motorized vehicles, combined with enforcement strong penalties for violations of traffic rules and unsafe driving.

Policy 52: The Government will, via the Unitary Authority, amend the construction standards for the city roads based on their functional requirements and will include provisions in their design for properly planned footpaths particularly on the primary and the secondary roads in the denser urban centres.

Comment: Footpaths are indeed important. However, simply building them is not enough; often they are designed in such a way (sloping to the street) that they are used mainly for car parking. Footpaths should be designed as to minimize this problem, and strong enforcement should be carried out to prevent parking and other significant obstruction/danger to pedestrians.

Policy 58: The Government will ensure safety and security on the roads so that children can walk and bicycle to school without fear.

Comment: This would be most welcome, but it is unclear what measures are being considered to reach this significant goal. Certainly policies that favour the automobile will never lead to this result, yet the ability of children to walk and bicycle to school would greatly reduce traffic congestion.

Policy 59: As the main mode of transport for many low‐income women is walking, the Government will enhance the safety and security of women in the street acting on a priority basis by strengthening law enforcement measures.

Comment: It is not clear what law enforcement measures are meant. Speeding and other reckless behaviour should be heavily penalized. Since women are particularly susceptible to danger, while the presence of hawkers on the footpaths is particularly important for their safety.

Ensuring Provision for the Disabled, included in Policy 52: All the city roads will be re‐planned to contain continuous footpaths and, where it is feasible and necessary, the footpaths will be provided with built‐in ramps so that disabled persons can move conveniently.


Appendices Page 10

Comment: Cuts in the pavement to allow drivers to access buildings cause problems for pedestrians, disabled and otherwise. Pavements should be smooth; drivers should have to drive over the footpaths, rather than pedestrians descending into the space for cars. Furthermore, care should be taken that built‐in ramps are not of sufficient width to be used by cars for parking on the footpaths.

Chapter 6‐11, Social Development, Sub‐Goal 7A: Develop affordable transport options for low income groups to provide access to additional employment opportunities and other services.

‐ Provide good transport services to areas with concentrations of low income groups. ‐ Provide good pedestrian facilities to encourage and facilitate walking.

Comment: Improved public transit is a must for Dhaka’s low‐income residents, but the difficulty that they face with paying fares must be recognized. Transport can often count for a significant amount of the poor’s monthly expenditures, money which could be better spent on other basic needs. Provisions for cycling and walking will help the poor to reduce their transport expenditures and still access needed destinations. Since the poor may work more than one job, it is also important to remember that repeated trips by bus may make that transport mode unaffordable, whereas walking and cycling are essentially free.

Sub‐Goal 7C: Emphasize schemes that make walking and bicycling easier, less hazardous and less stressful.

‐ Make walking a mode of choice, rather than necessity. ‐ Create physical environments that favour pedestrians and encourage walking. ‐ Encourage the use of bicycles as a transport mode by providing suitable facilities. ‐ Create a multi‐media campaign to promote walking and cycling as preferred modes of transport.

Comment: This sub‐goal is of great importance. It should be implemented with urgency. However, important as a multi‐media campaign may be, it will be of no use to promote walking and cycling without making significant improvements to the infrastructure, and to policies that will genuinely give preference to these non‐polluting and space‐efficient modes of transport.

Recommendation #6 Pedestrian Facilities: Implement a program of pedestrian facility provision to serve pedestrians better and encourage people to walk from choice rather than from necessity.

Comment: Encouraging people to walk by choice rather than by necessity is a vital goal. When embarking on pedestrian improvements, it is important to begin with detailed research that addresses the existing problems and felt needs of pedestrians.

Who is legally responsible for what aspects and who is supposed to do what? Who is responsible for building new and ensuring the upkeep of existing sidewalks, etc.?

Technically DCC should maintain as well as build footpaths, but with the lack of any political consensus that pedestrians are important, little constructive has yet been done. The Department of Environment currently has a project to build some footpaths, but this is not really part of its regular work or responsibilities. It remains unclear how this will be done.

Dhaka’s BRT Walkability Strategy ‐ Appendices

Appendices Page 11

Appendix 2: Methodology and Results – Observation Survey

Overview

The project team designed and implemented an observation study to generate a clearer picture of the actual problems faced by pedestrians in Dhaka and to identify and document the specific challenges that they confront on a regular basis. In May and June 2011, direct personal observations of pedestrian environments were conducted in Uttara, Gazipur, and Tongi – areas located directly along the proposed BRT Line. Observations were also made in Mirpur and Old Dhaka, as these areas would be served by a proposed World Bank‐funded BRT line which will ultimately be connected to the airport/Gazipur corridor. A total of 968 road segments were observed and photographed to provide information about the current state of the walking environment along the corridor and in surrounding areas.

Based on the results of the survey (which are detailed below) and the assignment of an overall walkability score of only 33.8 (out of a possible 100 marks), the project team has made a number of recommendations to improve walkability in Dhaka:

All high and medium volume roads should have footpaths on both sides of the street. All footpaths should be made of a hard surface material such as concrete or paving bricks. Car exit/entry cuts, construction rubbish, and motor vehicles should be banned from footpaths. A street furniture program should be introduced that includes trash cans, benches, public toilets, and trees.

Policies should be developed that require improvement projects to specify how the improvements will support people living with disabilities. At a minimum, car cuts should be created so that someone in a wheelchair can easily navigate the intersections.

Crossing aids should be introduced, including pedestrian lights, zebra crossings, and raised intersections, supported by police enforcement and driver education.

Policies should be developed to give pedestrians the right of way, with police enforcement and driver education being an important component.

Pedestrian scale lighting should be included in improvements to roadways and footpaths. Cars and motorbikes should be charged a fee to park on all roads in the city.

Methodology

Instrument Development

The project team identified several issues that required examination within an observation survey designed to assess Dhaka’s pedestrian environment in Dhaka. For walking to become the preferred modality among residents, it must be an option that is feasible through various land use mixes, sidewalks/footpaths must be available and the walking experience must be safe, attractive, and convenient. We reviewed the existing literature and from it, identified the following key analysis categories:

Land use diversity Safety Sidewalk/footpath availability and quality Facilities for the disabled Availability of pedestrian amenities Other issues, such as noise and availability of parking


Appendices Page 12

During the review, we also examined the feasibility of existing tools and instruments that can be used to survey “walkability”. Table 1 outlines the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Table 1: Strengths and weaknesses of existing "walkability" tools and instruments

Tool / Instrument Strengths Weaknesses Analytic Audit Tool Covers the full breadth and

depth of issues being explored

High degree of inter‐rater reliability when tested

Requires 10.6 minutes per segment

Has not been tested in Asia

Must be adapted

Format needs improvement

Walkability in Asian Cities Field Survey

Simple format

Covers wide breadth of topics

Includes a section for qualitative description

Could be adapted for either segments or larger areas

Does not need to be adapted

Has been tested in Asia

Does not capture the depth of issues being explored

Mixes concepts into single measures (e.g. availability, maintenance, and cleanliness)

Rating scale (1 to 10) not conducive to inter‐rater reliability

Irvine‐ Minnesota Inventory

Good coverage of issue depth

Good inter‐rater reliability when tested

Does not cover full breadth of issues being explored

Rating is “yes or no”, not scaled


Needs to be adapted

Time consuming to use

PEDS Covers full breadth and depth of issues being explored

Excellent format


Needs to be adapted

Time required to use is unknown

Unknown reliability

SPACES Covers the depth of only some issues being explored

Excellent format

Does not cover the full breadth of issues being explored

Covers additional unneeded issues

Time required to use is unknown

Unknown reliability

Following this review and analysis, we elected to combine and adapt the Analytic Audit Tool with the PEDS. We chose to use the PEDS formatting style with the questions provided in the Analytic Audit Tool, as these most closely matched the issue areas that we wished to explore in our own survey. The team then reviewed the available survey questions to eliminate any that were not relevant to the Dhaka context (i.e., concepts that were more appropriate for use in the United States) and to ensure the terminology was familiar to the project team.

To ensure the tool’s reliability as an observation instrument, four members of the project team conducted two pre‐tests in the area surrounding the WBB office in Dhanmondi.


Appendices Page 13

Figure 1: Observation instrument tool pre‐test map

In Figure 1 above, the area outlined in blue captures the pre‐test area, which includes 8 segments. Each segment represents the roadway and land area between intersections. Thus, along Satmasjid Road there are 3 segments, while an additional 4 segments are found in the interior and one segment lies along the lake.

InterRater Reliability

The project team pre‐tested the survey on 10 March 2011 between 11:00 am and 2:30 pm. The information collected by each rater was compared for each question and for each segment. We sought inter‐rater reliability of 75% or greater for each question. Based on the first pre‐test results, we made major revisions to the survey tool to address those questions which showed poor reliability. We also drafted a user’s manual for the new survey tool. The project team reviewed the revised tool and further clarified the scale used for some questions. As a group, we reviewed one segment in the test area, which helped us to identify further required modifications.

A second inter‐rater reliability test was conducted on 21 March 2011 between 11:00 am and 2:00pm. This second inter‐reliability identified five questions that still caused an inter‐rater reliability of less than 75%, particularly pertaining to:

Segment intersections

Are there obstructions blocking the footpath/ walkway?

What number of lanes must pedestrians cross?

Are there traffic‐calming and controlling devices to reduce volume or speed?

Are there lights?


Appendices Page 14

Of these questions, four required the respondents to “check all that apply”. Usually, there was agreement among the respondents to many of the options. However, there was not perfect agreement, which lowered the reliability score. We decided, after discussion, that a less than 75% inter‐rater reliability was adequate for these particular questions as they are generally descriptive and less quantitative in nature.

The fifth question, which asked the number of lanes that needed to be crossed, was further elaborated after we identified the cause of team members’ confusion. After discussing their confusion, we decided to change the question completely so that it instead addressed barriers to crossing the street.

Observation Survey Methods

The project team divided the five study areas (Uttara, Gazipur, Tongi, Mirpur, and Old Dhaka) into smaller sections that were approximately 400m by 400m in size. Each section was assigned a unique numerical identifier. Each volunteer surveyor was assigned specific sections to study and the numerical identifier was used to catalogue which volunteer received which section. Figure 3 provides an example of the Field Survey Map from Mirpur.

Each section was then further sub‐divided into segments, with each segment representing a section of roadway that occurs between intersections. For the purposes of this study, intersections where laneways connected with the roadway were not considered as separate segments. Each segment was likewise provided with a unique numerical identifier, called a “Segment ID”. This numerical identifier was recorded on each survey and was used to identify individual survey segments during data entry.

Twelve urban planning students from the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) were interviewed and selected to conduct the actual observation study. Prior to commencing the study, these students received training from the project team. Training included classroom work, using the instrument in the area surrounding the WBB office, and group discussion. The project team assessed the capacity of each volunteer prior to sending him/her into the field. Each student was also regularly monitored by one of the team members to ensure ongoing quality in the survey.

In each segment, the student volunteer completed one Observation Survey Form (found at the end of this Appendix). The volunteer walked the segment as many times as was necessary to accurately complete the form and then returned the completed forms to WBB for data entry into statistical software (PSPP). Still photography was taken to document the current situation and to provide a baseline that could demonstrate what changes would be possible given the

existing road conditions and space.

Figure 2: Observation survey in action


Appendices Page 15

Figure 3: Mirpur field survey map


Appendices Page 16

Results

Description of the Study Area

A total of 1055 segments were visited in Uttara, Mirpur, Tongi, Gazipur, and Old Dhaka. However, 69 segments were under construction and so were not included in the study. This left a total of 986 observed segments included in the study.

Most of the roads surveyed in Uttara were either low‐volume (54%) or medium‐volume roads (22%) (Figure 4). Land use diversity refers to whether or not a neighbourhood includes a mix of residential, commercial, institutional and recreational uses. The majority of observed segments were single use (36%), or had little land use mix (48%), meaning that the area’s usage is more than 75% the same. A much smaller percentage of road segments had some mix, meaning that the area has 50% of one use and either a mix of other uses or 50% of another single use. Only 4% of segments were significantly mixed use mix (4%), meaning that no single use comprises more than 40% of the total use (Figure 5).

Residences were the primary type of land‐use in the surveyed segments, with 86% of the segments having residential housing, followed by shops (42%), offices (30%) and schools (21%) (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Segments by type of land use

Figure 4: Percentage of segments by motorized traffic volume

Figure 5: Percentage of segments by land use


Appendices Page 17

Footpath Availability

The most ideal pedestrian facility is to have footpaths on both sides of the street. However, only 37% of roads observed had footpaths on both sides of the street, while 19% had footpaths on one side of the street only and 44% of roads had no footpaths at all. A further analysis of the footpath availability based on road volume revealed that the majority of roads with no footbaths were low volume roads (see Table 2).

Figure 7: Street segment with no footpath

Table 2: Motorized traffic volume and footpath availability


Motorized Traffic Volume

Low Medium High

% % %

None 64 32 12

One Side 11 22 51

Both sides 25 45 38

High volume roads in particular should have footpaths on both sides of the road. Only 38% of high volume roads observed had footpaths on both sides of the road. Roads with medium volumes of traffic should at least have a footpath on one side of the road. However, 22% of medium volume roads did not have any footpaths.

Figure 8: Percentage of footpaths by motorized traffic volume


Appendices Page 18

Recommendations: We recommend that all high volume roads should have footpaths on both sides of the road and it is these roads that should receive priority for footpath availability improvements. Therefore, 63% of high volume roads (or 92 roads) need footpath upgrades.

Although all medium volume roads should have a footpath on both sides of the road, when prioritizing upgrading, we recommend that the focus be on ensuring that all medium volume traffic roads have a footpath on at least one side of the road. Therefore, 32% of medium volume roads (or 70 roads) need footpath upgrades. Footpath availability by motorized traffic volume acts as a perfect baseline to assess future infrastructure improvements, as it will be possible to compare the current number of roads with footpaths to the future situation and calculate the improvement.

Footpath Quality

To encourage and support pedestrian activity, it is important to have good quality footpaths. Several types of measures are included in “footpath quality”, including footpath completeness, the width of footpaths, the type of material used to create the footpath, the presence of a footpath buffers to protect pedestrians from traffic, and the presence of obstructions and debris. A total of 559 segments were observed for footpath quality (segments without footpaths were not included).

Of the road segments with footpaths (Figure 9), 44% had complete footpaths on both sides of the road, 28% had complete footpaths on one side and 29% had incomplete footpaths. A footpath is not complete if it ends or has gaps within the segment. This does not refer to barriers that may be created by obstructions.

Figure 9: Percentage of segments by footpath completeness

Footpath width is a key indicator of the quality of the footpath, as it is the width that impacts the level of service for pedestrians. Where footpaths existed, they appeared to be built to accommodate a larger number of pedestrians (Figure 10). The majority of footpaths were at least 4 feet wide (70%). Footpath widths of between 2 feet and 4 feet were less common (25%), while very few footpaths were less than 2 feet wide. If footpath width determines the level of service, footpath buffers provide a measure of comfort for pedestrians, as they act as separators between the pedestrian and faster moving traffic. The majority of footpaths did not have buffers (63%). Of the footpaths that did have buffers to separate pedestrians from the road, 16% of the footpaths had buffers less than 2 feet wide, 13% had buffers between 2 and 6 feet, and 8% had buffers that were greater than 6 feet.


Appendices Page 19

Figure 10: Percentage of segments by footpath width

The type of material used to construct the footpath is also important for pedestrian comfort (Figure 11). Of the segments reviewed for footpath quality, many footpaths were made of more than one type of material. Dirt and sand (55%) and brick (48%) were the most common materials used for footpaths, followed by concrete (47%) and slab (31%). Dirt and sand are not appropriate footpath materials in a city setting, as they are prone to become muddy during wet weather.

Figure 11: Percentage of segments by footpath material

Recommendations: Those footpaths that are made of dirt/sand (298 footpath segments) should be upgraded first. This is an important baseline number as we will be able to compare the current number of footpaths by material type, with future footpaths.

Another consideration when looking at the quality of the footpath is the condition of the footpath itself. A footpath was considered “good” if there was little risk of injury walking on it: there were very few heaves, broken sections or holes and/or it needed no repair at the time it was observed. Only 18% of observed footpaths were given a “good rating”. A footpath is in “fair” condition ” if a there are some heaves, broken sections, holes and/or the footpath only needs patches or other minor repair. There is some risk of injuring oneself on this footpath, but not as likely as on a poor footpath. Forty‐two percent of footpaths were rated fair.


Appendices Page 20

A footpath’s quality was considered “poor” if it was uneven, had lots of heaves and broken sections and/or if the footpath clearly needed to be replaced (patches would not be sufficient). A “poor” footpath would be dangerous to walk on in terms of risk of injuring oneself. Forty percent of footpaths were rated poor, which suggests that people using the footpaths are at serious risk of being injured.

Figure 14: Poor quality footpath in Miripur

Figure 12: Good quality footpath in Uttara Figure 13: Fair quality footpath


Appendices Page 21

In addition to collecting information about the footpath condition, the observation survey also identified the quantity and type of obstructions occurring on footpaths. An obstruction occurs when an object severely reduces or completely blocks the footpath/walkway. The volume and type of obstructions are important as these, along with the condition of the footpaths, determine whether or not it is possible to use a footpath. Very few footpath segments assessed by the surveyors had no obstructions (15%). Most footpaths had “a little” or “some” obstructions (69%) where either most of the footpath was clear of obstructions, or where there were several places that had obstructions or where the surveyor needed to leave the footpath as a result of the obstruction. Several footpath segments (16%) had “a lot” of obstructions that made it very difficult to walk on the footpath. In addition, in 65% of the segments reviewed the observer needed to leave the footpath at least once as a result of an obstruction.

Figure 15: Percentage of footpath obstructions by quantity

These results demonstrate that obstructions are a major issue impacting the pedestrian environment in Dhaka. Figure 16 shows the percentage of segments that had obstructions by the type of obstructions:

Figure 16: Percentage of segments with obstruction by type

Car exit/entry cuts are significant problem, with more than half of all footpaths observed being interrupted by this type of obstruction. In addition, cars/motorbikes blocked 39% of observed


Appendices Page 22

footpaths. The prevalence of these two specific obstructions suggests that space that should be dedicated for the ease and comfort of pedestrians is being used to support a car culture in the city. It is commonly commented that vendors and shop‐keepers block footpaths and make them unusable for pedestrians. This study showed that although shopping goods do block a significant number of footpaths (43%), vendors posed much less of a problem than did motorized vehicles. Finally, an important obstruction is construction rubbish, which is a serious problem that needs to be addressed through policy and enforcement.

Recommendations: Motorized vehicles should not be allowed to block foothpaths. Construction rubbish needs to be addressed through policy and enforcement.

In addition to the importance of obstructions, the cleanliness of the footpath can make walking appealing or unappealing. The majority of observed footpaths had at least some physical disorder. Only 15% of the footpaths were considered “good” in terms of cleanliness. The most common types of disorders included bidi/cigarette butts (92%), cans and bottles (58%) and garbage (58%). Other issues included graffiti, broken glass and urine.

Figure 17: Percentage of footpaths by cleanliness

Figure 19: Physical disorder in Old Dhaka Figure 18: Car blocking footpath in Miripur


Appendices Page 23

Facilities for the Disabled

Virtually all the roads observed in Uttara were inhospitable for people living with disabilities. One of the most important facilities for a person living with a disability would be to have curvilinear or curb cuts at all intersections. Ninety‐seven percent of roads had neither curvilinear nor curb cuts and 96% of the footpaths would be unusable for a person in a wheelchair. Figure 20 shows an example of a car entry/exit cut that would make it impossible for someone in a wheelchair to safely use this footpath. It appears that facilities for the disabled have been completely ignored in Dhaka.

Figure 20: Unsafe footpath for people with disabilities Safety

Safety measures are important to reduce the number of pedestrian/vehicle collisions and pedestrian injuries. Although obstructions and debris can create an unsafe situation by forcing pedestrians onto the road or by causing personal injury through tripping and falling, the study team did not considering those issues as part of the safety environment for pedestrians in this study (as they were considered under footpath quality). Instead, the team examined issues related to safety from motor vehicle collisions and safety from crime.

Several elements of the pedestrian environment can create pedestrian‐vehicle conflicts. Lack of safe crossings, barriers to crossing the street, aggressive drivers and lack of enforced speed limits contribute to unsafe conditions for pedestrians. For example, the presence of street barriers can make it difficult or impossible to cross the road. While many of the roads reviewed for this study did not have physical barriers that prevented people from being able to cross the street safely (52%), almost half included mixed traffic (46% of segments).


Appendices Page 24

Figure 21: Percentage of segments with crossing barriers by type

However, despite the presence of mixed traffic on many streets, there were virtually no crossing aids (97%) to help pedestrians cross the street. Crossing aids include zebra crossings, special lights, police enforcement, crossing guards, raised walkways, signs, footover bridges or underpasses, and cars yielding to pedestrians. Only 1% of the roads had police enforcement, 1% had signs, and 1% of roads the cars obeyed the laws or yielded to pedestrians.

In addition to the serious lack of crossing aids in the segments reviewed, there are very few roads with traffic calming or controlling measures (93% had no traffic calming devices). Six percent of roads had speed humps with the other possible traffic calming measures being negligible. In addition, of the 986 segments reviewed, only 4 had a posted speed limit of 30 km/hour.

Aggressive drivers also appeared to be a concern on the roads observed. Of the roads where moving cars were visible (71%), the surveyors reported aggressive drivers on 51% of those roads. Aggressive behaviour included speeding or not giving pedestrians the right of way.

The presence of pedestrian lighting is related to both safety from pedestrian‐motor vehicle collisions and safety from crime. Unfortunately, very few roads had pedestrian scale lighting (3%), while 8% had no lighting at all. Sixty‐seven percent of the road segments had road‐oriented lighting and 73% had lighting that came from surrounding buildings.

A final safety consideration is the number of people present on a road segment. People act as “eyes on the street”, which reduces anti‐social behaviour. In addition, the presence of a number of

Figure 22: Dangerous road crossing with mixed traffic and no crossing aids


Appendices Page 25

pedestrians makes them more visible to motorists. Two measures in the study illustrated the relationship of people to road segments. The first is the presence of vendors, who not only provide a service to pedestrians but also act as “eyes on the street”. Twenty percent of road segments had vendors present. The second measure is a rough count of the number of people visible on each segment. Unsurprisingly, 66% of the road segments had more than 15 people visible at the time the survey was undertaken.

Figure 23: Eyes on the street, Gazipur Pedestrian Amenities

Pedestrian amenities include things such as places to sit, things to buy, and shade. Pedestrian amenities are very important in that they contribute to the attractiveness and comfort of the urban environment for pedestrians. There were very few service amenities for pedestrians in the observed segments. The most common service amenity was the presence of vendors (20%). The lack of trash bins explains, in part, the significant presence of physical disorder in the majority of segments.

Figure 24: Percent of segment by amenity type


Appendices Page 26

Figure 25: Vendor selling healthy food, Mirpur

Street trees are a very important pedestrian amenity, as they provide shade and, depending on their placement, they can help provided a physical separation for pedestrians from traffic. Only 9% of streets surveyed had many/dense tree cover. Unfortunately 62% of streets had few or no trees.

Parking

The availability and cost of car and motorbike parking has important implications for pedestrian environments. Vehicles parked on the road have the potential to provide a buffer for pedestrians from traffic. On the other hand, the presence of illegal parking can create an unpleasant environment for pedestrians as these vehicles are often parked haphazardly. Only 4% of roads had legal, on‐street parking for cars/motorbikes.

Figure 26: Percent of segments by parking


Appendices Page 27

The presence of illegal parking provides the city with a great opportunity to raise funds for pedestrian improvements. If all of the illegal car/motorbike parking was converted to paid legal parking, this would generate significant income for the city that could then be reinvested in creating a more positive pedestrian environment.

Noise Pollution

Noise is a significant problem in the urban environment and contributes to an unpleasant pedestrian environment. In many Asian cities, cars and motorbikes contribute significant amounts of noise pollution through loud engines and honking horns. On a positive note, 60% of the observed road segments had no or only a little noise pollution. Unfortunately, 16% of the road segments had a lot of noise pollution.

Community Life

As a final measure of the quality of the pedestrian environment, we examined the presence of children playing and the amount of conversation pedestrians were engaging in as this is a sign of a convivial community. Unfortunately there were very few children playing in the streets with only 9% of road segments having children playing. On the other hand, 88% of the road segments had people stopping to talk or to great one another.

Walkability Index

Looking at each of the main categories for the walkability survey, we are able to generate a walkability index that provides one summary number for each category and then one overall number for the study areas. For each category, the averages of the individual parameters were translated into a rating system between 0 (lowest score) and 100 (highest score). Not all questions were translated into the index because some of the questions are more qualitative in nature, giving us an idea of the nature of the problem. For example, quantity of obstructions is included in the index but the type of obstruction is not. The five main categories included:

Footpath Availability Footpath Quality Access for People with Disabilities Safety Pedestrian Comfort


Only one parameter was measured for this category and that was the presence of footpaths on one side, both sides, or no sides of the road. After translating the results into the rating system,

Footpath Availability in the study areas receives a score of 46.8.

Footpath Quality

Several parameters were used to create the overall score for footpath quality, including:

Completeness

Presence of buffer


Appendices Page 28

Material

Width

Condition

Obstruction quantity

Whether obstructions meant surveyor had to leave the footpath

Cleanliness

Figure 27: Ratings for footpath quality parameters

After translating the results into the rating system and combining them,

Footpath Quality in the study areas receives a score of 50.2.

Access for People with Disabilities

Two parameters were used to assess the suitability of the pedestrian environment for people with disabilities:

Curb Cuts

Surveyor’s perceptions of the ability of a person with wheelchair to be able to use the footpaths


Appendices Page 29

Figure 28: Rating for disability parameters


Access for People with Disabilities in the study areas receives a score of 2.3

Safety

Several parameters were used to create the overall score for safety, including:

Presence of barriers

Presence of safe crossings

Traffic calming measures

Aggressive drivers

Lighting

Presence of people

Figure 29: Ratings for safety parameters


Appendices Page 30


Safety in the study areas receives a score of 43.1

Pedestrian Comfort

Several parameters were used to create the overall score for pedestrian comfort, including:

Access to amenity services

Presence of tree cover

Noise pollution

Figure 30: Ratings for pedestrian comfort parameters


Pedestrian Comfort in the study areas receives a score of 26.7

Overall Walkability Index Score

Each overall parameter rating was then averaged to create the overall

Walkability Index score of 33.8


Appendices Page 31

Figure 31: Walkability Index score by category

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study clearly points to the need for improved walkability in the study areas. The results show that, despite the high modal share of walking, the physical environment does not support this modal choice. The unfortunate impact of ignoring pedestrian needs will ultimately result in an increased number of people moving away from walking and towards the private automobile, resulting in increased congestion, losses to the economy, and poorer health and quality of life. The study also points to the need to fix actual, rather than perceived, needs of pedestrians. For example, it is commonly thought that vendors block the footpaths and that this is a serious problem for walkability. However, this study does not support that perception. Rather, car exit/entry cuts, automobiles blocking footpaths and construction rubbish all constitute much more significant barriers to walking.

This study recommends several actions that can be undertaken to improve the walkability in Dhaka. We suggest the results of the study be used by various stakeholders, including the community, to help them prioritize pedestrian improvements, as it is unrealistic to think that all areas can be improved simultaneously. Recommendations include:

Footpath Availability/ Quality:

All roads should have footpaths on both sides of the street. Priority should be given to ensuring that high volume roads have footpaths on both sides of the road and ensuring all medium volume roads have a footpath on at least one side. Therefore, 83% of high volume roads (62 total roads) need footpath upgrades and 22% of medium volume roads (26 total roads) need footpath upgrades.

All footpaths should be made of a hard surface material such as concrete or paving bricks. Priority should be given to ensuring that footpaths that are currently dirt or sand are upgraded. Therefore 55% of footpaths need to be upgraded (298 total roads).

Car exit/entry cuts, construction rubbish, and motor vehicles on footpaths cause significant obstructions on the footpaths, making walking on footpaths difficult or impossible. Policies


Appendices Page 32

need to be developed to prevent these obstructions and these policies should be strictly enforced.

There is a significant amount of physical disorder in the pedestrian environment, making it unpleasant to walk. The government should implement a street furniture program that introduces trash cans to the footpaths and should work with local businesses and street vendors to ensuring regular maintenance of the footpaths.

Facilities for the Disabled

Ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities has been completely ignored in the study areas. Significant improvements need to be made if we are going to support all members of society to use the pedestrian environment for their mobility. Many of the improvements to the footpath availability and quality (such as eliminating obstructions and using hard surface materials) are also improvements that support people with disabilities. However, policies should be developed that require improvement projects to specify how the improvements will support people living with disabilities.

At a minimum, curb cuts should be created so that someone in a wheelchair can easily navigate the intersections.

Safety

As shown by the very high pedestrian injury and death statistics in Bangladesh, safety measures need to be significantly improved. With 97% of roads having no crossing aids, we would suggest examining high volume traffic and medium volume traffic roads and introducing measures such as pedestrian lights, zebra crossings, and raised intersections. These measures should be supported by police enforcement and driver education.

Policies should be developed to give pedestrians the right of way, with police enforcement and driver education being an important component. In addition, medium and high traffic volume roads should have specific design measures put into place that requires motor vehicles to stop for pedestrians at no more than 150 metre intervals. This will have the additional benefit of alleviating traffic congestion as it will give an opportunity for the cars ahead of the pedestrian crossing an opportunity to move forward, giving space to for additional cars move ahead.

Very few roads have pedestrian scale lighting. Lighting helps make an area feel safer and the government should add pedestrian scale lighting when they are conducting improvements to roadways and footpaths.

Pedestrian Amenities

Pedestrian amenities such as places to sit, trash cans, public toilets, and vendors provide for a comfortable walking experience. Unfortunately most of the street segments reviewed had few or no amenities. As suggested earlier, the government should develop a street furniture program that includes benches, trash cans, and public toilets. Priority should be given to roads that have high volumes of pedestrian traffic.

A high proportion of roads had no street trees (62%). When the government is upgrading roadways and footpaths, they should plant trees between 5m and 6m, ensuring that those trees do not block pedestrian walkways. A street policy should be developed to protect existing trees.

Parking

There is very little paid street parking in the study areas. At the very least, cars and motorbikes should be charged a fee to park on all roads in the city. This will generate new revenue for the


Appendices Page 33

city that can be used to help create a better pedestrian environment. The space currently used to park illegally could be used by vendors instead as they contribute much more to the local economy than parking does.

Improving the pedestrian environment is of vital importance. Without improvements to the walking infrastructure, people will choose another mode of travel whenever possible, exacerbating the problems created by an already congested city. By focusing on specific pedestrian improvements, we can create a city that values and supports walking and the result will be that people will continue to walk as a convenient mode of travel. By focusing on some specific priorities mentioned above, stakeholders will be able to make significant changes.


Appendices Page 34

Annex A: Raw Survey Data The following are frequency tables for each question.

Table 1: Road or water main construction

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Yes 69 6.5 6.5 6.5

No 986 92.9 93.5 100.0

Total 1055 99.4 100.0

Missing System 6 .6

Total 1061 100.0

Table 2: Segment type (traffic volume)


Valid Invalid entry 1 .1 .1 .1

Low volume 533 50.2 54.2 54.3

Medium volume

216 20.4 22.0 76.3

High volume 148 13.9 15.1 91.4

Path/No road 85 8.0 8.6 100.0

Total 983 92.6 100.0

Missing System 78 7.4

Total 1061 100.0

Table 3: Intersection: 3‐way


Valid Not checked 149 14.0 15.2 15.2

Checked 831 78.3 84.6 99.8

Invalid entry 2 .2 .2 100.0

Total 982 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 4: Intersection: 4‐way



Checked 241 22.7 24.5 99.8


Total 983 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 35

Table 5: Intersection: Other



Checked 68 6.4 6.9 100.0

Total 984 92.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 6: Intersection: Segment ends but path continues



Checked 193 18.2 19.6 100.0

Total 983 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 7: Intersection: Segment ends



Checked 67 6.3 6.8 99.9


Total 984 92.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 8: Intersection: No intersections



Checked 12 1.1 1.2 99.8


Total 984 92.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 36

Table 9: Land use mix


Valid No mix 347 32.7 35.8 35.8

Little mix 464 43.7 47.8 83.6

Some mix 119 11.2 12.3 95.9

A lot of mix 40 3.8 4.1 100.0

Total 970 91.4 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 10: Land use: Houses



Checked 836 78.8 85.1 99.8


Total 982 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 11: Land use: Offices



Checked 231 21.8 23.6 99.9


Total 979 92.3 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 12: Land use: Public / Government



Checked 92 8.7 9.4 100.0

Total 980 92.4 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 37

Table 13: Land use: Schools



Checked 167 15.7 17.0 100.0

Total 980 92.4 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 14: Land use: Shops



Checked 573 54.0 58.4 100.0

Total 981 92.5 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 15: Land use: Restaurant / cafe



Checked 146 13.8 15.0 100.0

Total 974 91.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 16: Land use: Entertainment



Checked 8 .8 .8 100.0

Total 980 92.4 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 38

Table 17: Land use: Park / playground



Checked 20 1.9 2.0 99.9


Total 979 92.3 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 18: Footpath presence


Valid None 429 40.4 43.8 43.8

One side 184 17.3 18.8 62.6

Both sides 366 34.5 37.4 100.0

Total 979 92.3 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 19: Footpath completeness


Valid Not complete

158 14.9 28.7 28.7

Complete 1 side

151 14.2 27.5 56.2

Complete all sides

241 22.7 43.8 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 20: Footpath buffer


Valid No buffer 344 32.4 62.8 62.8

Less than 2ft 85 8.0 15.5 78.3

2ft to 6ft 73 6.9 13.3 91.6

6ft+ 46 4.3 8.4 100.0

Total 548 51.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 39

Table 21: Footpath materials: Paving brick



Checked 261 24.6 47.8 100.0

Total 546 51.5 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 22: Footpath materials: Concrete



Checked 242 22.8 44.2 99.6


Total 547 51.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 23: Footpath materials: Bitumim



Checked 17 1.6 3.1 100.0

Total 546 51.5 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 24: Footpath materials: Slab



Checked 172 16.2 31.4 100.0

Total 547 51.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 40

Table 25: Footpath materials: Tiles



Checked 96 9.0 17.6 100.0

Total 547 51.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 26: Footpath materials: Dirt / sand



Checked 298 28.1 54.6 100.0

Total 546 51.5 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 27: Footpath materials: Other



Checked 5 .5 .9 100.0

Total 547 51.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 28: Footpath width


Valid Less than 2ft 25 2.4 4.6 4.6

2ft to 4ft 139 13.1 25.4 30.0

4ft to 6ft 219 20.6 40.0 70.0

6ft + 164 15.5 30.0 100.0

Total 547 51.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 41

Table 29: Footpath condition


Valid Poor 219 20.6 39.9 39.9

Fair 232 21.9 42.3 82.1

Good 98 9.2 17.9 100.0

Total 549 51.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 30: Footpath obstructions: Cars / motorbike



Checked 216 20.4 39.4 100.0

Total 548 51.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 31: Footpath obstructions: Trash cans



Checked 89 8.4 16.2 100.0

Total 549 51.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 32: Footpath obstructions: Construction rubbish



Checked 217 20.5 39.5 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 42

Table 33: Footpath obstructions: Car exit / entry cuts



Checked 287 27.0 52.4 100.0

Total 548 51.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 34: Footpath obstructions: Shop goods



Checked 234 22.1 42.5 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 35: Footpath obstructions: Pillars and cables



Checked 140 13.2 25.5 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 36: Footpath obstructions: Trees



Checked 77 7.3 14.0 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 37: Footpath obstructions: Vendors



Checked 124 11.7 22.5 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 43

Table 38: Footpath obstructions: Trucks



Checked 46 4.3 8.4 100.0

Total 549 51.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 39: Footpath obstructions: None



Checked 64 6.0 11.7 100.0

Total 549 51.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 40: Footpath obstructions: Quantity


Valid None 80 7.5 14.7 14.7

A little 193 18.2 35.5 50.2

Some 184 17.3 33.8 84.0

A lot 87 8.2 16.0 100.0

Total 544 51.3 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 41: Required to leave footpath?


Valid Never 190 17.9 34.9 34.9

1‐3 times 229 21.6 42.1 77.0

4+ times 87 8.2 16.0 93.0

Couldn't walk on path

38 3.6 7.0 100.0

Total 544 51.3 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 44

Table 42: Disorder: Cans / bottles



Checked 320 30.2 58.3 99.8

Invalid Entry 1 .1 .2 100.0

Total 549 51.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 43: Disorder: Cigarette / bidi butts



Checked 504 47.5 91.6 99.6

Invalid Entry 2 .2 .4 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 44: Disorder: Urine smell



Checked 89 8.4 16.2 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 45: Disorder: Garbage



Checked 320 30.2 58.2 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 45

Table 46: Disorder: Broken glass



Checked 87 8.2 15.8 100.0

Total 550 51.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 47: Disorder: Graffiti



Checked 153 14.4 27.9 100.0

Total 549 51.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 48: Disorder: None



Checked 17 1.6 3.1 100.0

Total 549 51.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 49: Overall cleanliness


Valid Poor 333 31.4 34.1 34.1

Fair 500 47.1 51.2 85.3

Good 143 13.5 14.7 100.0

Total 976 92.0 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 46

Table 50: Curb cuts at intersections


Valid None 531 50.0 96.7 96.7

Some intersections

11 1.0 2.0 98.7

All intersections

7 .7 1.3 100.0

Total 549 51.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 51: Wheelchair accessible


Valid Yes 21 2.0 3.9 3.9

No 522 49.2 96.1 100.0

Total 543 51.2 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 52: Barriers: High medians



Checked 62 5.8 7.0 99.3


Total 892 84.1 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 53: Barriers: Barbed wire



Checked 26 2.5 2.9 100.0

Total 892 84.1 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 47

Table 54: Barriers: Trees / plantings in medians



Checked 26 2.5 2.9 100.0

Total 891 84.0 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 55: Barriers: More than 2 lanes of traffic



Checked 37 3.5 4.2 100.0

Total 890 83.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 56: Barriers: Mixed traffic



Checked 412 38.8 46.2 100.0

Total 892 84.1 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 57: Barriers: None



Checked 460 43.4 51.6 100.0

Total 892 84.1 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 58: Crossing safety: Zebra crossing



Checked 1 .1 .1 100.0

Total 893 84.2 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 48

Table 59: Crossing safety: Special lights




Total 1061 100.0

Table 60: Crossing safety: Police enforcement



Checked 9 .8 1.0 100.0

Total 893 84.2 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 61: Crossing safety: Crossing guard




Total 1061 100.0

Table 62: Crossing safety: Raised walkway



Checked 1 .1 .1 100.0

Total 890 83.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 63: Crossing safety: Signs



Checked 6 .6 .7 100.0

Total 890 83.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 49

Table 64: Crossing safety: Foot‐over bridge or underpass



Checked 2 .2 .2 100.0

Total 890 83.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 65: Crossing safety: Cars obey laws / yield



Checked 12 1.1 1.3 100.0

Total 893 84.2 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 66: Crossing safety: None



Checked 867 81.7 97.1 99.9


Total 893 84.2 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 67: Traffic calming: Roundabout



Checked 2 .2 .2 100.0

Total 890 83.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 68: Traffic calming: Lane width restriction




Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 50

Table 69: Traffic calming: Traffic signals



Checked 4 .4 .4 100.0

Total 889 83.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 70: Traffic calming: Speed humps



Checked 49 4.6 5.5 100.0

Total 890 83.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 71: Traffic calming: Signs (other)



Checked 9 .8 1.0 100.0

Total 890 83.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 72: Traffic calming: None



Checked 829 78.1 93.1 100.0

Total 890 83.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 73: Posted speed limit


Valid 30 4 .4 .4 .4

999 887 83.6 99.6 100.0

Total 891 84.0 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 51

Table 74: Moving cars visible


Valid Yes 637 60.0 71.3 71.3

No 257 24.2 28.7 100.0

Total 894 84.3 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 75: Aggressive drivers


Valid Yes 318 30.0 50.9 50.9

No 307 28.9 49.1 100.0

Total 625 58.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 76: Service amenities: Seating



Checked 14 1.3 1.4 99.7


Total 977 92.1 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 77: Service amenities: Toilet



Checked 1 .1 .1 100.0

Total 976 92.0 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 52

Table 78: Service amenities: Trash bins



Checked 9 .8 .9 100.0

Total 975 91.9 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 79: Service amenities: Vendors



Checked 192 18.1 19.7 100.0

Total 977 92.1 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 80: Service amenities: Other



Checked 8 .8 .8 99.9


Total 977 92.1 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 81: Service amenities: None



Checked 770 72.6 78.8 100.0

Total 977 92.1 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 53

Table 82: Tree shade


Valid None / very few

600 56.6 62.3 62.3

Some 275 25.9 28.6 90.9

Many / very dense

88 8.3 9.1 100.0

Total 963 90.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 83: Lighting: Road‐oriented



Checked 651 61.4 66.6 98.7

Invalid entry 13 1.2 1.3 100.00

Total 977 92.1 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 84: Lighting: Pedestrian‐oriented



Checked 29 2.7 3.0 100.0

Total 976 92.0 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 85: Lighting: Other



Checked 716 67.5 73.4 99.8


Total 976 92.0 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 54

Table 86: Lighting: None



Checked 80 7.5 8.2 100.0

Total 976 92.0 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 87: Vehicle parking: Car / motorbike (legal)



Checked 40 3.8 4.1 100.0

Total 983 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 88: Vehicle parking: Cars / motorbike (illegal)



Checked 442 41.7 45.0 99.7


Total 982 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 89: Vehicle parking: No cars / motorbike



Checked 459 43.3 46.7 99.8


Total 982 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 55

Table 90: Vehicle parking: No road (not applicable)



Checked 15 1.4 1.5 100.0

Total 983 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 91: Vehicle parking: Trucks (legal)



Checked 2 .2 .2 100.0

Total 982 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 92: Vehicle parking: Trucks (illegal)



Checked 103 9.7 10.5 100.0

Total 983 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 93: Vehicle parking: No trucks



Checked 490 46.2 49.8 100.0

Total 983 92.6 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 56

Table 94: Noise pollution


Valid None 118 11.1 12.0 12.0

A little 470 44.3 47.9 59.9

Some 233 22.0 23.8 83.7

A lot 160 15.1 16.3 100.0

Total 981 92.5 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 95: Number of people


Valid None 3 .3 .3 .3

1‐6 145 13.7 14.7 15.0

7‐14 185 17.4 18.8 33.8

15+ 651 61.4 66.2 100.0

Total 984 92.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 96: Children at play


Valid Yes 85 8.0 8.6 8.6

No 900 84.8 91.4 100.0

Total 985 92.8 100.0


Total 1061 100.0

Table 97: Conversation


Valid Yes 869 81.9 88.3 88.3

No 115 10.8 11.7 100.0

Total 984 92.7 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 57

Table 98: Segments with low car traffic, high pedestrian traffic, and no footpaths


Valid No 724 68.2 73.9 73.9

Yes 256 24.1 26.1 100.0

Total 980 92.4 100.0


Total 1061 100.0


Appendices Page 58

Annex B: Field Survey Form Field Survey Form ‐ Quality of Pedestrian Environments

By: Work for a Better Bangladesh (WBB Trust) Volunteer Name: Date: Section ID: Segment ID: Start Time End Time:

1. Is road or water main construction underway?

Yes No

1 2

If yes, skip all questions and begin next segment on a new sheet. If no, continue to Question 1. 2. Segment Type: Low Volume Road

Medium Volume Road

High Volume Road

Path/No Road

1 2 3 4

** if no road, skip the “Safety” section

3. Segment Intersections (check all that apply): 3 way

intersection 4 way

intersection Other

intersection

1 2 3

Segment ends but path continues

Segment ends Segment has no intersections

4 5 6

Land Use Diversity 4. Are residential and non‐residential land‐uses

mixed in this segment? No mix Little mix Some mix A lot of mix

1 2 3 4

5. What uses do you see in this segment? (check

all) Houses Office Public/

Government Schools

1 2 3 4

Shops Restaurant/ Cafe

Entertainment Park/ Playground

5 6 7 8

Footpath Availability 6. Presence of a footpath or walkway in segment?

None One side Both sides

1 2 3

** if no footpath or walkway skip to question 14 7. Is the footpath/walkway complete in this

segment? Not complete Complete one side Complete both

sides

1 2 3

Footpath Quality 8. Is there a buffer between the road and path? No buffer Buffer less

than 2 ft Buffer 2 feet to 6 feet

Buffer is more than 6ft

1 2 3 4

9. What materials are used for

footpath/walkway? (check all that apply) Paving Brick Concrete Bitumim

1 2 3

Slab Tiles Dirt/Sand

4 5 6

Other

7

10. What is the width of the footpath/walkway? Less than 2

ft 2ft to 4ft 4ft to 6 ft More than 6

ft

1 2 3 4

11. What is the condition of the

footpath/walkway? Poor (many heaves, broken sections)

Fair (some heaves, broken sections)

Good (very few heaves, broken sections)

1 2 3

12. Are there obstructions blocking the footpath/

walkway? (check all that apply) Cars/

Motorbike Trash cans Construction

rubbish Car exit/ entry cuts

1 2 3 4

Shop goods Pillars and cables

Trees Vendors

5 6 7 8

Trucks None

9 10


Appendices Page 59

13. What is the quantity of obstructions blocking

the footpath/walkway? None A little Some A lot

1 2 3 4

14. Did you need to leave the footpath/walkway

because of the obstructions? Never 1‐3 times 4+ Could not

walk on path

1 2 3 4

15. Is there physical disorder visible in the segment

(on footpath or road)?( check all that apply) Cans/bottles Cigarette/ bidi

butts Urine Smell

1 2 3

Garbage Broken glass

Graffiti

4 5 6

None

7

16. What is the overall cleanliness of the segment? Poor (a lot of physical disorder)

Fair (some physical disorder)

Good (very few physical disorder)

1 2 3

Facilities for the Disabled 17. Are there curvilinear or curb cuts on the

footpath/ walkways of this segment? None Some

intersections All intersections

1 2 3

18. Would a person in a wheelchair be able to

travel along the footpath/walkway in this segment?

Yes No

1 2

Safety 19. Are there barriers that make it difficult or

prevent pedestrians from crossing the street?

High medians Barbed wire Trees/ plantings in medians

1 2 3

More than 2 lanes traffic

Mixed Traffic None

4 5 6

20. Are there crossing aids for pedestrians to cross the street safely? (Check all that apply)

Zebra Crossing

Special Lights

Police Enforcement

Crossing Guard

1 2 3 4

Raised walkway

Signs Underground/ Foot over bridge

Cars obey laws/ yield

5 6 7 8

None

9

21. Are there traffic‐calming and controlling

devices to reduce volume or speed? (check all that apply)

Roundabout Lane width restriction

Traffic signals

1 2 3

Speed humps Signs (other) None

4 5 6

22. What is the posted speed limit? (if there is no

posted limit, enter 999) ___________

23. Do you see cars being driven in segment? Yes No

1 2

*if no, skip to question 24 24. Are there aggressive drivers (i.e. speeding, not

giving pedestrians the right of way)? Yes No

1 2

Availability of Pedestrian Amenities 25. What types of service amenities exist in this

segment? (check all that apply) Seating Toilet Trash bins

1 2 3

Vendors Other None

4 5 6

26. Are there trees shading the walking area? None/very few Some Many/very dense

1 2 3

27. Are there lights? (check all that apply)

Road‐oriented lighting

Pedestrian‐ scale lighting

Other lighting

No lighting

1 2 3 4


Appendices Page 60

Other 28. Are there vehicles parked on the road in this

segment? (check all that apply) Yes –

car/motorbike legal parking

Yes – cars/ motorbike not legal

No cars/ motorbike parked

N/A – no road

1 2 3 4

Yes‐ trucks Legal

Yes – trucks not legal

No trucks parked

5 6 7

29. How much noise pollution is audible in this

segment (e.g. traffic, construction, factories)? None A little Some A lot

1 2 3 4

30. How many people do you see in this segment?

None 1‐6 7‐14 15+

1 2 3 4

31. Are there children playing in this segment?

Yes No

1 2

32. Are there people stopping to talk or greet one

another? Yes No

1 2

33. What was the weather?

________________________________


Appendices Page 61

Appendix 3: Methodology and Results – Perception Survey

Overview

To complement the observational study, the project team designed and undertook a perception study which included a survey of a random sample of 1,850 people and nine focus groups. The perception survey was conducted among residents of and visitors to various locations in Uttara, Tongi, Gazipur, Mirpur, and Old Dhaka who were asked about how they felt about current street and walking conditions. In addition to complementing the observations made by the research team, these interviews were important to gauge people’s perception of their walking experiences. The focus groups, held with mothers of school aged‐children, female garment workers, and vendors, explored some of the perceived problems in more depth, particularly those related to perceptions of safety when walking.

Based on the results of the survey (which are detailed below), the project team has made a number of recommendations on priority areas for government spending:

Upgrading pedestrian facilities would be a good investment, and would help people travel to destinations that they currently are unable to reach. These footpaths should ensure adequate facilities for those living with disabilities.

In the short‐term, policies should be developed and enforced that require motor vehicles to travel at a slower pace. In the longer‐term, policies that have the potential to reduce the number of vehicles in the city should be enacted.

Zebra crossings should be combined with police enforcement and driver education to ensure safer street crossings.

Planners should examine ways to integrate parks and entertainment into one location.

Methodology

Instrument Development

The project team identified several issues that could be examined within a pedestrian perception survey in Dhaka. The purposes of the Perception Survey were to identify residents’ current concerns and issues related to their pedestrian environment and to identify desired actions to address those concerns and issues. We used the existing Walkability in Asian Cities Pedestrian Perception Survey as the basis for our survey, and made a few adaptations to enable us to collect additional helpful information, such as desired destinations and fears experienced within the pedestrian environment.

Validity Testing

The draft survey was first translated into Bengali. To ensure both the quality of the translation and the integrity of the original concepts, a person not associated with the project was asked to translate the Bengali version back into English. Minor issues were identified in the reverse translation and corrected. The project team then pre‐tested the draft survey with 10 randomly selected residents in the area around Dhanmondi on 7 April 2011. This pre‐testing helped us to identify questions or concepts that were unclear or for which the answer scale was ambiguous. Final revisions were made based on the pre‐test results. A copy of the adapted tool can be found at the end of this Appendix.


Appendices Page 62

Perception Survey Methods The Perception Survey was an intercept survey conducted in the same five study areas covered in the Field Survey. To increase the generalizability of the results, the Segments ID Numbers were entered into a computer program that then randomly selected segments in which residents were to be surveyed. Figure 1 provides an example map from Mirpur that identifies the segments within each section where the Perception Study was conducted.

The same twelve urban planning students from BUET who conducted the field survey also conducted the perception survey. Prior to commencing the perception study, these students were trained by the project team. Training methods included classroom work, practice using the instrument in Dhanmondi, and discussion. The project team assessed each volunteer prior to sending him/her into the field. In addition, each student was regularly monitored by one of the team members to ensure ongoing quality in the survey.

Unfortunately, during the data collection phase, the students faced difficulty convincing women to participate in the survey. This challenge was only discovered to be a systemic problem mid‐way through the data collection process. A more concerted effort was then made to interview women, which did result in their increased participation. However, in part to compensate, the project team also decided to conduct focus groups exclusively with women to test the results of the perception survey and to more deeply identify additional issues that were of particular concern to women.

Figure 1: MIrpur perception survey map


Appendices Page 63

Results

Origins and Destinations

The vast majority of survey respondents started their current journey from home (78%), with most of the remaining starting their journey from work, school, or from relatives’ homes.

Figure 2: Percent respondents by point of origin

The destinations to which people were travelling were more varied than their points of origin. Figure 3 shows that work and shopping were the two main destinations, followed by home and relatives.

Figure 3: Percent respondents by destination

Time Spent Travelling By Mode

The vast majority of respondents travelled on foot for at least part of their journey. Only 12% of respondents indicated that they did not walk as part of their trip. Seventy‐three percent of respondents travelled on foot for 15 minutes or less, while 13% walked between 15 and 30 minutes.


Appendices Page 64

Few people in Dhaka cycle, due likely, at least in part, to the lack of facilities. Only 4% of those surveyed indicated they had or would travel by cycle on their current trip. However, 10% of those surveyed indicated they owned a bicycle. This suggests that there are opportunities to increase the amount of cycling for transportation in Dhaka.

Twenty‐five percent of those surveyed had or would travel by bus or train during their trip. These trips were usually longer in nature, as 90% of those who indicated that they were travelling by bus or train noted that they would be doing so for more than 10 minutes. Rickshaws are also an important mode of transport, with 41% of those surveyed indicating that they would be taking a rickshaw for 10‐30 minutes during their trip. Human hauler was a form of travel for 6% of the respondents.

Very few people had or would be travelling by CNG/taxi (3%) or a boat (2%) during their trip. Despite the fact that 8% indicated that they owned a motorbike, only 2% indicated that they would be using their motorbike on their current journey. Seven percent of those surveyed indicated they owned a private vehicle, but only 1% of those surveyed were taking a private vehicle for part of their journey. Figure 4 shows the percent of respondents who own a vehicle by type and Figure 5 shows the comparison of travel time by mode for walking, rickshaw, bus/train and personal vehicle.

Figure 4: Percent respondents by vehicle ownership


Appendices Page 65

Figure 5: Percent respondents travel time by mode

Desirable Destinations

Respondents were asked if there was any destination to which they would like to walk but were currently unable to. The highest percentage of respondents would like to walk to a “big store” (36%) followed by friends and relatives (28%), and work (17%). When asked for the reasons why they could not walk to their desired destination, more than 80% referred to the poor quality or lack of footpaths. One‐third said that their destination was “too far”, and one‐quarter that it was too difficult to cross the street.


Appendices Page 66

Figure 6: Percent respondents by desired destination

Figure 7: Percent respondents by reason for inaccessible destination

Pedestrian Facilities

When asked to rate the quality of pedestrian facilities in Dhaka, 79% of those surveyed said that they were the “worst” or “bad” (39% and 40% respectively). Seventeen percent said the footpaths were okay and only 4% of respondents said the pedestrian facilities were good.

Respondents were then asked to suggest the top five improvements that could be made to the pedestrian environment. The most important improvements that could be made according to those surveyed were to reduce and slow traffic, wider and more level footpaths, cleaner footpaths, and better facilities for those living with disabilities.


Appendices Page 67

Figure 8: Percent respondents by suggested pedestrian improvements

In terms of street crossing, 30% noted that they would like better police enforcement, 28% indicated that they would like footover bridges, and 26% would like to see zebra crossings installed. Other suggestions included more signage, underpasses, raised walkways, crossing guards, and better lighting. Less than 1% of respondents had no suggestions.

Pedestrian Safety Issues

Participants were asked what makes them feel fear in the pedestrian environment. Fifty‐eight percent fear cars or motorbikes at least once a week with 17% fearing cars/motorbikes every day. This corroborates the results noted above which suggested that people would like to see traffic reduced/slowed down. Seventy‐three percent fear buses, which supports the need to have buses in dedicated lanes. Almost half of those surveyed fear crossing the street.

Figure 9: Percent respondents by type of fear


Appendices Page 68

It was noteworthy that 31% of those surveyed had been injured walking in the last month, representing a significant problem.

The crimes people are most afraid of include hijackers (44%) and teasing (41%). A full 90% of respondents indicated that they feel safer with other people on the street, and 94% of those would like to see Hawkers properly managed.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study clearly points to citizens’ desires to see improvements to their walking environments in the study area and suggests that significant investments in pedestrian infrastructure is warranted, as virtually everyone travelled by this mode. To see an increase in cycling for transportation, investments will need to be made to support safe cycling. Rickshaws and human haulers need to be accommodated on streets, as these continue to be important modes of travel for longer distances.

The results of this study can be used to develop several recommendations on priority areas for government spending:

Clearly the lack of footpaths and footpath quality is an issue for pedestrians. Upgrading the pedestrian facilities would be a good investment. This improvement would help people travel to destinations that they currently are unable to reach. This is a reasonable improvement and could be expected to shift some travel from other modes to walking. These footpaths should ensure adequate facilities for those living with disabilities.

Clearly the residents of the study areas would welcome investments that slow down or eliminate traffic. Not only was this suggested at the top improvement, but this was also the respondents’ biggest fear with regard to injury. In the short‐term, policies should be developed and enforced that require motor vehicles to travel at a slower pace. In the longer‐term, policies that have the potential to reduce the number of vehicles in the city should be enacted.

In terms of support for crossing, the recommendation would be a combination of zebra crossings where the priority is given to along with police enforcement and driver education. Police enforcement should include provisions for fines. This would have the added benefit of increasing police revenue for further enforcement.

Planners should examine ways to integrate parks and entertainment into one location. For example, it may be possible to include outdoor theatres and concert areas (entertainment) in parks.

The study also provides direction about future studies that can be done. For example, although the respondents seemed to favour footover bridges, experience suggests that footover bridges are not popular once constructed. This could perhaps be because the distance that people must travel to cross it. Footover bridges also have the added disadvantage of not being hospitable to those with disabilities. It is possible that this is a case where people are unaware of all of their options. We would not recommend this type of pedestrian crossing but instead would suggest that further study be done to determine why they are not used. In addition, we need to be cautious about introducing “big stores” into the pedestrian environment as big stores often detract from the pedestrian environment. Further study should be done to find out why people want to walk to big stores.


Appendices Page 69

Improving the pedestrian environment is of vital importance. Without improvements to the walking infrastructure, people will choose another mode of travel whenever possible, exacerbating the problems created by an already congested city. By focusing on specific pedestrian improvements chosen by residents, we can create a city that values and supports walking and the result will be that people will continue to walk as a convenient mode of travel.


Appendices Page 70

Annex 1: Raw Survey Data

The following are frequency tables for each question. Some surveys were discarded during the analysis, so a total of 1,714 respondents are included in the data below.

Table 1: Origin


Valid Work 209 12.2 12.2 12.2

School 49 2.9 2.9 15.1

Home 1327 77.4 77.5 92.6

Relatives 43 2.5 2.5 95.1

Friend 25 1.5 1.5 96.6

Shopping 29 1.7 1.7 98.2

Mosque/Temple 14 .8 .8 99.1

Entertainment 2 .1 .1 99.2

Don't know 1 .1 .1 99.2

Other 13 .8 .8 100.0

Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 2: Destination


Valid Work 478 27.9 28.0 28.0

School 137 8.0 8.0 36.0

Home 282 16.5 16.5 52.5

Relatives 138 8.1 8.1 60.5

Friend 99 5.8 5.8 66.3

Shopping 304 17.7 17.8 84.1

Mosque/Temple 35 2.0 2.0 86.1

Entertainment 31 1.8 1.8 88.0

Don't know 61 3.6 3.6 91.5

Other 145 8.5 8.5 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 71

Table 3: Time (one‐way): Walk


Valid None 199 11.6 11.7 11.7

< 5 minutes 392 22.9 23.0 34.7

6 to 10 minutes 488 28.5 28.6 63.3

11 to 15 minutes 368 21.5 21.6 84.9

16 to 30 minutes 216 12.6 12.7 97.5

31 to 60 minutes 33 1.9 1.9 99.5

60 to 90 minutes 2 .1 .1 99.6

More than 90 minutes

1 .1 .1 99.6

Not sure 4 .2 .2 99.9


Total 1705 99.5 100.0

Missing System 9 .5

Total 1714 100.0

Table 4: Time (one‐way): Cycle


Valid None 1636 95.4 96.0 96.0

<5 minutes 5 .3 .3 96.2

6 to 10 minutes 10 .6 .6 96.8

11 to 15 minutes 9 .5 .5 97.4

16 to 30 minutes 9 .5 .5 97.9

31 to 60 minutes 8 .5 .5 98.4

60 to 90 minutes 2 .1 .1 98.5


1 .1 .1 98.5

Not sure 25 1.5 1.5 100.0

Total 1705 99.5 100.0

Missing System 9 .5

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 72

Table 5: Time (one‐way): Bus/Train


Valid None 1280 74.7 75.1 75.1

< 5 minutes 8 .5 .5 75.5

6 to 10 minutes 34 2.0 2.0 77.5

11 to 15 minutes 90 5.3 5.3 82.8

16 to 30 minutes 115 6.7 6.7 89.6

31 to 60 minutes 99 5.8 5.8 95.4

60 to 90 minutes 33 1.9 1.9 97.3


28 1.6 1.6 98.9

Not sure 18 1.1 1.1 100.0

Total 1705 99.5 100.0

Missing System 9 .5

Total 1714 100.0

Table 6: Time (one‐way): Rickshaw


Valid None 1002 58.5 58.8 58.8

< 5 minutes 14 .8 .8 59.6

6 to 10 minutes 160 9.3 9.4 69.0

11 to 15 minutes 309 18.0 18.1 87.1

16 to 30 minutes 171 10.0 10.0 97.1

31 to 60 minutes 24 1.4 1.4 98.5

60 to 90 minutes 1 .1 .1 98.6


3 .2 .2 98.8

Not sure 21 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 1705 99.5 100.0

Missing System 9 .5

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 73

Table 7: Time (one‐way): Human hauler


Valid None 1608 93.8 94.4 94.4

< 5 minutes 4 .2 .2 94.7

6 to 10 minutes 21 1.2 1.2 95.9

11 to 15 minutes 16 .9 .9 96.8

16 to 30 minutes 22 1.3 1.3 98.1

31 to 60 minutes 5 .3 .3 98.4

Not sure 27 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 1703 99.4 100.0

Missing System 11 .6

Total 1714 100.0

Table 8: Time (one‐way): CNG/Taxi


Valid None 1646 96.0 96.7 96.7

6 to 10 minutes 2 .1 .1 96.8

11 to 15 minutes 2 .1 .1 96.9

16 to 30 minutes 8 .5 .5 97.4

31 to 60 minutes 15 .9 .9 98.3

60 to 90 minutes 1 .1 .1 98.4


1 .1 .1 98.4

Not sure 27 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 1702 99.3 100.0


Total 1714 100.0

Table 9: Time (one‐way): Boat


Valid None 1671 97.5 98.1 98.1

< 5 minutes 1 .1 .1 98.2

6 to 10 minutes 3 .2 .2 98.4

Not sure 28 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 1703 99.4 100.0


Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 74

Table 10: Time (one‐way): Car/Personal vehicle


Valid None 1645 96.0 96.5 96.5

< 5 minutes 1 .1 .1 96.5

6 to 10 minutes 2 .1 .1 96.7

11 to 15 minutes 4 .2 .2 96.9

16 to 30 minutes 3 .2 .2 97.1

31 to 60 minutes 11 .6 .6 97.7

60 to 90 minutes 8 .5 .5 98.2


3 .2 .2 98.4

Not sure 28 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 1705 99.5 100.0

Missing System 9 .5

Total 1714 100.0

Table 11: Time (one‐way): Motorbike


Valid None 1662 97.0 97.5 97.5

< 5 minutes 1 .1 .1 97.5

6 to 10 minutes 2 .1 .1 97.7

11 to 15 minutes 2 .1 .1 97.8

16 to 30 minutes 5 .3 .3 98.1

31 to 60 minutes 4 .2 .2 98.3

60 to 90 minutes 1 .1 .1 98.4

Not sure 28 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 1705 99.5 100.0

Missing System 9 .5

Total 1714 100.0

Table 12: Vehicle ownership: Bicycle


Valid Unchecked 1546 90.2 90.2 90.2

Checked 166 9.7 9.7 99.9


10 1 .1 .1 100.0

Total 1714 100.0 100.0


Appendices Page 75

Table 13: Vehicle ownership: Car



Checked 120 7.0 7.0 100.0

Total 1713 99.9 100.0

Missing System 1 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 14: Vehicle ownership: Motorbike



Checked 144 8.4 8.4 100.0

Total 1714 100.0 100.0

Table 15: Vehicle ownership: Rickshaw



Checked 10 .6 .6 100.0

Total 1714 100.0 100.0

Table 15: Vehicle ownership: CNG



Checked 2 .1 .1 99.9


Total 1714 100.0 100.0

Table 17: Vehicle ownership: None



Checked 1278 74.6 74.6 99.9


Total 1713 99.9 100.0

Missing System 1 .1

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 76

Table 18: Vehicle ownership: Not sure



Checked 14 .8 .8 100.0

Total 1714 100.0 100.0

Table 19: Cannot walk: To work



Checked 295 17.2 17.2 100.0

Total 1711 99.8 100.0

Missing System 3 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 20: Cannot walk: To school



Checked 227 13.2 13.3 100.0

Total 1711 99.8 100.0

Missing System 3 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 21: Cannot walk: To park



Checked 273 15.9 16.0 100.0

Total 1711 99.8 100.0

Missing System 3 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 22: Cannot walk: To small store



Checked 79 4.6 4.6 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 77

Table 23: Cannot walk: To big store



Checked 616 35.9 36.0 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 24: Cannot walk: To vendor



Checked 43 2.5 2.5 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 25: Cannot walk: To relatives/friends



Checked 478 27.9 28.0 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 26: Cannot walk: To mosque/temple



Checked 27 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 27: Cannot walk: To entertainment



Checked 360 21.0 21.1 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 78

Table 28: Cannot walk: Does not apply



Checked 251 14.6 14.7 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 29: Cannot walk: Other



Checked 14 .8 .8 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 30: Inaccessible: Too far



Checked 642 37.5 37.5 99.8


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 31: Inaccessible: No footpath



Checked 664 38.7 38.8 99.9


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 79

Table 32: Inaccessible: Footpath quality



Checked 760 44.3 44.4 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 33: Inaccessible: Difficult to cross street



Checked 440 25.7 25.7 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 34: Inaccessible: Afraid of crime



Checked 292 17.0 17.1 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 35: Inaccessible: Other reason



Checked 21 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 80

Table 36: How would you your rate the pedestrian facilities in Dhaka?


Valid Invalid response 1 .1 .1 .1

Worst 670 39.1 39.1 39.1

Bad 682 39.8 39.8 78.9

OK 288 16.8 16.8 95.7

Good 71 4.1 4.1 99.9

Best 2 .1 .1 100.0

Total 1714 100.0 100.0

Table 37: Desired improvement: Easy access for disabled people



Checked 986 57.5 57.6 100.0

Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 38: Desired improvement: Improved street lighting



Checked 757 44.2 44.2 100.0

Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 39: Desired improvement: Enforcement of laws



Checked 800 46.7 46.7 100.0

Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 81

Table 40: Desired improvement: Wider and level footpaths/walkways



Checked 1058 61.7 61.8 100.0

Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 41: Desired improvement: Clean footpaths/walkways



Checked 996 58.1 58.2 100.0

Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 42: Desired improvement: Reduced and slow traffic on road



Checked 1346 78.5 78.7 99.9


Total 1711 99.8 100.0

Missing System 3 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 43: Desired improvement: Removing obstacles



Checked 911 53.2 53.2 100.0

Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 44: Desired improvement: More crossing points



Checked 723 42.2 42.3 100.0

Total 1711 99.8 100.0

Missing System 3 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 82

Table 45: Desired improvement: Safer crossing points



Checked 569 33.2 33.2 100.0

Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 46: Desired improvement: Other



Checked 569 33.2 33.2 99.9


Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 47: Did respondent select five or fewer options?


Valid No 58 3.4 3.4 3.4

Yes 1652 96.4 96.6 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 83

Table 48: Preferred crossing type


Valid Zebra crossing 431 25.1 26.0 26.0

Special lights 39 2.3 2.4 28.3

Police enforcement

489 28.5 29.5 57.8

Crossing guard 96 5.6 5.8 63.6

Raised walkway 53 3.1 3.2 66.8

Foot‐over bridge 467 27.2 28.2 95.0

Underpass 62 3.6 3.7 98.7

Sign 13 .8 .8 99.5

Not sure 8 .5 .5 100.0

Total 1658 96.7 100.0


Total 1714 100.0

Table 49: Fear: Car / motorbike / personal vehicle


Valid None / Rarely 713 41.6 41.7 41.7

1 to 3 days 330 19.3 19.3 61.0

4 to 6 days 140 8.2 8.2 69.2

Every day 289 16.9 16.9 86.1

Many times per day

197 11.5 11.5 97.6

Not sure / refused 41 2.4 2.4 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 50: Fear: Bus



1 to 3 days 483 28.2 28.2 65.6

4 to 6 days 158 9.2 9.2 74.9

Every day 250 14.6 14.6 89.5

Many times per day

157 9.2 9.2 98.7


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 84

Table 51: Fear: CNG / taxi



1 to 3 days 251 14.6 14.7 77.3

4 to 6 days 91 5.3 5.3 82.6

Every day 123 7.2 7.2 89.8

Many times per day

137 8.0 8.0 97.8


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 52: Fear: Rickshaw



1 to 3 days 253 14.8 14.8 75.9

4 to 6 days 82 4.8 4.8 80.7

Every day 119 6.9 7.0 87.7

Many times per day

180 10.5 10.5 98.2


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 53: Fear: Commercial truck



1 to 3 days 387 22.6 22.6 82.5

4 to 6 days 121 7.1 7.1 89.5

Every day 115 6.7 6.7 96.3

Many times per day

9 .5 .5 96.8


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 85

Table 54: Fear: Road design



1 to 3 days 154 9.0 9.0 86.1

4 to 6 days 33 1.9 1.9 88.1

Every day 18 1.1 1.1 89.1

Many times per day

2 .1 .1 89.2

Not sure / refused 184 10.7 10.8 100.0

Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 55: Fear: Dogs



1 to 3 days 141 8.2 8.2 92.5

4 to 6 days 37 2.2 2.2 94.6

Every day 15 .9 .9 95.5

Many times per day

4 .2 .2 95.7


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 56: Fear: Crossing street



1 to 3 days 295 17.2 17.3 74.3

4 to 6 days 79 4.6 4.6 78.9

Every day 114 6.7 6.7 85.6

Many times per day

192 11.2 11.2 96.8


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 86

Table 57: Fear: Uncovered manholes



1 to 3 days 273 15.9 16.0 87.1

4 to 6 days 113 6.6 6.6 93.7

Every day 44 2.6 2.6 96.3

Many times per day

5 .3 .3 96.5


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 58: Fear: Drains



1 to 3 days 246 14.4 14.4 87.7

4 to 6 days 118 6.9 6.9 94.6

Every day 33 1.9 1.9 96.5

Many times per day

2 .1 .1 96.7


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 59: Injured b/c of poor quality footpath in last 3 months


Valid Never 1179 68.8 68.9 68.9

1 to 2 times 449 26.2 26.2 95.1

3 to 4 times 51 3.0 3.0 98.1

Five or more times

9 .5 .5 98.6



Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 87

Table 60: Crime: Teasing


Valid Yes 672 39.2 40.8 40.8

No 966 56.4 58.6 99.3

Not sure 11 .6 .7 100.0

Total 1649 96.2 100.0


Total 1714 100.0

Table 61: Crime: Hijackers


Valid Yes 729 42.5 43.5 43.5

No 935 54.6 55.8 99.3

Not sure 11 .6 .7 100.0

Total 1675 97.7 100.0


Total 1714 100.0

Table 62: Crime: Political conflict group


Valid Yes 515 30.0 31.4 31.4

No 1104 64.4 67.2 98.6

Not sure 22 1.3 1.3 99.9


Total 1642 95.8 100.0


Total 1714 100.0

Table 63: Crime: Conflict


Valid Yes 589 34.4 35.3 35.3

No 1060 61.8 63.5 98.8

Not sure 20 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 1669 97.4 100.0


Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 88

Table 64: Crime: Addicted / mad person


Valid Yes 599 34.9 35.6 35.6

No 1046 61.0 62.2 97.8

Not sure 36 2.1 2.1 99.9


Total 1682 98.1 100.0


Total 1714 100.0

Table 65: Safety in numbers (pedestrians)


Valid Yes 1534 89.5 89.7 89.7

No 148 8.6 8.7 98.4


Total 1710 99.8 100.0

Missing System 4 .2

Total 1714 100.0

Table 66: Proper management for hawkers


Valid Yes 1605 93.6 93.7 93.7

No 85 5.0 5.0 98.7


Total 1713 99.9 100.0

Missing System 1 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 67: Sex of respondent


Valid Male 1186 69.2 69.2 69.2

Female 527 30.7 30.8 100.0

Total 1713 99.9 100.0

Missing System 1 .1

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 89

Table 68: Age of respondent


Valid 15 to 29 years 727 42.4 42.5 42.5

30 to 49 years 921 53.7 53.8 96.3

50 or more years 60 3.5 3.5 99.8


Total 1712 99.9 100.0

Missing System 2 .1

Total 1714 100.0

Table 69: Monthly household income


Valid 3000 or less 366 21.4 21.4 21.4

3001 to 6000 164 9.6 9.6 31.0

6001 to 9000 279 16.3 16.3 47.4

9001 to 12000 264 15.4 15.5 62.9

12001 to 15000 341 19.9 20.0 82.8

More than 15000 293 17.1 17.2 100.0

Total 1707 99.6 100.0

Missing System 7 .4

Total 1714 100.0


Appendices Page 90

Annex 2: Perception Survey Form Perception Survey Form‐

By: Work for a Better Bangladesh (WBB Trust) Name: _________________________________ Segment ID:_________________________________

Instructions: Complete the survey for every person you talk to. If they say they will not participate, check off “no” for questions #1 and then start a new survey for the next person. 1. We are conducting a survey of pedestrians to understand what would make the streets better for you. Do you have a

few moments to answer a survey? Yes (1) No (2)

If yes, proceed to question 2. If no, “Thank you for your time.” End of survey. Start new form.

2. Where are you living? Instruction: Write address as precisely as possible (i.e. not “Dhanmondi but Road 4/A)

____________________________________________________

3. Where did you start your journey today? (instructions: do not prompt unless confused, select one answer)

Work School Home Relatives Friend Shopping Mosque/ Temple

Entertainment Don’t know

Other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Other (specify): _______________________________________________

4. Where are you going on this journey? (instructions: do not prompt unless confused, select one answer. If person says they are going to multiple places select their next destination)

Work School Home Relatives Friend Shopping Mosque/ Temple

Entertainment Don’t know

Other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Other (specify): _______________________________________________

5. What is the address of your next destination? Write address as precisely as possible (i.e. not “Dhanmondi but Road

4/A, Dhanmondi)

__________________________________________________________________ 6. Think about the trip that you are currently on. How much time will you spend travelling one way using the following

modes: (Instructions: read out the first mode, let the person answer with no prompt, select the appropriate answer, then read the next mode, select the appropriate answer. Continue until the end).

Mode None <= 5 min 6‐10 11‐15 16‐30 31‐60 60‐90 90+ Not sure

a. Walk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

b. Cycle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

c. Bus/Train 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

d. Rickshaw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

e. Human hauler 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Appendices Page 91

f. CNG/taxi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

g. Boat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

h. Car/Personal Vehicle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

i. Motorbike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. What type of vehicle(s) does your family own? (do not prompt, check all that apply)

Bicycle Car Motorbike Rickshaw CNG None Not sure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Is there any place that you would like to walk (such as to work or to a relatives house) but you currently are unable?

(Instructions: Check all that apply)

Work School Park Small Store

Big Store Vendor Relatives/Friends Mosque/temple

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Entertainment Does not apply/ no place

Other

9 10 11 Other (specify): _____________________________________

9. Why can’t you walk to this place (places)? (Instructions: Do not prompt unless confused. Check all that apply)

Too far No footpath Footpath quality Difficult to cross street

Afraid of crime Other

1 2 3 4 5 6

Other (specify): _____________________________________ 10. How would you rate the pedestrian facilities in Dhaka? (Instructions: list the options, check one answer)

Worst Bad OK Good Best

1 2 3 4 5

11. If given the opportunity, what improvements would you like to have in pedestrian facilities? The following are

important possible improvements. Please pick the 5 that you think are most important. (instructions: you may need to show the person the list. Only choose the top 5. If refuse, cross out)

Improvement Check if chosen a. Easy access for disabled people

b. Improved street lighting

c. Enforcement of laws

d. Wider and level footpaths/walkways

e. Clean footpaths/walkways (e.g. clear of disorders, rubbish, syringes, graffiti)

f. Reduced and slow traffic on road

g. Removing obstacles e.g. parking from footpath

h. More crossing points

i. Safer crossing points


Appendices Page 92

j. Other (specify):

12. If you have to cross the road, what do you prefer? (Instructions: Do not prompt, unless confused. Check one answer.

If person has many, ask which one they would like the most)

Zebra Crossing Special Lights Police Enforcement

Crossing Guard Raised walkway

Footover Bridge

Underpass

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sign Not sure 8 9

13. In one week, how often do you feeling fear while walking because of the following? (instructions: read out the first , let the person answer with no prompt, select the appropriate answer, then read the next mode, select the appropriate answer. Continue until the end.)

None/Rarely 1‐3 days 4‐6 days Every day Many times a day Not sure/ refused

a. Car/ motorbike/ personal vehicle

1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Bus 1 2 3 4 5 6

c. CNG/taxi 1 2 3 4 5 6

d. Rickshaw 1 2 3 4 5 6

e. Commercial Truck 1 2 3 4 5 6

f. Road design 1 2 3 4 5 6

g. Dogs 1 2 3 4 5 6

h. Crossing street 1 2 3 4 5 6

i. Uncovered manholes

1 2 3 4 5 6

j. Drains 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. How many times you been injured because of the poor quality of the footpath/walkway in the last 3 months? (instructions: do not prompt unless confused, select one answer)

Never 1‐2 times 3‐4 times 5+ Not sure/ refused

1 2 3 4 5

15. Have you seen or personally experienced the following crimes while walking in the last 3 months? (instruction: read

out the first, let person answer, select appropriate answer then continue)

Crime Yes No Not sure

a. Teasing 1 2 3

b. Hijackers 1 2 3

c. Political Conflict Group 1 2 3

d. Conflict 1 2 3

e. Addicted people/mad person 1 2 3


Appendices Page 93

16. Do you feel safer when there are other people

walking on the street?

Yes No Not sure/ refused

1 2 3

17. Would you like proper management for hawkers?

Yes No Not sure/ refused

1 2 3

Socio‐Economic Profile 18. Sex:

Male Female

1 2 19. Age

15‐30 30‐50 >50

1 2 3

20. Household Income/month

<=3000 3001‐6000

6001‐9000

9002‐12000

12001 ‐15000

Enter Amount

1 2 3 4 5 6*


Appendices Page 94

Appendix 5: Methodology and Results – Focus Groups and Hawker Surveys

Overview Focus Group Discussions

To gain a more in‐depth understanding of the issues directly facing pedestrians in Dhaka – and particularly female pedestrians – the research team hosted two focus groups discussions. The first group targeted mothers of school‐aged children. On 5 July 2011, 8 mothers attended a group session facilitated by two female staff members of WBB. This discussion was held at the Habilbullah Bahar School and College campus in Uttara, Dhaka. The women ranged between the ages of 30 to 40 years.

The second addressed the needs of female garment factory workers. On 22 July 2011, 12 female garment workers attended a group session facilitated by two female staff members of WBB in Uttara. The women worked in different garment factories and ranged in age from 25 to 45.

It was evident from the women’s comments in both discussion groups that that face a number of challenges when attempting to reach their destinations by foot. Not only are the walking conditions poor, but the women regularly face harassment from men. They do not feel safe walking, yet in many cases have no other options. The women expressed a desire to see improved pedestrian facilities and increased safety measures put into place.

Results – Focus Group Discussions

The following is a translated summary of the session addressing the needs of mothers of school‐aged children, as recorded and transcribed by the WBB staff members.

The women and their children travel by bus to the school. All of the women said that the walking conditions were very poor. They walked to do their daily shopping and to visit family and friends. There are no footpaths where they walk; as a result, they are required to walk on the road.

“Eve‐teasing” is most common problem faced by these women. They experience harassment and “teasing” from boys and men when they walk. As one woman explained, “Even a young boy tried to inappropriately touch me, which was sexual harassment. I believe the boy was addicted [to drugs].” Because of this harassment, and to spare their daughters from also facing it, the women usually avoid walking on the street or road when their daughters become teenagers.

The women also expressed unhappiness about the state of the streets on which they walk to reach the bazaar for their daily shopping. They highlighted such problems as garbage block walking paths and air being polluted with garbage, which results in horrible smells.

The women’s views were divided about the usefulness of foot‐over‐bridges. Some of them liked foot‐over bridges, viewing them as a safe way to cross the street. But some other women explained that it is difficult to cross the road by foot‐over‐bridge with children or when carrying goods. In addition, when they feel sick they avoid foot‐over bridges [presumably because of vertigo and/or the effort that must be made to go up and down the stairs].

The mothers were also divided about hawker issues. Some felt that hawkers unnecessarily blocked the footpaths and this was a problem for them when walking. But other said that they liked having the hawkers present, as it makes them feel safe. Often they buy goods from hawkers, which can reduce their travel and time because they do not have to travel further to a store.

All of the women said they wanted good pedestrian facilities such as clean and level footpaths (with no car exit/entry cuts), trees, and toilets.


Appendices Page 95

The following is a translated summary of the session addressing the needs of female garment workers, as recorded and transcribed by the WBB staff members.

The women walk every day morning and evening. They first walk in the morning for 10 to 15 minutes to reach the bus stand. They then travel by bus, and walk again for 10 to 15 minutes to reach their garment factory. There are no footpaths between their homes and the bus stand, and the streets are made of dirt (not paved). This means that during the rainy season, it is difficult to walk. However, the women noted that they have no alternative but to walk.

There are footpaths between the bus station and the garment factories. However, these paths are blocked by construction materials, garbage, and parked vehicles. In addition, the footpaths are not level. The women noted that many times they have to go on and off of the footpath. In some places, hawkers also block a majority of the footpath with their displayed goods. The women also consider uncovered man‐holes to be a safety threat when they are walking.

All the women explained that they frequently have bad experiences when they walk. Men or young men often touch them inappropriately. As poor women, they feel powerless and almost never protest such unwanted attention.

The women had divided opinions of foot‐over bridges and were unaware of the existence of zebra crossings. Young girls felt that foot‐over‐bridges were acceptable, as they provided a safe way to cross the road. The older women, however, said that foot‐over bridges were a difficult way to cross the road because they were often walking a long time. When they returned home after working at the garment factory, they are tired. All the women said that they avoid the foot‐over‐bridges when they are tired.

The women indicated that they would like to see safe, flat, comfortable footpaths with shade trees and toilets. They are earning very poor salaries and they need to reduce their travel expenses.

Overview – Hawker Survey

Given their importance in creating both attraction and safety for pedestrians, hawkers were included as a specific component of the research on walkability in Dhaka. As with other audiences, rather than address perceived needs, the researchers felt that it was more important to conduct research that could highlight the actual needs of this group.

The hawker survey focused on identifying the priorities of these vendors, in terms of facilities and supports, which could improve their working environment. In addition, the survey team asked questions to ascertain the monetary value of what hawkers both buy and sell. This latter set of questions was designed to provide a greater understanding of how hawkers contribute to Dhaka’s broader economy.

Between May 12 and June 6, a total of 64 hawkers were interviewed in the 5 study areas:

15 in Uttara – 12.05.2011

9 in Old Dhaka‐ 07.06.2011

15 in Mipur – 19.05.2011

18 in Gazipur – 08.06.2011

7 in Tongi – 09.06.2011


Appendices Page 96

Results – Hawker Survey

There are many facilities and supportive systems that would improve conditions for hawkers, and by extension, for pedestrians. In order of priority, the three most important items identified were:

1. Permanent Space 2. Licensing 3. Shade

The lack of permanent space and licensing means that hawkers face insecurity on a daily basis in carrying out their business. Hawkers indicated that police, local mafia, and some landowners regularly subjected them to harassment. Providing permanent space and providing licenses would also address the issue of encroachment on pedestrian space in the parts of the city where this is still noted as a concern, while at the same time enabling hawkers to contribute to the safety and attractiveness of the pedestrian environment. A component of the licensing arrangement could be that hawkers are responsible for maintaining the cleanliness around their working areas. Shade is presumably considered important due to both need to protection from sunshine and rain; it would also provide a more comfortable environment for both vendors and customers.

Although other measures were noted as less important, many vendors still identified them as important issues for improving their work environment; this included public toilets, lights, trash cans, and pedestrian facilities. In addition to making the environment better for hawkers, these amenities would also contribute to a much better walking environment for pedestrians.

Figure 1: Percent of hawkers by desired type of improvement

In addition to asking about facilities, the hawkers were also questioned about their daily revenues; from these figures an assessment of their economic contribution was approximated. On average, the hawkers earned 250 taka per day after expenses. Assuming a 30‐day month, this can be extrapolated to an average of 7500 taka per month. By comparison, security guards make 3000 taka per month. Thus, in addition to provided needed goods to pedestrians, hawking provides a sufficiently high income to make this type of employment worthwhile.


Appendices Page 97

Appendix 5: Draft Rightsbased Pedestrian Charter for Bangladesh This is a Charter about the simple act of walking, the most basic form of transport. The intent of this charter is to create healthy, environmentally‐friendly and safe communities where people choose to walk because it is an affordable, pleasant, and convenient form of transport.

A pedestrian is a person who moves from place to place, either by foot or by using an assistive mobility device. Pedestrians include residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. In order to travel safely, conveniently, directly, and comfortably, they require an urban environment and infrastructure designed to meet their travel needs.

To create an urban environment in all parts of our cities and towns that encourages and supports walking, the Government of Bangladesh agrees to uphold the rights of pedestrians:

I. The pedestrian has the right to live in urban areas tailored to the needs of human beings – not to the needs of the automobile – and to have amenities within walking or cycling distance;

II. The pedestrian has the right to be given priority within urban and transport planning, in terms of policies, plans, and spending, so that regular maintenance and improvement of pedestrian facilities occurs and traffic laws are enforced to ensure to the extent possible the safe and convenient movement of those on foot;

III. Children, the elderly, and the disabled have the right to expect urban areas to be places of easy social contact that reinforce rather than destroy their independent mobility;

IV. The pedestrian has the right to urban areas which are intended exclusively for his/her use, are as extensive as possible, and are not mere ‘pedestrian precincts’ but work in harmony with the overall organisation of the town;

V. The pedestrian has a particular right to expect:

a. compliance with chemical and noise emission standards for motor vehicles which scientists consider to be tolerable,

b. the introduction into all public transport systems of vehicles that are a source of neither air nor noise pollution,

c. the creation of ‘green lungs’, including the planting of trees in urban areas,

d. controlled speed limits through modified roads and junctions layout (e.g. by incorporating safety islands etc.), so that motorists adjust their speed, as a way of effectively safeguarding pedestrian and bicycle traffic,

e. the banning of advertising which encourages an improper and dangerous use of the motor car, and

f. an effective system of road signs oriented to those on foot and bicycle as well as to those traveling by motorised vehicle.

VI. The pedestrian also has the right to expect:

a) footpaths that are well‐maintained, smooth and even, and are free from such obstructions and dangers as moving and parked vehicles and construction waste;

b) reasonable provision for vendors on footpaths so as to increase the attractiveness and safety of walking without creating untoward obstacles;


Appendices Page 98

c) safe and convenient provision for street‐level crossings at regular intervals;

d) an extensive and well‐equipped public transport service which will meet the needs of all citizens.

This Charter identifies the needs of people on foot and provides a common framework to help authorities refocus their existing policies, activities and relationships to create a culture where people choose to walk.

BACKGROUND

Walking is an ideal form of transport, as it requires neither fuel nor equipment, is a form of healthy exercise, is affordable to everyone and accessible to nearly all, requires absolutely no road space for parking and little space for movement, and has the lowest possible impact on the environment of any form of transport. In situations of congestion, as exist in our crowded cities, walking can also be the fastest way to reach many destinations.

This basic mode of transport and communication must be able to co‐exist with, and complement, other modes. Yet the private automobile has tended to dominate our planning and our cities. Through overuse and misuse, the car, seen by many as the preferred mode of independent mobility (though owned by the very few), has become the greatest single threat to the freedom, availability, and simple mobility of walking.

While walking is our most basic form of transport, it does generate certain requirements. In order to travel safely, conveniently, directly, and comfortably, pedestrians require an urban environment and infrastructure designed to meet their travel needs.

Walking is a fundamental and universal right. However, it is often not treated as such. Priority, attention, and spending are typically focused on the car and other motorized mode. Walking is almost universally neglected, with no agency designated with the responsibility of overseeing pedestrian issues despite it being the most common form of transport throughout Bangladesh.

Globally, as people walk less, they suffer from record levels of obesity, depression, heart disease, road rage, anxiety, and social isolation. Despite all measures to address it, traffic congestion typically grows worse, as does the situation for pedestrians. By allocating more space to the car and less comfort or convenience to pedestrians, we not only increase traffic congestion but also pollution, travel expense, traffic injury and death, and lack of mobility for the poor and for all those who have no access to motorized modes.

An urban environment that prioritizes, encourages, and facilitates walking supports community health, vitality, and safety. It will increase the use of public transit, decrease car dependence, reduce conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, and lead to cleaner air and green public space. Such an environment creates opportunities for the informal social interactions that are one of the main attributes of a vibrant, liveable city.

A good walking environment can also mean greater opportunities for the poor to earn a living by selling goods and services on otherwise unused space throughout the city, thereby providing a service to the lower and middle classes while also providing attraction and safety to those on foot.

The quality and amount of walking as an everyday activity is an established indicator of the quality of life: of how healthy, socially inclusive, and liveable are our communities. Authorities keen to create


Appendices Page 99

healthier and more economically vibrant communities and places can make significant advancements by simply encouraging more walking.

We must acknowledge the universal rights of people to be able to walk safely. We must reduce the physical, social, and institutional barriers that limit walking activity. Through coordinated efforts, we can work together to create an environment and culture where people choose to walk and are rewarded for doing so.

IMPLEMENTING THE CHARTER

Urban environments can be purposefully created to support and encourage walking. Appropriate strategies to achieve this will involve all authorities with responsibility for the funding, design, provision, maintenance, and monitoring of these environments.

Key stakeholders in the fields of transport, environment, urban planning, recreation, and health should build and use consultative alliances to obtain commitment at all levels of government to improve facilities for walking.

Examples of Actions

I. The pedestrian has the right to live in urban areas tailored to the needs of human beings and not to the needs of the automobile and to have amenities within walking or cycling distance.

Put people on foot at the heart of urban planning. Give slow transport modes such as walking and cycling priority over fast modes, and local traffic precedence over long‐ distance travel

Improve land‐use and spatial planning, ensuring that new housing, shops, business parks and public transport stops are located and designed so that people can reach them easily by foot

Reduce the conditions for car‐dependent lifestyles (for example, reduce urban sprawl), re‐allocate road space to pedestrians, and close the missing links in existing walking routes to create priority networks

Ensure seating and toilets are provided in quantities and locations that meet the needs of all users

Financially reward people who walk more, through local businesses, workplaces and government incentives

II. The pedestrian has the right to be given priority within urban and transport planning, in terms of policies, plans and spending, so that regular maintenance and improvement of pedestrian facilities occur and traffic laws are enforced in such a way as to ensure to the extent possible the safe and convenient movement of those on foot.

Build and maintain high‐quality networks of connected, functional, and safe walking routes between homes and local destinations that meet community needs

Provide an integrated, extensive, and well‐equipped public transport service with vehicles which are fully accessible to all potential users

Design public transport stops and interchanges with easy, safe, and convenient pedestrian access and supportive information


Appendices Page 100

III. Children, the elderly, and the disabled have the right to expect urban areas to be places of easy social contact that reinforce rather than destroy their independent mobility.

Ensure safe and convenient independent mobility for all by providing access by foot for as many people as possible to as many places as possible, particularly to public transport and public buildings

Integrate the needs of people with limited abilities by building and maintaining high‐ quality services and facilities that are socially inclusive

IV. The pedestrian has the right to urban areas which are intended exclusively for his/her use, are as extensive as possible and are not mere ‘pedestrian precincts’ but work in harmony with the overall organisation of the town.

Design streets for people and not only for cars, recognising that streets are a social as well as a transport space and, therefore, need a social design as well as engineering measures. This can include reallocating road space, implementing pedestrian priority areas, and creating car‐free environments to be enjoyed by all. This will supported social interaction, play, and recreation for both adults and children

Value, develop, and maintain high quality and fully accessible urban green spaces and waterways

Create a positive image of walking by celebrating walking as part of cultural heritage and as a cultural event, for example, in architecture, art‐exhibitions, theatres, literature readings, photography, and street animation

V. The pedestrian has a particular right to expect: a. compliance with chemical and noise emission standards for motor vehicles which

scientists consider to be tolerable, b. the introduction into all public transport systems of vehicles that are a source of neither

air nor noise pollution, c. the creation of ‘green lungs’, including the planting of trees in urban areas, d. controlled speed limits through modified roads and junctions layout (e.g. by

incorporating safety islands etc.), so that motorists adjust their speed, as a way of effectively safeguarding pedestrian and bicycle traffic,

e. the banning of advertising which encourages an improper and dangerous use of the motor car, and

f. an effective system of road signs oriented to those on foot and bicycle as well as to those traveling by motorised vehicle.

Address the impact of climate through appropriate design and facilities, for example shade (trees) or shelter

Design legible streets with clear signing and on‐site information to encourage specific journey planning and exploration by foot

Actively encourage all members of the community to walk whenever and wherever they can as a part of their daily lives by developing regular creative, targeted information, in a way that responds to their personal needs and engages personal support

Provide coherent and consistent information and signage systems to support exploration and discovery on foot including links to public transport

VI. The pedestrian also has the right to expect: e) footpaths that are well‐maintained, smooth and even, and are free from such

obstructions and dangers as moving and parked vehicles and construction waste;


Appendices Page 101

f) reasonable provision for vendors on footpaths so as to increase attractiveness and safety of walking without creating untoward obstacles;

g) safe and convenient provision for street‐level crossings at regular intervals;

h) an extensive and well‐equipped public transport service which will meet the needs of all citizens.

Provide clean, well‐lit streets and paths, free from obstruction, wide enough for their busiest use, and with sufficient opportunities to cross roads safely and directly, without changing levels or diversion

Reduce the danger that vehicles present to pedestrians by managing traffic, (for example, by implementing slower speeds), rather than segregating pedestrians or restricting their movements

Encourage a pedestrian‐friendly driving culture with targeted campaigns and enforced road traffic laws

Reduce vehicle speeds in residential districts, shopping streets, and around schools Reduce the impact of busy roads by installing sufficient safe crossing points, ensuring minimal waiting times and enough time to cross for the slowest pedestrians

Ensure that facilities designed for cyclists and other non‐motorised modes do not compromise pedestrian safety or convenience

Ensure buildings provide views onto and activity at street level to encourage a sense of surveillance and deterrence to crime

Conduct pedestrian audits by day and after dark to identify concerns for personal security and then target areas for improvements (for example, with brighter lighting and clearer sightlines)

Provide training and information for transport professionals to increase awareness of the concerns of pedestrians for their personal security and the impact of such concerns on their decisions to walk

LEADERSHIP

Stakeholders should recognise and promote the cumulative benefits that can flow from a coordinated approach to the safety, access, amenity, health, and economic aspects of pedestrian improvements. Local, regional, and national governments must include champions at the decision‐maker level who will play a key role in promoting walking.

Government and other agencies should help pedestrian advocacy groups take an increased role in policy and strategy implementation and monitoring at the national and local levels. To show their support, the Government of Bangladesh commits to a clear, concise, and comprehensive action plan for walking, to set targets, to secure stakeholder support, and to guide investment that includes the following actions:

Consider establishing a create a new NMT cell to directly address pedestrian issues, such as the building and maintenance of footpaths and overseeing the enforcement of laws to keep footpaths and street crossings available and safe for those traveling by foot;

Involve all relevant agencies (especially transport, planning, health, education, and police), at all levels, to highlight the importance of supporting and encouraging walking and to encourage complementary policies and actions


Appendices Page 102

Consult, on a regular basis, local organisations representing people who travel by foot and other relevant groups, including young people, the elderly and those with limited ability

Collect regular quantitative and qualitative data about walking (including the motivations and purpose of trips, the number of trips, trip stages, time and distance walked, time spent in public spaces, and levels of satisfaction)

Integrate walking into training and on‐going staff professional development for transport and road safety officers, health practitioners, urban planners, and designers

Provide the necessary ongoing resources to implement the adopted action plan Regularly remind all those working in urban and transport planning of the need to take strong measures and include adequate budgets to maintain and improve the situation for pedestrians;

Implement pilot‐projects to advance best‐practices, and support the conduct of research‐based case studies, and widely promote positive local experiences

Measure the success of programmes that affect pedestrians by surveying and comparing data collected before, during, and after implementation

Create mechanisms by which pedestrians and their representatives can review and comment on plans and budgets that affect the walking environment.

Sources

Australian Pedestrian Charter http://www.walk.com.au/pedestriancouncil/page.asp European Charter of Pedestrian Rights http://www.pezh.gr/english/pedchart.htm International Charter for Walking http://www.walk21.com/charter/default.asp Toronto Pedestrian Charter www.toronto.ca/transportation/walking/pdf/charter.pdf


Appendices Page 103

Appendix 6: Improving the Situation for Pedestrians: 3D (Density,

Diversity, and Design)

“The concept of ‘environmentally sustainable development’ implies that mobility solutions must encompass new targets, such as reducing energy consumption and improving public health and safety.” (Guitink et al. 1994)

Overall Issues

Numerous as the problems faced by pedestrians are, solutions also abound. The main issue is not lack of knowledge of what is needed, but rather the determination and political will to improve the situation. Unfortunately, the low status assigned to pedestrians makes addressing their problems a low priority. Some measures that would improve the situation for pedestrians are presented in Table 1; others are found in the recommendations at the end of this paper.

Table 1: Pedestrian issues and solutions

Pedestrian issues Solutions

Safety: fear of and potential for crime and traffic injuries/death

Safety: place restrictions on where vendors can operate, but ensure that they are given space throughout the city as they create both an attraction and eyes on the street; reduce the priority given to, and the number and speed of, motorized vehicles

Convenience: lack of planning and priority given to pedestrians makes walking ironically an inconvenient, unpleasant mode of transport

Convenience: create wider footpaths and maintain them properly

Comfort: exposure to vehicle fumes, incessant honking, poor conditions of footpaths, lack of protection from sun and rain, use of footpaths as a public urinal

Comfort: reduce traffic; maintain footpaths; provide shelter in the form of trees and limited structures; build and maintain sufficient public toilets

Accessibility: attempts to segregate uses by zones reduces the number of destinations that can reasonably be reached by foot

Accessibility: during urban planning, focus on mixed use areas to increase accessibility rather than mobility

Obstacles: car and motorbike parking and motorbike travel on footpaths, construction waste, various infrastructure (bus stands, posts, poles, signs); in some place complete blockage of footpaths by vendors

Obstacles: strictly enforce an absolute ban car and motorbike parking and motorbike travel on footpaths; fine those who store construction or dump/store other waste on footpaths; acknowledge that infrastructure blocks footpaths and seek other solutions

Reliance on foot over‐bridges (FOBs): pose difficulties for the elderly, disabled, sick, pregnant women, asthmatics, those with heart disease

Street crossings: rather than rely on foot over‐bridges (FOBs), use zebra crossings and traffic signals for pedestrians

Lack of zebra crossings; many previous ones are now non‐existent

Zebra crossings: Bring back and paint more zebra crossings; make sure enforcement is strong

Use of barbed wire, high cement barriers on Invite people to move through their city in non‐


Appendices Page 104

Pedestrian issues Solutions

medians: unattractive, threatening environment, unpleasant message to those traveling by foot (you are not welcome here!)

destructive ways (using no fuel, creating no pollution)

Lack of public space for sitting, standing, enjoying while outdoors

Public space: Create more outdoor public spaces for sitting, standing, and enjoying; include benches and trees

Street crossings and other issues regarding traffic safety

Foot‐over bridges (FOBs) are car‐friendly, not pedestrian‐friendly. The preferred crossing for pedestrians should be zebra crossings and traffic signals with special lights for pedestrian crossings.

Most traffic fatalities in Dhaka currently are pedestrians, and about half of those occur while people attempt to cross the street. We should not award the death penalty to those who walk.

The response to this problem in Dhaka to date has not been to make it safer to cross the street, but rather to ban pedestrians from crossing the roads throughout the city by installing cement barriers, barbed wire, or other obstacles. This ignores the fact that pedestrians cross the street for a reason, that the movement of pedestrians is at least as important as the movement of others in the streets, and that forcing pedestrians to take long detours to cross the street increases the inefficiency of travel for the majority of people moving about the city. Furthermore, no measures have been taken to prevent the other half of pedestrian fatalities which occur while people are walking in the street (because of unavailability of the footpath) or simply standing around (possibly due to lack of a proper place to wait for buses, and lack of other open/public space).

City planners suggest that pedestrians should use overhead or underground crossings, deeming them safer than street‐level crossings. In fact, the issue is not safety but the unhindered movement of cars on the street. Pedestrian safety at street crossings is achievable at far less expense and inconvenience by putting signals, zebra crossings, or raised crossings at regular intervals along the streets. However, such signals/crossings are perceived to be an obstacle to the movement of cars. The fact that being forced to walk several hundred metres out of one’s way, then climb up one or two flights of stairs, then again go out of one’s way to reach one’s destination is a major deterrent to walking, is largely ignored. Even worse than overhead crossings are underground ones, which pose an obvious risk to safety and hygiene1 and are virtually impossible to use as intended.

Experience in several cities around the world shows that the majority of pedestrians will not use an overpass or underpass if they can cross at street level in about the same amount of time, even if illegal road crossing jeopardizes their safety. Pedestrian bridges are particularly burdensome to bus passengers, who as a group tend to cross roads more frequently than do other pedestrians.

The design of intersections and other crossings should assign pedestrians absolute priority over vehicles, such as by:

Ensuring uninterrupted movement of pedestrians;

Forcing vehicles to slow down or eliminate free‐flowing motor vehicle turnings;

1 Such underground crossings tend to be used as urinals (in the absence of sufficient provision of public toilets) and

as “hang‐outs” for those with nothing else to occupy their time.


Appendices Page 105

Establishing a maximum speed limit within the city of 30 km/hour, as is being instituted in cities throughout the world to reduce road deaths and improve urban life;

Facilitating safe and priority pedestrian movements on all legs of the intersection;

Allowing pedestrians to cross in a direct line across the intersection and clearly identify the direction of travel for all pedestrians;

Letting the pedestrian see and be seen.

The only places where pedestrian bridges may be appropriate are where there is a natural change in elevation, where direct entry to a building or an elevated pedestrian network is provided (as with the long elevated walkway connecting Kamalapur railway station to Atish Dipankar Rd), or for crossing a waterway or expressway. The pedestrian bridges currently used in Dhaka should properly be considered not as facilities for pedestrians, but rather as facilities for improving the flow of motorised vehicles that would otherwise have to stop for people to cross the roads safely and conveniently. The proposal to force pedestrians to use overhead and underground crossings in the name of improvement of safety is nothing but another glaring example of bias in the DAP and STP directives which provide absolute priority to autos. Far from considering any positive pedestrian initiatives, DAP recommended the construction of 41 pedestrian bridges and 5 pedestrian underpasses. Although such measures are adopted under the plea of pedestrian safety, in fact pedestrian bridges have amongst the worst pedestrian safety records all over the world, as demonstrated in Table 2.

Table 2: Pedestrian bridges and pedestrian safety2

City Pedestrian deaths/100,000

population/year Use pedestrian over bridges?

London 1.9 No

New York City 2.2 No

Mexico City 15.4 Yes

Cape Town 19.4 Yes

At‐grade crossings – including zebra crossings, signalled crossings, and raised crossings for which the footpath remains level as it crosses the street (serving both to slow cars and to make clear that the car is invading the pedestrian’s space, rather than vice versa) – are all vastly preferable to FOBs.

The Effect of Urban Planning on Pedestrians

The provision of general public services and social institutions within walking distance of residences is vital for the development of a lively city and for reducing traffic congestion and pollution. Services available within reasonable walking distance also are beneficial to the low‐income, who already spend too much of their income and too much of their time on poor‐quality transport services. When schools and health care are available close by, women will also have far more time available for important tasks, whereas they must currently spend hours a day accompanying children and the elderly to these needed services.

2 Source: Michael King, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2004


Appendices Page 106

It is important to point out that people require a wide range of services, and such services require that space be set aside for them. One extremely efficient way to allocate such space is to use the ground floor of residential buildings for commercial use and service provision. This has multiple positive effects: it shortens the distance residents must travel to reach needed goods and services; it increases the quantity of workplaces within easy reach of workers; and it lowers the cost of housing, which can be subsidized by the higher rent of ground‐level services.

Taking into account people’s needs for such services, and the need to reduce travel to address congestion and pollution, as well as access of the low income to such goods and services, each area of the city should contain key retail spaces such as small shops, salons, pharmacies, fresh produce markets, and other shopping and services that are appropriate for the population; access to key public services such as public space and recreational areas for all ages and both sexes; schools including elementary, secondary, and day care; health care in the form of clinics and hospitals; community and religious institutions, a post office, library, space for community gardens, bank or credit union, and space for cultural events such as theatres, concerts, community festivals, and public art; offices and other workplaces in addition to those above; and a mix of housing for a range of family sizes and income groups.

When considering such services, it is vital that they be aimed at a range of incomes, and not simply within each zone, e.g. a planned zone of high‐end services for the rich, and other zones planned for the poor. For instance, by banning outdoor markets and focusing on the construction of shopping malls, low‐end shops and services are unable to compete, yet it is precisely those services which may do the best in a genuinely free market. Consider the popularity of New Market and surrounding markets versus most shopping malls in Dhaka: there is clearly an enormous unmet demand for lower‐cost, simpler goods and services than planners wish to accommodate. Such a demand would further be met by providing more space on and adjacent to footpaths for vendors, who can sell goods at lower prices due to the absence of overhead.

It is vital that all parts of the city have excellent provisions for walking, as well as access to high quality but affordable public transit. Finally, it is important to have adequate provision throughout the city for drainage (canals, permeable surfaces through fields, trees, agricultural areas, dirt zones between footpath and buildings), sanitation including public toilets, and waste disposal. (Public toilets are vital to public life, as otherwise public areas including footpaths are used as urinals, and women who must spend their days far from home without access to facilities are prone to painful and dangerous bladder infections. In terms of waste disposal, an efficient and economical system could be modelled on that of Curitiba (Brazil), whereby most waste is treated as recyclables and people can earn a living through gathering, selling, and sorting “trash”; most of its movement can also then take place by rickshaw van, without the need for fuel or expensive and space‐consuming trucks.)

The proposed concentration of general public services into a number of designated areas would invariably increase demand for automobile access, leading to more congestion and pollution, while reducing access by the low‐income and increasing the amount of time people must spent attempting to access needed services. In terms of land use mix, there are two recommendations in terms of the ideal mix. In order to make walking a feasible and convenient form of transport for the majority, urban planning must reflect the need for mixed use areas. For activity nodes (that have a high number of people, amenities), transit nodes (major transit centres) and activity corridors (major transit routes) the recommendation is that there be:

5‐15 percent allocated to public spaces such as plaza and parks


Appendices Page 107

30‐70 percent allocated to commercial and employment

20‐60 percent allocated to housing

For neighbourhoods and transitional areas (those areas that bridge activity nodes and neighbourhoods) the recommendation is that:

10‐15 percent of the area allocated to public spaces (10‐40 percent of the area allocated to commercial and employment areas)

50‐80 percent of the area allocated to housing

According to the Healthy Development Measurement Tool created by San Francisco Public Health, urban residents should live within 400 m of six diverse uses (different types of facilities or services) and within 800 m of 17 diverse uses. Specifically, everyone should live within 800 m of a produce market or other food store. Ideally, everyone would live within 1500 m of an elementary school, 3000 m of a secondary school (which should be located on transit lines to facilitate car‐free access), and 400 m of a transit stop.

Imagine if each section of Dhaka contained a mix of workplaces, residences, schools, shops, restaurants, and so on. With the shorter travel distance to destinations, more people could travel by foot or bicycle. If simultaneously roads were narrowed, people would rapidly discover that they only waste time by driving and more people would choose to walk or cycle. If a good system of public transport existed to go farther, congestion would decrease considerably. Children would be able to play outdoors and to enjoy more freedom of movement, air and noise pollution would decline, and our streets would be safer both in terms of fewer accidents and, thanks to so many people being outdoors, less crime. Our city would also be friendlier, as more people interacted with others. We would gain far more space for people’s various needs, with less space given to the movement and parking of cars. It is just such a model that people are currently trying to create in different cities around the world—and just such a model that we should seriously consider for Dhaka.

A well‐considered plan for Dhaka’s transport needs would consider some of the following points:

While mobility is important, the real goal should be access; that is, it is better to ensure that destinations are close to people, than that people can travel far. This occurs when neighbourhoods contain a diverse mix of residences, offices, shops, schools, etc.

Non‐motorized vehicles and walking have considerable advantages over motorized vehicles, and should be promoted.

Private cars increase inequity. Bangladesh should follow the example of many cities in other parts of the world which are working to decrease travel by private car and support walking, cycling, and public transit.

Changes in transport policy to emphasize access and equity, to reduce air and noise pollution, to reduce dependence on fuel (imported, natural gas, and electricity), and to improve the mobility of the majority, will benefit everyone. Such changes would also help ensure that Dhaka is a healthy, enjoyable, productive, and well‐off city for decades to come.

In terms of transport, DAP also fails to provide suitable solutions to the problems faced by Dhaka residents. Problems with the DAP include plans to build superhighways within the city, despite the fact that rapid travel destroys the urban fabric and discourages the non‐polluting modes that are needed to ensure quality of life. Rather than building extra‐wide roads that sever communities, DAP should focus on encouraging short‐distance travel by emphasizing density, mixed‐use areas, and


Appendices Page 108

excellent facilities for walking, cycling, and rickshaws. More roads will simply attract more cars, generating more congestion and pollution while wasting money on all the facilities that cars require, and taking space away from more efficient modes of travel. Similarly, car parking facilities generate a demand for more driving, and thus worsen the very problem they attempt to solve.

Another problem lies in the conceptual fallacy about mobility. In traditional transport appraisal methods, projects are evaluated on the basis of overall vehicle operating and travel benefits on road links. However, as a relatively slow‐moving transport, the main attractiveness of walking and other NMT lies in its ability to provide significantly higher door‐to‐door mobility for people and goods by reducing walking times, waiting times, and modal transfer penalties for short trips.

Any transport alternative should always deal with cases of trade‐offs between total benefits and costs. However, the treatment of NMT in traditional transport appraisal methods has long been a one‐sided affair biased towards motorised transports. Until recently, World Bank cost‐benefit analyses considered non‐motorised vehicles to be a negative externality on motorised transport. Since the negative impacts imposed by non‐motorised transport are sometimes real, they should be incorporated into the model. By the same token, the economic costs imposed on non‐motorised transport by the presence of motorised vehicles in the traffic stream or increases in door‐to‐door journey times due to any NMT ban or inconvenience to pedestrians should also be included.

It is important from the transport planning point of view to adopt a policy which ensures mobility maximisation for the majority of road users, not just car drivers. Transport development often focuses on either the movements of vehicles or the movement of people. In the urban context, the former, which is analogous to maximisation of vehicle‐km, tends to favour long distance and high speed travel, whereas the latter favours long distance and high speed travel by bus, and short distance travel by NMT and walking. Considering the nature of trips that take place in mixed urban environments—that is, predominantly short trips—a people‐oriented approach would ensure maximum mobility for the majority of road users. Moreover, it could ensure maximisation of overall social and environmental benefits. Improving footpaths to allow people to walk to work would thus be more important than adding a lane for those few travelling longer distances. By looking at passenger kilometres rather than passenger trips, transport systems tend to induce bias towards long‐distance trips, which in the end simply increases congestion without increasing, and often while decreasing, overall passenger mobility.

Design Issues Regarding Pedestrians3

Access to Transit

Public transit is key to liveable cities, as it allows people to travel much greater distances than are generally possible by foot or bicycle without taking up the road space and creating the congestion and pollution that occurs when people rely on motorbikes and cars. Public transit also encourages physical activity as people walk (or cycle) to public transit stops.

But people tend to not be willing to walk far to reach transit stops. It is thus vital that transit services have frequent stops throughout the city, making them far more accessible to far more users. One American study found that for every 400 metre increase in distance from a transit stop to home, the odds of taking transit fell by 16%. Similarly, a 400 metre increase in the distance of transit from one’s workplace reduced the likelihood of taking transit to work by 32%.

3 This section is drawn from Daniel, K and D Efroymson, Urban Planning for Liveable Cities: Density, Diversity and

Design. HealthBridge 2010.


Appendices Page 109

While important for everyone, transit is particularly valuable for children, youth, and the elderly who often must, when transit is unavailable, rely on others for their transport. Such reliance can decrease the access the elderly and children have to needed services and recreation, and also increases the time that others must spend driving them about. It is thus important that transit stops be within about 400 metres from all neighbourhoods.

Respecting Pedestrians

Density gives the city enough people to ensure diversity. Diversity focuses on creating a city that is interesting and stimulating to live in and that allows people to walk and cycle to their destination by ensuring that there are places within a reasonable distance. The “design” aspect of the built environment focuses on creating functional, attractive, and safe places for everyone in the community. Walking does require effort, and to attract those other than the desperate to walk, some basic conditions need to be met. Basic conditions include direct and varied routes that are safe and attractive for those traveling by foot. Specifically, design refers to the aspects of the built environment that influence how a person perceives a place: safe, friendly, and inviting or dangerous, dirty, and unwelcoming. Good design makes walking more enjoyable and thus attracts more people to this urban‐friendly mode of transport.

Cities that orient their traffic towards cars tend to be unpleasant ones to walk in, usually involving wider streets, more space devoted to car parking, increased traffic and higher speeds, with the resulting danger, smell, and noise. Communities with footpaths, limited on‐street parking (as opposed to large lots), buildings set close to the footpath, and such attractive features as art, trees and benches, make cities feel more safe and walkable.

Research has confirmed that street design can increase walking, cycling, and use of public transit, and also reduce conflicts with vehicles. When the goal is the safe and non‐polluting movement of people rather than the movement of vehicles, street design changes dramatically. Suburban areas, and many existing Asian cities, attempt to increase traffic speed and reduce congestion by banning slower‐moving vehicles and widening streets. However, the result is simply more pollution, noise, and traffic danger and persistent congestion. Cities that maintain narrow streets and encourage slower‐moving and non‐polluting forms of travel tend to have, ironically, less congestion because non‐polluting forms of transport, complemented by public transit, are far more space‐efficient than cars. Additional benefits, such as reduced pollution and fewer traffic injuries, create a far pleasanter environment for living as well as moving.

When people move by car or motorbike they must pay attention to their driving and are often traveling too quickly to notice the details of their surroundings. When traveling in a wide street, building façades and other aspects of the surroundings are too distant to notice or care about. This is another reason why crime is higher in car‐dominated cities: people may be moving through the streets, but they are unaware of and unconnected to life on the footpaths. When people move more slowly, by foot and bicycle, they can pay attention to their surroundings, and thus are more concerned about the attractiveness of the setting. This makes the city safer and gives more incentive to create an attractive environment.

Street Design

Transport planners tend to count movement as involving only those in motorized vehicles, forgetting those traveling by foot, bicycle or rickshaw. Yet in many cities, such fuel‐free transport represents a large share of all trips, and given its importance in creating a liveable urban environment, should not only be counted but also be given importance. In the case of Dhaka, roughly 62% of all trips occur using non‐motorized transport. Sound urban planning can incorporate such existing travel patterns


Appendices Page 110

while enhancing movement by foot and other non‐polluting means, thereby ensuring access to needed destinations while reducing many of the urban problems caused by reliance on the private car and motorbike.

Furthermore, while streets are generally thought of as part of a transportation network that allows people to move by different means between an origin and a destination, streets are far more than that. Traditionally streets have three key functions: for movement, as marketplaces, and as meeting places. The street plays a key role in determining the feel of a neighbourhood and creating a sense of place. Lively streets that have vendors and groups of people chatting on footpaths enhance street life and thus the liveability of cities. Children playing, seniors walking, and tourists shopping all create a sense of place and encourage people to interact. Street design can help facilitate or hinder such activity. Pedestrian‐only zones in central commercial or retail shopping districts have been repeatedly shown to greatly increase shopkeepers’ income due to their vast popularity.

Streets should be safe as well as attractive. The heavier the vehicles and the faster they move, the more likely they are to kill a pedestrian or cyclist. The wider the streets and the faster the traffic, the greater the number of pedestrians hit or killed. At particular risk are the most vulnerable road users: the elderly and children. Clearly the needs or desires of some to move quickly need to be balanced by the rights of others to move safely. The perception and the fact of safety determine people’s means of travel—or whether they go out at all. Safety encompasses crime as well as road injury: desolate streets full of vehicles but lacking pedestrians and “street life” in terms of vendors, footpath cafés, and social activities are more likely to be unsafe in terms of crime as well as road injury.

Road classification systems are widely used in street system management. Such systems contain an inherent and generally unacknowledged bias towards motorized travel, and typically completely ignore travel by bicycle and foot; in many cases, on major roads, fuel‐free travel is not only discouraged (by the danger and fumes of the motorized vehicles) but actively prohibited.

There is also a contradiction between the goals of movement and access. When movement is maximized, higher speeds and fewer intersections and signals are desirable. As a result, there is less access to the facilities along streets. Streets that provide better access to a number of destinations, meanwhile, tend to involve slower movement. This contradiction can be greatly diminished or even disappear if the emphasis changes from movement (mobility) to access: from a focus on traveling longer distances to a focus on ensuring that destinations are close to residences.

The road classification system, in turn, has been criticized for its role in increasing pollution and road injury and decreasing liveability in cities. Like it or not, many people must live along major roads; these people tend to be poor and suffer from greater levels of air and noise pollution and road danger. Expensive road construction like highways and flyovers do not provide access to pedestrians and cyclists and contribute to road deaths and pollution, but also create obstacles in the circulation of those traveling by fuel‐free means. This often requires those not travelling by motor vehicle to take long detours. Highways act to sever neighbourhoods, so that two neighbourhoods that are adjacent to one another no longer connect, as is the case when barbed wire or other obstacles are used to prevent people from crossing the street.

The lack of concern for the surrounding environment when considering the road hierarchy, and the lack of consideration for those moving by slower and gentler means, has led to the creation of alternate road designations. For instance, the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the USA has developed a handbook called Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities. The handbook looks both at the function of the road and its type to incorporate issues of the surrounding neighbourhood and the design of the road, taking into account


Appendices Page 111

all sorts of people and not just motorized vehicles.

A European research project called Arterial Streets towards Sustainability (ARTISTS) looked at the above issues and the contradiction between circulation (movement) and access that occurs in most road hierarchies. It defined a number of terms to illustrate the many purposes that roads serve:

Link status refers to the role a street section plays as a link in a network. That is, not only how does a road allow a car or motorbike to link to other roads, but how a pedestrian or cyclist can make those connections as well.

Place status refers to the role a street section plays as an urban place in the area as a whole. While the link status of a route may remain constant, place status varies along a street.

The point of the ARTISTS system is to look at a number of factors typically ignored in street designations, such as the role of the street in facilitating movement by fuel‐free means and the role of the street within a neighbourhood or community. For instance, a street between two major shopping areas is likely to have many people crossing it; a street going past a park or other popular recreational place may have many elderly people and children traversing it and thus require particularly slow traffic and good facilities for crossings.

Another term for part of what the new system seeks to capture is “sense of place”—the fact that streets not only serve as movement, but play an important role in the surrounding community. Streets, especially in cities with high levels of density and lower levels of green space, can play an important role in creating places for people to meet and interact. When seeking to facilitate movement by car or motorbike and ignoring the “sense of place”, the integrity and value of a community can easily be lost.

Major Asian cities should be focused on ensuring the sustainable transport of goods and people through walking, cycling, and public transit. Street design should be focused on the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users and should add to the sense of place of communities.

Quality of the Pedestrian Environment

People are more likely to walk when they feel that the scenery is enjoyable, the surroundings attractive, and the trip convenient. While different people may have different ideas about what is attractive, research has shown that almost everyone finds commercial shopping malls with an abundance of car parking ugly and traditional town‐like communities attractive. People almost universally enjoy the sight of a well‐maintained park.

There are many factors that impact the quality of the pedestrian environment. Street scale refers to the perception that the street is designed for those moving slowly or those moving quickly. This includes such factors as building height (as the famous architect Jan Gehl says, buildings keep getting bigger but people don’t), the size of signs, and the width of streets. Because those moving on foot move more slowly, they are more aware of details; the lack of attractive details can discourage people from moving by fuel‐free means, as such environments are considered “alienating” and unattractive.

People are far more likely to walk when there is something to see as they go; ground‐floor businesses (shops, tailors, salons, and so on) give people things to see and do. This creates interest. The perceived attractiveness of an area is influenced by these ground floor businesses. It is, therefore, important that buildings be located close to the footpath with easily accessible windows and entrances. This is important because it allows those strolling by to glance in, and if they see anything interesting, to walk inside. It also allows those inside to see outside, thereby contributing to


Appendices Page 112

safety through having “eyes on the street”. Doors open to the street as opposed to entrances via parking lots also send a strong psychological message of welcome to those arriving on foot.

When the ground floor of buildings is given over to car parking, it creates problems both in terms of safety, attractiveness, and equity. First, there is no possibility of attracting those passing by on foot. A second equally important issue is that when the ground floors of buildings are dedicated to car parking, there is no possibility that there could be apartments on the ground floor. Seniors in particular have difficulty climbing stairs and an over‐reliance on elevators creates serious problems during electricity shortages (not to mention fires). Ground floors of buildings should never have car parking but should instead have active uses that enliven the street.

Commercial area parking is another important issue. In their eagerness to ensure access to those traveling by car, planners tend to forget that many people will arrive on foot. It is uncomfortable, unpleasant, and unsafe to walk through a parking lot to access a building. Neighbourhoods should be built as mixed‐use and it should therefore be assumed that people will arrive on foot. People arriving by foot should be given priority over those arriving by car, especially since car travel should be rare. In addition to the other problems, parking lots contribute to smog and to the urban heat island effect, raising local air temperature, and increasing the demand for electricity for air conditioners. The urban heat island effect can be minimized by reducing the space for cars and by planting trees and vegetation and maintaining water bodies. Trees will also provide shade for pedestrians and make streets more attractive for those moving slowly.

A final key issue associated with creating a quality pedestrian environment involves ensuring that public spaces achieve a consistent look. Neighbourhoods should have landscaping, places for public art, benches, useable garbage receptacles4 and gentle but adequate pedestrian scale lighting5. Neighbourhoods should be designed so that new development fits into the scale and appeal of an area. Public transit stops should include sheltered places to sit so as to improve the attractiveness of taking transit. Such places should be carefully placed so as to not block the footpath. All neighbourhoods should be designed so that disabled people can access all of their day‐to‐day services as well. In summary, the situation for pedestrians can be improved through ensuring:

Facilities for rest such as benches and informal seating (low walls, public art, fountains);

Shade and shelter from rain (through canopies or by planting trees along footpaths);

Attractiveness: open building façades, active ground floor uses, and no blank walls;

Sheltered transit stops with benches;

Limited street‐side parking (as opposed to surface and ground floor parking lots);

Entrances for people directly connected to the footpath.

Street Connectivity for Pedestrians

Connectivity refers to how easily, directly, and conveniently it is to move about in a neighbourhood. The better connected the streets, the more that people will walk. A highly connected street network provides many possible routes between destinations. When streets are not connected and getting to a destination involves indirect routes or detours, the greater distance travelled can result in far fewer trips taking place on foot. Connected networks are thus important for encouraging active transport.

4 It is an odd trend in many cities to design garbage receptacles such that trash easily blows out of them, or to provide

them at too infrequent of intervals, or to provide them but fail to empty them. 5 Too much lighting, as well as too little, can be a bad thing.


Appendices Page 113

There are many important aspects to connectivity including road widths, the presence and condition of footpaths, and safe road crossings. Wide roads are difficult and sometimes impossible to cross, thus reducing connectivity. Long blocks with few connections and no safe crossings similarly discourage pedestrians because they are forced to walk out of their way to reach their destination.

For pedestrians, the presence and condition of footpaths is also very important. Where footpaths do not exist or are occupied by parked cars or motorbikes, walking becomes more difficult, dangerous, and unpleasant. However, it is important to distinguish between activities that partly block footpaths while enhancing livelihood and attractiveness, such as the presence of footpath cafés, vendors, and trees, and those that block footpaths while offering no compensatory advantages, such as parked vehicles, utility poles, construction and waste.

The solution, therefore, is not to completely clear footpaths: the lack of life on footpaths is similarly a deterrent to walking. Instead, the solution is to clear the footpath of all activity that does not support pedestrian activity, while ensuring that the footpath is wide enough to support activities that add to liveability. The width of footpaths needs to be at least sufficient to allow for people to walk without brushing against each other; the width needs to be greater in more dense and commercial areas where more people are walking. At a bare minimum, footpaths should be 1.5 metres, widening to 4.0 to 5.0 metres in downtown or commercial areas to accommodate both traffic (pedestrians) and street furniture (benches, trees) as well as other activities.

Similarly, blocks should not be too long, as long blocks discourage pedestrians. A maximum length for blocks may be 250 metres. Where distances are greater, links can be created to improve the situation for pedestrians by building pathways or creating other links.

Finally, pedestrians need safe places to cross roads and need to be given priority at all road entrances. Crossing streets can be dangerous as pedestrians are intermingling with many vehicle types that are much larger in size and going at faster speeds. Being able to cross streets safely and quickly, without having to wait for a break in traffic or climb two flights of stairs to cross overhead, enhances pedestrian connectivity. In addition, where there are entrances over the footpaths onto the street from businesses or residences, vehicles should be required to stop to allow the pedestrian to continue instead of forcing the pedestrian to stop.

International Lessons

The fate of the pedestrian depends very much on the city in which s/he lives. Cities fall into two main categories: ones that prioritize cars and ones that prioritize people (notably pedestrians and others who wish to spend time outdoors and move about in non‐polluting, non‐destructive ways). Many of the world’s wealthiest and most attractive cities fall into the second category; many cities in the so‐called developing world fall into the former. That is, there is no direct connection between wealth and provision for the automobile; rather, many wealthy cities, in Asia as well as Europe and increasingly so in North America and Australia, are now prioritizing the pedestrian over the car.

In cities with genuine pedestrian‐first policies, such as Geneva, Zurich, and Stockholm, cars must stop for anyone wishing to cross the street (unless there is a signalled crossing in the immediate vicinity). This indicates that it is indeed the pedestrian who is a valued traveller –rather than an impediment to others – and increases the modal share of walking. This in turn has positive effects on congestion and the physical and social environment. In such cities, needless to say, drivers do not drive or park on footpaths, nor are footpaths used to store construction waste. Many of them do, however, allow and encourage vendors, as the presence of vendors provides an additional incentive to walk.

The priority given to cars versus people has effects on many aspects of life. Consider fuel use:


Appendices Page 114

American cities use far more fuel energy per capita for transport than do European or Asian cities. The difference is due to the higher rates of walking and cycling in Europe, and of walking, cycling, and rickshaw travel in Asia. Yet while European cities are encouraging NMT, Asian cities are trying to squeeze it out in favour of the fuel‐intensive, inefficient, inequitable auto, leaving pedestrians to cope as they can.

The use of space for parking and the movement of cars can take extreme dimensions. In Houston (Texas) and Los Angeles, up to 70% of downtown space is used for cars. That leaves a mere 30% for everything else that one would wish to have happen in the downtown. As a result, buildings are widely spaced and surrounded by parking lots, creating an unsuitable atmosphere for walking. People are thus forced to drive, which in turn demands more space.

Since it does not work to increase the amount of road space for cars, what has been shown to work, in city after city? A number of measures have proven effective, including creating more diverse mixes of use in each neighbourhood and cutting down on longer‐distance travel; promoting public transport by for instance the use of Bus Rapid Transit and thus speeding bus travel relative to car; and improving conditions for non‐motorized transport, including walking. In various cities in Europe, the United States, Canada, Hong Kong, and Singapore, road space for cars has actually been decreased. This has happened by allowing more space for buses and bicycles, by increasing the size of footpaths, and planting more trees along roads. As a result, fewer people choose to drive, and traffic jams actually decrease. This phenomenon is known as traffic evaporation. Results include less congestion, greater mobility, less air and noise pollution and, over the long‐term, economic savings.

Parking uses 62% of the total space‐hours of all personal travel in Lyons, France; moving cars meanwhile occupy 34% of the total space‐hours, while all other travel (public transport, walking, cycling, and travel by motorcycle) take only 4%. Simply put, cars require an inordinate amount of space both while moving and while parked.6

Throughout the world, including Europe, city planners are reducing road and parking spaces for cars and prioritizing public transport, cycling, and walking to deal with the innumerable problems caused by cars. A normal‐sized private car (in other words, not a van, or SUV, or CRV) requires about 200 times more space to park, and from 400 to 4,000 times the space to drive, as a person requires to stand and to walk. Quite simply, the inordinate space demands of cars has meant that our destinations have moved further and further apart, as more and more land is used to accommodate cars. The more parking we build and the wider we make our roads, the further apart our destinations will be…and the more we will need cars to reach them, while making destinations too distant to reach by foot.

Considering the superiority of the people‐oriented approach, most of the developed cities of the world have at least begun to adopt the maximisation of the mobility of people rather than vehicles as their policy objective. In well‐planned German cities, more than 80% of trips under 3 km would be made by walking and bicycling, whereas in Jakarta, where rickshaws were banned during the 1980s, more than 70% of short trips are made with motorcycles and other motorised para‐transits. Meanwhile, per capita income in Indonesia is only one‐twentieth (1/20th) that of Germany. We also know the consequences of the pro‐motorisation policy on Jakarta, which is notorious for its unbearable congestion and pollution.

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

6 Shoup, 2005.


Appendices Page 115

space is allocated for NMT only) serves 24,000 passengers per hour. That is, if the goal is to allow more passengers to travel on a road, then priority should be given to non‐motorised vehicles and pedestrians.

The Bogotá approach has 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 on motorised transport on 120 km of main city arteries for 7 hours each Sunday attracts as many as 1.5 million people each week to ride bicycles and walk. One of the main reasons other cities are following Bogotá’s 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.


Appendices Page 116

Appendix 7: Government of India National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009

1. Rationale

1.1 Street vendors form a very important segment of the unorganized sector in the country. It is estimated that in several cities street vendors count for about 2 per cent of the population. Women constitute a large segment of these street vendors in almost every city. Street vending is not only a source of self employment to the poor in cities and towns but also a means to provide 'affordable' as well as 'convenient' services to a majority of the urban population.

1.2 Street vendors are often those who are unable to get regular jobs in the remunerative formal sector on account of their low level of education and skills. They try to solve their livelihoods issues through their own meagre financial resources and sweat equity. Estimates of average earning of street vendors in 2000 by studies, referred to in the Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector, 2007 of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorgnaised Sector (NCEUS), suggest that the vendors' earnings are very low although they vary from trade to trade and from location to location. The men's average daily income is around Rs. 70 in most cities excepting Patna, where it is slightly lower. Women earn considerably less Rs 40 per day. The monetary problem is compounded by the fact that the vendors have scarce resources for their trade and they need to obtain credit by borrowing. Most of the street vendors report having borrowed from money lenders who charge exorbitant interest rates. In Bhubaneswar the credit is obtained from the wholesalers in the form of advances to be paid back at the end of the day at rates up to 110 per cent.

1.3 Public authorities often regard street vendors as a nuisance and as encroachers of sidewalks and pavements and do not appreciate the valuable services that street vendors render to the common man. However, as the Supreme Court of India has ruled in a 1989 case:

"if properly regulated, according to the exigency of the circumstances, the small traders on the side walks can considerably add to the comfort and convenience of the general public, by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. An ordinary person, not very affluent, while hurrying towards his home after a day's work, can pick up these articles without going out of his way to find a regular market. The right to carryon trade or business mentioned in Article 19 (1) g of the Constitution, on street pavements, if properly regulated, cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re‐passing and no other use.” [Sodan Singh & Others versus New Delhi Municipal Council, 1989]

1.4 Accordingly, the starting point for this Policy is the recognition of the positive role of street vendors in providing essential commodities to people at affordable prices and at convenient places. It also recognizes the need for regulation of street vending by way of designated 'Restriction‐free Vending', 'Restricted Vending' and 'No Vending' zones based on certain objective principles. Such regulation is consistent with the imperative to ensure free flow of traffic, smooth movement of pedestrians and maintenance of cleanliness and public hygiene while facilitating vendors/hawkers to sell goods/services at convenient locations frequented by the public.

1.5 This Policy also aims to reflect the spirit of the Constitution of India on the right of citizens to equal protection before the law (subject to reasonable restriction) as well as their right to practice any profession, occupation, trade or business; and the duty of the State to strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and to adopt policies aimed at securing that the citizens have the right to adequate means of livelihood as enshrined in Article 14, 19(1 )(g), 38(2), 39(a), 39(b) and 41 of the


Appendices Page 117

Constitution.

1.6 This Policy recognizes that to be able to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business is a fundamental right of every citizen in our country. A person who wants to buy some items in wholesale and sell the same in retail by hawking is actually exercising such a right. Thus, it would be desirable, other things being equal, that such a right is not circumscribed unless reasonable restrictions are warranted in public interest. At the same time, it will be impracticable that every hawker be provided a permanent site because most cities/towns suffer from severe constraints of land for commercial vending. However, it should be possible to demarcate vending zones and vendors' markets where peripatetic and mobile vendors can sell their wares within certain time restrictions and subject to regulatory stipulations.

1.7 Street vendors provide valuable services to the urban masses while eking out a living through their own enterprise, limited resources and labour. They facilitate convenient, efficient and cost‐effective distribution of goods and services to the public. They also contribute significantly to local economic growth and vitality of the urban economies. This Policy recognizes that street vendors constitute an integral and legitimate part of the urban retail trade and distribution system for daily necessities of the general public. As the street vendors assist the Government in combating unemployment and poverty, it is the duty of the State to protect the right of these micro‐entrepreneurs to earn an honest living. Accordingly, the Policy aims to ensure that this important occupational group of the urban population finds due recognition at national, state and local levels for its contribution to the society. The Policy is meant to foster a congenial environment for the urban street vendors to carry out their activities. It is conceived as part of a major national initiative towards the alleviation of poverty in cities and towns.

1.8 A centre piece of this Policy is the role of Town Vending Committee (henceforth referred to as TVC) to be constituted at City/Town level. A TVC shall be coordinated by a convener who should be nominated by the urban local body concerned. The chairman of TVC will be the Commissioner/ Chief Executive Officer of the concerned urban local body. The TVC will adopt a participatory approach and supervise the entire process of planning, organisation and regulation of street vending activities, thereby facilitating the implementation of this Policy. Further, it will provide an institutional mechanism for due appreciation of the ground realities and harnessing of local knowledge for arriving at a consensus on critical issues of management of street vending activities. The TVC may constitute, in collaboration with the local authority, Ward Vending Committee to assist in the discharge of its functions.

1.9 This Policy adopts the considered opinion that there should not be any cutoff date or limit imposed on the number of vendors who should be permitted to vend in any city/town, subject to registration of such vendors and regulation through the TVC. At any time, an urban poor person can decide that he or she would like to go to a wholesale market, purchase some items and sell these in vending zones during permitted hours to make an honest living. The vendor may not be subject to undue restrictions if he/she wishes to change the trade. In order to make this conceptual right a practically feasible right, the following would be necessary:

i) Vendor markets/outlets should be developed in which space could be made available to hawkers/vendors on a time‐sharing model on the basis of a roster. Let us say that there are 500 such vending places in about a 100 new vendors' markets/push cart markets/motorized vending outlets. Let us also assume that there are 5,000 vendors who want to apply for a vending site on a time‐sharing basis. Then by a simple process of mathematical analysis, a certain number of days or hours on particular days could be fixed for each vendor in a vending place on a roster basis through the concerned TVC.


Appendices Page 118

ii) In addition to vendors' markets/outlets, it would be desirable to promote week‐end markets in public maidans, parade grounds or areas meant for religious festivals. The week‐end markets can be run on a first come‐first serve basis depending on the number of vending sites that can be accommodated in the designated area and the number of vendors seeking vending places. However, in order to be equitable, in case there is a heavy demand from vendors, the number of week‐ends a given vendor can be allocated a site on the first‐come‐first‐serve basis can be restricted to one or two in a month depending on demand.

iii) A registered vendor can be permitted to vend in designated vending zones without restrictions, especially during non‐rush hours. Again in places like verandahs or parking lots in areas such as central business districts, e.g. Connaught Place in New Delhi, vendors' markets can be organized after the closing of the regular markets. Such markets, for example, can be run from 7.30 PM to 10.30 PM as night bazaars on a roster basis or a first‐come‐first‐serve basis, with suitable restrictions determined by the concerned TVC and authorities.

iv) It is desirable that all City/Town Master Plans make specific provisions for creating new vending markets at the time of finalization/revision of Master Plans, Zonal Plans and Local Area Plans. The space reserved in such plans should be commensurate with the current number of vendors and their rate of growth on perspective basis (say 10‐20 years) based on rate of growth over a preceding 5‐year period.

This Policy attempts to address some of the above concerns, keeping the interests of street vendors in view vis‐a‐vis conflicting public interests.

2. Definitions

2.1 For the purposes of this Policy, a 'Street Vendor' is defined as 'a person who offers goods or services for sale to the public in a street without having a permanent built‐up structure.' There are three basic categories of street vendors: (a) stationary; (b) peripatetic and (c) mobile. Stationary vendors are those who carry out vending on a regular basis at a specific location, e.g. those occupying space on the pavements or other public places and/or private areas either open/covered (with implicit or explicit consent) of the authorities. Peripatetic vendors are those who carry out vending on foot and sell their goods and services and includes those who carry baskets on their head/slung on their shoulders and those who sell their goods on pushcarts. Mobile street vendors are those who move from place to place vending their goods or services on bicycle or mobile units on wheels, whether motorized or not. They also include vendors selling their wares in moving buses, local trains etc.

2.2 In this Policy, the term 'Urban Street Vendor' incorporates all other local/regional specific terms used to describe them, such as hawkers, pheriwallas, rehri‐patri wallas, footpath dukandars, sidewalk traders, etc. The land, premises, trains owned by Indian Railways, its subsidiaries including Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations or other undertakings where Indian Railways holds share, are exempted from the ambit of this Policy.

2.3 The term 'Town Vending Committee' means the body constituted by an appropriate Government for protecting the livelihoods of street vendors while at the same time imposing reasonable restrictions, if necessary, for ensuring flow of traffic and for addressing concerns relating to public health and hygiene in the public interest. The TVC may constitute, in such manner and for such purposes as it deems fit, Ward Vending Committees, if required.

2.4 The term 'Local Authority' (referred to as Municipal Authority in this Policy) in this Policy means a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat, Cantonment Board, Civil Area


Appendices Page 119

Committee appointed under Section 47 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 or such other body legally entitled to function as a local authority in any city or town to provide civic services and regulate street vending, and includes the "planning authority" which regulates the land use in that city or town at the city/locality level.

2.5 The term "Natural Market" means a market where sellers and buyers have traditionally congregated for more than a specified period for the sale and purchase of a given set of products or services as assessed by the local authority.

3. Objectives

3.1 Overarching Objective

The overarching objective to be achieved through this Policy is:

To provide for and promote a supportive environment for the vast mass of urban street vendors to carry out their vocation while at the same time ensuring that their vending activities do not lead to overcrowding and unsanitary conditions in public spaces and streets.

3.2 Specific Objectives

This Policy aims to develop a legal framework through a model law on street vending which can be adopted by States/Union Territories with suitable modifications to take into account their geographical/local conditions. The specific objectives of this Policy are elaborated as follows:

a) Legal Status:

To give street vendors a legal status by formulating an appropriate law and thereby providing for legitimate vending/hawking zones in city/town master or development plans including zonal, local and layout plans and ensuring their enforcement;

b) Civic Facilities:

To provide civic facilities for appropriate use of identified spaces as vending/hawking zones, vendors' markets or vending areas in accordance with city/town master plans including zonal, local and layout plans;

c) Transparent Regulation:

To eschew imposing numerical limits on access to public spaces by discretionary licenses, and instead moving to nominal fee‐based regulation of access, where previous occupancy of space by the street vendors determines the allocation of space or creating new informal sector markets where space access is on a temporary turn‐by‐turn basis. All allotments of space, whether permanent or temporary should be based on payment of a prescribed fee fixed by the local authority on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee to be constituted under this Policy;

d) Organization of Vendors:

To promote, where necessary, organizations of street vendors e.g. unions / cooperatives / associations and other forms of organizations to facilitate their collective empowerment;

e) Participative Processes:

To set up participatory processes that involve firstly, local authority, planning authority and police; secondly, associations of street vendors; thirdly, resident welfare associations and fourthly, other civil society organizations such as NGOs, representatives of professional groups (such as lawyers, doctors, town planners, architects etc.), representatives of trade and commerce, representatives of


Appendices Page 120

scheduled banks and eminent citizens;

f) Self‐Regulation:

To promote norms of civic discipline by institutionalizing mechanisms of self management and self‐regulation in matters relating to hygiene, including waste disposal etc. amongst street vendors both in the individually allotted areas as well as vending zones/clusters with collective responsibility for the entire vending zone/cluster; and

g) Promotional Measures:

To promote access of street vendors to such services as credit, skill development, housing, social security and capacity building. For such promotion, the services of Self Help Groups (SHGs)/Co‐operatives/ Federations/Micro Finance Institutions (MFls), Training Institutes etc. should be encouraged.

4. Key Elements of Policy

4.1 Spatial Planning Norms

Following the Supreme Court orders, some cities have drafted guidelines for regulating urban vending activities. However, the provisions made so far do not generally recognize the fact that demands for the wares/services of street vendors are highly specific and vary with location and time. This manifests in the natural propensity of street vendors to locate at particular places at particular times. Spatial planning norms should not disregard such "natural markets" but fully take them on board. There is need for the master/ zonal/ local/ layout development plans to be 'inclusive' and address the requirements of space for street vending as an important urban activity through norms for reservation of space for street vendors in accordance with their current population, projected growth of street vendors, based on the rate of growth in the previous five years and the average number of customers that generally visit informal markets in vending zones. It is equally important that the provisions made in zonal, local or layout plans for street vending are implemented in an equitable and efficient manner.

4.2 Demarcation of Vending Zones

The demarcation of 'Restriction‐free Vending Zones', 'Restricted Vending Zones' and 'No‐vending Zones' should be city/town specific. In order to ensure that the city/town master/ development plans provide for adequate space for street vendors to run their activities, the following guidelines would need to be adhered to:

a) Spatial planning should take into account the natural propensity of street vendors to locate in certain places at certain times in response to the patterns of demand for their goods/services. For this purpose, photographic digitalized surveys of street vendors and their locations should be conducted by competent professional institutions/agencies. This is to be sponsored by the concerned Department of State Government! Urban Development Authority/ Local Authority.

b) Municipal Authorities should frame necessary rules for regulating entry of street vendors on a time sharing basis in designated vending zones keeping in view three broad categories ‐ registered vendors who have secured a license for a specified site/stall; registered street vendors in a zone on a time sharing basis; and registered mobile street vendors visiting one or the other vending zone;

c) Municipal Authorities should allocate sufficient space for temporary 'Vendors' Markets' (e.g. Weekly Haats, Rehri Markets, Night Bazaars, Festival Bazaars, Food Streets/Street Food Marts


Appendices Page 121

etc.) whose use at other times may be different (e.g. public park, exhibition ground, parking lot etc.). These 'Vendors Markets' may be established at suitable locations keeping in view demand for the wares/ services of street vendors. Timing restrictions on vending should be in accordance with the need for ensuring non‐congestion of public spaces/ maintaining public hygiene without being ad hoc, arbitrary or discriminatory. Rationing of space should be resorted to if the number of street vendors exceeds the number of spaces available. Attempts should also be made to provide ample parking areas for mobile vendors for security of their vehicles and wares at night on payment of suitable fees.

d) Mobile vending should be permitted in all areas even outside the 'Vendors Markets', unless designated as 'No‐vending Zone' in the zonal, local area or layout plans under the master/development plan of each city/town. 'Restricted Vending' and 'No‐vending Zones' may be determined in a participatory manner. 'Restricted Vending Zones' may be notified in terms of both location and time. Accordingly, a particular location may be notified as 'No‐vending Zone' only at particular times of the day or days of the week. Locations should not be designated as 'No vending Zones' without full justification; the public benefits of declaring an area/spot as 'No‐vending Zone' should clearly outweigh the potential loss of livelihoods and non availability of 'affordable' and 'convenient' access of the general public to street vendors.

e) With the growth of cities/towns in response to urbanization, the statutory plans of every new area should have adequate provision for 'Vending/hawking Zones' and 'Vendors Markets.'

4.3 Quantitative Space Norms

These refer to the norms on the amount of space to be provided for Vending Zones in plans and to vendors in designated Vendors' Markets. Every land use has a carrying capacity ceiling or threshold limit for the users and the same is true of the number of vendors operating in a clearly demarcated area. Overuse can cause congestion and reduction of public hygiene. Thus, there is a need to fix space norms at both city/zonal development plan and local/layout plan levels. Each city/town may, however, evolve its own quantitative norms but only after conducting proper surveys and evaluating actual needs, and taking the help of professional institutions/agencies. The principle of "natural markets" should be followed in designating areas as Vending Zones and their maximum holding capacity should be determined based on this principle.

4.4 Provision of Civic Facilities

Municipal Authorities need to provide basic civic facilities in Vending Zones / Vendors' Markets which would include:

i) Provisions for solid waste disposal; ii) Public toilets to maintain cleanliness; iii) Aesthetic design of mobile stalls/push carts; iv) Provision for electricity; v) Provision for drinking water; vi) Provision for protective covers to protect wares of street vendors as well as themselves from heat, rain, dust etc; vii) Storage facilities including cold storage for specific goods like fish, meat and poultry; and viii) Parking areas.

The Vendors' Markets should, to the extent possible, also provide for creches, toilets and restrooms for female and male members.


Appendices Page 122

4.5 Organisation & Participative Processes

4.5.1 Town Vending Committee

a) Designation or demarcation of 'Restriction‐free Vending Zones'/ 'Restricted Vending Zones'/No‐vending Zones' and Vendors' Markets should be carried out in a participatory manner by the Town Vending Committee, to be established at town/city level. A TVC should consist of the Municipal Commissioner/ Chief Executive Officer of the urban local body as Chairperson and such number of members as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government, representing firstly, local authority; planning authority and police and such other interests as it deems proper; secondly, associations of street vendors; thirdly, resident welfare associations and Community Based Organisations (CBOs); and fourthly; other civil society organizations such as NGOs, representatives of professional groups (such as lawyers, doctors, town planners, architects etc.), representatives of trade and commerce, representatives of scheduled banks and eminent citizens. This Policy suggests that the representatives of street vendors' associations may constitute forty per cent of the number of the members of the TVC and the other three categories may be represented in equal proportion of twenty per cent each. At least one third of the representatives of categories of street vendors, resident welfare associations and other civil society organizations should be women to provide a gender focus in the TVC. Adequate/ reasonable representation should also be provided to the physically challenged in the TVC. The process for selection of street vendors' representatives should be based on the following criteria:

• Participation in membership‐based organisations; and

• Demonstration of financial accountability and civic discipline.

b) The TVC should ensure that the provision of space for vendors' markets are pragmatic, consistent with formation of natural markets, sufficient for existing demand for the street vendors' goods and services as well as likely increase in accordance with anticipated population growth.

c) The TVC should monitor the provision of civic facilities and their functioning in Vending Zones and Vendors' Markets and bring shortcomings, if any to the notice of the concerned authorities of the urban local body. The TVC should also promote the organisation of weekly markets, festival bazaars, night bazaars, vending festivals on important holidays etc. as well as take up necessary improvement of infrastructure facilities and municipal services with the urban local body concerned.

4.5.2 The TVC shall perform the following functions:

a) Undertake periodic survey/census to assess the increase or decrease in the number of street vendors in the city/town/wards/localities;

b) Register the street vendors and ensure the issuance of Identity Cards to the street vendors after their preparation by the Municipal Authority;

c) Monitor the civic facilities to be provided to the street vendors in vending zones/vendors' markets by the Municipal Authority;

d) Assess and determine maximum holding capacity of each vending zone;

e) Work out a non‐discretionary system and based on the same, identify areas for hawking with no restriction, areas with restriction with regard to the dates, days and time, and, areas which


Appendices Page 123

would be marked as 'No vending Zones';

f) Set the terms and conditions for hawking and take corrective action against defaulters;

g) Collect fees or other charges as authorized by the competent civic authority;

h) Monitor to ensure that those allotted stalls/vending spots are actually using them and take necessary action to ensure that these are not rented out or sold to others;

i) Facilitate the organization of weekly markets, festival bazaars, night bazaars, vending festivals such as food festivals to celebrate important occasions/ holidays including city/ town formation days etc; and

j) Ensure that the quality of products and services provided to the public is as per standards of public health, hygiene and safety laid down by the local authority.

4.5.3 In order to implement the decisions of a TVC, the concerned Municipal

Authority shall designate an official, who shall act as the convenor of the TVC as well as be responsible for implementing its decisions.

4.5.4 Registration System for Street Vending

A system of registration of vendors/hawkers and non‐discretionary regulation of their access to public spaces in accordance with the standards of planning and the nature of trade/service should be adopted. This system is described in greater detail below.

a) Photo Census of Vendors:

The Municipal Authority, in consultation with the TVC should undertake a comprehensive, digitalized photo census / survey / GIS Mapping of the existing stationary vendors with the assistance of professional organisations/experts for the purpose of granting them lease to vend from specific places within the holding capacity of the vending zones concerned.

b) Registration of Vendors:

The power to register vendors would be vested with the TVC. Only those who give an undertaking that they will personally run the vending stall/spot and have no0 other means of livelihood will be entitled for registration. A person will be entitled to receive a registration document for only one vending spot for him/her (and family). He/she will not have the right to either rent or lease out or sell that spot to another person.

c) New Entrants:

Those left out in the photo census or wishes to take up street vending for the first time will also have a right to apply for registration as vendors provided they give a statement on oath that they do not have any other means of livelihood and will be personally operating from the vending spot, with help from family members.

d) Identity Cards:

Upon registration, the concerned Municipal Authority would issue an Identity Card with Vendor Code Number, Vendor Name, Category of Vendor etc. in writing to the street vendor, through the TVC concerned containing the following information:

(i) Vendor Code No. (ii) Name, Address and photograph of the Vendor; (iii) Name of anyone Nominee from the family/and/or a family helper;


Appendices Page 124

(iv) Nature of Business; (v) Category (Stationary /Mobile); and (vi) If Stationary, the Vending Location.

Children below 14 years would not be included in the Identity Card for conduct of business.

e) Registration Fee:

All vendors in each city/town should be registered at a nominal fee to be decided by the Municipal Authority concerned based on the photo census or any other reliable means of identification such as the use of biometric techniques.

f) Registration Process:

i) The registration process must be simple and expeditious. All declarations, oath, etc. may be on the basis of self‐declaration.

ii) There should preferably be no numerical restriction or quotas for registration, or prior residential status requirements of any kind.

iii) Registration should be renewed after every three years. However, a vendor who has rented out or sold his spot to another person will not be entitled to seek re‐registration.

iv) There may be a "on the spot" temporary registration process on renewable basis, in order to allow the street vendors to immediately start their earnings as the registration process and issue of I‐card etc. may take time.

4.6 Collection of Revenue

4.6.1 Street vendors would be charged a monthly fee towards the space they use and the civic services they receive. There should be a direct linkage between the Municipal Authority and street vendors for the collection of:

a) Registration fee; b) Monthly maintenance charges‐ differentiated according to location/type of business; and, c) Fines and other charges, if any.

4.6.2 A TVC should have access to a proportion of revenue generated from registration fees and monthly fees to run its operations but should in addition receive a minimum grant from the Municipal Authority.

4.6.3 The collection of revenue by the Municipal Authority through TVC should ensure that it is based on a predetermined rate of fee and not amenable to any kind of discretion or extortion. If complaints on this account are registered with the TVC, adequate measures should be taken to redress the same expeditiously.

4.7 Self‐Management & Regulation

This Policy advocates the encouragement of collective arrangements by the street vendors to redress any harmful effects on the locality caused by the occupation of street vending. Such arrangements should cover waste disposal, hygiene in the area of vending as well as in the zone/cluster occupied by street venders as a whole for their activities, traffic management etc. Quantitative norms of spatial planning should be respected by the street vendors as a measure of self‐regulation in terms of the number of a typical trade to be allowed in a particular place. Registration system with the participation of street vendors' associations may be used to regulate the scale of operation in vending zones or vendors' markets so that the threshold limits on their


Appendices Page 125

holding capacity are not exceeded.

5. Eviction, Relocation and Confiscation

5.1 If authorities come to the conclusion in any given instance that genuine public obstruction of a street, side walk etc. is being caused by street vending, there should be a mechanism of due notice to the street vendors. The vendors should be informed/warned by way of notice as the first step before starting the clearing up or relocation process. In the second step, if the space is not cleared within the notified time, a fine should be imposed. If the space is not cleared even after the notice and imposition of fine, physical eviction may be resorted to. In the case of vending in a 'No‐vending Zone', a notice of at least a few hours should be given to a street vendor in order to enable him or her clear the space occupied. In case of relocation, adequate compensation or reservation in allotment of new vending site should be provided to the registered vendors.

5.2 With regard to confiscation of goods (which should happen only as a last resort rather than routinely), the street vendors shall be entitled to get their goods back within a reasonable time on payment of prescribed fee, determined by TVC.

5.3 In case of peripatetic vendors or vendors occupying space on a time sharing basis, the vending activity will be regulated in such a manner that the vendors remove all their wares every day/ on expiry of the time‐sharing period allotted. In case of mobile vending outlets, suitable regulations should be put in place for ensuring flow of traffic and public health and hygiene in the public interest.

5.4 The appropriate Government may make suitable amendments to their existing laws/rules, with a view to removing impediments in the implementation of this Policy and to prevent the undue harassment of street vendors.

6. Promotional Measures

6.1 Public Health & Hygiene

Every street vendor shall pay due attention to public health and hygiene in the vending zone/vendors' market concerned and the adjoining area. He/she shall keep a waste collection basket in the place of vending. Further, he/she shall contribute to/promote the collective disposal of waste in the vending zone/area. Associations of/for street vendors may construct public toilet facilities which may be run by them on "pay and use" basis. To promote such associations, the Central Government/State Governments/Municipal Authorities shall encourage the organisation of/for street vendors, by providing financial assistance.

6.2 Health of Street Vendors

The State Government/Municipal Authorities may take special steps to cover street vendors and their families with benefits of programmes such as preventive and curative health care including reproductive and child health care facilities and health insurance.

6.3 Education & Skills Training

Street vendors, being micro entrepreneurs should be provided with vocational education and training and entrepreneurial development skills to upgrade their technical and business potentials so as to increase their income levels as well as to look for more remunerative alternatives.

6.4 Credit & Insurance

6.4.1 Credit is an important requirement in street vending, both to sustain existing activity and to upscale it. Since vendors work on a turnover basis, they often take recourse to high interest loans


Appendices Page 126

from non‐institutional lenders. Although they usually demonstrate high repayment capacity, absence of collateral and firm domiciliary status usually debars them from institutional credit. State Governments and the Municipal Authorities should enable Self‐Help Groups (SHGs) and organizations of street vendors to access credit from banks through mechanism like SHG‐Bank Linkage. The TVC should disseminate information pertaining to availability of credit from various sources, especially micro‐finance and should take steps to link street vendors with formal credit structures. Street vendors should also be assisted in obtaining insurance through Micro‐insurance and other agencies.

6.4.2 With respect to credit, the Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for Small Industries (CGFSI), designed by the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of India and the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) may be extended to the street vendors. This scheme aims at resolving the problem of collaterals, and inducing banks to gradually move away from a completely risk averse stance toward small scale industries.

6.4.3 The registration process undertaken by the TVC based on field surveys through professional institutions/agencies and the domiciliary status confirmed by them on the Identity Card as also in their records should make it possible to cover a large number of street vendors under institutional credit.

6.5 Social Security

Street vendors as a group belong to the unorganised sector of the economy. As such, they don't have access to Government‐assisted social security. However, in some States, social security schemes such as Old Age Pension and other benefits are being provided through the Welfare Boards and similar bodies. But, their coverage of street vendors is very small. There are a few Non‐Government Organisations (NGOs), who organize social security schemes for the street vendors. The Central Government aims to extend social security cover in the unorganised sector as a whole and the street vendors should be suitably covered. The national efforts should be supplemented by efforts of State Governments/Municipal Authorities and organisations of/for street vendors. These will facilitate protective social security to the street vendors to take care of contingencies such as sickness, maternity and old age.

6.6 Allotment of Space/Stationary Stalls

Stationary vendors should be allowed space/stalls, whether open or covered, on license basis after photo census/ survey and due enquiry in this regard, initially for a period of 10 years with the provision that only one extension of ten years shall be provided thereafter. After 20 years, the vendor will be required to exit the stationary stall (whether open or covered) as it is reasonably expected that the licensee would have suitably enhanced his/her income, thereby making the said stall available for being licensed to a person belonging to the weaker sections of society. Wherever vending stall/vending space is provided to a vendor on a lease basis for a certain number of years, care should be taken that adequate reservation is made for the SCs/STs in accordance with their share in the total population of the city. Similarly, priority should be given to physically challenged/disabled persons in the allocation of vending stalls/vending spaces as vending space can be a useful medium for rehabilitating physically challenged/ disabled persons. Further, a suitable monitoring system should be put in place by the TVC to ensure that the licensees of the stationary stalls do not sell/ let out their stalls.

6.7 Rehabilitation of Child Vendors

To prevent vending by children and seek their rehabilitation wherever such practice exists, in


Appendices Page 127

conformity with the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act,1986, the State Government and Municipal Authorities should undertake measures such as sending the children to regular or bridge schools, imparting them skills training etc.

6.8 Promoting Vendors' Organisations

To enable street vendors to access the benefits of social security schemes and other promotional measures in an effective manner, it is essential that the street vendors are assisted to form their own organizations. The TVC should take steps to facilitate the formation and smooth functioning of such organizations of street vendors. Trade Unions and other Voluntary Organisations should play an active role and help the street vendors to organise themselves by providing counseling and guidance services wherever required.

6.9 Other Promotional Measures

The Government of India is considering legislation for the promotion of livelihoods of the workers engaged in the unorganised sector. Once this is in place, it shall equally apply to the street vendors.

7. Action Plans for Stakeholders

i) It shall be the responsibility of the Government of India to take steps to ensure that street vending activities are carried out in accordance with street vending laws and the same are not actionable under the Indian Penal Code or the Police Act. In this regard, the Government may initiate amendments in these laws if necessary. It may develop a model law to facilitate and regulate street vending in cities and towns.

ii) It shall be the responsibility of State Governments/UT Administrations to ensure that institutional designs, legislative frameworks and other necessary arrangements are put in place in conformity with the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors. They should undertake legislation and frame rules taking into account the model law developed by the Central Government to suit variations in local conditions.

iii) It shall be the responsibility of the Local Authority/ Planning Authority / Regional Planning Authority to provide for reservation of space for vending zones, vendors' markets etc. in master / development plans, zonal plans and local area plans.

iv) The Municipal Authorities shall implement the legislative and other initiatives as indicated in this Policy including provision of space and civic facilities for vendors' markets, assistance to Town Vending Committees etc.

v) As soon as this Policy comes into force, but not later than one year from the announcement, each Municipal Authority shall constitute a Town Vending Committee and the latter will prepare an action plan for the implementation of the National Policy on Street Vendors at the local level.

vi) It shall be the responsibility of the concerned Department of State Government / Municipal Authority to initiate surveys to build up a robust data base and information system pertaining to street vendors in cities and towns and update the same regularly.

vii) The State Governments and Municipal Authorities shall support professional institutions and organisations to undertake surveys and projects aimed at improving the conditions of street vendors as well as planning and implementation of promotional measures for them in their respective areas.

viii) The Central Government shall assist such professional institutions and organisations


Appendices Page 128

which come forward to study the problems of street vendors and offer realistic solutions to address such problems.

8. Monitoring & Review

Monitoring of street vending activities, action plans and promotional measures for street vendors in accordance with this Policy will be carried on at the following levels:

A) Town Vending Committee:

As elaborated earlier, the TVC will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of this Policy at the city/town/ward/locality levels.

b) Chief Executive Officer/Commissioner of Municipal Authority:

The Chief Executive Officer/Commissioner of each Municipal Authority shall maintain a register containing ward‐wise list of registered street vendors (stationary/mobile) exhibited in municipal web site. The Municipal Authority would continuously monitor the functioning and activities of the TVC and ward vending committees (wherever set up) and shall send an annual report on the same to the State Nodal Officer and Secretary of the concerned Department of the State Government containing the following details:

i) Number of vending zones/vendors markets earmarked / developed; ii) Number of registered street vendors; iii) Revenue collected; Iv) Expenditure incurred, v) Promotional and other measures undertaken; vi) Complaints registered and redressed; and vii) Any other matter as prescribed by the State Nodal Officer / Concerned Department of State Government.

c) State/UT Nodal Officer:

The Secretary of the concerned Department or State/ UT Nodal Officer designated shall send an annual report to the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation in the Central Government containing relevant statistics on street vendors for cities/towns, number of vending zones earmarked/developed, number of registered street vendors, number provided with vending spaces, details of TVC and conditions of street vendors in the State.

9. Dispute Resolution

The TVC shall be primarily responsible for the redressal of grievances and resolution of any dispute arising amongst the street vendors or between the street vendors and third parties including municipal officials and the police in the implementation of this Policy. It shall closely work with planning, municipal, police and other authorities and vendors' associations and other organizations to ensure that the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors is implemented effectively at the local level.


Appendices Page 146

Appendix 9: Proposed Pilot Study Maps (Larger Scale)


Appendices Page 147

Map: Overview of BRT corridor and study areas

Map: Shahjalal Avenue, pilot site


Appendices Page 148

Footpath availability, Shahajalal Avenue


Appendices Page 149

Footpath quality, Shahjalal Avenue


Appendices Page 150

Footpath safety: Shahjalal Avenue


Appendices Page 151

Travel infrastructure, Shahjalal Avenue


Appendices Page 152

Proposed changes, Shahjalal Avenue


Appendices Page 153

Main intersections, Shahjalal Avenue


Appendices Page 154

Cross section of proposed major intersection


Appendices Page 155

Minor intersections, Shahjalal Avenue

Cross section of proposed minor intersection


Appendices Page 156

Cross section, Western Market


Appendices Page 157

Cross section, Eastern Market


Appendices Page 158

Cross section, cemetery


Appendices Page 159

Appendix 10: The Importance of Walking One of the most important landmarks in a toddler’s development is the moment when s/he learns to walk. This moment is greeted with great excitement by parents, and the baby itself is delighted at its newly found independence and mobility.

Yet somewhere along the line we forget the importance and essential joy of walking. We relegate it to a low status, barely worth considering in transport planning. The belief that people living in cities are busy and so movement should be fast – or that people of a higher economic status should not lower themselves to moving by manual power – ignores the fact that congestion means that motorized vehicles often move no faster than a bicycle, and sometimes no faster than a pedestrian. Meanwhile, in building our cities to cater to motorized vehicles, we generate air that is deadly to breathe, high levels of traffic injury and death, unaffordable costs for road building and maintenance, an enormous amount of space dedicated to cars rather than all the other things that people need and desire, and disruption in our communities. As a result, not only people’s health but individual and national economies suffer, as does the environment. Could we not do better than this?

Yes we could – if we give pedestrians, as well as other forms of non‐motorized transport, the importance they deserve.

It helps to remember that all of us are pedestrians at various points in our lives and usually in every day as well. We may not walk far; we may mostly travel by vehicle. But some portion of many or most trips occurs by foot. For others, especially the poor (who represent about half the population of Dhaka), the main form of transport is walking. Even in Dhaka, where the perception is that people do not like to walk, a quick glance around reveals that large numbers of people are in fact moving about the city by foot, although in often atrocious conditions.

Why is it so important to acknowledge pedestrians?

People are not healthy if they do not get exercise. The easiest way to get exercise is through purposive physical activity; more trips made on foot would reduce the risk of NCDs, which in turn bear high social and economic costs. This is one place where the rich and poor would benefit from the same changes: good walking conditions would improve the health of the wealthy and middle class, reduce congestion, and ease the transport costs, danger, and inconvenience experienced by the poor.

Walking does not harm the physical environment, and in fact good conditions for walking can enhance it.

Walking is free.

Walking requires little infrastructure.

Walking requires very little road space and no terminal capacity (parking).

Walking can save time, as pedestrians do not get stuck in traffic (in Dhaka, it can often be faster to walk than to take the bus).

Walking requires no fossil fuels.

Walking does not cause accidents (that is, pedestrians can be victims, but they do not inherently harm others).

Walking does not pollute.

People outdoors, moving slowly, increases safety for others (criminals need privacy).


Appendices Page 160

Walking improves conviviality and sense of community; when people walk they get to know their neighbours, as a result there is greater safety, more sense of looking out for each other, of compassion and civic sense.

In addition to all the other reasons, we must remember that public transit cannot function without pedestrians. People must be able to travel between public transit stops and their actual destination, usually at both ends of a trip. If the distance is far, then rickshaws can be the perfect solution for connectivity; for short distances, there is no alternative to walking. It does no good to create a quality public transit service if people cannot reach the stops easily. Yet that is exactly what has been done in many cities. Planners then wonder why the system is not as popular as they had hoped.

Pedestrians should, in fact, be treated as the most vital citizens, and the bigger and more congested a city, the more important their role.

While the BRT Walkability Strategy focuses specifically on walking, it is important to acknowledge that walking is but part of an overall transport system that includes a mix of motorized and non‐motorized modes. The disadvantages of motorized modes fall heavily on those traveling by foot – are disproportionately the poor who live in the most polluted neighbourhoods.

Although most international studies find asthma rates to be about 10% of the general population, one study in Dhaka found an alarming rate of 25.8%. This suggests that as many as 610,000 children in Dhaka may be asthmatic, with an estimated annual expenditure on respiratory illnesses for those children of about US$30 million. There would also likely be 12 million restricted activity days, 1.5 million school absence days, and 51 school‐age children dying each year from asthma in Dhaka. “Motor vehicles represent the principal source of air pollution in many communities, and concentrations of traffic pollutants are greater near major roads.” (Ahmad et al. 2008)

However, despite the clear importance of walking, proper planning for pedestrians is often neglected in transport planning. This leads to extremely poor conditions for pedestrians, which in turn encourages people to choose other, typically motorized, forms of transport. Yet those motorized forms cause a host of problems for our health, environment, economic situation, and well‐being, with the worst impacts falling on the poor. Some of the disadvantages of motorized transport versus walking are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Disadvantages of motorized transport and advantages of walking

Disadvantages of motorized transport Advantages of walking

It is expensive and capital intensive, both in terms of the vehicles and fuel, and the building and maintenance of road systems.

It requires little by way of infrastructure or other expense, and little maintenance.

It is highly polluting, not only in terms of vehicle fumes but also the waste produced in building and disposing of vehicles and the leakage of oil.

It does not pollute.

It requires fuel, which is likely in coming years to be less and less available even as demand steadily rises.

It requires no fuel.

It is deadly. A million people die each year from car crashes. The heavier and faster the vehicle, the more likely that crashes will be fatal. Particularly vulnerable are those traveling by foot, cycle or rickshaw.

It increases safety, both by reducing traffic danger and through more “eyes on the street”.


Appendices Page 161

Disadvantages of motorized transport Advantages of walking

It contributes to inequity, as the advantages of MT are enjoyed mostly by the wealthy while the problems that it causes fall disproportionately on the poorest.

It contributes to health and equality.

MT takes up a lot of space both for movement and parking, and is awkward to manoeuvre in the many small lanes of Dhaka. It causes congestion. Building highways and other roads takes away space from important uses such as agriculture. In cities, parking takes up inordinate amounts of extremely precious real estate that could otherwise be used for productive purposes.

It is extremely space efficient, both for movement and terminal capacity, thus easing congestion.

It creates a tremendous amount of noise pollution. In Dhaka, 97% of students say their studying is disrupted by car horns.

It is quiet.

A shift from NMT to MT will reduce the mobility of the poor and destroy jobs.

It contributes importantly to mobility and cost‐saving for the poor.

More MT means less walking and cycling, as the road conditions further deteriorate. The increase in congestion resulting from an increase in motorized traffic would also have an economic cost.

Cost savings occur for individuals, communities, and the nation on a number of fronts that extend well beyond transport costs and into health care and other areas.

Construction of new roads fragments the environment and disrupts communities.

It strengthens community.

MT isolates people from their surroundings, thus causing breakdown in communal relations and possibly leading to increased crime rates.

It brings people together outdoors, allowing people to see and interact with their neighbours, thus strengthening community.

Walking and the Poor

Low income earners typically spend a large percentage of their income on transport, yet receive very poor services in return. They may also make several trips each day, as they must typically work at more than one job to survive. Bus or other vehicle fares can thus quickly become unaffordable, leaving them with few options other than to walk or cycle. Yet conditions for walking and cycling are often extremely poor, causing not only discomfort and inconvenience but serious health risks.

Better conditions for walking and cycling – and urban planning that promotes accessibility rather than mobility through mixed use areas – will thus prove to be particularly beneficial to the poor. It would mean saving money on transport, moving more safely and comfortably, and being able to access more of the locations that they need for their survival.

It is, however, important also to remember that while improvements to the pedestrian environment will preferentially benefit the poor, such benefits will also accrue to all income groups.

What Are Some of the Health Benefits of Walking?

Even moderate levels of physical activity can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases. Specifically, physical activity can reduce the risk of:


Appendices Page 162

Cardiovascular disease

Colon cancer (risk can be reduced by as much as 50%)

Breast cancer in women

Type‐2 diabetes (the risk of developing it can be reduced by as much as 50%)

Osteoporosis (weak and easily broken bones)

Arthritis (physical activity improves function, relieves symptoms, and decreases need for medication)

Physical activity is important for everyone, regardless of their age and health status. Unfortunately, telling people to exercise generally has little effect. Busy lives and other concerns keep most of the population from adopting healthy behaviours. It is far easier to adopt and maintain a schedule of physical activity when it is incorporated into one’s daily routine, preferably in the form of utilitarian physical activity, particularly “active transport”. When people walk or cycle to destinations rather than drive, they can actually save time as well as become far healthier. Because such a change does not require extra time or much motivation, and can easily become part of a routine, it is easy to maintain once begun. But the ability or willingness of people to walk or cycle is heavily dependent on the environment — that is, on factors outside their control.

But Isn’t Walking Slow?

The potential speed of a vehicle is irrelevant; what matters is the actual speed in existing road conditions. As such, the average speed of motorized vehicles in large Asian cities is often no greater than that of a bicycle; in Dhaka, it can actually be faster to walk than to take the bus. Concerns about speed must also be balanced against other issues such as cost, pollution, and safety.

An important related point is road capacity. If one were to dedicate a road exclusively to cars, only those in cars can travel. Since cars must maintain a fair amount of headway (more when they travel faster), they are not very efficient in terms of space required; that inefficiency becomes far worse when considering parking requirements. In fact, cars are far less efficient than other modes of moving people. Cars are the worst, at a low of 370 people per metre‐width of road per hour in mixed traffic and 470 people for cars on a one‐way street. Rickshaws in a rickshaw lane are far more efficient, able to move 1,000 people per metre‐width of road per hour. Even more efficient are bicycles in a bicycle lane, at 1,500 people. But the most efficient of all are walking and buses: 3,600 for pedestrians, and 6,600 people for buses in a separate bus lane (Gallagher 1992). If you want to serve a lot of people with your roads (which would seem to be a goal in a city as densely populated as Dhaka), then cars are the worst form of transport.

Consider the case of New York City, where people walk on average about 5 km a day. Although NYC has an extensive bus and Metro system and taxis clog the streets, most people travel long distances each day by foot. If people tried to take the Metro or bus instead of walking, the systems would collapse from the burden. And how do people travel between transit stops and their destinations? By foot. Thus the crowded and dense economic capital of the most powerful country in the world is able to function.

Less Traffic Congestion

Road‐based attempts to resolve traffic congestion are failing not only in Dhaka, but consistently around the world. More roads simply invite more traffic, while “traffic evaporation” can be induced by shrinking roads, improving other means of mobility, and designing cities to emphasize access


Appendices Page 163

rather than mobility.

Walking is, as mentioned, one of the most space‐efficient modes of transport and requires no terminal (parking) capacity. If most school children were able to travel to school by foot or bicycle, school‐related congestion, a major problem throughout Dhaka, would decline dramatically. Given that so many of the trips made are short, walking could become a feasible form of transport, but the conditions for it first need to improve considerably.

Meanwhile, congestion continues to worsen, and causes great losses in terms of time and money. To cite Alam (2008), “Annual loss caused by traffic congestion in Dhaka City amounts to Tk. 11,763 crore (US$1.68 billion); Annual expenditure for importing fuel for operating transport system of the country amounts to Tk. 11,228 crore (US$1.6 billion).”

More Pleasant Streets

With fewer motorized vehicles on the streets, communities would be quieter, less polluted, and safer. Some of the space saved could be used to plant more trees and thus improve conditions for cycling and walking. These improvements would mean a further increase in cycling and walking, which would feed into a positive cycle in which ever fewer people would drive cars, and increasingly more space would be created on the roads. Traffic jams would be reduced. Long‐distance travel would be facilitated by buses – the vehicle for the many – rather than cars – the vehicle of the elite few. With buses not having to compete for road space with other vehicles, bus service would improve, again leading to a positive cycle in which people gave up their private cars to travel by bus (their long trips by bus facilitated by short trips by rickshaw, bicycle, or walking).

Improved bus services mean better mobility for many. Continued and increased use of rickshaws and bicycles, and a decrease in cars, mean a pleasanter environment for those walking. More people walking would, in turn, lessen the burden on vehicular transport. If those going short distances walked, cycled, or took rickshaws, those travelling farther would have shorter waiting periods, and buses would be used more efficiently—making fewer stops, long‐distance travellers would arrive much faster and less fuel would be wasted.

The opposite is also true. With more people using buses (rather than rickshaws or walking) for short trips, those going longer distances will have longer to wait for a space on the bus, as short‐distance travellers compete with them for space. Meanwhile, how practical is it to wait for 20‐40 minutes for a bus just to travel two kilometres or less? Will bus stops always be available near people’s destinations? For those not served by bus routes, or unwilling to wait so long, there will be few options but to walk. Figures from 2004 suggest that in Dhaka, 78% of all trips are less than 5 kilometres and of those trips, 50% are less than 2 kilometres (HDRC 2004). With so many short trips, the only efficient solution is to improve the situation for pedestrians.

A common phrase in many cities is that “people here do not like to walk”. A more accurate phrase would be, “This city is not designed to facilitate or encourage walking.” When people face danger when walking, or traffic is deafeningly noisy or the emissions particularly bad, or it is virtually impossible to cross the street, or the footpath is taken over by parked cars or motorbikes, people will be discouraged from traveling by foot. On the contrary, in cities that encourage active travel through better urban design and various facilities to make walking safe and comfortable, many people engage in active travel. The difference is not in the personality of the individuals, but in the environment created by the city planners. 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.

“Dhaka’s BRT Walkability Strategy"

Documents

Transcript of “Dhaka’s BRT Walkability Strategy"