NOISE, dust, vehicle smoke, heat, mud and chaos; broken and blocked footpaths; being expected to climb stairs in the heat just to cross the road; madness and mayhem. No, walking in Dhaka is not often a joyful or rewarding experience, as the millions of people walking daily, whether a long or short way, well know.
More鈥檚 the pity, as the benefits of walking to the person involved and to the greater society are manifold. Walking is good exercise, and much gentler on the joints than running. It is essentially free. It requires no fuel and creates no pollution. Walking allows us to appreciate our surroundings and easily interact with others. Walking is, indeed, the quintessential form of urban transport, perfectly fitted for cities where amenities are often close by and where congestion means that it can be faster to reach places on foot than by car or bus.
Given all the benefits of walking, why is it so often a miserable experience in Dhaka and other Bangladeshi cities? Alas there is no profit for big corporations in walking, and so, in Bangladesh and elsewhere, corporations push the idea that transport means the automobile and that walking is an unimportant activity that does not require decent infrastructure or other protections. When the government claims to be making improvements to the walking environment, those 鈥榠mprovements鈥� often come in the form of foot-over bridges. Sure, they are a safer way to cross the street, but they are really an amenity to drivers, not pedestrians. Very few people enjoy climbing stairs.
Worse, by insisting that pedestrians use those bridges, a very clear message goes out to car drivers: pedestrians do not belong in the roads. The roads are for cars, motorbikes, and other motorized vehicles. Never mind that about a third of trips in Dhaka are made on foot and far fewer by car. Never mind that it鈥檚 the cars that cause the danger and should thus be controlled, not the pedestrians. With their assumed superiority in their heads, drivers are far less likely to be cautious about the presence of pedestrians in the roads, making the situation that much more dangerous for those on foot.
Cities that wish to create a pleasant environment for their inhabitants restrict motorized vehicles and lay out VIP treatment for those on foot and on bicycles, while also providing good quality public transit. Those amenities, and the restrictions on car use, make cities safer, less congested, less polluted, and far more amenable to civic life. It鈥檚 also far less expensive to provide good infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists than for the automobile. And again, that鈥檚 the problem: the lobbyists for cars, roads and fuel (what I call the three-headed monster) push government infrastructure for the most expensive, least safe, and most pollution-inducing transport, and too often governments oblige.
If you wonder what a more livable Dhaka or other Bangladeshi city could look like, try going outside on a Friday morning, or early morning on a weekday. Traffic is light. The air is as fresh as it ever gets. Vendors are selling food.听 People are out walking briskly or peacefully strolling. Rickshaws and cycles wend their way along the quiet roads, enjoying any existing tree cover. Kids play football or cricket on a dead-end street or in a playing field; people gather at outdoor tea stalls to enjoy a sweet milk tea and each other鈥檚 company. On moments like those, however precious and few, our cities become truly livable and we can catch a glimpse of what they would be like if our authorities prioritized walking and livability over the three-headed monster of cars, roads and fuel.
听
Debra Efroymson is the author of Beyond Apologies, Defining and Achieving an Economics of Wellbeing and co-founder and acting executive director of the Institute of Wellbeing, Bangladesh.
