DEBRA Efroymson’s August 23 article, ‘Joys of Walking,’ presents a compelling vision of urban life in Dhaka as a struggle between pedestrians and the so-called ‘three-headed monster’ of cars, roads and fuel. While her enthusiasm for pedestrian-friendly cities is clear, her analysis is overly idealistic and overlooks the complex realities of urban mobility, social behaviour and governance in Dhaka and other rapidly growing cities. The idea that walking can be universally pleasurable in Dhaka, simply if policy or infrastructure were adjusted, ignores structural, climatic and socio-economic constraints that define the daily experience of millions.
Efroymson emphasises walking as an inherently healthy, cost-free and environmentally-friendly mode of transport. These benefits are real, but the article treats them as sufficient justification for transforming Dhaka’s streets into pedestrian paradises. Dhaka faces extreme population density, high humidity and sprawling urban development. Millions of residents travel long distances daily — often carrying goods, commuting to workplaces far from home or rushing to meet strict schedules. In such circumstances, walking is more a matter of necessity than leisure. Idealising it as ‘joyful’ disregards the very real challenges that pedestrians face: heat exhaustion, fatigue and the lack of continuous, safe footpaths. Expecting pedestrians to treat stair-clad foot bridges as a source of enjoyment rather than a safety measure misrepresents their lived realities.
Efroymson criticises foot bridges as amenities for drivers rather than pedestrians, arguing that they send out the wrong social message and reinforce car dominance. While urban design can certainly influence social hierarchies, in Dhaka these bridges exist for practical safety reasons. With poor road discipline, unregulated traffic and high accident rates, foot bridges save lives. The alternative, pedestrians sharing the road with motor vehicles, is far more hazardous. Similar dynamics exist in cities like Jakarta, Indonesia, or Lagos, Nigeria, where makeshift pedestrian crossings coexist with chaotic traffic; attempts to encourage at-grade walking without addressing traffic behaviour have often led to higher accident rates rather than safer streets.
The article frames pedestrian misery primarily because of corporate lobbying and the influence of automobile industries, but this explanation is overly simplistic. While corporate interests may shape infrastructure priorities, it is inaccurate to reduce Dhaka’s mobility challenges to a conspiracy of cars, roads and fuel. Rapid urbanisation, resource constraints and institutional weaknesses are equally significant. Dhaka’s authorities must contend with a population exceeding 22 million, limited urban space and the need to maintain economic activity across the city. In such contexts, prioritizing automobiles in certain corridors is often a pragmatic choice for ensuring mobility efficiency and economic continuity. Mumbai, India, provides a parallel: pedestrian infrastructure exists but is uneven, with authorities often favouring road-based transport to manage the pressures of one of the world’s densest cities.
Efroymson’s vision of Dhaka as a quiet, tree-lined pedestrian haven — with vendors, cycling rickshaws and children playing football in empty streets — is appealing but largely anecdotal. Citing Friday mornings or early weekday hours as evidence of what the city could become overlooks the fact that these conditions are temporary and unrepresentative of daily commuting realities. Comparable attempts in Manila, the Philippines, to pedestrianise certain areas outside rush hours have met with limited success: the benefits are fleeting and most residents still contend with congested roads, insufficient crossings and unsafe pedestrian conditions during peak hours.
Moreover, the article underestimates the socio-economic dimensions of urban mobility. Many low-income Dhaka residents rely on buses, rickshaws and motorbikes not as a preference but out of necessity. Policies that prioritise walking without simultaneously improving affordable public transport, connectivity and safe routes risk producing a city that is aesthetically pleasant but inaccessible for those who must travel long distances to work or school. Cities such as Nairobi, Kenya, and Cairo, Egypt, demonstrate that a narrow focus on pedestrian infrastructure without broader transport planning can exacerbate inequalities and create inefficiencies in daily commuting.
Finally, Efroymson’s call for restricting motorised vehicles and giving VIP treatment to pedestrians underestimates the complexity of urban planning in megacities. Urban liveability is not simply about reducing car use; it is about creating a balanced transport ecosystem where pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users and motorists coexist safely and efficiently. Dhaka needs integrated planning that combines safe pedestrian paths, reliable public transit, regulated traffic flows and urban policies that account for climatic, geographic and demographic realities.
In conclusion, while Efroymson’s advocacy for pedestrian-friendly cities resonates with aspirations for cleaner, healthier urban spaces, it underplays the structural and socio-economic realities of Dhaka. The city’s challenges cannot be reduced to corporate lobbying or misplaced priorities; they stem from rapid urbanisation, dense population, and limited resources. Transforming Dhaka into a city where walking is universally joyful requires not nostalgic idealism but a pragmatic, multi-modal approach that balances safety, efficiency, accessibility and environmental concerns — an approach that cities such as Singapore, Bogotá, and Copenhagen have pursued successfully, but that must be adapted carefully to Dhaka’s unique context.
Ìý
Dr Abdullah A Dewan is a former physicist and nuclear engineer at the BAEC and professor emeritus of economics at Eastern Michigan University, United States.
