Future Mass Rapid Transit in Dhaka City - Options, Issues and Realities

Jahangirnagar Planning Review Vol. 6, June 2008, pp. 69-81,

ISSN 1728-4198

© Jahangirnagar University

Future Mass Rapid Transit in Dhaka City: Options, Issues and Realities Md. Saidur Rahman* Abstract Transport is the life of a city and choices on public transit options are fundamental decisions about a city’s future growth and development. An efficient transportation system increases accessibility and improves quality of life. In terms of maintaining a transit-friendly transit-friendly city form and ensuring the urban poor have access to work, the selection of an appropriate Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system is a crucial factor to secure long term advances – or at least to stabilize the share of people traveling by public rather than private transport. Though Dhaka is one of the least motorized cities in the world, its traffic congestion is the most common phenomenon in our everyday life. This paper reviews the recent mass transit planning initiatives in developing countries and analyzes the alternative choices of each of the main MRT options for Dhaka City and identifies the issues and realities of such initiatives under Dhaka’s present geo-political and socioeconomic contexts.

Introduction

Most urban public transport, especially in developing countries, are road based, but the major cities of the world have a long history of building and developing rail-based transportation systems to provide the backbone of public transport supply along key corridors. Road-based public transport, given adequate operational support can handle peak corridor flows up to a certain level, but higher flows necessitate a ‘heavy’ rail-based system with a higher capacity. Rail (particularly the light rail and tram systems) is also justified (in preference to a road-based system) for lower passenger flows on such grounds as being less polluting and presenting a better urban image. ‘Mass Rapid Transit’ (MRT) is a term used to describe modes of urban public transport (both road and rail based) that carry large volumes of passengers quickly. It comprises a spectrum of modes of urban public transport that use specific fixed-track or exclusive and separated use of a potentially common-user road track. The role and form of MRT of course depends upon the city context, its size, income level, asset base, institutions, existing transport systems and other cultural and behavioral factors and attitudes. MRT policy and city sustainability are inextricably linked. In the era of globalization, city authorities recognize the need for their city to compete in the global marketplace, and MRT is seen to be part of the ‘package’ to attract inward investment. The effectiveness with which MRT policy is implemented, and the parallel complementary measures which are implemented, will substantially influence the city’s future. For a rapidly growing city like Dhaka, MRT decisions will arguably be of great strategic importance. But the core question for decision-makers is how to balance the sometimes conflicting objectives of poverty alleviation (which implies a low tariff/quality MRT system) and controlling congestion with its associated pollution and safety costs (which implies a higher tariff/quality MRT system) within the means of government budgets. Large cities in developing world are centers of economic growth and magnets for poor people from the countryside. The issue at the heart of poverty alleviation is that all MRT systems have multiple impacts on the poor and the environment, and to assess the overall impacts is by no means straightforward. So the development of MRT systems should be carried out in a holistic manner within the context of a city development plan and transport strategy. This paper examines the technical and economic advantages of the most widely used MRT systems for developing cities. * Executive Engineer of Bangladesh Railway, presently under deputation pursuing higher studies in Transportation Engineering at Hiroshima University, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]

Jahangirnagar Planning Review

70

Overview of Dhaka and Its Transportation System

Being the administrative, commercial & cultural capital of Bangladesh, the Mega City Dhaka has a major role to play in the socioeconomic development of the country and in the era of regional and sub-regional cooperation. But the existing transportation system is a major bottleneck for the development of the city. Unplanned urbanization, especially poor transportation planning and lower land utilization efficiency, has turned the city into a dangerous urban jungle. Dhaka has recently received the dubious distinction of being the second dirtiest city in the world (Forbes, 2008). Although Dhaka’s area is less than 1% of the country’s total land area, it supports about 10% of the total population and 30% of the total urban population. During the last four decades Dhaka has recorded a phenomenal growth in terms of population and area. Dhaka City is presently one of the 10 th largest Megacities of the world with a population of about 14.0 million having the highest annual growth rate and expected to be the second largest city of the world with a population of 22.8 million by 2015 (UNFPA, 2001). The rapid rise in population along with increased and versatile urban land use patterns has generated considerable travel demand as well as numerous transport problems in Dhaka City. It has resulted in deterioration in accessibility, level of service, safety, comfort, operational efficiency and urban environment. The additional population in coming decades will add new dimensions to the urban fabric of Dhaka. The transportation system of Dhaka is predominantly road based and non-motorized transportation (mainly rickshaws) has a substantial share. Dhaka’s road network is nearly 3000 kms (of which 200 km primary, 110 km secondary, 50 km feeder and 2640 km narrow roads) with few alternative connector roads and it represents the proportion of road surface to built-up area hardly 7% as against 25% recommended for a good city planning. Only 400 kms footpath is available for pedestrian of which 40% are being occupied illegally by vendors and others. There are no effective bi-cycle lanes and safe walkways even. Although 37-km long rail-road passes through the heart of the city but it has little contribution to city’s transport system due to policy constraints. Although the motorization level in Dhaka is till very low comparing to similar sized cities of the world, the rate of increase of various types of vehicles in recent years is significant. Figure-1 shows the incremental growth of motorized vehicles in Dhaka city over time. More than 500,000 rickshaws ply on Dhaka’s roads (STP, 2005). There are around 100 open markets on the streets and 3000 shopping malls beside the roads without adequate parking provisions. Most of the signals are manually controlled and insufficient traffic policemen are to control the traffic. 450000 400000 350000 s e 300000 l c i h e 250000 V f o r 200000 e b m150000 u N

Motor Car Taxi Minibus Auto-rickshaw Others

Jeep/ Microbus Bus Truck Motor-Cycle

100000 50000 0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Figure-1: Motor Vehicles Growth Trends in Dhaka City over Time (1994-2006) Source: BRTA, 2007

2005

2006

71

Future Mass Rapid Transit in Dhaka City: Options, Issues and Realities

Dhaka’s transport environment is characterized by mixed-modes transports using the same road space, traffic congestion, delays, mismanagement, conflict of jurisdictions, poor coordination among organizations and increasing environmental problems. The distribution of modal choices in Dhaka is unique among cities of comparable size in the world. The primary mode of transport is particularly interesting, with about a third (34%) using rickshaws, almost half (44%) using transit/buses; and a quarter (22%) comprised of walk (14%) and non-transit motorized (8%) modes (STP, 2005). Current average trip length is 5.37 kms (by buses 8.40 kms; by rickshaws 2.34 kms) and across all modes of travel average trip time is about 15 minutes. 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. Only about 2% households own a bicycle. Buses & minibuses are the cheapest mode available as mass transit and average cost of transport ranges from about 8% of household income for high income groups to 17% for low income groups (DITS, 1993). Large groups within the society have very poor access to transport services. Since 1995 to 2005, the roads of Dhaka have increased only by 5%, but population and traffic have increased by over 50% and 134% respectively. Transport service in Dhaka has several deficiencies resulting from a combination of factors - physical, developmental and institutional-cum-policy framework-related which lead to lower efficiency, higher transport costs, longer waiting & travel time, discomfort and more significantly, “transport unreliability” with major adverse consequence for the economy & environment. An example of the absence of good traffic management and coordination among agencies is the chaotic disorder that exists in many areas of Dhaka today. Rapid population growth, the absence of planning control and poor economic conditions have contributed to the lack of organization on the public rights-of-way. There is also a high level of operation disorder, which significantly diminishes the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing transport systems. The present bus services (operated under as many as 750 individual ownerships) provide inefficient, unproductive, and unsafe level of services. Long waiting, d elay on plying, overloading, discomfort, and long walking distance from the residence/work place to bus stoppages are some of the obvious problems that confront the users in their daily life. In peak hours they very often load and unload in unspecified stops. It is a common practice in rush hours to deny access to the old, women, and children passengers, because this group has a tendency to avoid fighting during boarding and alighting. Today the mega city Dhaka is one of the world’s crowded & congested cities. Many have expressed their apprehension that Dhaka is destined to be the world’s largest slum, if we make further delays to take corrective measures. Its traffic congestion not only causes increased costs, loss of time & psychological strain, but also poses serious threats to our socioeconomic environment. With its present situation of traffic systems, the city stands in dire need for a radical transformation in the structural sense. Until and unless there is immediate and effective solution, the system will collapse. We need to take comprehensive view of the present shortcomings and future potentialities of the metropolis to identify and work out plans for formulating strategies to standardize the efficiency of traffic flow and effectiveness of transportation system because choices about transportation system concern the kind of city we want to live in. To maintain the economic viability of this city and to keep its environment sustainable, an efficient mass transportation system is imperative.

MRT Options and Current MRT Activities in Developing Cities

The distinction between MRT concepts is fluid, and many different approaches are commonly used to distinguish the different modes and features of various MRT systems. Traditionally, MRT systems have been categorized according to technology and degree of segregation from traffic. Table-1 summarizes the key features of the MRT options. Some typical MRT systems in developing cities are outlined in Table-2.


72

Bus Rapid Transit: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a form of customer-oriented transit combining stations, vehicles, planning, and intelligent transport systems elements into an integrated system with a unique identity, usually uses dedicated Right of Way (ROW), which may be either bus-ways (involving physical segregation of the track) or bus-lanes (using painted lines to demarcate the ROW). BRT systems usually include additional design and operational features to increase passenger capacity, such as well-designed bus stops, organized operations, efficient collection methods and clearly defined corridors. Presently various BRT systems operate or under construction in many developing cities, such as Bogota, Curitiba, Campinas, Goiania, Belo Horizonte, Porto Algre, Quito, Recife, Sao Paulo, Shantiago, Cuenca, Guatemala, Lima, Mexico City, Istanbul, Kunming, Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Jinan, Xian, Chongqing, Taipei, Seoul, Bangalore, Delhi, Jakarta, Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh etc.

Characteristics

Table-1 Key Features Of MRT Systems Bus Rapid Light Rail Metro Transit (BRT) Transit (LRT)

Suburban Rail Most European & North American cities

Current Applications

Widespread in Latin America & some developing cities

Most European & North American cities

Segregation

At grade

At grade

Space requirement

2-4 lanes from existing road

2-3 lanes from existing road

Depends on policy & design Problematic with paratransit

Depends on policy & design

Reduces congestion

Often difficult

Excellent

0.5-15

13-50

15-30 at grade 30-75 elevated 60-180 underground

-

Short

Medium

Long

-

Good

Very good

Excellent

Variable

Mainly Diesel/CNG/LPG

Electricity

Electricity

Electricity

Considerable

Low

Low

Low

10-35,000

12-30,000

60,000+

30,000

17-20

20-50

30-80

Minor

Minor

No

40-45+ Minor (at level crossing)

Impact on Traffic Public Transit Integration Initial cost (US$ million/km) Implementation time Interaction with land development Fuel Air pollution & noise Capacity (pass./hr/direction) Speed (km/hr) Traffic Accident

System image & passenger Good Very Good attraction Sources: GTZ, 2005 ; World Bank, 2001 & 2002

Most Developed cities & few large developing cities Mostly elevated or underground Little impact on existing road if elevated/underground

Excellent

At grade Depends on frequency Usually existing

Variable

73


Light rail transit: Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a metropolitan modern electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single car or short trains at ground level, aerial structures, in subways, or occasionally in streets, and employs a fully segregated, often grade-separated ROW & advanced control systems, but uses less massive equipment & infrastructure. LRT is the modern version of the tram or streetcar or trolley in many locals and has better images over busways. LRT is only operational in a few developing cities – notably Tunis, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Putra, Manila, Istanbul and Mexico City. Recent examples of LRT systems in developing cities include the elevated Putra and monorail systems in Kuala Lumpur, Tren de la Costa of Buenos Aires and Shanghai’s Pearl Line. Metros: Metros, often designated as true heavy rapid transit, use fully segregated, and grade-separated track in central areas, the track may be elevated although the most common international term is for subway or underground. They employ very advanced control systems that allow high-frequency operations, and the trains are made up of multiple units of high-capacity ‘heavy’ cars. They can provide high levels of service (speeds and frequency) having the highest theoretical capacity, although they are also the most expensive form of MRT system. Metros in developing cities carried about 11 billion journeys in 2000, more than twice the ridership of commuter rail and more than four times the ridership of LRT systems (GTZ, 2005). Metro systems are being developed or expanded in several developing cities, such as Bangkok, Santiago de Chile, Kuala Lumpur, Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Cairo, Dubai, Ankara, Manila, Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Hong Kong and many other parts of the world. There is extensive metro activity and substantial future activity is under planning or underway in many cities. Figure-2 shows how the number of metro systems worldwide increase over time.

200 180 160 s 140 o r t e 120 M f o 100 r e b 80 m u 60 N

e a m s e

40 20 0 1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Figure-2: Incremental Growth of Metro Systems worldwide over time Source: Metro Bits, 2008

Commuter rail: Suburban or commuter rail tends to be part of a larger rail network that carries passengers within urban areas or between urban areas and their suburbs, often at grade but separated from road traffic, and differs from Metros and LRT in that the passenger cars generally are heavier, the average trip length


ISSN 1728-4198

© Jahangirnagar University Table-2: Performance And Cost Of Various MRT Systems

Example

Caracas (line-4)

Category

Rail metro

Technology

Electric, steel rail

Length (kms)

Vertical segregation Stop spacing (kms)

12.3

100% tunnel

Bangkok (BTS)

Mexico City (line-B)

Kuala Lumpur (PUTRA)

Tunis (SMLT)

Recife (Linha sul)

Rail metro

Rail metro

Light rail

Light rail

Commuter rail


Electric, rubber tyre

Electric, Driverless


23.1

23.7

29

29.7

14.3

100% elevated

20% elevated 55% at grade 25% tunnel

At grade

95% at grade 5% elevated

100% elevated

Electric, steel rail ,

Quito Busway

Bogota (TransMilenio, phase-1)

Porto Alegre Busways

Busway

Busway

AC Electric Duotrolleybus 11.2 (+ext 5.0) At grade, Partial signal priority

Kolkata (Calcutta Metro)

Delhi (Metro Phase-1)

Busway

Rail Metro

Rail Metro

Articulate Diesel buses

Diesel buses



41

25

16.45

65.11

Mainly underground

20% tunnel 80% at grade/ elevated

At grade, Mainly segregated

At grade, No signal priority

1.5

1.0

1.1

1.3

0.9

1.2

0.4

0.7

0.4

0.97

1.17

Capital cost (millions $) Infrastructure/TA/ equipment (millions $)

1,110

1,700

970

1,450

435

166

110.3

213

25

365

2,100

833

670

560

1,450

268

149

20.0

213

25

365

2,100

Vehicles (millions $)

277

1,030

410

NA

167

18

80

NA

NA

NA

NA

90.25

73.59

40.92

50.0

13.3

11.6

10.3

5.2

1.0

22.2

32.25

20 (30)

20 (30)

13 (26)

30

NA

8

40

160

NA

7

15

32,400

50,000

39,300

30,000

12,000

36,000

15,000

35,000

20,000

18,000

75,000

50

45

45

50

13/20

39

20

20

20

30

80

n.a

100

20

>100

115

NA

100

100

100

NA

>100

Public

Public

Public (BOT)

Public infrastructure, private vehicles

Public infrastructure, private vehicles

Public

Private (BOT)

1998

2002

1995 (ext 2000)

2000

1990

1984

2002

Capital cost/route-km (millions $) Initial (ultimate) vehicles or trains/operation hour/direction Maximum passenger capacity Average operating speed (km/h) Revenue/operating cost ratio Ownership

Public

Private (BOT)

Public

Private (BOT)

Year completed

2004

1999

2000

1998

Note: NA means information is not available. Sources: GTZ, 2005 ; World Bank, 2001; DMRC, 2008; MRK, 2008


ISSN 1728-4198

© Jahangirnagar University

s are usually longer, and the operations are carried out over tracks that are part of the railroad system in the area. Existing railway needs to be strengthened to introduce a new commuter rail as it often integrates with the existing systems. These systems have to operate within the context of the wider network demands, and are characterized by higher headways and longer station spacing as compared with both Metros and LRT. Suburban railways in developing cities are usually radially oriented into the city center. Although even in relatively well-served cities like Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, Buenos Aires and Johannesburg, they carry less than 10% of trips, they can be important in supporting a transit-friendly city form and maintaining a strong city center. There are marked differences in the activities of MRT by regions. In Central and Eastern Europe activity is focused on rehabilitating existing systems, upgrading the tram systems to LRT or heavy systems and exceptionally, developing new metros. There is little systematic development of metro in Africa and the Middle East. South Asia has metro operational only in India (Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata). East and SouthEast Asian cities have already extensive metros in operation and also in under planning in many cities. In Latin America there are major busway programs and metro developments and suburban rail concessioning too in some cases. BRT has increasingly become an attractive urban transit alternative in many Asian developing cities especially in China and many other developing large cities of the world due to its costeffective and flexible implementation. But within a built-in environment of a city like Dhaka where the road space is very limited, it is very difficult to introduce BRT system as it needs space sharing with existing traffic. Rather it may be introduced in newly developed town like Purbachal.

Key Parameters for MRT Technology Selection

The selection of technology has long been the most controversial element in discussions of MRT. Costs, speed, capacity, system image, environmental concern, local conditions, and personal preferences have historically all played a role in the decision-making process. Although BRT systems show promises in terms of cost effectiveness, rail solutions are till being implemented with increased frequency considering city image, fuel efficiency and environmental concerns to carry large volume of passengers quickly and safely in large cities. The divergent technology paths between developing and developed cities do not suggest one solution is better or more appropriate than another. The choice of transit technology should be based on a range of considerations with performance (speed, frequency/capacity, comfort, safety, system flexibility & reliability) and cost being amongst the most important. Some of the major issues which greatly influence the decision making on MRT technology selection are briefly discussed below: Costs

Infrastructure cost is an important decision making factor for a proposed transit system in developing countries. The infrastructure cost per kilometer of system in conjunction with the likely financing capacity for the system will determine the overall size of the eventual transit network. According to SUTP (2008), the infrastructure cost for urban heavy rail (metro) varies from approximately US$15-30 million/kilometer for at-graded system, US$30-75 million/kilometer for elevated system, and US$60-180 million/kilometer for underground system. The infrastructure investment for LRT falls between US$13 and 50 million/kilometer, depending on the system whether it will be at graded, elevated or underground. In case of BRT, the initial investment cost is much lower and varies from US$ 0.5-15 million/ kilometer, depending on the elements added to the system.


76

Although the BRT systems apparently show promises in terms of cost effectiveness, especially in terms of initial investment cost, more importantly, the Table-4 shows that BRT is a poor long term investment; whereas True (heavy-rail) Rapid Transit is the best long term investment. Table-3: Comparison Of Long Term MRT Infrastructure Costsa

True Rapid Transit (Metro/Heavy Rail)

LRT

BRT

80

30

17

0

40

68

80

70

85

80

120

170

Average Roadbed cost per mile (Million US$) Refurbish cost per 50 years (Million US$) Cost per mile over 50 years (Million US$) Cost per mile over 100 years (Million US$)

th

a. Based on an average of 50% of the line on surface streets, which will be rebuilt once each 10 year

Source: CRTAWP, 2002 Heavy Rail-based transit’s infrastructure lasts 50 to100 years because it runs on an exclusive right-of-way that is separated from all streets, highways and railroads. It is never affected by traffic accidents nor slowed by heavy traffic. LRT infrastructure lasts 40 to 50 years because it runs on a combination of exclusive rights-of way and surface streets, but its track on surface streets typically needs to be refurbished every ten years. It can be delayed by accidents and heavy traffic. BRT infrastructure lasts 10 years because it runs on surface streets and dedicated HOV highway lanes. BRT can be delayed by accidents and heavy traffic. True Rapid Transit cars cost US$1.2 million each and last 50 years. L RT cars cost US$1 million each and can last 45 years. BRT buses cost US$700,000 each and last 10 years. Thus they need to be replaced 5 times in 50 years for a total cost of US$3.5 million. On the other hand, the long-term financial sustainability of a public transport project is highly dependent upon the on-going operating costs of the system. These costs can include vehicle amortization, labor, fuel, maintenance, and spare parts. Figure-3 compares costs per passenger-mile of various modes. Rail transit costs are usually less than combined road, vehicle and parking costs, particularly in large cities (Litman, 2006). 1.8

) $ 1.6 S U ( 1.4 e l i 1.2 M r e 1 g n e 0.8 s s a 0.6 P r 0.4 e p t 0.2 s o C 0

Parking Costs

Roadway Costs Vehicle Operation

Bus

Heavy Rail

Commuter Rail

Lig ht Rail

AutomobileSmall City

Figure-3: Average Operating Costs By Transit Modes Source: VTPI, 2007; Litman, 2006

Auto-Medium City

Auto-Large City

77


Moreover, the physical structure of a city is very important to introduce a new transit system. As mentioned earlier, BRT is not feasible where available road space is limited. Besides, it is an interim solution for limited traffic; and if traffic demand is high, like Dhaka City, BRT is not a solution. Recently (in April 2008), BRT trial run fails miserably in Delhi. The dedicated bus lanes invited mixed reaction from the public; with the car users complaining about having to spend more time on the road now than before and the bus riders being annoyed with the bus-stands being displaced to the middle of the road. Poor design and lack of coordination between different stake holders further worsened the situation. Whereas, the success of Delhi Metro has triggered of a rush with many other cities, including Mumbai, Bangalore and Hyderabad clamoring for similar heavy rail-based mass rapid transit systems.

Capacity and Speed

The capability and speed of a system to attract ridership is a prime decision-making determinant in selecting a mass transit technology. The ability to move large numbers of passengers is a basic requirement for mass rapid transit systems particularly in developing cities and in this context rail based metro systems show unparallel performance. Urban heavy rail transit system can serve up to 81,000 passengers/hour/direction (Hong Kong Subway) with maximum operational speed of 80 km/hour (Delhi Metro). With its own rightof-way, LRT can carry up to 30,000 passengers/hour/direction (Kuala Lumpur). However, when compared with heavy rail transit systems, the BRT system typically has slower operational speed and less passenger capacity, varying from 10,000 (Ottawa Busway) to 35,000 (Bogota TransMilenio) passengers/hour/direction. However, these capacities and speeds of the MRT systems greatly vary based on systems deigned and technology used. Figure-4 shows the far higher rates of transit ridership and transit commute mode split in "Large Rail" cities compare to ‘Bus Only’ cities (the dashed line at 100% indicates "Bus Only" city values). 600%

LargeRail

s 500% e i t i C " y 400% l n O s u 300% B " o t e 200% v i t a l e R 100%

Small Rail Bus Only

0% Per Capita Ridership

Commute Mode Split

Figure-4: Transit Ridership and Commute Mode Split Comparison Source: VTPI, 2007; Litman, 2006

Comparative Benefits: Rail Vs. Bus Transit

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits over Bus services conducted by Victoria Transport Policy Institute (Litman, 2006) shows that large Rail cities are found to have significantly better transport system performance (Figure-5). The study investigates that compared with Bus Only cities, Large Rail cities have: 400% higher per capita transit ridership (589 versus 118 annual passenger-miles); 887% higher transit


78

commute mode split (13.4% versus 2.7%); 36% lower per capita traffic fatalities (7.5 versus 11.7 annual deaths per 100,000 residents); 14% lower per capita consumer transportation expenditures ($448 average annual savings); 19% smaller portion of household budgets devoted to transportation (12.0% versus 14.9%); 21% lower per capita motor vehicle mileage (1,958 fewer annual miles); 33% lower transit operating costs per passenger-mile (42¢ versus 63¢); and 58% higher transit service cost recovery (38% versus 24%). s 180% e i t i 160% C " 140% y l n 120% O s 100% u B 80% " o 60% t e 40% v i t a 20% l e R 0%

Large Rail Small Rail Bus Only

Traffic Fatalities

Transport Expenditures

Portion o f Income On Transport

Vehicle Ownership

Vehicle Mileage

Transit Operating Costs

Transit Cost Recovery

Figure-5: Transportation Performance Comparison Source: VTPI, 2007; Litman, 2006

Moreover, rail transit can provide substantial energy conservation and emission reduction benefits (Figure6). Rail travel consumes about a fifth and a fourth of the energy per passenger-mile as automobiles and buses travel, due to its high mechanical efficiency and load factors. Electric powered rail produce minimal air and noise emissions. International comparisons indicate that per capita energy consumption declines with increased heavy rail transit use.

6000 e l i M r e g n e s s a P r e P U T B

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Bus

Commuter Rail

Heavy Rail

Light rail

Automobile

Figure-6 Transit Energy Consumption Source: VTPI, 2007; Litman, 2006

Applicability of MRT in Dhaka City: Busway vs. Railway Prioritization

MRT alternatives are the mass transit systems that offer good service quality with fast operational speed, making them a competitive mode of travel in the City. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Such mass rapid transit systems usually imply huge investments that will serve a city for a long time; therefore, policy makers have to carefully select a proper alternative, or a combination of them, that best fit the Jahangirnagar Planning Review

70

79


conditions of the jurisdiction. BRT is the least-expensive form of MRT especially for short-term investments and along small to medium demand corridors it can serve as an efficient urban transport system (GAO, 2001). After its successful implementation in Latin American cities, BRT development initiatives have got momentum and it has emerged as an economically self-reliant mass transit system with significant potential for budget-constrained developing cities. But as affordability increases or environmental concerns become critical; then LRT may perform a similar role. In the largest corridors of major cities, metros may be required, especially when affordability can be justified. Whether urban rail is essential or not for efficient transport in large developing cities depends on the city and pattern of development itself. When high-density urban development expands widely but employment remains centralized, bus and private car may not be able to provide efficient transport facilities to the mass people and in this case urban rail with coordinated feeder services becomes predominantly important for efficient method of transport to carry large volume of traffic (PADECO, 2000). The Japanese system of urban transportation by rail, and its medium-range, high-speed railway network is a model for all to emulate. Japan’s mass transit systems as well as railways are the envy of the world; fast, clean, frequent and punctual; they are a daunting example to other nations of what can be achieved when government, business and science co-operate for the benefit of all. Japan is one the few countries to maintain faith in use of a railway network as an integral part of the mass transportation market. Tokyo’s extensive urban transport system, among the most highly developed in the world, is largely characterized by an intensive use of rail systems. It is likely that the population and employment growth in the Tokyo Metropolitan Region would not have been achieved without the development of an extensive rail network. High-speed, frequent, and reliable rail services have helped expand the area within commuting distance, while allowing employment to grow apace in central Tokyo. Singapore, Seoul, Malaysia and Taipei have also adopted rail-oriented strategies. Singapore is one of the best examples of modern urban transport systems. In Bangkok, the progress of economic development and increasing car ownership without an urban rail system resulted in one of the world’s congested and polluted cities. Recently several attempts have been taken to build urban railway networks by adding various rail systems to overdue public transport system so that the sufferings of the city dwellers can be mitigated in a proper way. To enhance the rapid urbanization of Metro Manila, further LRT development is being undertaken with the active participation of the private sector, and the role of LRT is expected to grow as the system is expanded that began in operation in 1984 in a small scale. The most rapidly growing nations of Asia, China and India, have actively initiated the urban rail systems, especially the metro, in many big cities for its high potentialities to sustain the future growths of the cities. A rapidly growing large city with limited supply of urban land and high density may require mass rail transit to keep the city sustainable in the long run. A large city, like Dhaka, especially when it reaches a stage where the concentration of travel demand can not be efficiently handled by the road-based system, the development of an urban rail system becomes essential. From the experience of other mega cities, road system alone cannot satisfy the need for transportation of such a large city. The existing infrastructure and social condition have not enough provision to introduce bus only lanes and bus prioritization. Due to lack of sufficient road capacity and limited scope for future expansion, bus services alone will not be able to meet the future transportation demand. The population of greater Dhaka is expected to be 36.0 million by 2024 with estimated total 70 million person trips a day (STP, 2005). To carry this huge load and considering the long-term investments benefits, heavy-rail based metro (subway) systems (like New Delhi) is necessary for Dhaka City. But a number of difficulties (such as removing of soil, chances of flooding and thus electric short-circuit and damage of equipment, etc.) are associated with this type of projects in addition to financial constraints. Considering these difficulties and experiences from Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur may suggest elevated rail system but this should be based on proper feasibility study. The secondary corridors may then


80

justify BRT systems, which also may feed the metro. BRT should not be considered as an alternative option for heavy rail in a large city like Dhaka. Even the elevated motorways/busways will not solve the problems; rather they will cater different types of traffic (like elite car owners). Moreover, the commuter or sub-urban railway system also can easily be developed along existing corridors as an integrated part of the central heavy-rail systems since the existing railroads connect many of the major parts of Dhaka.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Mass Rapid Transit contributes both to city efficiency and to the needs of mass people and plays an important role in maintaining the viability and environmental quality of large cities, but it can also be risky and can impose a severe burden on municipal finances. MRT planning initiatives involve multiple agencies in a complex stakeholders’ setup based on rationality and equity. A specific proposal is unlikely to generate any special or vested interest group to drag through the planning and adoption initiatives. An urban rail system is an ecologically and economically efficient way of moving large volumes of passengers in big cities. There are, however, many financial uncertainties associated with such capital-intensive projects that must be addressed with careful planning, project management and effective operational management policies. Although there is no one correct technology for the transit solution of a city; Dhaka city, with a burden of overgrown population, stands an awful need to implement a heavy rail-based transit system which should only be adopted within an integrated planning and financing structure ensuring system sustainability, effective coordination of modes, and affordable provision for the poor. Governments and city authorities should be realistic in selecting the transit technology, focusing their considerations on long-term actual needs, implementation and financial issues. Public transport professionals should take the window of opportunity offered by changes in government, the funding crisis for large projects, rising oil prices, and international events concerning national pride. The interaction of transportation with land use, and its sheer financial magnitude, requires its careful integration into the planning of metropolitan structure and finance within a comprehensive long-term strategic city planning process. Integration with other transport modes must be achieved in a sensitive manner that recognizes the right of choice for the traveler. Non-motorized transport, especially walking and cycling, should be prioritized in the planning process. Moreover, Dhaka has unique potential for waterways development due to surrounding rivers and waterways in the metropolitan area. Besides, modes of public transport require physical and fares coordination to keep them attractive and to protect the poor. Stakeholders need to agree on a comprehensive transport strategy plan, within which the relationship among different modes (both physical and financial) is understood. There must be strong political support and competent implementation management, with arrangements put in place to facilitate coordination between multiple public agencies. The public sector must set strategy, identify infrastructure projects in some detail (including horizontal and vertical alignment, and station locations) and confirm the acceptability of environmental consequences, tariffs, and any contingent changes to the existing transport system. There must be a comprehensive financial plan to avoid the delays and cost overruns within which the costs of infrastructure and publicly funded operations are foreseen and securely provided for. Especially when private finance is involved (even in the form of BOT-Build, Operate and Transfer), MRT investments should be consistent with an approved city structure plan; because opportunistic development on an ad hoc basis has usually proved to be damaging to welfare, and ultimately costly to the budget. More importantly, detailed feasibility study is a pre-requisite for such type of capital-intensive maga-projects. This feasibility study would be the background study of the mass transit project, which will support the detail engineering and financial feasibility of different mass transit options. It is believed that an ideal decision-making process in a logical framework would definitely ensure the sustainability for our dear metropolis for the next generation.

81


References Armstrong-Wright, A. 1993. ‘Public Transport in Third World Cities, State of the Art Review 10’, TRL,London. BRTA. 2007. Bangladesh Road Transport Authority, Dhaka, 2007. CRTAWP. 2002. ‘Colorado Rapid Transit Alliance White Paper’, http://www.bcx.com/whitepapers/ApplesToApples.pdf . Retrieved on 14 February 2008. DITS. 1993. ‘Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area Integrated Transport Study’, PPK Consultants, Delcan International and Development Design Consultant, Dhaka. DMRC. 2008. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. http://www.delhimetrorail.com/. Retrieved on 23 May 2008. Forbes. 2008. http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/26/pollution-baku-oil-biz-logistics-cx_tl_0226dirtycities.html. Retrieved on 04 March 2008. GAO. 2001. ‘Mass Transit: BRT Shows Promise’, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf . Retrieved on 12 February 2008. GTZ. 2005. ‘Module 3a: Mass Transit Options. Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities’, http://www.itdp.org/documents/MTO.PDF. Retrieved on 02 February 2008 Litman, T. 2006. ‘Rail Transit in America: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits’, http://www.apta.com/ research/info/online/documents/rail_transit.pdf . Retrieved on 10 February 2008. Mackett, R.L. 1998. ‘The Impact of Urban Public Transport Systems: Will the Expectations be Met? ’ Transport Research Record-A, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp231-245. Metro Bits. 2008. http://www.mic-ro.com/metro/metrolist.html. Retrieved on 25 May 2008. MRK. 2008. Metro Rail, Kolkata. http://www.kolmetro.com/features/salient.html. Retrieved on 22 May 2008. PADECO. 2000. ‘Study on Urban Transport Development’, World Bank, Washington D.C., Public Transportation,Vol.8, No.5. STP. 2005. ‘Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka’, Final Report, Louis Berger Group and Bangladesh Consultants Ltd., Dhaka. SUTP. 2008. Sustainable Urban Transport Project. http://www.sutp.org/. Retrieved on 22 May 2008. UNFPA. 2001. ‘The State of World Population 2001’, http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/. Retrieved on 10 November 2007. VTPI. 2007. Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria T ransport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/. Retrieved on 20 February 2008. World Bank. 2001. ‘Cities on the Move, Urban Transport Strategy Review’, World Bank, Washington DC. World Bank. 2002. ‘Mass Rapid Transit in Developing Countries: Final Report’, Urban Transport Strategy Review, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Future Mass Rapid Transit in Dhaka City - Options, Issues and Realities

Recommend Documents