1. Jan-Feb 2011

Kathmandu Sustainable Urban Transport Project
OPINION
Pain killer rather than diagnosis of the disease - RUPSON
In the present sorry state of urban transport in the capital Kathmandu and
its numerous negative consequences, the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB)
‘Kathmandu Sustainable Urban Transport’ Project (KSUTP) makes a lot of
sense. In fact, streets and sidewalks covering about one third of a city area
and having multiple functions of both path (access and movement) and place
(social setting) is the most important singular urban design element that
shapes the built environment, gives neighbourhood character and regulates
the people's daily activity. Urban streets in the historic core of Kathmandu
were developed as ‘shared community spaces’ for performing multiple socioreligious
activities, whereas other streets in the peripheral neighbourhoods
were basically the ‘residual spaces’ left over after construction of individual
buildings. Though they were historically planned for pedestrians, nonetheless,
rapid urbanisation of the valley coupled with gradual shifting of economic Dr. Bijaya K. Shrestha
(bkshrestha@hotmail.com)
base from agriculture to service and commerce including changing lifestyles
Member,
of city dwellers have also transformed those streets with domination of Regional and Urban Planners
vehicular movement. Its negative consequences are numerous. The recently Society of Nepal
completed KSUTP has made a comprehensive study and recommended
various measures. However, its study methodology and the suggestions are not convincing in many ways.
A
-
,
‘
’
,
.
Firstly, sustainable urban transport for Kathmandu can never be achieved by limiting the study within
Kathmandu only with a focus on vehicular traffic with little consideration on the street’s function from sociocultural
aspect and pedestrian movement perspective. Despite ADB’s requirement of urban designer’s input,
none of the professional urban designer nor planners were involved in this project. As a result, the study has
not only failed to see the urban transport from border-land use and density change within the context of whole
of Kathmandu Valley, but also lost the opportunity to incorporate the pedestrian’s diverse needs. Failure to
respect ‘professional expertise’ has derailed this project in understanding the essence of the program and
thus took the wrong direction right from the beginning.
Secondly , this approach of facilitating vehicular movement through widening of streets, shifting the public
vehicular stops, making vehicular traffic one way, constructing pedestrian overhead bridges, replacing the
old three-wheeler tempos by micro-bus was also implemented in the Valley in the past, which provided some
relief for a short time at the cost of the pedestrians’ comfort, convenience and safety. The past experience
reveals that such myopic approach, on the one hand, and little control on buildings construction and their
uses, on the other hand, had invited more vehicular movement, thereby creating traffic jams, noise and air
pollution and more accidents in the long run. As less than 10% of the population own vehicles in the Valley, a
majority of the population walk for short trips. Pedestrian’s activities at street level increases vitality, safety
and enhances commercial sustainability. Hence, designing of footpaths and their smooth transition towards
the ground floor activities of buildings (of both sides of the streets) is essential. Even in a car oriented society
like the USA, many neighbourhoods are being redesigned by diminishing the width and making the street
irregular to discourage vehicular movement. However, the case of Kathmandu is just opposite. Repetition
of such failed model both in local context and international market means nothing more than making
Kathmanduites a ‘guinea pig.’
Thirdly, proposals such as bus station and car park on the west side of Tundikhel, redevelopment of the old
Bus Park along with the City Hall, underground car parking and multiple commercial complexes on the Social
Welfare Council and along the riverfronts, might be feasible from a highway engineering perspective but they
are a disaster from urban design point of view. Such acts will invite more vehicles, discourage pedestrian
movement, destroy the existing social fabrics and above all they are not preferred options for the earthquake
prone Valley.
Fourthly, urban transport is more like ‘social and cultural issues’ when it comes to implementation. Replacing
the microbus and three wheelers by a single big bus, shifting of bus stops and transport route and encouraging
the use of public transportation against the motorbike and private car have academic merit with little scope
of practice due to lack of survey to check the trip generated in those routes (function of locational activities
and density), people’s willingness to use public transportation and their eagerness to pay an extra fare for
the improved services. Most of the public transportation routes of the Valley cannot accommodate large
buses due to their narrow width and haphazard ‘transitional spaces’ between the foot path (if there is one)
and the activities on the ground floor of the buildings along both sides of the streets. The social perception
of considering higher status for car ownership and lower status for bicycle users has discouraged many
from using bicycles on the streets. As the urban streets and vehicular population have already been overloaded
by more than two times in the last few years, numerous proposed ‘technically sound and feasible’
recommendations cannot yield any tangible and significant result unless they are linked with the ever
increasing population density, land use reconfiguration and urban design.
January-February 2011
83
www.spacesnepal.com