Detailed Area plan (DAP) for Dhaka metropolitan development plan (DMDP)

Detailed Area plan (DAP) for Dhaka metropolitan development plan (DMDP)
A critical review
Mahabubul Bari, Debra Efroymson

Executive Summary
In the interest of ensuring that plans for Dhaka City will provide the benefits that the population expects and wishes, it is important to have ample discussion of the ideas put forward by the planning team. This review of the Detailed Area Plan (DAP) for the Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP) covers a range of issues including the chosen land scenario, transport and land use planning interactions, spatial planning and flood management, and the consequences of the approaches taken. This review also discusses the importance of involving a full range of stakeholders, including the low-income, in planning processes. Finally, this review suggests an alternate approach to planning, one now embraced throughout the world, to address many existing urban crises and suggest better alternatives to urban life for the benefit of all.

The approach taken to planning in DAP is focused on sprawl, road-building and other facilities and advantages for cars, single-use areas and conveniences for the wealthy. The planning model chosen is that of the Growth Pole Scenario, which necessitates extensive and long-distance travel. A more people-friendly and equity-focused approach would instead emphasize tightly-knit communities where most goods and services are within a short distance of homes, and where the poor are considered valuable citizens. The car-focused approach is seen both in the Strategic Transport Plan (STP) for Dhaka, which proposes to increase modal share of cars from the existing 18% to 31% while decreasing the share of public transport from 34% to 21% by the year 2024, and in DAP, which proposes to allocate only minimal land for public space and for slum dwellers, while giving generous space to the wealthy to live in even lower density than in the current wealthy areas of Dhaka.


DAP thus 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.


In terms of the vital need for parks and open space, DAP both proposes an insufficient quantity, and fails to set aside the land for them. The proposed allocation in DAP is only 0.13 acres of parks and open space for 1,000 persons in the main Dhaka City, far below the WHO recommendation of 4.23 Acres/1,000 persons for parks and open space. Meanwhile Hong Kong, the most crowded city on earth, provides on average 0.71 acres/1,000 persons, or more than five times the amount proposed by DAP.

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. Instead, DAP is planning to provide consolidated, regional and larger facilities in order to divide Dhaka City into different functional units. This would both inconvenience the population and lead to greater congestion and pollution than a more decentralized approach.

DAP has also failed to make plans to shift underutilized areas of Dhaka—namely the Dhaka Cantonment and Bangladesh Rifles—out of the city. Nor does it have any wide-ranging land use plan as to how to utilize the vast restricted areas of Gazipur Pourashava, comprising 603 acres of underutilized land, which represents about 20% of the core urban area.
Rather than set aside space for parks, public spaces, water retention ponds and canals, and agricultural uses, and encourage reasonably high density living—as is appropriate for a mega city—DAP encourages very low density, otherwise known as vast sprawl, for the car-dependent wealthy, while attributing pathetically little land for the low-income. Even if the relatively low density of Gulshan, Banani and Baridhara were applied in DAP, that is, 235 persons per acre, it would be possible to accommodate 19.2 million people. In such a fashion, by the year 2015, Greater Dhaka would be able to accommodate 29.8 million people including 10.6 million for the main Dhaka area. This is almost double the projected population of 15 million by the year 2015. Rather than waste land with low density housing settlements unserviced by the many facilities needed for urban life, it would make more sense to build concentrated settlements interspersed with open spaces, agricultural land, ponds and so on.

While DAP gives lip service to the poor through proposals for slum/low cost housing development, nowhere are such plans spelled out in detail, nor is sufficient land provided for them. It is clear that such plans are not meant to be implemented, instead setting out a plan to relocate the majority of the 4.2 to 4.5 million slum dwellers to surrounding areas outside the central part of Dhaka City, with little access to work and other facilities. The magnitude of the inequity is seen in the proposal to allocate 34% of available space for 4.4 million upper-income people in outer Dhaka and only 0.3% of space (and 18 already crowed existing slums in the outskirts of Mirpur) for 4.5 million low-income people. That is, the allocated space for slum and low-cost housing development is less than one-hundredth (1%) of the area provided for housing development at market price and would likely result in density as high as 6,040 persons/acre, which is completely unsuitable for human habitation.

In terms of transport, DAP also fails to provide suitable solutions to the problems faced by Dhaka residents. Problems in 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 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 ever more space away from efficient modes. Similarly, car parking facilities simply generate the demand for more driving, and thus worsen the very problem they attempt to solve.

In terms of pedestrians, much could be done to improve their situation, such as completely removing cars from footpaths, widening and fixing footpaths, planting trees and providing benches and secondary seating (utilitarian objects that double as seating). Tunnels and bridges for pedestrians are measures aimed at improving the flow of cars, not at protecting pedestrians, who are inconvenienced and will generally prefer to cross at street-level despite the danger. It would make far more sense to provide ample street-level crossings for pedestrians; slowing traffic is in itself a pro-pedestrian measure.

Similarly, rickshaws should not be limited or banned, but rather encouraged as a pollution-free, space-efficient mode providing quality transport services.

Given the importance of rail and inter-city bus for connectivity between Dhaka and other cities, both rail stations and bus terminals should be located in the centre of the city rather than on the outskirts. Moving such terminals to the outskirts simply increases the number of small vehicles needed to move people between terminals and the city, and thus worsens rather than alleviates traffic. Further, a circular rail network could serve Dhaka City, thereby lessening demand for road-based transport. In terms of public transit, which is vital for a city the size of Dhaka, it is important to consider various factors including feasibility and cost. By all such measures, a surface-based system, be it Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or rail, would win out against underground or elevated rail. Further, the feasibility of a water-based transport system should be investigated.

Given the fact that Dhaka is subject to frequent flooding, an appropriate plan for flood control is needed. Such a plan is not evident in DAP, which rather than setting aside adequate space for water retention ponds and for permeable surfaces (including parks and other unpaved surfaces), focuses instead on roads and buildings, embankment and pump oriented flood control approach which will further intensify the suffering of Dhaka residents due to flooding. Contrary to the embankment- and pump-oriented flood control and drainage management approach of DAP, flood proofing and a detention reservoir-based gravity drainage system is more reliable and appropriate for storm water drainage system in a floodplain landscape

Finally, in terms of utility services, a few key points are important. The lower the density, the higher the cost of providing services. Second, drainage cannot happen when all available space is paved over and built on. Some space must be left as parks, agricultural land, and as water bodies. Third, as with transport, so with utilities: attempting to meet constantly expanding demand with supply is an expensive and impossible proposition.


Abbreviations
BRT: Bus Rapid Transit
DAP: Detailed Area Plan
DMDP: Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan
DSP: Dhaka Structure Plan
DTCB: Dhaka Transport Coordination Board
DUTP: Dhaka Urban Transport Project
FFT: Fuel-Free Transport
PT: Public Transport
STP: Strategic Transport Plan

Table of Contents

List of Tables
List of Figures

Introduction
Sensible urban planning is critical to the healthy growth of cities. Unplanned growth can lead to a number of problems, creating misery for urban dwellers and making remedying of those difficulties difficult at best. Yet flawed urban planning is little better, or perhaps worse, than no urban planning at all. It is thus important, when taking on such an enormous task as the drafting of a detailed area plan for a city of 12 million people, to ensure that the plan is well considered and likely to be conducive to good health and well-being of the urban dwellers.

Land use planning in Dhaka started in 1959 with the commencement of the first Master Plan, covering an area of 830 sq. km and with a target population of little over one million, and assuming an annual population growth rate of only 1.75%. The plan adopted traditional segregated land use planning, dividing divided Dhaka into a number of zones according to their functions, such as industrial, commercial and residential. While the plan was originally meant to cover a period of only twenty years (1959-79), its life was extended for almost double that until the compiling of a new plan in 1995.

That new plan was meant to provide a long-term strategy—that is, for the next 20 years—for the development of greater Dhaka. The plan, Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP) (1995-2015) was developed for a population of 15 million. DMDP adopted a hierarchical planning approach and addressed urban planning issues at the geographical levels of sub-regional, urban and sub-urban. DMDP therefore is comprised of three components:
Dhaka Structural Plan (1995-2015) provides long term strategic land use planning for Greater Dhaka;
Urban Area Plan (1995-2005) provides an interim mid-term strategy for ten years and covers the urban areas within Metro Dhaka Management Areas;
The Detailed Area Plan (DAP) provides more detailed planning proposals for specific sub-areas in accordance with the Structure Plan and the Urban Area Plan.
After the completion of the Dhaka Structural Plan and Urban Area Plan, the development of the Detailed Area Plan (DAP) was delayed due to a paucity of funds. In the meantime the city experienced unprecedented and uncontrolled spatial development mainly inspired by private developers. Dhaka City, being the administrative, commercial and cultural capital of Bangladesh, serves as the nerve centre of the country. Out of the urge to streamline the prevailing uncontrolled and unmanageable spatial development of the rapidly growing capital, RAJUK initiated the development of the Dhaka Detailed Area Plan as a part of the Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP). The Metro Dhaka Structure Plan area is subdivided into 26 Strategic /Spatial Planning Zones (SPZ). The draft DAP has been prepared covering all SPZ areas in details.
The initiative for the development of DAP deserves due appreciation, aiming as it does to resolve many of the problems of unplanned development. However, it would seem to be a norm in the urban planning process in Dhaka to adopt important planning approaches without conducting either any knowledge-based analysis or utilising a participatory approach involving major stakeholders and socially deprived sections of the city. As has been the case with other such projects, the planning initiatives in DAP were mainly directed toward construction-oriented, car-friendly and capital-intensive land use and transport development, all of which encourage urban sprawl.
Car-based urban growth and the resultant sprawling patterns of development are causing social, economic and environmental strains on communities around the globe. If urban sprawl is not addressed and contained, Dhaka could face dire consequences in future. Concerns about the negative impacts of these proposed development patterns in DAP give rise to this paper, which sets out to review DAP in the light of eco-friendly and sustainable development which ensure quality of life for all citizens, rich and poor alike, irrespective of social status, caste and creed.
This paper offers a critical review of DAP in order to raise awareness among decision makers and members of the public about the potentially disastrous consequences of ongoing planning initiatives and the viability of more eco-friendly and people-focused approaches. Key issues include:
Planning approach;
Land use planning;
Land use and transport interactions;
Flood control and drainage; and
Utility services.
Planning Approach
Pro-people Urban Planning
The land use planning approach utilised in DAP and that of the Strategic Transport Plan (STP) for Dhaka City are similar, concentrating mainly on the building of infrastructure and roads to facilitate the movements of vehicles within a lifeless concrete jungle. In this scenario, urban society would become steadily more privatized with private homes, cars, offices and shopping centres, while the all-important public component of urban life—the basis of civilization—is likely to slowly disappear.
Both STP and DAP propose to construct more and more roads, flyovers, elevated expressways and facilities for car parking, defying the findings of previous government transport studies on the harmful waste of such an approach. For example, STP proposes to increase modal share of cars from the existing 18% to 31% while decreasing the share of public transport from 34% to 21% by the year 2024.
Similarly, in its land use planning, DAP proposes to allocate only minimal land for public space, at the rate of 0.13 acres per 1,000 persons. Meanwhile Hong Kong, the most crowded city on earth, provides 0.71 acres per 1,000 persons—that is, more than five times the amount proposed by the DAP. As internationally-renowned prize-winning Danish architect, Jan Gehl, writes in his classic book on urban planning Life Between Buildings, “First life, then spaces, then buildings – the other way around never works” (Gehl 2006). The land use and transport interaction for a modern city should be directed toward “Planning for people, not for vehicles, roads or buildings”. Given the problems of alienation, crime, fear of strangers, and the breakdown of civic life, it is increasingly important to make cities inviting so that people can meet their fellow citizens face-to-face and experience human contact with those unknown to and different from them directly through their senses. Public life in high quality public spaces is an important part of a democratic and full life. However, the vehicle- and building-oriented approach of both STP and DAP promote isolation and alienation rather than human contact.
Knowledge Based Planning
Evidence-based vs. Arbitrary Planning Approach
In the era of globalization, where information on any number of issues and about any number of places is readily accessible, there is no need for localities to continue making the same mistakes as they did when operating in an information and experience vacuum. While urban planning is of course a complicated process, it is also true that some universals exist in terms of what works and what does not. The experiences of cities adopting car-based and people-based approaches make clear the effects of either method, and many guides are now available on implementing planning approaches that are good for the natural environment and for urban dwellers.
Given the widespread availability of such information, it is highly regrettable that important land use and transport policy decisions in both STP and DAP were taken without conducting either any knowledge-based or scientific analysis. Instead, arbitrary or so-called “common sense” approaches were utilised which tend to favour the tiny minority of the rich, including bureaucrats and developers with little concern for the betterment of society overall.
Although it is a demanding task to represent the complex dynamics of urban land use changes that are consistent with observable data, significant progress has been made in recent years in forecasting and evaluating land use change on the basis of dynamic and causal relationships between such factors as transport and land use, and built environment and socio-economic processes. With the advance of the knowledge base and technology, detailed and extensive urban form and function data is becoming increasingly available, with great potential to provide new insights for sustainable urban planning which preserves the eco-system and maintains or even increases social equity. Yet no attempt was made in DAP to conduct any analytical or empirical analysis using data related to interactions between the built environment, transport, land use and other socio-economic processes.
Again, in DAP the Geographic Information System (GIS)-based technology is mainly used for mapping and visual displays, which are limited to static displays of past and current data sets. That is, the displays only portray the current state of the system, with neither the reasons given for its condition nor possible alternate futures provided. As a result, policy makers and planners are now facing tremendous difficulties, lacking as they do any insight into future urban growth and the potential impacts of various models including the controversial pro-rich and car-friendly development initiatives being put forward, and the environmentally-friendly, sustainable pro-people models being adopted in so many cities worldwide.
Hypothetical Planning Approach
Under DAP, no comprehensive data collection exercise was undertaken to estimate land-use requirements for the DMDP area. As a result, all the land use proposals of DAP are hypothetical in nature, providing no insight into how the actual land-use demand for various purposes will be met in future. Yet it is not logical to develop a detailed area plan, which represents the lowest tier of the planning hierarchy, without providing precise land use allocations for different functional purposes.
Furthermore, in DAP a significant portion of existing open space, water retention areas and agricultural land have been allocated for private property developers far in excess of that required as per the 2015 population projection. This excess land for property developers is likely not only to create land use speculation but also indiscipline in future land use development. More importantly, the preservation of land for open space, water retention and agriculture is vital for the health and viability of the city and its inhabitants. Living in a concrete jungle is bad enough; living in a highly polluted, flooded concrete jungle lacking in basic amenities is unthinkable.
Inconsistent Working Methodologies
In order to prepare DAP, RAJUK has divided the whole Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area into five study areas, and the task of preparing DAP has been awarded to four different consulting companies. However, prior to assigning these tasks, no attempt was made to set out goals, targets, objectives, standard criteria, verifiable indicators, data collection approach, working methodology and standard formats for presentation of outputs and reports. As a result there are serious inconsistencies between the consultants, including the lack of a standard and coherent approach to problem identification, development of solutions and presentation of outputs. Moreover, most of the proposed development initiatives of the study are essentially hypothetical in nature without providing definitive land use data. It would therefore be a difficult undertaking to translate the recommendations of DAP into practical and meaningful action plans for future implementation.
Pro-Poor Planning Initiative and Social Equity
Inequity is difficult to address, and it is perhaps inevitable that the wealthy will have access to higher quality services in many areas, including health care, education, housing, food, and so on. Yet there are areas in which the government can play a critical role in reducing the gaps between rich and poor and thereby generating socially-beneficial (as well as ethically necessary) social equity. Many countries have sought to ensure quality services for the poor at least in terms of transport and recreation. What is vital to remember is that whatever the intent may be, planning will often benefit some groups more than others. Planners must pay direct attention to which groups their plans benefit rather than leaving such benefits to chance, and must analyze existing plans in terms of the likely beneficiaries and sufferers.
Depending on their nature, development initiatives can generate user benefits under six possible scenarios as follows (Gannon and Zhi 1997):
Win-Win Scenarios
Neutral – ensures benefits to different income groups proportionately.
Relatively Regressive – results in disproportionately more benefits for the high-income groups.
Relatively Progressive – promotes disproportionately more benefits for the low-income groups.
Win-Loss Scenarios (wins exceed losses)
Rawlsian Progressive – benefits the low-income group most.
Absolutely Progressive – benefits the poor but the rich are worse off.
Absolutely Regressive – benefits the rich but the poor are worse off.
Any sustainable and pro-poor development initiative should aim at achieving either a Relatively Progressive or preferably an Absolutely Progressive outcome, which contributes to equality by reducing the gap between rich and poor. However, it is not possible to achieve progressive outcomes for the stakeholders without adopting appropriate knowledge-based or participatory urban planning approaches, nor is it likely when the poor are clearly not the targeted beneficiaries of the planning. Despite the importance of social equity considerations n urban planning, it appears that most of the policy initiatives of both the STP and the DAP are Absolutely Regressive in nature. Consider for instance the following aspects of DAP:
The plan to evict most of the slum dwellers (such as slum and squatter settlements of the DPZ-8 including West Zafrabad, Mohammadpur Bihari Camp and Bari Bagh of the central area of the city), representing 40% of the urban population, from near their current work places and settle them in economically less vibrant areas like DPZ 12 and 13 (outskirts of Mirpur) far way from the central area of Zone C, i.e. the main central city area of the Dhaka City (Absolutely Regressive);
The plan to convert low-income areas of Noadda, Badda (North, Middle and South) surrounding Gulshan and Baridhara into a posh area by providing government lands to rich sections of the society at a subsidised rate (Absolutely Regressive);
The plan to convert more city roads into auto-only roads by banning fuel-free transport (Absolutely Regressive and environmentally hazardous);
The plan to create more car parking areas, such as multi-story car parking facilities in Motijheel Commercial area, New Market and other commercial and shopping areas as per the existing misguided building law (Absolutely Regressive and environmentally hazardous);
The plan to create unnecessary road links, more auto-only tunnels and flyovers including a 29 km elevated expressway, Kuril flyover, and an auto-only tunnel below Dhaka Cantonment, to promote car use (Absolutely Regressive and environmentally hazardous);
The plan to implement the environmentally disastrous Eastern Bypass project with significant reduction of water retention areas from 12.1%, which was proposed in the original Flood Action Plan, to only 5% (disastrous for the environment and for human settlement).
The plan not to shift the Dhaka Cantonment outside the city area and integrate its huge underutilised areas into the urban core (Absolutely Regressive);
The proposal to shift Sadarghat goods water terminal to Pagla, which is not compatible with the development of an integrated multimodal and seamless transport system for people and goods (Absolutely Regressive).
In order to reverse the misguided policy directives of STP and DAP, it is high time to adopt a sound knowledge-based, people-focused, and equity-enhancing urban planning process.
Participatory Planning
True community planning requires much more than passing a plan around at a few meetings to gain (or gauge) support, or to employ an elite committee to justify pro-rich policy directives, as in the cases of both STP and DAP. The methods of STP appear to be repeated, utilising an arbitrary top-down decision-making process involving a few elite consultants without wider participation of major stakeholders and socially deprived sections of the city. In the case of DAP, real estate and construction consultants were participants in the plan while those promoting pro-people urban planning, and representatives of the socially deprived and most vulnerable sections of the society, were left out of the whole decision-making process entirely. Currently no effective public participation process is being utilised in the planning for Dhaka, be it of land use or transport planning.
Public participation here is at the level of Passive Participation, i.e. merely by informing people about different decisions made by the city authorities without any consultation with the stakeholders or general people during the drafting or revising of such plans. As a result, local problems and necessities are overlooked in most planning decisions, and local interests seem to be perceived as being in direct conflict with the interests of the policymakers, who typically represent the powerful and the elite sections of the society. Rather than try to reconcile such differences or adapt an equitable approach that would be absolutely progressive, the socially vulnerable groups are simply excluded altogether.
Such need not be the case. Dhaka planners could learn much from the participatory budgeting approach of Brazil (Inter-American Development Bank 2004), which fosters the efficient and democratic allocation of resources and citizen involvement in the planning and management of their urban localities. Participatory planning and management processes in local governance are a precondition to the success of social inclusion strategies of which poverty alleviation is a key component. Participatory planning has the potential to offer the poor and marginalized an unprecedented opportunity to participate in local governance without pre-empting the statutory powers of elected representatives or the executive authority of city officials. There is no reason why such a participatory approach cannot be adopted to reverse the trend of ongoing elitist and regressive planning and development initiatives of STP and DAP.
land use Planning
Adopted Land Use Planning of Dap
The original Structural Plan involved a concentrated and mixed land use development strategy, which, as explained below, is preferable for many reasons to strategies involving single-use areas. Despite this, DAP has deviated from the original Structural Plan and opted instead for the land use policy of STP: the Growth Pole Scenario. The scenario was selected on the assumption that the development of a number of poles or larger settlements outside Dhaka proper is desirable, without considering the potential disastrous consequences of such a scenario.
Compatibility of DAP Land-Use Planning with Sustainable or Smart Growth
It is important to consider whether the chosen land use strategy of DAP is compatible with sustainable land use planning. In communities across the world, there is a growing concern that current development patterns, dominated by “sprawl”—which induces an ever-increasing need to travel and thus construction of more roads—is not in the long-term interest of cities, existing suburbs, small towns, rural communities, or wilderness areas. It is thus unfortunate that the STP team selected a growth pole scenario, which promotes sprawl and the ever-increasing need to travel and to construct new roads. In contrast, contemporary sustainable land use planning, popularly known as “Smart Growth”, invests time, attention, and resources into restoring community and vitality to centre cities and older suburbs. Even in car-centric North America, emphasis has shifted from land developments which tend to favour sparsely-spaced growth poles with huge honeycombs of densely packed road networks to sustainable, mixed land use patterns of “Smart Growth”.
Analysis indicates that the selected growth pole/satellite community land use scenario of STP requires almost twice the number of link connectors/roads in comparison to the Strong Central Spine Scenario or the recommended land use approach of the Structural Plan. The additional requirements of connectors or roads result simply because of this selection of an inappropriate Growth Pole/Satellite Community Scenario. All successful mega cities like Tokyo, Singapore, and London are integrated, with undivided geographical areas, not a collection of small growth poles connected by numerous road or link connectors. Even if mixed use and high density development is encouraged within the poles and public transit is preferred to connect these poles, the development of numerous poles would inevitably give rise to the need for long distance travel, which is contrary to the basic philosophy of “Smart Growth”, which discourages artificial creation of the need for additional travel.
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 creation of liveable and walkable neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is not only economically less efficient than a less transport-dependent model, but inherently favours the urban elite and car owners while ignoring the travel needs of the poor and vulnerable sections of society.
In fact, a growth pole land use development is more compatible for the development of a wider geographical area covering the country’s major regional financial or administrative centres such as Rajshahi, Sylhet Comilla, Noakhali, Bogra, Rangpur, Barishal and Khulna. Future land use development should aim at achieving balance among the different regions of the country. The major regional centres around Dhaka city should be the focus of future investment and planned settlements in order to offset the severe densification process that is ongoing within central Dhaka (Group-C study area).
As discussed in further detail below, a mixed land use policy along the lines of the strong Central Spine scenario would likely conform more favourably to the objectives for the development of sustainable transport and “Smart Growth” than the chosen Growth Pole scenario.
Implications of Dividing Dhaka into Functional Units
The Growth Pole scenario, selected by STP and adopted in DAP, is not consistent with the Structural Plan of DMDP, which specified a concentrated and mixed-use land development. The ongoing initiative of DAP for demarcation of Dhaka into different functional units is a matter of serious concern as regards development of an integrated land use and transport system. Creation of more single use functional areas for Dhaka is a recipe for more transport demand and hence increases in congestion. Many of the DAP initiatives and proposals could have far-reaching negative impacts, such as the following:
Restricting non-residential uses within Wari, Narinda and Tikatuli of Old Dhaka;
Developing laws/mandates for freezing conversion to non-residential use of Arambagh, Bijoynagar, Fakirapool, and Maghbazar;
Developing areas like Badda, Nadda, Nurer chala, Khilbarir tek etc.) to the east of Pragati Sarani to compliment the residential development character of this zone;
Creating a strip commercial development scheme along Kadamtali road and two other STP roads;
Shifting educational institutions like Primary Schools, High Schools and Colleges from most of the inner Dhaka areas like DPZ-4, DPZ-6, DPZ-7 and DPZ-9, etc.;
Relocating the wholesale kitchen market at Kawan Bazar from the central part of the city to Mahakhali;
Removing offices, hospitals, clinics and schools from Dhanmondi;
Developing the area between Old Elephant Road and New Elephant Road solely as a shopping enclave;
Keeping residential areas of Mohammadpur and Lalmatia strictly residential.
A city as densely populated as Dhaka should consider the advantages of a mixed land use scenario similar to that of “Smart Growth”. Smart growth involves mixed land uses, an emphasis on access by proximity rather than through long-distance travel, and therefore encourages the pollution-free modes of walking, cycling, and cycle rickshaws. With mixed land use and high density, it is possible to achieve the sizable and diverse population and commercial base needed to support public transit.
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 fuel-free ones)
Reduction of the need to travel
Creation of walkable environments
Segregating Dhaka on functional lines by removal of markets, shops, workplaces and schools into designated areas will simply increase demand for long distance travel and thus generate ever more congestion.
Scale of Spatial Planning
The scale of spatial planning is essential to how people experience their city. A large-scale approach is designed for those travelling rapidly through the city by automobile, with little concern for details or aesthetics. Such an approach impoverishes urban environments and can lead to alienation, crime, and a higher prevalence of traffic injuries and deaths. Such an approach also tends to increase congestion and pollution. The approach is marked by large buildings, wide super highways and few details—as is evident in DAP.
It would be far more desirable to develop DAP on the basis of the human scale, which favours smaller infrastructure, smaller blocks and roads, and careful detail as people experience the landscape up close from the viewpoint of pedestrians. Only architecture that considers human scale and interaction is successful architecture; cities designed to reward those moving slowly are more lively cities with more human interaction, less alienation and crime, less congestion and pollution, and fewer serious traffic-related injuries and deaths.
Public Space and Services
The growing trend towards privatization of services and of urban living is evident throughout the world, and Dhaka has not escaped the trend, though it remains less affected than many other cities around the world. The contrast between attention to the public and private realm has far-reaching consequences in terms of equity and liveability in cities; as only the wealthy can afford to access high-quality private services, further attention to the private realm will increase inequity and lead to further deterioration in the lives of the poor. But emphasis on the private realm also harms the rich, who retreat further and further behind walls, fences and gates, losing the civic realm which otherwise would provide great value to their lives. The importance of the public realm even to the wealthy can be seen in the great popularity even among high-income groups of such public spaces as Ramna Park and Dhanmondi Lake.
It is thus unfortunate that 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 the public realm of streetscapes, pedestrian environments, public parks, and public facilities. In Dhaka City at present, it is clear that shopping malls have in many cases replaced open spaces as public place. People come to shopping malls—whether to sit on the steps or to mill about inside—not to shop but rather to meet with friends and gossip. The use of shopping malls as public space is inefficient and wasteful; it would be far better to have parks (which utilize virtually no electricity and actually deter flooding) than more shopping malls. Given the problems of loadshedding, a simple first step would be to ban the construction of any new air conditioned shopping malls. Other energy-inefficient and inequitable developments should likewise be discouraged.
A brief review of the allocation of public space and services in DAP is given below:
Parks and Open Spaces
Parks and open space, the lung of a city, improve physical and psychological health, strengthen the sense of community, and make cities and neighbourhoods more attractive places to live. They are vital as places where different types of people can gather and learn about each other through casual observation and interaction, and also as places where people can go for recreation and exercise. Given the extremely unconducive environment for walking in most of Dhaka and the need for exercise to stay healthy, parks play a vital role in maintaining public health. They tend to be economically vital zones as well, with many small businesses thriving within their bounds.
The American National Recreation and Parks Association sets a national standard of 10 acres of open space per 1,000 people. Having access to natural areas such as open space and parks has direct effects on physical and mental health. Providing shade, trees and vegetation helps to mitigate the negative impacts associated with climate change by reducing the “urban heat island effect” that occurs when pavement, concrete, and buildings in urban settings absorb and radiate heat. Living in proximity to green space is associated with better self-rated health and higher score on general health questionnaires. Children, in particular, need spaces where they can be physically active on a regular basis. The most important places for children’s activity are outdoors and in the neighbourhood, such as public parks. Finally, green spaces are vital for their ability to absorb rainfall and thus reduce flooding.
There should be a hierarchy of parks available to residents, ranging from small “pocket parks”—which could be only large enough to accommodate benches and secondary seating (low walls, statues, and anything else that is part of the park design but also amenable for sitting) for about ten people—to large community-wide parks. Ideally, all residents would live within 400 m of a “pocket park” and within 800 m of a neighbourhood park complete with (but not limited to) a sports field. Recreation facilities and community wide parks should be located on transit routes to ease congestion and improve access.
The severe shortage of parks and open space in the main Dhaka area (study area C) and its impacts on public health, environment, ecology and social integration are well known. However DAP has failed to provide anywhere near a sufficient amount of space for parks and open space within both brown field and green field areas despite the fact that sufficient space is available in restricted areas of the brown field and proposed infill developments of the green field areas. In the main Dhaka City area (Study area C) there are only a few parks and open spaces, comprising 1.62% of the area, providing 0.06 acres of land per 1,000 persons.
In order to improve the critical shortage of parks and open space, DAP proposed to increase the share of parks and open space to 5.07% of the area, allocating 0.13 acres of land per 1,000 people, with provisions for an additional 916 parks and open spaces by the year 2015 (see Appendix A). The main problem with the DAP proposal is not that the proposed allocation is still far below the recommended standard for a modern city, but the ambiguity of the proposal. DAP arbitrarily estimated the requirements for parks and open space without allocating the requisite land space for them. The DAP proposal is hypothetical in nature and represents a serious weakness of the ongoing initiative for providing a detailed area plan for the city. There is no scope for any ambiguity in the detailed area planning, which represents the lowest tier of the planning hierarchy and should provide not only the future requirements but also specific land-use guidance on how to meet those needs.
The proposed allocation of only 0.13 acres/1,000 persons in the main Dhaka City is far below any international standard. For example, even in the infamously polluted and unliveable city of Los Angeles, rich white neighbourhoods enjoy 31.8 acres of park space for every 1,000 people, while low income areas like African-American and Latino neighbourhoods provide 1.7 acres and 0.60 acres per 1,000 persons, respectively. Meanwhile Hong Kong, the most crowded city on earth, provides on average 0.71 acres/1,000 persons, or more than five times the amount proposed by DAP.

Figure 3.1: Attractive parks enhance the public realm: Curitiba, Brazil
Consider also the case of the city of Curitiba in the low-income Brazilian state of Paraná. In order to contain floods, city planners converted many slum areas into parks. There are now over 30 parks in the city, for a total of over 80 million square kilometres of green areas. While in the 1950s Curitiba only had 0.5 square meters per inhabitant, by the end of the 1990s that figure had risen to 55 square meters, or over three times the amount (16 square meters/person or 4.23 Acres/1000 persons) prescribed by the WHO. By transforming critical areas into parks, the city increased the value of real estate (and thus of tax revenues on the property, which paid for the initiative) and the beauty of the city, while the poor were able to move to better areas.
Not only is the proposed allocation of land for parks and open space for main Dhaka City inadequate, but there is also no firm commitment and guidance about the availability of land for the plan and the implementation process. Similar trends are evident for both green and brown field development initiatives for greater Dhaka, both of which fail to provide sufficient space for parks and open space despite having plenty of land in the restricted category and potential reclaimed land by earth filling, as evident from Table 3.1. A significant portion of the underutilized restricted area and reclaimed land could be designated for parks and open space to meet the critical demand of residents of Dhaka City. Even in the outer Dhaka areas, where enough space is available, DAP proposed to provide only 0.13 to 0.19 acres for parks and open space per 1,000 persons, far below any international standard for a modern city (4.23 Acres/1000 persons recommended by WHO).
Table 3.1: Existing and Proposed Allocation of Lands for Parks & Open Space in DMDP Area (After DAP 2008)
Area
Existing Park & Open Space (2007)
Requirement for Park & Open Space (2015)
Acres
%
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
%
Acres/1000 Persons
Additional Number
Study Area A: Gazipur, Gachha, Tongi, Baria, Pubail, Kaliganj and Rupganj
185.63
0.17%
0.06
701.85
0.65%
0.13
343
Study Area B: Narayanganj and Demra
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
Study Area C: Main Dhaka City
429.44
1.62%
0.06
1345.44
5.07%
0.13
416
Study Area D: Karaniganj and other areas
5.14
0.05%
0.00
16.55
0.15%
0.00
No data
Study Area E: Savar and part of Gazipur
15.73
0.02%
0.02
246.15
0.32%
0.19
No data
Restricted Areas
The brown field development area of main Dhaka (Study Area C) has 2,676 acres of land, which is 10% of the total area of the main Dhaka city. That land entails restricted areas mainly used for either non-productive or other functions that could easily be provided outside the core urban area of the city. These include:
Central Jail in Old Dhaka;
Anser HQ, situated in the purely residential area of DPZ 5;
BDR Headquarters in the Central Business District (CBD);
Old Airport in CBD;
Area reserved for army and other security forces in Banani, Gulshan, Baridhara and Mirpur Area.
It appears that DAP proposed some hypothetical land use planning by shifting the Central Jail, Anser HQ and Old Airport outside the core urban area without, however, providing a comprehensive proposal as to how the reserved land could be properly utilized. For example, DAP intends to relocate the restricted area of BDR Headquarters and to assign certain area for public services, parks, open space and social institutions under a detailed Master Plan, which would be required to arrange the facilities and to accommodate the existing infrastructure of BDR for future use. It is not clear why the city would need yet another Master Plan after DAP to provide a detailed area plan of the future use of the restricted areas. Moreover, the future land use proposal of DAP was limited to only a fraction of the total restricted areas excluding areas reserved for army and other security forces. Out of the total 2,676 acres of restricted land (10% of the total main city area), DAP proposed to redevelop only 966 acres (3.5% of the total area) excluding Cantonment areas.
However, the Structural Plan of DMDP categorically emphases the need to relocate the vast underutilized Cantonment area outside the core urban area, and to assign the currently underutilized land for providing vital space for public services, parks, open space and social institutions. Despite the good intentions of the Structural Plan, DAP has deliberately kept vast underutilized reserved areas (1,723 acres, i.e. 6.5% of the total available land space of Dhaka City) for security forces outside the future planning process. The vast area could be more profitably used for providing settlement for slum dwellers and low income groups, public services, parks and open space. The plan not to shift the Dhaka Cantonment outside the city area and to integrate its huge underutilised areas into the urban core, thereby deviating from the Structural Plan, is a major step in the wrong direction.
Similarly, DAP did not provide any wide-ranging land use plan as to how to utilize the vast restricted areas of Gazipur Pourashava, comprising 603 acres of underutilized land, which represents about 20% of the core urban area. This vast area could be utilized for more productive purposes after conducting an appropriate socio-economic appraisal and needs-based analysis among various competing alternative options. This represents a serious shortcoming of the ongoing land use planning approach of DAP.
Table 3.2: Details of the Restricted Areas of Dhaka Metropolitan Area (After DAP 2008)
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area C)
Total Area (Acres)
Existing Restricted Area (2007)
Potential Available Space for Future Use (2015)
Acres
%
Acres
%
DPZ -1: Old Dhaka (West)
1450.00
56.33
3.88%
58.33
4.02%
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
1314.00
4.23
0.32%
4.23
0.32%
DPZ-3: CBD South-West
1091.00
21.64
1.98%
21.64
1.98%
DPZ-4: CBD South-East
1315.00
203.7
15.49%
203.82
15.50%
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
3488.38
28.8
0.83%
28.8
0.83%
DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area
704
28.92
4.11%
29.02
4.12%
DPZ-7: CBD North West
2587
460.17
17.79%
460.27
17.79%
DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
1221
162.43
13.30%
162.63
13.32%
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
2292
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
3821
0
0.00%
0.4
0.01%
DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Baridhara
3618.62
1618.62
44.73%
1618.62
44.73%
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
2110.07
1.41
0.07%
1.41
0.07%
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
1523.33
90.2
5.92%
90.2
5.92%
Total
26535.40
2676.45
10.09%
2679.37
10.10%
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area A)





Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-01)
3259.11
602.75
18.49%
637.63
19.56%
Public Services and Social Institutions
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.
It is here important to point out that people require a wide range of services, and such services require space to 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 in order 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 the city; 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 and cycling, 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, 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. There are three major shortcomings in the proposed provisions for general public services and social institutions in DAP.
First of all, in order to provide effective public service provisions for all sections of the society, rich and poor alike, it is extremely important to provide a linked network of local community-based services and distribute them evenly across the whole city. Such services should target relatively small geographical areas so that people can easily access such facilities on foot. Instead, DAP is planning to provide consolidated, regional and larger facilities in order to divide Dhaka City into different functional units. Such disastrous plans include:
Shifting educational institutions like Primary Schools, High Schools and Colleges from most of the inner Dhaka areas;
Relocating the wholesale kitchen market at Kawan Bazar from the central part of the city to Mahakhali;
Removing offices, hospitals, clinics and schools from Dhanmondi area.
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. 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
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
Residents should be within 400 m of six diverse uses (different types of facilities or services) and within 800 m of 17 diverse uses, according to the Healthy Development Measurement Tool created by San Francisco Public Health. Specifically, everyone should be within 800 m of a produce market or other food store. Ideally, everyone would be 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 recommend 400 m of a transit stop.
Secondly, The proposed increase in public services in DAP, in the main Dhaka area in particular, is hypothetical in nature without assigning how and from where space requirements for the services would be met. It is also not clear, in the case that land is not available, how the additional demands for public services and social institutions would be fulfilled.
Finally, despite having a sufficient amount of reserve lands in restricted areas and proposed infill development areas, DAP failed to provide sufficient space for future requirements, as demonstrated in Table 6.1. DAP proposed to provide only 0.13 acres of land for public service per 1,000 persons in the main Dhaka City (Study area C) and 0.13 to 1.13 acres per 1,000 persons for other green field as well as brown field development areas of the greater Dhaka Metropolitan area. Providing such insignificant amounts of space for public services is far below the standard for any modern city.
Table 3.3: Existing and Proposed Allocation of Lands for Social Institutions in DMDP Area (After DAP 2008)
Area
Existing Land use for Soaical Institutions (2007)
Requirement for Social Institutions (2015)
Acres
%
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
%
Acres/1000 Persons (2015)
Additional Number
Study Area A: Gazipur, Gachha, Tongi, Baria, Pubail, Kaliganj and Rupganj
987.1
0.01
0.06
1248.20
1.15%
0.13
141
Study Area B: Narayanganj and Demra
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
Study Area C: Main Dhaka City
1192.3
4.49%
0.06
2270.41
8.56%
0.13
1743
Study Area D: Karaniganj and other areas
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
Study Area E: Savar and part of Gazipur
1415.1
1.95%
1.47
1505.2
1.95%
1.13
No data
Urban Habitat Development
Development of Planned Residential Areas
There is an unfortunate trend to blame urban problems on the poor, and to imagine that if the low-income could be relegated to distant suburbs, the rich and middle classes could live in clean, safe, and pleasant environments. Such a belief disregards the fact that much of the source of crime and social unrest is not poverty but inequity, and that the rich and middle classes are dependent on the low-income for carrying out such ill-paid tasks as cleaning the streets, unblocking the sewers, and performing various duties in their homes.
The issue of overcrowding is also often blamed on the poor, which disregards the fact that the lower classes require far less space for their dwellings, workplaces and transport than the upper and middle classes. It is not the poor who require luxury apartments, ample office space, and sufficient road space to move and park their automobiles.
The plans spelled out in DAP suggest that its authors conform to these common misperceptions that rapid urbanization and urban sprawl in Dhaka City are mainly due to unplanned developments and slum formation, which in turn is seen as the main factor behind the destruction of the environment and degradation of the city’s civic life. The reality, however, is that existing slums, while representing a significant segment of the population, occupy less than 1% of the land of the main Dhaka City and thus cannot be the cause of urban sprawl. Meanwhile a disproportionately high proportion of land is set aside for the rich and middle classes in the planned residential areas of Dhaka City. This suggests that it is the far greater space requirements of the wealthier that are responsible for the expansion of urban areas at the cost of environment, ecology and basic amenities, not the existence of slum communities.
Despite this, and despite the fact that encouraging inequity will likely lead to further social unrest and crime, as well as being ethically wrong, the tendency in DAP is to favour the rich at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged. Consider the land use policy for habitat development in the city. There is no doubt that it is a demanding task to provide housing stock for 15 million people by the year 2015. However, it should be kept in mind that the majority of the population of Dhaka belongs to low income groups with no access to the private sector-dominated housing market. It was a prerequisite of DAP to determine land requirements for residential land use for different income groups up to the year 2015. But DAP seems to look at housing as merely “shelter, buildings, housing-stock” that needs capital investment, and proposed to create 17% to 46% of the new green field areas of Greater Dhaka Metropolitan area as planned residential areas which will be developed at the market price, as demonstrated in Table 3.4. This would no doubt primarily favour the corporate sector, builders, construction firms, and real-estate developers rather than furthering the interests of the low income majority and of slum dwellers.
In addition to the need to ensure quality housing for those who cannot afford the luxury apartments so favoured by developers, is the importance of ensuring that flood control provisions are maintained through continuance of lakes, canals, agricultural areas, and parks; that is, places where water can collect or where soil can capture rainwater. In addition to their importance for flood control, such land uses also enhance quality of life for all groups by expanding access to recreation, exercise opportunities, and to fresh low-cost locally-grown produce and fish.
Despite the importance of maintaining such uses of portions of the city, exactly the opposite trend is being allowed and even encouraged. According to the Planner Association of Bangladesh (Daily Star 20/12/2008), during the last decade private land development companies have illegally encroached a sizeable amount of flood flow zones, retention areas, and agricultural lands for housing projects. These unapproved projects were not identified by the DAP consultants (though relevant information was readily available) in their reports while presenting the existing land-use scenario of the study areas. But DAP has accommodated all these illegal projects by changing the land-use categories specified in the DMDP. For example “Jhilmil housing project” by RAJUK and Pangaon Container Port at Keranigonj, Modhumati Model Town and many other housing projects, which do not conform to DMDP as these are located in Sub-Flood Flow Zones, are legalized in DAP by simply changing the land use category. Encouragement of this misuse of flood-prone areas will serve to further increase problems caused by flooding, and also hinder appropriate spatial development initiatives of Dhaka City.

Table 3.4: Existing and Proposed Land use for the Planned Residential Areas in Greater Dhaka (After DAP 2008)
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area C)
Total Area (Acres)
Existing Residential Areas (2007)
Proposed Residential Areas (2015)
Acres
%
Person/Acre
Acres
%
Person/Acre
DPZ -1: Old Dhaka (West)
1,450.00
331.76
22.88%
2,411
331.76
22.88%
3,742
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
1,314.00
486.5
37.02%
1,280
486.50
37.02%
1,987
DPZ-3: CBD South-West
1,091.00
475.34
43.57%
227
475.34
43.57%
352
DPZ-4: CBD South-East
1,315.00
453.13
34.46%
735
453.13
34.46%
1,141
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
3,488.38
2685.85
76.99%
503
2,685.85
76.99%
780
DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area
704.00
42.43
6.03%
3,725
42.43
6.03%
5,782
DPZ-7: CBD North West
2,587.00
1,140.21
44.07%
436
1,140.21
44.07%
677
DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
1,221.00
545.35
44.66%
740
545.35
44.66%
1,149
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
2,292.00
1,057.82
46.15%
379
1,057.82
46.15%
588
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
3,821.00
1,999.86
52.34%
472
1,999.86
52.34%
733
DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Bar idhara
3,618.62
1,411.87
39.02%
152
1,411.87
39.02%
235
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
2,110.07
1,619.02
76.73%
394
1,619.02
76.73%
611
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
1,523.33
992.01
65.12%
368
992.01
65.12%
571
Total: Study Area C
26,535.40
13,241.15
49.90%
516
13,241.15
49.90%
801
Study Area A
108,410.40
25,805.99
23.80%
48
47,834.24
44.12%
31
Study Area B
51,212.35
13,201.23
25.78%
No data
13,201.23
25.78%
116
Sudy Area D
2,109.91
979.84
46.44%
70
1,050.12
49.77%
75
Study Area E
72,750.50
12,324.28
16.94%
78
19,500.16
26.80%
68
Grand Total
261,018.56
65,552.49
25.11%
139
94,826.90
36.33%
158
Plan for Surplus Residential Developments
Cities should consist of a vital mix of the private and public realm. When cities do not provide attractive places for residents to meet, mix and mingle, civic life decays and social unrest and alienation intensify. The more dense the city, the more important the public realm, as people must respect and get along with each other in order to live in close quarters. The public realm is also the source of civic pride; people do not talk about their cities in terms of the housing stock or shopping malls, but rather in terms of lakes, parks, and monuments freely accessible to the public.
Despite this, and despite the regressive nature of urban planning that favours the private over the public realm, the focus in DAP is on the development of the private realm of private residential plots, shopping malls, gated communities, car parking facilities, and private land developments, while ignoring the vital needs for the public realm of streetscapes, the pedestrian environment, public parks, and public facilities. This tendency is also clear in the proposed surplus private residential area development within the context of dividing the city into various functional units. DAP unnecessarily allocates a huge amount of land for residential use, far in excess of the actual needs, in order to accommodate the desires of vested interest groups while jeopardizing the environmental and social equity goals of the city, as is evident in Tables 3.4 and 3.5.
Although the average density of population in Main Dhaka City (Study Area C) is 800 persons per acre, ranging from 235 in the very rich neighbourhoods of Gulshan and Baridhara to as high as 3,742 persons per acre in Old Dhaka, in DAP the overall density of Greater Dhaka Metropolitan area would be a mere 158 persons per acres by the year 2015. This is due to the allocation of a huge amount of space for private residential plots in outer Dhaka. In total 81,586 acres of land space has been allocated purely for residential areas of outer Dhaka (Study areas A, B, D and E). By targeting a nominal residential density equivalent to the posh Gulshan, Banani and Baridhara areas of the city, i.e. 235 persons per acre, it would be possible to accommodate 19.2 million people. This means by the year 2015, Greater Dhaka would be able to accommodate 29.8 million people including 10.6 million for the main Dhaka area. This is almost double the projected population of 15 million by the year 2015.
Such a plan is disastrous and absurd for a number of reasons. It seems based on the belief that the single need of people is for housing, with all other services and amenities secondary. It ignores the fact that by spreading housing more thinly across greater areas, provision of basic services becomes far more expensive than if neighbourhoods are more densely populated. Provision of electricity, water and sewerage is far more expensive per capita in suburbs than in high density locales. Also, as people have to travel farther to reach schools, workplaces, and shops, congestion and pollution increase, destroying the very liveability that low density aims to achieve.
Moreover, in sustainable urban planning, preservation of core agricultural land is vital to meet the food demands of the urban population and to limit the damage to ecology and natural balance. The Structural Plan of DMDP also categorically stated the need to conserve agricultural land, ensuring a basic reserve for urban food supplies in close proximity to the city and to promote agriculture-oriented income generating activities within the urban area. However, ignoring the DMDP recommendations, DAP allocated vast swathes of fertile agricultural lands mainly for urban residential developments. This would suggest the belief that a) people do not need to eat, and b) people do not require jobs. Certainly food can be trucked in from great distances, but the presence of those trucks, the higher food prices due to the transport required, and the lower quality of produce that is less fresh due to distance travelled, are not conducive to improving quality of life. Neither is the disregard for the need for employment among urban dwellers. When produce is grown locally, it can be transported without the use of fuel or large trucks, and urban dwellers can enjoy the amenities of access to fresh and low-cost produce provided within their own neighbourhood by feriwallahs and small local shops. Further, agricultural land (for small gardens to grow vegetables, for fruit trees, and even for raising small animals) and ponds (for fish) not only increase the food supply and generate employment but also serve as an important means of flood control, thereby reducing the suffering and sickness of urban dwellers during the monsoons. None of these amenities are envisioned within DAP, anymore than are adequate facilities made for the many other needs of urban residents beyond simply housing.
Similarly, on several locations, the agricultural land category of DMDP has been replaced by the “urban residential use” category in DAP maps without any rational explanation. This blatant disregard for the vital importance of urban agriculture is manifested in the fact that the “High Value Agricultural Land” and “Agricultural land” categories of DMDP have been replaced by an “Agriculture with Rural Homestead” land-use category, creating undue opportunities for private developers and individuals to convert high value agricultural land primarily for residential purposes. Moreover, the misguided conversion of agricultural land is likely to displace many farmers and rural residents from their homesteads—all for the sake of contributing to environmentally, socially, and economically disastrous urban sprawl.
Due to conversion of agricultural land into the Rural Homestead category, the actual amount of land available for residential use in outer Dhaka has increased from 81,586 acres to 122,128 acres, which represents a 50% rise in available space for residential purposes. With this extended and surplus space for residential use, about 28.7 million people could be accommodated with a nominal density of 235 persons/1,000 acres. This means Greater Dhaka Metropolitan area would be able to accommodate 39.3 million people including 10.6 million in the main city area by the year 2015. This is about three times higher than that of the targeted population of 15 million. The excess land would eventually lead to land speculation, indiscipline and social discrimination in future spatial development initiatives for Dhaka City. None of the DAP reports provided any strategies or tools to control land speculation and regulate surplus residential development that ignores the vital needs for public services, parks and open space and social institutions.
Table 3.5: Proposed Residential Developments in Outer Dhaka (DAP 2008)
Study area
Total Area (Acres)
Population by 2015
Residential Area (Acres)
Rural Homestead Area (Acres)
Total Residential & Rural Homestead
% of residential and rural homestead
Person/Acre of residential area
Person/Acre of Total Area
Study Area A
108,410.40
1,465,574
47,834.24
32,801.04
80,635.28
74.38%
18
14
Study Area B
51,212.35
1,525,590
13,201.23
No data
13,201.23
No data
No data
No data
Sudy Area D
10,969.61
79,192
1050.12

979.84
8.93%
81
7
Study Area E
72,750.50
1,320,409
19,500.16
7,811.44
27,311.60
37.54%
48
18
Total for Outer Dhaka
243,342.86
4,390,765
81,585.75
40,612.48
122,127.95
50.19%
36
18
Shelter and Settlement
It is encouraging that DAP recognizes the fact that slum residents are a major and important contributor to city resources and form an indispensable sector, providing various kinds of skilled and unskilled services to enrich city life and facilitate its functions. Again, much of the policy directives of DAP for providing shelter and settlement for slum dwellers and low income groups is very positive and progressive. In order to provide basic shelter and settlement for 4.2 to 4.5 million slum dwellers, representing 40% of the urban population (CUS 2006) by the year 2015, DAP proposed a number of progressive policy directives. These include:
Site and Service: This design provides the low-income with a plot and basic infrastructure. The beneficiaries either buy or lease the allocated land. Often they are provided with a loan for the construction of houses.
Illegal settlements regularization/Slum upgrading: This is a sound approach as it provides land or housing to the urban poor near their workplace. Like the Kampung Imp. Project in Indonesia, the settlement upgrading project offers a credible approach towards upgrading slum areas. DAP intends to employ this design principle for the development of the existing slums under the Study Area C. In this connection the regularization of some illegal settlement/upgrading approach/technique has been proposed including Islambagh, Shahid Nagar etc. through community development action plans.
Land Banking: Under this approach Government will buy some land at market prices in designated areas to ensure drainage facilities, eco-park development, and greenbelt open space, as well as to distribute land to the poor or to plan developments. DAP proposed to include two urban peripheries under the Land Expropriation and Land Banking schemes, including low-lying areas of the Eastern fringe and Western fringe and the areas north of Bhasantek and the southwestern part of new airport namely Manikdi, Balurghat, Baiger Tek, Baunia, Kalshi, Chak-Digun, Tafila, Uludha, Bhajaldi, Alokdi, etc.
Given the elitist bias of much of DAP, it comes perhaps as no surprise that despite these highly encouraging and progressive policy directives of DAP for the development of slums, there are serious contradictions when proposing actual action plans in terms of the following key factors:
Hypothetical Slum Development Proposals
It appears that all the slum/low cost housing development proposals of DAP in main Dhaka City (Study Area C) are hypothetical in nature (see Table 3.6) without providing any clue as to a number of key land use details such as:
How much land will be assigned for slum development and from where would any additional requirement of land be met?
Where and how many people will be rehabilitated under slum/low cost housing development initiatives?
How and from where will provisions for public and utility services, parks and open space, and social institutions like roads, drainage, sewerage, community service, children’s playgrounds, primary school, Crèche facilities, health centres etc., be met?
Whether slum dwellers will be provided with tenure/property right at their existing locations with right to transfer?
It is not possible to implement any slum and low cost housing development initiative, regardless of positive intentions, by employing such a vague and ambiguous programme. Further, the bias towards upper-class housing and private initiatives for the wealthy suggest that any positive approaches towards the low income should be addressed with great suspicion. Without the political will to implement the proposals, they are likely to fall by the wayside; with no powerful advocates to speak in their behalf, the lower classes are likely to be pushed off into the margins to live in those parts of the city with the fewest amenities and least access to employment and other needed services. Policy statements are not sufficient; the needs of the low income must be met through detailed practical proposals that encompass the many needs of urban dwellers, not simply housing alone.
As with parks, here also Dhaka has much to learn from the city of Curitiba in Brazil, which developed a number of measures to prioritize the needs of the poor, to ensure that settlements intended for the low income were of high quality, that the poor dwellers themselves could design their own dwellings, and that provisions for income generation both within and near their homes were included, as well as ensuring access to other needed services. The cleanliness of slums was rapidly ensured through a program by which residents could trade trash (known in environmentally-conscientious Curitiba as recyclables) for bus tickets; within a very short period indeed, the slums became extremely clean as residents avidly collected and sorted the area’s waste. Ironically, and perhaps difficult for the drafters of DAP to imagine, prioritizing the poor would actually enrich rather than impoverish the lives of urban dwellers overall.
Inconsistent Proposal and Relocation of Slum Dwellers
Although DAP policy recognized the need for providing housing stock for the urban poor near their workplaces, when it came to more practical actions, DAP proposed exactly the opposite, i.e. to relocate the majority of the 4.2 to 4.5 million slum dwellers to surrounding areas outside the central part (Study Area C) of Dhaka City. Such areas are generally less attractive in terms of access to work and other facilities. Similarly, anti-poor proposals have been made in DAP such as evicting slums and squatter developments, namely West Zafrabad (19.84 acres) of DPZ-8, Mohammadpur Bihari Camp (13.50 acres) and Bari Bagh (279.87 acres) and relocating them in the north (Mirpur DPZ-12, 13) under low-cost site and service schemes with 18 existing slums.
Again, it is not clear how additional population from the central part of Dhaka will be accommodated in 18 existing and already overcrowded slums of Mirpur Area. This is on the plea that additional land required under the onsite and service development scheme would not be available within the central part of the city. However, according to the existing land use statistics, about 10% of the area of the central part of the city is reserved as restricted areas for security forces. A vast chunk of the restricted area is either underutilized or being used for non-productive purposes. There exists, therefore, plenty of scope to assign some of the areas from the restricted zone for low-cost housing and for slum development. The proposal for forced evictions and relocations, which are viewed by the UN as a gross violation of human rights, are contrary to the policy directives of DAP and should therefore be dropped.
Scale of Slum/Low Cost Housing Development Initiatives
It appears that the scale in DAP of the slum and low-cost housing development initiative is so small compared to the magnitude of actual needs that it can only provide lip service to the poor rather than creating any practical positive impact. The ever-growing needs for low cost housing and shelter development within the Greater Dhaka Metropolitan area is thus met in theory alone. On this note, it would seem odd that DAP proposed to allocate 81,586 acres of land (34% of available space) for 4.4 million people in outer Dhaka for housing development under private sector initiatives at market price, whereas only a tiny fraction of that amount, that is, 745 acres of land (0.3%) and 18 already crowed existing slums in the outskirts of Mirpur (DPZ-12 &13) have been proposed for 4.5 million slum dwellers and members of the low-income group by the year 2015. That is, the allocated space for slum and low-cost housing development is less than one-hundredth (1%) of the area provided for housing development at market price and would likely result in density as high as 6,040 persons/acre, which is completely unsuitable for human habitation. So much is for providing decent housing for the poor.
The total allocation of land for low-cost housing is less than 50% of the allocated land for the ongoing Purbachal high-income housing development project of RAJUK comprising 1,688 acres of land for a population of only about 100,000 people, which is only a tiny fraction of the total number of projected slum dwellers of 4.5 million by the year 2015. Such bald and grotesque discrepancies make clear that all progressive slum and shelter development policies of DAP are meant only to assuage criticism, not to address the dire need for low-income housing.
There is hardly any practical and meaningful initiative in DAP to provide a sufficient quantity of affordable housing for slum dwellers and the low-income group within the Greater Dhaka Metropolitan area. The scale of slum and low-cost housing development is totally insignificant and DAP has utterly failed to provide a practical and affordable solution to the housing problem for the majority of the people of the Greater Dhaka Metropolitan area, who are grouped in the middle and low income range and unable to buy land at market price in the urban areas. Rather than attempt to make life less unbearable for the low-income, DAP prefers to cater to the profits of housing companies targeting the upper classes, despite the fact that such policies further increase inequity and contribute to the inhuman conditions of the most vulnerable. Such grossly regressive plans must be countered and replaced with policies to reduce inequity and human misery and ensure decent provisions for all urban inhabitants.
Table 3.6: Summary of Land use Proposals for Slum Development/Low Cost Housing Schemes
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area C)
Total Area (Acres)
Proposed Slum Development/Low Cost Housing Areas (2015)
Acres
%
DPZ-1: Old Dhaka (West) (Islambag & Shahid Nagar)
1,450.00
Unspecified
Unspecified
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
1,314.00
Unspecified
Unspecified
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
3,488.38
Unspecified
Unspecified
DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
1,221.00
Unspecified
Unspecified
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
2,292.00
Unspecified
Unspecified
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
3,821.00
Unspecified
Unspecified
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
2,110.07
Unspecified
Unspecified
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
1,523.33
Unspecified
Unspecified
Total Study Area C
26,535.40
Unspecified
Unspecified
DPZ Study area A)



Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-03)
4,749.90
66.3
1.40%
Tongi (DPZ-05)
8,421.22
244.3
2.90%
Rupganj_Sitalakkha West (DPZ-09)
13,564.00
161
1.19%
Rupganj_Sitalakkha East (DPZ-10 of A)
22,005.00
70.98
0.32%
Total Study Area A
108,410.40
542.58
0.50%
Study Area B
51,212.35
No data
No data
Sudy Area D
2,109.91
0
0.00%
Study Area E (PZ-16: Northern Fringe)
21,000.26
202.65
0.96%
Grand Total
209,268.32
745.23
0.36%
Government-Sponsored High-Class Residential Area Development
There are undeniably pressures on those creating urban plans that are difficult to address. While low income groups have few if any important people to advocate on their behalf, developers are eager to ensure that there is plenty of opportunity to develop housing for the upper class, and they know how to make their desires known to planners. It thus may come as little surprise to discover that while DAP seems to find it difficult to allocate the requisite amount of land for slum and low-income housing development, it encounters no such difficulty in finding large chunks of land for the development of high-income housing under government-sponsored residential area development initiatives, where lands are generally distributed to rich sections of the society at a subsidised rate. A number of such ongoing and proposed initiatives under DAP include:
Ongoing initiative to develop Purbachol high income residential area comprising 1,688 acres of land, which comprises 12.44% of the whole Kaliganj area;
Ongoing initiative to develop high income residential area under Uttara residential area expansion scheme;
Plan to convert low income areas of Noadda, Badda (North, Middle and South) surrounding Gulshan and Baridhara into a posh area by providing government lands to rich sections of the society at a subsidised rate;
Plan to bring low cost housing area from Shajadpur to Merul Badda under government reserve/acquisition plan for future high income residential area development.
Scheme for High Class Residential Area in BDR site;
A planned development of residential area for high and middle income groups in the western fringe (DPZ-12) following the standard proposed by DAP;
Middle income class residential area in Western Fringe in DPZ 13;
High income class residential area in Hazaribag;
High income residential area development involving a 2,500 acre site between Fatullah-Narayanganj area and another 930 acre site in the Bandar area with a designed gross density of 75 persons per acre only.
The above plans make clear that there is no dearth of land even in the overcrowded central part of Dhaka City for the development of residential areas for high income groups at a subsidised rate, though such people represent less than 5% of the total population and would seem to be those least in need of government subsidies. The allocated lands of the high income class would be at least 20 times more than that allocated for 4.5 million slum dwellers, who constitute about 40% of the total population. DAP seems to be quite enthusiastic in finding suitable land for the high income group at a subsidised rate far below the market price, while the same resolve is hardly visible to provide basic shelter to 40% of the people in the low income group, who are the most deserving candidates for receiving government subsidy.
It is not the duty of the government to provide subsidies to the high income group and thus further enhance already striking inequity across social classes. On the contrary, it is the rich who should be subsidising decent housing for the low-income. This would hardly even be regarded as a subsidy, and more as an equitable redistribution of wealth, if one considered that the wealth of the rich is often made through the underpaid labours of the lower classes. For housing developments aimed at the upper classes, RAJUK or Government should adopt a policy as facilitator and not provider. It is not appropriate for RAJUK or Government to engage in acquisition of land for the high income group for the purpose of providing serviced plots at a subsidised rate. No government-sponsored residential area should be designated for high income groups. RAJUK should, rather, provide physical infrastructure such as roads, footpaths, playing fields, and space for education and community facilities and bazaars, and the land owners should develop their own housing plots to take opportunity of that infrastructure. Government subsidies can only be justified when directed at the development of slums and at housing and other amenities for low income groups who cannot afford a housing plot at a market price.
Another disturbing trend in DAP is its attempt to segregate the whole greater Dhaka Metropolitan area not only into functional units but also into areas demarcated by socio-economics. In its habitat development initiative, DAP is essentially trying to divide the whole city into rich and poor segments more or less analogous to the segregation strategy under the apartheid regime of South Africa during white minority rule. Such plans also ignore some key economic realities, namely that the upper classes rely on the lower classes for a number of services, including cleaning streets, handling waste, maintaining sewers, and working in their homes. When the poor are segregated at physically great distances from the wealthy, it is not just the poor who suffer.
Under the initiative of DAP all habitable and economically attractive regions of the central part of the city would be allocated for the high income group, relegating the poor and the disadvantaged outside of the main urban core. However much the intended beneficiaries might approve of such a plan, it has no place in sustainable urban planning which seeks to preserve ecology and environment while maintaining or preferably enhancing social equity and integration. Nor are cities appropriately considered as a mix of gated communities for the rich and inhuman slums for the poor; such a model is better relegated to the dark and distant past while pursuing more enlightened, equitable, and liveable models of social and urban development.
land use and Transport Interaction
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 far to travel to make such modes practical. Meanwhile, mixed-use high-density urban settlements make walking, cycling and public transit all viable modes, thereby reducing congestion and improving air quality. Further benefits of a land use model that encourages such modes 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 1-3 ton steel boxes) 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, including parks, playgrounds, outdoor markets, and other precious urban amenities. The choice, quite simply, can come down to parks versus parking lots, or cities clogged with parked and barely moving cars as opposed to cities lively with the movement and interactions of people of different ages. Any belief that land use patterns fail to affect transport modes is untenable in the face of many decades of international experience with different patterns of urban building and their effect on transport.
The ongoing land use and transport interaction proposals of DAP and STP, which are automobile-oriented in nature, appear to see the transport problems of Dhaka City within a very narrow perspective inappropriate to experts on the issue, that is, solely on the basis of road space vs. total space or total number of vehicles. It is not possible to solve transport problems in a mega city like Dhaka by providing a fixed percentage of roads and other infrastructure without simultaneously adopting restraining measures to keep travel demand under control. It appears that in DAP attempts are being made to blindly follow the illogical and unscientific policy directives of STP.
Thus DAP tends to blame chronic congestion problems on fuel-free transport and railway crossings, ignoring the main contributor of traffic congestion: private cars. It is a scientific fact that fuel-free transport including rickshaws is far superior to private cars in terms of both dynamic (in motion) and static (while parked) space allocation, energy use and pollution rating. It is also obvious that trains are capable of moving far more people with far less fuel and utilising far less space than by automobile, and with vastly lower rates of traffic crashes. Blaming the most efficient, safe, and environmentally-friendly modes of transport while encouraging the most space-consuming, dangerous and environmentally-harmful ones is clearly a recipe for further disaster.
Simply put, approaches to deal with transport and congestion must look not only at the supply, but also the demand side. Ever-increasing demand for more roads cannot be met by ever-increasing supply, and attempts to do so simply result in inordinate expense and the creation of desolate and polluted urban wastelands. On the other hand, restraining measures on private car use under an integrated demand and supply management approach can enhance the urban environment while also addressing congestion. Despite the disastrous experience of car-oriented, and inspiring experience of people-oriented cities, DAP failed to provide even a single policy directive on how to develop a lively city that minimises invasion by private cars. A number of key issues related to urban spatial and transport interaction planning of DAP are outlined in the following paragraphs:
Street Design
Road Hierarchy and Planning Standards
Acknowledging a few basic facts about cities would greatly enhance planning efforts. For example, cities are not simply transit corridors in which people spend their days moving from place to place—often from one end to the other then back again, in an endless series of long-distance trips—without ever spending time in any single place. On the contrary, people live and work and study in cities; they spend their lives in and outside of buildings, not just on roads. They have richer and fuller lives when they spend less time and money on transport (moving) and more on everything else (being). Highways are appropriate for travel between cities (though if such travel can be done instead by train, it will be far more environmentally-friendly, fuel-efficient, inexpensive and safe), not for travel within cities. Since people live and walk around in cities, the higher the speed of movement within cities, the more dangerous to the inhabitants, and the greater the deterrent effect of such travel is on the ability of people to live comfortable and healthy lives. Many cities around the world, in order to reduce traffic deaths and to enhance quality of life, are introducing speed limits of 20 to 30 kph.
As elsewhere, rather than follow the enlightened approach taken by city officials eager to improve urban life, DAP instead follows the outdated and misguided STP approach to emphasize rapid movement by cars, rather than lively movement by people. DAP proposed a hierarchical road system for Dhaka City which requires travel on major arterials for most trips by emphasizing creation of more or more very wide super highways in the city. This will invariably increase the amount of travel required to reach destinations, concentrate traffic into fewer roads, and create barriers to pedestrian and fuel free transport (FFT) travel that currently represent the majority of trips in the city.
Considering the fact that with expanding boundaries and new development, the entire central (Group-C) area is expected to reach an average gross urban density of 422 persons per acre in 2015 and in localized areas, net residential density will be as high as 3,742 persons per acre, it is not appropriate to construct super highways with 10 to 16 lanes (100 to 170 ft wide) in built up areas, as demonstrated by the proposed planning standards for roads (see Table 4.2). Such wide roads would lead to a number of problems, including severing of neighbourhoods, increased noise and air pollution, and reduced liveability in all surrounding areas.
Transportation engineers need to consider “sense of place” when they are selecting road alternatives. Streets function as links from an origin to a destination. But they also act as places where social activity occurs. Sense of place refers to the role that a street plays in supporting and enhancing that social activity (such as walking, talking with neighbours, and shopping). Rather than first selecting road width and then considering sense of place, the width should only be considered after looking at social activity within that area, as six lanes, or even four, mean that the road will carry high volumes of traffic, which is usually contradictory to the sense of place.
Instead of aiming at maximization of movement of cars by accommodating higher volumes of automobiles and speeds on fewer but wider roads, effort should be directed to develop a “Connected Network”. Such a network would emphasize adequate connectivity, accessibility and door-to-door mobility of people and goods by accommodating more direct travel with traffic dispersed over a well-connected grid of numerous narrow roads. Connectivity refers to the directness of links and the density of connections in the path or road network and can be measured by simply dividing the number of roadway links by the number of roadway nodes (Ewing 1996).
For decades highway engineers focused on designing wider, straighter, and faster roads, with the sole goal of moving traffic quickly. However, a modern city should not focus on designing for the maximization of the movement of vehicles in a road network. Rather, planning should focus on facilitating door-to-door mobility, connectivity and access for people and goods. In this respect the proposed widening of numerous narrow access roads in DAP is a step in the right direction and deserves appreciation. However, the plan to turn many of the city roads, even those lined with shops and major markets, into essentially highways cutting through the city, and in the process cutting former neighbourhoods in half, is totally misguided and unacceptable. A number of such controversial proposals are listed below:
Construction of a 100-foot wide road at Senpara Parbata in the heart of a densely populated built-up area;
Reserving of at least a 50 meter (164 ft) strip of land along the Progoti Sharani for future road expansion;
Recommended widening of an 80 foot road along Shrai-Zafrabad Road, Sher-e-bangla Road through Hazaribagh Road connecting New Market, etc.
Cities cannot prosper when people cannot safely and conveniently cross the street, yet this is exactly what DAP is proposing by minimizing crossings of the main roads so that the flow of motorized vehicles is uninterrupted. While such a vision may seem appropriate to those focused on facilitating the movement of automobiles at longer distances as quickly as possible, it has no place in urban planning, which is about life in cities, in which the short-distance movement of people should be facilitated, not hindered, so as to maintain lively and economically viable neighbourhoods.
Another disturbing feature of DAP is the allocation of an absurdly insignificant and disproportionately small amount of road space for pedestrians, i.e. 3 to 6 feet, which is even lower than that of the DMDP recommended amount of 8.20 feet. The STP Working Paper on Mass Transit (Fjellstrom 2004), which was unfortunately ignored in the STP Final Report, recommends provisions for 1.5m (5ft) to 6m (20ft) of footpaths on both sides of roads in Dhaka City. A densely populated mega city like Dhaka cannot function without providing people adequate conditions for walking. Consider New York City, where the average resident, despite being many times wealthier than the average resident of Dhaka, walks about 5 km a day. Only due to the high prevalence of walking for transport is NYC at all functional; if people attempted to make all trips by motorized roads, the entire transport system would simply collapse under the burden.
DAP thereby promotes maximum movement of autos in the road network, inevitably accompanied by increases in inconvenience and travel access for pedestrians. It is unclear how DAP calculates the relative priority of those on foot versus those in autos, though by the allocation of space, it would appear that the designers of DAP believe that only those who travel exclusively by automobile deserve consideration in urban planning. In people-oriented urban and transport planning, such as is evident in European cities vastly wealthier than Dhaka, pedestrians, fuel-free vehicles and public transport are assigned higher priority than cars. Instead of funnelling all traffic from every residential and commercial property onto the strip of super highways, it is preferable from the viewpoint of sustainable and people-oriented urban planning to create networks of streets with mixed-use developments, dispersing traffic over the whole system. The idea is to create liveable corridors rather than endless sprawl. Moreover, designing for the speediest drivers simply encourages people to drive even faster, thereby increasing fatal road crashes.
Streets in a crowded city like Dhaka should be designed to accommodate a variety of activities. As award-winning architect Jan Gehl has observed, the traditional role of streets is three-fold: for movement, but also as marketplace and meeting place. Cities are impoverished when the most common form of public space, the streets, are used for one purpose only, and no crowded city can afford such a waste of valuable urban space. The misguided hierarchical road system proposed under “Planning Standards for Roads” in Table 4.1 should be dropped from DAP. Instead, effort should be directed in DAP to design a comprehensive network of smaller and relatively narrow streets with mixed used developments, dispersing traffic over the whole system and allocating a maximum amount of road space to pedestrians, fuel free vehicles and to public transport in accordance with multimodal travel demand analysis.
In the context of wealthier countries, a minimum requirement is that footpaths be at least 1.5 m on both sides of all streets and 4.0 m wide in commercial areas. In the high density environment of Dhaka, footpaths should be even wider, with extra space allocated for vendors. Short block lengths of 250 m will enhance connectivity. Separated bicycle lanes that are part of the road network but physically separated, such as slightly elevated in the case of Copenhagen, will increase safety and encourage this pollution-free and space-efficient mode of transport.
Table 4.1: Planning Standards for Roads (After DAP 2008)
Categories of Roads
Standards in Recent Metropolitan Plans
Recommended for DAP
RMDP
KMDP
DMDP
Less Built up Areas
Built up Areas
Main Road/
Primary Road
New 100ft.-120ft.
Widening 60ft.-80ft.
100ft.-
120ft.
24.00 m.
(78.00 ft.)
170’ 0”
100’ 0”
126’ 0”
80’ 0”Min.
Arterial Road/Secondary Road
New 60 ft.
Widening 40ft.
60 ft-80ft.
14.50 m.
(47.50 ft.)
86’ 0’’
60’ 0’’ Min.
Collector Road
New 30 ft.-40 ft.
Widening 30ft
40ft.-50ft.
13.00 m. (42.60 ft.)
50’ 0’’
40’ 0’’ Min.
Tertiary Road /
Access Road
New 30 ft.
Widening 20ft.

9.00m.-
6.00 m.
(29.50ft.-
19.70ft.)
30’0”
24’ 0’’ Min.
24’ 0’’
20’ 0’’
Minimum
Non Motorized
Road


4.00 m.
(13.10 ft.)
12’ 0”
12’ 0” Min.
Footpath


2.50 m.
(8.20 ft.)
6’ 0’’
3’ 0’’ Min.
Road Network Accessibility and Continuity
In a densely-populated city like Dhaka it is important to ensure adequate accessibility and continuity for seamless travel for all road users including pedestrians and fuel free transport. An Accessibility Index can be calculated by dividing direct travel distances by actual travel distances. If the street network has many unconnected dead-ends or restrictions for travel such as one-way streets, and if road segments or blocks are large, people must travel farther to reach destinations, resulting in a higher index or less accessibility. If fuel-free transports (FFT) were banned from main arterials, as proposed by DAP, the road network of Dhaka would turn into an unconnected road network similar to that of a gated community with access strictly restricted to residents and their guests.
Fuel-free transport (FFT) does not usually compete with public transport. On the contrary, it acts as a supporting or supplementing mode to public transport by moving people to and from their homes or other destinations and the centres of mass transit. Banning FFT from main roads severs interconnectivity between FFT and public transport. Further, in order to be successful and economically viable, it is a prerequisite that FFT networks be continuous, allowing people to travel easily along main arteries as well as to and from them, and thus to maintain continuity of access to all facilities. The proposal of banning FFT from main arterials, which could have far reaching negative impacts on ensuing continuity, seamless travel and access for all road users, should be dropped from DAP. The excuse that FFT moves more slowly than cars is untenable when considering that the average speed of cars in Dhaka is no faster than that easily reached by a rickshaw.
Allocation of a Fixed Percentage of Space for Roads
There is an unfortunate belief that a certain percentage of the city should be designed as roads, and that Dhaka has a seriously inadequate road network. This magical formula is believed to result in the end of traffic congestion and all its ensuing misery. According to this theory, simply by tearing down more buildings and building wider streets all Dhaka’s congestion will magically disappear and people will live their happy lives, commuting merrily throughout the city by car on smoothly-flowing roads free from such annoying obstacles as rickshaws and pedestrians.
Such a belief was put forward by STP and is again echoed in DAP. Thus DAP proposes a massive increase in the proportion of the road network in greater Dhaka Metropolitan area by simply increasing the road network as a fixed percentage (target 20%) of the available space in the city. Under the programme, a 34% increase of road space is proposed for the main Dhaka City as shown in Table 4.2. Similar increases in the road network are also proposed for other green field development areas of the greater Dhaka Metropolitan area without conducting any knowledge-based or scientific analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed expansion of the road network on the overall transport system and civic life of the city.
Table 4.2: Proposed Extension of Road Network as Percentage of Available Space in Main Dhaka City (After DAP 2008)
DPZ Zone in Study Area C
Total Area
Existing
Proposed
Difference
Acres
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
% of existing roads
DPZ -1: Old Dhaka (West)
1450
140.56
9.69%
170.09
11.73%
29.53
21.01%
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
1314
151.94
11.56%
173.58
13.21%
21.64
14.24%
DPZ-3: CBD South-West
1091
145.82
13.37%
150.01
13.75%
4.19
2.88%
DPZ-4: CBD South-East
1315
190.67
14.50%
203.83
15.50%
13.16
6.90%
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
3488.38
419.89
12.04%
574.54
16.47%
154.65
36.83%
DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area
704
70.56
10.02%
78.14
11.10%
7.58
10.75%
DPZ-7: CBD North West
2587
287.55
11.12%
359.08
13.88%
71.53
24.87%
DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
1221
89.69
7.35%
117.70
9.64%
28.01
31.23%
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
2292
183.19
7.99%
221.41
9.66%
38.22
20.86%
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
3821
298.66
7.82%
583.47
15.27%
284.81
95.36%
DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Baridhara
3618.62
130.86
3.62%
264.88
7.32%
134.02
102.42%
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
2110.07
153.33
7.27%
205.94
9.76%
52.61
34.31%
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
1523.33
153.37
10.07%
167.26
10.98%
13.89
9.06%
Total
26535.4
2416.09

3269.92

853.83
35.34%
The concept, for instance, that any modern city needs 20% of space for roads, as proposed in DAP is outdated and without any scientific basis. For example, Los Angles, which has 30% of space for roads, is the most congested and polluted city of the United States of America. On the other hand, many cities in Europe, which have far lower proportions of road space, solve congestion problems by an integrated demand and supply management approach which includes discouraging cars and encouraging walking and cycling.
As international experience and research makes clear to anyone who wishes to learn from practice rather than experiment with theory, any extra space provided by new roads simply induces demand for additional travel. Thus, effective demand management approaches like parking control, providing priorities to fuel-free transport and controlling the growth of cars should be integrated with any additional supply of facilities for personalised travel in order to ensure a sustainable and balanced transport development. The whole issue of land use and transport interaction management should be investigated from the perspective of the accessibility and door-to-door movements of people and goods, not just maximisation of the movements of vehicles within the road network. Moreover, the effective use of city space should not be viewed from the perspective of providing more and more road space for vehicles; rather it should be looked at from the viewpoint of the need to facilitate an optimal number of trips, which includes decreasing the need to travel by ensuring that most facilities are close to homes.
There is no doubt, however, that it is important to determine the optimum number of roads for Dhaka City. According to the STP study report, development of the ROAD+ option, which includes 42 basic road improvement projects (29 new roads + 13 already opened for traffic or under construction) represents the most balanced and optimum investment as far as the road network in Dhaka City is concerned. However, STP went far beyond the optimum investment on roads and recommended an option which would not only require 63% more resources but also contribute to more congestion and pollution as per the findings of the study. This suggests a lack of regard for evidence or rationality, not to mention the conditions of the majority or of the environment, in the decision-making process of the STP team.
Instead of providing an arbitrarily fixed percentage of space for the road network, effort should be directed in DAP to design a comprehensive network of smaller and relatively narrow streets with mixed used developments, dispersing traffic over the whole system and allocating the maximum amount of road space to pedestrians, fuel free vehicles and public transport in accordance with a multimodal travel demand analysis. In order to determine the validity of additional road proposals and to determine the configuration and optimum size of the road network, a comprehensive multimodal transport analysis needs to be undertaken. Similarly, all road construction proposals in excess of the ROAD+ proposal of STP, such as construction of a 29 km elevated expressway system, auto-only tunnels and flyovers such as Kuril flyover, and other new road and widening proposals, excluding minor city access roads, should be dropped from DAP.
Promotion of More Car Parking Areas
There seem to be misconceptions among the formulators of both STP and DAP that congestion can be reduced by providing sufficient parking facilities, as demonstrated in their parking policy. Free and low-cost parking facilities for cars in fact induce demand for car storage and use, which in turn leads to more and more congestion and pollution. In order to reduce adverse impacts on the transport system, successful mega cities around the world have adopted various parking restriction measures, such as shifting of parking facilities outside the city centre with provisions for park and ride facilities, total restriction on creation of parking lots, and pricing for parking considering opportunity costs of the use of space and the time for which it is used. The concept of creation of more parking space is therefore simply counterproductive and a recipe for more congestion.
Streets are public spaces, while cars are private property. Car owners, being one of the population groups least in need of a subsidy, should be charged for the space that their parked cars occupy, regardless of where that parking occurs (excepting of course the car owner’s private property). Since land in Dhaka is prohibitively expensive and in great demand, car owners should not be subsidized for their parking anywhere. Subsidies should be reserved for those who need them, and space should go to the majority, not be monopolized by the elite few. As the opus on car parking produced by the American Planning Association, The High Cost of Free Parking, so abundantly illustrates in its extensively referenced pages, there is no such thing as free parking. All parking involves direct and opportunity costs. The more emphasis is placed on ensuring “adequate” supply of parking facilities—thereby attempting to meet an ever-increasing demand—the more impoverished cities become, both financially and in terms of the vitality of urban life that allows cities to thrive. In short, urban space is far too valuable to waste ever-increasing amounts of it on the storage of inefficient private vehicles at the expense of all other potential uses and users.
The existing parking proposals of DAP should be revised in order to establish the maximum number of parking spaces allowed, rather than the minimum required. This would eliminate the need to penalize or charge property owners for not providing enough spaces, and would ensure that large sums of money and large amounts of land are not wasted in trying to meet the insatiable demand for car parking. The existing Bangladesh Building Code should be modified, deleting mandatory provisions for reserving more than one-fourth of space for car parking in commercial, shopping and office premises. On no account should property owners be forced to provide more parking than they wish, or be penalized for failing to provide “enough” spaces. Neither should property owners be forced to reserve the ground floor for car parking, as such a system has many negative consequences, including making life more difficult for the physically disabled (lack of ground floor apartments), raising the cost of housing (because it cannot be subsidized through shops or other services on the ground floor), and weakening the structure of buildings thereby making them more susceptible to earthquakes.
All the proposals to create more car parking areas in the central city areas, such as multi-story car parking facilities in Motijheel Commercial area, New Market and other commercial and shopping areas, should be dropped from the DAP.



Figure 4.1: Chaotic State of On-Street Free Parking Facilities in Motijheel Commercial Area
Proposal for Forcing Pedestrians to use Overhead or Underground Crossings
As with provision of decent housing for slum dwellers, so with pedestrians: it is not sufficient to put forth a good policy without backing it by practical plans. In both STP and DAP, serious contradictions appear between the stated policy directives and the willingness to provide sufficient resources to support them. While STP recognised the need to adopt a “Pedestrian First Policy” as an essential part of a balanced multimodal transport system, the policy was later abandoned while developing different alternative transport strategies. In the preferred (though by no means top-ranked) alternative Strategy Modified 2b, only a tiny fraction, i.e. 0.22% of the total investment, was proposed for pedestrian-oriented developments.
There are two key problems with STP which are echoed in DAP. The first is the unwillingness to assign a reasonable proportion of resources to the most common mode of travel in Dhaka City (walking). Given that most trips are on foot and/or include walking as one component of the trip, it is clear that a reasonable share of resources should be allocated to improving conditions for pedestrians. The second problem is the lack of understanding of what constitutes a pro-pedestrian measure. Simply paying lip service to pedestrians while failing to improve the infrastructure from which they would benefit, and instead spending the tiny funds designated for pedestrians to further increase the priority of cars on the road, is unacceptable and should be halted.
Consider the vital issue of street crossings. Most traffic fatalities in Dhaka currently are of pedestrians, presumably while crossing the street. The response to this problem by the government to date has not been to make it safer to cross the street, but rather to ban pedestrians from crossing at various spots 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.
The theory put forward by planners is that pedestrians should be forced to use overhead or underground crossings as these are safer than street-level crossings. In fact, the issue is not safety but the unhindered movement of cars on the street. Achieving pedestrian safety in street crossings is achievable at far less expense and inconvenience by putting signals at regular intervals on the streets, but such signals are perceived as an obstacle to the movement of cars. The fact that it is a deterrent to walking to be forced to walk up to a kilometre 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 ignored. Even worse than overhead crossings are underground ones, which pose an obvious risk to safety, or at their best, tend to be used as urinals (in the absence of sufficient provision of public toilets) and thus be virtually impossible to utilise.
Experience of grade-separated crossings in different cities around the world has shown 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 though 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 other pedestrians.
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 are mainly directed to provide absolute priority to autos.
Given that it is cars that are deadly, the onus for safety should be on them, not on pedestrians; rather than pedestrians dodging cars, cars should be forced to slow down and stop for pedestrians. If pedestrians gained in reality the priority they are only accorded through words, frequent street-level crossings would be provided. These are far more convenient to pedestrians, avoid the problem of walking great distances to reach the occasional bridge or tunnel, and do not require a good deal of climbing up and down stairs. 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, which in turn has positive effects on congestion and the physical and social environment.
In addition to signals for regular and easy street crossings, other pedestrian-friendly infrastructure would include repair to existing and building of sidewalks where they do not exist; widening existing sidewalks to a comfortable width; and planting trees along sidewalks to provide shade and some shelter from rain for those on foot. Another pro-pedestrian measure would be to provide benches and secondary seating to allow those on foot to rest.
Far from considering any such positive initiatives, DAP recommended 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 4.3.
Table 4.3: Pedestrian Bridges and Pedestrian Safety
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
Source: Michael King, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2004
In a densely-populated urban area like Dhaka City, DAP should concentrate on a pedestrian-friendly approach for designing intersections and other crossings by assigning pedestrians absolute priority over vehicles, such as by:
Ensuring uninterrupted movements of pedestrians;
Forcing vehicles to slow down or eliminate free-flowing motor vehicle turnings;
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 identifying the direction of travel for all pedestrians;
Letting the pedestrian see and be seen.

Figure 4.2: People take the risky course of crossing road through a narrow passage between barbwires just to avoid the 'trouble' of using foot-over bridge. The photo was taken under the over-bridge beside New Market in the capital (Source The Daily Star)
Banning FFT from More City Roads
Given the emphasis in DAP on providing high quality facilities for those with cars at the expense of slum dwellers, the low-income, and pedestrians, it should come as no surprise that DAP also puts forward regressive policy directions regarding fuel-free transport (FFT). Like STP, DAP includes initiatives to confine FFT for local circulation only and to further extend the bans on FFT on a number of roads in Dhaka City including Kuril Biswa Road to Syadabad, Kakrail to Rajarbag Police Hospital, and Dainik Bangla Crossing to Syadabad. Since FFT (mostly rickshaws and bicycles) is more efficient in terms of space occupancy, energy utilisation and pollution rating, we should promote their use rather than restricting them. We should also learn lessons from the past.
The results of various anti-NMT initiatives have been made clear through government-mandated studies, including the HDRC report on the rickshaw ban on Mirpur Road (HDRC 2004), and the DUTP after-study report (DUTP 2006, Bari and Efroymson 2006). The results, almost astonishingly negative, would suggest that the basis for the policy decisions and transport plans are flawed. This should be less than surprising when considering the fact that important transport policy decisions were taken without employing any knowledge-based approach or scientific study. Despite a 50% traffic growth of motorised vehicles and a reduction in vehicles overall during 2000 to 2005, the traffic in terms of PCE (passenger car equivalent) in the Mirpur Road Demonstration corridor was significantly lower in 2005 in comparison to that of 2000. However, despite having less traffic, the performance of the corridor in terms of all key congestion indicators like travel time, throughput, reliability, etc were significantly deteriorated after rickshaw ban.
Moreover, despite the strong evidence of increased travel costs and traffic congestion as a direct result of FFT bans—not to mention the worsening of poverty among rickshaw pullers and the vendors who serve them—transport planning continues to focus on expanding the role of the automobile and reducing that of fuel-free transport. That pattern has been reflected by the further extension of the FFT bans on more city roads in DAP. This disregards the fact that rickshaws are far superior as urban transport modes in terms of road space occupancy, energy consumption and environmental consideration in relation to cars.
It is encouraging that DAP recognised the need for a large quantity of rickshaw traffic from neighbouring Lalmatia and Mohammadpur by regular users of Dhanmodi Residential Area roads in order to go to New Market, Nilkhet, Azimpur and the University area. In order to address this need, DAP proposed to open up the road within the BDR for public use with a separate rickshaw lane along Satmasjid Road. Just as with building bridges and underpasses in the name of pedestrian safety in order to maintain absolute priority for cars, so here: the idea is clearly not to increase, but rather to reduce the presence of rickshaws on Satmasjid and neighbouring roads, so as to ensure more road space for cars. The previous failed attempt with building a rickshaw lane in the area should be a reminder of why such an approach will not succeed. The single narrow lane was insufficient for the quantity of rickshaw traffic, and as no attempts were made to keep it clear, it was constantly blocked by parked cars. Restricting a heavy flow of rickshaws to a single lane will only increase the suffering of rickshaw passengers, as is the case with the current inadequate lane on Mirpur Road near New Market. Allowing the public to use the road through BDR is a more positive measure, but if the road is opened to cars as well as rickshaws, it will simply become as congested as other roads in the area.
Rather than adopting a piecemeal approach, or car-friendly measures in the name of accommodating while actually restricting rickshaws, it would be wiser to reintroduce rickshaws on all roads where they are currently banned, as an integrated public transit (PT) priority supplemented by FFT-only roads. This approach was put forward by the STP Consultants in the Working Paper on Mass Transit (Fjellstrom 2004), who recognised the superiority of a combination of FFT, pedestrian and bus rapid transit (BRT) options and proposed three possible alternatives for the roads of Dhaka City. Those proposals included pedestrians plus BRT, pedestrians plus mixed mode plus BRT, and pedestrians plus FFT-only lanes plus BRT lanes, depending on the width of the road in question.
Unlike the main report, the STP Working Paper on Mass Transit did not propose any combination of BRT and fuel-dependent transport (FDT). If DAP wants to promote public transit (PT) priority measures, such as BRT or any other bus priority measures, there will be no need to give additional priority to cars and motorised para-transits (taxis, CNG three-wheelers). BRT or the designated bus priority measure will be able to cater to the needs of intermediate and long trips in combination with FFT priority measures, which will address the needs of the majority of short trips, which account for about 76% of total trips.
Rather than extension of FFT bans, DAP should consider development of an integrated public transit and fuel-free transit priority road network throughout the city as per the recommended approach of the Working Paper on Public Transport of STP. In addition, planners should begin work on designing a continuous and sufficiently wide and well-designed bicycle lane in all city roads for ensuring interrupted and seamless journeys using this eco-friendly, space- and energy-efficient mode.
Relocation of Rail Stations and Bus/Truck Terminal Outside City Area
It appears that DAP intends to relocate all major rail stations, bus and truck terminals to new locations outside the central congested part of the city, which is also one of the many misguided policy directives put forward in STP. In order to improve transport efficiency between and within different modes while recognising their complementarities within a transport system, it is imperative to ensure interrupted and seamless journeys for public transport. This includes activities for the development of quality logistics covering all transport modes. Intermodality in passengers and freight should be addressed by activities including seamless and competitive solutions, and integration of terminals in all transport modes.
Most passengers begin and end their trips within the central area of the city. Forcing them to leave the city to begin and end their trip simply increases the pressure on other transport servicing bus terminals, railway stations and ports. Cutting intercity trips arbitrarily at the boundary of the city does not reduce the number of trips. If there is a demand for travel towards the centre of the city, people will make the journey regardless, potentially using less efficient smaller vehicles leading to more congestion and pollution.
Consider the experience in Dhaka with the creation of four separate intercity bus terminals without any interlinking facilities. Such a move was a step backward for the development of a well-integrated public transport network. This short-sighted approach not only severed numerous trips and promoted growth of relatively inefficient taxi services, but further increased congestion by promoting less space-efficient vehicles within the city in comparison to more efficient bus or rail services. It is therefore essential to reintroduce a Central Bus Station at the centre of the city, provide linkages among all bus stations, and allow all intercity buses to use city roads. However, it would not be wise to use the Central Bus Station/Stations merely as parking lots for buses. In order to optimise efficiency, strict time schedules should be maintained for the timely arrival and departure of buses to and from the Central Bus Station. In brief, there is no justification for shifting key intermodal interchange facilities from the heart of the city, and all such misguided proposals of DAP should be dropped, including those listed here:
Relocation of central bus terminal to its new location near Upazila road of Gazipur Pourashava;
Relocation of Truck Terminal to avoid traffic congestion in Dhirassram near ICD of Gazipur Pourashava and beside Tongi Bishwa Estema for Tongi Pourashava area;
Realignment of the proposed Laksham Dhaka Railway Chord Line avoiding major urban area without connecting Naranganj and Kamlapur Railway Station;
Relocation of ICD from Kamlapur to Dhirasram Railway Station;
Shifting of Sadarghat Terminal to Pagla.
Restriction on Licensing of New Rickshaws
The pro-car and anti-poor bias present through DAP again becomes clear in the policy towards rickshaws. Again following the lead of STP, DAP proposes restricting the number of rickshaws in the city, thereby defying the recommendations of previous government-sponsored transport studies.
Both of the two major studies so far conducted in Dhaka City, i.e. STP (STP 2005) and DITS (DUTP 1997) recommended not imposing any restriction on the number of rickshaws, but rather allowing the optimum number of rickshaws to be determined by market forces. Here as elsewhere, DAP does not seem to pay any attention to the advice of transport experts. On the contrary, DAP seem to be unreasonably harsh in controlling the number of rickshaws and the production of new rickshaws. Yet previous studies on rickshaws have found them to be economically efficient and to have been operating under long run marginal equilibrium conditions. This implies that as far as economic efficiency is concerned, the existing number of rickshaws is optimal, be they “legal” or “illegal”. There is no need to control their number, and any sub-optimum number may promote corruption, monopolies or unfair fare regimes.
There is no doubt that rickshaws are a far better mode of transport than cars especially in a mega city like Dhaka, in terms of energy efficiency, pollution control, traffic congestion and travel demand management. The double standard of in DAP in providing absolute priority to a tiny minority of car owners, who are the main contributors of congestion, while at the same time proposing reducing the quantity of environmentally friendly and efficient rickshaws not only has no scientific basis as far as congestion management is concerned, but is also tantamount to the infringement of the fundamental rights of the vulnerable rickshaw pullers to earn a living by legal means, and of passengers to move around the city at low expense and with the convenience of door-to-door transport—a convenience otherwise only allowed to the rich.
Conversion of One-way Roads
The suggestions for conversion of some roads and obstruction of traffic by access control gates seem to be rather arbitrary. If a street network in a densely populated area, such as Dhanmondi Residential area, has many one-way roads, restrictions on travel and large road segments without adequate free access points, people would have to travel further to reach their destinations, thereby hampering accessibility. It would not be appropriate to propose such a potentially disastrous prescription without conducting an appropriate multimodal transport analysis of the impacts of such one-way roads and restrictions on exists and entries on door-to-door mobility and accessibility.
The motivation for the move is obvious: the excessive concentration in Dhanmondi of private schools for the children of the wealthy, who are chauffeured to and from school by private car, contributes to the severe traffic congestion in the neighbourhood. But creating one-way roads and blocking access will do nothing to reduce such congestion, avoiding as they do the true cause: the excess number of cars for the limited amount of road space. Here two solutions seem clear: to bulldoze much of this pleasant area in order to build extremely wide streets—and in the process move many destinations even farther from their users—or accept that the number of cars is excessive, not the number of roads inadequate. Appropriate solutions can be identified once the actual problem is understood; measures include charging for car parking by time used, banning parking on major roads and all footpaths, and various other measures to induce people to shift from the space-inefficient mode of car use to the space-efficient (as well as environmentally beneficial) methods of FFT including walking.
Development of Commuting Railway Network
The DMDP, as part of its long-term plan, proposed the development of a commuter rail network to serve the high-density sections of the main urbanized area. However the issue of developing a commuting railway network was totally ignored in STP. In order to reduce the dependency on the already overburdened road network, it would be very useful if possible to develop a circular railway network around the main Dhaka City and a comprehensive commuting rail service linking all surrounding major town centres, such as Narayanganj, Tongi, Gazipur, Joydepupur, Savar, Kaliganj, Mawa, Keraniganj, etc.
Development of Urban Mass Transit System
There is no doubt that a metropolitan area the size of Dhaka needs some form of mass rapid transit to provide good quality transport at an affordable cost for a large number of users. According to the findings of the STP study, a combination of integrated bus service and a comprehensive network of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which can provide service to a wider geographical area within an affordable price, represent the best way forward for Dhaka City. However, STP recommended the creation of a Mass Transit System which combines both Metro (heavy rail based, completely segregated, and elevated and partly underground) and BRT lines without conducting appropriate multimodal transport analysis. In order to determine the best type/combination of mass public transit system for Dhaka City it might be appropriate to conduct a comprehensive long-term, preferably for an evaluation period of 60 years, multimodal transport appraisal under an integrated supply and demand management approach.
It is nevertheless worth mentioning that a few simple facts about mass transit should be acknowledged within all urban and transport plans for Bangladesh. Underground and elevated rail systems are extremely expensive and cumbersome to operate, requiring high initial capital costs for their construction and for their operation. Underground systems run into further problems due to flooding, and elevated systems are aesthetically unacceptable to many. Initial estimates for such systems, as in the case of Bangkok, tend both to underestimate the costs and amount of time required to complete the project, and to overestimate the number of daily passengers and the profits to be made. In fact, such systems require heavy subsidies throughout their lifetime.
In contrast, the construction of a proper Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system requires only about 1/100th the cost per kilometre as an underground Metro, thereby allowing both for a far more extensive system and for great cost savings that can then be invested in building a complementary fuel-free transport (FFT) network. This combination of BRT and FFT is exactly what was proposed in the specific study on this issue commissioned under STP (and ignored in the plans). In assessing the feasibility of BRT it would also be worthwhile to compare it to a surface rail (tram) system, which while involving higher operational costs would likely involve far lower running costs. In any case, the issue is too important to be decided on the basis of prejudice or individual preference without a sound study underlying the potential costs and benefits of different systems and the practical experience of other countries with them.
Development of an Integrated Water Transport System
The DMDP Structure Plan recommended, with regard to water transportation, the efficient utilisation of available natural resources. In order to develop a comprehensive water transport system it is essential to develop an integrated network of an inner grid of channels as well as a circular waterway encircling the city. However, the proposed construction of a waterway as per the STP recommendations is nothing but an eye-wash. Due to its inherently auto-friendly nature, STP neither conducted an appropriate study to determine potential travel demands for water transport nor was it sincere about how to integrate a coordinated water transport system with other modes of transport.
In the STP proposal only a relatively tiny amount (USD 50 million) was allocated for the development of the water transport system, which represents only 1.11% of the total investment proposal. It is not possible to develop an integrated water transport system for a mega city like Dhaka adopting such a half-hearted approach. It is therefore imperative to undertake an appropriate study on how to develop an integrated water transport system within and connected to a network encircling the city and to determine how to integrate the system with other modes of transport by utilising numerous existing and potential water bodies, as demonstrated in Appendix A. Such a plan could involve digging new channels or dredging existing ones to ensure adequate navigability. In addition, it is essential to device a comprehensive strategy on how to keep all the water transport channels navigable throughout the year round by adopting comprehensive spatial and water management planning.
Flood Control and Drainage
Flood Control and Drainage Management Approach of Dhaka City
Dhaka city is located on the floodplains of the distributaries of the Brahmaputra. Change in the water regime due to inconsistent land development activities in the floodplain topography is the main cause of rising flood hazards in Dhaka City. In order to bring some discipline into spatial land use and flood management planning, the Structural Plan of the Dhaka Metropolitan Area set out the standard for land use planning and floodplain management as per guidance of Flood Action Plan 8A and 8B of JICA in 1992 (JICA 1992), which recommend preserving at least 12.1% of low-lying areas as retention ponds for flood water. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Structural Plan of DMDP were not followed and RAJUK, the government agency responsible for implementing the plan as wells as enforcing zoning regulations and issuing building construction permits, has failed to curb unplanned growth. As a result, low-lying areas demarcated as retention ponds for flood water or identified as flood flow zones have been filled up by land developers, leaving insufficient space for flood retention ponds. Considering the practical ground realities, it has now become almost impossible to implement an effective and coordinated embankment-oriented spatial planning in the floodplains of the Greater Dhaka Metropolitan area for future expansion of the city. Due consideration should be given in the urban spatial planning of DAP concerning this issue. Some of the proposed land use development proposals of DAP and their potential impacts on flood and drainage hazard, and steps necessary to address them, are briefly discussed below.
Factors Responsible for Flood Hazard and Alternative Mitigation Approaches
During the monsoons, the river water level remains high and results in fluvial floods in the floodplains. Depending on the nature and intensity of floods, two different approaches to flood control become prominent for urban spatial and flood management planning, that is, (i) Flood proofing and (ii) Embankment-oriented flood control.
The Flood proofing of building and other infrastructure within the floodplain appears to be a more appropriate and eco-friendly flood management approach in a floodplain landscape. This was the traditional practice in Dhaka City as evident from old buildings e.g. Ahsan Manzil. In this practice, road levels and plinth levels are set above the flood level. This approach is more compatible with the contemporary Dutch approach which favours living with floods in urban spatial planning. The basic philosophy of this approach is “Building in flood plains is only possible in combination with more room for the river”. It promotes building in floodplains by adopting flood-adapted buildings and keeping provision for sufficient water retention areas in flood plains.
Unfortunately the traditional practice of flood proofing has been extinguished in Greater Dhaka Metropolitan area because of the embankment-oriented flood control approach and the construction of embankments in the western part of the city to provide protection against fluvial floods. The effectiveness of such embankments as flood control measures is debatable at best. Despite massive flood control measures already undertaken by the Government of Bangladesh (GOB), the total amount of damage to economy, crops, and infrastructures due to floods has been increasing steadily since 1954 onwards. Although the numbers may vary to some extent, it is quite obvious that flood control measures did not make a significant impact in terms of reducing the flooding propensity and total damage caused by floods. Moreover, the magnitude and duration of flood have changed quite dramatically during the last few decades. The duration of the 1998 flood was over 70 days, whereas a prolonged flooding condition prevailed throughout much of the monsoon season in 1999. The likelihood of flooding in an area depends on a number of key factors (Khalequzzaman 2000), such as: (a) amount of runoff that results from rain in a watershed, (b) water carrying capacity of a drainage basin, and (c) change in land elevations with respect to riverbeds and sea level.
An increase in the runoff component of the hydrologic cycle in a watershed has been taking place because of the increasing imperviousness due to the ongoing urbanization process and change in rainfall patterns as a result of global warming. Due to indiscriminate urbanization in flood plains and agricultural lands, which is synonymous with the existing trends of the Greater Dhaka urban development process, the lag time for surface run-off is shortened, peak flow is greatly increased, and the total run-off is compressed into a shorter time interval, creating favourable conditions for intense flooding. For example, in a city that is totally served by storm drains and where 60% of the land surface is covered by roads and buildings (like Dhaka City), floods are almost six times more numerous than before urbanization (ibid). Simply put, if one gives the water nowhere to go (in terms of water bodies and permeable surfaces), one will have floods.
Again, the wetlands, such as lakes, khals (floodplain channel) and ponds act as detention reservoirs in the western part by storing runoff generated from local rainfall. The storm runoff stored in the detention reservoirs is drained by gravity when the river water level decreases. The storm water flood hazard in the protected western Dhaka city is on the rise because of decreasing storm runoff detention capacity. The once very successful Dhaka-Narayanganj-Demra (DND) Irrigation Project has now turned into a curse for the inhabitants. DND Drainage improvement is nowadays synonymous to drainage problems of the whole Narayanganj area (DAP 2008). Land development activities and associated land use changes that are not consistent with floodplain landscape functions are mainly responsible for this adverse impact.
Uncoordinated road construction ignoring the storm runoff passage is also among the important factors contributing to storm water hazard. This is because road networks modify drainage catchments on the floodplain topography. Unfortunately the ongoing spatial and transport planning approach of both STP and DAP favours construction of numerous roads far in excess of what is required from the viewpoint of maximization of the door-to-door mobility and access of people and goods, even defying the findings of the Government-sponsored transport studies. This excessive road building would likely to aggravate the likelihood of flood hazards in the flood plain of Greater Dhaka to a great extent.
Because of the rise in storm water hazards, some of the drainage zones in Dhaka city have been provided with pumped drainage systems. Reduction in retention areas at the pump intake because of the encroachment of retention area is causing storm water flooding in areas with pumped drainage systems. Pumped drainage is not appropriate in floodplain topography since it causes increased flood level in the floodplain at the opposite bank of the river. More importantly, the logic of shifting the intensity of floods from urban to rural areas no longer remains valid as most of the areas outside the existing embankments have already become an integral part of the Greater Dhaka urban core.
Moreover, a decrease in land elevations due to siltation, indiscriminate filling of low-lying areas by land developers and rise of sea level due to global warming would likely increase flooding propensity in the flood plain of Dhaka City even further.
Without going into great detail about the potential solutions, a few facts are clear: DAP must include sufficient facilities for water absorption, drainage and storage. This includes ponds, lakes, and khals, and water absorption in terms of parks, agricultural lands, and other unbuilt areas. A city overly focused on buildings and roads will be, in the case of a floodplain like Dhaka, a flooded city, with a devastating and utterly needless toll on human health, the environment, and the economy. How much wiser would it be to learn from the lessons of a city like Curitiba which converted its floodplains into parks, creating amenities in the place of hazards.
Potential Transport Impacts of the Proposed Eastern Bypass
As regards the improvement of traffic congestion in Dhaka City, the results of the model outputs of the STP study (STP 2005) show no significant impacts of the Eastern Bypass project on the overall traffic condition of the city. The study shows that the construction of the Eastern Bypass will not bring any tangible transport or economic benefits and there is hardly any justification for this mega investment project. This lack of benefits is likely due to the fact that most trips toward Dhaka City are terminating trips. The insignificant number of through trips does not justify such a high level of investment. Despite these facts, both STP and DAP arbitrarily included the Eastern Bypass as one of the core projects, ignoring the fact that it has no potential positive impacts on improvement of the traffic situation in Dhaka City, yet has the potential for far-reaching negative environmental and ecological impacts. It is not clear what is the basis in DAP to assume significant transport benefits of the Eastern Bypass without conducting an appropriate multimodal transport analysis.
Living with Floods in Urban Spatial Planning
Since most of the designated areas for the retention ponds have already been filled up by the private property developers, it is almost impossible to reserve 12.1% of the area for retention ponds, which is essential for effective flood control and drainage management. Therefore, the embankment-oriented flood control initiative no longer remains a viable alternative.
Effort should be directed in DAP to drop the ongoing flood control and embankment-oriented spatial development approach, and focus instead on making urban development more compatible with flood risks. Re-arrangement of the rules is necessary to guide private entrepreneurs for building in floodplains by adopting flood-adapted buildings and keeping provision for sufficient water reservation areas in flood plains under a co-ordinated water management and spatial planning for Dhaka City. The greatest benefits can be achieved by combining flood control and drainage management with flexible and robust spatial planning. The flood and drainage hazards can be minimized by reducing the probability of flooding and mitigating the potential damage. Efforts should be made so that water and building/development would no longer encroach on each other; on the contrary, the space would be organized in such a way that the water would cause less damage in built-up areas.
Urban planning should therefore ensure that land development activities follow a number of guiding principles regarding storm water management as follows:
Embankment-oriented flood control and spatial planning is only feasible by providing a sufficient quantity of water retention ponds and natural drainage facility by gravity.
Storm-runoff that would be generated after land development should not exceed the pre-development magnitude. This can be achieved by making provision for inlet control within individual properties to reduce storm runoff, by maintaining green area in sub-catchments to facilitate infiltration and by providing at-site detention storage to trap excess runoff.
Contrary to the embankment- and pump-oriented flood control and drainage management approach of DAP, a detention reservoir-based gravity drainage system is more reliable and appropriate for storm water drainage system in a floodplain landscape. An example of such a detention system is the Hatir Jheel (wetland) that is regulated by a regulator at Rampura.
Water storage and drainage capacities of urban catchments should be increased by recovering encroached wetlands and khals. Making provision for water transport within Dhaka City will bring great benefit to city dwellers, as would walking paths along wetlands and khals improve civic amenities.
Road alignment and culvert locations must be consistent with the storm water runoff process in the floodplain landscape.
Floodplain wetlands perform a critical function in the storm drainage process. They are also storehouses of ecological resources and a means of recreation. Preservation and restoration of wetlands is a must for sustainable storm drainage systems in a floodplain landscape.
In this connection, a number of proposals for the development of an integrated water management and recreation facilities in DAP deserve high appreciation, such as:
Creation of recreational park around retention ponds behind Zafrabad, Katasur area;
Green belt scheme around BegunBari Khal/canal;
Retention pond cum recreation scheme near Western embankment ;
Retention Pond cum recreation area near Mirpur DOHS.
Much could also be learned from the ecological city of Curitiba in Brazil, which turned its floodplains from dangerous and barely habitable slums into gorgeous and popular parks that have both increased the liveability of the city and attracted far more tourists, thereby increasing economic as well as other benefits. Rather than adopting a piecemeal approach for providing recreational facilities under an embankment-oriented flood control strategy, a coordinated and sustainable flood control and spatial planning approach is needed. DAP should drop the embankment-oriented flood control and spatial planning approach and adopt instead a more flexible and robust spatial planning, which favours living with floods without compromising ever-increasing needs for urban expansion and spatial development initiatives.
Utility Services
Without going into detail on this complicated issue, let a couple key points suffice.
First, the lesser the density of an area, the higher the cost to government of providing utilities and other services. Suburbs are unaffordable on a number of fronts, including in terms of the inordinate expense they generate in terms of laying out sewer and water lines, installing electricity and phone lines, collecting trash, providing fire services, etc. The more dense the neighbourhood, the more affordable to government the services provided. The nefarious Western practice of subsidizing the wealthiest by charging the same rates for such services in suburbs as in inner-city neighbourhoods should by no means be copied in Dhaka, where the outrageousness of the inequity is even greater.
Second, drainage cannot happen when all available space is paved over and built on. Some space must be left as parks, agricultural land, and as water bodies.
Third, as with transport, so with utilities: attempts to meet constantly expanding demand with supply is an expensive and impossible proposition. It would be far wiser to accept the limitations on the possibilities of service provision and instead focus on reducing demand. Measures could include installing meters for household cooking gas, as already exist with water, and providing a minimal amount each month for free, with rapidly rising rates as households consume in units beyond that amount (e.g. small charges for using only a bit more, but far more significant charges for those using large amounts). Such measures would immediately serve to reduce much of the existing waste as people fail to fix leaky faucets and leave their stoves on all day to save matches.
Attempts to supply endless amounts of electricity are similarly doomed; there is no limit to people’s desire for it, but people’s actual need is far less. Encouraging people to buy various electric appliances when there is no ability to supply the electricity needed to run them is not a sensible strategy, however much businesses that make and sell those appliances may approve of it. It is not the job of government simply to cater to industry, but rather to develop policies to ration in a fair and equitable way valuable supplies of finite resources. (Sending all to the suburbs and none to the slums counts neither as fair nor equitable.)
The forward-thinking US city of Portland, Oregon has demonstrated that it is possible to reduce energy use while improving quality of life and economic measures. This should not come as a great surprise, given that much use of finite resources is wasteful rather than productive. By focusing supply on productive use and limiting waste, people, the environment, and the economy can all benefit.
Finally, government services must remain in government hands. Privatizing such essential items as water, gas and electricity are a great way to make enormous amounts of money for the monopolies that cash in, and cause endless misery to those who need but can no longer afford these utilities. Compare the rates charged by some mobile phone companies to those charged by T&T and ask yourself which is corrupt, the government or the private companies. Riots in various countries that have tried such privatization, and the escalation in prices, fall in quality of service, and failure for companies to pay a fair price for their monopolized profit-making should make clear that these are not experiments worth attempting in Bangladesh.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The key conclusions, as drawn from this critical analysis of the DAP Report, are presented in the following sections with respect to key policy objectives.
Planning Approach
It appears that important land use and transport policy decisions both in STP and DAP were taken without conducting either any knowledge-based or scientific analysis. Instead, arbitrary or “common sense” approaches were utilised which tend to favour the tiny minority of the rich, including bureaucrats and developers with little concern for the betterment of society overall.
Under DAP no comprehensive data collection exercise was undertaken to estimate land-use requirements for the DMDP area. As a result all the land use proposals of DAP are hypothetical in nature without providing how the actual land-use demand for various purposes would be met in future.
Prior to assigning preparation of DAP in five geographical areas to four different consultants, no attempt was made to set out a goal, target, objectives, standard criteria, verifiable indicators, data collection approach, working methodology and standard formats for presentation of outputs and reports. As a result there are serious inconsistencies between the consultants due to lack of coherent and standard approach to the problem identification, development of solutions as well as presentation of outputs.
It is not possible to achieve progressive outcomes for the stakeholders without adopting appropriate knowledge-based or participatory urban planning approaches, nor is it likely when the poor are clearly not the targeted beneficiaries of the planning, as is evident in the ongoing planning initiatives of DAP. Most of the policy directives of DAP therefore would likely generate Absolutely Regressive outcomes.
Land Use Planning
The STP-selected Growth Pole scenario, which is adopted in the DAP, is not consistent with the Structural Plan of DMDP that preferred a concentrated and mixed-use land development. The growth pole of land use initiative, which is more suitable for a wider geographical area, would necessitate development of large number of unnecessary road links to connect numerous poles, thus leading to more demand for travel.
Creation of more single use functional areas for Dhaka, which seems to be the adopted land use strategy for DAP, is a recipe for more transport demand and hence increases in congestion.
DAP utterly failed to provide sufficient amount of space for parks and open space for both brown field and green field developments despite the fact that sufficient space is available in restricted area of the brown fields and proposed infill developments of the green field areas.
The brown field development area of main Dhaka (Study Area C) has 2,676 acres of land space, which is 10% of the total area of the main Dhaka city, as restricted area mainly used for either non-productive or other functions that could easily be provided outside the core urban area of the city.
It appears that there are three major shortcomings in the proposed provisions for general public services and social institutions in the DAP. Firstly, DAP is planning to provide consolidated, regional and larger facilities in order to divide Dhaka City into different functional units instead of providing local community-based but globally linked services and distribute them evenly across the whole city targeting relatively smaller geographical area so that people can have easy walking access to such facilities. Secondly, the land use proposal for public service in DAP is hypothetical in nature without assigning how and from where space requirements for the services would be met. Finally, despite having a sufficient amount of reserve lands in restricted areas and proposed infill development areas, DAP failed to provide sufficient space for future requirements for public services.
DAP favours development of the private realm (including private residential plots, shopping malls, gated communities, car parking facilities, private land developments) ignoring the vital needs for the public realm (streetscapes, pedestrian environment, public parks, public facilities). This tendency also has become clearly apparent as DAP proposed surplus private residential area development in the line of dividing the city into various functional units far in excess of actual needs to accommodate the desires of vested interest groups, jeopardizing the environmental and social equity goals of the city;
It appears that although much of the policy directives of DAP for the development of shelter and slums like site and service, illegal settlement regularization/slum upgrading and land banking are positive and progressive, there are serious contradictions while proposing for actual action plans. Firstly slum/low cost housing development initiatives are hypothetical in nature without providing any clue about the future land use scenarios. Secondly, contrary to adopted policy directives, while taking actual policy actions, DAP proposed to relocate the majority of the 4.2 to 4.5 million of slum dwellers to other surrounding areas beyond the central part of Dhaka City. Finally, the scale of the slum and low-cost housing development initiative is so small compared to the magnitude of actual needs, that is allocation of only 0.3% of land for 40% of the population, it can only provide a lip service rather creating any practical impacts whatsoever to meet ever-growing needs for low-cost housing/shelter development within the Greater Dhaka Metropolitan area.
Although DAP seems to find it difficult to allocate a requisite amount of land for slum and low-income housing development, it seems to be quite comfortable in finding large chunks of land for the development of high-income residential areas under a government-sponsored residential area development initiative, where lands are generally distributed to rich sections of the society at a subsidised rate.
Land Use and Transport Interactions
Sustainable and people-friendly multi-modal transportation and land use patterns support walking, cycling and public transit. On the other hand, automobile-oriented transportation and land use patterns deter walking, fuel free transport (FFT) and public transit. The ongoing land use and transport interaction proposals of DAP and STP, which are automobile-oriented in nature, appear to see transport problems of Dhaka City within a very narrow perspective inappropriate to experts on the issue, that is, solely on the basis of road space vs. total space or total number of vehicles.
Considering the fact that with expanding boundaries and new development the entire central (Group-C) area is going to reach a average gross urban density of 422 persons per acre in 2015 and in localized area, net residential density as high as 3,742 persons per acre, it is not appropriate to construct 10 to 16 lanes (100 to 170 ft wide) super highways in built up areas, as indicated in the proposed planning standards of Road.
It is not appropriate in a densely populated mega city like Dhaka to provide an insignificant and fixed amount of road space in order of 3 to 6 ft for footpath without conducting pedestrian demand analysis.
Instead of providing an arbitrary fixed percentage of space for the road network, effort should be directed in DAP to design a comprehensive network of smaller and relatively narrow streets with mixed used developments, dispersing traffic over the whole system and allocating maximum amount of road space to pedestrian, fuel-free and public transport in accordance with a multimodal travel demand analysis.
There seem to be misconceptions among both policy directives of STP and DAP that congestion can be reduced by providing sufficient parking facilities, as demonstrated in their parking policy. Free and low-cost parking facilities for cars in fact induce demand for car storage and use, which in turn lead to more and more congestion and pollution. The concept of creation of more parking space is therefore simply counterproductive and a recipe for more congestion.
It is impossible to develop a pedestrian-friendly urban environment while showing total disregard to the need to provide adequate resources for the development of pedestrian facilities. Moreover, in line with STP, ongoing DAP under the DMDP initiative recommended construction of 41 pedestrian bridges and 5 pedestrian underpasses to ensure pedestrian safety. A pedestrian-friendly transport system cannot be built by hampering pedestrian movement, forcing people to use overhead or underground crossings. Although such measures were adopted under the plea of pedestrian safety, in fact pedestrian bridges have amongst the worst pedestrian safety records all over the world.
Despite the strong evidence of increased travel costs and traffic congestion, transport planning continues to focus on expanding the role of the automobile and reducing that of fuel-free transport. That pattern has been reflected by the further extension of the FFT bans on more city roads in DAP. There is no doubt rickshaws are far superior as urban transport modes in terms of road space occupancy, energy consumption and environmental consideration in relation to cars.
Since the origins and destinations of the majority of both intercity and local trips lie within the central area of the city, there is no justification for shifting intercity bus terminals, railway stations, or ICD ports from the centre of the city. The idea that cutting intercity trips arbitrarily at the boundary of the city means reduction of trips is misleading and counter-productive. If there is a demand for travel towards the centre of the city, people will make the journey regardless, likely using less efficient smaller vehicles leading to more congestion and pollution.
It is a dangerous experiment to convert a number of streets into one-way street with strict exit and access control, without conducting an appropriate multimodal transport analysis of the impacts of such one-way roads and restriction on exists and entries on door-to-door mobility and accessibility.
The proposed construction of waterways as per STP recommendations is nothing but an eye-wash. Due to its inherently auto-friendly nature, STP neither conducted an appropriate study to determine potential travel demands for water transport not was it very sincere about how to integrate a coordinated water transport system with other modes of transport. In the STP proposal only a proportionally tiny amount (USD 50 million) was allocated for the development of the water transport system, which is only 1.11% of the total investment proposal. It is not possible to develop an integrated water transport system for a mega city like Dhaka adopting such a lukewarm approach.
In order to determine the most appropriate type/combination of mass public transit system for Dhaka City it would be appropriate to conduct a comprehensive long term, preferably for an evaluation period of 60 years, multimodal transport appraisal under an integrated supply and demand management approach.
Flood Control and Drainage
Embankment oriented flood control and spatial planning is only feasible by providing a sufficient amount of water retention ponds and natural drainage facility by gravity.
Contrary to the embankment- and pump-oriented flood control and drainage management approach of DAP, a detention reservoir-based gravity drainage system is more reliable and appropriate for storm water drainage system in a floodplain landscape.
Recommendations
Rather than fixing a flawed study and set of recommendations, it would have been preferable to conduct a comprehensive study by adopting a knowledge-based and participatory approach covering a broad range of issues, including health, environment, people’s well-being, and poverty reduction, as well as transport and land use interactions. However, as it is too late to change the entire process, it is important to consider what can be done to prevent any further, significant harm from occurring as a result of the misdirected process of DAP. Specific policy guidelines for the DAP are as follows:
Planning Approach
Adopt a pro-life spatial development policy of “First life, then spaces, then buildings”.
Adopt a knowledge-based and participatory urban planning approach involving all key stakeholders including socially deprived sections of the city.
Land Use Planning
Adopt a sustainable and “Smart” land use policy which prefers concentrated and mixed-use land development and reduces need to travel and prevents urban sprawl. Abandon ongoing initiatives in DAP to divide Dhaka into different functional lines.
Develop a practical land use plan for public service, park and open space utilising the huge amount of available land in restricted areas and other infilled areas.
Abandon the policy of relocating slum dwellers, who represent 40% of the population of the city, outside city areas and adopt a policy which gives primacy to provision of shelter to the urban poor at their present location or near their workplace by upgrading of basic services and environment improvement of urban slums with a participative, in-situ slum rehabilitation approach. All slum dwellers should be granted permanent transferable land rights to their respective dwelling.
Allocate a sufficient and proportionate amount of land for the development of slum and low cost housing for 40% of people in the low income group, who cannot afford to purchase a house in the urban area at a market price.
Abandon the policy of Government-sponsored development of most of the residential areas in the city which involves distributing them among the rich and powerful sections of the society at a subsidized rate far below the market price.
For upper class housing development RAJUK or Government should adopt a policy as facilitator and not provider. It should not go for acquisition of any land for the high income group for the purpose of providing serviced plots at a subsidised rate. Government subsidy should only be directed for the development of slums and low income groups, who cannot afford a housing plot at a market price.
Work with planning authorities to prevent creation of new single-use areas.
Land Use and Transport Interactions
Adopt integrated demand and supply management for the development of sustainable land use and transport development for Dhaka City.
Adopt a people-oriented transport and land use development policy aiming at maximizing door to-door mobility and accessibility of people and goods, not just movement of vehicles within road links. Abandon the plan of providing arbitrarily a fixed (20%) percentage of road space and focus instead on making good use of existing roads and decreasing travel demand.
Abandon the misguided policy directives of STP and drop all unnecessary and potentially disastrous road projects, such as construction of 29 km of an elevated expressway system and auto-only tunnels and flyovers like Kuril flyover.
Reorient traffic priority, putting pedestrians first, followed by cyclists, rickshaws, and public transit, and provide street-level crossings throughout the city for pedestrians. Car-oriented developments should be given the lowest priority in DAP.
Abandon the policy of creating more auto-only roads and develop an integrated FFT and PT priority network for the whole city keeping provision for a continuous cycle network.
Abandon the policy for providing significant numbers of parking spaces in the city centre. Instead, relocate most of the parking facilities outside the city centre with provisions for park and ride facilities. The existing parking proposals of DAP should be revised in order to establish the maximum number of parking spaces allowed, rather than the minimum required, and parking policy should emphasize paying for space occupied according to the value of the land thus used.
Adopt an integrated demand and supply management for the development of a sustainable transport system for Dhaka City.
Adopt a people-oriented transport policy aiming at maximising door-to-door mobility and accessibility of people and goods, not just movement of vehicles within road links.
Invest in the development of improved rickshaws. Cancel all measures intended at reducing the number of rickshaws on the roads.
Reinstate rickshaws on all roads and provide adequate road space for them, preferably under an integrated public transit (PT) and fuel-free transport (FFT) system.
Completely ban car parking on footpaths. Charge for car parking in all public areas including streets at market rates, by the amount of time for which the car is parked.
Enact a range of measures to restrict the growth in cars, including limiting licenses, restrictions on imports, higher taxes on cars, etc.
Introduce car-free zones in central commercial and shopping areas.
Reduce fuel use by providing government officials with staff bus services, ban/reduce parking spaces inside government and private office premises, and provide economic incentives for those who walk or cycle or take public transit to work.
Abandon car-friendly and capital-intensive transport policy and explore eco-friendly and sustainable alternatives.
Start a fresh study for the development of sound transport policy considering impacts of all transport users and providers, not just Fuel-Dependent Transport (FDT).
Ensure fair representation of all stakeholders and transport professionals in the decision making and planning process.
Properly integrate the proposed BRT system with improved local transport, ensuring adequate and continuous FFT and pedestrian facilities.
Develop integrated commuting surface rail services within the Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area.
Reintroduce centrally located stations for bus services (intercity and local).
Retain the central railway station at Kamalapur, and revive the old rail stations and service lines at Furbaria and other parts of Dhaka city.
Develop an integrated waterway system for Dhaka City.
In order to reduce the dependency on an already overburdened road network, investigate the possibility of developing a railway network encircling the main Dhaka City and a comprehensive commuting rail services linking all surrounding major town centres, such as Narayanganj, Tongi, Gazipur, Joydepupur, Savar, Kaliganj, Mawa, Keraniganj, etc.
Flood Control and Drainage
Abandon the environmentally disastrous embankment-oriented flood control and spatial development approach; instead ensure making urban development more compatible with flood risks that guarantee building in flood plans in combination with more room for river and water drainage, and consider increasing parks and other public space in floodplains.
Increase water storage and drainage capacities of urban catchments by recovering encroached wetlands and khals (canals). Making provision for water transport within Dhaka City will bring great benefit to city dwellers.
Ensure that road alignment and culvert locations are consistent with the storm water runoff process in the floodplain landscape.
Utility Services
Ensure high density areas in order to reduce costs of providing utilities; do not subsidize utilities in low-density areas.
Ensure adequate land for drainage and waterbodies for stormwater collection.
Rather than attempting to meet demand with supply, work on lowering use of utilities and charging ever-increasing rates beyond a minimum free provision.
Keep government services in government hands. Do not privatize utilities, as experiments with utility privatization indicate that they immediately become monopoly enterprises which gouge consumers while failing to provide decent services.

References
Alam, SM, D Efroymson, and T Watson, The Right to Walk. WBB Trust, Dhaka, June 2007 (in Bengali only).
Ali, SA, “Development of Speed-Flow Relationship under Mixed Mode traffic”, M Phil Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK, 2006.
Bari, M, “No More VIP Roads”, Unpublished paper, September 2004. http://www.rhd.gov.bd/Forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=17
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.
Bari, M. and Efroymson, D. (2006) “Dhaka Urban Transport Project’s After Poject Report: A Critical Review, Roads for People”, WBB Trust, April 2006
Del Bello, Giovanni Vaz, A Convenient Truth: Urban Solutions from Curitiba, Brazil. Film produced by Maria Terezinha Vaz. Del Bello Pictures 2006.
DAP (2008) Preparation of Detailed Area Plan for Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (DMDP) Area, Draft Final Report submitted to RAJUK, September 2008
DUTP (2006), “Impact Assessment of DUTP: After Project”, Final Report submitted to Dhaka Transport Coordination Board, by DHV Consultants BV, the Netherlands, Japan Overseas Co., Ltd., Japan, Finnroad Oy, Finland, Operation Research Group, India, SARM Associates Ltd., Bangladesh, Desh Upodesh Ltd., Bangladesh, DevConsultants Ltd., Bangladesh in Dhaka Urban Transport Project (DUTP), Dhaka, February 2006.
Efroymson, D, Rahman, M and Shama, R, Making Cities More Liveable, Ideas and Action. HealthBridge and WBB Trust, Dhaka, 2009.
Efroymson, D, Hafiz, RH, and Jones, L, ed. Ecocity Planning: Images and Ideas. WBB Trust, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, and Health Bridge, Dhaka, 2008.
Efroymson, D and M Bari, Improving Dhaka’s Traffic Situation, Lessons from Mirpur Road. WBB Trust, Dhaka, 2005.
Efroymson, D and M Rahman, Transportation Policy for Poverty Reduction and Social Equity. WBB Trust, Dhaka, May 2005.
Ewing, Reid (1996), Best Development Practices; Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at the Same Time, Planners Press (www.planning.org), 1996.
Fjellstrom, K. (2004) “Public Transport and Mass Rapid Transit in Dhaka”, Working paper no 6, Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka, a report submitted to DTCB.
Gannon, C.A. and Zhi, L. (1997) “Poverty and Transport”, World Bank publication, TWU-30, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Gehl, Jan (2006) “Life Between Buildings, Using Public Spaces”, The Danish Architectural Press 2003.
Halcrow (2006) Updating/Upgrading the Feasibility Study of Dhaka Integrated Flood Control Embankment cum Eastern Bypass Road multipurpose Project (main Report) Vol.3. Bangladesh Water Development Board, Ministry of Water Resource GOB, Dhaka
Halton Region Health Department, Creating Walkable and Transit-Supportive Communities in Halton. Oakville, Ontario: 2009.
HDRC (2004), “After Study on the Impact of Mirpur Demonstration Corridor Project (Gabtoli-Russell Square)” Report prepared for Dhaka Transportation Coordination Board (DTCB), Human Development Research Centre, August 2004, Dhaka.
Inter-American Development Bank (2004), “Assessment of Participatory Budgeting in Brazil”, Center for Urban Development Studies Graduate School of Design - Harvard University.
Shoup, D, The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2005.
STP (2005), “Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka – Final report, prepared by Louis Berger Group and Bangladesh Consultant Ltd.

Appendix - A

List of DPZ of Main Dhaka City (Study Area C):
1. DPZ-1: Old Dhaka (West): Densely built oldest part
2. DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East): Densely built spontaneously developed
3. DPZ-3: CBD – Central Institutional zone and green parks
4. DPZ-4: CBD South – East: City center and adjacent areas.
5. DPZ-5: Eastern Fringe: Predominantly residential mostly unplanned, planned private development and part planned area.
6. DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area and adjacent areas.
7. DPZ-7: CBD North West (Dhanmondi and planned areas of Sher-e-Bangla Nagar including conjested unplanned areas of Kalabagan Triangle, Nakhalpara, Tejtoribazar , Rajabazar etc.)
8. DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South) – Spontaneously developed and fringe area
9. DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle) - Inadequately planned residential part in fringe areas.
10. DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
11. DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Baridhara
12. DPZ-12: Mirpur East
13. DPZ-13: Mirpur West
“


Table A1: Park & Open Space for the Study Area A


Existing Park & Open Space (2007)
Proposed Park & Open Space (2015)
Difference
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area A)
Total Area (Acres)
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons (2015)
Additional Number
Acres
%
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-01)
3259.11
30.2
65,468
0.93%
0.01
30.2
88,842
0.93%
0.08
48
0
0.00%
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-02)
3473.153
0.02
43,185
0.00%
0.02
0.02
58,604
0.00%
0.09
39
0
0.00%
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-03)
4749.9
0.34
54,090
0.01%
1.89
21.56
69,707
0.45%
1.79
6
21.22
0.45%
Gachha (DPZ-04)
6241
1.67
88,919
0.03%
0.12
292
120,667
4.68%
0.15
20
290.33
4.65%
Tongi (DPZ-05)
8421.22
146.44
336,734
1.74%
0.01
351.11
456,921
4.17%
0.08
80
204.67
2.43%
Baria and Bakterpur (DPZ-06)
11245.02
0.65
42,838
0.01%
0.00
0.65
50,939
0.01%
0.08
10
0
0.00%
Pubail (DPZ-07)
11888
1.5
61,916
0.01%
0.08
1.5
69,702
0.01%
0.13
31
0
0.00%
Kaliganj (DPZ-08)
23564
4.06
146,855
0.02%
0.01
4.06
150,419
0.02%
0.08
25
0
0.00%
Rupganj_Sitalakkha West (DPZ-09)
13564
0
116,109
0.00%
0.00
0
118,029
0.00%
0.08
25
0
0.00%
Rupganj_Sitalakkha East (DPZ-10)
22005
0.75
276,376
0.00%
0.01
0.75
281,744
0.00%
0.09
59
0
0.00%
Total
108410.40
185.63
1,232,490
0.17%
0.06
701.85
1,465,574
0.65%
0.13
343
516.22
0.48%


Table A2: Park & Open Space for the Main Dhaka City (Study Area C)


Existing Park & Open Space (2007)
Requirement for Park & Open Space (2015)
Difference
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area C)
Total Area (Acres)
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons (2015)
Additional Number
Acres
%
DPZ -1: Old Dhaka (West)
1450.00
6.42
799,839
0.44%
0.01
102.42
1,241,534
7.06%
0.08
48
96
6.62%
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
1314.00
12.37
622,680
0.94%
0.02
90.37
966,543
6.88%
0.09
39
78
5.94%
DPZ-3: CBD South-West
1091.00
203.59
107,668
18.66%
1.89
299.59
167,126
27.46%
1.79
6
96
8.80%
DPZ-4: CBD South-East
1315.00
39.18
333,099
2.98%
0.12
79.18
517,046
6.02%
0.15
20
40
3.04%
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
3488.38
8.67
1,350,268
0.25%
0.01
168.67
2,095,926
4.84%
0.08
80
160
4.59%
DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area
704
0
158,058
0.00%
0.00
20
245,341
2.84%
0.08
10
20
2.84%
DPZ-7: CBD North West
2587
38.83
497,215
1.50%
0.08
100.83
771,792
3.90%
0.13
31
62
2.40%
DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
1221
2.03
403,663
0.17%
0.01
52.03
626,578
4.26%
0.08
25
50
4.10%
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
2292
0.23
401,010
0.01%
0.00
50.23
622,457
2.19%
0.08
25
50
2.18%
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
3821
10.98
944,777
0.29%
0.01
128.98
1,466,510
3.38%
0.09
59
118
3.09%
DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Bar idhara
3618.62
16.2
214,185
0.45%
0.08
42.2
332,464
1.17%
0.13
13
26
0.72%
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
2110.07
1.18
637,232
0.06%
0.00
79.18
989,131
3.75%
0.08
39
78
3.70%
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
1523.33
89.76
365,144
5.89%
0.25
131.76
566,787
8.65%
0.23
21
42
2.76%
Total
26535.40
429.44
6,834,838
1.62%
0.06
1345.44
10,609,235
5.07%
0.13
416
916
3.45%


Table A3: Land use for Social Institutions for the Study Area A


Existing Social Institutions (2007)
Requirement for Social Institutions (2015)
Difference
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area A)
Total Area (Acres)
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons (2015)
Additional Number
Acres
%
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-01)
3259.11
50.18
65,468
1.54%
0.01
101.00
88,842
3.10%
0.08
27
50.82
1.56%
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-02)
3473.153
7.90
43,185
0.23%
0.02
32.39
58,604
0.93%
0.09
10
24.49
0.71%
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-03)
4749.9
750.11
54,090
15.79%
1.89
763.54
69,707
16.07%
1.79
14
13.43
0.28%
Gachha (DPZ-04)
6241
85.20
88,919
1.37%
0.12
119.43
120,667
1.91%
0.15
15
34.23
0.55%
Tongi (DPZ-05)
8421.22
71.34
336,734
0.85%
0.01
165.10
456,921
1.96%
0.08
30
93.76
1.11%
Baria and Bakterpur (DPZ-06)
11245.02
0.17
42,838
0.00%
0.00
19.47
50,939
0.17%
0.08
25
19.3
0.17%
Pubail (DPZ-07)
11888
4.50
61,916
0.04%
0.08
19.40
69,702
0.16%
0.13
10
14.9
0.13%
Kaliganj (DPZ-08)
23564
7.10
146,855
0.03%
0.01
17.27
150,419
0.07%
0.08
10
10.17
0.04%
Rupganj_Sitalakkha West (DPZ-09)
13564
8.86
116,109
0.07%
0.00
8.86
118,029
0.07%
0.08
0
0
0.00%
Rupganj_Sitalakkha East (DPZ-10)
22005
1.74
276,376
0.01%
0.01
1.74
281,744
0.01%
0.09
0
0
0.00%
Total
108410.40
987.10
1,232,490
0.91%
0.06
1248.20
1,465,574
1.15%
0.13
141
261.1
0.24%



Table A4: Land use for Social Institutions for the Main Dhaka City (Study Area C)


Existing Social Institutions (2007)
Requirement for Social Institutions (2015)
Difference
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area C)
Total Area (Acres)
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons (2015)
Additional Number
Acres
%
DPZ -1: Old Dhaka (West)
1450.00
122.11
799,839
8.42%
0.01
307.41
1,241,534
21.20%
0.08
152
185.3
12.78%
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
1314.00
0
622,680
0.00%
0.02
110.07
966,543
8.38%
0.09
87
110.07
8.38%
DPZ-3: CBD South-West
1091.00
0
107,668
0.00%
1.89
5
167,126
0.46%
1.79
3
5
0.46%
DPZ-4: CBD South-East
1315.00
0
333,099
0.00%
0.12
93.18
517,046
7.09%
0.15
129
93.18
7.09%
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
3488.38
0
1,350,268
0.00%
0.01
255.82
2,095,926
7.33%
0.08
573
255.82
7.33%
DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area
704
0
158,058
0.00%
0.00
13.4
245,341
1.90%
0.08
33
13.4
1.90%
DPZ-7: CBD North West
2587
102.02
497,215
3.94%
0.08
179.42
771,792
6.94%
0.13
77
77.4
2.99%
DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
1221
73.29
403,663
6.00%
0.01
138.89
626,578
11.38%
0.08
148
65.6
5.37%
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
2292
49.05
401,010
2.14%
0.00
72.15
622,457
3.15%
0.08
72
23.1
1.01%
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
3821
784.14
944,777
20.52%
0.01
935.14
1,466,510
24.47%
0.09
302
151
3.95%
DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Bar idhara
3618.62
0
214,185
0.00%
0.08
39.1
332,464
1.08%
0.13
45
39.1
1.08%
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
2110.07
50.18
637,232
2.38%
0.00
105.28
989,131
4.99%
0.08
80
55.1
2.61%
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
1523.33
11.55
365,144
0.76%
0.25
15.55
566,787
1.02%
0.23
42
4
0.26%
Total
26535.40
1192.34
6,834,838
4.49%
0.06
2270.41
10,609,235
8.56%
0.13
1743
1078.07
4.06%


Table A5: Land use Summary for Restricted Areas in Dhaka Metropolitan Area (Study Areas C and A)


Existing Restricted Area (2007)
Potential Available Space for Future Use (2015)
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area C)
Total Area (Acres)
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons (2015)
DPZ -1: Old Dhaka (West)
1450.00
56.33
799,839
3.88%
0.01
58.33
1,241,534
4.02%
0.08
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
1314.00
4.23
622,680
0.32%
0.02
4.23
966,543
0.32%
0.09
DPZ-3: CBD South-West
1091.00
21.64
107,668
1.98%
1.89
21.64
167,126
1.98%
1.79
DPZ-4: CBD South-East
1315.00
203.7
333,099
15.49%
0.12
203.82
517,046
15.50%
0.15
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
3488.38
28.8
1,350,268
0.83%
0.01
28.8
2,095,926
0.83%
0.08
DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area
704
28.92
158,058
4.11%
0.00
29.02
245,341
4.12%
0.08
DPZ-7: CBD North West
2587
460.17
497,215
17.79%
0.08
460.27
771,792
17.79%
0.13
DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
1221
162.43
403,663
13.30%
0.01
162.63
626,578
13.32%
0.08
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
2292
0
401,010
0.00%
0.00
0
622,457
0.00%
0.08
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
3821
0
944,777
0.00%
0.01
0.4
1,466,510
0.01%
0.09
DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Bar idhara
3618.62
1618.62
214,185
44.73%
0.08
1618.62
332,464
44.73%
0.13
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
2110.07
1.41
637,232
0.07%
0.00
1.41
989,131
0.07%
0.08
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
1523.33
90.2
365,144
5.92%
0.25
90.2
566,787
5.92%
0.23
Total
26535.40
2676.45
6,834,838
10.09%
0.06
2679.37
10,609,235
10.10%
0.13


Existing Restricted Area (2007)
Potential Available Space for Future Use (2015)
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area A)
Total Area (Acres)
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Population
%
Acres/1000 Persons (2015)
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-01)
3259.11
602.75
65,468
18.49%
0.01
637.63
88,842
19.56%
0.08

Table A6: Land use Summary for Residential Areas in Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area (Main Dhaka City: Study Area C)


Existing Residential Areas (2007)
Proposed Residential Areas (2015)
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area C)
Total Area (Acres)
Acres
Population
%
Person/Acre
Acres
Population
%
Person/Acre
DPZ -1: Old Dhaka (West)
1,450.00
331.76
799,839
22.88%
2,411
331.76
1,241,534
22.88%
3,742
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
1,314.00
486.5
622,680
37.02%
1,280
486.50
966,543
37.02%
1,987
DPZ-3: CBD South-West
1,091.00
475.34
107,668
43.57%
227
475.34
167,126
43.57%
352
DPZ-4: CBD South-East
1,315.00
453.13
333,099
34.46%
735
453.13
517,046
34.46%
1,141
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
3,488.38
2685.85
1,350,268
76.99%
503
2,685.85
2,095,926
76.99%
780
DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area
704.00
42.43
158,058
6.03%
3,725
42.43
245,341
6.03%
5,782
DPZ-7: CBD North West
2,587.00
1140.21
497,215
44.07%
436
1,140.21
771,792
44.07%
677
DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
1,221.00
545.35
403,663
44.66%
740
545.35
626,578
44.66%
1,149
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
2,292.00
1057.82
401,010
46.15%
379
1,057.82
622,457
46.15%
588
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
3,821.00
1999.86
944,777
52.34%
472
1,999.86
1,466,510
52.34%
733
DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Bar idhara
3,618.62
1411.87
214,185
39.02%
152
1,411.87
332,464
39.02%
235
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
2,110.07
1619.02
637,232
76.73%
394
1,619.02
989,131
76.73%
611
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
1,523.33
992.01
365,144
65.12%
368
992.01
566,787
65.12%
571
Total Study Area C
26,535.40
13241.15
6,834,838
49.90%
516
13,241.15
10,609,235
49.90%
801


Table A7: Land use Summary for Residential Areas in Greater Dhaka Metropolitan Area (Outer Dhaka City: Study Areas A, B, D and E))


Existing Residential Areas (2007)
Proposed Residential Areas (2015)
DPZ for Central Dhaka (Study area A)
Total Area (Acres)
Acres
Population
%
Person/Acre
Acres
Population
%
Person/Acre
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-01)
3,259.11
1285.75
65,468
39.45%
51
1,295.80
88,842
39.76%
69
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-02)
3,473.15
1154.98
43,185
33.25%
37
84.63
58,604
2.44%
692
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-03)
4,749.90
1463.07
54,090
30.80%
37
1,608.99
69,707
33.87%
43
Gachha (DPZ-04)
6,241.00
3640.62
88,919
58.33%
24
3,677.50
120,667
58.92%
33
Tongi (DPZ-05)
8,421.22
3078.54
336,734
36.56%
109
3,251.00
456,921
38.60%
141
Baria and Bakterpur (DPZ-06)
11,245.02
2200.94
42,838
19.57%
19
2,442.00
50,939
21.72%
21
Pubail (DPZ-07)
11,888.00
3269
61,916
27.50%
19
8,033.70
69,702
67.58%
9
Kaliganj (DPZ-08)
23,564.00
1675.87
146,855
7.11%
88
6,858.11
150,419
29.10%
22
Rupganj_Sitalakkha West (DPZ-09)
13,564.00
1053.92
116,109
7.77%
110
3,400.00
118,029
25.07%
35
Rupganj_Sitalakkha East (DPZ-10)
22,005.00
6983.3
276,376
31.74%
40
17,182.51
281,744
78.08%
16
Total Study Area A
108,410.40
25805.99
1,232,490
23.80%
48
47,834.24
1,465,574
44.12%
31
Study Area B
51,212.35
13201.23
No data
25.78%
No data
13,201.23
1,525,590
25.78%
116
Sudy Area D
2,109.91
979.84
68,235
46.44%
70
1,050.12
79,192
49.77%
75
Study Area E
72,750.50
12324.28
960,227
16.94%
78
19,500.16
1,320,409
26.80%
68
Grand Total
261018.56
65552.49
9,095,790
25.11%
139
94,826.90
15,000,000
36.33%
158


Table A8: Water Bodies and Retention Ponds for Main Dhaka City (Study Area C)
Study Area C (Main Dhaka City)

Existing
Proposed
Total Area (Acres)
Areas for WB and RP (Acres)
%
Total Population (2007)
Acres/1000 Persons
Areas for WB and RP (Acres)
%
Total Projected Population (2015)
Acres/1000 Persons (2015)
DPZ -1: Old Dhaka (West)
1450.00
158.91
10.96%
799,839
0.20
158.91
10.96%
1,241,534
0.13
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
1314.00
117.16
8.92%
622,680
0.19
117.16
8.92%
966,543
0.12
DPZ-3: CBD South-West
1091.00
21.39
1.96%
107,668
0.20
21.39
1.96%
167,126
0.13
DPZ-4: CBD South-East
1315.00
46.79
3.56%
333,099
0.14
46.79
3.56%
517,046
0.09
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
3488.38
293.1
8.40%
1350268
0.22
293.1
8.40%
2095926
0.14
DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area
704
70.14
9.96%
158058
0.44
70.14
9.96%
245341
0.29
DPZ-7: CBD North West
2587
52.43
2.03%
497215
0.11
52.43
2.03%
771792
0.07
DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
1221
85.41
7.00%
403663
0.21
85.41
7.00%
626578
0.14
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
2292
65.2
2.84%
401010
0.16
65.2
2.84%
622457
0.10
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
3821
189.52
4.96%
944777
0.20
189.52
4.96%
1466510
0.13
DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Bar idhara
3618.62
175.64
4.85%
214185
0.82
175.64
4.85%
332464
0.53
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
2110.07
281.64
13.35%
637232
0.44
281.64
13.35%
989131
0.28
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
1523.33
75.6
4.96%
365144
0.21
75.6
4.96%
566787
0.13


Table A9: Water Bodies and Retention Ponds for Main Dhaka City (Study Area A)
Study Area A

Existing
Proposed
Total Area (Acres)
Areas for WB and RP (Acres)
%
Total Population (2007)
Acres/1000 Persons
Areas for WB and RP (Acres)
%
Total Projected Population (2015)
Acres/1000 Persons (2015)
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-01)
3259.11
154.63
4.74%
65468
2.36
154.63
4.74%
88842
1.74
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-02)
3473.153
0
0.00%
43185
0.00
25.14
0.72%
58604
0.43
Gazipur Pourashava (DPZ-03)
4749.9
186.4
3.92%
54089.6
3.45
191.97
4.04%
69707
2.75
Gachha (DPZ-04)
6241
230.91
3.70%
88919
2.60
191.2
3.06%
120667
1.58
Tongi (DPZ-05 of A)
8421.22
0
0.00%
336734.4
0.00
439.9
5.22%
456921
0.96
Baria and Bakterpur (DPZ-06)
11245.02
401.3
3.57%


401.3
3.57%


Pubail (DPZ-07)
11888
478.9
4.03%
61916.4
7.73
419
3.52%
69702
6.01
Kaliganj (DPZ-08)
23564
668.57
2.84%
146855.4
4.55
745.9
3.17%
150419
4.96
Rupganj_Sitalakkha West (DPZ-09)
13564
1014.14
7.48%
116108.6
8.73
1014
7.48%
118029
8.59
Rupganj_Sitalakkha East (DPZ-10)
22005
1193.93
5.43%
276375.6
4.32
1972
8.96%
281744
7.00


Table A10: Existing Land Use Patterns of Main Dhaka City: Study Area C

DPZ -1: Old Dhaka (West)
DPZ-2: Old Dhaka (East)
DPZ-3: CBD South-West
DPZ-4: CBD South-East
DPZ-5: Eastern Suburb
DPZ-6: Tejgaon Industrial area
DPZ-7: CBD North West
Land use Type
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Residential
331.76
22.88%
486.50
37.02%
475.34
43.57%
453.13
34.46%
2685.85
76.99%
42.43
6.03%
1140.21
44.07%
Rural Homestead
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Rajuk Sponsored Housing
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Low Cost Housing
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Commercial Activity
16.46
1.14%
0.00
0.00%
16.23
1.49%
255.58
19.44%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
126.39
4.89%
Institutional
80.77
5.57%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
102.02
3.94%
Mixed Use
617.44
42.58%
541.80
41.23%
206.98
18.97%
125.95
9.58%
52.08
1.49%
0.00
0.00%
379.39
14.67%
Industrial
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
491.95
69.88%
0.00
0.00%
Recreational (Including Parks and Open Space)
6.42
0.44%
12.37
0.94%
203.59
18.66%
39.18
2.98%
8.67
0.25%
0.00
0.00%
38.83
1.50%
Spec ial Use
41.35
2.85%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Road Netw ork
140.56
9.69%
151.94
11.56%
145.82
13.37%
190.67
14.50%
419.89
12.04%
70.56
10.02%
287.55
11.12%
Restricted Use
56.33
3.88%
4.23
0.32%
21.64
1.98%
203.70
15.49%
28.80
0.83%
28.92
4.11%
460.17
17.79%
Retention Pond
158.91
10.96%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Water Bodies
0.00
0.00%
117.16
8.92%
21.39
1.96%
46.79
3.56%
293.10
8.40%
70.14
9.96%
52.43
2.03%
Sub-flood Flow Zone
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Total
1450.00
100.00%
1314.00
100.00%
1090.99
100.00%
1315.00
100.00%
3488.39
100.00%
704.00
100.00%
2586.99
100.00%


Table A10: Existing Land Use Patterns of Main Dhaka City: Study Area C (Continued)

DPZ-8: Western Suburbs (South)
DPZ-9: Western Suburbs (Middle)
DPZ-10: Western Suburbs (North)
DPZ-11: Banani, Gulshan, Baridhara
DPZ-12: Mirpur East
DPZ-13: Mirpur West
Land use Type
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Residential
545.35
44.66%
1057.82
46.15%
1999.86
52.34%
1411.87
38.95%
1619.02
76.73%
992.01
65.12%
Rural Homestead
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Rajuk Sponsored Housing
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Low Cost Housing
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Commercial Activity
98.12
8.04%
2.37
0.10%
178.55
4.67%
29.51
0.81%
0.00
0.00%
41.69
2.74%
Institutional
73.29
6.00%
49.05
2.14%
166.04
4.35%
0.00
0.00%
50.18
2.38%
11.55
0.76%
Mixed Use
164.68
13.49%
47.61
2.08%
112.63
2.95%
241.93
6.67%
0.00
0.00%
69.14
4.54%
Industrial
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Recreational (Including Parks and Open Space)
2.03
0.17%
0.23
0.01%
10.98
0.29%
16.20
0.45%
1.18
0.06%
89.76
5.89%
Spec ial Use
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
98.30
2.57%
0.00
0.00%
3.33
0.16%

0.00%
Road Netw ork
89.69
7.35%
183.19
7.99%
298.66
7.82%
130.86
3.61%
153.33
7.27%
153.37
10.07%
Restricted Use
162.43
13.30%
0.00
0.00%
519.80
13.60%
1618.62
44.66%
1.41
0.07%
90.20
5.92%
Retention Pond
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Water Bodies
85.41
7.00%
65.20
2.84%
189.52
4.96%
175.64
4.85%
281.64
13.35%
75.60
4.96%
Sub-flood Flow Zone
0.00
0.00%
886.54
38.68%
246.65
6.46%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
Total
1221.00
100.00%
2292.01
100.00%
3820.99
100.00%
3624.63
100.00%
2110.09
100.00%
1523.32
100.00%


Table A11: Existing Land Use Patterns for Study Area E
Land use Type
SPZ-16 (Northern Fringe)
SPZ-17.1 (Savar)
SPZ-17.2 (Dhamsona)
SPZ-17.3 (Flood Zone West)
Total

Acres
(%)
Acres
(%)
Acres
(%)
Acres
(%)
Acres
(%)
Agriculture
6974.22
34.61%
1239.68
18.07%
3088.14
25.69%
16789.5
49.79%
28091.49
38.61%
Rural Homestead
145.79
0.72%
1.57
0.02%
104.92
0.87%
317.38
0.94%
569.66
0.78%
Residential
3401.67
16.88%
3309.64
48.23%
1742.66
14.50%
3870.31
11.48%
12324.28
16.94%
Low Cost Housing



0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
Commercial
28.16
0.14%
36.08
0.53%
41.98
0.35%
191.62
0.57%
297.84
0.41%
Industrial Area
206.66
1.03%
26.25
0.38%
16.79
0.14%
531.65
1.58%
781.35
1.07%
Mixed Use
0.11
0.00%
7.35
0.11%
1.7
0.01%
3.78
0.01%
12.94
0.02%
Education & Related










Flood Flow Zone/Agriculture










Institutional
102.46
0.51%
333.47
4.86%
969.18
8.06%
7.79
0.02%
1412.9
1.94%
Open Space
4.28
0.02%
0.91
0.01%
0.49
0.00%
10.05
0.03%
15.73
0.02%
Urban Deferred



0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
Water Body
1184.01
5.88%
554.17
8.08%
1460.82
12.15%
3500.97
10.38%
6699.97
9.21%
Public Administration










Recreation
1.64
0.01%
0
0.00%
0.24
0.00%
0
0.00%
1.88
0.00%
Vacant
6662.88
33.07%
1097.72
16.00%
4131.03
34.36%
6659.5
19.75%
18551.13
25.50%
Forest
861.6
4.28%
17.45
0.25%
107.42
0.89%
973.49
2.89%
1959.96
2.69%
Road
575.9
2.86%
237.2
3.46%
355.81
2.96%
860.3
2.55%
2029.21
2.79%
Community services
0.78
0.00%
0.15
0.00%
0.07
0.00%
1.16
0.00%
2.16
0.00%
Others

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
Total
20150.16
100.00%
6861.64
100.00%
12021.25
100.00%
33717.5
100.00%
72750.5
100.00%


Table A12: Proposed Land Use Patterns for Study Area E
Land use Type
SPZ-16 (Northern Fringe)
SPZ-17.1 (Savar)
SPZ-17.2 (Dhamsona)
SPZ-17.3 (Flood Zone West)
Total

Acres
(%)
Acres
(%)
Acres
(%)
Acres
(%)
Acres
(%)
Agriculture
3604.07
17.16%
82.93
1.25%
889.89
7.21%
11440.1
30.74%
16016.97
20.75%
Rural Homestead
2744.55
13.07%
45.46
0.69%
666.79
5.40%
4354.64
11.70%
7811.44
10.12%
Residential
4684.73
22.31%
4058.89
61.20%
6119.22
49.56%
8237.32
22.13%
19500.16
25.26%
Low Cost Housing
202.65
0.96%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
Commercial
9.47
0.05%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
54.8
0.15%
64.27
0.08%
Industrial Area
3463.71
16.49%
0
0.00%
879.77
7.13%
750.74
2.02%
4618.86
5.98%
Mixed Use
1793.54
8.54%
385.85
5.82%
404.41
3.28%
213.07
0.57%
2796.87
3.62%
Education & Related
174.75
0.83%
568.16
8.57%
1360.24
11.02%
280.31
0.75%
2383.46
3.09%
Flood Flow Zone/Agriculture
3216.61
15.32%
299.62
4.52%

0.00%
6900
18.54%
10416.23
13.49%
Institutional
236.44
1.13%
741.64
11.18%
169.18
1.37%
4.89
0.01%
1152.15
1.49%
Open Space
62.18
0.30%
60.73
0.92%
71.88
0.58%
51.36
0.14%
246.15
0.32%
Urban Deferred
405.89
1.93%
746.97
11.26%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
405.89
0.53%
Water Body
348.63
1.66%
188.36
2.84%
251.5
2.04%
1536.36
4.13%
2324.853
3.01%
Public Administration
15.87
0.08%
0.51
0.01%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
16.38
0.02%
Utility Services
15.76
0.08%
1.68
0.03%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
17.44
0.02%
Graveyard/Cremation Ground
6.98
0.03%
196.83
2.97%
0
0.00%
133.86
0.36%
336.67
0.44%
Special Area
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
1044.18
8.46%
0
0.00%
1044.18
1.35%
Others
217.08
1.03%
1.94
0.03%
489.64
3.97%
3258.51
8.76%
3967.17
5.14%
Total
21000.24
100.00%
6632.6
100.00%
12346.68
100.00%
37215.9
100.00%
77195.45
100.00%


Table A13: Existing Land Use Patterns Per Person for Study Area E

SPZ-16 (Northern Fringe)
SPZ-17.1 (Savar)
SPZ-17.2 (Dhamsona)
SPZ-17.3 (Flood Zone West)
Total
Population (2007)
169,439

142,175

311,914

336,699

960,227

Land use Type
Acres
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Acres/Person
Acres
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Acres/1000 Persons
Agriculture
6974.22
41.1607
1239.68
8.7194
3088.14
9.9006
16789.5
49.8649
28091.49
29.2551
Rural Homestead
145.79
0.8604
1.57
0.0110
104.92
0.3364
317.38
0.9426
569.66
0.5933
Residential
3401.67
20.0761
3309.64
23.2786
1742.66
5.5870
3870.31
11.4949
12324.28
12.8348
Low Cost Housing

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Commercial
28.16
0.1662
36.08
0.2538
41.98
0.1346
191.62
0.5691
297.84
0.3102
Industrial Area
206.66
1.2197
26.25
0.1846
16.79
0.0538
531.65
1.5790
781.35
0.8137
Mixed Use
0.11
0.0006
7.35
0.0517
1.7
0.0055
3.78
0.0112
12.94
0.0135
Education & Related

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Flood Flow Zone/Agriculture

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Institutional
102.46
0.6047
333.47
2.3455
969.18
3.1072
7.79
0.0231
1412.9
1.4714
Open Space
4.28
0.0253
0.91
0.0064
0.49
0.0016
10.05
0.0298
15.73
0.0164
Water Body
1184.01
6.9878
554.17
3.8978
1460.82
4.6834
3500.97
10.3979
6699.97
6.9775
Recreation
1.64
0.0097
0
0.0000
0.24
0.0008
0
0.0000
1.88
0.0020
Vacant
6662.88
39.3232
1097.72
7.7209
4131.03
13.2441
6659.5
19.7788
18551.13
19.3195
Forest
861.6
5.0850
17.45
0.1227
107.42
0.3444
973.49
2.8913
1959.96
2.0411
Road
575.9
3.3989
237.2
1.6684
355.81
1.1407
860.3
2.5551
2029.21
2.1133
Community services
0.78
0.0046
0.15
0.0011
0.07
0.0002
1.16
0.0034
2.16
0.0022
Total
20150.16
118.9228
6861.64
48.2619
12021.25
38.5403
33717.5
100.1412
72750.5
75.7639


Table A14: Proposed Land Use Patterns Per Person for Study Area E

SPZ-16 (Northern Fringe)
SPZ-17.1 (Savar)
SPZ-17.2 (Dhamsona)
SPZ-17.3 (Flood Zone West)
Total
Population (2015)
214,483

166,942

469,750

469,234

1,320,409

Land use Type
Acres
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Acres/1000 Persons
Acres
Acres/1000 Persons
Agriculture
3604.07
16.8035
82.93
0.4968
889.89
1.8944
11440.1
0.0244
16016.97
12.1303
Rural Homestead
2744.55
12.7961
45.46
0.2723
666.79
1.4195
4354.64
0.0093
7811.44
5.9159
Residential
4684.73
21.8420
4058.89
24.3132
6119.22
13.0265
8237.32
0.0176
19500.16
14.7683
Low Cost Housing
202.65
0.9448

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Commercial
9.47
0.0442
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
54.8
0.0001
64.27
0.0487
Industrial Area
3463.71
16.1491
0
0.0000
879.77
1.8728
750.74
0.0016
4618.86
3.4981
Mixed Use
1793.54
8.3622
385.85
2.3113
404.41
0.8609
213.07
0.0005
2796.87
2.1182
Education & Related
174.75
0.8147
568.16
3.4033
1360.24
2.8957
280.31
0.0006
2383.46
1.8051
Flood Flow Zone/Agriculture
3216.61
14.9970
299.62
1.7948

0.0000
6900
0.0147
10416.23
7.8886
Institutional
236.44
1.1024
741.64
4.4425
169.18
0.3601
4.89
0.0000
1152.15
0.8726
Open Space
62.18
0.2899
60.73
0.3638
71.88
0.1530
51.36
0.0001
246.15
0.1864
Urban Deferred
405.89
1.8924
746.97
4.4744
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
405.89
0.3074
Water Body
348.63
1.6254
188.36
1.1283
251.5
0.5354
1536.36
0.0033
2324.853
1.7607
Public Administration
15.87
0.0740
0.51
0.0031
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
16.38
0.0124
Utility Services
15.76
0.0735
1.68
0.0101
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
17.44
0.0132
Graveyard/Cremation Ground
6.98
0.0325
196.83
1.1790
0
0.0000
133.86
0.0003
336.67
0.2550
Special Area
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
1044.18
2.2228
0
0.0000
1044.18
0.7908
Others
217.08
1.0121
1.94
0.0116
489.64
1.0423
3258.51
0.0069
3967.17
3.0045
Total
21000.24
97.9110
6632.6
39.7300
12346.68
26.2835
37215.9
0.0793
77195.45
58.4633