Hisha Sorel
Senior Member
- Dec 27, 2017
- 192
- 140
More Lanes For Private Vehicles is a Destroyer of African Cities and Not a Saviour
Abstract: Our obsession with motor vehicles has brought our major cities to a halt. Moving short distances in major cities such as Nairobi and Dar es salaam can take hours than it should. Such reality is highly damaging to working class people considering that most of these cities demand long distance travel for accessing basic needs such as: work, health care, leisure, family, and accommodation.
Meaning, as the city population increase in response to major infrastructure investment; road use increases in turn causing traffic jam. Yet this argument fails to consider why to this day, no city has built and expanded roads out of congestion. These realities should communicate clearly that designing solution catering to inefficient means of moving people and goods is futile.
While able to move more people per trip, mass transit offers great economic benefits as it requires relatively minimal infrastructure investment considering high capacity requiring less vehicles per space thus reducing the likelihood of congestion, fuel wastage secondary to stagnation, time consumed on a trip, and land usage for roads and parking.
The answer to our traffic question is not more lanes per individual cars, but improvement on means to move larger groups at once with the least amount of space as in trains and buses.
This solution contradicts the common assumption of African states and leaders.
To sustain an image of modernisation and growth, tarmac roads with preposterous number of lanes have been built.
Each administration justifies spending billions by hailing road extension, expansion, overpass as solution to an existing traffic problem.
The evidence suggests the contrary.
Our obsession with motor vehicles has brought our major cities to a halt.
Moving short distances in major cities such as Nairobi and Dar es salaam can take hours than it should.
Such reality is highly damaging to working class people considering that most of these cities demand long distance travel for accessing basic needs such as: work, health care, leisure, family, and accommodation.
Hereafter, an average person is forced to spend up to two hours commuting to and out of work taking time away from leisure, family, and productivity.
From environmental perspective, cars stuck in traffic expend fuel to operate their engines without making significant progress towards their destination.
Here after the resultant pollution occurs for naught.
And let us not forget economical cost for wasting fuel that is often imported on subsides; relative high cost of construction and maintenance relative to productivity; and destruction of communities that is often necessary for construction and existence of these roads.
The proponents of motor vehicle and highway centric cities would argue that this is a capacity problem where congestion indicates city growth that should be met with expansion.
Meaning, as the city population increase in response to major infrastructure investment; road use increases in turn causing traffic jam.
Hereafter, directing funds towards the issue through increasing number of lanes, overpass, and improving overall quality of the roads, should then reduce traffic restriction.
Yet this argument fails to consider why to this day, no city has built and expanded roads out of congestion.
In fact, Chinese mega-cities’ highways with lanes number enough trigger revulsion even among those with poor taste, have recorded traffic jams lasting for days and thus requiring emergency response.
One also can look at Los Angeles California, a major US city, where an advanced system of overpass and highway still failing to address major congestions.
These realities should communicate clearly that designing solution catering to inefficient means of moving people and goods is futile.
Our ambitions fail to see to limitation of network system costing billions to establish with objectives of moving millions of people to their destinations in groups of two or threes in their private cars.
Logically speaking, such system would demand more space per person considering with space required increasing with usage and car design.
For example, if you are transporting 1000 people using private vehicles in groups of two, at least 500 cars will be needed.
A space needed to move these vehicles and not to forget parking them, will depend on the size of said cars.
SUVs for instance would require more space compared to sedans.
Notably, in private vehicles, size does not always reflect carrying capacity instead it describes a owner’s taste and income.
Both numbers will only increase as population increase and demands for commute increase.
In fact, as the number of lanes is increase; the number of cars also increases with drivers attracted to open roads.
Meanwhile a single bus can carry up to 80 people.
A train on the other hand can carry at least 250.
Hereafter, compared to 500 cars 12 buses and 4 trains may be sufficient in addressing transportation needs.
Such numbers solve multitude of problems at the same time.
While able to move more people per trip, mass transit offers great economic benefits as it requires relatively minimal infrastructure investment considering high capacity requiring less vehicles per space thus reducing the likelihood of congestion, fuel wastage secondary to stagnation, time consumed on a trip, and land usage for roads and parking.
With more land freed from freeways and parking occupied by cars in stagnation polluting urban air; public parks, residential and commercial buildings, and monuments can be constructed, hence beautifying our cities.