--By Bimal Rijal

 

Government authorities often throw around the word “development” while describing the recent trend inside Kathmandu. With the mushrooming high-rise apartment buildings, and of course, the ongoing road expansion project in the various parts of the city, the so called development seems to be rampant all of a sudden. However, before submitting to these claims and letting the government carry on with its “development” plans for Kathmandu, it is imperative that we as inhabitants of Kathmandu understand what it means to live in a more developed city.

 

In old school development studies, the word “development” was referred to an elevated level of economic activity. Tall buildings and wider roads most definitely spark an increase in the level of economic activity, but they do not define development. Yes, infrastructures such as wider roads that facilitate better mobility inside the city and high-rise buildings that provide crucial commercial and retail space are important to the process of development. But they alone cannot define development. 

 

When improved infrastructures such as wider roads and taller buildings contribute in improving people’s living standard, we can then say that they are contributing to the development of the city. The key here is not to emphasize only on developing physical infrastructure but also increasing their contribution in bringing positive effect in the lives of the people. 

 

In other words, development projects are the ones which ameliorate people’s living standard; not deteriorate existing one. This is why even the international community is increasingly accepting the Human Development Index (HDI) as a metric to measure development. To move up in the Human Development Index, a country not only needs to pay heed to economic growth (a component to which construction of new infrastructures such as roads, factories, etc., contribute to) but also genuinely improves people’s living standard by ensuring quality health, education and environment for 

its citizens. 

 

Kathmandu’s development should not be evaluated on the basis of whether or not we have four lane roads. More important questions like are these roads going to increase traffic mobility by reducing jams, how beneficial will the wider roads be to pedestrian, what air quality will the people get to breath, and so on should be primarily asked and evaluated. The present implementation of the road widening projects and the way the notion of development is attached to it makes me skeptical about the understanding of the term among politicians and city planners. 

 

From development’s perspective, the current road expansion is particularly concerning for a couple of reasons. Needless to say, in a few years time, much of Kathmandu’s two lane roads will be transformed into four-lane. But does this justify its labeling as a ‘development project’? Is it really going to help the ailing transportation system inside Kathmandu on a sustainable scale? My answer is a resounding no.

 

 

The current road expansion project undertaken by the government of Nepal to “rescue” Kathmandu’s populace from the blight of traffic congestion is assuredly going to prove counterproductive in the future. Having wider roads is only a temporary solution for Kathmandu because wider roads invite more cars and eventually the roads are going to be even more congested leading to even more intense traffic jams. Much of the current expansion of roads for gas consuming vehicles has been at the expense of pedestrian footpath. By norm, sidewalks alongside the roads need to be at least 2 meters wide. The new pedestrian sidewalks are barely half of it. Additionally, availability of lesser space has nullified the possibility to carry out plantations alongside the roads. 

 

To sum up the consequences of the road expansion: firstly, there are going to be more vehicles on the road emitting more harmful gases than ever and thereby further degrading air quality. Secondly, with no plans to improve mass transit in place, influx of more cars in the days ahead will reduce the mobility of vehicles further. Thirdly, lack of modest pedestrian sidewalk will affect mainly the working class, the senior citizens, and children walking back and forth from school. This will force the pedestrians to walk on the roads and presumably increase road accident frequency. Therefore, let alone the amelioration of living standard, wider roads are only going to degrade an average man’s living standard in the next five years. So, can such a project that increases pollution, worsens traffic problem, and puts the lives of senior citizens, small children and the working class at risk be called a development project? The answer is for the planners and the politicians to think of.

 

Personally, even the economic prospect from this project does not make sense. I do not understand why we are so much inclined towards widening our roads when we already know that the new vehicles, that are going to fill them up, and the fuel that will consume, will be imported from foreign countries. A bicycle ride doesn’t require importing or burning of fuels nor does a walk, for those who prefer it. In such a scenario, why don’t we have pedestrian sidewalks and cycling tracks in our list of priorities? These would not only help in retaining currency from flowing out but also improve living and health standards of the general public as more and more people will take to cycling and walking. 

 

Current road expansion seems to be worthy of pursuing to some extent only if the government personally takes the responsibility of managing the operation of public transport within the city, of planting trees on the sidewalks, and 

of ensuring that public health won’t be affected due to the project. Without these commitments and corresponding plans to implement them, the current endeavor is going to prove a wet blanket for the citizens.

 

Kathmandu is remarkably Nepal’s administrative and the financial capital. Legacy of centralized development, focused intensely within ring road, is at the heart of this city’s problem of traffic congestion. The government confronted it’s inadequacies in foreseeing the long term impacts of centralizing development, when severe traffic jams and immobility posited itself as a serious concern. In such a context, it could either reverse the trend of centralized development, opting to not expand the road, or it could carry on with the age old legacy of centralized development and expand the road eventually inviting more vehicles and people inside Kathmandu. 

 

A much better alternative to the current expansion would have been to ocus on developing more efficient express highways that link Kathmandu with its peripheral hubs like Banepa, Dhulikhel and others, and simply pay heed to the maintenance of roads inside Kathmandu. Such an effort would not only create new financial centers and commercial hubs outside Kathmandu but also relieve Kathmandu from its population pressure and pressures on its roads and physical infrastructures. With an increase in the level of economic activity, the people living outside Kathmandu and its periphery would be better off; and with lesser cars, lesser congestion, lesser pollution and lesser people, Kathmandu would be better off. In the long run, people living inside and outside Kathmandu would both benefit leading to genuine realization of development rather the current unsustainable growth.

 

While other nations across the world are stressing on promoting sustainability, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. While governments in other nations stress on preserving and promoting greenery through green roofing or through the protection of public parks, our government at home chops off three hundred trees to construct a landmark dedicated to “Ganatantra”. While other nations stress on constructing artificial flood control systems to protect its citizenry from unexpected flooding. In Kathmandu, the government instead destroys natural flood control systems like Manohara, Dhobokhola, Tukucha and other stream systems to develop riverside road network. 

 

Kathmandu - once tagged as naturally air-conditioned city by tourists - has now turned into a concrete jungle that experiences extreme temperatures. Ongoing unmanaged and disproportional road expansion has tarnished the image of this city even further. Adding to it, reluctance of the government to resort to sustainable development initiatives brings into question the fate of the city itself. If the government is not planning a sustainable future for it, than who will? 

 

(Senior urban planner Rijal is chief of Urban Development Department and also chief at city planning commission.)