Kenya’s Cabinet Secretary (Minister) for Transport recently stated that a Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) would not be possible in the City of Nairobi. In his statement, according to press reports, he mentioned that the city lacked space for a BRT due to poor planning and added that to ease congestion, a commuter rail and expanded roads would be the alternative.
The CS’s statement could not have come at a worse time when Nairobi is experiencing massive traffic jams, increased congestion and environmental decay (evidenced by studies on the city’s air quality).
Several studies carried out in the past as well as ongoing ones seek to, or have proposed, an efficient mass rapid transport system for the City of Nairobi. Many have been done by government ministries or authorities in conjunction with various global partners.
The recently launched Nairobi Integrated Urban Development Master Plan advocated for several recommendations concerning Rapid Transit. Making use of some of the previous independent studies, it proposes a variety of options such as BRT, Light Rail and MetroRail along various channels. The plan recognized previous studies that had identified 6 BRT Corridors and three metro corridors.
The City of Nairobi has been faced with various challenges related to mobility, transportation and accessibility. The City once had an efficient but foreign owned bus service that ran by the minute and covered most city estates. Owing to the lack of an efficient public transport expansion policy or framework, the bus system was soon outdone by a state promoted para-transit system (known as matatus) that filled in the gap.
Nairobi currently runs a commuter rail system that transports up to 25,000 passengers daily. Kenya Railways has in the past planned on expanding the system with a goal of transporting up to 143,000 people per day. The system in operation was built based on geographical terrain rather than land use, thereby limiting its penetration to most neighbourhoods as land use patterns in the city have tended to follow road channels and not rail.
The transportation needs of a city have to be analyzed taking into account social, cultural, economic, environmental and political needs. This means that there is no ‘ultimate’ solution to traffic, transportation, mobility and subsequently, accessibility requirements.
It is important that every area of the city is studied comprehensively and where possible, changes made in order to first reduce the need for traveling long distances. This includes ensuring that certain services like homes, schools and health centres are located within close range. This process, which requires a multi-sectoral approach, can also be extended to workplaces and other commercial land uses.
Along with reducing the need for travel where possible, efficient and less energy consuming means of mobility ought to be considered. These may include increasing walkability and other NMT facilities in the city. Already over 50% of Nairobians walk due to lack of alternatives and this proportion can be increased with the development of proper walking facilities and network within a 10 Km radius of the CBD.
After exploring and implementing these processes, authorities ought to work on how to improve public transport systems within the city. In this regard, rather than undertaking massive and expensive feasibility studies, comprehensive alternative analyses based on each route/channel can be taken. Taking into account current circumstances and future developments, the best options that ensure an inter-modal and integrated public transport system should be adopted.
Citizens have different needs and different transportation preferences. The majority prefer a system that ensures last mile connectivity. Others prefer cheaper systems while a good number are willing to pay for efficiency and timeliness. All of these diverse needs can be integrated into the system. Equitable transport means should be put into place that do not favour some groups over others. Citizens should be able to chose between using a bus, using a train, using a matatu, driving themselves or using NMT.
For the city of Nairobi, this would mean the development of a public transit system that takes into consideration the presence of a vibrant informal transport system, a continual increase in the popularity of private vehicles as well as a constantly transforming urban morphology.
As a result, the suggestion that the city is not well planned enough for a BRT is uncalled for. A vibrant and growing city always has room for innovative ideas and diversity. None of the leading cities in the developing world that have adopted mass rapid transit systems have done so amidst a perfect urban structure. Good cities portray diversity, vibrancy and constant adoption of the ever changing circumstances.
A study of the Janmag BRT system in Ahmedabad (population of 6 million people and over 2.2 million registered vehicles) as well as the Lagos BRT provide some illustration of this. The City of Bogota developed its BRT as the ultimate solution for its traffic problems after rejecting a proposal made by ‘foreign experts’ to construct a multi level freeway’. Curitiba, on the other hand, the mother of the BRT system, developed the BRT system as the authorities analyzed the efficiency and financial viability against a proposed a light rail system that had initially been proposed. How does one therefore conclude, that a BRT cannot work and that instead a Rail System would be an ultimate solution?
In addition, stating that the only solution to get rid of congestion is to expand roads and construct a rail system is failing to take into account factors like the constantly increasing number of motor vehicles (thus only a short term solution) and the necessity of financing and subsidizing the rail transportation costs. Tradition has shown that increased incomes in cities tend to have a direct relationship with increased motorization.
Developing an urban transport system is not a one-off project that identifies a problem and solves them immediately. Cities are diverse living environments that are affected by several factors and developments. Consequently, transportation planning is a continuous process requiring constant foresight to prepare a city to meet demographic, technological, environmental or other challenges. Planning is the process of deciding what to do and how to do it – do not blame planning, start planning!
Does the development of a rail system necessarily discourage the use of personal vehicles? If planning is the process of deciding what to do and how to do it, should we always blame planning or should we start planning?
Images by Constant Cap; Data and Videos linked to sources