RESOURCES: OTHERNamibia's transport challenge
by Michael Linke* Newspaper commentary originally appeared in The Namibian on June 22, 2007
Imagine if, 17 years after Independence, Namibia's education system still catered almost exclusively for a small, wealthy elite.
Imagine that spending on schools served the richest half of the population, while those living on a few dollars a day remained excluded.
The implications are obvious; this situation would worsen the poverty trap, providing no opportunities for the poorest people to better their lives.
Thankfully, Namibia has addressed the gap in education and other public service spending between different racial and economic groupings.
It is surprising then that the same cannot be said for a sector that is a crucial economic accelerator for Namibia's poorest people: transport.
In the next financial year, the City of Windhoek will receive N$13,8 million from the Ministry of Works, Communications and Transport to spend on its roads.
This money will be spent on roads that transport the privileged minority that can afford their own cars, and a larger number of taxi users who can afford to pay for the service.
But many Windhoek residents derive no direct benefit from spending on roads, as they go about their daily travel by foot or bicycle.
In fact, the current road system places them at a disadvantage, as it exposes them to the risk of injury and death by mixing them with motorised vehicles.
Data from Namibia's 2001 census shows that 53 per cent of the population does not have any access to a motor vehicle, either because none are owned in their communities, or because they are too poor to afford to pay for taxis.
This is a staggering figure when one considers Namibia's general climate of income disparity.
This means that road funding benefits less than half of the population, who are served with incomplete networks of footpaths and no bicycling facilities.
All public service spending that ignores the poor serves to entrench poverty, but the impact of pro-rich transport spending is less scrutinised than other sectors.
This is a strange omission in public discourse, given that transport has an impact on poor people's access to just about every other public resource.
Without good access to transport, poor children have limited access to school, poor women spend many hours of their day travelling to perform domestic tasks, sick people have limited access to healthcare, and the unemployed are stuck in their poor neighbourhoods, far from economic centres.
A bicycle is the most cost-effective mode of transport for short distances.
A cyclist travels at least three times faster than a pedestrian, can carry three times the weight, and can cover a substantially greater range at a fraction of the cost of a motor vehicle.
Compared with Windhoek's taxi system, a bicycle is also a significantly cheaper option.
A short distance return taxi journey each day costs $13, over a month this equals $260, and over six months this mounts up to $1 560.
This is more than enough to purchase a reasonable quality bicycle, and to maintain it for a number of years.
The inequity of Windhoek's transport system is reflected in a 2004 transport survey by the City of Windhoek that shows residents of Havana and Okuryangava spend, on average, 28 per cent of their income on transport, compared with 10 per cent for residents of Olympia and Klein Windhoek.
Justifying public expenditure on cycling may seem difficult when the City's transport survey shows that less than 1 per cent of all trips are made by bicycle.
Of course, improving conditions for pedestrians is far simpler to justify, as 28 per cent of trips were made by foot, according to the same survey.
But many survey respondents cited fear of motor vehicles as their main reason for not cycling.
Little wonder, when there is not one road marking on any major road in Windhoek that indicates cyclists are legitimate road users.
This is acknowledged in the City's own transport survey, which states 'The availability of bicycles and motorcycles is very low, and can most probably be attributed to the lack of facilities for these transport modes'.
The survey also shows that on average, 35 per cent of residents would use a network of cycle lanes if it was provided, with the figure over 60 per cent in low income areas.
There are other indirect economic benefits of a cycle friendly city too.
People who cycle just 20 minutes per day have 50 per cent less risk of heart disease, diabetes and obesity and 30 per cent less risk of high blood pressure than people who do no regular exercise.
Stress levels can be greatly reduced through regular exercise, and there are strong links to reduced stress levels and employee absenteeism Thus, the cost to the public healthcare system can be reduced by a more active population, and the cost to the economy in terms of lost working days reduced.
A myth surrounds the idea of what makes cycling popular in a city.
The idea that 'cycling culture' is the key determinant is simply false.
Most of the European cities where cycling accounts for more than 40 per cent of daily trips have been through decades of car-dominated transport systems.
For social and environmental reasons their residents and town planners decided to make a conscious switch away from a car-dominated system, allocating funds to footpaths, cycle lanes and facilities to lock bicycles.
The residents of these cities are no more or less likely than any others to adopt cycling, yet once they had safe cycling facilities they had a choice.
Public education programmes may be necessary to kick-start the adoption process, but an Owambo or Afrikaner in Windhoek is as genetically predisposed to ride a bicycle as a Dane in Copenhagen.
Cycling also faces a perceptual challenge, in that it is regarded in developing countries as a symbol of backwardness, whereas motor vehicles symbolise progress and development.
What policymakers in developing countries apparently fail to realise is that a growing number of the world's most important capital cities are moving away from cars to promote cycling and walking.
London introduced congestion charging in 2003, a system whereby drivers pay a fee to enter a cordon around the central of the city.
This has brought about a 30 per cent reduction in car use, and surpluses from the system are reinvested in public transport and cycle infrastructure.
The decrease in car use and an additional 900 km of cycle lanes have brought about an 83 per cent increase in cycling in London.
Similar measures have seen an increase in cycling in New York, and there are a growing number of European cities with high rates due to improved infrastructure.
Namibia is even being left behind by its neighbours, with Cape Town having developed a master plan for cycling, and Gaborone about to embark on a N$16 million project to improve conditions for cyclists and pedestrians.
The implications of a transport system that discriminates against the poor reach up to affect Namibia's top-level approach to poverty reduction.
No government could hope to achieve the millennium development goals (MDGs), let alone create sustained economic development, without having a mobile population.
Of course, the problems of a transport system that discriminates against the poor are not unique to Windhoek, but the Capital must take a leading role in changing the national agenda.
The government, if it is serious about goals like eradicating poverty and achieving universal primary education, must begin planning and building the means for its citizens to gain access to opportunities, to free themselves.
* Michael Linke is founder and Managing Director of the Bicycling Empowerment Network Namibia.