S. Blankhart

Transport for the Urban Poor in Lusaka

Homepage Manual Contents Navigation

PART ONE: BACKGROUND - Transportation

The urban pattern as described above favours the high income car-owning population. It is difficult to reverse this spatial pattern because it would imply the complete re-development of Lusaka. The lower income groups without-private cars and living away from the main activity centres, are affected by this unfavourable spatial pattern.

The overall road network in Lusaka does not follow any regular pattern. The most heavily travelled arterial, Cairo Road, which is the major north-south axis is cut off from the western residential areas and from the administrative centers by the railway which-forms a physical barrier within the city. Only at four points connector roads cross this barrier, traffic congestion is experienced especially at these crossings during morning and afternoon peak-hours. Otherwise motorized traffic in Lusaka at the moment is not very much hampered by traffic congestion.

The road system in Lusaka includes 428 kilometer tarred road and 211 kilometer gravel road. (Information from the Lusaka Urban District Council, Road Engineer.) This includes 104 kilometer tarred road and 39 kilometer gravel road in the recently upgraded squatter settlements as construction of access roads was one of the objectives of the squatter settlement up-grading project. The road network in Lusaka is extended every year with 4-5 kilometer of tarred road. Road density in relation to the population and number of vehicles in Lasaka is fairly high. The overall road network density per 10,000 population is 7.9. The length of cycle tracks (31 kilometer} and paved foot-paths/pavements (14 kilometer) is on the other hand very-limited cycle-tracks are found alongside some arterial roads and pavements are-only found in the CBD (see Map.3). The official cycle and pedestrian path network has not been extended recently. A very dense network of informal foot-paths and shortcuts developed over the years especially through vacant land. In the rainy season these paths become virtually impassable. Pedestrians and cyclists are thus often forced to use the edge of roadways creating a dangerous traffic situation.

The last overall traffic account was done in 1968. (By Doxiadis Associates for the Lusaka Development Plan) According to this survey the inhabitants of Lusaka made 1.13 trips per day. Non-car owning population made less than one third of the number of trips made by car owning population. Three quarters all motorized vehicles were private passenger cars, 22% were trucks and the remaining were taxis, buses and tractors.

Regarding the levels of investment for transport infrastructure only public investments are considered here excluding aggregated figures on overall private transport expenditure (particularly in vehicles and in ancillary investments such as gasoline stations).

The Lusaka Urban District Council plays the most important role in the development of the transport infrastructure in Lusaka. The 1980 Revenue Budget of the Council indicates that more than 30% of the total net expenditure is spent by the Plans and Works Development Committee. This committee had K3,752,555 at its disposal, (The figures are Lusaka City Council 1980 probable estimates. The Lusaka Urban District Council is in existence since 1981.) part of which was directly spent on public and private transport provisions:

The total is 56% of the total Plans and Works Development Budget. Roads maintenance includes general maintenance and resurfacing of the roads as the biggest post (K1,000,300). A considerable amount is also spent on the upgrading of roads (K340,000). The last years the major road upgrading projects benefited lower income communities. In 1980 the access roads to Mutendere site and service scheme and Marrapodi squatter settlement were upgraded, while in 1981 the upgrading of access roads leading to Bauleni and Chibolya squatter settlements were projected.

Map 3: Pavement and cycle tracks

Better access for the population in this area is now guaranteed as public transport operators now more willingly serve these areas. Traffic control includes street marking and expenditure on street lighting. All these expenses benefit both the public transport sector as well as the private car owning population. The last ten years no funds have been spent on the development of special bicycle tracks and footpaths/pavements.

Provision of facilities benefiting public transport passengers directly have been limited except the erection of some bus-shelters. An exception is the new Intercity Bus Terminus. This project was a capital project and a large part of last years capital estimates (22%) was devoted to this Terminus. It was originally estimated to cost K 0.86 million but it actually cost K 1.4 million to complete. Construction started in April, 1978 and was completed towards the end of 1980. The terminus is situated near the Railway station to make it easy for passengers to transfer from buses to the train and vice versa. Unfortunately it is more cumbersome for the passengers to the passengers to intra-city public transport. The Terminus caters for 61 buses per day carrying an average of about 4000 passengers in and out of the city. (Lusaka Chronicle, No. 2 1981, P,5)

Within the Capital Budget there are more possibilities for pedestrian, cyclist and public-transport facilities ... . The capital Budget is however never totally implemented. It is spread over several years and should be considered more as a plan of intention. The Capital programme 1980-93 lists special pedestrian, cyclist and public transport facilities. Funds are reserved for cycle tracks (along Independence Avenue, Great East Road, Kafue Road and Lumumba Road), footbridges and subways and pedestrian crossings. These represent however a fraction of the total Capital Budget and most of the projects will not be implemented in the near future as funds are not available.

Summarizing it can be said that a comparatively small share of public funds are spent on the direct provision of transport facilities for the lower and middle income groups: in General the pedestrians, cyclists and public-transport users, The expense on infrastructure are financed from general taxation. Gains, however, accrue mostly to those who use the road most frequently and to private car owners.

These are generally found in the higher income groups. (The announcement that in future road-users may have to pay directly for the use of expensive infrastructure works (eg. the dual carriageway between Kitwe and Ndola) indicates a break in this practice. (Times of Zambia, 20-10-81).)

This study focuses on transport for the 1ow income groups and private motorcars are not included because it is assumed that the households under consideration cannot afford to own and run a private car. (Low income groups in the study are households earning less than K140 per month,(see Part Two). A modest five year old family car costs K3,000-5,000. One litre of petrol costs + K0.90. Even without considering tax, maintenance, insurance etc. it is obvious that low-income households cannot afford to run a private car excluding owners who use their car as 'private')

Other forms of mechanised private transport vehicles include motorcycles and bicycles, Motorcycles and bicycles are not very popular in Lusaka. Figures on the modal split in transport used for journey to work in some low-income areas over time indicate a decreasing number of people using a bicycle for the journey to work (see Annex 1). Two main reasons give an explanation:

(1) The non-availability of cheap reliable motorcycles and bicycles and spare parts. (2) decreasing road-safety affecting especially the motorcyclists and cyclists. Another reason is mentioned in a study in a squatter settlement over the years 1965 - 1974 where it was found that bicycle ownership rates did not increase with high income levels. This was explained here by the fact that in 1974 personal mobility was provided for by public buses whereas in 1965 bicycles were the only means(DPU, 1965 ). Since public transport provisions are nowadays considered as not adequate the first two reasons are more likely.

Motorcycles and bicycles are not made locally and have to be imported. The economic recession affected the import of motorcycles and bicycles and spare parts and retail prices rose. This is expected to change now that a new Indeco subsidiary, (Luangwa Industries) will start to assemble bicycles locally. When completed, Luangwa Industries will produce 100,000 bicycles a year, but this output could be troubled depending on the market. (Times of Zambia, 31-07-80)

Production of bicycles can make bicycles available for large groups of the population in Zambia. The factory aims at selling the bicycles at a retail price of approximately K135, which can make cycling an attractive alternative for low-income groups. Public provisions for bicycles are however limited. Few separate and paved bicycle lanes are found in Lusaka, but as maintenance is poor some are in a deplorable state (see Map 3). In the Road and Road Traffic Act it is stated that 'wherever it shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety of pedestrians or pedal cyclists the highway-authority has the power to provide footpath or cycle tracks. But the construction of special foot and bicycle paths is not compulsory and the last 10 years no special bicycle paths have been constructed in Lusaka, Cyclist are forced to use the main road causing dangerous traffic situations. Car-drivers do not respect the right of way of the-cyclists and cyclists are often pushed off the road. The overall figures of cyclists involved in accidents is however small because the total number of cyclists in Lusaka is small. (Bicycles in Zambia are not registered and overall figures of the number of bicycles in Lusaka are not available.) In 1980 9 cyclists in Lusaka were killed in accidents, 18 seriously injured and 25 slightly injured. (Information from the Road Traffic Commission, Lusaka.)

Another form of transport is walking and pedestrians can be regarded as a separate group within the transport system. As mentioned before pedestrians are offered few special facilities. There are pedestrian crossings only on the main roads but they are not always observed by motorist. Pavements exist only in the CBD forcing pedestrians outside the CBD to walk in mud or dust or risking their lives walking on paved motorways. The limited facilities for pedestrians contribute to the large number of pedestrians involved in accidents each year. In 1980 83 pedestrians were killed 203 seriously injured and 69 reported as slightly injured in Lusaka. (Information from the Road Trafiik Commission, Lusaka.) Most pedestrians were killed where highways pass large residential areas especially on Katue Road which passes several large (upgraded) squatter settlements. In May, 1980 the Road Traffic Commission in conjunction with the Lusaka City Council organized a big "Save the Pedestrian" campaign. The campaign was organized because of the rising number of pedestrians involved in road accidents. It was felt that motorists should pay more attention to pedestrians and pedestrian crossings were improved.

Another important mode of transport to work for A large number of employees are transport vehicles provided by the employer. As many workers experienced difficulties in coming to their places of work in time because of the failing public transport system, employers started to transport their own workers in buses, vannettee, etc. to and from their working places. Employees are collected at certain points in the city. Not only industrial enterprises but also institutions as the university and banks and some government departments provide transport facilities for their workers.

It ban be concluded that pedestrians and cyclists are not accorded the status they deserve as regular modes of transportation. Special facilities like foot. paths and cycle tracks are not common and pedestrians and cyclists are vulnerable groups in traffic situations. The Lusaka Development Plan does not indicate a structured pedestrian and bicycle path system. Even the Housing Project Unit squatter upgrading projects only provided large roads for motor-vehicles, neglecting the informal existing foot path system. Because of the failing public transport system in Lusaka employers have to provide special transport for their employees which is an inefficient use of the scarce transport means as many company vehicles haphazardly cross the city to transport workers to and from residential areas.

Figure 1: Expenditure of urban households on transport and communications

In the household Budget Survey 1974/75 the amount spent on transport and communications (including fuels such as petrol and diesel oil) is given separately for the urban and rural areas. (CSO, Household Budget Survey 1974/75 - Preliminary Report, 1980.) The towns of Lusaka, Ndola and Kitwe were selected to represent the urban areas of Zambia and between 10 and 15 households were chosen to represent each of the income groups.

Among the urban households different-percentages of the household income are spent on transport per income group and expenditure on transport increases considerably with income (see figure 1). The income groups earning less than K30 p.m. hardly spent anything on transport. This is to be expected since most of the expenditure is spent on food leaving little for shelter and clothing let alone transport. In the group earning K 30-70 p.m., expenditure on transport is, only between 1 and 2% of the total expenditure. The average amount spent on transport in these income groups is K0.76 p.m. per household. This indicates that the majority of the people in these income groups only travel on special occasions by public transport (e.g. to hospital) and only few make more or less regular use of public transport (for the work-home journey). The households with an income between K70 - 140 p.m. spend roughly 5% of their total expenditure on transport (between K1.59 and K 3.67) which indicates a more intensive use of public transport services (private motorized transport in hardly found in these income groups), but does not permit daily use of public transport. An earlier transport study found that the demand for bus services is low in low-income, areas (Department of Geography, 1974). In the lowest income area in that study the demand for bus transport was very low which can be attributed to the fact that the lowest income groups just cannot afford bus services.

The K140 - 250 income groups spent 6 - 7% of their incomes (approximately K10 p.m.) on transport. For the households earning more than K 250, expenditure on transport rises quite suddenly (14 -15% of total expenditure). An average of more than K34 is spent per month and there are little differences within these groups. In these groups private motorized transport is found, accounting for the higher amount spent on transport.

Table 1: Expenditure on transport per income group in Lusaka (1974/75)

Source: Household Budget Survey 1974/75, CSO, 1980

Considering the 1974/75 public transport fares only approximately 23% of the population in Lusaka in 1974/75 made daily use of public transport facilities for the work-home Journey (see Table 1).

It can be assumed that if incomes, income-distribution and the public transport fares do not change considerably any form of public transport will only attract a minority of the population of Lusaka, as the majority is simply not able to pay public transport fares daily. Experience from other countries learns that the higher income groups using private motorized transport will not easily change to using public transport, so the potential part of the population using public transport daily is even less than one quarter the total population.