A government’s priority and commitment are reflected in its budget, not in its vision or plans. For the past several years, the main concern of the government with regard to urban transportation has been building urban highways and widening roads. The transport budget was exclusively allocated for roads, and no fund was allocated for a sustainable urban transport system that includes walking, cycling and public transportation. The budget also reflects the mindset of our policy makers and planners—wider roads are perceived as a symbol of prosperity and development.

How the transport budget is spent shapes the way we live and move in our city. The government is in fact subsidising people with cars and further encouraging them to own private vehicles by investing in multilane highways and widening urban roads. The motorisation rate of Nepal is one of the highest in Asia. The lack of investment in non-motorised transport (walking and cycling) infrastructures and public transport also pushes more people to use private vehicles. The urban transport development model that we have adopted has resulted in serious economic and public health crises—air pollution, traffic congestion, road fatalities and oil imports.

In the current fiscal year, the government has announced around Rs62 billion for the transport sector. However, only four percent of it is allocated to transport projects other than roads. While more than Rs1.5 billion is allocated for widening and improving roads in the Kathmandu Valley alone, not a rupee is allocated for building cycle lanes, while public transportation is entirely left to the private sector to fund, regulate and operate.

Although the fiscal budget is said to be pro-poor and to support balanced development, the budget on urban transportation largely caters to the demands of the rich and higher income people with cars.

The key challenge to transforming our transport system lies in the existing institutions, which work with an obsolete institutional setup and vision. Two key departments in the transport sector act more like a ‘highway department’ and a ‘vehicle registration department’. These institutions are largely shaped by how transport has been perceived by the conventional planners of the country and their outdated vision. Roads are largely defined as absolute space for motor vehicles.  The department responsible for building roads does not even have the capacity and expertise in planning and designing a simple cycle lane, let alone urban roads. There is no planner assigned specifically to oversee walking and cycling infrastructures in the country. Similarly, the department responsible for transport management has neither the strategy nor competent human resource to address the issues of an unmanaged transport system. Lack of political will and failure of the concerned ministry in setting a vision and allocating budget for an inclusive transport system are largely to blame for the poor transport system of the nation. Although the Kathmandu Valley Development Authority has been formed to direct the integrated urban development of Kathmandu, inadequate political support and resources make the authority incapable of coordinating with different agencies and carrying out its functions as envisioned.

Experiences from around the world show that a city’s leadership and political will play a major role in transforming urban transportation. However, in the case of Nepal, as the city government has no jurisdiction over major urban roads, including public transportation, and lacks elected representatives for nearly two decades, there is little a city can do. As we are now adopting a federal structure, the jurisdiction of urban roads, and the roles of national, state and local government on urban transportation should be defined with clear a funding mechanism and responsibilities.

As Nepal is one of the fastest urbanising countries in Asia and has now over 200 municipalities, we urgently need to get our urban and transport planning right. The national government needs to introduce a budget code with mandatory provisions of at least 50 percent of annual transport budget allocated to promote a sustainable transport system. Cities can transform if a significant amount of the road budget is allocated for walking and cycling infrastructures. For example, Denmark allocates a certain amount of budget every year for promoting cycling, and cities like Copenhagen allocate around 20 to 25 percent of its total road budget for cycling infrastructures. A dedicated funding mechanism should be established to mobilise the national and local resources to ensure sustainable financing of urban transport development.

Considering all the economic and environmental damages of a car-centric development model, it is probably time to stop spending public funds for building urban highways and widening roads. Let the motorists pay for it, not all of us. Public funds should be spent on infrastructures and services that benefit everyone, not just a fraction of the population with cars. The upcoming fiscal budget on transport should be inclusive and prioritise mobility of people over vehicles.

Khanal is an avid cycle user and works on urban transportation issues