Inclusive transport - observations from a meeting at the Ministry

My counterpart at the Institute of Policy Studies, Saman Kelegama was quoted in the media last week as seeing the 18th Amendment as a move to create much needed political stability. ‘Stability is what we have been looking for, if you look at the experience of China, political stability counted a lot in China (for its development) and it was the same in the three East Asian (Tiger) countries (Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore)’ he was quoted as saying  in the Sunday Leader.  The paper adds that  Kelegama  thinks that the  time and effort taken for ‘political coalition management’ could be used to ‘concentrate more fully on economic management.’   I am certain that ‘political stability’ at any cost is not what I would advocate for, but let’s concede Saman’s point for a moment.  I am assuming then, that this government, with all the power it now has, will now be able to push through changes that were previously constrained by bothersome actions of trade unions, opposition parties (such as they were), citizen actions etc and bring about the economic miracle that will change Sri Lanka’s position in the region.   Why then did I detect an overwhelming sense of negativity at the recent meeting with the fiery secretary of the Ministry of Transport, Dr Lalithasiri Gunaruwan? 

The meeting was called to discuss issues of ‘inclusive mobility and access’ and included officials from the Ministry of Social Services, the Ministry of Transport, members from the Disability Network, the Lanka Forum for Rural Transport Development, and other NGOs (e.g. VSO) supporting disability issues in Sri Lanka.  Nothwithstanding the importance of recognizing that the war has left a large number of soldiers and civilians disabled, that Sri Lanka has a burgeoning  ageing population, and that there is a cabinet ratified National Policy on Disability, it seemed  at the outset that making transport services more accessible to people with disabilities was not considered as a responsibility of the Transport Ministry, but rather of the Ministry of Social Services.  Designing transport infrastructure to accommodate facilities for the disabled, or diverting a minute percentage of the billions being invested in transport to provide these facilities, was initially considered too large a request to be accommodated.  It could only be done if the Ministry of Social Services provided the Transport Ministry with the necessary funding.  Even though there is a  National Disability Policy,  the rights of disabled citizens were dismissed as outside of the mainstream.   It was encouraging that after some persistent lobbying by the disabled representatives, the Ministry of Transport agreed to (a) make all new  railway stations being built in the North and East wheelchair enabled, and disability friendly and (b) work with people with disabilities to see what modifications can be made to railway carriages and to public buses.   A step forward indeed.

A lot of time and hot air could have been saved if planners recognize some basic principles of inclusive access and mobility.  One, is that making infrastructure disabled friendly, makes it also easier for other groups of users.  Pregnant women, mothers with children, young children, people carrying loads, older people, can all benefit from smoother pavements that can take wheelchairs and blind people can walk on without difficulty, from ramps instead of steps, from easier access to railway carriages and buses, from better and safe toilets, etc.  So the dichotomy between disabled and the non-disabled that seemed to dominate the dialogue at the Ministry of Transport  is really a false one.  That is unless you are a bureaucracy  that wants to cater to those who are consciously and actively breaking the law.  At times I was afraid that that’s what it sounded like – I heard that we couldn’t change the doors to the railway carriages (mind you they were asking for just one or two carriages not the whole train) because the pole in the middle was useful for all those who hung on to the footboard, or that the ticket counters could not be lowered because the ticketing staff had to be protected from ‘aggressive persons’ who would be more threatening with lower counters!  And, despite the fact that we have the much needed ‘political stability’ we are still not ready to reorganize the railways in a way that makes it profitable for the CGR, so they can implement these changes; nor are we in a position to enforce regulations on private bus operators that will encourage some level of support for safer travel for ordinary commuters and people with disabilities.  

We are also not ready to think outside the box and change the way we manage things.  The SLCTB is importing a 100 new buses and it was suggested that some of them be low floor buses that can have wheel chair and disabled access.  We’ve invested a great deal on our infrastructure, and by any standards, our main roads are now very smooth, and should be able to take the low floor buses.  However, the way buses are deployed (i.e. no one bus is allocated a single route but have to be allocated to several routes) cannot be changed.  Since there is no way we can change the management practice to deploy   low floor buses only on the main  roads –  importing them, even if they can herald a new era of mobility for older people, pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, is definitely out of the question.

I am pleased that the meeting did go somewhere, but if it is any indication about how the bureaucracy thinks and works,  then we need something more than just political stability to get strong economic management, and the dream of inclusive growth (i.e. economic growth that benefits all)  may well have disappeared together with democracy.