Mobility and
Development Periodical
Fall 2024
The Case for Metropolitan Transit Authorities,
in Dhaka and Beyond
Catalina Ochoa
Jesse Harber
Mokaddes Hoque
Mobility and Development Periodical ii
Table of Contents
About the Authors��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1
At a glance���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1
The need for urban mobility infrastructure����������������������������������������������������������� 2
The challenges of transport governance in Dhaka���������������������������������������������� 3
Towards metropolitan transport governance������������������������������������������������������ 6
Metropolitan in scale�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7
Governing (all of) transport���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8
Exercising authority���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11
Other factors: Capacity, resourcing, and leadership���������������������������������������� 12
Conclusion and recommendations������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13
References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15
Image credits�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16
Fall 2024 Edition 1
About the Authors
Catalina Ochoa
Senior Urban Transport Specialist, World Bank
Catalina is a Senior Urban Transport Specialist at the World Bank.
Her work focuses on transforming urban mobility and integrating disruptive
technologies into the transport sector. Before joining the Bank, she worked
in the transport tech sector as a Product Manager, Strategy Manager,
and General Manager. She holds master’s degrees in urban and regional
planning, transport engineering, and business administration.
Jesse Harber
Principal Professional Officer, City of Cape Town
Jesse Harber is Principal Professional Officer in Transport Planning and
Policy Development, City of Cape Town. He is an urban transport specialist
working in strategic policy and planning. In this article, Jesse writes in his
personal capacity.
Mokaddes Hoque
Transport Specialist, World Bank
Md Mokaddesul Hoque is a Transport Specialist for the World Bank,
specializing in transport policy, road safety, urban transport, road asset
management, and project management.
At a glance
Cities across the world are investing in new and improved transport systems to meet the
growing challenges of urban life. While these investments have the potential to benefit the
poorest urban residents and enhance overall transport efficiency, managing the planning,
construction, and ongoing operations of these systems poses significant challenges. The need
for effective institutions of urban mobility governance becomes crucial to coordinate and
integrate various components of these growing transport networks. The article discusses
the potential of metropolitan transport agencies as a model to address these challenges by
combining the planning, regulation, implementation, and enforcement powers necessary for
effective urban transport governance.
Mobility and Development Periodical 2
Dhaka, a rapidly growing city facing severe transport challenges, is a strong example to
demonstrate the potential value of a metropolitan transport authority. This article highlights
the limitations of the existing Dhaka Transport Coordination Authority (DTCA) in enforcing
plans and coordinating with other institutions, and of the “coordinating authority” model in
general. It argues for reforms to empower and resource the DTCA to transform it into a genuine
authority capable of leading and disciplining the complex transport governance landscape in
Dhaka. The article concludes that an effective metropolitan transport authority, with a clear
mandate, sufficient powers, and adequate capacity, can play a pivotal role in addressing the
urban transport challenges faced by Dhaka and other growing cities worldwide.
The need for urban mobility infrastructure
Cities across the world are investing in new and improved transport systems to meet the
growing challenges of urban life. This includes cities with strong legacy transport systems as
well as those that are having to rebuild or build urban transport anew. In many medium-sized
and large cities, there is a major deficit of fixed infrastructure. To fill that deficit, urban rail
and bus transit systems, commuter and metropolitan railways are being built along with
infrastructure for non-motorized transport such as walking and cycling. These are also the
investments that stand to directly benefit the poorest and least mobile urban residents, as well
as improve the overall efficiency and sustainability of their transport systems.
These improved urban transport networks pose two distinct, but related, challenges of
their own. The first is how to deliver these improvements most effectively. This includes
planning and designing the new systems and their operations; overseeing the construction of
complex portfolios of often large infrastructure projects; and integrating old, new, and future
components of these urban transport networks. The second challenge is how to manage
the ongoing operations of the system. This requires administering and enforcing operating
contracts; managing large flows of subsidies and fare revenue; and ensuring that the system
runs smoothly and with resilience in the face of inevitable adverse events and changing
circumstances. For an obvious example of having to operate with resilience, dramatic shifts in
movement patterns due to the COVID-19 pandemic had major and far-reaching effects on urban
transport systems globally, many of which persist.
Cities need institutions of urban transport governance that can meet these challenges. Urban
transport relies on network effects; every part of the system must depend on and support the
others. However, integration doesn’t happen on its own. The project-based nature of large urban
transport investments can mean that different parts of a new system can be (and often are)
planned and built with little regard for the overall system.
Instead, there needs to be effective master planning across the whole system, and enforcement
of that master plan through the specific details of individual projects. Service planning must be
closely aligned, and subsidies and revenues designed and managed for maximum effectiveness
across the entire system. Rather than building a fragmented or haphazard system, efforts
and resources should be pooled across the entire area to allow the entire city to benefit from
improvements to its transport system. Legacy transport modes, over which the government
often has only nominal control, must be integrated with new, forward-looking modes of mass
transit and non-motorized transport.
Fall 2024 Edition 3
As shown in the next section, the case of Dhaka is a clear illustration of some of these
challenges, especially as it is a city with a complex legacy of urban mobility planning and
implementation, and great ambitions (and investments underway) for an improved transport
future. Our work with the Dhaka Transport Coordination Authority, and experience in other
countries, can help illustrate the necessity and the promise of governance reform along the lines
of a metropolitan transport authority. This is an institutional model that has been established
in many cities, including those of low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It can take a variety
of forms and represent a variety of approaches to improving integrated transport governance;
the subsequent section will discuss the essential geographical, jurisdictional, and institutional
characteristics of a metropolitan transport authority.
The challenges of transport governance in Dhaka
Dhaka is a rapidly growing city with a large and growing infrastructure backlog. The challenges
that it faces are severe but not unique: across the developing world, cities are experiencing
comparable technical and institutional challenges to their urban transport systems.
From 2011 to 2017, Dhaka’s population increased from 15 million to 19 million, and registered
automobiles doubled from 73,000 to 140,000.1 Bus is the primary travel mode for 47 percent of
Dhaka residents because most households do not own a car, motorcycle, or bicycle.2 However,
bus service is fragmented, underregulated, inefficient, and prone to accidents. Other popular
modes of travel are rickshaw (16 percent), private car (11 percent), motorcycle (8 percent),
and walking (5 percent).3 Mode share of cycling and associated infrastructure is negligible.
In addition, traffic management in Dhaka is weak, with only a handful of traffic lights operating
in the city. All travel modes, including buses, cars, and rickshaws, do not stay within a travel
lane. Instead, the vehicles circulate, stop, and park wherever is convenient. The average resident
spends 2.4 hours in traffic each day.4
Dhaka is lacking in hard transport infrastructure and has a chaotic legacy public transport
system. Historically, roads have been built on an ad hoc basis without even medium-term
planning or road hierarchy. Only 12 percent of Dhaka’s roads have pavements suitable for bus
transit.5 The legacy public transport system was “artisanal”, comprising unscheduled, minimally
regulated, privately owned buses that were usually part of an aging fleet operating in intense
competition for very limited profits.6 One study indicated that 40 bus routes would be suitable
for Dhaka as it exists; there are currently more than 380 separate routes operated by more
than 10,000 buses.7 Until recently, routes were set by a colonial-era arrangement overseen by
the Police Commissioner, with licenses issued by the Bangladesh Road Transport Authority.
Licenses are largely nominal, with operators routinely running buses and routes outside of their
license terms.
1
Bangladesh Road Transport Authority
2
World Bank data
3
World Bank data
4
2018. Toward Great Dhaka. World Bank
5
World Bank data.
6
2016, Dhaka Bus Network and Regulatory Reform Implementation Study and Design Work
7
Stakeholder interview.
Mobility and Development Periodical 4
The institution mandated to address these challenges is the Dhaka Transport Coordination
Authority (DTCA). DTCA traces its origins to the World Bank’s Dhaka Urban Transport Project
which recommended the establishment of a metropolitan transport institution. This led to the
establishment of the Greater Dhaka Transport Planning and Coordination Board (GDTPCB).
This would become the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB) which formulated
the city’s first Strategic Transport Plan (STP) in 2004, delivered it in 2006, and has since
produced two revisions to the plan. From 2007, DTCB had a dedicated revenue structure and
a staff contingent of 70. When Dhaka began planning new Mass Rapid Transit and Bus Rapid
Transit systems, it was recognized that metropolitan transport governance would have to be
strengthened for the projects to succeed. As a result, DTCB was reformed and renamed the
Dhaka Transport Coordination Authority in 2012.
Since then, the need for integration of Dhaka’s burgeoning transport system has only grown
more pressing. Transport governance is distributed across a complex set of organizations that
engage bilaterally and through coordinating committees (see Figure 1). This is the system that
DTCA is nominally tasked with coordinating. With the construction of MRT and BRT, enormous
capital budgets are now directed through the purpose-established implementing institutions.
The various transport institutions, and nontransport institutions that nevertheless play roles in
the transport system (such as the army, which builds and maintains certain major roads), have
a complex set of interrelationships and division of labor.
Fall 2024 Edition 5
Figure 1. Institutions of transport governance in Dhaka
Ministr of Ro ds Urb n ro ds footp ths,
Tr nsport nd bus t rmin ls, inst ll tion
of tr ffic si n ls, lic nsin
Brid s Dh k of c clin ricksh ws,
Tr nsport str t v ndors,,p rkin
Ro ds nd
Coordin tion m n m nt, tc.
Hi hw s D pt.
Authorit
Hi hw s Dh k North
BRT North Dh k M ss Pl nnin nd Bus R form Cit Corp.
Coordin tion Committ
Tr nsit Comp.
Urb n
R structurin Ministr of
MRT construct Tr nsport
nd op r tion
of bus s rvic s Loc l
in Dh k
Dh k BRT
Gov rnm nt
comp n Urb n ro ds, footp ths,
BD. Ro d
Tr nsport Corp. bus t rmin ls, inst ll tion
BRT
Op r tion
BD. of tr ffic si n ls, lic nsin
Ro d Tr nsp. Public Bus s of c clin ricksh ws,
Authorit str t v ndors, p rkin
Bus P rmits, m n m nt, tc.
C r R istr tion, Dh k South
Lic ns s Cit Corp. Ministr of
Housin
Ministr of nd PW
Hom Aff irs
R juk
Prim Ministr of
Dh k Minist r Pl nnin
M tropolit n
PPP Pl nnin
Polic
Authorit Commission Arm
Source: Authors.
It is this complex system that DTCA is mandated to coordinate, to “make the transportation
system of Dhaka metropolis fair, planned, coordinated and modernized”. Its board includes the
mayors of municipalities within its jurisdiction, senior national civil servants, and civil society
representatives. It is chaired by the Minister of Road Transport and Bridges. DTCA’s powers
include strategic planning and coordination regarding transport in Dhaka; a limited right of
approval of final plans by other bodies; and very limited implementation of plans.
Overall, DTCA is limited in its ability to meet its mandate. Although DTCA’s policymaking
function and power of approval over other institutions’ transport activities is legislated, in
practice, relationships with other institutions are ambiguous and ad hoc. The authority’s key
instrument is the Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka, but functionally it has no ability to
enforce the plan. Although DTCA approval is nominally required for all transport projects in
Dhaka, to ensure congruence with the STP, in practice, this is largely ignored. It has no power to
enforce compliance. As a result, the implementation of large transport investments in particular
is proceeding largely with insufficient reference to a larger strategy for transport in Dhaka.
Similarly, the DTCA lacks effective authority over road building and management.
Mobility and Development Periodical 6
In our research, officials from other organizations reported a lack of formal guidelines for how
to engage with DTCA. They expressed uncertainty about divisions of responsibility, what is to
be coordinated, with whom that coordination must happen, and what DTCA’s institutional role
is. DTCA and other institutions treat each other largely as stakeholders to be consulted, whose
views can be taken or left, rather than integrally involved institutions with a common purpose,
and whose activities need close alignment. This is especially the case concerning land use, which
Bangladesh officials widely recognize as being inseparable from transport. In this area, DTCA is
scarcely registered as a relevant stakeholder. While it is allowed to comment on spatial plans,
its comments are almost always set aside. DTCA therefore functions entirely downstream of
decisions integral to the planning of transport in Dhaka.
DTCA lacks the standing needed to navigate these informal governance arrangements.
Its leadership occupies more junior ranks than its equivalents at other institutions; senior staff
is temporarily seconded from other organizations, discouraging long-term thinking; and DTCA
is treated largely as a pre-retirement sinecure. It largely lacks a political champion. DTCA
also does not control significant financial levers, with operational and capital funding flowing
directly to implementing agencies giving them functional autonomy from DTCA’s oversight.
As a result, urban governance in Dhaka suffers.
In all, DTCA is a clear example of an institution of integrated transport governance that
struggles to effectively govern. The next section will discuss a proposed alternative model,
the metropolitan transport authority, which could more effectively meet the challenge of
governing this complex system.
Towards metropolitan transport governance
An institutional arrangement for transport governance allows for:
• More control over the transport system
• Improved coordination of major new investments
• A unified strategy for urban transport
• Appropriate channels of accountability
An example of just such an institutional form is the metropolitan transport authority,
increasingly common around the world. The World Bank and its partners have varied and
growing experience with establishing metropolitan transport authorities, and are in a position to
describe some of the common factors for success.8 To put it simply, these institutions must be
authorities, at the metropolitan scale, governing most or all of urban transport.
8
This section draws from Kumar and Agarwal (2013) who summarize much of the Bank’s experience to that date.
Fall 2024 Edition 7
Metropolitan in scale
Metropolitan government functions such as transport need to be governed at the metropolitan
level. Contemporary large cities, especially megacities in the developing world, extend far
beyond the boundaries of historical municipal governments and represent a single functional
area with respect to economic activity and especially labor markets. This functional area is
the metropolitan area. Transport networks, especially public transport, are integral to the
functioning of such integrated labor markets, and so are inherently metropolitan by nature.
These systems need to be governed at the metropolitan scale to ensure they are serving the
entire functional area, rather than narrowly bounded areas within.
The first and most important question in metropolitan transport governance is: To whom is the
metropolitan institution accountable? There are several models for metropolitan governance
overall, which vary in structure and lines of reporting. Some, like Nairobi’s NaMATA or Dar es
Salaam’s DUTA, are directly accountable to national structures. This can give these agencies
prominence and powerful political support, but can result in a lack of accountability to city
residents and a loss of focus on the pressing needs of the metropolitan area. Others are
accountable to multiple elected local governments. An example is Paris’s Syndicats Transportes
Îles-de-France, which is a consortium of the regional government of Îles-de-France (the broader
Paris region), the city of Paris, seven substructures of Îles-de-France, and partner organizations.
This model provides greater accountability to local conditions but poses challenges for balancing
the needs of the various members, especially when they are unequal in population, money, or
power. Some of the oldest metropolitan transport authorities are in the USA, and typically are
structured as in this second model, with representatives from multiple governments at local and
state level. The third model is more straightforward, where the metropolitan transport agency
is accountable to a directly elected metropolitan administration, which gives it the strongest
incentives to focus on the city’s needs. This is how Transport for London is structured. Municipal
governments in Seoul and Ahmedabad effectively perform the function of such locally-governed
transport authorities, albeit without a separate dedicated agency.
This accountability to the city’s residents is extremely important for metropolitan transport
governance. There are many contradictory incentives applicable to transport governance,
in different parts of the government. The way to keep a metropolitan institution focused on
the needs of its metropolitan area is to make it directly accountable to the people who will be
directly affected by its decisions: those who live in the metropolitan area.9
9
Klopp, Harber, and Quarshie, 2019
Mobility and Development Periodical 8
Governing (all of) transport
Key to the concept of the metropolitan transport authority is that it has broad responsibility
and ability to govern the entire urban transport system. A key reason for this is to be able to
hold it accountable for the provision of quality transport. Where the functions of transport
governance are diffused among institutions, typically none have sufficient control to meet the
tightly integrated demands of the transport system. Systemic failures become the fault of all
institutions and none; there is no one to be held to account because institutions can (reasonably)
point to failings in the broader system as producing problems. It is only possible to demand
institutional accountability when all or almost all of the relevant authority and powers belong to
the accountable institution.10
As such, a strong lead institution is a key factor in effective metropolitan transport governance.
The alternative to a lead institution is fragmented transport governance, limiting any
prospects for functionally and spatially integrated planning, implementation, and regulation.11
An integrated transport system cannot be administered piecemeal, by many agencies operating
in silos or openly competing for funding or passengers. Metropolitan governance is complex,
involving many institutions, and transport cannot be governed by merely one institution
working among many.12
Precisely which functions are performed by the institution vary between contexts but the
overall role stands as leading and managing the metropolitan transport system. Kumar and
Agarwal (2013) divide transport governance into three “levels” of functions: strategic (such as
strategic planning and policy), tactical (such as detailed infrastructure and service planning,
and regulation), and operational (construction or operation of transport systems) (see Figure 2).
Within these levels, there is an even wider range of specific functions.
10
Seetharam Sridhar, Gadgil, and Dhingra, 2020
11
Kumar and Agarwal, 2013
12
Orfield and Dawes, 2016
Fall 2024 Edition 9
Figure 2. Functions required for the provision of urban transport
Strategic Planning and Policy Formulation Strategic
Regulation Planning
Tactical
Safety Commercial Infrastructure Service
Regulation Regulation Planning Planning
Infrastructure/Facility
Public Transport
Construction and Operational
Operations
Maintenance
Common Services Independent Services
Source: Kumar and Agarwal (2013, fig. 1).
The metropolitan transport authority must have a functional mandate appropriate to the
task at hand. The role of the institution must be specified and unambiguous. Figure 3 shows a
matrix of which metropolitan institutions in various cities perform which functions and with
what degree of responsibility. Note that while only about half of these transport agencies are
responsible for road and traffic management, these are the generally best-performing and most
efficient transport agencies. Concerning public transport, the role of the institution is usually
significant if not paramount.
Mobility and Development Periodical 10
Figure 3. Roles and responsibilities of lead metropolitan transport institutions
Metropolitan Region and Transport Executive Mentioned in Toolbox
Element of the integrated metropolitan regional transport system
(Strategic level responsible authorities)
Metropolitan Transport Masterplan
Operation Urban Public Transport
Public Transport Service Planning
Road vehicle permits and licences
Public Transport Control Center
Mobility Education/Training
(Tactical level organisation)
Transport Data Warehouse
Intermodal interchanges
Cycling infrastructure
Parking management
Operator contracting
Traffic management
Taxi and assimilated
Metropolitan Region
Transport Executive
Road Infrastructure
Road pricing (ERP)
Bus Infrastructure
Operator licencing
School transport
Walking/Streets
Spatial planning
Shared mobility
Commuter Rail
Fare policy
Urban Rail
Ticketing
Bangkok MRTA - + - - - - - - - + ++ ++ +++ - + + ++ - - ++ - - - +
Brussels BM + +++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ + - + +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Dubai RTA - +++ +++ + +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ + +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +
Jakarta BPTJ + +++ + + ++ - - + - + ++ ++ +++ ++ + ++ - + - - + + + + +
Kochi KMTA - +++ +++ + - - - - - ++ +++ ++ + +++ + ++ +++ +++ +++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++
London TfL - +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ +++ - ++ +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ + +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Manila LTFRB - + + + - - - - +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ - + +++ - - ++ - - -
Newcastle NEXUS - + + + + ++ + - - - +++ ++ +++ ++ ++ + + - ++ +++ - + + + +
Paris IdFM + ++ +++ + - - - - - ++ ++ ++ + +++ + +++ + +++ + +++ - - - - -
Seoul MTC + ++ ++ - - - - - - +++ + ++ + ++ - + + + - - - - - - -
Singapore LTA ++ +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ - +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ + ++ +++ +++ + +++ - +++ ++ +++ +
Stockholm SL + ++ ++ - - - - + - +++ +++ +++ + +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ + +++ - - - - -
Metropolitan Region XY
Geography Actor Element of the integrated metropolitan regional transport system (as above, to be adapted in detail to local situation)
Metro <<MTE>>
Muni Mayor
Province Governor
State Ministry
Central Ministry
KEY
- No involvement + Contribution ++ Co-responsible +++ Lead Executive
Source: ASEAN (2021, fig. 41).
Fall 2024 Edition 11
Exercising authority
It is vital that the metropolitan transport authority has sufficient powers to deliver on its
mandate. This point appears trivial but must be emphasized. An institution tasked to plan,
make policy, and regulate must have the mechanisms to give effect to those plans, policies,
and regulations. It must not be merely “recommendatory” or a stakeholder to be consulted:
it must make binding decisions on the matters for which it has responsibility.13 Otherwise, it is
likely to become a “Department for Reports”14 whose role in the system is trivial.
Key among these powers is the ability to enforce its decisions. The decisions of the metropolitan
transport authority, properly taken, must be binding and followed by other actors. It therefore
needs the power to investigate and if needed level penalties on people and organizations, public
or private, that fail to adhere to its leadership of the metropolitan transport system. Founding
legislation has a significant role to play in establishing this enforcement authority.15 It is not
possible to hold the institution accountable when it lacks the power to deliver on its mandate.16
On top of formal enforcement powers, the institution must wield sufficient political and
bureaucratic authority. A political champion is thus essential to the success of a metropolitan
transport authority. This is used to backstop the formal powers of the institution and to help it
maneuver in situations where it needs to deploy convening or persuasion powers. It is also key
to the sustainability of the institution: it will have to manage an inherently contested sector
through future challenges and reforms and will require substantial resources to do so. The only
way to protect and enhance its ability to govern on a sustainable basis is through strong and
ongoing support from key political figures.17 It must also be bureaucratically powerful, able to
hold its own and more against all other institutions involved in the metropolitan system.
The most important power for the institution to wield is control over the finances of the
metropolitan transport system. Administering ongoing transport subsidies, investment
capital, and donor funds is key to giving the institution an integral role in how the money
gets spent, even if that spending is ultimately delegated to other institutions. This not only
gives the metropolitan transport authority control over the sector it will be held accountable
for but will guarantee its political and bureaucratic power as well as the support it has for its
mission.18 Centralizing funding flows like this also makes possible economies of scale and
cross-subsidization between modes that would otherwise be impossible in a fragmented system.
The ability to effectively control and administer financial resources in the transport sector is
arguably the most important factor of success for a metropolitan transport authority.19
13
Seetharam Sridhar, Gadgil and Dhingra, 2020
14
Jeremy Timm in conversation, 2014
15
Seetharam Sridhar, Gadgil, and Dhingra, 2020
16
Orfield and Dawes, 2016
17
Kumar and Agarwal, 2013
18
ASEAN, 2021
19
Kumar and Agarwal, 2013
Mobility and Development Periodical 12
Other factors: Capacity, resourcing, and leadership
To be able to exercise its powers to deliver on its mandate, the metropolitan transport authority
needs substantial internal capacity and resourcing. Transport governance is technically and
administratively demanding, requiring capacities including (at a minimum) transport and urban
planning, engineering, and financial management.
The transport authority needs large numbers of technically skilled people. The strategic
functions of transport governance alone require dedicated people capable of and experienced
in gathering and managing data; modelling transport systems; assessing detailed plans;
and managing technically complex contracts. To build a track record of successful transport
governance, and protect its ongoing status as a lead institution, it will require a wide and deep
pool of technical capacity. Skilled staff must be able to be recruited freely, on competitive
salaries and terms of employment, and must be cultivated through additional training and
prospects for advancement. Technical staff cannot be penalized with limited career prospects
in the institution, or the institution will lose them.20
Administrative skills are similarly important. As the institution’s role grows, so will the
complexity of its projects. It needs to be able to oversee, if not administer, significant flows
of funds, both in the form of ongoing subsidies and large capital investments. Managing
relationships with other institutions, contracts with service providers, and a large internal
staff requires skillful and experienced administrative staff and managers. As discussed above,
managing the sector’s finances is perhaps the most important power for a metropolitan
transport authority; it follows that doing so effectively is among the most important capacities
for it to have.
The institution needs strong, dedicated, and high-quality leadership. This is related, but distinct,
to the question of managerial capacity. The ability of the institution to exert leadership over the
metropolitan transport system depends strongly on the quality of its leadership. Leaders must
be experienced, knowledgeable in the field, and (at a minimum) conversant with its technical
details. They must be committed to the institution and have appropriate tenure: effective
transport governance requires a time horizon of five years at the very minimum. The leadership
must therefore be stable over at least this period, with turnover being staggered and succession
carefully planned to ensure continuity. While flexibility is important, long-term plans must be
robust to shifts in personnel at every level. Leadership must have sufficient seniority, political
backing, and bureaucratic status to exercise control over the transport system.
The institution must be sufficiently and sustainably resourced. To govern the metropolitan
transport system on the necessary timeline of decades, the institution must be able to count on
sufficient resources to uphold its role. It needs sufficient and stable core funding appropriate to
its role; economizing on the resources of the institution is a false economy, liable to cost much
more in maladministration and waste downstream in the transport system. In addition to core
funding, the institution should be able to develop sectoral revenue streams. To start with, this
would include farebox revenue, tolls, licensing fees, and top-slicing administrative funds (within
reason) from subsidies and capital grants. A key component in sufficient resourcing is being able
to operationalize capital spending in this way. As the institution matures and builds capacity,
it can develop larger and more sophisticated revenue streams such as land value capture.
Kumar and Agarwal, 2013; Seetharam Sridhar, Gadgil and Dhingra, 2020
20
Fall 2024 Edition 13
Conclusion and recommendations
In summary, an effective metropolitan transport authority requires:
a) An appropriate functional and geographical mandate, with matching lines of accountability
b) Powers sufficient to exercise that mandate and enforce its decisions, most especially
financial powers
c) Sufficient technical, administrative, and institutional capacity to wield those powers
effectively
Figure 4 is a schematic representation of the relationship between these three requirements.
It shows, on the left, an institution whose capacity falls short of its powers, which are themselves
insufficient to serve its mandate. On the right, it shows the preferred outcome of reform where
its capacity more closely matches its powers, which in turn more closely matches its mandate.
Figure 4. Schematic representation of the relationship between mandate, powers, and
capacity. Left: insufficient resources and powers to deliver on the mandate. Right: increased
capacity and powers more closely match the mandate
Mandate
Mandate
Powers
Powers
Capacity
Capacity
Source: World Bank.
The experience of Dhaka is striking but not unique. It, along with cities worldwide, is grappling
with the challenge of governing urban transport on a scale much larger than its traditional
municipalities and under difficult circumstances. While pursuing bold and ambitious capital
investments in its transport system, it is finding that it lacks the governance tools to
deliver these large projects most effectively and to integrate them into a coherent urban
transport system.
Mobility and Development Periodical 14
The DTCA, created to meet a previous generation of comparable challenges, is such a tool with
untapped potential. If empowered, resourced, and capacitated to exercise its mandate, it could
be the apex institution for transport governance in Dhaka. Such a metropolitan transport
authority, able to wield effective power over transport at the most appropriate urban scale,
has the potential to discipline and lead a way out of a currently messy governance situation.
How does DTCA compare to an effective metropolitan transport authority? With respect to its
mandate, it has jurisdictional authority over an appropriate metropolitan area. It is also placed
nominally at the center of the urban transport system, with responsibility across the sector.
These are indeed features of a metropolitan transport authority. However, DTCA answers
entirely upwards, to national government. While this is the case with some metropolitan
transport authorities, it muddies the institution’s incentives and detaches it from the key task
at hand: governing transport for the people of Dhaka.
DTCA is also not an authority in any meaningful sense, despite its name. Its mandate is
limited to coordination and it lacks even the powers to achieve that. To be an effective
metropolitan transport authority, DTCA would have to be a truly apex institution, to which
other institutions of urban transport are responsible and by which they are funded. This would
require a significant repositioning of DTCA upwards, its endowment with extensive new powers,
and a dramatically more senior leadership. A political champion would have to work hard to
reinforce its formal powers with informal authority, positioning DTCA as the apex institution for
transport in Dhaka.
Finally, DTCA presently lacks the capacity to effectively deliver on its current mandate: it is
understaffed and underfunded. To rise to the challenge of truly governing transport, as a
metropolitan transport authority, it would require substantial reinforcement of these capacities.
Technical, administrative, and financial expertise would have to be recruited, possibly first as
consultants but increasingly internally. DTCA needs engineers, planners, financial managers,
and contract managers able to go toe-to-toe with the many public and private organizations
involved in transport in Dhaka; to govern them, it should be the most capable of them all.
To maintain this governance infrastructure, it needs sufficient dedicated long-term funding,
and to maintain a long-term program of capital and operational improvements, it needs steady,
predictable flows of funding and revenue. This should include an increasing range and amount of
self-collected revenue from within the sector.
There have been past efforts to strengthen or reform the DTCA, aiming either to bolster its
internal capacity or elevate its role to address broader challenges. However, these attempts
were unsuccessful, primarily due to a lack of political will and the necessary leadership during
critical moments of change. To achieve effective governance and ensure the sustainable delivery
of transport services, Dhaka must return to fundamental principles while drawing lessons from
successful examples in comparable cities around the world. Dhaka’s scale, complexity, and
challenges are far too significant to be managed as just another city in Bangladesh. It requires
a dedicated metropolitan transport authority to coordinate and oversee its transportation
needs effectively. With such an authority in place, Dhaka has the potential for a much brighter
future in both transport and urban development. This model of a metropolitan transport
authority also merits careful consideration for other large cities and urban agglomerations
facing similar challenges.
Fall 2024 Edition 15
References
Andersson, M., 2015. Unpacking Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Development
(Discussion Paper). GIZ, Bonn and Eschborn.
ASEAN, 2021. Toolbox for the Establishment of Metropolitan Transport Executives (MTE)
in ASEAN Metropolitan Regions. ASEAN, Jakarta.
Dubash, N.K., Morgan, B. (Eds.), 2013. The rise of the regulatory state of the South:
infrastructure and development in emerging economies, 1st ed. ed, Law and global governance
series. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Jaimurzina, A., 2018. Transport Governance: theoretical and policy perspectives. FAL Bulletin 5.
Kumar, A., Agarwal, O.P., 2013. Institutional Labyrinth. designing a way out for improving urban
transport services: lessons from current practice. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Kumar, A., Barrett, F., 2008. Stuck in Traffic: Urban Transport in Africa. World Bank,
Washington D.C.
Merk, O., 2014. Metropolitan Governance of Transport and Land Use in Chicago (OECD Regional
Development Working Papers No. 2014/08), OECD Regional Development Working Papers.
https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxzjs6lp65k-en
Metropolis, 2014. Comparative Study on Metropolitan Governance. Asociación Mundial de las
Grandes Metrópolis, Barcelona.
OECD, 2017. Getting Infrastructure Right: A framework for better governance. OECD.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264272453-en
Orfield, M., Dawes, B., 2016. Metropolitan Governance Reform (No. 8), Local Government
Reconsidered.
Seetharam Sridhar, K., Gadgil, R., Dhingra, C., 2020. Paving the Way for Better Governance in
Urban Transport: The Transport Governance Initiative. Springer Singapore, Singapore.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9620-5
Trejo Nieto, A.B., Niño Amezquita, J.L., Vasquez, M.L., 2018. Governance of metropolitan areas
for delivery of public services in Latin America. REGION 5, 49–73. https://doi.org/10.18335/
region.v5i3.224
Wegrich, K., Kostka, G., Hammerschmid, G. (Eds.), 2017. The governance of infrastructure,
First edition. ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
Image credits
Cover Page Flickr
4 Adobe Stock
7 Adobe Stock
8 Adobe Stock
16 Adobe Stock
Back Cover Adobe Stock
Read the full Mobility and Development Periodical
Fall 2024 Edition