Cars, bridges and quality of life

These parks and pathways make İstanbul a healthier, happier place to live by making it easy for anyone to become physically active. What is more, the ongoing improvement of waterfront parks and neighborhood playgrounds points to a network of paths that could link “land-locked” neighborhoods with the Marmara Sea, the Golden Horn or the Bosporus. Eventually, existing waterfront paths could be extended into the Belgrade Forest by way of Gazi Mahallesi, Kemerburgaz and Bahçeköy.

While it is easy to imagine how redevelopment along the Kâğıthane and Alibeyköy rivers could facilitate non-motorized traffic between the Golden Horn and the forest, it is more difficult to assess the impact a third bridge across the Bosporus would have on the city's quality of life.

Ideally, quality of life should improve with economic development, and quality of life issues should guide the way an economy is allowed to expand. Unfortunately, the current lack of transparency about a third bridge suggests that economic interests may outweigh quality of life concerns.

Proponents claim that the new bridge will alleviate current traffic problems and that measures will be taken to ensure that natural resources are protected. But opponents declare that both of these claims are false. The public, left in the dark about the details of the plan, can hardly debate the issue in an informed way. A huge project with such massive implications for the city's future deserves public scrutiny, robust debate and genuine consensus. Not only would public debate enable citizens to take part in shaping the future of their city, it would also help city planners and national transportation authorities define commercial and private transportation needs more accurately and identify the best of several alternative solutions for moving goods and people about the city.

As it stands, the final route for the third bridge has yet to be announced, but Transportation Minister Binalı Yıldırım has already indicated that the bidding process will open in September. This leaves scant opportunity to evaluate the economic and environmental impact of the final proposal. Two examples illustrate the need for more careful evaluation of road projects and their impact on quality of life.

First, the access roads to the recently completed tunnel between Piyale Paşa (in Beyoğlu) and Kâğıthane are extremely dangerous for pedestrians. On the Beyoğlu side, the sidewalks are too narrow for two people to walk side by side. On the Kâğıthane side, the interchange between the tunnel and surface streets and highway lack proper pedestrian crossings (there are no wheelchair ramps and no traffic lights to protect pedestrians; blind corners make it difficult to see a break in the flow of traffic). There are, however, wide sidewalks leading up to these crossings, so it is obvious that planners have anticipated the presence of pedestrians but have not provided a safe way to cross the interchange. This disregard for pedestrian safety is inconsistent with recent efforts to renovate the historic park between the center of Kâğıthane and the Golden Horn.

The new IKEA shopping center in Bayrampaşa is another example of poor planning born of favoritism toward cars. Builders filled a large, empty area with stores and parking garages, but they focused solely on cars in designing access from the street. Pedestrians approach along narrow pathways sandwiched between high concrete walls and wide streets. This pattern recurs all over İstanbul.

In a city where the great majority of people rely on public transportation, the repeated and ongoing disregard for pedestrian convenience and safety is confounding.

The fundamental conflict in the third bridge controversy is not between economic development and quality of life but between competing modes of transportation, between private cars and public transportation. İstanbul's efficient public transportation system serves the city well, but improvements in comfort, frequency and ease of access would attract more riders. Bicycles could also play an important role in the city's transportation strategy, provided the city expands pathways and bike lanes. Cars will always be important, but there is no reason to favor their use to the detriment of less costly modes of transport. İstanbul deserves a holistic transportation strategy that humanizes the roads and makes the city a good place to work and play.