You see a lot of people these days who are always on their smart phones. Many are walking while doing something with their phones whether making a call, typing away, listening to music or perhaps attending to social media. Many are not aware of what are happening around them and this puts them in a situation where that increases their vulnerability. There are those who cross streets without checking for oncoming traffic. There are those walking along the roadside who are not mindful of the likelihood of being sideswiped by vehicles. As such, there is a need to address this behavioral concern to reduce the occurrence of incidents that could lead to deaths if not injuries.
There is a nice article I read recently about an initiative in the Netherlands where they installed pavement traffic lights:
Scott, G.L. (2017) “Dutch City Installs Pavement Traffic Lights to Help ‘Phone Zombies’,” Inverse, https://www.inverse.com/article/38472-dutch-city-installs-pavement-traffic-lights-to-help-phone-zombies?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=culture&utm_campaign=photo, (Last accessed 11/19/2017).
The assessment for this initiative is quite limited – one day as mentioned in the article – but is promising especially from the perspective of innovation. We need such innovative thinking in order to address the issues about safety. This is but one example of many aimed at curbing road crashes that lead to injuries and deaths particularly with respect to the most vulnerable among us.
There is another recent article on non-motorized transport (NMT). This is a good read and something that I think should be required for those who are little too serious or staunch about their advocacies.
Doyon, S. (2017) “Building support for walking and bicycling infrastructure” Public Square, A CNU Journal, https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2017/11/11/building-support-walking-and-bicycling-infrastructure (Last accessed 11/11/2017)
I believe that if you want to convince people to appreciate and support your cause, you should not take the hardline. Instead, there should be a more persuasive process for wooing people. This is especially true in transportation and the advocacies for walking and cycling. You will not get a lot of support, for example, by condemning car users and telling everyone they should bike instead.
History seems to be repeating itself as the situation along EDSA for the upcoming ASEAN meetings is practically the same with that about 2 years ago when the APEC meetings were held in Metro Manila. We have a different administration now with a lot of new people at the Department of Transportation. You would think that they see an opportunity here, to have another chance to simulate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along EDSA. They did recently deploy P2P bus services to augment the failing MRT Line 3 but perhaps it is more likely for that purpose and nothing else. There is no indication that the now exclusive lanes along either side of EDSA will be used for a mass transportation experiment during or after the ASEAN meetings. I guess this will be another missed opportunity for a proof of concept?
Here is a very interesting article on the beginning of Uber:
Campbell, G. (2017) “The Beginning of Uber,” Medium, August 23, 2017, https://medium.com/@gc/the-beginning-of-uber-7fb17e544851 (Last accessed 11/10/2017).
The article contains the company’s first pitch and should be of interest to researchers (that includes my students) who may want to know about and from the Uber’s origins. It might be useful to taxi operators and drivers as well since the slides show their characterization and what (good) features distinguished Uber from the conventional taxis at the time.
The eastern transport terminal that had been under development along the Marikina riverbanks and across from SM City Marikina does not seem to be progressing in terms of the public utility vehicles it is supposed to be attracting and dispatching. Not even the heavy promotion of a tiangge or goods market in the area could attract people.
Passing the area, one can see trucks and other heavy equipment parked and occupying much of the terminal’s space. It seems to have become more of a depot than a working public transport terminal. I think this is to be expected as the designation and development of this area as a terminal for the east seems to have been undertaken haphazardly. For one, the connection to the Line 2 Station at Santolan is not that good and requires a lot of walking in a not so comfortable or convenient environment. Meanwhile provincial buses terminating at the terminal would have to be routed via C-5 with those from the north passing through the very congested Katipunan and those from the south also deliberately modifying their routes for this terminal. Connections with other modes is also quite problematic. The location just isn’t as strategic as Cubao or Crossing for this terminal to succeed in the natural sense. While I am still hoping I am wrong here, the gut feel and the observations every time I pass by the area says otherwise.
An old friend and I met up some time ago and he casually mentioned the ongoing transit projects, particularly one that has affected him along his commute via Commonwealth Avenue. He said he can’t wait until Line 7 was completed and running. Perhaps then, there will be less vehicles along Commonwealth and he can have a shorter (travel time) drive from his home to his office in Ortigas. This type of comment did not surprise me as it is a reality that many would still likely prefer to take their cars or perhaps opt for car-share services rather than take public transportation, even with a new and note efficient option like the Line 7 available.
I have read or browsed articles, both technical and anecdotal, about many drivers wanting (and even encouraging) others to shift to public transport in order to lessen the cars on the road. This is so they can benefit from the reduction in vehicular traffic (i.e., less congestion equals faster travel by car). One article in the US even went as far as saying that if you didn’t drive 60,000 miles per year then you probably didn’t need a car. This is understandable for those who probably are, by default, dependent on their cars. It is frustrating, if not ironic, for those who don’t have to drive or take their cars but opt to do so. The latter includes people who have shorter commuting distances and with less transfers (less inconvenience) in case they do take public transport.
Next: Ridesharing as sustainable transport?
I was in Tacloban City last month and got to meet former participants to our training program who are working for their Traffic Operation Management Enforcement and Control Office (TOMECO). Among the topics of discussion was the traffic scheme for the central business district (CBD). Last year, the city had implemented a one-way traffic circulation scheme for the CBD as shown in the following map in the traffic advisory released by the city:
The city had to ease up on the one-way scheme, retaining it for the northwest-southeast directions and reverting to 2-way flow for the northeast-southwest directions. This decision was apparently due to the feedback the city got from various stakeholders about travel times and distances becoming longer due to the one-way scheme. This needs to be verified by collecting data pertaining to typical routes taken by vehicles, private and public utility, in order to get from an origin to a destination (e.g., from home to school). This can be simulated or estimated using field data (travel time surveys). We intend to use both as we make an assessment of the scheme and formulate recommendations for the city.