Caught (up) in traffic

Home » EST (Page 3)

Category Archives: EST

On whether bike lanes cause more traffic congestion

I previously share articles on whether bike lanes cause more traffic. This question has been asked so often as we have returned to the “old normal” levels of traffic and bike lanes that were put up during the pandemic have been neglected or removed in favor of motor vehicle traffic. The perception for those in-charge of traffic and transportation in local government units is that the space occupied by bike lanes take up the space demanded by motor vehicle use. Thus, the view that bike lanes cause congestion. Here is another article share in support of bike lanes:

Mortillaro, N. (October, 2024) “Do bike lanes really cause more traffic congestion? Here’s what the research says,” cbc.ca, https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/bike-lanes-impacts-1.7358319 [Last accessed: 01/11/2024]

To quote from the article:

I think many people here are already aware of the concept of induced demand. However, this is usually shrugged aside as realities in their situations (e.g., commuting options, locations of residences and workplaces, etc.) lead them to choosing private vehicles (i.e., cars and motorcycles) over public or active transport. The last paragraph there is significant though as there never was and so far a decent estimate of bike trips in any city in the Philippines. Granted that there are attempts to measure bike trips but the volumes published so far are not as reliable as we want them to be in order to be convincing decision-makers to put up more bike lanes. Of course, the convincing part is always challenging if decision-makers have already made up their minds in favor of the car.

On transportation and global health – article share

I was supposed to write about the keynote lecture delivered during the 30th Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (TSSP). I am sharing instead an article written by Dr. Renzo Guinto who is an Associate Professor at the SingHealth Duke-NUS Global Health Institute based at the National University of Singapore.

Here is the link to his article on the Philippine Daily Inquirer: Health at the center of transport and mobility

I will not quote from the article and leave it to my readers to read and appreciate the articles content.

On ride hailing replacing more sustainable options for transport

We’ve long suspected that ride hailing or ride sharing is not as sustainable as their proponents and companies would project them to be. Here is more evidence showing how ride hailing has diminished other more sustainable transport options.

Kerlin, K. (August 28, 2024) “Half of Uber, Lyft Trips Replace More Sustainable Options,” UC Davis News, https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/half-uber-lyft-trips-replace-more-sustainable-options [Last accessed: 9/8/2024]

Quoting from the article:

“About 47% of the trips replaced a public transit, carpool, walking or cycling trip. An additional 5.8% of trips represented “induced travel,” meaning the person would not have made the trip were an Uber or Lyft unavailable. This suggests ride-hailing often tends to replace most sustainable transportation modes and leads to additional vehicle miles traveled. “

The article and the study by UC Davis is limited to their experiences with Uber and Lyft and perhaps others that employ cars. In our case, we have in addition motorcycle taxis or habal-habal that further takes away passengers from public and active transportation. Motorcycle taxis provide a very attractive alternative to conventional public transport modes as these are perceived to reduce travel times among other advantages they provide to users.

I will share some information later about the current mode shares in Metro Manila and how drastically public transport mode shares have been eroded post pandemic.

Technical sessions at the TSSP 2024 Conference

I am sharing here the latest draft of the technical sessions for the 30th Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (TSSP). The conference will be held in Iloilo City this coming September 13, 2024.

I will share the draft program for the morning plenary session in the next post.

Pedestrian-Friendly Cities: The Impact of Walkability Grants

Here is a quick share of an article on how to encourage cities to be more pedestrian-friendly:

Source: Pedestrian-Friendly Cities: The Impact of Walkability Grants 

Many of our cities, particularly the highly urbanized ones, are not as walkable as we want them to be. Lacking are the most basic facilities such as sidewalks and safe crossings. Walkability Grants such as those in the US can encourage cities to build and/or enhance pedestrian infrastructure. Many designs such as those footbridges along EDSA and Commonwealth Avenue, for example, are anti-walking. Grants may be used to come up with better designs for walkways and footbridges.

To quote from the article:

“Walkability grants are awards for programs and projects creating innovative pedestrian infrastructure, such as new sidewalks, crosswalks, plazas, street lights and green spaces. For example, in February 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration announced the Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program, delivering $800 million in monetary awards for 511 projects addressing public safety and road improvements…

Reshaping the built environment into a walkable haven helps boost the local economy and sustainability. By changing the urban landscape, citizens are more inclined to walk instead of drive, allowing cities to reduce emissions, improve air quality and create healthier neighborhoods. This is critical, considering air pollution is responsible for 7 million early deaths yearly.”

Perhaps we can have similar grants coming from national government via the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) in cooperation with the Department of Transportation (DOTr) and the Department of Public Works  and Highways (DPWH)? There was some funding for bikeways during the pandemic but this new one should put more emphasis on walkability.

On a city’s part in making bike and scooter shares succeed

I recently posted about Bonifacio Global City (BGC) and the bike and scooter share they have there. There was one bike share there and in the Ortigas Center before the pandemic. But those fizzled out for various reasons including not so many people using it. Here’s a report on bike and scooter shares in the US and the observation that cities are not making it easy for these to succeed:

Tu, M. (July 29, 2024) “Report: People Want to Ride Shared Bikes and Scooters, But Cities aren’t Making it Easy,” Next City [Last accessed: 8/2/2024]

To quote from the article:

Even long standing bike share systems can fall victim to the whims of leaders who are not committed to investing in greener modes of transportation. Houston recently lost its bike share system, ending 12 years of operations for BCycle after a new mayor hostile to bike and pedestrian improvements overhauled the METRO Houston board.

If cities want to encourage people to ride a bike or scooter instead of getting into a car, they will have to figure out how to fund it — or in other words, put their money where their carbon reduction goals are.”

Though we’re still a long way to achieving the bike and scooter shares they have in other countries such as the US, we should be wary about their experiences. The lessons learned here should already be in mind to those who will be setting up bike and/or scooter shares in Philippine cities. There is a demand for these facilities as people find cycling convenient and safer in some cities. However, LGUs need to invest more and commit to safer and more connected bicycle facilities in order to convince more people to use this active transport mode instead of motorized transport including motorcycle taxis.

SPRINT principles for bicycles

Here is the link to how to improve your city’s or municipality’s bicycle facilities based on scores guided by the SPRINT principles: https://cityratings.peopleforbikes.org/create-great-places

SPRINT stands for:

S -Safe Speeds

P-Protected Bike Lanes

R-Reallocated Space

I-Intersection Treatments

N-Network Connections

T-Trusted Data

The site provides links and examples of good practices of actual bike projects in the US. Many of these can be replicated or adapted to Philippine conditions. These are something that the active transport section of the Department of Transportation (DOTr) should look into and perhaps provide a reference for developing and improving bicycle facilities in the country.

On a ‘tipping point’ for bikeability in cities

Here’s a nice article on bikeability and pertains to cities in the United States that developed bikeways or bike lanes during the pandemic. Like many cities that have ‘discovered’ cycling as a viable mode of transport particularly for commuting during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is postulated that there would be a threshold when people would switch to cycling and/or demand for more cycling facilities.

Wilson, K. (June 25, 2024) “Has Your City Passed the ‘Bikeability Tipping Point’?,” StreetsBlog USA, https://usa.streetsblog.org/2024/06/25/has-your-city-passed-the-bikeability-tipping-point [Last accessed: 7/2/2024]

To quote from the article:

“A whopping 183 American communities achieved a score of 50 or higher on PeopleForBikes annual City Ratings this year, up from just 33 in 2019. The means 183 communities have scored at least half of the available points on the group’s signature “SPRINT” rubric that includes such measures as protected bike lanes, safe intersection treatments, and reduced speed limits that are unlikely to kill a cyclist in the event of a crash, among other factors.

And when a city clears that 50-point threshold, the authors of the ratings say that its local bike culture has firmly taken root — and that every new roadway improvement will inspire more improvements, rather than a fierce fight against a car-dominated status quo.

“Once you’ve hit 50, your city probably has a pretty good low-stress bike network,” said Martina Haggerty, the senior director of local innovation at PeopleForBikes. “[That’s] not to say that there aren’t still improvements to be made [but it] probably means that more people are riding bikes in those communities because they feel safe and comfortable. And when more people start riding bikes, those people tend to become advocates for better bike infrastructure and for pro-bike policies, which, [in turn,] will get more people riding.”

There are many links found in the article itself that are “click worthy”. I recommend the reader to explore the rubric from PeopleForBikes and see for yourself how this can be adopted for your city. Is such a rubric applicable to the Philippines? Perhaps, but there would be a need to assess the the situation in each city or municipality. So far, there have been mixed reviews among cities, especially those that appeared to have been more progressive and were more aggressive than others in putting up bicycle facilities including bike lanes. Perhaps the rubric can be applied to see how our LGUs measure up?

On BRT being the solution to many cities’ public transport problems

Here is a very informative article about the benefits of a bus rapid transit (BRT) to a city:

Renn, A.M. (June 17, 2024) “The Bus Lines That Can Solve a Bunch of Urban Problems,” Governing, https://www.governing.com/transportation/the-bus-lines-that-can-solve-a-bunch-of-urban-problems [Last accessed: 6/25/2024]

To quote from the article:

“One benefit of BRT is that it is much more capital-efficient and faster to implement than light rail. For many years, urban advocates have promoted light rail over bus transit, impressed by the success of light rail systems such as the one in Portland, Ore. But today’s light rail lines are extremely expensive. One proposed in Austin, Texas, for example, is projected to cost $500 million per mile. Also, most of the cities that have desired light rail are low-density cities built around cars and with little history of extensive public transit ridership. Converting them to transit-oriented cities would be a heavy lift.

BRT is much cheaper. The 13-mile Red Line BRT in Indianapolis, opened in 2019, cost less than $100 million — not per mile, but in total. The much lower financial lift required for building bus rapid transit makes it more feasible for cities to raise the required funds.

Because they typically run on city streets, BRT systems also offer the chance to perform badly needed street and sewer repairs during construction. Sidewalks can be rebuilt or added. Traffic signals can be replaced, along with new features such as prioritizing buses over auto traffic and additional pedestrian safety measures. The reduction of traffic lanes itself is sometimes a worthwhile street redesign project.”

It’s been more than a decade (almost 2 decades to be more accurate) since a BRT was proposed in Cebu City and in Metro Manila. So far, there is still none operating in the Philippines. The EDSA Carousel probably wants to be one but is far from being a BRT based on operations and performance. Cebu’s is supposed to be currently in implementation but it seems Davao might just beat them to it with its high priority bus project. The Philippines requires a proof of concept of the BRT in one of its cities that could be the inspiration for similar projects in other cities especially those that are already highly urbanized.

On the idea of congestion pricing

I purposely titled this post to include the word ‘idea’ as congestion pricing is still very much like that in the Philippines. It is a reality in some part of the world particularly in Singapore where its Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) has evolved and improved over the years. Its success though seems to be an exceptional case that has not been replicated elsewhere where conditions are not exactly like the city state’s.

Here is an article that recently came out from The Washington Post about the New York Governor’s decision to backtrack on the proposed congestion pricing initiative in New York City:

McArdle, M. (June 12, 2024) “People hate traffic. They also hate this great idea to clear it,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/12/congestion-pricing-great-idea-people-hate/ [Last accessed: 6/14/2024]

To quote from the article:

“Roads are a scarce good; you can fit only so many cars on a road at one time, and fewer if you would like those cars to go somewhere. When roads are “free,” we are forced to fall back on a more costly and inefficient strategy: sitting in traffic. This wastes valuable human time and inflicts noise and pollution on everyone nearby. Far better to charge a modest price that inspires some drivers to carpool and others to take public transit or shop nearer to home, until supply and demand are balanced and traffic flows easily…

In political disputes, a discrete group facing highly concentrated costs often defeats a larger public interest that conveys a small individual benefit to everybody — such as being able to move around the city faster when you really need to. This is particularly true in the American system, which is designed to empower angry minorities. And it’s especially true when they’re abetted by status quo bias and a sympathetic majority, as in this case.

Complain all you want about selfish suburban drivers or the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s bloated cost structure or Hochul’s cowardice; the biggest obstacle to congestion pricing is that almost two-thirds of New York City residents have told pollsters they oppose it — in a city where less than half of all households even own a car. A more technocratic, less democratically responsive government might have been able to ram it through, and perhaps in time everyone would have come to like it. But in fractious America, with all its political veto points, congestion pricing is doomed by the reality that people hate slapping prices on things — especially if they have to pay them.”

There is a congestion pricing proposal in Baguio City and we don’t know yet how this will go. I don’t have the details yet except that a private company whose core business is tollways is involved. Will this be a model or a proof of concept? Or will it just go the way of a typical tollway where users are those who are willing to pay and which would eventually congest if most of the current users pay and use it anyway? Will the funds generated be used to develop a more efficient transport system for Baguio, eventually leading and contributing to less congested streets? That would also mean eventually less revenues from the congestion pricing scheme and probably lead to it being unnecessary.