Home » Mode Share
Category Archives: Mode Share
The current initiative to rationalise road public transport services is not as comprehensive as necessary or as some people want us to believe. The drive appears to be mainly on (some say against) jeepneys while little has been done on buses and UV Express vehicles. Most notable among the modes not covered by rationalisation are the tricycles.
A smoke-belching tricycle along Daang Bakal in Antipolo City
What really should be the role and place of tricycles in the scheme of themes in public transportation? Are they supposed to provide “last mile” services along with walking and pedicabs (non-motorised 3-wheelers)? Or are they supposed to be another mode competing with jeepneys, buses and vans over distances longer than what they are supposed to be covering? It seems that the convenient excuse for not dealing with them is that tricycles are supposed to be under local governments. That should not be the case and I believe national agencies such as the DOTr and LTFRB should assert their authority but (of course) in close cooperation with LGUs to include tricycles in the rationalisation activities. Only then can we have a more complete rationalisation of transport services for the benefit of everyone.
Here is another interesting article about bike lanes but from the perspective of a non-cyclist. I believe this (support for bike lanes) is a view shared by many but not much articulated. The assumption is usually that car-owners would like to have less of other’s cars on the road so they could benefit from the presumed reduction in congestion should more people take up cycling. But then the same can be said for public transportation and its users as well. That is, car-users would want others to take public transport so as to also reduce road congestion; allowing them faster trips/drives.
Lewyn, M. (2018) “A Non-Cyclist’s Case for Bike Lanes,” planetizen.com, https://www.planetizen.com/node/97632?utm_source=newswire&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news-03152018&mc_cid=0e22636014&mc_eid=9ccfe464b1 [Last accessed: 3/17/2018]
We begin March with an excellent article that came out from curbed.com:
Walker, A. (2018) The case against sidewalks and how cities can create new avenues for pedestrians, curbed.com, https://www.curbed.com/2018/2/7/16980682/city-sidewalk-repair-future-walking-neighborhood [Last accessed 2/23/2018].
How do we improve the environment (i.e., facilities) to encourage people to walk? Do we simply clear up sidewalks? Widen them? Build overpasses and underpasses? What should be the context for improving pedestrian facilities for our cities and municipalities? What are the implications to planning and design?
We start 2018 with another article that I found this interesting. The article is on the other uses of ridesharing, particularly for medical emergencies:
Seipel, T. (2017) “Uber reduces ambulance usage across the country, study says”. mercurynews.com. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/13/uber-reduces-ambulance-useage-in-major-u-s-cities-study-says/ (Last accessed: 12/22/2017).
This article was particularly interesting to me because we are currently doing research on ridesharing. This should be a good topic for students who are looking for something current and relevant, and should fit well in the bigger scheme of things in as far as our research agenda is concerned. There is a link to the study report in the article for those wanting to get the details on the outcomes.
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.
We conclude the month of October with the following recommended readings:
- Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, An ITE Recommended Practice, 2010
- Model Design Manual for Living Streets, 2011
- Smart Transportation Guidebook, Planning and Designing Highways and Streets that Support Sustainable and Livable Communities, 2008
While these are guidelines and manuals developed and published in the United States, the principles and much of the content and context are very much applicable here.
As an additional reference, here is the latest version of functional classifications for streets that is supposed to be context-sensitive:
- Stamatiadis, N., A. Kirk, D. Hartman, J. Jasper, S. Wright, M. King, and R. Chellman. 2017. An Expanded Functional Classification System for Highways and Streets. Pre- publication draft of NCHRP Research Report 855. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Here’s a nice article that has a link to a study conducted at the University of California-Davis written by one of the authors of the study:
Clewlow, R.R. (2017) “New Research on How Ride-Hailing Impacts Travel Behavior” in Planetizen, October 11, 2017.
And here’s an article about that same study:
Bliss, L. (2017) “The Ride-Hailing Effect: More Cars, More Trips, More Miles ” in Citylab, October 12, 2017.
As usual, I am posting this for reference not just for my readers but for myself and my students who are currently doing research on ridesharing/ride-hailing in the Philippines.