Home » NMT
Category Archives: NMT
The team from the National Center for Transportation Studies of the University of the Philippines presented their recommendations for the traffic scheme in downtown Tacloban City last May 4, 2018 in the city’s Traffic Summit cum City Development Council (CDC) meeting. I am sharing the image showing the proposed traffic circulation and other features for the proposed downtown scheme below:
The scheme calls for a reduction in on-street parking; restricting such to one side of the street only and where applicable. That is, on-street parking is not allowed where there is already off-street parking along establishments, where there are driveways, and within one or two vehicle length from intersection corners. There will also be designated loading/unloading areas for public transport so parking is also prohibited there.
A couple of important features in the scheme are the enhancement of pedestrian facilities, particularly sidewalks, and the introduction of bicycle lanes. These are more clearly shown in the cross-section examples included in the map. Note that for other streets where there are no designated bike lanes indicated, it is assumed that lanes will be shared with motor vehicles. This is an application of the concept of shared right of way or “sharrow” as it is also termed. The scheme is contextualised along the lines of “people-oriented” transport rather than “car-oriented”, and hopefully would lead to a more walkable downtown area and encourage more people to use bicycles. This promotion of active transport should also lead to a healthier city. I will post about the transport plans prepared for the city in future articles here.
We start the month of May with an article on bike shares. I saw this on a link posted on the Planetizen site but the link actually leads to the Citylab website.
Baca, A. (2018) “What Cities Need to Understand About Bikeshare Now,” citylab.com, https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/04/a-complete-taxonomy-of-bikeshare-so-far/558560/ [Last accessed: 5/1/2018]
Bikeshares are definitely something to consider for many cities and the article is quite timely given the recent developments in support of cycling:
Hopefully, more cities and municipalities in the Philippines will not only promote cycling but also build the infrastructure and implement programs to convince people to cycle. And this shouldn’t be for recreation or exercise but more for commuting.
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]
Here’s another article that I want to share. This time it is about child-friendly cities. Here is an article that present many good practice examples in other cities. Many are easily replicable in our towns and cities, and should be considered by local governments in order to enhance safety and health aspects in their jurisdictions.
Laker, L. (2018) “What would the ultimate child-friendly city look like?”, theguardian.com, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/28/child-friendly-city-indoors-playing-healthy-sociable-outdoors [Last accessed 3/9/2018]
I recently wrote about some thoughts on Pasig City’s HOV lane experiment along Julia Vargas Avenue. Here are a few more considering the experiment didn’t push through last February 28.
Screen cap (courtesy of ABS CBN) showing the starting date for the HOV lane experiment. I think ‘HOV’ is more appropriate than ‘carpool’ since the requirement is for vehicles using the lane to have 4 or more passengers. Having only 2 passengers still qualify as a carpool.
I learned recently that the experiment has been put off to March 26, 2018:
[Photo courtesy of Dulce Justiniani]
The current set-up has 2 lanes for motorised vehicles including a wide lane for HOV’s (including public utility vehicles like buses and vans). HOV’s here also include cars but those with at least 4 occupants. Here are a couple of photos showing us what could possibly happen should enforcement be weak given the configuration of the lanes along Julia Vargas:
Private van running along the lane designated for HOV’s alongside a solitary cyclist on the bike lane.
An SUV overtaking the van via the bike lane and the extra space of the HOV lane.
Wide lanes generally encourage higher speeds. I believe the way to go would be to have narrower lanes. And should these be considered, it would be possible to have 3 lanes for motorised traffic with one assigned for HOV’s and another for motorcycles. These are aside from the bicycle lane that I think should also be a protected lane. Protection here may be through the provision of “forgiving” physical dividers in the form of, say, rubber bollards.
Here’s how the Julia Vargas carriageway could be laid out:
Again, these are just suggestions for whoever are in-charge of the experiment-to-be along Julia Vargas Avenue. I hope that they are able to make some assessments even prior to the experiment. Such can be done using simulation software in order to have a handle on traffic related issues that may crop up during the implementation. Still, a big factor would be the enforcement aspects of the proposed policy for motor vehicles. Strict, firm and sustained enforcement would be necessary in order for this to succeed.
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?