Home » Transport Planning (Page 28)
Category Archives: Transport Planning
The Philippines’ National EST Strategy – Final Report
Friends and some acquaintances have been asking about whether there is a master plan for sustainable transport in Philippines. There is none, but there is a national strategy that should serve as the basis for the development and implementation of a master plan, whether at the national or local level. This strategy was formulated with assistance of the United Nations Council for Regional Development (UNCRD) through the Philippines’ Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which served as the focal agencies for this endeavour. The formulation was conducted by the National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) of the University of the Philippines Diliman. For reference, you can go to the NCTS website for an electronic copy of the National Environmentally Sustainable Transport Strategy Final Report.
Cover page for the National EST Strategy Final Report
–
The need for mass transit to the east of Metro Manila
I wanted to use a title stating “the demand for mass transit to the east of Metro Manila” but the word “demand” for me seemed a bit technical (I associated it with the supply and demand concepts for transport.) and would need some numbers to support it. So I settled for the word “need” instead of “demand” so I could be flexible (i.e., more qualitative) with the way I wrote this article. “Need” is a more pedestrian term that can easily be understood and imagined, and there is no lack for images of this need for more efficient and higher capacity modes along the main corridors to the east of Metro Manila. The main corridors are Ortigas Avenue and Marcos Highway, which have the highest road capacities among other roads (i.e., higher capacities than A. Bonifacio Avenue in Marikina, the Batasan-San Mateo Road, or C-6/Highway 2000). These are also the corridors along which most public transport services may be found. Such connects the eastern towns (e.g., Cainta, Taytay, Antipolo, etc.) to the transport hubs of Cubao and Crossing, which are major transfer points for many people taking public transport. Of course, there are UV Express services from these eastern towns that go directly to CBDs like Makati and Ortigas.
You can observe the crowds at Katipunan and Santolan Stations of the LRT Line 2 as well as the people waiting for their ride home along Marcos Highway. I have observed that there are also lots of people along Ortigas Avenue from Tikling Junction to C-5 who religiously and patiently wait for their rides to school, office or home. This happens everyday and this regularity seems to be a never-ending sacrifice of time and patience. These people do not have much of a choice except taking whatever public transport is available to them. Many probably can afford to have a car or already have a vehicle in their household. Unfortunately, that vehicle is not usually enough for their commuting needs and so they are captive users of an inefficient public transport system (there are some who question if what we have can really be called a system).
People waiting for a ride in front of Robinsons Metro East along Marcos Highway in Pasig City – these have occupied 3 lanes of the highway as they position themselves for the next available jeepney. There is a UV Express terminal at the mall and another at the nearby Sta. Lucia mall but these are not for the destinations these people are going to.
News that the LRT Line 2 Extension from Santolan to Masinag would finally be constructed was initially met with speculation. Such news have been circulating for so many years but no actual work could be seen along Marcos Highway to convince people that the project was underway. Now, that the soil test samplings have been completed, people are anxious about the actual construction of the extension. I think this is a project long overdue and the question that needs to be answered is if the line needs to be extended further, perhaps until Cogeo. I believe there is a tremendous market for this mass transit system along this corridor where a lot of residential subdivisions and relocation sites have sprouted over the years. The DPWH recognised this as a high capacity corridor and is already widening the road from Masinag to Cogeo.
Hopefully, the Ortigas Ave.-Manila East Road corridor can also have its own mass transit line. The regular bus services along this corridor is no longer sufficient and operations are not so efficient despite what appears as competition among 2 bus lines. There had been a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Line proposed for this corridor but there seems to be no progress towards the realisation of that project. Whichever of rail or BRT would be the option for the corridor though, it doesn’t take a genius or too many consultants to determine the need for a good mass transit line along this corridor. When that will be is a question with an answer that is still up in the air. Perhaps the local governments of Rizal, especially the province, should push for such transit systems. The governor and mayors should champion such systems that will definitely benefit their constituents and translate into real revenues for their LGUs from the certain business that will come along these corridors.
–
Food for thought – a few articles on transport and traffic
This will just be a quick post for now and I just wanted to share a few recent articles on transport and traffic from a favourite magazine – Wired:
What’s Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse
Why We’re Sad the Best Airport in the World Is Getting Even Better
The Hidden Genius and Influence of the Traffic Light
These are very well written, easy to understand articles on things we encounter everyday (traffic congestion, traffic signals at intersections) and when we travel long distance (airports). They show different perspectives of things we take for granted or assume we understand. An example of the latter includes notions that road widening or road construction will solve traffic congestion problems. Much of what goes around regarding road widening or road construction as solutions do not account for induced demand, which is basically additional traffic generated or encouraged by wider or new roads. The second article talks about Changi Airport, arguably the best in the world, and the high tech approaches they have employed or will employ in order to ensure efficient operations there. Such tools, I think, should be used in our airports especially NAIA where the long standing excuse is the limitations of the runway(s) and the airport terminals. Certainly, there are other issues that need to be addressed and going high tech and employing sophisticated methods for airport operations should alleviate problems until we ultimately build a new airport elsewhere. The third article takes a look into behaviour and mentions a “social contract” we have agreed to in order to reduce mayhem in our roads. This “social contract” as well as others related to it should be revisited and understood as they are very much a part of how we behave when we travel and have a significant effect on others around us.
Traffic congestion and traffic signals along the 4-lane C.P. Garcia Avenue in UP Diliman
–
On walkability
There is an increased awareness for walking and cycling these days thanks to the increasing number of advocates and the aggressive and persistent campaigns for people to take up these modes of transport instead of the motorised forms. In the Philippines, the joke has been for people to have the propensity to ride a jeepney or tricycle even for short distance trips that elsewhere would be considered walkable. Why is it like this? Are Filipinos really lazy? Or is it a matter of not having the facilities for people to be able to walk safely and comfortably? I believe it is the latter case that discourages people from walking. There is the fear that you can get sideswiped by errant vehicles driven by reckless drivers or riders. There is also the impression that you can get injured from uneven paths or incur unwanted exposure to the elements (e.g., heavy rains, floods, punishing heat, etc.).
An important thing for this advocacy for walking would be to promote good, sound design and not just making walking an afterthought for streets. I have seen and heard a lot about sharing the road but for the wrong reasonings and without understanding the pre- or co-requisites for successful programs for walking and cycling. I would like to think that atop the list of pre- or co-requisites would be a good public transport system. We currently don’t have that in Metro Manila and it is difficult to cite exceptions around the metropolis given the poorly planned transit stations where transfers between modes are inefficient and definitely not seamless. However, standalone examples of walkable places and facilities can be seen around Metro Manila. I feature some of them below:
30th Street in Bonifacio Global City is a good example of how roads in urban areas should be developed. Note the wide spaces provided for walking and cycling and the limited space (4 lanes) for motorised traffic. I just hope that the wide pedestrian spaces are not intended for future widening of roads for motorised traffic. During early mornings and evenings you will find many joggers along this road and around Bonifacio High Street – proof that the environment is conducive enough for such activities.
On the ground, 30th Street looks every way walkable with the trees providing the shade (and oxygen) to make walking an attractive option anytime of the day.
Pedestrian crossings should be clearly marked and in the case of BGC, even those at signalised intersections are painted as zebra crossings (more appropriate for unsignalised crossings) instead of the standard parallel line markings. Unfortunately, whatever may be the case for these cross walks, most motorists seem to be unaware of the rule that once a pedestrian steps on the cross walk, then motorists should give way to the pedestrian. Motorists should also slow down upon approaching a cross walk – something not commonly seen in the Philippines.
Atop a typical pedestrian overpass – I took this photo at an overpass along C-5, which is an example of the more recent overpasses constructed in Metro Manila. Previously, there were a number of issues regarding overpasses constructed during the time when Fernando was MMDA Chair including slippery steel floorings, low railings and steep stairways (i.e., not friendly to senior citizens and persons with disabilities). This overpass has a more sturdy design and the railings provide users with a sense of safety. Stairs are also less steep than those of previous ones.
More on walkability in future posts!
–
Green light for the Cebu BRT
The NEDA Board chaired by the Philippines’ President approved last week a number of major infrastructure projects. One project is particularly important as it seeks to introduce an innovative public transport system in the Philippines. The Cebu Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project was finally given the green light and is projected to be completed and operational by 2017. I remember that the Cebu BRT was conceptualised while we were doing a social marketing project for Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) that was supported by the UNDP. That was back in 2006-2007 and right before we embarked on the formulation of a national EST strategy that was supported by UNCRD. I remember, too, that sometime in 2009, Enrique Penalosa, the former mayor of Bogota, Colombia who has championed the BRT cause visited the Philippines to give some talks in Cebu and Metro Manila about public transport and pursuit of better quality of life through good transport systems. From that time onwards, a lot of work has been put into the studies to support this system including social marketing for stakeholders to understand what such a system will require including its impacts on existing transport modes. It took sometime for this project to be approved but that should no longer be an issue and focus should now be on the detailed design and implementation of the project.
There are many detractors of this BRT project. While I respect the value engineering work that was supposed to have been conducted by NEDA, I would like to speculate that perhaps it was unclear to them how important a functioning, operational BRT in Cebu is as a strategic accomplishment in transport in this country. For most people, the idea of bus transport is what they have seen along EDSA in Metro Manila. The impact on commuting behaviour of a high quality public transport system like a BRT would be very hard to quantify and the criteria and metrics used would be quite tricky considering the strategic and behavioural aspects of the system. Such evaluations can also be tricky depending on who were doing the study in the first place as the outcomes could easily be affected by the biases of those who undertook the evaluation. Thus, it is important that value engineering exercises be done by open-minded, flexible if not disinterested parties to the project of interest.
Many of those who have expressed skepticism about the BRT are likely pining for a rail transit system that was earlier proposed for the city but which has failed to gain the critical support. For one, the LRT that was proposed for Cebu City was simply too expensive and financing would have been difficult for a system that would have been less flexible in operations compared to an at-grade bus system. The numbers supporting the LRT were also in need of much updating as the study on that system was already quite dated and had not considered the major developments in Cebu and its surrounding cities that loosely or informally comprise what people refer to as Metro Cebu. These realities would need a new and more robust study that could surely result in a recommendation for a rail system but upon close comparison with a BRT option should lead to a conclusion that Cebu will be better off with BRT at this point and in the foreseeable future.
The truth is that while rail transport remains as an ultimate goal for high demand corridors in highly urbanised cities, it is an expensive proposition and ones that will take more time to build. We don’t have that time in our hands as our cities are rapidly growing both in terms of economy and population. We cannot sustain this progress if our transport system remains primitive. And strategically, too, a BRT system may just pave the way for a future rail system in Cebu. This model for transport system development can be replicated in other cities as well including Davao, Iloilo, Bacolod, and Cagayan de Oro, to name a few. But we should always not forget that building this system requires holistic development of complementing infrastructure such as pedestrian walkways and bikeways, and the rationalisation of jeepney and multi cab services with respect to the mass transit system. I believe those behind the Cebu BRT project have these covered and it is now a matter of time before the country’s first BRT becomes operational in the “Queen City of the South.”
–
Seminar on urban transport systems in the Philippines
The University of the Philippines Diliman, through its Institute of Civil Engineering and National Center for Transportation Studies, recently held a seminar on urban transport systems. The seminar was held last May 26, 2014 and presentations included one on urban transport in the Philippines by Dr. Cresencio M. Montalbo, Jr., an Associate Professor of the School of Urban and Regional Planning of UP Diliman and another on international best practices by Prof. Fumihiko Nakamura, Dean of the Institute of Urban Innovation of the Yokohama National University in Japan.
The seminar was held at the Aloe Room of the new Marco Polo Hotel at the Ortigas Center in Pasig City.
Dr. Montalbo talking about the concept of “dignity of travel.”
Prof. Nakamura discussing the concepts of “park & ride” and “kiss & ride” with respect to transit systems.
The presentations during the seminar may be downloaded from the NCTS website. The seminar was supported by the Engineering Research and Development for Technology (ERDT) program of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST).
–
Anxious about the LRT Line 2 Extension
Among the overdue projects that have generated much attention and, quite recently, some excitement is the extension of the LRT Line 2 from the current end station at Santolan, Pasig to Masinag Junction in Antipolo. This is a 4 kilometer stretch that has been viable for quite a long time now but somehow has not been constructed for various reasons. It was among the low hanging fruits that the current administration should have picked that could have been completed and operating now if it were started sometime 2011 (i.e., factoring in the transition in government after the 2010 Presidential elections). For some reason, government officials had to get proof that there was passenger demand for the extension by considering having another study undertaken just for this purpose. As I’ve mentioned before, one only needs to observe the situation at Santolan Station and perhaps the Sta. Lucia/Robinsons Metro East area to understand just how many people will benefit from the extension to Masinag. I would even dare say that you can even justify extending the line further to Cogeo. Following are a few photos I recently took along Marcos Highway along with some comments pertaining to the Line 2 extension construction.
Soil testing site along Marcos Highway in Pasig City – these activities preclude the designs for the superstructure, which include the elevated tracks and the stations (there will be 2) along the Line 2 extension.
Another soil test site – each location roughly correspond to the location of the columns that will be constructed to support the elevated tracks and stations.
Scenes of overloaded jeepneys should no longer be the norm once the Line 2 extension is completed. However, such would probably be common for jeepneys coming to or from the last station at Masinag. There are no other choices for people taking public transport beyond Masinag except jeepneys bound for destinations like Antipolo Simbahan, Cogeo, Tanay and Marikina.
Pedestrian overpasses such as this relatively new one near the Filinvest East main gate would have to give way to the elevated Line 2. Another option is for this and other overpasses to be reconfigured with respect to the future line. I just hope this will be done with utmost care so we won’t have overpasses similar to those along EDSA that go above or below the elevated tracks of the MRT 3.
This overpass will like be removed to give way to the future end station of the Line 2 extension. The overpass in front of SM Masinag will have to be integrated with the station to be located in this area.
–
“Pwede na yan” bikeways?
The recent clamor for bicycle facilities have led to several initiatives in Metro Manila and other Philippines cities (most notable recently is Iloilo) to support the demand for cycling facilities. While Marikina City already has a network of off-street bikeways segregated from motorised traffic, there are few other examples of such facilities elsewhere. The more recent initiatives in Metro Manila involved the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) establishing bikeways in several areas along major roads in the metropolis. I say establish because the MMDA did not construct new bikeways like the ones in Marikina or Iloilo. What the agency did was to designate sidewalks and other existing paths for cycling by painting these over. Unfortunately, these so-called bikeways did not take into consideration the needs of pedestrians with whom cyclists must share this limited space. And so few people use them despite a high profile launch that brought together government officials and NGOs including cycling and mobility advocates and enthusiasts. I guess the big test was really not whether advocates and enthusiasts would really use the bikeways (Don’t count on the officials to use them. They have chauffeur-driven vehicles.). Would the regular commuter use them instead of the roads, despite the risk or dangers posed by motor vehicles?
Commuters waiting for a bus ride along EDSA with suspended bicycle racks behind them. The sidewalks along EDSA have been painted red, designating them for bicycle use. The big question now is how cyclists will interact with pedestrians given the very limited space they should be sharing.
Bicycles hanging on racks attached to the perimeter wall of an exclusive subdivision along EDSA.
Cyclist using the curb side lane of EDSA – these people run the risk of being sideswiped by buses operating along the yellow (bus) lanes of this busy thoroughfare. It is quite obvious in the photo that there is no space on the sidewalks to accommodate cyclists and even pedestrians. Column for the MRT-3 stations are right on the sidewalks and makes one wonder how this flawed design was approved in the first place. MMDA enforcers usually appear as if they are only bystanders and seem to be generally helpless when it comes to managing traffic.
Workers cycling back to their homes after a day’s work. Many people have opted to take bicycles for their daily commutes even if they have to travel long distances in order to save money that would otherwise be paid as fares for buses, jeepneys, UV Express or tricycles. Note that the cyclists use the outermost lane of the road as the sidewalks pose many obstacles including pedestrians as shown in the photo. Some cyclists though want more than a share of the sidewalk or a lane of the road for their use regarding pedestrians and motor vehicles as nuisance for them. Surely, some pedestrians also regard cyclists as nuisance to walking and would prefer to have the sidewalks for themselves.
Cycling is in a way an emancipation from motorized transport commutes, and savings translate to money they could allocate for other needs of their families. While there are raw data for family expenditures from census surveys, there are few studies and publications focused on transport. It would be interesting to see how much a typical Filipino family spends for transport in absolute terms as well as a percentage of their total incomes. Such information would be essential for understanding the needs of travelers, especially for daily commutes for work and school (other trips include those for purposes of shopping, recreational, social and others). Long commutes are associated with higher expenses (e.g., in terms of fares or fuel costs) and reducing such costs through shorter commutes should free up money for necessities like food, housing and clothing. Ultimately, this would help solve issues relating to poverty and health, which can easily be related to commuting behavior and characteristics.
It is in that context that transport systems should be planned and implemented carefully along with the housing developments. This underlines the essence of the relationship between transport and land use that has been the topic of discussions for quite some time now that apparently, a lot of people in this country, especially officials and the private sector have chosen to ignore or apply selectively (i.e., according to their own advantage and not really for the general welfare of the public). A transport system is not cycling alone, or roads or railways alone. It is, by definition, a network, a set of interacting, integrated elements and each of these components of the system are essential for it to function well. It is the interaction and integration that are the key elements that we often forget as we advocate one transport mode over others as if they are independent from each other. They are not and we should complement rather than compete in our advocacies for transport so we can finally achieve an efficient, effective system for everyone.
–
“Sharing the road” – bandwagons and fads? Let’s hope not!
There seems to be a lot of talk about “sharing the road” and the initiatives to have more bikeways. I hope I am proven wrong but it seems to me as if these current programs and projects are more of a fad. A lot of people (and local governments) join the bandwagon with little understanding of what needs to be done. It’s usually because of the good PR they get out of these that they agree to coming up with the token carless street or the haphazardly implemented bicycle lanes. More than PR, some cities are aware of the opportunities that come with such initiatives as international agencies and groups are willing to spend money to support such programs and projects. The question really is on sustainability and doing the right thing not only on initiating things or coming up with programs but on the substance itself. And by substance I mean that programs should also go into the details of designs. Too often, the “pwede na yan” approach is taken and this just won’t do.
The MMDA painted the sidewalks in White Plains and designated them as bikeways, in a way alienating pedestrians.
A vision for what people want to have is there but it is ultimately how the achieve the vision that needs a lot of work. For example, bills are being filed in congress to force the creation of bicycle lanes along major highways. (And mind you there are a lot of similar bills filed in congress that upon closer inspection actually have little substance.) The premise here seems to be that if you build them then people will start cycling. That was not the experience in Marikina, which boasts of the country’s only bikeways network that includes many off-street sections. These bikeways were built at a time when the perception and analysis pointed to a critical mass of cyclists in that city that was thought to be surely the tipping point in terms of non-motorised transport. Nowadays, the same bikeways are used by motorcycles and tricycles and most cyclists we see are not commuters (e.g., cycling between home and work/school) but recreational cyclists. It would take Marikina some effort to promote commuting by bicycles and much effort in enforcement to correct the misuse of the bikeways. The “new” bikeways in Quezon City appear to be poorly conceptualised as the MMDA decided to paint the sidewalks along EDSA northbound without addressing the obstacles like electric posts. Still, it is an effort to put NMT in the consciousness or awareness of the general public (thanks in part to media’s making these news worthy items).
Cities like Pasig and Taguig like to show-off Ortigas Center and Bonifacio Global City, respectively, as their faces when in fact the cities have not done much in their original cores. The running joke is that the real Taguig is not the areas to the west of C-5 but the old Taguig, which is to the east. This Taguig is the one plagued by narrow streets and the proliferation of tricycles. It was not so long ago that a former mayor imposed e-tricycles on BGC (where they were not suitable) while not doing much to lift a finger in the mayhem of tricycles in old Taguig (e.g., along Gen. Luna). As for Pasig, you just have go along the Pasig River and the Manggahan Floodway to see what it has accomplished so far in those areas.
There are no quick fixes to the transport and traffic problems our cities are facing. In the case of Metro Manila, much is at stake for the long-delayed mass transit projects. And the DOTC’s announcements of projects being formulated or proposed are no longer taken seriously as they have not delivered on any of these despite 4 years of this current administration. For other cities, it is important to learn the hard lessons from the experience of Metro Manila. There is also a need for a drastic change in transport and traffic policies in our cities. Iloilo, for example, has built an expensive bike lane along Ninoy Aquino Avenue (Diversion Road) and has marketed its Esplanade as a haven for pedestrians and cyclists. Yet the city has not acted on the clamour to revisit the overpasses along Gen. Luna (Infante and Jalandoni flyovers). The latest information I got from the city is that there are issues in the design of the bikeway along the Diversion Road as the surface (they used pavers) is not suitable for cycling. It seems, also, that the city and cyclists were not consulted by the DPWH when the bikeway was designed and constructed resulting in many cyclists using the Diversion Road itself for traveling. This last example is a lesson for our local governments and national agencies that they need to cooperate with each other and turfing has no place in transport and traffic if we are really serious about bringing solutions to problems we encounter everyday.
–
On sustainability and inclusiveness of pedicabs
“Sustainable transport is inclusive but inclusive transport is not necessarily sustainable.” Is this statement true? If yes, why and to what extent? This is not a philosophical take at transport. There seems to be some conflict in that statement but there should really be no confusion once you delve into the essence of sustainability and define the limits of inclusiveness. The statement is true to the extent that all sustainable forms of transport can be inclusive. These are transport modes that are friendly to all genders, all ages, all economic classes, and regardless of physical ability. However, there are transport modes that are inclusive in the same context stated but are unsustainable from the perspectives of suitability, efficiency and energy.
For example, non-motorized transport (NMT) in the form of pedicabs (also called trisikad or padyak) are sustainable from the perspective of energy. They are most suitable for operation along minor roads, especially those in residential areas. However, if the same pedicabs operate along national roads and mixed with motorized traffic, these become a nuisance and contribute to traffic congestion. Such operations also put passengers at risk, exposing to potential crashes as pedicab drivers tend to violate road traffic rules (e.g., moving against traffic).
Pedicabs along the Quezon Avenue Service Road near Agham Road.
Pedicab ferrying passengers from the Quezon Ave. MRT-3 station to destinations along Agham Road.
Counter-flowing pedicab along Quezon Ave. just outside the National Grid Corporation (formerly Napocor) office.
Pedicabs have another dimension, which is often cited as a reason for its very existence. It is a source of livelihood for many people. Whether this is something that needs to be encouraged is the subject of debates often involving discussions on poverty and governance. That is, pedicabs are often owned and/or operated by low income people and their numbers translate into votes for local officials who tolerate pedicabs and even encourage them as a form of livelihood. It is, after all, like the jeepneys and tricycles before it, supposed to be a simple investment that generates income for the owner/operator/driver. People have glorified or romanticized the pedicab as various designs have displayed the creativeness (or even artistry) of the Filipino. However, just like other modes of transport, the pedicab should function within a hierarchy based on its suitability with respect to other modes that are similarly appropriate for a certain range of conditions. Hopefully, such concepts are understood by stakeholders if only to effect the rationalization of transport services and correct certain notions pertaining to inclusiveness and sustainability for such modes.
–
Caught (up) in traffic 