Home » Posts tagged 'governance' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: governance
Back in Iloilo (again) and a note on landmarks
One landmark that I have been familiar with since I was a child is the Jaro Cathedral belfry. The building is located at the plaza across from the church. The area has been neglected for a long time and I am glad to see the city developing the area to become more attractive and useful as a park for the benefit of its citizens and visitors.
The area, I’ve been told, is being developed as part of a program towards coming up with more open spaces like parks particularly where there are already plazas around the city. I have memories of getting a ride back to my father’s hometown whenever we went to the city usually to eat or shop. The informal jeepney terminals used be around the plaza. Other jeepneys rounded the streets for their return trips instead of stopping at a terminal. Now you have to travel to the provincial jeepney terminals at the outskirts of the city to get a ride to the other towns.
–
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 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.
–
Article share: on making more affordable neighborhoods
I’ve been commenting about how transportation cannot be isolated and the need to relate it to other factors such as housing or home location choice. The latter though is also affected by other factors as well that affect the affordability of homes near the city centers or CBDs where workplaces and schools are located. The result of course is sprawl or the encouragement of sprawl. Private companies take advantage of this or contribute to this ‘encouragement’ by developing land farther away from the center. Thus, for Metro Manila’s case, many people reside in the peripheral provinces of Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna and Cavite. There are even those who choose to reside in Pampanga, Bataan and Batangas.
Kayatekin, C.S. and Sanmiguel, L.U. (April 16, 2024) ” ‘Urban form’ and the housing crisis: can streets and buildings make a neighborhood more affordable?” The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/urban-form-and-the-housing-crisis-can-streets-and-buildings-make-a-neighbourhood-more-affordable-224108 [Last accessed: 4/23/2024]
Quoting from the article:
“Our main finding was that the bottom-up districts we looked at had, overall, more small-scale apartments. The reason is simple: they had more small-scale buildings, built on small-scale plots. Once divided into apartments, this produces small apartments – homes in the bottom-up areas were 10% to 23.1% smaller than their top-down counterparts. This also made their real estate markets for small homes more competitive, and therefore more affordable.
However, our study showed there is nothing inherently magical about bottom-up areas. Their more intricate housing stock has little to do with the layout of streets and blocks, and a lot to do with how that land is built upon.
Plot size appears to be the deciding factor: the districts with greater numbers of small buildings built on small plots supported a denser and more affordable housing stock, regardless of whether they were top-down or bottom-up.
Older bottom-up areas seem to naturally lend themselves to having more small-scale plots. This is likely due to the incremental development of these areas, and the complex land ownership patterns that developed as a result. However, there is no reason why a top-down area cannot be designed to replicate these characteristics.”
–
Planning for Accessibility: Proximity is More Important than Mobility
Here is a quick share of another very informative article that discusses the importance of proximity and more dense development in order to reduce car dependence.
Source: Planning for Accessibility: Proximity is More Important than Mobility
Here are some excerpts from the article:
“This shows that proximity is much more important than mobility in providing accessibility: location, location, location. For the last century, our transportation planning practices have contradicted this principle. Transportation agencies built urban highways that destroyed and degraded accessible and multimodal neighborhoods to benefit suburban motorists. This was racist and classist, but the mechanism was the way that transportation planners valued increased traffic speeds, measured as travel time savings, while ignoring the loss of accessibility imposed on urban neighborhood residents.
Of course, many other factors affect people’s transportation and neighborhood preferences. Some people need their cars for work or after-work activities, and not everybody can bicycle or use transit even if it is available. However, surveys such as the National Association of Realtor’s National Community Preference Survey indicate that many people would prefer living in more compact, walkable neighborhoods than they currently do but cannot due to a lack of supply.”
Such articles are a must read for those who want to understand why government needs to invest in land at or near the CBDs, and develop that land so people will not need to reside far from their workplaces and schools. Truly, there are many other factors affecting transport preferences or mode choice. Housing is one such factor that we continue to treat separately from transport. It is very (prohibitively) expensive to buy or rent in the city particularly in or near the CBDs. The result is people opting to purchase or rent homes in the suburbs. It doesn’t help that developers are also actively promoting subdivisions there and therefore are contributing to sprawl that puts so much pressure on transportation systems.
–
Article share: on subsidies to public transportation
Here’s a nice article that presents arguments for subsidies to support transit or public transportation:
Wilson, K. (February 5, 2024) “Study: Subsidizing Transit Actually Makes It More Efficient,” Streets Blog USA, https://usa.streetsblog.org/2024/02/05/study-subsidizing-transit-actually-makes-it-more-efficient [Last accessed: 2/18/2024]
Subsidies to public transportation can be quite tricky and may require quite a balancing act. There seems to be few options outside of the straightforward subsidies national and local governments in the Philippines provide. Rail transit, for example, is heavily subsidized but these are rare for road-based public transportation. The concept of service contracting has been considered but it also has a few variations. While there seems to have been a proof of concept tested during the pandemic, it required so much funds that government apparently lost interest (i.e., the funds were also needed by other sectors). Local governments meanwhile, or at least those that had resources, decided to operate their own public transport (e.g., Quezon City bus).
To quote from the article:
“Newmark’s study doesn’t definitively determine why, exactly, high subsidies seem to correlate with better efficiency and transit agencies collecting more fares, but he has some theories. Some systems, he says, use subsidies to increase service frequency or install dedicated lanes to speed routes up along heavily-utilized corridors — and riders are responding, predictably, by showing up in droves. (Route expansion can help, too, he said, but only if agencies expand service to places “where there’s actual demand.”) Others use subsidies to keep ticket prices low, but not to eliminate fares outright, which Newmark argues is a smart move.
“People value stuff they pay for, and they pay for stuff they value,” Newmark added. “An underlying point in this paper is that transit offers something [valuable], and it’s worth trying to capture that value, whether through fares or in other ways.”
If transit networks and the taxpayers who support them can get that recipe right, it could create a virtuous cycle.
“If people see the benefits [of subsidies], that may make them more willing to invest [their taxpayer dollars],” he adds. “Good transit leads to a real social movement for more subsidies.” “
What do you think about subsidies to public transport in the Philippine setting? Of course, we are referring to ‘formal’ public transportation here. There are many ‘informal’ or paratransit modes like tricycles and non-motorized pedicabs. There are also motorcycle taxis providing services or filling in the gaps in transport services.
–
On urban noise
We open February with an article share. The article is about noise in urban areas. Not surprisingly, most noise comes from transportation and the solutions mentioned in the article not only addresses transportation noise but at the same time addresses other concerns about transportation, including safety.
Durand-Wood, E. (January 25, 2024) “Why Are Cities So Noisy? And Can We Do Anything About It?“ Strong Towns, https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/1/25/why-are-cities-so-noisy-and-can-we-do-anything-about-it [Last accessed: 2/2/2024]
To quote from the article:
“In 2011, the WHO set recommendations for daytime and nighttime environmental noise levels, and found the maximum safe noise level for daytime is 55db (somewhere between moderate rain and normal conversation) and at night, 40db (about the level of a quiet library). Beyond these levels, prolonged exposure to environmental noise has been shown to cause health problems, and not just hearing-related ones.”In 2011, the WHO set recommendations for daytime and nighttime environmental noise levels, and found the maximum safe noise level for daytime is 55db (somewhere between moderate rain and normal conversation) and at night, 40db (about the level of a quiet library). Beyond these levels, prolonged exposure to environmental noise has been shown to cause health problems, and not just hearing-related ones.
Until recently, most analysis related to urban noise has focused on noise as an annoyance or disruptor to humans. But with these new guidelines, there was an acknowledgement that too much environmental noise can actually have grave health consequences, noting that “at least one million healthy life years are lost every year from traffic-related noise in the western part of Europe.”
We now know that higher levels of environmental noise raise heart rate and blood pressure, cause harmful sleep interruptions, and are linked to cardiovascular disease, dementia, and cognitive impairment in children, among others. And as with environmental pollution, there are racial and socioeconomic disparities with noise pollution.
In a 2022 report, the United Nations identified urban noise pollution as a top environmental risk.”
Have you noticed how noisy it is in our cities? Many actually choose to live in the suburbs as the perception is its quieter especially during the night. The health risks due to noise are well-established as presented also in the article. However, there are ways to address this and reduce the noise, particularly the type attributed to transportation and traffic.
–
Want Less Traffic and More Parking? Start Charging for It!
Here’s a quick share of an article on parking:
Source: Want Less Traffic and More Parking? Start Charging for It!
From the article:
“like most urban issues, parking is not an isolated problem. If smart parking programs are implemented but road design and policies still encourage motor vehicle use, the efficiency of parking programs will be limited by the intrinsic political and physical nature of each location. Nevertheless, free parking is a nuisance and a massive cost to the public, especially lower-income individuals, causing congestion and ultimately reducing mobility. Research shows that charging for parking makes the most out of parking spaces in a given area, and makes the process of maintaining parking fairer by charging its users instead of everyone indiscriminately.”
–
Caught (up) in traffic 