Home » Posts tagged 'inclusive transport'
Tag Archives: inclusive transport
Here is a nice article briefly discussing the evolution of transport strategy planning that have led to local transport plans:
Gleave, J. (2019) The changing role of transport strategy, Transport Futures, https://transportfutures.co/the-changing-role-of-transport-strategy-598fce17e9e9 [Last accessed: 8/24/2019].
More importantly, there is a very good discussion here of the recent developments and the need to change approaches in order to become more effective at the local level. The article explains that there should be an appreciation of the availability of resources including tools that allow people to be more engaged or able to participate in the planning process for their cities, municipalities or communities.
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.
Last year, I opened with a very hopeful post on opportunities with certain mass transit projects that were hyped to be starting construction in 2014. The year 2014 went by and practically nothing really concrete happened (Yes, there were soil tests conducted for the LRT 2 extension but after that nothing else happened with the project.) with respect to these very critical mass transit projects that were already much delayed. It’s the same thing again this year so that same blog post from Jan. 1, 2014 applies this year.
I will not write down a list of New Year’s resolutions for the transport-related government agencies to adopt this 2015 though that stuff is quite tempting to do. Instead, I will just rattle of a wish list that includes very general and very specific programs and projects I would like to see realized or implemented (e.g., start construction) within the year; preferably from the first quarter and not the last. For brevity, I came up only with a list of 10 items. It is not necessarily a Top Ten list as it was difficult for me to rank these projects.
1. LRT Line 2 Extension from Santolan to Masinag
2. LRT Line 1 Extension to Cavite
3. MRT Line 7 from Quezon City to San Jose del Monte, Bulacan
4. Cebu BRT
5. People-friendly road designs
6. Integrated fare collection system for Metro Manila trains
7. Bikeways in major cities
8. Any mass transit project for Davao City or any other major city outside of Metro Manila or Cebu
9. Northrail or whatever it is that will connect Metro Manila with Clark
10. Protection of heritage homes and sites along highways and streets
The reader is free to agree or disagree with the list or to add to the list. I’m sure there are a lot of other projects out there that are also quite urgent that are not on my list but are likely to be equally important.
“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.
Inclusive transport also covers persons with disabilities or PWDs as some people refer to them. Persons with disabilities include the blind, crippled, deaf, mute, and others who are physically challenged and therefore would have their movements limited or restricted. There are laws which provide for the needs of persons Republic Act 7277, which is the Magna Carta for Persons with Disabilities. Specifically, for accessibility, there is Batas Pambansa 344, “An Act that seeks to enhance the mobility of disabled persons” by requiring buildings, establishments and public utilities (e.g., transport) to install facilities or devices to enable use by PWDs. These include ramps at pedestrian sidewalks and at the entrance/exit of buildings. These should also include elevators and other devices to help “physically-challenged” or “differently-abled” persons up and down buildings including those elevated LRT/MRT stations. [Note: Quite frankly, I don’t really like all these supposedly politically correct terms but will nevertheless use them in this article.]
A man on a wheelchair crosses the intersection at Katipunan-Aurora.
Unfortunately, most public transport vehicles are not PWD-friendly. Most buses and jeepneys do not have provisions for PWDs and, on most occasions, do not even bother to stop to accommodate PWDs, especially those on crutches or wheelchairs. The LRT and MRT are now just too crowded even for able bodied people to endure (especially on a daily basis) but access to the elevated stations have always been an issue as there are limited escalators and elevators either seem to be frequently out of commission or there are none at certain stations. A high profile public official even suggested at one point during his stint with Metro Manila that PWDs and the senior citizens should just stay home rather than travel; hinting that these people would just be a burden to others when they travel.
This is not the case in other countries. I have seen in Japan, for example, that city bus designs can readily accommodate PWDs and this includes low-floor buses for easy access between the vehicle and the sidewalk. Bus drivers fulfill their responsibilities of stopping and assisting persons on wheelchairs to board and alight from their buses even if it means they would have to compensate for their scheduled stops. Then there are those I’ve seen riding the BART in San Francisco wheeling themselves in and out of the trains and stations with ease.
Addressing the transport needs of PWDs is definitely an area that needs proper attention especially as groups advocate for inclusive transport. Persons with disabilities are an integral part of our communities and enabling them to travel is a big factor towards encouraging them to be productive despite their physical limitations. They are not asking us to pity them but instead empower them to be the best they could become given the opportunity to be productive, to contribute to society. As such, they deserve the facilities and services that will enable accessibility and mobility that is at the same time safe for them and everyone else.