Bike lanes pushed for Cebu City streets

this is a very refreshing piece of news. but it's one which requires a closer look and a deeper understanding of the nuances of urban transportation concepts and how a city and the different parts of it behaves as a system. i agree with the call for bike lanes in the cebu city, but this particular proposal can be viewed as more symbolic than real, at this point in time. as the city planning officer, i can not agree to the proposal of the Global Legal Action on Climate Change (GLACC) that “half of the city's main roads like Osmeña Boulevard be confined for use by pedestrians and bicycles only while other roads would be allocated for public and private vehicles.”

Osmeña Boulevard, Cebu City

the increasing awareness on the necessity of bike and pedestrian lanes among social scientists in general and environmentalists in particular reached our topmost level of government when president arroyo signed a.o. 254 which mandated the department of transportation and communication (DOTC) to lead in the formulating a national environmentally sustainable transport (EST) for the philippines. Section 1(a) of the administrative order mandated the Task Group on Fossil Fuels (TGFF) to “reform the transport sector to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. the new paradigm in the movement of men and things must follow a simple principle: 'those who have less in wheels must have more in road.' for this purpose, the system shall favor non-motorized locomotion and collective transportation system (walking, bicycling, and the man-powered mini-train).” so, in effect, everybody really wants to go into these bike lanes/pedestrian concept. it's not only GLACC who are into this. the cebu city government's declared policy for the BRT is even a stronger push for EST and cleaner air, and may i just quote the “resolving clause” of Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution No. 1430, dated dec. 10, 2008:

Quote

BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, to declare as a policy direction of the City Government of Cebu, the establishment of a PUBLIC URBAN MASS TRANSPORT SYSTEM in the City of Cebu as the primary mode of transportation in the city, which shall incorporate, as a matter of transport policy, the regulation and control of the proliferation of unnecessary and unwanted car use in the city streets, and the provision of pedestrian and bicycle walkways and other infrastructure for non-motorized transport, in order to provide equal, democratic, and inclusive urban mobility for all;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the public urban mass transport system in the City of Cebu shall be bus-based, in the form of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and as much as possible and practicable, on-grade, providing ease of access to all citizens including children, senior citizens, and persons-with-disabilities (PWD's), and shall be seamlessly integrated pedestrian and bicycle walkways and other infrastructure for non-motorized transport, which are planned to be implemented in consonance with this policy direction;

RESOLVED FURTHERMORE, that the bus-based, BRT-model public urban transport system in the City of Cebu shall employ state-of-the-art clean propulsion technology, and shall use clean, and efficient fuel, with the most minimum, if not zero, emission levels of gases and other particulate matter, which may contribute to global warming and other health risks;

but how do we operationalize this? do we simply close a lane a turn it into a lane for bicycles? how i really wish it's as simple as that ...

we have to give due credit to DOTC for seriously taking steps to fulfill it's role and responsibilities under the above A.O. (and it's accompanying E.O. 744). DOTC is starting by july, its 'Development of Public Transportation Strategic Plan for Metro Cebu' study. i call this a step in the right direction because a public transportation plan, even if it's supposedly directed towards the implementation of a BRT invariably takes a closer look on the different modes of public transport … which include, contrary to what most people perceive, walking and biking. let's see walking and biking as what they really are – a particular mode of transport which are part of the overall public transportation of a whole city. we often disregard or dismiss the experiences of european countries and cities like amsterdam, or that of japan, because we think “we can not do it here,” or “these are too impractical” when we see inadequate, drab and dirty, or non-existent sidewalks in our country. and over the years, as our minds get numbed and set to believe that biking and walking “is not a transport option,” we replace these with concepts of biking and walking as a “leisure or exercise activity” especially with the increasing popularity of “mountain biking.” in other words, we now think of biking as a health activity rather than transportation in going to work (or school, or wherever you want to go today …). we dismiss the bicycle as an option and build road infrastructure for our cars (and jeepneys, etc.).

bicycle parking facility in amsterdam

bicycle parking facility in japan

for DOTC to get involved with this study is a very clear indicator that it is doing its role as the transport planner of the entire philippines rather than just solving the traffic woes in metro manila. and the fact that it focused on public transportation shows it is serious on the job E.O. 774 and A.O. 254 placed on its shoulders. and it's a glimmer of hope to us who see walking and biking as public transportation options which may in end contribute to cleaner air in the future and contribute to the fight against climate change.

but why am i not exactly in favor of the present proposal? – because it introduced a concept which might be right in it's ultimate outcome but is not grounded on its basic framework. sure, bicycle lanes (when implemented soundly and correctly) will mean cleaner air in the future, but we can't just “confine osmeña blvd. to bicycles and pedestrians” and expect clean air! In the first place, we it won't even mean people will start using bicycles even if there are lanes there? well, there might be a few, but these will be people who will bike from capitol to city hall because they love the exercise … the ordinary cebuano won't use the lane to bike from their home to work or school. it would unlikely, even absurd, for a person to ride a jeepney from home, say, apas, to capitol, get off then ride a bike to city hall, in order to get to carbon market. in the first place, where will he get the bike, he certainly won't bring it with him in the jeepney, and i doubt if there will be bicycles for hire anywhere. so, to simply convert a lane to bicycles will not result to people using bicycles as their basic mode of public transportation or part of their daily lives. and worst, we'll be converting osmeña blvd. as an biking playground without necessarily alleviating the traffic congestion, and even worsening it as the same number of cars will be compressed into the remaining lanes ...

imagine one lane in each direction will have to be closed and made into bicycle lanes

if we have to get serious with the biking option, and most certainly cebu city will be as inscribed in SP Res. No. 1430, we need to look at bicycles and the provision of bicycle lanes AS A PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPTION! in other words, we need to plan these such that a percentage of those riding in cars or jeepneys now will REALLY shift to bicycles in their daily routine. now how many of the 25 citizens and their lawyers will do just that – ride bicycles to work if we convert a lane at osmeña blvd. for biking? very, very unlikely … the only way for the concept to work (and for the entire EST for that matter) is for governments (both national and local) to really see biking (when I say biking in this sense, I also mean walking) as a public tranport option and part of the overall public transport system of the country and city. which means bicycle lanes have to be planned with home-to-work or home-to-school infrastructure or part of the overall infrastructure. and this where the BRT policy direction will have to come into play.

bicycle lane network in Bogota, Columbia

when we plan for bike lanes, these have to be where they really take people to work or school, not because they want exercise. we can do this by constructing and entire bike lane system across the whole city, or we can do the more obvious alternative – build the bike lanes as access points to the planned BRT lines. if you come from cebu city, which is not that big anyway, you already know where these will be obviously located, if you know that the (first) main BRT lines most probably will traverse the cebu south road to bulacao and beyond, cebu north road to mabolo and beyond and downtown to talamban. all three meets at the center, i was tempted of suggesting fuente osmeña as the location of a central station but maybe the area of abellana national high school maybe more likely because of availability of space (we could always transfer abellana to a better place). it would then be just logical to construct bicycle lanes from both sides of the BRT lines so that people from, for example, labangon, tisa, punta princesa, basak, kinasang-an, mambaling, inayawan, bulacao, cogon, etc., can simply ride their bicycles in the morning to the BRT startion, park there, and ride the BRT to wherever their work or school are (we have to plan for bicycle parking at BRT stations, then). this involves a more systematic and integrated planning approach to urban public transportation, one which DOTC and the city government of cebu, are doing now. this also emphasizes the fact that the proposed BRT does not only involved putting up the dedicated lanes, stations and buses! - planning for the BRT includes how to bring the people to the stations and invariably will incorporate the plans for bicycles lanes! and this is exactly what the two current studies will attempt to do.

the proposal submitted by GLACC is very laudable – it symbolizes the very concept that E.O. 774 and A.O. 254 tries to legislate. but it should not be taken at face value per se, rather we look at it as a confirmation that what SP Res. No. 1430 was really a drastic but right step for a better future of cebu city, and it adds to the advocacy of the policy direction of cebu city. and for that, the proposal should be viewed positively as a collaborative support; it's implementation, however, shall have to be wait and incorporated into the overall public transport plan and BRT implementation.

Bicycle Lanes in Bogota

Search

User

From tinyportal.net...

Recent

Stats

Members

Stats

Users Online