Who is the target client?

AS the Marcos administration confronts the large challenges in the transport sector, it becomes crucial at the onset to define the target client. Whose mobility is of primary concern? Whose mobility deserves priority when it comes to things like infrastructure spending, traffic management and how road space is allocated among potential users?

There should be no question about who the target client should be. It is the Filipino without a car. It is the Filipino who rely on walking, cycling or public transport. Only 5 percent of households nationwide own a car; in Metro Manila, the share is about 12 percent. Whether in big or small cities, car users make up only a small minority. Moreover, they are already a privileged one because they have a means of independent travel and enjoy protection inside a metal box. The majority, however, are mobility-deprived and vulnerable — they are the ones at risk in any collision with a motor vehicle.

Despite the apparent need to prioritize the welfare of the carless majority, the sad reality is that successive administrations have formulated policies and created infrastructure that favor those traveling in cars to the disadvantage of everyone else. Because roads are filled with cars, it may appear to officials (as well as to the bystander) that more space for cars is the solution. Road investment decisions are based on volume-capacity ratios that are linked to the throughput of vehicles rather than people. When the number of vehicles passing a road exceeds its design capacity, the expansion of the road to accommodate even more cars is considered desirable.

Roads are widened in order to increase space for cars, in the process narrowing or even eliminating the space for walking and cycling. Ground level pedestrian crossings are removed (sometimes replaced by footbridges) so that vehicles can pass at higher speeds and with fewer interruptions. Traffic signals are controlled to ensure the steady flow of vehicles rather than the convenience and safety of pedestrians and cyclists (recently, a traffic enforcer managing a traffic signal was in the spotlight for allowing pedestrians only five seconds to cross a road). Sidewalks are converted into parking spaces even if this is a violation of building codes and endangers pedestrians.

The pattern of prioritizing private motor vehicles is also evident in some major infrastructure projects. A recent example was the design and construction of the Bonifacio Global City (BGC)-Ortigas Bridge, an important corridor linking two central business districts (CBDs); again, car users were the target client. A year after inauguration, the bridge still lacks pedestrian access. Bike lanes have been painted but are visibly unsafe because the lanes are only as wide as the shoulders of a cyclist and there is no physical separation of cyclists from cars. It is also remarkable that there is still no public transport service traversing the BGC-Ortigas Bridge despite the obvious high demand for travel between the two CBDs. How does this happen in a metropolis where the vast majority are starved for better public transport?

When I contacted the DPWH to call their attention to the substandard and unsafe bike lanes on two new bridges across the Pasig River (the BGC-Ortigas and Binondo-Intramuros bridges) that violate DPWH's own design standards, the reply was that there was insufficient right-of-way to accommodate a bike lane to meet design guidelines. They did not consider the option of converting one of the car lanes into a safe path for pedestrians and cyclists. The implication is that the DPWH considers it appropriate to construct a substandard and unsafe bike lane, endangering cyclists, so long as road space for private cars is preserved.

Another example of misplaced priorities is the reluctance of some national and local officials to provide a dedicated lane for public transport vehicles on congested roads. Even if the majority will benefit — even if the road will be able to move many more people on the same space — there is reluctance to reduce the space currently devoted to private cars. Although roads are public assets paid for by everyone's taxes, although car owners are only a small minority, it seems that private motor vehicles are regarded as having a superior entitlement to road space. This is a fundamental injustice that needs to be corrected.

It is also a bad transportation policy. Policies and projects that motivate Filipinos toward greater car use are taking us in the wrong direction. Given the unequal and sometimes hostile treatment of people walking, cycling and using public transport, the implicit message is that you should be in a private car in order to have safe and dignified travel around Philippine cities. When Filipinos are confronted daily by infrastructure and policies that favor private motor vehicles, we should not be surprised that the aspiration of 77 percent of Filipinos is to someday own a car (as measured by NEDA's surveys for its Ambisyon 2040 report). This is an alarming statistic for anyone concerned about traffic, pollution, climate change and the livability of our cities.

It was therefore refreshing to hear Transportation Secretary Jaime Bautista say that his goal was to deliver "accessible, affordable, safe and comfortable" transportation services that meet "global standards." We applaud Secretary Bautista's low-key trips on Metro Manila trains to experience what commuters go through. We commend his concern regarding the long queues for the EDSA Carousel and his remark that "the status quo is unacceptable." He intends to give attention to the customer experience, as he did when he was an airline executive. This is a most welcome development. Secretary Bautista deserves our full support as he pushes for transformative change in the transportation sector.

For Secretary Bautista to deliver meaningful results for commuters, he will need all agencies and levels of government to prioritize Filipinos without cars and to reflect this target client in their policies, work programs and budgets. The welfare of the majority — and the movement of people rather than vehicles — should be paramount.

Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate. He can be reached at mobilitymatters.ph@yahoo.com or followed on Twitter @RobertRsiy.

Source: TheManila Times