It looks like the DOTr will maintain the protected bicycles lanes and is even planning for more.
This means the agency is thoroughly sold to the idea of exclusive bicycle lanes in spite of some Local Government Units advocating joint use to ease what they perceive as worsening traffic congestion.
Could this be because of an SWS survey wherein it showed that one in three Filipino households own a bicycle?
This survey at face value does tend to validate the notion that there is widespread use of bicycles as a mode of transportation among Filipinos.
But this survey could be deceptive because it may not be painting the whole picture.
To be sure, this has to be validated by conducting a traffic study to find out how many bicycles are on the road at any given time which should include the average distance of the travel to include the purpose of the trip.
As I stated in my traffic article three weeks ago, a cost benefit study is necessary to determine whether setting aside 1.5 meter of the roads in the Metro area as protected bicycle lanes is the right thing to do and is not actually one of the causes of the worsening traffic gridlock.
The standard width of a lane of road is 3.6 meters according to the Australian Road Board. Why Australian?
Because as I understand, that is what the DPWH is currently using because we do not have our own.
If one will stand at any point along a standard road and count the numbers of vehicles able to pass that point in an hour, one can theoretically count 1,900 vehicles because that is supposed to be the maximum capacity.
If we take EDSA as an example, four lanes are available for other vehicles because one is exclusive for the Bus Carousel.
The width of the other four lanes, however, if one will measure them, are actually less than 3.6 meters and therefore already constricted.
If 1.5 meters of the right most lane is further set aside as protected bicycle lane, then the remaining lanes will further be narrowed.
The width of the remaining lanes will probably be down to less than 3 meters which impacts travel time.
The narrower lanes will slow traffic flow especially during rush hours.
This is true with all the roads that have protected bicycle lanes.
Taking this into consideration, should traffic authorities allow for joint use of the bicycle lanes to allow for faster travel and lessen congestion or maintain the protected bicycle lanes in spite of the worsening congestion.
It seems to me the answer is obvious but DOTr will have to study this carefully because traffic congestion is costing the economy billions of pesos every day.
With regard to bicycle use, I have come across reports of substantial use of bicycles as a mode of transport but no mention has been made on how the figures have been arrived at.
One easy way to find this out is to simply count how many bicycle riders are passing thru a protected bicycle lane.
My impression is that there are more bicycles on the road during weekends than during workdays.
But what is important is to have a reliable data on bicycle ridership to help MMDA and DOTr formulate the right policies that will deal with other vehicles.
One of these is how to treat cars without any passengers on roads like EDSA, Roxas Boulevard and other national roads in the Metro area.
For instance, should MMDA or DOTr implement a policy of restricting them from using EDSA on certain hours or letting them pay if they want to use restricted roads?
There are Cities in the ASEAN region that do this like Singapore.
Perhaps, MMDA can consider implementing a similar policy.
But in this land of many lawyers, people will probably go to court to challenge this like the way they did with regard to the no contact apprehension.
The shocking thing was the Supreme Court did grant a TRO which up to now has not yet been lifted.
No contact apprehension should have been a big help to traffic enforcement because it forces undisciplined drivers to be on guard and behave even in the absence of traffic enforcers.
Besides, this kind of apprehension is being done all over the world without any question except in this country where almost everything is being challenged in court.
If I remember correctly, the reason given by those who went to court was that it would be grossly unfair to the car owners if, at the time of apprehension, it was someone else driving the vehicle.
What a flimsy reason.
Sometimes, I just chuckle every time I read about people complaining about the traffic gridlock because a lot of the traffic problems on the road are self-inflicted.
With a little more road patience and driver discipline, traffic gridlock should not be as bad as it is.
Sadly, however, it is getting worse and is one of the major causes why the incidence of road rage is increasing.
The big challenge now to MMDA and the DOTr is to find out the cause of the sudden slowdown of travel time.
The Bus Carousel, was supposed to lessen congestion along EDSA but it apparently has not.
Was it something both agencies did or failed to do?
Could it be the introduction of protected bicycle lanes?
If so, to what extent?
Maybe it’s the number of new vehicles entering NCR’s limited road system.
Whatever the causes, they must be identified as quickly as possible and eliminated. Hopefully, both agencies will be equal to the job.