Why I wouldn’t bike
It has time and again been argued, and I have repeatedly written, that the long-run solution to the choking traffic in Metro Manila and other major urban centers lies, not in building more and wider roads, but in getting people out of their cars. Apart from providing an extensive, efficient and comfortable mass transport system, the other sensible way of doing this is to get people to start riding bicycles.
And why not? Bikes are inexpensive, relative to cars. That 24 percent of Philippine households have bikes as opposed to 6 percent having cars is indication of the relative accessibility of this mode of transport. Indeed, almost anyone can afford to own a bicycle. It also costs far less to operate one. A bike ride spanning the length of Edsa consumes about the same amount of calories one would get from a cup of rice and a cup of chicken adobo.
Bikes are environment-friendly. Being human-powered, they do not dump pollutants into the atmosphere. Carbon emissions from their use are far lower than those from driving motorized vehicles. Bicycles are also much quieter than motor vehicles.
Bikes can be healthy. Regular exercise is good for everyone, and bicycling is one of the best cardiovascular exercises around. That’s why they invented stationary cycles, which are among the most popular exercise equipment in gyms. The overall benefits of more widespread bicycling should be obvious. If only more people started riding bikes to work and to get around, traffic would flow much more smoothly, people would save a lot of money on their daily commute (not to mention the gym), and the national carbon footprint would be much lower. It’s a win-win-win solution.
I spent a good fraction of my life—nearly 10 years—primarily dependent on bicycles to move around. That’s four years in grade school (from third to sixth grades, in my daily trip to school in Los Baños, Laguna), five years in graduate school (in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the United States), and half a year as a visiting researcher at Kyoto University (in Japan). As I look back to those years, I can probably attribute a good part of my relatively good health as a senior citizen to the daily exercise that bicycling gave me at those various stages of my life. Cambridge and Kyoto are particularly bicycle-friendly cities, and their residents are all the better off for it—as I was, once upon a time.
Using a bicycle to get to work and move around would indeed make a lot of sense, but I wouldn’t do it in Metro Manila. The heat is a big deterrent. The risk of suffering from heat stroke while plying the roads is real. And even if one survives the heat, the idea of having business meetings bathed in the odors of the city just doesn’t sound appealing. Perhaps showers and locker rooms in offices or even near bicycle parking areas would make sense.
But the primary issue is safety. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 2 percent of road fatalities worldwide are cyclists. The “We Want Bike Lanes in RP Movement” estimates that two cyclists die every week in the streets of Metro Manila. Our infrastructure for bikes is simply not adequate to protect cyclists. Bicycle lanes are too narrow, not interconnected, and lack separation from menacing cars and trucks. And given Metro Manila motorists’ legendary lack of road discipline, cyclists plying major thoroughfares literally risk life and limb, negating whatever advantages biking may offer.
The other aspect of safety is air quality. In 2014, Metro Manila registered air pollution levels of 136 micrograms per normal cubic meter (ug/Ncm) in terms of total suspended particulates, well beyond the 90 ug/Ncm safe standard established by the WHO. And since an aerobic activity like cycling makes one breathe more heavily than normal, biking in Metro Manila means taking in even more hazardous pollutants than usual. Biking may be good exercise, but the heavily polluted air you take in could literally kill you. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources tells us that vehicle emissions account for 80 percent of air pollution in Metro Manila. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem: Less cars and more bikes would lessen air pollution, but to entice more bike riders, the air must be breathable. With car sales surging and promising to stay up in the foreseeable future, we are not likely to see city air quality improving any time soon.
Through petitions, the Share the Road Movement managed to convince the government to promise bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure by requiring bike and pedestrian lanes to be integrated in construction plans for new roads. Lawmakers have also taken note; at least seven bills have been filed in the 16th Congress aiming to support Filipino bikers and encourage others to take up biking as a lifestyle and preferred mode of transport. Several local government units have established Local Bikeways Offices that led to the establishment of bike lanes and parking spaces. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority now has a bike-lending service and held a road-sharing event at Commonwealth Avenue early this month.
Still, the Filipino mentality remains focused on cars. Philippine roads are simply not built with cyclists in mind (or pedestrians, for that matter). The Metro Manila Dream Plan adopted by the government in 2014 is still all about building and modernizing new roads and railways. It does have a bullet about pedestrians, which is not even verbally highlighted in the information video on YouTube. Let’s face it: Philippine roads are still made for cars and only grudgingly make space for bikes.
And that’s why I wouldn’t bike in the city just yet.
* * *
