A DECADE ago, commuting in Cebu would not have been a mainstay in conversations.
The difference these days is that both locals and visitors are talking about “Cebu traffic” as if it were the lesser evil to its more notorious relative, Metro Manila traffic.
Remedies proposed to decongest the roads have, unfortunately, stirred more debate than results.
The debate between installing the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or the Light Rail Transit (LRT) was recently revived by Presidential Assistant for the Visayas Michael Dino’s announcement that he will lobby for the cancellation of the BRT project in Cebu.
Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña is the proponent of the BRT. The political tension between Osmeña and Dino threatens again to complicate an issue that should prioritize public welfare.
The late economist E. F. Schumacher advocated for “human-scale, decentralized and appropriate technologies” for addressing development.
In his 1973 book, “Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered,” declared as one of the 100 most influential books published after World War II, Schumacher explained his concept of using “user-friendly and ecological suitable technologies” that were adapted to the resources of the community.
His ideas on appropriate technologies were formed after traveling to many developing countries and noting grassroots’ aspirations for self-reliance and sustainable development.
Solving Cebu City’s traffic woes requires Schumacher’s adaptation of “Buddhist economics” to put first the human development of all stakeholders.
The proposed BRT may just create more problems than solutions because of Cebu City’s narrow roads.
Delayed by four years, the first phase of the BRT, whose route spans 23 kilometers from Barangay Bulacao in the southwest to Barangay Talamban in the north, involves P16.9 billion, the bulk of which was sourced from foreign loans.
According to the same SunStar Cebu July 2 report of Razel V. Cuizon, the BRT will replace about 2,000 jeepneys with 176 buses.
Has the Cebu City Government planned for measures to assist the jeepney drivers and their families who will be displaced by the BRT?
Has the Cebu City Government considered the needs of daily commuters who are sensitive to the slightest increase in the fare of public utility vehicles?
While buses can accommodate more passengers and offer more comfort, bus fare is also more expensive compared to jeepneys, tricycles, and the Mactan Channel ferries, which many commuters say is the cheapest and fastest option to get from Lapu-Lapu City to Cebu City, as well as vice versa.
Will the BRT address the issue of ridership? Since the project will require at least one lane to be devoted for BRT buses, Cebu City’s narrow roads will mean reduced space for private vehicles and other public utility vehicles. The BRT buses must be regularly used by many commuters for a truly optimal mass transit system.
In Hanoi, Vietnam, a BRT project funded by foreign loans failed as a mass transit system. Critics pointed out that the commuting public questioned the inconvenience of sharing the road with a segregated BRT lane, which was used only by one BRT bus every few minutes or so, carrying far from its maximum load of passengers.
Currently, buses plying the route from the Mactan International Airport to a mall in the South Road Properties offer commuters a ride that is undoubtedly more comfortable and considerably cheaper than taking a taxi, rented car, or a private vehicle.
However, even during peak travel hours, these buses are rarely full. One inference is that the bus services are needed by only a small segment of the commuting market. Other commuters prefer other options.
Even without learning from the BRT experiences of the Vietnamese, are there not enough local experiences for Cebu leaders to consider applying the best appropriate technology to solve Cebu’s mass transit needs?