Pedestrianization: Talked about again but…

CEBU, Philippines — Just last week, the supposed pedestrianization of some of our streets in Cebu had resurfaced. This is a positive development. Knowing fully well, however, that it takes years or decades for the government to plan projects, the National Economic Development Authority in Central Visayas (NEDA-7), most especially, then Regional Director Efren Carreon must be commended for vigorously pursuing this.

To those who may not be aware of it, then NEDA-7 regional director Efren B. Carreon was very much into this project from its inception. To recall, the idea of “pedestrianization” saw print in this column on July 23, 2018. Such an opportunity to know about this plan was in our (PICPA Summit organizers) dinner with then Regional Director Carreon and then NEDA Secretary Pernia in July 18, 2018. It was the night before the opening of the 6th PICPA (Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants) Cebu Summit where Sec. Pernia was our Keynote Speaker. It was then that he explained its significance and advantages.

True enough, as a testament to then Regional Director Carreon’s efforts, in October, 2019, NEDA-7 announced that a P3.5 million study “will be undertaken to determine the probable economic impact of making downtown Cebu City walkable.” Awarded to the University of the Philippines Planning and Development Research Foundation (UP PLANADES), it was tasked to “determine the probable economic impact of pedestrianization in stakeholders based on identified parameters such as local revenues, business activities, environment and foot traffic problem.”

Then, in January, 2020, the feasibility study for a workable and inexpensive solution that would somehow alleviate the worsening traffic condition in downtown Cebu was reportedly completed. Appropriately coined as “pedestrianization”, it shall restrict access to a street to pedestrians only.

Thinking aloud, this idea deserves a closer look. For one, “pedestrianization” of congested streets could be a very effective, inexpensive and sustainable solution to our traffic woes. Devoid of smoke-belchers, people (tourists and locals) will go there by foot and in droves.

Hopefully too, separated bicycle lanes should be considered as well in streets that shall not be considered in the “pedestrianization” project. Truth to tell, other countries that have implemented it have already reaped their desired benefits. They’ve practically made cycling (bicycle) “a much safer and more attractive option”. Their separated bicycle lanes are “dedicated bike lanes with concrete medians and planters, bicycle parking corrals, or vehicle parking lanes that divide them from vehicle traffic”.

Furthermore, there is a need too to widen our streets’ sidewalks. With trees providing the shade, commuters might find some great feeling of comfort and the benefit of walking for health reasons. Knowing fully well that bike riders won’t be using the sidewalks, pedestrians will find these walkways very safe as well. So that those who are just a kilometer away from their desired destinations may just have to take a stroll than take public utility jeepneys, buses or even their private cars.

Apparently, therefore, it is good. However, knowing fully that it takes years or decades for the government to implement projects, we can’t be so optimistic. Rightly so, because, for instance, for many years now apart from the overpass/underpass construction issues, we have been witnesses of the seemingly unending debate on what is the more appropriate transport system for us. Proponents and supporters were all at it countless of times. In fact, though the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is already in progress, some adversaries are still batting for LRT as the more appropriate solution.

Indeed, as is customary, when a proposal comes along, generally, two possibilities may happen. Depending on one’s inherent biases, it is either given a “thumbs up” or a “thumbs down”. Worse, locked in a fierce exchange of thoughts, protagonists and adversaries (like honest-to-goodness citizens and politicians) will even go to the extent of hurling accusations or even invectives just to make their points heard.

Remember, NEDA presented the completed feasibility study (pedestrianization) to Cebu City Mayor Edgar Labella in 2020 yet. Supposedly, in doing this, the city, known for its tourism potentials, will be able to capitalize its competitive edge by showcasing its heritage sites and the neighboring places of interests to tourists. Yet, we are still talking about it. Nothing more than that.

Well, Mayor Labella passed away. What about this project? Hopefully, it won’t.