Marikina Bikeways

Marikina City Bikeways Feasibility Study

Final Report

Prepared by

UPNCTS Foundation, Inc. For the City of Marikina 5 May 2000

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Study Area 1.2 Project Purpose and Rationale 1.3 Present Transportation And Traffic Situation 1.3.1 Road Network 1.3.2 Public Transportation 1.3.3 Car Ownership 1.3.4 Bicycle Use

2. ESTIMATION OF TRAVEL DEMAND FOR BICYCLES 2.1 Travel Demand Projection Process 2.2 Results of the Travel Demand Projection 2.2.1 Existing Travel Demand 2.2.2 Future Travel Demand 2.2.3 Projection of Bicycle Parking Requirements 2.3 Summary of Results and Recommendations

3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIKEWAY SYSTEM 3.1 Development of the Master Plan 3.1.1 Route Planning 3.1.2 Phasing 3.2 Development of Design Standards for Marikina Bikeway System 3.2.1 Review of Existing Standards for Bikeway Systems 3.2.2 Adoption of Technical Standards for the Bikeway System 3.3 Geometric Design, Signages and Markings 3.3.1 Mid-Block Cross-Sections 3.3.2 Intersections and Special Sections 3.3.2.1 Signing and Marking of Beginning and End of Bike Route 3.3.2.2 Intersection Approaches with Heavy Right Turn Movement 3.3.2.3 Pedestrians First 3.3.2.4 Treatment at Mid-block Sections 3.3.2.5 Treatment at Loading and Unloading Areas 3.3.2.6 Signage and Markings at Signalized Intersections 3.3.2.7 Parking 3.3.2.8 Bikeway along the Riverside 3.4 Parking 3.4.1 Issues 3.4.1.1 Location 3.4.1.2 Security 3.4.1.3 Protection from Weather 3.4.1.4 Parking Structure 3.4.1.5 A checklist for bicycle parking provision 3.4.2 Existing Philippine Examples

3.4.2.1 Commercial Establishments 3.4.2.2 Large Educational Establishment 3.4.3 Alternative Facility Layouts 3.4.3.1 Alternative 1 3.4.3.2 Alternative 2 3.4.3.3 Alternative 3 3.4.4 Locations 3.4.4.1 Schools 3.4.4.2 Markets 3.4.4.3 Government Offices 3.4.4.4 General Provision of Parking Facilities 3.5 Bikeway Infrastructure 3.5.1 The Pavement 3.5.2 The Drainage 3.5.3 The Delineators 3.6 Other Infrastructure 3.6.1 Lighting 3.6.2 Parking Sheds 3.6.3 Rest Areas 3.7 Civil Works Construction and Implementation 3.7.1 Concrete Pavement 3.7.2 Laying of Asphalt Topping (Option) 3.7.3 Bicycle Racks 3.7.4 Parking Sheds 3.7.5 Bicycle Lane Barrier 3.7.6 Installation of Hazard Protection

4. SOCIAL ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Objectives of the Social Analysis 4.3 Methodology 4.4 Caveats 4.5 Analysis of the Results and Implications for the Proposed Bikeways Network 4.5.1 Context and Background 4.5.1.1 Transport Situation 4.5.1.2 Environmental Issues 4.5.1.3 Economic Factors 4.5.1.4 Barriers to Cycling 4.5.1.5 Benefits of Cycling 4.5.2 Reactions to Proposed Bikeways Network 4.5.2.1 Facilities and Maintenance 4.5.2.2 Constraints/Problems Related to Cycling 4.5.2.3 Other Feedback 4.5.2.4 Commitments 4.5.3 Implications for the Marikina Bikeways Network 4.5.3.1 The Safety Issue 4.5.3.2 Bike Safety Education 4.5.3.3 Enforcement of Traffic Rules 4.5.3.4 Designing-in Safety

4.5.3.5 Safety Equipment 4.5.3.6 Security 4.5.3.7 Women and Cycling 4.5.3.8 Environmental Benefits 4.5.3.9 A Bicycling Campaign 4.6 Summary and Concluding Remarks 4.7 References

5. FRAMEWORK FOR A STRATEGIC PLAN TO INCREASE THE INCIDENCE OF UTILITARIAN CYCLING IN MARIKINA CITY 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Outline of a Strategic Plan 5.2.1 A Note on the Planning Process 5.2.2 Creating a Vision for Transport in Marikina 5.2.3 Ensuring Cyclists’ Safety – The Basic Components of a Safety Program 5.2.3.1 Education, Awareness, and Behavior 5.2.3.2 Enforcement and Road Traffic Law 5.2.4 Encouragement 5.2.5 Engineering and Planning 5.2.6 Administration, Management, and Funding

6. INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION 6.1 Methodology for Data Gathering 6.1.1 Primary Data/Baseline Data 6.1.2 Secondary Data Gathered and Sources 6.1.3 Public Consultations 6.1.4 Process Documentation of Consultative Activities 6.2 Description of Environmental Setting and Receiving environment 6.2.1 Delineation and Mapping of Primary and Secondary Impact Areas 6.2.2 Description of Existing Biophysical Environment 6.2.2.1 Land area and topography 6.2.2.2 Water Bodies 6.2.2.3 Geology and Fault Line 6.2.2.4 Soils 6.2.2.5 Land Use 6.2.2.6 Air quality 6.2.2.7 Water quality 6.2.2.8 Wildlife and vegetation 6.2.2.9 Flooding 6.2.3 Description of Existing Socio-Cultural-Economic Environment 6.2.4 Other Socioeconomic Information about Marikina City 6.2.5 Discussion of Future Environmental Conditions Without the Project 6.3 Impact Identification and Assessment 6.3.1 Summary Matrix of Predicted Environmental Issues/Impacts and Their Level of Significance at Various Stages of Development 6.3.2 Brief Discussion of Specific Significant Impacts on the Physical and Biological Resources

6.3.3 Brief Discussion of Significant Socioeconomic Effects/Impacts of the Project 6.4 Environmental Management Plan 6.4.1 Summary Matrix of Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures, Estimated Cost and Responsibility Centers 6.4.2 Brief Discussion of Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 6.4.2 Monitoring Scheme 6.5 Recommendations 6.5.1 List of Resolved Issues 6.5.2 List of Partially Resolved Issues 6.6 References

7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 7.1 Project Costs 7.2 Benefits of the Project 7.3 Results and Implications of the Analyses 7.3.1 Results 7.3.2 Implications of the Results

APPENDICES A.1 Lengths of Bikeway Route Segments A.2 Summary of Survey of Companies in Marikina A.3 The Focus Group Discussions: A Report A.4 Inventory of Roads A.5 Pictures of Roads in Marikina City A.6 Traffic Signs and Markings A.7 Detailed Computation of Project Costs A.8 Traffic Volume Counts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Marikina Bikeways Project is a project of the Marikina City government, which is aimed at promoting low cost and environment friendly transport within the city.

Through the provision of space dedicated for bikeways in existing roads, the project expects to encourage more residents to use bicycle as an alternative means of transport in the city. Biking as an alternative means of city transport is economical and pollution free. It is projected to benefit Marikeùos especially the poor segment of the society when making short distance trips, commuting to their work place, and students going to their schools. Bikeways also effectively increase the local residents’ mobility for other domestic and business purposes. The riverside bike lanes will also promote biking as a healthy recreation among Marikeùos and local visitors.

The project consists of a city bikeway network plus a bikeway and jogging lane along Marikina River. The total length of existing roads where bikeways will be designated is 49.7 kilometers. Of the total length, 30.8 km will involve only road repairs and asphalt topping of delineated bikeways in existing roads while 18.9 km will involve road widening to meet standard width of bikeways. The establishment of bikeways in the Marikina riversides will involve the upgrading (rehabilitation and improvement) of about 8.2 km of existing bike lanes and the construction of about 8.4 km of new bike lanes.

The other project component is the setting up of bicycle parking lots and facilities (bicycle racks and sheds) in existing parking spaces of malls, markets, government offices, schools, recreation parks and industries. A few parking spaces will also be constructed in suitable open spaces within the business district of the City.

Identified critical activities of the project are the widening of roads and construction of new bike lanes in the riversides. These activities were closely examined in the IEE study because they involve some earth movement (land grading, compacting, and concreting) which could affect the biophysical and human environments.

The predicted significant negative environmental impacts of the project are as follows: 1) relocation of a few squatter families (less than 20 houses) living near the riverbanks; and 2) encroachment by some segments of the bike lanes on the river easement.

Nonetheless, these significant impacts can be managed and mitigated. Displaced squatter families (i.e., Tumana relocatees) will be resettled in vacant lots within the same Tumana resettlement area. These squatter families will just be moved from the riverbanks to the inner portion of the resettlement area. On the easement issue, clearance and permission from DENR will be sought by the City Government to build bike lanes in some segments, which encroach on the required public easement.

Sedimentation of the river will be avoided/minimized through proper disposal of construction spoils, riverbank slope stabilization works and immediate landscaping of bare soil.

The other identified potential negative environmental impacts of the project were found to be insignificant or negligible because they are small in magnitude, localized and temporary. These impacts can easily be prevented or mitigated through proper planning and implementation of the project’s components and activities. Impacts of construction activities which include noise, dust pollution, traffic congestion and space use competition are temporary, isolated and minimal and are mitigable. The other impacts such as cutting of a few trees and loss of topsoil are very limited in extent and are inevitable in the development of built-up areas. Nevertheless, these impacts can be minimized through the salvaging of topsoil for landscaping and the planting of trees to replace those, which will be cut.

On the other hand, the positive impacts of the project during its operations are as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

reduction in air pollution coming from transport; reduction in traffic congestion; less travel cost for short distance trips within the city; better accessibility by local residents; and better recreation facilities.

Overall, the project will bring more positive impacts or benefits while its negative environmental impacts and disbenefits are few and manageable and mitigable through measures that will be integrated in the project design and operations. Thus, the project was evaluated to be environmentally sound and feasible. However, it is advisable for the project proponent to undertake a full-blown EIA for the construction of new bike lanes in the riverbanks to thoroughly ensure the environmental soundness of the project. The EIA (including hydrological studies) should be undertaken during the preparation of the detailed engineering design of the project to be able to identify appropriate specific engineering measures that will minimize the destructive impacts of river flooding on the bike lane project.

The bike lane component of the project is highly vulnerable to the effects of periodic flooding of the riverbanks and vicinities. Unless the flood control program of Marikina and the national government properly addresses this concern, the cost of maintaining and rehabilitating riverside bike lanes will remain high.

For the economic evaluation of the project, two options are considered as follows: Option A:

City bikeway + fully concreted bike and jogging lanes along the river

Php 88,920 Million

Option B:

City bikeway + fully concreted bike lane and earthen jogging lanes

Php 52,750 Million

The economic benefit-cost calculations indicate that development benefits constitute the primary justification for the project. The investments will stimulate the recreation sector as well as property values through a better ambiance. The project can be considered as economically justifiable. The net present values of the project range from Php 0.140 billion to Php 0.261 billion for Option A and from Php 0.080 billion

to Php 0.153 billion for Option B. The Economic Internal Rates of Return (EIRR) range from 14.3% to 23.5% for Option A and 13.3% to 22.2% for Option B. The B/C ratios range from 2.86 to 4.52 for Option A and from 2.68 to 4.25 for Option B.

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Project Study Area

Marikina City is a valley located within 14o 35’ latitude and 14o 41’ longitude. It is situated in the eastern part of Metro Manila or the National Capital Region. Figure 1.1-1 shows the location of Marikina City within the Metro Manila Area. It is bounded on the east by Sierra Madre Mountains, on the west by the gently rolling hills of Quezon City, on the north by the towns of San Mateo and Antipolo and on the south by the town of Cainta and the City of Pasig. Marikina City has a total land area of 2,150 hectares and comprised of 14 barangays.

The Marikina Bikeways Project, a project of the city government, is aimed at promoting low cost and environment friendly transport within the city. Through the provision of space dedicated for bikeways in existing roads, the project expects to encourage more residents to use bicycle as an alternative means of transport in the city. Biking as an alternative means of city transport is economical and pollution free.

It is projected to benefit Marikeños especially the poor segment of the society when making short distance trips, commuting to their work place, and students going to their schools. Bikeways also effectively increase the local residents’ mobility for other domestic and business purposes. The riverside bike lanes will also promote biking as a healthy recreation among Marikeños and local visitors.

1.2

Project Purpose and Rationale

The Project aims to provide the facilities for low cost and environment friendly alternative means of transportation within the city. By establishing bikeways and ensuring the safety of bikers, biking as an alternative form of transportation in the City will be encouraged and more people are expected to benefit from this means of transportation.

The Project expects to cut down on travel time and cost for some segments of the populace (i.e., potential and present bikers) in commuting to their work and in doing their household chores of going to the market and malls. Biking is also seen as a healthy form of recreation. The Marikina River Park which had constructed jogging and bike lanes covering part of the riverside has encouraged biking as a form of a healthy recreation for children and adults in the city.

Provision of bikeways is also meant to anticipate and support the needs of bikers who are projected to increase in number in the future as traffic congestion of motorized vehicles worsens and the cost of transportation further increases. The local officials of Marikina City believe that biking is a good alternate form of sustainable transport and it hopes to contribute to minimizing air pollution, which is mainly caused by motor vehicles. They also expect the project to increase the use of bicycles by the commuting local residents of Marikina City.

1-1

1-2

In brief, implementation of the bikeways project is projected to cause an increase in the use of bicycles for recreational and trips purposes. The trips that will most likely attract the use of bicycles are: short distance trips within the city such as shopping trips, recreational trips, work trips and access trips (i.e., access to main source of transportation such as LRT station and bus station).

The Project will have the following major components: 1) allocation and delineation of bikeways in suitable existing roads; 2) identification and construction of parking facilities for bicycles; 3) upgrading of existing riverside bike lanes and their extension through construction of new bike lanes to cover the entire stretch of both riversides; and 4) Establishment of a safety program for bikers.

1.3

Present Transportation And Traffic Situation

1.3.1

Road Network

Marikina City has a total road length of about 300 km., classified into national (11.5km.) and city roads (288.5km). Most of the roads follow a grid pattern except in Marikina Heights where roads follow circular and radial patterns. The road network of Marikina City is shown in Figure 1.3-1.

Due to the limited number of major roads within the city and the high dependence of trip makers on motorized vehicle, severe congestion is experienced during peak hours.

J.P. Rizal St. runs along the Marikina River and is practically the only through road that goes to San Mateo and Montalban. Traffic counts gathered in October 1999 gave an estimated volume capacity ratio ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 during peak hours. The traffic volume counts conducted at 7 intersections in Marikina City are presented in Appendix 8 of this report.

The Marikina River divides the city into 2 major parts. The Marikina Bridge and the bridge along Marcos Highway link the 2 parts of the city. The Tumana Bridge, completed in 1996, serves as a third link connecting the northern portion of Marikina to Quezon City.

1.3.2

Public Transportation

The major modes of public transportation within the city consist of buses, jeepneys and tricycles. Presently, seven bus companies with a total of 190 units regularly ply within, to and from Marikina. The jeepneys with about 1,300 units and 9 routes provide service for both internal and external trips. For most short distance internal trips, the tricycle is playing a major role with more than 3,500 units operating within the city. Table 1.3-1

1-3

1-4

shows the trip characteristics in the city. Public transport (jeepneys, buses, tricycles) accounts for about 57% of the total daily trips.

Table 1.3-1 Trip Characteristics in Marikina City (Source of Data: MMUTIS) a. OD Trips by Mode Mode walking pedicab bicycle motorcycle tricycle jeepney minibus standard bus taxi hov taxi car school/tourist bus utility vehicle truck trailer LRT PNR water transport others Total

Trips to 3,698 1.4% 18 0.0% 1,073 0.4% 3,127 1.2% 10,912 4.0% 107,508 39.8% 467 0.2% 44,615 16.5% 14,586 5.4% 8,688 3.2% 56,380 20.9% 5,212 1.9% 3,421 9,965 88 32 269,790

1.3% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Trips from 3,735 1.4% 18 0.0% 1,074 0.4% 3,377 1.2% 12,476 4.5% 108,344 39.2% 400 0.1% 49,194 17.8% 8,291 3.0% 10,622 3.8% 57,632 20.9% 4,606 1.7%

Trips within 114,785 27.5% 1,569 0.4% 8,343 2.0% 2,777 0.7% 94,103 22.6% 117,163 28.1% - 0.0% 3,814 0.9% 1,679 0.4% 3,912 0.9% 54,252 13.0% 11,700 2.8%

Total 122,218 1,605 10,490 9,281 117,491 333,016 867 97,623 24,556 23,222 168,264 21,518

12.7% 0.2% 1.1% 1.0% 12.2% 34.6% 0.1% 10.1% 2.6% 2.4% 17.5% 2.2%

3,651 12,602 103 47 32 276,204

1,325 1,064 392 416,878

0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

8,397 23,631 495 135 64 962,874

0.9% 2.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Trips within 203,316 48.8% 47,436 11.4% 82,426 19.8% 8,123 1.9% 55,666 13.4% 19,911 4.8% 416,878 100%

Total 459,958 158,521 143,827 39,048 116,414 45,408 963,177

47.8% 16.5% 14.9% 4.1% 12.1% 4.7% 100%

1.3% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

b. OD Trips by Purpose Purpose tohome towork toschool business private others Total

1.3.3

Trips to 177,655 65.8% 28,424 10.5% 22,896 8.5% 17,637 6.5% 17,225 6.4% 6,002 2.2% 269,839 100%

Trips from 78,986 28.6% 82,661 29.9% 38,505 13.9% 13,288 4.8% 43,523 15.7% 19,495 7.1% 276,458 100%

Car Ownership

The percentage of car-owning households in Marikina City is about 15.5% (20% for Metro Manila) as shown on Table 1.3-2. About 18% of the trips use private cars (Table 1.3-1).

1-5

Table 1.3-2 Number of Car-Owning Households (Source: MMUTIS 1998) Metro Marikina Manila No. of Households(1995) Population(1995) % car Owning Households

1.3.4

1,985,929 9,447,156 20.0

73,620 357,231 15.5

Bicycle Use

About 10,500 daily trips are made in the city of Marikina by bicycle. This is approximately 6.5% of the total bicycle trips made within Metro Manila (160,200 trips).

1-6

2. ESTIMATION OF TRAVEL DEMAND FOR BICYCLES 2. 1 Travel Demand Projection Process Consistent with the planning process of the Marikina Bikeway Study, the process for predicting the travel demand in the city is as shown in Figure 2.1-1. Basically, the travel demand of the city in 1996, as estimated from the Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study or MMUTIS, served as the base travel demand. As reflected in Figure 2.1-1, the travel demand without the implementation of the bikeway project is first estimated. After that, the travel demand when the bikeway project will be implemented is going to be estimated.

Based on MMUTIS Projection

Based on Future Development of the City

Travel Demand by Trip Purpose

Travel Demand by Mode

Without the Bikeway Project

With the Bikeway Project

Figure 2.1-1. Travel Demand Projection Process

2 -1

From Figure 2.1-1, it can be noted that the first task of projecting travel demand in Marikina City is the straightforward adoption of the travel demand projection of MMUTIS for 1996. That is, the MMUTIS data will be employed in predicting travel demand. Travel demand will be forecasted in the short-term (five years from now), medium-term (ten years from now), and long-term (after fifteen years).

Hence, given the travel demand for 1996, the travel demand for years 2004, 2009 and 2014 can be predicted using the growth rates below. period

growth rate

short-term medium-term long-term

5.0% 6.0% 5.5%

The above growth rates are assumed based on the level of urbanization and development of Marikina City. A higher growth rate is assumed for the medium-term so as to reflect the future urban and regional developments identified for the city.

However, in the long-term, it is assumed that the rate of increase of the travel demand will be stabilized in the long-term at 5.5%.

Furthermore, the travel demand forecast, based on the MMUTIS data, is assumed to represent the existing travel pattern and growth of the city. The projection of the trips will also be segregated by trip purpose and by travel mode.

The travel demand projected using the MMUTIS data and from the committed projects will comprise the future projection of the total travel demand of the city. The travel demand projected using the MMUTIS data reflects the forecasted trips for the short-term and medium-term. The total travel demand projected (from MMUTIS and the committed projects) will be for the long-term travel demand.

The total travel demand will be further distributed by trip purpose as already mentioned earlier. Afterwards, the total travel demand by trip purpose is determined then the modal split (choice) will then be predicted. The modal split for the mediumterm and long-term will already incorporate the share of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line 2 (currently under construction) of Marikina’s travel demand. It is assumed here that the LRT will be able to capture a significant portion of trips emanating from Marikina to other areas in Metro Manila.

Finally, the resulting total travel demand is predicted assuming that there is no bikeway project. However, with the implementation of the bikeway project, it is assumed that there will be a significant increase in the use of bicycles not only for recreational purposes but also for other trip purposes, especially to work trips. A significant assumption that will be made is the incorporation of the proposed intermodal terminal/station linked to the LRT line (LRT Line 2). It is expected that there will be a considerable share of bicycles for access or feeder trips to the LRT station.

2 -2

It is expected that the modal split of the city will be affected by the implementation of the bikeway project. Likewise, there will be a mode shift to bicycles. The trips that will most likely have a shift to bicycle use are the following: •

short-distance trips (notably within the city)

•

recreational trips

•

access/feeder trips

•

shopping trips

The percentage of switch to bicycle will be determined based on the socioeconomic characteristics and trip purposes of the people in Marikina. Another significant assumption is that the city government will promote the use of bicycles, especially within the city, through ordinances and public information drives. This will further increase the proportion of commuters and road users to switch to bicycle use.

The percentage share of bicycles for the internal trips and external trips originating from the city will be different. The modal share of bicycles is assumed to be higher for external trips. This is to account for bicycles as access or feeder modes to the LRT station. Hence, the resulting modal shares of bicycles are shown below in Table 2.1-1.

Table 2.1-1. Modal Share of Bicycles Year 2004 2009 2014 a

Pedicab 1.00% 1.75% 2.50%

Trips within the city

Internal Tripsa Bicycle Total 1.85% 2.85% 2.75% 4.50% 3.50% 6.00%

Pedicab 1.25% 1.90% 2.75%

External Tripsb Bicycle 2.50% 3.50% 5.00%

Total 3.75% 5.40% 7.75%

b

External trips originating from the city

Finally, the total travel demand of the city, after the implementation of the bikeway project can then be predicted. The succeeding section will discuss further the results of the travel demand projection for both without and with the bikeway project.

2.2 Results of the Travel Demand Projection 2.2.1 Existing Travel Demand The previous section had described the procedure in predicting the travel demand in Marikina City. From the 1996 MMUTIS data, the travel demand, expressed in person trips, can be obtained. This is given in Tables 2.2-1A and 2.2.1B. Figure 2.2-1 shows the zones of Marikina in the MMUTIS study. Zones 1 to 8 are within the city; on the other hand, zone 9 represents the external areas (those outside Marikina City).

2 -3

1

3

5

7

1 2

4

4

3

5

6

6

7

2

LEGEND 8

8

1 – Nangka 2 – Parang 3 – Concepcion 4 – Marikina Heights 5 – Malanday 6 – Sto. Niño 7 – Barangka 8 – Calumpang/San Roque 9 – Outside Marikina

Figure 2.2-1. Marikina Zoning Map (source: MMUTIS)

Table 2.2-1A. Marikina City Person Trips Per Day (1996) zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 total

1 180 656 3043 93 2369 363 577 254 10886 18421

2 656 33219 4036 3398 2876 1326 2044 626 28090 76271

3 2790 4360 23518 8310 3756 2098 4876 1085 48319 99112

4 93 3301 8804 22508 3271 1656 2349 737 32824 75543

5 3395 2962 4608 2606 26264 2108 4708 4756 46581 97988

6 710 1462 1841 1636 2069 6027 3213 2638 19770 39366

2 -4

7 1301 1943 5145 2429 4656 2859 15843 2383 25298 61857

8 400 723 962 821 4631 2840 2253 7168 40136 59934

9 32038 30099 46381 33500 48329 20153 24255 40612 22196950 22472317

total 41563 78725 98338 75301 98221 39430 60118 60259 22448854 23000809

Table 2.2-1B. Marikina City Person Trips Per Day, 1996 (in Percentages) zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 0.4 0.8 3.1 0.1 2.4 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.0

2 1.6 42.2 4.1 4.5 2.9 3.4 3.4 1.0 0.1

3 6.7 5.5 23.9 11.0 3.8 5.3 8.1 1.8 0.2

4 0.2 4.2 9.0 29.9 3.3 4.2 3.9 1.2 0.1

5 8.2 3.8 4.7 3.5 26.7 5.3 7.8 7.9 0.2

6 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.1 15.3 5.3 4.4 0.1

7 3.1 2.5 5.2 3.2 4.7 7.3 26.4 4.0 0.1

8 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 4.7 7.2 3.7 11.9 0.2

9 77.1 38.2 47.2 44.5 49.2 51.1 40.3 67.4 98.9

total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Zones 3, 5 and 2 had the highest number of person trips in 1996 followed by zones 2, 4, 7 and 8. These observations indicate that these zones can be considered as traffic generators within the city. The existing land uses of these zones tend to confirm the observations.

Hence, given the 1996 travel demand data, the future travel demand in the next 15 years can now be predicted. This will be discussed in the next section.

2.2.2 Future Travel Demand The projected future travel demand for years 2004, 2009 and 2014 are shown in Table 2.2.-2. As already mentioned earlier, the person trips will increase by 5% for year 2004 then by 6% for year 2009 and for 2014 by 5.5%. It is assumed that the growth of the travel demand in Marikina City will stabilize at 5.5% after year 2014. The projected travel demand does not account yet the development of the bikeway system for the city.

Table 2.2-2. Projected Travel Demand (in person trips) zone

1996

2004

2009

2014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

41563 78725 98338 75301 98221 39430 60118 60259 275367

53047 100477 125509 96107 125359 50325 76729 76909 351451

70987 134458 167956 128610 167756 67344 102678 102919 470312

92780 175737 219518 168093 219257 88019 134200 134515 614697

total

827322

1055911

1413020

1846817

Table 2.2-2 shows the projected travel demand due to the continuous growth and development in the Marikina City. It is forecasted that the generated person trips will be more than 1.05 million in year 2004. Assuming that the pace of development of

2 -5

Marikina City will be as expected, the travel demand by year 2009 and 2014 will be more than 1.41 million and almost 1.85 million person trips respectively.

The corresponding trip purposes and modal split distributions of the projected travel demands are summarized in Tables 2.2-3 and 2.2-4 respectively.

The projected transport mode share for the network with the bikeway system is shown in Table 2.2-5. The table indicates that there will be a gradual increase in the modal share of bicycles. The modal share of pedicabs will likewise increase. It could be observed from the succeeding tables that the modal share of jeepney mode is not affected. The jeepney mode share is not affected because it is assumed that they are considered to be main modes of the person trips. On the other hand, the increase in the switching of the other modes to bicycle is attributed to their being access modes to jeepney and bus modes and to the LRT once this is operational.

It is expected that a significant increase in bicycle and pedicabs usage is more visible after the development of the light rail transit (LRT). The non-motorized modes of transport are projected to capture access trips to the LRT. Furthermore, for internal trips in the city, the share of bicycles and pedicabs for short distance trips and trip purposes, such as for recreation, will also increase.

2.2.3

Projection of Bicycle Parking Requirements

Table 2.2-6 summarizes the projected bicycle parking requirements for the bikeway system. The estimation of the parking requirements is based on the projected demand by trip purpose. Similarly, the parking requirements for year 2014 are estimated assuming full development of the bikeway system. Not only the bicycle parking requirements were estimated but also the parking needs of pedicabs are likewise estimated. It is assumed that pedicabs would also play a significant role in the transportation system of the city.

Though the parking requirement estimates are benchmark figures, they can already serve as a guide in the development of the parking facilities for major establishments (e.g., malls) and the LRT stations. Table 2.2-6 also provides the information in the estimation of the parking requirements. It is further suggested that a detailed parking study be done to determine the parking requirements given the development of the bicycle system in Marikina City 2.3 Summary The previous section presented the results of the forecasts of travel demand in Marikina City. As already mentioned, the prediction of the person trips are based on growth rates of 5.0%, 6.0% and 5.5% for years periods from 1996 – 2004, 2005 – 2009, and 2010 – 2014 respectively. These growth rates are assumed to capture the levels of development of the city up to year 2014. The above travel demand growth rates are assumed based on the projected growth of the city and that of Metro Manila.

It is expected that these reflect the development of the city.

The development of the bikeway system is expected to promote sustainable transportation system in Marikina City. In the previous section, the future modal

2 -6

share of the generated travel demand after the development of the bikeway system was presented. The gradual increase in the share of bicycles (both pedicabs and bicycles) over time is based on several assumptions given in Section 2.1.

Furthermore, the rate of growth of the bicycle use is assumed to be consistent with the development growth of the city. Moreover, the growth of bicycle use can be sustained if this is supported by institutional measures and promotion of nonmotorized vehicles in the city.

The prediction of the modal share of bicycles in Marikina can still be considered as conservative. Albeit this, the number of trips given the shift or switch to bicycle and pedicabs use is significant. This is notably true for external trips emanating from Marikina City. The use of non-motorized vehicles in the city depends on the bikeway system that will be developed for the city.

Aside from the traffic demand forecasting, this study conducted focus group discussions (FGD), which are explained in detail in Chapter 4 and Appendix A.3.

The study team also conducted a survey of major companies in Marikina City regarding the general travel characteristics of their employees.

This is explained in Appendix A.2. Both studies’ results show the future travel demand for bicycles to be promising.

2 -7

Table 2.2-3. Projected Travel Demand by trip Purpose ZONE

2004

1 53047 2 100477 3 125509 4 96107 5 125359 6 50325 7 76729 8 76909 9 351451 TOTAL 1055911

ZONE

2009

1 70987 2 134458 3 167956 4 128610 5 167756 6 67344 7 102678 8 102919 9 470312 TOTAL 1413020

ZONE

2014

1 92780 2 175737 3 219518 4 168093 5 219257 6 88019 7 134200 8 134515 9 614697 TOTAL 1846817

To Home 47.80% 25356 48028 59993 45939 59922 24055 36676 36762 167994 504725

To Work To School Business 16.50% 14.90% 4.10% 8753 7904 2175 16579 14971 4120 20709 18701 5146 15858 14320 3940 20684 18679 5140 8304 7498 2063 12660 11433 3146 12690 11459 3153 57989 52366 14409 174225 157331 43292

Private 12.10% 6419 12158 15187 11629 15168 6089 9284 9306 42526 127765

Others 4.70% 2493 4722 5899 4517 5892 2365 3606 3615 16518 49628

To Home 47.80% 33932 64271 80283 61476 80187 32191 49080 49195 224809 675424

To Work To School Business 16.50% 14.90% 4.10% 11713 10577 2910 22186 20034 5513 27713 25025 6886 21221 19163 5273 27680 24996 6878 11112 10034 2761 16942 15299 4210 16982 15335 4220 77601 70076 19283 233148 210540 57934

Private 12.10% 8589 16269 20323 15562 20298 8149 12424 12453 56908 170975

Others 4.70% 3336 6320 7894 6045 7885 3165 4826 4837 22105 66412

To Home 47.80% 44349 84002 104930 80349 104805 42073 64148 64298 293825 882779

To Work To School Business 16.50% 14.90% 4.10% 15309 13824 3804 28997 26185 7205 36221 32708 9000 27735 25046 6892 36177 32669 8990 14523 13115 3609 22143 19996 5502 22195 20043 5515 101425 91590 25203 304725 275176 75720

Private 12.10% 11226 21264 26562 20339 26530 10650 16238 16276 74378 223465

Others 4.70% 4361 8260 10317 7900 10305 4137 6307 6322 28891 86800

2 -8

Table 2.2-4. Projected Modal Split of Marikina City (Without the Bikeway System) ZONE

2004

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL ZONE

2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

TOTAL ZONE

TOTAL

70987 134458 167956 128610 167756 67344 102678 102919 470312 1413020

Walking 12.70%

Pedicab 0.20% 106 201 251 192 251 101 153 154 703 2112

Bicycle Motorcycle 1.10% 1.00% 584 530 1105 1005 1381 1255 1057 961 1379 1254 554 503 844 767 846 769 3866 3515 11615 10559

Tricycle 12.20% 6472 12258 15312 11725 15294 6140 9361 9383 42877 128821

Jeepney Standard Bus 34.60% 10.10% 18354 5358 34765 10148 43426 12676 33253 9707 43374 12661 17412 5083 26548 7750 26610 7768 97598 28503 341341 99653

Taxi HOV Taxi 2.60% 2.40% 1379 1273 2612 2411 3263 3012 2499 2307 3259 3009 1308 1208 1995 1841 2000 1846 7335 6783 25651 23690

Car Schl/Tour Bus 17.50% 2.20% 9283 1167 17583 2210 21964 2761 16819 2114 21938 2758 8807 1107 13428 1688 13459 1692 49379 7732 172659 23230

Truck 2.50% 1326 2512 3138 2403 3134 1258 1918 1923 8786 26398

LRT 19.73% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69341 69341

Others 0.90% 477 904 1130 865 1128 453 691 692 3163 9503

TOTAL

Pedicab 0.20%

Bicycle 1.10%

Tricycle 12.20%

Jeepney 34.60%

Taxi 2.60%

Car 17.50%

Truck 2.50%

LRT 24.89%

Others 0.90%

TOTAL

9015 17076 21330 16333 21305 8553 13040 13071 59730 179454

142 269 336 257 336 135 205 206 941 2826

92780 175737 219518 168093 219257 88019 134200 134515 614697

Walking 12.70% 11783 22319 27879 21348 27846 11178 17043 17083 78067

Pedicab 0.20% 186 351 439 336 439 176 268 269 1229

1846817

234546

3694

2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Notes:

Walking 12.70% 53047 6737 100477 12761 125509 15940 96107 12206 125359 15921 50325 6391 76729 9745 76909 9767 351451 44634 1055911 134101

781 1479 1848 1415 1845 741 1129 1132 5173 15543

Motorcycle 1.00% 710 1345 1680 1286 1678 673 1027 1029 4703 14130

8660 16404 20491 15690 20466 8216 12527 12556 57378 172388

Bicycle Motorcycle 1.10% 1.00% 1021 928 1933 1757 2415 2195 1849 1681 2412 2193 968 880 1476 1342 1480 1345 6762 6147

Tricycle 12.20% 11319 21440 26781 20507 26749 10738 16372 16411 74993

20315

18468

225312

24562 46522 58113 44499 58044 23301 35527 35610 122234 448411

Standard Bus 10.10% 7170 13580 16964 12990 16943 6802 10370 10395 35678 130891

Jeepney Standard Bus 34.60% 10.10% 32102 9371 60805 17749 75953 22171 58160 16977 75863 22145 30455 8890 46433 13554 46542 13586 157485 45973 583799

170417

1846 3496 4367 3344 4362 1751 2670 2676 918519 943029

HOV Taxi 2.40% 1704 3227 4031 3087 4026 1616 2464 2470 8480 31105

Taxi HOV Taxi 2.60% 2.40% 2412 2227 4569 4218 5707 5268 4370 4034 5701 5262 2288 2112 3489 3221 3497 3228 11835 10924 43870

40495

12423 23530 29392 22507 29357 11785 17969 18011 61818 226792

1562 2958 3695 2829 3691 1482 2259 2264 10347 31086

1775 3361 4199 3215 4194 1684 2567 2573 11758 35326

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117061 117061

639 1210 1512 1157 1510 606 924 926 4233 12717

Car Schl/Tour Bus 17.50% 2.20% 16237 2041 30754 3866 38416 4829 29416 3698 38370 4824 15403 1936 23485 2952 23540 2959 79659 13523

Truck 2.50% 2320 4393 5488 4202 5481 2200 3355 3363 15367

LRT 25.95% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159514

Others 0.90% 835 1582 1976 1513 1973 792 1208 1211 5532

46170

159514

16621

295280

a) LRT is assumed to affect only external trips (represented by zone 9) b) The modes for ext ernal trips affected by the LRT are: jeepney, standard bus, taxi, HOV taxi, and car c) The MMUTIS data were used in the forecast

2 -9

Schl/Tour Bus 2.20%

40630

106094 200953 251018 192213 250719 100649 153457 153817 725665 2134586

141975 268916 335912 257220 335512 134689 205356 205838 1888362 3773779 TOTAL 185561 351473 439037 336186 438514 176038 268401 269030 1281708 3745949

Table 2.2-5. Projected Modal Split of Marikina City (With the Bikeway System) ZONE

2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

TOTAL ZONE

2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

TOTAL ZONE

Notes:

70987 134458 167956 128610 167756 67344 102678 102919 470312 1413020 2014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL

53047 100477 125509 96107 125359 50325 76729 76909 351451 1055911

92780 175737 219518 168093 219257 88019 134200 134515 614697 1846817

Walking Pedicab Bicycle Motorcycle Tricycle Jeepney Standard Bus 11.50% 1.00% 1.85% 0.50% 10.70% 34.60% 10.10% 6100 530 981 265 5676 18354 5358 11555 1005 1859 502 10751 34765 10148 14434 1255 2322 628 13429 43426 12676 11052 961 1778 481 10283 33253 9707 14416 1254 2319 627 13413 43374 12661 5787 503 931 252 5385 17412 5083 8824 767 1419 384 8210 26548 7750 8844 769 1423 385 8229 26610 7768 35145 4393 6502 1757 41295 97598 28503 116158 11438 19534 5280 116673 341341 99653

Taxi HOV Taxi Car LRT 2.60% 2.40% 17.50% 19.73% 1379 1273 9283 0 2612 2411 17583 0 3263 3012 21964 0 2499 2307 16819 0 3259 3009 21938 0 1308 1208 8807 0 1995 1841 13428 0 2000 1846 13459 0 7335 6783 49379 69341 25651 23690 172659 69341

Others 4.70% 2971 5627 7028 5382 7020 2818 4297 4307 19681 59131

Walking Pedicab Bicycle Motorcycle Tricycle Jeepney Standard Bus 10.70% 1.75% 2.75% 0.20% 11.20% 34.60% 10.10% 7596 1242 1952 142 7951 24562 7170 14387 2353 3698 269 15059 46522 13580 17971 2939 4619 336 18811 58113 16964 13761 2251 3537 257 14404 44499 12990 17950 2936 4613 336 18789 58044 16943 7206 1179 1852 135 7543 23301 6802 10987 1797 2824 205 11500 35527 10370 11012 1801 2830 206 11527 35610 10395 45620 8936 16461 941 11287 122234 35678 146490 25433 42385 2826 116871 448411 130891

Taxi HOV Taxi Car LRT 2.60% 2.40% 17.50% 24.89% 1846 1704 12423 0 3496 3227 23530 0 4367 4031 29392 0 3344 3087 22507 0 4362 4026 29357 0 1751 1616 11785 0 2670 2464 17969 0 2676 2470 18011 0 9185 8480 61818 117061 33696 31105 226792 117061

Others 4.70% 3975 7530 9406 7202 9394 3771 5750 5763 26337 79129

Walking Pedicab Bicycle Motorcycle Tricycle Jeepney Standard Bus 9.70% 2.50% 3.50% 0.20% 8.70% 34.60% 10.10% 9000 2320 3247 186 8072 32102 9371 17046 4393 6151 351 15289 60805 17749 21293 5488 7683 439 19098 75953 22171 16305 4202 5883 336 14624 58160 16977 21268 5481 7674 439 19075 75863 22145 8538 2200 3081 176 7658 30455 8890 13017 3355 4697 268 11675 46433 13554 13048 3363 4708 269 11703 46542 13586 58396 16904 30735 1229 45795 157485 45973 177912 47707 73859 3694 152989 583799 170417

Taxi HOV Taxi Car LRT 2.60% 2.40% 17.50% 25.95% 2412 2227 16237 0 4569 4218 30754 0 5707 5268 38416 0 4370 4034 29416 0 5701 5262 38370 0 2288 2112 15403 0 3489 3221 23485 0 3497 3228 23540 0 11835 10924 79659 159514 43870 40495 295280 159514

Others 4.70% 5196 9841 12293 9413 12278 4929 7515 7533 34423 103422

a) LRT is assumed to affect only external trips (represented by zone 9) b) The modes for external trips affected by the LRT are: jeepney, standard bus, taxi, HOV taxi and car c) Modal share when LRT is operational is as follows: year jeepney bus taxi HOV taxi car 2004 27.77% 8.11% 2.09% 1.93% 14.05% 2009 25.99% 7.59% 1.95% 1.80% 13.14% 2014 25.62% 7.48% 1.92% 1.78% 12.96%

d) As a main mode, bicycle use will attract mostly those traveling by walk, tricycles and motorcycles, e) Shares of pedicabs and bicycles will increase proportionally f) As transfer mode to jeepney, LRT and bus, bicycle's modal share will rise over time g) Formulation of policies supportive of bicycle use will increase modal share of bicycle h) Modal share of pedicabs and bicycles given d,e,f, and g: For zones 1 - 8: For zone 9: year pedicab bicycle year pedicab bicycle 2004 1.00% 1.85% 2004 1.25% 2.50% 2009 1.75% 2.75% 2009 1.90% 3.50% 2014 2.50% 3.50% 2014 2.75% 5.00%

2 -10

Table 2.2-6. Projected Bicycle Parking Requirements YEAR 2,004

No of Units Requiring Parking Pedicab Bicycle 80 343 151 651 188 813 144 622 188 812 75 326 115 497 115 498 659 2,276 1,716 6,837

ZONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL

Pedicab 530 1,005 1,255 961 1,254 503 767 769 4,393 11,438

Bicycle 981 1,859 2,322 1,778 2,319 931 1,419 1,423 6,502 19,534

2,009

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL

1,242 2,353 2,939 2,251 2,936 1,179 1,797 1,801 8,936 25,433

1,952 3,698 4,619 3,537 4,613 1,852 2,824 2,830 16,461 42,385

248 471 588 450 587 236 359 360 1,787 5,087

781 1,479 1,848 1,415 1,845 741 1,129 1,132 6,584 16,954

2,014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL

2,320 4,393 5,488 4,202 5,481 2,200 3,355 3,363 16,904 47,707

3,247 6,151 7,683 5,883 7,674 3,081 4,697 4,708 30,735 73,859

580 1,098 1,372 1,051 1,370 550 839 841 4,226 11,927

1,948 3,690 4,610 3,530 4,604 1,848 2,818 2,825 18,441 44,315

Note:

a) The estimation of the parking units were projected based on the trip purposes. b) The percentage of parking requirements is expected to increase over time.

Year 2004 2009 2014

Pedicab 0.15 0.20 0.25

Bicycle 0.35 0.40 0.60

c) Full development of the bicycle parking system is expected to be in Year 2014. d) Based on the above bicycle parking projection, the parking requirements for LRT stations and establishments (assuming full development) are: Type of Development

Pedicab

Bicycle

300 200 400 600

1,500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Malls Other establishment LRT station LRT terminal

2 -11

3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIKEWAY SYSTEM 3.1 Development of the Master Plan 3.1.1 Route Planning The proposed bikeway route evolved from a number of schemes, seeking as much as possible a more straightforward plan but would represent a network that would practically connect all major establishments in all barangays of the city (schools, factories, government institutions, churches, etc). These establishments are located based on the existing land use plan of the city as shown in Figure 3.1-1.

A thorough inventory of roads showed that most of the roads’ rights of way are narrow (Appendix A.4). Sidewalks are not available outside the CBD area; unpaved shoulders are available in some areas but electrical posts prevent a continuous paving that could be possibly used for the bike lanes.(See Appendix A.5. for a set of pictures of roads in Marikina City.) There is therefore a need to look for one way scheme for bicycles without necessarily altering the existing traffic circulation.

It was also originally intended that bicycle routes should not go together with jeepney or public utility routes. However, this could not be achieved in some road sections like Fortune Ave., Bonifacio Blvd. or Katipunan Ave. Due to the wide right of way of E. Rodriguez and 1st St., it was decided to designate one way bike lane along these roads instead of having a more circuitous route that would pass through 4th , Aquilina, Col. Divino, Cepeda, etc.

As much as possible, the following basic guidelines were followed in planning and design of bikeways.

• • •

Bicycle lanes should carry traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic.

Bicycle lanes between a curb and a parking lane should be avoided.

On-street bike lanes should be one-way.

A set of priority scheme as shown in Table 3.1-1 was developed largely based on these guidelines. In particular, the location or placement of the bike lane in relation to the carriageway for traffic has to be carefully considered.

Priority 1:This is the most desirable arrangement; the bicycle lane and carriageway are in the same direction. Unless justified by heavy right turning of vehicles, the bike lane should be located on the right side of the traffic lane.

Priority 2: From the basic guidelines, on-street bike lanes should be one-way. Only on cases when there is ample width should the bike lane be two-way.

Priority 3: Opposing directions between traffic and bicycles should be avoided.

Whenever possible, Priority 1 should be followed in the arrangement of traffic and bike lanes. Priority 2 and 3 should be considered only when space and restrictions would not allow a Priority 1 scheme.

3-1

Figure 3.1-1 Land Use Map of Marikina City (1986 updated in 1996 and 1999)

3-2

Table 3.1-1 Priority Schemes

Priority 1

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

3-3

Priority 3

Priority 1

Figure 3.1-2 shows the proposed bikeway network with respect to the major institutions/establishments.

The project will mostly involve the establishment of bikeways in existing roads by allotting and marking small lanes designated as bikeway routes. Suitable routes will be selected and bikeways (standard size of lane for bicycle passage) will be marked and delineated to allow safe passage of bikers.

The total length of existing roads where bikeways will be designated is about 49.7 km. Bikeways in existing roads will not involve new construction but only repair and upgrading of the roads through top laying of asphalt in the designated bikeways and placement of markers and protective barriers when necessary or in certain locations only. Bikeways will be overlaid in about 30.8 km of existing roads. On the other hand, a number of streets, which can accommodate expansion for bikeways, will be identified and bikeways will be constructed through widening of roads. About 18.9 km of existing roads will be widened to accommodate bikeways.

The establishment of bikeways in the Marikina riverside will involve the upgrading (rehabilitation and improvement) of the existing jogging/bike lanes (total length of about 8.2 km.) and the construction of new bike lanes (bike lanes with a total of about 8.4 km) in both sides of the river to extend the bike lane coverage to the whole stretch of the river.

The Project will have three major components: 1) allocation and delineation of bikeways in suitable existing roads; 2) identification and construction of parking facilities for bicycles; and 3) upgrading of existing riverside bike lanes and their extension through construction of new bike lanes to cover the entire stretch of both riversides.

The major activities under the foregoing three components are briefly described below.

Allocation and delineation of bikeways in suitable existing roads.

This component will include the following major activities: 1) delineation and marking of bikeways in existing roads.

2) upgrading of road condition through repairs and scarifying of road pavement surface for the laying of top asphalt (asphalt topping) in the designated bikeways; 3) putting up signage, markers and lane barriers in critical areas to protect bikers; 4) identification of suitable roads for widening to accommodate bikeways; and 5) widening of roads through construction (land grading, compaction and laying out of concrete pavement and drainage improvement).

33- -5 4

33- -6 5

33 --76

Identification and construction of parking facilities This component has the following major activities: 1) identification of suitable parking spaces; 2) negotiation with landowners (if not public lands) to provide small parking area for bicycle (e.g., in existing parking lots of malls, groceries, open space, etc.). An ordinance may be passed by the City of Marikina requiring commercial, industrial and institutional (e.g., schools) establishments to allot parking space for bicycles; and 3) putting up of bicycle racks and parking sheds.

Upgrading of riverside bike lanes and construction of new lanes to cover entire stretch of both riversides The major activities under this component are as follows: 1) rehabilitation of destroyed segments of existing jogging/bike lanes (i.e., destroyed by flooding and typhoons) through laying out of new pavement and rip rapping of riverbanks frequently eroded; 2) construction of new bike lanes through land grading, concreting, drainage improvement and bank stabilization through engineering means; 3) construction of hazard protection barriers (chain links, fence) in critical stretches (i.e., narrow river easement); and 4) planting of shade trees in riverside.

3.1.2 Phasing The project has three major phases: Phase I will cover the establishment of bikeways in selected routes within the City as shown in Figure 3.1-3. Phase I will mostly cover the establishment of bikeways in existing roads and the construction of new bike lanes (about 4 km) on the right side of the river facing north. Some suitable roads will undergo widening under Phase I. This Phase will be undertaken for a period of one year.

Phase II will cover routes which are projected to be used in the near future to access other sites within the city. This Phase will be completed in one year after the completion of Phase I. Phase III will mostly cover the extension of the existing bike lanes on the left riverside of Marikina River facing north. This will involve the construction of about 4.4 km of new bike lanes to provide access to riverside communities and to expand recreational area in the Marikina Park. This Phase will take one year to be finished after Phase II completion.

Each phase is further subdivided into 3 major types of activities, namely: a) new construction; b) widening; and c) use existing road. Figures 3.1-4 to 3.1-6 show the segments under each type of activity for the 3 phases. Specific details of the segments,

3 3- -78

3 3- -89

33 -- 10 9

11 33-- 10

phasing, and other information are shown in Table 3.1-2. Individual plates of bike routes with street names are also shown in Figures 3.1-7a to g.

The detailed activities for the components of the Project are as follows: Establishment of bikeways in existing roads.

As mentioned before, this component has two sub-components: 1) delineation of bikeways and improvement of existing roads by repairing worn out pavements and asphalting bikeway portions; and 2) widening of suitable roads to accommodate bikeways. a) Improvement in existing roads -pre-construction/construction phase 1) 2) 3) 4)

repair of worn out pavements scarifying of top surface and laying out of asphalt topping; improvement of existing drainage/gutters; and placing of protective barriers and signage.

-operation phase 1) operation and maintenance of bikeways; and 2) maintenance of protective barriers, lighting, signage and drainage.

-abandonment phase 1) repair and reuse as road for motor vehicles. b) Widening of existing roads -pre-construction/construction phase 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

grade preparation; compaction; placement of rebars; pouring of concrete; laying of asphalt topping; shoulder grading; possible construction of curbs and gutters; and placing of protective barriers and signage.

-operation phase 1) operation and maintenance of bikeways; and 2) maintenance of protective barriers, lighting, signage and drainage.

-abandonment phase 1) repair and reuse as road for motor vehicles

12 33-- 11

Table 3.1-2. Road Inventory and Roads Covered by the Bikeway Routes (Construction and Phasing) actual width of roadway (meters)

proposed width of bikeways (meters)

split or combined

(A) 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.7 13.4

(B) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

(C) s

length of road segment included (meters) (D) 1225 250 525 700 1600

7.9 6.6 7.9 6.0 15.6 6.2/6.5 13.0

1.3 1.3 1.3 mixed*** 1.5 1.4 1.4

s s c s s -

C. M. Recto (proposed one-way traffic for vehicles) Candazo Street Daang Bakal

6.5

1.5

6.0 5.3

Daang Bakal E. Dela Paz DoĂąa Aurora (proposed one-way traffic for vehicles) E. Rodriguez East Drive

road name

1st Street 3rd Street 4th Street A. de Guzman (from Bayan-bayanan) Angel Tuazon Aquamarine Aquilina B. Sta. Ana Extension Bautista Street Bayan-bayanan Bayan-bayanan(divided) Bonifacio Avenue

widening (divided to both road sides) width length (total) (G) (H) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1-way or 2-way?

new construction

(E) 1 1 1 1 2

(F) 0 0 0 0 0

375 262.5 375 125 1175 500 1362.5

2 1 2 2 2 2 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 500 0

-

875

1

0

1.0* mixed***

s

175 600

1 1

5.3 6.8 6.0

mixed*** 1.8* 1.5

s c -

37.5 800 612.5

7.4 6.5

1.5 1.4

s

1600 1412.5

3 - 12

use existing

phase

(I) 1225 250 525 700 1600

(J) 1 1 1 1 2

0 0 0 0 0 0.5** 0

375 262.5 375 125 1175 0 1362.5

2 1 2 1 1 1 1

0

0

875

1

0 0

0 0

0 0

175 600

1 1

2 2 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

37.5 800 612.5

1 2 1

1 2

0 0

0 1412.5

2.2

1600 0

1 2

segments covered (K) 64, 66 61A 60 73, 76A 29, 30, 31 109 65 28 55 70, 71 126 1-3, 14A, 14B 89B, 88, 91 67 74, 77, 58C 58C 18 86, 90 58A 101, 124A, 124B, 124C

actual width of roadway (meters)

proposed width of bikeways (meters)

split or combined

Exequiel Fatima Drive Fortune Avenue G. del Pilar

(A) 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.8

(B) 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4

(C) s s s -

length of road segment included (meters) (D) 150 387.5 1362.5 1062.5

G. del Pilar Guerilla (4th Street side) Guerilla (school front) Katipunan

6.8 11.0 7.0 7.8

1.4 1.5 1.3 1.4

s s s

L. de Guzman (exit to Bayan-bayanan) Lakandula (Russet) Lilac (Antipolo side) (Rainbow – Olive) Lilac (Molave side ) (Molave – Rainbow) Liwasang Kalayaan (divided) Lopez Jaena M. A. Roxas Extension M. Roxas M. Roxas (other end) (N.Roxas – MA Roxas Ext.) Molave (Ordoñez Loop) Molave Old J. P. Rizal (Tayug) Olive Oval

6.4

1.2*

5.5~6.9 10.9

road name

widening (divided to both road sides) width length (total) (G) (H) 150 2.0 387.5 1.7 1362.5 2.5 0 0

1-way or 2-way?

new construction

(E) 2 2 2 1

(F) 0 0 0 0

200 275 125 1487.5

1 2 2 2

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1487.5

-

125

1

0

1.4 1.5

s s

1100 387.5

2 2

6.42

1.5

s

637.5

6.5/6.6 6.6 5.1 6.7 5.1

1.5 mixed*** mixed*** mixed*** mixed***

s

6.2~6.5 5.7 (1-way) 5.4 6.9 7.0

1.5 1.5 mixed*** 1.4 1.5

s s s -

use existing

phase

(I) 0 0 0 1062.5

(J) 1 1 1 1

0 0 1.0 1.0

200 275 125 0

2 1 1 1

0

0

125

1

(K) 58B 58D, 58E 99, 100 125B, 87, 94 130 21B, 59 21A 72, 112, 121 68

0 0

1100 0

3.0 0

0 387.5

2 2

122, 108 106B

2

0

637.5

2.6

0

2

106A

875 750 125 225 1300

2 1 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0

875 0 0 0 0

2.0 0 0 0 0

0 750 125 225 1300

1 1 1 1 1

127 13A 24 26A 25, 26B

4325 75 237.5 625 175

2 2 2 2 1

0 0 0 0 0

4325 0 0 0 0

1.25-1.4 0 0 1.0 0

0 75 237.5 625 175

1 1 1 2 1

113-120 75 22, 23 107 61B, 62

3 - 13

segments covered

road name

actual width of roadway (meters)

proposed width of bikeways (meters)

split or combined

Paraluman

(A) 6.7

(B) 1.5

(C) s

length of road segment included (meters) (D) 400

8.4 8.4 7.1

1.4 1.4 mixed***

s -

15.0 6.0 15 (estimate)

1.5 mixed*** 1.5

s

6.9 7.1 13.1 13.1

1.5 1.0* 1.5 1.5

Riverbanks (Entrance Road) Riverbanks (Entrance Road) Shoe Avenue (Calumpang side) (Mendoza – Sta. Ana) Shoe Avenue (Guerilla – Mendoza) Sta. Ana Sumulong Highway Tandang Sora Tangerine Tumana Tumana * substandard design ** reduce median by 0.5 m *** mixed traffic – no exclusive bikeway lanes c – two-way combined bike lanes s – two-way bike lanes split to both sides

widening (divided to both road sides) width length (total) (G) (H) 0 0

1-way or 2-way?

new construction

(E) 1

(F) 0

37.5 375 575

1 2 2

0 0 0

0 0 0

s

900 112.5 925

2 2 2

0 0 0

s s

375 550 925 750

1 2 2 2

0 0 0 0

3 - 14

use existing

phase

(I) 400

(J) 1

0 0 0

37.5 375 575

1 1 1

(K) 76B, 84, 89A 4 5 34C

0 0 0

0 0 0

900 112.5 925

1 1 1

34A 27 15, 16

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

375 550 925 750

1 2 1 3

93 110 53, 54 51, 52

segments covered

3 - 15

3 - 16

3 - 17

3 - 18

3 - 19

3 - 20

3 - 21

Identification and construction of bicycle parking facilities Proposed locations of bicycle parking space are: 1) City Hall and government offices, 2) existing parking lots of shopping centers and markets, 3) parking lots of hospitals and schools, and 4) parking lots of industries and big commercial establishments and offices.

Most of the parking spaces proposed for bicycles will be located in existing parking lots thereby minimizing acquisition of land. A small number of parking lots will occupy public lands and possibly private lands with the consent of private owners.

Private lands will be leased or rented considering the very small space needed for bicycle parking.

-Preconstruction/construction phase 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

securing of necessary permits or consent from land owner; delineation of parking space in existing parking lots; concreting of parking space in new lots; placement and installation of bicycle racks and sheds; and painting and placement of signage and lighting.

-operation phase 1) operation of bicycle parking facilities; and 2) maintenance of racks and sheds, signage and lighting.

-abandonment phase 1) dismantling of structures and reuse as car parking lot or other uses Improvement of existing bike lanes in riversides and construction of new bike lanes a) Improvement of existing bike lanes in riversides -Pre-construction/construction phase 1) rehabilitation of destroyed segments of bike lanes (i.e., destroyed by flooding and typhoons). The River Park Authority of Marikina schedules about 341 meters of bike and jogging lanes in five separate segments of the riversides for rehabilitation (construction of destroyed lanes).

2) rip rapping of unstable segments of river banks to prevent washing out of bike lanes during river flooding; 3) improvement of existing bike lanes, signage and lighting; and 4) putting up of hazard protection barriers in selected segments of the riverside (i.e., with narrow easement).

-Operation phase 1) operation of bike lanes 2) maintenance of existing bike lanes, signage and lighting;

3 - 22

3) maintenance of protective barriers; and 4) rehabilitation/reconstruction of destroyed bike lanes.

-Abandonment phase 1) dismantling of pavement (breaking and ripping of pavement by pneumatic drills); 2) appropriate disposal of broken concrete; 3) top soil transplantation; and 4) planting of trees and grasses. b) Construction of new bike lanes -Pre-construction/construction activities 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9)

land grading, filling and compaction; placement of rebars; pouring of concrete; laying of asphalt topping; possible construction of drainage/gutters; shoulder grading; slope or dike engineering works placing of protective barriers, signage and lighting; and tree planting.

-Operation phase 1) 2) 3) 4)

rehabilitation of washed out lanes that may be affected by flooding; operation of rehabilitated bike lanes; maintenance of protective barriers, signage and lighting; and maintenance of drainage/gutters

-Abandonment phase 1) dismantling of pavement (breaking and ripping of pavement by pneumatic drills); 2) appropriate disposal of broken concrete; 3) top soil transplantation; and 4) planting of trees and grasses.

3 - 23

3.2 Development of Design Standards for Marikina Bikeway System 3.2.1 Review of Existing Standards for Bikeway Systems The bikeway or bicycle path should conform to the predominantly accepted engineering standards for functionality, safety and serviceability. Functionality refers to the bikeways utilitarian purpose of the system, which is to provide a means for bicycles to ply the routes as a viable means of transportation. The bikeway should also be safe for those who will use it to prevent any injury arising from accidents or faults in the design. Serviceability refers to the ability of the infrastructure to provide the required quality service within a projected service life. This mainly pertains to the durability of the structure against possible wear and tear arising from the direct usage of the facility.

The pavement over which the bicycles shall pass should be designed adequately. The alternative materials are concrete, asphalt or paving blocks.

The width of bikeway pavement is dependent on the number of directional traffic to be designated. For a one-way lane, CALTRANS requires a 1.5m width. For a twoway traffic the bikeway width is 2.4m. On the other hand, Eugene, Oregon has its own standard bicycle lane width: a one-way lane has 4.5 – 6.0 ft., while a two-lane has 10 – 12 ft. Furthermore, in New Delhi, India the bikeway lane for two way lane is 2.50 – 3.00 m.

In the Center for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil Engineering, otherwise known as C.R.O.W., of the Netherlands adopted bikeway lane width according to the volume of traffic. The effective pavement width is shown in Table 3.2-1 below: Table 3.2-1. Bikelane Width According to Traffic Volume One-way Traffic One-way Traffic Maximum of 10% Moped-Riders Peak hr. Volume in Effective Width of Peak hr. Volume in Effective Width of One Direction Cycle Track (m) Two Direction Cycle Track (m) 0 - 150 1.50* 0 - 50 1.50*** 150 – 750 2.50 50 – 150 2.50*** > 750 3.50 > 150 3.50 Minimum of 10% Moped-riders 0 - 75 2.00* 0 - 50 2.00*** 75 – 375 3.00 50 – 150 3.00 > 375 4.00 > 150 4.00

*

A one-way cycle-track of 2.00 m or narrower should have a partition (preferably on the left hand side) which can be written over. This is so in order for the cyclist to have the possibility of taking evasive action with passing or overtaking maneuvers. A one-way cycle-track of 2.00 m or narrower is not a good cyclingfacility if it is designed as an adjoining cycle track, because cyclists keep a certain safe distance from the partition; the effective width of a cycle-track is hereby decreased.

3 - 24

**

A two-way cycle track should not be adjoining construction. If that was the case, cyclist riding in one of the two directions would have to ride much too close to the main carriage way for motorized traffic.

*** A two way cycle-track 2.50 m wide or narrower should have a partition which can be ridden over on both sides, so that cyclists have room for evasive action.

(From CROW, The Netherlands) The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) require a minimum thickness of 50mm (2 inches) for asphalt paved bikeways and for concrete, a thickness that can sustain the loads of maintenance vehicle. The design for the concrete pavement follows the usual design procedure of considering the load, the strength of concrete and modulus of subgrade reaction. The usual serviceability index is 2.5 and the required minimum steel reinforcement should be placed.

The other design criteria for the pavement consist of design speed for the bikers, superelevation, stopping sight distance, radius of curvature and friction factor.

CALTRANS adopts a design speed of 40 kph, a friction factor of 0.25, a superelevation of 2–5 %, and a minimum radius of 42 m. At CROW, the design speed is 30 kph, the stopping sight distance is 70–85 m and a minimum radius of curvature of 20 m.

3.2.2 Adoption of Technical Standards for the Bikeway System For the Marikina Bikeway system, the adoption of applicable standard was based on what are current in other countries. At the same time, the construction and design practices in the Philippines are also adhered to. The construction practices shall be governed by DPWH standards and any structure shall conform to the National Building Code.

Proposed Design Standards for Marikina City Bikeways Design Speed: Minimum Turning Radius:

30 kph.

20m.

Lane width:

desirable desirable minimum permissible minimum

one-way 1.5 m.

1.2 m.

1.0 m.

two-way 2.4 m.

2.0 m.

1.8 m.

Design Vehicle: The proposed width of bike lane is primarily intended for bicycles. Nevertheless, this width can accommodate pedicabs (bicycle with sidecar). Along the riverbanks, the width of the bike path should be wide enough to accommodate a maintenance vehicle (in order to prevent chipping off of pavement edges).

3 - 25

Table 3.2-2. Summary of Bikeways Standards Caltrans CROW, location United States The Netherlands

Eugene, Oregon

New Delhi India

Parameters Width 1-way

1.5 m

2-way

2.4 m

1.5 m (0-150 Vol.) 2.5 m (150-750 Vol.) 3.5 m (> 750 Vol.) 1.5 m (0-150 Vol.)

4.5 -6.0 ft.

10-12 ft

with partition 2.5 m (150-750 Vol.) with partition 3.5 m (> 750 Vol.) Shoulder Graded Total W Des. Speed Stopping Sight Friction Factor Superelevation Min. Radii

.6 m 1.5 m 40 kph 0.25 2% - 5% 42 m

30 kph 70-85

20 m (min)

Thickness Concrete same as H-way Asphalt 50 mm (min)

5.5 in 2 in.

Deterrent Strip Width Paving Materials

0.75 m Asphalt Concrete flags paving blocks

Driveway lip Step

Asphalt

0.5 in.

20 mm

3 - 26

2.5 m - 3 m

3.3 Geometric Design, Signages and Markings 3.3.1 Mid-Block Cross-Sections Figures 3.3-1 to 3.3-38 show the typical mid-block bikeway cross-sections to be proposed for various roads in Marikina City. The scaled figures are arranged in alphabetical order, as they appear in the road inventory and roads covered by the bike routes in Table 3.1-2 in section 3.1. Roads covered by the bikeway route with proposed mixed traffic scheme, wherein the bicycles mix with vehicular traffic or with no exclusive bike lanes, are not included this section. This section contains specifically the proposal for allocation of widths of bikeways at road mid-block cross-sections in Marikina City and the adjustment widths of lanes for vehicles and in some cases, medians or center islands. From the existing widths of roads covered by the bike routes in the road inventory in Table 3.1-2, this section contains the proposed dimensions of bikeway lanes, vehicular lane widths with the corresponding directions of traffic flow. If the total road width for the proposed scheme exceeded the existing road width, widening of road is recommended, indicated as “for widening” under the name of the particular road. The widths of the recommended widening are written at the lower part of the diagrams. In some cases, the width of the median is also recommended for reduction, and is indicated in the lower part of the diagrams. For roads without indications for widening improvements, the existing road infrastructure is used and only the adjustment of widths of vehicular lanes, and or pedestrian or parking lanes will be implemented. Table 3.3-1 below classifies the recommended road mid-block cross-sections into the use of existing road infrastructure with or without some traffic flow schemes for vehicles and the widening of existing road to accommodate the exclusive bike lanes.

Table 3.3-1. Classification of Recommendations for Road Mid-Block Cross-Sections use existing [Figures 3.3-1 to 3.3-6], [Figures 3.3-9 to 3.3-12], Figure 3.3-14, Figure 3.3-18, Figure 3.3-24, Figure 3.3-28, [Figures 3.3-30 to 3.3-35], Figure 3.3-37, Figure 3.3-38

[1st Street, 3rd Street, Angel Tuazon, Aquamarine, Aquilina, B. Sta. Ana Extension], [Bonifacio Avenue, C.M. Recto, Candazo, E. dela Paz], E. Rodriguez, G. del Pilar, Lilac (Antipolo Side), Molave, [Oval, Paraluman (Northbound), Paraluman (Southbound), Riverbanks (Entrance Road), Shoe Avenue (Guerilla -Mendoza), Sumulong Highway, Tandang Sora], Tumana, Riverside use existing (combined with proposal of new traffic flow scheme) Figure 3.3-13 Doña Aurora: one-way vehicular traffic flow scheme Figure 3.3-19 Guerilla (4th Street Side): reversible lane scheme use existing (substandard bike lane design) Figure 3.3-22, Figure 3.3-36 L. de Guzman, Tangerine widening [Figures 3.3-7 to 3.3-8], [Bayan-bayanan, Bayan-bayanan (Divided)], [East Drive, [Figures 3.3-15 to 3.3-17], Exequiel, Fortune Avenue], [Guerilla (School Front), [Figures 3.3-20-3.3-21], Katipunan], Lakandula, [Lilac (Molave Side), Liwasang Figure 3.3-23, Kalayaan, Molave (Ordoñez Loop)], Olive [Figures 3.3-25 to 3.3-27], Figure 3.3-29

3 - 27

1ST STREET 1.5m.

5.5m.

Figure 3.3-1. Bikeway Cross-Section for 1st Street

3RD STREET 1.5m.

5.5m.

Figure 3.3-2. Bikeway Cross-Section for 3rd Street

ANGEL TUAZON 13.4m.

1.5m.

1.5m.

10.4m.

2.6m.

2.6m.

1.5m.

2.6m.

2.6m.

Figure 3.3-3. Bikeway Cross-Section for Angel Tuazon

3 - 28

1.5m.

AQUAMARINE 8.3m.

2.65m.

1.5m.

2.65m.

1.5m.

Figure 3.3-4. Bikeway Cross-Section for Aquamarine

AQUILINA 6.5m.

1.3m.

2.6m.

2.6m.

Figure 3.3-5. Bikeway Cross-Section for Aquilina

B. STA. ANA EXTENSION 7.9m.

1.3m.

2.65m.

2.65m.

1.3m

Figure 3.3-6. Bikeway Cross-Section for B. Sta. Ana Extension 3 - 29

BAYAN-BAYANAN (for widening)

1.5m.

3.0m.

9.0m.

3.0m.

1.5m.

widen by 2.5m to 2.8m or 1.25m to 1.4m on each side Figure 3.3-7. Bikeway Cross-Section for Bayan-bayanan

BAYAN-BAYANAN (DIVIDED) (for widening) 16.6m.

1.50

5.2m.

3.2m.

center island

5.2m.

1.50

to Liwasang Kalayaan

westbound to Concepcion requires widening on each side of the road by 0.5m and reduction of westbound side of the median by 0.5m (from 3.7m to 3.2m)

Figure 3.3-8. Bikeway Cross-Section for for Bayan-bayanan (divided)

3 - 30

BONIFACIO AVENUE 13.0m.

1.4m.

2.55m.

1.4m.

2.55m.

2.55m.

2.55m.

Figure 3.3-9. Bikeway Cross-Section for Bonifacio Avenue

C. M. RECTO 6.5m.

1.3m.

2.6m.

2.6m.

Figure 3.3-10. Bikeway Cross-Section for C. M. Recto

CANDAZO Concepcion Market

1.4m.

10.2m.

6.0m.

2.5m.

2.5m.

1.0m.

Figure 3.3-11. Bikeway Cross-Section for Candazo

3 - 31

1.4m.

E. DELA PAZ 6.8m.

3.0m.

1.8m.

parking

2.0m.

substandard

Figure 3.3-12. Bikeway Cross-Section for E. dela Paz

DONA AURORA (proposed one-way) 6.0m.

1.5m.

4.5m.

Figure 3.3-13. Bikeway Cross-Section for Doña Aurora

E. RODRIGUEZ 1.5m.

5.9m.

Figure 3.3-14. Bikeway Cross-Section for E. Rodriguez 3 - 32

EAST DRIVE (for widening) 2.7m.

1.4m.

2.7m.

1.4m

widen by 2.2m or 1.1m on each side

Figure 3.3-15. Bikeway Cross-Section for East Drive EXEQUIEL (for widening) 7.8m.

1.3m.

2.6m.

2.6m.

1.3m.

widen by 2.0m or 1.0m on each side from 5.8m to 7.8m

Figure 3.3-16. Bikeway Cross-Section for Exequiel FORTUNE AVENUE (for widening) 9.0m.

1.5m.

3.0m.

3.0m.

1.5m.

widen by 2.5m or 1.25m on each side from 6.5m to 9.0m

Figure 3.3-17. Bikeway Cross-Section for Fortune Avenue

3 - 33

G. DEL PILAR 7.8m.

1.4m.

2.7m.

2.7m.

Figure 3.3-18. Bikeway Cross-Section for G. del Pilar

GUERILLA (4TH STREET SIDE)

1.5m.

2.7m.

11.0m

2.7m.

reversible lane

2.6m.

1.5m.

Figure 3.3-19. Bikeway Cross-Section for Guerilla (4th Street Side)

3 - 34

GUERILLA (SCHOOL FRONT) (for widening) 8.0m 1.3m.

2.7m.

2.7m.

1.3m

widen from 6.5m to 9.0m (may require relocation of electric posts)

Figure 3.3-20. Bikeway Cross-Section for Guerilla (School Front) KATIPUNAN (for widening) 8.8m.

1.4m.

3.0m.

3.0m.

1.4m.

widen from 7.8m to 8.8m

Figure 3.3-21. Bikeway Cross-Section for Katipunan L. DE GUZMAN 6.4m.

2.6m.

2.6m.

1.2m.

substandard

Figure 3.3-22. Bikeway Cross-Section for L. de Guzman

3 - 35

LAKANDULA (for widening) 8.8m.

1.4m.

3.0m.

3.0m.

1.4m.

requires widening from 5.5m to 8.8m, or total width of 3.3m, or 1.65m on both sides

Figure 3.3-23. Bikeway Cross-Section for Lakandula LILAC (ANTIPOLO SIDE) 10.9m.

1.5m.

4.0m.

3.9m.

1.5m.

Figure 3.3-24. Bikeway Cross-Section for Lilac (Antipolo Side) LILAC (MOLAVE SIDE) 9.0m.

1.5m.

3.0m.

3.0m.

1.5m.

widen by 2.6m or 1.3m on each side from 6.4m to 9.0m

Figure 3.3-25. Bikeway Cross-Section for Lilac (Molave Side)

3 - 36

LIWASANG KALAYAAN (for widening) 18.4m.

1.50

6.0m.

3.4m.

6.0m.

center island

requires widening on each side by 1.0m (retain center island)

Figure 3.3-26. Bikeway Cross-Section for Liwasang Kalayaan

MOLAVE (ORDONEZ LOOP) (for widening) 1.5m.

6.0m.

1.5m.

widen by 2.5m to 2.8m or 1.25m to 1.4m on each side Figure 3.3-27. Bikeway Cross-Section for Molave (Ordoñez Loop) MOLAVE 5.7m.

2.4m.

3.3m.

Figure 3.3-28. Bikeway Cross-Section for Molave

3 - 37

1.50

OLIVE (for widening) 8.8m.

1.4m.

3.0m.

3.0m.

1.4m.

requires widening from 6.9m to 8.8m, or total width of 1.9m, or approximately, 1.0m on both sides

Figure 3.3-29. Bikeway Cross-Section for Olive OVAL 1.5m.

5.5m.

Figure 3.3-30. Bikeway Cross-Section for Oval PARALUMAN (NORTHBOUND) 6.7m.

2.6m.

2.6m.

1.5m.

Figure 3.3-31. Bikeway Cross-Section for Paraluman (Northbound)

3 - 38

PARALUMAN (SOUTHBOUND) 7.8m.

1.5m.

2.6m.

2.6m.

Figure 3.3-32. Bikeway Cross-Section for Paraluman (Southbound)

RIVERBANKS (ENTRANCE ROAD) 8.4m.

1.4m.

2.8m.

2.8m.

1.4m.

Figure 3.3-32. Bikeway Cross-Section for Riverbanks (Entrance Road)

SHOE AVENUE (GUERILLA-MENDOZA) 15.0m.

1.5m.

1.5m.

12.0m.

3.0m.

3.0m.

1.5m.

3.0m.

3.0m.

1.5m.

Figure 3.3-33. Bikeway Cross-Section for Shoe Avenue (Guerilla – Mendoza)

3 - 39

SUMULONG HIGHWAY 15.0m.

1.5m.

1.5m.

12.0m.

3.0m.

3.0m.

1.5m.

3.0m.

3.0m.

Figure 3.3-34. Bikeway Cross-Section for Sumulong Highway

TANDANG SORA

1.5m.

2.7m.

2.7m.

Figure 3.3-35. Bikeway Cross-Section for Tandang Sora

3 - 40

1.5m.

TANGERINE 7.2m.

1.0m.

2.6m.

2.6m.

1.0m.

substandard

Figure 3.3-36. Bikeway Cross-Section for Tangerine TUMANA 13.1m.

2.0m.

1.5m.

6.0m.

1.5m.

pedicab

2.1m.

parking

Figure 3.3-37. Bikeway Cross-Section for Tumana RIVERSIDE (for widening) 3.6m.

2.4m.

0.6m.

0.6m.

1.2m.

jogging lane

1.2m.

bike lanes

jogging lane

Figure 3.3-38. Bikeway Cross-Section for Riverside

3 - 41

3.3.2

Intersections and Special Sections

This section discusses some of the basic guidelines to be followed in the design of the bikeway in relation to intersections and some mid-block sections that need careful consideration for safety. Special treatments are necessary in order to minimize conflicts – crossing, swerving, sideswiping, etc. Traffic signs and markings play a very important role in the delineation of the bike lanes. They also help considerably in the understanding of the whole bikeway system.

It is therefore necessary that all signs and markings must conform to standards. (Appendix A.6 shows the traffic signs and markings related to bicycles.)

3.3.2.1 Signing and Marking of Beginning and End of Bike Route Figure 3.3-39a shows typical signages and markings for the beginning and end of bike routes. Signs and markings complement each other. Roads leading to the bike route are provided with information and warning signs.

Figure 3.3-39b shows the signage and markings along Bonifacio Ave. and Sumulong Highway.

3.3.2.2 Intersection Approaches with Heavy Right Turn Movement At approaches with heavy right turn traffic, weaving conflict with the bike path will occur. The weaving maneuver has to be completed before the approach as shown in Figure 3.3-40.

3.3.2.3 Pedestrians First Pedestrians must always have priority over the cyclists at all pedestrian crossings.

Figure 3.3-41 shows signage for an unsignalized intersection with pedestrian crossing.

3.3.2.4 Treatment at Mid-block Sections Figure 3.3-42 shows the treatment at mid-blocks with driveways, with parking allowed on one side, and prohibited on the other. Standard ‘No Parking’ signs should be installed to ensure continuity of the bike lane.

3.3.2.5 Treatment at Loading and Unloading Areas Along some sections where bike lanes go together with jeepney routes, special treatment is needed so as to avoid blocking of the bikes by stopping jeepneys at designated stops. If space allows, the bike lane may detour around the jeepney stop.

Cyclists should give way to crossing pedestrians. See Figure 3.3-43.

3.3.2.6 Signage and Markings at Signalized Intersections Figures 3.3-44a and 3.3-44b show signage at the signalized intersection of Sumulong Highway-Shoe Ave. and the intersection of Bayan-bayanan which is proposed for signalization. Due to limited right of way, there is no provision of exclusive left

3 - 42

turning bay for cyclists. Cyclists may either go with the left turning vehicles or cross the roads twice similar to the paths of the pedestrians.

3.3.2.7 Parking Cyclists must be provided with information on the location of parking facilities intended for bicycles. Figure 3.3-45 shows a typical example of the installation of bike parking signs.

3.3.2.8 Bikeway along the Riverside Along the riverside, both bikeways and jogging lanes are provided. The lanes are designated by signs and markings as shown in Figure 3.3-46.

3 - 43

RIGHT LANE

ONLY

ONLY RIGHT LANE RIGHT LANE

LANE ENDS

ONLY

LANE AHEAD

Figure 3.3-39a Typical Signing and Marking of Beginning and End of Bike Route

3 - 44

Bonifacio Ave.

LANE AHEAD

Kabo Pio St.

LANE ENDS

ONLY RIGHT LANE

LANE ENDS LANE AHEAD

MARIKINA CITY BOUNDARY

Figure 3.3-39b Start and End of Bike Routes at Bonifacio Ave.and Sumulong Highway

3 - 45

PARKING BAY Figure 3.3-40 Treatment at Intersection Approach with Heavy Right Turn Movement

3 - 46

RIGHT LANE

ONLY

YIELD TO PEDS

ONLY RIGHT LANE

Figure 3.3-41 Treatment at Unsignalized Intersection Approach

3 - 48

3 - 47

P A R K I N G

Driveway

Driveway

Driveway P A R K I N G

Figure 3.3-42 Treatment at Midblock Sections

3 - 48

Jeepney Stop

ON-RAMP

Waiting Area

YIELD TO PEDS

Figure 3.3-43 Treatment at Loading/Unloading Areas

3 - 48

3 - 49

OFF-RAMP

RIGHT LANE

ONLY

YIELD TO PEDS

ONLY

Cainta

Shoe Ave.

YIELD TO PEDS

RIGHT LANE

Figure 3.3-44a Sumulong Highway - Shoe Avenue Intersection

3 - 49

3 - 50

RIGHT LANE

ONLY

YIELD TO PEDS

ONLY

RIGHT LANE

YIELD TO PEDS

Sumulong Highway

RIGHT LANE

ONLY

YIELD TO PEDS

ONLY

RIGHT LANE

YIELD TO PEDS

Bayan-bayanan Liwasang Kalayaan

Molave

ONLY RIGHT LANE

Figure 3.3-44b Bayan-bayanan - Molave Intersection (proposed for signalization)

3 - 50

3 - 51

RIGHT LANE

ONLY

YIELD TO PEDS YIELD TO PEDS

Immaculate Concepcion Church

Vehicle Parking Area

Bayan-Bayanan

Driveway

Bike Parking Area

Figure 3.3-45 Bike Parking Sign (Concepcion Church)

47 3 - 52

Figure 3.3.-46 Bikeway along Riverside (Signs and Markings)

3 - 48

3 - 53

3.4 Parking 3.4.1 Issues Streets and designated routes are only one part of the bicycle-as-alternative mode approach; parking is the other important part of the drive to encourage the use of bicycles. The basic concept is that provision of bicycle parking spaces legitimizes its usage. Because of the special characteristics of bicycles and their usage, there are a number of issues facing parking place and its design. There are 4 main considerations when designing bicycle parking.

- Location - Security - Protection from Weather - Parking Structures Because different users prioritize these aspects differently, it is expectable that opinions and reactions will vary. However, a nominal provision for these will help to ensure that bicycles gain greater acceptance of their usage.

3.4.1.1 Location The ability to park close to the destination is definitely valuable to cyclists.

Therefore, it is necessary to identify the major destinations by cyclists as well as potential cyclists. Based on observations and basic knowledge, as well as with respect to the employment, educational, commercial and institutional set-up in Marikina City, the following destinations necessitate special provision of parking spaces: - Government offices (especially City Hall) - Markets(or other large commercial establishments) - Schools(Elementary and High school especially) - Hospitals The parking spaces should be placed in an area which is visible to other visitors of the destination so that the use of bicycles is further promoted and also to increase the level of security.

3.4.1.2 Security Placing bicycle parking areas in a highly visible area will also serve to minimize theft, since any thieves would be easily observable when attempting a theft. On the other hand, the use of locks are expected to still be the main method of assuring security.

Thus, in conjunction with proper location, it will be necessary to provide structures which will allow the bicycles to be suitable anchored to the parking area. There are numerous examples which can be adapted for use in Marikina (see appendices).

3.4.1.3 Protection from Weather Because of the highly variable weather conditions in the Philippines, it is recommendable to have some form of protection provided for parked bicycles.

3 - 54

3.4.1.4 Parking Structure These structures will help to ensure the security of the parked bicycle, so perhaps most importantly in the Philippine setting, parking facilities should be resistant to breaking, and allow for bicycles to be locked securely. Other aspects of the which will be important for the promotion of bicycle usage are that these facilities are inexpensive(to provide and maintain), easy to use and aesthetically pleasing.

3.4.1.5 A checklist for bicycle parking provision The following guide questions are provided as a way of checking if the major concerns related to bicycle parking have been appropriately handled.

1) Is it conveniently located for destinations expecting a large number of cyclists?

2) Can the bicycle frame (and or the wheels) be secured by a chain or cable?

3) Is the facility in a highly visible and well lighted place? (to discourage bike theft and robberies) 4) Is it expensive to provide (and/or maintain) the facilities?

5) Can the racks hold bicycles without stands upright?

6) Does the facility provide weather protection?

While hard core users will use bicycles no matter the situation of parking, we can only expect others to seriously consider using the bicycle when the parking condition is properly dealt with.

3.4.2 Existing Philippine Examples 3.4.2.1 Small Commercial Establishment Even without the bikeways program, a number of businesses have decided to provide a parking facility for bikes. In the case of the immediate example following, the basic reason was to protect the glass from breaking or scratching. This facility answers the issues relatively well. Since the volume of users is not so high, this small, modular construction is well suited for the needs of this establishment (a video shop), where customers do not spend too much time.

Figure 3.4-1 Rack provided by Video City, near Immaculate Conception Church

Figure 3.4-2 Bike rack being used by customers of Video City

3 - 55

Approximate dimensions of Video City bike rack are given in centimeters.

The modular construction allows for the gradual introduction of bicycle parking. This rack is light enough for two grown men to lift, making it moderately portable, and thus flexible for the purposes of small establishments.

120

10

100

Estimated cost of construction is two thousand pesos per rack.

60

20

Figure 3.4-3. Video City Bike Rack

3.4.2.2 Large Educational Establishment The University of the Philippines, Diliman has provided a limited number of facilities at the Mathematics Department Building. However, because this provision is only in this location, the use of bikes as a mode of transport has not caught on with students.

One reason might be that the issue of security remains unaddressed in the other buildings that they would also have to visit in the course of their studies. However, facility-wise, this example performs well enough vis-Ă -vis the different issues.

Figure 3.4-5 Bike racks at the Mathematics Building, University of the Philippines, Diliman

Figure 3.4-4 Close-up of Bike racks at the Mathematics Building, University of the Philippines, Diliman

The cost of providing twenty parking slots is estimated to be about ten-thousand pesos.

3 - 56

3.4.3 Alternative Facility Layouts 3.4.3.1 Alternative 1 This consists of metal inverted U-shaped pipes which are securely embedded into concrete. This arrangement allows for the support of bicycles without kickstands, and more importantly, allows bicycles to be secured by means of a chain and lock.

Bicycles would be placed into this free-standing structure from both sides, with front wheels inserted in the gaps. The shown figure would accommodate nine bicycles at an approximate cost of one thousand two hundred pesos.

15~20

100

Figure 3.4-6. Illustration of Alternative 1 (Approximate dimensions of the height, width and spacing are provided in centimeters.)

Figure 3.4-7. Plan View Parking Layout for Alternative 1.

3 - 57

Figure 3.4-8. Example similar to Alternative 1 (Eugene, Oregon, U.S.A.)∞ 3.4.3.2 Alternative 2 This consists of a set of inverted U-shaped pipes which are embedded into the pavement. These provide support for bicycles on both sides (about 1 or 2 bikes per pipe), allowing for bicycles which do not have kickstands. The featured image would accommodate six bicycles at a cost of approximately a thousand pesos (for this 3 U version).

Approximate dimensions of the height, width and spacing are provided in centimeters, as shown in Figure 8. As for spacing between U’s, this should be increased if it is intended for use by two bikes at a time to about 110 centimeters to allow for maneuvering within the gap. There should be enough space for the biker to enter sideby-side with his or her bike.

40~50

80~ 100

80~

Figure 3.4-9. Illustration of Alternative 2 ∞

Bikeways Oregon Inc., “Bicycle Parking, Bicycles in Cities : The Eugene Experience” 1981.

3 - 58

Figure 3.4-10. Plan View of Layout for Alternative 2 (one-bike to the bar version)

Figure 3.4-11 Example of Alternative 2 (Eugene, Oregon, U.S.A.)♣

♣

Bikeways Oregon Inc., “Bicycle Parking, Bicycles in Cities : The Eugene Experience” 1981.

3 - 59

Figure 3.4-12 Example of Alternative 2 (Kensington and Chelsea, U.K.)⊗

Figure 3.4-13 Alternative 2 as a high density parking facility (Cycle parking in a pedestrianized area) ⊗

Figure 3.4-15. Alternative 2 as two-sided parking

⊗

National Cycling Forum, U.K., “Issues for Traffic Engineers and Transport Planners” National Cycling Forum – Cycling in Urban Areas. June 1998

3 - 60

Figure 3.4-15. Alternative 2 as two-sided park facility (Retail area cycle parking, Kensington High Street, London)♦

3.4.3.3 Alternative 3 This consists of two metal bars with welded on pairs of C -shaped bars/pipes. These paired pipes serve as the holders of the front wheels and allow the bike to be locked either by the wheel spoke or the head tube of the body (which holds the forkhead), by means of chain and lock. The top bar of this structure would be approximately level with or just above the level of the axle of the front wheel of the bicycle. The entire welded structure should naturally be secured to a wall or concrete fence. The entire structure can be scaled to the needs of a particular establishment and to correspond to the available space.

75

15

Metal base embedded in concrete

30

Metal piping to hold front wheel, support bike

Figure 3.4-16. Illustration of Alternative 3. ♦

National Cycling Forum, U.K., “Issues for Traffic Engineers and Transport Planners” National Cycling Forum – Cycling in Urban Areas. June 1998

3 - 61

50

Wall

Figure 3.4-17. Plan View of Parking Layout for Alternative 3

3.4.4 Locations 3.4.4.1 Schools Provision of parking spaces is envisioned for those students who most likely live within the vicinity of their schools. This is more likely to occur among students of the elementary and secondary levels. However, because of the immensity or scale of the investment, on the part of the City of Marikina and of the individual (potential) bike users, the initial provision will be limited. The immediate priority should be placed on secondary schools.

There are presently five public High Schools in Marikina and these have a combined population of 14,367 (as of school year 1998-99). From this sheer number alone, it is possible that given the right facilities, bike usage can be promoted in these areas.

Parang High School High schools in Marikina have the potential to encourage the students to use bicycles in coming to school since most of them live in Marikina. In this light, it is necessary to provide facilities by making use of available spaces. The study team identified possible areas in the Parang High School grounds, based on the location of these areas relative to the proposed bikeways. It is recommended that these parking areas be within the fence, and the access to the parking area guarded similarly as the rest of the school grounds. In other words, only students and school staff will have free access to these parking facilities.

3 - 62

Figure 3.4-18 and Figure 3.4-19. Open spaces which might be used as the sites for bicycle parking facilities at the Parang High School.

Additional parking for visitors may be provided in the external areas such as the existing parking areas. A little more than the space required for a medium sized vehicle could provide parking for as many as 10 bicycles. Initial facility provision should be about 20 slots.

Marikina Central HighSchool Another location close to the proposed bikeways, Marikina Central High School will be expected to require a number of parking spaces. An initial amount of 20 parking spaces is recommended.

Figure 3.4-20. Potential parking facilities location at Marikina Central High School

3.4.4.2 Markets Markets are the single most important group of locations which requires immediate provision of adequate bicycle parking. A number of present bicycles users try to make do with make-shift facilities; the term “make-shift” is used because the structures that they use were not designed for that purpose. On the other hand, a number of bicycle users actually bring their bicycles into the retail area causing pedestrian “traffic jams,” simply because they did not feel it was safe enough to leave their bikes. Thus it is imperative to provide a sufficient amount of parking space, located conveniently with respect to the buying area.

3 - 63

Concepcion Market Concepcion Market is an important destination for residents in the northern part of Marikina. Thus providing adequate parking facilities will be a boon to residents in that area. This particular location has a number of areas in which a parking facility might be placed. As shown in Figures 3.4-21 and 3.4-22, some parking areas can be designated which are reasonably near. As an example, Alternative 2 can be applied here to provide 10 to 16 parking slots in each of the areas shown by the Figures 3.4-21 and 3.4-22.

Figure 3.4-21 Back of Concepcion Public Market with some parked bicycles

Figure 3.4-22 Wide Sidewalk across from Concepcion Market, next to Tropical Hut

New Marikina Market For the case of the New Marikina Market, because automobile parking spaces are well defined, the most obvious method for providing bicycle parking spaces is to allocate a number of automobile parking slots to bicycle parking. Each automobile slot would yield approximately 10 bicycle parking slots. A slot (automobile parking) or two can be allocated for bicycles use at the major entrances into the wet and dry sections of this public market.

Provision of bicycle parking facilities at other markets such as Fairlane, Pie Dora Market and Parang Market (as well as the eighteen groceries and five supermarkets around Marikina) should also be considered.

3.4.4.3 Government Offices To promote the bikeways, it is necessary that City Hall take the lead in the provision of bicycle facilites such as for parking. To this end, a portion of the car park area located south of the main building should be allocated to bicycle parking, and the supporting facilites constructed.

3 - 64

Figure 3.4-23 Marikina City Hall, car parking area located south

Figure 3.4-24 Marikina City Hall, car parking area located south, another view

Other than city hall, all public offices should be provided with a nominal number of bicycle parking slots, good for about five bicycles for small offices and at least 10 for larger offices.

3.4.4.4 General Provision of Parking Facilities Improvement of the existing sidewalks, through widening or improvement of the walking surface have improved the condition for pedestrians. However, it was observed that some of the sidewalks are under utilized by pedestrians, and being wide enough to accommodate a good number of bicycle parking facilities. Thus it is necessary to identify the locations where bicycle users would benefit greatly from provision of facilities using public funds.

Figure 3.4-25 In front of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, featuring wide sidewalk cum automobile parking

Figure 3.4-26 Wide sidewalk Along Molave Street

Churches Due to the need to accommodate regular visits from worshipers, the churches should be recommended to provide the equivalent of at least two automobile parking slots to bicyclists. Figure 3.4-27 and 3.4-28 show some perspectives of the Immaculated Conception Church which may be partially allocated to bicycle parking facilites with only minimal impact on car users.

3 - 65

Figure 3.4-27 Immaculate Conception Church, east parking area

Figure 3.4-28 Immaculate Conception Church, front car parking area

Recreational Areas A number of recreational areas such as parks should be provided with parking facilities as well. Provision of such at city parks and similar open areas can promote the enjoyment of healthful pursuits such as sports and exercise.

Figure 3.4-29 Resting recreational bikers in Marikina

3 - 66

Figure 3.4-30 Parked recreational bicycles in Marikina

3.5 Bikeway Infrastructure 3.5.1 The Pavement The proposed concrete pavement for the bikeway in Marikina City has a width of 1.2m to 1.5m for one-way traffic and 2.0m to 2.4m for two-way traffic. There are areas within the City where this desired width cannot be implemented however due to lack of space. In this case, the allowable practical width is 1.0m for one-way and 1.8 m for two-way. The thickness of the concrete pavement is set at 10.6 cm or 4�. The pavement should be designed to sustain a traffic load of maintenance vehicle and which will require steel reinforcing bars for flexural loading and direct shear. It should have the minimum temperature bars to respond to temperature effects.

The concrete should attain the required compressive strength with a minimum of 3,000 psi (20.6 kPa) after the prescribed curing period. Aggregates should be of approved quality and desired proportion prescribed by standards.

Color admixture can be mixed with the concrete to attain its desired hue conforming to the preference of the city. Care should be exercised in the mixing of color to the concrete so as not to compromise its structural strength..

It can also be an option to apply asphalt topping on the bikeway for smoother riding condition and attain an even and texture. Aggregate admixture sizes should be selected properly for better integrity of the asphalt mix.

3.5.2 The Drainage The cross slope provides for the flow of water from the pavement into the gutters and road inlets which are appropriately designed to limit the spread of water over the traffic lanes. The recommended rainfall return period by AASHTO is 20 – 50 year for arterial roads. The drainage system of the proposed bikeway should tie up with the existing street drainage lines. Care should be exercised during the detailed engineering that the proposed drainage lines should not overburden the current drainage system.

3.5.3 The Delineators The concern for safety of cyclist and motorist pertaining to the establishment of the bikeway system is significant. Because of this, there is a need to provide necessary infrastructure to protect both the cyclist and the motorist from accidents. Special lane delineators are necessary to enable some sort of lane exclusivity and prevent right of way infringement. These delineators can be in terms of plant boxes, concrete barriers, rubber beams or rumble strips, especially for areas where there are not enough space.

The other safety features are suitable for areas where there are natural features such as bodies of water, a cliff or a drop along or across the bikeway system. The safety features can be in terms of adequate signages, fencing and lighting to prevent a fatal fall or to alert the cyclist of impending accident. The fencing can be of metal, timber or chain link fences. Adequate height should be provided to prevent the accident but

3 - 68

not to cover the vistas. Utilities or facilities that are close to the bikeway system should be properly cordoned with enough space or clearance to avoid any direct contact with them. Care should be exercised on features which may result to injury to the cyclists.

3.6 Other Infrastructure 3.6.1 Lighting As for the motorist, the cyclist should also have adequate visibility. This is especially true when the sun has set and the daylight is gone. Other occasions when the daylight is inadequate, lighting becomes necessary for the cyclist’s safety. If lighting is found inadequate in some segments of the bikeway, the street lighting should conform to guidelines of the Philippine Electrical Code Committee and the Institute of Integrated Electrical Engineers. Depending on the pedestrian and vehicular traffic the illumination level is from 2.15 – 21.52 lux (lumens/sq.m).

3.6.2 Parking Sheds The purpose of parking shed is to provide for the necessary cover for the bicycle and protect them from damage by rain and other airborne debris. The parking shed should be adequate in dimension to accommodate the full length of the bicycle and of adequate height for the cyclist. Security and lighting should be provided for the bicycles and the cyclists. Harness bars should be provided onto which the cyclist can securely lock their bicycles while they attend to their individual businesses. These sheds should also be free from flooding and the area equipped with sufficient drainage facilities to prevent flooding which may inconvenient the cyclists and damage the bicycles. The minimum illumination for these facility is 150 lux (lumens/sq.m).

3.6.3 Rest Areas It is recognized that cyclists are very sociable. In this respect, the designated rest areas should have the facilities and features to promote a social atmosphere. Adequate space, likable landscape, and relaxing atmosphere are among the necessary factors to be considered. In addition, the rest areas should have bathroom facilities, garbage receptacles, sufficient lighting and a cool ambiance characterized by lush vegetation and trees.

3.7 Civil Works Construction and Implementation The following are work items or activities associated to infrastructures to be constructed in the Marikina City Bikeway System:

3 - 69

3.7.1 Concrete Pavement This involves removal and replacement of deteriorated concrete road pavements. The following are the activities of this project component: Pre-Construction 1. Securing of necessary permits 2. Placing of traffic delineators and safety barriers 3. Placement of signs and other information drive 4. Verification of designs 5. Agglomeration of materials and labor 6. Setting up of Project site office 7. Connection to Utility lines On-Construction 1. Breaking and ripping of pavement by jack-hammer 2. Removal of broken concrete segments of the pavement by manual labor or excavation equipment.

3. Cutting of existing rebars 4. Hauling and disposal of materials 5. Recycling of possible recyclable materials 6. Grade preparation: base course, sub-grade, sub-base 7. Placement of formworks 8. Compaction 9. Placement of rebars 10. Pouring of concrete 11. Curing of concrete 12. Removal of formworks Post-Construction 1. Maintenance by asphalt seals 2. Shoulder grading 3. Possible construction of curbs and gutters The diagram for new pavement is shown in Figure 3.7-1.

3.7.2 Laying of Asphalt Topping (Option) This involves furnishing, delivery, laying, rolling and correction (FDLRC) of asphalt mix over existing concrete for the designated bikeway. The asphalt mix should be of chosen color by the city. The following outlines the tentative construction procedure: Pre-Construction 1. Securing of necessary permits 2. Placing of traffic delineators and safety barriers 3. Placement of signs and other information drive 4. Verification of designs 5. Agglomeration of materials and labor 6. Setting up of Project site office

3 - 70

7. Connection to Utility lines On-Construction 1. Preparation of Asphalt mix 2. Scarifying of top surface to secure tight bonding 3. Delivery of asphalt mix to the site 4. Laying and rolling of asphalt 5. Placement of necessary surface stripping and markings 6. Curing of asphalt Post-Construction 1. Maintenance by and correction 2. Shoulder grading 3. Possible construction of curbs and gutters The diagram for asphalt topping is shown in Figure 3.7-2.

3.7.3 Bicycle Racks This involves procurement and installation of bicycle racks. Concreting may be required and the scope is similar to that of concrete paving (section 2.5.6.1). The following applies to those with concrete slab in place already.

Pre-Construction 1. Securing of necessary permits 2. Placing of traffic delineators and safety barriers 3. Placement of signs and other information drive 4. Verification of designs 5. Agglomeration of materials and labor 6. Setting up of Project site office 7. Connection to Utility lines On-Construction 1. Drilling with pneumatic drills or breaking and ripping of pavement by jackhammer 2. Removal of broken concrete segments of the pavement by manual labor or excavation equipment.

3. Cutting of existing rebars where necessary 4. Hauling and disposal of materials 5. Reclycling of possible recyclable materials 6. Grade preparation: base course, sub-grade, sub-base when necessary 7. Offsite fabrication of bicycle racks 8. Placement and installation on-site of racks with strut supports 9. Curing of mortar 10. Painting and stripping 11. Removal of strut supports Post-Construction 1. Maintenance by rehab damaged parts 3 - 71

The structure for bicycle rack can be seen on Figure 3.7-3.

3.7.4 Parking Sheds This involves the procurement, construction and installation of parking shed at designated sites. The dimension is dependent on the available and permitted public areas. Concreting may be required and the scope is similar to that of concrete paving (no.1). The following applies to those with concrete slab in place already.

Pre-Construction 1. Securing of necessary permits 2. Placing of traffic delineators and safety barriers 3. Placement of signs and other information drive 4. Verification of designs 5. Agglomeration of materials and labor 6. Setting up of Project site office 7. Connection to Utility lines On-Construction 1. Drilling with pneumatic drills or breaking and ripping of pavement by jackhammer 2. Removal of broken concrete segments of the pavement by manual labor or excavation equipment.

3. Cutting of existing rebars where necessary 4. Hauling and disposal of materials 5. Reclycling of possible recyclable materials 6. Grade preparation: base course, sub-grade, sub-base when necessary 7. Offsite fabrication or on-site fabrication of parking sheds which will entail metal cutting, drilling, welding and soldering.

8. Placement and installation on-site of components of parking shed with strut supports 9. Curing of mortar 10. Painting and stripping 11. Removal of strut supports 12. Cleaning and demobilizing Post-Construction 1. Maintenance by rehab of some components The structures for parking shed is shown in Figure 3.7-4.

3.7.5 Bicycle Lane Barrier This involves the procurement, construction and installation of bicycle lane at designated sites. The following applies to those with concrete slab in place already.

Pre-Construction 1. Securing of necessary permits

3 - 72

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Placing of traffic delineators and safety barriers Placement of signs and other information drive Verification of designs Agglomeration of materials and labor Setting up of Project site office Connection to Utility lines

On-Construction 1. Offsite fabrication or on-site fabrication of bikeway lane barrier depending on the chosen design.

2. Placement and installation on-site of bikeway lane barrier 3. Curing of mortar 4. Painting and stripping 5. Cleaning and demobilizing Post-Construction 1. Maintenance by rehab of some components Structures and devices for bikeway lane barriers are shown in Figures 3.7-5 to 3.7-7.

3.7.6 Installation of Hazard Protection This involves the procurement, construction and installation of hazard protection at designated sites.

Pre-Construction 1. Securing of necessary permits 2. Placing of traffic delineators and safety barriers 3. Placement of signs and other information drive 4. Verification of designs 5. Agglomeration of materials and labor 6. Setting up of Project site office 7. Connection to Utility lines On-Construction 1. Offsite fabrication or on-site fabrication of hazard protection depending on the chosen design which may entail excavation and/or hole drilling and digging.

2. Placement and installation on-site of hazard protection.

3. Curing of mortar 4. Painting and stripping 5. Cleaning and demobilizing Post-Construction 1. Maintenance by rehab of some components Structures and devices for hazard protection are shown in Figure 3.7-8 to 3.7-11.

3 - 73

Figure 3.7-1. Pavement-New Pavement

Figure 3.7-2. Pavement-Asphalt Topping

Pavement: minimum thickness=4.00 in. = 0.102 m.

3 - 74

Figure 3.7-3. Bicycle Rack

3 - 75

0.3m.

0.2m.

2" Ă˜ brace pipe

2" Ă˜ brace pipe 0.2m.

2.0m.

2.5m.

4" pipe

gut ter

0.3x0.3 footing

0.5m.

Figure 3.7-4. Parking Shed

3 - 76

Figure 3.7-5. Bikeway Lane Barrier-Concrete Barrier

Figure 3.7-6. Bikeway Lane Barrier-Cat’s Eye

Figure 3.7-7. Bikeway Lane Barrier-Rubber Beams

3 - 77

Figure 3.7-8. Hazard Protection-Steel Pipe

Figure 3.7-9. Hazard Protection-Wood Fences

3 - 78

Figure 3.7-10. Hazard Protection-Chain Link

Figure 3.7-11. Hazard Protection-UV Plastic Barrier (Decorative)

3 - 79

4. SOCIAL ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction The following report is part of the social analysis conducted in relation to the feasibility of establishing a bikeways network within the city of Marikina. The report centers on the results of five focused group discussions (FGDs) conducted over two weekends in October 1999 with various stakeholders.

4.2 Objectives of the Social Analysis The social analysis is designed to collect information regarding the possible social impacts of the project. A variety of instruments can be used in order to accomplish the following: 1. To identify those factors that are important for determining the scope and content of the project; 2. To assess what those factors imply for project design; 3. To determine the appropriate implementation arrangements that will be required to ensure a high probability of social acceptance by and maximum benefits for the target clientele; and 4. To suggest a framework for a strategic plan for increasing the incidence of cycling in Marikina and for monitoring and evaluating the benefits of the bikeways network.

4.3 Methodology Due to certain constraints, this social analysis is based largely on the results of five focused group discussions (FGDs) conducted on two successive weekends in October 1999. Participants to the FGDs were invited based on an identification of possible stakeholder and other affected groups in the city and with an eye to getting as broad a participation as possible from these groups. A professional moderator was asked to conduct the actual discussions based on a set of guide questions agreed upon at the outset.

(For details of the participant criteria and guide questions, please refer to Appendix A.3) She was assisted by a documentor who taped and then transcribed the proceedings.

FGD results should be taken for what they are: they provide a range of opinions, perceptions, and attitudes regarding specific topics or issues. They are also useful for soliciting feedback on plans and proposals from which public acceptability may be deduced. However, they should not be taken as exhausting nor as a way of ranking the sentiments of the population regarding those issues.

The results that can be inferred from FGDs are based not merely on what people say but also on how they say them and how the group reacts to those comments. FGD results are also useful for uncovering negative attitudes towards issues and, therefore, can be useful for anticipating and ameliorating possible adverse project impacts. The conduct of the FGDs and the detailed results are contained in A.3.

4-1

4.4 Caveats The city government was responsible for inviting FGD participants based on a list of “desired” participants prepared by the consultants and FGD moderator. The list was prepared in order to get participation from a wide variety of stakeholders and considering the various groups that would be most affected by the proposed project, both positively and negatively.

Due to a lack of baseline information and the time and resources to needed to acquire the data first hand, the consultants and FGD facilitator relied on personal observation, their own experiences as cyclists, and knowledge of the city (as residents of Marikina) to identify those groups and communities mostly likely to feel the impact of the project and those most likely to have the most at stake in its implementation. Among the groups presumed to be most affected by the proposed project are: cyclists, both organized and unorganized and covering the whole spectrum of bicycle users, i.e., recreational, sport, utilitarian, commuting; public transport users and operators; youth and students; homeowners; local politicians and community leaders; factory and office workers (a significant number of whom ride their bicycle to work in the city); and women.

Unfortunately, the mix of actual participants who turned up for the FGDs did not match that desired (and designed). There was a lack of participants from organized cyclists, for example, as well as from cyclists who commuted regularly. Many of the participants who had bicycles said they rode occasionally (mostly recreational) while some used them regularly for short trips (for chores). Participants totaled 44 men and women.

4.5 Analysis of the Results and Implications for the Proposed Bikeways Network This report highlights those results of the FGDs that have significant implications for the proposed project. It should be clear that these implications pertain not just to the physical aspects (the infrastructure) of the bikeways network but also on those aspects of it that have to do with what mayy be called intangibles, i.e., issues of safety and security, access and continuity, political support, transport demand management, integrated transport, environment, sustained campaigns for public awareness, and so forth.

4.5.1 Context and Background 4.5.1.1 Transport Situation All of the participants were aware of the horrible traffic and transport situation in the metropolitan area. However, most of them regarded the situation in Marikina as better than in the rest of the metropolis. Local transport problems were generally related to rush hour traffic. Traffic congestion and difficulty in getting a ride on public transport were cited as particular problems encountered within the city.

Many referred to motor vehicle operators as driving dangerously, with “reckless driving” and “drunk driving” as characteristic descriptions. They specifically cited this danger as

4-2

the main reason for not riding their bicycles on the “highway,” a term used to refer to any road with heavy motor vehicle traffic.

There were also complaints raised against motorized tricycles as creating a public nuisance and hazard. These ubiquitous conveyances were said to cause traffic jams, pose a danger to other road users with their unpredictable road maneuvers, and generally flaunt all rules of the road. With their two-stroke engines often emitting black smoke, tricycles were also cited as creating much pollution as well as adding substantially to the din of motor vehicle traffic.

Some participants also cited bicycle users as sometimes behaving erratically on the road, weaving in and out of lanes and stopping suddenly, posing a danger to themselves as well as other road users.

4.5.1.2 Environmental Issues While participants were generally aware of pollution caused by motor vehicles, such pollution did not seem to be a significant concern, at least in Marikina. The dirty air was, for many, only a secondary reason for not riding a bicycle even as participants acknowledged the environmental benefits of nonmotorized transport. However, not one of them mentioned climate change effects as a consequence of motor vehicle emissions.

4.5.1.3 Economic Factors Many participants cited the economic benefits of bicycling, saying that it would definitely be a cheaper way to get around. The recent round of public transport fare increases was probably in many people’s minds as it was repeatedly mentioned during the FGDs. This benefit to save on transport costs was most notable among participants from lower income households, including transport workers, factory and clerical office workers, and from those with little disposable income such as students.

4.5.1.4 Barriers to Cycling The number one reason given for not riding a bicycle or not riding more was a concern for personal safety. Many thought that riding in traffic was too dangerous. They tended to blame “reckless” motor vehicle drivers for this situation although, upon closer examination, it seems a general fear of mixing it up with motorized traffic, which may or may not be moving dangerously, is what keeps people from riding on regular roads. This perceived risk of accident is difficult to verify since data on bike-MV collisions are not available. However, some recent studies evaluating the actual risks from bike riding versus the exercise benefits that can be had from such activity conclude that the benefits more than offset such risks.1 This concern, moreover, speaks of both a suspect level of 1

Studies cited by Todd Litman include: Benefits of Bicycling and Walking to Health, National Bicycling and Walking Study #14 by the US Department of Transportation, 1992; More People: More Active, More Often by the Physical Activity Task Force of the UK Department of Health, 1995; Pedalling Health -Health Benefits of a Modal Transport Shift by Ian Roberts, et al., 1996; and Bike For Your Life by the

4-3

cycling skills as well as of inexperience in riding in traffic, and, therefore, should not be attributed entirely to bad driving. (This is, of course, not to say that the perception is not valid.) It is this concern for safety, whether justified or not, that bears heavily on the subsequent discussion of the proposed bikeways network and its features.

Other reasons given for not riding/not riding more were: possible theft of the bike (especially true of children who can be victimized by thieves literally snatching their bikes away); unfeasibility of riding bike outside Marikina; bad road conditions including open manholes and canals; lack of facilities (parking and changing); no bicycle owned/no access to a bike; cultural constraints (for young girls and women); too much work; and, to some extent, the weather.

4.5.1.5 Benefits of Cycling There seemed to be broad recognition of the benefits to be derived from cycling. The health benefits of cycling were widely acknowledged and there seemed to be many among the FGD participants willing to take it up for exercise. Others recognized it as an inexpensive form of transport that seemed appropriate for “these times of high prices.”

Still others saw it as a way to get around traffic congestion and as providing access to “just about anywhere.”

4.5.2 Reactions to Proposed Bikeways Network In general, participants reacted positively to the proposed bikeways network. They expressed the belief that such a network, if implemented properly, would encourage people to be cyclists “just like in foreign countries” (where they have such networks).

What skepticism was expressed was attributed to the usual sourgraping on any new initiative by the government. Participants regarded implementation and a sustained cycling promotion campaign to be key to the success of the program..

People seemed to have no doubt that promoting bicycling in the city and building a bikeways network would redound to measurable benefits. Among those cited were: a reduction in pollution from motorized vehicles; less traffic congestion; lower transport costs; and the promotion of the public’s general health. These endorsements, however, were tempered by a concern over what the network would actually entail. Many participants thought that only bikeways that were exclusively for nonmotorized transport and totally separated from motorized traffic would be safe enough to attract users. The only commuting cyclist participant in the FGD, however, expressed the fear that cyclists would be banned from the roads and relegated to bikepaths although he himself thought that these would make cycling safer for most people. There was also concern that bikelanes on regular streets would take away road space from motorized vehicles.

Another concern was the cyclist’s security, both for his/her person as well as for the bicycle. Many said that the network ought to be well secured with a highly visible police Bicycle Association & Cyclists’ Public Affairs Group, 1995.

4-4

presence to discourage theft (bike snatchers). They also said that the bikepaths should be well-lit. A suggestion to prevent theft and to identify bikes was to register them (just like cars) and to even color code them according to which section of the city the owner lived.

Many said that if the network were to provide these basic features, more people would be attracted to cycling. However, they added that providing the infrastructure alone would be inadequate to promote cycling in a significant way. It was thought that a sustained campaign targeted at specific sectors of the population would be needed as well. They coupled this with a suggestion for the city to look into the possibility of providing incentives for cycling, subsidizing the cost of cycling, and even assisting those who had no bike or could not afford one to purchase bicycles by allowing them to buy bikes on easy terms. Also, they remarked that city officials should demonstrate the feasibility of using the network and show a good example by using bicycles themselves.

However, when asked if they personally would ride (or ride more), some participants equivocated.

This was the reaction of two youth leaders (from the Sangguniang Kabataan or Barangay Youth Council). It was also evident that many thought the bikeways would encourage mostly recreational riding, and bike commuting only to a limited extent.

4.5.2.1 Facilities and Maintenance Participants also said that certain facilities would be useful to have. Most important were facilities for secure bike parking, for which most participants said they would be willing to pay a nominal fee, and changing/shower facilities at work destinations. Another suggestion was putting up bikeshops in every barangay to provide maintenance and repair services. Directional signs on the bikeways would also be needed to help people get to their destinations.

Participants also said that the city should conscientiously maintain the bikepaths and lanes, keeping away unwanted users such as motorized tricycles, motorbikes and motorscooters. However, some said that pedicabs (sidecars) should be allowed to use the network since the idea was to promote nonmotorized transport, not just one-person bicycles. They said that sidecars would enable whole families to get around the city in nonmotorized mode.

Maintenance also meant keeping the paths and lanes free from debris and the road surface well paved and free of holes and cracks. There was also a suggestion that the help of neighborhood associations and community organizations should be enlisted by the city in maintaining the network. People also wanted signs posted all along the network to help people get to where they wanted to go. A suggestion was also made that someone at city hall ought to have full-time responsibility for the bikeways network.

4.5.2.2 Constraints/Problems Related to Cycling Two particular constraints were cited as possible limiting factors for getting more people

4-5

to ride a bicycle. One was bike ownership. Wage earners consider a bike purchase a relatively large investment. A factory worker said that only the relatively well off among them could afford to buy a bicycle.

The other constraint cited was cultural. Parents generally tell their daughters when they reach a certain age (usually when they become teenagers) to stop riding a bicycle because it is “unbecoming� for girls to do so.

4.5.2.3 Other Feedback The participants seemed to think that it was feasible for school children, both elementary and high school, to ride bicycles to school. However, they said that the children should first be taught how to ride safely; bike safety education should be part of the school curriculum.

A desire also expressed was that consultations with stakeholders be held once the feasibility study was done and implementation of the project was imminent. Organized groups also wanted to be able to participate in the actual planning and implementation of a program to promote cycling in the city.

4.5.2.4 Commitments Due to the apparent acceptance of the idea of promoting cycling in the city, the FGD participants, particularly those belonging to organized groups, were asked if they were willing to help in such a campaign and in what way they would be able to do so. Housing and neighborhood association members said they would be willing to help maintain those sections of the network that ran through their communities. Youth group representatives would help raise awareness of the benefits of cycling and of using the bikeways network.

Most of the others said they would be willing to support such campaigns if the local government and other groups initiated them. What seems clear is that there are many organized groups that might be tapped to push forward a bicycling campaign in the city.

4.5.3 Implications for the Marikina Bikeways Network 4.5.3.1 The Safety Issue Safety was the primary concern of the FGD participants. The image of a two-ton hunk of steel mowing down a hapless cyclist on a road chockfull of motor vehicles is difficult to suppress even though that picture may be far from portraying reality. Reliable data on such risk is difficult to come by so the perception is difficult to verify. Moreover, it is from this preconceived fear that the prescription of physically separating cyclists from motor vehicles arises, often voiced by noncyclists and inexperienced cyclists.

However, creating a totally separated bikeways network cannot be a panacea for the fear of accidents. What is more, experience has shown that such a totally separate network creates problems of its own, the most serious being that the network fails to respond to

4-6

cyclists’ need for direct routes to their destinations. Since circuitous routes increase travel time, it is only reasonable to expect users to abandon such routes, either wholly or partially, as has happened in certain cases.

An additional problem is that a totally separate bike route network gives motor vehicle (MV) road users a ilcense to literally run off cyclists from the regular road network even in those places where it is perfectly legal for cyclists to use those roads. Such a network, therefore, only encourages aggressive behavior from MV drivers and increases resentment on both sides.

A compromise is for the bikeways network to integrate both exclusive bike paths as well as marked bike lanes and unmarked bike routes on city streets. Users can then use both systems as parallel alternatives to gain access to destination points in the city.

Additionally, there is the option to declare certain side streets as exclusive bike corridors.

FGD participants often mentioned Daang Bakal2 as a candidate for this.

4.5.3.2 Bike Safety Education There are other considerations, equally important, that the safety issue embraces, the most obvious being the general lament of bad driving habits. It is not obvious how the city can deal with this since driver education and licensing is the responsibility of the national government. However, the city might be able to address the problem in another way, that is, by actually enforcing road rules and traffic laws, and in a consistent manner.

The surprising behavior of drivers in the enclaves of Subic and Clark can only be explained by the perception that “you can’t get away with it.” For the long term, however, it would be best to include awareness of the rights of cyclists as road users in general driver education.

In this regard, there is probably a need to inventory all laws and ordinances that affect nonmotorized travel on roads and special pathways. One obvious gap in the vehicle code is its disregard of nonmotorized modes. This system of benign neglect can be workable at times and can even be advantageous to cyclists (crossing intersections on red to avoid the rush of accelerating motor vehicles) but instituting a good working system of traffic and transport management must formally take into account the rights and responsibilities of nonmotorized road users.

It will not help the cause of promoting cycling if a blind eye is turned to the need to help cyclists upgrade their bike handling skills and to teach them proper road behavior.

Cycling in traffic demands skills beyond being able to balance on a bicycle. In addition to basic handling skills, a good cycling education program should be able to impart

2

As it stands now, Daang Bakal is less than an ideal bike corridor, based on both first hand observation as well as feedback from the participants. MV parking is unregulated so that parked cars can make the lanes really narrow. Also, children use it as a play street and possible collisions between bikes and kids can create problems. Open canals at both sides of the road also pose a hazard to cyclists and other users.

4-7

proper road behavior and a good knowledge of road rules.3 The FGD participants thought it would be good to start teaching such skills to students and that it should be part of their curriculum.4 The president of the Professional Cycling Association of the Philippines (an FGD participant) said that their group could help organize and conduct cycling clinics.

4.5.3.3 Enforcement of Traffic Rules The perception that the roads are full of reckless drivers may be partly the result of lax law enforcement and the absence of posted speed limits. This calls for better enforcement of the law rather than shunting cyclists off to segregated bike paths. In fact, better law enforcement would result in an overall rise in safety statistics and a better image of a community’s livability.

Additionally, posted (and enforced) speed limits serve to discourage reckless and unsafe driving. In fact, traffic calming (i.e., reducing motor vehicle speeds in densely populated areas) is seen as a way of reducing the overall health risks from motorized vehicles.

4.5.3.4 Designing-in Safety A significant factor that would enhance the safety of bikeway users is to build in safety measures in the design. There are now a number of standards for designing various aspects of cycling infrastructure that can be adapted to suit local needs in Marikina.

However, extra care should be applied for handling potential points of conflict, i.e., at intersections, entry and exit points, points of convergence of different modes, blind spots, crosswalks, etc.5 4.5.3.5 Safety Equipment Participants were also concerned about bicycle users having the proper safety equipment, the most basic being a helmet. Other equipment, not necessarily standard cyclist fare, such as elbow and knee pads, were also mentioned. These are probably more appropriate for children. However, whether such equipment actually enhance safety and whether to make their use mandatory are issues that advocates have been debating for some time now.6 It would be wise to look closely at these issues before advocacy requiring the use 3

One such course that has proven effective is the Effective Cycling program developed by John Forester and run by the League of American Bicyclists. The program is based on the accumulated experiences of “club cyclists” whose accident rates in the U.S. and UK are only a quarter of those of the general cycling public.

4

Australia, for example, has a National Bike Ed Program integrated into the curriculum of primary and secondary schools.

5

There are many articles on designing safety into bike facilities design. The Netherlands and Oregon State in the U.S. have produced manuals for designing such facilities. See also articles from the Velo Australis proceedings cited in the reference list.

6

The life-saving function of well designed helmets have been proven many times. However, some

4-8

of particular safety equipment is pursued.

These and similar measures together may significantly reduce the risk of accidents.

Litman cites a study of the American Society of Civil Engineers to show the potential for fatality reduction related to each safety measures and is reproduced below (Table 4.5-1):7 Table 4.5-1. Potential for Fatality Reduction Related to Each Safety Measure Measure Potential Fatality Reduction Teaching riders to avoid common mistakes 50% or more Helmet use 40% to 50% Eliminate intoxicated bicyclists 16% or more Eliminate intoxicated automobile drivers 16% Enforce nighttime lighting requirements 10% or more Teach motorists to share the road with bicyclists 5% or more Infrastructure improvements Significant Source: Todd Litman However, since part of the problem is public perception of those risks, it is important to communicate to the public the safety measures that the local government is putting in place.

This public education component seems crucial for assuaging apparently widespread fears on the risks of cycling on public roads.

4.5.3.6 Security The issue of security was mentioned in relation to preventing bike theft. While it is not known what the incidence of bike theft is in the city, this was expressed as a major concern by the FGD participants. Mothers were particularly afraid that their children’s bikes would be snatched from them. They believed police visibility on the bike ways would prevent such thefts.

As reported above, participants were willing to pay a nominal fee for secure bike parking.

Bike parking areas could generate income for parking attendants and the city as well.

Otherwise, secure racks should be provided to which cyclists can lock their bikes. There are various issues related to providing what can be considered adequate parking facilities for bikes. Parking areas should be relatively secure, well lit for those out late, and preferably protected from inclement weather. The city government should see to it that areas regularly accessed by the public should provide secure bike parking facilities.

Private building owners should be made to provide such facilities without cost to the public. recreational and utilitarian cyclists who ride at a leisurely pace argue against mandating the use of helmets and other such equipment as being unnecessary in their situation. In some countries, helmet use has become mandatory for children. Helmet use is mandatory for all in Australia.

7

from Todd Litman’s Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Travel for Achieving TDM Objectives (www.islandnet.com/~litman), 1999.

4-9

4.5.3.7 Women and Cycling Based on participants’ comments, a cultural taboo against girls riding bicycles still seems to be observed. Even in these otherwise enlightened times, mothers continue to enjoin their daughters from continuing to ride bikes when they reach their teen-age years.. This is probably why people who ride bicycles in Marikina are predominantly male, according to participants’ own observations.8 Since women make up half of the population, it is important to address this issue at all the relevant levels -- to encourage schoolgirls to ride to school with the boys, to assuage the fears of mothers, to boost the confidence of young girls to keep cycling, and to encourage mature women to take up riding bicycles as a way to improve their access and mobility options.

4.5.3.8 Environmental Benefits Based on the participants’ reactions, it seems that the primary benefit that people expect from bicycling is economic – it will be cheaper to ride a bicycle for short trips than take motorized transport. If, as implied by this, people will be switching to bicycles from public transport for at least part of their travel needs, then the desired environmental impacts might not be evident, at least in the short-run. Since this switching might not be significant enough to reduce the demand for public transport, the number of motorized vehicles, and hence the level of emissions from them, will not show any decline. Only if people switch from private automobiles to nonmotorized modes can there be a significant impact on the environment.

However, such a switch will require at least two things to happen given the participants’s feedback. One is that there must be a compulsion for automobile users to make the switch. This can be achieved by a system of incentives for cycling (or disincentives to automobile use). The other is the need to extend the network to cover the rest of the metropolitan area so that travel from Marikina to destinations outside the city by bike can be continuous.

4.5.3.9 A Bicycling Campaign Providing proper bicycling facilities is like leading a horse to water; you cannot make the horse drink unless it wants to or is given a good reason to. There was a sense that the FGD participants approved of the bikeways idea in principle but getting them to ride bicycles would take something more. Many said that they needed assurance that the city government was committed to ensuring that their cycling experience would be troublefree.

8

This seems to be even more the case in rural areas where any transport vehicle is rare and bicycles can be a major mobility tool. This prohibition against women seems to be one way that men control women’s movements and thus deny them basic mobility rights. See the paper of Pagaduan, et al. for report of this phenomenon.

4 - 10

Providing basic facilities would probably make the experience of those who already ride their bikes more pleasant. However, getting the general public to regard cycling as a serious transportation option will require a sustained information and promotional campaign.9 The FGD participants clearly acknowledged this need to make cycling in the city “more attractive.”

Afterall, this involves changing behavior, and people are generally reluctant to change unless the benefits to them of such changes are clear and forthcoming. Seriously pushing a bicycling campaign in the city requires thoughtful planning and good implementation.

Subsidies or other incentives can be used to “reward” people who use bicycles. This is to show that there is a socially “preferred” behavior with regards to transport choices and that society is serious about promoting that behavior. Providing financial incentives is a relatively new approach to increasing cycling for short trips (such as to work, to school, for chores, for visits, etc.) and employers can be invited to participate in such programs.10 Proper maintenance of the bicycle network was also mentioned as important. The participants thought this should consist of keeping the paths and lanes well paved, clean, and clear of obstructions. As reported above, community groups said they would be willing to help in maintenance work.

A clear manifestation of local government commitment to maintaining the network might mean assigning an office or an official to be primarily responsible for this. In many bike friendly cities, naming a local bicycle coordinator is usually taken as a sign of the local government’s serious intent at promoting bicycling.

In addition, the city should address the basic issue of access to a bicycle. Ordinarily, this means providing people a way to own bikes in an affordable way. The World Bank has had experience in integrating a credit program for bike purchases in their bicycle promotion projects. However, there may be alternatives to outright individual ownership of bicycles. Some cities in Europe and the United States have experimented with bike rental programs with varying degrees of success. Bike pooling, bike coops, loaner programs and some such similar schemes ought to be looked into as well.

Table 4.5-2 summarizes the concerns that the FGD participants expressed and the practical implications for the bikeways network that can be inferred from these anxieties.

9

There are now available a number of models for success in bicycling promotion at the local government level. Please refer to specific articles in the reference list. A central argument of this analysis is that getting people to successfully switch from motor vehicle to nonmotorized modes, primarily bicycling, is the only way to get significant improvements in GHG emissions. The two elements for getting this done is a strategic plan for promoting bicycling in Marikina with obtainable targets to measure progress and the adoption of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies for managing transportation with clear objectives and goals for reducing GHG emissions, promoting cycling and other nonmotorized forms of transport, and promoting more efficient public transport modes.

10

The Nottingham Cycle-Friendly Employers Project is one example. Please see reference list for citation.

4 - 11

Table 4.5-2. Concerns and Implications for the Marikina Bikeways Network Concern Measure Sought Practical Implications Safety Mix of dedicated bike Dedicated paths – Riverside Park. paths, marked bike lanes, Designated streets – low stress and road sharing schemes. routes including designating Daang Bakal as an exclusive bike corridor.

Share the road campaign.

Program in safety Educating cyclists on bike education handling, traffic, and road skills – Effective Cycling seminars & cycling clinics.

Integrating bike safety education in schools.

Educating MV drivers.

Controlling reckless, Enforcement of traffic rules. dangerous driving Consistent application of rules of the road.

Design of bike network & Adapt standards developed in associated facilities. other countries to ensure safety in the design of the network.

Safety equipment Provide helmets.

Study feasibility of helmet ordinance.

Security Security of cyclists on bike Police visibility on bike network – network. bike patrol.

Preventing bike theft Provide secure parking facilities.

Taboos against Removing cultural Consider a program for sensitizing women cyclists prohibitions against both men and women to issue. women riding bikes Long term Bicycling campaign Government should draw up a government campaign for promoting cycling commitment including transportation demand management (TDM) strategies for reducing demand for motorized vehicles. Appoint a local bicycle coordinator with primary responsibility for promoting cycling and securing cyclists rights.

Encourage more cycling Provide incentives/subsidies Access to bicycles Easy credit for purchases.

Bike rentals, pooling, coops.

Maintaining the bikeways Pinpoint responsibility in local network government.

4 - 12

4.6 Summary and Concluding Remarks There is a danger that comments from FGD participants be taken at face value. While such raw information is helpful in situations that are ambiguous and in areas where little or no work has been done, it can also be misleading unless subject to careful scrutiny.

While this proposed project is unique in this country, there is a wealth of experience in other countries on setting up a bikeways network. This should be used to filter through the results of the FGD in order to arrive at useful information with regards the proposal.

This is true, for example, in the overwhelming concern for safety expressed by the FGD participants. While safety is an issue for all bike riders, it seems that it was cited by the participants particularly in relation to children’s safety on their bikes. (One particular case cited in the FGD was the accident with a motorized vehicle that befell two young children cyclists as an example.) It is also clear that inexperienced cyclists tend to view bikelanes and exclusive bikepaths as a panacea for their fears. However, studies have shown that accidents involving cyclists are more likely along bikepaths than on shared roadways. One can infer is that it is the cyclist’s skills in bike handling and riding with traffic that are determinant of safety, not the existence of bikepaths. Both the skills of cyclists as well as those of motorized vehicle drivers need to be improved and the road laws that are there to assure road safety need to be better enforced.

Secondly, it will take more than building a bikeways network to increase the incidence of cycling in the city and, even more importantly, to get people to switch from motorized vehicles to nonmotorized modes. Specifically, it will take a well-thought out strategic plan with various components, among them a sustained information and education campaign, a schools-based bike safety program, a cyclist education program such as the “Effective Cycling” course of the League of American Bicyclists in the United States, a city office or official dedicated to maintaining the network and its related bike facilities, and protecting bike users’ interests and rights, specific targets in terms of increasing cycling incidence and decreasing vehicular use and pollution, ways to resolve user conflicts, and citizen participation in the planning and implementation of all related programs.

It seems apparent the Marikina bikeways network will consist of both exclusive bikepaths in areas where they are feasible (such as the River Park) and for use primarily for recreational purposes and by less experienced cyclists, and separated bikelanes and shared roads (designated bike routes) along city streets where space is a premium. There are many requirements that such a network must comply with, one of them being that it should provide cyclists with continuous (noninterrupted) access to their various destinations. It also goes without saying that such a network should not be used to ban cyclists from major streets or otherwise relegate them to side roads that do not meet their travel needs. That would surely be a prescription for cyclists’ dissent, if not program failure.11 11

This is certainly one lesson drawn from the experience of the city government of Christchurch, New Zealand. When the city government first drew up its bikenetwork plan, the proponents sought to get cyclists off the main arterials which the planners believed were too dangerous. The city designated bike

4 - 13

4.7 References Ivett, Linda. 1996. Experience with and Redevelopment of Bike Ed in Australia in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Williams, R.L. 1996. Are Bike Lanes Safe? in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis.

Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Thaden, June E. and Bonnie McClun. 1996. The League of American Bicyclists: Effective Cycling Program in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Ades, Rose. 1996. UK National Cycling Strategy: Out of the Gutter and into the Fast Lane in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Butler, Terry. 1996. Local Government’s Response to the UK National Cycling Strategy in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering (CROW). 1993. Sign Up for the Bike: Design Manual for a Cycle-friendly Infrastructure.

The Netherlands.

Crider, Linda B. 1996a. Florida Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. ____________. 1996b. A School Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Plan in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Lee, Angela and John Smyth. 1996. A Bicycle Helmet Promotion Campaign for the Under 16 Year Olds in West Berkshire, England 1992-1995 in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Litman, Todd. 1999a. Potential Transportation Demand Management Strategies, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.islandnet.com/~litman). ___________. 1999b. Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Travel for Achieving TDM Objectives, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.islandnet.com/~litman). routes “through a series of low traffic volume streets, and providing facilities to connect these streets where necessary.” What happened was that commuter cyclists avoided these side and back roads and continued to ride on the arterials which brought them directly to their destinations. See the paper of Alix Newman cited below.

4 - 14

Newman, Alix. 1996. Local Government Learns About Cycling in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Parsons, Julie and Terry Lindley. 1996. Safe Routes to Schools in Western Australia: A Sate-wide Approach in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Redden, Leanne P. 1996. Schaumburg . . . A Success Story: A Profile of a Municipality’s Bicycle Planning Efforts in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Robinson, Dorothy L. 1996. Cycle Helmet Laws -- Facts, Figures and Consequences in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Robinson, Bruce. 1996. Is There Any Reliable Evidence that Australian Helmet Legislation Works? in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Victory, Louis. 1996. Nottingham UK -- Creating a Cycleway Network: Key Lessons in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Wadhwa, Lal C. 1996. Bicycle Route and Technology Improvements: A Case Study of a Medium-sized City in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd. Weedon, Adrian. 1996. The Bicycle Coordinator in Local Government in Conference Proceedings of Velo Australis. Western Australia: Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd.

4 - 15

5. FRAMEWORK FOR A STRATEGIC PLAN TO INCREASE THE INCIDENCE OF UTILITARIAN CYCLING IN MARIKINA CITY 5.1 Introduction The long-term prospects for increasing bicycling in Marikina depends partly but significantly on developing a strategy to ensure its success. Below is outlined what may be considered the necessary elements of a bicycling strategy that ensures practical results while moving the city towards an overall goal of building a transportation system that serves the needs of its residents adequately and equitably while minimizing environmental and road congestion costs.

5.2 Outline of a Strategic Plan 5.2.1 A Note on the Planning Process The process must be democratic and participative. In this context, participation from individual cyclists as well as organized cycling groups and other stakeholders should be solicited and welcomed. The lesson from the Christchurch (New Zealand) experience is that “we . . . need to reach out to those who are affected by our works and our plans, and not simply do things we believe will be good, and expect them to be well received.” And this leads inevitably to the corollary that “Cyclists know what they want and need -- the most important thing a local government can do is attempt to use its resources to meet this need, rather than provide what it thinks cyclists should want or should use.”1 5.2.2 Creating a Vision for Transport in Marikina A vision of how the local government and the people of Marikina imagine the future state of transport in the city is necessary for laying out a strategy for achieving this particular goal. Such a vision for Marikina depends on whether the city government has a broader vision for transportation in the city or is limited to merely promoting bicycling. That vision then needs to be declared in the form of a statement of what the city expects to achieve within a reasonable amount of time.

The vision’s scope has implications for how the city ultimately designs its strategy for dealing with this issue. The two basic choices (not counting the choice of doing nothing, of course) are: 1. A broad design for transportation will situate the bicycle plan within a vision for developing transportation within Marikina that meets certain desired goals such as environmental sustainability, social equity, and economic viability. Such a vision might be based on transport demand

1

The lessons drawn from the experience of Christchurch were written up in a paper presented by Alix Newman, a member of the city council, and presented at Velo Australis in 1996.

5-1

management (TDM) strategies with the promotion of nonmotorized transport modes being a major component.

2. An alternative vision statement might focus on the promotion of cycling alone with an emphasis on its role as a transport mode. The institutionalization of this basic vision will go a long way towards ensuring the long term sustainability of the Marikina Bikeways Network.

This framework outlines the basic components for the second option, that is, the minimum ingredients that a good bicycling plan should take into consideration.

Developing the first option is a more complex endeavor that is beyond the scope of this report.

To help lay the groundwork for a strategic cycling plan, it is necessary to adopt a basic philosophy to serve as a foundation upon which the plan can be built. A good example is provided by Australia’s bicycle plan which has two basic tenets, namely:2 • •

every street is a bicycle street the 4-Es – engineering, education, encouragement and enforcement – an integrated approach to all facets of planning and policy

The bike plan and campaign should address at least the following areas of action: • • • •

safety • education, awareness, and behavior; • enforcement and road traffic law; encouragement; engineering and planning; administration, management and funding

5.2.3 Ensuring Cyclists’ Safety – The Basic Components of a Safety Program 5.2.3.1 Education, Awareness, and Behavior Education should address the areas of bicycle riding skills training and behavior modification. This should consist of at least two levels: one for school-aged children which can possibly be coursed through schools and integrated into the curriculum; and one for adult cyclists which will consist of riding clinics.

It is important to design bike riding courses for children that are fun but at the same time are able to effectively transfer skills. It may be necessary to hire consultants from other

2

From Bike Ahead: Bicycle Strategy for the 21st Century of the Government of Western Australia. Many of the ideas in this report are owed to this forward looking document. However, many local and regional governments in other countries have drafted their own plans and campaigns and they may well suggest other useful ideas for local implementation.

5-2

countries that have successfully run such programs in order to design an appropriate one for the city.

Riding clinics for adult cyclists are also necessary to impart proper road behavior. The most effective programs, such as the Effective Cycling program of the League of American Bicyclists mentioned above, teach cyclists to behave as if they were driving vehicles on the road. Such a course, therefore, teaches riders to follow road rules as laid down by the motor vehicle code. Such training should also be required of traffic enforcers as they need to be able to distinguish between safe and unsafe riding behavior.

One disincentive for unsafe behavior would be to cite cyclists for particular violations.

Complementing this education and skills training should be an effort to increase motor vehicle dirvers’ awareness of cyclists on the road and their responsibility to share the road with other users in a safe manner. While the city has no direct hand at motor vehicle driver’s education, it should nevertheless advocate the inclusion of cyclist awareness and proper road sharing behavior in the national government’s driver’s education program or promulgate local ordinances that would require such retraining. This will be the basic, long-term strategy for altering driver behavior from its currrently “non-cycling friendly” state.

Awareness and information campaigns should aim to inform all affected sectors of the existence of the bike network and its facilities, their proper use, safety information, the benefits of cycling, etc. Part of this campaign might be the drawing up of a city bike map showing designated bike routes and shared paths and the setting up of such maps at strategic locations along the network. Other media, such as video and film, might be used to increase public knowledge. This awareness campaign should include traffic enforcers as an audience since they too must be made knowledgeable about the particular needs of cyclists and other users of the network.

Since not all city streets are designated bike routes, it would help to rate them on the criterion of appropriateness for bike travel as an aid for cyclists trying to make route choices.

5.2.3.2 Enforcement and Road Traffic Law An initial inventory of all laws and ordinances affecting nonmotorized transport should be made and reviewed. New ordinances might be needed to regulate both cyclist’s and driver’s behavior on the road as well as regulate the use of the bikeways network. Motor vehicle speed limits must be posted on local roads, particularly all along the on-road bike network. Enforcement of these limits is crucial to the wellbeing of cyclists. The effectivity and consistency of enforcement will surely be used by cyclists and other commuters as a gauge of the sincerity of the local government in promoting more cycling in the city.

Enforcement of traffic laws will be a key to raising the safety profile of bicycle use in the city. Part of better law enforcement should be increased police presence along the

5-3

network. A way to do this while affirming the local government’s commitment to nonmotorized transport is to create a Marikina police bike patrol force. The experience of many cities around the world with bike patrols has been overwhelmingly positive.

Bike patrols increase personal contact between police and local residents which always leaves a positive image of the police. Police on bicycles are also more mobile compared to foot patrols while bikes allow police to weave in and out of traffic jams when in pursuit of criminal suspects.

It will probably be necessary to promulgate local ordinances that regulate cyclists behavior on the road (and not just the network). However, it is easy to be overzealous in this task and care should be taken not to impose too many specific regulations on cyclists.

Afterall, their behavior on the road is already covered by rules of the road of which cyclists only need to be made aware of. Other local laws such as those covering collisions and other accidents involving cyclists, the use of the network, particularly the riverside path and lanes, the use of safety equipment such as helmets and lights will probably need to be promulgated.

Based on the results of the focus group discussions conducted among city residents (see next section), ensuring cyclists’ safety is likely to be the foundation for increasing bicycle use in the city to levels that will have significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

5.2.4 Encouragement In order to accelerate behavioral changes, the city might want to consider a system of material and financial incentives for using bicycles instead of motorized vehicles. An incentive system is a good idea because even competent cyclists might not be motivated to commute by bicycle unless there are clear personal advantages in doing so. An incentive system need not cost the city government a centavo if it can enlist private employers to finance such efforts (among their workers).

The city government can also organize or support bike festivals, bike-to-work campaigns, fun rides, and other participant events to get people to ride their bikes or at prove that cycling in the city can be fun and safe. The support of cyclists’ and other citizens’ groups can go a long way in getting broad public participation in these campaigns.

It seems that a program to get more women to ride bicycles for transportation is necessary. Such a program would need to address the issue of cultural and gender taboos to bike riding. Also, it may be necessary to look into bicycle design issues since most bicycles are generally designed for men. It might be that bicycles generally sold in the country do not take into consideration women’s needs and physical dimensions.

5.2.5 Engineering and Planning Planning and engineering should be continuous efforts to ensure that the bike network and facilities meet the needs of users. One issue is integrating bicycle use with public

5-4

transport. This might mean providing parking facilities at major public transport access points so that people can bike to these points from their homes and feel reasonably secure about leaving their bike until their return.

Engineering might also mean continually evolving standards that are appropriate to local conditions and use. This would include traffic signing, improving design of the facilities, monitoring problems, etc.

5.2.6 Administration, Management, and Funding Many local governments that promote nonmotorized transport also usually appoint a bicycle coordinator.

The bicycle coordinator assumes full-time responsibility for managing the network and seeing to it that it is properly maintained. He or she would also be responsible for policy formulation, raising funds to support specific aspects of the local program, and other tasks that relate to the network and campaign.

A crucial part of management of the program is monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring program performance presumes that clear goals have been set at the outset. Evaluation measures depend on those specific targets but some of them may be the following: 1. Increasing the number of bicycle trips as a proportion of total trips taken.

2. Increasing the number of bicycle users. Determining what factors can be credited for the increase.

3. Determining the number of bike users, specifically users of the network and its various facilities, and disaggregating that number for better analysis. This will answer the question of where the increases are coming from and whether the groups targeted by the program are being reached (e.g., increasing the number of women cyclists).

4. Tracking cycling related accidents, where they occur, and why they occur.

This will aid in evaluating the adequacy of safety measures, in redesigning facilities for greater safety, in pinpointing problem areas, and in raising the confidence of cyclists.

5. Tracking bike thefts and taking remedial measures to enhance security.

6. Monitoring the number of city streets that have been made more bicycle friendly. This can mean painting bike lane markings, increasing shoulder width for bikes, putting up traffic and other signs, posting speed limits, etc.

It is this monitoring and performance evaluation system that will help the city determine whether or not the investments it made are paying off and to what extent they are paying off. These measures can also be used to build indices to show how the quality of life in the city has been improving.

5-5

6. INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION 6.1 Methodology for Data Gathering 6.1.1 Primary Data/Baseline Data For the IEE study, the data generated by the feasibility study team were used as inputs. The FS team generated primary data through the conduct of field surveys, interviews of key resource persons and focus group discussions. In particular, primary data were generated to prepare the project design and coverage. The team also surveyed the status and conditions of roads where the bikeways will be established.

Ocular surveys were also conducted to determine the status of riverside bike lanes and the riverside environment.

Field observations and examinations of proposed bikeway routes were done through windshield surveys and on foot transect of selected segments. A bicycle ride to get a closer observation of proposed routes was done by the Social Expert of the FS study team who is himself a professional biker. A boat ride to traverse the stretch of the Marikina river was done to supplement the combined vehicular and foot surveys earlier conducted to examine the riverside environment with particular attention to land use, vegetation, and wildlife.

Observations and information gathered from the field surveys were mapped.

Photographs were also taken to document the status of the roads and their present uses.

An indication of the social acceptability of the project was obtained from the focus group discussion workshops conducted by the Social Expert of the FS team. The stakeholders who include local government officials, representatives from the business sector, workers’ group, and youth organization, attended the FGDs. Twelve companies were sent survey questionnaires to determine primarily the number of their employees bicycling to work and those interested to improve the conditions of bike travel. The companies were also asked regarding their willingness to provide financial support to employees to acquire bicycles, and their willingness to provide their employees bicycle parking facilities.

6.1.2 Secondary Data Gathered and Sources Data on land use and socioeconomic baseline were obtained from the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO). Data on the environment are scanty; data on air pollution for Marikina City is non-existent while data on water pollution for Marikina River covered limited periods and were obtained from the reports of the city’s Health Office Laboratory. Other environmental data used in the study such as the location of faultlines and frequently flooded area were provided by the CPDO which compiled these data obtained from several sources such as the PHIVOLCS, etc.

The secondary data used in the IEE study and their sources are given in Table 6.1-1.

6-1

Table 6.1-1. Secondary Data and Their Sources Sector Data Gathered Sources of data Socioeconomic Socioeconomic Profile of City Planning and Marikina City Development Office (CPDO) Environment Map of Flooded Areas CPDO Marikina River CPDO Recreational Park Biking/jogging lanes for Marikina River Park rehabilitation Authority Water Quality Marikina Health office Map of Marikina Valley PHIVOLCS Fault System Land use Map CPDO and MMUTIS Zoning classification MMDA Soils data CPDO Socioeconomic Profile Easement Regulations NWRB. Philippines Water Code.

6.1.3 Public Consultations The study team’s Social Expert conducted five separate focus group discussions (FGDs) which were attended by residents and workers in the different barangays of the City. A professional moderator and documentor during the FGDs assisted him.

The highlights of the consultation during these FGDs are briefly summarized below: 1) the participants welcome and support the bikeways project despite some apprehensions on the safety of bicycle drivers from reckless drivers of motorized vehicles; 2) they are cognizant of the economic benefits of bicycling and cite it as an inexpensive form of transport, a way to easily get around traffic congestion, a means to access many places, and a healthy form of exercise; 3) most of the participants are not very much concerned with the level of air pollution in the city although they acknowledged that this may deter others from bicycling; and 4) for the bicycle program to be successful, the participants suggested a safety program that should go with the bikeways infrastructure development.

Results of the survey conducted by the Feasibility Study Team revealed that a significant 8.6% of workers in Marikina use bicycle as their mode of transport in going to work. To determine these workers view on the proposed bikeways project as well as their employers willingness to support the project, a survey of 12 big companies in Marikina was conducted.

Of the 12 companies surveyed concerning their support to the project, seven indicated their willingness to support the increased bike use of their workers through the provision of financial support for bike acquisition and provision of parking facilities 6-2

for bicycles. At present only two companies provide financial schemes for bike acquisition; ten have bicycle parking facilities and four have shower facilities for bikers. Most (7 out of 12) of the companies’ employees indicated interest to improve the conditions of bike travel to their workplaces. See Appendix A.1 for more details of this survey.

6.1.4 Process Documentation of Consultative Activities Five focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted on two successive weekends in October 1999. Representatives from affected groups were invited as participants to the FGDs. Those who attended include: factory workers, people running small businesses, construction workers, shoemakers, students, professionals, housewives, a tricycle driver and local city employees. Organizations that attended the FGDs were homeowner’s association, the Sangguniang Kabataan, student groups, labor unions and the Professional cycling Association of the Philippines. A total of about 46 stakeholders’ representatives participated in the FGDs. Four of the FGDs took place in the Marikina City hall and one FGD was held at the Parang Barangay Hall.

The FGDs were guided by a set of questions that were administered by a professional facilitator. A documentor was also hired to tape the discussions. The FGDs were conducted to get the opinions, perceptions and suggestions of the participants to the proposed bikeways project. Public acceptability of the proposed project was then deduced from the feedback of the participants.

The details of the consultation process are given in Chapter 4 and Appendix A.3.

6.2 Description of Environmental Setting and Receiving environment 6.2.1 Delineation and Mapping of Primary and Secondary Impact Areas For the bikeways that will be established in existing roads, the primary and secondary impact areas will be the on-site and surrounding built-up areas and structures which include residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial. No critical environments are expected to be affected by the bikeways since their media or platforms are existing roads and their surrounding sites are built up areas. The population living in the area and those doing business or working in the City will be affected by the bikeways project in much more positive than negative ways. Figure 6.2-1 depicts the built-up environment (i.e., land uses) that will be affected by the project.

For the new bike lanes that will be constructed to extend the existing riverside bike lanes towards the northern portion of the river, the primary impact areas are the adjacent patches of agricultural lands and the few houses of squatter relocatees in the Tumana resettlement area which have to be moved back to give space for the bike lanes. Another impact area during the construction of the project is the river segments whose quality may be temporarily affected by the sediments from the construction sites.

6-3

Figure 6.2-1 Land Use Map of Marikina City (1986 updated in 1996 and 1999)

6-4

6.2.2 Description of Existing Biophysical Environment Data on land area, topography, geology and faultline, soils, and water bodies were extracted from the 1997 Socioeconomic Profile of Marikina City prepared by the CPDO. Data on water quality were obtained from the Marikina Health Office.

Description of land use was based on the interpretation of present land use map and ocular surveys conducted by the consultant. Description of flooded areas was based on the Flooding map provided by the CPDO. 6.2.2.1 Land area and topography Marikina City has a total land area of about 2,150 hectares. It is composed of fourteen barangays (Table 6.2-1).

Table 6.2-1. Barangays of Marikina City and Their Area Barangay Area(has) 1. Parang 383 2. Concepcion Uno 344 3. Marikina Heights 206 4. Concepcion Dos 185 5. Nangka 181 6. Sto. Nino 146 7. Malanday 138 8. Barangka 117 9. San Roque 109 10. Jesus dela Pena 82 11. Tanong 78 12. Kalumpang 72 13. Industrial Valley Complex 65 14. Sta. Elena 44 Total 2,150

% 17.83 16.01 9.57 8.60 8.44 6.77 6.42 5.44 5.06 3.83 3.62 3.35 3.00 2.06 100.00

Located in a valley, Marikina is generally characterized to be level with only a small portion in the eastern section of the city with gentle slopes. About 73% of the total land area of Marikina have 0-2.5% slope and are highly suitable for urban development. The northeastern portion of the City has 215 hectares or 10 % belonging to the 2.5-5% slope category while about 366 hectares or 17% of the southeastern portion belong to the slope category of 5-10%.

6.2.2.2 Water Bodies The Marikina River serves as the City’s principal drainage system. The river starts from the foothills of the Sierra Madre Mountains and flows southwards through the Marikina valley and joins the Pasig River on its southern end.

6-5

Another river found traversing the City is the Nangka River, which separates Marikina and the Municipality of San Mateo. This river drains a sizeable portion of the eastern part of the City.

The creeks found in Marikina City include Bangkaan Creek, Park Creek, Concepcion Creek, Usiw Creek, Balante Creek, and Sapang Bato.

6.2.2.3 Geology and Fault Line The eastern portion of the City consists mostly of alluvial deposits and some clastic rocks while the western portion is made up of Tuff materials (sandy tuffs, tuffaceous shale). The peripheries of riverbanks are mostly made up of unconsolidated mixtures of sand, gravel and considerable amount of clay and silt.

The Marikina Valley Fault System consists of two main northeast trending faults—the east Marikina Valley Fault and the west Marikina Valley Fault (Figure 6.2-2).

The east fault line was mapped as far as north of San Rafael, Rodriguez and down south just north of Marvi Hills subdivision and Modesta village for a distance of at least 8 kilometers.

The west fault line has a distance of at least 23 km. starting from lower Macabod, Rodriguez in the north down to the vicinity of the Ultra Sports Complex in Pasig, Metro Manila.

Barangays to be affected by the west fault line are Nangka, Concepcion Uno, Malanday, Jesus de la Pena, Tanong, Barangka and Industrial Valley Complex (IVC).

The Marikina faultline was recorded to have no movement for the last 200 years.

6.2.2.4 Soils Three major soil types are found in Marikina: Quingua fine sandy loam, Marikina clay loam and Antipolo clay loam.

The Quingua fine sandy loam makes up the westernmost section of the City covering an area of about 602 hectares or 28% of the total land area. The Marikina clay loam makes up the central portion of the city covering 774 hectares or 36% of the total land area. The Antipolo clay loam is predominant in the eastern section of the city. It covers about 774 hectares or 36% of the total land area.

6-6

6-7

6.2.2.5 Land Use The project site is a basically a built-up area; Marikina being a highly urbanized area.

The present land use in the Project site is given in Figure 6.2-1. About 46% of the City is residential followed by industrial use (13%), institutional (13%), parks and recreation (11%), mixed use (9%) and other uses (8%). Included under “Other Uses” are open grasslands (idle and vacant lands) which occupy about 1% and patches of agricultural uses, which comprise less than 1%.

The breakdown of the different land uses in Marikina City is given in the table below (Table 6.2-2).

Table 6.2-2. Present Land Use, Marikina (1997) Land use

Area (ha) Residential 984 Permanent settlement 7 Commercial 72 Industrial 278 Institutional 276 Mixed use 194 Utility 5 Cemetery 24 Parks and recreation 228 Open grassland 29 Swamp/marshes 11 Agricultural 10 Area for Priority development 32 Total 2,150 Source: CPDO. 1997 Socioeconomic Profile of Marikina City.

Percent 45.78 0.32 3.35 12.93 12.84 9.02 0.23 1.12 10.60 1.35 0.51 0.46 1.49 100.00

Since the bikeways will be established mostly in existing roads, the surrounding land uses in the bikeway routes are residential, commercial and business, industrial, institutional, and open space.

The existing bike lanes traverse barangays Calumpang, Barangka, J. dela Pena, Sto. Nino, Malanday, Concepcion and Nangka. The proposed project plans to construct new bike lanes to cover the remaining stretch of both riversides. According to the report gathered by the study team from the CPDO, the lots along the riverbanks of the Marikina River (both sides of the river) are generally classified as parks and recreation for their land use.

In a survey conducted in September 1992, the City Government reported that about 2,806 families in 11 barangays and portions of two major industrial establishments (Manila Bay Spinning and Universal Textiles) encroach within the 30-meter easement of the river. However, the legal basis for reckoning the easement at 30 meters was not cited in the City Government’s report. During the study team’s ocular survey of the

6-8

riverbanks, they also noted that segments of the existing jogging/bike lanes are located within the 30-meter river easement.

Easements established under the Philippine Water Code depend on land use. Chapter IV (Utilization of Waters) Article 51 of the Philippine Water Code (PD 1067) states that “ The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins, are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to build structures of any kind.” Furthermore, Section 28 (Determination of Easements) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Water Code states that “All easements of public use prescribed for the banks or rivers and the shores of seas and lakes shall be reckoned from the line reached by the highest flood which does not cause inundation or the highest equinoctial tide whichever is higher. Any construction or structure that encroaches into such easement shall be ordered removed by the Minister of Public Works.”

The above provision (Article 51) of the Water Code considers land use in setting the easement. Thus, the easement in the riverbanks of Marikina River will vary depending on the adjacent land use of the areas. The easement may also be based on the zoned land use for the area. Thus, if the adjacent land uses of the riverbanks are zoned as urban areas, only 3 meters of easement are needed and the bike lanes that will be constructed can be set back to meet this requirement since land or space is available for this easement in most segments of the riverbanks. However, at present, some of the adjacent areas are classified and use as agriculture which requires a wider set back of 20 meters. In this case, the bike lanes to be constructed will most likely encroached on required easement because of the narrow strips of land available in some segments of the riverbanks. Easement for parks and recreation is not mentioned in the Water Code nor its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Perhaps, Parks and Recreation under urban uses may fall under the 3-meter easement. Legal interpretation on this matter should be sought by the Marikina City government to avoid violation of the Water Code. The legal staff of the Marikina government should also examine the easement provisions of the Civil Code.

If Article 28 (Determination of Easements) of the Water Code’s Implementing Rules and Regulations will be applied to the case of Marikina River, the extent of the easement will be very wide to cover existing settlement structures because of the extensive area covered by the floodwaters of the river. The legal authorities of Marikina City government should study the applicability or validity of this rule to Marikina River.

Various land uses in the riverside of Marikina River are also depicted clearly in the Land Use Map (Figure 6.2-1). Briefly, land uses in the northern and central parts of the river include agriculture (small patches of banana trees, vegetables and corn), residential, open grasslands, patches of bamboo and some fruit trees and open space.

The southern part of the river stretch has mostly residential, park and recreation, industrial, patches of bamboo, fast growing tree species and fruit trees, and

6-9

grasslands. The easement areas in both riversides are mostly open space and grasslands.

About 7 km (total length for both riversides) of the southern portion of the riversides have existing jogging/bike lanes used for recreational purposes. This portion of the Marikina River was developed by the City as its park and recreation area. This existing bike lane on both riversides will be extended towards the northern portion of the river. The whole stretch of the easement riversides was zoned as park and recreation according to the staff of CPDO. The Consultants noted during their ocular surveys that in some segments of the river banks, the existing bike lanes are about 5-10 meters away from the edge of the river channel while in other segments, the bike lanes are much closer. In the Ferlane subdivision located in the northern part of the river, a building structure was built right at the edge of the riverbank making it impossible for the bike lane to be constructed to pass through.

The Consultants also observed that the slopes in some segments of the riverbanks were eroded because of the erodible nature of their soils. Waste heaps were also seen in some areas toward the north. A wasteland fill was reported by the CPDO counterpart of the Study Team to be located near the riverbank within the Tumana area. River flooding exposes these wastes to runoff, which will eventually pollute the river.

It should be noted that the city of Marikina has no updated zoning ordinance. The Metro Manila Authority (now MMDA) issued the latest zoning of Marikina City in 1981. This zoning classification of 1981 provides the allowed uses of the following barangays:

Table 6.2-3 Zoning Classification of Barangays in Marikina City Zoning Classification Barangays Open space IVS, Barangka, J. de la Pena, Tanong, San Roque, Sta. Elena Agricultural Sto. NiĂąo Medium Density Residential Zone (R-2) Concepcion Uno Mixed Use Zone Concepcion Uno Area for Priority Development Malanday, Nangka Source: CPDO as extracted from MMDA Zoning Plan.

6.2.2.6 Air quality No data on air quality measurements are available for Marikina City. Nevertheless, the leading cause of morbidity in the City is upper respiratory diseases which local residents attribute to increasing air pollution in the area.

6 - 10

6.2.2.7 Water quality Latest data on water quality of Marikina River using the site under the Marikina Bridge as sampling station showed the following results: Table 6.2-4. Water Quality of Marikina River, 1999 Date

Salinity

PH

DO mg/l

BOD Mg/l

Temp

Jan ‘99 Feb ‘99 Mar ‘99 Apr ’99 May ‘99 Jun ‘99 Jul ‘99 Aug ‘99 Sep ‘99 Oct ‘99 Nov ‘99 Average

0 0 0 2

7.00 7.98 7.41 7.32 7.42 7.69 7.44 7.56 7.57 7.35 7.63 7.48

5.30 3.50 4.00 1.80 5.80 5.00 5.20 6.90 5.70 5.40

5.00 3.00 7.00 5.00 18.00 8.00 12.00 4.00 9.00 10.00

4.86

8.1

6.5-8.5

5.0

7(10)

27.00 28.10 26.90 30.50 29.30 27.90 27.20 29.40 29.40 27.30 25.90 28.08 3 o C max rise

Std.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Water depth (m)

1.5 0.75 0.75

Secchi depth (m) 0.15

0.25 0.05 0.10 0.07

1.0

1.5 1.1

0.20 0.15 0.13 1.0

NH3-N mg/l

PO4-P mg/l

0.095 1.370 2.120 2.470 1.290 1.170 0.896 0.574 1.150 1.340

0.223 0.071 0.384 0.430 0.252 0.244 0.195 0.068 0.174 0.196

NO3N mg/l 0.869 0.927 0.888 0.596 0.893 0.652 0.645 0.647 0.731 0.915

1.247

0.223

0.776

1.0

0.4

1.0

Source: Marikina Health Office, 1999

Marikina River traversing Marikina City is classified as Class C (good for fishery and recreational purposes). However, its overall water quality has deteriorated compared to its water quality during the seventies when it was classified as Class A (appropriate for water supply with complete treatment). For the sampling period (January to November 1999), BOD averaged 8.1 mg/L which is slightly above the standard of 7 mg/L while DO averaged 4.86 mg/l which is slightly below the standard value of 5.0 mg/l. NH3-N registered an average of 1.247 mg/l which is slightly above the standard of 1.0 mg/l while the average results for PO4-P and NO3-N were within standards.

The overall water quality of Marikina River is better compared to other rivers in Metro Manila. Marikina River’s water quality has the potential to further improve considering its present conditions and the way it is managed by the City Government.

A number of solid wastes (plastic wrappers, Styrofoam) were seen floating in the river during the ocular surveys conducted. Although the Marikina River is much cleaner than the Pasig River, the northern and southern ends of its riverbanks were observed to be littered with some waste materials.

Some local residents were seen fishing in some segments of the river. Tilapia, mudfish, carp and catfish were reported to be caught in the river. Others interviewed also reported the presence of small shrimps and some freshwater shellfish. At the northern portion of the river, children were seen swimming.

6.2.2.8 Wildlife and Vegetation Since the City is predominantly a built up area, no rare, endangered or threatened species of wildlife were seen by the Consultants or reported by local residents in the City. Only common species of birds such as Brown sparrows (Maya) and Yellowvented bulbul (Kulkul) were seen in the vegetation near the riversides. Birds belonging to the species Collocalia (Swifts or Layang-layang) were found nesting under the Marikina Bridge.

6 - 11

No primary and secondary growth forests were found in the city. Some areas within the city and the along the riversides have patches of fast growing species of trees such as Eucalyptus, Gmelina, Leucaena (Ipil-ipil), Acacia, raintree (commonly called acacia), fruit trees (mangoes, banana) and bamboo stands. Some shrubs and tall grasses occupy vacant and open lands.

No “Protected Areas” were identified in the project sites or bikeway routes considering the built-up or urban nature of the City.

6.2.2.9 Flooding As depicted in the flooding map (Figure 6.2-3), both river banks for the whole stretch of the Marikina River traversing the city are reported to be flood prone areas and frequently flooded during heavy rains/typhoons. Worst floods reportedly reached 18 feet high.

Streets flooded within the city include segments of J.P. Laurel and adjacent lots, Quirino, Mt. Wilson, Mt. Etna, Mt. Kennedy, Katipunan and Pio del Pilar intersection, Rosas, Quarts, Basalt, Lennon, Panama and Brazil.

6.2.3 Description of Existing Socio-Cultural-Economic Environment (population affected by the project; socio-cultural activities that would be affected) Marikina’s estimated population in 1997 was 376,635. Its growth rate in 1995 is about 3.3% making it the 12th among the most populated areas in Metro Manila. The estimated number of household, population and average household size by barangay is given in Table 6.2-5.

As mentioned in the previous sections of this report, the population affected by the project is the biking public or those who will use bicycle as an alternative form of transportation within the city. These people include workers, students and other members of the household. The bikeways project will facilitate access and movement of this population cohort to their workplaces, markets, groceries, malls, schools, bus and LRT stations and recreation areas. Biking will reduce these people’s expense for transportation and at the same time offer them a healthy form of exercise.

The bike lanes in the Marikina River will serve as a recreation park for biking Marikenos aside from giving them access to riverside communities. Thus, a lot more people will be benefited by the project.

The study team projects that the population of bikers would increase from 1.25% in 2004 to 3.5% in 2014 as a result of the bikeways project. This translates to about 73,859 bikers by the year 2014. As a mode of transportation, bicycle will attract mostly those using walking and tricycles as modes of commuting.

6 - 12

6 - 13

Table 6.2-5 Estimated Number of Households, Population and Average Household Size by Barangay (Marikina, 1997) Barangay Household Population Ave. HH Size 1. Concepcion Uno 13,901 66,288 4.80 2. Parang 13,513 64,028 4.73 3. Malanday 8,542 41,053 4.8 4. Sto. NiĂąo 6,212 29,001 4.67 5. Marikina Heights 5,747 30,131 5.23 6. Nangka 5,591 27,494 4.96 7. Barangka 4,582 21,845 4.77 8. Concepcion Dos 3,960 20,715 5.18 9. San Roque 3,727 17,325 4.73 10. Kalumpang 3,417 16,527 4.79 11. I.V. C. 3,029 14,689 4.82 12. Jesus dela Pena 2,097 10,922 4.94 13. Tanong 2,097 10,169 5.08 14. Sta. Elena 1,242 6,403 5.15 Total 77,657 376,835 Source: National Statistics office (NSO). 1995 NSO Census

Overall, the bikeways project will positively affect the population’s sociocultural activities. The project will promote biking as a cheap alternative form of transportation within the city. It is expected to cut down on fuel consumption by Marikenos thus minimizing air pollution and greenhouse gas emission in the city. It is also projected that upper respiratory diseases, which remain to be the leading cause of morbidity in Marikina since 1977, will be somehow reduced.

6.2.4 Other Socioeconomic Information About Marikina City Literacy rate of the population is very high at 99.16%. About 14% of the population are academic degree holders and only 1.14% did not complete any grade.

As of 1997, Marikina had an employment rate of 92%. Majority of the employed belongs to the age bracket of 25 to 44 years old. Of those employed, 66% are males and 44% females.

Squatters in the City were relocated in the Tumana Resettlement Site in barangay Concepcion Uno. 6.2.5 Discussion of Future Environmental Conditions Without the Project Without the project, traffic congestion is projected to increase and air pollution will most likely worsen in the city of Marikina. Existing roads where the bikeways project is proposed will continue to be used as parking spaces and impede the smooth flow of traffic in some roads. Accessibility of some areas will continue to be difficult and short trips within the city will continue to financially burden the poor segment of the population.

6 - 14

Without the extension of the bike lane project in the remaining stretch of the Marikina riversides, the easement will continue to be encroached upon by squatters migrating into the city and cleanliness of the environment will not be maintained. Accessibility of settlements near the riversides will continue to be difficult. Riverbanks in some segments of the river will remain to be unstable and continue to erode. Solid wastes will continue to be dumped in the riversides as seen in some segments of the river on its northern end.

6.3 Impact Identification and Assessment 6.3.1 Summary Matrix of Predicted Environmental Issues/Impacts and Their Level of Significance at Various Stages of Development Applying the IEE screening matrix prescribed under DAO 96-37, the environmental impacts of the project components were identified and analyzed (See Table 6.3-1 for the Scoping and Impact Identification Matrix). Specifically, the impacts of the construction and operation activities of the project on environmental attributes and their parameters were analyzed in terms of their nature (positive or negative) and extent and magnitude (significant or major, moderate, insignificant or small and localized, and negligible or no impact (See Table 6.3-1)).

The environmental attributes examined and their parameters are as follows: 1) Physical attributes with the following parameters: air quality, river water quality, land use, easement, noise, and flooding; 2) Biological and ecological attributes with the following parameters: vegetation and wildlife, and agriculture and fisheries; 3) Human use values with the following parameters: transportation, water supply, housing (relocation of squatters); and 4) Quality of life values with the following parameters: income, public health, recreation and tourism, cultural, historic and archaeological aspects.

The results of the scoping and the impacts identified including their magnitude are provided in Table 6.3-1 and a summary is given in Table 6.3-2.

6 - 15

Table 6.3-1. Scoping Matrix for Identifying Potential Significant Environmental Issues and Impacts Environmental Attributes

Physical attributes

Biological and ecological attributes Human use values

Quality of life values

1) Air quality 2) River water quality 3) Land use 4) Easement 5) Noise 6) Flooding 7) Vegetation and wildlife 8) Agriculture and fisheries 9) Transportation (traffic) 10) Water supply 11) Housing (relocation of squatters) 12) Income 13) Public health 14) Recreation and tourism 15) Cultural, historic and archaeological aspects

A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

B -I -I -M O -M O O O -I O O +S O O O

C O O O -I O O O O -I O O +I O O O

Activities/Sources of Impacts Construction Phase D E F G -I O O O -I O -M O -I O -M O O O -S -I -M -I -I O +I O O O O O -I -I O O -I -I -M O -I O O O O O O O -S -I +S +M +S +I O O O +S O O -I O O O O O

H +M +I +S +S O +I +S +I O O -I O +S +S O

Operation A +S O +M O O O O O +S O O +S +S +S O

Legend: Construction activities: A – Delineation and marking of bikeways in existing roads B – Upgrading of road condition through road repair, scarifying of pavement surface and asphalt topping of bikeways C – Putting up of sign ages, markers and lane barriers in critical segments to protect bikers D – Widening of suitable road segments (land grading, compaction, concreting and drainage improvement) E – Putting up of parking space in existing parking lots or open space (construction of bicycle racks and parking sheds) F – Construction of new bike lanes in riversides (rehabilitation of destroyed existing lanes, construction of new lanes – land grading, concreting, river bank slope stabilization) G – Construction of hazard protection barriers in critical stretches of riversides H – Planting of shade trees in riversides Operation activities: A – Operation and maintenance of bikeways and bike lanes B – Maintenance of protective barriers, signages and lighting Impact evaluation legend: + Positive impact - Negative impact

S – significant or major impact M – moderate impact I – insignificant impact (small and localized) O – negligible or no impact

6 - 17

Phase B O O +M O O O O O +S O O +S +S +S O

Table 6.3-2. Summary Matrix of Environmental Issues/Impacts of the Bikeways Project Environmental Issues/Impacts by Development Phase

Project Components/Impacts Areas Bikeways in Bicycle Parking Bike lanes in existing roads Space Riversides

1. PRE AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1.1 Physical environment -Air quality -Noise -Water quality -Land use (space/land use conflict) -Easement area -Sedimentation 1.2 Biological environment -Removal of crop and vegetation -Loss of top soil 1.3 Socioeconomic environment -Relocation of squatters -Traffic congestion 2. OPERATIONS PHASE 2.1 Physical environment -Air quality (less pollution) -Water quality -Solid waste disposal -Land use (improve space utilization) 2.2 Biological environment -Fisheries -Crop and vegetation 2.3 Socioeconomic -Traffic congestion (less congestion) -Travel cost (less cost) -Safety of bikers -Recreation (better recreation) -Accessibility (better accessibility) Legend:

+ S M I O

-I -M O -I O -I

O -I O -I O O

O -I -I -M -S -M

O O

O to -I O to -I

-I -M

O -I

O O

-M -I

+S O +I +M

+M O O +I

+S -I -I +S

O O

O O

-I +M

+S +S -I +S +S

+S +S +S +S +S

+S +S +S +S +S

Positive impacts Negative impacts Significant or major impact Moderate impact Insignificant impact (small and localized) Negligible or no impact

First of all, Table 6.3-2 shows that most of the negative environmental impacts will happen during the construction stage while most of the positive impacts will occur during the operation phase. Second, most of the negative impacts during the construction stage are negligible and insignificant. This means that these impacts are small, localized and temporary. Most importantly, the negative impacts during the construction stage are preventable if not mitigable. Only a few of the environmental impacts belong to the category of moderate and major (significant) in terms of magnitude.

The negative environmental impacts during the construction stage, which are of moderate in magnitude, include: 1) noise due to road improvement and widening in existing roads; 2) conflict in use of space/land for bikeways versus maintaining space for motorized vehicles in existing roads (including bikeways versus side road

6 - 18

parking space), and bike lanes versus agricultural use in some segments of the riversides or river banks; 3) sedimentation of river channel due to silt runoff during construction of bike lanes in the riversides; 4) loss of topsoil in the paving of land during the construction of bike lanes in riversides.

The two negative significant environmental impacts during the construction stage are: 1) the relocation of a few squatter families whose houses are located close to the river banks; and 2) the encroachment of the bicycle lanes in the easement of some segments of the riverbanks.

There are no significant negative environmental impacts identified for the operation phase. The significant environmental impacts of the operation phase are all positive.

These are: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

reduction in air pollution; improvement in space utilization in river banks; reduction in traffic congestion in the city’s business district; less travel cost for local residents making short distance trips; improvement in safety of bikers; improvement in riverside recreation facilities; and improvement in accessibility of residential, commercial, institutional and industrial establishments.

6.3.2 Brief Discussion of Specific Significant Impacts on the Physical and Biological Resources The only significant negative impact of the project on the physical environment as mentioned above (Section 6.3.1) is the encroachment of the bike lanes on the public easement in some segments of the river banks. This impact is considered significant because it violates the provisions of the easement law as applied to river channels.

This environmental issue can be resolved by clarifying the zonation of the lands along the margins of the riverbanks. If the lands are zoned as urban use, there will be less violation because under the Water Code, the easement required for urban areas is only 3 meters. Thus, most of the bike lanes will not encroach on the required easement.

The project has no negative impact on wildlife and protected forest vegetation since the project site is predominantly urban in character. No rare, endangered or threatened wildlife was reportedly found inhabiting the project sites and the bikeway routes do not encroach on any primary or secondary forest and other protected areas.

On the other hand, the project is expected to bring about significant positive impact on the quality of air environment due to the reduction in the burning of motor fuels as more residents use the bicycle in making short distance trips within the city.

6 - 19

6.3.3 Brief Discussion of Significant Socioeconomic Effects/Impacts of the Project The only significant negative socioeconomic impact of the project is the possible removal or setting back of about 15-20 squatter houses which are located close to the river banks where the bike lanes will pass. Inasmuch as these houses are within the Tumana resettlement area, the displaced relocatees can be easily settled in vacant lots within the same resettlement area.

The project has a number of significant positive socioeconomic impacts, which far more outweigh its negative impacts. These positive impacts are as follows: 1) improvement in the utilization of river banks by expanding the area for recreation thus closely monitoring illegal use and encroachment in these river banks; 2) reduction in traffic congestion because more local residents will use bicycle in making short distance trips; 3) less travel cost to residents biking to their office, school, church, malls, markets and groceries; 4) provides better recreation facilities and healthy form of recreation; 5) improves safety of bikers because of the presence of dedicated lanes, lighting, delineators/markers, hazard protection barriers and bike patrols; and 6) provides better accessibility to riverside settlements, MRT station and industries and other areas less serviced by public transportation.

6.4 Environmental Management Plan 6.4.1 Summary Matrix of Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures, Estimated Cost and Responsibility Centers The summary of the Environmental Management Plan which provides for the measures necessary to prevent and/or mitigate the negative impacts of the project’s construction and operation activities is given in Table 6.4-1. The table outlines the critical project activities, their negative and positive impacts on physical, biological and socioeconomic environment, the corresponding measures to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts and enhance the positive impacts, the cost of mitigation if available, the responsibility centers which are tasked to implement or oversee the management measures, the schedule of implementing the management measures, and the guarantees necessary to ensure successful undertaking of these measures.

6 - 20

Table 6.4-1. Summary of Environmental Management Plan Project Activities Impact Description Per Parameter (Pre, Construction, (Physical, Biological and SocioOperation) economic) Construction Phase 1) Bikeways in existing roads -road repair, -create noise scarifying of -dust pollution pavement surface and -traffic congestion asphalt topping -widening of suitable road segments

-create noise -dust pollution -traffic congestion -space use conflict b/w bicycles and motor vehicles; bikeways and roadside parking space.

2) Bicycle parking lot and facilities -putting up of parking -clearing of vegetation in parking space space in existing parking lots or available open spaces -construction of bicycle racks and parking sheds 3) Bike lanes in riversides -rehabilitation of -sedimentation of river channel through destroyed existing runoff in construction sites jogging/bike lanes

-construction of new bike lanes

-relocation of a few squat ter houses -encroachment of public easement -sedimentation of river channel -clearing of vegetation in some segments of the river banks -noise and dust pollution -loss of topsoil

Mitigation Measures (if negative) and Enhancement Measures (if positive)

Cost of Mitigation or Enhancement

Institutional Plan Responsibility Centers

Schedule

Guarantees (MOAs, etc.) and Contracts

Finish construction on time.

Undertake construction work involving noise during daytime.

Put up proper traffic signs and monitor and manage flow of traffic by traffic enforcers.

Finish construction on time.

Undertake construction work involving noise during the daytime.

Put up proper traffic signs and monitor and manage flow of traffic by traffic enforcers.

Enforce traffic regulations on illegal parking on busy roadsides.

Cost included under project cost.

Cost of putting up signs= P50,000

Contractor/City Engineer Traffic enforcers

During road improvement and construction.

Closely monitor project schedule.

Directives/Orders to Traffic Enforcement Division

Cost included under project cost.

Cost of putting up signs =P50,000

Contractor/City Engineer Traffic enforcers

During road widening

Closely monitor project schedule.

Directives/Orders to Traffic Enforcement Division Ordinance on use of bikeways and encroachment by motor vehicles

Proper siting of parking lots should avoid vegetated areas. Use only very small spaces for parking. Planting of shade trees in available open space to compensate for any tree removed.

Utilize existing car parking lots to minimize opening up of new lots.

Cost of shade tree planting =P50,000

Contractor/City Engineer CPDO

During construction of parking lots for bicycles

Agreements with car parking lot owners.

Conduct site suitability study as part of contractor’s TOR

-proper containment and disposal of pavement debris -rip rapping of unstable segments of stream bank to avoid erosion and mass wasting

Costs of rehabilitation and rip rapping of 350 meters of destroyed bike lanes =P250,000 -P1 million for resettlement of about 15-20 families.

-Tree planting =P100,000

Contractor/City Engineer River Park Authority

Before and during repair construction

Include in the TOR of Contractor Budget support to River park Authority to repair destroyed segments of bike lanes

During and after construction of bike lanes

Contractor/City Engineer CPDO

-Resettlement plan as part of project package -Legal evaluation of easement regulations -Permission/clearance from DENR or other government authority in the use of easement for bike lanes -Measures to prevent sedimentation and salvaging of top soil will be part

-resettlement of displaced squatter families in available vacant lots within the same area of the Tumana resettlement site -seek clearance and permission from DENR in the use of the easement area -proper containment and disposal of earth materials and construction

6 - 22

-construction of hazard protection barriers in critical segments (narrow easements)

-ensure safety of bikers -encroachment in easement areas -clearing of vegetation

earth materials and construction spoils to avoid sedimentation -planting of trees to compensate for vegetation cleared -completion of construction according to schedule so as not to prolong dust and noise pollution -salvaging and transplanting of topsoil for landscaping of the River Park.

-proper signages and adequate lighting will be put up to supplement hazard protection barriers in ensuring the safety of bikers -space saving barriers like chain links of ropes or nylon cords will be used as fence to minimize vegetation clearing and space consumption including the occupation of easement areas

and salvaging of top soil will be part of the Contractor’s TOR -Close monitoring of project construction by City Engineer’s Office

Included in the project construction cost

During and after the construction of bike lanes in riversides

Contractor/City Engineer

Safety program will be part of the project design Include measures in the TOR of Contractor

Include in the operation and maintenance cost of the City Government’s budget. Revenues from the use of parking space may be generated to support its maintenance.

Information campaign cost = P300,000 (to include tourism promotion ads) Cost of waste cans and anti-littering drive = P50,000 per year.

During the operations of the bikeways and bike lanes

City Government

MOA with business and industries to provide financial incentive (i.e., credit for bicycle purchase) for their workers who will bicycle to work Ordinance enforcing bikeway rules and regulations Budget inclusion for the operation and maintenance of bikeways and bike lanes City Government Directives to conduct information campaign Ordinance for the collection of fees for the use of parking space

Operation Phase 1) Operation and maintenance of the bikeways and bike lanes

-minimize air pollution -reduce traffic congestion -improve recreation facilities -improve accessibility of riverside settlements -less travel cost for residents making short distance trips -ensure safety of bikers -increase in litter waste from bikers

-provide financial incentive for bikers like availing of credit from employers to purchase bicycles -institute bike patrols to enforce traffic rules in use of bikeways -maintain signages, lighting and hazard protection barriers and delineators to protect safety of bikers -maintain and monitor the use of riverside bike lanes to encourage tourism and recreation in the area -maintain well bicycle parking facilities to sustain the use of bikes in work related and shopping activities -conduct information campaign in the use of bikeways and bike lanes -enforce anti-litterin g law and provide waste cans in parking spaces and recreation areas (riverside bike lanes)

6 - 23

6.4.2 Brief Discussion of Mitigation and Enhancement Measures It is important that the significant negative impacts of the project should be properly managed by instituting measures that will prevent or reduce the magnitude of impacts on the environment and the disbenefits to society. The two unavoidable critical impacts during the construction of the project bike lanes are the removal of squatter houses blocking the path of the lane and the encroachment of some segments of the bike lanes in the required public easement area.

The proposed measure for the displacement of affected squatter families is to relocate them in vacant lots within the same resettlement area in Tumana. In effect, the affected families will just be moved back to give space for the bike lanes and they will not be dislocated or uprooted in the community. The City Government will provide them the lots for their relocation. The cost of relocating about 15-20 families will entail an estimated cost of less than P1 million. To ensure the implementation of this measure, the project package should include a Resettlement Plan and relocation budget for affected families.

Solving the issue on the encroachment by the project on easement areas can be made through clarification of the legal provisions of the Water Code. The City Government should get the advise of the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) regarding the easement law and negotiate from DENR the clearance for constructing some segments of the bike lanes within the easement area. The City Government may also need to update its zoning ordinance to resolve the easement problem because the easement or set back required for different land uses greatly varies (3 meters for urban areas, 20 meters for agricultural areas, and 40 meters for forest areas).

Even though the other negative environmental impacts given in Table 6.4-1 are not significant because they are temporary, isolated or localized and negligible or moderate in magnitude, preventive and mitigative measures are still proposed to minimize their disturbance to the public and the biophysical environment. Measures to reduce the annoyance and disturbance created by noise and dust pollution and traffic congestion created during the construction phase of the project include the following: 1) proper timing of road construction to avoid noise during the night time and traffic congestion during the day time. Noisy activities should be done during the day time to minimize noise disturbance at night, and quieter activities can be done during the night time to minimize traffic congestion during the day; 2) proper traffic signs should be put up in construction sites and the flow of traffic in these areas should be managed by traffic enforcers to minimize build up of traffic; 3) dusty areas should be sprinkled with water periodically to minimize dust from being blown by wind; and 4) all construction works should be finished according to schedule.

The City Engineer’s Office should oversee the implementation of these measures.

Moreover, to ensure that proper management measures are undertaken during the construction stage, these measures should be part and parcel of the TOR of the project contractors. Other guarantees to ensure that these measures are properly implemented

6 - 24

include close monitoring of the project and issuance of directives/ orders to traffic enforcers to manage traffic around construction sites.

Measures to soften the impact of vegetation clearing (cutting of a few trees), sedimentation of river channel, and loss of topsoil during the construction stage include the following: 1) vegetation clearing: proper siting of bicycle parking lots to avoid vegetated areas, planting of trees to compensate those cut, and as much as possible utilize available space in existing car parking lots; 2) sedimentation of river channel: proper containment and disposal of pavement debris, earth materials and construction spoils, rip rapping or diking of unstable river banks and other slope protection works; 3) loss of topsoil: salvaging and transplanting of topsoil for landscaping the River Park.

The responsibility centers, estimated cost and guarantees to ensure implementation of these measures are given in Table 6.4-1. The Contractor/City Engineer should implement these measures with the support of the River Park Authority. Costly bank stabilization structures should be included in the government’s budget for flood control. Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs) with private establishments should be drawn up by the City Government to support the provision of bicycle parking facilities in their existing car parking lots. Salvaging of topsoil removed from the site should be made part of the TOR of the Contractor to ensure its proper implementation.

The positive impacts of the project which are fully manifested during its operation stage are given in Table 6.4-1 including the measures that should supplement and further enhance these benefits from the project.

To minimize biking accidents arising from the project, certain safety measures are needed to be instituted by the City Government. These measures are: 1) setting-up of special lane delineators to protect both cyclists and the motorists from accidents. These protective barriers will be in the form of concrete barriers, rubber beams or rumble strips especially in areas where there are not enough space. Proper signages and adequate lighting shall also be put in place.

2) along the riversides, safety features such as fences adequate lighting and signages will be put up. Fencing shall be of chain link of adequate height to prevent accident but at the same time preserve the vista of the river.

3) proper enforcement of traffic laws to control speed of motorized vehicles and minimizes reckless driving and encroachment of motorized vehicles in bike lanes. Traffic enforcers should closely monitor the use of bikeways and apprehend violators.

6 - 25

4) impose safety standards such as wearing of helmets by all bikers. An ordinance may be passed to impose safety standards and proper use of bikeways; 5) form bike patrols to enforce bikeway rules. A special team of bike patrols dedicated to the enforcement of bikeway rules should be created by the City Government; 6) the City Government as part of its Safety Education Program should undertake information campaign on bike safety; The foregoing first three measures should be made part of the project design package to ensure their implementation. The City Engineer/Contractor should oversee the implementation of these measures to ensure that they meet standard safety requirements. The last three measures should be made part of the safety program that will be instituted by virtue of a City Ordinance.

6.4.2 Monitoring Scheme The proposed scheme to monitor the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the project is provided in Table 6.4-2. The scheme outlines the activities, environmental and socioeconomic parameters and indicators to be monitored; areas and project components to be monitored; frequency and cost of monitoring; institutional responsibilities for monitoring.

The responsibility centers vary according to the parameters to be monitored. For air quality and sediment load monitoring, a Monitoring Team consisting of City Government (e.g., Health Office), DENR and River Park Authority representatives should be tasked. The responsibility of monitoring of the socioeconomic impacts of the project such as bikers’ safety, traffic congestion, better accessibility, travel savings, and others can be assumed by the City Engineer’s Office, CPDO, Traffic Management Division and other branches of local government.

6.5 Recommendations 6.5.1 List of Resolved Issues The concern of stakeholders regarding the safety of bikers was addressed by the project by incorporating in its design safety measures and structures. A safety program is also being proposed by the study team to be undertaken by the City Government through information and education campaigns and the issuance of rules and regulations on the use of bikeways.

6 - 26

Table 6.4-2. Environmental Monitoring Program Project Activity Construction Phase 1) Bikeways in existing roads -scarifying of pavement surface and asphalt topping

-widening of suitable segments 2) Bicycle parking lot and facilities -putting up of parking space in existing parking lots or available open spaces -construction of bicycle racks and parking sheds 3) Bike lanes in riversides -rehabilitation of destroyed existing jogging/bike lanes

Parameters

Location

1) Traffic congestion (average speed of vehicles) 2) Noise (noise level) 3) Dust (total suspended particulates) -same as above-

1) Bikeway routes and construction sites 2) Constructions sites 3) Construction sites

1) Clearing of vegetation (no. of trees cut and no. of trees planted)

1) 2)

-construction of new bike lanes

1)

2)

3) 4)

-construction of hazard protection barriers in critical segments (narrow easements)

1)

2)

sediment load (sediment samples) presence of containment structures (to contain spoils) Relocation of squatter families (no. of families affected and relocated) Clearing of vegetation (no. of trees cut and no. of trees planted) Sedimentation (sediment samples) Encroachment in easement area (length of lane occupying easement) Clearing of vegetation (no. of trees cut and no. planted) Encroachment in easement areas (length of fence or

Frequency

Responsibility

Estimated Cost

1) Daily during project construction 2) Weekly during project construction 3) Weekly during project construction -same as above-

1) Marikina Government’s traffic enforcers 2) Monitoring team (City Government, DENR) 3) Monitoring team

1) Bicycle parking lots located in vacant lots with vegetation

1) One time inventory during construction of parking lots in vacant open space with vegetation

1) City Engineer Office or Contractor

P5,000

1) destroyed segments of existing jogging/bike lanes 2) construction sites

1) Sampling during construction 2) During construction

1) Monitoring team 2) City Engineer’s Office

P20,000

1) Tumana resettlement area near the river bank 2) Construction sites along river banks 3) Construction sites along river banks 4) Bike lane in riversides

1) Before the start of construction 2) One time inventory during construction period 3) During construction period 4) During engineering surveys

1) City Engineer’s Office 2) City Engineer’s Office 3) Monitoring Team/River Park Authority 4) City Engineer’s Office

P30,000

1) Construction sites along river banks 2) Construction sites along river banks

1) One time inventory during construction period 2) During engineering surveys

1) City Engineer’s Office/Marikina River Park Authority 2) City Engineer’s Office

P10,000

-same as above-

6 - 27

P50,000

-same as above-

(length of fence or chain links occupying easement)

Operation Phase 1) Operation and maintenance of the bikeways and bike lanes

1) Safety of bikers (no. of accidents) 2) Air pollution (PM10, NOx, SOx, CO) 3) Traffic congestion (average speed of motor vehicles) 4) Utilization of bikeways (no. of bikers and frequency of travel) 5) Better recreation facilities (no. of visitors in River Park) 6) Litter waste from bikers(cleanliness of bike lanes) 7) Travel savings for local residents (no. of bikers biking to work, market, church, commercial establishments)

1) Bikeway routes and bike lanes 2) Designated sampling stations 3) Bikeway routes 4) Bikeway routes 5) River Park bike lanes 6) River Park bike lanes and surroundings 7) City-wide

1) Every year after start of operation 2) Every six months or one year after start of operation 3) Periodically (once every week) 4) Every year after start of operations 5) Every year after start of operations 6) Sampling period (once every week) 7) Annual surveys of households

6 - 28

1) Traffic Management Division or PNP 2) Monitoring Team (DENR, Health Office) 3) Traffic Management Office of City Government 4) City Engineer’s Office 5) River Park Authority 6) River Park Authority 7) Socioeconomic Division of City Government or CPDO

P100,000

Another concern raised during stakeholders’ consultation was the safekeeping of bicycles through the provision of bicycle racks and parking spaces in strategic locations. Again, this concern was satisfied by the project design, which includes a component for the provision of parking space and facilities like bicycle racks and sheds.

6.5.2 List of Partially Resolved Issues One issue that is still not resolved is the possible encroachment by bike lanes in the easement of riverbanks. In narrow segments of the riverbanks, the bike lanes will inevitably encroached upon the public easement required under the Water Code. The City Government has to clarify this issue with the DENR and National Water Resources Board so that the proper disposition regarding this case can be undertaken.

The City Government, through its legal officer, can get clearance from DENR or other authorities regarding the use of easement for the construction of bike lanes.

Another environmental factor that can seriously affect the bike lane project in the riversides is the periodic flooding of the riverbanks and vicinities. Unless this problem is addressed by the National or City Government’s flood control program, the great risk of bike lanes being destroyed or washed out by floodwaters remains.

It is proposed that a full-blown EIA be conducted for the construction of bike lanes in the riversides. The EIA should be supported by a hydrological study to determine the flooding behavior of the river and possibly come out with engineering measures to minimize flooding impacts on the bike lane project. The EIA should be done during the preparation of the detailed engineering design of the project.

6.6 References Asian Development Bank. 1988. Environmental Guidelines for Selected Infrastructure projects. Environment Unit. ADB. City Planning and Development Office of Marikina City. 1997. Socioeconomic Profile of Marikina City.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1998. DAO 96-37 Procedural Manual (Environmental Impact Assessment System).

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1993. DAO 92-21: Amending the Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing PD1586 (Environmental Impact Statement System).

Fernando, Bayani. Undated. Marikina River Recreational Park. A “Clean and Green” Ecotourism Showcase. Manuscript.

Marikina Health Office. Water Chemistry Data, Marikina River. December 1999.

Metro Manila Authority. Zoning Classification of Marikina as Per 1981-01 MMA Order.

6 - 30

National Water Resources Board. 1991. Philippines Water Code and the Implementing Rules and Regulations.

UPNCTS Foundation. Marikina City Bikeways Feasibility Study. Draft Final Report.

December 1999.

6 - 31

7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS This Chapter presents the results of the economic analysis done on the proposed Marikina Bikeways Project. The calculations are based on the travel demand projections, project cost estimates as well as secondary and field data made available to the Consultant.

7.1

Project Costs

The city government of Marikina proposes to invest in a city bikeway and jogging lanes along the banks of the Marikina River. Two options are being considered. They are as follows: Option A:

City bikeway + fully concreted bike and jogging lanes along the river Php 88.920 Million

Option B:

City bikeway + fully concreted bike lane and earthen jogging lanes Php 52.750 Million

Both options will require Php 0.750 Million in annual maintenance, operating and other expenses.

Table 7.1-1 and Table 7.1-2 show the cost breakdown by item and by phase of the Marikina Bikeways under Option A and Option B. The details of the computation of the estimated cost for each item can be seen in Appendix A.7.

Table 7.1-1. Project Cost* by Phase – Option A phase 1 phase 2 year year cost item 2000-2001 2001-2002 capital costs new construction 27,700,000.00 widening 14,072,197.93 3,045,803.51 traffic control devices 7,550,895.69 2,101,257.78 upgrading/repair 250,000.00 parking facilities 500,000.00 landscaping 200,000.00 route board 500,000.00 information materials 1,000,000.00 50,000.00 waste management drive 50,000.00 50,000.00 safety fence 1,000,000.00 relocation 1,000,000.00 sub-total 53,823,093.63 5,247,061.29 operation and maintenance 750,000.00 750,000.00 total cost 54,573,093.63 5,997,061.29 *note: all values are in terms of Philippine pesos (PhP)

7-1

phase 3 year 2002-2003

total cost

25,100,000.00 52,800,000.00 3,201,998.56 20,320,000.00 1,447,846.53 11,100,000.00 250,000.00 500,000.00 200,000.00 500,000.00 50,000.00 1,100,000.00 50,000.00 150,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 29,849,845.08 88,920,000.00 750,000.00 2,250,000.00 30,599,845.08 91,170,000.00

Table 7.1-2. Project Cost* by Phase – Option B phase 1 phase 2 phase 3 cost item year year year 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 capital costs new construction 8,710,000.00 7,920,000.00 widening 14,072,197.93 3,045,803.51 3,201,998.56 traffic control devices 7,550,895.69 2,101,257.78 1,447,846.53 upgrading/repair 250,000.00 parking facilities 500,000.00 landscaping 200,000.00 route board 500,000.00 information materials 1,000,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 waste management drive 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 safety fence 1,000,000.00 relocation 1,000,000.00 sub-total 34,833,093.63 5,247,061.29 12,669,845.08 operation and maintenance 750,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 total cost 35,583,093.63 5,997,061.29 13,419,845.08 *note: all values are in terms of Philippine pesos (PhP)

total cost

16,630,000.00 20,320,000.00 11,100,000.00 250,000.00 500,000.00 200,000.00 500,000.00 1,100,000.00 150,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 52,750,000.00 2,250,000.00 55,000,000.00

The financial costs were converted to economic costs just by deducting the costs of indirect taxes net of subsidies. The 1994 Input-Output Tables of the Philippines estimate indirect taxes net of subsidies as 2.28% of total costs. No adjustments were made for the foreign exchange component, as the existing peso-dollar exchange rate can be considered as relatively free of “distortions”. There is no breakdown for unskilled labor given in the project cost estimates provided to the Consultant.

Unskilled labor will most likely constitute only a small fraction of the total cost, and so “non-shadow-pricing” of unskilled labor will not materially affect the results of the economic analysis.

Table 7.1-3 Estimated Economic Cost of the Marikina Bikeways Project Indirect Taxes Net of Subsidies Economic Life Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Capital Costs 26,297,964 28,861,678 17,148,348 14,584,634

(31,413,401)

2.28% of Costs 20 years Option A MOOE Total Costs 732,900 27,030,864 732,900 29,594,578 732,900 17,881,248 732,900 15,317,534 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 (30,680,501)

7-2

Capital Costs 17,019,450 19,583,164 8,754,200 6,190,486

(18,247,341)

Option B MOOE 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900

Total Costs 17,752,350 20,316,064 9,487,100 6,923,386 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 732,900 (17,514,441)

The estimated economic costs are presented in Table 7.1-3. The negative values in Year 2014 represent the “residual values” of the fixed investments given the assumed 20 year economic life.

7.2

Benefits of the Project

The benefits of the proposed bikeways and jogging lanes are complex and abound in non-commensurable aspects that sharply limit the theoretical and actual possibilities of measuring them on the basis of free market prices purporting to express their value to the user and the city government.

For the purpose of this report, the following benefits were established and measured: 1. Travel Cost Savings for the bikers. The economic benefits represent the incremental travel cost savings based on the projected person-trips on a “with” and “without” bikeway system. The average fare per person trip had the person not used his bike given the reported average travel distances is assumed at Php 20.

The average cost of owning and operating a bike per person trip is placed at Php 6.1 The detailed computations are presented in Table 7.2-1 of this Chapter. The value of time savings were not included in the calculation as no data on biker time savings are available.

2. Development Benefits. These include 1) the stimulation of the recreational sector in terms of increased value added to be produced by establishments catering to the bikers, the joggers, and other users of the facilities along the river banks; and 2) increased land values brought about by the better ambiance and redevelopment effects brought about by the project.2 As shown in Table 7.2-2, the calculation of the development benefits followed a two-stage process.

First, the economic investment costs were reduced to their annual cost equivalent assuming an economic life of 20 years and four alternative discount rates – 8, 10, 12, 15% - 3 and using the following formula:

A=

(V ⋅ r ) 1 − (1 + r )−n

Where A = annual cost equivalent; V = present value of the investment cost, r = discount rate; and n = economic life of the investment.

1

The cheapest bike available in the market costs Php 1,500. Using a discount rate of 6% - the rate paid out to savings deposit – the annual equivalent cost is Php 90 (1,500 * 0.06). A new set of tires will be needed every 3 months at Php 300 per set or Php 1,200 per year. The chain costing Php 150 will have to be replaced every 3 months or Php 600 per year. Two tins of lubricant costing Php 200 will also be required per year. Assuming that a biker will make 1 trip per day or 365 trips per year, this will be equivalent to Php 5.73 or approximately Php 6 per trip.

2

More detailed studies will be needed to establish the value of the positive environmental effects. At such environmental effects is probably captured in the land value increases estimated using this procedure.

3

This is the usual range of discount rates associated with development projects.

7-3

Table 7.2-1 Travel Cost Savings Calculations Ave. Fare/Person-Trip: 20 Ave.Cost of Owning & Operating a Bike/Person-Trip 6 Person-Trips Person-Trips Travel Cost Savings Year W/O B-Way W/ B-Way W/O B-Way W/ B-Way Increment (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)=(4)-(3) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 11,615 19,534 165,474 278,293 112,819 2005 12,312 22,807 175,401 324,927 149,526 2006 13,050 26,629 185,924 379,376 193,452 2007 13,833 31,092 197,078 442,949 245,871 2008 14,663 36,302 208,902 517,175 308,274 2009 15,543 42,385 221,435 603,841 382,407 2010 16,398 47,364 233,616 674,778 441,162 2011 17,300 52,928 246,467 754,048 507,581 2012 18,252 59,146 260,025 842,631 582,606 2013 19,256 66,094 274,329 941,620 667,291 2014 20,315 73,859 289,419 1,052,238 762,819

Table 7.2-2 Projected Increase in Value Added for the Recreational and Real Estate Sector, due to the Marikina City Bikeways Project Total Economic Investment Cost Annual Cost Equivalent Economic Life Discount Rates Annual Equivalent (Option A) Annual Equivalent (Option B)

OPTION A Recreational Sector Real Estate Sector OPTION B Recreational Sector Real Estate Sector

8% 8,850,206 5,250,206

10% 10,206,375 6,054,727

86,892,624

51,547,300

12% 11,633,078 6,901,090

20 15% 13,882,093 8,235,272

7,834,444 17,712,907

9,350,432 21,135,789

4,644,766 10,511,069

5,544,095 12,541,625

Projected Annual Increase in Value Added 5,958,601 13,477,521

6,872,751 15,541,539

Projected Annual Increase in Value Added 3,531,960 7,998,512

4,074,261 9,222,949

7-4

Second, the annual increases to the gross value added of the recreational sector, and the real estate sector were projected by plugging in the value of the annual cost equivalent of the project investments into the following linear regression equations estimated from time series national income accounts data.

GVARE = 7,975.0454 + 1.5219 GVALT R2 = 0.8687 GVARS = -7,031.7389 + 0.6741 GVALT R2 = 0.9092 Where GVARE = gross value added in recreation; GVALT = gross value added in land transportation; and GVARS = gross value added in the real property sector. All of the regression coefficients are statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.

7.3

Results and Implications of the Analyses

7.3.1

Results

The economic benefit-cost calculations presented in Tables 7.3-1 and 7.3-2 indicate that development benefits constitute the primary justification for the project. The investments will stimulate the recreation sector as well as property values through a better ambiance.

The project can be considered as economically justifiable. The Net Present Values (NPV) of the project range from Php 0.140 billion to Php 0.261 billion for Option A and from Php 0.080 billion to Php 0.153 billion for Option B. The Economic Internal Rates of Return (EIRR) range from 14.3% to 23.5% for Option A and 13.3% to 22.2% for Option B. The ratio of net benefits generated (NPV) to the present value of economic costs ranges from 1.86 to 3.52 for Option A and from 1.68 to 3.25 for Option B. 4 The B/C ratios range from 2.86 to 4.52 for Option A and from 2.68 to 4.25 for Option B. Preliminary risk analysis (See Table 7.3-3) on the potential economic returns indicate that given the benefit and cost patterns exhibited by the project as well as the range of discount rates, the project’s NPV could be expected to have a “likely” value of around

4

This measure shows how efficient a project is in generating net benefits for every peso of investment. This measure is usually used in project ranking when faced with capital or fund scarcity.

7-5

Table 7.3-1 Economic Analysis for Option A, Marikina Bikeways Project Present Value of Benefits 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Present Value of Costs 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Net Benefits 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Present Value of Economic Benefits Present Value of Economic Costs' Net Present Value of Project Internal Rate of Return NPV/PV of Economic Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio

8%

19,519,047 19,537,887 19,558,030 19,579,586 19,602,673 19,627,421 19,640,466 19,653,815 19,667,483 19,681,484 19,695,832 8% 27,030,864 27,402,387 15,330,288 12,159,553 538,703 498,799 461,851 427,640 395,963 366,632 339,475 314,328 291,045 269,486 (10,445,515) 8% (27,030,864) (27,402,387) (15,330,288) (12,159,553) 18,980,344 19,039,088 19,096,178 19,151,945 19,206,710 19,260,788 19,300,991 19,339,487 19,376,438 19,411,998 30,141,348 215,763,724 75,381,499 140,382,225 14.3% 1.86 2.86

7-6

10%

22,491,346 22,507,133 22,523,488 22,540,460 22,558,102 22,576,467 22,584,377 22,592,194 22,599,926 22,607,580 22,615,164 10% 27,030,864 26,904,162 14,777,891 11,508,290 500,581 455,073 413,703 376,094 341,903 310,821 282,565 256,877 233,525 212,295 (8,079,135) 10% (27,030,864) (26,904,162) (14,777,891) (11,508,290) 21,990,766 22,052,060 22,109,785 22,164,367 22,216,198 22,265,646 22,301,812 22,335,317 22,366,401 22,395,285 30,694,299 248,196,238 75,525,508 172,670,730 17.0% 2.29 3.29

12%

25,619,049 25,632,196 25,645,360 25,658,571 25,671,858 25,685,251 25,689,394 25,693,269 25,696,891 25,700,277 25,703,439 12% 27,030,864 26,423,730 14,254,822 10,902,718 465,771 415,867 371,310 331,527 296,006 264,291 235,974 210,691 188,117 167,962 (6,277,838) 12% (27,030,864) (26,423,730) (14,254,822) (10,902,718) 25,153,278 25,216,329 25,274,050 25,327,044 25,375,852 25,420,960 25,453,419 25,482,577 25,508,774 25,532,315 31,981,277 282,395,553 75,281,812 207,113,741 19.6% 2.75 3.75

15%

30,550,725 30,560,561 30,569,855 30,578,652 30,586,995 30,594,924 30,595,269 30,595,321 30,595,113 30,594,673 30,594,028 15% 27,030,864 25,734,415 13,520,793 10,071,527 419,038 364,381 316,853 275,524 239,586 208,336 181,162 157,532 136,984 119,117 (4,336,034) 15% (27,030,864) (25,734,415) (13,520,793) (10,071,527) 30,131,687 30,196,180 30,253,002 30,303,128 30,347,409 30,386,588 30,414,107 30,437,789 30,458,129 30,475,557 34,930,062 336,416,116 74,440,078 261,976,039 23.5% 3.52 4.52

Table 7.3-2 Economic Analysis for Option B, Marikina Bikeways Project Present Value of Benefits 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Present Value of Costs 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Net Benefits 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Present Value of Economic Benefits Present Value of Economic Costs' Net Present Value of Project Internal Rate of Return NPV/PV of Economic Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio

8%

11,613,397 11,632,237 11,652,379 11,673,935 11,697,023 11,721,771 11,734,816 11,748,165 11,761,833 11,775,833 11,790,182 8% 17,752,350 18,811,170 8,133,660 5,496,007 538,703 498,799 461,851 427,640 395,963 366,632 339,475 314,328 291,045 269,486 (5,962,985) 8% (17,752,350) (18,811,170) (8,133,660) (5,496,007) 11,074,694 11,133,437 11,190,528 11,246,295 11,301,060 11,355,138 11,395,341 11,433,837 11,470,788 11,506,348 17,753,167 128,801,571 48,134,125 80,667,446 13.3% 1.68 2.68

7-7

10%

13,374,266 13,390,054 13,406,408 13,423,380 13,441,022 13,459,388 13,467,297 13,475,114 13,482,846 13,490,500 13,498,084 10% 17,752,350 18,469,149 7,840,579 5,201,643 500,581 455,073 413,703 376,094 341,903 310,821 282,565 256,877 233,525 212,295 (4,612,100) 10% (17,752,350) (18,469,149) (7,840,579) (5,201,643) 12,873,686 12,934,980 12,992,705 13,047,287 13,099,119 13,148,566 13,184,732 13,218,237 13,249,321 13,278,205 18,110,184 147,908,359 48,035,056 99,873,303 15.9% 2.08 3.08

12%

15,227,534 15,240,680 15,253,844 15,267,055 15,280,342 15,293,735 15,297,878 15,301,753 15,305,376 15,308,761 15,311,923 12% 17,752,350 18,139,343 7,563,058 4,927,930 465,771 415,867 371,310 331,527 296,006 264,291 235,974 210,691 188,117 167,962 (3,583,802) 12% (17,752,350) (18,139,343) (7,563,058) (4,927,930) 14,761,763 14,824,813 14,882,534 14,935,528 14,984,336 15,029,444 15,061,904 15,091,062 15,117,259 15,140,799 18,895,725 168,088,882 47,746,395 120,342,487 18.5% 2.52 3.52

15%

18,150,225 18,160,061 18,169,355 18,178,152 18,186,495 18,194,424 18,194,769 18,194,821 18,194,613 18,194,173 18,193,528 15% 17,752,350 17,666,142 7,173,611 4,552,239 419,038 364,381 316,853 275,524 239,586 208,336 181,162 157,532 136,984 119,117 (2,475,292) 15% (17,752,350) (17,666,142) (7,173,611) (4,552,239) 17,731,187 17,795,680 17,852,502 17,902,628 17,946,909 17,986,088 18,013,607 18,037,289 18,057,629 18,075,057 20,668,821 200,010,616 47,087,562 152,923,054 22.2% 3.25 4.25

Table 7.3-3 Economic Risk Analysis, Marikina Bikeway Project: Option A 8% 215,763,724 75,381,499 140,382,225 1.86 2.86 14.3%

Present Value of Economic Benefits Present Value of Economic Costs' Net Present Value of Project NPV/PV of Economic Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio IRR

10% 248,296,238 75,525,508 172,770,730 2.29 3.29 17.0%

Forecast: Net Present Value (NPV) 1,000 Trials

12% 278,191,798 75,034,463 203,157,335 2.71 3.71 19.3%

15% 336,416,116 74,440,078 261,976,038 3.52 4.52 23.5%

Forecast: Benefit to Cost Ratio

Frequency Chart

3 Outliers

1,000 Trials

Frequency Chart

3 Outliers

.025

25

.029

29

.019

18.75

.022

21.75

.013

12.5

.015

14.5

.006

6.25

.007

7.25

0

.000

.000 144,704,701

172,323,666

199,942,631 In Php

227,561,596

255,180,561

0 2.93

Forecast: NPV/Cost 1,000 Trials

3.30

3.68 Ratio

4.05

4.42

Forecast: Net Present Value (NPV)

Frequency Chart

3 Outliers

1,000 Trials

Frequency Chart

3 Outliers

.029

29

.025

25

.022

21.75

.019

18.75

.015

14.5

.013

12.5

.007

7.25

.006

6.25

.000

0

.000

1.93

2.30

2.68 Ratio

3.05

3.42

144,704,701

0 172,323,666

199,942,631 In Php

227,561,596

255,180,561

Php 0.200 billion. The most likely value of its NPV/C ratio is about 2.7 while the most likely value for its B/C ratio is 3.7. The most likely value for the IRR is 19.3%

7.3.2

Implications of the Results

The results of the economic evaluation indicate that the project should be regarded more as a development tool rather than as just another transport project of the city.

Given the substantial amount of development benefits generated by the project, it is important that the city government explore, enact and implement cost recovery tools like special assessment, development charges, and the like, that it could use for either loan repayment or for reinvestment. Such a move will, however, require more detailed studies in order to properly establish the following: 1. More refined and more detailed estimates of economic benefits; 2. The incidence of such benefits – “who gains;” and 3. The appropriate cost recovery tools including features and implementing schemes – what tool or combination of tools will be politically and administratively feasible.

7-8