‘Wrong solution’ to Cebu City traffic; poses new hazards
“Extremely inefficient.” An “unwanted appendage” if road widening is pursued.
“Hazardous” to pedestrians near the Collegio dela Inmaculada Concepcion.
Cebu City’s traffic management authority yesterday opposed national government plans for two new flyovers in the city in a resolution whose strong language left no doubt about the board’s dim view of building overpasses in two busy intersections of the north district.
“The proposed flyovers … will be the wrong solution to the wrong problem,” said the Cebu City Traffic Operations Management (Citom) headed by chairman Sylvan “Jack” Jakosalem.
Instead the Citom board said road widening, if done correctly, would do away with the need to build flyovers at all.
The resolution was carried unanimously in a Citom board meeting with copies to be sent to President Aquino carrying an appeal to shelve the flyovers based on technical merits because “it is above political issues.”
For the first time since public debate revived over new flyovers endorsed by Rep. Rachel Marguerite “Cutie” del Mar, Citom’s policy-making body raised specific technical objections to the rise of concrete flyovers in two locations—M.J. Cuenco-General Maxilom (Mango) Avenue and Archbishop Reyes-Gorordo Avenue.
Construction is expected to start late this year or early next year by the Dept. of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for this national government project.
The Citom board yesterday said the “proposed flyovers will not only be extremely inefficient compared to their cost” of P600 million but their location also posed new road hazards for motorists and pedestrians. (See Table of Hazards on page 35.)
A day earlier, Cebu Daily News reported that Congresswoman Del Mar wrote to President Aquino on Sept. 1 to present her side as a reaction “to the request of Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama to stop my projects.”
She said the sub-structures were already bidded out by the Dept. of Public Works and Highways and that “more people and groups support the two flyovers than those who oppose them.”
Del Mar said she was “looking forward to inviting the President” to the inauguration of the projects in her district next year.
A citizens movement called “Stop Cebu Flyovers” was launched this week by “stakeholders in Gorordo Avenue” and environment advocates led by Joel Lee of Permaculture Cebu, who said sound, long-term planning should be geared for a “sustainable and liveable” Cebu City. Signatures are being gathered aside from online support on Facebook to show that the sentiment is coming from a multisectoral base. (Read their manifesto in page 9.)
The last flyover was opened in barangay Mambaling in April this year and 2008 in Banilad. Protests by Banilad land owners, subdivisions and businessmen led by Bunny Pages failed to stop construction of the Banilad-Talamban flyover but the Ban-Tal Traffic Task Force, this time with Mayor Michael Rama, continues to press for a Traffic Master Plan for Metro Cebu.
Citom Board Resolution No. 2011-018 yesterday said the traffic body “reiterates its stand that it is not against flyovers as a whole, but only against flyovers without rationalization.”
It said traffic and transportation require “proper engineering and land use planning” and that “it is above political issues.”
The Citom board resolution tried to clear up two misconceptions—that the Cebu City traffic body supported construction of the two flyovers and that the Metro Cebu Land Use and Transportation Study (MCLUTS) done in the 1970s prescribed it.
“The MCLUTS study never endorsed flyovers as a solution whether long term or palliative,” said the resolution.
A P600-million budget is allocated in the DPWH infrastructure budget for the flyovers , which Congressman Del Mar said would go to waste if they are not spent for the projects. Half of this is for road widening of adjacent streets.
Citom executive committee members include Cebu City administrator Jose Marie Poblete, City Prosecutor Oscar Capacio, City Engineer Kenneth Enriquez, Assistant Regional Director Arnel Tancinco of the Land Transportation Office, president Michael Ralota of the Association of Barangay Captains, Chief Insp. Aureo Sanchez of the Cebu City Police Traffic Group, and three private sector representatives Jose Glenn Capanas, engineer Ramonicito Arquiza and Victoriano Yap Jr.
New hazards to motorists and pedestrian are posed if the two flyovers are erected, said the Citom board.
The design, for example, features a short distance of less than 200 meters from the foot of the flyover in Gen. Maxilom-Gorordo to the next intersection with a traffic signal.
This means all vehicles coming from Gen. Maxilom intersection will still queue for the stop light at the intersection of Escario-Gorordo.
Vehicles coming from the other direction will still queue on the traffic signal controlled intersection of Gen. Maxilom, which is 250 meters away from the foot of the flyover.
For pedestrians crossing to Colegio dela Inmaculada Concepcion, “it will be very hazardous” due to the uncontrolled movement of vehicles using the flyover.
The Citom resolution pointed out that DPWH-7 officials admitted during the Aug. 26, 2011, public information forum that its traffic study for the two proposed flyovers don’t take into consideration the traffic impact on adjacent intersections.
It “thus fails to fulfill even its primary purpose to ease alleged traffic congestion in those areas.”
The Ctiom board said DPWH-7 officials also admitted that both flyovers only address the second-largest volume of vehicles at that intersection.
“In sum, without road widening and the DPWH traffic study, both flyovers merely elevate traffic several meters up to avoid only one signalized intersection. It does not consider neighboring junctions which are also signalized or subject to conflicts in movement. “
The traffic body said that if road widening is pursued instead, traffic volume would be spread into other lanes and reduce waiting time at the intersection.
“The flyovers would be an unwanted appendage since road widening would, in fact, solve the issue of conflicts and travel time.”
“Hence, the proposed flyovers will not only be extremely inefficient compared to its cost but will also be the wrong solution to the wrong problem.”
On the issue that the P600-million budget would go to waste, Citom said, “The argument of DPWH that the money has already been secured and must be spent is a disservice to taxpayers who have a right to expect that their money will be spent correctly for projects that are beneficial and will promote, not hamper, development.”
“As the office in charge of traffic and transportation policy, we have a duty to object when public money is utilized for transportation infrastructure projects that are not beneficial to Cebu City in the short term or long term. Even palliative measures must contribute to easing a problem, not complicating it.“
The Citom board appealed to President Aquino to consider their opposition “in the hopes that our goal to make Cebu City a liveable City for all will be realized.”
Copies of the resolution will be sent to Cebu City Mayor Michael L. Rama, Public Works and Highways Secretary Rogelio L. Singson and President Aquino.
