LAST Wednesday, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) inaugurated yet another footbridge on Visayas Avenue, close to the Maria Montessori School. This indicated to me that the MMDA continues to push for car-centric, anti-pedestrian infrastructure despite knowing that footbridges exclude those unable to climb stairs and have no real safety benefits. Allow me to repeat points made in previous columns published in 2022 and 2020.
“Generally, footbridges are built in order to remove ground level (also referred to as ‘at grade’) pedestrian crossings so that cars don’t have to slow down or stop for people. In a country where only about six percent of Filipino families are car owners, footbridges are fundamentally unjust. Footbridges force the vast majority to have longer and more laborious travel in order to shorten trips for the privileged minority who ride conveniently in cars. Footbridges without ramps limit the mobility of the significant segment of the population unable to climb stairs — persons with disabilities, the elderly and people carrying heavy packages or with small children.
“Footbridges have long been considered ‘bad practice’ and unsafe. The Global Street Design Guide, an authoritative reference for urban and transport planners, has this to say: Grade separation: Always provide pedestrian crossings at grade, except in instances where they cross limited-access highways or natural features such as rivers. Pedestrian overpasses and underpasses take up sidewalk space, dramatically increase walking distance and are frequently avoided by pedestrians in favor of a more direct crossing. They are very expensive and need regular maintenance to keep them clean and safe. In many cases, they are underutilized and poorly maintained. By removing pedestrians from the natural surveillance of the street, they raise personal safety issues.
“The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), a leading source of mobility advice and best practice, found that many pedestrians avoid using footbridges because they are unable to climb stairs, are unable to walk long distances, or are concerned about crime. Many are deterred from using footbridges because of fear of being attacked or mugged there, especially at night when it might be dark and deserted. For these reasons, even when a footbridge is nearby, some take the risk of running across the road, even without the protection of a pedestrian crossing.
“It is therefore a false assertion that footbridges contribute to road safety. Footbridges are not only a magnet for crime, the ‘hostile design’ of pedestrian bridges encourages many to just cross at-grade, without the protection that a normal pedestrian crossing would provide. Those who are unable to climb stairs are left with no option but to cross the many car lanes to get to the other side. In a study of two Indian cities (Pune and Erode), ITDP found that 85-95 percent of pedestrians continue to cross at grade despite the availability of the pedestrian bridges.
“Drivers also tend to be less aware of pedestrians when they are passing within the vicinity of pedestrian bridges because they assume that no pedestrians will be crossing the road. As a result, pedestrian bridges have been associated with much higher rates of road crashes. In Mexico City, 27 percent of crashes involving pedestrians and hit-and-runs were within 300 meters of a pedestrian bridge. In Nairobi, 43 percent of crashes involving pedestrians were within 500 meters of a pedestrian bridge.
“Footbridges that have stairs instead of ramps or elevators violate Philippine laws (e.g., Batasan Pambansa 344, the Accessibility Law) which require all public infrastructure to be accessible for persons with disabilities. Such footbridges are therefore illegal structures. The accessibility requirement was very much in the minds of legislators when they included the following directive among the Special Provisions in the 2022 budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways: Pedestrian crossings shall by default be at grade for the inclusion of persons with disability, senior citizens, pregnant women, children with strollers, tourists with luggage, and parents with children, consistent with public health and safety regulations.”
While MMDA may claim that the footbridge was requested by the nearby school, it should have chosen the most safe, inclusive and cost-effective option for pedestrians. A speed table (a hump that has a large flat surface, also known as a raised crossing) would have been the best solution because motor vehicles would be forced to slow as they approach the pedestrian crossing. The advantage of the speed table is that it provides a flat surface that is level with the sidewalk on both sides of the road. This enables the crossing to be friendly for persons with disability by eliminating steps and allowing persons with strollers and wheelchairs to cross the road smoothly.
While the MMDA may claim that a speed table will slow down motor vehicles on Visayas Ave., it chooses to ignore Republic Act 4136 (The Land Transportation and Traffic Code), which imposes a maximum speed limit of 20 kph “through crowded streets, approaching intersections at ‘blind corners,’ passing school zones, passing other vehicles which are stationary, or for similar dangerous circumstances.” This law is consistent with global best practice but remains largely unimplemented throughout the Philippines, even though compliance could save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives yearly.
I look forward to the day when the MMDA will value the lives and welfare of pedestrians over the travel speed of persons in cars. I will know that day has arrived when the MMDA begins tearing down footbridges, replacing them with at-grade pedestrian crossings with speed tables or similar traffic-calming infrastructure.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate.