UP PADYAK: An Interview with the UP Mountaineers
Biking has never been big in this part of the world. However, the new “UP PADYAK” project led by the UP Mountaineers may soon change all that. CHE Representative Rinno Camilit (also the Environmental Concerns Committee Chairperson) seeks to unravel the greater implications of this project to the university through a dialogue with the UP Mountaineers.
Last May 9, 2008, Rep. Camilit went to interview Mr. Joselito Gonzales, a member of the UPM for 10 years and a graduate of the UP College of Architecture. As both a mountaineer and as an architectural graduate, Mr. Gonzales is at the crux of the hot issues surrounding the implementation of the One-Way Academic Oval policy and the bike lane. Mr. Gonzales is also one of the strongest advocates of bicycles as alternative form of transportation for the Philippines.
Mr. Gutierrez talks to the UP PADYAK Volunteers
According to Mr. Gutierrez, the UP Padyak project was spearheaded by the alumni members of the UP Mountaineers. Their mission is to promote cycling, environmental protection, and a healthy lifestyle. Currently, they have 16 bikes that are being used by volunteers (all of whom are UP students) to promote the project. Don’t be surprised if you see one of these beautiful bikes roaming around campus:
So far, the project is in it’s infant phase. Mr. Gutierrez claims that with only 16 bikes and no localized bike storage system implemented by the UP administration, the biggest concern of the future UP Padyak bikers is the possibility of theft.
Another problem that they’re facing is the purchase of additional bikes for rent because the project is on a limited budget. Although many private companies have already offered to give funding, the UP Mountaineers insist that its their last option because they want to protect the pure interests of the organization in promoting this project.
How can we make UP PADYAK a successful project?
1.) Encourage the Administrators/Local Councils of each college to build and maintain bike racks.
2.) Encourage student organizations to participate in the biking campaign. They may contact the UP Mountaineers if they want to order bikes*, so that the organization can process the organizations’ cumulative requests (wholesale purchases cost less than single purchases).
*Author’s note: Maybe we can ask the UP Mountaineers if they do custom bikes and if they can organize a bike parade as a culminating activity for the inaugural year of UP Padyak. Imagine American Chopper, only with real bikes this time.
For more information (and photos) on the project, visit www.padyak.org. If you or your organization would like to participate in this project, please do not hesitate to contact any member of the Environmental Concerns Committee or ask to be redirected in the USC Office. Our EnviCom Chair can be contacted at 0906-2218248. You may also write to padyakbikes@gmail.com or text 0916-6001225 if you are interested.
PS. I...
I would surely like to try biking around the university. I hope this pushes through. It is such a great idea and it really has a lot of potential. I hope people will start becoming open to this idea and stop thinking about personal convenience…
Mabuhay ang Iskolar ng Bayan!
Maganda talaga yung project na ito… I think it was really a great move by the alumni of the UPM.. Sana makiisa na rin ang mga Orgs dito.. Mas ok sana kung bawat org may bike para masaya… And I hope, sana magkaroon na din kami ng bike sa USC, kahit 1 o 2 lang..
anyway, salamat pala kay CHK Rep Yupingkun for this article… Nice one..
I am all for the encouragement of biking within the campus, I do wish though that it is implemented without disrupting the traffic flow too much.
It’s possible for the bike lane to exist without the one-way scheme. We still have to consider time/energy consumption efficiency & convenience not only for the students but for the whole UP community in general.
Also, I’m hoping that this trend won’t end up with mandatory in-campusbiking with *gulp* mandatory biking fees in the tuition. Hey, it’s not far off. xD
i think the one way scheme is already a none-issue at this point in time. mashadong masikip kung may bike lanes kasi tapos ndi pa one way.. unless carless oval.
sana po bigyan natin ng fair treatment.. habang wala pang gnagawa or plans, wag sana tayo mag-assume na magkakaroon ng in-campus biking and mandatory biking fees. Fair lang naman ito.
Half a road in the oval already has a two-lane capacity. With regular traffic aides, it should be workable. Should be, because right now, all 6 Jeepney Drivers & Operators Associations (JODA’s) in UP are suffering under the increased fuel consumption & reduced passenger accessibility caused by the one-way scheme.
As a plan-C, there is also the alternate route implemented before when UP had carless oval days a few months ago. Maraming alternatives, pero diniretso kaagad sa one-way scheme. Without prior proper consultation to the stakeholders, even! No consultation to JODA’s who are severely affected, nor to commuting students who are directly burdened. Did they consult the bikers? Because it is basic knowledge for bikers that they are safer from pedestrian accidents when they are considered part of the automobile traffic, as opposed to automobile-induced accidents which we have no recorded incident of in our campus’ history, as far as I know.
There is nothing wrong in speculating, it keeps us vigilant & prepared should it come. Refraining from doing so results into these “unexpected” acts springing on us. Sa scientific process naman, nagkakaroon ng hypothesis diba?
to 05-21830… please make sure that your statements are well-supported and that you are not making generalizations. But my stand on this can be summarized by something i read online,.. and i quote:
“As for the whole “we should have been consulted” issue currently plying the councils, I don’t know, but since when was it an obligation of the university to consult THE STUDENTS on a TRAFFIC scheme? Academically speaking, it’s not as if we’re directly affected by this (consequent lates and absences because of certain individuals poor planning and scheduling notwithstanding). This doesn’t limit the kind of classes that we can take, nor does it limit the other academic opportunities offered to us. To say that they have a responsibility to consult the STUDENT BODY on a TRAFFIC policy just because we use those roads is ridiculous. By that logic, the UP administration also has to consult the Ateneans, the Miriamites, and the rest of the Metro Manila populace that use these UP roads as their shortcuts through Quezon City. After all, they TOO are affected by this.
As far as I know (and correct me if I’m wrong), the UP Administration has never consulted with the students whenever they change the traffic policies in the university, and they’ve never had to (recall the closing/scheduling of alternate gates into the university). Why would they? Students don’t have jurisdiction on the roads after all.
Besides, the UP administration DID experiment on this scheme for the last few months. Every time there was a special occassion (Christmas, Centennial, etc) they implemented the one-way scheme. For people that failed to notice, that was them finding out whether or not the traffic scheme WAS a good policy, and since nobody really complained during those times (because really, MINOR changes in your traffic routes aren’t that much of an inconvenience), why SHOULDN’T they enact that policy permanently? ”
So to you, Mr 05-21830… This is a NON-ISSUE. Nuff said.
A couple of reasons:
1.) Students are directly affected by traffic policies and implementations as they, among other parts of the UP community, are one of the primary users of UP land, including the roadways. What sets us apart from the Miriamites & Ateneans is that we, as the largest body of the academe, are stakeholders to UP’s services, which includes the traffic schemes, and though lopsided ones don’t directly limit our academic OPPORTUNITIES, it does have repercussions to their overall performance, by aggravating the travel & time management patterns of the students.
We both can’t speak for the studentry, the circulating manifestos against the one-way scheme is for that purpose. Let’s wait for its results.
2.) Numerous student services, from laundromats to maninindas to drivers, even community residents who, by the way, are mostly UP’s employees/former employees (Pook Ricarte, Palaris & Dagohoy are residential areas for UP’s workers and academic employees), are largely unrepresented in policy-making bodies where they are directly involved. The USC, then, serves as an avenue for the muted sectors within UP, in return to the said services provided by said sectors. Kaya po may Community Rights And Welfare (CRAW) Committee dito sa USC. Let’s not forget that no consultations was done with even more-affected sectors, specifically the JODA. So it’s questionable that even those that the admin should address remain left in the dark.
Yes, they did experiment with a CARLESS oval scheme,. This, however, is a ONE-WAY academic oval scheme. The former schemes implemented still maintained 2-way flow, and so distance, fuel consumption and convenience wasn’t sacrificed that much. The compromise of this one-way scheme is a completely different story. If you must, consult the discussions made online in Councillor Victor Villanueva’s multiply blog & see how drastic the effects on the JODAs are. STAND UP members have presented information they have collated from consultations with the JODAs there.
If those carless oval schemes were indeed experiments, why was it not announced to be such, even if it was just limited to the transport sector? Why is the admin secretive about it?
To remain true to the claims that administration in UP is democratic, the policies & programs implemented within UP should regard the whole UP community and not just specific sectors. Might I also remind you that, while students might not have direct jurisdiction over the roads, we STILL are primary stakeholders to the use of UP’s lands and services.
Student issues aren’t far from those that other sectors suffer, as their chronic problems are usually rooted from universal causes.
So long as a substantial part of the UP community is negatively affected, this point of contention will by and large REMAIN an ISSUE.
Whatever the move is, there’s always going to be trade-off. The USC is better off pro-acting than maintaining an us-vs-them stance. Do something positive other than saying “blah blah Admin did not consult, blah blah JODA is affected.” I’m not saying these are wrong statements themselves. But, given the context, these are myopic issues and symptomatic of cry-babies. Look at the larger picture: the car and motorized access to UP campus isn’t just the way to go. Wait until cheap new cars ($1500 a car) from India get imported to the Philippines. JODA, SOME students, and other University constituents are inconvenienced, sure. But in the long run, the lesser cars and motorized vehicles we have on campus, the better.
Please dont let this issue be a debate that diverts attention from the article above. I think by any standard the project of the UP Mountaineers is beneficial and timely for the environment and the students. They did it on their own, out of their own pockets and they don’t even think of recouping the costs. A decent bike (that won’t fall apart after a month) can cost upwards of P12,000. CAn you, or would you, lend your bike to a complete stranger?
Regarding the issue of consultations, i do agree that while they are needed and sometimes performed, but since when have these consultations been the sole determinating factor in the policy making circle of the university? how often have they been set aside in the interest of the other concerns of the BOR?
With regard to the JODAs, i’d like to know what actions have they taken with regard to the unbridled increases in fuel prices? Did they participate in any protest actions to remove eVAt from fuel prices (right beside the members of PISTON)? Or did they continue to ply their routes and in place of solidarity gave lame excuses like they need the money or that nothing ever became of protest actions anyway, etc?
Whether or not there is a bike lane or carless oval , whether or not the prices of fuel and energy are volatile, I think the PADYAK project is beneficial to the students and the whole UP community.
@panuhot: if there is a crybaby, it is those people who remain dismissive of the enormity of this adverse one-way policy. if you want to address pollution brought about by the oveproduction of automobiles, it cannot be addessed by cosmetic environmentalism. And to sacrifice te livelihood and convenience of others NOW at the expense of that is logically a waste of life. Because you aren’t reducing the amount of emissions, you’re just redirecting it to the roadways in UP that’s outside the oval, AND you double the emissions by making their travel time LONGER. In this context, I think it’s you whose being myopic.
There might come a time when the complex politics of the roads will be compromising enough to allow for a one-way policy, or a time when conditions for a carless oval is ripe. Right now, imposing restrictions have merel become detrimental to a substantial amount of members of the UP community who use the roads. So it certainly isn’t NOW. You don’t just spring these policies out of thin air without considering the implications.
@niko: Props to the UP Mountaineers’ efforts, The environmental, transportation and health benefits you get out of this is secondary, at best. It’s an alternative mode of transportation, but not everyone can and is willing to use it, and you definitely cannot impose it on the students and other road users. It reduces pollutants in the oval, but by merely redirecting pollution you didn’t completely address it and as mentioned earlier, you even increased fuel consumption. Its use as an exercise is also not applicable for the majority of the students, since it is a sport by choice and not compulsary.
So, yeah, the biking advocacy isn’t bad unto itself, but since it is coupled with a policy that have cons that far outstrips this projects pros, it gets pulled into the mud in the process. So, to biking advocates, to reiterate again: we are not against your advocacies, we are against the policies surrounding it, biking and jeep-friendly acad policies are reconcilable.
JODAs in UP have revived the All-UP Transport Alliance(AUPTA), and have participated in the transport strikes carrying both local and national issues, and have worked closely with the Community Rights & Welfare (CRAW) Committee and the All-UP Workers Union in lobbying for their rights to representation and consultation wth regards to transport policies.
If anyone still wishes to talk about this issue, this page certainly isn’t the place to be. Refer to the article here presenting the USC’s manifesto of unity against the one-way policy. Let us refrain from hi-jacking this avenue.
Assumption/Claim 1: the Admin did not consult its constituency re the 1-way traffic scheme. In fact: they did. Studies after studies even point to that scheme.
Assumption/Claim 2: If the Admin DID consult its constituents and some of the latter did not agree, the Admin is wrong. In fact: consultation is not equal to consensus. Also, sometimes you don’t need consultation AND consensus to do certain things right. Imagine if USC keeps on consulting its student constituency (and expect consensus) every step of the way? Hmm… what can USC accomplish in time?
Assumption/Claim 3: the time for one-way scheme “certainly isn’t NOW.” In fact: this is baseless. Rhetorically we can also ask: “Kung hindi ngayon, kailan?” Some people only give lip service to environmentalism and still maintain their environmentally harmful lifestyles. Riding bicycles as “cosmetic” environmentalism? Pleassssee… I wonder what issues can be bigger than the environment. Well, there could be. But putting the environment “secondary” to vague ideological commitments? I’m not sure that’s the way to go. Ok, everything is ideological… I get it.
Claim 4: “the biking advocacy… [has] “cons that far outstrips this projects pros.” This is simply unsubstantiated. There is also the question whether the cost-benefit/pros-cons analysis really factors in long-term sustainable outcomes as opposed to simply looking at individual preferences. But really, I want to see any calculation to support Claim 4.
JODA members are into the transportation BUSINESS. UP sets SOME rules for the drivers (and other businesspeople) to do business in the university. These drivers don’t need student leaders to “varguardize” JODA’s interests. If USC gets its priorities straight, they can show students that they, too, are biking and doing concrete ways to challenge the monopoly of oil companies and the hegemony of the car industry. Rallies are great, but subversion in our daily lives is even better (if not more radical).
1.) Previous acad oval schemes didn’t say that they were experiments that would serve as consultations for the implementation of the academic oval scheme. If ever there was one, it wasn’t disseminated properly and probably strategically to the constituency. I quote Titus Tan’s post in Bikoy Villanueva’s e-consultation regarding the one-way academicoal:
“What the UP Administration actually did was hold a consultation for the students (or at least in my knowledge). Kelan nila ito ginawa? I think nung panahon na ginawa ng outgoing USC yung “GMA OUT NOW” sa Sunken Garden. I was notified (thru text) 30 minutes before the consultation so hindi ako nakapunta dahil sa klase. I believe nasabihan din ang mga outgoing USC members nung time na ito.
We can see that the mechanisms that must be done (consultation) are actually being done. Pero ang dapat tanungin, in what manner? Notification of consultation on the hour? Selected people only ang invited for the consultation? Pati chancellor selection ay nakuha namin yung nomination forms January na, eh December ang deadline.”
So you see, in Fact, no properly-MANNERED consultation was actually done, so WALA RIN. Even to the JODAs who are the most directly affected weren’t notified. Jeeps aren’t simply businesses, mind you, they’re services given to us by independent providers.
2.) If so, what is the purpose of consultations then if the data they’ve gathered from it is simply ignored? I am appalled that you think this is completely acceptable. Yes, in some small-scale problems that require simple logic and practicality, you won’t need a comprehensive consultation. But with a substantial amount of the constituents in UP adversely affected, directly or indirectly, consultation is needed unless you are pleased to see yourself in a totalitarian light. A healthy consultation-centric executive body is properly workable, and UP is no exempt from it unless you believe that UP is completely inept.
3.) It is not baseless as the implementation of the one-way scheme, I reiterate, has direct, negative effects on those affected. If you do know a thing or two about environmentalism, then you should know that no card-carrying green activist will advocate any policy, program, or implementation that may result in serious repercussions to human rights. Any card-carrying environmentalist isn’t merely an animal-lover or a tree-hugger, they are first and foremost, as any card-carrying activist is, advocates of altruism towards humanity.
4.) I request you not to butcher my statements in quoting. What I’ve clearly stated is that the biking project isn’t a pimary solution to the problems it claims to address (health, environment, transportation)and as such doesn’t coincide with the need for total prioritization with regards to academic oval policies. AGAIN, In laymen’s terms, lest you not understand it again:
The Biking Project, in the context that it doesn’t provide primary solutions to the problems it addresses (as demonstrated in my previous post lest you didn’t understand it too), remains to be an alternative and thus cannot be used as reason enough to defend the imposition of the one-way academic oval policy. Stop putting words in my mouth.
~
You obviously have no idea how the USC works. The USC isn’t an elitist bloc of leaders that answers ONLY to the whims of the studentry, they are called LEADERS because, through consultation and concrete analysis, it is they who are at the forefront of knowing the overall situation of the students and how to address this. NOT only that, the USC serves as the voice of those who belong to the UP community that are muted by the administration, they who provide student service such as the maninindas and the cooperatives, the JODAs, even the laundry services, etc.
It goes to show that you are thinking of no other interest but your own. The USC, and the students who have logically and practically reconciled the interests of all sectors within UP, knows that sectarianism isn’t the way to resolve problems that are seemingly isolated from one another, but is in fact rooted from a universal crisis. The USC isn’t simply for the student’s interests alone, it has been, is still and always should be to SERVE THE PEOPLE.
If the UP Administration indeed consulted its constituency regarding the one-way traffic scheme within the campus, then when and where did such a consultation take place? There hasn’t been any sort of formal discussion between the transport groups, the students, and other affected sectors of the UP community by the UP Administration before policy was put into action .
Now, we could debate throughout our lifetime’s entirety about the weight of having these consultations. The point, however, is that the policy in question has been acutely troublesome for the members of the UP Community. Sans proper dialogue with the involved sectors, those who are pushing for this particular policy cannot fully grasp how this one-way traffic scheme diminishes the drivers’ income, forces more fuel consumption, and makes vehicle routes inefficient at their length.
Upholding the interests of concerned sectors doesn’t and shouldn’t translate to having pro-environment advocacies left secondary, if not ultimately unaddressed. In the case of this “carless oval”/”one-way academic oval” policy, it’s not only the livelihood of UP drivers put into consideration but also the relevance of the policy to the environmental issues. How sure are those promoting this scheme that it significantly reduces the pollution within the campus given that the rather protracted routes for vehicles are consonant to more carbon emissions from motor vehicles inside the campus? Is this scheme genuinely efficient when it merely pushes these vehicles out of the academic oval and unto other routes where they can still persist on discharging pollutants? If the definitive aim of this policy is to protect what’s left of our environment so as to make it inhabitable for the next generations, then urging nations that produce majority of the world’s pollution to sign the Kyoto Protocol is the way to go rather than implementing a comparatively futile and inequitable One-Way Academic Oval Policy.
JODA members aren’t simply set up for business-oriented concerns but also for the democratic rights of its members in the context that they further belong to a bigger community, the UP Community. Through the course of history, UP has been an institution which is not exclusive to its students and faculty. The academe doesn’t merely subsist for intellectual masturbation – what’s the relevance of having the moniker “Iskolar ng Bayan” (and composing other variations to the aforementioned title) when you can’t live up to it through service to our communities? It is in this light that student leaders unite with the struggles of other non-academic personnel, not for just because they are underrepresented and marginalized.
we are against the one-way academic oval scheme, we are NOT against the bike lane.
di naman dapat pagbanggain ang interests ng bikers, drivers at passengers dahil lahat ay apektado ng commercialization plans sa edukasyon ng UP Admin at ng regime ni gloria!
The 1-way oval traffic scheme and its bike lane promote biking (obviously), an environment and lifestyle that don’t privilege motorized vehicles. The scheme works insofar as it is now more difficult for motorized vehicles to dominate the space. It also encourages people to walk. So we may call it affirmative action for biking and walking. in some countries, certain areas of their cities are even no-motor access/pedestrians and bikes only. The argument that fossil consumption is increased with longer distance for motor vehicles (and therefore there should be such pedestrial/bike only roads) just don’t hold water here. In the first place, people are supposed to walk or bike in these areas.
There are all sorts and forms of marginalization. A security guard or janitor who bikes all the way from Fairview because he couldn’t afford the bus fares, a UP staff who wants to bike commute to work but gets intimidated by disrespectful, undisciplined drivers on campus, a pedestrian who has to furiously signal asking the car driver to let her cross the street–these are marginalized people too.
“Marginalized people” are never homogeneous. Nor is the USC. I’m sorry to burst the bubble, but remember that USC chair who siphoned money from Erap Admin (Filipino people’s money!) to her “foundation”? Sure, there are well-meaning student leaders, but others are “leading” for their CVs. Some are struggling to be consistent and balance academics with leadership commitments (great!), others are conveniently leading double lives: politically correct in rhetoric; lifestyle-wise? Check what s/he consumes. Hint: it’s not just fossil fuel. And I don’t know the USC? Well, not everything certainly, but perhaps enough to pass an exam on the subject. Let us not confuse what one thinks the USC as a group OUGHT to do (STP, kamo?) with what it and its members actually do.
As an Iskolar ng Bayan myself, here’s what I do, whenever opportunity comes: question professors and leaders who replace independent, critical thought with political correctness; challenge UP Admin to walk the walk (at least in terms of promoting a healthy, pedestrian/biking friendly campus); interrogate UP Admin how the current admission system appears to privilege the rich coming from private schools.
The bike lane and 1-way oval scheme are complementary. Look, with the bike lane, there are only 2 lanes for motor vehicles in the current scheme. That can’t be made 2-way for motor vehicles without inviting accidents. It’s not as though space would yield to patronizing attitudes towards JODA. JODA, as a (potentially) socially responsible BUSINESS group, can help the UP community by making sure that their members are not smoke belching, by exploring the use of alternative sources of energy, by not smoking or txtng while driving. For once, the UP Admin got the balls to implement a scheme that may inconvenience some people but is nonetheless good for the entire UP ACADEMIC community. On many other issues, UP Admin sucks!
Yet, there is a bigger enemy: the oil monopolies. In fighting them, cycling is a start: Pakipadyak, Wag matakot!
If you want the double consumption in real terms, ask any driver from the Katipunan or Toki routes, who have doubled their expenditures on fuel not including the additional expenditures they get from oil price hikes. If you have logic, does it not translate into more emissions when you consume more gas? It holds water simply because you already get 60 or more automobiles smoke belching at double rate. And that is just considering the 2 JODAs in question, the other public transports and private vehicles still aren’t in the equation. You also cannot begin to expect people to simply walk from everywhere to anywhere in UP - the campus is huge, the class schedules don’t adjust to the walking students, the climate isn’t conducive for prolonged exposure to the outdoors, etc. etc.
The thing is, those marginalized by the one-way academic policy are truly inconvenienced. The bikers you claim to be marginalized, are they REALLY marginalized in the first place? Has there been any accident at all for bikers in recent UP history that immediately warranted the bike lane? Has there been any pedestrian complaint of not being able to cross the roads? I am assuming you’ve actually been to the academic oval, but what you claim to be “dangers of the street” are simply non-existent as far as I am concerned. I have never seen dare-devil drivers going through the academic oval, nor have I ever seen high-density traffic enough to be called inconvenient to pedestrians. What I have seen, though, is no percievable change in biker population. As for the pedestrians, we have the sidewalks for them, don’t we? The bike lane is for the bikers, not the walkers. If they truly want to encourage walking, they should improve the decrepit conditions of our sidewalks.
The solution to the growing need to address pollution or whatnot isn’t imposing a walking/biking lifestyle on the people, not in the current conditions anyway. There are far reasonable suggestions thrown about in councillor Victor Villanueva’s blog consultation ( http://vvillanueva.multiply.com/journal/item/1/One-Way_Acad_Oval_Reactions_please ), but it’s more reasonable than imposing traffic manipulations.
You will also find there alternative traffic scheme suggestions. Here’s a couple:
1.) a 3-lane scheme. The space taken up by the bike lane is simply too big for too few bikers. Get a part of it to add to the transport lane, that way the bike lane still exists while having enough elbow room for a two-way traffic within the oval.
2.) the carless oval scheme. This one referring to the admin’s “experiments”, where the road along vinzons to econ is still included in two-way traffic, with the two-way traffic rerouted to the back of Educ-PHAN-AS-CAL. It worked before, and the Katips and Toki routes are even willing to comply with this compromise.
All I can say, with these alternatives present, The Admin’s insistence with the one-way scheme when other routes are clearly more viable is suspect.
The issue of environmental measures warrants a different debate unto itself. As I said before, you cannot impose these measures since it is merely cosmetic, or stop-gap at best. Before we begin implementing such measures, I stress upon the need for proper and decisive consultation. If we are serious in addressing environmental concerns, we shouldn’t be restricted to narrow points of view such as simply relocating the pollution farther away from the oval, or asking the JODAs to stop using diesel. There is a reason why they stick to diesel, and there is a reason why simple relocation of pollution is no where near actually reducing emissions.
You see why we need proper and concrete assessments as to what steps to take in whatever form of advocacy? It is only in this way can we achieve genuine reforms in the university, even in the whole country, for that matter. Yes, change is one step at a time. We need to be careful with those steps though, wary of who we might step on, wary of how sure and stable our step is.
P.S. The individualisms (not individuality, mind you) of these USC leaders you speak of aren’t reason enough for them not to enact what they were mandated to do, which is to serve the students and the people. That is the problem with trying to accomodate their personal ferments, and that is the problem with a pluralist point of view in general.
ang yabang naman… cosmetic environmentalism?
it’s only cosmetic if your not sincere with what you’re doing… like someone shouting “down with u.s. imperialism” but wears denims, eats at mcdo, goes to starbucks for his caffeine fix, or even uses inappropriate english words to convey a simple thought…
and don’t even give us that crap that your activism and your ideology is the only valid one, and the rest — like the environment — are marginal concerns. that’s just plain arrogance.
if you’re really concerned with the drivers, why not help them find ways to make their jeepneys more environment-friendly? why not ask your partylist congressmen to put their pdaf/pork barrel to manufacture low-cost eco-friendly engines fit for public transportation, instead of yakking about how government does not do anything about their plight for employment and retention of jobs. now this will be a real solution: you create employment through manufacturing because there is a market for a demand like an eco-friendly engine. at the same time, you save the environment.
I have taken Katips, Toki, Ikot routes before AND after the 1-way oval traffic scheme, and no single route has “double[d] the consumption in real terms,” if distance is the only issue. No distance there has “doubled” (times 2) by any stretch of imagination. This so-called “evidence” from jeepney drivers is, understandably, anecdotal and hyperbolic. As a business interest group, it’s understandable that they tend to resort this rhetorical devices. An appeal to logic simply cannot go against plain arithmetic. I am not anti-jeepney. I take them whenever I have to. At this stage of development of transport system at UP, they are the major means. However, they should be made to understand that UP dictates the terms of their doing business on campus.
Yes, the campus is huge. But the locations of its main academic buildings are within walking OR biking distance. It’s also no bigger that many academically leading universities abroad that promote biking and walking. That we take exception from green transport efforts in many parts of the globe is just mind blowing! That our “climate isn’t conduciveness of prolonged exposure to the outdoors” is simply vague. Which climate really is conducive for outdoors? Temperate? (Try winter!) How “prolonged” is the outdoors exposure? How long is your jeepney trip? The exposure to heat on campus roads is already mitigated by its trees. The jeepney routes (whether old or new) are longer than point-to-point bike commutes on campus and therefore the former get more exposure to heat and humidity, not to mention the ambient heat and gas fumes generated by nearby motor vehicles (especially in CP Garcia and Balara areas during pick hours). Also, some distances are clearly better covered by bikes than motor vehicles. Try Toki from Kalay dorm to Math. Goodluck if you’ll get to Math in 20 minutes. With bike on a leisurely pace, the distance is 7 minutes tops, then you’ll have time to freshen up, smell good in class, review cLass notes, flirt around. Sure, no one should force anyone to do anything. But in a free market of ideas, biking is certainly a highly viable (if not better, more practical, not to mention more eco-friendly) alternative to motorized transport. It should be promoted by UP to fullest extend possible. For an Iskolar ng Bayan, s/he should at least try biking on campus (at least as part of research on this issue) before extolling the virtues of the old traffic scheme.
The view that “the bike lane is simply too big for too few bikers” is short-sighted (if not baseless). UP planners should make the lane ready for the expansion of its user-base (as the width of the existing bike lane seems to suggest). You don’t plan for the expansion of motor-vehicle user-base, because precisely that private motor vehicle riding is a behavior you want to discourage. The UP Admin can even take further steps, among others, by encouraging UP students to car-pool or take public transport (if not bike), by discouraging entries of cars and vans that are not occupied to full capacity, by discouraging entries of cars with 4-wheel drives.
Some people are simply deniers of “dangers of the street” on campus. Encourage them to try biking on campus for a while, then they’ll see how some car drivers insist on using up the existing bike lanes. Ask some persons at UPIS how sometime ago an IS student was hit by a car near Quezon Hall–a case of hit and run. Yes, UP is relatively safer place for pedestrians and bikers than the larger Metro Manila. But precisely it is such relative “safety” that you want enhanced and not undermined by the pervasive “car culture” that grips even some of the brightest of UP constituents.
Again, one could insist that the One-Way Academic Oval Scheme purportedly helps create a condition for motorized vehicles to become less dominant within the campus, but it simply pushes these vehicles out into other spaces where they could keep on churning out carbon emissions. Now, that’s cosmetic environmentalism. The prolonged travel of motorized vehicles in the campus just cancels out the “less cars, less pollution” idea.
Nobody is dismissing the cases of people who wish to bike and/or walk, no matter what their reason for choosing to do so is. If such cases really exist, then there’s even more reason to conduct formal consultations amongst members of the UP Community so that their concerns can be attended to. Moreover, having meangingful consultations with community members would help not to leave some individuals describing such cases in stunning detail (even creating extraordinary episodes) just to convince others that these problems actually exist.
Arguing as if the concerns of “these people” are being attacked, however, is setting up a straw man and knocking it down: no one is even refuting the promotion of biking/walking within the university (same with that argument misconstruing that “environmentalism” is but a marginal concern for those who are advocating the rights of marginalized sectors). There’s no such view held against the One-Way Academic Oval Scheme. The issue being raised here is how the One-Way Academic Oval Scheme leaves the following untackled altogether: (1) the livelihood of JODA drivers, (2) the inconvenience brought about to commuters in lengthening and limiting transport routes, and (3) the efficacy of the policy in reducing carbon emissions. Regardless the diversion to ad hominem attacks to discredit those who are against the One-Way Academic Oval (e.g. insinuating about a case which KASAMA sa UP itself filed in the Ombudsman against Serrana, along with the other innuendo that screams “these causes were brought about these people holding a view, hence their view is false wrong”), the remains flaws of this policy remain.
As Kalikasan People’s Network for Environment (Kalikasan PNE) puts it, “The struggle for the environment is the struggle of the people.” Progressive assemblages have long been campaigning both versus anti-environment and anti-people programs in recognizing that the issues from both spheres are intertwined. It is in this light that these groups, among other actions upholding the entwined advocacies, (1) condemn the Mining Act of 1995, Minerals Action Plan, and Executive Order 270, wherein almost 500,000 hectares of Philippine land is sold to 200 potentially dangerous mining projects of foreign firms (an example is the Lafayette Mining Limited’s Rapu-Rapu Mining Project in Albay which has brought about cyanide-induced fish kills); (2) oppose the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (or JPEPA) which upon ratification permits toxic waste free trade along with exploitation of local natural resources; and (3) assert House Resolution 155 that is urgently directing the Committees on Natural Resources and Ecology investigate and act upon the oil exploration activities in Tañon Strait (protected area under RA 7686 National Integrated Protected Areas System Law), and the potential perils of the exploration to the environment and local fisherfolk).
The advocacy for the rights of community members and for the environment shouldn’t clash. Hence, problems brought about by the One-Way Academic Oval Policy hence cannot just be solved by narrowly seeking ways to make jeepneys become more environment-friendly. Even if eco-friendly engines become available to the local market, it doesn’t immediately create the condition for jeepney drivers to readily purchase them. This overlooks the reality that these drivers, along with the other basic masses the country over, suffer from a declining state of livelihood. That is why the One-Way Academic Oval policy is being lambasted. It has not only failed to show its worth in significantly greening the environment but also generated a negative impact upon the livelihood of the JODA members.
As post-script: for eco-friendly engines to become prevalent out there so they could lessen pollution, there lies the need to promote local S&T alongside nationalizing key industries. It is also through nationalizing basic industries that economic relief can be achieved, as it shall render the national economy less dependent on foreign companies which own the bulk of local production and revenues. Only then can the nation have one of the vital conditions for mass production of “green engines” and the market for such merchandise given increased economic power for the people.
Again, consultation is not the same as consensus. The leaders and managers of this university are in no way obligated to accede to JODA’s wishes. To lead is not about sucking it up to just one interest group but to have the balls to do what is right for the entire community, even if sometimes implementing certain measures is unpopular.
Let me just address quickly the allegation that the ff issues were left untackled in previous posts: (1) the livelihood of JODA drivers, (2) the inconvenience brought about to commuters in lengthening and limiting transport routes, and (3) the efficacy of the policy in reducing carbon emissions.
1. As it is, JODA drivers are livelihood is already threatened by rising fuel prices. The enemy is not 1-way oval scheme. If JODA drivers continue to ply unprofitable routes, then they’re fools. The university doesn’t give guarantees of profitability. It’s downright patronizing for some people to think that JODA is not plying those routes for profitability.
2. the inconvenience to commuters is minimal and the alternative of biking is encouraged. The routes are privileges, NOT rights. In certain cases, the alternative of direct point-to-point bike commute is even better than any of the routes (old or new); examples: Kalay to Math, MC to SC, Village B to FC, Eng to Math.
3. The existing scheme (1-way oval plus bike lane) is going to be effective insofar as previous transport studies showed that wider roads tend to encourage more driving; narrower roads and 1-way traffic, walks tend to lessen driving. Let’s wait for UP constituents to respond to the scheme. It going to take a while because they warm to the idea of doing their shares for the environment. If critics of the scheme are so impatient, then they will have to agree to upping the ante for incentives and disincentives (examples: impose parking fees for cars — the money can be used to assist JODA drivers to use alternative fuels; collect tolls for vans and cars entering the university that are less than certain percentage of passenger capacity).
It’s one thing to have occasional rallies and campaigns against big environmental issues. It’s another to have to practice what one preaches on a daily basis. Calling the latter cosmetic is not only an insult on the cosmetic industry but also to deny that an even bigger fraud is for some leaders to play the critique card without any positive change in personal lifestyles.
Note: Pardon for this lengthy reply.
@panira: It is cosmetic if it doesn’t have a sustainable long-term view. You can pour all your passion and efforts into a myopic, face-value advocacy and still make no difference whatsoever.
your logic about anti-imperialists using the products you’ve mentioned is simply impractical. Realize that at the present conditions, MNC/TNC-influenced industries have monopolies on most quality products such as the denims you speak of. I personally would buy their well-made garments than blindly stick to ideals that would result into getting into a perpetual state of clothing disrepair, hahaha! I understand when you refer to luxury items such as those brand-expensive coffees, where you’ll rarely see a true-blooded activist frequenting it. Well, you’ll find a lot of armchair activists there, I assure you.
As for the want to speak purely in Filipino instead of using the english tongue, no offense, but again it is an impractical advocacy. We aren’t ultra-nationalists who are anti-everything foreign, which is why we are careful to condemn US imperialists and not the US people in general - the american masses are no different from us, we are all exploited by the greedy and inhumane system pervading the world. The language we use is in accordance to what is best used for a certain condition - in this case, english is used in a dominantly english domain that is the internet, especially a website frequented by intellectuals. You’d notice that the colonial education system we have has ingrained ignorance of the native tongue to most students. Hence, under this condition, forcing a “pantayong pananaw” simply has no logic.
Environmental, economic, social, political, cultural - a concrete analysis of Philippine society will show you that these concerns are all rooted in the chronic systemic crisis we currently have. So, we again go to the metaphor of the cure for cancer: If we are to address this systemic cancer, we either remove it completely or else it will just grow back. If you do not attack the root of the cancer, it will just grow back. I am not saying that environmental concerns are IRRELEVANT, I am just saying that if you want to address these peripheral issues, you must first attack the overall problem where it’s rooted or else it will never get resolved.
I believe “our partylist congressmen” understands this too. You might want to read on 2005-21756’s dissertation on the kind of advocacy on environmental concerns that we espouse (See Kalikasan-PNE comment).
@panuhot: The logic is simple and it can also be explained in numbers: let’s take the TOKI route as an example. TOKI drivers have to travel three-fourths more than their original distance to get around the Academic Oval because of the new One-Lane policy, having to spend more for (expensive) gas, and having to use up more fuel for every trip. In fuel consumption, Jeeps plying a trip around UP averaged a liter per round, but now has to consume an extra liter because of the rerouting scheme, so you can see that it has indeed doubled in those terms, as if we include the distance they travel outside UP, it is already outside the effects of the one-way policy. This obviously defeats the purpose of reducing fuel emissions in the first place, doesn’t it?
In order to reduce fuel emissions, you have to reduce petroleum-based engines. Jeep drivers won’t part with their diesel engines because diesel fuel is the cheapest in the market. So again, as mentioned in one of the earliest points here, the debate is on why alternative engines/fuel sources still haven’t been pursued in the Philippines, and the answer is that the government remains stonewalling in its budgeting, still not increasing budget for social services, including S&T development.
As for your point in the merits of biking, we again get to the point that not everyone BIKES, even if you teach them, even if you rent them bikes. At best, it will benefit those who live in dorms and nearby homes/boarding houses. Note for a fact, however, that there are still many people commuting from OUTSIDE the campus. Forcing to add to their expenditures Bike Rentals, in addition to plenty other price increases and the fare costs of their commuting, is just undemocratic. Sure, you can PROMOTE it, but if promotion means severely affecting the livelihood of Jeepney drivers, which also severely affect those who do not ride bikes by choice (we are, after all, in a free market of ideas right now, as you said) or cannot afford biking in addition to commuting OUTSIDE the campus, then I don’t think it’s promotion at all, it’s called imposition.
Just because other countries are doing it, doesn’t mean we have to immediately copy it. It varies according to objective and subjective conditions, and since our national transportation system is objectively backward and feudal (forcing those who cannot afford to use cheap fuel like diesel and use “dirty” but cheap engines, and the rich refusing to carpool), you simply cannot impose these ideas that doesn’t fit the current condition. You have to change the way the system works FIRST. By trying to backdoor it, you’re just further complicating things, complications with negative repercussions, which is exactly what’s happening in the UP Admin’s stubborn attempt to fast-track things. Another case of myopic analysis.
It is unrealistic to think that we can implement this traffic policy that encourages an idealistic transport system that simply cannot exist in our country’s overall conditions. Structuralist though it might sound, it is true, as demonstrated how 1.) you haven’t really reduced pollution in this policy, and 2.) you haven’t completely unfettered the Iskolars ng Bayan from automobile use. That is because the backward transportation system still exists outside of the academic oval, you just redirected traffic, accidents and emissions there, and in effect you killed off the livelihood of Jeepney Drivers and added expenses to the students who simply cannot live on bikes alone.
So please, stop being an idealist and realize that the steps you wish UP to take can only be taken when the conditions make it truly feasible. We can promote biking as an alternative lifestyle choice, however to truly empower it, you need to address the system that simply makes it an added luxury and possibly an inconvenience, the system that forces public transport systems to be underdeveloped.
Also, I did not say that there is simply no chance of having regular road accidents in UP, all I’m saying is that UP’s problems regarding that matter is minimal, while there are more problems it faces that needs immediate concern. Let’s not fix what’s not broken for now, and focus on the things with obvious disrepair, like the other local problems our community faces, both big and small, like the impending demolitions, the rising cost of education, the unfair traffic schemes. Of course, let’s not forget where all these are rooted: the systemic cancer Philippine society is currently enduring.
Again, 2005-21756 have also raised some good points, especially on how the rights advocacy of the different sectors within UP’s community shouldn’t be clashing at all. You might want to read his/her comments too.
@panuhot’s 2nd post:
1.) Again, it is wrong to dismiss JODAs as simply profiteers. They are service providers, and if you want examples of the little sacrifices they make to maintain service, you should find comfort in the fact that the UP Philcoa route maintained its 50-cent cheaper route even as the profitability of their franchise gets diminished by the cutting trips of other routes in the Philcoa area. Also in the fact that Ikot and Toki routes continue their rounds even as they no longer have regular rounds especially on weekends and in summer. They also go as far as taking illogically low boundaries just to continue ferrying their passengers. It might be their sense of survival, but their persistence to still ply their routes helps keep the transportation system linking UP to the outside world going.
The one-way academic policy, while not the main enemy, still aggravates the already grim conditions the JODAs are under. Had the admin really lived true to its mandate of serving the interests of the UP community, it would have done a decisive consultation with the drivers. But alas, they probably have no intentions of serving any other interest but their own by not allowing themselves to be answerable to the other sectors of UP, they have also limited what us students, the primary stakeholders of the University, think and can do about these issues.
Did they even consult the bikers? Refer to this biker’s post from Bikoy’s consultation:
People who ride bikes generally learn, through experience, na safer actually to ride with the traffic instead of dedicated rights-of-way for a number of reasons, enumerated on this wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling]. In so many words: “cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.” Kaya at least on this point parang halatang walang consultation para madetermine ang needs ng cyclists.
2.) Aren’t the roads in UP are still, as far as I know, public roadways, and still under the jurisdiction of DPWH (do correct me if I’m wrong)? Regardless of that point, you are not considering how commuters coming from outside of UP are severely affected by the pseudo-imposition of biking. Please refer to my above post. Those who can enjoy the privilege of biking are somewhat limited to those who live in or near UP. While of course there are routes that will find biking beneficial, there are conversely routes that don’t, like the Masscom area routes, or SC routes, and of course, the routes going through the infamous Vinzons-BA-Econ roadway.
In addition there are the community residents. And the aforementioned JODAs. It is elitist to not consider them, you’re becoming no different from the Admin that way.
3.) Again, your analysis is being limited only to UP with all external factors unconsidered. Warming up to the idea while lives are being seriously undermined? No thanks. Admin support to the gravely-affected JODAs? Cooperative collaboration? Basing on the experience of our Janitors in UP (Refer to councillor Fudge Tajar’s post in Bikoy’s consultation page.), That’s impossible.
Efforts that are short of complete removal of “systemic cancer,” of the “chronic systemic crisis” are inferior to “revolutionary” system overhauls? Excuse me. When we the last time we had an exemplar revolution? And I’m the one being an idealist here? Haha… First, you probably have to look at your metaphor: cancer. In what sense is the present condition a “cancer”? If it is indeed “cancer” what’s the social equivalent of surgery, chemotherapy? And who’s the doctor? Not you, certainly. Not even some self-appointed vanguards. See, how easy it is to confound analysis with problematic concepts?
Sure, you can work your way towards revolutionary change. That’s probably your job. But my mission is to win one road, one building, one person at a time. Change is incremental. We have to integrate it in our daily lives. Cliche as this may be seem, but we have to become the change we want, the sooner the better. At some point, such incremental changes would reach a tipping point and the effect can be revolutionary.
The inconvenience brought about by the 1-way oval traffic schemed is far outweighed by the LONG-term benefits to the community, the nation and the environment. Wait a while and observe how motorists would respond to the scheme if implemented strictly.
The irony is that the UP Admin people are not exactly the card-carrying type of environmentalists out there, and they’re probably as wasteful as many other elites in Philippine society. But we can own up the vision of a carless academic oval, and the present scheme is a good start.
Perhaps the question is: Why can’t you bike? Why can’t you walk? Why is it hard to see that narrow roads and 1-way traffic scheme lessen vehicular traffic and possibly help maintain order? The solution is not to widen roads for vehicular traffic; it’s to restrict access. Tried riding your car in some areas in Makati? Would you rather not walk there?
Who really cannot walk or ride the bike? Answer: most people. Possible exception: people with physical handicaps. But to treat most people as if they all have physical handicaps is just plain patronizing, not unlike treating JODA drivers as if they’re incapable of taking care of their own livelihoods.
Many years down the road, we’ll probably laugh at reading this debate. No, no one here endorses aping what environmentalists in many parts of the world do. But to say that what they do WILL NOT work here is just jaw-dropping. I guess that old bearded German guy won’t be as passe as some people thought after all. In the future, his concept will come in handy to explain how certain people refuse to see merits of the traffic scheme and continue to embrace the car culture. The concept is called “false consciousness.”
i drive a car, and the one way acad oval is really becoming such an inconvenience… that’s why i always park my car in AS parking and just take the jeepneys. The thing is, if more and more people will start doing something like this, then the jeepneys should actually have an increase in the number of students using them.
I would have wanted to bike, but so far, there are no bike parking areas in the buildings yet. I heard though that our college, CS, has plans to put up these bike parking areas. If the USC is really involved, it should have initiated this! I am disappointed that the USC hasn’t released any plans to put up these things… and apparently some members of the USC are even more concerned with the legalities and technicalities of such plans? tsk. Sinong councilor or member ba dapat ung in-charge sa issue na ito?
@05-21830 and 2005-21756 … hinay lang. Mejo obvious galing kayo sa pula.
No one else will be able to free the people from the shackles of the crisis of a self-serving government and its alies but the people themselves. You’re the only one paranoid of elite vanguardism here.
You are indeed blind and ideal if you dismiss the domination of a pro-imperialist, self-serving ruling class that maintains the status quo in its decrepit form. We’ve had a lt of exemplary revolutions in our country should you care to refresh your memory of basic Philippine history: the 1898 revolution and the people powers demonstrated how the power to protect Philippine independence and sovereignty is truly in the hand of the united masses.
Impatient naysayers point out how real change still hasn’t been achieved, andit is true that various setbacks have indeed hampered our efforts for true social reform. But again, you yourself said that achieving the change our country needs is protracted. However, by limiting yourself to your own concept of action, you are not getting yourself any closer to true social reform as every inch you take through individualist action is greatly overwhelmed by every step the state takes against you. You’re wasting time and effort by venturing into actions that have no GENUINE long-term view.
Do you think revolutionary change is achieved in one explosive display of fireworks? Of course change is incremental, but the steps you take should be sustainable steps lest it be wasted in the end (like the extensive lobbying done by environmentalist groups to put a stopper on the damage caused by the dirty technologies implemented in open-pit mining being wasted as the Ramos regime implemented the Mining Act in 1995 that threw all efforts down the drain). But I can understand your own, defeatist point of view, let us leave it to history and the masses then to figure out what has actually made an impact on our nation: The revolutions that are severing step-by-step our sovereignty from the grasps of colonialism, or the GREENWASH that’s based on assumptions taken from myopic observations?
I’m not sure if you understood it when we said that we are not opposed to carless ovals, BUT not in these conditions. The present scheme is NOT a good start as it’s not simply an inconvenience for commuters, you’re actually killing the livelihood of JODAs. Are you under the impression that it’s easy to get back on your feet when you’ suddenly lose your job? Now I really think you’re idealistic in assuming that getting proper employment and wages can be readily taken care of in this country. So proper that statistics show that for every 50,000 jobs produced per year 500,000 fresh unemployed people graduate from college to create a shortfall of 450,000 (You do watch the news to know this, right?). How would the displaced JODAs deal with that?A pat on their back and a bid of good luck?
Patronizing? Do you know how much a good bike costs nowadays? What about additional bike rental fees to the usual commuting fare? Do you know that transport fares are on the brink of increasing by 2.50 again? How do you think the compounding of these expenditures would affect all people involved here? Where do you put your school supplies in a bike, especially for school-supply-heavy courses like Fine Arts & Architecture, or the boo-heavy courses? Do you intend to impose students to walk while loaded down? Did you actually reduce emissions when you redirected traffic to the outer ovals? Did you actually save students from exposure to these emissions when they stll experience pollution once they get outside UP?
I AM already laughing. You’re just too idealistic. It is “jaw-dropping” how someone can keep reading my posts out of context, with this time around claiming that I said that these policies won’t work PERIOD.
At this point in time, I’m getting the idea that you will keep on reading out of context and downplay the adverse effects of this (read: the one-way acad policy) greenwash and waste of tuition money as long as it looks beautiful in your eyes. You’re convinced of your manifest destiny, I’m convinced of my systemic panacea. Let’s begin “owning up” to our stands and start leaving this to how the masses will recieve it then, eh?
@para sa bayan: hindi rin naman ako nagpapanggap diba? conversely, obvious din na asulan ka, so the (no offense) naivete is excusable.
if the intention of the one-way policy is to shift private auomobile users to public transport use, then it should have considered the adverse effects it had on th public tranports. why not put restrictions specifically on private automobiles instead? the shift to public transport use might be a possibility, but in my opinionit isn’t a probability, keeping in mind that the progressions seems to be geared to a carless oval instead of an empowered public transport system that is accessible to the majority of the UP community.
As for the bike parking, shouldn’t it be in cooperation with the Environmental Concerns committee as a small-scale project since it helps biking advocacy? You ca’t blame the USC though for their want of attending to more pressing matters. While you might percieve this as a priority, it might not be the same for others. You might want to do something about it , though. There are a lot of things one can do to stress upon what one percieves to be issues with gravity.
I seriously doubt these bike parkings to be a priority project, though I don’t dismiss it as a non-entity. But I’m just a”pulahan”, let’s hear from the USC themselves, what if?
“para sa bayan” made a good point that if the 1-way acad oval scheme works, it should in fact increase the income of jeepneys. This is another angle that nay-sayers of the scheme refuse to see. In the interest of full disclosure, I must say that I myself drive whenever I need to. But whenever I can (thankfully more often), I bike. Now is it convenient to be switching from car to bike? Hell, no! But precisely because of such insistence on convenience that the environment suffers. Is it more convenient to use the “tabo” rather than the shower? And, oh, the bathtub is really nice to use, but hmm… freshwater consumption isn’t exactly less than what’s necessary. Biking may be inconvenient at the start, but after a while you’ll discover that it’s not so bad. The bike is one of the most efficient machines, and for some people it even helps them think things through.
To doubters of the effectiveness of the existing scheme, please visit http://trafficcalming.org/effectiveness.html . At least it’s not based on speculation but on scholarly data. Once “traffic calming” is understood, we should in fact be advocating more measures to ensure the outcomes.
Anyone can cry that he’s being misread where in fact the word “disagreement” would do. So, regardless of reading of my own position (for which, btw, I haven’t complained being misread despite the feeling to the contrary… not a crybaby here), let me be clear on the ff:
1. There are no pre-ordained alliances. Whenever the jeepney drivers fight big oil monopolies, I will align with them. If they’re going to oppose the 1-way oval scheme and other measures to create livable, peaceful, sustainable environment, I will certainly not be with them. The UP Admin is not always wrong. When they’re right, they should be supported, even if the process of arriving at right decisions are less than ideal. The USC should be more nuanced in its advocacy, and not suck up to JODA that oppose the scheme, just because the latter belong to the “masses.” Hell, the masses too can be wrong. That is not a politically correct thing to say, but if you respect the masses well enough, you’ve got to be honest with them about where you think they did wrong. Otherwise, it’s just downright patronizing (if not disrespectful).
The USC can well help suggest optimal routes to benefit the riding public, without destroying the gains made with the 1-way oval scheme. The USC can teach the UP Admin how to consult properly, but USC people should have no illusions of getting everything. Because, at the end of the day, UP managers and administrators make the call. And, oh, lest we forget, the USC represents the students. The students need help in biking: more bike racks, student loans to get bikes, training for those who don’t know how to bike, more rental programs. These ways the USC can be a positive force, and not just be negative about everything in the guise of some distant structural overhaul. While the latter is certainly important, the relevance (or obsolescence) of the USC is tempered on a daily struggle and demonstration of what’s possible in the here and now. This is year 2008. Students are no longer content with sloganeering and rhetoric divorced from the mundane struggles of the daily life.
Thank, goodness, the USC is not homogeneous. Some members appear to be nuanced enough in their positions to resist the tyranny of political correctness. Others have studied well as to be able to upgrade their thinking to Red 2.0 that allows user-generated data to drive their nuanced advocacy. Still very few others remain hopeless. It’s as if after reading the Communist Manifesto they rushed out to change the world. O, wait, there’s 18th Brummaire and the Grundrisse! (Yes, I study history too. Granting that indeed those revolutions were great, between 1998 and the 1st people power, you’ve got how many years? Do the math, and goodluck on the wait!)
2. The inconvenience caused by the existing traffic scheme should only be temporary, and people should be allowed to psych themselves up to a future that is carless oval. Appeals to convenience and consultation are just not strong enough, even as these things are important. Some time ago, people quibbled about the inconvenience of seat belts, but now psychologically it’s hard for me to start the engine without using the seat belt first.
So I guess this is where we can agree to disagree. Good luck on your “systemic panacea.” That might be useful in the end. In the meantime, I’ll have fun biking. I put my books (they’re not as many as yours) on my bike basket or my backpack. When I leave my bike home, perhaps I can rent from UP Padyak (P500 a sem, cheap!)? The bike lanes are not going to disappear anytime soon, so I might as well relish the moments when I can notice little things on the road that are normally ignored when I drive. When I see crowding of motor vehicles on the other side of the oval, I can flash a smile and motion to the driver, “Let’s bike na! It’s soooo cool, promise!” And, oh!, I have time to spare till my next class. Can I check out this cute dude?
@panuhot: again, that is hoping that there is a regular enough percentage of private vehicle users that will utilize public vehicles. so as I said, why not put restrictions on private vehicles instead? why would you include the public transport system that you’re supposing to be beneficiaries of the one-way policy? the presumed boom in passengers, if ever it’s indeed translating into such, simply isn’t solid and sustainable enough to overcome the heavy added expenditures brought about by the one-way policy.
the issue is in fact more economy and practicality than of convenience. to private vehicle users like you, hell yes it’s about convenience. We are referring though to the broad, everyday-commuting masses from all sectors in UP, something that your class might not understand as the petty 2.50 fare increases and additional 500 bike rental fees brought about by the pseudo-imposition of biking will always seem irrelevantly small to you, the same way some rich kids in UP percieve 1,000 per unit tuition rates to be dirt cheap, when in fact peasant families can barely afford the 300 per unit tuition rate without loaning from somewhere, anywhere.
oh golly, traffic calming! well and good. it still doesn’t make a difference in the fact that your trying to prevent life-threatening situations by implementing something that threatens a heftier number of lives through economic repression. no amount of your scholarly data would provide enough reason to accept the price that comes with forcing the one-way policy’s impositions.
and its not simply disagreement as you claim to be. you’re only disagreeing with specific points taken out of context of whole statements. if you feel abused in being “supposedly misunderstood” too, speak up, I will gladly retract statements taken out of context. apologies if you think the current discussion as it is is unfair.
point per point:
1.) your brand of alliance is thus because you take your interests and only your interests in consideration. of course such an alliance will never exist. I dunno about your perception of USC, but real student leaders persist with their advocacies not with the intention of winning the battle in immediate terms, but to exercise and continually empower the the drive of students to fight for their rights and welfare. that’s the problem with the asulans, they tie themselves too much in the immediate, borne out of their frustrated myopic analyses. do you honestly still think that what progressives advocate is to completely forget about the present? have you ever studied up on sustainable development? because clearly the “solutions” you’re presenting right now has no concretely practical analysis of the long-term. Again, Idealist.
again, naivete shows in thinking that every action taken by genuine militant activism is all negative, the naivete that pre-ordained bias manifests. no wonder you have such an obsolete view on progressives, you’re limited only to the abstractMarx! were you you think history immediately equates to a long period of time? actually listening to Kas 1’s initial lecture that the study of history is a critical analysis of the various subjective and objective conditions of the past and the present, completely debunking on the notion of historical analysis is dialectic but idealist like Hegelian dialectics? ever heard of concrete class analysis? if you think that we’re only about rhetoric and sloganeering, it’s because you only care to content yourselves with what little understanding you have. you need to study about history more, I daresay, unless of course, your brand of history is that of Zaide: face value, cosmetic, and sucking up to the status quo.
2.) the grave negative repercussions of the one-way policy isn’t as simple as a fly buzzing around you irritatingly. another trademark idealist notion, just like the invisible hand of economy where you’re not actually thinking of welfare but of personal gratification. as long as you force yourself not to feel what it feels to be in the shoes of those that are most affected, you will remain to see only the tip of the iceberg.
on a last note, since you have a veeery comprehensive critical opinion especially on progressives, you might find it comforting that Cuba, the reddest of reds, has institutionalized the bike as the basic unit of their transportation system, nation-wide. See, even the “reds” share your advocacy. Let’s not be too cynical and judge dialectical materialists as anti-everything.
-=-
so now I’ll get back on topic and get back to constructive criticism. again, bike racks are all well and good. also, in the one-way policy consultation aforementioned, someone noted that it has been harder for bikers to navigate the road since pedestrians and joggers seem to have grown accustomed to walking in the middle of the bike lane, instead of sticking to the pedestrian lanes meant for them before the bike lane came into fruition. that’s a possible problem to ponder on, since the joggers seem to have grown fearless when the lane was taken out of traffic’s way.
another possible problem mentioned would be the security of these bike racks. it is of utmost concern to ensure security lest the bikes be stolen. yung mga renters rin ang pagbabayarin nyan kung nanakaw yung padyak nila.
again, I applaud this project’s concern for the health and the environment. let us ensure this project to stay true to its commitment to the aforementioned advocacies, and I hope its implementations remain reasonable and democratic.
The argument here shouldn’t trade on the term “cosmetic” to the divergent senses in assessing the pros and cons of the One-Way Academic Oval Scheme. It doesn’t resolve the chief issues in the policy in question.
Contending in a manner that suggests the On-Way Academic Oval Scheme is ‘good’ as it may be “inconvenient to some people but is nonetheless good for the entire UP ACADEMIC community” exposes an apparent contradiction in presenting the case of other supposedly existent marginalized community members (garishly depicted previously as composed of “the security guard or janitor who bikes all the way from Fairview because he couldn’t afford the bus fares, a UP staff who wants to bike commute to work but gets intimidated by disrespectful, undisciplined drivers on campus, a pedestrian who has to furiously signal asking the car driver to let her cross the street”.) So the argument regarding the right and privileges of these aforesaid people is valid, but the argument about the trampled rights and privileges of JODA members formally consulted by USC members isn’t a valid one? This isn’t just a contradiction unraveled in the attempt to show the supposed gains the policy shall afford to common good, but this moreover rationalizes (in vain) a move that has adverse effects on the livelihood of an existent marginalized sector within the campus. Clearly, myopic environmentalism sells to those who disregard their fellow people who have long been grappling with the cost of daily living.
It’s easy to suggest that we make use of alternative fuels, but this suggestion doesn’t consider how the current production of biofuels in the country worsens the food security for the people. At least 1.2 hectares of agricultural land in Mindanao are being auctioned off by the government to investors as biofuel plantations (e.g. for Jatropha) rather than being utilized for producing enough food crops in a famished nation (3.8-million Filipino families or 21.5% experienced “involuntary hunger” at least once from August-October 2007).
Change can’t occur if society or the context doesn’t change as well. Although human activities contribute to the environment’s deterioration, narrowly essentializing individual efforts shall only produce limited gains if these cannot be made in concert with sound political actions that consider other meaningful advocacies. Individual efforts alone can’t put a halt to activities of US, China and India that emit gross amounts of greenhouse gases. Environmental issues cannot be held separate from societal factors, as these are largely based on both political will and economic faculty.
hmmm… nakakatuwa ang conversation at debates ninyo… naaalala ko lang noon dati may isang prof na nagkwento sa amin na dati daw ay may mga tricycles daw sa loob ng UP Diliman?
Tapos daw pinatanggal daw ng Admin dagil daw eh World Class university ang UP bakit daw magkakaroon ng trikes? at dun daw nawala ung trikes…
taga UPM ako and you know how small our campus kaya walking distance lang lahat ng bulildings pati na ang mga hangouts
at kapag nasa UPD ako I usually walk except kapag umuulan dun ako sumasakay ng dyip at hindi naman ako against sa biking…
kasu nga lang anu po ang measures na magagawa for biking kapag rainy season na? hassle naman po para sa mga tao na umuulan at naglalakad or nagbibike? at kung mag-opt ang isang student sa bikes for rent, how much po per rent? plus kapag magandang tipo ng bike eh mas mahal so magiging depende pa sa presyo ng bike ang presyo ng rent? Tapos sino pa pong magproprovide na company sa mga bike na yan? Magiging concession po ba or bidding per each college or university wide?
Alin Po kaya ang magiging mas mahal sa budget ng mga iskolar ng bayan? Magiging limitado lang ba ang renta sa paikot ng oval? Papaano ang rules and policies dito? Kinosulta po ba ng maiigi ang mga mag-aaral?
Wala akong duda about the environmental issue and campaign pero papaano po kaya ang sitwasyonng mga mag-aaral na sobrang magkakahiwalay ang subjects and take note po hindi maisasaayos sa CRS ang ischedule na talagang aangkop sa mga mag-aaral ng bawat semestre?
halimbawa po mula AS hanngang masscom may exam ang mag-aaral tapos dati sa dyip ay limang minuto ang byahe pag sa bike medyo matagalan ito tapos dikit ang klase, maaring magkaroon po ng tendency ng late d po ba? Tapos halimbawa po kung hectic na ang estudyante sa sa college of science dahil sa mga exam tapos magbibike pa po kung halimbawa magmumula pa po sila sa CAL eh hindi po ba ang physical exhaustion ay dadagdag sa pagkahaggard nila, lalu na kung nagpuyat ang mag-aaral sa pag-aaral?
Puro case scenario lang po ito ngunit may mga taong siguradong nakakaexperience po niyan dahil na rin sa laki ng UPD…
Anu pong alternatibo ang sa tingin nyo ang nararapat upang hindi maging pahirap po ito sa estudyante?
doon sa point about the drivers ng jeepneys at nasabi sa comment sa blog ni bikoy villannueva about UP shuttle sa oval, papaanu iyon? may sariling ruta ang oval?tapos i rerereoute ulit ung ma dyip na nagmumula outside UPD papasok ng UPD away from the route? Eh papaano pa po ung nagkakaroon ng kompetisyon ang mga dyip dahil sa one lane scheme at naapektuhan ang biyahe? Ung paggamit po ng mas malayong ruta eh hindi po ba mas maraming emisyon ng polusyon iyon?
meron din po akong nabasa about sa pagkakaroon na lang ng parking fee at 3 lanes ang oval pakiexplain naman ang posibilities nun?
Sana po masagot ninyo ang mga tanong ko po… Kahit sabihin na taga UPM ako eh I’m planning to get a double deg in UPD and I have friends who had their summer classes in UPD who experienced some hassle so I want to know the situation there in the Flagship campus.
From the Birthplace of UP:
2006-311183
yehey! finally, a commitment to support the project from 05-21830. So let’s bike na! People from all shades of the political rainbow would be biking. Of course, yes, to public transport, too. I would even add that public transportation should be the main thing, and btw biking is part of public transport. It’s a great equalizer. Rich or poor, pareho lang pumapadyak. Of course the rich can buy expensive bikes but on the road there’s not much difference between expensive and cheap bikes if the purpose is simply to commute. So USC, get to work! Make biking more convenient to students and other university constituents, ensure safety of bikers and their bikes. Most of all show us you walk the walk by biking to classes yourselves (sometimes would be a good start).
the fact is… the routes of the jeepneys will have to change eventually with the opening of the science complex. And they always change naman with the opening of new buildings like the OUR.
Ang shuttle ay isang term lamang. Pwede namang dyip ung shuttle. Wala naman sinabing bus or lrt or coaster ung shuttle. It’s just a shuttle just like the jeepneys are campus shuttles.
3 lanes nalang naman talaga yung oval. masikip kasi pag 4 cguro. Pero kung 3 lanes… impossible na 2 way yan. 1-way is really the more logical solution i guess.
@panuhot: kung titignan mo naman yung unang post ko, at interspersed naman sa mga posts namin na hindi naman kami anti-biking eh. hahaha, ito talaga.
sinabi ko at ni 05-21756 sa onset pa naman na hindi dapat pinagbabangga ang interes ng lahat ng mga parte ng komunidad ng UP eh.
about dun sa bikes, kung ako rin ang bibili ng bike, pipiliin ko syempre yung sigurado kang tatagal (sustainable) at yung magsisilbing reliable replacement talaga sa automobiles (long-term).
@2006-31183: stated naman dun sa comment sa blog ni bikoy na possibility yung phase-out in place of shuttles, basing on commercialization policy trends, experience with admin-personnel relations especially with UP’s workers (specifically the janitors), and is the reason why we should keep a close watch in the trends of these policies, kasi something as noble as the biking advocacy, and in a broader scope environmentalism or health can be subverted by the admin for its own purposes, which is a purpose that in experience has never based on the people’s context, lip service lang kadalasan.
take into consideration what your prof said, too. oo, tama, may mga tricycles sa UP dati. another trend yun, ang pagtanggal ng trikes sa loob ng UP for.. what? yes, face-value purposes. kaya wag na magtaka kung medyo nagsusupetsa kami sa nangyayari sa jeeps.
@para sa bayan: Katipunan and Toki JODAs are willing to settle for the past carless oval schemes (yung bukas pa rin to 2-way yung roadway along vinzons), which is the logical choice if they claim these past schemes to be their experiments as basis, and is also logical if this rerouting is indeed transitional as they claim it to be. Kasi sa ganung iskema, hindi ganun kalaki ang pagkaka-reroute sa kanila, enough for them to settle for a compromise that doesn’t completely aggravate their livelihood. Admin flat-out rejected this proposal.
Flexible naman ang AUPTA regarding revising traffic schemes eh, kaya nga hinihiling nilang magkaroon ng dialogue para magka-rason naman yung usapang ito. Ang nagso-stonewall naman diyan ay ang Admin eh. USAPAN lang ang hinihiling nila ah.
So us students, as the primary stakeholders to UP, as the voice of those muted, must maintain constant vigilance and be prepared to take necessary action against deceptive and divisive policy trends.
@05-21830: I’ll take your word na flexible ang mga drivers pagdating na rerouting. Yon talaga ang dapat. Sana magkasundo sila na optimal route. Sana malinaw din sa mga drivers na merong kagaya ko na privileged yong bike lanes and in the future carless oval. At sisikapin ko ring ipaabot sa UP Admin ang posisyong to. Sana din ang USC magsumikap maka-lobby ng institutionalization of measures to support biking (bike racks, student loans for bikes, etc). Short of that, wala akong bilib sa kanila! Hindi ko na nakikita sila sa Eng matapos eleksyon. Sayang yata boto ko. Tang ina! Sure, they can promote their favored causes but the UP biking cause is something that must be addressed NOW. Believe me, I’m not even a green activist in the same level as Green Peace. Sori, medyo militante din ako dito.
05-21830…
Yah right… Kaya ko po niraise ang isyu ng Trikes eh baka nga mangyari un ngayon… I think the UPD-USC must use that as one of the premises for the investigation for the current situation. My friend in Econ who has just shifted from UPM is having a hard time to ride in UPD
@panuhot: ang naka-task naman diyan sa ngayon ay yang sila Rinno Camilit. Student facilities, however, should be coming from the admin in the first place, not the USC, kaya mahirap din namang ibully ang USC, may efforts naman sila but they aren’t simply cash cows.
You see how problems are deeply ingrained in the way the education sector is being handled by the system? we even have to depend on private institutions and other outside help to get something as basic as a bike rack! And all the money leeched from the TFI’s and Exhorbitant Lab Fees are going where? The only visible changes I see are completely cosmetic (UP@100 banners along the acad oval, the landscaping, Kwentong Peyups and NOW a commercial that’s all about one thing: begging for money scraps).
On a side note: Yes, AUPTA is flexible. We regularly convene their meetings, and they update us on their efforts to reach a compromise in the traffic schemes.
@2006-31183: Hear, hear. From what I’ve heard from some USC members, though, the admin as usual is being secretive with regards to the investigations being conducted by the USC, as in makikipagpatayan pa para makita ang mga dokumento. They say it’s confidential, but don’t we, as the primary stakeholders to UP, and as primarily affected by their policies, have the right to be in the KNOW?
well, then, USC people should also lead by example. I’m not saying, they aren’t. But more biking visibility from the USC can go a long way. Of course they have issues with UP Admin, but that’s not enough reason not to try biking on campus.