ONE of the government’s meaningful responses to the oil crisis was the May 4, 2026, announcement by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), that would offer loans to help members buy bicycles and light electric vehicles (LEVs — e-bikes, e-scooters, cargo e-bikes, etc.). At a time when fossil-fuel cars and motorcycles are expensive to use and public transport seriously insufficient, bicycles and LEVs are the way to go.
Under the Ginhawa Bike and E-Mobility Loan (GBEL), qualified government workers can borrow up to 100 percent of the cost of the bicycle or LEV, capped at P300,000 and payable over 36 months at five-percent annual interest, with no service fees. These days a decent bicycle or e-bike can cost P35,000 to P80,000. For a unit that costs P70,000, this translates to a monthly payment of about P2,100 over 36 months — much less than what many urban Filipinos spend on transportation.
Because transportation now takes up around 20 percent of a Filipino urban household’s expenses, GBEL enables many public servants to shift to a different mode of travel. The benefits are significant. Using a bicycle will likely reduce household expenses for transportation, enabling more spending on necessities like food and health care.
It will enable shorter and more predictable travel times. Instead of waiting in a queue or sitting in a slow-moving motor vehicle, a cyclist typically experiences a 50-percent reduction in travel time plus greater control over one’s schedule. This translates into more time for family, social activities, sleep and personal care.
Then there are the health benefits of increased daily physical activity, leading to reduced health care costs and greater productivity. Talk to any cyclist and most will tell you that the activity of balancing on two wheels while moving forward is one of the greatest stress relievers in today’s complex world.
More people on bicycles also means less noise, less pollution, less heat from motor vehicles and less carbon emissions — among the most important features of livable cities.
GBEL deserves to be emulated and replicated in all private sector enterprises and offered also by the Social Security System, which is for private sector workers. But financing bicycles and LEVs is not enough. It needs to be complemented by safe and attractive road infrastructure plus so-called “end-of-trip” facilities.
Those who contemplate cycling often remark that “If only our roads were safer, I would be willing to use a bicycle.” In every city and municipality, we should aim to have continuous networks of protected bike lanes so that they don’t mix in the same space as fast-moving motor vehicles. Some officials will argue that bicycles should not be on any major road, but this would be the wrong policy if the objective is to encourage increased adoption of bicycles and LEVs while reducing dependence on fossil fuel motor vehicles.
Because bicycles are nonpolluting and cyclists are (fully or partly) powered by human energy, protected bike lanes deserve to be placed on the most direct routes. Fossil-fuel-powered vehicles should take the more circuitous route. This means having bike lanes on major roads, especially national roads that traverse dense urban areas. These are the roads that are already used by many cyclists, but many more would use them if there were protected bike lanes.
National roads now number around 36,000 kilometers nationwide; around one-third or about 12,000 kilometers are national tertiary roads with mainly urban functions. Users of national tertiary roads include pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users, in addition to private motor vehicles. Such roads require transformation and reconfiguration so that they serve the range of road users instead of being prioritized for those in cars. This is what we need to do to make our cities more livable and people-friendly.
Nationwide, only six percent of Filipino households own cars. Households that own bicycles outnumber those with cars by a ratio of four to one. Fundamental principles of equity and justice dictate that urban roads, especially national tertiary roads, should prioritize users who are not in four-wheeled motor vehicles while still accommodating cars and motorcycles.
The justification for protected bike lanes on major roads is also based on science. One lane for mixed motor vehicle traffic can move only about 600-1,600 persons per hour — the least efficient use of urban road space. A two-way protected bicycle lane on the same space can move 7,500 persons per hour. Converted into a sidewalk, the space can move 9,000 persons per hour. In our current crisis, we need to use our road assets to achieve greater productivity and fuel-efficiency. Preserving the status quo (car-centric national roads that encourage oil-dependent travel) should not be an option.
Cycling-friendly environments include “end of trip” facilities, particularly secure bike parking. A person will not use a bicycle if there is no place to park at the destination or if the parking area is not safe. Bike parking should be required at all transportation stations and terminals, markets, offices, hospitals, schools, commercial establishments, etc. It should be conveniently located and visible to security personnel or CCTV cameras, instead of in the dark recesses of a parking building.
A bonus would be locker and shower facilities at work destinations, which would permit cyclists to freshen up before starting their day. Recent examples are the shower facilities established by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority close to their headquarters and lockers and shower rooms at the Marikina City Hall.
People of all ages and income classes on bicycles are a strong indicator of a city’s livability as well as the quality of its democracy. More people cycling also reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and protects the environment. Kudos to the GSIS for its innovative financing program for bicycles and LEVs. I hope the example will catalyze similar efforts in the public and private sectors to make cycling a mainstream mode of travel for Filipinos.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate.
