OUR heavy dependence on fossil fuels is costing us dearly. In the coming weeks and months, we will likely see higher fuel costs and greater scarcity. We have had many opportunities to reduce this vulnerability but instead chose to stay on the path of car dependency and motorization.
Where did we go wrong? In Metro Manila, cities like Manila, Pasig and San Juan removed bike lanes that were installed during the pandemic. The MMDA banned light electric vehicles (LEVs) from major roads and opposed the expansion of bicycle lanes. The LTO unfairly painted e-bikes and e-trikes as “dangerous” and extended the LEV ban to all national roads. Mandaue City continues to ban LEVs. The LTO announced plans to apprehend unregistered e-bikes and e-trikes. These misplaced restrictions made LEVs unattractive and uncompetitive. Big mistake.
We also forgot about expanding, maintaining and upgrading sidewalks and bike lanes. In the 2026 national budget, active transport (walking and cycling) infrastructure received a negligible and shameful P69 million. Filipinos got the unambiguous message that they should go for cars or motorcycles instead and we are now paying the price.
The road safety argument for banning LEVs is spurious: Based on the latest MMDA statistics, “bike/e-bike/pedicab” were involved in only 1.52 percent of road crashes, while cars were involved in 52 percent. Because LEVs are light, they are usually not the cause of major injuries; motor vehicles are usually what kill and maim on our roads. (If road safety is the concern, will the LTO soon ban pedestrians and bicycles as well?) The solution is not to ban vulnerable road users but to make roads safe for them.
In many major roads, there is no proper sidewalk or bike lane. Only six percent of Filipino households are car owners yet nearly all of the road space is prioritized for cars. This endangers all of us as pedestrians, especially the many millions of kids who walk to and from school daily. The dearth of safe pathways also discourages many Filipinos from walking and cycling. As a result, Filipinos have become increasingly car- or motorcycle-dependent.
A meaningful response is to create networks of safe corridors for walking and cycling and to make these permanent and high quality. Active transport infrastructure should be at the core of contingency planning in case fuel supplies dry up. The benefits are considerable: cities will become more livable; there will be less noise and air pollution; Filipinos will have more healthy, active lifestyles; there will be less crowding and queues for limited public transport; and people will have more money for basic necessities like food. Safe walking and cycling pathways will also benefit persons with disability. In terms of road safety, many lives will be saved.
How do we take this forward? We need to create protected pathways on all roads so that people walking or biking will have a safe space, fully separated from motor vehicles. These should be created even if it means reducing road space for four-wheeled motor vehicles. If more car or motorcycle users shift to walking or cycling, there would also be less road congestion for those whose only travel option is a private motor vehicle.
On every major road with three or more lanes in each direction, the safe pathways for walking and cycling can be the mixed traffic lane (minimum 3.5-meter width) closest to the curb. Paint is not sufficient protection; physical separation is needed. During the pandemic, we created “pop-up” protected pathways, marked by bollards or traffic cones. Makeshift barriers — a row of plastic water containers filled with sand, flower pots, or even planter boxes — can be used. Motor vehicles should be kept out of these pathways with strict enforcement.
On roads too narrow for a separate, protected pathway, the entire road can be made into a safe “shared space.” By lowering speed limits to 30 kph or less, introducing traffic-calming infrastructure (humps, speed tables, etc.) and ensuring pedestrian/cyclist priority at all times, vulnerable road users can move safely. It may also be possible to make certain streets car-free.
These active transport pathways should not disappear once oil prices recede. They should be made permanent and continuously improved. Shade trees should be planted along them to lower temperatures; landscaping budgets should be incorporated in the cost of road transformation. These will make localities more attractive and welcoming for walking and cycling.
Finally, MMDA and LTO regulations that restrict the operation of LEVs should be rescinded. These make no sense in our current crisis and are in violation of the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act (Evida), which aims to “provide an enabling environment for the development of electric vehicles including options for micromobility as an attractive and feasible mode of transportation to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.” There is also an explicit Evida provision: “light electric vehicles which will be for exclusive private use shall not be required to register with DOTr (Department of Transporation) and its attached agencies.”
The current crisis should catalyze reduced dependence on fossil fuels and increased adoption of fuel- and pollution-free modes of travel. We can come out of this crisis with healthier, more productive and more resilient communities.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner and public transport advocate.
