AERIAL PHOTOS OF NON- FLYOVER ALTERNATIVES TO SOLVE INTERSECTION PROBLEMS ADOPTED WORLWIDE

Observations and Notes: 1. The main purpose of these photos is to show that there are better non-flyover alternatives that could have taken the place of Cebus 7 existing flyovers and that could take the place of Cebus proposed 5 to 7 more flyovers within the next 2 or 3 years. 2. A total of 154 countries are shown here that shows non-flyover alternatives adopted worldwide to address intersection congestion or improve intersection traffic flow. Only capital cities are shown because of space limitations and these photos are for illustration purposes to stress a point that there are better alternative solutions to a 2-lane flyover in a 4-lane cross intersection. Most other intersections in these capital cities do not have these kinds of alternatives shown in these photos because most intersections do not have traffic particularly in secondary and tertiary roads such as in residential areas. These alternate solutions are only resorted to in major intersections or intersections with heavy traffic. 3. There are many flyovers in these capital cities but they are not shown because these are not 2-lane flyovers over 4-lane cross intersections. No flyover of Cebus kind and place can be seen in any of these capital cities. 4. The flyovers found in these capital cities are much larger and more sophisticated. They are usually located at the outskirts of the city or along the periphery of concentrated town centers or urban cores. There is no need to build a tiny flyover on a tiny intersection within the city core because there are cheaper and better solutions. 5. The roads shown in these photos are not along uninterrupted expressways. They are interior roads or located in the urban core of the city. Some look like expressways because of its wide widths, huge flaring and sophisticated layouts. 6. The photos here show that there are many ways to solve intersection problems. Some layouts are large proportionate to the traffic it seeks to address. The principles remain the same which means that these non-flyover layouts could have been applied on a smaller scale such as to the correspondingly smaller 4-lane cross intersections of Metro Cebu. 7. Cebus 7 existing flyovers are basically 2-lane flyovers in a 4-lane cross intersection and not to be interpreted to be the same as many of the flyovers we see all over the world. These flyovers in Cebu are also meant to help reduce traffic traversed by the direction of the flyover. 8. The photos here show what the rest of the world are doing to solve their intersection problems in contrast to what Cebu has been doing and plans to continue doing. What the rest of the world are doing are as follows: a. Road widening that includes the intersection. Some roads are so wide that there is no need to flare towards the intersection. If necessary, the island if there is, can simply be thinned to provide space for queuing areas for left turns as in Ayala Business Park. b. Flared intersection. c. Runabout or a Circle (e.g. Fuente Osmea) d. Traffic Diversion. Some of the vehicle traffic will be diverted to an adjacent or nearby road/intersection. These are not obvious because we do not know which diversion road/intersection they chose by simply looking at photos. e. Tunnel or Flyover. If the intersection is within the urban core or it affects the aesthetics of heritage structures, a tunnel is dug under the intersection similar to the SRP tunnel which was done to preserve the aesthetics and historical value of Fort San Pedro and Plaza Independencia. If the intersection problem is outside the city core, alternate solutions are built. A flyover is built if there is no other better choice to address the traffic volume. The type of layout and the choice of which alternative will be decided based on engineering computations. It will certainly not be a 2-lane flyover over a 4-lane cross intersection. This is because this kind of flyover will always be beaten by other cheaper, aesthetic and higher traffic capacity alternatives. 9. Poor or rich countries apply the same basic principles in designing intersections. The difference is that in rich countries, the road is well-paved, wider and well-painted. It is beautifully landscaped, it has signalized intersections and it has wider sidewalks with little or no obstructions. Going along with present and future trends to address climate change and eventual depletion of fossil fuels, at least 75 capitals of countries around the world now have exclusive bicycle lanes. These bicycle solutions are being led by western European countries. It is ironic since it is them who can afford cars. They are now the ones leading the efforts to reduce car use while increasing the use of bicycles. 10. There are many countries poorer or less developed than the Philippines or Cebu (based on per capita GNP). Yet, they have a better road system. This could be a result of better engineering, laws, budgeting and implementation process related to road infrastructure development. Or their engineers produce better engineered structures because they are given leeway to do their jobs without

hindrances. Incidentally, these countries also have visible excellent open canals with no obstructions by informal settlers, some of which are even landscaped with trees. This makes Cebu even more behind in urban planning despite our better economic standing and potential. 11. It is humiliating to know that poorer countries than ours have better and more elegant designs in their road infrastructure network using non-flyover solutions. Because they have less money than Cebu, they pave only 2 lanes of their roads and intersections. But they have already reserved wide right-of-way (ROW) for their major roads and intersections most likely because these have been dictated in their master plan. There is no need to destroy buildings to make way for ROW. This saves them money which they can then use for other forms of infrastructure development. When funds become available, they will just quickly pave the remaining 2 to 4 lanes. Nothing is wasted. 12. The Philippines ranks very low in competitiveness ranking conducted by the World Economic Forum, 2011 Edition. It ranks 75th among 142 countries despite our abundant natural resources and 12th rank in population. Malaysia is 21st, Thailand - 39th, Indonesia - 46th, Sri Lanka - 52nd, India- 56th and Vietnam - 65th. Among the top 3 reasons for our lack of competitiveness is our poor infrastructure. Metro Cebu, the second largest metropolitan area in the Philippines has a very serious traffic and drainage problem. It has contributed to the low ranking of the Philippines. Cebus competitor cities such as Davao, Cagayan de Oro, Iloilo and Bacolod have wide open, flat or rolling lands that can be used to address its road and drainage problems. Metro Cebu has a mountainous terrain with only a thin strip of rolling and flat space on its eastern coastline within a highly built-up city to build the road and drainage network for its huge population. This is the main reason why it is relatively difficult to solve the traffic along the Bantal corridor. Because of these limitations, this makes properly engineered solutions and a master plan by engineering experts even more critical. If Cebu cannot solve its infrastructure problems, it will be overtaken by its neighboring cities in the country and by the few remaining less developed cities of Asia. This can lead to urban decay that will be harder to solve as time passes because buildings and development continue to occur in Cebu without consideration of its future consequences. For example, Dr. Primitivo Cal in 2007 proposed that for the price of the A.S. Fortuna Flyover, 2 partially flared intersections (Mahiga and A. S. Fortuna) can be made. There will still be funds left to widen a portion of Hernan Cortes to siphon the traffic along the Bantal Corridor. So many expensive buildings have been constructed since 2007 along Hernan Cortes that it will now become very expensive to widen the road since some new buildings will have to be demolished to widen the road from 2 to 4 lanes. Cebus lack of a master plan could have disastrous consequences for its City, its residents and its economy. 13. Cebu City cannot be an island anymore. Its people, workplaces, utilities, roads, drainage and river systems are now heavily connected with its neighboring cities and municipalities and vice vera. In an attempt to reduce traffic in Cebu City, it prevented jeepneys from Mandaue to enter Cebu. Mandaue has retaliated by preventing garbage trucks from Cebu City to pass Mandaue. Cebu needs the cooperation of Mandaue to widen Hernan Cortes to solve the traffic along Gov. Cuenco Ave. Being a Mandaue City road, Mandaue will unlikely give this priority since it has more pressing problems than helping solve Cebus own traffic problems. Cebu has had other road closure conflicts with Talisay City and the Province of Cebu in the past. The proposed bill of Cong. Raul del Mar to create a Metro Cebu Development Authority (MCDA) will solve these boundary conflicts and other cooperation issues. The updated proposed bill should now include the new cities of Carcar and Naga all the way to Danao City. Rep. del Mar succeeded in creating the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority and the Cebu Ports Authority which have brought tremendous benefits to the airline and shipping industry in Cebu. There are many successful models of cooperation through a mega body or authority that Metro Cebu can emulate particularly South American countries to guide and implement its development including that of MMDA. Rep. Cutie del Mar and the other Representatives of the proposed new Metro Cebu should finally resolve such pending bill. 14. Metro Cebus best chance of solving its infrastructure problems is a comprehensive master plan and an institution or authority to implement and manage the plan. The authority must be shielded from politics so that any disagreement between local executives or any change in its leadership will not affect its operations. With Cebus limited resources, it must use them wisely to maximize its benefits, that will hopefully multiply to generate more benefits. 11 years have been waster since Cebus first transportation master plan expired in 2000. We have seen how much damage a lack of master plan has done to Metro Cebu. The more Cebu waits, the more difficult and costly will Cebus solution will be to its infrastructure problems. Metro Cebu can still recover and catch up if it acts now.

NORTH AMERICA/CARRIBEAN/ANZ

Washington DC, US (bike lanes in middle)

Ottawa, Canada

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Havana, Cuba

Bridgetown, Barbados

Nassau, Bahamas

Kingston, Jamaica

Sydney, Australia

Wellington, New Zealand

CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA

Mexico City, Mexico

Caracas, Venezuela

Tegucigalpa, Honduras

San Salvador, El Salvador (w/ U-Turn slot)

Guatemala, Guatemala

Paramaribo, Suriname

Lima, Peru

San Jose, Costa Rica

Panama City, Panama

Managua, Nicaragua

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Quito, Ecuador (w/ Bus Rapid Transit BRT shown)

Brasilia, Brazil (new capital city)

La Paz, Bolivia

Cayenne, French Guiana

Santiago, Chile

Asuncion, Paraguay

Montevideo, Uruguay

Curitiba, Brazil (birthplace of BRT)

Bogota, Colombia

Note: Photo of Bogota is a close up view of part of its densely populated and apparently poor neighborhood. It will show that cross intersecting roads are new and undeveloped probably waiting for funds. But a road right-of-way has already been acquired for a wide road. When funds become available, the wide pedestrian and bicycle lanes will be paved first. Paving of roads is last priority. This concept of development was emphasized by former Bogota Mayor Enrique Pealosa when he visited Cebu in November 11-12, 2008 and in many Internet articles and YouTube videos on Bogotas success story. These intersecting roads will collect people through bikes or feeder buses that will be fed into its BRT nearby. The residents in the several blocks shown will no longer need cars or old public utilities as before. They will bike then park their bicycles in the BRT stations. They will continue to their destination or place work by riding a very efficient and air-conditioned BRT in a fraction of the time and cost compared to their previous mode of transportation. The economic status of the residents will rise together with the economic status of its city and country. Bogota is the best example of how a poor and disorganized city have become among the most progressive cities in the world at a relatively low cost achieving the feat in such a short period of time. Much of the credit is given to Mayor Pealosa who is now a global superstar and livable streets hero. He is a sought after speaker and consultant of countries who want to build world-class cities. Praises for its city and Mayor Pealosa can be seen in many video clips in YouTube.

WESTERN EUROPE

Brussels, Belgium

Amsterdam, Netherlands (w/ center bike lane)

Madrid, Spain

Lisbon, Portugal

Reykjavk, Iceland

Helsinki, Finland

Oslo, Norway

Stockholm, Sweden

Copenhagen, Denmark

Vienna, Austria

Valletta, Malta

Rome, Italy

Bern, Switzerland

London, United Kingdom

Paris, France (right: To avoid defacing Eiffel Tower and at the same time decongest traffic, tunneling a portion of a road was employed)

Berlin, Germany

Dublin, Ireland

Luxembourg, Luxembourg

EASTERN EUROPE

Warsaw, Poland

Prague, Czech Republic

Zagreb, Croatia

Bratislava, Slovakia

Tallinn, Estonia

Vilnius, Lithuania (w/ lines to guide turning)

Bucharest, Romania

Sarajevo, Bosnia

Tbilisi, Georgia

Chisinau, Moldova

Tirana, Albania

Podgorica, Montenegro

Athens, Greece

Minsk, Belarus

Astana, Kazakhstan

Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Moscow, Russia

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Yerevan, Armenia (4-lane tunnel under similar to longer SRP tunnel)

Baku, Azerbaijan

Ashgabat, Turkmenistan

Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

Sofia, Bulgaria

Dushanbe, Tajikistan (combination flared intersection and runabout)

Budapest, Hungary

Skopje, Macedonia

Riga, Latvia

Kiev, Ukraine

AFRICA/MIDDLE EAST

Nairobi, Kenya

Rabat, Morocco

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Luanda, Angola

Port Louis, Mauritius

Harare, Zimbabwe

Accra, Ghana

Tunis, Tunisia

Nouakchott, Mauritania

Libreville, Gabon

Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

Maputo, Mozambique

Khartoum, Sudan

Lagos, Nigeria

Lilongwe, Malawi

Kigali, Rwanda

Tripoli, Libya

Cairo, Egypt

Windhoek, Namibia

Brazzaville, Congo (numerous flaring and neat intersections)

Pretoria, South Africa

Bamako, Mali

Freetown, Sierra Leone

Antananarivo, Madagascar

Monrovia, Liberia

Dakar, Senegal (predominance of runabouts 9 locations)

Yaounde, Cameroon (numerous runabouts and flaring w/in a small area)

Mbabane, Swaziland

Maseru, Lesotho (bus stop pocket lane upper left)

Lusaka, Zambia (reverse flaring w/ pocket lanes)

Algiers, Algeria

Notes: 1. Shown in the following photos are parts of the road networks of the capitals of countries poorer than the Philippines. They do not resort to flyovers because they probably know that they are expensive and that there are better solutions. With wide roads already reserved, they pave the roads and intersections later when they already have the funds. This is the same principle that former Bogota Mayor Pealosa employed. He raises the bar higher by developing and paving wide intersections first before paving the roads with already reserved wide ROW. He justifies this principle by saying that majority of the people who do not own cars must be given priority in providing for their transportation needs such as pedestrian and bicycle lanes and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. 2. In Cebu, we put very expensive 2-lane flyovers in a mere small 4-lane cross intersection and say that this is only part of the solution. When funds are available, other solutions can be employed such as road widening, sidewalks and drainage. What actually happened in the last several years was the construction of more of flyovers continued instead of these more important and beneficial projects. Flyover proponents say that ROW is expensive and takes years to acquire making flyovers a good interim solution. While the master plan is not yet ready or the funds for it not yet available, these flyovers must be built to solve the present horrendous traffic as demanded by the public. Amazingly, the poor and carless people of Northern Cebu City district comprising at least 90% of the district population petitioned through most of its Barangays supporting the construction of flyovers, a facility for cars. Clearly, there is a need for change and for more information in order for the people to understand the options available to them for development.

Mogadishu, Somalia (unpaved roads but follows basic design)

Bangui, Central African Republic

Banjul, Gambia

Kinshasa, Zaire

Ndjamena, Chad

Kampala, Uganda

MIDDLE EAST

Jerusalem, Israel (flaring in many major intersections)

Damascus, Syria

Islamabad, Pakistan

Nicosia, Cyprus

Beirut, Lebanon

Amman, Jordan

Tehran, Iran

Ankara, Turkey

Kabul, Afghanistan (Very poor. Partially unpaved. But, it maintains basic and standard design. Wide right-of-way already reserved.)

Doha, Qatar

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Muscat, Oman

Sanaa, Yemen

Manama, Bahrain

Baghdad, Iraq

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Kuwait City, Kuwait

ASIA

Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei

Tokyo, Japan (heavy use of paints to control traffic and for visibility in tight spaces)

Phnom Penh, Cambodia (reverse flaring)

Vientiane, Laos (showing 9 flared intersections)

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (upper left corner is top view of KL monorail track, right: photo of monorail)

Jakarta, Indonesia (w/ BRT showing dedicated bus lanes)

Colombo, Sri Lanka

Bangkok, Thailand (numerous flaring to different widths)

Hong Kong (diff. original widths flared to diff. widths in 4 sides)

Kathmandu, Nepal

Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Seoul, South Korea

Taipei, Taiwan (neat network of roads in downtown block)

New Delhi, India (streets are well-covered by trees making them hard to see)

Thimpu, Bhutan

Macau

Singapore (new development; combines cross and T-intersection flaring)

Yangon, Myanmar

Beijing, China (by scaling on photo, sidewalks/bike lanes can be estimated to be as wide as 2 road lanes)

Pyongyang, North Korea (nice roads and high-rise buildings but no cars)

Dhaka, Bangladesh

Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea (pocket lane on lower left for loading/unloading)

CEBU

Tabunok

H. Cortes St.

Quezon Ave.

Arch. Reyes

J. Luna Ave.

A. S. Fortuna St.

Note: N. Bacalso flyover (#7) cannot be seen yet in latest Google Earth satellite view.

Bangkok, Thailand (2-lane flyover from a 4-lane road but crossing an 8-lane road)