IF THE LAW requires cigarette packs to prominently indicate that cigarette smoking harms one's health, shouldn't we have billboards all over the city warning us likewise that breathing Metro Manila's air endangers one's health? After all, it has long been determined that the concentration of air pollutants in Metro Manila's atmosphere is at levels well beyond what is considered safe by the World Health Organization.

Metro Manila is of course far from alone in this. The problem is widespread, and is particularly severe in our part of the world. Every year, an estimated 777,000 people die from illnesses directly attributable to air pollution, and according to the Washington-based Health Effects Institute, two-thirds of those deaths occur in Asia.

BAQ 2008
This challenge brought together in Bangkok last week about a thousand national and local government officials, academics, media practitioners, private sector representatives and civil society advocates from various countries in Asia and beyond in the Better Air Quality 2008 Conference (BAQ 2008). This biannual gathering, spearheaded by the Clean Air Initiative-Asia Partnership, has become a regular forum for exchanging knowledge, experiences and lessons in the pursuit of making the air we breathe safer. Air pollution coming from transport, factories, power plants, and even indoor sources (e.g. from fuel-burning stoves) were among the many topics covered in various presentations made in the conference.

I was particularly inspired by the presentation made by former Mayor Enrique Peñalosa of Bogota, Colombia, who has become a sort of folk hero for his tireless crusade to make cities around the world more livable--and has his tangible achievements in Bogotá to show for it. Premised on transport being at the center of city life, his crusade is built on the credo that cities are for people, not for cars. He had surprised many by declining a $15-billion highways program from donors, and decided instead to restrict car use and create quality public transport, against strong criticism and even ridicule from detractors. The city decided that money would be better spent in building 35-kilometer "greenway" for bicyclists and pedestrians only, in lieu of an eight-lane highway proposed by foreign donors that would have benefited primarily those who own cars.

Counterintuitive truths
An outside-the-box thinker, Peñalosa points out that transport is a peculiar challenge: Unlike most other concerns, it gets worse as a society gets richer. He further laments how car owners who comprise a minority in developing country cities nonetheless dominate political power therein. Public investments in cities, in particular, tend to be inordinately directed to them in the form of more road infrastructure. And yet, he argues, experience all over the world shows that building more road infrastructure in cities ultimately brings about more traffic jams. And the reason is simple: Supply creates its own demand.

In the absence of restrictions, building more roads attracts more people to buy cars. Thus, he argues that building more and bigger highways as a response to traffic jams is like putting out a fire with gasoline. To stress the point, he challenges the audience to name one city in the world that solved its traffic problems with more road infrastructure. If there was more space for cars in New York or London, he declares, there would be more cars. But if there was less space available for cars, there would be less cars--and he reminds his audience that access to parking space has never been a constitutional right in any country.

Poor and rich
Peñalosa's best arguments are made through dozens of starkly contrasting photographs from cities around the world. Against photos of cities with wide sidewalks and bikeways that make walking or biking pleasant for rich and poor alike, he juxtaposes photos of cities where pedestrians are forced onto the roadway, endangering their lives in the process, by sidewalks that are either taken over by parked vehicles or vendor stalls, too narrow, or nonexistent. Indeed, investments in infrastructure can be regressive, i.e. hurt the poor and help the rich, especially if they focus on roads. He reminds us that the only means of transport accessible to low-income citizens in developing country cities (or children in all cities) is the bicycle. Bicycling to work can save between 10 percent and 30 percent of a minimum wage earner's income. When he started as mayor of Bogotá there was not 1 meter of bikeways and ridership was insignificant. He now takes pride in the fact that more than 350,000 people from all walks of life ride to work daily.

Mayor Peñalosa knows that a great city is one that provides much free joy: Parks, sidewalks, sports facilities, libraries, quality public education at all levels, pedestrian promenades, marvelous waterfronts, and yes, protected bicycle lanes. The last, to him, is a fitting symbol of democracy: It shows that a citizen on a $40 bicycle is equally important as one in a $40,000 car.

If we are to clean the air in our cities and make them truly cities for people, there is a need to restrict car use. Many cities around the world have already shown how: London's and Singapore's congestion charges, Tokyo's parking restrictions, car-free days, and so on. But more than bicycle lanes, cities must also provide a good mass transport system for all this to work. And more than investing money, we all need to be willing to make a dramatic change in our lifestyles, but a change well worth making, because in the end, all of us, rich and poor alike, would find that it is change toward better quality air--and a better quality of life.

Comments welcome at chabito@ateneo.edu