Traffic office mulls permanent ban of some PUJ routes on John Paul II Ave.
STARTING yesterday, some public utility jeepneys (PUJs) were not allowed to pass through Pope John Paul
II Ave. (formerly J. Luna Ave.) in Cebu City.
Traffic planners are weighing whether to make the PUJ ban and truck ban permanent here and in roads
around SM City after seeing results of the scheme adopted for the Asia-Pacific Cooperations (APEC)
forum.
The board of the Cebu City Transportation Office (CTTO) will discuss the proposal today.
“We are balancing interests here. Private vehicle owners have seen the difference. They saw that
there was smooth flow of traffic, especially during the APEC meetings. That is what they want,” said
CCTO executive director Rey Gealon.
The month-long rerouting experiment is still ongoing.
“This is not a total PUJ ban. We just want to lessen the PUJs in the area,” said operations chief Joy
Tumulak of CTTO yesterday.
PUJs with route numbers 04L, 03Q and 03A though are still allowed to pass the area.
The scheme eased road travel time of APEC delegates who had to shuttle to different hotels for
meetings.
In dry-runs conducted by CCTO, it took 23-30 minutes to travel from Shangri-La’s Mactan Resort to
Marco Polo Plaza in Cebu City.
However, commuters were angry about the sudden route changes which were not widely publicized before
they took effect.
Some PUJ drivers complained of a drop in their daily earnings with the new route.
“PUJ drivers don’t want it (rerouting) because it will change the riding and driving routine of
drivers and passengers. That is why we need to experiment if only to make it smoother,” Gealon said.
Any permanent route chage will need approval of the CTTO board and Cebu City Council.Last Monday, the
CCTO already lifted the extended truck ban along the APEC ceremonial route (excluding S. Osmeña Road)
from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.