There was some big bike-related news earlier this week: GSIS launched the Ginhawa Bike and E-Mobility Loan Program, or GBEL for short, which allows government employees to borrow up to P300,000 to buy manual bikes and LEVs.

Under GBEL, the loan covers bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, and cargo bikes, among others, with a repayment period of up to three years at 5% annual interest. Finally, the government is seeing active mobility and micromobility as an essential mode of transport!

Right?

Hold that thought.

GBEL is bigger than it sounds

The program was launched under the Unified Package for Livelihood, Industry, Food, and Transport (UPLIFT). Which is pleasantly surprising. Because once you place active mobility beside livelihood and food, it doesn’t feel like a hobby or a side project. It’s now part of what people need to function every day.

Tie that to the fact that everything is so darn expensive these days, having something as reliable as a bike to take you from point A to point B (and then some) without spending on gas or taxi/Grab fare helps you survive a little bit better.

Of course, this is still within the context of GSIS, which caters to government employees. There’s a boundary there. But even within that limited scope, the program is still helpful. The government, after all, needs to be a role model or the primary example of following through on the idea that active mobility shouldn’t be this hard to integrate into everyday life.

But should basic active mobility require debt?

This is what bothers me.

On one hand, I welcome GBEL because it lowers the barrier to entry. The good e-bikes are way out of an ordinary person’s salary grade. A decent bike or an e-bike, especially now, can easily cost at least P30,000 with bare minimum components.

But at the same time, it turns mobility into something you have to finance.

It’s just… off… in some way. Once access depends on a loan, active mobility becomes another monthly obligation, sitting alongside rent, utilities, groceries, medicines, and everything else that’s already stretching people thin.

It also raises the question: Should something as basic as getting from point A to point B require debt in the first place?

There’s also a clear boundary in who benefits. This is coming from the GSIS, which means it’s designed for government employees. If you’re not working in the government, like a huge portion of the urban workforce, you can’t avail of the program. The people who arguably need affordable mobility the most are still left figuring it out on their own.

You essentially end up with this layered reality. The program opens doors, but only in a certain direction. It makes mobility more accessible, but through a system that still filters who gets in and how.

This program raises more questions than answers. Can private companies follow suit? Will they? Will other agencies like Pag-IBIG or SSS think of a scheme like this as well?

“But other countries are doing it”

I hear that, but such countries do things differently. Instead of requiring buyers to solely take out loans, they reduce the upfront cost. Here are some countries implementing such schemes:

• France has the Aide Velo program that “provides a reimbursement of up to 50% of the purchase price, capped at a certain amount.”
• The German government, according to OKAI, “offers up to €1,400 in purchase subsidies” for commuter e-bikes.
• Spain is implementing national funding for e-bike and manual bike purchases.
• In Austria, particularly in Vienna, cargo bikes get a 50% subsidy.

Basically, these schemes absorb part of the cost, and it may be up to the buyer to seek additional finance support to shoulder the other half. GSIS will help government employees afford 100% of the mobility device… but they still need to pay for it… with interest… hmm…

Perhaps, depending on the price of the device, GBEL may implement a 30-50% subsidy cap on bike/LEV purchases, while the rest can be financed. That sounds a bit fairer than a 100% debt-based model.

GBEL is a workaround, not an absolute solution

I think GBEL can work. It definitely makes the aspirational more attainable, and honestly, solves a lot of immediate problems when buying a bike.

But it still feels like a band-aid solution. It provides limited help, and while it’s a step in the right direction, there’s still the matter of improving other transport systems throughout Metro Manila at the very least. It also falls on the debtor to find ways to make things work for them and pay their debts on time.

Do I want more people to bike and advocate for active transport? Of course. The government should have done that during the pandemic, if not earlier.

But is it good for them to be in debt, just like car and motorcycle owners are for their vehicles, while GSIS takes zero financial risk? Probably not.

If GBEL can evolve into something better than a financing system and become a template that private citizens can take advantage of via our government contributions, then maybe active transport can flourish.

But for now, let’s look at what it reveals, beyond what it offers.