A report came out last Saturday on a major daily about a JICA study estimating losses of as much as 2.4 Billion pesos per day due to traffic jams experienced in Metro Manila. Not mentioned was the 1.0 Billion pesos per day estimated losses for the Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna and Cavite areas that are at present considered part of what has been loosely defined as Mega Manila or the Greater Capital Region (GCR). That’s 3.4 Billion pesos per day of lost productivity and potential income that if reduced, could generate resources that could be distributed to the rest of the country. The JICA estimate, as reported by NEDA, is the product of a study that is in its concluding phase that looked into transport for an area comprised of Metro Manila, Region 3 (Central Luzon) and Region 4A (Southern Tagalog or Calabarzon). The main objective of the study was to come up with a Transport Infrastructure Framework and Roadmap for the GCR that would guide planners and engineers, and most importantly decision-makers (i.e., our leaders) in identifying and prioritizing transport infra projects that would ultimately improve the way we travel in the GCR.
While I am not at liberty at present to divulge the details of this study as the entirety has not been made public yet, I can say that the study was comprehensive and the conclusion an urgent reminder to what needs to be done for transport in the GCR. The latter is necessary because we have failed to deliver on the transport infrastructure required by Metro Manila and its surrounding areas since the late 1970s adn early 1980s when some decisions were made that were detrimental to public transport development and, to my view, inhibited and limited us from implementing a much more efficient transport system than what we have now. In my own conversations with the person who led the study, I can understand his own frustrations as he was himself a witness to the deterioration of transport in this country. Much of this deterioration have been attributed to a lack of political will to make the hard decisions in relation to transport. These decisions include those pertaining to the rationalization of transport services like phasing out jeepneys and tricycles where they are no longer suitable and committing to the implementation of mass transit projects that have been delayed for decades now.
Perhaps we are at a crossroads in terms of transport in this country. Perhaps our leaders should listen to the clamor of their constituents for better transport systems in our cities, for more efficient ways to move about. Perhaps, too, we could finally see what’s really at the end of the tunnel rather than the proverbial light that we have always seen, frustratingly, for the past few decades. Perhaps the current administration will prove itself the catalyst for transforming transport in this country towards what it has preached as a “straight path.” Will we have a champion or champions who would push for the realization of a dream plan for transport? Whoever should step forward would definitely get my vote in 2016!
I had heard from friends working at Bonifacio Global City in Taguig that it is difficult for pedestrians to cross at intersections at BGC. For one, the cycle settings (i.e., movements allowed for every green signal) for the intersections, at least those I’ve seen, often had turning traffic in direct conflict with pedestrian crossings. This meant that while given the green light to cross the street, for example, pedestrians had to contend with left turning as well as right turning vehicles who are also allowed movement for particular green phases. The phasing and the cycle settings are definitely more favorable to motor vehicles and assume that motorists will give way to pedestrians already on the carriageway and crossing the street. This is not the case and motorists tend to assert their way against pedestrians. These pedestrians are not jaywalkers but actually have the right of way by virtue of them getting the green light to cross. There is also that frequently violated rule of vehicles having to give way to legitimate crossings when people are already on the road. This is practiced in many other countries including the US, Japan and Singapore but is lost upon our motorists who seem to believe they own the road.
Another situation I’ve observed and personally experienced is the insufficient amount of time allocated for pedestrians to cross streets. This is particularly true for the wider streets of the Fort where it seems the people who set the signal cycles failed to estimate how much time it requires for people to cover the distance from one side of the roa to the other. What’s more is that the pedestrian settings allow only one or two people to cross at a comfortable pace. That is, other people will have to rush or run to be able to cross. Of course, the pedestrians would have to contend with the
Intersection of 26th Street and 5th Avenue (view along 26th and towards 4th) – notice the green light given to through and left turning traffic as well as the signals for pedestrians, which include countdown timers.
26th and 5th (view at the corner facing the Net Lima building)
The solution to this issue about pedestrian crossings is a little bit more tricky that what seems like something that can be addressed by a simple adjustment of signal settings to provide more time for pedestrians. There is a need to revisit the phasing scheme for vehicle movements allowed at the intersections. Then there is also a need to find the optimum cycle and green time allocations considering the requirements for pedestrians and not just for vehicles. I believe whoever is in charge of the signal settings at BGC should look into this and if they are not capable of adjusting the settings then they should require the provider of the signals to make the necessary adjustments if not show them how to do this considering that traffic is quite dynamic and settings would need to be programmed to be responsive to demand not just for vehicles but pedestrians as well. BGC has great potential to be a pedestrian friendly CBD but whoever is in charge of transport planning and development should step up and level up, so to speak, in providing an environment that will encourage people to walk rather than take their cars. High Street is already there and is an important element in that mix of development but then the cluster of offices and residential condos aren’t exactly designed for efficient walking, and the settings for the intersection signals, as we pointed out, need to be adjusted for pedestrians.
The College of Engineering of the University of the Philippines Diliman is holding its Professorial Chair Colloquium on July 11 and 12, 2013. These will be held mainly at the Melchor Hall, which has been the home of the College since it transferred to Quezon City after the Second World War. The colloquium is an annual event where Professorial Chair holders deliver lectures on selected topics of research being undertaken in the various institutes and departments of the college.
On July 11, 2013 (Thursday) at the Geodetic Engineering Theater, 4th Floor, Melchor Hall, U.P. Diliman:
- Dr. Hilario Sean O. Palmiano, Institute of Civil Engineering, “Traffic Noise Perception in UP Campus Dormitories” [DMCI Developers Professorial Chair] – 0950 to 1010.
- Dr. Nathaniel B. Diola, Institute of Civil Engineering, “Blended Cement for Road Construction” [Prof. Jose Ma. Diago de Castro Professorial Chair in Civil Engineering] – 1010 to 1030.
- Dr. Ricardo G. Sigua, Institute of Civil Engineering, “Blackspots and Their Identification” [Primary Group of Builders Professorial Chair Award in Engineering] – 1050 to 1110.
On July 12, 2013 (Friday) at the Maynilad Room, 3rd Floor, Melchor Hall, U.P. Diliman:
- Dr. Jose Regin F. Regidor, Institute of Civil Engineering, “Transport Infrastructure, Poverty and Inclusive Growth” [Pozzolanic Philippines Inc. Professorial Chair] – 0910 to 0930.
- Asst. Prof. Gerald Jo C. Denoga, Department of Mechanical Engineering, “Optimization of Parallel-Series Hybrid Powertrain for Public Transportation” [Emerson Professorial Chair in Engineering] – 0930 to 0950.
- Dr. Karl B.N. Vergel, Institute of Civil Engineering, “Evaluation of Compliance of Specifications of Customized Local Road Vehicles (CLRV) with Local Regulations and International Standards” [Maynilad Professorial Chair] – 0950 to 1010.
- Dr. Edwin N. Quiros, Department of Mechanical Engineering, ” Coconut Methyl Esther (CME) Performance and Emission Characteristics Using a Common-Rail Direct Injection (CRDI) Engine” [Emerson Professorial Chair in Mechanical Engineering] – 1010 to 1030.
Dr. Palmiano is the current Director of the National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS). Dr. Diola is the immediate past Director of the Building Research Service (BRS). Dr. Sigua is the head of the Road Safety Research Laboratory (RSRL) of the NCTS. Dr. Regidor is past Director of the NCTS. And Dr. Vergel is the head of the Transport & Environment Laboratory of the NCTS.
Asst. Prof. Denoga is the past Chair of the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering (DME) and has led teams in the design of vehicles that participated and won in international competitions on energy efficient vehicles, representing the country and the university in these contests. Dr. Quiroz is the head of the DME’s Vehicle Research and Testing Laboratory (VRTL).
These lectures as well as others on the mornings of July 11 and 12 are open to the public. Venues are at the Melchor Hall (along the Academic Oval), and the UPAE Hall and the EEEI Building at the College of Engineering Complex along Velasquez Street (across from the College of Science complex).
The NEDA Board recently approved six projects that included one that will be promoting electric vehicles throughout the country. Entitled “Market Transformation through Introduction of Energy Efficient Electric Vehicles Project” (formerly Market Transformation through Introduction of Energy Efficient Electric Tricycle (E-Trike) Project), the endeavor seeks to replace thousands of existing conventional motorized 3-wheelers (tricycles) with e-trikes and to develop and deploy charging stations for these vehicles. While I have nothing against electric vehicles and have supported their promotion for use in public transport, I am a bit worried about the context by which electric tricycles are being peddled especially the part about equating “transformation” with “replacement.”
First, it is a technology push for an innovation that has not been fully and satisfactorily tested in Philippine conditions. The deployment of e-trikes in Bonifacio Global City is practically a failure and a mode that was not suitable from the start for the area it was supposed to serve (i.e., while there were already jeepneys serving the area, there were also the Fort Bus services and plans for a BRT linking the Ayala CBD and BGC. There are now few (rare sightings) of these e-trikes remaining at the Fort, as most of these vehicles are no longer functioning due to problems regarding the batteries, motors, and issues regarding maintenance. Meanwhile, the e-trikes in Mandaluyong, a more recent model, have also been difficult to maintain with one case reportedly needing the unit to be sent back to China for repairs.
Second, the e-trikes are a whole new animal (or mode of transport). I have pointed out in the past including in one ADB forum that the 6 to 8 seater e-trike model is basically a new type of paratransit. Their larger capacities mean one unit is not equivalent to one of the current models of conventional tricycles (i.e., the ones you find in most city and municipality around the country). Thus, replacement should not be “1 e-trike : 1 tricycle” but perhaps “1:2” (or even “1:3” in some cases). This issue has not been resolved as the e-trike units continue to be marketed as a one to one replacement for conventional trikes. There should be guidelines on this that local government units can use, particularly for adjusting the number of franchises or authorized tricycles in their respective jurisdictions. Will such come from the Department of Energy (DOE)? Or is this something that should emanate from Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)? Obviously, the last thing we like to see would be cities like Cabanatuan, Tarlac or Dagupan having so many e-trikes running around after they have replaced the conventional ones, and causing congestion in the cities. Emissions from the tricycle may have been reduced but emissions from other vehicles should be significant due to the congestion.
Third, the proliferation of e-trikes will tie our cities and municipalities to tricycles. Many cities already and definitely need to upgrade their public transport systems (e.g., tricycles to jeepneys or jeepneys to buses, and so on). Simply replacing tricycles with electric powered ones does not effect “true” transformation from the transport perspective. Is the objective of transformation mainly from the standpoint of energy? If so, then there is something amiss with the project as it does not and cannot address the transport, traffic and social aspects of the service provided by tricycles (and other modes of transport).
So what is the context for the e-trikes or conventional tricycles? They are not even under the purview of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) as they are regulated by LGUs. Shouldn’t the DOTC or the LTFRB be involved in this endeavor? Shouldn’t these agencies be consulted with the formulation of a framework or guidelines for rationalizing and optimizing transport in our cities? These are questions that should be answered by the proponents of this project and questions that should not be left to chance or uncertainty in so far as the ultimate objective is supposed to be to improve transport in the country. I have no doubt that the e-trikes have the potential to improve air quality and perhaps the also the commuting experience for many people. I have worries, however, that its promise will not be kept especially in light of energy supply issues that our country is still struggling with and deserves the attention of the DOE more than the e-trikes they are peddling.