Caught (up) in traffic

Home » Infrastructure » The Metro Manila Urban Transportation Strategy and Planning Project (MMUTSTRAP, 1983)

The Metro Manila Urban Transportation Strategy and Planning Project (MMUTSTRAP, 1983)

November 2014
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Archives

I continue on my feature on past studies on transport in Metro Manila. The Metro Manila Urban Transportation Strategy and Planning Project (MMUTSTRAP) was conducted from November 1982 to April 1983, with support from the Australian Development Assistance Bureau – the precursor of AusAID. The study was conceptualized by a Metro Manila Transportation Policy Committee that consisted of the Ministers of the then Ministry of Transportation and Communications (now DOTC) and Ministry of Public Works and Highways (now DPWH), the Vice Governor of what was the Metro Manila Commission (now MMDA), and the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police (now PNP). The Philippine Government-funded study examined alternative futures on Metro Manila’s development and used these as the basis for formulating alternative futures for public transport modes. These futures did not mention UTSMMA and its the recommendations for an RTR but presented pessimistic, most likely and optimistic scenarios for PNR, LRT bus and jeepneys.

The study examined recommendations of past studies, most specifically the more recent MMETROPLAN and MMUTIP. MMUTSTRAP seem to contradict MMETROPLAN’s recommendations to encourage the entry of new bus and jeepney operators rather than restricting or controlling these as it (MMUTSTRAP) concluded that “deregulation is not a viable alternative for urban public transportation in Metro Manila.” It further explained that deregulation is justified on the assumption that the main objective in urban public transport is simply to make it a profitable business. To the contrary, the study pointed out that there are other objectives such as adequate service to the public and safety, which should be placed above profitability. This last statement reverberates over the decades to the present when it seems to many that the objective of urban public transport is more on the “profit side” rather than the “adequate and safe aspect” of something that it supposed to be a public service.

The study explored strategies for traffic management and various travel demand management (TDM) measures including area traffic restraint similar to what Singapore had already implemented at the time. A significant output of MMUTSTRAP was a prioritization plan for transport projects and policies for Metro Manila. This included the ranking of projects for implementation in Metro Manila such as:

  • Pending road projects
  • Potential road projects
  • Urgent traffic signals
  • Potential pedestrian projects
  • Potential transit projects
  • Terminal projects

Examples of the transport projects ranked by MMUTSTRAP are shown in Tables A and B for pending road projects, and potential transit projects. An index was developed based on perceived importance of the project and the associated costs.

Table A – Ranking of pending road projects identified in MMUTSTRAP (1983)

Brief description Rank Index
Visayas Avenue extension: Elliptical Road to C-6 1 66.4
Mindanao Avenue Extension: North Avenue to C-6 2 66.1
C-5 construction: MacArthur Highway to North Expressway 3 64.0
Makati-Mandaluyong Link Road 4 61.4
Loop Road: from Bicutan to Alabang 5 61.2
C-6 construction: North Expressway to M. Marcos Avenue 6 61.1
Widen R-10: C-1 to Dagat-dagatan Spine 7 60.7
C-3 construction: Rizal Avenue to G. Araneta Extension 8 60.5
C-3 improvement: G. Araneta to Aurora Boulevard 9 59.5
Widen South Superhighway 10 58.7
C-4 interchange with Boni Avenue 11 58.6
C-5 construction: R-4 to Pasig Boulevard to Aurora Boulevard 12 58.5
R-4 construction: EDSA to Pasig/Pateros 13 57.9
R-5 construction: Kapasigan to Taytay Diversion 14 57.7
C-5 construction: North Expressway to Aurora Boulevard 15 56.2
C-3 works: Ayala Avenue to Tripa de Gallina 16 55.9
C-3 construction: N. Domingo to Ayala Avenue 17 55.7
Widen Domestic Road: MIA Road to Airport Road 18 55.5
C-4 extension: Taft Avenue to Roxas Boulevard 19 55.3
C-4 interchange with Roosevelt Avenue 20 55.2
C-4 interchange with Ortigas Avenue 21 54.7
C-4 interchanges with Ayala Avenue and Pasay Road 22 54.1
C-4 interchange with Santolan Road 23 53.7
C-4 interchange with Kamias/East Avenue 24 53.2
C-4 interchange with Buendia Avenue 25 52.2
C-5 construction: R-4 to South Superhighway 26 52.1
Widen Parañaque to Sucat Road 27 51.8
Re-align western 1.6 km of Zapote-Alabang Road 28 49.3
R-10 Construction 29 49.1

Notes: The codes C and R stand for Circumferential and Radial, respectively, and refer to the main road network of Metro Manila. These roads are more commonly known by other names such as, for example, EDSA (C-4), Aurora Boulevard (R-6) and España Boulevard (R-7).

Table B – Ranking of potential transit projects identified in MMUTSTRAP (1983)

Brief description Ranking based on assessment by project team Ranking based on evaluation from selected MOTC panel Index
Bus replacementa 1 1 55.6
PNR Commuter additional coaches and upgrade 2 2 50.8
LRT Line #2 – EDSA 3 3 44.4
Surface tramway – Radial road along Españab 4 43.9
LRT Line #3 – Radial along España 4 5 43.0

aAssumed that additional bus units will not be needed in the next 5 years with replacements likely after 1987.

bProject proposed by one of the members of the MOTC panel. This was treated as an alternative (on a mutually exclusive basis) to LRT Line #3, rather than an independent project for ranking.

[Reference: MMUTSTRAP, 1983 – NCTS Library]

Earlier studies recommended projects but did not show lists ranking projects in terms of an objective index or criteria. MMUTSTRAP did a good job in coming up with this idea or basis that was transparent and objective in evaluating projects. The criteria, however, is based mainly on perception of those involved in the study and, arguably, such perceptions may vary according to the knowledge and experiences of those involved in the evaluation. This is where the biases lie in as far as project prioritisation was concerned for this project. Perhaps a more participatory approach could have been conducted? Of course, it can be argued that at this time, both capacity and capability of local governments and national agencies were quite limited and so these have to be dependent on consultants (i.e., the study team) for their assessment and recommendations.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: