Caught (up) in traffic

Home » Governance » MMDA statement on the odd-even scheme

MMDA statement on the odd-even scheme

March 2017
S M T W T F S
« Feb    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Archives

The MMDA released a statement today about the much criticized Odd-Even scheme for EDSA that was floated on mainstream and social media. I will not comment on the statement but instead just reproduce  the post on Facebook here:

What do you think?

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. Nelson J. Tagapulot says:

    The government encourages economic progress, therefore increase in car sales goes with it. Car makers make more cars to cope with business growth. That means more cars on the road. But the government did not build more roads to accomodate that. The solution to traffic woes?1) build more roads, convert all the C roads, i.e, C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6, into superhighways and provide BRT lane, 2) build underground metro lines and expant the train systems, & 3) implement the law on provision of ample parking spaces for all buildings and houses, prevent parking on road lanes.

    • d0ctrine says:

      Easier said than done. But the government is now talking with Singapore to explore how their solutions including road pricing can help alleviate our situation. Its been a very long history of non implementation of mass transit projects that started during the 1970s that led to us having this backlog of rail lines.

  2. mmrtinio says:

    “The local chief executives instructed MMDA”

    I find something wrong with this logic. MMDA looks comprehensively at the NCR; city mayors, even with system thinking, will have biases on their own boundaries. The MMDA must be converted into a Governor-like entity for a holistic planning of Metro Manila and its suburbs.

    • d0ctrine says:

      Even before that set-up for the MMDA, the agency could already do sound planning for MM transport and even influence infrastructure development. They do have a planning section (supposed to be headed by an AGM-level official) but I’m not sure they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing. Perhaps this sections should be assigned under the new AGM for Operations who seem to have a better grasp of land use and transport planning principles and applications than others in the agency?

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: