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?
–
Home » Governance » MMDA statement on the odd-even scheme
MMDA statement on the odd-even scheme
Archives
Academe active transport Airports Air quality Air travel Behavior Bridges BRT Bus Cycling Disaster Economics Electric Vehicles EST Governance Health Heritage Highway Engineering Highways and Streets Infrastructure Jeepney Land use Laws Logistics Mode Share Motorcycles NMT Paratransit Parking Pedestrian Policy Public Transport Railways Research Road Safety Terminals Traffic Congestion Traffic Engineering Traffic flow Traffic Management Transportation Transport Planning Travel Trip Generation Walking
Blogroll
Links
- Automobile Association Philippines
- Clean Air Asia (formerly CAI-Asia)
- Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- Department of Health
- Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
- Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)
- Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities
- Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
- International Road Assessment Program
- Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)
- Land Transportation Office (LTO)
- National Center for Transportation Studies
- Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT)
- Sustainable Urban Transport Project
- The Urban Roamer
- Traffic Calming
- University of the Philippines System
- Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Tags: MMDA, number coding, traffic management, traffic schemes, UVVRP
By d0ctrine in Governance, Media, Policy, Traffic Management on .
Caught (up) in traffic 
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.
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.
“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.
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?