“Wang-wang” of another kind
Ever since the current president of the Philippines mentioned his disapproval and disdain for the abusive use of sirens by unscrupulous individuals and organizations, there has noticeably been some “silence” in our streets. It used to be that vehicles with sirens muscled through heavy traffic to get ahead of everybody else, appearing as if their business was more important than all the rest. Never mind that those comprising the frustrated among those caught in the jam might be professionals like doctors, lawyers and engineers whose times were much more valuable compared to say, a relative or a staff of a congressman using a siren on their way to the shopping mall. Never mind that among those who were wallowing in traffic were students – the very future of this country – who might already be late for their classes. Never mind, too, that other people happen to be workers or laborers whose times were critical because they might be getting their pay based on an hourly rate. Now, you only hear the sound of engines, tailpipes and the occasional horns mainly from those who are in a hurry or public transportation drivers trying to catch the attention of commuters waiting for a ride along the street.
However, I would like to talk about a “wang-wang” of another kind. And this one is of the good type. “Wang-wang ng Bayan” is a radio program that went on air 5 weeks ago. It is a talk show hosted by two good friends, Sheilah and Dayo, who graciously accepted the invitation to host the show. Following are more info about the program taken from its Facebook page:
“The title of the program is a play on the local term for the sirens used by ambulances, fire trucks and police vehicles that were abused by politicians and people who thought of themselves as being more important than the average citizen. “Wang-wang” was specifically pointed out by the current President Noynoy Aquino in his inaugural speech as it became associated with abusive behaviour especially in traffic. In truth, “wang-wang” is an instrument for catching attention. And in this case attention is needed for us to be aware of and understand the current and enduring issues on transportation and traffic.
The objectives of the program are as follows:
1) Advocate – environmentally sustainable transport (EST) including road traffic safety, social equity, clean air, and other elements of EST
2) Clarify – issues pertaining to transport and traffic, focusing on current concerns in Philippine cities particularly in but not limited to Metropolitan Manila
3) Teach – the general public by providing current, relevant information concerning transportation and traffic systems, and sharing knowledge concerning transport and traffic”
So far, the program has tackled topics like traffic rules and regulations, u-turns, the odd-even scheme, pedestrian facilities, and motorcycles. Guests included the like of former LTO Chief and LTFRB Chair Bert Suansing, Traffic Engineer and UP Professor Ric Sigua, former MMDA traffic chief Ernie Camarillo, motorcycle riding instructor and expert Jake Swann. In its upcoming 6th episode, the show will have as guest current LTFRB Board Member Julius Garcia who will talk about public transport including challenges and current programs of the government.
It is through such a program that the academe could hopefully reach out (extend) to discuss and explain, or as their objectives state – ACT – about the relevant topics on transport and traffic in our country today. Truly, these are matters many of us need to be aware of and rightfully informed rather than misinformed. “Wang-wang ng Bayan” airs on DZUP 1602 AM radio every Wednesday from 1-2 PM (Philippine time). It is also available online via livestreaming.
Odd-Even Now? (Conclusion)
“The papers tackle various traffic schemes implemented in Metro Manila and focuses on the impacts and effectiveness of the UVVRP (Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program or number coding) in particular. Unfortunately, at the time the studies did not include evaluation of the Odd-Even scheme although such is mentioned in the first paper as the precursor of the UVVRP. Please note that these schemes are classified among vehicle restraint options that include the truck ban. Color-coding, number coding and the odd-even schemes were originally implemented as short term measures intended to be modified or lifted once the infrastructure projects that were then being implemented (overpasses and underpasses, coordinated and adaptive traffic signals, etc.) were completed. The UVVRP was indeed modified to include a window from 10:00AM – 3:00PM. Meanwhile, some LGUs in the periphery of Metro Manila no longer implement the UVVRP since they do not have much congestion unlike those LGUs where traffic converge along major thoroughfares such as EDSA, C5, C3, Gil Puyat, Espans and Quezon Ave. and Commonwealth. Incidentally, many of these roads are found in Quezon City.
The perceptions on the potential negative impacts of an Odd-Even scheme for EDSA are well founded since vehicles displaced will naturally be diverted to other roads. We have to be careful though not to call such roads simply as side streets or alternate routes since C5 (Katipunan (in QC)-E. Rodriquez (Pasig)-CP Garcia (Makati-Taguig), C3 (Araneta Ave.), Shaw Boulevard, Quezon Avenue and others are major arterials and form part of the circumferential and radial road system of Metro Manila. We are to expect more congestion along these roads that will, in effect, marginalize potential gains along EDSA.
The recommendation therefore, is for the MMDA not to experiment on EDSA from November 2010 to January 2011 but instead undertake in-depth analysis of the implementation of an Odd-Even scheme. Direct experimentation while effective in some cases will without doubt place much of the burden on the people using EDSA and other major roads. It is known that MMDA has acquired the capacity to simulate traffic based on their recent presentations. Perhaps this should be done for the entire stretch of EDSA and include all major roads affected considering that they will bear traffic diverted from EDSA. Such traffic simulation should, however, be properly calibrated and validated to reflect real world conditions. This is because it is also easy to come up with simulations whose results are partial or biased on what the simulator wants to show.”
Truck Ban
Another form of vehicle restraint focuses on freight and logistics vehicles, particularly trucks. These are commonly referred to as large vehicles having at least 6 tires (double-tired rear axle). The prevailing perception is that many if not most of these vehicles are overloaded and impede the flow of traffic due to their slow speeds as well as damage pavements not designed for heavy vehicles.
“The truck ban is a scheme first applied in the late 1970’s to address the perception that freight vehicles are the main culprits in congesting Metro Manila roads. Trucks were prohibited from traveling along major arterials including the primary circumferential and radial road network for most of the day. Exemptions from the daytime ban were applied to roads in the vicinity of the port area where truck traffic was practically inevitable.”
The coverage area of the truck ban included all of Metro Manila’s major circumferential and radial roads – C1 to C5 refer to Metro Manila’s circumferential roads while R1 to R10 refer to the radial roads. These comprise the main arterials of the Metro Manila road network. For reference, C3 refers to Araneta Avenue and related roads, C4 is EDSA, Letre and Samson Roads, and C5 refers to Katipunan, E. Rodriguez and C.P. Garcia Avenues. R1 refers to Roxas Boulevard, R5 is Shaw Boulevard, R6 is Aurora Boulevard, and R7 is España and Quezon Avenues.
“There are the different versions of the truck ban being implemented in Metro Manila. Truck Ban 1 is enforced along EDSA, Metro Manila’s busiest arterial and often its most congested road. Designated as Circumferential Road 4 (C4) it has a 10- to 12-lane carriageway with a mass rapid transit line running along its median. Truck Ban 2 practically covers all other roads except sections of arterial roads that have been designated as truck routes.”
Truck Ban 1 is enforced from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM everyday except Sundays and Holidays. Meanwhile, Truck Ban 2 is implemented from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM everyday except Sundays and Holidays. The second version attempts to minimize trucks during the morning and afternoon/evening peak periods.
“The chronology of the truck ban scheme started in 1978. In recognition of the critical situation of traffic congestion in Metro Manila, the then Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) issued Ordinance No. 78-04, which prohibited cargo trucks, with gross vehicular weight (GVW) of more than 4,000 kilogram, from plying along eleven major thoroughfares in Metro Manila during peak traffic hours – from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., daily except on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
In 1990, the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) issued Memorandum Circulars No. 90-367 and 90-375, changing truck ban hours to: between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. on weekdays; 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. for Monday to Thursday; and from 4:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. on Fridays. In response to the appeal of the members and officers of the various truckers’ associations for an alternate route and a 2-hour reduction of truck ban, the MMA issued Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, amending MMC Ordinance No. 78-04. This issuance provided alternate routes to the truck ban routes and effected a 2-hour reduction of the truck ban period, thereby prohibiting trucks on the road from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and from 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
In 1994 the MMA issued Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, further amending Ordinance No. 78-04 as amended by Ordinance No. 19 Series 1991. The Ordinance restricts trucks from traveling or passing along 10 major routes from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and from 5:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. daily, except on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The Ordinance also provided for an “all-day” truck ban along Metro Manila’s major arterial road, the Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA), from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. daily, except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
In 1996, the MMDA, in its desire to further reduce traffic congestion even on Saturdays, issued Regulation No. 96-008 amending MMA Ordinance No. 94-05, imposing truck ban from Monday to Saturday, except Sunday and holidays. An MMDA Regulation No. 99-002, amended Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, wherein the “gross capacity weight” was amended from 4,000 to 4,500 kilograms.”
In the last few years, the MMDA has implemented adjustments to the truck ban scheme in coordination with Metro Manila local government units. Certain truck routes were identified to address the issues raised by the private sector, particularly industries and commercial establishments, regarding the transport and delivery of goods. Other cities in the Philippines have adopted the truck ban in one form or another, often directing trucks to use alternate roads in order to decongest the roads in the central business districts as well as to prevent their early deterioration as a result of truck overloading practices.
[Source of italicized text: Regidor, J.R.F. and Tiglao, N.C.C. (2007) “Alternative Solutions to Traffic Problems: Metro Manila in Retrospect,” Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR 2007), 24-28 June 2007, University of California Transportation Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, DVD.]
From Odd-Even to UVVRP… and back
Picking up from where I left off in the last post, I reproduce another part of the paper I co-authored with a good friend who now happens to be the Director of the Center for Policy and Executive Development (CPED) of the National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) of UP Diliman.
“The UVVRP or the “number coding” scheme, as it is commonly called, is a travel demand management measure that has evolved since its first implementation in 1995. The original intent was to use this measure to address congestion brought about in part by the many road and rail infrastructure projects being implemented throughout Metro Manila in the 1990’s. However, due to its perceived success in decreasing traffic along Metro Manila arterials, the scheme’s implementation was extended and even expanded to include public transport vehicles like buses, jeepneys and taxis.
The original programs involved only the main arterials of Metro Manila including its five circumferential and ten radial roads. These included the three expressways that connected the region to surrounding provinces in the north and south. All these are classified as national roads. The current program includes essentially all roads, with traffic enforcement units of cities and municipalities implementing the scheme for city and municipal roads. The MMDA enforces the scheme along most major roads.
The chronology of the development of UVVRP starts in 1995 when the MMDA Regulation No. 95-001 otherwise known as the “Odd-Even Scheme” was issued. The scheme bans private vehicles with less than three (3) occupants from plying restricted thoroughfares during AM and PM peak periods on particular days. Specifically, low occupancy private vehicles with license plates ending in odd numbers are banned on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, while those with license plates ending in even numbers are banned on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Peak period is defined to be between 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The penalty was set at P 300 per offense. Exempted from this regulation are public transport vehicles, emergency vehicles, police and military vehicles, school buses, diplomatic vehicles and official media vehicles.
In 1996, the MMDA issued Regulation 96-004 otherwise known as the “Modified Odd-Even Scheme” in addition to the existing Odd-Even Scheme. The Modified Odd-Even scheme applied to public utility vehicles such as taxis, buses, public utility jeepneys, etc., which are banned from all streets of Metro Manila on particular days of the week from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM based on the plate number ending of each vehicle, as follows: 1 and 2 on Mondays, 3 and 4 on Tuesdays, 5 and 6 on Wednesdays, 7 and 8 on Thursdays, 9 and 0 on Fridays. This regulation took effect February 19, 1996 and covered all roads in Metropolitan Manila.
Also, in 1996 the Metro Manila Council, MMDA, adopted and promulgated MMDA Regulation 96-005 entitled the “Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program” regulating the operation of certain motor vehicles on all national, city and municipal roads in Metropolitan Manila and repealed MMDA Regulation Nos. 95-001 and 96-004. The UVVRP, commonly referred to as “color-coding”, was adopted from the previous “Odd-Even” scheme which was first implemented in December 1, 1995 by the MMDA together with the Philippine National Police. Under this scheme both public and private vehicles are banned for longer hours (i.e., between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM). This regulation was first implemented last June 1, 1996 and is still in effect.
In early 2003, the MMDA temporarily suspended the UVVRP. The resulting mayhem, probably due to the abrupt reaction of car-users, forced the MMDA to restore the scheme. A variant of the scheme was later introduced with a window from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM (i.e., the off-peak period within the day) when banned vehicles may travel. Not all cities and municipalities in Metro Manila, however, adopted the scheme due to its perceived detrimental effects on traffic in their respective areas. The prime central business districts of Makati and Mandaluyong prompted these cities to implement the UVVRP from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. This created problems as many roads run through different cities and municipalities, especially the circumferential and radial roads. Thus, it is possible for a motorist to use his vehicle in a city adopting the off-peak period window and get apprehended in another city that enforced the UVVRP during the daytime.”
[Source: Regidor, J.R.F. and Tiglao, N.C.C. (2007) “Alternative Solutions to Traffic Problems: Metro Manila in Retrospect,” Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR 2007), 24-28 June 2007, University of California Transportation Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, DVD.]
I am aware of certain stories circulating among those in the transportation and traffic circle(s) claiming an even earlier concept of the Odd-Even scheme. All stories seem to eventually lead to Oscar Orbos who had a brief stint as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) in the Cabinet of Cory Aquino in 1990. He is, of course, credited with the conceptualization and implementation of the “yellow lane” scheme, as lanes alloted for exclusive use of public utility vehicles have come to be known. An earlier version of the Odd-Even scheme has been attributed to him and, perhaps subject to verification, was claimed as among the reasons he was eventually relieved and transferred to another post. I say subject to verification because I do remember but faintly that there was a lot of talk about how to drastically lessen the number of vehicles along Metro Manila roads at the time. I was quite naive to such being a college junior at the time and was quite indifferent to policies that years later I would be evaluating and writing about. Moreover, it has been established that certain stories if allowed to circulate long enough gains the appearance of being true.
At this point, I am already tempted to provide a brief conclusion on the lessons and experience of vehicle restraint policies as implemented in Metro Manila. However, I would have to defer until after another post where the topic will be another vehicle restraint scheme, this time one that is even older than the UVVRP and its various incarnations. It is a scheme that has been subject to probably even more discussions and scrutiny given that it is a scheme other cities have implemented in various forms and had its share of successes and failures. I am talking about the “truck ban.”
Traffic schemes in Metro Manila
I interrupt my writing on the U-turn Scheme to write about other schemes first and particularly about vehicle restraint measures that have been implemented in Metro Manila (and probably elsewhere in the country).
I was researching on papers that we could attach to our letter to the mayor of Quezon City prior to his attending a Metro Manila Council (MMC) meeting where the mayors of the 15 local government units comprising Metropolitan Manila would be discussing the proposed implementation of an Odd-Even Scheme along EDSA. The proposal would be presented by the Chair of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) for decision of the MMC. Earlier, the MMDA Chair gave interviews to the media and mentioned a study made by the NCTS pertaining to congestion along what is regarded as the busiest thoroughfare in Metro Manila and perhaps the entire country. The MMDA Chair did not say the title of the study nor were there specifics on the authors of the study. And so it piqued my interest enough to search for the paper that the MMDA Chair used in his statement. The search led to two papers I co-authored with two very good friends. The material I was able to dig up had enough for several blogs but rather than re-invent the wheel, I will just reproduce what has already been written, reviewed, published and presented back in 2006 and 2007. Since the following text will a verbatim reproduction of parts of the paper, I have italicized the material and cite the paper from where it came from.
“Traffic management refers to a wide range of measures and programs designed to improve traffic flow and enhance traffic environment without substantial capital investment that may include ROW acquisition. Traffic management is necessary due to the significant imbalance between demand and supply in traffic that results in chronic congestion and its derivatives – environmental degradation and decline in traffic safety.
Measures formulated to address Metro Manila’s traffic problems are based on established, conventional travel demand management (TDM) and transport systems management (TSM) schemes. However, the schemes have been adapted to local conditions and are still being modified to better address the requirements of Metro Manila travelers. The MMUTIS Technical Report No. 8 (1999) presents a comprehensive review of traffic management schemes implemented in Metro Manila from the 1970’s to the present. Among the schemes formulated and applied in various forms and extent are the following:
• Traffic signal control system (TEAM, SCATS)
• Flow management schemes (one-way systems, reversible lanes),
• Toll discounts (for the North and South Luzon Expressways),
• Bus management schemes (bus segregation, provincial bus restrictions, designated bus lanes), and
• Pedestrian-focused programs (overpasses, underpasses, discipline zones)
The UVVRP and the Truck Ban are TDM measures that have evolved since their introduction in 1995 and 1980, respectively. The U-turn Scheme is a TSM solution introduced in 2003 that was intended to promote uninterrupted flow in Metro Manila by reducing delay incurred at intersections (i.e., through intersection closure).”
Source:
Regidor, J.R.F. and Tiglao, N.C.C. (2007) “Alternative Solutions to Traffic Problems: Metro Manila in Retrospect,” Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR 2007), 24-28 June 2007, University of California Transportation Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, DVD.
Next: UVVRP
Full circle with the U-turns: Traffic Signals in Metro Manila
Since last week, it seemed as if a ghost of Christmas past has come to haunt me and my colleagues at the NCTS. We had some unexpected visitors from the Traffic Engineering and Management (TEAM) group of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). They were at the Center to consult about a project being formulated by the group together with the MMDA for new traffic signals for Metro Manila. DPWH-TEAM has a long history with NCTS starting when that unit was created when the Philippines invested on its first coordinated traffic signals in the 1970s.
At that time, the NCTS was still the Transport Training Center (TTC), and was the site of the first traffic control center for signals that were installed along Quezon Avenue. The package was funded by a loan from the Japanese government and hence involved traffic signals manufactured by Mitsubishi. Years and many TEAM project phases later, most of Metro Manila’s major intersections would be signalized and traffic signal control would be under the Traffic Engineering Center, which until 2003, was under the DPWH. In the 1990’s, the TEC and TEAM worked together to acquire the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS), which at the time was already installed and running in most major intersections in Cebu City.
SCATS was supposed to usher in a new era in traffic control in Metro Manila until some major problems eventually plagued its operation. One of these problems was power. However, this was something everybody else was concerned with because of the power crisis of the early 1990s. It was also something that seemed to be easily solvable with the acquisition and installation of uninterrupted power systems (UPS) and generators that allowed the facility to operate even during blackouts.
Another technical problem cropped up just about the same time when the TEC and TEAM people were trying to solve the power issue. This time, it was something much more complicated and perhaps, what led to the system losing its credibility in Metro Manila and a chain reaction of sorts in as far as reactions go. The communications problem was a critical one and rendered the system practically unreliable for what it was supposed to solve – congestion. SCATS required a reliable network for its controllers and computers to communicate with each other. This communication allowed its software to assess network-wide traffic demand measured by means of detectors embedded in the pavement at each approach lane of an intersection. Data from these detectors are transmitted to computers in the control center, which then compute for the optimum cycle times for each signalized intersection. The computers determine which intersections need to be coordinated and how (i.e., alternating or simultaneous), and this process allows SCATS to adapt to variations in traffic. Hence, its name which seemed only appropriate given its performance in what is now the expanded network in metropolitan Cebu.
The failure of SCATS in Metro Manila was further hastened by traffic enforcers who were only too eager to intervene. This intervention was more of interference as enforcers started switching the traffic signal controllers to manual mode at the slightest indication that the signals would appear to be non-responsive to changes in the traffic situation. In truth, it takes a few minutes for the detectors to collect data and send it to the computers that will compute for the appropriate cycles and signal settings as well as determine which intersections to “marry” and “divorce” – to borrow terms used by traffic engineers in Cebu City for the process of coordinating intersections throughout the day. Due to this rampant practice by enforcers in Metro Manila, it was only a matter of time before SCATS was declared a failure and claims were made that Metro Manila traffic is so much more complicated than Cebu’s, where SCATS was a success (it still is today).
Capacity Building
We’ve been quite busy at the National Center for Transportation Studies during this month of September. So far, we’ve conducted 3 training programs in the during each week of the month. Each program was conducted over a period of 5 days. We held the 3rd offering of the Traffic Administration Course (TAC-3) from September 6-10, 2010. That was followed by a Road Safety Audit training course for sister companies the Manila North Tollways Corporation (MNTC) and the Tollways Management Corporation (TMC) from September 13-17, 2010. And only yesterday, we completed the first offering of the Advanced Traffic Administration Course (ATAC) for participants from the Metro Iloilo-Guimaras Economic Development Council (MIGEDC) and sponsored by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Also last week, I was among the a handful of participants for a special training on Eco-Driving conducted by Dr. Taniguchi of the Eco Drive Promotion Division of The Energy Conservation Center, Japan. Hopefully, the knowledge and experience gained from the training will allow me and my colleagues to share Eco-Driving to other drivers and enable the promotion and application of Eco-driving in the Philippines.
Next week, we will be resuming the Public Utility Vehicle Drivers’ Training Program, which is offered in cooperation with the Land Transport Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). This is a 3-day course that was formulated for PUV drivers in order for them to have a re-education of sorts. In the course, the fundamentals of traffic rules and regulations, road signs, ethics and customer service are taught by select lecturers from the DOTC, the PNP and UP. Such education is a necessity considering that most PUV drivers have not undergone any formal training considering how most of them were able to get their licenses. There is a tremendous amount of actual and anecdotal evidence out there pertaining to how most PUVs are driven. Hopefully, this course will benefit them and influence them to drive safely and prevent the loss of more lives as a result of crashes they may become involved in.
Fare hikes – MRT3
I was at a meeting this morning at the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) when we heard what seemed like a rally in front of the building. The rallyists claimed and appeared to be students though it was really difficult to determine based on our view from the 16th floor. The issue of the rally was the impending increase in the fares for the EDSA Mass Rapid Transit (MRT-3). The rallyists proclaimed their opposition to such an increase and laid out their reasons while calling for the DOTC to cease and desist from the fare hike.
Their arguments are designed to appeal to the masses, particularly those who have a basic understanding of what it takes to provide infrastructure such as the MRT. I say basic here because they get information from common sources such as popular TV, radio and newspapers (most probably tabloids rather than the dailies). In most cases, the kinds of information are likely commentaries by opinion writers or even opinionated (but not necessarily knowledgeable and fair) personalities. Some of these may actually be misleading people regarding the circumstances leading to and surrounding the government’s intervention on MRT, particularly its take-over of a losing venture from a failed consortium.
One of those who were at the meeting with me joked that he be allowed to come down and face the rallyists. His argument against theirs will be based on the inconvenient truth that the main (and perhaps strongest) justification for the fare increase is that the government can no longer sustain its huge subsidies for the payments for the loans that covered the construction of the system. These subsidies are drawn from the national treasury, which in turn is derived from the taxes that we pay from our hard earned income.
However, the tax-base is the entire country (i.e., all taxpayers) and not just from Metro Manila and its adjacent areas. The latter area represents what could probably be assumed as the region that benefits the most from the operation of EDSA-MRT. Thus, it is safe to say that taxpayers in major cities like Cebu and Davao do not derive much, if any, benefit from the MRT. This last statement is an argument that is always challenged by those who prefer to imagine that the rest of the country actually benefits (indirectly?) from the operation of MRT, notwithstanding that the country is an archipelago and that the interconnections of these islands are unlike those in developed archipelagoes like Japan and the UK. But even for these countries it would be very difficult to attribute say Osaka’s development to the operation of Tokyo’s Yamanote Line. In numerical terms, why should 30 million taxpayers pay for something that effectively benefits about 3 million taxpayers? Note, too, that many people residing in Metro Manila aren’t paying taxes. Perhaps an eminent economist or two can shed light on this.
For sure, there are a lot of issues concerning the EDA-MRT. It has been hounded by controversies even during its planning when the flavor of the season was public-private partnership (PPP) in the form of BOTs. Incidentally, the current government has stated that it is encouraging PPP for the development of big ticket infrastructure projects. I just hope that the government has learned its lessons and can forge contracts that are advantageous to us taxpayers who will effectively be paying for the costs of development. And perhaps, I dare say, these projects will be in other regions where cities are rapidly developing without the benefit of much needed transport infrastructure.
Motorcycle lanes
There have been proposals to have exclusive lanes for motorcycles along major roads. The rationale for such proposals is the increasing number of road crashes involving motorcycles. It is assumed that having exclusive lanes will result in a significant decrease in motorcycle involvement in crashes since it is further assumed that with exclusive lanes, there will be fewer interactions among motorcycles and other motor vehicles. There are evidences to support these assumptions.
Anyone observing traffic along our roads can easily see that the biggest reason for the rapidly increasing number of road crashes involving motorcycles is the behavior of motorcyclists. Motorcyclists have the propensity to weave in traffic, heavy or not, often splitting lanes and catching drivers unaware. This behavior frequently results in crashes, most of which involve only damage to property and thus are usually relegated as minor incidents that are not newsworthy. However, crash statistics with both the MMDA (for Metro Manila) and the DPWH (for national roads) indicate that motorcycle crashes with fatalities are alarmingly increasing, and therefore require intervention. Motorcycles’ notoriety are now the among the pet peeves of many drivers, regardless of whether they drive cars, public transport or even trucks.
There are still many riders who do not wear helmets. And not a few bring their gear but choose not to wear these; a habit that has led to jokes about helmets being for elbows or shoulders rather than for heads. This is despite a Helmet Law stipulating penalties that are supposed to discourage non-compliance. The practice significantly increases the chances of having fatalities in crashes, especially considering that there are no restraints for riders or other protective devices for motorcycles like seatbelts and airbags that are already standard features for many other motor vehicles.
There is a bill filed before the Senate, SB 871, which stipulates the delineation of one-meter wide lanes for exclusive use of motorcycles. The bill has a provision directing the DPWH and local government units to designate motorcycle lanes, presumably for both national and local roads. SB 871 proposes fines (i.e., not more than six (6) years of imprisonment or a fine of not less than Five Thousand Pesos (PHP 5,000.00) but not more than Twenty Thousand Pesos (PHP 20,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court) for motorcyclists using other lanes. There is no mention of penalties for drivers of vehicles encroaching on lanes designated for motorcycles.
While the bill is well meaning, it begs the question of whether its provisions are enforceable once the bill becomes a law given the extent of our national road system. After all, there are many laws that are not effectively enforced but were also designed to instill road discipline among drivers and riders, and to ultimately make roads safer for all users. And motorcycle riders are among those commonly seen as violators of road traffic rules and regulations.
In urban areas, for example, where many roads have multiple lanes, space for motorcycles may be derived from existing lanes but may lead to congestion due to the decrease in road capacities. In some cases, motorcycle lanes of at least one meter may be constructed by taking part of medians (e.g., islands) or shoulders. However, along roads where there are no medians, motorcycle lanes from shoulders may lead to conflicts with public transport vehicles that operate along the outer lanes of the road. Further, it is noticeable that there are no shoulders in most urban roads in the Philippines and there are also many instances where roadside parking is allowed or tolerated. And deriving motorcycle lanes from pedestrian rights of way such as sidewalks is definitely not recommended.
In the case of most national roads including rural highways, there are only 2 lanes and shoulders on either side that are most likely unpaved. Road rights of way are often unsecured, with structures such as houses and shops encroaching within the RROW and leading to shoulders being utilized for parking or other purposes. The DPWH Highway Planning Manual does not stipulate motorcycle lanes or even pedestrian walkways as standard specifications for typical national roads. And it is supposed that a law emanating from bills such as SB 871, should encourage if not mandate a review of road design standards to include provisions for motorcycles, and perhaps more importantly, for pedestrians and non-motorized transport (NMT) as well.
Other countries such as Malaysia have already incorporated in their road design manuals lanes that are for the exclusive use of motorcycles, bicycles and other NMTs. These have reportedly improved safety so much that their governments approved the budgets for implementing the provisions for roads where there is significant motorcycle traffic. Perhaps the Malaysian example is proof of the concept that having motorcycle lanes will indeed improve road safety. It should only be emphasized that road design improvements can go only so far if a key element, enforcement, is lax or nonexistent. Without this key element, motorcycle lanes in this country will just be destined for the ningas cogon hall of shame.
–
For more information about motorcycle lanes and road safety, one may refer to the website of the International Road Assessment Program. They also have a Flickr account showing their activities in Southeast Asia.
Licensed to Drive?
One recommendation often made in light of the increasing frequency of road crashes is on the review of the licensing system of drivers in this country. It may sound like a broken record but there are again calls for a review and even overhaul of a licensing system that appears to be insufficient in ensuring that drivers have an orientation towards road safety. Any person observing traffic along Philippine roads will easily come to the conclusion that most drivers are undisciplined and are not knowledgeable of even basic traffic rules and regulations.
Public utility vehicle drivers, in particular, can be seen speeding and making risky maneuvers, their drivers not seeming to care at all that they are responsible for the safety of their passengers. Truck drivers change lanes as if they are using compact cars. Motorcyclists seem to be oblivious that they are also covered by the same traffic rules and regulations governing all other road users. This is not to say that private car drivers do not have the propensity for aggressive or risky driving. In fact, we have the tendency to put much of the blame on PUV and truck drivers for dangerous situations in traffic when private car drivers are also highly likely to cause road crashes. Truly, it is one thing to know how to operate a vehicle and another to know how to drive one.
In the Philippines, a lot of people learn to operate a vehicle but even after several years, still do not know how to drive. This is a result of how these people learned to operate vehicles; a method that is often referred to by its sole requirement – lakas ng loob. Learning to drive via established schools or academies, after all, is not required as a prerequisite to qualifying for a license. One can take the written examination Practical examinations are virtually inexistent and unlike the ones conducted in countries with strict licensing systems. When I took my examinations for my license, I was surprised to learn that the only distinction between the practical tests for non-professional and professional licenses was that you get to drive a dilapidated truck forward then backward for the professional license. That was more than 15 years ago and at the central office of the licensing agency. This experience has always reminded me of how easy it was for one to get a professional driver’s license.
Perhaps there is a need to revisit how we grant drivers’ licenses in this country. There are many examples of good practices in other countries that it begs the question why we haven’t followed their lead. The Singapore Safety Driving Center offers at least twelve courses for different types of drivers including those for heavy vehicles, buses, taxis, motorcycles and motor vehicles. Such is required since each type of vehicle would require different skills. People wanting to become bus drivers in that country must secure a vocational license. Prospective truck drivers have a stricter regimen for training and an even stricter set of requirements in terms of experience.
In Japan, one is required to learn driving through a formal school. Schools have their own driving facilities where skills are taught and students are able to practice various maneuvers before they are even allowed to drive in actual traffic. New drivers are even required to attach a sticker (0ne that looks like a leaf) to their cars so that other drivers may be made aware of the former’s presence.
In the US and Canada, theoretical tests are computerized and questions are selected in random by a computer. This ensures that the people taking the exams will be tested for their knowledge of traffic rules and regulations, including signs that are often regarded as mere suggestions in the Philippines if not neglected outright by many who claim to be drivers. Practical tests are also conducted in a strict manner and the exam is designed to challenge one’s skills given different situations including what to do when changing lanes, making a turn and approaching an intersection. There is also the dreaded parallel parking maneuver that is a required skill for anyone intending to use roadside parking spaces.
It is not difficult to see that a review of our licensing system is long past due. Examples in other countries may serve as models for coming up with a system that will encourage safe driving and weed out those who are not qualified to drive. True, these countries especially the US have their own problems concerning road safety. However, we must realize that these are countries with good licensing systems – systems that were designed to at least minimize the likelihood of having people not unsuitable for driving being granted licenses and the responsibility of having in their hands the lives of other people. Such systems are not perfect but what system is? Human and other factors are also in the mix but then these results in what can rightfully be called “accidents,” incidents that could not be prevented let alone be predicted. In the Philippines, we cannot even categorize crashes as accidents because most are preventable and predictable, the latter being a result of the way people drive their vehicle in our streets and highways.
A quick rundown of recommendations include (but are not limited to) the following:
- The professional driver’s license should have at least 4 categories in the Philippines: (a) Basic – for drivers of taxis, rental cars and companies (limited to light vehicles including vans); (b) Intermediate – for drivers of jeepneys, AUVs/FX; (c) Advanced – for drivers of mini-buses, buses (including company shuttles and tourist buses); and (d) Heavy vehicles – for drivers of trucks of different types (incidentally, there could be a stricter rule for those driving articulated vehicles). Intermediate drivers may handle taxis and company cars and Advanced drivers may handle vehicles covered by Basic and Intermediate licenses. However, Heavy vehicle licenses are specifically for truck drivers and do not include passenger utility vehicles. All licenses mentioned allows the driver to handle private cars such as their own.
- Current drivers of PUVs and trucks should be required to undergo theoretical and practical examinations within a grace period (say 2 years) set by the LTO. Practical examinations should be able to simulate actual situations on the road. Failure in any or both examinations will require re-training of the person as a prerequisite for a second and last chance to pass the examinations.
- Theoretical tests must be computerized and questions selected randomly in order to ensure that both examination and the examinees are honest, and results are reliable.
Needless to say, the LTO is required to build capacity for such upgrading of the licensing system. The agency may even want to consider the acquisition of state of the art driving simulators for the practical exams. That way, it may be possible to have a very objective test for persons wanting to acquire a specific license. Expensive? Yes it is, but if that is what it takes to make our roads safe and arrest the rapidly increasing death toll due to road crashes, then it is a necessity. The loss of a life and/or a limb cost much more than a simulator. What more if we are talking about lives and limbs. Investing in road safety through investing in a more rigid licensing system is a necessity that we need not delay in addressing. After all, there is also that observation that the traffic in our streets reflect what we are as a nation. Figure that out!
Caught (up) in traffic 