Caught (up) in traffic

Home » Economics (Page 9)

Category Archives: Economics

Are Filipinos willing to pay for good public transportation?

There is a nice article that appeared last April 1, 2016. I hope it is not an April Fool’s type of an article.

Why is the U.S. unwilling to pay for good public transportation?

Reading the article reminded me of a lot of similar concerns surrounding public transport projects currently being constructed and those in the proposal and pipeline stages in Philippine cities. It seems though that there are still many people who have little appreciation of the benefits of modern public transport systems. Aside from Metro Manila and perhaps Cebu City, there is little clamor for modern mass transit systems. People tend to take commuting for granted with modes that they have grown up with like buses, jeepneys and tricycles until they start to experience first-hand the pains of traveling using inferior transport on severely congested roads. But even then, most seem to take it in stride and carry on, carrying their crosses in a state of purgatory that seems to have no end in sight.

EASTS 2015 – Cebu City, September 11-13, 2015

The 11th International Conference of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies (EASTS 2015) will be held in Cebu City this September 11-13, 2015. For information on the conference and program, check out their website here:

http://www.easts2015.com/

You can also download a brochure about EASTS here:

EASTS brochure2014-2015a

The conference is hosted by the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (TSSP), which is the local affiliate of the EASTS. More information on the TSSP are found below:

TSSP brochure_inside TSSP brochure_cover-back

Running out of answers? How about congestion pricing?

A lot of people ask me about solutions to transport and traffic problems. Some are very general like the question “How do we solve traffic congestion in Metro Manila?” and others are more specific like “How do we solve congestion along EDSA?” These questions are becoming quite tricky because, for one, we are running out of answers of the ‘short term’ kind. All these ‘stop-gap’ or ‘band aid’ measures will only provide short-term relief and we have used many of them already including vehicle restraint measures we are very familiar with like the number coding and truck ban schemes currently implemented in the metropolis.

The general answer and likely an inconvenient truth is that we can’t solve congestion. It is here to stay and is a given considering the continued growth experienced throughout the country. Accepting this phenomenon of congestion, we can proceed towards managing it and work towards alleviating it. Denying that there is a problem or dismissing such as an issue requiring urgent action sets a dangerous course towards unsuitable responses or worse, inaction on the part of the government.

Like cholesterol, there is good congestion and bad congestion. Good traffic congestion is when it is predictable in occurrence and period. For example, the morning rush hour is termed so because it used to last only about an hour or so. Congestion occurring between 7:30 – 8:30 AM is okay but between 6:30 – 11:30 AM is undesirable. The cases between those two vary in acceptability based on the tolerance levels of commuters. In Metro Manila, for example, many people probably have been conditioned to think that 2-hour congestion is okay but more than that is severe. This is actually related to travel times or the time it takes to travel between, say, one’s home and workplace.

And so, are there better options other than a return to the “Odd-Even” scheme? There are actually many other options but they are more complicated to the point that many are unpalatable to people who are in a hurry to get a solution our traffic mess. Note that this is to get out of a hole that’s deep enough already but they still managed to dig deeper the last 5 years. Among these solutions would be congestion pricing.

Singapore offers a successful model for this where tolls vary according to the levels of congestion for these roads. There is a base rate for peak periods when congestion is most likely or expected. The government determines the desirable speed ranges along roads as a basis for congestion charges. Along urban streets, that range may be between 20 – 30 km/h. If speeds reduce to below 20 km/h (i.e., congested) then charges or tolls increase. If speeds increased to above 30 km/h, the rates decrease. The image below is screen capture from a presentation made by an official of Singapore’s Land Transportation Authority (LTA).

ERP

Note the item on the scheme being ‘equitable’ that is very essential in understanding how road space must be shared among users and that there is an option to use public transport instead. This scheme, of course, will require a lot of consultations but the technical part should not be worrisome given the wealth of talent at universities, private sector and government agencies who can be involved in the analysis and simulations. Important here also is to determine or institute where the money collected from congestion pricing will go. Logic tells us that this should go to public transportation infrastructure and services. In Singapore, a big part of the funds collected from ERP goes to mass transit including their SMRT trains and buses. Funds help build, operate and maintain their trains and buses. The city-state already has a good public transport system that is subsidized by congestion charges and this system is able to attract people from using their cars especially during the weekdays when transport is used for work and school trips. That way, people who don’t really need to own and use their cars are discouraged from doing so (Note: This works together with Singapore’s restrictive car ownership policies.).

Would it be possible to have congestion pricing for Metro Manila or other cities in the Philippines? Yes, it is and but entails a lot of serious effort for it to work the right way. We can probably start by identifying major roads whose volumes we want regulated, installing sensors for monitoring traffic conditions and tagging vehicles and requiring most if not all vehicles to have transponders for motorists to be charges accordingly. However, there should be an attractive and efficient public transport option for this program to work. Unfortunately, we don’t have such along most roads. Perhaps an experiment or simulation can be undertaken once the LRT 2 extension is completed and operational? That corridor of Marcos Highway and Aurora Boulevard, I believe is a good candidate for congestion pricing.

With the sophisticated software that are now available, it is possible to conduct studies that would employ modelling and simulation to determine the potential impacts of congestion pricing on traffic. It should have a significant impact on congestion reduction even without mass transit systems such as Singapore’s. However, without good public transport, it would be punishing for people who are currently using their own vehicles to avoid taking public transport. I used the term ‘punishing’ because congestion pricing will be a back breaker for people who purchased vehicles to improve their commutes (i.e., they likely were not satisfied with taking public transportation). These are the working people and part of the small middle class whose transport needs should be addressed with urgency.

On logistics in the Philippines

I am not a logistics expert and will not pretend to be one. I have, however, been involved in several projects that included logistics as a major study component. These include a nationwide study on inter-regional passenger and freight flow and another for freight forwarders affected by vehicle restraint policies in Metro Manila.  A more recent engagement has allowed me to take a look at logistics in the country from other perspectives including that of national agencies seeking to improve goods movement in the country and development agencies that have committed to help the country to do just that. There are local issues and there are regional ones. The regional ones often involve the need for infrastructure such as maritime ports and airports, highways and bridges, and other facilities such as those for storage and refrigeration.

For an archipelago like the Philippines, logistics is a bit more challenging than in countries whose territories are not separated by bodies of water. There is no lack for good practices though as there are other archipelagos that could provide good examples for connecting the islands such as Japan and the United Kingdom. Nearby, we share similar challenges with Indonesia and to a certain extent Malaysia. Of course, availability of resources is always an issue and particularly for the prioritization of infrastructure to be constructed aside from those that need to be maintained. The DOTC along with its attached agencies like the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) are in the frontline when it comes to airports and ports planning, development, and maintenance are concerned. However, the DPWH plays a vital role for highways and bridges and the connections for these ports and airports including what is termed as “last-mile” connectivity that is often passed on as a responsibility of local governments. This is likely due to local roads often providing the connection between national roads (under the DPWH) and ports and airports. It is a good thing that the current DPWH has committed to a convergence program regarding national and local roads that has benefited a lot of sectors and industries like tourism and agriculture.

Rail transport is not mentioned here because there is practically none even for what remains of the once relatively extensive PNR main lines. The local issues are not simpler and can be a bit more complicated than the regional ones. The complications are usually due to more petty circumstances that may involve politics and local power plays. The basic ingredients though are related to traffic congestion and the damage to roads and bridges attributed to trucks.

Many cities and municipalities have implemented truck bans along their major roads. These are usually one or two routes in the smaller cities and towns, usually passing through the “bayan,” “poblacion” or central business district (CBD). These roads are usually national roads (e.g., McArthur Highway and the Pan Philippine Highway pass through many towns). As such, there are cases where bypass roads are constructed to alleviate congestion along these roads as well as to try to preserve the pavements in the town proper. Such traffic schemes targeting heavy vehicles are not new and are also a way to address the issue on overloading that is common in trucking in the Philippines. The bypass roads, however, generally invite development and unplanned development have often made these alternate routes more congested than the original ones.

Manila did a “power play” recently by implementing a more aggressive truck ban. This led to more severe congestion around the Port of Manila and a lot of delays that have cost a lot of money in part due to the limited alternative routes in the city and most roads are already constricted. The costs have repercussions on the economy in general as the movement of goods are affected by the impasse in Manila. Whether this was for more political or practical reasons is difficult to say because the mayor and vice mayor have invoked the very common issues of traffic congestion, road safety and pavement maintenance that got the attention, sentiment and agreement of a lot of people. Many of these people though do not understand the impacts of inefficient goods movement and likely are concerned only about passenger transportation.

More recently, a lot of containers were shipped from the Port of Manila to Subic. These are supposedly “overstaying” shipments or those that have not been claimed for a long time or have some issues regarding their release. This should ease congestion somehow but there remain the problems of shipping or logistics companies regarding freight transport in general that needs to be addressed. Both Subic and Batangas ports have been mentioned in many formal studies over the past few years including a more recent one supported by JICA. Still, there is a lot of hesitation if not confusion or uncertainty on how to go about with shifting goods movement to these ports, which are regarded to be underutilized. There are good roads connecting these ports with cities and towns but these might not be enough in the long run.

Perhaps there is a need to reconsider regional rail transport again especially for the islands of Luzon and Mindanao where long distance rail may have a tremendous impact for transporting goods over long distances. Of course, there are also issues pertaining to other ports and airports in the country including those in Mindanao (e.g., Davao, Cagayan de Oro, Phividec, Gen. Santos, etc.) and Visayas (e.g., Cebu, Iloilo, Tacloban, etc.). The RORO ports are among those that need attention as they are directly involve road transport aside from the ferries that carry them over the waters. These nautical highways are vital for goods movement around the country and require both national agencies and local governments cooperating for these facilities and services to function efficiently.

The Philippines’ National EST Strategy – Final Report

Friends and some acquaintances have been asking about whether there is a master plan for sustainable transport in Philippines. There is none, but there is a national strategy that should serve as the basis for the development and implementation of a master plan, whether at the national or local level. This strategy was formulated with assistance of the United Nations Council for Regional Development (UNCRD) through the Philippines’ Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which served as the focal agencies for this endeavour. The formulation was conducted by the National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) of the University of the Philippines Diliman. For reference, you can go to the NCTS website for an electronic copy of the National Environmentally Sustainable Transport Strategy Final Report.

NESTS coverCover page for the National EST Strategy Final Report

 

 

On sustainability and inclusiveness of pedicabs

“Sustainable transport is inclusive but inclusive transport is not necessarily sustainable.” Is this statement true? If yes, why and to what extent? This is not a philosophical take at transport. There seems to be some conflict in that statement but there should really be no confusion once you delve into the essence of sustainability and define the limits of inclusiveness. The statement is true to the extent that all sustainable forms of transport can be inclusive. These are transport modes that are friendly to all genders, all ages, all economic classes, and regardless of physical ability. However, there are transport modes that are inclusive in the same context stated but are unsustainable from the perspectives of suitability, efficiency and energy.

For example, non-motorized transport (NMT) in the form of pedicabs (also called trisikad or padyak) are sustainable from the perspective of energy. They are most suitable for operation along minor roads, especially those in residential areas. However, if the same pedicabs operate along national roads and mixed with motorized traffic, these become a nuisance and contribute to traffic congestion. Such operations also put passengers at risk, exposing to potential crashes as pedicab drivers tend to violate road traffic rules (e.g., moving against traffic).

IMG04131-20120829-1517Pedicabs along the Quezon Avenue Service Road near Agham Road.

IMG04578-20121019-1721Pedicab ferrying passengers from the Quezon Ave. MRT-3 station to destinations along Agham Road.

IMG04579-20121019-1721Counter-flowing pedicab along Quezon Ave. just outside the National Grid Corporation (formerly Napocor) office.

Pedicabs have another dimension, which is often cited as a reason for its very existence. It is a source of livelihood for many people. Whether this is something that needs to be encouraged is the subject of debates often involving discussions on poverty and governance. That is, pedicabs are often owned and/or operated by low income people and their numbers translate into votes for local officials who tolerate pedicabs and even encourage them as a form of livelihood. It is, after all, like the jeepneys and tricycles before it, supposed to be a simple investment that generates income for the owner/operator/driver. People have glorified or romanticized the pedicab as various designs have displayed the creativeness (or even artistry) of the Filipino. However, just like other modes of transport, the pedicab should function within a hierarchy based on its suitability with respect to other modes that are similarly appropriate for a certain range of conditions. Hopefully, such concepts are understood by stakeholders if only to effect the rationalization of transport services and  correct certain notions pertaining to inclusiveness and sustainability for such modes.

Proposal for a Special Mass Transit Support Fund

There are three bills currently being discussed at the Senate that were filed by Sen. Ralph Recto. These propose the restructuring of the special funds derived from the Motor Vehicle Users’ Charge (MVUC) in order to allocate funds for mass transportation.

Senate Bill 446 – An Act Creating The Special Mass Transit System Support Fund, Reallocating The Disposition of Monies Collected From The Motor Vehicle User’s Charge, Amending For The Purpose Sections 7 And 8 Of Republic Act No. 8794, Otherwise Known As The Motor Vehicle User’s Charge Act of 2000.

Senate Bill 611 – An Act Creating The Special Mass Transit System Support Fund To Provide Additional And Long-Term Funding To Priority Mass Transit Projects In The Greater Metro Manila Area, Amending For The Purpose Sections 7 And 8 Of Republic Act No. 8794, Otherwise Known As The Motor Vehicle User’s Charge Act of 2000.

Senate Bill 621 – An Act Creating The Special Mass Transit System Support Fund Amending For The Purpose Sections 7 And 8 Of Republic Act No. 8794, Otherwise Known As The Motor Vehicle User’s Charge Act of 2000.

The National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) was requested to submit a position paper on these bills by the Senate Committee on Public Works that is chaired by Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr. The Center drafted one and submitted the 4-page document to the Committee secretariat last October 16, 2013. A copy of the position paper may be downloaded from the following link:

NCTS PositionPaper MVUC 16Oct2013

The Senate Committee on Public Works held a public hearing last October 17, 2013 at the Lorenzo Tanada Room at the Senate. The NCTS Director, Dr. Hilario Sean O. Palmiano, was invited as a resource person for the hearing and joined representatives of agencies such as the DPWH, DBM, DOF, LTO and the Road Board in providing insights and comments on the proposed bills. The same agencies were also requested to provide pertinent data for the committee to evaluate the proposed changes to R.A. 8794. Such data include information on past disbursements and approved projects that used the special funds under the MVUC.

Dream plan for the Greater Capital Region?

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.

MM RTR map2Network of recommended rail rapid transit (RRT) lines for the Manila Metropolitan area in 1973 (UTSMMA, 1973)

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!

Flash floods and traffic congestion

Traffic last night along most of Metro Manila’s roads were a nightmare. It took many people hours before they could reach their homes from their offices and schools. The main reason cited for the horrendous traffic jams was the weather. It has been raining almost every afternoon in Metro Manila and its surrounding areas due to the combination of a tropical depression east of the island of Luzon and the intensified monsoon rains (Habagat). Rainfall intensity combined with a high percentage of the water translating into runoff contributed to flash floods all around Metro Manila including some that were waist-high, rendering the road impassable to most vehicles. However, while a lot of motorists and commuters were simmering along many roads last night, I couldn’t help but notice  that most vehicles in the photos circulating in social media sites and news footage are private vehicles. Buses along EDSA occupied only the outermost lane for most stretches of the road. Meanwhile, conspicuous is the space in the middle of EDSA, which is the ROW for the MRT-3 tracks.

One lesson we learned last night was something we already knew all along and have failed miserably to address – we need better public transport in Metro Manila. Could there have been less cars on the roads affected by flash floods brought about by the heavy rains yesterday? Could commuters have had an easier way of traveling between their offices or schools and their homes? The answer is yes, that is, we could have built the necessary public transport infrastructure years ago. While there is a need to be transparent and have a corruption-free (is there such a thing?) process for planning, funding, designing, and constructing public transport infrastructure, we must realize that these are all systems that we should have had long ago, and further delay only dooms mobility and accessibility in our cities. Our leaders seem to be too engrossed with processes and making sure they won’t get entangled in controversies or lawsuits that they forget that time is ticking and all other people are caught in the mess that is the traffic congestion we experience every day. I wonder if at least some of our decision-makers for transport and traffic were caught in the monstrous jams last night? Maybe getting caught in one would change their perspectives and give them a sense of urgency for the task at hand? Or maybe, and likely, they were sitting behind their cars and burning time on their notebooks or tablets while their drivers were trying to maneuver in traffic? Frankly, we deserve better transport than what we have but then we don’t get to decide what gets built and when such infrastructure will be built, if at all. We could, however, do our part in lobbying (or demanding) for better transport.

Taken by a good friend commuting to his home last night:
1012787_10151527658838801_1170569472_n

From the GMA News website:971629_539266942777803_1297726336_n

Poverty should not be entrusted to economists | Social Watch

Saw this article shared on Facebook. I thought it was a relevant piece with respect to a work I am currently doing, relating transport infrastructure and services with economic growth in the Philippines. With the release of the latest poverty statistics in the country late last month, there has been a lot of discussions regarding inclusive growth as poverty incidence across the country is still quite high though there have been gains in many provinces based on the statistics.

Poverty should not be entrusted to economists | Social Watch.

I suddenly remember the experience we had while doing field work in the island of Samar where we performed a road safety audit for a national road. While coordinating with the barangays along the highway for our traffic surveys, we observed that people were generally poor but in the financial sense – they didn’t have money and many didn’t have regular jobs. I say this because I would like to qualify the way we define poverty that is biased on the monetary aspect. From what we saw, people were not hungry as they had food like fruits and vegetables. Perhaps to get other items, they trade or barter what they have with what they needed (e.g., vegetables for rice, fish for rice, etc.). Still, the point is for these same people to generally benefit from the economic gains that is supposed to be experienced by the country. Is the growth trickling down to these people and therefore inclusive? Or is it enjoyed only by a few and especially our elite classes, and therefore exclusive? So far, what I have seen out there is the latter case and not the former.