Home » Governance (Page 40)
Category Archives: Governance
Some thoughts on the issues on bus bans and terminals in Metro Manila
I had originally wanted to use “Clarifying issues on bus bans and terminals in Metro Manila” as the title for this post. However, I felt it was too strong a title, and one that would be more appropriate for a government agency like the MMDA or DOTC, or an LGU like Manila. More than fault-finding and criticizing government agencies and local governments, I believe we should take a closer and more objective look at the issues (or non issues?) pertaining to the Manila bus ban and the opening of the southwest provincial bus terminal for Cavite-bound buses. Following are my comments on issues raised the past weeks about the two initiatives.
Issue 1: There were no or few announcements about the implementation of the bus ban in Manila and the southwest terminal in Cavite.
Comments: While the bus ban in Manila came as a surprise to many, the move was actually a consequence of a Manila City Council resolution. Normally, such resolutions would take time to implement and would entail announcements for stakeholders. Though we will probably never know the truth or who is saying the truth about the resolution and its implementation, it is likely that bus operators already knew about the implications but decided to call Manila’s bluff and play the media and public appeal cards rather than comply with Manila’s requirements for franchised buses and terminals as they have done before in other issues like fuel prices and fare hikes.
I find it difficult to believe that the MMDA did not do its part in announcing the opening of the southwest terminal. Perhaps people thought the announcement was over a very short period? Or maybe people didn’t mind the announcement and are also at fault for paying no or little attention to the announcement? If so, then the public is also partly to blame for disregarding the announcement from the MMDA, assuming the agency won’t push through with its initiatives to implement central terminals for buses. Next up will be another southern terminal at Alabang and a northern one near Trinoma.
Issue 2: Poor transfer facilities and services including a lack of pedestrian facilities between the bus terminal and transfer point, and lack of public transport like jeepneys to ferry passengers to their destinations.
Comments: I think it’s quite clear that the MMDA and LGUs are at fault here. Despite the construction and scheduled opening of the southwest terminal, there have been limited effort in improving pedestrian facilities. Such facilities needed to be in place prior to or upon the opening of the southwest terminal and requiring all provincial buses to terminate at the facility instead of continuing to Metro Manila. People-friendly facilities could have helped people in adjusting to the new policy though walking from 100 to 200 meters is certainly not for all, especially during this rainy season. Senior citizens and persons with disabilities (PWDs) would have specific needs that could have been addressed from day one of operation of the terminal. One approach to “bridge the gap” between the terminal and where people could take city bus and jeepney rides could have been to modify some city bus and jeepney routes to make these closer to the terminal. Ideally, the terminal could have been an intermodal facility providing efficient, seamless transfers between modes of transport.
In the case of Manila, the jeepneys were already there with routes overlapping with buses but their numbers and capacity could not cope with the demand from the buses. Since the main objective of Manila was to weed out colorum buses, it could have coordinated with the LTFRB to check the registration and franchises of buses rather than generalizing among all buses. Perhaps Manila just wanted to make a big statement? But then this was at the expense of the riding public, which obviously got the attention of many including the media. Coordination among agencies and LGUs, however, has not been a strong suit for these agencies, and this thought leads us to the next issue.
Issue 3: Lack of coordination among LGUs and agencies in implementing transport schemes.
Comments: This issue is an enduring one and has been the topic of discussions, arguments and various fora for as long as we can remember. On one hand, the DOTC and the LTFRB should provide guidelines and guidance to local governments on transport planning and services. The agencies should be proactive in their engagement of LGUs in order to optimize transport services under the jurisdiction of national agencies and local governments. On the other hand, LGUs must accept the fact that most if not all of them are ill equipped or do not have the capacity nor capability to do transport planning much less addressing issues regarding public transport. Citing the Local Government Code and its devolution of local transport to LGUs everytime there’s a transport issue certainly won’t help LGUs solve their problems.
Issue 4: Terminals required for city buses in Manila.
Comments: There should be a terminal for city buses in Manila but not a terminal for each company. There should only be one or maybe two terminals where buses can make stops prior to making the turnaround for the return trip. There is actually a terminal in Manila, which the city can start with for city buses. This is the one just beside the Metropolitan Theater and near City Hall, which can be utilized by city buses. It is also close to the LRT Line 1 Central Station so the facility can be developed as a good intermodal terminal for land transport.
Issue 5: Colorum or illegal public transport vehicles in Manila
Comments: This is actually a problem not just for Manila but for the rest of Metropolitan Manila and the rest of the country. The colorum problem is there for both conventional and paratransit services as there are illegal buses, jeepneys, UV express, multicabs, taxis, tricycles and pedicabs everywhere. Many of these are allegedly being tolerated by national agencies and local governments with many allegedly being fielded or owned by public transport operators themselves.
–
In most cases, the best time to evaluate a traffic policy or scheme is NOT during its first days or weeks of implementation but after a significant time, say at least a month, after it was implemented. This is because the stakeholders, the people involved would take some time to adjust to any scheme or policy being implemented. This adjustment period will vary according to the magnitude or scope of the scheme/policy and can be quite “painful” to many who have gotten used to the old ways. Usually, a lot of comments and criticisms are quite emotional but it is clear that the collective sentiment is the result years or decades of poor transport services and fumbling by government agencies. Transport in Metro Manila is already quite complicated with routes overlapping and services competing with each other for the same passengers. Perhaps it is time to simplify transport while also in the process of optimizing and rationalizing services. I have written about this in this previous post.
More transport issues in Manila will come about should the city train its attention on other modes of transport including jeepneys, UV express vehicles, tricycles, pedicabs and kuligligs. If the city is really intent on reforming transport services within its jurisdiction, it should consider the needs of all stakeholders and especially and particularly the riding public. Transport should be inclusive, people-friendly as well as environment-friendly and there are many good practices in other cities that Manila could refer to and study for adaption and adoption for the city. If it is successful in improving transport, then perhaps Manila could be the country’s model for transformation from being the “Gates of Hell” to being a “Portal to Heaven” to residents and visitors alike.
–
Manila’s bus experiment
Manila recently banned provincial and city buses from entering the city stating this is because many of them do not have franchises and/or terminals in the city. Those without franchises are the ones labeled as “colorum” or illegally operating public transport vehicles, which really don’t have a right to convey people in the first place. It’s become difficult to catch them because many carry well-made falsified documents. But it’s not really an issue if the LTFRB, LTO and LGUs would just cooperate to apprehend these colorum drivers. The LTFRB and LTO are under the DOTC, and so the agency is also responsible for policies and guidelines to be followed by the two under it. LGUs (and the MMDA in the case of MM) are tasked with traffic enforcement and so they can apprehend vehicles and act on traffic violations including operating without a franchise.
Those without terminals are both city and provincial buses. For city buses, this can be because they “turnaround” in Manila and operators do not feel the need to have a formal terminal. For example, G-Liner buses plying the Cainta-Quiapo route will stop at Quiapo only to unload Quiapo-bound passengers, and then switch signboards and proceed to load Cainta-bound passengers as they head back to Rizal. There is very little time spent as the bus makes the turnaround. It’s a different case for provincial buses, whose drivers should have the benefit of rest (same as their vehicles, which also need regularly maintenance checks) after driving long hours. Thus, if only for this reason they need to have formal, off-street terminals in the city. Following are photos I took near the Welcome Rotunda en route to a forum last Friday.
Commuters walking to cross the street at the Welcome Rotunda to transfer to jeepneys waiting for passengers to ferry to Manila.
Commuters and cyclists moving along the carriageway as there are no pedestrian or cycling facilities in front of a construction site at the corner of Espana and Mayon Ave.
Advisory for buses coming from Quezon City
Commuters waiting for a jeepney ride along Espana just after the Welcome Rotunda
Some pedestrians opt to walk on instead of waiting for a ride. Manila used to be a walkable city but it is not one at present. Many streets have narrow sidewalks and many pedestrian facilities are obstructed by vendors and other obstacles.
So, is it really a move towards better transport systems and services in Manila or is it just a publicity stunt? If it is to send a message to public transport (not just bus) operators and drivers that they should clean up their acts and improve the services including practicing safe driving, then I’m all for it and I believe Manila should be supported and lauded for its efforts. Unfortunately, it is unclear if this is really the objective behind the resolution. Also, whether it is a resolution or an ordinance, it is a fact that the move violates the franchises granted to the buses. These franchises define their routes and specify the streets to be plied by buses. Many LGUs in the past have executed their traffic schemes and other measures intended to address traffic congestion, without engaging the LTFRB or at least ask for the agency’s guidance in re-routing public transport. Of course, the LTFRB is also partly to blame as they have not been pro-active in reviewing and optimizing PT routes.
One opinion made by a former government transport official is that this is just a ploy by the city to force bus companies to establish formal terminals in the city. This will require operators to secure permits, purchase or lease land and build terminals. And so that means revenues for the city and perhaps more traffic problems in the vicinity of the terminals just like what’s happening in Quezon City (Cubao) and Pasay City (Tramo).
Transport planning is a big part of the DOTC’s mandate and both the LTO (in charge of vehicle registration and driver’s licenses) and LTFRB (in charge of franchising of buses, jeepneys and taxis) look to the agency for guidelines and policy statements they are to implement. Meanwhile, LGUs have jurisdiction over paratransit like tricycles and pedicabs. In the case of Manila, these paratransit also include the “kuligligs,” 3-wheeler pedicabs that were fitted with engines and have been allowed (franchised?) by the city to provide transport services in many streets. Unfortunately, most LGUs do not have capacity nor capability for transport planning and so are limited or handicapped in the way they deal with transport (and traffic) issues in their jurisdictions. We have always maintained and promoted the stand that the DOTC should extend assistance and expertise to LGUs and the LGUs should also actively seek DOTC’s guidance in matters pertaining to transport. There needs to be constant communication between the national and local entities with cooperation leading to better, more suitable policies being formulated and implemented at the local level.
–
Transport in the State of the Nation Address 2013
The President of the Republic of the Philippines delivered the State of the Nation Address (SONA) last July 22, 2013. The SONA is for the mid-term as 3 years have passed since the current president was elected into office. The address was most awaited by a lot of groups. These include allies of the administration and those who have been critical of the administration. For the latter group, they would have been interested to see/hear what the SONA will report on for what seemed to them was a slow pace in the introduction and execution of reforms as well as the slow implementation of programs and projects including those regarding transport infrastructure. Of course, there is not a short supply of sycophants in Congress as in the past administrations, who would easily clap their hands at the slightest hint of accomplishment that is mentioned in the SONA. I pity their constituents who are responsible for voting them into office.
While the speech mentions a lot of gains in all fronts of the so-called war against corruption following the administration’s policy for “matuwid na daan” (straight path), the details or information most useful for people dealing with policy and technical assessments are found in the SONA Technical Report. This report is supposed to have been written based on the inputs provided by government agencies and is a more comprehensive, if not the most comprehensive, material documenting what has been accomplished so far. More importantly, it is supposed to contain material on what the administration looks forward to seeing through until the end of its term in 2016. There is the opinion that it would have been better if the report and the speech followed an outline similar to the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP 2011-2016) so that the reported accomplishments can be placed side by side with what the administration set out to do at the start of its term. Then, it would be possible to gauge clearly where we are and if indeed we are heading towards achieving our targets by 2016.
The transcript and video of the 2013 State of the Nation Address may be found in the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. That link is for the speech delivered in Filipino and a translation in English may be found through a link right after the end of the transcript. Similarly, there is a link SONA 2013 Technical Report found after the link to the translation.
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.
Network 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!
–
The Streets of Intramuros: Muralla Street
Intramuros is known as the “old” Manila as the enclave was practically The City when the Philippines was under Spain. Streets are generally narrow as they were designed at a time when there were no motor vehicles like automobiles, jeepneys, buses or trucks. People walked or rode on horses. Luxury vehicles were carriages while goods were carried by carts or people. The following photos show the stretch of Muralla Street from the Victoria Street (Bayleaf Hotel) to Real Street (Lyceum University).
Entrance to Muralla Street with the Bayleaf Hotel at left, which is run by Lyceum University
Muralla Street runs along the eastern wall of Intramuros. It is a one way street and so the photo shows a pedicab (also called padyak or sikad), a non-motorized tricycle, running counter to the flow of traffic.
These streets were made for walking – Intramuros has narrow streets and can barely accommodate two way traffic so many have been designated for one-way flow.
There are schools along the left side of the road including the Mapua Institute of Technology, Lyceum University and Colegio de San Juan de Letran. As such, there are usually many students in the area walking around, having their meals at the nearby canteens/eateries (right side) or perhaps just sitting and admiring the view from the top of the wall.
Parking is a major problem in Intramuros and one would see vehicles parked along one side of the street (evident in most of the photos in this post), obviously taking valuable space away from people and other motor vehicles (i.e., reduced road capacity).
There are many eateries or small restaurants along Muralla St. and just under the wall. These are patronized mainly by students so meals are inexpensive.
There are many pedicabs in the area with long queues at the gate waiting for passengers coming from the general direction of Padre Burgos Ave., where people can transfer to and from jeepneys serving the area. Frankly, I think there is an excessive number of pedicabs in Intramuros considering roads in the enclave can be transformed into walkable streets, just like they were during the Spanish and American periods. Notice again the on-street parking along one side of the road.
More students and more pedicabs along Muralla Street. People are used to traffic mix and generally stay clear of the space allocated for motor vehicles.
Security personnel posted along the walls are appropriately dressed as Katipuneros or Rayadillos (honor guards). The building down the street is a dormitory just beside the buildings of Lyceum University, whose buildings are split up by public streets making it tricky to define a campus for the university.
Junction of Muralla Street and Real Street with a private dormitory building at the center of the photo. Muralla Street continues along the side of the wall and proceeds all the way to Plaza Espana and the old Intendencia. Meanwhile, Real Street proceeds to the left of the dormitory. Also shown at the left is the entrance to one of the buildings comprising Lyceum University. Other buildings are behind the dorm.
–
Whatever happened to…?
Today, we step back and review a few items we have written about in this blog. I’ve chosen my top ten of what I thought were transport programs and projects that deserve to be checked. Here they are with notes on what went on from the year 2010 and the current state on these items. They are not arranged in any order so there is no item prioritized over the others.
Whatever happened to:
1. Wangwang – In 2010, the current administration through the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) implemented a program practically eradicating our roads of illegal users of sirens (wangwang) that have become a major irritant (and perhaps pet peeve) to many road users. At present, there are many reports of politicians and other (feeling) VIPs employing PNP escorts to part traffic. In some cases, motorcycle police or bodyguards in escort vehicles rudely engage other motorists and there have been allegations of some pointing guns at other drivers to force them to give way.
2. LRT Line 2 extension to Masinag – In 2010, plans to extend LRT Line 2 from Santolan to Masinag were revived. The extension is supposed to be a no-brainer considering the design of the elevated line including the two stations comprising the extension could be based on the existing Line 2. The only major modifications here would be if the stations were to be connected to the shopping malls in their areas (Sta Lucia or Robinsons Metro East at Imelda Ave/P. Tuazon and SM at Masinag). Do we really need to have another study to tell us how many people will be riding Line 2 should it be extended to Masinag? The number of people waiting at Katipunan, Santolan and the Metro East/Sta. Lucia and the number of jeepneys cutting trips are strong indications of demand. In fact, I believe the line should be extended all the way to Cogeo but then the design there is more challenging as that extension would be up the mountains of Antipolo.
3. EDSA-MRT capacity expansion – The past 3 years have seen a steady increase in users of rail mass transit in Metro Manila and particularly as congestion along our roads continue to worsen. EDSA is always congested and the experience of last Monday’s monstrous congestion along the corridor reminded us of just how important a higher capacity MRT Line 3 would be to ease congestion along EDSA. The bidding for the rolling stock have been delayed and there might be a need to expand stations in the future to accommodate the longer trains required to serve the demand for this line. Needless to say, the only option now is to increase service frequencies but these have limitations.
4. Cebu Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Much work has been rendered for the Cebu BRT, which was touted as the less costly (compared to rail transit) solution to traffic woes in Philippine cities. After a presentation of the Cebu BRT in Malacanang, the President was supposed to have asked for a “proof of concept” for the transit system before giving his approval for the project to be implemented. This boggles our minds because it is not like the BRT is a conceptual system. In fact, there are BRTs that are currently operational in many countries including our neighbors in ASEAN. Among the most successful lines are found in Brazil (Curitiba) and Colombia (Bogota), and there is also the success story of the Lagos (Nigeria) BRT where the transit system has succeeded despite the odds it faced from the start.
5. NAIA Terminal 3 parking building – I have written about this before and it remains a pet peeve of mine considering I and the wife are frequent flyers who used Terminal 3 every month in 2011 and 2012. It’s difficult to get parking space at Terminal 3, especially slots for leaving one’s vehicle overnight or a few days (e.g., for business trips). The news is that the government is now working towards having T3 fully operational by 2014 and so there is hope that the multi-level parking facility will also be finally opened for use by the public.
6. Organized Bus Route (OBR) – Unlike the UVVRP or number coding, which has evolved little since its inception in the 1990s, the OBR has somewhat mutated but with little impact along the stretch of EDSA where it is supposed to contribute to significant improvements to traffic. The latest version is a dispatching system using computer tools. The jury is still out there regarding the success or failure of the system but the scheme still does not address the root cause of problems regarding bus operations along EDSA including the perceived over-supply of buses, colorum (illegal) buses, and overlapping routes.
7. Metro Manila BRT – The Pre-Feasibility Study for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) was completed back in 2006. The MMDA has attempted to come up with its version of the BRT but has failed to implement plans along EDSA and C5. In the last 2 years, however, there has been some activity with the World Bank pushing the DOTC to identify a corridor for a Metro Manila BRT line. Two corridors so far have been studied: Ortigas Avenue (Aurora Blvd to Tikling) and Quezon Ave./Espana (Philcoa to Lerma). The project so far has also been subject to the “proof of concept” challenge.
8. Clark Airport expansion – The number of flights at Clark is steadily increasing as more passengers have been using the airport for both domestic and international flights. Flights are served by budget airlines like Cebu Pacific and Air Asia, and allows passengers from Central and Northern Luzon a close airport for international travel. There is a need for a larger terminal for Clark and the master plan for the airport has called for a facility that would allow the airport to handle passengers of the magnitude currently being served by NAIA. Unfortunately, there is no pronouncement yet about whether NAIA, Clark or both will serve as the gateway(s) to the National Capital Region and surrounding regions.
9. Northrail – The rail line was supposed to provide a high speed connection between Metro Manila and Clark, connecting what is now Bonifacio Global City (Fort Bonifacio) and the Clark International Airport, which are developments that were under the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). After so many years and several proponents, there are now plans for an airport express train connecting Metro Manila with Clark but it seems something that is still at the study stage and quite far from being implemented.
10. NAIA Terminal 1 renovations – In 2010, a group of architects and designers came up with a plan to renovate and upgrade NAIA’s Terminal 1. The government dropped this proposal in 2011 and had the project bidded out with the original designer of T1 emerging as the winner. Nothing happened after that and now the news is that the DOTC is engaging the designers to work with the winning firm to finally work on the much maligned T1. This is a project a lot of people would like to see implemented as T1 serves most of the international flights connecting to Manila. Currently, only PAL, Ceb Pac and ANA use T2 and T3. All other airlines use T1, which means most foreigners likely have a first impression of the country based on what they see in T1.
–
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:
From the GMA News website:
–
There goes the neighborhood!
Being frequent visitors to Tagaytay, we couldn’t help but be dismayed with the recent developments there featuring high rise buildings. The first to do this was Robinsons Land, which constructed the first tall building in the Summit Ridge hotel and residential condominium along the national highway, just past the Taal Vista Hotel.
 |
| A traveler’s view from the highway – Robinson’s Summit at left is surrounded by SM’s Wind. The sign of Josephine’s Restaurant is visible at right in the photo. |
This project meant the inevitable entry of competitor SM in the area. What we initially thought was a smart move by SM in acquiring the Taal Vista Hotel paved the way for the retail giant to acquire more land for development, which included the much hyped Wind Residences beside (and surrounding Robinsons’ Summit Ridge.
 |
| SMDC’s Wind Residences in Tagaytay |
Closely following SM is a development by Cityland near the rotunda, which eerily looked like just one of the ill-conceived boxes they call condominiums in Metro Manila. We couldn’t help but notice that there is generally a lack of landscaping or open spaces to complement the high-rise buildings so there is little or no effort in making the buildings and the lands where they’re built blend with the environment.
For a tourist destination like Tagaytay, it seemed to me that it would be in their best interest to have no buildings perhaps beyond medium rise ( 4 or 5 floors max?). The prevailing perception now is that the city did not do its job in regulating such high density developments. Granted, there are many people who wish to have their own houses in Tagaytay and property values there are climbing. Why else would major players be racing to build high-priced residential developments? And it seems that some developers thought that best approach which addresses demand seems to be the high-rise option. Unfortunately, “best” here seems to be equated to “most profitable” rather than “most sustainable.” Nevermind that the buildings now obscure the view and the sun for many residents of the surrounding areas (not just those living along the ridge). Nevermind that these developments will require much water and other resources for the maintenance alone. Were these elements even considered in the impact assessments of these developments? Did the Environmental Management Bureau do its part in ensuring that the developments conform to standards and regulations?
Now comes what is touted as the tallest ferris wheel in the country, which brings me to the question of why do people go to Tagaytay? To ride a Ferris Wheel? I don’t think so… The local government seemed too eager to approve major projects here and there without looking at a sustainable future for the city. High intensity developments such as the high rise residential buildings currently under construction in the city will eventually put too much pressure on precious resources including water supply and also scar the landscape (I don’t want to use the term cityscape.) with structures that basically do not conform with the character of Tagaytay. These are also sure to add to vehicle traffic that’s already concentrated along the national highway and there are poor facilities for pedestrians including a lack of sidewalks/walkways and safe crossings along the highway.
 |
| Amusement park and convention center facilities beside the Taal Vista Hotel |
Of course, this is only my opinion and one of so many other opinions regarding development. Perhaps people living in the area accept such developments as they represent income for the LGUs (Tagaytay, Silang and Amadeo are the ones most directly benefiting from the developments.) and jobs for people residing in the area. These were definitely considerations in the process of approval for these projects and probably weighed more than other factors that required attention. I just hope that a sustainable future was not sacrificed by people who opted to earn a quick buck from these projects.
–
Criminality along congested roads
There’s been a rash of criminality along congested roads in Metro Manila. Recently, there have been reports of hold-ups and snatching along Circumferential Road 5 near its junction with Kalayaan Avenue. The suspects are said to be youngsters, teenage boys or even street-smart children, who roam the area and keeping an eye on opportunities for snatching among the hundreds of vehicles crawling along C5 during the peak periods. They look for unlocked doors of cars or taxis and in many cases team-up to confuse the driver and/or the passenger(s). In some instances where they can’t find unlocked doors they supposedly create opportunities by banging the body of the vehicle and goading the driver to step out of the vehicle.
Vehicles at a standstill along C5 approaching the intersection with Kalayaan Ave – the center island is visible in the photo.
A few years ago, there was a feature on so-called “batang hamog” (roughly translated as children of the dew) opening doors of vehicles caught in traffic jams along EDSA. They snatch items like bags, cellphones or other items that they see through the vehicle’s windows as they loiter along the carriageway. CCTV footage from the MMDA show them to be quite quick in making their getaways. In some footage they are shown as climbing up the wall of the EDSA MRT, which is in the middle of EDSA, crossing the tracks and then climbing down on the other side, oblivious to the dangers of an oncoming train and the crash it might cause that could injure (even kill) many passengers.
A few weeks ago, a colleague and I saw some youths suspiciously scanning jeepneys caught in traffic near the Manila City Hall. My friend remarked that they might be searching for unwary passengers whom they can rob of their bags or jewelry. This modus operandi or mode of operation seems to be a favorite among snatchers in Metro Manila. I myself was almost a victim one time I was heading home on board a jeepney along Shaw Boulevard in Mandaluyong when a guy tried to make for my watch as the jeepney started to move. Fortunately, he failed as I reacted quickly and I saw a smirk on his face as our jeepney sped away.
Now, this kind of criminality is not something that our authorities cannot address. Surely, the Makati and Taguig police together with the MMDA can make a regular sweep of the length of C5 where these suspects are supposed to loiter given that the latter’s activities are quite predictable in time and modus operandi. It’s both frustrating and disappointing when officials make excuses on TV and radio interviews why they cannot catch or deter these criminals from harassing motorists and pedestrians. Hindi naman siguro talaga pwede magamit ang patrol car kapag ma-traffic at pinaka-epektibo ay magkaroon ng foot patrol sa lugar. They can have police and enforcers roam the same areas at the same times when there’s traffic congestion and therefore, a high likelihood that the suspects will be there.Those people aren’t supposed to be roaming the carriageway or loitering along the center island of C5 in the first place since to do that they would be jaywalking along a very busy road and risk being hit by a motor vehicle.
I believe police visibility is only effective if they are actually visible and when required, give chase of the suspects. The problem seems to be that the police and enforcers are usually just at the C5-Kalayaan intersection, focused on number-coding violators, and those who are supposed to be patrolling don’t want to leave the comfort of their vehicles. Surely again, we expect our law enforcers to be fit and ready to run after suspected criminals. After all, that’s what they are supposed to be doing in the first place. It would be nice to see them patrolling the area on foot and accosting people who are not supposed to be in the area.
–
Traffic congestion and the limits of quick fixes
One time last summer night, it took me 2.5 hours to get to the airport from where I reside when it should only be an hour or 1.5 hours (on a typical bad day). Very early mornings (between 2 to 4 AM), it only takes me 40 minutes between my home an the airport. The route I usually take is mainly along Circumferential Road 5 (C-5); a route that basically has sparse public transport (mostly jeepneys along different sections) but is a truck route. It was summer though and one would have thought that there would be less vehicles along the road with school still out. I was wrong in that assumption and that cost me both time and fuel that night.
Traffic congestion in Metro Manila and other Philippine cities have been issues for such a long time that one tends to assume there’s nothing being done to fix the problem. In Metro Manila, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), in cooperation with the various local governments and national agencies, has implemented various schemes including the number coding, truck ban and a bus dispatch system along EDSA. Yet, congestion persists and only last week, the President got caught in traffic as he traveled from Malacanang Palace in Manila to the DOST Compound in Taguig. The news was filled with a comment that he supposedly made to the MMDA Chair about the delay he and his entourage experienced. The bad news is that this congestion will not go away and will only worsen if there are no steps taken to address the problem. And this happens not only in Metro Manila but in other highly urbanized cities in the country. Quite obviously, quick fixes are no longer enough and we have reached the limits of their applicability.
EDSA during the morning rush hours
EDSA during the afternoon peak, which actually extends to an evening and even nighttime traffic jam
So how do we alleviate traffic congestion? Here’s three things that come to mind as they seem to be quite logical and very obvious:
1. Build the mass transit infrastructure required – these infra include rail and bus rapid transit systems and are urgently needed in Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, Davao and other highly urbanized cities. A shift from private vehicle use to public transport will not happen if people have no attractive options for commuting. In Metro Manila, there is a backlog of mass transit projects with lines that should have been constructed and operational years or even decades ago.
2. Rationalize transport services – the long standing practice is to increase the number of existing modes of transport as the demand increases. This logic is one that is most abused as a doubling of demand is conveniently but incorrectly interpreted as requiring a corresponding doubling of the number of tricycles or jeepneys, for example. What is required is for our cities to “graduate” from low capacity and less efficient modes to higher capacity and more efficient ones. Many cities seem plagued with tricycles as their main modes of transport within their CBDs when these should have been restricted to residential areas and mainly in the periphery rather than allowed to dominate (and clog) urban streets.
3. Build more walkways and cycling facilities – its difficult to encourage people to walk and cycle if there are no space for pedestrians and cyclists to travel safely and efficiently. Most trips are actually short ones and do not require motor vehicles so it makes sense to invest in pedestrian and cycling facilities so people get the clear message of support for such options for travel. Such investment is also one for healthy living as walking and cycling are forms of exercise and it is well established that these modes of transport promote healthier lifestyles and therefore, healthier people in cities.
–
Caught (up) in traffic 