Home » Policy (Page 43)
Category Archives: Policy
“Unsung heroes” for sustainable transport in the Philippines
A “Bayanihan sa Daan” is being held today at Malacanan. It is supposed to be a recognition of sorts for organisations, local governments and individuals who have contributed or advocated for people-friendly (i.e., pedestrians and bicyclists) roads and cities in the Philippines. I am glad to see some cities that we have assisted or advised being recognised as well as organisations that we have collaborated with who are present at the event. Unlike them, we were not invited to the event nor have we been recognised by the current administration for our efforts in promoting sustainable transport. Perhaps it is because it is a given in our center’s mandate and the recognition is really for those who went out of their way to initiate, promote or implement programs and projects for people-friendly transport.
There are names I could mention in our organization who have done a lot for sustainable transport in general, whose works in more than a decade have helped increase awareness on environmentally sustainable transport (EST) among national agencies and local governments and have spawned. They have conducted so many workshops, seminars and consultations with agencies like the DOTC, DPWH, DENR and MMDA, and LGUs including all Metro Manila cities and municipalities, Cebu City, Davao City, Cagayan de Oro City, Baguio City, Iloilo City and others. These were done at a time when these entities had little knowledge of sustainable transport and international agencies were uncertain about whether they should engage and who they should engage for EST and related initiatives.
I defer from naming these responsible and progressive people as I know they would prefer to remain rather anonymous but working effectively to realize sustainable transport in the Philippines. I do know they are selfless and tireless in their advocacies for sustainable transport unlike others who seem to be on-board because of the bandwagon or because it is fashionable to do so. There are those, too, who seem to be in it for the past many years but are actually only hangers-on and interested more in the funding and not in coming up with sustainable transport systems. I hope that these sustainable transport initiatives can themselves be sustained. It’s one thing to be loud about your advocacies and appear as a hardcore proponent without actually having any results to show, and another to be a silent worker whose works actually formed the foundation for current initiatives and continue to work behind the scenes to implement EST in the Philippine setting.
–
The Metro Manila Urban Transportation Strategy and Planning Project (MMUTSTRAP, 1983)
I continue on my feature on past studies on transport in Metro Manila. The Metro Manila Urban Transportation Strategy and Planning Project (MMUTSTRAP) was conducted from November 1982 to April 1983, with support from the Australian Development Assistance Bureau – the precursor of AusAID. The study was conceptualized by a Metro Manila Transportation Policy Committee that consisted of the Ministers of the then Ministry of Transportation and Communications (now DOTC) and Ministry of Public Works and Highways (now DPWH), the Vice Governor of what was the Metro Manila Commission (now MMDA), and the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police (now PNP). The Philippine Government-funded study examined alternative futures on Metro Manila’s development and used these as the basis for formulating alternative futures for public transport modes. These futures did not mention UTSMMA and its the recommendations for an RTR but presented pessimistic, most likely and optimistic scenarios for PNR, LRT bus and jeepneys.
The study examined recommendations of past studies, most specifically the more recent MMETROPLAN and MMUTIP. MMUTSTRAP seem to contradict MMETROPLAN’s recommendations to encourage the entry of new bus and jeepney operators rather than restricting or controlling these as it (MMUTSTRAP) concluded that “deregulation is not a viable alternative for urban public transportation in Metro Manila.” It further explained that deregulation is justified on the assumption that the main objective in urban public transport is simply to make it a profitable business. To the contrary, the study pointed out that there are other objectives such as adequate service to the public and safety, which should be placed above profitability. This last statement reverberates over the decades to the present when it seems to many that the objective of urban public transport is more on the “profit side” rather than the “adequate and safe aspect” of something that it supposed to be a public service.
The study explored strategies for traffic management and various travel demand management (TDM) measures including area traffic restraint similar to what Singapore had already implemented at the time. A significant output of MMUTSTRAP was a prioritization plan for transport projects and policies for Metro Manila. This included the ranking of projects for implementation in Metro Manila such as:
- Pending road projects
- Potential road projects
- Urgent traffic signals
- Potential pedestrian projects
- Potential transit projects
- Terminal projects
Examples of the transport projects ranked by MMUTSTRAP are shown in Tables A and B for pending road projects, and potential transit projects. An index was developed based on perceived importance of the project and the associated costs.
Table A – Ranking of pending road projects identified in MMUTSTRAP (1983)
| Brief description | Rank | Index |
| Visayas Avenue extension: Elliptical Road to C-6 | 1 | 66.4 |
| Mindanao Avenue Extension: North Avenue to C-6 | 2 | 66.1 |
| C-5 construction: MacArthur Highway to North Expressway | 3 | 64.0 |
| Makati-Mandaluyong Link Road | 4 | 61.4 |
| Loop Road: from Bicutan to Alabang | 5 | 61.2 |
| C-6 construction: North Expressway to M. Marcos Avenue | 6 | 61.1 |
| Widen R-10: C-1 to Dagat-dagatan Spine | 7 | 60.7 |
| C-3 construction: Rizal Avenue to G. Araneta Extension | 8 | 60.5 |
| C-3 improvement: G. Araneta to Aurora Boulevard | 9 | 59.5 |
| Widen South Superhighway | 10 | 58.7 |
| C-4 interchange with Boni Avenue | 11 | 58.6 |
| C-5 construction: R-4 to Pasig Boulevard to Aurora Boulevard | 12 | 58.5 |
| R-4 construction: EDSA to Pasig/Pateros | 13 | 57.9 |
| R-5 construction: Kapasigan to Taytay Diversion | 14 | 57.7 |
| C-5 construction: North Expressway to Aurora Boulevard | 15 | 56.2 |
| C-3 works: Ayala Avenue to Tripa de Gallina | 16 | 55.9 |
| C-3 construction: N. Domingo to Ayala Avenue | 17 | 55.7 |
| Widen Domestic Road: MIA Road to Airport Road | 18 | 55.5 |
| C-4 extension: Taft Avenue to Roxas Boulevard | 19 | 55.3 |
| C-4 interchange with Roosevelt Avenue | 20 | 55.2 |
| C-4 interchange with Ortigas Avenue | 21 | 54.7 |
| C-4 interchanges with Ayala Avenue and Pasay Road | 22 | 54.1 |
| C-4 interchange with Santolan Road | 23 | 53.7 |
| C-4 interchange with Kamias/East Avenue | 24 | 53.2 |
| C-4 interchange with Buendia Avenue | 25 | 52.2 |
| C-5 construction: R-4 to South Superhighway | 26 | 52.1 |
| Widen Parañaque to Sucat Road | 27 | 51.8 |
| Re-align western 1.6 km of Zapote-Alabang Road | 28 | 49.3 |
| R-10 Construction | 29 | 49.1 |
Notes: The codes C and R stand for Circumferential and Radial, respectively, and refer to the main road network of Metro Manila. These roads are more commonly known by other names such as, for example, EDSA (C-4), Aurora Boulevard (R-6) and España Boulevard (R-7).
Table B – Ranking of potential transit projects identified in MMUTSTRAP (1983)
| Brief description | Ranking based on assessment by project team | Ranking based on evaluation from selected MOTC panel | Index |
| Bus replacementa | 1 | 1 | 55.6 |
| PNR Commuter additional coaches and upgrade | 2 | 2 | 50.8 |
| LRT Line #2 – EDSA | 3 | 3 | 44.4 |
| Surface tramway – Radial road along Españab | – | 4 | 43.9 |
| LRT Line #3 – Radial along España | 4 | 5 | 43.0 |
aAssumed that additional bus units will not be needed in the next 5 years with replacements likely after 1987.
bProject proposed by one of the members of the MOTC panel. This was treated as an alternative (on a mutually exclusive basis) to LRT Line #3, rather than an independent project for ranking.
[Reference: MMUTSTRAP, 1983 – NCTS Library]
Earlier studies recommended projects but did not show lists ranking projects in terms of an objective index or criteria. MMUTSTRAP did a good job in coming up with this idea or basis that was transparent and objective in evaluating projects. The criteria, however, is based mainly on perception of those involved in the study and, arguably, such perceptions may vary according to the knowledge and experiences of those involved in the evaluation. This is where the biases lie in as far as project prioritisation was concerned for this project. Perhaps a more participatory approach could have been conducted? Of course, it can be argued that at this time, both capacity and capability of local governments and national agencies were quite limited and so these have to be dependent on consultants (i.e., the study team) for their assessment and recommendations.
–
To regulate or not to regulate: Uber vs taxis
To regulate or not to regulate. That seems to be the issue here in the case of Uber. One respected former top government official, offered his opinion on the matter through his newspaper column where he mentions a “regulatory overreach” by the Land Transport Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). Perhaps the agency did not exert all efforts or go the extra mile to assess the situation regarding Uber? Perhaps the agency acted in favor of taxi operators who have complained about Uber services? The information available states the affirmative. The LTFRB itself confirmed that it acted on the complaint filed by a group of taxi operators but they memo alone is unclear of how the board ended up with their decision. Maybe they did not really have a more exhaustive deliberation, looking at the Uber case from other (more progressive) perspectives.
One lawyer friend of ours gave an opinion that Uber should not be treated as a regular taxi whose services are available to everyone and therefore requires a franchise being a public utility. Rather, Uber can be seen instead as an exclusive club with members providing and/or availing of services. Membership in the club is not automatic but has to go through an application process with certain criteria to be satisfied by applicants just like any other exclusive organizations. In Uber’s case, the application process as well as the means to avail of services are facilitated by an app, a software available now through smartphones or tablets. Being an exclusive club, it can also charge for services rendered and fees can be agreed upon by members just like what is done in other clubs. This is an acceptable interpretation of how Uber can be seen though it still does not address liability issues in case a vehicle and its occupants are involved in a crash. However, this last concern is precisely what the LTFRB should be discussing with Uber and perhaps insisting for the service to address immediately. This would be the more progressive and proactive approach in handling this case.
I agree that there is a need to review many of our laws, not just on transport, in order to address the many changes that has happened over the years and especially in light of the rapid developments enabled by technological advances and innovations. Many years ago, we have worked with the DOTC to come up with an initiative to review road transport laws and regulations in order to determine, for example, which are outdated and which are conflicting with others. Unfortunately, this initiative seems to have evaporated with the change in the administrations of involved transport agencies back in 2010. So far, what we have read and heard are calls for reviewing laws and regulations specifically related to public utility vehicles in relation to taxis and consequently, Uber.
Meanwhile, taxi services in the country and especially in Metro Manila continue to be found wanting in terms of quality of service. Many continue to be shunned or turned down by taxi cab drivers who tend to be selective of their passengers’ destinations. The most common reason for this is perceived (or imagined) traffic congestion along streets leading to the destination. Then there are the more serious cases of swindling, holdups, abductions, and even murder. Modus operandi include taxi drivers collaborating with criminals to rob or kidnap passengers. News and social media are full of these horror stories that make one think twice about riding a cab, especially at night. Of course, not all taxi services are like this and there are examples of good taxi services in Metro Manila and other cities. On top of my very short list is a certain taxi company that’s popular in Iloilo City, Light of Glory. However, these examples are not enough to convince many that they should not have a more comfortable, more secure and perhaps safer option for transport, which is what Uber is claiming it provides. Ultimately, though, public transport services in Metro Manila and elsewhere in the country need to be improved and fast in the interest of most people who take public transportation everyday. That way, many people won’t really need to avail of other, more exclusive services, for their transport needs.
–
The curious case of Uber in the Philippines
Before anything else, I must first state that I have not used Uber in the Philippines nor have I used it elsewhere. Its probably because I have not found a use for it…yet. In cities in other countries that I have traveled to, I often use public transport and cities with good mass transit systems have very high marks for me. There are taxi services in these cities and I have had mixed experiences with taxis in Bangkok and even Singapore. I think Japan’s taxis are excellent and locally, Iloilo’s taxis particularly that of one company should be the model for city taxi services in the country.
The services offered by Uber reminds me of the evolution of UV Express or FX services. Back in the 1990s, private vehicle owners/drivers saw an opportunity to “earn a few pesos” by offering a ride to people waiting along the road. An AUV driver, for example, bound for Makati from Quezon City would take in a few passengers for an agreed fee and the collection would help him defray costs of fuel as well as of maintenance for a trip that he would likely make alone if he didn’t offer rides to others. He had no coverage for his passengers should they be involved in a crash and they even conspired to claim they were carpooling or were friends if accosted by authorities (i.e., when suspected to be running a colorum vehicle). This is practically the same service offered through Uber. The only difference being that Uber employs an app to facilitate “service contract” between driver and passenger. The app basically makes the agreement discrete and unknown to regulators of transport services.
Like the predecessors of UV Express services, Uber service providers serve a segment of commuters who have difficulties getting a public transport ride and are likely also to be frustrated or disgruntled about the poor quality of public transport services. This is not limited to taxi services but encompass bus, jeepney, UV Express, tricycle and rail transport that a majority of commuters regularly take to go to their offices, schools or other destinations. I purposely omitted walking and cycling here as everybody essentially walks and cycling is not really a transport service along the lines of public utility vehicles.
Very recently, the Land Transport Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) ruled that Uber is illegal, basically classifying it as colorum – terminology for vehicles illegally operating as public transport. Is the agency totally wrong about their ruling against Uber? While I haven’t seen the decision or read any memos regarding this, I would assume that the board had its reasons and some of these are reasonable, sound bases for such a memo. For one, regular public transport services require insurance for carrying passengers. Regular insurance taken by private car owners covers the driver and the passengers who ride for free but public transport carry passengers for a fee (fares) and thus drivers and the operators have a bigger responsibility particularly with regard to safety. This question on liability is perhaps the biggest question for Uber and the people behind it. I think this will be a good topic for law schools to take up and perhaps a good subject for debates for and against the service.
However, the bigger question perhaps, and especially to netizens who vented their anger at the LTFRB for the decision against Uber, is: Are you really angry because of the LTFRB decision against Uber or because you are unhappy about transport services in Metro Manila (and elsewhere in the country general)? Online articles have become a feast for trolls as they typed in their scorchers for the agency but I am willing to bet most of these haven’t even taken an Uber vehicle prior to their posting their opinions online. Most know about Uber as a concept or as an app but haven’t read or learned about experiences elsewhere and why it has become popular or notorious depending on the conditions where it is operating. While people I know have used it and benefited from the service, there should still be safeguards for users who essentially do not know who will drive up to pick them up for their trip. Definitely, there are security and safety concerns that need to be clarified here. Also, would this lead to people who would take this up as a full-time job rather than as something more like a “for-hire” car or van-pool? And lastly, we should not be distracted and lose sight of the ultimate goal. That is, we should push for better transport systems and services so that Uber and other similar services would not be essential for our commutes. –
Undergraduate research topics on transportation for AY2014-2015
The Transportation Engineering Group (TEG) of the Institute of Civil Engineering (ICE) recently finalised the researches to be implemented by undergraduate students assigned to the group.
- Calibrating car-following and lane-changing models for local traffic micro-simulators
- Effects of clear yielding rules at weaving sections
- Evaluation of re-opening of traffic signals along Katipunan Avenue
- Shuttle service for University of the Philippines Diliman employees
- Analysing trip-cutting behaviour of jeepneys and UV express with respect tot he LRT Line 2 Santolan and Katipunan Stations
- Assessment of pedestrian facilities along Ortigas Avenue Extension and Marcos Highway
- Study on satellite parking system for UP Diliman
- Road safety audit checklist for expressways
- Study on Philippine National Railways (PNR) station congestion
- Using drones for analysis of weaving sections, and traffic circulation in roundabouts
- Air quality assessment at the Centennial Dormitory along C.P. Garcia Avenue
- Estimating bus passenger demand between UP Diliman and UP Los Banos
- Mode choice modelling of new transport systems
- On-road energy efficiency of alternative fuel vehicles
Note that several topics in the list are focused on issues concerning the UP Diliman campus. These are a continuation of studies geared at providing solutions to transport or traffic problems at UP’s flagship campus sprawled over an area of 493 hectares. The above are working titles at best as students taking up the topics are supposed to develop their research proposals (complete with literature review, methodology and budget) this semester and then implement these in the next semester. Since UP has already adjusted its academic calendar, research implementation will be undertaken from January to May 2015.
–
Metro Manila Urban Transport Improvement Project (MMUTIP, 1981)
[Important note: I have noticed that the material on this blog site has been used by certain people to further misinformation including revisionism to credit the Marcos dictatorship and put the blame on subsequent administrations (not that these also had failures of their own). This and other posts on past projects present the facts about the projects and contain minimal opinions, if any on the politics or political economy at the time and afterwards. Do your research and refrain from using the material on this page and others to promote misinformation. I suggest you go to the The Mass Transit System in Metro Manila site for more facts about railway development and history. I do not consent to the use of my articles for the purposes of misinformation and historical revisionism. 10/13/2019]
We continue with our historical features on transport with the Metro Manila Urban Transport Improvement Project (MMUTIP). MMUTIP was implemented from July 1980 to August 1981 with funding from the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF) of Japan. MMUTIP recommended for a new franchising system to be adopted by the then Board of Transportation (BOT), with standards covering citizenship, route opening, operating performance and financial capability. It also called for the adoption of measures that will safeguard the integrity of franchise records and the speedy processing and better control of franchise applications. The BOT is the precursor of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).
Additional bus routes were identified by the study and recommended for 5,900 units for daily operations. The study estimated that as much as 1,870 additional units were required for Metro Manila. Meanwhile, the study found the operations of the Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC), the government owned bus company, unprofitable and stated that the government-run company has failed to define objectives and policies particularly in specifying the extent to which MMTC will render public service at the sacrifice of profit (note that MMTC was losing money in part because it was serving missionary routes so as to reduce direct competition with the private companies). I think looking back now, this was perhaps the beginning of the end for MMTC. Some people say that we could probably have used something like the MMTC today to keep public transport operators honest in their operations and also to continue providing services for missionary routes rather than letting these be served by tricycles and jeepneys that will eventually would have to be granted franchises. As it is, such situations often lead to poorly planned transport services including the (mis)determination of the number of PUV units required to serve an area or corridor.
MMUTIP recommended for the control of entry and operation of jeepneys along major bus routes while at the same time calling for a deregulation of entry and operations outside major thoroughfares, which were served or are more suitable for buses. Further, the study called for encouraging tricycle services where bus and jeepney routes are scarce while also stating that these should be limited to local or feeder services. Then as now, tricycles are restricted from national roads.
[Note: A copy of MMUTIP may be found at the National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) Library located at their building along Apacible Street at the University of the Philippines Diliman. This is not a public library so access is limited to UP staff and students. Researchers and others from outside UP would have to write to the Director for permission to use the library and its holdings.]
–
Bad P.R. for road sharing
A few articles came out of Sun Star Cebu recently regarding an activity over the weekend that was supposed to promote road sharing. I read four articles by different opinion writers. These may be found in the following links:
- A crazy exercise [Bobby Nalzaro, September 28, 2014]
- Sharing narrow roads [Opinion, September 29, 2014]
- Road sharing, road rage [Eddie Barrita, September 30, 2014]
- Green Loop’s faulty premises [Bong Wenceslao, September 30, 2014]
The first three articles seem to be more like reactions of motorists to activities that seek to promote road sharing and cycling in particular. The writers missed the point in so far as road sharing is concerned and are definitely biased towards the status quo in terms of road usage. However, some of their observations need to be qualified as certain roads seem to have been closed with little advise to the general public, many of whom take public transport. The last article is the more grounded one and explains the perspective of non-bikers who are public transport users. This is the calmer opinion among the four and expresses his points in a more objective manner.
I was not there and I haven’t read yet any articles from the organizers or participants to the activity. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt in so far as their advocacy is concerned. But then one also has to consider the valid points raised by other road users whenever road sharing is equated to cycling rather than a more balanced mix that is focused towards maximising the number of people or amount of goods transported. It is not only a question of space but of efficiency of movement. Bicycles might be efficient in energy but unfortunately it is not the most efficient in terms of the number of people carried between origins and destinations. And we can never decongest our streets in order to make more space for cyclists and pedestrians if we cannot come up with efficient public transport systems that will encourage people to leave their cars or not to buy one in the first place. It can be argued that people are actually opting for motorcycles than bicycles for commuting – another trend that needs to be understood from the perspective of people making these choices for their transport needs.
–
Let’s revisit the Marikina Bikeways
Calls for more walkable and bicycle-friendly cities and a lack of local data for these modes of transport got me thinking about Marikina. The city has its own bikeways office, the Marikina City Bikeways Office (MCBO), that was under City Planning and Development Office but borrowed staff from other offices of the city. The MCBO has gone through many challenges since the time of Bayani Fernando, who instituted the office, and his wife Ma. Lourdes under whose terms the office was downgraded. I’ve learned that the office has been strengthened recently and is implementing a few programs to promote cycling especially among school children. I wonder, though, if Marikina has been collecting and keeping tabs on cycling related data. I recall that during the conduct of the study for the Marikina bikeways network, it was established that there was a dearth of data on cycling and data collected pointed to cyclists primarily comprised of workers in factories or construction sites in the city and neighbouring areas. These are the regular commuters using bicycles instead of motorised vehicles. It would be nice to see if these increased in numbers (observations along major roads like Sumulong Highway seems to support the increase) and if there have also been shifts to motorcycles as the latter became more affordable in recent years. Enforcement is still an issue with regards to the bikeways as not all paths are segregated. As such, those lanes painted on the roads are more susceptible to encroachment by motorised vehicles. Still, Marikina is a very good example of realising people-friendly infrastructure and many LGUs could learn from the city’s experiences with the bikeways.
A bicycle bridge along Sumulong Highway in Marikina City
Recently, some students consulted about designing bikeways in other cities as well as in a bike sharing program being planned for the University of the Philippines Diliman campus. These are good indicators of the interest in cycling that includes what discussions on the design of cycling facilities and programs intended to promote bicycle use especially among young people. We strongly recommended for them to check out Marikina to see the variety of treatments for bikeways as well as the examples for ordinances that support and promote cycling.
–
The return of traffic signals at Katipunan
It’s been more than a decade since the MMDA implemented what was formally called the Grand Rotunda Scheme. To most, it will always be the U-turn scheme that was implemented all around Metro Manila. After seeing what seemed like success along roads like Commonwealth and Quezon Avenue, it was concluded that the U-turns were the answer to Metro Manila’s traffic woes or at least the part that’s blamed on signalized intersections. The perception by many at the time was that traffic signals were not working and caused so much congestion as evidenced by the long queues at intersections. This is not entirely false as intersections with in-optimal settings would definitely bring about congestion especially along corridors or networks where signals are not coordinated. It was, however, a generalization at a large scale and led to more experiments of opening and closing slots in order to determine which would be the most effective combinations. These experiments and their outcomes include drivers becoming more aggressive in order to maneuver ahead of others at the U-turn slots. Weaving has become the norm and in many cases have increased the risk of road crashes.
Traffic signals have been installed and the section of the median island has been removed across Ateneo’s Gate 3. This will become a three-leg intersections once again but I hope the signals will not favor Ateneo over through traffic along C5.
Traffic lights are already installed along the southbound side of Katipunan at the approach to the junction with Miriam College’s Main Gate. This will be a four-leg intersection as across Miriam is B. Gonzales Street that connects to Esteban Abada.
The signals are supposed to be operational starting September 13, which is a Saturday. Perhaps this is to try it out first during that weekend and for the MMDA to do some tweaks before the real deal that is traffic on Monday. But then how can you simulate traffic generated by the two schools in the area except maybe if there is significant enough traffic on Saturday? Did the MMDA or its consultants do some simulation using their computers and the VISSIM software they acquired many years ago? Or will we see more of the experiments as signals are fine-tuned according to the conditions along Katipunan?
We are hopeful that the signals along Katipunan will help improve the traffic along this very busy corridor. The results for sections of C5 from Libis (QC) to Ugong (Pasig) are promising and many people I know have told me that traffic has improved. Of course, this may also be partly due to the one-lane policy the MMDA has implemented for trucks. It’s never just one scheme or measure that will work wonders for Metro Manila traffic. It will always be a combination that will alleviate traffic woes in the metropolis. We’ll soon know what will become of traffic along Katipunan. We should, however, temper expectations at least for the 6:30 – 7:30 AM period during weekdays when traffic peaks in the vicinity of Ateneo and Miriam. The sheer volume of vehicles generated by the schools will overwhelm any system that is put up in the area. Nevertheless, for the rest of the day at least traffic flow should improve when signals are operational once again for Katipunan.
–
Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and Development Planning Project (MMETROPLAN, 1977)
[Important note: I have noticed that the material on this blog site has been used by certain people to further misinformation including revisionism to credit the Marcos dictatorship and put the blame on subsequent administrations (not that these also had failures of their own). This and other posts on past projects present the facts about the projects and contain minimal opinions, if any on the politics or political economy at the time and afterwards. Do your research and refrain from using the material on this page and others to promote misinformation. I suggest you go to the The Mass Transit System in Metro Manila site for more facts about railway development and history. I do not consent to the use of my articles for the purposes of misinformation and historical revisionism. 10/13/2019]
In a previous article, I had written about the Urban Transport Study for the Manila Metropolitan Area (UTSMMA), which was completed in 1973 and proposed, among others, a rapid rail transit network for Metro Manila. The government proceeded to undertake a feasibility study for the first line of that network almost immediately afterwards. However, something happened a few years later that effectively contradicted UTSMMA’s recommendations and, from what the documents available to us now suggest, effectively doomed the future of transport in Metro Manila.
The Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and Development Planning Project (MMETROPLAN) was implemented from January 1976 to February 1977. It was apparently commissioned by the Philippine Government, and funded by the World Bank, which commissioned the precursor of Halcrow Fox to do the study with a steering group comprised of senior government official dealing with transport at the time.
The MMETROPLAN project team is shown in the photo below. Note the inclusion of some familiar names particularly from the DPWH and DOTC who were then with what was the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications (DPWTC) and Department of Public Highways (DPH) before these were reorganised. Note, too, a familiar name under Planning, who is very much active today with his own advocacies.
The study is more expansive in terms of scope as it included components on land use and development planning for Metro Manila. It identified three main strategies to address issues on traffic congestion and public transport requirements, namely:
- Cordon pricing,
- Bus lanes, and
- LRT
Short-term recommendations focused on bus and jeepney operations, recommending that:
- Standard buses (non-airconditioned) be designed for more standing passengers and charge a fare affordable by the poor;
- Premium buses (including Love Bus) be designed for seated passengers and charge a higher fare; this may be used to cross-subsidize Standard bus operations;
- Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC) bus operations should not be further expanded:
- MMTC buses should operate missionary routes, which are generally unprofitable routes.
- There should be no arbitrary exemption on franchises like in the case of MMTC.
- In reference to private bus companies, the project states that “properly regulated competition” provides best course of action for the foreseeable future;
- Jeepneys are suited for low demand but high frequency service
MMETROPLAN also touched on the route structure for road public transport. However, its most far-reaching recommendations on road public transport concern the issuance of franchises for buses and jeepneys. The study recommended that franchises should be issued for a period of a few years instead of 25 years and to define a minimum LOS. The study cautioned against arbitrary restrictions on franchises for buses at the time while mentioning that there were already restrictions for jeepneys. MMETROPLAN further recommended the encouraging of small operators for both jeepneys and buses.
However, MMETROPLAN deviated from the recommendations of UTSMMA in that it struck down the proposal and plans for the Rapid Transit Rail (RTR) network for Metro Manila. The long-term recommendations and conclusions of the study show these and one particular recommendation that probably doomed heavy rail transport and the RTR network is quoted below:
“Heavy Rapid Transit (HRT) would provide public transport passengers with much faster journey, but by 1990 would attract only 2.5% of motorists and would have negligible impact on traffic congestion. Partly because of this and partly because of its very high capital cost, it would be hopelessly uneconomic: the annualized capital costs would be higher than the estimated benefits in 1990…passenger flows are not high enough to exploit its full capacity…and the large savings in time for public transport passengers are not given a high value in Manila, and are not high enough to persuade motorists to change mode.
These results are conclusive, and are unlikely to be changed by any circumstances or reasonable assumptions…it is clear that any other fully segregated public transport system, whether light rail or busway, would also be uneconomic. As such systems would require the appropriation of most, if not all, of the available funds for all transport (including highways) in Metro Manila for the foreseeable future, and as there is not other rationale for their implementation, they have been rejected from further consideration.” (MMETROPLAN, 1977)
The study also did not have good words for the PNR as it concluded that its “routes related poorly to the major demands for movement” and that it would be expensive to improve the PNR at the time. PNR costs were compared to buses and jeepneys with the further concluded that these road transport modes are preferred over an upgraded PNR.
MMETROPLAN assessed the LRT vs. the Monorail in the context of cordon pricing and bus lane strategies. While the monorail was dismissed for reasons that included few monorail systems operating at the time, the study recommended for an LRT along Rizal Avenue, which was considered feasible. These conclusions and recommendations by MMETROPLAN would eventually have far-reaching impacts on Metro Manila’s transport system and the study would be among the most cited in discussions and future planning where land use and transport are discussed in the same light.
For land use planning, the report also provides us with a history of land use planning for Metro Manila, which we can now compare with what actually happened. That is, if the plans made back in the 1970’s were actually implemented and to what extent were they realised. Many of these plans remain controversial to this day and are often invoked whenever there is talk about the perennial flooding and the spectre of earthquakes threatening much of Metro Manila and its surrounding areas in addition to other issues like the transport and traffic problems experienced around what has become a megalopolis.
[Reference: MMETROPLAN, 1977 – NCTS Library]
But what could have influenced the MMETROPLAN study team and government officials to debunk UTSMMA? Why the “about-face” for something that seems to be the JICA Dream Plan circa 1970’s? UTSMMA and the rail rapid transit network, after all, was the product of a vision for future Metropolitan Manila transport by a visionary professor from the University of Tokyo – one Dr. Takashi Inouye of that university’s Department of Urban Engineering. I think the next article will provide us with the answers to these questions regarding the turnaround. Abangan!
–
Caught (up) in traffic 