Home » Policy (Page 47)
Category Archives: Policy
Tricycles in the Philippines – Part 1
We start the “ber” months strong with an initial feature on an ubiquitous mode of transport in the Philippines. While the jeepney seems to have had most of the attention when the subject of public transport in the Philippines is discussed, the truth is that there is arguably another, more dominant mode of public transport in the country. These are the tricycles, a motorized three-wheeler consisting of a motorcycle and a sidecar. You see these everywhere around the country in most cities and municipalities where they thrive particularly in residential areas. They are usually the only mode of public transport for most people in rural areas where local roads are typically narrow. In many cases the only roads connecting communities may be national roads. And so, there is really no other choice for tricycles but to travel along national roads and against existing laws prohibiting tricycles from these roads.
Tricycle along the motorcycle lane of Circumferential Road 5
Tricycles racing along the Olongapo-Castillejos Road in Zambales
Tricycle along Romulo Highway, Tarlac
Tricycles along Catolico Avenue in Gen. Santos City
Unlike buses and jeepneys, tricycles are not regulated under the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). Instead, they are under the local government units that through one office or another issue the equivalent of franchises for tricycles to operate legally. Fares are quite variable but are usually according to distance though there are special rates for when passengers want to have the vehicle for themselves much like a taxi.
Unfortunately, few LGUs have the capacity to determine the optimum number of tricycles for service areas under their jurisdictions. As tricycle operations are often the source of livelihood for many, the granting of franchises is often seen as a way for mayors to have influence over people who would have “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude) for being granted franchises. The tendency, therefore, is to have too many tricycles as mayors try to accommodate more applicants who seem to have no other options to earn income or to invest in. This poses a challenge to many who want to reform the system and modernize or upgrade public transport in cities around the country.
–
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!
–
What is the context for electric tricycles in the Philippines?
The NEDA Board recently approved six projects that included one that will be promoting electric vehicles throughout the country. Entitled “Market Transformation through Introduction of Energy Efficient Electric Vehicles Project” (formerly Market Transformation through Introduction of Energy Efficient Electric Tricycle (E-Trike) Project), the endeavor seeks to replace thousands of existing conventional motorized 3-wheelers (tricycles) with e-trikes and to develop and deploy charging stations for these vehicles. While I have nothing against electric vehicles and have supported their promotion for use in public transport, I am a bit worried about the context by which electric tricycles are being peddled especially the part about equating “transformation” with “replacement.”
First, it is a technology push for an innovation that has not been fully and satisfactorily tested in Philippine conditions. The deployment of e-trikes in Bonifacio Global City is practically a failure and a mode that was not suitable from the start for the area it was supposed to serve (i.e., while there were already jeepneys serving the area, there were also the Fort Bus services and plans for a BRT linking the Ayala CBD and BGC. There are now few (rare sightings) of these e-trikes remaining at the Fort, as most of these vehicles are no longer functioning due to problems regarding the batteries, motors, and issues regarding maintenance. Meanwhile, the e-trikes in Mandaluyong, a more recent model, have also been difficult to maintain with one case reportedly needing the unit to be sent back to China for repairs.
Second, the e-trikes are a whole new animal (or mode of transport). I have pointed out in the past including in one ADB forum that the 6 to 8 seater e-trike model is basically a new type of paratransit. Their larger capacities mean one unit is not equivalent to one of the current models of conventional tricycles (i.e., the ones you find in most city and municipality around the country). Thus, replacement should not be “1 e-trike : 1 tricycle” but perhaps “1:2” (or even “1:3” in some cases). This issue has not been resolved as the e-trike units continue to be marketed as a one to one replacement for conventional trikes. There should be guidelines on this that local government units can use, particularly for adjusting the number of franchises or authorized tricycles in their respective jurisdictions. Will such come from the Department of Energy (DOE)? Or is this something that should emanate from Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)? Obviously, the last thing we like to see would be cities like Cabanatuan, Tarlac or Dagupan having so many e-trikes running around after they have replaced the conventional ones, and causing congestion in the cities. Emissions from the tricycle may have been reduced but emissions from other vehicles should be significant due to the congestion.
Third, the proliferation of e-trikes will tie our cities and municipalities to tricycles. Many cities already and definitely need to upgrade their public transport systems (e.g., tricycles to jeepneys or jeepneys to buses, and so on). Simply replacing tricycles with electric powered ones does not effect “true” transformation from the transport perspective. Is the objective of transformation mainly from the standpoint of energy? If so, then there is something amiss with the project as it does not and cannot address the transport, traffic and social aspects of the service provided by tricycles (and other modes of transport).
So what is the context for the e-trikes or conventional tricycles? They are not even under the purview of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) as they are regulated by LGUs. Shouldn’t the DOTC or the LTFRB be involved in this endeavor? Shouldn’t these agencies be consulted with the formulation of a framework or guidelines for rationalizing and optimizing transport in our cities? These are questions that should be answered by the proponents of this project and questions that should not be left to chance or uncertainty in so far as the ultimate objective is supposed to be to improve transport in the country. I have no doubt that the e-trikes have the potential to improve air quality and perhaps the also the commuting experience for many people. I have worries, however, that its promise will not be kept especially in light of energy supply issues that our country is still struggling with and deserves the attention of the DOE more than the e-trikes they are peddling.
–
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:
–
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.
–
Common causes of traffic congestion along Philippine roads
As a follow-up to a previous post on traffic congestion, I am writing on some of the most basic causes of congestion along Philippine roads. I say most basic because these are the usual situations we see along the road as we commute. And these are also supposed to be easily solved or addressed by the most basic approaches – enforcement. Here are a couple of photos and commentaries on this matter.
Commuters occupying two lanes of the road as they wait for public transport along Marcos Highway in Pasig – PUVs like the jeepney in the photo stop in the middle of the road to load/unload passengers. Were there traffic enforcers/aides in the area? Sometimes. Were they doing their jobs? Definitely not. In many cases, I’ve seen enforcers using the congestion (i.e., slowed traffic) to apprehend number coding violators. Now, number coding is premised on motorists being discouraged from traveling during certain times of the day to reduce congestion from vehicle volume. In the photo above, it’s pretty clear that the problem isn’t number coding violators but the mayhem caused by public transport and commuters. Something that traffic enforcers/aides could have acted on and with regularity and persistence so that they can positively influence jeepney driver and commuters towards orderly conduct.
On-street parking and pedestrian activity along Manila roads – many cities such as Manila are guilty of not having any serious initiatives to address on-street parking. In many cases, its tolerated particularly in commercial areas as local governments don’t like to engage business in what they assume to be the small issue (or non-issue) of parking. In the case of pedestrians, it is a behavioral thing that requires a bit more effort than police or enforcer visibility (or the occasional apprehension). As a result, people will generally cross wherever they want and walk along the carriageway, not minding their safety. Of course, such behavior is encouraged by the absence of space for walking as vehicles, merchandise and other stuff occupy space that’s supposed to be for pedestrians.
–
Caught (up) in traffic 