Home » Public Transport (Page 60)
Category Archives: Public Transport
EVA and PCA stand on the ADB’s eTrike initiative
The Electric Vehicle Alliance (EVA) and the Partnership for Clean Air (PCA) wrote to the ADB regarding the proposed “reallocation of USD 110 million away from the original stipulation in the approved Country Investment Plan of the Philippines with respect to the Clean Technology Fund (CTF).” The amount will pay for the purchase of about 100,000 electric tricycles, with the intention of having these replace conventional ones currently operating in many Philippine cities and towns. Following is the letter from the EVA and PCA:
Warm greetings!We wish to inform you that the Electric Vehicle Alliance (EVA) represents a broad assembly of private sector organizations involved in vehicle manufacturing and assembly, fleet operations, battery solutions, electricity provision and after-sales servicing, academic institutions, government officials and civil society groups. EVA is spearheading the transition of the country towards a low emission transport regime, particularly through the sustained deployment of electric vehicles.We wish to inform you that, in principle, EVA supports the aims enunciated by the eTrikes proposal that your office is currently evaluating. We urge your office, however, to postpone decisions over the requested reallocation of USD110 million away from the original stipulaton in the approved Country Investment Plan of the Philippines with respect to the Clean Technology Fund.
We believe further deliberation is warranted in order to correct what may be flaws in the proposal as designed and which can help ensure the genuinely transformational utilization of the CTF.
Among many other reasons, the following deserves serious scrutiny:
1) Country ownership: As documents from the Philippine government will demonstrate, country ownership of the initiative is far from certain. We attach, as an example, a document from the Department of Energy expressly stipulating that this is largely an ADB-driven initiative, a fact that is the subject of public debate at present.
In addition, as the the lead agency that determines climate change policy and operational coherence with regard to Philippine mitigatory and adaptation measures, there has been no formal involvement of the Climate Change Commission in the crafting, much less finalization, of the said proposal. The eTrikes initiative remains under intensive discussion at the National Economic and Development Authority (the Philippine planning authority) as to whether or not it will be included in the Investments Coordination Committee of the country.
2) Lack of government consultations with the private sector, civil society and academe. The Department of Energy itself has stated that it has not undertaken formal consultations with stakeholders to the enterprise, particularly the transport sector and the banking sector. (Using subsidized credit from the CTF the eTrikes project may potentially crowd out commercial banks intent on opening lending windows for e-vehicle financing) and, particularly, the renewable energy industry from whose sector the USD110 million is going to be diverted. No member of the renewable energy industry, in fact, has been consulted over the reallocation of the funds.
3) Design flaws. Unless corrected – which is also the purpose behind the need for quality undertaking of consultations – huge gaps in the project design are likely to have an adverse impact on the long-term success of the transition to low carbon transport in the Philippines. For instance:
* No feasibility study has been presented to sectors that stand to gain from, or be adversely impacted by, the eTrikes proposal. We believe such a brief should actually be the basis for consultations that the Philippine government is obliged to undertake.
* The project unbundles the undertaking into four operational clusters that will be bidded out: motor and controller; battery supply; charging station and chassis/body. It is uncertain if there is a fifth cluster on after-sales service, specifically because is no bidding process for the assembly stage of the operations. This last point particularly invites sticky warranty and legal issues – if there is no aggregator of the different clusters of the project, the question is who will assume liabilities? We hope it is not the Philippine government.
Furthermore, haphazard unbundling may also involve questionable transactions down the road given the size of the undertaking. (A single firm that does not undergo bidding may end up assembling 100,000 E-Trikes that, as the project proponent states, will be given away to “beneficiaries”).
We can identify further concerns but suffice it to say, from the examples cited above, a postponement of decisions by the CTF board is warranted.
We would be pleased to share with you further details about issues that will arise if decisions are made with undue haste.
Thank you for your attention.
Signed,Mr. Rene Pineda Jr.President, Partnership for Clean Air, Inc. (PCA)Convenor, Electric Vehicle Alliance (EVA)EVA Members:
Danilo Villas – AMMEO; David Garcia – Atin ‘To; Michael Alunan – Atin ‘To; Atty. Glynda Bathan – CAI-Asia; Bert Fabian – CAI-Asia; Alvin Mejia – CAI-Asia; Dir. Gregorio Tangonan – COMSTE; John Sognco- COMSTE; Engr. Jean Rosete – EMB-DENR; Asec. Cora Davis – DENR; Manny Sabater – DENR; Dir. Zenaida Mendoza – DOE; Arnel Garcia – DOE; Lourdes Capricho – DOE; Dr. Manuel Biona- DLSU; Rey Esguerra – DOST; Cynthia Lazo – DOT; Engr. Terry Galvante Jr. – DOTC; Art Valdez – former DOTC Undersecretary; Yuri Sarmiento – e-jeepney; Sec. Bebet Gozun – Office of the Phil. President; Yvonne Castro – EVAP; Red Constantino – iCSC; Efren Cruz – FPAD; Engr. June Yasol – JAYAREC; Ma. Theresa Calo – Mandaluyong City Office; Rannie De leon – Mandaluyong City Office; Anthony Agoncillo – Meralco; Mack Dizon – Meralco; Melinda Derpo – Meralco; Frank Collantes – Meralco; Jufaleh Constable – Meralco; Annie Reodica – Meralco; Victor Baylosis – Meralco; Carlo Nombres – Meralco; Tessa Oliva – Miriam P.E.A.C.E.; Raquel Naciongayo – MMASBA; Arnold Sarmiento – Motolite; Rhene Borja – Motolite; Abelardo Mendoza – Motolite; Rommel Juan – MVPMAP; Bong Cruz – MVPMAP; Ferdie Raquelsantos – MD Juan Enterprises; John Marasigan – PhUV; John Lee – PhUV; Rene Pineda – PCA; Vicky Segovia – PCA; Aileen Tepace – PCA; Alberto Suansing – SOPI; Jose Regin Regidor – UP-NCTS; Atty. Gia Ibay – WWF; Denise Galvez – WWF; Vince Perez – WWF; Lory Tan – WWF; Elsie de Veyra – ZWRMP
The statement is a clear expression of the stand taken by stakeholders in the e-trike saga. It is also clear that many if not most stakeholders have not been consulted in the rush towards the deployment of 100,000 electric tricycles. While the ADB and the DOE may have meant well in pushing for electric tricycles to replace the conventional ones, railroading e-trikes will cost the fledgling local industries a lot considering the possibility that the electric vehicles will all be imported from China. It should be noted, however, that there has really been little or no success at this stage since the e-trikes that have been donated have only added to the current fleets comprising of legitimate and colorum tricycles. Perhaps in the haste or excitement associated with the potential positive impacts of e-trikes (e.g., low emission transport) on the environment, the bigger picture concerning issues on public transport in Philippine cities and towns has been disregarded. But then this might be understandable since the approach appears to be still mostly from the energy perspective rather than transport’s. It should be emphasized again that the DOTC, as the lead transport agency with a mandate to draw up policy concerning transport in the country, should be active in the discussions and present a clear road map for what transport should be in terms of hierarchy and taking into consideration the relationship between demand and supply. Then perhaps the direction we are taking in relation to low emission transport such as electric vehicles will be a clearer and, not to mention, a straighter one.
–
Weekday EDSA
I chanced upon an uncongested EDSA one day during noontime along the northbound direction. I was traveling from the airport and saw that my usual route along C5 was very congested. I decided to take EDSA instead considering it was noontime and there would probably be less vehicles along the highway during that time of day. I was right and the following photos speak for themselves in as far as describing traffic between 12:00 NN and 1:00 PM.
Section past Orense Street and the MMDA headquarters
Section approaching Guadalupe
Guadalupe Bridge, crossing the Pasig River, the MRT 3 runs along the steel bridge above
Approaching A. Bonifacio/Renaissance, in the background is the G.A. Tower, the Boni MRT Station and condos under construction including SMDC’s Jazz
Section across the Renaissance Tower where many FM radio stations are based
Section past Robinsons Cybergate Mall
Section across the SM Megamall and approaching the ADB
Section across the ADB and approaching Ortigas Ave. One of Galleria’s buildings is seen behind the giant billboards. The MRT
Section descending the Ortigas Flyover and across from Corinthian Gardens
Section across Camp Aguinaldo (between the Aguinaldo and Crame) and approaching the Camp’s EDSA gate
Section approaching Boni Serrano Avenue
Section approaching the EDSA underpass crossing P. Tuazon and approaching the Cubao commercial center
Section past the Cubao commercial center and across from several provincial bus terminals lined up along EDSA northbound
Section approaching Kamias – taking the flyover means I won’t be able to turn towards East Avenue so we shifted towards the outer lanes
Now, if only EDSA and the other main arteries of Metro Manila could be like this more frequently…
–
Municipal transport in San Francisco – Part 2: Trolley buses
San Francisco’s trolley buses are probably among the last of a fading breed of bus transport still employing electricity to service various routes in that city. With a cousin driving our vehicles along McAllister Street, I was able to take photos of the overhead cables from which the trolley buses are able to pick-up electricity to power their motors.
Overhead cables seem to be everywhere including the streets around the San Francisco City Hall located at the Civic Center. This is a photo of the intersection of McAllister and Polk Street.
Another view of City Hall with cables running above McAllister. Notice the cables connected to transverse wires that are in turn connected to the light poles.
Where buses turn, cables may also be found above. This is the junction of McAllister and Van Ness Avenue. That’s the Herbst Theater building on the left, which houses the Museum of Performance and Design, and the California Public Utilities Commission on the right. Those are two buses, one trolley and the other natural gas-powered in the middle of the photo.
A close-up from the preceding photo shows the trolley bus with its long pantograph. The bus on the right runs on natural gas and is a low emission vehicle.
A closer view of the overhead cables show how they are connected to the poles along the roadside.
That’s a bus headed for the Transbay terminal. At front is a bicycle rack and the worm logo of Muni.
In the streets of San Francisco, one thing’s for sure – if you see those overhead cables along a road, you know that the trolley buses run along that street. Most major streets in San Francisco are served by public transport, providing excellent mobility for its citizens. They say you can usually take or get off a bus within a block of your destination. If you have to walk, the walk is usually at a leisurely pace and generally in a safe environment. You’ll probably only encounter difficulties walking when you’re in the hilly areas like Nob Hill and Russian Hill where the streets can get quite steep. Still, the walk’s usually well worth it not just because of the exercise but also because of the view and the small neighborhood shops and restaurants along your way.
Municipal transport in San Francisco – Part 1
San Francisco has an extensive public transport system with the combination of buses, LRT’s and cable cars allowing its citizens and visitors both accessibility and mobility for much of the city. A friend says that the objective Muni set out to accomplish was for anyone using the system to be able to alight from a public transport vehicle at most one block from one’s final destination. A block already represents a very comfortable walking distance well within the 200 to 300 meters radius often mentioned by public transport planners for the catchment areas of stops or stations.
SF’s Muni operates several types of buses including what are probably among the last electric trolley buses in the world.
That’s a trolley bus in the photo above stopping near the BART station where I was waiting to be picked up by a friend. Note the flexible, long pantograph that is used to pick-up electricity from the overhead cables. The photo was taken in 2007 during a previous trip to the Bay Area.
Following are three photos I took back in 2007 at an intersection across the Balboa Park BART Station, where I thought I hit the jackpot in terms of watching the Muni’s various transport modes pass by. Think bird-watching but replace the birds with buses and LRTs.
The typical Muni bus has a number designating its route that can easily be found in transit maps to guide regular commuters and visitors alike. Most buses I saw had bicycle racks located in front of the bus that would enable cyclists to bring along their bikes during a long commute. Most buses these days run on natural gas. On the far right of the photo, one can get a glimpse of a LRT vehicle.
LRT vehicle coming out of the depot – the rails are embedded on the pavement and allow for the mixed use of roads by motor vehicles and LRTs.
LRT crossing the intersection. LRTs are given priority at intersections and the traffic signals are programmed to facilitate the flow of these high capacity public transport mode. This is a reflection of prioritization of public transport over private transport, which should be the case rather than the other way around.
Inside a bus in San Francisco, there are seats provided for the elderly and the physically challenged. Entrance is via the front door where a passenger must first pay for the ride or show his pass for the driver to see. Exit is via the back door, which is wider to allow for the efficient unloading of passengers. To stop the bus at the designated stops along the route, a passenger should push a button (on the newer buses) or pull on a cable (on older buses) to activate a signal for the driver. To open the rear doors, one need only to push the bars across the doors.
Another look at the interior of a Muni bus. Although the bus appears to be old, it is clean/tidy. There are the occasional vandalism and there are signs asking passengers to report incidence of vandalism on the bus. There are also signs stating that conversations may be recorded and that the bus is under video surveillance. These seem to be standard security features of public transport in the US especially after the incidents of 9/11. Such information is welcome considering everyone would prefer to travel safely.
San Francisco’s Cable Cars
The photos show a particular journey aboard a Powell & Hyde cable car from Market Street (near Union Square) to Hyde Street (near Argonaut Hotel). The trip takes one through notable spots like Union Square, Chinatown, Nob Hill and Russian Hill, including a stop at Lombard Street that has that famous crooked section popular with tourists and residents alike. There are also breathtaking views of the bay as the cable car descends towards Mason or Hyde Streets, towards the pier.
Cable car arriving at the end of the line near Market Street
–
To the right is Union Square famous for its Christmas Tree. However, there is that monument at the square that people tend to take for granted. Filipinos should be aware that it is one commemorating the victory of one Comm. Dewey and the US Fleet over Adm. Montojo and the Spanish Fleet in Manila Bay back in 1898, a significant part of Philippine and American histories.
Transport mode shares in Metro Manila
Fairly recent surveys (first quarter of 2011) along major corridors in Metro Manila have yielded the following data on transport modes shares in the National Capital Region. Such data, while quite specific for the corridors surveyed, strongly indicate that most people take public transport. As such, it is quite logical that public transport be prioritized and perhaps provided with the road space they require to be more efficient in conveying passengers to their destinations. There are mixed results in terms of which types of vehicles tend to dominate the road and these are noted below. Note that data for rail is not included but should favor public transport as well. Taxis, in this case, are classified among private vehicles. Trucks are not considered here as passenger vehicles though they do carry people.
Person trip mode shares along Aurora Boulevard eastbound (to Rizal & Marikina) – jeepneys account for 79% of road-based transport while cars carry 10% of person trips. In terms of vehicle share of the road, cars account for about 25% of the road while jeepneys take up about 59% after converting jeepneys into passenger car units using the assumption of 1.7 pcu = 1 jeepney. Such assumption is also used in other estimates.
Person trip mode shares along Aurora Boulevard westbound (to Cubao/Quezon City) – jeepneys account for 76% of road-based transport while cars carry 14% of person trips. Meanwhile cars occupy 31% of the road while jeepneys use 57%.
Interesting for the above statistics is the fact that these numbers do not reflect the actual share of public transport given that there is a rail transit service along this corridor. LRT Line 2, however, terminates before reaching the Province of Rizal, which necessitates the transfer of passengers from rail to mainly jeepneys towards their final destinations.
Person trip mode shares along Ortigas Avenue eastbound (to Rizal Province) – jeepneys account for 55% , buses 13% and AUVs 12% of road-based transport (total of 80% for PT) while cars carry only 15% of person trips. Cars occupy 37% of the road while jeepneys eat up almost the same at about 37%. AUVs are quite significant along this corridor taking up 12% of the road. Surprisingly, buses only occupy about 5% assuming 2.5 pcu = 1 bus. Perhaps Ortigas can be decongested if public transport services along the corridor are rationalized with many jeepneys retired in favor of the higher capacity buses.
Person trip mode shares along Ortigas Avenue westbound (to Mandaluyong/Manila) – jeepneys account for 55% , buses 20% and AUVs 8% of road-based transport (total of 83% for PT) while cars carry only 13% of person trips. Cars take up 38% of the road, jeepneys also 38%, AUVs 9% and buses only 4.5%.
Person trip mode shares along Commonwealth Avenue northbound (to Novaliches) – jeepneys account for 30% , buses 35% and AUVs 5% of road-based transport (total of 70% for PT) while cars carry 26% of person trips. Cars take up 57% of the road, jeepneys 17%, AUVs 6% and buses about 12%. Meanwhile, motorcycle account for about 8% of road space along Commonwealth NB. Note that Commonwealth is the widest road in the country with sections having up to 10 lanes per direction. The two outermost lanes are typically designated for PUVs while the 4th lane from the roadside is designated as a motorcycle lane.
Person trip mode shares along Commonwealth Avenue southbound (to Elliptical) –
Note that there is a proposed MRT 7 to be constructed along Commonwealth and that system will also favor public transport users. Such a system should be more efficient in carrying passengers along the corridor and should provide an opportunity to rationalize PUJ and PUB numbers along Commonwealth. And such an opportunity should be taken and not passed up if government is really serious in improving transport in Metro Manila.
Person trip mode shares throughout the country will surely have similar numbers if not higher shares for public transport compared to Metro Manila. This more than underlines the impetus for providing safe, efficient public transport services for Filipinos – a commitment that should not only be stated or printed but actively pursued with government in the forefront rather than on the sidelines.
Graphs and other stats mentioned derived from data from surveys for the Mega Manila Public Transport Planning Support System (MMPTPSS), 2011.
iBus – bus system reinvented?
In the recent British Invention Show, a Filipina won a gold medal for something that is probably much needed to solve the transport woes of this country – the iBus. It is of course initially conspicuously like your regular bus system but upon closer look at the slideshow from the news article, there are many things about the system that’s high tech. The high tech aspects of the iBus are actually example applications of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) as implemented for public transport.
I am not privy to the details for the iBus but I did see part of its progress after meeting a few times with its proponents since last year. With the award, I hope that perhaps our DOTC, LTFRB or MMDA will become interested in the system and perhaps that interest will translate into the deployment of the system in a test corridor as a proof of concept. I would even dare propose that should the demo be successful that it be applied immediately in Philippine cities requiring modern transit systems.
Railways of old in Manila and Rizal
One of the great “what if’s” for public transportation in Metro Manila and its surrounding areas pertains to rail transport that were operated in the Cavite and Rizal provinces prior to the Second World War. The present-day developments along what were railway corridors attest to the viability of these areas for development and it can be argued that rail transport services here could have been a game-changer in as far as public transport is concerned and may have significantly influenced travel preferences and behavior in these areas. These would not be light-rail but heavy-rail services and would certainly have had higher passenger capacities.
Close-up for railway lines from the figure in a previous blog
An even better close-up is provided in the following figure that shows three lines that could have shaped developments to the east and southwest of Metro Manila. These are the Cavite Line, the Marikina Line and the Antipolo Line.
Close-up for Cavite, Marikina and Antipolo Lines of the Manila Railroad Company
Following are the breakdown of stations for the three lines:
- The Cavite Line stretched from Manila through Paco, Paranaque, Bacoord, Noveleta until Naic in Cavite Province for a total of 44 km. Completed in 1908, it was abandoned in 1936.
- The Marikina Line started from Rosario (presently in Pasig and along an area still called Tramo) to Montalban via Marikina (where there is still a Daang Bakal) and San Mateo for a total of 31 km. Completed in 1907 (until Marikina in 1906), the entire line was abandoned in 1936.
- The Antipolo Line started from Manila and passed through Sta. Mesa, Pasig (likely somewhere in what is presently Bagong Ilog), Rosario, Taytay (through present day Cainta) and until Antipolo (near Hinulugang Taktak where there is still a Daang Bakal). Completed in 1908, the line was abandoned in 1917. The alignment from Cainta and Taytay crossed what is now Ortigas Ave. Extension at the Valley Golf gate and stretched along an alignment that appears to have the gentlest slope for a climb to Antipolo.
Clearly, if these lines were not abandoned but instead retained and developed even after World War 2, commuting preferences and behavior in Metro Manila could have been quite different. In fact, people could have chosen to travel by train instead of being dependent on cars. For those residing or working in the south (i.e., Paranaque, Las Pinas, Muntinlupa, towns of Cavite, Laguna and Batangas) maybe people would have a viable alternative to the tollways in those areas. Note that the only operating rail transport in the area is the PNR Commuter Line that is currently experiencing a renaissance of sorts. Hopefully, its rehabilitation is completed and more passengers patronize the service.
Rizal is presently not served by any railway until perhaps LRT Line 2 is finally extended towards Antipolo via the Marcos Highway corridor. The Marikina-San Mateo- Rodriguez (formerly Montalban) areas are accessible via national roads that are often congested primarily due to paratransit traffic. The more progressive towns of Rizal (Cainta, Taytay, Binangonan and Angono) as well as its capital city of Antipolo is accessible mainly via either Ortigas Avenue or Marcos Highway. Both highways are already quite congested and road widening options are quite limited especially for the heavily traveled Ortigas Ave. One can only imagine now how a rail system could have addressed the travel demand along these corridors and perhaps enhanced the quality of living in these areas.
Informal rail transport
After my talk at the Ateneo De Naga, we went around the city to have a look at its roads and transport. As we had already seen the previous day that there were motorized trolleys in that city, we made it a point to visit one informal terminal located at a junction. The following photos are a documentation of our taking a closer look at informal rail transport in the Philippines.
Taking a closer look at the motorized trolleys of Naga City – our driver Roy speaks to two drivers/operators of the trolleys to ask them about operations. The trolleys are not so much different from the one we saw along the road while traveling through the towns of Quezon Province and certainly look like their relatives in Manila. They are made of light but sturdy bamboo with the occasional metal parts and some have makeshift couplers in case two or three are connected to form trains! The trolleys even have benches to allow for a few seated passengers.
Passenger mix – the trolley service is popular to different users including students and laborers. They are cheap and the most practical (direct) mode of transport to their home, which are located along the railway line. Note the concrete ties for the tracks, indicative that this section has already undergone rehabilitation in the past when the old wooden sleepers were replaced by concrete ties.
Informal freight transport – goods like rice and flour are also transported using the trolleys. I assume there are also stores in communities along the tracks and that the most convenient way of transporting commodities (paninda) would be via this mode.
Motor power – while most if not all the trolleys in Manila are human-powered (partly because they should be light enough to lift in case trains do come given the increasing frequency of PNR commuter line services), the Naga trolleys use motors similar to that being used by boats.
Driving wheel – while trains may be powered by locomotives, the trolleys have motors typically used by pumpboats and by the tricyboats found in the Visayas and Mindanao (tricycles powered by the same motors). The driving wheel is connected to the motor to move the vehicle and the contraption on the lower right and just beside the driving wheel is the brake mechanism. Thus, the driver is usually positioned just behind the motor where he has access to both the motor and the brakes.
Fully loaded – a single trolley can carry as many as 25 passengers depending on their weight and size (more if there are many children in the mix). I think there are about 24 passengers on this trolley about to depart from the informal terminal.
Off they go – with a full load and each person paying 10 pesos for the ride, the driver can earn about 200 pesos for one run or 400 for a roundtrip. Operating costs are quite simple including fuel and maintenance costs. On a typical busy day, a driver can have about 5 round-trips. Note how close houses are to the railway tracks.
Next in line – the driver of the next trolley positions his vehicle and waits for passengers. We estimated it took something like 15 to 20 minutes to get a full load during the afternoon peak period when we were at the informal terminal. It would probably be longer during the off-peak periods.
A view of the tracks on the other side of the road – we learned that the area along the tracks is not served by the trolleys.
I can imagine that with the resumption of the Bicol Express service between Manila and Naga City, the people operating the trolleys would eventually have to deal with more frequent arrival of trains. Currently, the PNR services would probably pass through the trolleys’ service areas during the night-time so there will be very limited conflict at present. However, further rehabilitation of the Main Line South and the resumption of services all the way to Legaspi City should already serve as a notice to informal rail transport and the concerned local governments that the days of the trolleys are numbered.
Conflicting flows – driver and rider behavior in the vicinity of flyovers
Typical issues concerning traffic flow along sections approaching or departing from the ramps of vehicular overpasses or flyovers include weaving. Simple observations will reveal that a significant number of vehicles, regardless of whether private or public, passenger or freight, big or small, have a propensity to change lanes before and after a flyover. Such weaving behavior is a consequence of driving behavior in this country where many drivers and riders often are unmindful of planning their trips as well as the proper positioning of their vehicles while using the road. Many drivers and riders seem intent only in bypassing points of congestion and do not have any respect at all for the rights of other road users as well as for the rule of law along highways and streets.
I took the opportunity of taking a few photos after an interview conducted atop the pedestrian overpass along Commonwealth across from Puregold and near the Tandang Sora flyover. Below are a few photos taken during nightfall on Monday showing typical behavior of drivers and riders in the vicinity of the foot of the Tandang Sora flyover.
Jeepneys occupying five (5) northbound lanes of Commonwealth Avenue, including the lane designated for motorcycles (delineated by the blue lines) – Most public utility vehicle drivers in the Philippines seem to abhor queuing and the prevailing practice is for most of them to try to bypass others by encroaching along the middle lanes. Instead of a First In First Out (FIFO) discipline that is desirable for conventional public transport operations, its more like a Last In First Out (LIFO) state along loading/unloading areas.
Buses joining the fray of vehicles in the same area – Note that practically 4 to 5 lanes of Commonwealth are occupied by buses, jeepneys and AUVs, effectively blocking motorcycles from using the lane designated for them. Such behavior in the vicinity of the foot of the Tandang Sora flyover also influences private vehicles to shift towards the inner lanes of the highway and unto the path of vehicles descending the flyover.
Motorcycles (they with the single headlights) using the 5th and 6th lanes of Commonwealth – riders have no choice in this situation where PUVs have occupied the motorcycle lane and behave as if they are the the only road users in the area. PUVs are observed as generally oblivious of the fact that road space is to be shared and basic courtesy is a requirement for smooth and safe flow to occur.
As the traffic flow decreases, partly due to the control imposed by the traffic signal upstream at the Tandang Sora intersection, lanes become less congested – motorcycles are then able to return to their designated lane.
The chaotic situation shown in the photos could have been prevented or corrected if enforcers were in the area to manage traffic. There were none in the area, and I only found a few of them a couple of hundred meters downstream apprehending riders where traffic is already free-flowing. I thought perhaps that instead of focusing on apprehending riders, these enforcers were better off trying to address the mess upstream of their position. It is always both frustrating and disappointing to see enforcers diligently doing their jobs in the wrong locations along our highways. And all too often, the drivers and riders they apprehend are not the ones guilty of constricting traffic or posing dangers upon other motorists.
Caught (up) in traffic 