Right and wrong messages
Credit to Author: ROBERT SIY| Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 16:20:50 +0000
Metro Manilans experienced exceptionally difficult commutes this past week. MRT3 was off line during Holy Week. Then came the earthquake on Monday, April 22, shutting down all three rail lines during rush hour.
With buses and jeepneys filled to the brim, but stuck in traffic, streets and sidewalks were overflowing with people desperate to get home, unable to find any viable option. Many ended up walking home that night. Sadly, these experiences harden commuters’ resolve to buy a private motor vehicle as soon as they can afford (to our collective detriment).
Commuters deserve better, but improvements in mobility continue to be elusive. Taking public transport today means heavy crowding, breathing polluted air, slow travel, inconvenient connections and poor safety.
Commuters are also getting the impression that the government’s main transportation objective is to improve the travel speed of cars, even if this means disadvantaging people who walk or use public transport. They observe that recent government decisions harm the commuter while favoring the minority using private vehicles.||
Public utility vehicles are intentionally restricted by the Metro Manila Development Authority and some local governments through “number-coding” (despite the severe public transport shortage, buses, jeepneys and vans are barred from operating on certain days of the week, depending on the last digit on their license plates), so there will be more road space for private vehicles. Sidewalks are narrowed or eliminated to create additional car lanes. Ground-level pedestrian crosswalks are eliminated so that cars can go faster.
UV Express vans, each carrying 10-18 passengers are banned from EDSA so that more private cars with only 1 to 2 passengers can be accommodated on this important corridor. Provincial buses which each carry 40 to 55 passengers are threatened with the same fate. In these decisions, the short-sighted goal is to move the maximum number of cars instead of moving the maximum number of people.
Commuters get the strong hint that car users are the priority of government, while public transport users, representing the vast majority, are considered as “second class” citizens. “To have a superior travel experience, use a private car.” This is definitely the wrong message to send to commuters.
Of course, major mass transit projects are being implemented, but are far from sufficient. New rail projects are urgently needed and are being rushed, but the new train lines, including the Metro Manila Subway, will take many years to implement.
Even with all the new rail projects, the volume of passengers that existing and planned rail systems can accommodate comes to less than 30 percent of Metro Manila commuters. The government needs to prioritize the upgrading of road-based public transport services (used by the bulk of commuters) and to make as much of these services high quality.
There is no better time to implement bus rapid transit (BRT) in Greater Manila. BRT in combination with other mass transit such as rail, plus the promotion of active transport modes (walking and cycling), is what Metro Manila needs to reverse our worsening mobility.
BRT moves passengers as efficiently and as safely as a train: new, low-emission, air-conditioned buses travel fast on dedicated lanes, liberated from street traffic and friction with private cars; station platforms are set at the same level as the bus floor, offering fast boarding and alighting; fares are collected mostly at stations before riders board buses, as in the MRT/LRT.
Today, many persons with disabilities and senior citizens (together, they represent 8 to 10 percent of the population) can’t access most city buses in Metro Manila because of the “high floor” design of existing buses (many internal steps to climb). BRT buses are designed to permit persons with wheelchairs and strollers to use the mass transit system. BRT would enhance the mobility of this very large segment of the population.
And BRT can be delivered in shorter time and at much lower cost per kilometer than rail. The key ingredient is political will. To implement BRT, the government should stand by the principle that one lane of road devoted to public transport (moving, say, 10,000 to 20,000 passengers per hour per direction) is a far better use of road space than one lane of road for private cars (moving around 2,000 passengers per hour per direction). And there is no better place to apply this principle than on congested city roads.
With BRT, a commuter traveling from Fairview, Quezon City to Makati could be there in an hour instead of the near three-hour journey required today. By rewarding those on public transport with faster travel speeds, BRT encourages car users to shift to more sustainable transport options. The car user gets to think, “if I were on that BRT bus, I would be home by now instead of being stuck in traffic.” As more car users shift to public transport, the remaining cars on the road get to move faster.
BRT is not only an infrastructure solution; it is also a mechanism for transforming the bus and jeepney industry. For example, the current inefficient public transport business model involves one driver working long hours and earning a commission for collecting as many passengers as possible. This results in dangerous on-street competition among drivers, inefficient lingering at bus stops, and drivers working as long as 16 hours daily.
In a BRT system, bus operators are paid according to the number of kilometers served in a day, with bonuses and penalties linked to service performance and quality. Bus drivers are on fixed salary and benefits, working in shifts, each restricted to driving no more than 7 to 8 hours daily.
BRT can be implemented without necessarily displacing existing transport operators and drivers—they can be part of the new system. On BRT routes, operators of public utility vehicles (PUVs)—jeepneys or buses) will be invited to form consortia and become the BRT bus operators. Under this option, existing operators will have access to capacity building and financing to enable them to acquire and manage a new BRT bus fleet. This approach to transformation of the transport industry has been applied successfully in many BRT systems we find today in Latin America and Africa.
Having both BRT and rail on the same corridor delivers better service to the commuter. In Seoul, there are 10 subway lines below ground overlapping with BRT lines above ground—providing commuters with maximum convenience. In London and New York City, there are many corridors with overlapping rail and bus lines. Intervals between train stations are every 1 to 2 kilometers; intervals between BRT stations can be every 500 to 1,000 meters. So, passengers can transfer easily from a train to a bus, or vice-versa, to get closer to their destinations.
Moreover, on important corridors like EDSA, having more than one form of mass transit provides valuable redundancy. In case MRT3 or the planned Subway is shut down for any reason (such as an earthquake), commuters have an alternate form of mass transit to move around the city. They are not just left without any option.
With an efficient BRT system, provincial bus passengers using the new integrated terminals such as the new Paranaque Integrated Terminal Exchange (PITX) would be able to transfer conveniently to BRT buses going to any of the major destinations in Metro Manila.
Today, as millions of Metro Manilans face longer and longer commutes, and with more Filipino commuters wanting to shift to private car use, the Department of Transportation (DOTr) should prioritize the two BRT projects (Metro Manila BRT Lines 1 and 2) that are NEDA board-approved and implementable since 2016.
Once completed, the two BRT projects can offer high quality public transport to over two million passengers daily and provide convenient access to important city destinations, such as Mall of Asia, Quiapo, Makati, BGC, Ortigas Center, Cubao, and North EDSA.
The delay in implementing the Metro Manila BRT projects has already cost the country billions of pesos in foregone economic benefits. By holding back on the implementation of BRT projects, DOTr sends another wrong message to commuters that private cars are the preferred clients while commuters on public transport should suffer in silence until they can afford a private vehicle.
The government should demonstrate it champions the welfare of the majority over the needs of the minority in private cars—essentially what President Duterte has promised when he speaks about pursuing the “greater good for the greatest number”. Implementing BRT in Metro Manila will deliver the right message to commuters and give real meaning to the President’s promise.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate. He can be reached at mobilitymatters.ph@yahoo.com or followed on Twitter @RobertRsiy
The post Right and wrong messages appeared first on The Manila Times Online.