Limited diagnosis of our traffic problem
Credit to Author: The Manila Times| Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 16:40:14 +0000
It is disappointing and unsettling to hear MMDA’s proposals to address traffic congestion, which bears an economic cost of about P3.5 billion a day. We say disappointing because the proposals sound limited in scope, focusing mainly on reducing the number of vehicles on roads. We added unsettling because the proposals sound shallow and unimaginative, suggesting that a solution may not come soon. Without an effective remedy, the estimated cost of this problem may balloon to P5.4 billion a day by 2035, according to the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
First, having too many cars is only part of the problem. Recently, the proposal being tested is aimed at reducing the number of buses that ply EDSA, the main thoroughfare that cuts across the metropolis. The idea has been slammed for being anti-poor, which may be a fair point. Buses and other means of public transport typically cater to poorer commuters. Those who can afford to enjoy the comfort of riding in their own private vehicles.
We agree that in the short-term, the authorities need to find solutions to reduce the volume of traffic. And, as we have mentioned in this space earlier, the MMDA’s idea deserves thorough study by the Senate. If we do buy into that concept, then the approach to lessen the number of vehicles on the roads should probably target private vehicles, not buses. There are more than 247,000 private cars that use EDSA daily, compared to some 12,000 buses. A bus may have a larger footprint than even an SUV, but it carries far more passengers.
Of course, favoring buses over private cars is not without disadvantages worth taking note of. From the way they drive, bus drivers obviously know little about driving rules and courtesies, a deficiency generally attributed to a lack of discipline that exacerbates congestion. Also, car owners should not be faulted for using their vehicles, since the public transport system is underdeveloped, inconvenient and often times unreliable.
Other options
Second, programs to address traffic congestion should be comprehensive, much broader than anything mentioned in public so far. Before the authorities lock in on buses or consider extreme measures like granting emergency powers to the President, they should explore all possibilities and get creative.
On the positive side, the government has made a few right moves such as deciding to transfer some government offices to Clark in Pampanga. Developing business and government hubs outside Metro Manila will surely help.
The Build, Build, Build program would also be helpful, and we hope that the government could accelerate its implementation.
Besides what the government is already doing, we urge the authorities to build even more railway lines. We should move large cargo containers via rail, rather than by lorries. The authorities should also look at the ports in
Batangas and Subic to determine what is keeping them from becoming viable alternatives to Manila.
Our transportation planners should revisit the idea of harnessing the Pasig River and other rivers for transport. We can even study how to use Laguna de Bay to ferry people and goods to and from the metropolitan area and the provinces of Rizal and Laguna.
Furthermore, the authorities should revisit the number-coding system, which has been in place since the mid-1990s. It seems ineffective. We suspect that scheme has contributed to an increase in the number of vehicles over the decades, many of which have no proper parking areas. It may be helpful to see how Pasig City is coping after its new mayor suspended the coding system there.
Of course, we should not forget about improving education or public awareness about traffic rules and other motoring issues. Before drivers can obey traffic signs, they should first learn how to read them. Pedestrians need to learn as well, particularly where to cross streets or get on and off public transport.
Granted, any alternative idea needs careful study. Our point is that the public discourse on traffic congestion should be broader in scope and creative. If our focus remains narrow, then our diagnosis of the problem may be off, and any proposed solution may turn out to be ineffective or even make matters worse.