Wanted: Laws for better mobility
Credit to Author: ROBERT SIY| Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 16:20:47 +0000
On Monday, we will be electing legislators to the Philippine Senate and House of Representatives. For the next batch of senators and congressmen, below are suggestions for legislation that support inclusive and sustainable mobility:
A commuters’ bill of rights–Mobility is a basic human need; every person has the right to travel safely and reliably. Without mobility, citizens can’t access basic services such as health and education or enjoy fundamental freedoms. Moreover, mobility should be enjoyed by people of all ages, abilities and economic status, not only by those who are physically fit, with private motor vehicles or with financial means. The next Congress should pass legislation to guarantee commuters’ rights.
Commuters have: 1) The right to transport services and facilities that meet the mobility requirements of the citizenry; 2) The right to safe, efficient, affordable and convenient public transport services with publicized service standards; 3) The right to safe and sufficient infrastructure for those who walk or cycle and for persons with disabilities; 4) The right to a fair share of public road space and to its utilization in a manner that will deliver the greatest socio-economic benefit; 5) The right to safe, clean, well-located and appropriately-sized transportation stops, stations and terminals; 6) The right to breathe clean air; 7) The right to timely and accurate information on transport services, roads and paths to enable efficient navigation around any urban area; 8) The right to extraordinary care and attention in case of transport service breakdowns; 9) The right to receive compensation for deficiencies in service; and (10) The right to organize and petition authorities and to receive their prompt response when services are below standards or when commuters’ rights are not respected.
Strengthen metropolitan authorities—Mobility improvements in Philippine metropolitan areas require strong coordination among local government units and clear accountability for transportation outcomes. Both of these are missing—and the results are experienced by all.
National agencies make many of the crucial decisions, but have a much larger mandate and output targets than just the welfare of commuters in Metro Manila or Metro Cebu. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Transportation (DOTr) cannot be expected to give constant attention to the biggest urban centers in the country. They have the rest of the country to worry about. Yet, these two agencies have the largest influence on the mobility of urban residents.
Although the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) is tasked with administration of the metropolis, its influence on mobility has been limited to its traffic management function, which it shares with its 16 cities and 1 municipality. And MMDA has been starved of funding and other resources–MMDA’s annual budget is much less than the budget of some of its component cities.
With responsibilities for infrastructure, transport services and traffic management scattered across several national and local agencies, accountability is lacking and many mobility problems remain unresolved. Coordinating the activities of DOTr, Land Transportation Franchise Regulatory Board (LTFRB), MMDA, DPWH and 17 LGUs is laborious and time-consuming.
A better governance structure for Philippine metropolitan areas is long overdue. It is time to have laws re-defining areas like Metro Manila and Metro Cebu and how these areas should be governed. Small LGUs that constitute a larger metropolis should fall under the direction of a strong metropolitan authority headed by an elected official.
There should be a single point of responsibility for essential services delivered in metropolitan areas, including transportation.
Cities such as London, Tokyo and Seoul have metropolitan governments that can manage and coordinate services over a very large area made up of cities and districts.
They each have an elected ‘governor/mayor’ and a regional administrative structure that can manage the local government units that fall within the metropolitan area.
With this setup, national agencies can focus on sector strategy and policy formulation, master planning and development of major infrastructure projects (such as railways, ports and airports), and capacity building for local governments.
The next few years provide the opportunity to carry out this important legislative reform so that the 2022 polls can elect the governors for Philippine metropolitan areas. It would also be opportune to enlarge Metro Manila’s boundaries, recognizing its significant growth over the last two decades.
Amendment of Local Government Code—It is time to amend the Local Government Code to align it with DOTr’s policy of devolving more responsibility and accountability for public transportation and mobility outcomes to local governments. Currently, local governments regulate tricycle services, manage local traffic and have some role in road building and maintenance. Like MMDA, most LGUs currently have very little influence on the availability and quality of transportation services.
Local leaders know their communities best and can be more responsive to their constituents. If there is a problem with transport services in Olongapo or Bacolod or General Santos, one should not have to complain to DOTr Secretary Arthur Tugade. Citizens should be able to complain to the mayor about transportation problems, as their counterparts do in cities all over the world.
An amendment to the local government code should 1) make transportation planning and management among the core functions of a local government; and 2) direct local governments to establish and capacitate LGU transportation divisions to handle this new function.
Recognizing that these capacities are generally non-existent among LGUs, DOTr and DILG will need to support major training and capacity building activities.
National Building Code—The National Building Code is being updated (possibly re-named as the Philippine Building Code). This is the right time to align the new code with key principles of the National Transport Policy: a) prioritizing efficient and sustainable means of mobility–public transport and active transport (walking and cycling); b) focusing on people-mobility over vehicle-mobility; and c) reducing congestion by attracting car users to shift to public transport.
The new code should also support technical standards for designing public space and for ensuring that roads are used in a socially-desirable, economically-efficient and environmentally-sustainable manner. Roads should move from being “car-oriented” to being “people-oriented.”
The new building code (and any implementing rules) should remove references to mandatory parking requirements (so-called parking minimums) for buildings and commercial establishments. Such rules (which link the number of required parking spaces to the proposed area and use of the building) have unnecessarily inflated building costs, attracted further car use in congested city centers, and exacerbated traffic congestion and pollution.
Many progressive cities (e.g.,Portland, Mexico City, Houston, San Diego, Minneapolis) have already eliminated parking minimums, leaving decisions about parking in the hands of property owners. This enables developers to make decisions on parking that match the needs of their neighborhoods. Instead of building an excessive number of parking spaces, some developers may choose to allocate space for bike racks or to support public transportation (for example, in the form of on-site terminals or bus stops), which can attract customers to their property without adding to traffic congestion.
Amendments to the Public Service Act—The current law is now over 80 years old and needs updating. It was designed for an era when transportation services were based entirely on private interest and initiative. In today’s context where mobility is a basic need, private initiative is no longer sufficient. The government needs to ensure that mobility requirements of the citizenry are met. The law should welcome different approaches for meeting the rising demand for public transport services.
An amendment to the Public Service Act should permit local governments to be owners or managers of a transportation service—for example, with government collecting fare revenues and paying private transport operators to provide services on a fee-per-kilometer basis with incentives and penalties based on performance. This model, which has been successfully implemented in cities like London and Singapore, could also be applied in Philippine cities under the proper legal framework.
No vehicle registration without proof of private parking space—Several bills have already been filed in support of this policy. Without a private parking space, a private car would only take up valuable public road space (or sidewalk space) as parking, an illegal appropriation of a public asset. In other countries, similar laws on car registration include a system for mapping all private parking spaces in every barangay, assigning a specific code to each parking space, and then assigning each car during registration to a specific private parking space on the map. This system helps to ensure that one parking space is not used to register multiple vehicles.
These important legislative reforms can be achieved within this administration, deliver substantial benefits to weary commuters, and form part of the legacy of President Duterte. They are as important, if not more important, than the many good infrastructure projects under the “Build, Build, Build” program. It would be great if these legislative proposals could be certified as ‘Urgent’!
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 Wanted: Laws for better mobility appeared first on The Manila Times Online.