Getting objectives right
Credit to Author: ROBERT SIY| Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 16:19:53 +0000
For decades, the objective of many traffic and transportation officials has been to make cars go faster on our roads. What transportation science has taught us is that improving traffic flow for cars is a losing battle. If traffic congestion eases because of some new infrastructure or regulation, car use temporarily becomes more attractive. Soon after, the increase in car population overwhelms and negates the efforts to get cars to move faster. This phenomenon is called “induced demand”. You can’t cure obesity by buying larger pants.
In Greater Manila, it is estimated that over 500 private cars and over 1,000 motorcycles are added daily to the population of motor vehicles. No wonder, traffic is getting worse each month. Just to keep the level of congestion constant with this increase in vehicle numbers, one would have to build an additional lane of EDSA every three days.
Road expansion is not a sustainable solution as long as private vehicle use remains the preferred mode of transportation. Instead, we need to work on making public transportation, walking and cycling more attractive than using a private motor vehicle.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not against car ownership (I am also a car owner)—what matters is the regularity of car use. Germany, Japan, Norway and Sweden are countries where more than 50 percent of households own cars, but their cars are used mainly for special trips or emergencies—e.g., going out of town on weekends, visits to the doctor, etc.). For everyday travel, they rely on public transport or active transport (walking or cycling).
Are Filipinos fundamentally allergic to public transport or active transport? When I ask Filipino car users about taking other means of mobility, many say: “When abroad, I use public transport all the time. If only public transport were reliable, safe and convenient, I would take it every day.” Or “I would gladly bike to work if only safe bike lanes were available.”
What prevents the Philippines from delivering a better environment for public transport, walking and cycling? A lot has to do with the transportation objectives of national and local agencies. For example, for the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the key performance indicator for road transport under the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022 is defined as: “Travel speed by road in key corridors increased (kph)”. With this goal, many agencies see their function as facilitating the flow of cars.
This car-centric approach, unfortunately, results in policies and investments that discriminate against public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. Roads are widened while sidewalks are reduced or eliminated. Pedestrians are forced to use elevated crosswalks to eliminate ground-level pedestrian crossing. Bicycle lanes are non-existent in most cities, even though bicycle use is climate-friendly, health-promoting and pro-poor. Because car users might be inconvenienced, there is a reluctance to prioritize the use of limited road space for public transport (e.g., dedicated lanes for buses) even though public transport users constitute the vast majority. In some cases, public transport (UV Express, provincial buses, etc.) are restricted from using major roads.
In terms of people-throughput, prioritizing cars on our limited road space is the least efficient use of road space, moving at best around 2,000 persons per hour per direction. Using the same road space as lanes for trains, buses, walking or cycling can achieve five to 10 times more people-throughput at much less cost, pollution and energy consumption.
To solve our transportation crisis, one of the fundamental reforms is to move our national and local agencies away from their focus on “car mobility” and instead redefine their objective as “people mobility”. Instead of working on how cars can move faster, agencies need to facilitate the movement of the greatest number of people safely and conveniently.
The National Transport Policy, approved in September 2017 by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) board chaired by President Duterte, already provides clear guidance: “The focus is moving more people than vehicles. Public mass transportation in urban areas shall be given priority over private transport. [Section 7. Transportation Management in Urban and Regional Areas.]” How do we implement this basic reorientation in our practice of transportation development?
First of all, there should be clear instruction to revise objectives and targets of national and local agencies, removing their car-centric bias. People-throughput rather than vehicle-throughput should be indicated as the main measure of agency performance and be reflected in the targets and objectives of each concerned unit. Relevant circulars, manuals and guidelines of government agencies should then be modified accordingly.
Second, transport infrastructure should be inclusive, rather than focused on the needs of a single user. In the development or expansion of roads by national and local government agencies, the needs of different road users—including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation riders, car and motorcycle users, and Filipinos of all ages and abilities, including women, the elderly and persons with disability— should be addressed. In the urban planning profession, this strategy, called a “complete streets” approach, is regarded as best practice.
Third, public assets such as roads and bridges should be operated and managed in a manner that delivers the greatest benefit, while being socially inclusive. This is the obligation of national and local agencies being the stewards of public assets.
If the Philippines persists in its car-centric planning approach, we will all continue to suffer worsening mobility. If we develop cities for cars, we get more cars, more congestion and more pollution. If we develop cities that prioritize public transport, walking and cycling (and make them attractive options to using a car or motorcycle), we get cities that are happier, healthier, environmentally sustainable and more productive. And car users will also be better off.
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 Getting objectives right appeared first on The Manila Times Online.