* This is my article in BusinessWorld last March 01, 2017.
Traffic congestion in urban areas is an engineering
problem with engineering solutions. It is a result of some market failures with
market solutions and in many cases, government solutions only lead to failures
in reducing the congestion.
Here are some myths in urban transportation that persist
until today.
1 Big urban population means big urban congestion in
traffic and housing.
WRONG.
If people refer to Metro Manila as a “prime example” of
this statement, then they do not know or see other megacities in East Asia
alone, like Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing, and Osaka-Kobe. Huge urban populations
are served by modern urban transport systems and expansive high-rise
residential condos that cut travel times to and from work or schools.
There is net benefit for people living in congested urban
areas than in far away rural areas. People try to squeeze themselves in a
limited space where various amenities are available, where the distance from
house to work or school is shorter.
2 Prohibitions like “number coding” of private vehicles
and banning some buses to enter Metro Manila will reduce traffic congestion.
WRONG.
Prohibiting cars in Metro Manila one day a week led to
more households to buy a second or third car (usually a used car) or
motorcycles so they have another vehicle car to use on the “coding day” of
their first car.
Many passengers of provincial buses are car- or
motorcycle-owners in the province, so when government prohibits these
provincial buses to enter Metro Manila and force the passengers to alight at
far ends of the metropolis and take city buses that move slow because of
frequent stops or take taxis that are more expensive, these people instead will
drive their cars or motorcycles to the metropolis and this will further worsen
traffic congestion.
3 Prohibition of multiple-destination air-con vans and
allow only point-to-point (P2P) vans and buses will reduce congestion.
WRONG.
People put high priority for their convenience and safety
when they travel. They avoid three to four rides one way to go to their
offices, universities, other destinations (tricycle, then jeep/van, then
MRT/LRT/P2P bus, then jeep/van/tricycle to final destination). These same rides
are more inconvenient during bad weather. That is why many people drive their
cars or motorcycles despite the heavy traffic and expensive parking.
Government should allow multiple destination air-con
vans, say from Fairview to Marikina or Pasig or Navotas; or from Las Piñas to
Taguig or Marikina or Manila, and so on. This will make commutes convenient and
safe. Many people will leave their cars or motorcycles at home and jeepneys and
tricycles will slowly die a natural death.
4 Government should regulate bus/jeepney/van fares always
and disallow flexible fare setting by transport operators.
WRONG.
Airfares and shipping fares are deregulated and as a
result, airlines and shipping lines can adjust their fares depending on the travel
season (low/cheap during the rainy season and school days, high during
Christmas, school breaks, and fiestas), and they set different fares per class
of seats and passengers (ordinary, deluxe air-con, business class, etc) for the
same plane or boat.
Fare deregulation will allow transport operators to field
modern and convenient vans and buses that charge higher fares (but still lower
than riding a taxi or any ride-sharing service) so that less modern buses and
vans will be forced to charge lower.
5 Jeepneys and similar small-volume public transportation are common in some Asian countries.
WRONG.
Small-population Asian economies like Hong Kong and
Singapore do not have jeepneys. Even economies that are less-developed than the
Philippines like Vietnam and Cambodia do not have jeepneys. Motorcycles and
buses are the common mode of transportation by the poor in these countries.
6 The jeepney strike will endear jeepneys to the public.
WRONG.
The jeepney strike in Metro Manila and other big cities
in the Philippines last Feb. 27 has succeeded only in class cancellations and
the public have found more ways to travel without jeepneys. Again, if
multiple-destination (not just the inflexible destination P2P) air-con vans,
and buses with deregulated and competitive fares are allowed, jeepneys and
tricycles will die a natural death without the government creating a new law or
Department/Administrative Order or LGU ordinance.
7 Jeepney drivers and operators will go hungry if
jeepneys are phased out ultimately.
WRONG.
The same fear was expressed when telegrams were replaced
by pagers, and when pagers were replaced by mobile phones and the Internet; or
when horse-drawn calesas were replaced by jeepneys and tricycles; or when rice
farms were converted to poultry farms or residential subdivisions; or when
fishing villages were converted to beach resorts and hotels. People learn new
skills, they move to other work or professions. Jeepney drivers can become van
or bus drivers, or do other work.
Meanwhile, government should learn to step back and allow
players to initiate market solutions to the traffic congestion problem.
Government should instead focus on securing road right of
way (ROW) for important infrastructure projects like MRT/LRT, skyways and
interchanges. Transporting people and goods to various destinations is not a
crime that must require lots of government permits, taxes, and expensive
franchises.
---------------
See also:
BWorld 113, Peace talks with CPP-NDF for another 30 years? March 04, 2017
BWorld 115, Centralization and federalism, March 23, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment