* This is my article in BusinessWorld last March 14, 2017.
Traffic congestion is an engineering problem with
engineering solutions, not bureaucratic solutions involving increased
prohibitions.
The recent plan of the Metro Manila Development Authority
(MMDA) to extend the car ban on EDSA to certain hours five days a week is very
idiotic and arbitrary. Its plan is (a) the existing one day a week, 7 a.m. to 7
p.m., based on the last digit of the car plate, AND (b) on certain hours of the
other four days involving an odd-even ban every two hours.
If there are problems, the first impulse of bureaucrats
with dictatorial tendencies is to create ban-this-prohibit-that regulations and
restrictions. If previous prohibitions failed, then create another layer of
prohibitions.
Based on this new ban proposal, it doesn’t matter if the
person has three or more cars because the prohibition is by the hour, not by
the day.
Although some people adjust to traffic congestion by
buying or renting a condo or dormitory room near their offices, others cannot
simply afford that option.
The latter includes parents and guardians who bring their
kids to school first then go to their offices and then pick up the kids later
and head back to their house.
One day a week car prohibition on EDSA and many streets
and cities in Metro Manila is already bad because it forces many households to
buy a second car or motorcycle, which further raises the number of vehicles in
the metropolis.
If one is caught in a long traffic due to accidents or
road construction, one can lose the two-hour window and therefore be subject to
fines, penalties, and extortion. And to think that the MMDA already gets huge
allotments from taxpayers via their annual appropriation while they get more
money from the public via endless schemes of fines and penalties.
More engineering solutions, not more bureaucratic
“solutions of more prohibitions” should be pursued by the government. Consider
the investments by other governments in big Asian cities.
In the table above, Manila is not included in the study
but data from other cities should give us ideas how to provide more engineering
solutions. Rail network here includes MRT (Mass Rapid Transit)/Subway/Metro and
LRT (Light Rail Transit). The MRT systems in Singapore and Taipei are
equivalent to Subway or Metro in other cities. Commuter rail is excluded (see
Table 1).
Commuters in Tokyo rely more on rail-based system, those
in Beijing rely more on buses. Commuters in Shanghai, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore,
and Taipei use a good mixture of both. Although the data was collected in 2013,
they still reflect current trends.
In Metro Manila, the three MRT and LRT networks are
obviously insufficient to serve its 12 million residents plus an estimated four
million people from nearby provinces of Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Rizal,
Laguna, and Cavite who go to Metro Manila almost daily for work, meetings and
schooling.
If Manila is included in urban transportation comparison
with big Asian cities, Manila will likely excel if the main metrics is the
number of traffic enforcers and officers on government payroll, not the length of
rails and multi-level roads (interchange, tunnel, skyway) constructed and
properly maintained.
There are various options for urban mass transportation
that the MMDA, LTO, LGUs and other agencies should consider, spend money there
instead of hiring more traffic officers who will harass and penalize more
motorists with various prohibitions that they have enacted (see Table 2).
The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is the cheapest system and
has been proposed in both Metro Manila and Metro Cebu but only the latter seems
to have prepared for it. MRT/LRT are more expensive but they are faster and can
transport more people per hour than BRT.
In the short run, as in doable within a month, the
government can consider the following:
1. Allow the current Point to Point (P2P) buses and vans
to go to more destinations. Not just SM North to Makati City and Ortigas or
BGC. Rather, allow them to pick up passengers from Pasig City, Marikina City,
Taguig City, Malabon City, Navotas City, etc. and crisscross to more destinations.
2. Allow the air-con vans to pick up passengers from many
subdivisions and villages to various destinations. Commuters will avoid riding
tricycles and jeepneys, the most inconvenient urban transportation system and
among the major reasons why many people drive their cars just to avoid riding
these small vehicles.
3. Allow fare deregulation in buses and vans so that more
transport operators will field more modern and convenient vans and buses. They
can charge higher fares but lower than driving a car, riding a taxi or
uber/grab car. Less modern buses and vans will be forced to charge lower to
attract more passengers.
Government should allow, not prohibit, more market
initiatives in providing both short- and long-term solutions to the traffic
congestion problem. Make people’s commute convenient and safe, “one ride” as
much as possible. And many people will leave their cars or motorcycles at home
and jeepneys and tricycles will slowly die a natural death.
Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal
Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of
EFN-Asia.
----------------
See also:
BWorld 115, Centralization and federalism, March 23, 2017
BWorld 116, Urban transport myths and the jeepney strike, March 28, 2017
BWorld 117, Energy bureaucracy, electric cooperatives and NEA, March 28, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment