Traffic as a presidential issue

I’VE been watching most of the presidential debates on TV. So far, I don’t think any one of the candidates has ever been asked about the traffic problem, or that traffic has been mentioned as a problem at all. Well, it is. And if it’s not on the radar of the candidates, it should be.

According to a study, the traffic-related problems of Metro Manila alone costs the country an estimated at $2.019 billion a year, or P277 million daily, in lost time of workers; and another $19 million, or P962 million, annually in hospitalization expenses and lost productive time due to illness.

How’s that for a big picture issue? It goes to show you the traffic problem is not a parochial concern at all. I would say the approval ratings of a President who could untangle Metro Manila’s traffic gridlocks would shoot through the roof.

The study I cited is called The Edsa Bus Reduction Project, which is proposed for World Bank funding. It said Edsa carries some 225,000 vehicles daily, including around 3,500 franchised and 1,500 unauthorized or illegal buses, which is the main culprit for the congestion-related losses in Metro Manila, the study said.

Inadequate and poorly planned infrastructure, too many vehicles, poor enforcement of rules and regulations, were cited among the other factors contributing to traffic congestion.

The study said Edsa, the city’s main thoroughfare, suffers from an oversupply of buses. The Metro Rail Transit, or MRT, which started operations in 2000, lured most of the bus riders away. As a result, the competition among these buses, which operate like jeepneys, became more intense.

Although not mentioned in the study, it probably made the roads more dangerous, as these buses would kill (at times literally) just to get passengers.

The study also said the loading and unloading time of the buses increased, thereby increasing travel time as well. Buses would practically park along Edsa at times waiting for passengers.

“It takes an average of five hours to complete a round trip along 24-km Edsa, at an average speed of about 15 kilometers per hour and one-minute stop at each of the more than 15 designated bus stops. Based on the authorized level of 3,500 buses, the service headway at Edsa is one bus per 11.2 seconds,” the study said.

Why are there so many buses to begin with, when there are fewer passengers because of the MRT?

The open-franchise system under the 70-year-old Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act 146) is partly to blame, according to the study.

The Land Transportation Fran-chising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) grants bus operators a 15-year franchise. The LTFRB has no official quota on the number of units that can be granted Certificates of Public Conveniences (CPCs) on Edsa. CPCs are transferable to other bus operators or units and are rarely canceled. The CPCs are just passed on or sold to other bus operators.

That’s why you can see smoke-belching buses that have seen much better days still plying our roads. Retiring buses is an alien concept, both for the LTFRB and among bus operators.

Then you have the continued operation of illegal units or colorum buses, which add to the congestion.

Bus operators should not have their way with the LTFRB, but why do they? Is it corruption or just plain negligence?

The solutions, at least some of them, are clear, according to the study. Reduce the number of legally operating buses. Get rid of the colorum buses. And shorten the franchise period from 15 years to only five years.

What the study also shows in my humble opinion is that infrastructure alone won’t solve our traffic problem. Besides, adding new roads is expensive.

More than anything it’s about traffic management and transportation management.

It’s also about improving the planning and zoning system for residential and commercial property. For instance, building malls too close to the roads guarantees a massive convergence of public utility vehicles that would choke traffic.

It’s also about the strict enforcement of rules and regulations.

It’s a combination of all these and more. Ultimately, it’s about the political will to enforce good urban planning.

We frequently mention Hong Kong when it comes to good urban planning and traffic management. Hong Kong has one of the world’s highest per capita salary rates, but only three percent of the population owns a car because, one, parking space is expensive, and you can’t own a car if you don’t have a garage or a paid parking space on the street; and two, public transport is very convenient and very available so people choose to use it instead of using private transport.

Here, as soon as people can afford a car, they buy one, and sometimes they buy one even if they can’t afford it because mass transportation is so inconvenient.

HK buses don’t operate like jeepneys. Their drivers are salaried employees. They are not paid based on the number of passengers they pick up. If you miss a bus, another arrives within minutes, and it doesn’t wait to fill up because the buses work on schedules and stop at designated bus stops.

Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway predates ours by decades and has been copied by other modern cities like London. They also have trams, light rail systems and taxis that don’t discriminate among passengers. They also have a system of outdoor escalators or “travelators” for pedestrians.

Our traffic problem is so complicated because it involves several agencies of government and several local governments. It needs the authority of a President to solve it. But it can be solved. There are successful models like Hong Kong to emulate.

Our traffic problem has vexed Metro Manila for the longest time and has choked economic activity. More than $3 billion a year is lost financially.

It should be a presidential issue, don’t you think?

ernestboyherrera@yahoo.com –ERNESTO F. HERRERA, Manila Times