Urban planning and traffic management
TFirst of three parts oday’s traffic mess is based on compounded sins of omission and commission accumulated over 40 years. As such, it would serve us all to do what Roman Catholics call an “examination of conscience.” The sins committed are extant, and uprooting them would take even more time and would cause even more traffic. Let us review a short list of these sins.
Faulty zoning. Unrealistic public transport route planning, mapping and franchising. Backlogs for building roads, mass transit and pe destrian access. Inadequate driver and traffic enforcer training. Discordant traffic reduction measures. It’s a long list, but so have been the panaceas tried, tested, junked and rehashed by the authorities. Odd- even. Highoccupancy vehicle ( HOV) priority. Coding. U- turns. No left turns. No parking. No loading and unloading. Pink fences. Prefab flyovers up in 90 days. Foot bridges. Public access to private gated communities’ enclave roads. Tow- away zones. Mabuhay lanes. Bollard blockades. Yellow lanes. Organized public bus dispatch. Segregated bus stops. P2P buses. UV Express. Uber and Grab.
Neither is there a shortage of more ideas that we are thinking of trying, or will be trying, such as: Rapid bus transit system, LRT, subways, elevated cross- Metro transit toll ways, no garage/ no registration, higher tax on second cars, river ferries, funicular railways or cable cars, pedestrian zones, carless days, pontoon bridges and congestion charging.
This last one appeals to economists because it faithfully translates the cost of time in terms of marginal utility as reflected in the price. Constructing and enforcing such a charge does not take a lot of time and a lot of infrastructure.
The inspiration is Singapore’s electronic road pricing and London’s congestion charge. Our proposal, explained in a previous post, has congestion charging covering all of Metro Manila’s radial and circumferential avenues while leaving minor streets free. For a P100 charge, one can drive on any of Metro Manila’s main roads from 8 a.m. – 10 p. m. daily if his/ her plate number is allowed — say, if the authorities follow an odd- even vehicle restriction. If the vehicle is not allowed, or “restricted” on that day, the per day charge doubles to P200.
Charging and validation are done by pass- through gantries with overhead readers that record plate numbers and detect the balance of an electronic tag, similar to the defunct e- Pass. Once charged for the day, no matter how many gantries you pass during that day, you will be considered paid. If you redeploy the electronic e- Pass- like tag to another vehicle with a different plate number, you will be charged again.
If the authorities want to pursue HOV priority, then UV express vans, taxis, buses and jeepneys should be exempt from congestion charging.
If the government wants a more drastic vehicle reduction scheme, then there should be no exemption from congestion charging. If the public is initially shocked at the congestion charge pricing, coding rules may apply — a P50 charge four days of a week, P200 charge on coding day. Penalty for failing to load the tag will be collected upon registration renewal at the LTO, or through monetary fines.
Another sound and brilliant but very simple idea was proposed by veteran urban planner Felino A. Palafox; build footbridges across the Pasig River every 800 meters. This addresses the many roundabout trips people take just to cross the waterway. Everyone knows that the Pasig has to have more vehicular bridges to accommodate traffic, but not only do the bridges take time to build, but constructing roads approaching these bridges will be tough because the Pasig’s riverbanks are clogged.
Having many of these footbridges will cause a rethink as to how many more road bridges we need, and also a rehash of all roundabout PUV routes as commuters will likely prefer to walk to cross the Pasig and then take another ride on the other side. Many cities around the world — like London and Paris — are in the process of adding more footbridges across the Thames and Seine because these are quicker to build than road bridges, and these re- channel demand for public transport trips.
But, as always, the devil is in details. These bridges must provide adequate parking spaces on both sides of the river. They should be friendly to people with disabilities, which means their gradients need to be gentle and be made of ramps instead of steps. They should be wide enough to avoid crowding. They should be well-lit at night and have security 24/ 7.
The problem is when you have such a bridge, it also presents a temptation for the “kariton” pushers, “pedicab” drivers, tricycle drivers, motorcyclists and bikers to treat it as their own bridge. In which case the ramps may need barriers, which will depend on what kind of traffic the authorities want to prohibit, i. e., bicycles are all right but not “underbone” motorcycles or scooters. Bridges also present a temptation for ambulant vendors, who eventually entitle themselves to stake a claim for their wares. Presto, another night market is created.