Not a perfect traffic plan, but a start

EARLIER this week, the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) made an effort to contribute to a solution to Metro Manila’s traffic crisis by presenting a slightly updated version of a plan the organization originally put forth in 2015. The plan is far from perfect, but contains several good points. We believe it can be used as a starting point for the more focused, comprehensive effort that is desperately needed to solve what is now widely recognized as the world’s worst traffic.

The list of recommendations from MAP is quite extensive. These include the formation of “a new traffic management team” headed by a “traffic czar,” who will in turn have four managers of traffic management zones that Metro Manila will be divided into. Another key recommendation is the relocation of government offices to Clark in Pampanga.

We mention these two recommendations first because they are the most problematic of the various suggestions made and should be rejected. Adding another layer of administration to the problem is inefficient; if all the concerned agencies and stakeholders were doing their jobs and coordinating their efforts properly in the first place, no such extra organization would be necessary. This was the rationale of the Aquino administration back in 2015 when MAP first presented the idea, and it was the correct response, even if there was poor follow-up to make existing traffic management assets work more efficiently.

There is also the appearance of an ulterior motive in the recommendation, which would certainly erode public confidence in it. MAP’s nomination for the proposed “traffic czar” back in 2015 was then-Cabinet Secretary Rene Almendras. Almendras now serves as the chairman of MAP, and he should hardly be surprised if the connection raises some skepticism.

Likewise, the initiative to move most or all of the government offices to Clark is a nonstarter. It has rarely worked anywhere it has been tried, and the efforts that were put toward it during the Duterte administration had poor results. The Department of Transportation, as one pertinent example, had to abandon its relocation and return to Metro Manila after the move caused a host of problems that seriously compromised its efficiency and productivity. Expanding government offices to other parts of the country to provide better service could be worthwhile, if done judiciously, but it is likely not one that will have any discernible impact on traffic in the Metro.

Other recommendations offered by the MAP plan, however, are quite sensible and should be strongly considered for implementation. These include imposing some form of congestion charge for private cars; reviving the Mabuhay Lane scheme of alternate traffic routes and improving enforcement of anti-obstruction rules; creation of a “rapid response team” to clear traffic choke points; improving traffic flow by limiting left turns, crossings and U-turns; requiring high-passenger occupancy in zones with particularly high traffic density; requiring off-street loading and unloading, or providing boarding lanes for the purpose; improving and expanding sidewalks and cycling routes; and rationalizing bus and jeepney routes.

The MAP plan also presented a number of longer-term infrastructure development recommendations. These are also potentially promising ideas that should be closely examined, but it would perhaps be better to treat them separately; pursuing relatively easier, short-term solutions will make longer-term planning and development easier.

Even though the concept of a “traffic czar” should be obviated by better cooperation among responsible agencies, local government units and key transportation stakeholders, that cooperation clearly will not happen without a strong catalyst. Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s vision of “Bagong Pilipinas,” government should be more flexible, coordinated and efficient, and so to make that happen, what the government should do now is use the MAP plan as a starting point and convene a temporary commission of all of the above to study and develop a coordinated plan. While the work must be thorough, it should not take long, perhaps no more than three or four months; besides MAP’s recommendations, there are numerous other studies and sets of recommendations — including the 2017 National Transport Plan, which was cited by MAP — that are available and simply waiting for the proper attention and implementation.