The National Transport Policy
Transportation and traffic are major problems for the Philippine economy and Filipino people. It always makes me feel so sad to go on the main streets of Metro Manila at five o’clock in the morning and see how many people are already walking or lining up for transportation to be able to get to their jobs on time. I am not just talking of Quiapo or Caloocan; but, even places like Bonifacio Global City which is supposed to be a prime sample of a well planned urban area.
This is why I was very interested in reading the Draft Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the National Transport Policy recently issued by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for public discussion. The paper has many good points. It is correct when it says: ”...analyses of the condition of the Philippine transport system indicate recurring issues such as: (a) lack of integrated and coordinated transport network; (b) overlapping and conflicting functions of transport agencies; (c) transport safety and security concerns; and, (d) inadequate transport facilities particularly in conflict affected and underdeveloped areas.”
While I understand that this is a policy paper and not a Transportation Master Plan, I still think that the NEDA failed to adequately address three critical issues. The first is the fact transportation policy cannot be separated from land use policy. There can be no integrated transport system without an integrated land use policy and plan. Second, while it states the fact that there are overlapping and conflicting functions of transport agencies, I did not see this critical issue adequately addressed in the paper. Third, there is a lot of responsibility placed on local government units (LGUs). But, there is policy fallback in the event LGUs are incapable or unwilling to fulfil their obligations.
For example, in Section 7 - Transportation Management in Urban and Regional Areas, it says: “The focus is moving more people than vehicles. Public mass transportation in urban areas shall be given priority over private transport. High capacity public transport systems shall be the preferred mode in high passenger density corridors...” But, we know that private cars are given preference over public transportation even in high density traffic corridors. For example, private cars are allotted more traffic lanes than buses. A car or a van with one or two persons inside can go practically anywhere while a jeepney with a dozen passengers is barred from entering many main highways based on the idea that they cause more traffic congestion.
The same section says: “...LGUs shall periodically develop transport and traffic management plans to ensure integration with the area’s land use plans , taking into consideration external accessibility needs and alignment to regional/development goals.” I have yet to see the serious implementation of a regional land use plan. Even in Metro Manila, each city or municipality has a lot of leeway in formulating its own land use plan. So we see subdivisions, residential condominiums, malls, schools hospitals, and so on being approved without any consideration for external accessibility needs or its impact on traffic patterns in nearby neighborhoods or cities.
One of the biggest obstacles to infrastructure projects is the “right of way” issue when there are urban poor settlements residing in the proposed area. The Draft IRR states: “LGUs shall be primarily responsible for the resettlement activities, which includes the development of resettlement sites, provision of adequate basic services and community facilities, in anticipation of informal settlers that have to be removed from the right of way (ROW) site or location of future infrastructure projects, with assistance from the national government agencies. Where resettlement comprises a significant component of a proposed project, the civil works component shall not be bidded out until the affected households have been adequately resettled.”
I completely agree that informal settlers should not be removed unless there are adequate resettlement facilities. But, there are two issues that have to be addressed. Resistance to resettlement is often caused by relocation to sites where there are no jobs or livelihood available. Most LGUs do not have the capability to develop adequate resettlement sites and provide livelihood opportunities. Even LGUs that have resources may need to develop resettlement sites in areas located in another city or municipality. This can cause jurisdictional issue since most LGUs will resist resettlement sites for informal settlers in their area. Clearly, NEDA needs to pinpoint a national agency as the ultimate responsibility center for this critical issue.
In Section 24 - Defining a Hierarchy of Public Transportation in Urban Areas, the draft states: “Public mass transportation in urban areas shall be given priority over private transportation in the use of road space to ensure accessibility, convenience, reliability, safety, security and fare competitiveness.”
Once again, I would like to know how this “priority” shall be implemented. In almost every traffic scheme, private cars have been given priority over buses and jeepneys. I wonder if this policy will now require subdivisions to open their roads to public transportation?
For me, the most critical part of the draft is Section 23 - Integration of Land Use and Transport Planning which states: “All government agencies and LGUs involved in the movement of people and goods and in the provision of transportation infrastructure, facilities and services shall adopt an integrated approach to land use and urban transport planning in order to have more effective management of growth in urban areas ...”
LGUs will not voluntarily give up their authority over land use. But unless there is a national land use authority, there will never be an “integrated land use and transport plan.” Creative writing classes for kids and teens Young Writers’ Hangout on Oct. 6 and 13 (1:30 pm-3 pm; stand-alone sessions) at Fully Booked BGC. For details and registration, email writethingsph@gmail.com.