ENDEAVOR
Traffic congestion is the bane of all metropolitan cities. Including Metro Manila. As of 2020, according to the Philippine Statistics Authority’s population census, Metro Manila’s population reached 13,484,462, joining the ranks of the most populated cities such as Tokyo, New Delhi, Shanghai, Sao Paolo and Mexico City.
Having the worst traffic situation is a big drag on the economy and a huge burden on residents and commuters. Sounding the call for urgent action, the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) has proposed the designation of a Traffic Czar who must be “vested with full powers and authority to mobilize, direct and deploy existing relevant resources of the government, both national and local, during the exigency of this crisis.”
As reported by this paper last Feb. 2: “In 2014, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) revealed that the traffic congestion in Metro Manila costs the Philippine economy at least ₱2.4 billion per day. This amount reflects the value of time lost due to delay, fuel costs, impact on health, and environmental destruction, among others. With the traffic piling up due to the rising urbanization in the capital, JICA predicts the associated costs will likely increase to ₱6 billion if no effective intervention will be implemented by 2030.”
MAP President Rene D. Almendras is well-poised to lead this call. Now Senior Managing Director of Ayala Corporation and President-CEO of AC Logistics, he served as then President Benigno ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III’s Energy Secretary and Cabinet Secretary.
In 2015, President Aquino heeded a similar call from the MAP’s Traffic, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee then (as it is presently) headed by Eduardo H. Yap. Tapping then Cabinet Secretary Almendras as point person, the President ordered the Highway Patrol Group (HPG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to take over traffic management on EDSA.
MAP’s call for a Traffic Czar is complemented by a proposal that Metro Manila be organized into four traffic management zones with each zone headed by a qualified zone traffic manager.
Almendras makes it clear he is not aspiring for the position. Former Transportation Secretary Jose ‘Ping’ de Jesus believes: “What is needed is someone who can coordinate all the government instrumentalities having to do with traffic management and be able to break the bureaucratic red tape and push things forward.”
Another fellow member of the MAP committee, former Public Works Secretary Fiorello ‘Toto’ Estuar says that the Traffic Czar should be one with direct access to the President who will then authorize the exercise of the “override’ option covering all government agencies whose functions are related to, or impinge upon Metro Manila traffic management, including the MMDA and the LGUs that comprise it, DILG, LTO and LTFRB, and the PNP.
As explained by Yap: “We need a traffic czar not just to serve as a coordinator of different agencies working together to ease traffic flow, but one who is empowered to exercise executive power to mobilize resources of the different national government agencies to expeditiously and effectively implement measures to provide the earliest relief from traffic congestion gripping the capital city.”
The Metro Manila traffic crisis is borne out of decades of patchwork, stop-gap solutions being experimented on by a succession of elected and appointed government executives and administrators. Filipinos who have traveled to other major cities of the world know only too well that purposive, long-term planning is key.
Tokyo provides a good example.
In 2023, Yomiuri-Shimbun published a series of articles “looking at lessons that have been learned over the past 100 years since the Great Kanto Earthquake as Tokyo enters a new era of urban development.” The fourth installment was headlined – Tokyo: 100 Years of Urban Regeneration/Ring Road System Helps Reduce Traffic Jams.
Take note of the 100-year planning horizon. I recall Konosuke Matsushita’s 250-year plan for National/Panasonic that was divided into ten 25-year plans. The Yomiuri-Shimbun series reviews “the past 100 years since the Great Kanto Earthquake as Tokyo enters a new era of urban development.”
It points out that serious traffic congestion in many foreign countries’ metropolitan centers may be traced to the approach similar to that adopted by New York City: a “street grid system, streets and avenues (that) run vertically and horizontally, so there are more intersections and therefore vehicles often have to wait at traffic lights. In London, medieval road networks have been preserved to protect the townscape.”
In contrast, Tokyo residents know very well about the eight ring roads on which traffic flows in their city, through tunnels and several levels of overhead road infrastructure. According to Yomiuri-Shimbun: “Ring roads cross radial major road and railways via overpasses or tunnels, so they can be developed without using many signals or rail crossings. By using ring roads, it is possible to bypass central Tokyo areas and avoid traffic jams.”
Back to our EDSA crisis, MAP focuses on “other infrastructure like bridges over Pasig River to divert and relieve over-concentration of vehicles in the few existing bridges; provide more on and off-ramps for existing Skyways, while clearing ground-level traffic to enable vehicles to exit or access the ramps; provide more alternate exits and entry points to the NLEX and SLEX tollways to decongest existing tollgates; and construction of more effective and sustainable flood control measures, among others.”
As road infrastructure is severely limited, MAP pragmatically recommends that priority be given to public transport. Indeed, “high occupancy in conveyances and uninterrupted vehicle flow are the keys to higher commuter throughput.” As a good case in point, MAP cites the successful experiment on the pilot EDSA Busway System, urging the government “through the Public Private Partnership model, to bring it to world-class standards” by moving forward on the standing unsolicited proposal and proceed with the Swiss challenge soonest. Moreover, MAP supports the system’s expansion to other major thoroughfares, such as Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon Avenue, Sucat Avenue, Alabang-Zapote Road and others.
Another important proposal is “to institutionalize travel demand management by charging private vehicles in high-volume traffic routes during peak travel hours and rationalize the jeepney and bus franchising system to institute a one-route, one-franchise system.”
MAP has also urged the government to build a government center and transfer all national offices to the New Clark City and impose a moratorium on building new government offices in Metro Manila. This is aimed at developing satellite communities outside Metro Manila to be linked with the NCR north and south commuter rail system.