 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Trams versus Traffic By Antonio C. Abaya October 01, 2003 The best way to solve Metro Manila�s seemingly intractable traffic problem is not by driving pesky vendors from the sidewalks. If you look at EDSA, there are sidewalk vendors at only two major points: one is in front of the Nepa Q Mart near Kamias in Quezon City; the other is near the Balintawak so-called cloverleaf interchange., also in Quezon City. Yet almost the entire length of EDSA, from Pasay City to Caloocan City, not just at those two choke points, is clogged with traffic, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. The traffic problem cannot be solved either by uprooting or cutting down trees, as the MMDA tried to do on Katipunan Road in Loyola Heights, Quezon City, before it was mercifully stopped by irate residents and members of the academic communities there. Nor can the traffic problem be solved by such cosmetic suggestions as removing basketball courts from the streets. (How many basketball courts can you count along the entire length of EDSA?). Or by street diggings. (How else can underground telephone cables and drainage pipes be laid?) Or by teaching motorists and traffic aides alike to behave better on the streets. (This can help, but only incrementally.) If you analyze the traffic problems of Metro Manila, as represented by the daily mess on EDSA, two facts stare you in the face. One, there are just too many private vehicles on the obviously inadequate road space available. Two, buses on EDSA (jeepneys on many other streets) are a major generator of road congestion because they bunch up at major intersections (like Guadalupe, Pioneer, Shaw, Ortigas, Santolan, P. Tuazon, Cubao, etc), while their drivers, whose daily incomes are determined by the number of passengers they can load, tarry at those major points and often eat up the lanes meant for private vehicles, thus creating bottlenecks, despite the frantic or limp-wristed efforts of MMDA traffic aides to get them moving faster. This is a daily crucifixion for commuters, drivers, traffic aides and private motorists alike and needs fixing with systemic solutions, not tagpi-tagpi, ad-hoc solutions dreamed up by unimaginative bureaucrats. The systemic solution is to convert the public transport system on primary routes, from buses and jeepneys, to one based on electric trams or electric trolleybuses, and at the same time reduce the number of private vehicles on the streets during rush hours. An electric tram line guarantees that the transport units run neatly in single file, with no bunching up (�pagbubuntis�) anywhere. A modern tram can be monitored at central command and a tram driver who stays longer than the allotted time (say, 60 seconds) at a stop can be disciplined and reprimanded. An electric trolleybus, which also has a pole to draw power from the overhead catenary wires but does not run on rails, has the capability to step out of line into an overtaking lane, but its driver can also be monitored and disciplined for tarrying too long at a stop. I have been to some 25 big and medium-sized cities in Europe and most of them are served by tram/trolleybus lines of varying complexity. Melbourne (Australia), (where I was invited to read a paper in 1995 in an international symposium on �Cities and the New Global Economy�) is crisscrossed by 360 tram lines and any point you want to go to in that city is accessible by one or more tram rides (for which one pays only once, the subsequent rides being covered by transfers). Before the Second World War, American cities were also served by tram lines (as was Manila, by the tramvia of Meralco). But after the war, prosperity triggered the US love affair with the automobile and the tram rails were dug up and discarded. Filipinos being copycats of anything the Americans do, the same fate befell Meralco�s tramvia. We have unwittingly or unconsciously held up Los Angeles as the model for our cities, which is unfortunate since Los Angeles is such a terrible place to be a model for anything. Some eight years ago, the city of Birmingham (UK) commissioned an in-depth study of the traffic problem. Its central findings: building more roads to alleviate road congestion just encourages more people to buy more cars, which clog up the new roads almost as fast as they are built. (In our experience, C-5 confirms that observation.) Its central recommendation: build LRT lines as the backbones of the public transport system, served by a network of electric trams which feed passengers to and from those LRT trunk lines. The second part about the tram network is important. President Arroyo is relying on the LRTs being built (which had been planned by previous presidents) as the answer to the traffic problems of Metro Manila. But, Mrs. President, those LRT lines are only part of the solution. Without decent feeder lines, best represented by trams, most car owners will continue to use their cars to go to work, school or mall, thus they will still clog up the roads during rush hours, even when all the LRTs are built. For example, a junior executive living in, say, BF Homes and working in, say, Ortigas Center will not use a commuter train running parallel to the South Luzon Expressway (when it is built) and the existing EDSA MRT, if he/she has to board a hot and polluting bus or jeepney from his/her subdivision to the train station, and another hot and polluting bus or jeepney from the MRT station to his/her office. The same reluctance on the way back to his/her home. But with tram feeder lines servicing all LRT and MRT stations, hundreds of thousands of car owners will leave their cars at home and use them only on weekends when they go to the countryside (as Melbourners do), thus reducing road congestion significantly in the metro during rush hours. Especially if and when gasoline prices go up, especially if and when parking fees go up. Which is precisely the scenario anticipated by the Birmingham Traffic Study. And many cities in the UK, inspired by that study, are revising their building codes to reduce the number of parking spaces that new buildings will be allowed to have, to compel their tenants and their visitors to use rail-based public transport. It is a tribute to the foresight of Prime Minister Mahathir that Kuala Lumpur is following the Birmingham model. It is a win-win-win-win solution: a neater, single-file public transport system, fewer private cars to clog up the streets, much less pollution in the metro air, and, as excess megawatt capacity is used by the electric trams, smaller PPA charges in our Meralco bills. Is there common sense left in this country? ***** The bulk of this article appears in the October 11, 2003 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Trams versus Traffic� Ah, Tony, You hit a raw nerve in my body. ?When I was still living in Manila I wrote a regular column on MOTORING during the Marcos Martial law era. This was a bi monthly colulmn. in the Philippine Daily Express under Romualdez. Sharing an observation- that have not been affected by my senior moments - is the fact that in the U.S. and other progressive countries, there are no PRIVATE small business transportation. They have transit commissions that are semi government units.. In London the double deckers. In San Francisco we have the muni and the Bart. In San Matoe we have the Samtrains buses. That in themselves are already 1/2 of the solution of crazy road traffic in our cities. There is never TOO MUCH private vehicles. For, as you know from your experiences inthe U.S. and Europe, private vehicles follow rules [and are not subject to jockying for position to snare passengers, which are their sources of revenue.] Alas, but we have to live with our Jeepneys, busses, and assorted other trasnport units in our country. We must allow them for their small business enterprises. Just sharing, Tony.. *I have a budding idea which, with video tape, might help. It is a re education for all drivers on the existing practices of motorists in other countries. Remember, cars came to the Philippines brought over by the Americans at the tu;rn of the century and no formal education took place for many decades until after the war when driving schools sprouted and for the younger gnerations. to learn from. You and I learned "by ear" or from relatives, family driveers and barkadas. informally. Tony Joaquin, tony61798@aol October 06, 2003 MY REPLY: I realize that in developed countries municipal transit systems are municipal-owned. That is because public transportation is usually a money-losing, but necessary, business. But that is not a feasible solution for Metro Manila, unless the government buys out all the thousands of private transport operators, which it does not have the money to do. Nationalizing the public transport system without immediate and just compensation will just compound the problem, rather than solve it. You will have weeks and months of civil unrest as operators remove their units from the streets in protest. The metro will be totally paralyzed by the lack of transportation. The cost of living will go up; GDP will plummet; businesses will grind to a halt as their employees and workers are unable to go to work. A more sensible solution would be to make those private operators whose routes will be affected by a new tram line part-owners of the tram line, and that includes bus and jeepney operators as well as existing transport cooperatives, and jeepney and bus drivers who want to form cooperatives. What do you mean �There is never TOO MUCH private vehicles�? Road space is a finite quantity. A square kilometer of road space can take only so many vehicles. If the number of vehicles, private or public, multiply fast, a saturation point will inevitably be reached. Not every country has the wide open spaces that the US has. That is why the British (and the Malaysians) have concluded that to solve their traffic problem, they have to discourage the use of private vehicles and encourage the use of rail-based public transport. Our problem is that we cannot see any other model except the American. ��������������........................................................................................... I think the merits of tram lines are clear enough to urban planners. The reason why they have not been more widely adopted here is (I would think) financial. Tram lines cost much more to build and maintain. In 1925, Meralco decided it could no longer afford to build new tranvia lines, despite its healthy cash flow. From then on, it served new lines with buses instead. This was with 1925 costs; imagine what it would be like now. Only a government can afford the scale of the financing involved. But with our credit lines tied up by servicing a P200 B deficit and Napocor's needs, there simply isn't enough in the well for us to do this. Raul Rodrigo, [email protected] October 06, 2003 . MY REPLY. I disagree that the reason government has not built tram lines is financial. The government built LRT-1 during the Marcos years, the EDSA-MRT or LRT-3 during the Ramos years, and is building LRT-2 during the Arroyo years. Future governments will build LRT-4, LRT-5, LRT-6 and LRT-7, all of which have been planned, some of which have been bidded out.to contractors. So the reason tramlines have not been built is not financial. A kilometer of grade-level tramline costs only one-fourth to one fifth the cost of one kilometer of an overhead LRT line. A tramline does not need the massive and very expensive carriageway of an LRT line. Nor does a tramline need the massive and very expensive stations of an LRT line. The real reason tramlines have not been built is pure ignorance on the part of DOTC bureaucrats as well as the national leadership. Many of them have never been to Europe, or, if they have been there, have never noticed the role of the lowly trams in providing commuters efficient, environmentally clean, and congestion-free public transportation. That�s why I wrote that article. ������������������. ............................................................................... Dear Tony, I agree with you that trams will be an effective solution to our traffic woes. However, that will take time and money. A lot of them. And yes, the solutions being tried now are merely chipping at the block. But of these, I would pick out driver education and strict enforcement of rules as necessary and effective with or without the trams. In the meantime let's have a little more road courtesy. This and some common sense will lessen the aggravation affecting us road users. Willie Sobritchea, [email protected] October 06, 2003 �����������������������������................................. I must admit that is a very brilliant idea you have there to resolve our traffic problem in Metro Manila (and maybe soon in other cities). Using the tram is clean, and we solve another problem, smog. To be in line to board the train has another advantage. If we provide some sort of metal/bomb detectors in the entrances we can also avoid or at least minimize terrorism in our transportation system. San Francisco is an example of a city who utilizes the tram and they're everywhere. When I was living there, there was no need to drive the car to go shopping. Thank you for your thoughts, and may our lady president be aware of these suggestions. Merlie Hammer, [email protected] October 06, 2003 ����������������������........................................................... IS THERE COMMON SENSE LEFT IN THIS COUNTRY? Yes a little, and it says that the more public works projects that you let government dip their hands into, the more Citra type contracts that we have (raising toll rates 1000%) or LRT projects (If private business loses money the government will pay all expenses) the more fucked up our country is going to get. Peter Capotosto, [email protected] October 06, 2003 MY REPLY. By your logic, the government should not build another meter of road and bridge, nor another schoolhouse or hospital, nor another airport or seaport�because our country will just get more fucked up. You don�t really believe that, do you? ����������������������................................................................... Tony, Before WWII there was the "Trambia" as Filpinos would pronounce it. After WWII when rehabilitation funds poured in, the Philippines could have rehabilitated it and made more and improved and extended the railway system. As usual lots of missed opportunities and spilled milk make Filipinos today endure the agonies of stupidity. Gras Reyes, [email protected] October 07, 2003 .................................................................................................................................................. (Through the pldt egroup) Mr. Abaya is correct in pointing out that the problem of traffic congestion in Metro Manila is rooted in its high vehicular road density. The figure being quoted by the MMDA is 435 vehicles per kilometer of public roadway but this is based on a 1998 Asiaweek survey. In 1978, the vehicular road density was pegged at less than 180. Strangely enough, no updated figures are available because the agency can simply figure this out by getting the number of registered vehicles in the metropolis from the LTO dividing it by the total length of public roads. One can only surmise that the MMDA leadership has no interest in planning using the latest available data. What has been endorsed by the 1998 Metro Manila Urban Transport Integration Study or MMUTIS is a two-pronged solution. First, the creation of a 350-kilometer urban railway network composed of LRT-1 to 6 as well as the MCX and the North railway project. In addition, the existing roadnet should be upgraded and expanded. The urban railway network is supposed to provide alternative quality transport services and mitigate the demand for private vehicles. The MMUTIS pointed out that the average passenger load factor of each vehicle was only 2.3. Currently, the operations of the LRT-1 and the MRT-3 account for less than five percent of the more than 25 million daily passenger trips in the Greater Metro Manila area. Once the entire railway network is brought on-stream and more passenger coaches are added, it is hoped that the percentage will rise to about 50 percent. The major impediments are financial and the speedy acquisition of the needed rights-of-way. Both can only be resolved at the national-level and are beyond the scope of the MMDA. Total cost of the traffic infrastructure is upwards US$30 billion although a downscaled program of P10 billion for the next 20 years has been alternatively recommended by the MMUTIS. Be that as it may, the costs involved are indicative of the need for massive private sector participation. Sadly, the experience with the MRT-3 shows that, in the end, the national government will most likely end up subsidzing the cost of these projects since the users' fees are expected to be prohibitive for the bulk of the beneficiaries. When the subsidies for garbage disposal are added, these amount to hefty sums that show a skewered budget in favor of Metro Manila. It also shows that the government lacks the will to implement the changes that necessarily come with these traffic infrastructure projects as they come on-stream. In the case of EDSA and the MRT-3, for example, there should be a reduction in the 4,000-plus buses plying the route daily. Net of the MRT-3's daily passenger load of 350,000, there are around 400,000 passenger trips left for public conveyance and these even included other means of public transport such as taxis and walking. By the MMDA's own estimates, there should be no more than 1,500 public utility buses plying EDSA now. (But then, the MMDA's insistence on implementing the yellow lane rule for PUB's along EDSA rather than jointly working with the LTFRB to reduce the number of buses plying it may be more related to Chairman Bayani Fernando's political plans since the bus industry association are identified supporters of one presidential possibility.) At best, it can be said that Fernando's sidewalk clearing operations and anti-illegal vending campaign are an attempt to improve mobility at major intermodal transport nodes by helping commuters who must walk in order to transfer from one mode of public transport to another. But, as Mr. Abaya correctly points out, the value is limited. Again, in the case of EDSA, it has 17 intersections all of which are feeder lines serviced by public utulity jeepneys. Yet, the activities of sidewalk vendors are limited to but a few of these intersections along EDSA. Tragically, it is as if the MMDA sidewalk clearing operations has become one legalized robbery-extortion scheme as confiscated goods are fenced to ready buyers in the MMDA's compound in Pasig City and legitimate establishment owners are threatened with demolition of part of their premises unless they pay up. And, the confiscation of goods has not been limited to those found at the sidewalk but even those that are well within the business establishments themselves. The true measure of the effectivity of these efforts are clear-cut: Is the average travel speed within the metropolis improving? There are some perceptions that improvements have occured in selected areas, which the MMDA is quick to capitalize on. But there is no concrete data to back it up, especially not on a metro-wide scale. In the more than one year of Fernando's stewardship of the MMDA, the agency has yet to conduct an average travel time/speed survey. What they cite for reference is an 18 kph average travel speed but this was during the time of former MMDA Chairman and now Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos. More likely, traffic conditions have even worsened. Conveniently, they also omit the fact that even with an 18 kph average travel speed, Metro Manila's traffic conditions are still officially classified as a heavily-congested. Armando Alegre, [email protected] October 08, 2003 MY REPLY. Like I said, no matter how many LRTs are built, if their stations are not serviced by decent, clean, congestion-free feeder lines (like electric tramlines), car-owners will not be convinced to leave their cars at home but will continue to use them in their daily commutes, thus guaranteeing road congestion, especially during rush hours. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |