In an interview with DZMM last week, former Department of Transportation undersecretary Tim Orbos had very blunt words about Metro Manila’s congested roads: “it’s like terminal cancer.”
It’s easy to dismiss the traffic the capital is facing now as a consequence of the Christmas season, but you just know deep inside that it’s worse. I, personally, have experienced this – not in the last few weeks, but early last month, when my trip from Alabang to my home in Mandaluyong was half an hour longer – despite me leaving at half past eight, when traffic is usually lighter. And of course, we know it’s not just because it’s Christmas. The idea of the folks running the North Luzon Expressway warning people to avoid their thoroughfare whenever there’s a concert at the Philippine Arena just strikes me as stupid, because things really shouldn’t be this way.
The discussion – well, the lamentation – on the terrible traffic in Metro Manila always comes up several times a year. As if on cue, the same old solutions always come up. Add new roads? Check. Improve public transportation? Check. Limit the number of cars on the road? Check. Encourage other methods of mobility? Check. But then the conversation stops there, and we start lamenting the fact that we don’t have it as good as Singapore, where it’s easy to get around by train and bus.
Well, let’s lay a few historical foundations here. When Singapore was forced into independence sixty years ago, its leaders found themselves having to design the city-state’s transport network. They recognized early on that they should limit car ownership – essentially, you can only pack so many cars in an island of just over 700 square kilometers – so they planned for a comprehensive rail-based transport system. And even then there were doubts on whether that was feasible: some government officials were pushing for an all-bus system, fearing the country would not be able to afford, or have enough capacity, to build a rail system. It took until 1987 for the first five stations of the MRT to open – and up to now, expansion is still ongoing, with 44 stations across two lines being built to add to the existing 143 stations and six lines, totalling 240 kilometers of track.
It sounds like it’s too late for Manila, then, considering that we only have three operational rail lines in the capital – 60 kilometers of rail serving 636 square kilometers (and that’s not counting the surrounding provinces). Or maybe not, since work is currently underway on two more rail lines – including our very first subway line – and planning continues for several other lines. Still, a slow pace considering how much worse traffic is becoming and, more importantly, how big our ambitions for the Philippine economy are getting.
Actually, no, it isn’t too late – but we have to recognize a couple of facts to truly get this right. One, everybody has the right to move, whether they are walking, biking, driving, or riding a bus or train. As such, public transportation options should be near to where they live (rather than where the most money can be made) and is comfortable whether you’re young or old or healthy or disabled or picky. And two, any initiative to solve traffic in Metro Manila goes beyond a president’s six-year term. This is a long-term project, an investment for future generations and future growth. I mean, Singapore took two decades to open their first train lines. But then, I can hear government officials who are more keen on either establishing a dynastic legacy squirming at the idea of a very long “return on investment”.
Only when we acknowledge those can we truly proceed with ideas and initiatives to address this problem, some of which have long been on the table. Expanding public transport? Check. It does say a lot that there’s so much opposition to PUV modernization, though – the ideas are sound, particularly on reforming the way routes are determined, but perhaps the government should not burden our jeepney drivers with all the responsibilities of the transition. Encourage other methods of mobility? Check. The National Transport Policy already calls for a focus on active and mass transport, but when you have sidewalks filled with more permanent obstructions, new bridges that expressly forbid pedestrians, and half-hearted bike lanes that do nothing for both bikers and car drivers, can you really escape accusations that our policies remain car-centric?
Speaking of car-centric, reducing the number of cars on the road will most definitely be on the table – and will always elicit a strong reaction. Singapore limiting the number of vehicles that can be registered annually – meaning the cost of a Certificate of Entitlement, valid for only ten years, can be much higher than buying a vehicle – has been in place for a long time, and was always coupled with the (delivered, and then some) promise of effective and comfortable public transportation. You can’t make us give up our cars if that means we can’t go anywhere as a result. And besides, if we have to give up our cars, what will we get in return? Can the government be trusted to give us a fair go? We see jeepney drivers burdened by the cost of moving to “modern” vehicles, with no support in sight. That’s not a good sign.
Solving traffic requires a multi-faceted approach that encompasses transport policy and regulations, urban planning, stakeholder management (and there are a lot of them) and keeping expectations in check. Oh, and of course, clear-eyed leadership, the ability to make us part of the change despite being forced to make obviously difficult choices. But I’ll be honest with you. The focus on band-aid solutions? (I mean, working from home? Banning mall sales? Asking drivers to be patient?) The urge to act only when there’s attention? The revelations of the past few months, of corruption staring us in the face? Frankly, maybe it is too late. Maybe we are doomed to wither and die from this terminal cancer.
Henrik Batallones is the marketing and communications director of SCMAP, and editor-in-chief of its official publication, Supply Chain Philippines. More information about SCMAP is available at scmap.org.
