Innovative win-win solutions to the horrendous worsening traffic on Edsa and other major Metro Manila thoroughfares are still possible, given the same limits of road space, the same number of public-transport vehicles and the same tight passenger capacity of the Metro Rail Transit (MRT)/Light Rail Transit (LRT) train system.
However, the genuine long-term solutions are building more infrastructure, particularly more effective railway mass-transit systems and more efficient public buses, which must be combined with a road- congestion pricing policy, each one of which merits separate discussion in the future.
Solution takes some imagination
What it takes is a little imagination and a simple application of the principles of spatial management to solve the traffic that is causing losses of P2.4 billion a day, a Japan-funded study says.
Some may disagree vehemently, and insist on their views on what is right. On the contrary, my proposal may be right for a given point in time. After all, what is right is relative.
In Filipino, right means tama. This tempts me to suggest the idea of an advocacy group, which others may pick up and call the Transport Advocates’ Movement for Action (TAMA). It may not always claim to be right, but it may just be right at certain times. Its inherent message for immediate action simply articulates the mass frustration of both the commuters and motorists who get stuck in daily traffic, which will get worse, considering the yearly massive sales of vehicles.
In 2015 sales of vehicles hit 310,000, about one-third of which were registered in Metro Manila. Maybe 60 percent find their way into Metro Manila for those registered in nearby Central Luzon and the Calabarzon regions, from where many motor to work and business or shop occasionally in Metro Manila, particularly during holidays.
Standing policy? This innovative solution is premised on the fact there is no way to widen road space, and the arrival of new MRT coaches will take time. This viable and immediate solution effectively increases the passenger capacity of buses by reducing the number of seats from five seats to only two seats per row, or limiting the seats around the inner section of the bus, similar to seats on a train, which will be reserved for the handicapped, elderly and pregnant women. If this is possible for the MRT and the LRT, why can’t it be applied temporarily to city buses?
This can literally be called Department of Transportation and Communications’ (DOTC) “standing policy,” which will “allow for wider aisles and more standing room to accommodate more passengers by 50 percent to 80 percent.
Faster turnaround means less traffic. The wider aisles will allow faster disembarking and loading, and, therefore, lesser time spent at bus stops, thus resulting in faster turnovers and time savings by at least 20 percent. The DOTC can do time and motion studies on this by experimenting on a few buses on a pilot basis.
The higher revenue returns can mean two things: For one, bus operators will no longer push for higher fares during fuel-price hikes, which is good for commuters. Second, drivers will earn more with more passengers and faster turnover. Thus, it will be easier to impose limits on working hours to avoid accidents caused by sleepy drivers working overtime, some of whom even use prohibitive drugs just to keep themselves awake.
However, this must be strictly adopted for Metro Manila buses, which experience slow-moving traffic.
Spatial management means optimizing space, or increasing passenger capacity of existing public buses. It also means maximizing road space through faster turnover of commuters and motorists so that those coming at later-time schedules do not compete for road space and transport-riding capacities with those coming much earlier who are still stuck on the road due to slow turnover.
Ironic MRT reverse rides for faster turnovers
A friend of mine, transport Koop organizer Dave Garcia, said this principle can also be applied to the MRT and LRT trains, despite the decline in the number of coaches owing to obsolescence.
On the contrary, despite the limited number of coaches, it is still possible to increase the MRT’s passenger capacity by reducing the train stops to three stops one-way, when the volume of passengers is heavy (i.e., North to South in the morning rush, and Pasay Taft to North during the evening rush), but allowing train passengers to commute back in the opposite direction where the volume of passengers is light, until they reach their intended destinations.
Perhaps, we can have three mid-way stops from North to South in the morning rush, say, at Cubao, Shaw and Ayala, before reaching the final destination at Pasay Taft. If one has to get off before any of these major stops, one simply has to get off way beyond, go to the other side, then ride back to one’s intended destination.
This will enable the MRT trains to make faster turnarounds, so as to avoid the one-way buildup of commuters, whose resulting long queues have spill over effects and the resulting mad scramble for alternative-bus rides onto Edsa.
The solutions presented here do not entail added cost for the government. They simply require a simple executive fiat from our policy-makers. We just hope our transport leaders will take notice of the common good, rather than get bogged down with indecision, incompetence and squabbles over deals and delivery of services from the MRT, car plates and drivers’ licenses. I hope, they have the WHEEL (will) power to get the transport sector moving.
E-mail: mikealunan@yahoo.com.