YES that’s my question.
The government is planning to build a P50-billion elevated EDSA on top of the MRT, an EDSA skyway if you will. Another road meant to solve Metro Manila’s congestion problems. Do we really need it?
The question, at least to me, is relevant especially since the government is also planning to cut its subsidies on LRT and MRT fares. So on the one hand you are cutting your budget for mass transportation and on the other you are planning to increase your spending on road infrastructure to accommodate more vehicles.
According to the feasibility study for the Edsa skyway, traffic congestion in Metro Manila’s 50-kilometer radius will worsen even more as the metropolis’ population and car volume increases, overtaking the road network capacity. By 2015, population in Metro Manila would have reached 25.72 million and car ownership increasing to 2.34 million, according to estimates.
Edsa is Metro Manila’s main thoroughfare, where 300,000 to 400,000 vehicles pass through every day. I thought the MRT was meant to ease congestion on Edsa. But now an Edsa skyway is the solution that is being proposed.
I am just worried that such a massive project would need to be implemented almost perfectly for it not to cause the government a lot more than it should. The cost overruns on delays alone would be substantial. Our government has a long history of announcing grand plans, especially for better urban planning and traffic management, but it hasn’t done so well when it comes to executing those plans.
Building more roads or widening them to ease congestion is perhaps the commonest solution our government employs to ease congestion. People love to see that their taxes are going somewhere and politicians like making people happy. Of course, the fact that building more roads, and maintaining them, also lines the pockets of corrupt government officials and their contractors is seldom ever mentioned but we all know about it and even accept it. In our screwed logic, we might tolerate it because at least “me napupuntahan yung pera kahit papano (the money goes somewhere somehow).”
But aside from being very expensive and corruption-inducing has it really been effective in decongesting traffic?
I’ve always said that infrastructure alone won’t solve our traffic problems in this country. Traffic and transportation management goes beyond road building, which shouldn’t be used as a one-size-fits-all solution to congestion.
Easing congestion also entails strict enforcement of traffic rules and regulations and having better self-discipline among drivers. More than that, it’s also about improving the planning and zoning system for residential and commercial property. For instance, building malls too close to the roads guarantees a massive convergence of public utility vehicles that would choke traffic.
In the end I would favor having better mass transportation facilities than having more roads. You would want people to ditch their cars and use trains and buses and other alternative transportation. The country can save on tons of fuel and at the same time help curb climate change.
There are over 50 cars for every bus here in Metro Manila. Buses are a big part of the problem, but only because they are not being managed and regulated properly. If they were run as efficiently as the bus system in Hong Kong or Singapore, for example, they would be part of the traffic solution, not part of the problem.
Last week, I said that there is nothing wrong about subsidizing the MRT and the LRT. We actually need more trains not only for passenger traffic but also for cargo traffic, using the Philippine National Railways. Imagine if the PNR were linked to the piers and other ports, if the freights from these were carried out and transported not by trucks but by trains. This would certainly help ease congestion significantly. There would be no need for a truck ban on certain times during the day. Besides, building railways is cheaper than building roads.
I don’t know if the Metro Ferry has been decommissioned but it would be nice to have safe and reliable ferries plying the Pasig River. This can go hand-in-hand with cleaning up the river, a two-fold move providing alternative transportation and boosting tourism.
The President was reported to have taken up biking for exercise. Perhaps he would like to ask the MMDA and local governments to develop integrated and dedicated bicycle lanes into their transportation network system, to make Metro Manila cities bicycle-friendly in the manner that Marikina has done.
Another alternative form of transport he might want to consider is the tranvia system which was what the Philippines had instead of jeepneys prior to World War II. It’s much like a tram or cable car system with rails on the roads. The tranvia would not weave in and out of traffic with wild abandon, unmindful of rules and road courtesies, like jeepneys do. It’s also good on the eyes and environmental- and tourist-friendly as well.
There are better alternatives to road building, which encourages more car-dependence and more vehicles on roads. Besides, there are about 175 accidents that occur every day on our roads already, according to government statistics, which translates to 641,747 a year. About 10 Filipinos die every day because of road accidents in the country.
Again, do we really need more roads?
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
