Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2002

Will the Singapore model work for Metro?

By Dave L. Llorito, Research Head

Conclusion

Imagine a bustling global city where an elaborate network of road cameras and computers monitor and analyze traffic movement constantly. Using advanced image processing techniques to extract traffic data (speed, volume and queue of vehicles), real-time information on traffic conditions is flashed to road users through giant electronic signboards scattered across the highways.

Science fiction? No. It’s traffic management, Singapore style. The city-state prides itself in having the best traffic management system in the world.

Singapore’s land area is 630 square kilometers, almost as big as Metro Manila (635 square km). But unlike Metro Manila, Singa­pore has no traffic congestion. During rush hours in Singapore, the average speed in its city roads ranges from 20 to 30 km per hour (kph). In the expressways, the average speed is 45-65 kph. In contrast, the average travel speed in Metro Manila is 10 kph.

Singapore’s air is cleaner, thanks to its tough emission laws, its use of clean fuels, and a no-nonsense urban plan implementation.

A. P. Gopinath Menon, urban transport expert and principal consultant to Singapore-based MSI Global Pte Ltd., attributes Singapore’s success to:

1. Land use and transpor­tation planning that minimizes the residents’ need for travel, thus maximizing road space.

2. An integrated network of roads and expressways.

3. Traffic management inclu­ding the use of intelligent transport systems.

4. Efficient public transport systems integrating rail, bus, and taxis.

5. Travel demand manage­ment (TDM).

Menon says many countries are actually implementing the first four measures. But Singa­pore has gone further by implementing comprehensive TDM measures. It has been doing so for the last 27 years.

“Traffic congestion problems cannot be resolved by the mere building of roads and better traffic management,” Menon says. “They give temporary reprieve but attract more vehicles to use them. Besides, road building can never keep pace with the annual growth in vehicle population.”

“The mere improvement and upgrading of public transport services cannot persuade enough of the car users to use them,” he says. “The ‘pull factor’ is not sufficient for motorists; there has to be a ‘push factor’ to influence motorists to switch.”

Menon lists two “push factors:” vehicle ownership con­trol and vehicle usage control.

Vehicle ownership control involves a quota system wherein the government limits vehicle population growth to three percent per year based on land and transport use projections. Potential buyers have to bid for the right to own a vehicle. Successful bidders are given a “certificate of entitlement” (COE) allowing them to own a vehicle. COE expires after 10 years, after which the holder would have to pay for its renewal at the current price.

According to Menon, vehicle usage control is done through electronic road pricing (ERP). Since 1998, an electronic cordon has been placed around the most congested portion of the city, a 720-hectare “restricted zone (RZ). All vehicles (excluding emergency vehicles) entering the RZ between 7:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays pay a fee. Vehicles are fitted with an “invehicle unit” (IU) where ERP charges are deducted automa­tically from the CashCard (a stored value card slotted into the IU) as the vehicle passes under the ERP gantry points. The gantries have cameras that record the rear license plates of violating vehicles for enforce­ment and summons.

A car pays from S$2.50 per half-hour during rush hours to 50 cents during quieter periods. Motorcycles, buses, taxis, and goods vehicles have different IUs enabling different pay­ments.

“The ERP makes drivers aware of the true cost of their journeys and offers them many choices,” says Menon. “They can pay the ERP charge and drive to get a smooth ride, change the time of their journey to pay a lesser ERP charge, use alternative roads, or use public transport.”

Does TDM really work for Singapore? “The answer is yes,” says Menon. “The TDM mea­sures do help in keeping our transportation problems within manageable levels.”

But he says there are certain pre-requisites for it to work. These are:

1. TDM is part of an overall transport strategy that includes other components like building of roads, sophisticated traffic management, priority for bus movements, and rail systems.

2. TDM makes it expensive to own cars, thus there should be acceptable alternatives through a reliable public transport system.

3. For those who want to drive but are unwilling to pay the ERP, they could drive to outlying park-and-rides, park their car and take the train to the city.

4. TDM is applied fairly to ever­yone; no preferential treatment. Only emergency vehicles like fire trucks and ambulances are exempt from ERP.

5. TDM measures are ex­plained as traffic management measure and not a revenue-generating activity. ERP charges are adjusted every three months based on prevailing traffic speeds on the city roads and expressways. Charges are reduced when speeds improved.

Do Singaporeans really know something special that Filipinos do not know? Looking at the specifics, Singapore’s traffic handling style appears to embrace several generations of policies and responses in dealing with urban transport problems.

If there is traffic congestion, why not build more roads? That seems to be the knee-jerk reaction of transport planners who belong to the first generation of policies that were typical in the  ’50s and the  ’60s.

In the  ’70s, the realization surfaced that there is no way road building can catch up with travel demand. The planners embraced measures that “stretch” the supply of roads. This came in the form of “supply-side policies” known as transport systems management (TSM). TSM includes measures like adding highway or road lanes, building by-pass roads, subsidizing transit, better traffic signaling systems, dedicated bus lanes, among others, intended to maximize traffic flows. As practiced, TSM is usually implemented side-by-side with TDM measures like raising fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and parking fees, all intended to raise the cost of motorized travel thus influencing the people’s travel behavior. TSM and TDM could probably be called “second-generation” policies.

Singapore’s traffic manage­ment systems have extensive use of first and second generation policies. And since the mid-’70s it has gone full-blast towards what can be termed as “third-generation policies” through the use of road pricing or congestion prices, an economic instrument aimed at forcing the road users to shoulder the full cost of road travel. European cities are following suit.

Most transport planning experts say that Singapore and Manila are not easily comparable because of different levels of development and population base. Singapore for instance has about just a third of Metro Manila’s population. Never­theless, most of them agree that programs and projects that are being implemented are in general straddling the first- and second-generation policies that were successfully imple­mented in Singapore.

Dr. Hussein Lidasan, transport economist of the UP National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) based in Diliman, says the government so far has been into the construction of new roads and highways in an effort to complete Metro Manila’s road network, rehabilitation of existing ones, introduction of mass transit system such the LRT/MRT, and short-term TDM measures like the unified vehicular reduction scheme popularly known as “color coding” and “odd-even sche­mes.”

Lidasan, however, feels that most of these actions were not comprehensive enough, that they were not properly coordinated. He says the government should now focus on system integration by developing a “hierarchical road and transport networks” in the greater Metro Manila. He explains this concept this way:

1. A heavy rail transit will become the main line-haul or trunk network serving regional pas­senger and freight transport demand to and from Metro Manila.

2. A light rail transit system will become the main line-haul network serving commuter travel demand within Metro Manila. Buses may serve as main line-haul in certain areas.

3. Within Metro Manila, buses and jeepneys will serve feeder routes to the heavy and light rail transit systems. In certain areas, jeepneys may also serve as feeder routes to bus stations and stops.

4. Outside Metro Manila, jeepneys and provincial buses will serve as feeder routes to the regular heavy rail transit system.

5. Provincial buses termi­nate at the heavy rail transit stations outside Metro Manila.

These measures should be complemented by TDM measures to curb travel demand. TDM measures should include economic instruments that will charge road users for the use of the transport system and discourage single-occupancy vehicles. Travel demand may also be curbed through measures like higher license fees, parking fees, and toll fees.

Lidasan also calls for land use controls on the siting of trip generators like malls and commercial establishments. One way to the do it is to require these establishments to present traffic impact assessments before they are granted building permits.

“As a matter principle, land developers must shoulder the cost of providing additional infrastructure necessary to cope with projected travel demand,” Lidasan says.

Dr. Seng Felias, transport planner of Halcrow Group Limited and consultant to the Metropolitan Manila Develop­ment Authority (MMDA) says, the government action so far has been toward integrating Metro Manila transport network. This is being done through the master plan containing various projects including intersection improve­ments, improvements of primary and secondary roads, develop­ment of the railway systems, improvement of expressways, and various traffic management measures.

He has observed, however, that the master plan has been experiencing snags in terms of securing funds for major infrastructure projects. The project that would extend the MRT up to Monumento and link it with LRT I, instance, has not yet taken off the ground due to “cost problems.” The LRT Line 2 along Aurora Boulevard has long been delayed due to right-of-way and “cost problems.” The extension of the LRT 1 up to Cavite to relieve the Zapote-Talaba area of daily monstrous traffic jams has also recently hit some snags due to some technical problems. In effect, the Cavite Busway Project intended to the ferry commuters that are supposed to disembark at the Niog Area from the LRT will probably will be in limbo also.

Part of the master plan is the MCX project that will link Manila and Calabarzon through a modern rail system. The Ayalas, however, had dropped the project for lack of money. The Skyway project from Makati to Alabang has not also been completed due to funding problems.

All these events point up to the big difference between Metro Manila and Singapore: the latter’s want of money to build those big-ticket transport projects.

With limited resources, TDM measures to temper travel demand still offers one last hope. These include road pricing and measures like higher vehicle registration fees, parking fees, among others. The collections could be used to improve Metro Manila’s transport facilities. But Felias, however, says that the government may not have the “political will” to implement these projects — another factor that the Singaporeans have that Metro Manilans do not.

“Road users have been clamoring for good roads yet when they started to enjoy one at the South Superhighway they are not willing to pay for it,” Felias says.

Yet most of these transport planners believe that it’s the only way to go to deal with the continued increase of demand for travel. In effect, Filipinos may have to continue looking at Singapore as a model while trying to grips with the tangle in the streets.

Part 1 | Part 2