“The bus carousel may have indeed solved a problem but it has also created other problems”
THE proposal by the MMDA to remove the EDSA bus carousel elicited many negative reactions none stronger than the one from the DOTr strongly disagreeing, saying the bus carousel is the most efficient transport system in the Metro area and will stay put.
It will instead be expanded and then privatized. That word again—privatization, the DOTr’s panacea to all transport problems due to its inability to do any coherent transport planning in the area of land transportation.
The DOTr reaction is quite understandable considering that the bus carousel is its baby and the agency is the foremost exponent of privatization in the transport sector.
In its statements, it cited figures attesting to the success of the bus carousel.
The DOTr said about 5.5 million passengers were transported in January alone.
Whether that is true considering that many buses are oftentimes seen running half full is another matter. There are also hours the bus lane is underutilized, prompting some sectors to suggest the road should be shared with other vehicles during lean hours.
All the buses also are not operating on a 24-hour basis. What it also omitted are the other costs of this so-called success story.
What are these? Let’s look at some numbers.
The maximum carrying capacity of a standard one lane road is about 1,900 vehicles per hour.
This figure, however, varies especially when it comes to urban arterial roads like EDSA.
In this case, it would be between 1,000 to 1,500 vehicles. If we use 1,500, the bus lane is depriving 72,000 vehicles a day from using the North-South corridors compared to the 751 buses authorized to use the lane.
The actual number of buses running would actually be less due to maintenance.
Also, more than one lane is actually lost which lessens significantly the carrying capacity of the other lanes, thereby slowing travel time considerably contributing to the congestion.
If we add the exclusive bike lanes, a lot more than 72,000 vehicles are being deprived.
The MMDA proposal, therefore, is actually not so outlandish and has in fact some merits.
The MMDA attached many conditions before the proposal could be implemented if at all.
One is there must be a transport study conducted and engineering considerations satisfied before execution.
Furthermore, although people may not realize it, there are actually three transport systems competing for passengers along EDSA.
The jeepneys, buses and the MRT3 which ordinarily should not be the case. In transport planning, where there is rail, there should no longer be buses and jeepneys. I suspect this is the essence of the MMDA proposal.
Why put rail and buses on basically the same route to compete instead of maximizing rail capacity to the fullest and put the buses elsewhere to service other routes?
The MMDA seems to have realized this and wants to do something about its traffic management which is its mandate.
Without the buses and jeepneys along EDSA, the road will be able to accommodate more traffic and if there will be a congestion fee, basically a traffic management tool, vehicle volume along EDSA even if it will increase could be more manageable especially when the upgrading will finally be completed.
The proposal is simply another way of saying the MRT3 should be upgraded, its operations maximized and made more efficient to handle a lot more passengers.
Unfortunately, the DOTr was unable to see the point of the MMDA.
Instead of the DOTr sitting with MMDA to discuss the issue, it is waging a media war which is painting an ugly picture of two government agencies seemingly unable to coordinate.
Providing urban mass transportation is primarily a government responsibility.
Unlike in many countries, however, our DOTr prefers mass transportation to be in private hands.
But it must realize that it cannot outsource everything because it has also the responsibility of lessening transport costs not making them more expensive.
This is why there is a growing number of cities in Europe that actually provide free bus and train rides. Regrettably, the DOTr do not believe this and is focused on privatization.
The bus carousel may have indeed solved a problem but it has also created other problems.
If we do a cost benefit analysis, the loss of more than a lane maybe costing more due to congestion. It’s time for MMDA and DOTr to talk.