"Solutions must address the current problem without creating new ones."
"Solutions must address the current problem without creating new ones."
It seems that Metropolitan Manila Development Authority cannot do anything right when it comes to decongesting EDSA. Let us take the latest effort it is undertaking. When it was announced that there will be a dry run on the proposed ban on provincial bus stations along EDSA, Rep. Joey Salceda immediately went to the Supreme Court to stop the implementation of the ban citing that the plan will only create more hardships to the already harassed motoring public.
Does Rep. Salceda have a point in filing the court case to stop MMDA? This question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no because the issue goes to the core of traffic and transport planning. Coming up with a solution to the EDSA gridlock, MMDA came up with a solution that is not considered to be the best solution. The MMDA scheme will only solve one aspect of the EDSA gridlock but will also create a big problem. This is the reason why Salceda, instead of welcoming the MMDA effort, went to court to try to stop the implementation of the bus ban.
The most important reason for the complaint is the hardships that provincial passengers will have to suffer by getting off at the north and south integrated bus terminals and then taking another ride to complete their journey. The other reason being cited by critics is that the plan discriminates against people from the provinces.
In traffic and transport planning, MMDA must strive for a best solution. This means that whatever solution MMDA comes up with, it must solve the problem without creating other problems. In this case, it is obvious that the step taken by MMDA to decongest EDSA by moving out approximately 47 bus terminals along EDSA will create substantial other problems.
The object of the exercise in itself is laudable. By moving out the provincial bus stations out of EDSA, hundreds of thousands of trips will be eliminated thereby reducing the number of vehicles using EDSA. But what is the weakness of the plan that MMDA may have overlooked? It is possible that the MMDA did not fully take into account the question of inadequate infrastructure. The existing infrastructure is the one hindering the plan from being the best solution.
A few days ago, there was a report in the media about the brand new Sta. Rosa Integrated Terminal being empty. It is apparently not being used to its fullest capacity in spite of its completion many months ago. The reason for this is that there is no rail connection to pick bus passengers to go to the metro area. No public transport operators have apparently applied to the Land Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board to operate. I cannot see any jeepney or bus company applying for a permit to operate because it is hard to assign a specific route. Besides, if it will only be buses and jeepneys that will be used to bring these provincial passengers to the metro area, the concept of an integrated terminal would not be fully realized. In fact, using road transport to bring passengers to the metro area might worsen road congestion because it might be necessary to add more public utility vehicles, thereby contributing to road congestion. Unless a rail link or connection is made available very soon, the complaints will persist and the integrated terminals will remain underutilized.
The MMDA must do more planning. Under the current circumstances, could MMDA have proposed other alternatives? For instance, could MMDA have considered distributing the bus terminals in other parts of the Metro so long as these terminals are not along EDSA? Maybe MMDA could consider dividing the 47 terminals into 15 so that the bus companies could share stations, thereby economizing on premium land space availability. The metro area could be divided between North and South so that all buses plying the Northern provinces could only establish terminals in the northern part of the metro area and vice versa. The integrated terminals could still be maintained until a rail link could be put in place. This way the riding public could be provided with some flexibility in planning their trips.
I am sure that MMDA is trying hard to come up with plans to improve travel time in the metro area. Unfortunately the agency has been dealt a bad hand. The law that created MMDA is sorely inadequate for the agency to be able to solve the traffic and transport ills in Metro Manila. This was the case when I was with the agency and still the case up to the present. The law needs amending so that the agency will have enough authority to do its job. It maybe not be fair to keep on blaming the agency for failing to improve traffic because it lacks the full authority to address all the problems.
What is expected of the agency, however, is to have a competent pool of professional officials who can come up with good plans that can at least provide relief to the traffic gridlock without adding problems to the already stressed motoring public. The MMDA intends to go through with the bus ban come what may.
We do not know how the Supreme Court will handle the petition of Rep. Salceda. It may or may not issue a temporary restraining order mandating MMDA not to go ahead with the scheme. It may also order the MMDA to come out with a less disruptive plan so as not to add to the misery of the motoring public.
We will simply have to wait for the decision.