(Part 1)
During the administration of ex-President Benigno Aquino III, the traffic problem along Edsa and other major thoroughfares in Metropolitan Manila was terrible.
The traffic problem was aggravated by the ineptitude of Francis Tolentino, the chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority under Aquino. Tolentino was often out of town when he should have been in the metropolis attending to the traffic problem. His successor, Emerson Carlos, was just as inefficient.
Now that President Rodrigo Duterte is in office, an improvement in the traffic situation in the metropolis, Edsa in particular, is expected.
Senator Franklin Drilon of the Liberal Party, who once predicted a victory for LP presidential bet Mar Roxas, seems to want to align himself with Duterte because he sponsored legislation granting emergency powers to the president so the latter can solve the traffic mess once and for all. The proposed law exempts the executive department from compliance with the usual restrictions imposed by law on the purchase of supplies.
That’s a bad idea.
The rush resort to emergency powers is premature and unfounded. Since President Duterte inherited the traffic mess from the Aquino administration, he should be given a chance to solve the traffic nightmare within the existing legal framework. Since the traffic mess is essentially a result of incompetent management in the MMDA, then the solution is in competent management, not in emergency powers.
Emergency powers should be a last resort, warranted only after all reasonable means to address the problem through regular means have been exhausted. Not all problems constitute an emergency of such a nature that compliance with the existing legal system has to be dispensed with. If every serious problem in this country is considered an emergency that warrants non-compliance with existing laws, then Congress may just as well be abolished so that the executive department can run the government on its own.
To address the traffic problem along Edsa and major roads in the metropolis, the Duterte administration ought to consider some postulates.
First postulate—Effective traffic management means keeping all vehicles on the road constantly moving. Less vehicles on the road means more space on the road. Thus, the less time a vehicle spends on the road, the less traffic there will be.
Second postulate—The smooth flow of traffic is at its optimum when vehicles travel in a straight, unobstructed path. This means that left turns and u-turns are exceptions, rather than the rule.
Traffic along Edsa should be made to flow smoothly, and this is possible only by removing left turns and u-turn junctions along the way. Being the exception rather than the rule, vehicles which need to make left turns and u-turns along Edsa should do so under the numerous flyovers dotting this roadway. Such vehicles should go under the flyover through the outer lanes of Edsa, instead of its innermost lane.
The opposite is currently happening at the northbound lane of Edsa at the approach to the Santolan Road flyover. As it is, vehicles which intend to turn left to Santolan accumulate on the two innermost lanes of the northbound lane of Edsa. With vehicles intending to make a right turn to Santolan also accumulating at the outermost lanes there, the approach to the Edsa-Santolan Avenue flyover becomes a bottleneck that blocks the way of northbound vehicles on Edsa coming from the Ortigas Avenue area.
Third postulate—At least one lane on every major road should be reserved for fast-moving vehicles. A fast-moving vehicle is one which travels at an optimum but safe speed. It is not synonymous to a vehicle moving at breakneck speed.
A fast-moving vehicle spend less time on the roadway than a slow-moving vehicle does. Therefore, there is a need to designate a lane for the exclusive use of fast-moving vehicles.
In the 1960s, the innermost lanes of each side of Edsa were the “fast lanes” which were for the exclusive use of fast-moving vehicles. Drivers of slow-moving vehicles who insist on staying on the fast lanes were issued traffic tickets by policemen from the Highway Patrol Group. As a result, traffic along Edsa moved swiftly and smoothly. That rule, which is still in our statute books, should be reimplemented strictly.
Undoubtedly, slow-moving vehicles along Edsa obstruct the smooth flow of traffic. Being so, they should be confined to the outermost lanes of Edsa to prevent them from getting in the way of other vehicles.
Fourth postulate—Four-wheeled vehicles have priority on the road over vehicles with just three or two wheels, and those with six wheels or more.
Any science student knows that four-wheeled vehicles are more stable than those with just two or three. Two-or three-wheeled vehicles are road hazards—a slight bump on a moving tricycle or motorcycle is enough to send it flying into the air, with dangerous consequences for its driver and passengers. Therefore, their movement on major roads like Edsa should be restricted to a particular lane.
Compared to regular cars, vehicles with six or more wheels are heavy and, therefore, take more time to maneuver. For the same reason, they take more time to negotiate distances than light vehicles do. Accordingly, heavy vehicles like trucks should be confined to one lane on the roadways, and allowed to travel only outside rush hours.
Fifth postulate—To ensure the smooth flow of traffic, major roadways must be well-paved, and hazards on these roadways must be eliminated.
Traffic will not flow smoothly on Edsa or other major roads if these roads are in poor condition. Because automobile repair costs are prohibitive, motorists will always avoid potholes and other road irregularities, even if it means slowing down while traveling. Well-paved roads, therefore, reduce traffic problems.
(Continued on Saturday)