Featured E-Articles
|
March 6, 2008
In 1997, a local proponent offered to build and run an innovative transport project along C-5. At that time, C-5 was just starting to be developed as an alternative to the perennially traffic clogged EDSA. The proponent obviously thought that this would be a good time to build a dedicated bus way on this road, a road that had little public transport service then as now. The scheme proposed was unlike the chaotic, catch-as-catch-can bus system prevalent on EDSA (as well as the whole metropolis). The proponent wanted to use articulated buses on a dedicated roadway that had priority right-of-way at intersections. (This may or may not be the PhilTrak consortium that is reportedly still pursuing the project. A Google search turned up an UNESCAP report that said that the project was supposed to have been operational in 2004, while an article in the American Public Transport Association website said that the system was to begin operating “early next year.”)
Sad to say, it was this very innovation that spelled its doom as MMDA and DOTC refused to give the scheme their go-ahead, citing the exclusive lane and right-of-way as being problematic. They failed to specify why those features were problematic but, on hindsight, the reason seems clear: it would have forced private cars to one less lane of traffic thereby causing the unrestricted lanes to clog up sooner, while giving priority of travel to buses that were used by the city’s great unwashed masses. Thus was Metro Manila denied the distinction of being only the second city in the world then to have a bus system that had been pioneered in the city of Curitiba (Brazil).
One could also argue that the lack of a “sexy” name may have contributed to the project being rejected. After all, Pinoys have such a penchant for the most outrageous acronyms, as in Ginintuang Masaganag Ani, the country’s high value crop promotion program the initials of which just happen to be the exact same as the sitting president’s. Here in the city of Manila, the city slogan used to be MayniLA, Atin Ito, with the last two letters of the city expressed in bold to stand for the previous mayor (and now DENR secretary, Lito Atienza). The current slogan is Linisin, Ibangon (ang) Maynila (LIM) for the new mayor. Maybe the C-5 bus proponents should have named their system the Ramos Advanced Bus for Pinoys (that would have been shortened to the suggestive RAB Pinoys).
Such a bus system is now generically called Bus Rapid Transit or BRT for short, descriptive but hardly pulse quickening. Many progressive cities in developing countries regard it as the anchor of a modern transport system that promotes environmental sustainability and economic efficiency while discouraging private car use. The Transmilenio system of Bogota seems to be a particularly good model as the bus system was planned together with bicycle ways, bike parking for passengers and improved footpaths for pedestrians. It was also planned as to be integrated with green areas such as parks and riverfronts. All space necessary for such infrastructures were taken from road space and parking areas for private cars. Moreover, the Transmilenio system successfully replaced a former system made up largely of many small, competing private operators akin to the situation in Manila. To have hurdled that political quagmire speaks highly of the skills of Transmilenio’s promoters and the city’s political leaders. It seems that one of the factors that is preventing the establishment of a BRT in Metro Manila is opposition from bus and jeepney operators, a barrier that simply proves the limited imagination and political acumen of the city’s leaders and dinosaur-era thinking of the MMDA (how else to explain their u-turn scheme?).
The current political brouhaha engendered by the NBN-ZTE scandal hints at another possible reason for the non-existence of a Metro Manila BRT. A BRT system, compared to other mass transit systems such as rail, is comparatively inexpensive to build. A rail system, depending on the type and capacity, can be as much as five to ten times more expensive to construct given the same coverage. The U.S. General Accounting Office reportedly found that a BRT system required only 2 percent of the capital costs of a light rail system (Joseph P. Kubala, P.E. and Scott Barton, Bus-Rapid Transit Is Better Than Rail: The Smart Alternative to Light Rail, Center for the American Dream, Independence Institute. Issue Paper #10-2003, December 16, 2003). The same GAO study cited in the above report estimated similar significant differences in operating cost (80 percent less per mile in favor of BRT) and speed (BRT 60 percent faster).
Under the present administration especially, low-cost solutions do not have the same appeal as the mega deals that rail systems intrinsically are. In addition, no Chinese suppliers are building equipment for BRTs (as yet) so no G2G loan can be invoked to fund such a system.
Cycling advocacy (or human-powered transport) is a noble and romantic quest, much like struggling against windmills. Even under the most ideal scenario, the best that can probably be expected is for bicycling to account for a high of 10 percent of trips. That means that most trips are and will be, in our lifetimes at least, by some form of motorized transport. By all means we should make a heroic effort to make sure that these trips are by public transport. But people will use public transport only if it matches the comfort, convenience, and security of riding in a car, and for a significantly lower cost. For this to happen, public transport in this country must improve by some significant factor. The relative success of the LRT system is proof that good public transport will attract significant ridership. However, LRTs are expensive and the most viable form of public transport for cities in developing countries appears to be the BRT. Many cities in the developing world with public transport systems just as bad and chaotic as Manila’s have managed to turn around those systems with one or another variation of the BRT, some with more success than others. It is way past the time that we take that path as well. But it might take a political upheaval to do that.
#
You may email Mon at rfernan3@gmail.com.