Expanded Manila vehicle reduction scheme continues to penalize law-abiding private motorists

edsa_trafficIt wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to predict the response the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) will get if it extends the proposed expansion of the ‘number coding scheme’ to the city’s privately-operated public utility vehicles (PUVs). Under Metro Manila’s current Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program (UVVRP), vehicles ending in any one of two license plate number endings assigned to each day of the work week are banned from the road.

Under the present UVVRP, vehicles with license plates ending in 1 and 2 are barred from using EDSA and other major metro roads every Monday from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Vehicles with license plates ending in 2 and 3 are barred from EDSA and other major streets every Tuesday; 4 and 5 (Wednesday); 6 and 7 (Thursday); 8 and 9 (Friday). The UVVRP is not implemented on weekends and during public holidays.

Under the present UVVRP, a “window” period is allowed from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. except in Makati City where the scheme is effective for the entire day. Other cities such as Marikina and Taguig, do not implement the UVVRP.

The expansion of the scheme now being proposed by the MMDA involves assigning four number endings per day…

Under the modified UVVRP, vehicles with license plates ending in 1,2,3 and 4 would be banned from using EDSA the whole day on Mondays; 5,6,7,8 (Tuesday); 9,0,1,2 (Wednesday); 3,4,5,6 (Thursday) and 7,8,9,0 (Friday).

As for the applicability of the new scheme to the metropolis’s unruly public utility buses and jeepneys, “[MMDA Chairman Francis] Tolentino said that it would be up to the MMC to decide whether public utility vehicles (PUVs) such as buses and jeepneys that also use EDSA, would be covered by the modified UVVRP.”

But just like Metro Manila’s millions of squatters, public utility vehicle operators and drivers are special to the country’s politicians. Many of the operators of bus and jeepney fleets are patronage entrepreneurs, many of them relatives of local and national officials and, still others, members of the military and police force. It is therefore very unlikely that the proposal to include them in the new scheme will fly and, as usual, it will be private motorists who will be penalised by the new ordinance.

It is also widely-recognised that a key contributor to the infernal congestion in Metro Manila’s roads is caused not by volume alone but by a fragmented and, as such, sub-optimal traffic management system and the appalling me-first attitude prevalent among Filipino motorists this system breeds. This is particularly pronounced in drivers of public utility vehicles, who are incentivised through a perversely entrepreneurial frame rather than on a public service one.

Cracking down on PUV drivers' anti-social driving style is un-Filipino.
Cracking down on PUV drivers’ anti-social driving style is un-Filipino.
In fact, a popular urban legend in the Philippines is that Filipino bus drivers have standing orders, in the event of an accident involving a pedestrian, to make sure the victim is dead — usually by putting their vehicles in reverse after an accident to run over the victim one more time for good measure. That way, the cost of compensation involves a one-time funeral expense rather than a lifetime of support for a surviving victim. Perhaps that is why so many crashes involving buses are so violent. Killing is part of the job description.

The commission-based “boundary” system upon which PUVs ply their trade is but one component of a systemic problem that festered as the lack of a coherent broad-based mass transit plan for Philippine cities endured following the destruction in World War II of the system built by the United States colonial government. Instead of a state-run system or one highly-regulated privately-run operation, the challenge of public transportation was tackled with the small-mindedness that has come to characterise the Filipino Way of doing things — using the now familiar stop-gap tingi measures consistent with the Philippines’ heritage of smallness.

You wonder then why the obvious solution — cracking down on the barbaric driving styles of bus and jeepney drivers — is considered to be a no-go-zone when it comes to developing “solutions” to Manila’s hellish traffic. Indeed, it seems Quezon City Mayor Herbert Bautista failed to see the irony in his words when he “told reporters that he is not in favor of including PUVs under the modified UVVRP as it would be a burden on the commuting public.” You’d expect that sort of drivel of course from a politician desperate for votes from a constituency whose minds are infected by a squatter mentality.

The fact of the matter is, Metro Manila’s PUVs operating under the current pwede-na-yan system have done colossal damage to the Pearl of the Orient over the last sixty years since the United States granted the Philippines its independence in 1946. Yet here we are, mulling over “solutions” to the capital city’s traffic mess that, yet again, ignore the big ugly elephant in the room.

[Photo of buses clogging EDSA courtesy Boylit De Guzman.]

print

Post Author: benign0

benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.

Leave a Reply

24 Comments on "Expanded Manila vehicle reduction scheme continues to penalize law-abiding private motorists"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
17Sphynx17
Guest
Bottlenecking of traffic is the main cause of our traffic woes as stated in the article. Anyway, simple question. Was this proposed “solution” to our traffic woes coming from a legitimate graduate of traffic management planning or a traffic planner/master planner? Because honestly, they should leave it to these professionals as it is outside of their “reach” (mentally in solving). We need buses to be the only PUVs on highways. Jeeps and FX maybe allowed on major roads but not highways like C5 or EDSA. We need niches or recesses for proper PUV/PUJ/PUB designated stops for pickup or drop off.… Read more »
Jon Limjap
Guest

Why are there tons of private vehicles out there?

Because people who can afford them don’t want to take public transport. Not because they’re insufferable snobs, but because public transport is inefficient as hell.

What will they do when the number coding scheme is expanded?

Buy a 2nd or even third car that will allow them to drive every day anyway.

Traffic solved? Nope. Volume reduced? Nope.

It’s not just an elephant. It’s a whole fraking herd of elephants crammed in a VW Beetle.

alvin
Guest

nice point jon. the provision of integrated and high quality public transport is a must …

Interesante
Guest

This proposed coding scheme was crafted by a moron who simply does not have the wisdom nor the expertise nor the political will to do the right thing. Instead of focusing on colorum buses, unruly jeepneys, tricycles, pedicabs, & putting in place a system for public transport to be truly efficient, this imbecile penalizes the private car owners as a means to cut corners. I am really infuriated by this proposal! Is there a group who can help us fight this because I am truly fed up w/ this MMDA, & I will fully support this group whoever they are.

anon
Guest
I can’t help but agree! As a young student and a commuter, I’ve just been praying and waiting for the government to better the commute system of the country ASAP. My old teacher used to say that commuters in the Philippines are survivors!Safety’s already a big concern. We already have a higher chance of getting robbed, mugged,run over, etc. But why do we also have to deal with the unruly driving of the buses and jeepneys we have to take? They just, for the lack of a better word, suck. Catching a ride is already hard work, but then of… Read more »
ChinoF
Member

Someone suggested to limit one bus company to only one route. Sounds feasible.

Ronald Montemayor
Guest

That’s a great idea!
I’m afraid my memory escapes me, but wasn’t the defunct Metro Manila Bus Company (better known as the Love Bus) state-owned? And weren’t they the only allowed bus company to traverse Metro Manila pre-Cory days? The government should really stop giving franchises to bus owners.

Frank
Guest

I thought it was Metrobus that was state-owned?

Also it’s ironic that the Love Buses were actually the most decrepit around the time the newer models came around. Then quantity compromised the quality…

Johnny Saint
Guest

This is ludicrous!

Chairman Tolentino and Mayor Bautista have apparently never traveled on EDSA without a police escort. Otherwise they would be aware that the primary causes of bottlenecks on Metro Manila’s main artery are the PUV drivers. If you removed ALL private vehicles from EDSA, there would still be traffic jams at the intersections and at Guadalupe.

If they insist on implementing this scheme, it should be applied to PUVs instead of private vehicles.

RandomCommenter
Guest

Can they add discipline to that? Seriously. Some just don’t care about the other road users and just think that all they need to do is to go from Point A to Point B no matter what, as long as THEY don’t get hurt. This goes for both PUV and private vehicle drivers.

Also, it seems like there are anger issues on the road as well. Just earlier while I was driving along Taguig, after passing over the Kalayaan Flyover, two cars stopped IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC because one car seemed to have cut off the other.

Jetlag807
Guest

We’ve spoken on this subject before so I won’t bother rehashing the OBVIOUS solutions to the traffic problems in the Metro.

However, this latest “bright idea” from the MMDA is yet another in a long line of “things that make you say what the f@*k”! How any so-called Government Agency Chairman could come up with such an INSANE idea is beyond me.

I have to agree with “Johnny Saint” and second the motion to apply this “scheme” to “PUVs instead of private vehicles”.

joe
Guest

i am a daily commuter. its true that private vehicles dominate the number of edsa. there is 200thousand private compare to 15thousnad public vehicles. the problem is the city operations buses. they are not disiplined unlike provincial buses. plus we lack trains. the enforces are not doing their job. dotc is not doing their job to penalized undisiplined drivers. phase out the 15 yr old buses. i will agree with 2x a week coding if there is a efficient mass transport plus it will also benefit our air quality,

Johnny Saint
Guest

Do you see the flaw in your logic? The problems you pointed out are the lack of discipline and the poor performance of law enforcement. Therefore the solution is to penalize ALL road users ESPECIALLY the law abiding drivers with a two day car ban!? That’s stupid.

Ronald Montemayor
Guest

Where did you get that Private vehicle to PUV ratio joe? Please post a link, otherwise I’m calling bullsh*t. It’s only during rush hour that makes it so difficult to catch a bus or jeepney ride, but from my experience, there are really a lot buses, especially air-conditioned ones, that never get filled with passengers, they just clog traffic over at Cubao and Ortigas, which is why I say there are too many buses on Metro Manila’s roads today.
Their inefficient MRT mass transport system is another story though…

17Sphynx17
Guest
I have a proposal other than PUV/PUB/PUJ stops being niched from the actual width of the road/thoroughfare. Why don’t they require that all malls be closed off every Monday and that for weekdays, all malls are to open from 12pm onwards only. Monday is the start of the work week and you just came off from a Sunday weekend so the actual need for the mall is too limited during Monday. Plus that reduces “monday” eneergy needs. As for weekdays, requiring the malls to only be open from 12pm onwards will offset the employees and “Excited patrons” of the mall… Read more »
Johnny Saint
Guest

Am I understanding this correctly? The MMDA chairman wants to penalize law abiding road users. You on the other hand prefer to penalize businesses that happen to abut EDSA. Worse, you want them to PAY for the privilege of being afflicted by an onerous scheme and providing the infrastructure for the drivers who are the main cause of traffic on EDSA?! That’s idiotic! Changing mall hours will only shift the “rush hour” period and traffic volume around. It doesn’t reduce it or even begin to manage the situation.

17Sphynx17
Guest
@Johnny I don’t think you even understood my post. One, malls are not offices, hence the office rush hour stays the same on weekdays. You are only pushing the mall traffic later so they don’t coincide with the office rush hour. Two, malls won’t be penalized. In fact they will benefit. Why? They will get better return on operational expenses as they don’t have to turn their buildings for 2 hours a day from tuesday to friday when their is the least amount of traffic and actual spending happening inside. Hence they actual get better return for operating expenses. Third,… Read more »
17Sphynx17
Guest
For those that don’t understand as well, I am not proposing closure of business during the time I mentioned. I am simply saying they should apply to malls or big commercial centers like Market Market, SM Megamall, Robinsons Galleria etc. So the government should define what constitutes a mall and what is not to clearly separate the two. Businesses outside of these malls like restaurants and stores are not affected as they are not a traffic sink per se like malls. You also really need an off street terminal for PUJ/PUB/PUVs for these types of buildings or art least a… Read more »
Johnny Saint
Guest

The MMDA “experiments” during Bayani Fernando’s time, and now Chairman Tolentino’s “proposals” are prime examples of the government’s failure at traffic management.

Our road network is thoroughly inadequate. We should be developing schemes to maximize its capacity. That is the primary objective of traffic management, and the daily chore of MMDA. Unfortunately, their answer has always been to avoid it by attempting to get vehicles off the roads. Out of sight isn’t necessarily out of mind.

Johnny Saint
Guest
So the real question we have to answer is: How do we get the most throughput from our limited road space? The most effective way is to rehabilitate, upgrade and expand the computerized traffic signaling system to enable coordination of signal timing and patterns across the road network, from one intersection to the next. Since the time of Cory Aquino, the system has expanded to cover over 400 intersections. Instead of maintaining and expanding the system, like what a modern metropolis should do, Metro Manila moved backward and dismantled nearly 50 percent of the intersections in favor of the primitive… Read more »
17Sphynx17
Guest
@Johnny You can’t completely remove the bus as they are the ones that stop in between where the trains don’t. However, the government has never been able to provide (yet) a proper location that is not part of the width of the thoroughfare to location stops/waiting areas. These should be niched and away from the flow of traffic so that when a bus stops, it does not block the bus behind. It will then compliment the yellow lane restriction that buses can’t go outside of it. Jeeps should not be allowed on the highway and so should the FXs to… Read more »
Aegis-Judex
Guest

Overall, you can have entire intersections replaced with roundabouts, and it still wouldn’t matter. Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if the traffic laws were enforced by snipers trained to take out the tires of offending vehicles, if not do what gamers would call a “pilot snipe” (or sniping the cockpit)…

wpDiscuz