First, an e-mail from a parent whose son is studying in Ateneo, and who responded to my reply to his original e-mail:
Sorry, I disagree completely with the survey. It takes me 15 minutes from Makati to take my son to the Ateneo gate. Unfortunately, it used to take me 20 or more minutes just to get out of Ateneo. But that was the past. Now, it takes me five to 10 minutes to get out. This is a daily thing I encounter, Paulo. Believe me – the "experts" in Ateneo and Miriam are short-sighted and narrow-minded. I can’t believe that we, in the Ateneo family, are not focusing on the traffic problem inside the campus. It’s much worse!
You’re definitely right regarding the risks of pedestrians crossing Katipunan, but don’t you see that it’s only because the traffic is moving much faster! How about adding a couple of elevated pedestrian walks such as those in Quezon Boulevard? That will solve part of the problem, right? By the way, why can’t Ateneo or Miriam spearhead these projects, save some lives, and quit bitching, moaning and pointing at the MMDA to do something about it?
Your views about planning, or lack thereof, are something I also agree with. This is exactly why the MMDA is trying to do something about it. By the way, what is the solution offered by Ateneo or Miriam? I’ve heard complaints but nothing else.
RG
Like I mentioned last week, the U-turn scheme does seem to work for some stretches some of the time depending on which way you are coming from and which way you are going. Miriam and the Ateneo apparently have tendered several proposals to the MMDA but reportedly also asked for more time to study the problem. Apparently, too, despite the efforts of the three schools (including the UP) and some NGOs to band together, not all the stakeholders (groups affected) have been actively participating in discussions or advocacy.
The solution must come from all of those who produce and are affected by the traffic. The original intent of Katipunan was that of a parkway, or what is today called a limited-access highway. Commercial establishments were not supposed to abut the highway and the two schools, and the numerous residential districts were supposed to be connected only through service roads linked by a system of multi-level interchanges. This was in the original plans of the National Planning Commission in the 1950s. Pressure from commercial establishments, disregard for zoning and the perennial lack of funds caused none of these to be implemented. If we had adhered to plans 50 years ago, we may never have gotten into this mess we are in today.
I agree that internally, all the three campuses have traffic problems. None of the original campus plans anticipated the volume of traffic and the growth of their respective student and staff populations. Campus planning, however, is a field of expertise that few in-house staffers in these institutions are trained in. I understand, though, that master plans are being prepared by all three but one wonders if these are coordinated with each other, with MMDA and Quezon City plans and with the villages around them. I am informed, too, that DPWH plans for the NCR transport links will affect the Katipunan-Carlos P. Garcia route in a big way in the longer term. Clearly, all these parties must work together if the problem is to be solved.
Another e-mail sender, a new college graduate, writes:
I totally agree with your article. The U-turn scheme is a menace on the street today. Every time I travel along Katipunan, I always stay on the right side just to avoid other drivers using the U-turn slots even though I try to go straight. Some don’t even follow the right turn and just grab and cut your lane. It creates huge bottlenecks that cause greater traffic than before. Moreover, it eliminates stoplights in intersections, making crossing the Katipunan area perilous especially for students. I graduated from Ateneo last year and I never had any trouble with the previous traffic scheme. I am also really disappointed to see that the trees were already gone. I want to point out that those trees actually helped traffic flow because it divided those who are traversing the Katipunan road from those eating or stopping at establishments along Katipunan.
I am totally disappointed with Mr. Fernando’s smug attitude. Putting lives in danger is what he’s doing and not fixing the traffic. Also, I want to point out that it is not the U-turn scheme that eases the traffic along Katipunan but the time of the year. As we all know, it is close to summer break. Just wait for the next school year, TRAFFIC WILL BE MONSTROUS.
I pity those who are trying to go to UP since they have to pass two universities infamous for traffic. I tell you that because I was a student of Ateneo and I always had trouble going to class on time during June-August and October-December periods. What more if you are going to UP. Plus, traffic in Katipunan always coincides with the arrival and dismissal of students, so we should take note of the time of the day and not the entire day. It is obvious that traffic would be faster during the 1-3 p.m. stretch with the U-turn scheme compared to the previous traffic scheme. But wait for the 7-8 a.m. traffic.
At least Mr. Fernando got one thing right, albeit by accident. He eliminated intersections that were not really needed. That’s one solution, eliminate some intersections. As for the U-turns, it should be abolished as soon as possible before some fatalities occur. I hope the Filipino mentality of waiting for something bad to happen before implementing any change does not occur this time.
Something is already happening. Accidents are already a reality with the U-turn’s sloppily constructed alterations of infrastructure not meant to accommodate turns and the mixing of different vehicular speeds. U-turns are only workable in less traffic-prone stretches and on streets with wide enough center islands that allow for cars and longer vehicles to turn. The turning radius of most of the MMDA’s schemes is inadequate even for cars. One container van or passenger bus turning clogs up the entire road in some areas.
Another reader relates a problem in the adjoining University of the Philippines district.
Dear Mr. Alcazaren,
May I request you to write about the current situation in the Tandang Sora area?
That is, from Commonwealth Avenue to Balara? You see, since March 15, a lot of gates to and from UP have been closed without prior notice, I guess because of the increasing crime rate inside the campus. The bad part is that the bulk of motorists is now forced to take Tandang Sora since it’s the only way to Katipunan besides driving all the way to Philcoa and making a U-turn and passing through CP Garcia Ave. For 10 months, I drove my kids to school (in Katipunan) and this past week was a nightmare. It used to take me 15 minutes from our house to Miriam College, but now it takes me 30 minutes from Capitol Drive to Balara alone. Oh yes, I see traffic enforcers around, but the problem is the number of vehicles passing through Tandang Sora, not to mention the trucks that ply this route every day. I don’t know if the MMDA has jurisdiction on this, but I hope that Chairman Fernando can do something about this.
As for the Katipunan area, I agree with the others that traffic has improved although during dismissal time, the traffic is still the same near Gate 3 of Ateneo.
I will try to find out what’s happening with the University of the Philippines. Much of its woes are due, it seems, to an ever-decreasing budget. All the trucking we see in the city is all due to the fact that the original train system that was connected to our port areas and industrial districts before the war has disappeared. In progressive cities elsewhere, all this freight is transported via cargo trains that loop around or sometimes underneath a city. Our North Rail and South Rail systems could theoretically be linked in a circumferential route but lack of funds, the proliferation of squatters along the riles and red tape have prevented this.
Our pedestrian bridges suck. They all seem to be designed for people trained in mountain climbing and self-defense. The stairs up have steps meant for giants and not enough space is ever provided at the landings. Often, pedestrians are forced to the roadway because of bad design and lack of space. If one is lucky to reach the top, there is the safety factor to worry about. The two existing pedestrian bridges over Katipunan (as well as most pedestrian bridges metro-wide) are mugging and rape traps. The Ateneo reportedly pays for security guards for the one near Gate 2.
Although some newer bridges and access to the MRTs have elevators, most of our infrastructure does not allow access by the differently-abled. This despite the existence of a 21-year-old law – BP 344. A reader, architect Armand Michael R. Eustaquio of the United Architects of the Philippines, sent this e-mail reminding us that our city is still biased against disabled persons.
Dear Sir,
Twenty-one years ago, on February 25, 1983, Batas Pambansa Bilang 344, or the Accessibility Law, was enacted into law by the 5th regular session of the Batasang Pambansa. BP 344 is An Act to Enhance the Mobility of Disabled Persons by Requiring Certain Buildings, Institutions, Establishments and Public Utilities to Install Facilities and Other Devices. After 21 years, much still remains to be done to make all government and private buildings for public use (constructed after 1983) accessible to persons with disabilities. Although many have already complied, in Metro Manila you will still find many commercial establishments that have not provided a single parking slot for vehicles with passengers with disabilities. You will still find buildings that have ramps that are steep to climb even for a person with average strength. There are still buildings with toilets that are too tight for a wheelchair to enter, much less move around in. These are just a few of the basic elements needed by persons with disabilities who, to date, remain largely neglected.
The National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons has been doing its best to achieve compliance from the government and private sector but they cannot do it alone. They need help from all sectors of society. A simple reminder to a friend putting up a new building to provide accessibility features for persons with disabilities will go a long way. In order to make sure that your friends properly comply with the law, they can call the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons – an extension agency of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, at 920-1503 / 927-5916 for a free copy of BP 344. After all, we will all benefit from a Non-Handicapping Environment because all of us will become persons with disabilities in our old age. So why wait?
Has anyone seen a handicapped person or wheelchair-bound person on the streets on Manila? No, because they cannot get anywhere. Sure, there are small ramps with the wheelchair logo stamped on them leading up to most sidewalks but the sidewalks themselves are mostly too narrow for even the able-bodied. The pedestrian bridges, as I mentioned above, are almost non-negotiable even for those with Olympic training. I think that our bridges were designed by the mentally disabled. Besides, you wouldn’t catch a politician or DPWH official using any of these bridges. They are all ferried about town or even just to cross a street in Expedition wang-wanged luxury anyway.
I read last Saturday’s edition about the MMDA and the U-turn slots. I personally agree with Mr. Fernando’s concepts and ideas and I would even vote for him for president. I’m writing to you, however, about an issue concerning the footbridges. That they are colored pink and blue is no problem with me. The thing is women wearing short skirts are victims of peeping Toms because the steel steps have gaps and are not covered unlike the older concrete footbridges. I have witnessed this in the Cubao-Aurora intersection., where many working girls fall prey to sex maniacs there. The fact is that the MMDA urinal is located right underneath the stairs! This leads to all sorts of unwanted behavior. There are enough sex maniacs in jeeps, buses, and FXs.
Do I sound like I’m overreacting? I’m thankful for footbridges in general but how do we protect our wives, daughters and sisters? I don’t know how to reach Mr. Bayani Fernando and I think I would look stupid if I personally went to the MMDA office to complain there. Though this is not a major economic concern, I just want to protect the women in our society. Don’t you, sir?
More power,
RC
Well, RC, that indeed is a problem that the bridge designers and the MMDA toilet locators have obviously not considered. The whole metropolis (feminists would say our whole society) anyway is gender-biased. Planning, engineering and the shaping of our city are, by and large, the product of men. As all women know, men only think of themselves. It is really hell for women, children and the elderly on our streets. Only the men and strong-of-limb can get remaining spaces in crowded public vehicles at rush hour. Only the men can manage to navigate our dark streets and dangerous pedestrian bridges. Only the men can pee when they want, where they want, pink shield or no pink shield.
Universal access, which is the ultimate goal of good urban design, means more than just ramps for the differently-abled. It means that all amenities, public transport, public spaces, civic and commercial structures are to be made equally accessible to all citizens of whatever gender, age or color preference. All these infrastructure and civic buildings that government is supposed to provide its citizens must ennoble and not molest. They must enhance our public lives; take us to where we want to go, without fear of compromising our modesty, our sanity or our self-respect. Our current disabled, uncivil and rude infrastructure is a reflection of the government departments and local authorities who are tasked to provide them. If our government officials do not show us respect how can they expect us to respect them and keep them in office? Ultimately, this respect, is what is needed for civility to rule once again in our streets, sidewalks and our city.