Readers respond: Time to scrap color coding

Of the many letters I received on color coding, the most important was one that came from the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines. Did you know that there was such a thing? I didn’t, that is why it was such a pleasure to know that there are people out there thinking more seriously on what is good for the country rather than their own interests. The group says it is a non-governmental and non-profit organization of experts looking into transportation and traffic policy, among others. They are based in UP Diliman for those who wish to get in touch with them. Their e-mail is : [email protected].

* * *

Although the matter of the color coding ban is important enough in itself, it could also serve as a good test of the political will of the government. Here is an issue about which most of us are affected. At least from the letters I have received which tend to agree it is time for the MMDA (and for the 15 other LGUs who have not yet seen the light) to "suspend - if not scrap all together - the Unified Vehicle Volume Reduction Program (UVVRP) that is known more under its misnomer "color coding" scheme", to quote TSSP.

* * *

Here are the reasons given by TSSP why color coding ban ought to be scrapped:

The basic reasons for its introduction are long gone. The construction of MRT 3 was finished last year and a large stretch of EDSA is now free of temporary obstructions. So is it with the South Luzon Tollway with the completion of Skyway Stage 1. By and large, the road network of the metropolis is clear of major constrictions.

It is of negligible impact anyway. Of the more than 1.2 million vehicles registered in the NCR, less than 18 percent (cars, jeepneys, buses) is supposed to get out of the streets on any working day. Trucks are already banned on peak hours. When you consider the exempted vehicles — diplomatic, government, commemorative plates, special permits — the numbers are even less. Of the 600 thousand households of Metro Manila, only about 20 percent own cars and about 4 percent own more than 1 car. Thus, only 16 percent of households in Metro Manila - the hard-working and law-abiding middle class — get affected by the scheme.

No rigorous studies were made before the scheme was implemented, and no periodic evaluation made afterwards. It was copied from Mexico City, which implemented (and later dropped) a scheme called Hoy No Circula in 1989. Studies made in 1997 revealed that it was counterproductive – it increased total driving and high welfare costs in Mexico City. Kamakura in Japan tried a similar scheme, and the findings were similar – much ado about nothing.

In 1998, MMUTIS evaluated several Travel Demand Management schemes for Metro Manila – one of them being the UVVRP. Its conclusion was a maximum reduction in travel demand by 4.3 percent, or 2.7 percent with exclusion of buses and jeepneys. At best, it has a short-term impact since the reduction is offset by growth in travel in two years time. If implemented too long, the "shot-gun" scheme loses its value as motorists start to react – by transferring the postponed trips into another day, buying an extra car, or taking the risks and costs of being caught.

The scheme has diverted attention of traffic enforcers into catching the 1 in 5 cars that might have violated, instead of attending to the more important task of directing traffic and avoiding congestion. Studies have shown that illegal loading/unloading and encroachment of the roads and sidewalks occur 57 percent and 44 percent, respectively, of the times as causes of traffic bottlenecks. As MMDA has admitted, they are short of hands. So deploying their limited resources to the real causes of traffic congestions would produce better results than UVVRP.

Because of the large student population in the metropolis, school trips account for a large portion of estimated 18 million motorized trips per day in MMA – 26 percent (or 14 percent if trip-to-home is counted). These trip demands virtually disappear during summer. The percentage is even higher during peak hour. At the very least, therefore, the UVVRP can be suspended this summer when schools are mostly on vacation.

In fast-growing metropolitan areas of the developing world, demand management solutions can not be avoided as supply will always fall short of demand. There are a number of travel demand (and supply) management solutions that are available for MMDA and the 17 LGUs to consider. While other cities (Mexico, Seoul, and Athens also tried car rationing) in other countries can offer lessons, the MMDA need not look farther than Marikina. There are no silver bullets in traffic management, and certainly the UVVRP was not. It can be conceded that the UVVRP has provided incomes to traffic enforcers — legitimate or otherwise. But it has exacted far more tolls on the motoring public. It is time to inject reason into the madness of traffic management in Metro Manila. It is time to scrap a failed experiment. Scrap the UVVRP now.

* * *

This is a well-reasoned argument for scrapping a rule that has outlived its usefulness but which is kept in force because of inertia. There seems to be no will to have it recalled even if reason shows it doing more harm than good. Another quarter suggested strong lobbying from single car owners hurt by color coding. I know, I know. Lobbying takes time and effort which most ordinary citizens do not have. They are busy earning a living, keeping body and soul together. In any case, that is what they put up governments for so there are people in charge of public concerns, traffic management being just one of them. Do we really have to gather signatures, appear on talk shows, harangue officials just to get such a useless as color coding scrapped? I wonder how the Mexican or Korean government did it and how long it took them to do so. Did they have to wait for a lobby? Or did pleas for its recall fall into deaf ears? Let’s see what this government does with it.

* * *

The CA on trial. I am afraid the CA hearing on the confirmation of Heherson Alvarez as Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources is becoming a trial of the Commission on Appointments instead. Through its own machinations, Alvarez’s enemies led by Peter Abaya, a disgruntled subordinate has fueled the politicization of what should have been a non-partisan process for determining the capability of a presidential appointee. An institution for the appointment of government officials to important posts is slowly being destroyed before the public eye. It may be that members of the opposition have to take the larger blame but the CA is a collective body and will have to take the responsibility as a collective body and that includes pro-administration members.

* * *

By its comportment, the CA has made itself a willing tool of Abaya et al. But that is the lesser evil and the more obvious effect of the hearings that have dragged on. The greater evil hiding beneath the Abaya public relations juggernaut is how opposition members in the CA have managed to wrest the driver’s seat of the CA and now dominates its function. Unfortunately using the CA as a tool for political vendetta will ultimately destroy the institution itself unless of course public opinion through responsible media steps in. The worst that can happen is for the public to grow weary, allow particular CA members with a sinister agenda to have it their way and opt for a less controversial appointment. The confirmation or non-confirmation of Heherson Alvarez is a fall-out from the impeachment of Erap and EDSA2. That is pretty obvious.

* * *

My email address: [email protected]