HOW do we future-proof our mobility in order that people of all abilities and economic backgrounds can move around our cities in a comfortable, efficient, safe and dignified manner? It means abandoning the outdated and destructive practices that have left us with problematic transportation environments and rapidly worsening urban travel conditions.
When we look at the roots of our current transportation predicament, it has its origins in the idea that the motor vehicle offers the most freedom of movement and that the government’s role is to create the infrastructure in order that motor vehicles can move around as fast and far as possible. Roads have been prioritized for cars even if only a very small segment of the population had the means to own a car.
Instead of an inclusive and egalitarian transportation philosophy to enable all Filipinos to have reasonable mobility, what emerged is the prioritization of roads for four-wheeled motor vehicles. Those unable to afford a motor vehicle would have to contend with whatever public transportation is available.
Because public transportation has been based mainly on private initiative, public transport is only operational where there are transportation operators willing to offer their services instead of public transport being provided to address an obvious public need. Public transport has, therefore, evolved in a generally haphazard and unplanned manner. The result is that public transport is not only uncoordinated and low-cost but also often insufficient, unpredictable and characterized by on-street competition for passengers.
Public transport also promoted the mindset and value that it is mainly for those who are economically disadvantaged and who could not afford anything better. Persons with financial capacity are expected to be using their own cars.
With the inadequacy and unreliability of public transport generally and the unsatisfactory condition of our roads for anyone walking and biking, the natural inclination of many Filipinos is to shift to using a private motor vehicle as soon as they can afford to. As we have all observed, these individual choices have led to a “tragedy of the commons,” as roads get progressively more congested and vehicle travel speeds slowed to a crawl.
Widening of roads has not helped, exacerbating the problem often. Trees, greenery and any sidewalks along roads had been eventually removed and replaced by asphalt or concrete lanes for motor vehicles, ultimately making neighborhoods much warmer — look up the urban heat island effect. Road expansion for motor vehicles as a solution to traffic is a losing battle as any relief from traffic attracts increased motor vehicle use — look up the phenomenon of induced demand. Before long, the ensuing road congestion is even worse than what was there earlier.
The impact on public transport is also significant. In the absence of dedicated lanes for public transport, jeepneys, buses and UV (utility vehicles) express end up stuck in traffic with fewer round trips, fewer passengers and lower revenues. After suffering continuous financial losses, many transport operators have declared bankruptcy, sold their vehicles and exited the industry.
This has led to a widening gap between demand and supply of public transport, generating longer queues and waiting times for commuters. This is a big part of the story behind the diminishing supply of public transport over the past two decades.
Today, we are caught in a downward spiral of worsening traffic and pollution plus dangerously high temperatures due to both global warming and the loss of shade, foliage and greenery as trees along roads are cut down to create more roads for motor vehicles. This leads to even more dependency on using private motor vehicles because walking, cycling and public transport have become increasingly difficult, unsafe or unpleasant.
Breaking out of the downward spiral requires reversing the dependency on using private motor vehicles and the propensity for devoting available road space to inefficient travel modes that generate heat, noise and pollution. We need to focus on enhancing the viability and attractiveness of sustainable and inclusive travel modes: public transportation, walking and cycling. This is, in essence, the formula for future-proofing our mobility.
From the birth of the nation, roads have been built and maintained as a “subsidy” for private motor vehicle owners, who use the roads largely for free. The road users charge that is part of vehicle registration only covers a tiny fraction of the cost of building and maintaining roads nationwide.
All Filipinos that pay any form of taxes and duties, especially the large majority without cars, contribute the funding for building and maintaining roads. We need to recognize that public expenditure for road development has, until now, benefitted mainly a privileged segment of society with access to private motor vehicles.
We need to redirect this infrastructure spending, which consumes the lion’s share of the government’s annual capital investment budget, and redefine the purpose of road infrastructure in order that roads are placed in the service of the entire population, especially the majority who are not owners of private motor vehicles.
It will be important for the government to embrace the principle that every person has a right to mobility. If a person is unable to get to school or work or to move around their locality, then that person will be unable to exercise his or her basic rights and freedoms. Therefore, part of the obligation of the government is to ensure that the urban environment provides travel options for everyone, especially the most vulnerable and persons with disability.
Because only six percent of Filipino households are car owners, the target of our infrastructure spending should be to address the travel needs of the vast majority that are not car users. Creating this inclusive mobility environment where public transport, walking and cycling are attractive and available options in every city should be a top priority of the government and should be reflected in the national budget.
The funds are already available in the annual allocation for road development and maintenance, mostly lodged with the Department of Public Works and Highways or DPWH. The expenditure for roads and bridges just needs to be utilized in a manner that creates safe, inclusive, efficient and green road infrastructure everywhere, serving people and vehicles.
Financial sustainability of public transport operations is a natural challenge for any national or local government public transport agency or even a metropolitan public transport agency, especially if fares are kept affordable for most. This means that there should be stable and substantial sources of funding for a potential subsidy if fare revenues fall below expenditures, and in order to enable the public transport agency to respond to emerging travel needs.
There is, therefore, a need to find reliable revenue sources and to earmark these for priority public transport expenditures in the same way that sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco are channeled into funding for vital health services.
There are three sources of revenue that can help to fund the possible financial deficits of public transport operations: 1) parking levies, 2) congestion charging/congestion pricing and 3) traffic violation fines.
These revenues can be shared between national agencies, local government units and the metropolitan agency — if one exists — using a standard formula. In metropolitan areas, metropolitan public transport agencies should be given the responsibility to manage and operate mass transit services that cross local government boundaries whether by bus, rail or ferry.
Parking levies
Free or very low-cost nonresidential parking spaces in urban centers are magnets for traffic; they attract increased motor vehicle use. In busy urban centers, there is a need to manage the demand for parking spaces as well to compensate the rest of society for the added road congestion due to the availability of these spaces.
There is ample justification for introducing a daily levy or tax on each nonresidential parking space in a crowded urban area; to be collected whether or not the parking space is used. In Metro Manila, where there are over a million nonresidential parking spaces available, the revenue potential from a parking levy is considerable.
Congestion pricing
Congestion pricing, whereby vehicles are charged a fee and collected similarly to a toll for entering the center of a city or a busy corridor or district, can help to reduce the demand for private vehicle use while providing a revenue stream that can support public transport development and operations.
The experience of New York City is instructive. In an article found in www.curbed.com, titled “How Well Is Congestion Pricing Doing? Very,” these are the highlights for the first 100 days of congestion pricing: 1) complaints about car honking dropped 70 percent; 2) rush-hour delays at the Holland Tunnel dropped 65 percent, and travel time through it fell 48 percent; 3) the number of cars entering Lower Manhattan fell by six million, compared to a year earlier; 4) traffic-related injuries in the congestion zone dropped by half; 5) Metro-North ridership rose by eight percent; and 6) visitor counts in business improvement districts increased by 1.5 million year over year.
Fines and penalties
Fines and penalties for traffic violations are also a rich source of additional revenues that can help to keep public transport financially viable while maintaining affordable fares. The key is to bring back the camera-based no-contact apprehension system, and fix any remaining legal and technical constraints.
Cameras at every busy intersection or street corner will pay for themselves many times over while altering driver behavior for the better. While keeping driver behavior in check, this mechanism will provide another meaningful stream of funds to support reliable and adequate public transport.
If public transport agencies are equipped with the financial muscle to deliver better services, they can use this resource to expand public transport where it is most needed. One approach would be for the public transport agency to use a service contracting approach with transport operators paid either partially or fully to deliver transport services according to agreed standards and frequency.
The public transport agency is, then, able to take on either the full or part of the financial risk of running a public transport service while transport operators can be on competitive, performance-based contracts with measurable service standards. The public transport agency can also support transport operators with capacity-building, especially in the transition to common fleet management and consolidated operations.
In addition to professionalizing the management and operations of our public transport, we need to make public transport operations more efficient and dependable. In many cities, this means placing public transport vehicles in exclusive lanes in order that they can be liberated from road congestion and can have faster speeds and predictable travel times.
Dedicated lanes for public transport on high passenger volume corridors can resuscitate and energize a shrinking public transport service with significant benefits for the riding public. The EDSA Carousel, despite having very little investment, moves several hundred thousand passengers daily because of the advantage of a dedicated lane. This can be replicated in all major Philippine cities, offering commuters an attractive alternative to using a private motor vehicle.
Investing in safe and attractive pathways for walking and cycling is another way to reverse our downward mobility spiral. Not only should the active transport pathways be smooth, spacious and fully accessible for persons with disabilities but they should, as much as possible, be tree-shaded and with greenery to reduce local temperatures and provide a pleasant, colorful environment for persons on foot or on bicycles.
The public spending on roads should include a budget item for landscaping and other nature-based initiatives (e.g., bioswales) in order that there are deliberate measures to offset climate change and urban heat island effects. Such investments are relatively low-cost, easy to implement and can be introduced in every barangay or village.
With a network of green, shaded walkways and bikeways, Filipinos will have additional comfortable and affordable travel options, especially for trips of shorter distances. Tree-lined sidewalks and bikeways can also compensate for the large deficit in parks and green public spaces in most Philippine cities. A side benefit will be more Filipinos with healthier lifestyles.
Ultimately, future-proofing is about abandoning obsolete, damaging approaches and outdated priorities and pushing aggressively for inclusivity, efficiency and environmental sustainability. This redirection needs to be reflected equally in our public spending, in our government institutions at all levels and in our infrastructure. There is no other way.