PETER JOHN B.
LARIDA
Transportation and traffic in major cities worldwide have become a hot
potato, resulting to efforts on developing legislation & infrastructure that
will help decongest routes. Some policies work, but others are falling short
of the increasing demand for better transportation system. The metropolis
of Metro Manila struggles with daily traffic congestion, arising from its
rapid urbanization. Most of our cities have inadequate road infrastructure
in relation to the growth of vehicles, and thus traffic congestion is a
common sight everywhere as cars and motorcycles dominate the roads.
This is causing productivity loss, air pollution and quality of life to
deteriorate.
One of the more pressing realities ever persistent in Metro Manila is that
around traffic: it’s not only a daily nuisance, but more so an economic
inefficiency and environmental degradation. Many of our world cities suffer
from poor air quality due to high vehicular emissions, and urban life is
further negatively impacted in many areas by traffic accidents, as well as
crimes connected with transportation. In response, the government has
implemented several measures to reduce congestion, including Traffic
Demand Management (TDM) and Traffic Systems Management (TSM), the
Truck Ban, and the Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program
(UVVRP) or number coding scheme.
Traffic Management Solutions in Metro Manila
1. TDM and TSM Strategies
Traffic management policies in Metro Manila aim to optimize traffic
flow without major infrastructure investments. TDM and TSM have
been adapted to local conditions and focus on managing travel
demand and improving the efficiency of the transport system. These
measures are essential to balancing the growing demand and the
existing capacity of road networks.
2. Truck Ban
Implemented in the 1970s, the truck ban restricts freight vehicles
from major roads during peak hours to ease congestion. Although
effective in some areas, trucks still congest roads near the port,
requiring further refinements to the policy.
3. UVVRP (Number Coding Scheme)
The UVVRP, originally introduced in 1995, aims to reduce vehicle
volume by prohibiting cars with certain license plates from driving
on specific days. Over time, the scheme has evolved to adapt to
worsening traffic conditions. However, the long-term effectiveness of
UVVRP is being questioned, as research shows that some drivers
buy second cars to bypass the restrictions, as seen in Mexico City's
Hoy no Circula system.
Challenges and Shortcomings of the UVVRP (Number Coding
Scheme)
1. Car Dependency
According to Regidor (2013), the number coding scheme’s
effectiveness has diminished as drivers find ways to
circumvent it, often by purchasing second cars. Although
the scheme still serves as a deterrent, the failure to
address the root cause—car dependency—means
congestion remains a persistent issue. The policy fails to
push people toward alternative modes of transport.
2. Shifting Travel Behavior
Research by Padayhag et al. (2013) reveals that some
commuters shift their travel times earlier in the day or
later at night to avoid the restrictions, instead of reducing
car usage. This results in traffic congestion being
redistributed across different hours, rather than
significantly lowering overall vehicle volume.
3. Lack of Shift to Public Transport
Despite the restrictions, the use of public transportation
has not increased significantly. Many commuters prefer
private vehicles due to the inefficiencies and
unattractiveness of the current public transport system,
further highlighting the failure of UVVRP to promote
sustainable travel behavior.
Conclusion and Future Direction
Regidor (2013) and Padayhag et al. (2013) argue that the number coding
scheme is useful to alleviate traffic congestion only during peak hours in
selected areas but has a limited impact on reducing overall traffic volume
and therefore, road-based pollution. The real trouble, however, is that it
has not managed to wean people off their private cars.
For a real, as well as long term solution investment in public transport
infrastructure are essential. If we want to get rid of the chronic traffic
congestion in Metro Manila, at least some form of mass transit and
reasonably good walking or biking should be available. The number coding
scheme will not be enough to cure the area of its traffic ills if these
measures are left out.
REFERENCE
1. Japan International Cooperation Agency (1999) Metro Manila Urban
Transportation Integration Study, Final Report.
2. National Center for Transportation Studies (2011) Development of a
Mega Manila Public Transportation Planning Support System, Progress
Report.
3. Regidor, J.R.F. and Tiglao, N.C.C. (2007) “Alternative Solutions to Traffic
Problems: Metro Manila in Retrospect,”Proceedings of the 11th World
Conference on Transport Research (WCTR 2007),24-28 June 2007,
University of California Transportation Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA, DVD.
4. Tiglao, N.C.C., Regidor, J.R.F., and Teodoro, R.V.R. (2005) “An
Assessment of the Truck Ban and UVVRP, and Their Effects on the
Freight Forwarding Industry,”Proceedings of the First Conference on
Transportation Logistics (T-LOG 2005), Furama Riverfront,
Singapore, CD-ROM.
5. Korchagina, Y. Traffic in Manila: Strategies and solutions.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Traffic+in+Manila+Strategies+and+solutions&b
tnG=
6. National Center for Transportation Studies Foundation, Inc. (2004)
Impact Study on Traffic Management Measures in Metro Manila, Final
Report, Japan International Cooperation Agency.
7. Regidor, J.R.F., and Felias, H.A., Jr. (2003) ‘Impact Assessment of
Infrastructure Projects in Metro Manila Using Micro-Simulation Tools,’
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5, pp.
1075-1085.
8. Vergel, K.N. and Tiglao, N.C.C. (2005) ‘Assessment of Integrated
Environmental Strategies for Metro Manila,’ Journal of the Eastern Asia
Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 3105–3120.
