Chicken wire policy
Chicken wire policy
Posted 11:11pm (Mla time) Mar 20, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 21, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
THE REST of the country may not care about Bayani Fernando's latest experiment in urban planning and development, but we think there are crucial lessons to be learned from the ongoing fiasco that is the "chicken wire" traffic management scheme.
The first lesson is that it is a failure. The scheme, meant to ease traffic on Edsa, the national capital region's main thoroughfare, has instead added to traffic congestion. We are not certain whether Fernando and other officials of the Metro Manila Development Authority recognize this fact, or understand why. But a simple explanation, based on the experience that hundreds of thousands of commuters have endured every day for the last three weeks, should suffice.
The scheme required the setting up of portable chicken-wire fences along certain portions of Edsa, to reinforce the demarcation of the bus lane. In other words, the idea was to force the thousands of buses plying the Edsa route to stick to their lane.
The problem was, by setting up the fences, which at the base took up maybe only a foot and a half of space, but at the designated exits occupied as much as half a lane, the MMDA actually added traffic bottlenecks to Edsa. Instead of easing traffic flow, the scheme, from Day One, choked it instead.
Why? At certain points in the affected stretches, buses and cars had to negotiate a bus lane that had effectively been reduced from two lanes to one.
The second lesson is that the spirit of experimentation is not enough. When Fernando first assumed the MMDA chairmanship, we welcomed his openness to try new solutions to old problems. It is not often, we said then, that we get public officials willing to press initiatives based on the rigors of science rather than the pressures of politics.
MMDA officials defending the chicken wire scheme have invoked the initiative's experimental character, saying we should wait until the findings are in. But this is like saying that any experiment will do.
An experiment must be thought through and thoroughly prepared for. Unfortunately for Edsa's commuters, this has not been the case with the chicken wire disaster.
Every day, the details of the scheme changed. One day, for instance, southbound traffic from Cubao in Quezon City had the option to turn right on Annapolis Street in Greenhills. The very next day, the Annapolis exit was closed off, catching motorists by surprise. For a few days, motorists from Connecticut street in busy Greenhills could turn right on Edsa. Then one day, without so much as a by-your-leave, the MMDA closed the Connecticut exit off.
The sudden changes sowed confusion among Edsa's regular motorists. Worse, the changes were done, not late at night, when traffic is light, but in the middle of the day. There were even a few times when the fences were moved or traffic barriers and gates relocated during rush hour.
Can anyone in the MMDA actually say that conditions for the experiment were stable enough, or controlled enough, that we can draw valid conclusions from it? Anyone who has ever driven down Edsa knows that traffic conditions vary every day, with Friday, for some reason, always bearing the heaviest traffic. How can, say, a one-day experiment for a particular exit point prove anything?
The third lesson is that effective governance requires managing the public's expectations. The MMDA's chicken wire scheme played fast and loose with both motorists and commuters. No explanations were given, no announcements were made. The fences went up, then down, then up again; and the exits moved from one location to another, without any attempt to inform the public beforehand. Is it any wonder that the scheme enjoys little public support?
The last lesson is philosophical, a matter of outlook. Fernando and his MMDA crew seem to have given up hope in the effectiveness of regular methods of traffic enforcement. The pink fences are like an admission of previous failure: we need to put them up, the MMDA seems to be saying, because our traffic enforcers cannot enforce the bus-lane rule. It is all of a piece with Fernando's notorious wet-rag scheme. If pedestrians in that case, and motorists in this case, don't follow the rules of their own accord, then it is the MMDA's job to force them to. But we cannot agree with Fernando. We distinguish between a realistic approach and his cynicism. Thus, Lesson No. 4: Don't expect progress if you treat people like, well, chicken.
Posted 11:11pm (Mla time) Mar 20, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 21, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
THE REST of the country may not care about Bayani Fernando's latest experiment in urban planning and development, but we think there are crucial lessons to be learned from the ongoing fiasco that is the "chicken wire" traffic management scheme.
The first lesson is that it is a failure. The scheme, meant to ease traffic on Edsa, the national capital region's main thoroughfare, has instead added to traffic congestion. We are not certain whether Fernando and other officials of the Metro Manila Development Authority recognize this fact, or understand why. But a simple explanation, based on the experience that hundreds of thousands of commuters have endured every day for the last three weeks, should suffice.
The scheme required the setting up of portable chicken-wire fences along certain portions of Edsa, to reinforce the demarcation of the bus lane. In other words, the idea was to force the thousands of buses plying the Edsa route to stick to their lane.
The problem was, by setting up the fences, which at the base took up maybe only a foot and a half of space, but at the designated exits occupied as much as half a lane, the MMDA actually added traffic bottlenecks to Edsa. Instead of easing traffic flow, the scheme, from Day One, choked it instead.
Why? At certain points in the affected stretches, buses and cars had to negotiate a bus lane that had effectively been reduced from two lanes to one.
The second lesson is that the spirit of experimentation is not enough. When Fernando first assumed the MMDA chairmanship, we welcomed his openness to try new solutions to old problems. It is not often, we said then, that we get public officials willing to press initiatives based on the rigors of science rather than the pressures of politics.
MMDA officials defending the chicken wire scheme have invoked the initiative's experimental character, saying we should wait until the findings are in. But this is like saying that any experiment will do.
An experiment must be thought through and thoroughly prepared for. Unfortunately for Edsa's commuters, this has not been the case with the chicken wire disaster.
Every day, the details of the scheme changed. One day, for instance, southbound traffic from Cubao in Quezon City had the option to turn right on Annapolis Street in Greenhills. The very next day, the Annapolis exit was closed off, catching motorists by surprise. For a few days, motorists from Connecticut street in busy Greenhills could turn right on Edsa. Then one day, without so much as a by-your-leave, the MMDA closed the Connecticut exit off.
The sudden changes sowed confusion among Edsa's regular motorists. Worse, the changes were done, not late at night, when traffic is light, but in the middle of the day. There were even a few times when the fences were moved or traffic barriers and gates relocated during rush hour.
Can anyone in the MMDA actually say that conditions for the experiment were stable enough, or controlled enough, that we can draw valid conclusions from it? Anyone who has ever driven down Edsa knows that traffic conditions vary every day, with Friday, for some reason, always bearing the heaviest traffic. How can, say, a one-day experiment for a particular exit point prove anything?
The third lesson is that effective governance requires managing the public's expectations. The MMDA's chicken wire scheme played fast and loose with both motorists and commuters. No explanations were given, no announcements were made. The fences went up, then down, then up again; and the exits moved from one location to another, without any attempt to inform the public beforehand. Is it any wonder that the scheme enjoys little public support?
The last lesson is philosophical, a matter of outlook. Fernando and his MMDA crew seem to have given up hope in the effectiveness of regular methods of traffic enforcement. The pink fences are like an admission of previous failure: we need to put them up, the MMDA seems to be saying, because our traffic enforcers cannot enforce the bus-lane rule. It is all of a piece with Fernando's notorious wet-rag scheme. If pedestrians in that case, and motorists in this case, don't follow the rules of their own accord, then it is the MMDA's job to force them to. But we cannot agree with Fernando. We distinguish between a realistic approach and his cynicism. Thus, Lesson No. 4: Don't expect progress if you treat people like, well, chicken.
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home