COA: MMDA failed us

Last month, Philippine STAR carried a story on a COA report which said MMDA failed to do its job.

I just got a copy of the COA report and it documents what we have always suspected about the failures of MMDA.

The 2015 audit report observed that MMDA did not make optimum use of its allocated budget to achieve its targeted goals on transport and traffic management. COA also talks of unutilized, long dormant trust funds that had to be sent back to the National Treasury.

COA criticized MMDA’s failure to craft a detailed implementation plan on traffic management which  should have integrated measures suggested by the various studies on transport and traffic management.

“The traffic situation in Metro Manila had been a perennial problem which worsened through time. Media reports and opinion of the public from day to day reflect dissatisfaction on Metro Manila’s traffic condition and on the inability of the MMDA to manage traffic,” state auditors said.

The comprehensive audit report reviewed the mandate of MMDA under RA 7924 which created the agency.

MMDA’s purpose under the law covers traffic and transport management including formulation, coordination and monitoring of policies, standards, programs and projects to rationalize the existing transport operations, infrastructure requirement, the use of thoroughfares and promotion of safe and convenient movement of persons and goods, provision for the mass transport system and the institution of a system to regulate road users, administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and traffic education programs, including the institution of a single ticketing system in Metropolitan Manila.

WOW! That’s a mouthful. That seems to imply that the horrible traffic problems we have is really MMDA’s failure. I don’t even see the role of the Department of Transportation in the MMDA.

Even the provision of a mass transport system is MMDA’s responsibility on paper. If Congress intended to really give MMDA all the responsibilities in that list, it should have given a budget to MMDA that is commensurate to the responsibility… but then even with the modest budget MMDA now has, it failed to utilize well.

Anyway, based on the MMDA Charter, the COA audit team said the MMDA’s failure to discharge its functions under the law led to random and disorganized solutions in handling traffic problems. Thus, the COA report observed, instead of being understood by the public and other stakeholders, such condition elicits impatience and dissatisfaction despite all the efforts MMDA employs in traffic management.

COA insists that a comprehensive implementation plan is imperative and MMDA doesn’t have that. Addressing the traffic problem, the audit agency asserts, requires MMDA to have effective planning and management, and to use more science.

COA is looking for an implementation plan that identifies the activities on how Metro Manila roads will be provided with traffic engineering, enforcement, education and emergency response services.

Such a plan, according to COA, should identify the responsible offices/officials, costs, time frames, risks and how these risks would be managed and specific performance and success indicators. “A written traffic management plan serves as proof the activities being done follow a defined direction and are pointed towards the intended goal.

“It will also facilitate verification of the progress of implementation at any given time. In the absence of detailed targets specified in a written implementation plan, it cannot be ascertained if the activities and projects already implemented were indeed directed to its target goals at certain periods of time and how it is to the ultimate intended outcome.”

In its reply to COA, MMDA said they did try to produce such a plan, but failed due to rapid changing traffic conditions that made the study obsolete before actual implementation. MMDA cited the rapid increase in number of vehicles and fast development in Metro Manila as factors that, in effect, made them give up planning at all.

The reply confirms that MMDA pretty much operates on an ad hoc basis, with little thought to what they actually do out there in our streets. This reminds me of the problem I cited last Monday about those plastic barriers on EDSA that creates more problems for motorists.

Here is a letter e-mailed to me by a reader, Danilo Cabalde:

Related to your PhilSTAR article dated Aug. 8, I was caught by surprise when going south from Connecticut corner EDSA that I could no longer use the EDSA/Ortigas flyover towards Pasig as the MMDA had extended their orange barrier up to the foot of the flyover on the corner of Ortigas-EDSA.

There used to be an opening before reaching the Shell station so motorists could easily maneuver towards the inner lane bound for the Pasig flyover.

I was hoping that with the change, I can make a left turn on Ortigas Ave. but there’s a NO LEFT TURN signage, leaving me no option but to go straight towards Shaw Blvd. It was an agony!  This is a result of poor planning by the inept MMDA personnel.

I guess if MMDA did more consultations with affected motorists or placed billboards and signs announcing the new traffic rule way in advance, maybe people will understand. They have been experimenting too on a portion of Julia Vargas near Megamall on whether to make the lanes on the San Miguel side one way or two way. But the Ortigas folks had billboards and signs weeks before the experiments went into effect.

Anyway, COA also talked of the Dream Plan initiated by Japan International Cooperation Agency or JICA which P-Noy approved. The audit agency wondered how that was integrated in the overall plans of MMDA.

Crisanto Saruca Jr., chief of the MMDA Traffic Discipline Office, told PhilStar they welcome the five solutions proposed by JICA to address traffic congestion in the metropolis. “These proposals are good,” Saruca said but added that the government must consider existing support structures.

JICA proposed a restudy of the gateway airport options for Metro Manila, the feasibility of a Mega-Manila subway system, a reform of the road-based public transport system, secondary mass transport system lines and a redevelopment of the congested Manila North Harbor.

Another good observation of COA has to do with the lack of training of MMDA field personnel. “Traffic personnel were not provided with sufficient training but were deployed to handle traffic and no adequate system of performance evaluation was made after their deployment.

“Traffic enforcement and maintenance of smooth traffic flow require a certain level of competence and adequate knowledge of pertinent laws, rules and regulations and standard procedures as well as special skills. It is essential that all personnel hired and given the said responsibilities possess the required competence and are given necessary education and training to enable them to perform their duties and responsibilities well.”

What can I say? No wonder MMDA just plays around with those orange traffic barriers on EDSA with no obvious justification. Everything COA observed in its report is basic stuff. MMDA must professionalize its staff and its manner of operations. They cannot be as haphazard as they were in closing down a good part of EDSA with those orange barriers without due regard to the needs of motorists using it.

Maybe MMDA needs a permanent Chairman who will be responsible to Transport Secretary Art Tugade. Indeed Art should read the COA report because he will get ideas on how he can accomplish his promised 100 day improvement in traffic by getting MMDA up to Art’s high standards of performance.

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @boochanco