Katipunan scenes and MMDA’s mad schemes

Wow! My e-mail mailbox has never been this full. I’ve been receiving tons of e-mail since last week’s article on "Crossing Katipunan." I thought I’d done my bit to mitigate MMDA’s marvelously mad schemes and move on to other issues, but feedback from citizens has been overwhelming and must be heard. Most of these e-mails were in agreement that the U-turns, unsafe crossings and the loss of trees are indeed unwanted but a few gave mixed views on individual interventions.

First, some negative feedback:

Dear Mr. Alcazaren,

Give me a break! I travel Katipunan every day and the traffic situation is much better now. Be objective. Take a day-long video. Get a survey. Deal with the facts! By the way, I am an Atenean. It’s obvious that our "spokesmen" are biased because of the environmental concerns. That’s a different story. If you take subjectivity aside and just look at the traffic situation, you might just see the light. 

CPG

Thank you, CPG, for your e-mail. You are right. The traffic seems to have improved at times. The fact is that the Transport Center at the UP had conducted traffic counts, surveys and studies (not just for one day but for several weeks) and these have shown that the "improved" flow is just an illusion – you move but you have to travel longer to get to where you are going. (Their study proposes that better synchronization of lights and some infrastructural interventions – having to do with counter-directional flow at Gate 3 – would be a better solution.) The fact is that there has been a recorded rise in traffic accidents not only in Katipunan but in other U-turn spots. One wonders why these reports are not published or disseminated.

The environment is a concern that I believe cannot be taken out of the equation – that "bias" is for everyone’s good, including yours and all our children. If we do not do everything we can to reduce pollution and dependence on fossil-fuels now, our quality of life will totally disappear faster than you can say ocho-ocho.

I have difficulty seeing the light because of the smog. I live on Esteban Abada and am usually a pedestrian in the area. Traffic not only means cars but also people having to walk and the subjective context here is safety and accessibility for everyone – riding or walking, rich or poor. 

To be objective about it entails other issues not discussed in my article for lack of space. The whole metropolitan transport system is screwed up because of lack of proper planning. (We produce far fewer physical planners and urban designers compared to lawyers, doctors or politician-actors). The problem is that schools, malls and religious gatherings that generate traffic are located in areas that they should not have been or were not planned to be. Zoning in the Philippines is a joke and hence proper transport planning that is supposed to support that zoning is inutil.

True objectivity should be a frame constructed beyond the narrow confines of one’s own social strata. The city is used by more than just Ateneans or residents of plush subdivisions who cannot wait to stop for people to cross the road. The problems of the metropolis are more than just traffic and U-turns. But thank you still for your e-mail. I am glad that it has elicited passionate response on both sides of the equation. Such public discourse is, of course, healthy and may lead to real solutions.

Another reader wrote:

I’m one of the drivers who regularly pass through Katipunan to go to work in Makati. Coming from UP, heading toward Santolan, I find that the current traffic scheme indeed helped ease traffic a lot. On the other hand, for those heading towards Miriam and UP, I see that it is generally bottled up by those U-turning. Service roads are, for me, essential to traffic management. Katipunan itself is not as wide as other roads like EDSA, so I never understood the reason why they implemented the U-turn scheme. They thought that removing the service roads would help justify their scheme, but I think it only made it much worse. As for accidents, it almost happened to me one time. I was zooming across, when this guy just suddenly crossed the street. I barely managed to brake just in time, while the guy just kept on driving.

MMDA will of course use the summer vacation as an excuse to prove that their traffic scheme is a success.

LRJ

Well, LRJ, we are glad you are alive to tell your tale!

A working couple wrote:

My wife and I also go through Katipunan once or twice daily.  Better traffic flow along Katipunan is one of the few things we agree on. The first week of the U-turn scheme was really bad, just like the first few days of the Quezon Avenue implementation but now, I’d say it is much better. As for pedestrians, what was done on Quezon Avenue should also be done in Katipunan.  Put pedestrian overpasses. Going to Libis, Makati, SLEX would have been easy except for the still unfinished construction at the Santolan intersection.  Give it a few months, I’m sure traffic in this area would also take a turn for the better. Patience and cooperation from everyone would take us a long, long way.

GB

Thank you, GB, for your e-mail. I have received quite a number of e-mails – some, like yours, point to the "improved" traffic flow as a positive effect of the U-turns. Traffic planners disagree and have the studies to prove this. The benefits accrue to a good number of commuters but not all – and not all pedestrians. The crossings should have been put first before the U-turns. What is the cost of even just one pedestrian life lost because we had to prioritize people in cars?

As you said you and your wife pass through Katipunan Road. I live there as do thousands of others. Crossing the street is dangerous. The issue is more than just the U-turns, too. It includes the removal of trees and the service islands to separate slow and fast traffic. All this prioritization of commuters over pedestrians is unfair to those of us who have to walk. Our infrastructure is so ill-designed that safety seems to be of no concern to authorities. My friend lost a son (an Ateneo grade-school student) at Katipunan because of trying to cross an already dangerous street.

Of course, all this has to be taken into the larger context of a city that is itself ill-planned. It is good that we discuss these important issues to find solutions we can all live with and are equitable to all citizens from all strata of society. My patience wears thin when confronted with stop-gap measures in urban planning and design that should have been implemented properly in the first place. Our transport infrastructure is third world and our mass-transport system is a jumble of inefficient, pollutive mess of tricycles, buses and jeepneys.

The problem is bigger than just traffic, but we need to address these issues instead of concentrating on the latest political scandal. Cooperation and patience are needed, I agree, but we need to look at what we are cooperating with. Is this a stop-gap solution? Does it not give cause for government to escape responsibility for longer-term sustainable solutions ... such as rationalizing our transport network and making sure our taxes go to properly built, properly lighted, pedestrian- and rider-friendly streets and boulevards?

A citizen with ties to the UP wrote:

Well, well, well, at last, somebody quoted UP Transport Training Center on the danger of the MMDA schemes. You, sir, are not alone. Madami tayo. Katipunan is not the only road laden with dangers as one takes the U-turn slot. First, the slot is on the fast lane where knowledgeable drivers expect to run fast. Second, they’ve placed concrete barriers (another obstacle that poses damage to vehicles and endangers passengers) instead of filling the orange barriers with water or sand of which these barriers were designed to be utilized. I heard once that MMDA chairman Bayani Fernando said that only reckless drivers get into accidents on the U-turns. He is really something! The MMDA has also made traffic signal systems obsolete and have instead chosen danger and excitement for Metro Manilans in driving and crossing intersections. When there’s a public outcry on the dangers of pedestrian crossing, Bayani puts up steel fabricated pedestrian overpasses.

MGB

Esther M. Pacheco of Tanggol Puno, an environmental NGO, gives us an update from ground zero:

 Your "Crossing Katipunan" article sums up beautifully what the many concerned parties in this part of the city have been saying about the Development Authority’s "mis-development." We really cannot afford to become helpless in all these initiatives of the MMDA. After all, this is our city, and as responsible citizens, we should have ourselves heard. Many of us, for instance, cannot understand the logic behind cementing of the spaces between the trees – so that vehicles can weave in and out of the column of trees left standing? Expect yet more vehicular accidents. And we cannot certainly approve of the pedestrian crossing schemes now in place – just plain dangerous and inefficient. We should ask back for the traffic lights that work!

We are campaigning against pedestrian overpasses because these are biased against the very young, the disabled, the old, and those with bone, spine problems. They are also biased against bikers (whom we are encouraging to multiply in the area – to decrease pollution).

Last night, some of us from COCAP and Tanggol Puno attended the annual dinner-meeting  of  COHA  (a federation of homeowner associations in the White Plains- Blue Ridge  area). Several QC councilors and  Mayor Sonny Belmonte were guests there. In his reply (to a paper prepared by the COHA), Mayor Belmonte agreed that they should indeed be consulted in matters concerning infrastructure, even if the funds and construction come from the MMDA. After all, these people are all respectable and are managing effectively many of their community projects. It’s good to know that so many citizens (aside from those in the Katipunan area) are asserting their rights as Filipino citizens. We’re glad there is such a force we can depend on to bring some rationality to the plans for the metropolis. We shall tap them.

Meanwhile, the COCAP court case against the MMDA is proceeding very slowly – to the advantage of the fast-draw MMDA tactics of quickly working against what the Katipunan Technical Working Group had recommended after a careful six-month study. In the last hearing, the judge ruled that the case of contempt of court against the MMDA (for ignoring a TRO and breaking its declaration in open court not to touch Katipunan until the court case is resolved)  had to be withdrawn from her sala because it was a criminal case separate from that on Katipunan’s trees. And after filing the contempt charge, the case had to be raffled among the judges. Justice grinds slowly indeed but we cannot afford to despair. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing, right? 

Thank you, Esther, for the update. Vigilance is the key and one hopes that there is a sliver of good even in our government officials.

Our next reader questions the faculties and aesthetic taste of our officials:

It seems that our "noble" officials are deaf. They have the nerve telling us that it is the lack of discipline of the drivers that causes the accidents on the U-turn slots and that pedestrians meet accidents because they are crossing illegally! You are right in saying the U-turn slots causes more harm than good. I am also puzzled that MMDA is using pink and blue as the color of traffic signs, signals, etc. Why are they using these colors when the whole world uses standard traffic colors: Black, yellow or white. Only in da Pilipines!

Regards and more power.

Antonio

A mixed message follows:

We have the opposite experience as a motorist in Katipunan. In fact, I mentioned to my husband that the U-turns at Katipunan are the best that ever happened to us, since the system was "invented" by MMDA. The U-turns have drastically minimized the traffic on Miriam College, which is the longest bottleneck every morning, when we bring our children to Ateneo. The Miriam stretch, prior to the U-turn system, took at least 15 minutes to traverse coming from either CP Garcia or Tandang Sora. With the U-turn, our trip going to Ateneo to bring our boys in the morning has been shortened from 45 minutes to just 25 minutes.

I do not cross Katipunan as a pedestrian, but I would agree with you that it is quite difficult to do so. The risk and difficulty on pedestrians is apparent in all U-turn systems, however, not only on Katipunan. Take the case of QC Elliptical Circle and Quezon Avenue. Yes, indeed, the question is: When will the pedestrian lanes be constructed?

A holistic approach is desirable, but certainly needs more resources and dedication. This is the big challenge to MMDA and the government.

Portia P. Sto. Domingo 9 Maria Felipe Street Tierra Pura Subdivision, Quezon City

Thank you, Portia. Apparently the scheme works in some stretches for some segments of the day. Bottlenecks clear up only to accumulate elsewhere. It is basic hydraulics, as a planning professor of mine used to say. The problem is too much water in the first place.

Another resident of the area wrote:

Mr. Alcazaren,

I have been living in or around the Ateneo most of my life and I have two children who travel to and from Loyola Heights daily. Aside from the madness of the U-turn schemes and the tree removal program by the MMDA, I also want to add the fact that we are the only country (correct me if I am mistaken) in the world that follows our own set of traffic rules. (If we do have rules.)

 I don’t see any benefit from the proliferation of these U-turn slots not only on Katipunan but all over the metropolis. Not only does it block the fast (left-most) lanes, it also inconveniences opposing traffic and causes a "free for all" mentality among our already jaded drivers. It provides for areas where accidents are waiting to happen, and albeit with deadly regularity.

 This scheme also dismisses existing traffic lights, rendering them useless because the intersections are permanently blocked by the cement barriers. Why don’t they (MMDA) just turn off the lights! (It might save a couple of pesos in electricity bills.)

Lastly, my point is that we don’t know what to expect. Any driver would want better roads and traffic schemes to make our commute at least more bearable. The problem is that sometimes we spend more time looking for a way around these road annoyances than to simply follow international rules of the road!

DR

There are more e-mails but space is lacking. What has come out is that the U-turns do work for some groups of users – the commuters who ply the route. But the improved flow happens only at certain hours of the day and on certain stretches. They are inherently dangerous in the short and long run and need to be seen as a stop-gap measure that is already causing more accidents than good. Traffic relieved on these stretches builds up again somewhere up or down our uncoordinated transport network anyway. The larger and more sustainable solutions to traffic are in proper planning, better mass-transport systems and better coordination of infrastructure efforts among our many agencies of government.

I have given much space to discussions on the good of street trees and the need to provide for the safety and comfort of those segments of society who have to walk, that I am beginning to sound like a broken record. The record, however, of our government in providing even the most basic amenities and infrastructure for our lives is revoltingly bad. We cannot build good roads, sidewalks or plant enough trees because we lose too much money to graft and corruption. With this brazen stupidity, our officials (and we ultimately) have allowed our physical environment to deteriorate. We have to act now to stem the rising tide. (Which reminds me, shouldn’t we start clearing our perennially clogged esteros again before the rains come?)

Well, there’s been too much ranting and raving for one article. I’ll let you folks decide before even I U-turn on my views.

* * *

Feedback is welcome. Please e-mail the writer at citysensephilstar@hotmail.