Report card on the city
January 3, 2004 | 12:00am
Happy New Year! Like most, I’m still reeling from a hangover from all the festive frenzy that accompanies the world’s longest Christmas season – Paskong Pinoy. I promised myself I’d sit down to assess last year and make at least an outline of things we could look forward to in the next 12 months. But the holidays are not over and, with election craziness already working itself up to a perceptible boil this early, we may never recover enough to be able to set a proper course for 2004.
Nevertheless, I’d like to make at least an attempt at listing down what I – and I’m sure a lot of you – want and don’t want to see more of in the year 2004.
First of all, let’s tackle visual blight. Last year saw a tremendous increase in the number, size and coverage of billboards. After two columns devoted to this earlier in the year, I received a letter from the Outdoor Advertisers Association of the Philippines, chastising me for painting their industry in a blighted light. They say that not all those providing services for "outdoor advertising" are part of their organization and that they themselves are environmentally sensitive.
I am sorry, but nothing can change the reality we see on our streets and highways. Billboards are blocking out the sun and hampering air flow in an already polluted city. The typhoon season proved that these giant ads are a safety risk no matter how many engineers attest to their structural soundness – some did fall. Billboards are not worth dying for.
A recent article in a respected business magazine pointed out the potential of billboards in the advertising industry but does not mention any environmental or social downside to unregulated outdoor advertising. Fellow journalist and conservationist John Silva’s attack on boisterous banners in Baguio has thankfully led to advertisers backtracking on this dangerously proliferating method of pushing products. I hope the cell phone company involved does not renege on its word.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not against outdoor advertising, but stringent control is necessary if we are to reduce the already chaotic nature of our cities. Once again, it must be pointed out that billboards have been proven to be safety hazards, a main contributor to driving stress, a factor in reducing real estate values and an impediment to tourism development (some countries and states in the US whose economies rely heavily on tourism ban them entirely). They uglify the city.
All this may come to naught, however, with the coming of elections. We will be in for wall-to-wall posters, building-tall effigies of smiling liars, cheats and scoundrels – all trying to woo our precious votes. Yup, it may still be a banner year for election banners, but not for poor citizens who have to live through a city plastered in gunk. Who’s going to clean it all up? Hopefully, after all the mess is cleared, we may get legislation to control billboards and banners (from the same liars, cheats and scoundrels). Hey, John Silva, why don’t you run? I’ll give you my vote.
Second issue: Traffic management. Much has been said about all those U-turns and road-widening schemes of the metropolitan authority. Yes, traffic seems much faster, but that is only an illusion and what all these interventions achieve is simulacra of movement. U-turns sometimes do work, I must admit. These are in stretches of road that allow for enough space for the turn. In fact, looking at those places were they do work, it is obvious that the rotundas that were erased in the 1960s from our road system would have worked perfectly. (I did write about this in a City Sense article two years ago.)
I am glad though that Quezon City has responded to criticisms of the pedestrian-unfriendliness of the Elliptical Circle. Traffic police are helping mitigate a problem that should not be there in the first place. The MMDA is also building a number of pedestrian bridges. I wish they could do this all with some forward planning that takes into consideration everyone’s (pedestrians’ and motorists’) needs.
I do hope, too, that the Katipunan controversy is resolved. The Ateneo and Miriam schools are trying to implement their own initiatives to ease traffic with some success. Shuttles are now operating. NGOs are also busy working out alternatives for MMDA to consider (that is, if the MMDA will listen). Meanwhile, the broken curbs and half-dug-up safety medians are a danger to passers-by and vehicles.
The solution to traffic is not more roads, U-turns or widening. The long-term solution lies in adopting a more correct framework of mass-transit-oriented land transportation based on planned urban development. What we see today is a series of never-ending patch-up jobs addressing minor symptoms of a greater malaise – uncoordinated improper urban growth. How can traffic be managed if development that produces traffic (schools, malls, regular religious gatherings) is unregulated? How can transportation be rationalized when everything is after the fact and infrastructure is always inadequate in the first place – or in the wrong place? What is the ultimate carrying-capacity of our roads and what is the basis for giving out franchises to inefficient systems (jeepneys, tricycles, FXs) when the capacities of our city rail systems are not maximized?
Why cannot the DPWH and local governments be more transparent in infrastructure projects – the planning and implementation of these? Often, we wake up to find that some new major infrastructure development has caused our one-hour commute to bloom to two or three hours. Yet we don’t see any notice in the papers or receive any information on what exactly they are building. Also, we can’t guess when it will be completed. (I’m a regular newspaper scanner and clipper, and even I did notices of major infrastructure work like the one on Meralco Avenue and Katipunan-Libis.)
On a related matter, why are our roads so dark? I often wonder how much less crime and loss of life we would all experience if only our streets and highways were adequately lit. I mean just the minimum of light is all we ask for. I cannot remember a time here when it has been so dark or think of any other country which allows its major highways and boulevards to go pitch black and depend on motorists’ lights for illumination. Is there anyone we can sue for this anomaly? Is the electric company not being paid? Who’s responsible?
On that dark note, let me end this Part I of my 2003 assessment. There must be some hope and indeed 2003 has shown how some projects have worked to make the city a little more sensible.
Feedback is welcome. Please e-mail the writer at citysensephilstar@hotmail.com.
Nevertheless, I’d like to make at least an attempt at listing down what I – and I’m sure a lot of you – want and don’t want to see more of in the year 2004.
I am sorry, but nothing can change the reality we see on our streets and highways. Billboards are blocking out the sun and hampering air flow in an already polluted city. The typhoon season proved that these giant ads are a safety risk no matter how many engineers attest to their structural soundness – some did fall. Billboards are not worth dying for.
A recent article in a respected business magazine pointed out the potential of billboards in the advertising industry but does not mention any environmental or social downside to unregulated outdoor advertising. Fellow journalist and conservationist John Silva’s attack on boisterous banners in Baguio has thankfully led to advertisers backtracking on this dangerously proliferating method of pushing products. I hope the cell phone company involved does not renege on its word.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not against outdoor advertising, but stringent control is necessary if we are to reduce the already chaotic nature of our cities. Once again, it must be pointed out that billboards have been proven to be safety hazards, a main contributor to driving stress, a factor in reducing real estate values and an impediment to tourism development (some countries and states in the US whose economies rely heavily on tourism ban them entirely). They uglify the city.
All this may come to naught, however, with the coming of elections. We will be in for wall-to-wall posters, building-tall effigies of smiling liars, cheats and scoundrels – all trying to woo our precious votes. Yup, it may still be a banner year for election banners, but not for poor citizens who have to live through a city plastered in gunk. Who’s going to clean it all up? Hopefully, after all the mess is cleared, we may get legislation to control billboards and banners (from the same liars, cheats and scoundrels). Hey, John Silva, why don’t you run? I’ll give you my vote.
I am glad though that Quezon City has responded to criticisms of the pedestrian-unfriendliness of the Elliptical Circle. Traffic police are helping mitigate a problem that should not be there in the first place. The MMDA is also building a number of pedestrian bridges. I wish they could do this all with some forward planning that takes into consideration everyone’s (pedestrians’ and motorists’) needs.
I do hope, too, that the Katipunan controversy is resolved. The Ateneo and Miriam schools are trying to implement their own initiatives to ease traffic with some success. Shuttles are now operating. NGOs are also busy working out alternatives for MMDA to consider (that is, if the MMDA will listen). Meanwhile, the broken curbs and half-dug-up safety medians are a danger to passers-by and vehicles.
The solution to traffic is not more roads, U-turns or widening. The long-term solution lies in adopting a more correct framework of mass-transit-oriented land transportation based on planned urban development. What we see today is a series of never-ending patch-up jobs addressing minor symptoms of a greater malaise – uncoordinated improper urban growth. How can traffic be managed if development that produces traffic (schools, malls, regular religious gatherings) is unregulated? How can transportation be rationalized when everything is after the fact and infrastructure is always inadequate in the first place – or in the wrong place? What is the ultimate carrying-capacity of our roads and what is the basis for giving out franchises to inefficient systems (jeepneys, tricycles, FXs) when the capacities of our city rail systems are not maximized?
Why cannot the DPWH and local governments be more transparent in infrastructure projects – the planning and implementation of these? Often, we wake up to find that some new major infrastructure development has caused our one-hour commute to bloom to two or three hours. Yet we don’t see any notice in the papers or receive any information on what exactly they are building. Also, we can’t guess when it will be completed. (I’m a regular newspaper scanner and clipper, and even I did notices of major infrastructure work like the one on Meralco Avenue and Katipunan-Libis.)
On a related matter, why are our roads so dark? I often wonder how much less crime and loss of life we would all experience if only our streets and highways were adequately lit. I mean just the minimum of light is all we ask for. I cannot remember a time here when it has been so dark or think of any other country which allows its major highways and boulevards to go pitch black and depend on motorists’ lights for illumination. Is there anyone we can sue for this anomaly? Is the electric company not being paid? Who’s responsible?
On that dark note, let me end this Part I of my 2003 assessment. There must be some hope and indeed 2003 has shown how some projects have worked to make the city a little more sensible.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
