This is not in any way trying to belittle what people have done if only to alleviate the traffic situation in the metropolis. But it (the traffic congestion) has grown so bad, netizens have been debating about it and suggesting solutions for a year or two, now. Mind you, most, if not all, of people's opinions are quite true, as far as their particular experiences are concerned. But the fact that they differ, and then sometimes contradict, points out to the relative or diverse "experiential" truth in traffic. Thus the need for the "science."
Allow me to provide an analogy to the tale of the blind men and the elephant. Asked what an elephant is, each described it as a pillar, a tree branch, a hand fan, a wall, solid pipe, depending on which part of the elephant they happen to touch. The tale teaches us that one's subjective experience can be true, but that it maybe inherently limited because we don't know about the other truths or the totality of truth. Just as how we look at the problem of traffic.
The driver of a car looks at traffic differently from a passenger of a jeepney. And it looks different, too, to a pedestrian, an owner of a roadside store, a traffic enforcer, a street vendor, or to a tourist. Even among drivers, it will look different if you're driving a car, a bus, a trisikad, or a motorcycle. To a biker or a pedestrian, it may be something dangerous. But everybody would agree – traffic congestion is bad. It's a waste of fuel, produces heat and pollution, and takes away time for productive work or social interaction. It's something all of us don't want!
The problem is, while all of us hate it and want it to go away, each one of us have different perspectives in solving it, all of which might be correct in each point of view, but incorrect in another. Again, that's why we have to look at the holistic picture and agree what we really want as a society. In the democracy, it's the best path for the greatest number of people, not what you think is good for your own alone. Since government supposedly represents the will of the majority for the good of the majority, government has to spearhead the policy.
While we highlight the need for transportation science in a complex urban environment, it doesn't mean it's the cure-all. The science gives you the exact details of what's happening on the streets, same as laboratory tests and doctors tell you the state of your health or disease, and suggest a variety of cure, but in the end you decide. In the case of traffic, we have to collectively decide what we really want, considering "The greatest good for the greatest number." The science gives us the picture of the whole "elephant," not parts of it. It will guide you not to put up U-turn slots, centerline barriers, no left turns, or selective modal prohibitions, if these results in longer travel times and lesser travel speeds, averaged for the whole city.
And since the government is at the heart of it all, it would be a shame if it behaves and acts as if it is simply just one of the blind men touching the elephant.