The ultimate goal of transportation

We usually use the acronym CARES when we talk about the objectives of DOTC as a transportation institution. CARES stands for all the facets of transport that we endeavor to improve to the best state possible - convenience, affordability, reliability, efficiency, and safety. Of course, C can also represent comfort, while S also stands for security, a twin goal to safety. But not too many people realize that some of these individual objectives may not go hand in hand with each other. In fact, they sometimes conflict and vie for priority.

So when one faces difficulties and there is need to prioritize, which one do we address first? That first question is an easy one - safety and security always come first. This is especially true for air transportation. For the land and sea modes, these might not be given that high a significance but still quite important just the same. The ranking of the rest are debatable and may vary on the user. There are some who value comfort and convenience first, but others, especially the poor, would go for affordability. Efficiency is something that everyone wants.

Narrowing this down to land transportation, we get into more misunderstanding because people lump the aspects into a homogeneous whole - traffic. The moment traffic builds up, more commonly known as a traffic jam but which we technically call traffic congestion, it becomes news and a trending topic on the internet, and all sorts of solutions crop up. That is good news - solutions usually are - but the complaints and blame game are not. The accusations, targeted at government and its agencies, overshadow the solutions.

We need to go back to the basics. The ultimate goal of transportation is to provide people the ability to reach locations for economic productivity, as well as goods and services. These maybe lumped as "opportunities." Thus, theoretically, if you can reach these "opportunities" without moving from where you are, transportation's goal would have been achieved. Access to economic productivity and opportunity is the overarching goal, and these we achieve through transport planning, traffic management, proper land use, and mobility.

And we need to drive home the point that aiming for mobility is not the same as demanding for better traffic. Traffic measures the movement of vehicles, especially cars. It assumes that the primary way to improve the transportation system is to increase vehicle mileage and speed. The battle cry is to open up roads, widen existing roads, and build more carriageways on top of each other (or below the ground). People actually get excited when tunnels open up. This view of improved transport cares about cars and vehicles and how these can move easier and faster. The faster, the better.

Mobility, deals with the movement of "people" and "goods." This is regardless of whether people and goods are carried by cars, jeepneys, buses or trains. Efficiency becomes a major factor because the use of available road space is crucial, and costs enter into the equation. The focal point in planning is "people" and how they move, as opposed to traffic which focuses on "vehicles."

Traffic, mobility, and accessibility - three different views of the humongous traffic gridlock, and three ways of measuring them. What measurements we base our planning decisions on will make or break what kind of city we will become. Enrique Peñalosa often asks, "are we planning our cities for cars or for people?" Nothing against cars here, but the moment we make impulsive decisions based on vehicle counts and forecasts, we will be following the path of the world's most congested cities, ahead of us. A choice we have to make.