How do you solve a traffic problem like Manila's?

No, singing that to the tune of that popular "The Sound of Music" song with a similarly-sounding question, won't do. But I guess we have to start with a question, don't we?  I'm trained as an engineer and we always start looking at problems by stating (asking) it first, … correctly.  If you start with a wrong "statement of the problem," chances are you'd get it wrong in the end.  Or at least, you won't reach the resolution that you really wanted.

In our article last week, I said that traffic is simply algebra and physics, (with maybe a little calculus).  "No two things occupy the same space at the same time," is just one of the important theories we need, apart from asserting that experience, feelings, or opinions, will not do the job.  Some say that it's just plain common sense - well, if it is, does it mean that the traffic jams now in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu indicate that people with common sense are now part of the endangered species?  Maybe, common sense is not enough.

I also wrote we might try the mathematics this time, but let's lay down the basis for the math first.  That's the "statement of the problem."  And while Metro Manila is now on crisis mode, we in Metro Cebu are not that far behind either.  No it won't help saying we're just a small fraction of Metro Manila's population, both human and vehicular - traffic congestion is a ratio, a fraction, with a numerator and a denominator.  What matters is not the absolute arithmetic difference between both, the percentage of the former of the latter does.

Let's leave Metro Manila and just concentrate on Cebu. Mind you, the problem is exactly the same, same as it is the same with all the other cities in the world.  Oftentimes, we miss the opportunity of finding the better solution sooner because we are asking the wrong question.  It's a policy issue and the question is:  What is our transport goal?  a) move as many VEHICLES from point A to point B as fast as possible? Or b) move as many PEOPLE from point A to B as fast as possible?  The metric used will be a dead giveaway.

Traditional traffic counts determine the number of vehicles passing through a certain point in one hour and compare this to the "estimated capacity" of the road, say, for example, 1,400 vehicles per hour for a single lane of road.  Logic dictates that if the traffic count is 1,400 in one hour, the road is congested while if there are only 200 vehicles, there's no traffic problem at all (unless it shrunk to 200 because of the traffic in the first place).  But we seldom think that if there are 1,400 buses, fully loaded, these could carry 60 TIMES (at least), than 1,400 cars with just the driver on them.  The difference is tremendous but all people usually care about (and complain on) is their personal cars in a traffic jam.

So if buses can carry 60x more passengers, why are they accused of causing the traffic congestion?  They say the number of buses in EDSA is more than what is necessary. If that's the case, then there's no transport problem in the first place - you have an oversupply.  Maybe the question is how they operate them.  If the EDSA buses are run (a) on two segregated lanes, (b) as a fleet, rather than individually, and (c) routed based on actual demand per origin and destination of personal trips, we may find out we have enough road space after all.  The only other solution that would provide significant improvement would be that which takes into account proper urban planning.  But that takes a long time.

Next week, we'll really do the metrics