“The intended solutions were announced piecemeal which gave the impression that government planning was not coordinated”
BEFORE the proverbial Odd-Even scheme could see the light of day, MMDA canceled its implementation.
The official reason given was due to the order of PBBM to temporarily postpone the rehabilitation of EDSA to find ways to shorten the repair time.
Two years is perhaps really long considering that EDSA is the busiest stretch of highway in the country. The most likely reason, however, might be the manner in which the public information campaign was handled by the government agencies involved in the project.
The intended solutions were announced piecemeal which gave the impression that government planning was not coordinated and well thought of which predictably generated negative reactions.
Let us look at some of these solutions.
First was the Odd-Even scheme which intends to reduce vehicles using EDSA by 50 per cent. This is in addition to the number coding already in place.
The two programs if implemented fully will result in 70 percent reduction of vehicles along EDSA. But then came the announcement of the customary exemptions which will reduce the 70 percent back to 50 percent more or less.
Add all those sectors who are also requesting for exemptions and the 50 percent will even be less.
Another solution coming from the DOTr was that 200 buses will apparently be added to the current fleet of 751 authorized EDSA buses, bringing the total to 951.
This, despite the current 751 units not being used every day.
The two current toll way operators have also indicated their willingness to suspend toll collection while EDSA is under repair.
The MRT3 management for its part is also looking at increasing the number of train wagons and extending rail operations including earlier start to benefit the commuters.
Finally, the last solution announced was the opening of private subdivision roads which has never happened before due to legal impediments.
These elicited severe criticisms which probably prompted the President to postpone the project.
The planners did not seem to realize that the motoring public are smart and can judge whether the solutions being announced are well thought of or simply asking the public to bear the entire burden of the pain and sacrifice.
Why the DPWH, DOTr and MMDA cannot simply agree that only one of them will be in charge of traffic along EDSA and environs while the repair is going on to simplify matters and make it easier to pinpoint responsibility is hard to understand.
Now that PBBM has issued them their marching orders, maybe they could now sit down and do it to show to the public that there is coordination among them.
The unfortunate and sad part is that no one seems willing to sacrifice and be inconvenienced so that EDSA can be rehabilitated to meet international standards. Everyone wants to be exempted.
But even with all the new technologies available, it is very doubtful whether DPWH can really find a way to significantly shorten the repair period without some pain and sacrifices from everyone using the road.
This problem is very similar to the time when MRT 3 was being constructed because the MRT 3 contractors started along the entire stretch of EDSA and not in phases which resulted in tremendous traffic congestion.
This coincided with my appointment to manage the NCR traffic.
We also thought of implementing the Odd-Even scheme but eventually decided against it not only because of the objections but the length of time.
Such a scheme is too severe and if ever used, it must be for short periods only like a few weeks not two years which is too long.
Fortunately, our alternate plan worked out well and we were able to keep traffic moving until MRT 3 was finally completed.
Perhaps, the DPWH should simply start with the repair and get it done as early as possible.
DOTr and MMDA for their part must keep the traffic moving while the public must do its part and sacrifice a little and think of the “promised land” – -a much safer and better engineered road.
