Our colleague, Dr. Victor S. Venida wrote a two-part column on the need for a broader urban development perspective in solving traffic in the last two weeks. His perspective calls for a long-term urban planning in our metropolitan cities. He also raised the need for an institutional mechanism that is needed to make that happen.
The law creating the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development is a crucial step but it may take time to work. It is important that this agency look at urban development as its core function, while housing, traffic and the related concerns are integrated into a seamless plan. The implementing rules and regulations for this law has been approved and is currently transitioning the integration of the various housing related agencies into it. The full implementation is expected to begin in January. With this fresh start, the agency should bring in a new mindset—systems thinking. It will be good for the agency to start looking for models in the Asean region on their urban development mechanism, as they have gone this way too as their country’s economic development went full swing.
With these thoughts in mind, I have gone to a conference in Kuala Lumpur and had a chance to observe firsthand how they have managed the urban development of the capital and the periphery. Malaysia has moved its administrative capital away from Kuala Lumpur to a nearby district called Putrajaya. Kuala Lumpur has remained the economic capital. It has moved its modern airport further down outside the metropolitan district. It has continuously invested in infrastructure through light rail lines and wide highways within the capital expanse. Despite all these, I have observed that traffic remained relatively heavy in the main thoroughfares. I talked to some Malaysian colleagues in the conference and asked them why there are still traffic jams despite having a good public transport system and a system of roads and highways in the metropolitan area.
A quick answer I got was that people still wanted to have a car. Many people working in the capital are from outside and would still need to drive to get into it. Besides, I was told that down payment for a brand new car is less than 10 percent and payable in nine years! This makes it so affordable! I am not convinced that this is the main reason. In fact, the city is currently building more highways. Hence, there could be other reasons, but in a simple sense, what I am getting from my query is that urban development, traffic, regional growth and housing are interrelated concerns way beyond the work of a single government agency. It will require a significant government coordination effort to make this work and a futuristic perspective.
As I am hopeful that the traffic we are facing in Metro Manila will be better after all the constructions are finished, it may just be not enough. First unless there is a serious effort to develop an affordable mass housing system, people will live outside Metro Manila. If they live outside Metro Manila, they will want to have a car or a vehicle to move them faster. Also, in the AmBisyon Natin 2040 survey, one of the key desire of every Filipino family is to have a vehicle to move around. Second, the public transportation system is heavily operated by the private sector. The failure to have scale economies and the boundary system governing it are worsening the traffic systems not only in the Metro, but every urban developing center in the country. As I have written a few weeks back, the government has to think of getting back the license of operating the public transportation system. In the last transport strike, which was about jeepney modernization, I heard the chairman of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board over radio using my argument on the economies of scale. If that is the true reason behind modernization, they should explain it very well to the public. Modernizing the fleet is expensive for an individual operator, therefore it can very well use this argument to cancel these franchises and have the government operate them. The government can compensate the small operators and prepare them to form cooperatives or a medium-sized corporation that can eventually bid out larger franchises in the future. Third, urban renewal should be in the radar of our local governments. There are observable empty lots or old rundown houses, buildings and warehouses all over Metro Manila. The city governments should be imaginative enough to negotiate with the owners, especially if they cannot pay the real-estate taxes. The government can take over and do a makeover of these properties. They can negotiate to pay a lease, exempt taxes or allow a buy back at reasonable prices after the real values have gone up. This is a win-win proposition for both the city and the landowners. These imply that we need to have a systems thinking of urban development beyond administrations and administrative boundaries.