In GOD we TRUST

Pay as You Go: Philippine Traffic Reduction and Congestion Charge*

A policy proposal in alleviating traffic and road congestion through Congestion Charging

By: Heinz O. Laforteza [2012-20272]

This policy proposal introduces the implementation of ‘road congestion charging’ in the

Philippines as an alternative policy to the existing laws, rules and regulation in alleviating traffic

and road congestion in the country. Specifically, the proposal addresses the weaknesses, gaps

and flaws of the existing laws and regulations, specially the Number Coding and Carpooling Act,

to produce a more operative and effective policy to curb out traffic and road congestion in the

country. Moreover, this policy is patterned to the existing congestion charging and road pricing

adopted in Milan, London and Singapore. As it is proven to be effective in almost all of the

implementing countries, the applicability of this policy in the Philippines should not be

overlooked. This is rooted upon the current state of the literature regarding the relationship of

traffic and countries’ economy. Studies show that road congestion and traffic produce great

losses to a country’s economy specifically developing countries, like the Philippines. Thus, there

is a need to come up with a more efficient policy to address the issue of traffic and its negative

impact to the economy and the country in general.

Keywords: Traffic; Road Congestion; Congestion Charging; Philippine Economy; Labor force

Productivity

Introduction

Traffic and road congestions are among the major problems in most cities all over the

world. This is true especially in developing countries causing massive delays, increased fuel

wastage and most notably its negative impact to the economy through excessive monetary losses

(Maitin et. al 2012). In the Philippines for instance, road congestion and traffic in its major cities,

specifically Metro Manila, greatly affect the country’s overall economy. Studies show that the

economy losses, due to congestion and traffic, is almost as much as two months’ worth of

remittances and equivalent to 1.4% of the total Philippine economy (for reviews see study of

NCTS 2011 and NEDA & JICA 2014). Moreover, the National Center for Transportation * This is a policy proposal completed in partial fulfilment of the requirements in Political Science 152, an undergraduate course about Philippine Legislative System for Political Science majors in the University of the Philippines-Diliman.

Laforteza 1 of 20

Studies shows that traffic costs 138 billion pesos annually, a great loss for a developing country

like the Philippines (NCTS 2011). Furthermore, this excessive economic losses are expected for

a country (the Philippines) which ranked fourth among its Asian neighbors and placed ninth in

the world in terms of negative traffic situation (NEDA & JICA 2014).

The joint study of NEDA and JICA in 2014 also shows that amongst the root causes of

traffic in the Philippines are copious utility of private vehicle, inefficiency of mass transit and

improper pedestrian activity. Specifically, the study emphasizes the impact of the existence and

massive utility of Private Vehicle in Metro Manila. Supported by the data from the Land

transportation office, it shows that 27% of Private vehicles in the country are in NCR and that

there is only 1 kilometer of road per 424 cars in the region which causes traffic in the region

(LTO 2013). Moreover, statistics presented also show that 78% of the road space is utilize by

Private Vehicles with 1 to 2 passengers only , whereas, only 22% of which is used by Public

Utility Vehicles which subsequently promote inefficiency to road utility. This proposal will then

look for ways to contribute and improve the existing laws and regulations countering traffic

specifically focusing on the reduction of massive utility of private vehicles while promoting the

usage of public utility vehicles in NCR. Thus the argument of this proposal is that: the

regulation and reduction of massive utility (not ownership) of private vehicles ease up traffic

and road congestion in Metro manila.

This proposal is advocating for the introduction of road congestion charging scheme that

will alleviate traffic and road congestion in the country. Specifically, this will be called the

‘Philippine Road Congestion Charge’. This policy is patterned with the congestion charging and

road pricing in Singapore, London and Milan. However, it is specifically tailored to cater the

specific needs and capability of our country (culturally and technologically). Basically,

congestion charging or road pricing is amongst the universally accepted method of alleviating

traffic that operates through charging vehicles (ie. private vehicles) to access certain road

networks which are prone to traffic and road congestion. However, in my proposed policy this

will not be mandatory giving motorists a choice whether to pay or utilize certain road networks

which are not subjected to the charge. There are three objectives of this policy proposal. First, to

regulate and reduced the probability of individuals to utilize private vehicle through increasing

the cost of using a car relative to Public transport. This will be done through the introduction of

Congestion charging scheme to certain congested roads in the metro. Second, to regulate traffic

Laforteza 2 of 20

and congestion to commonly used roads and encourage motorists to utilize other routes. Through

the imposition of congestion charge in commonly or most used roads, drivers will be given

incentives to use other routes that is not subjected to the charge/pricing scheme. Lastly, it raises

funds for the improvement of public transportation of the country, through the funds collected in

the congestion charge scheme.

In the Philippines, there were existing laws and regulation that were created with the

same purpose as my proposed policy. However, traffic in the Metro is still evident even upon its

imposition. Thus, the flaws of these policies are considered in this proposed policy. These

includes the number coding or UVVRP of the MMDA and the Carpooling Act. First, the

Number Coding of MMDA. Since Number coding does not limit the car usage/utility in the

metro as it only postpones the use of cars, the source of traffic is not totally eradicated but only

delayed. The Carpooling on the other hand is an efficient way of increasing the efficiency of

private vehicles. However, up until now, this method is subject of criticisms to personal privacy

and security. This proposal then enhance the existing rules and regulation as it does not only

delay the build-up of cars in Metro but continuously increase the opportunity cost of using a car.

This proposal also continuously limiting individuals to utilize private vehicles while promoting

the utility of public transport system to increase road efficiency. Moreover, it also raise funds

(through congestion charging scheme) for the sole purpose that is to improve the public transport

system of the Metro.

This proposal proceeds as follows. The first and second section would include the policy

context of the proposal by unveiling the relationship of traffic, economy and labor efficiency in

the literature. Moreover, it will also discuss the relationship of road congestion and utility of

private vehicles as studied by authors in the literature. The third and fourth section would include

the Philippine traffic laws and regulation as well as the foreign congestion charging and their

flaws and gaps in terms of implementation respectively. The fourth section would include a

detailed explanation and discussion as to how the proposed policy would be applicable and the

concrete measures to make this proposal work. Moreover, it would also include the possible

threats, weaknesses and limitation of the policy before and after its implementation. Finally,

there will be a section devoted solely to summarize the contents of the policy proposal.

Laforteza 3 of 20

Traffic, Economy and Labor Efficiency

The authors within the literature argue that all developing countries were subjected to

traffic and its negative externalities in the economy (Annan et. al 2015, Harriet et. al 2013,

Mahmud et. al 2012 and Mudzengerere et. al. 2013). The most prominent consequences of which

are excessive monetary losses, decrease in workforce productivity levels and the general

inefficiency of countries’ labor force due to massive delays in road networks. Annan et. al (2015)

for instance, argue that traffic congestion in urban centers negatively affects the productivity of

labourers disrupting the normal flow of economy in the region. Similarly, Harriet et. al (2013)

show that traffic congestion in Ghana increases inefficiency of the region’s labor force degrading

the economy of the region as a whole. The results of these studies similarly show that excessive

travel delays during peak hours, due primarily to road congestion and traffic, results to decrease

in employees’ working hours, inefficiency of employees in offices and even affect the general

social and psychological state of mind of employees. First, in terms of working hours. Annan et.

al (2015) argue that road congestion and traffic increases the travel time of workers going to and

leaving their work place. As a result, most of the workers either arrive at their working station

late or leave early to avoid road congestion and traffic during peak hours. Worst, there are

workers who both arrive late and leave early in their offices decreasing their contribution in the

workload. Second, in terms of labor force inefficiency. Similarly, the result of the study of

Harriet et. al (2013) shows that delays in the roads, due to road congestion and traffic, increases

the probability of inefficient workers attending their work every day. This is due to the fact that

road congestion and traffic increases the probability of worn-out and exhausted employees even

before their workloads and tasks instigate, either by waking up early to avoid the traffic or

immersing within the congested roads of the city. Lastly, the general social and psychological

state of mind of employees. Hartgen and Fields (2009) for instance show that work-related

violence is higher in urban factories relative to rural-based factories in the US. Although it is not

the major cause, their study show that the busy, congested streets within the vicinity of offices

and factories contribute to the probability or chances of work-related violence in US. Weisbrod

and Fitzroy (2011) then argue that road congestion should be taken into account when looking

into behavioural efficiency of employees and the general workforce in the US. Accordingly, the

articles reviewed show that road congestion and traffic have a negative relationship to the

efficiency and productivity of workforce subsequently leading to economic losses of a country.

Laforteza 4 of 20

On the other hand, another argument presented by authors in the literature is the effect of

road congestion to business activities which procure greater monetary losses relative to

inefficiency of workforce as it affects both the business owners and the economy in general

(Weisbrod et. al 2003, Mahmud et. al 2012, Zhang 2011 and Mudzengerere et. al. 2013). For

instance, Weisbrod et. al (2003) show within their study the economic costs of urban traffic

congestion to business in US. Specifically, the statistics of their study show that urban traffic or

road congestion shrinks business markets in the sense that it increases business costs and

decreases both productivity and output levels of major business establishments. Trucks that

facilitates supply and private cars of individual workers contribute largely to road congestion

which in turn lead to the downturn of the business themselves (Weisbrod et. al 2003). First in

terms of business cost. Mahmud et, al (2012) show that the businesses supplies and business

transactions from freight trucks and delivery vans incur a lot of cost than expected when they are

jammed in the roads (fuel consumption and delays of delivery). They argue that business

transactions almost always doubles when their delivery vans and trucks passed through

congested roads in between cities. Moreover, they show that it also affects the customer-firm

relationship due to delivery delays as a result of traffic jams and congested road networks.

Second, in terms of productivity and output level. Zhang (2011) and Mudzengerere et. al (2013)

similarly argue that the rising traffic congestion will significantly undermine the economic

competitiveness of businesses and establishments of cities and regions. As for Zhang (2011) the

results of his study show that 75% to 90% of Chinese-business establishments incur great losses

due to decrease in productivity and output produced as a result of negative externality brought

about by traffic and road congestion. Instead of producing in the optimum level, these

establishments are delayed due to congested road network and jammed streets wherein their raw

materials and other needs for production came about (in their study it also include the limited and

decreasing working hours). Mudzengerere et. al. (2013) highlighted the effects of traffic jams

and road congestion to urban transport in Zimbabwe. Urban transport, or simply the movement

of goods and people, is considered to be the backbone of economic and sustainable development.

Thus, it must not be alter or delay in any way. However, in Zimbabwe, traffic congestion delay

the process incurring high opportunity cost affecting the economy of the region. The study show

that the delays due to traffic jams and road congestion increases the opportunity cost of

producing goods in Zimbabwe, thus, resulting to decrease in production and output of businesses

Laforteza 5 of 20

and factories. The literatures reviewed show that traffic and road congestion do have a negative

impact to business activity and workforce productivity of a region which subsequently affect the

economy of the region. Thus, road congestion and traffic should not be overlooked to maintain

and regulate the steady flow of the economy.

Road Congestion and Utility of Private Vehicle

Authors within the literature show that the emergence and the massive use of private

vehicles in the roads is among the leading causes of traffic and road congestion. Moreover,

copious utility of private vehicle contribute largely in the occurrence of traffic and road

congestion in a region. Among these are the immense ownership, lack of parking space and

massive utility of private vehicles in road networks that causes traffic and road congestion

(Liguang et. al 2010, Litman 2015, Matin et. al 2012, and Weisbrod & Treyz 2003). However,

the literature also show that utility not mere ownership of these private vehicles contributed to

traffic and road congestion.

In Metro manila alone, LTO (2013) show that 27% of Private vehicles are in NCR alone.

Moreover, their statistics also show that there is only 1 kilometer of road per 424 cars (road-car

distribution) in the region which causes severe traffic and road congestion. The table above show

that there is nearly the same quantity of registered private vehicles and Public vehicle (For-Hire)

in metro manila which lead to a colossal decrease in road efficiency as discussed by authors in

Laforteza 6 of 20

the literature. For instance, Liguang et. al (2010) argue that rapid growth of car utility in Beijing

affects the utility of public transportation service, road efficiency, air quality and energy

consumption in the region. Moreover, they found out that the massive utility of private cars in

the region is positively correlated to the degradation of public transport operation and air quality

in the region. Thus, they propose that there should be proper policies to be implemented for the

restriction of massive private cars’ utility. Similarly, Litman (2015) study, through his results and

discussion of this research, that inefficiency of using private vehicles due to its space

consumption (big trucks) and unproductive utility in roads (1-2 passengers only) causes traffic

and road congestion. Litman (2015) argues that the utility of mass/public transport is far more

efficient in terms of capacity and spatial distribution than private cars in congested roads.

Moreover, this table from the joint study of NEDA and JICA (2014) shows that 78% of

the road space is utilize by Private Vehicles with 1 to 2 passengers only, whereas, only 22% of

which is used by public utility vehicles. This is computed in terms of the ratio of person trips and

vehicle trips as computed by the authors (see also NEDA and LEDAC 2000). This in turn

promotes road inefficiency in road networks specifically congested ones since it does not

maximize the efficiency of road utility in terms of number of passengers passing in a congested

street due to massive utility of private cars with limited passengers. This is in support with the

Laforteza 7 of 20

arguments presented by Matin et. al (2012) in their research. Unlike most of the articles reviewed

in this proposal, their research used a qualitative analysis in determining the factors that causes

traffic Jams in the city of Karachi. Through one-to-one interviews, they found out that non-

availability of efficient mass transportation increases the tendency of workers to buy their own

cars. Thus, increasing the number of private cars in the city resulting to congestion and traffic

jams due to inefficiency of road utilization and minimal passenger per vehicle accessing road

networks. Maitin et. al. (2012) also found out that most of this car owners do not have their own

parking space within the vicinity of their house. Thus, this makes them to park their car on the

side lines of roads and streets (including those roads which are already jammed and congested).

On the other hand, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2004)

formulates a study regarding the relationship of private car utility and the traffic and road

congestion in European States. Similar to the study of NEDA and LEDAC (2000) conducted in

the Philippines, the OECD look into urban traffic congestion management in European countries.

The proponents within the organization then found out that the inefficiency of mass transit in

European countries discourages citizens to utilize them and used private cars instead. Moreover,

they also found out that the nearly 1:1 ratio of workers to cars results to massive road congestion

in European cities. Thus, the inefficiency of mass transit resulting to massive utility of private

vehicles subsequently causes the emergence of traffic and road congestion even in developed

countries (European states) as compared to those incidents of developing states (Philippines).

Moreover the organization (OECD) also presented two major reasons as to why the utility of

massive private vehicles increases the probability of traffic jams and road congestion. These

include the tendency of the emergence of unregulated drivers in the road and inefficiency of

institutions and monitors to oversee road violations and issues leading to the jams and

congestion. First, in terms of the emergence of unregulated drivers. Massive utility of private

vehicles in the road results to the emergence of large pool of drivers interacting in the road

within the congested and jammed networks of the cities. This then brought us to the second point

wherein it results to inefficiency of institutions, organizations and monitors that oversee and

manage the traffic flow in the region. The argument of the OECD (2004) is that although there

are a lot of institutions and organization that supervise traffic management, the massive increase

of unregulated drivers and motorists in the road results inefficiency of these institutions in

regulating traffic and road congestion issues. Thus, the authors reviewed similarly argue that

Laforteza 8 of 20

emergence of massive utility of private vehicles, not just the ownership, need not to be

overlooked when dealing or constructing a policy and solution that regulates traffic jams and

road congestion in the streets and road networks.

Philippine Traffic Laws and Regulation

In the Philippines, there are numerous traffic policies, laws and regulation proposed and

adopted by different institutions and governmental organizations including the Metro Manila

Development Authority (MMDA), the Land Transportation Office (LTO), the National Center

for transportation studies (NCTS), Land Transportation and Franchising Regulatory Board

(LTFRB) and the likes. However, it is very evident that the traffic jams and road congestions in

the country, specifically Metro Manila area, persist even after the imposition of these policies,

laws, rules and regulation in addressing the issue. Among these policies, there are neither

approved nor pending policy proposals that is directly similar to my proposed road congestion

pricing as it will be discussed in the latter part of the policy proposal. What exist instead are laws

or rules and regulation pertaining to similar purpose - that is to alleviate traffic in Metro Manila.

These include the recently passed Carpool Act proposed by Representative Eric Olivarez and the

Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program (UVVRP) or commonly known as the Number

coding by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA). On the other hand, among the

pending bills related to my proposed policy are the House bill 8242 by Sherwin Gatchalian

proposing a National Traffic enforcement and management Center and the House Bill 559, on

the other hand, proposed by Emeline Aglipay is rooting for a single traffic ticketing system in the

country to counter traffic and road congestion issues.

As discussed, the nearest laws/rules related to my proposed policy to alleviate traffic are

the Number Coding policy and the Carpooling Act. First, the Number Coding of the Metro

Manila Development Authority (MMDA) or also known as the Unified Vehicular Volume

Reduction Program (UVVRP). This is one of MMDA rules in the form of ‘road space rationing

program’ that aims to reduce traffic congestion in Metro Manila. Specifically, it is in effect

particularly during peak hours, by restricting the types of vehicles that can use major public

roads based on the final digit of the vehicle's license plate. Both public and private utility

vehicles are banned to roam Metro manila’s road networks as long as their license plate is

subjected to the number coding ban which then reduces the number of vehicles roaming the city

for each day depending on the number coding scheme. The Carpooling Act on the other hand is a

Laforteza 9 of 20

recently passed law in the country which seeks to alleviate traffic in the Metro Manila by

increasing the efficiency of using personal car at the same time decreasing the utility of private

cars in the Metro. Specifically it maximizes the capacity of a private car user to accommodate

other passengers who opt not to use their personal cars or the public transport instead. By that, it

reduces the number of private vehicles as well as the traffic and road congestion they brought

about in Metro Manila’s road networks.

Though Number Coding and Carpooling are created with the same purpose as my

proposed policy, it is evident that these policies are still not enough to alleviate traffic in the

Metro Manila. First, the Number Coding of MMDA. Basically, my proposed policy is an

improvement of this MMDA rule. Since Number coding does not limit the car usage/utility in the

metro manila as it only delays the used of cars, the source of traffic is not totally eradicated but

only delayed. Moreover, the policy is flawed in the sense that it assumes that a single individual

or a family has only one car. Whereas, well-off families and individuals with more than one car

are not subjected to coding since they can opt to used their other cars instead. Thus, in my

proposed policy, it does not only delay the build-up of cars in Metro but continuously increasing

the opportunity cost of using a car. Moreover, it continuously limiting individuals to utilize

alternative transport system (PUV) and if they opt to still use their personal car, they are

contributing to raising resources (through congestion charging scheme) for the sole purpose that

is to improve the Public transport system of the Metro which will be discussed more extensively

in the latter part of the proposal. The Carpooling on the other hand is an efficient way of

increasing the efficiency of private vehicles’ utility at the same time reducing too much cars in

the Metro. However, up until now, this method is subject of criticisms. The most notable of

which is personal privacy and security. As for the Philippines, though it is not yet that rampant,

researchers argue that this may lead to delinquencies and modus of criminals that may mask the

advantages brought by these law. For instance, last December 4, 2015 Quezon City Regional

Trial Court has issued a temporary restraining order against the ‘LTFRB memorandum’ that

legalizes Transport Network Companies (TNC) like Uber and Grab Car (Inquirer.net). The

issuance of the TRO is for the grounds of UBER and GRAB being the causes of heavy traffic

which is ironic since it supposedly lessens traffic. Moreover, they are also to be blamed for the

decline in income of taxi operators and drivers, and the increase in car sales in the Philippines.

Thus, I proposed this policy to alleviate traffic and road congestion in the Metro at the same time

Laforteza 10 of 20

taking into consideration the unique factors (discipline, flooding and culture) that may affect the

implementation and maintenance of this policy. As for the pending bills, on the other hand, the

HB 8242 by Sherwin Gatchalian proposing a National Traffic enforcement and management

Center is flawed and faulty since there exist several groups and agency that are tasked to execute

those objectives of this new agency proposed within the bill – these include the MMDA, LTO

and NCTS. The downside of which is that, it may blur and distort coordination as enforcers,

officials and motorists do not know which agency will carry on specific tasks. On the other hand,

the HB 559 by Emeline Aglipay proposing a single traffic ticketing system increases efficiency

to enforcers and motorists by making it easier to issue traffic violations to motorist in the road

thus, decreasing the probability of traffic. However, these is flawed as the LTO has this activity

within their system. The problem is that proper implementation and execution. Thus, there is a

need for a more accurate and encompassing policy to incorporate the flaws and loopholes of

these existing and pending policies in addressing traffic and road congestion in the country.

Foreign Congestion Charging

***from a joint study of Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Laforteza 11 of 20

Congestion charging in its broadest sense is simply introducing a price for commonly use

roads to alleviate traffic and road congestion within an area or location. In economic sense, the

main objective of congestion charging is to increase the travel costs from the level of using a

private vehicle relative to public utility vehicle (Asian Development Bank [ADB] and the

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [GIZ]). Thus, reducing traffic flows

and congestion in a region where the scheme is applicable. In other countries, there are policies

similar to my proposal. In fact, this proposal is an adoption for these congestion charging in other

countries modifying them to make it applicable and appropriate for the needs of our own

country.

These includes the Electronic Road Pricing in Singapore, Road congestion charge in

London and the Area C scheme of Milan. First, the Electronic Road Pricing in Singapore. This

type of congestion road pricing is more advanced relative to my proposed Philippine Congestion

charge in the sense that instead of deploying MMDA/LTO regulators in the roads (as per my

proposed policy discussed on the latter part of the proposal), there are built-in detectors (Sensors

and high-tech cameras) in bridges and certain parts of road networks which is not applicable in

the Philippines (due to lack of discipline and intense flooding). Road congestion of London and

Area C-scheme of Milan on the other hand is similar to my proposed policy since it focuses to a

certain region (which in the case of my proposal is NCR). However, these policies have higher

pricing scheme since their primary purpose is to reduce pollution and not alleviate traffic alone.

Thus, as we can see, this proposal combine certain aspects of these three as to cater the needs as

well as to consider the unique factors (severe flooding, lack of discipline) needed to alleviate

traffic and road congestion in Metro Manila.

As we can see on the data presented by ADB and GIZ (Table 1 above), the imposition of

congestion charging in London, Stockholm and Rome was able to reduce traffic volume by 20%.

Moreover, the probability of decreasing traffic volumes due to the charge range from 10-30 %,

depending on the design of the system. The most important indicators of the positive effect of the

imposition are the reductions in travel times, travel time variability and vehicle kilometres

travelled (see ADB & GIZ table above). It is clear based on the data and arguments presented

above that congestion charging has a significant impact on traffic volume, travel times and

speeds (which may be increased by 4% and 33%). Thus, its introduction, imposition and

Laforteza 12 of 20

adoption of road congestion charging would ease up traffic in a developing country like the

Philippines.

Proposed Philippine Congestion Charge

This policy proposal then recommends the introduction and implementation of a

modified road congestion charging in the Philippines which is based on the existing congestion

charging and road pricing scheme of other countries (specifically Milan, Singapore and London).

This will be known as the Philippine Traffic Reduction and Road Congestion Charge (PTRRC)

or simply the Philippine Congestion Charge. This is a fee that allows motorists to access certain

road networks which is mostly congested and jammed due to massive build-up of cars. There are

three objectives of this policy. First, to regulate and reduced the probability of individuals to

utilize private vehicle through increasing the cost of using a car relative to public transport. This

will be done through the introduction of Congestion charging scheme to certain congested roads

in the Metro Manila making it cheaper and efficient to utilize public transport system. Second, to

regulate traffic and congestion to commonly used roads and encourage motorists to utilize other

routes. This will be done through the probability and choice available to motorists if they opt not

to utilize the road networks subjected to the congestion pricing scheme. Through the imposition

of congestion charge on commonly or most used roads, drivers will be given incentives to use

other routes that is not subjected to the charge/pricing scheme alleviating the build-up of vehicles

in a specific road network. Lastly, it raises funds for the improvement of Public transportation of

the country, through the funds collected in the congestion charge scheme and the funds from

penalties acquired by violators.

The proposed method of implementing this policy needed the joint cooperation of three

major institution of the country, these are the Land Transportation Office (LTO), the Land

Transportation and Franchising Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Metro Manila Development

Authority (MMDA). This Philippine Congestion charge is a fee which shall be collected by the

LTO yearly at the same time as one register or renew his/her own car. As for the original plan,

public utility vehicles is exempted for this fee as it is one of the objective of this policy to

increase the utility of public vehicles which subsequently increasing efficiency in the road. The

fee will depend on the size of the vehicle. The general rule will be, the bigger the car, the more

expensive you will pay to access a specific road networks. The pricing scheme shall be decided

Laforteza 13 of 20

and crafted by LTO with the help of LTFRB as they are the ones who are most qualified to craft

one. After computation and payment of the fee the LTO will issue the owner a car sticker that

will be the proof of payment.

The choice of road networks that will be subjected to the charge on the other hand, shall

be decided by the LTFRB together with the NCTS, depending on which road networks are

heavily congested and rerouting. This fee is not mandatory, it is optional. Motorists will be given

the choice to avail the fee and is allowed to used certain road networks (ie. congested ones). On

the other hand they can opt not to pay however they are restricted to access certain road networks

that is subjected to the congestion fee scheme. This will distribute motorists to utilize other roads

that is not commonly used while avoiding congestion and traffic in common congested roads. As

for the collection and monitoring, both MMDA and LTO are task to monitor the flow of traffic

within the congested areas and those cars with no stickers passing the roads which are subjected

to the congested road pricing scheme will be subjected to penalties. The fees collected together

with the penalties will be used for the improvement of public transportation of the country.

My proposed policy is better as manifested in its three major objectives. First, to regulate

and reduced the probability of individuals to utilize private vehicle through increasing the cost of

using a car relative to Public transport. Second, to regulate traffic and congestion to commonly

used roads and encourage motorists to utilize other routes. Lastly, it raises funds for the

improvement of Public transportation of the country, through the funds collected in the

congestion charge scheme. As discussed, basically unlike the current laws and regulation being

implemented, it does not only delay the build-up of cars in Metro but continuously increasing the

opportunity cost of using a car. Moreover, it promotes individuals to utilize alternative transport

system (PUV) and if they opt to still use their personal car, they are contributing to raising

resources (through congestion charging scheme) for the sole purpose that is to improve the

Public transport system of the Metro. Moreover, it continuously limit individuals to utilize

private vehicles while promoting the utility of public transport system or other forms to increase

road efficiency. Moreover, it also raises funds (through congestion charging scheme) for the sole

purpose that is to improve the public transport system of the Metro. Among other positive effects

of this charge aside form reducing congestion which then moderate time wasted and costs for

business are the following. First, it reduce pollution since fewer cars will lead to less pollution.

Second, make city centres more attractive for pedestrians and cyclists, which will help increase

Laforteza 14 of 20

quality of life within the area or region. Third, it also raise revenue. The money collected from

congestion charge can be spent and used for the improvement of public transport and increasing

alternatives to driving. Lastly, it reduces travelling or journey time which is beneficial for both

business and emergency services in the country.

On the other hand, there are two limitations of these proposal. Unlike Singapore, London

& Milan, the Philippines currently do not have the needed technology for the efficient

implementation of the policy. First, the impositions of enforcers and monitors that oversee the

violators of the policy. For example, it is hard to oversee those who pay for the congestion

charge and those who do not. However, given the technological advancement of LTO and

MMDA nowadays, this will not be that big of a problem. Second, the proper and efficient

coordination of the two agencies involved is needed – MMDA and LTO. Since both are the

monitors yet the fees are collected by LTO, corruption and incompetent employees within these

agencies should not be overlooked.

Conclusion

As presented by the discussion and analysis above, traffic and road congestion are

amongst the major problem of a developing country like the Philippines. Specifically, it greatly

affects the economy due to massive delays, increased fuel wastage and most importantly

excessive monetary losses. In the Philippines for instance, severe traffic in Metro Manila alone

hurt the overall economy of the country. Among the root causes of which is inefficiency of

public transport and massive utility of private vehicles. However, as discussed, authors in the

literature and statistics show that copious utility of private vehicles in a region contribute largely

to traffic and road congestion in the country.

Thus, this policy proposal introduces the adoption of the Philippine Traffic Reduction

and Congestion Charge (PTRCC) or simply known as the Philippine congestion charge in the

country. This policy addresses the loopholes, weaknesses and flaws of the existing traffic and

road congestion policies, rules and regulation in the country. As discussed, among the existing

laws and regulations’ weaknesses that will be complemented by this policy proposal is the

Number coding rule of the MMDA. Since Number coding does not limit the car usage/utility in

the metro manila as it only delays the used of cars, the source of traffic is not totally eradicated

but only delayed. Moreover, the policy is flawed in the sense that it assumes that a single

Laforteza 15 of 20

individual or a family has only one car. Whereas, well-off families and individuals with more

than one car are not subjected to coding since they can opt to used their other cars instead. Thus,

within this proposed policy, it does not only delay the build-up of cars in Metro but continuously

increasing the opportunity cost of using a car. Moreover, it continuously limiting individuals to

utilize alternative transport system (PUV) and if they opt to still use their personal car, they are

contributing to raising resources (through congestion charging scheme) for the sole purpose that

is to improve the Public transport system of the Metro which will be discussed more extensively

in the latter part of the proposal. The Carpooling on the other hand is an efficient way of

increasing the efficiency of private vehicles’ utility at the same time reducing too much cars in

the Metro. However, up until now, this method is subject of criticisms. The most notable of

which is personal privacy and security. As for the Philippines, though it is not yet that rampant,

researchers argue that this may lead to delinquencies and modus of criminals that may mask the

advantages brought by these law. For instance, last December 4, 2015 Quezon City Regional

Trial Court has issued a temporary restraining order against the LTFRB memorandum that

legalizes Transport Network Companies (TNC) like Uber and Grab Car (Inquirer.net). The

issuance of the TRO is for the grounds of UBER and GRAB being the causes of heavy traffic

which is ironic since it supposedly lessens traffic. Moreover, they are also to be blamed for the

decline in income of taxi operators and drivers, and the increase in car sales in the Philippines.

Thus, I proposed this policy to alleviate traffic and road congestion in the Metro at the same time

taking into consideration the unique factors (discipline, flooding and culture) that may affect the

implementation and maintenance of this policy. As also discussed, road congestion charging is

efficient and effective way in curbing out traffic to both the developed and developing countries.

Thus, since this policy is specifically patterned to these congestion charging scheme and road

pricing there is a high probability of success in the implementation of the policy in the

Philippines. Moreover, this policy combine certain aspects of these three and is particularly

modified and tailored to deal and cater the needs as well as to consider the unique factors (severe

flooding, lack of discipline) needed to alleviate traffic and road congestion in the country. As for

the limitations, as long as the three major institutions – LTO, MMDA, LTFRB, with the help of

NCTS, do their designated task as lay down within this policy proposal, efficiently and

competently, this policy will address its purpose that is to alleviate traffic and road congestion in

the Philippines. InGodweTrust

Laforteza 16 of 20

References:

Annan, Jonathan, John Mensah & Nathaniel Boso. 2015. “Traffic congestion Impact on Energy Consumption and Workforce Productivity: Empirical Evidence from a Developing Country.” Archives of Business Research, 3(4), 40-54. http://scholarpublishing.org/Repository/ABR-15-1281.pdf. (August 21, 2015)

Bhatta, Basudeb. 2010. “Causes and Consequences of Urban Growth and Sprawl.” In Analysis of Urban Growth and Sprawl from Remote Sensing Data, Advances in Geographic Information Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 17-36. http://www.springer.com/978-3-642-05298-9. (August 21, 2015) 

Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. Urban Transportation Task Force. 2012. “The High Cost of Congestion in Canadian Cities.” http://www.comt.ca/english/uttf-congestion-2012.pdf. (August 22, 2015) 

Dabbour, Dina, and Khaled Tarabieh. 2012. “Traffic Congestion Sustainable Solutions: Mass Transportation (Railway Upgrade).” Alexandria, Egypt. http://gccbs2013.aast.edu/newg/. (August 22, 2015)

Eddington, Jellani. 2006. “The Eddington Transport Study Main Report: Transport’s role in sustaining the UK’s Productivity and Competitiveness” UK Department for Transport. London. Available at: www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/transportstrategies

Gachanja, James. 2015. “Mitigating Road Traffic Congestion in the Nairobi Metropolitan Region.” Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis. 2(2015). http://www.kippra.org/. (August 22, 2015)

Harriet, Takyi, Kofi Poku and Anin Kwabena Emmanuel. 2013. “An Assessment of Trafic Congestion and its Effect on Productivity in Urban Ghana.” International Journal of

Laforteza 17 of 20

Business and Social Science. 4(3). 225-234. http://ijbssnet.com/journals.(August 22, 2015)

Hayashi, Yoshitsugu, Krit Anurakamonkul, and Takaaki Okuda. 1998. “Examining the Effect of a Mass Rapid Transit System on Easing Traffic Congestion in Autodependent Bangkok”. Regional Development Studies 4(1) 65–85.

Hartgen, David and Gregory Fields. 2009. “Gridlock and Growth: The Effect of Traffic Congestion on Regional Economic Performance.” Reason Foundation Policy. http://reason.org/files/ps371_growth_gridlock_cities_full_study.pdf. (August 21, 2015)

Jaensirisak, Sittha and Sermsak Pongmesa. 2014. “Integrated Road Pricing and Bus Rapid Transit: The Effect of Habitual Behaviour and Captive Attitude.” In Energy, Clmate and Air Quality Challenges: The Role of Urban Transport Policies in Developing Countries. http://www.codatu.org/wp-content/.pdf (August 20, 2015)

Jain, Vipin, Ashlesh Sharma and Lakshminarayanan Subramanian. 2012. “Road Traffic Congestion in the Developing World.” http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~lakshmi/traffic.pdf. (August 21, 2015)

Lewis, David. 2008. “Americas Traffic Congestion Problem: Towards a framework for Nationwide Reform”. Himitton. Project 1, the Brookings Institution.

Liguang, Feng, Zhang Haozhi, Jiang Yulin and Wang Zhaorang. 2010. “Evaluation on the Effect of Car Use Restriction Measures in Beijing.” China Urban Sustainable Research Center. http://www.trforum.org/forum/downloads/2010Beijing.pdf (August 21, 2015)

Litman, Todd. 2015. “Smart Congestion Relief: Comprehensive Evaluation of Traffic Congestion Costs and Congestion Reduction Strategies.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/cong_relief.pdf (August 22, 2015)

Mahmud, Khaled, Khonika Ghope and Syed Mustafizur Rahman Chowdhury. 2012. “Possible Causes and Solutions of Traffic Jam and Their Impact on the Economy of Dhaka City.” Canadian Center of Science and Education. Journal of Management and Sustainability. 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jms.v2n2p112 (August 22, 2015)

Matin, Faiq, Gobind M. Herani and Usman Ali Warraich. 2012. “Factors Affecting Traffic Jam in Karachi and its Impact on Performance of Economy.” KASBIT Business Journal. 25-32. http://ideas.repec.org/s/ksb/journl.html (August 21, 2015)

May, Anthony and Gregory Marsden. 2011. “Urban transport and mobility: Transport and innovation unleashing the potential”. International Transport Forum. Available at: www.internationaltransportforum.org/pub/pdf/10FP05.pdf.

Laforteza 18 of 20

Menon, Gopinath and Sarath Guttikunda. 2010. Electronic Road Pricing: Experience and Lessons from Singapore. Retrieved October 9, 2015. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/ERP-Singapore-Lessons.pdf

Mudzengerere, Fungai Hamilton, and Virginia Madiro. 2013. “Sustainable Urban Traffic Management in Third World Cities: The Case of Bulawayo City in Zimbabwe.” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa. 15(2). http://www.jsd-africa.com/Jsda/Vol15No2-Spring2013B/PDF (August 21, 2015) 

National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC). 2000. “Economic Impact of Traffic Congestion in Metro Manila.” National Center for Transportation Studies. https://d0ctrine.files.wordpress.com/2012/ (August 22, 2015)  

Office of the President. Metro Manila Development Authority. 2011. Implementing Guidelines of the Unified Vehicula Volume Reduction Program (UVVRP). M.C. 3. MMDA Regulation 96-005. Retrieved October 9, 2015 www.mmda.gov.ph/images/pdf/resolution/MMDA_RES_03-10.pdf

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT). 2004. “Managing Urban Traffic Congestion.” Transport Research Center. http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/ (August 22, 2015)

Philippine Congress. House of the Representatives. Eric L. Olivarez. 2014. An Act Providing for Private Carpool in order to Reduce Traffic Congestion in the Country. 16th Cong., 1st sess., H.B.3985. Retrieved October 9, 2015, from www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_16/HB03985.pdf

Pongmesa, Sermasak. 2013. “Integrated road pricing policy and bus rapid transit for acceptability and effectiveness”. PhD Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Ubon- Ratchathani University.

Rao, Amudapuram and Kalaga R. Rao. 2012. “Measuring Urban Traffic Congestion” International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering. 2(4). 286–305. DOI:hp://dx.doi.org/10.7708/ijtte

Smith, Wilbur. 2008. “Traffic & Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India” Ministry of Urban Development (www.urbanindia.nic.in) Available at: http://tinyurl.com/nfuvtm4.

Wallis, Ian and David Lupton. 2013. “The Costs of Congestion Reappraised” Report 489, New Zealand Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz) Available at: www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/489/docs/489.pdf.

Laforteza 19 of 20

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2012. “The Impact of Truck Congestion on Washington State’s Economy.” http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR (August 22, 2015) 

Weisbrod, Glen and Arnold Reno. 2009. “Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment, American Public Transportation Association”

Weisbrod, Glen, Don Vary, and George Treyz. 2003. “Measuring the Economic Costs of Urban Traffic Congestion to Business.” Transportation Research Board http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf (August 21, 2015)

Weisbrod, Glen and Stephen Fitzroy. 2011. “Traffic Congestion Effects on Supply Chains: Accounting for Behavioral Elements in Planning and Economic Impact Models.” Supply Chain Management. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/18515.pdf (August 20, 2015)

Williams-Derry, Clark. 2011. “Toll Avoidance And Transportation Funding: Official Estimates Frequently Overestimate Traffic And Revenue For Toll Roads” Sightline Institute. Available at: http://daily.sightline.org/blog_series/dude-where-are-my-cars.

Yildirim, Mehmet Bayram L. 2001. “Congestion Toll Pricing Models and Methods for Variable Demand Networks”. A ph.D Thesis presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida, USA, Available at: www.ghanadistricts.com.

Zhang, Wenjie. 2011. “Managing Traffic Congestion – Case Study of Hangzhou.” Blekinge Institute of Technology. European Spatial Planning abd Regional Development 2010/2011. http://www.bth.se/ENG (August 20, 2015)

Zhou, Min and Virginia Sisiopiku. 1997, “On the Relationship Between Volume to Capacity Ratios in Accident Rates,” Transportation Research Record 1581, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org). 47-52. Available at: http://trb.metapress.com/content/b738x782168555g7.

Laforteza 20 of 20