Notice to Sue

Yes. I have been down such roads in Paranaque City, amongst others. I was married there. City Hall.

Rome wasnt built in a day. Manchester has changed beyond recognition compared to what it was 30 years ago. What was land that used to be essential has since been knocked down and rejuvenated over the course of time as the world has changed.

The kid playing in the busy back street of Paranaque and the kid playing in the back street of Dasmarinas, amongst the traffic, may turn out to be the young highflyer commuting across Manila to work each day, hopefully under better road conditions than thos that prevail. When that time comes around the people scraping a living in those back streets may well have found a better way of making some money.

Of course, there is the bigger picture. The Yolandas and the Bophas etc. Cleaner emissions may just reverse the trend towards annual super typhoons and the death and devastation they cause. A compelling argument for not sticking with the status quo.

My take on this sort of thing is that these are Filipinos trying to do something positive about the quality of life in the Philippines. It seems that wherever in the world we are there is never going to be common agreement on anything. At least these guys are trying to do something constructive in the absence of action or alternative ways forward.

There will be people that oppose this approach, but is the status quo acceptable?

In order to get any form of movement on the climate issue, you have to persuade Beijing and Washington first.

The lawsuit may have noble aims but any changes that come as a result will be paid for by the poorer of the country: those who do not own cars. Car owners - including all the lawyers party to this suit - will be largely unaffected. They'll probably require a bunch of new permits but they'll simply get their helpers to walk to and between the various offices.

This lawsuit effectively puts the cart before the horse. What would be more sensible is action to force the government to put in place an integrated public transport system which includes surface rail and subway systems before closing-off the roads. But that costs money and there are other worthier causes including the rebuilding following Yolanda, the nation's defences and the law-makers' election expenses.

I think you will find that costing is covered within the documentation and press releases. See if you can spot it. So to is alternative transportation. See if you can spot that. It goes hand in glove with the share the road thrust. Basically it would all tie in together.

There is always disruption to someones lives when change occurs. Those that argue against stopping people chopping down trees and against the stopping of dynamite fishing often similarly put across a similar viewpoint. Should, however, the unadulterated logging have been allowed to continue unchecked? Same with dynamite fishing on the grounds that livlihoods in the short term would de destroyed.

So because China and the USA still choose to spit out nasties into the atmosphere, does that mean that everybody else shouldnt stop.? Have we ever heard of leading the way and setting the good example? Especially as it is the Philippines that takes the hammering for it. Cart before the horse? So when is the best time to address these issues, sometime tomorrow where tomorrow never comes? As somebody once said,

“If not us then who? If not now, then when? If not here, then where?”

Rebuilding after Yolanda - goes without saying. Flood defences too - of course. But how about focus on prevention and not always having to focus on the clearing up. The nations defences, of course equally as important, whoever said not. Quality of life and air in the land that you are defending? Its all a balancing act. And again we can argue on this forum every day forever on the allocation of resources in the Philippines, just like the In/Out Europe thing and the will the Americans help the Philippines wont they thing. There are greater men than us out there working on these things. The premise seems to be that it would cost some additional money. But that premise is incorrect. Its easy to rip things to shreds, but not so easy to come up with an alternative for a solution.

Some seem to bellyache on about the Philippine Government not doing the right thing and the electorate being ineffective in choosing the right politicians. Well, these people are trying to work around that. And guess what, we seem to want to bellyache about that to.

Lawmakers election expenses. How do you mean?

The Philippines is their country and the country of their children, their relatives and friends. They want to park their cars at home and commute to work hassle free, breathing unpolluted air. Ideally they would like to walk if distance permits. Whether it be the rich, the poor or in between or if it be tourists, everyone is affected by the pollution and the traffic jams. There's no fun in the Philippines in driving through Manila to work as things stand. Public transport as things stand for those travelling in and out of Manila, is no fun in the Philippines either. Someone has to take a stand and implement change.

No rocket science here.



Here is another view on where the money will come from:

What is the cost of inaction? There are various estimates on the cost of traffic congestion.

"My own estimate is based on the Vehicle Operating Cost model. Using 40 kph as non-congested norm for cities compared to what we now regularly experienced (15kph on 6 out of 7 days a week), the cost is Php48 billion annually plus another Php380 billion for lost time.

At 40kph, a journey of 40 km takes 60 minutes; at 15kph, same journey takes 160 minutes. A small improvement of 5 kph chips 40 minutes out of that same journey – equivalent to Php20 billion savings in vehicle operating cost and Php150 billion in time savings per year.

So much wastage is not sustainable in the long run. Metro Manila must break out from its obsession with vehicle mobility and shift into people mobility."

http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/15854-taming-the-traffic-beast-of-metro-manila

I have been on the Manila Cavite Expressway. Everday for a week or so. It wasnt quite finished, at the time. Apart from being vulnerable to storm surge, a good section of road. And a nice bit of thinking by the planners to achieve their aim under tough constraints. More of that would be beneficial.

When I first moved to Manchester it wasnt that long out of the industrial revolution. All the soot was still there and the cloth caps not long been dispenced with. And unemployment was rife. Where we moved to was on the doorstep of the industrial heartland of the Northwest. Many of the older industries were uncompetitive and died. People were made redundant. Times were tough in them days lad Old was knocked down for new. Madchester pulled through eventually!

If only that were true. But it's not! Infrastructure doesn't magically appear, someone has to put it there and that costs money. Lots of it.

Probably the most sensible solution for large metropolitan areas such as Manila - and Cebu and Davao but to a lesser extent - would be a comprehensive subway network, possibly extending out as far as Clark. But the Philippines neither has the money nor the expertise to undertake such a massive civil engineering project. I know of only one tunnel in the country and that's at the north end of the SRP road in Cebu City, however, that was constructed using the "cut and cover" method rather than with tunnel boring equipment. So it will need one or more foreign partners but given the corruption and graft that's rife in this land, that's a bit of a tall order. NAIA's Terminal 3 serves as a very visible warning to potential foreign investors. That then would rule-out any participation by the EU (Germany would veto) and very likely Japan also. In any event, FPI projects (Foreign Partner Investment) are not welcomed by Binay's UNA party or any of the other nationalists which may account for the fact that the Cebu-Mactan airport expansion project is stuck in a quagmire.

PDAF? I should have surrounded 'election expenses' with quote marks to make it a little clearer, perhaps.

Any changes to the surface road network will come at a big cost to those who can least afford it, as Oss has pointed out; land is a very limited and rapidly shrinking resource here. And whilst (maybe) only 1% of the population own their own cars, everyone else relies on public transportation and if the roads are shrunk in size, how will they get between their homes, their work-places and wherever else they need to go?

As for people wanting to walk, that's simply propaganda. Nobody willingly walks in this country. If the sun isn't beating down then it's raining cats and dogs. Added to which there's the very real risk of street crime - especially in Manila.

A close family friend is a senior partner in a law firm here which also has an office in Makati. Whilst she's here, she'll drive herself or take a jeepney. But not in Makati where she has two SUVs - one with even and one with odd numbered plates - a driver and a bodyguard who accompany her on every journey. She told me that she used to ride taxis in the Capital but not any more as she was mugged in broad daylight by a taxi driver a mile or so from NAIA. Like every other car owner, she's not about to forego that means of transport on convenience and safety grounds.

If these lawyers really want to make a difference then, rather than issue lawsuits, they should get themselves elected as Senators and Congressmen where they will have the power to effect such changes. Unless of course power corrupts.

Several "Pacific Ring of Fire" cities do have underground railways systems including Tokyo/Yokohama, San Francisco and Los Angeles