Notice to Sue

This sums it all up quite nicely.
Give roads to people – Loren, Pia

"SENATORS Loren Legarda and Pia Cayetano have expressed support for mounting calls of the Share the Road Movement to implement a “road-sharing” scheme and to promote sustainable modes of transportation.

The call to “share the road” is being spearheaded by a group of students, bikers and environment advocates, including Ramon Magsaysay awardee, lawyer Antonio Oposa. He filed a petition for a “Writ of Kalikasan” and mandamus before the Supreme Court compelling government to “divide the roads in half: half for cars and half for collective transport systems, like all-weather bike lanes and sidewalks, bus rapid transit, and public trains.”

Cayetano said that the Writ of Kalikasan was formulated by the Supreme Court precisely as a remedy for citizens who seek to question unlawful acts or omissions that threaten their right to a balanced and healthful ecology under the Constitution.

Legarda, chairperson of the Senate Committees on Environment and Natural Resources, and Climate Change, noted that among the advocacies that she has been promoting is the “shift to a low-carbon lifestyle and rethinking our mode of transportation is one of the crucial steps towards this initiative.”

“We should start venturing into transport electrification and energy efficiency. Walking, biking, taking public transport, and carpooling are energy and cost-efficient transport modes that we should always consider whenever possible,” she said.

“Road-sharing is being offered as a radical solution to perennial traffic congestion, inefficient mass transport systems and the worsening air pollution in Metro Manila and major urban centers. As a healthy lifestyle advocate and biking enthusiast, I have long supported calls such as this seeking to make our cities walkable and bike-friendly, and the air in our cities breathable for the current and succeeding generations,” Cayetano said.

The group, which noted a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the transport sector contributes 27 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, proceeded to the Senate for the ceremonial turnover of the draft bill on Sustainable Transportation.

In supporting the group’s cause, Legarda, author of various environmental laws including the Solid Waste Management Act and the Clean Air Act, stressed on the need to shift to mass rail, human-powered transport and “pedestrianization.”

She said that local government units should make roads walkable and pedestrian-friendly. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes should also be built to encourage use of these modes of transport. “It may take time before we see this coming into fruition but with political will to faithfully implement our laws and the active campaign of advocacy groups, especially those behind the Share the Road Movement, we can make this happen,” Legarda said."

http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php/news/national/67349-give-roads-to-people--loren-pia

Decentralisation. That is a solution. One that would take time and money. I forsee a petition in the making here .

I posted the electric tram video as it works well elsewhere. I believe that a similar kind of mode of transport is being argued for, for Manila. In the case of Manchester, there has been a mix of expansion outwards, rejuvenation in the city and changes in transportation over a good number of years. The city centre hasn't been abandoned, just adapted to modern living. A triple combo.

This makes considerably more sense than the previous attempts.

In the case of Manila - meaning the entire National Capital Region - I disagree because there are too many LGUs involved and getting all the various mayors to agree on anything would be more than a challenge. Far better to make MMDA - the Metro Manila Development Authority - entirely responsible for roads and transport throughout the NCR. Progress might then be made.

The LRT and MRT are, I suppose, technically trams and I agree, their network should be expanded considerably. The NCR could, if money were no object, have an underground railway system. The mere fact that it sits in a seismically-active region should not be a barrier to that as both Nagoya and Tokyo/Yokohama have such subway systems. Both those Japanese rail systems along with San Francisco's BART, the London Underground and the Channel Tunnel are built close to large bodies of water and are potentially at risk of flooding - just as a similar network in the NCR would be.

Ah. But the geology is not the same. Trams are considerably cheaper.

What does?

I thought you agreed with Oss's suggestion of de centralisation?

The bit I highlighted.

I am pretty sure that Oss means relocating government departments outside the NCR and encouraging private employers to do the same - and that is what I agree with. But as far as the NCR is concerned, managing its transport systems really needs to be centralised and not left up to individual mayors and city councils.

The bit you highlighted is all part of the same whole. They all share the same wide opinion. If you read what they all have to say then they all agree on all points.

What previous attempts? This is the first attempt.

I know you cant get your head around the half the roads thing, guffaw guffaw, but that might just be a limitation on your part.

Perhaps reading the writ and the legal documentation might help you. Dunno, not sure what can be done to open your eyes?

Isnt it also a problem in terms of the non working population too? But there are issues with relocation with those folk?

Oh come now, John, this is the third attempt to issue legal proceedings in under a year - and you should know that because you started threads on all of them!! The first two came to naught - apart from (possibly) raising awareness in certain circles - but this one may actually have some effect. That is, I suggest, all down to Attorney Oposa who has formulated a far better set of "demands" than those put forward by the environmental activists, what with their "edible garden" and getting people to walk to work. He has injected some good common sense and realism into the whole matter. The aims may be the same, the emphasis is different.

The air quality in Manila could be improved almost overnight if officials actually enforced such elementary things as emissions controls and issued meaningful fines against all drivers whose vehicles fail, with the removal of those vehicles from the roads until they are fixed and pass. There's a healthy black market in emissions certificates - and for Professional Drivers Licences, which all PUV drivers should have - and there's scant inspection of PUVs and enforcement of safety standards.

Uh? Attorney Oposa IS an environmental activist.

Yes, I did start threads on the writ. Thats true.

So, tell me, do you think that while the other attempts failed, Oposa has come along and injected some sense into the movement?

Yes I do and I think that is fairly obvious, wouldn't you agree?

On a more positive note ...

(From the Manila Bulletin)

And ...

(Also from the Manila Bulletin)

Definitely not. I find your supposition quite funny. Well, laughable, actually. You obviously havent looked into this very much.

Rather than just writing regardless. Do your homework. It might help you to avoid digging holes for yourself.

I shall repeat though, that Oposa is a lawyer and environmentalist. As that seemed to escape your assertions.

I mean, because I know the full story I just cant see how you arrive at your conclusion. Its a misconception on your part.

I didn't need to read into this issue too deeply to recognise the differences between Attorney Oposa's writ and those that preceded it. Quite frankly it's not an issue that does or will affect me or anyone else living in Davao as this city's Byelaws already meet and in some cases exceed the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Were I to be living elsewhere, then it would be of far greater concern notwithstanding the fact that foreigners' opinions carry no weight with those who govern. You, on the other hand, have family in Manila and it's quite natural that you'd be following this issue far closer than I.

Attorney Oposa's writ is, I think, well thought-out and contains sensible demands. The fact that he may be an environmentalist is completely irrelevant; a good lawyer should be able to represent and promote his clients' interests regardless of his own beliefs. In fact, he would probably be able to represent his clients' interests far better if he were the complete opposite! And Oposa is a good lawyer, probably one of the finest in the country. But he faces a wall of vested interest who will do everything in their power to ensure his writ fails. The writ could be held up in Court for months, if not years. The wheels of justice turn at less than a snail's pace here. At the end of the day, he with the deeper pocket wins.

Manila's problems have been very recently compounded by two things. Firstly, construction of a new relief road, "Expressway 3", commenced today. When completed, it is supposed to ease traffic congestion but will more likely add to it as more vehicles will be using it. Oss mentioned the need to relocate businesses and industry outside the NCR and with them their workers. In the immediate aftermath of Yolanda, thousands fled from the affected areas, many of whom where either evacuated or made their own way to Manila. Due to the government's failure to release the funding needed to rebuild homes and businesses in Tacloban and elsewhere, those evacuees may not return and may indeed be joined by those still in the affected areas who've since given up all hope their towns and cities will be rebuilt. All those people need to be accommodated and they'll need transport to get to schools, hospitals and workplaces.