Who is tasked to plan Metro Manila?

I came across Sir Robert Siy’s article about who should be tasked to improve commuters’ lives.

In improving commuter’s lives, the article mentions Department of Transport (DOTr), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the Local Government Units (LGU), and the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA). But, ultimately, it all points to a well capacitated LGU and the MMDA.

Mobility and Cities

Mobility is not a stand-alone problem. Mobility is not just about the movement of cars, buses, jeeps and people. Good mobility is brought about by well thought out transport systems, well placed infrastructure, balanced land use, and even disaster resiliency initiatives. Mobility is a result of a multitude of factors going on in the city. Good mobility is the result of good city planning.

I think we must step back to realize that the overarching problem hounding our mobility is how our cities are designed. We’ve designed our cities to be road and car-centric and thus we’ve designed our cities to be congestion prone. And until we address the mindset that accessibility can only be brought about by ever widening road access, then we’ll never solve the problem of mobility.

The solution to problems in mobility is to alter the design of our cities sothat the citizens won’t be hostage by road congestion and that conversations around cities don’t revolve around roads. And while we’re at it, shouldn’t we design our cities to solve not just congestion but other important factors in city living such as security, disaster resiliency, and sustainability to name a few.

Who should improve the lives of the citizens of Metro Manila?

Looking back at the article which asked, “who should be tasked to improve commuter’s lives?”. I believe the correct question to ask is “who should be tasked to improve the lives of the citizens of Metro Manila?” — not stopping only at the commuting aspect of city living.

I believe the LGU and the MMDA should take the lead in changing Metro Manila. But these agencies and units cannot in their present form lead development.

The LGU is cannot lead metropolitan-wide development due to certain limitations.

1. Different Standards and implementation for city planning — Proper city form should be standard in the metropolis, not only implemented in well off CBDs and LGUs. Pateros as a municipality should have the same urban landscape as that of Makati or Manila. Having 17 different LGUs in the metro gives rise to 17 different interpretations and implementations.

2. The primary function of an LGU in planning is regulatory — The function of an LGU revolves around its Building Permit, Development Permit, and Barangay Permit among others. Have LGUs as a planning entity questioned and analyzed standards? LGU planning offices don’t have the capacity to do proper planning. And, while LGUs consult planning experts when creating long-term development plans and comprehensive land use plans, these reports are not further delved into and analyzed for deeper and more profound realizations and implementation. LGUs don’t have the capacity in terms of organization structure, and mandate to properly synthesize plans for their cities.

3. Another weakness of LGUs is their limited borders. There are different networks the go beyond LGU boundaries, and therefore can’t be planned by a single LGU. Transport networks, Electricity supply lines and systems involving power stations, water supply systems, storm drainage, dikes, levees and the river systems of Metro Manila…all of these traverse city lines and can’t be planned by one LGU. The placement of key transport infrastructure — airports, seaports and road construction–benefit the whole of the metropolis and doesn’t belong to one LGU alone. These big-ticket items should be planned centrally, not singularly and in an isolated manner, which the LGU is prone to doing.

I will concede that cities in themselves should be able to plan their land uses as they see fit. If an LGU wants a mall, a CBD, a university belt, then they can do so. But they shouldn’t be tasked with planning networks that overlap LGU boundaries and key infrastructures that affect the whole metropolis. Moreover, where regional and metropolis-wide infrastructure are involved, the LGU should yield or closely coordinate in accommodating these projects to integrated them fully into their city design.

There should be a separate entity to plan the metropolis as a whole, some sort of Metro Manila Development Authority.

The MMDA was envisioned to be the central planning agency of Metro Manila, and not as they are depicted nowadays — as traffic enforcers and apprehenders of illegally parked cars, which is just a part of their supposed functions.

Per RA 7924 Sec. 2, “The MMDA shall perform planning, monitoring and coordinative functions, and in the process exercise regulatory and supervisory authority over the delivery of metro-wide services within Metro Manila without diminution of the autonomy of the local government units concerning purely local matters.” Sec. 3 of RA 7924 further discusses that the MMDA’s functions include (1) development planning, (2) transport and traffic management, (3) solid waste disposal and management, (4) flood control and sewerage management, (5) urban renewal, zoning and land use planning, and shelter services, (6) health and sanitation, urban protection and pollution control, and (7) public safety.

Currently, the MMDA is focusing on implementation of transport and traffic management through their use of traffic enforcers. But currently, this policing is also being done by LGUs, and the Philippine National Police (PNP). There is a massive overlap, and the question lies as to who should enforce and who can enforce better. I believe that this should be left to the police and the LGUs.

Can the MMDA efficiently clear out sidewalks on one street and have the manpower to constantly monitor and enforce said clearing on the whole metropolis? No. Is it the mandate of the MMDA to retain a big labor force to enforce laws? No.

But can the police, which is mandated to enforce laws in the city do so? Are the police tactically spread across the city with precincts? Yes.

Can LGUs with their system of barangays have a more localized enforcement? Yes.

Enforcement is not the prime function of MMDA and we’re grossly misusing the agency’s potential if this is what we let them do.

The MMDA should adhere to its primary and most important function, planning the city. And there should be an emphasis on what planning really is. It’s not just coordination of agencies and 17 LGUs to implement a paper plan. Planning is the proper synthesis and analysis of different city factors with how they affect each other. Planning can be done by foreign consultants, but overall as the authority who experience first-hand and on a daily basis the disjointedness of the city build-up, the MMDA should be the planners that synthesize and solve our city problems. And the MMDA should build up a capacity to plan and improve on plans in itself.

Right now, the MMDA is not fulfilling its most important function as the central planner of Metro Manila. There is no synthesizer for Metro Manila’s projects. The DPWH carves its own roads. The DOTr reacts to transport shortages, and the LGUs are concerned with building up their own cities with malls, high-rise condominiums, CBDs, and all the glamour that comes with the newly-built areas. We’ve segmented the different functions of a city into smaller roles, but have also disjointed the build-up that happens in our cities in the process.

What we get now is an uncoordinated mash of the following:

· Unregulated construction of highways and road-widening that contributes to blight in otherwise vibrant residential and commercial areas;

· Archaic transport systems by dilapidated buses, unruly jeeps, tricycles, and pedicabs that are severely inefficient;

· Unplanned and unbalanced cityscapes wherein there are isolated pockets of CBDs and singly-planned gated subdivisions on one side, and blight and informal settlements on the other side. The LGU’s main focus is on the glamourous newly built areas, hence once a district becomes unruly, LGUs readily step back to let blight come through;

· We also get ugly streetscapes with poorly regulated sidewalks, and unkempt utility lines and overall blight.

· There’s even no mention of environmental management on most parts of city building, with a preference for parkable parking lots and not parks.

In this regard the MMDA, should be able to synthesize 3 important parts of planning and building cities and the metropolis to address the disjionted build up of metro manila.

1. Big infrastructure and regional networks as mentioned above should be synthesized as to how they relate with general land uses of districts to provide more efficient movement, synergized development and aid in disaster resiliency. This is the macro scale of city planning.

2. Synthesizing laws and relating the different factors of the city to each other. Ultimately, creating standards implementable throughout the city and can be seen in the street, block and district scale of the city. This is the micro scale of city planning.

a. Interaction of sidewalk design, utility lines, open spaces, transport and other things on a more local scale.

The MMDA should be composed of city planners who are visionary and also knowledgeable of the processes included in the job. A city planner should aim to create seamless and integrated relations from one land-use and city concept to another. To elaborate, let’s take one aspect which is transport management.

As an example, from alighting a bus, the commuter should be able to walk on well-maintained and unobstructed sidewalks wide enough to accommodate a convenient level of service given a volume of pedestrians. These sidewalks should directly connect one mode of transport to another and should be well-lit, landscaped, and shaded from heat and rain. Sidewalks should also serve as platforms for retail activity of adjacent buildings, wherein there are complementary arcaded walkways, and well-implemented, uniform setbacks. Finally, there should be breathing room in terms of parks and open spaces that have thriving greenery, and serve as non-monetized civic spaces where people can interact with each other freely and for free. Open spaces also serves as green lungs for cities and catchment areas for rain water runoff.

Segmented agencies and cities haven’t grasped the interrelatedness and impacts of different city factors to one another. LGUs concerned with land use don’t grasp transport development closely. If they did, they’d realize that Tricycles and Pedicabs contribute to traffic and that TODAs might not be the most efficient way to transport people. The DPWH don’t grasp the fact that sidewalks should not be compromised in road widening. The DOTr don’t grasp that sidewalk development and city development is part of the mobility package (See PNR stations and adjacent skyway in Magallanes). A central planning agency should be the one tasked to analyze these factors and stitch them together into a cohesive whole.

3. Provide a cohesive vision in city building.

Cities build over implemented policies and programs for the city. Over time, as cities get bigger and consider more factors, it becomes more complicated and unruly. If cities remain unchecked, unplanned and fragmented, then cities become polluted, congested, and unjust in its most compact form. Cities when unplanned gives rise to systematized oppression. Wherein a way of living, and the simple routine of going to work and earning a living becomes torturous and draining.

The metropolis should have a unified vision hinged in improved city life for its citizens to avoid this.

At present, MMDA is not the central planning body that focuses on coordination and consolidation of various city building efforts. Moreover, there is no the central planning body that acts as a synthesizer of these various endeavors by different governing bodies and by different laws and standards.

In the current situation that we have here in Metro Manila, the following are just examples of what should be considered by the MMDA for further discussion, synthesis, solution formulation, standardization and implementation:

1. Unobstructed and wide sidewalks — People’s primary mode of transport is walking. Hence sidewalks should never be compromised for wider roads. Sidewalks should be first priority. If a road right of way can’t accommodate 2-lane roads with ample sidewalk space, then automobiles shouldn’t be able to pass there. Or the road can be designated as a one-way one-lane road with a thoughtfully planned traffic circulation scheme.

2. Utility Lines — The cheap standard for utility lines is to hang it overhead along electric posts. The results, as can commonly be seen here, are tangled lines that are unsightly and possibly dangerous. The unplanned electric posts are also erected right in the middle of sidewalks, which provide obstructions to pedestrians. Maybe the cheap standard shouldn’t be the standard after all. Maybe auxiliary lines, if it becomes too many, should be strung underground. Maybe electric posts should have their own buffer area, and not implemented on sidewalks. That way our sidewalks will actually be sidewalks, not leftover utility buffer zones.

3. City form and expansion — Road networks should be planned as a whole, and not as singularly planned subdivisions with cul-de-sacs and gated premises. Without proper oversight and planning, we end up with misaligned and dead-end roads. These are the roads that make circular transportation routes impossible and breed the use of cars, or worse, tricycles and pedicabs. These uncoordinated roads, because of improper alignment causes unnecessary choke points in intersections. Also, the layout of cities and the different lot cuts of titles play a big impact with how buildings develop. Small cut lots will naturally result in smaller buildings, limited in its function. However, lot cuts that are too big tend to become too grand and not human in scale. City form and expansion plays a big part with how cities develop.

4. Placement of Key Infrastructure –

a. In the case of Airports, these should be centrally planned while keeping the placements of existing airports in mind. Case in point: why should there be an airport in Bulacan when Clark International Airport (Pampanga) is within the same region and within a hundred kilometers radius? Why would you over-serve Region 3 and under-serve Region IV-A?

Another point would be that in erecting the airport in Bulacan, the province would be limited in its build up because of the CAAP height limit. Also, the airport will be constrained in its expansion in Bulacan.

As a metropolis by the water, wouldn’t the more logical location for a new airport be on reclaimed land at Sangley Point, Cavite? Other island-based metropolises are doing it that way, and, by doing so, they’re not limited in the expansion of city development, as well as airport development.

i. Hong Kong international Airport serves as a good example for this being on reclaimed land. Currently the Hongkong airport has 2 parallel runways and is an aviation hub for Southeast Asia and China. It is away from the massive buildup of the city, avoiding the conflict of height limit. Also, Hongkong Airport as a reclaimed area can expand when additional demand arises. By 2030, Hongkong’s aim is for the airport to build an additional runway to accommodate 102 flights per hour. That is not possible in Bulacan as sprawl is prevalent in our city form. The airport can locate in Bulacan, but same as its predecessor, in 50 years, there will be no expansion left and Metro Manila will be forced yet again to relocate the airport. Expansion could be possible in Sangley Point.

b. In the case of ports, historically, the Philippines was one of the most important ports in the world as the key port for the galleon trade. Now, our ports are singularly planned and limited in terms of expansion. What’s worse is that our ports are mired by informal settlements, adding to congestion and inefficiency. In Singapore, the seaports are zoned and infrastructure is planned, so the port zones could handle an increasing amount of cargo. Maybe we should clean up our port zone to be an exclusive export-import zone. Since housing in the area creates conflict and limits port output, maybe it’s high time to relocate the neglected informal settlers in the piers.

5. Mobility of goods and people — In relation to ports are the mobility of goods and of people. We must discard the notion that one road fixes all. C5 for lack of proper transport infrastructure (I.e. Freight Train Lines) is the utility road for cargo. However, Filipinos have a wrong notion that all roads are equal, hence it has also become a main thoroughfare for private vehicles, limiting the transport capacity for goods. Also, with recent developments along C5, developers are adding CBDs to the area, further adding to congestion and further limiting the lifeline of transport of goods. Have you noticed that there are no proper public transport lines for C5. That’s because it was meant to be a service road to cater to transport of goods. There should be separation as to what roads (or trainlines) should facilitate and prioritize. Transport of goods should be delineated from roads that transport people when possible. Because when you build one road and rely on it to be everything, when congestion inevitably builds up, no one and nothing will be transported. Efficient transportation of goods is as important as transportation of people for this is where Philippine industries and markets are hinged upon.

6. Disaster Resiliency and Interaction of Build-up environment with the un-built and preserved environment — Without proper planning and synthesis of city build up and natural areas, cities run the risk of developing in disaster prone areas. When it comes to flood, maybe cities should be planned with water catchment basins in mind, giving respect and proper setbacks to rivers that straddle from the mountains to the wetlands and even to valley’s that serve as natural catchment basins. Uncontrolled built-up over these areas, in terms of residential dwellings in riverbanks, paving over wetlands for roads and drainage systems, neglects the natural draining properties of riverbanks and wetlands. As a result, flooding becomes more frequent and more violent without nature to assist in its mitigation.

There are still a million things a functional planning agency can synthesize and digest thoroughly. And these misalignments in coordination and consolidation will never be addressed if there is no central planning agency for the metropolis that will digest them. It’s time for better planned cities that are well-coordinated and properly synthesized. It’s time for Metro Manila as a whole to become a better place to live in, providing better living standards and proper city design that should be available and accessible to all and not just in a couple of CBDs here and there.

The answer to “who should be tasked to improve the lives of the residents of metro manila?” is a well capacitated MMDA as the planning authority and head, with the LGUs, DOTr, DPWH, DENR, NHA and other agencies as implementors. But cities won’t work if these implementing agencies are not working towards a unified, well-coordinated and well thought out vision that only a central planning agency can synthesize.

And, no, the blue boys of MMDA featured in Facebook videos straddling city streets and clearing vendors are not the planners that we need. Also, the MMDA should be much more than a coordinator and implementor of half thought-out and non-comprehensive solutions of Metro Manila Mayors and government agencies who’re not responsible in planning beyond their boundaries and given scope.