Salceda: Pokemon Go poses bigger threat to NCR traffic than provincial buses

Albay 2nd District Rep. Joey Salceda has released the following press statement regarding the relocation of the terminals of provincial buses in Metro Manila:

Rep. Joey Salceda
Why pick on our pobreng provincianos to solve Metro Manila traffic? Pokemon-playing is a greater aggravation of Metro Manila traffic.
 1. There are now only 3,300 provincial buses About 1,500 are from Bicol, mostly based in Albay. Provincial buses have fallen from their high of 30,000 in the 1980’s.
2. Compare that 3,300 provincial buses to out of 2.5m vehicles in Metro Manila. In 2013, 2.1m vehicles of Metro Manila accounted for 27% of the total 7.69m nationwide.

3. Compare that number of 3,300 provincial buses versus 288,609 cars/trucks sold in 2015; that’s up 23%.

4. While each bus can carry 50, each car carries 5. So, theoretically, you are exchanging 3,300 buses for 30,000 more cars in EDSA.

5. Technically, instead of 1 provincial bus bringing in the 50 passengers, they would now need 4 jeepneys.

6. It cannot be the 3,300 but the behavior of provincial buses in Metro Manila specifically in EDSA. Provincial buses get and drop passengers only in their own terminal, so it must be their exit and entry into these terminals.

7. Where is the empirical evidence – time-and-motion study of current situation and simulation projections – to underpin as fundamental basis to this policy, which is always the kneejerk first move whenever the issue of Metro Manila traffic?

8. Pokemon-playing in private cars pose more threat of aggravation to Metro Manila traffic than provincial buses. “Dahan-dahan, may Pikachu ditto. Itabi mo sandali, may Lures dito”. If you are rich enough to maintain a private car, you must be rich enough to yourself and your kids an Android , Ipad or Iphone. Multiply that by the 2.5m cars in Metro Manila.

9. It is anti-poor since provincial bus passengers are those who can only pay 450 (ordinary) or 750 (aircon) and can not afford the more expensive plane fares.

10. This measure is injurious to poor rural people in terms of (1) additional inconvenience (2) additional "minimum" fare (3) additional time to destination and (4) double loading.

11. Many provincial passengers usually carry several and heavy luggages. When Metro Manila buses pick them up in Muntinlupa, “baka sa estribo lang pauupuin”

12. What happens to our domestic tourists? Or even foreign tourists on budget? Pabababain at palilipatin sa another bus agang-aga?

13. Given such potential disruption of social welfare, there should have been consultations or at least efforts to reach out. Have a little empathy. If not, have a little law and remember: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. So unfair as it concentrates and shifts the burden of easing NCR traffic to countryside citizens who compose 74% of the poor and are merely coerced to seek economic opportunity in NCR where it is concentrated. This is beyond ignominy. This is reckless injustice under the guise of policy insanity.

14. In Sept 1, 2014, I filed a Motiob Petition for Prohibition cum Mandamus against MMDA and LTFRB (G.R. 213786). It is still pending in the Supreme Court. I am filing a supplemental motion in cognizance of the new developments, largely injurious to the people I represent and seek the issuance of aTRO on the Metro Manila Commission approval of provincial bus ban in EDSA.
Powered by Blogger.