Suggestions for more responsive MRT/LRT service
The MRT and LRT are not exploiting their full potential in serving the transportation needs of the metropolis, such that jeepneys and buses still clog the streets and the traffic situation has not improved significantly. May I respectfully suggest the following:
Acquire more trains to allow more frequent scheduled trips. In Sacramento, California, the train frequency during peak hours is every 10 minutes so that if one misses a train, the next one is not long in coming. Also, between peak hours, trips are less frequent and the fare is lower.
MRT/LRT stations should not be as far apart as they are now so that passengers wishing to go to points between existing stations will not be forced to take a jeepney/bus ride. If this is done, the number of jeepneys and buses can be considerably reduced by attrition as the MRT/LRT is faster and a lot safer (and traffic will definitely improve). This will also raise the MRT/LRT’s revenues.
Additional railway systems should be created, using as much as possible surface roads for the rails so that these new systems will cost less to construct, and the businesses along the routes will be preserved (note the dying businesses along MRT/LRT routes). The center islands of wide roadways such as Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon Avenue, Marcos Highway, C-3 and C-5, and the South Expressway could be used as rail right of way. Note also that elevated railways need elevated stations which are expensive to build and not passenger-friendly, especially to the elderly.
Additional rail lines should be constructed, ideally crisscrossing the metropolis at its most critical passenger points, following the frequency of schedules for peak hours and distances between stations.
Our government does not have to bear the cost of constructing a mass railway transport/tollway project: float bonds to finance it and then let the Department of Public Works and Highways take charge to build it. The public cost: just the interests on the bonds; the bond redemption itself will be paid with revenues generated by the project itself. Ultimately, the government will get to independently own the project and use it to produce additional revenues for other projects.
Thus, our government will be the one to dictate how much the fare or the toll fees should be, not a foreign capitalist as in SLEx. (A good example of a government-financed project is the NLEx, built by the Construction Development Corp. of the Philippines during martial law. It may be run by a private enterprise now, but the managing firm has no capital to recover.)
This arrangement is even better than the “build, operate, transfer” system applied to some projects as revenues immediately accrue to the state as soon as the project becomes operational.
—EDMUNDO E. LEDESMA,
84 Ferdinand St., Vista Verde Executive Village,
Cainta, Rizal 1900
