Wrong solution

Manila’s ban on trucks is the wrong solution to the traffic problem in the city. It is only a solution to a local problem that had negative nationwide repercussions.

The adverse economic impact of the truck ban is now emerging. The Bureau of Customs has admitted that the truck ban is hurting government revenue collections. It said in a statement that on Feb. 24-26, the Port of Manila and the Manila International Container Port (MICP) posted losses of P272.59 million and P217.39 million, respectively. Before the truck ban, the two ports had daily average collections of P712.9 million.

Customs also said that on Feb. 24, the first day of the truck ban, the release of container vans from the MICP fell to only four from an average 2,150 a day, and the release of container vans from the Port of Manila plunged to zero from an average 1,200 a day. Customs said this resulted in the “dramatic decline in revenue collections in the two ports.” On Feb. 24, collections at the MICP slumped 27 percent to P262.8 million, and at the Port of Manila, collections fell by a sharper 47 percent to P134.4 million.

Earlier, Citi economist Jun Trinidad estimated that the truck ban in Manila could cost the Philippine economy as much as P320 billion and put at risk about a million manufacturing jobs, unless an alternative transport linkage would be found between the economic zones in Calabarzon (the provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon) and the Port of Manila. Trinidad noted that the ensuing transportation bottleneck could slice as much as 5 percent off the Philippines’ gross domestic product. His was one of the first private-sector reports to quantify the economic cost of Manila’s truck ban, suggesting a magnitude that may later require “intervention” from the national government. In peso terms, the GDP costs were estimated at a high of P320 billion, which Trinidad said would dwarf the potential benefits of P30 billion in real terms from the reduced traffic targeted by the truck ban.

The new policy imposed by Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada bans eight-wheelers and vehicles with a gross weight of more than 4,500 kilos from plying city streets between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. There is a temporary concession to allow trucks to ply the streets between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. over the next six to eight months, but this window is still deemed insufficient by officials of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority and ecozone locators.

Last week, German companies operating here joined the clamor for the lifting of the truck ban, stressing that the “regretful” policy would cripple the Philippines’ booming economy. Nadine Fund, general manager of the German-Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, explained that while the truck ban could provide immediate relief to motorists and residents, it would eventually result in job losses not only to truck drivers but also to employees of companies adversely affected by the ban. Even earlier, the Semiconductor and Electronics Industries in the Philippines Inc. urged the lifting of the ban.

It is truly frustrating that the government of Manila implemented such a ban without considering the bigger picture. As the German chamber’s Fund had pointed out, “the city government should conduct a thorough study on how to ease the traffic in the city without disrupting businesses.” We agree with her proposed short-term solution that Estrada can very well consider: Remove all illegally parked vehicles on major routes of delivery trucks in the city. This should also be done in other congested cities and the lone municipality in Metro Manila.

The national government should not allow a protracted impasse between businesses and the Manila government. What is unfolding is indeed what Citi’s Trinidad described as a “simmering policy conflict” between national-government plans that seek to fast-track growth, including jobs and income creation, and local-government objectives with legitimate but isolated cost-benefit concerns directed at limited constituencies. We believe that the national government should now intervene to resolve the crisis caused by a local policy on the national economy. It should not wait for the revenue losses to private businesses and to the national government to pile up before taking decisive action.