UNIVERSITY OF LA SALETTE, INC.

COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY

FOLLANTE, JENOR JEFF D.

BSCRIM 3-B
TRAFFIC MANANGEMENT AND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION

HISTORY OF TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

EDSA (C-3) is known for the People Power Revolution, but this 23.8 kilometer thoroughfare is
also known for being one of the most traffic congested roads in Metro Manila, if not in the entire
Philippines. Traffic is defined as the movement of vehicles or pedestrians through an area or a route,
while a traffic jam is a situation in which a long line of vehicles on a road have stopped moving or are
moving very slowly (see Merriam-Webster definition). Of course, traffic is a sign of progress, but when
traffic jams increase, there is no progress. It is a sign of bad urban planning. As of 2015, 2.4 billion
pesos (around $48 million) every day is being lost to traffic in Metro Manila alone, and it is expected
to increase to 6 billion pesos by 2030. However, once upon a time, the capital of the Philippines was
not as compressed as it is in our era.
It was during the Spanish colonial period when Manila began to grow into the metropolis it is to
this day. The Spanish saw a city of around 4,000 inhabiting a vast expanse of land by the bay,
adequately watered by the Pasig River and its adjacent waterways. As they built Intramuros, the
walled city, they never thought the new capital city would be filled up during their administration of the
archipelago. The Spanish urban planners laid out the city in grid pattern, a conventional method
during the 16th century. However, they could have not been more wrong. By the 19th century, the
narrow streets of Manila are full of calesas (horse-drawn calash) and pedestrians. Intramuros alone is
the residence of more or less 15,000 Spaniards. The government center itself moved from Palacio del
Gobernador (within Intramuros) to Malacañang (outside Intramuros, or the so-called Extramuros). By
this time, the colonial government had been investing more in war than infrastructure, and thus,
relying more on unpaid forced labor to maintain roads, while virtually constructing no new ones. A
description of the city can be witnessed in Jose Rizal's first novel, Noli Me Tangere
The Philippine Revolution and the Philippine-American War managed to destroy much of the
Manila suburbs (arrabales), the neighboring areas outside the walled city, giving leeway for
Americans to implement their own urban planning techniques. One significant development by this
time was forwarded by Daniel Burham, an American architect who drafted the urban planning for
Chicago. His plan for Manila, known as the Burnham Plan, was to concentrate key government
buildings in the city while keeping a wide open field that is Luneta (later, Rizal Park). The Spanish
managed to create an open field in Luneta, but this was not out of urban planning. It was done
because of military convenience, for their experience during the British invasion in 1762 showed the
Spanish how vulnerable the area is to artillery fire. Burnham planned to enlarge Luneta, following the
example of New York's Central Park and Washington, D.C.'s Capitol Hill. In addition, he planned a
radial or circumferential pattern for the city, deviating from the Spanish grid pattern. In this 1905 plan,
Burnham anticipated a city of 800,000 people. Of course, by 1920, Manila's population already stood
at around 300,000. Even so, the plan went on, until the Commonwealth period. President Manuel
Quezon halted funding for the implementation of the plan, and opted to move the capital elsewhere.
This new capital would be named after him, and thus, Quezon City. Meanwhile, only three of the 16
planned government buildings were finished, and among the roads completed was the seaside
Dewey Boulevard (later, Roxas Boulevard). As for traffic, Manila was not as congested as it is later
on. Of course, cars soon replaced the calesas. Howeve, around 40% of passengers were carried
around by electric streetcars, also known as tranvia, which extended up to 85 kilometers around the
city and its suburbs.
In 1941, the Commonwealth approved the Frost-Arellano Plan, drafted by Harry Frost and
Juan Arellano. Like the Burnham Plan, it would use a radial pattern. However, Quezon City would
have an elliptical circle as the central point of the radial pattern. This would become the Quezon
Memorial Circle. Such a circle cannot be realized in Manila because it faces the bay. Even Luneta,
the central point of the plan, was not circular, but rectangular in shape. Circumferential roads such as
Luzon Avenue (extending to San Jose del Monte in Bulacan), Visayas Avenue (extending to
Meycauayan, also in Bulacan), and Mindanao Avenue (extending to La Mesa Dam) were included in
the plan. Of course, these were not completed, with these roads only reaching a certain extent of the
original. Meanwhile, a quadrangle would encompass the circle. This quadrangle would contain the
"Central Park" as its heart, which was actually located in Diliman, where the University of the
Philippines currently stands. The remaining quarters of the quadrangle would also contain parks and
zoos. However, this was not completely realized. The roads on this quadrangle have been named
after the four cardinal directions: North Avenue (because it is in the north of the quadrangle), West
Avenue (in the west), East Avenue (in the east), and Timog Avenue (in the south of the quadrangle).
All of these roads are part of what is now Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA), which finished
construction in 1940. However, the Frost-Arellano Plan was not completed as well because the
Second World War opened in the Asia-Pacific in 1941. Still, with slight modifications, this was carried
over in the 1949 Master Plan for the Capital City. Among the modifications include the erection of a
monument in honor of Quezon in the circle. Government buildings, which was located in the circle in
the 1941 plan, was moved to Constitution Hill in the 1949 plan. This is where Batasan Hills currently
stands, replacing what is supposed to be the site of the Philippine Military Academy. However,
Batasang Pambansa itself would not be completed until 1978. By this time, when Quezon City was
designated as capital by President Elpidio Quirino (Republic Act No. 333), Manila had a population of
around 1.6 million. This is already double the capacity estimated by Burnham in 1905. With the
stoppage of the tranvia after the war, no extensive rail network accommodated public transportation
in the city. What replaced as the main vehicle for passengers was the jeepney, which was developed
only from reinventing surplus American military jeeps.
Whether it was the postwar conditions of the country or not, the Philippine government did not
come up with another major plan, nor implemented any, for the rapidly urbanizing Manila, Quezon
City, and their neighboring areas. By 1960, the population of Manila shot to 2.5 million. It would not be
until President Ferdinand Marcos when a plan would be drafted. Initially, Marcos did a political
reorganization. This formed the region now known as Metro Manila in 1975, and Manila became
capital once more. Following this, the MMetroplan, recommended in 1977, provided the framework for
expansion and management of the new capital region. This plan takes a step further from the radial
pattern by expanding eastward. Since Burnham, the radial pattern of urban planning for Manila was
supposed to go eastward, since the bay hinders further expansion to the west. However, by 1977,
Metro Manila has a population of more than 6 million. This meant the construction of more
circumferential roads to the east to accommodate expansion, which would later become C-5 and C-6.
The plan also provided for areas where urban expansion would be restricted because it is not
suitable. Evidently, among the restricted areas was Marikina Valley, which was east of Manila. At any
rate, the plan was much larger in scale than that of Burnham or of Frost and Arellano. Another
innovation that is otherwise absent in the 1941 plan was the utilization of mass transit. More people,
complemented by a growing economy (the Philippine economy was growing at a modest rate of 5%
yearly since 1960), means more movement, more traffic. In order to accommodate the projected
increase in population, a total of seven major lines were planned, including a subway system. Of
course, it is still not as comparable to the rail systems of other metropolitan systems (Tokyo alone has
more than a hundred lines). However, when Marcos was removed from power by People Power, only
one of these lines were built: the Manila Light Rail Transit (LRT) 1. The line began operations in 1984.
Two other lines were built after the Marcos administration. Metro Rail Transit (MRT) 3 began
operations in 1999, and Light Rail Transit (LRT) 2 in 2003. This doubled the mileage of existing rail in
the region (20 kilometers to 50 kilometers). The idea was to transport more people by rail than any
other modes of transportation, which was a feat once achieved by the tranvia. However, even if one
thinks our trains are already packed, only 1.5 million people have used mass transit as of 2012, or
around 6% to 9% of total passengers travelling Metro Manila roads.
Modifications to the 1977 plan were made and succeeding administrations tried to implement
them until the year 2000. However, as the Philippines entered the 21st century, the 1977 plan
seemed to fall apart. In the first place, it was not fully implemented. It was designed to accommodate
more or less six million people. As of 2015, the population stands at 12.8 million, increasing at a rate
of 2% annauly since 1980. However, as the economy continued to expand (4.5% annually under
Arroyo, 6% annually under Aquino III), investment in infrastructure seemed to lag behind. Road
mileage increased by a measly 1.5% annually since 1980. Meanwhile, a growing middle class
spurred a 4% yearly increase in vehicles. Net result? Worse traffic. Despite all government efforts to
reduce the suffering of the populace, such as truck ban, extended number coding hours, and
intelligent traffic systems (CCTV, interactive signs, etc.), there are no signs of improving. In 2012,
Numbeo indexed Manila to have 61 minutes of one-way transport (ranked 10th in the world). Five
years later, in 2017, Numbeo had Manila at 58 minutes (ranked 5th). Not only has there been a slight
difference, Manila actually went up the global rankings. It can be inferred that while other urban
centers worldwide have been working upon their traffic woes, the Philippines has not done as much
for her own problems.
Recommended as a solution to this grave situation is the Roadmap for Transport Infrastructure
Development for Metro Manila and Its Surrounding Areas (Region III and Region IV-A), also known
as the Metro Manila Dream Plan. Presented in 2015 by the National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA), in cooperation with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the plan
called for massive infrastructure investment to ensure better traffic by 2030. Metro Manila alone has
36% share of the national economy. Better movement in this region would result to faster economic
growth. The Japanese input was their experience in massive urban planning, as displayed by
their Technopolis program during the 1980s. Technopolis provided for the creation of 19 science
cities nationwide, transferring key research institutions in these cities, and connecting them by road
and rail networks. This meant relieving major urban centers such as Tokyo. One of the more
prominent science cities was Tsukuba, which had more than 200,000 people as of 2010. The
Tsukuba Science City was conceived in 1963 and became the foundation of the Technopolis. In the
Philippine setting, the Dream Plan proposes the development of locations north and south of Manila,
such as Subic, Clark, Tarlac, Cabanatuan, Batangas, Lipa, and Lucena as regional centers. This
would increase opportunities of economic development in the neighboring regions, and relieving the
pressure in Metro Manila as the only center in the region. The Dream Plan also proposes eleven (11)
transit lines, including expansions, more than the 1977 plan of seven lines. If completed, it would total
to 318 kilometers of rail, more than six times the current capacity. The target is to get more than
seven (7) million people commuting by train, an expected share of around 30% to 40%. Tokyo, which
was indexed by Numbeo at 41 minutes of one-way transport, has 62% passenger share for its
railways. Hong Kong, indexed at 42 minutes, has 25% share. Singapore, indexed at 43 minutes, has
20% share. Besides mass transit, the use of rapid bus transit (BRT) is also included in the plan. The
expected number of passengers using BRT by 2030 would be around two million. Upgrading existing
roads and building new ones are also proposed. The plan calls for a ladder pattern, with urban
expansion both going eastward and towards the north-south axis. Again, the point is to create
multiple urban centers (sub-centers) north and south of Metro Manila. The plan also called for the
development of ecological zones (northwest, southwest, and east of Manila) where there would be
ample space for parks and zoos. To date, some components of this have already been underway, but
the Dream Plan itself would cost a lot for the government. A total of 2.6 trillion pesos until 2030 has to
be spent. Of course, there is ample justification for the expenses. By 2030, a 42% decrease in traffic
costs is expected (from 2.4 billion pesos per day in 2015 to 1.4 billion pesos per day). However, this
would mean putting as much as 55% to 60% of the total infrastructure budget in developing Metro
Manila alone. The rest of the nation may be left behind, and traffic is not confined in Manila. Other
urban centers in the Philippines such as Cebu (33 minutes) and Davao (31 minutes) begin to be
ranked globally among cities with the most traffic. With the assumption of Rodrigo Duterte as
president in 2016, the government promised a "golden age of infrastructure." This meant almost one
(1) trillion pesos would be invested in infrastructure in the next six years (2016-2022). Whether this
would be enough to fund the Dream Plan, or the government can ensure implementation would go
according to plan, Metro Manila is and will continue to suffer from the consequences of inadequate
urban planning in the coming years. The government would also have to balance development in the
capital region and the rest of the nation. Nevertheless, the Filipino people in general can learn from
our history with traffic, and move forward to a less congested future.

HISTORY OF TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION IN U.S.

To understand why Vision Zero represents an improved path forward in traffic safety, it is
helpful to learn more about where the United States (U.S.) comes from based on traffic safety
approaches, which have included the “Es approach” as well as other others. According to Norton
(2015), the evolution of traffic safety in the U.S. can be broadly grouped into four time periods,
representing different prevailing “paradigms”

1900s-1920s: A Safety First paradigm. Cars are introduced and drivers bear the responsibility for
road users’ safety. Walking and other travel modes are predominant, and the blame of a vehicle-
pedestrian crash is placed on the driver.

1920s-1960s: A Control paradigm emerges, focused on preventing crashes using the “Three Es”—
engineering, education, and enforcement. Under this paradigm, the primary offenders were reckless
or careless drivers, “jaywalkers”, and poorly designed roads. Highways were built, and speed was
considered safe under the right conditions. Pedestrians were instructed that streets were meant for
cars.

1960s-1980s: As the number of crash-related deaths exceeded 50,000 in the mid-1960s, a

Crashworthiness paradigm emerged. Stakeholders called for improved vehicle crashworthiness,
asserting that the “Three Es” were not enough. Seatbelts and airbags were introduced, and vehicle
design was a principal traffic safety consideration.

1980s-present: The Responsibility paradigm overlaid the previous paradigm. This represented a
course correction from a strong focus on vehicle design to a revived emphasis on driver
responsibility. Public health-informed behavior changes and traffic calming measures to improve
drivers’ attention and reduce speeds were promoted. Over time, the “Es approach” transformed and
adapted to shifting

The concept of equity refers to equitable access to employment, goods, and services. It also
means equitable involvement and power in decision-making processes. Equity represents a goal that
transcends Vision Zero and should be considered and applied across goals and objectives in a
community’s Vision Zero Plan. Safe Systems and Vision Zero represent a new traffic safety
paradigm. Bridging the current Responsibility paradigm to this new paradigm will require at least three
re-orientations to how traffic safety is defined and practiced.

 First, safety stakeholders must learn to recognize the complex nature of serious crashes.
 Second, they must develop the capacity to see the main interacting dynamics that contribute to
serious roadway injury.
 Finally, these stakeholders must align their work with professionals in myriad complementary
sectors (e.g., affordable housing, poverty reduction, medical services, car manufacturing,
addictions counseling, etc.) to shift injury-perpetuating dynamics toward ones that ensure safe,
equitable access and mobility for all road users.