MMDA and DPWH

Galing talaga ni Chairman
Do you want a president like this creature?

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/87352/MMDA-DPWH-rift-cancels-project

MMDA, DPWH rift cancels project


The National Economic and Development Authority in 2000 approved the P1.98 billion Metro Manila Interchange Construction Project Phase 5, which was expected to help alleviate the metro's traffic problem.

Disagreements between the Metro Manila Development Authority and the Department of Public Works and Highways over the design, however, delayed the project's implementation and eventually led to its cancellation.

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/88939/Experts-criticize-MMDAs-Arroyo-approved-elevated-u-turn

Experts criticize MMDA's Arroyo-approved elevated u-turn

In the DPWH-MMDA rift over the P1.98 billion Metro Manila Interchange Construction Project, President Arroyo favored MMDA's proposed elevated u-turn. Experts question the safety of the project, which was approved without a feasibility study, while MMDA defends it.






A statement from the experts and fellow engineers

http://www.pice.org.ph/Statement%20PICE-U%20Turn.pdf

Statement from the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
The Philippines is falling behind most of its Asian neighbors due to its poor
infrastructure. Hence, the attempt of the present administration to increase (the
historically-low) investments in infrastructure – in the transport sector, more specifically
- is to be lauded.
But spending for poorly-conceived, mediocre, and ill-designed projects will only
increase the number of poor infrastructure, rather than raise our country’s
competitiveness. The construction of elevated U-Turns in Metro Manila belongs to that
genre. Instead of building world-class structure, the MMDA is spending hundred of
millions of pesos on a structure that violate national and international highway
standards.
Perhaps, the original plan for the intersection may have been over-designed. In the
world of professional practice, the same issue can only be resolved through Peer
Review, and not by sheer “political will.” An “over-designed” structure is more tolerable
in the long run than an ‘under-designed” one. Also, a peer review process would have
shown that the construction cost of a straight viaduct is lower than a curved one, for
the same length and number of lanes, aside from having a lesser number of traffic
hazards. Strangely and unfortunately, in this case, there is also no duly-licensed “Peer”
to talk about.
The objective of grade separation at major intersections is to achieve maximum road
capacity (or passenger throughput) per lane. Gaining “pogi points” is not an explicit
objective in building of transport infrastructure. This can not be achieved by the
elevated U-Turn scheme for two basic reasons: (a) a roundabout way can never be
shorter or faster than a straight line from point A to point B, (b) the potential conflict
points between vehicular movements have not been reduced. The high-volume
through-traffic get intermixed with local, low-volume, slower-speed, and left-turningtraffic;
thus, reducing the overall flow to the least common denominator – especially
severe during peak hours. Vehicles can only be as fast as the slowest ones in front of
them.
Bragging that the structure is the first of its kind in the world may be a cause of pride
for its proponent. It is, however, a cause of shame for Filipino civil engineers who are
supposed to be responsible, by law, for this kind of structure but were not involved in
the first place. A mediocre design that ignores fundamental rules of road safety is not
something Filipino civil engineers (as it would be wrongly ascribed to the profession as
a whole) – or for that matter, patriotic Filipinos - can be proud. Neither is it the path to
progress.
The Philippines can only move into the faster lane of development and progress – if it
builds the right infrastructure in the right way and under the exacting yardstick of
globally-accepted engineering standards.