TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION

MODULE 3
By Joseph R Legaspi

I. TIME FRAME: 3 hours

II. TOPIC: Traffic Ecology and Traffic Economy

III. OBJECTIVES: In the end of the module, the students are expected to
1. A better understanding of the fundamental of traffic
management particularly Traffic Ecology and Traffic
Economy.
2. A thorough knowledge of traffic ecology and its effect in
the environment and also its effect to human.
3. Understand the underlying adverse effects of traffic to the
economy not only to a small community but also in a
country in general.
IV. ACTIVITY:

Class room discussion of Traffic Ecology and Traffic Economy with Computer
Assisted instruction (Lecture)

V. APPLICATION:

The lecture will tackle on the two (2) Pillars of Traffic Management and focuses
on traffic Ecology and Traffic Economy. After the lecture the students can readily
explain how traffic ecology affect the life of the people and better understand that
traffic congestion really affect the economy of a particular country.

VI. EVALUATION:

Recitation/Quiz: Result of classification of each student will be check and they

will be graded accordingly.

VII. REFERENCES:

1. Traffic Management and Accident Investigation: An Instructional Book by Darlito Bernard G Delizo, Copyright
2008. Publish by RKManwong
2. Trafficology- The Science of Traffic Philippine Copyright, 1998 by Felino A Bragado,
3. askbristoldebates.com
4. www.thehindu.com
5. http://www.gmheng.com
6. http://www.thailandguru.com/culture-pollution.jpg
7. http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/02/Dirty-Air-Heart-Attack-2-537x368.jpg
8.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/fVaKc8hGkE/UCuG4IrgA1I/AAAAAAAACoI/PszED_cLwoM/s1600/
philippine+highway.jpg
9. (Davies, 2013) 10. (Bouw, 2013)11. (Gibb, 2013)
 Fundamentals of Traffic Management – Traffic Ecology

I. Traffic Ecology or Traffic Environment

A. Environmental Effects of the Urbanization of transportation:

1. Noise – The ill effect of noise is one of the major considerations in the evaluation of the
consequences of traffic urbanization to the environment. The level of noise inside and outside
a dwelling is an important indicator of the quality of life. The exact influence of traffic noise on
human behavior is not well understood. It is known that continued exposure to noise level
beyond 80 dBA (decibel annually) causes loss of hearing. Average background noise:

a. Typical Home – 40 to 50 dB;

b. Heavy Trucks – 90 dB ;
c. Freight Trains – 75 db ;
d. Air conditioning – 60 dB
3 4

2. Vibration – Effect can be severe,

particularly when there are heavy trucks
and when the building is old. While there
are subjective costs from experiencing
vibration, a minimum cost of damage or
prevention can be established from 5

experience and experiment.

3. Air Pollution – It is one of the

more difficult problems because of the
complexity of the issues involved. The
effects of pollution are also strongly
affected by meteorological and even by
micro-climate. 6

4. Dirt - These are foul and filth

substances related to motor vehicle use
such as empty can of oils, grease
materials, etc.
7
5. Visual Intrusion – This can have can be avoided by putting a highway or
positive as well as negative effects. If a railway at grade or in a cutting. In many
motor way blots out an unsightly prison or cases, there may be cheaper solution.
railway yard, it may have positive benefits.
On the other hand, the appearance of an
elevated expressway or railway above a
neighborhood is one of the aspects most
frequently complained of. In visual intrusion
 8
6. Loss of Privacy – Loss of privacy from drivers and other being able to look at one’s
house and garden frequently disliked environment effect. Walls and earthworks would
prevent this, while at the same time reducing noise.

7. Changes in Amount of Light – it is easier up to a point because part of the

disadvantages can be valued in term of the additional lighting costs of those affected. But,
there is probably a psychological element also which it would not be easy or perhaps
necessary, to disentangle where relevant from the last two items.

8. Neighborhood Severance, both physical and sociological. This can partly be

quantified in terms of changed travel time and costs, and accident experience to pedestrians
and traffic.

9. Relocation – there must be programs that are designed to cover compensation for
those who relocate as a consequence of transport investment, whether property owner or
tenants. The people relocated will tend to be decentralized as well as those sufficiently
affected by the environment consequences to refer to move.

10. Distraction during planning and construction. In some cases, benefits offset the
distraction cost, which are experience by people during construction of new facilities, loss of
business, excess noise, dirt, vibration during constructing and excess journey costs through
diversions because of building.

11. Accident Experiences – these are evaluated by well established procedures of

which perhaps the only major controversial aspect is the valuation given to human life. A
certain amount is known about differences in accident experience on different roads and
in different circumstances

12. Pedestrian Journey. The opportunity to make the roads safe and enjoyable
for pedestrians and efficient for vehicles; and set of roads provided access to dwelling
and is designed primarily for the safety of pedestrians.

13. Congestion and Other Benefits to Vehicles – It is for a livable and safe residential
environment by reducing “through” vehicle travel. Travel must be made convenient. Highway
diversion curves indicate that 80% of the traffic will take a route that is 20 % faster.

Vehicle travel time is made up of three components:

a. free flowing travel;
b. Stop time; and
c. Acceleration or deceleration
 B. External Factors that influence the existing and future behavior of population
1. Rapidly increasing population growth
2. Rapidly increasing urbanization
3. Rapidly increasing motorization
4. Industrialization and technical modernization
5. Improvement of the transportation network that is the street network and the public
transportation facilities.

C. Alternatives – a more pleasant environment can be achieved without negative

implication for economy and trade, so that any reasonable step in this direction by decision-
makers deserves support. The following are some of the proposed activities that my reduce
the adverse effects of traffic development to our ecology:

1. Towns are better with less traffic, so long as adequate provision is made for the
mobility of workers and residents and the distribution of goods. It is of urgent necessity that
National and Local Government develop efforts to reduce the adverse effects of motor traffic
in urban areas.

2. Where and when traffic congestion and its cost are severe and frequent, assures to
reduce the use of private cars and goods, vehicles and to improve alternative forms of
transport should be introduce.

3. To limit traffic and to improve the efficiency and quality of service of buses and
transport.

4. Pedestrian scheme should be introduced whenever possible to improve the

environment and safety for pedestrians

5. The use of non-carbon emitting vehicles should be encouraged like bicycle whenever,
practical

6. Motor vehicle reduction scheme should also be introduced.

D. Laws and Statutes Concerning Traffic Ecology:

1. Presidential Decree 1181 – Providing for the prevention, control and abatement
of Air Pollution from motor vehicles and for other purposes.

“Sec. 1 – The purpose is to prevent, control and abate the emission of air pollutant
from motor vehicles in order to protect the health and welfare of the people and to prevent to
minimize damage to property and hazards to land transportation.

2. Letter of Instruction No. 551. Directing the law enforcement agencies to

implement the pollution control program.
 3. Republic Act 8749 – otherwise known as the Clean Air Act. An act providing for
the regulation of motor vehicles emitting toxic gases like the use of the diesel and leaded
gasoline.

II . Traffic Economy

This is the most recent of the pillars of traffic which deals with the benefits and
adverse effects of traffic to our economy. Primarily, traffic operation is designed to
expedite the movement of traffic. However, with the prevailing congestion during rush
hours in any given locality, traffic adversely affects the economic status of the
commuting public.

One aspect affecting our economy is the unending increase of oil prices in the
world market. Somehow, programs must be instituted in order to minimized the ill
effect of rising prices of basic commodities. Delay resulting from traffic congestion
affects not only the time of travel but the productivity of an individual as well.

The following articles are the effects of traffic congestion to the economy of a
particular country:
A. Traffic Is Getting Worse, And That's Excellent News For The Economy
By ALEX DAVIES JUN. 26, 2013 

Traffic congestion across the U.S. climbed 9.2% last month compared to May
2012, signaling continued economic improvement as auto and retail sales are on the
rise.
The data is provided by INRIX, which tracks real-time traffic data.
In an interview, CEO Bryan Mistele said the correlations between worse
congestion and better economic indicators is easy to understand.
When more people are buying cars, shopping, and going to work, there are
more cars on the road.
While a good sign, more traffic still has its downsides. Wasted fuel and
time cost Americans $121 billion in 2011.
The rise in traffic is not equal across the country, INRIX said in a press release.
The biggest jump, 15.7% over last year, was recorded in the metropolitan areas in the
western U.S. The South is still lagging, with just a 2.4% increase in congestion.
INRIX analyzes congestion levels in metropolitan areas during peak traffic
hours. Here's the grid dlock chart for the past year: 9
 9
INRIX

B. How traffic congestion kills the economy

By Brenda Bouw | Insight – Fri, 12 Jul, 2013 -

Did you drive to work this morning? A new study says you not only contributed
to traffic congestion, but also prevented someone else from using the road.

Transit users don’t get too smug. Your decision to take the train or bus during
rush hour has the same impact, inspiring people to take their car instead of packing
themselves in with other transit commuters.
In fact, the study shows both transit and traffic congestion is keeping many
workers at home. They're either telecommuting or giving up their jobs altogether just to
avoid the every day gridlock that can be both financially and emotionally draining

The C.D. Howe Institute study says the combined social and economic costs of
congestion are costing cities billions of dollars in lost revenues. It's calling on
governments to make better infrastructure decisions to try to stop the economic
bleeding.
"When congestion makes people choose to stay at home rather than travel, all
sorts of activities are curtailed, resulting in a quantifiable loss to the economy," says
Benjamin Dachis, author of the report called, Cars, Congestion and Costs: A New
Approach to Evaluating Government Infrastructure Investment. "These losses should
be included in the costs of congestion and, in turn, estimates of the benefits of new
infrastructure investment."
It’s the latest in a series of reports calling on governments to fix transit gridlock
issues in major Canadians cities.
 The C.D. Howe report estimates the costs of congestion in the Greater Toronto
and Hamilton Area to $7.5 to $11 billion a year, which is an additional $1.5 to $5 billion
than current forecasts.
That’s money lost when people choose to stay away from urban centres as a
result of increasing congestion.
Dachis points out the benefits of “urban agglomeration,” including people
accessing jobs that better match their skills, in-person knowledge sharing and more
demand entertainment and cultural opportunities, which benefit other people.
"When congestion makes urban interactions too costly to pursue, these benefits
are foregone, adding significantly to the net costs of congestion," said Dachis.
“The social returns from infrastructure can be substantial.”
The report says government aren’t calculating these benefits in their
infrastructure spending decisions, which he argues is a mistake.
Dachis recommends governments in Canada should make infrastructure
investment by calculating the positive and negative external factors in their cost-benefit
analysis used in the initial decision to build.
They should considering charging the “social costs” for users, which Dachis
says includes fares and tolls to the extent that they generate economic activity at the
destination.
"Charge users of infrastructure the full social costs, to the extent possible," he
wrote in the report. "In the case of transportation infrastructure, governments should
charge users for the full cost of congestion, but invest in more infrastructure than
would be self-sufficient from fare or toll revenue alone, with a view to increasing
quantifiable benefits from urban agglomeration." 10

C. Singapore reveals 3 economic solutions to traffic congestion for Asian peers

BY SAM GIBB (Singapore Business Review Jul 2013)

Traffic congestion reduces a country’s potential for creating prosperity.

Singapore identified this early in the piece and was able to create an effective system
of incentives and constraints so traffic wasn’t a hindrance to economic growth.

Neighbouring countries could learn a lot from the systems that Singapore has
put in place, allowing their economies to reach their potential.

Despite billing itself as the ‘Garden State’, Singapore has one of the highest
road densities of developed nations with 4.8km of road for each square kilometre of
land. Singapore also has one of the highest ratios of vehicles per kilometre of road at
281.

This is significantly higher than Japan (63), France (36), the United Kingdom
(77) and the United States (38). Regardless, Singapore has found a way to avoid the
traffic problems that plague neighbouring countries.

Understanding the economic issues that come with traffic congestion, the
Government put in place a range of incentives and constraints to limit the impact cars
 have on the city-state. There’s a system of quotas, registration fees, and congestion
charges that allow Singapore’s traffic to flow relatively easily 24/7.

The issue for neighbouring countries

People love complaining about traffic. Anyone who has had a “quick” business
trip to Jakarta will have most likely uttered something about the traffic under their
breath. Neighbouring countries have a similar number of vehicles per kilometre of road
as Singapore with Indonesia at 143, Thailand at 255 and the Philippines at 226.

However, the quality of the roads is a far cry from the silky smooth expressways
that you’ll glide across in Singapore. A poor road system combined with a growing
middle class who own an increasing amount of vehicles per household can quickly
lead to crushing congestion problems.

As traffic slows to a crawl, it’s not just the commuters that suffer. Manufacturers
find the number of shipments per day restricted, business meetings are limited to 1-2
per day, and multi-nationals prefer to avoid the traffic jams altogether instead of
devising solutions to the logistical issues.

The cost of congestion isn’t trivial. A 2013 McKinsey research report put the

economic cost of Indonesia’s poor road infrastructure at US$5.2bn in 2010. This was a
result of having 70% of the total road network poorly maintained and 35% heavily
damaged. Adding to the inadequate infrastructure, Indonesia has put incentives in
place encouraging people to own vehicles by subsidising the price of fuel.

Singapore’s Solutions

It’s always a shock when people first hear about how much it’ll cost to get
behind the wheel of a brand new Honda Jazz in Singapore. After hitting a low of
S$3,864 in March 2011 the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) for a new car will now set
you back over S$70,000.
When you add on the additional registration fee, the level of which ratchets up
to 180 per cent of the Open Market Value of the vehicle, you end up paying 2-3 times
the regular price of the car.

By increasing the price of vehicles, the COE system restricts the amount of
people that want or are able to buy a car. Twice a month, the Singapore Land
Transport Authority runs an auction process for the available COEs. The amount of
COEs is determined by a quota system.

Further to the quota system drivers to avoid certain areas at

and additional registration fees that peak times.
new car owners need to pay, there’s
also the Electronic Road Pricing
(ERP) system that incentivises
 Costing about the same as a cup of
coffee, passing underneath an ERP gantry
can cost a normal car up to S$5 during
peak hours. If drivers aren’t in a rush they’ll
think twice before turning down a road that
could lead them to an ERP gantry.

What can neighbouring countries learn from Singapore?

Singapore’s private transport fees and charges might seem excessive, but they work.
Singapore has created a system of incentives and constraints that allow the economy to
expand without causing congestion.

If the neighbouring countries are able to get beyond politics and use a similar
economic system to Singapore they will be able to remove the cuffs that are constraining their
potential growth.

The views expressed in this column are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect this
publication's view, and this article is not edited by Singapore Business Review. The author
was not remunerated for this article.11