Sacrifice and reasonable compromise

Overheard on the radio, an elderly listener weigh in on Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña’s proposal to ban private car use in one of two Cebu bridges during peak hours in favor of buses to fetch commuters to and from their destinations, and while his strong sentiments may be understandable, his counter proposal is severely flawed.

The listener insisted that instead of banning private cars from using the Mandaue–Mactan bridge, another bridge should be reserved exclusively for use by buses and other public transport vehicles while private vehicles should pass through another bridge.

But considering the number of private vehicles now in use in Metro Cebu, allowing them to use only one bridge won’t ease the traffic congestion one bit. In fact, if there are more cars than public utility vehicles (PUVs), it may even worsen traffic congestion to the detriment of the riding public who have just about had it up to their necks with road improvement and bridge maintenance projects done annually or every two years.

If there is going to be some sacrifice made by the riding public, then they should be given an attractive compromise, and air-conditioned buses that can fetch them to and from the bridge and to their respective destinations sound like a better deal.
Until there’s a better proposal, Osmeña’s unsolicited advice looks good, at least on paper. Number and color coding? Useless, since the rich folks will buy another vehicle to use every day, and it would only balloon the number of vehicles already plying the roads and streets in Metro Cebu.

Road widening and another bridge? If the riding public is impatient with all the roadwork for improvement and maintenance alone, imagine how they would feel if they have to bear with the inconvenience and disruption caused by these infrastructure works.

And these projects take time, more than the nine years max term for local officials, which means the next administration will have to make sure they continue, and then they claim the credit for it which doesn’t really matter in the end because the public knows better that these projects are funded by their taxes.

* * *

Watched the graphic video that showed a policeman run over several protesters in a rally held in front of the US Embassy in Manila yesterday, and it would be downright difficult for the police to justify such action despite the unruly behavior displayed by the rallyists.

It’s quite the different story during President Rodrigo Duterte’s first State of the Nation Address (Sona) when PNP Chief Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa managed to convince militants to observe the peace as the police secure the Batasang Pambansa building during the event.

While I share the sentiments of a lot of people who question how the protest rally could have gone overboard — both parties are to blame for this debacle, though militants would loudly protest that the fault lies squarely on the police — it’s not unreasonable to expect and even require the militants and rallyists to observe rules when it comes to staging their protests.

It’s difficult for the police to observe maximum tolerance when they are constantly provoked and challenged by the militants to take drastic action, and those assuming and believing that last Wednesday’s incident is yet another example of creeping martial law should realize and appreciate this fact.

Lest the militants conveniently forget, they are not being denied their right to air their grievances — the President himself had met with them on occasion — so long as they do their part in keeping the peace and not provoke or initiate even in the slightest the police officers who are merely doing their job to maintain peace and order.