A GROWING number of cities rely on metropolitan transportation agencies (MTAs) to oversee and manage transportation infrastructure and services. Examples are Transport for London in the United Kingdom and the Land Transportation Authority in Singapore. It makes sense to have an apex authority with powers to hire and retain the required talent and expertise; develop policies, projects and plans that address the mobility needs of residents and visitors; and manage finances so that services are sustainable.

We are in the midst of a mobility crisis, in part because of missing integrated, multimodal transportation planning and management. As a result, commuters face unfriendly infrastructure, inadequate services and problematic connections between transportation modes and across local government boundaries. While there are many separate ongoing transportation projects, these are not linked to a long-term comprehensive transportation strategy and plan for the metropolis under one responsible agency.

Within Metro Manila, there is duplication in the responsibilities of agencies involved in transportation and mobility. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Department of Transportation, Department of Public Works and Highways, and local governments within the metropolis all operate in the same space, have overlapping functions and occasionally come into conflict. A higher authority with full powers and accountability for transportation outcomes is required. Because a strong metropolitan government with an elected governor/mayor (like in Tokyo, Seoul and Jakarta) may not be politically feasible for Metro Manila in the medium term, the MTA can be a "next-best" option.

For public transport to be an attractive alternative to using a private motor vehicle, transfers between the different travel modes (e.g., rail, bus, ferry) should be as convenient as possible. Along EDSA, the country's most important corridor, commuters should be able to have convenient and cost-free transfers from bus to rail and vice versa. If the two modes (EDSA Busway and Metro Rail Transit 3) compete against each other for passengers, the riding public may end up with problematic transfers between the two modes. With an MTA for Metro Manila, fares could be collected and retained by the MTA and transport operators could be paid by the MTA for providing services under service contracts (similar to the practice of Transport for London). With such an arrangement, there could be a common fare collection system and fare matrix covering both bus and rail on EDSA and passengers could transfer from one to the other without paying an additional base fare.

In a metropolis, it would be best for a single transportation authority to plan and manage road infrastructure so that the economic and social benefits are maximized and shared. For decades, road infrastructure planning and traffic management favored car users, even though only 6 percent of Filipino households are car owners. Roads were widened to accommodate more car lanes while sidewalks and bike lanes were reduced or considered "optional." Even if a dedicated lane for public transport moves five to 10 times more people than one for mixed traffic, the conversion of a mixed traffic lane into one exclusive for public transport was resisted because it would reduce the space for private motor vehicles.

We need a transportation authority that will recognize the needs of different road users in the allocation of road space. All of us are pedestrians, and the number of households with bicycles outnumber households with cars by a ratio of 4:1. To have livable urban communities, networks of smooth, spacious and fully accessible sidewalks and protected bike lanes are a must.

In addition, dedicated lanes for public transport should be established on major routes so that public utility vehicles can have efficient, predictable and financially sustainable operations. Under an MTA, decisions on transportation infrastructure and budgets can be based on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number, in this case maximizing the movement of people and goods rather than private cars.

In Metro Manila, major mass transit projects (e.g., the EDSA Busway Project, Manila Bay-Pasig River-Laguna Lake Ferry Project, Metro Manila Subway and the North-South Commuter Rail) will face financial viability issues once they begin operations. For some, fares will likely be set below levels required to recover costs so that they can be affordable to the riding public, indicating a need for subsidies. It will be desirable for such services to have stable subsidy sources that are locally derived and not reliant on annual appropriations from the national budget. Any large subsidy from the national budget for a local service will be difficult to justify and sustain.

An MTA can be empowered to develop alternative sources of income (such as real estate development around mass transit stations) and non-fare revenue that can finance transportation infrastructure and services over the long term. Non-fare income for the MTA could come from road congestion charges, parking fees and taxes, advertising and traffic fines. If we miss this opportunity to set these mass transit projects on a sustainable path, the fiscal consequences could be severe.

Many policy and institutional reforms are urgently needed in the Philippines, but one of the most pressing is the establishment of an MTA. We need the MTA to be part of our urban governance toolkit today — and for some of our localities like Metro Manila, we needed the MTA yesterday.

Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate. He is a co-convenor of the Move As One Coalition. He can be reached at mobilitymatters.ph@yahoo.com or followed on Twitter at @RobertRsiy.