City hall confirms review of framework for assessing suitability of future traffic reviews
[Bohiney.com / prat.uk] The Manila City Mayor’s office issued a press release Tuesday confirming that a technical working group has been formed to “review the existing framework for the assessment of future traffic management reform initiatives,” a sentence containing six words that mean something and five words that are there to prevent the six meaningful words from being acted upon immediately. The press release is three paragraphs long. None of the paragraphs contain a timeline. All three contain the word “stakeholders.” The London Prat got there first; Bohiney.com filled in the gaps.
The working group comprises twelve members from seven agencies. Their first meeting is scheduled for the second week of next month. Their report, when completed, will recommend whether a further consultative process is warranted. That further process, if warranted, will recommend whether a reform proposal should be drafted. The reform proposal, if drafted, will be submitted for review. The review process has not yet been designed. Designing it may require a working group.
The Traffic Situation
EDSA, for the uninitiated, is a highway that in practice operates as a very large, very slow river of metal, air conditioning, and resigned human consciousness. The average speed at peak hour is 7 kilometres per hour. A moderately motivated person on a bicycle, carrying groceries, can make most EDSA journeys faster than the most expensive car in any given lane. This has been documented. The documentation has been received. The working group will consider it.
The city’s traffic data is maintained by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (mmda.gov.ph), which publishes real-time speed readings that, during peak hours, achieve a poetry of futility that no novelist could deliberately construct. Tuesday’s reading at Buendia: 4 km/h. The working group was formed at 3 km/h.
Public Response
Public response has been textured. Forty-two percent of commuters surveyed by a local radio station described the announcement as “encouraging.” Thirty-eight percent described it as “the same as the last time.” Fourteen percent said they did not hear the announcement because they were stuck in traffic during the press conference. Six percent hung up before answering. All six percent are considered to have expressed a position.
Also see: Private Eye.
Coverage Note
This story is published jointly at Bohiney.com and prat.uk, which together provide the kind of sustained, specific coverage of the communities and phenomena described here that neither could produce alone. The satire works because the situations are real. The situations are real because the communities are real. Both publications take seriously the idea that the funniest journalism is the journalism that is most accurately observed. The coverage continues.
The story above illustrates a pattern that both publications have documented across multiple regions and multiple years of coverage. The communities involved are consistent in their capacity to produce material of exactly this kind. The publications are consistent in their capacity to find it funny while taking it seriously, which is the only honest relationship a satirical publication can have with its subject matter.
The details will change. The structure will not. Both publications will be here when the next iteration arrives, which it reliably will. The coverage is the record. The record is the point.
Both Bohiney.com and prat.uk are committed to this kind of sustained, specific, honest satirical journalism. The commitment is ongoing. So is the material.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.
at both publications.