Yellow box reboot
To restore order on our streets, we must prioritize enforcing rules on counterflow, yellow box violations, no-parking/no-waiting/obstruction, and jaywalking. Other rules can receive secondary attention for now. I believe that priority should be on violations that significantly disrupt traffic flow.
Equally important, these infractions are relatively easy to detect and monitor, especially through the no-contact apprehension program (NCAP). Motorists and pedestrians usually evade penalties in areas lacking traffic enforcers, making NCAP an essential solution, once the Supreme Court allows its resumption.
I believe counterflow ranks among the most hazardous violations motorists commit. It can lead to collisions, injuries, and even fatalities. Counterflow forces oncoming traffic to halt or swerve unexpectedly, increasing accident risks. Pedestrians are especially vulnerable to vehicles moving against traffic.
Yellow box violations, meantime, create gridlocks and slow down or halt traffic flow. They cause long, disruptive chain reactions that often require manual intervention from traffic enforcers to untangle. Yellow box infractions are particularly difficult since they can involve multiple lane obstructions.
Ironically, traffic enforcement tends to overlook yellow box obstructions and counterflow violations — particularly from two-wheeled vehicles — during rush hours and heavy traffic conditions. But isn’t it precisely during peak traffic that motorists should demonstrate greater compliance?
News reports frequently highlight that Metro Manila loses billions of pesos daily in productivity and economic output due to prolonged traffic gridlocks and delayed movements of people and goods. However, the question remains: How much has Metro Manila invested to address this issue?
Has it been allocating sufficient resources to solve traffic problems effectively? Excluding infrastructure such as roads and bridges, how much funding goes specifically into traffic management and administration to mitigate economic losses from congestion? Or does money go mostly to salaries of traffic enforcers?
If financial constraints hinder better traffic management through technological means, then we should encourage private sector involvement. NCAP, notably, received support from a private project proponent operating on a revenue-sharing model based on collected fines.
Traffic penalties and fines collected by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, better known as the MMDA, and local governments could be primarily allocated to technological improvements for traffic management. Similarly, portions of vehicle registration fees were previously designated for road safety initiatives.
A concerted effort to rigorously enforce penalties, especially for yellow box and counterflow violations, could generate substantial revenue dedicated to traffic management. Enforcement technology and apprehension costs would likely be minimal compared to the fines collected, particularly considering Metro Manila’s chronic congestion.
Yellow box and counterflow violations are straightforward to detect. If a vehicle remains within the yellow box when the traffic signal turns red, this clearly constitutes a violation. Likewise, if a motorist is caught on camera in the lane designated for oncoming traffic, particularly in no-overtaking zones, it clearly represents another violation.
Once NCAP resumes operations, local governments, even without a national NCAP law, can review and adjust fines for yellow box and counterflow infractions. Revenue collected from these penalties can directly fund improvements in camera-based and technology-driven enforcement systems.
Transport for London (TfL), which is responsible for Greater London’s transport system, has been enforcing yellow box junction regulations for many years. In the 2017-2018 financial year, it issued approximately £16 million in fines for such violations. That’s equivalent to roughly P1.2 billion in one year.
And then in 2018-2019, local authorities in London and Cardiff reported a collection of £58.2 million (about P4.3 billion) from moving traffic offenses, including yellow box violations — a 25% increase from £46.7 million in 2016-2017.
In 2023, drivers in London paid £24.7 million (roughly P1.8 billion) in fines for entering yellow box junctions, with over 154,000 penalty charge notices (or traffic citation tickets) issued.
Reports also indicate that the yellow box at the intersection of London’s Bagleys Lane and New King’s Road generated £2.7 million (about P200 million) in fines between 2011 and 2012, averaging 111 violations per day. Clearly, the initial investment and operational costs for maintaining cameras in that junction represent a small fraction of the generated revenue.
In my opinion, implementing similarly effective technology-based enforcement through NCAP in Metro Manila and other cities would significantly enhance traffic discipline, reduce gridlock, and generate considerable funds for sustained traffic management improvements.
But stiff fines also raise the issue of how much is too much, and whether yellow box fines or traffic violation penalties in general — at roughly P3,000 per violation when NCAP was implemented — are fair and ethical. Should socioeconomic status be considered? Higher penalties for wealthier violators?
In theory, fines can be proportional. In practice, this can be difficult. Moreover, it requires proper data on each motorist with respect to income and taxes paid. But countries like Finland, Switzerland, and Sweden do make use of income-based or proportional fines, to ensure fairness.
Cities like London and Sydney also allocate fines back into road safety improvements, enhancing public acceptance and trust. I believe we should do the same here, with traffic fines collected by cities being earmarked for traffic enforcement technology, road safety, and driver education programs.
More important, as noted in previous column, there is a need for a dedicated traffic adjudication board or courts to allow fair dispute resolution. Dedicated traffic courts should efficiently and transparently handle appeals, if only to improve public trust in enforcement systems.
High fines will also have to complemented by driver education programs, to address bad motoring behavior. Automated, impartial enforcement through NCAP removes biases and corruption, and ensures accountability. But it does little in terms of further educating motorists on right and wrong.
And on the topic of motorist behavior, periodic assessment of penalties ensures fines remain fair, effective, and aligned with economic realities. Indexation to inflation is just one aspect. Changes in driver behavior patterns is the other. Fines need to be adjusted according to resulting changes in driver behavior.
Bottomline, authorities need to balance deterrence, fairness, transparency, and effectiveness. With the spate of traffic altercations of late, with road rage leading to shooting incidents and death, I believe technology-based enforcement can help. That is, if the Supreme Court will allow the NCAP to proceed. Meantime, we should start looking for workarounds and alternatives.
Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council
