Home » Jeepney (Page 7)
Category Archives: Jeepney
Public transport fare hikes
Bus and jeepney groups often demand for an increase in the fares every time there is an increase in the prices of fuel. The latest one is mentioned in this article via Rappler, where a jeepney group is to hold a protest caravan as they seek a discount on diesel for all public utility vehicles. The reaction from readers is an overwhelming “Annoyed.” And rightly so because while these protests appear to be noble and are often linked by jeepney groups to petitions for fare hike increases (i.e., asking for fare increases if they cannot be given fuel or petroleum product discounts), closer scrutiny of operating costs will reveal flaws in their arguments for fare hikes and discounts. These same flaws also reveal why government agencies charged with public transport franchising and regulation (i.e., DOTC and LTFRB) should have the data and tools for a fair assessment of fares (pun intended).
Data from field surveys conducted quite recently (NCTS, 2012) show us that jeepneys typically average around 3 to 4 km/L on diesel fuel. This is a very low value that is comparable to the income from passengers for one trip over a distance of say 4 km. A fully-loaded jeepney with an average of 20 passengers (9 on each bench plus 2 beside the driver) operating a 4-km route will 160 pesos. However, there are limited reliable information or data on other costs such as maintenance costs and other items including “boundary” and “dispatching.” The boundary is basically a rental fee for the use of the vehicle while jeepney groups charge a fee for dispatching vehicles from the terminal or stop. In a day’s operation, such costs could easily accumulate into a significant total that would eat up a day’s income, usually leaving the driver with just enough to bring home to his family.
This brings us back to the argument against transport being treated as livelihood rather than a service. Many operators or owners of public utility vehicles, whether they have one or more units, tend to scrimp on the maintenance of their vehicles. Poor maintenance manifests in the form of smoke-belching and frequent breakdowns. While smoke-belching contributes to the deterioration of the environment and health costs, breakdowns often lead to road crashes (e.g., tires flying off, problems with brakes, etc.) like the recent bus crash in the Mountain Province where faulty breaks were blamed for the crash.
Jeepney groups often raise issues on the plight of small operators who are usually the drivers of the jeepneys themselves. Many of these people should not even be operating or driving jeepneys in the first place because safe and efficient service is not their priority. Service is second only to the desire to generate income, to earn a living, which makes them drive the way they currently do (i.e., recklessly) and improperly and haphazardly maintain their vehicles. There is seldom serious talk and little done to protect the interests of people who take public transport. These are the same people who are often shortchanged with the poor quality of public transport in our cities and have long suffered for this. Let us hope that the LTFRB will be guided as they decide on this matter of fares and furthermore for the agency to study the state of road public transport franchising in order to weed out people and groups who do not deserve to be operators. I believe there is more than enough data or evidence against such operators if the LTFRB truly wants to reform the system.
–
On commuting and jeepneys
There is an online petition calling for public officials to take public transportation instead of traveling in their own cars (with or without chauffeurs). The assumption seems to be that our so-called leaders, particularly those tasked to come up with solution to our transport and traffic problems, do not themselves used public transportation. As such, they are basically oblivious to the daily frustrations of many commuters who have to suffer the uncomfortable, inefficient and, in many cases, unsafe transport that we have in most if not all our cities and towns.
But who’s afraid of riding public transport and jeepneys in particular? I would like to think that many if not most or all Filipinos had to ride a jeepney at one point in their lives. After all, the jeepney is second only to the motor tricycle in terms of being the most widespread mode of transport in the country. [Yes, that’s right. The jeepney is not really the king of the road in the Philippines. That title is perhaps more suitable to the tricycle, and I’ve explained this in past posts about the tricycle.] Why do people continue to ride the jeepney despite it being perceived as unsafe and not an environment-friendly mode of transport? Why are these aspects not being corrected by the responsible agencies? These are questions that are difficult to answer only because of the social implications that the government does not want to deal with head-on.
–
The way jeepneys are designed all over the country, drivers have to deal with the cramped space of the front seat that have implications personal health as well as road safety. The cramped space and overall design of the vehicle affects the driver’s posture as he is forced to stoop in order to have a good view through the windshield. In some cases, those with longer legs would have to orient their seated bodies in a position that is not ergonomic. Such practices or positions may contribute to injury over the long term as well as affect the way the driver operates the vehicle.
I’m not into taking photos inside jeepneys (quite risky as it invites attention to you and to your phone) so there’s few (and not so good) photos of my commutes. This one is a good one inside a jeepney bound for Quiapo, Manila from Philcoa, Quezon City.
I think that for visitors from other countries, a trip to the Philippines would not be complete without experiencing a jeepney ride. When we do have visitors at the university and if they have the time, we take them around the campus on a jeepney. Of course, this is an easy and relatively safe ride for them considering the “Ikot” and “Toki” jeepneys have routes within the campus and do not pass through busy streets or wide highways that tend to invite speeding.
It’s a different thing and quite an experience when you ride the “patok” jeepneys usually plying the longer distance routes like Cubao-Montalban or Cubao-Antipolo. The drivers of these jeepneys are generally risk takers and many are reckless to the point that a slight mistake in driving would likely lead to a serious if not fatal crash. It’s a wonder that they don’t make mistakes often enough for authorities to clamp down on them. Despite this, many people take such jeepneys because they have no choice or if they did, they opt for the aggressive drivers because of the perception that these will get you to your destination faster (Jokingly, it is said that hopefully your destination is not the afterlife.).
–
Cubao Aurora
Cubao is one of the busiest areas in Metro Manila where a lot of public transport routes converge. It is a major transfer point for road and rail transport particularly near the junction of three major roads – EDSA, Aurora Boulevard, and E. Rodriguez Avenue, which is only a few meters from EDSA. I took a few photos when I was in the area one time and here they are:
EDSA and Aurora Boulevard intersect at ground level. There is, however, an underpass along EDSA bypassing the at-grade intersection. Shown in the photo are the two rail transit lines passing through the area – EDSA MRT 3 at the 2nd level and LRT Line 2 at the 3rd level.
After crossing EDSA, eastbound jeepneys approach the LRT 2 Cubao Station, which is beside the Gateway Mall of the Araneta Center. Traffic along this section of Aurora Blvd. is typically slow as jeepneys bound for different destinations in the east congregate here. Meanwhile, on the other side of EDSA, the same situation is experienced as jeepneys line up along informal terminals on the street. This usually leads to congestion and low throughput along Aurora at the intersection.
Jeepneys tend to linger under the LRT 2 station and occupy practically all the lanes with most jeepneys deliberately moving at snail’s pace as they try to get passengers. This is the case along both directions of Aurora Boulevard, which makes one wonder why many people don’t take the LRT instead. Of course, for eastbound passengers, the answer is simply that the LRT ends at Santolan Station in Pasig (along Marcos Highway and just after the Marikina River). Most passengers would rather take a single, direct jeepney ride from Cubao to their destinations rather than make the difficult transfer at Katipunan (for Marikina-bound passengers) or Santolan (for Rizal and Pasig-bound commuters).
I wanted to take some photos during the night time one time we were passing under LRT 2 along Aurora Boulevard near the Gateway Mall. The area wasn’t well lighted though so all the photos didn’t come out right. This blight is similar to the situation along the LRT Line 1 corridor stretching from Caloocan to Pasay, and affecting areas along Taft Avenue and Rizal Avenue. The areas including the rail superstructure are so dirty mainly because of the emissions from road vehicles, particularly jeepneys, buses and trucks with surplus and generally poorly maintained engines. Hopefully, the local governments and MMDA can address problems of bright with a campaign to install pocket and hanging gardens like the ones already along EDSA. The plants, if cared for properly, will surely help improve both air quality and aesthetics in these areas darkened by design and soot.
–
Clear message to transport service providers
The cancellation of the franchise of the Don Mariano Bus Transit last January 14, 2014 is a long overdue decision. I say this because there have been so many incidents of road crashes in the past involving public transportation that led to the deaths and serious injuries of a lot of people whether they are passengers, the drivers themselves, pedestrians or even innocent people who happen to be at the wrong place and the wrong time (i.e., when and where the crash occurred). The cancellation of the franchise sends a strong message to erring operators and drivers of public utility vehicles including those of buses, jeepneys, UV express and taxis that the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is dead serious about enforcing franchise rules and regulations particularly in the light of road and public safety concerns. The decision is also a strong statement by the agency. One that says they have the balls to make game-changing decisions that is assumed to be intended for operators and drivers to take heed.
I had the opportunity to attend a few congressional hearings at the Batasan a few years ago that were convened by the Committee on Metro Manila Development. The main topics of those hearings were on public transportation. I recall that one hearing focused on the proposal to increase the penalties for traffic violations while others focused on policies being introduced by the MMDA (e.g., dispatching scheme, painting the bodies of buses with their plate numbers, RFID, etc.). In these hearings, the MMDA had been asked by the congressmen to present statistics on road traffic violations by public transport vehicles and they did present the numbers indicating also which bus companies were involved in the most crashes and which incurred the most violations. One question asked by a congressman was why, despite all the incidents and violations that bus companies were involved in, have no franchises been cancelled or revoked. The MMDA quickly and correctly replied that it is the LTFRB that has authority over the franchises. I do not recall how the LTFRB managed to answer the follow-up question trained on them but I don’t think anything close to a solution came out of those hearings. The transcript of these meetings and the data reported by the MMDA should be with the committee and, I presume, should be for public consumption given that these hearings were made in the interest of the general public.
Public transport as a form of “livelihood” should not be made an excuse for the poor quality of public transport services. A driver cannot drive like crazy, crash into other road users and claim that they were only trying to earn a living. Operators cannot scrimp on maintenance and spare parts costs (resulting in poorly maintained vehicles that are prone to mechanical failure and obviously violate emission regulations) just because they want to earn a larger profit. It is a card that is always put on play by public transport operators, drivers, conductors and their lawyers when interviewed, especially by TV reporters. One take on the news reports on TV is that those interviewed were nagpapaawa lang (acting for people to pity them or sympathize with them. Yet afterwards, once the suspension is lifted, these same drivers go back and drive as if nothing happened and still oblivious to the dangers they pose on others travelers. I have written about this in the past and share the opinion that we will get nowhere near the efficient and safe transport services we aspire to have unless we do away with the current practices of reckless driving and smoke-belching PUVs. And the improvement begins when the LTFRB starts canceling franchises of erring operators of public utility vehicles and the Land Transportation Office (LTO) starts revoking the licenses of irresponsible drivers.
Now, if we can only have the LTFRB cancel the franchises of erring jeepney, taxi and UV express operators, then that will send even clearer messages to all that government is really serious about road safety and public transport regulations. Included also are initiatives on truck operators and drivers who are also guilty of irresponsible driving. Perhaps the LTO should follow suit and be more aggressive in their part to rid our roads of erring private vehicle drivers and motorcycle riders? I think such actions are definitely what’s needed under the banner of “Matuwid na Daan” (literally “straight path” but also translates to “right or correct path”). In order to achieve “Matuwid na Daan,” we should also have “matuwid na pagmamaneho” (“responsible driving”).
–
Manila’s jeepney experiment
A few months ago, and almost right after the local elections, the City of Manila embarked on a campaign to reduce the number of colorum or illegal buses plying along the streets of the city. The result was confusion and mayhem as commuters and authorities were unprepared to deal with the sudden decrease in the number of buses (some companies even restrained all of their buses from entering Manila to protest the city’ move) and the jeepneys and UV express couldn’t handle the demand. Much of that seems to have been resolved and buses are now back in Manila; although whether all these buses are legal ones is still unclear. The city, it seems to some quarters, was only after buses with no formal terminals in the city and appeared to have made the drive to show bus companies who’s in-charge there.
Now comes a drive against jeepney drivers, particularly those undisciplined ones that are often found violating traffic rules and regulations, and endangering their passengers with their brand of driving. The result was a one-day strike (tigil pasada) of jeepneys belonging to the Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Associations in the Philippines (FEJODAP), one of several organized jeepney groups in the country. Others like operators and drivers from Pasang Masda, PISTON and ACTO, opted not to join the transport strike. The result was a transport protest that had little impact on most people’s commutes though the group did manage to attract media attention and gave interviews to whoever cared to listen.
Not to judge Manila as I believe it has made huge strides by confronting the many urgent issues in transport in the city. Not many cities take these problems head on as Manila has done this year. However, the jury is still out there if their efforts have been effective and if these will be sustainable and not the ningas cogon kind that we have seen so much of in the past. For definitely, there are a lot of other transport issues that Manila needs to contend with including how to make the city more walkable and bicycle-friendly (not an easy task!) and how to address the excessive number of pedicabs (non-motorized 3-wheelers) and kuligligs (motorized 3-wheelers using generator sets or pumpboat motors for power) in the city. Hopefully, again, the city will be up to the task of addressing these problems along with the persistent congestion along its roads.
–
Scenes at Aurora-Katipunan
My commute between my workplace and home includes a stop at the junction of Aurora Boulevard and Katipunan Avenue (C-5) to transfer from one jeepney to another. This is very similar to my commute when I was a university student a couple of decades ago. At the time, there was no flyover in the area and the Katipunan jeepney terminal was located at what was called K-Mart, a wet market set-up on privately owned land that was tolerated for quite some time before the market and terminal were eventually evicted from the area. The transfers when coming to the university were smoother. It involved shorter walks then and now. Meanwhile, the Katipunan jeepneys had orderly queues for passengers. There were two types of jeepneys – those that terminate at Balara and those that are allowed to travel inside the UP Diliman campus.
The transfers going home were and are still more challenging as it required longer walks and crossing Aurora Boulevard to get to the informal terminal or the loading/unloading areas for jeepneys. Back in the day, there was no terminal and the loading/unloading zone was a stretch in front of the old Sta. Clara church in what is now the LRT 2 Katipunan Station. Now, there is an informal terminal also beneath the Aurora-Katipunan flyover.
Walking and falling in line – commuters walking past the queue for Katipunan jeepneys at the terminal beneath the Katipunan-Aurora flyover.
A view of the Katipunan jeepney terminal from the pedestrian overpass crossing Aurora Boulevard. Aside from the terminal, there are also parking spaces for bicycles and motorcycles as well as a police assistance center. There are also many vendors in the area selling items like fruit, peanuts, cigarettes and even sandals and used clothes.
Pedestrians along the walkway hanging from under the Aurora-Katipunan flyover. The walkway is quite stable and there are no noticeable movements in the structure even with significant pedestrian traffic.
Pedestrians descending the stairs towards the informal terminal for Rizal and Marikina-bound jeepneys.
Informal terminal for Rizal and Marikina-bound jeepneys.
This could have been a different commute if the LRT 2 terminated in Masinag instead of at Santolan. I could have been taking the trains instead of the jeepneys for one leg of my commute. I still look forward to the day I would be taking the trains and am constantly frustrated by the inaction of those responsible for public transport in Metro Manila and this particular corridor.
–
Rizal Avenue – Part 2: Tayuman to Pampanga Street
In the last post on Rizal Avenue, the featured photos show conditions under the LRT Line 1, which included visual evidence of certain issues like on-street parking, poor lighting and even sanitation (i.e., garbage) along the corridor. This post features more of the same and perhaps worse in some cases that are used as proof of the blight caused in part by the LRT superstructure. I say in part because LRT Line 1 is not wholly to blame for problems under and around it. Local governments and the private sector share responsibility for the decline of the areas within the direct influence of the rail line. Napabayaan. But of course, this does not absolve proponents of the LRT Line 1 for poor station design.
Approach to Tayuman Station along the northbound side of Rizal Avenue.
Tayuman Station – shown in the upper part of the photo is one end of the northbound platform.
Underneath the station, jeepneys clog the lanes as they load/unload passengers. LRT Line 1 stations are poorly designed for intermodal transfers (e.g., LRT to jeepney, LRT to bus, etc.).
Tayuman Road is a busy street in Manila that’s served by jeepneys connecting to major streets like Lacson Avenue to the east and Abad Santos and Juan Luna to the west. The photo shows a view to the east of the LRT Tayuman Station.
Approach to the junction with Herrera Street
Approach to Blumentritt Station – the station is named after Ferdinand Blumentritt, an Austrian who was a close friend of the national hero Jose Rizal. The street leads to a large public market close to the station (near the intersection) that is also named after the fellow and one of the more crowded markets in the metropolis. There are many jeepney lines with Blumentritt as part of their routes.
Birds and other creatures being sold as pets around Blumentritt – many have been painted to attract children and other buyers curious at the colored birds.
Vendors line the Rizal Avenue, Blumentritt and the other side streets in the area, which is usually crowded no matter what day of the week it is.
Angry birds? A closer look reveals the birds as chicken chicks colored by the vendors to attract interest. Sadly, many of these do not survive to become full grown chickens and children (and adults) will be disappointed to discover later that the color comes off pretty quick when the chicks come in contact with water.
There is a PNR Blumentritt Station and unless there’s been some radical clean-up of the area, this is pretty much what you’d see around the station – garbage, dirt, informal settlers and other characters. The building behind the station is a public school.
The PNR Blumentritt Station has two platforms on either side of the double track. Security is quite lax and people, including children, cross the tracks freely. Fortunately, train service frequencies are quite low (about 1 per hour) so the risk of getting hit by a train is also low. The photo shows the view to the east of Rizal Avenue.
On the left side of Rizal Avenue is a scene where people are oblivious to the railways with some even doing their cooking between the tracks.
Blumentritt Avenue is a very crowded street with a public school (building at right) just across the public market (at left). There are many vendors lined along the street and people as just about everywhere and without regard to vehicular traffic.
Traffic congestion along Rizal Avenue is attributed mainly to the market and median barriers were constructed to reduce pedestrian crossings anywhere along the road. Commercial establishments line either side of Rizal Avenue, basically contributing to congestion in the area.
Commercial establishments plus customers plus paratransit equal to traffic congestion
16A busy side street in the Blumentritt area – there are no sidewalks so pedestrians and motor vehicles mix it up along the road.
Bulacan Street serves as an informal terminal for jeepneys. The road appears to be newly paved but there are no sidewalks and tents are found along the road often bearing the names of politicians sponsoring the tents for various purposes such as wakes and parties.
Intersection with Pampanga Street, just before Rizal Avenue and the LRT line turns towards Aurora Boulevard and proceed to Caloocan City and Monumento.
More on Rizal Avenue in future post…
–
Rationalizing public transport in the Philippines
I got a copy of the recent study “Development of a Mega Manila Public Transportation Planning Support System” conducted by UP Diliman’s National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) for the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC). The main outcome of the study was a planning support system that includes an updated database of bus, jeepney and UV Express routes for Metro Manila and its surrounding areas (collectively called Mega Manila), and a calibrated travel demand model for the region that is supposed to be used by the DOTC and the LTFRB in transport planning including the rationalization of public transport in the region. Among the notable recommendations for addressing public transport issues is the following on the classification of routes according to passenger demand, which I quote from the study:
“…routes and modes may be classified and prioritized as follows:
- Routes with Very High Passenger Demand [>160,000 passengers per day] – shall be served by high capacity modes such as rail-based transit or Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) with passing lanes.
- Routes with High Passenger Demand [100,000 to 160,000 passengers per day] – shall be served by high capacity vehicles such as Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) without passing lanes;
- Routes with Medium Passenger Demand [10,000 to 100,000 passengers per day] – shall be served by PUVs with 60 or less passengers/seats but not less than 22 passengers (excluding driver) such as buses, CLRVs with more than 22 passengers/seats (including driver), or with 90 passengers/seats in the case of double decker or articulated buses;
- Routes with Low Passenger Demand [not exceeding 10,000 passengers per day] – shall be served by PUVs with less than 22 passengers/seats (including driver) such as jeepneys and other paratransit modes.
Under this principle, high capacity modes would have priority in terms of CPC allocation and transit right of way in a particular route over lower capacity modes with the exception of taxis. The latter, after all, operate as private cars rather than PUVs with fixed routes.
Applications to operate bus and/or minibus service in jeepney routes can be considered, but not the other way around. Similarly, bus service applications can be considered in minibus routes but not otherwise.
Based on the analysis of routes, the establishment of public transportation routes and the corresponding modes of services may be based on the following criteria:
• Passenger demand patterns and characteristics
• Road network configuration
• Corresponding road functions (road hierarchy)
• Traffic capacities and
• Reasonable profits for operation of at most 13% ROI.”
[Source: DOTC (2012) Development of a Mega Manila Public Transportation Planning Support System, Final Report.]
An interesting figure in the report is an illustration of how services can be simplified using buses and rail transport as an example. The following figure shows two maps: one showing the plotted EDSA bus routes (left) and another showing a more consolidated (and rational) route network for buses complementing existing and proposed rail mass transit systems.
Simplifying bus transport services (source: DOTC, 2012)
What are not included in the figure above are the prospects for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems for Metro Manila. Since the Final Report was submitted in mid 2012, there have been many discussions for BRT in the metropolis and current efforts are now focused on the assessment of a BRT line along Ortigas Avenue. The World Bank is supporting the evaluation of a route between Tikling Junction near the boundary of Antipolo and Taytay (Rizal Province) and Aurora Boulevard. There are also informal talks of a BRT line along Commonwealth Avenue but that would have implications on the proposed MRT-7 along the same corridor. Nevertheless, such mass transit systems have long been required for Metro Manila and their construction have been overdue. A more efficient public transport system will definitely have tremendous impacts on how we commute between our homes, workplaces, schools and other destinations. Long distances can easily be addressed by better transport options and could actually help solve issues pertaining to informal settlements, relocations and housing. That topic, of course, deserves an article devoted to this relationship between transport and housing. Abangan!
–
Transport gaps
I first learned about the concept back in the 1990’s when I was a graduate student at UP majoring in transportation engineering. The concept on transport gaps was first mentioned in a lecture by a visiting Japanese professor as he was discussing about transport modes, particularly on which was suitable or preferable over certain travel distances and which could carry more passengers. Another time later and while in Japan, I heard about the concept during a presentation of a friend of his technical paper on public transport.
The figure below is one of many possible illustrations of the concept of transport gaps. In the figure, a distinction is made for mass transport and individual transport. As the original figure is likely taken from a textbook or a paper (probably from Japan), shown with a white background are the more conventional modes of transport including subways, urban and suburban railways, walking and a mention of the shinkansen (more popularly known as the bullet train). With a gray background in the original figure is a category on new urban transit systems that include monorails, AGTs and LRTs. If we attempt to qualify local transport modes such as jeepneys, UV Express, tricycles and pedicabs into the graph, the outcome can be like what is illustrated with different color backgrounds in the figure below.
The concept of transport gaps allow us to visualize which modes are suitable for certain conditions where other established modes of transport may not be available or viable. In the original figure, the gap in Japan is filled by new urban transit systems. In our case, gaps are filled by so-called indigenous transport modes such as jeepneys, multicabs, tricycles, pedicabs and even habal-habal (motorcycle taxis).
There are gaps in the Philippine case probably and partly because of the slow development of public transport systems such as the mass transport modes shown in the preceding figure. There was a significant gap right after World War 2 when the tranvia and other railways were destroyed during the war. That gap was filled by the jeepney. There was also a gap in the early 1990’s that was eventually filled by FX taxis. Such gaps can obviously be filled by more efficient modes of transport but intervention by regulating agencies would be required and rationalizing transport services can only be addressed with the provision of mass transport options complemented by facilities for walking and cycling that will complement these modes.
–
CLRV: another look at the LPG Jeepney
The research on Customized Local Road Vehicles (CLRV) is currently underway with the project team going around the country to document different jeepney designs. The main objective of the study is to be able to formulate and recommend standards for jeepneys based on the requirements of stakeholders (e.g., passengers) and from the perspective of safety, ergonomics and efficiency. The last term is quite tricky as efficiency here generally refers to the performance of the vehicle, particularly related to fuel consumption. Efficiency may also touch on the capacity of the jeepneys, which would have implications on revenue (i.e., more passengers mean more fares).
Following are photos taken prior to the recent workshop held in Calamba, Laguna where the outcomes of previous workshops in Iloilo and Davao were presented for validation by a similar group of stakeholders. These included cooperatives, assemblers, automobile companies, NGOs, government agencies and other interested parties to the CLRV research. The study is being conducted under the auspices of the Philippine Council for Industry, Engineering and Energy Research and Development (PCIEERD) of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and funded by the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).
One of the jeepneys on display was a 24-seater LPG-powered jeepney by David Motors
Hyundai Theta engine converted for LPG
Another look at the engine, which is practically the same engine used by the popular Starex vans. There were two other LPG jeepneys that day with both having Toyota engines converted for LPG. The engines are from the ones used by Hi-Ace models.
Bench seats inside the LPG jeepney – there is still a door at the rear but it is used as an emergency exit rather than the main entry/exit for the vehicle. The sliding windows are sealed because of the air-conditioning installed for this jeepney.
The main door for the jeepney is at the right side just across from the driver. This design mimics those for buses and should enable more efficient collection of fares. That is, passengers may be asked to pay their fares immediately upon boarding the jeepney.
6A close look at the dashboard, which is a mix of parts coming from different vehicles. The steering wheel, for example, bears the emblem of Hyundai. This jeepney had power features such as power windows that can be controlled by switches on the panel board to the left of the steering wheel.
Driver’s rear view of passengers and whatever will be trailing the jeepney in traffic.
The jeepney door is operated through a lever, parts of which are taken from a gear shift. The handle is well within reach of the driver of the vehicle.
Exec. Dir. Rowena Guevara of DOST-PCIEERD interviews the driver and mechanic of this LPG from David Motors. According to them, the performance of the jeepney is the same as conventional ones and that this less noisy as well as having less emissions. Assemblers of LPG jeepneys say that consumption is about 7.3 km/kg of LPG, which compares well with the estimated 7.5 km/L of diesel consumed by well-maintained conventional jeepneys. LPG is cheaper so it can be inferred that overall, drivers and operators would have increased revenues if they used LPG jeepneys.
The LPG jeepney is one (there are also electric jeepneys) of the variants being touted as the future of the vehicle. The “eco” tag is among the pitches for these jeepneys and should be a consideration for the study.
–
Caught (up) in traffic 