Home » Policy (Page 35)
Category Archives: Policy
On transport, technology and politics
I frequently share articles I found to be interesting and intriguing. One of my current research interests is on ridesharing, ridesourcing and carpooling. And so when I saw this article online, I felt it had some good arguments pertaining to ridesharing considering these are all claiming to be
Transport isn’t technology, it’s politics
The article is by Konstantinos Dimopoulos and appeared on How We Get to Next last February 17, 2017.
–
Addressing concerns about hazardous work-sites along Sumulong Highway
The concern about hazardous worksites along Sumulong Highway that I wrote about earlier this week has apparently been addressed. Here are a few photos of those areas and prominent in the photos are the concrete barriers set up by the contractor with “DPWH” painted on each barrier. These are the same barriers that they mass-produced and were just sitting in the project office nearby and not utilized until very, very recently.
While these areas still pose significant risks to road users. These are not a continuous barrier with only yellow tape connecting them, and people and vehicles can still easily get through between the gaps. Yet, these will do (for now) and is better than nothing. Perhaps, though, the DPWH and LGUs like Antipolo City can do a better effort to compel contractors to improve safety in work sites like this in order to minimize the likelihood of crashes or accidents.
–
Special lectures on transport – February 23, 2017
I just wanted to share the following announcement from the University of the Philippines Diliman about special lectures on transport. The lectures will be delivered at the Melchor Hall theater at the UP Diliman campus and is open to the public.
–
Habal-habal and skylab in Surigao Del Sur
Following are more examples of motorcycle taxis from our recent study. The photos were taken at a terminal in a town in Surigao Del Sur. Both habal-habal and Skylab were there waiting for passengers to transport to the barrios.
Skylab with roof integrated with the extensions
Habal-habal with makeshift roof
Haba-habal and skylab at terminal in Tandag, Surigao De Sur
More motorcycle taxis at the terminal
Note that many have roofs and these appear to be especially fabricated for either type of vehicle. In the case of the Skylab, the roof is connected to the extensions on either side of the motorcycle similar to how sidecars of motorized tricycles are fabricated to integrate a roof for the driver. While there are similar set-ups for habal-habal, many are more makeshift where the canvass roof’s columns are made of wood or even bamboo and are tied to the motorcycle.
–
The other TNCs – Wunder and Angkas
The Land Transportation Franchising & Regulatory Board (LTFRB) recently issued a couple of press releases pertaining to two Transport Network Companies (TNCs). The issuances were for Wunder and Angkas to cease operations. Copies of the press releases were posted at the Department of Transportation (DOTr) Facebook page and are reproduced here:
Prior to these press releases, both Angkas and Wunder have been aggressively promoting themselves in social media. Wunder is the more established entity and is actually based in Germany. Its operations are basically carpooling and match drivers with passengers traveling about the same time and along their likely routes between homes and workplaces/schools.
Angkas appears to be a locally developed app. The big difference here though is that it is for motorcycle taxi services. While it is clear that tricycles (3-wheelers = usually a motorcycle plus a sidecar) used as public transportation are under the jurisdiction of local government units, their operations are governed by national laws. These include tricycles supposedly being banned from operating along national highways. Motorcycle taxis are regulated along the same lines with LGUs having the responsibilities over their operations (refer to my previous posts on habal-habal and Skylab) and are generally tolerated in rural areas where there is a lack of motorized transport services available. As far as the national government is concerned though, motorcycle taxis are prohibited and this is due primarily to safety concerns.
I don’t know where Angkas gets the “professional motor taxi” tag since it is most likely that riders offering their services are not at all trained or experienced to provide public transport services and on a 2-wheeled vehicles. Such operations are risky especially to passengers. Even in countries like Thailand and Vietnam where motorcycle taxis are generally legal, it is established that such transport modes are unsafe with motorcycles being involved in more crashes compared to other vehicles. Motorcycles also have a higher fatality rate compared to other vehicles.
I think Wunder is different and could actually be closer to the classic (or conventional) carpooling idea compared to ridesharing/carsharing leaders Grab and Uber. Wunder clearly states that its aim is to maximize the available seats for the two likely trips people make with their vehicles. These two trips are usually one in the morning (i.e., to the workplace or to school) and another in the afternoon or evening (i.e., to home). As such, the income derived from Wunder is limited to the 2 trips although a driver can maximize income by accepting multiple passengers. In contrast, many (not all) Uber and Grab drivers in the Philippines operate practically the whole day and are basically taxis. I would recommend that the LTFRB look into the operations and business model of Wunder and perhaps reconsider their decision against it.
–
Updates and resolution on the common railway station in North-EDSA
The big news today is the agreement among the government and the big corporations involved in the issue of the common station at North Avenue-EDSA where three rail transit lines (Line 1, Line 3 and the future Line 7) will be converging. The key features of the agreement are reproduced here:
“KEY FEATURES OF AGREEMENT
- The Common Station has three components: (a) Area A, where the platform and concourse for LRT-1 and MRT-3 are located; (b) Area B, which consists of two Common Concourses connecting Area A and Area C; and (c) Area C, where the platform and concourse for MRT-7 is located.
- Area A will be financed and built by DOTr. Area B will be financed and built by Ayala and its partners (NTDCC) (this is Ayala’s contribution to the Common Station project). And Area C will be financed and built by San Miguel.
- The portion of Area A for LRT-1 will be operated, maintained, and developed by LRMC. The portion of Area A for MRT-3 will be operated, maintained, and developed by DOTr. Area B will be operated, maintained, and developed by Ayala. And Area C will be operated, maintained, and developed by San Miguel.
- The MOU contains the design parameters for the Common Station, which will be the basis of the Detailed Engineering Designs to be developed after signing of the MOU. The Detailed Engineering Designs will be completed within 240 calendar days from signing date.
- The designs shall ensure that a defined level of service is maintained at all times by all components of the Common Station.
- The designs shall ensure that all components of the Common Station are interconnected, and that SM City North EDSA and Trinoma are interconnected to the Common Station.
- The Common Station is targeted to be completed by 2 April 2019, subject to extension as may be justified under the MRT-7 Agreement with respect to Area C.
- SM’s TRO will be lifted soon after the Detailed Engineering Designs are completed.
- DPWH will build an underpass along EDSA at the area where the Common Station will be constructed. This will be financed and built by DPWH.”
That was a direct copy and paste from the DOTr’s Facebook page.
There is another piece of information that’s gained a popular following and that is the design for the common station that was shared to the public:
Proposed design of the common station
I think the design is basically okay in terms of location. The layout would need to be refined in order to address concerns pertaining to optimum and efficient transfer of passengers between lines. I assume from the drawings that all three lines will be at the same level but with a plaza separating Lines 1 &3 from Line 7. There are also issues pertaining to proposed road grade separation in the area but that seems to have been addressed already by item #9 in the preceding list. We can only hope that the current government and private sector partnership can expedite this project.
–
Commuting and stress
Here is another quick post but on a topic that’s related to health and therefore is something that I think many should be interested in and perhaps take important note of.
Commuting: “The Stress that Doesn’t Pay”
There are many links to various medical articles within the article. At the last part, there is also a list of references that the reader may want to look at. I’m also posting this for future reference. This would contribute to the formulation of topics for research especially the inter-disciplinary or collaborative kind.
–
Motorcycles as goods transport
Our study on motorcycle taxis revealed most if not all of these “habal-habal” and “Skylab” being used to transport goods as well. These include agricultural products, food, construction materials, fuel, poultry, and others you would not see your typical courier service motorcycles will carry.
[All photos courtesy of Mr. Sherman Avendano of the National Center for Transportation Studies]
A motorcycle bearing what appears as goods for or from the market treading a muddy and puddle-full road.
Motorcycle transporting what looks more like lumber than firewood.
Skylab carrying what looks like 4 sacks of rice.
I was gifted by my wife with a coffee table book she got from one of her trips to Vietnam. The book contains photos of motorcycles in Vietnam being used to transport various goods including furniture, water bottles, crafts and even items like tractor tires, water tanks and roofing. I guess one can also compile a similar set of photos to come up with a Philippine version of that book.
–
Do people understand what Uber and Grab really are?
Over the holidays, I’ve read a lot of posts about Uber and Grab. Mostly, these were complaints about the surge pricing scheme of Uber. A lot of people cited the exorbitant rates Uber charged for trips even short ones like Ortigas to Center to Greenhills and Trinoma to Katipunan. Though the complaints are legitimate ones, I also try to see the other side of the coin considering Uber and Grab do tell potential passengers how much it will cost them for such commutes during peak periods (i.e., when roads are congested). Potential riders do have a choice whether they should take the rider (and therefore agree with the fare stated by the app) or take another transport mode instead. The issue here should not be entirely Uber’s or Grab’s fault. Our public transport system, particularly in Metro Manila, sucks. And that includes the conventional taxis that could have provided better services if regulations were strictly implemented or if the operators managed their drivers and maintained their vehicles well. Based on my experience, taxis in Cebu, Iloilo and Davao, for example, are better managed and regulated, and provide better service quality than those in Metro Manila.
Then there were the joint LTFRB and DOTr advisory for Uber and Grab units and the LTFRB order on surge pricing and fare rates.
From both cases, it is clear that car-sharing or ridesharing services like Uber and Grab are treated as taxis rather than as premium services that likely entail higher fares but are subject to prospective passengers’ willingness to pay for such services.
Such opens the door for more questions than answers: Is this a misunderstanding or perhaps a deliberate action on the part of Philippine regulators (LTFRB and DOTr)? Why can’t they impose the same standards for vehicles, operators and drivers of conventional taxis? Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the general riding public for LTFRB to clamp down on conventional taxis in order to reduce dilapidated vehicles as well as unqualified drivers? Surely, conventional taxis will become more attractive if they provide better services including significant reductions in the incidence of typical complaints against taxis like negotiating fares and refusing passengers because of their destinations.
Here are some more questions that need clear and objective answers for one to have a fair assessment of these services:
- Do these show how much we (both commuters and regulators) understand how these car-sharing modes are supposed to operate?
- Do officials at DOTr and LTFRB, who are supposed to be regulators of public transport services know how Uber and Grab are supposed to operate?
- How do they really fit in considering all the other modes of transport available to commuters?
–
Uber as a Ponzi scheme?
I came upon this article posted by an acquaintance on his social media account. The article appears to be click-bait given its title but reading through it, the author leads you to other articles of what seems to be a series about Uber’s operations. I won’t give any assessment here as we are also doing research on ridesharing (although for now its mostly about the passengers perspective and characteristics). I will let my readers digest the content and context of the following article:
Excellent, deep series on Uber’s Ponzi-scheme economics
–
Caught (up) in traffic 