Home » Policy (Page 47)
Category Archives: Policy
Manila’s truck ban experiment
The City of Manila has announced that it will implement a truck ban from February 10, Monday. Trucks of at least 8-wheels and 4,500kg gross weight will not be allowed to travel in Manila’s roads from 5AM to 9PM. Manila’s City Ordinance No. 8336 calls for the daytime truck ban in the city in order to reduce traffic congestion that is perceived to be brought about by trucks. 8-wheelers are likely 3-axle trucks with a 4-wheel, 2-axle prime mover pulling a 1-axle, 4-wheel (double-tired) trailer. I am not aware of the technical basis for the ordinance. Perhaps the city has engaged consultants to help them determine the pros and cons of this daytime truck ban. I hope it is not all qualitative analysis that was applied here as logistics is quite a complicated topic. And such schemes in favor of passenger transport (and against goods movement) actually creates a big problem for commerce due to the challenges of scheduling that they have to deal with. To cope with this ordinance, companies would have to utilize smaller vehicles to transport goods during the daytime. This actually might lead to more vehicles on the streets as companies try to compensate for the capacity of the large trucks that will be banned from traveling during the restricted period by fielding smaller trucks.
Trucks parked along Bonifacio Drive near the DPWH Central Office in Manila’s Port Area.
The latest word is that Manila has postponed implementation of the ordinance to February 24. This was apparently due to the reaction they got from various sectors, especially truckers and logistics companies who would be most affected by the restrictions. It was only natural for them to show their opposition to the scheme. Reactions from the general public, however, indicated that private car users and those taking public transport welcomed the truck ban as they generally stated that they thought trucks were to blame for traffic congestion in Manila. The truck ban will definitely have impacts beyond Manila’s boundaries as freight/goods transport schedules will be affected for the rest of Metro Manila and beyond. The Port of Manila, after all, is critical to logistics for the National Capital Region, and its influence extends to adjacent provinces where industries are located. Such issues on congestion and travel demand management measures focused on trucks bring back talks about easing freight flow to and from the Port of Manila to major ports in Subic and Batangas. There have been studies conducted to assess the decongestion of the Port of Manila as Batangas and Subic are already very accessible with high standard highways connecting to these ports including the SLEX and STAR tollways to Batangas and the NLEX and SCTEX to Subic. Perhaps it would be good to revisit the recommendations of these studies while also balancing the treatment of logistics with efforts necessary to improve public transport. After all, trucks are not all to blame for Manila’s and other cities’ traffic woes as buses are repeatedly being blamed for congestion along EDSA. In truth, there are more cars than the numbers of buses, trucks, jeepneys and UV Express combined. And the only way to reduce private car traffic is to come up with an efficient and safe public transport system. –
In-vehicle tools for road safety
I recently came across a provincial bus operator who is promoting a device for limiting the speeds of vehicles. He states that all their buses are fitted with the device and together with an on-board camera and GPS, they are able to monitor their buses and ensure the safety and security of their passengers. It’s always good to know there are responsible and progressive bus operators like him. Unfortunately, his kind is a minority among many who appear to be after the proverbial quick buck rather than ensuring a high quality of service for travelers.
Devices limiting the speeds of vehicles are not new. These have been installed in many public transport and commercial vehicles like buses and trucks in order to regulate their speeds along highways and streets. Trucks from Japan are fitted with these devices and those second hand trucks being sold in the Philippines have these but are allegedly disabled by their new owners. They are not violating any laws here as there are no regulations requiring such devices to be installed in vehicles.
Tracking devices that include GPS are more recent technologies being used mainly by logistics companies to track their vehicles. These are particularly important for trucks laden with high value cargo or for delivery vans who schedules and routes need to be managed to ensure timely delivery of packages consigned to them. Data from these devices would allow for the assessment of driving speeds and behavior such as lane changing that can be used to determine if drivers are, for example, reckless. The same data can also be used to evaluate fuel efficiency.
Such devices also have research applications because data can be used to determine real-time traffic conditions. In fact, there have been probe car studies conducted in other countries such as Japan, Thailand and Indonesia where taxis were employed to gather traffic information along urban road networks (e.g., Tokyo, Bangkok, Jakarta). Similar experiments can be implemented for Philippine cities to derive traffic information that can be used to guide travelers regarding travel times and route planning.
Perhaps the DOTC through the LTO and the LTFRB, should look into the mandatory installation and use of these devices to regulate vehicle speeds for public and freight transport and also monitor driver behavior. Mandatory speed regulation devices as well as tracking systems have a high potential for weeding out reckless, irresponsible drivers that will ultimately lead to a reduction in road crashes that have resulted in serious injuries and loss of lives. Definitely, there will be objections or opposition to such a requirement but these devices can be justified given the clamor for safer transport and safer roads. After all, everyone of us are vulnerable road users where even the safest driver can be involved in crashes. It takes only one reckless driver or rider to cause a crash.
–
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”).
–
To commute or not to commute
To commute or not to commute? That seems to be the question many people would like our political leaders and government officials to ponder the answer to. Of course, the word “commute” itself refers to traveling whether by public or private transport. However, in the Philippines we have equated “commuting” with taking public transportation. Anyhow, the reality is that most of our top officials, elected or appointed are car owners and are most likely to drive or be driven between their homes, offices and appointments. This is what is perceived by many people as “The Reason” why public officials have little or no appreciation of the difficulties experienced by the commuting public.
While sympathy is usually assumed or claimed by responsible persons, it is empathy that is most desirable from our public officials as they should feel how most people feel when they commute every working day. But how can you empathize if you have not experienced the difficulties of commuting in Metro Manila or other city? How can you say you understand the plight of pedestrians, cyclists and those taking public transport if you prefer or opt to drive or be driven in your car or SUV to and from your office? Did you really commute when you were in high school or college? Or maybe you were one of those cool guys or gals driving their own cars?
Almost every week, I have left my car at the office to commute or hitch a ride with my wife where our routes overlap. I have used public transportation since I was in high school so I am quite familiar with taking pedicabs, tricycles, jeepneys, buses and trains. I have also commuted whenever I am on trips to other cities including those abroad. Public transport is part of the experience whenever I am on trips and when I am in a new place, I make it a point to take long walks first to explore the surrounding area. It is a familiarization of sorts and makes me comfortable with the area. I remember that when I was a student in Japan, I would try to look for the nearest church to where I was staying, especially if I was there over the weekend.
Walking is part of commuting and I am thankful that where I work, the surroundings are basically pedestrian-friendly. The photo above shows the sidewalk along Katipunan Avenue on the side of the university.
Seamless transfers are not yet quite the norm in the Philippines. The photo shows one of the better examples where transfers between modes are more convenient. This is at the LRT 2 Santolan Station. Note the markings for the bicycle path. I took this as I was descending from the pedestrian overpass that connected with a nearby mall by the Marikina River.
While traveling within other cities, whether in the Philippines or abroad, the first option for many if not most people would be to take public transportation. Taking out a rental vehicle is not common and taxis are considered as part of the public transport system. As such, we try to get information on how to get to places of interest from relatives, friends, hosts or staff of the hotel we are staying at. These include maps like the old fashioned ones we can get at airports, train stations and tourist booths. Nowadays, there’s a wealth of information available online and apps that can help us navigate around cities.
We tend to comment on how good the public transportation is in the places we’ve visited or how easy it was to commute in these cities. And upon returning to our country we are quick to criticize our public transport, pedestrian and cycling facilities. The irony, of course, is that many of those who are quick to criticize don’t even use public transport, walk or cycle. Even more tragic (for lack of a better word, I think) is that we don’t demand for better public transport, pedestrian or cycling facilities. Perhaps that should change and in this New Year, we should resolve to push the government and its partners for better transit, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure for our cities. And part of that push is by getting involved in advocacies, including projects, for these causes on transport. We should not forget that though we need and seek champions for public transport, walking and cycling among our leaders, we should also be champions in our own ways.
–
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.
–
On data requirements and requests from the NCTS
The National Center for Transportation Studies of the University of the Philippines Diliman regularly gets a lot of requests for transport and traffic data. Most of these requests are quite specific for traffic counts along various roads. In many cases these are national roads but there are also requests for data on local roads. While the center has a library and laboratories where data and other information are available, most of those we can provide for public consumption may be quite dated and would need to be validated or updated. In certain cases, data were derived from our projects with private entities and we are not at liberty to share these without the permission of our clients. Many of these information are covered by non-disclosure agreements since these may be sensitive information or may lead to revealing projects that are still in the pipeline and which clients might prefer to keep to themselves at the time for one reason or another.
The best we could do for data requests would be to refer them to the sources or those who are supposed to collect data first-hand. For traffic counts along national roads, for example, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) publishes data on Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for sections of national roads throughout the country. Most if not all these counts are made through manual surveys. That is, a team of surveyors literally count the number of vehicles according to categories set by the DPWH as they pass along specific road sections. Complacency, however, coupled with varying degree of quality control or supervision for manual counts can lead to erroneous data. Also, in several cases, one colleague allegedly was able to spot some trending that led him to conclude that some counts are actually projections from previous years rather than those derived from actual counts that should have been performed! It is highly recommended for researchers to make representations to the DPWH District Engineering Office where their study area or site is located or perhaps contact the many bureaus under the department (e.g., Bureau of Construction, Bureau of Design, Bureau of Maintenance, etc.) for other types of information.
Another source for transport data is the Land Transportation Office (LTO), which has information on vehicle registration and licensing. Unfortunately, not all of these data are published or readily available to researchers. Also, specific data requests (e.g., vehicle engine age, fuels, demographics of licenses drivers, etc.) are not easily accessible and may require time to process. In the past, we have also had first hand experience of the private IT company under contract with the LTO suggesting a fee for data processing. For public transport, the primary source would be the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), which would have information on road transport routes, franchises, number of units of buses, jeepneys or taxis, etc. These agencies are under the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), which also has several other agencies under it.
While most local transport and traffic data (e.g., number of tricycles and pedicabs, traffic along local roads, etc.) are with local governments, LGUs generally do not have up-to-date transport and traffic data. Only a few conduct regular data collection or will have recent data that would be useful for any meaningful analysis. Even big cities that have been recipients of transport studies have not been able to update basic data like traffic counts and travel speed along major roads. Perhaps the only updated information they would have are AADT for national roads (care of the DPWH District Engineering Office) and data on the number of public transport vehicles like buses, jeepneys and tricycles within their jurisdictions. AADT data from the DPWH are limited to few stations along national roads and there are none for intersections where counts per movement are important for analysis. Meanwhile, public transport operational characteristics are not generally measured so only the number of registered vehicles are known, basically from the LTO, LTFRB and the local tricycle franchising office. And so for very specific data on specific roads, for example, it is recommended that primary data collection (i.e., field surveys) be conducted.
Contrary to popular belief, the Center no longer has copies of reports of the more recent major studies or projects on transportation and traffic. The DPWH and the DOTC no longer furnish the NCTS library with copies of such reports and this limits the recent materials in our library that can be used by researchers for whatever purpose they may have. And so, the center will usually refer researchers to these and other agencies for data or reports that they need for the work they are doing. If the Center knows specific people from the agencies who are involved in the study or project or have worked on the data that’s subject of the inquiry/request then the researcher will be referred to those people.
–
Pedicab fares
Tricycle and pedicab fares are set quite variably depending on the service areas and those regulating the services. In many cases, it is the pedicab association comprised of drivers-operators who set the fares, which are then supposed to be approved by local officials like those in the barangay or municipal/city hall. I say “supposed” here since most rates are not formally regulated in the manner like how the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) sets fares for buses, jeepneys and taxis. While the principles of “willingness to pay” is applied to some extent, pedicab and tricycle fares are usually imposed (to use a strong word) by tricycle and pedicab associations with very rough estimates of operating costs or, in the case of NMTs, the equivalent of physical effort, required to convey people.
In residential subdivisions or villages, associations may have a say in the fare rates. Where I live, the association sets the standard rates and these go to the extent of differentiating between day time and night time rates. There is even a rate for when streets are flooded! There is also a definition for regular and special trips and rates are according to the general distance traveled by pedicab. That is, fares to Phase 2 are generally higher than those for Phases 1 and 3 because Phase 2 streets are generally farther from the reference origin/destination, which is the village gate. Given the effort of pedicab drivers to transport passengers, I think the rates are just right. The only part there that seems unusual is the rate of PhP 1/minute for waiting time, which to me seems to high. Nevertheless, there is nothing to stop passengers from showing their appreciation for hard work in the form of tips. And there is no limit to the generosity of some passengers who choose to pay more to the (pedi)cabbie.
Tariff sheet displayed inside the sidecar of every pedicab of our village. The information is useful especially to guests or visitors who are not familiar with pedicab rates in the area.
–
Tricycles in the Philippines – Part 1
We start the “ber” months strong with an initial feature on an ubiquitous mode of transport in the Philippines. While the jeepney seems to have had most of the attention when the subject of public transport in the Philippines is discussed, the truth is that there is arguably another, more dominant mode of public transport in the country. These are the tricycles, a motorized three-wheeler consisting of a motorcycle and a sidecar. You see these everywhere around the country in most cities and municipalities where they thrive particularly in residential areas. They are usually the only mode of public transport for most people in rural areas where local roads are typically narrow. In many cases the only roads connecting communities may be national roads. And so, there is really no other choice for tricycles but to travel along national roads and against existing laws prohibiting tricycles from these roads.
Tricycle along the motorcycle lane of Circumferential Road 5
Tricycles racing along the Olongapo-Castillejos Road in Zambales
Tricycle along Romulo Highway, Tarlac
Tricycles along Catolico Avenue in Gen. Santos City
Unlike buses and jeepneys, tricycles are not regulated under the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). Instead, they are under the local government units that through one office or another issue the equivalent of franchises for tricycles to operate legally. Fares are quite variable but are usually according to distance though there are special rates for when passengers want to have the vehicle for themselves much like a taxi.
Unfortunately, few LGUs have the capacity to determine the optimum number of tricycles for service areas under their jurisdictions. As tricycle operations are often the source of livelihood for many, the granting of franchises is often seen as a way for mayors to have influence over people who would have “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude) for being granted franchises. The tendency, therefore, is to have too many tricycles as mayors try to accommodate more applicants who seem to have no other options to earn income or to invest in. This poses a challenge to many who want to reform the system and modernize or upgrade public transport in cities around the country.
–
Some thoughts on the issues on bus bans and terminals in Metro Manila
I had originally wanted to use “Clarifying issues on bus bans and terminals in Metro Manila” as the title for this post. However, I felt it was too strong a title, and one that would be more appropriate for a government agency like the MMDA or DOTC, or an LGU like Manila. More than fault-finding and criticizing government agencies and local governments, I believe we should take a closer and more objective look at the issues (or non issues?) pertaining to the Manila bus ban and the opening of the southwest provincial bus terminal for Cavite-bound buses. Following are my comments on issues raised the past weeks about the two initiatives.
Issue 1: There were no or few announcements about the implementation of the bus ban in Manila and the southwest terminal in Cavite.
Comments: While the bus ban in Manila came as a surprise to many, the move was actually a consequence of a Manila City Council resolution. Normally, such resolutions would take time to implement and would entail announcements for stakeholders. Though we will probably never know the truth or who is saying the truth about the resolution and its implementation, it is likely that bus operators already knew about the implications but decided to call Manila’s bluff and play the media and public appeal cards rather than comply with Manila’s requirements for franchised buses and terminals as they have done before in other issues like fuel prices and fare hikes.
I find it difficult to believe that the MMDA did not do its part in announcing the opening of the southwest terminal. Perhaps people thought the announcement was over a very short period? Or maybe people didn’t mind the announcement and are also at fault for paying no or little attention to the announcement? If so, then the public is also partly to blame for disregarding the announcement from the MMDA, assuming the agency won’t push through with its initiatives to implement central terminals for buses. Next up will be another southern terminal at Alabang and a northern one near Trinoma.
Issue 2: Poor transfer facilities and services including a lack of pedestrian facilities between the bus terminal and transfer point, and lack of public transport like jeepneys to ferry passengers to their destinations.
Comments: I think it’s quite clear that the MMDA and LGUs are at fault here. Despite the construction and scheduled opening of the southwest terminal, there have been limited effort in improving pedestrian facilities. Such facilities needed to be in place prior to or upon the opening of the southwest terminal and requiring all provincial buses to terminate at the facility instead of continuing to Metro Manila. People-friendly facilities could have helped people in adjusting to the new policy though walking from 100 to 200 meters is certainly not for all, especially during this rainy season. Senior citizens and persons with disabilities (PWDs) would have specific needs that could have been addressed from day one of operation of the terminal. One approach to “bridge the gap” between the terminal and where people could take city bus and jeepney rides could have been to modify some city bus and jeepney routes to make these closer to the terminal. Ideally, the terminal could have been an intermodal facility providing efficient, seamless transfers between modes of transport.
In the case of Manila, the jeepneys were already there with routes overlapping with buses but their numbers and capacity could not cope with the demand from the buses. Since the main objective of Manila was to weed out colorum buses, it could have coordinated with the LTFRB to check the registration and franchises of buses rather than generalizing among all buses. Perhaps Manila just wanted to make a big statement? But then this was at the expense of the riding public, which obviously got the attention of many including the media. Coordination among agencies and LGUs, however, has not been a strong suit for these agencies, and this thought leads us to the next issue.
Issue 3: Lack of coordination among LGUs and agencies in implementing transport schemes.
Comments: This issue is an enduring one and has been the topic of discussions, arguments and various fora for as long as we can remember. On one hand, the DOTC and the LTFRB should provide guidelines and guidance to local governments on transport planning and services. The agencies should be proactive in their engagement of LGUs in order to optimize transport services under the jurisdiction of national agencies and local governments. On the other hand, LGUs must accept the fact that most if not all of them are ill equipped or do not have the capacity nor capability to do transport planning much less addressing issues regarding public transport. Citing the Local Government Code and its devolution of local transport to LGUs everytime there’s a transport issue certainly won’t help LGUs solve their problems.
Issue 4: Terminals required for city buses in Manila.
Comments: There should be a terminal for city buses in Manila but not a terminal for each company. There should only be one or maybe two terminals where buses can make stops prior to making the turnaround for the return trip. There is actually a terminal in Manila, which the city can start with for city buses. This is the one just beside the Metropolitan Theater and near City Hall, which can be utilized by city buses. It is also close to the LRT Line 1 Central Station so the facility can be developed as a good intermodal terminal for land transport.
Issue 5: Colorum or illegal public transport vehicles in Manila
Comments: This is actually a problem not just for Manila but for the rest of Metropolitan Manila and the rest of the country. The colorum problem is there for both conventional and paratransit services as there are illegal buses, jeepneys, UV express, multicabs, taxis, tricycles and pedicabs everywhere. Many of these are allegedly being tolerated by national agencies and local governments with many allegedly being fielded or owned by public transport operators themselves.
–
In most cases, the best time to evaluate a traffic policy or scheme is NOT during its first days or weeks of implementation but after a significant time, say at least a month, after it was implemented. This is because the stakeholders, the people involved would take some time to adjust to any scheme or policy being implemented. This adjustment period will vary according to the magnitude or scope of the scheme/policy and can be quite “painful” to many who have gotten used to the old ways. Usually, a lot of comments and criticisms are quite emotional but it is clear that the collective sentiment is the result years or decades of poor transport services and fumbling by government agencies. Transport in Metro Manila is already quite complicated with routes overlapping and services competing with each other for the same passengers. Perhaps it is time to simplify transport while also in the process of optimizing and rationalizing services. I have written about this in this previous post.
More transport issues in Manila will come about should the city train its attention on other modes of transport including jeepneys, UV express vehicles, tricycles, pedicabs and kuligligs. If the city is really intent on reforming transport services within its jurisdiction, it should consider the needs of all stakeholders and especially and particularly the riding public. Transport should be inclusive, people-friendly as well as environment-friendly and there are many good practices in other cities that Manila could refer to and study for adaption and adoption for the city. If it is successful in improving transport, then perhaps Manila could be the country’s model for transformation from being the “Gates of Hell” to being a “Portal to Heaven” to residents and visitors alike.
–
Manila’s bus experiment
Manila recently banned provincial and city buses from entering the city stating this is because many of them do not have franchises and/or terminals in the city. Those without franchises are the ones labeled as “colorum” or illegally operating public transport vehicles, which really don’t have a right to convey people in the first place. It’s become difficult to catch them because many carry well-made falsified documents. But it’s not really an issue if the LTFRB, LTO and LGUs would just cooperate to apprehend these colorum drivers. The LTFRB and LTO are under the DOTC, and so the agency is also responsible for policies and guidelines to be followed by the two under it. LGUs (and the MMDA in the case of MM) are tasked with traffic enforcement and so they can apprehend vehicles and act on traffic violations including operating without a franchise.
Those without terminals are both city and provincial buses. For city buses, this can be because they “turnaround” in Manila and operators do not feel the need to have a formal terminal. For example, G-Liner buses plying the Cainta-Quiapo route will stop at Quiapo only to unload Quiapo-bound passengers, and then switch signboards and proceed to load Cainta-bound passengers as they head back to Rizal. There is very little time spent as the bus makes the turnaround. It’s a different case for provincial buses, whose drivers should have the benefit of rest (same as their vehicles, which also need regularly maintenance checks) after driving long hours. Thus, if only for this reason they need to have formal, off-street terminals in the city. Following are photos I took near the Welcome Rotunda en route to a forum last Friday.
Commuters walking to cross the street at the Welcome Rotunda to transfer to jeepneys waiting for passengers to ferry to Manila.
Commuters and cyclists moving along the carriageway as there are no pedestrian or cycling facilities in front of a construction site at the corner of Espana and Mayon Ave.
Advisory for buses coming from Quezon City
Commuters waiting for a jeepney ride along Espana just after the Welcome Rotunda
Some pedestrians opt to walk on instead of waiting for a ride. Manila used to be a walkable city but it is not one at present. Many streets have narrow sidewalks and many pedestrian facilities are obstructed by vendors and other obstacles.
So, is it really a move towards better transport systems and services in Manila or is it just a publicity stunt? If it is to send a message to public transport (not just bus) operators and drivers that they should clean up their acts and improve the services including practicing safe driving, then I’m all for it and I believe Manila should be supported and lauded for its efforts. Unfortunately, it is unclear if this is really the objective behind the resolution. Also, whether it is a resolution or an ordinance, it is a fact that the move violates the franchises granted to the buses. These franchises define their routes and specify the streets to be plied by buses. Many LGUs in the past have executed their traffic schemes and other measures intended to address traffic congestion, without engaging the LTFRB or at least ask for the agency’s guidance in re-routing public transport. Of course, the LTFRB is also partly to blame as they have not been pro-active in reviewing and optimizing PT routes.
One opinion made by a former government transport official is that this is just a ploy by the city to force bus companies to establish formal terminals in the city. This will require operators to secure permits, purchase or lease land and build terminals. And so that means revenues for the city and perhaps more traffic problems in the vicinity of the terminals just like what’s happening in Quezon City (Cubao) and Pasay City (Tramo).
Transport planning is a big part of the DOTC’s mandate and both the LTO (in charge of vehicle registration and driver’s licenses) and LTFRB (in charge of franchising of buses, jeepneys and taxis) look to the agency for guidelines and policy statements they are to implement. Meanwhile, LGUs have jurisdiction over paratransit like tricycles and pedicabs. In the case of Manila, these paratransit also include the “kuligligs,” 3-wheeler pedicabs that were fitted with engines and have been allowed (franchised?) by the city to provide transport services in many streets. Unfortunately, most LGUs do not have capacity nor capability for transport planning and so are limited or handicapped in the way they deal with transport (and traffic) issues in their jurisdictions. We have always maintained and promoted the stand that the DOTC should extend assistance and expertise to LGUs and the LGUs should also actively seek DOTC’s guidance in matters pertaining to transport. There needs to be constant communication between the national and local entities with cooperation leading to better, more suitable policies being formulated and implemented at the local level.
–
Caught (up) in traffic 