The current initiative to rationalise road public transport services is not as comprehensive as necessary or as some people want us to believe. The drive appears to be mainly on (some say against) jeepneys while little has been done on buses and UV Express vehicles. Most notable among the modes not covered by rationalisation are the tricycles.
A smoke-belching tricycle along Daang Bakal in Antipolo City
What really should be the role and place of tricycles in the scheme of themes in public transportation? Are they supposed to provide “last mile” services along with walking and pedicabs (non-motorised 3-wheelers)? Or are they supposed to be another mode competing with jeepneys, buses and vans over distances longer than what they are supposed to be covering? It seems that the convenient excuse for not dealing with them is that tricycles are supposed to be under local governments. That should not be the case and I believe national agencies such as the DOTr and LTFRB should assert their authority but (of course) in close cooperation with LGUs to include tricycles in the rationalisation activities. Only then can we have a more complete rationalisation of transport services for the benefit of everyone.
Tacloban City has what is called a new transport terminal located to the northwest of downtown and across from the new Robinsons mall in the area. Here are a few photos of the terminal taken earlier this year.
Vendors selling mostly food items including local delicacies
The City Treasurer’s Office has a makeshift post at the terminal to collect fees from transport operators including buses and vans using the terminal.
The terminal hosts an Extension Office of the City Treasurer and also has a K-9 unit to help keep the terminal safe and secure. The dogs work regularly to sniff out illegal substances that may be carried by people using the terminal.
Passengers wait for their buses or vans at the terminal.
The waiting area is not air-conditioned but is relatively cool and is clean.
Another view of the passengers’ waiting lounge
Passengers may purchase bus tickets at the terminal prior to boarding a bus.
The same goes with vans including those called mega taxis
View of the front of the terminal
A view of the terminal from the transport parking lot
A view of the terminal from mall across from it. Note the sign at the left side of the photo? The office of the city’s traffic management and enforcement unit (TOMECO) is located at the second floor of the terminal.
Tacloban hopes to continue development of the terminal area that will eventually be expanded to have an even larger lounge for passengers, a hotel and more commercial spaces aside from berths for public transportation.
We decided to take a Point-to-point (P2P) bus from Quezon City to the Ortigas Center to attend a meeting there. The venue was close to SM Megamall so we thought it best to just take the bus service from SM North EDSA. It was my first time to take a P2P bus but was familiar enough with the service from the research our students have been doing on public transport. Here are some photos from the experience.
There’s a line for passengers riding the P2P bus from SM North to SM Megamall. It appears to be long but it moves pretty quickly because of the frequent bus arrivals that time in the morning (around 9:00 AM).
The bus before ours was quickly filled with passengers. There is a “no standing” policy for this service so when all seats are taken, people in queue would have to wait for the next bus.
Here’s a view of the bus bays at SM North EDSA. The white bus at the right is the P2P bus that just departed.
Our bus arrives at the terminal.
Unlike the first bus that had generic signs/markings on it and only had a signboard on the windshield identifying it as a P2P bus, this one had the service on its livery. The rapid increase in the number of P2P bus routes and buses serving those routes meant that bus companies had little time to properly change the livery of their buses to clearly show these were for P2P services.
Passengers pay at the head of the line and just before boarding the bus.
Our ticket showing the fare paid and the name and contact details of the operator of this service between SM North and SM Megamall. Froehlich is one of the first companies granted a permit to provide P2P services by the government. They actually started the service during the previous administration when DOTr was still DOTC.
The P2P bus services present an attractive option for commuters who are not satisfied with their usual public transport options (e.g., bus, jeepney or UV express) and cannot afford to frequently take taxis or ridesharing (Uber, Grab). They may or may not be car-owners but have longed for better public transport services especially in terms of comfort and convenience. Many are likely able to afford higher fares and will pay such if the services are worth it.
In Antipolo, for example, I have noticed that the parking lot near the P2P bus terminal at Robinsons already have many cars parked (parking is free so far), which I assumed are owned by people opting to take the bus instead to go to Ortigas Center. They have the jeepney and regular bus options (G-Liner and RRCG) but are turned off by the frequent stops and the cramped conditions during the rush hours.
My only other critique of the P2P buses aside from their drivers apparently being just the same as other buses in the way they drive (i.e., I’ve observed many of them are as aggressive if not as reckless as regular bus drivers.) is that these services are actually the higher capacity versions of UV Express. Note that UV Express (previously called Garage to Terminal Express or GT Express and generically the FX taxis of the 1990s) basically operated under the same conditions before with fixed routes and with supposedly only 2 stops (i.e., “point to point”). Hopefully, they won’t be but I also wonder how these services will continue once the new rail transit lines come into operation.
I was recently asked about my views on Lazarus franchises. At first the term didn’t catch on to me but “Lazarus” is a name that’s associated with coming back from the dead. “Lazarus”, after all, is the Biblical person Brought back to life by Jesus after the latter arrived to find his dear friend had passed away due to illness. It is now being used to refer to a dead public transport franchise that is to be resurrected but under new ownership. I recall I have written about the topic some time ago (many years ago) when I spotted what I thought was a BLTB Co. bus that turned out to be a DLTB Co. Bus. The logo and livery for their buses were the same as are the destinations in Southern Luzon. Then there were the EMBC buses I spotted along my commute that turned out to be operated by RRCG. These obviously are revived franchises and in both cases take advantage of what name recall the brands still have.
DLTB Co. used to be BLTB Co., which stood for Batangas, Laguna, Tayabas Bus Co. Tayabas is the old name of Quezon Province. This is the current company’s terminal along EDSA in Cubao. The old terminal is also along EDSA near Tramo in Pasay City.
I opined “that brands associated with these franchises can be revived but there are prerequisites. These include an inventory of units currently operating in relation to the demand. The rule is to determine first if existing operators/companies can cover the increasing demand. If not, then the LTFRB may decide to open routes for new players including issuance of new franchises. “New” here probably includes “resurrected” franchises that have name recall among people.” To be clear, there is a process by which franchises are granted by the government and this should be followed in order to be fair with current, active franchise holders.
I wonder if the Antipolo Bus franchise can be revived to serve the old Antipolo – Divisoria route?
The Department of Transportation (DOTr) recently shared the Local Public Transport Route Plan (LPTRP) Manual that was the product of the collaboration among government and the academe. While the date appearing on the cover is October 2017, this manual was actually completed in April 2017. [Click the image of the cover below for the link where you can download the manual.]
I don’t know exactly why the DOTr and Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) were hesitant in releasing this manual. Perhaps they wanted to pilot test it first on a city? Yup, this manual has never been tested yet so we don’t really know whether it will work as a tool for planning public transportation.
With all the opposition to the government’s PUV Modernization Program, the DOTr and the LTFRB should be piloting the program first and show a proof of concept to dispel doubts about the program. The same essentially applies to this transport route plan manual. Only once these are piloted would we know first hand its flaws and allow us to revise or fine tune them. I would suggest that both the modernization program and the manual be piloted in cities that are perceived or claim to have strong local governance. Davao City comes to mind and perhaps Iloilo City. Can you think about other cities where the program and/or manual can be piloted?
We rode the bus twice in Sydney – first to get from the city to Bondi Beach and the second to go to a train station from Bondi Beach. I wasn’t really able to get a lot of photos inside the buses as they quickly filled with passengers and I wasn’t sure what people thought about someone taking photos inside a bus even for touristy purposes. It is usually better to blend in with the crowd than attract attention to yourself; though it probably didn’t matter much since there were so many Asians in Sydney and wherever we went.
You can use the Opal card to pay for your bus fare.
Buses are laid out to optimize the number of passengers it could carry. There are just enough seats for those who need to be seated. Others have to stand but standing space is important for commutes.
A friend posted a photo on social media and it immediately got my attention as it featured an ad by popular ridesourcing company Uber on a public bus in Singapore. There is a slogan there that reads: “Because weekends come once a week, make your move.” This statement is a promotion for Uber, which is already making inroads in the city state where taxi services are probably among the better ones in the world in terms of service quality and efficiency.
The ad itself is a contradiction in terms of who is promoting itself and where it is being promoted. Such promotion gimmicks are not beyond companies like Uber, which project themselves as mavericks in what are considered as traditional areas such as transport. Here is the photo of Uber advertising on a public bus in Singapore:
Taxi ownership and operations (i.e., driving) in Singapore is restricted to Singaporeans. Uber faced some issues with their operations as there were a significant number of foreigners, it seems, who took to Uber as a means for employment. In a city-state like Singapore, which discourages private car ownership and use through schemes like congestion pricing and the provision of high quality public transport services, Uber could face a much stiffer challenge to its march towards dominating conventional taxis.