Home » Posts tagged 'Public Transport'
Tag Archives: Public Transport
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.
Going around The Hague was no hassle. There were a lot less people there compared to Amsterdam last Easter Sunday. I felt more relaxed moving around. I also like it that I had transit options in the form of trams and buses to get from one place to somewhere walking seemed to be the less efficient mode to take. Not so many people were on bicycles but that’s probably because it was a Sunday and most bike traffic were for work or school trips? Here are some photos of trams at The Hague (Den Haag).
Saw this tram as we went around some of the attractions in the city.
We rode this one going to the beach.
I rode this tram going back to Den Haag Central Station
Transit network map at Frankenslag stop
Tram schedule posted at the stop
Our friends’ neighbourhood was a really nice one and I liked it that it is accessible to both tram and bus. The walks are short but you can easily get some exercise by getting off at an earlier stop or perhaps walking to a further one. The clear walking paths are definitely a plus and the environment is one conducive for such activities as well as for saying ‘hello’ to other people.
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 recently wrote about some thoughts on Pasig City’s HOV lane experiment along Julia Vargas Avenue. Here are a few more considering the experiment didn’t push through last February 28.
Screen cap (courtesy of ABS CBN) showing the starting date for the HOV lane experiment. I think ‘HOV’ is more appropriate than ‘carpool’ since the requirement is for vehicles using the lane to have 4 or more passengers. Having only 2 passengers still qualify as a carpool.
I learned recently that the experiment has been put off to March 26, 2018:
[Photo courtesy of Dulce Justiniani]
The current set-up has 2 lanes for motorised vehicles including a wide lane for HOV’s (including public utility vehicles like buses and vans). HOV’s here also include cars but those with at least 4 occupants. Here are a couple of photos showing us what could possibly happen should enforcement be weak given the configuration of the lanes along Julia Vargas:
Private van running along the lane designated for HOV’s alongside a solitary cyclist on the bike lane.
An SUV overtaking the van via the bike lane and the extra space of the HOV lane.
Wide lanes generally encourage higher speeds. I believe the way to go would be to have narrower lanes. And should these be considered, it would be possible to have 3 lanes for motorised traffic with one assigned for HOV’s and another for motorcycles. These are aside from the bicycle lane that I think should also be a protected lane. Protection here may be through the provision of “forgiving” physical dividers in the form of, say, rubber bollards.
Here’s how the Julia Vargas carriageway could be laid out:
Again, these are just suggestions for whoever are in-charge of the experiment-to-be along Julia Vargas Avenue. I hope that they are able to make some assessments even prior to the experiment. Such can be done using simulation software in order to have a handle on traffic related issues that may crop up during the implementation. Still, a big factor would be the enforcement aspects of the proposed policy for motor vehicles. Strict, firm and sustained enforcement would be necessary in order for this to succeed.
I again share an article; this time on transit ridership (or on the passengers using public transportation).
Buchanan, M. (2018) Lessons on Ridership, from the National Literature, transitcenter.org, http://transitcenter.org/2018/01/29/lessons-on-ridership-from-the-national-literature/ [Last accessed 2/21/2018]
Perhaps we can learn from the experiences of other cities in as far as public transport use is concerned? For example, what impacts emerging technologies and the sharing economy (e.g., ridesharing) have on public transport ridership and how to meet these challenges to retain a majority of public transport users over low capacity modes.
Much has been written about the government’s PUV (or jeepney?) modernization program so I wouldn’t really be reposting about these. Instead, I will be featuring some opinions, insights and observations about its implementation.
Following are photos of one e-jeepney model that the government appears to be promoting. This is the e-jeepney produced by Star8 that they claim to be have solar panels for charging while they are on the road. Of course, we know they are not wholly dependent on solar power and have to be charged the conventional way through an adaptor that’s plugged into a regular outlet. These e-jeepneys were supposed to supplement the reduced supply of public transport to mainly UP students, staff and faculty members when the i-ACT (Inter-Agency Committee on Traffic) conducted their “Tanggal Bulok, Tanggal Usok” campaign in the UP Diliman area. First-hand reports revealed otherwise as the e-jeepneys spent more time on stand-by and just charging at one of the buildings on campus.
These are the same e-jeepneys that have been deployed and currently roaming around Tacloban City (promoting themselves?). The intent was for these to be the vehicles plying the new routes approved by the LTFRB/DOTr, which they claim was in response to the request made by Tacloban. The new routes though overlapped with many existing jeepney routes, clearly in violation of the general rule regarding overlapping routes, but allowed nonetheless by the regulating authority.
There are many allegations going around about e-jeepneys being forced upon operators and drivers given what has been regarded by progressive groups as unrealistic (read: unaffordable) financing schemes for the new vehicles. These are certainly not cheap, and double to triple the price of a ‘newer’ conventional jeepney. There are also suspicions about the strong motivation for the phaseout in favour of what are peddled as the successor (or replacement) to the jeepney. That includes a possible collusion among officials and the companies behind these vehicles and allegations (again) of some people likely gaining financially from the set-up. The DOTr and LTFRB PR machine, however, deny this and will gang up on anyone posting about this in their social media page.