THE Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), along with the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), have been racing to develop guidelines to allow carpooling operations by individuals and businesses. The push for allowing carpooling is credited to Facebook posts by well-known motoring journalist and product endorser James Deakin, who last week publicly challenged the LTFRB and MMDA to issue a statement supporting carpooling. It is a rare case of government agencies being responsive in the right way to public demand, although some have chafed at the proposed rules set forth by those agencies, primarily LTFRB, to authorize carpool vehicles, seeing it as unnecessary, and perhaps even greedy, regulatory overreach.
There are several very good reasons the responsible agencies should impose some regulation on carpool activities. However, those agencies should take care that the regulations imposed are absolutely necessary, and that compliance with them is made as easy as possible.
As things now stand, carpooling falls into a bit of a regulatory gray area, being nonprofit operations with specific and narrowly defined passenger markets. Employee shuttles operated by some larger companies fall into this category, as do carpooling shuttle services offered by some large residential complexes. Many DMCI Homes condominium developments, for example, offer commuter shuttles for residents, operating on a point-to-point basis, with the small fare charged intended only to offset fuel and operating costs. It is likely that there are already thousands of informal carpool operators, especially around Metro Manila and the neighboring provinces — car owners who provide rides to neighbors and friends with similar destinations and commuting schedules, in exchange for money to offset fuel, toll and maintenance costs. Ironically, these carpools, which likely have carried on without trouble or even being noticed by authorities, are now at risk of running afoul of the law due to the need to create some regulations governing the activity.
That may be a necessary evil, however, because the intentions of the LTFRB, LTO and MMDA are sound, and properly cognizant of their responsibility to ensure safe public transportation. Under the rules promulgated this week — but not yet finalized, pending feedback from stakeholders — prospective carpool operators would need to register with the LTFRB, which would necessarily involve verifying their driver’s licenses, vehicle LTO registration, required insurance, and roadworthiness and emissions certificates. The carpools would be restricted to point-to-point operations, and allowed one trip in the morning and one return trip in the afternoon or evening. Once accepted and registered, the vehicle would then be issued a quick response (QR)-code sticker, so that it could be identified by MMDA and other traffic enforcers.
Guidelines
The first concern is, of course, safety; the responsible agencies simply cannot allow passengers to be subjected to unsafe vehicles or operations. Second, regulation and registration of carpool units provide some legal cover for driver-operators in case of accidents or disputes with passengers about the manner of operations or “gas money” contributions.
The third point, and this was given particular emphasis by the LTFRB, is that the regulation is necessary to prevent unfair competition for public utility vehicle (PUV) operators who are already hard-pressed by skyrocketing fuel costs. As a practical matter, this would be unlikely to happen; most people opting for carpool commuting are those who would otherwise drive their own cars, as studies of carpooling in the United States have shown.
However, the reassurance from the LTFRB is likely more a political than a market management move. As Deakin pointed out in a later Facebook post, jeepney and other PUV drivers are likely to react viciously to the new carpool guidelines, and claim that carpooling compromises their livelihoods whether it actually does or not. Having a regulatory system in place that anticipates and refutes those arguments before they are even offered is sound thinking.
Thus, there are more reasons for regulating carpooling than for not regulating it. For it to be successful, however, the LTFRB and other agencies concerned should make the process of registration as convenient as possible, and free from burdensome fees. The government should keep in mind that carpool operators are not people in the transportation business, but are, in fact, ordinary citizens who are willing to use their own resources to help the country cope with the energy crisis.
