SINCE 2015, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) has required public utility buses to have GPS tracking devices. While there was a period when this was suspended by a legal challenge from the former Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines, that was successfully defeated by LTFRB and put to rest by a 2018 Court of Appeals ruling. The court ruled that the use of GPS devices made sense for improving services and road safety.
To derive the benefits of GPS tracking, the public transport regulator (or a similar entity) should be storing and processing the data to analyze the sufficiency and quality of transportation services, provide information to passengers and enhance road safety. If LTFRB is not asking for (or processing) GPS data, it is flying blind because it does not have reliable information on the number of public transport units in use and how these operate daily.
GPS signals are used to measure and analyze the performance of each vehicle and each driver. The data enables both the transport operator and regulator to know where each vehicle has traveled, at what time and at what speed. If there is a service plan associated with a route, the GPS record is one of the best ways to verify accomplishment.
GPS data is particularly crucial today because many public transport units are now under service contracts. Verification is needed before payment is made to a transport operator and GPS tracking is still the most efficient way of reporting operator performance. The technology is mature, there are many providers of GPS devices and data processing services and there are many device models that collect and retain GPS data despite “dead spots.”
The accomplishments of each vehicle (kilometers served on the route) can be sent automatically to the regulator and contract manager at the end of every day. This enables prompt release of payments — crucial when the requirement is to pay operators within 3-5 days of completion of the service.
GPS tracking enables the regulator and transport planners to know how many vehicles are operating on a route. This is relevant because the number of vehicles under a franchise may be very different from the number in daily service. There are many cases where a transport operator may have a franchise for “X” number of vehicles on a route but the number in actual operation may be far less.
The efficiency of public transport can also be facilitated. For instance, GPS monitoring can help to identify parts of a route where vehicles are usually stuck in traffic. This can help to justify the introduction of dedicated public transport lanes for certain sections. With GPS data, it also becomes possible for traffic signals to be programmed so that buses and jeepneys receive priority at signalized intersections (the green light will stay on longer when a PUV is approaching).
GPS monitoring will enable the transport operator and regulator to detect bad driving behavior — for example, if the vehicle goes over the speed limit, moves too slowly or lingers too long at a stop. Alerts can be sent to the driver whenever over-speeding is detected. Knowing that one’s driving is being observed continuously helps to control the tendency of drivers to indulge in on-street-competition for passengers.
In the event of a crash, GPS tracking data will help any investigator analyze the cause of the incident. GPS monitoring can provide the evidence with which to sanction erring drivers. Tracking data can also be used to analyze driving habits so that fuel efficiency can be improved. (Some drivers have a habit of leaving their engines running while the unit is parked, just to charge their phones.)
There are significant benefits for the commuter as well. It becomes possible for a bus or jeepney stop to have a “countdown” electronic display indicating how many minutes are left before the arrival of the next vehicle. These are already a standard feature in the transport systems of the best cities abroad. For those with smartphones, GPS tracking will enable the commuter to see where the vehicles are on a route map and how soon the vehicle might get to a stop or station. These features help commuters manage their time.
For all these good reasons, I am hoping that DOTr and LTFRB will implement the GPS requirement, especially the PUVs under service contracts. While the LTFRB may allow a reasonable grace period for installing the GPS devices (say, 30 days), it should insist that after this all service contract payouts will be contingent on receipt of GPS tracking data.
It goes without saying that collecting data is meaningless without it being used for decisions. The GPS data needs to be captured and processed so that it can improve services, inform passengers and motivate good driving practices. If the LTFRB lacks the technical capacity to do so, it should outsource the function to an agency or firm that can perform the task. In selected localities, the LTFRB can also delegate some of its powers to local government units with the capacity to carry out this function.
Today, there is no excuse for a public transport regulator like LTFRB to be flying blind.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner and public transport advocate.
