OVER the past two weeks, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), which is responsible for regulating public transportation in the Philippines, has issued two directives that, while not new, are welcome efforts to improve passenger safety and comfort. While there may yet be some protest from affected transport groups, it seems that LTFRB has done its homework for a change, and gotten the support of most of the affected stakeholders. If properly carried out, the “new” policies could help to improve the state of public transport in the Philippines.
The first measure announced by LTFRB Chairman Vigor Mendoza II at the end of last week is a “crackdown” on illegal PUV (public utility vehicle) terminals in and around Metro Manila. The second measure, which Mendoza disclosed at the beginning of this week, is the denial of franchise renewal for “rundown” PUVs, particularly jeepneys. Along with that, Mendoza asked transport operator groups to improve customer service, in a manner of speaking, by ensuring that transport drivers are “presentable” in terms of their personal hygiene and dress.
As we said, neither of these are new ideas, having been implemented, or at least attempted, by previous LTFRB managers. However, they are no less valid for being unoriginal, and we hope that the LTFRB can make some inroads into implementing them in a substantial way.
Let us address the least difficult of the recent edicts first. The proposal to deny franchise renewal to dilapidated jeepneys is a matter of public safety. Mendoza emphasized in his comments about the matter that this particular initiative was not connected to the broader and somewhat problematic jeepney modernization program, but was rather a concern for basic passenger comfort and safety, already covered under existing franchise regulations. He is exactly right in this; even if the modernization program is completely disregarded, existing regulations require that jeepneys meet minimum requirements for roadworthiness in terms of their mechanical status, standards that are still much lower than are required for private autos. Whether or not a particular jeepney is enrolled in the modernization program, it must meet these minimum standards. Evidently, there are a great number that still do not, thus there is regulatory justification for either removing them from the roads, or compelling them to be repaired and modified to meet the standards.
That, along with the less formal exhortation that jeepney and other transport drivers should put a little more effort into being personally clean and presentable, are entirely reasonable prescriptions. As anyone who has ever ridden a traditional jeepney knows, they are not noted for being particularly comfortable for passengers, and their main value lies in their flexibility and low cost. Taking steps to improve the customer experience, particularly steps that require little government intervention or cost on the part of jeepney operators, is simply a way to make commuters feel safer, and more valued and respected.
As for the other LTFRB edict concerning “illegal” transport terminals, we welcome that as well, as that addresses not only commuter safety, but the persistent problem of traffic congestion. However, with respect to this directive, we would urge the LTFRB to apply careful study to the issue. Many “transport terminals” have developed organically, based on commuter demand, and while many of these may indeed lack facilities the LTFRB deems necessary or are located in areas that are unsafe or cause traffic congestion, they should not be eliminated out of hand. Some “illegal transport terminals” may indeed be better off being eliminated, but others exist because they are “where people need to go.” Thus, the LTFRB should consider them in a holistic sense, balancing commuter needs with their impact on traffic and road infrastructure.
Finally, on a somewhat related note, we were prepared to comment on the proposal raised by former Philippine National Police chief and now Metropolitan Manila Development Authority general manager Nicolas Torre III to allow high-capacity “carpool” vehicles to use the EDSA Carousel bus lane, an idea that Torre floated last week. However, the instant negative reaction against the idea from transport groups, the Department of Transportation and several business groups has spared Torre from the highly uncomplimentary commentary we would have offered in response to this ill-considered idea. We hope that the immediate backlash against his proposal has made it clear to Torre that traffic and infrastructure management proposals should be based on proper study and consultation with affected stakeholders before being considered for implementation.
