“It is a huge challenge to the DOTr leadership to be able to integrate all these modes to operate efficiently”
EVERY administration after Martial Law has grappled with how to develop an efficient Metro Manila public transport system which to date is still a work in progress.
This is due to the failure to integrate the many transport types existing in the NCR into an efficient operating system.
This refers to the rail, bus, jeepney, tricycles, motor cycle taxis and others.
The preferred trend by recent DOTr leaderships is to continue building rail lines and then, if possible, turn them over to private management. This is also true in part on road transportation particularly the buses.
This is due to the notion that the operation of these two transport modes would be more efficient in private hands.
The problem with mass transportation in private hands is that fares would be very much higher which runs counter to the established worldwide practice of keeping public transportation fares cheap and affordable so that the public will patronize it.
The recent increase in fares by the LRT 1 is one good example.
A round trip ticket of P110 is expensive and passengers interviewed by the media said so themselves. It should not be this way because if the cost of using public transport approaches the cost of amortizing a car or a motorbike, then people will opt for the car.
The EDSA bus carousel fare is not cheap either because the maximum one way fare is P75.50 from Monumento to PITX which adds up to P151 for a round trip ticket.
This is not to mention the increased fees in our privatized airports. Since the DOTr has decided on privatization as the way going forward, it would not be farfetched to see MRT 3 and LRT 2 being given to private companies to operate making fares more expensive.
Even the Public Utility Modernization Program which was started in 2017 may be modified as reported in the media which got the program participants scratching their heads.
What sort of modification is the DOTr thinking of?
The conversion of the Cooperative system to privately owned transportation companies?
Let us hope not because a change will further delay and might discourage prospective operators from joining due to constant policy changes every time a new DOTr leadership takes over.
The PUVMP as envisioned and currently constituted should be maintained because the Cooperative system is some kind of a middle ground approach crafted by the government.
The PUVMP remains essentially in private hands but the government can still maintain some kind of supervisory relationship with the Transport Cooperatives.
This is why none of the participants in the PUVMP joined any of the jeepney transport strikes staged by MANIBELA and others.
The full implementation of the PUVMP program is therefore one good solution to the perennial transport strikes causing disruptions and also a way of rationalizing and perhaps tempering the constant increases in fare prices asked by private transport operators.
As I keep saying, there are certain thingsthe government should not privatize and one of them is mass transportation. Why? Because for private operators, profit is a huge motive while the government’s is more on service.
What the DOTr should concentrate on is to find ways on how to integrate all the public transport system operating in the Metro area.
What this essentially means is rail, buses, jeepneys and tricycles must not be competing with each other or running along the same line.
The trick is to assign each mode to different lines not being utilized by the other.
Buses should run only on arterial roads while jeepneys should run along distributor roads.
Tricycles can take narrow Barangay roads.
Currently, all these systems are not complementing each other and are operating on their own without much government coordination, supervision and direction.
There is also a hybrid program in place like the PUVMP that is working which should be enlarged to include buses.
It is a huge challenge to the DOTr leadership to be able to integrate all these modes to operate efficiently.
They should also look back into how the first Marcos administration dealt with the problem and maybe learn from it.