Vast numbers of the commuting public and the public transport drivers and operators are often at the mercy of either the government’s wrong interpretation of its own policies or by knee-jerk reactions of some transport leaders who can’t offer reasonable alternatives.
Pareto Principle distorted? On government’s side, Congress’s Traffic Crisis Act, or House Bill 4334, and the Department of Transportation’s (DOTr) transport modernization defy logic, despite the support of academe familiar with the Pareto Principle, or the 80-20 law on uneven law of development.
While over 80 percent of vehicles on public roads are private cars, the government looked at the other 20 percent by penalizing public transport instead, not realizing its impact on millions of commuters. The government can’t seem to see the “elephant in the room” and, therefore, can’t see that private cars are the biggest contributor to traffic.
A private car carries an average of only 1.2 passengers, says a study by Japan International Cooperation Agency, which also estimated that as much as P2.4 billion is lost daily due to traffic.
In this country, the government spares private cars, but developed countries like Singapore penalize private cars that help worsen traffic. Singapore generates $6 billion a year from car parking fees, apart from high excise taxes on car ownership.
Govt reads public’s pulse wrongly? House Bill 4334 is silent on private cars, but has five provisions on public transport. These are Section 14 on “Route Rationalization” of Public Utility Vehicles (PUVs); Section 15 on the “Revocation and Modification of PUV Franchises and Permits”; Section 16, “Suspension of PUV Franchising Authority” previously granted to local government units (LGUs); Section 17, “Government Takeover of Franchises; and Section 18, “PUV Operator Obligations and Responsibilities”, which also proposes converting drivers into monthly salaried employees.
Transport leaders fear HB 4334 will put them out of business, as it also reinforces the DOTr’s transport modernization, which effectively replaces small operators with fleet-management systems along big corporate business models. Once signed, taxis and AUV operators must have a minimum capitalization of P12 million and 10 units; jeepney operators, a minimum capital of P7 million for 10 units starting this year, 20 units by 2018 and 40 units by 2019.
This only allows big businesses to edge out small operators, many of whom are drivers themselves. Most operators own just one or two units, and only a sprinkling few own over 10 units. Some were former overseas Filipino workers.
Must business rule over public service? Modernization also translates to an effective phaseout for vehicles 15 years and older, and the installation of new Euro 4 engines to achieve cleaner emissions. Ramil Padrigo, president of the Cubao Rosario Operators and Drivers Association, said there is no assurance Euro 4 engines will reduce emissions, as many brand-new vehicles incur emission problems even after purchase.
“Why change an entire vehicle, or engine, if there are other alternatives to wipe out emissions even by 99 percent,” Padrigo said, asking, “why the 15 years of age is based on the oldest component, when some car parts can even last maybe 100 years, like the chassis, or even the engine block, unless some big businesses just want to sell entire vehicles and engines.”
Citing the likely influence of those in academe, who may have suggested the installation of Global Positioning System (GPS), Wi-fi and other gadgetry in the draft program, Padrigo said this is ridiculous, as a GPS is useless with the jeepney’s fixed routes.
With 250,000 jeepneys nationwide, a Euro 4 engine replacement at P700,000 each means a maximum wholesale market of P175 billion; and for a total jeepney replacement at P1.2 million, that’s a market of P300 billion. By any computation, amortizations will burden the sector.
Transport leaders or dealers? How transport leaders reacted vary wildly. Some leaders swallowed the program on rumors they will earn fat commissions of P200,000 per unit. Other groups opposed the program by calling for a “Tigil Pasada” (Stop Driving) without offering alternative solutions.
Worst, some operators and drivers in some areas like Marikina were threatened from access to terminals and other privileges, etc., if they do not join the protest, although it is supposed to be voluntary. Pasay City was not paralyzed, as it did not participate, but Benjamin Fabia of the Pasay transport Service Cooperative, which is pushing for viable alternatives, was maliciously cited in a tabloid as a strike participant when he pushed for “Tuloy Pasada” (Continue Driving).
Some leaders on the right track. Fabia’s response to modernization’s “fleet management” is cooperativism that enables them to band as one to qualify with the capitalization and the increasing number of units. Fabia, Padrigo and other transport leaders oppose what is wrong with the government’s program, but do not want rallies or strikes. They want to offer better solutions.
These sensible leaders argue, on the contrary, why blame public transport for worsening traffic when franchises have long been restricted in many routes, while over 350,000 private vehicles and close to 1 million motorcycles are sold every year. Fabia says a jeepney with 20 passengers is equivalent to 16 private cars of road space. For buses with a seating capacity of 60 passengers and 10 to 20 passengers standing, that’s about 50 to 60 cars of road space.
They also asked that if they can reduce emissions, rehab and repaint their vehicles to look like brand-new, do they still have to be phased out in favor of brand-new vehicles or engines? If so, then the government may be unwittingly used by interest groups just wanting to make money.
E-mail: mikealunan@yahoo.com.