One fundamental missing component in the government’s Public Utility Vehicle (PUV) Modernization Program is maintenance that will guarantee no engine downtime, which is crucial to address the big gap between vehicle manufacturers’ two-year warranties against the seven-year bank financing.
“Fools ‘rust’ in?” Commuters deserve a rush in long-due reforms to ease traffic and modernize the old decrepit jeepneys, but a program that could prevent rust, and thus assure no engine breakdown and continuous daily amortizations, has inadvertently been ignored in the rush to implement modernization.
Section 21 of the Clean Air Act explicitly mandates the Department of Transportation (DOTr) to implement emission standards through “inspection” and “maintenance.” It already has the Motor Vehicle Inspection Service, but has no policy requiring periodic “maintenance” on all vehicles. As public transport undergoes 14 hours of operations and passenger overloads, breakdowns are likely, thus affecting amortization payments and the overall success of the DOTr’s modernization.
On jeepney prototype designs, the rush may result in faster rust even before the vehicle financing is fully paid can be evidenced by the haste on how the design standards were done by the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) of the Department of Trade and Industry.
On queries on the absence of standards on “structural strength,” BPS Assistant Secretary Ernesto Perez said “the scope of DPNS 2126:2017 (for jeepney body standards) is limited to dimensional limits, hence, structural strength and strength of materials were not included.” The Department of Science and Technology should have been involved to guarantee material strength to assure vehicles will last beyond the amortization period.
Assuming standards are limited to mere dimensions, why limit to a single set of dimensions? There are varying characteristics for transport routes, whereby some demand longer jeepneys traveling long distances along highways (i.e., Antipolo to Cubao), while some need shorter jeepneys in short routes and narrow street corners. In short, one cannot have a one-formula-fits-all design.
Oppose, but pose no alternatives? Some transport groups are neither of any help as they just oppose for opposition’s sake, but do not offer viable alternatives. Leading transport strikes is Pinagkaisang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Opereytor Nationwide (Piston), which made off-tangent “default” answers, claiming the solution is “national industrialization,” says Piston leader George San Mateo during Mareng Winnie Monsod’s Pasaway TV show.
Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board Chairman Martin Delgra III appeared cooler, claiming “local vehicle assemblers were consulted, but they admit they could not produce everything locally. In the absence of national industrialization, will Piston continue to oppose modernization?” he asked, adding what has been missing in the discussion is the interests of the mananakay (commuters).
Mareng Winnie told Piston they can’t just oppose without offering “substitute solutions” or alternatives. Transport groups may complain and protest all they like, being protected by the Constitution, regardless of public perception whether these are right or wrong. However, they must offer counter solutions, otherwise they lose the public’s respect.
Franchise, a privilege, not a right. In the case of franchises, they must remember that these are not rights, but privileges extended to them, to serve the public. Their right to protest also stops when they infringe on the rights of others, like the destruction of property (two MMDA tow trucks) during a recent transport strike.
If Piston cannot reason out well, it may be considered unreasonable and could not gain the public’s sympathy. This also applies to Jun Magno’s Stop and Go Coalition, which has been behind the tigil pasada transport actions.
How PUV modernization is handled, amid prevailing problems, is also manifesting conflicting vested interests on one hand, and the emergence of die-hard Luddites, who fear and oppose new technologies, which Piston may unconsciously paint itself in a corner, thus drowning their legitimate issues.
Piston may be Left out, and no longer be doing Right if it digs in on its die-hard position. It does not realize it can ride on the modernization, influence its program features and empower its members into cooperatives to operate allied businesses. Apparently, positions on both extremes will only harden if no concrete alternatives and solutions are put on the table.
Costs not clear yet? While the government may think figuratively that the “coast is clear” in its implementation, it seems it has made again a one-formula-fits-all package in terms of financing costs.
Government entities do not seem to share notes with each other, particularly on their respective resources and capabilities. The DOTr’s financing package involves a seven-year repayment period, amortizations of P850 a day, a 6-percent interest rate, and an equity subsidy of P80,000 for every jeepney replaced.
The DOTr may not be aware there is an available government financing payable in 10 years, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’s Credit Surety Fund (CSF), which can greatly lower daily amortizations to more affordable levels. The CSF is intended for marginalized and organized groups, preferably cooperatives, which is precisely why the Cooperative Development Authority has put up a separate division handling CSF-funded projects.
Koops an opportunity ignored? Modernization requires industrial consolidation and the logical choice for jeepneys are forming cooperatives and not corporations. Unfortunately, many big transport groups oppose cooperatives. For whatever reason, one can only surmise.
Apart from access to the CSF, there are multiple benefits from cooperativism. The DOTr must issue a circular encouraging koop-building. After all, government financing with koops enjoy repayments of 97 percent, unlike associations with only 32 percent.
And because maintenance is vital, it is advisable the koops be supported with vehicle maintenance centers to prevent breakdown downtimes and serve as additional sources of livelihood to supplement their earnings as the amortizations are already as much as the average operator’s boundary income of P800 a day.
There are routes even getting P600 a day, and routes earning P1,500 a day, which opens up the need for segmentized solutions and packages, which entails a whole discourse and consultative process.
E-mail: mikealunan@yahoo.com.