IN every barangay in the Philippines you would find the tricycles as the regular mode of transport—not the jeepneys. Another proof of the Filipinos’ remedyo creativity, the tricycles can be seen in all sorts of terrain, transporting people and carrying cargo that defies physics and engineering—carrying up to 10 passengers at one go. And just like their relationship with jeepney, Filipinos also have the same love-hate relationship for its three-wheeled cousin. People complain about tricycle noise; their illegal terminals; how some tricycles are used for crimes, and their drivers using drugs; how they are unsafe and inconvenient—all similar to the complaints about jeepneys. And yet, the tricycles are the Filipinos’ real “last mile” transport beast of burden—cheap, reliable and necessary. It is the go-to vehicle for any occasion. Filipinos use it to go to work, market, school, and even use it for weddings and funerals in the barangays.
Rightly so, there are now calls for the modernization of the tricycle given its importance and necessity in the everyday lives of Filipino. And just like the jeepney modernization, this will include not just vehicle change but a whole revamp of the tricycle ecosystem, as well—transport efficiency, passenger convenience, as well as passenger safety.
Tricycles do need to be standardized to ensure passenger safety and comfort. Even if the backyard rebuilders and assemblers are allowed to build these trikes, they must adhere to approved national standards, and only use industry-approved materials. Trikes also need to be fuel-efficient. Here, the push for non-carbon alternatives can be better realized than with their four-wheeled counterparts. Though the past administration’s push for electric trikes admittedly failed, such a direction would still be worth looking into because electric trikes are more efficient and contribute greatly to overall carbon reduction.
But the real key to modernization is the decision whether to let tricycles remain under the regulatory authority of the local government units—the cities and the municipalities—and not with the national government. As mandated by the Local Government Code of 1981, franchising, which includes determining the number of tricycles in a locality, is to be decided by the incumbent local authority. There are two concerns here that have been pointed out time and time again. One, what are the guidelines for the systematic determination of tricycle absorption per LGU? More often than not, there is no such mechanism, except second-guessing on local fare elasticity by the LGU resulting in oversupply that adversely affects the profitability of operators. The second concern is political. LGUs have innate difficulty to regulate these vehicles given their political implication. In some cases, LGUs turn a blind eye even to colorum trikes simply because of its political repercussions. On the other hand, handing this authority to the national government will be tedious and impractical given the magnitude of the work and manpower needed to cover all LGUs nationwide.
A better solution to this quandary is to bring both the national and local governments to resolve this. Let the national government provide and implement the right number of motorized trikes per municipality based on road capacity and passenger demand. On the other hand, the local governments will be the ones to strictly enforce these numbers with a direct and automatic transfer of authority from the Land Transportation Office and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. This kind of national-local combined control over the tricycle industry can be also applied to other modernization standards, such as terminal standards, driver training, and equally important—route rationalization so that tricycles do not compete with other modes and, therefore, taking out the need for them to ply on national highways.
Tricycles are here to stay, at least in the medium term. They are there because they fulfill the last mile demand of the Filipino commuter. Government needs to come in to modernize. But it must do so in a less drastic but more realistic and faster manner. Maybe a combined national-local government intervention on these vehicles might be the ready and immediate solution.
Thomas Tim Orbos was former DOTr undersecretary for roads and general manager of the MMDA. He is currently undertaking further studies at the McCourt School of Public Policy of Georgetown University. He can be reached via e-mail at thomas_orbos@sloan.mit.edu