Are we harming the commuter?
ROBERT SIY
One of the challenges faced by national and local officials dealing with the transport industry is how to implement policy, regulate the industry, and improve services without harming or inconveniencing the commuter. If some harm to the commuter is expected, officials need to plan how the negative impact can be avoided or mitigated.
Sometimes, the harm to the commuter is due to the imposition of a sanction or penalty on a transport operator. Or it may be due to misplaced priorities, as when private cars are prioritized over public transport in the use of road space.
The number coding of public transport vehicles, intended to ease traffic in Metro Manila, has led to great suffering for commuters. The problem is visible to anyone at a transport terminal or bus stop during rush hour. Competing against hundreds at a bus stop, one is forced to push and shove one’s way just to get on board the bus. Some stand in queues for over an hour.
The number coding of public transport has been a bad legacy of past administrations. The policy, in the end, encourages more car use and discourages public transport use, which only makes our current situation worse.
If number coding of public transport is lifted, many commuters would get home sooner and have a more comfortable journey. Even the crowding on trains would be eased without any new investment. Although there would be more vehicles on the road, it’s far better to have more public transport than to force commuters to shift to private vehicle use because of insufficient public transport supply.
Another questionable policy is the long-standing practice of LTFRB to suspend all the vehicles in a franchise whenever there’s an incident (say, a major collision) involving a public transport operator. In some cases, the whole fleet and all franchises of the operator are suspended.
If the transport operator is the only bus service on a route (such as in the case of some provincial bus companies), then all the buses on the route are locked down and confined to their garages until further notice. While this inherited practice shows decisive action by the regulator, the problem is that it sometimes leaves commuters without alternative transport.
You may recall the suspension of all 118 bus units of the Dimple Star Bus Company after 19 people were killed in a collision on March 20, 2018 in Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro. It was reported that this was the eighth bus collision of the company and more than 25 people had been killed and 154 injured in these crashes since 2011. For some of the routes, passengers were left without a bus service following the suspension.
Another common situation is when PNP, LTO and LTFRB target “colorum” operators or those who offer transport services without a valid franchise. If we look at why “colorum” vehicles have emerged, a major reason is that demand has significantly outstripped supply during the past decade.
In part, the supply has fallen below demand because a moratorium on the issuance of new franchises has been in place now for more than 10 years. Out of necessity, many communities, especially those in remote and isolated areas, developed their own transport solutions outside of the formal licensing and franchising requirements of the government.
Is there a way to impose a sanction without harming the commuter? One option is to impose a meaningful fine, rather than suspend a service. The fine should be in proportion to the violation and should be large enough to serve as a deterrent.
In the case of colorum vehicles, LTFRB should look at the possibility of an amnesty program to regularize colorum services in areas where their continued operation is needed and appreciated by commuters. Of course, the amnesty program has to be fair to existing franchise holders. In some cases, colorum vehicles were introduced by legitimate franchise holders on the same route who responded to the dire need for additional capacity. If the colorum vehicles were not available, commuters could have been in a far worse situation.
Transport services can be expected to be in short supply whenever there are operations in an area to catch over-age, smoke-belching or colorum vehicles. If suspension of vehicles is required for the safety and welfare of the riding public, government should be able to deploy alternative transport services that can substitute, in the interim, for any suspended or apprehended vehicles—or in case operators intentionally withhold their services.
As a contingency measure, government should have active contracts with transport firms that can provide, upon request, additional vans or buses to serve the public during transport service suspensions, emergencies or other special circumstances.
How can our officials become more conscious of the principle to “do no harm” and to mitigate the negative impacts of their decisions on commuters?
One suggestion is to require all officials, national and local, to use public transport to their place of work at least one day a month during rush hour (use of taxis and TNVS not permitted). For officials who may not have used public transport in recent years, they would gain better appreciation of the problems that need fixing and the urgency of finding solutions. Legislators should also be encouraged to participate in this exercise.
Transport regulators should never forget that their primary duty is to pursue and protect the welfare of the riding public. This purpose is of greater importance than enforcing laws and punishing violators.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate. He can be reached at mobilitymatters.ph@yahoo.com or followed on Twitter @RobertRsiy
The post Are we harming the commuter? appeared first on The Manila Times Online.