Who’s tasked to improve commuters’ lives?
ROBERT SIY
All of us have friends or relatives whose lives have become severely stressed and almost untenable due to the difficulties of their daily commute.
Consuming five to six hours a day to travel to and from work or school is now common. Waking up at 4 am to arrive by 8 am is the new normal.
With restricted supply of public transport, queues are very long during rush hour. Along main roads, thousands of commuters are sometimes stranded for hours, unable to get on any bus or jeepney.
It’s even worse when it rains. For many who battle their way into a train or bus, the daily commute is a humiliating and dehumanizing experience. When will relief come for those who go through this daily struggle?
If today’s situation is already a crisis, it can still get far worse. There’s very large potential for further motorization because less than 10 percent of Filipino households own cars.
With the economy growing at over six percent annually and incomes rising, we can expect many more Filipinos to own cars and motorcycles in the coming years, bringing more vehicles to already congested streets.
But the anticipated growth in private vehicle ownership doesn’t have to lead to catastrophe. One can own a car but reserve its use for special trips (weekend excursions, emergencies, etc.).
In Germany, Japan and Korea, most households own a motor vehicle but their daily commutes are by public transport, walking and cycling.
The solution is to reverse the trend in cities toward private vehicle use by making public transport, walking and cycling attractive, affordable and safe options for commuters.
This is the vision that all parts of government, local and national, should be pursuing.
As long as public transport remains an ordeal, and walking and cycling are considered difficult or unsafe, Filipinos will prefer private vehicles for their daily travel.
Despite Philippine laws saying otherwise, persons with disabilities have realistically no mobility option except to use a private vehicle to get around.
Is enough being done to change this sad situation? For sure, a lot is being done but clearly not enough and not fast enough.
There needs to be a stronger sense of urgency and more immediate results. Here are a few thoughts on why relief for our commuters remains elusive.
The performance targets of the concerned agencies are not defined in terms of client experience. We are familiar with the broad vision of “fast, safe, efficient, reliable transportation”. We understand that there are 75 flagship projects that will herald the golden age of infrastructure.
But will they make a difference for the commuter? Government’s objectives are seldom defined in terms of the measurable impact on the riding public.
We need to ask what’s really meaningful for the commuter and to deliver the best. Agencies report on how much of the budget has been committed and disbursed, the number of contracts awarded, the hectares of right-of-way acquired, and the number of kilometers built.
We seldom hear of targets or accomplishments in terms of reduction in commuters’ waiting time and travel time which what matters most to them.
For example, if today it takes the average commuter over three hours to get from Fairview, Quezon City to Ayala
Ave. in Makati, how can we bring this total travel time down to, say, 1.5 hours or less within the next three years?
As another target, any one-way journey under 10 kilometers within Metro Manila or Metro Cebu shouldn’t take longer than 45 minutes using a combination of public transport and active transport (walking and cycling).
If the objectives were placed in these terms, the set of solutions might be different from those being proposed today.
There is no single point of accountability for the welfare of the commuter. Is there one person or one agency responsible for ensuring commuters have shorter waiting and travel times?
The sad reality is that there’s no single government unit that considers itself accountable for delivering better commuter experience so that people get home earlier and waste less time moving from place to another.
Yes, we recognize that different parts of the government are working very hard on different aspects. But will the sum of these efforts lead to improved welfare of commuters?
Is anyone coordinating or orchestrating the separate efforts to make sure they lead together to tangible benefit for the client?
LGUs understand the needs of their constituents and local conditions. They’re also responsible for traffic management including the signal lights at intersections.
But LGUs have little control over the supply of public transport except for the franchising of tricycles. For LGUs to introduce public transport service that charges fares, they need to seek clearance from the national government.
DOTr (and LTFRB, its attached agency) has primary responsibility over all road-based public transport (except tricycles) but can’t influence local traffic conditions directly.
For instance, MMDA’s number-coding regulations limit the supply of buses, jeepneys and other public transport along major roads in Metro Manila. The City of Manila once limited the movement of buses in certain parts of the city.
DPWH manages national roads and bridges, many of which are major arteries in our cities. If an LGU would like to place a bus stop or expand the sidewalk on a national road, they need to seek the prior approval of DPWH.
DPWH is working vigorously on building more road infrastructure. How can we make sure their efforts are fully aligned with DOTr’s vision of reducing car-dependence and promoting sustainable mobility options?
To add to the mix, NEDA is working on various transportation masterplans and roll-out of the National Transport Policy.
With this multiplicity of actors in the transport sector, the clarification of institutional arrangements and responsibilities should be a priority.
Local governments must be key actors. It’s unreasonable to expect that a national agency such as DOTr can oversee and provide the mobility needs of Filipinos in all parts of the country. The task is just too large for any single department to handle.
One of the underlying principles behind the push for Federalism is that local governments know their communities and are in the best position to respond to their needs.
Legislation and regulations should be amended so that local governments become the accountable party, the single point of responsibility, for delivering the mobility solutions required in each locality.
This is how it is in most parts of the world including in great cities like London, Seoul and Tokyo.
DOTr recognizes this point and has already taken a major step by giving LGUs the responsibility for local public transport route planning.
This LGU function should be expanded so that the single point of accountability for the welfare of the commuter lies with the LGU.
If there’s a problem with transport services in a city or municipality, local residents should complain to their local government rather than to the DOTr Secretary.
At the same time, LGUs (and metropolitan authorities like MMDA) need to be empowered and capacitated to take on this transport planning and management function.
This is where national government agencies come in: establishing the legal and policy framework, offering sustained capacity building, and ensuring that financial resources are available to complement local efforts.
Commuters need to make their voices heard.
hope I’am proven wrong but I believe that many decision-makers in our government have little knowledge or appreciation of the suffering that commuters go through each day.
Can we ask senior officials (even legislators) at least once a year to use public transport during rush hour to experience what other Filipinos go through?
How about an activity where transport officials are required to get around in a wheelchair or with crutches so they find out first-hand what the issues are for physically-challenged persons?
At the same time, many Filipinos are accustomed to suffer in silence, especially if they see themselves as helpless to influence or alter their current plight.
It will be important for commuters to articulate their needs and expectations. Politicians should hear directly from their clients that the current situation isn’t acceptable, that better services are required now, not in the next administration or generation.
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 Who’s tasked to improve commuters’ lives? appeared first on The Manila Times Online.