Toward an equitable mass transport system
The draft guideline on reforming public transportation services is still in the consultation stage. Transportation officials say it is too early to protest the draft department order. So when is the right time? "When it is too late?" the striking drivers ask. When should consultations with the affected sectors be done -before or after making the proposal?
One major contention in this issue seems to focus on the proposed new rules for the issuance of franchises for public utility vehicles. Members of PISTON Cebu said the proposal in effect will gradually phase out public utility jeeps and other vehicles on the road by denying applications for such vehicles if they are over 15 years old. Regulators prefer to replace ageing units with brand new ones that are compliant with Euro IV emission standards or higher, or those run by alternative fuel and compliant with equivalent or more stringent emission standards.
What regulators plan to do seems a dream come true for those of us longing for a modern mass transport system especially here in Cebu. But things are not quite that simple in a developing country like ours where a myriad of clashing interests could complicate proposed reforms. Public transportation is one area where government should tread carefully considering its mandate to serve the people.
When proposing reforms in the public transportation sector, three major interests must be considered: that of the riding public, the drivers and small operators, and the business sector, in that order. To consider the drivers outright as an enemy to modernization in the public transport system is a prejudiced view that does not serve our efforts to reform the system and consider its overall impact on society.
So is failing to consider the views of the lower-income riding public who cannot afford cars. (The most critical of errant PUJ drivers are not the general riding public but are those comfortably seated in air-conditioned cars or taxis which cumulatively occupy a much larger part of the road but carry only one or two passengers compared to the average of 18 by PUJs). The business sector, meanwhile, should also be included in the reforms because it can provide the capital to support modernization efforts.
It is in such light that I view with some sympathy the nationwide transportation strike that was held yesterday by members of PISTON. Policy makers and regulators should take care to avoid reducing access to a modern mass transport system into a win/lose situation for the riding public and the drivers. Surely, there is a way forward toward a mass transport system that will not leave the drivers and operators of over 300,000 mostly ageing jeepney units nationwide to extinction.
For example, the government may consider setting up a consortium of drivers, operators, commuters, government, automotive manufacturers, and banks who shall pool their resources and aim for the common goal to provide capital and employment to the hundreds of thousands of drivers and operators in the gradual shift toward a modern mass transport system. The idea is that no single sector should be left behind in our efforts to modernize, and no single sector (like big business) should end up controlling the system.
Reading from the draft guidelines on the planning and identification of public road transportation services, I can say that the government seems to be in a rush to set up a mass transport system that to many of us may be sleek, cool and environment-friendly; but to the ordinary riding public may mean a costly ride, and to the drivers - an empty, overturned pot.
- Latest
