Strike

Several jeepney drivers’ groups have called for an unprecedented one-week strike next week to demand extension of the deadline for phasing out “traditional” vehicles and replacing them with “modern” versions.

As this is written, the news reports indicate that LTFRB is open to extending the June deadline. The organizers of the strike, however, are declaring the action will push through.

We cannot predict the scale of this announced strike, subject as it is to the vagaries of the striking coalition. Some frantic negotiations are underway to dissuade drivers from participating in this wildcat strike.

The planned strike violates the franchises of public conveyances. It will cause great harm to the commuting public. Participation should be penalized.

If government yields to the demand of the groups threatening a strike, every future deadline will be met with the same threat of wholesale inconvenience. It will take a century for the jeepney modernization program to be completed.

The reasons for the modernization program are quite clear. The time has come to shift public transport to more efficient and less polluting forms. The “traditional” jeepney has lost its place in the modern urban setting. It has become a source of congestion rather than a provision of comfort.

I recall participating in rather heated debates on the fate of the jeepneys in the eighties. Even then, I argued that the vehicle was an intolerable oddity. Adapted from the GP (general purpose) vehicle the US Army left behind after the Second World War, it forced passengers to sway from left to right in stop-and-go city traffic. In the immediate postwar period, what was officially designated as an AC (auto calesa) provided direly needed mobility for our commuters – principally because there was no other option.

Later, we adapted the vehicle by procuring old engines from Japan and fitting them with longer chassis to fit more people. The longer jeepneys were brightly painted, equipped with deafening speakers.

They were not called “King of the Road” for nothing. Collecting fare, counting change and scanning for passengers to pick up became precarious art. It bred a dangerous street culture of jeepneys weaving through traffic, picking up and dropping off passengers exactly where they wanted to land or board. There was a time, when we had the luxury of ample road space, that an AC would leave the main route and go into the side streets to bring a passenger right to his doorstep.

Jeepney drivers were notorious for suddenly swerving to catch a lone passenger or to unload one. They cut trips to get the most passengers. This mode of transport shaped driving styles in the metropolis.

Jeepneys had the lowest passenger-to-engine ratio among all other options. And there were few other options. Because jeepneys were cheaper, we chose to neglect the development of an efficient bus system, an even more efficient commuter rail network and only lately did we begin building a subway system.

This quaint mode of transport, whose engines were so badly maintained, defined how we moved people and how we managed our urban road system. Whenever government planned for more road discipline or (horror of horrors) proposed to phase out the jeepneys, the drivers’ groups mounted strikes to force government back. They forced progress back.

Those who want the “traditional” jeepneys conserved offer rather strange arguments. They claim they are out to save “jobs” that were there precisely because the transport system was inefficient. They complain about the high cost of transitioning and organizing into cooperatives that might better manage the availability of transportation assets.

What we call a “modernization” program is already a compromise. Instead of deploying real buses plying clearly defined routes, this program is merely seeking the replacement of “traditional” with “modern” jeepney designs. The “modern” design uses Euro 4 compliant engines and a higher passenger-to-engine ratio. They are also safer, not the least because they eliminate the old rear-boarding design.

As it is, the shift to “modern” jeepneys will significantly reduce vehicle pollution and probably produce more income certainty to those working in this sector. The new design will be more comfortable to commuters. Some degree of sanity might return to our roads.

The impact of transitioning to a new design, however, might have little impact on traffic congestion. We are too deep into the urban chaos to achieve that. We have too many people to move and too little road space to do that.

At any rate, rather than be held hostage by those who insist on doing things the old way, the city is preparing to soften the impact of the announced strike. Government trucks will be deployed to ferry stranded passengers. A suspension of the number-coding system is being considered to increase the number of private vehicles on the road for the duration of the strike. Schools have announced a remote learning shift to protect students from the impact of the strike. People are running their errands early to avoid being caught in the streets during the strike.

This could be a pivotal confrontation between those who seek to improve transport technologies in the city and those who would rather keep the old inefficient ways of doing things. The “traditional” jeepney should be kept in the museum rather than allowed to roam the streets. They are quaint cultural relics – although that should not be an excuse to keep them there.

We will see next week if the announced strike will at all be carried out.