The Modernization of our Transport Systems (Part 4) – The LPTRP

“The Local Public Transport Route Plan, or LPTRP is a plan detailing the route network, mode, and required number of units per mode for delivering land transport service, which shall be the minimum requirement prescribed for the issuance of PUV franchises. This shall form part of the Local Transport Master Plan which relates land use to transport modes and provides measures for traffic management.” This is the definition given under DILG-DOTr JMC No. 001, s. 2017.

As it is, the LPTRP is a good concept. The Department of Transportation (DOTr) should have done this 20 years ago. But how effectively was this executed? One only has to go around the country, or just even to the nearest city or municipal hall to get the reality on the ground. The fact that the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP) is now almost at a standstill is a testament to the reality that many, if not most, “good concepts” in this country fail in execution and implementation. In most cases, mainly because of trying to make simple things complicated.

Let’s look at the LPTRP closer. First, it covers “public transportation” with all its denominations. By definition we mean types of vehicles with different capacities (thus buses, mini-buses, jeepneys, tricycles, and trisikads). The last two were included and even instituted a “moratorium” on the issuance of franchises sans the LPTRP. Maybe they forgot that both three-wheel modes were already devolved to LGUs and are governed by local ordinances. That’s the issue with shotgun approaches.

But the PUVMP focuses on buses and jeepneys inasmuch as it started its initial raison d'état on environmental GHG emissions concepts. That’s why there’s “modernization” for the buses and jeepneys but not for tricycles and trisikads. If we take stock of all LGUs in the country, we have 81 provinces, 146 cities, and 1,488 municipalities, or a total of 1,715 LGUs. I don’t have the exact number, but I believe more than 90% of those do not even have “intra-LGU” buses or jeepneys (those that serve routes within the city/municipality). What they have are “inter-LGU” or “pass-through” buses and jeepneys, while all local trips are served by tricycles and trisikads. Check your local LGU when you can. It might even be 95%! And these thousands of towns and cities were forced to make their LPTRPs when only the provinces and highly urbanized cities would have needed those.

Why did this happen? Well, because firstly, a good concept like LPTRP was subsumed under a broader PUVMP and made part of the “requirement”. Second, because instead of instituting strategic targeted execution, they did what they do as usual --issue department orders and joint circulars, which resulted in all LGUs scrambling to make their LPTRP’s for submission purposes when most didn’t necessarily need to, or not in the fixed format specified. When you add the complexities of assembling operators into “cooperatives” to fit a particular “route” specified in the LPTRP, it’s bound to be met by natural resistance. Now, they are “re-evaluating” the law, and may issue subsequent orders and circulars which will further muddle everything. We can only hope it won’t end up into a Gordian knot. (To be continued)