“SUSTAINABLE transport is about moving people, not vehicles.” I propose we keep this principle in mind as we deal with the huge challenges posed by transport.
The conflated transport and traffic crisis in Metro Manila and areas similarly situated indicate problems with both private and public transportation systems. But at its heart are challenges related to the sustainability of public transport.
Public transport impacts on the economy and other aspects of society. Because it affects daily mobility and incomes and is very visible, public transport has direct and immediate effects to which people strongly react. The effects and reactions may cloud our abilities to think at the level of systems and in the long-term.
Public transport use in the country is high. Jeepneys, buses, vans, taxis, tricycles—and even the unregulated ones like trisikads, habal-habal or skylab motorcycles, and trisiboats—are the dominant and accessible rides.
Dependence on public transport is particularly strong in urban areas where populations are concentrated. Travel using public transport constitutes 69%of the total number of trips taken daily in Metro Manila based on aJapan International Cooperation Agency study, whereas in Davao it accounts for 81% of daily travel according to the Asian Development Bank.
The Crispin B. Beltran Resource Center (CBBRC) estimates the total number of jeepney commuters alone to be at nine million.
Jeepneys and their Filcab/multicab relatives—here referred to collectively as PUJs—have come under the glare of the spotlight because of moves to modernize jeepney fleets and phase outoldmodelsunder the government’s Public Utility Vehicles Modernization Program.
CBBRC puts the number of PUJs nationwide at 270,000. Earlier, the transport organization PISTON estimated that 650,000 drivers and 250,000 operators would be affected.
Drivers often work long hours to generate enough fares for their take-home earnings. In Davao, a significant number of drivers report working for 12 hours for income that is a little above the daily minimum wage. Without social benefits like PhilHealth and SSS, drivers and their families suffer when drivers are unable to work. Many operators claim to rely on daily boundaries, and lament that with increasing maintenance costs for ageing PUJ units, they are unable to save and cannot afford new units.
But as any commuter who has had to wait for a ride in rainy weather with threats of flooding know, these are not the only problems of public transport.
A number of studies have noted that public transport in the Philippines is generally insufficient and of poor quality.Also, congestion, which affects providers and commuters alike, is worsening, and is nearly at a point where a do-nothing position would be untenable.
It is not yet too late for us to recognize that the status quo in public transport cannot continue unchallenged. We cannot sit it out and pass on the problems to the ones after, be it the next administration, or the next generation.
But the nature of public transport in the Philippines is also that it will not allow a solution imposed unilaterally. We need to invest ina big conversation about public transport importance, the challenges and opportunities surrounding it, and the vision and means for transforming it.
One of the topics should be on shifting the approach so public transport gets viewed not only as ‘livelihood’ but also as ‘service.’ The system is ‘public’ not only because it serves the public, but also because it entails franchises governing the delivery of services that are vital to public interests.
There is a mindset to ‘livelihood’ that makes it seem to be the sole domain of providers. It also explains practices that make public transport unreliable, to the detriment of commuters’ welfare many of whom are poor: trip-cutting, erratic operating hours, unclean and unsafe facilities, and packing in passengers sardines-like.
Accepting and upholding the ‘service’ dimension would mean that PUJ providers would abide by standards and provide reliable services: observing routes, honoring operating hours, and providing clean, safe and comfortable services. However, these cannot be done by providers alone without changes in the traffic situation and other contexts.
Sustainable public transport is generally understood as using green technology to prevent more climate change risks. But in a very real sense, it means sustaining public transport—so that the public is not pushed into opting for private vehicles that will only add to congestion, energy consumption, and pollution—and also the people who rely on it, both commuters and providers alike. The conversation has to be managed by leaders who are able to encourage frank, though difficult and loud, discussions on real concerns.
Statements like “Pag di kayo na modernize, umalis kayo. Mahirap kayo… sige. Magtiis kayo sahirap at gutom. Walaakopakialam” may suggest firm leadership. But ultimately, they will not encourage the nationwide dialogues and agreements that are necessary to sustainably transform public systems.
*****
Email feedback to magszmaglana@gmail.com