Militants in the jeepney industry won, while the public lost, during the two-day transportation strike early this week. Their “win,” however, was at the expense of the economy, commuters, and children who had to skip school, among others. It was also at a cost to jeepney operators and drivers who did not earn that day.
I can understand their concern regarding the government program to phaseout old jeepneys; or, to force jeepney operators to buy new units. After all, re-fleeting is never cheap. And, it could very well be that many in the present industry do not have sufficient capital to modernize their fleets. But, modernization is long overdue. And, I believe, we should support it.
Some may be quick to point out that modernization is easier said than done, and that motorists like me have poor appreciation of the plight of commuters. But, the government plan doesn’t mean removing the jeepneys altogether. The phaseout will also involve a phase-in. It is not about elimination but replacement — for the better. Why fight that?
Many administrations have planned to make public transportation safer and more efficient but getting rid of dilapidated jeepneys. Not one had managed to move on the program because of politics. If we don’t do it now, then when? The jeepney industry was a post-war creation, starting about 70 years ago, the result of lack of resources. We are long past that stage.
Soon enough, the government may already legislate against internal combustion engines. There may be more electric than gasoline cars or diesel cars on the road in 25 years. But, at the rate the jeepney industry is ranting, it seems that even 25 years down the road, it intends to remain where it is today, which is where it already was decades ago. No change. Why?
Assuming there are about 60,000 jeepneys in Metro Manila now. How many of these are operating legitimately, with franchise and permit? How many operators pay franchise tax and income tax? How many drivers were legitimately licensed and are paying taxes? How many units are properly insured? How many will pass an honest-to-goodness motor vehicle inspection system? How many are belching smoke?
The very configuration of many jeepneys already poses questions with respect to passenger safety. Jeepneys have no doors and no windows. They don’t have seatbelts for passengers at the rear. They don’t use catalytic converters and other systems to regulate emission. Many are built with refurbished or surplus engines and parts, have questionable electrical systems, and contribute to air and noise pollution.
And, as far as the few militants in the industry are concerned, this is how they like things to remain. Why? To keep operating costs low under a regime of regulated fares? They balk at the idea of modernizing their fleets, alleging that this plan benefits only bankers and vehicle manufacturers, at their expense.
Of course, what they fail to mention is how they have been making money all these years at the expense of the safety of the riding public, at the expense of the government by way of unpaid taxes, and at the expense of the environment. As to the claim that operators are already losing money, more so with high fuel prices, why then are they still in business?
Modernization should lead to the phaseout of “traditional jeepneys,” to replace them with environment-friendly vehicles equipped with more efficient engines. The objectives are public safety, environmental protection, and sufficiency and efficiency and convenience in public transportation. At this point, the jeepney industry is contributing against these objectives. This should change.
If affordability is the issue, I believe that something can always be worked out. But, the industry should not ask for a dole out. They must share in the burden of modernizing. In fact, had the industry acted on its own, had exercised foresight in the past, and started converting to modern units, then the government need not step in.
Modernizing is a must. The same had been required of taxis, school buses, and even public utility buses. Only the jeepneys and tricycles have been left behind, in terms of both design and technology. Now is their time to shift and shine. I am certain that the industry and the government can meet half way on this.
There is this concern that high amortization costs for new units may just prompt demands for fare increases, and that the government may just accede. High amortization can also lead to cost-cutting by operators in maintenance, and more cut-throat competition on roads by drivers. Some militants claim the modernization plan will just “bury” operators and drivers in debt. This matter should be addressed.
On the other hand, amortization costs pose a limit to access, or a barrier to entry, and may just cut down the number of jeepneys on roads. This can help decongest our roads. Question is, by reducing the number of jeepneys as a consequence of modernization, will we still have enough public utility vehicles on the road to meet commuting needs?
And, as I had noted in a column in May, a more efficient traffic scheme for jeepneys should also be adopted. If the present stop-go system, which allow multiple stops at short distances, will still be remain, then modernizing the jeepney fleet will do little to help improve traffic flow. We need to keep vehicles moving, and at faster rates. We need longer gaps between designated stops, and we need to strictly enforce loading and unloading regulations.
Indeed, modernizing jeepneys is not the end but just the start. We need to improve throughput, at the same time significantly boost capacity. The government should continue to plan new mass transit systems, at least in Metro Manila. The replacement of aging fleets should be followed by a major program to develop mass transit.
Marvin A. Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippines Press Council.
