THE last five years have produced many lessons about reforming public transport. It is a difficult, complex challenge involving different stakeholders and diverse local contexts. While the aims of the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP) are laudable and need to be supported, the top-down, 'one-size-fits-all' approach has not worked. Even President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. acknowledges that PUVMP has fundamental design issues that need to be corrected before proceeding further.A more effective and inclusive PUVMP should be developed with the active participation of key stakeholders and application of a 'learning process' approach — focusing first on a few small-scale pilot projects to find the right interventions and procedures, extract lessons and build capacities. The replication and expansion of successful program procedures and interventions can follow.The need for a new program design is apparent. After more than five years, only about 63.5 percent of PUV units have had their owners agree to consolidate and participate, according to the Department of Transportation (DoTr). There are 6,814 new units that have been financed under the PUVMP but this only covers a small fraction of the 158,281 jeepneys and 19,952 UV Express units that operate today. The PUVMP envisioned that local government units (LGUs) would prepare and submit local public transport route plans (LPTRPs) that would guide the expansion of public transport services in localities but, the DoTr reports, only 62.5 percent (around 985) out of 1,575 LGUs have submitted LPTRPs. Moreover, evaluation and approval have been slow: only 159 LPTRPs have been approved to date.Even before the pandemic, the supply of public transport was already seriously insufficient. It grew far worse during the pandemic. In my estimate, around 30 percent of public transport capacity was lost as many operators went out of business. Vehicles were sidelined due to lack of maintenance. Some drivers, unable to earn a living, decided to shift to other jobs. To arrest the continued deterioration in the welfare of commuters, the priority of the government should be to expand public transport supply as quickly as possible.Implementing a program with tough deadlines and threats of franchise cancellation has not increased supply. The outcome is likely just the opposite. By creating a climate of uncertainty and fear, and by spreading apprehension and worry among drivers and vehicle owners, the punitive approach to implementing the PUVMP may push unhappy drivers and vehicle owners to exit the industry, further reducing the supply of public transport and making conditions worse for commuters.For many working in the public transport industry, participation in the PUVMP is not an easy decision. The program involves not only replacing old, polluting and unsafe vehicles, it also means moving to a different business model that enables the delivery of services on each route according to an agreed plan. This means that all vehicles and drivers on a route need to coordinate with each other, work as a team and comply with common fleet management rules (e.g., vehicle dispatching, fare collection, garaging, maintenance, and how revenues and costs will be divided and shared). For a vehicle owner, it would mean giving up independence and the flexibility of operating as a small business. While working under common fleet management could ultimately be more efficient and profitable but it could also come with added risks.If an organization has little or no experience with fleet management or if organizational capacities are weak, things can go horribly wrong. This is why the success of the program requires special attention to building the needed institutional capacities and management systems within a transport cooperative or corporation. Vehicle owners and transport workers also need to be assured of a just transition and a path to more stable and profitable operations.Another reason why some transport operators oppose the PUVMP is that they are worried about being disenfranchised or deprived of their right to operate when their vehicle ownership and franchise documents are scrutinized. Many do not hold proper ownership or franchise papers because the documents they possess may not show that they are the actual owners of the unit. In some cases, both the vehicle and its franchise may still be in the name of a long-deceased relative; in others, the vehicle and franchise may have been purchased long ago but never officially transferred. If vehicle papers are in the name of another person, it may be difficult for the vehicle owner to organize any change in franchise status, avail of subsidy programs or join a cooperative on the same route. Because such cases are likely to be numerous, the government should offer a special amnesty to allow concerned operators to rectify their status and records through submission of an affidavit and payment of a token fine. This will likely reduce some of the apprehension that many transport operators have about participating in the PUVMP.Today, the PUVMP is characterized as having 'many sticks but no carrots.' A strong negative signal is that the vehicle financing, which had been available since 2018, has largely disappeared. The subsidy earlier provided by the national government to cover most of the downpayment for a replacement vehicle is no longer in the 2023 national budget. The Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank for the Philippines, the traditional lenders for the PUVMP, have nearly exhausted their loan facilities, and most private banks and financing firms remain cautious and hesitant. Meanwhile, interest rates have shot up — meaning any vehicle loan now entails much higher cost. While PUVMP implementation is currently 'paused,' it is an opportune time to re-calculate and secure approvals for longer-term resource requirements, recognizing that is an initiative that can bring meaningful improvement to the lives of millions of Filipinos and attract 'green' or 'climate' financing.In summary, an incremental, 'learning-by-doing' approach for re-designing the PUVMP is essential in the current context where the government is still in search of an effective formula and implementation capacities in agencies require strengthening. The program needs to be reviewed and re-designed with the genuine participation and inputs of different stakeholders; lessons need to be extracted from the failures and successes of recent years; and different approaches need to be first tested on a small or pilot scale to see which ones work best and if the desired results are achieved. The effective interventions can then be replicated and expanded. Moreover, beginning on a small scale and then scaling-up once success is demonstrated is arguably the best way to win support from a still somewhat skeptical public transport industry.Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate. He can be reached at mobilitymatters.ph@yahoo.com or followed on Twitter at @RobertRsiy.
