Four Institutional Governance Challenges for Public Transportation in Metro Manila

1
Four Institutional Governance Challenges for
Public Transportation in Metro Manila
Cornie Huizenga, Aurora Ables, and Herbert
Fabian Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities
Forum on Public Transport for Sustainable Mobility
May 2005
Metro Manila, Philippines
2
Overview of Presentation

• Formal informal transport services
• Coordination and Cooperation in the public
  transport sector in Metro Manila
• Sound policy making requires sound data
• Coordination among planners and implementers
• Coordination among regulators
• Political leadership
• Public Participation

3
Formal versus Informal Sector (1)

• Formal
• Generally medium to large size
• Fewer colorum
• Audited book keeping
• Formal contracts for staff, minimum wages,
  training of staff
• Pays taxes on regular basis in accordance with
  audited books
• Regular schedules and on-board communications
• Garage and provision for (regular) maintenance
• Allow for depreciation in fleet and regular
  renewal
• Management information systems to allow for
  financial planning and management

• Informal
• Generally small to medium size, many owner
  operators
• More colorum
• No regular bookkeeping
• Where staff is employed mostly on boundary system
• Tax evasion or tax avoidance, bribing
• Ad-hoc scheduling
• Ad hoc or no repair facilities
• Stretch operational life beyond life time
• Back of the envelope calculations

4
Formal versus Informal Sector (2)

• MRT/LRT Formal sector
• Taxis Partly Formal Partly Informal
• Busses Partly Formal Partly Informal
• FXs Informal sector
• Jeepneys Informal sector
• Tricycles Informal sector

5
Formal versus Informal Sector (3)

• Modernization of the transport fleet is
  impossible or more difficult with majority of
  vehicles in the informal sector. E.g.
  introduction of BRT
• Mobilization of additional capital (too)
  difficult for informal sector
• Informal sector is not interested in long-term
  transport policies and has a strong interest in
  maintenance of status-quo
• It will be more difficult to reduce corruption
  with large number of informal operators.
• In order to move forward the emphasis needs to be
  on shifting operators from the informal to the
  formal sector
• Informal Transport Sector Workers to be absorbed
  by formal transport enterprises
• Regularization of the informal transport sector
  to take into account environmental and social
  sustainability

6
Sound Planning needs Sound Data
Coordination and Cooperation in the transport
sector in Metro Manila (1)

• No institutionalized mechanism in place which
  collects data on modal split, VKT, activity data
  by sub-sector and routes, etc. (performance of
  the overall system)
• No regular data collection on environmental
  performance of the transport sector
• No regular data collection of safety and access
  to public transport for different socio-economic
  groups
• No reliable data on cost structure of the
  different public transport modes
• No reliable information on incentives and
  subsidies provided to different public transport
  modes
• Assign responsibility to one agency to coordinate
  data-collection and reporting
• Make data exchange mandatory and provide enough
  financial resources for data collection AND
  Timely reporting

7
Coordination among Planners and Implementers
Coordination and Cooperation in the transport
sector in Metro Manila (2)

• Agendas MMDA, DOTC, DENR, LTFRB and LGUs not
  coordinated different groups pursue different
  priorities at different times
• Environmental Agenda DENR versus traffic flow
  MMDA and LGUs
• MMDA LGUs in land use planning priorities
• DENR/MMDA LTFRB in reviewing franchises
• No consensus on the relative importance of
  different public transport sector modes as a
  consequence planning confirms status quo rather
  than paradigm shift which is required to address
  MMs problems.
• Poor utilization of donor assistance in planning
• Agree on strategic priorities for MM transport
  (NOT master plan) and institutional framework for
  implementation
• Establish a Metro Manila Transport Cluster which
  includes NEDA, DOTC, DPWH, DENR, LTFRB, MMDA,
  NCTS, LGUs to periodically review transport
  priorities and financing

8
Coordination among regulators
Coordination and Cooperation in the transport
sector in Metro Manila (3)

• Currently LTFRB main regulator for public
  transport Busses, Taxis, Jeepneys and FX.
  Tricycles regulated by LGUs, MRT and LRT directly
  under DOTC.
• LTFRB focuses on pricing and franchise issues.
  DOTC/LTO/LGUs focus on emissions and road safety.
  MMDA focuses on road discipline.
• MMDA and LGUs are the frontline in enforcement of
  regulations, coordination between down stream
  regulation apprehensions and upstream
  regulation suspension is not functioning.
• Clarification of mandates required, probably
  revise distribution of mandates e.g MMDA versus
  LGUs on apprehensions, LGUs versus DOTC for
  tricycles,
• Implementation/enforcement of regulations to be
  better resourced
• Do not be afraid to suspend/revoke franchises on
  selective basis

9
Political Leadership

• No clear guidance on the role of public versus
  private transport and associated with this
  incentives/disincentives to develop public
  transport versus private transport
• Political leadership does not acknowledge the
  importance of maintaining or improving
  Non-Motorized Transport (NMT)
• Political infighting between National, NCR, LGU
  level prevents the development of integrated
  public transport plan for Metro Manila
• Political influence on setting agendas at
  expense of technical analysis
• Assign primacy for MM transport policy
  development to MMDA and provide backing up
  through Office of the President
• Political leadership should embrace MM Transport
  Strategic Priorities and associated financial
  framework
• Public Transport in MM should be depoliticized

10
Public Participation

• At present consultations on the public transport
  in MM do not include the general public but are
  dominated by government and transport providers.
• The absence of a regularly updated transport
  policy for MM makes it difficult for general
  public and special interest groups e.g.
  environmental NGOs to take influence on the
  transport debate
• Public debate on transport is often based on
  pre-conceived notions and prejudices and not on
  facts
• Government should encourage broader public debate
  on public transport policies in Manila. It should
  provide a regular forum and make better
  information available to improve the quality of
  debate
• Care should be taken that poor and disadvantaged
  groups are part of the Dialogue, this to avoid
  mode bias and road capture by private car
  owners