“Towards a sound transportation modernisation program
that benefit all stakeholders”
Thoughts on the recent Jeepney strike
This note at first supports the struggles of the Jeepney drivers, operators, as well as passengers who supported the recent strike in response to the one-sided “modernisation plan”.
The government has been adamant about modernizing public transportation, but they have forgotten that having modern, improved, clean and sustainable transportation should entail more than just having new and modern engines as well as better fleets. Such attempts without considering today’s state of jeepney drivers and operators, nor its inclusivity in its plan will simply lead to unemployment and loss of livelihood as well as lessen the number of public transport options to the commuting public especially at a time when the country is still reeling from the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic.
For both operators and drivers, as they are still attempting to recover from the recent coronavirus pandemic and want to regain their lost routes and franchises cannot afford to gain such expensive “modern” jeepneys. Furthermore, the increasing prices of oil and other commodities even hinder them from buying as such, forcing them to choose between immediate needs and thar of expensive “modern jeepneys” sponsored by bureaucrats and profiteers alike. The latter even insisted that drivers and operators alike should form cooperatives, but this doesn’t suffice the problem of resolving their livelihoods if not obviously making them exploited by interest seekers using jeepney modernisation as its alibi.
Additionally, proponents of the modernisation program assert that they want to modernize mass transportation in order to provide clean transportation networks as aging jeepneys themselves are a source of smoke spewing and pollution. But the solutions they are putting forth simply do not deal with structural problems in the urban and transportation systems. They only represent a change from an older, polluting technology to a more modern one that benefits affording few at the expense of the have nots.
True that both drivers and operators, as well as passengers wished for modern, safe, and improved mass transportation systems, and even see and hear their calls for inclusion in transport system planning. But this one sided, anti-poor “Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program” (PUVMP) doesn’t resolve but instead aggravate the problem regarding mass transport as it benefits entrenched interests- that even local jeepney assemblers, who willing to take part in a modernisation program are also sidelined in favour of importers whose expensive, imported “jeepneys” from China disregarded chances of improving, if not developing a still young local mass transport industry that’s beneficial to all stakeholders especially drivers and operators.
Thus, in order to be effective and equitable, any plan to improve the transportation system must be a component of a larger effort to make the urban setting more livable, and people must be the primary focus of those efforts. All stakeholders should be included in such idea that’s driven by the desire to improve mass transportation without leaving behind vulnerable sectors. Urban mobility inequities should be addressed by exploring outside of the realms of technology, infrastructure, and even rules. As well as must consider on how to incorporate mobility equity into urban planning and development.