* This is my column in BusinessWorld last week, May 24.
As
incomes rise around the world, they tend to stay within cities, urban hubs, and
rural areas on the cusp of urbanization. Congestion follows as a result, even
if property developments are done vertically.
After
searching for an international transportation or mobility index that includes
Metro Manila or the Philippines, I found one made by the Arthur Little
Consultancy. They developed the Urban Mobility Index, a point system with 100
points as the perfect score.
The
index is composed of three groups of urban mobility systems: Maturity of the
system (36 points), Innovation (24 points), and Performance (40 points), with
nine topics in each group. These are: Transport-related CO2 emissions, NO2
concentration, PM10 concentration, PM2.5 concentration, Traffic-related
fatalities, Increase share of public transpo (PT) in modal split, Increase
share zero-emission modes, Mean travel time to work, and Motorization level.
The
second biggest group, Maturity, and its nine topics are: Financial
attractiveness of PT, Share of PT in modal split, Share of zero-emission modes,
Road density, Cycle-path network density, Urban agglomeration density,
Public-transport frequency, Urban mobility initiatives, and Urban logistics
initiatives.
About
100 cities worldwide are covered. Surprisingly, Metro Manila has scored
moderately and not in the lowest group of cities (see Table 1).
People
may wonder why Metro Manila has ranked higher than Osaka or Sydney or Kuala
Lumpur. Perhaps the surveyors and researchers covered only the EDSA area where
a train — however cramped — exists and jeepneys and tricycles are banned.
Vehicles move along at slow speeds during rush hours.
Disruption
in urban mobility was first made by MRT/LRT a few decades ago. However, an
increase in capacity was few and far in between, resulting in a persistent
“transport crisis.”
The
second round of disruption was made by vans and UV expresses, which help ferry
passengers from high density locations and help them avoid taking multiple
rides to their destinations.
However,
this local initiative was restricted by the government via the LTFRB as it
severely limited the franchising of UV express vehicles and heavily penalized
vans that were “colorum (unregistered).”
A
third round of disruption was introduced by a multinational company, US-based
Uber. It was so successful, it inspired a regional competitor, Singapore-based
Grab, to offer the same service.
Unfortunately,
the LTFRB kept to its antiquated regulations, restricting the number of cars to
serve both Uber and Grab. It later penalized Uber with a substantial fine.
Plagued
with its own financial issues, Uber later decided to quit Southeast Asia and
merge with Grab.
Meanwhile,
actions of the LTFRB leave much to be desired.
Of
the 19,000 Uber drivers, only 11,000 were absorbed by Grab since these were the
only ones accredited by the LTFRB.
Some
6,000 former Uber drivers are still waiting accreditation and are unable to
drive for Grab because they are not in the LTFRB master list while some 2,000
ex-Uber drivers have possibly given up (see Table 2).
Grab
Philippines Country manager Brian Cu brought this up during his presentation
during the BusinessWorld Economic Forum 2018 on May 18 at Grand Hyatt Hotel,
BGC in Taguig City. The forum’s theme was “Disruptor or Disrupted: The
Philippines at the Crossroads.”
Ride-sharing
and TNVS scheme are disruptors in urban mobility system and thousands of
commuters have benefited. The LTFRB and government bureaucracy have disrupted
this in their own way, resulting in increased inconvenience for TNVS
passengers.
To
this day, the LTFRB continues to control fares and cap surge pricing, a move
that discourages drivers from getting incentives for picking up passengers even
in inhospitable areas. This, despite the fact that the agency has already
limited the number of accredited drivers, as discussed previously.
Providing
comfortable, convenient, and safe transportation is not a crime and government
has no business limiting this kind of entrepreneurship. Government should
instead further expand competition, stay away from price and fare control, and
allow commuters to have more choices.
---------------
See also:
BWorld 207, Fare control and surge cap are wrong, May 10, 2018
BWorld 213, Disruption, inflation and taxation, May 23, 2018
BWorld 214, Disruption in global economic power, May 24, 2018
BWorld podcast 2, TNVS fare and surge control are wrong, May 26, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment