Transport Econ 8: Removing MRT and LRT Fare Subsidy

The MRT line from North Avenue in QC to Taft Avenue in Pasay is the most congested among the three urban train systems in Metro Manila. At rush hours, it is relatively common that passengers in midway stations are “bypassed” once, twice or even thrice and wait for the next train as the trains are so packed with so many passengers.

  

There is a new program by the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to help decongest the trains. They are fielding buses that will pick up passengers at North Avenue station only and stop only at the last three stations -- Ayala, Magallanes and Taft Avenue. The fare is the same, just P15. The fare in normal air-con buses for this route is at least P35. The government says this is a temporary measure until they are able to get new trains.

Ok, what is wrong with this scheme? Or the MRT/LRT fare subsidy in the first place?

One, government gives fare subsidy to commuters of Metro Manila, but not to commuters in other parts of the country, say the cities in Davao, Cebu, Bacolod, Iloilo, Baguio, Tuguegarao. This is another example of Manila favoritism by the Manila-based government.  Thus, it contributes to tax distortion. Taxpayers from many cities and provinces in the country who do not benefit from the subsidized train fare contribute to the fund.

Two,  it promotes bus line cronyism. Give handsome subsidies to the favored bus lines while slapping lots of bureaucracies, fees and penalties to other bus lines taking the same route. Thus, it distorts bus line competition.

Three, it distorts or defeats moves to decongest Metro Manila. The implicit message of the MRT/LRT subsidy and other government programs is this: "You in the provinces, come to Manila. We give MRT and LRT fare subsidy, housing subsidy and free relocation, lots of government hospitals and PhilHealth cards, etc."

Most subsidies violate the rule of law. The latter says the law (like tax-funded subsidies) should apply to all, no one is exempted and no one can grant an exception. So if government should subsidize commuters in M. Maninla, it should also subsidize commuters nationwide, and this is impractical and impossible.  In most cases, government itself is the single biggest violator of the rule of law. We are not talking about the laws against corruption and plunder, robbery and murder.

Population Control 11: Church Coercion vs. State Coercion

After figuring in a number of debates this week and in previous weeks and months, about the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, this is one issue that is emerging: many pro-RH people hate what they call as "Church coercion", of demonizing people who support the RH while getting more donations and fees from the public. On the other hand, among the arguments that the anti-RH people use without mentioning any Church arguments (like I do), is highlighting State coercion. I noticed that when I raised this issue, a number of pro-RH are muted.

I am posting three threads of facebook debates below: from my wall, from Ferdie Bolislis' wall, and from Raissa Robles' wall. Again, another good reading materials for those who want to see the pros and cons of the bill. About 13 pages long, Enjoy reading.
---------

(1) My facebook wall
exchanges from August 5 to 7, 2012:

People are assets, not liabilities. Government should focus on promulgating the rule of law, not in expanding bureaucracies and in population control,

FAT-FREE ECONOMICS: Population decontrol, not RH Bill - InterAksyon.com

www.interaksyon.com

A big population is often blamed as the cause of various human problems. This is 

Valli Faith Estacion Bibit Korak! Government should spend more on teaching your child about math and science and language, than it will on teaching your child about contraceptives. In the end, sex education is not really about giving information--- but rather about a politics of despair where the sex "experts" hope for some damage control in the areas of teen pregnancy and disease.

Doods De Los Reyes I think people can be even more of an asset instead of a liability if they don't have to scrimp for every last peso to buy basic commodities and pay for shelter and their children's education. Governments can allocate more resources to infrastructure if they don't have to subsidize so much for social welfare.

Nonoy Oplas Doods, if you checked my article, I showed there photos of (a) business permits required by various government bureaucracies, and (b) private property by the poor confiscated by some government agencies because they don't have enough government permits. Point -- people want to stand on their own, to get out of poverty, but government says it's a criminal activity unless they get various permits first.

Doods De Los Reyes Hi Nonoy, I think some of the points you made in your article are overly simplistic. For instance, "a bigger population means more workers and more entrepreneurs; more producers and more consumers" is not necessarily true -- not unless you mean the sort of labor and micro-entrepreneurship that does not require formal education. How many streetsweepers, ambulant vendors and fish vendors do we really need? Plus, it disagrees with your former point regarding overconsumption and overexploitation of resources -- more production is good for business but is arguably not good for sustainability of natural resources. It is also a big leap to go from population control to people remaining single and not having kids -- Filipinos will still marry and have kids, but maybe through a reeducation about family size vs economics they will think twice about having more than one kid. The notion that a lot of people will die anyway from natural disasters speaks more about overpopulation than the need to keep up our birth rate -- a lot of these people die because they live along riverbanks, under bridges, and in other unsafe areas not designated for residential purposes.

Nonoy Oplas hmmm, quickly Doods.
1. More people, more workers, more entrepreneurs "not necessarily true". Really? As of April 2012, total employed Filipinos, salary workers + managers + company owners = 37.84 million people, that's big.
2. I used the "over-exploitation of resources" in satire, not my own point of view.
3. I mentioned people being single or married/in relationship but have no kids, in relation to the suggestion of the bill that couples shd target only 2 kids. To keep the population momentum, some couples need to have plenty of children to balance replacement of couples who have no kids.
4. People living in riverbanks, under bridges, etc. is example of government failure. LGUs should enforce their zoning or residential regulations but they don't. That is why I expressly argued, govt shd focus on promulgating the rule of law, not in limiting population.

Transport Econ 6: More on Office Bus Carpooling

Last Thursday, July 05, 2012, a friend Doods de los Reyes, posted in his facebook wall about his proposal to  limit public buses into zones. Our exchange, below, later shifted from land transport planning to urban planning. Doods always gives me permission to post in my blog our exchanges, thanks pare.
----------

Doods De Los Reyes The LTFRB should revoke all bus franchise licenses effective upon a future date and divide the metropolis into zones, then bid out licenses for these zones with an eye towards modern, comfortable buses and service capability.

Bus operators ask SC to stop 'fixed salary scheme'

www.gmanetwork.com

Four groups of bus operators on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to stop the Labor Department and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) from implementing the fixed salary scheme for public utility buses this month.

Dito (Singapore) dalawang malaking companies lang ang may hawak ng public buses. nag-merge yung ilang maliliit na bus companies. malalaki ang sweldo ng bus drivers dito, average ata is $2,000/month. pero strict sa service quality. in all, panalo ang publiko kasi maganda ang service at nabibigyan ng magandang kita ang drivers

Nonoy Oplas Doods, LTFRB can't do that, many of those franchise holders are ex- or current DOTC guys themselves, also PNP guys. And while they like bureaucratic procedures in getting a franchise, they will oppose bus monopoly or duopoly. I would say that bus competition here is working. Only a few accidents from some bus lines should not lead to demonizing competition among many bus companies.

Doods De Los Reyes Noy, of course they can. You're saying they won't, which is not the same thing hehe. I don't think the current setup is not working at all. There are too many buses plying the same routes, so they are competing against each other for passengers. To do this, they stick around too long at certain spots which makes traffic build up. This results in half-empty buses slowing down traffic on major highways with their maneuverings even outside of rush hours. If you have a single bus line servicing a specific route, the bus is no longer competing with other buses but instead can concentrate on measuring up to the QOS standard otherwise they could get penalized or their franchise revoked. With no competitor, the bus company can study the date and determine how many buses they need to deploy at all hours of the day to meet the demand. This results in less traffic on the road and passengers get to their destinations quicker.

Nonoy Oplas Actually the "half empty" buses occur only in non rush hours. During rush hours, you'd wish that perhaps there are 2x the current number of buses now. If you see the loooong lines of passengers in Ayala ave for instance every late afternoon to evening, you know what I mean.

About bus monopoly, when I went to Hawaii a few years ago, after the conference, we went to the Pearl Harbour by bus. The bus is govt monopoly. They run very slow. On our way back, we waited for almost 20 minutes before the next bus came, the number of passengers was already big, at 2pm or non rush hour. Monopolists don't care, passengers have no other option anyway, except take the cab, which is expensive.

Doods De Los Reyes i was among those passengers too for a time. the reason why it seems that the buses are too full during rush hour is because the buses stay longer at each stop in order to fill their bus with passengers to the brim, even to unsafe levels. the correct thing to do is to have bus schedules where each bus has to be at each stop. this way, buses make a stop, load up on however many passengers there are then leave immediately. instead, the buses stay longer waiting for more passengers if they still aren't filled up -- because there is competition. If there is no competition, the bus can leave any stragglers behind to wait for the next bus.

‎20 minutes wait during non-rush hour is not that bad. Filipinos are just not used to waiting for public transportation. :) in Singapore, people wait for buses. In the Philippines, it's the other way around. There are bus schedules that should guide people on whether they should hurry to catch the bus, otherwise they know they'll have to wait a certain length of time for the next one.

Nonoy Oplas Not really. The problem is that there are too many cars. Even if the buses are already full, or over-loaded, they can't move bec of too many cars in front of them. If some people will take 3-4 rides to get to their destinations (tricycle from house or village to main road + jeep or bus to say Makati + jeep to their final destination), and if you're carrying a laptop or in business attire, they better endure the traffic and drive their cars.

Climate Tricks 10: Demonize CO2 as a Pollutant and Evil Gas

Yesterday, I posted this photo in my facebook wall with this note,

CO2 is a useful gas. It's the gas that we humans exhale, that our pets and animals exhale, the gas that our flowers and plants use for their food production. Also the gas that comes out when you open your can or bottle of soda. CO2 is the gas of life. Only the UN, Al Gore, WWF, Greenpeace, other scammers say that CO2 is evil.


It attracted counter-comments from a friend, Doods de los Reyes. We have a long and civil debate after this, yesterday until today, see below. A bit long, get your popcorn and juice :-)
--------


Doods De Los Reyes carbon monoxide yung poisonous to humans, but a large concentration of carbon dioxide can also affect health. Also, carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect similar to hydrogen. Humans activities are producing more carbon dioxide than our oceans and vegetation can absorb. In any ecosystem, balance is important.

Nonoy Oplas Yes, CO, NO, Pb, particulates, etc are harmful to humans. But CO2 is not. If CO2 is a pollutant gas, then couples should not kiss lips to lips for long, or they should not stay in enclosed places like a car or small room or office, otherwise they will be polluting each other as they breath and exhale.

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is soooo small actually, nearly 400 parts per million (ppm), that is why CO2 is considered as a "trace gas". Divide 400/1,000,000, you get what, 0.004 percent, that's how small CO2 is in the total greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. About 95 percent of all GHGs is water vapor, like evaporation from oceans, seas and lakes, evapotranspiration from plants, human perspiration, etc.

Doods De Los Reyes This NASA study says that without carbon dioxide as a contributing factor water vapor levels in the atmosphere won't rise as much, and that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature
www.nasa.gov

Doods De Los Reyes This study states that the Earth's atmosphere is losing three oxygen molecules for every molecule of carbon dioxide that accumulates in the air. http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon/

Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises
blogcritics.org

hehe sorry about the Steve Ballmer picture, dunno why Facebook is showing it in the article preview.

Nonoy Oplas That's typical pronouncements and "studies" from GISS, an office under NASA headed by James Hansen. Here's a simple explanation, if not rebuttal, to such GISS paper, from a former NASA scientist, currently a climatologist at UAH, Dr. Roy Spencer, http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/. His concluding sentence," Climate change — it happens, with or without our help."

Global Warming « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
www.drroyspencer.com

Ruelle Albert Castro sir pagkakatanda ko yung COs eh ginagamit lang as equivalent nung harmful elements na nasa ere? so parang it's not about CO2 per se but yung CO2 equivalent niya sa bawat nilalabas na harmful elements...

Nonoy Oplas See any "causality" or link between CO2 concentration and global temperature, average for Northern hemisphere, tropics and southern hemisphere, satellite data of the air/lower troposphere, as of end-May 2012, http://friendsofscience.org/

Showbiz Fun 2: Tulfo vs. Raymart, Property Rights and Cartoons

This is my article today in the online magazine,  http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/1308-tulfo-vs-santiago-and-property-rights. Below it is a reaction from a friend and our brief discussions, and more funny creation by Filipino humorists.
----------

A cellphone, camera, videocam and other gadget is a private property. Everything inside those gadgets – hardware, software, photos, videos, emails, etc. – are private property too. These cannot be taken away without consent, by force and coercion..

This, I think, is one angle that was not highlighted in the famous brawl between veteran columnist Mon Tulfo and showbiz couple Raymart Santiago and Claudine Barreto at the NAIA (Manila) terminal last May 6, 2012.

I want to share an argument made today by a friend in facebook, Cesar Buendia. I am translating from Filipino to English his arguments. Posting this with his permission.

1. Does Claudine have the right to complain to Cebu Pacific? Yes.
2. Does she have the right to verbally insult the Cebu Pacific staff? No.
3. Does Mon Tulfo have the right to take photos of Claudine in that act? Yes, it’s his work as a reporter and Claudine was doing the act in public. Besides, the couple know that as celebrities, if Claudine makes a scandal, they will be publicized.
4. Does Raymart have the right to get the cellphone of Mon Tulfo? No, it’s Mon’s cellphone. If he did not want his wife to be publicized for the scandal, he should have controlled his wife from making the scandal.
5. Do Raymart and Mon have the right to a fistfight? It’s their life.
6. Do they have the right to sue each other? Again, it’s their life.


My point: celebrities, if you do not want to be publicized and scandalized, behave. And if you cannot behave in real life, keep from the public your insanity, do not get angry if reporters will publicize your scandal. For the reporters, if you get hit, do not threaten with revenge, it is part of your job to expose other people’s foul action, it is just natural that other people will get angry at you. If you are requested not to take photos, stay out or you might get beaten up.

I told Cesar that I fully agree with his analysis. So readers, consider that I also wrote the above, except that I may have slightly different words.

The disrespect of private property and individual dignity is often the root of many misunderstanding and conflict among people. In the case of the Tulfo-Santiago fight, here are the property rights that were violated.

a. Santiago-Barreto’s luggage that were offloaded by Cebu Pacific in Caticlan/Boracay airport without consent from the said passengers. The airline can cite the plane and passengers’ security and safety for doing so, but it must get the permission of passengers first, or seek volunteers among passengers who already checked in that their luggage will be bumped off, in exchange for some compensation. Cebu Pacific’s insensitivity on this matter was the trigger that sparked off the fight in the first place. Boooo Cebu Pacific.

b. Cebu Pacific staff at Manila Airport whose personal dignity were violated when Claudine verbally abused them. The fault was on Cebu Pac management in general, and the Cebu Pac Caticlan airport staff in particular, not those in Manila airport.

c. Mon Tulfo’s cellphone that Raymart and/or Claudine wanted to be taken from its owner so that photos or videos that might be incriminating against Claudine can be removed. Private property is sacred, it cannot just be taken away without consent, without threats of physical harm or similar threats. Otherwise, society can easily degenerate into chaos as bad guys can just take away other people’s cellphone, shoes, car, other private property.

d. If it is true that Mon Tulfo physically harmed Claudine when the latter insisted to take out his cell phone, then Mr. Tulfo is also at fault for initiating the physical assault.

e. Then there was a reported tv broadcast by Mon Tulfo’s sons saying they want a confrontation with Raymart, like “last man standing”. The youtube clip was said to have been removed later.

There will be new facts, new stories and spins that will come out as the investigations, accusations and counter-accusations are on-going.

I believe there is a need for humility on both sides. Claudine should apologize to the Cebu Pacific staff in Manila airport that she has reprimanded. She should apologize also to Mon for demanding that the latter should give (or “surrender”?) his cellphone to her. Mon should apologize to Claudine for whatever physical harm he has inflicted on her. Raymart should apologize to Mon for the severe beating he has inflicted on the old man.

Of course this is better said than done. Giving public apology is something that is rare among famous personalities in the country, from politicians to showbiz to media to NGO personalities. Their respective action and counter-action are always justified. And so the court cases backlog keep piling up. To shorten the pile up, some rich and politically influential parties resort to bribing the judges. And the rule of law is badly compromised and damaged.

Somehow we have to start and restart from the basic. Respect individual dignity, respect private property, respect the rule of law, do not threaten with putting the law into one’s hands.
-------

Two of those funny creations shared in facebook and other social network, right and below.

After posting the above article in facebook, a friend Doods delos Reyes commented, here is our exchanges:

Doods hi Noy, in Cebu Pacific's case, the General Terms and Conditions of Carriage of Passengers and Baggage are quite clear. Clause 13.1.1(f) states: "Whenever possible, Checked Baggage will be carried on the same aircraft as the Passenger. The Airline may decide for safety, security or operational reasons to carry it on another flight. If a Checked Baggage is carried on a subsequent flight, the Airline will deliver it to the Passenger unless applicable law requires the Passenger to be present for clearance by customs authorities." These terms are implicitly accepted by the passenger by booking and using the service provided.

Nonoy Good points Doods, thanks. I assume that all airlines have this condition. Then passengers will be at the mercy of airlines on certain cases then.

Doods from what I gather, it a custom by most airlines. I also read that the offloaded luggage had already been delivered by Cebu Pacific to the passengers and there was even an offer to refund the amount paid for excess baggage. The airport in Caticlan is small and can only accommodate small aircraft with 60 seats or less. I would imagine that offloading of baggage due to size & weight restrictions here happens from time to time.

Nonoy I bet 99.8 percent of airline passengers (including me) do not read the entire Terms and Conditions of airline tickets so the extent of disappointment should be high. I also bet that frequent flight delays would spare the airlines of any liability, even if the fault is on them like in cases of over-booking and all the passengers have showed up, and not due to airport or "runway congestion".

What we passengers can do is to expose these things to hopefully shame those habitual violator airlines. So that whatever propaganda they have like CSR, "save the planet" partnership with WWF etc, will be negated. They behave that way because there is no open sky policy, they are protected by the Constitution and leave us ordinary passengers with little choice but 2 or 3 local airlines to choose.

Doods hehe it's good practice to read through such T&Cs, or at least print them out and have them with you at the ready.

Nonoy Right. Meanwhile, Cebu Pac, like PAL, opposes an Open sky poicy. They always want "reciprocity" which makes the policy drag on for decades with little positive results.
----------

See also:
Showbiz Fun: Mon Tulfo vs. Raymart/ Claudine Fight, May 07, 2012
Property Rights 5: IPRI 2012 Report, April 18, 2012
Property Rights 4: Trees, SM Baguio, Henry Sy and Twitter, April 12, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 5: Property Rights, Policy Lefts, April 04, 2012