The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) announced last May 28 that they will be strictly implementing a point-to-point system (P2P) for UV Express shuttles. The order, Memorandum Circular (MC) 2019-025, prohibits the pick-up and drop-off of passengers outside the shuttles’ designated terminals. This serves as an amendment to the less-stringent MC 2009-019, which instead had a two-kilometer radius rule in place.
The rule change came after the LTFRB found it difficult to enforce the previous MC. The board also pointed out that the new policy was not entirely new—MC 2005-023 and the Public Utility Vehicle (PUV) Modernization Program have similar provisions.
Upon announcement, many drivers, operators, and passengers voiced out their concerns, which led to the LTFRB suspending the implementation of the MC just days after the announcement. Consultations with stakeholders and transport sectors will be conducted first, the board stated. Though the suspension was planned to last only two weeks, it has since been extended indefinitely due to public outcry.
Should the new rule come to pass, those who will be hardest hit are commuters who utilize the vans for their daily needs and drivers who rely on these patrons to make ends meet.
Bad for both parties
Buddy* is a UV Express driver whose assigned terminals are at SM Fairview and Buendia, near the Gil Puyat Light Rail Transit (LRT) station. But apart from these two endpoints, he usually loads and unloads passengers along his route that passes through España Blvd., Lawton Ave., and Taft Ave. With the new P2P policy, Buddy stresses that his income would greatly diminish. “Malaki mababawas [in profits]. Dito pa naman kinukuha ang pag–aaral ng anak ko,” he laments.
(The losses [in profits] would be great. This is how I support my child’s education.)
Likewise, Michael Garcia, another UV Express driver, points out that the reason why drivers like him would earn less is because passengers rarely hop on and drop-off at the terminals themselves. Once it becomes P2P, Garcia claims that passengers would opt not to go to the assigned terminals if doing so would make their commute difficult, especially if they live far from the stops.
Fellow UV Express driver Wilson Colina also shares Buddy’s and Garcia’s sentiments, stating that the P2P policy would mean problems for both passengers and drivers. He argues that LTFRB Chairman Martin Delgra III did not take into account how the policy would affect both parties.
Alternate commute options
Both Buddy and Garcia’s daily routes pass near the University, acknowledging that most of their passengers during school days are students from DLSU and other nearby schools. They predict that students may change their transportation arrangements since the P2P rule would make the UV Express a less convenient travel option.
John Vincent Cortez (I, BSMSMEM) takes the SM Fairview-Buendia route to the University. He comments that the new policy is unsound and unwise, explaining that not a lot of people actually take the current route to stop at each terminal. Most passengers, he claims, disembark before even reaching Luneta Park, while most commuters whose destination is Buendia alight at various points along Taft Ave. and Espana Blvd.
Should P2P be fully implemented, Cortez admits that he has limited alternatives. In going to school, he considers taking a jeepney, getting off at Harrison Plaza, and walking to school from there. To go home from school, he would hitch a ride at Vito Cruz LRT station, which is two jeepney rides away.
On the other hand, Andrea*, another Lasallian commuter, expresses that the P2P policy is an impractical and inconvenient decision. “Instead of just riding one UV [Express] every time I commute to school, I would need to ride another [means of] public transportation if ever the new policy will be implemented,” she explains.
On the P2P policy
The students and drivers hold mixed views on LTFRB’s justification on the P2P policy. Buddy asserts that the solution is not justified, insisting that the LTFRB should not disadvantage drivers who abide by the old two-kilometer radius policy and instead focus on apprehending those who violate it. Additionally, he believes that implementation of the new rules would be challenging because drivers and passengers are accustomed to the current setup.
Colina acknowledges that some drivers do load and unload passengers far from their respective terminals, but attests that following the new policy is difficult because of habits developed over time by both passengers and drivers.
Garcia, meanwhile, disagrees with the LTFRB’s defense. “Bakit kami ‘di sumusunod eh patakaran yun? Syempre susunod kami sa dalawang kilometrong sabi nila. ‘Di naman kami lumalagpas. Pinapatupad nila iyon para masunod nila ang gusto nila,” he maintains.
(Why would we not follow it if that is the policy? Of course we will abide by their two-kilometer [rule]. We do not go outside of it. They want to implement it so that they would get what they want.)
Meanwhile, Cortez and Andrea view P2P as the
government’s response to alleviate traffic. Additionally, Cortez mentions the
2005 memorandum which, according to UV Express drivers he spoke to, has not
prevented them from dropping off and picking up
commuters anywhere.
Several solutions were offered by both the drivers and commuters to replace the proposed P2P policy. Buddy suggests having designated areas for drop-off and pick-up along routes. On the other hand, Cortez advances that there are no “real” problems with the current system. He instead proposes tagging the areas near intersections as no loading and unloading zones.
Additionally, Andrea claims that the change will not solve the traffic situation. Instead, she recommends focusing on the improvement of jeepneys, which she argues cause more traffic.
Garcia also prefers that no changes be made on how they operate. “‘Di ako sang-ayon kasi malaking pagbabawas ‘yan sa kita namin. Yung natural, kung ano meron ngayon. Pangit ang bago (policy). Maraming maapektuhan,” he concludes.
(I am not in favor because it will mean losses for us. Stick with what is natural, which is what we have now. The new (policy) is bad. Many will be affected.)
*Names changed to protect anonymity.
