By CENTROID

This time, it hits home.

Outrage is all over the Internet as the Land Transportation and Franchising Regulatory Board (LTFRB) temporarily suspends the operation of ridesharing app Uber. A plethora of social media posts, some from those want to make a hugot and some from those “experts” who wrote paragraphs echoing prejudices of many over the issue just to make an appeal. Unfortunately, these kinds of reactions blurred the real matters at hand and where our priorities should be.

In this year’s first editorial of CENTROID, the Official Student Newsletter of the UP Institute of Civil Engineering, we will talk about the current issue with ridesharing apps such as Grab and Uber. The readers are beseeched to hold the reins of their temperaments as this article will straighten out some facts over the matter.

(Editor’s Note: The UP Institute of Civil Engineering has six research groups. One of those groups is the Transportation Engineering Group (TEG) which deals with the application of technology and scientific principles to the planning, design, operation, and management of facilities for any mode of transportation. The group’s goal is to provide the acceptable level of service for movement of people and goods considering safety, efficiency, convenience, economy, and environmental compatibility. The faculty members of TEG are also key members of the UP National Center for Transportation Studies (UP NCTS) – the nation’s leading institution on the transportation studies.

On the backdrop that the current LTFRB Chairman is about to make a formal consultation on UP about the matter, we consulted and interviewed one of the key members of UP NCTS. Researching about Grab and Uber over the last three years with his students who were also doing researches on the same subject, Professor Jose Regin Regidor was the right person to be asked about the issue.)

The rise of ridesharing

Since this article will be straightening out things by giving them proper contexts and definition, let’s ponder – What really are Uber and Grab?

Uber and Grab are few examples of transportation network companies (TNC) offering ridesharing services, which originally aims to reduce vehicle trips and optimize empty seats on most passenger cars. What sets them apart from other ridesharing services (such as carpooling) are two features – both are app-based, which means that Uber and Grab can arrange shared rides using apps by utilizing GPS, smartphones, and social networks, and there is compensation through payment. One of the basic premises of ridesharing services, which includes Uber and Grab, is that the vehicle used for sharing is dependent on the free time of the driver. Therefore, ridesharing services still serve as a private vehicle compared to the commercial taxi service, which is used for full time driver’s work.

The app-based ridesharing service industry has been a trend from the turn of the decade and since then, has not sprouted to a lot of competitors offering same services. Uber, since its inception in 2009, has become the first to provide connections among passengers and drivers through smartphone apps. Grab, originally found as MyTeksi in Malaysia in 2012, has been Uber’s main competitor in the Southeast Asian nations with its “home court advantage” and was the first to get authorization from LTFRB to operate, despite being younger in the ridesharing industry. In the US, the main competitor of Uber is Lyft, another app-based ridesharing service using private vehicles. App-based ridesharing has also alternatives per state. On select parts of Metro Manila, there is also another app-based ridesharing service called Angkas which utilizes motorcycle-sharing instead of private cars.

The LTFRB, being the country’s promulgator and enforcer of policies and regulations concerning public land transportation services, was at first tolerant of the earlier operations of these transportation network companies. According to Prof. Regidor, the first users of Grab and/or Uber felt “more exclusive” services in public transport since the fees were more expensive relative to the regular flagdown fares of the commercial taxi and the cars were more comfortable since they are generally newer and more well-maintained than most taxis. An undergraduate thesis study under NCTS reaffirms this, concluding that Uber [or ridesharing services, in general] has an edge in safety, convenience and comfort, and has created a negative perception on the taxicab service.

With minimal understanding of how ridesharing services work, the then Department of Transportation and Communications (now DOTr) rolled out a new classification on ridesharing vehicles, classifying Grab, Uber, and its counterparts as Transportation Network Vehicle Services (TNVS). TNVS cover vehicles which provide pre-arranged transportation services through online platforms in exchange for compensation (payment). This also means that TNVS operators (i.e. the TNCs like Grab and Uber) are required to screen and accredit their drivers and register them to the LTFRB. This is a landmark classification since it is one of the first in the world to recognize Grab and Uber as a formal type of land transportation.

With this, some opportunist Filipinos, fueled by a mix of their frustrations and assurances of oversight and powerlessness of LTFRB’s enforcement, find a way to make profits which in turn mutated the original intentions of these ridesharing apps into malignant ones.

How ridesharing became “colorum”

After the “landmark classification”, the demand for TNVS rose as LTFRB encountered problems in regulating commercial taxis and their operators. Disdains over rude and manipulative taxi driver behaviors led to more commuters switching from commuting via taxi to using Grab and/or Uber instead. Therefore, TNVS has become the unexpected competitor of the taxi industry. Glaring similarities between the two has commuters mistakenly develop a dichotomy: either ride a taxi or use Grab/Uber.

These glaring similarities have led to some TNVS operating like commercial taxis. Some reports, although unsubstantiated (loosely based on field reports from undergraduate students doing research and data gathering under NCTS), claim that some taxi operators have switched to Uber/Grab and hired drivers who works at full time. This is contradicting the main premise of ridesharing as dependent only on the driver’s free time. Many taxi operators have capitalized on this loophole on the classification and made a profit out of TNVS’s. There is a thin line between the Fillipino resourcefulness and opportunism. This illegal franchising tags the cars involved as colorums since these “private cars”, used as a means of public transport with these “full time drivers”, were not registered to LTFRB. This is no longer a case of Filipinos being resourceful, but rather it has become a case of blatant opportunism.

A particular case of a colorum vehicle under Uber was when a driver of a Toyota Vios was arrested and fined with P200,000 for not securing a franchise under LTFRB. Another complaint to the same Uber driver was that he threatened to hit a passenger with a steel pipe. The incident happened last 2016, almost a year after the government’s recognition of TNVS and before the Philippines changed its president. These reports, including a bunch of complaints on unreasonable surge pricing and lack of accident insurance, forced the LTFRB to take a closer look on TNVS especially on Uber.

LTFRB’s attempts on regulation

It was also noticed that recent annual increases on vehicle purchase of some notable car brands has been correlated to using these vehicles for Grab or Uber. It is ironic to think that ridesharing services such as Uber/Grab originally had the intention to reduce vehicle trips and traffic congestion, but now it has become more of a burden on easing up the traffic by spewing up more cars in the road. This is why LTFRB was shocked when Grab and Uber recently declared that both had a combined 100,000 drivers (at least) registered to them. It took congress hearings for these two TNC’s to declare their data openly. LTFRB should have regulated these TNC’s to be more transparent in presenting important data for them to do their mandate. The frustrating events and revelations due to LTFRB’s passive enforcement left them no choice but to post three memoranda issuing a temporary halt on processing and accepting new drivers. One was passed last year and another this year July 11. The third one, passed July 26, was more specific, as the government ordered the deactivation of Grab/Uber drivers who registered later than June 30 while asking for a list of those who were franchised before that date.

Both TNC’s defied the first two but Grab complied the third one, handing in the requirements LTFRB imposed. It’s not surprising that Uber disobeyed LTFRB despite three warnings. In other countries, Uber has a bad reputation of defiance and getting away with a lot of scandals. In US alone, Uber is involved in at least 173 lawsuits (!). Recently, Indonesian Uber drivers called a strike as they described Uber’s practices as “modern slavery”. Uber services have been banned or at least suspended in a lot of countries and states including South Korea, Netherlands, Thailand, and Spain among others. The overlying reason of all these was that Uber has not complied to the requirements of the state especially on licensing laws and franchising. It’s the same as in the Philippines, where despite three memoranda stopping operations, Uber allegedly still continued to accept drivers. That’s why the LTFRB had no choice but to give the temporary ban. Justifiable?

Uber is (temporarily) over. Now what?

So who will be affected by this? Noticeably, there seems to be little to no outrage on the Uber/Grab suspension issue for commuters outside Metro Manila. There seems to be no biggie of comparing Uber/Grab vs taxi in the Philippines except in the capital region. Why is this? Prof. Regidor cites an example in Iloilo. According to him, a local taxi franchise named Light Of Glory was well known as one of the better taxis operating in Iloilo. Light Of Glory was known locally for their better driving services and more well-maintained cars compared to other local taxis. This means that ridesharing services are not big in Iloilo since they have better commercial taxis and a better public transport overall. The same goes to other urban cities outside Manila, say Cebu and Davao. Reiterating Prof. Regidor’s words, if taxis and other forms of public transport are able provide the quality service the commuters want, then Uber and Grab should not be a big deal for us.

Now, the LTFRB looks to increase the number of taxis operating in Manila to compensate the demand and adjust existing taxi fares à la Uber’s surge pricing to urge drivers to give better services. It looks like the government has also become hypnotized of the dichotomy of Grab/Uber vs taxi as if the two are the only modes of public transportation available for the masses. It should be a reminder for all of us that Grab or Uber or any TNVS is not the sole solution for our poor public transport. We are not downplaying the TNC’s role on the mass transport but the Uber/Grab vs taxi dichotomy is only part of a bigger problem in our public mass transport system. (Heck not even everyone can afford to experience commuting via taxi or Grab/Uber on a regular basis.) How about the proposed jeepney modernization? How about our train operations? How about the boundary system in buses and taxis? How about the proposed BRT? The problem is more than which of the two similar services should one use. It’s needed for us to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

The need for convenience, security, and comfort is understandable given that the Filipino daily life is getting more lengthy, grueling, and tiresome, as the struggle aggravates over the daily commutes of Filipinos, with the growing traffic and lack of services on public transportation. Some of us are so tired that they would wish to be delivered straight into their beds without much effort. Some of us are scared taking on the streets because of the violence that is reported being rampant there, and just wanted to have a single continuous one-mode journey straight to their homes. Therefore, band-aid solutions like the transport networking companies like Uber and Grab seem appealing. However, with no restrictions and regulations laid upon them, they grew out of proportion and began to contribute to the worsening of our problems on traffic, as they continue to be unaccounted for. This problem is of a snowball type: the more we subscribe ourselves to these modes of transportation, the more the traffic problem aggravates – which leads to people subscribing more to those modes of transportation. Sufficing ourselves over these solutions would only mean giving up against our problems on our transportation sector and abandoning the hope of better public transportation and those who are still clinging to that hope. That hope needs our collective energy and continuous support and attention. Japan did it. Taiwan did it. Australia did it. Hong Kong did it. Singapore did it. Why can’t the Philippines?

Related reads from around WordPress:

*sorry Natalie Cole and Direk Olivia Lamasan