The Filipino commuter is the key to the modernization of the country’s public transportation system and its perennial urban planning woes.
Because no matter how much modernization the jeepney gets, even if we invent a truly zero emission and carbon footprint vehicle with comfortable seats and superb climate control; with a contactless, cashless payment system for its affordable rates; and courteous and responsible drivers that are well groomed and dressed; but the commuter’s mindset does not change, we are still going to be stuck with one of the worst public transport systems in the planet.
This is because the Filipino commuter is among the most spoiled on the planet. We insist on door-to-door service with minimal walking. That is why we can’t be asked to use bus or jeepney stops, because that would entail walking. That is why makeshift tricycle and trisikad terminals are everywhere, because they have to be there to pick up commuters as soon as the latter alight from PUVs. The commuter is the reason why buses and jeepneys stop anywhere, from corners, to pedestrian crossings, and even in the middle of intersections, simply because someone called out the magic word: “lugar lang” or “para”.
This lazy system will not change because everyone is content with being spoiled rotten. So many Filipinos complain that public transportation sucks, but it turns out that they are not willing to be a part of the solution. They just want a magical solution to suddenly appear before them, without any effort on their part. Anyone who tells them that they will need to walk more, or that it will cost more, or they will have to follow a system of stops and schedules, should be prepared for a nationwide strike or boycott.
Can you imagine a Filipino commuter having to walk a few hundred meters after getting off at a bus/jeepney stop, without a trike waiting right at the corner? Que horror! What if it’s hot? What if it’s raining? What happens if they have a bag of groceries? Why can’t we have all of the first world amenities and benefits without having to do the work (i.e. walking) that they do every day?
The same goes for motorists. Can you imagine not being able to turn on the hazards to illegally double park on a busy street just because you have a ‘quick but important’ errand to run? If you come to think of it, one of the perks of living in an undeveloped nation with fellow undeveloped people is that you can do anything you want, without consequences. Why should we have to find proper parking and walk all the way to our errand, when we can just turn on the hazard lights and do illegal crap any time we want? If losing that is the price of having an improved public and active transport system, it feels like most Filipinos would rather not make the effort.
Commuters don’t want to walk more than they should, drivers indulge them, authorities look the other way, and the public officials who could effect change hesitate because antagonizing any of these groups could mean the end of their political careers. If you come to think of it, a politician who musters the will and successfully convinces their constituents to start walking more, would likely have to face the possibility of losing votes in the next elections, especially when voters have to walk further to get to the polling centers. That is why nothing has happened so far, and that is why we won’t get any sort of radical modernization of anything in this country. We simply prefer the broken system that we have been used to more, and cannot imagine making ‘sacrifices’ to make things ‘better’.
The door to door delivery that we have become accustomed to does not make for a good public transportation system because of the chaos it entails, but its convenience has become indispensable for the Filipino commuter who doesn’t want to walk more than 100 steps further.
Local governments should’ve made it a long term project to encourage walking by making sidewalks better, but it is a chicken and egg problem as putting money into sidewalks that nobody uses and appreciates can be seen as a waste of precious funds. Opting for a more drastic route of actually reforming the public transport system as comprehensively as possible should get better results, but such a radical step with the greater good in mind is scary for politicians who always consider the shock, however well intentioned, that could reduce their chances of reelection. That is a prospect which would be worse for them than a terrible transport system. And that leads us to where we remain.*
