MRT’s unsafe privatization

5

THE insistence of government to continue its fragmented approach in handling the MRT will not solve the train system’s problems. Continuing this piece-wise privatization and hands-off attitude in such a tightly-integrated system is one of the causes of the increasing breakdowns. Engineers from the scientist group AGHAM, Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, calculated that the MRT train line experiences around 3.48 injuries for every 100 million passenger-miles, compared to the US which has 0.7 injuries.

Advertisements

AGHAM also notes that based on the data given by the DOTC, the monthly average of service interruptions has been increasing. In 2013, it was 2.83 interruptions per month, increasing to around 4 as of July 2014 and 4.3 as of June 2015. It was in February, May, and June of this year where glitches occurred nearly on a daily basis, in a span of 2-3 days.

Fortunately, so far, there has only been one incident resulting in injury for the year.

The science group points out that although these numbers do not take into account the slow, subtle and systemic violence inflicted on passengers in the form of long lines, broken elevators, and delayed trains. More than 600,000 passengers depend on the MRT everyday.

Does the government care about these commuters? Engineer Miguel Aljibe of AGHAM looked at how much the state has invested in mass transport in terms of budget. Collectively, the MRT, LRT, and PNR received only 7.33 percent of the total 2015 transportation budget. Majority of the budget, at 85 percent of the total, goes to constructing roads and highways in a country where only about 1 in 24 families own a car. This mirrors the US which spends a measly 0.08 percent due to a policy promoting vehicular use. In Spain, the situation is reversed, with 70 percent of transportation funds going to rail.

The sheer mass of people using the MRT system should not be seen simply as a source of income but as a solid indicator of the need to provide them with basic transport. In a study, AGHAM said urban rail transit is not only just a public service but is a strategic national asset as well. If the State fails to provide this basic service, it fails in its responsibility to its people. In the case of the MRT, 68 percent of its daily riders earn below the minimum living wage.

AGHAM’s study notes that the construction and maintenance of train systems should generate both direct and indirect employment. Germany’s urban mass transit employs (directly and indirectly) around 400,000 people. Urban rail also makes travel for consumers easier and attracts professionals and tourists to the city. Historically, countries like Belgium enjoyed an economic and tourism boom when the state built its rail network in the continent in the 19th century.

A study of 50 major US metropolitan areas links a city’s economic competitiveness and the “quality” of its mass transit. Public transport is a big factor for tourists while on holiday and is a major issue when choosing their destination.

AGHAM notes that the Philippine government itself estimates P54 billion savings a year in traffic costs due to improvements to the MRT and LRT. This is significant and timely because according to the UP National Center for Transportation Studies, Metro Manila loses about P100 billion a year or 1 percent of the national GDP to traffic congestion.

The AGHAM study underscores the fact that urban rail (and mass transport in general) is a natural monopoly. Limited routes with a limited capacity necessitates a monopoly for an orderly operation. We end up with a setup where a large number of consumers/passengers depends on a single provider/supplier. If one yields this to private ownership, or in the case of the MRT, “private management plus government guarantees,” we end up simply giving up this lucrative monopoly to private hands.

In the context of comprehensive industrial policy, the study notes that a nationalized urban rail line can be developed to benefit stakeholders rather than profit choices. Decisions regarding station location, fuel and energy sources, accessibility (like elevators, escalators, and amenities for PWD’s), expansions, and fare pricing can be done under the principle of maximizing social and environmental benefits instead of corporate interests avoiding the problems encountered in linking the MRT and the LRT-1 line.

A nationalized urban rail can also be used to create demand for locally developed and

manufactured technologies. We have plans for an automated guiderail transit which we can couple with a rule requiring majority of the equipment be manufactured in the country.

The government’s piecewise (mis-)management and long term privatization plans for the PNR, MRT and the LRT place in peril our ability to address Metro Manila’s mobility and environmental problems. Such a misplaced faith in the private sector, and a government defaulting on its duty to the people, puts our train system— and its riders— at risk.

Share.
loading...
Loading...

Please follow our commenting guidelines.

5 Comments

  1. AGHAM should stop capitalizing on the public’s anger of the MRT’s wretched condition to advance their Leftist agenda of nationalization of all utilities and industries. They along with the likes of Bayan Muna, Akbayan and other red banner groups bastardize the partylist system. Sana naman sama-sama tayo sa galit sa MRT/DOTC/Abaya, pero huwag ninyong sabihin na ang problema ay dahil sa Privatization. Sa dami ng kapalpakan ng administrasyong Aquino, ang labas dito, ang argumento para sa Nationalization ay katangahan. Please don’t distort the issue, this call for Nationalization is such a pitifully transparent attempt for political gain. The reason the MRT is bulok is that it has already been ‘nationalized’ when the Aquino government usurped maintenance duties and excluded the private sector in opoerations and management.

  2. The biggest hole in the argument of Dr. Tapang is one that even the average citizen can see. The MRT is indeed privately owned, but the government under the DOTC has been in charge of maintenance for years. First they fired the highly qualified maintenance provider hired by the owners and handed the job over to a company that has no experience with light rail. DOTC has barred the owner’s auditors from inspecting the MRT system. DOTC cannot even provide a record of their maintenance that isn’t more than a few months old (for when the Hongkong MTR inspectors came and gave a thumbs-down to the MRT). The private owners were able to purchase rails and spare parts, profits notwithstanding. The DOTC resorts to cannibalizing parts from the LRT stock since it hadn’t purchased any. And now in their latest masterpiece, they assign the new contracts to a front of the same incompetent contractor. In short, Dr. Tapang, the MRT is already de facto government-controlled. On paper it is privately owned, but the owners have their hands tied on maintenance.
    Frankly, this argument uses the same tact that anti-business, anti-privatization leftists use: Enumerate a lot of scientific and economic data to give the argument a veneer of respectability, especially on how effective nationalization is in other countries, and then in a flash, say that this is unquestionably the answer for the Philippines. This is like saying 2 plus 2 equals 22. It’s flawed reasoning. You like to cite countries like Germany and Japan, but we are nowhere like them. We are more like a Bangladesh. Even Indonesia has lessened its fuel and other subsidies to mass transportation. Maybe someday state control will work for us, but not now, not with with our history of government incompetence and corruption. The same government AGHAM and the other leftists want to own and operate our MRT.

  3. Why is it that educated people writing articles like this one are not in the government or listened to by the idiots currently running the government ?

    • IDIOTS in government normally don’t read scholarly articles such as this because they are IDIOTS