New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 86
  1. Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,819
    #41
    here's a good insight on the subject from Neal Cruz of PDI...

    I agree that there should be subsidy but the current subsidy rate is too much. A P10 increase should make a lot of difference already given the huge passenger volume.

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquirer...idized-by-govt

    All mass transit systems are subsidized by gov’t


    THE HEADS of both the Light Rail Transit (LRT) and the Metro Rail Transit MRT) are talking about increasing their fares because the government is losing money in subsidizing their operations. The government pays P40 for every rail passenger in addition to the fare he pays, they said. This subsidy comes from the taxes paid by all taxpayers, even those from the boondocks, and not only from the taxes paid by those who use the rail lines, they said, and it is unfair to use the taxes paid by the former to subsidize the fares of the latter. So they have no choice but to increase their fares.

    Not so fast. All mass transit systems in the world, whether elevated rails or the regular trains or the city-operated bus lines, are subsidized by their governments. Because the mass transit systems are, as the name implies, for the masa, the poor. They are meant to transport the biggest number of people quickly at the least cost to them. If these transit systems were to charge their passengers what it costs to transport each one of them, they wouldn’t be able to afford it or they wouldn’t be willing to pay it. For example, if the LRT or MRT were to charge each passenger what it costs to transport each of them, which is, according to them, P50 per, that would cost each passenger P100 round trip, almost half of the day’s wages of a laborer. This laborer would be working only for the light rail transits, leaving little for his family.

    All governments subsidize their people, in one form or another. That is the service they deserve in exchange for all the taxes, direct or indirect, that they pay. That is what a government is there for. It is not correct to say that the taxpayers of Mindanao or North Luzon are subsidizing the fares of light rail passengers in Manila. The taxpayers of Metro Manila also pay for subsidies that go to the people of Mindanao and North Luzon, like health care, feeder roads and free or cheap rice.

    Let’s go back to why the light rails were set up in the first place. They were set up primarily to decongest the streets below. It was hoped that the LRT and MRT would take passengers away from the buses and jeepneys which have been making the streets hell on earth. With fewer passengers, there would be fewer buses and jeepneys clogging the streets. They would go elsewhere where their services are needed, as in the provinces.
    But no such thing happened. As we can see, Edsa is still clogged with buses and Rizal Avenue with jeepneys because the light rails cannot carry all the people who want to ride them. As we can also see, the coaches of the elevated trains are bursting with people packed like sardines, and many more are left waiting in the train stations. Because the companies do not have enough trains and coaches.

    Through economies of scale, the government can reduce the subsidy by transporting more people by having more trains and coaches. But the companies refuse to buy more of them. Anyway the government pays for the profits that they don’t earn from their passengers.
    Right from the very beginning, it was known that the trains would not earn enough to pay for the costs of operation. That is why the government guaranteed to pay the private corporations the profits they could not earn from their passengers. In other words, the government went into the venture with its eyes open. It knew from the very beginning that it would have to subsidize the trains. The government would get back its subsidies in the improvement of the economy when goods and people are transported quickly and cheaply.
    And so that the private train operators would earn more and lessen the government subsidy, the original plan was to have small shopping malls and parking lots at every train station, where people with cars could park their vehicles for a small fee, and ride the trains to their destinations. The operators would earn extra from the parking fees and from the rentals in the shopping malls. They were also given the authority to rent out the advertising spaces in the stations, under the elevated rails, and inside and outside the trains themselves to earn more.

    But while the advertising aspect was implemented, the parking and shopping mall versions were not. What for, when the government was subsidizing its operations anyway?

    One more thing, the huge lot at the end of the MRT line on Edsa, opposite SM North Edsa, was supposed to be used for MRT trains. Instead, it was sold or leased to Ayala, which built the Trinoma shopping mall. To whom did the money go? If the land is being leased, to whom is Ayala paying?
    * * *
    May I suggest that new MMDA Chair Francis Tolentino and the new LTFRB chair stand on Edsa for several minutes one day and watch the buses passing by. They would notice that all the buses, running bumper-to-bumper, have very few passengers, even during rush hours. How do they earn enough to continue operations? If each bus has only very few passengers, then the bus must be losing money with each trip. So how can they continue operating day in and day out? There is only one logical explanation: they are overcharging their passengers. The fares authorized by the LTFRB are too much. So that the few passengers are actually paying for all the empty seats.

    Why do the bus operators, even those from the provinces, insist on operating in Metro Manila even as colorums where they run with very few passengers, whereas their services are sorely needed in the provinces? Because there is more profit operating in Metro Manila, even with fewer passengers. How do they do it? Because they are charging their few passengers more than what is fair to the latter, and that is courtesy of the LTFRB.

  2. Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,940
    #42
    Nice read bro

  3. Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,267
    #43
    Because the mass transit systems are, as the name implies, for the masa, the poor. They are meant to transport the biggest number of people quickly at the least cost to them.
    The first statement, I'm not sure if true. That is mass transit is for the poor.

    I think the second statement is the reason why it is called "mass transit".

  4. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    25,038
    #44
    I would agree that goverment subsidizes PhP 15, then the passenger pays the PhP 45. Not the other way around.

  5. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #45
    Hmmm

    All governments subsidize their people, in one form or another. That is the service they deserve in exchange for all the taxes, direct or indirect, that they pay. That is what a government is there for. It is not correct to say that the taxpayers of Mindanao or North Luzon are subsidizing the fares of light rail passengers in Manila. The taxpayers of Metro Manila also pay for subsidies that go to the people of Mindanao and North Luzon, like health care, feeder roads and free or cheap rice.
    While this is true, the government also subsidizes health care, roads and rice for the people of Manila. They used to subsidize water and electricity, too.

    Try to tell the people of Mindanao how lucky they are to have feeder roads when the density of roads and public accessways in Manila is many times higher than out in the provinces!

    It bodes well for the government to spend subsidy money that reaches the widest number of people. Which is why I applauded when Congress reduced its support to UP, despite being a UP alumni. Because seeing that subsidy funding underpopulated and overstaffed colleges, rich students who drive to class every day, and large amounts of lands and properties that don't earn anything for the government was sad. Sad when the same money could be going into our severely underfunded public high schools, where students are jam-packed and receive poor education. In my practicum for my bachelor's in education, I saw many poor students who were naturally intelligent but unable to learn in that overcrowded environment.

    There's a big difference between a commercial service that benefits a few, and that people actually have to pay for, and public service that is available to all for free, if they wish to avail of it. The former is the MRT, the latter is public education, public roads and health-care.

    Through economies of scale, the government can reduce the subsidy by transporting more people by having more trains and coaches. But the companies refuse to buy more of them. Anyway the government pays for the profits that they don’t earn from their passengers.
    Why buy more trains?

    The number of trains are full to bursting at rush hour, but everyone who goes to the station can ride. More trains mean more excess capacity in off-hours. Which means an operating loss, or lower income per train. At best, we can expect them to lengthen the trains, but the stations were not built for that. At peak hours, there's one MRT/LRT train arriving at the station every ten minutes or so. That's already close to peak capacity for the line... When I was using the LRT back in college, there would often be traffic on the line at peak hours as the trains piled up behind one another at the stations. It's not like with an elevated bus line where trains can go around each other!

    I agree that the MRT/LRT are not acting to completely decongest the roads below, but that's because we have more commuters now than ever. It's not that the MRT/LRT have serious undercapacity, it's that there are just too many people.

    But while the advertising aspect was implemented, the parking and shopping mall versions were not. What for, when the government was subsidizing its operations anyway?
    There are small scale shopping centers already at many stations. At others, it's problematic because there are pre-existing structures and malls (with parking lots) at those locations. Think anyone who's invested in a ten story building will want to convert it to a parking lot for the government's convenience?

    One more thing, the huge lot at the end of the MRT line on Edsa, opposite SM North Edsa, was supposed to be used for MRT trains. Instead, it was sold or leased to Ayala, which built the Trinoma shopping mall. To whom did the money go? If the land is being leased, to whom is Ayala paying?
    That's a very good question.

    Why do the bus operators, even those from the provinces, insist on operating in Metro Manila even as colorums where they run with very few passengers, whereas their services are sorely needed in the provinces? Because there is more profit operating in Metro Manila, even with fewer passengers. How do they do it? Because they are charging their few passengers more than what is fair to the latter, and that is courtesy of the LTFRB.
    Classic case of misunderstanding a chicken and egg situation. Bus operators run colorum lines and undercapacity during off-peak hours simply to make ends meet. If it was completely profitable to run on EDSA during regular hours, you wouldn't see buses during off-hours.

    Yes, they're profitable. Why run a line if it isn't? But if the author thinks running a bus company is easy, and that operators are raking in cash, why does he think so many bus companies change owners and change franchises very year?

    And yet... these companies are charging less than the MRT, and still profiting. While the MRT needs to charge more just to stay alive. They serve a much larger volume of passengers than the MRT ever will, with less investment by the government. Yes, diesel for public utility vehicles is subsidized, but I also think this is unfair to taxpayers who never use the service, also. Again: it's the difference between subsidizing a commercial service that the public has to pay for and subsidizing the public directly.

    Then again, anyone who wants to can apply at the LTFRB for a commercial line and avail of tax-free diesel. Not everyone can afford to set up a multi-billion peso rail line and have the government pay them to stay in business.
    Last edited by niky; August 4th, 2010 at 01:37 PM.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  6. #46
    nasa choice na ng tao yan

    kung dun sila sa bus na:

    -takaw hold up
    -lintik sa dami ng stop times
    -conductor na may mga modus operandi
    -mga bus na walang pakialam sa pasahero kahit heater na nilalabas ng aircon niya
    -mga bus na may ipis
    -mga lasing na katabi sa bus, mga samut saring tao sa bus

    o sa MRT

    di hamak na mas ligtas ka sa MRT/mas mabilis pa
    downside lang e masikip kulang sa trains
    pero sure yan pag tumaas MRT, mababawasan mga tao jan

    ang mga provincial busesnalang sana pwede sa EDSA

    tutukan nalang ng gobyerno ang MRT

    alisin nang tuluyan ang mga bus ni claire dela fuente!

  7. Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,954
    #47
    Why are the trains at EDSA small? Parang pang LRT lang.

    Why didn't they choose this type of train?



    http://www.wikiwak.com/wak/File:Kawasaki_c751_eunos.jpg

    And look at the size of the MRT station next to the train.
    Last edited by donbuggy; August 4th, 2010 at 01:48 PM.

  8. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #48
    Quote Originally Posted by donbuggy View Post
    Why are the trains at EDSA small? Parang pang LRT lang.

    Why didn't they choose this type of train?



    http://www.wikiwak.com/wak/File:Kawasaki_c751_eunos.jpg

    And look at the size of the MRT station next to the train.
    Exactly.

    Our trains are short because we are limited as to how big we can make our stations. Some stations have tiny volume, and to make a full-sized, full-length station for that stop would be a bigger waste of money than it already is.

    I've been a rider for a long time. Some of my stops are unusual because I use the MRT/LRT on routes that are not regular commutes. Stations like Bambang (LRT), Crame (MRT) and Quezon Avenue (MRT) are like ghost towns, and are not so crowded, even during rush hour.

    If we were to make the trains five or six cars, you'd have a huuuuuuge space, costing a lot in maintenance, electricity, cleaning and security, serving just a handful of people.

    On off-peak hours, actually... that's what's happening right now.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  9. Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,646
    #49
    MRT Plans Increase In Capacity
    MRT Plans Increase In Capacity | The Manila Bulletin Newspaper Online

    (Siemens AG) Siemens Nexas


    MRT fare hike seen in January 2013
    MRT fare hike seen in January 2013 | ABS-CBN News

  10. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    25,038
    #50
    To see is to believe...

NEWS: Planned MRT fare hike to test PNoy's political will