{"id":258891,"date":"2020-06-22T06:58:18","date_gmt":"2020-06-22T10:58:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=258891"},"modified":"2020-06-22T09:13:48","modified_gmt":"2020-06-22T13:13:48","slug":"pujs-may-no-longer-be-allowed-once-transport-modes-are-enough","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/06\/22\/pujs-may-no-longer-be-allowed-once-transport-modes-are-enough\/","title":{"rendered":"PUJs may no longer be allowed once transport modes are enough"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
He, however, explained that the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is still reviewing whether or not to allow traditional jeepneys from plying the roads. (File Photo courtesy of DOTr\/PNA photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Traditional public utility jeepneys (PUJs) may no longer be allowed to resume operations if other modes of public transport will be enough to service commuters, Malaca\u00f1ang said on Monday.<\/p>\n

Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said that since more transport options will be made available in the second phase of the resumption of public transport, there may no longer be a need for traditional PUJs.<\/p>\n

He, however, explained that the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is still reviewing whether or not to allow traditional jeepneys from plying the roads.<\/p>\n

\u201cTingin ko po. Kung sapat. Pero ina-<\/em>asses\u00a0nga po ng<\/em>\u00a0LTFRB\u00a0kung magiging sapat alisin ang mga<\/em>\u00a0traditional jeepneys (I think so. If there is enough public transport, but the LTFRB is still assessing if there will be enough transport if we remove traditional jeepneys),\u201d he said in a virtual presser.<\/p>\n

For areas under general community quarantine (GCQ), such as Metro Manila, Roque said transport modes with higher passenger capacity will be prioritized such as trains, buses, and modern public utility vehicles (PUVs) as long as as minimum health standards are observed.<\/p>\n

He said that since PUJs and UV Express vans are at the bottom of the transport hierarchy, which means they can service fewer passengers, they will only be allowed once the existing transport modes continue to be insufficient.<\/p>\n

\u201cAng<\/em>\u00a0number one prayoridad\u00a0ng gobyerno yung mananakay. Kung kulang po ang mga pampublikong sasakyan,<\/em>\u00a0pursuant to the hierarchy of bus, modern PUVs,\u00a0papayagan naman po ang<\/em>\u00a0jeepneys\u00a0at<\/em>\u00a0UV Express (The number one priority of the government are the commuters. If there is a lack of public transport, pursuant to the hierarchy of bus, modern PUVs, we may allow jeepneys and UV Express),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

To date, Roque said the LTFRB and Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID) are closely studying the possibility of allowing provincial buses to resume operations.<\/p>\n

The LTFRB has allowed at least 308 modern PUJs to operate in Metro Manila while UV Express vans are expected to resume operations within the month, he added.<\/p>\n

Roque also questioned the claim of the Ibon Foundation that traditional jeepneys with natural ventilation were much safer than modern PUJs which are enclosed and could further spread coronavirus.<\/p>\n

\u201cAng ordinaryong mamamayan po alam naman po na kapag harapan ang upuan ay talagang mas mataas yung tyantsa na magkahawaan kesa kung lahat ay nakaharap sa isang direksyon lamang<\/em>\u00a0(Ordinary citizens know that if you face each other, there is a higher chance of contamination compared to if you face only one direction),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Roque urged the public to continue to observe safe physical distancing and accomplish personal health forms for contract tracing during their commute.<\/p>\n

Only private back-riding allowed<\/strong><\/p>\n

After announcing that the IATF has approved back-riding on motorcycles \u201cin principle\u201d, Roque clarified that this only refers to private back-riding and not motorcycle-hailing services such as Singaporean-owned Angkas.<\/p>\n

Roque said the IATF-EID has ordered the departments of Transportation, Science and Technology, and Health; the Metro Manila Development Authority; and the Bureau of Philippine Standards to look for the \u201csafest and effective\u201d manner to ensure the safe back-riding amid the outbreak.<\/p>\n

\u201cIATF is studying back-riding of private motorcycles only, subject to health and safety protocols.\u00a0Kaya po walang<\/em>\u00a0Angkas\u00a0at ibang<\/em>\u00a0motorcycle taxi service\u00a0dahil wala po silang prangkisa<\/em>\u00a0(That\u2019s why Angkas and other motorcycle taxi services are not allowed because they don\u2019t have a franchise),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The Department of Transportation (DOTr) said that motorcycle-hailing services will be deemed illegal unless Congress crafts a law that would allow them as a mode of public transport.<\/p>\n

Earlier, DOTr allowed Angkas to operate motorcycle taxis from June 2019 on a pilot study basis.<\/p>\n

The public should also consider adding innovations or contraptions such as the proposal of Bohol Governor Arthur Yap to install a hard plastic shield between the motorcycle driver and the passenger to make back-riding safer, Roque said.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0\u2013 Traditional public utility jeepneys (PUJs) may no longer be allowed to resume operations if other modes of public transport …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":144544,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,54365,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-instagram","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-azer-parrocha","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258891","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258891"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258891\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":258892,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258891\/revisions\/258892"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/144544"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}