Permitting public transport innovations

(Toix Cerna, my guest columnist this week, has been an advocate of reforms in the road public transport sector for almost a decade. She is a policy researcher and is part of mobility advocacy groups Commuters for Change and the Move As One Coalition).

COMMUTERS have a lot to be excited about as many bus rapid transit (BRT) projects are being pursued by various local governments. BRTs are high capacity public transport systems that provide fast, reliable service through innovations like dedicated bus lanes, off-board fare collection, platform-level boarding, high frequency service and transit signal priority.

The closest that we have to a BRT, similar to those found in cities like Seoul and Jakarta, is the EDSA Bus Carousel. It approximates what a high-capacity and a high-frequency 28-kilometer (km) bus service is like. For the most part, it runs along a dedicated median lane of the Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA), a high-volume highway that connects cities from north to south of Metro Manila. The EDSA Carousel system still lacks platform-level boarding and automated fare collection but is already a far cry from the usual jeepney/bus service that Metro Manila commuters endure. It follows a “timed” service and because of the dedicated lanes, buses zoom past rush hour traffic where thousands of cars and motorcycles are stuck.

The Cebu BRT (called the Cebu Interim Bus System or Cibus) recently went on a three-day trial run (Sept. 17-19, 2025) along the first 2.38 km of Phase 1 connecting the Cebu South Bus Terminal to the Cebu IT Park. The full stretch of Phase 1, when completed, will be a 13-km bus service with 17 stops. The Cibus is the local government’s answer to the severely congested roads of the city. It will also have dedicated bus lanes.

The Cavite BR, meanwhile, is a P2-billion project of the provincial government of Cavite in partnership with Megawide Construction Corp. and Maplecrest Group Inc. It covers 42 km, and connects Imus, General Trias, Tanza, Kawit and Trece Martires to Metro Manila through the Parañaque Integrated Terminal Exchange. It will have a total of 47 stations and promises better connectivity to the metropolis for Cavite workers and residents.

And of course, there’s the long-awaited Davao High Priority Bus System, a P70-billion project with financing from the Asian Development Bank. The new bus service will replace most, if not all, existing road transport services in Davao City with modern buses, mostly electric, covering a 137-km core network and 489 km of feeder routes — a total of 29 routes. The project is expected to be partially operational by 2026 and is estimated to serve 800,000 passengers daily.

In all these developments, what is curiously avoided is the discussion on the needed change in franchising regulations that would be applicable to BRT projects (and other similar transport service innovations). BRTs are usually government-managed bus systems in partnership with the private sector. These will require a government entity contracting the services of private sector transport operators. The system requires management flexibility to assign vehicles to routes and to adjust to changes in travel demand.

The current, and obsolete, franchising system ties the franchises (certificates of public convenience or CPCs) to specific vehicles and routes. A vehicle that is authorized to ply a specific route is not allowed to ply another route. If there are 10 specific vehicles authorized for a route, only these 10 should be found plying that route. Further, in the current regulatory setup, individuals, cooperatives or corporations providing the service, don’t have performance-based agreements with the government. They operate their service without performance standards to abide by; the result is that individual operators can decide to show up, or not, whenever they feel like. The regularity of service is not ensured.

For a change in vehicle, the number of vehicles, or route, a special permit is required from the regulatory agency (Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board or LTFRB) as a temporary response to the temporary need. Special permits are for a limited period only but may be renewed. It can only be given to existing franchise holders. A permanent change requires the service providers to apply for a CPC, a longer-term authorization to operate.

The current franchising system is also unclear whether government entities are recognized as service providers and if they are required to be the franchise holders, as will be needed for BRTs. Interestingly, two modern bus services — the Clark Bus Loop and the Quezon City Bus Service — are operated by government bodies (Clark Development Corp. or CDC and the Quezon City government, respectively). CDC is a government-owned and -controlled firm, and Quezon City is a local government unit. The Quezon City government contracts bus companies to service its bus routes. These government bodies were the ones given special permits by the LTFRB, even as they are non-holders of CPCs. And because special permits are temporary in nature, these government bodies will need to apply for a renewal to continue the bus service.

Special permits have been repeatedly used to fill a large gap in the regulatory framework, but their persistence sends a rather discouraging signal to the market. It signals that transport innovations are just temporary disruptions of the rigid old ways of running a public transport service in this country. Not to mention the tedious process of applying/reapplying for a special permit, where, each time, the applicant must justify to the LTFRB the need for the special permit.

Public transport innovations do come in spurts and perhaps special permits have served their purpose to enable flexibility. For some time, the Department of Transportation and the LTFRB have conveniently leaned on special permits and ignored the policy gap. But, as more and more BRT projects near operational status (even partially), a standard authorizing policy should be developed that will recognize government entities as accountable owners and contracting parties of a bus service system and give them the flexibility to manage vehicles to respond to commuter needs.

In a country where the transportation crisis seems insoluble, innovations should not only be permitted but should be encouraged and preserved.