A BETTER WAY TO MANAGE OUR PUBLIC BUS SYSTEMS

 A BETTER WAY TO MANAGE OUR PUBLIC BUS SYSTEMS

When I lived in New York, I noticed something remarkable about their bus system. Every bus, no matter the color or company, seemed to move with precision — arriving at designated stops at predictable times. The buses were owned by different operators, yet they all appeared to belong to a single, unified network.

It turns out, the City of New York builds the bus stops and runs the computerized scheduling system, while allowing multiple private bus companies to operate under one coordinated framework. Passengers do not care who owns which bus; what matters to them is that the buses arrive on time, the fares are standard, and the routes are reliable.

The Global Standard: Unified Branding, Private Operations

Many world cities have adopted this model of public branding, private operations — a clear division of roles that keeps the system efficient and accountable.

In London, for example, all buses carry the familiar red Transport for London (TfL) branding, even though they are run by multiple private operators under strict performance-based contracts. The government sets the routes, fares, and schedules; the companies handle the driving, maintenance, and customer service.

In Singapore, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) also uses a Bus Contracting Model. Private operators like SBS Transit and SMRT bid for routes but operate under a unified schedule and branding. This model keeps service quality high while keeping costs competitive through open bidding.

Even Las Vegas and Los Angeles contract out most of their bus operations to private companies while maintaining a common public identity. The same happens in Hong Kong, where several franchised bus companies operate under a shared government-supervised framework.

This system works because of division of labor — the government focuses on regulation, infrastructure, and coordination, while the private sector focuses on operations, efficiency, and innovation.

Our Situation: The “Free-for-All” Model

In contrast, the bus system in the Philippines, especially in Metro Manila, is still operating in what I would call a “free-for-all” mode. Every bus company runs its own schedule, stops wherever it wants, and competes for passengers on the street.

As a result, commuters never know when the next bus will arrive or where it will stop. Schedules are unpredictable, boarding areas are chaotic, and traffic congestion is made worse by buses loading and unloading anywhere they please.

We have, quite literally, a public transportation system without public management.

A Modular Way Forward

It doesn’t take rocket science to fix this — just organization and coordination. The same buses can run on the same roads, but in a systematic and predictable way.

Here’s one simple proposal:

• DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) should build and maintain standardized bus stops and shelters.
  
  

• DOTr (Department of Transportation) should regulate the routes, schedules, and operators.
  
  

• DICT (Department of Information and Communications Technology) should handle the computerized scheduling system and real-time tracking.
  
  

This division of labor plays to each agency’s strength. The DPWH already has the expertise in building public infrastructure. The DOTr already manages transport operations and franchising. The DICT can easily deploy smart systems for scheduling, digital payments, and passenger information.

Such a setup does not require huge capital investments — just coordination, digitalization, and political will.

Bus Stops and Behavior

The lack of standardized bus stops also shapes commuter behavior. Because passengers can hail buses anywhere, drivers are forced to stop anywhere. This creates inefficiency and danger. Once fixed stops are built and strictly enforced, the system will begin to regulate itself.

In Seoul, for example, bus stops are spaced consistently and linked to digital signs that tell passengers how many minutes before the next bus arrives. This predictability encourages discipline and confidence among commuters.

Human Side of the System

Equally important is the human side — the drivers. Under the current system, most bus drivers are paid on a boundary basis, meaning they must meet a daily quota before earning anything for themselves. This encourages reckless driving, racing, and overloading.

Under a unified system, the hiring and training of drivers could be standardized. Drivers can receive fixed salaries, benefits, and regular hours, while operators are rewarded for safety, punctuality, and passenger satisfaction.

The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) could be tasked to review the labor practices of bus operators to ensure compliance with professional standards.

Digital Transformation for Commuters

Imagine if Metro Manila had a bus app similar to London’s TfL Go or Singapore’s MyTransport.SG, showing commuters exactly when the next bus would arrive. With the DICT’s expertise, this could easily be developed and integrated into the national e-government platform.

Technology is not the problem. The problem is the fragmentation of authority and the lack of coordination between agencies.

Final Thoughts

What I am proposing is not new, not expensive, and not complicated. It is simply a matter of learning from global best practices and applying them in a local, sensible way.

We can have the same buses on the same roads — but moving on time, on schedule, and in service to the public. It’s not too much to ask.

Our people deserve a transport system that respects their time and dignity. A little order, a little coordination, and a little compassion can go a long way toward making that happen.

Because when buses move better, cities live better.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-17-2026