SAYING it was not the change they were anticipating, a group of van drivers on Monday called on the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) to rescind its memorandum banning them from Edsa, citing income losses and the inconvenience to the riding public.
George San Mateo, coconvener of the Unity of Drivers, Operators and Commuters Against Edsa Ban of UV Express, said that because of the “arbitrary” implementation of LTFRB Memorandum Circular 2016-009, van drivers were being forced to take longer alternate routes, doubling their travel time which greatly affects commuters.
“We appeal to President Duterte. This is not the version of ‘change is coming’ that we wanted. We want change for the better, not for the worst,” San Mateo told reporters during their group’s rally outside the LTFRB head office in Quezon City on Monday.
According to UV Express driver Ferdy Oboza, it now takes him around two hours from the previous 45 minutes to get to Centris, Quezon City from Malolos, Bulacan. He added that because of the memorandum, he now has to go through Mindanao and West Avenues, Agham Road and Quezon Avenue—roads prone to heavy traffic especially during rush hour.
Take-home pay down 50%
As a result, his usual take-home pay of around P1,000 was nearly cut in half, Oboza said. On the other hand, Michelle dela Cruz, a regular UV Express passenger, pointed out that because of the memorandum, she has to wake up three hours earlier than usual for her commute from Bulacan province to her office in Makati City.
San Mateo said that they would like LTFRB Chair Martin Delgra III to present to them a “scientific study” on why they decided to ban UV Express vans on Edsa, noting that only around 3,000 units ply certain sections of the thoroughfare.
“Why ban UV Express vans when they accommodate up to 18 passengers? There are several vehicles with only one or two passengers that ply Edsa and cause traffic congestion,” he said.
Robert Peig, chief of the LTFRB’s legal division, met the protesters on Monday and received the group’s position paper on the issue. He assured them that the LTFRB “[would] discuss” their concerns.