CHAPTER IVPRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA This chapter discusses and defines the data in the study. It overseen the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data gathered by the researchers.
This chapter aims to determine the perceptions of the respondents towards public transportation and sustainable mobility with regards to the PUV Modernization Program. The data were collected and processed in response to the questions posed in the first chapter of this thesis. The collected data helped the researchers find out what kind of Intervention Program recommends for the commuters as well as the PUJ drivers.
Demographic Profile of the Respondents The main participants of the study were divided into two groups, the commuters’ group and the PUJ drivers’ group, who were from Barangay Atlag, City of Malolos, Bulacan and the Malolos Transport Terminal located in Barangay Guinhawa, City of Malolos, Bulacan respectively. The respondents were given survey questionnaire forms which included their profiles in terms of age and gender. Table 4 shows that an equal number of respondents were drawn from both barangays – Brgy. Atlag (50 Commuters) and Brgy. Guinhawa (50 PUJ Drivers). The same amount of respondents were collected from the two barangays in order to conduct a much effective manner of correlational as well as a comparative analysis of the gathered data. Table 4. Barangay Classifications of Respondents Frequency (n) PercentageBarangay Brgy.
Atlag 50 50.0Brgy. Guinhawa (Malolos Transport Terminal) 50 50.0Total 100 100.0Both the Age and Gender profiles of the participants, the Commuters and the PUJ Drivers, were presented on Tables 5 and 6 respectively, shown in numerical form, and are discussed and elaborated by the researchers below. Table 5 shows that most commuter-participants belonged to the 18 to 25 age group, with the total frequency of 18 or the equivalent percentage of 36%. While the age group that received the least amount of response is the cluster of 46 to 55 and the age cluster of 56 and above with a total frequency of 3 and 4 respectively. The issue of comfortability in public transportation is a subject matter that the PUV Modernization Program aims to address.
Considerations for the elderly shall be provided under the PUV Modernization Program. According to a report by Sy (2017), there would be seats reserved for the elderly as well as those individuals who are finding it hard to walk.The age groups of 36 to 45, and 46 to 55 received the highest number of responses among the PUJ Drivers, both having the same amount of total frequency, 16 (n), with the percentage equivalent of 32%. This implies that most PUJ drivers’ ages ranges from 36 to 55.
Considerably, people in the 36 to 55 age bracket belongs to the working class sector, acting as the breadwinner and providing the needs of their respective families.Table 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents According to Age Commuters PUJ Drivers Frequency Percentage Frequency PercentageAge 17 – below 8 16.0 0 0.018 – 25 18 36.0 3 6.
026 – 35 9 18.0 7 14.036 – 45 8 16.0 16 32.046 – 55 3 6.0 16 32.056 – above 4 8.0 8 16.
0Total 50 100.0 50 100.0Table 6 shows the gender profile of the respondents, the Commuters and the PUJ Drivers. There is a significant difference between the total amounts of respondents among the two gender options. As presented in Table 6, for the commuters, the gender frequency of male respondents is 25 with a percentage of 50%. At the same time, the total frequency for the female respondents is 25 with the percentage of 50% as well.
There is no missing response in the Gender option which makes up 100% in total for the Commuters.Prior to the collection of data, the researchers of the study made the priority to have the same number of respondents for both men and women commuters in order to hear both sides and opinions, as well as to have equal representation of both genders. Gender sensitivity is an important matter that often gets neglected in the public transport sector. With the implementation of the PUV Modernization Program, different gender needs would be given ample attention. The entrances of the modernized PUJ units under the program would be suitable, not only for the elderly, but also for women who are pregnant. There would also be seats reserved for pregnant women as well.Table 6.
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents According to Gender Commuters PUJ Drivers Frequency Percentage Frequency PercentageGender Male 25 50.0 50 100.0Female 25 50.0 0 0Total 50 100.0 50 100.0Table 6 also shows that there is no female respondents for the PUJ Drivers.
With the total frequency of 50 (n) in favor of the option Male. The chosen PUJ terminal, Malolos Transport Terminal located in Barangay Guinhawa, City of Malolos, Bulacan is a PUJ terminal that is purely male dominated which shall explain the absence of female PUJ drivers among the respondents. Perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers towards the Traditional/Typical and Modernized Configuration of Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJs)The five major factors that the PUV Modernization Program (PUVMP) would significantly have impact towards the current Public Utility Jeepney are: Design; Efficiency; Safety; Reliability; and Cost. All five factors are summarized on the following tables and are presented in numerical data. The questionnaire utilized has a rating scale that can determine the respondents’ perception towards the current public utility jeepney (PUJ).Table 7 presents the data that illustrates the results when the respondents were asked about their perception towards the Traditional/Typical Configuration of a Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ) and its modernized version under the PUV Modernization Program, in terms of its design. Out of the rating scale of 1 to 5, the data under the traditional PUJ’s garnered the grand overall mean of 3.7150 with the verbal interpretation of Neither Agree which can be interpreted as neutral.
While, the data under the modernized version of PUJ received the grand mean of 3.9350 with the same verbal interpretation of Agree. Majority of the respondents agree with the first three statements regarding the design of the two PUJs.
The current jeepneys are diesel-fueled public utility vehicles, with the capacity of 14–20 passengers. According to the study of Balanay et. al., the jeepney was described as a vehicle with an open rear end that serves as a passage towards the passenger compartment, it has open sides for windows, and has a roof covering. The driver’s compartment is open on both sides, as well as the back, forming no physical barrier from the passenger area (Balanay et. al., 2013).
Rooted on the aftermath of the 2nd World War, the Philippine Jeepneys are distinct to the Filipino culture, symbolizing the Filipinos’ resilience and creativity. Table 7. Frequency and Descriptive Measures of Perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers towards the Traditional/Typical Configuration and Modernized Public Utility Jeepneys in terms of DesignItem 5 4 3 2 1 Mean Verbal InterpretationTraditional PUJ’s The PUJ unit’s color (inside and outside) are pleasant to the eyes 41 36 14 5 3 4.
04 AgreeThe windows are functioning well (as protection from direct sunlight / rainfall) 35 44 14 5 0 4.11 AgreeThe height of the PUJ units are proportioned to the passengers 20 41 15 19 5 3.52 AgreeCurrent PUJ units have sound systems/radio/television to entertain the passengers during the trip 10 30 25 24 6 3.19 Neither AgreeGrand Mean 3.
7150 AgreeModernized PUJ’s The PUJ unit’s color (inside and outside) are pleasant to the eyes 33 40 13 8 6 3.86 AgreeThe windows are functioning well (as protection from direct sunlight / rainfall) 37 47 9 5 1 4.11 AgreeThe height of the PUJ units are proportioned to the passengers 30 45 20 3 2 3.98 AgreeNew PUJ units have sound systems/radio/television to entertain the passengers during the trip 25 42 24 6 2 3.79 AgreeGrand Mean 3.
9350 AgreeRange: 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree), 1.50-2.49 (Disagree), 2.50-3.49 (Neither Agree), 3.50-4.
49 (Agree), 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree)Table 8 presents the data that demonstrates the results when the respective respondents were asked about their perception towards the Traditional/Typical Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ) and the modernized version under the PUV Modernization Program, in terms of its Efficiency. Out of the rating scale of 1 to 5, the data in Table 8, under the traditional PUJ’s received the grand mean of 3.5875 with the verbal interpretation of Agree. Similarly, the data under the modernized version of PUJ received the same verbal interpretation of Agree despite having a lesser grand mean of 3.5100.The response to the stated questions below implies that more participants believe and perceive that the modernized PUJs are more efficient to use as a public transportation mode rather than the traditional jeepneys.
The PUV Modernization Program aims to address issues on public transport efficiency by installing speed limit devices and having Euro 4 Emission standers. As transportation expert Edwin Quiros (2017) state, some of the old PUJs are still on Euro 2 Emission standards. The new vehicles under the program features cleaner emission system. Euro 4 Emission vehicles observe universal standards on the limit on the emission of pollutants. It requires the use of fuel with remarkably low sulfur and benzene content, lessening environmental pollution and increasing efficiency of performance (Sy, 2017).According to the report of Sy (2017), Euro 4 gasoline can improve power by improving engine lubrication and can restore maximum engine performance by cleaning internal engine deposits. It reduces the destructive effects of chemical substances which leads to the deterioration and corrosion of the engine.
This can result in lesser maintenance which can improve the roadworthiness, and ultimately affect the effectivity as well as the efficiency of the vehicles. Table 8. Frequency and Descriptive Measures of Perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers towards the Traditional/Typical Configuration and Modernized Public Utility Jeepneys in terms of EfficiencyItem 5 4 3 2 1 Mean Verbal InterpretationTraditional PUJ’s Current PUJ units have standard precautionary measurements that is functioning well (i.e speedometer, etc) 47 30 10 11 1 4.08 AgreeTraditional PUJs have a collection fare mechanism 39 22 10 8 20 3.49 Neither AgreePUJ units release too much greenhouse gas 20 31 20 11 18 3.24 Neither AgreeCurrent PUJ follows a strict Route movement 23 33 22 20 1 3.54 AgreeGrand Mean 3.
5875 AgreeModernized PUJ’s New PUJ units have standard precautionary measurements that is functioning well (i.e speedometer, etc) 52 30 12 3 2 4.24 AgreeTraditional PUJs have a collection fare mechanism 36 38 18 2 5 3.95 AgreePUJ units release too much greenhouse gas 9 6 39 8 37 2.39 DisagreePUJ follows a strict Route movement 14 27 53 3 3 3.46 Neither AgreeGrand Mean 3.
5100 AgreeRange: 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree), 1.
50-2.49 (Disagree), 2.50-3.49 (Neither Agree), 3.50-4.49 (Agree), 4.
50-5.00 (Strongly Agree)Table 9 presents the data that illustrates the results when the respondents were asked about their perception towards the Traditional/Typical Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ) and the modernized version under the PUV Modernization Program, in terms of its Safety. According to table 9, out of the provided rating scale of 1 to 5, the traditional PUJ’s received the grand mean of 3.8675 with the verbal interpretation of Agree. Likewise, the data under the modernized version of PUJ, although receiving a slightly lesser grand mean of 3.
9175, also received the same verbal interpretation Agree.Safety has been among the major concerns of both respondents, whether commuters or PUJ drivers. According to the study done by the CCRPA (n.d.), programs and projects on transportation should be aimed at increasing safety for all users, including drivers, commuters, bicyclists, pedestrians as well as motorists.
Safety should also focus on preventing fatalities and injuries more than general collision prevention. All questions under the Factor Safety, received the verbal interpretation Agree. The response of the participants to the questions regarding safety may imply that the modernized PUJs under the Modernization Program are slightly safer to utilize than the traditional/typical jeepney.
The PUV Modernization Program features safety innovation among different public transportation modes including the Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ). According to a report made by Kimiko Sy (2017), there would be new bars and handrails that are similar to the Metro Rail Train. Commuters now have more space to hold on to keep them safe especially when the vehicle is moving. Side entrances and exits, installation of CCTV’s and Dashcams are also among the safety inclusions of the program. Table 9. Frequency and Descriptive Measures of Perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers towards the Traditional/Typical Configuration and Modernized Public Utility Jeepneys in terms of SafetyItem 5 4 3 2 1 Mean Verbal InterpretationTraditional PUJ’s PUJ drivers load/unload passengers in the right places 45 25 7 19 3 3.87 AgreeDrivers are considerate to the passengers so they slowly reduce their speed before loading/unloading 25 37 15 19 4 3.60 AgreePassengers/Drivers are safe from imminent danger brought forth from the environment (i.
e. pollution) 33 39 15 11 1 3.89 AgreeCurrent PUJ units have safety features (side mirrors, seatbelt, handle bars, etc.) 49 30 10 6 4 4.
11 AgreeGrand Mean 3.8675 AgreeModernized PUJ’s PUJ drivers load/unload passengers in the right places 33 32 31 2 1 3.91 AgreeDrivers are considerate to the passengers so they slowly reduce their speed before loading/unloading 23 40 30 4 2 3.75 AgreePassengers/Drivers are safe from imminent danger brought forth from the environment (i.e. pollution) 26 19 51 2 2 3.65 AgreeNew PUJ units have safety features (side mirrors, seatbelt, handle bars, etc.) 56 28 13 2 1 4.
36 AgreeGrand Mean 3.9175 AgreeRange: 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree), 1.50-2.49 (Disagree), 2.50-3.
49 (Neither Agree), 3.50-4.49 (Agree), 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree)Table 10 presents the data that shows the results when the respondents were asked about their perception towards the Traditional Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ) and the modernized version under the PUV Modernization Program, in terms of its Reliability.
Out of the rating scale of 1 to 5, the data in Table 10, under the traditional PUJ’s received an grand mean of 3.8450 with the verbal interpretation of Agree. Similarly, the data under the modernized version of PUJ received a slightly higher grand mean of 3.9775, with also the same verbal interpretation of Agree.The answers of both commuters and PUJ drivers regarding the Factor Reliability, suggest that more respondents agree that the modernized version of PUJs are somewhat more reliable than the traditional ones. Undeniably, both participants want a transportation mode that they can be assured of. According to a report by Kimiko Sy (2017), Modernized PUJs under the program, were designed to have bigger seats to guarantee comfort and convenience for the commuters. The current jeepneys can accommodate 16 to 18 passengers while, the modern jeepneys can seat up to 22 to 30 people, providing a bigger passengers’ area.
Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) were given attention. Vehicles under the program have low ramps for members of the PWD. The ramps are measured to land on the curb of the sidewalk for the ease of people with wheelchairs.
This would enable them to use public transportation without having to worry about convenience. To further justify, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB, 2017) stated that, the modernized public utility jeepneys are built and designed to be environment-friendly, safe, secure and convenient with due consideration to Persons-with-Disabilities (PWDs) passengers.Table 10. Frequency and Descriptive Measures of Perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers towards the Traditional/Typical Configuration and Modernized Public Utility Jeepneys in terms of ReliabilityItem 5 4 3 2 1 Mean Verbal InterpretationTraditional PUJ’s The entrance of the PUJ units are child/pregnant/elderly/PWD friendly 35 29 12 20 3 3.
70 AgreeThere is an exact number of passengers that the PUJ unit can accommodate 36 37 6 13 7 3.79 AgreeDrivers avoid delays on transporting passengers (like stopping too long on every streets) 31 30 12 20 7 3.58 AgreePUJ units have trash bins for the passenger’s waste 51 34 11 3 1 4.31 AgreeGrand Mean 3.8450 AgreeModernized PUJ’s The entrance of the PUJ units are child/pregnant/elderly/PWD friendly 43 37 14 3 2 4.13 AgreeThere is an exact number of passengers that the PUJ unit can accommodate 39 44 10 4 3 4.
12 AgreeDrivers avoid delays on transporting passengers (like stopping too long on every streets) 14 27 53 3 3 3.43 Neither AgreePUJ units have trash bins for the passenger’s waste 50 29 18 1 1 4.23 AgreeGrand Mean 3.9775 AgreeRange: 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree), 1.50-2.
49 (Disagree), 2.50-3.49 (Neither Agree), 3.50-4.49 (Agree), 4.50-5.
00 (Strongly Agree)Table 11 demonstrates the data that shows the results when the respondents were asked about their perception towards the Traditional/Typical Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ) and the modernized version under the PUV Modernization Program, in terms of its Cost. According to table 11, out of the provided rating scale of 1 to 5, the traditional PUJ’s received a grand overall mean of 4.1300 with the verbal interpretation of Agree. Similarly, the data under the modernized version of PUJ received the same verbal interpretation of Agree despite having a significantly lesser grand mean of 3.
9175.The response from both commuters and PUJ drivers implies that a majority of them agree that the cost of fare and the Traditional PUJ unit is significantly more justifiable and affordable than those of the Modernized PUJ units.The transport fare of the current PUJs rangers from 7php to 8php. While the Traditional PUJ unit cost from 150,000php to 500,000php. As mentioned in Chapter 2 of the study, modernization does not come for free. According to a column by Roxas (2017), the modernized PUJs under the PUV Modernization Program would cost a staggering amount of 1.
3 million php to 1.6 million php. While the transport fare for the modernized PUJs would come around the cost between 12php to 20php (Roxas, 2017).This massive increase, either on the transport fare or the PUJ unit itself, justifies the response from both the commuters and the PUJ drivers.
With the commuters being more accepting of the modifications, and the PUJ drivers being slightly against the cost modifications of the new PUJ units under the PUV Modernization Program. Table 11. Frequency and Descriptive Measures of Perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers towards the Traditional/Typical Configuration and Modernized Public Utility Jeepneys in terms of CostItem 5 4 3 2 1 Mean Verbal InterpretationTraditional PUJ’s The current fare is justifiable (7php-8php) 60 19 8 7 5 4.19 AgreeThe price of the traditional/ typical jeepney is affordable (150,000php-500,000php) 46 27 20 2 5 4.07 AgreeGrand Mean 4.1300 AgreeModernized PUJ’s The fare is justifiable (12php-20php) 15 26 13 20 24 2.
82 Neither AgreeThe price of the Modernized PUJ Model is affordable (1.3 million php – 1.6 million php) 7 15 7 23 36 2.28 DisagreeGrand Mean 2.5500 Neither AgreeRange: 1.00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree), 1.
50-2.49 (Disagree), 2.50-3.49 (Neither Agree), 3.50-4.49 (Agree), 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree)Comparative Perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers towards the Traditional/Typical and Modernized Public Utility JeepneysTable 12 illustrates the difference of response between the two groups of participants, commuters and PUJ drivers, regarding the design, efficiency, safety, reliability, and cost features of the traditional and the modernized PUJ units.
Table 12. Comparative Perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers towards the Traditional/Typical Configuration and Modernized Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJs) Commuters PUJ DriversPUV Factors PUJ Configuration GrandMean Verbal Interpretation GrandMean Verbal InterpretationDesign Traditional 3.3450 Neither Agree 4.0850 Agree Modernized 4.0250 Agree 3.8450 AgreeEfficiency Traditional 3.2850 Neither Agree 3.
8900 Agree Modernized 3.4550 Neither Agree 3.5650 AgreeSafety Traditional 3.4800 Neither Agree 3.9350 Agree Modernized 4.2550 Agree 3.9000 AgreeReliability Traditional 3.3000 Neither Agree 4.
3900 Agree Modernized 3.7850 Agree 4.1700 AgreeCost Traditional 3.7600 Agree 4.5000 Strongly Agree Modernized 2.9400 Neither Agree 2.1600 DisagreeRange: 1.
00-1.49 (Strongly Disagree), 1.50-2.49 (Disagree), 2.50-3.49 (Neither Agree), 3.
50-4.49 (Agree), 4.50-5.00 (Strongly Agree)Design Table 12 shows the difference of answers between the commuters and jeepney drivers regarding the design of the current and modernized PUJ units. It can be seen in the said Table that a larger amount of respondents from the PUJ Drivers’ group are clearly much in favor of the traditional design of Public Utility Jeepneys. With the astounding mean of 4.
0850, it has garnered a verbal interpretation Agree. As for the commuters, they seem to prefer the modernized design of Public Utility Jeepney. With the mean of 4.
0250 in favor of the Modernized PUJs and the verbal interpretation of Agree, commuters show their support for the newly designed PUJs. As mentioned in the first chapter, jeepneys serve as the backbone of the Philippine public transportation system, providing cheap and easily accessible transportation services to the Filipino masses (JICA, 2014). Driving alongside big buses, private cars, and taxi cabs, a striking, anachronistic motored vehicle makes its way through the hustling and bustling streets of the nation. According to the study of Escalona (2017), jeepneys are often painted with bright, vivid colors and are decorated with garish accessories. They are a remarkable innovation to the transport sector, a cultural icon, and the undisputed “Kings of the Road” (“Hari ng Kalsada”). Considering its history, it has become a reflection of the Filipino spirit — resilient, innovative, and optimistic (Escalona, 2017).
Bearing in mind the statements above, it is definitely not an easy task to replace something as culturally rooted and appropriated as the Philippine Jeepneys, especially its traditional design, which has been stuck in the minds of the millions of Filipinos that use it every day. However, based on the data, it can’t be neglected that it is possible for people to accept it. As the theory of Modernization explains, people would go through lengthy stages of transition. It might take quite a long time for all people to fully grasp the Modernization Program, but as the theory suggest it, it will happen and nothing can stop its inevitability. Furthermore, the theory of Evolution states that society moves in specific directions, from simple to complex. As the world traverses towards the 21st century with all of its innovations and development, individuals must ensure that they too would not get left behind and adapt to the change happening around them.Efficiency As seen on table 12, a slightly higher amount of respondents from the PUJ Drivers’ group are much in favor of the traditional Public Utility Jeepneys when it comes to the matter of efficiency. With the overall mean of 3.
8900, it has received a verbal interpretation of Agree. In comparison to the slightly lesser mean of 3.2850 from the commuters’ group, with a verbal interpretation of Neither Agree, this implies that PUJ drivers are much more in favor of the traditional PUJs when it comes to efficiency rather than the commuters. The same verbal interpretations also goes with the modernized PUJs in terms of efficiency. According to the study of Carvalho, et. al (2015), efficiency means that the organization uses its resources productively and cost effectively, produces more with fewer resources, or even rationalizes its inputs. According to the study of Miller, et. al.
(2016), having an efficient and effective transport sector is an essential driver for economic and social development of a city. Transportation systems were described as the “lifeblood” of cities in recognition this critical role. With the Modernization Program, a much efficient transport system can be achieved. Apart from the aforementioned features as such as the installation of speed limit devices and having Euro 4 Emission standers as a response to the efficiency issue of the current Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJs), time is also of the essence, as the modernization program also features regulatory Route Rationalization among Local Government Units (DOTr, 2017).
This shall make the routes more “passenger-friendly” and more responsive to the passenger needs. It also calls for the appropriation per vehicle type depending on the road hierarchy, thus, increasing and improving the efficiency of jeepneys. Also, instead of the system of the driver accepting fare and handing out change while driving, the automatic fare system will help keep the driver from being distracted. It follows the collection system of the Metro Rail Transit. This feature also promotes a more organized scheme of collecting the transport fare which, is currently done by passing money from passenger to passenger until it reaches the driver.Safety Table 12 presents the different answers between the commuters and jeepney drivers regarding the matter of safety of the current and modernized PUJs. As seen on the Table, both commuters and PUJ drivers views both traditional and modernized PUJ units to be safe. With a little to no difference at all, the PUJ drivers and commuters had the mean of 3.
9350 and 3.4800, getting a verbal interpretation of Agree and Neither Agree for the said category under the traditional PUJs, respectively. Which should imply that the commuters’ group agree that the modernized Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ) are much safer to use than the traditional ones. On the other hand, a mean amounting to 3.4550 and 3.5650 for the commuters and PUJ drivers respectively, was garnered under the modernized PUJs. Both groups of participants received a verbal interpretation of Agree for the category of Safety under the modernized PUJ’s. The PUJ drivers’ expressed their approval towards the traditional and modernized PUJ units.
According to Ang (2012), traditional jeepneys are reportedly often mechanically unsound, with their balding tires, crabbing and yawing from distorted sub frames, with poor emissions. And although, picking up and dropping off is easy for both passengers and drivers. It is, however, also because of this convenience that some jeepney drivers become the source of traffic congestion by carelessly loading and unloading passengers in the middle of the street, blocking traffic and ultimately risking the safety of some passengers (Pagsolingan, 2010). The commuters’ somewhat negative response towards the traditional PUJs in terms of safety could be could be justified by the above mentioned factors. Safety is among the major factors that the commuters’ show concerns for. Without a doubt, the respondents, commuters as well as jeepney drivers, absolutely want nothing but to feel safe and secured at all times whenever they utilize public transportation and they expect nothing less from the transport sector to implement such laws and regulations to ensure that they will get the security that they desire.
Reliability. According to Table 12, it can be seen that a far larger amount of respondents from the PUJ Drivers’ group are clearly much in favor of the traditional Public Utility Jeepneys in terms of Reliability. With the astounding overall mean of 4.3900, it has received a verbal interpretation of Agree, having a significantly higher overall mean than the Commuters’ group of 3.3000, with the verbal interpretation of Neither Agree.As for the Modernized PUJs, it can be seen in Table 12 that the overall mean under the PUJ drivers’ group is 4.
1700 with a verbal interpretation of Agree. While the overall mean under the commuters’ group is 3.7850, with a verbal interpretation of Agree.The participants’ response to the questions posed under the Reliability factor, can be justified through simple explanation and reasoning. For the commuters, they would logically prefer to go with something that serves their best interest.
The modernized public utility jeepneys (PUJs) offers them an option much better, secured, and convenient riding experience, hence, more of them were in favor of the Modernized PUJs under the program.Cost. Table 12 demonstrates the difference of answers between the commuters and jeepney drivers regarding the factor Cost of the current and modernized PUJ units.
It can be seen in the said Table that a larger amount of respondents from the PUJ Drivers’ group are clearly much in favor of the traditional of Jeepneys’ cost. With the astounding mean of 4.5000, it has garnered a verbal interpretation of Strongly Agree. Moreover, the commuters received a verbal interpretation of Agree for the overall mean of 3.7600. Both groups of participants expressed their approval for the factor of Cost under the traditional PUJs.Meanwhile, the modernized PUJs received a not so positive response from the participants. The commuters gave the new PUJs an overall mean of 2.
9400 with a verbal interpretation of Neither Agree or Neutral. While the PUJ drivers gave a significantly less overall mean of 2.1600, with the verbal interpretation of Disagree. Even before its launch, the program was received negatively by various transport groups and ultimately faced criticisms throughout its creation as well as implementation phase.
While Senate Bill 1284 and House Bill 4334, the program’s enabling legislation, were still pending in February 2017, jeepney drivers launched numerous strikes and demonstrations in Metro Manila and in key cities throughout the country.Under the Modernization Program, each vehicle will cost about 1.2php up to 1.6php million, to be loaned to the driver payable in seven years at 6% interest. The government, through a public bank, will cover the 5% but not more than 80,000php financing, and the drivers will have to pay the rest. This arrangement seems unfair for the drivers, considering the amount they are earning per month and the total cost of their current PUJ units.
As stated in chapter 2, according to the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) and Pinagkaisang Samahan ng Tsuper and Opereytor Nationwide (PISTON), the 1.2 million php to 1.6 million php cost of new jeepneys will adversely affect the livelihood of about 600,000 PUJ drivers and 300,000 small operators all over the nation (2017). The group claims that commuters get affected with an increased fare of at least 20.00php from 8.00php as the average fare (Roxas, 2017).This opposition is reflected and can also be seen in the study conducted by the researchers as presented in Table 12.
Majority of the respondents, either commuter or PUJ driver, disagrees with the cost of the PUJs under the Modernization program.In summary, the Commuters Group perception towards the traditional configuration of the public utility jeepney (PUJ) in terms of Design, Efficiency, Safety, and Reliability all fell on the same verbal description of “Neither Agree” with total averages of 3.3450, 3.
2850, 3.4800, and 3.3000 respectively.
The remaining factor, Cost, had the verbal description “Agree” with the mean score of 3.7600. The results imply that the commuters have a neutral or fair perception towards the Design, Efficiency, Safety, and Reliability of the traditional PUJ configuration. On the other hand, the commuters agree that the cost of fares and current PUJ units are justifiable and affordable.Moreover, the Commuters Group perception towards the Modernized PUJ in terms of Design, Safety and Reliability received the same verbal interpretation of “Agree” with total averages of 4.0250, 4.
2550, and 3.7850 respectively. The other factors, which are Efficiency and Cost, had the same verbal description of “Neither Agree” with mean scores of 3.4550, and 2.9400 respectively. The results suggest that the majority of commuters agree with the design, safety and reliability features of the new PUJs. At the same time, thy have a Neutral perception towards the Efficiency and Cost of Modernized PUJs.
The PUJ Drivers Group perception to the Traditional/Typical configuration of PUJs in terms of Design, Efficiency, Safety, and Reliability all fell on the same verbal description “Agree” with total overall means of 4.0850, 3.8900, 3.
9350, and 4.3900. The other factor of the PUV Modernization, which is Cost, had the verbal description of “Strongly Agree” with the mean score of 4.5000. The results imply that the jeepney drivers collectively have a positive perception towards the Design, Efficiency, Safety, and Reliability of the traditional/typical PUJ configuration. On the other hand, the PUJ drivers strongly agree that the cost of fares and current PUJ units are justifiable and affordable. Lastly, the PUJ Drivers Group perception towards the Modernized PUJ in terms of Design, Efficiency, Safety and Reliability received the same verbal interpretation of “Agree” with total averages of 3.
8450, 3.5650, 3.9000, and 4.1700 respectively.
The other factor, Cost, had the verbal description “Disagree” with a mean score of 2.1600. The results suggest that the PUJ Drivers agree with all the factors except for the Cost of the Modernized Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJ).Table 13. T-test Results on the Difference between the Perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers towards the Traditional and Modernized Public Utility JeepneysPUV MODERNIZATIONFactors (Traditional) COMMUTERS (Brgy. Atlag Group) PUJ DRIVERS(Brgy.
Guinhawa Group) t- value Sig. Mean Std. Dv. Mean Std.
Dv. Design 3.3450 .76913 4.0850 .45347 -5.861 .
001**Efficiency 3.2850 .69070 3.
8900 .55824 -4.817 .114Safety 3.4800 .94470 4.2550 .61960 -4.
851 .000*Reliability 3.3000 .
85565 4.3900 .55824 -7.
544 .002**Cost 3.7600 .98582 4.5000 .
78246 -4.157 .181**Difference is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)*Difference is significant at the 0.
01 level (2-tailed)PUV MODERNIZATIONFactors (Modernized) COMMUTERS (Brgy. Atlag Group) PUJ DRIVERS(Brgy. Guinhawa Group) t- value Sig. Mean Std.
Dv. Mean Std. Dv. Design 4.0250 .
72007 3.8450 .67175 1.292 .884Efficiency 3.
4550 .61173 3.5650 .45962 -1.017 .322Safety 3.
9350 .67727 3.9000 .71071 .252 .978Reliability 3.7850 .73020 4.
1700 .66517 -2.756 .689Cost 2.9400 1.07684 2.1600 1.
40857 3.111 .007**Difference is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)*Difference is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 13 shows the t-test results on the difference among the perceptions of Commuters and PUJ Drivers.
It also shows the grand mean for each factor which explains the participants’ perceptions towards the traditional and the modernized Public Utility Jeepneys. While the standard deviation explains how scattered or dispersed the answers were from each other, the lower standard deviation indicates that there is a small value of distances far from each answer and vice-versa. The Commuters group got the verbal description “Neither Agree” or Neutral for Design, Efficiency, Safety, and Reliability, and an “Agree” verbal description for the factor Cost with standard deviations of .76913, .
69070, .94470, .85565, and .98582 respectively under the traditional/typical configuration of PUJs.
The Commuters Group also achieved a verbal description of “Agree” which reaps positive perception towards the traditional PUJ’s Design, Safety, and Reliability under the Modernized PUJs. The same group received the verbal description “Neither Agree” or a neutral perception towards the Efficiency and Cost of Modern PUJs with standard deviations of .72007, .61173, .
67727, .73020, and 1.07684 respectively. On the other hand, the PUJ Drivers group achieved the verbal description “Agree” in regards to their perception to the Traditional/Typical configuration of PUJs in terms of Design, Efficiency, Safety, and Reliability, while the factor Cost got the verbal description “Strongly Agree” with standard deviations of .45347, .55824, .61960, .55824, and .
78246 for the respective factors mentioned. The same group received a verbal descriptions of “Agree” for the Design, Efficiency, Safety and Reliability of Modernized PUJs, while the factor Cost received the verbal description “Disagree”, the standard deviations for the respective factors are as follows: .67175, .45962, .71071, .66517, and 1.40857.
Correlation Analysis of Respondents Profile to their Perception towards the Traditional or the Typical Configuration of Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJs)Table 14 shows the correlation between the Respondents Profile (Commuters and PUJ Drivers) and their Perception towards the Traditional PUJs. There was no significant relationship found with the subscale Age in terms of Design (r = .039), Efficiency (r = .
063), and Safety (r = .098). This means that the age profile of the respondents does not affect their perceptions towards the traditional/typical PUJs. On the other hand, significant relationships were seen in the Reliability (r = .230, p < 0.05) and Cost (r = .344, p 0.05), Efficiency (r = -.
290, p > 0.01), Safety (r = -.3.00, p > 0.01), Reliability (r = -.459, p > 0.
01), and Cost (r = -.248, p > 0.05).
The results on the table implies that different genders accounts for different public transportation preference. As mentioned beforehand, gender sensitivity is a matter that often gets ignored in the public transportation industry. The traditional public utility jeepneys (PUJs) does not offer the same kind of convenience and comfortability that the Modernized PUJs have under the PUV Modernization Program. Correlation Analysis of Respondents Profile to their Perception towards the Modernized Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJs) under the PUV Modernization ProgramTable 15 shows the correlation between the Respondents profile (Commuters and PUJ Drivers) and their Perceptions towards the Modernized PUJs under the PUV Modernization Program.Table 15 Correlation Analysis between the Respondents profile (Commuters and PUJ Drivers) and their Perceptions towards the Modernized PUJs Design Efficiency Safety Reliability CostAge -.153 -.
166 .005 .122 -.316**Gender -.179 -.193 -.191 -.328** .093**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).Information found on Table 15 suggests that there was no significant relationship found with the subscale Age in terms of Design (r = -.153), Efficiency (r = -.166), Safety (r = .005), and Reliability (r = .122). This simply means that the Age profile of the participants does not affect their perceptions towards the Modernized Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJs) under the PUV Modernization Program.On the other hand, correlation between the factor Cost (r = -.316 p > 0.01) and the Age profile of the respondents was found in the above illustrated Table. Which implies that individuals from varying age groups think differently about the Cost of the Modernized PUJs under the Modernization Program. As previously mentioned, each vehicle under the program will cost about 1.2php up to 1.6php million and that fare hikes between 12php to 20php may most likely happen. A justification for this correlation could be that the Commuters and the PUJ Drivers both think negatively, or are not in favor of the modernized PUJs in terms of its cost. In addition to this, it was reported, that the monthly income of a regular PUJ driver grosses from 10,000php to 15,000php (2015) only. With this, small PUJ drivers fear to not be able to pay the new PUJ units under the program.Consequently, there was a significant correlation between the factor Reliability (r = -.328, p > 0.01) and the Gender profile of the respondents. This means that both genders react differently towards the Modernized PUJs in terms of Reliability. Under the PUV Modernization Program, some gender needs may be addressed. Pregnant women, for example, are given ample priority by having reserved seats for them.However, results on Table 15 suggests that there was no significant relationship between the subscale Gender and the factors namely, Design (r = -.179), Efficiency (r = -.193), Safety (r = -.191), and Cost (r = .093). This means that the Gender profiles of the respondents does not affect their perceptions on the Modernized PUJs under the modernization program in terms of the aforementioned factors.Interview with Public Utility Jeepney OperatorsThe researchers conducted an interview last March 28, 2018 in the City of Malolos, Bulacan with three PUJ operators/drivers. They approach each operator/driver with all the kindness, respect and humility. They start the interview by introducing themselves and the purpose for conducting the interview. The researchers prepared 20 questions: 1. How long have you been a jeepney driver/operator?2. How much working experience (not related to being a jeepney driver/operator/education do you have?3. Aside from being a jeepney driver/operator, what are your other source of income, if any? Is it your primary source of income?4. Are you the breadwinner of your family? How many are you supporting financially?5. What is your monthly income, is it enough to support you and your family’s needs?6. What do you know about the Public Utility Vehicle (PUV) Modernization Program? How do you feel about the impending implementation of the program?7. How would the program positively impact you personally and the work that you do?8. How would the program negatively impact you personally and the work that you do?9. Are you in favor of modernizing the traditional jeepneys? Probe: Why? Why not?10. What are your thoughts on the design of the modernized versions of PUJs?11. Do you believe that the modernized PUJs are more desirable or more desirable or more effective than the traditional design of PUJs? Probe: Why? Why not?12. Do you believe that the new jeepneys are much safer, more reliable and are more efficient to use than the traditional/typical ones? Probe: Why? Why not?13. How do you feel about the cost of the modernized jeepney units (1.3 million – 1.6 million)? How would you able to afford that?14. How do the two versions differ? What do the traditional/typical jeepneys offer/have that the modernized versions does not?15. Do you think that the commuters will patronize the modernized PUJs the same way they did towards the traditional ones? Probe: Why? Why not?16. If fully implemented, do you think that the program will affect the current condition of our environment? Probe: Why? Why not?17. Does the implementation of the Program has some cultural implication towards the society? How do you think the modernized PUJs culturally impact the society? 18. What would you change regarding the PUV Modernization Program?19. What will you do once the program is fully implemented? and20. What are your thoughts and opinions regarding the program?The drivers showed kindness to the researchers during the interview and they answered the questions with sincerity and confidence based on their answers. According to them, they’ve been operators/drivers for almost 20-25 years and they have no working experience except being a driver. It is their main source of their income to financially support their family. They admit that their monthly income isn’t enough and are just making ends meet even if they do earn a significantly higher amount than the jeepney drivers, “hindi sapat… pinagkakasya lang”. They are quite disappointed and angry to the government for proposing such program. “nakakadismaya… maramimg mawawalan ng hanapbuhay… ” it’s frustrating… many individuals will lose their workThe respondents disapprove modernizing the traditional PUJs because they say it will be too expensive. “maganda sana kaso malaki ang gastos para saming maliliit na driver” the program is nice, but it will cost us large amounts of money. Some them believed that the new jeepneys are much safer, more reliable and are more efficient to use than the traditional/typical ones. While there are those who answered “hindi dahil ang mga iyan ay gawang china ‘na marupok” no, because those are made in china which are easily breakable. They also said that they cannot afford the newly proposed units.They differentiate the two versions, saying that “ang tradisyunal na jeep ay lumalarawan sa ating mga Pilipino” the traditional jeepneys mirrors the Filipinos, “ang bagong jeep ay dapat sa mayaman, hindi sa mahihirap na bansa” the newly designed jeeps should be for the rich countries, not the poor ones, “yung dati ay pinapatakbo ng diesel ay yung bago ay electric” the traditional ones are diesel powered, the new ones are electric powered.The drivers assumed that the commuters won’t patronize the new units the same way they did to the old ones. They also said that it will have a cultural implication to the society and having them replaced wouldn’t be an easy task. One operator said that “…mawawala ang nakagisnan natin na mga jeep…” We will lose the jeeps that we are used to. They said that instead of replacing the PUJ units, why not rehabilitate the current units based on the features of the newly proposed units. The drivers also said that if the said program is fully implemented, “hindi na mamamasada” will stop at driving jeeps or “tuloy pa rin ang buhay, laban lang” life goes on, keep on fighting. They ended their answers by saying that “nakakalungkot dahil lahat tayo maapektuhan nito…” it is saddening, because everyone will get affected “mag isip muna sila pertaining to the government, to think before implementing the program bago ito ipatupad”.In summary, the PUJ operators admitted that their monthly income are just about enough to make ends meet and provide for their families. Moreover, the respondents have an idea with what the PUV Modernization Program is, and expressed their disapproval and frustration towards it stating that small jeepney drivers will lose their jobs. As said by the transport groups KMU and PISTON, the cost of new the jeepneys will unfavorably affect the work of about 600,000 PUJ drivers and 300,000 small operators (2017), including them. Consequently, the respondents believed that replacing the current jeepneys with modernized and newly designed models would have a cultural effect towards the Filipinos. Bearing in mind the history of the jeepneys, it has become a staple to the everyday lives of the Filipinos, bringing them cheap and convenient transportation service.The respondents agree are much in favor of the traditional PUJs and believe it to be much better in terms of design, and cost, while they are much in favor of the modernized units in terms of efficiency, safety, and reliability. This echoes the results from the survey conducted by the researchers. The factor cost plays a big part on the resistance to change of both the PUJ drivers, and even the commuters with it always being the deal breaker. The PUJ operators agreed that life ultimately has to go on whatever the circumstances may be. As the implementation of the program moves forward, so will they, either thru complying with the program or looking for a new source of income. The operators urges the government to think first before implementing something as grand and radical as the PUV Modernization Program.
