Two maxims easily come to mind in connection with the Jan. 1 implementation of fare hikes on the LRT and MRT segments of the Light Rail Transit Authority system. The first maxim is “There’s no such thing as a free lunch. The other, which comes in the form of a question, is “Which comes first—the chicken or the egg?”
The latest turn of events in the LRTA controversy is the filing the other day by self-proclaimed ‘cause-oriented’ groups with the Supreme Court of a petition for a temporary order restraining the LRTA from implementing the fare increases, which said groups have termed The Great Train Robbery. There is no similarity between the LRTA fare action and the robbery in the 1970s of a British Royal Mail train by Ronald Biggs and his gang, which resulted in the heist of about 8 million pounds’ worth of Royal Mail collections.
The thrust of the petition of the ‘cause-oriented groups is that LRTA has no business charging higher fares on its three lines (LRT1, MRT3 and LRT2) because the lines’ services are so bad—inadequate trains, long queues and even longer delays—and poor facilities, power losses and other mishaps. Improve your service and your facilities first, the petitioners have told the LRTA, before you become entitled to raise fares.
The first of the maxims I have cited poses the oft-repeated query, “Which comes first—the chicken or the egg?” There can be no chicken if an egg is not hatched, and there can be no egg if a chicken does not hatch it. So, which comes first?
In terms of the current controversy, this maxim is reduced to whether it is possible to have efficient and responsible LRTA services without fare increases or whether the fare increases are needed by the LRTA to be able to improve its services. LRTA has contended that, given its finances and existing credit availabilities, it is not in a position to substantially improve its services. The ‘cause-oriented’ groups argue that LRTA can but have not been able to completely demonstrate how that is possible.
Who should Juan de la Cruz believe? LRTA or those who believe that LRTA should improve its services even if its financial position does not allow it to? In the absence of convincing financial-analysis work by the ‘cause-oriented groups, I’ll go along with the LRTA.
The other maxim I cited tells us that every lunch has a cost of some kind. “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Indeed, there isn’t. Ever since the world began, every lunch that has been eaten has always carried a price tag of some kind. Some lunches may seem free, but somewhere along the line, maybe sooner or maybe later, the price tag manifests itself. In this country it often comes in the form of utang na loob.
If the LRTA customers have been enjoying free lunches, who has been paying for them?
The answer, which the ‘cause-oriented groups pretend to not know, is: the LRTA riders themselves. The LRTA argues that the trains have been losing money because it has been charging lower-than-called-for fares, i.e., it has been subsidizing the commuters. Where do the subsidy funds come from? The national budget, from tax revenues. And who pay the taxes? The commuters themselves.
The ‘cause-oriented’ groups are not allergic to being given a subsidy. What they are allergic to is being asked to account for it.
Indeed, there are questions missing from the Supreme Court petition of the ‘cause-oriented’ groups. One question is, are LRTA commuters entitled to a fare subsidy by right? The other is, is it the statutory duty of the LRTA to provide the subsidy?
Let the ‘cause-oriented’ groups answer these questions forthrightly so that there can be a rational—as opposed to an emotional/political—discussion of the LRTA fares issue.
E-mail: [email protected]