Tricycles serve as a lifeline for countless commuters.
Even more so in Angeles City, where traffic jams and rush hours make jeepney rides a hard catch, many Angeleños ride tricycles for convenience—quick, accessible, and uncrowded when it comes to passenger seats.
Yet, just as when commuters think that tricycle rides would provide more ease, the cost of convenience often comes with an arbitrary price tag, with the public riding the public transport means only to be charged double, even nearly triple, of the fare set by the local government regulatory office.
How does this problem affect the choice of Angeleños in terms of public transport, and does this contribute to the worsening of the already faltering transportation system in the city?
To find out the magnitude of the said, The Angelite visited four Tricycle Operators and Drivers Associations (TODA) around Holy Angel University, checking the fares, plights, and reasons of tricycle drivers around the city.
Broken Meters
To name, the TODAs visited were as follows: LEMACTODA near Angeles Elementary School in Pulungbulu, UPCB TODA near Jenra Mall in Sto. Rosario downtown, LANETODA in Lakandula Street across the city’s heritage center, and HAU V TERESA TODA, near Holy Angel University.
For uniformity, The Angelite asked random tricycle drivers how much they would charge for a ride going to the same location: Marquee Mall Terminal in Pulung Maragul, the major transport terminal in Angeles City—and the results show stark differences between what the drivers would charge and the amount that they should have priced the ride.
| Starting Point | Drop Off Point | Distance in KM | Price per the Matrix | Price Charged by the Drivers |
| LEMACTODA | Marquee Mall Terminal | 4.1 | P95 | P150 |
| LANETODA | Marquee Mall Terminal | 4.1 | P95 | P200 |
| HAU V TERESA TODA | Marquee Mall Terminal | 4.5 | P95 | P170 |
| UPCB TODA | Marquee Mall Terminal | 4.6 | P95 | P150 |
Comparing the prices set by the drivers to the fare set by the Angeles City Public Transportation Regulatory Office (AC PTRO) in its latest matrix effective January 13, there is a 45 to 71% difference, with the prices set by the drivers being incrementally higher than what they are mandated to charge.
For instance, a 4.1 km ride under LEMACTODA costs P150, while Lanetoda, covering the same distance in kilometers (km), charges P200—a P50 difference with no clear justification. Meanwhile, HAU V TERESA TODA charges P170 for 4.5 km, yet UPCB TODA charges only P150 for 4.6 km—showing no consistent pricing structure based on distance.
These discrepancies suggest that fares are not determined by a fixed rate per kilometer but by arbitrary pricing mechanisms, leaving passengers vulnerable to overcharging.
Stranded Publics
For commuters, this system breeds financial uncertainty.
Tricycles, often the only available mode of transport for short distances, should be an accessible service, yet they are turning into a luxury. The daily cost of commuting eats into already stretched wages, forcing many to cut corners on essentials.
“I’ve always questioned tricycle fares like, is it really fair, because why can’t they consider students and make their fares affordable? But of course, I always think that their fares are high because it’s their only way of living, but it’s kind of unfair for us students as well who are trying to save money,” said Kathrine Eserio, a 1st-year Hospitality and Tourism Management student.
Similarly, students divert their allowances from spending over their needs just to afford their fares, including for tricycles.
As Dustin Mallari, a Grade 12 Humanities and Social Sciences student, mentioned, “When I’m thirsty or hungry, instead of buying a biscuit or water, I just use the money for the fare and go home early.”
Commuters also complain about tricycle drivers charging more based on one’s appearance or nationality.
“In terms of appearance, if you’re [of] chubbier size or a foreigner, some drivers will increase the price,” as observed by Althea Joy Martinez, an Entertainment and Multimedia Computing freshman.
These problems provide that on top of unfair fares, the selective and overcharging made by drivers strand many commuters, who, in turn, face the challenge of juggling their needs over the demands of unconscionable and unpredictable public transport charges in the city.
Unconsulted System
While the problem is visible, the fare disparity stands to not be a battle between drivers and commuters—rather, it is an ongoing tension from a cycle of exploitation—where passengers feel overcharged and powerless, while drivers believe they are constrained by unjust policies.
In an interview with AC PTRO Head Administrator Tetchie David Antoco, she confirmed that the regulatory office is aware of noncompliance among drivers.
According to her, numerous complaints have been received, with at least seven formal cases reported in just a month. To address these violations, the PTRO mandates the display of the official fare matrix and imposes penalties for noncompliance, including fines ranging from P1,000 for the first offense to as much as P5,000 for repeat violations. In extreme cases, franchises may be revoked.
Enforcement remains challenging, as authorities cannot monitor all tricycles 24/7—prompting dependence on commuters lodging complaints, an approach that places the burden on commuters rather than ensuring proactive governance.
“Ang standardized talaga is sundan nila ang fare matrix kasi hindi naman namin sila 24/7 naming binabanatayan ng mga [awtoridad]. Kaya nananawagan kami sa mga mananakay, [ang] mga pasahero, sila mismo ang dapat magbantay, at i-report nila agad sa page namin. At the same time, kapag meron kaming na-receive na [report], aaksyunan namin agad,” Antoco said.
Despite awareness of the penalties, tricycle drivers continue to operate with unchecked discretion. The question then arises: why do fare matric violations persist despite existing regulations? The answer lies in the disconnect between policy and economic reality.
On the other side of the spectrum, tricycle drivers argue that the current fare matrix does not account for soaring prices of fuel, vehicle maintenance, and the overall cost of living.
A representative from Hau V Teresa TODA shared that the fare matrix is inadequate to sustain their daily expenses, with most drivers barely accommodating ten passengers a day—making income stability out of reach.
“Kulang. Tumataas [ang presyo] ng gasolina natin tapos bumaba naman [ang singil ng] fare matrix. So parang hindi siya balanse,” said the TODA representative who requested anonymity.
“[Ang] [nakakalungkot] doon, nag-focus sila sa mga commuter [lang] at hindi sa sa side namin. Pangit, kasi hindi balanse,” he added.
Compounding the issue is the lack of inclusivity in fare-setting processes. It also pointed out in the interview that the regulation process is often unilateral, with drivers having little to no say in the fare-setting process.
Many operators feel that their concerns are sidelined, as fare matrices are implemented without sufficient consultation.
“Wala rin kaming magagawa kung lumabas na ang fare matrix kasi [iyon] ang utos sa taas. Kaya wala, kahit na [maglabas] kami ng opinion namin, eh susundin din [iyon],” the representative lamented when asked if they were consulted over the fare matrix.
Over the problem of tricycle fare inequity in Angeles City, fare matrices that are both unfollowed and unconsulted create a tug of war where economic struggles are pitted against each other, where systemic failures are normalized, and where the daily commute becomes yet another site of injustice.
In the face of this problem, what is imperative is for the government to amend the matrix through a well-rounded, consultative view that will find a balance between the needs of drivers and commuters.
In Quezon City (QC), its latest fare matrix in 2022 provides for a P30 flat rate for the first kilometer, P5 lower than Angeles City. Similarly, both cities have an incremental cost of P5 per succeeding kilometer.
What is also different between the two cities is that the former provides fuel subsidies for its tricycle drivers, amounting to P1,000 per month.
Another feature that the QC provides over their tri-wheels is the per-passenger matrix. Think of tricycles like that of a jeepney, where it will first fill up its seats. This mode provides for a lower fare for passengers at P10 for the first kilometer, and P2 per succeeding km.
Just as when tricycle fares in Angeles City would seem to be the hallmark of opportunism among drivers, reevaluating the situation would show that both drivers and passengers are victims of a system not well-thought-out and not centered towards the masses.
What does the city need? Stricter implementation of its policies and a more people-centered view that would ensure that wheels would carry not just commuters to their destinations but also the drivers themselves to a more sustainable livelihood ahead of them.
