TRANSPORT FOR THE POOR: THE CASE OF METRO MANILA DR. PRIMITIVO C. CAL Former Professor, School of Urban & Regional Planning, University of the Philippines

TRANSPORT FOR THE POOR: THE CASE OF METRO MANILA

DR. PRIMITIVO C. CALFormer Professor, School of Urban & Regional Planning,

University of the Philippines

&

Former President, Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies

• Geographic and Socio-economic profile of

Metro Manila

• Metro Manila Transportation System

• The poor as transport users

• The poor as transport providers

• Conclusion

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

MAP OF THE PHILIPPINES

Metro Manila

CHARACTERISTICS:

• Land Area: 636 sq.km.• Population: 10.8 (2005)• Per capita Income: $1,200 pa (2003)• % of Poor Families (4.8%)

•R-1

•R-2

•R-3

•C-5

•C-4

•C-1 •C-

2

•C-5

•C-5

•C-4

•C-4

•C-3

•C-3

•C-6

•C-6

•C-6

•C-6

•R-4

•R-5

•R-6

•R-7

•C-2

•R-10 •R-9

•R-8

Road Map of Metro Manila

•Source: Roads in the Philippines, 2003, Department of Public Works and Highways and Japan International Cooperation Agency

2006 ROAD LENGTHS, km:

Nat. roads - 1,000

Expressway - 37

Local - 2,366

Private - 1,639

Total 5,043

•3/12/2008 3:23 PM•3/12/2008 3:23 PM •REP/RAIL TPD•REP/RAIL TPD •11•11

•MRT8

•Legend:

• Line 1

• Line 2

• Line 3

• Line 4

• Line 5

• Line 6

• Line 7

• PNR Southrail

• PNR Northrail

RAIL NETWORK

Tricycles: 57,720 (2008) Pedicabs

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Jeepneys: 58,215 (2008) Buses: 5,988 (2008)

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

AUV Express: 9,606 (2008) Taxi: 22,345 (2008)

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Source: MMUTIS Data

Traffic Demand by Mode of Transportation in Metro Manila, 1996

Person Trips Vehic le TripsMode

No. (000) (%)

AverageOccupancy

No. (000) (% vehic le) (% PCU 2/)

MotorcycleCar/J eep+UV1/

Truck

125 3,289 422

0.7 18.5 2.4

1.1 2.5 2.1

1141,316 201

3.2 37.0 5.7

1.6 37.2 11.4

Private

Subtotal 3,836 21.6 - 1,630 45.8 50.2

TaxiHOV TaxiPrivate Bus

862 226 440

4.9 1.3 2.5

2.2 4.7 22.3

392 48 20

11.0 1.4 0.6

11.1 1.4 1.1

SemiPublic

Subtotal 1,528 8.6 - 460 12.9 13.6

Tricyc leJ eepneyBusLRTPNR

2,373 6,952 2,653 409 6

12.4 39.1 14.9 2.3 0.0

2.5 15.1 46.5 - -

949 460 57 - -

26.7 12.9 1.6 - -

13.4 19.5 3.2 - -

Public

Subtotal 12,394 69.8 - 1,467 41.2 36.2

Total 17,758 100.0 - 3,556 100.0 100.0

Source: MMUTIS Person Trip Survey1/ UV: utility vehicle2/PCU: (Passenger Car Unit): conversion factor of different sizes of vehicles in terms of passenger car size for comparison

Existing Traffic Management Measures in Metro Manila

• Urban Traffic Control

• Traffic Restraint

• U-turn schemes

• Reversible Lane

• Bus Stop Segregation Scheme

• Bus Only Lanes

• Yellow Box

• Others

Impact on the Poor

• Level of Service

• Economic Impact

• Social Impact

• Environmental/Safety Impact

Public Transport Hierarchy

Jeepney

FX Tamaraw

Taxi

Tricycle

Pedicab

Source: MMUTIS Data

Bus

Minibus

Philippine National Railway

Source: MMUTIS Data

Light Rail Transit Line 1

Metro Rail Transit 3

Source: MMUTIS Data

Source: MMUTIS Data

TRANSPORT TERMINALS

LEGEND

Jeepney Service Coverage

Jeepney Terminal

Waiting Time of Bus Passengers

0

50

100

150

200

250

Less than5 min.

5-10 min. 11-15min.

Waiting Time

PreferredWaiting Time

Source: D. L. Guariño, Master Thesis, “Consolidation of Bus Companies in Metro Manila”

Attitude on Bus Level of Service

Satisfied Not SatisfiedLevel of Service

Frequency Rank Frequency Rank

Comfort and Safety 210 1 33 7

Waiting Time 165 2 7 6

Travel Time 160 3 7 5

Driving Behavior 135 4 144 3

Loading Capacity 121 5 208 1

Cleanliness 112 6 104 4

Attitude ofConductors/Inspectors

63 7 65 2


FARE RATES

LRT/MRT: P10-15 ($0.02/km)Bus : P9 min. ($0.04/km)Jeepney : P7.50 min. ($0.03/km)Taxi : P30 Flagdown plus P2.50/300 mAUV : P7 min ($0.03/km)

$1.00=P47.00

Perception on Fare

Just67.59%

Not Just6.08%

No Comment26.33%


Willingness to Pay for More

Agree46.08%

Disagree35.70%

No Comment18.23%


Economic Impact of Congestion in Metro Manila

100 billion pesos per year (year 1996 pesos) - a conservative estimate prepared by NCTS for NEDA and LEDAC (Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) in 2000.

This represents value-of-time costs only due to delay, calculated based on 50% of average hourly income across different occupation classes - classes considered were Gov’t Officials, Professionals, Technicians, Clerical Workers and Services workers based on MMUTIS classifications

Type of PUV Est. No. of Units

No. of persons/unit

Est. No. Employed

Bus 5,988 2.1 12,575

Jeepney 58,215 1.2 69,858

Tricycle 57,720 1 57,720

Taxi 22,345 2.5 55,862

AUV 9,606 1 9,606

TOTAL 205,621

EMPLOYMENT GENERATION

Time Spent by Truck Drivers on Sleeping

Source: J. Punzalan, Master Thesis, “The Impact of Truck Ban on the Trucking Industry in Metro Manila”

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sunda

ys

Durin

gOff

Catnap

3hrs

or le

ss4 h

rs5 h

rs6 h

rs7 h

rs8 h

rs

>8 hrs

Per

cent

Time Spent by Truck Drivers on Family/Personal Activities

Source: J. Punzalan, Master Thesis, “The Impact of Truck Ban on the Trucking Industry in Metro Manila”

0

10

20

30

40

50

NoTime 1-2hr/da 3-6hr/da Sundays

Per

cen

t

Source: Environment Management Bureau National Capital Region Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Partnership for Clean Air

Concentration of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)

Philippines MetroManila

Number %

Area, sq.km. (x1000) 294.55 0.636 0.22

Population (million) 79.48 10.76 13.5

Roads, km. (x1000) 161 4.8 3.0

Vehicle Registration(million)

3.98 1.33 33.4

Driver's License(million) 1.93 0.57 29.6

Number of Driver Apprehensions(x1000)

612 162 26.5

Fatalities 714 240 33.6

% of nighttime accidents 30 60 (fatal)

40 (non-fatal)

---

2002 Statistics

Source: Sigua, R.G.(2004), Philippine Road Safety Workshop

39%

36%

8%

11%

4% 2%

National Road

Expressway

Provincial Road

City Road

Municipal Road

Barangay Road

Place of Occurrence (2001)

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

Bus Truck Car Jeep Tricycle Motorcycle

Vehicle Type

% In

volv

emen

t

Vehicle Involvement (2001)

Source: Sigua, R.G(2004), Philippine Road Safety Workshop

CONCLUSION

• The poor is relatively well served by the public transport system but level of service affected by traffic congestion

• Fares are affordable but LRT operations highly subsidized

• The transport system provides significant number of jobs for the poor

• The poor is exposed to air pollution and other health hazards particularly the drivers and crew of public transport vehicles

• Poor road safety

THANK YOU

Documents

TRANSPORT FOR THE POOR: THE CASE OF METRO MANILA DR. PRIMITIVO C. CAL Former Professor, School of Urban & Regional Planning, University of the Philippines