Towards Efficient Mobility in a Sustainable Campus a Report by the Ateneo Traffic Group

Towards Efficient Mobility in a Sustainable Campus A Report by the Ateneo Traffic Group

Edna P. Franco, Ph.D. Czarina A. Saloma-Akpedonu, Ph.D. Kardi Teknomo, Ph.D. Jose Arnulfo C. Batac Abigail Marie T. Favis

6 August 2012

%#1-$82

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 4 Background ...... 6 The Ateneo Traffic Group ...... 6 About the Study Area ...... 7 Population ...... 8 Number of Ateneo Gate Pass Stickers Issued ...... 8 Current class schedules ...... 9 Current Traffic Profile of Katipunan ...... 10 Current Traffic Profile of Ateneo de Manila University ...... 10 Current traffic management schemes ...... 11 Definition of the Problem ...... 12 Proposed solutions ...... 14 Recommendations to provide a safe and clean environment conducive to study, work and play .. 14 Recommendations to create efficient mobility systems ...... 16 Recommendations to integrate mobility systems in education and formation programs ...... 20 The MMDA Proposal ...... 23 Appendices ...... 26 Appendix 1: Gantt Chart ...... 27 Appendix 2: Ateneo Traffic Research Summary Report: Models of the World ...... 28 Data Collection ...... 28 Traffic Circulation Analysis ...... 40 Development of Traffic Circulation Scenarios ...... 40 Traffic Assignment ...... 46 Selection of Traffic Circulation Scenarios ...... 47 Analysis of Queue Length ...... 48 Appendix 3: Ateneo Traffic Research Summary Report: World of the Models ...... 49 Stakeholder Analysis ...... 49 Community Assembly ...... 50 Focus group discussions ...... 50 Key informant interviews ...... 50 Survey ...... 50 Secondary data analysis ...... 51

%#2-$82

Appendix 4: Summary results of the KIIs ...... 53 Appendix 5: Key results from the FGDs ...... 54 Appendix 6: Initial Analysis of Campus Mobility Survey Data ...... 55 Appendix 7: Summary of Community Meeting Results ...... 71 What is the root cause of the problem? ...... 71 What are your proposed solutions? ...... 73 As a member of the community, what can you contribute to solve the problem? ...... 76 Appendix 8: List of Social Assessment Preliminary Research Participants ...... 78 Appendix 9: Summary of Emails (2012) ...... 80

%#3-$82

Executive Summary

The Ateneo de Manila University is one of the major traffic generators and attractors that contribute to massive peak-hour daily traffic along Katipunan Avenue. The University therefore is faced with the challenge to take responsibility to mitigate the traffic that it generates, which is a source of aggravation for both humans and the environment.

Research conducted by the Ateneo Traffic Group and the Ateneo Traffic Research Group showed that the Ateneo de Manila University contributes around 20% of the total traffic congestion in Katipunan Avenue, on the average. The traffic problem is caused by the high demand of vehicles compared to the limited road capacity as well as human behavior and preference. As such, the solution to the traffic problem is not only to increase and improve infrastructure but also to shape a new community culture for alternative mobility.

Opportunities to shift towards a more efficient mobility system revolve under the following major themes: (a) provide a safe and clean environment conducive to study, work and play, (b) create efficient mobility systems, and (c) integrate mobility systems in education and formation programs. Table 1 below summarizes the policy and action point recommendations of the Ateneo Traffic Group.

Table 1.Recommendationsfor efficient mobility in the Loyola Heights campus. Provide a safe and clean environment conducive to study, work and play Provide interconnected covered walkways Standardize designs for pedestrian crossing, signages and roads Increase the number of dormitories or advocate for a boarding school Optimize community cooperation for a walkable Katipunan (through Operation Katipunan) Consolidate car park facilities into car park building Create car-free zones within the Ateneo campus Create efficient mobility systems Improve the carpool system Provide a campus shuttle service Provide shuttle service to Ateneo from strategic hubs Push for a bus line along Katipunan Set up system for pay-parking Increase the gap in daily schedules (distribute vehicle volume by increasing the intervals of the ingress and egress of AGS, AHS and LS) Improve management of drop off and pick up points Review current issues on heavy bags (delaying drop off and pick up rates) Explore the creation of more access points Improve traffic circulation flow Integrate mobility systems in education and formation programs Establish centralized authority on traffic management Design and implement training modules for traffic management

The recommendations were ordered according to priority, spread out over a three-year implementation period (Figure 1, below).

%#4-$82

Ateneo Traffic Group Recommendations

2012 ‐ 2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015 Recommendation J JASONDJ FMAMJ JASONDJ FMAMJ JASO 1. Increase gap in daily schedules Coordinate, study Implement 2. Review current issues on heavy school bags 3. Standardize design for roads and signages Signage designs (ongoing) Construction of speed table for Leong Hall 4. Provide continuous pedestrian walkways on campus (ongoing) 5. Provide covered walkways Study/design Construction 6. Optimize community cooperation through OK (continuous) 7. Establish centralized authority on traffic management 8. Setup system for pay parking Study feasibility of parking building, pay parking for existing Introduce payment system for existing parking Bid for contract of parking building construction Award contract for parking building construction Begin construction of parking building 9. Explore the creation of more access points Inquiry and negotiation with lot owners (Goco, Meralco, LaVista) (inquiries ongoing) Feasibility study 10. Improve management of drop‐off and pick up points AGS (color‐coded sticker system) (continuous) Introduce improved drop off and pick up scheme for AHS and LS 11. Improve carpool program Create efficient carpool system (coordinate with Mr. V. Reventar) (inquiries made, pending schedule of meeting with Mr. Reventar) Partner with parents in AGS & AHS (ongoing) Carpool campaign and committee 12. Improve Traffic Circulation Flow Determine best scenario (done, refer to Dr. Teknomo's simulation) Data gathering baseline Dry run one‐way flow Evaluation of traffic flow (compare before and after data) Information campaign 13. Design and Implement Training Modules for Traffic Management Design, test and implement modules for students Design,test and implement modules for others 14. Provide campus shuttle on campus and nearby areas Optimize design and study feasibility (ongoing exploration with Meralco) Find partner (ongoing, in talks with Meralco, FilOil for Jeepcycle) Pilot test Roll‐out 15. Advocate for busline along Katipunan Avenue Partner with ASoG Mobility Project 16. Increase number of dormitories Endorse to Campus Master Plan Committee 17. Provide shuttle service to select city hubs Coordinate with UP, Miriam, etc. 18. Create car‐free zones within the campus

Figure 1. Gantt chart of ATG recommendations.

These mobility interventions should be grounded on the vision to be a model campus for sustainability, showcasing efficient mobility systems, that not only takes care of its own internal community but also considers the greater community to which it belongs.

%#5-$82

Background

The Ateneo de Manila University is one of the major traffic generators and attractors that contribute to massive peak hour daily traffic along Katipunan Avenue. Katipunan Avenue is part of the backbone of Metro Manila’s road network, known as Circular Ring Road Number 5 (C5). As the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) plans to connect the traffic from South and North Expressway to C5, there is a great concern that there will be a great bottleneck along Katipunan Avenue that will have tremendous impact not only on the local community, but also on the Philippine economy.

One solution that the MMDA has proposed to improve the traffic condition is the addition of one traffic lane in Katipunan Avenue through land acquisition from the Ateneo de Manila University. In addition, they are also proposing to modify the u-turns and location of the center island such that the northbound and southbound directions have the same number of lanes.

The Ateneo Traffic Group To evaluate the merits of the MMDA proposal, the Ateneo de Manila University President convened the Ateneo Traffic Group (ATG) consisting of several individuals with a strong interest and expertise in the technical, environmental and social aspects of the problem as well as traffic engineering background.

The ATG’s mandates are to 1. review the university's current policies, procedures and systems on traffic management and identify areas for improvement and proposed actions for the short and medium term (1-3 years); 2. review MMDA proposals to improve traffic flow on Katipunan and Ateneo; and to 3. advise the President on strategic initiatives and alternative long term solutions to traffic problems on campus.

The ATG is composed of the following members: 1. Dr. Edna P. Franco, Vice President for Administration and Planning 2. Mr. Jose Arnulfo C. Batac, Director for Facilities Management 3. Dr. Czarina A. Saloma-Akpedonu, Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology and Director of the Institute of Philippine Culture 4. Dr. Kardi Teknomo, Associate Professor at the Department of Information Systems and Computer Science 5. Ms. Abigail Marie T. Favis, faculty member of the Department of Environmental Science and coordinator of the Ateneo Environmental Management Council.

The ATG recognizes that one of the core problems lies on the increasing demand for road space generated by Ateneo that exceeds the supply during rush hour. The key to resolving this issue, therefore, is to manage the demand through a Demand Management Scheme and Traffic Management Scheme inside the Ateneo campus.

The main goals behind the Demand Management Scheme are (1) to reduce the traffic density by utilizing high occupancy vehicle as well as public transport systems and (2) distribute the remaining traffic demand over time and space (see Fig. 2).

%#6-$82

Figure 2. Time vs. density diagram for the normal, reduced and distributed traffic flows.

The goal of the Traffic Manageement Scheme inside the Ateneo campus is to reduce the amount of vehicle traffic generated by Ateneo along Katipunan Avenue by making the internal road network more efficient.

In order to design the appropriate Demand Management and Traffic Management Schemes, the current situation must be studied. This requires extensive data gathering and the construction of “models of the world” (i.e., pedestrian simulation models and traffic flow matrices) which will compute actual (instead of predicted) flow on various areas within a network facility. It also requires an examination of the “world of the models” in order to understand the different stakeholder’s lifeworlds and the relevant sociocultural structures within these. This will ensure that the Demand Management and Traffic Management Schemes will take into consideration the needs and interests of the stakeholders. To investigate the “models of the world” and the “world of the models,” the Ateneo Traffic Research Group (ATRG) was established.

The ATRG is composed of the following members: 1. Ms. Abigail Marie T. Favis, Department of Environmental Science 2. Dr. Proceso L. Fernandez, Jr., Department of Information Systems and Computer Science 3. Dr. Czarina A. Saloma-Akpedonu, Department of Sociology and Anthropology 4. Dr. Kardi Teknomo, Department of Information Systems and Computer Science

The Institute of Philippine Culture is funding the ATRG’s research entitled “Models of the world and the world of our models: Science, universities and the problem of traffic.”

About the Study Area

The Ateneo de Manila University Loyola Heights Campus (Figure 2) is situated on a 70-hectare area bordered by Katipunan Avenue to the west, Miriam College to the north and the Marikina Valley to the east and south.

%##7-$82

Figure 3. Loyola Heights campus map.

Figure 3, above, shows the land use categories of the campus. The orange buildings represent the Ateneo Grade School (AGS), the light blue buildings represent the Ateneo High School (AHS), the dark blue buildings represent the Loyola Schools (LS), and the red buildings represent the central administration and the affiliate units. The green boxes indicate the location of the existing sports fields and the yellow spaces indicate where the parking areas are found.

Population As of second semester of School Year 2011 – 2012, the total University population was 18,752. Please note that these figures do not reflect the population contributed by the Affiliate Units such as the Jesuit Residence, the San Jose Seminary, and the Institute of Social Order, among others. Table 2 below shows the population distribution.

Table 2. Distribution of Ateneo population.

Unit Population AGS 4,201 AHS 2,390 LS 9,496 Total Employees 2,665 TOTAL 18,752

Number of Ateneo Gate Pass Stickers Issued For School Year 2011-2012, there were 20,100 Ateneo Gate Pass stickers issued. This data also reflects the total number of school bus services that were in operation (157) and the tricycles allowed to enter the campus (249). Thus, out of the 20,100 stickers that were issued, 19,694

%#8-$82 were for private vehicles while only about 304 stickers were for public utility and school bus service vehicles.

Table 3.Distribution of Ateneo Gate Pass Stickers per sector.

# Stickers # Stickers Sector Sector Issued Issued Affiliates 623 AGGS Students 5,493 Auxillary 77 AHHS Students 2,663 Central Admin 215 LS Students 7,894 AGS Employees 317 Businesses 196 AHS Employees 166 School Bus Services 157 LS Employees 1128 Motorcycles 329 Visitors 55 Trricycles 249 Supplementary 538 TOTAL 2,581 TOTAL 17,519

Figure 4 below indicates that the basic education units have students who buy more than one sticker, whereas not all students in the LS buy a sticker.

10000 9000 8000 Stickers Issued 7000 Student Population 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 AGS AHS LS Figure 4. Comparison of total student population and number of issued Ateneo Gate Pass Stickers per unit.

Current class schedules At present, classes at the AGS begin at 7:15am for Grades 2 to 7. Prep and Grade 1 are separated into the morning classes, which begin at 7:15am, and the afternoon classes, which begin at 12:00nn. Classes for the LS and the AHS begin at 7:30am and 7:45am, respectively. It should be noted that not the entire student population of the LS have classes at 7:30am. In addition, aside from the students, regular office hours at the University begin at 8:30am and end at 5:30pm.

%##9-$82

Table 4 below shows the detailed egress schedule for the AGS (including Prep) and the AHS.

Table 4. Current egress schedules for the AGS and the AHS.

Grade / Year DISMISSAL TIME Sections Level MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY Prep AM All 11:00am 11:00am 11:00am 11:00am 11:00am Grade 1 AM All 11:30am 11:30am 11:30am 11:30am 11:30am Grades 2 & 3 All 1:30pm 1:30pm 1:30pm 1:30pm 2:30pm Grades 4 & 5 All 2:20pm 3:00pm 3:00pm 3:00pm 2:50pm Grades 6 & 7 All 3:00pm 2:20pm 2:20pm 3:40pm 3:10pm Prep PM All 3:30pm 3:30pm 3:30pm 3:30pm 3:30pm Grade 1 PM All 4:00pm 4:00pm 4:00pm 4:00pm 4:00pm 1st year HS All 3:50pm 3:50pm 4:05pm 3:50pm 1:05pm 2nd year HS A to B, M to N 3:50pm 4:45pm 4:05pm 3:50pm 1:05pm 2nd year HS C to L 3:50pm 3:50pm 4:05pm 3:50pm 1:05pm 3rd year HS All 2:55pm 2:55pm 4:05pm 2:55pm 1:05pm 3rd year HS All 2:55pm 2:55pm 2:55pm 2:55pm 1:05pm 4th year HS G to M 3:50pm 1:05pm 4:05pm 2:55pm 4:05pm 4th year HS A to F, N 3:50pm 2:55pm 2:55pm 1:05pm 4:05pm

Current Traffic Profile of Katipunan The current capacity of Katipunan Avenue is 2,100 passenger car units (PCU) per hour per lane. During peak hours, the average car volume reaches 9,050 PCU per hour on the northbound direction.

There is limited means of high capacity public transportation catering to middle to high income classes. Currently the public transportation options are the jeepneys, tricycles and the Light Rail Transit (LRT).

Along Katipunan Avenue, parking is very limited and currently enforcement of no parking / waiting is problematic.

Katipunan Avenue and Aurora Boulevard are also not pedestrian-friendly. Sidewalk connectivity and security are some of the biggest challenges to safe and comfortable pedestrian movement.

Current Traffic Profile of Ateneo de Manila University The capacity of the Ateneo’s gates is 1,676 vehicles per lane per hour. The peak volume for all gates is 1,850 vehicles per hour.

In the AGS complex, there are several drop-off points but only a few of these operate as parallel drop-off points. Currently, approximately 80% of AGS vehicles force their way into the inner driveway to drop off their passengers, thus not fully maximizing the drop-off points in the outer lanes. From 6:00am to 7:00am, the AGS queue length is approximately 304 cars.

%#10-$82

In the AHS complex, only 50% of the drop-off points are utilized and there are approximately 169 cars in queue from 6:00am to 7:00am.

Parking inside the campus is free but limited. There are a total of 2,405 parking slots for the entire campus area, the total land area of which is roughly 7.2 hectares, or about 10% of the total land area of the campus.

At present, the campus is not fully walkable due to the lack of interconnectivity (of sidewalks and covered walkways) and protection from the weather.

Current traffic management schemes To address the traffic congestion during the peak hours, the Facilities Management Office has been implementing the following initiatives: 1. Opening Gate 1 from 6:00am to 8:00am for incoming traffic 2. Allowing school buses to exit from Gate 1 from 10am onwards. 3. Opening Gate 2 as a two-way gate from 6:00am to 7:30am to facilitate the exit of vehicles

In order to maximize the flow of vehicles going to the AGS compound, the road leading to the AGS compound (around the Blue Eagle Gym) is under a one-way flow regime. At the AHS, the segment of Fr. Masterson Drive within the AHS grounds is being utilized as a loading/unloading area. Traffic cones are provided to delineate this segment. At the LS, the Science Education Complex (SEC) – Gonzaga Hall loading/unloading bay does not allow for a left-turn on exit. This is to minimize the crossing conflicts and to facilitate the uninterrupted movement of vehicles.

To ensure pedestrian safety, crossing guards are posted in the AGS compound during school hours while crossing guards at the AHS and the LS are posted during peak hours. Signages are currently being upgraded to conform to Manual Uniform Traffic Control Device specifications.

Communication plans such as traffic advisory announcements are regularly issued through the Blueboard.

Coordination with the MMDA, Barangay Loyola Heights, Department of Public Order and Safety of Quezon City and the Philippine National Police is done in preparation for special events where higher traffic volume is expected.

Security personnel have undergone training on traffic management with the Department of Public Order and Safety of Quezon City.

%#11-$82

Definition of the Problem

Traffic congestion along Katipunan Avenue is not a new phenomenon. As the Loyola Heights community grew and as more establishments set up business in the area, the influx of people and vehicles has steadily increased. While anecdotal evidence of the peak hours and causes of the congestion exist, extensive data gathering was conducted to accurately define the traffic problem.

Research conducted by the ATG and ATRG showed that the traffic congestion is due to the high vehicular demand relative to the Ateneo road capacity during certain hours of the day. Figure 4 below shows the aggregated data from the Car Volume Survey (refer to Appendix 1) describing the number of vehicles going through Katipunan Avenue, all the gates of Miriam College, and all gates of the Ateneo as percentage of its particular volume of the day.

25.00%

20.00% volume

15.00% traffic

day

a 10.00%

5.00% Percent 0.00% 6:00 5:00 4:00 3:00 2:00 1:00 9:00 8:00 7:00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11:00 12:00 10:00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5:00 4:00 3:00 2:00 1:00 8:00 7:00 6:00 12:00 9:00 10:00 11:00

Katipunan Miriam Ateneo

Figure 5. Volume of cars for Katipunan, Miriam College and the Ateneo (as percent of daily volume)

Figure 5, above, shows that most of Miriam traffic occurs in the morning, between 6:00am to 8:00am, and during the mid-day, between 11:00am to 1:00pm. This traffic is mainly driven by the grade school and high school units of Miriam College.

Ateneo traffic flow, on the other hand, has similar morning peak between 6:00am and 8:00am driven by AGS and AHS. Ateneo also has an afternoon peak between 3:00pm to 5:00pm. The morning traffic may be caused by simultaneous arrival of AGS, the AHS and the LS students and employees. The afternoon peak may be caused by the LS students and Ateneo employees leaving the campus as well as the dismissal of the AGS and AHS. There is no evidence of mid-day peak in Ateneo because the chart above was a combination of in and out traffic volume.

Katipunan traffic in itself is relatively stable with three peaks in the morning (6:00am to 8:00am), in the afternoon (1:00am to 2:00am) and in the late afternoon to early evening (3:00pm to 6:00pm). The peak that may be caused by major schools along the road is additional to the through traffic because Katipunan is a major highway.

%#12-$82

Assessing the origin-destination of vehicles passing through Katipunan and entering the Ateneo and Miriam College through a License Plate Matching (Appendix 1) survey has determined that on the average, Ateneo traffic contributes 20% to total Katipunan traffic.

Aside from vehicular demand, the traffic problem is also rooted in human behavior and preference. Currently, the capacity of Ateneo’s gates, road network, and drop-off points are sufficient. What contributes to congestion is the improper loading and unloading behavior of motorists which result in long queues that spill out to Katipunan.Focus group discussions, key informant interviews, community meetings and other social assessment tools conducted by the ATRG have identified that the community is aware that traffic is also a social issue (Appendix 2, 3 and 4). Behaviors such as those showing lack of discipline of motorists, farewell rituals during unloading, aversion to walking, and preference to use cars over public or mass transport contribute to traffic congestion.

In addition, systematic issues such as inefficient transportation arrangements (i.e., school bus services that collect their passengers as early as 5:00am) require that students have to wake up very early in the morning. This prompts parents to just bring their children to school themselves so that they can have longer rest hours. Institutional issues such as the lack of incentives given to support multi-passenger vehicles such as school buses and carpools result in these options as not being part of the mainstream.

All these combined result in aggravation not only for the human population in terms of wasted time, wasted fuel, and stress, but also for the environment in terms of worsening air quality and inefficient fuel resource use. Projections of vehicle increase through the year 2020, in addition to the alignment of C5 to the North Luzon Express Way, make the situation bleak unless strategic interventions are implemented at the earliest possible time.

By 2020, traffic volume along Katipunan Avenue is estimated to hit 13,000 vehicles per direction during peak hours. This will require seven traffic lanes each for the Northbound and Southbound directions.

If the current 5-lane width is to be maintained per direction, reducing dependence on private cars by at least 30% must be advocated. However, even if the Ateneo is successful in reducing the number of private cars that enter by half, this will only contribute 10% to the reduction of traffic along Katipunan Avenue. This highlights the need for a more comprehensive and unified mobility strategy involving the local government, the MMDA, the Loyola Heights community and the other institutions and establishments along Katipunan Avenue.

%#13-$82

Proposed solutions

It is imperative that the University takes responsibility for this through implementing efficient and effective interventions through an Integrated Traffic Management Scheme.

These efficient and effective interventions should be grounded on the vision to be a model campus for sustainability showcasing efficient mobility systems, a campus that not only takes care of its own internal community but also considers the greater community to which it belongs.

This vision must be supported by policy statements (Figure 6) such as the following:

1. Provide a safe and clean environment that is conducive to study, work and play; 2. Create efficient mobility systems; and 3. Integrate mobility systems in education and formation programs.

Figure 6.Campus vision and its related policy statements.

Recommendations to provide a safe and clean environment conducive to study, work and play

1. Provide interconnected covered walkways Currently, there is a lack of connectivity of buildings in the campus. Aside from incomplete pedestrian paths (which are already being addressed), there are no covered walkways that will encourage walking between buildings and other points on campus. If the University is to encourage people to walk and thus decrease dependence on vehicles, then facilities that will support this should be put in place – such a covered walkways to protect the pedestrians from rain or intense sunlight. These structures should be well designed to be aesthetically pleasing.

2. Standardize designs for pedestrian crossing, signages, and roads In order to ensure the safety of both pedestrians and motorists, the designs of the pedestrian crossings, signages and some roads should follow Manual Uniform Traffic Control Device specifications. For instance, placing a stop line at three meters (brake distance) from the %#14-$82

pedestrian crossing will help signal motorists to stop to allow any pedestrian to cross without accident.

Likewise, placing a speed bump before the pedestrian lane will ensure that vehicles will not be moving at top speed, allowing pedestrians to cross safely. Signages (ex. speed limit, parking designation, one-way signs, etc.) should also be standardized to ensure that the appropriate information is relayed to both pedestrians and motorists.

Having a more rational plan of the layout of the pedestrian lanes is also recommended. For example, there are two pedestrian lanes near each other along the University Road section in front of Leong Hall. Two crossings in close proximity also hinder the flow of vehicular traffic and increase the risk of crossing conflict. Therefore it is also recommended that the pedestrian lanes be consolidated into a properly designed and constructed speed table for Leong Hall.

3. Increase number of dormitories or advocate for a boarding school There will be fewer vehicles if more people walk, and more people can walk to the Ateneo if they live nearby. Thus the creation of more dormitories within the campus, or the support for more dormitories in the Katipunan area will help decrease traffic congestion. In addition, providing more community amenities inside the campus – bank branch, post office, wi-fi hotspots for studying, etc. – will reduce the movement of vehicles from the campus to Katipunan during the day.

4. Optimize community cooperation for a walkable Katipunan Avenue through Operation Katipunan (OK) This suggestion is based on the idea that if the Katipunan area is pedestrian friendly, then there will be less need for vehicles. At present there is no designated sidewalk along Katipunan, though the MMDA has allotted a pink lane for pedestrians. However, this lane has been eaten up by illegal parkers. The idea is to reverse the position of the pedestrian lane, making it closer to the business establishment, rather than to the road. This will make pedestrian activity more safe and secure and will also be beneficial for the business establishments as people will be able to see their displays better.

A walkable Katipunan will not only decrease vehicular need for short-term travel within the area but will also make the LRT station more accessibly thus increasing the probability of mass transportation. While Katipunan Avenue is under MMDA jurisdiction, as a member of the Loyola Heights community, the University has a big role in planning and advocating for a walkable Katipunan.

Aurora Boulevard is also problematic. The use of the LRT is not maximized as commuters who take the LRT have to alight at the Katipunan Station, walk a few meters to reach the tricycle terminals and take a tricycle to enter the campus. Alternately, they can also walk straight from the LRT station to the Ateneo campus. At present this is not advisable as the pedestrian connection between the LRT station and the Ateneo campus is problematic because of security and safety issues – the sidewalk is not in good condition, the path is not well lighted, and there is no protection against any untoward incidents. Thus to maximize the use of the LRT as a mass transport alternative, the pedestrian connection between the station and the campus should be safe and comfortable to traverse. This should be done in coordination with the local government.

%#15-$82

Coordination with external partners is also imperative, as mobility is a community issue. Therefore coordinating and consolidating traffic management efforts with neighboring institutions such as Miriam College, Barangay Loyola Heights, and the MMDA will result in more efficient resource mobilization and synergistic effects. Operation Katipunan, a multi- sectoral group of stakeholders, is a good organization to tap. It is chaired by the Barangay Captain of Loyola Heights and its members include representatives from the different schools, business establishments, residents and parents of students.

5. Consolidate open car park facilities into pay car park buildings Concentrating most of the parking slots in a multi-level parking building will minimize the land area used for parking spaces. If a shuttle service were also to be introduced or connected covered walkways are also provided, then having a parking building will also minimize the movement of vehicles in certain areas on campus.

The parking building should be appropriately designed to blend into the existing design of the Ateneo buildings.

There in a creative option to outsource the construction and operation of the parking building, to reduce the financial burden on the University.

After implementing the pay parking scheme and constructing and operating the parking building, the existing parking lots should be reclaimed as green areas such as parks, gardens or forested land.

6. Create car-free zones within the Ateneo campus Building clusters within the campus should be designated as car-free zones. Doing so will decrease the number of cars while at the same time encourage community members to walk. In addition, fewer cars also mean less emissions and less noise, which leads to improved quality of life.

Recommendations to create efficient mobility systems

1. Improve the carpool program Current observations show that many of the vehicles entering the Ateneo campus, aside from the school bus services, are single passenger vehicles. Thus, prioritizing multi- passenger vehicles (such as school buses and carpools) will decrease the volume that contributes to congestion. While some carpools already exist, the idea is that more carpools can be formed if there is an easy to use system that will allow Ateneo community members to identify classmates, schoolmates or colleagues within the same residential areas. Incentives, such as merits in the AGS or “green points,” reserved parking, and prime drop- off and pick up point assignments, may be given to support the carpool system.

This scheme must be integrated with the staggered school hours (ingress and egress) to be more efficient and effective. Staggering the school ingress hours will distribute the volume of vehicles entering, combined with carpooling, this will result in a bigger reduction of vehicles while making it convenient for families with children from different units to connect with other members of the community who are in the same situation.

%#16-$82

Medium term plans may include coordinating carpools with Miriam College. Long term plans may include deterring non-carpool vehicles from entering specific areas on campus such as the AHS compound.

2. Provide shuttle service on campus and to/from nearby areas Currently the mobility options within the Ateneo campus consist primarily of walking and tricycles (two-stroke and four-stroke). The provision of a multi-passenger shuttle will decrease the demand for pollutive vehicles within the campus. In addition, the shuttle service will load and unload at designated points only.

Figure 7 below presents an idea of the proposed shuttle service. This type of vehicle can fit up to 16 standing and sitting passengers, with enough room for baggage.

Figure 7.External and internal views of proposed campus shuttle.

3. Provide shuttle service to Ateneo from strategic city hubs Another proposal to decrease the number of single passenger vehicles that enter the campus is to make it easy for community members to have access to shuttle services. Dedicated Ateneo shuttle services should be created, ferrying students and employees from strategic terminals, such as mall/hotel parking lots, to the Ateneo campus.

4. Advocate for a bus line along Katipunan Avenue Public transportation along Katipunan is problematic because it is only accessible by jeepney (from Marikina, Cubao, UP), FX (from Marikina, Cubao), the LRT (from Aurora), tricycles from within the area. Thus in order to encourage more people to use multi-passenger (public) transportation options, there should be an easier, more comfortable option available.

This can be provided through the creation of a public bus line connecting Katipunan to the major hubs of Cubao, Quezon City and Ortigas, Pasig. This can only be done in coordination with government agencies such as the Department of Transportation and Communications and the Land Transportation Office.

Alternatively, the existing bus line from the Airport to Eastwood via C5 may be extended to reach Katipunan. Opening this line to more operators will increase the supply of multi- passenger vehicles to Katipunan

%#17-$82

5. Setup a system for pay-parking Currently, parking is free at the Ateneo. Implementing pay-parking schemes (whether per hour, flat rate, etc.), will hopefully discourage people from bringing cars. This is also in preparation to the concentration of parking slots in an appropriately designed building in the future.

6. Increase the gap in daily schedules between the AGS, AHS and LS At present, traffic congestion is at its peak between 6:00am – 8:00am due to the closely timed ingress of the AGS, AHS and LS. Plotting the Ateneo-specific data from the Car Volume Survey resulted in Figure 7a &7b below. These figures support the common view that AGS dismissal in the afternoon also causes major traffic congestion.

Figure 8a shows the hourly car volume going in and out of all the gates of Ateneo. The two peaks of morning and afternoon are driven by both vehicles going in and going out. The mid-day peak, however, is only driven by vehicle going out. The maximum hourly vehicles going in is about 1,850 cars per hour while maximum number of vehicles going out is about 2,350 cars per hour.

Figure 8b shows that at its worst, the peak may reach more than 500 cars every 10 minutes.

2500 500 2000 In 400 IN

interval) O… Out volume 1500 300 min

car 1000 (10 200 500 Hourly 100

0 Volume

Car 0 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10:00 11:00 12:00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 12:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 (a) (b)

Figure 8. Hourly car volume (a) and car volume distributed over 10 minute intervals (b).

Thus, increasing the staggering of ingress hours of the three units will spread the demand over a longer period of time and will lead to a decrease in the congestion.

7. Improve management of drop-off and pick-up points (loading & unloading bays ) Aside from the heavy baggage that can lengthen unloading time, the inefficient usage of the existing loading and unloading bays also contribute to the long queue of vehicles. Instead of increasing the length of these bays, better management of vehicles is recommended so that the vehicles maximize the available space. In addition,

To make the system more organized, the Ateneo Gate Pass Stickers should indicate the assigned unloading point. School buses should be assigned to the points nearest to the unit entrance as an incentive to use multi-passenger vehicles. The next nearest point should be given to the carpools, also as an incentive.

%#18-$82

8. Review current issues on heavy bags Current observations show that part of the traffic congestion is due to the loading and unloading time of students, particularly those from the AGS. The heavy, bulky bags these students bring everyday require at an average 1.5 minutes for unloading (parent/driver goes down, collects heavy bag from trunk and gives to the student). Thus there is an opportunity to decrease unloading time by lightening the load that students have to bring to school. This can be done through the creation and implementation of locker usage or the provision of electronic copies of textbooks. This way, the student can still study at home even though the bulky books are left in school.

9. Explore the creation of more access points The Ateneo campus can only be accessed through Gate 1, Gate 2, and Gate 3 which are all along Katipunan Avenue. This means that all the vehicles bringing students and employees are funneled to Katipunan Avenue. Thus, if more access points can be identified from Aurora Boulevard (Figure 9) and Mangyan Road (Figure 10), then this will decrease the number of vehicles going to Katipunan Avenue.

Figure 9.Proposed access point (orange broken line) from Aurora Boulevard.

Figure 10.Proposed access point (orange broken line) from Mangyan Road.

%#19-$82

10. Improve traffic circulation The current traffic flow scheme for the campus contains many crossing conflicts that delay the flow of vehicles. Implementing a more efficient traffic circulation scheme, combined with widening the exit road (to Gate 3.5) will ensure that there is a faster flow of vehicles and people.

Based on the modeling scenarios (please see Appendix 1), the best option to improve is to shift to one-way clockwise direction and to widen the exit road leading to Gate 3.5 (Figure 11a and 11b).

Scenario I (a) Scenario M (b)

Figure 11.Best scenarios for traffic flow circulation

Recommendations to integrate mobility systems in education and formation programs

1. Establish centralized authority on traffic management With the extent of the root causes of the problem and the long list of action points, traffic management must be institutionalized as a separate office whose mandate is simply to manage traffic. This includes monitoring vehicle and pedestrian movement, implementing traffic management initiatives, coordinating with external partners and handling traffic violations.

2. Design and implement training modules for traffic management Education and formation is an important part of traffic management. Providing orientation seminars and workshops for all stakeholders will not only spread information on Ateneo traffic management policies but will also help remind pedestrians and motorists alike of discipline, personal safety and concern for others.

Table 5 below presents a summary of policy statements, key performance indicators (KPI) and action points.

%#20-$82

Table 5.Summary of traffic management interventions. Policy KPI ACTION POINTS Provide safe 1) Accident-free Provide interconnected covered walkways and clean 2) Incident-free (i.e. traffic Standardize designs for pedestrian crossing, surroundings rules violations, signages and roads that is congestion) Increase the number of dormitories or conducive to 3) Less emissions advocate for a boarding school study, work 4) More tree planted Advocate for walkable Katipunan Avenue and play spaces and Aurora Boulevard 5) Reduced negative health Consolidate car park facilities into car park impacts from emissions building 6) Increased use of Create car-free zones within the Ateneo alternative, campus environmentally- responsible vehicles and technologies Create 1) Increased walkability Improve the carpool system efficient 2) Increased PWD Provide a campus shuttle service mobility accessibility Provide a shuttle service to Ateneo from systems 3) Less congestion strategic city hubs 4) Less single passenger Advocate for a bus line along Katipunan vehicles Avenue 5) More multi-passenger Set up a system for pay-parking vehicles Increase gap in daily schedules between the 6) Improved signages AGS, AHS and LS Improve management of drop off and pick up points Review current issues on heavy bags Explore the creation of more access points Improve traffic circulation flow Integrate 1) Involvement of students Establish centralized authority on traffic mobility 2) Partnerships with management systems in parents, drivers Design and implement training modules on education 3) Consistency of traffic management and guidelines and uniform formation enforcement across programs units 4) Information dissemination (i.e. locator maps, directions)

Some recommended action points need to be implemented in a specific order. For instance, before open car park lots can be reclaimed as green areas, a parking building must already be operational.

Figure 12 below presents the prioritization of the recommendations, the linked action points, and the suggested yearly implementation plan.

%#21-$82

Ateneo Traffic Group Recommendations

%#22-$82

The MMDA Proposal

Figure 13 below shows the current situation of the section of Katipunan Avenue directly in front of the Ateneo campus. While originally a four land road on the C5 flyover, Katipunan Avenue becomes a three lane road between Gate 2.5 and Gate 3.5 thereby creating a bottle neck. In addition, the number of lanes are not equal for the northbound and southbound directions, with the southbound lane having three more lanes compared to the northbound.

Figure 13. The current situation along Katipunan Avenue directly in front of the Ateneo de Manila University

In preparation for the alignment of C5 to the North Luzon Express Way through Katipunan Avenue, the MMDA is proposing the following for the area directly in front of the Ateneo campus: 1. Realignment of center island, which includes recovering one lane from the southbound direction and relocating the footbridge support; and 2. Provision of an additional one land and side walk to be recovered from the Ateneo campus, which requires an area of at least 2,900 m2, with total width of 5.7 meters.

Figure 14 below shows the location of the proposed center island relocation and road widening.

%#23-$82

Figure 14.Realignment of center island and road widening

After the realignment and road widening, both the southbound and northbound direction will have five lanes (Figure 15).

Figure 15. After center island realignment and road widening

The detailed plans of the MMDA also include plans to close the u-turn slot in front of National Bookstore and open a two phase signalized left turn in front of Atteneo Gate 3, and combinations of opening and closing the u-turn slots in front of Miriam College, Escaler Road and Mangyan Road.

%#24-$82

While the ATG at the moment does not have the scenarios to evaluate the u-turn combinations, the group agrees relocating the center island (which will decrease the southbound lanes and increase the northbound lanes) will help.

As a last resort, the group also agrees that the bottleneck between Gate 2.5 and Gate 3 should be geometrically corrected. This may be addressed by eitther giving up at least one lane of the service road parallel to Katipunan (Figure 16) or by modifying the exit road at Gate 3.5 to let out vehicles at the point where Katipunan Avenue is again 5 lanes (near entrance road of Miriam College).

Figure 16. Land requirement for bottleneck correction

However, it should be noted that aside from the geometric correction, the MMDA should also correct the location of pedestrian lanes along Katipunan and strictly enforce no parking in areas where it is illegal. It should also be noted that enforcement is needed to keep the lanes clear of waiting vehicles, especially those in front of the condominium buildings and tutoring centers and the vendors on the sidewalk whose activities also impede the smooth flow of vehicles.

%#25-$82

Appendices

Appendix 1: Gantt Chart

Appendix 2: Ateneo Traffic Research Summary Report: Models of the World

Appendix 3: Ateneo Traffic Research Summary Report: World of the Models

Appendix 4: Summary Results of Key Informant Interviews

Appendix 5: Summary Results of Focus Group Discussions

Appendix 6: Initial Analysis of the Campus Mobility Survey Data

Appendix 7: Community Meeting Documentation

Appendix 8: List of Social Assessment Preliminary Participants

Appendix 9: Summary of Received E-mails

%#26-$82

Appendix 1: Gantt Chart

Ateneo Traffic Group Recommendations

2012 ‐ 2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015 Recommendation JJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASO 1. Increase gap in daily schedules Coordinate, study Implement 2. Review current issues on heavy school bags 3. Standardize design for roads and signages Signage designs (ongoing) Construction of speed table for Leong Hall 4. Provide continuous pedestrian walkways on campus (ongoing) 5. Provide covered walkways Study/design Construction 6. Optimize community cooperation through OK (continuous) 7. Establish centralized authority on traffic management 8. Setup system for pay parking Study feasibility of parking building, pay parking for existing Introduce payment system for existing parking Bid for contract of parking building construction Award contract for parking building construction Begin construction of parking building 9. Explore the creation of more access points Inquiry and negotiation with lot owners (Goco, Meralco, LaVista) (inquiries ongoing) Feasibility study 10. Improve management of drop‐off and pick up points AGS (color‐coded sticker system) (continuous) Introduce improved drop off and pick up scheme for AHS and LS 11. Improve carpool program Create efficient carpool system (coordinate with Mr. V. Reventar) (inquiries made, pending schedule of meeting with Mr. Reventar) Partner with parents in AGS & AHS (ongoing) Carpool campaign and committee 12. Improve Traffic Circulation Flow Determine best scenario (done, refer to Dr. Teknomo's simulation) Data gathering baseline Dry run one‐way flow Evaluation of traffic flow (compare before and after data) Information campaign 13. Design and Implement Training Modules for Traffic Management Design, test and implement modules for students Design,test and implement modules for others 14. Provide campus shuttle on campus and nearby areas Optimize design and study feasibility (ongoing exploration with Meralco) Find partner (ongoing, in talks with Meralco, FilOil for Jeepcycle) Pilot test Roll‐out 15. Advocate for busline along Katipunan Avenue Partner with ASoG Mobility Project 16. Increase number of dormitories Endorse to Campus Master Plan Committee 17. Provide shuttle service to select city hubs Coordinate with UP, Miriam, etc. 18. Create car‐free zones within the campus

%#27-$82

Appendix 2: Ateneo Traffic Research Summary Report: Models of the World

The Ateneo Traffic Group and its research team conducted the following traffic surveys inside the campus and along Katipunan Avenue: 1. Road inventory 2. Vehicle type distribution 3. Moving vehicle observers 4. Car volume s 5. License plate matching

Parking monitoring Ensuing data analysis focused on the following: 1. Development of traffic circulation scenarios 2. Traffic assignment 3. Selection of traffic circulation scenarios

Other analysis include: 1. Car pool analysis 2. Scheduled school hour analysis

Another set of data collection activities were conducted to develop insights into the social and behavioral dimensions of the traffic problem (refer to Appendix 2). These are: 1. Community assembly Key informant interview 2. Focus group discussion 3. Survey

This section describes the above data collection and analysis in more detail.

Data Collection

Road Inventory survey Road inventory survey was conducted along the road network inside Ateneo and along Katipunan Avenue. The purpose of the road inventory survey is to produce current scale road map network in the study area that contain capacity (in term of road length and width).

The surveyors walked along the road and measure the road length and road width. The survey was done through calibrated steps since there is no measurement tool available. The accuracy of the measurement can be said as quite reliable up to 10 meters accuracy for the road length. For the road width, several measurements were done and the average steps were used to increase the accuracy up to 1 or 2 meters accuracy.

The results of road inventory survey were transformed into graph. A graph consists of nodes and links. The nodes are located on the map for convenience use rather than to represent the actual location of intersection. The actual distance and road width from the inventory survey was coded into the links. Figure below shows the results of the road inventory survey in term of graph.

%#28-$82

The existing road network under study has 76 nodes and 136 links.

Below is the node coordinate that was used as the baseline scenario or base scenario.

% node coordinate is in the same order of the node name [X Y] NodeCoord=[ 908.18 -146.65 ; % 1 936.60 -171.60 ; % 2 908.40 -185 ; % 3 268.90 -128.90 ; % 4 774.79 -49.86 ; % 5 354.32 135.57 ; % 6 624.90 43.66 ; % 7 440.71 -81.24 ; % 8 451.92 88.39 ; % 9 470.69 16.34 ; % 10 437.62 -33.13 ; % 11 516.6 -75.4 ; % 12 544.6 -99.4 ; % 13 653.4 -85.4 ; % 14 456.79 -179.17 ; % 15 493.90 -181.09 ; % 16 694.58 -194.41 ; % 17 821.91 -203.90 ; % 18 729.1 -121.6 ; % 19 673.4 -104 ; % 20 704.03 -88.08 ; % 21 333.17 -105.16 ; % 22 333.17 -126.90 ; % 23 333.90 -145 ; % 24 417.76 -104.35 ; % 25 394.09 -131.90 ; % 26 420.30 -133.09 ; % 27 419.63 -152.43 ; % 28 440.53 -133.90 ; % 29 440.53 -153.15 ; % 30 460.26 -153.78 ; % 31 461.09 -134.09 ; % 32 496.09 -136.09 ; % 33 495.83 -156.40 ; % 34 635 -145 ; % 35 660 -145.4 ; % 36 674.6 -145.4 ; % 37 669.53 -165.98 ; % 38 690.6 -145.4 ; % 39 700 -168.01 ; % 40

%#29-$82

713.4 -145 ; % 41 721 -162.59 ; % 42 765.84 -145.83 ; % 43 823.4 -180 ; % 44 846.36 -146.64 ; % 45 882.15 -147.45 ; % 46 873.4 -183.4 ; % 47 426.70 129.06 ; % 48 483.63 98.96 ; % 49 460.86 57.49 ; % 50 529.18 77.009 ; % 51 501.53 32.27 ; % 52 443.21 -1.06 ; % 53 460.05 -15.70 ; % 54 473.06 -21.39 ; % 55 476.6 -90.6 ; % 56 492 -89.4 ; % 57 440.53 -110.86 ; % 58 514.6 -123.4 ; % 59 611.32 29.83 ; % 60 631.65 -121.43 ; % 61 630.84 -72.63 ; % 62 626.77 -53.93 ; % 63 648.73 -45.79 ; % 64 650.36 -69.38 ; % 65 676.38 -69.38 ; % 66 648.4 -130 ; % 67 699.97 -120.62 ; % 68 698.34 -69.38 ; % 69 691.6 -26.6 ; % 70 705.66 -52.30 ; % 71 712.17 -117.36 ; % 72 712.17 -131.4 ; % 73 757.71 -53.93 ; % 74 757.71 -113.30 ; % 75 765.03 -127.93 ; % 76 ];

Each link data connects the start node and end node. If a road has two directions, it will be represented by two links. The link distance and link width are based on the actual road inventory survey measured in meter. The maximum speed for Ateneo road network is 30 km/hour, for links along Katipunan Avenue is 100 km/hour and for U-turn slot as assumed to be 20 km/hour. The speed on the U-turn slot is an assumption. However, the two maximum speeds along Katipunan and road inside Ateneo were obtained from the results of Moving Vehicle Observer survey. We also have dummy links to connect the source or sink nodes. Dummy links can be recognized by the equal link length and link width set as arbitrary number of 10.1 meters. Example of link data of the based scenario is given below.

% link matrix % [startNode, endNode, linkDist, linkWidth, maxSpeed] mLink = [1 46 10.1 10.1 100; % 1 1 45 10.1 10.1 100; % 2 2 39 303 7.2 100; % 3 42 2 275 5.5 100; % 4 47 3 10.1 10.1 100; % 5 47 46 30 7 20; % 6 46 45 46 5 100; % 7 44 47 98.4 5.4 100; % 8 44 18 10.1 10.1 100; % 9 18 44 10.1 10.1 100; % 10 40 17 10.1 10.1 100; % 11 17 40 10.1 10.1 100; % 12 40 42 24 1 100; % 13 45 43 130 5 100; % 14 43 41 105 5 100; % 15 41 39 18 5.5 100; % 16 39 37 50 11 100; % 17 38 37 6 4.8 20; % 18 37 36 16 9 100; % 19 36 35 40 11 100; % 20 35 33 300 11 100; % 21

%#30-$82

33 32 80 8 100; % 22 32 29 107 8 100; % 23 29 27 23 8 100; % 24 29 30 15 2.5 20; % 25 29 58 10.1 10.1 40; % 26 58 8 10.1 10.1 40; % 27 8 25 10.1 10.1 40; % 28 25 26 10.1 10.1 40; % 29 8 22 10.1 10.1 40; % 30 22 23 10.1 10.1 40; % 31 27 26 23 8 100; % 32 26 23 124 12 100; % 33 23 4 10.1 10.1 100; % 34 4 24 10.1 10.1 100; % 35 24 28 180 14.4 100; % 36 28 27 15 2.5 20; % 37 28 30 15 8 100; % 38 30 31 24 3.8 100; % 39 31 15 10.1 10.1 100; % 40 15 31 10.1 10.1 100; % 41 31 34 163 14.4 100; % 42 34 16 10.1 10.1 100; % 43 16 34 10.1 10.1 100; % 44 34 38 368.4 14.4 100; % 45 38 40 63 18 100; % 46 40 44 196.2 18 100; % 47 76 75 108 9.6 40; % 50 76 73 108 6 40; % 51 73 76 90 4.8 40; % 52 75 74 88.8 16.8 40; % 53 74 5 10.1 10.1 40; % 54 5 74 10.1 10.1 40; % 55 74 71 110 9.7 40; % 56 71 72 85.2 3.9 40; % 57 72 71 85.2 3.9 40; % 58 72 75 88.8 8.6 40; % 59 73 72 18 8.1 40; % 61 41 73 16.8 8.1 40; % 63 71 66 45 2.4 40; % 64 71 69 18 4.2 40; % 65 66 64 73.2 3 40; % 66 64 63 51.6 5.4 40; % 67 63 62 18 3 40; % 68 62 61 120 3.5 40; % 69 61 62 120 3.5 40; % 70 62 65 60 6.5 40; % 71 65 14 10.1 10.1 40; % 72 14 65 10.1 10.1 40; % 73 65 66 60 3 40; % 74 66 69 52 2.5 40; % 75 69 21 10.1 10.1 40; % 76 21 69 10.1 10.1 40; % 77 69 68 100 5.2 40; % 78 68 72 8 2.6 40; % 79 72 68 8 2.6 40; % 80 68 61 125.4 2.1 40; % 81 61 68 125.4 2.1 40; % 82 61 67 18 6 40; % 83 68 67 82.6 6 40; % 84 67 35 21 5.4 40; % 85 70 71 44 2.25 40; % 86 71 70 44 2.25 40; % 87 70 60 244 2.25 40; % 88 60 70 244 2.25 40; % 89 60 7 10.1 10.1 40; % 90 7 60 10.1 10.1 40; % 91 60 51 168 2.4 40; % 92 51 60 168 2.4 40; % 93 51 49 99.2 2.4 40; % 94 49 51 99.2 2.4 40; % 95 49 48 133.8 2.4 40; % 96 48 49 133.8 2.4 40; % 97 48 6 10.1 10.1 40; % 98 6 48 10.1 10.1 40; % 99 49 50 94.8 5.4 40; % 100 50 9 101 101 40; % 101 9 50 101 101 40; % 102 %#31-$82

50 52 99.2 4.8 40; % 103 52 10 101 101 40; % 104 10 52 101 101 40; % 105 52 51 94.8 2.7 40; % 106 51 52 94.8 2.7 40; % 107 52 55 121.2 2.7 40; % 108 55 52 121.2 2.7 40; % 109 55 54 19 2.7 40; % 110 54 53 51.6 2.7 40; % 111 53 54 51.6 2.7 40; % 112 54 11 10.1 10.1 40; % 113 11 54 10.1 10.1 40; % 114 53 50 134 2.7 40; % 115 50 53 134 2.7 40; % 116 54 56 118 2.5 40; % 117 57 55 139.8 2.7 40; % 118 55 57 139.8 2.7 40; % 119 56 32 48 6.3 40; % 120 33 57 106.8 11.4 40; % 121 57 12 10.1 10.1 40; % 122 12 57 10.1 10.1 40; % 123 57 59 117 3 40; % 124 59 57 117 2.5 40; % 125 59 13 10.1 10.1 40; % 126 13 59 10.1 10.1 40; % 127 59 61 176 3 40; % 128 61 59 176 3 40; % 129 73 19 101 101 40; % 130 73 19 10.1 10.1 40; % 130 19 73 10.1 10.1 40; % 131 61 20 10.1 10.1 40; % 133 20 61 10.1 10.1 40; % 134 54 55 20 2.7 40; % 135 57 56 20.4 57 40; % 136 ];

Vehicle Type Distribution We conducted vehicle type distribution survey as complementary to car volume survey because the car volume survey only counts the number of cars. As the road along Katipunan Avenue has more than one vehicle type, it is necessary to find out the multiplication factor to results of the car volume survey. Table below shows the results of vehicle type distribution survey that was taken between 5:00 to 6:00 PM from the overpass in front of gate 2.5 of Ateneo on February 22, 2012.

Vehicle Type Number of vehicles per 10 minutes Cars (including SUVs, jeepney, van) 315 577 503 465 567 603 Motorcycle (including tricycles) 121 197 158 245 224 189 Trucks/Buses 46 53 30 26 33 40

The survey results show a quite stable coefficient of variation (cov). Multiplying the sum or the average with the conversion factor of Passenger Car Unit (PCU), establishes that the Car Volume survey along Katipunan must be multiplied by a factor of 1.64 to represent the actual vehicle distribution (see below).

Vehicle Type sum average stDev cov pcu mean * pcu Factor Cars (including SUVs, jeepney, van) 3030 505 106.14707 21% 1 505 1 Motorcycle (including tricycles) 1134 189 44.743715 24% 0.5 94.5 0.19 Trucks/Buses 228 38 10.256705 27% 6 228 0.45 sum 1.64

%#32-$82

Moving Vehicle Observers Moving vehicle observer survey was done to obtain simultaneously three values of 1. Free flow speed 2. Maximum density 3. Road capacity

We conducted several measurements of along Katipunan Avenue, in a section where the road width does not change (no widening or narrowing). The survey was conducted during weekdays between February 16 and February 24, 2012, from early morning until evening (to capture the phenomena of high volume flow to low volume. Two sets of moving vehicle observation were conducted. One was along Katipunan Avenue and the other one was inside the Ateneo campus.

The section of the road selected for the survey stretches from Gate 2.5 to Gate 3 which has three lanes (about 7.8 meters in width) and has a length of 264 meter length. Table below shows the results.

Number of vehicles observation period Number of vehicles observation period when you move when you move Number of vehicles you overtake you when you when you move against traffic against traffic overtake when you move move with traffic with traffic Data No direction, Ma direction, Ta hours with traffic direction, Mp direction, Mo direction, Tw hours 1 419 0.091666667 7 380 0.091666667 2 465 0.091666667 3 362 0.091666667 3 476 0.091666667 13 352 0.091666667 4 445 0.091666667 3 331 0.091666667 5 450 0.091666667 1 376 0.091666667 6 383 0.091666667 0 353 0.091666667 7 344 0.091666667 0 318 0.091666667 8 395 0.091666667 0 320 0.091666667 9 356 0.091666667 0 341 0.091666667 10 428 0.091666667 6 367 0.091666667

Analysis of above data produces a regression line of speed = 99.4185417 - 0.391960429 * density. The regression line can be interpreted using the fundamental traffic flow formula which states that flow is equal to speed multiplied by density. The regression line produces the following results: 1. Free flow speed = 99 km/hour 2. Maximum density = 254 vehicles/ km 3. Road capacity = 6304 vehicles/ hour

Thus, rounded road capacity of 2,100 vehicles per hour per lane will be used for road capacity along Katipunan Avenue. This number is closed to a reasonable capacity of US Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).

For the road inside the Ateneo campus, we also conducted similar moving vehicle observer survey. The survey location was a road section that does not change its width a long university road going out to gate 3.5. The road section has 2.5 meters width and the survey was conducted in 90 meters length of road section. Below are the survey results inside Ateneo campus.

%#33-$82

Number of vehicles observation period Number of vehicles observation period Number of vehicles you when you move when you move overtake you when you when you move Data No overtake when you move against traffic against traffic move with traffic with traffic with traffic direction, Mp direction, Ma direction, Ta hours direction, Mo direction, Tw hours 1 26 0.023166667 4 18 0.023 2 18 0.0245 4 19 0.0255 3 35 0.0225 5 15 0.023666667 4 51 0.023333333 10 16 0.023 5 40 0.0235 8 18 0.025 6 50 0.025 0 12 0.023333333 7 34 0.023166667 0 12 0.023 8 35 0.024833333 0 15 0.025 9 27 0.022833333 0 13 0.023666667 10 43 0.025 0 18 0.023833333

Analysis of the data above produces regression line that the speed = 30.01516471 - 0.134322202 * density. The regression line produces the following results: 1. Free flow speed = 30 km/hour 2. Maximum density = 223 vehicles/ km 3. Road capacity = 1677 vehicles/ hour

Thus, rounded road capacity of 1,675 vehicles per hour per lane (of 2.5 meters) is the road network capacity inside the Ateneo. This capacity value is reasonable for a minor road.

Car Volume Survey The goal of Car Volume Survey (CVS) is to produce real data on actual traffic flow at certain locations in the study area.

The survey was conducted at the same time with License Plate Matching (LPM) Survey on February 2 and February 9, 2012. We hired 34 professional surveyors for two days and assigned them in 20 stations. One surveyor was responsible for one traffic direction. Table below shows the details of the location of the surveyors.

Station Location Direction Lane Number 1 Under bridge after Xavierville, before u turn to South all 2 lanes 2 Under bridge, in front of SM Blue heading to Ateneo all 2 lanes 3 Gate 1 Ateneo go into Ateneo all 2 lanes 4‐a Gate 2 Ateneo go into Ateneo 2 right lanes 4‐b Gate 2 Ateneo go into Ateneo 2 left lanes 4‐c Gate 2 Ateneo go out of Ateneo 2 left lanes 5 Gate 2.5 Ateneo go out of Ateneo all 2 lanes 6‐a Gate 3 Ateneo go into Ateneo 2 left lanes 6‐b Gate 3 Ateneo go into Ateneo 2 right lanes 7 Gate 3.5 Ateneo go out of Ateneo all 2 lanes 8‐a Gate entry Miriam go into Miriam all lanes 8‐b Gate entry Miriam go out of Miriam all lanes

%#34-$82

Station Location Direction Lane Number 9 Gate exit Miriam go out of Miriam all lanes 10‐a Overpass National to North All lanes 10‐b Overpass National to South All lanes 11‐a Gate 3 Overpass to North All lanes 11‐b Gate 3 Overpass to South All lanes 12‐a Miriam Overpass to North All lanes 12‐b Miriam Overpass to South All lanes 13‐a Grade School road parallel to 2.5 to North all lanes 13‐b Grade School road parallel to 2.5 to South all lanes 14‐a Between Irwin and gym (nearest gym) one way 1 lane 14‐b Between Irwin and gym (middle) one way 1 lane 14‐c Between Irwin and gym (nearest Irwin) one way all 2 lanes 15‐a Blue Eagle Gym Front go into Ateneo 2 right lanes 15‐b Blue Eagle Gym Front go into Ateneo 2 left lanes 15‐c Blue Eagle Gym Front go out of Ateneo all 2 lanes 15‐d Blue Eagle Gym Front parallel lane (one way) all 2 lanes 16‐a Near MO go to LS 1 lane 16‐b Near MO go from LS 1 lane 17‐a Between Berchmann&Cervini go to LS 1 lane 17‐b Between Berchmann&Cervini go from LS 1 lane 18‐a HighSchool Entry go to LS 1 lane 18‐b HighSchool Entry go from LS 1 lane 19‐a Univ. Road before North Park (zebra cross) go to LS 1 lane 19‐b Univ. Road before North Park (zebra cross) go from LS 1 lane 20 Near Belarmine one way all 2 lanes

The figure below indicates the location of the stations on the map.

%#35-$82

After encoding the data by volunteers, we have the traffic volume results as shown in the following table. The yellow columns indicate Katipunan traffic flow, the pink columns refer to the traffic volume for Miriam College and the rest pertain to the traffic flow in Ateneo de Manila University.

The maximum hourly volume was 5520 cars per hour. Including vehicle type distribution factor of 1.64 will produce about 9050 passenger-car-unit/hour. Based on the car volume survey and vehicle type distribution survey, the current maximum volume in the area under study is 9050 passenger-car-units per hour. Based on the population growth, we estimate that most probably growth is between 3.5% and 4.5% per year. The projection of the maximum volume up to 2020 is shown in the table below. The maximum projected volume would be about 13,000 passenger- car-units per hour.

%#36-$82

GROWTH RATE YEAR 3.50% 4.50% Passenger Car Unit / Hour 2012 9,050 9,050 2013 9,370 9,460 2014 9,700 9,890 2015 10,040 10,340 2016 10,400 10,810 2017 10,770 11,300 2018 11,150 11,810 2019 11,550 12,350 2020 11,960 12,910

Aggregating the traffic volume into three category of Katipunan, gates of Miriam and all gates of Ateneo over time and put them into percentage of its particular volume of the day, we have the following figure.

Most of Miriam College traffic is in the morning between 6:00am – 8:00am and has a mid-day peak between 11:00am to 1:00pm. This traffic is mainly generated by the grade school and high school units of Miriam College.

Ateneo traffic flow, on the other hand, has similar morning peak between 6:00am – 8:00am driven by the AGS and the AHS. The Ateneo also has an afternoon peak between 3:00pm – 5:00pm. The morning traffic may be caused by simultaneous arrival of AGS, AHS and LS students and employees. The afternoon peak may be caused by the LS students and Ateneo employees and the afternoon dismissal of the AGS and AHS. The fact that there is no evidence

%#37-$82 of a mid-day peak in Ateneo is because the chart above was a combination of ingress and egress traffic volume.

Katipunan traffic itself is relatively stable with three peaks in the morning (6:00am – 8:00am), in the afternoon (1:00pm – 2:00pm) and in the evening (3:00pm – 6:00pm). The peak that may be caused by major schools along the road is additional to the through traffic because Katipunan is a major highway.

Looking into more detail of the Ateneo gates data, we have the following figures. The figures justify the common view that grade school dismissal in the afternoon may also cause major traffic flow.

The left figure is hourly car volume going in and out of all the gates of the Ateneo. The two peaks of morning and afternoon are driven by both vehicles going in and going out. Mid-day peak, however, is only driven by vehicle going out. The maximum hourly vehicle going in is about 1,850 cars per hour while maximum vehicle going out is about 2,350 cars per hour. Viewing into further detail of 10 minutes volumes on the right figure reveals that peak may reach more than 500 cars every 10 minutes. License Plate Matching To obtain the Origin-Destination (OD) distribution of flow between major attractions in the study area, we conducted a License Plate Matching (LPM) survey on the same time and location as the Car Volume Survey (CVS). We hired 171 professional surveyors for the two days survey from 6:00am to 6:00pm. Each traffic lane per direction requires two surveyors per lane (one for reading the plate number, the other to record the information).

After completion of the encoding of this huge license plate data, we created a program to obtain the trajectories of the car users. Incorporating the trajectory data and the results of the Car Volume Survey and the Parking Monitoring Survey, we obtain the Origin Destination tables.

%#38-$82

The summary of daily Origin Destination result is shown in the desire line above and in the tables below. The figure above shows visually that the majority of the traffic flows are in Katipunan Avenue. The figure also shows that the AGS and LS are major traffic generators.

The table below indicates that majority of Ateneo traffic volume is coming from either South (direction of Eastwood) or North (direction of UP Diliman).

Table below shows that among all daily traffic volume originated from UP campus (north) in a day, 33% will be attracted to Ateneo. Among all daily traffic volume originated from Eastwood (south), 24% will be attracted to Ateneo.

Table below shows Ateneo contributes about 40% of all daily traffic to Eastwood (South). Ateneo also contributes about 30% of all daily traffic northbound to UP.

%#39-$82

Parking Monitoring The Facilities Management Office, with the help of MegaForce Security, conducted a two-day parking monitoring survey. The results of the survey are shown in the tables below. Total daily vehicle parking is approximately 3,000 cars.

The data indicates that the LS contributes about 80% of the car parking demand inside Ateneo, against the common view of the AGS as the biggest contributors. In fact, the AGS car park only contributed 13% of the total daily cars parked. Among these cars which park in the AGS, school buses are only 15%. Note that these numbers count only number of car parking rather than the flow.

These results may suggest that effective reduction of car usage through parking scheme should start with Loyola School rather than with Grade School.

Traffic Circulation Analysis

Development of Traffic Circulation Scenarios First, we have a based scenario against which all the other traffic circulation scenario will be compared. These based maps, which represent the current traffic condition in 2012 before the study began, consist of three scenarios:

%#40-$82

1. Non-Peak Hour Based Scenario 2. Morning Peak Hour Based Scenario 3. Afternoon Peak Hour Based Scenario

Non‐Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour

We use simplified maps as figures above to show the component and scenarios of traffic scheme. These simplified maps will serve as the basis for the proposed solutions to be presented in this report.

At current condition, during non-peak hours, Gate 1 is usually closed and Gate 2 is a one-way road for entrance only. During morning peak hours, Gate 1 is opened for entrance only and Gate 2 becomes a two way road for both entrance & exit. During afternoon peak hours, Gate 1 is opened for exit only and Gate 2 is reverted back into a one-way road for entrance only. Thus, during Afternoon Peak Hour, the traffic circulation very similar to Non-Peak Hour but Gate 1 is opened only to School Buses from AGS. Therefore, we do not treat the afternoon peak as a special scenario aside from the Based-Map.

After more than three months of weekly discussions, the Ateneo Traffic Group (ATG) developed more than 30 initial ad hoc scenarios of traffic circulations. These scenarios include many partial solutions such as

• Completion of New Rizal Library Road: to provide link between the University Road and Masterson Road and serve as access to surface parking for LS / PIPAC. The grant plan is to complete the one way loop (Masterson Road-University Road-New Rizal Library Road) • University loading / unloading bay: to serve LS and AHS along Diversion Road or the completed the New Rizal Library Road. • Geometric correction on various corners around the parade loop • Widening of service road leading to gate 3.5: to increase capacity of the service road and the gate since 3.5 will remain as the only exit for the entire university. • Relocation of service road near the perimeter leading to gate 3.5: to increase capacity of the service road and the gate since 3.5 will remain as the only exit for the entire university. • Redesign current one-way road around the parade loop: to reverse the current one way road to provide for a bigger turn-around loop for vehicles coming from the New Rizal Library Road • To use of Bellarmine Hall parking area as high school drop-off: to minimize the volume of vehicles entering the high school cul de sac

%#41-$82

• Implement the one-way road system: to enforce right turn only from Rizal Library going to University Road and redesign current one-way roads around the parade loop.

Those initial scenarios were finally screened out after we reviewed the potential demerits, too many conflicts, and possible worsening situations. After the evaluation of the initial scenarios, we found several common ground and components for the most probable of best solutions.

Our circulation scenarios have the following common grounds: • One way main loop to reduce crossing conflict • Separate the traffic flow into two category: Morning Peak Hour and Non-Peak Hour • The Entry Gates: 1, 2, 3 • The Exit Gates: 1, 2, 3.5 • Close Gate 2.5 for counter clockwise loop

Based on the evaluation of the initial scenarios, we identify the component of the circulation scenarios as shown in the figures below. Based on these components, we created combination of these components.

%#42-$82

The traffic circulation components are the following 1. One way main loop: a. Counter-clockwise b. Clockwise 2. Service road of gate 3.5: a. Widening of Service Road at Gate 3.5: Increase the capacity of the service road and of Gate 3.5 since it will remain as the only exit for the entire university. This includes creating a new lane on Katipunan Avenue from Gate 3.5, thereby giving Ateneo traffic a dedicated lane and expanding the current three‐lane in this section of Katipunan Avenue into to a four‐lane avenue. b. Relocation of Service Road at Gate 3.5: Another plan is to relocate the service road along the Miriam-Ateneo boundary. 3. University Road: a. Retain the two-way road scheme for the University Road or one way to the West. b. Implement a one-way road scheme for the University Road to the East. 4. Katipunan Crossing a. Retain the existing U-turn slots along Katipunan b. Use traffic signal and left-turn from Katipunan Avenue to enter Gate 3 and remove both U-turn slots near Gate 3.5 & 2.5

Since the four components each consists of two options, we can develop 16 combinations of scenarios as shown in the table below.

Katipunan Main Loop Service Road Univ. Avenue Scenario Name Existing U‐ Counter Widening To East A Turn Clockwise To West B Relocation To East C To West D

%#43-$82

Katipunan Main Loop Service Road Univ. Avenue Scenario Name Traffic Signal Widening To East E To West F Relocation To East G To West H Existing U‐ Clockwise Widening To East I Turn To West J Relocation To East K To West L Traffic Signal Widening To East M To West N Relocation To East O To West P

Thus, we have 19 total scenarios consist of 3 based maps and 16 combinations of components, to be evaluated by the mean of traffic assignment. The simplified maps of the 16 combinations are shown in the figures below.

Scenario A Scenario B

Scenario C Scenario D

%#44-$82

Scenario E Scenario F

Scenario G Scenario H

Scenario J Scenario I

Scenario K Scenario L

%#45-$82

Scenario M Scenario N

Scenario O Scenario P

Traffic Assignment Traffic assignment requires several input data 1. Road network with its capacity that is computed based on road inventory survey and moving vehicle observers. 2. Origin-Destination flow distribution which is multiplied by the maximum hourly flow for both current year and projected years. 3. The actual flow distribution.

The traffic assignment was done through incrementally loading the network with small amount of Origin-Destination Flow data. Then, the OD flow is assigned into the network and the cost in term of travel time is updated before the next incremental loading of the OD flow. Thus, the traffic assignment algorithm almost simulates the real world condition where more traffic volume will be diverted away from the shortest path.

The calibration of the traffic assignment was done by assigning a parameter of calibration to search for the proper multiplication factor of the OD flow such that the maximum hourly flow is closed enough to both current year (9050 pcuph) and projected years (13,000 pcuph) on off peak based-scenario. Then, we use the same multiplication factors for all other combination of scenarios. The multiplication factor for based year is 0.778026 while the factor for projected year is 1.117607.

The results of calibrated Flow Pattern and Flow/Capacity for based-year and projected year are shown as follow. The red color on the Flow/capacity indicates inadequate capacity while yellow color is to indicate heavily congested. Green color means Flow/Capacity less than 0.8.

%#46-$82

Based – Scenario Flow Pattern Flow/Capacity Morning Peak Based Year 2012

Projected Year 2020

Clearly, if we do only minimum improvements to the current road condition, the situation will be much worse by 2020.

Selection of Traffic Circulation Scenarios After we run the traffic assignment for both current year and projected year for all scenarios and the results in term of network speed in km/hour is given in the table below.

Network Speed (km/h) Scenarios Based Year Projected Year (2012) (2020) Based Morning Peak 24.55 8.58 A 27.45 9.18 B 25.70 8.94 C 25.79 8.90 D 26.25 8.98 E 26.74 8.84 F 26.16 8.84 G 25.01 8.61 H 25.43 8.70 I 27.95 9.61 J 27.70 9.61 K 26.50 8.63

%#47-$82

Network Speed (km/h) Scenarios Based Year Projected Year (2012) (2020) L 26.82 8.84 M 28.72 9.67 N 26.51 8.54 O 26.49 8.57 P 26.66 8.64

The table above shows that scenario I and scenario M are the best scenarios based on our simulation. The best scenarios produce about 13% to 17% improvement of network speed compared to the current network circulation. Interestingly, both best scenarios have common components: they utilize the widening of service road of 3.5 instead of relocation of the service road, they use one way road to the East along University Avenue inside Ateneo and both scenarios are one way clockwise. The different between scenario I and M are only on the utilization of traffic signal or use the existing u-turns along Katipunan.

The table above also shows that whichever scenarios we choose, the road network capacity will not be able to cope with the demand of the projected year. Other demand management schemes are necessary to support the road network.

Analysis of Queue Length Assuming the traffic volume comes at random and the drop off time is also at random following Poisson distribution, we can compute the average queue length using queueing theory. For Drop – off points, we obtain data that the average drop off time is about 1.5 minutes. Given the peak hour demand of ingress to gate 1 and gate 2 during peak hour in the morning as 110 cars in 10 minutes, with current number of only 4 drop off points, based on queuing theory the queue will grow over time to infinity. The minimum drop off point can accommodate that demand is 8 drop off points with severe queue length. Table below shows the relationship between drop off points and average queue length and average waiting time. Clearly, the current number of drop off points is inadequate.

Number of drop off points Average queue length (cars) Average waiting time (min) 8 11 8 9 4.4 3.6 10 2.75 2.5 11 2 2

We need more survey to determine the distribution of drop off with and without heavy bag such that we can be more precise on the effect of the drop off time to the queue length.

%#48-$82

Appendix 3: Ateneo Traffic Research Summary Report: World of the Models

Traffic, like many other environmental problems, is rooted in human behavior. Thus, changing the behaviors that contribute to the problem will result in a more effective management of the issue. In addition, technical solutions must be accompanied by behavioral changes because people need to accept and understand the changes being implemented in order for these to be used or employed properly.

The social research component of the study focuses on the following central themes, as presented in Table 5, below.

Table 6.Social assessment research questions.

Theme Research Questions Socio- • Basic demographic information on the number of students and demographic, working population, mobility and • What are the current mobility options of the members of the Ateneo stated preference de Manila University campus? profile • What are their stated preferences for alternative mobility options? • What perceptions about the physical environment result in behaviors that cause traffic build up? What social norms are being followed that contribute to traffic? Learning from • What explains (un)successful attempts in the past to solve the traffic previous and problem in Ateneo and other locations in Metro Manila? current attempts • What lessons can be learned from previous initiatives? at traffic • What lessons can be learned from the existing traffic management management scheme? Community • What are the concerns of the members of the Ateneo community concerns with respect to the proposed traffic management scheme? Specifically, what are the concerns of drop off bays and pedestrian- only zones? • What ideas and solutions can the community contribute toward the development of a traffic management scheme? Implementation • How appropriate are the components of the traffic management process scheme and implementation processes? The study uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. The collection of the empirical material is divided into four distinct phases:

Phase 1: Stakeholder analysis (Community assembly, survey, key informant interviews, Focus group discussion (FGD) Phase 2: “Social fit” of traffic management scenarios (FGD) Phase 3: “Social fit” of proposed traffic management scheme (FGD) Phase 3: Actual “social fit” of traffic management scheme (FGD) Stakeholder Analysis

Key stakeholders were identified through semi-structured interviews with key informants from the leaders of the various groups on campus. . The interests and incentives for different traffic management options/scenarios were investigated for each stakeholder group.

%#49-$82

Aside from the members of the University community (AGS, AHS, LS and affiliates), the other stakeholders that were identified include: the Loyola Heights and Loyola Pansol Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association (TODAs), the school bus service providers, and MegaForce Security.

Following the identification of the stakeholders of a campus traffic management scheme, the following data collection activities were conducted during the period covered by this report:

Community Assembly Representatives from the different units and affiliates of Ateneo de Manila University were invited to attend a meeting where they were asked to answer the following questions:

What is the root cause of the Ateneo traffic problem? What are your proposed solutions? As a member of the Ateneo community, what can you contribute to solve the problem?

The community meeting was held on March 9, 2012, and was attended by 38 participants from the Central Administration and the Affiliate Units, and faculty members, parents and students of the AGS, the AHS, and the LS.

Focus group discussions A set of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with representatives of different groups in the Ateneo de Manila University community which were not represented at the Community Assembly. So far, separate discussions were held with the leaders of the Loyola Heights Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association and the Loyola-Pansol Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association. Another FGD was held with a group of individuals who possess technical knowledge on traffic management. Additional FGDs will be conducted with operators and drivers of school buses operating on campus, members of the campus security group, and the MMDA enforcers along Katipunan Avenue.

Key informant interviews Key informant interviews were carried out with the Barangay Captain of Barangay Loyola Heights, and the immediate past administrator of the University Physical Plant Office. Additional key informant interviews will also be conducted with the Vice Mayor of Quezon City, Chairperson of the MMDA, Dean, of the Ateneo School of Government, Head of MegaForce Security, and the Head of the AGS Traffic Office

Survey A campus mobility survey is currently being implemented online. A sample size of 375 was drawn using stratified random sampling of the population of the Ateneo de Manila University Loyola Heights campus. This sample size, drawn from students of AGS, AHS, and LS, and employees of these three units, was arrived at using a 10% margin of error, a 95% level of significance, and an assumption that the proportion of the population commuting to Ateneo and riding private cars is equal.

The survey aims to collect information on the following: (i) mobility profile of stakeholders, (ii) user preferences, (iii) knowledge of traffic management structures in Ateneo, and (iv) community concerns and possible solutions.

%#50-$82

Secondary data analysis Content analysis was conducted on the emails sent to the Ateneo Traffic Group (see Appendix 4 contains the summary of emails received so far), list of recorded traffic violations in SY 2011- 2012, the report of the 1997 traffic study conducted by SMDI Consultants.

Preliminary findings from the community assembly, focus group discussion, key informant interviews, and content analysis of emails sent to the Ateneo Traffic Group highlight the following:

1. For the members of the Ateneo de Manila University community, the root causes of the traffic problem are: • High demand (scheduling of classes) • Inefficiency in processing this demand (road network capacity, intersection conflicts, behavior of motorists) • Absence of University policy for pedestrian-friendly and public transport supported mobility

The root causes (i.e., inadequacy of the existing system of staggered school hours and the far- from-ideal behavior of motorists) indicate a “fit” with the findings from the technical models (i.e., daily traffic volume, queue capacity of drop-off areas in AGS and AHS).

2. Community recommendations focus on the following: • Explicit University policy on traffic • Centralized traffic management system • Education and formation (intelligent driving, pedestrian rights, preference for multi- passenger vehicles, training of security guards) • Incentivized and systematic carpool system • Increased gap between AGS and AHS ingress • Integrated mass transport systems (campus shuttle, rail/bus from Aurora to Commonwealth) • Infrastructure (covered walkways, parking building, access points, underground road, flyover, tricycle lane)

3. Community members are willing to do the following as their contribution to the success of a traffic demand scheme and a traffic management scheme: • Walk more, bike more • Join a carpool, use mass transport • Follow traffic rules • Minimize loading/unloading time • Forego application for additional gate pass stickers • Help in coordination of solutions with Miriam College, the local government unit of Barangay Loyola Heights, MMDA, etc. • Participate in car-less day

The recommendations from the community and their expression of willingness to contribute to a resolution of the traffic problem generally flow from their assessment of the root causes of the problem.

%#51-$82

In conclusion, there is good will towards the inceptive steps of a Demand Management Scheme and a Traffic Management Scheme The same positive reception should be used to channel support for the implementation of the components of the chosen demand and traffic management system. Results of the on-going survey would provide insights into current mobility patterns and preferences of community members which can be used to validate the prioritization of initiatives as identified by the traffic models. People will respond to social change, in this case, the transformation of a community’s culture of mobility when they see hope for better mobility and a sustainable campus. The reference points for such assessments would be their actual mobility practices and stated preferences.

%#52-$82

Appendix 4: Summary results of the KIIs

Informant Result Immediate Past • Coordination with Security and with TODAs is important Administrator, University • Previous studies have been done Physical Plant Office • Jeepney terminals and illegal waiting areas are an issue

Chairman, Barangay • Katipunan Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the MMDA and Loyola Heights the PNP • Barangay Loyola Heights does not have the resources to implement better traffic management schemes • Operation Katipunan • Some of the Barangay’s initiatives on traffic management include clearing sidewalks, enforcing no parking on streets • Jeepney terminal is an issue

%#53-$82

Appendix 5: Key results from the FGDs

Group Results Loyola-Pansol Tricycle • Increase number of stickers issued to tricycles Operators and Drivers • Not all tricycle drivers want to enter Ateneo (and cross Association/ Loyola Katipunan) Heights Tricycle • Need to enforce fair pricing (discounts, etc.) Operators and Drivers • Suggest constructing a service road or “tricycle lane” along Association Katipunan

• Fairness in implementing traffic rules • TODAs are willing to assist in traffic management • It seems that biggest issue with the TODAs still remains to be the resolution to ban tricycles on Katipunan.

Experts • There seems to be no Ateneo philosophy regarding traffic, however the infrastructures in place indicate that it is pro-car, pro-privileged parking • Traffic management is an issue because the current set up is divided into three main groups or “kingdoms” • The most critical to address is the policy and demand management • Suggest implementing the most acceptable interventions first, such as carpooling and rescheduling ingress and egress hours • All interventions and plans must take into consideration the population growth projections. • Suggest increasing the number of access gates to reduce the traffic that is funneled into Katipunan Avenue. • Don’t agree that the one-way traffic flow scheme is better. • Avoid inconvenience for drivers inside AdMU • Consider a University rain • Create more drop off “fingers” at the AGS internal parking

%#54-$82

Appendix 6: Initial Analysis of Campus Mobility Survey Data

Contents: 1. Income

Going to/from Ateneo 2. Going to Ateneo 3. Walking from (walkers only) 4. Use of bicycle (cyclers only) 5. Concerns about using a bicycle (cyclers only) 6. Where to board tricycle to go to Ateneo (tricycle users only) 7. Where to get off (tricycle users only) 8. Improvements ON campus (LRT users only) 9. Improvements OFF campus (LRT users only) 10. Going to Ateneo by car (car users only) 11. Nos. of cars owned 12. Improvements for car pools (car-pool users only) 13. Improvements for shuttle services (shuttle service users only) 14. Going home 15. Going from Ateneo (different-means users only) 16. Travel Time to Ateneo 17. Travel time from Ateneo

Moving around campus 18. Moving within campus 19. Maximum walking time on campus 20. Going out of campus (frequency) 21. Going out of campus (destination) 22. Means of going-out-of-campus

23. Prevalence of disabilities

Bicycle use 24. Conditions for using bicycles 1 (non-bicycle-users only) 26. Purposes of using a bicycle (non-bicycle-users only) 27. Disposal of bicycle (non-bicycle-users only) 28. Acceptance of bicycle Rental on campus (non-bicycle-users only) 29. Disadvantages of bicycle rental service

Covered walkways 30. Covered walkways 31. Areas to be connected by covered walkways 32. Willingness to use covered walkways 33. Willingness to use un-covered walkways 34. Acceptance of Parking Building & Pay Parking 35. Improvement ON campus 1 (non-LRT-users only) 36. Improvement OFF campus 2 (non-LRT-users only)

Shuttle Service 37. Acceptance of a shuttle service 1:

%#55-$82

38. Destinations for shuttle service ON campus 39. Reasons against a shuttle service 40. Acceptance of a shuttle service 2 41. Destinations for shuttle service OFF campus (general) 42. Destinations for shuttle service OFF campus (specific) 43. Shuttle intervals 44. Reasons for not using shuttle service

Car Pools 45. Reasons for car-pooling 46. Sharing one’s contact details

Others 47. Pedestrianization of campus 48. Tricycles on campus 49. One-way system inside Ateneo 50. Public Bus Service along Katipunan 51. 4-Day week for college students 52. Bus Rapid System along Katipunan 53. Monorail along Katipunan

Staggered School hours 54. Staggered School hours 55. Starting of AGS classes 56: Starting of AHS classes

Ideal Scenarios 57. Ideal means of transport ON campus 58. Ideal means of transport from home TO Ateneo

Ateneo Traffic Rules 59. Learning about the rules 60. Traffic/parking concerns in the past 12 months: 61. Reported Traffic concerns 1 62. Reported Traffic concerns 2 63. Where to report traffic concerns 64. Response to reports 65. Unreported traffic concerns 66. Reasons for non-reporting 67. Concerns about traffic inside campus 68. Traffic Management scheme for Ateneo 69. Ateneo versus Katipunan

1. Income: 66% of respondents spent between 5,000 to 30,000 Pesos on food monthly per household. Only 6% spent below 5,000, while 27% spent more than 30,000 Pesos.

Summary: About 2/3 of Ateneo students can be assumed to belong to the middle-class, whereas about 1/4 belong to the upper class, more or less, totaling 93%!

%#56-$82

2. Going to Ateneo: 43% arrive by private car, followed by 24% who arrive on jeepneys and tricycles. 10% arrive by school bus, shuttle service or car pooling, 1% by motorbikes. This totals 78% of students who arrive on road-based, petrol-burning vehicles. Only about 4% arrive on MRT or LRT. Only 2% bike. Less than 1% are campus residents. (Remarkably, 13% walk. However, the real figure is closer to 6%, as the rest are partially using jeepneys and LRT along the way. Thus, figures for these means of transport should actually be slightly higher!).

Summary: The means of coming to Ateneo reflect the social status of most Ateneo students, who predominantly belong to the upper-middle and upper class, and thus use private vehicles. Given the high rental rates or purchase prices along Katipunan, it may be assumed that walking off-campus residents likewise belong to the same groups.

3. Walking from (walkers only): 47% walk from their residence. Others are part-riders: 26% walk from a jeepney stop, and 18% from LRT Katipunan. Only 3% are dropped from private vehicles along Katipunan or Aurora.

Summary: If students come by private vehicles, they tend to also enter campus. Overall, walk-in students remain a small group (13% of total)

4. Use of bicycle (cyclers only): 35% use the bike to come from home to Ateneo, and 29% use it to move around campus. 24% use it for recreation only.

Summary: Bike users remain a tiny minority on and off campus.

5. Concerns about using a bicycle (cyclers only): 28% were concerned about safety, and 17% about security. 28% mentioned concerns about storage/parking, and another 22% about transporting the bike from/to/within campus.

Summary: The above concern highlight the general problem of the Philippines (and Manila in particular) being a car-oriented place, with little to no provisions for cyclists and pedestrians.

6. Where to board tricycle to go to Ateneo (tricycle users only): About 30% of respondents who take a tricycle to Ateneo board it at the Mini-Stop-Station (Katipunan cor. Aurora), and another 19% at any point along Katipunan. However, the majority (46%) board it outside Katipunan (but nobody along Xavierville Ave., and only very few along Abada St.).

Summary: The TODAs along Katipunan provide transport for about half of all tricycle passengers.

7. Where to get off (tricycle users only) Those tricycle passengers predominantly disembark at the High School Complex (24%), Leong Hall (19%), and Gonzaga Hall (19%). Only 8% disembark at the Grade School Complex and 5% at the Social Development Complex and another 5% at the Dormitory Complex. Bellarmine Hall, the College Covered Courts and the Theology Complex are not destinations. However, about 19% mention “other” destinations.

%#57-$82

Summary: Attractiveness of tricycle use increases with travel distance.

8. Improvements ON campus (LRT users only): Those who (partially) use the LRT, would like to see the following improvements ON campus to make riding the LRT more attractive: 35% of requests would like a shuttle bus service between the LRT Station Katipunan and Ateneo. 25% would also like to see a shuttle bus inside Ateneo campus itself. 20% of requests would like well-lit walkways, and 15% find that walkways should be covered (multiple answers possible).

Summary: A shuttle service on and off campus is still the most preferred improvement, totaling 60% of requests. Apparently, issues of comfort, safety, and security are important considerations here. LRT users are, however, only a tiny minority.

9. Improvements OFF campus (LRT users only): Those who (partially) use the LRT, would like to see the following improvements OFF campus to make riding the LRT more attractive: 28% of requests demand a shuttle bus service between the LRT Station Katipunan and Ateneo. 24% would also like to see guards, police, or MMDA personnel between the LRT station and Ateneo campus itself. 20% of requests refer to a more efficient, unified ticket system for MRT and LRT. A well-lit side walk between the LRT and campus is mentioned in 16% of requests, while paved walkways in 12% (multiple answers possible).

Summary: These findings confirm those of 9). A shuttle service remains the preferred option, and security is an important issue, more than efficiency or comfort. The high rating of a shuttle service might thus be more triggered by concerns about security and safety, rather than comfort alone.

10. Going to Ateneo by car (car users only): Of those who arrive at Ateneo by private car, the majority (43%) are dropped-off. Another significant proportion (33%) is composed of self-drivers, and yet another relatively large group (19%) are chauffeured by (waiting) drivers. Only 4% use car-pooling. Thus, parking is required by more than half (56%) of arrivals.

Summary: Given that the private car is the most significant means of going to Ateneo with 43%, this leads to massive traffic in and off campus, in addition to high parking demand.

11. Nos. of cars owned Most respondents (33%) have 2 cars in the family. However, almost the same number (28%) have even 3 cars, and 27% as much as 4 and more cars in the family. Only 13% have only one car, and less than 1% does not own a car at all. Noteworthy, moderate car ownership (1-2) is predominant among Ateneo employees, whereas high car ownership is particularly common among students (both college and high-and grade school).

Summary: The high degree of car ownership among students again illustrates their usually upper-middle- and upper class origin, with (presumably) class-related concerns about safety and security.

%#58-$82

12. Improvements for car pools (car-pool users only): Of those using car-pools, half (50%) would like to see an incentive system (unspecified), whereas a quarter (25%) feel the need for an information system (unspecified). The remaining quarter (25%) request other improvements (unspecified).

Summary: The demanded improvements need further specifications. However, car-pool users are currently only a tiny minority of private car users.

13. Improvements for shuttle services (shuttle service users only): Only less than one percent (0.7%) equally made up of Ateneo employees and college students (50:50), arrive on a shuttle service. Here, the following improvements are suggested: Schedule, routing, costs, and others, with 25% of replies each (all unspecified).

Summary: The demanded improvements need further specifications. However, shuttle- bus users are currently only a tiny minority of arrivals.

14. Going home: The vast majority (89%) of respondents use the same means of transport for both going to Ateneo from home as well as going home from Ateneo. Only 11% use different means of transport for that purpose.

Summary: Most people use the same means of transport for going to and from Ateneo.

15. Going from Ateneo (different-means users only) Of those 11% who use a different means of going home, the majority (30%) leave campus by walking, followed by 24% using a tricycle. 16% use a private car, whereas 11% use a jeepney. Another combined 11% use LRT or MRT, and 5% a school bus.

Summary: This group shows a remarkable increase in the use of walking, LRT & MRT, and tricycle and jeepney, totaling 76%for egress (compared with 41% for ingress). At the same time, the egress by private car drops dramatically (16%, compared with 43% for ingress). As this cannot not apply to self-driving persons, it must be limited to such who are dropped-off or picked-up (e.g., by a chauffeur). It thus seems that more persons are dropped –off in the morning than are picked-up in the afternoon/evening. This may be an issue of coordinating schedules (e.g., students-parents), rush (need to arrive in time), or availability. However, this group is a comparatively small minority.

16. Travel Time TO Ateneo: The vast majority (58%) needs only 15-45 minutes to travel from home to Ateneo. Another 21% requires 45-60 minutes. Combined, 78% need 15-60 minutes to reach the Ateneo campus. Only 7% require more than one hour to reach Ateneo. In contrast, 13% need less than 15 minutes to reach the campus.

Summary: Travel times to Ateneo for most are surprisingly short when looking at the overall traffic situation in the Metro Manila Region during morning rush hour. The percentage of those needing less than 15 minutes is the same as those walking to campus (see 2), and thus probably predominantly represents this group. Given that 43% of students arrive by private car, this indicates that that means of transport is still relatively fast and convenient compared to public transport systems, with often long waiting time in queues.

%#59-$82

17. Travel time FROM Ateneo: The vast majority (54%) needs only 15-45 minutes to travel home from Ateneo. Another 20% requires 45-60 minutes. Combined, 74% need 15-60 minutes to reach home from the Ateneo campus. Only 9% require more than one hour to reach home. In contrast, 12% need less than 15 minutes to reach the campus.

Summary: Travel times to Ateneo (presumably mostly during morning rush hour) and from Ateneo (presumably mostly during afternoon/evening rush hour) are nearly identical. The aforesaid (pt. 16) applies as much.

18. Moving within campus: Moving around on campus during the day is done on foot by most (64%). Another significant means is by private car (22%), mostly by high school and grade school students. Another 10% move around by tricycle, primarily employees and college students. Bicycle use is insignificant (1%).

Summary: The relatively high use of private cars by grade-and high school students for moving around campus is both understandable (at least for high school students, given the remoteness of the high school to the core of the campus) and surprising at the same time: They cannot be self-drivers, thus relying on chauffeurs and/or parents to drive them around. At the same time, where would they need to go inside campus? This needs further exploration. Walking is a generally accepted mode of moving around campus, for all groups, more or less, whereas bicycle use is not. This is understandable, given the comparatively small campus. Apparently, there is no need to replace walking by bicycle use.

19. Maximum walking time on campus: The maximum walking time for most persons on campus (45%) is 5-10 minutes per route. For another 33% it is 10-20 minutes. 16% even need to walk less than 5 minutes at a time at most. Thus, a full 94% need to walk less than 20 minutes per route at most per day. The remaining 5% need to walk a maximum of 20-30 minutes per route per day.

Summary: This point confirms what was said earlier: Walking times within campus are moderate for most, thus not necessitating the use of bicycles, tricycles or cars (with the above-mentioned exception).

20. Going out-of –campus (frequency): Most persons (52%) stay on campus the whole day and do not leave it (except to go home). Another 25% leave it only once or twice per week, and another 14% three-to-four times per week. Only 9% leave the campus more than four times per week on average.

Summary: Apparently, most need services are provided on campus, necessitating only sporadic excursions out of campus.

21. Going out-of-campus (destination): When people leave the campus during the day, most (39%) go to the area between Gate 3 and Miriam College, while another 30% go to the area near the “McDonald’s footbridge (between Gates 2 and 3). Another 15% go to areas along Katipunan between Gates 1 and 3. Thus, 84% of target areas are in close proximity to the Ateneo campus. Only 15% go to other areas, presumably further away from campus.

%#60-$82

Summary: The establishments along Katipunan appear to provide for most services needed by the campus population (if not already provided on campus itself), and remain within short distance from campus.

22. Means of going-out-of-campus: Most people (45%) leave the campus walking when going out. However, 26% use a private car, and 23% use a tricycle to do so. Thus, almost half of persons (49%) use motorized transport to leave campus. Bicycles (3%) are rarely used.

Summary: Despite the proximity of most target areas outside campus (see above) the majority of persons leaving campus do so in motorized vehicles. There seems to be a strong aversion to walking out of campus for whatever reasons.

23. Prevalence of disabilities: 99% of respondents say that they do/did not have a disability that in any way affects their mobility.

Summary: Almost all persons on campus are able-bodied.

24. Conditions for using bicycles 1 (non-bicycle-users only): 50% of respondents say that the introduction of a bicycle rental service would make them use a bike on campus. However, another 50% say that nothing would make them use a bicycle. Bicycle lanes, -parking facilities and –ramps are not demanded (0% all)

Summary: There seem to be only two respondents to this question; hence it cannot be representative. If it were, however, it would show a strong aversion for bicycle use on campus under any circumstances among non-riders. Fittingly, active bicycle users on campus are only a tiny minority.

26. Purposes of using a bicycle (non-bicycle-users only): The vast majority (56%) of answers would use a bike only for exercise or recreational purposes. 31% would use it to move around campus only. Merely 9% of answers would use a bicycle to travel from home to campus (multiple answers possible).

Summary: Bicycles are not seen as a viable alternative to go to Ateneo, with only limited use for moving around campus. It is primarily considered a recreational vehicle, as already seen under 4) for actual bicycle users.

27. Disposal of bicycle (non-bicycle-users only): Of all would-be bicycle users, 38% would park a bicycle on campus when setting off for home, with another 37% preferring to bring the bike home on another vehicle. Merely 18% would ride the bicycle home.

Summary: As already seen under 26), riding a bicycle home is not seen as a viable option.

28. Acceptance of bicycle Rental on campus (non-bicycle-users only): If a bicycle rental were available on campus, a majority (43%) would maybe use it, whereas 30% would surely do so. However, a similar 28% rule out any use of a bike rental service.

%#61-$82

Summary: This seems to be an ambivalent topic, with the respondents roughly equally split between acceptance and non-acceptance.

29. Disadvantages of bicycle rental service: Reasons for non-use of a bike rental service are primarily lack of necessity due to a walkable campus (49%). Other reasons are having one’s own bike (19%), costs of a rental service (16%) and others (16%).

Summary: It appears a bike rental service would find it difficult to be accepted due to lack of necessity.

30. Covered walkways: Asked about whether they needed covered walkways within campus, a vast majority (83%) replied with yes, while only 17% denied such a necessity.

Summary: The idea of covered walkways seems to be very popular among campus occupants, across all sections (employees, college students and high school- and grade school student).

31. Areas to be connected by covered walkways: When asked which areas of the campus should be connected by covered walkways, no clear picture emerges: “All Loyola school buildings” is the most common reply (16%), while all other named possible connections file between 6% and 13%

Summary: The general demand seems to be connecting all listed destinations on campus by covered walkways.

32. Willingness to use covered walkways: The majority of respondents (44%) express willingness to walk a maximum of 10-20s minutes under covered walkways per route, while 27% would even accept 20-30 minutes walking per route. 22% would only accept 5-10 minutes walking under covered walkways, with only 2% willing to bear less than 5 minutes.

Summary: Pt. 19 shows that currently a full 94% of campus occupants already need to walk less than 20 minutes per route at most per day, presumably mostly on non-covered walkways. On the other hand, as shown above, 68% of respondents would be willing to walk up to 20 minutes or less under covered walkways. Thus, the introduction of covered walkways would not significantly increase the number of those willing to walk as the current number of walkers under non-covered walkways is already higher than the expected number of walkers under covered walkways. The wish for covered walkways may thus be born out of a desire for comfort and protection (sun, rain), but even without these amenities the current uncovered walkways are already accepted and used.

33. Willingness to use un-covered walkways: Of those who do not need covered walkways, 41% express willingness to walk under open skies for 5-10 minutes per route. Another 21% accept walking unprotected for 10-20 minutes per route, and 24% would even walk from 20-30 minutes under non-covered walkways. Only 3% would be willing to walk for less than 5 minutes under open skies.

Summary: The willingness to walk under open skies largely tallies with (5-10 minutes) or even exceeds the currently existing walking patters as found in pt. 19 for those who say

%#62-$82 they do not need covered walkways. E.g., only 21% of them say they would accept walking unprotected, but overall 33% currently do actually walk on (presumably largely uncovered) walkways. Although overall only 5% need to walk a maximum of 20-30 minutes per route per day, 24% of respondents express willingness to do so without covered walkways. Thus, again current walking patterns already indicate an acceptance of the status quo.

34. Acceptance of Parking Building & Pay Parking: A majority (39%) would not use a parking building, if one were to be provided and paid parking introduced. 32% of respondents say that they would use it, with another 29% undecided.

Summary: A parking building does not seem to be high on the agenda, with more than two thirds of respondents (68%) either ambivalent or against it.

35. Improvement ON campus 1 (non-LRT-users only): The vast majority of campus occupants does not (yet) use the LRT to go to Ateneo. Asked what measures on campus would make these non-LRT-users use it, a shuttle service of the LRT station to Ateneo was named a first priority (26%), with covered walkways on campus second (22%), closely followed by a shuttle service inside campus (21%) and well-lit walkways (19%). Only 11% of answers indicate that no measures would make them use the LRT.

Summary: The figures tally with similar findings under 8) for current LRT users, who express concerns about safety and security, and above all a desire for a shuttle service on and off campus. That only 11% of answers would not use the LRT under any circumstances seems to indicate a professed acceptance of using it under the above circumstances.

36. Improvement OFF campus 2 (non-LRT-users only): Asked what measures off campus would make these non-LRT-users use it, a shuttle service of the LRT station to Ateneo was again named a first priority (22%), with security personnel stationed between the LRT and Ateneo second (20%), closely followed by well-lit walkways between the LRT and Ateneo (19%) and paved walkways en route (17%). A one-ticket system for both LRT and MRT plays only a minor role (14%). Only 8% of answers indicate that no measures would make them use the LRT.

Summary: The figures tally with similar findings under 9) for current LRT users, who express concerns about safety and security, and above all a desire for a shuttle service. That only 8% of answers would not use the LRT under any circumstances seems to confirm the above indication of an overall professed acceptance for the LRT under the right circumstances.

37. Acceptance of a shuttle service 1: Asked if they would use a shuttle service on campus and/or between campus and nearby areas if it were offered, 74% of respondents answered with yes, with only 8% not being interested in such a service. 18% would maybe use it.

Summary: As seen before, a shuttle service is seen as highly desirable by most campus occupants, with 92% who would surely or possibly use it. The highest interest is among high-and grade school students, followed by college students. But even among Ateneo employees, the interest is significant.

%#63-$82

38. Destinations for shuttle service ON campus: 42% of respondents would use a shuttle service from Ateneo to any point along Katipunan and back, while 31% would like to take it from any point to any point within campus. 26% would use the service to go from Ateneo to the LRT Station Katipunan.

Summary: As seen earlier; priority is given to transport from and to Katipunan Avenue from and to campus, followed by a desire for an on-campus shuttle service. Interest for a shuttle service to and from the LRT is somewhat lower, but can be explained by the lower number of persons who would consider using the LRT in the first place, see pt. 35.

39. Reasons against a shuttle service: Those who would not use a shuttle service quote a number of reasons for not being interested in such a service. The number one reason is that the distances they ought to cover are manageable, either by walking (43%) or cycling (8%), while much less common, but still significant is a preference for private cars (22%) or tricycles (4%). 15% of responses quote the costs of such a service for not being interested in it.

Summary: As seen above, walking distances within and off campus are generally seen as manageable by walking by most, while a minority expresses a general preference for private vehicles, for whatever reasons. It must be noted, however, that potential non- users of a shuttle service apparently only constitute a rather small minority.

40. Acceptance of a shuttle service 2: If a shuttle service between Ateneo and some distant hub were to be introduced, a majority (57%) of respondents would use it, with still a large number (26%) being undecided. Only 17% would definitely not use it.

Summary: Also off-campus a shuttle service is seen as desirable or at least possibly desirable by a total of 83% of respondents.

41. Destinations for shuttle service OFF campus (general): If a shuttle service between Ateneo and a distant hub were to be introduced, a vast majority (61%) would like a nearby mall to be the hub, with only 13% preferring a church car park. Hotel- and condominium lobbies were also mentioned, albeit with only 8% of respondents each.

Summary: Not surprising, malls are the overall preferred hubs for such a shuttle service, as they provide not only ample space for waiting and parking, but also public transport connections and, at least in the afternoons/evenings, shopping and entertainment facilities.

42. Destinations for shuttle service OFF campus (specific): If malls were to be chosen as hubs for a shuttle service, the most preferred ones for those who would use such a shuttle service would be Marikina Riverbanks and SM Marikina (combined 22%) in the east, Trinoma, Quezon City (20%) in the northwest, and SM Fairview/Ever Gotesco, Quezon City with 12% in the north. Demand in the south is much less, with SM Megamall, Mandaluyong chosen by 5% of respondents, as is Greenhills Shopping Center in San Juan (5%). Even lower are the figures for Greenbelt, Makati and Alabang Town Center (2% each). However, a whole 33% would prefer yet another mall not listed in the survey.

Summary: These figures contain a number of surprises:

%#64-$82

1. Demand is highest in the location closest to Ateneo (Marikina); locations, from which the campus could actually be reached by walking with 15-20 minutes. A reason could be that many persons come from Pasig and Antipolo, and would avail of a shuttle service only to avoid entering Katipunan and the campus and loosing time there. This could apply particularly to those who may be dropped off from a private vehicle (see above), thus enabling their drivers/parents/spouses to proceed directly along Aurora Boulevard or C5 Highway towards Ortigas, Makati, Ft. Bonifacio, and Manila, presumably. Due to Marikina’s proximity, instead of a shuttle service, a walkable alternative from Marcos Highway could be explored. 2. Demand in the south is surprisingly low, which means that either not many Ateneo students or employees reside there, or that the MRT 1 Line along EDSA (close to which most of these malls are located) provides a viable alternative (given its notorious overcrowding during rush hour, this seems, however, quite unlikely). 3. The same could be said about Trinoma, which, although also accessible by MRT 1, contrarily, is in high demand. This may be due to a high number of Ateneo staff or students residing in the north, especially along Commonwealth Avenue. This would also explain the relative high demand of SM Fairview/Ever Gotesco, moreover as there is no MRT line as a potential alternative. 4. However and overall, the fact that more third would prefer yet another location shows that in total, a shuttle service would have to reach quite a high number of hubs to appeal to a significant proportion of the Ateneo population.

43. Shuttle intervals Asked about at what intervals busses should be leaving from such locations, 60% would like a 15-minute interval, while 26% would contend with 30-minutes intervals. Only 9% would contend with a bus every one hour.

Summary: Not surprisingly, people would prefer a high frequency of shuttle buses.

44. Reasons for not using shuttle service: Of the minority of those who would not avail of a shuttle service, most (39%) quote a preference for a private vehicle as the main reason, followed by security concerns (24%) and financial costs (22%).

Summary: Although a shuttle service would presumably address concerns of safety and security, these concerns remain major obstacles. Likewise, the financial costs of a shuttle service are likely to be far lower than the comparable petrol costs of a private car on the same route, albeit these are more hidden than and not as obvious as a shuttle fee. Ultimately, the high preference of a private car may be connected to notions of “freedom”, “independence”, “privacy”, and being a “master of one’s own time”.

45. Reasons for car-pooling: Asked, what would make them join a car-pool system, most (39%) mentioned familiarity with car pool members, trailed by a class scheduling system for matching supply of and demand for car pool slots (10%) and an information system for matching supply of and demand for carpool slots (9%). Priority parking is rather low on the agenda (4%). However, a whole 30% say they would never join a car pool, while less than one percent (0.7%) are currently car-pool members.

Summary: Apparently, issues of privacy and being comfortable with co-passengers are major reasons for joining or not joining a carpool, whereas scheduling and information

%#65-$82 systems are seen as important, but only secondary to feeling comfortable with co- passengers. This would confirm the findings of pt. 44 above.

46. Sharing one’s contact details: Asked whether they would register in a car pool information system that would make their address and contact details available to others registered in the program, a clear majority (50%) says “no”, while another 24% express some doubts (“maybe”). Only 27% would freely share their contact details.

Summary: The fact that 74% of respondents express strong or some concerns about sharing their contact details again confirms the notions of privacy and possibly security, which likely govern such attitudes. Any successful car-pooling program would have to take these reservations very seriously and address them with much discretion.

47. Pedestrianization of campus: Asked for additional areas on campus that could be pedestrianized, if there was such a plan, most (34%) would like to see the High School Complex made such, closely followed by the Gonzaga parking lot area (31%), while the Xavier Hall Complex was mentioned by 24% of respondents. Only 12% would prefer yet another area.

Summary: All three listed areas have similar preference with regard to pedestrianization. Note, however, that the questionnaire did not ask whether they actually wanted to have more pedestrian zones on campus.

48. Tricycles on campus: The presence of tricycles on campus is primarily seen advantageous by most respondents (46%), with only 13% seeing it as primarily disadvantageous. However, a large portion (41%) are neutral on the issue.

Summary: A vast majority of respondents (87%) see the presence of tricycles as either positive, or at least not particularly negative. This applies more or less equally to employees, college students, and grade- and high school students. Apparently, notions of convenience overrule concerns about noise, air pollution and contribution to traffic jams. A social component (support of the marginalized) may also play a role here. This is quite typical of the situation in most urban Philippine centers.

49. One-way system inside Ateneo: 42% of respondents are in favor of a one-way traffic system inside Ateneo campus, while 36% are against it. A large portion of respondents is undecided (23%), however.

Summary: Apparently, this is a controversial issue, with support only marginally higher than opposition.

50. Public Bus Service along Katipunan: If a public bus service along Katipunan were to be introduced, 38% of respondents say that they would use it. Only slightly fewer, 32%, say that they would not use it. An equally large portion (31%) is undecided (“maybe”).

Summary: There are about the same number of potential users and non-user of a public bus system along Katipunan.

%#66-$82

51. 4-Day week for college students: The vast majority of respondents (70%) would favor a 4-day week for the Loyola Schools, with only 9% against it. Quite a significant number are undecided (21%). Interestingly, support for a 4-day week is strongest among Ateneo employees (79%), followed by college students themselves (71%).

Summary: A 4-day week seems favorable to all concerned, especially employees. While the advantages of such a scheme (less travel time) are obvious, the disadvantages (more work on the remaining days, potentially lower productivity) are not necessarily immediately obvious.

52. Bus Rapid System along Katipunan: If a bus rapid system (a public bus allocated with an exclusive lane) from Katipunan Avenue to UP Diliman (or Commonwealth) and back were to be introduced, 47% of respondents say they would use it, while only 26% say they would not. Slightly more, however, are undecided (27%).

Summary: A rapid bus seems to have somewhat more acceptance than on ordinary public bus (see pt. 50), but support for it is still not particularly high.

53. Monorail along Katipunan: If a monorail system from Katipunan Avenue to UP Diliman (or Commonwealth) were to be introduced, 55% of respondents would use it, while only 20% say they would not. About a quarter of respondents, however, is undecided (25%).

Summary: Acceptance of public transport systems seems to increase with increased speed and social “prestige” (and costs) of such a system. However, while the support for a monorail is greatest, it is still not overwhelming, with a consistently high proportion of undecided respondents for all possible public transport systems along Katipunan. Given the extremely high costs for building a monorail, the survey suggests that it may turn out not to be too popular, at least initially.

54. Staggered School hours If staggered school hours in Ateneo Grade School and Ateneo High School were to be introduced, the interval between the start of the morning classes in AGS and that of the AHS should ideally be 30 minutes, according to 39% of respondents. 27% even prefer a staggering of as much as one hour, while 18% prefer 45 minutes. Only 10% believe that 15 minutes are adequate enough.

Summary: In total, 84% of respondents suggest a staggering ranging from 30 to 60 minutes.

55. Starting of AGS classes: Asked what would be the ideal starting time for Ateneo Grade School classes, most respondents (30%) favor 7:30 a.m., followed by 27% who prefer 7:00 a.m. 18% see 7:15 as the ideal starting time. The remaining combined 17% opt for a stating time before 7:00 a.m.

Summary: 75% of all respondents favor a starting time between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m.

56: Starting of AHS classes: Asked what would be the ideal starting time for Ateneo High School classes, most respondents (43%)

%#67-$82

Advocate a beginning of classes presumably after 7:30 a.m. (unspecified). 27% suggest 7:30, while another 14% favor 7:00 a.m. (4% are for 7:15). The remaining combined 12% opt for a stating time before 7:00 a.m.

Summary: Although 45% of all respondents favor a starting time between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m., as in the Grade School, about the same number would prefer a time presumably after 7:30 (although the exact time is unspecified, it seems, however, very unlikely that they suggest starting classes before 6:00 a.m.). Thus, as the preferred staggering of classes is 30 minutes (see pt. 54), a High School start at say 8:00 a.m. would thus be acceptable to a significant great number of respondents.

57. Ideal means of transport ON campus: Asked about their ideal means on campus, 28% of respondents mention walking, followed by electric shuttle and bicycle with 13% each. A close 12% each are voted for private car and shuttle service, followed by electric tricycle with 9% and ordinary tricycle with 8%. At the bottom of the list are jeepneys (2%), public buses (1%), and motorcycles (0.4%).

Summary: Walking remains the most popular mode of movement on campus, while bicycles remain an interesting option. The latter does, however, not quite tally with current actual bicycle use on campus (see pt. 18 above). Shuttle services (electric and conventional) with a combined 25% of respondents and tricycles with together 17% of respondents (for conventional and electric ones) are the second and third most ideal means of transport on campus, respectively. From another angle, a significant 22% of respondents regard some kind of electric vehicle as the ideal means of transport. In combination with the above seen high acceptance of tricycles (pt. 48) electric tricycles remain an interesting and preferred option. The same can be said about shuttle services on campus. In total, almost two thirds (63%) of respondents see non-polluting means of transport as the ideal way to move about campus.

58. Ideal means of transport from home TO Ateneo: Asked about their ideal means of transport from home to Ateneo and back, a majority (29%) prefer a private car, followed at great distance by shuttle services (15%), car-pools (11%) and walking (10%). Tricycles are ideal means for 7%, followed by jeepneys, school buses, and bicycles (6% each), and LRT/MRT with 5 %. Public buses (3%) and motorbikes (1%) barely feature.

Summary: Unlike movement on campus, non- or low-polluting means of transport (walking, bicycles, 16% total) for going to and from campus are not an option for the vast majority of respondents. Low-impact means of transport (in terms of pollution and contribution to traffic) such as mass public transport systems are, however, seen as ideal by almost half of all respondents (46%). Yet, the private car remains the single most preferred single mode of transport. Given the earlier found notion of security and privacy, together with convenience and comfort, this should not come as a surprise.

59. Learning about the Ateneo traffic rules: Asked, how they learned about the traffic rules on campus, 27% mention traffic advisory board or bulletins, while 23% learned about them from a manual or handbook. Word of mouth was the source for 15%, followed by announcements of other traffic violations (13%). Only 8% learned about them from orientation courses, while another 8% have not yet heard about them at all to date.

%#68-$82

Summary: The data speaks for itself. Coverage of the rules with a total of 92% seems, however, quite satisfactory.

60. Traffic/parking concerns in the past 12 months: 69% of respondents say that they did not have any traffic or parking concern in the past 12 months, while 32% did.

Summary: The number of traffic/parking concerns seems rather high.

61. Reported Traffic concerns 1: Of those who had traffic concerns, the vast majority (74%) did not report them, while only 26% did.

Summary: The vast majority of traffic concerns go unreported.

62. Reported Traffic concerns 2: Of those traffic concerns reported, most concern the behavior of drivers (28%), followed by traffic and parking citations (20%). The behavior of traffic guards (16%) and smoke-belching vehicles (12%) were other, but less significant concerns. Misbehavior of pedestrians was rarely reported (4%). However, 20% of respondents reported traffic concerns other than the above.

Summary: Undisciplined drivers and traffic/parking citations are the most common annoyances. Misconduct by pedestrians hardly features, although this may also have to do with them being much more difficult to apprehend or identify.

63. Where to report traffic concerns: Most traffic concerns were reported to the security office (37%), much fewer to the Facilities and Management Office (21%), while 11% were reported directly to the immediate unit head. However, a full 32% reported their concern to any other than the abovementioned offices.

Summary: Apparently, traffic concerns are reported to a wide range of offices and personnel. If these reports are not centralized, it would be very difficult to get an overview about all traffic concerns on campus, moreover, as only a quarter of concerns are actually reported, as seen above.

64. Response: In most (43%) of cases, the reported concern was acknowledged, but no further updates were provided. In 21% the issue was resolved. However, in 7% there was no response at all. Moreover, in 29% of all cases the response was another other than the abovementioned.

Summary: In half of all cases, there was either no further update, or even no response at all. Obviously, poor feedback may make it less likely for the concerned person to report other traffic concerns in the future. This may, to some extent, also explain why the vast majority of traffic concerns are not reported in the first place.

65. Unreported traffic concerns: Of those traffic concerns in the past 12 months that went unreported, 29% concerned the behavior of drivers. Much less significant with 13% were traffic and parking citations, followed closely by complaints about the behavior of traffic guards (11%). Smoke belching and pedestrians were the least sources of concern, with 5% each. Significantly, most (38%) concerned issues other than the above-mentioned.

%#69-$82

Summary: The pattern is largely similar to reported traffic concerns, except that complaints about traffic/parking citations, the behavior of traffic guards, and smoke – belching vehicles feature somewhat less. Instead, other issues other than the ones above seem to play a more significant role. These need to be analyzed further.

66. Reasons for non-reporting: Of those unreported traffic concerns, most were not reported due to lack of time (46%), while 23% did not consider the issue important enough to be reported. Another 18% did not know to whom to report the matter (other reasons: 13%)

67. Concerns about traffic inside campus: Asked about their main concerns about traffic inside/around Ateneo, most (24%) reported time loss as their most urgent concern (presumably due to traffic jams). Other concerns feature much less, with concern for the environment in second place at 11%, followed by convenience with 9%, and safety and walkability with 8% each. Alternative means of transportation primarily concern 7% of respondents. Security, financial loss (due to traffic jams?), comfort, and communication of traffic rules seem lesser concerns with 6% each. Least is concern about traffic violations, with 4%.

Summary: Apparently once on campus, concerns about security, safety and comfort are seen as reasonably well-addressed by most respondents. The frequent massive traffic jams on campus remain their most pressing concern, leading to significant loss of time.

68. Traffic Management scheme for Ateneo: Asked about what measures they would include to address the above-identified prime concerns, if they could design a traffic management scheme for Ateneo, 43% would target physical infrastructure, while 26% would primarily address the implementation of rules, and 22% would want to improve education and communication strategies (9% others).

Summary: Loss of time due to traffic jams has earlier been identified as the key concern on campus (see above). Although many respondents see this issue as primarily a physical infrastructure problem, about a quarter sees it as a problem of discipline, and another quarter as one of education. Thus, in total a slight majority sees it as a “soft” (social) matter, rather than a “hard” or physical problem.

69. Ateneo versus Katipunan: If only one of the two problems could be resolved, a majority of 55% would want to see traffic flow on Katipunan improved, while a significant minority (45%) would prefer traffic flow inside campus improved.

%#70-$82

Appendix 7: Summary of Community Meeting Results

What is the root cause of the problem?

Central Admin (Orange) AGS (Green) AHS (Blue) LS (Yellow) Affiliates (Pink) Traffic guidelines / • AGS Volume Lack of discipline Behavioral enforcement • Large volume of cars • Undisciplined trike • Parents unwilling to • Lack of discipline • Many very small roads going/coming to drivers show their kids there is a o Drivers that lead to another campus at same • Lack of discipline solution o Boss of small one time • Undisciplined drivers • Individualistic over drivers • Limited campus space • Large volume of community orientation o Student • Narrow roads around the vehicles arriving at Volume • Lack of problem-solving drivers campus same time • Volume of orientation • … regulations e.g. • Lack of parking space • Volume of vehicles cars/vehicles • Car mentality in Ateneo tricycles, pedestrian • Too many vehicles • Volume of cars (and RP) lanes, double • Lack of discipline among on campus going in >> volume • Framing of the problem parking motorists • Not enough traffic of cars going out as a technical & not a • Directional flow • Attitude of motorists lanes to handle • Volume of cars in behavioral issue should be channeled • Drivers who commit volume the GS • Too few people walking and not criss- violations against the • Very high number of crossing each other various traffic rules and Discipline cars authorized to Infrastructure • Loading and regulations • Time it takes for the enter the campus • Lack of road-sharing unloading of • There are families who student to go out of • Too many cars scheme for cyclist, students takes up take their time in the vehicle entering/exiting at people-oriented space and time dripping their kids off… • Lack of discipline the same time mobility (kiss, give baon) • # of cars ≠ available • Roads for private Non-availability of public • Behavior / attitude of Public transportation not campus roads vehicles, not for transport (high capacity) motorists viable people. • No public trans on • Stubborn drivers who • Commuting is no Road size • Lack of green campus (except drive slowly to avoid longer health • Road size versus spaces because of trikes!) going around • “Over” protective number of vehicles parking lots • Less sch-buses parents • Road size • Pedestrian lanes serving students • Volume of vehicles • Primary school • Slow unloading that are not socially- (compared to the • Volume of cars students can’t loading inclusive/friendly past) • So much vehicles commute yet • Bottle necks • Lack of public • Lack of viable public • Volume of cars/vehicles • Uturns inefficiently transport maps transportation • Too many cars entering Campus layout situated

%#71-$82

Central Admin (Orange) AGS (Green) AHS (Blue) LS (Yellow) Affiliates (Pink) the campus • Traffic flow/design • GS area: from 4 Schedule & Planning Limited infra capacity • Too many vehicles too • Parking space not lanes to 1 lane in the • Schedules overlap • Road system cannot little space maximized inner driveway and clash handle traffic volume • # of vehicles per families • Placement of gates • Too many choke • Limited outlets for • Not too many along Katipunan points for traffic vehicles students carpooling • Clogging at the around campus o To/from gates school Vehicles/Public Transport o To/from Internal System • High ratio of cars to Katipunan • Poor compliance and area • Roads are not wide with driving • No shuttle service enough rules/etiquette • More vehicles with • No proper system for less number of Katipunan poor planning, tricycles (i.e. passengers rather external factors entrance) than vice versa • No rational traffic • Ineffective • Lack of public system for coordination transport options Katipunan between traffic • Katipunan Rd not enforcers in Gates 1 wide enough for & 2 & traffic peak hours (entering enforcers on and exiting campus) Katipunan

Volume Lack of holding tanks • Too many cars and • No parking slot other vehicles causes cars to stay • A bit too many on the road longer tricycles in the • Cars which are campus waiting for passengers block driveway (i.e. Gonzaga) • Lack of ‘holding tanks” for inbound cars during pre- dismissal

%#72-$82

Central Admin (Orange) AGS (Green) AHS (Blue) LS (Yellow) Affiliates (Pink) Class scheds • Classes in different units start at very close intervals • Schedule (class) of students requires most to go to campus within a narrow time window.

• Lack of convenient alternative modes of transport

What are your proposed solutions?

Central Admin (Orange) AGS (Green) AHS (Blue) LS (Yellow) Affiliates (Pink) Alternative ??? • Checkpoint at Gate 1 • Event coordinator • More aggressive Behavior • Walk/commute during arrival of students • Coordinate schedule of promotion for carpool, • Car-less orientation in the morning events across units especially in LS (e.g. (people & mobility issue) Carpooling OrSem) • Move people, not • “Sell” idea of carpooling • Divert more roads in the Schemes • Carpool system vehicles ex. “It’s more fun to grade school to shorter • Localized car coding • More carpool! So less • Measure cost of traffic to carpool.” routes in/to the high • Reduce crossing volume of cars specific sectors • Pay parking facilities, school traffic/pedestrians • Carpool system esp for • Foster cycling within shuttle services, • We should find a way or subdivisions near Ateneo campus carpooling ways to spread the cars Carpooling • Carpooling – more more efficiently along the • Campus shuttles extensive Infrastructure Encourage high capacity roads. This will loosen • Carpools – ergo parking • Carpool • Pedestrian and public (Goco) the clusters of cars on only for carpools • Encourage carpooling transportation maps • Have ample school the roads and prevent • Carpooling HS and GS aggressively in the HS • Covered walkways buses and / or allow accidents. administration guided / (what possible incentives • Develop a “walk-friendly public PUJ inside supervised can be given) Katipunan and around campus • Enlarge roads to campus complemented %#73-$82

Central Admin (Orange) AGS (Green) AHS (Blue) LS (Yellow) Affiliates (Pink) • ??? school bus accommodate more cars Layout Adjust scheds by solar shuttles / (we don’t need that • Multi-level parking • Adjust schedules within jeepneys Bike Culture much grass!) • Bicycle lanes units and with Miriam • Create parking zones • Encourage people to use • Covered walk from • Revise class schedules close to exits so that bicycles • Open another campus in Bellarmine to High • Staggered start of LS – campus traffic flow is • Incentives for those who the south like XS. School GS – HS classes minimized use bicycles • Make Bellarmine field a • Inter connections • Priority should be given • Educate motorists Æ large rotunda Tranvia • Drop off points outside to those who bike to road courtesy • Katipunan Tranvia Katipunan (for Ateneo • Education/info campaign Walk system UP-Ateneo- commuters) and shuttle • Walking Miriam buses into campus and Infra • Dialogue between • Explore “walking • Long term solution: around • Circumferential road / AdMU, MMDA, UP, campus” • Skyway in Katipunan • Resolve circulation clustering Miriam • Develop a “walking • Tram plying Katipunan choke points – • Possible rear access / culture” • Color coded system to rationalizing flow, one down the hill to Marikina • Limiting car stickers to 2 prevent ??? way roads, etc. • Layout more student • Limit car sticers e.g. only Drop-off drop-off areas / monitor 1 sticker per family • Be strict with go down & Limit volume of vehicles Policy time • Have limited # of stickers unload bags quickly • Limit # of cars / person • Formulate alterntive per family • Revive “drop & ride” • 1 student 1 sticker policy mobility scenarios with Managing the conflicts scheme • Pay parking to implications for people /policy • Have more carpools • Pick up / Let down in GS discourage cars brought • Mobility mgt • Manage traffic flow • Carpooling & HS into campus • Parking poliy e.g. not • Revisit u-turn slots • Encourage carpool • Limited parking slots for allowing students/faculty • Carpool with incentives private cars, more for to bring cars if they leave Managing volume • Talk to students about carpools 3k or above (?) • Coordinating dismissal carpools etc to lessen • Car sharing schemes times cars A Shuttle • Public transport • Limit activities within the • Have initiative in • Shuttle services incentives campus promoting solutions (eliminates need for • Provide shuttle service (carpooling or walking) trike) Route: Katipunan • New exit / entrance from/ Culture ÆAteneo to Marikina • Be disciplined, follow • Purchase of lot behind • Off site pickup / dropoff / rules AGS multi-level parking parking points with • Building cultures through • More efficient parking shuttles to/from campus reinforcement lots/spaces • Off campus car park • More efficient ways of Road improvement %#74-$82

Central Admin (Orange) AGS (Green) AHS (Blue) LS (Yellow) Affiliates (Pink) facilities parking (multi-level, etc.) • More 1st pedestrian lane • Offer incentives for nearest Gate 1 farther biking, walking inside campus • Pay parking • Road redesign and • In-campus shuttle reengineering service (inside the • Improved sidewalks campus) within and outside campus • Regulate issuance of car • In road connection stickers between Miriam and Ateneo • Open a road leading to Aurora • Invest in underground road to allow for left turn on Katipunan

• Covered walks inside Ateneo

Coordination • Coordination among all stakeholders ADMU, Maryknoll, UP, Kostka, Barangay, Bus. Establishments • Coordinate in-campus and out-campus traffic

Trike/Truck Bans • Truck ban, tricycle ban along Katipunan • Truck ban during school hours / speed limits

Strict enforcement • Install timer for drop-off

%#75-$82

Central Admin (Orange) AGS (Green) AHS (Blue) LS (Yellow) Affiliates (Pink) and pick-up for drivers, parents and guardians to see in the GS inner driveway • Seminar for the drivers to teach/remind them of road etiquette • Strict enforcement of traffic rules • No crossing of vehicles from Lib to Gate 3 to ensure fast flow of traffic of vehicles going inside Ateneo / also for Gate 1

As a member of the community, what can you contribute to solve the problem?

Central Admin (Orange) AGS (Green) AHS (Blue) LS (Yellow) Affiliates (Pink) Alternative mode / culture • Follow traffic rules Carpooling Participate / Initiate carless Personal commitment • Encourage commuting / conscientiously • Join carpool days • Willing to bike and walk walking through scenic • Strictly implement traffic • Willing to share rides • Compliance with policies to Ateneo routes rules inside the campus e.g. no bringing of cars • Promote cycling • Encourage or facilitate / • Minimize my time spent Policies during carless day • More walking on my part provide easy path-walks in unloading to give way • The university could • Will participate /initiate • Choosing to travel at “off • Walk-on campus to others regulate the number of carless days hours” / “low traffic” • Walk to destination / issued stickers for times meeting • Sacrifice – walking private vehicles Walk • Use ICT to accomplish • Bike to work • Encourage people to • Parking spaces only for • Walk more work with less travel walk/bike carpools • Walk to school more • Use of public transport Distribution of volume • Reduce number of often • Staggered working hours • Offering vehicle to service vehicles and its • Promote walking Policy research & info • Come to work early carpoolers use dissemination leave late Networking with • Assist in mapping and

%#76-$82

• Carless day campaign Layout external/government providing integrated Culture change • Covered walks • Network with analysis of campus land • Carpooling for • Make sure my driver or connecting all buildings government agencies use with Manila employees anyone else who brings • Ground multi-level and politicians Observatory • Long term – “encourage” me to the campus is parking • ASPAC is a major prime • Assist in research carpooling familiar with the rules of mover of “Operation • Study problem and • Promote car pool system traffic Others Katipunan” “OK” propose doable • Carpool and shuttle • Help in training our • Walk alternatives (?) services future drivers to keep • The university could Other modes aside from • Help organize order when passing to also provide services bringing own car “coordinated solutions” Control the alternative road in (vans/buses). • Commute going to workshop with Mirian, • Limit # of car stickers the GS to LS/HS school (LRT, jeep) UP, Loyola Heights, issued (ex. 3 per family) • Tell my very own driver • Hitch some of my Schools & businesses & to follow rules schoolmates who live residents Discipline / Culture near my house • Help publicize new • Practice what we preach • Support bus-ing from guidelines • Follow the traffic rules strategic pick up points • Promotion of innovative ways for mobility Enforcement management • Pressure MMDA / public • No corruption • Car sharing schemes enforcement officers to • Sharing of sustainable review roles & transport materials regulations etc.

Provide alternative • Study/put into place public transpo system

%#77-$82

Appendix 8: List of Social Assessment Preliminary Research Participants

1. Alex Baay 2. EdselBeja 3. Noah Blanquera 4. Fernando Cantre 5. Irma Cecilio 6. Chuck Crisanto 7. Feliciano Gonzales 8. Johnny de Guzman 9. Cesar Marquez 10. Juanito Mercado 11. LeoncioMiralao 12. VicReventar

Community Assembly Participants 1. John Gabriel Bilog 2. Jennifer Concepcion 3. Jessel Gerard Gonzales, SJ 4. Gabriel Mallillin 5. Alma Pavia 6. Bambi Sevilla 7. Norberto Bautista, SJ 8. Jervy Robles 9. LitoNabas 10. Mic Bustamante 11. Beth Bermio 12. Jennifer MilletteGurango 13. Tranquil Matthew Salvador 14. Patrick Rosa 15. Jiggy Medina 16. Joy Salita 17. AlyAganon 18. Rachel Medina 19. Jerard So 20. Jose Mario Diaz 21. R. Abad 22. Anna KaterinaDimson 23. Jose M. Cruz, SJ 24. Devi Paez 25. John Paul Vergara 26. Kat Tuazon 27. GioAlejo 28. Tomas Testa IV 29. Jose Ompoc, Jr. 30. Michelle Correa 31. Jun Dalandan

%#78-$82

32. TemayPadero 33. Paul Villegas 34. William Kreutz. SJ 35. Segundo Romero 36. DidiOlaguer 37. R. Kuizon

%#79-$82

Appendix 9: Summary of Emails (2012)

Date From Comment / Suggestion 29 Jan Joseph Server • put the guard house on the left island and not on the (LS Faculty, Landscape center of the road Contractor) • Since you have a camera at the entrance and I [email protected] assume at the exit, can you consider dispensing with the surrender of the driver's license? • The Gate with a Cyclone Wire on Gate 3 used to be open to make the traffic flow faster to go to the AGS and SOM. This can be open at specific rush hours and only for cars with stickers. 1 Feb Ma. Monette C. Dator • when you do observe and analyze the flow of traffic, (AGS Faculty) that it would be done on "Regular" school days. There [email protected] are a number of special schedules for the different units and with exams coming up, the data gathered may not be valid. 1 Feb Michelle Camille Correa • “Crazy student drivers” (college students) (COMMPR) [email protected] 1 Feb Rene San Andres • Lee Miralao gathered data on traffic flow a few years (LS Admin ADSA) ago - both Ateneo gates traffic and Katipunan traffic. It [email protected] might still be useful as a point of reference. • Although you did mention that it will be for model- building purposes, would single-day observations be reliable, on top of the fact that both dates are Thursdays? • As regards the behavior of Grade School parents - traffic may still be tied to the issue of Security. • Unloading at the southbound side, perhaps near National Bookstore, then walking across the pedestrian overpass to the Grade School would probably lessen the volume of cars that come from the north (UP, etc.) and take the u-turn to the northbound lane. • You may need to study further the psychology of mothers - it is my observation that it is the mothers who tend to exhibit the overzealous behavior. 1 Feb Thomas B. Steinbugler, • Bona Fortuna! S.J. [email protected] 1 Feb James Simpas, Ph.D. • I would suggest consulting with the group of Dr. Karl (LS Faculty, MO) Vergel [email protected] of the National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) in UP Diliman. 4 Feb Mon Vitug, MD • The basic problem with katipunan traffic is volume and (Alumni, Parent) this is known by all concerned parties. [email protected] • There is no other solution to this problem other than bypassing the northbound lane. This could only be done by constructing a flyover from inside the campus directly to the southbound lane of Katipunan. • The flyover can be ideally situated between gate 2.5 and gate 3,to land before the southbound flyover of Katipunan.

11 Feb EdselBeja, Ph.D. • As an educational institution, pedestrian safety is (LS Faculty) imperative. [email protected] • I state for the record that the LS mentality is to take pedestrian safety as a minimization of expenses

%#80-$82

Date From Comment / Suggestion problem. Moreover, I also state for the record that the LS mentality is to put priority on cars not on people. • So I want to see Ateneo de Manila posting traffic guards during the school day -- not during peak traffic hours only. 6 March JoselitoSupangco, • Ateneo has to absorb the traffic created by vehicles forwarded by Ana Catalina going in and outside the campus. That means moving Cortez-Tolentino the guard houses in the gates deeper into the (ASPAC) campus than what is being done now [email protected] • The Ateneo main roads are too small to accommodate the current and future traffic, since they were never, in the first place, designed for such heavy traffic. The solution would be to re-design Ateneo's internal road system into one-way roads and access into the parking areas improved. This goes true for Miriam too. As for the schools along Katipunan such as Kostka, etc., shouldn't be using Katipunan as their unloading/loading areas. • A four lane flyover from CP Garcia to the Katipunan Flyover will contribute to the traffic alleviation. Unfortunately, the business establishments along Katipunan up to White Plains do not have sufficient parking spaces for their clients and have appropriated for themselves one or two lanes of Katipunan Road for parking. • Of course, the city government contributes to all of these by allowing exemptions to the land-use plan of the city with this stupid practice of "spot zoning" which, in reality, is really a violation of the land-use plan but nobody has questioned this abuse of power in the courts. • What I am pointing at is that it's a comprehensive solution that is needed, not only an Ateneo solution. 2 March Fr. Victor Badillo, SJ HATID OR BRINGING PROCEDURE FOR A PARTIAL [email protected] SOLUTION TO ATENEO CAMPUS TRAFFIC

Try to solve HS situation only Goal: fewer cars go to HS Cars on the road should be moving, not parking.

What is currently happening? Any vehicle may go to the HS 2,500 students and about 300 faculty and non-teachersbring to HS roughly 2,000 cars If this can be brought down to at least 1,000, that translates to a big reduction of time in campus for everyone. Domino effect.

Procedure In the morning during peak hours, no one proceeds to HS except the following: 1 Those who will park in HS 2 Tricycles bound for EAPI 3 Service buses and "buses" 4 Cars fully occupied. Those partially full are asked to pick up passengers at Gesu 5. Parents are urged to fill their cars and go to HS

Everybody else will unload at Gesu, turn left and leave the campus. %#81-$82

Date From Comment / Suggestion

Most, if not all, who are dropped off at the Geusare encouraged to walk to the HS. This is an easy four minute walk, part of which is downhill.Nothing like a brisk walk to start the day right.

Role of Bringers Try to car pool Obey Hatid procedure above If car is not fully occupied, load with students in Gesu. If there are no students at the Gesu, unload your charges and leave the campus. Those who get to HS unload at farthest unoccupied part of the sidewalk

Role of Students Get off the cars as fast as possible. If dropped off at the Gesu, walk to the HS, Join or organize car pools

Role of Administration Set up clearing house of information on car pools, bus services, etc. Set up and have manned a car pool and bus service desk. Car pool need not be with just HS students, but with GS, College students and Staff. Or even with Miriam, St Bridget and UP students. From existing or new data base, publish list of those who live close together. Play match maker.

Benefits Result of shorter stay of cars in the Campus are clean air, no oil products wasted, no dollars wasted, quiet, edification, discipline, bonding, sacrifice for the other, fostering bayanihan and other social virtues. Parents and drivers stay in campus for five minutes or less and can get to work right away, and avoid getting caught in and contributing to Katipunan traffic. They reach work place relaxed and can work efficiently. They will not be scolded by bosses. In turn they will not pass the anger on to people in the road, their spouses and others at home. In working together and solving this problem, those involved develop the mentality to work at other non-traffic problems.

No problem is unsolvable if we work together.

These values are not learned in classroom or chapel.

Before implementation of this Hatid procedure, all of these will be discussed with parents, students and all concerned. Suggestions will be inputted to produce revised and better procedures.

There will be periodic evaluation for changes, etc.

It will be an exercise in charitable discernment.

%#82-$82