History as a Tool for Sustainable Transport Planning in Cities

Dominic S. Aloc Institute of Civil Engineering University of the Philippines Diliman , Philippines [email protected]

Jose Regin F. Regidor Institute of Civil Engineering University of the Philippines Diliman Quezon City, Philippines [email protected]

Abstract — An increasing trend of transport woes have influenced commuters to query about past development plans undertaken for and by the government. With the understanding of the context, content and sequence of these plans, comes the trail of matters regarding what plans and projects have been implemented, what were shelved, and what were significantly delayed. It has often been said that history will eventually judge the actions made during a certain time. These actions, pertaining to the decisions made in the past led to transport programs, projects and policies that define conditions experienced by the transport users today. As to what extent the effect of such transport planning decisions are felt today is evidenced by the current situation of traffic and the frustration expressed by many that has translated into various advocacies to improve transport. This paper reviewed past transport studies and focused mainly on the assessment of proposed and implemented rail plans and projects from the 1970s to the 1990s. These past studies include the Urban Transport Study for the Metropolitan Area (UTSMMA, 1973), the Transport, Land Use and Development Planning Project (MMETROPLAN, 1977) and the Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study (MMUTIS). Sustainable transportation indicators were used to evaluate the aforementioned plans that cover the social, economic and environmental issues. Such plans and programs are related to those for road transport in the same studies. Among the findings are biases for road public transport, the weakening of the Philippine National Railways (PNR), and policies

that favored phasing out of the government-owned and operated Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC). These effectively led to the current state of public transport in the metropolis including what are perceived as too many bus operators and a proliferation of jeepneys and UV Express vehicles while rail network development is basically lagging. The paper shows how historical assessments would allow for a clearer and more objective appraisal of transport planning that can be used to address current concerns and planning for future needs.

Keywords — transport planning; history; sustainable transport

I. INTRODUCTION

Transportation planning, sometimes called transport planning, is a form of procedural discipline that deals with problem identification, development of alternatives, evaluation and decision-making, implementation of the best transport alternative and monitoring outcomes. There may have been variations of these series of steps but all of which generally follow the same principle — that is, to develop solutions to the problem and to decide which solution is best for implementation. In the United States, transport planning was only introduced in the 1960s after the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) integrated the process in its transport manuals. At present, the processes established by the USDOT for urban transport planning are categorized into three (3) phases [1]: (1) pre-analysis; (2) technical analysis; and (3) post analysis. Pre-analysis phase is composed of problem identification, formulation of goals and objectives, data collection, generation of alternatives, and definition of evaluation measures. Meanwhile, generation of transport and land use models is being employed in the technical analysis phase. Lastly, post analysis phase is concerned with the evaluation, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. It is apparent that although categorized in phases, it still follows the conventional idea of transport planning. History and its assessment can be employed as a tool for transport planning particularly in understanding issues in the past that led to certain decisions being made for or against specific programs and projects. The latter includes the identification and analysis of factors affecting transport planning that includes inputs like socio-economic and land use data. History can provide a unique perspective for transport planning and help establish context for addressing current issues including those that seem to persist over many years. Pante [2], for example, compared the urban transport systems in

colonial Manila and Singapore where he expounded on the relationship of technology and the prevailing social conditions in Manila and Singapore between 1900 and 1941 that led to the development of urban transport systems in these cities during that period. Meanwhile, Sartre [3] discussed both the pre-war and the more recent challenges to urban in Metro Manila and proposed criteria for good public transport. There is also the work by Iwata [4] who reviewed the history of public transportation in Manila from the Spanish colonial period to the early 1990s. The review provided insights to the development of road public transport modes such as paratransit that includes the ubiquitous .

II. OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to present ‘history’ as a tool for sustainable transport planning. In order to accomplish this, a review of past transport developments studies is presented. An assessment is made with focus on proposed and implemented rail plans and projects from the early 1970’s to late 1990’s. These plans and projects are evaluated in the context of sustainable transport.

III. TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROJECTS IN METRO MANILA

Recent history (i.e., the last 45 years) has yielded several major studies that aimed to develop transportation. Following is a review of three major studies conducted between the years 1970 and 2000. While there are many other studies during that 30-year period and beyond, these other studies mainly referred to these three.

A. UTSMMA The pioneering study was conducted under the Marcos administration with the intent of undertaking an urban transport study that would recommend plans and strategies to solve the foreseeable urban expansion and traffic congestion in the Manila Metropolitan Area (MMA). The two-year study, implemented from March 1971, was called Urban Transport Study in Manila Metropolitan Area (UTSMMA) and was completed in September 1973. The Japan Government commissioned the Overseas Technical Cooperation Agency (OTCA), which is the precursor of today’s Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), to execute the study. Generally, in every urban transportation planning process, the demography within the study area is carefully studied to assess the socioeconomic factors such as population, car ownership and occupation. These variables are essential for it

influences the way an individual makes his or her trips. In UTSMMA, the socioeconomic information of MMA population was represented by 6,185 households that were randomly sampled from 686,441 households living in the Manila Metropolitan Area at the time. From the results gathered, the Japanese survey team applied the concept of travel demand forecasting to estimate the traffic demand of MMA in 1987. The processes included trip production, trip generation and attraction, trip distribution, external traffic, modal split and traffic assignment. Initially, the study area was divided into fifty-one (51) internal zones and adjacent to it are the six (6) external zones. The first trip production was calculated by occupation and by car ownership from the results gathered in the person trip survey. The correspondence was multiplied to future population both for the original and alternative land use plans. This method classified the trips generated and attracted by trip purpose on a per zone basis. An Origin-Destination (OD) table of person trips was constructed based on the transition probability between trip purposes and gravity model was performed where the time distance was decided under certain conditions and its exponent was attributed to the trip purpose relating to the zone pairs. The 51 internal zones were re-divided into 15 sectors to ease computation and the result was done for the two cases of land use plans. Some factors were considered for external traffic before modal split was employed. Future OD table per mode of travel was calculated from the OD table of person trips. The travel mode was classified into four: drivers of cars and trucks (i.e., drivers), passengers of cars and trucks (i.e., passengers), taxi passengers (i.e., taxis) and mass transit. Lastly, traffic assignment was carried out to estimate the traffic volume for the proposed transport system (i.e., expressways and subways). Given an OD pair, the closest route was used and an all-or-nothing scenario was adopted. The value of the future number of passengers of railway established from the processes mentioned above was calculated to be 6,327,000 trips/day [5]. From the existing configuration of transportation network of Manila Metropolitan Area at the time, supplemented by the output derived from the travel demand forecasting, UTSMMA was able to propose a new transport system. With regard to rail transport, the proposal highlighted the need of a railway transport system that constituted the building of a five-line heavy rail transit system and improvement of Philippine National Railways. Brief descriptions of the proposed railway transport system are as provided in Table I and illustrated in Fig. 1:

TABLE I RAIL TRANSPORT PROJECTS PROPOSED UNDER UTSMMA Proposed Line Length Description from Construction Hill to Talon via central No. 1 27.1 km Quezon Boulevard, Manila downtown and the International Airport from Novaliches to Cainta via Manila No. 2 36.0 km downtown and Along Highway 54 (C-4): half a circle route No. 3 24.3 km about 12 km from Manila downtown

from to Zapote via Cubao, Manila No. 4 30.1 km downtown and the area

from Meycauayan to Manila downtown No. 5 17.6 km running between Line No. 2 and PNR from Bocaue to Muntinglupa via Tutuban PNR (improvement) 56.4 km Station

The analysis also estimated the future number of person trips shown in Table II that would be observed once the proposed railway system was completely constructed. Table III shows the construction costs that would cover the portions of structural works, track cost, building cost, electrical and mechanical facilities cost, side expenses and administration cost for each line. It can also be seen that the total distance of PNR improvement was underestimated and different compared to the preceding pages presented in UTSMMA. Meanwhile, the benefits that could be derived from the proposed railway system were tabulated in Table IV.

Fig. 1 Rapid rail transit network proposed by UTSMMA.

TABLE II ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PERSON TRIPS IN THE PROPOSED RAILWAY SYSTEM UNDER UTSMMA. Number of Person Trips Proposed Line (x1000 trips/day) No. 1 1,239 No. 2 1,208 No. 3 1,013 No. 4 1,052 No. 5 502 PNR (improvement) 1,314

TABLE III ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE PROPOSED RAILWAY SYSTEM UNDER UTSMMA. Total Cost Average Cost Proposed Line Length (Million PhP) (Million PhP/km) No. 1 27.1 km 2,340 86.4 No. 2 36.0 km 2,928 81.4 No. 3 24.3 km 3,032 124.8 No. 4 30.1 km 2,832 94.0 No. 5 17.6 km 1,168 66.2 PNR (improvement) 48.3 km 1,770 36.6

TABLE IV ESTIMATED BENEFIT COST FROM THE PROPOSED RAILWAY SYSTEM UNDER UTSMMA. Amount Benefits (Million PhP) Savings of travel time 36,347 Saving of investments for roads 4,770

Savings of investments for 15,265 buses and operating expenses

Increase of land use value 7,320

To enhance the reception of the proposal, a feasibility study, The Feasibility Study for Manila Railway Line No.1, was executed by JICA and was completed on June 1976. This study highlighted the projected traffic demand specifically for Line No. 1. The environmental impact assessment was also employed throughout the study as well as the analysis on the economic and financial implication for the construction of Line No. 1.

B. MMETROPLAN The Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and Development Planning Project (MMETROPLAN) was implemented from January 1976 to February 1977. It was funded by the World Bank (WB), which commissioned Freeman Fox and Associates to undertake the study with a counterpart team comprised of senior government officials dealing with transport at the time. The steering and technical working committees were comprised of officials and staff of the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications (DPWTC), Department of Public Highways (DPH), National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC), and Philippine National Railways (PNR). Resolving the current transport and planning problems paved the way for this study. Specifically, based on the cover letter, the objective was 'to arrive at a meaningful plan and program to guide transport investment and operations within the context of a rational land use pattern.' The output should yield maximum feasible economic growth, promotion of social development, more equitable distribution of income and wealth, maximum labor force utilization and preservation of environmental stability. Strategic recommendations for the planning of transport and urban development in Metropolitan Manila both in short (i.e., immediate action program) and longer term (i.e., long range transportation plan) were aimed to be

achieved through this project. It must be noted that short term transport actions are made to aid the present traffic situation to the 1980s, while the subsequent years to 1990s are the main timeframe for longer term transport actions. The analysis of urban development in MMETROPLAN included the forecast of population, employment and education for both short term (i.e., until 1980) and longer term (i.e., until 1990). Ten (10) sectors were grouped based from the traffic zones of MMA jurisdiction and other neighboring cities and municipalities outside of MMA. This projection was referred to as the Central Estimate. The estimate of population for the MMA jurisdiction was derived by examining the absolute increases in population, rate of growth, and increases in gross density while complemented with data on the amount of development, availability of land for new development, aerial photograph of each jurisdiction and site visit. On the other hand, a 4.7% average growth was determined to occur in the areas outside MMA from 1970-75 and that, the same percentage would take place from 1975-80. Estimation of employed persons per sector was calculated through a participation rate of 48% for population aged 10 and over and employed person by workplace covering the primary, secondary and tertiary increase of employment. The ratio of school attendance per 1000 people was obtained for MMA jurisdiction and the rest of the study area. These proportions were used to the expected increase of 1971-80 population. Resulting data were the future distribution of population, employment and education for 1980 and 1990 for MMA and areas outside MMA. The planning of transport was initiated with the formulation of a land use– transportation model — the model that defines certain relationship among the distribution of land use, the socio-economic characteristics of population and transport network to the travel behavior — that consists of two stages: calibration and forecasting of travel behavior. Five sub-models were classified for the calibration of the land use / transportation model, namely: household categorization, trip end estimation, trip distribution, modal choice, and trip assignment/capacity restraint. MMETROPLAN used the existing data obtained from the results of the 1971 person trip survey conducted in UTSMMA. Households were first characterized into 12 categories comprising combinations of two car-ownership groups (i.e., car-owning and non car-owning) and six household structures. Estimation of the number of households per category was employed for each zone. Trips generated and trips attracted were tallied per zone, and generation trip rates and attraction trip rates were applied. Trip distribution sub-model made use of the entropy maximizing method developed by A.G. Wilson, which utilizes generalized cost of travel between two zones to estimate the future trips [7]. Meanwhile, it was concluded that two modes of travel were to be used being car occupants and public transport passengers as

classifications. A modal split model was also formulated for this stage, which is dependent on the sensitivity of the modal split to changes in generalized cost between two modes and the modal handicap cost associated with public transport. An all-or-nothing assignment of trips was carried out for public transport passengers whereas taxi and truck users were extracted from the car occupants before assigning to the road network. A full land use / transportation model was formulated after the calibration, which is also referred to in the study as the Network Model. This model was used to forecast trips for the main corridors of movement. The results of the forecast were used for the Corridor Analysis Model, which was the ground support in examining the alternative policies and public transport infrastructure options. From the analysis, MMETROPLAN recommended strategies on cordon pricing, bus/jeepney lanes, and the conceptualization of an LRT system. The LRT system recommended was planned to be completed in the early 1980’s and it would be composed of a Central Area network and four (4) lines tracing along Rizal Avenue, España/Quezon Boulevard, Shaw Boulevard and Taft Avenue. Table V shows the proposed routes (i.e., A to E) and the distance traversed on the basis of the specified direction. Five routes were possible in the proposed railway network and could accommodate cycle times shown in Table VI. Cycle time in this sense is defined as the amount of time consumed when traveling back and forth for each route.

TABLE V DISTANCE OF EACH ROUTE OF THE LRT SYSTEM UNDER MMETROPLAN. Route Description Distance (km) Direction A Rizal - Taft 13.84 one-way Quezon (Ellipse) - Central - B 23.5 round trip Quezon (Ellipse) Quezon (Roosevelt) - Central - C 14.4 round trip Quezon (Roosevelt) D Shaw - Taft 11.6 one-way E Shaw - Rizal 15.0 one-way

TABLE VI DISTANCE OF EACH ROUTE OF THE LRT SYSTEM UNDER MMETROPLAN. Route Description Cycle Time (mins.) A Rizal - Taft - Rizal 105 B Quezon (Ellipse) - Central - Quezon (Ellipse) 90 Quezon (Roosevelt) - Central - Quezon C 60 (Roosevelt) D Shaw - Taft - Shaw 92 E Shaw - Rizal - Shaw 108

Fig. 2 shows the railway lines proposed under MMETROPLAN. Note the scaled down routes as well as these lines being referred to as instead of heavy rail.

Fig. 2 Routes for the proposed rail transit network by MMETROPLAN.

C. MMUTIS The Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study (MMUTIS) was the last comprehensive study conducted for Metro Manila. Funded by JICA prior to its update that was completed just last year. MMUTIS was implemented from March 1996 to March 1999 and came up with many recommendations to improve transport and , particularly a master plan for implementation in the next 15 years. Dr. Shizuo Iwata was chosen by JICA to be the head of the Study Team composed of technical staff from ALMEC Corporation, Pacific Consultants International and Yachiyo Engineering Co., Ltd. The implementing agency for MMUTIS

was the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) and the beneficiary agency was the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA). The study area was composed of the whole of Metro Manila and its neighboring provinces such as , Laguna, Rizal and Bulacan. The existing data was gathered from the comprehensive Household Interview Survey that acquires socioeconomic characteristics of the sample under consideration. The results were put together in a database for the formulation of the transportation demand models, namely: trip generation / attraction, modal split, trip distribution, demand shift and traffic assignment. Regression model for trip generation and attraction by trip purpose and car ownership was developed for the first model. Coefficient of correlation was computed for each function to determine the degree of dependence of the variables. Estimating the walk trips by zone and purpose was done followed by the calculation of private mode trips. The remaining trips were classified for the public mode. Trip distribution was carried out by developing the intrazonal and interzonal models. After which, the ability of private mode users to transfer to public mode when public transport becomes convenient was measured. Lastly, two models for traffic assignment were adopted, namely: highway-type assignment for private and public modes, and transit assignment for public mode and highway assignment for private mode. The traditional incremental assignment was used for the former while the latter was executed by the JICA’s developed model - the model that assigns routes for public transport that was affected by the fare system - in which the remaining trips were subjected to highway assignment [8]. After the transportation demand model was employed, the future traffic demand was finalized including the growth of trips by purpose, growth of trips by mode, growth of trips by zone and OD table. Demand and supply was also assessed to provide basis for the proposed projects covering all modes of land-based transport. Do-nothing situations were analyzed for both 1996 and 2015 that used the 1996 road network. On the other hand, do-committed situations were also investigated once the proposed networks have been completed [8]. Rail transport projects identified under MMUTIS include the following lines and facilities shown in Table VII.

TABLE VII PROPOSED RAIL TRANSPORT PROJECTS UNDER MMUTIS. Proposed Description Line 1 Extension or Line 6 The line will extend to Dasmariñas, Cavite in the south (30 km elevated). The line will extend to Antipolo in the east (12 km elevated) and to the west across Line 1 to the Port Area from where the line passes along Line 2 Extension Roxas Boulevard and Buendia to link and Fort Bonifacio (17 km underground). Then the line will further lead to Binangonan in the east (20 km elevated/at-grade). The line will extend to and Obando (16 km elevated) in the north across Line 1 and PNR. The line in the south will extend to the reclamation Line 3 Extension area across Line 1 and further extend to Kawit (15 km elevated/at-grade) in the south. The line will extend to San Mateo in the north via a branch line. In the city Line 4 center, instead of terminating on Recto Avenue, it can take over the extension portion of Line 2. A suburban commuter service will be provided between Malolos and (30 km at-grade). From there, the line links Fort Bonifacio (20 km North Rail and Extension underground) and extends to General Trias in the south (25 km underground/elevated/at-grade). A suburban commuter service will link Calamba with (28 km at- grade) from where the line will be elevated up to Paco (42 km). The line MCX and Extension will then proceed toward the north across EDSA (11 km underground) and further extend northward to San Jose del Monte (18 km elevated).

Fig. 3 Rail transit network proposed by MMUTIS.

IV. ASSESSMENT

A. Conflicts Among Studies In 1976, the World Bank published a report [9] that included criticisms on the plans laid out by UTSMMA. In the 44-page report, it elaborated on some of the major shortcomings of UTSMMA such as the assumption of having no limit in the resources that would be required, inconsistencies in the analysis, and the temporal quantification of costs and benefits. The report had recommendations that were not favorable to rail transport whether for long distance travel or urban applications. The same report strongly suggested for the government to consider light rail transit instead of the proposed heavy rail transit in UTSMMA. The WB report for urban transport opined that UTSMMA “does not provide an adequate basis for assessing either the social and economic benefits and costs of these proposals or their physical and financial feasibilities. By ignoring the constraints on resource availability for transport purposes, the study failed to establish even the scale of a feasible investment program, much less the priorities of its various elements.” [9] The WB report and its consultants seem to have gone out of their way to practically junk or discredit UTSMMA. It is not clear to us now if the people behind UTSMMA were given a chance to respond and if they did. At this time, there was a dearth in local transport planning and engineering expertise in the Philippines and government was highly dependent on foreign experts. One current opinion is that we now know that we should have implemented UTSMMA's recommended rail network and this could have revolutionized the way we commute today. The concerns in the WB report could have been addressed with a follow-up to UTSMMA to reinforce assumptions and analysis. MMETROPLAN continued where the WB report left off: “Heavy Rapid Transit (HRT) would provide public transport passengers with much faster journey, but by 1990 would attract only 2.5% of motorists and would have negligible impact on traffic congestion. Partly because of this and partly because of its very high capital cost, it would be hopelessly uneconomic: the annualized capital costs would be higher than the estimated benefits in 1990…passenger flows are not high enough to exploit its full capacity…and the large savings in time for public transport passengers are not given a high value in Manila, and are not high enough to persuade motorists to change mode. These results are conclusive, and are unlikely to be changed by any circumstances or reasonable assumptions…it is clear that any other fully segregated public transport system, whether light rail or busway, would also be uneconomic. As

such systems would require the appropriation of most, if not all, of the available funds for all transport (including highways) in Metro Manila for the foreseeable future, and as there is no other rationale for their implementation, they have been rejected from further consideration…” [6] This conclusion probably doomed heavy rail transport (i.e., UTSMMA’s proposed Rapid Transit Railway (RTR) network) and will have repercussions to the future of commuting in Metro Manila. The outlook mentioned was pessimistic and MMETROPLAN’s assumptions on mode share and efforts to rationalize road transport in relation to rail transport need to be evaluated. Data and other information will be required from other projects particularly Project 4 to determine the reasons behind this conclusion against heavy rail. Meanwhile, data for the years mentioned in MMETROPLAN may be evaluated to check whether certain assumptions were realized. One line of thinking, which is perceived to be the more progressive one that MMETROPLAN did not take, is that the construction of a heavy rail line back in the late 1970’s, which could have started operations around the time LRT Line 1 became operational. If this were implemented, it could have changed the way people commute in Metro Manila. This is because an efficient mode of transport could have influenced commuter preferences and therefore trip patterns. Follow-up heavy rail lines could have reinforced this change in trip-making characteristics, and commuting could have evolved to be more dependent on rail than road along high travel demand corridors. Certainly, the 2.5% share by 1990 mentioned by MMETROPLAN could be hurdled if full support were given to the development of heavy rail lines along with the upgrading of PNR. Nevertheless, it may also be of consideration to state that interventions would also have been required to rationalize (e.g., reroute and reduce) road public transport modes to complement the rail network that could have been constructed.

B. Master Plan Development and Updating Although UTSMMA’s rail transit system is arguably the first transport master plan to be developed from the 1970’s, it was not adopted by the Philippine government. Instead, the transport plan recommended by MMETROPLAN can be considered as the first accepted comprehensive transport master plan. Subsequent projects in the 1980’s including Metro Manila Urban Transportation Strategy and Planning Project (i.e., MMUTSTRAP, conducted from November 1982 to April 1983) and JICA Update on Manila Study on Urban Transport (i.e., JUMSUT 1 conducted from November 1982 to March 1984 and JUMSUT 2 conducted from June 1984 to March

1985) sought to update this master plan with a major comprehensive ‘update’ being the MMUTIS in 1999. It is important to note though that plan formulation and updates have been undertaken for the most part under foreign assisted projects rather than by the Philippine government. Despite the fact that there were inter-agency steering and technical committees created for these projects, it cannot be denied that foreign consultants have had a significant influence in transport master plan formulation. Even this can have varying implications according to the international agency or institution that supported or financed the project. UTSMMA was financed by the precursor of JICA, MMETROPLAN was funded by the WB, MMUTSTRAP was by AusAID, while MMUTIS was supported by JICA. Each agency would likely have their own agenda for pushing certain projects or programs. These can be determined from an examination of past studies, and help in compiling lessons that can be learned from these engagements.

C. Deviations from the Plan Through the past three and a half decades, there have been deviations, minor and major, from the master plans that have developed with assistance from foreign countries and involving foreign consultants. If there is one lesson in sustainability here it is that the country needs to develop both capacity and capability to formulate transport plans and programs, and be able to implement these with minimal delay. Studies supporting bus rapid transit (BRT) lines for Metro Manila, for example, can be considered among these as government planners recently came to appreciate the practicality of BRT in terms of cost and construction time. MMUTIS, for example, mentioned several railway lines in its master plan. The alignments of these lines including the endpoints have changed particularly in the case of the present MRT 3 that spans from Taft to North Avenue. In the MMUTIS’ version, MRT/Line 3 was supposed to be traversing from Taft and would extend farther than its current North Avenue station until it reaches the Monumento area meeting the northernmost station of Line 1. Another observation is that even the number designations can be changed. For example, MRT 4 in MMUTIS was to serve the corridor between Recto and Batasan (and eventually Novaliches), which consists of Espana Avenue, Quezon Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue. This MRT 4 is now known by two other line variations: MRT 7 along Commonwealth, and MRT 9 along Espana and Quezon Avenue. There is even an MRT 6 that deviates from Quezon Avenue towards West Avenue and terminates at the SM North-TriNoma area. Meanwhile, MMUTIS’ version of Line 6 was to provide a mass transit system between the center of Metro Manila and Cavite, by constructing

a railway line between Baclaran and (and eventually Dasmariñas). Although this is likely to push through as LRT/Line 6 was approved last year by NEDA for implementation, this is not entirely correct in the sense that a part of it is now known as the Line 1 Cavite Extension Project (CEP). MCX was to serve the strong north- south transport demand along the PNR ROW in the south and connecting with the then proposed North Rail. MCX is now part of the PPP package for a north-south commuter line project that seeks to rehabilitate the existing PNR facilities. North Rail has been repackaged several times in the last 15 years with the current version being an express rail system to Clark International Airport.

D. Sustainable Transport If one is to assess past transport plans in the context of environmentally sustainable transport (EST) then it is essential to understand EST and how past plans measure up if they were implemented. EST can be defined according to the thematic areas under it. These thematic areas are:

1) Public health 2) Social equity and gender perspective 3) Roadside air quality monitoring and assessment 4) Traffic noise assessment 5) Vehicle emission control, standards, and inspection and maintenance 6) Cleaner fuels 7) Public transport planning and travel demand management 8) Non-motorized transport 9) Environment and people friendly infrastructure development 10) Land use planning 11) Road safety and maintenance 12) Knowledge base, awareness and public participation

Railways as proposed from the 1970’s to the present would have been able to cover most of these thematic areas and not just the one pertaining to public transport planning. Mass transit systems would have cross-cutting impacts on other aspects of transport, influencing land development, providing equitable options for travel, and promoting sustainability with reduced emissions, improved mobility and safer roads. A co-benefits approach can also be employed in assessing the impacts of transport systems to air quality, fuel consumption, safety, traffic congestion, noise and others. Rail transit systems, if they were implemented according to plans, could have significantly contributed to the improvement of air quality and the reduction of fuel

consumption as there could have been less road vehicle traffic with private and road public transport users using and shifting to rail transport modes. Evidence for co benefits as basis for stating that rail transport systems could have significant positive impacts may be found in studies on low carbon transport systems such as one for the Philippines by Regidor and Javier [10].

V. CONCLUSION

This paper reviewed three major transport development studies for Metro Manila – UTSMMA, MMETROPLAN and MMUTIS. It is clear from the previous sections that conflicting analysis and opinions among the studies and deviations from plans for one reason or another have combined to give us the current state of public transportation. The latest update to the master plan developed 36 years ago (if we consider MMETROPLAN instead of UTSMMA as the baseline) is from the MMUTIS Update and Capacity Enhancement Project (MUCEP), which also served as the basis for JICA’s Dream Plan for . The evolution of rail transport plans for Metropolitan Manila has already been taken on by Jose, et al. [11] and the paper presented at the recent EASTS 2015 conference includes maps showing the changes in the plans over the years. These visualizations of the historical development of railway plans allow us to appreciate how rail transit plans have evolved in the last three and a half decades. These also help as guides for the formulation and evaluation of counterfactual ‘what if’ scenarios concerning such plans. Interesting counterfactual scenarios involve the modern urban transport network that Metro Manila could have had if rail projects were implemented according to the recommendations of past studies, regardless of whether these were heavy or light rail lines. These would have been beneficial to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. Such counterfactuals are essential for current planners and officials to appreciate the gravity of the situation where Metro Manila has a backlog of urban transport projects. While it is easy to be tempted to play the blame game, fault-finding is an inevitable outcome of employing history as a tool towards more effective transport planning. However, it is important to emphasize that fault-finding must be constructive and in the context of seeking solutions for transport problems rather than simply identifying and blaming personalities for what can be perceived as their contributions to transport problems brought about by decisions made under circumstances or conditions that there is often limited information about.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper is made possible through the support of an Emerging Inter-Disciplinary Research (EIDR) Grant from the University of the Philippines System.

REFERENCES

[1] R.A. Johnston, “The urban transportation planning process,” In S. Hansen, & G. Guliano (Eds.), The Geography of Urban Transportation, pp. 115-138, The Guilford Press, in press. [2] M.D. Pante, “Mobility and modernity in the urban transport systems of colonial Manila and Singapore,” Journal of Social History, vol. 47, Number 4, pp. 855-877, Summer 2014, in press. [3] G.L. Sartre, “The Metro Manila LRT system – a historical perspective,” Japan Railway and Transport Review, vol. 16, pp. 33-37, June 1998, in press. [4] S. Iwata, “Development of public transportation in Metro Manila,” Proceedings of the First Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines, Manila Hotel, July 30-31, 1993, in press. [5] Government of Japan. Overseas Technical Cooperation Agency. Urban Transport Study in Manila Metropolitan Area. Final Report. 1973. [6] World Bank. MMETROPLAN Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and Development Planning Project, Final Report Main Volume. 1977. [7] World Bank. MMETROPLAN Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and Development Planning Project, Final Report Volume - II. 1977. [8] Government of Japan. Japan International Cooperation Agency. Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study. Final Report. 1999. [9] World Bank. Transport Planning in the Philippines. 1976. [10] J.R.F. Regidor and S.F.D. Javier, “Long term strategies for low carbon transport systems in the Philippines,” Proceedings of the 7th ASEAN Environmental Engineering Conference, Puerto Princesa City, November 21-22, 2014, in press. [11] R. Jose, D. Mabazza, J.R. Regidor, M.S. Lagman and J. Villasper, “Planning Metro Manila’s mass transit system,” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Cebu City, September 11-13, 2015, in press.