ANNEX D Records on Study Tour to Japan

Home , Haneda Airport, Hanoi Metro, Keikyu, Keio Inokashira Line, Minatomirai Line, Namboku Line (Kobe)

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

1. Itinerary of Study Tour to Japan

Beginning Ending Date Program Accommodation Time Time Manila to Haneda (Tokyo) 14:35 19:05 23-Aug Sun (Flight No.: NH870) Tokyo 21:45 - Check in at hotel 10:30 11:30 Courtesy Call to JICA Courtesy Call to MLIT (Presentations about Overview of Japanese Urban Railway and 14:00 15:30 Integrated Policy for Urban 24-Aug Mon Development and Transportation in Tokyo Japan) Discussion with Prof. Morichi, National Graduate Institute for 16:20 18:00 Policy Studies (Lecture on Urban Transport Policy in Asia) – Data 1 Site Visit: Tokyo Metro Co. Ltd. (Counter Disaster Measures, Rail/Non-Rail Operation, 25-Aug Tue 9:45 17:30 Operation & Maintenance, Tokyo Organization, Operation Center, Training Center, Depot) – Data 2 Site Visit: Tokyo Monorail 9:15 10:45 – Data 3 26-Aug Wed Site Visit: Shinjuku Station Multi Tokyo 14:30 16:00 Modal Transit Hub Construction Site Tokyo to Osaka 9:10 11:40 (Travel by Shinkansen) Site Visit: Mitsubishi Electric 27-Aug Thu 13:00 14:30 Osaka Factory 15:40 17:00 Site Visit: Kinki Sharyo Factory Site Visit: Osaka Station 28-Aug Fri 10:00 11:30 Osaka Non-Rail Business Kansai to Manila 29-Aug Sat 9:55 13:00 - (Flight No.: PR407)

Annex-D - 1 Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

2. List of Participants

Name Designation, Division and Organization Supervising Transport Development Officer, Mr. Rafael E. Peñafiel Rail Transport Planning Division, Department of Transportation and Communications, DOTC Engineer I, Office of the Director for Mr. Joseph Ishmael P. Ferrer Project Development Service, DOTC Engineer I, Office of the Director for Ms. Mikaela Eloisa D. Mendoza Project Development Service, DOTC Project Manager, UPMO-Bilateral Cluster, Mr. Alex G. Bote Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Mr. Elmo F. Atillano Engineer IV, PPD-Planning Service, DPWH OIC-Director, Office of the Assistant General Ms. Maripin Jacinto Faulan Manager for Planning, Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Chief, Planning and Design Division, Mr. Emilio M. Llavor Traffic Engineering Center, MMDA Project Manager IV, Project Management Mr. Tomas Y. Macrohon Department, Bases Conversion and Development Authority Economic Development Specialist I, Infrastructure Mr. Jayzon P. Mag-atas Staff, National Economic and Development Authority Planning Officer III, Bilateral Assistance Division of Ms. Megan T. Barte International Finance Group, Department of Finance Ms. Leah Penarroyo Senior Program Officer, JICA Philippines Office

Annex-D - 2 Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

Data 1

Presentation Material by Prof. Morichi (GRIPS)

Urban Transport Policy in Asia

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Prof. Ｄｒ．Shigeru MORICHI Academic Societies Academic Fellow, Professor : GRIPS National Graduate Institute for Policy Study • Former President of Director of Policy Research Center Japan Society of Traffic Engineers Former Program Director of Development Policy • Former President of Former Program Director of Disaster Management Policy Japan Society of Civil Engineers Former President, Institute for Transport Policy Studies • Former President of EASTS-Japan Professor Emeritus : Tokyo Institute of Technology • Former President of EAST : Professor Emeritus : Tokyo University East Asian Society for Transportation Studies • Former Board Member of • Birth Place & Date : Kyoto City September 29, 1943 Japan Society of Transportation Economics • Education : Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tokyo University, 1966 • Former Board Member of • Academic Degree : Doctor of engineering, Japan Society of Urban Planning Tokyo University, 1974 1 ２

Government Council（-2010.2） Chairman of Planning Committees Council for National Development Plan: Vice Chairman in foreign countries the Planning Committee ： Chairman • High speed railway projects Council for Infrastructure Policy： Vice Chairman the Division for Research & Development ： Chairman in Malaysia(1980’s), Viet-Nam(2011-4), the Division for Road Policy ： Vice Chairman India(2014-), and Indonesia(2014-), the Committee for Basic Issues ： Chairman Council for Transport Policy • National-wide comprehensive transportation plan the Division for Research & Development ： Chairman the Division for Railway Policy ： Chairman in Pakistan(1980’s), and the Division for Port Policy ： Vice Chairman Vietnam(VITRANSS 1 : 1998-2000) Council for Transport System in Kanto Region : Chairman (VITRANSS 2 : 2005-06) -2015 • Urban transportation plan • Council for National Resilience in Lahore, Pakistan(1980’s), Manila (1994-5), and • Committee on Airport Management against Earthquakes and Tsunamis Ho Chi Minh(2002-3) • Council for Urban Planning in Yokohama City : Chairman • Founding project of the Hanoi Metro(2013-) ３４ Contents Urban Transport Policy in Asia 1. Introduction 2. Urban Transport in Asia Lecture for 2.1 Typical Characteristics of Asian Megacities the high government officials of the Philippines 2.2 Urban Structure 2.3 Car Ownership and Road Transport Aug. 24, 2015 2.4 Public Transport 2.5 Conclusion 3. The Transport Policy in Japan Prof. Dr. Shigeru MORICHI 4. Conclusion Director, Policy Research Center Appendix : Urban Railway Network Improvement National Graduate Institute and Terminal Renovation

for Policy Studies (GRIPS) S.MORICHI 2

1. Introduction Thai Transport Policies that bought International Impacts Japanese Railway Policies that bought International Impacts ① Meter Taxi : Deregulation brought the service improvement ① High Speed Railway : Shinkansen ② BOT Railway in Bangkok ② Airport Access Railway : Monorail for Haneda Airport Successful Sky Rail Project and Failure of SRT Project ③ Privatization of Japan National Railway ③ High Fare for Urban Railway : ④ Urban Railway service in Tokyo Higher fare of urban railway than the existing public ・ Hierarchical Network of Urban Railway transport and getting the high income passengers ・ High density of Urban Railway Network ・ High Frequency Operation of Trains Important information for other Asian Megacities ・ Direct Operation of Trains between Different Lines ・ Transit Oriented Development Requirements for Asian Megacities S.MORICHI 3 S.MORICHI 4 2. Urban Transport in Asia 2. 1 Typical Characteristics of Asian Megacities World 30 Largest Metropolitan Areas Difference from metropolitan areas in US & Europe Location of Mega-cities (1950) ① Economic growth and urbanization : Urbanized density ・ Huge size of mega‐cities ・ Rapid growth of population and car ownership ・ 2 mil Mono‐centric city structure 5 mil ・ Weak land‐use control and 10 mil Population Mixed land‐use Metropolitan Areas  In 1950, only 7 cities from Asia ② Transport infrastructure and services with Population >5 mil (2010) Public Transport modal share ・ Hierarchically unbalanced road networks M. Manila (1996) Jakatra (2000) ・ Higher share of public transport Seoul (2000) ・ Rapid motorization Taipei (2002) Tokyo MA (1998) ・ Lack of inter‐modal coordination Bangkok (2003) London (1996) ・ Higher traffic accidents New York (1996) Los Angeles (1996)

S.MORICHI 5 S.MORICHI 0 204060806 6  Out of 52, 27 cities from Asia Percentage

2.2 Urban Structure Urban Structure and Transport: Mono‐centric urban form City-size distribution  In Asia, over‐concentration in capital city Seoul core: Area: 606 sq km 18 7 10 16 6 9 14 8 Pop: 10.3 mil 5 12 Germany 7 France 6 10 USA 4 5 8 3 4 6 2 3 4 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 Tokyo core: City Population (million) 12345678910 12345678910 12345678910 Metro Manila (core) City Rank Area: 616 sq km 35 7 Area: 637 sq km 10 30 6 Pop: 8.1 mil Asian Megacities: Pop: 10.1 mil 25 8 5 Thailand 20 Japan 6 Korea 4 •High‐density core  Mono‐centric 15 3 4 Bangkok core 10 2 •In 14‐16 km radius, 8‐10 mil pop 2 5 1 Area: 600Pathum sq km Thani 0 0 0 hom 12345678910 12345678910 12345678910 Pop: 4.5 mil Nonthaburi 10 12 Bangkok MA 8 10 Legends 8 6 Population Philippines 6 Indonesia 4 Samut Prakan 4 Expected Pop. Shanghai core: Jabotabek core: mut Sakhom 2 2 (Rank-size rule) Area: 812 sq km K 0 0 Area: 664 sq km S.MORICHI Data: United Nations (2003) 7 7 S.MORICHI Km 8 12345678910 12345678910 Pop: 10.1 mil Pop: 8.7 mil Population Decentralization: possible spatial patterns Car2.3 Carownership Ownership trend and Road（1980-2004 Transport） 300 •Car‐oriented sprawl 275  Undesirable ! 250 225 Tokyo-to 200 Taipei 175 Low density dispersion Seoul population 150 Bangkok 125 •Public‐transport oriented poly‐ 1000 centric form ／ 100 Jakarta car Mono‐centric  Desirable! 75 50 Or Transit corridor with Shanghai 25 M. Manila weak centers 0

0 4 8 0 4 8 0 2 4 Poly‐centric decentralization 8 8 9 0 S.MORICHI 9 98 99 S.MORICHI99 00 10 1 1982 19 1986 19 1 1992 1 1996 19 200 20 2

GDP per capita and city‐level car ownership rate GRP per capita Vs car ownership rate: Selected metropolitan areas (2002~04) 300 Tokyo-to In general, 250 Bangkok Taipei income growth Seoul 900 Atlanta increases car Jakarta 800 200 Rome Houston 700 ownership rate

150 600 Frankfurt

500 New York 100  Higher car ownership Paris 400 rate in developing London Manila Athens Tokyo megacties for given GDP 300 Bangkok 50 Taipei Car per 1000population per Car per capita level 200 JKT BJG Seoul Shanghai Singapore 0 100 MNL Hong Kong

No of cars per 1000 population 1000 No per of cars Shanghai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 102030405060 PPP $ (Constant 2000 price) GRP per capita ('000 US $) Data source: STREAM Study compilation from various sources S.MORICHI 11 S.MORICHI 12 GRP per capita Vs car ownership rate: Alternative paths for Asian Dev’ping cities? Selected metropolitan areas (2002~04) Different US cities European cities patterns by Developed Asian Developing Asian regions! 900 Atlanta Houston 800 Rome Path of US cities? 700 Frankfurt 600 Road oriented: Los Angeles Paris New York 500 Path of EU cities? London 400 Athens Tokyo BKK Taipei 300 Path of developed JKT BJG Seoul 200 Singapore Asian cities? MNL Hong Kong 100 Shanghai

No of cars per 1000 population 1000 No per of cars 0 0 102030405060

GRP per capitaS.MORICHI ('000 US $) 13 S.MORICHI 14 Data source: STREAM Study compilation from various sources Rail oriented: Tokyo

Motorcycle ownership, 2004 Road Space in Selected Cities 2004 M. Manila Area Pop. Road Area (Km2) Density Tokyo Km2 % (city Per/ha area) Shanghai City of Paris 105 202 27 25.8 Bangkok New York City 678 112 210 25.2 Inner London (12 boroughs) 589 72 96 16.4 Taipei Inner Tokyo (8 wards) 110 121 24 21.7 Jakarta Tokyo 23-wards 621 131 114 18.1 Seoul City 605 168 80 13.3 HCMC Taipei City Inner Core 134 197 20 14.9 Shanghai City Inner Core 108 378 13 12.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Units/1000 population Bangkok City Core 225 96 16 7.2 Data source: STREAM study, 2006 Jakarta City 656 133 48 7.3 Rapid growth in motorcycle ownership Data source: STREAM Study compilation Pressure of motorization at early stage Asian Megacities •In adequate road Impact on environment and safety • Inefficient road hierarchy

S.MORICHI 15 S.MORICHI 16 Average Speed of Road Traffic Bangkok Policy Response to Congestion 

NewYork Build Expressway Paris

London Jakarta Tokyo

Mumbai

Shanghai Jakarta Shanghai Manila

Bangkok

0 1020304050 Data source: UITP (2001) Km/hour Result  severe traffic congestion ! S.MORICHI 17 S.MORICHI 1818

Some cities have developed Toll ways rapidly… Under rapid motorization challenging accident dynamics Km Trend of Toll ways development Japan: # of death : from 16765人(1970) to 4411人(2012) 500 # of cars : 79,620,000 Shanghai road traffic accident death in Japan # of death / 10,000 cars 400 18 100 00 = 0.556 16 90

Number of death vehicles 300 14 80 2018 Target 70 12 人 (thousand) 60 2500 /year 200 10 Jabotabek 50 death/10000 • How to avoid Bangkok

death 8

(Jakarta) of

of the peaking of 6 100 30 No fatalities? M. Manila 4 Number of death per 20

Number 2 10,000 vehicles 10 • Possibility of 0 0 0 stabilizing total Source: Bureau of Statistics, Japan 5 0 fatalities earlier? 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 75 80 955 990 Data source: STREAM Study compilation 19501 1960196 197019 19 19851 S.MORICHI 19 1995S.MORICHI200 2005 20 Thailand: following Japanese pattern? CO2 Emission by transport mode: Japan and US Trend of road traffic accident in Thailand Notes: Air 18 20 16 Number of 18 •Motorcycles Japan 14 death 16 included in Urban Rail 14 vehicles pop US

12 vehicles 12 10 •Vehicle population Urban Bus 10 8 (thousand) over‐estimate 8 6 Car death/10000 6 •Is it possible to death

Number of death per of

of 4 10,000 vehicles achieve Japanese No 2 2 rate of 0.56 death 0 50 100 150 200 0 0 Data source: 運輸。交通と環境（２００７）;

Number per 10000 M.J. Bradley (2007) Co2 g/pass‐km 3 3 97 991 001 vehicles? 1 199 1995 19 1999 2 200 Significant difference in urban public transport modes: why? Due to Data source: National Office of Statistics, Thailand Japan # of cars : 79,620,000 different urbanized density and public transport ridership? # of death / 10,000 S.MORICHIcars = 0.556 21 S.MORICHI 22

Role of Public Transport2.4 Public Transport Modal split （１９９８～２００４）

•Toward better transport service that is.. Taipei Car Motorcycle Bus Rail Others ‐ Accessible and Efficient (Economically efficient) Tokyo ‐ Clean and healthy (Environmentally sound) ‐ Safe, Affordable, Inclusive (Socially acceptable) Seoul Shanghai Diverse modes in Asia Bangkok Car Motorcycle Bus Jakarta Car Bus M. Manila Others（Jeepney） HCMC Motorcycle

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 出所： Compilation by STREAM Study (2006)

S.MORICHI 2323 Developing cities：Bus & Para‐transitS.MORICHI main modes for Public Trans. 2424 Trends of public transport mode share Asian megacities: breeding ground for Public ％ 90 Transport reform Seoul Examples: 80 Manila 70 Jakarta • Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul: Extensive MRT 60 network • Taipei, Shanghai, Beijing, Bangkok: 50 Tokyo MA Taipei 40 Rapid expansion of MRT network 30 • Seoul, Taipei: Innovative bus reform 20 Bangkok • Jakarta: introduction of BRT System 10 0 BRT for Asian megacities 5 1 74 • Low‐cost alternative for MRT?? 1965 1968 1971 19 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 199 1998 200 2004 • Capacity and road space issue Note: Walking & bicycle not included In general, public Transport mode share on declining trend • BRT Vs MRT  BRT + MRT S.MORICHI 2525 S.MORICHI 26

Miss understandings for LRT and BRT in Asian Mega‐cities Policy experience: Bus reform Bus reform in Seoul and Taipei: • LRT and BRT could not cover the huge demand Common features Not for trunk corridor, only for feeder lines •Comprehensive reform: modernization, Median bus‐lane, IC‐ ex. Failure in Manila ticketing, fare and service integration with MRT, fare‐discount for three hours waiting time for LRT 3 transfer (distance‐based fare) • Improvement in service and ridership, Differences:

• Required MRT in mega‐cities Taipei Seoul ex. Yamanote Line in Tokyo ; Reform through gradual process Reform through major intervention ・ The capacity of one vehicles ; 250 persons Ownership and operation largely by Public-private partnership in private sector; regulation by public management and operation, ・ 11 vehicles in one train sector significant role of public sector ・ Frequency ; every 2minutes operation No direct subsidy (indirect cross- Significant financial burden on subsidy from MRT for fare discount) public sector (direct subsidy)

S.MORICHI 27 S.MORICHI 28 Public Transport Fare for a 10 km one‐way trip (2007) Comparison of Taxi and MRT Fares (US$) 2007 Number of passenger Taxi MRT Fare Tokyo Ratio to make taxi ride cheaper Jakarta* 0.42 0.37 1.14 2 persons Seoul MRT Manila 0.75 0.26 2.92 3 persons Bus Singapore Bangkok 1.10 0.44 2.50 3 persons Taipei Shanghai 1.45 0.40 3.63 4 persons Singapore 1.63 0.45 3.59 4 persons Bangkok Hongkong 1.92 0.51 3.74 4 persons Shanghai  Tokyo, Seoul, M. Manila: MRT Seoul 2.00 0.95 2.11 3 persons and Bus fares are harmonized Jakarta Taipei 2.12 0.61 3.50 4 persons New York 2.50 2.00 1.25 2 persons M. Manila  Bangkok and Shanghai: Bus fare much less than MRT Frankfurt 2.70 2.25 1.20 2 persons HCMC Rome 3.15 1.36 2.31 3 persons London 4.37 3.03 1.44 2 persons 0 50 100 150 200 Tokyo 5.78 1.40 4.13 5 persons (not allowed !) Data: STREAM Study compilation Japanese Yen Paris 7.02 1.91 3.68 4 persons

Note: Bus fare is for Air‐conditioned bus; LRT in S.MORICHIM. Manila and BRT in Jakarta are considered as MRTs.29 29 *BRT S.MORICHI 30

Timing of subway opening: Income stage Timing of subway opening: City population Opening year of the first subway and income per capita City population and opening year of the first subway 16000 Taipei 12000 Europe/US Europe/US Calcutta CIS/East Europe CIS/East Europe 12000 Asia Shanghai Asia 8000 Latin America/Africa Latin America/Africa Beijing Teharan 8000 Seoul Bangkok Bangkok

Teharan 4000 4000 Tokyo Paris Shanghai Paris London Seoul Taipei Budapest London Tokyo Beijing Calcutta

GDP per capita (1990 PPP $) PPP (1990 GDPcapita per 0 Budapest City population ('000City population persons) 0 1850 1900 1950 2000 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year of sub-way (first) operation Data source: OECD (2003); http://osamuabe.ld.infoseek.co.jp Year of sub-way (first) operation S.MORICHI 31 S.MORICHI 32 Timing for improving public transport Timing of transit investment and ridership trend Timing of MRT Taipei：Investment not 80 Taipei 3 development: to too late maintain the Ridership  Ridership regained 60 high share of 2 public transport 10 US cities 25 40 mode 8 20 Ridership 1

Multiple timing indicators Km MRT Route, 20 MRT Route, Indicators Right timing when…. 6 15 Km Ridership: mill pass/day mill Ridership: Income high enough for charging reasonable fare 4 0 10 0 Car ownership not too high to ensure good patronage 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005年 Population high enough for threshold demand volume 2 Transit 5

Investment pass/year bil Ridership, Urban density Not too low for required passenger density US：Late investment Transit investment (bil 2002 US$) (bil investment Transit 0 0  Timing should be decided considering the state of 1925 1950 1975 2000年  only marginal gain in all indicators ! S.MORICHI 33 S.MORICHI ridership 3434

1.5 Conclusion Modal share is still high in Asian Megacities, however it is going down. What are key issues ?

1. Without Railway, with BRT and with LRT, it is impossible to manage the transport in Asian Megacities. 2. Hierarchy railway network is required in future for megacities as same as road network. 3. Profitability of railway operators is required for the Innovation of service and technology. 4. The fare of Bus and para‐transit have to be compatible to railway. Bangkok case is remarkable for successful higher fare. 5. The timing of investment for urban railway is important, however the master plan should be prepared at early stage. The master plan of urban railway network in Tokyo in early1960’s. S.MORICHI 35 S.MORICHI 36 36 Published in July 2012. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Urban Transport in Asia 3. The Transport Policy in Japan 3.1 Examples of Intercity Transport Policies 3.2 Examples of Urban Public Transport Policy 1) Profitability of Urban Railway 2) Urban railway network 3） Multimodal Policy 4) Coordination between transport and urban planning 4. Conclusion Appendix : Urban Railway Network Improvement and Terminal Renovation S.MORICHI 37 S.MORICHI 38

3. Transport Policy in Japan New Policies for Better Connectivity, Service and Safety 1950’s ・ Expansion of Capacity and Network (Railway, Road, Port, Airport) ・ Financial Scheme / Transport rerated organizations 2005: The Law for Urban Railway Improvement ・ Start of Expressway & Shinkansen projects : The Law of Passenger Information for Foreign Travelers 1960’s ・ Urban expressway 2006: The Law of Universal Design ・ Improvement of Terminal (Rail, Bus) ① Accessible and Usable Building Law ・ Horizontal Division of Rail and Road ② ・ Direct Operation between Subway and Suburban Rail etc. Barrier Free Transport Law 1970’s ③ Transfer Service Improvement ・ New Transportation Systems 2007： The Law for improvement of Regional Public Transport ・ Transportation System Management : The Law for Regional Infrastructure Improvement ・ Rail –Bus Transfer Terminal, etc. 1980’s 2008: The Law for Regional Railway ・ Transportation Demand Management 2009: The Law for Safety of Taxi ( Improvement of Deregulation Policy ) ・ Privatization of Japan National Railway 2010: The Law against Tsunami Disaster 1990’s 2013： The Law for Earthquake‐proof buildings and infrastructures ・ Public –Private –Partnership ・ Incentive Scheme for Private Railway 2014：The law for Compact City under declining population 2000’s : The Basic Law for Transportation ・ Coordination Scheme for Transport Industries S.MORICHI 39 ： the Law for support for ForeignS.MORICHI Transport and Urban Development40 40 3.1 Examples of Intercity Transport Policies Port Railway: Successful policy : High speed railway (Shinkansen) Successful policy : Location of industries in each region Privatization of JNR Investment for local ports Airport access railway Failure policy : Decentralization of port authority Failure policy : Provincial railway investment Efficiency of port management and labor union Cross subsidy between HSR and Local lines Airport Road : Successful policy : Investment scheme for airports Successful policy : Toll road network Relocation of airports for jet planes Financial scheme Failure policy : Delay of Narita airport Special account and toll road Location of Kansai airport Transport safety ITS Failure policy : Two lane expressway S.MORICHI 41 S.MORICHI 42

3.2 Examples of Urban Public Transport Policy How does the TMA Achieve Modal share in selected metropolitan cores (trip based) High Modal Split for Public Transport? All purpose‐ all modes All purposePrivate‐ motorized modesPublic only Car Bus Rail Bicycle Walk Others City of Paris (2008) ① High Railway Network is Constructed before Moralization City of Paris (2008) Inner London(2006) ② Inner London(2006) Railway Oriented High Density Urban Development New York City (2008) New York City (2008) ③ Role of Private Railway Companies Tokyo 23 ‐Ku (2008) Tokyo 23‐Ku (2008) (Coordinating Transport and Land Use) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Modal share Modal share ④ New Town Development (Rail Transit Oriented) Commuting‐ all modes Commuting‐ motorized modes only City of Paris (2008) City of Paris (2008) ⑤ Direct Railway Operation between Suburban Railway and Inner London(2006) Inner London(2006) Subways New York City (2008) New York City (2008) ⑥ Circular Line Connecting Terminal Stations Tokyo 23‐Ku (2008) Tokyo 23 ‐Ku (2008) ⑦ Hierarchical Urban Railway Network 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Modal share Modal share Data source: person trip survey from respective publicS.MORICHI agencies; Data year is indicated in the parenthesis S.MORICHI 44 after the name of each city; For Paris, Rail also includes Bus 43 1) Profitability of Urban Railway Major policy issues in US and EU : • Subsidy for Subway Benchmark regulation to improve the efficiency of railway operators Japan : 50% of Subway Construction Cost Expansion of network through public investment (25% Government, 25% Local Government) Better service and fare through government efforts No subsidy for operation cost US & EU : 100% of Construction Cost Major policy in Japan : 20‐80% of Operation Cost Incentives for railway operators Private railway operators and operators by Local governments • Profitability make efforts for better service under the competition Except Japan, Only Taipei : profitable for operation cost Only profitable operators can innovate the railway system Railway operators in Tokyo enjoy the profitability R&D, Expansion of network, Improvement of System, etc (At the first stage not profitable ) To keep the future profitability • Only the profitable railway companies Organization, Management, Efficient technology, Subsidy, innovate the system, technology and service. Suitable fare level, Consistency between rail and Unprofitable company cannot take the risk to change the system. urban development, etc • All railway operators in Tokyo enjoy the profitability. S.MORICHI 45 S.MORICHI 46

Operational characteristics of selected subway systems (2005) Financial Resources for Public Transport

London and Related Key Issues

1 Taipei

Tokyo Seoul New York Tokyo Seoul ① Fare Toei SMRT 2 Metro Metro ② Cross Subsidy ・・・ Operators’ Initiative Route (km) 183 109 135 152 67 408 371 ③ Value Capture Regulators’ Role Passengers ④ Subsidy ・・・・・・Public Sector’s Decision (mil/year) 2,110 761 1,440 819 361 971 1449 ⑤ PPP Scheme Pass/km/day (1000 32 19 29 15 15 7 11 ・ Limited Successful Projects persons) ・ Failure of Public and Private Sectors Revenue /cost 1.29 1.07 0.74 0.55 1.07 0.59 0.51 ・ Competitiveness of Project Fare (US$) 1.3 ~ 1.4 ~ 0.8 ~ 1.1 0.6 ~ 3.0 ~ 2.0 ~ in the World‐wide market 2.5 3.5 1.9 8.0 ・ Difference the Optimizations 1. data year 2003, 2. revenue/cost includes also of bus 2. Data source: Seoul (Sung 2007), rest from homepage of respective agencies between Public and Private  Ridership & fare policyS.MORICHI are key factors 47 S.MORICHI 48 ① Fare for Profitability ・ Fare Regulation and Political Decision ・ Balance between Bus and Railway Competition under the Different Costs ・ Regional Disparity between Prior and Inferior Regions ・ Transport Behavior by Income Segmentations SRT Station and inside of Vehicle and the Time Series Change Sky Train Station and inside of Vehicle Philippines’ Example : LRT3 Fare and Deregulation for Air‐conditioning Bus Thailand’ s Example: High Fare for New Urban Railway : High Income Passengers S.MORICHI 49 S.MORICHI 50 50

② Cross Subsidy between Routes ・ Profitable and Efficient Organization ・ Profitability of Urban Railway Operator Tokyo Metro and Hanoi Metro ③ ・ Rationale for Cross‐subsidy Subsidy ・ Independent PFI Projects ・ Disincentive for efficiency Rationale for Cross‐subsidy ・ Financial support at the first stage ・ Incentive for Operators ・ Risk taking for innovation / technology, service, etc. ・ Neutral for Transport Modes ・ Regional Disparity between Prior and Inferior Regions because of different service and fare ・ Difference between EU, US and Japan ・ Inefficient investment and operation ・ Cross Subsidy Scheme Role of Government for PFI Projects ・ Private or public organization Political pressure ・ In same organization or between different organizations ・ Direct cross subsidy or through government ・ Independent PFI ProjectsS.MORICHI lack of cross subsidy 51 S.MORICHI 52 53 Subsidy for each mode ④ Value Capture ・ Transit Oriented Development Central Local ・ Multi‐core Urban Structure for Mega Cities Government Government

Subsidy for Subway : Construction cost 35% 35% for Monorail: Infrastructure 30% 30% for LRT : Track, Station etc. 33% 33% Subsidy for Newtown Railway 15% 15% : Construction cost

Interest free financing for JOBAN-SHINSEN : Construction cost 40% 40% : Equity 0% less than 20% Subsidy for grade separation of rail and road 28.7 - 63.3% 57.3 - 31.6% crossing S.MORICHI 53 S.MORICHI 54

ＬａｎｄＲｅａｄｊuｓｔｍｅｎｔ Scheme of Value Capture Before Mr. A’s Land : Before • Development business by Railway operator Mr. B Ms. E

Ms. A ( JR, Taiwan HSR, etc.) Ms. C Decreased Mr. D Mr. A’s Land Public space and reserved area • Land readjustment business with railway operator (Private railway in Japan, Tokyu, etc.) After

road, school, Tsukuba express railway Reserved area park, etc Financial resource Reserved area (Land Readjustment law for Railway) for construction financial resource for investment •

Park Subsidy by increment property tax and other tax revenue Land readjustment project Public & Private Sector can organize the project Government can support the project Subsidy for the project • IF : Impact fee Change the zoning of land‐use Deregulation for urban development and building • TIF : Tax Increment Financing Investment for infrastructure ( Special Assessment District) S.MORICHI 5555 S.MORICHI 56 From Japanese experience: How can such projects become possible ? ・ Urban railway can be profitable. • Profitability of Railway Company ・ Main Revenue of railway company • Agreement by land owners and citizens 1st step (Population is limited) : housing, real estate Improvement of environment Increase of property value (higher land price of smaller space ) 2nd step (population increased) : high land price, • Difference of land prices before and after the project all business increased railway passengers ( Land use regulation, reasonable reduction of space ) 3rd step (almost land was sold out) : • Speedy Implementation of the projects (Role of government) railway, urban renewal, etc • Support of Central and Local Governments ・ Profitability is essential for innovation of system. Coordination ・ Railway Company is key factor of attractiveness of area Subsidy for the project (Attractiveness decides the land price) Change the zoning of land‐use Deregulation for urban development and building

S.MORICHI 57 Investment for infrastructureS.MORICHI 58

⑤ PPP Scheme Examples of PPP urban railway projects in Asia Limited successful projects for railway Data source :ITPS, Institute for Transport Policy Studies ・ Failure of public and private sectors Seoul Metro Line 9 : ・ Competitiveness of project in the world‐wide market ・ Change of MRG (Minimum revenue guarantee) Change of PFI scheme : PF2 from PFI in UK ・ Government rejected the SPC report for increase of fare ・ too much profit of private sector ・ Lawsuit against government ・ too much cost after the withdraw of the private sector ・ Withdraw of MKIF (Macquarie Korea Infrastructure Fund) ・ time consuming process of PFI and Hyundai Rotem Delhi Airport Express Line ・ Delay of construction and broken parts ・ Lack of demand and revenue ・ Lack of revenue from rental business ・ Transfer the project to the Delhi Metro(public sector)

S.MORICHI 59 S.MORICHI 60 How can such projects become possible ? Bangkok Metro • Profitability of Railway Company ・ Lack of demand and revenue ・ Excess of assets • Agreement by land owners and citizens ・ Debt rescheduling, Loan condition changing Improvement of environment Increase of property value (higher land price of smaller space ) ・ Financing by public corporations ・ Revision of fares • Difference of land prices before and after the project Taipei MRT Xinyi Line ( reasonable reduction of space ) • Speedy Implementation of the projects (Role of government) ・ DORTS (Dept. of Rapid Transit System, Taipei City) Construction, Vehicles, Control and signal syatem • Support of Central and Local Governments Subsidy of Central Gov. : 32% Coordination Subsidy for the project ・ TRTC (Taipei Rapid Transit Company) : Operation Taipei City(74%), Central Go.(17%), New Taipei City(9%) Change the zoning of land‐use Private Co. (0.3%) Deregulation for urban development and building Investment for infrastructure S.MORICHI 61 S.MORICHI 62

2) Urban railway network ① Direct Railway Operation Direct Railway Operation between Suburban Railway and Subway between Suburban Railway and Subway For Suburban Railway Operators No Transfer ‐ Shorten Time Distance to Downtown

Suburban Railway Subway ‐ Development of Area along Railway ‐ Reduction of Congestion in Downtown Terminals

Urban Railway Lines For Subway Operators of Direct‐Through Operation in Tokyo ‐ More Demand ‐ Availability of Railway Yard in Suburban Location Total ８６７ km S.MORICHI 6363 S.MORICHI 64 ② Hierarchy of Urban Railway Network (Tokyo) ③ Circular Line Connecting Terminal Stations Railway Type St. Spacing Operating Speed * Shinkansen Railway (Bullet Train) 30 – 50 km 120 -130 km / hr Inter-city Train (Japan Railways) 5 – 6 km 50 - 60 km / hr Express Train (Private Railways) Ordinary Train (Private Railways) 1 – 2 km 40 - 45 km / hr Subway 0.5 – 1 km 30 - 35 km / hr Monorail / AGT (BRT?) 0.5 – 1 km 20 - 30 km / hr Number of 5 km Passengers Inter-city Train Express Train • Terminal stations were joined by a circular line Capacity Shinkansen Railway • Suburban lines have direct operation through subway lines Distance Ordinary Train •High speed intercity train terminal at the city center

Far end of Downtown Area Monorail / AGT urban rail line Evolved into a hierarchical urban railway network MetropolitanS.MORICHI Area 65 S.MORICHI 66

68 Capacity of circular line 3） Multimodal Policy Passenger/hr/direction Manila Rail to Rail Tokyo -Improvement of Transfer Facilities in Terminals LRT‐1 MRT‐２ -Direct Operation between Subway and Sub-urban Railway 22,500* (26,500) Rail to Road 39,072 + 36,400 LRT‐3 -Grade Separation between Rail and Road Crossings (84,560 + 77,980) -Station Plaza -Rail – Bus Transfer Terminal Station to Surrounding Area 5 km -Under Ground Shopping Area -Skyway ▪ High capacity heavy rail systems *Crush capacity? ▪ In most section, duel lines (circular +parallel) -Commercial Station Building ▪ Heavy peak‐hour loading • Low capacity: LRT/MRT Software Improvement ▪ Over 200 % crowding in train cars • Capacity expanded on LRT‐1; still -Information System ▪ Circular line attracts largest demand volume under crush load condition -Fare Discount for Transferring • Grossly inadequate capacity for future demand -IC Based Common Ticket S.MORICHI S.MORICHI 67 68 70 IC Cards Based Common Ticketing System ４） Coordination between ＪＲ Private Rail, Subway, Bus transport and urban planning 1) Legal level coordination Passnet Bus Card (30 Co) JR East （magnetic card） + （magnetic card） ex. ・ Urban Planning law Tokyo Monorail Tokyo Rinkai Railway Co : 26 Standardization Urban planning procedure for transport facility 2007 ・ Environment assessment law ・ Special law for the railway between Tokyo and Tsukuba ( Housing area and railway development law ) Common 2) Institution level : Budget and system for coordination Ticketing 2007 ex.・ Subsidy for new town railway ・ Subsidy for continuous vertical division of railroad crossing Collaboration with other regions and fields 3) Planning level coordination 2009: Common ticketing with JR Hokkaido 2010: Common ticketing with JR Kyusyu and urban railway in Fukuoka ex. ・ Coordination by Local Government 2011～：Common use with many shops and restaurants ・ Planning Committee : S.MORICHI 2013: Common ticketing and use all over the Japan 69 Professors, related agencies and stakeholders 70

71 72 4. Conclusion

Key words for better urban railway in Asian Mega-city • Timing of policies implementation • Identification of each mega-city • Users’ burden Thank you for your kind attention ! • Long term strategies • Incentives for operators • Moral hazard

S.MORICHI S.MORICHI 71 72 Appendix 1. Network Expansion and Better Accessibility ① Tokyo: New Subway line ＜副都心線ネットワーク図＞Opened in June 2008 Urban Railway Network Improvement (Fukutoshin Line) and Terminal Renovation • Connect major sub‐centers •Direct operation : 3 lines • Design of stations 1. Network Expansion and Better Accessibility • Local and express trains in subway 2. Terminal Renovation

S.MORICHI 73 74

② Osaka: Nakanoshima‐line (along the river) ２ Opened in Oct. . Terminal Renovation 2008 ① Shinjuku Station

天満橋駅

Stations along riverside Attracted new investment for development around river‐side stations

Contributed to urban renewalS.MORICHI in the city core areas 75 S.MORICHI 7676 Space Utilization above Railway Tracks ② Shibuya 重層的な空間利用の促進（例：新宿駅南口駅） Station Plaza

S.MORICHI 7777 S.MORICHI 7878

Present Layout of Shibuya Station Metro 4th floor passage

on Ginza Line # 13 Denentoshi Line / Metro Hanzomon Line Denentoshi Line / Metro Hanzomon Line MetroMetro Ginza Ginza Line Line Metro Ginza Line Station Department East ・Station on the third floor ・Transfer to the east direction Inokashira store bldg. ・Side Platforms Inokashira ・Island Platform Line West ・Confusing passage to other lines Line Ginza Line Barn bldg. Metro Ginza Line Ginza Line Barn Metro Ginza Line Shopping bldg. Inconvenient Line Toyoko Concourse connection Hikarie Concourse Shopping bldg. Confusing South Convenient Hikarie JR

passage bldg. Toyoko connection JR aaoeLine Yamanote

Line Department JR

store Line Yamanote akoLine Saikyo

JR Station : Convenient JR Station : connection Inconvenient connection

JR Convenient connection ・Yamanote Line : Side Platforms Saikyo ・Yamanote Line : Improvement of Meiji St. and ・Saikyo Line : Separated Station Plaza with Ginza Line Line Island Platforms ・Saikyo Line :Parallel location 7979 S.MORICHI 8080 S.MORICHI

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

Data 2

Presentation Material by Tokyo Metro Co., Ltd.

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Tokyo Metro Outline

Tokyo Metro Co., Ltd.

August 25, 2015

Subways in Japan Overview

Popu‐ No. City lation of Km / mil.) lines 1 Sapporo 1.9 3 48.0 Sapporo 2Sendai 1.1 1 14.8 3 Tokyo 9.1* 13 301.8 4 Yokohama 3.7 3 53.4 Sendai 5 Nagoya 2.3 6 93.3 Tokyo 6 Kyoto 1.5 2 31.2 Kyoto Yokohama Kobe Nagoya 7Osaka 2.7 8 129.9 Fukuoka Osaka 8Kobe 1.5 3 30.6 9 Fukuoka 1.5 3 29.8 Total 42 732.8

* Tokyo 23 wards As of FY2103

Tokyo Metro Toei Subway (Tokyo Metro Co., Ltd.) (Transportation Bureau of Tokyo Metropolitan Government) First section opened 1927 1960 (year) Number of lines 94 Route length (km) 195.1 109.0 Number of stations 179 106 Number of cars 2,705 1,116 Number of passengers 6.73 million 2.46 million per day Average ticket revenue 856 million 350 million per day (JPY) Capital （JPY) 58.1 billion ‐ As of FY2013

Transport Volume by Different Modes in Tokyo’s 23 Wards

No. of passengers (thousand) Ratio Mode Car 21.9% (%) Per year Per day Private Car Subway 3,117,926 8,542 25.3% 14.7% JR 3,694,686 10,122 29.9% Taxi Subway 3.0% Private 25.3% 2,831,449 7,757 22.9% Railways Bus 3.9% Tram 38,930 107 0.3% Private Bus 485,291 1,330 3.9% Tram Taxi 364,465 999 3.0% Railway JR 0.3% Private Car 1,813,557 4,969 14.7% 22.9% 29.9% Total 12,346,304 As of FY2009

Railway 78.1%

History

Tokyo Underground Railway Company opened the first subway in Asia 1927 Dec. between Asakusa and Ueno

1934 Jun. Tokyo Underground Railway Company extended the line to Shimbashi

Tokyo Rapid Railway Company opened the section between Shibuya 1938 Nov. and Shimbashi Tokyo Underground Railway Company and Tokyo Rapid Railway 1939 Sep. Company started through‐service operation between Asakusa and Shibuya Tokyo Underground Railway Company and Tokyo Rapid Railway 1941 July Company were merged and Teito Rapid Transit Authority was established 2004 Apr. Tokyo Metro Co., Ltd. was established

Tokyo Metro Network

3 km

● Kuki Minami‐kurihashi ● ● Shinrin‐koen

Kawagoe‐shi ● Toride Urawa‐misono ● ● Kashiwa Hanno ● ●

Wakoshi Akabane‐iwabuchi ● ● ● ● Matsudo Tokorozawa Toyo‐ Ikebukuro ● Kita‐senju katsutadai ● Nishi‐ ● Nakano ● Asakusa funabashi Mitaka Ogikubo ● ● ● ● Oshiage ● ● ● ●Tsudanuma Example Yoyogi‐uehara ● Tokyo Station ● Shibuya● ●Shin‐kiba Naka‐meguro ● Ginza line Shin‐ Meguro Karakida yurigaoka Marunouchi line ● Hibiya line ● 10km ●Hiyoshi Tozai line ● Nagatsuta Chiyoda line ● 20km Yurakucho line Chuo‐ Hanzomon line rinkan Namboku line ● Hon‐atsugi ●Yokohama Fukutoshin line ● 30km Motomachi‐Chukagai Through‐service Tokyo Bay 40km As of Mar. 31, 2014

Tokyo Metro Nine Lines and Through‐service

Tobu Line 40.1 Saitama Railway Line Tobu Line 56.9 km 14.6 km km

JR Line 29.7 km Namboku Seibu Line 40.3 km Chiyoda

Hibiya Toyo Rapid Line 16.2 km JR Line 9.4 km Ginza

Marunouchi JR Line 6.1 km Fukutoshin Tozai Odakyu Line 52.5 km Yurakucho Operating Kilometers

Tokyo Metro lines 195.1 km Tokyu Line 31.5 Tokyu Line 11.9 km Through‐service km partner lines 337.5km

Total 532.6 km Tokyu Line 24.2 km Minatomirai Line 4.1km As of Mar. 31, 2014

As of Mar. 31, 2014 (in km) Partner Line Subway Line Details of through‐service sections Ginza 14.3 ‐ None Marunouchi 27.4 ‐ None Hibiya 20.3 44.4 Tobu 44.4 Tokyo Tozai 30.8 31.7 JR 15.5, Toyo‐kosoku 16.2 Metro Chiyoda 24.0 82.2 Odakyu 52.5,JR 29.7 Yurakucho 28.3 80.4 Seibu 40.3, Tobu 40.1 Fukutoshin 11.9 108.7 Seibu 40.3, Tobu 40.1, Tokyu 24.2, Minatomirai 4.1 Hanzomon 16.8 88.4 Tokyu 31.5, Tobu 56.9 Namboku 21.3 26.5 Tokyu 11.9, Saitama Railway 14.6 Tokyo Metro total 195.1 337.5 Asakusa 18.3 190.1 Keisei 64.6, Keisei/Hokuso 49.9, Shibayama 2.2, Keikyu 73.4 Toei Mita 26.5 11.9 Tokyu 11.9 Subway Shinjuku 23.5 67.3 Keio 67.3 Oedo 40.7 ‐ None Toei Subway total 109.0 269.3 301.8* 594.9 896.7 *A section 2.3km is shared by both operators and counted once.

Headway

As of Mar. 31, 2014 Headway Line Morning peak hour Off‐peak hour Evening peak hour

GINZA 2’ 00” 3’ 00” 2’ 15”

MARUNOUCHI 1’ 50” 4’ 00” 2’ 25”

HIBIYA 2’ 10” 5’ 00” 2’ 30”

TOZAI 2’ 15” 5’ 00” 3’ 10”

CHIYODA 2’ 05” 5’ 00” 3’ 20”

YURAKUCHO 2’ 30” 6’ 00” 4’ 00”

HANZOMON 2’ 10” 5’ 00” 3’ 10”

NAMBOKU 3’ 45” 6’ 00” 5’ 00”

FUKUTOSHIN 3’ 00” 4’ 20” 3’ 45”

Ginza Marunouchi Hibiya Tozai Chiyoda Yurakucho Hanzomon Namboku Fukutoshin Route length (km) 14.3 27.4 20.3 30.8 24.0 28.3 16.8 21.3 11.9 No. of stations 19 28 21 23 20 24 14 19 11 Completed 1939 1962 1964 1969 1979 1988 2003 2000 2008 Minimum headway 2’00” 1’50”/ 4’40”* 2’10” 2’15” 2’05”/ 7’30”* 2’30” 2’10” 3’45” 3’ 00” (Peak) 43.7 40.2 Average speed 34.2 37.2/ 34.9* 34.3 49.4 42.2/ 30.2* 41.3 39.0 40.6 50.4 (Km/H) (RAPID) (EXPRESS) Maximum speed 65.0 75.0/ 65.0* 80.0 100.0 80.0/ 60.0* 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 (Km/H) Gauge 1435 1435 1067 1067 1067 1067 1067 1067 1067 (mm)

Power collection 3rd rail system Rigid Catenary system and Catenary system system DC 600V DC 1500V

Length of car (m)161818202020202020

Train make‐up 66 / 3* 8 10 10 / 3* 10 10 6 8 or 10 (number of cars) Number of 612 5 8 7 9 6 6 3 substations

CS‐ATC ATO CS‐ATC ATO CS‐ATC ATO Signaling CS‐ATC CS‐ATC CS‐ATC Single‐person CS‐ATC CS‐ATC CS‐ATC Single‐person Single‐person system ATO* ATO Operation Operation Operation

Space Inductive Radio system Inductive Radio Radio Radio

Thank you for your attention !

Data 3

Handout by Tokyo Monorail Co, Ltd.

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

Data 4

Photos

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

Tokyo Metro

Operation Control Center 1 Operation Control Center 1

Flood Protection Gate Rolling Stock Depot 1

Rolling Stock Depot 2 Driving Simulator

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

Tokyo Monorail

Briefing about Tokyo Monorail Co., Ltd. Rolling Stock Depot

Operation Control Center 1 Operation Control Center 2

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

JR East – Shinjuku Station South Exit Commercial and Multi-modal Transfer Facilities Development Construction Site

Model of Commercial Bldg. and MMF Inside Commercial Bldg. under Construction

Mitsubishi Electric Itami Factory

Briefing about Itami Factory 1 Briefing about Itami Factory 2

Kinki Sharyo Tokuan RST Manufacturing Factory

Inside RST Manufacturing Factory In front of Main Building

Information Collection Survey for the Mega Manila Subway Project Final Report

JR West – Osaka Station Renovation

At-grade Tracks and Platforms Exhibition Space above Platforms

Station Plaza Roof Garden at South Terminal Building