Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.11, 2015
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.11, 2015 Evaluating Proposed Transportation Infrastructure Projects in Metro Manila Using the Transport Co-Benefit Analysis Alexis M. FILLONEa aCivil Engineering Department, De La Salle University-Manila a E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Several large scale transportation infrastructure projects have been proposed, with several already under construction, in Metro Manila by the current Administration such as the elevated expressway above the PNR line also known as the NLEx-SLEx connector, the NAIA expressway, the CALA and Lakeshore expressway projects as well as the proposed LRT line 1 South Extension, BRT lines, subway, among others. Some of these transportation infrastructure projects are for possible Public-Private Partnership (PPP) funding. Aside from the National Government’s proposals, several private groups have also proposed transportation infrastructure projects in Metro Manila. This research analyzed and evaluated the impact of these proposed transport infrastructure projects on urban travel using the Transport Co-Benefit Analysis as developed by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). This research provides a macroscopic analysis regarding which proposed infrastructure projects would be beneficial to the people of Metro Manila. Keywords: Co-benefit analysis, urban transport planning, Metro Manila 1. INTRODUCTION The Transport Co-Benefit approach in analyzing proposed transport infrastructure projects was developed by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). This approach looks at the relationship between the current transport-related problems like traffic congestion, air pollution, traffic accidents, among others and their future global consequences (i.e. climate change) through the integration of multiple objectives into the project proposal and planning stage. These multiple objectives include addressing mobility, accessibility, road safety, air pollution and greenhouse gases emissions in an integrated manner. As a result, the co-benefit approach would maximize benefits as well as minimize costs. This study modeled all the proposed major transport infrastructure projects (both expressways and mass transit systems) being proposed in Metro Manila and neighboring provinces using the transport co-benefit analysis. The study looked at the best combination of transport projects depending on the results of the co-benefit analysis that maximized benefits but minimized costs. 1.1 Statement of the Problem and Objectives Several large scale transport infrastructure projects have been proposed to solve the recurring traffic congestion problem as well as the inefficient public transport system in Metro Manila. The most recent of which is the proposed elevated expressway along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). However, most of these proposals are unsolicited that were developed by private developers and business investors to pursue their own private agenda. These proposals are usually being floated in the news media to generate support of the general public but 189 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.11, 2015 without the full backing of a detailed study. Going back to the MMUTIS 1998 study, the study proposed several transport infrastructure projects, most especially expressways and road interchanges that were identified to address the increasing growth in private vehicular traffic. Due to limited funds to finance these infrastructure projects, an insignificant number of these proposed infrastructure projects were realized up to the present time. Although MMUTIS also proposed several MRT/LRT lines to serve the commuting public, these were also expensive to construct and make take some time to build. There are another alternative to the MRT/LRT systems that is becoming popular and this is the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. This study would like to quantify the impact of BRT systems by introducing them along the proposed MRT/LRT systems. Furthermore, additional objectives would be the following: 1. To develop a detailed methodology of how to quantify and measure the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the proposed transport projects in Metro Manila using the Transport Co-Benefit Approach. 2. To measure the impact on the travel patterns of urban travelers in Metro Manila of the proposed transport infrastructure project. 3. To quantify the environmental, economic and social impact of a proposed transport infrastructure project in Metro Manila using the Transport Co-Benefit Approach. 1.2 Significance of the Study The study provides a comprehensive and integrative approach of evaluating proposed infrastructure projects in Metro Manila using the Co-Benefit approach thereby providing government agencies like DOTC and DPWH another view of measuring transport infrastructure benefits and/or costs as well as providing concerned policy makers and interested individuals data and information about the impact of proposed infrastructure projects in Metro Manila. The study could also add up to the wealth of knowledge of the developed methodology in conducting urbanwide impact analysis of proposed infrastructure projects. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW The current practice of whether a proposed infrastructure project would get approval for its construction is through an economic feasibility study of the proposed project. Hyari and Kandil (2009) provide a comprehensive review of literature about feasibility studies for infrastructure projects and summarize the structure of a feasibility study as shown in Figure 1. The following are the major stages: (1) Identifying alternatives for the project under consideration, (2) Collecting all possible data about practical alternatives, (3) Making the necessary forecasts and projections of the base year data for the project useful life, (4) Determining evaluating method/s for appraising project alternatives, and the widely used evaluation method is the benefit-cost analysis, (5) Evaluating alternatives based on the selected evaluation method/s, and (6) Recommending action based on the findings of the study. Under the benefit-cost analysis approach, the evaluation method includes the Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (NRR), External Rate of Return (ERR), Benefit-Cost Ratio, and Payback Period. The benefit-cost approach usually considers the 190 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.11, 2015 saving in travel time and cost due to a new road as well as the cost of delay in the analysis but this could be further enhanced by considering other benefits and costs not currently being considered such as the cost of air pollution as well as traffic accidents. Under the IGES Co-Benefit Analysis method, the co-benefit framework was adopted from Japan’s Ministry of Energy Co-benefit platform where the economic, environmental and social benefits are considered in evaluating proposed transportation project. Alternative Infrastructures/Design Data Collection Data Forecasting and Evaluation Methods Projections 1. Net Present Value (NPV) Determination of 2. Internal Rate of Evaluation Methods Return (IRR) 3. External Rate of Return (ERR) Evaluation of 4. Benefit/Cost Ratio Alternatives 5. Payback Period Recommendation of Best Alternative Figure 1. Basic structure of feasibility studies Source: Hyari and Kandil (2009) 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY Existing OD trip matrix data of both passengers (MMUTIS, 1999) and freight (HSH, 2009) were used and were projected using the estimated growth forecast from these studies. These projected trips were loaded into the baseline and design years networks. Traffic assignment under multi-class assignment (with several modes) is then run. Note that the truck traffic is constrained only on roads allowed for them to use under the truck ban period while public trips are constrained to use the public transport system, and the private vehicle trips could use whichever path they would like to take as they travel from their origins to their destinations. Furthermore, the scenario modelling conducted is shown in Figure 2, with 2014 as the base year, and the design years 2020 and 2030. The details of the scenarios especially what transport infrastructures are available especially during the design years (2020 and 2030) are provided in Table 1. The quantification of co-benefits borrow some of the conventional cost-benefit analysis (CBA) methods to estimate and quantify time savings, vehicle operating costs savings, traffic accident reduction, and environmental benefits from both local air pollutants and greenhouse gases. In each of the scenario modelling outputs, the co-benefit analysis is then applied and the details of this approach is explained in the IGES Co-benefit Guideline (2011). 191 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.11, 2015 Trip Generation and Trip Distribution - MMUTIS, 1998 - HSH, 2009 Modal Split Analysis Freight Public Private Trucks Trips Trips Traffic Assignment Design Years (Scenarios) Base Year 2014 2020 2030 -w/ new -w/o new -w/ new expressways expressways expressways -w/ new -w/ new expressways, new expressways, new mass transit mass transit systems systems Compare Results and Apply IGES Co-Benefit Methodology Travel Time Savings Vehicle Operation Cost Reduction Accident Reduction Reduced Emission Figure 2. The Modeling Framework 3.1 Co-Benefits The direct benefits that road users could gain include changes in monetary, time and