Document of The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FILEC?YO Public Disclosure Authorized
Report No. 4134-PH
PHILIPPINES
Public Disclosure Authorized URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REVIEW
Volume I: Main Report
October 11, 1983 Public Disclosure Authorized FILECOPY
Urban and Water Supply Division Projects Department Public Disclosure Authorized East Asia and Pacific Regional Office
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. PHILIPPINES: URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REVIEW
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
Currency Unit = Peso (P) US$1 = P 11.0 Pesos 1 = USSO.0909
MEASURES
1 meter (m) = 3.28 feet (ft) 1 kilometer = 0.62 mile (mi)
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BLT - Bureau of Land Transportation BOT - Board of Transportation CHlEG - Constabulary Highway Patrol Group CVUP - Central Visayas Urban Project LRT - Light Rail Transit (System) LRTA - Light Rail Transit Authority MCLU-1-' - Metro Cebu Land Use and Transportation Study MLG - MIinistry of Local Government >1MC - Metro Manila Commission MMTC - Metro Manila Transit Corporation MMUTIP - Metro Manila Urban Transportation Improvement Project MMUTkI'AP - Metro Manila Urban Transportation Strategy Planning Project MOTC - Ministry of Transportation and Communications MPWI-i - Ministry of Public Works and Highways NEDA - National Economic and Development Authority iTP _ - National Transportation Planning Board PC/-' - Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police RCDP - Regional Cities Development Project PNR - Philippine National Railways TEA'M1 - Traffic Engineering and Management Unit (Manila) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SEC1OR REVIEW
ANNEX VOLUM
Table of Contents
Page No.
ANNEXES
A - Income Impact on Urban Transport ...... I B - Characteristics of Urban Travel...... 5 C - Impact of Transport Plans on Urban Tranisport Investments ...... 0...... 19 D - Note on Existing Public Transport Systems in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu...... 22 E - Land Use Relationship to Urban Transport ...... 32 F - Supplemental Notes on Agencies in Urban Transport...... 34 G - Potential Bank Assistance in Urban TranLsport Sector...... 37 H - Recent Trends in Urban Transport Investments and Financing . . 39 I - Bibliography ...... 43
TABLES
1.1 Philippines Urban Population ...... 44 1.2 Population Trends in Seven Largest Cities ...... 45 1.3 Total Population by City, Intercensal Growth Rates: 1975 and 1980 ...... 46 1.4 Comparative Vehicle Ownership Rates in South EastAsia ...... 47 1.5 Trends in National Vehicle Registration by Vehicle Type, 1965-1980 ...... 48 1.6 Vehicle Registration by Region, 1980 ...... 49 1.7 Vehicle Ownership Per Capita By Region and Selected Cities ...... 50
2.1 Summary of Urban Roads and National Road Network ...... 51 2.2 Paved Road Kilometerage by Jurisdiction for Six Principal Cities ...... 52 2.3 Traffic Accident Rates in Selected Nations ...... 53 2.4 Persons Killed Per 10,000 Vehicles Registered (1978) . . . . 54 2.5 Traffic Accidents in Metro Manila, 1981...... 55 2.6 Sidewalk Conditions Along Major Arteries in Metro Manila . . 56 2.7 Pavement Conditions Along Major Arteries in Metro Manila . . 57 2.8 Road Infrastructure in Selected Major Urban Areas 58 2.9 Traffic Signals in Selected Cities ...... 59 2.10 Apportionmtent of MPWH Funds for Road Maintenance ...... 60
This docunmenthas a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclcstd without World Bank authorization. Page 1No.
2.11 Financing of Local Road Maintenance ...... 61 2.12 Investment in Metro Manila Transport Infrastructure . . . . 62 2.13 Local Government Expenditures on Construction and Maintenance of Streets, Roads, and Bridges: Metro-Manila, 1977-80 ...... 63 2.14 MPWH Road Investments in Selected Major Cities (1977-81)...... 64 2.15 Sectoral Share of Infrastructure Investment, 1965-78 . . . . 65
3.1 Summary of Existing/Proposed Public Transport Regulation by Mode...... 66
5.1 Cost of Principal Transport Fuels March 1981 ...... 67 5.2 Consumption of Gasoline Related to Cost...... 68 5.3 Fuel Consumption by Public Transport Modes ...... 69 5.4 Costs of Automobile Ownership (November 1980)...... 70
CHARTS
1. Organizational Structure of MOTC ...... 71 2. Organizational Structure of BLT ...... 72 3. Organizational Structure of Traffic Engineering and Management Unit (TEAM) ...... 73 4. Enforcement Agencies ...... 74 5. Existing Agency Relationships to Transport Functions . . . . 75 6. Urban Transport Responsibilities in Metro Manila ...... 76 7. Urban Transport Responsibilities in Metro Cebu ...... 77 8. Traffic Management Responsibilities in Metro Manila . . . . . 78 9. Public Transport Regulation Responsibilities ...... 79
MAP
IBRD 17234: Principal Cities of the Philippines ANNEX A Page 1
P IIILIPPINE'S
URB'AN TRANSPORT SECTOR REVIEW
Income Impact on Urban Transport
1. Income distributionwithin the Philippines is highly skewed with the top 10% of the families accounting for about 40%'0of total family income; families in the lowest 30% of the income scale account for only about 6% of all expenditures(see Table 1). This means that a substantial proportion of the population is very sensitive to price/incomeconditions regarding the affordabilityof public transport, and a relatively small proportion that can afford to operate and maintain a private car. There is a substantial variation in incomes between the national capital region and the rest of the Philippines. Manila had an median annual family income of about double the national average (14,000 Pesos versus 7,000 Pesos) in late 1979 suggesting a greater demand for both private and public transport on a per capita basis.
Table 1: ESTIMATED 'FAMILYINCOME
National Capital Region Philippines % of Cumulative Cumula- % of Cumulative Cumula- house % of house- tive % of house % of house- tive % of Pesos/Year/a holds holds income holds holds income
Under 1,000 0.4 0.4 0.0 3.8 3.8 0.2
1,000 - 2,000 0.7 1.1 0.1 7.8 11.6 1.3 2,000 - 4,000 3.4 4.5 0.6 18.0 29.6 6.3 4;000 - 6,000 9.0 13.5 2.6 16.0 45.6 13.6 6,000 - 8,000 10.3 23.8 5.8 12.9 58.5 22.7 8,000 - 10,000 11.1 34.9 10.4 9.4 67.9 39.5 10,000 - 12,000 8.1 43.0 14.5 6.2 73.9 35.7 12,000 - 14,000 8.5 51.5 19.5 5.3 79.2 42.1 14,000 - 16,000 6.3 57.8 23.8 3.8 83.0 47.5 16,000 - 20,000 10.4 68.2 32.3 5.5 88.5 56.6 20,000 - 30,000 15.1 83.3 49.1 6.3 94.8 70.5 30,000 - 40,000 6.8 90.1 59.8 2.1 96.9 77.0
Over 40,000 9.9 100.0 100.0 3.1 100.0 100.0
/a Based on Fourth Quarter 1979.
Source: Special Release of National Census 0'ffice,August 15, 1980. MINEX A -2- Page 2
2. The cost of owning and operating a small car in 197° was about 0.9 pesos per kilometer (see Table 2). Thus, assuming a family would drive about 10,000 kilometers per year, the average annual cost of owning and operating a car might be about 9,000 pesos in 1980 pesos. Further assuming that an upper income family would extend themselves and spend up to 20% of its total income for car expenses the family would have to earn at least 45,000 pesos to own and operate a car. This translates to about 4% of all families nationwide and about 15% of all families in Manila./l
Table 2: TOTAL OPERATING COSTS BY VEHICLE TYPE PER KILOMETER (centavos/km, 1979 prices)
Variable Total Vehicle operating Fixed operating Operating type cost cost cost cost per kn
Tricycle 19.88 15.67 35.55 11.85
Car 58.41 30.00/a 107.74 88.41
Jeepney 56.87 34.15 91.02 6.50
Standard bus 151.03 92.27 243.30 4.06
/a Assumes no driver cost
Sources: P.G. Pak-Poy and Assoc., Motorized Tricycle Policy Study, February 1980 and MPH.
3. Affordability of any kind of motorized transport is a concern for a substantial minority of the urban population. According to the most recent income estimates 32% of the nation's urban population or 3.4 million persons live in absolute poverty. All of this group can be expected to have some difficulty affording regular public transport services given competing demands
/1 Actual vehicle registrations indicate that there were 9.5 cars per 1,000 persons nationally and 44.9 cars per 1,000 persons in Metro Manila. To concur with the above estimate of families affording an automobile there would have to be 1.4 autos per typical car owning family nationally and 1.8 autos per car owning family in Manila. This is plausible given the high number of commercial and government cars and the high multiple car ownership of the upper 10% of the income group which accounts for about 40% of total family income. ANNEX A Page-3
for their income./I. This observation is confirmed by shelter surveys which generally indicate that approximatelyonet-fourth to one-third of the urban population lives in slum conditions and that the slums tend to concentrate close to major industrial/commercialareas minimizing the need to use motorized transport of any kind.
4. A more precise minimum standard of accessibilityto public transport would be to expect that at least one family member should be able to afford one round trip jeepney ride per day for work commuting purposes. Assuming that families could only afford to spend 4% of their total income on transport as indicated in a 1971 expenditure survey, 30% of Manila residents would find it difficult to afford public transport (see Table 3). However a more common norm for urban transportexpenditures world-wide is 10% of family income. At that level only 4% of Manila families and 22% of families nationally would find one round trip per family member too costly.
Table 3: AFFORDABILITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Required Monthly Family income Estimated % Estimated % Round Round T'port T'port of Manila of Philippine trips/ trips/ Cost/ Expen- Expen- families who families who day month month ditures ditures cannot afford /b cannot afford /b /a at 4% at 10% At 4% At 10% At 4% At 10% of of of of of of income income income income income income (P) (P)
1 30 39 975 390 30 4 60 22 2 60 78 1,950 780 60 20 85 50
/a From Table 4.
/b Based on increasing incomes as shown in Table 1 by 25% to account for inflation up to July 1981.
/1 The absolute urban poverty tnreshold fcr the Philippines in 1982 is esti- mated at $320 (F 2,660) per person per year based on a least cost diet. Approximately32% of families in urban areas and about 80% of families in typical slum areas of major cities have per capita incomes below that level. ANNEX A Page 4
Table 4: PUBLIC TRANSPORT FARES IN METRO MANILA (Pesos, as of July, 1981)
Each additional First 5 km km 10 km
Taxi 10.00 1.67 18.35
Jeepney 0.65 0.14 1.35
Mini/regular bus 0.65 0.14 1.35
Love bus /a 4.00 (flat) - 4.00 (flat)
/a Air conditioned,express bus.
Source: MOTC. ANNEX B Page 1 -5-
PRILIPPINE:S
URBAN TRANSPORT SEC;TORREPORT
Selected Characteristicsof Urban Travel
1. Importantcharacteristics of urban travel are summarized in this Annex for the three major urban areas of the Philippines- Metro Manila, Metro Cebu and Davao. The data presented here came principally from compre- hensive transportationstudies conducted in these cities.
2. Trip Rates and Lengths. Survey results on trip rates are consistent with expectations- the trip rate in Manila has increased significantly(about 4% p.a.) since 1971 and is higher than trip rates in Cebu and Davao (Table 1). Most of the differences in motorized travel frequenciesmight be explained by differences in real incomes. The average motorized trip length in Manila is 3.8 km, in Cebu 4.3 km, and in Davao 5 kcm. It is significantthat trip lengths in Manila are short even though thLs metropolitanarea is much larger than the other cities. The short trip pattern may be due to the highly concentratedland use pattern that has developed in Metro Manila. Davao, with its more dispersed land use, has longer average trips. In Manila there is a marked difference in the trip lengths of different modes - jeepney users travel an average of only 3.8 km while bus users average 7.8 km.
3. Travel Purposes. The most imporl:anttravel purpose in the cities surveyed is education (Table 2). This is explained by the age structure of the population which is heavily skewed tow&rd persons of school age. Inconsistenciesin data reporting limit the potential for further conclusions but, broadly speaking, "work7'is the second.most important purpose for trip making. It is particularlyimportant to ncte that education trips are highly dependent upon walking, especially in Manila and Cebu, where over 40% of all such trips are by nonrmotorizedmeans (Table 3).
4. Travel by Mode. The jeepney dominatesmotarized travel in the Natiorns principal cities constitutingbetween 1/2 and 3/4 of all person-trips (see Table 4). Bus travel is significantonly in Metro Manila where it conr stitutes about 15% of total person trips (Table 5). Car and truck travel accounts for approximately 1/4 of all person trips in Manila and 1/3 of all trips in Davao but, possibly due to lower income levels in the Central Visayas, these travel modes were less significant in Metro Cebu.
5. Travel Speeds in Metro Manila. M:avel speed trends for bus and jeepney service is s-ummarizedin Table 6. As expected the percent of congested travel links (defined as those with speeds (tnder 15 kph) increased from 15% in 1971 to 23% in 1981. Overall bus travel speeds are about 25% higher than jeepneys (Table 7). This is lilcelydue to the greater stopping frequency of jeepneys which cater to shorter trip-lengths. ANNEX B -6 - Page 2
6. Composition of Traffic on Selected Primary Arterials in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu. Tables 8 through 12 illustrate the substantial variance in the composition of vehicle flow among principal arterials in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu. As showr. the jeepneys constitute nearly 60% of the motor vehicle stream on the McArthur Bridge in Manila and typically constitute 30% or more of the vehicle flows on several routes in both cities. However, less space efficient automobile traffic exceeds jeepney traffic on most arterials. Bus traffic is not a significant factor in the motor vehicle stream, rarely exceeding 10% of the total flow in Metro Manila.
7. Forecasts of Future Travel in Metro Manila. Based on recent trends the MMITSRAP study team and the mission made alternative projections of motor vehicle travel in Metro Manila as shown in Tables 13 and 14 respectively. These projections show the considerable sensitivity to a reasonable range of assumptions about travel in the metropolitan area and underscore the need to carefully monitor actual trends. However, regardless of the assumptions such travel will increase substantially to dramatically in Metro Manila over the next 20 years. 4
Table 1: COMPARATIVE MOTORIZED TRIP RATES (Excludes Motorcycle Trips)
Average motorized Average motorized City trips per Derson trip length
Manila (1971) /a 1.27
Manila (1980) /b 1.81 3.8 km
Cebu (1979) /c 1.55 4.3 km /e
Davao (1979) /d 1.48 5.0 km
Sources:
/a MMETROPLAN, 1977. /b MMUTIP, 1980. W MCLUTS, Vol. 2, p. 112, 1980. 7d DCLUTS, 1981. Ie Mission estimate from MCLUTS data. ANNEX B Page 3
Table 2: DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS BY PURPOSE (%)
City Trip purpose Manila Cebu Davao
Education 26 36 16
Work 19 29 19
Shop - 12 4
Other/ private 5 5 24
Home 50 - 36
Nonrhome based - 18
Total 100 100 99
Sources: MMUTIP, MCLUTS, DCLUTS.
Table 3: PERCENT OF PERSON-TRIPS BY WALKING
City Trip purpose Manila Cebu Davao
Education 45 43 26
Work 19 28 20
Shop - 20 21
Business 8 - 10
Sources: MMUTIP, MCLUTS, DCLETS. ANNEX B Page 4
Table 4: DISTRIBUTION OF PERSON TRIPS BY TRAVEL MODE (%)
City Mode Metro Manila Metro Cebu Davao
Car 26/a 13/a 21/b
Motorcycle -/d -/d 2
Truck - - 11
Jeepney 50 76 57
Tricycle 9 7 6
Other public transport 15/f 4/e 2/e
Total motorized trips 100 100 99
Walk trips as % of total motorized trips (33%) (33%) (37%)
Walk trips as x of total trips (25) (25) (27)
/a Includes taxi and truck trips. 7b Includes taxi trips. /c Included under tricycles. 7d Included under cars. 7e Includes bus, tartanilla. 7T Includes bus, railroad.
Sources: MMUTIP (Manila), MCLUTS, DCLUTS. ANNEXB 9 Page 5
Table 5: DISTRIBUTION OF PERSON-TRIPS BY, TRAVELMODE: METROMANILA, 1980
Daily Percent of person- trips person- trips Mode ('000)
Je epney 5, 39 5 50. 3 Bus 1,578 14.7 Tricycle 908 8.5 Train 26 0.3 Car/Taxi/Truck 2,812 26.2
Total 10, 719 100. 0
Source: NIMUTIP PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Table 6: Metro tManilaPublic Transport Travel Speed Comparison 1971-1981
1 1 AM PEAK i AFTEIRNWi' PH PEAK 1901 70TAL ' 1971 1OrALI ThAVEL SPEED (kphl TlUAVEL SPEEl (kph) TRAVEL SPECO (kphJ TlRAVEL SPIEEO (Iph) TRAVEL SPEED (khpi
< 15 15-30 >30 <15 15-30 >30 < 15 15-30 > ,O <15 15-30 >30 <15 15-30 >30
HWlS o10 77 13 7 0 13 22 62 16 13 73 14 23 64 13 31 54 11 23 70 7 30 59 11 I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_I.__. __ I -_.. Total 17 70 11 20 67 11 27 72 11 21 66 13 _ ___ _ - _5-
JEEPHEY 28 56 16 11 71 16 25 56 19 22 61 17 Total 29 61 10 24 55 .21 29 65 6 27 60 13
29 58 13 1i 64 1t 27 60 13 25 60 IS
|sarIl 19 66 IS 10 75 I5 23 60 17 1s 67 1S 26 63 It 29 54 17 31 63 6 29 59 12
Total 23 64 I3 19 65 16 27 61 12 23 63 17 t5 55 30
Y/ Tabulated from HMUTIPData Sagae Repott: D-4. Travel Speed Data ,/ Estimates ftroa WETNOPIAH FINAL REPt)RT MAIN VOLU11E, p. 3/35.
Pi! 0\2 Dw ANNEXB - 11 - Page 7
Table 7: 1980 TRAVELSPEED BY BUS AND JEEPNEY BY AREA (km/hr)
7-10 am 12-3 pm 4-7 pm Area Bus Jeepney Bus Jeepney Bus Jeepney
Central core /a 19.4 17.2 20. 4 15.2 19. 7 16. 3
Middle ring /b 22.4 18.9 23.8 18.7 21. 5 16. 7
Outer zone fc 30.0 24.7 29.4 25.1 28.8 20.9
Metro Manila 25.7 21.1 26.0 20.8 24.8 18.5
/a Inside C-2. 7-b Between C-2 and C-4. TW Outside C-4.
Source: MMUTIP. Table 8: TRAFFIC VOLUItES ON SELECTED CORRIDORS: QUEZON AVENUE/AVERETA AVENUE IN METRO MANILA
Average Estimated lHourly 16-hour volume hourly X motorized hourly Z motorized vehicle Mode of travel West East Total volume vehicle trips person flow person trips flow/lane
Car 16,118 18,111 34,229 2, 139 50 4,759 20
Motorcycle 428 357 785 49 1 57 -
Bus 556 561 1,117 70 2 1,893 8
Minibuis 18 43 61 4 - 28 -
Taxi 3,266 2,833 6, 09 381 9 728 3
Jeepney 8,511 9,532 18,043 1,128 27 14,550 63 lrIcycle 3 1 4 - -
Van/lpiekup 3,473 2,997 6,470 404 10 1,O3 5
Truck 458 395 853 53 1 142 1
Other 84 129 213 13 - 14
Total Motorized 32,915 34,959 67,874 4,242 100 23,253 10O
Source: 16-tour count: JOC Screenline Survey, Oct./Nov. 1980.
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 Table 9: TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON SELECTED CORRIDORS: EDSA (GUADALUPE BRIDGE) IN METRO MANILA
Average Estimated llourly 16-hour volume hourly % motorized hourly X motorized vehicle Mode of travel West East Total voltme vehicle trips person flow person trips flow/lane
Car 42,578 40,305 82,883 5,180 72 10,635 33 648
Motorcycle 920 1,174 2,094 131 2 153 - 16
Bua 3,262 2,882 6,144 384 5 14,632 45 48
Minibus 1,005 727 1,732 108 2 2,575 8 14 L
Taxi 2,363 2, 565 4,928 308 4 656 2 39
Jeepney /a 736 1,0B7 1,823 114 2 1,219 4 14
Tricycle - 2 2 - -
Van/pickup 6,575 6,125 12,700 794 11 1,991 6 99
Truck 1,901 1,462 3,363 210 3 580 2 26
Otlher 112 61 173 11 - 11 - I
Total Motorized 59,452 56,390 115,842 7,240 -32 451 100 905
La Jeepney's banned. w
Source: 16-hour count: 16 hour count: JOC Screenline Survey, Oct./Nov.1980. ANNEX B
-14 - Page 10
Table 10: METRO MANILA - TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON MAJOR CORRIDORS: McARTH1URBRIDGE
x Esti- % Hourly Ave- motor- mated motor- vehi- rate ized hourly ized cle 16-Hour Volume hourly vehicle person person flow/ Mode of travel North South Total volume trip flow trips lane
Car 6,100 4, 090 10,190 637 22 1,307 5 160 Motorcycle 273 273 546 34 1 40 - 9 Bus 502 554 1, 056 66 2 2, 487 10 17 Minibus 293 392 685 43 2 1, 000 4 11 Jeepney 14, 066 13, 617 27, 683 1, 730 59 18, 288 76 433 Tricycle 6 0 6 1 - - - - Van/pickup 1,166 1, 085 2, 251 141 5 345 1 35 Truck 85 26 111 7 - 12 - 1 Other 87 52 139 9 - 9 - 2
Total Motorized 24, 579 22, 042 46, 621 2,914 100 24, 066 98/a 730
/a Does not sum owing to rounding.
Source: 16-hour count: JOC Screenline Survey, Oct/Nov 1980. - 15 - ADlhAEXB Pa'e 11
Table 11: TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON MAJOR CORRIDORS: M.J. CUENCOAVENUE IN METRO CEBU
% Estimated x Hourly Average motorized hourly motorized vehicle 24-hour hourly vehicles person person flow/ Mode of travel volume volume trips flow trips lane
Car 13,321 555 40 1,277 14
Tricycle & motorcycle 1,989 83 6 191 2
Bus 99 4 - 248 3
Minibus - - - - -
Jeepney 13,262 636 46 6,995 78
Tricycle - - - _ _
Van/pickup
Truck 2, 486 104 8. 238 3
Other - - - - -
Total Motorized 33,157 1, 382 - 8,948 100
Source: MCLUTS, 24-hour count. ANNEX B -16- Page 12
Table 12: METROPOLITAN CEBU - TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON MAJOR CORRIDORS: DEL ROSARIO AVENUE/S. EXPRESSWAY
% Estimated Average motorized hourly motorized 24-hour hourly vehicle person person Mode of travel volume volume trips flow trips
Car 7, 507 313 39 719 13 Tricycle & motorcycle 950 40 5 91 2 Bus - 117 5 1 293 5 Minibus Jeepney 9,917 413 52 4,545 80 Tricycle - - - - Van/Pick-up - - - - Truck 850 35 4 56 1 other -- - - -
Total Motorized 19,071 795 a 5,704 -
Source: MCLUTS, 24-hour count. - 17 - ANNEX B Page 13
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REVIEW
Indicative Population and Transportation Growth in Metro Manila, 1980-2000
Year % increase 1980 1990 2000 1980-2000
Population (-000) 5,925 7,900 9,700 64%
Vehicles/OO0 population 75.3 105.4 150.5 100%
Number of vehicles 444 830 1,450 226%
Motorized person/trips/day ('000) 10,700 15,100 21,400 100%
Motorized trips/capita/day 1.81 1.92 2.22 23%
Source: Metro Manila Urban Transportation Se:rategy Planning Project, Final Report, DCCD Engineering Corp. and Pak-Poy Kneebone Pty. Ltd. for Ministry of Transportation and Communications, p. 49. Table 14: I'O'IULATION, iBroR VEIIICIE ANHITRAVL. FORECASTS FOR HETRO HANII.A
Year
Pro ected Year 2000 Item Asiauptlonsa Actual t 1960 19711 Oi98n 1990 2000 Year 19110
loipulation: ( 000) (I) 1970-8O growth rate /a 2,446 3,967 5,925 8,849 13. 217 (2.2) (2) Slower odiflIed rate7b 2, 446 3,967 5,925 7,900 9,700 (t. 6)x liotor vehliclea ( 000) (1) 1975-1980 growth ratc7c - - 444 731 1, 224 (2.8)x (4) declIning growth rate 7 - - 444 667 926 (2.1)x Htotor vehfclee/i ,t00; opulatlon (5) lax: from (3) r (2) - - 75 93 126 (.))x (6) lilan from (4) t (1) - - 75 75 70 (0.q) Ilotorized pernon- trips/day (aIlIlios) (7) from (9) x (2) - 10.1 21.1 38.5 (3.3) (8) from (10) x (2) - 10. 7 19. 0 29.1 (2.7)x 1hotorized pergaor tripe/person/day (9) 1970-1980 growth rate /e - 1.27 1.81 2.68 3.97 (2.2) (10) 3.0 tripa max Imfm/f - 1.27 1.11 2.40 3. °O (1. 7)x Average trip lengtih (bu) (11) related to pop. growth /I - - 3.80 4. 33 4.86 (I . 3)x (12) Douhle curreot trip length In 2000 - - 3.80 5. 70 7. 60 (2. 0) I Total Travellday (million persok-ka) (13) froim (7) x (II) - - 40.7 91.4 181 (4.h)x6 (14) from (8) x (12) - - 40.7 1(0 221 (5.4) ao Travel persoan/day (kim) (15) from (10) x (11) - - 6.88 10.o4 14.6 (2.1)x (16) Fros (9) x (12) - 6.88 15.1 30.2 (4. 4) Average travel apeed (ku/ihr) (17) No gain _ - 20 20 20 (I. 0)x (18) tFkde,tgain /l - - 20 2S 30 (1. 5) Average tioe spent travelling/peraonlday (min) (19) From (16) tr11) - - 21 46 qI (4. 3) (20) From (15) t (18) - - 21 25 29 (1. 4)x Daily person tsravel/veihcte (pereonrkm) (21) th.-x: from (14) t (4) - 92 162 239 (2.6) (22) tltn2 frorm (IJ) r (3) - - 92 124 153 (1. )x Average occopanicy/velitele (persons) (23) ILiFx: frotm (21) s (15) 13.41 15.6 16.4 (1.2) (24) Mln: fromi (22) t (16) 11.40 8.10 5.10 (O. 4)x Average ilaily vehicle distanice (km/vehicle) (25) hlaxt frout (21) t (24) 6.81 20.(O 46.9 (6.0) (26) titFin from (22) t (23) 6.87 7. 95 9.33 (1.4)X Average *lally velilele timiie (mln/velilcle) (27) Ka x: fromw (25) t (11) 21.0 60.0 140.7 (6. 7)x (28) tifn: from (26) t (ln) 21.0 19.1 t1.7 (0.9)
/a 4.1 p.a. Frum Part A - tletro Ilanila lkban Transport Strategy 1rojects 3.1X p.n- 1980-85, 2.62 p.m. 1985-90, 2.11% p.a. 1990-2000. Hatl lonal growth rate 5. 2% p.a. k. 71 00 of 1975-80 rate (4.16%) for 1980-90, 80% of derIvedl 1.980-90 rnte (3.33%) for 1990-2000. > W Ie 4% p.a. if Typical for many cities In developed world. lased Onos qare root of future popuilation divided by current population Skultipl led by current trip lengtt. /, 3t0kph n:ear practical npeed limit.
- Float likely projectilon. -19- ANNEX C Page 1
PHTILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Impact of Transport Plans on Urban Transport Investment
1. Until 1977 the only significant:and comprehensive study recommend- ing transport investments within Philippine urban areas was the MMETROPLAN Study conducted by Freeman Fox for the then Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications and completed in 1977./I There have also been a number of smaller and more specific studies concentrating on the Metro Manila area /2 which addressed the expansion of the light rail system, the rationalization of the bus and jeepney networks, and traffic management measures.
2. The conclusions and recommendations of the studies of the past decade have not been consistent and complementary. In all areas of policy and investment, conflicting advice has been offered especially in public transport matters and in overall levels oE transport investments. Mass transit modes have been proposed ranging Erom light rail at-grade, to elevated light rail transit, to monorail ind a full-scale subway systems. Road related recommendations have ranged -rom completion of the basic existing network to massive construction of elevated expressways.
3. The 1977 MMETROPLAN has been the most influential on current government policies and investments. Short-term recommendations included: the introduction of premium buses in addition to standard services; the regular revisior.of bus and jeepney fares; a limit to public (MMTC) partici- pation in the transit industry; improved routing and coordination of bus and jeepney service. Exclusive bus and jeepney lanes were recommended on a number of corridors. The study further recommended that cordon pricing be introduced for the peak periods within Circumferential Road 2 (C-2). Longer term action included continuation of cordon pricing and the construction, in the early 1980s, of an at-grade light rail transit system consisting of four lines radiating from the city center. Major highway recommendations included the completion of major circumferential and radial streets to complete Manila's strategic road network. The MMETROPLAN called for investments of $2.6 billion (1977 prices) over a 14-year 1977-1990 period.
/1 Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and Development Planning Project, Final Report, September 1977 by Freemarn Fox & Associates.
/2 These include, inter alia, Mletro Manila Traffic Engineering and Manage- ment Project, December 1977 by P.G. Pak-Poy and Associates; Light Rail Transit Project-Organization and Operations, November 1980 by Electrowatt Engineering Services Ltd.; and Metro Manila Urban Transport Improvement Project, June 1981, by Japan Overseas Consultants Co. Ltd. with Sycip, Gorres Velayo and Co. - 20 - ANNEX C Page 2
4. Most of the major MMETROPLAN recommendationswere either implementedas planned, or are being seriously pursued in the original or modified form. The most significantdeviation from the recommendationsof the 1977 study has been the non-implementationof the cordon pricing scheme for the central area; the study estimated that such a scheme would have restricted 1980 car and taxi traffic to 40% of its "natural" level, with commensuratebenefits from relief of congestion. Another major departure is the alteration of the proposed light rail scheme from a street-level facility to an elevated structure, at much greater cost.
5. Budgeting Investments in Metro Manila. Until recently, investment decisions within MetropolitanManila were taken unilaterallyby the major line agencies, with very little coordinatingor cooperationbetween them. Responding to this deficiency, a Capital Investment Folio (CIF) process was initiated, now under the Commissionerfor Planning of the Metropolitan Manila Commission;this process sets out to coordinate and prioritize capital projects with a view to obtaining a more rational and integrated distributionof resources. The principal deficiency of the CIF process to date is that it is still largely a "wish list" of projects desired by the several central governmental line agencies, with little discipline over actual expenditures. As a result, it has not become a fully reliable investment planning tool.
6. Proposed Investments in Metro Cebu. The Metro Cebu Land Use and TransportationStudy (MCLUTS), completed in early 1981, recommended a metropolitan land use and strategic highway investment plan with a 20-year time horizon. The plan calls for some P 760 million in road investments up to the year 2000 (1979 prices) for the strategic road network and a further P 590 million for non-strategicroads. In addition, a number of short-term recommendationsregarding public transport were made: improved enforcement of vehicle licensing and registration;lifting of the ban on new jeepney franchises;a ban on new permits for tricycles; rerouting of jeepneys and a study of the feasibilityof introducingintra-city bus service; and phasing out of taxis and the barring of horse drawn vehicles in the central business district (CBD) at peak periods. A traffic engineering scheme was proposed for the CBD involving improved traffic signalling and lane markings, parking restrictions,and introductionof experimentalpay parking schemes. While the needs as expressed in the MCLUTS investment program are not questioned, the proposed level of investment for road system development would be well beyond current investment levels in the Metro area and likely levels of national and local governmentalspending in the future. The prospects for implementingthe public transport and traffic management schemes appear promising.
7. Proposed Investments in Davao. Davao is the third Philippine city where a comprehensivetransport plan has been developed. The Davao City Urban Transport Cum Land Use Study (DCLUTS), under the aegis of the Ministry - 21 - ANNEX C Page 3
of Public Works and Highways, recommends the developmentof a strategic road network for the year 2000 at a total cost of P 1.3 billion on major trunk roads with another P 0.5 billion for local roads. Short-termprojects involve trafficmanagement measures such as improved lane markings, introduc- tion of bus bays and driver training. The recommendedpublic transport strategy is for Davao to move toward a bus-orientedsystem with a view to future rail operation as the city grows beyond 1 million (after the year 2000). The Davao investment program wouLd be at about the same scale as the ambitious MCLUTS program for Metro Cebu. This level of investment appears very questionablefor Davao has only half the population of Metro Cebu. - 22 - ANNEX D Page 1
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Notes on Existing Public Transport Systems in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu
A. Metro Manila
1. The Existing System. The existing public transport system in Manila is almost entirely road based. The Philippine National Railway (PNR), accounts for less than one percent of the daily one-way person trips. At the other end of the scale is the pervasive jeepney, which carries more than half of the daily person trips in Manila. Passenger capacities, fares and cost structures for the various passenger transport modes are shown in Table 1.
2. System Trend. The bus fleet, with substantialvariations due principally to Governmental intervention,has remained relatively constant over the past decade while the jeepney fleet has nearly trippled (see Table 2). Bus system patronage declined 41% in the 1976-1980 period prior to the introductionof the MMTC leasing program to the private sector.
3. Jeepneys. The 1980 MMUTIP study estimated that 81% of Jeepney operators have fleet sizes of 4 or fewer units. Many of the jeepneys are organized into informal route cooperativeswhich control operations along particular routes and manage joint repair and maintenance arrangementsfor the individual owners.
4. Jeepney fares as of July 1981 were 65 centavos for the first 5 km and 14 centavos for each additional kilometer. Average waiting times reported by the MMUTIP study were under 4 minutes inside the circumferential road C-2, from 5 to 6 minutes between C-2 and C-4, and from 6 to 8 minutes outside C-4. Jeepney speeds reported by MMUTIP vary widely by time-of-day and by location in the road network. Speeds as high as 25 kph were reported in off-peak directions along major roads, while in-peak directions speeds fall to the 6 to 10 kph range. Jeepney system coverage is quite extensive. The MMUTIP study identified 1,055 jeepney routes (as opposed to BOT which has records for 646 routes). The average passenger-triplength for a jeep- ney rider is 3.8 km. (A summary of jeepney and has operating characteristicsis provided in Table 3./1
/1 See also section T-3 of MMETROPOLAN final report, Volume II, July 1977 for a detailed evaluation of jeepney and bus operations in Metro Manila. - 23 - ANNEX D Page 2
5. Buses. The operation of buses 1withinManila has been greatly in- fluenced over the last few years by the puibliclyowned MetropolitanManila Transit Corporation (MMTC). MMTC was forLed in 1974 to respond to a crisis in the private operation of buses. At that time some 120 companiesoperating 3,000 buses were encounteringincreasing financial problems because of competitionfrom jeepneys. The companies threatened that without some form of public subsidy they would be forced to abandon their operations.
6. The government responded to the private bus company problem by establishingMMTC and giving it two major objectives:
(a) purchase and operate a fleet of several hundred buses to ensure that a basic system of bus services is maintained in Manila. Some developmentaland experimentalservices were also to be operated by MMTC; and
(b) purchase a fleet of at least 1,000 new buses to be provided to private bus companies on a lease-purchasebasis at favorable terms over seven years. The availabilityof these buses was to be used to persuade the 120 private comanies to merge into a few larger companies which could be financially viable.
Financing for these major bus purchases was provided to MMTCby the Philippine Development Bank.
7. The number of private companies has been reduced to 12, with a total fleet within Manila in mid-1981 of 1,200 buses. (An additional 2,000 buses are operated into Manila from outlying areas by private companies.) A fleet of 1,000 new buses (including 100 air conditioned love buses) was added to this privately operated fleet in 1981 under lease-purchaseagree- ments with MMTC. The new buses are Japanese-madechassis and engines with locally built bodies. At the time of the leasing the private operators were expected to expand gradually to a fleet of 3,000 buses over the next five years, to operate profitably from the farebox, and eventuallyto find their own financing for new vehicle acquisitions. These operators run primarily along EDSA (where jeepney competition has been banned), as well as along some of their old radial routes.
8. By mid-1981, MMTC was operating some 300 buses and had 400 new buses on order. With some planned attrition, this will give MMTC an average fleet size of 600 buses over the next five years. About 100 of these buses will be air conditioned "love buses' operated at special fares. In 1978, MMTC built an extensive office and maintenance facility. Since the maintenance of the buses leased to the private companies is conducted under contract by the manufacturers, MMTCwould be able fairly quickly to take over and operate the equipment of any private companies which failed. As of early 1983 the finar- cial condition of several companieswhich leased MMTC buses were deteriorating and 2 bus consortia were taken over under temporaryMMTC management. ANNEX D Page 3
9. In 1980, MMTC lost e 33 million on total revenues of e 88 mil- lion, and in 1981 expects to lose e 9 million on e 98 million of revenues. Cost savings are reportedly being achieved, some unprofitable routes have been cut back, and load factors are increasing,with a current average load factor of 56 percent. Whether MRTC will be expected to maintain some unprofitableroutes for social reasons is unclear at present, but this seems quite likely. One major management question which will affect costs is whether MMTC employees will all have to be brought under the civil service. Such a change would reduce the flexibility enjoyed by management with the current system in which many employees work under contracts with incentive pay.
10. There are currently about 3,000 buses operating in Metro Manila of which about 80 are operated by MMTC. The bus systems operate on an aggregate of 66 bus routes. The average trip-lengthfor a bus passenger is 7.8 km, nearly double the length of the average jeepney passenger trip.
11. Motorized Tricycles. The motorized tricycle is an upgraded version of the pedicab which existed in large numbers in the Philippines in the 1950s. According to the MMUTIP study there were about 17,000 tricycles in operation in Metro Manila during 1981. Tricycles play a significant public transport role in Manila, accounting for about 8% of all motorized person-trips, and an even more significantrole in the Philippines as a whole, where their overall numbers equal those of the jeepneys./l Tricycles operate mainly on local roads within Manila neighborhoods,serving local trips and providing feeder services to main bus and jeepney routes. Average passenger trip lengths are reported to be less than 1 km. Fares are 50 cents within a local subdivision,with 10 cent increments for trips between subdivisionsand 10 cent increments per km for long distance trips.
12. Tricycles are either owned and licensed by the driver, leased from the owner under a flat daily "boundary fee" or operated under another person's franchise for a weekly "kabit fee." In a few areas profit sharing arrangements between the tricycle owner and driver are also used. Tricycle owners and operators establish local associationsto present their views to public officials and to provide information and services to their members. Aspiring tricycle operators suffer the same problems as jeepney operators in obtaining a franchise from the BOT; requirements for costly trips to Manila for hearings and long delays for approval have led to extensive legal operations.
13. Tricycles have lower accelerationand speed capabilitiesthan other road vehicles, and do not provide as much protection for the driver and passengers in the event of accidents. Consequently,they do not mix well with other vehicles on high speed roads: they cause delays and congestion, and expose their passengers to serious safety hazards. Tri-
/1 P.G. Pak-Poy and Associates (1980), motorized Tricycle Policy Study. - 25 - ANNEX D Page 4
cycles are currently banned from major roads, though they often use these roads when no alternative routes between local areas are available. However, in narrow local streets within neighborhoodsand small towns where speeds are low, the tricycles are an ideal form of public transport. In these areas tricyclesdominate the public transport scene, and appear to leave little opportunity for other modes, even for jeepneys. They provide high quality, door to door, shared-ride services with low waiting times and relatively low fares.
14. Some serious traffic management problems with tricycles presently occur at their interfacewith other motorized vehicles on the main roads, and around congested central market areas in neighborhoodsand small towns. Management measures are needed to keep tricycles segregated from other road traffic as much as possible, and to provide adequate street and parking capacity for them around central market areas. With traffic management of this kind and continued attention by MOTC to vehicle design and safety standards, the tricylces should continue to be a highly successful source of public mobility for short local trips.
15. Taxicabs. The MMETROPLAN report concluded that taxicabs were properly regulated and were operating efficiently in Manila. Though unauthorized operators exist, there does not appear to be the same problem of BOT delay in issuing franchises as occurs with jeepneys and tricycles. This may be due to the fact that the growth potential for taxicabs is much less than for the higher occupancy modes. Increasing fuel prices have had a more serious impact on the financialviability of the taxicabs than on other modes, and they do not appear to be highly profitable at present.
16 Taxicabs could become a significant element of the public transport system, and as long as fare adjustmentsare allowed frequently to reflect cost increases they will undoubtedlycontinue tc grow in numbers. Most taxicabs are operated privately, though a few hundred are owned and operated by the Metropolitan Manila TransportationCommission (MMTC). As of 1981 about 10,000 taxis were in operation in Metro Manila.
17. Auto Calesas. Auto calesas are shared-ridetaxis which operate without taximeters. They constitute only a tiny portion of the public transport vehicles in Manila. Though auto calesas previously operated with complete route flexibility,they now stay essentially on fixed routes like jeepneys.
18. The Philippine National Railroad (PNR). PNR is currently operating a low volume, high cost passenger service into the center of Manila. Service is hourly in the off-peak, and every 15 to 20 minutes in the peak. This service covers roughly 20-30% of its operating costs, and loses considerable potential revenue because as many as half of the riders are not ticketed. PNR operates three routes in the Metro Manila, running north to Malotos, east to Guadalupe, and south to Garmona. The northern and Guadalupe lines are single tracks, the line south is double-tracked as far as the Food Terminal Junction for a distance of 30.8 km. -26- ANNE D Page 5
19. The condition of the track is generally poor with wornout ties and inadequate ballast. Consequently, speeds have to be kept to a very low level, with frequent delays. Reliable train operation is further inhibited by the poor standard of signaling and communication. Automatic Block Signaling (ABS) was installed between Caloocan and Bicutun in 1977 and extended to Sucat in 1978. The equipment was never tested nor proved and stations remain non-interlocked. The three-aspectcolor light signals with track circuiting also remain to be commissioned.
20. The future role of the PNR in the Manila public transport system seems rather uncertain. Clearly new signaling, improved track and car maintenance are minimal requirementsfor PNR to have a viable passenger service. Several ambitious proposals apparently have been made for upgrad- ing the PNR. The future of the PNR as a passenger line is tied to its future for freight movement, a question which is currently under study. Any proposals for upgrading PNR's passenger operations will have to he considered jointly with its freight capabilities.
21. A number of possibilitiesexist for taking advantage of the cur- rent PNR system. Apart from the obvious option of an upgraded conventional rail passenger service, the PNR right-of-way could be used for light rail transit service, or even for development as an exclusive roadway for trucks and high occupancy passenger modes like jeepneys and buses. Major upgrading proposals would require considerableinvestment, and commitments to high levels of passenger rail service might well involve continuing public financial contributions for operating subsidies.
22. Light Rail Transit System. The first phase LRT system will be an elevated 16 km line extending from near the airport in Pasay City to Monumento in Caloocan City. Constructionbegan in 1981 with completion anticipated in 1984-85. Thirty two trains with a carrying capacity of 600 each will travel the system in 30 minutes. System capacity is thus about 20,000 persons per hour per direction. A Consortium of Belgium companies are constructingthe system with the Constructionand Development Corporation of the Philippines as the principal civil works contractor. A Swiss concern, ElectrowattEngineering Services, Ltd. was appointed project manager to supervise construction.
B. Metro Cebu
23. Public transport in Metropolitan Cebu is entirely road-based and is provided without any public subsidy by private operators. With the exception of bus service between Cebu City and Mactan airport, no large buses operate solely within MetropolitanCebu. The 600 large buses author- ized to operate within Cebu all serve routes beginning outside the metro- politan area. ANNEX D - 27 - Page 6
24. Cebu follows the general pattern in the Philippineswith regard to BOT regulatory delays and the large numbers of unfranchisedoperators. Although only 2,960 jeepneys are registered, it is estimated that over 4,000 are actually operating. Similar problems exist with regard to tricycles. As a result of the recent Metro Cebu Land Use and TransportationStudy (MCLUTS), Cebu has taken some steps toward a resolution of the regulatory problem. MCLUTS staff have convinced the BOT that new jeepney franchises should be issued for Cebu, and that the basic technical analysis for decisions on new franchises can be done at the local level. A proposal has been developed for a Cebu public transport committee which would supervise the quasi-judicialhearing process and makcerecommendations to BOT for franchise changes. BOT will continue to hiaveresponsibility for the final decision.
25. The MCLUTS study also developed proposals for new and revised jeepney routes, and for gradually legalizing the unfranchisedoperators. These proposals are being implemented,with first priority given to formalizing the franchisingsituation. All of the existing franchised jeepneys are being re-registered,and applicationsare being accepted for new licenses.
26. - The MCLUTS study concluded that certain areas of Cebu did not have adequate public transport service, and that reorganizationof jeepney routes was needed. A re-routing plan was developed, and MCLUTS staff are seeking BOT permission to implement this plan on an experimentalbasis. MCLUTS staff also plan eventually to recommend a new fare structure to BOT; they believe that the 5 km distance for the first fare increment is too long given that the average trip length is only 3 km.
27. The other major public transportissues in Cebu are jeepney congestion around the central market area :Jeepneys have no terminalsand must keep moving through the area); the need for terminals for intercity buses; occasional operation of tricycles o01main roads with accompanying traffic delays and congestion;and enforcenientof BOT franchisingand traffic regulationsgenerally.
28. The MCLUTS study appears to have put Cebu ahead of other cities with regard to thinking about public transport franchisingand operation. MCLUTS staff have developed firm proposals for a gradual devolution of regulatory authority from BOT to government bodies in the Metropolitan Cebu area. They have recognized the need to catch up on the backlog of requests for franchise changes, and are actively working with BOT local staff in Cebu to achieve that objective. In terms of their general approach to resolving the regulatory problems that currently plague public transport in the Philippines, MCLUTSstaff are setting a good example for other metropolitan areas. - 28 - ANNEX D Page 7
29. Some significantquestions remain, however, regarding the practic- ability of their present proposals. It is not at all clear that they will be successful in issuing valid franchises to all the jeepneys currently operating in Cebu: fines and other procedural problems may deter unfranr- chised operators from seeking valid franchises. The route reorganization proposals also have yet to face a practical test. Will the routes selected by MCLUTS planners be profitable for the jeepneys? Can jeepney service coverage be extended to all the areas selected by MCLUTS without some variablity in fares to reflect the higher costs of serving lower density areas? Will the jeepneys follow the MCLUTS plans, or simply continue to operate their old routes?
30. An alternativestrategy which might be considered in Cebu is to work with BOT to gradually relax regulatory restrictionson public transport modes. Review and recommendationof franchise changes could be conducted locally in Cebu and sent to BOT for final approval. However, this process might move more rapidly toward "grandfathering"existing unfranchised operators, allowing operators more freedom to select their own routes, and allowing some variability in fares by route or time of day. This approach would avoid potential disagreementsbetween MCLUTS staff and the jeepney operators over the specificsof the MCLUTS route reorganizationproposals. Table 1: PASSENGER CAPACITY, FARE, AND COST CIIARACTERISTICS OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT MODES IN MANILA (JULY 1981)
Total Total Vehicle vehtlcle vehicle purchase Duty plus Vehicle runilng cost per coat per Annual price tax on cost excl. kn (lmci. kun (tcl. vehicle Cormmon (includ- vehicle (depreciation deprecia- deprecia- Passenger regis- carrier ing duty purchase and driver) tion, excl. tion & Mode cuapacity Fare Lion fee tax + tax) price Speed Cost/km driver) driver) -(Pesos)------(Kpht) (P/km) (P/k) (P/kw)
Tricycle 2-5 50o wititn 250 (2% gross 11,000 - - 27.68¢ 31.554c 35.55¢ local sub- revenue) (1979) division, 10C lper addi- tional kin
Taxicab 4 , 2.'J iirs - - 59,000 11,210 - - - - 500 M, P 0.501 300 m afterwards
Jeeptley 14-16 65¢ first 5 km, 324 1,350 56,000 7,280 20 0.93 1.123 1.39 14C additlonal kin
Minibus 30 65c first 5 kn 708 2,800 81,875 9,185 - 1.501 1.766 2.36 Standard 80 65, first 5 km 1,704 4,200 369,700 54,230 25 - - 4.636 Love 60 P 4.00 flat 2,000 - 706,000 163,554 - - -
Private car 5 - 505 n.a. 59,000 11,210 40 0.975 1.297 1.297
Soturce: MHIlTIP, P.C. Pak-Poy 1 Associates. aq|
OD ANNEXD 30 Page 9
Table 2: PUBLIC TRANSPORTFLEET
Year Vehicle 1971 1975 1978 1981
Bus 2,820 4,940 3,839 2,600/a Minimtus n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,500 Jeepney 12,983 13,359 27,752 37,000/b Taxi 7,339 8,812 11,870 10,1257T Tricycle n.a. 3,140 12,513 17,200/d
/a Including 700 MMTCbuses. /b Including an estimated 10,000 colorum (illegal) vehicles. /c BLT Figure. BOT Figure is 13, 822. 7d BLT Figure. BOT Figure is 10, 118.
Source: MUTIP, 1980. -31 - ANEX D Page 10
Table 3: JEEPNEY AND BUS OPERATINGCHARACTERISTICS
Jeepney Bus
Average waiting time 4 min. 5-6 min. Average passenger trip length 3.8 km 7.8 km Average journey speed 12-18 km/h 15-20 km/h Fuel consumption 0.0133 1/seat-km 0.0067 1/seat-km Operating cost 1.53 P/km 5.40 P/km Average seats 15 seats 55 seats Average load factor 60% 53% Operating cost/seat P 0.102 P 0.098 Operating cost/passenger P 0.170 P 0.179
Transfers per trip: No transfer 63% 51% 1 transfer 32% 39% 2+ transfers 5% 10%
Source: HUTIP, 1980. - 32 - ANNEXE Page 1
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Land-Use Relationshipto Urban Transport
1. Both the size of a city and the spatial form of land use within a city are known to have a significantimpact on urban transport demand. In general, the larger the city the greater need for motorized transport. The more mixed a land-use pattern, (location of place of residence in proximity to places of work, commerce and education) the less need for motorized urban transport and the greater reliance on walking or non-motorizedtransport. These relationshipsare described below for a few principal Philippine cities.
2. MetropolitanManila. As a major iMetropolitanarea, Manila is exhibiting a land-use pattern which is significantlydifferent than other urbanized areas within the Philippines. Three major specializedemployment oriented districts - "Quiapo," the traditionalcenter, "Ermita" the tourist area, and "Makati," a major commercial and business complex started in the 1960s - have been developed in different portions of the Metropolitanarea. This trend toward dispersed sub-city centers is desirable in large cities like Manila as it reduces commuting trip-lengthsand consequent demand on the road system. The development of large low density residentialbelts principally on the eastern and southern sides of the Metropolitanarea, however, is an undesirable feature from a transportationperspective as it increases trip lengths. This will result in the need to provide additional costly road infrastructure,and will make it more difficult or costly to serve transit oriented families in these outlying areas.
3. Metropolitan Cebu. The Metro Cebu area is gradually agglomerating into a single metropolitan complex composed of formerly free-standing cities. As a result there are separate emerging high-densitycenters in Cebu, Mandaue and Lapu Lapu. Overall, the land-use pattern within Metro Cebu is mixed with relatively few large low-density residentialdistricts tending to keep travel distances short. However, like Manila, lower density single family residential areas are emerging. Because Metropolitan Cebu growth is constrained by topography to a long narrow coastal strip extending for as much as 40 km, travel distances can be expected to become much longer as the Metropolitan area grows.
4. Other Principal Urban Areas. Most of the remaining principal urban areas in the country such as Bacolod, Tloilo, and Zamboanga, are still relatively compact cities where trips are short. An exception is Davao which is a relatively low density urbanized area laid out in a linear fashion. These principal urban centers will undoubtedlyspawn lower density residential areas as incomes rise causing trips to lengthen. - 33 - ANNEX E Page 2
5. Public Control of Land Use Patterns. To date both the central Governmentand local units of government have exerted minimal controls on emerging land use patterns. While land use-zoningexists, enforcementin practice is very weak. Furthermore,direct governmentalintervention through the placement of GovernmentfaciLities and services, has not been a strong factor in shaping land use patterns. While public controls over privately developed land-use and careful attention to the traffic impacts of direct public investmentsare not likely to be significant in the short term, the benefits of several years of consistentgovernment policy in land-use matters could be substantial. This objective will only be obtained by the developmentof an accepted and sustained planning process which is supported by well trained and competent staffs in the principalcities. - 34 - ANNEX F Page 1
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REVIEW
SupplementalNbtes on Agencies in Urban Transport
1. Ministry of Transportationand Communications(MOTC). MOTC is the newest of the ministries involved in transportation. The main office functions of the ministry are handled in the Office of the Minister and by four "services" (see Chart 1). In the Office of the Minister, the Deputy Minister concurrently serves as Chairman of BOT, one Assistant Minister concurrently serves as director of the MMTC,and one concurrentlyserves as director of LRTA. The basic Central Office functions are currently handled by a staff of approximately 160 with an authorized staff of approximately 280. However, budget restrictions and recruiting problems have kept the Ministry substantiallybelow authorized levels. The principal functions handled within the Central Office include policy and programs, and transportationplanning.
2. MOTC's ability to assist cities in producing local transportation plans is limited with the majority of work having been conducted by consul- tants. At present, MOTC is developing urban transportationplanning programs in the Land TransportationDivision. This division, staffed with seven persons, is restricted in area of impact because of the extremely limited resources available to it. Further, because only a few technical activities have been undertaken by local staff, the division lacks practical experience. The Division is currently focusing its resources on urban transportation activities in Metro Manila, Metro-Cebu, and Baguio.
3. The Land TransportationDivision is also responsible for providing technical assistance in areas of public transport planning and regulation. The level of involvementis, because of staff limitations,restricted to major areas of concern or project overview. The division has also undertaken a limited role in staff development and training by advising on local urban area studies and by initiating a program to provide a transportationlibrary of the Philippines.
4. Bureau of Land Transportation(BLT). Because of staff limitations, very little driver or vehicle inspectionor testing is undertaken by BLT. BLT is also involved in driver training and education programs. Again, because of budget constraints,this activity is at a very basic level consisting of radio and televisionadvertisements and recently published drivers guides.
5. The licensing and registrationprocedures used by BLT have proved to be easy to duplicate and forge. There is also concern about adequate financial controls because of the widely spread offices. It is reported that many drivers, especially those who work for public transport carriers, operate with counterfeitlicenses and registrationdocuments. BLT is 35- ANNEX F Page 2
attempting to reduce the problem by reissuingmotor vehicle license plates throughoutthe Philippines. The license plates are water marked and color coded to permit easy identificationof various classes of vehicles and to reduce illegal plate manufacturing. This should substantiallyreduce the number of illegal vehicles and increase ;:heamount of registrationfees which are collected. Techniques are also being proposed to make driver licenses more difficult to duplicate.
6. The BLT operates with a completelymanual license issuing, filing, and record maintenance system. This has led to significantinefficiencies and has made internal financial control difficult to enforce. Further, this has compounded the problem of forgery of licenses because hundreds of persons are involved in actually filling out licenses. It has also led to reported internal financial control anomalies.
7. Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA). The LRTA has been established under the general auspices of MOTC to design a light rail transit system in Metro Manila. The LRTD is currently constructinga 16 km segment of the LRT which is planned for revenue operationsin 1984. LRTA is also studying several plans for extending LRT throughoutmuch of the urban area. Constructionsupervision is being handled by a consultantwith LRTA staff serving as monitors and coordinatingthe ;.RTactivities with other projects. The Authority is to become the operator o:fthe LRT system when it is completed; however, operationsare also p;roposedto be accomplishedby contract, most likely with MERALCO, the private electricalutility company.
8. The LRTA is a new agency and its involvementas an institutionin the overall urban transport sector is still developing. At present, much of its planning activities overlap or impact other MOTC planning and regulatory activities (such as route rationalization)so the roles and responsibilities are not yet clearly defined. The extent of its potential influence is also difficult to assess until the total LRT program is better understood; however, it could be very significantif the system progressesbeyond the first phase.
9. PhilippineConstabulary/Integrated National Police (PC/INP). When martial law was declared in the Philippines,the police functionswere centralized under the Ministry of National Defense. Urban areas may have one or more "stations"which handle criminal and traffic enforcement. Traffic is generally handled as a separate bureau of a station. Officers are assigned to critical intersectionsto control traffic and enforce parking, loading, and general traffic regulationsand to investigateaccidents. Although the number of the police assigned to a bureau may be relativelyhigh (Baguio has 20 for example) actual enforcementappears to be centered on control at intersections. Local volunteer Barangay police may also be used to assist in traffic control. - 36 - ANNEX F Page 3
10. TransportationTraining Center (TTC). The TTC has been established as a national training facility for transportationin the Philippines. It is currently overseen by MOTC but has functioned as a relatively independent agency as a foreign grant program. The TTC provides training primarily to enforcementand nonrtechnicalstaff. TTC to date has not served as a training center for professionallevel transportationplanners or traffic engineers.
Metro Manila Urban Transport Organizations
11. In addition to the national agencies, there are several agencies in Metro-Manilawhich are specificallyconcerned with urban transport issues (see Chart 6). Most notable of these is the Metro-Manila Commission (MMC) and its attached, Metro-ManilaTraffic Operations Center (MMTOC), and Metro Manila Engineering OperationsCenter (MMEOC). The MMCwas established to coordinate activities of the various local governmentsand in some cases to provide urban services. The commission is attempting to: (a) establish an areawide planning function which would include urban transport;and (b) develop a capital improvementbudgeting process.
12. The MMC has had limited involvement in transportation at the opera- tions level through MMTOC. This office processes certain types of traffic citations and has traffic enforcementstaff. There have been questions regarding the coordinationof the MMTOC enforcement staff and the other enforcement agencies. At present, the MMTOC staff appears to be primarily assigned to assisting in intersectioncontrol.
13. The MMEOC serves as an agency to coordinate roadway plans at jurisdictionalboundaries. Local agency programs are reviewed to insure cross section, grade, and drainage compatibility. MMEOC also prepares contingency plans to handle emergenciesassociated with major storms, etc. where resources need to be combined or coordinated to repair damage.
Metro-Cebu Urban Transport Organizations
14. As with Manila, the national agencies play dominant roles in the urban transport sector in Metro-Cebu. The institutionalstructure for coordinatingthe sector is, however, substantiallydifferent (see Chart 7). An MOTC supported project, entitled Metro-Cebu Urban Land Use and Transporta- tion Study (MCLUTS) was conducted to determine long range plans, traffic management schemes, and public transport needs. The project team for MCLUTS has been continued and, in essence, is serving as the urban transport planning and operations agency. The MCLUTSwork is coordinated through a steering committee of local and regional staff and representativesof the national agencies. Efforts are underway to make the MCLUTS project an operational metro level unit to continue to provide transport planning and operations. This is somewhat parallel to TEAM activities in Manila, but MCLUTS has added transport planning and public transport regulation roles. ANTEXG Page 1
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REVIEW
Potential Bank Assistance in Urban Transport Sector
1. Bank Involvement in Urban Transport Sector to Date. The Bank has undertaken a number of initiatives in the Ihilippines urban transport sector to date including:
(a) Manila Urban Development Project (Loan 1282-PH). This project includes a significant traffic management component costing about $11 million and a road constructioncomponent extending along the Manila waterfront area (R-10) costing about $20 million. The project, to be completed during 1983, has been successful in demonstrating the merits of traffic management and in creating a capable traffic management unit.
(b) Regional Cities Development Projec:t(Urban IV). This multi-sectoral project (presented to the Board ivaMarch 1983) centers on the secondary cities of Davao, Cagayan de Oro, Iloilo, and Bacolod and includes about $28 million of investmentsin road infrastructure, road maintenance,and trafficmanagement. Strengtheningof municipal road maintenance and traffic management functionswill be institutionalobjectives. The project will become fully effective in 1984.
(c) Proposed Central Visayas Regional (Urban)Project. This proposed project (currently in the project preparationstage), centering principallyon the MetropolitanCebu area, will include signifi- cant investmentsin metrorwide and secondary road infrastructure, road maintenance,and trafficmanagement. The establishmentof a permanent traffic management organizationin Metro Cebu will be attempted.
(d) Proposed SecondaryCities Project. This proposed project (cur- rently in the project preparation stage), will include investments in minor road works, traffic management, and road maintenance in 15 Philippine cities.
(e) Manila Capital InvestmentFolio (C'EF)Activity. The Bank is financing technical assistance to improvemetropolitan wide capital budgeting as part of the Uaban III Project (Loan 1821-PH). This continuing effort should assi;t in setting the appropriate scale and scope of urban transport investmentsin relation to all other major capital investments in the Manila Metropolitanarea. - 38 - ANNEX G Page 2
2. Proposed Enphasis of Bank Activity. It is recommended that Bank emphasis in the urban transport sector should be along the following general lines:
(a) strengtheningnational organizationsin urban transport planr ning, urban road design, traffic management, public transport regulation,and traffic enforcement;
(b) investing in urban transport infrastructureand corresponding institutionalstrengthening in Metro Manila aimed principally at reducing traffic congestion and efficientlyaccommodating additional travel demand needed to maintain the economic viability of this metropolitan area;
(c) investing in urban transport infrastructureand strengtheningthe urban transport unit in Metro Cebu similar to Manila as indi- cated in item "b" above;
(d) investing in selected urban roads and maintenance facilities in the other principal urban areas where traffic problems are emerging, along with institutionalemphasis on improved urban road maintenance.
3. It is suggested that items (a) and (b) above would be best handled within the framework of a separate urban transport project due to the techni- cal complexityof the undertakingand the number of agencies involved. Item (c) is proposed for inclusion in the proposed CentralVisayas Regional Project described above. Item (d) is proposed for inclusion in the proposed Regional Cities Development Project and the Secondary Cities Project. 39- Annex H Page 1
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Recent Trends in Urban Transport Investmeentsand Financing
1. This Annex summarizesrecent triendsin urban transportinvestments and correspondingfinancing compiled principallyfrom data presented throughout the Main Report and this Annex Volume. Because the data base utilized to assemble this informationis fragmentaryand unverified,the analysis and conclusionsreached should be considered tentative.
Expendituresin Urban Transport
2. Road Constructionand Maintenance. During the period 1977-82, road investments in Metro Manila remained relativelystable ranging from about P 170 million to about P 230 million annually (see Table 2.12). While only limited informationwas obtained on road constructioninvestments in other urban areas (see Table 2.14), it is unlikely that annual road constructionexpenditures exceeded P 250 million annually during the 1977-82 period. MPWH road maintenanceexpenditures also remained relativelystable, increasing from P 42 milliou in 1977 to P 54 million in 1981 (Table 2.10). Assuming the municipal and city governmntsin aggregate approximatelymatch MPWH contributionson maintenance (Table 2.11), it is unilkely that urban road maintenanceexpenditres have exceeded P 100 million annually over the past several years. Thus recent (up through 1982) road constructionand maintenance expenditureswould appear to be on the order of P.300- P 400 million annually.
3. Currently programmed expenditureson road constructionare significantlyhigher than actual recent expenditures. In Metro Manila alone at least P 350 million in annual expendituresare proposed for the period 1983-87 (see Table 1 of this Annex). An addlitionalannual expenditureof over P 50 million is expected in Bacolod, CagayanTde Oro, Davao and Iloilo as part of the Regional Cities DevelopmentProIect./1 Projects currentlyunder development includingthe Central Visayas Regional Project centering on Metro Cebu and the 15-city SecondaryCities Project (PREMIUMED)may add another P 80-100 million and P 15 million respectively. These proposals in aggregate amount to expendituresof at least P 500 million solely on road construction. Further assuming that additional annual maintenance expendituresamaount to 10% of new road constructioncost would be required, total road maintenanceexpenditures might be on the order of P 150 million, bringing total urban road costs to about P 6S0 million annually for the 1983-87 period.
/1 See Staff Appraisal Report, Philippines Regional Cities Development Pro- ject, Report No. 4094-PH, The World Bank, March 10, 1983. 40 - - Annex H Page 2
4. Public Transit. With the exception of insignificantexpenditures on bus and jeepney terminals, public expenditureson intra-urban transiL are limited to MfetroManila. During the five year period 1977-81 about P 500 million were spent on bus equipment and rolling stock of which about P 400 million was utilized in 19081 to purchase 1,000 buses leased to private sector (Table 2.12). Investments in public transit increased substantially in 1982 with the start of constructionof the light rail transit system projected to cost at least P 2.1 billion - approximatelyequivalent to the cost of all road constructionin Metro Manila during the 1970s. During the 1983-87 period at least P1.3 billion will be spent on public transit or about P 260 million annually virtually all of which will be in Metro Manila (Table 1).
5. Summary on Expenditures. Urban transportexpenditures will be increasing significantlyover the next several years if proposed Government programs are carried out. The Government strategy, should be to hold down expenditures in public transit, through encouraging improvementsin private sector services, in order to permit needed expenditure increases in.urban road constructionand maintenance (see para. 6c-d of Principal Findings and Recommendations;also para. 2.28-2.34, 3.21b-c, and 3.22).
Sources of Funds
6. The dominant share of all urban transport funding comes from central Government agencies, principally MPWH and MOTC. Even in Metro Manila, where local Governmentsare relatively strong, about 80% of all new road constructioncosts are borne by MPWH, and all Government funding of public transit is borne by MOTC. Only in road maintenance do cities and municipalitiesplay a significant financing role by contributingat least half of total maintenance costs. A policy objective should be a greater local government role in financing urban transport, particularlyin road construction (see para. 2.34).
Cash Generation Within Sector
7. Public Transit. Public transit systems typically attempt to recover capital and operation costs directly through the fare box. Up until recently most urban public transit in the Philippineswas provided by the private sector and, thus, was essentiallyself-financing. Only the Metro Manila Transit Commission (MMTC) which experiencedan operating loss of P 33 million in 1980 and an estimated loss of P9 million in 1981, has required Government subsidies. However, with the advent of a P 400 million private sector bus leasing program in 1981, Government started on a course which may lead to substantiallyhigher subsidies. Government has apparently placed under its control 6 of the 14 bus consortia due to non-paymentof leasing fees. The LRT system, currently under construction,will become an even more substantialsubsidy drain on Government. Annual losses of P100 million - P 200 million appear likely (see para. 3.17). The PNR also is, and will remain, a substantialmoney loser, even on commuter routes within Metro-Manila (see para. 3.20). - 41 - Annex H Page 3
8. Road System. The public road system, with the exceptionof two toll roads on the outskirts of Metro Manila, is not directly supported by internal cash generation. However, the users of the road system -- motor vehicle owners and operators--do pay related taxes and fees which could be considered user charges. Among these taxes and fees are (l) taxes/tariffs at the time of vehicle purchase (2) annual licensing/registrationfees (3) gas taxes, which act as a "pay-as-you-go"charges (4) a common carrier's tax on buses and jeepneys and (5) fees for uiseof the transport infrastructure (currently only parking fees, but could include road pricing). Among the above taxes and fees, the gas tax is by far the most significantand it is tempting to increase this tax to increase revenues. However, the gas tax is a crude instrument which results in higher mobility costs to all users (see paras. 5.02-5.06). Taxes on the most inefficientuser of road space the -- automobile -- should be higher. While car purchase and annual car ownerhsip taxes and fees should be increased, taxes on the use of vehicle on congested portions of the road network would, from an economic perspective,be the most appropriate alternative (see para. 3.25 e). Among all taxes and fees listed above only the common carriers tax on buses and jeepnys should be abolished principally on the grounds that it increases costs for the most efficient users of road space (para. 3.23). l'able Is INVESTHIINT ANALYSIS URBAN TRANSPORT
Expend I [0( Existing conditleiau Proposed 5 year Inveatment rates Network adequacy 1980 Trans it Road Paved 1980 Urbans 1980 198O Road 6 Road and Local pesos/ I'aved roada/ Popir- Popta- Motor paved traffic mailn- tralisit Cov't Pesos/ Peaos/ paved roaads/ motor lation lation vehicles roads manage- taln termi- fund- capital/ vehlical/ ks/year capita vehicle ------(00';s) ------(km) aent once nets Total tlog year year (100,000) -- (kg/l,000) --
lMetro Hlatmu /a 5,924 5,924 445 2,370 1,783 - 1,156 2,939 "A 99 1,320 150 4.1 5.1 lletro Cebut |1 945 9(0 42 378 450 40 10 500 NA 111 2,380 230 4.0 9.0 Btacolod I/c 267 267 12 223 32 8 - 40 8 30 670 36 8.3 a. 5 4amgayun .e Oro Ic 244 112 17 117 22 9 7 38 22 44 450 51 4.8 6.9 Ibavao /c 611 422 29 218 136 25 7 168 57 80 1,160 141 3.6 7.5 Iloilo Ic 244 244 14 117 18 7 - 25 13 20 360 43 4.7 8.4
Suibtotal Regiolnal Cities /c 1,350 5 72 675 208 49 14 211 14 49 750 76 6.1 9.4
15 Secondary Cities /d 1,253 753 - - 47 - 22 69 - l6 - - - -
lwotal IC 9,472 8,682 - - 2,488 - 1,202 3F719 - 87
/a As pr4ildoited prelilinary HltUTSTRAPattudy 1983-87. 71 As proposed aittler Central Visayaa Regional Project 1985-89. 7 Au proposed tnnler Regtonal Citiea sevelopment Project 1984-88. 7d As 1P ropoaed tinder Secontdary Ctttea Project (Prestunmed) 1985-89. 7e I.lmited to cities wsit1 active llorld Batik Operatioits.
Ir11*t i |h - 43 ANNEX I Page l
BiblioeraDhv
Many documentswere consulted during the course of this sector study; the following list includes the principalsources: 1. Urban Transport Sector Policy Paper, World Bank, May 1975. 2. Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and DevelopmentPlanning Project, Final Report Vols. I-III, Freeman Fox and Associates,July 1977. 3. Five-Year PhilippineDevelopment Plan, 1978-82, Republic of the Philippines,September 1977. 4. Costs and Scale of Bus Services, World Bank, May 1975; Staff Working Paper No. 325, April 1979. 5. Motorized Tricycle Policy Study, P. G. Pak-Poy and Associates Pty Ltd., February 1980. 6. Ownership and Efficiency in Urban Buses, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 371, May 1978. 7. National Transportation Planning Project, Interim Report on Central and Northern Luzon, June 1980. 8. Working Papers on Organizationand Operations,Light Rail Transit Project, November 1980. 9. Metro Cebu Land use and Transport Study, Final Report Vols. I-III, December 1980. 10. Davao City Urban Transport Cum Land Use Study, Reports to the Steering Committee, 1980-1981. 11. TransportationStrategy for Metro Manila, Draft Report, D.J.W. Roberts, Transport Economics and Planning Advisor to Ministry of Transportation and Communications,April 1982. 12. MetropolitanManila Capital Investment FoLio Study, Final Report, MetropolitanManila Commission and Ralcrol'Fox and Associates, November 1982. 13. InvestmentPlanning Aspects of Metro ManiLa Transport, Working Paper, DCCD EngineeringCorporation and P.G. Pak-Poy & Kneebone Pty. Ltd., January 1983. 14. InstitutionBuilding for Traffic Management, Richard Barrett, World Bank Technical Paper 8, January 1983.
15. Metro Manila Urban Transport Strategy Plar=ningProject - Part A, Final Report, DCCD EngineeringCorporation and E'ak-PoyKneebone Pty. Ltd., April 1983.
16. The Transport Sector in the Philipines, Report No. 3916-PE, World Bank, September 1983. - 44 - Table 1.1
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Philippines Urban Population
Annual population growth (%) Population (millions) 1960- 1970- 1960 1970 1975 1980/a 70 80
Urban 8.1 12.1 14.1 16.4 4.1 3.1 Metro Manila 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.9 4.8 4.0 Other urban 5.6 8.1 9.1 10.5 3.8 2.6
Rural 19.0 24.6 28.0 31.6 2.6 2.5
Total 27.1 36.7 42.1 48.0 3.1 2.7
Urban share of national population 30% 33% 33% 34% Manila share of national population 9% 11% 12% 12% Manila share of urban population 31% 33% 35% 36%
/a Note: these are preliminary 1980 census figures. - 45 -^ Table 1.2
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Population Trends in Seven Largest Cities
Population (000's) Annual Population Growth(%) 1960/ 1970/ 1975/ City 1960 1970 1975 1980 1970 1980 1980
Metro Manila /a 2,446 3,967 4,970 5,924 5.0 4.1 3.6 Metro Cebu lb 462 638 744 945 3.3 4.0 4.9 Davao /c 226 392 485 611 5.7 3.5 4.7 Zamboanga /c 131 200 265 344 4.3 5.5 5.4 Bacolod 119 187 223 267 4.6 3.6 3.7 Iloilo 151 210 227 244 3.4 1.5 1.5 Cagayan de Oro/c 68 128 165 228 6.5 5.9 6.7
/a Includes 4 cities and 13 municipalities.
/b Includes 3 cities and 7 municipalities.
/c Has significantrural population as corporate limits extend well into rural areas. - 46 - al .
Uv3AN -.R.VSS?cR SECToa2Re
'ocal -3oaularion S '-v 'r.:artansal G,rowth RJacas: !975 arn !983C
Annual asomecrl; Ka- 1, t980 Ma't I. 1975 3rovreh caca City lzg'ac ?opulacioa i7l&Ar 'op;Liaclon .lAnk 1985-30
M."II, MCZ 1,626,249 L 1,479,116 !. 1.91 qu-20e ' C%. 1,165,990 2 956,364 2 1-43 Davao Z:' 6Li.3Li 3 484,67a 3 4.75 Cabu V= 4389,208 4 4L3,025 43e46 Caloocan 1T'C3L 471,289 5 397,0'O 5 1.48 'anboangs zx 3"4,-15 S 2S5 023 o 5.37 ?Zasar f SC1 236,>'97 7 Z2S4,999 7 2.36 3acolod v;Z 25e,604 a 223,392 9 3.S0 :lilo v; '4",III 9 Z27,O27 3 1.47 Cagayan de Ora x 22S,409 to 165,'20 10 6.69 Angeles .:I LSS5,995 I L 151,1614 LL a.23 3ucr,-- X 1724,044 12 '32,68Z 13 5.J8 111gas al. 165,74Z 13 L18,J78 16 6.39 Olonja?* ' 56,312 14 147,109 12 1.22 General Saac:os X-. 146,556 L5 9L,154 24 9.96 3acaugas 'RV 143,M54 16 125,363 15 Z.75 Cabanauan :-.I 13a,297 17 1lS,'tc is 3.71 San ftbla rt 131,686 is 116,607 17 2,46 Cadiz 71 128,8339 L9 L127,653 14 0.18 Lipa. 17 121,162 20 106,094 19 Z.69 3agula _ 11S,611 Zl 97,4,49 22 4.01 Calb Sog h.-a 110,938 Z>Z 102,519 21 1.57 EandauJ ~~~ ~~v=110,665 23 75,904 36 7ALY3 Lucnsn Iv 107,372 24 92,336 23 3.1S Ormoc VT1 104,912 25 89,s,66 ZS 3.24 SiLay 71 104,018 26 104,387 20 -0.17 &ago 7T 103,166 27 89,113 Z9 Z.95 Tacoban 77= 102,60s Zs aO,07 o 33 4.92 SanCarlos z 101,254 29 90,382 Z6 2.18 LegaspS 7 100,4a$s 30 88,378 30 2.60 apu-Lapu 7*V= 93,860 31 79, "4 34 4.46 3 guta 1 98,362 32 90 092 27 1.77 Sa Carlos 71 93,268 33 90 982 25 0.5C ,:*L*to v.: 91,618 34 76,521 35 3.67 1:8a, V* 90,711 35 83,337 31 1.71 Cotabato X;: 88,486 36 67,097 40 5.69 Cavia IV S7,813 37 8s2456 32 1.27 Ro"s 71 81,103 38 71,305 39 Z.63 CS=goog M sl,09>3 39 66,577 41 4.02 PagadSan L2 80,;19 4.0 6o,062 43 4.04 s -gaso ?. 7s.23s 41 566027 44 3.45 oari X 783,036 42 71,559 3J3 1.75 Laoag 1 69,648 43 66,-'59 42 1.00 Ixfga V 66,117 4473,f35 37 -2.72 Saa 404Z- 64,Z.50 45 ss,3a7 46 1.93 2u:aguate 7:z 63,411 46 52,765 47 3.74 Dipolos zx 61,92s 47 48,403 49 s.as Puerto ?Ttcm8a 'V 59,34 473 45,709 5I 5.36 Dano 7=1 56,957 4,9 50,260 48 Z.53 Dagitan M 54,698 sa 4,6,26L 30 3.4L .Ira' x :1 53,198 51 63,3321 -3.43 Bais ,; 49 ,301 i2 ss ,672 52 L .51. Oroquieta X 517,176 33 42,497 j3 Z..,- ,Ugsub 1 44,903 54 4..,461 55 Z.ii La Ca.--,ta 7; 42 651 55 4a 984 5/. 0.30 -TUsbilar 7;: 4Z,275 56 37,325 56 Z.5z C-1 I an 7-?,r 'S, 85 57 zq_132 317 -0-'5 Tagary=Y 7 12li, L2 sa3 'z Ssa i3 .03 ?alarm' 1,4,?59 i9 12 l(EO 59 4.. 5 r.eca harrIzes :V1 a,579 60 7,179 6a 3.o; ?hil:iz-es 7, 914,0L7 .Z.070.560 Z.6-Z
Source: ;CSO, ?-FlSasCa-sus 7abulac- on, 1,980.
?sr-- of .ecro Yacila. t-?art of w.evro Ca2U. - 47 Table 1.4
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Comparative Vehicle Ownership Rates in South East Asia
GNP per capita Vehicles per 1,000 Persons Country Year of US$ Motor- (Principal City) data (1979) Cars cycles Trucks Buses Total
Singapore (1978) 3,820 62.7 37.0 23.8 2.5 130.0
Korea (1979) 1,500 6.5 N/A 5.8 1.0 - (Seoul) (14.0)
Malaysia (1979) 1,370 54.0 94.5 12.1 1.0 161.6 (Kuala Lumpur) (102.9)
Philippines (1980) 600 8.9 4.9 6.0 0.4 20.2 (Manila) (44.9)
Thailand (1980) 540 8.5 19.6 10.1 0.6 38.8 (Bangkok) (64.0;)
Indonesia (1979) 370 4.0 15.9 2.7 0.5 23.1 (Jakarta) (29.8)
Sources: GNP, 1980, World Bank Atlas; Sirngapore- Yearbook of Statistics, 1979/80; Korea - Urban Transportation Problems and Issues in Korea, KIST, June, 1980; Malaysia - yearbook of Transport Statistics, 1979; Philippines - Bureau of Land Transportation, 1981; Thailand - License Division, Police Department; Indonesia Directorate of Traffic, Indonesian Police. - 48 - Table 1. 5
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Trends in National Vehicle Registration by Vehicle Type, 1965-1980
Vehicles Share of Vehicle Vehicle registered Total Annual Growth (x) Category Type in 1980 Vehicles 1965- 19.70- 1975- (000's) (Z) 1970 1975 1980
Private Transport Car 441 40 14 8. 1 3.3 Motorcycle/ Tricycle 236 21 249 13.9 6. 0
Public Tranpsort Bus/minibus 17 2 -1.5 7.9 -1.6 Jeepney (and related) 87 8 8.5 4.0 8.5 Taxi 12 1 6. 0 2. 5 2.0
Freight Transport Trucks/Vans 304 27 8.3 9.8 7.3
Other 14 1 18.7 13.8 8.8
Total 1,111 100 12.6 9.4 5.2
Sources: StatisticalYearbook, NEDA, 1979, BLT Report of Accomplishment,1972 80. - 49 -
Table 1. 6
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECrOR REPORT
Vehicle Registrations :3y Region, 1981 (000 s)
Cars,/ a Total official Motorcycles/ Buses Utility motorized Region or city & private tricycle minibus vehicles Trucks Trailers vehicles
National 318 187 18 365 103 15 1,006
Metro Manila 206 34 6 163 31 6 445 North Luzon (excl. Manila) 46 48 6 74 24 5 203 South Luzon 23 24 3 47 11 2 109 Visayas 26 36 2 40 21 1 126 Mindanao 18 45 2 40 16 2 122
/a Includes taxis.
Note: Columns and rows do not total exactly due to rounding to nearest thousand vehicles.
Source: Bureau of land Transport, 1981. - 50 - Table 1.7
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Vehicle Ownership Per Capita by Region and Selected Cities (1980)
Vehicles/i,000 population Mbtor- Popula- cycle/ Bus/ tion tri- Jeepr- mini- Total Vehicles Region or city ('000) Cars /a cycles neys bus Freight 1980 1981
National 47,914 9.5 4.9 1.8 0.4 6.0 23.2 20.3
Regions North Luzon (excluding Metro Manila) 10, 558 7.1 6.0 1.4 0.6 4.9 20.6 15.0 South luzon 9,581 4.5 3.7 1.8 0.4 4.4 14.7 - Visayas 11,134 3.9 4.1 1.4 0.3 3.9 13.7 11.1 Mindanao 10, 716 3.5 4.8 1.2 0.2 4.7 14.4 10.9 Metro Manila 5,925 44.9 7.0 4.8 0.5 17.0 75.3 72.5
Selected Cities Metro Cebu 944 15.1 12.6 3.0 0.4 13.2 44.2 37.1 Davao 611 16.7 9.6 5.0 0.6 n.a n.a. Zamboanga 344 8.1 10.4 0.7 0 6.6 26.3 27.4 Bacolod 267 30.5 14.6 15.1 1.2 27.7 44.4 58.4 Iloilo 244 18.5 14.0 10.1 0.5 14.2 57.2 48.9 Cagayan de Oro 228 24.0 20.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. 73.3 53.5 Angeles 186 39.7 15.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. 68.9 42.1 Olangapo 156 12.5 12.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. 32.5 38.6 Baguio 119 51.5 1.6 17.1 1.6 0.9 72.8 48.6 Tacloban 103 28.2 21.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 64.4 55.5 Legaspi 100 18.5 12.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. 43.2 39.0 Cotabato 88 .13.3 23.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. 57.6 26.5
n.a. - detailed breakdown not available.
/a Includes official, diplomatic and taxis.
Sources: NCSO and BLT. - 51 - Table 2.1
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Summary of Urban Roads and NaLtional Road Network (As of December 31, 1980)
All roads (km) Urban roads (km) /a Category (total) Paved Unpaved Total Paved Unpaved
National 23,641 10,116 1'3,525 2,800 2,058 741
Secondary Roads
Provincial 29,753 3,331 26,421 - - -
City 3,691 2,414 1,277 3,691 2,414 1,277
Municipal 11,445 2,966 8,478 - - -
Barangay Roads /b
in municipalities 70,077 888 69,189 - -
in cities 13,311 531 12,779 13,311 531 12,779
Total 151,918 20,246 131,671 19,803 5,004 14,797
/a Defined here as roads within Incorporated Cities. /b Administered by barangays; funded through MLG.
Source: Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPWH). - 52 - Table 2.2
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Paved Road/a Kilometerage by Jurisdiction for Six Principal Cities
City Metro Metro Jurisdiction Bacolod Cagayan de Oro Cebu Davao Manila Iloilo
Paved National 52 57 143 111 769 52 Barangay 52 11 46 17 15 49 City 119 49 147 90 991 16 Provincial - - 26 - 126 - Municipal - - 16 - 469 -
Subtotal 223 117 378 218 2,370 117
Unpaved National 10 13 8 48 21 2 Barangay 83 89 493 435 182 10 City 20 89 2 519 127 1 Provincial - - 99 - 38 - Municipal - - 63 - 64 -
Subtotal 113 191 665 1,220 430 13
/a Paved includes concrete and asphaltic surfaces, unpaved includes gravel and earth surfaces. 53- Table 2. 3
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Traffic Accident Rates in Selected Nations
Casualties per 100,000 Nation /a Year Population
Chile 1975 9.1 Cuba 1974 10.2 Thailand 1976 10.7 Japan 1976 11.6 Mexico 1974 15.3 Netherlands 1976 17.7 Ecuador 1974 19.4 United States 1975 21.5 France 1974 22.5 Canada 1974 28.1 Australia 1974 28.6 Venezuela 1975 33.4 Portugal 1974 34.9 Philippines 1979 50.5
/a Source: World Health OrganizatiDn(except data on Philippines supplied by MPWH). - 54 - Table 2.4
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Persons Killed Per 10,000 Vehicles Registered (1978)
13.0 Philippines 4.0 Australia 3.8 United Kingdom 3.5 U.S.A. 3.0 Japan
Source: Stanly A. Mack, Team Advisor, paper presented to 11th National Road Safety Convention, May 26-27, 1981. --~ 5 Table 2.5
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Traffic Accidents in Metro Manila, 1981
Type Number
Fatal 50 Personal injury 10,931 Property damage only 35,931
Source: Metro Manila Urban Itansport Strategy Project- Part A, Draft Final Report, March 1983 - 56 - Table 2.6
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Sidewalk Conditions Along Major Arteries in Metro Manila
Good 5.2 Fair 52.7 Poor 4.8 None 37.3
Total 100.0
Source: MMUTIP. Table 2.7
- 57 -
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Pavement Conditions ALong Major Arteries in Metro ,Alanila
Janual:y 1981 June 1983
Very good 0.4 11.2 Good 12.4 42.6 Fair 63.1 35.8 Poor 21.3 6.7 Very bad 2.3 3.7
Total -OO 100
Source: MTMUTIP. PII1IIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Settoral Sihare of loifrastructure Investment, 1965-78 (Z)
Sector 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Transporlt 61 43 66 54 ) 57 49 60 61 54 41 33 28 23 1 TeIeconmiincatlonia 4 8 3 3 )58 8 - I I - - - - - 20 19 Water resources & flood control 4 15 15 16 17 16 24 18 22 29 28 22 18 20 21 24 1 I'ower 6 electrification 20 22 10 1O 5 8 14 10 6 12 21 31 46 46 54 50 La Social luIrastructive, co mlacelllatoouu projecta special bproJects 11 12 7 17 16 12 13 12 10 5 10 13 8 10 4 7
Souree: NKDA/pIlS, June 1981.
I-. PHIILIPP[NES
URBAN TRANSPORT Sl:CTORt RIEWIItT
MPWIIRoad [IvCSLImelit lit SolcBa. I-tijor ttlltItlw 1977-BI
Expenid1 tur eu Expeodituree per 100 Motor Year Total per captta /a motor vehicle City Population vehiclea 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1971-B1 1978-81 1977-81 (0O0) (000) (P 'OOU current) (P -000 (P) (P) cur renit)
Metro Iiaall1a 5,925 446.1 144,761 180,457 163,784 126,376 201),408 815,786 138 1t1l D)avao 560 29.4 1 0 0 0 0 3,900 3.900 7 13 b(.t tv wLil'1 - I e< A . - Blacolod 259 11.8 1,240 0 0 0 0 1,240 5 ll llollo 245 14.0 8)0 0 0 0 0 800 3 6 Natlun.ll 47,914 1,111.4 1,552,701 1,833,199 1,718,427 1,192,879 N.A. 6,297,206 164 /b 708
based on total 1977-19H0.
/b Based on 4-year total expanded to 5 years.
Source; II'II/NEI)A Prog r.vm Obhilgattolou and Cash Disbursement Schedule 1977-81. MPII: Summary of hlighway Accomnplflshneaets 198t1. 60- - Table 2.13
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Local (Dvernment Expenditure's on Construction and Maintenance of Streets, Roads and Bridges, Metro-Manila, 1977-80 (? 000s at current prices)
Cities/ Municipalities 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Caloocan City 950 3,150 1,850 5, 758 3, 004 Manila 7, 064 5, 450 2, 293 9, 800 6, 106 Quezon City 4, 494 8, 040 6, 639 20,226 12,956 Pasay City - 2,316 918 2,435 2,753 Las Pinas 310 292 690 370 646 Makati 4, 639 2,156 800 800 599 Malabon 528 550 950 1, 550 560 Mandaluyong 1, 507 1, 357 2, 217 1,850 1, 400 Marikina - 435 787 215 Muntinlupa 108 75 300 250 17 Navotas 95 115 260 630 1 Paranaque 1, 494 850 1, 034 1, 234 63 Pasig 3,963 5, 058 4,900 8,300 2,838 Pateros 50 66 163 257 20 San Juan 920 121 324 398 24 Tagig 40 101 280 730 824 Valenzuela 521 720 260 145 2, 340
Total 26, 681 30, 417 24, 313 55, 519 34, 426
/a Estimate Mid-1981.
Source: MMC, July 1981. - 61
Table 2.12
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANISPORTSECTOR REPORT
Investment in Metro-Manila Transport Infrastructure /a 1977-80 (d millions current)
Item 1977 :1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Metropolitan Manila MPWH Highway construction/b 144.8 L80.5 163.8 126.4 200.4 201.0 Local Highway construction/c 26.7 30.4 24.3 55.5 34.4 n.a. Rail: PNR 0 0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.6 Bus : MOTC/MMTC 62.2 14.8 1.0 3.0 400.0/g - LRT: MOTC - - - - 37.3 962.2
Total Transport Investment 233.7 225.7 189.2 185.9 672.1 1,163.8
Local Highway Investmentsas % of Total Highway Investment 15.6 14.4 12.9 30.5
Total Manila Investment as % of National Transport and CommunicationsInvestment /d 10.1 13.0 8.2 5.9
Total Manila Road Investment as % of MPH national invest- ment (roads only) /e 9.3 9.8 9.5 10.6
/a Metro Manila is defined as the cities oi Manila, Caloocan, Pasay and Quezon, and the municipalitiesof Las Pinas, Makati, Malabon, Mandaluyong,Marikina, Muntinlupa, Navotas, Paranaque, Pasig, Pateros, San Juan, Tagig and Valenzuela. /b Includes expenditureson traffic manageuientschemes. /c Includes road maintenanceexpenditures; see Table 2.13 for expendituresby individual units of government. /d As shown in Table 2.15. Ie As shown in Table 2.14. 7Tf Data for 1981 and 1981 from InvestmentP'lanning Aspects of Metro Manila Transport, Working Paper, January 1983. /g Includes 1,000 buses leased by MMTC to private consortia.
Sources: MPH Highway Investments: Cash DisbursementSchedule 1977-81. NEDA InfrastructureProgram MOTC for rail/bus data MMC for local highway expenditures - 62 - Table 2.11
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Financing of Local Road Maintenance /a
Jurisdictional Source Estimated total road classifi- Central cost to maintain cation government Local funds 1 km of road/year funds ____ -__ (z) ------~~(e)
City National Aid 33 66-2/3 11,342 Provincial 66-2/3 33-1/3 8,506 Municipal 60 40 5,670 Barangay 100 0 4,537 City 0 100
/a Under P.D. No. 320.
Source: PPDO, MPWR 1981 PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Apportionment of MPWH Funds for Road Maintenance (millions of pesos, current)
National City as per- Total w/o as percent cent of total Year National Provintial City Municipal Barangay Barangay of total (w/o Barangay) (w/o Barangay)
1977 365.8 165.0 10.5 31.1 N/A 572.4 64 1.8 1978 389.8 161.9 9.5 32.1 141.3 593.3 66 1.6 1979 404.5 162.0 9.3 32.2 256.4 608.0 67 1.5 1980 414.1 165.1 11.2 35.1 -/a 615.5 66 1.8 0 '98! 441!.1 !65.0 !8.! 36.3 -Ia 660.5 67 917
/a Funding responsibility transferred to MLG.
/b Programmed.
Source: PPDO, MPH, 1981.
tC) - 64 - Table 2.9
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Traffic Signals in Selected Cities
Motor Signals per Signals Population Vehicles Traffic 100,000 per 10,000 City ('000) ('000) Signals population vehicles
Metro Manila 5,924 444.0 126 2.1 1.31
Cebu 945 41.8 36 3.8 8.6
Davao 611 29.4 11 1.8 3.7
Zamboanga 344 9.1 4 1.2 4.4
Iloilo 247 14.0 1 0.4 0.7
Bacolod 267 11.8 4 1.5 3.4
Cagayan de Oro 228 16.7 5 2.2 3.0
Baguio 119 8.6 2 1.7 2.3 PIL..IPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Road Infrastructure In Selected Major Urban Areas (As of December 31, 1980)
National km km Population Motor Total Paved Paved Highway National Roads Paved Roads Paved Roads City (1980) Velhicles Roads Roads/a as X of Paved Roads as Z of Total per 1,000 per 1,000 ('000) (000's) -(k-mn (km) Total (km) Paved Roads Population Vehicles
MictroManila 5,924 446 2,799 2,370 85 769 32 0.40 6.3 1 Metro Cebu 945 42 1,042 378 36 143 38 0.40 9.0 n
iidaVu /b 6/i 29 i,3i6 202 i5 ii5 5i 0.3 1.0 Zainboaniga/b 344 9 466 156 34 78 50 0.45 17.3 Bacolod 267 12 297 185 62 42 23 0.69 15.4 flotlo 244 14 131 102 78 118 47 0.42 7.3 Caguyant de Oro /b 228 17 236 117 50 55 47 0.51 6.9 Baguto 119 9 417 290 69 58 20 2.44 32.2
/a Concrete or asplialtic surface. E /b llasextensive rural area withitn city boundaries.
Source: MPII,1981; except for IICLVTS,1980 In Metro Cebu. Table 3.1: SllMMARYOF EXISTING/PROPOSED PUBLIC TRANSPORT REGULATION BY MODE
Entry Rates Exit Routes Current Proposed Mission Current Proposed Mission Cuirrent Proposed Hission Current Proposed Mission Gov't Gov't suigges- Gov't Gov't sugges- Gov't Gov't sugges- Gov't Cov t sugges- policy policy tion policy policy tion policy policy tion policy policy tion
Trucks yes no no yes no no no no no yes no no
Bases yes yes/a nn/d yes yes yes/b yes yes no/c yes yes no/g
Jeepneys ye¢ yes/A no/f yes yes yes/b no no no yes yes/h,/k no/f,/g
Taxis yes yes/J no/d yes yes yes/b no no no no no no
no/i no yes yes/i no/e Tricycles yes yes/i no/d yes yes/I yes/h no a, __~~~~ .a __ .
/a Only members of 14 bus consortia allowed to operate. 71 MlaxImum rates only; may charge less. 7-7 Uiprofitable routes likely to be covered by alternative mode. 7i Let entry be determined by market demand. 7e Should he allowed to operate anywhere withilnprescribed service area off of principal arterial streets. 71 Limitation on numbers operating along selected, congested prlicijal arterials. 7 WJotildhave to register route and notify authorities prior to making change; number of changes per year limited. /h Existing operations would he allowed.a "menu" of government selected routes to choose from. Ft BOT to allow local authories to regulate mode subject to certain conditions. T Maxlmtimprescribed mimber allowed to operate within metro Mani].a. /k During "happy hiour"period of 10 pm to 5 am, jeepneys could operate anywhere.
Source: Current and proposed Covernment Policy: Metro Manila Urban Transport- ation Strategy Planning Project, Final Report; Part A, Chapter 4, April 1983.
0P - 67 -, Table 5. 1
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Costs of Principal Transport Fuels March 1981
% taxes and Principal Price per Oil company & Taxes & duties of total transport fuels liter dealer rate duties cost
Premium gas 5.25/a 2.33 2.92 56% Regular gas 5. o57F 2.15 2.90 57% Diesel 3. 11 2.27 0.84 27% Avturbo 4. 58 2.25 2.33 51%
/a September 1982 price e 5.15. /b September 1982 price e 4.95.
Note: To convert f/liter = $/gallon multiply by 0.485 (5. 25 P/liter - $2. 55/gallon) - 68 - Table 5.2
PHILIPPINES
URBAN TRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Consumption of Gasoline in Relation to Cost
1973 1974 '1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Consumption (mln. barrels) Gasoline 16.5 14.6 15.2 14.8 14.9 15.2 14.4 11.2 9.6 Diesel 12.8 12.2 13.3 14.0 14.8 15.6 17.0 17.4 17.8
Price (P/liter)
Regular Gasoline Taxes 0.140 0.325 0.335 0.359 0.585 0.585 1.058 1,348 1.878 Wholesale price (incl. taxes) 0.427 0.983 1.115 1.330 1.585 1.585 2,683 4.151 5.050 Taxes ------0.210 0.670
Diesel Wholesale price (incl. taxes) 0.359 0.787 0.891 1.071 1.114 1.114 1.582 2.250 3.110
CPI, 1972 - 100 116.5 156.3 166.9 182.3 200.4 215.0 228.7 N/A N/A
Sources: Philippines National Oil Company; Central Bank of the Philippines. - 69 - Table 5.3
PHILIPP INES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Fuel Consumption By Public Transport Modes
Liters/pass-kmat Liters/veh-km seating capacity Mode 8 kph 24 kph 8 kph 24 kph
Jeepney 0.23 0.12 0.0193 0.0104 Minibus 0.33 0.16 0.0095 0.0045 Bus 0.59 0.25 0.0098 0.0042
Source: MOTC and BOT. - 70 - Table 5. 4
PHILIPPINES
URBANTRANSPORT SECTOR REPORT
Costs of Automobile Ownership (Based on Toyota Cornoa 4-Door-1588 cc.)
Dec. 1980 Nov. 1982/a
Basic price 47, 790 74, 600
Duty and taxes 11,210 13,245
Insurance 1, 030 3,756
License fees 505 1,182
Total Cost First Year 60,535 92,783
/a Source: Delta Motor Sales Corp., Philippines. - 71 -
TRANSPORTATIOML OFFICE OF THE MINISTE5 sPLANNING h jPlANNUNG -- AND ASSLSTAXTDEPUTY MINISTER SECRETAA.IS BOAltD 29i 19
BOT
Ii
i MMTC I
|!w{PADC
LRT
~~~I - -_''1
ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCIAL AND MANAGNNENT| SERVICES MG%'4T.SERVICES RNFO.VI ICES 66,57 57/20 56.25 a
LND ARNSP. DIVISION
2 ! ~~~~~~AIRAND WATE-R i ll _ ~~~~TRANSP.DIVISION
TELECOMM.K DNISISON 9;s5
.| POSTAL COMM. DIVISiON 9,5
1B8LT dBUREAUOP BUREAU OF BUREAU OF NAT. TELECOMM. I LTPOSTS AR TNSP. TELECOMM. COMMISSION
NOTE. Figures shown indicte xxx /4 acrial suff ?hwed suffing authonaei Total 279/157
Char: 1: ORGANIZATIONALSTRUCTURE OF MOTC- ML ISt:IOE -fall-1111. D ci (it 412)
_PANNING DIVISION
[CIIr1-__ ___Icuilv, -JN
L0ICf (II liL |iL OFFICE of ASSIATAN1 Dl1IllCT0H _ _ _ - ______ASSIS7AMY _ICE LOFIOl roN AIDMINISiTRNATION Ul( OPLRA11IONS
A.iI IIINN4 PII0)PI DI ACt 0NTIN(. IR&IDGUT 1 IIIINI 1 II (111G(lItITIIA tAI &I VICI *6 DI1 ]" DV%t" 0SO IlVINII (la IAlU IONS EFCULIW SI(VIS% I,SIAIONI).I0A1tING IIIVl I1IVII4I 541IV.) CONi I0L.l)IV I)IVISMI) DIVISO isIO 1siANT I,6) _24 114)2 X) 434) GENIAIAL~~ RLFNJ3& '-1]ON AW-I
I (IIII BNAL
Atil 'l.'l N Ih 4245u)1
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t __I I
Chart 2: OtIGANIZATIONAL S1TRUCTURE OF BLT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE
MPlt-MOTC -MMC-PCMINP
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TECIINICALL & MANAGEMENT CO
POtlCE LIAISON _Tearnu 1 CNTS Am DIIIECTOR
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DIVISION DESIGN & ADMINISTRATIVE TAAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATION PL^NNINGCONST. t)IVISION DIVISION DIVISION MAINTENANCE DIVISION
LC1N SURVEYS l DESIGN CONSTHUCTION GENERAL FINANCIAL & SYSTEM ENGR. IRLSEAICIII INVFNTORY ETO ETO SERVICES GEN. CLERICAL & comm.ELCMCI SECIO SECTION SECTION SECTION ITNSXIO SECTION CIN 4121 420) (413) 116) (22) 41)) 114) (191
:IsApioulmaole secton talaillog
Cliart 3: ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT (TEAM) ] - 74 -
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
~~~~~~~~~~~Il
ARMED FORCES |OF PHILIPPINES|
PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARYV PHILIPPINE PfflLIPPINE PPlIPPINE INTEGiRATED NATIONAL ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE . ~POLICE (PC/INP)
REGIONAL CONSTABULARY HIGHWAY ! COMMANDS PATROL GROUP l, ~~~~~~(13) (CHPG)
PROVINCIAL DISTRICTS COMMANDS (13) (77) (one per region)
STATIONS TEAMS* (for larger cities) (77) (oneper province)
AIDES ~A Z BARANGAY TRAFFIC | (Volunter
* A team is generally four officers and one patrol vehicle
Char: 4: ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES - 75
FUNCTION
MAJOR AGENCIES Zo Z'
National Trans. Plannins Board (NTPB) 0
Min. of Budget I | |+
Nat'l Economic Developm. Adm. (NEDA) a o | I-
Min. of Transportation and Comm.LMOTC) + ++ | _
Board of Transportation (SOT) - i .| |
Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT) - +
Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) {Q|0 + |_ + T Metro-Manila Transit Comm. (MMTC) | - - -
Min. of Public Highways (MPH) +| + TIo +
Traffic Ensineering & Mmzt.(TEAM) - J ! +o -
Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) + |I- Ii| I
MJ4. Traffic Oper. Cntr. (MMTOC) - I | | _ - - I -
M.M. Engineering Oper.Cntr.tMMEOC) i 1 J T | J <
Min. of Public Works (MPW) I o |+|
Phil. Constabulary/lntegrated Nat. Police j - f| (PC/INP) ___
Constabulary Hwy Patrol Group (CHPG) I - - 1 1 -
Min. of Human Settlements IMHS) 1 |
Local Government:
Transportation Trng. Center tTTC)
Univ. of Philippines Law Cente? 'I I
LEGEND +Primary Responsibility 0 Contributing Responsibility Minor or No Responsibility
Chart 5: EXISTING AGENCY RELATIONSHIPS TO TRANSPORT FUNCTIONS - 76 -
ORGANIZATION FUNCTION Steering MC Comm. MOTC MPH MMC INP TEAM CITIES
Policy and Programs 0 0 0 0 _ _ _
Transport Planning _ x 0 0 _ _ _
Infrastructure Imp. - X X _ _ 0
Transport Regulation _ X _ _ _ _
Traffic Management 0 _ X _ _ x _
Enforcement _ 0 0 X | -
Operations and 01.) X _ x _ x Maintenance
LEGEND X - Primary Responsibility 0 = Contributing Responsibility - - Minor or no Responsibility 1.) Through LRTA, MMTC
Chart 6: URBAN TRANSPORT RESPONSIBILITIES IN METRO - MANILA - 77 -
CIRGANIZATION FUNCTION SteenCm MOTC MPH MCLUTS INP CITIES
Policy and Programs X 0 0 X
Transport Planning _ _ _ x _ _
Infrastructure Imp. _ _ X X 0
Transport Regulation _ 0 0 x 0 _
Traffic Management _ _ _ X _ _
Enforcement _ _ _ X _
Operations and _ _ X _ X Maintenance
LEGEND X Primary Responsibility
0 - Contributing Responsibility
- a Little or No Responsibility
Chart 7: URBAN TRANSPORT RESPONISIBILITIES IN METRO- CEBU - 78 -
Chart 8: TRAFFIC MANAGEMENTRESPONSIBILITIES IN METROMANILA
Traffic Steering Function Committee MOTC MPH MMC INP TEAM Cities BOT BLT
Traffic policy measures x 0 0 0 - - Traffic engineering designs - - 0 - - x 0 Minor road works in suppoat of traffic management 0 - 0 - - x 0 Traffic signalization procurement - - 0 - - x - Traffic signalization operation - - - . x 0 - Road signing and marketing - - x - x x x Moving traffic regulation - - - - x - Parking tickets - - - - x -
Legend x = primary responsibility O - contributingresponsibility - - minor or no responsibility - 79 -
Chart 9: PUBLIC TRANSPORT REGULATION RESPONSIBILITIES
Integrated Bureau of Land Board of National City Function Transport Transport Police government (BLT) (BOT) (INP)
Motor vehicle licensing X
Driver licensing X
Operator franchising X - -
Route assignment /a X - -
Fare setting -X - 0
Vehicle inspection X 0 -
Franchise and route enforcement X 0 0
Traffic violation enforcement 0 x -
/a Typicallly issued as part of franchise.
Legend
X - primary responsibility O - contributingresponsibility - = minor or no responsibility
IBRD17234 116 CLASSIFICATIONOF PROVINCES i20 124° JUNE1983 BY GEOGRAPHICALREGIONS NCR NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION ILOCOS VI WESTERNVISAYAS 1 AlocosNorte 38 Akian PHILIPPiNES IAbra 20 Capiz PH LI PI E 3 llocosSur 40 Antique -20- 4 Mountain 41 Iloilo 8 20- " La Uno. 412Negros Occidental _ __ __ nBeguet Ot7 CENTRAL VISAYAS A.rport 7 42 Ceba 7Pna'inan 44 NegrosOriental Q Roads i CAGAYANVALLEY 45 Bohol S Batanes 46 Siquijor - ' Roilwoys 0 Cagayan "I t EASTERNVISAYAS 1 RKabioga-Apayao 4N Sanar olL' C.77' Provincrol Boundaries I IIsabela 48 Same, ' Cpv' 12 ifugao 49 EasternSamar , Regional Boundarres 13 NuevaViscaya 59 Leyte - - e 14 Ouirino 5' SouthernLeyte Loog Internaonal Boundaries Of1CENTRAL LUZON 1XWESTERN MINDANAO 15 NuevaEcija 52 ZamboangadelNorte , Dingros - 16 Tarlac 53 Zamboangadel Sur I - 13' Zam,bales 54 Basilan '0 18 Pampanga 55 Sulu 19 8ulacan 56 Tawitawi 5 nbc 20 Bataan X NORTHERNMINDANAO loam, IV SOLUTliERNTAGALOG 57 SaadelName 2 11 / 21 Aurora 59 Camiguin fernando 'N' 6 92 Otnzon 33 Aguntndet Norte Bgeo1 23 Rizat 3 MisamisOriental f" o 1g 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 16' 24 Cavite 01 MiseminOccidental KLMTR 2O Laguna 62 Bukidnon U' MILES, 20 Butangas 53 Agusandel Sur S 2 0 50 100 150 200 27 Maindaque XI EASTERNMINDANAO i Jose 28 Mindoro Oriental SarigeodelS5r T4'lariac 29 Mindoro Occidental iE DaaoOnrental 16 5obo aleonn 30 Romblon 60 Davao Ar1geles 8 31 Palawan 67 DavaodelSur ; 7 V BICOL 65 South Cotabato 5 22 'N 32 CarnarinesNorte X1 CENTRAL MINDANAO A /I / PP/N E S E A 22 CamarinesSur 69 Lanaodet Norte i 34 Catanduanes 70 Lanaodel Sur P ,J 9 ' ' "' 35 Alby >r ~~7'North Cotebato i3,p 0 aj ,\t~0 35 la 72 Maguindaneo"'- - 25 SorsrJgon 3' Suianudra i IN 2?7MaSbete -Salter, Kuadrat ~r~ 33 l
I <-- r V V < No a: '
SOUrH CHINA -x '5o;SfA S '~~0' 5 1' 21 ~~~~~~~Allen
SEfA + , 9 Sl J r ) f r < < 47_, X 5I 12 >t
i r cN, Y4IJS. 49
'7 Tcl'obŽo
0 ''a -00t' ')8
' P ncesa~ jsr 0 i
32~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6
53~~~~~~~
iZb.-' Fcm . _.agoyn cs^ /$t *0mbizos1°"'"r g e< {tv\\/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"'60
TENAM? .s ~ ~~~~~~~~~leA ,_80\ ~~~~~1 K'~6 69 180
.n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IE v\ 8
_. x rNDrAO _ ', + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Elf 8fS SFr t cN sD t0 - rA h|E 'N Ge
MA L4XS/ I bs '
11210wn,BEJIE2 oH , 124-jn