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).