IMPROVING COMMUTER EXPERIENCE IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT TERMINALS THROUGH PLACEMAKING IN MAKATI CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (MCBD), MAKATI CITY, PHILIPPINES by Mea Karla C. Dalumpines ©2017 Mea Karla C. Dalumpines A demonstration of professional competence submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Urban Placemaking and Management School of Architecture Pratt Institute December 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 7 LITERATURE REVIEW 8 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS 9 ANALYSIS OF DATA Commuting in Metro Manila 10 Makati Central Business District 12 Pedestrianization and Placemaking in MCBD 14 The MCBD Commuting Experience 16 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 20 RECOMMENDATIONS The Framework 23 Case Study Recommendations 25 NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSIONS 34 BIBLIOGRAPHY 36 ADDENDUM Addendum #1: Survey Questionnaire 38 Addendum #2: Key Survey Results 41 2 INTRODUCTION Metro Manila, the Philippines’ center of administrative and financial activity, is one of the densest cities in the world. The megacity composes of 16 cities and municipalities and has a total land area of 620 square kilometers or 239 square miles. In the most recent study by the United Nations, Metro Manila is 18th of the most populated megacities in the world with a total population of 13,131,000 in 2016 and is expected to grow by another 3,000,000 by 2030. As the center of economic growth in the country, surrounding provinces from the northern and southern parts of the island of Luzon congregate in key growth centers such as the Makati Central Business District, Bonifacio Global City and Ortigas Center. Like most Asian cities, Metro Manila is at the peak of the real estate boom, with developments sprouting here and there, creating a web of new townships that link to the principal growth centers in and out of the metropolis. This network of development is expanding to the nearby provinces, where industrial parks, commercial developments and mostly residential enclaves are being built. The sixteen cities and municipalities of the metropolis is principally connected by a main thoroughfare, Epifanio De Los Santos Avenue or EDSA, a ten-lane highway that also follows MRT 3, the heavily used light rail system that connects to two other light rail lines, LRT 1 and LRT 2. New rail lines serving Metro Manila and the surrounding provinces are also in the government’s transportation project pipeline, for implementation beginning this year. However, the development of these plans, along with the improvements and building of new roads are not easily realized due to game-changing political events such as the EDSA Revolution in 1986 and the changing administrations with different sets of Image 1. Satellite image of Metro Manila priorities and plans for mass transit. The (source: Google Earth) lack of an efficient mass transit system has led residents within and outside the metropolis to use different modes of private and public ground transportation, increasing the number of vehicles competing for limited road space. While Metro Manila dawdled in its public infrastructure amidst the metropolis’ continuous exponential growth, the current mobility crisis worsened beyond the critical zone. Metro Manila’s traffic crisis did not happen overnight. It is rooted from lack of urban planning, good governance and political will resulting to infrastructure deficiency, inadequate publicly- managed and well-maintained mass transit system that could have been avoided by building the city’s planned transport infrastructure in time since the 80s. This is further escalated by 3 the increase in motor vehicles competing for limited road space, as a result of inadequate public transportation infrastructure. Image 2. Morning traffic along Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA), Metro Manila (Source: Inquirer.net) An estimated total of 18 million trips are made daily, 70% of which are made by public transport (39% by jeepneys, 14% by bus and 9% by rail) and 30% by private cars taking over an inadequate road network that averages a vehicle density of 3,677 per square kilometer, higher than Singapore’s (1,360), Tokyo’s (967) and New York City’s (2,504).1 This makes the average daily commute 90-150 minutes, taking up 20% of a person’s typical 12-hour day. This doesn’t include the wait time one person spends waiting for public transport, whether it’s by bus, jeepney or rail. The transportation issue in Metro Manila is an urban planning problem that will need a long-term solution that will not fully take effect in 15-20 years. For now, Metro Manila residents must cope with the problem by having to get used to the hassles of daily commute. Commuting is a huge part of daily life in Metro Manila, making transit facilities such as light rail stations and garage terminals as important public spaces in Manila’s urban life. In these places, people spend an inordinate amount of time in different types of situations, climates and seasons. 1 Santiago, Rene. “Easing Metro Manila Traffic Congestion.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 10, 2016. 4 The commuting experience in the metro starts and ends from the time one leaves his home, workplace or school. Based on interviews and observations, a commuter in Metro Manila will wait an average of 15-30 minutes for transportation to arrive, but during monsoon season and the holiday rush from November to December, wait time can be as long as 60 to 90 minutes depending on the destination. During peak hours, commuters try to cope by squeezing in last minute errands or by overstaying in their workplaces and in shopping malls until the rush hour has waned. For some office workers who work the typical daily 8-hour shift, commuting, including the time spent at terminals, averages around one to two hours. The commuting experience in transport terminals vary. Some have the necessary amenities while others do not have. Others have limited capacity that makes the experience grueling for the commuter. Ownership of public spaces is also a concern, especially in terms of terminal maintenance and management. Aside from the rail stations, transport terminals aren’t publicly owned. Most are privately owned either by the transportation company or are part of a privately-owned development. Because of this nature, there is an underlying equity issue that hinders the provision of a full serviced experience for both commuters and drivers. Terminals are one of the mostly used public spaces in Metro Manila. The situation within these places greatly affects the everyday lives of the people, even if they just stayed there for one or two hours. Unlike other public spaces like parks and plazas, terminals are mostly utilitarian that the idea of an enjoyable transit terminal is new especially to commuters. However, with the amount of time spent in these places, it is only right to make commuting an enjoyable experience for passengers and drivers alike, amidst terrible traffic and road conditions that are waiting for them outside. Terminals, like any other public spaces, should be able to uplift the experience of its users and improve the quality of their everyday lives. 5 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Metro Manila is a large city that is experiencing exponential growth. Due to lack of efficient mass transit system, inefficient building of infrastructure brought about by political events and changes in government administration, the current transportation infrastructure is not enough to cover the growth of the city. This is causing immense traffic, conditions that are aggravated by increase of motor vehicles in the city. And this creates a snowball effect, with the traffic situation affecting the commuting experience, experience from the moment you leave your place of origin to the moment you arrive in your destination, including the wait time in terminals. For growth centers and central business districts where thousands of Metro Manila residents flock to everyday, public transport terminals are important parts of their daily lives. And despite the current mobility crisis that the city is experiencing right now, new developments are still very much transit-oriented rather than commuter and pedestrian- centered, including public transport terminals. This creates a very stressful environment in terminals, which impacts the public’s daily life immensely. With this, there is a need to revisit the current situation of public transport terminals especially in growth centers and central business districts, important urban hubs of commerce, culture and socialization. A thorough review of the existing terminal situation is needed in order to identify the needs for improvement of its amenities, management, maintenance and programming. 6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goal of this study is to identify the issues and areas for improvement of public transport terminals in Metro Manila, with Makati Central Business District (MCBD), one of the country’s most important financial districts, as the primary case study area. The following are the key objectives of the study: 1. Identify placemaking strategies to improve commuter experience in transit terminals The study aims to identify placemaking strategies that will uplift the commuting experience in transport terminals through facility improvements, management and stakeholder involvement strategies and programming. These strategies will be established from the neighborhood context of MCBD and Metro Manila’s current policies and infrastructure situation. Ultimately, these recommendations could be replicated in other growth centers, districts and neighborhoods in the city. 2. Utilize existing infrastructure to improve connectivity and public use Metro Manila’s growth centers have a number of the public spaces that are underutilized for a number of reasons such as maintenance, prejudiced rules and regulations and lack of programming. The study aims to identify opportunities to utilize untapped public spaces as links and expansion areas for transit terminals. Not only will this provide adequate space for transit terminals, this will also create opportunities for other uses that can provide opportunities to the neighborhood’s economic growth, social dynamics and physical infrastructure.