Transcript Cal Primitivo

TRANSPORT FOR THE POOR:
THE CASE OF METRO MANILA
DR. PRIMITIVO C. CAL
Former Professor, School of Urban & Regional Planning,
University of the Philippines
&
Former President, Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
• Geographic and Socio-economic profile
of Metro Manila
• Metro Manila Transportation System
• The poor as transport users
• The poor as transport providers
• Conclusion
MAP OF THE PHILIPPINES
Metro Manila
CHARACTERISTICS:
•
•
•
•
Land Area: 636 sq.km.
Population: 10.8 (2005)
Per capita Income: $1,200 pa
(2003)
% of Poor Families (4.8%)
Road Map of Metro Manila
•C6
•C6
•C5
•R-10
•C-2
•C3
•R9
•C1
•R1
•R7
•C2
•R2
2006 ROAD LENGTHS,
km:
•R8
•C4
•C3
•R3
•C4
•C5
Nat. roads
- 1,000
Expressway -
•R6
•C6
•R5
•C4
•R4
•C5
Local
Private
Total
•C6
•Source: Roads in the Philippines, 2003, Department of Public Works and Highways and Japan International Cooperation Agency
37
- 2,366
- 1,639
5,043
•Legend:
•MRT8
•3/12/2008 3:23 PM
•REP/RAIL TPD
RAIL NETWORK
•11
•
Line 1
•
Line 2
•
Line 3
•
Line 4
•
Line 5
•
Line 6
•
Line 7
•
PNR Southrail
•
PNR Northrail
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Tricycles: 57,720 (2008)
Pedicabs
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Jeepneys: 58,215 (2008) Buses: 5,988 (2008)
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
AUV Express: 9,606 (2008)
Taxi: 22,345 (2008)
Traffic Demand by Mode of Transportation in
Metro Manila, 1996
Person Trips
Mode
No. (000)
Private
Motorcycle
Car/Jeep+UV1/
Truck
Subtotal
Semi
Public
Public
125
3,289
422
(%)
0.7
18.5
2.4
Average
Occupancy
1.1
2.5
2.1
No. (000)
(% vehicle)
(% PCU 2/)
114
1,316
201
3.2
37.0
5.7
1.6
37.2
11.4
1,630
45.8
50.2
392
48
20
11.0
1.4
0.6
11.1
1.4
1.1
3,836
21.6
862
226
440
4.9
1.3
2.5
2.2
4.7
22.3
Subtotal
1,528
8.6
-
460
12.9
13.6
Tricycle
Jeepney
Bus
LRT
PNR
2,373
6,952
2,653
409
6
12.4
39.1
14.9
2.3
0.0
2.5
15.1
46.5
-
949
460
57
-
26.7
12.9
1.6
-
13.4
19.5
3.2
-
Subtotal
12,394
69.8
-
1,467
41.2
36.2
17,758
100.0
-
3,556
100.0
100.0
Taxi
HOV Taxi
Private Bus
Total
-
Vehicle Trips
Source: MMUTIS Person Trip Survey
1/ UV: utility vehicle
2/PCU: (Passenger Car Unit): conversion factor of different sizes of vehicles in terms of passenger car size for comparison
Source: MMUTIS Data
Existing Traffic Management Measures in Metro Manila
• Urban Traffic Control
• Traffic Restraint
• U-turn schemes
• Reversible Lane
• Bus Stop Segregation Scheme
• Bus Only Lanes
• Yellow Box
• Others
Impact on the Poor
• Level of Service
• Economic Impact
• Social Impact
• Environmental/Safety Impact
Public Transport Hierarchy
Taxi
Jeepney
FX Tamaraw
Tricycle
Source: MMUTIS Data
Pedicab
Philippine National
Railway
Bus
Minibus
Source: MMUTIS Data
Metro Rail Transit 3
Light Rail Transit Line 1
Source: MMUTIS Data
TRANSPORT TERMINALS
LEGEND
Jeepney Service
Coverage
Jeepney Terminal
Source: MMUTIS Data
Waiting Time of Bus Passengers
250
200
150
Waiting Time
100
Preferred
Waiting Time
50
0
Less than 5-10 min.
5 min.
Source:
D. L. Guariño, Master Thesis,
“Consolidation of Bus Companies in Metro
Manila”
11-15
min.
Attitude on Bus Level of Service
Level of Service
Satisfied
Frequency
Not Satisfied
Rank
Frequency
Rank
Comfort and Safety
210
1
33
7
Waiting Time
165
2
7
6
Travel Time
160
3
7
5
Driving Behavior
135
4
144
3
Loading Capacity
121
5
208
1
Cleanliness
112
6
104
4
63
7
65
2
Attitude of
Conductors/Inspectors
Source:
D. L. Guariño, Master Thesis,
“Consolidation of Bus Companies in Metro
Manila”
FARE RATES





LRT/MRT: P10-15 ($0.02/km)
Bus
: P9 min. ($0.04/km)
Jeepney : P7.50 min. ($0.03/km)
Taxi
: P30 Flagdown plus P2.50/300 m
AUV
: P7 min ($0.03/km)
$1.00=P47.00
Perception on Fare
No Comment
26.33%
Not Just
6.08%
Source:
D. L. Guariño, Master Thesis,
“Consolidation of Bus Companies in Metro
Manila”
Just
67.59%
Willingness to Pay for More
No
Comment
18.23%
Agree
46.08%
Disagree
35.70%
Source:
D. L. Guariño, Master Thesis,
“Consolidation of Bus Companies in Metro
Manila”
Economic Impact of Congestion in
Metro Manila
 100 billion pesos per year (year 1996 pesos) - a
conservative estimate prepared by NCTS for NEDA and LEDAC (LegislativeExecutive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) in 2000.
 This represents value-of-time costs only due to
delay, calculated based on 50% of average
hourly income across different occupation
classes - classes considered were Gov’t Officials, Professionals, Technicians,
Clerical Workers and Services workers based on MMUTIS classifications
Type of PUV
Est. No. of
Units
No. of
persons/unit
5,988
2.1
12,575
Jeepney
58,215
1.2
69,858
Tricycle
57,720
1
57,720
Taxi
22,345
2.5
55,862
AUV
9,606
1
9,606
Bus
TOTAL
Est. No.
Employed
205,621
EMPLOYMENT GENERATION
Time Spent by Truck Drivers on Sleeping
30
25
Percent
20
15
10
5
Source: J. Punzalan, Master Thesis, “The
Impact of Truck Ban on the Trucking
Industry in Metro Manila”
hr
s
>8
hr
s
8
hr
s
7
hr
s
6
hr
s
5
hr
s
4
le
ss
3h
rs
or
tn
ap
Ca
gO
ff
in
D
ur
Su
nd
ay
s
0
Time Spent by Truck Drivers on
Family/Personal Activities
50
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
NoTime
1-2hr/da
Source: J. Punzalan, Master Thesis, “The
Impact of Truck Ban on the Trucking
Industry in Metro Manila”
3-6hr/da
Sundays
Figure 3.3 Concentration of Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)
Concentration of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)
Source: Environment Management Bureau National Capital Region Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Partnership for Clean Air
2002 Statistics
Philippines
MetroManila
Number
%
Area, sq.km. (x1000)
294.55
0.636
0.22
Population (million)
79.48
10.76
13.5
Roads, km. (x1000)
161
4.8
3.0
Vehicle
Registration(million)
3.98
1.33
33.4
Driver's License(million)
1.93
0.57
29.6
Number of Driver
Apprehensions(x1000)
612
162
26.5
Fatalities
714
240
33.6
% of nighttime accidents
30
60 (fatal)
40 (non-fatal)
---
Source: Sigua, R.G.(2004), Philippine Road Safety Workshop
Place of Occurrence (2001)
Vehicle Involvement (2001)
11%
39%
8%
National Road
Expressway
Provincial Road
City Road
Municipal Road
Barangay Road
36%
% Involvement
4% 2%
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Bus
Truck
Car
Jeep
Vehicle Type
Source: Sigua, R.G(2004), Philippine Road Safety Workshop
Tricycle Motorcycle
CONCLUSION
• The poor is relatively well served by the public transport
system but level of service affected by traffic congestion
• Fares are affordable but LRT operations highly
subsidized
• The transport system provides significant number of
jobs for the poor
• The poor is exposed to air pollution and other health
hazards particularly the drivers and crew of public
transport vehicles
• Poor road safety
THANK YOU