History as a Tool for Sustainable Transport Planning in Cities

Dominic S. Aloc
Institute of Civil Engineering
University of the Philippines Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines
dsaloc@up.edu.ph

Jose Regin F. Regidor

Institute of Civil Engineering
University of the Philippines Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines
jfregidor@up.edu.ph

Abstract — An increasing trend of transport woes have influenced commuters to

query about past development plans undertaken for and by the government. With
the understanding of the context, content and sequence of these plans, comes the
trail of matters regarding what plans and projects have been implemented, what
were shelved, and what were significantly delayed. It has often been said that
history will eventually judge the actions made during a certain time. These actions,
pertaining to the decisions made in the past led to transport programs, projects
and policies that define conditions experienced by the transport users today. As to
what extent the effect of such transport planning decisions are felt today is
evidenced by the current situation of traffic and the frustration expressed by many
that has translated into various advocacies to improve transport.
This paper reviewed past transport studies and focused mainly on the
assessment of proposed and implemented rail plans and projects from the 1970s
to the 1990s. These past studies include the Urban Transport Study for the Manila
Metropolitan Area (UTSMMA, 1973), the Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and
Development Planning Project (MMETROPLAN, 1977) and the Metro Manila Urban
Transportation Integration Study (MMUTIS). Sustainable transportation indicators
were used to evaluate the aforementioned plans that cover the social, economic
and environmental issues. Such plans and programs are related to those for road
transport in the same studies. Among the findings are biases for road public
transport, the weakening of the Philippine National Railways (PNR), and policies
that favored phasing out of the government-owned and operated Metro Manila
Transit Corporation (MMTC). These effectively led to the current state of public
transport in the metropolis including what are perceived as too many bus operators
and a proliferation of jeepneys and UV Express vehicles while rail network
development is basically lagging. The paper shows how historical assessments
would allow for a clearer and more objective appraisal of transport planning that
can be used to address current concerns and planning for future needs.

Keywords — transport planning; history; sustainable transport

I. INTRODUCTION

Transportation planning, sometimes called transport planning, is a form of

procedural discipline that deals with problem identification, development of
alternatives, evaluation and decision-making, implementation of the best transport
alternative and monitoring outcomes. There may have been variations of these series
of steps but all of which generally follow the same principle — that is, to develop
solutions to the problem and to decide which solution is best for implementation.
In the United States, transport planning was only introduced in the 1960s after
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) integrated the process in its
transport manuals. At present, the processes established by the USDOT for urban
transport planning are categorized into three (3) phases [1]: (1) pre-analysis; (2)
technical analysis; and (3) post analysis. Pre-analysis phase is composed of problem
identification, formulation of goals and objectives, data collection, generation of
alternatives, and definition of evaluation measures. Meanwhile, generation of
transport and land use models is being employed in the technical analysis phase.
Lastly, post analysis phase is concerned with the evaluation, decision-making,
implementation, and monitoring. It is apparent that although categorized in phases, it
still follows the conventional idea of transport planning.
History and its assessment can be employed as a tool for transport planning
particularly in understanding issues in the past that led to certain decisions being
made for or against specific programs and projects. The latter includes the
identification and analysis of factors affecting transport planning that includes inputs
like socio-economic and land use data.
History can provide a unique perspective for transport planning and help
establish context for addressing current issues including those that seem to persist
over many years. Pante [2], for example, compared the urban transport systems in
colonial Manila and Singapore where he expounded on the relationship of technology
and the prevailing social conditions in Manila and Singapore between 1900 and 1941
that led to the development of urban transport systems in these cities during that
period. Meanwhile, Sartre [3] discussed both the pre-war and the more recent
challenges to urban rail transport in Metro Manila and proposed criteria for good
public transport. There is also the work by Iwata [4] who reviewed the history of
public transportation in Manila from the Spanish colonial period to the early 1990s.
The review provided insights to the development of road public transport modes such
as paratransit that includes the ubiquitous jeepney.

II. OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to present ‘history’ as a tool for sustainable transport planning.
In order to accomplish this, a review of past transport developments studies is
presented. An assessment is made with focus on proposed and implemented rail
plans and projects from the early 1970’s to late 1990’s. These plans and projects are
evaluated in the context of sustainable transport.

III. TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROJECTS IN METRO MANILA

Recent history (i.e., the last 45 years) has yielded several major studies that
aimed to develop transportation. Following is a review of three major studies
conducted between the years 1970 and 2000. While there are many other studies
during that 30-year period and beyond, these other studies mainly referred to these
three.

A. UTSMMA
The pioneering study was conducted under the Marcos administration with the
intent of undertaking an urban transport study that would recommend plans and
strategies to solve the foreseeable urban expansion and traffic congestion in the
Manila Metropolitan Area (MMA). The two-year study, implemented from March
1971, was called Urban Transport Study in Manila Metropolitan Area (UTSMMA) and
was completed in September 1973. The Japan Government commissioned the
Overseas Technical Cooperation Agency (OTCA), which is the precursor of today’s
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), to execute the study.
Generally, in every urban transportation planning process, the demography
within the study area is carefully studied to assess the socioeconomic factors such as
population, car ownership and occupation. These variables are essential for it
influences the way an individual makes his or her trips. In UTSMMA, the
socioeconomic information of MMA population was represented by 6,185 households
that were randomly sampled from 686,441 households living in the Manila
Metropolitan Area at the time. From the results gathered, the Japanese survey team
applied the concept of travel demand forecasting to estimate the traffic demand of
MMA in 1987. The processes included trip production, trip generation and attraction,
trip distribution, external traffic, modal split and traffic assignment.
Initially, the study area was divided into fifty-one (51) internal zones and
adjacent to it are the six (6) external zones. The first trip production was calculated
by occupation and by car ownership from the results gathered in the person trip
survey. The correspondence was multiplied to future population both for the original
and alternative land use plans. This method classified the trips generated and
attracted by trip purpose on a per zone basis. An Origin-Destination (OD) table of
person trips was constructed based on the transition probability between trip
purposes and gravity model was performed where the time distance was decided
under certain conditions and its exponent was attributed to the trip purpose relating
to the zone pairs. The 51 internal zones were re-divided into 15 sectors to ease
computation and the result was done for the two cases of land use plans. Some
factors were considered for external traffic before modal split was employed. Future
OD table per mode of travel was calculated from the OD table of person trips. The
travel mode was classified into four: drivers of cars and trucks (i.e., drivers),
passengers of cars and trucks (i.e., passengers), taxi passengers (i.e., taxis) and mass
transit. Lastly, traffic assignment was carried out to estimate the traffic volume for the
proposed transport system (i.e., expressways and subways). Given an OD pair, the
closest route was used and an all-or-nothing scenario was adopted. The value of the
future number of passengers of railway established from the processes mentioned
above was calculated to be 6,327,000 trips/day [5].
From the existing configuration of transportation network of Manila
Metropolitan Area at the time, supplemented by the output derived from the travel
demand forecasting, UTSMMA was able to propose a new transport system. With
regard to rail transport, the proposal highlighted the need of a railway transport
system that constituted the building of a five-line heavy rail transit system and
improvement of Philippine National Railways. Brief descriptions of the proposed
railway transport system are as provided in Table I and illustrated in Fig. 1:
 TABLE I RAIL TRANSPORT PROJECTS PROPOSED UNDER UTSMMA
Proposed Line Length Description
from Construction Hill to Talon via central
No. 1 27.1 km Quezon Boulevard, Manila downtown and
the International Airport
from Novaliches to Cainta via Manila
No. 2 36.0 km
downtown and Pasig
Along Highway 54 (C-4): half a circle route
No. 3 24.3 km
about 12 km from Manila downtown

from Marikina to Zapote via Cubao, Manila

No. 4 30.1 km
downtown and the Manila Bay area

from Meycauayan to Manila downtown

No. 5 17.6 km
running between Line No. 2 and PNR
from Bocaue to Muntinglupa via Tutuban
PNR (improvement) 56.4 km
Station

The analysis also estimated the future number of person trips shown in Table
II that would be observed once the proposed railway system was completely
constructed. Table III shows the construction costs that would cover the portions of
structural works, track cost, building cost, electrical and mechanical facilities cost, side
expenses and administration cost for each line. It can also be seen that the total
distance of PNR improvement was underestimated and different compared to the
preceding pages presented in UTSMMA. Meanwhile, the benefits that could be
derived from the proposed railway system were tabulated in Table IV.
 Fig. 1 Rapid rail transit network proposed by UTSMMA.

TABLE II ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PERSON TRIPS IN THE PROPOSED

RAILWAY SYSTEM UNDER UTSMMA.
Number of Person Trips
Proposed Line
(x1000 trips/day)
No. 1 1,239
No. 2 1,208
No. 3 1,013
No. 4 1,052
No. 5 502
PNR (improvement) 1,314

TABLE III ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE PROPOSED

RAILWAY SYSTEM UNDER UTSMMA.
Total Cost Average Cost
Proposed Line Length
(Million PhP) (Million PhP/km)
No. 1 27.1 km 2,340 86.4
No. 2 36.0 km 2,928 81.4
No. 3 24.3 km 3,032 124.8
No. 4 30.1 km 2,832 94.0
No. 5 17.6 km 1,168 66.2
PNR (improvement) 48.3 km 1,770 36.6
 TABLE IV ESTIMATED BENEFIT COST FROM THE PROPOSED
RAILWAY SYSTEM UNDER UTSMMA.
Amount
Benefits
(Million PhP)
Savings of travel time 36,347
Saving of investments for roads 4,770

Savings of investments for

15,265
buses and operating expenses

Increase of land use value 7,320

To enhance the reception of the proposal, a feasibility study, The Feasibility

Study for Manila Rapid Transit Railway Line No.1, was executed by JICA and was
completed on June 1976. This study highlighted the projected traffic demand
specifically for Line No. 1. The environmental impact assessment was also employed
throughout the study as well as the analysis on the economic and financial implication
for the construction of Line No. 1.

B. MMETROPLAN
The Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and Development Planning Project
(MMETROPLAN) was implemented from January 1976 to February 1977. It was
funded by the World Bank (WB), which commissioned Freeman Fox and Associates
to undertake the study with a counterpart team comprised of senior government
officials dealing with transport at the time. The steering and technical working
committees were comprised of officials and staff of the Department of Public Works,
Transportation and Communications (DPWTC), Department of Public Highways
(DPH), National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), Metro Manila Transit
Corporation (MMTC), and Philippine National Railways (PNR).
Resolving the current transport and planning problems paved the way for this
study. Specifically, based on the cover letter, the objective was 'to arrive at a
meaningful plan and program to guide transport investment and operations within
the context of a rational land use pattern.' The output should yield maximum feasible
economic growth, promotion of social development, more equitable distribution of
income and wealth, maximum labor force utilization and preservation of
environmental stability. Strategic recommendations for the planning of transport and
urban development in Metropolitan Manila both in short (i.e., immediate action
program) and longer term (i.e., long range transportation plan) were aimed to be
achieved through this project. It must be noted that short term transport actions are
made to aid the present traffic situation to the 1980s, while the subsequent years to
1990s are the main timeframe for longer term transport actions.
The analysis of urban development in MMETROPLAN included the forecast of
population, employment and education for both short term (i.e., until 1980) and longer
term (i.e., until 1990). Ten (10) sectors were grouped based from the traffic zones of
MMA jurisdiction and other neighboring cities and municipalities outside of MMA. This
projection was referred to as the Central Estimate. The estimate of population for the
MMA jurisdiction was derived by examining the absolute increases in population, rate
of growth, and increases in gross density while complemented with data on the
amount of development, availability of land for new development, aerial photograph
of each jurisdiction and site visit. On the other hand, a 4.7% average growth was
determined to occur in the areas outside MMA from 1970-75 and that, the same
percentage would take place from 1975-80. Estimation of employed persons per
sector was calculated through a participation rate of 48% for population aged 10 and
over and employed person by workplace covering the primary, secondary and tertiary
increase of employment. The ratio of school attendance per 1000 people was
obtained for MMA jurisdiction and the rest of the study area. These proportions were
used to the expected increase of 1971-80 population. Resulting data were the future
distribution of population, employment and education for 1980 and 1990 for MMA
and areas outside MMA.
The planning of transport was initiated with the formulation of a land use–
transportation model — the model that defines certain relationship among the
distribution of land use, the socio-economic characteristics of population and
transport network to the travel behavior — that consists of two stages: calibration and
forecasting of travel behavior. Five sub-models were classified for the calibration of
the land use / transportation model, namely: household categorization, trip end
estimation, trip distribution, modal choice, and trip assignment/capacity restraint.
MMETROPLAN used the existing data obtained from the results of the 1971
person trip survey conducted in UTSMMA. Households were first characterized into
12 categories comprising combinations of two car-ownership groups (i.e., car-owning
and non car-owning) and six household structures. Estimation of the number of
households per category was employed for each zone. Trips generated and trips
attracted were tallied per zone, and generation trip rates and attraction trip rates were
applied. Trip distribution sub-model made use of the entropy maximizing method
developed by A.G. Wilson, which utilizes generalized cost of travel between two
zones to estimate the future trips [7]. Meanwhile, it was concluded that two modes
of travel were to be used being car occupants and public transport passengers as
classifications. A modal split model was also formulated for this stage, which is
dependent on the sensitivity of the modal split to changes in generalized cost
between two modes and the modal handicap cost associated with public transport.
An all-or-nothing assignment of trips was carried out for public transport passengers
whereas taxi and truck users were extracted from the car occupants before assigning
to the road network.
A full land use / transportation model was formulated after the calibration,
which is also referred to in the study as the Network Model. This model was used to
forecast trips for the main corridors of movement. The results of the forecast were
used for the Corridor Analysis Model, which was the ground support in examining the
alternative policies and public transport infrastructure options.
From the analysis, MMETROPLAN recommended strategies on cordon pricing,
bus/jeepney lanes, and the conceptualization of an LRT system. The LRT system
recommended was planned to be completed in the early 1980’s and it would be
composed of a Central Area network and four (4) lines tracing along Rizal Avenue,
España/Quezon Boulevard, Shaw Boulevard and Taft Avenue. Table V shows the
proposed routes (i.e., A to E) and the distance traversed on the basis of the specified
direction. Five routes were possible in the proposed railway network and could
accommodate cycle times shown in Table VI. Cycle time in this sense is defined as the
amount of time consumed when traveling back and forth for each route.

TABLE V DISTANCE OF EACH ROUTE OF THE LRT SYSTEM

UNDER MMETROPLAN.
Route Description Distance (km) Direction
A Rizal - Taft 13.84 one-way
Quezon (Ellipse) - Central -
B 23.5 round trip
Quezon (Ellipse)
Quezon (Roosevelt) - Central -
C 14.4 round trip
Quezon (Roosevelt)
D Shaw - Taft 11.6 one-way
E Shaw - Rizal 15.0 one-way
 TABLE VI DISTANCE OF EACH ROUTE OF THE LRT SYSTEM
UNDER MMETROPLAN.
Route Description Cycle Time (mins.)
A Rizal - Taft - Rizal 105
B Quezon (Ellipse) - Central - Quezon (Ellipse) 90
Quezon (Roosevelt) - Central - Quezon
C 60
(Roosevelt)
D Shaw - Taft - Shaw 92
E Shaw - Rizal - Shaw 108

Fig. 2 shows the railway lines proposed under MMETROPLAN. Note the scaled
down routes as well as these lines being referred to as light rail instead of heavy rail.

Fig. 2 Routes for the proposed rail transit network by MMETROPLAN.

C. MMUTIS
The Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study (MMUTIS) was the
last comprehensive study conducted for Metro Manila. Funded by JICA prior to its
update that was completed just last year. MMUTIS was implemented from March
1996 to March 1999 and came up with many recommendations to improve transport
and traffic in Metro Manila, particularly a master plan for implementation in the next
15 years. Dr. Shizuo Iwata was chosen by JICA to be the head of the Study Team
composed of technical staff from ALMEC Corporation, Pacific Consultants
International and Yachiyo Engineering Co., Ltd. The implementing agency for MMUTIS
was the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) and the
beneficiary agency was the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA).
The study area was composed of the whole of Metro Manila and its
neighboring provinces such as Cavite, Laguna, Rizal and Bulacan. The existing data
was gathered from the comprehensive Household Interview Survey that acquires
socioeconomic characteristics of the sample under consideration. The results were
put together in a database for the formulation of the transportation demand models,
namely: trip generation / attraction, modal split, trip distribution, demand shift and
traffic assignment.
Regression model for trip generation and attraction by trip purpose and car
ownership was developed for the first model. Coefficient of correlation was computed
for each function to determine the degree of dependence of the variables. Estimating
the walk trips by zone and purpose was done followed by the calculation of private
mode trips. The remaining trips were classified for the public mode. Trip distribution
was carried out by developing the intrazonal and interzonal models. After which, the
ability of private mode users to transfer to public mode when public transport
becomes convenient was measured. Lastly, two models for traffic assignment were
adopted, namely: highway-type assignment for private and public modes, and transit
assignment for public mode and highway assignment for private mode. The
traditional incremental assignment was used for the former while the latter was
executed by the JICA’s developed model - the model that assigns routes for public
transport that was affected by the fare system - in which the remaining trips were
subjected to highway assignment [8].
After the transportation demand model was employed, the future traffic
demand was finalized including the growth of trips by purpose, growth of trips by
mode, growth of trips by zone and OD table. Demand and supply was also assessed
to provide basis for the proposed projects covering all modes of land-based transport.
Do-nothing situations were analyzed for both 1996 and 2015 that used the 1996
road network. On the other hand, do-committed situations were also investigated
once the proposed networks have been completed [8].
Rail transport projects identified under MMUTIS include the following lines and
facilities shown in Table VII.
 TABLE VII PROPOSED RAIL TRANSPORT PROJECTS UNDER MMUTIS.
Proposed Description
Line 1 Extension or Line 6 The line will extend to Dasmariñas, Cavite in the south (30 km elevated).
The line will extend to Antipolo in the east (12 km elevated) and to the
west across Line 1 to the Port Area from where the line passes along
Line 2 Extension Roxas Boulevard and Buendia to link Makati and Fort Bonifacio (17 km
underground). Then the line will further lead to Binangonan in the east (20
km elevated/at-grade).
The line will extend to Navotas and Obando (16 km elevated) in the north
across Line 1 and PNR. The line in the south will extend to the reclamation
Line 3 Extension area across Line 1 and further extend to Kawit (15 km elevated/at-grade)
in the south.
The line will extend to San Mateo in the north via a branch line. In the city
Line 4 center, instead of terminating on Recto Avenue, it can take over the
extension portion of Line 2.
A suburban commuter service will be provided between Malolos and
Caloocan (30 km at-grade). From there, the line links Fort Bonifacio (20 km
North Rail and Extension underground) and extends to General Trias in the south (25 km
underground/elevated/at-grade).
A suburban commuter service will link Calamba with Alabang (28 km at-
grade) from where the line will be elevated up to Paco (42 km). The line
MCX and Extension will then proceed toward the north across EDSA (11 km underground) and
further extend northward to San Jose del Monte (18 km elevated).

Fig. 3 Rail transit network proposed by MMUTIS.

 IV. ASSESSMENT

A. Conflicts Among Studies

In 1976, the World Bank published a report [9] that included criticisms on the
plans laid out by UTSMMA. In the 44-page report, it elaborated on some of the major
shortcomings of UTSMMA such as the assumption of having no limit in the resources
that would be required, inconsistencies in the analysis, and the temporal
quantification of costs and benefits. The report had recommendations that were not
favorable to rail transport whether for long distance travel or urban applications. The
same report strongly suggested for the government to consider light rail transit
instead of the proposed heavy rail transit in UTSMMA.
The WB report for urban transport opined that UTSMMA “does not provide an
adequate basis for assessing either the social and economic benefits and costs of
these proposals or their physical and financial feasibilities. By ignoring the constraints
on resource availability for transport purposes, the study failed to establish even the
scale of a feasible investment program, much less the priorities of its various
elements.” [9]
The WB report and its consultants seem to have gone out of their way to
practically junk or discredit UTSMMA. It is not clear to us now if the people behind
UTSMMA were given a chance to respond and if they did. At this time, there was a
dearth in local transport planning and engineering expertise in the Philippines and
government was highly dependent on foreign experts. One current opinion is that we
now know that we should have implemented UTSMMA's recommended rail network
and this could have revolutionized the way we commute today. The concerns in the
WB report could have been addressed with a follow-up to UTSMMA to reinforce
assumptions and analysis.
MMETROPLAN continued where the WB report left off:
“Heavy Rapid Transit (HRT) would provide public transport passengers with
much faster journey, but by 1990 would attract only 2.5% of motorists and would
have negligible impact on traffic congestion. Partly because of this and partly because
of its very high capital cost, it would be hopelessly uneconomic: the annualized capital
costs would be higher than the estimated benefits in 1990…passenger flows are not
high enough to exploit its full capacity…and the large savings in time for public
transport passengers are not given a high value in Manila, and are not high enough to
persuade motorists to change mode.
These results are conclusive, and are unlikely to be changed by any
circumstances or reasonable assumptions…it is clear that any other fully segregated
public transport system, whether light rail or busway, would also be uneconomic. As
such systems would require the appropriation of most, if not all, of the available funds
for all transport (including highways) in Metro Manila for the foreseeable future, and
as there is no other rationale for their implementation, they have been rejected from
further consideration…” [6]
This conclusion probably doomed heavy rail transport (i.e., UTSMMA’s
proposed Rapid Transit Railway (RTR) network) and will have repercussions to the
future of commuting in Metro Manila. The outlook mentioned was pessimistic and
MMETROPLAN’s assumptions on mode share and efforts to rationalize road transport
in relation to rail transport need to be evaluated. Data and other information will be
required from other projects particularly Project 4 to determine the reasons behind
this conclusion against heavy rail. Meanwhile, data for the years mentioned in
MMETROPLAN may be evaluated to check whether certain assumptions were
realized.
One line of thinking, which is perceived to be the more progressive one that
MMETROPLAN did not take, is that the construction of a heavy rail line back in the
late 1970’s, which could have started operations around the time LRT Line 1 became
operational. If this were implemented, it could have changed the way people commute
in Metro Manila. This is because an efficient mode of transport could have influenced
commuter preferences and therefore trip patterns. Follow-up heavy rail lines could
have reinforced this change in trip-making characteristics, and commuting could have
evolved to be more dependent on rail than road along high travel demand corridors.
Certainly, the 2.5% share by 1990 mentioned by MMETROPLAN could be hurdled if
full support were given to the development of heavy rail lines along with the
upgrading of PNR. Nevertheless, it may also be of consideration to state that
interventions would also have been required to rationalize (e.g., reroute and reduce)
road public transport modes to complement the rail network that could have been
constructed.

B. Master Plan Development and Updating

Although UTSMMA’s rail transit system is arguably the first transport master
plan to be developed from the 1970’s, it was not adopted by the Philippine
government. Instead, the transport plan recommended by MMETROPLAN can be
considered as the first accepted comprehensive transport master plan. Subsequent
projects in the 1980’s including Metro Manila Urban Transportation Strategy and
Planning Project (i.e., MMUTSTRAP, conducted from November 1982 to April 1983)
and JICA Update on Manila Study on Urban Transport (i.e., JUMSUT 1 conducted from
November 1982 to March 1984 and JUMSUT 2 conducted from June 1984 to March
1985) sought to update this master plan with a major comprehensive ‘update’ being
the MMUTIS in 1999.
It is important to note though that plan formulation and updates have been
undertaken for the most part under foreign assisted projects rather than by the
Philippine government. Despite the fact that there were inter-agency steering and
technical committees created for these projects, it cannot be denied that foreign
consultants have had a significant influence in transport master plan formulation.
Even this can have varying implications according to the international agency or
institution that supported or financed the project. UTSMMA was financed by the
precursor of JICA, MMETROPLAN was funded by the WB, MMUTSTRAP was by
AusAID, while MMUTIS was supported by JICA. Each agency would likely have their
own agenda for pushing certain projects or programs. These can be determined from
an examination of past studies, and help in compiling lessons that can be learned from
these engagements.

C. Deviations from the Plan

Through the past three and a half decades, there have been deviations, minor
and major, from the master plans that have developed with assistance from foreign
countries and involving foreign consultants. If there is one lesson in sustainability here
it is that the country needs to develop both capacity and capability to formulate
transport plans and programs, and be able to implement these with minimal delay.
Studies supporting bus rapid transit (BRT) lines for Metro Manila, for example, can be
considered among these as government planners recently came to appreciate the
practicality of BRT in terms of cost and construction time.
MMUTIS, for example, mentioned several railway lines in its master plan. The
alignments of these lines including the endpoints have changed particularly in the
case of the present MRT 3 that spans from Taft to North Avenue. In the MMUTIS’
version, MRT/Line 3 was supposed to be traversing from Taft and would extend
farther than its current North Avenue station until it reaches the Monumento area
meeting the northernmost station of Line 1.
Another observation is that even the number designations can be changed. For
example, MRT 4 in MMUTIS was to serve the corridor between Recto and Batasan
(and eventually Novaliches), which consists of Espana Avenue, Quezon Avenue and
Commonwealth Avenue. This MRT 4 is now known by two other line variations: MRT
7 along Commonwealth, and MRT 9 along Espana and Quezon Avenue. There is even
an MRT 6 that deviates from Quezon Avenue towards West Avenue and terminates
at the SM North-TriNoma area. Meanwhile, MMUTIS’ version of Line 6 was to provide
a mass transit system between the center of Metro Manila and Cavite, by constructing
a railway line between Baclaran and Imus (and eventually Dasmariñas). Although this
is likely to push through as LRT/Line 6 was approved last year by NEDA for
implementation, this is not entirely correct in the sense that a part of it is now known
as the Line 1 Cavite Extension Project (CEP). MCX was to serve the strong north-
south transport demand along the PNR ROW in the south and connecting with the
then proposed North Rail. MCX is now part of the PPP package for a north-south
commuter line project that seeks to rehabilitate the existing PNR facilities. North Rail
has been repackaged several times in the last 15 years with the current version being
an express rail system to Clark International Airport.

D. Sustainable Transport
If one is to assess past transport plans in the context of environmentally
sustainable transport (EST) then it is essential to understand EST and how past plans
measure up if they were implemented. EST can be defined according to the thematic
areas under it. These thematic areas are:

1) Public health
2) Social equity and gender perspective
3) Roadside air quality monitoring and assessment
4) Traffic noise assessment
5) Vehicle emission control, standards, and inspection and maintenance
6) Cleaner fuels
7) Public transport planning and travel demand management
8) Non-motorized transport
9) Environment and people friendly infrastructure development
10) Land use planning
11) Road safety and maintenance
12) Knowledge base, awareness and public participation

Railways as proposed from the 1970’s to the present would have been able to
cover most of these thematic areas and not just the one pertaining to public transport
planning. Mass transit systems would have cross-cutting impacts on other aspects of
transport, influencing land development, providing equitable options for travel, and
promoting sustainability with reduced emissions, improved mobility and safer roads.
A co-benefits approach can also be employed in assessing the impacts of
transport systems to air quality, fuel consumption, safety, traffic congestion, noise and
others. Rail transit systems, if they were implemented according to plans, could have
significantly contributed to the improvement of air quality and the reduction of fuel
consumption as there could have been less road vehicle traffic with private and road
public transport users using and shifting to rail transport modes. Evidence for co
benefits as basis for stating that rail transport systems could have significant positive
impacts may be found in studies on low carbon transport systems such as one for the
Philippines by Regidor and Javier [10].

V. CONCLUSION

This paper reviewed three major transport development studies for Metro
Manila – UTSMMA, MMETROPLAN and MMUTIS. It is clear from the previous sections
that conflicting analysis and opinions among the studies and deviations from plans
for one reason or another have combined to give us the current state of public
transportation.
The latest update to the master plan developed 36 years ago (if we consider
MMETROPLAN instead of UTSMMA as the baseline) is from the MMUTIS Update and
Capacity Enhancement Project (MUCEP), which also served as the basis for JICA’s
Dream Plan for Mega Manila. The evolution of rail transport plans for Metropolitan
Manila has already been taken on by Jose, et al. [11] and the paper presented at the
recent EASTS 2015 conference includes maps showing the changes in the plans over
the years. These visualizations of the historical development of railway plans allow us
to appreciate how rail transit plans have evolved in the last three and a half decades.
These also help as guides for the formulation and evaluation of counterfactual ‘what
if’ scenarios concerning such plans. Interesting counterfactual scenarios involve the
modern urban transport network that Metro Manila could have had if rail projects
were implemented according to the recommendations of past studies, regardless of
whether these were heavy or light rail lines. These would have been beneficial to
hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. Such counterfactuals are essential for
current planners and officials to appreciate the gravity of the situation where Metro
Manila has a backlog of urban transport projects.
While it is easy to be tempted to play the blame game, fault-finding is an
inevitable outcome of employing history as a tool towards more effective transport
planning. However, it is important to emphasize that fault-finding must be
constructive and in the context of seeking solutions for transport problems rather than
simply identifying and blaming personalities for what can be perceived as their
contributions to transport problems brought about by decisions made under
circumstances or conditions that there is often limited information about.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper is made possible through the support of an Emerging Inter-Disciplinary

Research (EIDR) Grant from the University of the Philippines System.

REFERENCES

[1] R.A. Johnston, “The urban transportation planning process,” In S. Hansen, & G.
Guliano (Eds.), The Geography of Urban Transportation, pp. 115-138, The Guilford
Press, in press.
[2] M.D. Pante, “Mobility and modernity in the urban transport systems of colonial
Manila and Singapore,” Journal of Social History, vol. 47, Number 4, pp. 855-877,
Summer 2014, in press.
[3] G.L. Sartre, “The Metro Manila LRT system – a historical perspective,” Japan
Railway and Transport Review, vol. 16, pp. 33-37, June 1998, in press.
[4] S. Iwata, “Development of public transportation in Metro Manila,” Proceedings
of the First Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the
Philippines, Manila Hotel, July 30-31, 1993, in press.
[5] Government of Japan. Overseas Technical Cooperation Agency. Urban
Transport Study in Manila Metropolitan Area. Final Report. 1973.
[6] World Bank. MMETROPLAN Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and
Development Planning Project, Final Report Main Volume. 1977.
[7] World Bank. MMETROPLAN Metro Manila Transport, Land Use and
Development Planning Project, Final Report Volume - II. 1977.
[8] Government of Japan. Japan International Cooperation Agency. Metro Manila
Urban Transportation Integration Study. Final Report. 1999.
[9] World Bank. Transport Planning in the Philippines. 1976.
[10] J.R.F. Regidor and S.F.D. Javier, “Long term strategies for low carbon transport
systems in the Philippines,” Proceedings of the 7th ASEAN Environmental
Engineering Conference, Puerto Princesa City, November 21-22, 2014, in press.
[11] R. Jose, D. Mabazza, J.R. Regidor, M.S. Lagman and J. Villasper, “Planning Metro
Manila’s mass transit system,” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of
the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Cebu City, September 11-13,
2015, in press.