MoveAsOneWP TheSystemicShortageinPhilippinePublicTransportation 20210526

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/351849012
The Systemic Shortage in Philippine Public Transportation: The Impact of the

Infrastructure Flagship Project Pipeline on the Mobility Needs of the Greater
Capital Region and Recomm...
Preprint · May 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22505.62563
CITATIONS READS
0 19,030
6 authors, including:
Katreena Chang Ken Abante

Ateneo de Manila University Ateneo de Manila University
6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Robert Siy Jedd Carlo Ugay

MoveAsOne Coalition AltMobility PH
10 PUBLICATIONS 49 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ken Abante on 26 May 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Systemic Shortage in Philippine Public Transportation
K. Chang, K.I.I. Abante, P. Mariano, J.P. Sevilla, R.Y. Jr. Siy, J.C. Ugay, This Version: 26 May 2021.
The Systemic Shortage in Philippine Public Transportation:

The Impact of the Infrastructure Flagship Project Pipeline on the Mobility Needs
of the Greater Capital Region and Recommendations to Bridge the Gap
Katreena Chang*, Kenneth Isaiah Ibasco Abante*^, Patricia Mariano*,

John P. Sevilla*, Robert Y. Siy Jr.*, Jedd Carlo F. Ugay*+
* Move As One Coalition Policy Research Team

^ Research Faculty, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Ateneo de Manila University;
Fellow and Head of Practice, WeSolve; Coordinator, Citizens’ Budget Tracker
+ Chief Mobility Officer, AltMobility PH
Critical comments welcome via katreena.chang@gmail.com.
The Philippines has a massive public transport shortage, made worse by the COVID-19
pandemic and the decision to tighten public transport supply in 2020. This shortage impeded
efforts to curb the spread of the COVID-19 virus and contributed to the country’s worst post-war
recession, as non-home-based workers found it much harder to move and go to work (SWS,
2021). We find that even if the entire rail-heavy Php 2 trillion public transport
infrastructure flagship project pipeline is completed on time over the next decade, the
Greater Capital Region area will still experience a system-wide shortage in public
transport supply, even with conservative demand growth assumptions. We estimate this
using passenger trip survey data and publicly available reports on the passenger ridership of the
flagship projects. In pursuit of a more efficient and sustainable use of public funds, we
recommend a better balance for a better normal: a shift in the country’s infrastructure
pipeline to include more active transport infrastructure promoting walking and cycling, as well as
expanding road-based public transport modes through public utility vehicle gross-cost service
contracting, bus rapid transit investments, and other complementary infrastructure. These
programs would contribute the largest impact to improving public transport supply in the
short-term and the medium-term, require far less investment while enabling equal mobility
capacity, and enhance the network effects of the public transport flagship project pipeline being
built. We recommend that future infrastructure projects be evaluated based on people- and
nature-oriented metrics--how interventions improve the service quality of and commuting
experience in public transport. Such metrics include, but are not limited to, shorter waiting times,
less crowding, faster travel from point A to point B, reduced generalized cost for commuters,
adherence to health protocols, less carbon emissions, improved access for persons with
disability, gender sensitivity, reduced transfers, and safer commutes.
JEL Classification: R41, H61, O18
Key words: public transport, infrastructure, mobility, Philippines, COVID-19
Dataset: bit.ly/MoveAsOneData_shortage
1 of 31
The Systemic Shortage in Philippine Public Transportation:

The Impact of the Infrastructure Flagship Project Pipeline on the Mobility Needs
of the Greater Capital Region and Recommendations to Bridge the Gap
Key Findings 3
Methodology and Limitations 12

Passenger metrics 12
Mobility demand 12
Public transport supply 13
Infrastructure Flagship Project (IFP) costs 14
Active transport infrastructure costs 15
PUV-only lane projections 16
Limitations of the study 17
Data 18
Mobility demand 18
Mobility demand growth 19
IFP cost data 19
IFP ridership data 19
Active Transport 20
Conclusions 21
References 23
Annex A. List of Mass Public Transport Infrastructure Flagship Projects 26
Annex B. List of DPWH Land Transport Infrastructure Flagship Projects 26
Annex C. Demand Growth Scenarios for the Greater Capital Region 28
Annex D. GCR Transport Supply Shortfall Under Different Scenarios 29
Annex E. Calculated O&M Cost estimates for IFPs 30
Annex F. JICA MUCEP 2015 Technical Report Table 4.5 31
2 of 31
Key Findings
1. For the longest time, the quality of public transport in the Philippines has been
inadequate, as evidenced by overcrowding and long lines in public transport stops and
terminals, increasingly longer travel times, and the lack of access to and interconnection
between various transport modes (longer walking distances to and between
stops/terminals, on walkways with depreciating quality), making it more difficult for
commuters to reach their ultimate destinations (PCIJ, 2021). This shortage was made
worse by the COVID-19 pandemic, when 72% of adults with non-home-based jobs (69%
for Metro Manila) have said going to work has become harder (SWS, 2021). The
Healthcare Professionals Alliance Against COVID-19 (HPAAC) has likewise named
“inadequate and unsafe transport options” as a critical public health issue1. This lack of
access to public transport contributed to the Philippines’ worst post-war recession in
2020--as “many people cannot earn because they [simply have no means to] go to work
or lost their jobs, and this means more Filipinos are going to bed hungry” (NEDA, 2021)2.
2. Until present, national transport agencies have largely measured their success not
by how well they move people, but how well they move cars (Suzara et al, 2021).
Most success indicators focus on vehicle travel time--with a bias towards private vehicle
travel time--with little consideration for the overall quality of public transport service. The
impact of transport projects should instead be measured by how much it reduces the
generalized cost of commuting (factoring in both monetary spend on commuting trips, as
well as the monetized value of time spent on the trip), which includes travel, waiting, and
walking times, as well as the number of mode transfers and onward trips needed to get
from point A to point B. Another metric to consider is the shift away from automobile
dependency, measured through reduction in vehicle kilometers travelled and private
vehicle modal share, which will result in needed long-term impacts on health and the
environment (i.e., emission reduction).
3. The number of road-based public utility vehicle trips has collapsed in Metro
Manila’s major roads as private vehicle trips and travel times surged. From 2012 to
2019, the average daily traffic of public buses and jeepneys in Metro Manila’s major
circumferential and radial roads plummeted by 14% as private car and motorcycle trips
surged by 46% (MMDA, in Suzara et al, 2021). Due to increasing road traffic congestion,
public utility vehicles have been forced to reduce daily round trips made3; meanwhile,
average vehicle travel times increased. In Metro Manila major roads, vehicle travel time
1
Healthcare Professionals Alliance Against COVID-19 (http://hpaac.org.ph/about-us)
2
NEDA Pushes For Active Transport Support, Promotes Internal Bike Sharing System (NEDA, 2021)
3
Interviews by the authors with PUV drivers and operators in Metro Manila (pre-pandemic) revealed that
they could make just about half of the round trips they were previously able to make (e.g. on a
20-kilometer route, the previous standard was 6 round trips per day, but that has gone down to just 3-4
round trips).
3 of 31
per kilometer has gone from a baseline of 1.83 minutes in 2015 to 2.57 minutes in 2019,
a 40% increase in time taken to travel the same distance (COA, in Suzara et al, 2021).
4. The lack of attention toward improving public transport system quality and
sufficiency means that as the number of public transport trips collapsed, the
travel times for private car users increased: a vicious cycle. Road congestion during
rush hour in Metro Manila, where the majority of vehicular traffic is from private cars,
causes travel times to more than double. In 2019, every 30 minute vehicle trip was
lengthened by 29 minutes in the morning (+97%) and 38 minutes in the evening
(+126%) (TomTom Traffic Index, 2020). It is important to note that this traffic index
measures vehicle driving speeds and fails to account for commuter waiting times--a
critical metric in gauging the sufficiency and efficiency of public transport systems that
continues to be overlooked in transport planning and development in the Philippines.
5. Car-centric policies have made it harder for commuters to get to work. In

November 2020, 36% of Filipinos without home-based jobs in Metro Manila reported that
it is “very much harder” to get to work, “much harder” for 21%, “slightly harder” for 10%,
and unchanged for just 31%. Of these, only 5% used a private car as their most common
means of transport to work (SWS, 2021). These results were despite congestion levels
in Manila reportedly having mostly gone back to pre-pandemic 2019 levels, when there
were no mobility restrictions, by that time period (TomTom Traffic Index). Given that
nearly 70% of the non-home-based workers were finding it harder to get to work, this
indicates that public transport options were taking a far smaller share of the road vehicle
volume, providing further evidence of the ongoing shortage in public transport.
6. Another evidence of the public transport shortage is in road transport inflation

(Suzara et al, 2021). Road transport inflation in the National Capital Region (NCR) has
increased by 19% by the end of 20204 (PSA, 2021), eroding people’s purchasing power.
The bottom 30% of households (in terms of income) had it much worse as they
experienced a 24% increase in road passenger transport prices within the same period
(PSA, 2021).
4
Year-on-year monthly inflation measure, i.e. December 2020 consumer price index (CPI) for passenger
transport by road is compared to December 2019
4 of 31
Table 1. November 2020 Most Common Means of Going to Work for Adults with
Non-home-based Jobs, by Area, survey conducted by Social Weather Stations5
Means of Going to Work Share (Total Philippines) Share (Metro Manila)
Walking (volunteered response) 44% 21%
Motorcycle 24% 20%
Tricycle 14% 14%
Jeepney/Multicab 8% 25%
Bicycle 5% 11%
Bus 3% 14%
Private car 3% 5%
Motorboat 1% 0%
Others (each below 0.5%) 2% 6%
Figure 1. Comparison of Working Day Travel Patterns by Month (2019 and 2020). Metro
Manila restrictions eased by Sept. 2020, but public transport supply remained limited
The TomTom Traffic Index measures average congestion levels by the additional % of time it would take to complete a 30-minute trip
relative to baseline uncongested conditions (determined by analyzing free-flow travel times of all vehicles on the entire road
network). Source: https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/manila-traffic/
5
Multiple responses are allowed so the total per column may exceed 100%. Specific question used: “Ano
pong uri ng transportasyon ang karaniwan ninyong ginagamit para makarating sa trabaho? (ALLOW
MULTIPLE RESPONSES)”; in English: “What mode of transportation do you commonly/frequently use to
go to work?”
5 of 31
7. The national government is planning to spend a lot on rail, but very little on
road-based public transport. Out of the Php 2.02 trillion6 that the government has
committed to spend on land-based public transport infrastructure flagship projects7
(IFPs) from 2017 to 2025, only Php 49.1 billion (2.4%) is planned for road-based public
transport, and this total is for only five (5) individual projects (NEDA, 2020). The other
Php 1.97 trillion are for rail-based public transport projects.
8. The national government is also planning to spend a lot on road and highway
infrastructure, but very little on expanding road-based public transport supply. As
part of the wider “Build, Build, Build” agenda, there is a further Php 776.2 billion
expected to be spent on road IFPs (i.e., expressways, highways, bridges, and connector
roads)8. The Php 49.1 billion road-based public transport IFPs only account for less than
6% of the total national road transport program.
9. The little we plan to spend on road-based public transport has limited

geographical reach. The Php 49.1 billion road-based public transport IFPs are
concentrated on specific locations: Taguig City (Integrated Terminal Exchange), Quezon
Avenue (Metro Manila BRT Line 1), Cebu City (Cebu BRT), and Davao City (Davao
Public Transport Modernization Program9). Notably, there are no planned infrastructure
flagship projects for active transport infrastructure (e.g., pedestrian walkways, sidewalk
expansion, cycling networks), nor for complementary infrastructure such as public
transport stops, safer crossings/intersections. But recently there have been steps in the
right direction: Php P8.9 billion in funds were programmed for a protected bike lane
network and PUV service contracting under the Bayanihan to Recover as Act and the
2021 General Appropriations Act, but no specific allocations have been made for
accessible, at-grade pedestrian infrastructure.
10. Even if we build the current rail-heavy pipeline on schedule, we will still have a
public transport shortage in the most conservative case. If built on schedule, the 13
public transport IFPs located in the Greater Capital Region (GCR)10, composed of Metro
Manila and the neighboring provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Rizal and Bulacan, are
expected to serve 3 million additional daily trips by 2026. Forecasting a conservative
increase in mobility demand of 1.25% per annum (JICA, 2019) would result in a supply
shortfall of 2.8 million daily trips by 2030 in GCR11. The GCR IFPs costing nearly P2
6
This is the national total, of which Php 1.6 trillion is expected to be spent on projects located in GCR.
7
List as of August 19, 2020. See Annex A for the full list.
8
NEDA list as of August 19, 2020. See Annex B for the full list.
9
The project is for a new modern bus system that includes (i) buses replacing PUJs in the city, (ii)
optimization of bus routes, (iii) bus stops, bus depots, and minor improvement of roads, (iv) traffic
management system, which will prioritize bus transport, (v) introducing performance based contracts with
bus operators, and (vi) social development program for affected people (ADB).
10
Only IFPs with publicly available ridership forecasts are included. See Table 2 for full list.
11
The potential supply shortfall can be as high as 6 million daily trips. See Annex D for annual estimates.
6 of 31
trillion will serve just 10% of the expected mobility demand. That said, this is a big picture
forecast that does not take into account the mobility density on specific roads and areas
and at different times.
11. As such, we need to create a system that measures and monitors public
transportation demand and supply, not just in aggregate but on specific travel
corridors and in a dynamic manner (i.e., real-time monitoring of filled and available
capacity in our public transport systems and/or roads). This can be done with
cost-effective investment in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
infrastructure including wider use of an Interoperable Automated Fare Collection System
across transport modes (to record real-time transport data) and a Public Transport
Information Management Center (a data center which collects and analyzes transport
data). These can deliver massive benefits to commuters, transport operators and
transport planners alike, complementing the so-called “hard” IFP infrastructure.
12. We need to reverse the great inequality in our roads. 69% of GCR road users take
public transportation, but are crammed into only 22% of available road space (JICA,
2014). 91%--the vast majority--of daily public transport trips in GCR rely on
road-based public transport (JICA MUCEP, 2015). Only 6% of non-walking trips
involve rail services, and even these trips are generally taken in combination with
onward trips using road-based public transport (JICA MUCEP, 2015). Relatively few
commuters travel around NCR using only rail services.
13. For this reason, a strategy to improve urban public transportation should
incorporate overall network planning. The rail and BRT network that will be built
through the IFPs is not within walking distance to the homes of the majority of the
population. This requires investment in road-based public transport and active transport
infrastructure to develop supplementary networks that connect transport terminals to
commuters’ ultimate origins and destinations, which will therefore maximize the network
effects of rail investments. To illustrate, recent “integration centrality” maps by Poco
(2021) show areas that are accessible for pedestrians in Metro Manila who travel up to
1.2 kilometers. The heat map also highlights areas that are inaccessible to pedestrians.
Spatial analyses like these need to be incorporated in planning for our urban public
transportation network.
7 of 31
Figure 2. Population Density Map of NCR with Infrastructure Flagship Project public
transport network superimposed
Source of population density map: https://community.apan.org/wg/oekn/m/philippines/217472. IFP network added by authors.
8 of 31
14. It is worth reviewing and comparing the cost of each transport mode per
person-kilometer, which reveals that bus rapid transit, cycling, and pedestrian
infrastructure are very cost-efficient transport modes. Based on the investment
plans for the public transport infrastructure flagship projects, the cost to build a subway is
Php 5.94 per person kilometer travelled, Php 3.33 for overground railways, and just Php
0.61 for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)12. Even after accounting for operating expenditure over
the expected life of the project, the BRT still comes out cheapest by a great margin-- Php
1.51 (24% of the cost of the subway) compared to Php 6.30 and Php 5.09 for the
subway and overground rail, respectively13. Investing in active transport infrastructure
requires even less spending: a bike lane only costs 8 centavos to build per
person-kilometer travelled14, and a sidewalk less than 1 centavo (1.32% and 0.14% of
the cost to build a subway, respectively).
Figure 3. BRT investment by far provides the most value for money out of the mass
public transport options in the IFPs, while the investment needed to provide quality
active transport (pedestrian and cycling) options is miniscule compared to the planned
investment in the IFPs.
12
Calculated over the total trips taken across the expected project lifetime (30 years for rail, 20 years for
BRT)
13
Operating expenditure estimated from feasibility studies done by JICA (MMSP, NSCR), ADB (NSCR),
Marubeni (LRT 2), World Bank (BRT)
14
Based on the cost of the Metro Manila portion of the Bayanihan 2 bike lanes
9 of 31
15. Road-based public transport is much faster to build than railways — about three
years or less for BRT, compared to a minimum of five years for overground rail (i.e., rail
systems built at or above ground level, including MRT/LRT) and a minimum of eight
years for a subway15. Properly built and operated, BRT combines the efficiency and
quality of rail with the flexibility and relatively lower cost of buses; it can also be
expanded later on as resources become more available. Given the current supply
shortage, it is in our best interest to bridge the gap as soon as possible, and road-based
public transport is much faster to implement.
16. Active transport infrastructure can be built even faster: the 500+ kilometer network
of Bayanihan 2 bike lanes in Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, and Metro Davao are expected
to be completed in less than a year16. In comparison, the 12.3km Metro Manila BRT Line
1 will not be completed until 2023, and not until 2026 for the ~280km GCR rail network to
be fully completed.
17. The benefits of investing in road-based public transport go beyond easing

mobility: for every peso invested in land transport, there is at least Php 2.77 in
economic returns compared to Php 2.27 for transport equipment (PSA 2012 I-O
tables)17. There are a further 4.4 people employed for every million invested in land
transport--third among all non-agricultural industries in the Philippines.18
18. Enhancing the service quality of the existing public transport systems should not
be overlooked. Investing in PUV-only lanes, road-based public transport infrastructure
(stops, terminals, depots, priority signalling systems, etc.), and a proper gross-cost
service contracting program has the potential to eliminate the deficit in supply by
delivering at least a 100% increase in daily passenger trips19 with well-coordinated, safe,
and efficient public transport services for millions of Filipinos. Further, devoting a larger
share of the government’s infrastructure spending program to ensuring the success of
the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP) with a just transition for
transport workers and a just reform for commuters20 will likewise improve the service
quality, and therefore user patronage, of public transport.
15
Based on the proposed implementation times of the IFPs
16
DOTr aims to nearly double bike lanes nationwide by year-end (CNN, 2021)
17
Analysis by Move As One, full computation in the Move As One Data Bank for Public Transportation
18
Analysis by Move As One, full computation in the Move As One Data Bank for Public Transportation
19
Calculated along EDSA for PUBs and compared to MMDA 2019 average annual daily traffic records
20
Just Transition, Just Reform: Move As One Position Paper on the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization
Program (PUVMP) (Move As One, 2021)
10 of 31
19. In parallel, active transport should be aggressively promoted as a regular and highly
desirable travel mode, especially for shorter trips, because of its significant economic,
environmental and health benefits. Chapman et al (2018) have found that investment in
active transport has a benefit/cost ratio of 11:1-- Php 11 in returns for every Php 1
invested21. Other benefits include boosting local businesses and increasing social
interaction and quality of life within communities and cities.
20. While rail services are an important part of the mass transit mix, focusing public
transportation investment almost exclusively on rail is not an efficient and responsive use
of scarce resources. Road-based public transport and active transport
infrastructure can be built much faster and at far less cost, and will be able to
serve the immediate mobility needs of a greater portion of the population. The
allocation of the capital budget among different transport modes needs to be rebalanced,
with more investment space offered to road-based public transport and active transport.
More emphasis on road-based public transport by the Department of Transportation
(DOTr) can provide stronger employment impact as well as complement the road
network being built by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)22.
Moreover, active transport is the investment that delivers by far the most “bang for the
buck.”
21
Considers health, injury reduction, and carbon dioxide emission reduction benefits relative to upfront
and ongoing maintenance costs of active transport infrastructure.
22
From 2010 to 2021, only Php 40 billion of the national budget or around 1% has been allocated to
road-based public transport out of a total of Php 2.8 trillion invested in road-based infrastructure projects.
Almost all (99%) of this budget was allocated to road construction and widening. (Suzara et al, 2021)
11 of 31
Methodology and Limitations
Passenger metrics
The metrics used in this study to compare the costs to build infrastructure for different modes of
transport are passenger trips and passenger-kilometers.
Passenger trips are a measure of the number of rides taken in a mode of transport, which does
not take into account the length of the trips taken (e.g. a full 13.8-km trip along LRT Line 2 will
be counted as 1 trip, as will a 1.97-km trip between the Katipunan and Santolan stations).
Passenger-kilometers (km) multiplies the number of passenger trips taken with the average trip
length, providing a better approximation of the service provided by a given mode of transport to
any given passenger. The average trip length is 15.47 km for rail and 25.55 km for buses (JICA
MUCEP, 2015), which we use as an estimate for average BRT trip length.
Mobility demand
Majority of the mass public transport infrastructure flagship projects in the pipeline will serve the
Greater Capital Region (GCR) area, composed of the National Capital Region/Metro Manila and
the neighboring provinces of Bulacan, Cavite, Rizal, and Laguna. GCR serves as the main
economic hub in the Philippines, with mobility demand not only for its own population, but also a
labor force that makes a daily commute from other surrounding provinces. As of 2014, the total
daily passenger trips taken in the GCR, excluding trips where walking was the primary mode of
transport, is 24.6 million, of which trips taken by public transport were 17.337 million.
Our study presents three (3) scenarios for GCR mobility demand projections and assumes the
ratio of trips taken by public and private transport modes remains constant for all scenarios. The
conservative case assumes that mobility demand will grow by 125% in 18 years (JICA, 2019),
which is equivalent to a 1.25% growth rate per annum (pa). This results in 3.8 million
incremental daily passenger trip demand using public transport by 2030.
The base case assumes that mobility demand will follow the forecast population growth for the
Manila urban area, which is equivalent to 1.60% pa from 2014-2020, 1.81% pa from 2021-2025,
and 2.03% pa from 2026-2030 (United Nations, 2018). This would result in 5.4 million
incremental daily passenger trip demand using public transport by 2030.
The aggressive case takes the trip generation forecast from the Master Plan on High Standard
Highway Network Development (HSHN) (JICA, 2010) for GCR. On top of population growth, the
forecast also accounts for employment attraction in the area. Based on annual growth estimates
of 2.78% pa from 2009-2020 and 1.96% from 2021-2030, resulting mobility demand by 2030 is
7.1 million additional daily passenger trips using public transport.
12 of 31
Public transport supply

We assume that the 2014 daily public transport passenger trip demand figure of 17.337 million
is equivalent to the mobility supply due to lack of other available data, although long lines in
transport hubs and overcrowding in public utility vehicles has long been a problem in the
Philippine public transport system.
Of the 17.337 million daily passenger trips, 1.485 million are taken by rail (JICA MUCEP, 2015),
served by the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Lines 1 and 2, the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) Line 3 and
Philippine National Railways (PNR). However, this has since fallen to 1.075 million daily
passenger trips as of 2019 due to constant breakdowns and poor maintenance of the existing
rail lines, which means public transport supply has fallen by 410 thousand daily passenger trips.
Meanwhile, 2.352 million trips were taken by bus, 6.763 million by jeepney, and 5.687 million by
tricycle (JICA MUCEP, 2015) (see Annex F for trip composition by mode). The annual average
daily traffic (AADT)23 data collected by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) 24
show that in 2019, the vehicular traffic from--or trips taken by--buses, jeepneys, and tricycles
have fallen by 21% compared to 2014. To account for this supply drop in our analysis, we
considered a 10.5% reduction in public transport supply from buses, jeepneys, and tricycles,
which is equivalent to 1.553 million daily trips.
We looked at the daily passenger ridership estimates for thirteen (13) mass public transport
IFPs in the GCR that have estimated completion dates from 2021-2026. From the analysis, the
C5 MRT 10 Project and MRT 11 Project have been excluded as they are in very early stages of
development (both projects are public-private partnership proposals) and do not have publicly
available ridership estimates.
The supply forecast to be filled by the IFPs are listed below:
Table 2. Expected completion dates and daily passenger trips served by IFPs in GCR
Daily Passenger Trips
Expected Completion
Public Transport Infrastructure Flagship Project Expected to be Served
Year
(in thousands)
LRT 2 West Extension 2023 16
LRT 2 East Extension 2021 80
LRT 1 Cavite Extension Project 2022 (partial), 2024 100 (partial), 300
LRT 6 Cavite Line A 2025 200
PNR NSCR North 1 2022 (partial), 2024 47 (partial), 330
23
AADT is a measure of the mean traffic volume across all days for a year for a given location along a
roadway (US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2018)
24
Calculates vehicular traffic in all Metro Manila circumferential and radial roads
13 of 31
PNR NSCR North 2 (MCRP) 2023 (partial), 2024 34 (partial), 150

PNR NSCR South Commuter / PNR Calamba 2026 350
Metro Manila Subway Project Phase 1 2022 (partial), 2025 65 (partial), 370
Fort Bonifacio-Makati Sky Train 2022 80
MRT 3 Rehabilitation Project 2021 300
MRT 4 2025 234
MRT 7 2021 350
Metro Manila BRT Line 1 2023 290
In total, 3 million daily passenger trips will be added to the GCR public transport capacity by
2030 if all the IFPs are built according to schedule.
Infrastructure Flagship Project (IFP) costs

To calculate the per passenger-km cost to build for each IFP, the project cost approved by the
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)--an all-in cost that accounts for
construction, development, project management, and financing costs--was divided by the
number of passenger trips expected to be served by an IFP across its lifetime. We estimated
that each transport option will serve the expected daily passenger trip capacity for 350 days per
year, with an expected project life of 30 years for the subway and overground rail projects and
20 years for the BRT. While we acknowledge that these may be shorter than the theoretical
possible operating lives for these public transport options, the cost analysis does not take into
account any major maintenance costs needed to keep the systems running at optimal capacity.
Excluding rehabilitation projects (MRT 3 and PNR South Long Haul/PNR Bicol), the cost to build
the overground rail IFPs in the Philippines is Php 3.33 per passenger-km on average25. In
comparison, the cost to build the Metro Manila Subway Project Phase 1 is Php 5.94 per
passenger-km, while the average cost for the Metro Manila and Cebu BRT systems is Php 0.61
per passenger-km.
To deepen the analysis, we also considered the expected operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs over the expected operating lives of the IFPs. Studies have been conducted on the PNR
North-South Commuter Railway (NSCR) North 1 (JICA, 2018), North 2 (ADB, 2019), and South
Commuter Lines (JICA, 2018), the LRT 2 East and West Extensions (Marubeni, 2010), the
Metro Manila Subway (JICA, 2015), as well as the Metro Manila BRT (World Bank, 2017) and
Cebu BRT systems (World Bank, 2014) which provides estimates for the expected O&M costs
(see Annex E for the O&M cost estimates).
25
Aside from C5 MRT 10 and MRT 11, the LRT 2 West Extension has also been excluded from the cost
analysis due to very low additional daily passenger trips expected to be served (just 16 thousand,
compared to 80 thousand for the LRT 2 East Extension of approximately the same length), resulting in a
very high per passenger-km cost (Php 42.06) relative to the other projects.
14 of 31
Assuming an annual O&M cost escalation of 2%, as well as a discount rate of 9% to take the
net present value of the expected lifetime O&M costs, we estimate that this will result in the
following cost levels relative to the cost to build:
Table 3. O&M cost estimates as a percentage of cost to build by mass public transport
mode
Mode of Mass Public Transport O&M cost as % of cost to build
Light Rail Transit / Metro Rail Transit 64.12%
Other overground rail 25.59%
Subway 5.34%
BRT 218.57%
The cost per transport mode is summarized below:
Table 4. Cost to build per passenger-km for different mass public transport modes, with
and without O&M, over expected project life
Cost in Php per passenger-km
Mass Public Transport Mode
Cost to build Cost to build + O&M
Subway 5.94 6.30
Overground rail (excluding rehabilitation projects, LRT 2
3.33 5.09
West Extension, MRT 10 and MRT 11)
BRT 0.61 1.51
Active transport infrastructure costs

Among the IFPs, there is one project for pedestrians: the EDSA Greenways Project. This was
intended to connect the available rail options (LRT 1, LRT 2 and MRT 3) through the
construction of an elevated walkway along the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA), which is
the main thoroughfare in Metro Manila, passing through six of its 17 local government units and
connecting three business districts (Makati/Bonifacio Global City, Ortigas, Araneta), with a
length of approximately 23.8 kilometers.
The DOTr estimates that the EDSA Greenways elevated walkway project, with a project cost of
Php 8.512 billion, will be able to serve 1.1 million daily pedestrian trips. With a 20-year design
life for the 5-km project, this would result in a per passenger-km cost to build of Php 0.2226.
However, this figure is inflated compared to the cost to build other active transport
infrastructure--sidewalks for pedestrians and protected bike lanes for cyclists.
26
Assumes each passenger trip will cross the whole 5-km length of the project.
15 of 31
We estimate that 1.5-meter-wide sidewalks cost Php 7.3 million to build per kilometer27
(NYSDOT, 2012). Assuming a sidewalk is built along EDSA, which has an estimated 2 million
daily pedestrian trips (Orbos, 2020), an average passenger trip length of 3.05 kilometers28
(Althoff, et al., 2017) and a design life of 20 years, the per passenger-km cost is below 1
centavo, or just 3.7% of the cost to build the EDSA Greenways elevated walkway project.
In September 2020, the Bayanihan to Recover As One Act (also known as Bayanihan 2,
officially Republic Act No. 11494) was enacted to provide additional funds to respond to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The law included a budget of Php 814 million to build a 338.53-km
network of protected bike lanes in Metro Manila.
In June 2020, the MMDA counted 100,792 cyclists along nine intersections in EDSA. We
applied a conservative demand increase estimate of 100%29 once the proposed 338.53-km
protected cycling infrastructure network is built, as well as a multiplier of 14 times to account for
the rest of the bike lane network (taken by dividing 338.53 km by the 23.8km length of EDSA).
Assuming that the average cycling trip length is 15.47km (i.e., the average rail trip length, JICA
MUCEP 2015) and a design life of 20 years for the bike lanes, the per passenger-km cost to
build a protected bike lane network is just Php 0.08.
PUV-only lane projections

Another option to augment public transport capacity that does not require a massive cost and
time investment to build is the implementation of PUV-only lanes for public utility jeepneys
(PUJs) and/or public utility buses (PUBs). Along major highways such as EDSA, one lane
normally allotted for mixed use of public and private motorized vehicles will be designated
specifically to public utility vehicles only and built with the proper loading bays (i.e., that a PUV
can move to the side as passengers board/alight to allow for the continuous movement of
vehicles along the lane). If this were to be implemented along EDSA, assuming the following
transport parameters in Table 5:
27
2012 cost of USD 39 per linear foot, adjusted for inflation at 2% per annum; USDPHP=48.6
28
Calculated by dividing the average steps taken per day of 4,008 by 1,312 average steps per km
29
Pucher, Dill and Handy (2010) analyzed the impact of interventions on the levels of bicycling and found
that establishing cycling infrastructure could double the number of total bicycle trips (London, Barcelona,
Amsterdam, Paris, etc) and even quadruple it (Bogota, Berlin).
16 of 31
Table 5. PUV-only lane forecast parameters

Parameter Value
Length of EDSA 23.8 km
Average estimated vehicle speed along PUV-only lane 30 kph30
Equivalent full-operating hours of PUVs along EDSA 12 hours
Length of PUB with space allocation between vehicles 30 meters
Per trip estimates (JICA, 2014)
Average passengers per trip (PUB) 35 people
Average km travelled per trip (PUB) 10 km
Then a single two-way PUB-only lane along EDSA can serve 1.9 million passenger trips daily.
AADT data (MMDA, 2019) show that there was an average of 11,313 PUB vehicle trips along
EDSA daily in 2019. Using the same per vehicle estimate parameters in Table 5 above, this is
equivalent to 0.9 million passenger trips served daily. As such, implementing a two-way
PUV-only lane in EDSA dedicated exclusively to PUBs can serve up to 1.0 million additional
passenger trips per day, more than doubling the 2019 supply.
Limitations of the study

There are three potential metrics for comparing the cost to build for transport infrastructure
projects: by the length of the system, by the expected number of passenger trips served, and by
passenger-kilometer. Among the three, while cost to build per passenger-km is the metric that
best captures the actual value provided by the transport infrastructure projects, our study only
uses an estimate of distance travelled based on historical patterns observed, and does not take
into account how the IFPs may shift these travel patterns.
Moreover, our study views the transportation supply shortage from a big picture perspective--we
find that there is no regular data being collected on mobility supply and demand on a
disaggregated basis. Passenger trips in GCR are counted as a whole, as disaggregated trip
data on a per-area or per-road level within the region are scarce or unavailable. As such, while
overall there is a transportation supply shortfall in the GCR, there may well be a capacity
oversupply in some specific roads but together with a greater magnitude of unserved demand in
other areas as well.
The Philippines does not have the requisite systems in place to accurately estimate future
transport demand. The non-measurement of waiting times in public transport services also does
30
A 30-kph speed limit on roads significantly reduces risk of death and injury for people walking (Victoria
Walks, 2021)
17 of 31
not allow for the creation of an accurate picture on the current transport supply shortage, nor
does up-to-date/real-time data exist on the existing transport supply.
As such, we chose to use the most conservative estimates we had available to estimate mobility
demand and transport supply. JICA’s estimate of effectively 1.25% annual growth in GCR
transport demand is significantly below the United Nations’ population growth estimate of
1.6-2.0% per year. Similarly, we assumed that all the public transport infrastructure flagship
projects in NEDA’s latest list will be built on schedule despite the numerous delays that have
been faced by these projects over the past few years.
Transportation Network Vehicle Services (TNVS) like Uber and Grab only entered the
Philippines in late 2013, and the motorcycle-hailing service Angkas in 2016, and as such were
not as prevalent during the time the baseline mobility figures were collected relative to today.
While TNVS vehicles were estimated to have taken 370,000 to 590,000 trips per day in Metro
Manila in 2017 (Mirandilla and Regidor, 2019), we have excluded this from the analysis as it is
unclear how much of these trips were shifted from private or public transport demand. Notably,
the 2019 study found that TNVS added more to vehicular traffic while “delivering inferior
productivity” relative to other modes of road-based public transportation in terms of
person-kilometers served (i.e., less people moved).
Our study also assumes that all additional passenger trips served by the IFPs will fill shortfalls in
demand, and will not cannibalize trips that are already being served by other existing public
transport modes at present (e.g., PUJs, PUBs, UV Express). All figures for demand served by
the IFPs were taken from statements and presentations made by the DOTr and/or mainstream
news sources.
Finally, the study does not consider possible shifts in mobility patterns due to the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. We remedy this by taking the most conservative
demand assumptions, and we note that this is a point for further study.
Data
Mobility demand
Macroeconomic mobility demand estimates were sourced from Table 4.5: Trip Composition by
Mode (see Annex F for the full table) in page 4-3 of the MMUTIS Update and Enhancement
Project (MUCEP) Person Trip Survey Technical Report, published in December 2015 by the
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), commissioned by the Philippines’ Department
of Transportation (DOTr). The baseline mobility demand is for residents inside GCR only, and
excludes trips to and from the area.
The Person Trip Survey was completed in three parts: 1) household interview surveys (HIS), to
analyze existing travel behaviors of people and forecast traffic demand, with a sampling rate of
18 of 31
1% of all barangays (approximately 4 households) within the survey area for a total of 51,188
sample households; 2) a Cordon Line Survey, to determine trips to or from the survey area
made by non-residents and calibrate the distributed traffic volume obtained from the HIS; and 3)
a Screen Line Survey, with the purpose of providing vehicular and passenger traffic information
to calibrate the distributed traffic volume obtained from the HIS. The Cordon Line Survey and
Screen Line Survey were done by conducting roadside origin-destination interviews for transport
trips, traffic counts, and vehicle occupancy surveys with survey periods of 16 or 24 hours.
Adjustments made by JICA for socio-economic factors, resident and non-resident trips along
cordon lines, and actual counted traffic volume along survey lines.
Mobility demand growth

Conservative case estimates for mobility demand growth in the GCR were sourced from Table
6.1.2: Impact of Build-Build-Build Program in page 6-5 of the Follow-up Survey on the Roadmap
for Transport Infrastructure Development for Greater Capital Region (GCR) Final Report
(Roadmap 2) published in August 2019 by JICA and commissioned by NEDA.
Baseline case estimates were based on population growth estimates for the Manila Urban
Agglomeration by the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ Population
Division’s World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision File 11a: The 30 Largest Urban
Agglomerations Ranked by Population Size at Each Point in Time, 1950-2035.
Aggressive case estimates were based on Table 4.2.3-1: Estimated Generation Trip and Annual
Growth Rate in page 4-40 of JICA’s Preparatory Survey for Expressway Projects in Mega
Manila Region Final Report published on November 2012, which was based on JICA’s own
2010 Master Plan on High Standard Highway Network Development (HSHN).
A comparison table for the different demand growth scenarios can be found in Annex C.
IFP cost data

The costs for the IFPs were analyzed from NEDA’s latest revised list of public transport
infrastructure flagship projects. See Annex A for the full list.
IFP ridership data

Where available, the ridership data for the IFPs were sourced from the DOTr. Below is a full list
of data sources for projected ridership:
19 of 31
Table 6. Sources for estimated ridership forecasts for IFPs in the GCR
Infrastructure Flagship Project Source
PNR NSCR North 1 DOTr, 2021
PNR NSCR North 2 DOTr, 2021
PNR NSCR South Commuter DOTr, 2021
LRT 2 West Extension GMA News
LRT 6 Cavite Line A 2015 estimate
Metro Manila Subway Project Phase 1 Philippine Daily Inquirer
LRT 1 Cavite Extension Project Philippine News Agency
MRT 3 Rehabilitation project Manila Times
MRT 4 Philippine Star
LRT 2 East Extension Business World
MRT 7 DOTr, 2021
Fort Bonifacio-Makati Sky Train Manila Standard
Metro Manila BRT Line 1 Philippine Infrastructure Transparency Portal
Active Transport
Additional cycling demand growth due to completed construction of protected bike lane
infrastructure was estimated from an international review on infrastructure, programs, and
policies to increase cycling by Pucher, Dill and Handy (2010) that assessed existing research on
the effects of various interventions on levels of bicycling.
20 of 31
Conclusions
It is evident that the Philippines is already facing a massive transport shortage, as seen from
long wait times and overcrowding in public utility vehicles and transit stops--further exacerbated
by the poor mobility response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study makes it clear that the
shortage will continue over the next 10 years and beyond, even if all of the Php 2-trillion worth of
public transport infrastructure flagship projects in the NEDA list are built on schedule, with an
estimated number of unserved daily passenger trips of at least 2.8 million and up to 6.0 million
by 2030 in the Greater Capital Region.
We emphasize the urgent need for developing an accurate system for forecasting transport
supply and demand. The most effective way to do this would be a real-time, dynamic system,
which can be done with investment in Information and Communications Technology
systems--including a Public Transport Information Management Center and Interoperable
Automated Fare Collection System--across all modes of public transport. This will enable our
national and local transport agencies to be better-equipped to manage deficiencies in public
transport.
We find that road-based public transport is only 2.4% of the 2-trillion public transport IFP budget,
despite being significantly cheaper (Php 0.61 per passenger-km for BRT, compared to Php 5.94
and Php 3.33 for subway and overground rail, respectively) and faster to build (about three
years or less for BRT and high quality bus systems, compared to a minimum of five years for
overground rail and a minimum of eight years for a subway). A larger share of public resources
should also be dedicated to cost-efficient complementary road-based infrastructure projects with
short construction time frames to supplement the capacity and service quality of existing
road-based public transport systems, including the construction of PUV-only lanes, which has
the potential to more than double public transport capacity if implemented along major
thoroughfares, as well as more spacious and accessible PUV/transit stops31.
Finally, the massive gap in public transport capacity can be augmented even without significant
capital outlays: we find that proper pedestrian walkways and protected bike lanes--infrastructure
which support active mobility--both cost significantly less to build at less than Php 1 centavo and
Php 8 centavos per user-kilometer, respectively, and can also be built within a much quicker
timeframe. Similarly, bridges built for pedestrians and cyclists are at least 7 times cheaper than
vehicle bridges, measured per kilometer of two-way lanes32. Evidently providing better value for
money, construction of active transport infrastructure should be prioritized and built alongside
31
Move As One (2021) estimates the cost at Php 2.5 million per modular PUV stop and Php 5 million per
linear kilometer of PUV-only lanes (covering both sides of the road).
32
The 2 way x 2 lane, 680m, Php 3.39 billion Binondo-Intramuros Bridge (PNA, 2021) costs Php 2.49
billion per km of two-way lane, whereas the 2 way x 1 lane, 72m, EUR 0.33 million (real, 2012) or Php
23.52 million (inflated at 2.5% pa to 2020 pesos, EURPHP=58.5) Werkdonken Bike Bridge in the
Netherlands (ipv Delft, 2015) costs just Php 0.33 billion per km of two-way lane.
21 of 31
road construction, rehabilitation, and widening projects, especially according to the DPWH’s
Special Provision No. 23 in the 2021 General Appropriations Act:
"All projects pertaining to the construction, preventive maintenance, rehabilitation,

reconstruction, upgrading, off-carriageway improvement, widening and/or paving of
primary, secondary, tertiary, bypass and diversion roads, and the construction, widening,
or replacement of bridges, shall be so designed and implemented as to include
protected lanes for pedestrians, and bicycles/light mobility vehicles [...] Pedestrian
crossings shall by default be at-grade for the inclusion of persons with disability, senior
citizens, pregnant women, children with strollers, tourists with luggage, and parents with
children, consistent with public health and safety regulations."
We recommend a re-balancing in the country’s infrastructure pipeline through greater

investment in active transport infrastructure that promote walking and cycling, and a massive
expansion in road-based public transport modes through public utility vehicle service
contracting, bus rapid transit programs, safer and pedestrian-friendly transit stops, and other
complementary infrastructure: these programs give the biggest impact to improving both
transport supply and commuting experience in the short-term and the medium-term.
We recommend a broader shift away from prioritizing vehicle speeds and travel times--the
conventional car-centric thinking of measuring transport quality--to more robust people- and
nature-centered metrics that consider the commuter experience of society as a whole. Future
infrastructure projects should be evaluated based on how they help fill this massive transport
shortage and improve the public transport service quality. Such metrics include, but are not
limited to, shorter waiting times, less crowding, faster travel from point A to point B, reduced
generalized cost for commuters, adherence to health protocols, less carbon emissions,
improved access for persons with disability, gender sensitivity, reduced transfers, and safer
commutes.
The Philippines cannot merely rely on “Build, Build, Build”-ing its way out of the public transport
supply shortage, as car-centric road infrastructure is becoming less and less effective, less
cost-efficient, and much less conducive to reducing emissions as opposed to sustainable
mobility solutions. Transport planning and development in the Philippines needs significant
rebalancing towards inclusive and sustainable mobility so that our cities can become more safe,
livable, sustainable, and accessible for people from all walks of life.
22 of 31
References
Asian Development Bank (2019). Malolos-Clark Railway Project: Economic and Financial
Analysis.
Clinton Mirandilla, Jose Regin Regidor (2019). Assessment of Transportation Network Vehicle
Services from the Drivers’ Perspective. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, Volume 13.
Commission on Audit. Annual Audit Reports, Metro Manila Development Authority.
Department of Transportation (2021). DOTr Railways Sector Virtual Presser.

https://www.facebook.com/130406490431829/videos/1406460353030127
Japan International Cooperation Agency (2012). Preparatory Survey for Expressway Projects in
Mega Manila Region, Final Report.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (2014). Roadmap for Transport Infrastructure

Development for Metro Manila and Its Surrounding Areas (Region III & Region IV-A), Final
Report.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (2015). MMUTIS Update and Enhancement Project
(MUCEP), Technical Report: Transportation Demand Characteristics Based on MUCEP Person
Trip Survey.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (2015). MMUTIS Update and Enhancement Project
(MUCEP), Project Completion Report.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (2018). Feasibility Study on the North South Railway
Project - South Line (Commuter) (North-South Commuter Railway Extension Project) in the
Republic of the Philippines, Draft Final Report (Solis-Calamba Section).
Japan International Cooperation Agency (2019). Follow-up Survey on the Roadmap for
Transport Infrastructure Development for Greater Capital Region (GCR), Final Report.
John Pucher, Jennifer Dill, Susan Handy (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to
increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine, Volume 50, Supplement,
Pages S106-S125, ISSN 0091-7435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.028.
Marubeni Corporation (2010). Study for Manila LRT Line 2 East and West Extension Project in
Republic of the Philippines, Summary.
23 of 31
Metro Manila Development Authority. Reports on Annual Average Daily Traffic.

https://mmda.gov.ph/2-uncategorised/3345-freedom-of-information-foi.html
Metro Manila Development Authority (2020). Bicycle Count along EDSA.
National Economic and Development Authority (2020). Revised List of Infrastructure Flagship
Projects.
New York State Department of Transportation (2012). Safe Routes to School Quick Estimate
tool.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/local-programs-bureau/srts/repository/SRTS%2
0Quick%20Estimate.xls
Ralph Chapman, et al. (2018). A Cost Benefit Analysis of an Active Travel Intervention with
Health and Carbon Emission Reduction Benefits. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 2018, 15, 962; doi:10.3390/ijerph15050962.
Philippine Statistics Authority. OpenSTAT, Consumer Price Index for All Income Households by
Commodity Group.
https://openstat.psa.gov.ph/PXWeb/pxweb/en/DB/DB__2M__PI__CPI/0012M4ACPI1.px/?rxid=4
5aec6d9-74b0-464d-b015-6d08bb6294fb
Philippine Statistics Authority. OpenSTAT, Consumer Price Index for All Income Households by
Commodity Group.
https://openstat.psa.gov.ph/PXWeb/pxweb/en/DB/DB__2M__PI__CPI/0012M4ACPI1.px/?rxid=4
5aec6d9-74b0-464d-b015-6d08bb6294fb
Philippine Statistics Authority. OpenSTAT, Consumer Price Index for Bottom 30% Income
Households by Commodity Group.
https://openstat.psa.gov.ph/PXWeb/pxweb/en/DB/DB__2M__PI__BIH/0022M4AB301.px/?rxid=
8f9a270c-041d-4364-99b7-928b3405939d
Piojo, Larry Monserate (2021). “Terminal: The constant agony of commuting amid the
pandemic--a photo essay”. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
https://pcij.org/article/5819/terminal
Social Weather Stations (2021). Fourth Quarter 2020 Social Weather Survey: 42% of
non-home-based working Filipinos say going to work is very much harder; 44% of them walk to
work. https://www.sws.org.ph/swsmain/artcldisppage/?artcsyscode=ART-20210507063140
The World Bank (2017). Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan for the Metro Manila
BRT - Line 1 Project.
24 of 31
The World Bank (2014). Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan for the Cebu Bus
Rapid Transit Project.
Thomas M. Orbos (2020). The Edsa Skywalk. Business Mirror, Street Talk.
https://businessmirror.com.ph/2020/12/07/the-edsa-skywalk/
TomTom Traffic Index. Manila traffic. https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/manila-traffic/
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018). World
Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, Online Edition.
Zy-za Nadine Suzara, et al. (2021). Move People, Not Just Cars: Correcting the systemic
underfunding in national road-based public transport in the Philippines from 2010 - 2021.
25 of 31
Annex A. List of Mass Public Transport Infrastructure Flagship Projects

Sourced from NEDA unless otherwise stated
Cost to Funding Expected Estimated
Project Classification Length33
build source completion34 Capacity35
based on NEDA revised list of IFPs as GAA, ODA, in passenger trips
Road, Rail in Php mn in km Year
of August 19, 2020 PPP per day
Unified Grand Central Station Rail 2,783 GAA

National Interoperable Automatic Fare
Road/Rail 4,723 ODA
Collection System Project
EDSA Greenways Rail 8,512 5.0 ODA 1,100 (pedestrians)
LRT 2 West Extension Rail 10,120 3.0 GAA 2023 16
LRT 2 East Extension Rail 9,759 4.0 ODA 2021 80

2022 (partial),
LRT 1 Cavite Extension Project Rail 64,915 11.7 ODA/PPP 100 (partial), 300
2024
LRT 6 Cavite Line A Rail 50,380 23.5 PPP 2025 200
2022 (partial),
PNR NSCR North 1 Rail 149,130 38.0 ODA 47 (partial), 330
2024
2023 (partial),
PNR NSCR North 2 (MCRP) Rail 283,815 51.4 ODA 34 (partial), 150
2024
PNR NSCR South Commuter / PNR
Rail 344,606 58.6 ODA 2026 350
Calamba
2022 (partial),
Metro Manila Subway Project Phase 1 Rail 356,974 35.0 ODA 65 (partial), 370
2025
Fort Bonifacio-Makati Sky Train Rail 3,520 1.9 PPP 2022 80
MRT 3 Rehabilitation Project Rail 21,966 16.9 ODA 2021 300
MRT 4 Rail 49,841 15.6 ODA 2025 234
MRT 7 Rail 75,000 22.8 PPP 2021 350
C5 MRT 10 Project Rail 81,470 22.5 PPP
MRT 11 Rail 71,110 18.0 PPP

PNR NSRP South Long Haul / PNR 2022 (partial),
Rail 175,318 581.0 ODA 100
Bicol 2025
Subic Clark Railway Rail 50,031 71.0 ODA
Cebu Monorail System Rail 78,890 27.0 PPP 2023 540
Mindanao Rail Project Phase 1 Rail 81,686 102.0 ODA 2022 122
Taguig Integrated Terminal Exchange Road 4,000 PPP
Metro Manila BRT Line 1 Road 5,463 12.3 ODA 2023 290
Cebu BRT Road 16,309 40.0 ODA 2022 60

Davao Public Transport Modernization
Road 18,600 137.0 ODA
Project
33
Gathered from various sources
34
35
26 of 31
Annex B. List of DPWH Land Transport Infrastructure Flagship Projects

Source: NEDA
Cost to build Funding
Project Location
(in Php mn) source
C5 Southlink Expressway Project NCR 12,645 PPP
Cagayan de Oro Coastal Road Mindanao 2,842 GAA
Metro Manila Skyway Stage 3 NCR 44,860 PPP
Arterial Road ByPass Project Phase III (Plaridel Bypass) Luzon 5,261 ODA
Metro Manila Logistics Network: BGC-Ortigas Center Link Road Project NCR 5,720 GAA
Surallah-T'Boli-San Jose Road, South Cotabato Mindanao 3,473 GAA
Sindangan-Bayog-Lakewood Road, Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga del Norte Mindanao 4,153 GAA
Metro Manila Logistics Network: China Grant Bridges NCR 5,947 ODA
Boracay Circumferential Road Visayas 1,660 GAA
Samar Pacific Coastal Road Project Visayas 1,126 ODA
Davao City Coastal Road Project, including Bucana Bridge Mindanao 28,265 GAA/ODA
Bacolod-Negros Occidental Economic Highway Visayas 7,339 GAA
Southern Luzon Expressway Toll Road 4 Luzon 13,100 PPP
Metro Cebu Expressway Project Visayas 26,625 GAA/PPP
Camarines Sur High-Speed Highway Project Luzon 9,235 GAA
Pasacao-Bataan Tourism Coastal Highway Luzon 14,972 GAA
NLEX-SLEX Connector Road NCR 23,302 PPP
Southeast Metro Manila Expressway Project NCR 45,290 PPP
Improving Growth Corridors in Mindanao Road Sector Project Mindanao 25,257 ODA
Panglao-Tagbilaran City Offshore Connector Bridge Visayas 4,400 ODA
Panguil Bay Bridge Mindanao 7,375 ODA
Panay-Guimaras Negros Bridge Phase 1 Visayas 65,701 ODA
Cebu-Mactan Bridge and Coastal Road Construction Project Visayas 76,413 ODA
Davao City Bypass Construction Project Mindanao 46,805 ODA

Samal Island-Davao City Connector Bridge Mindanao 23,040 ODA
Metro Manila Logistics Network: Pasig River and Manggahan Floodway Bridges NCR 12,801 ODA
Road Network Development Project in Conflict Affected Areas in Mindanao Mindanao 14,302 ODA
Metro Manila Logistics Network: Pasig River and Manggahan Floodway Bridges
Construction Project (Marikina River) NCR 9,163 ODA
Quezon-Bicol Expressway Luzon 87,296 PPP
Cavite-Tagaytay-Batangas Expressway Project Luzon 25,240 PPP
TPLEX Extension Project Luzon 23,947 PPP
Iconic Bridge Projects for Socio Economic Development Luzon 5,963 ODA
Davao City Expressway Mindanao 80,651 ODA
NLEX Harbor Link Extension to Anda Circle NCR 12,000 PPP
27 of 31
Annex C. Demand Growth Scenarios for the Greater Capital Region

Calculated from raw source data
Annual Average
Source Basis Period Covered
Growth Rate (AAGR)
JICA HSHN (2010) Population 2010-2020 2.59%
JICA HSHN (2010) Population 2021-2030 1.80%
JICA HSHN (2010) Trip Generation 2009-2020 2.78%
JICA HSHN (2010) Trip Generation 2021-2030 1.96%
United Nations (2018) Population 2011-2015 1.59%
JICA Roadmap 2 (2019) Transport Demand 2018-2035 1.25%
28 of 31
Annex D. GCR Transport Supply Shortfall Under Different Scenarios
29 of 31
Annex E. Calculated O&M Cost estimates for IFPs

In Php million per annum (expressed in 2020 pesos)
Annual O&M Cost

Project
(includes major maintenance costs)
LRT 2 West Extension 462
LRT 2 East Extension 773
Metro Manila Subway Project Phase 1 1,856
PNR NSCR North 1 5,145
PNR NSCR North 2 (MCRP) 6,496
PNR NSCR South Commuter 7,266
Metro Manila BRT Line 1 2,300
Cebu BRT 943
30 of 31
View publication stats

Annex F. JICA MUCEP 2015 Technical Report Table 4.5

Daily Trip Composition by Mode in the Greater Capital Region in 2014
31 of 31

MoveAsOneWP TheSystemicShortageinPhilippinePublicTransportation 20210526

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MoveAsOneWP TheSystemicShortageinPhilippinePublicTransportation 20210526

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Systemic Shortage in Philippine Public Transportation: The Impact of the

Preprint · May 2021

Katreena Chang Ken Abante

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robert Siy Jedd Carlo Ugay

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Systemic Shortage in Philippine Public Transportation:

Katreena Chang*, Kenneth Isaiah Ibasco Abante*^, Patricia Mariano*,

* Move As One Coalition Policy Research Team

Critical comments welcome via katreena.chang@gmail.com.

JEL Classification: R41, H61, O18

Key words: public transport, infrastructure, mobility, Philippines, COVID-19

The Systemic Shortage in Philippine Public Transportation:

Methodology and Limitations 12

Annex A. List of Mass Public Transport Infrastructure Flagship Projects 26

Annex B. List of DPWH Land Transport Infrastructure Flagship Projects 26

Annex C. Demand Growth Scenarios for the Greater Capital Region 28

Annex D. GCR Transport Supply Shortfall Under Different Scenarios 29

Annex E. Calculated O&M Cost estimates for IFPs 30

Annex F. JICA MUCEP 2015 Technical Report Table 4.5 31

5. Car-centric policies have made it harder for commuters to get to work. In

6. Another evidence of the public transport shortage is in road transport inflation

9. The little we plan to spend on road-based public transport has limited

Source of population density map: https://community.apan.org/wg/oekn/m/philippines/217472. IFP network added by authors.

17. The benefits of investing in road-based public transport go beyond easing

Methodology and Limitations

Public transport supply

The supply forecast to be filled by the IFPs are listed below:

PNR NSCR North 2 (MCRP) 2023 (partial), 2024 34 (partial), 150

Infrastructure Flagship Project (IFP) costs

The cost per transport mode is summarized below:

Active transport infrastructure costs

PUV-only lane projections

Table 5. PUV-only lane forecast parameters

Limitations of the study

Mobility demand growth

IFP cost data

IFP ridership data

"All projects pertaining to the construction, preventive maintenance, rehabilitation,

We recommend a re-balancing in the country’s infrastructure pipeline through greater

Commission on Audit. Annual Audit Reports, Metro Manila Development Authority.

Department of Transportation (2021). DOTr Railways Sector Virtual Presser.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (2014). Roadmap for Transport Infrastructure

Metro Manila Development Authority. Reports on Annual Average Daily Traffic.

Metro Manila Development Authority (2020). Bicycle Count along EDSA.

TomTom Traffic Index. Manila traffic. https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/manila-traffic/

Annex A. List of Mass Public Transport Infrastructure Flagship Projects

Unified Grand Central Station Rail 2,783 GAA

LRT 2 West Extension Rail 10,120 3.0 GAA 2023 16

LRT 2 East Extension Rail 9,759 4.0 ODA 2021 80

MRT 3 Rehabilitation Project Rail 21,966 16.9 ODA 2021 300

MRT 4 Rail 49,841 15.6 ODA 2025 234

MRT 7 Rail 75,000 22.8 PPP 2021 350

C5 MRT 10 Project Rail 81,470 22.5 PPP

MRT 11 Rail 71,110 18.0 PPP

Cebu Monorail System Rail 78,890 27.0 PPP 2023 540

Taguig Integrated Terminal Exchange Road 4,000 PPP

Cebu BRT Road 16,309 40.0 ODA 2022 60

Annex B. List of DPWH Land Transport Infrastructure Flagship Projects

C5 Southlink Expressway Project NCR 12,645 PPP

Cagayan de Oro Coastal Road Mindanao 2,842 GAA

Katreena Chang, Kenneth Isaiah Ibasco Abante^, Patricia Mariano*,