Inception Meeting Documentation Report


Published on

Published in: Travel, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Inception Meeting Documentation Report

  1. 1. Catalyzing New Mobility in Cities: The Case of Metro ManilaCatalyzing New Mobility in Cities: Inception Meeting Documentation ReportThe Case of Metro ManilaNOVEMBER 2011The Report was prepared by the Ateneo School of Government for theRockefeller Foundation
  2. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Ateneo School of Government’s iBoP Asia (Innovation for Inclusive Development) Program with supportfrom Rockefeller Foundation is implementing a project entitled “Catalyzing New Mobility in Cities: The Case ofMetro Manila”. This project aims to use New Mobility as a lens in search of more sustainable and innovativesolutions in the transport sector, especially in Metro Manila, that address problems of the poor and thevulnerable.The Inception Meeting was held last October 27, 2011 in Gateway Suites, Cubao, Quezon City and wasattended by total of 44 participants from various Local Government Units of the Cities of Quezon, Makati,Marikina, and Mandaluyong; National Government Agencies (Department of Transportation, Metro ManilaDevelopment Authority); Non-government Organizations and corporate foundation (Manila Observatory,CAI-Asia, Gawad Kalinga, PLDT-Smart Foundation); the private sector (Ayala land, Inc., Ortigas CenterAssociation Inc.); development organization (The Rockefeller Foundation); and research and academicinstitutions (Ateneo De Manila University, UP NCTS, University of Michigan).Mr. Benjamin de la Peña (Associate Director for Urban Development of Rockefeller Foundation) highlightedthat the more the city is urbanized, the higher the economic growth. However, he emphasized that in orderto make a sustainable and liveable city, there is a need to make the pedestrians a priority. Ms. Susan Zielinski(Managing Director, SMART-University of Michigan.) supported this idea and further elaborated that it iswithin the cities where most opportunities can be sought. The challenge however in moving forward withNew Mobility is to connect the dots. But there are reasons to be hopeful for Metro Manila with theparticipants’ involvement on this. Atty. Yves Gonzales of MMDA presented about the current transport andmobility situation in Metro Manila. He reiterated that the metro comprises 1/8 of the country’s populationcontributing to a lot of transport-related issues and challenges. The MMDA, however, envisions a world-class,vibrant, safe and healthy metropolis – which can be achieved by implementing effective programs.The project background was presented by Dr. Segundo Romero (iBoP Asia Program Director) followed bythe presentation of the Project Team of the research plans for the following: (1) mapping of public transportsin the metro; (2) the impact and cost of public transport on the poor and the vulnerable; and (3) theentrepreneurial and livelihood opportunities in the transport sector. Having this multi-sectoralrepresentation of the inception meeting has been instrumental in surfacing of inputs and suggestions to theresearch plans of the Project. The remarks gathered contributed to determining the focus of the researches,identification of study area(s), key persons and organizations, improving the research methods, defining thevariables of the researches, and possible collaborations with LGUs and national government agencies.Moreover, the interaction of participants helped determine the interrelationship and integration of the threeresearches to better present the baseline of the transport system in Metro Manila, and also the promise ofengagements and collaboration with the stakeholders present in the meeting. Dr. Danielle Guillen alsopresented the Project Activities in the next 12 months and is hopeful to continuously get the support of thestakeholders.Dr. Antonio La Viña gave the closing remarks and emphasized that the issues are solvable and requires avision even though it may take time and focus. He also expressed enthusiasm to engage with all stakeholdersin doing changes in areas possible then connect the dots.Atty. Alu Dorotan read the message from Chairman Francis Tolentino of MMDA. He congratulated theorganizers –the Ateneo School of Government and commended the Rockefeller Foundation for supportingnew learning and delivering services for the Filipino and conveys his appreciation for making Metro Manila thesubject of study and for giving MMDA the chance to participate in this worthwhile undertaking. ChairmanTolentino is optimistic that this study will provide new lessons in looking at transportation beyondinfrastructure with the inclusion of the poor and the vulnerable. That it will provide a human face, which is avery important factor in transport management.
  3. 3. CATALYZING NEW MOBILITY IN CITIES: THE CASE OF METRO MANILA INCEPTION MEETING Topaz Room 2, Gateway Suites, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City 27 October 2011 9:00 am to 3:00 pm HIGHLIGHTS1. The Ateneo School of Government under its iBoP Asia (Innovation for Inclusive Development) Program with support from Rockefeller Foundation hosted the Inception Meeting held last October 27, 2011 in Gateway Suites, Cubao, Quezon City for the project entitled ―Catalyzing New Mobility in Cities: The Case of Metro Manila‖. It was attended by 44 participants from from various Local Government Units of the Cities of Quezon, Makati, Marikina, and Mandaluyong; National Government Agencies (Department of Transportation and Communication, Metro Manila Development Authority); Non-government Organizations and corporate foundation (Manila Observatory, CAI-Asia, Gawad Kalinga, PLDT-SMART Foundation); the private sector (Ayala Land Inc., Inc., Ortigas Center Association, Inc. ); development organization (The Rockefeller Foundation); and research and academic institutions (Ateneo de Manila University, UP NCTS, University of Michigan). The list of attendees can be found in Annex 1.2. The event started with invocation, national anthem, and the welcome remarks given by Prof. Mary Jean Caleda, the Assistant Dean of Ateneo School of Government.3. Mr. Benjamin de la Peña, the Associate Director for Urban Development of Rockefeller Foundation, gave a presentation about the Foundation, some facts about Metro Manila, and the need for understanding Manila’s urban development. His presentation is attached as Annex 2. The following are some key points of his presentation:  Metro Manila grew in the last 50 years by 1440 ha/year with an average of 180,000 people/year. This is about half the size of Makati in land area each year. There is no agency in the world that could have cope with this kind of growth. This led to problems like informal settlements, slums, and traffic. To cope up with this kind of growth, there is a need to build 100 houses per day –at a no vacations, no weekends and no holidays assumption.  The situation in Metro Manila (e.g. slums, traffic congestion) is not unique to the country and can be found in other major cities/ metropolitan in the world.  The more the city is urbanized, the higher the economic growth. The US is about 80% urbanized, Korea is 92%, and Japan is even more so. The only place in the world that does not have horizontal slums is China because it is intentionally urbanized. These countries see the connection between urbanization and growth. Here in Metro Manila, it is not realized.  Cities share 70% of the global economy and are considered the economic engines of the world. It has a huge share for a very miniscule size of the world’s land area.  Mr. dela Peña shared his favorite quote from Triumph of the City by Ed Glaeser:
  4. 4. “Cities don’t make people poor. Cities attract poor people. They attract poor people because they deliver things that people need most of all — economic opportunity.”  There is a demographic shift happening. The World Bank thought that in order to solve world poverty, people don’t have to go into cities. They come to realize over the last five years that it cannot happen—that people come to cities because of opportunities.  Metro Manila is only 2.1% of the total land area of the country, but it produces 1/3 of the national economy. Every square kilometer in Metro Manila produces more than $ 3 billion dollars per year. Mr. de la Peña presenting the facts about the contribution of cities in  Comparatively, Metro Manila national economy produces about $158,000 per sq. km. per year versus $1,720 for every square kilometer per year in the rural areas.  Poverty incidence of families of NCR (4.8%) is lower than in whole of the country (24.4%). Lower poverty incidence is due to economic opportunities. Starting a business in the city or finding a job is nine times higher than being in the rural areas.  The myths of decongesting Metro Manila and traffic are as follows:  Moving people out of the City (mainly the poor). An example is Balik Probinsya Program in the 1950s.  Create alternative growth centers to relieve pressure.  Need more mass transit to relieve the traffic congestion  There are two ways of solving congestion: (1) traffic congestion pricing and (2) high gas cost  One way to decongest the city is to kill its economy.  The more roads you build, the more people drive.  Mr. de la Peña emphasized that if we want a sustainable and a livable city, it is the pedestrian that needs to be king. All that happens in cities depend on people. The way to make a sustainable and livable city is to make the pedestrians a priority. That’s the indicator species, not the person in the car.4. Ms. Susan Zielinski, the Managing Director of Sustainable, Mobility and Accessibility Research and Transformation (SMART) Center at the University of Michigan, gave a presentation on the international perspectives on New Mobility. Before Ms. Zielinski started her presentation, she asked everyone to introduce themselves, their affiliation, and tell a positive word that represents ―transportation.‖ Some of the participants’ responses included the following: speed, legroom, potent, space, convenience, movement, choice, service, door-to-door, connectivity, safe, seamless, enforcement, clean air, engineering, people, democratic, integrated, and sustainable.
  5. 5. She gave a presentation with the theme ―connecting the dots.‖ Her presentation can be found inAnnex 3. The highlights of her presentation are as follows: Urbanizing world is an opportunity to think differently about solutions. We have to think creatively, not only focusing on what’s wrong or what the problems are, but looking at innovations all around the world. There are new ways of providing services including fractional use (e.g. zipcar), new technologies (iphone applications telling us when trains are coming, integrated fare payment), new kinds of design and infrastructure (bike parking, urban design—transportation as a framework for city building), new modes of transportation (foldable bikes, new types of buses) and cultural shifts. We should consider not just people’s movements but also goods movements, and the lesson to be learned from the latter. Transportation is not just going from A to B, it is also about making trips shorter or eliminating it (e.g. building a corner store in a neighborhood eliminates longer trips). Transportation is a means not an end. Good movement should be multilevel, door-to- door, IT-enhanced and seamless. A three-minute video presentation (created by Veolia) was shown to give the participants ideas on new mobility. Ms. Zielinski emphasized that it is important to identify transportation grid that already exist in the city then look at how it increases connectivity. Connectivity infrastructure rather than roads as infrastructure. She also discussed the Four-step Approach – convening, mapping, piloting and roll out, and moving minds. According to Ms. Zielinski, convening identifies great things, so as to bring them together and make them better. It’s beyond usual suspects. It’s not just the city planners and engineers but also the entrepreneurs (e.g. doing iphone apps, people at Cisco doing neat IT, NGOs), and sometimes labor. Mapping and piloting on the other hand should be able to identify things that make sense and should generate interest, more demands, and public participation of the city’s transportation. There are many industries involved in the traditional transportation industry as follows: real estate, tourism, logistics, IT and GIS. With New mobility, it further contributes to economic benefits. It saves money, creates jobs, boosts businesses, and revitalizes local economies. Ms. Zielinski asked the participants to think of a thing in Metro Manila that they are most excited, proud and hopeful for the future. Furthermore, give at least whom they would like to bring to participate in the table. The participants said they are proud of the following:  Train system (MRT) – it may be insufficient but at least Metro Manila already has it.  Transportation rich; excited about transportation issues and possible solutions.  Connections have greatly improved  Alternate routes  Rationalizing public transit  Retaining public transit share  Cooperation among stakeholders  Covered walks and the efforts of various groups to improve it  Current initiative in Commonwealth Avenue for motorcycle lane  People Power  Growing awareness of importance of health
  6. 6.  Hoping for a subway in Metro Manila  Partnerships with NGOs  Existing improvements  People welcome positive changes  People here in the room who came with an open mind and willing to Right photo: Ms. Zielinski listens to the participants while giving their insights on what collaborate with they are excited, proud of and hopeful in the future of transportation in Metro Manila. everyone  Enthusiasm and Left photo: Local Government representatives from City of Marikina and CAI-Asia sharing interest of their thoughts different sectors of the community  Renewed zeal/ desire of young people to be part of city and nation building  Numerous options to live in the places where you work  Organizations promoting paradigm shift from infrastructure building to shifts in mass transit; excited by projects of line 7 and line 9  Streets are already marked  Potential as center for innovation  Capacity to talk about traffic rather than coup d’etats and crime  Talking about mobility and not just transportation/ traffic  People have open minds, not looking at Manila as a dead endGroups and/ or individuals identified by the participants are as follows:  Bus operators (80% of traffic caused by buses, lack of discipline thereof)  Councilors of the different LGUs especially Chairpersons of the Committee on Transportation  People working on urban air quality  Students and those studying more efficient transport systems  Representatives of car users  Mayors of Pasig, Mandaluyong and Quezon City (for the Ortigas Business District)  National government agencies  Motorcycle users  President  Urban planners  Public transport operators  Commuters  Social entrepreneurs  Youth groups  Township developers  Church  People working in transport services sector to better understand the economic situation  Core users, especially those in lower-income tax brackets  Drivers
  7. 7.  Ateneo community (future leaders, entrepreneurs)  Future problem solvers, including young children  Bloggers/media  Young planners hungry for development  Artists who could help visualize what the real identity of Metro Manila should be5. The following are the highlights of the discussion:  Mr. Danilo Ocampo asked if there is a room for discussions and planning on some manageable innovations and mobility system at the local level.  Mr. de la Peña responded that what happens and what we can do in this table should not be defined by the funders or the proponents. It should be defined by the participants. And in order to effect change, it is important to change minds. With this, what we can do is to shift the framing of the problem. He cited US as an example, that, it is a mistake to count cars instead of people. He emphasized that if we count people and consider it to be at the core, which we forget, we will be thinking about how many people can be moved as fast as possible.6. Atty. Yves Gonzales, Director of the Traffic Discipline Office of the MMDA, presented about the Metropolitan Manila Transport and Traffic Development and Management Program (Annex 4). The highlights of his presentation are as follows:  The Philippines is about 88 million in population, Metro Manila comprised its 11 million. The classification of the roads is about 44% concrete and about 56% of the national road is in asphalt. The road network composes of five circumferential roads (C-roads) and 10 radial roads.  The vehicle registration in 2010 totaled to 6.6 million. There is an increase in vehicle registration from 2008 and 2010.  As the country progresses, more and more people buy cars and traffic congestion gets worse.  For buses that passes thru EDSA, there a total of 3,700 city buses and 3,088 provincial buses. For non-EDSA there are total of 1,589 city buses and 4,280 provincial buses. These accounted to a total of 5,321 for EDSA and 7,368 for non- EDSA buses.  Based on a study, the actual limit of buses is just about 1,600. There is oversupply of Atty. Yves Gonzales presenting the initiatives of MMDA city buses. In addition, provincial buses also contribute to traffic and congestion.  There are 85 bus stations clustered in the areas of Sampaloc-Manila (29), EDSA-Cubao (26), EDSA-Pasay (19), Buendia-Pasay (7) and Monumento (4). Currently, there are 1,719 franchise holders for a total of 48,514 units.  We also have the rail system, MRT, LRT 1 and 2, and PNR. The expansions MRT 7, MRT 4 are also part of the expansion plans. The LRT 1 has 111 trains, the LRT 2 has 13 train sets, and MRT 3, the most popular has 73, and the Philippine National Railways has 18 trains.
  8. 8.  There is also the Pasig River Ferry System. However, its operation is currently suspended. The DOTC has plans to bring it back and strengthen because it is one of the alternative means to get around Metro Manila. There are a total of 76,938 of traffic-related accidents from January to December 2010 in Metro Manila. 380 are fatal accidents, 14,853 non-fatal accidents, and 61,705 damage to property. While from January to May 2011, we have 168 fatal accidents, 6,321 non-fatal injuries, 22,962 damaged properties, and a total of 29,446 accidents. The number of accidents along Commonwealth Avenue has been reduced by 23% as compared to 2010. The Issues and Challenges are:  Obstructions and illegal structures along the carriageways  Outmoded traffic signal system  Poor road condition  Inadequate public transport  Vehicular and pedestrian accidents  Low or weak enforcement of transport and traffic related-laws/regulations; and  Lack of discipline and poor road behavior Metro Manila’s vision is to be a world-class, vibrant, safe and healthy metropolis. We are not yet there but we are getting there. The MMDA has proposed/implemented the following flagship programs:  The establishment of the Mega Manila North and South Provincial Bus Axis System or PIBAS. The goal: to decongest EDSA from buses.  The development of the Airport Tram System aims to inter-connect all the three (3) international airport terminals.  The installation of an Intelligent Transport System. It consists of two parts: (1) to improve Metro Manila’s traffic signaling system—improving traffic lights, changing LEDs and installing counters which shows the number of seconds for the red time, yellow time and green time, (2) to increase monitoring and surveillance abilities by installing of additional cameras; the more parts of the road that we can monitor, the better services we can provide for the people.  Installation of road signs and markings following international standards.  Construction of rotondas to improve the traffic flow.  Landscaping and beautification of the road.  Installation of strategic traffic safety and traffic flow enhancement facilities.  Improving illumination of roads.  Transport and traffic entry summit and stakeholder’s consultation meeting.  Construction of pedestrian footbridges. Currently there are 66 footbridges serving a total of 2.3 million pedestrians a day. It is equivalent to 2.3 million pedestrians that are not on the road.  Deployment of lady traffic enforcers to areas with severe traffic problems. Motorists tend to be more compliant and try to obey traffic laws when lady traffic enforcer is around.  Expansion of Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program (UVVRP). Number coding system.  Introduction of Christmas lanes, also known as Mabuhay Lanes. These are alternate routes that the motorists can traverse, instead of the major roads. The MMDA deploy enforcers to ensure that these routes remain free flowing.  Employment of female bus drivers. MMDA believed that female bus drivers are more caring and less aggressive in driving PUVs.
  9. 9.  Setting speed limit of 60 kph and introduction of motorcycle lanes along Commonwealth and Macapagal Avenues.  Vehicle tagging scheme that aims to tag all vehicles to allow identification of vehicles (e.g. during accidents, etc.) via CCTV. It is also important for the identification of vehicles and out-in-line vehicles. There is no cost to government because the vehicles are tag voluntarily by operators.  Establishment of MMDA twitter account that replaced MMDA radio/TV operations. It is much cheaper and currently has 144,000 followers. It is simple, it is cheap and efficient.  Metro Manila Traffic Navigator aims to provide traffic information in line with major thoroughfares—EDSA, C-5, SLEX, NLEX, Roxas Boulevard, Quezon Avenue, España, Commonwealth, Ortigas, and Marcos Highway.  Creation of MMDA iOS mobile application.7. The highlights of comments, questions, and recommendations for the presentation given by Atty. Gonzales are as follows:  Mr. Ocampo asked if the MMDA thought about replicating the MRT system to a situation of buses and jeepneys.  Atty. Gonzales responded that improving public transportation is one of the solutions to solve traffic problems. Establishing Bus Rapid Transit may take time because of political challenges. It is also cheaper but will require new capital for buses. The improvement of public transportation is not exactly a mandate of MMDA but of DOTC. The MMDA is working with DOTC, LTO, and LTFRB to come up with solutions to improve our level of transportation. BRT system is one of Mr. Danny Ocampo asking Atty. Gonzales, if MMDA has thought about them. Next year, Chairman Tolentino replicating MRT system to bus and jeepneys. is planning to introduce a project regarding the loading and unloading. Again, this is one of the problems in traffic situation because people just load and unload everywhere.  Ms. Jessica Bercilla cited that wherever there is increase in mobility, there are new social hubs that evolve. Where there are new evolving social hubs, the more vulnerable sectors and the urban poor sectors, are very quick at finding opportunities. In relation to this, she asked if MMDA, in all the innovations implemented, has thought about addressing the issues of the urban poor who use and benefit in the evolving mobility that we have in Metro Manila.  Atty. Gonzales said that MMDA is concentrating on it mandates to provide better transportation management services in Metro Manila. The result of will be reaching down to the poor and the vulnerable. However, MMDA don’t have that project right now that is why we are talking with the ASoG to have an initial meeting on how these people - the poor and the vulnerable - will benefit from agencies transportation project especially in Metro Manila.  Mr. de la Peña, asked the participants to name one city in the world, a vibrant city that has no traffic. He cited that even Singapore has traffic. The goal of traffic-less city is probably impossible. He also gave New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong as examples of cities that have the best transport systems in the world. Even these cities have traffic. He congratulate MMDA with
  10. 10. its initiatives and with the Traffic Navigator, it shows how we can achieve our objectives in the future.  On the Traffic Navigator, Atty. Gonzales said that their vision is to cover everywhere. It is built in a modular way so that more roads can be added fairly.  Mayor Herbert Bautista on the other hand asked the group on what is the basis of planning, is it transportation or land use? Moreover, what are the regulations regarding the use of ten- year old cars?  Dr. Antonio La Viña emphasized that the whole point of the Search is to try to answer the questions that the stakeholders have. He is also optimistic that the group can do a lot of things on transportation that is good for the environment, for progress, for development, and for energy. Dr. La Viña also emphasized one of the reasons we invited the local government officials (e.g. Quezon City) is for the team to move forward on this initiative and be able to locating these issues in specific places.  Mr. de la Peña responded to the query raised by Mayor Baustista. He said that transportations are city shapers. In understanding levels of development (e.g. in Quezon City), it is important to consider the following questions: How many cars will have to pass Above photo: Ms. Jessica Bercilla asking Atty. Angeles if MMDA (given before thinking about expanding the their innovations) thought of addressing the issue of urban poor who use road? But what if, we count people and benefit in the evolving mobility that we have in Metro Manila. instead of cars? Then how many people will be coming through here then how Below photo: Dr. La Viña explaining the objective of the Search. do we carry that people? Is the most efficient, cars? Is the plan based on transportation or land use, would you be doing plan based on people? Where will people go? How will they move? How many of them can we move? Where do we get down and get off? How do we make it more convenient for them?  On the query of Mayor Bautista about the regulation on cars, Ms. Corazon Japson (Supervising Transportation Development Officer, DOTC) mentioned that there is a DOTC regulation that limits the age of public utility vehicles to 10 years. The agency will not give franchise if they exceed to 10 years. It is not that strict for private cars, so long as the vehicle passes the requirements for motor-vehicles registration and NBI safety road forms.8. The morning session ended with a photo shoot of all the meeting participants. The presentation about the project and its research components were moved in the afternoon.
  11. 11. The participants of the Inception Meeting from LGUs, national government agencies, private sector, academe, non-government organizations and development partners.9. In the afternoon session, Dr. Segundo Romero (iBoP Asia Program Director), gave a presentation entitled, ―Background and Overview of the Project on Catalyzing New Mobility in Cities: the Case of Metro Manila.‖ The presentation is attached as Annex 5. The highlights of his presentation are as follows:  Government agencies are repositories of a lot of information that are not shared.  The Metro Manila Action Plan should be able to contain provisions on safety, mobility, productivity, and civility. For inclusiveness, it is to design the public transport system for the pedestrians, the bicyclists, the commuters, the long trippers.  Design safety for the pedestrians.  For mobility, we should also look how it affects the productivity for the rich and poor.  Dr. Romero raised the following questions that the project wanted to answer for this Search:  Is it possible to design civility into interactions on the road?  If the streets show the attitude and our citizenship, how do we focus on cooperative and interactions? Dr. Romero presenting the background and overview of the project  Where are the informal transport hubs? What are their attributes?  Where are the formal transport networks?  How to combine different modes of travel?  How Metro Manila combine these services, etc?
  12. 12.  What basically designs to ride a jeep rather than a bus?  Economics and mobility.  Social enterprise opportunities  Focus on governance not government  Connect ―islands‖ of transportation systems. The SMART primer highlights transportation as a system of systems, connecting nodes, services, etc. Thus the concept of transportation also includes behavioral mobility changes and innovations from various stakeholders.  In the end, we want to increase the accessibility in Metro Manila. The output that we are promising is a sustained multi-stakeholder discourse on new mobility—a series of discourses on mobility beyond the project line. We are going to feed it with workshops and fora, research, communication and information activities that enriches knowledge sharing.  In the next 12 months, the project will do the following:  Stakeholder workshops  Mapping and research - both visible and invisible public transport system. The team wanted to map behavioral patterns and understand the impacts/ costs of public transportation, particularly on the poor and vulnerable, and identify existing and emerging entrepreneurial activities in the transport sector.  Profile raising activities10. Mr. Lorenzo Cordova, Jr., Research Associate of iBoP Asia Program, presented the Mapping of Public Transport Networks in Metro Manila (Annex 6) in behalf of Dr. Jun Castro. The highlights of his presentation are as follows:  Database is very effective in planning if it is reliable and updated. If it is updated, it should be relevant as well.  In building database, it is important to answer the following:  What is the purpose of the data?  Who needs the data?  Should it be able to be implemented on various platforms?  What are the platforms available for the users?  GIS-based maps and database can be overlaid with several layers to come up with guidance in an effective decision making. Results and analyses will be useful in policy making, management, guide in planning your system, traffic information in your GIS.  The study will select four to fiv areas in EDSA (e.g. from MRT stations), and will cover the 500 meter radius from the area identified.  The One-year time frame limits the study.  For the road network and capacities, we have MMDA and DPWH as sources of data—vehicle types and volumes, public transport services, pedestrian improvements, and traffic management. He emphasized that LGU have critical roles as well.  Mr. Cordova raised some questions to the participants to sought guidance from the participants to improve the study. These are:  What is the purpose of mapping?  What are we trying to connect for this invention? What are we trying to achieve? What are we looking at?  Who are the people who will use this data or these GIS maps?  What needs to be added given the existing information that we have?  How do GIS maps help define or determine the socio-economic and new mobility programs to be implemented by the LGUs, as well as the policies?
  13. 13. 11. The summary of key questions, comments, and recommendations for the mapping component of the Search are as follows:  Dr. Regidor gave recommendations to ask the following considering the perspectives of using maps as follows: 1) What were the objectives of the maps based on the maps presented by the MMDA? 2) Depending on the objectives, we have to define what level of detail we want in these maps; 3) What type of information exactly do we want to put in these maps? Then we can define what type of data we will be putting in the layers of the maps (e.g. travel speed, volume). 4) Do we need to determine densities, Dr. Regidor of UP NCTS sharing his insights for the mapping vehicle mixes? component of the Search  For the informal hubs, the connectivity will be identified. It’s one of the basic objectives--to see how the urban poor commute.  If the study will only look at three MRT stations along EDSA and we want to focus on inclusion, why not map an urban poor community and find out how they are traveling and to where? These stations are just exchange points.  Importance of language and legibility in creating maps  ―New mobility map‖  Understand connection points  Maps should give opportunity for both users and for the entrepreneurs who want to fill up the system and identify gaps  Define the purpose of the map and the mapping exercise.  If maps should promote dialogue, then what kind of design will support conversations?12. Mr. Randolph Carreon, Transportation Economist, presented Impact and Cost of Public Transport on the Poor and Vulnerable (Annex 7). The highlights of his presentation are as follows:  The poor comprised considerable part of the population of the Metro Manila. The cost of transportation, especially public transport, has been increasing over the past years. The increasing costs are felt especially from those belonging in the low-income bracket.  The vulnerable groups include persons with disability, senior citizens, women and children. These sectors have specific transport needs however received less attention in the previous years and studies. Public transport is a vital part of the transportation system in Metro Manila.  The objective is to understand the nature of the transportation needs, accessibility, mobility, and cost of the poor and the vulnerable groups.
  14. 14.  The study aims to establish the travel demand of the poor and the vulnerable groups. Specifically, how these people move from their house, from their work, school. Moreover, to look qualitatively at the efficiency of the transport system compared to the needs of the poor and the vulnerable groups.  The study will also estimate the cost of transportation of the poor, estimate the actual and the desired cost of transport of those within the vulnerable groups and examine other quantifiable cost incurred by these groups.  The ―poor‖ will be defined as those living within the colonies of the informal settlers. Typically we define poor in terms of income, relatively those in the poverty line but for the purpose of this study, we would assume that once you live in the colony of informal settler, you could be considered poor.  The ―vulnerable groups‖ will include PWDs, senior citizens, and women and children. Additional category consists of those working in BPOs will be covered because this is a new and emerging industry. Mr. Randolph Carreon presenting the study on  The study will use primary and secondary data covering Impact and Cost of Public Transport on the Poor all the LGUs in Metro Manila. The primary data will be and Vulnerable gathered from selected areas, while secondary data will be gathered, hopefully, from all the LGUs in Metro Manila. Then, we can expand the primary data gathering.  We plan to conduct household interview surveys to determine travel demand patterns and transport cost. Currently we are considering the colonies of Bgy. Old Balara, Agham Road, and along EDSA extension. We are hoping to have a sampling rate of approximately 2.5% per area.  The study will conduct individual interviews among PWDs, senior citizens, women and children, and BPO workers. The interviews will be conducted in public places such as terminals at mall stations, in short, where we can find them, we will interview them.  The target number of samples is 2,000 respondents from all the vulnerable groups.  The study will utilize other methods:  Key-informant interviews  Focus group discussions  Since we have selected study areas, we will try to get some specific case studies, for example, a typical family within the informal settler colony. We will try to document how they move out to go to school, how they get their income, and what are the costs. For each of the vulnerable group, we will get one specific case study.  By end of January, we will have the initial findings after we do the initial running of the results. And on March, we will be able to finalize the report.13. The summary of key questions, comments, and recommendations for the Impact and Cost of Public Transport on the Poor and Vulnerable component of the Search are as follows:  Stratify the approach. Are we talking only of informal settlers with no land title or no tenure and some informal settlers with tenure already, whether those are awarded lots? The areas chosen are mixed since the focus is along EDSA.
  15. 15.  Areas far from EDSA are still under consideration to get the feeder of the movement (e.g. people in EDSA that are walking towards to and from the MRT; the tricycle and pedicab movements are not recorded).  Consider including the community that was relocated to see what is the impact on their transportation.  Mayor Bautista cited the example of the QC government’s idea of donating about five jeepneys (creating transport cooperative) so the people can build and eventually own. The Matandang Balara is okay for the study, it is far from EDSA, however, most of them are dense and many of the residents are working outside Quezon City. He also expressed to support the project and will be very much willing to volunteer Quezon City as one of the study areas.  If the research looks at the cost of public transit and how it causes traffic, there is a tendency to deal with it instead of the cars  Is there a ―language‖ that can say something on public transit opportunities, and impacts of motorized transportation on the poor/vulnerable? It might be a semantic thing but at first glance, it may look like that transit is seen as bad.  Up to what degree of specificity and usefulness you can devise the study such that the information Mayor Herbert Bautista of Quezon City shares his insights and expressing would be useful to prospective his support to the project. social entrepreneurs who can devise very specific focus in transport systems that will make sense to those poor and vulnerable sectors? (e.g. people with disabilities, one way of looking at it is, what is the actual mode of transport they are using now?)  Need focus on specific communities and see how dynamically they do their transport  We are trying to look at transport data and impact. We are also looking at socio- entrepreneurship data. If we have to do them in the same communities and in same locations, there is no way we will be able to inter-relate that data and integrate theoretical ferment that might be useful to our people. Is it possible to look at specific communities where we can do all these studies but in an integrated manner?  Ideographic case studies are good.  Why don’t we try to locate the senior citizens, the PWDs, and the others from this community? You may not have all of them but when you look at them together from Metro Manila, you will have enough conclusions.14. Ms. Tieza Santos, Associate Director of Ateneo Center for Social Entrepreneurship, presented Entrepreneurial and Livelihood Opportunities in the Transport Sector (Annex 8). The highlights of her presentation are as follows:  Social entrepreneurship – innovative way of doing things in order to provide a pervasive social solution.
  16. 16.  For this component of the project, we would like to look at the enterprise landscape and potentials of the transport and new mobility sector. Research Overview (preliminary ideas): Goals and Objectives:  Identify existing transportation related social enterprises or mobility innovations in the Philippines and including other countries.  Generate ideas and business models on new mobility and transport-related social enterprises with high potential to benefit particularly the poor and the vulnerable.  Identify market barriers and aiders for the development of mobility innovations. - We look at the economics, the Ms. Tieza Santos presenting the proposed study in consumers, and the market. We enterprise landscape and potentials in the transport sector consider the social aspect and elements governing these dynamics. And finally the cultural patterns and behaviors. Scope and Limitation:  Focus on commercial enterprise component of the transport and new mobility sector. - We consider the things that are more efficient that provide less cost, safe, convenient, poor and vulnerable-friendly transport systems.  The research activities will involve the following: - Interviews with proponents, managers, customers of existing mobility enterprises and projects - Focused group discussions and/or crowd sourcing  Geographic coverage on Metro Manila Preliminary Research Directions:  The social and economic dimension of the transport sector - To look at the social context and cultural mobility in Metro Manila - To survey the development and evolution of the transport and mobility in Metro Manila - To look at historical changes, economic drivers in national - To look at the sociological perspective and behavior patterns of transports and new mobility market Main Goal:  To understand the minds of the people and how goods and services are delivered.  Moreover, try to answer the following: How policy makers and government officials envision the way the city was built, the way they develop our transport system; how commercial areas sprung in transport hubs?; How they think and re-think the way they
  17. 17. construct Metro Manila and our cities?; What do we make out of our cities?; and why has Metro Manila evolved into what it is today?  Using the new mobility paradigm, we have two considerations: - What were the elements that influence the way you projected and built our city? - As Metro Manila reaches a point in terms of population and increasing demands for goods and services, did we consider the idea of how the city is built that is central to human progress? Going back to the roots: the transport sector as an enterprise  For politicians and planners, we look at transportation as service provider but for operators, drivers, it is not just service but an enterprise—it is a livelihood for them  The content of Search will also include the following:  Historical overview of the urban transport development in Metro Manila and how it emerged. - How these transport shaped our city today?  Market overview –the supply and demand analysis, the barriers and enablers that resulted to privatizations, colorums, TODA.  The development and emergence of transport enterprise in Metro Manila - What are the factors that drove the formal and informal enterprise surrounding the major transportation hubs in the country? - How we would be able to provide new mobility and come up with alternative enterprises for the formal and informal sectors that would be able to increase/address the challenge of new mobility?  Survey emerging enterprise and innovations in the new mobility paradigm. - Look at people and services - What are the new models that cater to people mobility, the transfer of services, the barriers and enablers, the systems and structural developments that are currently emerging?  The future direction - The projections of sustainable business models for new mobility and social enterprises in the Philippines. - What can be replicable locally? - What would be the role of social enterprises or social entrepreneurs in addressing the new mobility challenges with particular consideration for the poor and the vulnerable and other dimensions such as safety, convenience, health, efficiency, environment, and the cost? How will the challenges shape the mobility of the people, goods and services in Metro Manila  Some examples in the transport and mobility sector: - Mobius motors in Africa – low cost and high quality motors - Bikeshare - Suica pasmo in Japan  What if we do something like that in Metro Manila instead of carrying three pass cards? - Philippines: RoRo, Bayad Center Key considerations:  Efficiency cost, environment, convenience, safety  What are the enterprises, commercial/social and even public, that can be introduced and implemented to address these concerns?
  18. 18.  What are the proximate demands and supply for new mobility mechanism, specifically, the characteristics of the demand segment or the consumer profile in terms of segmentation that make up for the demand of new transport enterprises and new mobility mechanisms, infrastructures and systems that support the various needs of mobility consumers?  What could be the features of new mobility system that would be convenient and helpful to consumers?  What would be the incentives and principles that will govern or encourage the emergence of new models to facilitate new mobility of goods, people and services?  We will be doing research designs and content, finalize survey questionnaires, dry run of the survey, preliminary market study and analysis, key sectoral/institutional representatives, FGDs, research data processing.15. The summary of key questions, comments, and recommendations for are as follows:  Possible to include research on regulatory aspect of public transport?  Interested also in jeepney model, and have discussion with DOT officials.  When people have just little money, renting a jeepney becomes an attractive investment.16. Dr. Danielle Guillen presented the proposed activities of the Search (Annex 9). The highlights of her presentation are as follows:  Launch/mapping in January 2012  Launching in partnership with MMDA  Mapping exercise – connecting the dots. Will involve MMDA and 17 LGUs and public sectors (e.g. Department of Transportation), media (e.g. print, radio, TV), and private sectors (e.g. shopping malls, private developers, IT and telecom), NGOs, academe, planners and other groups, International Organizations Dr. Danielle Guillen presenting the proposed activities of the New  Launching of Crowd Sourcing Activity Mobility in Cities Project  Crowd sourcing - like an innovation award for best practice. It is a distributed problem solving and production model. It is a participatory process. It will be in a partnership with the academe, or some NGO groups going to these communities for them to think of a social enterprise.  Social enterprises are businesses in the market to fulfill social aims, bringing together people and communities together for economic development and social gain.  We want to create an innovation award in best practice and/or idea for social enterprise in the transport sector. - Planning : November-December 2011
  19. 19. - Launching : January 2012 - Call for Nominations : February – March 2012 - Presentation at Rio Summit: May 2012  Characteristics: - Enterprise-oriented involvement - Explicit social aims (e.g. job creation, training, provision of local services) - Social ownership (autonomous organizations with governance and ownership based on participation by stakeholder groups or trustees)  The project team will create a website to encourage interaction among stakeholders and as a resource facility to allow people to get what they need.  Highlighted that the project is owned by all the stakeholders, not just by ASoG-iBoP Asia or Rockefeller Foundation.17. Dr. La Viña gave the synthesis and ways forward. He emphasized that these issues are solvable and requires a vision even though it may take time and focus. That this is not only the project of ASoG. The team wanted to engage with all stakeholders as we move along. There are interesting initiatives going on in the public and private sector. Moreover, the levels of interest to solve the issues we are dealing with in terms of transportation are very high. We want to keep moving this forward and faster. Dr. La Viña emphasized that in a city like Metro Manila, he believes in ―mosaic‖ version of change, do changes where possible then connect the dots. This project is only a starting point of work that has to be done. Dr. La Viña thanked everyone for coming.18. For the Closing Remarks, Atty. Alu Dorotan read the message from Chairman Francis Tolentino of MMDA. He congratulated the organizers –the Ateneo School of Government. He also commended the Rockefeller Foundation for supporting new learning and delivering services for the Filipino and conveys his appreciation for making Metro Manila the subject of study and for giving MMDA the chance to participate in this worthwhile undertaking. Above photo: Dr. La Viña giving synthesis and ways forward Chairman Tolentino expressed that this is very Below photo: Atty. Dorotan of MMDA reading the message important project especially for MMDA since Metro from Chairman Francis Tolentino Manila is facing lots of challenges. With the increasing rate of urban development, many factors affect the delivery of services particularly in the area of transport. This study will provide new lessons in looking at transportation beyond infrastructure with the inclusion of the poor and the vulnerable. It will provide a human face, which is a very important factor in transport management.19. The Inception Meeting ended at around 3:00 in the afternoon.
  20. 20. ANNEX 1List of Persons and Organizations Consulted
  21. 21. CATALYZING NEW MOBILITY IN CITIES: The Case of Metro Manila Inception Meeting 27 October 2011 | Topaz 2 Gateway Suites, 4th Floor Gateway Mall, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City Email Address/ Name Designation Organization Contact InformationAsinas, Rodney PDO Makati City Hall rdneyasns@gmail.comBathan-Baterina, Glynda Tpolicy & Partnership Manager CAI-Asia Glynda.bathan@cai-asia.orgBautista, Herbert Mayor Quezon City mhmbqc@yahoo.comBercilla, Jessica Consultant Ateneo School of Government jbercilla@gmail.comBuencamino, Victor Gen. Manager Ortigas Center Association +63 2 631 7212Caleda, Mary Jean Assistant Dean Ateneo School of Government mj.caleda@gmail.comCamarillo, Ernesto Transport Consultant Makati LGU ernlcam@yahoo.comCarreon, Randolph Transportation Economist randolphcarreon@gmail.comComandao, Armando, City Planning and Development Mandaluyong LGU OfficerCordova, Lorenzo Jr. Ateneo School of Government lorenzojr.cordova@gmail.comde la Peña, Benjamin Associate Director Urban Development, The Rockefeller FoundationDiaz, Jennifer Chief, Engineering TOD Quezon City Government BdelaPena@rockfound.orgDuran, Anna Field Coordinator OCM Office of the City MayorFaulan, Ma. Josefina Director MMDA-OAGMP mdps_mmda@yahoo.comGison, Michael PO V MMDA +63 2 882-4151 to 77 loc. 280
  22. 22. Gonzalez, Yves Director III & OIC TDO MMDA, Kendra Program Manager, Klima Climate Manila Observatory CenterGuillaume, Marion Intern iBoP Asia, ASoG Marion.guillaume@gmail.comGuillen, Marie Danielle Program Manager iBoP Asia-New Mobility Project>Ibrahim, Amira Associate The Rockefeller Foundation AIbrahim@rockfound.orgJapson, Ma. Corazon Supervising Transportation DOTC Development OfficerLa Viña, Antonio Dean Ateneo School of Government tonylavs@gmail.comLaluna, Christian Ateneo School of Government allycrislna@yahoo.comLopez, Eriq Chief Staff Quezon City GovernmentMarcaida, Jaime City Transport & Development Marikina OfficeMarin, Michael City Transport & Development Marikina OfficeMartinez, Al Ateneo School of GovernmentMedalla, Aly Councilor Quezon City alymedalla@yahoo.comNilo-Fulo, Marien Project Officer Ateneo School of Government Marien_nilo@yahoo.comOcampo, Danny Director Ateneo Center for Social EntrepreneurshipPalarca, Coryell Legislative Staff Quezon City Council Coryell_palarca@yahoo.comQuesada, Noi Director GK Ateneo noiquesada@yahoo.comRabe, Corazon Office Assistant ASoG csrabe@ateneo.eduRegidor, Jose Regin Director UP NCTS Up.ncts@gmail.comRomero, Segundo Program Director iBoP Asia Program
  23. 23. Sanchez, Mario Asst. Head Quezon City GovernmentSantos, Esther President PLDT-Smart santosesther@gmail.comSantos, Mary Grace Program Manager iBoP Asia-UNIID Project mgpalaciosantos@yahoo.comSantos, Tieza Asst. Director Ateneo Center for Social EntrepreneurshipTan, Salvador Sr. Div. Mgr. Ayala Land, Inc., Virgilio TFB Quezon City Hall virgilioubaldo@rocketmail.comVictorino, Punie OCM Quezon CityZielinski, Susan Managing Director SMART Centre, University of MichiganAliliran, Karen Documenter Ateneo School of Government
  24. 24. ANNEX 2 The Rockefeller Foundation andthe Catalyzing New Mobility in Cities Search
  25. 25. 11/29/2011Catalyzing the New Mobility in Cities Search 1
  26. 26. 11/29/2011 2
  27. 27. 11/29/2011How fast did Metro Manila grow?1,440 hectares180,000 people every year since 1948 =1/2 Makati in land area, each year Bangkok 3
  28. 28. 11/29/2011MumbaiCaracas 4
  29. 29. 11/29/2011by Sachin Suresh Jadhav by mylerdude 5
  30. 30. 11/29/2011 The World’s Megacities1. Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan - 33,200,000 1. Tokyo, Japan - 34,100,0002. New York, United States - 17,800,000 2. Mexico City, Mexico - 22,650,0003. Sao Paulo, Brazil - 17,700,000 3. Seoul, South Korea - 22,250,0004. Seoul-Incheon, South Korea - 17,500,000 4. New York, United States - 21,850,0005. Mexico City, Mexico - 17,400,000 5. Sao Paulo, Brazil - 20,200,0006. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Japan - 16,425,000 6. Mumbai, India - 19,700,0007. Manila, Philippines - 14,750,000 7. Delhi, India - 19,500,0008. Mumbai, India (formerly Bombay) - 14,350,000 8. Los Angeles, United States - 17,950,0009. Jakarta, Indonesia - 14,250,000 9. Shanghai, China - 17,900,00010. Lagos, Nigeria - 13,400,000 10. Jakarta, Indonesia - 17,150,00011. Kolkata, India (formerly Calcutta) - 12,700,000 11. Osaka, Japan - 16,800,00012. Delhi, India - 12,300,000 12. Kolkata, India - 15,550,00013. Cairo, Egypt - 12,200,000 13. Cairo, Egypt - 15,450,00014. Los Angeles, United States - 11,789,000 14. Manila, Philippines - 14,850,00015. Buenos Aires, Argentina - 11,200,000 15. Karachi, Pakistan - 14,100,00016. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 10,800,000 16. Moscow, Russia - 13,750,00017. Moscow, Russia - 10,500,000 17. Buenos Aires, Argentina - 13,400,00018. Shanghai, China - 10,000,000 18. Dhaka, Bangladesh - 13,100,00019. Karachi, Pakistan - 9,800,000 19. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 12,100,00020. Paris, France – 9,645,000 20. Beijing, China - 11,950,000Source: Demographia. Source: Th. Brinkhoff: The Principal Agglomerations of the World 6
  31. 31. 11/29/2011BangkokMumbai 7
  32. 32. 11/29/2011Caracas by Sachin Suresh Jadhav 8
  33. 33. 11/29/2011Mumbai by Sachin Suresh Jadhav by mylerdude 9
  34. 34. 11/29/2011Mexico City by mylerdude 10
  35. 35. 11/29/2011 Bogota This is a good thing Urbanization and growth go together: no country has ever reached middle income status without a significant population shift into cities. Urbanization is necessary to sustain(though not necessarily drive) growth in developing countries, and it yields other benefits as well. But it is not painless or always welcomed by policymakers or the general public. Urbanization and Growth World Bank Growth Commission 2009 11
  36. 36. 11/29/2011 70%Cities’ share of the global economy 12
  37. 37. 11/29/2011“Cities don’t make people poor. Cities attract poor people. They attract poor people because they deliver things that people need most of all — economic opportunity.” Triumph of the City, Ed Glaeser London mid 1800s 13
  38. 38. 11/29/2011London and Cholera in the 19th Century 23,000 deaths 1831-1832 53,000 deaths 1848-1849 14
  39. 39. 11/29/2011New York late 1800sNew York late 1800s 15
  40. 40. 11/29/2011 Meanwhile back in our Mega City… 2.1% of total land area of the country 30% of the national economy PhP1,933.04 billion GRDP (2005)Every square kilometer in Metro Manila produced more than $3B/year in 2005 16
  41. 41. 11/29/2011US$ 158,000 $1,720 Poverty incidence % of families National 24.4% NCR 4.8% NSCB 2003 17
  42. 42. 11/29/2011If Metro Manila is the engine of economic opportunity… Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein 18
  43. 43. 11/29/2011 Myths of decongestion“Let’s move people out of the city.” (mainly the poor)What does a “decongesting” city look like? 19
  44. 44. 11/29/2011Picture by Alex McLean 20
  45. 45. 11/29/2011 Myths of decongestion “Let’s create alternative growthcenters to relieve the pressure on Metro Manila.” -ß R=αS The problem of Zipf’s Law Rank-Size Distribution for Cities 21
  46. 46. 11/29/2011 Myths of decongestion “We need more roads toto relieve traffic congestion.” 22
  47. 47. 11/29/2011 Myths of decongestion“We need more mass transitto relieve traffic congestion.” Source: colorfulrag 23
  48. 48. 11/29/2011For every complex problem, there is a solution thatis clear, simple, and wrong. H.L. Mencken 67,000 jeepneys 10,754 buses 61,173 tricycles1.47 million private vehicles 24
  49. 49. 11/29/2011If gas was severely restricted to 5% of the existing supply would you allocate it to public or private transport? 25
  50. 50. 11/29/2011 Metro Manila Land Use distribution 44.83% residential 12.22% commercial 7.62% industrial 6.90% institutional28.43% open spaces, parks and roads Reasons to be optimistic 26
  51. 51. 11/29/2011 Cities are 100 year projects 100 years – Burnham’s plan for Chicago 50 years to clean up the Thames 30 years to make Copenhagen the biking capital of the worldThe pedestrian is the indicator species for livable and sustainable communities. Harriet Tregoning Chief Planner, Washington D.C. 27
  52. 52. 11/29/2011Thank you very much 28
  53. 53. ANNEX 3 Connecting the Dots andInternational Perspectives in New Mobility
  54. 54. 11/29/2011 CONNECTING THE DOTS (getting underway: revealing the New Mobility Grid and spurring innovation, economic vitality, and livability for Metro Manila) Susan Zielinski, SMART, University of Michigan. October 27, 2011, Manila PhilippinesDRIVERS 1
  56. 56. 11/29/2011 new technology wayfinding; shared use; fare payment; traffic management; security etc.Design & newinfrastructure 3
  57. 57. 11/29/2011New modes / modal enhancements 4
  58. 58. 11/29/2011moving peoplemoving goodsmoving less 5
  59. 59. 11/29/2011 VEOLIA Video CONNECTIVITY/OPTIMIZATIO CONNECTIVITY / OPTIMIZATION N (both energy & time) • spatial * • spatial / physical • service (use vs. own)• technological (wayfind; fare pay; traffic manage; security)• economic (revitalize; save $; create jobs; boost business) • institutional & policy (public private innovation) • cultural / psychological (moving minds) 6
  60. 60. 11/29/2011LIVING LABS:BangaloreCape TownChennaiCochinDetroit RegionLos AngelesManilaMexico CityMysticPasadenaPortlandSeattleShanghaiWashington DCLisbon / Coimbra / PortoEtc…Connecting the Dots; Moving Money; Moving MindsRESEARCH, EDUCATION, TECH TRANSFER: ACCELERATE IMPLEMENTATIONLIVING LABS:BangaloreCape TownChennaiCochinDetroit RegionLos AngelesManilaMexico CityMysticPasadenaPortlandSeattleShanghaiWashington DCLisbon / Coimbra / PortoEtc…Connecting the Dots; Moving Money; Moving MindsRESEARCH, EDUCATION, TECH TRANSFER: ACCELERATE IMPLEMENTATION 7
  61. 61. 11/29/2011 PARTNERS & SPONSORS: National Science Foundation Center for South Asian Studies Transportation Research Board Rockefeller Foundation Mott Foundation FIA Foundation Alcoa Foundation Ford Motor (redefining) US Environmental Protection Agency Cisco Systems IBM Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Education CEO’s for Cities City Connect Chennai Confederation of Indian Industry etc…GAME CHANGE 4.0: SEAMLESSLY CONNECTED OPTIONSLEAPFROG: Straight to Next Generation Whole Systems Design & Build- spatial connectivity supported by New Technologies and PPINEW MOBILITY GRID: More Choices, More ConnectedThe Next Infrastructure; The Next Industry Cluster 8
  62. 62. 11/29/2011 Transportation Meetings0:00 1:40 1:50 2:00Agenda: WHAT IS NOT WORKING Solutions Laundry List Quick attempts at prioritization Adjourn Attendees: Usual Suspects A heart? A lung? Pituitary gland? Your choice What is better? What is the silver bullet? I only use my heart I’m too rich and powerful to use my capillaries 9
  63. 63. 11/29/2011 ROLLING OUT THE GRID: 4 STEPS1. CONVENING – The Crucial & Often Under-Rated First Step (not just the usual suspects – public private innovation2. MAPPING – An Engaging and Tangible Catalyst for Action3. PILOTING & ROLL-OUT – Start with Hologram for Wider Spread Roll-Out4. MOVING MINDS – Speak a new language (Rumi, Philip K. Dick)5. NETWORK (SMART network – “twinning” for shared genius) CONVENING 10
  64. 64. 11/29/2011 MAPPING and PILOTING Washington, DC Ann Arbor, Michigan CHENNAI: Linking design, value capture, cycles, autorickshaws, pedestrians, local business & new technologies (e.g.Mapunity, Cisco, Ashok, thru CII) 11
  65. 65. 11/29/2011 COCHIN (quiet leapfrog)Links train, metro, bus, ferry, auto, taxi, parking, 2 wheelers & cyclesLinked to commercial, entertainment, tourism, lifestyle70% of people need not enter city (larger hubs gateways to grid of smaller hubs)Transform economy & lifestyleSustainable – supported by real estate elements Mexico City 12
  66. 66. 11/29/2011CAPE TOWN – entrepreneurial ventures, way-finding,workplaces, public-private innovation, moving mindsMovingMindsDid Philip K. Dick predict or shape the future? 13
  67. 67. 11/29/2011SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS: CHANGES THE GAMEConnects Mode Service Product Technology Design Door to Door (feeds trunk, focused on user) Scalable / incremental / ALL YESES / induces demand For all shapes & sizes of communities & regions Short term / long term (not land use / policy dependent) Appealing (design, cool status) & Safe & Equitable Resilient & Robust (to climate / geopolitical challenges) Business, Innovation, Job Opportunities (New Mobility Industry Cluster Multi-Billion $) NEW MOBILITY ECONOMIC BENEFITS Saves Money Creates Jobs Boosts Business Revitalizes Local Economy 14
  69. 69. 11/29/2011 NEW ROLES (AND OPPORTUNTIES) PUBLIC SECTOR – incentives to connectivity / systems convening beyond the usual players / implementing, integrative frameworks / platforms to boost innovation & implementation. MOBILIZATION PRIVATE SECTOR – public-private innovation (action affects policy), new products, marketing New Mobility culture PUBLIC PRIVATE INNOVATION ACADEME – new models / tech transfer based on real world contexts, understanding & advancing solutions (not just problems). ACCELERATING IMPLEMENTATION NGO’s – informing / new approaches, partnering, engaging constituencies / implementing METRO MANILA What Dots Are Already Connected? What dots can be easily connected? What needs to be added (locally and system wide)? What benefits can be reaped? Social, ecological economic? Who else should be at the table?What policies, business models, marketing approaches can help address the challenges? When does the fun start? 16
  70. 70. 11/29/2011 THE TRANSFORMATION BEGINS: STEP 1: NAME THE DOTS. ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE 1 minute each • Your Name • Your effort / group• The thing you’re most proud, happy, excited, hopeful about • One other person / group you’d bring to the table SMART CONNECTIONS: • or email me • Living Labs (in pilot communities & regions) & NETWORK • Primer (Connecting & Transforming)• Global Learning Community (education & capacity building)• SMART Exchange collaborative tool -- • Business network • Research collaborative • Regular gatherings / summits of the “systems” network 17
  71. 71. ANNEX 4 Metropolitan Manila Transport andTraffic Development and Management Program
  72. 72. Source: National Statistical Coordination Board 1
  73. 73. Circumferential RoadsC-1 Claro M. Recto Avenue, P. Casal St., Ayala Boulevard and P. Burgos St.C-2 Tayuman Road, Arsenio Lacson Avenue, Nagtahan Boulevard and Quirino AvenueC-3 Libis Gochuico St., 5th Avenue, Sgt. Rivera St., G. Araneta Avenue, South Avenue, Makati Avenue, Ayala Avenue and Gil Puyat AvenueC-4 Letre Road, Samson Road and EDSAC-5 C.P. Garcia Avenue, E. Rodriguez Jr. Ave., Boni Serrano Ave., Katipunan Avenue, Congressional Ave. Ext., Tandang Sora Ave., Mindanao Ave., and NLEXRadial RoadsR-1 Delpan St., Bonifacio Drive, Roxas BoulevardR-2 Antonio Villegas Road, Taft Avenue and E. Quirino AvenueR-3 Metro Manila Skyway SLEXR-4 Pedro Gil. St., Tejeron St., J.P.Rizal St., J.P. Rizal Ext. and Pasig River ExpresswayR-5 Ramon Magsaysay Boulevard, V. Mapa Boulevard, P. Sanchez St., Shaw Boulevard and Pasig BoulevardR-6 Legarda St., R. Magsaysay Boulevard, Aurora Boulevard & Marcos HighwayR-7 Quezon Boulevard, Lerma St., Quezon Avenue, Elliptical Road, Commonwealth Avenue, Quirino Highway and Manila-Del Monte-Garay RoadR-8 Alfonso Mendoza St. Dimasalang St., A. Bonifacio Avenue and NLEXR-9 McArthur Bridge, Rizal Avenue, Manila North Road, McArthur HighwayR-10 Pres. Marcos Highway and Manila-Bataan Coastal Road 2
  74. 74. 2008 2009 2010 PHILIPPINES 5,891,271 6,220,433 6,634,855 NCR 1,670,150 1,768,033 1,904,395 CARS 423,759 415,568 435,473 UTILITY VEHICLES 525,342 526,910 558,123 SPORTS UTILITY VEHICLES 112,887 121,984 145,438 BUSES 9,521 12,319 14,184 TRUCKS 61,336 68,119 69,181 MOTORCYCLES / TRICYCLES 525,082 608,839 667,424 TRAILERS 12,223 14,294 14,572Source: Land Transportation Office 5 3
  75. 75. No. of 85terminalsin MetroManilaTerminals Sampaloc =29clusters EDSA – Cubao = 26 EDSA – Pasay = 19 Buendia – Pasay=7 Monumento =4No. of 60provincialbuscompaniesNo. of PUB 7,368units FRANCHISE UNITMETRO MANILA CITY BUS 92 5,083METRO MANILA PROVINCIAL BUS 653 6,999SHUTTLE SERVICE 151 1,227TAXI 236 14,038TOURIST BUS 32 876TOURIST CAR 20 1,575TRUCK FOR HIRE 410 15,902UTILITY VEHICLE 125 2,814 TOTAL 1,719 48,514SOURCE: Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) Data Base 4
  76. 76. Northrail MRT7 LRT 1 NORTH EXT (Closing the Loop). MRT4 LRT2 MRT8 MRT3 LRT1 PROPOSED EXISTING h PNR Northrail-Southrail Linkage Phase 1 nsio Sout LRT Line 2 (Caloocan-Alabang, 34 km) Exte Line I PNR Line n LRT Line 1 PNR Northrail-Southrail Linkage Phase 2 LRT Metro Star (Alabang-Calamba, 27 km) PARTICULAR LRT 1 LRT 2 MRT 3 PNR (including the (Mega Tren) (Metro Star) line 1/MRT 3 Loop)No. of Light Rail 111 LRVs 13 train sets 73 LRVs 18 LRVVehicles (LRV)(operational cars,coaches or train sets)Capacity per LRV, Car or 81 seated/293 232 seated/ 80 seated/ 194 seated/Coach (passengers) standees 349 standees 314 standees 360 standeesAnnual Ridership 155.91 Million 63.36 Million 153 Million 9.138 Million (2010) (2010) (2010) (2009)Daily Average Ridership 427,151 172,850 420,482 397,989 (2010) (2010) (2010) (2009)SOURCE: Department of Transportation and Communication 5
  77. 77. SOURCE: Department of Transportation and Communication Non Fatal Damage to Grand Month Fatal Injury Property TotalJanuary 33 1,266 4,780 6,079February 24 1,309 4,830 6,163March 32 1,296 5,156 6,484April 31 1,185 4,821 6,037May 30 1,164 5,037 6,231June 34 1,120 4,960 6,114July 42 1,298 5,642 6,982August 37 1,355 5,405 6,797September 34 1,244 5,294 6,572October 25 1,170 5,265 6,460November 27 1,269 4,799 6,095December 31 1,143 5,465 6,639 Grand Total 380 14,853 61,705 76,938SOURCE: Metro Manila Accident Reporting and Analysis System (MMARAS) 6
  78. 78. Non Fatal Damage to Grand Month Fatal Injury Property TotalJanuary 34 1,397 4,717 6,148February 35 1,218 4,508 5,561March 34 1,385 5,134 6,553April 30 1,230 4,329 5,589May 30 1,091 4,274 5,395 Grand Total 168 6,321 22,962 29,446SOURCE: Metro Manila Accident Reporting and Analysis System (MMARAS) Non Fatal Damage to Fatal Grand Total Month Injury Property 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011January 0 0 8 2 28 11 36 13February 1 0 35 24 106 60 142 84March 2 2 26 27 111 74 139 103April 0 0 24 32 93 80 117 112May 1 1 18 19 42 49 61 69 Grand 4 3 118 104 380 274 495 381 TotalSOURCE: Metro Manila Accident Reporting and Analysis System (MMARAS) 7
  79. 79. 2010 2011 TYPE OF PERSON INVOLVED KILLED INJURED TOTAL KILLED INJURED TOTAL DRIVER 0 66 66 0 62 62 PASSENGER 1 41 42 1 81 82 PEDESTRIAN 3 21 24 2 20 22 TOTAL 4 128 132 3 163 166SOURCE: Metro Manila Accident Reporting and Analysis System (MMARAS) NO PHYSICAL CONTACT APPREHENSION ALONG COMMONWEALTH AVENUE period coverage (January 26 to April 10, 2011) VIOLATION BUS PRIVATE PUJ TAXI TOTAL 1 PUV LANE ORDINANCE 11,636 0 29 1 11,666 2 LOADING/UNLOADING IN 991 0 1 5 997 PROHIBITED ZONE 3 RECKLESS DRIVING 16 0 0 0 16 4 ILLEGAL PARKING 0 1 0 1 2 (NOT TOWED) 5 OPEN DOOR POLICY 130 0 0 0 130 6 OVERSPEEDING 452 648 9 235 1,344 7 OBSTRUCTION 3 0 0 0 3 TOTAL 13,228 649 39 242 14,158 No. of Summon/Citation mailed = 10,422 8
  80. 80. COLORUM MONTH PERCENT INCREASE / 2010 2011 DECREASEJANUARY 55 188 242%FEBRUARY 78 88 13%MARCH 89 172 93%APRIL 56 84 50%MAY 65 --- ---JUNE 53 --- ---JULY 132 --- ---AUGUST 248 --- ---SEPTEMBER 209 --- ---OCTOBER 129 --- ---NOVEMBER 168 --- ---DECEMBER 141 --- --- TOTAL 1,423 5321. Obstructions and illegal structures along the carriageways2. Outmoded traffic signal system3. Poor road condition4. Inadequate public transport5. Vehicular and pedestrian accidents6. Low or weak enforcement of transport and traffic related-laws/regulations, and7. Lack of discipline and poor road behavior 9
  82. 82. ● Establishment of the Mega Manila Provincial Integrated Bus Axis System (MM-PIBAS)● Development of Airport Tram System● Installation of Intelligent Transport System● Development of alternative modes of transport• Installation of road signs and markings following international standards• Construction of rotundas• Landscaping and beautification 11