2. Objectives
This Study sought to understand the nature of the transport
needs, accessibility, mobility and transport costs of the
poor and vulnerable groups.
Specifically, this aimed to:
establish the travel demand patterns of the poor and vulnerable groups;
look qualitatively into the efficiency of the public transport system vis-
à-vis the needs of the poor and the vulnerable groups;
estimate the cost of transport of the poor;
estimate the actual and desired cost of transport of those within the
vulnerable groups; and
examine other non–quantifiable costs, if any, incurred by the
vulnerable groups.
3. Study Areas/Groups
Poor Communities
Purok Centro, Barangay Old Balara (414 Households)
Area H, Barangay Bagong Pag-asa (1,415 Households)
Purok 13, Barangay Payatas (197 Households)
Vulnerable Groups
Senior Citizens
Persons With Disabilities
Women
BPO Workers
4. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Vehicle Ownership Rate
Motorized Non–Motorized
Study Area
4W 2W Bike Other
Area H 3.03% 3.03% 0.00% 1.01%
Purok Centro 5.43% 9.30% 6.98% 0.78%
Purok 13 1.02% 8.16% 3.06% 0.00%
5. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Person Trip Generation Rate Per Household
Total Person
Home-Generated Person Trip per
Study Area Trips per
(HG) Trips HG Trip
Household
Area H 1.58 4.09 6.44
Purok Centro 1.90 4.06 7.70
Purok 13 1.89 3.66 6.90
6. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Person Trip Generation Per Area
Daily Annual
Study Area
Home- Home- Home-
Total Person
Generated Generated Generated
Trips
Trips Trips Trips
Area H 2,205 9,014 529,315 2,163,288
Purok Centro 786 3,189 188,600 765,440
Purok 13 372 1,360 89,307 326,457
7. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Distribution of HG Trips Per Purpose
Trip Purpose Area H Purok Centro Purok 13
to work 69% 43% 50%
to school 25% 41% 49%
to market 1% 7% 2%
others 5% 9% 0%
8. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Distribution of Total Person Trips Per Mode
Transport Modes Area H Purok Centro Purok 13
Walk 47.87% 32.93% 29.79%
Private Vehicle 6.60% 2.28% 2.77%
School/Company Service 2.13% 0.00% 0.00% Purok Purok
Modes Area H
Own Bicycle 0.85% 0.12% 0.46% Centro 13
Padyak/NMPT 5.11% 0.12% 0.00% Walk 48% 33% 30%
MRT 8.09% 1.32% 0.69%
Public
LRT 1 0.00% 0.48% 0.00% 43% 65% 67%
LRT 2 0.21% 0.00% 0.00% Transport
PU Bus 11.28% 3.71% 5.54% Private/Semi
9% 2% 3%
PU Jeepney 15.53% 42.87% 54.04% -Private
FX/AUV 0.00% 0.60% 1.39%
Tricycle 1.91% 14.85% 5.31%
Taxi 0.43% 0.72% 0.00%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
9. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Factors Considered in Mode Choice
Rank Area H Purok Centro Purok 13
1 Affordability Affordability Affordability
Short Travel Short Travel Short Travel
2
Duration Duration Duration /
3 Cleanliness Convenience Driving Style
Availability of Availability of
4 Cleanliness
Mode Mode
5 Driving Style Driving Style Convenience
10. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Percentage Share of Transport Cost to Total Expenses
Rent-Free Renter
Ownership
Annual Average
Area H (Barangay Bagong Pag-asa)
Non Vehicle Owner 4.66% 5.75%
Motor Vehicle Owner 10.97% 9.62%
Purok Centro (Barangay Old Balara)
Non Vehicle Owner 4.23% 6.39%
Motor Vehicle Owner 12.24% 11.53%
Purok 13 (Barangay Payatas)
Non Vehicle Owner 7.67% -
Motor Vehicle Owner 7.01% -
11. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Percentage Share of Transport Cost to Total Income
Rent-Free Renter
Ownership
Annual Average
Area H (Barangay Bagong Pag-asa)
Non Vehicle Owner 4.80% 7.91%
Motor Vehicle Owner 5.37% 5.58%
Purok Centro (Barangay Old Balara)
Non Vehicle Owner 6.70% 8.85%
Motor Vehicle Owner 14.01% 6.36%
Purok 13 (Barangay Payatas)
Non Vehicle Owner 8.69% -
Motor Vehicle Owner 6.05% -
12. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Non – Quantifiable Costs
Safety
Exposure to Pollution
The need to sacrifice other necessities to meet
transport cost requirements
During times of financial difficulties, to meet transport
requirement, households resort to sacrificing other cost items
such as (i) food, (ii) electric and water bills, and (iii) health care.
13. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Primary Mobility Problems
Purok
Mobility Problems Area H Purok 13
Centro
high transport cost 75.00% 97.35% 74.49%
insufficient supply of public transport/MRT 2.00% 0.00% 2.04%
lack of pedestrian facilities/sidewalks 1.00% 0.00% 1.02%
non-operational stoplights 1.00% 0.00% 1.02%
pollution 1.00% 0.88% 1.02%
poorly maintained vehicles 3.00% 0.00% 3.06%
traffic congestion 10.00% 1.77% 10.20%
undisciplined loading and unloading of passengers 2.00% 0.00% 2.04%
vehicle accidents 5.00% 0.00% 5.10%
14. Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Proposed Solutions
Purok Purok
Proposed Solutions Area H
Centro 13
work for additional income 28.57% 54.29% 29.41%
borrow money 1.43% 11.43% 1.47%
lower fare 14.29% 5.71% 11.76%
proper budgeting 0.00% 11.43% 0.00%
reduce other expenses 4.29% 4.76% 4.41%
salary increase 2.86% 0.95% 2.94%
save money 5.71% 2.86% 5.88%
walk 5.71% 0.00% 5.88%
15. Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – BPO Workers
Travel Demand Characteristics
Typically, 4 person Modal Split
Percentage
trips in “Home – Transport Mode
Share
Work – Home” trip Private Vehicle 1.85%
chain Shuttle Bus 0.93%
Factors Considered in Mode Choice Taxi 3.24%
FX 17.13%
Rank Factor
MRT 0.93%
1 Affordability Public Utility Bus 8.33%
Public Utility Jeep 34.26%
2 Short travel duration Tricycle 14.35%
Walk 18.98%
3 Availability of mode
Total 100.00%
16. Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – BPO Workers
Travel Demand Characteristics
Typically, 4 person Modal Split
Percentage
trips in “Home – Transport Mode
Share
Work – Home” trip Private Vehicle 1.85%
chain Shuttle Bus 0.93%
Factors Considered in Mode Choice Taxi 3.24%
FX 17.13%
Rank Factor
MRT 0.93%
1 Affordability Public Utility Bus 8.33%
Public Utility Jeep 34.26%
2 Short travel duration Tricycle 14.35%
Walk 18.98%
3 Availability of mode
Total 100.00%
17. Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – BPO Workers
Direct Costs
Share of Transport Cost to Total Income
Vehicle Owners: 5%
Non Vehicle Owners: 13%
Non – Quantifiable Costs
Safety
Exposure to Pollution
18. Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – PWDs
Preferred Public Transport Modes: Tricycle, Taxis, and
PUJ
Tricycles and Taxis provide door-to-door service
Incentives provided through section 27 of the Magna
Carta for Persons with Disability (Republic Act 7277)
Entitled to lower PT Fares (20% discount)
However, not all PWDs are aware of this privilege
19. Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – PWDs
PWDs view pedestrian facilities as inadequate in
responding to their needs.
On overpasses, PWDs think that:
the locations are inappropriate and were selected mainly
for the benefit of private establishments;
the steps are too high making it difficult for them to
climb;
it needs cover; and
the location is too distant.
20. Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – Senior Citizens
Preferred Public Transport Modes: Tricycle, Taxis, and
PUJ
Tricycles and Taxis provide door-to-door service
Incentives provided through Section 2 of the
Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010 (Republic Act
9994)
Entitled to lower PT Fares (20% discount)
21. Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – Senior Citizens
They stated that it is hard to go up overpasses and it is
not easy to walk along narrow sidewalks
The law providing 20% discount to senior citizens is
highly appreciated.
However, concerns are raised on the implementation
of the discount as some drivers refuse to accept the
discounted fare.
22. Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – Women
Preferred Public Transport Modes: Tricycle, PUJs, and
walking
Women are subject to the same cost of transport as any
other regular commuter
Issues on pedestrian facilities especially overpasses:
height and steepness,
location,
condition and need for repair,
lack of cover, and
lack of lights at night
23. Summary of Findings
Qualitative Assessment of Public
Transport - Poor
The residents on the three (3) study areas find the present
public transport system as “somehow satisfactory”.
PT terminals are generally regarded as accessible, clean,
safe, and comfortable.
There is, however, a general perception of lack of facilities
in the PT terminals
in terms of the inter–modal network, there is much to be
desired.
Based on these factors, walkability is viewed as “somehow
satisfactory”
24. Summary of Findings
Qualitative Assessment of Public
Transport – BPO Workers
BPO Workers generally view public transport as “just right” to
“good”.
Taxis and FX received the highest ratings.
Public transport efficiency with consideration on the (i) fare, (ii)
availability of mode, and (iii) travel time is generally regarded as
“just right”
PT terminals are generally regarded as accessible, clean, safe,
and comfortable.
There is a general perception of lack of facilities in the
terminals
In terms of connectivity, the public transport network is
satisfactory
Walkability is viewed as “generally satisfactory”.
25. Summary of Findings
Qualitative Assessment of Public Transport
– PWDs, Senior Citizens and Women
PWDs, SCs, and Women generally view public
transport modes as acceptable and ‘just right’
Some units, however, are already dilapidated, worn
out and are in poor condition.
The tricycles and taxis are the most preferred because
these modes enable them to travel faster and offer
door to door service.
PUJs are also preferred due to the relatively low fare.
PT terminals lack facilities except for terminals of
mass transit systems such as the MRT and LRT.
26. Recommended Next Step
further researches
to expand the scope of this Study to other areas in Metro
Manila
to come up with a more comprehensive understanding
of the mobility of the urban poor
to address the mobility issues of the urban poor and the
vulnerable groups
