Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila


Published on

This paper aims to provide a situationer on transport governance in the Philippines, as they apply to Metro Manila. Metro Manila provides the arena for describing and analyzing the complexity and dynamics of transport governance in the country. This is occasioned by the number of local government units located in the metropolis (17 cities and municipality) as well as various national government agencies with transport-related mandates operating in the region. Metro Manila is also one of the biggest (13 million) and fastest growing metropolises in the world.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit

Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila

  1. 1. 2014 Segundo E Romero, Danielle Guillen, Lorenzo Cordova, and Gina Gatarin Inclusive Mobility Project, Ateneo School of Government, Ateneo de Manila University 2014 Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila
  2. 2. 1 Transport Governance Initiative A joint initiative of Embarq, WRI and Parisar (secretariat) and Prayas Energy Group (knowledge partner) Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila Segundo E Romero, Danielle Guillen, Lorenzo Cordova, and Gina Gatarin Inclusive Mobility Project, Ateneo School of Government, Ateneo de Manila University 2014
  3. 3. 2 Table of Contents List of Acronyms...................................................................................3 I. An Overview of the Philippine Land-based Transportation System............6 II. The Philippine Land-based Public Transportation Policies and Planning Development .......................................................................................8 III. The Philippine Land-Based..............................................................13 Public Transport Administration and Management...................................14 A. DOTC and the Related Transport Agencies ......................................... 14 B. Budgetary Provisions for Public Transport .......................................... 18 C. Public Transport Route Planning and Fare Adjustments ........................ 19 D. Franchising in Road-based Public Transport Vehicles: Buses and PUJs .... 20 E. Driver’s License Issuance and Motor Vehicle Registration...................... 22 F. Traffic Management and Safe Driving Regulations................................ 23 G. Vehicle Parking Management Regulations .......................................... 24 H. Collection of Motor Vehicle User’s Fees .............................................. 26 I. Dealing with Complaints and Feedback from the Public ......................... 26 J. Air Pollution Control ........................................................................ 27 K. Social Protection for the Poor and Marginalized ................................... 29 IV. Public-Private Partnership in the Transport Sector .............................30 V. Issues in the Public Transport Sector.................................................36 VI. Some Potential Responses to the Challenges in Public Transport..........37 VII. References ..................................................................................40
  4. 4. 3 List of Acronyms ACBO Alliance of Concerned Bus Operators ACEC Ateliers de Constructions Electriques de Charleroil ACTEX Alabang-Calamba-Sto.Tomas Expressway ACTO Alliance of Concerned Transport Operators AO Administrative Order ASBU Anti-Smoke Belching Unit AUV Asian Utility Vehicle BOT Build, Operate, and Transfer BPA Budget Partnership Agreement CALABARZON Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon CENRO City Environment and Natural Resources Office CMMTC Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation CNG Compressed natural gas CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CSO Civil Society Organization DAO Department Administrative Order DBM Department of Budget and Management DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office DILG Department of Interior and Local Government DND Department of National Defense DOE Department of Energy DOH Department of Health DOTC Department of Transportation and Communication DPOS Department of Public Order and Safety DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways DTI Department of Trade and Industry EDSA Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue EES Electrowatt Engineering Services (EES) of Zurich (Switzerland) EMB Environmental Management Bureau EO Executive Order EPS Electronic payment system FEJODAP Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines GAA General Appropriations Act GAD Gender and Development GCE Government Corporate Entities GDP Gross Domestic Product GFI Government Financial Institution GHG Greenhouse Gas GICP Government Instrumentalities with Corporate Powers
  5. 5. 4 GOCC Government-owned and Controlled Corporations GSIS Government Service Insurance System HUC Highly-urbanized cities IAQIF Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework ID Identification IMBOA Integrated Metropolitan Bus Operators Association IRA Internal Revenue Allotment ITS Integrated Transport System JEXIM Japan Export-Import Bank JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KBP Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas LGU Local Government Units LRT Light Rail Transit LRTA Light Rail Transit Authority LTC Land Transportation Commission LTFRB Land Transportation and Franchising and Regulatory Board LTO Land Transportation Office MMC Metro Manila Council MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority MMTC Metro Manila Transit Corporation MMUTIS Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integrated Study MNTC Manila North Tollways Corporation MOTC Ministry of Transportation and Communications MPTC Metro Pacific Tollways Corporation MPTDC Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation MRR Manila Railroad Company MRT Metro Rail Transit MRTC Metro Rail Transit Corporation MTPDP Medium-Term Development Plan of the Philippines MTOP Motorized Tricycle Operators Permit MVIS Motor Vehicle Inspection System NBI National Bureau of Investigation NCR National Capital Region NEDA National Economic and Development Authority NGO Non-government Organization NGVPPT National Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT) NIP National Implementation Plan NLEX North Luzon Expressway NMT Non-motorized Transport NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NSO National Statistics Office OTC Office of Transport Cooperatives OTS Office of Transport Security OSCA Office of Senior Citizen Affairs
  6. 6. 5 PasangMasda Pangkalahatang Sanggunian Manila and Suburbs Drivers Association Nationwide, Inc. PhilGEPS Philippine General Electronic Procurement System PM Particulate matters PMA Philippine Medical Association PNCC Philippine National Construction Corporation PNP Philippine National Police PNR Philippine National Railway PPP Public-Private Partnership PUB Public utility buses PUJ Public utility jeepney PUV Public utility vehicle PWD Person with disabilities RA Republic Act RDC Regional Development Council RMC Route Measurement Capacity ROI Return of Investment ROW Right of Way RORO Roll-on/roll-off SCTEX Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway SLEX South Luzon Expressway SO2 Sulphur dioxide SSS Social Security System TC Transurb Consult TEI Tractionnel Engineering International TFB Tricycle Franchising Board TIN Tax Identification Number TODA Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association ToR Terms of Reference TRB Tollways Regulatory Board TRO Temporary Restraining Order TVR Towing vehicle receipt UN United Nations UVVRP Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program VOC Volatil organic compounds
  7. 7. 6 This paper aims to provide a situationer on transport governance in the Philippines, as they apply to Metro Manila. Metro Manila provides the arena for describing and analyzing the complexity and dynamics of transport governance in the country. This is occasioned by the number of local government units located in the metropolis (17 cities and municipality) as well as various national government agencies with transport-related mandates operating in the region. Metro Manila is also one of the biggest (13 million) and fastest growing metropolises in the world. The case of Metro Manila’s suboptimal transport governance regime is a product of political, economic, and cultural forces over decades of dealing with problems of a developing country. Foremost among these is the tension between a decentralization policy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that serves development in a country of 7,100 islands but is at cross- purposes with the requirements of an integrated metropolitanization regime for Metro Manila. This paper deals with national to local transport-related policy and their application to Metro Manila. An effort is made to describe the operation of these policies on the ground, and how conflicts are generated and attempted to be resolved. The paper also gives a glimpse of how Philippine democracy operates in the policy arena, and how increasingly civil society and private sector engagement and consultation are creating an increasingly positive environment for policy reform in transport. I. An Overview of the Philippine Land-based Transportation System The Philippines has approximately 203,000 km of roads (2008) and 6.6 million registered motor vehicles (2010).1 The Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integrated Study (MMUTIS) reports public transport accounts for 80% of all trips. Taking the jeepney is the most frequent mode used. Figure 1 shows the trend in the registration of various types of vehicles with the Land Transportation Office (LTO) from 1990 to 2010. 1 Department of Transportation and Communication data.
  8. 8. 7 Figure 1. Number of registered vehicles by type. Philippines 1990- 2010. Source: Land Transportation Office in DOTC, 2013 Transport in most cities, including Metro Manila, is predominantly road- based. Metro Manila alone accounts for 31.2% of the 5.1 million total motor vehicles registered in 2005. The surrounding regions -- Calabarzon in the south and Central Luzon in the north contribute an additional 1.4 million vehicles, many of which routinely enter Metro Manila daily. While roads in Metro Manila are paved and well maintained, there are sections that are poor. The road network is constantly outstripped by the increase in the demand for road space, primarily due to the rapid increase in the number of vehicles. Level of service deteriorates fast during the rainy season, when incomplete and poorly maintained drainage systems cause flash floods in various sections of the network making roads impassable except for buses and trucks. An inordinate amount of time is spent by local governments in Metro Manila and the national government in improving road conditions, every now and then undertaking experiments and promulgating new transport policies and guidelines that are often poorly considered and evaluated as to impact. The Philippines has various urban public transport modes. Buses and urban railways (Philippine National Railways or PNR), Light Rail Transit (LRT 1 and LRT 2) and Metro Rail Transit (MRT) cover the longest distances across the metropolis and the surrounding areas. The public utility jeepney (PUJ) is the most frequently used mode in Metro Manila and in most urban areas in the Philippines because of its ubiquity, flexibility, reasonable cost, and traditional and habitual acceptability. Other public utility vehicles include taxis, FX2 , vans, 2 An “FX” uses the type known as Asian Utility Vehicle (AUV) which usually has a basic capacity of ten or fewer passengers, is arranged more like an automobile, but with short row seats at a hatched compartment.
  9. 9. 8 multicabs3 , motorcycle-driven and pedal-powered (“trisikad”) tricycles. So far, only Metro Manila has a rail-based transit network. Figure 2 shows the train network in Metro Manila. Figure 2. Metro Manila Train Network, 2014Source: II. The Philippine Land-based Public Transportation Policies and Planning Development Philippine transport governance, as Philippine governance in general, has traditionally been highly centralized. Despite a strong decentralization initiative ushered in by the 1987 Constitution, promulgated after the Martial Law Regime (1972-1986) that gave local governments significant powers, government remains unitary in form. In essence and as a matter of lingering predisposition, the Philippines and many aspects of Filipino 3 A “multicab” has a jeepney-like arrangement but seats only twelve passengers. Its fare usually follows the jeepney fare system.
  10. 10. 9 life is still governed from the political and government center, Metro Manila. The first law on land transportation in the Philippines, Legislative Act No. 2159, was enacted in February 1912. The law provided for the regulation and licensing of operators. An Automobile Section under the Administrative Division of the Bureau of Public Works was also created as the main implementing agency of the law. In 1932, Act No. 3045 consolidated all laws governing motor vehicles. It also upgraded the Automobile Section into the Automobile Division. The latter became a separate agency in 1947, the Motor Vehicles Office. In 1964, Congress enacted Republic Act 4136, otherwise known as Land Transportation and Traffic Code, which codified land transportation laws and created the Land Transportation Commission (LTC) to replace the Motor Vehicles Office. The LTC established various regional offices throughout the country in order to effectively carry out its functions. In 1979, the LTC was renamed the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT) subsumed under the Ministry of Transportation and Communication. In 1985, the Bureau was reverted into a separate Land Transportation Commission. (Guillen and Ishida, 2003) Rail transit in the Philippines started during the Spanish colonial period (1571-1898) when the Ferrocarril de Manila-Dagupan started operation in November 1892. From the Manila to Dagupan stretch with total length of 195.4 kilometers, the line eventually grew to cover 479 km from San Fernando, La Union in the north of Luzon to Legazpi, Albay, Bicol in the south. The railway system later became the Manila Railroad Company (MRR) during the American colonial period. The MRR became the PNR in 1960. In June 20, 1964, by virtue of Republic Act No. 4156, the PNR became an attached agency under the DOTC. Increasing neglect and competition from road-based transport ended the northern line of the PNR in the early 1970s. In turn, Typhoons Milenyo and Reming cause severe damage to the network and this led to the suspension of its Manila-Bicol services in 2006. In the 1990s, continuous problems with informal settlers that buil settlements along the railroad tracks further contributed to the railway’s decline. In 2007, the Philippine government started a rehabilitation project aiming to remove informal settlers from the PNR right-of-way, improve commuter services in Metro Manila, restore the southern (Manila-Bicol).. In 2009, a new corporate entity with new rolling stock was inaugurated. As of 2010, PNR has been operating two commuter rail services in Metro Manila and Bicol (PNR, 2014). From 1976-1977, Freeman Fox and Associates conducted a study funded by the World Bank which recommended the construction of a street-level light railway. The then newly created Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC) reviewed and revised the recommendations,
  11. 11. 10 introducing an elevated version because of the many intersections. This raised the cost from P1.5 billion to P2 billion. In July 1980, a wholly owned government corporation called the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) was established by virtue of Executive Order (EO) No. 603, as amended by EO 830 (September 1982) and EO 210 (July 1987). The LRTA formulates policies, regulates and fixes fares, plans extensions of the system, constructs, operates, leases, and maintains light rail transit systems. The LRTA was initially chaired by then First Lady and Metro Manila Governor Imelda Romualdez Marcos. The sole LRT line project running from Manila to Pasay City was called Metrorail and was managed by Metro Inc., a sister company of the former tramway company Meralco. The assistance to build the LRT project came from the Belgian government which granted a PhP 300 million “soft” and interest-free loan with a repayment schedule of 30 years. After 20 years, the project was expected to pay for itself within a period of 20 years out of revenue alone. A Belgian consortium composed of Ateliers de Constructions Electriques de Charleroil, B (ACEC), Constructions Ferroviaires et Metalliques, formerly Brugeoise et Nivelles), TEI (Tractionnel Engineering International) and TC (Transurb Consult) provided an additional loan of P700 million. The consortium provided the cars, signalling, power control, telecommunications, training and technical assistance. The entire system was expected to be financially "in the red" well into 1993. Against an expected gross revenue of P365 million for the first operating year, government losses were thought likely to reach P216 million. The system was designed as a public utility rather than as a profit centre. Construction of the line began in October 1981, and was the responsibility of CDCP (Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines), with help from the Swiss firm of Losinger and the American company Dravo, the latter, through its Philippine subsidiary. The government appointed Electrowatt Engineering Services (EES) of Zurich (Switzerland) to manage and supervise the project. EES set up offices in Manila and became responsible for extension studies of the system (LRT, 2014). After the People Power Revolt in 1986, a number of major transport- related reforms were implemented by the President. These reorganized transport agencies and redefined their powers over transport utilities. As mentioned above, EO 125 abolished the Land Transportation Commission (LTC) and created the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and transferred franchising and regulatory functions to the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). Today, the LTO is in charge of vehicle registration and issuance of vehicle operator licenses. The issuance of franchises for land transport operators and regulation of fare rates is vested in the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
  12. 12. 11 Board (LTFRB). (Guillen and Ishida, 2003). The enactment of the Local Government Code in 1991 devolved some of the functions vested to the LTFRB to the local governments. The Code has also mandated the decentralization or transfer of some governmental powers from central to local government units (provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays). Among the powers transferred by decentralization included the power to tax and the regulation of motorcycle-propelled public transportation. The Code essentially introduced new features of transport management at the local level. Two of these features are the regulation of tricycles as local means of public transport and the preparation of land use plans formalized through zoning ordinances. Pertinent laws and regulations in urban transport are presented in Table 1. With respect to financing urban transport projects and programs, the urban center or LGUs depend on their income, Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) coming from national taxes, loans from local and international financial institutions or other financial schemes such as bond flotation, public-private partnership, etc. Based on the hierarchy of the road network, the local urban roads are managed and maintained by the LGUs, while the national roads and highways are under the national government through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Table 1. Major Laws and Regulations in Urban Transport Law Description CA 146 (1936) The Public Service Act – Commonwealth Act 146 prescribed the framework by which public services (including bus service, jeepney, toll roads) were regulated in terms of fare regulation and quality of service. CA 146 was the basis for the issuance of franchises for public services called Certificates of Public Convenience. RA 4136 (1964) An act to codify the laws and rules relative to land transportation and traffic and to create a land transportation commission. RA 7160 (1991) The Local Government Code which defines the powers and responsibilities of four layers of sub-national government units -- provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. RA 7924 (1994) Revised charter of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), which gave the Authority responsibilities for delivering services (garbage and traffic) common to 17 LGUs in the national capital region, and delineated its relationships with other national government agencies like DPWH and DOTC. RA 8749 (1999) The Clean Air Act, which provides the legal framework for addressing air pollution throughout the country. Among others, it stipulates annual vehicle inspection and imposes standards for lead content in gasoline and sulfur content in
  13. 13. 12 Law Description diesel. Source: Philippine Transport Sector Review: Urban Transport Study, World Bank, July 2005 A Philippine subsidiary of Metro Rail, the Metro Rail Transit Corporation (MRTC) was formed for the purpose of designing, constructing, testing, commissioning, and maintaining the EDSA Rail Transit III, Phase-1 system. This was to be the second rail line in Metro Manila. In September 1997, an “Accession Undertaking and an Assignment and Assumption” contract was signed by MRTC with Sumitomo Corporation/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Inc. Subsequently, an amended turnkey contract was signed between the parties. This led to the sub-contracting of civil works to EEI Corporation and rail vehicle supply to CKD Dopravni System. The MRT kept the services of ICF Keiser Engineers and Constructors, Inc. to provide program management and technical oversight of the services for the design, constructions management and commissioning of the EDSA rail system, which was designated the MRT3. The agreements gave MRTC all rights and obligations to the Project during the debt repayment period and established it as the Project borrowing entity. The design, construction of the EDSA rail transit system became MRTC’s responsibility. This included the supply of the light rail vehicles, track, signalling, communications, power distribution, and the furnishing of other necessary equipment, facilities, and spare parts. MRTC was also responsible for constructing the necessary civil works for the system including fixed guide-ways, passenger stations, power substations, LRV storage depots and maintenance facilities, and other facilities required to make the light rail transit system operational. DOTC exercised the technical supervision of the project activities covered by the contract between DOTC and MRTC, and inspected and checked whether the project was constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, standards and costs during the construction phase. The services of SYSTRA, a French consultancy firm, with technical competence, experience and track record in the construction and operation of railway systems was employed for this by the Department (DOTC, 2014). After completion, Metro Rail was obligated to lease the system to DOTC, which would operate the system, with Metro Rail providing the maintenance. DOTC was required to pay rental fees to Metro Rail, to include fees for repaying the loans taken out to finance the Project (“Debt Rental Fees”). In 1999, the Philippine Clean Air Act was enacted. While this national policy has significant impact in reducing vehicle pollution, there was
  14. 14. 13 spotty implementation with regard to highly pollutive two-stroke motorcycle engines used by tricycles now under local government regulation. The increase in the number of vehicles has posed so many issues in terms of safety, environmental concerns, accommodation of the marginalized sectors of society, etc. The Philippines has a number of policies supporting the delivery of public transport. These are almost totally involving motorized transport. These policies come in several forms such as (1) Republic Acts (RAs)4 , (2) Executive Orders (EOs)5 , and (3) Administrative Orders (AOs)6 . These regulations can be subjected to revisions. RAs, for example, can be changed through the conduct of reviews and relevant public hearings requiring the consultation of various stakeholders from both state and non-state actors. Such policies include national acts which regulate and make sure the quality and proper regulation in land transportation such as the Public Service Act passed in 1936 wherein “entry to the public transport service has been administered through a quasi-judicial process that requires proof of ownership, public necessity and financial capacity” (KBR 2010: 4). There is also Republic Act (RA) No. 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. There are also laws which specifically address safety concerns in the road such as RA No. 8750 or the Seat Belt Law. There are those which regulate the motor vehicles’ user charge as indicated in RA No. 8794. The creation of specific government agencies to plan and coordinate the development of the capital of the country Metro Manila has also been made possible through national legislation. This is the case for the MMDA which has been created through RA No. 7924. However, there are a number of serious challenges in the public transport system. This includes non-motorized transport (NMT) remaining hardly integrated in the country’s public transport system. Constraints like the lack or in other cases, poorly built infrastructures are rampant. These include unsafe sidewalks and the difficulty of road sharing for cycling. There is no clear national policy yet on non-motorized transport (NMT). However, DOTC has adopted a Sustainable Transport Framework that encourages walking and cycling for climate change mitigation. At the local level, there are also local government ordinances that support non- motorized transport. Pasig City, one of the 16 cities (and one municipality) that comprise Metro Manila has enacted a Bicycle Transportation Promotion Ordinance in 2011. The F. Ortigas Road in the city is closed to motorized vehicles during Sundays to give way to people 4RAs require a congressional enactment. 5EOs replaced Presidential Decrees (PDs), the latter were used by former President Ferdinand Marcos 6AOs are defined as “[a]cts of the President which relate to particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.” ,Administrative Code of 1987, Book III, Chapter 2, Section 3” .
  15. 15. 14 who walk and cycle. This ordinance also made the Bike to Work Loan Program, possible which gives residents who live within a range of 2 km from the City Hall to avail of loans for bicycles at zero interest rate (Magtoto, 2012). Furthermore, there is the Bike-to- Earn Loan Program to help the “poorest of the poor” collect recyclable materials from houses through the Green Heart “padyak” (pedicab) program under the Pasig City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO). The most extensive local project that promotes NMT is the Marikina City Bikeways Project which received a US$ 1.3 million funding from the World Bank through the Global Environmental The most extensive local project that promotes NMT is the Marikina City Bikeways Project which received a US$ 1.3 million funding from the World Bank through the Global Environmental Facility (WPRO, 2014). The Project led to the creation of the Marikina Bikeways Office. Marikina City has a total of 52 km of bikeways available in both major and minor routes, making Marikina a bicycle-friendly city from 2002 to date. The Marikina City local government also launched a bike loan program for its employees through Ordinance No. 92, Series of 2004. The 2006 Traffic Management Code, Ordinance No. 133, Series of 2006 of Marikina provided for safe cycling, the use of bikeways, and defined penalties for non-compliance. In the University of the Philippines in Quezon City, the administration allowed a one-way traffic scheme in its Academic Oval to give space for joggers, pedestrians and cyclists. It is important to note though, that the revisions of any public transport policies, whether national or local, require a consultation with stakeholders. This is so since the government has been trying to integrate citizen and civil society participation in its agenda of participative governance. The consultation process involves a lot of lobbying and debates in Congress, local legislative councils, and in the levels within. The process involved in formulating any policies can start from experts and/or public consultation recommendation or can be initiated by politicians or local government units. III. The Philippine Land-Based Public Transport Administration and Management A. DOTC and the Related Transport Agencies At the national level, DOTC coordinates the planning and implementation/execution of transport programs and projects of regional or national importance. Table 2 summarizes the linkages of the LGUs with the transport-related national line agencies in Metro Manila and other urban centers in the country. At the regional level, coordination for regional impact transport programs and projects are coursed through the Regional Development Councils (RDC) where cities belong. RDCs involve all the different national agencies with regional offices to work together.
  16. 16. 15 Table 2. The Philippine Land-based Transport Organizations and Responsibilities Entity Polic y Regulation Operatio n/ Other Function s RemarksEconom ic Technic al  Land Transport - Infrastructur e  DPWH    In charge of roads and public works  TRB    Regulate toll roads  PNCC  Original franchisee of North Luzon Expressways and South Luzon Expressways  LGUs    Operation Management of city roads  MMDA  Reviews proposed investments in its role under a RDC  Private  Consulting & construction firms  Transport Service  DOTC    LTFRB   LTO  Also enforces transportation & traffic laws  OTC   For transport cooperatives only  Private  Common carriers  IMBOA, FEJODAP, FTODAP, etc  Transport industry associations Traffic
  17. 17. 16 Management  MMDA     Also serves as land use & transportation coordinating body in Metro Manila  LGUs      Rail Transport Transport Infrastructure and service)  DOTC     Operates LRT 3  PNR     O&M for suburban rail  LRTA     O&M for LRT 1 and 2  MRTC Project company for LRT 3  Private  Consulting & construction firms Source: Philippine Transport Sector Review: Urban Transport Study, World Bank, July 2005 Depending on the size of the cities, levels of urbanization, and importance of traffic management, the cities have their own traffic management units or offices. Most cities in Metro Manila have their distinct traffic management office or board, though operating under the Office of the Mayor or adjunct to the latter with their own plantilla of personnel and budgets. Even though LGUs in Metro Manila have their local traffic management units, traffic enforcement and management is the primary responsibility of the MMDA in particular, the roads considered national such as EDSA. This is a special administrative body under the Office of the President, which is responsible for coordinating national and local programs and projects, including transport, of metro-wide concerns. The MMDA was re- organized under RA 7924 in 1994, succeeding the Metro Manila Authority of 1990 (under EO 392) and the earlier Metro Manila Commission of 1976. The governing and policy making body of the MMDA is the Metro Manila Council (MMC), which is composed of the 17 LGUs, the president of the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors League and the president of the Metro Manila Councilors League. Heads of related national agencies such as DPWH and DOTC are non-voting members of the council. The MMC is headed by a chairman who is appointed by the Office of the President.
  18. 18. 17 It could be noted that governance in urban transport management involves the following: (1) infrastructure planning and implementation; (2) provision and maintenance of roads; (3) public transport services, traffic enforcement and management; and (4) land use planning and control. From the road infrastructure, the focus is on improving the vehicle traffic flow. Summarizing the management of urban transport, it could be deducted that there is supposedly coordination and clear delineation of functions and responsibilities. However, in reality, this is not usually the case, especially in Metro Manila. LTFRB is the agency at regional level which regulates buses as far as non-moving aspects are concerned (registration, franchise, roadworthiness, environment-friendliness). LTFRB has the mandate “to promulgate, administer, enforce, and monitor compliance of policies, laws, and regulations of public land transportation services” (LTFRB, 2014). MMDA is in charge as far as moving aspects are concerned. The Philippine National Police (PNP) also provides guidelines as far as public order and safety aspects are concerned. The PNP, which is under the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), is also involved in maintaining peace and order in the road. There are usually police desks available in certain train and bus terminals, especially during holiday seasons. Moreover, there are interagency committees wherein different government agencies are represented usually formed for easy coordination. Each city has a planning office, City Planning and Development Office. This office is mandated by law to spearhead the creation of local government plans such as the Community Development Plan, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Annual and Long Term Development Plans. These are presented to the Sanggunian and subjected for enactment. There is also the National Capital Region (NCR)-wide-masterplan, on providing guidance to both national and local government in terms of “trunkline infrastructure, investment programming and land use” (MMDA 2010). Currently, the MMDA is leading the the Metro Manila Greenprint 2030, a development plan for Metro Manila in the next two decades. It was officially launched in Mandaluyong City on March 06, 2012, to serve as “spatial strategy, guiding the form of the urban region, trunk infrastructure, green systems, and clustering economic activities” (MMDA 2010a). Since development extends beyond the 17 cities and municipality composing NCR, it will go as far as the CALABARZON Region (IV-A) and Central Luzon. Budgetary Provisions for Public Transport The budget for national agencies like DOTC, DILG, DPWH and DND are
  19. 19. 18 reflected in the country’s annual budget as indicated in the General Appropriations Act (GAA). The Department of Budget and Management (DBM), which is under the Office of the President, has the mandate of undertaking “the formulation of the annual national budget in a way that ensures the appropriate prioritization and allocation of funds to support the annual program of government”. The making of a national budget has a step by step procedure of budget preparation, budget legislation; budget execution and budget accountability (DBM, 2012). Such a process follows the check and balance feature of democratic governance. It also involves the introduction of the consultation of stakeholders from the poor and marginalized through “bottom up budgeting” and civil society organizations for a more transparency and opening government operations to greater participation from its citizens. Information on budget allocation and government expenses in infrastructure, facilities and services are made available to the public and can be accessed usually through the DBM’s and the specific government agency’s websites. Roads under construction, for example, are required to post in the project site the project owner, contractor, cost and duration. Annual reports are also available which reflects the budgetary items on transport expenditures, infrastructures, services and facilities. The annual budget has financial regulations for mass transport such as the train system like the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) and the Light Railway Transit (LRT) as well as agencies which has transport mandates such as the MMDA. Furthermore, it includes budgetary provisions for subsidies for vulnerable sectors of society such as senior citizens and people with disabilities (PWDs) as well as for students. There are also provisions of infrastructures such as designated seats and sometimes ramps for senior citizens, females and/or pregnant women, children and PWDs in buses and trains. While not specifically indicated in the particular policies, government vehicles, such as military and dump trucks and ferries, are rendering services during crises and shocks. These unfortunate circumstances include strikes of public transport operators and drivers (jeepneys and buses) and disasters like typhoons. Even military planes could be used to transport people such as in the case of super typhoons like Haiyan (Yolanda) particularly from the severely affected City of Tacloban in Visayas to Manila. Furthermore, there are free rides during certain hours of certain national holidays such as Independence Day (June 12) in mass transport systems like the MRT and LRT. Certain government agencies have also bus shuttles which transport their employees from their homes towards their offices. The national government agencies through the DOTC and the DPWH provide transport infrastructure and facilities distinct from those funded
  20. 20. 19 by local governments. These infrastructure and facilities include the construction and maintenance of national roads and regional connections like the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX) - connecting Manila to the northern provinces of Luzon and the South Luzon Tollway or Alabang- Calamba-Sto.Tomas Expressway (ACTEX) - connecting Manila to the southern provinces of Luzon). Each of these planning bodies has its own decision-making process. Where inter-agency coordination and integration is involved, for which there is hardly any set processes, the heads of offices come up with ad hoc arrangements. Since the Philippine bureaucracy has a decentralized feature, LGUs (provinces, cities and municipalities) also have their own discretionary powers on how to allocate their own budget through their IRA which can be used for example in building and maintaining secondary roads and construction of transport terminals. Public Transport Route Planning and Fare Adjustments Guidelines for route planning and fare revisions are managed through the LTFRB, a sectoral office under DOTC. LTFRB has the mandate “to promulgate, administer, enforce, and monitor compliance of policies, laws, and regulations of public land transportation services” (LTFRB, 2014). It is the agency involved in route planning and fare review and adjustments. Route planning involves the operators of public transport services identifying underserved route areas. Once a suggestion is made, the LTFRB then verifies the need and feasibility of such routes. Commuters are generally not given any opportunity for such decision- making activities. The LTFRB has also a guide in the routes of public utility buses (PUBs), public utility jeepneys (PUJs), and UV express. LTFRB also has the function “to determine, prescribe and approve and periodically review and adjust, reasonable fares, rates and other related charges, relative to the operation of public land transportation services provided by motorized vehicles” (LTFRB, 2014). The LTFRB also has yet to improve its capacity in policy determination of fare adjustments through a Fare Determination Study to equip “with a firm knowledge affecting fares, impact of fares in the public and the economy, and a more realistic formula that balances the conflicting interest of operators and the public”. So far, transport groups usually propose increases in fares due to rising costs of fuel and vehicle spare parts. These groups include organizations such as the Alliance of Concerned Transport Operators (ACTO), Pangkalahatang Sanggunian Manila and Suburbs Drivers Association Nationwide, Inc. (PasangMasda) and Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines (FEJODAP) and bus operators such as the Integrated MetroManila Bus Operators Association (IMBOA). Stakeholder consultations and public hearings with such groups are done before the fare matrix is determined.
  21. 21. 20 In cases that adjustments in fares are approved, they are usually announced through the mass media and the new fare matrix should be posted in the public utility vehicle (PUV) operators’ offices, terminals and waiting stations and the interior of each motor vehicles (LTFRB 2011:3). The LTO has provisions for penalties to drivers and operators when there is overcharging and undercharging of fares. The operator and conductor of buses could also be fined for non-issuance of fare tickets (LTO, 2012). D. Franchising in Road-based Public Transport Vehicles: Buses and PUJs LTFRB has the mandate through Executive Order No. 202 to “issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel Certificates of Public Convenience or permits authorizing the operation of public land transportation services by motorized vehicles” (Republic of the Philippines 1987). Public transport buses are part of the public transport system but they are privately-owned. Private operators compete for a limited number of franchises. Meanwhile, franchises for tricycles and pedicabs are regulated by the LGUs through cooperatives/operators or the tricycle operators and drivers’ associations. The government assesses the need for bus services through the LTFRB that conducts a Route Measurement Capacity (RMC) study. The results of this study form the basis for the system of franchises for buses. Bus franchises are then applied for by transport enterprises and approved by the LTFRB. In the past, the Metro Manila Authority directly provided public bus transport services through the Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC) which operated the Metro Bus and Love Bus alongside private bus companies, the late 1970s. The Metro Bus and Love Bus were meant to augment bus services as well as to enhance the quality of bus transport available to the public. These services were heavily subsidized; for a time double-decker buses and articulated buses (Love Bus) were imported by the government. LTFRB provides guidelines for bus service franchises, operations, and special facilities (e.g., for people with disability or PWD, women, senior citizens) in Metro Manila. Public necessity is a key criterion the LTFRB applies during its deliberations on applications for bus services. Conflicts sometimes occur between LTFRB and LGUs in Metro Manila. Recently, the City Government of Manila under Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada banned buses with franchises to operate within the city from entering the city if they did not have terminals in the city (Resolution No. 48 passed on the 16th of July 2013, cited in Sauler 2013). This move caught the MMDA, LTFRB, and bus operators by surprise, creating much confusion and a multitude of stranded passengers for weeks. The Alliance of Concerned Bus Operators (ACBO) filed a petition for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the implementation of the Resolution since it is seen by transport operators as a violation of the
  22. 22. 21 franchise issued by the LTFRB. The Manila Trial Court did not issue a TRO, however, since it found the Manila Resolution not in conflict with LTFRB’s franchising regulation (Santos 2013). Philippine policy encourages private sector engagement in the delivery of transport infrastructure and services. The country relies heavily on public-private partnerships. The private sector finances the construction of roads, train systems, buses, jeepneys, tricycles, and facilities for these transport modes. The private sector is also encouraged to improve the quality of transport services especially through more energy efficient and environment-friendly designs. An example of a national policy which provides a platform for the private sector to take a crucial role in the transport sector is the RA No. 6957 of 1990 which is “An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects By The Private Sector, and for Other Purposes” (see Republic of the Philippines 1990) and its amendments in RA No. 7718 (see Republic of the Philippines 1994). One example of a DOTC Public-Private Partnership (PPP) project is the construction of the Integrated Transport System Project: Southwest Terminal aimed to have a “centralized, intermodal and integrated bus terminal system which aims to improve the mobility of people and the traffic situation inside Metro Manila road network by consolidating all existing 85 terminals scattered all over the inner core of Metro Manila to [three] central terminals located at the fringes of Metro Manila” (MMDA, 2010). Private companies apply for bus franchises and approval is based on RMC. The LTFRB issues Certificates of Convenience to Operate Public Land Transportation Services. Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004 enumerates the terms and conditions for application of franchise by operators of public utility vehicles (PUVs). An operator applying for a franchise must be a Filipino citizen (or if a corporation, 60% of the shares must be Filipino-owned) and must be able to prove financial capability to operate public transport services. There must also be public necessity for such service. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Garcia G.R. No. 108584, Dec. 22, 1994, Philippine Laws Library 2014). The LTFRB regulates public transport services such as buses, jeepneys, taxis, and AUV express. LTFRB decides on fares. This is done through an assessment of the petition of any individual or group who wishes to adjust the fare matrix. The Board conducts a study involving the social and economic aspects of such adjustments through public consultations, hearings and network analyses. The Supreme Court has a decision that there must be a 12% return of investment (ROI). Mostly, the proposals for fare hike from the bus and jeepney operators are mostly triggered by increases in fuel prices and vehicle spare parts. Operators and their
  23. 23. 22 representatives are routinely heard in public hearing and consultations. Decisions on fare adjustments are highly publicized issues in the mass media so the public is constantly abreast of these developments. A new fare matrix is required to be posted in the public utility vehicle itself, the PUV operators’ offices, terminals and waiting stations (LTFRB, 2011). Current fare matrices and routes are posted in the LTFRB website. Transport groups monitor the decisions made by the government. LTFRB sanctions operators and drivers who collect fares beyond what is approved. However, the LTFRB has poor enforcement capacity, as indicated by the huge number of public utility vehicles (colorum) operating in Metro Manila without franchises or outside approved routes. LGUs pass local ordinances to regulate tricycles and pedicab franchises. In the case of Quezon City, the biggest city in Metro Manila, its Department of Public Order and Safety (DPOS) has a Tricycle Regulatory Unit that issues franchises to tricycles in accordance with City Ordinance No. SP-15, S-92 as Amended, in conjunction with City Ordinance No. SP- 1296, S-2003. These enactments require the following documents before tricycle and pedicab services can be offered: (1) Certificate of Approval from the Tricycle Franchising Board (TFB) for new franchises, (2) Copy of Motorized Tricycle Operators Permit (MTOP) for yearly registration., (3) Land Transportation Office (LTO) Official Receipt and Certificate of Registration, (4) Barangay Clearance, (5) Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association (TODA) Certificate of Membership, and (6) annual tricycle fees of P225.00 per unit (Local Government of Quezon City 2014). The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board issues Memoranda Circulars and Resolutions to approve franchise Terms of References (ToR). LGUs that issue ToRs for transport operations do so through ordinances of the Sangguniang Panlunsod (city council). E. Driver’s License Issuance and Motor Vehicle Registration The Land Transportation Office issues all driver’s licenses. An applicant for a student driver’s license must be at least 16 years old on the date of the application. An applicant for professional and non-professional driver’s licenses must be at least 17 years old, must be in good mental and physical condition and must be able to read in English or Filipino. A professional driver’s license is required to operate a public utility vehicle as well as other non-private vehicles like construction vehicles, articulated vehicles. An applicant must submit an original and photocopy of his/her birth certificate to prove his/her age. In the absence of a birth certificate, the applicant can submit a joint affidavit executed by two disinterested
  24. 24. 23 persons to attest to the applicant’s identity and age. A certificate of non- registry from the National Statistics Office (NSO) or local civil registry must also be submitted. An applicant may also submit other government documents to prove his/her age –passport, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) ID, Social Security System (SSS) ID or any government-issued ID (LTO, 2012). An applicant for professional or non-professional license undergoes a medical examination and a drug test to determine his/her physical and mental fitness. Tests are performed by Department of Health (DOH) accredited medical facilities which submit the official results of these tests to the LTO. An applicant also attends a lecture on driving and should pass the written and practical driving examination. In the case of an applicant for a professional license, he must have had a Student Permit for at least five months prior to application. He must also submit a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Clearance, a Police Clearance, or Court Clearance. Other requirements include Tax Identification Number (TIN) if employed and a duly accomplished Driver’s License Application Form (LTO, 2012). The LTO is also in charge of renewing driver’s licenses. A student driver’s license is good for one year, while professional and non-professional licenses are good for three years. Documents required for the renewal of a driver’s license are the expiring driver’s license and fresh medical and negative drug test results from a duly accredited medical facility (LTO, 2012). LTO is also in charge of the registration of motor vehicles and the conduct of emission tests. Owners of vehicles for hire or for public transportation must submit valid Certificate of Public Convenience duly confirmed by the LTFRB. (For tricycles, a valid MTOP must be submitted.) Vehicles must also pass the Smoke Emission Test to be qualified for registration. Owners of vehicles must register their vehicles every year (LTO, 2012). Traffic Management and Safe Driving Regulations MMDA and the 17 LGUs in Metro Manila jointly manage traffic in the metropolis. MMDA functions include “…administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and traffic education programs, including the institution of a single ticketing system” (MMDA, 2010). MMDA, through its Traffic Academy also trains LGU traffic enforcers, shopping mall security guards, barangay officials and tanods (village peacekeepers) to help in implementing traffic rules. In the case of Quezon City, for example, there is the Department of Public Order and Safety (DPOS). There are also similar offices in the other cities performing traffic management. The MMDA employs traffic enforcers and metro aides (street cleaners and
  25. 25. 24 landscapers). MMDA coordinates with Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the LGUs in Metro Manila on traffic and transport matters. The single ticketing system is the primary system of enforcing traffic rules and regulations. Traffic offenses are recorded and erring drivers can only renew their licenses if they have no outstanding fines and in case of repeated violations, have attended mandatory traffic orientation seminars. Over the past few years, closed-circuit cameras have increased in major thoroughfares (e.g., EDSA and Commonwealth Avenue). The system is useful in traffic management (traffic signal coordination), recording of traffic rule violations, and emergency road response. The government enforces safe driving regulations. The key practices subject to control are reckless driving, over-speeding, overloading, and failure to wear safety devices, like seatbelts for car users and crash helmets for motorcycle users. LTFRB is also mandated to ensure that PUV operators and their drivers “attend trainings/seminars on transport management, road safety and good driving habits to be conducted or accredited by the Board” (LTFRB, 2011). A proposed bill, Senate Bill 2110, provides for mandatory vehicle electronic speed limiters to avoid the increasing incidents of accidents and fatalities (Senate of the Philippines, 2014). G. Vehicle Parking Management Regulations Different LGUs in the country have different vehicle parking policies, usually enacted through city or municipal ordinances. Most Business establishments provide their own parking spaces for which they collect parking fees. The MMDA and LGUs have cracked down on illegal parking in recent years, resorting to parking fees for public street parking and towing of illegally parked vehicles. The debate on parking has surged recently as a result of the campaign of the Road-Sharing Movement for more road-space to be devoted to pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles, and drastic limits on private car parking on public roads. Parking policy is usually done through the passing of an ordinance in the local Council (Sanggunian). Homeowners and village associations regulate parking within their private subdivisions, except where the village roads have been turned over to the government for maintenance and regulation. The ordinance formulation and approval process follows a specified set of procedures called the Internal Rules of Procedure (IROP). A member of the council sponsors a proposed ordinance, relevant committees hold
  26. 26. 25 public consultations, and the proposed ordinance is deliberated upon and passed by the sanggunian. LGUs and business establishments collect parking fees in various ways. Cities now have on-street parking officers to collect parking fees. Business establishments have gated parking areas, for flat rates or rates based on type of vehicle and duration of parking. In 1996, the Metro Manila Council approved the towing of illegally parked vehicles (MMDA Regulation 96-003, see MMDA, 1996). It prescribes the process for MMDA accreditation of public and private entities for towing services. MMDA Resolution No. 02-33 specifies the areas parking in which is prohibited. Prohibited areas are enumerated in Section 1.2.2 of this Resolution as follows: In primary and secondary roads of cities and municipalities in Metro Manila: 1. Within six (6) meters of any intersection or curved lane; 2. Within four (4) meters of driveways or entrances to any fire station, hospital, clinic and other similar establishment; 3. Within four (4) meters of fire hydrants; 4. On the roadside of any legally parked vehicle; 5. On pedestrian crosswalks; 6. In front of any authorized driveway; 7. On the sidewalks, paths and alleys not intended for parking; 8. At the foot or near bridges; 9. At any place where official signs have been erected prohibiting parking and/or declared NO PARKING ZONE by the MMDA; 10.Other areas duly declared as “NO PARKING ZONE” provided by law or ordinances (MMDA 2002) In Metro Manila, a malfunctioning or stalled vehicle must be moved to any of several emergency parking areas designated by MMDA to avoid being towed. Accredited towing services, private or public, are authorized to tow illegally parked or stalled vehicles. Vehicles with attendants or drivers who are able to move the vehicle to designated emergency parking areas not towed and merely issued traffic citation tickets called Traffic Violation Receipts (TVRs). Owners of towed vehicles must pay towing fees to the LGU or MMDA as appropriate, based on distance travelled and weight of the vehicle towed. The fees vary based on the area where the vehicle is illegally parked and weight of the vehicle. Towing services must operate safe impounding areas which are subject to inspection by the MMDA. Upon arrival at the impounding area, the towing official or accredited private towing service must issue a TVR for a towed
  27. 27. 26 vehicle. The towing service, private or public, is liable for any damage to the vehicle being towed and for items therein that might be lost. H. Collection of Motor Vehicle User’s Fees RA 8794 or the Motor Vehicle User’s Charge on Owners of All Types of Motor Vehicles imposes a motor vehicle user’s fee which is collected for different transactions related to vehicular registration, driver’s license application and renewal and violations of traffic rules. The fee is based on the type of vehicle being registered, type of license being applied for or renewed, or type of offense. Fees for registration also vary based on the age and weight of the vehicle. These user fees are collected by the LTO. The law specifies that all fees collected shall be used exclusively for purposes of “(1) road maintenance and the improvement of the road drainage, (2) for the installation of adequate and efficient traffic lights and road safety device, and (3) for the air pollution control” (Republic of the Philippines 2000). All funds collected must be deposited into four trust accounts of the National Treasury namely: (1) Special Road Support Fund which should get 80% of the all the monies; (2) Special Local Road Fund which should get 5% ; (3) Special Road Safety Fund; and (4) Special Vehicle Pollution Fund which should get 7.5%. The Special Road Support Fund and Special Local Road Fund shall be administered by the DPWH and the Special Vehicle Pollution Control Fund by the DOTC. Seventy percent (70%) of the Special Road Support Fund must be allocated to the maintenance of and improvement of drainage of national primary roads and 30% must be allocated to the maintenance and improvement of secondary roads. The Special Road Safety Fund supports the installation of traffic lights and other road safety devices (Republic of the Philippines, 2000). I. Dealing with Complaints and Feedback from the Public DOTC’s LTFRB and LTO agencies obtain feedback from the public on their services. The LTFRB has quasi-judicial powers with which to deal with complaints against public utility vehicle service providers. LTFRB 2011 Revised Rules of Practice and Procedure Before the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB 2011a) contains specifies the process for filing and resolution of complaints. Complaints can be filed with the LTFRB Central or Regional Offices. The LTFRB then will study the merits of the complaint and decide en banc. Complainants can follow up their case through the website of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) which contains the schedules of the hearings
  28. 28. 27 (LTFRB, 2014). Any person can file a complaint with LTFRB. The LTFRB then will study the merits of the complaint and if warranted schedule hearings. LTFRB maintains a telephone hotline citizens can use to report erring drivers and other PUV concerns. It is mandatory for PUBs, PUJs and UV express vehicles to post a “How’s my driving?” sign on body of the vehicle along with the hotline number. Citizens complain that the hotline number is often inaccessible. On the other hand, the LTFRB reports that complainants do not follow up their cases or fail to attend hearings. As a result, cases filed and resolved are few. In 2012, there were only 482 complaints that reached the LTFRB, of which only 296 were acted upon (Montecillo, 2012). The LTFRB has also launched a campaign called “Oplan Isnabero” against taxi drivers who provide their services selectively and refuse to convey passengers with heavy loads or going into heavy traffic areas. LTFRB, MMDA and LTO traffic enforcement personnel are posted in shopping malls and PUV/PUB terminals for this purpose (Carcamo, 2012). The LTFRB also enlist business establishments as partners in collecting feedback from the public. It has a “File a Complaint” section in its website (LTFRB, 2014). Complaints are acknowledged via email. The LRTs and MRT have customer complaint booths at each station. They also use social media like Twitter for receiving and responding to commuter feedback. J. Air Pollution Control DOTC reports that of all types of vehicles (land, water, air) motor vehicles have shown the fastest increase at an average 6.0% annual growth in the in the last decade. These vehicles emit particulate matters (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). DOTC has also reported that from 1990 to 2007 there has been a 150% increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 10.0 Mt CO2 to 26.55 Mt CO2. Jeepneys which have old diesel engines constitute 50% of all emissions of particulate matters (PM) in Metro Manila while motorcycles and tricycles are responsible for 45% of all volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions (DOTC, 2014). The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA 8749) passed by the Philippine Congress and signed into law by the President states that Filipinos have a
  29. 29. 28 right to breathe clean air.7 It regulates the release of various hazardous chemicals in the environment primarily through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). It regulates emissions of motor vehicles through the DOTC, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and LGUs consistent with this law’s provision on having an Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework (IAQIF)8 (Republic of the Philippines 1999). IAQIF has an Action Plan that was adopted by the DENR in 2000 through Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2000-82 which serves as the “blueprint with which all government agencies must comply with to attain and maintain clean and healthy air” (DENR, 2000 and Republic of the Philippines, 1999). RA 8749 is the basis of all pollution mitigation policies in the country. Local governments enact supplementary ordinances based on this national law. An example is Makati City’s Vehicle Emission Control Code enacted through City Ordinance No. 2004-032. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) issues Department Administrative Orders (DAO) enforcing the law. LTFRB contributes to the overall effort through LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004 which requires PUV operators to prominently display a “No Smoking” sign in their public utility vehicles (LTFRB 2011b: 1). Vehicles which are15 years or older are also de- commissioned. The government pursues environmentally sustainable transport programs through agencies such as the DOTC, DENR, LTO, LTFRB and LGUs and special units such as the An Anti-Smoke Belching Unit (ASBU). These plans include the following: 1) Adoption of emission control standards--adoption of Euro IV, Anti Smoke Belching Campaign and Motor Vehicle Inspection System (MVIS) Program 2) Vehicle technology--promotion of the operation of four stroke tricycles and e-vehicles such as e-jeepneys and e-tricycles 3) Development of a better public transportation support system in Metro Manila-- Pasig City River ferry services and RORO enhancements 4) Travel demand management-- unified vehicular volume reduction program (UVVRP), restoration of signalized intersections, truck ban, increased use if the electronic payment system (EPS) and pedestrian-ization of commercial centers through facilities like underpass and overpass linking malls 7 With regards to noise pollution, the DOTC reports that there is so far no “no periodical measurement” of noise in Manila (DOTC, 2014). 8 IAQIF has an Action Plan that was adopted by the DENR in 2000 through Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2000-82 which serves as the “blueprint with which all government agencies must comply with to attain and maintain clean and healthy air” (DENR 2000).
  30. 30. 29 5) Non-motorized transport-- development of bikeways and conversion of roads to pedestrian havens such as in the case of Marikina City and the University of the Philippines (UP) in Quezon City 6) Better freight and logistics management 7) Promotion of cleaner fuel – passing of bills in Congress for tax subsidy for electric vehicle and components, manufacture and importation; utilization of compressed natural gas (CNG) through the National Gas Vehicle program for Public Transport (NGVPPT); diversifying the country’s fuel sources ensuring solutions against air pollution caused by vehicular emissions 8) Use of biofuel--implementation of the Philippine Biodiesel Program under the Department of Energy (DOE), Philippine Coconut Authority and the National Biofuel Board through the mandatory requirement of 2% biodiesel blend and 10% ethanol blend 9) Behavioral Change-- encouraging a car-free day, carpooling and anti-idling campaigns; promotion of ecosafe driving awareness program with Honda Philippines, UP and DOTC and use of bike lanes 10) Environmental monitoring--identifying potential hotspots and prioritizing establishment of stations; identifying potential staff for highly urbanized cities (HUCs) to train, training with the DENR, updating of baseline roadside noise level data in 2010 and setting up an Inter-Agency Technical Working Group. The DENR works with MMDA, LTO, Philippine Medical Association (PMA) and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) to implement the anti-smoke belching campaign in Metro Manila (DENR, 2014). Smoking in public places like airports, ship terminals, and train and bus stations is banned by RA 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 (Republic of the Philippines, 2003). K. Social Protection for the Poor and Marginalized A number of national policies protect vulnerable sectors of society. RA 9994 or the Expanded Senior Citizen’s Act of 2010 states in Section 4a(5) that senior citizens9 will be given a discount “in actual fare for land transportation travel in public utility buses (PUBs), public utility jeepneys (PUJs), taxis, Asian utility vehicles (AUVs), shuttle services and public railways, including Light Rail Transit (LRT), Mass Rail Transit (MRT), and Philippine National Railways (PNR)” (Republic of the Philippines, 2010). RA 7277 or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons of 1991 protects the rights and well-being of people with disabilities (PWDs)10 . 9 Senior citizens are those who are 60 years above. 10 PWDs or “disabled persons” are referred to by RA No. 7277 as those “those suffering from restriction of different abilities, as a result of a mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being” (Republic of the Philippines 1991).
  31. 31. 30 The DOTC is tasked to assist senior citizens to fully gain access to public transport facilities. Each local government has also its own Office of Senior Citizens Affairs (OSCA) which issues senior citizen identification cards. Such a card is used to avail of discounts in public transportation. Alongside senior citizens, pregnant women and women who are accompanied by very young children, and PWDs are accorded seats in PUVs as well as in mass transit systems. Such special treatment is more visibly enforced in the MRT and LRT compared to PUBs. The first coach of the MRT and LRT, for example, are reserved for the vulnerable groups. As a matter of policy though not in practice, at least five seats should be reserved for PWDs in regular PUBs, four seats in air-conditioned buses near the entrance doors, and two seats in PUJs (LTFRB, 2011). It is also mandatory that bus terminals and stations should have wide doors or access for the entry of wheelchairs as well as the provision of ramps and waiting lounges and benches. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7192 (An Act Promoting the Integration of Women as Full and Equal Partners of Men in Development and Nation Building and for Other Purposes) and Executive Order No. 348 (Approval and Adoption of the Philippine Development Plan for Women for 1989 to 1992), DOTC has taken initiatives to institutionalize Gender and Development (GAD) in the plans, programs and budget in the DOTC- Central Office, Attached Agencies and Corporations on 03 July 1995 (DOTC 2014). It coordinates these activities with the Philippine Commission on Women. There is also another office under DOTC, the Office of Transport Security (OTS) which has sought to reorient its staff and clientele towards greater gender-sensitivity through the OTS GAD Focal Point System (OTS, 2013). DOTC also has a Gender and Development Desk in its website wherein commuters can report cases of sexual harassment, specifying in which terminal, railway station, airport and/or seaport. (DOTC, 2013). Sexual harassment complaints are handled by the Philippine National Police. The police hotline is 117. A police desk is usually available in the busiest train stations and bus terminals. IV. Public-Private Partnership in the Transport Sector RA 6957 of 1990 (“An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by The Private Sector, and for Other Purposes”, as amended by RA 7718, promotes and facilitates the engagement of the private sector in the delivery of transport infrastructures and services (Republic of the Philippines, 1994). The country has heavily relied on PPP and assistance from multilateral organizations to finance the construction of roads, train systems and improving the quality of buses, jeepneys and tricycles through more energy-efficient engines and designs.
  32. 32. 31 Awarding of projects to private contractors is done through a bidding process following government guidelines in the Procurement of Infrastructures Projects (Government of the Philippines, 2010). The government agency in charge of a project releases an “Invitation to Bid” advertised in newspaper of nationwide circulation, the Philippine General Electronic Procure System (PhilGEPS) website, and in the premises of the Procuring Entity. Only eligible bidders as defined by the above government document are eligible to participate. Such bidders must have demonstrated in the past that they have undertaken a project similar to what the government transport agency is looking for. The bidder also has the responsibility to inspect the project site and all the contents of the Bidding Documents released by the government agency concerned. Bids undergo a rigorous process of evaluation. The huge demand for rail transit (MRT, LRT1, LRT2, and to a lesser extent PNR) clearly shows the way for government and the business sector to dramatically increase investment in efficient public transport (Romero, Guillen, Cordova, 2013). The MRT, in particular, is a cornerstone project of the DOTC to address the chronic traffic congestion in Manila through a contract to MRTC. The MRTC built, leased and transferred the MRT System under the Philippine Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) law (MRT, 2012). The MRTC obtained support in 1997 from both local and foreign private sector institutions such as the international financial consultant JP Morgan, loans from the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi and Japan Export- Import Bank (JEXIM) amounting to US$ 465 million (PhP 12.32 billion), the Postal Bank of the Czech Republic and Czech Export Credit Agency as well as from a group of local banks (Ibid). As to other Metro-wide projects, decisions are subjected to a long process of consultation with different stakeholders and authorities at different levels. The NLEX-SLEX Link Expressway project is a good illustration. The NLEX-SLEX Link Expressway project aims to connect Luzon’s two major expressways, NLEX (North Luzon Expressway) and SLEX (South Luzon Expressway). The expressways are situated on the northern and southern ends of Metropolitan Manila respectively, and vehicles wanting to travel through the two expressways have to pass through the already congested highways of Metro Manila. As a solution, a new 13.4km, elevated expressway is being built to connect the two expressways, cutting the travel time from approximately an hour to just 20 minutes. (Felipe 2014). This connector road complements Skyway Stage 3, another project that connects NLEX and SLEX. Plans to build this connector road were set as early as the 1970s.
  33. 33. 32 However, due to some complications and unfavorable policies related to the franchise of the project, implementation has been stalled (Dumlao, 2013). To add to the complication, Skyway 3 and the NLEX-SLEX Connector share a common alignment, set to be built above a segment of the PNR, which interferes with the latter’s Right of Way (ROW) (Cruz, 2012). Proposed resolutions of the conflict, such as the imposition of a “right-to-use” fee, will effectively increase the cost of the project by P7 Billion (Reyes, 2011). In May 2012, President Aquino issued a directive allowing Citra MPC (handling the Skyway 3 Project) and MPTC (handling the NLEX-SLEX connector road project) to share the costs 50-50. The Department of Transportation and Communications and the Tollways Regulatory Board (DOTC-TRB) on one hand and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) on the other however could not see eye-to-eye on how to implement the directive. Eventually, after the negotiations between the Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation (MPTDC) and DPWH, and with the approval of the National Economic Development Authority, the submission of bids and notice of award were released in January and March 2013 (DPWH, 2013). The Manila North Tollways Corporation (MNTC) has given MPTDC and the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) the signal to proceed with their joint venture and start construction in March 2014. The project is set to be completed by February 2016. The process summarized above hints at the layers at which complex transport projects in the Philipines are made. Such projects are scrutinized not only by national agencies concerned with transport and infrastructure (DOTC and DPWH), but also by the national planning agency, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), not to mention the MMDA, local government units, and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The NLEX-SLEX Link Expressway Project is part of a larger national development plan. The Medium-Term Development Plan of the Philippines (MTPDP) 2011-2016 call for the construction of more transport infrastructure through PPP as a key strategy to decongest Metro Manila and facilitate inclusive growth. The strategy of building more roads, however, has been criticized as too car-centric and not being inclusive. Building more roads simply encourages Metro Manilans to acquire private vehicles rather than take public transportation. Other decongestion strategies, such as high density housing within the city and efficient public transportation, must be given greater priority.
  34. 34. 33 Apart from the residents themselves, industries surrounding Manila, especially those that heavily depend on the transport of supplies and end products that pass through Manila are adversely affected by congestion. In the case of the NLEX-SLEX link, its interference with the ROW of the PNR has been an issue. As part of this Public-Private-Partnership, the government is shouldering P4.6 Billion Pesos for the rights to use the PNR’s ROW. This is in response to an earlier proposal to charge MPTDC for the PNR ROW, increasing the total project cost by PhP7Billion (Reyes, 2011). Unlike other infrastructure projects, this project does not interfere with any private property as the entire NLEX-SLEX connector road is built parallel and on top of already existing roads (and rail, as discussed above). This eliminates the need to compensate individuals and groups whose property would have to give way to its construction. Other projects that could involve the clearing of informal settlements would require processes of consultation, compensation, and relocation of affected residents. The government has sufficient experience in the compensation of groups affected by such infrastructure projects. For instance, the DPWH, as guided by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), drafted a Resettlement Action Plan for the residents affected by the improvement of the Pasig-Marikina Channel. A detailed compensation structure was laid out, which includes different compensation rates for people living in different types of housing, for people who owned trees and fruit-bearing crops, as well as those whose livelihood depended on their riverside location. All people affected received different types of compensation, ranging from monetary payments to livelihood assistance and training programs. (DPWH, 2011). Such information is accessible in the DPWH website. Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (CMMTC), which is currently handling the Skyway Project proposes a shorter, and wider alternative solution it calls Skyway Stage 3. The same proposal also has a lower total cost, at P25.4 Billion, compared to MPTC’s NLEX-SLEX link priced at P35 Billion. (Reyes, 2012). These two competing proposals both aim to connect the North and South Expressways and decongest Metro Manila, and both were eventually given the go signal to push through with their respective constructions (Balea, 2012). CMMTC’s Skyway mostly serves commuters passing through and travelling within the Metro, while MPTC’s NLEX-SLEX link would be more suited to trucks and vehicles servicing industries near Metro Manila. The
  35. 35. 34 latter will also have links to Manila Bay’s harbor, making easing the flow of goods from Manila’s industrial peripheries. There were no other proposals that seek to connect the two expressways. However, there are many other solutions put forward to ease the traffic congestion in Manila. Such solutions range from infrastructural enhancements (e.g. widening of roads) and alternative modes of transport (e.g. use of Pasig River ferry service), to cultural changes, such as shifting towards a 4-day work and school weeks (Manila Times, 2014). The NEDA makes the final decision on big infrastructure projects such as this. All projects costing P300 Million and above are subjected to NEDA Board’s deliberation and approval. This project is a joint venture agreement between the Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation (MPTDC) and the Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC) (Diola, 2014). While approval of the project is made by the NEDA, the implementation of the project is overseen by MPTDC and PNCC under a joint venture agreement. The Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC) is the government agency directly involved in the implementation of the project. Big transport projects, or infrastructure projects at the national level are handled by DOTC, the PNCC, DPWH, or private firms, if bid out. Likewise, public-private partnerships also exist in these areas. Accountability for the project rests on the MPTDC and the PNCC as part of their joint venture agreement. As this is a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), this project will be jointly funded by Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation (MPTDC) and the Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC). PNCC will get a 2.5% equity and a 6% share in gross revenues. (Agcaoili, 2014). Decisions on these projects are released to the public through media outfits. Projects for bidding are announced in national government agency websites. Updates on other decisions, such as directives and orders are also announced, but may not be easily accessible due to a lack of an organized online archive of such circulars or press releases. Different government agencies have different websites with different degrees of activity and updates. Other projects are funded through the approved General Appropriations Act, or through loans from institutions such as World Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency, and Asian Development Bank. There may be other forms of funding. As in the
  36. 36. 35 case of compensating for PNR’s ROW, imposing a fee on MPTDC was considered. Article 6.5 and 6.6 of the revised guidelines for Joint Venture PPPs, and Section 3 of Republic Act 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act of 2003), both provide for the public monitoring of procurement processes and project implementation. Depending on the nature of the PPP, there are different eligibility requirements and qualifications for private agencies. For most projects, especially those requiring a public utility franchise for its operation, it is required that proponents should either be Filipino citizens, or Filipino companies duly registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission. There are two stages of evaluation prior to the awarding of projects. The criteria for evaluation are as follows: technical soundness, operational feasibility, environmental standards, and project financing. ToRs are decided depending on the scale and nature of projects. Generally, they are decided upon by the concerned “Government Entity”, referred to in the revised Joint Venture guidelines as Government-owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs), Government Instrumentalities with Corporate Powers (GICPs), Government Corporate Entities (GCEs), Government financial institutions (GFIs), and State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) created by law or executive issuances. The NLEX-SLEX link project is special because it was an unsolicited proposal. In unsolicited proposals11 , private entities have the freedom to propose projects to the government (as long as the requirements and restrictions for unsolicited proposals are met). The proposals are then subjected to a Swiss Challenge, where the proposal is made public and other proponents are invited to bid and match the unsolicited proposal. As the process may take time, a joint venture agreement was proposed and implemented instead of opening up a Swiss Challenge for the NLEX- SLEX link (Amojelar, 2014). The previous illustration on the case of the NLEX-SLEX link also gives light to the process of smaller infrastructure projects like flyovers. Most of these smaller projects cover localized problems, such as inter-city or inter-barangay mobility. While these projects address problems of congestion, they are also part of development plans either at the city, municipality or regional level. In these projects, consultations are also done, with all possible stakeholders, as represented by CSOs and NGOs. The DPWH regional offices conduct budget consultations to enter into a 11 Public Utility Projects could be classifies as solicited projects or unsolicited proposals. Solicited projects are projects which are identified by a government agency or a local government unit as part of their list of priority projects in line with National Development Plans. These projects are opened for bidding.
  37. 37. 36 Budget Partnership Agreement (BPA) with their respective stakeholders. Among the infrastructure projects usually entered into these consultations are road widening projects, and construction of urban facilities such as loading and unloading bays (Nepomuceno, 2012). The Amended Philippine BOT Law (Republic Act 7718) governs the PPP Process for these smaller projects. Projects are opened for bidding to the general public and are judged on the same four criteria mentioned previously (technical soundness, operational feasibility, environmental standards and project financing). However, local governments are given more autonomy in the approval and awarding of projects, depending on the project cost. Generally, all projects costing below P200 Million, are approved by either the municipal, provincial, city, or regional development council. A joint venture project of this nature, under the PPP program of the government does not transfer the ownership of infrastructure to the private sector. The government retains ownership of the project, even beyond its completion (Austria, 2013). V. Issues in the Public Transport Sector Traffic congestion is usually the first issue that comes into mind in discussions of challenges to mobility in Metro Manila. Heavy traffic is deemed “normal”, a situation characterized by “too many vehicles, with too few rides” (Verzola, 1997: 1 in Gozun 2001). However, according to the UN Habitat (2013: 8), traffic congestion is a “major indication of the disjuncture between land use planning and transport services.” Such a situation has caused Metro Manila to lose the equivalent of 5% of its GDP annually. These losses due to traffic account for an annual P15 billion loss due to “lost man-hours, repairs and maintenance and lost fuel” (MRT 2012). Added to these are unquantifiable discomforts to commuters and vehicle owners undergo when they travel through major streets. But the problems in the transportation sector in countries like the Philippines are not merely about congestion and seeking solution in building more roads and flyovers. They are associated with the crosscutting issues of inequality particularly in income, land-use, urban planning and the problems of growth associated with middle-income. Such problems of growth could increase the middle class’ propensity to buy housing from private developers like gated subdivisions. These types of housing reinforce the “transport bias” (UN Habitat 2013) of mobility towards private cars since public transport is usually insufficient or lacking in reaching such exclusive communities. With the incomes of people in urban areas also increasing, there is also a higher propensity for people to dream of buying their own cars as reinforced by both cultural and commercial systems which facilitate the
  38. 38. 37 showcasing of their status in society as well as the aspiration for a more personal freedom (UN Habitat 2013: 4). This further promotes the encroachment of roads and sidewalks by street vendors and use of roads as terminals by both formal (ex. jeepneys and tricycles) and informal (ex. pedicabs) transport systems. Safety is also another issue in the urban mobility situation in Metro Manila. Though the country has a number of policies which protect the rights of the vulnerable (women, children, senior citizens and PWDs), accidents, marginalization and abuses. These include issues of sexual harassment in crowded mass transport systems, lack of sufficient infrastructures like ramps and safe sidewalks and being victimized in street crimes such as theft and bullying. Public consultations involve people who are affected by issues, projects, and policies can voice their concerns. Such consultations are hampered by top-down habits of engagement, lack of information, and lack of proper representation of the grassroots sectors. Especially problematic is the representation of informal sector groups such as vendors, and the disabled. Much deliberate schemes are needed to make consultations more inclusive and participatory (Nepomuceno, 2013). VI. Some Potential Responses to the Challenges in Public Transport Improved transport governance in Metro Manila requires institutional reforms. Several government agencies at national, regional, and local levels with overlapping transport mandates operate in Metro Manila. One possible reform is the designation of a lone government agency to handle all aspects of urban transport management. Transport governance, however, cannot be taken in isolation of other dimensions of metropolitan governance. One modality is to provide a strong metropolitan government that builds on the currently weakened structural and functional position of the metropolitan authority (Metro Manila Development Authority) to perform a set of integrated metropolitan services such as transport and traffic management, air pollution and solid waste management, disaster risk reduction and management, flood control, and public order and safety. Such a model is not without precedent. The previous Metro Manila Commission and Metro Manila Authority models headed by a Governor, requires a rethinking of the decentralization policy enunciated in the Local Government Code as it applies to metropolitan areas such as Metro Manila. This paradigm shift must be given expression in national legislation. Formulating sustainable solutions to the complex issues in public
  39. 39. 38 transport in the Philippines are very difficult to achieve given the huge bureaucracy and the politics involved in policy initiation. This is a huge challenge particularly to city and municipality government levels to improve the mobility of people, goods and services. There is an alarming issue, especially with the construction of huge infrastructure projects involving road-widening, building new flyovers and connecting major roads. Such processes usually are not participatory, breeding a lot of conflicts with affected communities as well as the utility of the projects in having long-term development impacts. Building more roads which is the continuous trend in the country, especially in Metro Manila, to accommodate and solve traffic congestion will eventually lead to more problems since this will only encourage the acquisition of more privately owned vehicles in the future. The transport governance regime in Metro Manila is akin to an international multilateral negotiation process. There is too much energy consumed by the straining towards cooperative or coordinative interoperability of the multifarious agencies concerned. The reality is that, despite the leadership and command of the President over all of the executive agencies and local government units concerned, there is a de facto “veto power” exercised by any recalcitrant, uncooperative agency which may actually differ from the rest based on a sound interpretation of its narrow mandate. Apart from the transport governance process being subject to too much agency discretion and lack of inter-agency habits of cooperation, there are a myriad issues that have remained unresolved over decades, including informal settlements, right of way acquisition, slow judicial process in determining transport cases, and lack of sufficient legislation on traffic and transport issues. Overall capacity for the enforcement of transport and traffic rules remains very low. Capacity for transport planning, policy formulation, enforcement, monitoring, and evaluation is uneven. Lack of transparency and accountability pervades the system. Navigation is by “every passing ship” rather than by the “stars”. Tactical action focuses on managing “short term inconveniences” in terms of the traffic jams and the occasional flooded street. Yet, there are increasing demands on traffic governance performance. As a commissioned study by AusAid suggests, there is a need for a strong policy statement “to tighten regulatory control on aspects impinging on safety, environmental quality and level of service, particularly relating to the transport needs of senior citizens, people with disabilities and women” (KBR 2010: 3). This should involve the active involvement and participation of stakeholders like “car owners, public transport
  40. 40. 39 passengers, public transport operators and government agencies” (KBR 2010: 4). There are also increasing demands for participation in transport decision- making, not only for ordinary citizens and communities, but also of people from the informal sector who are most vulnerable to the impacts of urban transport projects. These include sidewalk vendors, peddlers, cyclists and pedestrians. The bright lining is that most transport agencies and officials recognize the institutional weaknesses of the transport governance and are open to realistic solutions. Many of them have used concepts such as sustainable transport and inclusive mobility to frame their own initiatives. The policy environment is increasingly becoming more hospitable to real reform, especially in the wake of the success of the current government to demonstrate political will in dramatically enhancing overall quality of governance in the Philippines. One specific indicator of the possibility of reform is the recent organization of the Inclusive Mobility Network, representing in its board of trustees some 20 major transport and environmental NGOs, private sector, and government organizations. Its membership reflects an even wider range of organizations seeking transport governance and policy reform. The call for inclusive mobility in Metro Manila, visible in many projects such as the Katipunan Academic District in Quezon City, the Marikina Bikeways, pedestrianization in Makati, carless days in Pasig City, Pasyal Sundays in Manila, is increasing, and this is a strategic development. Sustainability mobility after all is about the “degree to which the city as a whole is accessible to all its residents, including low- income earners, the elderly, the young, the disabled, as well as women and children” (UN Habitat 2013: 2-3).
  41. 41. 40 VII. References Agcaoili, L. (2014). ‘MPIC, PNCC set to ink joint venture’, Philippine Star, January 21.Retrieved from ink-joint-venture on 02 March 2014. Amojelar, D. G. (2014).‘Metro Pacific, PNCC set to seal joint venture for NLEx-SLEx connector road’, InterAksyon, January 20.Retrieved from seal-joint-venture-for-nlex-slex-connector-road on 02 March 2014. Austria, S. (2013).‘PPP is not privatization’. PPP Talk.March 2013. Retrieved from on 06 March 2014.Balea, J. (2012). ‘Long Delayed?NLExSLEx Road Link Construction to begin in 2013’, Rappler, May 23. Retrieved from on 02 March 2014. Calleja, N. (2013). ‘Village execs want walkable Makati; double parking stands in their way’, Philippine Daily Inquirer. October 16. Retrieved from double-parking-stands-in-their-wayon 06 March 2014. Carcamo, (2012). ‘LTFRB launches stricter ‘OplanIsnabero’ campaign’, Philippine Star, December 9. Retrieved from 0/ on 16 February 2014. Cruz, N. H. (2012). Row over NLEX SLEX connector road, Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 2.Retrieved from over-nlex-slex-connector-road on 02 March 2014. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) (2014).Anti- Smoke Belching Campaign.Retrieved from release/626-anti-smoke-belching-campaign.html on 24 February 2014. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) (n.d.).NLExSLEx Link Expressway.Retrieved from on 02 March 2014. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) (2011).Pasig Marikina River Channel Improvement Project Phase III: Resettlement Action Plan.Retrieved from on 06 March 2014. Department of Transportation and Communications (2013). .DOTC - Gender And Development Desk. Retrieved from
  42. 42. 41 on 24 February 2014. Department of Transportation and Communications (2014).DOTC Gender and Development.Retrieve from dotc-gender-and-development&Itemid=140 on 02 March 2014. Department of Transportation and Communications (n.d.).Philippines National Implementation Plan on Environment Improvement in the Transport Sector Low Pollution-Low Emmission.Retrieved from on 22 February 2014. Diola, C. (2014). ‘P-18B NLEx-SLEx link deal inked’, Philippine Star, January 21.Retrieved from link-deal-inked on 02 March 2014. Dumlao, D. C. (2013). ‘Gov’t still hopeful on big infra projects’, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 1. Retrieved from projects on 02 March 2014. Felipe, C. S. (2014). ‘NLEX-SLEX travel time to be reduced’, Manila Bulletin, January 21.Retrieved from travel-time-to-be-reduced/ on 02 March 2014. Government of the Philippines (2010).Procurement of Infrastructure Projects.Retrieved from NE%20BIDDING%20DOCUMENTS/PROCUREMENT%20OF%20INFRASTRU CTURE%20PROJECTS.pdf on 25 February 2014. Gozun, B. C. (2001). ‘Attitudinal Factors Toward Cycling As A Transport Mode for School Trips’, National Center for Transportation Studies. Retrieved from graduate-research/55-attitudinal-factors-toward-cycling-as-a-transport- mode-for-school-trips on 24 February 2014. Guillen, M.D. and Ishida, H.(2003) “ Motorcycle-propelled Public Transport and Local Policy Development”, IATSS Research. Retrieved from research/28-1-06.pdf on 24 March 2014. Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd (KBR) (2010). Final Report: PEGR-funded Reform Agenda on RA 008-02: Formulating a National Transport Plan.
  43. 43. 42 AusAid and Philippines-Australia Partnership for Economic Governance Reforms (PEGR). Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) (2011a).2011 Revised Rules of Practice and Procedure Before the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. Retrieved from e_and_Procedure_for_web.pdf on 03 March 2014. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) (2011b).Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004: 2011 Revised Terms and Conditions of CPC and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof. Retrieved from 20NUMBER%202011-004.pdf on 24 February 2014. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) (2014a).Our Mandate.Retrieved from on 19 February 2014. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) (2014d).File a Complaint.Retrieved from on 17 February 2014. Land Transportation Office (LTO)(2012a). License Related Transactions. Retrieved from licensing/112-license-related-transactions on 24 February 2014. Light Rail Transit (LRT). History. Retrieved from on 06 May 2014. Local Government of Quezon City (2014).Department of Public Order and Safety.Retrieved from d=269:dpos&catid=63&Itemid=28 on 02 March 2014. Manila Times (2014). ‘The gridlock dread’.No Author.Retrieved from on March 6, 2014. Magtoto, R. (2012). ‘Biking gains support of LGUs as an alternate city transport’, Vera Files, May 02.Retrieved from alternate-city-transport-161551800.html on 01 March 2014. Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) (2002).MMDA Resolution