This paper discusses the rationale for the nationalization of the MRT and LRT system as a catalyst for the development of a quality national mass transit system in the Philippines.

1. Moving Forward: Beyond the LRT/MRT PPP
In this paper we will be focusing on the rationale for the nationalization of the MRT and LRT system as
a catalyst for the development of a quality national mass transit system.
Mass transit or public transportation systems move large numbers of people. Regional mass transit
includes provincial buses and vans, heavy rail, airlines, and ferries. Urban mass transit includes city
buses and light rail. For this paper we will be focusing on urban rail transit, as rail usually serves as
the backbone of a comprehensive mass transit system1
.
Metro Manila is served by three rail systems: the Philippine National Rail, Light Rail Transit, which has
two lines (the Yellow and Purple lines) and the Metro Rail Transit, which has one line. Both the PNR
and the two LRT lines are owned and operated by the public through government operated and
controlled corporations, although Line 1 operations will be handed out to private concessionaires while
Line 2 operations are still up for bid. The MRT line meanwhile, is owned by the MRT Corporation but is
leased to the national government through the Department of Transportation and Communication
(DOTC).
Background: Privatization and Public Transport Don’t Mix
After the collapse of Marcos’ statism, the first Aquino administration and its successor governments
have been engaged in the piece by piece sale of public assets and services to the private sector. The
argument goes that the private sector can better manage these, whilst allowing the cash-strapped
government to allocate more funds for priority projects. Present realities however, has shown that this
was a bitter pill for the public to swallow. The cost of many basic social services (electricity, water,
education, and healthcare) have skyrocketed in recent years2
, marginalizing many of the poorest.
Amidst this backdrop, the government plans to further privatize the MRT and LRT lines under its
public-private partnership program (PPP).3
As an opening salvo to this effort, the DOTC announced, at
the height of holiday revelries, a fare hike for the MRT and LRT. Fare prices increased as much as
50%, 66% and 87% for LRT 1, LRT2 and MRT, respectively. For minimum wage earners this
translates to a 138% increase in their transportation expenses. The government rationalizes that the
MRT and LRT lines are unprofitable and scant public funds are being used to subsidize a service that
people should be paying for. However the government itself admits that rail transit is a public service
and should be subsidized for the social and environmental returns that it gives.4
As for the assertion that people aren’t paying fairly for their train ride, a look at (government published)
data reveals the opposite. Even before the hike, farebox ratios for LRT lines 1 and 2 were already
above unity (1.00), which means that the revenue collected by LRTA at pre-hike prices is more than
enough to pay for operating and maintenance expenses, as its 2013 announcement of Php 1.96 billion

2. in profit confirms.5
As IBON has noted, LRT commuters are helping to pay the loans used to construct
the line6
.
In the case of the MRT line, multiple studies7 8 9 10
conclude that the Build Lease Transfer contract
entered to by the government is partly to blame for the escalating costs. This PPP setup divides the
MRT line between the government and a private company. Under the contract, majority of the capital
for building the system came from foreign lending agencies as official development assistance
(ODA)11
. MRT Corporation (MRTC), the consortium in charge of building and maintaining the line,
provided only 29% of capital expenditures but nevertheless obtained ownership of the line. The DOTC
meanwhile, ends up as the operator who must pay an annual lease to MRTC while also settling the
foreign capital loans. The contract also assures MRTC a 15% return on capital investment as part of
the lease. The DOTC itself has admitted that the fare hike will be used not to finance improvement but
to pay its growing debt to MRTC.12
This Byzantine setup has also led to allegations of corruption and profiteering. Josef Rychtar, former
Czech Ambassador to the Philippines, revealed in July 2013 that DOTC and MRTC officials tried to
extort money from Czech train maker Inekon in exchange for winning the procurement and
maintenance contract.13
In light of such revelations, the Ombudsman has started an investigation on
DOTC Secretary Abaya and former MRTC General Manager Vitangcol, as well as other officials.14
Some quarters have even linked the corruption to the presidency, as the fare hike would allegedly
render the Php 4.7 billion subsidy for the MRT into a presidential pork.15 16
The cost of such a mismanagement has been frequent breakdowns and accidents, the most fatal of
which was the August 2014 derailment17
, where an MRT train derailed and overshot its barrier,
crashing unto the highway below and injuring 38 passengers. Unfortunately, more disasters are
expected to come. Kiyoshi Morita, president of TESP, the former maintenance company of the MRT,
warned the government in a 2011 letter18
that, “eventual collapse of the rolling Stock System and even
the Wayside system may happen if drastic and immediate changes will not be made” (emphasis
supplied).
The Philippines is not alone in this experience. A 2004 survey done by the Metropolis Commission
amongst its member cities, concluded,
“In many countries, particularly in the developing world, the outsourcing of
transport service provision by means of private concessions has created a
situation, in which transport is only provided according to economic viability,
which results in fare increases, heterogeneous fare systems and the erratic
and disorderly establishment of routes.”19
A similar survey done in 2007 is more direct and specific, “Apparently public-private-partnerships do
not work as successfully in urban areas as they do in other spatial contexts.”20
A comparison between
the publicly owned New York Subway and Asian private urban rails reveals that private railways “do
not actually make a profit through the fare box when all costs are fully accounted for.”21
Private
concessionaires therefore must resort to fare hikes and other income sources like government
subsidies. This invalidates the argument that privatization will lead to cost savings for the public.
The Solution is to Nationalize

3. Rail transport as social services and national asset
Urban rail transit is both a public service and a strategic national asset and therefore it’s the
responsibility of the state to its people. Experience with PPP’s has shown that the
For the individual commuter, it is essential for a decent urban quality of life and empowers mobility for
lower income and other disadvantaged citizens. In the case of the MRT, sixty-eight percent (68%) of
riders earn below the minimum living wage.22
Compared to cars, urban rail is also safer, with rail
passengers being 30 times less likely to get involved in a fatality than car users.23
Even when taking
into account the dangers posed by urban rail to nonusers (due to its large size and sprawling
infrastructure) it’s still safer than driving behind the wheel.
As a national asset, urban rail possesses many positive externalities that benefit not just riders but
society as a whole.
Trains, being safer, will lessen social costs due to accidents. Our country loses about Php 4 million
pesos for every fatal accident in Metro Manila.24
The MMDA recorded 172 fatal accidents and 176
dead from January to June in 2007.25
A 2001 sampling of 3 hospitals in NCR estimates 3-4 traffic
motorcycle accidents occurring every week, with 41% of casualties ending in fractures.26
One-third of
the 1.67 million private vehicles in Metro Manila are motorcycles27
, with many riders belonging to
working class or lower income groups. Public buses on the other hand are no safer, with an average
of 16 accidents involving buses happening every day in Metro Manila.28
The construction and maintenance of train systems generates both direct and indirect employment.
Public transit creates 19% more jobs than road construction.29
In New York, it’s estimated that
700,000 jobs will be generated during the construction phase of the Second Avenue Subway (SAS).
Germany’s urban mass transit employs (directly and indirectly) around 400,000 people.30
Urban rail also makes travel for consumers easier and attracts professionals and tourists to the city. A
study of 50 major US metropolitan areas has shown that there is a direct relationship between a city’s
economic competitiveness and the “quality” of its mass transit.31
A survey by website TripAdvisor
revealed that 70% of tourists use public transport while on holiday and 75% factor in a city’s mass
transit when choosing their destination.32
The Philippine government itself estimates Php 54 billion savings a year in traffic costs due to
improvements to the MRT and LRT.33
This is significant and timely because according to the UP
National Center for Transportation Studies, Metro Manila loses about Php 100 billion a year34
or 1% of
the national GDP to traffic congestion.
Real estate benefits are also huge. According to a 2004 estimate, the MRT affects around 20 square
km of real estate in Metro Manila, just a 10% increase in land value would be worth $1.5 billion
dollars35
(or about $2.5 billion in 2014 dollars). Levying a 1% property tax would result in an additional
Php 1 billion income for the government.

4. Nationalization can work
Urban rail (and mass transport in general) is also a natural monopoly. Public transportation’s nature of
limited routes and capacity necessitates a monopoly for orderly operation (one can imagine the chaos
if there are multiple train companies running along EDSA). Hence the logical setup is that of a large
numbers of consumers/passengers depending on a single provider/supplier. Without proper
regulation, this monopoly becomes what economists call a rent-seeking opportunity or the wholesale
transfer of public wealth to private hands. Historically, this monopoly has been very lucrative, and
competition for ownership is usually marked with violence, as the oligarchic Lopez family’s hostile
takeover of Panay Autobus confirms.36
There are many case studies around the world that prove that a nationalized urban rail network can
work (Table 1). The metros of the four top Global cities (New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo)37
are
state owned and only Tokyo has a farebox ratio greater than unity.38
In Berlin, the underground metro
is government owned39
and PPP’s are not utilized to finance public projects citing concerns with,
“hidden borrowings and reduction of public debt”40
. In the British experience, privatization of
countryside mass transport has increased private vehicle use due to fare hikes.41
A more specific
example is the British company Railtrack which followed a profit-maximizing agenda and collapsed
into insolvency in 2001, after several years of poor performance. It was replaced by a state company,
Network Rails. In contrast to Railtrack, Directly Operated Rail (DOR), another state company, has
been successful in its efficient operation of the London and Newcastle route. DOR has been praised
by members of parliament for its financial sustainability and high customer satisfaction.42
The Hong
Kong MTR transit, which was privatized in 2000 and is cited as a successful case of privatization, is
actually majority owned by the state. The Hong Kong government has a 76% stake in the train
Table 1 A comparison of some cities and their metro system. Note how, despite being the densest city in the world,
Metro Manila is only served by 3 metro lines as compared to Seoul’s 18 lines.
City Rail Transit
No. of
lines
Pop. Density
(People per square
km)
Owner/Operator Type
Tokyo Tokyo Metro 9 6,000
Tokyo Metro Co.,
Ltd.
Government
London London Underground 15 5,354
Transport for
London
Government
Berlin
U-Bahn 10
3,900
BVG Government
S-Bahn 9 DB AG Private
Seoul
Seoul Metropolitan
Subway
18 17,000
Seoul Metro, Seoul
Metropolitan Rapid
Transit Corporation,
Korail, Incheon
Transit Corporation,
and private
operators
Mixed
Beijing Beijing Subway 18 1,300 -- Government
New York City New York Subway 10 10,725
Metropolitan Transit
Authority
Government
Metro Manila
MRT 1
19,000
DOTC & MRTC
(private operator)
Mixed
LRT 2 LRTA Government
Sources: see endnotes37

5. company. Much of MTR’s revenue comes from real estate development rather than passenger fares.43
This non-fare revenue was not fully exploited by the Philippine government during the planning of the
MRT.44
There have been also many historical precedents for rail nationalization. State takeover of rail
companies became the basis for improving public transit and stimulating industrialization (or re-
industrialization). In 1948, the British government nationalized all the railways in the country to
facilitate the reconstruction of rail networks and rehabilitate the trains.45
The US federal government
took over the country’s railways during the First World War due to the realization that private operators
were not up to the task of the war effort.46
Trains were thus updated to the latest standards and
specifications while unnecessary routes were closed.
The public nature of the MRT and LRT necessitates that society as a whole should own, operate, and
develop the two systems (through their government). Unlike private corporations, governments are
directly accountable to the people. Unpopular governments can be voted out of office. Even in the
presence of strong elites with numerous political and economic leverage, pro-poor and anti-
establishment administrations (at least with regards to majority of their programs) have been put in
power, whether through peaceful revolt or the ballot. Historical cases include Chile under Salvador
Allende, Cabral’s Guinea-Bissau, and Socialist Cuba. Presently there is Bolivarian Venezuela,
Marduro’s Bolivia, Sandinista Nicaragua, and Syriza Greece.
Many empirical studies have been done to quantify the positive externalities of mass transit and hence
the level of state support needed to sustain and propagate these benefits across society. A 2003 study
by the Regional Plan Association has shown that building the $12.6 billion Second Avenue Subway
(SAS) extension in New York would result in 30,000 less vehicle trips per day, and time savings of
$1.26 billion/year, benefiting around 600,000 commuters.47
Construction of the SAS commenced in
2007 and is expected to be finished by 2016. In Australia, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory
Tribunal of New South Wales decided, based on a 2008 consultancy report, that 71.5% of the train
system’s revenue requirement should be be funded by the government.48
Nationalization is Fundable
Government funds to nationalize, operate, and develop the MRT and LRT lines are not lacking. Of the
Php 230.4 billion transportation budget for 2015, only Php 16.9 billion or 7.33% of the total is allocated
for rail transit. The lion share, at a whopping 85% of the total, goes to constructing even more roads.49
In Spain, the situation is reversed, with 70% of transportation funds going to rail.50
Ironically, in spite of
the DOTC’s complains regarding the MRT-3 subsidy, the national government has justified the Php
16.9 billion budget for rail (which includes the infamous MRT subsidy) because it will (as discussed
earlier) “generate time savings equivalent to P54 billion.”51
Taxing the top ten Filipino billionaires just
5% of their wealth will generate Php 89 billion/year52
, enough to build a new LRT-2 line with all costs
paid upfront.
Many sectors have also called out plenty of onerous items in the national budget, many of which are
lump sums, funds without proper allocations and can be arbitrarily spent by officials.53
In 2014, these
lump sum items, which are under the control of the executive branch, amounted to Php 1.3 trillion or
roughly half the national budget.54
This presidential “pork” can build 438 km of new LRT tracks55
, 19
new MRT lines (elevated tracks and rolling stock included). Before the Napoles-scandal forced

6. Congress to remove all “pork barrel” allocations, the infamous Priority Assistance Development Fund
(PDAF) of lawmakers amounted to around Php 25 billion in 201256
, enough to give free MRT and LRT
train rides to a million people everyday for five years.
Moving Forward to National Industrialization
A nationalized urban rail line can be developed to benefit stakeholders rather than shareholders.
Decisions regarding station location and decision, fuel and energy sources, accessibility (like
elevators, escalators, and amenities for PWD’s), expansions, and fare pricing can be done under the
principle of maximizing social and environmental benefits.
A nationalized urban rail can also be used to create demand for locally developed and
manufactured technologies. Currently, the Philippines spends about 0.12% of its GDP on rail. This
is comparable to Germany but it must be noted that German rail is already quite developed. It would
be better to compare the Philippines to Spain and China. Spain is in the process of revitalizing its train
system and spends more than the French, at 0.35% of the GDP.57
China meanwhile, in an attempt to
bring its rail network to the modern era, invests 1.25% of its GDP (Table 2).
Priority can be given to local suppliers of equipment, in addition to R&D support that would allow local
companies to build quality trains. For example, strong domestic demand (at a tune of $6 billion/year)
allows Germany to sustain the lead of its rail manufacturing industry, allowing local companies like
Siemens to dominate the global market.58
Spain’s $10 billion/year investments in rail infrastructure has
been a boon for its 600 rail technology firms. Now these Spanish firms are exporting their products to
European and Latin American markets, bringing in $1.2 billion in 2009.59
In cases where foreign suppliers are needed, technology transfer agreements can be set in place.
Philippine experience with transnational manufacturing companies has shown that without state
intervention, these companies would rather just import equipment and expertise, rather than training,
developing, or supporting a local supplier.60
China and South Korea have been pioneers in using
Table 2 Some of the top rail technology companies of the world in terms of sale. The Philippines is placed
for comparison.
Country
Investment in Rail as % of
GDP
Rail Manufacturer
Canada - Bombadier
France 0.26 Alstom
China
1.25
China South Locomotive and
Rolling Stock and China
Northern Locomotive and
Rolling Stock
Germany 0.15 Siemens
USA 0.08 General Electric
Japan - Kawasaki
Spain 0.35
Construcciones y Auxiliar de
Ferrpcarriles
Russia 0.28 Transmasholding
Philippines 0.12 None
Source: Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry, Gov.ph, and Wikipedia

7. government investment and foreign suppliers to foster industrialization. A report on China’s rail
investment notes that, “Stiff local-content rules stipulate that 70–90 percent of rail equipment be
manufactured domestically.”61
Policies like this, combined with technology transfer agreements have led to the indigenization of
foreign technology. One example, the “CRH3 trains, used on the Beijing-Tianjin HSR line since 2008,
are produced via a joint venture between Germany’s Siemens and China’s Tangshan Locomotive
Works. While the 1st three CRH3 train sets were produced in Germany by Siemens, the trains have
been produced in China by Tangshan since April 2008...”62
South Korea has employed similar tactics as early as 2004, when the country, “licensed technology for
use on its Korea Rail eXpress (KTX) HSR line from foreign companies – in this case French firm
Alstom’s TGV trains – but quickly localized production through a technology transfer arrangement.
While the 1st twelve train sets in use on the KTX were manufactured by Alstom, the next 34 were
produced in South Korea by Hyundai Rotem using 58 percent domestic technology.”63
Conclusion
Population growth and development will continue to test our public infrastructures. In today’s mobile
world, no other infrastructure is as strained as transportation. The capacity of cities to adapt and
evolve in the midst of demographic stresses and economic downturns, on a certain extent, on its mass
transit backbone.
The government’s fare hike and long term privatization plans for the MRT and LRT place in peril our
ability to address Metro Manila’s mobility and environmental problems. Such plan reeks of short
sightedness, a misplaced faith in the private sector, and of a government defaulting on its duty to the
people. Empirical data from around the world has shown that privatization is not a magic bullet for our
deteriorating social services; specific characteristics of our political-economic conditions must be taken
into account.
Nationalization presents a historically sound strategy for the particular conditions of the Philippines:
immature private market, rent seeking corporatized families, and lack of industrialization. Moving
forward entails that the public, through its government, take full possession of the MRT and LRT, so its
operation and further development be in line with the nation’s welfare.

8. Notes
Tactical arguments for Nationalization
For the Philippines, in the short term, nationalization can:
1. Reverse the fare hike and hence alleviate the expenses of minimum wage earners.
2. Begin the reversal of the privatization trend.
3. Prevent private companies from profiteering from a social service
4. Force the government to allocate a budget for mass transit, decreasing the money that can be
placed in discretionary funds (pork barrel). The PDAF and DAP scandal has shown that non-
budgeted funds are very vulnerable to abuse.
Positive Externalities
Both commuters (those who pay for a ticket) and non-commuters (those who use other means of
transport like walking or driving) stand to benefit from mass transit. The commuter gains an effective
and affordable means of transport, while nonusers typically benefit from pollution reduction (due to
less cars on the road). If one were to run the MRT or LRT as a business, it would we ideal to exclude
non-payers from the benefits (since this would be free-riding). In the case of pollution reduction, this is
impossible. One cannot box off a section of the atmosphere so that only paid riders can breathe it.
Hence from the economic point, mass transit is what can be called a public good64
. In fact, mass
transit has other benefits of such nature. These are known in economic literature as positive
externalities wherein the benefits of a transaction (building and using the train) spill over to third
parties (society as a whole). In the field of engineering economy, such positive externalities are
quantified when evaluating public projects and many expensive infrastructures are built and
subsidized due to the high dividends that are returned to society as a whole.
Environmental and Health Benefits
A car actually produces very little pollution65
. However the ubiquity of the modern automobile as the
main mode of transport in Metro Manila and other cities means that emissions from millions of cars
pile up to toxic concentrations. There are 6.5 million private vehicles in Metro Manila. Some of the
pollutants that commonly come out of our cars are: Nitrogen oxides, cause of acid rain and a known
lung carcinogen; carbon monoxide, fatal inhalation of which can lead to premature death; suspended
particulate matters (SPM), like soot and dust.
Around 150,000 people in the US and 5,000 in the UK die each year due to vehicular emissions66
. In
Metro Manila, rush hour traffic can become so severe that the concentration of suspended particulate
matter (SPM) in the air shoots up 1.6 times above the government mandated limit67
. Inhalation of
SPM, more commonly known as soot, can lead to respiratory diseases like asthma and lung cancer68
.
Meanwhile increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide has been accelerating the warming of the
planet, with the transport sector contributing 13% of global emissions. The UN Intergovermental Panel
on Climate Change warns that current emissions must be reduced by at least 50% by 2050 to mitigate
the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. Other scientists have been more pessimistic, placing
the deadline as early as the end of the decade69
. Intercity and urban rail transit can greatly reduce
these vehicular emissions by providing an efficient and comfortable alternative to private commuting.
Less people driving on the road means less sources of polluting emissions. Based on several past

9. studies, the Victoria Transport Policy Institute concludes that for every increase in transit passenger-
mile, there is a reduction of 3 to 6 automobile vehicle miles70
. In other words, trains have the potential
to reduce vehicle impacts by up to 600%. In fact a 2008 government presentation credits the MRT line
for helping to reduce cases of bronchitis in Metro Manila. The electric trains running the transit line can
also be powered from low emission sources like hydroelectric dams and wind turbines71
. This further
reduces the green house gas footprint.
Quality urban transit is also more effective than policies that directly reduce automobile ridership like
the MMDA’s Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program (more popularly known as the color coding
scheme), as many car owners in Metro Manila use a secondary spare automobile to get around the
color coding scheme.

10. Appendix
How much would industrialization cost?
The net loss of LRT-2 is most likely due to its low ridership. This does not include the income due to
foreign exchange gains (which can amount to Php 3 billion for the LRT-1). The estimated core inflation
rate from 2003 to 2014 is 4.25% according to data from the NCSB, for a conservative estimate of the
costs, we will use an upper bound value of 5% to bring the equivalent capital costs to 2014 values.
Source: LRTA and DOTC-MRT Financial Statement, IBON
Let’s assume that 3 lines cost Php 170 billion, with Php 4.7 billion yearly expenses and Php 3.5 billion
in fare revenues and that we will build an additional three lines in Metro Manila plus six lines in Cebu
and Davao. A train line is expected to last 30 years before major rehabilitations are needed. If the
capital cost is amortized over 30 years at 6% interest, then we will be spending a total of Php 42
billion/year (capital and O&M loses) or 0.29% of the GDP. This is comparable to Russian and French
investment in rail but tiny compared to China, which spends 1.25% of its GDP on rail. Although Php 42
billion is quite pricey, it’s still smaller than the Php 54 billion time savings estimated by our government
and if we were to follow the Spanish example, we should be spending Php 160 billion of the
transportation budget on rails. Placing proper policies would ensure that majority of that money goes
to our local industries. Germany spends Php 266 billion on its rail infrastructure, giving its rail
manufacturing firms a stable home base and allowing them to bring back Php 350 billion in exports.
Of course, further and more detailed studies should be made to quantify the economic, social, and
environmental benefits but we can be confident that these dividends will outweigh the costs.
*Due to the difficulty of finding references for the fare revenue of the MRT-3 (the DOTC’s financial
report for the MRT-3 does not have item for revenue, instead it has an entry called “Subsidy from
National Government”) an estimate was used. The fare revenue was estimated based on a weekday
average daily ridership of 450,000 with each passenger spending about Php 30.00 for a round trip.
Revenue from weekend operations was not considered due to incomplete data and operation included
only 10 months of the year (many riders are students and have a 2 month summer vacation) in order
to make the estimation conservative. The fact that the resulting estimation is close to LRT-1‘s fare
revenue (both LRT-1 and MRT-3 have similar ridership numbers)
Table 3 Some financial parameters for the three lines.
Line
O&M Expenses
(in Php/year)
Annual Farebox
Revenue
(in PhP)
Line
Principal Cost of
Construction
(Billion PhP, 2014
prices)
LRT-1 1,995,534,639.00 2,515,219,789 3.4 14
LRT-2 1,038,422,394.00 949,936,209 31 89.9
MRT-3 1,607,075,064.00 2,700,000,000* 41.209 64
Total 4,641,032,097 3,465,155,998 -- 167.9

11. 1 Japan International Cooperation Agency, “Roadmap for Transport Infrastructure Development
for Metro Manila and Its Surrounding Areas (Region III and Region IV-A)” (Slide presentation, 2014) 25 February
2015 <http://www.jica.go.jp/philippine/english/office/topics/news/c8h0vm00008wr871-att/140902_01.pdf>
2 Pio Verzola Jr. and Galileo Burgos Jr., “PPP: Balancing act favors private profit over public welfare,” IBON
Education for Development 10, no. 4 (Manila: IBON Foundation, 2011), 5-11
3Public Private Partnership Center, “LRT Line 1 Cavite Extension and Operation & Maintenance,” 1 March 2015
<http://ppp.gov.ph/?p=7641>.
4 IBON Foundation, “LRT and MRT: Of Fare Hikes and Privatization,” Facts & Figures: Special Release 34, no
15, (Manila: IBON Foundation, 2011), 11.
5LRTA, “Financial Statement 2013,” 11 March 2015
<http://www.lrta.gov.ph/images/upload/certification%20final.pdf>.
6 IBON Foundation, 8.
7 Marius de Langen, Edwin Alzate, and Hillie Talens, “An evaluation of the traffics and financial performance of
the MRT-3 light-rail/metro line in Manila,” World Transport Policy & Practice 10, no. 4 (2004), 22–31
8 IBON Foundation, 6-9.
9 Andra Mijares, Madan Regmi, and Tetsuo Yai, “Enhancing the sustainability and inclusiveness of the Metro
Manila’s urban transportation systems: Proposed fare and policy reforms,” Transport and Communications
Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific, no. 84, (2014), 36-37.
10 DOTC Secertary Emilio Abaya, one of the purveyors of the fare hike, has admitted that the BLT is in fact
onerous. In a House Appropriations Committee Hearing, the secretary confessed that "They [MRTC] continue to
own the facility, the responsibility of the government is to operate, the responsibility to procure a maintenance
provider is of MRTC, however, the government pays. That in itself is very questionable." 12 March
2015<http://www.congress.gov.ph/press/details.php?pressid=8138>
11 IBON Foundation, 2-3.
12 Xianne Arcangel, "Abaya: Money from MRT fare hike will go to private firm," GMA News, updated 29
December 2014, 3 March 2015 <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/396534/economy/companies/abaya-
money-from-mrt-fare-hike-will-go-to-private-firm>.
13 Rainier Allan Ronda, “DOTC execs tagged in $30-M shakedown,” ABS-CBN News.com, updated 19 July
2013, 3 March 2015 <http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/07/19/13/dotc-execs-tagged-30-m-shakedown>.
14Camille Diola, “Ombudsman orders probe vs Abaya, Vitangcol for MRT-3 deal,” Philstar.com, updated 25
September 2014, 3 March 2015 <http://www.philstar.com:8080/headlines/2014/09/25/1373077/ombudsman-
orders-probe-vs-abaya-vitangcol-mrt-3-deal>.
15 Rigoberto Tiglao, “MRT-3 fare hike is for 2016 elections,” Trigger, 12 January 2015, 3 March 2015
<http://www.trigger.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1335:mrt-3-fare-hike-is-for-2016-
elections&catid=64:test&Itemid=80>
16 Teddy Casino, “6 lies and fallacies on the LRT/MRT fare hike,” 3 March 2015
<https://teddycasino.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/6-lies-and-fallacies-on-the-lrtmrt-fare-hike/>
17Julliane Love de Jesus and Frances Mangosing, "MRT train skids, rams Taft station; 38 injured," Inquirer, 14
August 2014,3 March 2015 <http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/628821/mrt-train-derailed-report>
18 Rolling stock refers to the train; the wayside is a technical term for the elevated track used by the MRT. As
revealed in http://www.manilatimes.net/mrt-3-may-collapse-anytime/132603/
19 Diana Runge, Hans-Joachim Becker, and Berlin Department for Integrated Transport Planning, "Financing
Urban Mobility: Results of the Survey and Input Paper" (Berlin: Metropolis Commission 4, June 2007), 30.
20 Ibid, 25.
21 Alla Reddy, Alex Lu, and Ted Wang, “Subway Productivity, Profitability, and Performance: A Tale of Five
Cities,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board no. 2143, (21 October
2010), 1.
22 IBON Foundation, 8.
23 Todd Litman, “Safer Than You Think: Revisiting the Transit Safety Narrative,” (Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, 2014) 6.
24 Mark Richmund De Leon, Ricardo Sigua, and Primitivo Cal, “Estimation of Socio-Economic Cost of Road
Accidents in Metro Mania,” Journal of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Study 6, (2005), 3183.
25 MMDA, “Metro Manila Accident Reporting and Analysis System Annual Report,” (2007) pp 4-7.
26Timi H. Vibal, "Traffic Accident Analysis Through Hospital Records," (Thesis, University of the Philippines
Diliman Department of Civil Engineering, 2003).

12. 27Romulo Virola, “Land Transport in the Philippines: Retrogressing Towards Motorcycles?,” Statistically
Speaking, 2 March 2015 <http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2009/101209_rav_raab_trans.asp>
28 Mijares, Regmi, and Yai, 38.
29Surface Transportation Policy Project, Setting the Record Straight: Transit, Fixing Roads and Bridges Offer
Greatest Job Gains (2004), as quoted in
http://fresc.live.radicaldesigns.org/downloads/Transit%20Job%20Creation%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
30 As reported by Michael Renner and Gary Gardner in “Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry”
31 Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal and SECOR Consulting, “Public transit: a powerful economic-
development engine for the metropolitan Montreal region” (2004) 11.
32 BBC News, 29 August 2006, 28 February 2015
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5294790.stm>
33 Salient Points: 2015 Budget Message of President Aquino,” Official Gazette, 30 July 2014, 3 March 2015
<http://www.gov.ph/2014/07/30/salient-points-2015-budget-message-of-president-aquino/>.
34 Jose Regidor, “Revisting the Costs of Traffic Congestion in Metro Manila and Their Implications” (2012).
35de Langen, Alzate, and Talens, 22–31
36 Ibid., 465
37 Mike Hales, Erik Peterson, Andres Pena, and Johan Gott, “Global Cities, Present and Future,” April 2014, 12
March 2015 <http://www.atkearney.com/research-studies/global-cities-index/full-report>
38 Kathy Lindquist, Michel Wendt, and James Holbrooks, “Transit Farebox Recovery and US and International
Transit Subsidization: Synthesis,” (8 October 2009), 12 March 2015
<http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/transit_farebox_recovery_and_subsidies_synthesis_taylor.pdf> 2.
39 Andrew Stevens, “Berlin U-Bahn: rebuilding after 100 years of turbulent history,” 23 August 2009, 1 March
2015 <http://www.citymayors.com/transport/berlin-u-bahn.html>
40 Diana Runge, Hans-Joachim Becker, and Berlin Department for Integrated Transport Planning, 30.
41 Ibid, 28.
42 11 March 2015 <http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/1250>
43 Richard Pérez-Peña, "Transit Experts Say Savings Alone Won't Bail Out M.T.A.," New York Times, 20
November 2004, 11 March 2015 <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/nyregion/20transit.html?_r=0.>
44 de Langen, Alzate and Talens, 31.
45 “Nationalisation,” Economics Online, 3 March 2015
<http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Nationalisation.html>.
46 <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-government-takes-over-control-of-nations-railroads>.
47 Regional Plan Association, “The Economic Benefits of the Second Avenue Subway,” (2003) 1-3.
48 Todd Litman, 96.
49 ”Salient Points: 2015 Budget Message of President Aquino,” Official Gazette, 30 July 2014, 3 March 2015
<http://www.gov.ph/2014/07/30/salient-points-2015-budget-message-of-president-aquino/>.
50 Michael Renner and Gary Gardner, “Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry,” (September
2010) , 11 March 2015 <http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/GlobalCompetitiveness-Rail.pdf> 8.
51 “Salient Points: 2015 Budget Message of President Aquino,”
52 Rappler.com, “10 Filipinos among world’s billionaires” 5 March, 2014, 11 March 2015
<http://www.rappler.com/business/features/52062-forbes-world-billionaires-richest-list-2014>.
53 RG Cruz, “President has P1-trillion pork barrel,” ABS-CBN News, 26 August 2013, 11 March 2015
<http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/08/09/13/president-has-p1-trillion-pork-barrel>
54 Ibid
55 Giovanni Tapang, “Science and National Industrialization,” (Slide presentation, 2014). 438 km of track is
enough to connect Metro Manila with Ilagan City in Isabela.
56 Agatha Guidaben, “A buffet of pork: P25 billion at lawmakers’ discretion,” GMA News Research, 17 July 2012,
11 March 2015 <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/265709/news/specialreports/a-buffet-of-pork-p25-
billion-at-lawmakers-discretion>.
57 Renner and Gardner, 11-15, 20.
58 Ibid, 18.
59 Ibid, 21.
60 IBON Foundation
61 Renner and Gardner, 8.
62 Breakthrough Institute and The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Rising Tigers, Sleeping
Giant: Asian nations set to dominate the clean energy race by out-investing the United States,” (November
2009), 11 March 2015 <http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Rising_Tigers.pdf>, 38.

13. 63 Ibid, 43.
64 Tyler Cowen, “Public Goods,” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 27 February 2015
<http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html>
65 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, “Automobile Emissions: An Overview”
66 Fabio Caiazzo, Akshay Ashok, Ian A. Waitz, Steve H.L. Yim, and Steven R.H. Barrett, “Air pollution and early
deaths in the United States. Part I: Quantifying the impact of major sectors in 2005,” Atmospheric Environment
79 (Abstract, 2013), 25 February 2015 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013004548>.
67 The national limit of SPM is 150 ug/Ncm. Jolly Vir O. Benitez, “Relationship of Traffic Flow Characteristics and
Roadside Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) Emissions in Metro Manila” (Thesis, University of the Philippines
Diliman Department of Civil Engineering, 2001).
68 Environmental Protection Agency “Particulate Matter (PM-10),” AIRTrends 1995 Summary, 25 February 2015
<http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd95/pm10.html>.
69 Naomi Klein, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014).
70 Todd Litman, “Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs: Best Practices Guidebook” (Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, 2015) 15.
71 Energiewende, Germany’s ambitious energy transition plan, expects the country to reduce its present green
house gas emissions by 80% by 2050 through aggressive shift to wind, solar, and biomass power.