ESTIMATION OF CO BENEFIT FROMESTIMATION OF CO‐BENEFIT FROM BUS RAPID TRANSIT INTRODUCTION IN METRO MANILA USING IGES’ CO‐BENEFIT GUIDELINEBENEFIT GUIDELINE

by

Dr. Alexis Fillone, De La Salle University‐Manila

Prof  Dr  Atsushi Fukuda  Nihon University  JapanProf. Dr. Atsushi Fukuda, Nihon University, Japan

Dr. Tetsuhiro Ishizaka, Nihon University, Japan 

Mr. Hidenori Ikeshita, Nihon University, Japan, y, J p

Summary of PresentationSu a y o ese tat o

A. Potential BRT Projects for Metro ManilaB M th d lB. MethodologyC. Co‐Benefit Analysis of a Transport Project using IGES 

GuidelineGuidelineD. Application of Co‐Benefit Analysis to a proposed BRT 

ProjectE. Summary of Findings/Recommendations

426‐km of Bus Rapid Transit routes

Source:  USAID and NCTS Study

4 p

Estimated Total Cost is P55 Billion

Typical characteristics/design of proposed BRT linesyp / g p p

‐ segregated median busways with median stations, pre‐boarding fare collection and fare verification, free transfers gbetween corridors, competitively‐bid concessions, high‐frequency service and low‐station dwell times, clean bus t h l i   d  d l i t ti  technologies and modal integration 

Source: USAID and NCTS Studyy

C‐5 (SLEX–Commonwealth Ave.)

EDSA BinangonanEDSA‐Binangonan

Source: USAID and NCTS Study

Two Pilot Routes21‐km C‐5 (South Luzon Expressway – Commonwealth 5 ( p yAvenue in Quezon City) route24‐km Edsa – Binangonan (Rizal) route

No. of Stations16 stations (C‐5 BRT) Case Study Focused on 

C  BRT18 stations (Edsa‐Binangonan BRT)

Estimated Cost (per kilometer) in Construction

C‐5 BRT

Estimated Cost (per kilometer) in ConstructionP129.33 million (C‐5)P139.07 million (Edsa‐Binangonan)

Proposed C‐5 BRT (in EMME 3)

UP‐Diliman

SLEX

Table 5 Basic Service Characteristics of the Proposed C 5 BRT System

CharacteristicsCapacit Seating 100 F ll 200

Table 5 Basic Service Characteristics of the Proposed C-5 BRT System

Capacity Seating = 100, Full = 200Headway (min) 3

Average speed (kph) 20No. of Stops 15

Estimated length (km), one direction 20.59

Articulated busArticulated bus

Methodology T i  G tiTrip Generation

Trip DistributionFrom MMUTIS (1996) S d

p

Modal Split Analysis

Study

Traffic AssignmentYear

2010 No BRT Calibrated

h Wi h   BRT 

gTransit & auto assignments (EMME3)

2010 No BRT , Calibrated

2015 No BRT and With BRT

With BRT  Without  BRT 

Compare results and apply p pp yIGES Co‐benefit Guideline

• Travel time savings• Vehicle operation cost reductionVehicle operation cost reduction• Accident reduction• Reduce emission

• Used the MMUTIS (1996) Person‐Trips OD Matrix and its 

Table 1 Percent of Public and Private Daily Trip Estimates for Metro

estimates for design year 2010 and 2015 

Base Year Design Periods

y pManila, MMUTIS, 1996

1996 2010 2015Percent Public Trips 77.9 69.3 66.2Percent Private Trips 22.1 30.7 33.8

Table 2 Trip Generation Percent Growth Estimates for Metro Manila, MMUTIS, 1996

Base Year Design Periods1996 2010 2015

Percent Growth 1.00 1.62 1.84

Table 3 OD Trip Matrix Estimates

Year 2010 Total Daily OD Trips

Peak Hour OD Trips

Median Hour OD Trips

Public 27,021,338 3,391,233 1,153,695, , , , , ,Private 11,970,490 1,142,033 556,568Year 2015Public 29 317 998 3 679 313 1 251 803Public 29,317,998 3,679,313 1,251,803Private 14,969,010 1,427,984 695,967

Median Hour OD Trips – is the middle value of all hourly person trips in a day (24 hours)

Airconditioned City Bus Routes in MM Jeepney Routes  in MM (in EMME)

Trip‐ends estimate (2015) Person trips going towards Makati CBD (2015)

Limited calibration was done to obtain the results.

Segment travel times Zone to zone travel timesSegment travel times Zone to zone travel times

Auto assignment results (2015)

Transit Assignment Results

Estimated boardings and alightings Boardings/alightings along PUV routes

Estimated Boardings and Alightings along the Proposed C‐5 BRT

SLEX  to UP (Commonwealth) UP (Commonwealth) to SLEX

Table 7 Estimates of trip characteristics in Metro Manila

Daily EstimatePass-hr Pass-km

2010 (W/out BRT) Public 10 570 888 8 177 806 4482010 (W/out BRT) Public 10,570,888.8 177,806,4482015 (W/out BRT) Public 11,405,366.4 192,693,0482015(With BRT) Public 11,374,452 192,650,016Reduction 2015(W/out BRT – With BRT) 30914.4 43032Reduction 2015(W/out BRT With BRT) 30914.4 43032Reduction rate (W/out BRT – With BRT)/W/outBRT

0.27% 0.02%

Veh-hr Veh-km2010 (No BRT) Private+Public 2,503,185.6 48,995,4482015 (No BRT) Private+Public 3,563,637.6 61,720,9682015(With BRT) Private+Public 3,559,233.6 61,683,576Reduction 2015(W/out BRT – With BRT) 4404 37392Reduction rate (W/out BRT – With BRT)/W/outBRT

0.12% 0.06%

C B fit A l i f th P d C 5 BRT P j tCo‐Benefit Analysis of the Proposed C‐5 BRT Project Using IGES Guideline

1. Travel time savings2 Vehicle operating cost reduction2. Vehicle operating cost reduction3. Traffic accident cost reduction4 Cost of emissions4. Cost of emissions

f lEquation for Travel Time Savings

Vehicle Operating Cost Reduction

Estimating Emission Factors (Bangkok Estimates)

Air pollutants = travel distance (veh‐km) x emission factor at running speed (g/veh‐km) 

2015 2015 Reduction 

Results of Co‐Benefit Estimation in Metro Manila (unit; million PHP)

(Without BRT) (With BRT) (Without‐ With BRT)

Time Cost (PHP/year) 166,293.60 165,027.50 1,266.10

Vehicle Operating Cost 22 528 20 22 514 50 13 7

p g

(PHP/year)22,528.20 22,514.50 13.7

Loss by Traffic Accidents 

(PHP/year)70,494.00 70,444.50 49.5

( /y )

NOx (PHP/year) 284,306.10 284,080.00 226.1

CO (PHP/year) 791.7 785.7 6.1

PM (PHP/year) 471,306.20 468,452.20 2,854.10PM (PHP/year) 471,306.20 468,452.20 2,854.10

CO2 (PHP/year) 3,889.60 3,886.40 3.1

• the NOx, CO, and PM cost were estimated using the estimates of pollution costs for  New Delhi, India from the paper by A. Kumar Sen, et.al. (2010) titled, “ Estimating marginal external costs of transport in Delhi”g g p

Summary of Findings

• Demonstrated the applicability of the IGES Co‐benefitDemonstrated the applicability of the IGES Co benefit Guideline for a proposed transportation project (C‐5 BRT) in Metro Manila 

• Although, more studies (data and research information) are needed to get satisfactory resultsneeded to get satisfactory results

R d iRecommendations

• Need to update/recalibrate the MMUTIS OD Matrix done in 1996• Develop Philippine models for traffic accident estimation and cost as well as emission factors of unique vehicles in the country (i.e. jeepneys)• Put up a National transport database (NCTS as lead agency)• Need to re‐educate through training/workshop transport planners and engineers on the use of UTP softwares

Further Application of the IGES Guideline

• Estimate the impact of proposed BRT lines to the whole MM 

• BRT potential application to other cities in the Philippines (500,000 – 2,000,000 day time population)

• Estimate the impact of proposed BRT lines to the whole MM 

BRT potential routesroutes

Iloilo City

General Santos City

Cebu City Bacolod City

Acknowledgmentg

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial id d b h I i f Gl b l E isupport provided by the Institute for Global Environment 

Strategies (IGES) in the conduct of this study.

Thank you for listening!Thank you for listening!

THE ENDTHE END