Content uploaded by Ken Abante
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ken Abante on Oct 24, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation
and Monitoring System in the Philippines
A review of existing metrics and governance systems and recommendations to
accelerate the shift from vehicle-centered to people-centered approaches
Katreena Chang*, Daniel Joseph Benito^,
Kenneth Isaiah Ibasco Abante*^~, Reycel Hyacenth Bendana*^
* Move As One Coalition
^ WeSolve Foundation, Inc.
~ Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Ateneo de Manila University
Critical comments welcome via katreena.chang@gmail.com.
Abstract
One of the causes of the systemic shortage in public transport in the Philippines is that transport
and infrastructure agencies measure success based on the movement of vehicles and not of
people. Current success indicators emphasize the lengths of roads built and speeds of vehicles
on those roads, rather than the ability of the transport system to move people. This is despite
the National Transport Policy’s Vision of having a “safe, secure, reliable, efficient, integrated,
intermodal, affordable, cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, and people-oriented national
transport system that ensures improved quality of life of the people” (NEDA, 2020). To change
this system of measurement, we propose that agencies focus on a priority list of performance
indicators that focus on the quality of experience, quality of infrastructure, and the
socio-economic and environmental impacts of public and active transportation in the
Philippines.
We recommend the creation of a Local Transport Capacity Support Fund to fund the creation
of local transport and mobility offices and the strengthening of their monitoring and
evaluation capacity. This investment will cost around P200 million in the first year of
implementation and up to P20 billion in the sixth year to strengthen all local government units.
Key informant interviews highlight 1) the need for a clear repository of transportation data and
harmonization of data collection processes; 2) the lack of active transport data; 3) the reliance
on development assistance to fund data collection efforts; and 4) the lack of technical capacity
for government agencies to set up regular data operations. These challenges and issues point
to the need to establish a dedicated transportation institute leading the gathering, processing
and analysis of the outlined people-centric metrics, which is estimated to cost around P100
million for the first year. However, the following aspects should first be addressed before the
creation of the institute: delineation of work between local and national transport authorities,
determining the main agency of the institute, human resource and staffing requirements, and the
necessary mindset shift on transportation metrics. The report concludes with concrete feasible
short-term and long-term next steps to address the issues raised.
1 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Abstract 1
1. Research questions, methodology, scope, and limitations 4
2. Background on Philippine transport metrics 4
3. Current transport infrastructure success metrics in the Philippines 6
3.1. Government Indicators 6
3.2. Other publicly-available data 8
3.3. Local government involvement 10
4. Good practices from other transport institutions 10
5. What might the metrics framework of the Philippine transport system look like? 14
5.1. Goal-setting 14
5.2. Shift to People-Centric Mobility Principles 15
5.3. Prioritization 17
6. Starting point: highest-impact, lowest-effort metrics 17
7. People-centered transport metrics classified by implementability 23
8. Creating a transport institute towards the people-centered metrics agenda 25
8.1. Proposed model and initial structure 27
8.2. Considerations in establishing a transport institute 28
9. Creating a Local Transport Capacity Support Fund to fund the creation of local
transport and mobility offices 31
10. Action Plan towards people-centered mobility metrics (3, 6, 12+ month plan) 32
References 35
Annexes 37
Annex A. Move As One Coalition’s principles for people-centric mobility 37
Annex B. Structure of US Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
where the Bureau of Transportation Statistics is considered 38
Annex C. Departments of the Korean Institute of Transportation 39
Annex D. Budget for regular personnel of Transportation Institute 40
Annex E. Budget estimates for survey operations 42
2 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
About the Move As One Coalition
Move As One is a coalition of more than 140 organizations and 77,000 concerned citizens and
taxpayers advocating for safe, humane, and inclusive public transport and mobility in the
Philippines.
Our broad coalition includes transport workers, cyclists, health care workers, commuters rights
advocates, labor groups, persons with disability, road safety advocates, business groups, urban
planners, transport economists, academics, climate justice advocates, faith-based groups,
social accountability groups, youth groups, and student organizations.
Acknowledgments and Disclosures
This research is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Embassy in the Philippines with
implementing partner WeSolve and counterpart staff time from Move As One Coalition.
We thank Paula Apines and Hya Bendana of WeSolve for their program support and
collaboration. We thank Jaymie Reyes and Kevin Punzalan of the Netherlands Embassy in the
Philippines; Dr. Regin Regidor of the National Center for Transportation Studies; Dr. Gyeng Chul
Kim of the Daejeon Transportation Corporation; Dr. Varsolo Sunio of the Department of Science
and Technology; Dr. Robert Y. Siy, Jr, Toix Cerna, King Francis Ocampo, Sunny Sevilla of the
Move As One Coalition; Julia Nebrija and Benjamin de la Peña of Agile City Partners and the
Move As One Coalition; Patricia Mariano of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ); Jedd Ugay of AltMobility PH; Undersecretary for Road Transport
Mark Steven Pastor, Joemier Pontawe, Joyce Rivera, Eldon Joshua Dionisio, Joshua Joseph
Rodriguez, Patrick Santos, Ja Biscante, Martin Suarez, James Nolasco and Vianne Valiente of
the Department of Transportation; Michael Salalima of the Metro Manila Development Authority;
Leo Laroza of the Social Weather Stations; Ramon Dominic Nobleza of Naga; Jasper Jacildo of
Cagayan de Oro; and Anton Siy of Pasig Transport, for their valuable feedback and comments.
Any errors or fact or analysis are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors declare no
competing interests.
3 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
1. Research questions, methodology, scope, and limitations
One of the reasons for the systemic shortage in public transportation in the Philippines (Chang
et al, 2021) is that the State’s success metrics are centered on moving cars, and not people
(Suzara et al, 2021).
Through desk and policy reviews of surveys and frameworks, reviews of local and international
cases of transport institutions, and key informant interviews with local and international
transportation experts, we attempt to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the Philippines’ current transport success metrics?
2. What priority people- and nature-centered mobility and success metrics should the public
agencies collect, prioritized by effort and impact?
3. How might we organize our transport institutions to collect, analyze, and use these
transport and mobility success metrics to fulfill the vision of the National Transport
Policy?
The paper will focus on key national and local agencies and metrics and goal statements, based
on both international practice and our team’s assessment of the administrative feasibility and
political supportability of the success metrics.
Due to the scope of available data, the paper’s discussion is applicable mostly to metropolitan
cities such as Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, Metro Davao, Metro Iloilo-Guimaras, Metro Naga,
Metro Cagayan de Oro and the like, which have more developed public transportation systems
and stronger local government unit capabilities.
The paper will not be able to say what the actual targets should be, but the goal statements can
serve as a guide for local and national policymakers to set key performance targets for their
mobility and transport systems.
2. Background on Philippine transport metrics
The Philippine public transportation system is composed of public utility jeepneys (PUJ), public
utility buses (PUB), UV express vehicles (UVE), four major rail lines, tricycles, taxis, and other
informal transportation such as pedicabs and habal-habal. But the volume of trips of these
public utility vehicles (PUV) pales in comparison with the number of private vehicles on the road:
for instance, the average annual daily traffic of PUJs and PUBs together, as a fraction of the
total vehicular traffic volume in all major thoroughfares in Metro Manila, averaged just 5.2% from
2017-2020, compared to 51.3% for cars1(MMDA AADT). This is particularly problematic when
considering that the average people carried per vehicle also varies dramatically: only 1.6 people
to a car, compared to 8.8 people/PUJ and 34.2 people/PUB (JICA MUCEP, 2014). Vehicle
growth has also been observed to outpace available road space– Metro Manila’s vehicle density
1Excludes taxis but likely includes nondescript transport network vehicle service (TNVS)
4 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
has reached 1,895 vehicles per kilometer of road, compared to Singapore’s 230 vehicles/km
with a comparable density2(GIZ, 2018). This places Metro Manila among the worst traffic
congestion in the world: 2nd in 2019 and 4th in 2020 (TOMTOM Traffic Index), despite having
one of the strictest COVID-19 lockdowns in the world.
For decades, the operating framework for improving transportation has been to reduce vehicle
congestion and to make vehicles move faster. Success indicators for the Department of
Transportation (DOTr), the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)– responsible for
the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges, and the Metro Manila Development
Authority (MMDA)– which has traffic management as part of its mandate, are largely
vehicle-centric (Suzara et al, 2021). Similarly, a massive part of the annual national budget is
being poured into road works, but without parallel government investment in public
transportation systems to improve transport network planning and bolster public transport
supply on these same roads– from 2010 to 2021, road-based public transport budgets made up
only 1% of the P2.8 trillion road-based infrastructure budgets since 2010 (Suzara et al, 2021).
This presents a stark contrast to transportation systems in other cities around the world that flow
more smoothly–such as the Netherlands’ emphasis on cycling and walking, Seoul’s integrated
multi-modal transport system, and Jakarta’s centralized bus rapid transit system. All these highly
urbanized cities also used to be vehicle-centric. But these cities through a concerted effort to
improve transportation: moving people, goods, and services as efficiently as possible.
The vision for the Philippines’ mobility system is one that prioritizes people and makes
transportation always available and serviceable for anybody. The target is that, by 2030, we will
have a safe, environmentally-sustainable transportation system in the Philippines, one that
works for everyone and connects everyone to community and opportunity; that our roads put
people, active transport3and public transportation first; and people working in transportation
have dignity, receive living wages, social security, and benefits (Move As One Coalition). As
Gustavo Petro, former mayor of Bogotá, succinctly put it: “A developed country is not a place
where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation.”
It is important to note that this vision belongs not only to civil society, but is aligned to the
Philippine national government’s Transport Vision itself, which, as expressed in the National
Transport Policy (NTP) published by NEDA, is as such:
“the State’s Transport Vision is a safe, secure, reliable, efficient, integrated,
intermodal, affordable, cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, and
people-oriented national transport system that ensures improved quality of life of the
people”
3Active transport pertains to traveling by walking, cycling or other means of non-motorized transport such
as electric kick scooters.
2Metro Manila’s road density reached 1.67 km/km2in National roads and 6.01 km/km2in local roads,
Singapore’s road density is 5 km/km2(GIZ, 2018)
5 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
with clearly expressed goals below (emphasis added):
“...ensure effective and efficient inter-government coordination, local government
participation and stakeholders collaboration with the end in view of:
(a) Providing intermodal connectivity among transport infrastructures,
(b) Effecting good governance through streamlined transport regulations, rationalized
transport agency functions, policies aligned with government priorities and programs,
ensured adherence to safety standards and compliance with international
agreements,(c) Promoting green and people-oriented transport systems,
(d) Creating “new” economic growth centers outside of the country’s key cities for
inclusive growth through access improvement and support to tourism, agro-industry,
trade and logistics, and other economic sectors, and
(e) Promoting transport infrastructure investments.”
Clearly, the State recognizes the importance of a transportation system that is able to cater to
the needs and progress of all Filipinos, as well as the role that various government units must
play in order to make this Transport Vision happen.
The rest of this paper will explore 1) priority metrics that must be set as key performance
indicators for transport and transport-related agencies to achieve the Transport Vision; 2) the
establishment of a dedicated transport institute which will lead data gathering, processing and
analysis of priority metrics; and therefore, 3) the action items required from key players for both
the short and longer-term.
3. Current transport infrastructure success metrics in the Philippines
3.1. Government Indicators
Development of the transportation system in the Philippines is primarily reliant on three national
government agencies (NGAs): DOTr, which includes the Land Transport Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB), DPWH and MMDA (for Metro Manila). The transport and/or
road-infrastructure related success indicators of those agencies reported to the Commission on
Audit (COA) and published in the national budgets4, as compiled by Suzara et al (2021), are
outlined in Table 1 below. The collected metrics for these transport indicators are only required
to be published by agencies on an annual basis.
Table 1. Current national government transport indicators
Agency
Metric
DOTr - Motor
Vehicle
Regulatory
Program
No. of apprehensions for which a temporary operator's permit is issued and
complaints acted upon
4Specifically, the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and the National Expenditure Plan (NEP)
6 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Agency
Metric
% of Motor vehicle registration applications processed within the
reglementary period
% of driver's license and permits issued within the reglementary period
% reduction in average transaction time of driver's license issuance
% reduction in average transaction time of motor vehicle registration
% decrease in the number of apprehensions per major offense
DOTr - Land
Public
Transportation
Program
% increase in public transport vehicles modernized5
% increase in ridership of public transport service
% of certificate of public convenience/franchises applications
resolved/decided upon within the reglementary period
% of holders audited / monitored / penalized for non-compliance with the
terms and conditions of the franchise
No. of policies formulated, developed, implemented, updated, and
disseminated
DPWH
Achievement of “Fair condition” rating for Primary Roads as measured
using the International Roughness Index, and improvements in the
assessment
Reduction in travel time on primary roads
Increase in the national road network
Length of newly constructed roads and widened roads
Length and area of new and replacement constructed bridges
Projects completed under the local program
Projects completed and length of roads constructed under the convergence
and special support program
MMDA
Average time to resolve traffic obstructions along Metro Manila major
thoroughfares
Average travel speed on Metro Manila major thoroughfares
Number and percentage of traffic constables deployed at designated major
intersections and thoroughfares at all times
Percentage decrease in traffic related accidents along major thoroughfares
Percentage decrease of corruption reported in traffic operations
5Defined as “improved model year and use of environmentally-friendly fuel” (DOTr 2022 NEP)
7 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Agency
Metric
Percentage of reliability of traffic signal lights, countdown timers and
CCTVs
Percentage of traffic obstructions/accident reports responded to within 15
minutes
As can be seen above, a significant majority of the success indicators are directly related, and
relevant only to private vehicle owners, and are mostly connected to enforcement. Notably and
somewhat alarmingly, there are no metrics directly assessing the main actors of the mobility
system– especially those the transportation system exist to serve, e.g. the riders of public
transportation, the pedestrians, the cyclists, the carriers of goods and services, and the
transport workers– and their experience with and within the system.
3.2. Other publicly-available data
Other transport-related data published online by various agencies are listed in Table 2. These
do not currently feed into the transport success indicators of DOTr, DPWH and MMDA, but they
reveal data that can help identify baseline characteristics for the current state of the Philippine
transportation system especially from the perspective of the “users” of the system.
Table 2. Currently-available transport data published by national government agencies
Agency
Data Collected
Publishing Interval
Land Transportation Office
(LTO)
Motor Vehicle Registration
Monthly
MMDA
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT),
Metro Manila radial and circumferential
roads
Annual
Road crash and accident statistics
Annual
Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR)
Road-based revenue collections
Annual
Philippine Statistics Authority
(PSA)
Consumer Price Index for Road
Passenger Transport (further classified
into averages for all households and
the bottom 30% of households)
Monthly
Labor Force Survey/Employment data
for the “Transportation and Storage”
subsector6
Monthly
Gross Value Added for Road Transport
Monthly
6Not further broken down into, for example, bus conductors, PUJ drivers, etc
8 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Sector
% of Final Household Consumption
Expenditure for Transportation
Monthly
Beyond the tables above, Table 3 lists some very important data for transport planning that are
not included by government transport agencies in their performance targets, and often are not
even included in these transport agencies’ suite of regularly-collected data.
Good transport planning requires adequate information, and that information required must be
collected on a regular basis. Some key transport information in the Philippines, when actually
collected, is done on an ad hoc basis and not always refreshed in a timely manner. Further, it is
usually not even done by the government transport agencies themselves, with examples being:
a. When feasibility studies are commissioned for infrastructure flagship projects (and are
therefore limited to specific locations);
b. When population pulse surveys are commissioned; or
c. When capacitated non-government organizations (NGOs) conduct research in relation to
their advocacies.
Table 3. Non-regular transport data from non-transport NGA surveyors
Source
Data Point
Metro Manila Urban
Transportation Integration
Study Update and Capacity
Enhancement Project
(MUCEP)
Modal share in transportation (Metro Manila only)
Passenger trip data (number of passengers per transport
mode, distance traveled, time to travel)
Vehicle ownership by household
Mobility demand
Household spending on transport
Social Weather Stations
(SWS)
Commuting difficulty
Bicycle utilization and ownership
Preferences of Filipinos for direction of transportation system
development
Department of
Environmental and Natural
Resources (DENR)
Vehicular emissions and contribution to overall air pollution
Institute for Climate and
Sustainable Cities (ICSC)
Bicycle counts
9 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
The non-recurring nature of these collected data makes it difficult to do analysis for continuous
improvement for systems being developed and investments being made.
3.3. Local government involvement
The bulk of the data and analysis is made at the national level. While this is instrumental for
big-picture planning, the participation of local government units (LGUs) in local transport
planning and traffic enforcement must not be overlooked. At this level, there should be open
access to data, authority in data collection/analysis, and performance management.
4. Good practices from other transport institutions
How then might we go about assessing whether the vision has been achieved? What data
would need to be collected and measures analyzed to be able to monitor improvement in our
public transportation system? After all, identifying problems and evaluating solutions would be
supremely difficult without an organized system for data, monitoring and evaluation.
The Philippine Urban Mobility Programme (2020), developed by GIZ in collaboration with DOTr,
the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) among others, outlines objectives to be met in line
with developing “people-oriented cities empowered by efficient, dignified, and sustainable
mobility.” These have been further expanded to 14 targets in the PUMP data collection toolkit
and are summarized below:
Table 4. PUMP transportation targets
Social
Environmental
Economic
Improve road safety
Shift of private car users to
sustainable transport
solutions
Reduce national fuel
expenditure
Reduce road crashes and
fatalities
Reduce local air pollution
Decrease average time spent
in congestion or PT delays
Increase mass transit
availability for vulnerable
users
Decrease GHG emissions
per ton-km
Decrease percentage of
income spent on transport
Increase attractiveness of
active transport
Reduce GHG emissions from
PT
Increase attractiveness of
public transport
Reduce GHG emissions per
pkm
Improve transport system
resilience / decrease
10 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
disruptions
Another framework developed by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (US FTA) (2020) takes
an inside-out view with a four-tier approach to assessing mobility performance metrics, dividing
it between the primary impacts to: 1) the traveler and 2) the transportation system, followed by
secondary effects felt on 3) the city/regional level, and 4) the national level. The metrics are
further classified as addressing these transportation goals: customer satisfaction, time
effectiveness, cost effectiveness, reliability, accessibility, safety and impact to the surrounding
areas (e.g. job growth). The viability of each metric is then assessed by applicability (whether a
metric is already being widely measured/reported or more of an ideal future metric) and
feasibility (whether measurable by transit agencies or external partners and/or how much
additional investment would be needed).
The metrics ranked highest on the feasibility and applicability scales (currently measurable and
already widely measured), which would translate to easier implementability, are listed as follows:
Table 5. Selected US FTA mobility performance metrics7
Tier
Goal
Metric
Metric Description
Traveler
Customer
Satisfaction
Trip planning and
booking experience
Traveler satisfaction with trip planning
and booking process
Traveler
Time
effectiveness,
Availability
Wait time
Amount of time between end of trip
planning and beginning of trip
Traveler
Time
effectiveness
Total journey time
Wait time plus trip time plus connecting
time
Traveler
Availability
Option availability
Percent of times when planning a trip
that there is at least one trip option
available that fits within traveler time,
cost, and mode preferences
Traveler
Safety
Crime rate
Traveler
Safety
Crash rate, injury rate
System
Time
effectiveness,
Availability
Median wait time
7The Urban Mobility Indicators for Walking and Public Transport (UITP, Walk21, VBK) outlined similar
principles for its key metrics: A) comfort and safety, B) service demand (i.e. daily trips, modal share), C)
connecting destinations (i.e. access to public transport and jobs/opportunities), and D) support and
encouragement (e.g. information, affordability, availability and incentives for various transport options).
11 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
System
Time
effectiveness,
Reliability
Standard deviation of
wait time
System
Safety
Fatality or serious
injury per 100,000
trips
System
Safety
Incidence of crime per
100,000 trips
Regional/
National
Accessibility
Impact on accessibility
Regional
Cost
effectiveness
Budget spent on
transportation
Regional/
National
Safety
Incidence of fatalities
or serious injuries per
capita
Regional
Time
effectiveness
Reduction in trip times
per dollar spent on
transit
Sum of all trip times/sum of total
distance traveled/investment
Regional
Time
effectiveness
Investment-based trip
time reduction
Reduction in trip times per dollar spent
on transit (i.e., [Old trip times – New Trip
Times]/[total annual transit budget])
National
Time
effectiveness
Investment-based
commute time
reduction
Reduction in commute times per dollar
spent on transit (i.e., [Old commute
times – New commute Times]/[total
annual transit budget])
Todd Litman from the Victorian Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) of Canada, on the other hand,
has done deep dives into the implications of certain transport metrics/factors in transport
planning– more specifically, in planning for complete streets – “roads designed to accommodate
diverse modes, users and activities including walking, cycling, public transit, automobile, nearby
businesses and residents” (Litman, 2015). He discusses how metrics that may be widely
accepted as standard in conventional transport planning need to be re-evaluated when it comes
to comprehensive transport planning, from the metrics themselves to the granularity required
when doing monitoring and evaluation. For example, it is not sufficient to measure traffic
network connectivity on regional road network levels while ignoring connections between
modes, such as the ease of walking and biking to transit stations (Litman, 2021). Even important
overarching metrics like social equity and environmental impacts(e.g. for non-drivers,
pedestrians, cyclists, etc) are often overlooked. Transportation equity, in particular, necessitates
going beyond primary usual factors and metrics analyzed with respect to transport, and instead
looking at the questions and metrics described by Litman (2021) in Table 6:
Table 6. Litman’s Transportation Equity Analysis Summary
12 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Type
Description
Metrics
Optimization Strategies
Horizontal -
Fair Share
Each person receives
a fair share of public
resources
Per capita share of public
resources (money, road
space, etc)
Multimodal transport
planning. Least-cost
funding. Efficient pricing.
Horizontal -
External
Costs
Travelers minimize
and compensate for
external costs.
Infrastructure costs,
congestion, crash risk and
pollution that travelers
impose on other people.
Minimize and compensate
for external costs. Favor
resource-efficient modes.
Vertical -
Inclusivity
Transportation
systems provide
basic mobility to
disadvantaged
groups.
Quality of travel for
people with disabilities
and other special needs.
Disparities between
groups.
Favor inclusive modes
and accessible community
development.
Vertical -
Affordability
Lower-income
households can
afford basic mobility.
Transportation costs
relative to incomes.
Quality of affordable
modes.
Favor affordable modes
and housing in
high-access areas.
Social
Justice
Policies address
structural inequities.
Whether organizations
address inequities such
as racism and classism.
Identify and correct
structural inequities.
Affirmative action.
Litman (2011) also lists critical considerations for selecting sustainable transport indicators:
Table 7. Considerations for selecting sustainable transport indicators (VTPI)
Comprehensive
Indicators should reflect various economic, social and environmental
impacts, and various transport activities
Data quality
Ensure that information is accurate and consistent
Comparable
Standardized and clearly defined so the results are suitable for
comparison between various jurisdictions, times and groups
Easy to
understand
Useful to decision-makers and understandable to the general public. The
more information condensed into a single index the less meaning it has for
specific policy targets and the greater the likelihood of double counting
Accessible and
Transparent
Indicators, data and analysis details should be available to all stakeholders
Cost-effective
Decision-making worth of the indicators must outweigh the cost of
collecting them
Net Effects
Indicators should differentiate between net (total) impacts and shifts of
impacts to different locations and times
13 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Performance
Targets
Select indicators that are suitable for establishing usable performance
targets
All these together highlight the importance of identifying key performance metrics, and having
the data available on a regular basis to accurately assess those metrics, to enable thorough and
responsive transport planning and services both on national and local levels.
5. What might the metrics framework of the Philippine transport system look like?
To identify mobility metrics most urgently needed to be monitored and evaluated, as well as
most suited to the Philippine context, we ask ourselves the question: “what do we Filipinos
deserve in the transportation services we receive to have a dignified commute or transport
journey?” We do the selection considering the factors of:
● Alignment with the National Transport Policy
● Alignment with identified people-centric mobility principles
● Importance in transport policy-setting and planning
● Importance in assessing transport infrastructure investment priorities
5.1. Goal-setting
A good place to start when formulating performance metrics and data collection systems that
will feed into policy planning and operating standards would be to set goals for any investments
in the transportation system. What should the metrics work towards? What do the metrics need
to measure and how can they be integrated into a process that lends itself toward iterative
policy formation and improvement?
As a transportation system, at its core, exists to serve the people within its ecosystem, it is
important that goals be expressed from the standpoint of these end-users. How do changes
affect system service quality as experienced by the people using the system? What is the
service quality that these systems must ultimately aspire towards?
The natural next question then becomes, how can these expressions of ideal service quality be
digested into a form useful for policymakers– turned into metrics that can measure incremental
improvement and progress towards the ultimate goal? Simultaneously, how can these metrics
adequately and accurately capture what is being experienced by the general public on the
ground? Too often a mismatch is felt between the “successes” announced by policymakers and
implementers, vis-a-vis the actual users of the system.
What was described above is similar to the Transportation Performance Management (TPM)
approach adopted by US state DOTs. TPM is a “strategic approach to connect investment and
policy decisions to help achieve performance goals for the transportation system,” and a critical
aspect for follow through on those investment and policy decisions are the performance
measures: “indicators of progress toward attaining a goal, objective, or target (a desired level of
14 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
future performance)” (FDOT, 2021). Having performance goals in place eases the identification
of the correct metrics needed to assess progress towards that goal. An example on how to go
about it is:
1. Stating a mobility goal area. An example is creating multimodal options for commuters.
2. Stating measures for the goal area– percentages, ridership and trip figures, etc
3. Stating objectives for each measure– e.g. increasing the percentage by X
While the National Transport Policy does not go into the detail of providing specific targets,
based on its overall expressed vision of “a safe, secure, reliable, efficient, integrated,
intermodal, affordable, cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, and people-oriented
national transport system that ensures improved quality of life of the people,” all complying with
the country’s international commitments under treatises, conventions, and agreements relating
to or affecting transport infrastructure, as well as to international safety, security, and service
quality standards and inclusive practices, we outline a foundational set of goal statements to
realize this vision.
5.2. Shift to People-Centric Mobility Principles
Too often an aspect that is deprioritized in policy making and planning processes is the
heterogeneity of the population– whether from an income-class standpoint, from a physical
ability standpoint, or from an overall sectoral group standpoint. Different members of the
population have different priorities, necessities and motivations. To be able to account for those
distinctions, performance indicators must be developed with all end-user groups in mind and
with in-depth consultations with various stakeholders, bridging individual pain points to
system-wide goals.
The Move As One Coalition (2020 budget briefer) has identified 5 key principles for people- and
environment-centric indicators for reforms in the transportation system: accessibility, efficiency
and reliability, comfort, safety, and sustainability. Please refer to Annex A for the full list.
Section 3 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the National Transport Policy
outline similar standards (condensed for readability):
3.1 Effecting good governance in the transport sector [...]
3.1.5 Ensuring that the development, implementation, management, operation, and use
of transport infrastructure, facilities, and services adhere to applicable international safety,
security, and service quality standards and inclusive practices, [...]; and
3.1.6 Complying with the country’s international and regional commitments, [...] related to
human rights and road safety8.
3.2 Guaranteeing seamless connectivity among various transport modes and infrastructure [...]
8Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, Paris Agreement, 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals, ASEAN Integration, Brunei
Darussalam Indonesia-Malaysia Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area, International Maritime
Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, and World Health Organization and United Nations
15 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
3.3 Planning towards network optimization. Determine, on a qualitative manner, an optimal
network of highways, railways, seaports, airports and provide a system for measuring the
efficiency and weaknesses of such system on a regular basis;
3.4 Accelerating conversion to green, low-carbon or electric powered, resilient, and
people-oriented transport systems that are inclusive and prioritize public health and well-being;
3.5 Ensuring that all transport services and facilities follow the universal design concept and are
compliant with accessibility standards, such as Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 344; [...]
And again in Section 12 (Programs and Project Assessment):
The process for planning and project selection of transport agencies and LGUs shall be based on
the following criteria: [...]
12.9 Inclusive and People-Oriented Mobility. Inclusive mobility and accessibility shall be
achieved through the prioritization of people-mobility over vehicle-mobility. In line with global best
practices, public transport and shared transport modes will have priority in the use of public
assets, including roads of all kinds. In addition, provision for non-motorized or active transport,
such as walking and cycling, shall be incorporated in the design and implementation of transport
projects. Such should include transit-oriented development (TOD), prioritization of pedestrians,
and provision of support facilities that mainstream gender considerations. Active transport should
be promoted through the development of greenways, car-free zones, public open spaces,
sidewalks, bike lanes, and bicycle sharing services.
12.10 Universal Accessibility. All transport infrastructure should be designed and implemented
using the universal accessibility design concept and accessibility principle, in accordance with the
Accessibility Law (BP Blg. 344), the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277 as amended),
and Expanded Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2009 (RA 10028), and those promulgated or
issued by the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC), National Council on Disability Affairs
(NCDA), among others, to ensure inclusion of all possible users. [...]
12.12 Public Need and Social Acceptability. It is the responsibility of the government to
periodically assess public need and to ensure that public need is met. All programs and projects
must be formulated based on public need to ensure successful implementation, and thus public
acceptance and use of proposed transport infrastructure, facility, and/or service. Social
acceptance must be sought through the active involvement of stakeholders, especially women,
children, the elderly, physically challenged, and displaced persons. Programs and projects must
conform to applicable Gender and Development Guidelines, social safeguard policies, and laws
guaranteeing accessibility for persons with disabilities [...]
A critical variable to shift to people-centric mobility assessment would be to make an adjustment
on the fundamental unit of measurement: rather than focusing on vehicle-kilometers traveled or
improvements in vehicle speeds per kilometer, a shift to passenger-kilometers traveled, which
multiplies the distance traveled by a vehicle with the number of passengers it carried, would be
much better able to capture the ability of various transport modes to move people and not just
chunks of metal. This is recognized in Section 25 of the NTP IRR: “In addressing traffic
congestion and other related concerns, priority shall be given to cost-effective mobility
management measures over more expensive infrastructure facilities. In the re-design or
expansion of roads or the development of new roads, consideration will be given to
achieving higher throughput of people rather than vehicles.”
16 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
5.3. Prioritization
Finally, one important remaining consideration is the resource constraint: may all intended data
collection methods be executed all at once? Are there data collection system investments that
can be made that enable the collection of data addressing multiple concerns or criteria
simultaneously? While it is most certainly important to gain a holistic understanding of the entire
transportation ecosystem, prioritization is equally as important to be able to more readily
achieve stated targets.
Prioritization may be done across three general criteria: 1) the applicability of performance
measures toward the more central/key goals; 2) the feasibility of specified data collection
methods given existing and possible future resources; and 3) social equity and each sector’s
place in the evolving transport system.
Applicability towards key goals are fairly straightforward: planning agencies would typically
identify short-, medium- and long-term goals, and given the time horizon for each, and the
investments poured into each, baseline and evaluation data can be collected accordingly.
The US FTA’s framework brackets feasibility into four criteria:
Table 8. US FTA feasibility criteria for mobility performance metrics
High
Currently measurable by transit agencies or private partners
Moderate
Currently measurable with external data
Low
Currently not measurable, but would be measurable in the future with
insignificant to moderate additional effort
Infeasible
Currently not measurable and would be measurable in the future with
significant additional effort that would require policy and regulatory actions
Social equity may be assessed using elements from Litman’s transportation equity (2021)
principles; not applied to individual indicators per se but important to ensure that equity
considerations are among the prioritized metrics:
● Fair share: does each person receive a fair share of public resources? (e.g. road space)
● Inclusivity: are transportation systems able to provide basic mobility to disadvantaged
groups? Low income groups?
● Social justice: do policies address structural inequities?
What must be done away with is the tendency or the urge to default to the status quo; to rely on
existing evaluation methods and recording systems and only use those limited data to inform
transport planning. Transport planning is a constantly evolving process, requiring the willingness
and ability to quickly adapt and respond from decision-makers.
6. Starting point: highest-impact, lowest-effort metrics
17 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Based on all the principles outlined above, the metrics needed to properly evaluate, develop
and plan for the transportation system in the Philippines can be broadly clustered into three
brackets: 1) transport experience quality, 2) infrastructure quality, and 3) economic, social and
environmental sustainability. Goal statements are added to identify and indicate what constitutes
progress for a specific metric, while policy and planning applications guide how these metrics
can be acted on by transport planners, policy makers and implementing agencies to improve the
Philippine transportation network and system.
The list below is not exhaustive, as the use of “laundry lists” or when too many measures have
been introduced in too short a time frame have proved detrimental to progress (Kasoff, 2001).
Our goal is to start with a smaller number of priority indicators to focus efforts on then to iterate
and expand the list as progress and improvements are made. The metrics below are also best
adapted to provide more granularity when used by more localized levels of government– per
Basilica et. al (2001), “the structure of performance measurement systems appears to be most
effective when it is tiered from broader to more detailed measures for use at different
decision-making levels.”
For transport experience quality, metrics can be divided into transport user- and transport
system-centered metrics:
Table 9. Identified key performance metrics for transport experience quality
Transport Experience
Quality Metric
Goal Statement/s
Policy and Planning
Applications
User-centered
Commuter journey time:
Waiting time, travel time,
transfer time and last mile
time
X minutes travel time per km
X% of total journey spent
waiting, Y% on transfers, Z%
on last mile trip
Identifying gaps in the
end-to-end commuter
journey, rather than the more
traditional framework of just
the travel time component
(e.g. faster vehicle speed
along rationalized routes, but
added last mile and transfer
time for the commuter far
outweighs the improved
travel time)
Availability of transport
X% of population living within
Y minutes (walking time) of a
public transport stop/station
Identifying where additional
public transport routes and
stops are required and/or
building more affordable
housing along the public
transport network
Reliability of transport
No more than an average X
minutes of waiting at
Improving supply and
matching of public transport
18 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Transport Experience
Quality Metric
Goal Statement/s
Policy and Planning
Applications
transport stops before getting
a ride
X% of the population waits
for Y minutes or less to get a
ride
vehicles with mobility
demand; identifying where
dedicated stops are needed.
Awarding and allocation of
public transport routes should
be clearly responsive to
mobility needs along specific
transport corridors
Accessibility of transport
(especially for vulnerable
groups)
X% of roads with 3-star or
better iRAP safety rating9,
reassessed on a regular
basis
Identifying roads that need
improvement to align with
minimum road safety and
accessibility standards
Cost of transport
No more than X pesos per
day should be spent on
transport to and from work
X pesos per kilometer
traveled
Transport at most X% of
household final consumption
expenditure of bottom 30% of
households (as defined by
the PSA)
Determining the cause of
high transport expenditure
(e.g. distance from work,
compensating for high fuel
cost, limited available
options) and whether
transport subsidies are
required
Quality and commuter
satisfaction, evaluated using
annual surveys across
multiple transport modes:
X% of Filipinos choose public
transport because they have
confidence in the public
transportation system as
Identifying aspects of the
public transport experience
beyond speeds and travel
times that require
9The iRAP rating system “provides a simple and objective measure of the level of safety which is ‘built-in’
to the road for vehicle occupants, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians” (iRAP). A 3-star rating implies:
a. Pedestrians - sidewalk present, pedestrian refuge, street lighting, 50km/h traffic
b. Bicyclists - on-road cycle lane, good road surface, street lighting, 60km/h traffic
c. Motorcyclists - on-road motorcycle lane, undivided road, good road surface, >5m to any roadside
hazards, 90km/h traffic
d. Vehicle occupants - wide centerline separating oncoming vehicles, >5m to any roadside hazards,
100km/h traffic
19 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Transport Experience
Quality Metric
Goal Statement/s
Policy and Planning
Applications
-Safety (no harassment,
violence or injury)
-Comfort
-Cleanliness
-Dignity (no squeezing in to fit
in the vehicle)
opposed of having no other
choice
Public transport becomes a
better choice for majority of
private vehicle owners
improvement to make public
transport the default/preferred
transportation choice
Surveys should include public
transport support facilities as
well (transport stops, waiting
sheds, etc) and not just the
transport vehicle
System-centered
Modal split of
transportation per
passenger-km10, assessed
using [annual] surveys
More than X% of
passenger-km traveled is by
public transport modes
More than X% of
passenger-km traveled is by
active transport modes
Allowing transport agencies
and policy-makers to identify
underdeveloped modes of
transportation and to plan for
needed investments to
develop those modes further
Ratio of public and active
transport to private
transport trips on the road,
implementable by MMDA
including cyclists and
pedestrians in its regular
AADT counts
X% of daily trips is made
through public transport
X% of daily trips is made
through active transport
X% increase in daily trips
made using public or active
transport
Identifying dominant modes
of transportation along
specific travel corridors, and
by correlating them against
existing infrastructure along
those corridors, determining
further investments needed
Number of road crashes
which lead to injury and/or
fatalities by transport type
0 deaths or serious injury
Lowering speed limits to
30kph11 especially along
high-volume routes,
improving capacity of LGUs
to enforce road safety and
speed limits by establishing a
unified procedure for
recording road crashes by
local traffic enforcers and
closely linking road safety
operations to the health
system
Reduction in journey times
X% improvement in journey
Allowing transport agencies
11 Above 30 km/h impact speeds, pedestrians are at considerably greater risk of death. (UN Road Safety)
10 For the categories of: walking, cycling, other non-motorized transport, jeep, bus, UV, tricycle, private
car, train, others
20 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Transport Experience
Quality Metric
Goal Statement/s
Policy and Planning
Applications
and changes in modal
splits of transportation in
passenger-km12 attributable
to system investments or
interventions (per affected
area)
time (before and after)
X% change in share of public
transport/active transport
(depending on intervention)
and policy-makers to pilot
public/active transport
initiatives in certain areas and
replicate those that are
successful
For infrastructure, the objective would be to both transform existing motor vehicle-oriented road
infrastructure, as well as build new road infrastructure that are able to cater to the needs of all
road users. The relevant metrics will be as follows:
Table 10. Identified key performance metrics for transport infrastructure quality
Infrastructure Quality
Metric
Goal Statement
Policy and Planning
Applications
Availability of crossing
facilities (traffic lights,
at-grade crossings,
pedestrian islands)
X crossing facilities available
per road-kilometer
X% of intersections are
full-stop intersections (i.e. no
right turn on red)
X% of crossing facilities that
provide access to persons
with disabilities
Improving the safety of
streets for pedestrians,
particularly in school zones
and densely-populated areas
Walkability of streets
X% of streets with dedicated
and separated walking zone
and/or paths at least 2m wide
X% of streets with urban
shade/trees
X% of streets that do not
allow sidewalk parking
X number of pedestrian
obstacles removed per year
(e.g. posts, fences)
Establishing a standard for
streets to be built not just for
motor vehicles, but also for
pedestrians, commuters and
non-motorized transport
users as well
Bikeability of streets
X% of road network with
protected bicycle lanes
Identifying areas that require
more investment to improve
useability for cyclists and
12 For the categories of: walking, cycling, other non-motorized transport, jeep, bus, UV, tricycle, private
car, train, others
21 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Bike parking available per X
meters
X% of streets with LTS 2 or
below13
other non-motorized transport
users; as well as their comfort
levels for cycling in given
streets
Public transport availability
in roads
X% of road network serviced
by public transport options
X public transport serving
facilities built per year
(transport stops, waiting
sheds, curbs, etc)
Identifying areas that require
more public transport supply
and/or additional routes
Efficient use of land space
for transportation
X square meters of land
space dedicated to parking
Identifying areas where land
space can be used more
efficiently (e.g. building
housing closer to work)
For socio-economic and environmental sustainability, we look at the financial impact to the
transport user, and at the system return on road and passenger transport infrastructure
investments, in terms of both impact to travel times and air pollution, as opposed to incurred
costs:
Table 11. Identified key performance metrics for socio-economic and environmental
sustainability
Socio-Economic and
Environmental
Sustainability Metric
Goal statement
Policy and Planning
Applications
Humane labor conditions
and just compensation for
workers in the transport
industry
X% of transport workers work
no more than 10 hours daily
and receive a compensation
no less than the minimum
wage of the area of service
for the first 8 hours and
overtime pay for the next 2
hours
X% of transport workers with
social security and health
benefits
Improving the labor
conditions of the core
providers of our transport
services and ensuring that
they are humanely treated,
justly compensated, and
given adequate protection
services by the system
Road passenger transport
investment
Budget for public road
Improving allocations for
13 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) “quantifies the amount of discomfort that people feel when they bicycle
close to traffic” based on attributes such as “traffic speed, traffic volume, number of lanes, frequency of
parking turnover, ease of intersection crossings and others” (Montgomery County)
22 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
passenger transport is X% of
GDP
X% of public road passenger
transport investments funded
by government
X% ratio of public road
passenger transport to road
infrastructure budget
X% ratio of public road
passenger transport to road
infrastructure actual
expenditure
infrastructure investment, as
well as implementation of
planned activities
GHG emissions14 of road
passenger transport
X% decrease year on year
X percentage points
decrease in % share of all
emissions
Determining key reforms
needed to reduce emissions,
especially from the transport
sector
Cost of lack of public/active
transport investment per
capita (in terms of time lost,
health, social and economic
implications)
X% decrease year on year
Identifying and acting on
linkages of the transportation
system with the broader
economy over the long-term
7. People-centered transport metrics classified by implementability
The starting list of the metrics enumerated above may be divided into three categories in terms
of execution: low-hanging fruits, surveys, and assessment of experts or trained personnel.
1. Low-hanging fruits. This set of metrics can be easily integrated in ongoing data
collection, or are currently collected but need standardization or refinements in process.
a. Cost of transport. PSA currently collects the amount spent by households for
transportation through the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES)
conducted every three years. A complementary survey can be conducted yearly
in between FIES release years.
b. Ratio of public and active transport to private transport trips on the road. MMDA
currently collects data on pedestrians as a basis for where they put an overpass.
They also started counting bicycle use for selected areas in 2021. The challenge
would be to sustain such efforts and implement the same program to other areas
inside and outside Metro Manila.
c. Accessibility of transport. DPWH and DOTR staff already had training on iRAP.
14 Calculated as mileage per vehicle category & fuel type * annual fuel consumption per vehicle category
& fuel type * emission factor of fuel
23 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
d. Number of road crashes. Data is currently collected by Philippine National Police.
However, standards need to be established, which is discussed further in the
next section. The PUMP tool kit also recommends the use of social media or
twitter stream data for road crash incidents, utilizing event detection techniques.
e. Public transport availability on roads. LGU competitiveness data has a portion on
public transportation which includes yearly counts of the number of public utility
vehicles. This can be improved by increasing frequency or recording average
percentage public transport covers throughout the day and week.
2. Surveys. This set of new metrics can be conducted by asking a sample of the
population. One key concern with surveys is the amount of resources and effort it
requires; hence, implementers should be discerning on the frequency and scope of
survey.
a. This subset of indicators can be collected in one survey annually.
i. Modal split of transportation per passenger-km.
ii. Quality and customer satisfaction
b. This subset should be collected at least more than once a year. For this subset,
there are also alternatives that can be considered by implementers without the
need of going through a survey.
i. Commuter journey time
ii. Reliability of transport
Travel time can be automatically collected if an automated fare collection system
is established. Another alternative is to ask a team to go to points A and B and
record their journey times. Data should also be collected during peak hours and
non peak-hours as journey time varies over different points of the day.
Meanwhile, The Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction Program also
offers alternative means of data collection. It requires employment centers with
more than 100 employees to regularly report on the mode shares of their
workers.15
3. Assessments of experts or trained personnel. This set of new metrics requires some
expertise or specialized training to be collected or estimated.
a. Availability of transport. A team of experts on geographic information systems
can be asked to estimate and analyze this metric.
b. GHG emissions of road passenger transport
c. Cost of lack of public/active transport investment per capita. Econometricians can
estimate this using data on journey time and reliable assumptions on costs.
In the way DPWH has a road and bridges inventory based on conditions, a similar
evaluation may be done for streets. Definitions and standards should be set for tracking
the following indicators.
15 Visit here for more info.
24 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
d. Walkability of streets
e. Wheelchair-ability of sidewalks and crossings
f. Bikeability of streets
g. Availability of crossing facilities per road km
h. Navigability/legibility of public transportation system
i. Ease and access to information when walking and cycling
Using FTA’s feasibility criteria, the low-hanging fruits fall under the high and moderate, while
categories 2 and 3 fall under the low. Thus, all those include the starting list of people- and
environment-centric metrics are feasible to be gathered.
8. Creating a transport institute towards the people-centered metrics agenda
Since indicators falling under the second and third categories are new or have not been
regularly collected yet, the question of who would conduct collection, estimation, and analysis of
these metrics should be addressed. While we can point to various existing groups as
candidates, transportation experts and practitioners all agreed on the need for a separate unit
leading the data collection, processing and analysis of people-centered and transportation
metrics. Currently data collection and analysis functions in agencies are scattered across the
bureaucracy. The dedicated unit does not need to do all data collection, but there should be a
focal group that integrates all related efforts. The following needs and issues highlighted across
our interviews provide a case for establishing a dedicated transport institute.
1. Need for a clear repository of transportation data and harmonization of data
collection processes. Different agencies conduct their own transport-related data
collection. This poses a challenge in doing comprehensive analysis as researchers or
policy makers may not be fully aware of the data available, or where to find their
transportation data needs. Having a dedicated unit on transportation metrics allows
easier mapping and consolidation of these scattered data.
Standard definitions of certain variables should also be established and disjointed
systems of data collection should be harmonized. For instance, interviews with LGU
representatives highlighted data quality issues on road safety data. Some victims of
accidents rushed to hospitals are not reported in police records, while minor accidents
do not get reported as victims find it a hassle to go to police and report. Hence, the
number of road crashes are often understated. Moreover, even the data of LGUs and
local PNPs do not necessarily match and some records are just in a logbook making
further analysis difficult. These all highlight the need to standardize the recording
process and establish data sharing protocols between PNP, LGU and health institutions.
Quality of data can also be improved by breaking down incidence – are the victims
PWDs? Senior citizens? – as this shall motivate other kinds of conversations around
road safety.
25 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
2. Lack of active transport data. As highlighted in the list of metrics, active transport data
is critical in paving the path towards a national transport system that is affordable,
environmentally sustainable, and people-oriented. The proposed institute could be
instrumental in lobbying and institutionalizing active transport metrics across the
bureaucracy. On one hand, there are emerging bright spots to address the lack of active
transport data, such as the recent SWS survey on bike ownership and use. Another
example is the case of Naga where they implement bike registration. The data and funds
they collected from bike registrations are used to offer better infrastructure and services
to the cyclists. Citizens were motivated to register due to incentives they get when they
register.
3. Reliance on development assistance for data, and need for more dynamic
transportation data. A significant number of important transportation data we currently
know of were collected through projects that were funded by grants or international
partners. However, the data eventually needs to be updated to better inform projections
and transport planning.
Establishing an institute serves a milestone towards being less dependent on grants or
other development assistance to collect data that should be regularly collected. For
instance, MMDA measures only average annual daily traffic along major roads, without
counting how many people are in those vehicles. The Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) has previously measured the passenger-km traveled in certain transport
corridors in Metro Manila through the Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration
Study (MMUTIS) and the MMUTIS Update and Capacity Enhancement Project, but
these are not regularly updated. Filipino experts interviewed have also agreed that the
country needs to be better capacitated to vet proposals of external partners or grants, as
assumptions used in the proposals are sometimes optimistic and not reflective of actual
dynamics for the Philippines.
The current discussions on the shift from vehicle-centric to people- and
environment-centered metrics suggests that relevance of performance measures may
evolve over time. A key factor of this change is the changes in goals as the nation's
transportation system continues to improve. For instance, setting up bollards may be
enough for initial establishment of protected bike lanes. As active transport infrastructure
evolves, the next step is that bike lanes should be to build elevated and separated paths
from main roads which would need a different monitoring. Thus, the institute can aid in
navigating amid further developments in the transportation metrics landscape.
4. Overloading of tasks and lack of technical capacity. DOTr has shared that they
currently have dedicated staff working on active transport advocacy. They have also
procured cameras and sensors to help in counting cyclists and pedestrians. However,
they expressed challenges to collect data on top of other policy work and projects.
Similar situations can be observed in local governments interviewed. They may have an
26 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
ad hoc team managing data collection, but members continue to perform other roles and
responsibilities. If metrics collection and analysis are added to the current workload of
existing groups, there is a risk that it will not be implemented properly given other
priorities and current mandates. DOTr acknowledges the need to monitor
people-centered transportation data, but they lack the time and resources for regular
data collection. Moreover, it requires a skill set different from their current tasks. As
highlighted also in the previous item, we also need to develop homegrown monitoring
and evaluation experts to minimize the dependence on technical grants or international
projects for data.
8.1. Proposed model and initial structure
The transportation institute should be set up as an attached agency which regularly reports to
an executive department, but has some degree of independence from the department where it
is attached to. Moreover, it can be free from interference of its mother agency in terms of
appointments. Thus, it can provide more objective insights and recommendations from the units
implementing transport policies, and better lobby and plan for continuity of policies which is
often challenged by changing leadership in every administration.
Figure 12. Proposed initial structure of transportation institute
The proposed initial structure of the institute covers three main functions:
a. standardization and harmonization of data collection and processing across the
bureaucracy to ensure quality data;
b. establishing information systems needed for automated, timely and efficient collection;
and
c. conducting analysis and research on the collected data.
d. providing capacity building or trainings to build the next generation of transportation
planners
27 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Each of the functions above may have 1-2 teams depending on the final set of priorities and
number of data the initial team will handle. The institute shall be headed by an Executive
Director, with a rank of Undersecretary.
Annexes B and C show sample structures of 1) Korea Transport Institute (KOTI) and 2)
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology where the US Bureau of Transportation
statistics is subsumed. Both of these structures do not have an explicit IT group; however for the
initial proposed structure, we deem it necessary to have a new separate IT team. This is to
ensure that the new systems catering to new surveys and assessments will not be
overshadowed by other priority projects. On the other hand, as these new systems stabilize, this
group and the team handling standards and processing may eventually become smaller, while
the team conducting analysis and research should eventually grow. As seen in the structure of
KOTI, they have different groups for each of the transport sectors and other developing areas
like big data.
8.2. Considerations in establishing a transport institute
Prior to establishing a dedicated transportation institute, the following should be considered:
1. Nexus between national and local transport authorities. The institute can be housed
in one of the national agencies, but it can ask local authorities to submit data as some
indicators can be more efficiently gathered by local government units. What data should
be collected by national and local units should be identified.
The case of South Korea provides a good example of this clear delineation of work
between the national government and the local government. National agency provides
policies and general guidelines, but implementation is done by local government units.
See box articles below for additional info on South Korea’s transportation policies and
direction.
A critical step in the identification is a more thorough review of what the LGU currently
records to serve as baseline, and identification of scalable good practices of certain
LGUs. For instance, the Local Public Transport Route Plan prescribes a boarding and
alighting survey and license plate survey. Experiences with the mobility awards also
helped clarify what kinds of data LGUs should be collecting to help improve mobility
situations in their locality. LGU representatives interviewed also suggested inclusion of
more people-centered transportation indicators in the Seal of Good Local Governance
and the Local Competitiveness Index to push LGUs to regularly collect people-centered
transportation metrics.
Kasoff (2001) also pointed out that strategic and policy implications and technical
processes need some degree of central direction, but performance measurement must
also be somehow decentralized to be ingrained in regular business operations and
facilitate ownership of business units. This also highlights the need to onboard
28 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
stakeholders within the government to embrace the need for more people-centric
transportation data. They should understand its value rather than see it as a burden or
add-on task. Moreover, concentrating all data collection with a single focal unit can be
overwhelming and leads to bottlenecks and delays of appropriate action. .
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box article: Case of South Korea
South Korea’s national government (NG) focuses on how its transportation system can
be competitive against other countries. It sets general policies and guidelines, but the
subnational units are responsible for the planning, execution, monitoring and evaluation
of their own transport system in line with the NG’s direction. Local governments also
develop manuals to operationalize general policies set. In addition, the local government
focuses more on the “daily-life” travels of their constituents as they are more
knowledgeable of the distinct needs of their area, meanwhile NG is in charge of long
distance travels.
South Korea has strong government owned and controlled corporations that will soon
consider multi-integrated mobility. For instance, Daejuan Mobility corporation used to be
focused on railways, but it will now expand to cover other modes. South Korea has good
data on the modal split of transportation. They know which cities have higher
transportation for certain modes, and higher public transport versus private. They have
also been exploring data collection from alternative sources such as mobile phone data.
They also established the Korean Transportation Institute, a think tank that conducts
transport research which greatly feeds in their policy making. KOTI is home to numerous
masters and doctorate graduates in transportation studies. They comprehensively
research on different subsectors of transportation such as road, private highways, rail,
logistics, aviation, as seen in their structure (See Annex C). Committed to its mission of
“positioning itself as one of the world's leading transport research institutions”, KOTI has
distinct departments that aptly responds to today’s fourth industrial revolution - Dept. of
Transport Big Data, with the following subunits: Center for Korea Transport Database
(KTDB), Division for AI and Big Data Platform, Division for Mobility Big Data Analysis,
and Dept. of Mobility Transformation which aims to lead future national transportation
policy and has the following subunits: Division for Mobility Transformation Strategy,
Center for Smart City and Transport, Center for Future Vehicles, Center for Connected
and Automated Driving Research.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Mother agency and similar institutions. The Department of Transportation (DOTr),
given its mandate of “[providing] the country with efficient, effective, and secure
transportation systems that are globally competitive, compliant with international
standards, and responsive to the changing times, ” is the most intuitive answer to where
the transport institute should be attached to. However, there are issues of possible
29 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
overlaps on functions and scope with the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), who has jurisdiction over building and managing road and bridge networks,
and other agencies. There can be possible difficulties in demanding certain information
as they are separate agencies. Another barrier with DOTr is that they have no regional
offices, which may pose challenges on consolidating data from local transport networks.
Key informants also raised the idea of the National Economic Development Authority
(NEDA) as an agency where the institute can be housed. In Todd Litmans’ Measuring
Transportation, he concludes that “The ultimate goal of most transportation is “access,”
people’s ability to reach desired goods, services and activities.” This ‘access’ relates
well to greater productivity and wellbeing which is a concern of NEDA as a
socioeconomic planning body. Moreover, as an oversight agency, it has more authority in
requesting information from implementing agencies like DOTr and DPWH addressing
possible conflicts in the two agencies. NEDA also may be motivated to gather
people-centered metrics as inputs to in their evaluation of big ticket transport projects
under the Investment Coordination Council (ICC), and creation of Philippine
Development Plan. NEDA’s attached agencies - Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and
Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS) have institutional background and
skill sets critical in establishment of such institutes.
During one of the workshops of the Conference on Performance Measures to
Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, it was highlighted that:
“Too often, measures lack a link to a clear decision structure.”
Thus, we still recommend having DOTr over NEDA as the mother agency to ensure
closer linkage between metrics, and decision & transport policy instruments. For NEDA’s
case, the feedback mechanism from metrics to policy may be more difficult to
operationalize as it is more of an oversight agency and does not have clear policy levers
connected to the metrics except for evaluation of big ticket transportation projects.
Two government institutions could have overlapping functions with the proposed institute
- National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) and Philippine Railway Institute
(PRI). NCTS conducts various transport research and training on road safety, traffic
administration and management, to name a few. NCTS also used to maintain a library of
all transportation studies before. Thus, similar to UP’s College of Law which is mandated
to collect all resolutions and cases, a law may also designate the institute to collect all
transportation studies and pertinent data. Meanwhile, PRI is currently more focused on
capacity building, and human resource development for the rail sector. These two
institutions may be eventually merged with the proposed units of the transportation
institute conducting policy research and capacity building. .
3. Human resource and staffing requirements. The new institute requires additional
budget line items for regular personnel. We estimate an annual budget of Php 50 to 100
million for the institute’s personnel salaries and benefits considering the initial structure
30 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
with administrative support (see Annex D for assumptions and computations).This does
not yet include project based hires for certain data collection.
For the new surveys on modal split of transportation per passenger-km, journey time and
quality and customer satisfaction, we estimate Php 1.4 to 2.6 million budget for a pilot
run in Metro Manila (see annex E for assumptions and computations). The budget
consists of Php 625 to 939 thousand for personnel cost, while another Php 788
thousand to 1.69 million for an initial investment on tablets and software development.
A trial run may also be conducted through surveys from volunteer respondents via online
poll. The trial shall be less costly and can provide an overview of what the data may look
like and inform implementers how to improve questions and process.
To complement human resource needs, the institute may partner with academic
institutions, especially with state universities and colleges to collect data and produce
relevant transport research. For instance, in Cagayan De Oro city, a group of students
studied which overpass was used least in the city. Meanwhile, in Naga, academics
conducted user-experience research of cycling in the city. This has motivated students to
conduct more research on transport; hence, partnerships with academe can also provide
opportunities to hone the next generation of transport planners and, to an extent,
address issues on lack of technical capacity.
Apart from additional personnel, infrastructures such as storage and high computing
machines are also needed. Initial procurement must also be commensurate with the
technical capacity of hired staff and current data processes and level of initial data
acquisition and information technology (Kasoff, 2001). Reasonable modest budget
proposals can increase likelihood of approval while large investments at the onset may
lead to unmet expectations and difficulty to defend proposed amounts for the next
budget cycles. Alternative sources of data such as from social media and applications
like Grab and Angkas should be considered to help minimize possible cost on data
gathering.
4. Mindsets accustomed to traditional metrics. A recurrent theme across interviews is
the paradigm shift that has to happen in agencies involved in transportation systems.
What they currently view as important as reflected in their key measures should be
revisited or expanded. From vehicle-centric measures, greater importance should be put
on people- and environment-centric metrics. A concrete step to help facilitate this shift is
to change key performance indicators used as a basis in budgets.
9. Creating a Local Transport Capacity Support Fund to fund the creation of local
transport and mobility offices
We recommend the creation of a Local Transport Capacity Support Fund to support local
governments in the creation of their local transport and mobility offices, and the strengthening of
their capacity to collect and report transport success indicators. Inspired by the Local
31 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Government Support Fund, the fund can be administered by the Department of Transportation
(DOTr), National Transport Institute, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and the
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).
The pilot for the Local Transport Capacity Support Fund will cost P202.3 million in the first year
of implementation, with 1% of municipalities, cities, and provinces targeted to be assisted to
build their local transport and mobility offices and their metrics capacity. In the sixth and final
year of implementation, the budget will increase to P20.2 billion assuming 100% of
municipalities, cities, and provinces avail of the support fund.
Table 12. Budget estimates for the Local Transport Capacity Support Fund
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Local government
number
grant amount
1%
5%
20%
50%
75%
100%
Municipality
1488
10,000,000
148,800,000
744,000,000
2,976,000,000
7,440,000,000
11,160,000,000
14,880,000,000
City
146
20,000,000
29,200,000
146,000,000
584,000,000
1,460,000,000
2,190,000,000
2,920,000,000
Province
81
30,000,000
24,300,000
121,500,000
486,000,000
1,215,000,000
1,822,500,000
2,430,000,000
202,300,000
1,011,500,000
4,046,000,000
10,115,000,000
15,172,500,000
20,230,000,000
Metrics collection and analysis often experience the first cut in budgets; thus, there is a need to
showcase the value of gathering these metrics (Basilica et. al, 2001). One way to prove its
significance is to illustrate how metrics can improve transportation infrastructure designs and
lead to more desired outcomes such as less fatalities, less carbon emissions or increased public
satisfaction. Infrastructure designs more informed by metrics may also lead to cost savings to
compensate for investments made to collect metrics. Other jurisdictions’ experience also shows
that publishing sustainable transportation metrics motivates engagement between agency staff
and stakeholders. They “engage in a much richer conversation about the trade-offs among
policy and investment decisions and the best opportunities for their region or state to reach its
sustainability goals.” (EPA, 2011)
Jennfier Finch of Colorado Department of Transportation excellently expressed the rationale
behind the need to shift to more people-centered metrics and its promising effect.
“Our task in the whole field of performance indicators is to understand what our societies
want and to develop vehicles through which we can measure, monitor, and evaluate, so
that we can be responsive. If we do that and allow the entire field of performance
indicators to truly humanize us, then bureaucracies themselves will evolve.”
10. Action Plan towards people-centered mobility metrics (3, 6, 12+ month plan)
To accelerate planning and enacting reforms toward structurally addressing the transportation
issues that have long plagued the Filipino population, we call on the relevant government
agencies to promptly consider and implement the suggestions below:
32 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
We recommend that, in the first three months:
1. DOTr assign 1-2 staff members to work with the TWG on Transport Statistics to:
a. Collate all the available public transport data and manage a real-time, up-to-date,
publicly accessible Public Transport Data Bank, from the following databases:
i. LGU local competitiveness data
ii. PSA economic data on transport
iii. PSA labor force data on transport
iv. DPWH data on physical infrastructure
v. LTFRB public transport route data
vi. Road crash and traffic obstruction data: MMDA twitter
vii. LRT availability data: Twitter
viii. Secondary data: Grab, Google mobility, Sakay.ph
b. Create a full inventory of the priority indicators in Tables 9-11.
2. Survey firms like the Social Weather Stations incorporate public and active transport
confidence and satisfaction questions in their regular surveys, such as the questions
here and here
We further recommend that, in the next 6 months:
3. Technical and financing facilities are set up to support LGUs’s establishment of transport
offices described in item 2 to assist the LGUs in their data collection and submission of
LTPRP. Possible sources include Local government support fund, DOST, DOTr.
4. Local government units, especially in Metro cities, build active transport offices and
public transport offices that will at the very least:
a. count public transport, vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists along local roads, using
the MMDA count as a guide;
b. purchase and maintain counting equipment; and
c. establish an iterative operational process that will allow quick responding towards
the findings of mobility data collected under their jurisdictions (whether through
self-collected data or those shared by national government agencies)
5. MMDA automates pedestrian and cycling counts and increases frequency of data
collection and publishing of results.
6. The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) incorporates the following
governance and commuter-centered indicators from Tables 9-11 in the Seal of Good
Local Governance and the Local Competitiveness Index:
a. Road safety and speed enforcement
b. Number of road crashes
c. Availability of transport
d. Reliability of transport
e. Quality and commuter satisfaction with transport
f. Walkability of streets
g. Bikeability of streets
33 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
7. The executive branch of government signs an Executive Order creating the DOTr
Transport Institute, a fully staffed office, which one of the major functions is to build this
public transport data infrastructure and research system, replacing the one or two staff.
And finally, we recommend that, in the next year or so:
8. The transportation institute is established, and the public transport research agenda is
designed with consensus built from the likes of multilaterals, academics, civil society,
government development institutions and NEDA (with input from the Regional
Development Councils). This will have the goal of producing actionable proposals which
clearly indicate the government agencies ultimately responsible for implementation
a. Such research may include an evaluation of the Philippines’ franchising system
for public utility vehicles and ways this may be improved with input from local
government units (and their transport offices) and the data collected by the
transport institute
9. A law is passed clarifying the public transport split between local and national
government in transport (e.g. creating metropolitan transport agencies and corporations,
including their data collection initiatives, and setting each party’s responsibilities and
obligations to the Filipino riding public)
34 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
References
Colorado Department of Transportation (2021). Statewide Transportation Plan: Appendix G -
Performance Measures
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (2018). An Inventory
and Assessment of National Urban Mobility in the Philippines.
https://www.changing-transport.org/wp-content/uploads/E_K_NUMP-Inventory-and-Assessment
_Philippines_2018_EN.pdf
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (2020). Philippine Urban
Mobility Programme: Towards people-first cities empowered by efficient, dignified, and
sustainable mobility.
https://www.changing-transport.org/wp-content/uploads/2020_Philippine_Urban_Mobility_Progr
amme.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011). Guide to Sustainable Transportation
Performance Measures.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) (2021). Transportation Performance Management
(TPM). https://fdotewp1.dot.state.fl.us/fmsupportapps/Documents/federal/stip/fdot-tpm.pdf
Hal Kassoff (2001). Implementing Performance Measurement in Transportation. Performance
Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations: Conference Report.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (2015). MMUTIS Update and Enhancement Project
(MUCEP), Technical Report: Transportation Demand Characteristics Based on MUCEP Person
Trip Survey.
Jennifer Finch (2001). Integrating Performance Measures into Management Systems.
Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations:
Conference Report.
John Basilica, et. al (2001). Workshop summary for linking performance measures with Decision
Making. Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations:
Conference Report.
Korea Transport Institute.
https://english.koti.re.kr/ENGLmain/ENGLintrcn/ENGLdeptGuidance.jsp
Metro Manila Development Authority. Reports on Annual Average Daily Traffic.
https://mmda.gov.ph/2-uncategorised/3345-freedom-of-information-foi.html
35 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
National Economic and Development Authority (2020). National Transport Policy and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations.
https://neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NTP-IRR-Final.pdf
Todd Litman (2011). Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport
Planning. https://www.vtpi.org/sus_tran_ind.pdf
Todd Litman (2011). Measuring Transportation:Traffic, Mobility, Accessibility.
https://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf
Todd Litman (2015). Evaluating Complete Streets: The Value of Designing Roads For Diverse
Modes, Users and Activities. https://www.vtpi.org/compstr.pdf
Todd Litman (2021). Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-Modal Transport Evaluation.
https://www.vtpi.org/comp_evaluation.pdf
TomTom Traffic Index. Manila traffic. https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/manila-traffic/
US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (2020). Mobility Performance Metrics (MPM) for
Integrated Mobility and Beyond.
United Nations (2021). Streets for Life: #Love 30, Evidence to tackle misconceptions.
Urban Agenda for the EU, et al. Urban Mobility Indicators for Walking and Public Transport.
Zy-za Nadine Suzara, et al. (2021). Move People, Not Just Cars: Correcting the systemic
underfunding in national road-based public transport in the Philippines from 2010 - 2021.
36 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Annexes
Annex A. Move As One Coalition’s principles for people-centric mobility
Principle 1. Accessibility
● Public transport services and stops are reachable by walking.
● Public transport services (vehicles and stops/stations/terminals) are easily accessible to all persons
regardless of age, sex, gender, and ability. PUVs and their routes are easily identifiable (number and/or color
codes), have ramps, low floor entry, wheelchair space, priority seating, audio announcement systems,
at-grade crosswalks, and tactile pavings.
● Wide, well-designed, unobstructed, and interconnected walking and cycling paths are accessible from any
PUV stop, station, or terminal, and are adequately provided with bike racks and repair stations (with tools).
● Public transport services are available 24 hours every day.
Principle 2. Efficiency and reliability
● PUV services arrive according to schedule and travel at an average speed of at least 15 kph. Commuters
do not wait for more than 10 minutes at stops/stations before boarding.
● Public transport systems are interconnected. Commuters do not make more than 2 transfers and don’t have
to walk for more than 5 minutes to reach a PUV stop or station.
● Public transport services do not break down. In cases of breakdowns, rescue services and emergency
response arrive within 15 minutes of the incident.
● Commuter complaints and feedback are responded to within 3 days. In cases of critical issues such as
street hazards and related obstacles, repairs of bike lanes and walkways are attended to within 24 hours of
the incident report.
Principle 3. Comfort
● Public transport vehicles are clean and well-maintained, have enough space for seating, wheelchairs, and
luggage, and have additional provisions for passenger comfort (e.g., wifi and internet connection, cooling
and ventilation systems).
● PUV stops have adequate cover, lighting, seats, and are well maintained and clean.
● PUV stations have complete, clean, and well-maintained facilities, such as toilets, food stations, waiting
areas with adequate seats, convenience stores, and other provisions for passenger comfort (e.g. wifi and
internet connection, cooling and ventilation systems).
● Bike lanes and walkways have adequate cover, urban shade trees, lighting, resting areas, shower rooms,
and similar provisions for non-motorized personal mobility devices.
Principle 4. Safety
● Public transport service is compliant with minimum public health and safety standards.
● Public transport vehicles and infrastructure are regularly checked and maintained.
● Public transport stations have security provisions such as roving security officers, emergency lines and kits,
fire extinguishers, and safety signages.
● Bike lanes and walkways are protected, well lit, well-paved, and without obstructions.
● Speed limits are enforced on all roads and bike lanes.
● PUVs and public transport terminals, stations, and stops are safe spaces with adequate gender safety
design and gender and commuter welfare desks.
Principle 5. Sustainability
● Public transport adopts “green” technologies and shifts to sustainable technologies such as rain catchment
systems, solar power, and sunroof lighting.
● More people choose or shift to active mobility options such as walking and cycling.
● Bike lanes and walkways have urban shade trees that cool down urban heat to invite more people to walk
and cycle and help urban biodiversity and improve water absorption to prevent floods.
● Active mobility and public transport mitigate the impacts of climate and air pollution.
37 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Annex B. Structure of US Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and
Technology where the Bureau of Transportation Statistics is considered
Image source:
https://www.transportation.gov/administrations/assistant-secretary-research-and-technology/ost-r-organizati
onal-chart
38 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Annex C. Departments of the Korean Institute of Transportation
Dept. of Mobility Transformation
Leading Future National Transportation Policy1
1. Division for Mobility Transformation Strategy
2. Center for Smart City and Transport3
3. Center for Future Vehicles4
4. Center for Connected and Automated Driving Research
Dept. of Metropolitan and Urban Transport
Safe and Efficient Roadways Provide Communication throughout the World1
1. Center for Metropolitan Transport Policy
2. Center for Metropolitan Transport Assessment
3. Division for Public Transport and Industry
4. Center for Urban and Intermodal Transport
5. Division for SOC Investment System
Dept. of Road Transport
Creating Customized Rail Network Plans for Global Markets
1. Division for Road Transport Policy2
2. Division for Traffic Operation Research3
3. Center for Transport Safety and Disaster Prevention4
4. Center for SOC Digitalization Research
Dept. of Rail Transport
Rising to Become a Global Aviation Power
1. Division for Railway Policy and Safety
2. Division for Rail Industry and Metropolitan Railway
3. Center for Rail Operation and Investment
4. Center for Transport in Northeast Asia and North Korea
Dept. of Aviation
Building a Seamless and Innovative Logistics Network
1. Division for Aviation Policy and Industry
2. Division of Air Transport Technology and Safety
3. Center for Airport and Air Navigation Policy
Dept. of Logistics
Data-Driven for Future Transport1
1. Division for Logistics Market and Industrial Innovation2
2. Center for Smart Logistics3
3. Division for Global Logistics and Infrastructure4
4. Center for Logistics Company and Smart Logistics Facilities Certification
Dept. of Transport Big Data
Korea Transport Prepare a New era and communication with the world
1. Center for Korea Transport Database(KTDB)
2. Division for AI and Big Data Platform3
3. Division for Mobility Big Data Analysis
Center for Private Highway Studies(CePHis)
Supports professional and systematic management and supervision of private roads
1. Division for Agreement Management
2. Division for Operation Support3
3. Division for Toll Management4
4. Division for Private Highway Management
Center for Global Transport Cooperation
Conducts transportation research projects with leading overseas research institutes and supports the overseas
expansion of the domestic transportation industry as part of the internationalization project
1. Division for Global Transport Infrastructure
39 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Annex D. Budget for regular personnel of Transportation Institute
Position
No. of positions
Annual amounts
SG
Monthly
Low
High
Benefits
Low
High
Total
50
90
50,190,136
82,274,550
Office of the Executive
Director
Executive Director V
30
178,688
1
1
317,088
2,461,344
2,461,344
Executive Assistant IV
22
66,867
1
1
100,867
903,271
903,271
Senior Administrative
Assistant III
15
32,053
1
1
66,053
450,689
450,689
Data infra and systems
team(s)
Director IV
28
139,939
1
1
257,939
1,937,207
1,937,207
Division chief
24
85,074
1
2
167,074
1,187,962
2,375,924
Senior systems
information analyst
19
46,791
2
6
80,791
1,284,566
3,853,698
Information Systems
Analyst II
16
35,106
4
8
69,106
1,961,512
3,923,024
Information Systems
Analyst I
13
26,754
4
8
60,754
1,527,208
3,054,416
Data standards and
processing team(s)
Director IV
28
139,939
1
1
257,939
1,937,207
1,937,207
Division Chief
24
85,074
1
2
167,074
1,187,962
2,375,924
Senior statistical specialist
19
46,791
2
6
80,791
1,284,566
3,853,698
Statistical specialist II
16
35,106
4
8
69,106
1,961,512
3,923,024
Statistical specialist I
13
26,754
4
8
60,754
1,527,208
3,054,416
Policy and data analysis
team(s)
Director IV
28
139,939
1
1
257,939
1,937,207
1,937,207
Division Chief
24
85,074
2
3
167,074
2,375,924
3,563,886
Senior transport research
analyst
19
46,791
4
9
80,791
2,569,132
5,780,547
Transport research analyst
II
16
35,106
8
12
69,106
3,923,024
5,884,536
Transport research analyst
I
13
26,754
8
12
60,754
3,054,416
4,581,624
40 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Capacity building team(s)
Director IV
28
139,939
1
1
257,939
1,937,207
1,937,207
Training Specialist V
24
85,074
2
3
167,074
2,375,924
3,563,886
Training Specialist III
18
46,791
6
9
80,791
3,853,698
5,780,547
Training Specialist II
15
35,106
8
12
69,106
3,923,024
5,884,536
Administrative staff
Chief Administrative
Officer
24
85,074
1
2
167,074
1,187,962
2,375,924
Administrative Office V
18
42,159
1
2
76,159
582,067
1,164,134
Administrative staff III
14
29,277
2
4
63,277
829,202
1,658,404
Administrative staff I
10
20,219
3
6
54,219
890,541
1,781,082
Budget and Management
Specialist II
16
35,106
1
2
69,106
490,378
980,756
Budget and Management
Analyst
11
22,316
2
4
56,316
648,216
1,296,432
41 of 42
Working Paper: Towards a People-Centric Mobility Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System in the Philippines
K. Chang, D.J. Benito, K.I.I. Abante, R.H.N. Bendana, This Version: 24 October 2022
Annex E. Budget estimates for survey operations
Variable
Low
High
Note
Population
13,966,223
13,966,223
Metro manila population aged 15 and up,
2015 POPCEN projected to 2021
Sample
1,849
1,849
*just simple sample, but could be improved
with stratification (per age, or by city);
99% confidence, 3% margin error
Survey time (min)
45
60
Locating next survey (min)
30
45
No. of days
20
20
Ratio of enumerator to
supervisor
0.1
0.1
Allowance for reserve tablets
10%
10%
Resource requirement
Number of enumerators
15
21
changes based on assumption above
Number of
supervisors/validators
2
3
Costing
Salary of enumerators for the
month-long project
15,524
17,505
Similar to Data Entry Machine operator I
and II (SG 6 and 8)
Salary of
supervisors/validators for the
month-long project
17,505
22,316
Similar to Data Entry Machine operator I
and II (SG 8 and 11)
Transportation allowance
340,000
480,000
500 each personnel/day
Communications and other
supplies
17,000
24,000
1000 each personnel
Total cost for personnel
624,870
938,553
Software Development
500,000
1,000,000
Total cost of tablets
288,000
690,000
Unit price of tablets
18,000
30,000
Source: Procurement document of PSA
Total for initial investment
788,000
1,690,000
One tablet per enumerator with 10%
reserve
Grand Total
1,412,870
2,628,553
42 of 42
