mobility characteristics, costs, and issues of the poor and vulnerable groups
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
RANDOLPH D. CARREON
DONNA LOU O. MOSCARE-CARREONwith generous support from
Objectives This Study sought to understand the nature of the transport
needs, accessibility, mobility and transport costs of the poor and vulnerable groups.
Specifically, this aimed to:
establish the travel demand patterns of the poor and vulnerable groups; look qualitatively into the efficiency of the public transport system vis-
à-vis the needs of the poor and the vulnerable groups; estimate the cost of transport of the poor; estimate the actual and desired cost of transport of those within the
vulnerable groups; and examine other non–quantifiable costs, if any, incurred by the
vulnerable groups.
Study Areas/Groups
Poor Communities
Purok Centro, Barangay Old Balara (414 Households)
Area H, Barangay Bagong Pag-asa (1,415 Households)
Purok 13, Barangay Payatas (197 Households)
Vulnerable Groups
Senior Citizens
Persons With Disabilities
Women
BPO Workers
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Vehicle Ownership Rate
Study Area
Motorized Non–Motorized
4W 2W Bike Other
Area H 3.03% 3.03% 0.00% 1.01%
Purok Centro 5.43% 9.30% 6.98% 0.78%
Purok 13 1.02% 8.16% 3.06% 0.00%
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Person Trip Generation Rate Per Household
Study AreaHome-Generated
(HG) Trips
Person Trip per
HG Trip
Total Person
Trips per
Household
Area H 1.58 4.09 6.44
Purok Centro 1.90 4.06 7.70
Purok 13 1.89 3.66 6.90
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Person Trip Generation Per Area
Study Area
Daily Annual
Home-
Generated
Trips
Total Person
Trips
Home-
Generated
Trips
Home-
Generated
Trips
Area H 2,205 9,014 529,315 2,163,288
Purok Centro 786 3,189 188,600 765,440
Purok 13 372 1,360 89,307 326,457
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Distribution of HG Trips Per Purpose
Trip Purpose Area H Purok Centro Purok 13
to work 69% 43% 50%
to school 25% 41% 49%
to market 1% 7% 2%
others 5% 9% 0%
Summary of Findings
Poor CommunitiesDistribution of Total Person Trips Per Mode
Transport Modes Area H Purok Centro Purok 13
Walk 47.87% 32.93% 29.79%
Private Vehicle 6.60% 2.28% 2.77%
School/Company Service 2.13% 0.00% 0.00%
Own Bicycle 0.85% 0.12% 0.46%
Padyak/NMPT 5.11% 0.12% 0.00%
MRT 8.09% 1.32% 0.69%
LRT 1 0.00% 0.48% 0.00%
LRT 2 0.21% 0.00% 0.00%
PU Bus 11.28% 3.71% 5.54%
PU Jeepney 15.53% 42.87% 54.04%
FX/AUV 0.00% 0.60% 1.39%
Tricycle 1.91% 14.85% 5.31%
Taxi 0.43% 0.72% 0.00%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Modes Area HPurok
Centro
Purok
13
Walk 48% 33% 30%
Public
Transport43% 65% 67%
Private/Semi
-Private9% 2% 3%
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Factors Considered in Mode Choice
Rank Area H Purok Centro Purok 13
1 Affordability Affordability Affordability
2Short Travel
Duration
Short Travel
DurationShort Travel
Duration /
Driving Style3 Cleanliness Convenience
4Availability of
ModeCleanliness
Availability of
Mode
5 Driving Style Driving Style Convenience
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Percentage Share of Transport Cost to Total Expenses
OwnershipRent-Free Renter
Annual Average
Area H (Barangay Bagong Pag-asa)
Non Vehicle Owner 4.66% 5.75%
Motor Vehicle Owner 10.97% 9.62%Purok Centro (Barangay Old Balara)
Non Vehicle Owner 4.23% 6.39%
Motor Vehicle Owner 12.24% 11.53%Purok 13 (Barangay Payatas)
Non Vehicle Owner 7.67% -
Motor Vehicle Owner 7.01% -
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Percentage Share of Transport Cost to Total Income
OwnershipRent-Free Renter
Annual Average
Area H (Barangay Bagong Pag-asa)
Non Vehicle Owner 4.80% 7.91%
Motor Vehicle Owner 5.37% 5.58%Purok Centro (Barangay Old Balara)
Non Vehicle Owner 6.70% 8.85%
Motor Vehicle Owner 14.01% 6.36%Purok 13 (Barangay Payatas)
Non Vehicle Owner 8.69% -
Motor Vehicle Owner 6.05% -
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Non – Quantifiable Costs
Safety
Exposure to Pollution
The need to sacrifice other necessities to meet transport cost requirements
During times of financial difficulties, to meet transport requirement, households resort to sacrificing other cost items
such as (i) food, (ii) electric and water bills, and (iii) health care.
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Primary Mobility Problems
Mobility Problems Area HPurok
CentroPurok 13
high transport cost 75.00% 97.35% 74.49%
insufficient supply of public transport/MRT 2.00% 0.00% 2.04%
lack of pedestrian facilities/sidewalks 1.00% 0.00% 1.02%
non-operational stoplights 1.00% 0.00% 1.02%
pollution 1.00% 0.88% 1.02%
poorly maintained vehicles 3.00% 0.00% 3.06%
traffic congestion 10.00% 1.77% 10.20%
undisciplined loading and unloading of passengers 2.00% 0.00% 2.04%
vehicle accidents 5.00% 0.00% 5.10%
Summary of Findings
Poor Communities
Proposed Solutions
Proposed Solutions Area HPurok
Centro
Purok
13
work for additional income 28.57% 54.29% 29.41%
borrow money 1.43% 11.43% 1.47%
lower fare 14.29% 5.71% 11.76%
proper budgeting 0.00% 11.43% 0.00%
reduce other expenses 4.29% 4.76% 4.41%
salary increase 2.86% 0.95% 2.94%
save money 5.71% 2.86% 5.88%
walk 5.71% 0.00% 5.88%
Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – BPO WorkersTravel Demand Characteristics
Typically, 4 person trips in “Home –Work – Home” tripchain
Modal Split
Transport ModePercentage
Share
Private Vehicle 1.85%
Shuttle Bus 0.93%
Taxi 3.24%
FX 17.13%
MRT 0.93%
Public Utility Bus 8.33%
Public Utility Jeep 34.26%
Tricycle 14.35%
Walk 18.98%
Total 100.00%
Factors Considered in Mode Choice
Rank Factor
1 Affordability
2 Short travel duration
3 Availability of mode
Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – BPO WorkersTravel Demand Characteristics
Typically, 4 person trips in “Home –Work – Home” tripchain
Modal Split
Transport ModePercentage
Share
Private Vehicle 1.85%
Shuttle Bus 0.93%
Taxi 3.24%
FX 17.13%
MRT 0.93%
Public Utility Bus 8.33%
Public Utility Jeep 34.26%
Tricycle 14.35%
Walk 18.98%
Total 100.00%
Factors Considered in Mode Choice
Rank Factor
1 Affordability
2 Short travel duration
3 Availability of mode
Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – BPO Workers
Non – Quantifiable Costs
Safety
Exposure to Pollution
Direct Costs
Share of Transport Cost to Total Income
Vehicle Owners: 5%
Non Vehicle Owners: 13%
Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – PWDs
Preferred Public Transport Modes: Tricycle, Taxis, and PUJ
Tricycles and Taxis provide door-to-door service
Incentives provided through section 27 of the Magna Carta for Persons with Disability (Republic Act 7277)
Entitled to lower PT Fares (20% discount)
However, not all PWDs are aware of this privilege
Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – PWDs
PWDs view pedestrian facilities as inadequate in responding to their needs.
On overpasses, PWDs think that:
the locations are inappropriate and were selected mainly for the benefit of private establishments;
the steps are too high making it difficult for them to climb;
it needs cover; and
the location is too distant.
Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – Senior Citizens
Preferred Public Transport Modes: Tricycle, Taxis, and PUJ
Tricycles and Taxis provide door-to-door service
Incentives provided through Section 2 of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010 (Republic Act 9994)
Entitled to lower PT Fares (20% discount)
Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – Senior Citizens
They stated that it is hard to go up overpasses and it is not easy to walk along narrow sidewalks
The law providing 20% discount to senior citizens is highly appreciated.
However, concerns are raised on the implementation of the discount as some drivers refuse to accept the discounted fare.
Summary of Findings
Vulnerable Groups – Women
Preferred Public Transport Modes: Tricycle, PUJs, and walking
Women are subject to the same cost of transport as any other regular commuter
Issues on pedestrian facilities especially overpasses: height and steepness,
location,
condition and need for repair,
lack of cover, and
lack of lights at night
Summary of Findings
Qualitative Assessment of Public Transport - Poor
The residents on the three (3) study areas find the present public transport system as “somehow satisfactory”.
PT terminals are generally regarded as accessible, clean, safe, and comfortable.
There is, however, a general perception of lack of facilitiesin the PT terminals
in terms of the inter–modal network, there is much to be desired.
Based on these factors, walkability is viewed as “somehow satisfactory”
Summary of Findings
Qualitative Assessment of Public Transport – BPO Workers
BPO Workers generally view public transport as “just right” to “good”.
Taxis and FX received the highest ratings. Public transport efficiency with consideration on the (i) fare, (ii)
availability of mode, and (iii) travel time is generally regarded as “just right”
PT terminals are generally regarded as accessible, clean, safe, and comfortable.
There is a general perception of lack of facilities in the terminals
In terms of connectivity, the public transport network is satisfactory
Walkability is viewed as “generally satisfactory”.
Summary of Findings
Qualitative Assessment of Public Transport – PWDs, Senior Citizens and Women
PWDs, SCs, and Women generally view public transport modes as acceptable and ‘just right’
Some units, however, are already dilapidated, worn out and are in poor condition.
The tricycles and taxis are the most preferred because these modes enable them to travel faster and offer door to door service.
PUJs are also preferred due to the relatively low fare.
PT terminals lack facilities except for terminals of mass transit systems such as the MRT and LRT.
Recommended Next Step
further researches
to expand the scope of this Study to other areas in Metro Manila
to come up with a more comprehensive understanding of the mobility of the urban poor
to address the mobility issues of the urban poor and the vulnerable groups