mobility characteristics, costs, and issues of the poor and vulnerable groups

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)


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)


Motor Vehicle Owner 5.37% 5.58%Purok Centro (Barangay Old Balara)


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 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

mobility characteristics, costs, and issues of the poor and vulnerable groups

Travel

households purok

vehicle accidents

motor vehicle owner7

centro high transport

motor vehicle owner10

motor vehicle owner12

motor vehicle owner5

motor vehicle owner14