22nd Annual Conference of the

TSSP Transportation Science Society of the Philippines

2014 Iloilo City, Philippines, 12 Sept 2014

Identification of BRT Corridors in Metro Manila

Ricardo G. Sigua
Professor, Institute of Civil Engineering
Research Fellow, National Center for Transportation Studies
University of the Philippines Diliman
email address: rdsigua@upd.edu.ph

Abstract: A good mass transit system is indispensable in alleviating traffic congestion in

urban areas. As compared to private vehicle travel, public transport is much more efficient on
a per person-kilometer basis. An alternative mass transit mode is the Bus Rapid Transit
system or BRT, a bus–based mass transit system that delivers comfortable and cost-effective
mobility through the provision of exclusive right-of-way lanes, thus reducing delays and
dwell times. It offers the same performance and amenities as in a modern rail-based system
but at a fraction of the cost. The paper evaluates the multiple options for pilot BRT corridors
and recommends adoption of priority BRT corridors. Following an internationally recognized
structure for transport scheme appraisal, a multi criteria assessment has been applied using
both qualitative and quantitative indicators to identify potential BRT corridor(s) for further
development.

Key words: BRT, Bus Rapid Transit, multi-criteria assessment

1. BACKGROUND

Metro Manila is the center of political, economic, social, and cultural activities. Its population density
of about 16,000 persons per sq. km. is one of the highest in Southeast Asia. With a population growth
rate that is higher than the national figure and with the spread of urbanization in the north and south of
Metro Manila, the intensity of activities is expected to further increase. As host to a concentration of
activities, urban problems have become part of the fabric of life in the metropolis.

Traffic congestion is the most visible impact of growing urban problems. The annual economic loss
due to congestion in Metro Manila was estimated to be about Php100Billion in year 2001(UP NCTS,
2001). A 2006 estimate showed that this has increased to Php140Billion. It is brought about by a
myriad of factors, foremost of which are rise in motorization that in turn is caused by population
increase due to natural growth and in-migration.

The Metro Manila Urban Transport Integration Study (MMUTIS, 2001) shows that in 1996, around
seventy-eight percent (78%) of the 23.7 million motorized person trips in a typical day in Metro
Manila uses public transportation. This is a rather high mode share for public transport, as compared
to Jakarta and Bangkok, with public transport modal shares of 54% and 49%, respectively. Ideally, the
high public transport share in Metro Manila should be maintained if not further enhanced. However,
this is threatened by growing car ownership and deteriorating levels of service of public
transportation. The number of motorcycles has also increased tremendously over the last five years.
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

A good mass transit system is indispensable in alleviating traffic congestion in urban areas. As
compared to private vehicle travel, public transport is much more efficient on a per person-kilometer
basis. An alternative mass transit mode is the Bus Rapid Transit system or BRT. A BRT system is a
bus–based mass transit system that delivers comfortable and cost-effective mobility through the
provision of exclusive right-of-way lanes, thus reducing delays and dwell times. It offers the same
performance and amenities as in a modern rail-based system but at a fraction of the cost.

2. OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the study are to:

a) Evaluate the best arrangements to integrate the proposed BRT approach with other transport modes
in a seamless manner; and

b) Evaluate the multiple options and recommend adoption of priority BRT corridors.

3. REVIEW OF MASTER PLANS AND STUDIES

The identification of a suitable BRT demonstration corridor in Metro Manila that will later be
subject to a feasibility study warrants a revisiting of mass transit master plans and studies that
have been undertaken in the past. Among these are:

3.1 MMUTIS of JICA, 2000

The Metro Manila Urban Transport Integration Study (MMUTIS) of the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) which was completed in March 2000 formulated a transport
master plan for Metro Manila for the year 2000-2015. The transport master plan consists of
the road network and the mass transit network, among others. Considering the time frame
(2000 to 2015), it may be said that not much has been done except the linking of LRT 1
north extension to the EDSA MRT at its northernmost station.

3.2 Metro Manila BRT Pre-FS of USAID, 2007

The pre-feasibility study for a BRT system in the Greater Manila Area (USAID, 2007) aimed
to identify potential pilot BRT routes and perform a rapid assessment of the feasibility of
implementing a BRT system on these identified routes. From an original list of eleven (11)
routes, the choice was narrowed down to four (4) and then to two (2).

The criteria for corridor prioritization included the following:

 Passenger demand
 Available right-of-way
 Existing congestion levels
 Adequacy of the existing public transport services
 Potential for growth
 Two intersecting corridors
 Willingness of the local government to host a BRT
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

The top 2 choices based on these criteria were Line 1 (Lerma – Fairview) and Line 7
(EDSA). But the DOTC indicated at that time that unofficially, Line 1 was already reserved
for an LRT system. Furthermore, the DOTC expressed reservation for Line 7 (EDSA)
because it already has an LRT system and its financial viability may be compromised by
another mass transit system directly competing with it. Consequently, the other 2 short-
listed corridors, Line 2(EDSA- Binangonan via Ortigas Ave.) and Line 3(C – 5 from SLEX
to Commonwealth Ave.) were chosen and subjected to a rapid feasibility assessment.

3.3 Studies for Taguig & Makati: Ayala Land 2009 onwards

In 2009 Ayala Land developed a proposal following the realization that increasing congestion
in Makati and the forecast growth in trip generation at the currently under developed Fort
Bonifacio would frustrate growth through constraining mobility and consequently frustrating
future investment in both cities. The development of the BRT was described in Ayala’s
Transport Consultants, Parsons Brinkerhoff’s, (PB) report, Makati CBD-Bonifacio Global
City BRT Feasibility Study: Final Report, January 2009. The BRT proposal was developed
following the collapse of plans for a Metro Rail Transit (MRT) extension called the Ayala
Loop that would connect the current Ayala MRT station with Makati via a route
approximating Ayala Avenue- Buendia Avenue – SM Mall of Asia – Taft Avenue Station. To
fund capital cost Ayala approached Asian Development Bank but the project failed to meet
its investment criteria. Not to be deterred, Ayala made an unsolicited application to DOTC to
build and operate a subsection of Phase One between EDSA and Metropolitan.

4. DEVELOPMENT OF APPRAISAL CRITERIA

After reviewing available materials developed in the last few years regarding BRT in Metro
Manila, some indicators (especially those used during the 2007 USAID funded BRT study)
were examined. Passenger demand and availability of right of way are two of the most
important considerations for a BRT corridor to be chosen. Passenger demand must be high
enough for its operation to be sustainable. Right of way at ground level, on the other hand,
must be available so as to dispense with elevated structures which could easily jack up the
cost of the system. Except for EDSA, most of the major public transport corridors in Metro
Manila are being served by jeepneys. Still considered as a low capacity vehicle, it is the main
mode of transportation for many of the commuters in Metro Manila and other suburban areas.
During peak periods, despite its thousand numbers running, jeepneys are inadequate to meet
passenger demand. Due to frequent stopping in order to load and unload passengers, they
have been considered contributory to severe traffic congestion. While it is not the primary
purpose of BRT to relieve congestion, it would be beneficial if it helps in decongesting
corridors due to the replacement of the numerous low capacity public transport vehicles.
Replacement of the old and many vehicles with new and less number of BRT vehicles can
also improve the pollution levels on the corridor.
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

Lesser number of vehicles on the road could also mean lesser exposure to road crashes. BRT
systems therefore could benefit those corridors which have high road crash incidence.

Better connectivity with other BRT and/or LRT/MRT systems can help improve transfers of
commuters. Currently, our mass transit systems appear to be disconnected thereby causing
inconvenience to commuters.

Considering those important indicators mentioned above and consistent with internationally
recognised structure for transport scheme appraisal, it is recommended that the appraisal
focuses upon the following subject areas:

 Economics
 The environment
 Safety
 Integration
 Accessibility
 Deliverability

Meetings with key government agencies and LGUs were made to help confirm the criteria to
be used for the selection of BRT corridors to be subjected to more detailed study. Those who
attended the meetings generally agreed with the set of criteria presented to them. It was
suggested to add connectivity as a criterion recognizing the problems experienced by many
commuters with the existing mass transit systems with poorly planned connectors. Integration
(one of the appraisal criteria), therefore, is extended to include connectivity.

4.1 Screening of Potential BRT Corridors

The study initially considered 7 corridors and their variants as shown in the Figure 1.

Corridor/s

1a) Lerma-SM Fairview

1b) Welcome Rotonda-SM Fairview

2) EDSA-Binangonan via Ortigas Ave.

3) C-5 (SLEX-Commonwealth)

4) Baclaran-Kawit

5a) Baclaran-Dasmarinas

5b) Bacoor-Dasmarinas

6) Santolan-Binangonan

7) EDSA

Figure 1. Potential corridors (Source: USAID, 2007)

 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

Table 1 presents some of the major considerations for the initial screening of potential
corridors as a result of the meetings with key agencies (MMDA, DOTC and DPWH )

Table 1. Considerations for initial screening of corridors

Corridor Remarks

1a Lerma-SM Fairview via Quezon Ave & General agreement that this corridor must have a high-
Commonwealth Ave. capacity & high-quality mass transit.

1b Welcome Rotonda-SM Fairview Within corridor 1a

via Quezon Ave & Commonwealth Ave.

2 EDSA-Binangonan via Ortigas Ave General agreement for provision of better mass transit to and
from east of MManila; extend to Gilmore/Aurora Blvd.(LRT2)

3 C-5 (SLEX-Commonwealth) Not generally a PT route but may have high potential for
diverted traffic from EDSA; less resistance from transport
groups

4 Baclaran-Kawit via Quirino Ave. May not be considered due to LRT 1 Extn

5a Baclaran-Dasmarinas via Quirino Ave. May not be considered due to LRT 1 Extn

5b Bacoor-Dasmarinas via Aguinaldo Highway Impact may not be felt in MManila; may be considered as
potential feeder to LRT1 extn

6 Santolan-Binangonan via Marcos Highway, May serve as branch for EDSA-Binangonan; LRT2 to extend
Imelda Ave, Ortigas Ave Ext, Manila East to Masinag
Road

7 EDSA May compete w/ MRT3; too many projects for bus operations
already in pipeline

Based on meetings with key agencies, namely: DOTC, MMDA, and DPWH, it would appear
that the following would be the remaining potential corridors and the subject for a more
detailed evaluation:

- Commonwealth Ave/Quezon Ave (1a)

- Ortigas Ave (extended to Gilmore) (2)
- C-5 (3)
- Aguinaldo Highway (outside Metro Manila, and may be a (BRT) feeder to the LRT
Line #1 extension at Bacoor). (5)
-
During a workshop held on June 29, 2012, the DOTC indicated that C-5 would be a subject
of an LRT feasibility study and that Aguinaldo Highway would be an LRT feeder to LRT 1
Extension. As possible replacements of the two previously identified corridors, it was
suggested to add the following 2 new corridors:

- C – 3; and
- Alabang – Zapote Road
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

Since Alabang – Zapote Rd is only about 9km, Sucat Rd was added for a possible loop
operation.

4.2 Appraisal framework

This study has applied multi criteria assessment using both qualitative and quantitative
indicators to identify potential BRT corridor(s) for further development. The following
criteria have been discussed with and agreed upon by stakeholders:

 Economics
 The environment
 Safety
 Integration (extended to connectivity through consultation process)
 Accessibility
 Deliverability

These six criteria follow an internationally recognised structure for transport scheme
appraisal(USAID, 2007; Scutte and Brits, 2012; ITDP, 2007). The strategic nature of this
study means that each of the criteria might not be applied with the detail that would be
expected from a more in depth study. Nevertheless, it is asserted that a sufficient
understanding of the performance of each corridor against these criteria is achieved that will
allow corridor short listing to take place.

4.2.1 Economic Appraisal

Economic impacts are hinged on the potential number of passengers (or the passenger
demand that the BRT could serve) together with the costs of providing such a service. A
strategic assessment of this passenger demand along various transport corridors is done to
appraise the potential of the BRT to serve the corridor.

Estimates of passenger flows are made for the potential BRT corridors using the weighted
average of the product of sectional AADTs and average vehicle occupancies. Volume and
occupancy data use both primary and secondary sources (MMDA Traffic flow maps, 2011).
The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Estimated Passenger Flows

Corridors Daily Passenger Flows
Private & Public Public Only Private Public
Share Share
A Lerma-SM Fairview via Quezon Ave & 695,433 408,039 41% 59%
Commonwealth
B EDSA-Binangonan - Gilmore via Ortigas Ave 300,174 69,765 77% 23%
C C5 (SLEX - Commonwealth) 391,313 32,876 92% 8%
D Bacoor - Dasmarinas via Aguinaldo Highway 105,269 83,152 21% 79%
E Alabang Zapote Rd and Sucat Rd (23.7 km loop) 28% 72%
106,030 75,903
F C-3 (Araneta Ave Buendia Ave) 31% 69%
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

203,347 141,282

Corridor A has the highest estimated passenger flows among all the candidate corridors,
followed by Corridor C and Corridor B, all breaching the 300,000 daily passenger flow
mark. It is interesting to note that Corridor C or C5 is currently a predominantly private
vehicle (and truck) corridor; hence the low public transport passenger volumes. However, a
possible diversion of passengers from EDSA to C5 for trips between Quezon City (north of
Diliman area) and Makati City can increase the share of public transport passengers by leaps
and bounds. Figure 2 demonstrates the potential passenger diversion from EDSA to C5,
assuming that the appropriate public transport services (e.g. BRT services) are made
available.

Figure 2. Potential public transport passenger diversion from EDSA to C5

Using bus volume data from the Mega Manila Public Transport Planning Support System
study (MMPTPSS, 2011), it has been observed that 10,470 buses ply Commonwealth Ave.
Of this number, 2,390 buses go westward along Quezon Ave. and 8,080 buses go southward
along EDSA. A portion of the 8,080 buses may divert from EDSA to C5 for passengers with
origin-destination north of Tandang Sora in Quezon City and south of Kalayaan Ave. in
Makati. This potentially diverted passenger traffic will therefore add to currently estimated
passenger flows on C5.

Assuming 50% of this estimated traffic actually gets diverted to C5, there will be
approximately 170,000 public transport passengers that will be using the corridor, making C5
an important public transport corridor. With a 50% diversion from EDSA to C5, it is also
expected to relieve the current traffic volumes on EDSA, in effect improving the level of
service of the corridor, assuming that the other existing vehicle volumes prevail.

Table 3 summarizes the passenger numbers and route lengths defined above. Note that
passengers are for all modes and not just public transport passengers. It considers these
parameters against an average BRT implementation cost of $7m per km (ITP, 2011) in order
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

to define potential cost and give an indication (approximate only) of potential value for
investment.

Table 3. Estimated BRT corridor costs and cost per passenger

Passengers Length (Km) Approx. Cost ($m) Cost ($) per pax
Lerma-SM Fairview via Quezon Ave &
A
Commonwealth Ave.
695,433 25 175 252

B EDSA-Binangonan – Gilmore via Ortigas Ave 300,174 24 168 560

C C-5 (SLEX-Commonwealth) 391,313 26 182 465
D Bacoor-Dasmarinas via Aguinaldo Hiway 105,269 18 126 1197
Alabang Zapote Rd and Sucat Rd (23.7km
E
loop)
106,030 23.7 165.9 1565
F C-3 (Araneta Ave, Buendia Ave) 203,347 18.5 129.5 637

Within the above table it should be noted that Corridor C has the potential to divert 170,000
trips away from EDSA. If this is the case then total passengers would increase to 541,313 and
the cost per passenger would reduce to $336.

4.2.2 Corridor Road Capacity Analysis

Unless right of way acquisition is proposed together with careful planning of the use of
existing infrastructure, traffic conditions for private cars may deteriorate for almost all
corridors.

Among the corridors being considered, only Commonwealth Ave. corridor and possibly
Aguinaldo Highway may experience better traffic conditions when BRT is constructed. This
is primarily because of very high public transport volumes at present as well as availability of
physical space (in the case of Commonwealth Ave).

Deteriorating private vehicle traffic conditions may encourage private vehicle users to shift to
BRT, either voluntarily or with policy intervention. This is a policy decision that must be
taken before further analysis and scheme development is undertaken.

4.2.3 Environmental appraisal

Each corridor has been examined in order to highlight any potential significant environmental
issues. Beyond that which can either be expected as part of the implementation of a major
transport scheme or that which can be managed/mitigated with appropriate design, none were
identified. As such, all routes are adjudged, at this stage of analysis, to have roughly equal
environmental impact.

4.2.4 Integration/Connectivity

Strong connection between two or more mass transit systems is highly desirable as it would
greatly expand the coverage of PT providing high level of service. Moreover, public transport
vehicles of lower capacity should be good feeders to BRT. With careful planning of the
needed facilities (walkways, conveyors, etc.), transfer can be more convenient to commuters.
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

Table 4 shows the most likely interconnections among the proposed BRT corridors and rail-
based LRT/MRT/PNR lines. The extent of the expected walking distances for transfers is
described. BRT stations in close proximity with LRT/MRT and PNR commuter line stations
would encourage use of both lines by commuters. Walking distance of about 250m may be
considered short and comfortable (Gerilla & Hokao, 1995), beyond that the distance may be
considered long.

Table 4. Interconnections among the proposed BRT corridors and rail-based lines

Corridor Configuration Remarks

A Lerma-SM Fairview via Quezon Intersects MRT3 at EDSA`; close Short walking distance to/from
Ave & Commonwealth Ave. to LRT2 at Lerma; intersects PNR MRT3 station and possibly to /from
commuter line; intersects BRTc Lerma LRT2; short walking distance
to/from PNR commuter line;
common station with BRTc is
possible.

B EDSA-Binangonan – Gilmore Connects to MRT3; connects to Long walking distance to/from

via Ortigas Ave LRT 2 MRT3; short walking distance to
(Intersects BRT c at Ortigas/C-5 Gilmore Station of LRT2; good
intersection) transfer to/from BRTc possible

C C-5 (SLEX-Commonwealth) Intersects LRT2; intersects BRTa Short walking distance to/from LRT2
station; common station w BRTa is
possible

D Bacoor-Dasmarinas via Connects to terminus of LRT1 Good connection(very short walking

Aguinaldo Hiway Extension distance) with LRT1 extension is
possible

E Alabang Zapote Rd and Sucat Rd nearest is LRT Line 1 extension Short walking distance to/from LRT1
(23.7km loop) extension is possible

F C-3 (Araneta Ave, Buendia Ave) Intersects with PNR commuter Short walking distance to PNR
line; Connects with BRTa station; good connection with BRTa
is possible

Overall, good connectivity with existing rail lines and with another possible BRT corridor/s
may be expected. However, careful planning and good detailed design of the connections
would play key roles in attaining the most desirable outcomes – clean/covered walkways,
minimum obstructions along transfer paths, considerate to the physically challenged, etc.

Table 5 shows the interconnectivity matrix of the potential BRT lines w/ existing rail transit
lines.
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

Table 5. Interconnectivity matrix

BRT Corridor
LRT1 LRT2 MRT3 PNR
BRT Corridor A B C D E F
commuter

A. Lerma-SM
Fairview

B. EDSA-
Binangonan –
Gilmore

C. C-5 (SLEX-
Commonwealth)

D. Bacoor-
Dasmarinas

E. Alabang Zapote
Rd and Sucat Rd

F. C-3 (Araneta
Ave, Buendia Ave)

4.2.5 Road Safety

One of the claimed benefits of successful BRT implementations is the reduction of road
crashes. Three of the potential BRT corridors exhibit among the highest accident frequencies
(Sigua, 2010). It can be observed that accident frequency can be correlated with traffic
volumes as shown in Figure 3. Introducing a BRT system on the corridor has the potential
for road safety improvement through the reduction in vehicle volume and also through traffic
management that is usually an integral part of BRT systems operations.

Successful BRT systems in Bogota and Curitiba have not only improved commuter travel
times in these cities but also reduced the number of road crashes and contributed to improved
air quality. With the Seoul BRT in place, a 27% decrease in road crashes has been noted.
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

Figure 3. ‘Dangerous roads’ in Metro Manila (Source of Data: MMDA)

4.2.6 Accessibility

Table 6 shows land use types and key destinations in relation to the potential BRT corridors.
It can be seen that the potential BRT corridors pass through intense land use activities
especially those within Metro Manila, implying that these key and major destinations can
benefit from improved accessibility that is to be provided by a BRT system on these
corridors.

Table 6. Land use types and key destinations in relation to the potential BRT corridors
Corridors Key destinations
A Lerma-SM Fairview via Quezon Ave & Universities in Manila and Quezon City, residential
Commonwealth areas, commercial areas, shopping malls, leisure areas,
worship places, hospitals, government centers, Quezon
City CBD, business process outsourcing (BPO)
establishments
B EDSA-Binangonan - Gilmore via Ortigas Ave Residential areas, commercial areas, Ortigas CBD,
government institutions, schools, shopping malls, leisure
areas, hospitals
C C5 (SLEX - Commonwealth) Fort Bonifacio Global City CBD, residential areas,
commercial areas, shopping malls, Eastwood CBD,
leisure areas, universities (Ateneo, Miriam, UP)
D Bacoor - Dasmarinas via Aguinaldo Highway Residential areas, shopping malls, schools, worship
places, golf course, commercial areas, resorts
E Alabang Zapote Rd and Sucat Rd (23.7 km Madrigal Business Park, BPO establishments,
loop) commercial establishments, hospitals, residential areas,
schools, shopping malls, memorial park
F C-3 (Araneta Ave Buendia Ave) Residential areas, commercial areas, funeral
establishments and support establishments, schools,
Makati CBD
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

4.2.7 Deliverability

One institutional issue that may likely arise is under which jurisdiction a BRT corridor would
fall. This would require a more thorough study and models from other countries with
successful BRT implementation may be worth investigating.

Metro Manila is composed of 16 cities and 1 municipality. And while issues are generally
threshed out among mayors and other members within the Metro Manila Council, it is
generally easy to resolve issues concerning just a few local government units.

Table 7 shows the potential BRT corridors with notes on the number of LGUs which would
have jurisdiction over each BRT corridor.

Table 7. Number of LGUs under which each BRT corridor would fall

Corridor Length, km. LGUs involved

A Lerma-SM Fairview via Quezon 25.0 Quezon City, Manila City

Ave & Commonwealth Ave. (Quezon City only if line terminates at Welcome
Rotonda)

B EDSA-Binangonan – Gilmore 24.0 Pasig City, Quezon City, Rizal Province involving
via Ortigas Ave 4 LGUs (Cainta, Taytay, Angono, Binangonan)

C C-5 (SLEX-Commonwealth) 26.0 Taguig, Pasig, Makati, Quezon City

D Bacoor-Dasmarinas via 18.0 Province of Cavite involving 3 LGUs (Bacoor,

Aguinaldo Hiway Imus, Dasmarinas)

E Alabang Zapote Rd and Sucat Rd 23.7 Las Pinas City, Paranaque City

F C-3 (Araneta Ave, Buendia Ave) 18.5 Caloocan City, Navotas, Quezon City, San Juan,
Makati, Manila, Pasay

Corridor BRTa will run mostly in Quezon City with a total length of 23km. (It has a 2km
section within Manila.) Perhaps, it would be the only corridor that may be under only one
LGU if the line terminates at Welcome Rotonda.

5. SUMMARY APPRAISAL

Table 7 gives subjective scores to the analysis undertaken in Section 4. The performance
against each criterion is marked out of 10 points. It is subjective but relates to the
proportional differences between each corridor studied.
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

The previous table assumes that the 6 criteria have equal weights. However, one may argue
that some criteria should be given more importance than the others when selecting the
corridor for implementation. A set of weights is proposed in Table 8.

Table 8. Proposed weights

Criteria Weight, %
1. Economic 25
2. Environment 10
3. Safety 10
4. Integration 15
5. Accessibility 15
6. Deliverability 25
Total 100
Table 7. Performance scores of corridors against 6 criteria

Corridor Economic Environment Safety Integration Accessibility Deliverability TOTAL Ranking

Lerma-SM Fairview 1
via Quezon Ave &
A 10 5 9 9 10 8
Commonwealth 51
Ave.

EDSA-Binangonan
3
33
B – Gilmore via 5 5 4 7 7 5
Ortigas Ave

C-5 (SLEX- 35
2
C Commonwealth)
7 5 7 4 7 5

Bacoor-Dasmarinas
24 6
D via Aguinaldo 2 5 4 1 5 7
Hiway

5
Alabang Zapote Rd 25
E and Sucat Rd
2 5 4 1 5 8

C-3 (Araneta Ave, 29 4

F Buendia Ave)
4 5 6 5 7 2

Considering the performance scores given to each corridor for the different criteria, the
weighted scores and ranking are determined. There is no change in the standings of the
corridors as shown in Table 9.
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

Table 9. Weighted scores and ranking

Corridor Wtd. Score Ranking
Lerma-SM Fairview via Quezon Ave &
A Commonwealth Ave. 8.75 1
EDSA-Binangonan – Gilmore via
B Ortigas Ave 5.50 3
C C-5 (SLEX-Commonwealth) 5.85 2
Bacoor-Dasmarinas via Aguinaldo
D Hiway 4.05 6
E Alabang Zapote Rd and Sucat Rd 4.30 5
F C-3 (Araneta Ave, Buendia Ave) 4.40 4

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

The foregoing analysis demonstrated the application of a simple multi-criteria assessment

using both qualitative and quantitative indicators. While the appraisal method may be argued
to use a lot of subjective variables, it can prove to be very valuable once they are agreed upon
by the key stakeholders. Consensus among them would greatly help in finalizing any
decisions and in threshing out any possible challenges that may arise while implementing a
particular project.

BRT systems have been proven to be a very good alternative to rail-based mass transit
systems in many cities in the world as its capacity can match that of an LRT or MRT, at a
fraction of the cost of rail. Metro Manila badly needs a mass transit system that would
provide high quality of service. BRT was highly recommended in the 2007 USAID Study.
This may be the right time to pursue it in Metro Manila, following and building on the BRT
development efforts that have commenced and are on-going in Cebu City.

The summary appraisal presented in Sections 4 and 5 gives the priority listing of the corridors
that may be further subjected to more analytical rigor in the next phase of the study. The
corridors are again presented here in the recommended order of priority:

1. Lerma-SM Fairview via Quezon Ave & Commonwealth Ave. (Corridor A)

2. C-5 (SLEX-Commonwealth) (Corridor C)
3. EDSA-Binangonan – Gilmore via Ortigas Ave (Corridor B)
4. C-3 (Araneta Ave, Buendia Ave) (Corridor F)
5. Alabang Zapote Rd and Sucat Rd (Corridor E)
6. Bacoor-Dasmarinas via Aguinaldo Hiway (Corridor D)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to acknowledge World Bank for funding the study.
 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines (2014)

REFERENCES

Gerilla, G. & K. Hokao (1995), Proposed Level of Service Standards for Walkways in Metro
Manila, Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies (EASTS) Journal, Vol. 1, 1995.

ITP, 2011, Cebu BRT Pre-Feasibility Study.

ITDP, 2007, Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide.

JICA, 2001, MetroManila Urban Transportation Integration Study.

MMDA, 2011, Traffic flow maps, unpublished.

Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB), 2009, Makati CBD-Bonifacio Global City BRT Feasibility Study:
Final Report.

Schutte, I.C., and Brits, A, 2012, Prioritising Transport Infrastructure Projects: Towards a
Multi-Criterion Analysis, Southern African Business Review Volume 16, No.3.

Sigua, R.G., 2011, Road Accident Data System, Enhancing Road Safety Data in the
Philippines Seminar Workshop. G Hotel, Manila.

UP NCTS and DOTC, 2011, Mega Manila Public Transport Planning Support System Study.

UP NCTS, 2001, Economic Cost of Congestion in Metro Manila.

USAID, 2007, Prefeasibility Study of Metro Manila BRT.