Transport Co-benefits Guidelines for BRT System in Manila: Insights and Impacts

1. Insights on the Application of the Transport Co-benefits Guidelines Alvin Mejia CAI-Asia Center Training on the Transport Co-benefits Guidelines October 28, 2010 Ortigas, Metro Manila

2. Project used in Testing the TCG Bus Rapid Transit System in the Greater Manila Area • Pre-feasibility study was completed July 2007 by NCTS • Two routes were proposed: a) EDSA-Binangonan and b) SLEX-Commonwealth EDSA-Binangonan SLEX- Commonwealth

3. MM Urban Transport Problem • 140 billion PHp lost each year due to congestion in 2006 • $392 million as health costs due to PM10 (2001, World Bank) • 1.5 million motor vehicles in Metro Manila in 2005 • Increased by half a million from 1994 • 50 thousand additional vehicles are registered each year • Car-owning households: 10% in 1980  20% in 1996

4. BRT System • 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 (2005, Wright)

5. General Impacts of the BRT System • The BRT project is assumed to reduce private cars by 10% and public buses and jeepneys by 50%

6. General Impacts of the BRT System • The BRT project is assumed to reduce private cars by 10% and public buses and jeepneys by 50%

7. Basics of the Project Estimated Passenger Demand (Public Transport Passengers/Day) • EDSA-Binangonan  112,000 • SLEX- Commonwealth  64,000 • 16 stations within the SLEX-Commonwealth route • 18 stations within the EDSA-Binangonan route

8. Transport Co-benefits Guidelines Without Project With Project Vehicle Operating Costs Vehicle Operating Costs VOC Savings Travel Time Costs - Travel Time Costs Travel Time Savings = Accidents Costs Accidents Costs Accident Costs Savings Emissions Costs Emissions Costs Emissions Costs Savings

9. Inputs Needed in Testing the Guidelines (1) Vehicles • Vehicle types • Fuel type (% split of vehicles) • Vehicle standards (% split) • Fuel efficiency @ 50 km • Value of time • Vehicle operating costs • Vehicle Emission Factors (CO2, PM, Nox)

10. Inputs Needed in Testing the Guidelines (1) Vehicles • Vehicle types • Fuel type (% split of vehicles)  MMUTIS • Vehicle standards (% split)  Segment Y data • Fuel efficiency @ 50 km  Various Sources • Value of time  Pre-FS • Vehicle operating costs MMUTIS • Vehicle Emission Factors (CO2, PM, Nox)  TEEMP

11. Inputs Needed in Testing the Guidelines (2) Links • Type of Road • Type of Area • Number of Lanes • With Median strip? • Number of major intersections • Length • Traffic volume (by vehicle type) • Average travel time

12. Inputs Needed in Testing the Guidelines (2) Links • Type of Road • Type of Area Assumed (all in densely-inhabited areas) • Number of Lanes  assumed to be all above 4 • With Median strip?  assumed Yes for all • Number of major intersections assumed 1 • Length  Pre-FS • Traffic volume (by vehicle type)  Pre-FS • Average travel time  Pre-FS

13. Inputs Needed in Testing the Guidelines (3) Other data • Ave. damage cost per injured person • Number of Injured persons/accident • Number of Material Damage per Human Accident • Average Social Loss due to Congestion per human accident • Costs of pollution

14. Inputs Needed in Testing the Guidelines (3) Other data (Accident Costs) • Ave. damage cost per injured person  adjusted Japanese data • Number of Injured persons/accident  Japanese data • Number of Material Damage per Human Accident  Japanese data • Average Social Loss due to Congestion per human accident  adjusted japanese data • Costs of Pollution  TEEMP

15. Results of Testing Only for 2008 • Vehicle Operating Cost Savings: 32,967 (‘000 USD) • Accidents Cost Savings: 1,864 (‘000 USD) • Travel Time Cost Savings: 15,100 (‘000 USD) • Emissions Savings: • CO2 : 45,796 tons • PM: 671 tons • Nox: 6,164 tons

16. Insights (1) • Current model developed needs to incorporate project lifetime analysis (guidance on dynamic baseline is needed) • Limits in terms of its applicability to certain project types (e.g. excludes benefits for NMT users) • Applicability to transit projects would face big challenge as data is not corridor based but mode share based often at city level • External models may be necessary in using the current guidelines

17. Insights (2) • Which co-benefits to quantify? • Need for local values • Current model developed uses Japanese (and other foreign data) • Costing (of pollution, accidents, vehicle operation) • Default values issues • Vehicle operating costs (maybe pavement roughness) • Value of life differs in different roads? • Guidance for calculating project emissions is needed • Data availability is a concern • Finding a balance between accuracy and usability

18. Insights (3) • Rapid assessment tool - looking at different project options, different scenarios possible • Gives actual values to co-benefits which would have only been qualified in project evaluation

19. CAI-Asia Center www.cleanairinitiative.org www.cleanairinitiative.org/portal/GreenTrucksPilot Bert Fabian, Transport Program Manager bert.fabian@cai-asia.org Sudhir Gota, Transport Specialist sudhir@cai-asia.org Alvin Mejia, Environment Specialist alvin.mejia@cai-asia.org Unit 3505, 35th floor Robinsons-Equitable Tower ADB Avenue, Pasig City Metro Manila 1605 Philippines “Air Quality in a Changing Climate” www.BAQ2010.org For information email: baq2010@cai-asia.org 19