Metro Manila Brt (edsa) Feasibility Study.pdf

Metro Manila Bus Rapid Transit Line 2 (EDSA BRT) DRAFT, 19 July 2015

Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Project overview. . . . Project context. . . . . Policy support for BRT Project scope area. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

2 2 3 3

2. Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Bus stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bus route itineraries and frequencies Bus speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bus reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. 7 .12 .20 .23 .26

3. BRT Modelling and Operations . . . . . . 28 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

8. Traffic Circulation and Impacts . . . . . 307 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

General approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mixed traffic impacts at stations. . . . . Mixed traffic impacts at critical points .

. 308 . 309 . 310 . 321 . 323

9. Terminals, Depots and Control Center 325 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

BRT terminals . . . BRT staging areas . Depots . . . . . . . . BRT control center

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. 326 . 329 . 329 . 332

.29 .29 .34 .34 .46 .79

10. Stakeholder Consultation . . . . . . . . 333

4. Benefits of BRT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

11. Implementation Cost . . . . . . . . . . . 337

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Proposed phasing. . . . . . . . . Possible alternative phasing . . Surveys and data collection . . Methodology and calibration . Results and recommendations. BRT Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.2 Ortigas to BGC busway . . . . . . . . . . . 262 7.3 Shaw Boulevard BRT station . . . . . . . . 296 7.4 Flooding considerations. . . . . . . . . . . 305

Maintain transit as the dominant mode . Time and operational savings . . . . . . . Other benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section by section impact & benefit analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.81 .81 .84

10.1 Meetings & presentations . . . . . . . . . . 334 10.2 Seminar on 29 May 2015 . . . . . . . . . . 335

12. Conceptual Institutional Strategy . . . 392

5. BRT Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Station locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 Station substops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 Station configuration and door positions 95 Station architecture and MRT integration 97 Accessibility infrastructure . . . . . . . . . 119

12.1 Establishing a project office . . . . . . . . 393 12.2 International experience with alternative administrative structures . . . . . . . . . . 394 12.3 Administrative considerations for Manila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 12.4 Options for Contracting of Critical Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 12.5 Managing the transition of the bus and jeepney industry. . . . . . 409 12.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

6. BRT Sections (At & Between Stations) . 121

13. Next Steps and Time Frame . . . . . . . 419

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

.88

7. BRT Roadways and Intersections . . . . 195

7.1 BRT roadways, stations, and intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

13.1 Next steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 13.2 Project timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420

1.

Introduction

1.1 Project overview

Kim and Maria Concepcion Garcia, and Lloyd Wright of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

Objectives

The main objective of this study and preliminary design is to provide a basis for the implementation of a high quality, high capacity bus rapid transit (BRT) system in Metro Manila. There are many aspects to a BRT project, especially in a city with such complex and demanding traffic conditions as Manila, but a crucial initial step is to develop a physical and operational design and approach that is feasible and practical, and will ideally improve conditions for all road users. This conceptual design provides a practical foundation for all of the follow-up work needed on BRT planning, design, and implementation in Manila, including recommended approaches to institutions, contracting and regulation. of the BRT. Another project objective is to provide a BRT design and plan that does not adversely impact non-BRT traffic modes. This is not always possible, but has generally been achieved in Manila.

1.2 Project context Related ITDP urban transport studies

In 2015 in addition to this BRT study, ITDPChina completed reports and preliminary design studies on greenways (high quality bicycle and pedestrian networks) and parking reform in Manila, funded by the ADB. The greenways material is provided in a separate report, though some components of the greenways work is included in the BRT design, including proposed green bridge across Pasig River (Sta. Monica-Lawton Bridge).

Institutional setting

Public transit in Manila is dominated by four modes; elevated rail systems (including LRT1, LRT2, MRT3, and low utilization Commuter Rail lines), city and provincial buses (PUB), jeepneys (PUJ), and shared minibus taxis (Asian Utility Vehicles or UVs). The rapid rail network and the primary and secondary road networks are limited, relative to the size of Manila. Despite plans to expand the LRT system, unless lower cost busbased solutions are found, it is unlikely that Metro Manila will be able to successfully address its growing urban mobility needs. Traffic congestion in Manila is extreme and the economic costs of this congestion are significant. A number of proposals have been put forward to address this need: a bus corridor improvement proposal for Quezon Avenue proposed by the World Bank and their consultants, a proposed route restructuring and licensing modification on C5, and various new express bus services being proposed by the bus industry. The proposal to put a full BRT on EDSA and continuing onto several other arterials was first mooted by the DOTC with support from ADB consultants ITDP. EDSA is a perfect future BRT corridor because it has very high bus volumes, and these bus volumes are a major contributor to traffic congestion. This creates the potential of a classic “win-win” solution where the introduction of BRT infrastructure, if properly designed, could dramatically increase both the speeds of the buses and the speed of the remaining mixed traffic, with little or no land acquisition required.

Work scope, personnel, time frame

This work was carried over a five month period from January to May 2015, with the most intensive inputs taking place during February to May. A large team worked on the project, including: Karl Fjellstrom (team leader) Xianyuan Zhu (surveys & modeling) Shanshan Li (project coordinator) Li Wei (costings, renderings, simulations) Ma Wenxuan (roads and intersections, BRT) Shaokun Liu (roads and intersections) Xiaomei Duan (BRT design) Deng Han (surveys & data analysis) Lin Xi (surveys and data processing/analysis) Li Yang (modal integration & TOD) Ren Bin (costings) Chen Dan (renderings) Derek Trusler (architecture) Remi Jeanneret (modeling & operations) Walter Hook, BRTPlan (business plan). The project team expresses great appreciation for the local support and guidance provided by Department of Transport and Communications (DOTC) staff, especially Robert Siy, Gyeng Chul Draft, ITDP-China

2

19 July 2015

Public transit on EDSA, where the majority of the ITDP proposed BRT trunk infrastructure is planned, is dominated by two elevated rail lines: the MRT3, and a short section of the LRT1. Underneath these rail lines run a multitude of normal buses which together carry more passengers than the rail lines. The normal buses are further divided into city and provincial buses. On limited sections of the northern and southern sections of EDSA there are some 15 jeepney routes that also use EDSA for a significant part of their route. LRT1 primarily serves the western side of the old CBD, but it loops around to serve a short section of the northern part of EDSA. The MRT system is operated by a unit within the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC). DOTC pays the MRTC for the right to use the infrastructure. The LRT1 was, until 2014, also operated by the LRTA. Operations, modernization, and expansion of the system has recently been contracted out by LRTA to a consortium, Light Rail Manila Consortium (LRMC). The former LRTA now merely has to manage the LRMC contract, and staff cuts are likely. The LRMC contract allows the operating consortium to collect all ticket revenue for decades and develop property around the LRT1, and it will also receive government investment funds to extend the LRT1 to connect to the MRT. The overlap of the LRT1 with the proposed BRT system on EDSA is limited to a short section in the north. Most passengers do not have both trip origins and trip destinations directly along EDSA and so prefer to take a bus to avoid the transfer and double payment required to take an MRT or LRT line. As a result, the majority of transit trips using EDSA depend on bus routes operating under the elevated rail system. Traffic under the elevated rail lines is heavily congested, and buses constitute a significant share of this congestion, particularly around stations. Regulatory authorities have for the most part restricted jeepneys to non-EDSA routes, but there are short sections where jeepneys access to EDSA to complete their routes. The ITDP proposal for BRT along EDSA is to redesign EDSA for high speed bus travel using BRT trunk infrastructure that accommodates bus routes which resemble some current bus routes but are also significantly restructured and Draft, ITDP-China

simplified compared to the current routes. In other words, modified bus routes that use EDSA for only part of their journeys, would operate in mixed traffic for some of their route, enter into trunk BRT infrastructure while on EDSA, and then return to mixed traffic for the remainder of their journey.

1.3 Policy support for BRT A high proportion of trips in Manila are by public transport, and conditions are generally extremely poor for passengers. In a sign of the dysfunctionality of the formal bus sector, services in air-conditioned minibuses (UVs) are mushrooming, with 153 UV routes recorded in frequency surveys. Passengers experience long and uncertain waits for public transport, slow traffic once on the buses, a high level of transfers, and poor access conditions to public transport stops. In interviews and meetings in Manila ITDP repeatedly found that there is a very high level of interest among practically all stakeholders in drastically improving conditions for public transport passengers. There is a keen awareness that the appeal and functioning of Manila is being seriously degraded by the negative impact of rapid motorization, chronic congestion, and poor public transport service. The strong support for public transport improvements in Manila was striking and provides an excellent basis and vision for implementation of BRT improvements starting with the main corridors of the city and gradually extending citywide. At senior levels in the government there was a near-uniform high level of interest and support for measures to drastically improve public transport service in Manila through the provision of a high quality, high capacity BRT system, and public transport improvements are a core part of the policy framework in the city.

1.4 Project scope area It was agreed during the initial project setup work in January 2015 that ITDP’s work on BRT would focus on the corridors shown in Figure 1-1.

3

19 July 2015

Figure 1-1: Project scope area, and (over page) project scope area with MRT & LRT stations, ITDP’s proposed greenway network, and other proposed BRT corridors.

Draft, ITDP-China

4

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

5

19 July 2015

2.

Current Situation

2.1 Bus stops

of the routes, especially in the area around Cubao. Following a visit to the Guangzhou BRT in 2012 Bus stops along roads in Metro Manila are often the MMDA implemented a scheme in which bus non-existent. Where they do exist, they are gener- stops were divided into ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ stops in the ally poorly located, inadequate to meet demand, highest demand areas, with buses labelled accorddifficult to access, ugly, provide poor weather ingly and required to stop only at the matching protection, provide practically no information to stop. passengers, and it could be said are therefore fairly In practice, in high demand locations along accurately representative of the overall bus-based EDSA, as was true in Guangzhou before the BRT public transport conditions in the city. (Figure 2-2), passengers simply spread out along Figure 2-1 shows the location of bus stops along the edge of the roadway, ignoring the physical EDSA compared to the proposed BRT stations. structure of the bus stop (Figure 2-3). The coverage is similar overall, with the same Bus stop access is also very difficult, especially number of BRT stations as there are current bus along EDSA, requiring long detours and arduous stops in the highest demand part of EDSA from climbs over poorly designed pedestrian bridges. Shaw Boulevard to MOA. Note also that in Figure When it is raining, bus stop conditions are even 2-1 some of the current bus stops do not serve all more miserable.

Draft, ITDP-China

7

19 July 2015

Figure 2-2: Gangding bus stop, before the BRT in 2007 (top left) and with the BRT in 2010 (above). Top right shows a similar situation at Shangshe before the BRT. Before the BRT, passengers spread out along the roadway in the same way as passengers currently wait for buses in Manila. With BRT, conditions for all modes are improved. Draft, ITDP-China

8

19 July 2015

Figure 2-3: Conditions at bus stops in Manila.

Bus stop along Commonwealth Avenue

Bus stop along along EDSA, at Boni

Bus stop along along EDSA, at Shaw Boulevard (north of the intersection)

Bus stop along along EDSA, at Shaw Boulevard (south of the intersection)

Draft, ITDP-China

9

19 July 2015

Bus stop along along EDSA, at Estrella. The bus stop structure in the foreground is largely irrelevant.

Bus stop along along EDSA, at Buendia Draft, ITDP-China

10

19 July 2015

Bus stop along along EDSA, at Ayala

Bus stop along along EDSA, at Ortigas. Draft, ITDP-China

Bus stop along along EDSA, at Ayala

11

19 July 2015

2.2 Bus route itineraries and frequencies Maps of all city bus, provincial bus, jeepney and UV routes in Metro Manila, especially those operating in the central areas, are avaialble at http:// www.manilabus.net, which was prepared as part of this report. The manilabus.net site also includes the peak hour frequency of all routes. Figure 2-4 shows the current public transport vehicle frequency based on frequency counts around Metro Manila during January to May 2015. The frequency map is a useful indicator of demand; much moreso than a map of just the bus routes alone, since it takes into account the actual buses operating. These frequency maps were produced by starting with dozens of on-street frequency counts to identify the routes which are actually operating. This was a laborious task in Manila because the routes do not have numbers; only names. All of the identified routes were mapped, and using GIS the frequency of buses could then be mapped. These frequency totals derived from mapping the routes were then calibrated with the site specific frequency counts. Discrepancies such as missing routes or incorrect route maps or insufficient frequency samples were then addressed, and the end result presented in these maps is quite accurate.

Draft, ITDP-China

Transit buses in Metro Manila do not have route numbers; only names of start and end points and some key points or roads passed. This makes it very difficult and time consuming to accurately identify the route that each bus/jeepney/UV is operating on. As part of the BRT project, bus route numbers will be introduced, to enable better planning and control of operations.

12

19 July 2015

The frequency maps reveal a number of useful points, including: City buses − Bus services are concentrated along major roads rather than dispersed. − The highest city bus volumes are along EDSA, and Commonwealth Avenue, with volumes exceeding 250 buses per hour per direction along EDSA between Cubao and Makati. − High city bus volumes can also be seen in Makati, SLEX, and along the southern part of Roxas Boulevard. − The roads with high bus volumes correspond very well with the proposed phase 1 BRT, which is a key indicator that the proposed phase 1 corridor is sound. − City buses do not operate at high frequencies inside the ‘circle’ formed by EDSA and Roxas Boulevard, and this is reflected in the proposed first phase BRT operational plan. Provincial buses − The provincial bus route frequency map is very revealing. (Note that the blue lines show where the provincial buses are operating in the phase 1 BRT corridor.) Provincial bus routes are even more concentrated along some major roads than are city bus routes. − Overall the provincial bus frequency is much lower (at least 5-10 times lower on most roads) than city buses, jeepneys, or UVs. − The striking features is that provincial bus routes are concentrated along a few major roads, and enter EDSA at two main points: Balintawak near East Grace Park in the north, and SLEX at Magallanes in the south. A third somewhat lower frequency point of entry is from Cavitex entering Roxas Boulevard in the south. − This concentration of provincial buses entering EDSA at these points makes it much easier to plan to cut off those routes and enable passengers to conveniently transfer to BRT buses before entering the EDSA corridor, than if the routes had been entering at multiple points. Transfer points have been designed for this purpose at Balintawak, ITS South, and ITS Southwest. − Note that the provincial bus frequency graphic only includes routes with at least one Draft, ITDP-China

−

− − −

−

−

−

−

13

bus per hour, as routes with a frequency of less than this are considered insignificant. Jeepneys In contrast to city buses, provincial buses and UVs, jeepney routes are extremely dispersed, and much more oriented in radial patterns from the city center. Jeepney frequencies are extremely high on some roads, with volumes approaching 500 vehicles per hour in a single direction. Jeepney frequency is very low or non-existent along EDSA, which makes EDSA a desirable early phase BRT option. The graphic showing phase 1 BRT stations superimposed on jeepney frequencies confirms the relatively low level of overlap with jeepney routes in the phase 1 BRT. UVs UV distribution is similar to city buses in terms of being fairly concentrated along some roads rather than dispersed throughout the city. UVs are overwhelmingly concentrated in high volumes along Cavitex and Roxas Boulevard, Quezon Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, Shaw Boulevard east of EDSA, Ortigas Avenue east of EDSA. With regard to the proposed BRT corridors, significant UV volumes can also be seen in part of the northern section of EDSA (between North Avenue and Balintawak), and Ayala Avenue in Makati. In general, UV routes are less problematic in terms of operating in BRT corridors, since they are not supposed to pick up passengers during the trip.

19 July 2015

Figure 2-4: Frequency and coverage of city and provincial bus routes, jeepneys, and UVs in Manila

Draft, ITDP-China

14

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

15

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

16

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

17

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

18

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

19

19 July 2015

2.3 Bus speed Bus speeds are slow, in many places little faster than walking speed. Figure 2-5 shows bus speeds in Manila derived from peak hour surveys during February to May 2015, with the black lines show speeds of less than 10km/hr. Most of the surveys and the heaviest sample coverage is from city bus on-board surveys. These surveys were supplemented on roads with few buses operating by doing jeepney speed surveys. The main purposes of the bus speed survey are to provide inputs to the model to enable accurate fleet requirement estimates, and to prioritize corridor selection. Several points emerge from the speed surveys: In general, speeds are low throughout the entire central area. Along EDSA speeds are somewhat higher in the northern section between Caloocan and Quezon Avenue, lower in the southern and eastern section between Quezon Avenue and Mall of Asia. Bus speeds along EDSA at Magallanes at the two lane flyover are reasonably good, suggesting that the BRT can operate in mixed traffic at this point without major problems. Bus speeds in Makati are extremely slow, along both Gil Puyat Avenue and Ayala Avenue. For almost the entire length of these roads but speeds are less than 10km/hr, suggesting that taking waiting time into account, in the peak hour it is faster to walk than to take a bus. Speeds on SLEX, Cavitex, and NLEX are generally high. Speeds on Commonwealth Ave are fairly high, mostly exceeding 35km/hr except for the area around Fairview Center Mall. With regard to the proposed BRT corridors, speeds on the southern part of Roxas Boulevard between Baclaran and Padre Burgos Avenue exceed 25km/hr. Bus speeds on C5 exceed 35km/hr in most of the southern part, and are in the 20-25km/hr range in the area between BGC and Heritage Memorial Park. This tends to justify the inclusion of Figure 2-5: Various graphics of bus speed in Manila, including bus speeds superimposed on proposed BRT stations. The largest benefits from BRT accrue where bus speeds are low. Draft, ITDP-China

20

19 July 2015

these roads in phase 2 rather than phase 1. Bus speeds on C5 in the section between C5 and Eastwood are much slower than the southern part of C5, suggesting that this section should be considered for adding to either the phase 2 or the phase 3 BRT network. Note that in this section along C5 between BGC and Eastwood, speeds are significantly lower in the northern section between Ortigas Avenue and Eastwood, and in the southern section between BGC and Shaw Boulevard, where speeds are mostly less than 15km/hr. The section of C5 between Shaw Boulevard and Ortigas Avenue has speeds primarily in the range of 20-25km/hr. Speeds in Quezon Avenue are much slower Draft, ITDP-China

south of Arenata Avenue compared to north of Arenata Avenue. Speeds in Samson Road, the western extension of EDSA at Caloocan, are very low. Combined with the narrow road conditions and high number of jeepneys operating as well as feedback from the MMDA, this led the team to reconsider including Samson Road in the BRT corridor. Instead, the BRT in phase 2 will extend from EDSA along Taft Avenue for a short section to C3, and then along C3 to the Navotas coastal corridor. Numerous other interesting points emerge from the speed survey, including the low speeds along Shaw Blvd, Ortigas Ave, and Magsaysay Blvd. 21

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

22

19 July 2015

2.4 Bus reliability

Angat-Leveriza via Ayala is a low frequency route, with an average interval of 23.1 minutes between buses, and an average waiting time of 12 minutes. Yet between 5:25pm and 7pm, there were no buses at all on this route. Thus a passenger arriving at 5:30pm for this route would have waited for 90 minutes without any bus arriving. Baclaran-Bagong Silang via EDSA Commonwealth is a relatively low frequency route, with one bus every 20 minutes. Yet there were two periods of nearly 40 minutes between buses with no buses arriving. Baclaran-Grotto via EDSA Commonwealth Ayala averages 5.3 buses per hour, with an average interval between buses of 11.3 minutes. Yet a passenger arriving at 5:32pm would have had to wait 30 minutes until the next bus arrived. Baclaran-Malanday via EDSA McArthur is a moderately high frequency route, with 6.5 buses per hour and an average interval of 9.2 minutes between buses. Yet a passenger of this route arriving at 5:17pm at the bus stop (having just missed two buses of this route which stopped at the stop at 5:16pm) would have had to wait more than an hour, until 6:22pm, for the next bus to arrive. Baclaran-Montalban via EDSA Commonwealth Ayala is a fairly low frequency route, averaging one bus every 23 minutes. Yet a passenger arriving at the stop at 5:45pm would have had to wait more than 45 minutes for the next bus to arrive. Baclaran-Navotas via EDSA is a moderately high frequency route, averaging 10.5 minutes between buses. Yet a passenger arriving at 5:34pm would have had to wait 50 minutes for the next bus to arrive. Baclaran-Norzagaray Sapang Palay via EDSA Commonwealth averages 10.7 minutes between bus arrivals at the stop, but a passenger arriving at the stop at 5:53pm would have had to wait more than 40 minutes for the next bus to arrive. Baclaran-Novaliches via EDSA Mindanao averages 9.5 minute intervals between buses, but a passenger arriving at 5:46pm would have had to wait more than an hour for the next bus to arrive.

Figure 2-6 shows the poor reliability of bus services in Manila. On Monday 8 June 2015 ITDP did a survey to record the arrival times each minute (the normal frequency surveys recorded the time at five minute intervals) at the SM Mega Mall bus bay in Ortigas. Since buses pulled into the stopping area and off the main thoroughfare, this provided a reliable location to record bus arrivals. The survey was carried out from 5pm to 7pm, during the evening peak hour period. Figure 2-3 records each arriving bus over the two hour period at one-minute intervals, showing the gaps between buses. The blue cells indicate one bus arriving. Orange cells indicate two buses arriving during the same one minute period, and red cells indicate three buses of the same route arriving in the same minute. Observations include the following: Alabang-Malanday via EDSA McArthur is a relatively high frequency route, averaging 6.9 buses per hour over the surveys carried out between February and May 2015. On average, an 8.7 minute headway or time between buses could be expected. Assuming passengers arrive randomly at the stop, the average waiting time would be half of the headway; less than 5 minutes. So a passenger arriving at the stop would on average expect to wait for 5 minutes, if the buses were evenly distributed. Yet a passenger arriving at 6:18pm to wait for this bus would have had to wait 25 minutes until the next bus arrived. Alabang-Novaliches via EDSA NLEX is a relatively low frequency route, with 3.6 buses per hour and an average waiting time of 9 minutes if the buses were evenly distributed. Yet a passenger arriving at 6:18pm to wait for this bus would have had to wait for more than 40 minutes until 7pm, when the survey ended, and the next bus had still not arrived. Alabang-SM Fairview via EDSA Commonwealth is a high frequency route, with an average 11.5 buses per hour during the peak hour, for an average interval of only 5.2 minutes between buses. Yet a passenger arriving at 5.15pm would have had to wait 26 minutes for the next bus (which would certainly have been already filled to crush loading levels) to arrive. Draft, ITDP-China

23

19 July 2015

Figure 2-6: Survey of bus departures every minute between 5pm-7pm on 8 June 2015 at the SM Mega Mall bus bay stopping area at Ortigas. Draft, ITDP-China

24

19 July 2015

Bus stops along EDSA (Guadalupe, Buendia, Estrella). Bus passengers endure highly uncertain peak hour waiting times, which greatly reduces the appeal of public transport. Off-peak variability waiting times are even longer. Draft, ITDP-China

25

19 July 2015

Baclaran-SM Fairview via EDSA Commonwealth is a high frequency route averaging less than 5 minutes between buses. Yet a passenger arriving at 6:14pm would have had to wait 20 minutes for the next bus to arrive. Bagong Silang-NAIA via EDSA Commonwealth is a low frequency route, averaging 25 minute intervals between buses. But a passenger arriving at 5pm would have had to wait until 6:10pm - when two buses of the same route arrived simultaneously. The other routes feature similarly unpredictable waiting periods. Novaliches-Pacita via EDSA Mindanao, for example, has an average waiting time of 24 minutes between buses. Yet between 5:11pm and 5:17pm 3 buses of this route arrived. After that, there was no bus until 6:34pm; one hour and 17 minutes later. In short, the waiting times are so unpredictable that for anyone who needs to arrive at work on time, or anywhere on time, it would be very difficult to rely on the bus system along EDSA. An office or call center working finishing work at 5pm and hoping to travel home, even on a high frequency route, will have to wait for anything from a few minutes to half an hour or more. On lower frequency routes, the wait might exceed one hour. Furthermore, the passenger has no way of knowing how long the next bus will take to arrive. In this situation of very low reliability, people will inevitably choose other travel options when they become available. These service gaps in the bus system explain the growing popularity of UVs.

capacity side, so that the ‘worst case’ scenario relating to future projects is that some stations are bigger than actually needed. In the case of MRT7, this new metro line will not lead to a major increase in EDSA BRT demand, because BRT buses are already proposed to be operating along Commonwealth Avenue in mixed traffic as part of the off-corridor BRT operation. More likely is that the BRT demand will be reduced, as some of the demand along Commonwealth Avenue shifts from BRT to MRT7. Thus there is no significant risk that the EDSA BRT stations have been designed with a capacity too low to accommodate demand changes with the MRT7. Another example is the Skyway, which will open at least partly in 2016. This roadway is likely to divert some traffic from EDSA. This study has not assumed any diversion of traffic from EDSA at key locations such as Ayala & Guadalupe, which is a conservative approach to the traffic impact analysis. A key consideration in the BRT station design relating to demand uncertainty for future projects is that the BRT stations are a high capacity design which can accommodate 9m, 12m, and 18m BRT buses, with 12m buses generally preferred. If for example a later high capacity BRT is implemented along C5, this can divert some traffic from EDSA, and will mean that more 12m BRT buses can be used instead of 18m BRT buses. If C5 BRT does not proceed, the EDSA BRT will need more 18m buses. Table 2-1 outlines possible future projects relating to BRT, and the approach taken in this study.

2.5 Other projects There is always significant demand uncertainty with BRT, because demand patterns will change after a system is implemented. In addition in Manila a major uncertainty relates to suppressed demand. In terms of future planned projects and indeed regardless of future projects, the key requirement related to the EDSA BRT design is to be conservative in terms of the station design and traffic impact analysis, such that the heaviest demand possible future scenarios are accommodated in terms of BRT station saturation. Any uncertainty should be resolved on the higher Draft, ITDP-China

26

19 July 2015

Table 2-1: Possible future projects related to BRT Project Skyway

Lead agency Taken into account Remark DPWH No Impact mainly on car traffic

C5 BRT

DOTC

Yes

Metro Manila DOTC BRT Line 1 (Quezon Avenue to Manila City Hall)

No

North Avenue flyovers

DPWH

Initially yes, but later no

MRT7

DOTC

Yes. Project 7 can MRT7 will impact future demand but does not be changed to 3 impact proposed EDSA BRT design (other than substops if needed Project 7 station, possibly)

Santa Monica Bridge

DPWH

Yes, but only relates to phase 2

If project does not proceed, there is no impact on the phase 1 BRT design

Airport roads

DPWH

Yes

Not designed in this study because CAD files not available and construction details not yet clear, but stations can be located in center, where pillars are.

C5-airport connection

SM?

No

Could not get information on alignment / design

ITS South ITS Southwest ITS North

DOTC

Yes

BRT stations located at each terminal. Depots should be considered, if space is available

C3

DPWH

Yes

Phase 2 alignment changed to use C3 & Rizal instead of Samson Road

MRT3 train carriages addition

DOTC

Yes, partially

BRT analysis assumed a frequency of 5 minute intervals for MRT3, compared to current common intervals of 6-7 minutes, in anticipation of additional train carriages being added. In addition, the MRT3 frequency mostly impacts mode choice of people traveling from one MRT station to another, which is only a small proportion of the BRT demand.

Draft, ITDP-China

The C5 stations have a high capacity design in anticipation of future BRT on C5

Told by MMDA that this project may not proceed. If it does proceed, the Project 7 BRT station location can be adjusted

27

19 July 2015

3.

BRT Modelling and Operations

3.1 Proposed phasing The exact coverage area of the BRT scope specified in Figure 1-1 in the preceding chapter was not strictly defined, and it was agreed and understood that the precise scope could be varied based on findings from the initial field observations, surveys, and demand analysis. The final BRT study area and proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 BRT corridors were selected based on several considerations: Some or all of EDSA is expected to be included in the BRT. Quezon Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue could not be considered because of the planned MRT7 in Commonwealth Avenue and the proposed bus lane corridor along Quezon Avenue, designed by consultants for the World Bank. Corridors with a higher concentration of buses are preferred to corridors with a higher concentration of jeepneys, for the initial BRT implementation. Corridors enabling the implementation of BRT while leaving sufficient space for mixed traffic to not be adversely impacted were preferred. Corridors with low bus speeds and high bus passenger demand are preferred over corridors with higher speeds and lower demand. Policy priorities, such as the desire to serve lower income areas, were taken into account. BRT along EDSA should extend to areas which are not covered by the MRT.. Consideration of these factors led to the BRT construction phases proposed in Figure 3-1. The inclusion of EDSA and Makati are driven by demand considerations. The inclusion of the airport corridor section can be considered more ‘optional’, but is desirable given that the elevated roads connecting to the airport will be opening in 2016, opening up space at street level for BRT. While this report is based on the BRT phases proposed in Figure 3-1, various alternatives could also be considered.

Draft, ITDP-China

3.2 Possible alternative phasing One possible alternative which arose in discussions very late in the project is to include the Ortigas to BGC busway and associated Santa Monica Bridge in phase 1, and shift the airport corridors to phase 2. This possible option is illustrated in Figure 3-2. In this case, phase 1 would consist of 42km and 51 BRT stations. This alternative phasing plan is included in the costings chapter below. This approach would take advantage of major new infrastructure – the proposed Santa Monica Bridge – completing a key public transport connection between Ortigas, BGC and Makati without needing to deal with many existing operators, since the connection does not currently exist. This connection could also help to reduce some of the capacity-related pressure in the highest demand segment of the EDSA BRT corridor between Ortigas and Makati. More operational and other analysis and design is required to confirm some of the key details of this alignment being included in phase 1 rather than in the initially proposed phase 2, though the analysis in this study suggests that this option is viable. Further details can be studied during the detailed design stage following this study. One issue relating to the proposed BRT phases is whether to include the southern section of Roxas Boulevard, between the Makati and Airport corridors, in the first phase or second phase BRT. In general it is preferable to carry out BRT implementation in a particular roadway during the same phase rather than as part of separate phases, but in Roxas Blvd an exception may be preferred due to the concentration of BRT routes along the section of Roxas Blv between the Makati and Airport corridors. Bus speeds along the southern part of Roxas Blvd are good, with delays at bus stops rather than due to congestion, and intersection improvements will ensure reasonable traffic performance. Either option, including or excluding the southern part of Roxas Blvd in phase 1, is workable and it is primarily a construction issue.

29

19 July 2015

Construction phases

Figure 3-1: Proposed phase 1 and phase 2 BRT corridors. ‘Other BRT’ refers to projects listed in Table 2-1.

Draft, ITDP-China

30

Figure 3-2 (over page): A possible alternative BRT phasing plan, with the Ortigas to BGC busway replacing the Airport corridor in phase 1. This would result in a 42km, 51 station phase 1 BRT. 19 July 2015

Overall phases

Draft, ITDP-China

31

19 July 2015

Overall phases

BRT network option with part of Roxas Blvd included in the first phase.

the section of Roxas Blvd between the Makati and Airport corridors. Bus speeds along the southern part of Roxas Blvd are good, with delays at bus stops rather than due to congestion, and Draft, ITDP-China

intersection improvements will ensure reasonable traffic performance. Either option, including or excluding the southern part of Roxas Blvd in phase 1, is workable and it is primarily a construction issue. 32

19 July 2015

Overall phases

BRT network option with Roxas Blvd in the second phase

Draft, ITDP-China

33

19 July 2015

3.3 Surveys and data Available3.4 Methodology and Data collection calibration

Draft, ITDP-China

34

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

35

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

36

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

37

19 July 2015

The percentage from different modes transferring to bus:

Self-reported trip times from transfer survey along EDSA

(including walk time) Average self-reported trip cost from transfer survey along EDSA: 47 pesos per trip

Draft, ITDP-China

38

19 July 2015

231

Frequency: S N 219 220 222 199

198 192 190

186 166

215 196 179

172

166

181181.5

174

168

162 157 153 151 152.4 148.5 150 144 143 142 144 139 147 133.2 126 Frequency: S N 115

129 116

173

157 160 153 143

137

181 177

181

178

168 168 168 167 160 162 156 148 146

165 161 150 141

155

136

118

86

All day transit frequency counts in the front of SM megamall EDSA, on 13 Jan 2015; The frequency includes bus (8993 buses per day for both dir) and UV (1409 UV per day for both dir); The frequency of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 7.97% of all day (16hrs).

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

9:45

10:15

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

419

417

Frequency: two direction

394 390

385

349.5

342.4 323 291.5299 277

282

313 316

307 284.2

289 291

327

357

356

343 345

327

336 316

294

314 315

302 286

215

All day transit frequency counts in the front of SM megamall EDSA, on 13 Jan 2015; The frequency includes bus (8993 buses per day for both dir) and UV (1409 UV per day for both dir); The frequency of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 7.97% of all day (16hrs).

Pax: S N

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

6576

6113 5663 5506 5365 5345 5143 5135 5113 50685066 5009 4933 4905 4867.5 48624749 4845 4787 4785 4720 4710 47094822 4529 4422 4412 4410 4365 43044267 4295 4244 4112 3961 3960 3932 38923773 3861 3827 3820.5 3765.6 3696 3747 3668 3651 3645 3646 3621 3553.2 3574 3529 35153487 3483 3389 Pax: S N 3357 3296 3284 3275 3187 2810 2186

All day transit occupancy counts in the front of SM megamall EDSA, on 13 Jan 2015; The pax includes bus (259557 pxper day for both dir) and UV (12990 UV per day for both dir) . The pax of morning peak(7:00 8:00) is 7.74% of all day.

Draft, ITDP-China

39

19 July 2015

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

11248 Pax: two direction

9750

9370 9000

9130

9351 8821

8728.5 8530.5 8359 8326 7912 7707 7543 7380.2 71627266 69806804

8032.6

7895

10871

10649 10094 9871 9787

9309 8628 8420 8144

5997 5482

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

All day transit occupancy counts in the front of SM megamall EDSA, on 13 Jan 2015; The pax includes bus (259557 pxper day for both dir) and UV (12990 UV per day for both dir) . The pax of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 7.74% of all day (16hrs).

193 168 149

Frequency: S N

181

180 163

160

158 157 158

143 123

145

109

101

93

Frequency: N S

143 143

137

125 127 126 123

118

112 110

158

157 139

126

182

179

104 106

127 126 116 114 111

132

126 111 109 100

87

107 95

112

138 114

110 93

88

99 92 93 93 81

106

101 87 90

All day transit frequency counts in EDSA Aurora Boulevard on 13 May 2015; The frequency includes bus (6129 buses per day for both dir), provincial bus (1007 provincial buses per day for both dir) and UV (830 UV per day for both dir) . The frequency of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 7.21% of all day (16hrs).

311

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

322 303

275

303 272

299 283

267 264 272

264 251

244 230 229 230

275 253

248

238

235

250

224

220 219

207

200 202

192 193 191

Frequency: two direction

All day transit frequency counts in EDSA Aurora Boulevard on 13 May 2015; The frequency includes bus (6129 buses per day for both dir), provincial bus (1007 provincial buses per day for both dir) and UV (830 UV per day for both dir) . The frequency of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 7.21% of all day (16hrs).

Draft, ITDP-China

40

19 July 2015

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

6164 5677

5531

Pax: S N

4777

4627 4298 40354084

4293

4208

4058 4022 4020 3829 3695 3674 3637 3590 3549 3540 3486 3453 3373 3305 3298 3249 3191 31343137 3073 30683106 2979 2967 2891295428332888 2834 2760 27602740 Pax: N S 2602 25262624 25122391 22882367 2281 2103 1823

3820 3764 35703621 3410 3244 32033130 3010 2920 27702653

All day transit frequency counts in EDSA Aurora Boulevard on 13 May 2015; The pax includes bus (191096 pxper day for both dir), provincial bus (17631 pxper day for both dir) and UV (6693 pxper day for both dir) . The pax of morning peak(7:00 8:00) is 7.03% of all day.

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

Pax: two direction 9712 8676

8604 8187 7441

7338 6967

6580

7671

72857325

69467002 6662 6616 60256091 5951

6581

56905897

5853 5569

7367 6782

7333

6404

6508 5931

5349 46294447

All day transit frequency counts in EDSA Aurora Boulevard on 13 May 2015; The pax includes bus (191096 pxper day for both dir), provincial bus (17466 pxper day for both dir) and UV (6693 pxper day for both dir) . The pax of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 7.03% of all day (16hrs).

180

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

184 Frequency: S N 166 167

156 159 146

166 159 149

135

134

143 140 144 139 139 130

128 119

118

119 107

101 101

115 107

120 119 120 100 100

94

112 106 103

111

107 107 106 104 103 102 102 99 96 98 98 96 94 97 97 96 93

117 116 119 111 102

100 94 94 90 91

Frequency: N S

All day transit frequency counts in Estrella on 14 May 2015; The frequency includes bus (5300 buses per day for both dir), Jeepney (893 buses per day for both dir), UV (830 UV per day for both dir), provincial bus (1146 provincial buses per day for both dir). The frequency of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 8.16% of all day (16hrs).

Draft, ITDP-China

41

19 July 2015

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

319 302

293 298

285

274

271

267 253

279 283

250

249 222 220 219 226 215

227 201 207 200 201 200

Frequency: two direction

189 194

236

205 209 192

185

194

All day transit frequency counts in Estrella on 14 May 2015; The frequency includes bus (5300 buses per day for both dir), Jeepney (893 buses per day for both dir), UV (830 UV per day for both dir), provincial bus (1146 provincial buses per day for both dir). The frequency of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 8.16% of all day (16hrs).

5307 5054

5146 5018 4894

4891

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

4765

4606 4480

4507 4365

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

4457

4306 42064273 4180 40123930 3986 3911 3890 3879 3860 3772 36853600 35813541 3289 Pax: N S 3215

4010 Pax: S N

3699

3538 3437 3275 3082

31413052 29112854 28022721 2701 2684 2636 25352503 2476 2416 2352 22772190 2127 2105

2988 283928612823 2826 2726 2639 2057 16081518

All day transit frequency counts in Estrella on 14 May 2015; The pax includes bus (177478 pxper day for both dir), jeepney (9471 pxper day for both dir), UV (2175 pxper day for both dir), provincial bus (29891 pxper day for both dir). The pax of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 7.65% of all day (16hrs).

9234

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

8903

8872

8848 8378 8061 7820

786578917873

7771 7521

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

85568421 7491 7296 6998 6560 6519

7246

5925

Pax: two direction

5528 527052365305 5246 5038 49984874

4880 42474344

All day transit frequency counts in EDSA Aurora Boulevard on 13 May 2015; The pax includes bus (177478 pxper day for both dir), jeepney (9471 pxper day for both dir), UV (2175 pxper day for both dir), provincial bus (29891 pxper day for both dir). The pax of morning peak (7:00 8:00) is 7.65% of all day (16hrs).

Draft, ITDP-China

42

19 July 2015

21:45

21:15

20:45

20:15

19:45

19:15

18:45

18:15

17:45

17:15

16:45

16:15

15:45

15:15

14:45

14:15

13:45

13:15

12:45

12:15

11:45

11:15

10:45

10:15

9:45

9:15

8:45

8:15

7:45

7:15

6:45

6:15

6:00 6:30

Draft, ITDP-China

43

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

44

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

45

19 July 2015

3.5 Results and recommendations 3.5.1 BRT corridor selection and phases

Create new BRT routes based on the demand (example of one route along Ortigas Avenue)

Draft, ITDP-China

46

19 July 2015

Baclaran Norzagaray Sapang Palay via EDSA Commonwealth

Baclaran Heritage Homes via EDSA NLEX

Draft, ITDP-China

47

19 July 2015

SM Fairview Taguig via Lagro Ayala Buendia EDSA

X: Observed volume of passengers from Y: Assignment of MUCEP JICA ODOD Matrix matrix R2=0.25 Slope: 1.67

Draft, ITDP-China

48

19 July 2015

JICA Zoning

Incorporation of OD matrix obtained thru boarding & alighting survey

MUCEP

Draft, ITDP-China

49

19 July 2015

Final AM peak OD matrix

Final AM peak OD matrix – zoom central area

Draft, ITDP-China

50

19 July 2015

Phase 1 load

Phase 2 load

Draft, ITDP-China

51

19 July 2015

3.5.2 BRT routes

Overall route, fleet and demand figures are: 1,151 buses − 100 8m buses (part of a related project) − 751 12m buses − 300 18m buses 1.65 million daily trips ridership

Phase 1 BRT routes & fleet requirements

Note that these summary figures refer to a proposed overall phase 1. In terms of construction and implementation, this overall phase 1 will needed to be divided into several construction phases.

al 6 8 y

AINABLE TRANSPORT

Draft, ITDP-China

52

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

53

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

54

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

55

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

56

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

57

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

58

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

59

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

60

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

61

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

62

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

63

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

64

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

65

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

66

19 July 2015

1.85 million daily trips ridership. Phase 2 routes are very preliminary, given the uncertainty in demand patterns over time, and the focus of surveys on phase 1 corridors. The phase 1 B10 route is cancelled in phase 2 because it is superseded route changes.

Phase 2 BRT routes & fleet requirements

The following phase 2 route and fleet requirements relate to an approval rather than construction phase 2 network. The actual construction and implementation will be divided into several stages. 29 routes (including phase 1 routes).

Draft, ITDP-China

67

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

68

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

69

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

70

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

71

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

72

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

73

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

74

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

75

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

76

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

77

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

78

19 July 2015

3.5.3 Next steps for modelling improvement

3.5.4 Fares Distance-based fare rather than flat fare Card readers at bus stops to scan after alighting, rather than scanning on the bus The current fare formula for air-conditioned buses is 15 peso for the first 5 kilometer + 2.2 peso per additional kilometer. The proposed fare formula is 5.6842 + 1.7444 per kilometer.

(1) Data collection:

More boarding and alighting survey for bus, jeepney, UV express and provincial routes; More transfer survey at main stations; did 14 main bus station on EDSA, need more survey to get the real OD matrix; other option is to obtain a matrix through onboard OD survey. More frequency and occupancy counts for provincial and UV routes.

3.6 BRT Vehicles

(2) Zoning system:

the disaggregation to bus stops which we did using on board surveys is a great improvement, and was done according to existing data, even though a more detailed zoning system should be recommended for the central area to represent precisely one BRT station for each zone.

3.6.1 12m and 18m BRT bus specifications

Reference information from a manufacturer of BRT vehicles was sought, based on actual vehicle pricing from recent BRT projects implemented in the Asia region. (3) Operation plan: According to a manufacturer’s information Update the modeling and optimize. provided in May 2015, the cost of these vehicles Test new possible routes to link new areas to is around US$96,000 to $144,000 for a 12m BRT connect to the system. bus, and around $216,000 to $264,000 for an 18m Define express services. BRT bus. This cost includes all shipping costs and import duties. The cost is based on a Euro 4 emission engine, which will be the legal minimum (4) Private trips: The private trips in MUCEP household survey standard for public transport vehicles in the Philippines, beginning on 1 January 2016, per the present a very poor distribution, should incorporate more counts and speed data to get Clean Air Act (RA 8749). Note that these figures are simply provided as supplied by the manufaca better demand adjustment. turer, with no attempt to negotiate or press for lower prices or more favorable terms. (5) Future BRT extensions: There will also be an additional cost component Analyze the possible BRT extensions that can for a 5-year maintenance package to be provided be added for a third phase implementation. by the vehicle manufacturer. During the first 5 years of vehicle operation, the manufacturer will (6) Demand projection: be responsible for all routine maintenance activiActually the demand estimation is based on ties and will provide a training program to enable existing demand plus modal split and new capacity development of the vehicle operator to areas development, and demand projections assume maintenance responsibilities after the could be taken in account for medium term five-year period. development, new development areas, based on socio-economic data projections

Draft, ITDP-China

79

19 July 2015

4.

Benefits of BRT

BRT would provide many benefits in Manila. With real-time next bus arrival information, the Some of the main benefits are discussed following. perceived waiting time for passengers will be significantly reduced. Passenger time savings from the phase 1 BRT, 4.1 Maintain transit as the based on the operational design concept in this dominant mode report, are estimated to be: 9.7 minutes per trip, or around 90 million The proposed EDSA BRT offers a way to achieve passenger-hours per year. ambitious policy goals for promoting and improvThe passenger time saving benefits are summaing public transport and establishing public rized in Table 4-1. Note that regarding passenger transport as a viable and attractive alternative to time savings the figures in Table 4-1 provide only trips by car and motorcycle. Conversely, without the in-vehicle time savings. The figure of 90 milBRT it is difficult to see how these goals can be lion passenger hours per year cited above includes achieved. station access time savings and passenger waiting The current situation of public transport in time savings in addition to the in-vehicle time Manila is so dire, with such low speeds, poor savings. physical conditions and unreliable service, that incremental improvements will clearly not be sufficient. Increasing speeds by 5-10% with kerbside BRT phase 1 benefits Items Value Unit bus lanes, for example, will in many cases simply result in an increase from 10km/hr to 12km/hr. BRT passenger 9.7 mins time savings per trip

4.2 Time and operational savings 4.2.1

BRT passenger AM 107,376 (including transfer)

Passenger time savings

The main reason for implementing BRT is to provide benefits for passengers, and one of the main benefits is passenger time savings. The BRT system will provide significant time savings for bus passengers in Manila, in several ways. The most direct way that the BRT saves passengers time is to enable faster on-bus speeds, and lower waiting times due to higher frequency operation. The gains from faster speeds are reflected in the trip time savings shown in the histograms of trip time distribution below. These benefits are based on the current situation. As congestion continues to worsen in Manila, bus speeds will continue to slow, so that by the time the BRT system is operational, the time saving benefit for BRT passengers will be larger than the time savings based on current bus speeds. This time-saving benefit will continue to increase in future years, as congestion increases and traffic and bus speeds (in the absence of BRT) would further decline. Due to higher BRT bus frequencies, more reliable intervals between buses, and more reliable passenger information systems, passengers will typically save significant additional time per trip through shorter and more reliable waiting times. Draft, ITDP-China

per hour

Transfer rate

0.09

Peak hour factor for demand

15.38

Year factor for demand

320

days

BRT passengers daily (including transfer)

1,651,931

per day

BRT passengers average trip distance

15.42

km

Revenue: weighted (5.6842+ 1.7444*km)*(trips average per OD pair)

81

BRT fare revenue per day

51,375,233

pesos

BRT passengers time saving per day

267,062

hours

BRT revenue per year

16,440,074,403

pesos

BRT passengers time saving per year

85,459,897

hours

19 July 2015

Figure 4-1: Bus stop congestion in Manila, and buses occupying large portions of the roadway. These problems can be solved with a well-designed BRT (or worsened with a poorly designed BRT).

Draft, ITDP-China

82

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

83

19 July 2015

4.2.2 Operational savings Field observations and surveys suggest that the current operations in Manila are highly inefficient, with large buses operating at relatively low levels of occupancy and at very low speeds. Indeed on EDSA the licensed city bus vehicles are reported to be around 3,400 based on data from DOTC from January 2014, but ITDP’s surveys from February to May 2015 suggest that only around 1,500 city buses are actually operating in EDSA in the peak hour. Part of this discrepancy is due to number plate restrictions that force around 20% of the bus fleet off the road during weekdays. However, even allowing for this plate number restriction and for a reserve fleet proportion of up to 10%, ITDP’s field surveys suggest that around 1,000 less buses are operating in peak hours in Manila than are actually licensed and permitted to operate. The BRT system will drastically improve the efficiency of bus operations. Bus operational savings from BRT result from faster bus speeds, which means that the same passenger demand can be met using fewer buses. The reduction in buses required to meet passenger demand has direct benefits in terms of the cost of buses, which in turns feeds into savings in maintenance, fuel consumption, costs of drivers, and so on. The fleet savings will roughly correspond with the proportion of each BRT route in the BRT corridor, with greater fleet savings for routes with longer proportions in the slower city parts of the BRT corridor.

4.3 Other benefits Improving traffic

As the traffic impact analysis chapter shows, the mixed traffic speeds and roadway capacity will in general be improved by the BRT, so car drivers and passengers will also benefit from the BRT. A well-designed BRT will solve the problem of bus stop congestion in BRT corridors (Figure 4-1).

Station access improvements

Along most of the proposed phase 1 BRT corridor, accessing bus stops in Manila currently requires crossing roads either through detours to the nearest intersection, or at mid-block locations with poorly designed footbridges. The BRT Draft, ITDP-China

corridor will provide major bus access improvements, with a net addition of more than 40 high quality pedestrian crossings. These improved road crossings will benefit all pedestrians and cyclists using the corridor and crossing the road; not only the BRT passengers. By including pedestrian facility improvements and by integrating the BRT corridor with a greenway network (and a proposed bike sharing system), the BRT system will also provide a model for station area development around BRT stations. This BRT station area development will maximize the value of the city’s investment in the BRT system, and adjacent land values.

Bus industry and regulatory reform

As outlined in the institutional chapter of this report, the proposed EDSA/Makati/airport phase 1 BRT system provides a mechanism for bus industry transformation and bus sector regulatory reform in Manila. Previous attempts at reforming the bus industry and improving regulation have not been successful, because they have not addressed the fundamental problem of low bus speeds and bus stop congestion. BRT provides a mechanism to achieve these reforms because the scope of a BRT system is limited to a particular corridor and set of routes, meaning that reforms need not be applied simultaneously citywide. And crucially, a BRT provides major improvements to operators, both in operational costs as well as working conditions of drivers. This provides the government with leverage to impose conditions on operators who want to participate in the new BRT system. Without the leverage provided by a high quality and high capacity BRT system, it is much harder for the government to achieve either meaningful bus industry reform or institutional & regulatory reform.

Accommodating future growth

Accommodating future growth in Manila requires a well designed BRT network, since rail-based systems can at most meet only a small proportion of the public transport demand and buses will continue to serve the large majority of transit trips for the foreseeable future. Manila’s BRT will provide a basis for transitoriented, low carbon development in the city. New developments can and should be integrated with 84

19 July 2015

the BRT corridor in several ways, all of which will maximize the benefits and development potential of the BRT system: High quality physical walkway connections should be provided from new developments to BRT stations. For existing developments such connections can be retrofitted. Safe and convenient bicycle access to BRT stations and bus stops used by BRT buses from new developments should be ensured at the design stage of new roads and new developments. Such connections can be retrofitted to existing roads. Secure and convenient bicycle parking facilities should be a mandatory requirement at all new developments and at BRT stations. Bike sharing and greenways should be implemented and linked to the BRT corridor and stations. (ITDP has separate reports and recommendations on these topics.) In general, high quality public space including plazas, seating, lighting, shade and other amenities should be prioritized over other land uses in BRT station forecourts. Car parking on building setbacks should be banned at station areas along the BRT corridor, with bollards to prevent vehicle encroachment on walkways. Zoning provisions should be stipulated to allow and encourage higher density development along the BRT corridor. The current off-street parking minimum standards for new developments should be changed to parking maximum standards, in which the government stipulates a maximum amount of allowed off-street parking in a new development, and the developer is then free to provide any amount of parking (or none at all) up to that standard. This is a reform which should be carried out city-wide, but can be commenced along the BRT corridor. Where high quality transit access is available, such as along the BRT corridor, off-street parking provision near BRT stations should be minimized or eliminated.

Rapid implementation and citywide coverage

BRT planning, design and implementation can be done in three years, and as detailed in the final chapter of this report, a BRT system in Manila could potentially be operating by sometime in 2018. With a direct service operational mode, after just the first phase operation the BRT service will reach a significant proportion of the built-up area of the city. Figure 4-2 shows areas within 300m of the phase 1 BRT routes, showing that the direct service operations (in which BRT buses operate both inside and outside the BRT corridor) allow the BRT to quickly achieve a citywide reach.

Relatively low cost

BRT is approximately an order of magnitude cheaper than other mass transit options in Metro Manila. Figure 4-3 compares the cost of BRT and rail based mass transit in Manila, with the entire 80km phase 1 and phase 2 BRT costing approximately the same as 6km of MRT.

Other benefits

As well as the direct and indirect benefits mentioned above, a well-designed BRT in Manila would: Enhance the livability and city image of Manila. Greatly spur economic activity, by supporting trip demand that is currently suppressed due to the difficulties of traveling on the main roads in Manila. Make it much easier and more pleasant for tourists to travel around the city, as well as greatly improving access to the airport. Improve the environment, with few global greenhouse gas emissions as well as emissions of local pollutants. Support economic development in the city, including opening up areas for development due to the higher densities made possible by high capacity BRT.

All of these measures will maximize the benefit that the city, developers and residents receive from the investment in the BRT system.

Draft, ITDP-China

85

19 July 2015

Figure 4-2: Areas within 300m of a phase 1 BRT route.

Draft, ITDP-China

86

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

87

19 July 2015

Figure 4-3: Comparing the cost of BRT vs MRT in Manila

4.4 Section by section impact & benefit analysis A more detailed impact and benefits/disbenefits analysis will require a section by section analysis of the BRT corridor and the impacts on BRT passengers and mixed traffic road users. This analysis would also take into account the proposed BRT intersection changes. This more detailed section by section analysis of the BRT corridor can only be completed when further modeling refinements, further work on intersection phase and design changes, and additional mixed traffic speed surveys are carried out, and is proposed as one of the follow-up measures Draft, ITDP-China

to this study. The proposed approach to estimating the benefits/disbenefits of the decongesting/congesting impacts of the BRT along various corridor segments on non-BRT road users is outlined following. For the purposes of this study, a modeling approach was used to estimate BRT passenger time savings, with the modeling approach also based on a section by section consideration of BRT passenger flows and speeds.

88

19 July 2015

Benefits The basic benefit of the project is time savings for passengers & buses. Benefit

B.ih= Dih *(Tp.ih-Tf.ih) i- stretch .h= period D.ih= passengers passing on stretch i on period h Tp.ih= present time to cross the stretch i on period h Tf.ih= future time to cross the stretch i on period h

B.ih

.h= time periods i= stretch of corridor

Example of passengers time savings (illustrative values) h 5 pm to 8 pm EDSA from Taft avenue to Ortigas i Avenue- 9.4 km variable value unit

B.ih= Dih *(Tp.ih-Tf.ih) i- stretch .h= period D.ih= passengers passing on stretch i on period h Tp.ih= present time to cross the stretch i on period h Tf.ih= future time to cross the stretch i on period h 1

D

45 000

passengers

Tp Tf Tp-Tf Benefit

1.5 0.4 1.1 49 500

hours hours hours pas* hour

2

2

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.2

2

1.2

EDSA - present

1

EDSA - present

1

MRT

0.8

MRT

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

EDSA-BRT

0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3

4

passenger volumes by period and stretch (illustrative values)

B.ih= Dih *(Tp.ih-Tf.ih) i- stretch .h= period D.ih= passengers passing on stretch i on period h Tp.ih= present time to cross the stretch i on period h Tf.ih= future time to cross the stretch i on period h

period stretch

example of passengers time savings (illustrative values) h 5 pm to 8 pm EDSA from Taft avenue to Ortigas i Avenue- 9.4 km variable value unit D Tp Tf Tp-Tf Benefit

45 000 1.5 0.4 1.1 49 500

35

17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 19:15 19:30 19:45

1

1910 1963 2230 2257 2501 2863 2717 3094 2634 1881 2220 2143

2

2266 2303 2562 2670 2964 3275 3212 3537 3080 2266 2494 2438

3

2871 2955 3388 3455 3736 4220 4067 4595 4000 2865 3243 3286

4

3869 3873 4305 4424 5081 5713 5284 6028 5365 3749 4500 4391

5

4025 4109 4848 4771 5333 6119 5773 6543 5651 3967 4759 4736

6

3676 3916 4466 4399 5094 5769 5330 6145 5345 3842 4310 4380

7

3177 3182 3670 3785 4244 4793 4550 5064 4464 3113 3671 3627

8

2882 2843 3277 3417 3716 4296 3965 4699 4026 2895 3241 3186

9

2585 2613 2981 3002 3311 3785 3542 4030 3451 2439 2871 2817

passengers hours hours hours pas* hour

Draft, ITDP-China

5

6

89

19 July 2015

17:00 4.14 6.47 6.9 5.3 9.89 5.36 7.28 5.09 5.62

present travel time by period and stretch (minutes) period 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 5.72 5.57 6.39 5.73 9.42 11.1 12.4 11.5 7.71 5.53 8.11 9.41 8.84 13.2 14.4 11.8 7.24 7.3 6.95 9.4 11.7 12.7 15.9 15 8.69 7.67 11.1 9.73 14.9 16.8 20.1 15.8 8.9 10.3 10.1 12.5 16.1 19.1 21.3 20.4 9.99 7.66 10.3 12.6 11.9 16.8 16.4 18 8.55 9.03 6.53 8.48 12.4 12.9 14 15.3 5.96 7.69 7.65 7.98 10.5 8.99 12.9 11.4 3.77 6.32 4.55 5.42 9 8.67 10.5 10.4

stretch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17:00 1.78 2.38 2.78 2.38 2.98 2.48 1.88

future travel time by period and stretch (minutes) 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 1.83 1.88 1.93 1.98 2.03 2.08 2.13 2.18 2.43 2.48 2.53 2.58 2.63 2.68 2.73 2.78 2.83 2.88 2.93 2.98 3.03 3.08 3.13 3.18 2.43 2.48 2.53 2.58 2.63 2.68 2.73 2.78 3.03 3.08 3.13 3.18 3.23 3.28 3.33 3.38 2.53 2.58 2.63 2.68 2.73 2.78 2.83 2.88 1.93 1.98 2.03 2.08 2.13 2.18 2.23 2.28

8 9

2.78 2.58

stretch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2.83 2.63

2.88 2.68

2.93 2.73

2.98 2.78

3.03 2.83

3.08 2.88

3.13 2.93

3.18 2.98

19:15 19:30 19:45 9.19 7.56 6.56 9.72 7.44 5.37 10.3 8.62 9.31 12.4 11.6 8.59 14.7 12.9 9.72 14.9 9.73 9.31 11.1 7.81 9.24 8.66 6.6 4.11 6.63 4.7 5.63

19:15 19:30 19:45 2.13 2.08 1.98 2.73 2.68 2.58 3.13 3.08 2.98 2.73 2.68 2.58 3.33 3.28 3.18 2.83 2.78 2.68 2.23 2.18 2.08 3.13 3.08 2.98 2.93 2.88 2.78

time savings by period and stretch (minutes) stretch 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 19:15 19:30 19:45 1

2.36 3.9 3.69 4.46 3.75 7.39 8.99 10.3 9.28 7.06 5.48 4.58

2

4.09 5.28 3.05 5.59 6.83 6.21 10.5 11.6 9.05 6.99 4.76 2.79

3

4.12 4.41 4.42 4.02 6.42 8.7 9.63 12.8 11.9 7.13 5.54 6.33

4

2.93 6.26 5.19 8.56 7.15 12.3 14.2 17.4

13

9.67 8.97 6.01

5

6.91 5.87 7.25 7.02 9.33 12.9 15.9

17

11.4 9.59 6.54

14

18

6

2.88 7.46 5.08 7.69 9.92 9.19

7

5.4 6.62 7.05 4.5

13.6 15.1 12.1 6.95 6.63

8

2.31 3.13 4.81 4.72

9

3.04 1.14 3.64 1.82 2.64 6.17 5.79 7.54 7.46 3.7 1.83 2.85

6.4 10.2 10.7 11.8 5

13

8.91 5.63 7.16

7.43 5.91 9.77 8.19 5.53 3.53 1.13

8

7

Illustrative values only passenger*hours savings by period and stretch (minutes)

passenger*hours savings by period and stretch (minutes)

stretch 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 19:15 19:30 19:45

stretch 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 19:15 19:30 19:45

1

75

127 137 168 156 353 407 532 407 221 203 164

1

75

2

154 203 130 249 337 339 565 686 464 264 198 113

2

154 203 130 249 337 339 565 686 464 264 198 113

127 137 168 156 353 407 532 407 221 203 164

3

197 217 249 232 400 612 653 978 791 340 300 347

3

197 217 249 232 400 612 653 978 791 340 300 347

4

189 404 373 631 606 1168 1248 1744 1162 604 672 440

4

189 404 373 631 606 1168 1248 1744 1162 604 672 440

5

464 402 586 558 829 1317 1525 1964 1601 755 760 516

5

464 402 586 558 829 1317 1525 1964 1601 755 760 516

6

177 487 378 564 842 883 1245 1392 1349 773 499 484

6

177 487 378 564 842 883 1245 1392 1349 773 499 484

7

286 351 431 284 453 818 814 994 965 462 345 433

7

286 351 431 284 453 818 814 994 965 462 345 433

8

111 148 263 269 310 532 391 765 550 267 190

60

8

111 148 263 269 310 532 391 765 550 267 190

60

9

131

134

9

131

134

50

181

91

145 389 342 506 429 150

87

total

9

50

181

91

145 389 342 506 429 150

87

54,689 Pass.h

10

Impacts on non-BRT road users

other correlated benefits item

relative index

operational cost reduction attraction of public transport demand attraction of private transport demand new trips generated

35

pollution reduction

10

The basic complaint about bus lanes & BRTs is about the space taken from the road, that may imply a reduction in capacity and increase of congestion, that increases travel time for non-BRT road users.

25

Alternatively the impact on mixed traffic may be positive due to the reduction or elimination of bus stop congestion, mode shift to public transport, and intersection improvements.

20

11

Draft, ITDP-China

12

90

19 July 2015

=

13

14

This expression itself represents the increase of congestion in vehicle hours on an isolated bottle neck:

Tch = extension of time when the specific bottle neck and period is congested. Tc may vary from zero to 20 hours a day. For EDSA for example these value should be around 3 to 4 hours each period, but may be longer (values can be estimated based on speed surveys)

queue

TCh time TCh* S S

15

16

Fs = factor of secondary congestion. Eventually the queue created in a congested point extends to other flows that do not pass through the congested point, generating secondary congestion. This factor varies from 1 upwards.

Fr= network factor: eventually when there are other congestion points ahead, the reduction of volume output may reduce these congestion points. Factor is from 1 to zero, 1 when there is no congestion ahead and zero when all volumes go to other congested points.

17

Draft, ITDP-China

18

91

19 July 2015

Fd = demand factor. When congestion increases, some people give up the trip (or change time, itinerary, mode, etc. and as a result the increase of congestion is less than if demand was fixed. This factor is always less than 1.

Om= average number of passengers per pcu, of remaining traffic. Om may be very low around 1.2, 1.3 if the remaining traffic is mostly cars, but much bigger if there are remaining public transport (buses, jeepneys, UVs) vehicles in the corridor

19

20

example of traffic impact calculation variable value unit 1000 pcu/h 1000 pcu/h tch(am) 3 hours tch(pm) 4 hours Fr 0.5 Fs 3 Fd 0.6 Om 2.1 pass/pcu

example of passenger/pcu calculation pcu pass/ equiv. pass. vehicle volume equiv. vehicle volume volume unit veh/h pcu/h pass/h buses 30 2.5 40 75 1200 jeepneys 80 1.5 15 120 1200 uv 100 1 10 100 1000 cars 3000 1 1.2 3000 3600 trucks 50 2 2 100 100 total 3260 1.05 3395 7100

pr=(.5*1000*3^2+0.5*1000*4^2)*.5*3*0.6*2.1 pr=1000*.5(3^2+*4^2)*.5*3*0.6*2.1

Om

Pr 23 625

21

1000

.5(3^2+*4^2) 12.5

.5*3*0.6* 0.9

2.1

22

other correlated benefits

example of passenger/pcu calculation pcu pass/ equiv. pass. vehicle volume equiv. vehicle volume volume unit veh/h pcu/h pass/h buses 30 2.5 40 75 1200 jeepneys 80 1.5 15 120 1200 uv 100 1 10 100 1000 cars 3000 1 1.2 3000 3600 trucks 50 2 2 100 100 total 3260 1.05 3395 7100

item

relative index

operational cost reduction attraction of public transport demand

35 25

new trips generated

20

pollution reduction

10

Each driver attracted from private car to public transport represents a reduction on 23

Draft, ITDP-China

24

92

19 July 2015

5.

BRT Stations

5.1 Station locations Station locations were determined taking into consideration many factors, including: current bus stops and points of major demand MRT stations physical right-of-way available current bus stops (formal and informal) nearby intersections

Draft, ITDP-China

nearby high demand locations desirable spacing of around 600m. BRT station locations are shown in Figure 5-1.

5.2 Station substops Station substops are shown in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1: Station locations and substops

94

19 July 2015

5.3 Station configuration and door positions Standard station configurations and door positions for the different types of BRT station are shown in Figure 5-2.

Median Station Layout (2 sub stops)

Figure 5-2: Two substop, three substop, and (over page) one substop station configuration and door positions.

Draft, ITDP-China

95

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

96

19 July 2015

5.4 Station architecture and MRT integration

private motor vehicles. The preliminary concept design information illustrated is the first stage in a process to develop The concept design information consists generally detail station design information for BRT/MRT stations. Further information is required to of two parts – Part A - Generic BRT station design informa- successfully design BRT stations and to integrate MRT with BRT using world’s best practise is as tion and follows: Part B - MRT/BRT design integration All minimum clearances including widths, information. heights and lengths of access structures The concept design drawings illustrate BRT acceptable to DOTC (Road and Rail stations and a range of opportunities to integrate Operating Authority) must be agreed. BRT and MRT passenger environments using Minimum clearances for footbridges over physical connections of paid and unpaid space. BRT Lanes, general traffic lanes and the The potential of a single integrated public transit envelop for the electrified ‘guideway’ of the ticket for the seamless movement of passengers MRT must be agreed. between both MRT and BRT modes are an imporMinimum clearances under the MRT guidetant consideration for the planning and design of way to enable 3.2m high footbridges and 4.2 m stations. The convenient access of passengers to high platform structures must be agreed. premium transit services regardless of mode is Minimum clearance over bus vehicles providimportant for the BRT and MRT transit customer. ing covered boarding and alighting from BRT The proposed EDSA BRT project is a demand3.4m min. bus operating envelope indicated ing network requiring a high level of technical on drawings must be agreed. knowledge and innovative station planning and Integrated smartcard to enable paid to paid design solutions. The BRT network Integrated and unpaid to paid, seamless integration for with the existing MRT network in the median passengers using BRT, MRT or a combination of the major roadways in Metro Manila sets this of services provided by each mode must be BRT project apart from any other BRT network in agreed. South East Asia. The BRT project is required to achieve universal Minimum access requirements are required access to premium bus rapid transit services from for BRT and MRT stations including public ‘stand-alone’ BRT stations and from BRT/MRT space for lifts, stairs, escalators and ramps are integrated stations providing convenient, safe and required. This is to ensure adequate access is comfortable access to both bus and rail services. provided and any land resumptions or roadOptions applying international standards of access way width reductions fully defined. for all people, which are cost-effective, is indicated Approval for the recommended MRT for BRT stations and applied to the integration refurbishments required by BRT design that of the existing metro stations. New access points enables universal access and operations to to BRT stations and improved access points and BRT and MRT services must be established. parts to MRT stations have been indicated. These MRT Station access audit across the all MRT determine the possible layouts of BRT stations networks is recommended. Many existand the extent of integration and possible refuring MRT stations do not meet acceptable bishment of the existing MRT stations. standards for access and because of this are Seamless integration of BRT services and MRT limited in performance of services. The study services through the design of new BRT stations should include how to improve the restricted with supporting civil infrastructure is a unique footpaths and sidewalks, sidewalk clearances, opportunity for DOTC and the City Governments stair widths, escalators, lifts and gradients of to achieve effective and relevant passenger transit new accessible ramps. Reasonable equitable services in Metro Manila. BRT and its effective access is either not provided at all MRT integration is essential for the future prosperity stations or is inadequate for people accessing of Filipino people living and working in Metro services from public areas. Manila using the public transit network in lieu of Draft, ITDP-China

97

19 July 2015

Further detailed technical study is required of each MRT station. It is recommended to dimensionally check and technically test, in detail each proposed station site for opportunities and constraints to physically and operationally integrate new BRT stations with existing MRT stations. This detailed study will help determine what options are achievable and the levels and methods of seamless integration for all passengers using premium bus and rail rapid transit services in Metro Manila.

Draft, ITDP-China

Sheet 1 Overall 3D study models Architectural expression of platforms using primary functional spaces and weather protection over boarding and alighting positions developed Kit of parts for BRT Stations - platform structures indicated ‘Signature’ Architectural expression for BRT Stations on the BRT Network 1,2 and 3 Sub stops platform structures indicated Access to platforms – on surface

98

19 July 2015

Sheet 2 Floor Plan - Platform planning layouts - 1,2 and 3 Sub stops indicated Primary functional zones and spaces indicated Overall minimum dimensions indicated for 12M rigid and 18M Articulated buses – Doors both sides of vehicle Minimum pull in and pull out zones for vehicle indicated Weather protection over boarding and alighting positions and buses On surface access to platform

Draft, ITDP-China

99

Sheet 3 Floor Plan - Station Planning Layout - 3 Sub stops indicated Sidewalk access and footbridges Primary functional spaces and overall minimum dimensions

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

100

19 July 2015

Sheet 4 Primary entry /exit zones at ends of platforms indicated Right hand passenger movement in and out of station Primary functional spaces and overall minimum dimensions Covered passenger access, staffed security screening, IT/ communications/electrical room, single staff amenity and staffed ticket office indicated Minimum dimensions and gradients for universal access purposes indicated Queuing for smartcard and cash transaction prior to turnstiles In-line and off-set turnstile location options indicated

Draft, ITDP-China

101

19 July 2015

Sheet 5 Overall Elevations for 1,2 and 3 Sub stops platforms indicated Primary functional spaces and overall dimensions indicated Preliminary colour, materials and finishes indicated

Draft, ITDP-China

102

19 July 2015 Sheet 6 Detail Elevations - Entry / Exit zones, Ticket office, transition zones and passenger waiting zone indicated Covered boarding and alighting area indicated Boarding gates and glazed balustrade indicated - general locations Preliminary materials, finishes and colours indicated Preliminary station signage indicated – general locations 350 high kerb indicated Possible landscaping zones at ends of platforms indicated

Draft, ITDP-China

103

19 July 2015

Sheet 7 Detail Plan and Section - passenger waiting zone and transition zone indicated Covered boarding and alighting area indicated Preliminary locations for ceiling mounted misting fans, real time passenger Information displays and ceiling lighting

Boarding gates and glazed balustrade indicated – general locations Preliminary materials, finishes and colours indicated generally Preliminary station signage indicated – general locations 350 high kerb indicated

Draft, ITDP-China

104

19 July 2015

Sheet 8 Detail section through passenger waiting zone on typical platform indicated Vehicle envelop and minimum station platform clearance dimensions indicated Minimum dimensions for roof awning over bus for covered boarding and alighting of passenger area indicated - sun protection and rainwater collection Preliminary locations for ceiling mounted misting fans, real time passenger Information displays and ceiling lighting Boarding gates and glazed balustrade generally indicated Preliminary materials, finishes and colours indicated Preliminary station signage indicated 350 high kerb indicated In-ground platform services indicated generally

Draft, ITDP-China

105

19 July 2015

Sheet 9A Detail access options from pedestrian footbridge to varied platform widths Minimum access parts determined by service demand, passenger numbers and physical constraints

Minimum dimensions for lift, stairs, ramps for varied platform widths enabling universal access Minimum clearances indicated Preferred maximum footbridge heights Platform widths – 4M / 5M / 6M and greater

Draft, ITDP-China

106

19 July 2015

Sheet 9B Detail access options from platform to pedestrian footbridge Minimum type, number and size of access parts determined by service demand, passenger volume and numbers and physical constraints Minimum gradients for access ramps – 1:12 acceptable but not preferred, 1:14 preferred Minimum clearances, lane tapers required for station parts Preferred maximum height of footbridge Platform width – 4M min.

Draft, ITDP-China

107

19 July 2015

Sheet 9C Centralised access to station under footbridge ‘take off’ points for lift and stairs preferred – enables centralised passenger information displays Access options to BRT stations from sidewalks indicated – local conditions to be examined Minimum dimensions for lift, stairs, ramps and escalators for universal access Minimum lateral and vertical clearances for station access parts Minimum type, number and size of access parts to be determined by service demand, passenger volumes and physical constraints in the local environment. Minimum acceptable access options complying with internationally recognised standards indicated includes covered lift, covered stairs and covered escalator options (1:12 is not preferred because of ramp lengths and travel distances) Minimum gradients for accessible ramps – 1:14 preferred with rest areas Minimum circulation clearances

Draft, ITDP-China

108

19 July 2015

Sheet 10 Pedestrian footbridge access option from sidewalks over BRT and general roadway lanes indicated Minimum dimensions for lift, stairs, ramps and escalators for universal access indicated Minimum lateral and vertical clearances for universal access indicated Preferred steel truss types for Pedestrian footbridges indicated Relationship of covered access to station platform indicated

Draft, ITDP-China

109

19 July 2015

Sheet 11 Pedestrian footbridge access option from sidewalks over BRT stopping lane, passing lanes and general roadway lanes Minimum dimensions for lift, stairs, ramps and escalators for universal access Minimum lateral and vertical clearances for universal access Preferred spatial relationship of covered footbridge, covered vertical access parts to station platform

Sheet 12 3D study model of 2 sub stop station and footbridge access from sidewalks over BRT running lanes and general roadway. Covered access parts, pedestrian footbridge, entry and exit zones and median station platform Covered access parts indicated including stairs, lift and escalators 12m and 18M buses

Sheet 13 3D study model of 2 sub stop median station platform Covered entry and exit zones and covered boarding and alighting zones Transition zones for pull-in and pull-out of vehicles 1:14 ramp for on-surface access

Draft, ITDP-China

110

19 July 2015

Sheet 14 3D study model of 2 sub stop station platform

Concept Colours

Aubergine pressed metal wall cladding and general station signage Burnt Orange logo / signs

Lime green logo / signs

OR

Silver grey sheet metal roofing Sheet 15 Preliminary concept colours, materials and finishes indicated for station structures, parts, signage and development of BRT Brand Draft, ITDP-China

111

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

112

19 July 2015

Sheet 16 Principles for physical integration - functional areas linking the operations of new BRT stations with existing MRT stations. This general study is based on defining ‘paid and unpaid areas’ of stations each mode, the potential of introducing and an integrated ticket for both modes and adequate local access to each mode. Integration study diagram - Median BRT Stations to existing MRT Stations Stand alone BRT stations and stand alone MRT stations – separate entry and exits from unpaid areas to separately operated paid platforms Physical connections using existing sidewalks, new footbridges, new access ways, shared access points and the space required to achieve universal access using a combination of stairs, lifts, escalators and ramps. All possible physical connections Integrated ticket for fare collection via touch on touch off smartcard ticket technology for MRT and BRT Consideration of all desirable ‘unpaid to unpaid’ connections Consideration of all desirable ‘paid to paid’ area connections Integrated ticket implications for BRT and MRT including security screening zones, entry /exit thresholds, ticket offices, turnstile locations, pedestrian footbridges, kerbside space for local access using lifts, stairs, escalators and ramp

Draft, ITDP-China

113

19 July 2015

Sheet 17 Guadalupe MRT station and Otigas MRT station used to generally explore, test and propose possible outcomes for the physical and operational integration the BRT / MRT networks for passengers

BRT / MRT station environments - the planning and design implications of locating BRT stations under or adjacent the existing MRT Stations and guideway. The size, scale and physical footprint of 2 and 3 substop BRT station located adjacent a typical MRT station. Potential options for establishing adequate access points to BRT stations form existing sidewalks to satisfy minimum universal access standards. General options for using new BRT station access points to link MRT stations with new footbridges General options for using existing MRT station access such as unpaid concourses and paid platforms using concourses and existing emergency stairs to BRT stations Flexible locations for local access points and elevated footbridge connections

Draft, ITDP-China

114

19 July 2015

unpaid to unpaid area integration. Potential options for establishing adequate access points for BRT stations from existing sidewalks to satisfy minimum generic BRT station footprints and minimum universal access standards. Bus Lane tapers, build out for lifts and clearance of existing stairs required Required bus passing lane and bus stopping lane geometry Possible options for creating paid and unpaid areas using ticket offices and turnstiles and to maximise bus stopping area footprint of new BRT stations studied Linking either unpaid MRT concourses or paid platforms using new footbridges, existing concourses, existing stairs at ends of MRT stations with BRT stations

Median BRT Station and existing MRT Station Integration Possible paid to paid BRT station platform and MRT station platform BRT / MRT station environments the planning and design implications of locating BRT stations under or adjacent the existing MRT Stations and guideway conceptually studied. The size, scale and physical footprint of 2 and 3 sub-stop BRT station located adjacent a typical MRT station with paid to paid and

Draft, ITDP-China

115

19 July 2015 Median BRT Station integrated with existing MRT Station option. The physical link of BRT station to MRT station using the existing stairs at the end of MRT platforms studied. Upper drawing - Existing MRT stair access Lower drawing - Integrated stair and lift access from elevated MRT station platforms to on-surface BRT

station platforms Paid to paid platform access Installation of new lifts and access way located on the outside face of the MRT guideway No pedestrian footbridge across BRT running lanes and general roadway – clearances for possible footbridges to be investigated Retention of paid transfer between MRT platforms

Draft, ITDP-China

116

19 July 2015

MRT platforms to BRT platforms. Retention of paid transfer between the existing MRT station platforms using the existing end of platform stairs. This enables change in direction of travel. Establish ‘paid area’ footbridge New lifts required at ends of platforms outside face of MRT guideway Bus lane tapers, kerb build out for lifts and clearance of existing stairs BRT passing and stopping lane geometrics New stairs and escalators to BRT station within unpaid zones and linking possible new footbridge

Median BRT Station integrated with existing MRT Station option. Direct paid to paid platform access for passengers between MRT and BRT platforms for bus and rail services studied Installation of new lifts at ends of MRT platforms to meet universal access requirements linking

Draft, ITDP-China

117

19 July 2015

Median BRT Station and existing MRT Station Integration option indicated – paid to paid station connection studied Guadalupe MRT station used to study, test and propose possible outcomes for the physical and operational integration the BRT / MRT networks for passengers New cantilevered access ways (walkway) connecting new lifts located on the outside face of the MRT guideway and at the end of MRT platforms Retention of paid transfer between the existing MRT station platforms using the existing end of platform stairs indicated. This enables change in direction of travel. New lifts required at ends of platforms outside face of MRT guideway Bus lane tapers, kerb build out for lifts and clearance of existing stairs BRT passing and stopping lane geometrics New stairs and escalators to BRT station within paid zones and linking possible new footbridge

Draft, ITDP-China

118

19 July 2015

Median BRT Station and existing MRT Station Integration option indicated – unpaid to unpaid station connection studied Otigas MRT station used to study the potential, test and propose possible outcomes for the physical and operational integration the BRT / MRT stations for passengers Connection of unpaid BRT areas to unpaid external area of MRT Station - BRT unpaid entry / exit area (and possible pedestrian footbridge) with MRT unpaid concourse studied Retention of paid transfer between existing MRT station platforms using the existing stairs at end of MRT station platforms indicated - enables change in direction of travel using MRT services. New cantilevered access ways (walkway) connecting lifts located on the outside of the MRT guideway and at the end of MRT platforms Separate, secured unpaid and paid BRT and MRT station spaces Bus Lane tapers, build out for lifts and clearance of existing stairs required Required bus passing lane and bus stopping lane geometry

5.5 Accessibility infrastructure Stations have all been designed to be wheelchair accessible. Along EDSA, the physical constraints meant that more lifts are proposed. Along C5 and Roxas Blvd ramps are proposed. Along Makati and the Ortigas-BGC corridors, BRT station access is generally at street level and so does not require lifts or ramps.

Draft, ITDP-China

119

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

120

19 July 2015

6.

BRT Sections (At & Between Stations)

Current cross-sections are based on ITDP’s field surveys and measurements, as well as Google Earth satellite imagery, as CAD files were not made available to the consultant team. Follow-up is required at some locations to define the precise location of the edge of the walkway.

Draft, ITDP-China

122

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

123

19 July 2015

EDSA CORRIDOR

Draft, ITDP-China

124

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

125

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

126

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

127

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

128

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

129

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

130

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

131

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

132

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

133

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

134

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

135

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

136

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

137

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

138

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

139

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

140

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

141

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

142

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

143

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

144

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

145

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

146

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

147

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

148

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

149

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

150

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

151

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

152

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

153

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

154

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

155

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

156

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

157

19 July 2015

MAKATI CORRIDOR

Draft, ITDP-China

158

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

159

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

160

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

161

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

162

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

163

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

164

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

165

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

166

19 July 2015

AIRPORT CORRIDOR

Draft, ITDP-China

167

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

168

19 July 2015

parking

parking

parking

Draft, ITDP-China

169

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

170

19 July 2015

setback

setback

setback

setback

setback

setback

Draft, ITDP-China

171

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

172

19 July 2015

ROXAS CORRIDOR

Draft, ITDP-China

173

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

174

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

175

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

176

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

177

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

178

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

179

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

180

19 July 2015

ORTIGAS-BGC CORRIDOR

Draft, ITDP-China

181

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

182

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

183

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

184

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

185

19 July 2015

East Capitol Drive

1.5

13

1.5

Current road cross-section

2.5

4

5

4

2.5

Proposed road cross-section (at station)

2.5

1

3.5

3.5

2

1

Proposed road cross-section (between stations)

Draft, ITDP-China

186

19 July 2015

2.5

West Capitol Drive

13

1.5

1.5

Current road cross-section

1.5

3

3

5

4

1.5

Proposed road cross-section (at station)

1.5

3

1

3.5

3.5

2

Proposed road cross-section (between stations)

Draft, ITDP-China

187

19 July 2015

1.5

Draft, ITDP-China

188

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

189

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

190

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

191

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

192

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

193

19 July 2015

McKinley Road

4.0

6.0

12.0 22.0

Current Road Cross Section

4.0

3.0

3.5

3.5

3.0

4.0

22.0

Proposed Road Cross Section (with BRT)

Draft, ITDP-China

194

19 July 2015

7.

BRT Roadways and Intersections

Draft, ITDP-China

196

19 July 2015

7.1 BRT roadways, stations, and intersections A major part of the work in this BRT conceptual design was to design the roadways and intersections along the BRT corridors. Note that CAD files of the roadways were not provided to the consultant team, so the BRT corridors were drawn using a Google Earth image background combined with on-site measurements by the project team. The designs are organized into the following corridors: − EDSA − Makati − Airport (cross-sections included in previous section, but designs not included due to ongoing construction activity, with designs not available to the project team). − Roxas − Ortigas-BGC − C5 − Tondo & C3 (no design done as part of this report). The designs and associated renderings are presented sequentially for each of these corridors, commencing with EDSA. A concept design for the Balintawak transfer point for provincial bus routes is also provided, along with concept designs for the proposed ramps at Ayala and Taft.

Draft, ITDP-China

197

19 July 2015

EDSA corridor

BRT station name Caloocan

code E5

type island

sub-stops 2

East Grace Park

E6

island

2

Balintawak

E7

island

2

Katipunan

E8

island

2

Roosevelt

E9

island

2

Project 7

E10

island

2

North Avenue

E11

island

2

Quezon Av. South

E12

island

3

North Kamuning

E13

island

3

Kamuning

E14

island

3

Cubao North

E15

island

3

Cubao South

E16

island

3

Main Avenue

E17

island

3

Santolan

E18

split

3

White Plains

E19

split

2

Ortigas

E20

split

3

Shaw Boulevard

E21

split

3

Highway Hills

E22

split

3

Boni

E23

split

3

Guadalupe

E24

island

3

Guadalupe Nuevo

E25

split

3

Estrella

E26

split

3

Buendia

E27

island

2

Ayala

E28

island

3

Magallanes

E29

split

3

Bangkal

E30

split

2

Taft Avenue

E31

island

3

Pasay West

E32

island

2

EDSA Extension

E33

island

2

MOA

E34

island

2

Draft, ITDP-China

198

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

199

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

200

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

201

19 July 2015

EDSA Boarding/alighting area

sBu

on l

y ra m p

EDSA

Balintawak

Draft, ITDP-China

202

19 July 2015

Balintawak

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

203

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

204

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

205

19 July 2015

North Ave EDSA

EDSA

SM City Nort h

Draft, ITDP-China

206

19 July 2015

EDSA

Mindanao Ave

Draft, ITDP-China

207

19 July 2015

EDSA (Main Avenue)

Draft, ITDP-China

208

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

209

19 July 2015

EDSA Quezon A ve Stn

Draft, ITDP-China

210

19 July 2015

EDSA Kamunin g Stn

NIA Rd

Draft, ITDP-China

211

19 July 2015

EDSA Mega Q Mart Draft, ITDP-China

212

19 July 2015

EDSA Draft, ITDP-China

213

19 July 2015

Arenata Ctr-Cubao

Ave

EDSA

Gen. McAr thur

Draft, ITDP-China

214

19 July 2015

SM Hypermkt Cubao A

EDS

Draft, ITDP-China

215

19 July 2015

Stn olan Sant

A

EDS

Draft, ITDP-China

216

19 July 2015

Stn olan Sant

A

EDS

Draft, ITDP-China

217

19 July 2015

ED SA

e Av s in Pla e hit W

Draft, ITDP-China

218

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

219

19 July 2015

EDSA Ortigas Stn

Guadix Dr

Draft, ITDP-China

220

19 July 2015

SM Megamall

Ortigas Stn Draft, ITDP-China

221

19 July 2015

EDSA (Ortigas)

Draft, ITDP-China

222

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

223

19 July 2015

EDSA

Reliance

Draft, ITDP-China

224

19 July 2015

Stn Boni EDSA

Robinsons Pioneer

Pionee r St

Draft, ITDP-China

225

19 July 2015

EDSA Guadalupe Stn

er Pasig Riv

Draft, ITDP-China

226

19 July 2015

Ramon Ma

gsaysay Av e

EDSA Draft, ITDP-China

227

19 July 2015

EDSA (Guadalupe)

Draft, ITDP-China

228

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

229

19 July 2015

EDSA

Estrella

Draft, ITDP-China

230

19 July 2015

EDSA Buendia Ave Stn

Kalayaan Ave Flyover

Draft, ITDP-China

231

19 July 2015

Rd inley McK ED

Ay ala

Av e

SA

Ay ala St n

Draft, ITDP-China

232

19 July 2015

ED

SA

M n St es an all ag

Draft, ITDP-China

233

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

234

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

235

19 July 2015

Blvd Aurora

ve Stn Taft A Draft, ITDP-China

236

19 July 2015

Taft Ave

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

237

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

238

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

239

19 July 2015

Current Traffic Ramp

10m

95m

New BRT Ramp (6.5% slope)

60m

EDSA Draft, ITDP-China

240

19 July 2015

EDSA Draft, ITDP-China

241

19 July 2015

Makati corridor

BRT station name WTC

code M1

type island

sub-stops 1

FB Harrison St

M2

island

2

Gil Puyat Ave

M3

island

2

Buendia

M4

island

2

Roces Avenue

M5

island

2

Paseo de Roxas

M6

island

2

Triangle Park

M7

island

2

Makati

M8

directional

2

Draft, ITDP-China

242

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

243

19 July 2015

Gil Pu yat A ve

Draft, ITDP-China

244

19 July 2015

Gil Puy at Ave

Taft A ve

Draft, ITDP-China

245

19 July 2015

Gil Puyat Ave

Washington

Draft, ITDP-China

246

19 July 2015

Urban Ave

Gil Puyat Ave Draft, ITDP-China

247

19 July 2015

EDSA corridor

BRT station name Caloocan

code E5

type island

sub-stops 2

East Grace Park

E6

island

2

Balintawak

E7

island

2

Katipunan

E8

island

2

Roosevelt

E9

island

2

Project 7

E10

island

2

North Avenue

E11

island

2

Quezon Av. South

E12

island

3

North Kamuning

E13

island

3

Kamuning

E14

island

3

Cubao North

E15

island

3

Cubao South

E16

island

3

Main Avenue

E17

island

3

Santolan

E18

split

3

White Plains

E19

split

2

Ortigas

E20

split

3

Shaw Boulevard

E21

split

3

Highway Hills

E22

split

3

Boni

E23

split

3

Guadalupe

E24

island

3

Guadalupe Nuevo

E25

split

3

Estrella

E26

split

3

Buendia

E27

island

2

Ayala

E28

island

3

Magallanes

E29

split

3

Bangkal

E30

split

2

Taft Avenue

E31

island

3

Pasay West

E32

island

2

EDSA Extension

E33

island

2

MOA

E34

island

2

Draft, ITDP-China

198

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

199

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

200

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

201

19 July 2015

EDSA Boarding/alighting area

sBu

on l

y ra m p

EDSA

Balintawak

Draft, ITDP-China

202

19 July 2015

Balintawak

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

203

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

204

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

205

19 July 2015

North Ave EDSA

EDSA

SM City Nort h

Draft, ITDP-China

206

19 July 2015

EDSA

Mindanao Ave

Draft, ITDP-China

207

19 July 2015

EDSA (Main Avenue)

Draft, ITDP-China

208

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

209

19 July 2015

EDSA Quezon A ve Stn

Draft, ITDP-China

210

19 July 2015

EDSA Kamunin g Stn

NIA Rd

Draft, ITDP-China

211

19 July 2015

EDSA Mega Q Mart Draft, ITDP-China

212

19 July 2015

EDSA Draft, ITDP-China

213

19 July 2015

Arenata Ctr-Cubao

Ave

EDSA

Gen. McAr thur

Draft, ITDP-China

214

19 July 2015

SM Hypermkt Cubao A

EDS

Draft, ITDP-China

215

19 July 2015

Stn olan Sant

A

EDS

Draft, ITDP-China

216

19 July 2015

Stn olan Sant

A

EDS

Draft, ITDP-China

217

19 July 2015

ED SA

e Av s in Pla e hit W

Draft, ITDP-China

218

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

219

19 July 2015

EDSA Ortigas Stn

Guadix Dr

Draft, ITDP-China

220

19 July 2015

SM Megamall

Ortigas Stn Draft, ITDP-China

221

19 July 2015

EDSA (Ortigas)

Draft, ITDP-China

222

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

223

19 July 2015

EDSA

Reliance

Draft, ITDP-China

224

19 July 2015

Stn Boni EDSA

Robinsons Pioneer

Pionee r St

Draft, ITDP-China

225

19 July 2015

EDSA Guadalupe Stn

er Pasig Riv

Draft, ITDP-China

226

19 July 2015

Ramon Ma

gsaysay Av e

EDSA Draft, ITDP-China

227

19 July 2015

EDSA (Guadalupe)

Draft, ITDP-China

228

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

229

19 July 2015

EDSA

Estrella

Draft, ITDP-China

230

19 July 2015

EDSA Buendia Ave Stn

Kalayaan Ave Flyover

Draft, ITDP-China

231

19 July 2015

Rd inley McK ED

Ay ala

Av e

SA

Ay ala St n

Draft, ITDP-China

232

19 July 2015

ED

SA

M n St es an all ag

Draft, ITDP-China

233

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

234

19 July 2015

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

235

19 July 2015

Blvd Aurora

ve Stn Taft A Draft, ITDP-China

236

19 July 2015

Taft Ave

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

237

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

238

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

239

19 July 2015

Current Traffic Ramp

10m

95m

New BRT Ramp (6.5% slope)

60m

EDSA Draft, ITDP-China

240

19 July 2015

EDSA Draft, ITDP-China

241

19 July 2015

Makati corridor

BRT station name WTC

code M1

type island

sub-stops 1

FB Harrison St

M2

island

2

Gil Puyat Ave

M3

island

2

Buendia

M4

island

2

Roces Avenue

M5

island

2

Paseo de Roxas

M6

island

2

Triangle Park

M7

island

2

Makati

M8

directional

2

Draft, ITDP-China

242

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

243

19 July 2015

Gil Pu yat A ve

Draft, ITDP-China

244

19 July 2015

Gil Puy at Ave

Taft A ve

Draft, ITDP-China

245

19 July 2015

Gil Puyat Ave

Washington

Draft, ITDP-China

246

19 July 2015

Urban Ave

Gil Puyat Ave Draft, ITDP-China

247

19 July 2015

Ayala Ave

Salcedo

at uy lP

Gi e Av

Draft, ITDP-China

248

19 July 2015

Ayala Ave

V A Rufino St

Salcedo

Draft, ITDP-China

249

19 July 2015

Ayala Ave

Triangle Park

Pa s

eo

de

Ro xa

s

Draft, ITDP-China

250

19 July 2015

Ayala Ave Triangle Park

Pa s

eo

de

Ro xa

s

Draft, ITDP-China

251

19 July 2015

Ayala Avenue (Triangle Park)

Draft, ITDP-China

252

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

253

19 July 2015

Ayala Avenue

Draft, ITDP-China

254

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

255

19 July 2015

Airport corridor

BRT station name Terminal 1

code R1

type off-street

sub-stops 1

Terminal 2

R2

off-street

1

Terminal 3

R3

off-street

1

Ninoy Avenue

R4

island

1

NAIA Road

R5

island

1

Andrews Ave

R7

island

1

Aurora Blvd

R8

island

1

Malibay

R9

island

1

Draft, ITDP-China

256

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

257

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

258

19 July 2015

Airport road construction and design unavailability meant that BRT designs for the airport area could not be completed, though the BRT designs are relatively straightforward, with stations located in the median alongside pillars. Draft, ITDP-China 19 July 2015 259

Ortigas-BGC corridor

BRT station name Meralco

code O1

type island

sub-stops 2

Meralco South

O2

island

2

San Antonio

O4

island

2

Greenfield

O5

one-way

2

West Capitol

O6

island

1

East Capitol

O7

island

1

Sta Monica Bridge

O8

island

2

Cembo

O9

island

2

9th Avenue

O10E

one-way

2

7th Avenue

O10W

one-way

2

32nd Street

O11

directional

2

High Street W

O12E

one-way

2

High Street E

O12W

one-way

2

O13

directional

2

McKinley Road

Draft, ITDP-China

260

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

261

19 July 2015

7.2 Ortigas to BGC busway As part of this study ITDP prepared a conceptual design for an Ortigas to Bonifagio Global City (BGC) busway, which would use a new bridge to be built south of Kapitolyo, called the Santa Monica Bridge. The following pages elaborate on the plan to include this corridor as part of the phase 2 BRT network. The first section focuses on the Kapitolyo area, and the second section provides a conceptual design for BRT to pass through the second level of the Shaw Boulevard MRT3 station.

7.2.1 Kapitolyo area and Santa Monica Bridge The Santa Monica Bridge with an accompanying elevated road was originally proposed by the DPWH, and quickly provoked intense resistance from the Kapitolyo community located in the vicinity of the West Capitol and East Capitol proposed BRT stations in the graphic. DPWH offered to consider a tunnel option for traversing the Kapitolyo community, and ITDP was requested to prepare a design concept for this tunnel, as well as to determine the proposed location of BRT stations. ITDP prepared the tunnel concept, including showing how the tunnel could be designed at Shaw Boulevard to connect to Meralco Avenue as well as to Shaw Boulevard and the EDSA BRT. DPWH also agreed on a proposal for the Santa Monica Bridge to be a ‘green bridge’ which would accommodate only BRT buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. Cars would not be permitted access the bridge. Subsequently, when doubts were expressed about the viability of the tunnel option, ITDP prepared a street-level option for the busway that would not require any tunnels or elevated roads in the Kapitolyo area. This street-level option also did not require any property acquisition, a major advantage compared to the DPWH plans which called for substantial demolition and land acquisition. The proposed street level design includes signal phase changes illustrated below: change from 4 phase to 2 phase at Shaw/ Pioneer change from unsignalized to 2 phase at Pioneer/United, West Capitol/United, and Shaw/West Capitol. Draft, ITDP-China

change traffic circulation as indicated in the graphic, to one-way along the northern part of West Capitol Drive and the western part of United. ITDP also developed a conceptual design for the Santa Monica Bridge, with a BRT station on the top layer and bicycles & pedestrians underneath. These designs and renderings are illustrated in the following pages.

262

19 July 2015

Intersection phase changes (red = before, blue = after). In addition, it is proposed to make the northern part of West Capitol Drive on way southward, and United St one way westward, as indicated by the arrows. (Roads without arrows are two-way.) In addition, right turns from north along West Capitol Drive to west along United St could be banned in order to alleviate Kapitolyo community concerns about pass-through traffic along Pioneer towards EDSA.

Draft, ITDP-China

263

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

264

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

265

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

266

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

267

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

268

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

269

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

270

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

271

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

272

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

273

19 July 2015

Rd inley McK Draft, ITDP-China

274

19 July 2015

Rd nley

M cK i

Draft, ITDP-China

275

19 July 2015

McK

inle

y Rd

5th Av e

Draft, ITDP-China

276

19 July 2015

ITDP Manila BRT Conceptual Design

Draft, ITDP-China

277 Cembo Station

8th Ave

an Av e

19 July 2015

Date: 20150515

Kalaya No.:O9

34th St

Draft, ITDP-China

278

19 July 2015

ITDP Manila BRT Conceptual Design

7th Avenue & 9th Avenue Station

9th Avenue Station

7th Avenue Station

9th Ave

7th Ave

Date: 20150515

36th St No.:O10E & O10W

7th Ave

9th Ave

30th St

High Street

28th St

Draft, ITDP-China

279

19 July 2015

High Street E (BGC)

Draft, ITDP-China

280

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

281

19 July 2015

High Street W (BGC)

Draft, ITDP-China

282

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

283

19 July 2015

The BRT corridor will provide excellent access to BGC, including the High Street, pictured above.

Draft, ITDP-China

284

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

285

19 July 2015

ITDP Manila BRT Conceptual Design

McKinley Rd

5th A ve McKinley Road Station

Date: 20150515

No.: O13

Roxas corridor

BRT station name Tambo

code R6

type island

sub-stops 1

Roxas Blvd

R10

island

2

Airport Road

R11

island

2

Baclaran

R12

island

2

Antonio Arnais Ave

R13

island

2

Diokno Blvd

R14

island

2

CCP Urban Forest

R15

island

2

Quirino Ave

R16

island

2

Malate

R17

island

2

Kalaw Ave

R18

island

2

Intramuros

R19

island

2

Manila City Hall

R20

split

2

Navotas

T0

island

1

Bangculasi

T1

island

1

Cocomo Island

T2

island

1

C-3 Road

T3

island

1

Smokey Mountain

T4

island

1

Pier 18

T5

island

1

Tondo North

T6

island

2

Tondo

T7

island

2

Tondo South

T8

island

2

Zaragoza

T9

directional

2

Roxas Bridge

T10

directional

2

Fort Santiago

T11

island

2

Port Area

T12

island

2

Navotas River

C31

island

1

Kaunlaran

C32

island

1

A. Mabini St

C33

island

1

5th Avenue

C34

island

1

Rizal Avenue

C35

island

1

Draft, ITDP-China

286

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

287

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

288

19 July 2015

ITDP Manila BRT Conceptual Design

Roxas Blvd

Roxas Blvd Station

Date: 20150515

No.: R10

Draft, ITDP-China

ITDP Manila BRT Conceptual Design

Roxas Blvd

Airport Road Station

Aseana Ave

289

19 July 2015 Date: 20150515

No.:R11

Roxas Blvd

Draft, ITDP-China

290

ITDP Manila BRT Conceptual Design

Baclaran Station

Redemptorist Rd

19 July 2015

Date: 20150515

No.: R12

291

ITDP Manila BRT Conceptual Design

Roxas Blvd

Draft, ITDP-China

19 July 2015 Embassy of Japan

Antonio Arnais Ave Station

Date: 20150515

No.:R13

ITDP Manila BRT Conceptual Design

Diokno Blvd Station

Date: 20150515

Blvd

HK Sun Plaza

Roxas

Draft, ITDP-China

292

19 July 2015 No.:R14

Malate Station

Roxas Blvd

ITDP Manila BRT Conceptual Design

Date: 20150515

Pedro Gil St

Draft, ITDP-China

293

19 July 2015

No.: R17

Baclaran

Draft, ITDP-China

294

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

295

19 July 2015

7.3 Shaw Boulevard BRT station ITDP developed a conceptual design for Shaw Boulevard BRT station which involves the BRT roadway changing from street level to elevated for 200m along EDSA on the north and south side of Shaw Boulevard MRT station. In this elevated section the BRT will be alongside the MRT vehicles, and can use the support pylons already installed for the MRT. The BRT station will be located in the interior of the current Shaw Boulevard MRT station, in an area currently either abandoned or used by small scale vendors. This provides an opportunity to revitalize a degraded and potential prime retail location which would connect to both the BRT and MRT as well as potentially to adjacent buildings including the Shangrila Mall. The concept is illustrated in the following pages.

Draft, ITDP-China

296

19 July 2015

Shaw Boulevard BRT station

Draft, ITDP-China

297

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

298

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

299

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

300

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

301

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

302

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

303

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

304

19 July 2015

7.4 Flooding considerations Whether the vehicle has 350 mm floor height or a 620 mm floor height, the impact from flooding is the same. The engine height and tailpipe can be placed at the same height in both cases, and according to manufacturers, the engine compartment is relatively sealed. Certainly if the water level rises above 350 mm, water could enter when the door is opened on a low-entry vehicle. However, if the water level rises to that height, it would not be possible for a 620 mm vehicle to operate safely either. Namely, once the water level rises above approximately 100 mm, the road markings are no longer visible. BRT vehicles cannot be safely operated in such conditions regardless of the floor height. The 10 year flood map from DOST - Project NOAH is shown following. As part of the follow-up to this study, after the model is further developed and the operational design is refined and more fixed, a route by route analysis can be carried out, taking the flood hazards into account, to help inform the decision about whether particular routes need measures in the drainage system of the roadway design to deal with possible flooding.

Draft, ITDP-China

305

19 July 2015

Light orange = up to 0.5m deep Light red = 0.5m-1.5m deep Dark red = more than 1.5m deep

Draft, ITDP-China

306

19 July 2015

8.

Traffic Circulation and Impacts

8.1 General approach A new BRT system always has some impact on traffic conditions. A poorly planned design can cause a negative impact on mixed traffic and non-BRT buses, while a good design will not only provide better operational conditions for the BRT buses, but also improve the mixed traffic flow organization, mainly because: The BRT design does not reduce capacity beyond current capacity levels, so no adverse traffic impacts will be felt along the whole corridor. The BRT design includes optimization of the intersections along the corridor. Changing from four phases into three or two phases, simplifying the turnings movements, shortening the cycle time and giving more green time for both BRT buses and mixed traffic on the main straight direction will result in more efficient intersection operation. Actually, the most serious bottlenecks are the signalized intersections. See the graphic below, where points A, B and E are signalized intersections. The capacity of the intersection is generally a function of the amount of green time per lane. The amount of green time per lane is generally a function of the number of signal phases. Saturation can increase up to 300 percent by increasing an intersection from two or three phases to four phases. Point C might be a bridge or tunnel where, for example, lanes are reduced from 3 to 2, increasing saturation by 50 percent. Point D might be a popular destination like a shopping mall where an extra volume of vehicles enters the road, increasing saturation. It might also be a popular bus interchange, a street market, or an area with regulated on-street parking. Scenarios “A” and “B” are standard four-phase intersections, which are currently mostly used along the BRT corridor in Vientiane. The capacity of the intersection per lane is very low. In scenario “A”, left turn movements are given their own signal phase, with two directions being able to turn left simultaneously. As an alternative, the configuration for option “B” is four phases with just a single directional approach on each phase.

Four phases = 1/4 of time for each movement = 1/4 of capacity

If intersections with four phases still existed after BRT implementation, they would cause large delays for not only BRT buses, but also mixed traffic. The following tables show in general terms how different number of signal phases and the numbers of traffic signals will impact on the BRT bus delay and speed. BRT delay in different numbers of signal phase Seconds Phases

Cycle

Red

BRT Delay

2

60

30

7

3

90

60

20

4

120

90

34

Currently the major intersections along the phase 1 BRT corridor are four phases. Generally, the easiest and least expensive solution to fast traffic speeds along the corridor is to improve the efficiency of the intersections through eliminating the direct left turnings, reducing the traffic signals from four phases into only two phases, and using other locations to make left turns. The figure below illustrates the standard two phase traffic signal phase when left turns are disallowed. By doubling the green time given to the BRT vehicles, the capacity and speed of the BRT and mixed traffic are both increased significantly for a very limited cost.

Signal intersection capacity = Available width / Number of phases Option “C”- two phases Draft, ITDP-China

308

19 July 2015

Mixed traffic saturation along a BRT corridor

In option “C”, a left turn for mixed traffic is accomplished through a u-turn combined with the station alignment and pedestrian crossing which is proposed for most of the intersections along the corridor, or a previous left turn which avoids u-turning vehicles passing twice through the intersection, especially in some cases with higher left turn volumes. For all the intersections with four phases, we suggest reducing to two or three phases depending on the left turn volumes. A left turn for mixed traffic is accomplished through a u-turn combined with the station alignment and pedestrian crossing which is proposed for several of the intersections along the corridors. When pedestrians are crossing the road and accessing the BRT station, the mixed traffic makes u-turn.

Calculate current intersection saturation

Calculate the saturation for each movement of each phase (V/C), the capacity for each lane using 1800 pcu/h. Use the maximum saturation as the saturation of each phase. Add up saturation for each phase as the intersection saturation.

Calculate intersection saturation with dedicated BRT lane

Calculate the saturation for each movement of each phase (V/C), using 1800 pcu/h for each lane. Use the maximum saturation as the saturation of each phase. Without changing intersection design and signal phases, the intersection saturation will usually be very high, and the intersection will often be over-saturated with BRT.

8.2 Methodology Data collection

Peak hour intersection volume counts, recording the volume of different travel modes for each movement of each approach. Current intersection layout - document traffic lanes for each movement of each approach. Document current signal phases.

Draft, ITDP-China

Re-design intersection and signal phases Calculate intersection saturation with new intersection layout and signal phases

Calculate the saturation for each movement of each phase (V/C), using 1800 pcu/h capacity. Use maximum saturation as the saturation of each phase. Calculate the intersection saturation.

309

19 July 2015

Option “A”-four phases

Option “B”- four phases

Analysis can show that with the new intersection design and signal phases proposal, the intersection saturation is dramatically decreased, resulting in improved intersection performance. Examples are provided in the following section.

8.3 Selected locations Seven intersections as illustrated in the following graphic were selected for detailed analysis.

Draft, ITDP-China

310

19 July 2015

Number of signals/kilometer and BRT delay Number of signals/kilometer and BRT delay (seconds/km) Phases

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2

0

8

15

23

30

38

45

53

60

68

75

3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

4

0

34

68

101

135

169

203

236

270

304

338

8

9

10

Number of signals/kilometer and BRT speed Number of signals/kilometer and BRT speed (km/h) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

25.8

24.5

23.3

22.2

21.2

20.3

19.5

18.8

18.0 17.4 16.8

3

25.8

22.6

20.1

18.0

16.4

15.0

13.9

12.9

12.0 11.3 10.6

4

25.8

20.8

17.4

15.0

13.1

11.7

10.5

9.6

8.8

B(R/S)T speed km/h

Phases

26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

8.1

7.5

BRT: traffic signals and average speed

PHASES=2 PHASES=3 PHASES=4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NUMBER OF SIGNALAS /KILOMETER

Traffic speed Trafficsignals signalsand and BRT BRT speed Currently the major intersections along the phase 1 BRT corridor are four phases. Generally, the easiest and least expensive solution to fast traffic speeds along the corridor is to improve the efficiency of the intersections through eliminating the direct left turnings, reducing the traffic signals from four phases into only two phases, and using other locations to make left turns.

Draft, ITDP-China

311

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

312

19 July 2015

EDSA & Ayala intersection

Before BRT:

After BRT:

Draft, ITDP-China

313

19 July 2015

Ayala and Paseo de Roxas Intersection Ayala & Paseo de Roxas Present three phase + BRT Phase 1

2

3

Total (not including right turn)

94.3%

Before BRT:

Intersection Ayala Ave & Paseo de Roxas Proposed u turn on east and westside + BRT North U turn Phase 1 2 Total Main Cross

50.3%

Phase 1

2

Total Maximum saturation

After BRT:

Draft, ITDP-China

314

19 July 2015

56.5%

56.5%

EDSA & Quezon Ave. intersection

Phase 1 2

Phase 1 2

Intersection EDSA & QUEZON Ave. Current 2 u turn on North and South side North U turn Side Volume Lanes Capacity Saturation (pcu/h) (pcu/h) Straight 1466 2 3600 40.72% U turn 1510 2 3200 47.19% Total 87.91% South U turn Side Volume Lanes Capacity Saturation (pcu/h) (pcu/h) Straight 1620 2 3600 45.00% U turn 1112 2 3200 34.75% Total 79.75% Maximum saturation 87.91%

Current: The left turning traffic from EDSA to Quezon Ave has to make a turn under the ramp of the flyover along EDSA. Saturation of the U turn at the north side is 88%, and at the south side is 80%.

Intersection EDSA & QUEZON 2 u turn at north and South side + 2 left turn at intersection North U turn Side Volume Lanes Capacity Saturation (pcu/h) (pcu/h) North 1466 2 3600 40.72% U turn 750 2 3200 23.44% Total 64.16% Main cross Side Volume Lanes Capacity Saturation (pcu/h) (pcu/h) East 760 3 5400 14.07% West 524 3 5400 9.70% Maximum saturation 14.07% North 1108 3 5400 20.52% South 1164 3 5400 21.56% Maximum saturation 21.56% 43.11% South U turn Side Volume Lanes Capacity Saturation (pcu/h) (pcu/h) South 1620 2 3600 45.00% U turn 588 2 3200 18.38% Total 63.38% Maximum saturation 64.16%

Proposed

Phase 1 2

Phase 1

2

Total

Proposed: Through adding left turnings directly at the

Phase

intersection, the phases can still be kept to 2, but pressure at 1 2

the U turns is reduced, so the saturation will decrease to 64%, which provides a much improved intersection operation.

Note: This traffic improvement is primarily for mixed traffic, since the BRT will use the flyover above the intersection. However, it can provide a possible improved future BRT connection, as well.

Draft, ITDP-China

315

19 July 2015

Roxas Blvd & NAIA Rd intersection Present four phase + BRT To Volumes Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) Turn North left 1332 2 3600 left South left 72 1 1800 Total (not include turn right) Straight North 949 3 5400 straight North BRT 176 1 1800 straight South 1601 2 3600 straight South BRT 120 1 1800 straight Total (not include turn right) East Straight+Left 626 3 5400 Total (not include turn right) West Straight+Left 609 3 5400 Total (not include turn right) Total (not include turn right)

Phase

Side

1

2

3 4

Before BRT:

Phase 1 2

Phase 1

2

After BRT:

Phase 1 2

Draft, ITDP-China

316

Intersection Roxas Blvd & NAIA Rd Proposed 2 u turn on north and West side + BRT North U turn Side Volume Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) North 2547 3 5400 U turn 372 2 3600 Total Main cross Side Volume Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) North 2573 4 7200 South 1872 2 3600 BRT north 176 1 1800 BRT south 120 1 1800 Maximum saturation West 609 3 5400 East 626 3 5400 Maximum saturation Total South U turn Side Volume Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) South 1845 3 5400 U turn 1603 3 5400 Total Maximum saturation

19 July 2015

Saturation 37.0% 4.0% 37.0% 17.6% 9.8% 44.5% 6.7% 44.5% 11.6% 11.6% 11.3% 11.3%

104.4%

Saturation 47.2% 10.3% 57.5% Saturation 35.7% 52.0% 9.8% 6.7% 52.0% 11.3% 11.6% 11.6% 63.6% Saturation 34.2% 29.7% 63.9%

63.9%

Ayala and V.A. Rufino Street Phase

Side

1

North

2

East

3

East West

4

South

Intersection Ayala Ave & V.A. Rufino Street Present four phase + BR To Volume Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) Straight+Left 902 2 3600 +Right Straight+Right 1754 2 3600 Left 282 2 3600 BRT 180 1 1800 Total Straight+Right 1754 2 3600 Straight+Right 1295 3 5400 BRT 180 1 1800 Total (not include turn right) Straight+Left+Right 332 2 3600

Total (not including right turns)

Saturation 25.1% 48.7% 7.8% 10.0% 48.7% 48.7% 24.0% 10.0% 48.7% 9.2%

83.0%

Before BRT:

Phase

Side

1

East

West

2

North South

Intersection Ayala Ave & V.A. Rufino Street Proposed u turn on east side + BRT To Volume Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) Straight+Right 2192 4 7200 BRT 180 1 1800 Total Straight+Right 1709 4 7200 BRT 180 1 1800 Total Maximum saturation Straight+Right 1184 3 5400 Straight+Right 332 2 3600 Maximum saturation Total

After BRT:

Draft, ITDP-China

317

19 July 2015

Saturation 30.4% 10.0% 30.4% 23.7% 10.0% 23.7% 30.4% 21.9% 9.2% 21.9%

52.4%

Ayala Ave & Makati Ave intersection Phas e 1

North

2

South

3

East

4

West

Before BRT:

Phase 1 2

Phase 1

2

Phase 1 2

After BRT:

Draft, ITDP-China

318

Side

Intersection Ayala Ave & Makati Ave Present four phase + BRT To Volumes Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) Straight+ 1159 5 9000 Left Total Left 384 1 1800 Straight 810 2 3600 Total (not include turn right) Left 311 1 1800 Straight 762 2 3600 BRT 180 1 1800 Total (not include turn right) Left 453 1 1800 Straight 946 2 3600 BRT 180 1 1800 Total (not include turn right) Total (not including right turns)

Intersection Ayala Ave & Makati Ave Proposed u turn on east and west side + BRT North U turn Side To Volume Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) North Straight 2565 3 5400 U turn 463 2 3600 Total Main Cross Side To Volume Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) North Straight 2565 4 7200 +Right South Straight 2337 4 7200 +Right Maximum saturation West Straight 2155 4 7200 +Right BRT 180 1 1800 East Straight 1513 4 7200 +Right BRT 180 1 1800 Maximum saturation Total South U turn Side To Volume Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) South Straight 2337 3 5400 U turn 657 2 3600 Total Maximum saturation

19 July 2015

Saturatio n 12.9% 12.9% 21.3% 22.5% 22.5% 17.3% 21.2% 10.0% 21.2% 25.2% 26.3% 10.0% 26.3%

82.8%

Saturation 47.5% 12.9% 60.4% Saturation 35.6% 32.5% 35.6% 29.9% 10.0% 21.0% 10.0% 23.6% 65.6% Saturation 43.3% 18.3% 61.5% 65.6%

Roxas Blvd & Kalaw Ave intersection Phase

Side

1

North

South

2

North South

3

East

Before BRT: 4

Phase 1

2

West

Intersection Roxas Blvd & Kalaw Ave Present four phase + BRT To Volumes Lane Capacity (pcu/h) s (pcu/h) Straight 1432 2 3600 Straight 148 1 1800 BRT Straight 1502 2 3600 Straight 121 1 1800 BRT Total (not include turn right) Left 167 1 1800 Left 189 1 1800 Total (not include turn right) Straight+ 746 2 3600 Left Right 522 1 1800 Total (not include turn right) Straight+ 73 3 5400 Left Right 0 1 1800 Total (not include turn right) Total (not include turn right)

Intersection Roxas Blvd & Kalaw Ave Proposed 2 u turn on north and south side + BRT Side To Volumes Lanes Capacity (pcu/h) (pcu/h) North Straight+ 1432 2 3600 Right Straight 148 1 1800 BRT South Straight+ 1502 2 3600 Right Straight 121 1 1800 BRT Total (not include turn right) North U turn 935 3 5400 South U turn 240 3 5400 Total (not include turn right) Total (not include turn right)

After BRT:

Draft, ITDP-China

319

19 July 2015

Saturation 39.8% 8.2% 41.7% 6.7% 41.7% 9.3% 10.5% 9.3% 20.7% 29.0% 29.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%

81.4%

Saturation 39.8% 8.2% 41.7% 6.7% 41.7% 17.3% 4.4% 17.3%

59.0%

Roxas Blvd and Padre Burgos Ave

Draft, ITDP-China

320

19 July 2015

8.4 Mixed traffic impacts at stations Selected EDSA corridor stations Station

Direction

Volume (exclude bus) (pcu/hr) 4110

Current lanes (include bus lanes) 6

Current lanes (exclude bus lanes) 4

ReDesign Saturation quired lanes lanes

EW

Volume (include bus) (pcu/hr) 4300

Project 7

3

4

50%

WE

4888

4666

6

4

3

4

57%

NS

4623

4377

6

4

3

3

71%

SN

4631

4413

5

3

3

3

72%

NS

2269.6

1813.6

5

3

1

3

29%

SN

5550

5296

5

3

3

3

86%

NS

2270

1813.6

6

4

1

3

29%

SN

5550

5296

6

4

3

3

86%

NS

3217.6

2799.6

6

4

2

3

46%

SN

5678.8

5310.8

6

4

3

4

65%

NS

4814.8

4476.8

5

3

3

3

73%

SN

4474

4160

5

3

3

3

68%

NS

5097

4817

5

3

3

3

78%

SN

4274

3864

5

3

2

3

63%

NS

5961

5635

5

3

3

3

92%

SN

4812

4482

5

3

3

3

73%

Guadalupe Neuvo

NS

5265

4951

5

3

3

3

81%

SN

4549

4227

5

3

3

3

69%

Ayala (ground level)

EW

1400

1238

6

4

1

3

20%

WE

1289

1081

5

3

1

3

18%

Magallanes

NS

2502

2346

5

3

2

3

38%

SN

2825

2701

5

3

2

3

44%

EW

4955

4815

5

3

3

3

78%

WE

4310

4138

5

3

3

3

67%

EW

4930

4813

6

4

3

3

78%

WE

3716

3611

6

4

2

4

44%

EDSA Extension

EW

6252

6066

6

4

3

4

74%

WE

3075

2991

6

4

2

4

36%

Balintawak

EW

4886

4694

5

3

3

4

57%

WE

4847

4441

5

3

3

4

54%

EW

4832

3900

6

4

2

4

48%

WE

3080

4456

6

4

3

4

54%

North Avenue Kamuning Cubao North Cubao South Main Avenue Ortigas NB Guadalupe

Bangkal Taft Avenue

Roosevelt

Draft, ITDP-China

321

19 July 2015

Selected Makati corridor stations Station

Direc- Volume tion (include bus) (pcu/hr) EW 2110

Volume (exclude bus) (pcu/hr) 2044

Current lanes (include bus lanes) 4

Current Required lanes (ex- lanes clude bus lanes) mix 1

Design lanes

Saturation

3

33%

WE

1708

1628

4

mix

1

3

26%

Paseo De Roxas

EW

2282

2230

4

mix

2

3

36%

WE

1586

1522

4

mix

1

3

25%

Triangle Park

EW

1013

1013

4

mix

1

3

16%

WE

2495

2431

4

mix

2

3

40%

EW

1570

1522

4

mix

1

3

25%

WE

2425

2369

4

mix

2

3

39%

Buendia

Triangle Park

Selected Meralco area stations Station

Direction

Volume (include bus) (pcu/hr) 543

Volume (exclude bus) (pcu/hr) 543

Current lanes (include bus lanes) 3

Current Required lanes (ex- lanes clude bus lanes) mix 1

Design lanes

Saturation

2

13%

SN

815

813

3

mix

1

2

20%

EW

750

748

2

mix

1

1

37%

WE

485

483

2

mix

1

1

24%

EW

474

474

2

mix

1

1

23%

WE

921

921

2

mix

1

1

45%

Meralco South NS San Antonio Kapitolyo

Selected Roxas corridor stations Station

Direc- Volume tion (incl. bus) (pcu/hr) NS 2457

Volume (excl. bus) (pcu/hr) 2365

Current lanes (incl. bus lanes) 5

Current Required Design Saturation lanes (excl. lanes lanes bus lanes) mix 2 4 29%

SN

3180

3056

5

mix

2

4

37%

CCP Urban Forest

NS

3212

3190

5

mix

2

4

39%

SN

2168

2168

4

mix

2

3

35%

Quirino Ave

NS

3017

3001

4

mix

2

3

49%

SN

3306

3306

4

mix

2

3

54%

Kalaw Avenue NS

3412

3406

4

mix

2

3

55%

SN

1414

1414

5

mix

1

3

23%

EW

1625

1625

4

mix

1

3

26%

WE

1257

1257

4

mix

1

3

20%

EW

2387

2387

5

mix

2

3

39%

WE

4002

4002

5

mix

2

3

65%

EW

1886

1858

3

mix

1

2

45%

WE

1914

1906

3

mix

1

2

46%

Roxas Blvd

Intramuros NAIA Road Tambo

Draft, ITDP-China

322

19 July 2015

Selected C5 stations Station

C3 Rizal C4 BCDA

Direction Volume (include bus) (pcu/hr) NS 5043

Volume (exclude bus) (pcu/hr) 5033

Current lanes (include bus lanes) 4

Current Required Design Saturation lanes (ex- lanes lanes clude bus lanes) mix 3 3 82%

SN

3290

3264

4

mix

2

3

53%

NS

4152

4142

4

mix

3

3

67%

SN

2532

2506

4

mix

2

3

41%

8.5 Mixed traffic impacts at critical points While the most critical locations for assessing traffic impacts are normally the stations, in EDSA there were several other potential critical locations, as illustrated below.

Draft, ITDP-China

323

19 July 2015

Selected critical points along the EDSA BRT corridor Location A (Quezon)

Direc- Level tion NS Ramp

Volume Current Required Design Satu- Note (pcu/hr) lanes lanes lanes ration 3120 3 2 2 76%

Ground

1417

3

1

3

23%

Ramp

3150

3

2

2

77%

Ground

1370

4

1

4

17%

Ramp

772

3

1

2

19%

Ground

1042

3

1

3

17%

Ramp

3736

3

2

2

91%

Ground

1560

3

1

3

25%

underground 2395

3

2

2

58%

Ground

2

1

2

10%

underground 3548

3

2

2

87%

Ground

1762

2

1

2

43%

Ramp

3545

3

2

2

86%

Ground

932

3

1

3

15%

Ramp

3238

3

2

2

79%

Ground

922

3

1

3

15%

Ramp

3651

3

2

2

89%

Ground

1166

3

1

3

19%

Ramp

2875

3

2

2

70%

Ground

810

3

1

3

13%

F EW (Magallanes)

Go straight Ramp

4815

4

3

3

78%

WE

Go straight Ramp

4138

4

3

3

67%

EW

Ground

3425

3

3

3

56%

Ramp

2230

2

2

2

54%

Ground

4138

3

3

3

67%

SN B (Kamuning)

NS SN

C (Magsaysay)

NS SN

D (Santolan)

NS

SN E (Ortigas)

NS

SN

G (Taft Ave.)

404

Mix traffic can use ground layer

Mix traffic can use ground layer Mix traffic can use ground layer

Mix traffic can use ground layer

Space for straight ramp on 2nd level for mixed traffic

The results of this analysis show that in all locations, solutions have been found which can accommodate the current mixed traffic volumes both at BRT stations and at critical points along the corridor, without adversely impacting traffic.

Draft, ITDP-China

324

19 July 2015

9.

Terminals, Depots and Control Center

‘Direct service’ operations example - Guangzhou routes enter & leave corridor

BRT corridors

Transfer terminal

‘Trunk & feeder’ operations example - Bogota

Transfer terminal

series of transfer terminals

feeder routes

trunk routes

BRT corridors feeder routes

Terminal

‘Trunk only’ operations example - Jakarta

Terminal

trunk routes

BRT corridors

Figure 9-1: ‘Direct service’ BRT operations are proposed for Manila, and consequently BRT terminals are not generally needed.

plans and any associated contracts, a BRT depot could also be considered at ITS South. As noted previously, ITS South is one of two key locations where provincial bus routes enter EDSA, the other being Balintawak in the north. The ITS South BRT station should be designed in a way to make it as easy, fast and convenient as possible for provincial bus passengers to transfer to the BRT system and vice versa, enabling many provincial bus routes to terminate at this station instead of entering EDSA. ITS North. Some provincial bus routes can terminate at ITS North instead of entering EDSA. ITS North is like ITS Southwest and ITS South in advanced stages of planning for a terminal, and a BRT station is proposed to be incorporated in the terminal, as well as a depot if possible. SM Fairview. At the north of Commonwealth Avenue, SM Fairview BRT station will serve multiple BRT routes and is a good ‘natural’ terminal location. Off-street bus parking appears to be available in adjacent sites as well as along the roadside in this area. MOA. Like SM Fairview, MOA serves

9.1 BRT terminals The direct service operational design proposed in this study in principle does not require BRT terminals (Figure 9-1). However, several locations can serve a terminal-like function in the BRT system in Manila (Figure 9-2), including: ITS Southwest. A BRT station is proposed to be incorporated in the ITS Southwest terminal development, currently in advanced preparation for implementation, with multiple BRT routes using this station. This can be a natural point for transfers from some provincial and other bus routes to the BRT system. Depending on the status of the designs and plans and any associated contracts, a BRT depot could also be considered at ITS Southwest. ITS South. The ITS South terminal development is also in advanced stages of preparation for implementation, and is a large site with the potential for inclusion of a BRT station. Depending on the status of the designs and Draft, ITDP-China

326

19 July 2015

Figure 9-2: Stations with terminal-like functions in the Manila BRT.

Draft, ITDP-China

327

19 July 2015

multiple BRT routes and is a natural terminal location in terms of both routes, passenger demand, and existing terminals for UVs, buses and jeepneys. East Grace Park. Located at the proposed transfer location for provincial bus routes at Balintawak, East Grace Park BRT station serves as a point for BRT passengers to transfer to provincial buses and vice versa. Many provincial bus routes in this way can be terminated at Balintawak instead of entering EDSA. Project 7. If / when MRT7 proceeds, Project 7 station will be an important transfer station between BRT and MRT. Airport area. Multiple BRT routes terminate in the airport area, so off-street parking areas will need to be identified for BRT buses during off-peak periods. Figure 9-3 shows examples of BRT stations incorporated into larger terminals in Brisbane, Hangzhou, and Yichang; in all cases retrofitted into existing terminal facilities. In the case of Manila, if BRT facilities are included in the design stage in ITS South, ITS Southwest and ITS North, this will be easier than retrofitting them. Figure 9-3: BRT station and busway retrofits in Hangzhou (railway station), Yichang (railway station; under construction, June 2015) and Brisbane (Roma St rail and bus terminal).

Draft, ITDP-China

328

19 July 2015

9.2 BRT staging areas

in many cities, including even in very dense areas in downtown Hong Kong, as illustrated in Figure As part of the follow-up to this study, an inventory 9-4. Similarly in Guangzhou, one of the main BRT needs to be undertaken of streets in the vicinity of routes uses the roadside for off-peak staging at the the end of BRT routes to determine where buses eastern end of the corridor (Figure 9-5). Figure can be parked during off-peak hours. This issue is 9-6 shows a roadside staging and basic cleanespecially important in areas where multiple BRT ing area in the Changzhou BRT system. In the routes have ending points. The airport area is one Zhengzhou BRT, unused space beneath a roadway such location, with several phase 1 BRT routes interchange serves a similar purpose, as in Figure terminating there. 9-7. Ideally the BRT operator will be responsible for Ensuring adequate toilet facilities for drivers is providing the facilities to be used for bus parking, provided is an important consideration for the basic cleaning and driver facilities during the BRT operators to solve, and should not be the lower frequency off-peak hours, which would responsibility of the government. Approaches mean the government need not provide funding used by operators in Guangzhou include: for staging areas. Addressing the toilet issue at the end of each The staging area requirements can be detertrip, whenever a new route is opened. mined following the completion of an operational Paying a nearby restaurant or other shop to plan which also includes off-peak service. This allow the drivers to use the toilet. report focused on peak hour requirements, which In dense ‘urban villages’, paying a nearby are key to the BRT infrastructure design and residence to allow drivers to use their toilet determination of fleet requirements. For the most important, high frequency Some general additional considerations on the routes, building small toilet facilities in a use and location of staging areas include: temporary building where dispatch staff can The BRT routes can use different locations for also be located (Figure 9-8). This may require off-peak parking; it is not essential to concenrenting a space, especially if the land is not trate all the staging in one location. government owned. Toilet facilities for drivers should be available at the end of a trip, though if public toilet facilities are already available in nearby build9.3 Depots ings, these can be used. Cleaning staff should be on hand to do a Approximate costings were included for BRT quick clean of buses at the end of a trip. depots, but the depots requires a preliminary Ideally any staging areas will not be located design and more detailed costing, and the number within close walking distance of any BRT sta- of depots will be determined after the number of tions, unless it is along a street with very little operators (probably in the range of 3-8) is fixed. potential for transit-oriented development or Potential depot sites could include: pedestrian appeal. LRTA site at Santolan Good locations for staging areas or roadside Integration with ITS South site? terminals could be parking yards near the Integration with ITS Southwest site? airport, along streets with continuous walls, in Integration with ITS North site? areas with industrial or logistics-related land A fairly typical Chinese depot accommodating uses (which is common in the vicinity of the 210 buses has a construction cost of around $3.5 airport), or underneath elevated roads. million (Fujian Province, Ningde City). With a For the most important routes (determined by recommendation of around 3-8 operators in the bus frequency, fleet size and passenger riderManila BRT, one depot per operator should be ship), it may be necessary for the operator to built, for a total of 3-8 depots. build a small structure that can accommodate dispatch staff as well as a toilet area. ‘Roadside’ bus staging areas are quite common Draft, ITDP-China

329

19 July 2015

Figure 9-4: Roadside bus staging areas for minibuses of a size similar to those recommended in Vientiane are common in Hong Kong (above, and top), even in dense downtown areas.

Draft, ITDP-China

Figure 9-5: Roadside BRT staging area at Xiayuan BRT station in Guangzhou (above image: Google Earth).

330

19 July 2015

Figure 9-6: Roadside staging and basic cleaning of BRT buses between trips in a BRT corridor in Changzhou, China.

Figure 9-7: BRT staging area beneath a roadway interchange in Zhengzhou, China.

Figure 9-8: Roadside facilities at terminal locations common for higher demand bus and BRT routes in Guangzhou. Draft, ITDP-China

331

19 July 2015

9.4 BRT control center The control center integrates the communication system, UPS system, clock synchronization system, passenger information system, vehicle locating system, dispatching system, sliding door system, automated fare collection (AFC) system, CCTV monitoring system, broadcasting system, and others. Based on GPS, GPRS/CDMA/ WCDMA and GIS technology, real time information for the BRT system can be collected, stored and analyzed in the control center, the BRT buses can be monitored in real time, and buses dispatched by instruction from the staff working in the control center. Passengers at BRT stations can get real time bus operation information sent from the control center. The control center can help ensure the BRT system operates efficiently, and can help control and monitor the bus frequency. This is a key function for systems in which BRT operators are paid per bus-kilometer, which is what is recommended in Manila. With the control center, the BRT system can: Rapidly respond to changes in passenger demand. Passenger demand for each station does not generally change very much each day. However, during holidays or special events or when accidents happen, the control center can monitor all the station passenger demand through the CCTV cameras which are installed in all BRT stations, and update the dispatching plan according to the situation. Rapidly respond to equipment failures and security problems. In the event of equipment failure, an alarm will automatically be activated and the control center can send the maintenance staff to the site immediately. Efficient spacing between vehicles. Base on the GPS vehicle locating technology, all the real time locations of BRT buses can be monitored on the screen in the control center. The staff can contact the drivers to make sure all the buses are between the efficient spacing. Automated system performance evaluation. The daily performance for each bus can be recorded by the system, and the evaluation can be automatically generated through system analysis and reporting functions. Automated linkages between operations and Draft, ITDP-China

revenue distribution. The operational mileage for each bus and the ticketing income for each station can be recorded by the system, and used for revenue distribution. Safe environment for passengers. In the event of a crime in a BRT station, the control center can observe through the CCTV cameras, broadcast an alert to the station, and contact the police immediately. Some requirements for the Manila BRT control center are listed following: Allow data from 892 buses to plug in, and for up to 5,000 buses in future, to accommodate future system growth. 150 m2 for an equipment room with 8 cabinets and a control hall with TV wall with six 32 inch screens and 20 operational desks for daily operational work. High resolution (1080P, 720P) for video storage, 24hrs, stored for up to 15 days. Cabinet (800mm × 800mm × 2045mm). The room of 250 m2 is assumed to be provided, and only the cost for decoration is included in the project budget. In experience elsewhere1, the control room can often be provided from land or buildings owned by the government, and does not need to be separately purchased. If a separate purchase is required, this needs to be added to the project budget. Ideally the control room will be located in fairly close proximity to the corridor, as this will minimize cabling costs. Note that the control center costs can vary a lot depending on the functions required by the government and the technical specifications in the bidding. Given the specialized functions required for the BRT operation and management, including monitoring and control of BRT bus frequency both on and off the BRT corridor, it is recommended that there be a separate BRT control center in addition to any citywide traffic control center being planned.

1 In Guangzhou the BRT control center space was provided by the City Government. In Yichang and Lanzhou the BRT control center space is provided by the municipal bus company.

332

19 July 2015

10. Stakeholder Consultation

10.1 Meetings & presentations

major improvements along EDSA, though the consultants would need to explain why the proposed corridors were selected. From a policy perspective there was sufficient justification for the project to be further studied based on early proposals listing key roads requiring transit improvements in Manila.

During the course of the study, preliminary work was presented to agencies including the following, and in all cases the feedback was positive. Based on the stakeholder consultation there appears to be an overwhelmingly strong level of support for measures to dramatically improve the transit and Metropolitan Manila Development traffic situation in Metro Manila in general and Authority (MMDA) along EDSA in particular. The work was presented Chairman Francis Tolentino to and discussed with: − Suggested using C3 instead of Samson Road, as C3 will soon connect continuously to Rizal Department of Transport and Avenue. The alignment was changed based on Communications (DOTC) this feedback. Secretary Joseph Abaya (twice, once in April − Suggested several other potential corridors 2015 and again on 27 May 2015). that could be considered for additional cor− Expressed great interest in and support for the ridors for a BRT network in Manila. project. − Emphasized the importance of a route along Undersecretary Rene Limcaoco (twice) C5 / Katipunan. A route was added in phase 2 serving this area. − Strongly emphasized the need to serve and benefit low income areas. This was a major factor in the inclusion of the coastal corridor Department of Public Works and Highways from the city center / Intramuros northward (DPWH) past Tondo and connecting to Navotas, in the − Meetings were not at a very senior level, and phase 2 proposal. were focused mainly on discussing the design − Emphasized the urgency of the government options for the Kapitolyo and Santa Monica timetable in terms of initiating the project and Bridge proposals. carrying out some preliminary work. Agreed that such preliminary work could include Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) elements such as preparatory road works, − Meeting was at a senior level, but when the ramp construction at Taft/Ayala, or work on proposals were presented the LRTA did not depots that could be done under an accelershow a high level of interest in the designs ated schedule without jeopardizing the overall or proposals and there was no substantive project. discussion. Robert Siy − Key coordination person for ITDP’s work on Asian Development Bank (ADB) the project, arranging most of the meetings Lloyd Wright and accompanying ITDP throughout. With − Multiple meetings and guidance for ITDP’s Gyeng Chul Kim, provided key input and work on the project. guidance. − Key guidance on corridor selection, urban development patterns in Metro Manila, National Economic and Development stakeholders, designs, and many other issues. Authority (NEDA) Transport Adviser − The main concern of NEDA was that the − Strong support for further dialog about project should fit into an existing policy options; main concern was not to rush the framework. project in a way that would compromise − It was agreed that the project should be quality. further investigated as a means to making − Agreed that the project, if done well, had Draft, ITDP-China

334

19 July 2015

transformative potential for Manila. Head of Southeast Asia Transport Division − Agreed that the ADB should support a dialog about options for the proposed BRT system. Head of South Asia Transport Division Head of Philippines Country Division. − Expressed interest in the project, though was wary of the challenges involved.

Developers − − −

− −

BGC Strong support expressed for the proposed BRT as a way of connecting various CBDs in Manila. Feedback on the alignment, especially to make the BRT go one-way along 7th and 9th Avenues in BGC. A major concern for them is pass-through car traffic using BGC between C5 and EDSA. OCLP Holdings Joey F. Santos, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Real Estate Division Support for the project as well as for the concept of locating a BRT station inside Capitol Commons. (In the final design, it is not considered necessary, though, to include a BRT station inside Capitol Commons, since the station on Meralco Avenue directly adjacent will serve passengers accessing Capitol Commons.)

the operations, and depending on the details as they emerged. Most had seen earlier curb-aligned bus lanes implemented on EDSA and there was broad skepticism that such simple bus lanes would make significant difference to their operations. They raised questions about the tax treatment of the legal entity, to which they were told that the tax treatment was to be determined but that tax treatment would be included by the bidders in the estimate of their fee per kilometer offer. The list of participants is provided below.

Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)

Robert Siy, Special Advisor to the Secretary Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Yuri Sarmiento President 1-TEAM, Senior Advisor Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Gyeng Chul Kim, Special Advisor, Secretary Department of Transportation and Communications Sherielysse Bonifacio Assistant Secretary for Planning and Finance Florencia Creus, Director III, Planning Service Arnel Manresa, Division Chief, Road Transport Planning Unit Lemar Jimenez Senior Transport Development Officer, Road Transport Planning Unit Ronald Cartagena ESITU, Planning Service Beatriz Bayudan Technical Assistant, Office of Planning and Finance Concepcion Garcia Technical Assistant, Office of Planning and Finance

Kapitolyo community leaders

− Strong support expressed for the project. − Suggested banning right turns from the north to south along the north part of West Capitol Drive into United Street, to deter pass-through traffic from the north accessing Pioneer and then EDSA. We agree with this proposal.

Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA)

Allan Arquiza Corporate Planning Chief Dennis Atendido Executive Assistant A Raymond Manuel MIS Technical Staff Nestor Flores Odraude Perez

10.2 Seminar on 29 May 2015

The basic concepts in this BRT conceptual design were presented at a meeting of stakeholders organized by GIZ and the DOTC on 29 May 2015. Land Transportation Franchising and Discussions with affected bus owners indicated Regulatory Board (LTFRB) broad support for the notion of a significant BRT Robert Cabrera Executive Director system on EDSA, so long as they were involved in Draft, ITDP-China

335

19 July 2015

Bobby Peig Director and OIC, Legal Division

Office of Transportation Cooperatives (OTC)

Reymundo De Guzman Executive Director Rommel Efren Laurena Liberato Bunsol Concordia Bunsol Romulo Fernando Rogelio Ignacio Teresita Alarcon

Leonido Pulido - Owner

University of the Philippines

Hilario Sean Palmiano Director, National Center for Transportation Studies

Local Government Units

Susan Samar City of Mandaluyong Donna Gonda City of Mandaluyong

German International Cooperation (GIZ)

Danielle Guillen Senior Advisor, TRANSfer Project and Transport and Climate Change (TCC) Project Cristina Villaraza Junior Advisor, TRANSfer Project and Transport and Climate Change (TCC) Project Alvin Mejia Consultant, TRANSfer Project Jane Romero Consultant GIZ-TRANSfer Project and Transport and Climate Change Project

Department of Justice (DOJ)

Jomar Dans Economist III John Raphael Fulgar Economist III

Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

Emilio Llavor Chief, Planning and Design Division of the Traffic Engineering

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

BUS OPERATORS

Jose Aguilo JAM Liner-Philtranco Group Rodelio Domingo JAM Liner-Philtranco Group Philip Abesamis JAM Liner-Philtranco Group Gabriel David Linaheim Corporate Services Jerico Castillanes Linaheim Corporate Services Michael Salalima RRCG Transport System Co., Inc. Michael De Mesa RRCG Transport System Co., Inc. Anton Flores RRCG Transport System Co., Inc. Atanasio Vergantinos Mersan Snow White Transport Corporation Homer Mercado HM Transport

Karl Fjellstrom, Regional Director for Asia and EDSA BRT study team leader BRT Planning International, LLC Dr. Walter Hook

Center Clean Air Asia

Mark Angelo Tacderas Transport Researcher

Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)

Anita Salayon Senior Assistant Vice President, Financing Infrastructure, Environment and Logistics Development Department Jona Kristel Luardo Manager, Environment Unit

De La Salle University (DLSU)

Alexis Fillone Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering Gregg Garcia Technical Expert, DLSU Innovation and Technology Office 2

Electric Vehicle Expansion Enterprise, Inc. (EVEE-I) Draft, ITDP-China

336

19 July 2015

11. Implementation Cost

EDSA BRT costings were prepared initially using PRC costs based on ITDP-China’s experience in Guangzhou, Yichang, Lanzhou and other cities (including regional cities such as Vientiane and Kuala Lumpur), and then subsequently with revisions working with a Manila-based costing engineer to arrive at costs for Manila. The ‘comment’ column in the budget tables explains assumptions, uncertainties and other factors. Costings for each corridor were prepared, as well as summary tables. The total cost is around $526 million for the phase 1 BRT, including buses, though note that this includes many components that may not need to be covered by the government. For example, the project at Shaw Boulevard station is an excellent potential development project. The rollout of smart cards for the BRT system may be covered by another project such as ongoing projects to introduce MRT / LRT / bus smart cards. The cost of the buses could be expected to be at least partly covered by the operators, with a possible government guarantee for the loans the operators need to procure buses. The costings do not include any major relocation of utilities, but this requires further analysis during the engineering design stage. The government may decide to combine the BRT road works with other planned road work projects in EDSA. The costings cover the phase 1 BRT system in the most detail, with 36.4km and 50 stations, including off-corridor stations at ITS North, ITS South, ITS Southwest, and SM Fairview at the north of Commonwealth Avenue (Figure 10-1). Some key notes and parameters include: 1. For the costing of civil engineering, such as road engineering, greenery, street lights, drainage, and other infrastructure, the costing tables have been prepared with a Filipino cost engineer and reflect realistic local costs. 2. For the costing of the ITS systems, AFC (automated fare collection) system, automatic door system, control center and smart card system, since there is no precedent for such systems in Philippine, the costings were based on reference prices from Guangzhou, Lanzhou and Yichang BRT projects in China. The import tax, business tax and labor tax is considered 15%. 3. The preferred BRT phase 1 includes 35.8 km of segregated bus lanes (noting an approximately 600m long mixed traffic portion at Magallanes) and 50 stations. Draft, ITDP-China

4. Bus lane will be C35 reinforced concrete at stations and asphalt between stations. 5. We mainly keep the current road pavement, only reconstructing where the greenbelt needs to be moved or the sidewalk needs to be widened. 6. The existing pedestrian overpass bridges are of very poor quality and most of them need to be torn down and rebuilt in new locations, with better dimensions, specifications, and with universal access. 7. Elevated steel pedestrian sidewalk is proposed to be the connection between MRT station and BRT station. 8. New planted trees at 6m intervals. 9. New street lights at 20m intervals. 10. New drainage well at 30m intervals. 11. Drainage branch pipes 300mm diameter at 10m intervals. 12. For the BRT ITS, control system and control center cost is based on the PRC BRT projects cost. This cost varies greatly depending on the desired system specifications, functions and capabilities. 13. The depot cost estimate is based on a similar case in the PRC, considering 3 to 8 depots. 14. The smart card system is based on the similar case in the PRC, considering about 892 buses, 3,000,000 cards to be distributed, and 50 recharge stations . 15. BRT vehicle purchase is listed separately. The price is based on a reference price from a manufacturer in the PRC, and import tax and shipping costs are included.

Depots

For present purposes a budget line item of $50m is included for depots. If sites for depots can be made available without needing to buy the land, and assuming a cost of $5 million per depot for the infrastructure, this amount will accommodate up to ten depots. A typical depot in the PRC for 210 buses has an area of around 42,000 square meters, though note depots could be smaller if the buses are able to be parked off-site. In the Santolan area, for example, off-site parking locations seem to be available under the elevated roads and LRT. The cost of the depot is also subject to whether the land is already available as government-owned land, since the depot will be built and owned by the government. 338

19 July 2015

Figure 10-1: These costings cover the proposed phase 1 BRT system, with 36.4km and 50 stations.

Draft, ITDP-China

339

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

340

19 July 2015

436,993

450 820

(C) Ramp at Ayala

(D) Ramp at Taft Avenue

9,838,284 111,800,000

1 1 892

225,859,207

397,497,491

7,743,670 50,000,000

1

796,298

Total

Project indirect cost and expenses(not include smart card and bus)

Construction Phase I

Without depot, smart card and bus

Guadalupe bike/ped bridge Depot Smart card Bus

16,489,205

1675 16980

(A) Ramp at East Grace Park

(B) Ramp at Shaw Boulevard

1,626,585

9,636,567

4800

2,984,540 71,013,378

32

37

BRT station and ITS Elevated sidewalk BRT ramp

(G) Lift

0 140,761

0 17

13,139,861

11

161,931

39,951,602

25 2

40,887,152

20,850,662

17

24.0

(F) Demolish current bridge

(E) Tunnel connection

(D) MRT connection

(C) Current bridge connection

(B) New bridge

(A) New bridge with long ramp

Item Road infrastructure BRT station access

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

5

0

5

0

0

0

0

5.3

19,675,137

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8,962,871

403,316

0

2,823,213

0

0

0

0

7,485,736

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

4

0

0

0

3

0

1

7.4

14,748,242

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6,055,918

322,653

0

0

0

242,897

0

2,405,127

5,721,647

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0.2

524,923,362

83,217,556

441,705,807

9,784,938

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4,477,271

0

0

0

0

0

1,598,064

2,405,127

1,304,476

Cost

OFF-CORRIDOR STATIONS

Volume

NOTE: 1. The cost for road infrastructure is based on Manila local price and the ITS part is based on Chinese price (15% import tax included) 2. Bus lane will be C35 reinforced concrete at stations and asphalt between stations. 3. We mainly keep the current road pavement, only reconstructing where the greenbelt needs to be moved or the sidewalk needs to be widened. 4. The existing pedestrian overpass bridges are of very poor quality and basically all need to be torn down and rebuilt in new locations, dimensions, specifications, and universal access. 5. Elevated steel pedestrian sidewalk is proposed to be the connection between MRT station and BRT station 6. The cost for smart card system is based on project in China. 3,000,000 cards and 50 recharge stations are assumed. 7. 50,000,000 USD is assumed for depot now, needs further study on it. 8. The price for BRT bus is from Kinglong in China, and import tax is included. Euro 4 need to add 20% more.

Total

VI VII VIII IX

III IV V

No. I II

COSTING FOR MANILA BRT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (Phase 1) EDSA MAKATI AIRPORT Volume Cost Volume Cost Volume Cost

Draft, ITDP-China

341

19 July 2015

Greenery Subtotal Newly planted trees New green belt

II

Demolish the existing greenbelt

Street light

Subtotal Remove exsiting lights

New lights

Water drainage

Subtotal New drainage along road

3

III

1

2

IV

1

1 2

Steel bollard

12

Tunnel connection

8

Sidewalk curb

MRT connection

7

11

Steel foot bridge

6

Bus lane separator

Elevated sidewalk

5

Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

Sidewalk

4

9

BRT ramp

3

10

BRT lanes (concrete)

Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

Subtotal

Road engineering

2

1

I

No.

TAB-25 asphalt macadam (8cm)

3

9240

Graded broken stone (10cm)

3

17

Footbridge with long ramp

2

19 11 18 0 0

Demolish current bridge

Lift

MRT connection

Lift

Tunnel connection

Lift

4

5

1

2

1

2

0

405

405

322.20

5,377.55

233.70

0.78

8.29

672 41091.75

241.99

141.16

3.92

6.83

7,743,670.18

80,663.23

564,642.62

80,663.23

1,194,532.83

80,663.23

8,280.08

80,965.72

2,405,126.60

1,598,064.08

2,007.62

1.30

13.89

101.05

971.10

1.90

2.58

43.69

1.50

1.90

3.47

8.11

0

32120

12127.5

48000

1

17

Integrate with existing bridge

3

2

25

Footbridge

1

4800

9240

18480

C20 cement concrete (15cm)

Sidewalk brick (5cm)

19925

59995

59995

59995

16170

13571.25

13571.25

13571.25

4.53

17.25

13571.25 13571.25

12.55

Unit Cost (US $)

27142.5

Volume

2

1

Graded broken stone (15cm)

C35 steel reinforced cement concrete (25cm)

1

4% graded broken stone (20cm)

Geotextiles

7

3

Graded broken stone (15cm)

6

2

4% cement stabilized macadam (15cm)

5

5% cement stabilized macadam (35cm)

AC-20C asphalt concrete (6cm

2

4

AC-13C asphalt concrete (4cm)

1

Item

Including change current sidewalk to be traffic lane and just renew the current

Comment

Tunnel connection from existing pedestrian tunnel

-

452,890.43

2,177,907.24

94,648.22

2,272,555.46

32,225.21

5,571.14

-

37,796.35

4,534,080.22

47,553.50 1.5m distance, long sidewalk, refudge islands and BRT access.50cm in the

328,030.47 Bogota type

7,743,670.18

-

-

1,451,938.16

13,139,861.08 Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

1,532,601.39

140,761.37

161,931.44 Connection from existing pedestrian bridge

40,887,152.14 1:20 long ramp

39,951,602.06 50m long and 4m wide

9,636,567.33 Steel elevated sidewalk

12,008.07

128,362.09 Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

1,867,461.35

19,349,081.34 Concrete ramp for BRT bus only

114,263.39

154,591.64 At BRT station

2,621,336.54

24,274.93

25,847.10

110,078.25 asphalt pavement (demolish 4cm and repave 4cm asphalt). 47,132.95

61,424.88

234,144.35

340,573.61

144,646,329.82

Total Cost (US $)

Costing for Manila BRT conceptual design (EDSA)

EDSA

Draft, ITDP-China

342

19 July 2015

subtotal Road marking

Traffic signage facility

1

2

Signage board (1.5m*2m)

"L" pole (6m arm)

"L" pole (8m arm)

6

1

2

subtotal BRT station power supply and lighting

Voltage transformer

1

2

1

Station industrial Ethernet switches (including terminal switches)

Network cabinets on station and terminals

Fibre and supporting equipment

1

2

3

Jumper

Welding

6

7

Optical cable implement cost

3

ODF frame

Optical cable (12 core)

2

5

Optical cable (36 core)

1

Optical cable unit box

Drum stand

4

4

Distributor

3

Host

1

Power supply socket

10KM optical module

3

2

SFP slot

2

Host

subtotal BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

IX

X On-station BRT ITS system (A) Operation and dispatching system Subtotal (a) Network and communication

subtotal BRT station drainage and fire protection

VIII BRT Station drainage and fire protection

3 substop

3

BRT station power supply and lighting

2 substop

2

VII

1 substop

New station architecture, structure and decoration

1

1

subtotal

BRT Station Architecture Structure and Decoration

Traffic signal controller (C4 area control)

7

VI

160

Pedestrian signal

6

336

146

6

32

43.6

10

33.6

32

32

32

32

70

35

32

45072.5

45072.5

32

45072.5

29640

15432.5

0

10

160

Traffic signal

5

30

10

30

80

80

128

64

50

160

arm 4m)

arm 4m)

160

46800

8085

4

Traffic signal facility

3

3

Signage board (2m*3m)

5

high 6.5m

Signage board (1m*1m)

3

4

high 6.5m

2

Single pole

Traffic engineering (road marking and traffic signal)

1

New drainage at station

2

V

11.98

8.99

5,772.18

605.89

1,497.68

3,051.67

4,677.25

17.97

329.49

38.94

1,153.21

727.51

727.51

7,481.20

2.80

2.31

82,372.32

70.35

823.72

823.72

823.72

1,904.55

268.88

423.48

963.48

1,232.35

3,596.24

3,372.17

654.16

1,624.24

231.23

1,579.65

1,579.65

173.20

13.11

56.02

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

4,025.91

1,312.08

34,633.10

19,388.52

65,298.79

30,516.71 Control center to the nearest station

157,155.61

575.10

10,543.66

1,246.05

36,902.80

50,925.86

25,462.93

239,398.54

3,127,143.00

126,232.70

126,232.70

103,956.34

103,956.34

2,635,914.33

3,170,668.45

5,806,582.78

24,415,156.51

12,712,108.73

-

37,127,265.24

19,045.49 Including Cable, well and civil engineering

43,020.39 Including installing

67,757.11 Including installing

154,156.40 Including basement and installing

36,970.65 Including basement and installing

35,962.36 Including basement and installing

101,165.14 Including basement and installing

52,332.51 Including installing

129,939.50 Including installing

29,598.03 Including installing

101,097.92 Including basement and installing

78,982.75 Including basement and installing

27,712.30 Including basement and installing

613,443.87

1,491,184.41

452,890.43

Draft, ITDP-China

343

19 July 2015

Station passenger information display system

Station passenger information self-enquiry system

Station 10KVA1H integration UPS system (15minutes)

2

Station video monitoring

Terminal digital broadcast equipment

2

428.34

WinXP pro system

Passenger information display system application software

12

13

RJ45 network cable

Power cable

5

6

Outdoor waterproof sound box

Voice cable

Normal microphone

2

5

IP network paging microphone

1

4

Voice cable

5

Power amplifier

Embedded sound box

4

3

Power amplifier

3

Normal microphone

2 in 1 lightning arrester

4

IP network paging microphone

HD network infrared dome camera (720P)

3

2

HD network infrared waterproof camera (720P)

1

HD network infrared dome camera (1080P)

2

Wiring

4

1

Battery

UPS host

1

Battery cabinet

Wiring

5

3

Distribution box

4

2

Battery

3

Battery cabinet

Serial port card

11

UPS host

Host computer

10

2

Power cable

9

1

Signal cable

8

Ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI)

6

Timer switch

Power Module

5

7

LED screen control card

4

576.61

576.61

324

4000

10

5

5

5

12800

128

64

32

32

30960

30960

516

64

388

64

32

928

32

32

5

5

80

5

1.59

87.46

323.80

95.25

762.02

1.59

91.44

323.80

95.25

762.02

0.67

0.73

62.90

533.17

503.22

2,665.87

404.37

118.32

898.61

4,481.05

314.51

247.12

374.42

898.61

4,481.05

53,377.27

1

5

179.72

329.49

1,617.49

1.48

0.67

19.77

19.77

74.14

240.46

120.47

32

32

32

48600

324

324

324

324

324

324 324

LED screen body shell

1,313.00

32 324

Hanger

LED screen

1

25,205.93

1

3

Passenger self-inquiry system application software

4

0.73

123.56

3,459.64

2,396.29

4800

32

32

32

2

Cable

Flush mounting bracket

2

3

Industrial panel computer

1

(f) Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations 1 Supporting communication and supporting locating equipment sub-system

Station digital broadcast equipment

1

(e) The IP Digital Broadcasting

1

(d) CCTV video monitoring

Terminal 10KVA1H integration UPS system

1

(c) Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)

2

1

4 Station cable integration (b) Passenger information service

6,352.55

874.65

1,618.99

476.26

3,810.09

20,328.17

11,704.51

20,723.03

3,048.07

24,384.58

20,861.02

22,697.20

32,457.85

34,123.07

195,249.65

170,615.57 Plus 2 for NS9&EW12

12,939.97

109,797.54

28,755.45

143,393.74

1,572.56

1,235.58

29,953.61

4,493.04

22,405.27

186,820.43

53,377.27

5,751.09

10,543.66

51,759.76

72,059.31

218.31

6,405.27

6,405.27

24,019.77

77,908.39

39,032.13

186,820.43

425,410.93

13,706.75

25,205.93

3,518.95

3,953.87

110,708.40

76,681.12

Draft, ITDP-China

344

19 July 2015

In-door dispatching screen

4

Automatic door

9

3 4 5 6 7 8

2

1

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2

Control system on station Equipment power distribution cabinet (including stabilized voltage power supply cabinet) Sliding door radio frequency remote sensor device Sliding doors Door control unit (DCU) Fixed side box Sliding door Indicator light Bearing pedestal, supporting part, fasten part, decoration materials and etc.

Station network switch Turnstile Card reader Cash collection box Station communication host Emergency control button Distribution cable Network cable Connection cable Other supporting equipment Backup material Tools

Power cable

5

LED screen

2

Signal control cable

Base and outer structure

1

4

Power cable

5

Electric controller

Signal control cable

4

3

Electric controller

LED screen

3

Base and outer structure

2

Graphics

3

1

Pu-frequency monitor

2

Standard computer

Supporting cable

Terminal supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

Supporting cable

Station supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

2 Cable 3 Construction 4 Backup 5 On-bus radio frequency remote sensor device and bus door open/close button (D) Control Center

1

(C) Automatic door Subtotal

Backup

Other

2

3

Equipment on station

1

5 Terminal cabling fee (B) AFC system Subtotal

Out-door dispatching screen

Multi-function station machine

2

3

Dispatching computer with 2 LCD screen

1

1

Station supporting 1 communication and supporting 2 locating equipment Terminal supporting 1 2 communication and supporting 2 locating equipment 2 Terminal on site dispatching sub-system

1

32

658.98

892

708.40 3,923.96 830.31 68,527.18

1804 32 1804 1

691.93 2,471.17 823.72 1,350.91 1,235.58 32.95

2,240.53

7,413.51

1,647.45 1,647.45 988.47 609.56 1,317.96 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

1,647.45

0.84

0.67

102.97

1,853.38

1,235.58

0.84

0.67

102.97

3,558.48

3,323.72

8,237.23

200.05

282.42

1,141.44

1.86

576.61

1.20

576.61

32 1804 1804 1804 1804 3608

32

32

32 460 32 32 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5

1000

1000

5

5

5

1000

1000

5

5

5

5

5

10

5

2000

5

6400

587,808.90

125,566.85 1,497,884.68 68,527.18

1,277,957.17

22,141.68 4,457,990.12 1,485,996.71 2,437,034.60 2,228,995.06 Stainless steel 118,879.74

71,696.87

237,232.29

14,617,711.82

52,718.29 757,825.37 Normal from 5000rmb to 10000rmb 31,630.97 For card payment by ticketing office. 19,505.77 42,174.63 Normal computer to communicate with center 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

963,690.28

8,237.23

838.55

673.81

514.83

9,266.89

6,177.92

838.55

673.81

514.83

17,792.42

16,618.62

41,186.16

1,000.24

2,824.20

5,707.22

3,713.34

2,883.03

7,665.24 RVVP4*0.5 each short-distance communication device need 100m

18,451.40 2.4GHZ

Draft, ITDP-China

345

19 July 2015

Network and communication

Uninterruptible power supply (UPS)

CCTV video monitoring

The IP digital broadcasting

Clock synchronization system

1

2

3

4

5

2

1

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

Traffic signal violence control at intersection

Optical jumper

13

Bi-directional video data + ethernet Fiber terminal

7

16 DVR

Lightning detection

6

12

SPD

5

Code distributor (FS-C-485D)

Standard leakage protector

4

Video distributor (FS-16)

Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case

3

11

Pole

2

10

Integrated dome camera

1

Optical fibre slot box (7 slots)

Detect loop

13

9

Communication module

12

Power

Lightning detection

8

SPD

standard leakage protector

7

11

Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case

6

10

Protective cover

5

Power

Video camera

4

9

Digital camera

3

Assisted lighting (flash)

Pole

2

8

Traffic signal violence controller

1

Traffic organization during construction

Subtotal

XIII Traffic surveillance and control Subtotal

1

Maps print and bus routes print out Traffic organization during construction

2 XII

Other cost

Passenger Information system for 32 stations

8

7

Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations BRT operational monitoring and dispatching management subsystem - business software

System and application software

3

6

Ticketing central system

Central service server

2

1

1

Subtotal

Passenger Information

Operation and dispatching system

2

XI

Automatic door and AFC system

1

Subtotal

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

90

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

90

30

60

30

10

1

32

32

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

60.13

1,565.07

1,663.92

1,350.91

261.94

254.53

4,365.73

263.59

148.27

65.90

560.13

691.93

2,487.64

214.17

411.86

263.59

148.27

254.53

311.37

65.90

560.13

148.27

1,408.57

995.06

2,771.00

5,024.71

823,723.23

1,647.45

14,827.02

663,063.19

448,105.44

3,710,936.28

21,926.01

12,130.38

1,454,574.04

217,277.12

385,534.42

862,438.22

728,237.23

109,390.44

At each intersection or T-junction, including controllers, video capture cards,

Including the short-term traffic marking, traffic leading sign, divider, fance, bus shelters and organizaiton assistant, etc.

Including four levels of information, outside staiton on sidewalk, on bridge, in front of station entrance and inside station

14,431.63

375,617.79

399,341.02

324,217.46

61,087.31 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 62,866.56

1,047,775.95

63,261.94

35,584.84 For power, controller and camera

15,815.49

134,431.63

597,034.60 At each 200m, for the vehicle running in the bus lane. 166,062.60 "L" type, including the foundation

19,275.12

12,355.85

7,907.74

7,635.91 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 4,448.11 For power, controller and camera

9,341.02

1,976.94

16,803.95

13,344.32

42,257.00

83,130.15 "L" type, including the foundation 59,703.46

etc.

50,247.12 capture control software, operating systems, traffic light signal detector and

5,121,349.26

823,723.23

823,723.23

52,718.29

474,464.58

527,182.87

663,063.19

448,105.44

3,710,936.28

21,926.01

12,130.38

1,454,574.04

217,277.12

385,534.42

862,438.22

728,237.23

109,390.44

8,613,612.79 Assume the room around 150m2 will be provided

Draft, ITDP-China

346

19 July 2015

Fiber ends box

Camera supporting frame

14

15

16 DVR

Optical jumper

Fiber ends box

Camera supporting frame

12

13

14

15

Total

1

41,186.16 238,879.74

3 1

148.27

411.86

70.84

60.13

1,565.07

1,663.92

1,350.91

261.94

254.53

4,365.73

263.59

148.27

65.90

560.13

691.93

2,487.64

1000

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

372.32

500

70.84 411.86

240

240

For the vehicle running in the bus lane.including local storage 16G SD card, powerbox, and equipment box

225,859,206.79

238,879.74

123,558.48

148,270.18

19,769.36

3,400.33

2,886.33

75,123.56

79,868.20

64,843.49

Purchase the right to use fiber-optic network from the operator for 20 years, including three years of maintenance costs

12,217.46 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 12,573.31

209,555.19

12,652.39

7,116.97 For power, controller and camera

3,163.10

33,212.52 "L" type, including the foundation 26,886.33

119,406.92 At each 500m, for the overview of the whole traffic condition.

186,161.45

98,846.79

17,001.65

284,582,600.55

Subtotal Including feasibility study, detailed engineering design, tendering assistance, construction management, supervision, and etc. 58,723,393.76 Normally around 26% of total project cost

XIV Project indirect cost and expenses

Project direct cost and expenses

Server in control center Supporting equipment in control center

Code distributor (FS-C-485D)

6 7

Video distributor (FS-16)

11

Bi-directional video data + ethernet fiber terminal

7

10

Lightning detection

6

Optical fibre slot box (7 slots)

SPD

5

9

Standard leakage protector

4

Power

Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case

3

8

Pole

2

Optical fibre lease

CCTV camera system

Integrated dome camera

1

BRT lane enforcement (camera in front of bus)

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

5

4

3

2

Draft, ITDP-China

347

Bus lane separator

Sidewalk curb

Steel bollard

Greenery Subtotal Newly planted trees New green belt

10

11

12

II

19 July 2015

675

Graded broken stone (10cm)

Water drainage

Subtotal New drainage along road

New drainage at station

Traffic engineering (road marking and traffic signal)

IV

1

2

V

subtotal

New lights

2

5

Lift

2

Subtotal Remove exsiting lights

5

Tunnel connection

1

1

0

Lift

2

Demolish the existing greenbelt

0

MRT connection

1

Street light

0

Lift

5

3

0

Demolish current bridge

4

2000

0

100

100

56.02

322.20

5,377.55

233.70

0.78

8.29

1040 13985

241.99

141.16

3.92

6.83

7,743,670.18

80,663.23

564,642.62

80,663.23

1,194,532.83

80,663.23

8,280.08

80,965.72

2,405,126.60

1,598,064.08

2,007.62

1.30

13.89

101.05

971.10

1.90

2.58

43.69

1.50

1.90

3.47

8.11

0

7367

3000

10600

0

0

Integrate with existing bridge

0

Footbridge with long ramp

2

3

0

Footbridge

1

0

675

C20 cement concrete (15cm)

1350

3

Sidewalk brick (5cm)

0

13640

13640

13640

11880

14917.5

14917.5

14917.5

4.53

17.25

14917.5 14917.5

12.55

Unit Cost (US $)

29835

Volume

2

1

Graded broken stone (15cm)

C35 steel reinforced cement concrete (25cm)

1

4% graded broken stone (20cm)

Geotextiles

7

3

Graded broken stone (15cm)

6

2

4% cement stabilized macadam (15cm)

5

TAB-25 asphalt macadam (8cm)

3

5% cement stabilized macadam (35cm)

AC-20C asphalt concrete (6cm

2

4

AC-13C asphalt concrete (4cm)

1

Item

III

1 2

Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

9

Steel foot bridge

6

Tunnel connection

Elevated sidewalk

5

8

Sidewalk

4

MRT connection

BRT ramp

3

7

BRT lanes (concrete)

Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

Subtotal

Road engineering

2

1

I

No.

Including change current sidewalk to be traffic lane and just renew the current

Comment

Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

Connection from existing pedestrian bridge

1:20 long ramp

50m long and 4m wide

1,988,140.60

112,032.27

-

112,032.27

537,754.87

23,369.93

561,124.80

10,967.40

8,622.00

-

19,589.40

1,039,930.54

11,763.39 1.5m distance, long sidewalk, refudge islands and BRT access.50cm in the

72,440.06 Bogota type

-

403,316.16

2,823,213.09 Tunnel connection from existing pedestrian tunnel

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

877.21

9,377.10 Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

136,421.69

-

25,978.04

35,146.76 At BRT station

595,966.84

17,834.64

28,411.10

120,997.87 asphalt pavement (demolish 4cm and repave 4cm asphalt). 51,808.48

67,518.15

257,371.16

374,358.06

6,072,730.34

Total Cost (US $)

Costing for Manila BRT conceptual design (Makati)

Makati

Draft, ITDP-China

348

19 July 2015

BRT Station Architecture Structure and Decoration

VI

"L" pole (6m arm)

"L" pole (8m arm)

1

2

subtotal BRT station power supply and lighting

Voltage transformer

1

2

1

Network cabinets on station and terminals

Fibre and supporting equipment

2

3

4 Station cable integration (b) Passenger information service

Station industrial Ethernet switches (including terminal switches)

1

Jumper

Welding

6

7

Optical cable implement cost

3

ODF frame

Optical cable (12 core)

2

5

Optical cable (36 core)

1

Optical cable unit box

Drum stand

4

4

Distributor

3

Host

1

Power supply socket

10KM optical module

3

2

SFP slot

2

Host

subtotal BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

IX

X On-station BRT ITS system (A) Operation and dispatching system Subtotal (a) Network and communication

subtotal BRT station drainage and fire protection

VIII BRT Station drainage and fire protection

3 substop

3

BRT station power supply and lighting

VII

2 substop

2

New station architecture, structure and decoration

1 substop

Traffic signal controller (C4 area control)

7

1

400

Pedestrian signal

6

8

336

50

6

8

31.4

5

26.4

8

8

8

8

22

11

8

4900

4900

8

4900

4480

420

25

400

Traffic signal

5

30

60

40

200

200

32

16

125

400

arm 4m)

arm 4m)

400

10335

4

3

Signage board (1.5m*2m)

6

1

subtotal

Traffic signal facility

3

Signage board (2m*3m)

5

high 6.5m

Signage board (1m*1m)

4

3

Traffic signage facility

2

high 6.5m

Single pole

2

1

Road marking

1 13.11

2,396.29

11.98

8.99

5,772.18

605.89

1,497.68

3,051.67

4,677.25

17.97

329.49

38.94

1,153.21

727.51

727.51

7,481.20

2.80

2.31

82,372.32

70.35

823.72

823.72

823.72

1,904.55

268.88

423.48

963.48

1,232.35

3,596.24

3,372.17

654.16

1,624.24

231.23

1,579.65

1,579.65

173.20

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

19,170.28

4,025.91

449.34

34,633.10

4,847.13

47,027.11

15,258.35 Control center to the nearest station

123,479.41

143.78

2,635.91

311.51

9,225.70

16,005.27

8,002.64

59,849.63

868,454.44

13,723.23

13,723.23

11,301.48

11,301.48

658,978.58

344,695.22

1,003,673.81

-

3,690,280.07

345,963.76

4,036,243.82

47,613.71 Including Cable, well and civil engineering

107,550.97 Including installing

169,392.79 Including installing

385,390.99 Including basement and installing

36,970.65 Including basement and installing

215,774.14 Including basement and installing

134,886.85 Including basement and installing

130,831.28 Including installing

324,848.76 Including installing

7,399.51 Including installing

25,274.48 Including basement and installing

197,456.87 Including basement and installing

69,280.75 Including basement and installing

135,468.86

Draft, ITDP-China

349

19 July 2015

Station passenger information display system

Station passenger information self-enquiry system

Station 10KVA1H integration UPS system (15minutes)

Terminal 10KVA1H integration UPS system

Station video monitoring

Terminal digital broadcast equipment

2

Passenger information display system application software

13

Power cable

6

Voice cable

5

Normal microphone

2

Outdoor waterproof sound box

IP network paging microphone

1

4

Voice cable

5

Power amplifier

Embedded sound box

4

3

Power amplifier

3

Normal microphone

RJ45 network cable

5

IP network paging microphone

2 in 1 lightning arrester

4

2

HD network infrared dome camera (720P)

3

1

HD network infrared waterproof camera (720P)

2

HD network infrared dome camera (1080P)

Wiring

4

1

Battery

UPS host

1

Battery cabinet

Wiring

5

3

Distribution box

4

2

Battery

3

Battery cabinet

WinXP pro system

12

UPS host

Serial port card

11

2

Host computer

10

1

Power cable

9

Ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI)

6

Signal cable

Power Module

5

8

LED screen control card

4

Timer switch

60

Hanger

3

7

60

LED screen body shell

2

428.34

576.61

60

87.46 1.59

0

323.80

95.25

762.02

1.59

91.44

323.80

95.25

762.02

0.67

0.73

62.90

533.17

503.22

2,665.87

404.37

118.32

898.61

4,481.05

314.51

247.12

374.42

898.61

0

0

0

0

3200

32

16

8

8

6420

6420

107

16

75

16

8

232

8

8

0

0

0

0

4,481.05

53,377.27

1

0

179.72

329.49

1,617.49

1.48

0.67

19.77

19.77

74.14

240.46

120.47

576.61

8

8

8

9000

60

60

60

60

60

1,313.00

8

LED screen

60

Passenger self-inquiry system application software

1

25,205.93

1

4

0.73

123.56

3,459.64

1200

Cable

8

8

3

Flush mounting bracket

2

(f) Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations 1 Supporting communication and supporting locating equipment sub-system

Station digital broadcast equipment

1

(e) The IP Digital Broadcasting

1

(d) CCTV video monitoring

2

1

(c) Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)

2

1

Industrial panel computer

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,082.04

2,926.13

5,180.76

762.02

6,096.14

4,325.83

4,706.59

6,730.60

8,530.77

37,741.56

42,653.89 Plus 2 for NS9&EW12

3,234.99

27,449.38

7,188.86

35,848.43

-

-

-

-

-

34,596.38

53,377.27

1,437.77

2,635.91

12,939.94

13,344.32

40.43

1,186.16

1,186.16

4,448.11

14,427.48

7,228.17

34,596.38

78,779.80

3,426.69

25,205.93

879.74

988.47

27,677.10

Draft, ITDP-China

350

19 July 2015

In-door dispatching screen

4

Cable Construction Backup On-bus radio frequency remote sensor device and bus door open/close button

9

2 3 4 5

Control system on station Equipment power distribution cabinet (including stabilized voltage power supply cabinet) Sliding door radio frequency remote sensor device Sliding doors Door control unit (DCU) Fixed side box Sliding door Indicator light Bearing pedestal, supporting part, fasten part, decoration materials and etc.

Automatic door

3 4 5 6 7 8

2

1

Station network switch Turnstile Card reader Cash collection box Station communication host Emergency control button Distribution cable Network cable Connection cable Other supporting equipment Backup material Tools

Power cable

5

LED screen

2

Signal control cable

Base and outer structure

1

4

Power cable

5

Electric controller

Signal control cable

4

3

Electric controller

LED screen

2

3

Base and outer structure

Graphics

1

Pu-frequency monitor

3

4,612.85 2.4GHZ

-

3,923.96 830.31 68,527.18 658.98

0

708.40

691.93 2,471.17 823.72 1,350.91 1,235.58 32.95

2,240.53

7,413.51

1,647.45 1,647.45 988.47 609.56 1,317.96 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

1,647.45

0.84

0.67

102.97

1,853.38

1,235.58

0.84

0.67

102.97

3,558.48

3,323.72

8,237.23

200.05

282.42

-

31,391.71 274,003.29 68,527.18

233,772.65

5,535.42 815,486.00 271,828.67 445,799.01 407,743.00 Stainless steel 21,746.29

17,924.22

59,308.07

2,653,065.52

13,179.57 148,270.18 Normal from 5000rmb to 10000rmb 7,907.74 For card payment by ticketing office. 4,876.44 10,543.66 Normal computer to communicate with center 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

244,612.85

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,141.44

-

-

1,916.31 RVVP4*0.5 each short-distance communication device need 100m

1.86

576.61

1.20

576.61

8 330 1

330

8 330 330 330 330 660

8

8

8 90 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Standard computer

0

Supporting cable

2

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2

8 1600

Terminal supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

Supporting cable

Station supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

1

(C) Automatic door Subtotal

Backup

Other

2

3

Equipment on station

1

5 Terminal cabling fee (B) AFC system Subtotal

Out-door dispatching screen

Multi-function station machine

2

3

Dispatching computer with 2 LCD screen

1

1

Station supporting 1 communication and supporting 2 locating equipment Terminal supporting 1 2 communication and supporting 2 locating equipment 2 Terminal on site dispatching sub-system

1

Draft, ITDP-China

351

19 July 2015

Network and communication

Uninterruptible power supply (UPS)

CCTV video monitoring

The IP digital broadcasting

Clock synchronization system

1

2

3

4

5

Traffic signal violence control at intersection

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

1

2

Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case

Standard leakage protector

SPD

Lightning detection

Bi-directional video data + ethernet Fiber terminal

3

4

5

6

7

Code distributor (FS-C-485D)

Pole

2

Video distributor (FS-16)

Integrated dome camera

1

11

Detect loop

13

10

Communication module

12

Optical fibre slot box (7 slots)

Lightning detection

11

9

SPD

Power

75

Power

9

10

8

75

53

53

53

53

53

53

53

53

53

53

53

225

75

75

75

75

Assisted lighting (flash)

75

225

8

Protective cover

5

75

150

standard leakage protector

Video camera

4

7

Digital camera

3

75

Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case

Pole

2

25

1

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

Traffic signal violence controller

1

Traffic organization during construction

XIII Traffic surveillance and control Subtotal

1

Subtotal

Maps print and bus routes print out Traffic organization during construction

2 XII

Other cost

Passenger Information system for 8 stations

8

7

Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations BRT operational monitoring and dispatching management subsystem - business software

System and application software

6

Ticketing central system

3

Central service server

2

1

1

Subtotal

Passenger Information

Operation and dispatching system

2

XI

Automatic door and AFC system

1

(D) Control Center Subtotal

1,663.92

1,350.91

261.94

254.53

4,365.73

263.59

148.27

65.90

560.13

691.93

2,487.64

214.17

411.86

263.59

148.27

254.53

311.37

65.90

560.13

148.27

1,408.57

995.06

2,771.00

5,024.71

197,693.57

1,647.45

14,827.02

663,063.19

448,105.44

3,710,936.28

21,926.01

12,130.38

1,454,574.04

217,277.12

385,534.42

862,438.22

728,237.23

109,390.44

At each intersection or T-junction, including controllers, video capture cards,

Including the short-term traffic marking, traffic leading sign, divider, fance, bus shelters and organizaiton assistant, etc.

Including four levels of information, outside staiton on sidewalk, on bridge, in front of station entrance and inside station

Assume the room around 150m2 will be provided

88,187.81

71,598.02

13,490.12 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 13,883.03

231,383.86

13,970.35

7,858.32 For power, controller and camera

3,492.59

29,686.99

131,845.14 At each 200m, for the vehicle running in the bus lane. 36,672.16 "L" type, including the foundation

48,187.81

30,889.62

19,769.36

19,089.79 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 11,120.26 For power, controller and camera

23,352.55

4,942.34

42,009.88

33,360.79

105,642.50

207,825.37 "L" type, including the foundation 149,258.65

etc.

125,617.79 capture control software, operating systems, traffic light signal detector and

1,760,954.70

197,693.57

197,693.57

13,179.57

118,616.14

131,795.72

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Draft, ITDP-China

352

19 July 2015

16 DVR

Optical jumper

Fiber ends box

Camera supporting frame

12

13

14

15

Power

Optical fibre slot box (7 slots)

Video distributor (FS-16)

Code distributor (FS-C-485D)

16 DVR

Optical jumper

Fiber ends box

Camera supporting frame

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Bi-directional video data + ethernet fiber terminal

7

8

Lightning detection

6

Server in control center Supporting equipment in control center

Optical fibre lease

CCTV camera system

Standard leakage protector

SPD

Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case

3

4

Pole

2

5

Integrated dome camera

1

BRT lane enforcement (camera in front of bus)

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

41,186.16 238,879.74

0

148.27

411.86

70.84

60.13

1,565.07

1,663.92

1,350.91

261.94

254.53

4,365.73

263.59

148.27

65.90

560.13

691.93

2,487.64

372.32

411.86

70.84

60.13

1,565.07

0

200

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

0

53

53

53

53

For the vehicle running in the bus lane.including local storage 16G SD card, powerbox, and equipment box

19,675,136.54

-

-

29,654.04

4,530.48

779.24

661.45

17,215.82

18,303.13

14,859.97

Normally around 26% of total project cost

Purchase the right to use fiber-optic network from the operator for 20 years, including three years of maintenance costs

2,799.84 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 2,881.38

48,023.06

1,630.97 For power, controller and camera 2,899.51

724.88

7,611.20 "L" type, including the foundation 6,161.45

27,364.09 At each 500m, for the overview of the whole traffic condition.

-

21,828.67

3,754.53

3,186.99

82,948.93

XIV Project indirect cost and expenses Subtotal 1 Including feasibility study, detailed engineering design, tendering assistance, construction management, supervision, and etc. 5,115,535.50 24,790,672.04 Total

Project direct cost and expenses

6 7

5

4

3

2

Draft, ITDP-China

353

Steel foot bridge

6

300

Graded broken stone (10cm)

19 July 2015

Sidewalk curb

Steel bollard

Greenery

Subtotal Newly planted trees New green belt

Demolish the existing greenbelt

Street light

Subtotal Remove exsiting lights

New lights

Water drainage

Subtotal New drainage along road

New drainage at station

Traffic engineering (road marking and traffic signal)

11

12

II

1 2

3

III

1

2

IV

1

2

V

subtotal

Bus lane separator

960

0

48

48

56.02

322.20

5,377.55

233.70

0.78

8.29

0 2540

241.99

141.16

3.92

6.83

7,743,670.18

80,663.23

564,642.62

80,663.23

1,194,532.83

80,663.23

8,280.08

80,965.72

2,405,126.60

1,598,064.08

2,007.62

1.30

13.89

101.05

971.10

1.90

2.58

43.69

1.50

1.90

3.47

8.11

0

10520

1440

15600

0

0

Lift

2

Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

0

Tunnel connection

1

9

0 0

MRT connection

Lift

4

Lift

5

1

0

Demolish current bridge

2

3

Integrate with existing bridge

4

1

Footbridge with long ramp

2

3

0

Footbridge

1

0

300

C20 cement concrete (15cm)

600

3

Sidewalk brick (5cm)

0

4225

4225

4225

2800

4650

4650

4650

4.53

17.25

4650 4650

12.55

Unit Cost (US $)

9300

Volume

2

1

Graded broken stone (15cm)

C35 steel reinforced cement concrete (25cm)

1

4% graded broken stone (20cm)

Geotextiles

7

3

Graded broken stone (15cm)

6

2

4% cement stabilized macadam (15cm)

5

TAB-25 asphalt macadam (8cm)

3

5% cement stabilized macadam (35cm)

AC-20C asphalt concrete (6cm

2

4

AC-13C asphalt concrete (4cm)

1

Item

10

Tunnel connection

Elevated sidewalk

5

8

Sidewalk

4

MRT connection

BRT ramp

3

7

BRT lanes (concrete)

Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

Subtotal

Road engineering

2

1

I

No.

Including change current sidewalk to be traffic lane and just renew the current

Comment

50m long and 4m wide

Tunnel connection from existing pedestrian tunnel

Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

1,257,425.27

53,775.49

-

53,775.49

258,122.34

11,217.57

269,339.91

1,991.93

-

-

1,991.93

1,485,010.08

5,646.43 1.5m distance, long sidewalk, refudge islands and BRT access.50cm in the

106,609.90 Bogota type

-

-

-

-

-

322,652.92

-

242,897.15 Connection from existing pedestrian bridge

2,405,126.60 1:20 long ramp

-

-

389.87

4,167.60 Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

60,631.86

-

8,046.72

10,886.74 At BRT station

184,601.17

4,203.45

8,856.15

37,716.78 asphalt pavement (demolish 4cm and repave 4cm asphalt). 16,149.45

21,046.38

80,226.31

116,692.81

5,121,558.37

Total Cost (US $)

Costing for Manila BRT conceptual design (airport)

Airport area

Draft, ITDP-China

354

19 July 2015

BRT Station Architecture Structure and Decoration

VI

"L" pole (6m arm)

"L" pole (8m arm)

1

2

7

Voltage transformer

1

2

1

Network cabinets on station and terminals

Fibre and supporting equipment

2

3

4 Station cable integration (b) Passenger information service

Station industrial Ethernet switches (including terminal switches)

1

Jumper

Welding

6

7

Optical cable implement cost

3

ODF frame

Optical cable (12 core)

2

5

Optical cable (36 core)

1

Optical cable unit box

Drum stand

4

4

Distributor

3

Host

1

Power supply socket

10KM optical module

3

2

SFP slot

2

Host

subtotal BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

IX

X On-station BRT ITS system (A) Operation and dispatching system Subtotal (a) Network and communication

subtotal BRT station drainage and fire protection

VIII BRT Station drainage and fire protection

BRT station power supply and lighting

3 substop

3

subtotal BRT station power supply and lighting

2 substop

2

1 substop

Traffic signal controller (C4 area control)

6

1

Traffic signal

Pedestrian signal

5

8

336

50

6

8

31.4

5

26.4

8

8

8

8

22

11

8

3150

3150

8

3150

0

0

3150

10

160

160

30

32

8

200

200

32

16

50

160

arm 4m)

arm 4m)

160

15210

4

3

Signage board (1.5m*2m)

6

VII

New station architecture, structure and decoration

1

subtotal

Traffic signal facility

3

Signage board (2m*3m)

5

high 6.5m

Signage board (1m*1m)

4

3

Traffic signage facility

2

high 6.5m

Single pole

2

1

Road marking

1 13.11

2,396.29

11.98

8.99

5,772.18

605.89

1,497.68

3,051.67

4,677.25

17.97

329.49

38.94

1,153.21

727.51

727.51

7,481.20

2.80

2.31

82,372.32

70.35

823.72

823.72

823.72

1,904.55

268.88

423.48

963.48

1,232.35

3,596.24

3,372.17

654.16

1,624.24

231.23

1,579.65

1,579.65

173.20

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

19,170.28

4,025.91

449.34

34,633.10

4,847.13

47,027.11

15,258.35 Control center to the nearest station

123,479.41

143.78

2,635.91

311.51

9,225.70

16,005.27

8,002.64

59,849.63

757,096.67

8,822.08

8,822.08

7,265.24

7,265.24

658,978.58

221,589.79

880,568.37

-

-

2,594,728.17

2,594,728.17

19,045.49 Including Cable, well and civil engineering

43,020.39 Including installing

67,757.11 Including installing

154,156.40 Including basement and installing

36,970.65 Including basement and installing

115,079.54 Including basement and installing

26,977.37 Including basement and installing

130,831.28 Including installing

324,848.76 Including installing

7,399.51 Including installing

25,274.48 Including basement and installing

78,982.75 Including basement and installing

27,712.30 Including basement and installing

199,369.26

Draft, ITDP-China

355

19 July 2015

Station passenger information display system

Station passenger information self-enquiry system

Station 10KVA1H integration UPS system (15minutes)

Terminal 10KVA1H integration UPS system

Station video monitoring

Terminal digital broadcast equipment

2

Wiring

4

Voice cable

5

Normal microphone

2

Outdoor waterproof sound box

IP network paging microphone

1

Power amplifier

Voice cable

5

4

Embedded sound box

4

3

Power amplifier

Normal microphone

3

IP network paging microphone

Power cable

6

2

RJ45 network cable

5

1

HD network infrared dome camera (720P)

2 in 1 lightning arrester

3

4

HD network infrared waterproof camera (720P)

2

HD network infrared dome camera (1080P)

Battery

1

Battery cabinet

3

UPS host

1

2

Wiring

Distribution box

4

5

Battery

Battery cabinet

3

UPS host

Passenger information display system application software

13

2

WinXP pro system

12

1

Serial port card

11

576.61

32

0

0

0

0

0

3200

32

16

8

8

4320

4320

72

16

40

16

8

232

8

8

0

0

0

0

1.59

87.46

323.80

95.25

762.02

1.59

91.44

323.80

95.25

762.02

0.67

0.73

62.90

533.17

503.22

2,665.87

404.37

118.32

898.61

4,481.05

314.51

247.12

374.42

898.61

4,481.05

53,377.27

1

0

179.72

329.49

1,617.49

1.48

0.67

19.77

19.77

74.14

240.46

120.47

576.61

1,313.00

8

8

8

Host computer

10

32

32

4800

Ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI)

6

32

Power cable

Power Module

5

32

9

LED screen control card

4

32

32

32

Hanger

3

Signal cable

LED screen body shell

2

32

428.34

8

8

LED screen

1

25,205.93

1

Timer switch

Passenger self-inquiry system application software

4

0.73

123.56

3,459.64

1200

8

8

7

Cable

3

Flush mounting bracket

2

(f) Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations

Station digital broadcast equipment

1

(e) The IP Digital Broadcasting

1

(d) CCTV video monitoring

2

1

(c) Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)

2

1

Industrial panel computer

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,082.04

2,926.13

5,180.76

762.02

6,096.14

2,910.84

3,167.05

4,529.00

8,530.77

20,128.83

42,653.89 Plus 2 for NS9&EW12

3,234.99

27,449.38

7,188.86

35,848.43

-

-

-

-

-

18,451.40

53,377.27

1,437.77

2,635.91

12,939.94

7,116.97

21.56

632.62

632.62

2,372.32

7,694.66

3,855.02

18,451.40

42,015.89

3,426.69

25,205.93

879.74

988.47

27,677.10

Draft, ITDP-China

356

19 July 2015

Multi-function station machine

Out-door dispatching screen

In-door dispatching screen

2

3

4

9

Cable Construction Backup On-bus radio frequency remote sensor device and bus door open/close button

2 3 4 5

Control system on station Equipment power distribution cabinet (including stabilized voltage power supply cabinet) Sliding door radio frequency remote sensor device Sliding doors Door control unit (DCU) Fixed side box Sliding door Indicator light Bearing pedestal, supporting part, fasten part, decoration materials and etc.

Station network switch Turnstile Card reader Cash collection box Station communication host Emergency control button Distribution cable Network cable Connection cable Other supporting equipment Backup material Tools

Automatic door

3 4 5 6 7 8

2

1

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2

Power cable

5

LED screen

2

Signal control cable

Base and outer structure

1

4

Power cable

5

Electric controller

Signal control cable

4

3

Electric controller

LED screen

2

3

Base and outer structure

Graphics

3

1

Pu-frequency monitor

2

Standard computer

1

(C) Automatic door Subtotal

Backup

Other

2

3

Equipment on station

1

5 Terminal cabling fee (B) AFC system Subtotal

Dispatching computer with 2 LCD screen

1

1

1 Supporting communication and supporting locating equipment sub-system Station supporting communication and supporting locating Station supporting 1 equipment 1 communication and supporting 2 Supporting cable locating equipment Terminal supporting communication and supporting locating Terminal supporting 1 equipment 2 communication and supporting 2 Supporting cable locating equipment 2 Terminal on site dispatching sub-system 0

3,923.96 830.31 68,527.18 658.98

0

708.40

691.93 2,471.17 823.72 1,350.91 1,235.58 32.95

2,240.53

7,413.51

1,647.45 1,647.45 988.47 609.56 1,317.96 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

1,647.45

0.84

0.67

102.97

1,853.38

1,235.58

0.84

0.67

102.97

3,558.48

3,323.72

8,237.23

200.05

282.42

8 176 1

176

8 176 176 176 176 352

8

8

8 48 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,141.44

1.86

0

0

1.20 576.61

1600

576.61

8

-

-

31,391.71 146,135.09 68,527.18

124,678.75

5,535.42 434,925.86 144,975.29 237,759.47 217,462.93 Stainless steel 11,598.02

17,924.22

59,308.07

1,500,222.03

13,179.57 79,077.43 Normal from 5000rmb to 10000rmb 7,907.74 For card payment by ticketing office. 4,876.44 10,543.66 Normal computer to communicate with center 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

175,420.10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,916.31 RVVP4*0.5 each short-distance communication device need 100m

4,612.85 2.4GHZ

Draft, ITDP-China

357

19 July 2015

Operation and dispatching system

Passenger Information

2

XI

CCTV video monitoring

The IP digital broadcasting

Clock synchronization system

Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations

BRT operational monitoring and dispatching management subsystem - business software

Other cost

3

4

5

6

7

8

Traffic signal violence control at intersection

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

1

2

Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case

Standard leakage protector

SPD

Lightning detection

Bi-directional video data + ethernet Fiber terminal

3

4

5

6

7

Code distributor (FS-C-485D)

Pole

2

Video distributor (FS-16)

Integrated dome camera

1

11

Detect loop

13

10

Communication module

12

Optical fibre slot box (7 slots)

Lightning detection

11

9

SPD

10

Power

Power

9

8

Assisted lighting (flash)

8

Protective cover

5

standard leakage protector

Video camera

4

7

Digital camera

3

Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case

Pole

2

6

Traffic signal violence controller

1

Traffic organization during construction

Subtotal

XIII Traffic surveillance and control Subtotal

1

Maps print and bus routes print out Traffic organization during construction

0

Uninterruptible power supply (UPS)

2

2 XII

0

Network and communication

1

Passenger Information system for 8 stations

0

System and application software

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

90

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

90

30

60

30

10

1

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ticketing central system

0

0

3

Central service server

2

1

1

Subtotal

Automatic door and AFC system

1

(D) Control Center Subtotal

1,663.92

1,350.91

261.94

254.53

4,365.73

263.59

148.27

65.90

560.13

691.93

2,487.64

214.17

411.86

263.59

148.27

254.53

311.37

65.90

560.13

148.27

1,408.57

995.06

2,771.00

5,024.71

263,591.43

1,647.45

14,827.02

663,063.19

448,105.44

3,710,936.28

21,926.01

12,130.38

1,454,574.04

217,277.12

385,534.42

862,438.22

728,237.23

109,390.44

-

At each intersection or T-junction, including controllers, video capture cards,

Including the short-term traffic marking, traffic leading sign, divider, fance, bus shelters and organizaiton assistant, etc.

Including four levels of information, outside staiton on sidewalk, on bridge, in front of station entrance and inside station

Assume the room around 150m2 will be provided

129,785.83

105,370.68

20,431.63

19,853.38 For UPS, video camera and digital camera

340,527.18

11,565.07 For power, controller and camera 20,560.13

5,140.03

43,690.28

194,036.24 At each 200m, for the vehicle running in the bus lane. 53,970.35 "L" type, including the foundation

19,275.12

12,355.85

7,907.74

7,635.91 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 4,448.11 For power, controller and camera

9,341.02

1,976.94

16,803.95

13,344.32

42,257.00

83,130.15 "L" type, including the foundation 59,703.46

etc.

50,247.12 capture control software, operating systems, traffic light signal detector and

1,724,640.86

263,591.43

263,591.43

13,179.57

118,616.14

131,795.72

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Draft, ITDP-China

358

19 July 2015

16 DVR

Optical jumper

Fiber ends box

Camera supporting frame

12

13

14

15

Power

Optical fibre slot box (7 slots)

Video distributor (FS-16)

Code distributor (FS-C-485D)

16 DVR

Optical jumper

Fiber ends box

Camera supporting frame

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Bi-directional video data + ethernet fiber terminal

7

8

Lightning detection

6

Optical fibre lease Server in control center Supporting equipment in control center

CCTV camera system

Standard leakage protector

SPD

Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case

3

4

Pole

2

5

Integrated dome camera

1

BRT lane enforcement (camera in front of bus)

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

41,186.16 238,879.74

0

148.27

400 0

411.86

70.84

60.13

1,565.07

1,663.92

1,350.91

261.94

254.53

4,365.73

263.59

148.27

65.90

560.13

691.93

2,487.64

372.32

411.86

70.84

60.13

1,565.07

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

0

78

78

78

78

XIV Project indirect cost and expenses Subtotal 1 Including feasibility study, detailed engineering design, tendering assistance, construction management, supervision, and etc. Total

Project direct cost and expenses

5 6 7

4

3

2

For the vehicle running in the bus lane.including local storage 16G SD card, powerbox, and equipment box

Purchase the right to use fiber-optic network from the operator for 20 years, including three years of maintenance costs

18,582,784.45

3,834,542.82 Normally around 26% of total project cost

14,748,241.63

-

-

59,308.07

6,589.79

1,133.44

962.11

25,041.19

26,622.73

21,614.50

4,072.49 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 4,191.10

69,851.73

2,372.32 For power, controller and camera 4,217.46

1,054.37

11,070.84 "L" type, including the foundation 8,962.11

39,802.31 At each 500m, for the overview of the whole traffic condition.

-

32,125.21

5,525.54

4,690.28

122,075.78

Draft, ITDP-China

359

Steel foot bridge

6

19 July 2015

Subtotal New drainage along road

New drainage at station

Traffic engineering (road marking and traffic signal)

1

2

V

subtotal

Water drainage

0 0

Lift

2

IV

0

Tunnel connection

1

New lights

0

Lift

2

2

0

MRT connection

1

Subtotal Remove exsiting lights

Subtotal Newly planted trees New green belt

1 2

0

Lift

5

1

Greenery

II

0

Demolish current bridge

4

740

0

37

37

700

0 0

1054

1110

840

0

1

Integrate with existing bridge

Footbridge with long ramp

2

3

1

Footbridge

1

Demolish the existing greenbelt

Steel bollard

12

300

Graded broken stone (10cm) 0

300

C20 cement concrete (15cm)

600

3

Sidewalk brick (5cm)

0

3640

3640

3640

1480

2775

2775

2775

2775

2775

5550

Volume

2

1

Street light

Sidewalk curb

11

C35 steel reinforced cement concrete (25cm)

1

Graded broken stone (15cm)

Geotextiles

7

4% graded broken stone (20cm)

Graded broken stone (15cm)

6

3

4% cement stabilized macadam (15cm)

5

2

5% cement stabilized macadam (35cm)

4

3

Bus lane separator

AC-20C asphalt concrete (6cm TAB-25 asphalt macadam (8cm)

2

3

AC-13C asphalt concrete (4cm)

1

Item

III

Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

9

10

Tunnel connection

Elevated sidewalk

5

8

Sidewalk

4

MRT connection

BRT ramp

3

7

BRT lanes (concrete)

Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

Subtotal

Road engineering

2

1

I

No.

4,352.45

56.02

322.20

5,377.55

205,928.34

182,866.56

-

182,866.56

109,719.93

9,143.33

118,863.26

9,225.70

-

9,225.70

148,783.33

-

233.70

Tunnel connection from existing pedestrian tunnel

Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

Connection from existing pedestrian bridge

1.5m distance, long sidewalk, refudge islands and BRT access.50cm in the

5,740.53 Bogota type

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,405,126.60 1:20 long ramp

1,598,064.08 50m long and 4m wide

-

389.87

4,167.60 Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

60,631.86

-

6,932.56

9,379.34 At BRT station

159,041.00

2,221.82

5,285.12

8.29 0.78

Including change current sidewalk to be traffic lane and just renew the current

Comment

22,508.40 asphalt pavement (demolish 4cm and repave 4cm asphalt). 9,637.58

12,559.94

47,876.99

69,639.26

4,572,338.34

Total Cost (US $)

241.99

141.16

3.92

6.83

7,743,670.18

80,663.23

564,642.62

80,663.23

1,194,532.83

80,663.23

8,280.08

80,965.72

2,405,126.60

1,598,064.08

2,007.62

1.30

13.89

101.05

971.10

1.90

2.58

43.69

1.50

1.90

3.47

8.11

4.53

17.25

12.55

Unit Cost (US $)

Costing for Manila BRT conceptual design (off-corridor station)

Off-corridor

Draft, ITDP-China

360

19 July 2015

Voltage transformer

1

2

1

Station industrial Ethernet switches (including terminal switches)

Network cabinets on station and terminals

Fibre and supporting equipment

Station cable integration

1

2

3

4

Host SFP slot 10KM optical module Host Power supply socket Distributor Drum stand Optical cable (36 core) Optical cable (12 core) Optical cable implement cost Optical cable unit box ODF frame Jumper Welding

subtotal BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

IX

X On-station BRT ITS system (A) Operation and dispatching system Subtotal (a) Network and communication

subtotal BRT station drainage and fire protection

VIII BRT Station drainage and fire protection

3 substop

3

subtotal BRT station power supply and lighting

2 substop

2

BRT station power supply and lighting

1 substop

VII

1

New station architecture, structure and decoration

subtotal

1 Single pole 2 high 6.5m arm 4m) 3 high 6.5m arm 4m) Traffic signage facility 4 Signage board (1m*1m) 5 Signage board (2m*3m) 6 Signage board (1.5m*2m) 1 "L" pole (6m arm) 2 "L" pole (8m arm) 3 Traffic signal facility 4 5 Traffic signal 6 Pedestrian signal 7 Traffic signal controller (C4 area control) BRT Station Architecture Structure and Decoration

Road marking

1

VI

3

2

1

654.16

16 0 6 6 60 30 60 3

4 7 14 4 4 4 4 25.2 5 30.2 4 6 34 336 4

2380

2380

4

2380

0

1680

700

1,624.24

16

23,723.23 Including installing

9,585.14

305.55 4,025.91

8.99 11.98 2,396.29

2,423.57 34,633.10

5,772.18

45,229.90 605.89

15,258.35 Control center to the nearest station 1,497.68

71.89 117,866.71

17.97 4,677.25

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

3,051.67

155.76 1,317.96

329.49

4,612.85

1,153.21 38.94

5,092.59 10,185.17

727.51

29,924.82

525,996.65

6,665.57

6,665.57

5,489.29

5,489.29

329,489.29

167,423.39

496,912.69

-

1,383,855.02

576,606.26

1,960,461.29

727.51

7,481.20

2.80

2.31

82,372.32

70.35

823.72

823.72

823.72

59,308.07 Including Cable, well and civil engineering

268.88 1,904.55

17,298.19 Including installing

423.48

2,075.78 Including basement and installing 17,792.42 Including basement and installing

963.48

1,232.35

Including basement and installing

20,757.83 Including basement and installing

-

6,800.66 Including installing

3,596.24

3,372.17

13,601.32 Including installing

4,533.77 Including installing

11,202.64 Including basement and installing

1,579.65 231.23

1,581.55 Including basement and installing 17,133.44 Including basement and installing

10,119.44

1,579.65

13.11 173.20

1365 8 16 8 32

Draft, ITDP-China

361

19 July 2015

Station passenger information display system

Station passenger information self-enquiry system

Station 10KVA1H integration UPS system (15minutes)

2

Station video monitoring

Station digital broadcast equipment

Terminal digital broadcast equipment

1

2

(e) The IP Digital Broadcasting

1

(d) CCTV video monitoring

Terminal 10KVA1H integration UPS system

1

(c) Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)

2

1

(b) Passenger information service

LED screen LED screen body shell Hanger LED screen control card Power Module Ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) Timer switch Signal cable Power cable Host computer Serial port card WinXP pro system Passenger information display system application software

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

IP network paging microphone Normal microphone Power amplifier Embedded sound box Voice cable IP network paging microphone Normal microphone Power amplifier Outdoor waterproof sound box Voice cable

HD network infrared dome camera (1080P) HD network infrared waterproof camera (720P) HD network infrared dome camera (720P) 2 in 1 lightning arrester RJ45 network cable Power cable

UPS host Battery cabinet Battery Distribution box Wiring UPS host Battery cabinet Battery Wiring

Passenger self-inquiry system application software

4

13

Industrial panel computer Flush mounting bracket Cable

1 2 3

4 4 8 16 1600 0 0 0 0 0

8 20 8 36 2160 2160

0 0 0 0 0 4 4 116 4

4 4 600 1 4 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 2400 4 4 4 1 16 1,713.34

1,186.16 316.31

240.46 74.14 19.77

404.37

1,455.42

0.67

-

87.46 1.59

-

323.80

-

2,541.02

1.59 95.25

1,463.06

91.44 762.02

2,590.38

323.80

381.01

1,583.53

0.73

3,048.07

2,264.50

62.90

95.25

4,265.38

533.17

762.02

10,064.42

503.22

21,326.95 Plus 2 for NS9&EW12

1,617.50

118.32

2,665.87

3,594.43 13,724.69

898.61

17,924.22

-

314.51 4,481.05

-

247.12

-

374.42

-

898.61

9,225.70

576.61 4,481.05

718.89

329.49 53,377.27

1,317.96

1,617.49

53,377.27

6,469.97

1.48

179.72

10.78 3,558.48

0.67

316.31

3,847.33

120.47

19.77

9,225.70 1,927.51

576.61

21,007.95

428.34 1,313.00

439.87 25,205.93

25,205.93

494.23

123.56 0.73

13,838.55

3,459.64

Draft, ITDP-China

362

19 July 2015

(f) Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations 1 Supporting communication and supporting locating equipment sub-system Station supporting communication and supporting Station supporting 1 locating equipment 1 communication and supporting locating equipment 2 Supporting cable Terminal supporting communication and supporting Terminal supporting 1 locating equipment 2 communication and supporting locating equipment 2 Supporting cable 2 Terminal on site dispatching sub-system 1 Standard computer Dispatching computer with 2 1 2 Pu-frequency monitor LCD screen 3 Graphics 2 Multi-function station machine 1 Base and outer structure 2 LED screen 3 Out-door dispatching screen 3 Electric controller 4 Signal control cable 5 Power cable 1 Base and outer structure 2 LED screen 4 In-door dispatching screen 3 Electric controller 4 Signal control cable 5 Power cable 5 Terminal cabling fee (B) AFC system Subtotal 1 Station network switch 2 Turnstile 1 Equipment on station 3 Card reader 4 Cash collection box 5 Station communication host 1 Emergency control button 2 Distribution cable 2 Other 3 Network cable 4 Connection cable 5 Other supporting equipment 1 Backup material 3 Backup 2 Tools (C) Automatic door Subtotal 1 Control system on station Equipment power distribution cabinet (including 2 stabilized voltage power supply cabinet) 3 Sliding door radio frequency remote sensor device 4 Sliding doors 1 Automatic door 5 Door control unit (DCU) 6 Fixed side box 7 Sliding door 8 Indicator light Bearing pedestal, supporting part, fasten part, 9 decoration materials and etc. 2 Cable 3 Construction 4 Backup 5 On-bus radio frequency remote sensor device and bus door open/close button -

576.61 1.86 -

0 0

-

0.84 1,647.45

1,647.45 1,647.45 988.47 609.56 1,317.96 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

7,413.51 2,240.53 691.93 2,471.17 823.72 1,350.91 1,235.58 32.95 708.40 3,923.96 830.31 68,527.18

4 36 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 4 4 154 154 154 154 308 154 4 154 1 0

-

0.84 1,235.58 1,853.38 102.97 0.67

658.98

-

0.67

-

15,695.86 127,868.20 68,527.18

109,093.90

2,767.71 380,560.13 126,853.38 208,039.54 190,280.07 Stainless steel 10,148.27

8,962.11

29,654.04

1,278,450.39

6,589.79 59,308.07 Normal from 5000rmb to 10000rmb 3,953.87 For card payment by ticketing office. 2,438.22 5,271.83 Normal computer to communicate with center 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

137,397.03

-

102.97

-

8,237.23 -

-

200.05

3,558.48

-

282.42

3,323.72

-

1,141.44

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-

958.15 RVVP4*0.5 each short-distance communication device need 100m

1.20

2,306.43 2.4GHZ

576.61

4 800

-

-

Draft, ITDP-China

363

19 July 2015

Network and communication

Uninterruptible power supply (UPS)

CCTV video monitoring

The IP digital broadcasting

1

2

3

4

Traffic signal violence control at intersection

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

1

2

Traffic signal violence controller

Pole Digital camera Video camera Protective cover Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case standard leakage protector Assisted lighting (flash) Power SPD Lightning detection Communication module Detect loop Integrated dome camera Pole Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case Standard leakage protector SPD Lightning detection Bi-directional video data + ethernet Fiber terminal Power Optical fibre slot box (7 slots) Video distributor (FS-16) Code distributor (FS-C-485D) 16 DVR Optical jumper

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Traffic organization during construction

XIII Traffic surveillance and control Subtotal

1

Maps print and bus routes print out Traffic organization during construction

2 XII

Subtotal

Passenger Information system for 4 stations

8

7

6

Clock synchronization system Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations BRT operational monitoring and dispatching management subsystem - business software Other cost

System and application software

5

Ticketing central system

3

Central service server

2

1

1

Subtotal

Passenger Information

Operation and dispatching system

2

XI

Automatic door and AFC system

1

(D) Control Center Subtotal

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

0

1

4

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

65.90 311.37 254.53 148.27 263.59 411.86 214.17

527.18 263.59

10,807.25 13,311.37 12,520.59 481.05

1,663.92 1,565.07 60.13

2,036.24 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 2,095.55

34,925.86

1,350.91

261.94

254.53

4,365.73

1,186.16 For power, controller and camera 2,108.73

65.90 148.27

4,481.05

560.13

691.93

For power, controller and camera

For UPS, video camera and digital camera

At each intersection or T-junction, including controllers, video capture cards, capture control software, operating systems, traffic light signal detector and etc. "L" type, including the foundation

Including the short-term traffic marking, traffic leading sign, divider, fance, bus shelters and organizaiton assistant, etc.

Including four levels of information, outside staiton on sidewalk, on bridge, in front of station entrance and inside station

Assume the room around 150m2 will be provided

19,901.15 At each 200m, for the vehicle running in the bus lane. 5,535.42 "L" type, including the foundation

-

560.13

2,487.64

-

148.27

-

1,408.57

-

995.06

-

185,495.88

32,948.93

32,948.93

6,589.79

59,308.07

65,897.86

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,771.00

5,024.71

32,948.93

1,647.45

14,827.02

663,063.19

448,105.44

3,710,936.28

21,926.01

12,130.38

1,454,574.04

217,277.12

385,534.42

862,438.22

728,237.23

109,390.44

Draft, ITDP-China

364

19 July 2015

14 15

Fiber ends box Camera supporting frame

Optical fibre lease Server in control center Supporting equipment in control center

CCTV camera system

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 283.36 1,647.45

-

70.84 411.86 148.27 41,186.16 238,879.74

100 0 0

6,260.30

1,565.07

Purchase the right to use fiber-optic network from the operator for 20 years, including three years of maintenance costs

12,329,021.58

2,544,083.82 Normally around 26% of total project cost

9,784,937.76

14,827.02

240.53

6,655.68

1,663.92 60.13

5,403.62

1,350.91

261.94

1,018.12 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 1,047.78

17,462.93

4,365.73

593.08 For power, controller and camera

263.59

2,767.71 "L" type, including the foundation 2,240.53

1,054.37

254.53

For the vehicle running in the bus lane.including local storage 16G SD card, powerbox, and equipment box

9,950.58 At each 500m, for the overview of the whole traffic condition.

-

263.59

148.27

65.90

560.13

691.93

2,487.64

372.32

566.72 3,294.89

70.84 411.86

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

0

8 8

XIV Project indirect cost and expenses Subtotal 1 Including feasibility study, detailed engineering design, tendering assistance, construction management, supervision, and etc. Total

Integrated dome camera Pole Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case Standard leakage protector SPD Lightning detection Bi-directional video data + ethernet fiber terminal Power Optical fibre slot box (7 slots) Video distributor (FS-16) Code distributor (FS-C-485D) 16 DVR Optical jumper Fiber ends box Camera supporting frame

BRT lane enforcement (camera in front of bus)

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

Project direct cost and expenses

5 6 7

4

3

2

COSTING FOR MANILA BRT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (Phase1) EDSA MAKATI

No. ITEM I Road engineering (A) Mix traffic lanes (asphalt) (B) BRT lanes (concrete) (C) BRT ramp (D) Sidewalk (E) Elevated sidewalk

843,476

918,299

284,891

169,729

2,890,192

657,092

203,535

175,353

20,320,177

0

0

0

2,007,832

146,676

65,189

65,189

9,636,567

0

0

0

82,674,048

0

2,970,677

4,003,191

(G) MRT connection

14,591,799

0

0

0

0

3,226,529

0

0

7,743,670

0

0

0

328,030

72,440

106,610

5,741

47,553

11,763

5,646

4,352

4,534,080

1,039,931

1,485,010

148,783

(I) Guadalupe bike/ped bridge (J) Bus lane separator (K) Sidewalk curb (L) Steel bollard

Greenery Street light Water drainage Traffic engineering BRT station architecture BRT station power supply and lighting BRT station drainage and fire protection BRT station ventilation and air conditioning On-station BRT ITS system (A) Operation and dispatching system

37,796

19,589

1,992

9,226

2,272,555

561,125

269,340

118,863

452,890

112,032

53,775

182,867

1,491,184

1,988,141

1,257,425

205,928

37,127,265

4,036,244

2,594,728

1,960,461

5,806,583

1,003,674

880,568

496,913

103,956

11,301

7,265

5,489

126,233

13,723

8,822

6,666

3,127,143

868,454

757,097

525,997

963,690

244,613

175,420

137,397

(C) Automatic door

14,617,712

2,653,066

1,500,222

1,278,450

(D) Control center

8,613,613

0

0

0

527,183

131,796

131,796

65,898

(B) AFC system

XI XII XIII XIV XV

OFF-CORRIDOR

(F) Steel foot bridge (H) Tunnel connection

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

AIRPORT

Passenger information Traffic organization during construction Traffic surveillance and control Depot Smart card

823,723

197,694

263,591

32,949

5,121,349

1,760,955

1,724,641

185,496

50,000,000

0

0

0

(A) Recharge station

140,264

0

0

0

(B) Card reader

288,779

0

0

0

(C) IC card (D) Installing fee

XVI Bus Project direct cost and expenses Without depot, smart card and bus

8,514,851

0

0

0

894,389

0

0

0

111,800,000

0

0

0

398,468,586

19,675,137

14,748,242

9,784,938

226,830,302

Direct cost for phase I

442,676,902

Project indirect cost and expenses (not include smart card and bus)

83,470,041

Total

526,146,943

NOTE: 1. The cost for road infrastructure is based on Manila local price and the ITS part is based on Chinese price (15% import tax included) 2. Bus lane will be C35 reinforced concrete at stations and asphalt between stations. 3. We mainly keep the current road pavement, only reconstructing where the greenbelt needs to be moved or the sidewalk needs to be widened. 4. The existing pedestrian overpass bridges are of very poor quality and basically all need to be torn down and rebuilt in new locations, dimensions, specifications, and universal access 5. Elevated steel pedestrian sidewalk is proposed to be the connection between MRT station and BRT station 6. The cost for smart card system is based on project in China. 3,000,000 cards and 50 recharge stations are assumed. 7. 50,000,000 USD is assumed for depot now, needs further study on it. 8. The price for BRT bus is from Kinglong in China, and import tax is included. Euro 4 need to add 20% more.

Draft, ITDP-China

365

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

366

19 July 2015

COSTING FOR MANILA BRT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (Phase2) OTIGAS-BGC

No. ITEM I Road engineering

Roxas Boulevard**

(A) Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

1,456,030

577,594

3,035,787

(B) BRT lanes (concrete)

1,453,671

684,551

816,306

0

1,942,191

0

50,527

101,053

80,842

(C) BRT ramp (D) Sidewalk (E) Elevated sidewalk

0

0

0

(F) Steel foot bridge

0

30,516,707

20,193,946

(G) MRT connection

0

0

0

(H) Tunnel connection

0

0

0

(I) Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

0

0

0

121,645

86,108

129,845

(J) Bus lane separator (K) Sidewalk curb (L) Steel bollard

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

C5

Greenery Street light Water drainage Traffic engineering BRT station architecture BRT station power supply and lighting BRT station drainage and fire protection BRT station ventilation and air conditioning On-station BRT ITS system (A) Operation and dispatching system (B) AFC system (C) Automatic door (D) Control center

XI Passenger information XII Traffic organization during construction XIII Traffic surveillance and control XIV Sta Monica bike/ped bridge* Project direct cost and expenses Direct cost for phase I Project indirect cost and expenses

Total Total for phase II

43,701

15,822

21,998

1,697,175

1,185,749

1,813,491

53,443

70,115

230,643

1,195,058

433,690

600,741

1,836,079

664,745

924,217

1,674,942

269,546

1,047,609

6,285,008

5,766,063

8,360,791

1,607,580

1,233,773

1,702,479

17,598

16,145

23,410

21,369

19,605

28,427

1,174,232

1,036,817

1,284,124

356,392

278,830

341,944

3,383,183

3,161,411

4,027,681

0

0

0

214,168

148,270

197,694

247,117

164,745

296,540

2,208,305

1,176,242

2,143,648

21,762,796

0

0

25,097,221

49,549,772

47,302,163

6,525,278 31,622,499

12,882,941 62,432,713

12,298,562 59,600,725 153,655,936

NOTE: * The cost for Sta Monica bike/ped bridge is not included. ** Including R6-Tambo

Draft, ITDP-China

367

19 July 2015

Ortigas-BGC COSTING FOR MANILA BRT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (Phase2) No. ITEM OTIGAS-BGC I Road engineering (A) Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

1,456,030

(B) BRT lanes (concrete)

1,453,671

(C) BRT ramp

0

(D) Sidewalk

50,527

(E) Elevated sidewalk

0

(F) Steel foot bridge

0

(G) MRT connection

0

(H) Tunnel connection

0

(I) Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

0

(J) Bus lane separator

121,645

(K) Sidewalk curb

43,701

(L) Steel bollard

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

1,697,175

Greenery Street light Water drainage Traffic engineering BRT station architecture BRT station power supply and lighting BRT station drainage and fire protection BRT station ventilation and air conditioning On-station BRT ITS system

53,443 1,195,058 1,836,079 1,674,942 6,285,008 1,607,580 17,598 21,369

(A) Operation and dispatching system

1,174,232

(B) AFC system

356,392

(C) Automatic door

3,383,183

(D) Control center

0

XI Passenger information XII Traffic organization during construction XIII Traffic surveillance and control XIV Sta Monica bike/ped bridge* Project direct cost and expenses Direct cost for phase I

214,168 247,117 2,208,305 21,762,796

25,097,221 6,525,278 31,622,499

Project indirect cost and expenses

Total NOTE: * The cost for Sta Monica bike/ped bridge is not included.

Draft, ITDP-China

368

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

369

19 July 2015

Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

Bus lane separator

Sidewalk curb

Steel bollard

Greenery

Subtotal Newly planted trees New green belt

Demolish the existing greenbelt

Street light

Subtotal Remove exsiting lights

New lights

Water drainage

Subtotal New drainage along road

New drainage at station

9

10

11

12

II

1 2

3

III

1

2

IV

1

2

Tunnel connection

8

Elevated sidewalk

5

MRT connection

Sidewalk

4

7

BRT ramp

3

Steel foot bridge

BRT lanes (concrete)

2

6

Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

Subtotal

Road engineering

1

I

No.

AC-20C asphalt concrete (6cm TAB-25 asphalt macadam (8cm)

2

C35 steel reinforced cement concrete (25cm)

1

0

Graded broken stone (10cm)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Demolish current bridge

Lift

MRT connection

Lift

Tunnel connection

Lift

4

5

1

2

1

2

7430

0

372

372

4055

0 0

12023

11145

17800

0

Integrate with existing bridge

0

Footbridge with long ramp

2

3

0

Footbridge

1

0

0

C20 cement concrete (15cm)

500

3

Sidewalk brick (5cm)

0

30175.5

30175.5

30175.5

57800

22683.75

22683.75

22683.75

22683.75

22683.75

45367.5

Volume

2

1

Graded broken stone (15cm)

Geotextiles

7

4% graded broken stone (20cm)

Graded broken stone (15cm)

6

3

4% cement stabilized macadam (15cm)

5

2

5% cement stabilized macadam (35cm)

4

3

AC-13C asphalt concrete (4cm)

1

Item

43,700.99

56.02

322.20

5,377.55

1,836,079.08

-

1,836,079.08

1,103,130.15

91,927.51

1,195,057.66

53,443.16

-

53,443.16

1,697,174.55

-

233.70

Tunnel connection from existing pedestrian tunnel

Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

Connection from existing pedestrian bridge

1:20 long ramp

50m long and 4m wide

Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

1.5m distance, long sidewalk, refudge islands and BRT access.50cm in the

121,644.63 Bogota type

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50,526.55

-

57,470.70

77,754.48 At BRT station

1,318,445.55

86,771.23

43,202.30

8.29 0.78

Including change current sidewalk to be traffic lane and just renew the current

Comment

183,990.98 asphalt pavement (demolish 4cm and repave 4cm asphalt). 78,780.67

102,669.00

391,362.03

569,253.87

4,822,747.54

Total Cost Foreign Currency (US $)

241.99

141.16

3.92

6.83

7,743,670.18

80,663.23

564,642.62

80,663.23

1,194,532.83

80,663.23

8,280.08

80,965.72

2,405,126.60

1,598,064.08

2,007.62

1.30

13.89

101.05

971.10

1.90

2.58

43.69

1.50

1.90

3.47

8.11

4.53

17.25

12.55

Unit Cost Foreign Currency (US $)

Costing for Manila BRT conceptual design (Otigas-BGC)

Draft, ITDP-China

370

19 July 2015

Voltage transformer

1

2

1

Station industrial Ethernet switches (including terminal switches)

Network cabinets on station and terminals

Fibre and supporting equipment

Station cable integration

1

2

3

4

Host SFP slot 10KM optical module Host Power supply socket Distributor Drum stand Optical cable (36 core) Optical cable (12 core) Optical cable implement cost Optical cable unit box ODF frame Jumper Welding

subtotal BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

IX

X On-station BRT ITS system (A) Operation and dispatching system Subtotal (a) Network and communication

subtotal BRT station drainage and fire protection

VIII BRT Station drainage and fire protection

3 substop

3

subtotal BRT station power supply and lighting

2 substop

2

BRT station power supply and lighting

1 substop

VII

1

New station architecture, structure and decoration

subtotal

1

VI

3

2

subtotal Road marking

1

1 Single pole 2 high 6.5m arm 4m) 3 high 6.5m arm 4m) Traffic signage facility 4 Signage board (1m*1m) 5 Signage board (2m*3m) 6 Signage board (1.5m*2m) 1 "L" pole (6m arm) 2 "L" pole (8m arm) 3 Traffic signal facility 4 5 Traffic signal 6 Pedestrian signal 7 Traffic signal controller (C4 area control) BRT Station Architecture Structure and Decoration

Traffic engineering (road marking and traffic signal)

V

268.88 1,904.55

400 25

13 16 32 13 13 13 13 27.9 5 32.9 13 6 70 336 13

7630

7630

13

7630

0

6930

31,151.71

629.08 4,025.91

8.99 11.98 2,396.29

7,876.59 34,633.10

5,772.18

49,273.63 605.89

15,258.35 Control center to the nearest station 1,497.68

233.64 130,495.29

17.97 4,677.25

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

3,051.67

506.21 4,283.36

14,991.76 329.49

23,280.40 1,153.21 38.94

11,640.20 727.51

97,255.66

1,174,232.37

21,369.03

21,369.03

17,598.02

17,598.02

1,070,840.20

536,739.70

1,607,579.90

-

5,708,401.98

576,606.26

6,285,008.24

494,233.94 Including Cable, well and civil engineering

158,154.86 Including installing

230,642.50 Including installing

118,616.14 Including basement and installing

17,298.19 Including basement and installing

138,385.50 Including basement and installing

108,731.47 Including basement and installing

51,004.94 Including installing

102,009.88 Including installing

7,367.38 Including installing

36,408.57 Including basement and installing

80,313.01 Including basement and installing

47,446.46 Including basement and installing

84,328.67

1,674,941.52

727.51

7,481.20

2.80

2.31

82,372.32

70.35

823.72

823.72

823.72

423.48

400

700

963.48

1,232.35

50 400

3,596.24

40

1,624.24

120 654.16

231.23

52

3,372.17

1,579.65

26

40

1,579.65

75

120

173.20

13.11

240

11375

Draft, ITDP-China

371

19 July 2015

Station passenger information display system

Station passenger information self-enquiry system

Station 10KVA1H integration UPS system (15minutes)

Station video monitoring

LED screen LED screen body shell Hanger LED screen control card Power Module Ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) Timer switch Signal cable Power cable Host computer Serial port card WinXP pro system Passenger information display system application software

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

HD network infrared dome camera (1080P) HD network infrared waterproof camera (720P) HD network infrared dome camera (720P) 2 in 1 lightning arrester RJ45 network cable Power cable

UPS host Battery cabinet Battery Distribution box Wiring UPS host Battery cabinet Battery Wiring

Passenger self-inquiry system application software

4

13

Industrial panel computer Flush mounting bracket Cable

1 2 3

1 IP network paging microphone 2 Normal microphone Station digital broadcast 1 3 Power amplifier equipment 4 Embedded sound box 5 Voice cable 1 IP network paging microphone 2 Normal microphone Terminal digital broadcast 2 3 Power amplifier equipment 4 Outdoor waterproof sound box 5 Voice cable (f) Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations 1 Supporting communication and supporting locating equipment sub-system

(e) The IP Digital Broadcasting

1

(d) CCTV video monitoring

2

1

Terminal 10KVA1H integration UPS system

(c) Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)

2

1

(b) Passenger information service

5,568.37

428.34

-

44,605.25 5,256.86

118.32 404.37

-

1.59

-

-

-

87.46

323.80

-

8,258.32

1.59 95.25

4,754.96

91.44 762.02

8,418.73

323.80

0.67

9,906.24

2,749.13

0.73

1,238.28

2,991.10

62.90

95.25

4,277.39

533.17

762.02

12,796.15

503.22

13 13 26 52 5200 0 0 0 0 0

10,064.42

2,665.87

24

63,980.84 Plus 2 for NS9&EW12

11,681.90

898.61

58,253.71

-

314.51 4,481.05

-

247.12

-

374.42

-

898.61

59,967.05

576.61 4,481.05

2,336.38

329.49 53,377.27

4,283.36

1,617.49

53,377.27

21,027.40

1.48

179.72

70.08 23,130.15

0.67

20 24 68 4080 4080

0 0 0 0 0 13 13 377 13

2,056.01

19.77 2,056.01

7,710.05

74.14 19.77

12,528.83 25,007.63

240.46

59,967.05

576.61

104 104 104 104 104 104 104 15600 13 13 13 1 104 120.47

1,313.00

136,551.66

1,429.57 25,205.93

25,205.93

1,606.26

123.56 0.73

44,975.29

3,459.64

104

13 13 1950 1 13

Draft, ITDP-China

372

19 July 2015

Terminal supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

2

1

2

1

Automatic door

9

Control system on station Equipment power distribution cabinet (including stabilized voltage power supply cabinet) Sliding door radio frequency remote sensor device Sliding doors Door control unit (DCU) Fixed side box Sliding door Indicator light Bearing pedestal, supporting part, fasten part, decoration materials and etc.

Station network switch Turnstile Card reader Cash collection box Station communication host Emergency control button Distribution cable Network cable Connection cable Other supporting equipment Backup material Tools

Base and outer structure LED screen Electric controller Signal control cable Power cable Base and outer structure LED screen Electric controller Signal control cable Power cable

Standard computer Pu-frequency monitor Graphics

Station supporting communication and supporting locating equipment Supporting cable Terminal supporting communication and supporting locating equipment Supporting cable

2 Cable 3 Construction 4 Backup 5 On-bus radio frequency remote sensor device and bus door open/close button (D) Control Center

1

3 4 5 6 7 8

2

2 2 Terminal on site dispatching sub-system 1 Dispatching computer with 2 1 2 LCD screen 3 2 Multi-function station machine 1 2 3 Out-door dispatching screen 3 4 5 1 2 4 In-door dispatching screen 3 4 5 5 Terminal cabling fee (B) AFC system Subtotal 1 2 1 Equipment on station 3 4 5 1 2 2 Other 3 4 5 1 3 Backup 2 (C) Automatic door Subtotal 1

Station supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

1

-

0.67 0.84 1,235.58 1,853.38 102.97 0.67 0.84 1,647.45

708.40

658.98

3,923.96 830.31 68,527.18

418 13 418 1 0

691.93 2,471.17 823.72 1,350.91 1,235.58 32.95

2,240.53

7,413.51

-

51,011.53 347,070.84 68,527.18

296,112.03

8,995.06 1,032,948.93 344,316.31 564,678.75 516,474.46 Stainless steel 27,545.30

29,126.85

96,375.62

3,383,182.87

21,416.80 237,232.29 Normal from 5000rmb to 10000rmb 12,850.08 For card payment by ticketing office. 7,924.22 17,133.44 Normal computer to communicate with center 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

356,392.09

-

102.97

1,647.45 1,647.45 988.47 609.56 1,317.96 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

-

3,558.48

-

8,237.23 -

-

200.05 3,323.72

-

282.42

-

1,141.44

-

-

-

3,114.00 RVVP4*0.5 each short-distance communication device need 100m

7,495.88 2.4GHZ

1.86

576.61

1.20

576.61

13 418 418 418 418 836

13

13

13 144 13 13 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

2600

13

Draft, ITDP-China

373

19 July 2015

Network and communication

Uninterruptible power supply (UPS)

CCTV video monitoring

The IP digital broadcasting

1

2

3

4

2

1

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

Traffic signal violence control at intersection

Traffic signal violence controller

Pole Digital camera Video camera Protective cover Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case standard leakage protector Assisted lighting (flash) Power SPD Lightning detection Communication module Detect loop Integrated dome camera Pole Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case Standard leakage protector SPD Lightning detection Bi-directional video data + ethernet Fiber terminal Power Optical fibre slot box (7 slots) Video distributor (FS-16) Code distributor (FS-C-485D) 16 DVR Optical jumper

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Traffic organization during construction

XIII Traffic surveillance and control Subtotal

1

Maps print and bus routes print out Traffic organization during construction

2 XII

Subtotal

Passenger Information system for 4 stations

8

7

6

Clock synchronization system Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations BRT operational monitoring and dispatching management subsystem - business software Other cost

System and application software

5

Ticketing central system

3

Central service server

2

1

1

Subtotal

Passenger Information

Operation and dispatching system

2

XI

Automatic door and AFC system

1

Subtotal

60.13

89

89

263.59 4,365.73

89

1,565.07

148.27

89

89

65.90

89

1,663.92

560.13

89

1,350.91

691.93

89

89

2,487.64

89

89

214.17

180

261.94

411.86

60

89

263.59

60

254.53

148.27

89

254.53

60

60

65.90

60

60

560.13

180

311.37

148.27

60

60

995.06 1,408.57

120

2,771.00

5,024.71

247,116.97

1,647.45

14,827.02

663,063.19

448,105.44

3,710,936.28

21,926.01

12,130.38

1,454,574.04

217,277.12

385,534.42

862,438.22

728,237.23

109,390.44

60

20

1

13

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

At each intersection or T-junction, including controllers, video capture cards,

Including the short-term traffic marking, traffic leading sign, divider, fance, bus shelters and organizaiton assistant, etc.

Including four levels of information, outside staiton on sidewalk, on bridge, in front of station entrance and inside station

Assume the room around 150m2 will be provided

5,351.73

139,291.60

148,088.96

120,230.64

22,653.21 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 23,313.01

388,550.25

13,196.05 For power, controller and camera 23,459.64

5,864.91

49,851.73

221,400.33 At each 200m, for the vehicle running in the bus lane. 61,581.55 "L" type, including the foundation

38,550.25

24,711.70

15,815.49

15,271.83 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 8,896.21 For power, controller and camera

18,682.04

3,953.87

33,607.91

26,688.63

84,514.00

166,260.30 "L" type, including the foundation 119,406.92

etc.

100,494.23 capture control software, operating systems, traffic light signal detector and

2,208,304.78

247,116.97

247,116.97

21,416.80

192,751.24

214,168.04

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Draft, ITDP-China

374

19 July 2015

14 15

Fiber ends box Camera supporting frame

Optical fibre lease Server in control center Supporting equipment in control center

CCTV camera system

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1,663.92 1,565.07 60.13 70.84 411.86 148.27 41,186.16

18 18 18 18 18 200 0

238,879.74

1,350.91

18

0

261.94

18

4,365.73

18 254.53

263.59

18 18

65.90 148.27

560.13

18 18

691.93

18 18

2,487.64

18

372.32

89 0

70.84 411.86

89

XIV Project indirect cost and expenses Subtotal 1 Including feasibility study, detailed engineering design, tendering assistance, construction management, supervision, and etc. Total

Integrated dome camera Pole Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case Standard leakage protector SPD Lightning detection Bi-directional video data + ethernet fiber terminal Power Optical fibre slot box (7 slots) Video distributor (FS-16) Code distributor (FS-C-485D) 16 DVR Optical jumper Fiber ends box Camera supporting frame

BRT lane enforcement (camera in front of bus)

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

Project direct cost and expenses

5 6 7

4

3

2

6,304.78 For the vehicle running in the bus lane.including local storage 16G SD card, powerbox, and equipment box

Purchase the right to use fiber-optic network from the operator for 20 years, including three years of maintenance costs

31,622,498.78

6,525,277.53 Normally around 26% of total project cost

25,097,221.25

-

-

29,654.04

7,413.51

1,275.12

1,082.37

28,171.33

29,950.58

24,316.31

4,581.55 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 4,714.99

78,583.20

4,744.65

2,668.86 For power, controller and camera

1,186.16

12,454.70 "L" type, including the foundation 10,082.37

44,777.59 At each 500m, for the overview of the whole traffic condition.

-

36,655.68

C5 (including 32nd St in BGC) COSTING FOR MANILA BRT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (C5) No. ITEM I Road engineering

C5

(A) Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

577,594

(B) BRT lanes (concrete)

684,551

(C) BRT ramp

1,942,191

(D) Sidewalk

101,053

(E) Elevated sidewalk

0

(F) Steel foot bridge

30,516,707

(G) MRT connection

0

(H) Tunnel connection

0

(I) Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

0

(J) Bus lane separator

86,108

(K) Sidewalk curb

15,822

(L) Steel bollard

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

1,185,749

Greenery Street light Water drainage Traffic engineering BRT station architecture BRT station power supply and lighting BRT station drainage and fire protection BRT station ventilation and air conditioning On-station BRT ITS system

5,766,063

(A) Operation and dispatching system

1,036,817

70,115 433,690 664,745 269,546 1,233,773 16,145 19,605

(B) AFC system

278,830

(C) Automatic door

3,161,411

(D) Control center

0

XI Passenger information XII Traffic organization during construction XIII Traffic surveillance and control XIV Sta Monica bike/ped bridge* Project direct cost and expenses Direct cost for phase I

164,745 1,176,242 0

49,549,772 12,882,941 62,432,713

Project indirect cost and expenses

Total

Draft, ITDP-China

148,270

375

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

376

19 July 2015

Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

Bus lane separator

Sidewalk curb

Steel bollard

Greenery

Subtotal Newly planted trees New green belt

Demolish the existing greenbelt

Street light

Subtotal Remove exsiting lights

New lights

Water drainage

Subtotal New drainage along road

New drainage at station

9

11

12

II

1 2

3

III

1

2

IV

1

2

Tunnel connection

8

10

MRT connection

Elevated sidewalk

5

7

Sidewalk

4

Steel foot bridge

BRT ramp

3

6

BRT lanes (concrete)

Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

Subtotal

Road engineering

2

1

I

No.

0

Graded broken stone (10cm)

3

1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Demolish current bridge

Lift

MRT connection

Lift

Tunnel connection

Lift

4

5

1

2

1

2

2690

0

135

135

5320

0 0

8400

4035

12600

1

8

Integrate with existing bridge

Footbridge with long ramp

2

3

7

Footbridge

1

0

0

1000

C20 cement concrete (15cm)

Sidewalk brick (5cm)

2000

14210

14210

14210

10200

9315

9315

9315

9315

9315

18630

Volume

2

1

Graded broken stone (15cm)

C35 steel reinforced cement concrete (25cm)

1

4% graded broken stone (20cm)

Geotextiles

7

3

Graded broken stone (15cm)

6

2

4% cement stabilized macadam (15cm)

5

4

5% cement stabilized macadam (35cm)

AC-20C asphalt concrete (6cm TAB-25 asphalt macadam (8cm)

2

3

AC-13C asphalt concrete (4cm)

1

Item

70,115.32

1,185,749.50

15,821.76

56.02

322.20

664,744.65

-

664,744.65

400,329.49

33,360.79

433,690.28

70,115.32

-

5,377.55

Tunnel connection from existing pedestrian tunnel

Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

1.5m distance, long sidewalk, refudge islands and BRT access.50cm in the

86,108.00 Bogota type

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,280.08

80,965.72 Connection from existing pedestrian bridge

19,241,012.77 1:20 long ramp

-

233.70

Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

11,186,448.58 50m long and 4m wide

-

-

-

101,053.10

1,942,191.35

27,063.63

36,615.51 At BRT station

620,871.61

15,312.57

17,740.87

8.29 0.78

Including change current sidewalk to be traffic lane and just renew the current

Comment

75,555.23 asphalt pavement (demolish 4cm and repave 4cm asphalt). 32,351.00

42,160.65

160,711.40

233,762.04

35,109,775.38

Total Cost Foreign Currency (US $)

241.99

141.16

3.92

6.83

7,743,670.18

80,663.23

564,642.62

80,663.23

1,194,532.83

80,663.23

8,280.08

80,965.72

2,405,126.60

1,598,064.08

2,007.62

1.30

13.89

101.05

971.10

1.90

2.58

43.69

1.50

1.90

3.47

8.11

4.53

17.25

12.55

Unit Cost Foreign Currency (US $)

Costing for Manila BRT conceptual design (C5)

Draft, ITDP-China

377

19 July 2015

Voltage transformer

1

2

1

Station industrial Ethernet switches (including terminal switches)

Network cabinets on station and terminals

Fibre and supporting equipment

Station cable integration

1

2

3

4

Host SFP slot 10KM optical module Host Power supply socket Distributor Drum stand Optical cable (36 core) Optical cable (12 core) Optical cable implement cost Optical cable unit box ODF frame Jumper Welding

subtotal BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

IX

X On-station BRT ITS system (A) Operation and dispatching system Subtotal (a) Network and communication

subtotal BRT station drainage and fire protection

VIII BRT Station drainage and fire protection

3 substop

3

subtotal BRT station power supply and lighting

2 substop

2

BRT station power supply and lighting

1 substop

VII

1

New station architecture, structure and decoration

subtotal

1

VI

3

2

subtotal Road marking

1

1 Single pole 2 high 6.5m arm 4m) 3 high 6.5m arm 4m) Traffic signage facility 4 Signage board (1m*1m) 5 Signage board (2m*3m) 6 Signage board (1.5m*2m) 1 "L" pole (6m arm) 2 "L" pole (8m arm) 3 Traffic signal facility 4 5 Traffic signal 6 Pedestrian signal 7 Traffic signal controller (C4 area control) BRT Station Architecture Structure and Decoration

Traffic engineering (road marking and traffic signal)

V

268.88 1,904.55

32 2

9 12 24 9 9 9 9 26.7 5 31.7 9 6 54 336 9

7000

7000

9

7000

0

7000

Including basement and installing

21,566.57

485.29 4,025.91

8.99 11.98 2,396.29

5,453.02 34,633.10

5,772.18

47,476.42 605.89

15,258.35 Control center to the nearest station 1,497.68

161.75 124,882.59

17.97 4,677.25

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

3,051.67

350.45 2,965.40

329.49

10,378.91

1,153.21 38.94

8,730.15 17,460.30

727.51

67,330.84

1,036,816.88

19,604.61

19,604.61

16,144.98

16,144.98

741,350.91

492,421.75

1,233,772.65

-

5,766,062.60

-

5,766,062.60

39,538.71 Including Cable, well and civil engineering

12,652.39 Including installing

18,451.40 Including installing

9,489.29 Including basement and installing

-

27,677.10 Including basement and installing

21,746.29 Including basement and installing

6,800.66 Including installing

13,601.32 Including installing

1,133.44 Including installing

5,601.32 Including basement and installing

10,708.40 Including basement and installing

6,326.19 Including basement and installing

95,819.60

269,546.13

727.51

7,481.20

2.80

2.31

82,372.32

70.35

823.72

823.72

823.72

423.48

32

0

963.48

1,232.35

0 32

3,596.24

8

1,624.24

16 654.16

231.23

8

3,372.17

1,579.65

4

8

1,579.65

10

16

173.20

13.11

32

12925

Draft, ITDP-China

378

19 July 2015

Station passenger information display system

Station passenger information self-enquiry system

Station 10KVA1H integration UPS system (15minutes)

Terminal 10KVA1H integration UPS system

Station video monitoring

LED screen LED screen body shell Hanger LED screen control card Power Module Ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) Timer switch Signal cable Power cable Host computer Serial port card WinXP pro system Passenger information display system application software

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

HD network infrared dome camera (1080P) HD network infrared waterproof camera (720P) HD network infrared dome camera (720P) 2 in 1 lightning arrester RJ45 network cable Power cable

UPS host Battery cabinet Battery Distribution box Wiring UPS host Battery cabinet Battery Wiring

Passenger self-inquiry system application software

4

13

Industrial panel computer Flush mounting bracket Cable

1 2 3

1 IP network paging microphone 2 Normal microphone Station digital broadcast 1 3 Power amplifier equipment 4 Embedded sound box 5 Voice cable 1 IP network paging microphone 2 Normal microphone Terminal digital broadcast 2 3 Power amplifier equipment 4 Outdoor waterproof sound box 5 Voice cable (f) Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations 1 Supporting communication and supporting locating equipment sub-system

(e) The IP Digital Broadcasting

1

(d) CCTV video monitoring

2

1

(c) Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)

2

1

(b) Passenger information service

3,855.02

428.34

8,006.59 2,135.09

240.46 74.14 19.77

3,639.37

404.37

3,167.05 2,910.84

62.90 0.73 0.67

-

87.46 1.59

-

-

323.80

1.59

-

5,717.30

91.44

95.25

3,291.89

323.80

762.02

857.27 5,828.35

95.25

6,858.16

4,529.00

533.17

762.02

9,597.11

503.22

9 9 18 36 3600 0 0 0 0 0

18,115.95

2,665.87

18

47,985.63 Plus 2 for NS9&EW12

8,087.47 30,880.56

118.32

40,329.49

898.61

4,481.05

-

-

314.51

-

247.12

-

374.42

-

898.61

62,273.48

576.61 4,481.05

1,617.49

329.49 53,377.27

2,965.40

1,617.49

53,377.27

14,557.43

1.48

179.72

72.77 24,019.77

0.67

36 18 72 4320 4320

0 0 0 0 0 9 9 261 9

25,969.46

120.47

2,135.09

13,010.71

576.61

108 108 108 108 108 108 108 16200 9 9 9 1 108 19.77

62,273.48

1,313.00

141,803.64

989.70 25,205.93

25,205.93

1,112.03

123.56 0.73

31,136.74

3,459.64

108

9 9 1350 1 9

Draft, ITDP-China

379

19 July 2015

Terminal supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

2

1

2

1

Automatic door

9

Control system on station Equipment power distribution cabinet (including stabilized voltage power supply cabinet) Sliding door radio frequency remote sensor device Sliding doors Door control unit (DCU) Fixed side box Sliding door Indicator light Bearing pedestal, supporting part, fasten part, decoration materials and etc.

Station network switch Turnstile Card reader Cash collection box Station communication host Emergency control button Distribution cable Network cable Connection cable Other supporting equipment Backup material Tools

Base and outer structure LED screen Electric controller Signal control cable Power cable Base and outer structure LED screen Electric controller Signal control cable Power cable

Standard computer Pu-frequency monitor Graphics

Station supporting communication and supporting locating equipment Supporting cable Terminal supporting communication and supporting locating equipment Supporting cable

2 Cable 3 Construction 4 Backup 5 On-bus radio frequency remote sensor device and bus door open/close button (D) Control Center

1

3 4 5 6 7 8

2

2 2 Terminal on site dispatching sub-system 1 Dispatching computer with 2 1 2 LCD screen 3 2 Multi-function station machine 1 2 3 Out-door dispatching screen 3 4 5 1 2 4 In-door dispatching screen 3 4 5 5 Terminal cabling fee (B) AFC system Subtotal 1 2 1 Equipment on station 3 4 5 1 2 2 Other 3 4 5 1 3 Backup 2 (C) Automatic door Subtotal 1

Station supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

1

9

-

8,237.23

-

0.67 0.84 1,235.58 1,853.38 102.97 0.67 0.84 1,647.45

708.40

658.98

3,923.96 830.31 68,527.18

396 9 396 1 0

691.93 2,471.17 823.72 1,350.91 1,235.58 32.95

2,240.53

7,413.51

-

35,315.68 328,803.95 68,527.18

280,527.18

6,227.35 978,583.20 326,194.40 534,958.81 489,291.60 Stainless steel 26,095.55

20,164.74

66,721.58

3,161,411.23

14,827.02 177,924.22 Normal from 5000rmb to 10000rmb 8,896.21 For card payment by ticketing office. 5,486.00 11,861.61 Normal computer to communicate with center 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

278,830.31

-

102.97

1,647.45 1,647.45 988.47 609.56 1,317.96 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

-

3,558.48

-

-

200.05 3,323.72

-

282.42

-

-

1,141.44

-

1.86

2,155.85 RVVP4*0.5 each short-distance communication device need 100m

5,189.46 2.4GHZ

576.61

1.20

576.61

9 396 396 396 396 792

9

9

9 108 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

1800

Draft, ITDP-China

380

19 July 2015

Network and communication

Uninterruptible power supply (UPS)

CCTV video monitoring

The IP digital broadcasting

1

2

3

4

2

1

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

Traffic signal violence control at intersection

XIII Traffic surveillance and control Subtotal

Traffic signal violence controller

Pole Digital camera Video camera Protective cover Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case standard leakage protector Assisted lighting (flash) Power SPD Lightning detection Communication module Detect loop Integrated dome camera Pole Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case Standard leakage protector SPD Lightning detection Bi-directional video data + ethernet Fiber terminal Power Optical fibre slot box (7 slots) Video distributor (FS-16) Code distributor (FS-C-485D) 16 DVR Optical jumper

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Traffic organization during construction

Subtotal

Maps print and bus routes print out Traffic organization during construction

2 XII

1

Passenger Information system for 4 stations

8

7

6

Clock synchronization system Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations BRT operational monitoring and dispatching management subsystem - business software Other cost

System and application software

5

Ticketing central system

3

Central service server

2

1

1

Subtotal

Passenger Information

Operation and dispatching system

2

XI

Automatic door and AFC system

1

Subtotal

60.13

4,365.73

63

1,565.07

263.59

63

63

148.27

63

63

65.90

63

1,663.92

560.13

63

1,350.91

691.93

63

63

2,487.64

63

63

214.17

18

261.94

411.86

6

63

263.59

6

254.53

148.27

63

254.53

6

6

65.90

6

6

560.13

18

311.37

148.27

6

6

995.06 1,408.57

12

2,771.00

5,024.71

164,744.65

1,647.45

14,827.02

663,063.19

448,105.44

3,710,936.28

21,926.01

12,130.38

1,454,574.04

217,277.12

385,534.42

862,438.22

728,237.23

109,390.44

6

2

1

9

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

At each intersection or T-junction, including controllers, video capture cards,

Including the short-term traffic marking, traffic leading sign, divider, fance, bus shelters and organizaiton assistant, etc.

Including four levels of information, outside staiton on sidewalk, on bridge, in front of station entrance and inside station

Assume the room around 150m2 will be provided

3,788.30

98,599.67

104,827.02

85,107.08

16,035.42 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 16,502.47

275,041.19

16,606.26

9,341.02 For power, controller and camera

4,151.57

35,288.30

156,721.58 At each 200m, for the vehicle running in the bus lane. 43,591.43 "L" type, including the foundation

3,855.02

2,471.17

1,581.55

1,527.18 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 889.62 For power, controller and camera

1,868.20

395.39

3,360.79

2,668.86

8,451.40

16,626.03 "L" type, including the foundation 11,940.69

etc.

10,049.42 capture control software, operating systems, traffic light signal detector and

1,176,242.17

164,744.65

164,744.65

14,827.02

133,443.16

148,270.18

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Draft, ITDP-China

381

19 July 2015

Fiber ends box Camera supporting frame

Optical fibre lease Server in control center Supporting equipment in control center

CCTV camera system

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 261.94 1,350.91 1,663.92 1,565.07 60.13 70.84 411.86 148.27 41,186.16 238,879.74

13 13 13 13 13 13 13 200 0 0

254.53

263.59 4,365.73

13 13

65.90 148.27

560.13

13 13

691.93

13 13

2,487.64

13

372.32

63 0

70.84 411.86

63

XIV Project indirect cost and expenses Subtotal 1 Including feasibility study, detailed engineering design, tendering assistance, construction management, supervision, and etc. Total

Integrated dome camera Pole Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case Standard leakage protector SPD Lightning detection Bi-directional video data + ethernet fiber terminal Power Optical fibre slot box (7 slots) Video distributor (FS-16) Code distributor (FS-C-485D) 16 DVR Optical jumper Fiber ends box Camera supporting frame

BRT lane enforcement (camera in front of bus)

Project direct cost and expenses

5 6 7

4

3

14 15 4,462.93 For the vehicle running in the bus lane.including local storage 16G SD card, powerbox, and equipment box

Purchase the right to use fiber-optic network from the operator for 20 years, including three years of maintenance costs

62,432,712.74

12,882,940.72 Normally around 26% of total project cost

49,549,772.02

-

-

29,654.04

5,354.20

920.92

781.71

20,345.96

21,630.97

17,561.78

3,308.90 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 3,405.27

56,754.53

1,927.51 For power, controller and camera 3,426.69

856.67

7,281.71

8,995.06 "L" type, including the foundation

32,339.37 At each 500m, for the overview of the whole traffic condition.

-

25,947.28

Roxas Boulevard (Manila City Hall ITS South) COSTING FOR MANILA BRT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (Roxas Boulevard) No. ITEM Roxas Boulevard** I Road engineering (A) Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

3,035,787

(B) BRT lanes (concrete)

816,306

(C) BRT ramp

0

(D) Sidewalk

80,842

(E) Elevated sidewalk

0

(F) Steel foot bridge

20,193,946

(G) MRT connection

0

(H) Tunnel connection

0

(I) Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

0

(J) Bus lane separator

129,845

(K) Sidewalk curb

21,998

(L) Steel bollard

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

1,813,491

Greenery Street light Water drainage Traffic engineering BRT station architecture BRT station power supply and lighting BRT station drainage and fire protection BRT station ventilation and air conditioning On-station BRT ITS system

230,643 600,741 924,217 1,047,609 8,360,791 1,702,479 23,410 28,427

(A) Operation and dispatching system

1,284,124

(B) AFC system

341,944

(C) Automatic door

4,027,681

(D) Control center

0

XI Passenger information XII Traffic organization during construction XIII Traffic surveillance and control XIV Sta Monica bike/ped bridge* Project direct cost and expenses Direct cost for phase I

197,694 296,540 2,143,648 0

47,302,163 12,298,562 59,600,725

Project indirect cost and expenses

Total NOTE: * The cost for Sta Monica bike/ped bridge is not included. ** Including R6-Tambo

Draft, ITDP-China

382

19 July 2015

Draft, ITDP-China

383

19 July 2015

Steel bollard

Greenery

Subtotal Newly planted trees New green belt

Demolish the existing greenbelt

Street light

Subtotal Remove exsiting lights

New lights

Water drainage

Subtotal New drainage along road

New drainage at station

12

II

1 2

3

III

1

2

IV

1

2

Tunnel connection

8

Sidewalk curb

MRT connection

7

11

Steel foot bridge

6

Bus lane separator

Elevated sidewalk

5

Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

Sidewalk

4

9

BRT ramp

3

10

BRT lanes (concrete)

Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

Subtotal

Road engineering

2

1

I

No.

0

Graded broken stone (10cm)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Demolish current bridge

Lift

MRT connection

Lift

Tunnel connection

Lift

4

5

1

2

1

2

3740

0

187

187

17500

0 0

12847

5610

19000

2

7

Integrate with existing bridge

Footbridge with long ramp

2

3

2

Footbridge

1

0

0

C20 cement concrete (15cm)

800

3

Sidewalk brick (5cm)

0

16945

16945

16945

56280

48892.5

48892.5

48892.5

48892.5

48892.5

97785

Volume

2

1

Graded broken stone (15cm)

C35 steel reinforced cement concrete (25cm)

1

4% graded broken stone (20cm)

Geotextiles

7

3

Graded broken stone (15cm)

6

2

4% cement stabilized macadam (15cm)

5

4

5% cement stabilized macadam (35cm)

AC-20C asphalt concrete (6cm TAB-25 asphalt macadam (8cm)

2

3

AC-13C asphalt concrete (4cm)

1

Item

230,642.50

1,813,490.93

21,997.54

56.02

322.20

924,217.46

-

924,217.46

554,530.48

46,210.87

600,741.35

230,642.50

-

5,377.55

Tunnel connection from existing pedestrian tunnel

Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

1.5m distance, long sidewalk, refudge islands and BRT access.50cm in the

129,845.40 Bogota type

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

161,931.44 Connection from existing pedestrian bridge

16,835,886.18 1:20 long ramp

-

233.70

Including new sidewalk and just renew the current brick pavement.

3,196,128.16 50m long and 4m wide

-

-

-

80,842.48

-

32,272.57

43,662.89 At BRT station

740,370.83

84,489.36

93,118.14

8.29 0.78

Including change current sidewalk to be traffic lane and just renew the current

Comment

396,573.72 asphalt pavement (demolish 4cm and repave 4cm asphalt). 169,803.66

221,292.52

843,540.78

1,226,968.41

26,092,214.99

Total Cost Foreign Currency (US $)

241.99

141.16

3.92

6.83

7,743,670.18

80,663.23

564,642.62

80,663.23

1,194,532.83

80,663.23

8,280.08

80,965.72

2,405,126.60

1,598,064.08

2,007.62

1.30

13.89

101.05

971.10

1.90

2.58

43.69

1.50

1.90

3.47

8.11

4.53

17.25

12.55

Unit Cost Foreign Currency (US $)

Costing for Manila BRT conceptual design (Roxas Boulevard)

Draft, ITDP-China

384

19 July 2015

Voltage transformer

1

2

1

Station industrial Ethernet switches (including terminal switches)

Network cabinets on station and terminals

Fibre and supporting equipment

Station cable integration

1

2

3

4

Host SFP slot 10KM optical module Host Power supply socket Distributor Drum stand Optical cable (36 core) Optical cable (12 core) Optical cable implement cost Optical cable unit box ODF frame Jumper Welding

subtotal BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

BRT station ventilation and air conditioning

1

IX

X On-station BRT ITS system (A) Operation and dispatching system Subtotal (a) Network and communication

subtotal BRT station drainage and fire protection

VIII BRT Station drainage and fire protection

3 substop

3

subtotal BRT station power supply and lighting

2 substop

2

BRT station power supply and lighting

1 substop

VII

1

New station architecture, structure and decoration

subtotal

1

VI

3

2

subtotal Road marking

1

1 Single pole 2 high 6.5m arm 4m) 3 high 6.5m arm 4m) Traffic signage facility 4 Signage board (1m*1m) 5 Signage board (2m*3m) 6 Signage board (1.5m*2m) 1 "L" pole (6m arm) 2 "L" pole (8m arm) 3 Traffic signal facility 4 5 Traffic signal 6 Pedestrian signal 7 Traffic signal controller (C4 area control) BRT Station Architecture Structure and Decoration

Traffic engineering (road marking and traffic signal)

V

268.88 1,904.55

240 15

12 15 30 12 12 12 12 27.6 5 32.6 12 6 66 336 12

10150

10150

12

10150

0

10150

Including basement and installing

28,755.42

593.13 4,025.91

8.99 11.98 2,396.29

7,270.70 34,633.10

5,772.18

48,824.33 605.89

15,258.35 Control center to the nearest station 1,497.68

215.66 129,092.11

17.97 4,677.25

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

Estimated by cost per m2

3,051.67

467.27 3,953.87

329.49

13,838.55

1,153.21 38.94

10,912.69 21,825.37

727.51

89,774.45

1,284,123.63

28,426.69

28,426.69

23,410.21

23,410.21

988,467.87

714,011.53

1,702,479.41

-

8,360,790.77

-

8,360,790.77

296,540.36 Including Cable, well and civil engineering

94,892.92 Including installing

138,385.50 Including installing

71,169.69 Including basement and installing

-

103,789.13 Including basement and installing

81,548.60 Including basement and installing

11,051.07 Including installing

22,102.14 Including installing

7,367.38 Including installing

36,408.57 Including basement and installing

27,841.85 Including basement and installing

10,280.07 Including basement and installing

146,231.47

1,047,608.73

727.51

7,481.20

2.80

2.31

82,372.32

70.35

823.72

823.72

823.72

423.48

240

0

963.48

1,232.35

0 240

3,596.24

30

1,624.24

26 654.16

231.23

52

3,372.17

1,579.65

26

30

1,579.65

26

26

173.20

13.11

52

19725

Draft, ITDP-China

385

19 July 2015

Station passenger information display system

Station passenger information self-enquiry system

Station 10KVA1H integration UPS system (15minutes)

Terminal 10KVA1H integration UPS system

Station video monitoring

LED screen LED screen body shell Hanger LED screen control card Power Module Ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) Timer switch Signal cable Power cable Host computer Serial port card WinXP pro system Passenger information display system application software

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

HD network infrared dome camera (1080P) HD network infrared waterproof camera (720P) HD network infrared dome camera (720P) 2 in 1 lightning arrester RJ45 network cable Power cable

UPS host Battery cabinet Battery Distribution box Wiring UPS host Battery cabinet Battery Wiring

Passenger self-inquiry system application software

4

13

Industrial panel computer Flush mounting bracket Cable

1 2 3

1 IP network paging microphone 2 Normal microphone Station digital broadcast 1 3 Power amplifier equipment 4 Embedded sound box 5 Voice cable 1 IP network paging microphone 2 Normal microphone Terminal digital broadcast 2 3 Power amplifier equipment 4 Outdoor waterproof sound box 5 Voice cable (f) Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations 1 Supporting communication and supporting locating equipment sub-system

(e) The IP Digital Broadcasting

1

(d) CCTV video monitoring

2

1

(c) Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)

2

1

(b) Passenger information service

5,140.03

428.34

10,675.45 2,846.79

240.46 74.14 19.77

-

41,174.08 4,852.49

118.32 404.37

-

87.46 1.59

-

-

323.80

7,623.06 -

4,389.19 1.59 95.25

7,771.14 91.44 762.02

1,143.02

0.67

323.80

3,881.12

0.73

9,144.22

4,222.73

62.90

95.25

6,038.67

533.17

762.02

12,796.15

503.22

12 12 24 48 4800 0 0 0 0 0

24,154.60

2,665.87

24

63,980.84 Plus 2 for NS9&EW12

10,783.29

898.61

53,772.65

-

314.51 4,481.05

-

247.12

-

374.42

-

898.61

83,031.30

576.61 4,481.05

2,156.66

329.49 53,377.27

3,953.87

1,617.49

53,377.27

19,409.91

1.48

179.72

97.03 32,026.36

0.67

48 24 96 5760 5760

0 0 0 0 0 12 12 348 12

34,625.95

120.47

2,846.79

17,347.61

576.61

144 144 144 144 144 144 144 21600 12 12 12 1 144 19.77

83,031.30

1,313.00

189,071.53

25,205.93

25,205.93

1,482.70 1,319.60

123.56 0.73

41,515.65

3,459.64

144

12 12 1800 1 12

Draft, ITDP-China

386

19 July 2015

Terminal supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

2

1

2

1

Automatic door

9

Control system on station Equipment power distribution cabinet (including stabilized voltage power supply cabinet) Sliding door radio frequency remote sensor device Sliding doors Door control unit (DCU) Fixed side box Sliding door Indicator light Bearing pedestal, supporting part, fasten part, decoration materials and etc.

Station network switch Turnstile Card reader Cash collection box Station communication host Emergency control button Distribution cable Network cable Connection cable Other supporting equipment Backup material Tools

Base and outer structure LED screen Electric controller Signal control cable Power cable Base and outer structure LED screen Electric controller Signal control cable Power cable

Standard computer Pu-frequency monitor Graphics

Station supporting communication and supporting locating equipment Supporting cable Terminal supporting communication and supporting locating equipment Supporting cable

2 Cable 3 Construction 4 Backup 5 On-bus radio frequency remote sensor device and bus door open/close button (D) Control Center

1

3 4 5 6 7 8

2

2 2 Terminal on site dispatching sub-system 1 Dispatching computer with 2 1 2 LCD screen 3 2 Multi-function station machine 1 2 3 Out-door dispatching screen 3 4 5 1 2 4 In-door dispatching screen 3 4 5 5 Terminal cabling fee (B) AFC system Subtotal 1 2 1 Equipment on station 3 4 5 1 2 2 Other 3 4 5 1 3 Backup 2 (C) Automatic door Subtotal 1

Station supporting communication and supporting locating equipment

1

12

-

8,237.23

-

0.67 0.84 1,235.58 1,853.38 102.97 0.67 0.84 1,647.45

708.40

658.98

3,923.96 830.31 68,527.18

506 12 506 1 0

691.93 2,471.17 823.72 1,350.91 1,235.58 32.95

2,240.53

7,413.51

-

47,087.57 420,138.39 68,527.18

358,451.40

8,303.13 1,250,411.86 416,803.95 683,558.48 625,205.93 Stainless steel 33,344.32

26,886.33

88,962.11

4,027,680.65

19,769.36 227,347.61 Normal from 5000rmb to 10000rmb 11,861.61 For card payment by ticketing office. 7,314.66 15,815.49 Normal computer to communicate with center 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

341,943.99

-

102.97

1,647.45 1,647.45 988.47 609.56 1,317.96 13,014.83 6,771.00 23,986.82 2,800.66 4,141.68 8,329.49 790.77

-

3,558.48

-

-

200.05 3,323.72

-

282.42

-

-

1,141.44

-

1.86

2,874.46 RVVP4*0.5 each short-distance communication device need 100m

6,919.28 2.4GHZ

576.61

1.20

576.61

12 506 506 506 506 1012

12

12

12 138 12 12 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

2400

Draft, ITDP-China

387

19 July 2015

Network and communication

Uninterruptible power supply (UPS)

CCTV video monitoring

The IP digital broadcasting

1

2

3

4

2

1

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

Traffic signal violence control at intersection

XIII Traffic surveillance and control Subtotal

Traffic signal violence controller

Pole Digital camera Video camera Protective cover Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case standard leakage protector Assisted lighting (flash) Power SPD Lightning detection Communication module Detect loop Integrated dome camera Pole Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case Standard leakage protector SPD Lightning detection Bi-directional video data + ethernet Fiber terminal Power Optical fibre slot box (7 slots) Video distributor (FS-16) Code distributor (FS-C-485D) 16 DVR Optical jumper

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Traffic organization during construction

Subtotal

Maps print and bus routes print out Traffic organization during construction

2 XII

1

Passenger Information system for 4 stations

8

7

6

Clock synchronization system Bus operational monitoring and dispatching management system operations BRT operational monitoring and dispatching management subsystem - business software Other cost

System and application software

5

Ticketing central system

3

Central service server

2

1

1

Subtotal

Passenger Information

Operation and dispatching system

2

XI

Automatic door and AFC system

1

Subtotal

60.13

95

95

263.59 4,365.73

95

1,565.07

148.27

95

95

65.90

95

1,663.92

560.13

95

1,350.91

691.93

95

95

2,487.64

95

95

214.17

135

261.94

411.86

45

95

263.59

45

254.53

148.27

95

254.53

45

45

65.90

45

45

560.13

135

311.37

148.27

45

45

995.06 1,408.57

90

2,771.00

5,024.71

296,540.36

1,647.45

14,827.02

663,063.19

448,105.44

3,710,936.28

21,926.01

12,130.38

1,454,574.04

217,277.12

385,534.42

862,438.22

728,237.23

109,390.44

45

15

1

12

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

At each intersection or T-junction, including controllers, video capture cards,

Including the short-term traffic marking, traffic leading sign, divider, fance, bus shelters and organizaiton assistant, etc.

Including four levels of information, outside staiton on sidewalk, on bridge, in front of station entrance and inside station

Assume the room around 150m2 will be provided

5,712.52

148,682.04

158,072.49

128,336.08

24,180.40 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 24,884.68

414,744.65

14,085.67 For power, controller and camera 25,041.19

6,260.30

53,212.52

236,326.19 At each 200m, for the vehicle running in the bus lane. 65,733.11 "L" type, including the foundation

28,912.69

18,533.77

11,861.61

11,453.87 For UPS, video camera and digital camera 6,672.16 For power, controller and camera

14,011.53

2,965.40

25,205.93

20,016.47

63,385.50

124,695.22 "L" type, including the foundation 89,555.19

etc.

75,370.68 capture control software, operating systems, traffic light signal detector and

2,143,648.27

296,540.36

296,540.36

19,769.36

177,924.22

197,693.57

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Draft, ITDP-China

388

19 July 2015

Optical fibre lease Server in control center Supporting equipment in control center

5 6 7

Integrated dome camera Pole Outdoor waterproof anti-theft stainless steel case Standard leakage protector SPD Lightning detection Bi-directional video data + ethernet fiber terminal Power Optical fibre slot box (7 slots) Video distributor (FS-16) Code distributor (FS-C-485D) 16 DVR Optical jumper Fiber ends box Camera supporting frame 19

254.53 261.94 1,350.91 1,663.92 1,565.07 60.13 70.84 411.86 148.27 41,186.16 238,879.74

19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 200 0 0

4,365.73

65.90 148.27

19

19

560.13

19

263.59

691.93

19

19

2,487.64

19

372.32

95 0

70.84 411.86

95

XIV Project indirect cost and expenses Subtotal 1 Including feasibility study, detailed engineering design, tendering assistance, construction management, supervision, and etc. Total

Project direct cost and expenses

CCTV camera system

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

BRT lane enforcement (camera in front of bus)

Fiber ends box Camera supporting frame

3

14 15

BRT lane enforcement (camera along corridor)

2

6,729.82 For the vehicle running in the bus lane.including local storage 16G SD card, powerbox, and equipment box

Purchase the right to use fiber-optic network from the operator for 20 years, including three years of maintenance costs

59,600,724.88

12,298,562.28 Normally around 26% of total project cost

47,302,162.60

-

-

29,654.04

7,825.37

1,345.96

1,142.50

29,736.41

31,614.50

25,667.22

4,976.94

4,836.08 For UPS, video camera and digital camera

82,948.93

2,817.13 For power, controller and camera 5,008.24

1,252.06

13,146.62 "L" type, including the foundation 10,642.50

47,265.24 At each 500m, for the overview of the whole traffic condition.

-

39,126.85

Draft, ITDP-China

389

19 July 2015

ALTERNATIVE PHASING OPTION

As referred to in Chapter 3 above, an alternative phasing plan involves including Ortigas-BGC in phase 1, and the airport corridors in phase 2. The detailed costings for the individual airport and Ortigas-BGC corridors are provided above (see ‘Airport’ and ‘Ortigas-BGC’ tables). The following tables provide summary figures for the cost breakdown in this alternative scenario. No. ITEM I Road engineering

The BRT vehicle fleet is assumed to be the same in each option. This is approximately correct and does not largely influence the overall costing, though more detailed analysis is required to adjust the operational design to this new scenario, if this alternative is preferred.

COSTING FOR MANILA BRT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (Phase1-alternative option) EDSA MAKATI OTIGAS-BGC

(A) Mix traffic lanes (asphalt) (B) BRT lanes (concrete) (C) BRT ramp (D) Sidewalk (E) Elevated sidewalk

843,476

918,299

1,456,030

169,729

2,890,192

657,092

1,453,671

175,353

19,349,081

0

0

0

2,007,832

146,676

50,527

65,189

9,636,567

0

0

0

(F) Steel foot bridge

82,674,048

0

0

4,003,191

(G) MRT connection

14,591,799

0

0

0

0

3,226,529

0

0

7,743,670

0

0

0

328,030

72,440

121,645

5,741

(H) Tunnel connection (I) Guadalupe bike/ped bridge (J) Bus lane separator (K) Sidewalk curb (L) Steel bollard

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Greenery Street light Water drainage Traffic engineering BRT station architecture BRT station power supply and lighting BRT station drainage and fire protection BRT station ventilation and air conditioning On-station BRT ITS system

47,553

11,763

43,701

4,352

4,534,080

1,039,931

1,697,175

148,783

37,796

19,589

53,443

9,226

2,272,555

561,125

1,195,058

118,863

452,890

112,032

1,836,079

182,867

1,491,184

1,988,141

1,674,942

205,928

37,127,265

4,036,244

6,285,008

1,960,461

5,806,583

1,003,674

1,607,580

496,913

103,956

11,301

17,598

5,489

126,233

13,723

21,369

6,666

3,127,143

868,454

1,174,232

525,997

963,690

244,613

356,392

137,397

(C) Automatic door

14,617,712

2,653,066

3,383,183

1,278,450

(D) Control center

8,613,613

0

0

0

527,183

131,796

214,168

65,898

(A) Operation and dispatching system (B) AFC system

XI XII XIII XIV XV

OFF-CORRIDOR

Passenger information Traffic organization during construction Traffic surveillance and control Depot Smart card

823,723

197,694

247,117

32,949

5,121,349

1,760,955

2,208,305

185,496

50,000,000

0

0

0

(A) Recharge station

140,264

0

0

0

(B) Card reader

288,779

0

0

0

8,514,851

0

0

0

894,389

0

0

0

111,800,000

0

0

0

(C) IC card (D) Installing fee

XVI Bus XVII Sta. Monica bridge* Project direct cost and expenses Without depot, smart card and bus

0

0

21,762,796

0

397,497,491

19,675,137

25,097,221

9,784,938

225,859,207

Direct cost for phase I

452,054,786

Project indirect cost and expenses (not include smart card and bus)

85,908,291

Total

537,963,077

NOTE: 1. The cost for road infrastructure is based on Manila local price and the ITS part is based on Chinese price (15% import tax included) 2. Bus lane will be C35 reinforced concrete at stations and asphalt between stations. 3. We mainly keep the current road pavement, only reconstructing where the greenbelt needs to be moved or the sidewalk needs to be widened. 4. The existing pedestrian overpass bridges are of very poor quality and basically all need to be torn down and rebuilt in new locations, dimensions, specifications and universal access. 5. Elevated steel pedestrian sidewalk is proposed to be the connection between MRT station and BRT station 6. The cost for smart card system is based on project in China. 3,000,000 cards and 50 recharge stations are assumed. 7. 50,000,000 USD is assumed for depot now, needs further study on it. 8. The price for BRT bus is from Kinglong in China, and import tax is included. Euro 4 need to add 20% more. * Cost for Sta. Monica bridge is not included.

Draft, ITDP-China

390

19 July 2015

COSTING FOR MANILA BRT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (Phase2-alternative option) AIRPORT C5

No. ITEM I Road engineering

(A) Mix traffic lanes (asphalt)

284,891

577,594

3,035,787

(B) BRT lanes (concrete)

203,535

684,551

816,306

0

1,942,191

0

65,189

101,053

80,842

(C) BRT ramp (D) Sidewalk (E) Elevated sidewalk

0

0

0

(F) Steel foot bridge

2,970,677

30,516,707

20,193,946

(G) MRT connection

0

0

0

(H) Tunnel connection

0

0

0

(I) Guadalupe bike/ped bridge

0

0

0

106,610

86,108

129,845

(J) Bus lane separator (K) Sidewalk curb (L) Steel bollard

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

ROXAS BOULEVARD*

Greenery Street light Water drainage Traffic engineering BRT station architecture BRT station power supply and lighting BRT station drainage and fire protection BRT station ventilation and air conditioning On-station BRT ITS system

5,646

15,822

21,998

1,485,010

1,185,749

1,813,491

1,992

70,115

230,643

269,340

433,690

600,741

53,775

664,745

924,217

1,257,425

269,546

1,047,609

2,594,728

5,766,063

8,360,791

880,568

1,233,773

1,702,479

7,265

16,145

23,410

8,822

19,605

28,427 1,284,124

0

(A) Operation and dispatching system

757,097

1,036,817

(B) AFC system

175,420

278,830

341,944

1,500,222

3,161,411

4,027,681

(C) Automatic door (D) Control center

XI Passenger information XII Traffic organization during construction XIII Traffic surveillance and control Project direct cost and expenses Direct cost for phase I

0

0

0

131,796

148,270

197,694

263,591

164,745

296,540

1,724,641

1,176,242

2,143,648

14,748,242

49,549,772

47,302,163 111,600,176

Project indirect cost and expenses

29,016,046

Total

140,616,222

NOTE: 1. The cost for road infrastructure is based on Manila local price and the ITS part is based on Chinese price (15% import tax included) 2. Bus lane will be C35 reinforced concrete at stations and asphalt between stations. 3. We mainly keep the current road pavement, only reconstructing where the greenbelt needs to be moved or the sidewalk needs to be widened. 4. The existing pedestrian overpass bridges are of very poor quality and basically all need to be torn down and rebuilt in new locations, dimensions, specifications, and universal access. * Including R6-Tambo

Draft, ITDP-China

391

19 July 2015

12. Conceptual Institutional Strategy

It has yet to be decided which administrative unit should be responsible for managing and implementing the proposed EDSA BRT for Manila. This section provides recommendations based on international best practice.

12.1 Establishing a project office Normally, when deciding which administrative body to assign various critical tasks in a project as complex and multi-faceted as a BRT project, the important thing is to identify the existing administrative body with the legal mandate and administrative competence to complete the task, and to ensure that any necessary inter-agency coordination is managed by the most senior political official presiding over all relevant bodies. Most BRT projects begin with a project office, usually housed in the office of the political leadership in charge of the project. Alternatively, the project office could be placed inside one of the more competent and motivated existing agencies of the government, such as a department of transportation of a municipal government. Such a high profile project needs direct access to senior government officials to whom the project team can constantly refer to get clear decisions. Normally it initially has a small staff hand-picked from the best people already at other government agencies, supported by foreign and local expert consultants. The project office normally has about five or six staff. They are: 1. A general manager: a business oriented management expert who deals with the political leadership and the non-technical, businessoriented side of the project (contracts preparation, tendering documents, etc); 2. An engineer that oversees the contractors responsible for designing the infrastructure and supervises the works done by the relevant department of public works; 3. A planning director who oversees the consultants responsible for the initial service planning and design on any new corridor and plans next phases; 4. An operations director who helps draft the operating contracts, establishes operational protocols, supervises the operating tenders, and then supervises compliance with the Draft, ITDP-China

operating contracts, and finally manages the contract for the operational control system; 5. A communications and customer relations manager who deals with external communications and coordination with the affected bus franchises; 6. A finance and administration manager. At first it is likely that each person will be responsible for more than one of these tasks, and later as the institution becomes more established, roles can be divided among more people. In the table below the staff positions and their functions are listed for two BRT systems: TransMilenio in Bogota and Rea Vaya in Johannesburg. For TransMilenio, these positions are housed in a standalone agency, and for Rea Vaya they are managed by the staff of the City of Johannesburg’s Department of Transportation. In the case of Manila, following on suggestions made by previous consulting teams and the project leadership so far, the project management unit should be housed at the DOTC Department of Planning, as so far they have taken the lead. However, it would be good to second to the project team one or more persons from the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and possibly one or more persons from the LRTA and DPWH, to ensure coordination with these critical bodies. The LRTA has been discussed above. The MMDA is the administrative body that represents the collectivity of local government units (LGUs) that make up Metropolitan Manila. As they control access to the streets, traffic intersections, and road designs, they need to be fully supportive of any plans to move forward.

393

19 July 2015

Figure 12-1: Staffing for BRT projects in Bogotá and Johannesburg

12.2 International experience with alternative administrative structures

In the table below, a sample of the better BRT systems shows the following institutional forms to be typical: Specialized BRT Authority (BRT only): A public authority responsible only for managing the BRT system. Typical in most Latin American BRT systems, and also used in Designing and operating a BRT system is more Guangzhou. complicated than operating a bus system or Bus Transit Authority (BRT and buses): building a road. It requires that specially designed A public authority responsible for managinfrastructure be built and operated, traffic ing both the BRT system and the rest of the signals and traffic patterns changed, all at roughly bus municipal bus system. Typical of some the same time as new buses are purchased and Brazilian systems (URBS in Curitiba, SP Trans new operating companies are hired and become in Sao Paulo). operational. It requires the installation of new operational control systems, ticketing systems, Public bus operator (BRT and buses): A modal integration with rail systems, and paspublic sector bus operator that manages the senger information systems. Few of these skills are BRT system. This is typical of BRT operations generally available locally at the beginning. in most Chinese cities except Guangzhou. While urban transportation systems are manTransit Authority (BRT, bus and rail tranaged in many different ways in different cities, sit): A public authority that manages BRT, successful BRT systems have characteristics which normal bus, and rail systems. Typical in the have tended towards certain organizational forms. Draft, ITDP-China

394

19 July 2015

BRT Management Authority Options Transportation Authority Transit (transit and Authority traffic) (rail also) TransMilenio, Bogota GBRT, Guangzhou BRT, Curitiba Guadalajara, Mexico Lima BRT Perreira, Colombia Mio, Cali, Colombia Jan Marg, Ahmedabad Rea Vaya, Johannesburg Metrobus, Mexico City HealthLine, Cleveland Lanzhou, BRT TransJakarta, Jakarta LAMTA (Orange Line) Cleveland RTA London (No BRT in London) LiteBRT, Lagos

BRT and Other Buses Special and Purpose BRT Minibuses Agency X

Public Bus operator

Transport Department X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Gold Standard BRT Silver Standard BRT Bronze Standard BRT Basic BRT or Below

Figure 12-2: Administrative authorities responsible for BRT systems

US and Europe. Transportation Department (BRT, bus, road): A department of the city government responsible for direct management of a BRT system. Typical of South African systems, and applicable for higher level planning and definition of BRT routes in Guangzhou. Transportation Authority (BRT, bus, rail, and road): A public authority responsible for all public transit and also private road transport. Typical of London, San Francisco, Lagos, and a few other US and US and European systems. The vast majority of the best BRT systems are in Latin America, and almost all of them are managed by standalone BRT authorities that are similar in structure and purpose to metro companies. In most of Latin America, and in Jakarta, Ahmedabad, Guangzhou (for daily operational management) and Dar es Salaam, BRT systems are managed by a specialized BRT agency. The reason this form emerged in Latin America and Draft, ITDP-China

other parts of the world was first that management consultants looked at how successful metro projects were managed, and noticed that most of them were run by standalone corporatized agencies or government companies, and they wanted BRT systems to enjoy the same benefits as metro companies. Further, the transportation departments of municipal governments tended to regulate informal bus operators in a way that earned both licit and illicit revenue for the department. As such, these departments’ revenue streams were threatened by the BRT projects, and hence they were sometimes bad advocates for BRT. This also sometimes led to problems, however, as departments of transportation sometimes did not support the projects and mayoral intervention was required to keep them participating constructively (Mayor Penalosa, who implemented the TransMilenio BRT system in Bogota, fired five department of transportation heads in his three year term). Furthermore, as part of municipal government, they were also encumbered by civil service hiring and firing practices which tend to make it hard 395

19 July 2015

to hire highly trained, customer-oriented staff, hard to replace unqualified staff, and hard to resist political interference in both the mandate of the organization and the hiring and firing process. The relative independence of TransMilenio in Bogota was driven by the recommendation of leading management consultant McKinsey in an effort to ensure more customer-responsive, corporate-type governance and avoid bureaucratic inefficiency, though arguably TransMilenio remains insufficiently insulated from political interference. Another interesting model in Guayaquil, Ecuador has placed the BRT system under the control of a non-profit quasigovernmental body, the Fundacion Municipal de Transporte Massivo Urbano de Guayaquil, that has representation of a wider group of stakeholders on its Board of Directors and thus has slightly greater political independence. A further concern frequently leads to the development of a single-purpose entity. It was believed that a municipal or national government department, pulled in many directions by political pressure, with many administrative duties, would be unable to focus sufficient attention on such an ambitious project to ensure success. Figure 12-3 shows a fairly typical Latin

American institutional structure. The BRT authority manages only the BRT, a metro company manages the metro, the transport department manages traffic and non-BRT bus licensing, and a public works department manages infrastructure. In most cases, on corridors where there is a new BRT, the regulatory authority for routes affected by the BRT is taken away from the Department of Transportation for those routes, and given to the BRT authority. This is governed by an interAgency agreement (designated by the dashed line) between the BRT authority and the department responsible for issuing transit route licenses. Similarly, the BRT Authority is given oversight of the design and construction of all BRT infrastructure. Though this work is done by a department of public works or equivalent, the designs need to be approved by the BRT Authority before they can be tendered, again based on an inter-agency agreement. Responsibility for traffic and signals remains with the department of transportation. Security at the stations is the responsibility of the police, who sometimes also control the traffic signals. The main downside of this approach is that the non-BRT buses sometimes end up competing for BRT passengers, and the services are not well

Figure 12-3: Typical administrative structure under a BRT authority Draft, ITDP-China

396

19 July 2015

Figure 12-4: Typical administrative structure under a bus authority

Paolo, similarly, all bus services, whether on BRT infrastructure or operating in mixed traffic are regulated by SP Trans. This did allow for the coordinated with the BRT system, or between integration of the ticketing system in 2000, and the BRT system and any metro systems. Further, while this fare integration cost the Municipality passengers often complain that nothing has been a lot of money, it led to a significant increase in done to improve the quality of their transit on transit ridership. The point is that this broadening the remainder of the bus services in the city, and of the lack of integrated ticketing systems and pas- administrative reach was achieved over time since the 1960s; it did not happen all at once. senger information. In many cities in China and India, bus services In response to this, TransMilenio was given an are controlled by monopoly public bus compaexpanded mandate to also tender bus services nies. This form can yield better or worse quality with quality of service contracting as was impleof service depending on local circumstances, but mented on the BRT corridors; in other words in general has tended to lead to less responsive using the contractual forms of TransMilenio governance of these transit systems and a resiswithout the BRT infrastructure. The effort, called tance to making changes to the system, even when SITP (systema integrada de transport public) has the changes would result in greater ridership or been only partially successful. After almost five lower costs. years of efforts, only a few corridors have been In South Africa, the Department of brought under the new contracts, and most of the Transportation of the City of Cape Town and the services remain unimplemented. City of Johannesburg both manage their BRT The direction that TransMilenio is moving towards, with a single authority in the city manag- systems directly. In Cape Town the department combines transport (transit and traffic manageing all bus-based transit, has been the norm in ment), roads, and stormwater all into one departseveral Brazilian cities for some time. Curitiba’s ment of the Municipal Government. Both cities URBS was created back in the 1960s, before the have built good quality BRT systems, but manageBRT there was introduced, to bring in an integrated ticketing system among zone-based private ment of these systems has been less impressive. Management by the department of a municipal companies. It first only covered bus services on government has less autonomy from political key ‘trunk’ routes. Its mandate then broadened interference than a public authority might have, to controlling fare collection on all trunk, feeder, and inter-zone bus routes, taking by today control and staff are encumbered by civil service regulations. The initial staff of the Rea Vaya project was of virtually all bus services in Curitiba. In Sao Draft, ITDP-China

397

19 July 2015

Figure 12-5: Accountability problems resulting from Johannesburg Rea Vaya administrative structure as a project office in a municipal department of transportation (later partially resolved)

highly talented, but most of them were brought in as outside consultants as they were unwilling to work for civil service wages, and the remaining staff that did work for such wages became disgruntled. The result has been the loss of a number of key talented staff, and problems taking a very long time to resolve. The leadership of the municipal department of transportation also has numerous other non-BRT responsibilities which are continually taking their attention away from the BRT-specific problems, leaving the system with a management vacuum. Furthermore, responsibilities for key components of the system were divided up between three quasi-independent public agencies that did not report to the Director of the Transportation Department, so coordination to resolve problems often required elevating problems all the way to the Mayor, and some of the problems were the result of corruption or incompetence of people protected for political reasons. Additionally, while the Department of Transportation is supposed to inherit responsibility for the regulation of the non-BRT transit services, to date they remain de facto unregulated or regulated by the Provincial Government. This means that competition for Draft, ITDP-China

passengers in the BRT corridors with informal minibus taxi operators has continued, costing the BRT system passengers and revenue that have compromised its financial performance. A similar administrative structure works reasonably well in China, where municipal government jobs are considered desirable, have a lot of side benefits, and quality staff tend to be retained at least in the wealthier East Coast cities. Some cities have transportation authorities with broad powers to work on road traffic management, transit system regulation and management, and all transit from bus to metro to commuter rail. These are listed in Figure 12-6 under Transportation Authority. Most of these grew out of the consolidation of pre-existing transportation agencies and institutions. Transport for London (TfL), created in 2000, is the most famous and successful example of combining these functions. It took over the functions of the previous London Regional Transport Authority which was created in 1984 out of the Transit Department of the Greater London Council, which had run transit services in London since 1964, and which also managed the street network. The LRT also controlled the London Underground, a wholly-owned subsidiary of LRT called the London Underground Ltd, established in 1985. Thus, TfL is not a multifaceted integrated agency that was created from nothing; it was 398

19 July 2015

of government that minor coordination problems need to be elevated to, usually the better the outcome. With a transportation agency structure, issues need only be elevated to the Transit Agency head. Thus, it is worth considering whether metropolitan areas in the early stages of developing their urban governance institutions, should set up

Figure 12-6: BRT operations under a transportation authority

created from a long series of previously functional and successful institutions. San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Authority is another example of where these functions are combined into one agency. It was created in 1999 by consolidating the Department of Parking and Traffic of the city of San Francisco and the Public Transport Commission which managed the Muni. Both manage large aging rail transit properties, bus systems, and traffic management including parking, and are examples of sophisticated and mature government institutions. Most similar examples of traffic and transit system management integration under a single administrative unit are in the developed world. None of the metropolitan areas with transportation authorities are operating BRT systems rated Bronze or better under the BRT Standard. The theoretical advantage of combining these often inter-related functions under a single management structure is better coordination between related projects, possibilities for financial integration of services and cross subsidization of less profitable services, and possible integration of fare technologies. If staff working on one area is unwilling to coordinate with staff working in another area, the issue can theoretically be elevated to a single manager with decision making authority without having to be further elevated to the political level. The lower the level Draft, ITDP-China

Figure 12-7: BRT administration under a transit authority

authorities such as TfL. These theoretical benefits need to be weighed against the risk of over-encumbering a fledgling institution with more tasks and responsibilities than it can handle. Most large agencies emerged over time, consolidating functions already mastered by their staff. Other metropolitan areas have institutions that combine all the transit functions into a transit authority, whether road or rail-based, while responsibility for roads is kept separate. This is the typical structure of BRT projects in the US and Europe. Of those cities that have BRT systems that rank bronze or silver using the BRT Standard, three of them combine all transit functions into one transit authority that does not have responsibility for roads and traffic: Pittsburgh’s Port Authority of Allegheny County, Greater Cleveland’s Rapid Transit Authority (RTA), and Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (LAMTA). In the US, this shared responsibility operates relatively unproblematically, so long as 399

19 July 2015

there is a shared goal between both parties, and good inter-agency coordination. There are occasionally conflicts between the transit authorities and state highway departments on state roads in metropolitan areas, but often these are resolved through reasonable inter-agency collaboration. There is no clear results difference between the two types of institutional structures.

further recommend that a BRT Agency be created under DOTC but with an independent Board of Directors consisting of representatives of MMDA, LRTA, technical professionals, and civil society in a manner that gives the Agency some political independence from the DOTC. This agency should gradually expand its mandate to encompass the current activities of the LTFRB, but only after it has successfully implemented the BRT on EDSA and built up its staff and administrative competence. The BRT Agency would have inter12.3 Administrative agency agreements with the Department of Public considerations Works and the LTFRB, giving the BRT Agency precedence over the regulation of any routes that for Manila use EDSA, and giving it formal sign-off authority ITDP generally recommends using BRT infraon the detailed designs of the BRT infrastructure. structure investments to leverage regulatory This administrative structure has the advantage changes, providing a significant ‘carrot’ to bus that its staff would be ensured to have a full time operators in the form of much more profitable focus on the needs of the BRT system and would and less risky operations in exchange for the ‘stick’ be able to gradually develop the skills necessary of required investments in new buses and agreeto manage the system from the international and ing to follow more rigorously enforced quality of national consulting teams. The Agency should service contracts. We have seen limited evidence have the following special features: of successful gradual implementation of quality of 1. It should be exempt from traditional civil service contracts in the absence of significant BRT service hiring and firing practices and rules, infrastructure investments. including the ability to hire and fire at will and Given experience in other countries, we the ability to set staff ’s salaries. The more flexrecommend that a BRT project management ible the Agency can be in this regard, the more unit be created inside the DOTC Office of the likely the Agency will be to hire and retain the Undersecretary of Planning, with some staff most qualified staff. seconded from MMDA, DPWH and LRTA. We

Figure 12-8: Manila BRT administrative structure, option 1 Draft, ITDP-China

400

19 July 2015

2. Until the BRT system is operational, the Agency will be without revenue. To the extent possible, the Agency’s operational costs for the first two or three years prior to system operation should initially be funded by project preparation loans or grants, ideally from a development bank. This will help ensure that the system administration is as insulated as possible from non-technical influences and considerations. 3. After the system becomes operational its operations could under one approach be funded entirely from a fixed share of the farebox revenue from the BRT system itself. This would help to ensure that the system

administration Agency is as insulated as possible from non-technical influences and considerations and will also help ensure that the farebox revenue does not get diverted to other projects or interests at the expense of the BRT system and its contractors. The alternative option for managing the BRT system, much discussed in Manila, is to have the LRTA administer the BRT system. This could be done as shown in Figure 12-9. In this alternative (Figure 12-9), the LRTA would oversee the creation of a BRT Authority under its auspices. This BRT Authority might have an independent board, with representation from the MMDA and civil society. This authority under

Figure 12-9: Manila BRT administrative structure, option 2

Figure 12-10: Manila BRT administrative structure, option 3 Draft, ITDP-China

401

19 July 2015

the LRTA in turn would contract out the bus operations, fare collection system, station services, etc. In a third variant, the LRTA would directly contract the bus operators, the fare collection system, and other BRT operators without creating a sub-agency specialized on the BRT system (Figure 12-10). The main advantage of having the LRTA manage the BRT system is that arguably it might enhance coordination with the LRT and MRT systems, particularly with respect to the ticketing system. In addition, the LRTA already exists, so it could begin work and signing contracts immediately without having to go through the slow and cumbersome political process of creating a new government agency. The main concerns with Option Two and Three are as follows: 1. The legal mandate of LRTA is limited to activities related to the LRT system. As such, its legal mandate to operate bus services could be subject to legal challenge. It could also result in subordinating the needs of the BRT system to that of the LRT system. For example, if a new BRT route were to draw passengers away from the MRT or LRT, it might not be implemented, though there would be significant customer benefits. Arguably, its by-laws could be changed, but this would entail much the same cumbersome political and administrative procedures as creating a new government entity. 2. Its skill base, and the focus of its staff, is limited to activities related to the LRT system. The staff currently do not have the skills required to manage a BRT system which are quite different from the skills required for an LRT system. As a result, at the staffing level, the capacity building requirements would be no different from creating a new government entity dedicated to BRT. 3. LRTA took on the capital deficits of the LRT Figure 12-11: Manila BRT administrative structure, option 4

Draft, ITDP-China

system and as such is encumbered with about a PP23 billion capital deficiency (C5 Bus Transit Development Project, Preliminary Note Presentation, CPCS, 2014). The LRTA is encumbered with this debt which could negatively impact the ability of the new BRT agency to fund its activity, ring-fence its contracts, and raise financing. As described in Option 1 above, Ideally, a BRT system can potentially fund its entire operations out of the farebox revenue. If the BRT operating agency owes debts to third parties for its rail operations, it is not impossible that creditors might try to claim operating revenues from the BRT. Thus, a condition for the LRTA to assume control of the BRT system is that its current debt obligations be forgiven or discharged by the government or else a new BRT Agency entity under the LRTA must be legally sufficiently independent from the LRTA that it is not responsible for the debts of the LRTA. 4. If the LRTA manages the BRT system, there is a risk that staff will be drawn away to focus on other competing non-BRT responsibilities, distracting their attention from critical BRT system needs. In Johannesburg, for instance, the Department of Transportation staff are frequently re-directed to focus their energies on other mayoral priorities, and many severe operational issues have been left unaddressed for months. The theoretical advantage of having LRTA manage the system, i.e., greater coordination between transit systems in particular with respect to the ticketing system, may not in fact be resolved by placing both entities under a single public authority. If the LRTA has already signed the operating contracts for the new ticketing system operator, and the TOR for the contract does not include the ticketing system on the BRT system, the ticketing system operations for the BRT would anyway need to be re-tendered. Another possibility (Figure 12-11) is that the MMDA could create and manage the BRT

402

19 July 2015

Authority, but with a board that has representation from the DOTC. This would be closer to the structure of BRT Authorities in Latin America which tend to be under Municipal control. As a general rule, it is preferable to devolve responsibility for urban public transit down to the metropolitan or municipal level of government that also oversees the municipal road network and is politically more directly accountable to metropolitan voters. However, in the case of Manila, historically the effectiveness of the MMDA as an executive agency has been hampered by the fact that many of the executive powers rest with the local government units (LGUs) rather than with the MMDA itself, and the EDSA BRT will affect a minimum of six LGUs in Manila (Caloocan, Quezon City, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Makati, and Pasay), creating considerable coordination challenges. Further discussions with the MMDA and DOTC would be necessary before determining if there is any viability in this option. The preferred alternative is to have the BRT project initially operate under a special administrative unit of the Undersecretary of Planning in the DOTC. If the DOTC moves forward with the creation of an Urban Public Transport Unit (UPTU), the project could be administratively housed there to assure better coordination with BRT efforts moving forward in Cebu (Figure 12-12). As the project progresses, DOTC would eventually create a new independent Bus Rapid Transit Authority that would have a Board dominated by DOTC but with minority representation by MMDA, civil society and technical experts. The administrative powers and responsibilities of this body might eventually be expanded to include the regulation of the remaining bus system, jeepneys, and UVs. If the DOTC and MMDA ever move forward with the proposal to create a Metro Manila Transit Authority, then this would become an administrative unit within the MMTA. Infrastructure design and construction would be managed by the Department of Public Works and Housing, under an inter-agency agreement that gives the BRT authority the right to approve the designs and supervise consistency of the construction with these designs. There have frequently been problems of poor construction oversight or a public works department building Draft, ITDP-China

Figure 12-12: Manila BRT administrative structure, under an UPTU

something other than that which was intended by the BRT Authority. It is further recommended that the road works be separated from the station design. Station design is a highly specialized craft and higher architectural merit is required, and this competence rarely exists in firms that are the best at road works.

12.4 Options for Contracting of Critical Functions All BRT systems have basic functions that need to be handled by either private companies under contract to a governmental authority or by a department or branch of the government itself. The critical functions include: Bus operations Fare Collection Station management Trust Fund Management Control Center management Scheduling Figure 12-13 shows whether each of those functions is managed by private companies or by the government in a variety of BRT systems. The precise degree of privatization of these 403

19 July 2015

Private Versus Public Operations Santiago Rio Bogota Pereira Cali Mexico City Johannesburg Curitiba Sao Paulo Ahmedabad Quito Lines 2 & 3 Guangzhou Cape Town Jakarta Lanzhou Cleveland Quito Trolebus

Private Private Private Private Private 2/3 Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public

Private Private Private Private Private 2/3 Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public

Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public

Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Figure 12-13: Private versus public operations

Figure 12-14: Private operations in Bogota’s TransMilenio

functions is in part a function of the capacity of the governmental authority tasked with managing the BRT system. The tendency is to increase the amount of contracting out of critical functions to private companies in order to avoid bloated administrations subject to political influence, cumbersome civil service rules and low salaries. In systems where most of the functions are contracted out, the typical structure looks Figure 12-14. In Manila, there is no government agency which Draft, ITDP-China

currently has experience in managing any of these functions in house, but there is experience in managing contractors. As such, following emerging best practice, it is recommended that the BRT Agency contract out the following through competitive tendering: Bus operations Station management (security, cleaning, routine maintenance) Fare collection (equipment procurement and 404

19 July 2015

operation) and control center (can be one contract or split into two) Trust fund management.

3. It gives the government more leverage over the contract in the negotiations, allowing the city’s interests and those of the passengers to take precedence over the interests of the operators. There is a reasonable desire in Manila to have 4. It allows the government to stay in control an integrated fare system with the MRT and of the timeline. In other cities where operatLRT, and recently there was a tender awarded to ing contracts were negotiated, negotiations integrate the MRT and LRT fare systems. More dragged on, significantly delaying the start exploration is required to determine the best way of operations, as the city had no obvious to do this. Whether a separate firm can be conand simple way to compel a closure to the tracted to run a ticketing system which is compatnegotiations. ible with the LRT and MRT but can also be run on 5. It increases the likelihood that the companies the BRT by a third party vendor depends on the that operate the system are the best possible. nature of the contract between the LRTA and that 6. From the perspective of company formation, the eventual ticketing system provider allows for the competitive tender approach allows the this. If this contract has not been signed yet, it is a city to establish, in the TOR for the tender, good idea to seek the advice of a ticketing system the minimum qualification criteria for eligible expert who can advise on language that can be companies. These minimum qualification put in the contract that can ensure that whatever requirements force the bidders to create the technology format used would be compatible companies that are sufficiently capitalized, with tickets procured for the BRT by a third party that have a clear governance structure, and vendor. qualified staff. It gives these cities much greater In Manila, the body that is empowered to take leverage over the negotiating process to ensure decisions with respect to the EDSA BRT will need that companies were formed following a to make critical decisions about the following government-established timeline, and helps matters: ensure that the contracts are awarded to the Competitive tendering best possible companies. Single or multiple operators per corridor However, the ‘managed’ tender also needs Kilometer or passenger based contracts to create either incentives or the imperative to involve the affected operators in the operating Quality of service contracts or cost plus contracts. contracts Bogota’s TransMilenio, Jakarta’s Phase III, Separate private or public fare collection Pereira, and Ahmedabad’s Jan Marg BRT systems system. all awarded their operating contracts based on a managed competitive tender. In each of these contracts, the tender was based both on ‘quality’ 12.4.1 Competitive Bidding and ‘price.’ The ‘quality’ scoring included signifiIn the case of Manila, each of these contracts will cant points for ‘experience operating a bus in the need to be awarded through a process of ‘managed’ affected corridor’, and ‘experience operating a bus competitive bidding consistent with public sector in the city.’ procurement law in the Philippines. This is consisIn the case of Manila, it may or may not be tent with best practice. There are several reasons possible to issue a similar ‘managed’ competitive to make the awarding of BRT operating contracts tender based on both ‘quality’ and ‘price’ dependsubject to international competitive bidding: ing on whether the tender is done as a standard 1. It is a requirement of most development bank public procurement or under the PPP law. If it can loans, and the option of development bank be done with both quality and cost criteria, then loan financing for both vehicle procurement extra points should be awarded for consortiums and infrastructure should be left open as a with ownership shares that include affected possibility. operators. If it must be done only on cost, then the 2. The city is likely to pay up to 40% less for the minimum qualification criteria should include the service if the contract was awarded competirequirement that a certain minimum percentage tively than if it were handed over to a company. Draft, ITDP-China

405

19 July 2015

of the shares be held by the holders of licenses that are ‘affected operators.’

12.4.2 Multiple BRT bus operators International experience with multiple BRT operators on a single corridor

In the best international BRT systems, the key to ensuring good quality bus services is for the government to have ongoing and constant leverage over the bus operators. Having multiple operators on each BRT corridor significantly increases the leverage that the government has over the bus operators. Most fundamentally, the ultimate leverage the government has is ‘step-in’ rights, when the government throws out a company performing poorly, seizes control of its assets, and replaces it with an alternative. In practice, this is only possible if there are multiple BRT bus operators in the city ready to take over the operations of their competitor in case of a breach of contract. Hence, having alternative companies ready and able to provide the BRT service considerably strengthens the government’s hand when negotiating with the bus operator to provide better service. At the same time, government step-in is likely to cause a major disruption in service and considerable administrative chaos, so it is far preferable for the government to intervene immediately when there is a problem rather than waiting until things come to a crisis. As will be discussed later, the best BRT operating contracts include a system of rewards and penalties for good or bad quality of service. Such a system tends to be most effective when payments of penalties are placed in an escrow account and given monthly to the operator that incurs the fewest penalties, rather than for the BRT authority to simply collect and keep the penalties, as it provides a system of both incentives and penalties and ensures that the BRT Authority does not abuse its penalty authority to simply raise revenues. This can only be done in the context of multiple operators. However, while multiple operating companies generally result in higher service quality, each company has overheads, and if fleets are significantly smaller than 100 vehicles, returns to scale cannot be fully achieved. The table below shows the number of bus Draft, ITDP-China

BRT System Bogota Pereira Leon Guangzhou Cape Town Curitiba Mexico City Rea Vaya Ahmedabad TransJakarta Quito Cleveland Guayaquil

Phase I 6 7 6 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Phase II 8 13

4 3 2 1 2 2

operating companies operating per corridor on a selection of gold, silver, and bronze-standard BRT systems internationally. In the best cases, such as in Bogota, Cali, Lima, and Guangzhou, there was sufficient demand in Phase I to justify more than one company, and municipal authorities were able to issue contracts for 3 or more operating companies, giving them significant leverage over the operating companies in case of poor performance. (See http://worldbrt. net/en/cities/param-qual.aspx?param=20 for a list of cities with more than one BRT operator.) In Curitiba, the BRT system opened on a corridor where two bus operators already had long-term concessions that could not easily be modified. Mexico City had a corridor where a single association controlled 70% of the vehicles, and a public operator, RTP, controlled the remaining 30% of the vehicles. The public company gave the municipal authorities leverage over the private operator. Ahmedabad’s BRT opened on a corridor that did not have pre-existing bus services, and the demand was initially not high enough to justify the use of more than one company to provide the service. Many cities opened a single corridor BRT route with relatively modest demand, where the initial fleet sizes were too small to justify multiple companies. As those systems expand, it is likely that additional companies will be added. In Johannesburg, the affected operators formed themselves into a single corporate entity that negotiated with the government to take over the BRT Phase I operations. This monopoly weakened the leverage the municipal authorities had over the operator. As a result the municipality pays a 406

19 July 2015

premium for the services, and there have been continuing operational weaknesses. Quito Phase I opened with a government company which displaced former private operators, and this led to a week-long strike of impacted operators that was only ended with the intervention of the National Guard. In the US, BRT operations are managed by public transit authorities that operate with heavy operating subsidies from taxpayers and tend to be dominated by public sector unions. Operations are generally of reasonable quality but at a significant cost to taxpayers.

Recommended number of BRT bus operators on EDSA

Metro Manila has in total about 5000 12-meter buses registered to about 140 small and medium enterprises, of which about 3400 use EDSA for a part of their journey. These 3400 buses are operated by about 110 of the bus franchises. These bus franchises are registered with the Land Transport Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), a division of the DOTC. These franchises have route licenses which must be approved on the basis of a finding that there was sufficient demand to support economically viable operations, and that the operators have some basic business requirements. The franchise license specifies both the route and the number of vehicles the franchise is allowed to operate along that route. The maximum duration of a license is 5 years, but the license is generally renewed without question, so owners of route franchises treat the license almost as a property right. The bus operators operating these companies have fleets ranging in size from 2 to 151 vehicles, though some franchise holders, particularly the regional bus operators, are consortiums with fleets greater than 1000 vehicles. The largest companies already have depots and integrated fleet management, with some corporate management systems, while the smallest operators perhaps rent a parking space for their one or two buses. Manila is fortunate in that there are already multiple bus operators of reasonable size operating in parallel on the same routes that use EDSA, and the BRT service plan calls for an initial fleet of over 800 buses. As such, Phase I should be able to accommodate from 3 to 8 companies. Additional considerations are the number of depots needed for efficient operations. Each private operator needs control of its own depot Draft, ITDP-China

to protect its asset and maintain its own vehicles. The service plan being developed calls for three significant destinations in the north, (SM Fairview, Navotas, Montalban and Sta. Maria) and two major destinations in the south (Airport area, Baclaran, and several other destinations farther from the city). The impact area of the EDSA BRT is so large that a relatively large number of depots would be reasonable. This could be assisted by the fact that several of the private operators already own depots. This fact also indicates that the project could probably accommodate six or more companies all operating on EDSA. The details of this need to be worked out when the service plan is finalized and the availability of land for depots is clarified.

12.4.3 Quality of service penalties and bonuses The BRT systems with the highest quality of service all have private operators that have contracts which force the operator to pay a penalty if they do not deliver a good quality of service. These penalties should be simple, and have clear mechanisms for determining compliance, or else the penalties will constantly end up in arbitration. Furthermore, the penalties cannot be so large that they threaten the economic viability of the company. In most cases, these penalties are payment deductions – i.e., each violation results in a specific deduction. Each month, the total pot of deductions is paid out to the company that paid the smallest amount that month. In the case of Bogota, because bus operators are paid by the bus kilometer, these penalties are contractually written as the reduction of kilometers assigned to one company and the increase in kilometers performed by a competing company. Typically, penalties are imposed if the buses are poorly maintained or cleaned, if the buses are unable to maintain the schedule, if the drivers are not properly dressed, are not sober, have poor hygiene, or if the drivers are frequently speeding, or otherwise providing a poor quality of service. Examples of these criteria from Colombia, South Africa and Guangzhou can be obtained upon request. Bus operating contracts in Manila should also include rewards and penalties. As in other 407

19 July 2015

countries, any payments of penalties should be placed in an escrow account and used to pay the rewards for the operators providing the best service. This structure also allows for the creation of an arbitration panel that includes representation of the bus operators. This is more likely to secure the support of operators during negotiations than a flat payment of penalties to the BRT Authority and decided upon by the BRT Authority alone, which most private operators are likely to resist for fear that the system might be abused. And the added bonus of a potential payout for good performance can be even more enticing.

12.4.4 Private versus public bus procurement Best practice in BRT systems is for the private bus operators to buy their own buses. The normal reason that the best BRT systems expect the private bus operator to procure the buses is that the government is not generally a bus operator and hence does not really know how best to procure an appropriate bus. All too often, public procurement decisions are made based on non-technical criteria ranging from political influence, overzealous efforts to achieve multiple social objectives, or in the worst cases, graft. Government purchases of buses are one of the most common sources of graft in the urban transit field (the others being the awarding of the construction contracts and the awarding of route licenses). It also opens up the risk that the operator will blame the government for any problem with the buses, should problems emerge, blurring lines of accountability and financial responsibility that frequently end up in litigation. In addition, private procurement of buses is also more likely to result in better bus maintenance and less pilferage of spare parts. As such, most countries now believe it better to have the private bus operator procure the buses, even if they are compensated for this cost by the government. There are, however, circumstances in which this may not hold. If it is not possible for the BRT system to cover its operating costs from fare and other BRT-related revenue, it is usually advisable to have the government first subsidize the bus procurement prior to considering any form of open-ended operating subsidy. In the case of Manila, private bus operations Draft, ITDP-China

on EDSA are currently at best moderately profitable (since ITDP’s surveys indicate that a significant proportion of the licensed fleet is not actually operating), but the high demand on EDSA indicates that there is no reason that BRT operations would not be profitable enough for the operators to cover the bus procurement costs out of the future fare revenue and other BRT-related revenue. This can only be fully determined by the construction of a financial model that replicates all critical decisions with respect to the business structure of the BRT operations and the tax treatment of these operations. If, in the unlikely event that the financial estimate for the system’s operations indicate a potential operating loss, it is generally better to have the government subsidize the bus procurement but to still allow the purchase to be carried out by the private operator. Some legal systems, however, do not allow this. In the case where the financial estimates indicate an operational loss, and where the law prohibits public subsidy for a capital investment to be turned over to a private operator, the government should use a competitive bidding process to procure the buses, where the details of the bus specification involve several likely bus operators or the operators that win the tender (should timing allow), as well as the design team (the bus will also have to conform to the requirements of the BRT infrastructure). The government can then lease the buses to the operator. If the lease contract is properly designed and executed, and the procurement done as above, most of the problems of public bus procurement can be mitigated.

12.4.5 Separating the fare collection system from the bus operator In most of the gold-standard BRT systems of Latin America and China, fare collection is managed by an entity other than the bus operator. Separating fare collection from the bus operator is a key way to take control from the bus operator and enhance the government’s ability to regulate the quality of service. If the bus operator collects the money directly, and then fails to comply with the quality of service obligations, the government cannot withhold their payment, because they don’t have it. If the government collects the money, either directly or through a proxy, they can refuse to pay 408

19 July 2015

the bus operator when necessary. It is possible to both have the fare collected directly by the BRT Agency or by a private contractor to the BRT Agency. If the BRT Agency is widely seen as transparent, well managed, has talented staff, and is generally trusted by the bus operators, then many transit systems elect to have fare collection managed in-house. On the other hand, fare collection is often a complex technology and better contracted out. Further, if there is any suspicion of graft, it may be more easily controlled and transparent if fare collection is contracted out to a private company, so long as the government has a full transaction record that can be verified. For the EDSA BRT, then, fare collection should be done by a third party contractor to the BRT Authority rather than by the bus operators or directly by the government.

12.4.6 Payment by bus kilometer rather than by passenger Separating fare collection from the bus operator also allows the bus operator to be paid by the kilometer rather than by the passenger on the trunk route. In normal mixed traffic operations, buses in much of the world do not follow a schedule but move only once they are full of passengers and then no longer stop. If they are paid by the bus kilometer, they no longer have any reason to wait until the bus is full to depart and will instead depart on schedule. When paid by the passenger, they also compete for passengers at curb-side, the number one cause of pedestrian fatalities on bus corridors. Again, if the operator is paid by the bus kilometer, they have no incentive to compete for passengers at the bus stop. For these reasons, best practice is to pay by the kilometer on trunk corridors. Because EDSA is being planned as a ‘direct service’ BRT with passengers boarding BRT buses both at BRT stations along EDSA, and also from normal curb-side bus stops off EDSA, the buses will need to be equipped with GPS and their location monitored by the company contracted to provide the operational control system.

Draft, ITDP-China

12.5 Managing the transition of the bus and jeepney industry When deciding how to relate to the bus and jeepney operations already operating on EDSA, it is best if the Government of the Philippines develop a clear policy with respect to what they want. In most cases, governments want to end up with good quality, internationally competitive modern bus operating companies that provide a high quality of service for many years. They also want to minimize any loss of employment and they want to make sure that most of companies and businesses in the old bus business are able to become part of the new BRT businesses. This requires a careful balance in terms of how much the government guarantees to affected parties. Guaranteeing too much weakens the government’s leverage in negotiating the best deal possible for taxpayers and passengers and risks compromising the quality of service provided by the companies; not guaranteeing enough risks adversely impacting the existing industry and causing social disharmony. The government therefore remembers that it is entering into a new relationship with the existing bus industry, and this relationship has to be negotiated, with the government having to protect the interest of passengers. As in any negotiation, the government should be careful about what information it shares when, and it should enter into negotiations with more information than the people with whom it is negotiating. Furthermore, the first phase is extremely important to get right, as it will establish a precedent for the remaining corridors, which if done incorrectly will prove extremely difficult to rectify.

12.5.1 International best practice on bus industry transition Most of the BRT systems, and all of the best BRT systems, have involved former bus or minibus owners and operators in the ownership and operation of the new BRT bus operating companies. There are two reasons why cities have either given the entire new BRT business over to the impacted owners and drivers of existing informal transit services through negotiated contracts, or 409

19 July 2015

created competitive tenders which gave strong incentives to include the impacted operators as shareholders and employees of new BRT operating companies. These reasons are legal, financial, and political. Legally, many cities have already awarded route licenses, some of them open-ended in terms of duration, to private companies. These route licenses might award exclusive rights to operate a particular corridor for an unlimited period or for a long period (say 12 years). These contracts are sometimes legally enforceable. To take them away would require compensation, significantly increasing project cost. In other cities, companies have been operating quasi monopolies in particular locations without any particular legal sanction but with long term ‘customary’ rights. Where these legal and quasi legal rights exist, these existing operators may have to be compensated or else the courts could stop the project, and it is not always clear that the government has the right to expropriate their licenses. In such a context it requires less up front capital to give them shares in the new company (equity does not impose operating costs) than to pay them compensation. In cities where the rights are not legal but mainly customary, as is more common, aside from the legal issue the operators may have political power. They are frequently organized into powerful, politically connected associations or companies that protect their customary rights and award

TransMilenio, Bogota GBRT, Guangzhou BRT, Curitiba Guadalajara, Mexico Lima BRT Perreira, Colombia Mio, Cali, Colombia Jan Marg, Ahmedabad Rea Vaya, Johannesburg Metrobus, Mexico City TransJakarta, Jakarta HealthLine, Cleveland Lanzhou, BRT LAMTA (Orange Line) MiCity, Cape Town LiteBRT, Lagos Porto Alegre Basic BRT

X

route licenses to their members, earning a fee for this. Such associations are common in Latin America. They often have close relations with regulatory authorities which offer route licenses. This gives them political power. This power derives from their ability to congregate their buses, blocking roads, and suspending transit services throughout the city, bringing the city to a halt economically. Bus blockades and strikes are the main worry. In Quito, when a new trolleybus service was introduced as a municipal company and former collectivo routes were cancelled, the impacted operators called a strike where the collectivo buses blocked the new BRT system for more than one week and could only be removed by the intervention of the National Guard. They also have other forms of power. Sometimes they have powerful hidden political connections because the owners are sometimes government officials. These forms of power can delay the project in more insidious ways. Sometimes they simply refuse to cooperate with new route licenses and route cancellations, and siphon passengers from the new BRT system. Including the impacted industry in the new BRT operating companies has proven to be the best way to mitigate this political risk. BRT systems are best operated by modern bus corporations with integrated fleet management. Integrated fleet management requires a depot where maintenance regimes are carefully

X X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X

X X X

Draft, ITDP-China

410

19 July 2015

City Bogota Bogota Mexico City Mexico City Mexico City Johannesburg Cape Town Cape Town Lagos Guayaquil Quito Phase I Quito Phase II & III Leon, Mexico Curitiba Sao Paulo

Company Si99 Connexion Movil RTP CISA Corr. 5 Operator Piotrans PTA Golden Arrow

Former bus 'enterprise' 55% 40%

Former bus company

Former Individual owners 44%

Domestic Non bus company

Foreign Transport Company

40%

20%

Government Company

100% 100% 40% 100%

60% 100% 80%

20% 100% 100%

UOST Central Norte

Himalaya

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

optimized, and where economies of scale can be earned from the mass purchase of spare parts and the deployment of talented managers and mechanics. In some cities, modern bus companies existed prior to the introduction of BRT, and in others the BRT systems were used to create modern bus companies. In Bogota, the bus industry was highly fragmented prior to the opening of the BRT system, and none of the bus enterprises were actual bus operating companies with integrated fleet management. The industry was controlled by a few large bus ‘enterprises’ that did not actually own or operate buses; they only controlled route licenses allocated to them as ‘members’. These enterprises became the core of the new BRT operating companies, with the former individual owners becoming the other part of the shareholders. Some of these enterprises managed things on their own, while others partnered with outside firms to bring management expertise. One company was joined by a former trucking company, another two had foreign transit companies (Veolia and RTP) as minority shareholders to bring management expertise to the companies. This pattern has been typical in Colombia. In Mexico, Ecuador, and Johannesburg, the former operators retained full ownership and control over the new BRT operating companies, and they hired outside experts to help them manage the companies and supervise fleet maintenance. These companies have been somewhat less successful at growing beyond their original business, Draft, ITDP-China

but they provide adequate services. In the cities of Brazil, there were already large bus operating companies that controlled zonebased monopolies. These companies were already operating as modern bus corporations, and they took over the services in the BRT corridors once implemented. In Jakarta, before TransJakarta, most buses operating in the TransJakarta corridor were bus leasing companies that leased the buses to individuals and gave them operating licenses. When TransJakarta was created, at first the Governor created a consortium of the impacted bus leasing companies, a taxi company, and a former national government owned bus operator. Then in Phase II operations were headed by companies composed of the former bus leasing companies. These companies did not fully complete the process of corporatization. Later, some corridors were tendered, and a private intercity bus operator won one of them. This operator had its own depot, and much more sophisticated management systems in place, and was able to offer a much higher quality of service at a much lower price. Politically, however, once the principle of giving control of corridors to the traditional operations with limited requirements for corporate formation, it became difficult to later move away from this. There are two ways to involve the affected industry in the new BRT operations: competitive tenders which award extra points or require as a minimum qualification requirement firms composed at least in part of affected operators and 411

19 July 2015

owners, and negotiated contracts where the BRT authority negotiates a new operating contract with the affected former owners and operators. There is a big difference between the BRT systems with negotiated contracts and monopoly operators and competitively tendered contracts managed to ensure many affected operators are brought into the new system. Systems with negotiated rather than competitively tendered operating contracts faced the following problems: Higher operating costs, as much as a 40% higher fee per kilometre. Significant implementation delays as government lost control over the project timetable. Incomplete corporate formation Requires much greater intervention into company formation on the part of the government. Once the government decides to negotiate only with the impacted operator, their ability to control what happens is significantly compromised. First, it undermines their negotiating position on the fee per kilometre. Most systems with negotiated contracts are paying much more per bus kilometre than systems with competitively awarded contracts. Secondly, the negotiations can drag on and there is very little that the government can do about it. Guayaquil developed an interesting phased negotiated contract, where if the government and the impacted industry’s consortium could not reach agreement within a certain date, they would then turn to a competitive tender. This leverage worked well, and kept control over the project timetable. Thirdly, in a competitive tender, the government can require as minimum qualification criteria the type of management the firm has, and it can require the company comply with ISO 9000 and other indicators of good corporate governance. This can help to make the companies successful companies in the long run. Finally, negotiated contracts often require much more intervention on the part of the government in terms of how the companies are formed. In Bogota, once the tender requirements were established, it was up to the affected bus operators to figure out how best to comply with the tender requirements. In the case of a negotiated contract, there is a risk that the industry will be so disorganized that it is unable to organize itself into a Draft, ITDP-China

modern company with a clear shareholding structure, and the government may need to intervene and dictate the ownership structure just to resolve conflicts within the industry. Best practice is therefore clear: competitive tender for bus operations with either incentives or a requirement that at least part of the ownership of the bidding companies be represented by affected owners and operators. This, of course, requires carefully determining who is in fact an ‘affected owner.’

12.5.2 Bus and jeepney industry transition for the EDSA BRT The first step in determining how to relate to the affected industry for the EDSA BRT system is to decide on a government policy about this. If the government decides to give some sort of preference to companies that include affected operators among their shareholders in a competitive bidding process, as this report recommends, then precisely who an affected operator is needs to be carefully defined. Which routes are ‘affected’ depends on the final service plan for the future BRT system, which routes will be cut, which routes will continue but face a loss of ridership, and which routes will be unaffected. As the service plan is likely to be changed frequently and the project timetable is condensed, it is advisable to take the following approach. The LTFRB has since 2010 kept records of bus licenses divided into two categories (EDSA and Non-EDSA) due to a Ministerial decree requiring them to collect this information in this way. Though the detailed service plans being developed by ITDP call for a more refined analysis of which existing bus routes are affected and to what degree, as service plans are likely to change several times before the project is completed, for the time being ‘affected’ and ‘non-affected’ routes should follow the LTFRB determination of ‘EDSA’ and ‘Non-EDSA’ routes and franchises. As noted earlier in this report, however, ITDPChina’s surveys in 2015 suggest that during the peak hour only around 1,500 out of the 3,400 buses licensed to use EDSA are actually operating. As part of the follow-up to this report, frequency counts for each route which record the operator will need to be carried out. The ‘affected’ operators

412

19 July 2015

Manila Top Affected Operators * Companies Affected PASCUAL LINER INC CHER TRANSPORT CORPORATION BACLARAN METRO LINK BUS MALANDAY METRO LINK BUS DELA ROSA TRANSIT CORP JAYROSS LS TOURS BUS CO INC SANTRANS INC NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL CARMEN ROVAL TRANSPORT CORP FERMINA EXPRESS CORP RRCG TRANSPORT SYSTEM CO INC CARATING ALBERTO NOVA AUTO TRANSPORT INC VIL 5000 INC ALABANG METRO LINK BUS KELLEN TRANSPORT INC MARIKINA AUTO LINE TRANSPORT CORP(MALTC) JASPER JEAN SERVICES INC JOAQUIN GRACE M ADMIRAL TRANSPORT CORP LAGUNA STARBUS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INC PHIL TOURISTERS INCORPORATED SAINT ROSE TRANSIT INC

Fleet Size

Main Area

151 132 93 86 85 84 84 78 72 69 69 66 66 65 61 60 60 56 55 54 51 50 50

Novaliches Alabang Pacita Navotas Baclaran Navotas Malanday NAIA Pacita Novaliches Baclaran to SM Fairview, Lagro via Ayala Norzagaray Baclaran Marilao (Bulacan) Muntinlupa via EDSA

Baclaran Malanday Baclaran Novaliches

PalaPala Navo Term

* Follow-up route frequency surveys are needed to determine which of these licensed operators are actually operating in EDSA.

larger modern bus companies around these core companies, as the corporate structures are already in place for many of the companies, and should be defined in a way which places much the smaller impacted operators can easily join more importance on those operators which are with larger companies as shareholders in the new actually operating compared to those which have venture. route licenses but are not operating. As most of the bus franchises are organized The companies operating in EDSA range in size into companies with some sort of relatively clear from over 150 buses to 2 buses. They also vary corporate governance, the legal representation considerably in the degree of corporate formation. of these companies should also be relatively Some of them are owned by consortiums owning clear. There do not appear to be associations of as many as 2000 buses, operating out of modern bus owners or bus enterprises that either hold depots and using relatively up to date integrated place-based monopolies (access to key terminals fleet management techniques. Other companies or parking areas) or own route licences but not may simply consist of an individual that lets a buses, as is frequently the case in Latin America. relative operate a bus and rents a parking space to As such, the structure of the bus industry in house the bus overnight. Manila appears to be relatively transparent, and The maximum length of a bus franchise in the owners of the larger companies appear to be Manila is five years. As soon as there is a governthe clear power in the bus industry. ment decision to proceed with the EDSA BRT, The jeepney industry, however, is structured any new operating licenses issued to an EDSA bus differently than the bus industry in Manila. Most franchise should bear the caveat that the license of them are individually owned, often by their becomes null and void as soon as the EDSA BRT driver. As such, the industry is not fully corporabegins operations. As it will take several years for tized but largely informal. They also operate with the system to become operational, it should be a route licenses. Jeepneys are mostly organized into relatively simple matter to minimize the number associations. The heads of these associations do of legally valid franchise licenses by the time the not generally own jeepneys. As it is very difficult system is ready to begin operation. to negotiate with hundreds of individual owners It should be relatively easy in Manila to form and operators of varying degrees of education, it Draft, ITDP-China

413

19 July 2015

is often better to negotiate with their association heads. However, the governance of such associations is often unclear, and unless the governance of these associations is made transparent and their legitimacy somehow certified by their members, negotiating only with association heads can potentially lead to strife internal to the jeepney industry. Normally these associations control parking locations where jeepneys wait to pick up passengers. Along EDSA, these locations are quite clear. Each association controls its own parking areas, but there are generally more than one association active on each corridor. They charge a fee to access the parking location, and they regulate which jeepneys are allowed to load passengers when. Concentration of jeepney routes in EDSA can be seen in Figure 12-15.

When the service plan is completed, the jeepney ranks that will need to be relocated or closed need to be identified, and the jeepney associations and jeepney owners operating out of those ranks need to be classified as ‘affected’ owners or operators. The jeepney association heads should be included in the process of identifying the affected owners and operators, and as with the buses, frequency counts should be used to confirm how many jeepneys are actually operating, rather than relying on issued route licenses. They can be given the opportunity to be officially designated by the affected owners and operators as their legal representatives, or they can get their association certified as the legal representative of their members, and association minutes and bylaws can be used to certify their leadership positions. In this way, the associations though not directly ‘affected’ owners, can usually secure a stake in the new businesses, or they can buy the licenses and jeepneys from affected owners when it becomes known that this is the ticket into the new BRT company. It would be advisable for Manila to structure the tender for BRT operations in such a way that a majority of these existing affected owners and operators of both buses and jeepneys would become shareholders in one of the new BRT operating companies, but not necessarily all of them. Minimum qualification criteria should stipulate things like for the owner/operator to be recognized as ‘affected owner and license holder’ they need to pass a drug test (many jeepney drivers are unable to pass a drug test), they need to not have any outstanding traffic violations or otherwise be wanted by the police, etc. The government should use the competitive tender to force these companies to form, sort out their shareholding structure, establish clear management structures, and collect the necessary minimum capital requirements to meet the minimum bidding criteria. The bidders also need to demonstrate that they have brought on board a competent management team, complete with their Figure 12-15: A relatively small number of jeepney routes (15 in total) have a frequency of more than 3 buses per hour (one bus every 20 minutes) and overlap for more than 30% of their route length with the proposed phase 1 BRT corridors. These routes are concentrated in 3 areas: Makati, Taft/NAIA, and the north-western part of EDSA in Caloocan.

Draft, ITDP-China

414

19 July 2015

CVs, by either hiring individuals from abroad with experience, or partnering with firms with experience operating BRT companies in other countries, or at least with experience operating other logistics-related enterprises with integrated fleet management. The bidding documents would also provide the technical specifications for the buses that would properly interface with the BRT trunk infrastructure. By placing all these conditions into a competitive bid, rather than simply requiring it and trying to get these things implemented through negotiation, the government can be far less involved in micromanaging exactly how this process is handled, and can be more sure that it has been properly completed. Once the minimum criteria are met, it is typical that the bidding criteria would award extra points for consortiums that include as owners ‘impacted’ bus owners or jeepney owners. Some, yet fewer points, could be awarded to bidders involving these ‘unimpacted’ owners on routes that are not affected, or are affected by BRT routes operating outside the BRT corridors. If this proves inconsistent with public procurement rules, then having a minimum percentage of the ownership shares held by ‘affected’ bus owners and jeepney owners can achieve much the same purpose.

12.5.3 Corporate formation of the BRT operating companies and tendering process Normally, a ‘managed’ competitive tender to award BRT bus operating contracts includes the requirement that the winning bidders must turn over the required minimum number of affected route licenses and the affected buses to the BRT Authority. This is done in part to ensure the removal of competing routes from the BRT corridor, and in part to ensure that the bidders, who may not directly be the original owners and license holders, offer shares or compensation to the current owners of buses and licenses. Normally the affected buses and route licenses are only turned over when the contract is signed, to make sure they are taken out of circulation only once the new BRT service is ready to become operational. Otherwise there will be no transit service in the interim. This is generally handled by the following mechanism: until the date of Draft, ITDP-China

contract signing the holders of the current franchise licenses and affected buses sign an affidavit that they are willing to turn over their vehicles and licenses to the head of the consortium upon signing, as the transaction cannot actually take place until the bidding process is complete. The buses in Latin America are generally turned over to scrap. The scrapping requirement is generally a ratio of the number of old buses operating on the corridor to the number of new buses needed to operate the new system. In Manila, as of now, the ratio is 2.3 to 1, though this number needs to be revised when the operational design is further refined. The decision to scrap the buses tends to be based on how old the vehicle fleet is. In most Latin American cases where there was competitive bidding, the owners bidding on the contracts, at their own initiative, bought the oldest buses from their owners and turned those in for scrap, while relocating the newest buses to other unaffected routes, or selling them to the operators of unaffected routes, without much involvement of the BRT Authority. In this way, the tender process naturally tended to remove only the oldest buses from the streets, and many of these buses were very old and polluting. In the case of Johannesburg, the scrapping was handled differently. A leasing company was hired by the city, and each affected owner had to turn over their vehicle and their license to the leasing company. If the vehicle was old, they turned the vehicle over to provincial authorities in exchange for a flat scrapping fee that had been offered by the national government and administered by the provincial government authorities. If the vehicle was newer, it was sold to a third party (usually someone operating an unaffected route or a route in a different city), and the value was credited to the owner who turned it in. The scrapping allowance and requirement to turn over the licenses has also tended to relate closely to the valuation of shares within the new BRT operating companies. In Bogota, where there was a managed competitive tender, the way the bus scrapping and licenses were valued and translated into shares in the new BRT operating company was done through private negotiation, and it differed from case to case. This tended to drive the valuation down to their market price, and factors such as the age of the bus, the value of the route, the length of the license, could all be 415

19 July 2015

factored into the valuation. In the case of Mexico and Johannesburg, the decision was made by the bus owners association to value the shares at one bus, one license, one share. In the case of Mexico City, this was relatively unproblematic, as all of the buses were of similar age, and all of them operated on the Insurgentes corridor, (hence the name of the company the Insurgentes Company). In the case of Johannesburg, as the contract was negotiated, it proved difficult to get accord on the valuation of the shares in the new Piotrans company among the affected owners, so the city had to impose a method for valuing the vehicles and licenses. This was made complicated by the fact that the routes varied by a factor of five in profitability, and the licenses were of varying degrees of expiration and legitimacy. To simplify the protracted negotiations, they simply decided to give one share for each vehicle turned in with a license. While this made an agreement possible, it also drove up the share price to the value of the most profitable route, significantly increasing the operating costs of the system. For this reason, in the case of Manila, we recommend that a competitive ‘managed’ tender be used, with a scrapping requirement of 2.3 vehicles and 2.3 licenses turned in for every new bus offered by the bidder (subject to modification as the service plan is finalized), and to let the industry sort out the valuation of shares in relation to this requirement internally. The tender then would work as follows. Each consortium that has managed to accumulate the required number of affected bus and jeepney owners as shareholders would offer to provide for service a certain number of the buses required in the tender, say over 100 and less than 300. The lowest bidder (the lowest price per bus kilometer offered) would be awarded the tender at the price they offered for the total number of buses they offer, the second lowest price would be awarded the tender at the price they offered for the number of buses they offered, and so on until all the services required have been filled. This “Dutch Auction” approach ensures that the BRT Authority pays the lowest price for the services overall. It needs to be checked for compliance with Philippine procurement law.

Draft, ITDP-China

12.5.4 Can Jeepneys serve as feeders to the EDSA BRT? This subject has not yet been raised in Manila but seems to come up in most BRT projects; namely whether existing informal operators can be made to serve as ‘feeders’ to the formal BRT system. This is just a note of clarification. If a jeepney service is operated under a route license by an informal corporate entity, it cannot be considered in any way to be a formal part of the BRT system’s operations, though such services may physically bring passengers to the BRT system. A ‘feeder’ route to a BRT system is a service formally contracted out by the BRT Authority to a legally constituted corporate entity under a service contract. The type of vehicle used to provide that service is not the basis of determining whether or not the service is a ‘feeder’ or not; the determining factor is the contracting structure. As of now, the preliminary service plan does not include any ‘feeder’ routes, and as of now there is no indication that the service plan will include any feeders. However, there are many trips between EDSA and the center of Manila that are currently served primarily by jeepneys. Some of these routes are on very narrow roads and turns from EDSA onto these streets are difficult to negotiate. It may be that in the evolution of the service plan it could be decided that some of these routes are incompatible with direct service bus routes, but could be included into the EDSA BRT service plan as a ‘feeder’. Should this occur, these routes would then be contracted out through competitive bidding to companies under a service contract to the BRT Authority. It is also theoretically possible that the technical specifications for the vehicles used to provide such services could allow for the possibility that a vehicle similar to a jeepney could be used, so long as it meets the necessary safety and environmental standards and capacity requirements. Were this eventuality to occur, a ‘jeepney’ vehicle might be used to provide a ‘feeder’ service. This would not, however, imply that jeepneys in their current organizational form will provide formal feeder services. In the current operational design there is no indication that any such service is intended.

416

19 July 2015

12.6 Conclusion

of cash in stations and on buses, and operation of a clearinghouse. Some of these functions The following key considerations for the establish- can be combined into a single contract. In the ment of a business plan for the proposed EDSA Guangzhou BRT, for example, the Smart Card BRT need to be discussed with the Government Company operates and maintains the fare collecof the Philippines and relevant stakeholders, and tion equipment in stations and on buses, and also decisions should be made as quickly as possible. runs the clearinghouse / trust fund. One of the Each time that the project team decides on any of operators won a bid to collect cash in the stations. the below listed questions, this information can then be disclosed to stakeholders. Any of these IV. How should these contracts be awarded? questions that have yet to be fully endorsed by Our recommendation is that all of these conthe government should be presented as such to tracts be awarded through competitive bidding. stakeholders. The contract for the bus operations should be I. Where will the project office be established, who will staff it, and when will it become operational? Our recommendation is to set it up immediately under the Undersecretary of Planning at DOTC with staff seconded from DOTC, LRTA, MMDA and DPWH, with the full team being allowed to work full time on the project. II. Where should the BRT Authority that signs the contracts with operators be housed. Our recommendation is that a new BRT Authority be created under DOTC with a semiindependent board including representation from LRTA, MMDA, DPW, civil society, and technical experts. III. Which functions should be contracted out to private companies? Our recommendation is that the BRT Authority (and the DOTC acting in its stead until the Agency can be legally created) sign separate contracts for the following BRT related services: Bus operations Fare collection Trust fund / clearinghouse management Station management Control center management Scheduling. Some of these functions may be merged into single contracts. Station management, control center management and scheduling can all potentially be carried out by a single BRT management company. Fare collection includes several components, including operation of fare collection technology in stations and on buses, collection Draft, ITDP-China

a ‘managed’ competitive bid which includes a requirement or a strong incentive that the bidders include among their owners ‘affected owners’.

V. How many bus operators should there be? Our recommendation is that from 4 to 10 companies should be used to provide the BRT bus operations, with the final number to be determined by the service plan, the number of depots to be used, and the ultimate size of the bus fleet. VI. Should the operating contracts include rewards and penalties for good or poor service? Our recommendation is that the operating contracts include rewards and penalties for good or bad service, and that the funds raised through penalties should be used entirely as rewards and held in escrow independent from government accounts, or the punishment should be the elimination of bus kilometers operated by one operator and the awarding of these bus kilometers to another operator. These rewards and penalties should cover, as a minimum, the maintenance and cleanliness of the vehicle, the performance of the drivers (no speeding, proper hygiene, drivers not inebriated or using illegal substances). VII. Should the fare collection be managed by the bus operators, the BRT Authority, or a third party contractor to the government? Our recommendation is that the fare collection system be managed by an independent third party private contractor to the BRT Authority, rather than by one of the bus operators. Given the direct service contracts being discussed, this will also require electronic ticketing systems or personnel on board the buses to service the off trunk parts of the route. Alternatively, one option that may be 417

19 July 2015

favoured is to install card readers at each of the stops used by BRT buses in off-corridor segments, so that passengers can scan cards (for the distance-based fares) only after alighting. VIII. Should the bus operators be paid by the bus kilometer or by the passenger or some combination? The bus operators should be paid by the bus kilometer, and their operation of these kilometers should be tracked using GPS or an equivalent technology by an independent operational control system operator, which should also be contracted out to a company. IX. Should the affected bus operators be included in the operations of the BRT buses? The affected bus and jeepney operators should be given an opportunity to bid on the operating contracts for the EDSA BRT bus operations. The tender should give them credit for having experience on the corridor and in Metro Manila. Including affected owners of buses and jeepneys should be a minimum qualification requirement or strongly incentivized in the tendering process. However, these bus operators and jeepney operators will not be allowed to operate in their current form and will need to form consortiums meeting the minimum qualification criteria. X. Should jeepneys provide feeder services? Jeepney operators in their current form will not provide feeder services. Affected jeepney owners will be eligible to join with bidding consortiums to become partial owners of the BRT bus operating companies. The routes and technical specifications for the vehicle types to be used to provide the full range of BRT services on EDSA are still to be finalized.

Draft, ITDP-China

418

19 July 2015

13. Next Steps and Time Frame

13.1 Next steps

13.2 Project timeline

If the government decides to proceed, BRT imple- A very rapid time frame for project implementamentation could commence immediately, with tion could be: additional work on some aspects of this concepAdditional studies: 6 months tual plan followed closely by commencement of Engineering design: 12 months the detailed engineering design. Assuming a rapid Construction: 12-18 months. project timeline, operation of the Phase 1 BRT corridor could conceivably commence in three years, by mid-2018. This study needs to be followed up with detailed engineering design, additional operational analysis and modelling, traffic impact analysis, intersection design, surveys and data collection, BRT station architecture, communications and outreach, fare system studies and design, investigation of BRT vehicle options, modal integration planning, and institutional and regulatory planning and capacity building. Plans should also be carried out for BRT station area development in order to maximize the land development benefits from the BRT investment. Many other aspects of the work would proceed in parallel with the engineering design and construction, including institutional issues, business planning and contracting, operational design, depot design and construction, communications and outreach, fare collection systems, bus procurement and other aspects. The government should set a date for the commencement of BRT operation, e.g. 31 December 2018, which then becomes the target date for all of the related systems and arrangements to reach an operational stage. During the project planning the government expressed interest in commencing some aspects of the work on an accelerated schedule. Aspects which could be commenced earlier than others without compromising the overall project might include: Preparatory road works, including temporary road widening at some locations Construction of the proposed ramps at Ayala or Taft Construction of the proposed bicycle & pedestrian bridge at Guadalupe Depot-related tasks.

Draft, ITDP-China

420

19 July 2015