estimation of co‐benefit from bus rapid transit ... · y426‐km of bus rapid transit routes...
TRANSCRIPT
ESTIMATION OF CO BENEFIT FROMESTIMATION OF CO‐BENEFIT FROM BUS RAPID TRANSIT INTRODUCTION IN METRO MANILA USING IGES’ CO‐BENEFIT GUIDELINEBENEFIT GUIDELINE
by
Dr. Alexis Fillone, De La Salle University‐Manila
Prof Dr Atsushi Fukuda Nihon University JapanProf. Dr. Atsushi Fukuda, Nihon University, Japan
Dr. Tetsuhiro Ishizaka, Nihon University, Japan
Mr. Hidenori Ikeshita, Nihon University, Japan, y, J p
Summary of PresentationSu a y o ese tat o
A. Potential BRT Projects for Metro ManilaB M th d lB. MethodologyC. Co‐Benefit Analysis of a Transport Project using IGES
GuidelineGuidelineD. Application of Co‐Benefit Analysis to a proposed BRT
ProjectE. Summary of Findings/Recommendations
426‐km of Bus Rapid Transit routes
Source: USAID and NCTS Study
4 p
Estimated Total Cost is P55 Billion
Typical characteristics/design of proposed BRT linesyp / g p p
‐ segregated median busways with median stations, pre‐boarding fare collection and fare verification, free transfers gbetween corridors, competitively‐bid concessions, high‐frequency service and low‐station dwell times, clean bus t h l i d d l i t ti technologies and modal integration
Source: USAID and NCTS Studyy
C‐5 (SLEX–Commonwealth Ave.)
EDSA BinangonanEDSA‐Binangonan
Source: USAID and NCTS Study
Two Pilot Routes21‐km C‐5 (South Luzon Expressway – Commonwealth 5 ( p yAvenue in Quezon City) route24‐km Edsa – Binangonan (Rizal) route
No. of Stations16 stations (C‐5 BRT) Case Study Focused on
C BRT18 stations (Edsa‐Binangonan BRT)
Estimated Cost (per kilometer) in Construction
C‐5 BRT
Estimated Cost (per kilometer) in ConstructionP129.33 million (C‐5)P139.07 million (Edsa‐Binangonan)
Proposed C‐5 BRT (in EMME 3)
UP‐Diliman
SLEX
Table 5 Basic Service Characteristics of the Proposed C 5 BRT System
CharacteristicsCapacit Seating 100 F ll 200
Table 5 Basic Service Characteristics of the Proposed C-5 BRT System
Capacity Seating = 100, Full = 200Headway (min) 3
Average speed (kph) 20No. of Stops 15
Estimated length (km), one direction 20.59
Articulated busArticulated bus
Methodology T i G tiTrip Generation
Trip DistributionFrom MMUTIS (1996) S d
p
Modal Split Analysis
Study
Traffic AssignmentYear
2010 No BRT Calibrated
h Wi h BRT
gTransit & auto assignments (EMME3)
2010 No BRT , Calibrated
2015 No BRT and With BRT
With BRT Without BRT
Compare results and apply p pp yIGES Co‐benefit Guideline
• Travel time savings• Vehicle operation cost reductionVehicle operation cost reduction• Accident reduction• Reduce emission
• Used the MMUTIS (1996) Person‐Trips OD Matrix and its
Table 1 Percent of Public and Private Daily Trip Estimates for Metro
estimates for design year 2010 and 2015
Base Year Design Periods
y pManila, MMUTIS, 1996
1996 2010 2015Percent Public Trips 77.9 69.3 66.2Percent Private Trips 22.1 30.7 33.8
Table 2 Trip Generation Percent Growth Estimates for Metro Manila, MMUTIS, 1996
Base Year Design Periods1996 2010 2015
Percent Growth 1.00 1.62 1.84
Table 3 OD Trip Matrix Estimates
Year 2010 Total Daily OD Trips
Peak Hour OD Trips
Median Hour OD Trips
Public 27,021,338 3,391,233 1,153,695, , , , , ,Private 11,970,490 1,142,033 556,568Year 2015Public 29 317 998 3 679 313 1 251 803Public 29,317,998 3,679,313 1,251,803Private 14,969,010 1,427,984 695,967
Median Hour OD Trips – is the middle value of all hourly person trips in a day (24 hours)
Airconditioned City Bus Routes in MM Jeepney Routes in MM (in EMME)
Trip‐ends estimate (2015) Person trips going towards Makati CBD (2015)
Limited calibration was done to obtain the results.
Segment travel times Zone to zone travel timesSegment travel times Zone to zone travel times
Auto assignment results (2015)
Transit Assignment Results
Estimated boardings and alightings Boardings/alightings along PUV routes
Estimated Boardings and Alightings along the Proposed C‐5 BRT
SLEX to UP (Commonwealth) UP (Commonwealth) to SLEX
Table 7 Estimates of trip characteristics in Metro Manila
Daily EstimatePass-hr Pass-km
2010 (W/out BRT) Public 10 570 888 8 177 806 4482010 (W/out BRT) Public 10,570,888.8 177,806,4482015 (W/out BRT) Public 11,405,366.4 192,693,0482015(With BRT) Public 11,374,452 192,650,016Reduction 2015(W/out BRT – With BRT) 30914.4 43032Reduction 2015(W/out BRT With BRT) 30914.4 43032Reduction rate (W/out BRT – With BRT)/W/outBRT
0.27% 0.02%
Veh-hr Veh-km2010 (No BRT) Private+Public 2,503,185.6 48,995,4482015 (No BRT) Private+Public 3,563,637.6 61,720,9682015(With BRT) Private+Public 3,559,233.6 61,683,576Reduction 2015(W/out BRT – With BRT) 4404 37392Reduction rate (W/out BRT – With BRT)/W/outBRT
0.12% 0.06%
C B fit A l i f th P d C 5 BRT P j tCo‐Benefit Analysis of the Proposed C‐5 BRT Project Using IGES Guideline
1. Travel time savings2 Vehicle operating cost reduction2. Vehicle operating cost reduction3. Traffic accident cost reduction4 Cost of emissions4. Cost of emissions
f lEquation for Travel Time Savings
Vehicle Operating Cost Reduction
Estimating Emission Factors (Bangkok Estimates)
Air pollutants = travel distance (veh‐km) x emission factor at running speed (g/veh‐km)
2015 2015 Reduction
Results of Co‐Benefit Estimation in Metro Manila (unit; million PHP)
(Without BRT) (With BRT) (Without‐ With BRT)
Time Cost (PHP/year) 166,293.60 165,027.50 1,266.10
Vehicle Operating Cost 22 528 20 22 514 50 13 7
p g
(PHP/year)22,528.20 22,514.50 13.7
Loss by Traffic Accidents
(PHP/year)70,494.00 70,444.50 49.5
( /y )
NOx (PHP/year) 284,306.10 284,080.00 226.1
CO (PHP/year) 791.7 785.7 6.1
PM (PHP/year) 471,306.20 468,452.20 2,854.10PM (PHP/year) 471,306.20 468,452.20 2,854.10
CO2 (PHP/year) 3,889.60 3,886.40 3.1
• the NOx, CO, and PM cost were estimated using the estimates of pollution costs for New Delhi, India from the paper by A. Kumar Sen, et.al. (2010) titled, “ Estimating marginal external costs of transport in Delhi”g g p
Summary of Findings
• Demonstrated the applicability of the IGES Co‐benefitDemonstrated the applicability of the IGES Co benefit Guideline for a proposed transportation project (C‐5 BRT) in Metro Manila
• Although, more studies (data and research information) are needed to get satisfactory resultsneeded to get satisfactory results
R d iRecommendations
• Need to update/recalibrate the MMUTIS OD Matrix done in 1996• Develop Philippine models for traffic accident estimation and cost as well as emission factors of unique vehicles in the country (i.e. jeepneys)• Put up a National transport database (NCTS as lead agency)• Need to re‐educate through training/workshop transport planners and engineers on the use of UTP softwares
Further Application of the IGES Guideline
• Estimate the impact of proposed BRT lines to the whole MM
• BRT potential application to other cities in the Philippines (500,000 – 2,000,000 day time population)
• Estimate the impact of proposed BRT lines to the whole MM
BRT potential routesroutes
Iloilo City
General Santos City
Cebu City Bacolod City
Acknowledgmentg
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial id d b h I i f Gl b l E isupport provided by the Institute for Global Environment
Strategies (IGES) in the conduct of this study.
Thank you for listening!Thank you for listening!
THE ENDTHE END