Download RESEARCH SAMPLE FOR BEGINNERS and more Study Guides, Projects, Research English in PDF only on Docsity!
Determining Appropriate Public Transport System Given the Level of
Development / Urbanization: The Case of Siquijor Province, The Philippines
M. Shafiq-Ur Rahman Affiliation: Assistant Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh ([email protected])
Abstract This paper provides the existing public transport system service, travel pattern, and which form of public transport system is most appropriate for the Siquijor province of the Philippines. The study confines itself only to the demand side of land public transport and travel pattern of people over 10 years old. Public transport system services of the province are not good in terms of travel time, waiting time, availability or frequency, comfort, and safety. Majority of the people mostly prefer easyride for comfort and less waiting time while bus for comfort. At present development condition of the province, bus is appropriate for long distance while easyride is appropriate for inter-municipal and habalhabal is appropriate for mountain trips. Key Words: Barangay, easyride, habalhabal, jeepney, tricycle, LGU, LTO, PPO.
1. Introduction
The majority of people in Third World cities depend on non-motorized means of transport and affordable public transport services (World Bank, 1996). Public transport in South-East Asian cities has been an important element of their respective urban systems (Iwata, 1995). City size, level of development or urbanization, travel pattern, and land use are the most significant factors influencing what kind of public transport is most appropriate for a city (Simpson, 1994). Barwell et al. (1985) argued that the lengths of journeys and nature of the transport needs of the majority of people are also important factor to determine use of travel
means. Travel demand is determined by the population size, growth and structure, cultural and work habits, income, and urban spatial pattern of the city (Mitric, 1991; Alepuz, 1993; Sheskin, 1991). Usually the demand for public transport in most of the cities in developing countries far outstrips supply, where as in small cities or rural areas the problem is not having sufficient demand for formal public transport. Characteristics of the trip, trip maker, and the transport system are the major factors for the modal choice of trips (Bruton, 1975; Paquette, et al. 1982). Figure 1 shows both the external and internal factors influence trip making decision of individual persons. External factors are the public transport service and their operation which are beyond the control of user. Internal factors are intuitive decision making factors of user on the basis of that one chooses the mode which satisfy more. Many modes of public transport can contribute to making cities work better: metro rail systems, suburban railways, trams, buses, mini-buses, shared taxis, and other informal modes. Heavy rail and metro lines can play to the longer and richer cities while road-based public transport will inevitably need to play the major role in most cities of developing countries (World Bank, 2006). There is a relationship between city size and the form of public transport (Simpson, 1994). Moreover, cities are shaped by the transport priorities (Marchetti, 1994). Balanced provision of all transport modes with a link to land uses is a key to the sustainability in cities (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989). Thus, the provision of public transport for a city should be matched with the development or urbanization level. The overall objective of the study is to investigate the existing public transport situation and travel pattern, and how to provide suitable public transport facilities for a local developing province. “Suitable” in this paper refers to efficient (in terms of travel time and waiting time) formal public transport service in fixed route at scheduled time, which is available and affordable for the majority. The research also tries to identify the people’s expectation regarding the public transport and to determine the most appropriate form of public transport for a rural developing area. Outcome of the research provides the guidelines for decision makers and planners to improve public transport system in small urban areas.
3. Research Methods and Data Collection
A comprehensive field survey of households had been carried out for investigating travel pattern and public transport situation. Passengers waiting at terminal for public transport were also interviewed to know the existing public transport service level. However, the research is mainly based on household information whilst passenger interview gave the additional information support. Considering all households of the province as the population size and having the resource constraints, only 163 households (0.93% of the total) had been selected in Stratified Systematic Random Probability Sampling method for interview. All members of the selected households were interviewed during mid-2004 and a total of 395 individual respondents were found valid and considered for the analysis. On the other hand, only 66 passengers of different public transport mode had been interviewed randomly in 3 major municipal terminals (i.e. Siquijor, Larena, Lazi) of the province. Beside these, a participatory observation was performed to get insights about service and supporting infrastructure facilities of the public transport. Discussions with responsible agencies, political representatives, and transport associations were also done and relevant documents and project activities of the province have been reviewed and studied.
4. Existing Public Transport System Service
Though household income of Siquijor province is very low, there is a complete absence of non-motorized transport. Hilly topographical feature might be the reason behind this. Jeepney, easyride or multicab, tricycle, and habalhabal are the existing major public transport systems in the province. There are only 289 vehicles for hire of which only 83 are utility vehicles and 200 are tricycles to serve around 81,000 inhabitants in the province (Provincial profile, 2000). Service category of the existing public transport systems fall into
two groups: bus, jeepney, and easyride operating in the fixed routes whilst tricycle and habalhabal provides door-to-door service. However, sometimes few easyride also provide door-to-door service and a few tricycle plays in certain fixed routes.
Jeepney and Bus Service Only four minibuses are playing in Larena-Lazi (via Enrique Villanueva and Maria) route provides around 8 trips in a day in each directions. Two existing jeepney routes are Siquijor- San Juan-Lazi and Larena-Enrique Villanueva-Maria-Lazi; whilst there is no jeepney service between Siquijor and Larena. Only 15 jeepneys are playing in Siquijor-Lazi (via San Juan) route; while only 24 in Larena-Lazi route, provide around 16 trips per day for each direction. Passenger capacity and service of jeepney and bus are almost similar -- stop any time at any place if someone wants to get off or get in, which heavily affects travel time. In average, a trip of 30 km between Larena and Lazi (via Maria) takes 90 minutes by bus and 90 to 120 minutes by jeepney. Though the owners/operators of bus and jeepney decided to follow a specific time schedule of 30 minutes interval for a trip in each direction of both routes, in practice drivers do not follow the time exactly. The fare is determined by Land Transportation Franchise and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) on the basis of km distance. Standard fare for jeepney from Siquijor Poblacion to San Juan Poblacion is P12 for 12 km, whilst for bus from Larena Poblacion to Enrique Villanueva Poblacion is P13 for 13 km.
Easyride Service Easyride is faster than jeepney or bus and common mode in the national road of Siquijor, Larena, Enrique Villanueva, and San Juan municipalities. LARSIQSANMODE Association Inc. registered 97 easyrides for operating Larena-Siquijor-San Juan route; however, all are not operating. On the other hand, without having any association around 25 easyrides are playing in Larena-Enrique Villanueva route. Easyride is playing a very important role in Siquijor-Larena route, everyday usually 40 trips in each direction. It takes 30 to 40 minutes for only 12 km between Larena and Siquijor. Observation at Siquijor terminal gave the
other modes. For example, Siquijor to Larena is P30 where it is only P8 by jeepney or easyride. Habalhabal is available at any time within 24 hours; however, a very high fare (depending on bargain) is applied after 6:00pm. It could be rented for hour or day basis paying respectively P25 or P300~400. Fare for same distance towards uphill receives more than downhill; i.e. Poblacion Siquijor to Ponong is P20 while in reverse direction is P15.
5. Travel Pattern of the Respondents
Socio-economic and demographic profile of the sample population are almost similar to the secondary information, which reveals that the sample population represents the province. ‘House keeping/housewife’ as occupation is the highest (24%), followed by ‘student’ and ‘farmer’ respectively 16% and 12%. However, occupation is not rigid in Siquijor-- some people practice more than one occupation. Only 42% of the respondents have family owned vehicle. Those who have vehicle, majority of them (70%) have motorcycle, while only 6% and 4.5% have bicycle and tricycle respectively. Average monthly household expenditure for transport in Siquijor is P535 whilst 12% household’s expenditure is below P50 and for 10% is over P1000. Around 38% of the household respondents make 5-10 trips per week while 1 trip or 2-4 trips both were reported by respectively 22%. Passenger interview also gave weekly trip frequency of majority (58%) is within 4 trips. The study found that more trips are made by higher income group and people with household vehicle ownership. Table 2 shows there is a significant difference between the occupation and the frequency of trip-- student, teacher, and government employees have higher frequency; while housewife, business people, and farmers’ have lower frequency (one or 2-4 trips per week) of trips. Multiple or connected trips in the province is very few, only 6% of the total. For the first trip, almost 99% originates from residence where commercial centres or educational institutes are the major destinations, 24% and 18% respectively. Destination for 93% of second trips is to residence. Origin and destination indicates the trips are “home-bound”. As the purpose of
majority is work (23%), shopping (20%), and school (14%); maximum numbers of trips start in the morning between 7:00am and 10:00am whilst the return trips are at noon 12:00pm and afternoon 4:00pm to 5:00pm. Though average trip distance is 5.36 km, almost 35% trips are shorter than 1km and only 4% are longer than 15-20 km. There are trips of travel time 40- minutes or even 60-90 minutes and waiting time 90 minutes or more. Almost one-fourth of the respondents use the travel mode because ‘no other mode is available except that’ whilst 23% select for ‘convenient’ or their ‘family have’. Beside these, almost one-fifth select for ‘going close to destination’ and 14% mentioned ‘cheaper’ or they have ‘no money’. However, reason for selecting differs for different mode. A high percentage of walking trip was observed and around 60% of them mentioned the ‘close destination’ where the remaining mentioned ‘no money’ or ‘nothing available’ as the reason for walking. Contribution of motorcycle in total trip is second highest and majority (86%) use it because their ‘family have’ or convenient, and cheaper (9%). More than 80% trips on habalhabal are for the ‘unavailability of any other transport’ and 13% for ‘less waiting time’. Almost half (48%) of tricycle trips are made because it is the ‘only available mode’ whilst safety, less travel time, and waiting time are the factors for easyride trips. Reason for jeepney trips are cheaper or only available, where for bus trips are ‘came first while waiting’ and comfort or safety (Table 3). Table 4 reveals ‘cheaper fare rate’, ‘availability’, and ‘comfort’ are the major factors which determine the choice of travel mode reported in passenger interview. Most of the habalhabal passengers mentioned ‘availability’ or ‘go close to destination’ whilst tricycle passengers reported ‘availability’ or ‘less waiting time’ as the reason for selecting it. Interestingly, most of the jeepney and bus passengers mentioned ‘cheaper’ or ‘comfort’ as the reason which determine their selection of travel mode. Chi-Square test showed a significant difference between gender and travel mode-- among the tricycle, easyride, and jeepney users the number of women is more than men whilst among the walking and motorcycle passenger’s number of men is more than women. If any formal public transport is not available, almost half of the respondents (42%) usually walk.
(88%) are within 1.1-10km. Though the majority of tricycle trips (41%) are within 1km distances, it is less than the number of walking trips. Majority (80%) of the easyride trips are within 5.1-15km whilst majority of the jeepney and bus trip’s distance are 5km or more. This should be noted that trips on walking or tricycle or easyride are not related with income. However, most of the students ride tricycle and easyride while very few of them walk and use bus. Almost 58% of the trips need not to wait for the trip as they are either walking or on private vehicle. The study found that waiting time is longer for the trips with longer travel time. However, a number of respondents also had to wait 40-60 minutes or 60-120 minutes for only 20-40 minutes or even 5-20 minutes travel. Trips taking 40-60 minutes travel time, three-fourth of them are within 5km distance. Figure 6 reveals few trips involved a very high waiting time even for a shorter distance. Usually waiting time for habalhabal and tricycle is less whilst for jeepney and bus is more. Figure 7 gave around 60% trips had no travel cost as they were either walking or by own vehicle. However, few passengers of habalhabal, tricycle, and easyride also not paid because they were riding relative’s or friend’s vehicle. Scope of this research excluded the trip cost of own vehicles. Cost for most of the tricycle trips are below P5, and easyride or jeepney trips are P6-10. Very few trip’s cost was observed more than P20. Though few trips on jeepney and bus have cost more than P15 or P20, majority of the trip’s cost are within P10. Passenger interview gave cost below P5 is of only 26% trip’s, and P6-10 is of 36% trips; where cost of few trip’s (5%) is more than P20 observed on habalhabal and jeepney.
5.2 Public Transport Use and Assessment of the Service
Around 70% of the respondents use public transport and the remaining never use public transport. Those who do not use public transport, one-third of them travel by walking and the remaining travel by own vehicle or office/friend’s vehicle. Those who use public transport, around 30% of them have family owned vehicle. Contribution of public transport in total trip of the province is around 45%.
Those who use habalhabal, mostly live in mountain areas or barangays having no national or provincial road. More than half (53%) of them ride once or 2-4 times per week whilst 1- times per month is also significant (33%). Interview of 15 habalhabal passengers also gave frequency of habalhabal use for majority is 1 or 2 times per week. Most of the cases they wait less than 5 minutes to get it beside home or work place. However, few of them have to wait 20-40 minutes or 40-60 minutes where the tolerable waiting time for the majority has been reported 20 minutes. Trip cost within P10 is of 76% users where P11-20 is of 20% and more than P20 is of only 2%. Majority of them are satisfied about the availability and comfort whilst almost half of them are worried about safety of habalhabal. Almost three-fourth of them would not use habalhabal if there were a good jeepney or easyride or bus service available. Only 17% are willing to pay extra P1-3 per trip for improved jeepney or easyride or bus service. Most of the tricycle users ride it once or 2-4 times per week. Interview of 12 tricycle passengers also gave frequency of 1 or 2 times per week for the majority. Though majority get it beside their home or work place, one-fourth of them have to walk or ride habalhabal for 1-8 km to go nearby main road and wait there. Both the waiting time and tolerable waiting time for majority is within 20 minutes. Almost 90% of them usually pay up to P5 where the remaining pays P6-10. This lower trip cost is because of mostly short trip distance. Majority of them are somehow satisfied about the availability, comfort and safety of tricycle. Easyride users mostly live in Poblacion or coastal areas in the municipality of Siquijor, Larena, San Juan and Enrique Villanueva; and most of them ride once in a week or 1- times in a month. One-third users get it beside home or work place, while the remaining have to go nearby main road or terminal of about 1-8 km distance by walking or habalhabal. More than 90% mentioned waiting time 5-20 minutes or 20-40 minutes, and tolerable waiting time below 40 minutes. Almost three-fourth of easyride users pay P6-10 per trip. Almost all respondents are very happy about the comfort, safety, and availability of easyride except 1% about the availability. Interview of 12 easyride passengers gave majority ride 3-6 times or
Those who mentioned habalhabal as the best preferred mode, more than half of them would not use habalhabal if there were available a good service of jeepney or easyride or bus. Those who’s best preference is easyride; more than half of them mentioned ‘comfort’ while ‘less waiting time’, ‘less travel time’, and ‘safety’ are also significant. Majority of the users reported ‘go close to destination’ or ‘only available mode’ for tricycle whilst ‘cheaper’ or ‘comfort’ for jeepney and bus as the reason for best preferable mode. Only 227 respondents gave their 2 nd^ best choice; which means they use more than one mode whilst only 171 respondents use more than 2 modes as they gave 3 rd^ preference. For second best preference, bus got the highest percentage followed by easyride, jeepney, tricycle, and so on. The passenger interviews also gave habalhabal followed by easyride as the most preferred mode. However, most of the passengers prefer the mode which he/she uses often.
6. Stated Preference and Expectations about Public Transport
Absence of specific route and stoppages, unavailability of public transport in certain areas, high waiting time, uncomfortable and over crowded vehicle etc. are the major public transport problems of the province. Majority of the respondents mentioned specific route and stoppage, more coverage, and scheduled service are needed whilst good management and enforcement are also reported by few of them. More than half of the respondents (55%) would prefer easyride over jeepney if both are available and one-third would prefer jeepney whilst there is no difference for the remaining. Majority of them gave comfort, fast, and less waiting time for easyride where cheaper for jeepney as the reason for selecting. Majority of the respondents would prefer easyride over tricycle for comfort and fast while few prefer tricycle mostly for going close to destination and less waiting time if both are available. Among the tricycle and habalhabal, majority (52%) would prefer tricycle for comfort and safety whilst the remaining would prefer habalhabal for fast and going close to destination.
Though because of comfort majority would not prefer habalhabal if there is available jeepney or easyride; around 35% would prefer habalhabal as it is fast, go close to destination, and less waiting time is less. Again, among the jeepney and bus, almost 70% would prefer bus over jeepney for comfort, cheaper, and safety. The above discussion could derive the summary of the preferences as below:
Preference of Public Transport Modes with Respect to Different Factors Factors Highest Lowest Fare rate : Habalhabal > Tricycle > Easyride > Bus > Jeepney Comfort : Bus > Easyride > Jeepney > Tricycle > Habalhabal Safe : Bus > Jeepney > Easyride > Tricycle > Habalhabal Go all places or Easyride go close to destination : Habalhabal > Tricycle > (^) BusJeepney Fast/ less travel time : Habalhabal > Easyride > Bus > Jeepney > Tricycle Waiting time : Bus > Jeepney > Easyride > Tricycle > Habalhabal More space oreasy to carry goods (^) : JeepneyBus > Easyride > Tricycle > Habalhabal
Convenient : Easyride > Habalhabal > TricycleJeepney Bad odor and noise : (^) TricycleJeepney > Easyride
Majority of the respondents want more route of service and specific time-table for bus, jeepney, and easyride and specific route for easyride. It could be said that people of Siquijor prefer large-occupancy vehicle and specific time-table of service for long-haul. However, a very small number also want specific route, time schedule, and stopping for tricycle and habalhabal. Transportation planning literature implies that actual behaviour is one-fourth of the expressed behavioural intent (Sheskin, 1991). Thus, the demand or expectations about public transport would be much more appropriate if only the person who has experience of using that particular mode is considered. Around one-third of habalhabal users want more habalhabal and specific route for it while more than half of the tricycle users want specific route and more coverage for it. Almost 90% easyride users want more route, and specific route, time and stoppage for it. Because of poor availability and consequently the high waiting time;
Around 35% household respondents use habalhabal and among the public transport trips it’s contribution is 35%. Except the habalhabal, walking is the only alternative in mountain areas for those who have no family owned vehicle. Though habalhabal is playing a major role, it is illegal (colorum); and both the Land Transport Office (LTO) and LTFRB officials are aware about it. Now the question comes, is it possible to stop the illegal habalhabal? If possible how and what would be the effect? Is it desirable? Because of the identification and implementation problems, at this moment it is not possible to stop habalhabal. However, what will happen if somehow both problems are triggered and the habalhabal is stopped? A lot of people will lose their work and earnings. People living in mountain areas without family owned vehicle have to walk even 15 km to go nearest market for purchasing food. Thus, as it is playing a major role, the study recommends legalizing habalhabal at local level (from municipal government) like the tricycle. President of habalhabal association in Siquijor, Larena, Maria, and Lazi also wanted legalizing. LGUs are much more aware about the local issues and concerns, and each LGU has their own power to enact transport related rules. Legalizing habalhabal could be done by strengthening the existing drivers’ association and providing the logistic support from LGU where the permission to individual operators will go from LGU through the association. A fee for registration could be imposed; but this should be kept low, otherwise they will try to avoid registering. An initial registration/entrance fee P100 and annual payment P50 for licensing could be imposed. Within the given level of development/urbanization and physical characteristics of the province, the study suggests habalhabal is the appropriate public transport system for the mountainous areas. However, if the road network and condition is improved in the future, habalhabal might be replaced by High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV). However, further research should be done to determine what system would take place as appropriate mode for that development level or road system. Easyride should be operated in specified routes. Through the tricycle association, it is possible to assign some tricycle routes connecting the municipal centre and other barangay
or growth centres. Jeepney and easyride drivers suggest allowing habalhabal only in mountain roads where jeepney or easyride are not operating or accessible. Even the jeepney drivers mentioned not to allow easyride where they are operating. The study recommends operating bus or jeepney in the national road circumference the island, easyride only in inter-municipal, tricycle only in intra-municipal road, and habalhabal only in mountain areas. The existing mini-bus service of Larena-Lazi route could be expanded to the whole national road circumferential the province after a detailed financial feasibility study. Subject to further research on cost-benefit analysis, easyride service could be expanded in some major roads like Larena-Basac-Maria; and in other municipalities for inter-municipal connection. The study suggests restricting habalhabal operation in the national and major roads where other transports are available and allow operating only in mountain areas. This will give two-way benefit; more habalhabal will be available in hilly areas and minimize the conflict of interest with other transport mode operators. However, this should be done through the driver’s or operator’s association with mutual bilateral understanding. The study recommends following the specific time table of every 20 minutes interval for easyride service. The study also recommends follow strictly the specific time schedule for bus, jeepney, and easyride. However, if the vehicle is fully occupied before the specified time, it may depart the terminal immediately. The study recommends stopping of bus, jeepney, and easyride only in specified locations and reducing the frequent stopping for loading and unloading of passengers. The recommended minimum spacing for bus and jeepney stopping will be 2 km whereas for easyride will be 1 km. However, trips smaller than these distances could be taken by either tricycle or walking. Public transport of Siquijor is operating privately and individually without any coordination among the operators of different modes and even within the mode. If a mixture of different modes offer short-distance transport, their interrelationships are crucial for service quality (Roschlau, 1985; Pucher and Kurth, 1996). The paper recommends forming an association for each transport modes to manage their operations, as well as an integrated transport association among different modes (association of the associations). LTO officials should
Geographic Atlas. (2000) Geographic Atlas of Siquijor , Provincial Government of Siquijor. IRAP. (2001) Integrated Rural Accessibility Plan , Municipalities of the Siquijor Province. Iwata, S. (1995) ‘Development and Sustainability of Public Transportation in Southeast Asian Cities’, Journal of the Eastern Asian Society for Transportation Studies (EASTS) , 1 (2), pp.547-564. Marchetti, C. (1994) ‘Anthropological invariants in travel behaviour’, Technical Forecasting and Social Change, 47 (1), pp.75-78. Mitric, S. (1991) ‘Crisis and Recovery: Urban Public Transport in Morocco’, Public Transit Research: Management and Planning , Transport Research Board, Washington D.C. Newman, P. W. G. and Kenworthy, J. R. (1989) Cities and Automobile Dependence , Gower, Aldershot. NSO. (2002) Census of Population and Housing: Siquijor , Report No.3-75G: Socio-economic and Demographic Characteristics, National Statistics Office, Republic of the Philippines, Manila. Provincial Profile. (2000) Region VII: Central Visayas , Siquijor Province. PPFP. (2004) Provincial Physical Framework Plan (PPFP) of Siquijor , Province of Siquijor. Pucher, J. and Kurth, S. (1996) ‘Verkehrsverbund: the success of regional public transport in Germany, Austria and Switzerland’, Transport Policy, 2 (4), pp. 279-291. Rahman, M. S. U. (2004) Determining Appropriate Public Transport System Given the Level of Development/Urbanization: The Case of Siquijor Province, The Philippines, MSc Thesis, SPRING Centre, University of Dortmund, Germany and University of the Philippines. Roschlau, M. W. (1985) Public Transportation in the Provinces: A Study of Innovation, Diffusion and Conflict in the Philippines , PhD Thesis, Australian National University. Sheskin, I. M. (1991) ‘Relationship Between Surveyed Behavioral Intent and Actual Behavior in Transit Usage’, Public Transport Research: Management and Planning , Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. Simpson, B. J. (1994) Urban Public Transport Today , E & FN Spoon, London.
World Bank. (1996) Development in Practice: Sustainable Transport , The World Bank, Wahsington, D.C. World Bank. (2006) Transport for Development. An update of the World Bank’s transport sector priorities for the period 2007-2015. External Consultation Draft 1. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
