97827 v1

Public Disclosure Authorized

PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Public Disclosure Authorized

PLAN

Executive Summary
Public Disclosure Authorized

prepared for
Public Disclosure Authorized

prepared by

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

with

REID Foundation, Inc.

Transport and Traffic Planners, Inc.
ICRA Management Consulting Services, Ltd.
Dr. David W.J. Green

October 2014

www.camsys.com
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

E.1 What is a Transport Framework?

E.1.1 Introduction
Various transport-related agencies and local governments develop their respective transport
plans or strategies to address bottlenecks and improve outcomes in the transport sector.
However, to be able to bring a more focused or targeted intervention that is more inclusive,
these various strategies need to focus on establishing interconnectivity between key urban
growth centers and between lagging and fast-growing regions, and creating supporting
institutions that promote greater integration.

Upon the request of the National Economic and Development Authority, a Framework Plan was
developed to provide policy-makers with a strategic framework to help identify the transport
needs of the Philippines and guide in implementing an integrated, more coordinated approach
to establishing stronger transport infrastructure linkages to support the country’s inclusive
1
growth agenda. The Framework Plan was developed under the guidance of a vision and goals
(Figure ES.1) developed by stakeholders across the Philippines. This comprehensive vision can
be summarized as “Bringing us all closer together for prosperity.”

Figure ES.1 Vision and Goals

As the scope is nationwide, it is based on high-level, sketch-planning principles using the best
available data. The Framework Plan uses this strategic framework to then identify a
preliminary set of short- (2014-2016) and medium- to long-term (beyond 2016) policies,

1
This Executive Summary is submitted to the World Bank as part of the Philippine Transport
Infrastructure Development Framework Plan (Framework Plan). The Framework Plan is being prepared
by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and its subconsultants (“consultant team”) on behalf of the National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), and is funded jointly by the World Bank (WB) and the
Australian Agency for International Development (AUSAID).

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-1
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

programs, and projects to support the development and realization of needed transportation
infrastructure in the Philippines. These recommendations are not intended to be detailed but
rather to highlight the key needs in the country and the types of priority projects to be
undertaken; more specific analysis of appropriate strategy alternatives (policy, program,
project strategies), and costs and impacts of those alternatives, could then be conducted at a
later stage.

The geographic focus of the Framework Plan includes all of the Philippines outside of Metro
Manila. This Framework Plan does not replicate the work being done by the Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for Metro Manila (the JICA study covers Metro Manila
with an approximate radius of 100 kilometers and is being conducted to evaluate specific
transport infrastructure projects for the Metro Manila area). Future improvements and needs
of transportation infrastructure to meet the demand for long-distance transport to and from
Metro Manila and to other urban/economic centers in the Philippines are considered;
nevertheless, national-level strategies recommended in this study affect all areas of
the Philippines.

E.1.2 The Framework

Any transport framework should be developed with an understanding of the needs of the
system stakeholders. Outreach for the Framework Plan was conducted through a series of
interviews with representatives from local, regional, and national transportation public
agencies and private businesses. Interviews were supplemented with stakeholder workshops.
In addition, the consulting team coordinated the development of the Framework Plan with on-
going or recently completed studies and plans, to share information, provide progress updates,
and support consistency between efforts.

The performance-based framework for planning and programming described in Figure ES.2
below is used as the guiding structure for the planning process developed in this plan. It starts
with the goals and objectives developed (as presented in Figure ES.1) through outreach.
Performance measures were then identified based on available data and relate back to the
goals and objectives. These measures help determine where issues and needs exist and which
strategies could best move the Philippines towards those goals. Eventually, specific targets
should be set for these measures as better data and tools are developed, and ongoing
monitoring of progress towards those targets should be instituted in an overall
planning process.

Allocating resources is the step in the process where decision-making takes place: this is
where strategies (i.e., projects, programs, and policies) are prioritized and programmed. The
flow chart below (Figure ES.3) presents how this process was applied for the Framework Plan.
Identifying and evaluating needs – and then strategies – relied on the outreach described
above, best practices, past plans, and a performance driven data analysis.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-2
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.2 Performance-Based Framework for Planning and Programming

Figure ES.3 Allocating Resources: Connecting Analysis to Needs

E.2 Current Conditions and Trends: Using Data to

Help Identify the Philippines’ Critical Needs

Selected performance measures, based on currently available data at a national level, guide
the identification of needs and the evaluation of solutions as shown in Table ES.1. These
performance measures are driven by the elements described above in Figure ES.3: data
analysis, international best practices, outreach/coordination, and stakeholder workshops. Data

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-3
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

on socioeconomic conditions, transport system conditions (for all modes), and demand were
collected and processed for application (illustrated in the following subsections). These were
fed into a geographic information system for data processing and visualization of several of
these performance measures. A simple travel demand model, predicting origin-destination
passenger and freight flows independent of mode, was also developed and utilized for
identifying needs. This model utilizes population and employment data by sector by province to
predict current and projected daily person trips and tonnage. These first elements of a travel
demand model also provide the seed for the development of a full travel demand model for the
Philippines in the future (see “Recommendations” section below).

Table ES.1 Performance Measures

Goals Types of Measures Performance Measures Application

Economic Vibrancy; Socioeconomic  Poverty total (by province) Needs or solutions
Environmental and  Poverty percentage (by province) that impact a
Social Sustainability province.
 Population total (by province)
 Population growth trends (by
province)
 Employment total (by province)
 Employment growth trends (by
province)
 Employment by industry (by
province)

Economic Vibrancy Demand versus  Passenger and freight volumes on Needs or solutions
capacity roads, rail, at ports, and at that impact a
airports (domestic and specific facility.
international)
 Volume/capacity (i.e., congestion)
on roads, rail, at ports, and at
Needs or solutions
airports
that impact a
 Overall inter-province demand, specific facility
passenger and freight, current and within a corridor.
projected

Maintenance and Asset condition  Pavement type Needs or solutions

Operations  Pavement age that impact a
specific facility.

All Consistency with  Stakeholders-identified Varied.

local, regional,  Identified in RDPs and other plans
national plans

The maps below summarize much of the information from which the performance measures
are derived to identify needs. These are explained in greater detail in the appendices of the
Draft Final Report.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-4
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

E.2.1 Socioeconomic Conditions

Population. Data reflect an upward trend toward urban versus rural population in the
Philippines in the previous decade, which is expected to continue in to the future. This is
consistent with the National Spatial Strategy (NSS), which applies population and growth rate
estimates to define the spatial distribution of future population clusters. The NSS hierarchy
forms a twin spine, which defines the physical structure of the nationwide network of markets
and provides redundancy in the interest of vulnerability reduction. Based on data utilized for
the Framework Plan, several provinces in CAR, Region IV-B Mimaropa, Region V Bicol, and
across Mindanao have been experiencing the highest percent growth in the Philippines. While
basic access is also a critical concern for prioritizing certain investments, generally these
provinces are prioritized in terms of this performance measure.

Poverty. Mapping poverty data by region and province and reviewing the Philippine
Development Plan reveals that:

 Regions with the highest share of poverty overall include Region V – Bicol, Region VIII –
Caraga, and the ARMM; specific provinces include Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Camiguin;

 Regions with the highest number of poor include Region V – Bicol, and both Regions VI and
VII in Western and Central Visayas, respectively; specific provinces include Zamboanga del
Sur, Cebu, and Pangasinan;

 Bicol (southern Luzon) has over 45 percent of the population in poverty, and also has one
of the largest total populations and population densities (indicating both severity and
extent of poverty); and

 The northern half of Mindanao, as a whole, has high poverty incidence and totals, along
with Central Visayas and Eastern Visayas.

These provinces and regions therefore rise to the top for this performance measure.

Employment. The Regions with the highest growth rates of employment between 2007
through 2011 included Regions I (Ilocos) and IV-B (Mimaropa). The regions with the highest
shares of national employment in 2011, and therefore highest priorities for this performance
measure, are:

 Region IV-A Calabarzon, with 12.5 percent of total employment;

 National Capital Region, with 12.0 percent of total employment;

 Region III Central Luzon, with 10.3 percent of total employment;

 Region VI Western Visayas, with 8.3 percent of total employment; and

 Region VII – Central Visayas, with 7.8 percent of total employment.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-5
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Nationally, agriculture is the biggest employer at 30 percent of the workforce. Trade is the
largest employer in the NCR, and the NCR has a larger share of these workers than any other
region. Manufacturing is centered primarily around the two largest urban centers. The tourism
industry is strongest in NCR and IV-A (with 5.5 million persons accommodated per year).
Dominance of certain industries by region and province helps to guide the proper types of
investments, such as airports in high tourist areas and farm to market roads and ports in high
agricultural areas. Figures ES.4 to ES.7 present selected socioeconomic data for the Philippines.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-6
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.4 Population by Province in 2010

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-7
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.5 Percent Population in Poverty by Philippine Province in 2012

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-8
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.6 Employment Trends by Region from 2007 to 2011

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-9
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.7 Employment by Region in 2011

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-10
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

E.2.2 Road Conditions

Urban roadways have higher levels of traffic volumes, including in the National Capital Region,
Davao, Cagayan del Oro, Tagbilaran City, and Cebu City. Important corridors linking
metropolitan areas also show higher traffic volumes, including the corridor linking Manila to
San Fernando City and another linking Manila to Lucena. In addition, heavy truck traffic as
evidenced by heavy truck density is prevalent on roadways throughout the nation. As
passenger and freight movements are often concentrated on the same roadway network, the
comingling of traffic impacts performance. High levels of truck traffic indicate high amounts of
economic activity, and therefore improvements that reduce travel times for trucks are likely to
have stronger impacts on economic development.

Data on the national network show that there are many segments throughout Luzon, especially
in the NCR, with volume-to-capacity ratios of over 1.0, which are defined as roadways with
traffic volumes exceeding capacity and failing levels of service. Other roadways with high
volume-to-capacity ratios include circumferential roads on Bohol and northeastern Cebu as well
as portions of feeders to major port cities on Mindanao. In Central Visayas and Mindanao,
these highly congested corridors also pass through some of the most impoverished areas of
the country.

Many of the highest capacity facilities are in Metro Manila, including the National Capital
Region, Region III, and Region IV-A. Mindanao, conversely, has lower network coverage –
particularly in the hinterlands – and a disproportionately higher percentage of national roads
that are unpaved. Figures ES.8 to ES.11 present selected roadway network conditions data
representative of the Philippines.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-11
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.8 Road Network Volume-to-Capacity Ratios in 2012

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-12
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.9 Road Network Heavy Truck Densities by Segment in 2012

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-13
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.10 Road Network Traffic Volumes in 2012

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-14
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.11 Road Network Surface Type and Construction Age in 2011

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-15
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

E.2.3 Airport and Port Conditions

Airports. Overall a number of commercial airports are reaching high levels of demand relative
to their size, including NAIA, Cebu Mactan International, Bacolod, and Iloilo. Tacloban has also
been experiencing high levels of demand compared to capacity, and also has recently been
destroyed by Typhoon Yolanda. Many airports across the country are approaching or at
capacity, including some airports that have recently opened for operations, including Southern
Luzon (Bicol), Dumaguete, Tagbilaran, Laguindingan, and Davao International. Many
commercial airports in the Philippines are under capacity and can accommodate increased
passenger levels, while other airports coming online, such as Cagayan de Oro, face terminal
capacity issues (e.g., Bohol, Legazpi). There is some overlap of high passenger demand and
high cargo volumes at some airport facilities, specifically in Manila, Cebu, Davao and Iloilo.

Air cargo supports high value, time-sensitive trade and related industries (e.g., high-end
electronic components). Cargo handling is focused at several airports, with smaller volumes at
several others. Manila is the key national and international gateway for air freight. NAIA
handles the largest share in the country, Clark has cargo operations, and Subic has capacity
for cargo pending final plans for the airport. Cebu and Davao serve as smaller air cargo hubs.
Bacolod, Iloilo, and Laguindingan also handle smaller amounts of cargo.

Maritime Ports. Many variables can explain the extent to which ports are utilized. Together,
port demand (as measured by port calls) and total cargo tons illustrate the freight demand at
individual ports. The map below illustrates the relationship between the utilization of individual
ports and capacity using a level of service ranking of over capacity, near capacity, and under
capacity. Many of the major ports in the Philippines, including Manila’s North and South
Harbors, and its container port, are considered over capacity, as are the ports in Davao, Cebu,
Iloilo, Cagayan de Oro, and Zamboanga City.

Due to data limitations, there is limited ability to conduct network analysis of ports and
landside access, especially of the local roads to support the port service area. However, many
of the country’s largest and most critical ports are located in congested urban areas without
any high capacity road or rail access. Figures ES.12 to ES.15 present selected airport and port
condition data representative of the Philippines.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-16
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.12 Commercial Airport Locations and Airport Demand/Use in 2011

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-17
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.13 Primary Commercial Airports Cargo Demand/Use in 2011

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-18
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.14 Port Demand/Freight Utilization in Total Cargo Tons in 2012

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-19
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.15. Port Facility Freight Utilization Level of Service in 2012

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-20
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

E.3 Issues and Needs

Numerous needs were identified through the processes described above in Figure 3. While
there is much overlap in the relationships of these needs, they can be categorized according to
“root issues” or “needs” shown in the Tables ES.2 and ES.3 below. The analysis looked at the
underlying causes (“root issues”) of the gaps (“subordinate issue/need”) identified in the
sector. More detailed assessment of the identification of each need based on the data can be
found in the Framework Plan.

Table ES.2 Non-Physical Issues and Needs

Root Issue/Need Subordinate Issue/Need

Lack of Technical  Limited staff numbers
Capacity for Planning  Limited staff skills
(especially LGU level)
 Limited knowledge of best practices
 Lack of data collection systems and analysis
 Lack of evidence-based approach to prioritize projects
 Inconsistency/irregularity of planning processes

Urban Congestion and  No link between land use/transport

Accessibility to Jobs  Limited information for travelers
 High cost of urban transport, especially for poor
 Public transport system design (routes) not systematically organized
(rationalized)

High Domestic and  Restrictions to competition

International  Old domestic fleet
Shipping Cost
 Low port productivity
 Limited intermodal connectivity
 Insufficient post-harvest facilities
 Insufficient refrigerated facilities and vehicles
 Limited access in rural/agricultural areas
 Customs clearance slow and expensive
 Poor inter-island connectivity

Transport System has  No link between land use/transport

Safety Issues and is not  Limited redundancy
Equipped to Reduce
 Maritime accidents are prevalent
Disaster Impacts
 Aviation accidents are prevalent

Limited Accessibility for  Limited access in rural/agricultural areas

the Poor  Poor inter-island connectivity
 Poor lateral connectivity (not centered on Manila)
 Limited redundancy/options

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-21
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Root Issue/Need Subordinate Issue/Need

Governance/Organizatio  Overlapping/redundant government responsibilities
ns not Flexible or  Limited systems-level, multimodal, intermodal planning
Responsive to User
 Limited focus on freight/logistics
Needs
 Inability to acquire/preserve ROW
 Delays in project programming, implementation
 Continuity of plan implementation

Assets are Not Well-  Poor management of road ROW for transport purposes
Managed  Access is not managed
 LGUs lack capacity to manage local roads
 Overloaded trucks and poor enforcement of limits impact safety and
infrastructure condition
 Poor condition of roadways, especially on the local network
 Construction material not matched to terrain/environment
 Some ports in poor condition

Investments do not  Weak National/LGU interaction

Always Match Needs  Limited continuity of leadership/staff turnover
 Imbalanced programming of projects, resulting in overdevelopment in
some areas and underdevelopment elsewhere
 Lack of connecting infrastructure (intermodal)

Table ES.3 Physical Issues and Needs

Root Issue/Need Subordinate Issue/Need

Roads are Congested  Public transport system design (routes) not systematically organized
and Slow (rationalized); lack of alternative modes (see Urban Congestion)
 Pan-Philippine Hwy, Sante Fe – Cauayan City
 Manila North Road corridor up through Region I
 Coastal road in/out of Cagayan de Oro
 Coastal road in/out of Cebu
 Bohol coastal road
 West coast of Negros Occidental - East coast Iloilo
 Davao-Cagayan de Oro
 Davao-General Santos
 Routes into/out of Lingayen, esp. to south
 Congested roads, length of Bicol

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-22
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Root Issue/Need Subordinate Issue/Need

Antiquated/Insufficient  Congestion/capacity issue at Manila Airport
Airport Infrastructure  Congestion/capacity issue at Cebu Airport
 Congestion/capacity issue at Tagbilaran Airport (Terminal size)
 Congestion/capacity issue at Tacloban Airport; reconstruction due to
typhoon
 Congestion/capacity issue at Iloilo Airport
 Congestion/capacity issue at Bacolod Airport
 Congestion/capacity issue at Davao Airport
 Terminal size issue at Legazpi Airport
 Terminal size issue at Laguindingan
 Terminal size issue at Kalibo
 Terminal size issue at Cauayan
 Terminal size issue at Jolo
 Terminal size issue at SangaSanga

Antiquated/Insufficient  Davao port demand; Sasa Port in poor condition

Port Infrastructure  Northern Mindanao port demand
 Bacolod port demand
 Manila port demand; Subic and Batangas underutilized
 Cebu port demand
 Bohol port demand

While much of the passenger and freight movement occurs between neighboring provinces or
regions (e.g., between the NCR, Region III, and Region IV-A), at the broader national level
there are several key corridors for domestic trade, commerce, and tourism currently, or
projected for the future. These corridors were identified based on total current and project
demand between provinces, based on population and employment projections by sector and
independent of mode of travel. As the Philippines is an archipelago, demand between these
islands requires passengers or freight to channel through the main commercial ports and
airports, creating additional urgency for the improvement of those facilities or creation of
additional capacity. Table 4 below identifies these key corridors and, for the larger islands of
Luzon and Mindanao, the main regions generating the demand. This has implications for the
key arrival and departure points by air or sea in each region.

Key international gateways are focused on key points of entry to or exit from the Philippines,
based on passenger and freight demand and trends. There is overlap between many of the
physical needs identified above in the Table ES.3 and the infrastructure needed to support
these key corridors and gateways (Table ES.4).

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-23
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Table ES.4 Key Corridors and International Gateways, with Basis for Inclusion

Corridor or Gateway Infrastructure Implications 2010 2030 2010 2030

Pass. Pass. Freight Freight
Key Corridors

Luzon (NCR/Regions III, Ports/airports in Metro Manila;

IV-A, V)– Mindanao Batangas; Cagayan de Oro;
(Regions IX, X, XI, XII, Davao; Surigao; General Santos; x x x x
ARMM) Zamboanga

Panay-Negros Ports at Ilo-Ilo, Bacolod,

x x x x
(especially RORO)

Luzon (NCR/Regions III, Ports at Batangas, Calapan,

x x x x
IV-A) -Mindoro (especially RORO)

Luzon (NCR, Region V) – Pass. ports/airports in Metro

Samar Manila/Batangas; Legazpi/Albay; x x
N. Samar (especially RORO/ferry)

Cebu-Mindanao (Region Pass. ports/airports at Cebu,

x
X) Cagayan de Oro

Luzon (NCR, Region V) – Ports in Metro Manila/Batangas;

x x
Cebu Legazpi/Albay; Cebu

Luzon (NCR/Regions III, Ports in Metro Manila/Batangas;

x x
IV-A) -Palawan Puerto Princesa

Luzon (NCR/Regions III, Ports in Metro Manila/Batangas;

x
IV-A) –Panay IloIlo

Luzon (NCR, Region V) – Ports in Metro Manila/Batangas;

x
Leyte Legazpi/Albay; Leyte

Key International Gateways (Air)

Manila/NCR x x

Cebu x x

Davao x

Key International Gateways (Sea)

NCR x x

Northern Mindanao x x

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-24
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

E.4 Recommended Strategies

Based on the analysis of issues and needs, the following are the recommended strategies –
non-physical and physical – classified into timeframe of implementation (short, medium and
long-term).

E.4.1Non-Physical Strategies
Short-Term - Immediate

Short-term strategies are those that can get started now, but may not be fully implemented
through 2014-2016. Within these, immediate strategies can and should begin in 2014.
Immediate short-term strategies include some of the following, including summaries in
Table ES.5:

Institutions and Processes

 Establish a lead agency and process for identifying and programming priority farm-to-
market roads (similar to the Tourism Road Infrastructure Program (TRIP)). Design
standardization and expertise in road development can be provided by DPWH. Farm-to-
market roads and basic accessibility roads are important to improving access to markets
and institutions which are crucial in the poverty reduction agenda. DPWH, with DA and
DILG.

 Conduct gap analysis of management systems (e.g., bridge, pavement, safety, right-of-
way). Management systems are fundamental tools for any transport agency to help keep
an inventory of the current system, data on the usage of the system, and help make better
decisions for maintaining the system. Various executing agencies.

 Develop a data management plan for collecting, sharing, and maintaining data across all
transport-related agencies. Agencies currently having a stake in transport data collection
include DPWH, DOTC and its line agencies, DILG, DOT, DAR, separate port and airport
authorities, and LGUs. A transport data management plan should designate the types of
data that need to be collected on a regular basis, for what purpose, the processes and
standards for each data type, and processes and standards for data management and
storage. The plan should identify agencies responsible for collection, funding of the
collection, and storage of the data. This plan should address data that can help in
monitoring transport system improvements over time (performance reporting); travel
demand model development to aid in investment decision-making; safety-related hot
spots; and disaster recovery operations. Inter-Agency, National Agency Responsibility
(DPWH, DOTC, etc.) with Significant LGU Support.

 Determine the requirements for a national travel demand model and develop terms of
reference. Determine a lead agency and strategy for developing a transportation network
to include all roadway classifications to feed into a network-based model. A travel demand

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-25
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

model is a fundamental tool that can help the Philippines’ transport agencies understand
the system level impacts of different project investments. DPWH and DOTC Responsibility.

 Explore partnership opportunities with the academe - Commission on Higher Education,

Department of Science and Technology and UP National Center for Transportation Studies –
to grow involvement and interest in transportation technology, engineering, economics,
and environmental science as an immediate strategy to bridge the skills gap in the
transport sector. Inter-agency, National Agency Responsibility (DPWH, DOTC, etc.) with
Significant LGU Support.

 Confirm the strategy and provide support for planning and funding of mobile weigh scales
and for refurbishing and constructing weigh stations along highways. This is currently led
by DPWH. This is critical for preventing rapid deterioration of Philippine roadways and
helping maintain road safety. DPWH Responsibility.

 Standardize road design across all implementing agencies, especially those implementing
local roads to ensure consistent levels of standards (e.g. type of pavement, pavement
thickness, design speed, drainage, and other ancillary features) and maintenance practices.
DPWH Responsibility.

 Establish a freight advisory committee composed of public and private sector freight
stakeholders. Ensuring efficient freight movement has largely been set aside in favor of
urban congestion; but this has a cost to the economy of higher commodity prices and lower
trade competitiveness. This problem needs to be discussed openly and strategies and
investment plans targeting freight movement need to be developed. DOTC and DPWH
Responsibility with Significant LGU Support.

 Update the road classification system for all roadways to bring out functions or roles of
each roadway and responsibilities for maintaining them, taking into account the capacity of
DPWH and different entities to maintain roads. DPWH Responsibility.

 Implement a national road routing system to remove confusion on the road network
system and enhance people’s familiarization with the national road network. DPWH
Responsibility.

Regulatory and Legal

 Identify inefficient, irrelevant, outdated and/or obsolete laws, statutes, and codes (e.g. the
Public Service Act and regulation of public transit), leading to proposal on new policies or if
necessary legislation to be more responsive to current needs, existing environment and
emerging trends. Inter-agency, National Agency Responsibility (DPWH, DOTC, etc.) with
Significant LGU Support.

 Adopt a people-oriented transport policy and identify a lead agency responsible for people-
oriented infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, handicap friendly); design
guidelines/standards, including national roads. DOTC leading policy with DPWH
development of standards.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-26
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

 Evaluate cabotage reform options and assess potential impacts (e.g., cost/benefit analysis)
to all stakeholders (e.g., shippers, farmers, and consumers). National government, NEDA
responsibility.

 Ensure flexibility at PMO, PDO, or port level to be flexible in responding to changing market
demands, along with accountability measures on port performance. DOTC responsibility,
jointly with PMOs/PDOs.

Social and Environmental

 Conduct a transport resiliency analysis on existing infrastructure, starting with areas that
are most vulnerable to the impact of climate-change and disasters based on available geo
hazard maps and studies. Inter-agency, National Agency Responsibility (DPWH, DOTC,
etc.) with Significant LGU Support.

 Consult with the Inter-agency Road Safety Committee on safety enforcement strategies
including for 2-3 wheel vehicles, which have the biggest share in the mix of motor vehicles
in most regions in the country and higher safety concerns. Inter-agency, National Agency
Responsibility (DPWH, DOTC, etc.) with Significant LGU Support.

Table ES.5 Recommendations for Short-Term, Immediate Initiation (2014)

Institutions and
Need or Issue Processes Regulatory and Legal Social/Environmental
Lack of Technical Conduct gap analysis of N/A N/A
Capacity for Planning management systems
Establish data collection
protocol/national data
plan
Determine travel demand
model requirements
Explore partnership with
academe to promote
transport skills
Limited Accessibility Create local roads
for the Poor strategy
Program priority FMRs
Governance/Organiza N/A Identify legal framework N/A
tions not Flexible or issues
Responsive to User Provide more funding
Needs flexibility at port level
Transport System has GIS data management N/A Resiliency analysis
Safety Issues and is plan for safety (part of 2-3 wheel vehicle safety
not Equipped to overall data management enforcement
Reduce Disaster plan)
Impacts

Urban Congestion and N/A Implement N/A

Accessibility to Jobs policies/design standards
on people-oriented

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-27
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Institutions and
Need or Issue Processes Regulatory and Legal Social/Environmental
infrastructure
High Domestic and Establish freight advisory Evaluate cabotage N/A
International committee reform options
Shipping Cost
Investments do not N/A N/A N/A
Always Match Needs
Assets are not Well Enforce truck weight N/A N/A
Managed Roadway design
standards
Road classification
Road routing system

Other Short-Term Strategies

The following types of strategies are also recommended for initiation in the short-term (2014-
2016) with additional recommendations shown in Table ES.6:

Institutions and Processes

 Combine currently disparate transport planning functions under the DOTC to allow for more
comprehensive, system-level, multimodal analysis of transportation investments. This level
of planning should be done at an “umbrella” level above the various line agencies within
the DOTC, as well as including road planning that is currently done at DPWH, with input
and participation from experts in each of these agencies. DOTC Responsibility with DPWH.

 Establish a Leadership Program within agencies (NEDA, DOTC, DPWH, and attached
agencies) to transfer knowledge, tools, and methodologies to managers within each
organization. This can be facilitated by the academe and supported by the national
government transport agencies. Inter-agency, National Agency Responsibility (DPWH,
DOTC, etc.) with Significant LGU Support.

 Establish a transport training program for provincial and local governments to incorporate
the Framework Plan-recommended planning processes into provincial/local decision-
making. This will help to encourage a more data-driven approach to project selection and
recommendation. DILG can facilitate the development of this program with academe
providing the content. Inter-agency, National Agency Responsibility (specifically NEDA and
DOTC) with Significant LGU Support.

 Annually assess and report the condition and performance of the national transport system,
building on the data collection protocols recommended in the short term strategies. This
should be part of regular data collection and reporting to assess the outcomes of transport
investments; assess progress towards goals; ensure accountability; and to have current
data for following the process for allocation of resources identified in this Framework Plan.
DOTC responsibility.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-28
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

 Rationalize the port system, given many ports were constructed for reasons other than
demand. The proliferation of ports throughout the islands means that low cargo volumes
are dispersed over many ports, making it difficult for the majority of ports to be operated
profitably and for the main ports to achieve economies of scale. However, this should
include an established policy for municipal ports for minimum accessibility for rural,
impoverished areas. This policy measure works in concert with project recommendations on
port consolidation to create prosperous international gateways; risk assessment and
feasibility assessment should be included. DOTC, specifically input from PPA and its
PMOs/PDOs.

 Develop a more robust system of local road development, maintenance, operations, and
enforcement, implemented at the provincial/local level but supported by the national
government. Such a process should include a standardized approach for data collection;
financial support tied to data collection and reporting to the national government to ensure
improvement towards projected targets; capacity building and training for provincial and
local governments by the national government; and initiation of the program with “good-
housekeeping” governments. DPWH Responsibility, coordinated with DILG, with Significant
LGU Support.

 Extend the horizon of planning documents (e.g., PDP, RDP) to allow time for technical
analysis. While medium term programming is still recommended along the current 6 year
time frame, this should be within the context of longer-term outcomes (e.g., 20 to 30
years). National Agency Responsibility (NEDA, DPWH, DOTC, etc.).

 Develop multimodal transport studies for select metropolitan, regional, sub-regional, and
provincial centers (as identified by the NSS). Multimodal transport studies have rarely been
done for areas outside Metro Manila.These should be conducted at the regional level (e.g.,
by provincial or local governments), but supported at the national level. Start with the next
“tier” of cities in the Philippines: Cebu, Davao, Cagayan de Oro, and IloIlo. DOTC
Responsibility.

Social and Environmental

 Establish a performance reporting process for local Comprehensive Development Plans

(CDP) and Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP), among others. This should follow a
similar process to the performance reporting process described above, and will provide
accountability and help show a link between transport investments and policies (and
related land use policies) and actual outcomes. DILG Responsibility.

 Implement performance-based evaluations of the Philippine Coast Guard's (PCG) and

Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) enforcement of safety standards, rules and
regulations. These will be a combination of output-based measures (e.g., number of drills
performed) and outcome-based measures (e.g., number of incidents or fatalities). Similar
to the performance reporting recommendations above, this helps to provide accountability,
monitor progress, and identify areas for improvement in a sector where safety issues have
been identified. PCG and MARINA Responsibility.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-29
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Regulatory and Legal

 Dedicate national funding for purposes of matching LGU resources for planning studies to
incentivize LGUs to undertake basic urban transport planning. This should also be linked to
the capacity building initiatives being driven by the academe. Inter-agency, National
Agency Responsibility (NEDA, DPWH, DOTC, etc.) with Significant LGU Support.

Table ES.6 Other Recommendations for Short-Term Initiation (2014-2016)

Institutions and
Need or Issue Processes Regulatory and Legal Social/Environmental
Lack of Technical Agency Leadership N/A N/A
Capacity for Planning Program
LGU Training Program
Limited Accessibility Establish policy for N/A Local performance
for the Poor municipal ports for reporting
minimum accessibility
(part of port system
rationalization strategy)
Governance/Organizat N/A N/A N/A
ions not Flexible or
Responsive to User
Needs
Transport System has N/A N/A PCG evaluation
Safety Issues and is
not Equipped to
Reduce Disaster
Impacts
Urban Congestion and Create urban transport National matching N/A
Accessibility to Jobs plans contribution to LGUs for
planning
High Domestic and Conditions and N/A N/A
International Shipping performance reporting
Cost
Investments do not Define proper planning N/A N/A
Always Match Needs horizon
Incorporate
performance-based
planning into planning
processes
Combine all transport
planning functions into
one agency
Assets are Not Well- Rationalize the port N/A N/A
Managed system
Local road development,
maintenance, funding

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-30
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Medium to Long Term

The following is a summary of recommendations for long-term initiation (beyond 2016) with
Table ES.7 providing additional recommendations:

Institutions and Processes

 Develop a national travel demand model for use in forecasting passenger and freight travel
flows which would provide improved information and analytical support for national and
regional transportation planning and programming decision making. This should be based
on the requirements and initial steps developed in the short-term recommendations above.
DPWH Responsibility with Significant Support from DOTC and other national Agencies.

 Establish and increase capacity-building programs (e.g., basic, advanced) to all aspects of
transport planning, investment decision-making, operations, and enforcement at the
provincial- and city-levels. This can be driven by the development and extension of NCTS-
type entities at local universities around the country, and can be supported by the national
government. These local transport centers of excellence can also provide support to LGUs
that may lack staff to perform any transport-related functions. Much of the transport
responsibilities are divested to provincial and local authorities, despite a lack of technical
and staff capacity to take on these duties; this has a directly negative effect on the success
and sustainability of transport investments from the national government. Inter-agency,
National Agency Responsibility (NEDA, DPWH, DOTC, etc.) with Significant LGU Support.

 As part of capacity building, establish internship programs between Universities and the
transport agencies and their attached agencies. National Agency Responsibility (NEDA,
DPWH, DOTC, etc.).

Regulatory and Legal

 Establish regional, metropolitan agencies outside the NCR responsible for coordinating and
administering regional transport planning and programming, along with related functions
such as land-use planning. Inter-agency, National Agency Responsibility (NEDA, DPWH,
DOTC, etc.) with Significant LGU Support.

 Rationalize public transit in the Philippines’ cities by creating a single, regional transit body
in each urban area responsible for planning, implementing, and operating public transit.
Each body may be part of the metropolitan agencies identified above (e.g., an MMDA-type
body). Private operators may continue to operate individual routes in this scheme,
contracted out on a performance basis (combination of revenue and meeting desired
service targets), but all road and rail based transit in a region will be identified as, and
function as, a single system. DOTC Responsibility.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-31
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Table ES.7 Recommendations for Medium- to Long-Term Initiation

After 2016

Institutions and Regulatory and Social/

Need or Issue Processes Legal Environmental
Lack of Technical Capacity for National travel demand N/A N/A
Planning model for forecasting
Capacity-building programs
Internship program
Limited Accessibility for the Poor N/A N/A N/A
Governance/Organizations not N/A N/A N/A
Flexible or Responsive to User Needs
Transport System has Safety Issues N/A N/A N/A
and is not Equipped to Reduce
Disaster Impacts
Urban Congestion and Accessibility to N/A Rationalize public N/A
Jobs transit systems
High Domestic and International N/A N/A N/A
Shipping Cost
Investments do not Always Match N/A Establish regional N/A
Needs planning entities
for urban areas
Assets are Not Well-Managed N/A N/A N/A

E.4.2 Infrastructure-Based Strategies

More infrastructure-focused priorities are shown in the Tables ES.8-ES.10, and illustrated in
Figures ES.16-ES.18. Each infrastructure strategy addresses a need identified through the
analyses above. The strategies are prioritized based on the severity of the need and the
feasibility of quick initiation of project development. For example, in some cases feasibility
studies have already been performed. The tables below indicate a summary of the reasons for
prioritizing these locations, which is shown in more detail of Section 4 of the Framework Plan.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-32
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Table ES.8 Infrastructure Recommendations for Short Term

Immediate Initiation

Issue/ Infrastructure and Reasons for

Need Services Strategies Specific Locations Prioritizing
Roads are Designate Freight Network N/A N/A
Congested
and Slow

Identify Metropolitan Areas with  High capacity transit in  Largest urban areas
severe congestion and develop Cebu (e.g., BRT) outside Manila
multimodal system plans with  High capacity transit in  No existing high
alternative modal choices Davao (e.g., BRT “Lite”) capacity transit
 Growing population,
economy, congestion

Add capacity to highly  Manila North Road corridor  High V/C

congested, truck-/tourism- up through Region I  High truck % or
oriented highways  Coastal road in/out of volumes
Cagayan de Oro  High poverty
 Complete bypass road at  Access to growth
Cagayan de Oro (to centers for tourism,
Phividec) agriculture,
 Coastal road in/out of Cebu manufacturing
 Intermodal
connectivity
 Limited network of
newer, paved roads

Limited Prioritize FMRs (and other  Bukidnon  Limited network of

Accessibility connecting infrastructure) in  Lanao del Norte/Sur newer, paved roads
for the Poor areas of high poverty, high  High poverty
 North Cotabato
agriculture, and low roadway
 Negros Oriental  High agriculture
accessibility
 Access to intermodal
growth centers

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-33
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Issue/ Infrastructure and Reasons for

Need Services Strategies Specific Locations Prioritizing
Antiquated/ Replace air capacity and  Tacloban  High V/C
Insufficient consider resilience  High projected
Airport freight, pxr demand
Infrastructure
 High poverty

Leverage existing capacity in  Continue to market Clark as  High V/C

Metro Manila NAIA alternative  High projected
freight, pxr demand
 Major international
gateway

Antiquated/ Add port capacity  Davao (e.g., reconstruct  High V/C

Insufficient Sasa Port)  High projected
Port freight, pxr demand
Infrastructure
 High poverty
 High agriculture

Leverage existing capacity in  Continue to market,  High V/C

Metro Manila incentivize Batangas and  High projected
Subic freight, pxr demand
 Major international
gateway
 High tourism,
manufacturing

Invest in refrigeration  Davao  High V/C

facilities/plugs at high  Cagayan de Oro  High projected
agricultural ports freight, pxr demand
 Iloilo
 Bacolod  High poverty
 High agriculture

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-34
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.16 Infrastructure Recommendations for Short-Term

Immediate Initiation

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-35
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Table ES.9 Other Infrastructure Recommendations for Short-Term Initiation

Issue/Need Infrastructure and Specific Locations Reasons for Prioritizing

Services Strategies
Roads are Rationalize landside access (see ports/airports below) (see ports/airports below)
Congested and to key international
Slow gateways

Initiate freight-oriented  Urban routes providing (see other sections)

roadway improvements on landside access to key
major freight corridors international gateways
(e.g., truck-oriented  Roads/corridors
geometric design) identified in “prioritize
highly congested,
truck-oriented
roadways” strategies

Fill nautical highway system  See recommendations  High passenger and

gaps in DOTC “Pre- freight demand between
Feasibility Study for islands
Central Spine RORO  High passenger and
Project”. Focus on freight demand at ports
Bacolod, Iloilo, Bohol
 High transport/shipping
port and roadway
costs
improvements.
 High V/C
 High truck % or volumes
 Access to growth centers
for tourism, agriculture,
manufacturing
 Intermodal connectivity

Add capacity to highly  West coast of Negros  High V/C

congested, truck/tourist- Occidental - East coast  High truck % or volumes
oriented roadways Iloilo
 High poverty
 Access to growth centers
for tourism, agriculture,
manufacturing
 Intermodal connectivity
 Limited network of
newer, paved roads

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-36
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Issue/Need Infrastructure and Specific Locations Reasons for Prioritizing

Services Strategies
Antiquated/ Rationalize landside access  Metro Manila (NAIA,  High V/C
Insufficient Airport to key international Clark)  High projected freight,
Infrastructure gateways  Cebu pxr demand
 Davao  High poverty
 High tourism,
manufacturing
 International gateway

Add terminal/ramp capacity  Bohol/Albay  High tourism

 Identified terminal
capacity issue

Add capacity  Cebu  High V/C

 Davao  High projected freight,
 Iloilo pxr demand
 High poverty
 High tourism,
manufacturing
 International gateway

Antiquated/ Rationalize landside access  Metro Manila (Manila  High V/C

Insufficient Port to key international Harbor, Subic,  High projected freight,
Infrastructure gateways Batangas) pxr demand
 Northern Mindanao  High poverty
(Cagayan de Oro,
 High tourism,
Phividec, Surigao)
manufacturing,
agriculture
 International gateway

Add capacity  Bacolod (RORO)  High V/C

 Bohol  High projected freight,
 Cebu pxr demand
 High poverty
 High tourism,
manufacturing,
agriculture

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-37
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.17 Other Infrastructure Recommendations for Short-Term Initiation

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-38
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Table ES.10 Infrastructure Recommendations for Medium- to

Long-Term Initiation
Beyond 2016

Issue/Need Infrastructure and Services Specific Reasons for Prioritizing

Strategies Locations
Roads are Study the viability and  Improvements  High V/C
Congested and sustainability of to existing  High poverty
Slow extending/improving intercity line/service
 Access to growth centers for
passenger rail  Manila to Bicol tourism, agriculture,
 North rail manufacturing
 Intermodal connectivity
 Limited alternatives/
redundancy

Study freight rail  To/from Manila  High V/C

 High truck % or volumes
 Access to growth centers for
manufacturing
 Intermodal connectivity
 Limited alternatives/
redundancy

Add capacity highly congested,  Davao-Cagayan  High V/C

truck/tourist-oriented de Oro  High truck % or volumes
roadways  Davao-General  High poverty
Santos
 Access to growth centers for
tourism, agriculture,
manufacturing
 Intermodal connectivity
 Limited network of newer,
paved roads

Antiquated/Insuffic Add terminal/ramp capacity  Kalibo  Identified terminal capacity

ient Airport issues
Infrastructure  High poverty, tourism, or
other economic growth

Antiquated/Insuffic Consolidate/integrate/expand  Cagayan de  High V/C

ient Port capacity to create major Oro/Phividec  High projected freight, pxr
Infrastructure international gateways demand
 High poverty
 High agriculture

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-39
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Figure ES.18 Infrastructure Recommendations for Medium- to Long-Term

Initiation (beyond 2016)

Tables 4.12 through 4.17 in the Framework Plan compare the broad infrastructure strategies
above to specific projects that have been programmed or planned previously. These projects
relate to the corridor or facility specific strategies in the tables above.

The suggested timeframe of initiation relates to a combination of priority (based on the needs
analysis above), additional priorities identified in the relevant study, and assessment of overall
institutional and engineering feasibility. Additionally, occasional sets of projects fall within a
particular need but may be “competing”; in such cases, one of the projects is prioritized over
the other again based on feasibility and long-term vision.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-40
Philippines Transport Infrastructure Development Framework Plan – Executive Summary

Projects may satisfy multiple needs. For example, a port project may help increase demand at
an over capacity port, while also contributing to supply of infrastructure in one of the
Philippines’ key national corridors for passengers and freight.

Some projects have already undergone some level of analysis, as indicated in the tables in the
Framework Plan. For those that have not, the first step for implementation will be
feasibility analysis.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

ES-41