REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 259

Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 2015–16 30 (2)–31 (1): 259–78

Travel Demand Analysis: Requirements for

Transit Modeling for Metropolitan Manila

JOSE REGIN F. REGIDOR AND DOMINIC S. ALOC

ABSTRACT. Traffic congestion has been an everyday phenomenon in Metro Manila.

With road-based and rail-based transport facilities operating at overcapacity, it can be
construed that transport planning employed for the capital region of the Philippines
has been inadequate. In-depth scrutiny of the transport planning carried out in the
metro, however, would reveal that there had been plenty of transport plans completed
since the late 1960s—with most of these plans’ recommendations unimplemented. It
is in this context that this research note seeks to bring to light these past transport plans.
Using available state-of-the-art transport modeling software, the project’s proponents
aimed to overlay these railway plans on existing traffic and land use conditions in Metro
Manila, and, in this research note, presented the requirements to simulate the
counterfactual scenarios in relation to past transport plans. The model outcomes of the
simulation would fill in the what-if scenarios being sought as the key to understanding
what could have been the state of traffic in Metro Manila if past rail transport plans had
been implemented.

KEYWORDS. travel demand forecasting · transport planning · modeling

INTRODUCTION
Metro Manila seems to be in a perpetual state of traffic congestion.
Whether it be users of road-based or rail-based modes of transportation,
everyone can be a witness to the dreadful days of traveling within the
metro. Former Department of Transportation and Communications1
secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya, for instance, reported in February 2014
that the Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 (MRT-3) was
designed to carry 360,000 to 380,000 passengers per day, but actual
passenger ridership reached 560,000 (de Fiesta 2014). This means that
MRT-3 has been operating at 1.47 percent to 1.56 percent of its actual
capacity. Meanwhile, Waze (2016, 23), the company known for its
mobile navigation application, listed Manila as having one of the worst
traffic situations in the world based on the “driver satisfaction index,”2
260 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016

ranking 170th out of 186 of the 235 metros surveyed by the popular
app. All of these unfavorable traffic conditions have been costing the
economy PHP 2.4 billion, and this economic loss may escalate to as
high as PHP 6 billion a day by 2030 if no intervention is done (JICA
and NEDA 2014, 3–6).
Much has been said about the traffic woes copiously experienced
in Metro Manila and its environs, but in-depth scrutiny of the
transport planning carried out in the metro would reveal that there had
been plenty of transport plans that were completed, beginning in the
late 1960s. Most of these plans’ recommendations, however, were not
pursued. It is in this circumstance that this project reexamines past
transport plans. Using state-of-the-art transport modeling software, it
is the goal of the project’s proponents to revive and lay out the rail plans
upon the existing traffic and land use conditions of Metro Manila. In
this research note, the requirements to simulate the counterfactual
scenarios in relation to these past transport plans are discussed.

Context of Transport Simulation

Simulation of counterfactual traffic scenarios in metropolitan Manila
is one of the deliverables of this project for the interdisciplinary
research program “The Mass Transit System in Metro Manila: From
Tranvia to MRT, 1879–2014.” This can be done by laying out the past
rail transport projects, namely, the Monorail Transit System for
Metropolitan Manila (MTSMM, 1969), the Urban Transport Study in
Manila Metropolitan Area (UTSMMA, 1973), the Metro Manila
Transport, Land Use, and Development Planning Project
(MMETROPLAN, 1977), and the Metro Manila Urban Transportation
Integration Study (MMUTIS, 1999) and thereafter, analysing their
impact on the desired parameters such as travel speed, travel time, and
volume-to-capacity ratio. The model outcomes of the simulation fill in
the what-if scenarios being sought as the key to understanding what
could have been the state of traffic in Metro Manila if the past rail
transport plans had been implemented. It is important to note,
however, that certain assumptions need to be specified to be clear as
to what degree of accuracy the simulation is targeting.

Objective
This research note aims to discuss the requirements for the simulation
of counterfactual traffic scenarios for metropolitan Manila. Specifically,
this research note intends to introduce the fundamental concepts on
REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 261

travel demand analysis, and to present the needed dataset such as

transportation network (i.e., highway and transit), socioeconomic
data, and software tools that would be used for the simulation of what-
if scenarios.

TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS

Transport planning is the process that outlines the necessary steps to
conceptualize, evaluate, and implement a transport policy or program.
Different characterizations of the process have been created depending
on the political and economic agenda per geographical region. In the
United States, for instance, urban transport planning process has been
divided into three phases: a) pre-analysis phase, b) technical analysis
phase, and c) post-analysis phase. Pre-analysis phase consists of problem
identification, formulation of goals and objectives, data collection,
and generation of alternatives. Mathematical models to represent the
factors being studied such as land-use or activity system model, urban
transportation model system, and impact prediction model are included
in the technical analysis phase. Lastly, post-analysis phase is more
involved with the evaluation of alternatives, decision-making,
implementation, and monitoring of the transport project (Pas 1986,
54).
Meanwhile, in Japan, urban transport planning is commonly
referred to as urban transport strategy. Formulation of an urban
transport strategy is divided into two components: a) collection of data
necessary for strategy formulation; and b) urban transport strategy
proposal. The former covers data collection using urban data sheet,
checklist to diagnose urban transport condition, and interview sheet,
while the latter signifies the output which would be the diagnoses of
and prescriptions for urban transport problems, and the selection of
the most suitable transit mode from available investment alternatives
(JICA 2011, 23). There may be different labels for each process but,
generally, all these follow a single template.

The Four-Step Process

The transport planning process tends to differ in label according to
geographical region, but the fundamental part of the process has
remained unchanged and lies on the technical component, which aims
to estimate the future travel demand on the transportation system.
This quantification of travel demand can be done using the conventional
262 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016
REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 263

four-step travel demand analysis or forecasting—trip generation, trip

distribution, modal split, and traffic assignment.
Before travel demand forecasting is employed, traffic surveys that
aim to collect the needed data have to be carried out. Household
interview survey, cordon line survey, and screen line survey are some of
the necessary traffic surveys conducted by transport planners. Household
interview survey aims to acquire information about the socioeconomic
conditions and travel characteristics of households within the study
area. Cordon line survey is used to gather data about the non-residents
of the study area, and the result of this survey would give information
on the external trip data. Lastly, screen line survey is used mainly for
the calibration of data. The resulting origin-destination matrix3 from
household interview survey would be compared to the actual result
done in the screen lines (JICA and DOTC 2015a). Of all the surveys
mentioned, household interview survey is the most important since it
provides baseline information on the sample population such as zone,
occupation, industry, gender, age, vehicle ownership, household
income, volume of trip generation and distribution, modal shares,
among others (JICA and DOTC 2015a; 2015c, 6).
While the traffic surveys are being conducted, the transportation
database should be designed and built. The transportation database
should include the highway network, transit network, and
socioeconomic data encompassing the study area. The highway network
is composed of nodes (i.e., intersection and interchanges) and links
(i.e., highways, roads and streets) that make up the roadway facilities of
the study area (Martin and McGuckin 1998, 10). Each link must have
attributes that would represent the level of service that link is capable
of servicing. Link distance, link speed, and link capacity are some of the
attributes that can be associated for a given link (12). After the highway
network, the transit network is then mapped out. Transit network is
also made up of nodes and links but is established with a given route.
Attributes such as headway and route name are added to the transit
network (13).
On the other hand, the household and economic data extracted
from household interview surveys can be used for the socioeconomic
part of the transportation database. It is desired that traffic analysis
zones4 have to be well-established before the encoding of household
and employment data (Martin and McGuckin 1998, 13). Once the
transportation database has been finalized and the traffic surveys have
been employed, the future travel demand can now be quantified using
the four-step travel demand forecasting.
264 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016

Trip generation refers to the number of trips per analysis area. It

basically addresses the question,“How many trips will begin or end in
each traffic analysis zone?” (Fricker and Whitford 2004, 198) (see figure
1). Trip generation has two aspects: a) trip-production and b) trip-
attraction. Trip ends5 associated with the outbound direction (e.g.,
from a traveler’s home) are said to be trip productions, while trip
attractions are the trip ends associated with the inbound direction
(e.g., non-home ends of the trip) like workplaces and schools (Martin
and McGuckin 1998, 20).
Certain considerations have to be studied in trip generation before
it is employed, such as the amount and the character of the urban
activity. The amount of urban activity is related to measuring the
number of employees and households per zone. On the other hand,
the character of urban activity is described through socioeconomic
variables such as family size, family income, and car availability (i.e., for
residential land uses) (FHWA and UMTA 1977, 3–3).
The second step is trip distribution, which provides the linkage
between trips produced and trips attracted for each zonal pair (Martin
and McGuckin 1998, 36) (see figure 2). Trip distribution answers the
question, “How many trips that begin at a given origin will end at a
given destination?” (Fricker and Whitford 2004, 206). Trip productions
and attractions by trip purpose for each zone, which are outputs of trip
generation, and the travel impedance obtained from the transportation
network, are the inputs to trip distribution (National Academies
2012, 43). The output of this step is mainly an origin-destination
matrix that tallies the number of trips between each pair of zones.
Generally, zones that are located within the area being studied are
called internal zones while external zones are the ones located outside
of the study area. There are four characterizations of trips: a) a trip that
begins and ends within the model region is called internal-internal; b)
a trip that begins in an internal zone and ends in an external zone is
called internal-external; c) a trip that begins in an external zone and
ends in an internal zone is called external-internal; d) a trip that begins
and ends outside of the model region but is able to pass through inside
the model region is called external-external (National Academies 2012,
49).
The Gravity Model has been the most widely used model for trip
distribution, which is derived from the gravitational theory of Newtonian
physics. Using this theory, it was concluded that:
REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 265

the relative number of trips made between two geographical areas or

TAZs [traffic analysis zones], is directly proportional to the number of trip
ends (productions or attractions) in each TAZ and inversely proportional
to a function of the spatial separation (or travel time) between those two
areas. (Martin and McGuckin 1998, 37)
Results of trip distribution are assigned to the transportation
facility to determine the travel demand, which would then relate to the
carrying capacity of that facility (Martin and McGuckin 1998, 36).
The third step is modal split. This refers to the determination of
the mode of transport to be used by travelers (see figure 3). It is in this
step where the trips are split according to what mode of transportation
the travelers use. Modal split gives the answer to the question, “How
many travelers will choose each mode of transportation?” (Fricker and
Whitford 2004, 217). Before analyzing the differences in mode choice,
it is important to understand the factors that affect how people make
choices when travelling. These factors are: the characteristics of the trip
maker, characteristics of the trip and the characteristic of the
transportation system (Federal Highway Administration and Urban
Mass Transportation Administration 1977, 5-3). Logit model is the
basis for most of the modal split formulations. This formulation
describes the mathematical model to estimate the probability of a
traveler choosing a specific mode depending on the attractiveness or
utility of that mode (Martin and McGuckin 1998, 62). Utility is a
function related to the in-vehicle and out-of-vehicle travel times, and
the cost of that mode (63).
Traffic assignment is the last step in travel demand forecasting. This
process determines the routes or paths that will be taken by tripmakers
to travel from an origin to a destination. “What route or path will be
taken by each tripmaker?” is the query that can be answered through
traffic assignment (Fricker and Whitford 2004, 228). The assignment
of trips to the highway and transit network is the output of this step
(Martin and McGuckin 1998, 93).

REVIEW OF RAIL TRANSPORT PLANS IN METROPOLITAN MANILA

It is within the scope of the project to deal with the railway lines that
have been identified from past transport plans, beginning in the late
1960s. In this section, these railway lines from past transport plans are
briefly discussed, and the available transit network data per transport
plan essential for the simulation of counterfactual scenarios are
presented.
266 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016

Table 1. Description of each route in MTSMM

Type Route Description
Radial North From Plaza Lawton to Bonifacio
Monument Circle at the North end of
Epifanio de los Santos
Circumferential Avenue in Caloocan
City.
Northeast From Plaza Lawton to the Quezon
Boulevard-Epifanio de los Santos
Circumferential Avenue intersection
at the Diliman quadrangle in Quezon
City.
East From Plaza Lawton to the Aurora
Boulevard-Epifanio de los Santos
Circumferential Avenue intersection
in Cubao, Quezon City.
Southeast From Plaza Lawton to the Shaw
Boulevard-Epifanio de los Santos
Avenue Circumferential avenue
intersection in Mandaluyong.
South From Plaza Lawton to the Taft
Avenue Extension-Epifanio de los
Santos Circumferential Avenue
intersection in Baclaran, Parañaque.
Circumferential Inner From San Andres Rotonda at Taft
Circumferential Avenue to the Claro M. Recto
Boulevard-Jose Abad Santos Avenue
intersection, linking the innermost
stations of the first five routes.
Outer From Baclaran, Parañaque to the
Circumferential Bonifacio Monument Circle in
Caloocan City along Epifanio de los
Santos Circumferential Avenue,
linking all of the outer terminals of
the first five routes.
Note: Reproduced from Project Technologists Inc (1969, 3).

Monorail Transit System for Metropolitan Manila (1969)

This transport plan has been deemed by the proponents as the
pioneering study on rail transport development for metropolitan
Manila. Completed in 1969, the study was made in accordance with
the terms of a franchise granted to Philippine Monorail Transit System
Inc. by Republic Act 4652. This transport development study (Project
Technologists, Inc. 1969) proposed a monorail network spreading
along seven routes. Five of these were radial in type while two routes
REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 267

Figure 4. The monorail network proposed in MTSMM.

were circumferential. Table 1 shows the description of each route

proposed in MTSMM; see figure 4 for the map of the lines.

Urban Transport Study in Manila Metropolitan Area (1973)

Unlike in MTSMM, this transport plan recommended a heavy rail
transit system rolling out in five different routes (OTCA 1973). The
plan was completed in 1973 by the Overseas Technical Cooperation
Agency of the Japanese government (the precursor of Japan International
Cooperation Agency). Table 2 shows the description of each line
proposed in UTSMMA; see figure 5 for the map of the lines.

Metro Manila Transport, Land Use, and

Development Planning Project (1977)
This study (DPWTC and FFA 1977) suggested a light rail transit
network composed of a central area network located at the central
business district of Manila at the time and lines extending to four major
thoroughfares: Rizal Avenue, Taft Avenue, Shaw Boulevard, and
Quezon Avenue. The study was carried out by the London-based
consultancy firm, Freeman Fox and Associates. It was completed in
1977. Table 3 shows the description of each route proposed in
MMETROPLAN; see figure 6 for the map of the lines.
268 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016

Table 2. Description of each heavy rail line in UTSMMA

Line Length (km) Description
No. 1 27.1 From Constitution Hill to Talon via central
Quezon Boulevard, Manila downtown and
the International Airport.
No. 2 36.0 From Novaliches to Cainta via Manila
downtown and Pasig.
No. 3 24.3 Along Highway 54 (C-4): half a circle route
about 12 km from Manila downtown.
No. 4 30.1 From Marikina to Zapote via Cubao, Manila
downtown and the Manila Bay area.
No. 5 17.6 From Meycauayan to Manila downtown
running between Line No. 2 and PNR.
Note: Reproduced from OTCA (1973, 13).

Figure 5. The heavy rail transit system proposed in UTSMMA.

Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study (1999)

This study was completed in 1999 by the Japan International
Cooperation Agency. Several lines and extension of existing railway
lines at the time were proposed in this transport plan (JICA 1999).
Table 4 shows the description of the lines proposed in MMUTIS; see
figure 7 for the map of the lines.
REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 269

Table 3. Description of each light rail route in MMETROPLAN

Route Description Distance (km) Direction
A Rizal–Taft 13.84 one-way
B Quezon (Ellipse)–Central– round trip
23.5
Quezon (Ellipse)
C Quezon (Roosevelt)–Central– round trip
14.4
Quezon (Roosevelt)
D Shaw–Taft 11.6 one-way
E Shaw–Rizal 15.0 one-way
Note: Reproduced from Freeman Fox and Associates (1977, 2 T24/5).

Figure 6. The light rail transit system proposed in MMETROPLAN.

REQUIREMENTS FOR MODELING

It has been mentioned that the development of a transportation
database is necessary before undertaking the estimation of travel
demand. This database would include highway network, transit
network, and socioeconomic data encompassing the study area. With
regard to this development, it is important to note that the project will
be utilizing the capacity development report of Japan International
Cooperation Agency entitled MMUTIS Update and Enhancement
Project (MUCEP) that was completed in 2015. This report has been
completed upon the need to update the data collected from MMUTIS.
270 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016

Table 4. Description of each railway line in MMUTIS

Proposed Description
Line 1 The line will extend to Dasmariñas, Cavite in the south (30 km
Extension elevated).
Line 2 The line will extend to Antipolo in the east (12 km elevated)
Extension and to the west across Line 1 to the Port Area from where the
line passes along Roxas Boulevard and Buendia to link Makati
and Fort Bonifacio (17 km underground). Then the line will
further lead to Binangonan in the east (20 km elevated/at-
grade).
Line 3 The line will extend to Navotas and Obando (16 km elevated)
Extension in the north across Line 1 and PNR. The line in the south will
extend to the reclamation area across Line 1 and further
extend to Kawit (15 km elevated/at-grade) in the south.
Line 4 The line will extend to San Mateo in the north via a branch
line. In the city center, instead of terminating at Recto Avenue,
it can take over the extension portion of Line 2.
North Rail and A suburban commuter service will be provided between
Extension Malolos and Caloocan (30 km at-grade). From there, the line
links Fort Bonifacio (20 km underground) and extends to
General Trias in the south (25 km underground/elevated/at-
grade).
MCX and A suburban commuter service will link Calamba with Alabang
Extension (28 km at-grade) from where the line will be elevated up to
Paco (42 km). The line will then proceed toward the north
across EDSA (11 km underground) and further extend
northward to San Jose del Monte (18 km elevated).
Note: Reproduced from JICA (1999, II 7-13).

The traffic surveys conducted for MUCEP covered the entire Metro
Manila and its adjoining municipalities in the provinces of Bulacan,
Rizal, Cavite, and Laguna (JICA and DOTC 2015a).
The update on the highway or road network suggested that there
exists a total of 2,810 links pertaining to all roads, streets or highways
including the newly constructed roadways (JICA and DOTC 2015b,
5–5). The capacity and speed attributes for these links depend on the
location, road category and the carriageway type. Table 5 summarizes
the values of capacity and speed that have been used.
For the transit network, table 6 summarizes the parameters that
have been used. However, it must be noted that the railway lines
proposed by MTSMM, UTSMMA, MMETROPLAN, and MMUTIS
will be used, and the lines of Manila Light Rail Transit System (LRT-
1 and LRT-2) and MRT-3 will not be considered for the modeling.
REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 271

Figure 7. The rail transit lines proposed in MMUTIS.

The socioeconomic data follow the zoning presented in figure 8.

This zoning system has 272, 82, and 67 traffic analysis zones designating
the zones from the National Capital Region, zones from nearby
provinces (i.e., Bulacan, Rizal, Cavite, and Laguna), and zones from
outside the study area, respectively (JICA and DOTC 2015d, 1–10).
Population and occupation according to night time and day time, car-
ownership household rate, and average household income are the
socioeconomic factors considered per zone.

Travel Demand Models

MUCEP has already developed models for each step of travel demand
forecasting. This enables the project to lessen the burden in developing
its own travel demand models. However, certain assumptions need to
be specified to alter some parts of the models produced by MUCEP.
For trip generation, trip production and attraction models were
classified by trip purpose (i.e., to work, to school, to business, to
private, and to home), and regression models were used. Fratar Method
was adopted for trip distribution, which assumes that trip making
pattern will be the same for the base year and the future year.
Meanwhile, truck trips, walk trips, and the split between public and
272 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016

Table 5. Capacity and speed attributes for the links

Capacity Maximum
Road Carriageway one-way speed
Area category type (pcu/day/lane) (kph)
Inside EDSA Local Road Single 2,000 30
Secondary Single 4,400 40
Primary Single 6,600 45
Outside EDSA, Secondary Single 7,700 50
inside Metro Primary Single 8,250 60
Manila Secondary Divided 14,000 70
(including EDSA) Primary Divided 16,500 80
Outside Metro Local Road Single 8,000 30
Manila Secondary Single 11,000 55
Primary Single 15,400 60
Urban/ Access/egress Single 15,000 80
intercity Expressway Single 17,000 80
Expressway Divided 20,000 100
Source: JICA (2015b, 5-6)

Table 6. Parameters for the transit network

Parameter LRT-1 LRT-2 MRT-3 PNR Jeepney Bus
Average Speed (kph) 30.0 30.0 26.0 26.0 — —
Boarding Fare 7.5 7.5 6.5 5.0 — —
(PHP/boarding)
Additional Fare (PHP/km) 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.4 1.4 1.8
Access Walk Speed (kph) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 — —
Source: JICA (2015b, 5-6)

private modes of transport were used for modal split. Lastly, the speed-
volume functions that have been generated in road and rail links were
carried out to facilitate traffic assignment (JICA and DOTC 2015b, 5–
11—5–13).

Assumptions
The following assumptions can be considered for the development of
the models:
a) Mode shift values for the most likely mode shift from
private to public transport (rail) for the UTSMMA,
MMETROPLAN and MMUTIS scenarios. Optimistic
or aggressive scenarios such as 20 percent shift from
private and road-based public transport to rail transport
can also be considered. A pessimistic scenario such as
 REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 273

Figure 8. Traffic analysis zones adapted by MUCEP. Note: Map reproduced from JICA
(2015d, 1–10).
274 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016

only 5 percent shift can also be considered in order to

establish a range of values for the likelihood of outcomes.
b) Transit stations can be assumed to be near major
intersections with station spacing of between 800 to
1,200 meters. Only UTSMMA’s first line, which has a
feasibility study, has specific stations named. This can
already be used for the modeling.
c) For UTSMMA rail lines, the capacity and specifications
of the proposed Rapid Transit Railways Line-1 trains
were assumed. These are heavy rail lines and would have
higher passenger capacities than the current LRT-1 and
MRT-3 trains in operation.
d) Fares can be assumed as the same as current rates for LRT-
1, LRT-2 and MRT-3, and these can be further assumed
to be reasonable based on the riding public’s acceptance
or willingness to pay.
e) Routes of road-based public transportation can be
assumed as the same. That is, current jeepney, bus, and
utility vehicle or UV express routes will be the same as
current ones in operation.

Calibration and Validation

Model calibration and validation are two different processes that are
sometimes used interchangeably by transport modelers. Calibration is
defined as the adjusting of parameter values until the predicted
matches the observed travel demand levels (Barton-Aschman Associates,
Inc. and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1997, 2). On the other hand,
validation is the checking of model results against observed data, and
thereafter adjusting parameters until the results fall within an acceptable
range of error (3). Figure 9 shows where the calibration and validation
fall into the modeling process. Although seemingly distinct processes,
calibration and validation are related and should be done contiguously.
Various tests6 have been developed to employ calibration and validation.
For instance, trip generation is calibrated and validated by checking the
trip rates versus other zones (National Academies 2012, 25).
Calibration and validation requires real-world transport and traffic
data such as traffic counts and travel speeds for simulation results to be
REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 275

Figure 9. Calibration and Validation in the Modeling Process. Source: Travel

Forecasting Resource (2016).

compared. Typical traffic counts data are collected at strategic locations

such as those identified as part of a cordon or screen line. Examples of
these locations are the major bridges along the rivers (e.g., Pasig,
Marikina, Navotas, Malabon) and radial roads (e.g., Southern Luzon
Expressway, Roxas Boulevard, Commonwealth, Marcos Highway,
Ortigas Avenue). Basically, if it can be shown that the outcomes of
simulation are statistically similar to actual counts and speeds then it
can be assumed that the model is calibrated and can replicate real-world
conditions.

Simulation Tools
There are many available software tools to perform transport modeling
and simulation of scenarios. Among the most popular commercial
software are Cube and Emme.
Cube is a transportation planning system software developed by
Citilabs.7 The Cube Transportation Modeling Suite provides advanced
methods and techniques for the design and development of transport
models. Moreover, it provides an application environment for quick
and easy application of the models to build, test, and evaluate
scenarios. On the other hand, Emme is a travel demand modeling
software developed by INRO. Common applications of Emme include
travel demand forecasting, transit planning, traffic planning, economic,
emissions and environmental analyses, and transportation data science.
Both of these software tools can analyze data in the geographic
information system format, such that the links and nodes to be
digitized can be referenced according to a certain projection system.
Geocoding of socioeconomic data would be easier with the help of the
advanced feature of these software tools. MMUTIS did not use any of
276 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016

these software tools. Instead, it used a precursor of Cube called

STRADA. It is a transport modeling software developed and promoted
by the Japan International Cooperation Agency and TranPlan.

FURTHER WORK
The project will pursue the modeling and simulation of proposed
railway transit lines since the late 1960s to see if these could have
improved current traffic conditions (i.e., alleviate traffic congestion) if
they were implemented as planned. These what-if scenarios would be
implemented using current available tools and data including state-of-
the-art transport modeling software such as Cube and Emme, and an
updated database (i.e., based on MUCEP) for Metro Manila.
In the proposal stage, it was stated that this project will employ
analysis involving the co-benefits approach in assessing the impact of
transport systems to air quality, fuel consumption, safety, traffic
congestion, noise, and others. The co-benefits approach makes use of
these other elements that are often easier to be understood and
appreciated. Further, the assessment of transport and traffic conditions
as related to rail transport development will employ conventional level
of service concepts and criteria to determine the necessity and timeliness
of railways in alleviating transport and traffic congestion in Metro
Manila. The outcomes of simulated scenarios will be inputs toward the
evaluation in the context of transport co-benefits and environmentally
sustainable transport.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was funded by the University of the Philippines System
Emerging Inter-Disciplinary Research Program (OVPAA EIDR-06-
008).

NOTES
1. This is now the Department of Transportation by virtue of Republic Act 10844
(Department of Information and Communications Technology Act of 2015)
signed on 23 May 2016. A new government agency, the Department of Information
and Communications Technology, was created, splitting the Department of
Transportation and Communications into two departments.
2. Waze (2016) defined driver satisfaction index as a traffic index that measures six
quantitative and qualitative attributes, namely, traffic rating, road safety rating,
driver services rating, quality rating, socioeconomic rating, and wazey rating.
REGIDOR AND ALOC EIDR Mass Transit Research Note 277

3. Origin refers to the starting point while destination refers to the ending point.
The origin-destination matrix is the table that tallies the number of trips starting
from a given zone and ending to a given zone.
4. Divisions of the area being studied. This is used as the geographic unit in travel
demand forecasting.
5. It is defined as the beginning or ending of a trip; thus, a trip has two trip ends.
6. See Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques (National Academies
2012, 25–26) for the complete list of tests.
7. Citilabs website, http://www.citilabs.com.

REFERENCES
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1997. “Model
Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual.” Prepared for Travel Model
Improvement Program, Federal Highway Administration. http://
www.engr.uky.edu/~rsouley/CE%20451/LECTURES/Validation/finalval.pdf.
de Fiesta, Ria. 2014. “Abaya: MRT-3 Operating at Overcapacity.” ABS-CBNnews.com,
27 February. http://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/metro-manila/02/26/14/abaya-mrt-
3-operating-over-capacity.
DPWTC and FFA (Department of Public Works, Transportation, and Communications
and Freeman Fox and Associates). 1977. MMETROPLAN Metro Manila Transport,
Land Use and Development Planning Project: Final Report. 3 vols. Quezon City:
MMETROPLAN.
FHWA and UMTA (Federal Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transportation
Administration). 1977. An Introduction to Urban Travel Demand Forecasting: A
Self Instructional Text. User-oriented materials for UTPS. https://ntl.bts.gov/
DOCS/UT.html.
Fricker, Jon D., and Robert K. Whitford. 2004. Fundamentals of Transportation
Engineering: A Multimodal Systems Approach. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 1999. “Metro Manila Urban
Transportation Integration Study: Final Report.” JICA. http://
open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/710/710/710_118_11580453.html.
———. 2011. “The Research on Practical Approach for Urban Transport Planning:
Final Report.” JICA. https://www.jica.go.jp/activities/issues/transport/
ku57pq00000zzbte-att/finalreport_03.pdf.
JICA and DOTC (Japan International Cooperation Agency and Department of
Transportation and Communications). 2015a. “The Project for Capacity
Development on Transportation Planning and Database Management in the
Republic of the Philippines: MMUTIS Update and Enhancement Project (MUCEP);
Manual Vol. 1, Traffic Surveys.” JICA and DOTC. http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/
pdf/12247631.pdf.
———. 2015b. “The Project for Capacity Development on Transportation Planning and
Database Management in the Republic of the Philippines: MMUTIS Update and
Enhancement Project (MUCEP); Manual Vol. 2, Travel Demand Forecasting.”
JICA and DOTC. http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12247649.pdf.
———. 2015c. “The Project for Capacity Development on Transportation Planning and
Database Management in the Republic of the Philippines: MMUTIS Update and
278 KASARINLAN VOL. 30 NO. 2 AND VOL. 31 NO. 1 2015–2016

Enhancement Project (MUCEP): Project Completion Report.” JICA and DOTC.

http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12247615.pdf.
———. 2015d. “The Project for Capacity Development on Transportation Planning and
Database Management in the Republic of the Philippines: MMUTIS Update and
Enhancement Project (MUCEP): Technical Report; Transportation Demand
Characteristics Based on MUCEP Person Trip Survey.” JICA and DOTC. http://
open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12247623.pdf.
JICA and NEDA (Japan International Cooperation Agency and National Economic
Development Authority). 2014. “Roadmap for Transport Infrastructure
Development for Metro Manila and Its Surrounding Areas (Region III and Region
IV-A): Final Report; Summary.” JICA and NEDA. http://www.neda.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/FR-SUMMARY.-12149597.pdf.
Martin, William A., and Nancy A. McGuckin. 1998. Travel Estimation Techniques for
Urban Planning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_365.pdf.
National Academies (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine).
2012. Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/14665.
OTCA (Overseas Technical Cooperation Agency). 1973. Urban Transport Study in
Manila Metropolitan Area. Manila: Planning and Project Development Office.
Pas, Eric I. 1986. “The Urban Transportation Planning Process.” In The Geography of
Urban Transportation, ed. Susan Hanson, 49–70. New York: The Guilford Press.
Project Technologists, Inc. 1969. Monorail Transit System for Metropolitan Manila.
Manila: Project Technologists, Inc.
Travel Forecasting Resource. 2017. “Category: Model Calibration and Validation.”
Travel Forecasting Resource, accessed 30 March 2017. http://tfresource.org/
Category:Model_calibration_and_validation.
Waze. 2016. “Driver Satisfaction Index 2016.” Accessed 19 March 2017. https://
inbox-static.waze.com/driverindex.pdf.

________________
JOSE REGIN F. REGIDOR, a professor at the Institute of Civil Engineering, University of the
Philippines and research fellow at the National Center for Transportation Studies, is the
project leader for “The Mass Transit System in Metro Manila: From Tranvia to MRT, 1879–
2014” Project 3. Send correspondence to the author at [email protected].

DOMINIC S. ALOC, an MS Civil Engineering student at the Institute of Civil Engineering,

University of the Philippines, is the research assistant for “The Mass Transit System in Metro
Manila: From Tranvia to MRT, 1879–2014” Project 3. Send correspondence to the author
at [email protected].