SOME OBSERVATIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLE (PUV)

ROUTES IN METRO MANILA BASED ON LTFRB RECORDS

Konstantine KOH German C. AVENGOZA

Associate Consultant Associate Consultant
Transportas Consulting Transportas Consulting
Sikatuna Village, Quezon City Sikatuna Village, Quezon City
Email: kckoh@transportas.com Email: gcavengoza@transportas.com

Abstract: This paper describes some of the route characteristics of the public utility jeepneys
(PUJ’s) and public utility buses (PUB’s) operating in Metro Manila, using the route
descriptions from the official records of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
Board (LTFRB). Among the variables that were taken into consideration are route length and
the geographical characteristics of the route ends. Additionally, this paper attempts to answer
some issues about the routes, namely the prevalence of similar or “duplicate” routes. These
inputs could aid public transport-regulating agencies in their efforts to rationalize the public
transportation route structure in Metro Manila.

Key words: public transportation, PUV, public transport route structure.

1. INTRODUCTION

In line with the route rationalization efforts of the LTFRB, an inventory of the existing PUV
routes was carried out. This inventory involves listing all the routes which have existing
franchises with the LTFRB as of the time of the study. This inventory is an important first
step in the process of route rationalization

2. THE DATA SETS

For this paper, the routes that will be analyzed will be limited to routes within Metro Manila
and the Greater Metro Manila (Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite), while for the modes, it
would be limited only to public utility jeepneys (PUJ’s) and public utility buses (PUB’s)
routes. For the PUB’s, only routes with city operations franchises would be included; the
provincial bus routes would not be included.

The list of PUB routes was obtained from the Management Information Division (MID) of
the LTFRB, while the list of PUJ routes within Metro Manila was obtained from the LTFRB
NCR Regional Office. The list that was generated by the LTFRB contains the list of routes
that have existing franchises with the LTFRB (as of May 2006). Based on this list, there are
820 official PUJ routes and 60 PUB routes for Metro Manila. However, based on the findings
of the EDSA Bus Route Revalidation Survey, three of the PUB routes have been shown to be
not operating anymore. As for the PUJ routes, there has been no study or survey conducted
yet to show which routes are still operating or not operating anymore.

The names of the routes were copied verbatim from the official board decision when the
route was finally approved. A “cleansing” process was introduced to sanitize the data because
of the presence of inconsistencies in the records. The first stage of the cleansing process was
to standardize how the abbreviations would be used. For example, entries like “Project 6” and
“Proj 6” were standardized into “Proj 6”; “Commonwealth Avenue”, “Commonwealth Ave”
and “C’Wealth Ave” were standardized into “Commonwealth Ave”. The next stage was to
standardize the names, particularly the street names, since on some records, the street name
that was used was the old street name, while on other records, the new street name was used.
For example, “Sen. Gil Puyat Ave” and “Buendia Ave” were standardized into “Buendia”.
There was no clear rule established as to whether the old or new name would be used, except
that the more popular name was used for better recall.

The third stage was to standardize the sequencing of the name of the route end in case two
words or names would appear. For example, “Boni/Pinatubo” and “Pinatubo/Boni” were
standardized to “Boni/Pinatubo”. More often than not, the more major of the two streets was
placed first. The last stage was to differentiate route ends with the same name but of different
locations. For example, there is a “Libertad” in Pasay City, and also a “Libertad” in
Mandaluyong. To distinguish them apart, a suffix was added to either each or just one of the
route ends. In the above example, the Libertad in Pasay City was retained as “Libertad”,
while the Libertad in Mandaluyong was standardized to “Libertad (Manda)”.

Once the records have been sanitized, the next phase was to separate the route name into
individual columns for easier and more efficient analysis. These columns are “Origin” (which
is the first of the two route ends), “Destination” (the latter of the two route ends), and “Via”
(indicating the road where the route would traverse). Intermediate columns were added as
needed, like “City”, “Region” and “Distance”, to indicate other route characteristics.

3. SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE NAME FORMAT OF THE

ROUTE

One basic problem of the LTFRB records is the inconsistency in the way route names are
inputted into the official database. This is because there is no official protocol established as
with regards to the encoding of the route name. The route name that will be inputted into the
database is the route name that is written on the board decision once the route has been
approved, which in turn, is the route name that is written in the application form of the
franchise applicants. Since not all the franchise applicants are in communication with one
another when they filed their applications, the route name that they place in their forms may
vary from one to another, although they all mean exactly the same route.

Because of this, the same route could be encoded in many different ways. Shown below is an
example of a typical route name and its possible variations (the type of variation is indicated
by a parenthesis).
Generic route name: Project 6 – TM Kalaw via Quezon Avenue
Some name variations:
Project 6 – TM Kalaw via West Avenue (different via)
Project 6 – TM Kalaw via Espana, Quezon Avenue (additional via)
Project 6 – TM Kalaw (no via)
Proj 6 – TM Kalaw via Quezon Ave (abbreviated “Project”and “Avenue”)
TM Kalaw – Project 6 via Quezon Avenue (inter-changed route ends)
As shown here, although all these six route names are exactly the same route and should be
treated as just one route, on the records of the LTFRB, however, there appears to have six
unique routes. This situation can be labelled as a case of route duplication.
Between the PUJ and the PUB, the PUJ routes have more prevalence of duplications than the
PUB’s. Actually, the PUB’s do not have any such incidence of duplications, mainly because
there are actual variations to the routes when there is a change to the name, so this cannot be
construed as route duplications. However, for the PUJ’s, although the route name have
variations, the route itself do not have variations.

An effort was made to quantify the prevalence of these duplications. For purposes of this
paper, four types of duplications were defined. The first type is called “Exact copies”,
wherein a particular route name is exactly the same route name as another word for word.
The second type of duplication is called “Reverses”, wherein the route ends of a particular
route is interchanged in another route name, but still retaining the other names as is. The third
type is “Variations”, wherein the route name is varied in another route name, just like in the
examples shown above. The last type is “Reverse and Variations”, which combines the
features of “Reverse” and “Variations”. This is wherein the route ends are interchanged in
another route name, and then are additionally modified in some way.

Based on the above descriptions of duplications, out of the 820 PUJ routes listed under Metro
Manila, there are 311 incidences, or about 37.9%. Of these, there were 41 incidences of
“Exact copies” (5%), 34 incidences of “Reverses” (4.1%), 216 incidences of “Variations”
(26.3%), and 20 incidences of “Reverse and Variations” (2.4%). Using the figure of 311
incidences, we can surmise therefore that if these duplications were eliminated, we would
actually have about 664 unique routes1.

Since the authors are not familiar with all of the route names and route ends in the list, some
of the routes which may have been duplicates, were not labelled as such. It is theorized that if
a more thorough processing of data for duplications were conducted, the percentage of these
incidences of duplications would increase some more.

4. PUJ AND PUB ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Route Ends

Route ends refers to both the origin and destination of the routes. For purposes of this paper,
“unique” route ends refers to a route end which do not have any similarity with the other
route ends in name. For example, “Alabang”, “Alabang Market”, “Alabang Subd” and
“Alabang Complex” are all treated as a unique entry each, since these route end names are
different from one another in name, and in practice, may actually refer to different locations.

From the PUJ list, 390 unique route ends were counted, while for the PUB list, there were 38
route ends. If we combine the lists, there would be 405 unique route ends, which means that
out of the 38 PUB route ends, 23 of them also appear in the PUJ list.

The most common route end is Baclaran with 71 entries (49 for PUJ, 22 for PUB); Alabang
has the second-most entries with 52 (47 for PUJ, 5 for PUB); Divisoria has the third-most
with 50 (45 for PUJ, 5 for PUB). Out of the top 10 route ends, three of them are in Manila
and another three are in Pasay City.

1
Since these are duplications, half of this number is retained as the unique route, while the other is just a copy.
So we then divide the 311 incidences by 2, which is 155.5, ~156. 820 – 156 = 664. It should be noted, however,
that there are some routes which have duplications in three or more entries, so the ratio between the “original”
route and the copy may not be just 1:2, but actually greater. In which case, the number of duplicates to be
excluded from the list may be more than 156, which makes the list of “unique” routes even lesser than 664.
Table 1: Most common route ends
Route End City PUJ PUB TOTAL
1 Baclaran Pasay City 49 22 71
2 Alabang Muntinlupa 47 5 52
3 Divisoria Manila 45 5 50
4 Cubao Quezon City 47 0 47
5 Libertad Pasay City 44 0 44
6 Blumentritt Manila 38 0 38
7 Monumento Caloocan City 35 0 35
8 Novaliches Quezon City 28 6 34
9 Pasay Rotunda Pasay City 33 0 33
10 Pier South Manila 30 0 30

Out of the cities in Metro Manila, Quezon City has the most number of unique route ends
with a total of 93 route ends. Manila is second with 77 route ends. A far third is Makati with
38 route ends. Pateros has the least number of unique route ends (2), while Malabon has the
second least (5). Among the outer Metro Manila provinces, Bulacan has the most number of
unique route ends with 27 route ends. Rizal is second with 22.

In terms of individual route ends, Quezon City hosts the most number of route ends with 454
(25.8% of total), followed by Manila with 419 (23.8%). Caloocan City and Makati are a far
third and fourth respectively (113 and 96).

Table 2: Number of unique route ends per city and province

Unique Route Ends Individual Route Ends
City
PUJ PUB TOTAL PUJ PUB TOTAL
1 Metro Caloocan City 30 1 31 111 2 113
2 Manila Las Pinas 6 2 8 17 2 19
3 Makati 36 2 38 90 6 96
4 Malabon 5 0 5 10 0 10
5 Mandaluyong 14 0 14 53 0 53
6 Manila 70 7 77 391 28 419
7 Marikina City 7 0 7 40 0 40
8 Muntinlupa 9 2 11 59 6 65
9 Navotas 4 1 5 9 5 14
10 Paranaque 18 1 19 35 1 36
11 Pasay City 11 1 12 134 22 156
12 Pasig City 13 1 14 50 2 52
13 Pateros 1 1 2 9 3 12
14 Quezon City 90 3 93 441 13 454
15 San Juan 7 0 7 20 0 20
16 Taguig 14 1 15 38 1 39
17 Valenzuela 5 1 6 32 4 36
18 Outer Cavite 10 0 10 22 0 22
19 Metro Bulacan 21 6 27 39 13 52
20 Manila Laguna 4 1 5 7 3 10
21 Rizal 15 7 22 33 9 42
TOTAL 390 38 428 1,640 120 1,760
 No. of route ends
10 - 19
20 - 36
39 - 52
53 - 113
156 - 454

Figure 1: Map showing density of route ends per municipality/province

As can be seen from the figure above, most of the route ends are concentrated in the already
established areas of public transportation which are Manila, Quezon City and Pasay City.
Manila has Divisoria, Quiapo and Blumentritt; Quezon City has Cubao and Novaliches;
while Pasay City has Baclaran and Libertad. Muntinlupa also has a high volume of route ends,
mainly because of Alabang which serves as the pivot point for the commuters coming from
the southern provinces and the southern Metro Manila area. In the northern part, Caloocan
City serves as the pivot point towards the nearby northern provinces of Bulacan, which
explains its high number of route ends.

Upon careful observation of the individual data, it is found out that there are some route ends
which vary just slightly with one another, at least by name. For example, for the Alabang
route end entries, there are varying names such as “Alabang”, “Alabang Complex”, “Alabang
Market”, “Alabang Subd”, “Alabang Terminal”, and “Ayala Alabang”. For Guadalupe, there
are varying entries such as “Guadalupe (ABC)”, “Guadalupe (Tulay)”, Guadalupe (Ibabaw)”,
and Guadalupe Market. An empirical survey has to be carried out before ascertaining for sure
whether these route ends mean actually the same route end, or are actually different route
ends.

This diversification of the route end names also suggest that there is no official system in
place in the LTFRB on how to input official names of the route ends into the records. In the
end, it all depends on how the route ends are originally inputted in the application form for
the franchise.
4.2 Route Length

For the route length, four (4) sub-classifications were used, namely: short, medium, long and
extra long. The short routes are those equal or less than 4 km. 4 km was chosen as the cut-off
point for the short distance, since the minimum fare rate for the PUJ is for the first 4
kilometers. Medium distances are those routes greater than 4 but less than or equal to 10; the
long distances are those greater than 10 but less than or equal to 20; while the extra long
distances are those greater than 20. Since the data that was obtained from LTFRB did not
provide the info about the route distance for all the routes, a fifth category was made, labeled
as “Unknown”.

As shown in the table below, majority of the PUJ routes fall within the Medium to Long
Distances category, while majority of the buses are in the Extra Long Distances category.
Most of the PUJ routes in the Extra Long Distances Category are the routes extending into
the nearby provinces. It is interesting to note that there are actually PUJ routes which have
route distances more than 20 km, which is usually should be the domain already of the buses.
There are also PUB’s which have route distances below 10 km, which, conversely, should
already be the domain of the jeepneys or other smaller modes of transport.

Table 3: Route classification according to route length

Route Length Length (in KM) PUJ PUB TOTAL
Short > 0, ≤ 4 147 0 147
Medium > 4, ≤ 10 285 1 286
Long > 10, ≤ 20 262 10 272
Extra Long > 20 33 46 79
Unknown Unknown 93 3 96
TOTAL 820 60 880

The average PUJ route length is 9.3 km which is in the Medium Distance range, while for the
bus, it is 33.4 km which is in the Extra Long Distance range. Looking at the average distance
per route length category, there appears to have significant differences between the averages
of the PUJ and the PUB, except for the Long Distances category.

Table 4: Ave. route length per route length category

Route Length Length (in KM) PUJ (in KM) PUB (in KM)
Short > 0, ≤ 4 2.7 (None)
Medium > 4, ≤ 10 6.9 9.3
Long > 10, ≤ 20 13.6 14.5
Extra Long > 20 26.8 38.0
AVERAGE 9.3 33.4

4.3 Route Type

Using the geographical characteristics culled from section 4.1, additional route characteristics
such as inter/intra-city routes and inter/intra-regional routes can be inferred. For purposes of
this paper, the region categories would be National Capital Region (NCR), Region 3
(Bulacan), and Region 4 (Rizal, Cavite and Laguna).
For the PUJ routes, there are 549 inter-city routes (67% of total PUJ routes), while there are
271 intra-city trips (33%). For the PUB routes, there are 57 inter-city routes, while there are
only 3 intra-city routes. In terms of regional characteristics, there are 723 intra-regional PUJ
routes (88.2% of total PUJ routes), while there 97 inter-regional PUJ routes (11.8%).

In terms of route length, the average distance of the intra-city PUJ routes is 5.7 km, while the
average distance for the inter-city PUJ routes is 11.2 km. For the PUB’s, the average route
length for intra-city routes is 10.5 km, while for the inter-city routes, it is 34.7 km. The
average distance of intra-regional PUJ routes is 8.4 km, while for inter-regional routes, it is
19.0 km.

Table 5: Counts and Distances per Route Type

PUJ PUB
Ave. Route Length Ave. Route
Route Type Counts Counts
(in KM) Length (in KM)
Intra-city 271 5.7 3 10.5
Inter-city 549 11.2 57 34.7
Intra-regional 723 8.4 35 25.9
Inter-regional 97 19.0 25 43.7
TOTAL / Average 820 9.3 60 33.4

4.4 Origin-Destination (OD) Pairs

Among the intra-city PUJ routes, Quezon City to Quezon City trips has the most number of
routes, numbering 117 of the total 802 routes (14.3%) (See Table 6). Manila to Manila trips is
second with 75 routes (9.1%), while Quezon City to Manila trips is third with 73 routes
(8.9%). The rest of the pairs have less than a 5% share of the total PUJ routes.

Those OD pairs with low volumes suggest three things: one is that there is low passenger
demand between the route ends that only one route is needed; two, that the route between the
two route ends is not profitable enough so no additional operator is applying for additional
routes in this corridor; or three, that there is already an existing overlapping route which is
already sufficient to meet the demand for this route. As such, the routes serving these OD
pairs could be candidates for deletion. The deletion can be either through outright dropping
from the list, or through merging with some similar route.

Looking at it in a different perspective, some of the routes serving those OD pairs with
relatively high volumes are also candidates for deletion. Because of the high volume of routes
for a particular pair, there is a greater chance that many of the routes for this pair are just
duplicates of the other routes, and is actually not a unique route in itself.
Table 6: OD matrix of PUJ route ends (Destinations within Metro Manila)

Caloocan City

Marikina City
Mandaluyong

SUBTOTAL
Quezon City
Muntinlupa

Valenzuela
Pasay City
Paranaque

Pasig City
Las Pinas

San Juan
Malabon

Navotas

Pateros

Taguig
Makati

Manila
Caloo-
2 1 2 20 1 7 2 18 4 57
can City
Las
2 1 3
Pinas
Makati 25 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 4 42

Malabon 2 1 1 1 5
Manda-
4 12 4 8 2 1 2 1 34
luyong
Manila 11 5 75 1 1 22 39 5 3 162
Marikina
5 4 4 2 7 22
City
Muntin-
5 1 7 2 20 1 4 40
lupa
Navotas 5 1 6
Parana-
2 1 8 2 13
que
Pasay
7 2 5 24 1 9 6 9 1 3 67
City
Pasig
1 3 3 4 11
City
Pateros 1 1
Quezon
17 73 4 1 7 117 4 1 224
City
San Juan 3 3

Taguig 3 3 2 2 5 2 17
Valen-
4 9 2 1 16
zuela
Bulacan 3 3 6 12

Rizal 4 4

Cavite 5 5

Grand
46 14 46 3 14 229 13 8 3 22 60 34 8 201 15 21 7 744
Total
Table 7: OD matrix of PUJ route ends (Destinations outside Metro Manila)

SUBTOTAL 2
Bulacan

TOTAL
Laguna
Cavite
Rizal
Caloocan City 8 8 65

Las Pinas 0 3

Makati 2 2 44

Malabon 2 2 7

Mandaluyong 5 5 39

Manila 0 162

Marikina City 5 5 27

Muntinlupa 5 6 11 51

Navotas 0 6

Paranaque 0 13

Pasay City 6 1 7 74

Pasig City 5 5 16

Pateros 0 1

Quezon City 4 12 16 240

San Juan 2 2 5

Taguig 0 17

Valenzuela 9 9 25

Bulacan 2 2 14

Rizal 0 4

Cavite 2 2 7

Grand Total 25 29 15 7 76 820

For the PUB’s, the most common pair is the Pasay City to Bulacan routes with 8 routes out of
the total 60 routes (13.3%). Second is Pasay City to Quezon City routes with 7 routes
(11.7%), while Rizal to Manila routes is third with 5 (8.3%).

Table 8: OD matrix of PUB route ends

Quezon City
Muntinlupa

Valenzuela
Paranaque

Pasig City
Las Pinas
Caloocan

Navotas

Bulacan

TOTAL
Laguna
Pateros
Manila

Rizal
City

Caloocan
1 1
City

Las Pinas 1 1

Makati 1 4 1 6

Manila 3 1 2 2 8

Muntinlupa 1 3 1 5

Navotas 1 1

Pasay City 1 2 7 2 8 2 22

Pasig City 1 1

Pateros 1 1

Quezon
1 1
City

Taguig 1 1

Valenzuela 1 1

Bulacan 4 1 5

Rizal 5 5

Laguna 1 1

Grand
1 1 20 1 4 1 1 2 12 3 8 2 4 60
Total

4.4 Route Length vis-à-vis Route Type

Lastly, a matrix showing the average distance per OD pair was generated. For the PUJ routes,
the routes from Mandaluyong to Rizal have the highest average route distance of 29.4 km.
For the PUB routes, the highest average is 56.2 km, which are for the routes from Quezon
City to Laguna.
Table 9a: Average distances per PUJ OD pair (Part 1)

Caloocan City

Marikina City
Mandaluyong

Muntinlupa

Pasay City
Paranaque
Las Pinas

Malabon

Navotas
Makati

Manila
Caloocan 2.0 4.2 10.2 6.6 15.0
City (30.0)
(23.7) 9.7
Las Pinas
4.7 2.5 8.9 10.5 2.8
Makati (22.2) (12.7)
5.6 3.4
Malabon

Manda- 2.5 3.3 7.0

luyong
7.9 5.4 4.0 18.0 9.8 9.3
Manila

Marikina 13.4 3.2

City
9.5 14.1 7.0 10.5 15.5
Muntinlupa (40.9)
12.9
Navotas
7.6
Paranaque
14.3 7.8 3.2 9.6 15.5 10.3 3.0
Pasay City (37.0) (30.2)
13.0
Pasig City (17.1)
(19.0)
Pateros

Quezon 8.1 10.9 8.1 3.8

City

San Juan
9.1 9.3 10.5 8.9
Taguig (31.1)
5.5 12.2
Valenzuela (42.8)
14.4
Bulacan (48.3) (43.8)
14.3
Rizal (38.1)
5.6
Cavite

8.8 8.0 5.0 3.9 3.3 8.5 9.5 8.7 8.2 9.9 11.2
Grand Total (37.0) (22.2) (27.8) (42.8) (33.1) (43.8)
(Note: The numbers in parenthesis are the distances for the PUB OD pair).
Table 9b: Average distances per OD pair (Part 2)

Quezon City

Valenzuela
Pasig City

San Juan

GRAND
Bulacan

TOTAL
Laguna
Pateros

Taguig

Cavite
Rizal
Caloocan 14.0 8.8 7.1 23.2 11.1
City (30.0)
9.7
Las Pinas (23.7)
9.7 9.3 11.3 29.0 7.3
Makati (29.5) (17.1)
6.3 13.4 7.9
Malabon

Manda- 6.0 7.1 6.0 5.2 9.2 29.4 7.5

luyong
11.1 6.9 11.7 7.2
Manila (17.1) (20.3) (44.3) (22.2)
Marikina 10.5 11.8 9.3 13.7 10.5
City
11.0 11.2 25.2 19.9 15.0
Muntinlupa (41.3) (42.8) (41.6)
12.9
Navotas (50.4) (50.4)
7.6
Paranaque
11.2 6.2 16.0 9.9
Pasay City (28.8) (31.8) (44.8) (29.8) (35.4)
5.3 6.3 11.6 9.0
Pasig City (17.1)
7.0 7.0
Pateros (19.0)
Quezon 7.2 7.5 3.8 6.0 17.0 20.1 9.2
City (56.2) (56.2)
1.4 1.4
San Juan
12.8 2.1 9.9
Taguig (31.1)
4.6 10.0 25.6 12.7
Valenzuela (42.8)
12.7 13.7
Bulacan (47.4)
14.3
Rizal (38.1)
5.6
Cavite (51.9)
8.3 9.4 8.6 4.9 8.5 9.1 21.6 19.4 21.5 19.9 9.3
Grand Total (17.1) (20.3) (33.7) (35.4) (44.8) (37.1) (53.3) (33.4)
(Note: The numbers in parenthesis are the distances for the PUB OD pair).
As can be seen from the matrix above, there are some pairs which are being served by both
PUJ’s and PUB’s. What is interesting to note is that for these pairs, the differences between
the average route lengths for the PUJ’s and PUB’s are significant. For example, the average
route length from Pasay City to Quezon City for PUJ’s is 11.2 km, while for PUB’s, it is is
28.8 km. The average PUJ route length from Caloocan City to Manila is 10.2 km, while it is
30.0 km for PUB’s. This suggests that the PUB routes servicing these pairs take a much
longer route compared to the PUJ’s. In which case, the PUB route can be cut or realigned, so
that it doesn’t have to reach the other route end anymore. And because there is already an
existing PUJ route which offers a more direct route, the passengers would still have a means
to travel between the route ends.

5. MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

One major finding from this study is that there exist many duplicate routes on the records of
the LTFRB. Based on preliminary computations, 37.9% of the PUJ routes are duplicates, and
this figure could increase some more with additional processing of the data. The most
prevalent duplication type is the “Variations” wherein the route name is varied in one way or
the other, by either abbreviating some of the words, inverting the route ends in the route name,
or inserting/modifying the “via” part of the route name. These practices of route duplication
may be accidental or may be intentional as a way to circumvent the maximum number of
franchises to be granted per route as imposed by the Route Measuring Capacity (RMC) rule.

Another variation that was observed in terms of naming the route is that the route ends are
interchanged. Based on the preliminary processing of the data, there were 54 incidences of
this practice of “reversing” the names of the route ends, thereby increasing the number of
“unique” routes on paper. An interview with Regional Director for NCR reveals that the basis
for which route end to put first is based on where the garage for that unit will be. Since not all
of the units for that particular route can be accommodated in one route end, there is a greater
chance of route ends being interchanged in different route names, and thereby increasing the
chances also of route duplication.

These inconsistencies in the records of the LTFRB underscore the necessity of cleaning up
the records before any actual survey of the routes would be conducted in line with
rationalization effort. Failure to “sanitize” the records prior to the survey may translate to
additional survey costs since multiple surveys are conducted on a single route.

As for the route characteristics, it was confirmed from this study that most of the route ends
are still concentrated in the traditional “melting pot” of routes, which are in Manila, Pasay
City and Quezon City. As for the route distances, PUJ’s have a shorter average route length
than the PUB’s which is consistent with the concept of route hierarchy, wherein PUB’s
would serve as the long haul, while PUJ’s would serve as feeder or local routes. PUJ’s have
an average of 9.3 km, while PUB’s have an average of 33.4 km. However, there are some
PUJ routes which operate on extra long routes, which should already be the domain of the
PUB’s. Similarly, there are PUB routes which run less than 10 km, which should be the
domain of the PUJ’s.

From the OD matrices, it appears that some of the OD pairs are being serviced both by PUJ’s
and PUB’s. A look into the average route lengths between the two modes for the same OD
pair show that the average route length for the PUB is significantly longer than the PUJ,
which implies that the PUB’s take a longer route to service the two route ends, while the PUJ
take a more direct route. In which case, the PUB’s are already servicing other areas of
passenger demand and not really the demand between the two route ends.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

Because of the lack of additional data to do some cross-analysis, the recommendations that
are cited here deals more with the way the records of route names are kept in LTFRB.

One recommendation would be to improve the way in which route names are officially
entered into the database. An official system should be set in place to avoid the duplications.
One possible way is to use the Philippine Standard Geographic Code (PSGC) being used by
the National Statistics Office wherein each geographical unit in the Philippines, whether
barangay, city, municipality or province, are assigned a standard number code. For example,
Manila is assigned the code “133900000”, while Quiapo is given the code “133903000”.

Since references to these codes are readily available in reports and in the internet, and are
also being used by other government agencies as well, it will be more efficient for LTFRB to
use these codes instead of developing a total new system of codes. Some add-ins to the PSGC
codes can be introduced, like alphanumeric suffixes, to account for some variations. For
example, Quiapo (Barbosa) can be given the code “133903000-B”, while Quiapo (Echague)
can be given the code ““133903000-E”.

Another advantage of using the PSGC codes is that it will be easier for anyone to locate the
route ends in case one is not familiar with the route and that no route description is available.
All one has to do is to just refer to any document or website which contains the PSGC codes.

Another recommendation to the record-keeping procedure is the taxonomy of the route name
itself. As was found out from this study, there are instances wherein the names of the route
ends are interchanged in the official route name, so what happens is that there appears to be
two different routes, when in fact there is only one.

One possible way to avoid this is to instill an “ascending alphabetically rule” when inputting
the route ends. In this rule, the route end whose first letter comes first in the alphabet would
always be inputted first. For example, in the route Cubao – Divisoria, Cubao would be
inputted first, then Divisoria. In case an applicant fills in his application form the route as
“Divisoria – Cubao”, Cubao would still be inputted first before Divisoria. This then would
lessen the chances of duplication of routes by “reversing” the route ends.

7. FURTHER DIRECTIONS OF THE STUDY

This study primarily focused in the processing and analysis of the records of the LTFRB as a
precursor the route rationalization efforts currently being undertaken by the agency. Although
it would have been more interesting had the routes been plotted in a GIS program to ascertain
for sure the number of overlapping routes, but because of the lack of available data about the
route descriptions, this particular analysis was not pushed through. This is an area which can
be further explored upon.
Additionally, the results of this study could be further enriched by inputting data about the
RMC for each route, and then cross-analyzing it with other sets of data, like population
figures and car ownership rates. From here, we can see whether there is a relationship
between the number of actual operating units and the population that it is supposed to serve.

For data about the route ends, this can be cross-referenced with other spatial data, like for
example the location of off-street and on-street terminals, and the location of important
landmarks, such as schools, government offices and malls. This analysis is particularly useful
in analyzing the sufficiency of public transportation facilities at major route ends and in
major trip generation areas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Land Transportation Franchising
and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) personnel, who provided the data for the analysis.

REFERENCES

--------. (2006) EDSA Bus Route Revalidation Survey. Department of Transportation and
Communications.

Bayan, Josephine (1995). Cost Characteristics of Bus and Jeepney Transport Systems in
Metro Manila. (Master’s thesis) School of Urban and Regional Planning, Quezon City.

Labastilla, Girlie (1999). Empirical Analysis of Route Operating Characteristics, Levels of

Service and Profitability: The Case of Jeepneys in the City of Manila. (Master’s thesis)
School of Urban and Regional Planning, Quezon City.