Philippine Transportation Journal

Vol. 1, No. 1
Social Equity in Urban Transport: The Case of Metro Manila, Philippines
Cristina Mirella VILLARAZAa, Beatriz MELLA-LIRA b, Alexis FILLONE c,
Robin HICKMAN d, Jose Bienvenido Manuel BIONAe
a
Advisor, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)GmbH;
E-mail: [email protected]
b
PhD Researcher in Urban and Transport Planning, Bartlett School of Planning
University College London, UK; E-mail: [email protected]
c
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, De La Salle University, 1004 Manila;
E-mail:[email protected]
d
Associate Professor, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
e
Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, De La Salle University, 1004,
Manila; E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: This study looks at how low-income (LI) and high-income (HI) groups view their
transport experience in Metro Manila based on six dimensions: health, physical and mental
integrity; senses, imagination and thoughts; reasoning and planning; social interactions;
natural environment and sustainability; and infrastructure. The assessment makes use of a
mobility desirability gap as viewed by each group. It is computed as a percentage difference
of the groups' current mobility score and desired score for each of the assessment criteria. A
single score is also computed for each group by summing up the weighted score of each
component that is based on the degree of importance scored by the respondents. The study
also looks at how the two income groups rate various transport modes according to: pleasure,
efficiency, social status, and physical integrity, comfort and convenience.

Keywords: Social equity, Social classes, High and low income groups, Urban transport

1. INTRODUCTION

Incorporating social equity in transport refers to enabling mobility to all users, including
disadvantaged groups constrained by physical, socioeconomic, and other characteristics.
Transportation equity moreover involves progressive approaches wherein enabling
mechanisms are provided to disadvantaged groups in order to promote fair access to transport
services. Tackling the extent of how social equity is integrated into the transport system of
Metro Manila is reflected through an investigation of the levels of stress in traveling between
surveyed low-income (LI) and high-income (HI) households in the area. Physical disabilities
of surveyed users were also considered in order to assess the ability of the transportation
system of Metro Manila in providing adequate service to travelers requiring special
transportation needs. The study thus treats equity with regard to income and mobility needs.
Social classes in Metro Manila may be distinguished according to the different types of
settlements. Settlements in Metro Manila can be grouped into the following: (1) exclusive
subdivisions which are communities of single detached residences (Figure 1); (2) old
residential neighbourhoods (Figure 2); and (3) pockets of informal arrangements (Figure 3).
Exclusive subdivisions provide higher quality service standards compared to old residential
neighbourhoods and informal settlements.

January 2018 37
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1

Figure 1. Forbes Park and Dasmariñas Figure 2. Old residential neighbourhoods

Village, Makati (exclusive subdivisions) in Malate, Manila

Figure 3. Informal settlers, Quezon City

This study adopts the typical identification of HI and LI classes based on their types of
settlements, which is demonstrative of the capacity to afford a standard quality of living. This
study then assumes HI respondents as settlers of exclusive subdivisions while LI respondents
are identified as settlers of old neighbourhoods or under informal arrangements.
This study compared the high income (HI) group (residences living in exclusive
subdivisions) and low income (LI) group (a mixture of the old neighborhood and informal
settlers) about their assessment and desired level of need of the transportation system in
Metro Manila and other related services.
Everyone has its own desired travel expectation and as much as possible would like to
experience this. It is also hypothesized that social classes of people have different actual as
well as desired travel experience. As one gets richer, one also has higher desired travel
experience. This ideal design is being pursued since this will give commuters the most
desirable travel experience.
This paper started with an introduction of how the residential location of the social
income groups would be used in the sampling of respondents. This is then followed by the
literature review, the framework and methodology. The statistical analysis of results then
followed and is then wrapped up by the summary of findings and conclusion.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Transportation equity refers to the fairness of impact (benefits and costs) distribution across
different categories of transport users (Litman, 2017a). Vertical models of equity or “social
equity” factors in differences in mobility abilities and needs of various population categories,
which are overlooked in traditional ‘horizontal’ equity models that treat mobilities and needs

January 2018 38
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
of all individuals as equal (Di Ciommo and Shiftan, 2017; Litman, 2017a). Equity evaluation
focuses on impacts internalised by disadvantaged groups compared to non-disadvantaged
groups. Social equity in transport is thus concerned with the scope and extent of
considerations for disadvantaged groups in the provision of transport services. Various
factors are considered in social equity evaluations, which are: population groups which the
impacts are distributed over; impacts; methodologies; and the distributive principle that
defines the distribution as equitable.
Equity evaluation requires defining population groups to be assessed. Typical
aggregations used in differentiating transport-disadvantaged groups are according to: income,
car ownership, age, educational level, employment status, household composition, physical
disabilities, and residential location. The more factors that apply, the more disadvantaged a
group is treated. Low-income quintiles, which are also typically: unemployed, low skilled, no
car ownership, and single-parent households, are recognised as transport-disadvantaged and
are at a higher risk of social exclusion in transport (Lucas, 2012; Shirmohammadli, et al.,
2016; DiCiommo and Shiftan, 2017). Physical impairment, which often also applies to
children, the pregnant, and the elderly, poses limitations in the accessibility and use of
particular transport modes, and is thus a major limitation to consider in transport equity
evaluations (DiCiommo and Shiftan, 2017). Rural dwelling is also associated with lack of
accessibility to key activities and is correlated with higher risk of social exclusion (Shergold
and Parkhurst, 2012). Approaches in transport social equity assessments typically involve
evaluating transport-disadvantaged groups vis-à-vis overall averages, or recognised or desired
standards (Litman, 2011).
Literature review on transport social equity largely focuses on the accessibility or
relative ease of reaching valued activities. Accessibility is widely distinguished and measured
according to: spatial-based and person-based dimensions (van Wee et al., 2001; Bocajero and
Oviedo, 2012; Fransen et al., 2016). Spatial-based approaches are focused on evaluating the
volume and types of services or activities that are accessible as determined by travel time and
distance. Gravity modeling allows accessibility assessments by assigning weights to activities
based on the disutility experienced with increasing travel time, distance, and costs (Schuerer
and Curtis, 2007; Papa and Coppola, 2012). Gutiérrez (2001), Manaugh and El-Geneidy
(2012), and Ribeiro et al (2010) applied gravity modeling in measuring accessibility impacts
of transport infrastructure. A major limitation of spatial- and gravity-based measures is the
disregard for variations in individual budget, travel preferences, and behaviour, which are
important for equity assessments. Person-based approaches are appropriate measures in
analysing accessibility at the individual level, reflecting individual needs or profile (age,
income, educational level, etc.), abilities and constraints (physical condition, travel budget,
etc.), and opportunities that affect travel characteristics and behaviour (Geurs and van Wee,
2004; Recker et al., 2001;and Neutens et al.,2010). Despite its theoretical strength as a result
of the comprehensive criteria considered in the assessment, person-based approaches in
assessing accessibility require detailed activity-travel data.
Affordability is also a main indicator in transport social equity literature, which refers
to the ability to apportion a transport budget relative to income. In equity analysis, transport
user fees are evaluated considering the abilities of users to pay. Efficiency improvements in
public transport, particularly in lower-cost and non-motorised alternatives, increase
transportation affordability by reducing the option of private vehicle travel and significant
expenditures on vehicle, fuel, and parking (Litman, 2017b). The built environment of
households is thus also strongly linked with transportation affordability. Households in
accessible, compact, multi-modal, public transit-oriented locations are found to have a
positive and significant impact on transportation affordability (Ewing and Hamidi, 2014;
Haas et al, 2006).Despite the ability to set a more substantial transport budget, high-income

January 2018 39
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
households in locations with well-established public transport systems are found to spend less
on transport than in locations that are automobile-oriented (Litman, 2017b; Handbury and
Weinstein, 2014;McCann, 2000). Housing affordability and transportation affordability are
also widely found to have trade-offs (Litman, 2017b).In selected cases, more evidence for
lower-income households reveal the trade-off of higher-priced housing for low-cost and low
quality housing to allow budget for transportation (Haas et al., 2006; Center for
Neighborhood Technology, 2016).Input-Output modeling allows evaluating transportation
affordability by predicting how changes in expenditures in an activity affect expenditures in
other activities, i.e. transportation (Seneca et al., 2009; HDR Decision Economics, 2010;
Litman, 2017b).Results from input-output modeling require more thorough interpretation
since data is aggregated and averaged. More comprehensive techniques used in evaluating
transportation affordability involve surveys on travel needs and patterns and actual
expenditures (Mahadevia et al., 2013).
Other indicators covered in transport social equity assessments include (the distribution
of): safety or risk to road accidents; inclusive design of infrastructure and facilities to
accommodate mobility-disadvantaged groups; and quality of transport services (Litman,
2016).The Gini index and revenue to cost recovery ratio are widely applied in quantifying
inequity by measuring the share of a trip cost (fares, user fees) and the trip benefit (trip
length), and measuring thedisparity of the distribution of costs and benefits across entities
(Bandegani and Akbarzadeh, 2016; Gómez-Lobo, 2011; Pérez et al., 2014; Lucas et al.,
2015). Since the Gini index is limited to factoring in income differences, trip user surveys are
more appropriate to account for mobility needs and abilities, which are essential in transport
social equity assessments(Litman, 2016).

3. FRAMEWORK

An individual’s decision and choices when traveling is affected by his/her physical and
mental health as well as by events etched in the subconscious developed and stored through
years of experience and sometimes due to unforgettable events during travel. These decisions
and choices may also be altered or totally replaced when new information are available about
transport such as when a new public transport service is available or given the natural and
physical environment that one may experience along the journey.
Everyone has its own desired travel expectation but most often are disappointed by the
actual experience itself. As earlier hypothesized different social classes of people have
different assessment of the actual travel experience as well as the desired travel experience.
As one gets richer materially, one has lower assessment of the actual travel experience but
has higher desired travel experience compared to those in the lower income group. Figure 5
shows the conceptual framework of this study.
The actual and desired travel experienceare affected by the person itself, the physical
environment and the available information. These factors are then considered in the decision
making of the individual when he/she travels. Also, the factors are discussed which were used
in the formulation of the questionnaire survey.

The Person
 Health, physical and mental integrity – assesses the level of stress one felt when using
the primary transport mode and the reason for it. This also includes the level of physical
activity one experience when using the primary mode. The personal space of an

January 2018 40
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
individual is also being assessed of being physically close to other transport users as
well as the level of air pollution experienced.
 Senses, imagination and thoughts – Under this experience, the individual’s feelings
associated with each of the transport mode used are being asked. These feelings are
described by the following: freedom, insecurity, functionality, enjoyment, low cost,
poverty, time consuming, unpunctuality, congestion, efficiency, luxury, environmental
care, health, social interaction, discomfort, happiness, and status.

Figure 5. Conceptual Framework

The Environment and Infrastructure

 Natural environment and sustainability – The presence of the natural elements such as
trees and parks are assessed while using the primary transport for both current and
desired levels. The current and desired levels of access to sustainable transport modes
(STM) were also assessed. The question whether he/she is willing to pay more for
having more alternatives in using STM was also asked by how much. The relevance of
the presence of trees, access to parks, access to STM, and affordability of STM were
also rated.
 Information on transport – The individual is asked whether he does interchange
between modes in his/her regular commute and rate the quality of this interchange as
well as his desired level of quality when performing the interchange. If the assessment
is low one is asked about the main reason.The individual is also asked if he/she owns
technological tools such as smartphones, 3G or mobile applications where the most
convenient travel options and/or transport modes can be chosen

January 2018 41
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
 Built environment – The current conditions were assessed as well as the level of
importance of improving the mobility infrastructures near one’s home. These include
the extent of road space for cars, parking availability, quality of highways, extent of
pedestrian walkways, quality of pedestrian walkways, cleanliness of bus stops, comfort
of bus seatings, bus stops climate protection, amount of bikeways, quality of bikeways,
and bicycle parking at work.

Decision Making and Actual Activities

 Reasoning and planning – assesses the access to transport in terms of accessing one’s
current employment location as well as the desired employment location. Other
assessments of current access to public transport to perform such activities as visit
relatives, recreational, cultural and sporty activities were also assessed including
grocery shopping and social activities. The desired level of performance as well as the
relevance to the current activities was also asked.
 Social interaction – The current level as well as the desired level of social interaction
were also assessed when using the primary mode. The question about being
discriminated when using the transport mode was also asked and what mode was used
during this instance.
 Commuting to work and productive activities – This including the current level of
access to work opportunities, the accessible range of employment the neighbourhood
offers as well as the satisfaction one’s get from his/her current employment. Opinion
regarding whether access to transport has affected to better job opportunities, the
desired level of accessible range of employment in one’s neighborhood as well as
whether one has been affected by the available range of jobs in one’s neighborhood for
one to be employed are also asked. Furthermore, the regular commuting time from
home to work as well as the monthly spending on transportation to get to work were
also asked

4. METHODOLOGY

This study is largely based from a questionnaire survey of urban travelers which has two
parts: (1) the individual’s physical and socio-economic characteristics and (2) assessment of
one’s current and desired situations during the daily urban travel. Two types of respondents
were asked using different methods of questionnaire survey. For the low income residential
neighborhood, a face-to-face interview survey was conducted to obtain their answers to the
questions while for the high income groups, an online questionnaire survey was conducted
using google documents.
For the low income residential neighborhood, the area of Sampaloc, Manila was the
study location and in the area of the old residential neighborhood where houses are cramped
and with a mixture of informal settlements. For the high income group, respondents were
gathered from exclusive subdivisions. To make sure respondents do live in these exclusive
subdivisions, several students were recruited as facilitators of the online survey who are also
living in these subdivisions. A total of at least a hundred respondents were gathered for the
questionnaire survey.
Most of the questions use a five-level likert scale, for example, with 1 as bad and 5 as

January 2018 42
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
good rating, 1 as low access and 5 as high access rating, among others.
Hypothesis testing is done using F-test (Figure 6) on the variances of the two sample sets
(i.e. their ratings) whether they are equal or unequal and then t-test (Figure 7) for the means
between the two sample ratings is then conducted. A one-tailed t-test for equal means of the
ratings is applied to determine whether the LI and HI respondents have the same assessment
and desired level of public transportation services. The numerator, 𝑌̅1 − 𝑌̅2 , in the test statistic
of the t-test is made sure to be always positive and hence the higher mean value in the two
groups is always assigned to 𝑌̅1 .

𝐹𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝑆2𝑋⁄𝑆2𝑌
Critical
region
Critical region


0 t-critical
F-critical
Figure 6. F-test for variance Figure 7. One-tailed t-test for
between two samples means between two samples

5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Socio-Economic and Travel Characteristics

Shown in Figure 8is the distribution of respondents in Metro Manila. The 105 low income
respondents were highly concentrated in several clustered barangays in Sampaloc, Manila
and do not respresent the whole of the city of Manila while for the 102 high income
respondents these are spread out in 10 cities of Metro Manila since an online survey was used
but it was made sure they came from exclusive subdivisions since students helped recruit
online respondents in the subdivisions where they live. Furthermore, the income levels of the
HI respondents in these cities do not represent the average income levels in those cities.

January 2018 43
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1

Legend:
LI Respondents
HI Respondents

Figure 8.Location of HI and LI respondents in Metro Manila

Table 1. Socio-economic profile of respondents

Low Income High Income
Socio-economic characteristics (N=105) (N= 102)
Gender Male 43(40.95%) 58(56.86%)
Female 62(59.05%) 44(43.14%)
Mean Age (years old) 33.12 31.00
Mean Weight, kgs 60.34(s.d.=16.84) 69.54(s.d.=22.31)
Mean Height, cm 161.77(s.d.=8.42) 166.36(s.d.=15.66)
Mean No. of Adults in HH 3.69(s.d.=2.03) 5.27(s.d.=2.76)
Mean No. of Children in HH 1.63(s.d.=1.91) 1.24(s.d.=1.39)
Mean Income/Allowance, Php 12,786 41,691
Driver's License With License 26(24.76%) 85(83.33%)
W/Out License 79(75.24%) 17(16.67%)
Primary Education 5(4.76%) 2(1.96%)
Secondary Education 48(45.71%) 26(25.49%)
Highest Educational Attainment Professional Technical
Education 8(7.62%) 3(2.94%)
Professional Universitarian
Education 42(40.00%) 59(57.84%)
Postgraduate (MSc or PhD) 2(1.90%) 12(11.76%)
Physical Disability With 3(2.86%) 0(0.00%)
Without 102(97.14%) 102(100.00%)
Full Time Employee 47(44.76%) 46(45.10%)
Employment Student 23(21.90%) 34(33.33%)
Others (part time, unemployed,
retired, others) 35(33.33%) 22(21.57%)

The proportion of male to female respondents for the LI group is around 41 : 50 while
for the HI group it is 57 : 43. The mean age of the LI group is 33 years old as compared to the
HI groups which is 31 years old. The HI group weighs heavier at 69.5 kgs as compared to
60.3 kgs for the LI group in the same manner as to the height of respondents, the HI group

January 2018 44
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
stands higher at 166.4 cm as compared to LI’s 161.8cm. There are more adults in the HI’s
household at 5.27 while only 3.69 for the LI group. There are however more children in the
LI’s HH at 1.63 as compared to that of the HI at 1.24. The mean monthly income or
allowance of the LI group is 12,786 pesos while for the HI group it is more than three times
higher at 41,691 pesos. Around 85% of the HI group have a driver’s license while for the LI
group only round 25% have it. A big number of the LI at around 46% only earned a
secondary education while around 58% of the HI group earned a college degree. Three out of
the 105 LI respondents have disability while there is none in the HI group. Around 45% of
the LI and HI groups are full time employee. The rest of the statistics are shown in Table 1
above.

Walking Low Income Walking

Affordable Transport Modes

Not Affordable Modes

Bicycle High Income Bicycle

Jeepneys Jeepneys Low Income

Tricycles Tricycles High Income

LRT LRT
Buses Buses
Taxi Taxi
Private Car Private Car

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
No. of HH No. of respondents
Figure 9. Affordable transport modes to the Figure 10. Not affordable modes to the
family family

As shown in Figure 9, there is significant contrast between the affordable modes

between the HH of the HI respondents to the HH of the LI respondents. The private car and
taxi were chosen as the mostly affordable to the HI’s HHs while for the LI’s HHs the top four
choices are the jeepneys, LRT, tricycles and buses, with these also the most common
available public transport modes in Metro Manila’s streets. While walking and bicycling are
also considered affordable or can be a way of travel in Metro Manila by both groups. On the
other hand, the private car and taxi are considered not affordable by most LI’s HHs (see
Figure 10).
With regards to the primary transport mode used by the LI respondents (Table 2),
around 32% of them use jeepneys followed by rail (23%) and tricycles (21%). In the case of
the HI respondents, a great majority use the private car (79%) as the primary mode of
transport, and far behind is the FX Taxi (7%) and rail (6%). For the secondary mode of
transport, walking (24%) and tricycles (20%) are the top two choices of LI group while for
the HI group, the top two choices are the Taxi (38%) and private car (27%). The HI

January 2018 45
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
respondents’ travel time to work is nearly 10 minutes longer than the LI respondents at 50.49
minutes and 40.59 minutes, respectively. There were more HI respondents (26 out of 102)
who felt being discriminated while traveling using a given mode to only 8 out of 105 for the
LI respondents. A big number (9 out of 26) of the discrimination occurred in the private car
as the mode used for the HI respondents followed by taxi (4 out of 26). Most of the LI
respondents who felt being discriminated occurred when using public transport (2 for buses, 2
for LRT, 2 for taxi and 1 for jeepney). More HI respondents interchange mode at 64%
compared to only 29% of LI respondents. Walking (24%) and tricycles (20%) are the top two
secondary modes used by the LI respondents the top two are the taxi (38%) and the private
car (27%) for the HI respondents. The high private car usage as a secondary mode may mean
that they are being fetched from where they have disembarked from the primary mode when
going to the office. An overwhelming majority of HI respondents (91%) and LI respondents
(75%) use technological tools while traveling. Both respondents are willing to pay more for
the use of STM with 79% of HI respondents and 75% of LI respondents. Around 80% and
50% more of LI and HI respondents, respectively, are willing to pay 15% to avail of the STM
services. Also, 29% of HI respondents are even willing to pay 30% more to avail of the STM
services.

Table 2. Travel characteristics of respondents

Low income (N=105) High Income (N=102)
Primary(%) Secondary(%) Primary(%) Secondary(%)
Private Car 4(3.81) 2(1.90) 81(79.41) 28(27.45)
Motorcycles 7(6.67) 7(6.67) 0(0.00) 0(0.00)
Taxi 1(0.95) 1(0.95) 1(0.98) 39(38.24)
FX Taxi 0(0.00) 1(0.95) 7(6.86) 5(4.90)
Transport Mode Used
Buses 11(10.48) 5(4.76) 2(1.96) 10(9.80)
Rail 24(22.86) 13(12.38) 6(5.88) 4(3.92)
Tricycles 22(20.95) 21(20.00) 0(0.00) 4(3.92)
Bicycle 1(0.95) 2(1.90) 0(0.00) 2(1.96)
Jeepney 34(32.38) 15(14.29) 0(0.00) 0(0.00)
Walking 0(0.00) 25(23.81) 5(4.90) 10(9.80)
Undefined/None 1(0.95) 13(12.38) 0(0.00) 0(0.00)
Travel time, minutes 40.59 (s.d. = 24.08) 50.49 (s.d.=24.27)
Felt being discriminated Yes 8 (7.62) 26(25.49)
while traveling No 96(91.43) 76(74.51)
No answer 1(0.95) 0(0.00)
Mode used when Private car 1(12.5) 9(34.62)
discriminated Taxi 2(25.0) 4(15.38)
Buses 2(25.0) 2(7.69)
Light Rail Transit 2(25.0) 1(3.85)
Jeepneys 1(12.5) 0(0.00)
Bicycle 0(0.00) 1(3.85)
Walking 0(0.00) 3(11.54)
Not indicated 0(0.00) 6(23.08)
Do you interchange Yes 30(29.41) 67(63.81)
mode? No 72(70.59) 38(36.19)

January 2018 46
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
Do you use Yes 76(72.38) 93(91.18)
technological tools No 10(9.52) 9(8.82)
(smartphones, 3G, etc.)
No answer 19(18.10) 0(0.00)
when you travel
Would you pay more for Yes 79(75.24) 81(79.41)
STM? No 24(22.86) 21(20.59)
No answer 2(1.90) 0(0.00)
How much more for 15% 84(80.00) 51(50.00)
STM? 30% 1(0.95) 30(29.41)
Not indicated 20(19.05) 21(20.59)

5.2 Assessment of Current and Desired Situations during Daily Urban Travel

Health, physical and mental integrity. Using a 5-point likert scale, the respondents were
asked to rate the actual and desired levels of travel characteristics related to health as well as
physical and mental integrity. Using F-test for equal variances of the mean ratings, a
one-tailed t-test for mean ratings is then conducted between the assessed and desired levels
with the hypothesized mean difference varying from 0 or 1 point scale.
It is expected that the assessment of the actual travel experience for both groups are
lower than the desired level of travel experience. Comparing the two groups’ assessment of
the actual travel experience, at 95% level of confidence, the mean rating of the HI
respondents on the air pollution experience, level of security and comfort when using the
primary transport is different than that of the LI respondents (see Table 3). This is
understandable since the HI respondents are mostly using the private car and taxi compared
to the LI respondents who are using the public transport modes. The LI respondents however
have higher mean ratings in terms of levels of physical activity when using the primary
modes than the HI respondents since they are using public transport. There was no difference
however in terms of levels of stress and being physically close to others when using the
primary mode for both groups.

Table 3. Health, physical and mental integrity related to health

Assessment Groups Mean F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Assess. (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances (α = .05)
F- F-critical Decision t-value T-critical Hypothesized Decision
value (one-tailed) (1-tailed) mean diff.
Level of stress when using HI 3.36 2.36 1.385 Unequal 1.413 1.654 0.0 No Diff.
5 Variance
primary transport mode LI 3.16
Levels of physical activity HI 2.28 2.72 5.219 1.654 0.0 With
2 Diff.
for main transport LI 3.00
Being physically close to HI 2.87 5.28 1.791 1.656 0.0 No Diff.
4
other transport users LI 3.12
Air pollution experience HI 3.16 2.04 5.491 1.653 0.0 With
2 Diff.
for transport service LI 2.27
Level of security for HI 3.83 1.73 6.716 1.653 0.0
1
primary transport LI 2.90
Level of comfort for HI 4.06 1.59 1.388 8.506 1.653 0.0
9
primary transport LI 2.93
Desired
Level of stress when using HI 4.40 1.49 1.385 Unequal 1.516 1.653 0.0 No Diff.
2 variance
primary transport mode LI 4.21
Levels of physical activity HI 2.15 0.78 0.720 6.622 1.653 0.0 With
3 Diff.
for main transport LI 3.25
Being physically close to HI 2.36 12.0 1.972 12.015 1.653 0.0

January 2018 47
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
other transport users LI 3.95 15
Air pollution experience HI 4.62 0.93 0.721 5.928 1.652 0.0
9
for transport service LI 3.81
Level of security for HI 4.71 0.84 0.721 5.495 1.652 0.0
LI 4.09 9
primary transport
Level of comfort for HI 4.75 0.51 0.720 Equal 6.519 1.652 0.0
LI 4.08 6 variance
primary transport

The desired levels of air pollution experience, security, and comfort are different when
using the primary mode for the HI respondents than those of the LI respondents at 95% level
of confidence. While the LI respondents desired level of physical activity (i.e. high level) and
being physically close to others (i.e. do not mind being close) are different than those of the
HI respondents. While both respondents aspires to have low levels of stress when traveling,
with both ratings not being different.
Using a one-tailed t-test at 95% level of confidence, the HI respondents have higher
mean rating of the five issues that need to be improved in the transport systems with stress
levels, air pollution and security have at least 1.0 higher rating than that of the LI
respondents.

Senses, imagination and thoughts. The respondents were asked to indicate the feelings that
they associate with the following transport modes. They can also choose as many as they like.
For the HI respondents (Table 4), the most used description is Low Cost (406), with buses
and jeepneys having the highest scores among the modes, this is followed by Discomfort
(286) with the LRT and jeepneys being the top two modes having this description, and third
is Freedom (268) which is being associated with private car use and walking.

Table 4. Feelings that the high-income group associate with the transport modes
Private
Feelings Cars Taxi Buses LRT Tricycle Jeepneys Bicycle Walking Total
Freedom 87 18 2 3 13 4 69 72 268
Insecurity 1 38 36 34 33 41 8 15 206
Functionality 62 34 20 31 18 13 41 24 243
Enjoyment 57 1 1 1 4 2 56 46 168
Low Cost 9 14 76 66 68 73 51 49 406
Poverty 0 4 17 26 24 39 0 2 112
Safety 89 16 8 14 12 10 14 11 174
Time Consuming 11 16 39 39 15 33 22 43 218
Unpunctuality 1 19 36 35 20 41 6 17 175
Congestion 28 29 54 53 20 66 2 3 255
Efficiency 53 24 12 19 18 8 25 13 172
Luxury 50 8 0 0 0 0 3 1 62
Environmental Care 8 2 8 15 11 11 60 50 165
Health 30 5 3 4 3 5 49 62 161
Social Interaction 8 16 19 22 4 19 4 15 107
Discomfort 0 36 56 66 45 64 7 12 286
Happiness 56 4 0 0 3 0 33 37 133
Status 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 550 284 387 428 311 429 450 472 3311

Table 5. Feelings that the low-income group associate with the transport modes
Private
Feelings Cars Taxi Buses LRT Tricycle Jeepneys Bicycle Walking Total
Freedom 73 64 34 35 52 35 59 58 410
Insecurity 1 5 37 34 33 41 21 35 207

January 2018 48
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
Functionality 30 10 1 27 4 2 4 3 81
Enjoyment 64 43 3 8 22 5 56 54 255
Low Cost 2 5 65 42 84 80 45 37 360
Poverty 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 6
Safety 88 47 3 23 11 5 5 0 182
Time Consuming 24 16 30 32 4 29 35 3 173
Unpunctuality 0 1 8 1 0 4 0 1 15
Congestion 2 6 37 12 0 37 0 0 94
Efficiency 54 30 1 47 18 0 16 2 168
Luxury 15 32 1 1 0 0 1 1 51
Environmental Care 20 8 0 34 2 1 61 66 192
Health 17 10 0 6 2 2 78 88 203
Social Interaction 21 8 3 4 2 4 5 13 60
Discomfort 0 15 73 46 17 65 1 4 221
Happiness 45 35 1 23 27 1 50 43 225
Status 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 5
Total 457 338 299 376 279 312 437 410 2908

The transport mode having the most scores by the HI respondents is the private car
(550) with safety as the number one feeling associated with the private car having a score of
89. This is then following by walking (472) and bicycling (450). It can be seen that the public
transport modes have lower scores than these three and this is understandable knowing that
only 14.7% and 22.54% of HI respondents use public transport as their primary and
secondary modes, respectively.
In the case of the LI respondents (Table 5), Freedom (410) is the most important
feeling with private cars (73) having the highest score. After freedom, the second most
favored is Low Cost (360) but being related to the tricycle (84) having the most score. The
third feeling is Enjoyment (255) and greatly associated to the Private car with a score of 64,
followed by Bicycle (56) and Walking (54). With regards to the transport mode of the LI
respondents, the Private car (457) is the most considered, followed by Bicycle (437) and
Walking (410). LI respondents aspire to own a car and they see it as an ultimate alternative to
the current public transport mode they are using.

Reasoning and planning. The respondents were then asked how they would assess their
access to transport in terms of accessing their current employment. Also, they were asked
whether their access to transport allow them to access their desired employment.

Table 6. Access to employment of HI and LI respondents

Access to Groups F-Test Two-Sample for Variances(α t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Mean = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances(α = .05)
employment Rating F value F-critical Decision t-value t-critical Hypothesized Decision
(one-tailed) (1-tailed) mean
difference
Assessment of access HI 3.95 4.491 1.401 Unequal 5.726 1.655 0.0 With
variance Diff.
to transport to access
current employment LI 3.27

Access to transport to HI 4.07 3.299 2.499 1.654

access desired
employment LI 4.37

As the statistical results (Table 6) would show the HI respondents have a higher mean

January 2018 49
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
rating of their transport needs to access their current employment compared to the LI
respondents. This would show that the HI respondents have better access to transport or are
satisfied with their transport service going to their current employment compared to the LI
respondents. So that when access to transport to access desired employment was asked, at
95% level of confidence the difference in means is not zero with the LI respondents having a
higher rating (4.37) than the HI respondents mean rating of 4.07. It should be noted that in the
numerator of the test statistic, the higher mean is always used for 𝑌̅1.
The respondents were then ask how they assess their current access to public transport
in terms of allowing them to perform the activities listed in Table 7. Comparing the
assessment of the access to current public transport system when doing the mentioned
activities, only when Visiting relatives is not statistically different at 95% level of confidence.
The rest of the activities like recreational activity, cultural activities, sports activities,
grocery shopping and social activities are statistically different between the two respondents,
with the HI respondents having higher rating than the LI respondents at hypothesized
difference of zero (0). This results may be confusing since most HI respondents do not use
public transport as primary mode, they may be simply putting a higher rating to the access to
public transport without really using them.

Table 7. Comparison between high income and low income groups on their assessment of
access to public transport to perform the activities and the desired level of performance of
doing the activities.
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Mean (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances(α = .05)
Groups
Rating F-critical t-critical
Assessment F value Decision t-value Decision
(one-tailed) 1-tailed)
HI 3.49
Visit relatives LI 3.25
1.997 1.389 1.491 1.653 No Diff.

Recreational HI 3.80
2.078 1.389 4.031 1.653
activities LI 3.22
Cultural HI 3.46
2.889 1.388 3.031 1.654
activities LI 3.00 Unequal
HI 3.65 variance With Diff.
Sport Activities LI 3.10
2.713 1.388 3.672 1.654

Grocery HI 3.92
2.108 1.388 2.589 1.653
shopping LI 3.54
HI 3.84
Social activities LI 3.34
2.331 1.388 3.389 1.654

Desired
HI 4.31 Unequal
Visit relatives LI 4.30
1.571 1.388
variance
0.104 1.653 No Diff.

Recreational HI 4.45 Equal

1.179 1.388 2.136
activities LI 4.21 variance
Cultural HI 4.23 Unequal
1.409 1.388 1.663 With Diff.
activities LI 4.01 variance
HI 4.36 Equal 1.652
Sport Activities LI 4.09
1.326 1.388
variance
2.236

Grocery HI 4.50 Equal

1.299 1.388 0.382 No Diff.
shopping LI 4.46 variance
HI 4.46 Equal
Social activities LI 4.36
1.214 1.388
variance
0.919 No Diff.

January 2018 50
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1

They were then asked their desired level of performance when performing the said
activities. Visiting relatives, Cultural activities, Grocery shopping, and Social activities have
no statistically significant difference between the HI and LI respondents. Only Recreational
and Sports activities have statistically different mean rating with HI respondents having a
higher rating than the LI respondents.

Table 8. Comparison of high income and low income groups ratings of the assessment and
desired level of transport modal options that can be accessed to perform daily activities
Groups Mean F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Rating (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances (α = .05)
F value F-critical Decision t-value t-critical Decision
(1-tailed) (1-tailed)
Assessment of modal HI 3.48 7.275 1.389 Unequal 0.932 1.657 No Diff.
variance
options’ accessibility to
LI 3.35
perform daily activities
Desired level of modal HI 4.29 3.910 1.388 Unequal 1.780 With Diff.
variance 1.655
options’ accessibility to
LI 4.50
perform daily activities

Both groups’ rating of their assessment of transport modal options that can be
accessed to perform their daily activities have no difference (Table 8) but with HI
respondents’ ratings more spread out compared to that of the LI respondents’ rating as shown
in Figure 11, hence having unequal variance. However, the desired level of transport modal
options to perform the daily activities of LI respondents are significantly different at 95%
level of confidence than that of the HI respondents (see also Table 8). This would mean that
the LI respondents felt that currently their transport modal options are much more limited
when performing the daily activities. In Figure 12, the LI respondents’ rating are more
clustered than that of the HI respondents.

5 5

4 4

3 3
Rating

Rating

2
2
1
HI(Assess) 1
LI(Assess) HI(Desired)
0 LI(Desired)
0 50 100 0
0 50 100
No. of samples No. of respondents

Figure 11. Scatterplot of HI and LI Figure 12. Scatterplot of HI and LI

respondents’ on actual assessment of modal respondents’ on desired level of modal
options’ accessibility options’ accessibility

Table 9. Relevance of improving issues on transport system

t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances
Mean Equal/Unequal Variances
Respondent
Rating F-critical t-critical
Issue F value Decision t-value Decision
(one-tailed) (1-tailed)
Access to HI 4.66 Equal
0.513 0.720 5.085
activities LI 4.07 variance 1.652 With Diff
Range of modal HI 4.51 0.953 Unequal 3.019

January 2018 51
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
options LI 4.14 variance
Quality of modal HI 4.71 Equal
0.480 5.386
options LI 4.11 variance
HI 4.53 Unequal
Affordability LI 4.23
0.902
variance
2.415

As shown in Table 9, using a likert scale of 1 (low importance) to 5 (high

importance), the four issues of access to activities, range of modal options, quality of modal
options and affordability, the HI respondents’ rating are significantly different than that of the
LI respondents at 95% level of confidence. This would mean that the HI respondents have
higher expectations on these issues than the LI respondents.

Table 10. Assessment of the actual and desired level of social interaction when using primary
transport mode between high income and low income groups
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Grou Mean (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances (α = .05)
ps Rating F-critical t-critical
F value Decision t-value Decision
(1-tailed) (1-tailed)
Assessment of actual level of HI 2.75
social interaction when using 5.006 2.012 1.656
primary transport mode LI 3.03 Unequal With
1.387
Desired level of social variance Diff.
HI 2.93
interaction when using primary 2.492 5.182 1.654
transport mode LI 3.75

Social interaction. In terms of social interaction (Table 10), the LI respondents have higher
rating, in terms of social interaction when using the primary transport mode in both the actual
and the desired level than the HI respondents. With a hypothesized mean difference of 0.0 at
95% level of confidence, the LI respondents mean rating is significantly different than that of
the HI respondents. This is expected since the LI respondents use public transport as their
primary mode where social interaction is more prevalent.

Natural environment and sustainability. As shown in Table 11 the assessment of access to

STM of the two groups of respondents have no difference and with ratings near the middle
value of 3 would mean they are just neutral to the situation. While the desired level of access
of the two groups are more than 1.0 higher ratings than their assessment and with the HI
respondents having higher desired level of access to STM than the LI respondents.

Table 11. Comparison of high income and low-income groups ratings of the assessment and
desired level of access to sustainable transport modes (STM)?
F-Test Two-Sample for t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Mean Variances(α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances(α = .05)
Respondents
Rating F-critical t-critical
F value Decision t-value Decision
(1-tailed) (1-tailed)
Assessment of access HI 3.25 Unequal
to sustainable transport 6.508 1.387
variance
0.498 1.657 No Diff.
modes (STM)? LI 3.19
Desired level of access HI 4.55 Equal
1.048 1.388 2.524 1.652 With Diff.
to STM LI 4.29 variance

Table 12. Comparison of decision between the HI and LI groups regarding the relevance of
improving issues of the transport systems.
Mean F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Issue Respondent
Rating (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances(α = .05)

January 2018 52
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
F-critical t-critical
F value Decision t-value Decision
(one-tailed) (1-tailed)
HI 4.31 Unequal
Presence of trees LI 3.84
0.837
variance
3.530
HI 4.27 Unequal
Access to parks LI 3.73
0.986
variance
4.031
1.653 With Diff.
HI 4.46 0.717 Equal
Access to STM LI 3.78
0.658
variance
5.302

Affordability of HI 4.43 Unequal

0.845 4.523
STM LI 3.85 variance

They were then ask about the relevance of improving the following issues (presence
of trees, access to parks, access to STM, and affordability of STM) of the transport systems
(Table 12). We can see that at 95% level of confidence we can say that for all issues, the
difference between the mean ratings of the HI and LI respondents is not zero. The mean
ratings of HI respondents are always higher than that of the LI respondents. Since these issues
can be considered as added value to the transport system, it is understandable that the HI
respondents’ rating are higher since most are already secured when they travel using their
private vehicles.

Information in transport. In the case of the use of information for use in choosing
alternative transport modes (Table 13), both groups have equal ratings in both the actual and
desired level of access. This may mean that both groups are users of information, most likely
using technological tools like mobile phones, when they travel.

Built environment. Under the built environment, the mobility infrastructures were assessed
with a rating of 1 for very bad and 5 for very good. Those mobility infrastructures (see Table
14) include extent of road space for cars, parking availability, quality of highway, extent and
quality of pedestrian walkways, bus stop facilities (e.g. cleanliness, comfort and climate
protection) and bikeway facilities (amount, quality, parking availability).

Table 13. Assessment of the actual and desired levels of information available to choose
alternative transport modes between high income and low income groups
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Mean (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances (α = .05)
Groups
Rating F-critical t-critical
F value Decision t-value Decision
(1-tailed) (1-tailed)
Assessment of actual level HI 3.31
of information available to
4.306 0.283 1.655
choose alternative transport LI 3.35 Unequal
modes 1.388
variance
NoDiff.
Desired level of access to HI 4.33
information to choose 2.587 0.789 1.654
alternative transport modes LI 4.42

Table 14. Assessment of current conditions of mobility infrastructure near home between
respondents.
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Mean (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances (α = .05)
Groups
Rating F-critical t-critical
Assessment F value Decision t-value Decision
(one-tailed) (1-tailed)
Extent of road space for HI 3.14
1.929 3.067 1.653
cars LI 2.67
HI 2.95 Unequal
1.853 3.345 1.653
Parking availability LI 2.42 1.388
variance
With Diff.
HI 3.11
1.682 2.313 1.653
Quality of highways LI 2.80
Extent of pedestrian HI 2.88 2.056 2.210 1.653

January 2018 53
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
walkways LI 2.52
Quality of pedestrian HI 2.72
2.139 0.339 1.653
walkways LI 2.66
HI 2.41 No Diff.
2.903 0.530 1.654
Cleanliness of bus stops LI 2.49
HI 2.49
1.519 0.315 1.653
Comfort of bus seatings LI 2.45
Bus stop climate HI 2.37
3.058 1.701 1.654
protection LI 2.59
HI 1.98 With Diff.
2.076 3.064 1.653
Amount of bikeways LI 2.42
HI 2.07
2.487 3.259 1.654
Quality of bikeways LI 2.54
HI 2.54
2.278 1.395 0.580 1.654 No Diff.
Bicycle parking at work LI 2.45

The mean ratings of the respondents are mostly below the value of 3.0 which may
mean that the respondents are neutral or not satisfied with these mobility infrastructures. The
assessments of the HI and LI respondents have unequal variances in all items hence testing
for equal in mean ratings under an unequal variance situation were conducted. Since the HI
respondents are mostly car users, their mean rating of car-related infrastructures like extent of
road space for cars, parking availability, quality of highways as well as extent of pedestrian
walkways where the latter is also important when they walk from the car park to their offices
are significantly different than that of the LI respondents. On the other hand, the LI
respondents mean rating of bus stop climate protection, amount and quality of bikeways are
significantly different than that of the HI respondents. However, the mean rating difference
between the two groups is not significant for quality of pedestrian walkways, cleanliness of
bus stops, comfort of bus seatings, and bicycle parking at work.
With respect to the level of importance of improving the same mobility infrastructure
issues on the transport system (Table 15), the HI respondents mean ratings are significantly
different to that of the LI respondents at 95% level of confidence on all issues. This would
mean that the HI respondents demand higher level of importance on the current transport
systems than the LI respondents.
Table 15. Comparison between HI and LI respondents about level of importance of
improving issues on the transport system
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Mean (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances (α = .05)
Respondents
Rating F-critical t-critical
Desired F value Decision t-value Decision
(one-tailed) (1-tailed)
Extent of road space HI 4.42 Equal
1.323 1.388 5.336
for cars LI 3.74 variance
HI 4.53 Equal
1.158 1.388 4.327
Parking availability LI 3.98 variance
HI 4.66 Equal
0.573 0.720 5.195
Quality of highways LI 4.03 variance
Extent of pedestrian HI 4.57 Unequal
0.861 0.720 4.986
walkways LI 3.83 variance
1.652
Quality of pedestrian HI 4.53 Equal
1.162 1.388 3.214 With Diff.
walkways LI 4.16 variance
Cleanliness of bus HI 4.40 Equal
1.054 1.388 3.451
stops LI 3.95 variance
HI 4.41
Comfort of bus 0.950 0.720
Unequal
3.367
seatings LI 3.98 variance
Bus stop climate HI 4.41 Equal
1.077 1.389 2.693
protection LI 4.07 variance
HI 4.24 Unequal
2.255 1.388 5.242 1.974
Amount of bikeways LI 3.57 variance

January 2018 54
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
HI 4.28 Unequal
1.789 1.388 2.827
Quality of bikeways LI 3.92 variance
HI 4.19 1.653
Bicycle parking at Unequal
2.250 1.400 4.436
work LI 3.61 variance

Comparing the assessment of current conditions of facilities near the home, the HI
respondents have significantly higher mean rating for all (e.g. Park and squares, Cinemas,
theatres, and museums, Health facilities, Grocery, shops and trade, and Educational
facilities) compared to that of the LI respondents (see Table 16). In terms of improving
these facilities, the facilities needed for basic necessities like Health facilities, Grocery shops,
malls and trade and Educational facilities, no significant difference between the two set of
respondents was observed. In the case of Park and squares and Cinemas, theatres, and
museums, the HI respondents mean rating are significantly different than that of the LI
respondents at 95% level of confidence.

Commuting to work and productive activities. In a positive way (Table 17), the HI group
has significantly different mean rating for Current level of access to work opportunities, and
Neighborhood assessment in terms of accessible range of employment, while in a negative
way the HI group has significantly different mean rating for Access to transport affected
possibilities to have better job opportunities and have been affected by available range of
jobs in neighborhood to get one compared to the LI group. In terms of the Desired level of
accessible range of employment and Degree of satisfaction with current employment there is
no significant difference between the two groups and their mean ratings are generally higher
compared to the other items.

Table 16. Comparison of assessment of current conditions of facilities near home and the
level of importance of improving these facilities between the HI and LI groups.
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Mean (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances (α = .05)
Respondents
Rating F-critical t-critical
Assessment F value Decision t-value Decision
(one-tailed) (1-tailed)
HI 3.54 Unequal
3.709 7.125 1.976
Parks and squares LI 2.63 variance
Cinemas, theatres, HI 4.05 Equal
1.149 8.688 1.972
museums LI 2.95 variance
HI 4.02 1.387 Unequal With
2.256 5.129 1.974
Health facilities LI 3.45 variance Diff.
Grocery shops, HI 4.20 Unequal
1.704 3.244 1.973
malls and trade LI 3.85 variance
Educational HI 3.91 Unequal
2.775 3.050 1.974
facilities LI 3.55 variance

Importance
HI 4.14 Unequal
1.934 1.387 4.034 1.973
Parks and squares LI 3.64 variance
With
HI 4.25 Equal Diff.
Cinemas, theatres, 1.332 1.387 3.955 1.972
LI 3.80 variance
museums
HI 4.73 Unequal
1.529 1.387 0.574 1.972
Health facilities LI 4.67 variance
Grocery shops, HI 4.57 Equal
1.368 1.387 0.908 1.972 No Diff.
malls and trade LI 4.65 variance
Educational HI 4.59 Unequal
2.005 1.387 1.374 1.973
facilities LI 4.72 variance

January 2018 55
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
Table 17. Actual and desired level of assessment of commuting to work and productive
activities
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances t-Test for Means: Two-Sample
Mean (α = .05) Equal/Unequal Variances (α = .05)
Groups
Rating F-critical t-critical
Work and commuting F value Decision t-value Decision
(1-tailed) (1-tailed)
Current level of access to HI 3.93 1.400
3.640 7.374 1.655
work opportunities LI 3.19
Access to transport affected HI 3.89
possibilities to have better 0.815 0.716 2.122 1.653
LI 3.52 With Diff.
job opportunities Unequal
Neighborhood assessment HI 3.61 variance
in terms of accessible range LI 2.98
6.784 1.400 5.499 1.656
of employment
Desired level of accessible HI 4.12
2.679 1.403 0.083 1.654 No Diff.
range of employment LI 4.11
Have been affected by HI 3.13
Equal
available range of jobs in 1.232 1.400
variance
2.910 1.653 With Diff.
LI 2.83
neighbourhood to get one
Degree of satisfaction with HI 3.97 Unequal
1.529 1.404 1.280 1.653 No Diff.
current employment LI 4.12 variance

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The following are the findings of the study:

1. A greater majority of the HI respondents use the private car as primary mode in their
daily travel while for LI respondents, the top three primary public transport mode being
used are the jeepney, rail, and tricycle.
2. On the average, the HI respondents travel almost 10 minutes longer than the LI
respondents.
3. More than half (67%) of the HI respondents need to change mode compared to only 30%
of LI respondents when they travel.
4. Around 25% of the HI respondents felt being discriminated when they are riding their
primary modes compared to only around 8% of the LI respondents.
5. More than 80% of both respondents are willing to pay 15% to 30% more of the current
fare just to avail of an STM.
6. The assessment of existing transport infrastructures by the HI respondents are generally
higher than that of the LI respondents. These may not mean that the former are
generally satisfied with the current transport infrastructures (i.e. roads) as they use them
since most are using private cars.
7. The HI respondents’ rating of the desired level of access to transport infrastructures are
also generally higher than that of LI respondents which would mean the former desire
for a much better transport infrastructures since the current level are still not
satisfactory for them.

The following can be concluded about the study:

January 2018 56
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
 The mean ratings of the HI respondents on air pollution experience, level of security,
and comfort are on the positive end given that they are using mostly the private car as
their primary transport mode while the LI respondents have higher mean rating of
physical activities since they are using the public transport mode. Both respondents,
however, aspires to have low level of stress when traveling.
 With regards to the feelings the respondents associate with the available modes, the HI
respondents considered Low Cost, the most, and associate it with buses and jeepneys.
This is followed by Discomfort and associated it to LRT and jeepney. In the case of LI
respondents, Freedom is the most important consideration and associated it with the
private car and this is followed by Low Cost but associated it with tricycles. Both
respondents considered Private car, the most, as a transport mode of choice and both
associated it with Safety as the number one feeling. This shows that most LI
respondents aspire to own a car, being the mode with the highest number of positive
feelings associated with it.
 The HI respondents have higher expectations than the LI respondents on the following
transport system issues: (a) access to activities, (b) range of modal options, (c) quality
of modal options, and (d) affordability. Furthermore, the HI respondents put higher
relevance compared to LI respondents to the following: (a) presence of trees, (b) access
to parks, (d) access to STM, and (e) affordability of STM.
 However, the LI respondents have higher mean rating than HI respondents on the actual
and desired level of social interaction when using the primary transport mode given that
the former are using public transportation.
 While in the case of the use of information (i.e. cellphones), actual and desired levels,
for use in choosing alternative transport modes, both groups have equal mean ratings.
 In terms of the built environment, the HI respondents have higher mean ratings to
car-related infrastructures while the LI respondents have higher mean ratings to public
transport and bikeway-related infrastructures. However, there are other pedestrian and
public transport-related infrastructures with no mean rating difference between the two.
However, with respect to the level of importance of all these mobility infrastructure
issues the HI respondents’ mean ratings are significantly different than that of the LI
respondents.
 The HI respondents have significantly higher mean ratings than the LI respondents with
regards to the assessment of the current conditions of facilities near the home (e.g. Park
and squares, Cinemas, theatres, and museums, Health facilities, Grocery shops malls,
and trade, and Educational facilities). However, in terms of improving these facilities,
facilities for basic necessities like Health facilities, Grocery shops, malls and trade, and
Educational facilities, no significant difference was observed between the two
respondents.

REFERENCES

Bandegani, M. and Akbarzadeh, M. (2016) Evaluation of Horizontal Equity under a

Distance-Based Transit Fare Structure. Journal of Public Transportation.Vol. 19. No. 3.

January 2018 57
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
161-172.

Bocajero, J. and Oviedo, D. (2012) Transport accessibility and social inequities: a tool for
identification of mobility needs and evaluation of transport investments. Journal of
Transport Geograhy 24, 142-154, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.12.004

Center for Neighborhood Technology (2016). Housing + Transportation Affordability Index.

Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Di Ciommo, F. and Shiftan, Y. (2017) Transport equity analysis, Transport Reviews, 37:2,
139-151, doi: 10.1080/01441647.2017.1278647

Ewing, R. and Hamidi, S. (2014) Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures.
Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah for the National Cancer Institute,
The Brookings Institution and Smart Growth America.

Fransen, K.; Deruyter, G.; and De Maeyer, P. (2016) Concepts, reflections and applications of
social equity: approaches to accessibility to primary goods and services in the region of

Flanders, Belgium. In Luuk Boelens, D. Lauwers and F. Witlox (Eds.), Adaptive mobility: a
new policy and research agenda on mobility in horizontal metropolises (p. 17-44).
Groningen: InPlanning.

Geurs, K. and Van Wee, B. (2004) Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport
strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12, 127-140,
doi: 10.1016/j.trangeo.2003.10.005.

Gómez-Lobo, A. (2011) Affordability of Public Transport: A Methodological Clarification.

Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 45, No. 3, 437-456.

Gutiérrez, J. (2001) Location, economic potential and daily accessibility: an analysis of the
accessibility impact of the high-speed line Madrid-Barcelona-French border. Journal of
Transport Geography 9, 229-242, doi: 10.1016/S0966-6923(01)00017-5

Haas, P.; Makarewicz, C.; Benedict, A.; Sanchez, T.; and Dawkins, C. (2006) Housing and
Transportation Cost Trade-Offs and Burdens of Working Households in 28 Metros.
Chicago and Blacksburg, VA: Center for Neighborhood Technology and Virgina Tech.

Handbury, J. and Weinstein, D. (2014) Goods Prices and Availability in Cities. Review of
Economic Studies.

HDR Decision Economics (2010) Economic and Community Benefits of Local Bus Transit
Service (Phase Two), Case Study: Statewide Analysis. HDR Decision Economics for the
Michigan Department of Transportation.

Litman, T. (2017a) Evaluating Transportation Equity, Guidance For Incorporating

Distributional Impacts in Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Litman, T. (2017b) Evaluating Transportation Development Impacts: Understanding How

Transport Policy and Planning Decisions Affect Employment, Incomes, Productivity,

January 2018 58
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1
Competitiveness, Property Values and Tax Revenues, Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Litman, T. (2016) Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Livable
Transport Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Litman, T. (2011) Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport

Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Lucas, K. (2012) Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?, Transport Policy, 20
(2012) 105-113

Lucas, K., Van Wee, B., and Maat, K. (2015) A method to evaluate equitable accessibility:
combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation, 43,
473-490, doi: 10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2

Mahadevia, D.; Joshi, R.; and Datey, A. (2013) Low-Carbon Mobility in India and
Challenges of Social Inclusion: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Case Studies in India, CEPT
University Centre for Urban Equity, United Nations Environmental Program.

Manaugh, K.; and El-Geneidy, A. (2012) Who benefits from new transportation
infrastructure? Using accessibility measures to evaluate social equity in public transport
provision. In K. Geurs, K. Krizek, and A. Reggiani (Eds.), Accessibility and Transport
Planning: Challenges for Europe and North America. 211-227. Edward Elgar, London.
UK.

McCann, B. (2000) Driven to Spend: The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation

Expenses. Surface Transportation Policy Partnership.

Neutens, T.; Schwanen, T.; Witlox, F.; and Mayer, P. (2010) Equity of urban service delivery:
a comparison of different accessibility measures. Environ. Plan A. 42, 1613-1635.

Papa, E. and Coppola, P. (2012) Gravity-Based Accessibility Measures for Integrated

Transport-Land Use Planning (GraBAM). In Angela Hull, Cecília Silva, and Luca
Bertolini (Eds.) Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practices. COST Office. 117-124

Pérez, M.; Pons, J.; Llado, J.; and Reynés, M. (2014) Improving equity of public
transportation planning: The case of Palma de Mallorca. Proceedings of the AGILE 2014
International Conference on Geographic Information Science. Castellón.

Recker, W.; Chen, C.; and McNally, M. (2001) Measuring the Impact of Efficient Household
Travel Decisions on Potential Travel Time Savings and Accessibility Gains, Transportation
Research Part A Policy and Practice, doi: 10.1016/S0965-8564(99)00062-2.

Ribeiro, A.; Antunes, A.; and Páez, A. (2010) Road accessibility and cohesion in lagging
regions: Empirical evidence from Portugal based on spatial econometric models, Journal
of Transport Geography 18, 125-132, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.03.002.

Seneca, J.; Ozbay, K.; Lahr, M.; Irving, W.; Bartin, B.; Mantell, N.; Mudigonda, S.; and Jahan,
N. (2009) Transportation: Impact on Economy. E.J. Bloustein School, Rutgers University
for the New Jersey Department of Transportation. Final Report.

January 2018 59
 Philippine Transportation Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1

Schuerer, J. and Curtis, C. (2007). Accessibility Measures: Overview and Practical

Application. Urbanet: Curtin University. Working Paper No. 4: Accessibility Measures.

Shergold, I., and Parkhurst, G. (2012) Transport-related social exclusion amongst older
people in rural Southwest England and Wales, Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 412-421

Shirmohammadli, A., Louen, C., and Vallee, D. (2016) Exploring mobility equity in a society
undergoing changes in travel behavior: A case study of Aachen, Germany, Transport
Policy 4(2016) 32-39.

Van Wee, B.; Hagoort, M.; and Annema, J. (2001) Accessibility measures with competition.
Journal of Transport Geography 9, 199-208.

January 2018 60