Reforming The (Semi-) Informal Minibus System in The Philippines


Reforming the (semi-)informal minibus system

in the Philippines
The ‘Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program’
Early Route Evaluation
Reforming the (semi-)informal minibus system in the Philippines
Project Background
Transport is the highest energy-consuming sector in 40% of all countries worldwide, and causes about a
quarter of energy-related CO2 emissions. To limit global warming to two degrees, an extensive
transformation and decarbonisation of transport is necessary. The TRANSfer project’s objective is to
increase the efforts of developing countries and emerging economies for climate-friendly transport. The
project acts as a mitigation action preparation facility and thus, specifically supports the implementation
of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) of the Paris Agreement. The project supports several
countries (including Peru, Colombia, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia) in developing greenhouse gas
mitigation measures in transport.
The TRANSfer project is implemented by GIZ and funded by the International Climate Initiative (IKI)
of the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and
operates on three levels.
Mobilise Prepare Stimulate

Facilitating the Preparation of Knowledge products, Training,
MobiliseYourCity Mitigation Measures and Dialogue
Partnership
Standardised support Based on these experiences, TRANSfer
The goal of the multi- packages (toolkits) are is sharing and disseminating best
stakeholder partnership developed and used for the practices. This is achieved through the
MobiliseYourCity, which is preparation of selected development of knowledge products,
currently being supported by mitigation measures. As a the organisation of events and trainings,
France, Germany and the result, measures can be and the contribution to an increasing
European Commission, is that prepared more efficiently, level of ambition. Personal exchange of
100 cities and 20 national until they are ready for experience and dialogue is promoted at
governments commit to implementation and eligible events, including the annual Transport
ambitious climate action for (climate) financing. and Climate Change Week in Berlin, the
targets for urban transport and Accumulated over 10 years, United Nations Climate Change
take appropriate measures. the targeted measures aim for Conference (COP) or the International
a total reduction potential of Transport Forum.
60 MtCO2.
Meet us at www.changing-transport.org
Disclaimer
The content presented in this document has been compiled with the utmost care. Nevertheless, GIZ gives
no guarantee that the information provided is current, accurate, complete or error-free. GIZ accepts no
liability for damage or loss arising directly or indirectly from the use of this document, provided it has not
been caused intentionally or by gross negligence.
GIZ expressly reserves the right to modify or append this document in part or in whole without prior
notice, or to halt publication completely or for a limited period. Cartographic presentations in no way
constitute recognition under international law of boundaries and territories. The content of GIZ GmbH’s
documents is protected by copyright. The images used are marked with photo credits where required by
law. The use of any images requires the prior consent of GIZ GmbH, if not stated otherwise.
Acknowledgements
We would especially like to express our sincere gratitude to the staff at the National Department of
Transportation and the Land Transport Franchising and Regulation Board of the Philippine Government
for their support of this study, to the modern jeepney route operators for their participation in the
evaluation, to Diane Fajardo for leading the data collection and to Integrated Transport Planning Ltd for
the use of the Transitwand software.
Content
Executive Summary ................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 6
1.1 The ‘PUV Modernization Program’ – Early Evaluation ............................................... 6
1.2 Reporting Objectives ..................................................................................... 6
2. The ‘PUV Modernization Program’ ............................................................. 7
2.1 Transport in the Philippines ............................................................................. 7
2.2 ‘PUV Modernization Program’ Overview .............................................................. 8
2.2.1 Regulatory Reform ................................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Fleet Modernisation .............................................................................. 10
2.3 Industry Consolidation ................................................................................... 11
2.4 Financing of Fleet Renewal ............................................................................. 12
3. Evaluation of Early Implementation ..........................................................14
3.1 ‘PUV Modernization Program’ Scheme Roll-Out .................................................... 14
3.2 Collection of Early Operational Data ................................................................. 15
3.3 Evaluation of Early Operating Experiences .......................................................... 16
3.3.1 Fleet Modernisation .............................................................................. 16
3.3.2 In-Vehicle Layout and Equipment ............................................................. 18
3.3.3 Vehicle Financing ................................................................................. 19
3.4 Modern Route Characteristics .......................................................................... 20
4. Summary of Findings ............................................................................24
4.1 Operating Practices ...................................................................................... 24
4.2 Commercial Performance of New Routes ............................................................ 24
4.2.1 Operational costs ................................................................................. 24
4.2.2 Ridership and Revenues ......................................................................... 25
4.2.3 Overall commercial performance .............................................................. 26
4.3 Future Roll-Out and Challenges Ahead ............................................................... 27
Bibliography ...........................................................................................28
Annex 1: Table A.1 ...................................................................................29
Annex 2: Table A.2 ...................................................................................31
Annex 3: Table A.3 ...................................................................................35
Annex 4: Table A.4 ...................................................................................36
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of operators in Metro Manila ................................................................................................... 11
Table 2: Different types of modern jeepney operating on the surveyed routes .............................................. 17
Table 3: Comparison of operational characteristics of traditional and modern jeepney ................................ 21
Table 4: Modern jeepney vehicle’s operating costs/mth ..................................................................................... 22
Table 5: Commercial performance of operations over fifteen-year period ...................................................... 23
List of Figures
Figure 1: Modern jeepney passengers in Manila. . .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2: Traditional jeepney vehicle.. ...................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Low-carbon pathway for road-based public transport. ....................................................................... 8
Figure 4: ‘PUV Modernization Program’ Components. ........................................................................................ 9
Figure 5: Old and new jeepneys alongside plying the streets of Manila............................................................ 10
Figure 6: Traditional jeepney drivers taking a break............................................................................................. 11
Figure 7: Consolidation strategy of the PUVM Programme. ............................................................................. 12
Figure 8: Modern jeepneys undergoing inspection............................................................................................... 12
Figure 9: Financing mechanism for the ‘PUV Modernization Program’.. ........................................................ 13
Figure 10: DOTr Undersecretary Mark de Leon inaugurating a modern jeepney route in Cebu................. 15
Figure 11: Transitwand on-vehicle public transport data capture tool. ............................................................ 16
Figure 12: Typical bench seating arrangement on Hino-Almazora Jeepney compared with the front facing
seating of the Yutong Jeepney. ........................................................................................................... 18
Figure 13: In-vehicle equipment including AFCS, CCTV and passenger information system. .................... 18
Figure 14: Vehicle investment costs........................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 15: Route alignment and stopping patterns on Gate 3-Guaadalupe (NCR) and Banawa-Panagdai IT
(Region 7) ............................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 16: Comparison of operational features of traditional and modern jeepneys. .................................... 22
Figures 17 and 18: Boarding and alighting patterns on a traditional jeepney route. ....................................... 26
Figures 19 and 20: Boarding and alighting patterns on a new jeepney route ................................................... 26
Exchange rates
Philippine Peso EUR USD Date
1 PHP 0.018 EUR 0.020 USD 21.11.2019
2
Executive Summary
The Public Utility Vehicle Modernisation Program
In the Philippines, an ambitious national reform programme is currently underway. The ‘Public
Utility Vehicle Modernisation Program (PUVMP)’ will see the phasing out of the ageing ‘jeepney’
vehicles, the iconic and colourful jeeps which remain the most prevalent mode of motorised
transport in the Philippines. These will be replaced with modern minibuses or buses meeting Euro
IV emissions standards and new safety standards as part of a wide-ranging modernisation
programme also including industry consolidation and franchising reform (see figure below).
‘PUV Modernization Program’ Components. Source: DOTr (2016).
Evaluation of Early Implementation Experiences

The first of the modernised jeepney routes commenced operation in 2018, with the number of
new routes in operation now totalling more than twenty, with more than 80 routes from across
the Philippines having been given provisional franchises for the introduction of modern jeepney
operations. This represents a unique opportunity for the evaluation of the early operational
experiences of the modernised jeepney route operators. This study reports on the early experiences
collected through interviews with the modernised route operators and through on-bus surveys.
The data collected for this study provides unique insight into the experiences of the operators, and
also detailed ‘real-world’
operating data to enable
comparison of
commercial performance
achieved on the new
routes in comparison to
that of the traditional
jeepney operations.
Modern and traditional
jeepney in
Manila.
Source: GIZ
(2019).
3
Operating performance observed on modernised routes

Typical operational characteristics of the new routes have been analysed and compared against
that of traditional operations. Increased commercial revenues have resulted from the operation
of the larger capacity vehicles and also increased operating intensity through the adoption of shift
based staffing patterns rather than the traditional ‘boundary’ system in which a driver rents the
vehicle by the day and operates just a single shift. The table below summarises the findings.
Comparison of operational characteristics of traditional and modern jeepney
Average (range) Traditional Routes Modern Routes Average % ch.
14hrs 19 hours
Daily operating hours
(13-15hrs) (11-22 hours)
+36%
150km
127km (80-220km Euro IV
Vehicle utilisation
(60km-190km) diesel) +18%
(80-120km E-Jeepney)
Days of operation per 5.6 days

week (5.5-6 days)
6 days +7%
2 drivers, 1.5 conductors

1 driver
Staff per vehicle/day
(1-2 drivers)
(1-2.5 drivers, +350%
0-2.5 conductors)
650 PHP (11.57 600 PHP (10.68 EUR) +

EUR) benefits
₱ Daily staff earnings (574-755 PHP –

10.21-13.44 EUR)
(537 M/W-1,000+ PHP
– 9.56-17.80+ EUR)
~
(non-salaried) (salaried)
20 seats 30 seats max.

Vehicle capacity
(16-24 seats) (22-24 seated)
+50%
5.9 km/l 5.2 km/l

Fuel economy
(4.2-7.8 km/l) (4.2-6.2 km/l)
-12%
Fuel economy per

passenger/km
111 km/l 156 km/l +41%
Daily ridership 300 460
Pax./day/vehicle (150-350)
(Euro IV Jeep 300-750) 53%
(E-Jeepney 200-250)
Source: Table by authors (2019).
Operation of the modern jeepney entails an increased investment requirement, due to the cost of
the new vehicles. The different operating structure featuring salaried in-vehicle staff, the creation
of a formal operating entity (cooperative or corporation) and fleet management also involve
4
additional overheads. Detailed analysis of the viability of operations considered the return on
investment under modernised operations by comparison with investment in a traditional jeepney.
This finds that despite the additional investment requirements, rates of return on investment can
typically exceed that of traditional operations (see table below) over the 15 year life of the vehicle.
Commercial performance of operations over fifteen-year period (PHP/EUR)
Traditional Jeepney Modern Jeepney
Vehicle type Jeepney & Franchise Euro IV Diesel Jeepney Electric Jeepney
350,000 PHP 1,925,000 PHP 1,850,000 PHP

Investment
(6,200 EUR) (34,000 EUR) (32,750 EUR)
Financing source Micro-Finance DBP Finance DBP Finance
Financial Internal Rate of

32% 55% 52%
Return (FIRR)
629,000 PHP 881,000 PHP 1,167,000 PHP

Net present value @12%
(11,100 EUR) (15,600 EUR) (20,600 EUR)
These findings demonstrate that modernisation can yield increased commercial performance for
operators. The investment in larger vehicles leads to higher farebox revenues and fomalised
operations with shift-patterns and fleet management increase vehicle productivity and should yield
economies of scale through collective maintenance and procurement of parts etc. The benefits of
formal operations also extend to drivers and conductors who receive now formalised salaries and
have reduced working hours due to shift-based operation.
Much of the return on the investment is realised over the longer term, in particular once the vehicle
finance has been settled. This requires operators to take a longer-term view of investment returns
rather than focusing on day-by-day profitability. This is likely to represent a significant change for
the current small-scale traditional jeepney operator. However, taking a long-term view on
investment returns would be familiar to corporations and should form part of the vision for the
cooperatives who have formed to collectively operate the route.
Future role out and the challenges ahead

The success observed in early implementation, and the demonstration of the commercial benefits
to operators set out within this study provides a positive foundation for increased pace of roll-out.
The majority of modernised jeepney operators interviewed express a strong desire to increase fleet
size and expanded operations to new routes.
Challenges remain however in the next phases of roll-out. As the number of developmental
(completely new) routes which may be identified diminishes, greater emphasis must be placed on
the transformation and modernisation of traditional operations on existing routes. This will
increasingly require industry consolidation of the existing franchise holders.
The scale of financing committed by government to support vehicle financing is sufficient for over
14,000 new jeepney units, but the credit facility for modern jeepney loans only currently covers up
to 1,400 units. Greatly increased allocation of funding from both financiers and government will
be required to cover the c. 180,000 units to be replaced.
5
1. Introduction
1.1 The ‘PUV Modernization Program’ – Early Evaluation
A Stock-Take on Initial Roll-Out Experiences
In the Philippines, partner country of the MobiliseYourCity Partnership since 2017, a national
reform programme is currently underway. Launched in 2017, the ‘Public Utility Vehicle
Modernization Program’ (PUVMP) is an ambitious modernisation programme bringing in new
regulatory requirements which will see the removal of ageing vehicles from public service and will
also require transformation in current operating practices by nature of the proposed changes to
the way in which franchises for the operation of services on routes will be granted.
The first of the modernised jeepney1 routes commenced operation in 2018, with the number of
new routes now totalling more than twenty. This represents a unique opportunity for the
evaluation of the early operational experiences of the modernised jeepney route operators. Early
experiences have been collected through interviews with the modernised route operators and
through on-bus surveys.
1.2 Reporting Objectives

The objectives of this report are as follows:
 To provide an overview of the ‘Public Utility Modernization Program’ and its key features;
 To outline the characteristics of operations on the new routes, including details of the new
vehicles which have been put into service;
 To present a detailed analysis of operational characteristics observed from
modernised route operations, including the ‘real-world’ operating performance on the
new routes with ridership levels, operating costs and commercial performance; and
 To present a comparison
in ‘real-world’ operating
performance between the
traditional and the
modernised jeepney
operations to enable
conclusions to be drawn on
the impact on the industry
of the modernisation
programme.
Figure 1: Modern jeepney
passengers in Manila.
Source: GIZ (2019).
1 Jeepneys are customised, often very old, ex-military jeeps that have been converted to minibuses, with a seating capacity of 12-
20 people on average.
6
2. The ‘PUV Modernization Program’

2.1 Transport in the Philippines
The Jeepney Is King
Public transport in the Philippines features an eclectic variety of modes, which include buses (city
bus, provincial bus and premium A/C buses), taxis (traditional taxis and the dominant ride-hailing
service ‘Grab’), ‘point to point’ minibuses known as ‘AUV’ (Asian Utility Vehicles) or ‘FX
Express’, motorised or pedal powered tricycles and a limited number of rail lines for those in the
metropolitan area of Manila, known as Metro Manila.
Figure 2: Traditional jeepney vehicle. Source: GIZ (2018).
It is however the humble ‘jeepney’ which presently dominates motorised transport in the country
- the iconic converted (ex-military) jeep which for over seventy years have served Filipinos with
public transport services that often are colourful and affordable, but also typified as
uncomfortable, unsafe and highly polluting.
Estimates suggest there are around 180,000 jeepneys operating in the Philippines, plying routes in
urban and rural areas across the country. In Metro Manila alone, it is estimated that there are 55,000
franchised jeepneys operating on more than 700 routes. The prevalence of illegal operators, known
as ‘colorum’ which have proliferated as a result of the moratorium placed on the issue of new
franchises back in 2003, suggests that the actual number of vehicles is likely to be even higher.
On the path towards decarbonising public transport, there are two different starting points. Only
some rather advanced emerging economies have already undertaken serious efforts to formalise
(parts of) their public transport. These few countries can start moving on towards electrification.
More often, public transport service provision in many developing countries, including the
7
Philippines, is currently still dependent on (semi-)informal minibus based fragmented low-quality

public transport systems.
This larger group of countries is responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from public transport. The jeepney reform in the Philippines is an important showcase for the
transformation of public transport in these countries. Countries still dependent on informal public
transport need to undertake a huge transition firstly to formalise and professionalise their public
transport industry moving gradually to larger capacity buses before the industry is in a position to
introduce and sustainably maintain electric buses at scale (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Low-carbon pathway for road-based public transport. Source: Authors
2.2 ‘PUV Modernization Program’ Overview

Transformative Change
In June 2017, the Department of Transportation (DOTr) of the Philippines launched the ‘Public
Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP)’, as part of the Duterte Administration’s plan
to improve the quality and environmental sustainability of public transport operations within the
country.
The initiative, which has now been passed into law, will, from 2020, see the prohibition of public
transport vehicles over fifteen years old from public service, and require operators to utilise
new vehicles conforming to the new minimum standards in relation to safety and emissions, and
equipped with in-vehicle technology requirements in order to be issued with route franchises
Beyond vehicle modernisation, the ‘PUV Modernization Program’ includes wider reform with the
planning and rationalising of public transport routes, transforming route franchise issuing
8
procedures and promoting industry consolidation and professionalisation to enhance service

levels. Figure 4 outlines the programme’s components.
Figure 4: ‘PUV Modernization Program’ Components. Source: DOTr (2016).
2.2.1 Regulatory Reform

The regulatory changes are outlined within ‘Omnibus Franchising Guidelines on the Planning and
Identification of Public Road Transportation Services and Franchise Issue’, Departmental Order
No 2017-11 (DOTr, 2017). The order, sets out new vehicle specifications, franchise issue
procedures and operating practices for all ‘Public Utility Vehicles’, including the Public Utility
Jeepney, also known as the PUJ or jeepney.
New Vehicle Standards
Under the new regulations, public utility vehicles will be required to meet minimum standards in
relation to safety and emissions, with certain on-vehicle technology requirements in order to be
issued with route franchises.
From Vehicle-Based to Route-Based Franchise
The PUVMP also brings about a fundamental change in the way in which franchises are issued.
Prior to the moratorium on new franchise issuance, which has been in place since 2003 under
Memorandum Circular No. 2003-028 (LTFRB, 2003), franchises would be issued to operators
with a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) for a single vehicle or a number of vehicles to
operate on a route. Acceptance of new franchises on an existing route followed a verification that
the demand merited the additional capacity, by means of a formula known as the Route Measured
Capacity (RMC). As a result of the past franchising arrangements, multiple operators serve the
same route, operating in competition with each other.
Under the new franchising guidelines, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
(LTFRB) will publish a call for applications to serve a route, and invite applications to operate the
route. The number of vehicles required, and service standards will be specified in the call. New
franchises will be issued only to a corporation or an operator cooperative. This represents a major
shift in franchising approach, enabling the LTFRB to issue a franchise on a route by route basis
rather than on the present fragmented individual operator-plus-vehicle basis. An important feature
of this change is that this enables fleet management for operations on a particular route, with the
9
operator having the ability to regulate headways and manage vehicle utilisation in a way that the
present fragmented market structure prevents.
Move from Competition in the Market to Competition for the Market
This new regulatory approach aims to bring about a move away from on-street competition.
However, with such a fragmented market structure, the majority of existing operators will be
required to consolidate in order to be able to provide the necessary number of vehicles to serve
the route. Indeed, the franchise eligibility criteria now specifically requires the applicant to either
be a cooperative or a corporation.
2.2.2 Fleet Modernisation

Safe, Efficient and Dignified
The modernisation of the vehicle fleet will follow as a direct result of the new regulatory
requirements on vehicle specification. The main vehicle standards and requirements are as follows:
 Compliance with Euro IV emissions standards as a minimum,
 Compliance with Philippine National Standards with regard to safety features, and
 Vehicles to be equipped with CCTV, Global Navigation Satellite System (i.e. GPS) and
Automated Fare Collection System (AFCS).
Figure 5: Old and new jeepneys alongside plying the streets of Manila. Source: GIZ (2019).
10
2.3 Industry Consolidation

From Fragmentation…
The jeepney sector is highly fragmented, characterised by a large number of small-scale operators.
Almost 80% of operators in Manila own just a single vehicle, with less than 1% of operators
owning ten or more vehicles, leading to an average operator-to-vehicle ratio of just 1.3 (Table 1).
The fragmentation of the jeepney sector and the domination of single franchise holders/operators
is one of the biggest barriers towards fleet modernisation, as financial literacy and capacity is very
limited.
Table 1: Number of operators in Metro Manila
Vehicle Number of Operators Proportion of Operators
1 19,098 78.3%
2 3,696 15.2%
3-9 1,447 5.9%
10+ 146 0.6%
Total 24,387 100%
Source: Authors’ analysis of LTFRB data (2018).
Figure 6: Traditional jeepney drivers taking a break. Source: GIZ (2019).
11
…to Consolidation
Under the new regulatory arrangements, franchise can only be issued to a corporation or a
cooperative. In order to remain in the industry, the jeepney sector must consolidate, moving from
individual franchise holder to part of an operator cooperative or corporation. Consolidation is the
core pre-condition in order to achieve the overall reform objectives and for the financial support
mechanism to be sustainable, as Figure 7 illustrates.
Figure 7: Consolidation strategy of the PUVM Programme. Source:Authors.
Figure 8: Modern jeepneys undergoing inspection. Source: DOTr (2018).
2.4 Financing of Fleet Renewal

Significant Barriers
Detailed analysis of the traditional jeepney operator business model identified significant
constraints in the ability of incumbent operators to access the finance required to enable
investment in new vehicles and to support the repayments on commercial terms.
Recommendations resulting from the analysis undertaken informed the PUVMP financing
mechanism ultimately adopted by the Philippine Government.
Recognising the need for sectoral support in financing new vehicles, both from an operator
perspective and to achieve the desired aims of the program, the Philippine Government in
partnership with the leading National Development Banks, Development Bank of the Philippines
(DBP) and Landbank, have developed a financial assistance programme to support operators in
making the necessary investment in modern Jeepney vehicles.
12
The financing model, which has colloquially been badged as the ‘5,6,7,8 model’, has the following
loan attributes:
 5% down-payment,
 6% annual interest (typical rate – Landbank will in some cases demand a higher rate),
 7-year amortisation term (with a six-month initial grace period), and
 Subsidy of 80,000 PHP (1,419 EUR - 1,560 USD) (up to 5% of vehicle cost) for
surrendering old franchise.
The financing mechanism for the ‘PUV Modernisation Program’ is summarised in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Financing mechanism for the ‘PUV Modernization Program’.
Source: Authors.
13
3. Evaluation of Early Implementation

3.1 ‘PUV Modernization Program’ Scheme Roll-Out
A Mark in History – National Roll-Out
The first two modern PUV routes delivered under the ‘PUV Modernization Program’ commenced
operation in Manila in June 2018, with modern jeepneys operating in Taguig City and Pateros.
Since then, further routes have received authorisation to operate, though the issue of a provisional
franchise. Approaching the end of 2019, the roll-out has gathered pace with:
84 identified routes for modernised operations to be served by 2,500 new jeepney
vehicles. Of which:
 30 routes in operation in 2019 across six regions in the Philippines, with a modern
jeepney vehicle fleet approaching 500 vehicles.
The modern jeepney routes issued with franchise for operation by region:
Figure 10: Modernised Jeepney Routes (left) and Surveyed Routes (right). Source: GIZ (2019).
Modernised routes surveyed
National Capital Region Region 1 Region 2

 10 routes  1 route  3 routes
 208 vehicles  4 vehicles  50 vehicles
Region 4a Region 6 Region 7 Region 8

 3 routes  3 routes  6 routes  4 routes
 56 vehicles  15 vehicles  115 vehicles  60 vehicles
14
3.2 Collection of Early Operational Data

The roll out of the new jeepney routes in regions across the different regions of the Philippines is
offering travellers a first experience of the new jeepney vehicles and the impact of the reforms on
travel conditions on these routes.
A Proud Moment for the Philippines
Figure 10: DOTr Undersecretary Mark de Leon inaugurating a modern jeepney route in Cebu.
Source: GIZ (2019).
The initial roll-out of modernised operations represents a significant and time-bounded

opportunity to collect information on the operational performance of the new vehicles and
operator experiences in order to evaluate the early implementation experiences of those
participating in the scheme in order to disseminate the findings as the roll-out of the PUVMP
remains underway.
Accordingly, during the summer of 2019, a data collection exercise was conducted to capture these
experiences and the operational data to provide insight into ‘real-world’ operating conditions
and commercial performance of modern operations.
The data collection took two forms:
 Face-to-face stakeholder interviews with
 Modernised jeepney route operators,
 The Department of Transportation as the scheme promoter, and
 The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) as the largest lender in the PUVM
financing programme; and
 On-vehicle GPS surveys collecting a range of useful data on operating conditions and
performance including the GPS capture of the route alignment, stopping points, travel
time and the boarding and alighting and loading patterns observed on each route.
15
Collection of ‘Real-World’ Operating Data
Figure 11: Transitwand on-vehicle public transport data capture tool. Source: ITP Ltd (n.d.).
3.3 Evaluation of Early Operating Experiences

An Operator’s Perspective
This evaluation of early implementation experiences focuses specifically on the experiences of the
new jeepney operator and on the commercial performance of modernised routes. Whilst an
improved passenger experience is of utmost importance, and indeed the principal reason for the
modernisation programme, the success of the programme is dependent upon participation by the
industry, and therefore the emphasis of this evaluation is placed on understanding of operator
experiences of the scheme.
The evaluation considers in turn the main elements of the new operating regime, looking at the
new vehicles, the new routes, operating practices, and commercial performance achieved during
the initial implementation phase. This is compared against that typical of traditional jeepney
operations where relevant, to set the observed performance in context against local expectations.
3.3.1 Fleet Modernisation

A Range of Options…
Providing the modern jeepney vehicle conforms to the new regulatory standards, he procurement
decisions in relation to vehicle supplier are down to the individual operator. A range of suppliers
offered prototypes compliant with the new standards and the route surveys find operator’s vehicle
choice has been varied.
Vehicles have been procured from manufacturers in China, Japan, India and the Philippines, with
local body builders in many cases providing coach building services. The majority of operators of
the routes surveyed deployed ‘Type 2’:
 22-24 seats,
 30 maximum capacity (including standing),
 Euro IV diesel (or above), or electric jeepney,
 Air conditioned or non-air-conditioned.
16
Table 2: Different types of modern jeepney operating on the surveyed routes
The Modern Jeepney Vehicles (‘Type 2’ Vehicles)
Hino XU343 (Japan). 24 seated, 6 standing Isuzu-Centro (Japan, Philippines). 23 seated, 7 standing
Yutong (China). 21 seated, 9 standing Mahindra T20 (India). 22 seated, 8 standing
Star 8 Electric Jeepney (Philippines). Isuzu, Almazora (Japan, Philippines)

22 seated, 8 standing 24 seated, 8 standing
17
3.3.2 In-Vehicle Layout and Equipment

Tradition Combined with Technology
With an authorised passenger capacity of 30 passengers (including standing) the modern jeepney
are higher capacity than the typical traditional jeepney with a capacity of 16-24 seats and no
standing passengers. This size of modern jeepney vehicle is classified as ‘Class 2’ vehicles under
the Philippine National Standards for Public Utility Vehicles (DTI, 2017). Almost all vehicles adopt
the side-facing bench seating typical of the traditional jeepney, with seated capacity therefore
dependent on passenger proximity.
Figure 12: Typical bench seating arrangement on Hino-Almazora Jeepney compared with the front
facing seating of the Yutong Jeepney. Source: GIZ (2019).
In accordance with the new Omnibus Franchising Guidelines, the vehicles are equipped with the
required in-vehicle equipment which includes automated fare collection systems (AFCS), closed
circuit television (CCTV) and Wi-Fi. At the time of the surveys, whilst equipped with the machines,
the AFCS systems on the vehicles were not in operation, due in most cases to technical challenges.
Driver or conductor cash-based collection, or cash-box represented the main means of fare
collection.
Figure 13: In-vehicle equipment including AFCS, CCTV and passenger information system.
Source: GIZ (2019).
18
Invest to Progress
The increased investment cost of the modern jeepney represents one of the greatest points of
concern for the traditional jeepney operator. Since the franchise moratorium, the main route of
entry into the jeepney sector has been the purchase of a second hand jeepney holding a franchise.
The cost would vary according to the franchised route but may typically have cost 350,000 PHP
(6,200 EUR). By comparison, a new traditional jeepney without franchise may cost 650,000 PHP
(11,500 EUR).
Procurement cost for the larger Type 2 Jeepney are found to typically range from 32,000 EUR to
42,000 EUR. With a minimum route vehicle requirement of fifteen vehicles, an operator would be
looking at a minimum investment of around 0.5 million EUR to be able to take on a modernised
route franchise.
Figure 14: Vehicle investment costs. Source: Figure by authors.
The financial support mechanism was developed in recognition of the challenges operators would
face in meeting the investment requirements.
3.3.3 Vehicle Financing

Modest Down-Payment, Longer Repayment
Whilst vehicle cost and investment requirement is higher than for the traditional jeepney, the
structure of the financial support package means that upfront investment requirements are actually
minimal. The majority of operators surveyed had taken advantage of the PUVMP financing
support offered through national development banks. The preferential loan extended under the
scheme covers 95% of the vehicle cost, requiring only a 5% deposit.
In addition, operators who are relinquishing an old franchise can receive a grant of up to 5% of
the vehicle cost, to a maximum of 80,000 PHP (1,400 EUR). Whilst the value of this grant does
not cover the full operator down-payment requirement (the value was determined on an
anticipated vehicle cost of 1.6 million PHP; 28,000 EUR), this serves to reduce the upfront capital
requirement from the operator to a maximum of 700 EUR even for the most costly vehicle.
19
Whilst upfront deposit requirements may remain low, the operator is of course responsible for
repayment of the 95% loan over the seven-year term. Based on typical procurement costs of the
modern jeepney, the amortisation for the PUVMP preferential loan is as follows:
 26,715 PHP (470 EUR) per month for the Euro IV Diesel air-conditioned jeepney
costing 1.925 million PHP (34,350 EUR); and
 25,675 PHP (450 EUR) per month for the Electric Jeepney costing 1.85 million PHP
(33,000 EUR).
3.4 Modern Route Characteristics

A Combination of New and Old
The routes issues with franchises for modernised operations represent both existing routes and
newly identified routes:
 Most existing jeepney routes feature a large number of operators, with a range of
franchise expiry dates. Existing routes selected for the roll-out of early operations typically
already feature a dominant operator, for example a cooperative. This facilitates the move
from vehicle-based to route-based franchising; and
 New routes, also called ‘developmental routes’ have been identified to serve evolving
traveller demand patterns, for example in areas of new development. Developmental
routes do not have incumbent operators, and therefore are particularly practical for the
move to route-based franchising.
Of the surveyed routes, the proportion of new and existing routes was broadly even.
No Typical Route
As with the traditional jeepney routes, the surveyed modern routes vary in characteristics. Route
length ranges from 7 kilometres to 27 kilometres featuring some linear and some circuit (loop)
routes. The average surveyed route length is 12.5 kilometres. Commercial operating speeds average
10 kilometres per hour in the peak period rising to 18 kilometres per hour in the off-peak, although
observed peak speeds could fall as low as 5 kilometres per hour on certain routes.
Figure 15: Route alignment and stopping patterns on Gate 3-Guaadalupe (NCR)
and Banawa-Panagdai IT (Region 7). ITP (2019).
20
The varied route characteristics are reflected in the operational characteristic, including round trips
achievable, daily operated kilometres, ridership and passenger journey length. A summary of the
range of operational characteristics are presented in Table 3. Comparison is made with that of
traditional jeepney routes, drawing on data collected for the Jeepney Market Transformation
Programme Report (GIZ, 2015).
Table 3: Comparison of operational characteristics of traditional and modern jeepney
Average (range) Traditional Routes Modern Routes Average % ch.
14hrs 19 hours
Daily operating hours
(13-15hrs) (11-22 hours)
+36%
150km
127km (80-220km Euro IV
Vehicle utilisation
(60km-190km) diesel) +18%
(80-120km E-Jeepney)
Days of operation per 5.6 days

week (5.5-6 days)
6 days +7%
2 drivers, 1.5 conductors

1 driver
Staff per vehicle/day
(1-2 drivers)
(1-2.5 drivers, +350%
0-2.5 conductors)
650 PHP (11.57 600 PHP (10.68 EUR) +

EUR) benefits
₱ Daily staff earnings (574-755 PHP –

10.21-13.44 EUR)
(537 M/W-1,000+ PHP
– 9.56-17.80+ EUR)
~
(non-salaried) (salaried)
20 seats 30 seats max.

Vehicle capacity
(16-24 seats) (22-24 seated)
+50%
5.9 km/l 5.2 km/l

Fuel economy
(4.2-7.8 km/l) (4.2-6.2 km/l)
-12%
Fuel economy per

passenger/km
111 km/l 156 km/l +41%
Daily ridership 300 460
Pax./day/vehicle (150-350)
(Euro IV Jeep 300-750) 53%
(E-Jeepney 200-250)
The comparison in operational characteristics of traditional and modern jeepney operations is

summarised in Figure 17 below.
21
Figure 16: Comparison of operational features of traditional and modern jeepneys.

Source: Figure by authors.
Taking the operating conditions and commercial characteristics exhibited across all surveyed
routes, and details of the additional vehicle and non-vehicle overheads, a typical cost breakdown
of modern route operations has been established and is summarised in the Table 4 below.
Table 4: Modern jeepney vehicle’s operating costs/mth (PHP/EUR)
PHP (EUR) Class 2 Diesel Jeep (AC) Electric Jeepney
Vehicle purchase price 1,925,000 (34,470) 1,850,000 (33,127)
Interest and depreciation 19,838 (355) 19,065 (341)
In-vehicle staff costs 59,500 (1,065) 24,750 (443)
Fuel cost 30,288 (542) 7,500 (134)
Maintenance 5,625 (101) 6,625 (119)
Other vehicle overheads 6,520 (117) 6520 (117)
Non-vehicle overheads 10,000 (179) 10,000 (179)
Total 131,771 (2,360) 74,460 (1,333)
Operated km/year 45,000 km 30,000 km
Cost/km 35 (0.63) 30 (0.54)
A Profitable Enterprise
A primary concern within the jeepney industry is the impact of the new investment and operating
requirements on operator livelihoods. In order to establish the commercial viability of modern
operations, the typical revenues and operating costs collected from the survey have been used to
22
evaluate the commercial viability over the life of the vehicle. The commercial viability of modern
jeepney operations is assessed using standard measures of commercial performance. For
comparison, the financial returns from investing in a traditional jeepney using micro-finance (a
common route to vehicle ownership for jeepney drivers). This comparison is detailed in Table 5
below.
Table 5: Commercial performance of operations over fifteen-year period (PHP/EUR)
Traditional Jeepney Modern Jeepney
Vehicle type Jeepney + Franchise Euro IV Diesel Jeepney Electric Jeepney
350,000 PHP 1,925,000 PHP 1,850,000 PHP

Investment
(6,200 EUR) (34,000 EUR) (32,750 EUR)
Financing source Micro-Finance DBP Finance DBP Finance
Financial Internal Rate of

32% 55% 52%
Return (FIRR)
629,000 PHP 881,000 PHP 1,167,000 PHP

Net present value @12%
(11,100 EUR) (15,600 EUR) (20,600 EUR)
23
4. Summary of Findings
Evaluation of the modern jeepney operators’ experiences, and detailed analysis of the commercial
operating data collected from the routes provides valuable insight into the ‘real-world’
performance of both the modern jeepneys and the reformed operating practices implemented
under the ‘PUV Modernization Program’.
4.1 Operating Practices

Increased Efficiency
Of the changes observed in operating practices of the modern route operators by comparison with
traditional operations, the following important differences are to be flagged:
 Single operating entity responsible for operating each modernised jeepney route, enabling
the sole operator to manage service levels on the route and reduce the adverse impacts of
driving patterns associated with on-street competition;
 Collective operational and fleet management practices adopted, including vehicle headway
management (if not yet operation to timetable) and collective vehicle procurement,
sourcing of spares and maintenance; and
 Drivers, conductors and operating staff employed on a salaried basis with associated
benefits, representing a fundamental shift from the daily driver income uncertainty
associated with the boundary system.
The move from individual vehicle ownership to collective ownership facilitates the pooling of risk
as well as resources and offers the opportunity to benefit from economies of scale in vehicle and
parts procurement and maintenance.
Industry Players Ready for the Change
It should be noted that participating in the programme to date have principally been operators and
commercial entities already demonstrating a level of consolidation and professionalisation. One
example observed within the surveys was that of the tricycle cooperative incorporating a company
to operate new jeepney remains. However the example remains in the minority, and the evaluation
did not encounter examples of individual operators of traditional jeepneys forming a cooperative
specifically to participate in the programme.
4.2 Commercial Performance of New Routes

Insight into the commercial performance of the new routes was collected both from operator
feedback and independent observation. Detailed data collection on ridership and revenues and the
costs of the new jeepney operations have enabled a good picture of commercial operating
performance to be established.
The key findings of this analysis may be summarised as follows.
4.2.1 Operational costs

Some Pain, Much Gain
The cost of the modern jeepney vehicle significantly outstrips that of the traditional vehicles. The
preferential financing arrangements minimise the upfront capital requirement but the repayment
of the vehicle loan will extend seven years into operations. Surveyed operators report however the
24
advantages of operating a new vehicle, highlighting the enhanced reliability of the new vehicles by
comparison with traditional jeepney which often incurred significant time off-the-road for
maintenance.
Operators are observed to take full advantage of the new vehicles through increased operational
intensity. The move to salaried drivers and conductors has facilitated a move to a two-shift
operation. This increases the scale of employment per vehicle and enables greater vehicle
utilisation. Whilst the wages offered for the on-vehicle position broadly reflect present industry
standards, the staff now benefits from salaried status, with certainty of income and the associated
wider social security benefits.
Fuel efficiency reported by the operators suggest that the improvement in fuel economy
anticipated by comparison with the traditional jeepney has not materialised in real world operation.
However, the increased vehicle capacity of thirty by comparison with a typical twenty-seat
traditional jeepney, the fuel economy per passenger carried represents a great improvement. This
will also be reflected in the environmental credentials of operations on the new route, with a
reduction in carbon emissions per passenger by comparison with the old vehicles.
Additional operational costs not incurred under traditional operations include the monthly costs
associated with the on-vehicle equipment.
4.2.2 Ridership and Revenues

Positive performance figures
Whilst ridership levels were observed to vary widely by route, the typical patronage per vehicle per
day significantly exceeds that of the typical traditional jeepney.
This is driven largely by the two following key differences in modern operations:
 Greater vehicle capacity of the modern jeepney,
 Increased intensity of operation.
Daily fare-box revenues were recorded to range from 2,500 PHP (44.49 EUR) to 7,500 PHP
(133.47 EUR), influenced by the increased ridership and for air-conditioned vehicles, the benefit
of a fare level 20% higher than for non A/C jeepney. Again, the typical revenues sit higher than
the estimated average revenues collected by the traditional jeepney, due to the increased operating
intensity and larger capacity.
But some old habits remain…
Whilst the characteristics of the new vehicles and the management and structure of operations
have evolved, some shared similarities with the traditional operating practices remain. The figures
below show boarding and alighting activity and vehicle loadings recorded from on-vehicle surveys
for typical traditional routes (data collected in 2015) and for the modern Jeepney routes. Higher
loadings of the new vehicles are evident, but frequent stopping to allow the boarding of small
numbers of passengers remains prevalent. The interviews found that whilst there is an aspiration
to serve only formal stops, modern operators have not yet been able to eliminate the informal
roadside pick-ups typical of traditional operations. Driver training may help in this regard, but the
expectations of passengers, and their desire to board at any given point along the route which was
cited as the primary factor preventing the cessation of the practice.
25
Figures 17 and 18: Boarding and alighting patterns on a traditional jeepney route. Source: ITP
Figures 19 and 20: Boarding and alighting patterns on a new jeepney route. Source: GIZ
4.2.3 Overall commercial performance

Opportunity for Enhanced Returns
The comparison of commercial performance is assessed from the perspective of the operator (i.e.
the entity which owns the vehicles):
 The majority of operators report being pleased with the commercial performance achieved
on the modernised routes, with many expressing a desire to expand operations and operate
on further routes;
 Despite the increased daily operating costs of employing two shifts of on-vehicle staff and
the additional overheads for the on-vehicle equipment such as the GPS and AFCS, and
the non-vehicle overheads including operation of the depot, and management structure,
almost all operators reported the ability to cover all costs including the vehicle repayment
and turn a profit; and
 Returns over the lifetime of the vehicle are significant, with the rate of return on
investment for both the Euro IV diesel jeepney and the electric jeepney exceeding 50%
based on typical operational performance levels. This outstrips the returns expected for
those who entered the market by purchasing a traditional jeepney with franchise using
traditional credit lines.
26
Much of the return on the investment is realised over the longer term, in particular once the vehicle
finance has been settled. This requires operators to take a longer-term view of investment returns
rather than focusing on day-by-day profitability. This is likely to represent a significant change for
the current small-scale traditional jeepney operator. However, taking a long-term view on
investment returns will be familiar to corporations and should form part of the vision for the
cooperatives who have formed to collectively operate the route.
4.3 Future Roll-Out and Challenges Ahead

Maintaining the Momentum
Challenges remain in the next phases of roll-out. As the number of developmental routes which
may be identified diminishes, greater emphasis must be placed on the migration of traditional
operations on existing routes. This will increasingly require industry consolidation of the existing
franchise holders. With no early examples of this occurring within the informal operator end of
the sector, this represents a risk to wider roll-out, both at the political and practical level.
Keeping the Funding Tap On
The scale of funding committed by the development banks, whilst a positive start, remains just a
fraction of the overall vehicle financing requirement. For 2019, the Philippine Government had
allocated sufficient funding to cover 80,000 PHP (1,423.66 EUR) per vehicle grants for a little over
14,000 new jeepney vehicles. However, the credit lines announced by the development banks,
totalling 2.5 billion PHP is only sufficient to cover around 1,400 vehicles at the prevailing
procurement prices. At the present rate of roll-out, it is possible that this lower target will not be
reached.
Ultimately however, the scale of investment for the replacement of the c. 180,000 traditional
jeepney vehicles stands at upwards of 300 billion PHP (445 million EUR). This is certain to extend
beyond the credit lines offered of the two development banks involved currently, with private
financing institutions likely to be needed to meet the financing requirements of the whole scheme.
There is also a risk that as less professional operators are brought into the scheme, the risk of bad
loans is likely to increase.
Overall however, early indications of scheme evaluation are very positive. The potential for
operators to achieve commercial gains through modernisation, whilst providing an improved level
of service provides an important message to the rest of the industry, that progress is not about
threatening livelihoods but rather enabling the sector to progress, to remain relevant and
commercially viable whilst meeting the ever evolving needs of the travelling public and wider
society.
27
Bibliography
GIZ. (2015). ‘Jeepney Market Transformation Program’. Professor Biona, J.B (De la Salle University,
Philippines), on behalf of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
(unpublished).
DOTr – Department of Transportation - Philippines (2017): Departmental Order 2017-11.
Available at http://ltfrb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DO-2017-011.pdf
DTI - Department of Trade and Industry, Philippines. (2017). Public Utility Vehicle Class 2 and 3 -
Dimensions. Philippine National Standard 2126:2017
LTFRB – Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board - Philippines (2003): Nationwide
moratorium on the new acceptance of applications/petitions for the issuance of a certificate of public
convenience, except truck for hire service. Memorandum Circular No. 2003-028. Available at
http://ltfrb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Memorandum%20Circular/2003/2003-028.pdf
28
Annex 1: Table A.1

Table A.1 provides a list of the routes which had been identified as having received franchise and
vehicles at the time of the data collection in summer of 2019. It should be noted that when
surveyed, although operators were in place and had taken delivery of the initial allocation of
vehicles, a number of routes had not commenced operation, either awaiting inauguration or other
administrative milestone.
These operators were interviewed in any case, to collect information on the experience of
participation in the scheme and of the vehicle procurement process. The planned routes were also
mapped by GPS.
Table A.1: Surveyed routes and operator groups
Operational at
Surveyed Routes Operator
date of survey?
National Capital Region (NCR
Great Power Moves Transport Corporation (via

1. Alabang-Zapote Loop Y
Star8)
2. Bagumbayan-Pasig loop Taguig Transport Service Cooperative Y
3. Capitol Commons-Eastwood Y
Ecodyip Inc. (DyipKo)
4. Lawton-PITX Y
5. Filinvest Loop Electric Vehicle Expansion Enterprises Inc. Y
Pateros-Fort Bonifacio Transport Service and

6. Gate 3-Guadalupe Y
Multi-purpose Cooperative
7. Manila City Hall - QC City Hall

Pasang Masda Y
loop
8. MRT Buendia (Edsa)-

Esakay Inc. Y
Mandaluyong City Hall
9. PITX-Buendia loop Y
Senate Employees Transport Cooperative
(SETSCO)
10. PITX-Vito Cruz loop Y
Region 3
11. Apalit-Dau vv (via McArthur) N

3 Big Boys Transport Service Corp.
12. Dau-Apalit vv (via NLEX) N
13. Waltermart Paniqui-SM Tarlac

Paniqui-Gerona-Tarlac Transport Service Coop N
vv
29
Operational at
Surveyed Routes Operator
date of survey?
Region 4A
14. City Proper-Cotta-City Proper N
15. Talao-talao - City Hall N

Lucena City Transport Cooperative
16. Talao-talao - City Proper
N
(desired route)
Region 6
17. Iloilo City - Arevalo (Villa) loop N
18. Iloilo City - ITGSI (via CPU,

80% similar as Iloilo City-Jaro N
CPU) loop Iloilo City Alliance Operators and Driver
Transportation Cooperative
19. ITGSI - Iloilo City (via
N
diversion road) loop
20. Jaro Plaza - Mandurriao loop N
Region 7
21. Banawa - Panagda-it /

Y
Panagda-it - Banawa
Persano Corportation
22. Cebu City Hall - IT Park loop Y
23. Lapu-Lapu - Cordova Loop

N
(Counter clockwise)
United Drivers and Operators Transport
24. Lapu-Lapu loop (Clockwise) / Cooperative/ UDOTCO Transport Service Inc.
Lapu-Lapu loop (Counter Y
Clockwise)
Region 8
25. New Bus Terminal - New

Y
Kawayan vv
26. New Bus Terminal-Tagpuro vv SolarTech (via Star8) Y
27. Robinsons North - Robinsons

Y
Marasbarras vv
30
Annex 2: Table A.2

Operator Interview
Date
Operator Name
Modernized Route Name
Questions
Operator details
Operator name
Number of members (if co-op)
Routes operated
New vehicles owned
Old vehicles owned
(disaggregated by size if possible eg 14 seat, 18 seat etc)
Has structure of operating group changed under PUV modernisation?
Route characteristics
Developmental or existing route?
Official terminals?
Formal bus stops?
Total No. of vehicles operating on route (old and modern)
Other routes sharing similar alignment (ie along same road?)
Recent or planned changes to route (eg new terminal opening etc)
New Vehicles
Vehicle make and model (chassis and body)
Imported or locally built?
Vehicle capacity (standing/seating)
Seat arrangements – standing seating
Engine size
Manual or automatic
On board equipment (Automatic fare collection, GPS, information screen, radio etc)
Interviewer-please take external and internal photos of vehicle
31
Operational information
Route operating hours
Operating frequency
Operating to timetable?
Round trip time
Number of round trips operated per day
(or number of round trips per vehicle per day)
Vehicle kms per vehicle per day or per week (if known)
Number of employed staff

On-vehicle
Drivers
Conductors
Other salaried staff
Management staff
Terminal staff
Maintenance staff
Other staff eg Admin
Other non-employed staff
Drivers on boundary
Staff salaries
Drivers
Conductors
Terminal staff
Maintenance staff
Other salaries
Non-salaried staff
Boundary amount if drivers on boundary
New Vehicle operating costs

Fuel consumption (which ever available)
Fuel per vehicle per day or week or month
Fuel consumption l/km
Lubricants
Per vehicle per week/month
Tyres
Cost per tyre
Average lifetime of tyre (km)
Maintenance
Routine maintenance cost per month
Non-routine maintenance costs (eg repairs) to date
32
Insurance, licensing cost other tax or levies (per vehicle or for whole fleet)
Old Vehicle operating costs

Fuel consumption (which ever available)
Fuel per vehicle per day or week or month
Fuel consumption l/km
Lubricants
Per vehicle per week/month
Tyres
Cost per tyre
Average lifetime of tyre (km)
Maintenance
Routine maintenance cost per month
Non-routine maintenance costs (eg repairs) per annum
Insurance, licensing cost other tax or levies (either per vehicle or for fleet)
Passenger demand/revenue
Total route demand
On typical weekday
On Saturday / Sunday
In typical week
Passengers carried per vehicle per day
New vehicle
Old vehicle
Typical fare revenue per vehicle per day or week
New vehicle
Old vehicle
New Vehicle costs/financing

Purchase cost of new vehicle
Including or excl. tax?
Scrappage allowance received
Other incentive or tax exemptions received
Size of operator downpayment
Vehicle finance
Lender
Financing terms (loan term, interest rate)
Grace period
Monthly repayment per vehicle
In grace period
After grace period
33
Old Vehicle costs financing

Typical purchase cost of old vehicle
With franchise
Without franchise
Typical financing method?
Self financed
Bank
Micro-finance
Typical terms of finance on old vehicles
Lender
Financing terms (loan term, interest rate)
Grace period
Operator experience of new route operations

Experience of purchasing new vehicles
Choosing new vehicles
Procurement of new vehicles (eg any supply issues)
Manufacturer support eg maintenance contract
Access to finance
Ease of access to PUVM finance
Opinion on financing terms
Early experience of operating new vehicles
Reliability
Ease of driving
Ease of maintaining
Any other comments
Experience of commercial performance of new vehicles
Passenger numbers higher or lower
Scale of revenues generated
Vehicle operating costs
Changes to working practices
Salaried workers
Operating to timetable?
Using official stops only?
Response from other operators
Agression,colorum competition
Expectations and aspirations for the future
Purchase of new vehicles
Operation on other routes
Any other comments on PUVM
34
Annex 3: Table A.3

New Vehicle Inventory
Route Name
Operator Name
Make/Model of Vehicle
(please complete separate form for each different vehicle model if fleet consists of more than one type of new
vehicle)
Date of survey completion
Please log each new vehicle in fleet with date that the vehicle commenced active service and the current
mileage/kms recorded from the vehicle odometer.
Date vehicle put into

# Vehicle Registration Odometer reading (kms)
service
Example: D1 B648 Eg 03 August 2018 Eg. 8,500 km
Continue on second sheet if necessary
35
Annex 4: Table A.4

Terminal Dispatch Survey
Route Name
Operator Name
Terminal Name
Date
Record every in-service vehicle departure /arrival at terminal
Departure or Arrival (circle Time

Vehicle Registration
one) HH:MM
Example: D1 B648 D A 06:05
D A
D A
D A
Continue on second sheet if necessary
36
As a federally owned enterprise, GIZ supports the German Government in achieving its objectives in the field of
international cooperation for sustainable development.
Published by:
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Registered offices
Bonn and Eschborn
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 36+40
53113 Bonn, Germany
T +49 61 96 79-0
F +49 61 96 79-11 15
E info@giz.de
I www.giz.de
Author/Responsible/Editor, etc.:
Robin Kaenzig
Dr. Christian Mettke
Patricia Mariano
Design/layout, etc.:
Franco Jauregui-Fung
Photo credits/sources:
GIZ
URL links:
This publication contains links to external websites. Responsibility for the content of the listed external sites
always lies with their respective publishers. When the links to these sites were first posted, GIZ checked the
third-party content to establish whether it could give rise to civil or criminal liability. However, the constant
review of the links to external sites cannot reasonably be expected without concrete indication of a violation of
rights. If GIZ itself becomes aware or is notified by a third party that an external site it has provided a link to
gives rise to civil or criminal liability, it will remove the link to this site immediately. GIZ expressly dissociates
itself from such content.
Maps:
The maps printed here are intended only for information purposes and in no way constitute recognition under
international law of boundaries and territories. GIZ accepts no responsibility for these maps being entirely up to
date, correct or complete. All liability for any damage, direct or indirect, resulting from their use is excluded.
Printing and distribution:

Printed on 100% recycled paper, certified to FSC standards.
Eschborn, 2019
37
##Placeholder for Back-Picture
Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
GmbH
Registered Offices
Bonn and Eschborn
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 36+40
53113 Bonn, Germany
T +49 228 44 60-0

F +49 228 44 60-17 66
E info@giz.de
I www.giz.de

Reforming The (Semi-) Informal Minibus System in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reforming The (Semi-) Informal Minibus System in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reforming The (Semi-) Informal Minibus System in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats



Reforming the (semi-)informal minibus system

Mobilise Prepare Stimulate

Philippine Peso EUR USD Date

1 PHP 0.018 EUR 0.020 USD 21.11.2019

Evaluation of Early Implementation Experiences

Operating performance observed on modernised routes

Comparison of operational characteristics of traditional and modern jeepney

Average (range) Traditional Routes Modern Routes Average % ch.

Days of operation per 5.6 days

2 drivers, 1.5 conductors

650 PHP (11.57 600 PHP (10.68 EUR) +

₱ Daily staff earnings (574-755 PHP –

20 seats 30 seats max.

5.9 km/l 5.2 km/l

Fuel economy per

Daily ridership 300 460

Source: Table by authors (2019).

Traditional Jeepney Modern Jeepney

350,000 PHP 1,925,000 PHP 1,850,000 PHP

Financing source Micro-Finance DBP Finance DBP Finance

Financial Internal Rate of

629,000 PHP 881,000 PHP 1,167,000 PHP

Source: Table by authors (2019).

Future role out and the challenges ahead

1.2 Reporting Objectives

2. The ‘PUV Modernization Program’

Figure 2: Traditional jeepney vehicle. Source: GIZ (2018).

Philippines, is currently still dependent on (semi-)informal minibus based fragmented low-quality

2.2 ‘PUV Modernization Program’ Overview

procedures and promoting industry consolidation and professionalisation to enhance service

2.2.1 Regulatory Reform

2.2.2 Fleet Modernisation

2.3 Industry Consolidation

Table 1: Number of operators in Metro Manila

Vehicle Number of Operators Proportion of Operators

3-9 1,447 5.9%

10+ 146 0.6%

Total 24,387 100%

Source: Authors’ analysis of LTFRB data (2018).

Figure 6: Traditional jeepney drivers taking a break. Source: GIZ (2019).

Figure 7: Consolidation strategy of the PUVM Programme. Source:Authors.

Figure 8: Modern jeepneys undergoing inspection. Source: DOTr (2018).

2.4 Financing of Fleet Renewal

3. Evaluation of Early Implementation

Modernised routes surveyed

National Capital Region Region 1 Region 2

Region 4a Region 6 Region 7 Region 8

3.2 Collection of Early Operational Data

The initial roll-out of modernised operations represents a significant and time-bounded

Collection of ‘Real-World’ Operating Data

3.3 Evaluation of Early Operating Experiences

3.3.1 Fleet Modernisation

Table 2: Different types of modern jeepney operating on the surveyed routes

The Modern Jeepney Vehicles (‘Type 2’ Vehicles)

Yutong (China). 21 seated, 9 standing Mahindra T20 (India). 22 seated, 8 standing

Star 8 Electric Jeepney (Philippines). Isuzu, Almazora (Japan, Philippines)

Source: Table by authors (2019).

3.3.2 In-Vehicle Layout and Equipment