Buses and Streetcars: Building a Complementary Transport Future for Metro Manila

When I reflect on the transport challenges of Metro Manila, I realize that the debate is often framed as a choice between modes—should we invest in buses or in rail? From a policy perspective, I believe this is a false dichotomy. Global experience tells us that the most successful urban transport systems rely on a complementary mix of flexible buses and permanent rail-based services. For Metro Manila, this balance is not only possible but necessary.

Why Buses Still Matter

Buses remain the backbone of Metro Manila’s mobility system. They carry millions of passengers daily along EDSA, Commonwealth, and C-5. Their flexibility and scalability make them indispensable in a rapidly growing metropolis.

Global best practices show that when buses are organized into Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems—with dedicated lanes, off-board fare collection, platform-level boarding, and signal priority—they can achieve rail-like speed and capacity at a fraction of the cost.

Bogotá, Colombia: The TransMilenio BRT moves over 2.4 million passengers per day. With buses arriving every 10–20 seconds during peak hours, it demonstrates that buses can rival metro-level capacity when properly managed.

Guangzhou, China: Its BRT carries 850,000 passengers daily, integrated with the city’s metro and bike-sharing system, showing how buses can form part of a multi-modal ecosystem.

For NCR, the EDSA Carousel busway is a strong start. But to maximize efficiency, it must evolve into a full BRT system, with strict right-of-way enforcement, higher station capacity, and integrated ticketing. Given budget constraints and urgent demand, buses remain the most cost-effective tool for immediate improvements, especially as we transition toward electric fleets to cut emissions and improve air quality.

The Case for Streetcars

Streetcars—or modern trams—play a different but equally strategic role. Globally, they serve not only as transport but also as catalysts for urban development. The permanence of tracks signals to investors that the corridor is here to stay, encouraging transit-oriented development (TOD).

Portland, Oregon (USA): Since launching its modern streetcar in 2001, Portland has seen over USD 3.5 billion in private investment within two blocks of the line. The streetcar became a backbone for mixed-use and walkable neighborhoods.

Strasbourg, France: Its tram network, integrated with pedestrianization policies, reshaped the city center into one of the most livable in Europe, cutting car trips and boosting public space use.

Melbourne, Australia: The world’s largest streetcar network moves nearly 200 million passengers annually, demonstrating how streetcars can be central to a modern metropolis.

For Metro Manila, potential corridors include Bonifacio Global City–Makati, the Manila Bay reclamation area, or heritage zones like Escolta and Intramuros, where permanent rail could align with redevelopment and placemaking efforts.

Complementarity, Not Competition

The real policy question is not “bus or streetcar?” but rather where each delivers the greatest value.

Buses/BRT: Best for high-volume, long-distance corridors (EDSA, Commonwealth, C-5), where flexibility and rapid rollout are critical.

Streetcars: Best for emerging urban cores and redevelopment zones, where permanence and integration with land-use can maximize impact.

Together, they create a layered transport system: BRT for rapid, flexible coverage across the metropolis, and streetcars for permanent, city-shaping corridors.

Policy Recommendations for NCR

1. Upgrade the EDSA Carousel into a Gold-Standard BRT, with exclusive lanes, larger stations, off-board ticketing, and integrated MRT/LRT connections.

2. Electrify the bus fleet, starting with high-demand corridors, supported by charging depots and clean energy incentives.

3. Pilot a modern streetcar line in a redevelopment zone (e.g., BGC–Makati or Intramuros–Escolta) to showcase its development potential.

4. Integrate transport with land-use policy, ensuring zoning reforms enable TOD around both BRT and streetcar corridors.

5. Strengthen intermodal connectivity, with seamless transfers between buses, streetcars, MRT/LRT, and active transport.

Looking Ahead

Metro Manila’s congestion is not destiny. By learning from Bogotá’s BRT, Portland’s streetcar-led development, and Strasbourg’s integration of trams with urban renewal, we can chart a transport future where buses provide flexibility and scale, while streetcars offer permanence and placemaking power.

Both modes, working together, can move Metro Manila toward an efficient, sustainable, and inclusive transport system—one that not only moves people but also reshapes the city for generations to come.

Cost per kilometer: Global & Philippine Data

Mode	Global Benchmark Capital Cost per km*	Philippine / NCR Examples	Notes
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)	• Typically US$1 million - US$15 million / km in developing country contexts. (CTC-N) • In Brazilian examples, ~ US$7-15 million / km for BRT corridors. (CPG Click Petroleo e Gas) • Lower cost examples (simpler infrastructure) tend to cluster near the low end of that range. (UTA Pressbooks)	• The 48.6-km EDSA-BRT trunk line was approved at Php 37.8 billion in total. That works out to ~ Php 778 million / km (≈ US$14-15 million, depending on exchange rate). (PPP Philippines) • España-Quezon Ave BRT line costing ~ US$109.4 million for its route/corridor (but depends on how many km are involved). (World Bank)	* “Typical” BRT costs vary a lot depending on right-of-way acquisition, station-quality, signal systems, vehicle quality, whether electric fleet, etc.
Light Rail / Surface Streetcar / At-grade Tram / “LRT”	• Light Rail / surface trams in developed/emerging economies often fall in US$25-US$75 million / km (for surface/at-grade LRT, not heavy tunneling). (Arterials) • Some lower income countries’ cost for at-grade/light rail may be nearer the lower end of that range, but still significantly above most BRT implementations. (BRT Planning Guide)	• In a presentation related to Philippine contexts: “At-grade LRT” projects are quoted around PHP 1,800-3,000 million / km (≈ US$35-60 million / km depending on exchange rate). (Scribd) • Elevated or underground LRT / MRT / Subway lines in Metro Manila are much more expensive (for comparison) — but streetcars would likely be at or below the “at-grade LRT” level if built without needing elevation/tunneling or very complex stations. (Scribd)

*All costs are capital (construction + infrastructure + station stops + rolling stock in many cases), excluding operating & maintenance unless otherwise stated.

What This Means for NCR (Policy-Relevant Implications)

Using the above data, I can draw out what planners and decision makers in Metro Manila / NCR should keep in mind:

1. Relative cost savings:

   • A well-designed BRT corridor in NCR might cost somewhere in the Php 700 million – Php 1.2 billion / km range (≈ US$13-20 million / km depending on route conditions) if using global BRT cost references, assuming moderate station quality, good right-of-way, and not yet electrified.

   • A streetcar / at-grade LRT in similar urbanized environment might cost Php 1,800-3,000 million / km (or more) if more complex—this reflects Philippine benchmarks. So a streetcar could be ~1.5 to 2.5× cost of BRT per km, depending on complexity.

2. Trade-off considerations:

   • Even though streetcars are more expensive per km, the higher cost may be justified in corridors with high expected ridership, where the permanence of infrastructure helps stimulate land value and supports higher station amenities.

   • BRT gives more “bang for buck” in less dense or variable-demand corridors; quicker to implement and lower upfront budget impact.

3. Budgeting & phasing:

   • Since Metro Manila has multiple corridors under consideration (EDSA, Commonwealth, etc.), bundling projects and planning them in phases helps spread costs and allows for incremental improvements. For instance, starting with full BRT features, then later possibly converting parts of corridors to streetcar/LRT as demand intensifies.

4. Ongoing costs & lifecycle:

   • Capital cost per km is only one part. Maintenance, vehicle replacement, operating cost, farebox recovery, energy sources (diesel, electric, etc.) will significantly affect total cost per passenger-km. International data shows that for many transit modes, the capital may be a big share, but lifecycle costs (O&M etc.) can add up to similar or larger amounts over decades. (See Philippine studies estimating cost per passenger-km with O&M etc.) (ResearchGate)