Abstract

In most large cities in developing countries, buses continue to be the public transport option of choice, carrying a large share of urban travelers. However, transit bus companies in these countries are often cash-strapped. In many cases, the operating cost per bus kilometer exceeds revenues and bus fares are often kept low irrespective of the cost of providing service. Many cities are dominated by old and fuel-intensive buses with high operating costs. Transit systems are also often plagued by overcrowded and undependable service, congested roadways and chaotic operating environments. Across the board, city officials in developing countries are under strong pressure to improve the efficiency and enhance the attractiveness of bus transportation. Fuel makes up a relatively large fraction of total bus operating costs, especially when labor costs are low, as in many developing countries. Fuel costs can be reduced by improving the driving style of bus drivers and through sound maintenance practices. A safe and economical driving style can reduce variable costs, decrease down time due to repair work and maintenance, mitigate negative environmental impacts and improve road safety. This guidance note1 provides detailed and practical recommendations on how city bus operations managers and their technical staff can plan and implement such enhancements to their fleets through Operations and Maintenance (O and M) practices without significant capital investments. By implementing such recommendations, municipal officials and bus operators can increase the efficiency and fuel economy of their bus systems and reduce their cities' energy consumption, congestion and pollution. This guidance note provides detailed and practical recommendations on how city bus operations managers and their technical staff can plan and implement such enhancements to their fleets through O and M practices without significant capital investments.

Abstract

Globally, the Philippines is a minor emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), but cost-effective mitigation present opportunities that should be captured, noting that the country is one of the signatory member states to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol. The country accounts for less than 0.3 percent of global GHG emissions in 2004.4 However, emissions are on the rise from both energy-use and land-use changes. Even if the absolute scale will remain small, there are increasing number of development projects under preparation, which offers opportunities for cost-effective mitigation and adaptation measures. The Philippine Government's response to the climate change challenge has been active institutionally noting the recent restructuring of the Presidential task force on climate change. However, a clear strategy and action plan are still lacking. The international donor community, including development partners such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), is actively engaged in addressing climate change in the Philippines. There are several initiatives on capacity building for GHG accounting, monitoring and reporting, for preparation of a second National Communication to the UNFCCC, governance, renewable energy, urban air quality management, and forest management. There are likewise several World Bank supported climate change-related activities, with nine active operations. These encompass primarily energy sector operations.