2019 Naga City Transport

2019 NAGA CITY TRANSPORT
STUDY
Marlyn L. Tejada, Ph.D. and Frances Michelle C. Nubla, MA.
Ateneo Social Science Research Center
Ateneo de Naga University
Contents
Tables and figures …………………………………………………………. ii

Appendices …………………………………………………………………. iii
Executive Summary …………………………………………………. 1
1 Background of the Study …………………………………………. 3
2 Objectives …………………………………………………………. 4
3 Methodology …………………………………………………. 4
4 Results and Discussion …………………………………………. 4
Profile of the Respondents …………………………………. 4
Profile of Naga City Households …………………………. 5
Tricycle Service Quality …………………………………. 8
A Accessibility and availability …………………. 8
B Waiting time …………………………………. 12
C Travel Time …………………………………. 13
D Cleanliness, Comfort and Sufficiency of Space … 14
E Professionalism and customer care ………...... 15
F Safety and security …………………………. 16
G Feedback and complaint handling …………. 17
Naga City Households’ Preference of Tricycles …………. 20
Naga City Households’ Preferred Transportation Scheme .... 22
Typical Weekday and Weekend Trips of Nagueños …………. 23
Weekday Trips …………………………………………... 23
Weekend Trips …………………………………………... 26
5 Conclusions and Recommendations …………………………... 28
i
Tables and Figures
Tables
1 Profile of the Respondents, Naga City, 2019 …………………... 5
2 Household Size, Naga City, 2019 …………………………... 5
3 Labor Force and Employment, Naga City, 2019 ………………. 6
4 Major Source of Household Income, Naga City, 2019 ………. 6
5 Vehicle Ownership, Naga City, 2019 …………………………... 7
6 Commuters in the Household, Naga City, 2019 …...…………... 7
7 Number of Households with Commuters Based and Their
Frequency of Tricycle Ride in a Week, Naga City, 2019 ……. 7
8 Table 8. Agreement on Accessibility and Availability of
Tricycles, Naga City, 2019 …………………………………... 8
9 Top Five Origin and Destination Based on the Easiness
to Find/Be Accommodated in a Tricycle, Naga City, 2019 …… 9
10 Top Five Origin and Destination Based on the Difficulty
to Find/Be Accommodated in a Tricycle, Naga City, 2019 …… 11
11 Satisfaction on Waiting Time of Tricycles, Naga City, 2019 …… 13
12 Agreement on Satisfaction with Travel Time
Using Tricycles, Naga City, 2019 ……………………….…… 14
13 Agreement on Tricycle’s Cleanliness, Comfort
and Sufficiency of Space, Naga City, 2019 ……………….…… 14
14 Agreement on Tricycle Drivers’ Professionalism
and Customer Care, Naga City, 2019 ……………………….…… 16
15 Agreement on Safety and Security of Passengers
in the Tricycles, Naga City, 2019 ……………………….…… 17
16 Frequency of Encounter of Unruly, Rude
or Insolent Tricycle Drivers, Naga City, 2019 ……………….…… 18
17 Agreement on ‘Feedback and Handling
Complaints’ Against Tricycle Drivers, Naga City, 2019 ...……… 18
18 Suggestions on How to Improve Feedback
and Complaints Handling, Naga City, 2019 …………......……… 19
19 Agreement on Additional Units of All Types
of Tricycles, Naga City, 2019 ……………………….…… 20
20 Preference for Additional Traditional Tricycles
by Age Group, Naga City, 2019 ……………………….…… 21
21 Preference for Additional Taxicles
22 Preference for Additional E-Trikes
23 Transportation scheme and fares, Naga City, 2019 ...……… 22
ii
24 Suggested Special Trip Tricycle Fares, Naga City, 2019 ...…… 23
25 Number of Commuters in Typical Weekdays, Naga City, 2019 ... 23
26 Typical Origin and Destination of Weekday Trips
(Top 5), Naga City, 2019 ……………………….…………… 25
27 Satisfaction on Weekday Trips, Naga City, 2019 ……………. 26
28 Satisfaction on Weekday Trips, Naga City, 2019 ……………. 27
29 Typical Origin and Destination of Weekend Trips
(Top 5), Naga City, 2019 ……………………….…………… 28
Figures
1 Origin and Destination Based on Easiness
to Find/Be Accommodated in a Tricycle …………….……… 10
2 Origin and Destination Based on Difficulty
to Find/Be Accommodated in a Tricycle …………….……… 12
3 Weekday Departure Time of Commuters, Naga City, 2019 …... 24
4 Weekend Departure Time of Commuters, Naga City, 2019 …... 27
iii
Appendices
Appendix A
Table A1 Distribution of Households by Origin and Destination
Based on the Easiness to Find/Be Accommodated
in a Tricycle, Naga City, 2019 …………………….……. 32
Table A2 Distribution of Households by Origin and Destination
Based on the Difficulty to Find/Be Accommodated
in a Tricycle, Naga City, 2019 ……………….…………. 33
Table A3 Road Safety Regulations Violated by Tricycle
Drivers, Naga City, 2019 …………………….……………. 34
Table A4 Incidents of Unruly, Rude or Insolent Tricycle Drivers,
Naga City, 2019 …………………………….……………. 34
Table A5 Purpose of Weekday Trips, Naga City, 2019 …………... 35
Table A6 Transportation Mode for Weekday Trips, Naga City, 2019 35
Table A7 Weekday Trips’ Origin, Naga City, 2019 …………………. 36
Table A8 Weekday Trips’ Destination, Naga City, 2019 …………. 37
Table A9 Purpose of Weekend Trips, Naga City, 2019 …………. 38
Table A10 Transportation Mode for Weekend Trips, Naga City, 2019 38
Table A11 Weekend Trips’ Origin, Naga City, 2019 …………………. 39
Table A12 Weekend Trips’ Destination, Naga City, 2019 …………. 40
Appendix B 2019 Naga City Public Transport Survey Questionnaire ... 42
iv
2019 NAGA CITY TRANSPORT STUDY
Marlyn L. Tejada, Ph.D. and Frances Michelle C. Nubla, MA.

Ateneo Social Science Research Center
________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
This study was commissioned by the City Council of Naga to find out the
Nagueños’ perception on the quality of the services provided by the public
tricycles in the city. This study hoped to provide information that will be a basis of
the Council’s decision on how the ordinance on Intra-City Trimobile Transport
and Rationalization Plan (INTRAP) can be upgraded to address the riding
public’s demand for its quality services. To obtain these objectives, the study
employs a survey of 810 residents of Naga City (confidence interval=95%;
margin of error=3%), selected using multi-stage systematic random sampling.
The survey questionnaire focused on tricycle services with respect to its
accessibility and availability, reliability in terms of waiting and travel time,
professionalism and customer care, and safety and security. It also
encompasses how the city government addresses public complaints and
feedback handling as well as the riding public’s preferred routing scheme.
Tricycles, in this study, refer to all types of three-wheeled public motor vehicles
plying in the city which consists of the traditional tricycles, taxicles, and e-trikes.
The responses for this study were taken from adult city residents with a
mean age of 42.4 years old, majority of whom are married (55%) and has
finished elementary education or high school level. The gender is represented
equally. The Nagueño households have a mean size of 5.2, whose members are
mostly part of the labor force and are mostly employed, and whose major income
is earned from salaries and wages coming from the private sector. Majority of the
households have an income above the poverty line.
Even if majority of the Nagueño households have their own vehicle, there
is at least one member who commutes using public tricycles. This comprise
about half of the city’s households or one-third of the residents. More than three-
fourths of the households have weekday commuters.
The Naga riding public perceive the quality of public tricycles generally as
accessible and available; clean, comfortable and has sufficient space; safe and
secure, and can carry passengers to their destination in a satisfactory length of
time. Despite these high ratings, however, Naga City residents experience
difficulty in finding tricycles in some areas within the City during rush hours and
1
half of them experienced or observed that tricycle drivers violate some road
safety regulations. While agreement statements on travel time have positive
results the average travel time of Nagueños is still longer than their average
preference. Tricycles are relatively low on agreement statements concerning
waiting time and professionalism and customer care.
The city residents expressed their preference to continue the operation of

traditional tricycles. However, they refuse to add the number of units of traditional
tricycles nor the taxicles but instead opt for additional e-trikes. Naga City
residents are ambivalent whether they are satisfied or not with the present non-
fixed route transportation scheme of the tricycles. They are overwhelmingly
amenable on the current minimum charge on less-than-one-kilometer trip. For
distances beyond one kilometer, they are moderately amenable of special fees.
This study recommends to revise the INTRAP by allowing tricycles to ply a

non-fixed route using a graduated price starting from regular minimum fare to
additional charge per additional kilometer. It is better for the city government to
come up with a fixed price schedule from different points of origin to different
points of destination. The number of units of traditional tricycles and taxicles may
be maintained while the number of e-trikes may be increased. The city
government implements strictly the penalties appropriate to safety road and
regulations offenses; require tricycle drivers and operators to undergo annual
seminar to ensure road safety rules and regulations and their professional
obligations are observed; evaluate the system of feedback and complaint
handling; and has to conduct extensive marketing and education campaign to
convince Nagueños of better public transportation alternatives.
2
1 Background of the Study
Inability to address the insufficient and ineffective urban transport system
contribute to "increasing levels of traffic congestion in urban areas which in turn
results to longer travel times, loss of economic opportunities and productivity,
and increase in air pollution” (Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2012). With the
rapid urbanization happening in the Philippines, urban transport infrastructure is
placed under pressure which could cause deterioration in the mobility of urban
populations if not properly addressed (ADB, 2012). As such, a review of the
public transport system in urban areas, as in the case of Naga City, is deemed
important and necessary.
Tricycles in Naga City have been the main public transportation due to the
City’s narrow roads. In 1994, in an effort to facilitate the wide provision of public
tricycle services to the City’s populace, an ordinance on Intra-City Trimobile
Transport and Rationalization Plan (INTRAP) was enacted. This Plan assigned
loading and unloading zones, maximum passenger capacity, color-codes to
tricycles per corresponding area, and other rules and regulations concerning
public tricycles including its accreditation.
In recent years, the numerous economic, educational, medical, and cultural

development of Naga led to an increase in its daytime population thus a greater
demand for tricycle services by the riding public. This situation led to the approval
of the franchise of 100 units of e-trikes in 2011 (Ordinance No. 2011-065) and
ten units of taxicles in 2014 (Ordinance No. 214-057). The latter has been
operating since 2014 while 36 units of e-trikes were recorded to be plying the city
streets as of 2016 (Gunay, 2016), replacing the same number of traditional
tricycles which ceased operation or were denied renewal of franchise due to
dilapidation or their obsolete two-stroke engines (Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Naga City, 2011).
It also became apparent that many of the rules and regulations outlined in
INTRAP are no longer being observed. In view of this, the Sangguniang Bayan of
the City passed an ordinance in the latter part of 2016 mandating the revision
and upgrading of the INTRAP. For this purpose, a public perception survey
among Nagueños on the quality of public transportation provided by tricycles in
the city was conducted to provide the Sangguniang Bayan of Naga City relevant
information for its tasks related to Ordinance No. 2016-050.
3
2 Objectives
The study attempts to address two main questions:
1. How do Nagueños perceive the quality of public transportation services

offered by tricycles in the city?
2. How should the INTRAP be upgraded to address the quality of service
demanded by the riding public from tricycles in the Naga City?
The results of the study will provide the City Government of Naga with
practical bases for upgrading INTRAP as well as the overall tricycle public
transportation management system of the city.
3 Methodology
The study employs a survey that involves face-to-face interviews with a
representative sample of 810 residents of Naga City (confidence interval=95%;
margin of error=3%). The respondents were selected using multi-stage
systematic random sampling. The survey questionnaire was designed to
determine the demand for tricycles and the quality of its services, which includes
accessibility and availability, reliability, preferred routing scheme, professionalism
and customer care, safety and security, frequent public complaints, and
complaint feedback and handling. Fieldwork was conducted from February 2 to
February 24, 2019.
4 Results and Discussion
Profile of the Respondents

The respondents are composed of 50% males and 50% females as a result
of the sampling design. Majority of them belong to middle-aged group of 25-54
years old (57%) with a mean age of 42.4 years old and a spread of 16.5 years
from the mean, on the average. In terms of marital status, majority are married
(55%). About a fifth of the respondents are single (20%). In terms of education,
one out of three respondents (30%) has finished elementary education, two out
of five (42%) have completed high school, and more than one out of ten (16%)
has completed college.
4
Table 1. Profile of the Respondents, Naga City, 2019
Characteristics Frequency Percent (%)
Age
18-24 years old 153 18.9
25-54 years old 461 56.9
55-64 years old 102 12.6
65 years old & older 94 11.6
Marital status
Single 165 20.4
Married 442 54.6
Living-in 121 14.9
Separated & widowed 82 10.1
Educational attainment
Some elementary 48 5.9
Completed elementary 244 30.1
Completed high school 387 42.0
Completed college 131 16.2
Profile of Naga City Households

Naga City households have a mean household size of 5, with an average
spread from the mean of 3 persons (Table 2). The minimum number of members
in a household is one while the maximum number is 17 persons.
Table 2. Household Size, Naga City, 2019

Household size Frequency Percent (%)
Small (1-3 members) 204 25.2

Average (4-6 members) 409 50.5
Large (7 or more members) 197 24.3
Total 810 100.0
This study approximates the employment status of the adult Nagueños

through the household heads and their spouses’ characteristics (Table 3). Seven
out of ten Naga adult residents (71%) are in the labor force while 3 out of 10
adult Nagueños are not in the labor force (29%). Of those in the labor force, more
than one out of ten (14%) are unemployed while a little less than 9 out of 10
(86%) are employed. Of those employed, 5 out of 10 expressed that they are still
looking for additional work implying underemployment.
5
Table 3. Labor Force and Employment, Naga City, 2019
Indicator Frequency Percent (%)
(n=1373)
Not in the Labor Force 400 29.1
Labor Force 973 70.9

Unemployed 135 13.9
Employed 838 86.1
Underemployed 440 52.5
The gross monthly household income is quite skewed and being pulled
upward by few households with extremely high income. Its median income is
P10,000 but its mean is P13,295.32 with an average spread from the mean of
P12,885.43. Both the mean and the median income are higher than the poverty
threshold of P9,230.8 in Camarines Sur in 2015.
Table 4 shows that majority of the Nagueño households earn their major
income from salaries and wages (51%). Most of the salaried individuals work in
private establishments. About a third of the Naga households earn their major
income from entrepreneurial activities (32%). Nearly one out of five households
source their major income from other sources (17%) which includes domestic
and foreign remittances, rental income, and pensions.
Table 4. Major Source of Household Income, Naga City, 2019

Income Source Frequency Percent (%)
Salaries and wages, private, non-farm 412 50.9

Income from entrepreneurial activities 260 32.1
Other sources of income 138 17.0
Total 810 100.0
Majority of the Nagueño households (63%) have their own vehicle (Table
5). More than a third of them (36%) have one vehicle owned. More than one out
of ten Naga City households (15%) have two vehicles owned or have at least 3
owned vehicles (12%). Table 5 also shows the type and number of vehicles the
households owned. Among the type of vehicles, households mostly own
motorcycles (43%). More than one out of four households (27%) own a pedicab
or bicycle. Less than one out of ten households (ranging from 2.4%-8.8%) own at
least a car, van, or tricycle and the like.
6
Table 5. Vehicle Ownership, Naga City, 2019
Car Van Tricycle/ e- Motorcycle Pedicab/ Total
Number of trike Bicycle
Vehicles Percent (%) (n=810)
0 91.1 97.5 91.9 56.7 72.6 37.0
1 7.4 2.1 7.7 34.4 22.0 35.7
2 1.2 0.1 0.5 6.8 4.4 15.4
3 or more 0.2 0.2 0 2.1 1.0 11.9
In terms of commuters in the households (Table 6), 91% of the
households have at least one member who commutes. Majority of the these
(49.3%) have one to two members who ride public transport while more than
one-fourth of the households (28%) have three to four commuters.
Table 6. Commuters in the Household, Naga City, 2019

Number of Commuters in the Household Frequency Percent (%)
(n=810)
None 73 9.0
1-2 members 399 49.3

3-4 members 227 28.0
5-6 members 77 9.5
7 or more members 34 4.2
The frequency of the household members’ use of the city’s public

transport varies (Table 7). Looking at the households, almost half (47%) have
members who ride tricycles daily. More than a fifth of the households (29%) take
public transport five to six days in a week. More than half of the households
(55%) have members who take public transport one to two times a week.
Converting these figures into individual commuters showed that almost

half (49%) of the total city residents are commuters. More than a third of them
(35%) take tricycle rides daily. Almost a third of the city residents (30%) take
tricycle rides 1-2 times in a week. Almost a fifth of the city residents either take a
ride three to four times (17%) or five to six times (18%) a week.
Table 7. Number of Households with Commuters and Their Frequency of Tricycle Ride in a
Week, Naga City, 2019
Number of Percent of Number of Percent of
Frequency of Tricycle Ride in a
Households Cases (%)a Commuters Total (%)
Week
(n=810) (n=2071)
Daily 349 47.4 721 34.8
1-2 times a week 407 55.2 626 30.2
3-4 times a week 137 18.6 347 16.8

5-6 times a week 217 29.4 377 18.2
a
Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple response.
7
The succeeding sections present the degree of agreement by the city
households on statements regarding tricycle service quality.
Tricycle Service Quality

The tricycle service quality is described through the Naga City households’
perception in terms of (a) accessibility and availability; (b) waiting time; (c) travel
time; (d) cleanliness, comfort and sufficient space of the tricycles; (e)
professionalism and customer care; (f) safety and security; and (g) feedback and
complaint handling. Unless specified, tricycles refer to all types of three-wheeled
public motor vehicles plying in the city which consists of the traditional tricycles,
taxicles, and e-trikes.
A. Accessibility and availability
Accessibility and availability are measured in terms of agreement

statements on whether Nagueños can travel within the city whenever and
wherever they want as well as their perception on the adequateness of number
of tricycles (Table 8). In general, the city riding public acknowledges that tricycles
are available and accessible with net agreement rating ranging from +36.2% to
+62.7% (very strong to extremely strong agreement). A positive net agreement
rating means that those who agreed with the statements outweigh those who
disagreed. These statements indicate that Naga City’s franchised traditional
tricycles for public transport of 1,500 units are enough for the riding public. This
number does not include the 10 units of taxicles that plied Naga City roads in
2014 through Naga City Ordinance No. 2014-057 and e-trikes which are also
plying within the city.
Table 8. Agreement on Accessibility and Availability of Tricycles, Naga City, 2019

Indicator Strongly Neutral Disagree/ Net Interpretation
Agree/ Strongly Agreement
Agree Disagree
Percent (n=810)
Can Travel within the City 73.8 15.1 11.1 62.7 Extremely
Whenever One Likes strong
Can Travel within the City 63.7 15.7 20.6 43.1 Very strong
Wherever One Likes
Tricycles in the City are 61.5 13.2 25.3 36.2 Very strong
Adequate
Note. The interpretation follows the SWS terminology for net agreement: +50 and above, “extremely strong”;
+30 to +49, “very strong”; +10 to +29, “moderately strong”; +9 to -9, “neutral”; -10 to -29, “moderately weak”;
-30 to -49, “very weak”; -50 and below, “extremely weak”.
CBD 1 and CBD 2 are both the top origin and destination where one can
easily find/be accommodated in a tricycle (Table 9). In this survey, CBD 1
consists of the streets and landmarks such as Plaza Rizal, Quinse Martires,
8
NCPM, Master Square, E-Mall, Dinaga, San Francisco, Gen. Luna, and UNC
while CBD 2 consists of SM, Central Bus Station, and Panganiban Drive.
This might be the case because tricycle drivers pick up/prioritize commuters
going to the central business districts, or commuters are already used to being
accommodated only up to these destination points and they voluntarily transfer to
another ride once they get to the CBDs. In the same manner, tricycle drivers
could also be waiting on these areas as it is where they can get the most of the
commuters making the two CBDs the top point of origin too. The rest of the usual
origin and destination where commuters can easily find a tricycle are shown in
Table A1 in the Appendix.
Table 9. Top Five Origin and Destination Based on the Easiness to Find/Be Accommodated in a
Tricycle, Naga City, 2019
Origin
District/ Barangay/ Landmark Number of Percent of Rank
Households Total (%)
(n=810)
CBD1 a 435 55.2 1
CBD2 b 80 10.2 2
Del Rosario c 51 6.5 3
Calauag e 33 4.2 4
Bagumbayan Sur f 29 3.7 5
Destination
(n=810)
CBD1a 297 38.2 1
CBD2 b 233 29.9 2
Balatas d 40 5.1 3
Calauag e 38 4.9 4
Peñafrancia 33 4.1 5
a
includes Plaza Rizal, Quinse Martires, NCPM, Master Square, E-Mall, Dinaga, San Francisco, Gen. Luna,
UNC. bincludes SM, Bus Terminal, Panganiban. cincludes Villa Corazon, Urban Poor, Boundary, Drupay.
d
includes Magsaysay Ave and Basilica. eincludes Jacob, Naga Central, Molave. f includes North-Bound
Terminal, Queborac, P. Santos, Ateneo, NPS, USI.
The map of origin and destination where availability of tricycles are easier
found is shown in Figure 1. The repeated arrows from origin to the destination
produced darker shading on areas where tricycles are easier found.
9
Figure 1. Origin and Destination Based on Easiness to Find/Be Accommodated in a
Tricycle
Ironically, the origin and destination where commuters find it most difficult to
find/be accommodated in a tricycle is also in CBD 1 (Table 10). As a point of
origin, the difficulty could be brought about by the volume of commuters who are
competing to have a tricycle ride especially during rush hours in the afternoon.
As a point of destination, it could be brought by refusal of drivers to pass through
CBD 1 due to traffic congestion during rush hours especially if tricycles will have
to pass through the long loop of one-way traffic from Elias Angeles, Caceres, and
General Luna Streets. The rest of the origin and destination where it is difficult to
find/be accommodated in a tricycle is shown in Table A2 in the Appendix.
10
Table 10. Top Five Origin and Destination Based on the Difficulty to Find/Be Accommodated in a
Tricycle, Naga City, 2019
Origin
(n=810)
CBD1 a 355 43.8 1
Triangulo b 55 7.3 2
CBD2 e 48 6.3 3
Peñafrancia 37 4.9 4
Balatas f 36 4.8 5
Destination
(n=810)
CBD1a 225 29.6 1
Concepcion Pequeña c 73 9.6 2
Calauag d 62 8.2 3
CBD2 e 59 7.8 4
Dayangdang g 44 5.8 5
a
UNC. bincludes PNR, Naga Subd., Diversion. cincludes Greenland, SSS, Land Bank Rotonda, NC Hall,
BMC. dincludes Jacob, Naga Central School, Molave. eincludes SM, Bus Terminal, Panganiban Drive.
f
includes Magsaysay Ave., Basilica. gincludes Isarog, Mayon, and Taal streets.
Figure 2 provides the map of origin and destination where availability of

tricycles is most difficult to find. The repeated arrows from origin to the
destination produced darker shading on areas where tricycles are most difficult to
find.
11
Figure 2. Origin and Destination Based on Difficulty to Find/Be Accommodated in a
Tricycle
B. Waiting time
Waiting time is measured in terms of commuters’ satisfaction on the time

spent waiting for a tricycle ride from their house to their usual place of destination
like school, place of work, commercial area, or church. This also includes the
time commuters waited for the tricycles to leave once they have already ridden.
Nagueños prefer a maximum waiting time of five minutes. However, based on
their experience the mean waiting time is 13.6 minutes (or 4.5 hours in 20 days)
with a standard deviation of 13.9 minutes.
12
The waiting time experience of Nagueños is further described in Table 11.
Their agreement on statements regarding waiting time ranges from neutral to
moderate, with a range of net agreement rating from -2.4% to +21.1%. Their
rating of waiting time is always “neutral” when they have to look for a tricycle ride
going to various places of school or place or work and vice versa. But waiting
time is “moderate” when destinations are commercial areas or churches. This
manifests that tricycle drivers do choose the more usual route such as
commercial areas and churches where they could get more passengers.
Table 11. Satisfaction on Waiting Time of Tricycles, Naga City, 2019

Satisfied/ Neutral Dissatisfied Net Interpretation
Indicator Very /Very Satisfaction
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Percent (n=810)
Length of waiting time from 38.0 21.6 40.4 -2.4 Neutral
commuter’s house/nearest
take-off point to work
place/school
Length of waiting time from 43.2 22.1 34.8 8.4 Neutral
work place/school to
house/nearest drop-off point
Length of waiting time from a 49.9 21.3 28.8 21.1 Moderate
commercial area/church to
house/nearest drop-off point
Length of waiting time for 43.3 25.3 31.4 11.9 Moderate
tricycle to leave once
passenger has ridden
Following SWS terminology for Net Satisfaction Ratings: +70 and above, "excellent"; +50 to +69, "very
good"; +30 to +49, "good"; +10 to +29, "moderate", +9 to -9, "neutral"; -10 to -29, "poor"; -30 to -49, "bad"; -
50 to -69, "very bad"; -70 and below, "execrable".
C. Travel time
Travel time is measured in terms of the commuters’ satisfaction on the

length of travel time from their house to their usual place of destination which is
either a school or place of work and to a commercial area or church and vice
versa. Nagueños prefer a mean travel time of 11.7 minutes with a standard
deviation of 8 minutes to/from their school or workplace from/to their homes. The
actual travel time experienced has a mean of 20.3 minutes, almost twice the
ideal travel time of Nagueños, with a standard deviation of 14.5 minutes.
Still, results (Table 12) show that commuters do not have a problem with
travel time as they generally agree on statements regarding satisfaction on travel
time. The three statements result to a “very strong” agreement with net
agreement rating ranging from +36.4% to +37.3%.
13
Table 12. Agreement on Satisfaction with Travel Time Using Tricycles, Naga City, 2019
Strongly Neutral Disagree Net Interpretation
Indicator Agree/ /Strongly Agreement
Agree Disagree
Percent (n=810)
Satisfied with the length of 59.0 18.5 22.6 36.4 Very strong
travel time from house to
school/office using tricycle
travel time from school/office to
house/ nearest drop off using
tricycle
travel time from commercial
area/ church to house/ nearest
drop-off point using tricycle
Following SWS terminology for net agreement: +50 and above, “extremely strong”; +30 to +49, “very strong”;
+10 to +29, “moderately strong”; +9 to -9, “neutral”; -10 to -29, “moderately weak”; -30 to -49, “very weak”; -
50 and below, “extremely weak”.
D. Cleanliness, Comfort and Sufficiency of Space
Cleanliness, comfort and sufficiency of passenger’s cabin space are

measured in terms of commuters’ observation on tricycle seats and passenger
cabins including the number of passengers accommodated per tricycle ride.
Results (Table 13) show that commuters do not have a problem on these
aspects as revealed by “moderately strong” to “extremely strong” net agreement
rating ranging from +21.2% to +69.6%. They expressed, though, that they
preferred that only a maximum of four passengers (median) be accommodated
in the traditional tricycles and six in both taxicles and e-trikes.
Table 13. Agreement on Tricycle’s Cleanliness, Comfort and Sufficiency of Space, Naga City,
2019
Strongly Neutral Disagree/ Net Interpretation
Statements Agree/ Strongly Agreemen
Agree Disagree t
Percent (n=810)
Tricycle seats are comfortable 59.5 24.0 16.5 43.0 Very strong
Tricycle passenger cabins are 76.3 17.0 6.7 69.6 Extremely
clean and free of any rubbish strong
Tricycle passenger cabins are 45.3 30.6 24.1 21.2 Moderately
spacious strong
The number of passengers 60.7 17.2 22.1 38.6 Very strong
accommodated are just
enough
14
E. Professionalism and customer care
Professionalism and customer care are measured through ten statements

relating to the professional attitude and dealings expected of a service provider
such as politeness, courteousness, grooming, helpfulness, accommodation of
request, observance of laws, fairness, and honesty. Results (Table 14) show a
stretch of net agreement ratings between moderately weak to moderately strong
ranging from -17.2% to +64%.
In detail, commuters reveal their lack of trust that tricycle drivers will return
left-behind personal belongings inside the tricycle (-17.2%). In addition,
commuters are ambivalent about their perception of the tricycle drivers with
respect to their politeness and courteousness as evidenced by a net agreement
rating which ranges from +4.0% to +9.2%.
On the positive note, commuters have “moderately strong” to “very strong”

agreement that tricycle drivers are neat, well-groomed, helpful, accommodating
to passengers’ reasonable requests, observing rules on fares and discounts as
well as displaying their IDs and treating passengers fairly (+13% to +64%).
15
Table 14. Agreement on Tricycle Drivers’ Professionalism and Customer Care, Naga City, 2019
Statements Agree/ Strongly Agreement
Agree Disagree
Percent (n=810)
Tricycle drivers are polite 29.6 50.0 20.4 9.2 Neutral
and friendly
Tricycle drivers are 31.4 41.2 27.4 4.0 Neutral
courteous to all road users
Tricycle drivers look neat 38.1 41.5 20.4 17.7 Moderately
and well-groomed strong
Tricycle drivers are helpful 40.6 40.5 18.9 21.7 Moderately
strong
Tricycle drivers are 55.9 29.9 14.2 41.7 Very strong
accommodating of
passengers’ reasonable
request
Tricycle drivers ask for the 50.0 32.2 17.8 32.2 Very strong
right amount of fare
Tricycle drivers provide 74.0 16.0 10.0 64.0 Extremely
discounts to those entitled strong
Tricycle drivers display 55.6 20.9 23.6 32.0 Very strong
their IDs in a prominent
position
Tricycle drivers treat 40.4 32.2 27.4 13.0 Moderately
passengers in a non- strong
discriminatory manner
I am confident tricycle 18.6 45.6 35.8 -17.2 Moderately
drivers will find a way to weak
return left personal
belongings inside the
tricycle
Note. Interpretation follows SWS terminology for net agreement: +50 and above, “extremely strong”; +30 to
+49, “very strong”; +10 to +29, “moderately strong”; +9 to -9, “neutral”; -10 to -29, “moderately weak”; -30 to
-49, “very weak”; -50 and below, “extremely weak”.
F. Safety and security
Safety and security are measured in terms of commuters’ observation on

the working condition of the tricycles and tricycle drivers’ observance of road
safety regulations as well as their demonstrated behavior while on the road.
Results (Table 15) show that commuters generally feel safe and secure as
revealed by net agreement ratings ranging from “moderately strong” to
“extremely strong” (+22.7% to 57.2%).
16
Table 15. Agreement on Safety and Security of Passengers in the Tricycles, Naga City, 2019
Strongly Neutral Disagree Net Interpretation
Statements Agree/ /Strongly Agreement
Agree Disagree
Percent (n=810)
Tricycles are in good working 40.4 42.0 17.7 22.7 Moderately
condition strong
Tricycle drivers observe road 50.5 30.9 18.6 31.9 Very strong
safety regulations
Tricycle drivers’ behavior while 67.2 22.7 10.0 57.2 Extremely
on the road makes me feel safe strong
About half of the households (49.5%), however, shared that tricycle drivers
violated some road safety regulations. Top five of these violations include unsafe
lane changes/overtaking (47%), over speeding (34%), picking up passengers in
unsafe manner (31%), running a stop sign (27%), and illegal parking (20%). The
rest of the list are presented in Table A3 in the Appendix.
G. Feedback and complaint handling
Feedback and complaint handling are measured in terms of commuters’

observation on the system of relaying and receiving complaints including the
length of time of complaint resolution and communication. These were gathered
from those who experienced filing a complaint.
In terms of incidence of an encounter of unruly, rude or insolent tricycle

drivers, Table 16 shows that while there were almost a third of the households
(31%) who never encountered unruly, rude or insolent tricycles drivers, two out of
five households (42%), at the least, occasionally encountered these. Top five of
these incidents include refusing or being picky with passengers (77%), showing
some form of discrimination or abuse (33%), fare overcharging (41%), violation of
land transportation and traffic code (R.A. 4136 & R.A. 10913), badmouthing or
verbally abusing passengers (16%), using rude or aggressive gestures toward the
passenger (14%), among others. Some of these were recognized by the city
government as prevalent problems among tricycle drivers as early as 2010. The
full list of incidences is recorded in Table A4 in the Appendix.
17
Table 16. Frequency of Encounter of Unruly, Rude or Insolent Tricycle Drivers, Naga City, 2019
Number of
Frequency Percent (%)
Households
Never 248 30.6
Rarely 225 27.8
Occasionally 290 35.8
Frequently 28 3.5
Always 19 2.3
Majority of the households (65%) are aware of the Public Safety Office
(PSO) Desk where they could file a complaint against unruly tricycle drivers.
However, very few households (2.7%) actually filed a complaint even if there
exists a relatively large number of households who experienced unruly tricycle
drivers. Of those who had an encounter with unruly, rude or insolent tricycle
drivers, only 22 (0.04%) filed a complaint at the PSO. Table 17 shows the
agreement rating on feedback and handling complaint. The highest agreement
rating is on the system or manner on relaying complaints that was set up (72.7%
agreed, 18% disagreed). The lowest of these ratings is on satisfaction on the
length of time on communicating resolutions (27% agreed, 32% disagreed).
Overall, the resulting net agreement rating on feedback and complaint handling is
from “neutral” to “extremely strong” (-4.5% to +54.5%).
Table 17. Agreement on ‘Feedback and Handling Complaints’ Against Tricycle Drivers, Naga
City, 2019
Agree Disagree
Percent (n=22)
Satisfied with the manner or 72.7 9.1 18.2 54.5 Extremely
system on relaying complaints strong
Satisfied with the manner on 63.6 9.1 27.3 36.3 Very strong
receiving complaints
Satisfied with the length of 36.4 31.8 31.8 4.6 Neutral
time on complaint resolution
Satisfied with the length of 27.3 40.9 31.8 -4.5 Neutral
time on communicating
resolutions
Nagueños offered suggestions on how feedback and complaints should

be addressed (Table 18). On top would be to impose immediate action on the
complaint submitted (60%). This includes strictly implementing traffic rules, like
disallowing tricycles to ply on national highways. It also includes imposing
appropriate penalties, such as fine, ticketing, temporary suspension of franchise
or license in a graduated fashion appropriate to the violation committed,
impounding of tricycle, and community service.
18
Another suggestion is to conduct seminars, meetings, and consultation
with drivers, operators, and commuters to educate them on road safety and
traffic regulations, proper dealing with passengers, good manners, honesty, and
anti-discrimination (18%). These seminars can be conducted before releasing
renewal of license or before lifting the suspension of license or franchise.
The third top suggestion is improving PSO customer service (17.5%).

Nagueños are expecting PSO to provide fair treatment in handling complaints of
all sectors, whether they are drivers, operators, or commuters. They suggest to
assign permanent and qualified PSO personnel to handle complaints, update
complainants about the action taken on complaints filed, increase PSO and
police visibility, conduct check points, and regularly monitor drivers. PSO
personnel are expected to re-educate irresponsible and arrogant drivers and to
be courteous in dealing with them. Nagueños also suggest addressing traffic
congestion in Naga City by improving the traffic system or setting up alternate
routes.
Table 18. Suggestions on How to Improve Feedback and Complaints Handling, Naga City, 2019
Number of
Suggestions Percent (%)
Households
Strictly implement traffic rules and impose 450 59.8
penalties
Conduct seminars, meetings, or consultation 138 18.3
with drivers, operators, and commuters
Improve PSO customer service 132 17.5
Warm/reprimand drivers and operators 98 13.0
Set up public assistance hotline using different 49 6.5
platforms
Put up signage and advocacy materials 15 2.0
Annual registration with monitoring of units 6 0.8
and random drug test of drivers
Address problems on increasing number of 6 0.8
vehicles on the road
Other suggestions include issuing warnings and reprimands to erring

drivers and operators, putting up signage or advocacy materials, and setting up
complaint or public assistance desk or hotline where grievant can file their
complaints immediately or complainants and respondents can be mediated. PSO
can make use of different platforms, such as physical desk set up in the city’s
central districts, social media page, public suggestion box, public information
through media outlets, such as radio and TV, cellphone application for PSO,
surveillance cameras inside the tricycle and public areas, and other means of
centralized feedback mechanism.
Nagueños also brought up the issue on volumes of vehicles on the city

roads. They suggest that city planners find a way to decongest traffic volume by
putting up alternative routes, pull out old models of tricycle, improve the traffic
19
system, continue to widen roads, and come up with a policy to lessen the number
of vehicles on the road.
Naga City Households’ Preference of Tricycles

The Nagueños’ preference for tricycles was also obtained in this study
(Table 19). Nagueños’ expressed an “extremely strong” net agreement on their
preference to continue the operation of traditional tricycles (73.5% agree, 15.1%
disagree). This preference supports their own assessment of tricycle’s
accessibility and availability (see Section A) which was rated to be “very strong”
to “extremely strong”. Since they can travel within the city whenever and
wherever they like and observed that tricycles are adequate, they would also
prefer that traditional tricycles be retained. However, they expressed “moderately
weak” agreement on adding the units of traditional tricycles (35.4% agree, 45.9%
disagree). They are “neutral” when it comes to adding units of taxicles (40.5%
agree, 44% disagree). But they are “moderately strong” in agreeing to add units
of e-trikes (56.4% agree, 28.6% disagree).
Table 19. Agreement on Additional Units of All Types of Tricycles, Naga City, 2019
Indicator Agree/ Strongly Agreement
Agree Disagree
Percent (n=810)
Continue the operation of 73.5 11.5 15.1 58.4 Extremely
traditional tricycles strong
Add units of traditional 35.4 18.6 45.9 -10.5 Moderately
tricycles weak
Add units of taxicles 40.5 15.6 44.0 -3.5 Neutral
Add units of e-trikes 56.4 14.9 28.6 27.8 Moderately
strong
Looking at the age distribution of those who preferred to add more units of
traditional tricycles, Table 20 shows that in almost all age group, the nod on
adding the units of traditional tricycles is “moderately weak”, except for the older
age group (55-64 years old) who are generally “neutral” about the issue.
20
Table 20. Preference for Additional Traditional Tricycles by Age Group, Naga City, 2019
Age group Agree/ Strongly Agreement
Agree Disagree
Percent (n=810)
18-24 years old 30.7 28.1 58.9 -28.2 Moderately weak
‘25-54 years old 36.2 15.6 48.2 -12.0 Moderately weak
55-64 years old 41.2 16.7 42.2 -1.0 Neutral
65 years old and older 33.0 20.2 46.8 -13.8 Moderately weak
Adding units of taxicles appeal more to the young adult group (18-24
years old) who came out as the only age group that favors strongly albeit
moderately on adding more units of taxicles (Table 21). The older age groups’
disagreement outweighs those who prefer to add taxicles resulting to a “neutral”
to “moderately weak” net agreement.
Table 21. Preference for Additional Taxicles by Age Group, Naga City, 2019
Age Group Agree/ Strongly Agreement
Agree Disagree
Percent (n=810)
18-24 years old 52.9 17.6 29.4 23.5 Moderately
strong
25-54 years old 38.8 15.8 45.3 -6.5 Neutral
55-64 years old 37.3 8.8 53.9 -16.6 Moderately
weak
65 years old and older 31.9 18.1 50.0 -18.1 Moderately
weak
Adding units of e-trikes appeal more to the young adult (18-24 years old)
and middle-aged adult (25-54 years old) groups than those in the older age
groups (55 years old and above) who are “neutral” about the issue (Table 22).
21
Table 22. Preference for Additional E-Trikes by Age Group, Naga City, 2019
Age Group Agree/ Strongly Agreement
Agree Disagree
Percent (n=810)
18-24 years old 68.0 13.7 18.3 49.7 Very strong
25-54 years old 57.3 14.8 28.0 29.3 Moderately
strong
55-64 years old 48.0 13.7 38.2 9.8 Neutral
65 years old and older 42.6 19.1 38.3 4.3 Neutral
Naga City Households’ Preferred Transportation Scheme

Nagueños were asked of their satisfaction on the current non-fixed route
style of tricycle transportation, the regular minimum fare, and the special trip fare
(Table 23). Results show that Nagueños are “moderately strong” about their
satisfaction on the current free-willing transportation scheme. They are, however,
amenable of charging the minimum fare to less than or equal one kilometer-
distance trip (87% agree, 9.5% disagree) and on charging special trip fee beyond
one kilometer-distance (52% agree, 35% disagree). The suggested minimum
fare has a mean of P8.41 with standard deviation of 0.74 centavos.
Table 23. Transportation scheme and fares, Naga City, 2019

Agree Disagree
Percent (n=810)
Satisfied with present 49.5 10.9 39.6 9.9 Moderately
transportation scheme (non- strong
fixed route)
Amenable that a minimum fare 86.7 3.8 9.5 77.2 Extremely
be charged to shorter trips strong
(less than or equal to 1 km.)
Amenable that tricycles charge 50.6 13.7 35.7 14.9 Moderately
special trip fees for distances strong
beyond 1 km.
Note. Ratings are adopted using SWS terminology for net agreement: +50 and above, “extremely strong”;
+30 to +49, “very strong”; +10 to +29, “moderately strong”; +9 to -9, “neutral”; -10 to -29, “moderately weak”;
-30 to -49, “very weak”; -50 and below, “extremely weak”.
The median suggested minimum fare is still eight pesos. The suggested
fee for trips beyond one-kilometer distance has a mean of P47 with a standard
deviation of P40. The median suggested special trip fee is P40. Table 24 shows
the suggested special trip prices.
22
Table 24. Suggested Special Trip Tricycle Fares, Naga City, 2019
Weekday Number of Households Percent (%)
P9-P19 71 17.3
P20-P29 69 16.8
P30-P39 42 10.2
P40-P49 64 15.6
P50-P59 90 22.0
P60-P179 70 17.1
P180-P300 4 1.0
Total 410 100.0
Typical Weekday and Weekend Trips of Nagueños

This study also looks into the weekday and weekend trips of the
respondents to describe which day of the week has most commuters, where
Nagueños’ trips usually originate and end as well as their departure time,
transportation mode, and purpose of trip.
Weekday Trips
Out of the 810 respondents, 622 individuals (77%) are weekday

commuters. Table 25 shows that most commuters (66%) are out to take a ride all
weekdays indicating that Naga City residents are quite mobile and active people.
Of all the weekdays, Mondays (11%) and Fridays (10.7%) have most commuters
in addition to those who go out all weekdays.
Table 25. Number of Commuters in Typical Weekdays, Naga City, 2019

Number of Households
Weekday Percent of Cases* (%)
(n=622)
Monday 80 12.9
Tuesday 54 8.7
Wednesday 69 11.1
Thursday 41 6.6
Friday 78 12.6
All weekdays 405 66.3
*Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple response.
Figure 3 presents the weekday departure time of commuters. Data show

that commuters go out on the road earlier than 4:00 AM. The number of
commuters start to increase from 4:00 AM and peak during 6:00 AM to 8:00 AM
where commuters reach up to 30%. In the afternoon, commuters start to
increase from 1:00 PM and peak at 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM which reach up to 20.6%
of commuters.
23
Weekday departure time
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 3. Weekday Departure Time of Commuters, Naga City, 2019
Half of all commuting Nagueños go out on weekdays to work (50%) (See

Table A5 in the Appendix). Others market or shop for necessities (35%), go to
school (23%), either run some errands like buying medicine or paying bills, or go
for leisure or window-shopping (12%). Weekday commuters spend a mean of 44
minutes and 37 seconds with a standard deviation of 37 minutes in one day of
travel. When we multiply this value to 20 days, Nagueños spend on average
about 15 hours for their weekday commutes or 7.5 days in a year. In terms of
cost, Nagueños spend a mean transportation cost of P30.37 with a standard
deviation of P34.88.
Data reveal that trips during weekdays are made by majority of Nagueños
using public utilities, like tricycle (72%) or jeep (58%). Others use their own
motorcycles (48%), take a walk (30%), take pedicabs (22%), or their own car
(12%). A few others also use their own bicycle or tricycle, or ride other means
such as bus, rail skates, multicab, taxi, or truck (See Table A6 in the Appendix).
Table 26 shows the top 5 weekday origin and destination of the

respondents. These data tell that within a weekday, most Nagueños (61%) take a
ride from CBD 1 mainly because it is easy to find tricycle in this area. The other
areas, such as Balatas, Concepcion Pequeña, San Felipe, and Del Rosario
came out as top 4 origin of weekday trips because these areas are the most
populous barangays in the city. As of 2015, Concepcion Pequeña is the most
populous with 23,577 people (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016). San Felipe is
the second most populous barangay with 17,444 individuals. The Balatas area
has commuters coming from top 3 (Bgy. Cararayan with 15,998 population) and
top 7 (Bgy. Balatas with 10,404 people) barangays in terms of population. Del
24
Rosario is top 8 with 9,332 people. The rest of the list of typical weekday origin of
trips is found in Table A7 in the Appendix.
The top destination of weekday trips is also CBD 1 showing that

Nagueños use this as a point to transfer rides going to their destination for the
day (Table 26). And similar with the point of origin, the top destination of
weekday trips are the most populous barangays of the city, such as Balatas,
Concepcion Pequeña, Calauag (top 5 most populous with 11,515 people as of
2015), and Cararayan. See the full list of typical weekday destination of trips in
Table A8 in the Appendix.
Table 26. Typical Origin and Destination of Weekday Trips (Top 5), Naga City, 2019
Origin
(n=810)
CBD1a 377 60.6 1
Balatas b 145 23.3 2
San Felipe d 82 13.2 4
Del Rosario f 75 12.1 5
Destination
(n=810)
CBD1a 374 60.1 1
Balatas b 84 13.5 3
Calauag e 77 12.4 4
Cararayan g 76 12.2 5
Note. Percentages do not total 100 due to multiple response.
a
includes Plaza Rizal, Quinse Martires, NCPM, Master Square, E-Mall, Dinaga, Garmas, San Francisco,
UNC, Advent, Igualdad. bincludes Balatas Road, Magsaysay Ave., Shell station, Basilica. cincludes
Greenland, SSS, Landbank Rotonda, Naga City Hall, BMC, St. Therese. dincludes Lomeda, Karangahan,
Maramba
e
Calauag includes Jacob, Naga Central, Molave, Capilihan. fincludes Villa Corazon, Urban Poor, Boundary,
Drupay, GSIS. gincludes San Rafael, Cararayan Centro, Obiedo, Deca Langon.
Satisfaction ratings were given by the respondents on all their weekday

trips. Table 27 shows the results that out of the 1,564 weekday trips, 85% were
satisfactory to very satisfactory trips. This outnumbered the dissatisfactory and
very dissatisfactory trips (5.6%). Getting the difference of satisfactory trips and
dissatisfactory trip results to a +79.6 net satisfaction rating which is interpreted as
excellent.
25
Table 27. Satisfaction on Weekday Trips, Naga City, 2019
Satisfaction Level Number of Trips Percent (%)
Satisfied/very satisfied 1,333 85.2
Somewhat satisfied/ somewhat 144 9.2
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied/ very dissatisfied 87 5.6
Total Number of trips/ Net 1,564 79.6
satisfaction
Interpretation Excellent
Weekend trips
Lesser number of commuting Nagueños (74%) go out during weekends

than weekdays. Most of these (58%) go out on a Sunday. About a fifth of them
go out either on all weekends (22%) or on Saturday alone (20%).
Going to church (52%) is the most frequent reason of going out on a

weekend. Other reasons are going out for leisure or going to the mall (29%) or
going to the market or grocery (24%). About a fifth of Nagueño commuters work
on a weekend (21%) or go to school (5.7%). A negligible number goes out on a
weekend to either run for an errand (2.5%) or go to the bank (0.2%) (see Table
11 in the Appendix). They consume an average of 40 minutes and 22 seconds
with an average spread of 36 minutes and 38 seconds on their weekend in-city
trips, a few minutes shorter than their weekday trips; and spend an average
transportation cost of P29.23 with a standard deviation of P44.47.
The peak of weekend commuters according to time slots is slightly

different from weekday’s behavior (Figure 4). Although the earliest time of
departure is similar with weekday behavior where commuters go out on the road
before 4:00 AM, commuters start to increase at 5:00 AM and peaks at 7:00 AM.
This may be due to early churchgoers. At this time, members of 20% of the
households are already out on the road. In the afternoon, commuters start to
increase at 1:00 PM and peaks between 4:00-6:00 PM. This peak time has
members of 25% of the households.
26
Weekend departure time
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 4. Weekend Departure Time of Commuters, Naga City, 2019
Similar with weekday trips, majority of the Nagueño commuters use public
utilities like tricycle (63%) or jeep (53%). More than half of those who go out
during weekends (51%) walk to their destination. Others use their own
motorcycles (39%), take a pedicab (17%), or use their own car (14%). The
complete list of mode of transportation during weekends is shown in Table A10 in
the Appendix.
Satisfaction ratings were given by the respondents on all their weekend

trips. Table 28 presents the results that out of the 1,463 weekend trips, 91% were
satisfactory to very satisfactory trips. This outnumbered the dissatisfactory and
very dissatisfactory trips (3.3%). Getting the difference of satisfactory trips and
dissatisfactory trip results to +87.7 net satisfaction rating which is even better
than weekday trips and interpreted as “excellent”.
Table 28. Satisfaction on Weekday Trips, Naga City, 2019

Satisfaction Level Number of Trips Percent (%)
Satisfied/very satisfied 1,331 91.0
Somewhat satisfied/ somewhat 83 5.7
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied/ very dissatisfied 49 3.3
Total Number of trips/ Net 1,463 87.7
satisfaction
Interpretation Excellent
27
Table 29 lists the top 5 weekend trips’ origin and destination of the
respondents. The top origin and destination site is also CBD 1 mainly because it
is the downtown area and it is where one can easily find tricycle if one needs to
go somewhere else. These data confirm that most of the Nagueños cut trips to
get into their destination. The other areas, such as Balatas, Concepcion
Pequeña, San Felipe, and Del Rosario came out as the next top ranked origin of
weekend trips because these areas are the most populous barangays in the city.
The rest of the list of typical weekend origin and destination of trips is found in
Table A11 and A12 in the Appendix.
Table 29. Typical Origin and Destination of Weekend Trips (Top 5), Naga City, 2019
District/ Barangay/ Origin Destination
Landmark Number of Percent Rank Number of Percent Rank
Households of Cases Households of Cases
(600) (%) (603) (%)
392 65.0 1 406 67.7 1
CBD1a
Concepcion Pequeña b 101 16.7 2 99 16.5 3
Balatas c 99 16.4 3 100 16.7 2
San Felipe d 77 12.8 4 77 12.8 4
Del Rosario f 72 11.9 5 71 11.8 5
Note. Percentages do not total 100 due to multiple response. aincludes Plaza Rizal, Quinse Martires,
NCPM, Master Square, E-Mall, Dinaga, Garmas, San Francisco, UNC, Advent, Igualdad. bincludes Balatas
Road, Magsaysay Ave., Shell station, Basilica. cincludes Greenland, SSS, Landbank Rotonda, Naga City
Hall, BMC, St. Therese. dincludes Lomeda, Karangahan, Maramba. eCalauag includes Jacob, Naga Central,
Molave, Capilihan. fincludes Villa Corazon, Urban Poor, Boundary, Drupay, GSIS. gincludes San Rafael,
Cararayan Centro, Obiedo, Deca Langon.
5 Conclusion and Recommendations

Naga City has more than a third of its residents who are commuting daily
on tricycles comprising almost half of Naga City households. A fifth of the city
residents commute on tricycles five to six times a week. These people perceive
the quality of public tricycles generally as accessible and available; clean,
comfortable and has sufficient space; safe and secure, and can carry passengers
to their destination in a satisfactory length of time. These areas result to
agreement statement ratings of “moderately strong” to “extremely strong”.
Despite these high ratings, Naga City residents expressed difficulty in

finding tricycles in some areas within the City during rush hours and half of them
experienced or observed that tricycle drivers violate some road safety
regulations. While agreement statements on travel time have positive results of
“very strong” net agreement rating, the average travel time of 20.3 minutes is still
longer than the average preference of Nagueños of 11.7 minutes.
Tricycles are relatively low on agreement statements concerning waiting

time and professionalism and customer care. Its satisfaction and agreement
ratings have low rates, such as “moderately weak” and “neutral”. Waiting for
28
tricycles to come as well as to leave a queue is something to be desired as study
reveals a 13.6 minutes of average waiting time. On professionalism, tricycle
drivers are rated “moderately weak” on trust given by riders. Naga City residents
also are ambivalent on the politeness of tricycle drivers.
With all of these reflection of the city residents on the service quality of the
tricycle drivers, they remain “extremely strong” on continuing the operation of
traditional tricycles. This can be attributed to the city’s culture and customs where
riders are used to a door-to door transport service. Commuters also reach their
destination speedier in a tricycle in contrast to a jeep because less time is spent
on waiting for and dropping off passengers in a tricycle due to its fewer
passenger capacity. However, Nagueños refuse to add the number of units of
traditional tricycles (“moderately weak”) but instead opt for additional e-trikes
which appeal more to relatively younger age group (18-54 years old). Adding
taxicles do not appeal to most age groups.
Naga City residents are ambivalent whether they are satisfied or not with
the present non-fixed transportation scheme of the tricycles. They are
overwhelmingly amenable on a minimum charge on less-than-one kilometer trip
which averages at P8.41. For distances beyond one kilometer, they are
moderately amenable of special fees ranging from P9 to P300.
With these findings, this study recommends that Ordinance No. 1993-026
be revised to incorporate the results of this survey:
(1) Allow tricycles to ply a non-fixed route as presently being practiced
despite the color-coding scheme in the said ordinance but at a
graduated price starting from regular minimum fare to additional
charge per additional kilometer. If this will be the case, the city
government should come up with a fixed price schedule from different
points of origin to different points of destination. This will minimize
refusal of passengers by the tricycle drivers knowing that they will be
paid more at certain locations. Producing a schedule of fare is being
practiced in several places in Metro Manila;
(2) The number of units of traditional tricycles and taxicles may be
maintained while the number of e-trikes may be increased;
(3) The city government should ensure that road regulations are being
followed (e.g., proper lane changes, proper use of loading and
unloading zones, sidewalks are free of obstructions) and strictly
implement penalties appropriate to safety road and regulations
offenses to minimize erring tricycle drivers and improve traffic flow;
(4) Tricycle drivers and operators are being recommended to undergo
yearly seminar during the renewal of permits to remind them of road
safety rules and regulations as well as their profession’s obligations,
such as politeness and trust worthiness;
29
(5) The city government should evaluate the system of feedback and
complaint handling by the Public Safety Office which can be
incorporated on the revised ordinance; and finally,
(6) The city government has to brace up its marketing and education
campaign if it wants to change Naga City residents’ culture of reliance
on tricycles in order that the city people may adapt appropriately when
the city government offers other alternatives.
30
References
Asian Development Bank. (2012). Philippines Transport Sector Assessment,

Strategy, and Road Map. Retrieved from
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-
document/33700/files/philippines-transport-assessment.pdf.
Gunay, A. B. (2016). 21 more e-trikes hit Naga roads. Sangguniang Panlungsod

news and updates. Retrieved from
http://www.spnagacity.com/news_read.php?story=132&selected=8
Lättman, Katrin, Friman, M., & Olsson, L. E. (2016). Perceived accessibility of

public transport as a potential indicator of social inclusion. Social
Inclusion, 4(3), 36-45. doi: 10.17645/si.v4i3.481
Legacion, N. (2014). Taxicle, SP Highlights. Retrieved from

http://www.spnagacity.com/sp_highlights_pdf.php?file=86
Philippine Statistics Authority. (2016). Population of Region V – Bicol (Based on

the 2015 Census of Population. Retrieved from
https://psa.gov.ph/content/population-region-v-bicol-based-2015-census-
population
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Naga City. (2016). Ordinance no. 2016-050.

Retrieved from http://naga.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ord2016-
050.pdf
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Naga City. (2011). Ordinance no. 2011-065.

Retrieved from http://naga.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ord2011-
065.pdf
31
Appendix A
Table A1. Distribution of Households by Origin and Destination Based on the Easiness to Find/Be
Accommodated in a Tricycle, Naga City, 2019
District/ Barangay/ Landmark Origin Destination
Households Cases (%) Households Cases (%)
(n=810) (n=810)
CBD1a 435 55.2 297 38.2
CBD2b 80 10.2 233 29.9

Del Rosario c 51 6.5 8 1.0
Calauag d 33 4.2 38 4.9
Bagumbayan Sur e 29 3.7 32 4.1
Balatas f 26 3.3 40 5.1
Triangulo g 23 2.9 11 1.4
Cararayan h 22 2.8 12 1.5
Concepcion Pequeña i 22 2.8 8 1.0
Mabolo 16 2.0 13 1.7
Dayangdang j 12 1.5 8 1.0
Abella, Sabang 8 1.0 11 1.4
Tabuco 7 .9 6 .8
Bagumbayan Norte 5 .6 6 .8
Lerma 5 .6
Peñafrancia 3 .4 33 4.2
San Felipe 3 .4 8 1.0
Liboton 2 .3
Pacol 2 .3 4 .5
Santa Cruz 1 .1 1 .1
Concepcion Grande 1 .1 1 .1
Mabini interior 1 .1
San Isidro 1 .1 1 .1
Note. Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple response.
a
UNC. bIncludes SM, Central Bus Station, Panganiban. cincludes Villa Corazon, Urban Poor, Boundary,
Drupay. dincludes Jacob, Naga Central, Molave. eincludes North-Bound Terminal, Queborac, P. Santos,
Ateneo, NPS, USI. fincludes Magsaysay, Basilica. gincludes PNR, Naga Subd, Diversion. hincludes San
Rafael, Centro, Obiedo. iincludes Greenland, SSS, Land Bank, rotunda, NC hall, BMC. jincludes Isarog,
Mayon, Taal.
32
Table A2. Distribution of Households by Origin and Destination Based on the Difficulty to Find/Be
Accommodated in a Tricycle, Naga City, 2019
District/ Barangay/ Landmark Origin Destination
Households Cases (%) Households Cases (%)
(n=810) (n=810)
CBD1a 355 46.9 225 29.6
Triangulo b 55 7.3 50 6.6
CBD2 c 48 6.3 59 7.3
Peñafrancia 37 4.9 33 4.1
Balatas d 36 4.8 10 1.2
Calauag e 28 3.7 62 7.7
Bagumbayan Sur f 26 3.4 29 3.6
Concepcion Pequeña g 21 2.8 73 9.0
Dayangdang h 21 2.8 44 5.8
San Felipe 18 2.4 37 4.9
Abella, Sabang 17 2.2 20 2.6
Cararayan i 15 2.0 17 2.2
Sta. Cruz 13 1.7 7 .9
Mabolo 12 1.6 13 1.7
Tabuco 12 1.6 4 .5
Concepcion Grande 10 1.3 20 2.6
Pacol 9 1.2 13 1.7
Del Rosario j 7 .9 18 2.4
Lerma k 6 .8 3 .4
Tinago 4 .5 4 .5
Liboton 3 .4 5 .7
Bagumbayan Norte 2 .3 6 .8
Carolina 2 .3 7 .9
Note. Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple response.
a
UNC. bincludes PNR, Naga Subd, Diversion. cincludes SM, Central Bus Station, Panganiban. dincludes
Magsaysay, Basilica. eincludes Jacob, Naga Central, Molave. fincludes North-Bound Terminal, Queborac, P.
Santos, Ateneo, NPS, USI. gincludes Greenland, SSS, Land Bank, rotunda, NC hall, BMC. hincludes Isarog,
Mayon, Taal. iincludes San Rafael, Centro, Obiedo. jincludes Villa Corazon, Urban Poor, Boundary, Drupay.
k
Includes Petron.
33
Table A3. Road Safety Regulations Violated by Tricycle Drivers, Naga City, 2019
Type of Violation Number of Households Percent of Casesa (%)
(n=401)
Unsafe lane changes (including 184 47.1
unsafe overtaking, cutting in line)
Over speeding 131 33.5
Picking up passengers at a no 122 31.2

loading/unloading zone
Running at stop sign or red light 106 27.1
Illegal Parking 80 20.5
Failure to yield the right of way to
52 13.3
pedestrians
Failure to give proper signals 27 6.9
Overloading 26 6.6
Not completely stopping when
dropping off or picking up
21 5.4
passengers or not slowing down on
humps
Increasing speed when being
16 4.1
overtaken
Smoke belching 16 4.1
Driving without license or under the
9 2.3
influence of alcohol
Entering in a one-way or no entry
7 1.8
street
Incomplete light accessories 5 1.3
a
Percentages do not total 100 due to multiple response.
Table A4. Incidents of Unruly, Rude or Insolent Tricycle Drivers, Naga City, 2019
Incident Number of Percent of
Households Cases (%)a
322 57.5
Refusing/being picky with passengers
Overcharging/contracting passengers 232 41.4
Bad mouthing/verbally abusing passengers 89 15.9
Using rude/aggressive gestures toward the passenger 79 14.1
Not complying with reasonable request of the passenger 56 10.0
Reckless driving 48 8.6
Discriminating the passenger 46 8.2
Unjustly ejecting a passenger 41 7.3
a
34
Table A5. Purpose of Weekday Trips, Naga City, 2019
Purpose Number of Percent of
313 50.3
Go to work/office
Go the market/grocery 217 34.9
Go to school 141 22.7
Go for a leisure/mall 78 12.5
Run an errand/pay bills 77 12.4
Go to church 11 1.8
Go the bank 8 1.3
a
Table A6. Transportation Mode for Weekday Trips, Naga City, 2019
449 72.1
Tricycle
359 57.6
Jeep
Motorcycle 299 48.0
Walk 188 30.2
Car 75 12.0
Bike 28 4.5
Others 35 5.6
a
35
Table A7. Weekday Trips’ Origin, Naga City, 2019
Barangay/District/Landmark Number of households Percent of Casesa
CBD 1b 377 60.6
Balatasc 145 23.3
Concepcion Pequeñad 104 16.7
San Felipee 82 13.2
Del Rosariof 75 12.1
Cararayang 72 11.6
Abella, Sabangh 69 11.1
Peñafranciai 63 10.1
Trianguloj 57 9.2
Calauagk 56 9.0
Concepcion Grande 51 8.2
CBD 2l 50 8.0
Pacol 48 7.7
Outside Naga 46 7.4
Mabolo 38 6.1
Sta. Cruz m 30 4.8
Tabuco 30 4.8
Carolina 29 4.7
Bagumbayan Surn 26 4.2
Dayangdango 23 3.7
Tinago 23 3.7
Liboton 21 3.4
Bagumbayan Norte 15 2.4
San Isidro 13 2.1
Panicuason 12 1.9
Lermap 10 1.6
a
Percentages do not total 100 due to multiple response. bincludes Plaza Rizal, Quinse Martires, NCPM,
Master Square, E-Mall, Dinaga, Garmas, San Francisco, UNC, Advent, Igualdad. cincludes Balatas Road,
Magsaysay Ave., Shell station, Basilica. dincludes Greenland, SSS, Land bank Rotonda, Naga City Hall,
BMC, St. Therese. eincludes Lomeda, Karangahan, Maramba. fincludes Villa Corazon, Urban Poor,
Boundary, Drupay. gincludes San Rafael, Cararayan Centro, Obiedo, Deca Langon. hincludes LCC. iincludes
Phil Am, Cam High, Bora Hut. jincludes PNR, Naga Subd, Diversion, NICC, Mother Seton. kincludes Jacob,
Naga Central, Molave, Capilihan. GSIS. lincludes SM, Bus Terminal, Panganiban. mIncludes Barlin, old
GSIS. nIncludes North-Bound Terminal, Queborac, P. Santos, Ateneo, NPS, USI. oincludes Isarog, Mayon,
Taal. pIncludes Petron.
36
Table A8. Weekday Trips’ Destination, Naga City, 2019
CBD 1b 374 60.1
Concepcion Pequeñab 97 15.6
Balatasc 84 13.5
Calauagd 77 12.4
Cararayane 76 12.2
Del Rosariof 75 12.1
San Felipeg 75 12.1
Peñafranciai 61 9.8
Trianguloj 59 9.5
CBD 2l 56 9.0
Abella, Sabangh 55 8.8
Bagumbayan Surn 52 8.4
Outside Naga 48 7.7
Sta. Cruz m 36 5.8
Pacol 35 5.6
Mabolo 34 5.5
Tabuco 31 5.0
Carolina 30 4.8
Dayangdangf 25 4.0
Liboton 22 3.5
Tinago 18 2.9
Lermap 10 1.6
San Isidro 9 1.4
Panicuason 7 1.1
a
Master Square, E-Mall, Dinaga, Garmas, San Francisco, UNC, Advent, Igualdad. bincludes Greenland, SSS,
Land bank Rotonda, Naga City Hall, BMC, St. Therese. cincludes Balatas Road, Magsaysay Ave., Shell
station, Basilica. dincludes Jacob, Naga Central, Molave, Capilihan. eincludes San Rafael, Cararayan
Centro, Obiedo, Deca Langon. fincludes Villa Corazon, Urban Poor, Boundary, Drupay. gincludes Lomeda,
h
Karangahan, Maramba. includes LCC. iincludes Phil Am, Cam High, Bora Hut. jincludes PNR, Naga
Subd, Diversion, NICC, Mother Seton. GSIS. lincludes SM, Bus Terminal, Panganiban. mIncludes Barlin,
old GSIS. nIncludes North-Bound Terminal, Queborac, P. Santos, Ateneo, NPS, USI. oincludes Isarog,
Mayon, Taal. pIncludes Petron.
37
Table A9. Purpose of Weekend Trips, Naga City, 2019
Go to church 312 52.4
Go the market/grocery 143 24.0
Go for a leisure/mall 172 28.9
Go to office/work 125 21.0
Go to school 34 5.7
Run an errand/pay bills 15 2.5
Go the bank 1 0.2
a
Table A10. Transportation Mode for Weekend Trips, Naga City, 2019
Tricycle 377 62.7
Jeep 319 53.1
Walk 309 51.4
Motorcycle (owned, habal-habal) 234 38.9
Padjak 100 16.6
Car 87 14.5
Others: bus, multicab, skate, truck, taxi, own tricycle) 26 4.3
Bike 18 3.0
a
38
Table A11. Weekend Trips’ Origin, Naga City, 2019
CBD 1b 392 65.0
Concepcion Pequeña c 101 16.7
Balatas d 99 16.4
San Felipe e 77 12.8
Del Rosario f 72 11.9
Peñafrancia g 65 10.8
Cararayan h 64 10.6
CBD 2 i 62 10.3
Triangulo j 60 10.0
Abella, Sabang 57 9.5
Pacol 45 7.5
Calauag k 43 7.1
Bagumbayan Sur l 40 6.6
Outside Naga 34 5.6
Tabuco 32 5.3
Mabolo 30 5.0
Sta. Cruz m 28 4.6
Carolina 27 4.5
Liboton 19 3.2
Dayangdang n 18 3.0
Panicuason 14 2.3
San Isidro 11 1.8
Tinago 11 1.8
Lerma o 9 1.5
a
Master Square, E-Mall, Dinaga, Garmas, San Francisco, UNC, Advent, Igualdad. cincludes Greenland, SSS,
Land bank Rotonda, Naga City Hall, BMC, St. Therese. dincludes Balatas Road, Magsaysay Ave., Shell
station, Basilica. eincludes Lomeda, Karangahan, Maramba. f
includes Villa Corazon, Urban Poor,
g h
Boundary, Drupay, GSIS. includes Phil Am, Cam High, Bora Hut. includes San Rafael, Cararayan Centro,
Obiedo, Deca Langon. iincludes SM, Central Bus Station, Panganiban. jincludes PNR, Naga Subd,
Diversion, NICC, Mother Seton. kincludes Jacob, Naga Central, Molave, Capilihan. lIncludes North-Bound
Terminal, Queborac, P. Santos, Ateneo, NPS, USI. mIncludes Barlin, old GSIS. nincludes Isarog, Mayon,
Taal. oIncludes Petron.
39
Table A12. Weekend Trips’ Destination, Naga City, 2019
CBD 1b 406 67.7
Balatas c 100 16.7
Concepcion Pequeña d 99 16.5
San Felipe e 77 12.8
Del Rosario f 71 11.8
Peñafrancia g 67 11.2
CBD 2 h 62 10.3
Triangulo i 59 9.8
Cararayan j 55 9.2
Abella, Sabang 53 8.8
Bagumbayan Sur k 49 8.2
Pacol 42 7.0
Calauag l 38 6.3
Tabuco 32 5.3
Mabolo 31 5.2
Sta. Cruz m 29 4.8
Dayangdang n 18 3.0
Liboton 15 2.5
San Isidro 11 1.8
Lerma o 9 1.5
a
Master Square, E-Mall, Dinaga, Garmas, San Francisco, UNC, Advent, Igualdad. cincludes Balatas Road,
Magsaysay Ave., Shell station, Basilica. dincludes Greenland, SSS, Land bank Rotonda, Naga City Hall,
BMC, St. Therese. eincludes Lomeda, Karangahan, Maramba. fincludes Villa Corazon, Urban Poor,
Boundary, Drupay, GSIS. gincludes Phil Am, Cam High, Bora Hut. hincludes SM, Central Bus Station,
Panganiban. iincludes PNR, Naga Subd, Diversion, NICC, Mother Seton. jincludes San Rafael, Cararayan
Centro, Obiedo, Deca Langon. kIncludes North-Bound Terminal, Queborac, P. Santos, Ateneo, NPS, USI.
l
includes Jacob, Naga Central, Molave, Capilihan. mIncludes Barlin, old GSIS. nincludes Isarog, Mayon,
Taal. oIncludes Petron.
40
Appendix B
2019 NAGA CITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
1. Housing characteristics. OBSERVE. DON’T 5. Self-described ethnicity of respondent

ASK. 01 Bikolano
01 Class AB 02 Tagalog
02 Class C 03 Ilocano
03 Class D 04 Cebuano
04 Class E 05 Waray
06 Ilongo
2. Relationship of Respondent (R) to Other, specify
household (HH) Head
01 R is household head
02 Spouse 6. Marital status of respondent
03 Son/daughter 01 Single
04 Brother/sister 02 Married
05 Parent/in-law 03 Separated
06 Relative 04 Widowed
Other, specify 05 Living-in
7. Educational attainment of respondent

3. Place of birth of respondent 01 No formal education
(City/Town/Province) 02 Some elementary
03 Completed elementary
04 Some high school
4. IF NOT BORN IN NAGA, length of stay in 05 Completed high school
the city (years) 06 Some vocational
07 Completed vocational
08 Some college
09 Completed college
10 Post college
41
8. Work status of respondent IF RESP IS SINGLE/SEPARATED/WIDOWED
01 Currently working (emloyee, own account) ►Q12
and… 01 No formal education
01 Looking for additional work ►Q9 02 Some elementary
02 Not looking for additional work ►Q9 03 Completed elementary
02 Not currently working… 04 Some high school
01 But has worked in the past 7 days 05 Completed high school
►Q9 06 Some vocational
02 But will start working within the next 07 Completed vocational
2 wks ►Q9 08 Some college
03 But Still looking for work ►Q10 09 Completed college
04 and not looking for work 10 Post college
Reason for not looking for
work? 11. Work status of spouse
01 Discouraged to look for 01 Currently working (employee, own account)
work ►Q10 and…
02 Belief that no work was 01 Looking for additional work ►Q12
available ►Q10 02 Not looking for additional work ►Q12
03 Temporary illness/disability 02 Not currently working…
►Q10 01 But has worked in the past 7 days
04 Pending job ►Q12
interview/application ►Q10 02 But will start working within the next
05 Retired ►Q10 2 wks ►Q12
06 Fulltime student ►Q10 03 But Still looking for work ►Q13
07 Housewife/stay-at-home 04 And not looking for work
father ►Q10 Reason for not looking for
08 Permanent disability ►Q10 work?
01 Discouraged to look for
9. Occupation of respondent work ►Q13
01 Government/NGO official, executive, manager 02 Belief that no work was
02 Managing proprietor, supervisor, professional available ►Q13
03 Technician, associate professional 03 Temporary illness/disability
04 Office clerk ►Q13
05 Service worker, shop and market 04 Pending job
06 Sales worker interview/application ►Q13
07 Farmer, forestry worker and fishermen 05 Retired ►Q13
08 Craft and related worker 06 Fulltime student ►Q13
09 Plant and machine operator, assemblers 07 Housewife/stay-at-home
10 Laborer and unskilled worker father ►Q13
11 Special occupation, armed forces 08 Permanent disability ►Q13
12. Occupation of spouse
10. Educational attainment of spouse 01 Government/NGO official, executive, manager
42
02 Managing proprietor, supervisor, professional 08 Pension
03 Technician, associate professional 09 Rental from assets
04 Office clerk 10 Gifts/transfers/subsidies (e.g., donations, 4Ps)
05 Service worker, shop and market
06 Sales worker 14. Estimated HH monthly income (average
past year)
07 Farmer, forestry worker and fishermen
08 Craft and related worker
09 Plant and machine operator, assemblers 15. How many passenger vehicles does your
10 Laborer and unskilled worker HH own?
11 Special occupation, armed forces

Car
(hatchback/sedan/CRV/SUV/MPV/crossover)
13. Main HH income source Van/mini-van/jeepney
01 Salaries/wages, public, non-farm
Tricycle/e-trike/taxicle
02 Salaries/wages, private, non-farm
Motorcycle/scooter/e-bike
03 Salaries/wages, public, on-farm
03 Salaries/wages, private, on-farm Pedicab/bicycle
04 Entrepreneurial activities, non-farm

05 Entrepreneurial activities, on-farm 16. Household size
06 Remittances, domestic
07 Remittances, foreign
TRICYCLE: SERVICE QUALITY
ACCESSIBILITY AND AVAILABILITY

17. How many of your household members ride the traditional tricycle, taxicle, or e-trike
01 Daily
02 5-6 days a week
03 3-4 days a week
04 1-2 days a week
18. In your own experience, what route (origin and destination) within Naga City do you usually find
MOST EASY to get a tricycle, taxicle, or e-trike ride?
Place of origin Place of destination
19. In your own experience, what route (origin and destination) within Naga City do you usually find
MOST DIFFICULT to get a tricycle, taxicle, or e-trike ride?
43
IN THE SUCCEEDING STATEMENTS, PLEASE STATE WHETHER YOU STRONGLY DISAGREE,….
(SHOW CARD)
20. I can travel within Naga City WHEN EVER I want using the tricycle, taxicle, or e-trike
    
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
21. I can travel WHERE EVER I want within Naga City using the tricycle, taxicle, or e-trike
    
22. I find that there is enough traditional tricycle, taxicle, and e-trike for in-city transportation.
    
23. I am amenable that the city CONTINUES the operations of the TRADITIONAL TRICYCLES?
    
Go to 25 Go to 25 Go to 25
24. (IF RESPONSE TO Q23 IS 4 OR 5) I am amenable if the city adds the number of units of
TRADITIONAL TRICYCLES?
    
25. (IF RESPONSE TO Q23 IS 1, 2, OR 3), what would you suggest to improve the availability/access
of in-city public transportation means?
26. I am amenable if the city adds the number of units of TAXICLES?
    
27. I am amenable if the city adds the number of units of E-TRIKES?
    
WAITING TIME
From hereon, all “tricycles” refer to all the three types, i.e. traditional tricycles, taxicles, and e-trikes.
44
Please state if you are very dissatisfied,… with the following statements about “waiting time”:
28. The length of time it takes for me to wait for a tricycle ride from my house/nearest drop-off point
to my work place/school?
    
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
29. The length of time it takes for me to wait for a tricycle from my work place/school to my
house/nearest drop-off point?
    
30. The length of time it takes for me to wait for a tricycle ride from a commercial area or church to
my house/ nearest drop-off point.
    
31. The length of time it takes for a tricycle to leave once the passenger has ridden
    
32. Average waiting time (past three months) minutes
33. Ideal waiting time (past three months) minutes
34. IF RESPONSE IS 1, 2, OR 3 IN ANY OF Q28 TO Q31, what would you suggest to improve the
waiting time?
TRAVEL TIME
35. I am satisfied with the amount of time it takes to travel from my house/ nearest drop-off point to
my work place or school on a tricycle
    
36. I am satisfied with the amount of time it takes to travel from my work place or school to my
house/nearest drop-off point on a tricycle
    
45
37. I am satisfied with the amount of time it takes to travel from a commercial area or church to my
house/nearest drop-off point on a tricycle
    
38. Average travel time (past three months) Minutes
39. Ideal travel time (past three months) minutes
40. IF RESPONSE IS 1, 2, OR 3 IN ANY OF Q35 TO Q37, what would you suggest to improve the
travel time?
PREFERRED TRANSPORTATION SCHEME

Please state if you strongly disagree,… (SHOW CARD) with the succeeding statements:
41. I am satisfied with the present transportation scheme wherein tricycles have no designated
routes (i.e. non-fixed route)
    
Go to 43 Go to 43
42. (IF RESPONSE TO Q41 IS 1, 2, OR 3) What tricycle transportation scheme do you suggest? (DO
NOT READ CHOICES; CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE)
(1) The old transportation scheme wherein tricycles are designated a specific route – color coded
(This implies that passenger is willing to transfer station to go to another route)
(2) The transportation scheme where each route has a price equivalent and the fare follows a
graduated scheme, e.g. as distance increases, fare increases.
(3) Other __________________________________________
43. I am amenable that a minimum fare (e.g. currently at P8) be charged to shorter trips only (e.g.
less than or equal to 1 km.)
    
44. (IF RESPONSE TO Q43 IS 4 OR 5) how much price would you suggest for shorter pesos
46
trips if a new minimum fare will be imposed?
45. I am amenable that tricycles charge special trip fees for distances beyond 1 km?
    
46. How much price would you suggest for special/longer trips within Naga City? pesos
46.1 What destinations do you consider as special/long trips within Naga City? Give at most three
examples
CLEANLINESS AND COMFORT
47. I find the seats to be comfortable
    
48. I find the passenger cabin to be clean and free of any rubbish
    
49. I find the passenger cabin to be spacious
    
CROWDING
50. I find the number of passengers that the drivers actually allow inside the tricycle to be just right
or not over-crowded
    
Go to 52 Go to 52
51. (IF RESPONSE IN Q50 IS 1, 2, OR 3), what do you think should be the maximum persons
47
number of passengers allowed inside a traditional tricycle?
PROFESIONALISM AND CUSTOMER CARE
52. I find tricycle drivers to be polite and friendly
    
53. I find tricycle drivers to be courteous to all road users
    
54. Tricycle drivers look neat and well groomed
    
55. I find tricycle drivers helpful to their passengers (e.g., carrying baggage, aiding PWDs to
exit/enter the vehicle)
    
56. I find tricycle drivers accommodating to the passengers’ reasonable requests (e.g., preferred
route)
    
57. Tricycle drivers ask for the right amount of fare from passengers
    
58. Tricycle drivers provide discounts to those entitled (e.g., students, senior citizens)
    
59. Tricycle drivers display their identification cards in a prominent position where I can read them
    
60. Tricycle drivers treat all passengers in a non-discriminatory manner
48
    
61. If I forget my wallet inside the tricycle, I am confident that the driver will find a way to return it to
me
    
SAFETY AND SECURITY

62. I find tricycles to be in good condition
    
63. Tricycle drivers observe road safety regulations
    
64. If strongly disagree/disagree in Q63, please briefly describe or identify these road traffic
violations (DO NOT READ CHOICES, CIRCLE MULTIPLE RESPONSE).
01 Over speeding
02 Running a stop sign or red light
03 Unsafe lane changes
04 Illegal parking
05 Overtaking from the right lane
06 Overtaking upon a crest of a grade
07 Overtaking upon a curve
08 Overtaking at an intersection
09 Overtaking at no a overtaking zone
10 Cutting an overtaken vehicle
11 Increasing speed when being overtaken
12 Failure to yield the right of way to another motor vehicle
13 Failure to yield the right of way to pedestrian
14 Failure to give proper signals
15 Smoke belching
Other, specify:
65. The driver’s behavior while on the road makes me feel safe (e.g., no badmouthing, not driving
under the influence)
49
    
FEEDBACK AND COMPLAINT HANDLING

66. I experience/encounter unruly/rude/insolent tricycle drivers
    
Always Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never
67. IF ALWAYS/FREQUENTLY, please identify or briefly describe these incidents (DO NOT READ
CHOICES, CIRCLE MULTIPLE RESPONSE).
01 Refusing a fare or being picky with passengers
02 Ignoring passengers’ call for attention
03 Not complying with a reasonable request from a passenger
04 Refusing to display identification card to a passenger
05 Not wearing proper work cloths
06 Overcharging or contracting passengers
07 Refusing to provide discount to those entitled
08 Dealing with passenger in a discriminatory manner
09 Verbally abusing or badmouthing a passenger
10 Using rude or aggressive gestures towards passengers
11 Physical assault of passenger
12 Touching a passenger in an inappropriate manner
13 Initiating discussion of a sexual nature to a passenger
14 Initiating discussion that may be offensive to a passenger
15 Voyeurism
16 Reckless driving
17 Driving under the influence of alcohol or illegal substance
18 Talking/texting on a mobile phone while driving
19 Unjustly ejecting a passenger
20 Smoking inside the vehicle
Other, please specify
68. I am aware of the Public Safety Office desk where I could file a complaint against unruly tricycle
drivers?
    
69. I have filed a complaint to the concerned office about any of these incidents
    
50
70. I am satisfied with the manner or system by which passengers could relay their complaints
against unruly/rude tricycle drivers
    
71. I am satisfied with the manner by which complaints against unruly tricycle drivers are received
by the concerned office
    
72. I am satisfied with the time it takes for filed complaints to be resolved by the concerned office?
    
73. I am satisfied with the time it takes for the concerned office to communicate the resolution to the
complainant?
    
74. In your opinion, what should be done to improve how the concerned offices handle these types
feedbacks and complaints?
DAILY PERSON TRIP – TYPICAL WEEKDAY

73. My typical weekday is a …
01 Monday
02 Tuesday
03 Wednesday
04 Thursday
05 Friday
06 all weekdays
Purpose Mode Distance (km) Time (min) Est. Cost
51
DAILY PERSON TRIP – TYPICAL WEEKEND
55. My typical weekend is a …

01 Saturday
02 Sunday
03 all weekends
Purpose Mode Distance (km) Time (min) Est. Cost
Dios mabalos po sa saimo.
52

2019 Naga City Transport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2019 Naga City Transport

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2019 Naga City Transport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 NAGA CITY TRANSPORT

Tables and figures …………………………………………………………. ii

Appendix B 2019 Naga City Public Transport Survey Questionnaire ... 42

Marlyn L. Tejada, Ph.D. and Frances Michelle C. Nubla, MA.

The city residents expressed their preference to continue the operation of

This study recommends to revise the INTRAP by allowing tricycles to ply a

In recent years, the numerous economic, educational, medical, and cultural

1. How do Nagueños perceive the quality of public transportation services

4 Results and Discussion

Profile of the Respondents

Profile of Naga City Households

Table 2. Household Size, Naga City, 2019

Small (1-3 members) 204 25.2

This study approximates the employment status of the adult Nagueños

Labor Force 973 70.9

Table 4. Major Source of Household Income, Naga City, 2019

Salaries and wages, private, non-farm 412 50.9

Table 6. Commuters in the Household, Naga City, 2019

1-2 members 399 49.3

The frequency of the household members’ use of the city’s public

Converting these figures into individual commuters showed that almost

1-2 times a week 407 55.2 626 30.2

3-4 times a week 137 18.6 347 16.8

Tricycle Service Quality

A. Accessibility and availability

Accessibility and availability are measured in terms of agreement

Table 8. Agreement on Accessibility and Availability of Tricycles, Naga City, 2019

Figure 2 provides the map of origin and destination where availability of

Waiting time is measured in terms of commuters’ satisfaction on the time

Table 11. Satisfaction on Waiting Time of Tricycles, Naga City, 2019

Travel time is measured in terms of the commuters’ satisfaction on the

D. Cleanliness, Comfort and Sufficiency of Space

Cleanliness, comfort and sufficiency of passenger’s cabin space are

Professionalism and customer care are measured through ten statements

On the positive note, commuters have “moderately strong” to “very strong”

F. Safety and security

Safety and security are measured in terms of commuters’ observation on

G. Feedback and complaint handling

Feedback and complaint handling are measured in terms of commuters’

In terms of incidence of an encounter of unruly, rude or insolent tricycle

Nagueños offered suggestions on how feedback and complaints should

The third top suggestion is improving PSO customer service (17.5%).

Other suggestions include issuing warnings and reprimands to erring

Nagueños also brought up the issue on volumes of vehicles on the city

Naga City Households’ Preference of Tricycles

Naga City Households’ Preferred Transportation Scheme

Table 23. Transportation scheme and fares, Naga City, 2019

Typical Weekday and Weekend Trips of Nagueños

Out of the 810 respondents, 622 individuals (77%) are weekday

Table 25. Number of Commuters in Typical Weekdays, Naga City, 2019

Figure 3 presents the weekday departure time of commuters. Data show

Figure 3. Weekday Departure Time of Commuters, Naga City, 2019

Half of all commuting Nagueños go out on weekdays to work (50%) (See

Table 26 shows the top 5 weekday origin and destination of the

The top destination of weekday trips is also CBD 1 showing that

Satisfaction ratings were given by the respondents on all their weekday

Lesser number of commuting Nagueños (74%) go out during weekends

Going to church (52%) is the most frequent reason of going out on a

The peak of weekend commuters according to time slots is slightly