Cost per meter and lane-meter

4. Length and allocation-density exploration

Length bands are compared within the same category and official work program. Allocation density is pesos per stated meter. A shorter denominator can raise this ratio without an unusually large allocation, so the tables also show total allocation and a separate model of allocation versus length.

These are exploratory grouping boundaries, not engineering price standards or evidence of overpricing. Sparse samples, missing lengths and unmeasured project scope limit interpretation.

Where median density changes by at least 2×

Only comparisons with at least 20 rows in each band are included. A ratio above 1 means the shorter-length band has higher allocation per meter. Bands with fewer observations remain in the complete band tables below.

Does total allocation show a length boundary too?

The segmented model fits log total allocation against log stated length within each PAP. It needs 80 records and 20 per side, excludes lengths below 10 meters, and requires BIC improvement ≥6 over a single slope. The boundary is selected from observed-length candidates, not a fixed 100-meter threshold; bootstrap frequency describes how consistently it is selected. The 10th–90th percentile of bootstrap-selected boundaries describes an empirical stability window, not a confidence interval. The ≥25-meter sensitivity boundary is also shown.

Complete length bands · separate categories and programs

These descriptive medians remain separate by PAP. FMR and bridge samples may be too sparse for breakpoint inference.

Method and limitations

Length bands are derived separately within each PAP using approximately equal-count groups (up to eight, targeting at least 20 records per group). Equal observed lengths stay together. Breakpoint candidates are geometric midpoints between adjacent observed distinct lengths, requiring at least 20 records on either side; up to 31 candidates cover the eligible boundaries. No 100-meter boundary is prescribed. The searched boundary counts as an extra model parameter in BIC.

• Density=allocation/length; declining density can follow mechanically from a fixed budget.
• Quantile-band counts and 2×/BIC screens are editorial exploratory choices, not calibrated corruption thresholds.
• Models use total allocation rather than density to reduce the arithmetic-denominator trap.
• Bootstrap votes measure selection stability in this sample, not the probability of a real engineering threshold.
• Dependence between allocation occurrences, unknown width/terrain/structures and non-random missing lengths remain uncontrolled.
• Sub-10m rows stay visible in bands but are excluded from model fits; ≥25m sensitivity is reported.
• Multiple exploratory program/boundary searches are not confirmatory significance tests; no p-values or multiplicity-adjusted claims are made.
• Sparse bridge/FMR data cannot establish an engineering threshold. No pooled cross-category rate model.

Download all groups, model slopes, bootstrap votes and methodology. Patterns direct source and engineering review; there is no universal safe or suspicious length.

Bridge rehabilitation · inventory condition and document-list cross-check

This review covers Rehabilitation/Major Repair of Permanent Bridges and BIP bridge rows explicitly titled rehabilitation or repair. Retrofitting/strengthening is excluded. A listed document count is not a construction-completion status.

290 bridge rehabilitation/repair rows · 270 have a matched bridge ID in the offline DPWH inventory · 226 have a recorded inventory condition. Of the rows with a condition: 167 are marked Good/Fair and 59 Poor/Bad. Assessment dates are unavailable in these matched records.

The Transparency snapshot was retrieved 18 October 2026. “5+ documents listed” describes the portal’s document count only; it does not verify that a bridge was built or that rehabilitation is complete. An incomplete or unmatched title is not proof that a project or its documents are absent. Inventory condition dates are not available here, so Good/Fair and Poor/Bad describe the retained condition label without a dated condition comparison.

Existing inventory spans are asset dimensions, not funded rehabilitation lengths. The broader inventory cross-check found existing spans for 754 bridge line items, including rows without a usable stated funded length. These asset spans do not fill in the missing work length.

Largest allocations · project-by-project review sample

Showing the 25 largest allocations; the JSON contains the full review population, inventory IDs, conditions, document-list status and source pages. Download all bridge rehabilitation review rows as JSON.