A LOT of the daily suffering and stress of millions of Filipinos has to do with the difficulty of travel around their cities and towns. They face streets that are unwalkable, unbikeable and unsafe; they face inadequate, unaffordable and unreliable public transport. Even those with their own cars or motorcycles are stuck in traffic. Dream jobs and economic opportunities are foregone because the commute would be too costly or onerous. Despite the worsening situation, the government response has consistently fallen short. Let's analyze why.
Filipinos face an "everyone for herself" environment when it comes to transportation. There is no government obligation to ensure that Filipinos have sufficient, dignified and environmentally sustainable mobility options such as walking, cycling and public transport. All of us are pedestrians and yet the quality of our pedestrian infrastructure is perhaps the poorest in Southeast Asia. Sidewalk infrastructure almost everywhere is converted illegally into vehicle parking spaces without anyone being penalized. Roads and bridges are designed to serve the needs of private car owners, even though only 6 percent of households nationwide own a 4-wheeled motor vehicle.
The implicit policy for decades is that: public transportation exists only where there are transport operators willing to provide the service; there is no government responsibility to ensure that public transportation is available and sufficient; and roads and bridges are developed and maintained to serve private motor vehicles while the needs of all other road users are secondary. The message to Filipinos is that they should aspire to own a private motor vehicle so that they can move around with dignity; everyone else without a private motor vehicle should accept the low-quality options for walking, cycling and public transport.
Because of this implicit policy framework, there is minimal capacity at national or local government levels for transportation planning and very little effort to address this capacity deficit. Agencies like the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) apparently have no interest in measuring the adequacy of public transportation services anywhere. Even on routes where there are long queues and crowding, neither the LTFRB nor the Department of Transportation feel any compulsion to take remedial action.
The supply of public transport has been shrinking over decades, with a major contraction having taken place during the pandemic when thousands of transport operators went bankrupt. However, the response of the government has been feeble. In recent years, the LTFRB has focused on expanding the supply of motorcycle taxis and ride-sharing services — not the best choice when more high-capacity public transport is obviously required. In the national budget, public transport spending is concentrated on a few capital-intensive railway projects around greater Manila. Such projects, while very much needed, are geographically concentrated and will likely require over a decade to complete. Results will be delivered only in the next administration or even later; in the meantime, there is no relief for struggling, exhausted commuters.
Most local governments do not see the provision of adequate mobility and transportation services as being their responsibility or accountability (a few, such as Quezon City, are rare exceptions). This contrasts with the situation in most livable cities around the world where local authorities have control over their mobility environment and public transportation services and are able to influence more directly how their localities develop. Local governments in the Philippines, sad to say, only have authority over tricycles. As a result, there is an oversupply of tricycles and a severe shortage of public transportation.
Agencies like the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority view one of their roles as enabling private motor vehicles to go faster and further, with Filipinos in cars as their primary client. Guided by this car-centric performance measure, the planning and construction of road and bridge infrastructure push forward relentlessly, ignoring the fact that road expansion for motor vehicles attracts further car use, in the end exacerbating traffic and pollution. The largest share of the infrastructure budget is assigned to the DPWH, and roughly half of their 1 trillion annual budget is devoted to roads and bridges to serve mainly 4-wheeled motor vehicles.
Road expansion, per se, is not the problem; the issue is that road expansion for cars has benefited mainly a privileged few, narrowed or eliminated sidewalks, removed trees, consumed bike lanes, erased pedestrian crossings and blocked the development of infrastructure for public transport (e.g., bus stops, dedicated bus lanes). Despite over 12,000 lives lost annually in road crashes, there is very little attention paid to road safety. A large part of the problem is that most of our decision-makers are car users themselves and tend to view the urban environment from behind the window of a 4-wheeled motor vehicle; very few regularly experience what the vast majority of Filipinos confront daily.
To arrest our steady descent into worsening mobility, the key step is for the government to recognize that mobility is a basic human need without which it is not possible to enjoy other fundamental rights and freedoms. It is therefore the government's obligation to pursue a policy, budget and investment regime that will deliver mobility for all. Priorities should be clarified so that all agencies, national and local, recognize and serve the travel needs of the entire citizenry and prioritize the welfare of the majority without cars.
Public spending and road development should support a balanced, diversified mix of travel options, especially active transport (walking and cycling) and road-based public transportation. The focus should be on moving people rather than vehicles; road design and traffic rules should be modified to support this principle.
Congested roads could be reconfigured to devote more road space for pedestrians, bicycles and public transport, thereby increasing their productivity and inclusiveness. Where sidewalks have been illegally converted into roads or parking spaces, they should be restored. Public transportation should be accorded priority on all roads, even if it means reducing the space or number of lanes available for private motor vehicles.
The rights of persons with disability should be respected, and all laws that guarantee universal accessibility should be strictly enforced. Cabinet-level responsibility for road safety should be assigned together with regular reporting on actual results. Budgets, work plans, performance objectives and incentives across all government agencies need to be reviewed and adjusted to these new priorities. Institutional reform and long-term capacity development should be incorporated into the overall transformation program, with the aim of empowering local authorities and making them fully accountable for mobility outcomes.
It is a daunting agenda; however, for Filipinos to enjoy dignified mobility, there is no other way.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate. He is a co-convenor of the Move As One Coalition. He can be reached at mobilitymatters.ph@yahoo.com or followed on Twitter @RobertRsiy.