Ever since World War II, the Philippines’ major infrastructure developments have centered around one thing: automobiles. Paralleling the rise of car-centric infrastructure in the United States, the Philippines has made it a point to invest in constructing highways throughout the country, despite much of the population being unable to afford private vehicles and the small size of the local automobile industry.
Beyond their use, cars also serve as symbols of status and success, fueling the demand for urban planning centered around automobiles.
However, as cities adapt to this system, its drawbacks have become increasingly apparent, ranging from traffic-laden thoroughfares to environmental degradation. The typical knee-jerk reaction to these issues has been to build more lanes, but this is a stopgap measure at best. Thus, it becomes imperative to scrutinize the toll exacted by car-centricity and to question whether the convenience of the automotive era is genuinely worth the broader societal and environmental costs.
Clogged roads, clogged lungs
When cities are built around cars, they become inherently hostile to those who do not drive. AltMobilityPH is a non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting sustainable, human-centric transport solutions, and its director, Ira Cruz points out that as much as 88 percent of Metro Manila’s residents do not own cars, yet 50 to 60 percent of the city’s space is dedicated to roads. This makes it particularly difficult for children, the elderly, the poor, and people with disabilities to travel on their own.
Cruz suggests that less city space should be dedicated to cars to make them more livable. However, this seems counterproductive to policymakers, who rely on metrics such as Level of Service (LOS) to measure traffic efficiency. The LOS considers the speed and amount of vehicles traveling through a road, but it fails to consider the number of passengers inside the vehicles. Under this metric, a single person driving a car is equivalent to 10 people riding a jeepney, even though the latter contributes less to traffic congestion.
To top it off, Cruz also mentions that many government units impose the same road restrictions for cars on other modes of transportation. An example is the one-way street, which prevents vehicles from traveling in the opposite direction. Despite being more mobile and flexible than cars, bikes must follow this law under the guise of “safety.”
Another consequence of car-centric urban planning is the production of pollutants. Approximately 25 to 30 percent of the nation’s carbon emissions come from cars, as noted by Neil Lopez, a professor from the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Lopez added that water effluents such as spilled engine oil, coolants, and tire particles that contain harmful substances can flow into rivers and reach the ocean.
It is also a well-known fact that pollution from cars also affects people’s health. Citing one of his studies, Lopez analyzes the health-related costs of air pollution from vehicles. He states that a single car in Metro Manila costs the local health system P12.65 for every 100 kilometers it travels due to its emissions. Combined with the sheer number of cars driving around the Metro and the distances they cover, this figure becomes incredibly expensive.
Lopez believes that the Philippines is already experiencing the long-term and indirect effects of car-centric urban planning, notably the increased frequency and intensity of typhoons due to the greenhouse gases from cars contributing to global warming. Despite seeing these warning signs, the government continues to push forward car-centric infrastructure projects, the most egregious of which being the Pasig River Expressway, in pursuit of the elusive 30-minute drive to work.
Narrowing time and widening inequality
The emphasis on car-centric urban planning has also become an inadvertent thief of time—quite the contrary to what cars intended to provide. Daily commutes that should serve as mere transitions between spaces morph into prolonged battles against traffic. The problem has a cascading effect, resulting in lost hours that could have been dedicated to more meaningful pursuits—whether professional, personal, or communal.
Apart from stolen time, Cruz explains that people also worry about the logistics of actually getting from place to place, which includes finding parking space and mapping out possible public transportation routes. Cruz believes that “these things shouldn’t be getting in the way of us enjoying our life, and that cities should be successful in offering multiple types of transportation to its constituents.”
In a country already grappling with stark socioeconomic divides, cities that are made for cars deepen the chasm. As Lopez mentions, “It is very difficult, even for a middle-class Filipino, to buy a private car because it is expensive, not to mention increasing fuel prices.” Access to efficient transportation is still a privilege to many. While people with private vehicles can enjoy a smooth journey through the urban sprawl, those reliant on public transport find themselves dealing with overcrowded systems and extended travel times.
Forging the road ahead
In light of the socioeconomic and environmental costs of car-centric urban planning, there is a dire need to explore alternative mobility solutions to lessen the burden felt by Philippine society. Among these solutions is promoting biking infrastructure and cultivating a bike-friendly culture. This includes pushing for legislation that enforces the rights of cyclists on the road, such as the Philippine Bicycle Act, which aims to promote biking as a mode of transportation and put cyclists and pedestrians at the top of the hierarchy of road users.
Lopez notes that proper infrastructure planning is key to gradually bringing about much-needed change, especially for up-and-coming cities in the Philippines like Angeles City, Baguio City, and Davao City. To reduce dependence on private vehicles, he explains that the government needs to design a public transportation system that “people would choose not because they don’t have any other option, but because it is the best option.”
As the country continues to navigate the complexities of urban planning, a holistic approach that embraces diverse modes of transportation emerges as a crucial pathway forward. Ultimately, the pursuit of sustainable urban development lies in redefining the country’s priorities, emphasizing efficiency, accessibility, and environmental stewardship over the supposed convenience of a car-centric society.
