Toward a commuter-centric transportation system in Metro Manila: The need for a historical lens

The Current State of Immobility in Metro Manila 

At present, Metro Manila deals with a lot of mobility issues, such as vehicular congestion, unaffordable fares, poor facilities, and pollution, among others. The Philippine government has to consider historical factors in addressing the poor state of urban transportation and in creating a more holistic, sustainable, and inclusive system of urban mobility. Many of the problems related to the traffic situation in Metro Manila did not just emerge in recent years but have plagued commuters for more than a century. Policymakers cannot afford to have historical blind spots when proposing solutions to address this issue.   

Car-Centricity and Transport Inequality 

One of the main problems Metro Manila faces today is its car-centricity. Transport motorisation has enhanced mobility since the start of the twentieth century but has not benefited everyone, especially those who cannot afford their own cars or even pay for a regular taxi fare.  

Transport inequality is a global reality, although it is most acutely felt in the cities of the Global South. The disadvantages endured by those who are less mobile are dialectically related to spatial, political, economic and social inequities. Still, those who are less mobile engage in practices that try to reduce these asymmetrical relations, practices that can be read as articulations of social justice from below. Policymakers must acknowledge this reality. 

Privatized Mobility 

Connected to car-centricity is poor transport accessibility among low-income individuals. Mobility in Metro Manila has become so privatized that even public systems are operated based on the logic of profitability rather than on the state’s obligation to provide a basic service. As a result, stark inequities characterise transport service consumption, often demarcated between the formal and informal spheres of city life.  

A wide mobility gap separates the haves and have-nots in Metro Manila in terms of the conveyance options available. The inequality manifests not only in how a very limited segment of the population have the means to own and use cars, but also in how the physical infrastructure and traffic regulations favour automobile riders over those using public modes. Scholars have already uncovered various aspects of this phenomenon in Metro Manila, from flyovers to the policing of urban spaces. An overwhelming majority of commuters are dependent on the cheap mobility afforded by public buses and the paratransit services of Asian utility vehicles (AUVs). However, the jeepney remains the most important public transport mode in the metropolis, serving hundreds of routes, while being maintained not by huge corporations or the state but by modest private drivers and operators, who own an average of two units per franchise. 

The recent Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated transport inequality. “Mass transport was killed,” bemoaned Mody Floranda, president of the Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at Opereytor Nationwide (Unity of Driver and Operator Groups Nationwide, Piston), a federation of transport groups engaged in the jeepney business. In the guise of protecting people from the virus, the government banned jeepney operations and prevented their quick restart following the loosening of restrictions in other sectors of the economy. At the start of the pandemic, there were around 600,000 jeepney drivers throughout the country, and all of them sustained massive economic losses due to the lockdowns. And similar to informal workers, most of them were cash-strapped and unequipped to shift to other forms of livelihood, forcing a huge number of them to beg in the streets.  

The implementation of the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP) compounded the situation. The PUVMP started in 2017 and was on its way to full implementation in 2020 when the pandemic delayed the program. But with the loosening of Covid-related restrictions, the government resumed the PUVMP, further pushing jeepney drivers and operations against the wall. The stated goal was to modernise the public transport system. Scholars, however, have demonstrated that the PUVMP is poised to eliminate thousands of jeepney stakeholders who do not have the financial means to secure loans for new jeepneys and pay for their amortization. Rather than pressure jeepney owners and drivers to follow the path of consolidation and “modernization” as conceptualized by state planners, their socioeconomic limitations must be given enough weight.   

The plight of jeepney drivers is not just their own; because they provide the cheapest mode of transportation, their immobility is translated into the immobility of the overwhelming majority of commuters. In a sense, the needs of jeepney drivers and operators are inextricably tied to the needs of a much bigger segment of the population. One such group is the urban poor. Compared with other segments of the metropolitan population, residents of informal communities have seen their mobility gravely reduced by the pandemic, the subsequent lockdowns, and the PUVMP implementation. 

The effects of the pandemic and the PUVMP highlight the disparity between those who owned private cars and those that solely relied on public transport. They magnify the immobility of Metro Manila’s marginalized. This simple fact calls to attention the reality that this issue goes beyond the physical movement, or lack of it, of certain communities; immobility is at its core an issue of justice. And throughout the history of urban transportation in Manila, there have been a lot of instances of state-imposed policies and programs that did not pay attention to the social dimension of mobility, leading to the worsening of the situation. 

Lessons from Manila’s Transport History 

The mobility of ordinary commuters in Metro Manila has been greatly influenced by various historical actors, institutions, and processes since the emergence of public urban transportation in the mid-nineteenth century. The impact of socioeconomic and political structures, such as colonialism, authoritarianism, and privatisation, on mobility cannot be overstated. 

A long-view approach to transport history reveals a lot of important aspects of Metro Manila’s inadequate mobility. There have been a lot of significant changes in the city’s system of passenger conveyance since the nineteenth century, changes that affected not just physical movement but also social relations.   

The Birth of the Commuter 

Technological development was most visible in the introduction of new modes of transportation, but these tangible changes were often accompanied by social transformations. Motorisation in the form of automobiles and the electric streetcar was apparent in the early twentieth century, while the jeepney embodied the radical transformation of movement in the postwar period. However, these modal changes could not have occurred without affecting not just the city’s infrastructure but also its governance structures. Motorisation required new traffic schemes, the mainstreaming of road etiquette, and a labor pool of drivers and operators who were regulated by the state.  

And as people changed the way they went to work, people had to reimagine their place in society, and this reimagination depended on their station. Government officials had to create new rules, transport workers had to learn the new tricks of the trade, and newly formed commuters had to consume new needs created for them by this new era of movement.  And since motorisation was a by-product of the American occupation, physical mobility also has to be understood in relation to colonial dynamics. 

Motorisation was a critical factor that crystallised the phenomenon of commuting. Although passenger vehicles certainly existed in Manila prior to motorisation, one could not say for certain that the city had a commuting culture at that point. In the nineteenth century, although there were various transport modes, there was no clear-cut distinction between spaces of work and spaces of residence. It was the rapidity and expansiveness caused by motorisation, which led to the emergence of residential suburbs.  

Early twentieth-century Manila was a period of transformation in terms of its passenger-carrying urban transportation system. The introduction of new types of transport modes in the first decade of this century led to significant changes, not only in the urban transport system, but also in the physical, political, and socio-economic dimensions of the city. 

These changes were indeed profound transformations in light of the fact that the urban transport system of nineteenth-century Manila was limited to vehicles running on either human or animal power. Nevertheless, it would be erroneous to assert that the lack of “modern vehicles” precluded the urban growth of Manila; actually, the city was expanding as an urban locality during this period with the aid of an already complex system of competing and complementary transport modes. Intra-urban passenger mobility was facilitated by different transport modes: there were bancas that plied the inland waterways, different types of carriages, a horse-drawn streetcar or tranvia, and of course, the ever-present option of walking to one’s destination. Statistics on urban traffic also revealed that the different transport arteries carried a significant volume of traffic during this time: the Pasig River and the esteros (estuaries) conveyed hundreds of cascos (freight-carrying rafts) and bancas daily; a fairly extensive road network in the central arrabales (suburbs) facilitated the movement of numerous carriages, and four lines of track that stretched to the different parts of the city allowed millions to ride the tranvia each year. To cope with the increased traffic volume, new roads were built and old roads were widened; although the Spanish government certainly had difficulty in adjusting as seen in the numerous complaints about public works in the city. These late nineteenth-century realities could only attest to the fact that intra-urban mobility was an integral part of the lives of practically everyone in Manila.  

This did not mean, however, that everyone shared similar experiences in terms of moving around the city. The different means of traveling presented options that were not really feasible to everyone; in fact, these various transport modes reflected socioeconomic hierarchies. Private carruajes were too expensive to own and maintain that only the wealthiest families could afford them. As such, the carruaje became a status symbol in nineteenth-century Manila. On the other hand, the cash-strapped masses relied on relatively cheap public transportation offered by the tranvia and the bancas. Or they could always resort to walking. 

This urban transport system would be greatly altered in the first decade of the twentieth century. The main factor behind this change was the frustration of the new colonizers with what they perceived as an inadequate urban transport system in Manila at the turn of the twentieth century. New modes of transportation arrived in the city represented by Meralco’s electric streetcar and the motor vehicle, especially in the form of the automobile. Their arrival marked changes in terms of technological and logistical developments within and among transport networks. The new transport modes were clearly technological improvements in terms of speed and passenger capacity, due in large part to the employment of non-traditional sources of motive power. However, their predominance brought about a new problem: traffic congestion due to the sheer volume of vehicles and the inability of the street infrastructure to accommodate the influx. 

Unfortunately, the emphasis of the American colonial state on technological sophistication as the barometer of transport modernisation led to the marginalisation of sustainable, everyday practices, such as pedestrianism and the use of the esteros and rivers for commuter mobility. The city that emerged in the mid-twentieth century was one that was built around automobiles rather than bancas and pedestrians. Physical infrastructure and street ordinances reinforced this state of affairs.  

Car-centricity was sustained throughout the twentieth century to the detriment of railways. After the Second World War, officials decided not to revive the electric streetcar system, leading to a glaring lack in mass transit options. It took more than three decades after the war’s conclusion before the government addressed this need. A recent transport study of IBON Foundation reveals the impact of slow-paced development of metropolitan railways, as well as the neglect of the Pasig River’s potential for moving thousands of passengers daily.  

Mobility and Society 

Motorised transport modes brought forth a new type of transport worker personified by streetcar workers and garage chauffeurs. They were more likely to have undergone formal education, a good number of them were functionally literate in English, and they had better standards of living. In contrast, transport workers of the traditional sector did not only earn much less; they were even depicted as relics of a past ought to be forgotten, especially the lowly carromata cochero (rig driver). 

 While “transport modernisation” marginalised non-motorised modes, these “traditional” forms of mobility managed to survive amid the pressure. The mere presence of carromatas in the streets of Manila in the 1930s and early 1940s simply defied the expectations of the modernist elites. Certainly, the awful reputation of cocheros in mainstream media reflected the failure of “creative destruction” and the consequent frustration of those who expected the complete success of “transport modernisation.” Even the attempt of the colonial state to “modernise” and regulate the movement of vehicles and pedestrians in the streets was challenged by different sectors every now and then. Some cocheros stood their ground by refusing to give way to the tranvia when they used its track space. And some pedestrians simply ignored the existence of sidewalks, crossings, and streetcar tracks as they crossed wherever and whenever they wanted. 

The national government in the 1930s tried its best to “modernise" Manila’s transport system by systematically easing the carromatas and cocheros out of certain thoroughfares through ordinances. However, cocheros managed to put up a good fight through a well-organised political campaign. A critical element of the campaign was the participation of low-income households who would be adversely affected if horse-drawn rigs were driven out of business. They managed to steer local elections in favor of cocheros by electing city councillors who empathised with the situation of cocheros and ordinary households.  

To a large extent, the situation of jeepney drivers today mirrors that of cocheros then. While the government has been adamant in fully implementing the PUVMP, this decision has been met with massive protest in recent years. The protests included not only jeepney drivers and operators but also households and communities that would lose an affordable and reliable mode of transport.   

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations  

The everyday commuter experience has to be considered when policies are conceptualized and implemented. Gina Gatarin, a research fellow at the Urban Transformations Research Centre at Western Sydney University, has already shown this important point in her study of Metro Manila’s traffic. Pedestrians, who are often the most neglected stakeholders in policy formulation, must be given more prominence as early as the planning stage to ensure that their safety and convenience are prioritized. Accessibility for differently-abled commuters is also another oft-neglected point in these discussions; this oversight has to be corrected. Gatarin’s study, which is aided by Western Sydney University, shows how foreign countries such as Australia can have a positive impact on questions of mobility in the Philippines.  

IBON Foundation’s study on Metro Manila’s traffic woes highlights the near-sightedness approach of policymaking, which leads to supposed solutions that only worsen the problems. This tendency has to be replaced by more sustainable solutions that create inclusive transport systems. One such near-sighted policy is the PUVMP. In this light, the precarious position of jeepney drivers during the pandemic and the PUVMP implementation should also be analyzed in relation to efforts to ease out this transport mode, much like how the colonial state tried to eradicate cocheros.