In the early 80s, travelling from Caloocan City to Legaspi Village in Makati would usually take me about 30 minutes by bus through EDSA. By the mid-90s, the volume of vehicle traffic was beginning to outpace the capacity of this main artery. The start of the MRT-3 construction, although causing more congestion, came as a welcome relief for most, in the hope that people would not have to use cars to get to their workplaces. But when the railway started its operations about five years later, the EDSA traffic stayed on. Today, there is a joke that refers to EDSA as the longest parking lot in the world.

Here in Metro Manila, as the Friday evening traffic begins its slow, agonizing crawl, it's easy to feel a collective sigh of despair. What should be a quick hop home becomes an endurance test, a daily reminder of a city bursting at the seams. It is a symptom of a deeper, historical wound: the unregulated urban sprawl that began in the Philippines after the devastation of World War II. And for millions of Filipinos today, this lack of foresight has translated into a harsh reality of congestion, infrastructure gaps, and a diminished quality of life.

Decades ago, the Philippines was a model for urban mobility. The Manila-Dagupan railway, inaugurated in 1892, was among the earliest in Asia. The capital’s streetcar system, introduced in the late 19th century, was the envy of the region. By the mid-20th century, Manila was a bustling metropolis with a sophisticated transport network. The country’s early adoption of automobiles and modern roadways set it apart from its neighbors. Today, however, the Philippines finds itself lagging behind most ASEAN countries in mobility infrastructure, according to a recent PIDS study. This is a situation with significant consequences for the nation’s economy and quality of life.

When the dust settled after World War II, Philippine cities, particularly Manila, lay in ruins. It was a rare and profound opportunity to rebuild with vision, to lay the groundwork for a modern, efficient urban future. Yet, burdened by immediate needs and perhaps lacking the comprehensive planning frameworks and political will, the rebuilding primarily unfolded reactively. Land became a commodity, rapidly subdivided and developed without a guiding master plan for infrastructure, public spaces, or future population growth. This became the fertile ground for urban sprawl – the unchecked, outward expansion of development from city centers, often with little regard for density, public transit, or environmental impact.

The consequences for citizens today are painfully evident. Roads built for a different era, designed for far fewer vehicles, are now overwhelmed by millions of private cars. Most urban centers in the country are so focused on band-aid solutions like car-centric urban planning. The absence of a robust, integrated mass transit system that could have been meticulously planned and expanded as cities grew forces citizens into private vehicle dependence. Imagine if, back then, dedicated rights-of-way for a comprehensive rail system or a network of bus rapid transit lanes had been reserved. Instead, the current state of transport is creating a perpetual cycle of gridlock that costs the economy billions of pesos annually and steals countless hours from productive lives.

If you have traveled to other ASEAN countries, you will not fail to see the difference. Neighboring countries have invested heavily in their mobility infrastructure, while the Philippines was unable to keep pace. For the ordinary commuter, this means waking up before dawn, enduring hours in cramped MRT or public utility vehicles, and arriving home exhausted, with little time left for family, leisure, or personal pursuits.

Several interrelated factors have contributed to the country’s mobility crisis, such as under investment in transport infrastructure. Unlike its neighbors, which prioritized large-scale investments, the country’s efforts were hampered by limited funding and competing national priorities. Persistent problems sometimes include political interference and weak project management, which have delayed or derailed many infrastructure projects. Local government units often lack the capacity to implement and maintain transport systems effectively.

Urban planning based on future scenarios has helped other countries anticipate and adapt to rapid changes in population, climate, technology, and economic trends. In the Philippine context, this is especially critical because its major cities like Manila, Cebu, and Davao are growing fast, often outpacing infrastructure and services. A long-term, integrated plan—backed by strong political will and consistent funding—is essential. This plan should prioritize connectivity, sustainability, and resilience to natural disasters. Integrating technology early can improve governance, safety, and sustainability.

The Philippines’ mobility infrastructure woes are not insurmountable. With strategic investments, institutional reforms, and a renewed commitment to sustainable, inclusive mobility, the country can reclaim its place as a regional leader. The path forward requires vision, courage, and collaboration across all sectors of society—but the rewards, in terms of economic growth, public health, and quality of life, will be well worth the effort.

(The author is an executive member of the National Innovation Council, lead convener of the Alliance of Technology Innovators for the Nation (ATIN), vice president of the Analytics and Artificial Intelligence Association of the Philippines, and vice president of the UP System Information Technology Foundation. Email: [email protected])