31/08/2026
ARE WE JUST ENGINEERING TO ACCOMMODATE DEMAND, OR ENGINEERING MOBILITY CHOICES TO CHANGE DEMAND?
Urban traffic management has for a long time been concerned with capacity. Crowded roads lead to congestion, and the nature of the problem is often perceived to be one of the insufficient space. As such, many solutions are aimed at providing additional space. This is often done by construction of new roads, the addition of flyovers, and the provision of new and wider lanes.
What if creating more space does not address the problem of congestion?
Building additional space encourages the use of cars, flexible enough to meet the demand of long trips, and ultimately attracts more trips. Crowded roads have a way of coming back for which cities are forced to widen roads further. More cars, more congestion, and more roads is a vicious cycle that urban planners are familiar with.
But what if we looked at demand differently?
This approach looks more concerned with the alternatives to car use. Improved transport and car use alternatives like safe and convenient walking paths, apart from adding more cars, should be concerned about reducing the need for car use. The answer is a multi-modal system of new transport solutions that requires creative integration of transit systems.
In this model, transportation planning is not just about moving vehicles. It is about influencing travel behavior.
One philosophy engineers cities to accommodate increasing traffic volumes.
The other engineers cities to provide enough mobility choices that fewer people feel dependent on owning and using a car for every trip.
The difference is subtle but important.
One measures success by how many vehicles a road can carry.
The other measures success by how many people can reach their destinations efficiently, safely, and affordably.
The question for Metro Manila is not whether roads are important. They are and will continue to be an essential part of the transportation network.
The bigger question is this:
Should we continue investing primarily in infrastructure that accommodates growing demand, or should we invest more in mobility choices that can change demand altogether?
Which side of the image represents the future you would prefer for Metro Manila?
