Urban density and congestion Part 2 - Population congestion?

Last week, we said that urban density is good and advisable, especially if it is distributed more or less evenly over a city rather that concentrated in a central business district tapering to huge, sparsely-populated suburbs. The extent on the upper limit of this congestion is still not agreed upon, but there are sterling examples of highly-dense cities with very good features of livability, or a sense of having a good pleasant life for its residents and none of urban woes most of the cities suffer today. This tendency towards aggregation in cities is not something generally opposed anyway, since the phenomenon is already accepted as inevitable, from the 55% of the world’s population today which is expected to grow to 68% by 2050. The question is how.

I would like to approach this by recalling the “Promdi” program of former governor Lito Osmeña back in the 1990s. In essence, the movement was for the development of the provinces, too, in addition to that of Metro Manila. I don’t recall it was ever suggested that the growth of Manila be stopped – it rather emphasized that growth should be equitable to and for the other provinces outside of Metro Manila also. It doesn’t mean we should all go back to the provinces, but that growth should be equitably located all over the archipelago. But since economic development is produced in cities, and the rural-urban migration is an accepted inevitable phenomenon, then the growth of the central cities strategically located across the entire country should be stimulated.

This does not also mean we forget the rural area in favor of the urban cities. The urban-rural dichotomy seems similar or identical to the industrial-agricultural dichotomy but they’re not entirely the same. A city can exist in an agricultural area while a rural setting can host an industry. The dispersal strategy often encouraged does not necessarily mean dispersing population away from Metro Manila, but rather dispersing industries and other means of production and productivity. This can be partly attained by developing cities outside of Metro Manila. As to how or to what extent and number of developing metropolitan cities is something arbitrary and not yet determined but the idea of regional industrial centers is a start. Even that may still be overly centralized, as can be gleaned from the “Imperial Cebu” feeling of other provincial capitals. Maybe provincial centers are necessary, or at the most basic, to develop the existing cities into urban settlement areas towards which population can aggregate to account with the “inevitable movement towards cities” phenomenon. Cities are efficient and the denser the city the more efficient they become – they don’t get congested.

But cities now are congested, right? No, not because of population. Cities are congested because of car traffic. Congestion, strictly speaking refers to vehicular traffic, not population. Thus, dispersal should not refer to population but to economic productivity functions. And to address traffic congestion, we should zero in on what causes it – vehicles. Especially cars! Not people. (To be continued)