Metro Manila traffic: Time to make a drastic move like Indonesia

Anyone who has lived in, worked in or even briefly visited Metro Manila knows that traffic is no longer a nuisance – it has become a national crisis! A short drive that should only take 20 minutes can now stretch into an hour or more. As a consequence, meetings are missed, productivity is lost, tempers flare and precious family time quietly disappears. In fact, a character in Dan Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” described that the “six-hour traffic jams” was like running through the “gates of hell.”

Traffic has become so embedded in daily life that Filipinos create memes and make jokes about “carmageddon.” But beneath the humor lies a harsh truth: the cost to the country is enormous. The Japan International Cooperation Agency has long warned about the economic cost of traffic, estimating it to reach around P4.5 billion per day by 2035 if no significant intervention is made.

For decades, authorities have tried to solve Metro Manila’s nightmarish traffic problem with familiar remedies – flyovers, road widening, number coding schemes, new traffic czars and endless feasibility studies. Yet every new road seems to fill up almost as soon as it opens. The reason is simple – traffic in Metro Manila is not just an infrastructure problem. It is the visible symptom of a much deeper issue: over-centralization.

Nearly everything flows into the metropolis: government power, business headquarters, economic opportunity, education, health care, media and political influence. Millions come not because they want to endure traffic, but because opportunity is concentrated here. As long as Manila remains the gravitational center of the nation, congestion will remain a fact of life.

In the past, other countries have moved their capital due to congestion, overpopulation, over-centralization or simply to maximize the economic potential of underdeveloped areas, such as Brazil that moved its capital from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia. Others have also deemed it strategic to relocate their administrative capitals because of overcrowding. An example is Malaysia, whose national capital and financial/commercial center remains to be Kuala Lumpur, but the office of the prime minister, the judiciary and most federal ministries are located in Putrajaya.

South Korea, on the other hand, has moved much of its government offices to Sejong City to ease pressure on Seoul that is beset by overcrowding. President Lee Jae-myung has vowed to make Sejong the “de facto political capital” to balance regional development, saying this is necessary for the country’s sustainable growth – with plans to build a second presidential office and a branch of the National Assembly.

One example that deserves serious reflection is Indonesia. Faced with chronic congestion, pollution, overpopulation and the very real threat of parts of Jakarta sinking at an alarming rate because of land subsidence (primarily due to over-extraction of groundwater), former Indonesian president Joko Widodo in 2019 made a bold and controversial decision to relocate the capital. The planned new capital city, Nusantara, is located in East Kalimantan in the island of Borneo – far from the overcrowded streets of Jakarta.

This was the result of long-term planning and strategic thinking, recognizing that Jakarta was carrying too much of Indonesia’s political and administrative weight. By moving the seat of government, Indonesia aims to decongest its old capital, spread development more evenly across the archipelago and build a modern, purpose-designed administrative city from the ground up. However, Indonesians are seriously divided, with critics pointing out the environmental impact and the cost of the relocation, with funding gaps from private investors adding to the challenge. Just recently, President Prabowo downgraded Nusantara from national capital to political capital.

In the Philippines, there has been a clamor to decentralize Manila and gradually relocate certain government agencies to Clark, Subic or other emerging hubs that could serve as administrative centers. With today’s technology, many government functions no longer require everyone to be physically present in one city. The pandemic showed us that work-from-anywhere arrangements are not only possible – they can be effective as well as efficient.

Metro Manila today is not just congested – it is overstretched. Roads, public transport, housing, drainage and utilities are all under constant strain. Every typhoon exposes the fragility of a megacity carrying far more than it was ever designed to handle.

Decentralization would also encourage private investment to follow. Businesses tend to locate near government, infrastructure and skilled labor. If opportunities are spread more evenly across the country, fewer Filipinos would feel compelled to crowd into Metro Manila just to earn a decent living.

This is not a call for dramatic overnight change. It is a call for long-term vision. Traffic cannot be solved by number coding schemes or traffic enforcers alone, nor by flyovers and road projects that treat symptoms rather than causes. Without addressing over-centralization, every solution will eventually fail under the weight of new vehicles, new migrants and new demands.

Moving a capital is expensive, complex and politically sensitive. But looking beyond the immediate price tag, we should ask a bigger question: what is the long-term cost of doing nothing? Perhaps the issue is not whether to abandon Metro Manila, but whether we continue to insist that everything must remain here.

Some friends also pointed out that the real question for us is not whether we should move the capital, but to see if we are brave enough to finally admit that relying on half-measures and short-term fixes (like telling mall owners to refrain from holding mall-wide sales on weekdays) – is no longer an option. If traffic reflects how a city works, then Metro Manila’s gridlock is telling us something important. It’s time to make the move.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]