The two-lane roads in UP Diliman (UPD) are easy to fill up, and at major events like the UP Fair that attract even more cars to the campus, traffic jams are inevitable. 

But campus traffic is no longer confined to this one week in February alone. Traffic in UPD persists almost every day now—flooding roads and disrupting pedestrians—especially in the afternoon along Magsaysay Ave. as vehicles exit to Katipunan Ave. 

While some of this congestion is due to non-UP vehicles cutting through the campus as a shortcut, the UP community itself is also responsible. After the pandemic, more private vehicles have been observed on campus.

Regardless of traffic, the increased presence of motorized vehicles on campus is a danger in itself. Road accidents from September to December 2023 resulted in the injury or death of 14 pedestrians and motorists, as recorded by the UPD Police.

But vehicular excess in UPD is merely a spillover from Metro Manila’s world-renown traffic problem. Metro Manila was ranked worst among 387 metro areas globally in 2023, according to the TomTom Traffic Index, as it takes an average of 25.5 minutes to travel 10 km. 

This kind of road congestion is a symptom of car-centric urban planning, where transport infrastructures are built with only private vehicles in mind. Commuters remain an afterthought, as exemplified by the lack of proper public utility vehicle (PUV) stops, hard-to-access pedestrian footbridges, narrow sidewalks, and a shortage of public transportation.

Yet, the current mass transit plan is focused only on the construction and rehabilitation of rail systems, with it receiving 76.4 percent of the 2024 transportation budget. Other bogus policies like the PUV Modernization Program, which will only worsen the transportation crisis amid the nearing franchise consolidation deadline, are prioritized instead of more commuter-focused initiatives.

Without genuine attempts for better public transit on the national level, government officials remain within the paradigm of car-centrism—forcing UP and other communities into conformity. UPD itself reopened the Academic Oval to vehicles on weekdays, built more parking lots, and passed a barely effective “no sticker, no entry” rule.

But this prioritization of cars need not be adopted by university officials. Starting with a shift in outlook from the UP administration, it could eventually prove the viability of pedestrian-friendly planning in curbing vehicular congestion within urban communities.

This process, however, must start with a reevaluation of the steps UPD has already taken. 

With a constituency largely made up of pedestrians, campus roads should keep their restrictions with that in mind. Some roads, especially the Academic Oval, should remain for pedestrians only, and sidewalks should be well-maintained, well-lit, and well-guarded for the safety of pedestrians. 

Active transport should be encouraged through protected bike lanes, like what is being implemented in Quezon City right now, and well-funded bike-sharing initiatives. Public transport should also be supported through properly consulted and maximized jeep routes instead of necessarily buying replacement e-jeeps, as suggested by an administration official.

Reliance on private vehicles can then be mitigated by better accommodation for pedestrians and commuters. These strategies require funding, but they are investments for the community: a future that wastes less time stuck in traffic and less money on an expensive commute. 

Implementing these changes in UP alone may be a rather small step, but it is still one in the right direction. And perhaps, with a similar shift in strategy from national policymakers, Metro Manila will have a future that focuses more on its people than its cars. ●