In a bid to stay relevant and responsive, Department of Transportation Secretary Vince Dizon has floated several high-profile proposals to address Metro Manila’s worsening traffic congestion—including reviving the odd-even vehicle scheme. On paper, this sounds reasonable: fewer cars on the road should mean faster traffic flow. But in practice, it’s a solution that risks doing more harm than good.

Here’s why. While the odd-even scheme may reduce the number of private vehicles on the road, it fails to account for the glaring inadequacy of our public transport system. For the working middle class who rely on daily commutes, limiting vehicle access without providing alternative means of mobility is not just inconvenient—it’s punishing. Our Light Rail Transit systems are already operating beyond capacity, our buses are insufficient, and we lack any meaningful water-based transport alternatives.

Restricting road access for millions of private motorists will only force them into an already overburdened system, creating bottlenecks and increasing commuter misery. Rather than relieving congestion, the odd-even scheme could intensify it by overwhelming the remaining modes of public transport.

Yes, odd-even worked once, under the leadership of Oscar Orbos in the 1990s. But context matters. Back then, the LRT was newly launched, and commuters had more transport options. Today, we face a crumbling system and a drastically different urban reality—one shaped by decades of poor urban planning and neglect.

This is not the fault of Secretary Dizon or the current administration alone.

Our traffic crisis is the culmination of years of mismanagement, shortsighted policies, and the absence of a coherent land use and urbanization plan.

Instead of structured urban growth, we allowed residential zones to coexist with factories, schools, and offices in haphazard proximity. Metro Manila has become a chaotic sprawl, suffering from the consequences of past neglect.

So, how do we move forward in a way that’s practical, sustainable, and mindful of both mobility and economic activity?

1. Enforce Scheduled Deliveries.
Designate strict nighttime windows—say, 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.—for the movement of delivery trucks and 18-wheelers. Enforce penalties for violators. This clears the roads during peak hours for commuters and smaller vehicles, easing congestion without halting commerce.

2. Reallocate Rail and Water Systems for Freight.
Divert heavy cargo away from roads entirely by using railways and riverine systems for freight. These are underutilized and could significantly reduce the number of trucks on major thoroughfares.

3. Stagger Work Hours.
Partner with the private sector to implement flexible work schedules. By distributing employee reporting times throughout the day, we reduce rush hour congestion and allow transport systems to operate more efficiently.

4. Temporarily Curb Car Sales.
Engage with car manufacturers and dealerships to voluntarily limit their sales targets for a year or two, while the government ramps up public transport infrastructure. This may seem radical, but it’s a necessary short-term sacrifice to prevent further road saturation.

5. Invest in High-Demand Routes.
Rapidly deploy additional public transport units—buses, shuttles, or jeepneys—on routes with high commuter demand but limited supply. A responsive system should adapt to where people actually live and work, not just theoretical route plans.

We all want relief from the daily grind of traffic, but that relief must be based on reality, not optics. Throwing first-aid solutions at a long-term crisis may make headlines, but it won’t heal the system—and could, in fact, make things worse. We need measured, well-sequenced solutions. We must avoid rushing into policies that may satisfy the need for action but fail to produce results.

The traffic crisis we face today is not just about cars. It’s about the kind of cities we’ve built and the kind of society we want to be. Let’s fix the system—not just its symptoms.