Last week, I spent seven days in Davao City attending the 77th PAL Interclub Golf Tournament, representing our Club Filipino Inc. de Cebu Team B. Please don't ask how I performed. Davao City is the largest city in the Philippines by land area, vast and expansive, geographically blessed with space most cities would envy. Yet, traffic congestion persists despite the opening of the billion-peso, 18-kilometer coastal road, a massive infrastructure investment meant to ease urban pressure.
Two Southern Cities, Two Traffic Headaches
Meanwhile, in Cebu City and its neighboring local governments, congestion has long been a daily ordeal. Cebu is denser, narrower, and more compressed. If any city has an excuse for gridlock, it is Cebu. But here is where the contrast becomes fascinating: two southern cities, two traffic headaches, and two markedly different responses to transport innovation.
The Green GSM Experiment: A Tale of Two Cities
When Green GSM, a fleet of 600 full EV taxicab units, attempted to enter the Cebu market, it was met with resistance and protests from traditional taxi operators. Questions were raised regarding regulatory compliance, leading to legal friction. Yet, Green GSM managed to operate, at least temporarily, testing the waters of competition in a cautious but open manner.
I told Rodgie Gonzales, the driver of the van we hired for our stay in Davao City, that the 600 units of Green GSM taxicabs in Cebu City should have operated in Davao City instead, given its vast area compared to Cebu. He informed me that Green GSM is already present in Davao but was not allowed to operate until the operator could secure approval from city officials.
Philosophical Divergence in Urban Governance
Davao City's position appears grounded in regulatory caution: protect existing franchise holders, maintain order, and avoid destabilizing the transport sector. This stance represents a protective approach against competition. In contrast, Cebu's posture, whether intentional or accidental, leaned toward experimentation: let the new player in, observe the outcomes, and let commuters decide. The difference is not merely procedural; it is deeply philosophical.
The critical questions now hanging in the balance are: Should local governments shield incumbents from competition? Or should they prioritize commuter convenience and market responsiveness? During my stay in Davao City, taxicabs were not easy to find. Booking apps proved inconsistent, and street-hailing was uncertain. For a city spanning 2,444 square kilometers, mobility should not feel scarce. Scarcity sends a clear message: supply is not matching demand. When supply is tight, restricting new entrants can exacerbate the problem.
Infrastructure and Mobility Diversity
Cebu, for all its traffic woes, has at least experimented with expanding options, from transport network vehicles to alternative taxi services. Davao City, however, perhaps chose stability. The pressing question is: stability for whom? Roads are not the whole answer. Both cities have built infrastructure; Cebu erected flyovers and widened roads, while Davao constructed a coastal highway. But more roads do not necessarily reduce cars; they often simply redistribute congestion. The deeper issue is mobility diversity, meaning how many viable options a commuter has.
If taxicabs are scarce, buses limited, and rail nonexistent, private vehicle ownership inevitably rises. And when private vehicles multiply, no coastal road is wide enough to accommodate the surge. Opening the market to a new operator is not without risk, though. Regulatory frameworks must be clear, safety must be assured, and fare structures must be transparent. But absolute restriction carries its own risk: stagnation. Cities that refuse to adapt to changing transport realities may find themselves perpetually catching up.
Beyond Green GSM: A Broader Urban Challenge
This is not about Green GSM alone. It is about how cities respond to pressure. Do they double down on the old model, or do they cautiously expand the ecosystem? Cebu City opened the door, even if only provisionally. But Davao City keeps it firmly closed. This simply suggests that the Green GSM operator could not achieve in Davao City what they have done in Cebu City, despite objections from traditional taxi operators.
Which approach better serves the commuter stuck in traffic at 6 p.m., trying to get home or to an appointment? This is the question that policymakers must answer decisively. Because in the end, urban governance is not about protecting systems; it is fundamentally about moving people efficiently and sustainably.
