Only 65 percent of farm-to-market roads completed in 5 years

Only 65 percent of the 4,810 farm-to-market road (FMR) projects under the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) were completed from 2021 to 2025, according to the Department of Agriculture (DA).

Only 3,135 projects were completed in the past five years, according to preliminary FMR data the DA shared with the media through its transparency platform, which is currently in beta testing.

Data showed that at least 817 FMR projects have not commenced while 34 projects have been deferred, according to the DA.

Meanwhile, there are at least 677 ongoing funded FMR projects during the five-year period.

There are still at least 27 FMR projects funded in 2021 that are ongoing while there are three more financed in 2022 that are yet to be completed, based on the database.

Data also showed that there are still 28 ongoing FMR projects funded in 2023, 213 projects in 2024 and 406 projects under the 2025 budget.

The DA is updating and refining the database since it is still in its beta stage. The DA plans to publicly launch the transparency platform, dubbed FMR Watch, by February.

The platform features real-time project monitoring and updates as well as detailed financial information and budget for every FMR project. The public can access these for free and is encouraged to scrutinize the FMR projects and subsequently provide feedback and even complaints to the DA.

Each project has been geotagged with proper progress documentation from the start of procurement up to its completion.

The DA vowed to respond to citizens’ complaints regarding FMR projects within 24 hours once the transparency portal has been rolled out.

Throughout the five-year period, the government allocated P76.52 billion for all the 4,810 FMR projects. The 3,135 completed FMR projects were equivalent to nearly 2,400 kilometers of road.

Based on its estimates, at least 721,500 farmers have benefitted from the completed FMR projects across 2,400 communities nationwide, saving them 7,800 hours in transportation time while allowing them to move 240,000 metric tons of produce, according to the DA.

Central Luzon had the top budget allocation for FMR projects at P9 billion followed by the Bicol Region at P7.7 billion and Ilocos Region at P7.4 billion.

The DA assured the public that it has all the capabilities to undertake the completion of FMR projects this year worth P33 billion. 

The implementation of the FMR projects has been transferred to the DA following the controversies and issues surrounding DPWH’s infrastructure projects.

The DA also vowed to construct cheaper but still quality FMRs this year as it seeks to build more roads with its budget. The DA said its FMR projects will cost less than the P15 million per kilometer allocated budget in the past.

Source: Philstar

Better mobility with the right parking policies

The conventional wisdom is that parking is a public good and that more vehicle parking benefits everyone. Not true. In this column, we explain why parking policy needs to be part of the toolkit of national and local officials. Free or low-cost car parking in urban areas is a magnet for motor vehicle use in already congested city streets — increasing traffic, worsening air and noise pollution, adding to carbon emissions and raising local temperatures. For the benefit of future generations of Filipinos, we should put in place four key measures related to motor vehicle parking.

Proof of private parking space

Today, tempering the demand for motor vehicle ownership is one of the ways we can address increasing road congestion. One way to reduce the demand for motor vehicle ownership is to require each motor vehicle owner to submit proof of a private parking space. While this will limit vehicle ownership to those with the means to have a private parking space, it is also one way to control illegal parking in urban areas.

In countries like Japan and Korea, the requirement for a private parking space is implemented by local governments that prepare and maintain a detailed inventory of all private parking spaces in a locality, recording each on a map with a specific identification code assigned to each space. Each motor vehicle is associated with a specific private parking space on the map, which may be assigned to only one vehicle.

Removal of parking minimums

Except for mandatory motor vehicle parking spaces for persons with disability, property developers and builders should have the discretion to determine the appropriate number of motor vehicle parking spaces appropriate for their locality and type of building.

However, this is not the case today. The implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the National Building Code (Presidential Decree 1096 enacted in 1977) require, for example, that:

– Shopping centers should provide one parking slot per 100 sqm of shopping area.

– Restaurants, bars and fast-food outlets should provide one parking slot per 20 sqm of customer area.

– Places of worship and funeral parlors should provide one parking slot per 50 sqm of floor area.

These parking space requirements in the IRR of the National Building Code are called “parking minimums.”

Unfortunately, minimum parking requirements lead to many undesirable and harmful impacts that outweigh intended benefits, especially in a country where only six percent of households are car owners. A major negative impact is that parking minimums increase the cost of goods and services for everyone, especially the cost of housing.

Because developers need to reserve space to satisfy parking requirements, building costs naturally increase making housing less affordable. Parking spaces consume valuable floor area and can add 20 percent or more to the cost of a building. This additional cost could be shaved from housing prices; floor area currently devoted to parking could be converted into new residential or commercial space.

In commercial establishments, markets and shopping malls, the extra cost of the required parking spaces are compensated by charging higher rents; higher rents are, in turn, recovered through higher prices of goods and services. While the availability of parking benefits the small minority of Filipinos with motor vehicles, the general public ends up paying the tab for such facilities, whether or not they use cars. This is akin to a subsidy provided to the most affluent six percent of Filipinos financed by a “tax” on the entire population (the 94 percent who are not car owners).

‘Just right’ on-street parking rates

The late Donald Shoup, the author of “The High Cost of Free Parking,” said on-street parking should not be free or priced too cheaply. When parking is perceived to be free or almost free, drivers spend an inordinate amount of time cruising around to find a parking space. Shoup said on-street parking should be priced high enough and on an hourly basis — at a level that results in an enough turnover to leave an average of one or two spaces empty per street block during business hours. This “Goldilocks” approach thereby brings more customers to local businesses. Shoup also suggested that part of the revenues collected should directly benefit the streets and neighborhoods where the parking fees are collected; they can be spent on things like sidewalk improvement, shade trees, street lighting, better signage and CCTV cameras.

A parking levy for public transport

A parking levy on non-residential parking spaces in urban areas collected in the same way as the real property tax can provide a sustainable stream of revenue that is progressive and provides the right incentives. Moreover, a parking levy is one way for society to be compensated for the negative impacts associated with the availability of private non-residential parking spaces. Revenues generated from the parking levy can be earmarked to finance improved public transportation and better infrastructure for walking and cycling, making our cities more livable and sustainable.

The proposed revenue collection method is also straightforward. In every LGU, property owners would be required to declare the number of non-residential parking spaces that each person or entity maintains. The parking levy could then be collected by the LGU in the same way it collects real property taxes. There is also the option for revenues to be shared between the national government and the concerned local government unit. The additional revenues, if earmarked for public transport and active transport, will give local governments the confidence to assume greater responsibility for transportation and mobility outcomes in their localities.

The potential revenue from a parking levy can be substantial. Think of the number of non-residential car parking spaces you find in office buildings, shopping malls, commercial parking lots plus those in front of shops, restaurants and banks. My rough estimate is that there are at least two million private non-residential parking spaces in just the Greater Manila Area (Metro Manila plus surrounding provinces); if a parking levy of P100 were charged for each per day (whether the space is used or not), the revenue collected just for Greater Manila would amount to about P73 billion per year. This could help finance a continuing subsidy for urban public transport and mass transit.

The above parking policy reforms will deliver substantial improvements in our mobility environment without significant cost. They could be important legacies of the Marcos administration. The most important ingredient though is political will.

Source: Manila Times

Moving Forward: How the Philippines Can Unlock Health, Mobility & Climate Wins by Walking and Cycling

In many Philippine cities and towns, we see clogged roads, increasing vehicle ownership, traffic congestion, air pollution, and rising chronic health problems such as obesity and cardiovascular disease. At the same time, the country is highly vulnerable to climate change: sea‑level rise, typhoons, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are real concerns. So there is a strong case for tackling mobility, health, and climate together. A recent global study (published in PNAS) shows that investing in walking and cycling infrastructure is one of those rare “triple‑win” strategies.

source: Scientific American Dec 2025

What the study found and why it matters for the Philippines

The global research shows that when cities are designed so that people can walk or cycle safely and conveniently, the benefits are huge.

Key findings:

• Higher population density → shorter trips → more walking/cycling.

• More extensive and better bicycle lane networks → meaningful uptick in cycling rates.

• Even climates with hot summers or cold winters are no barrier — what matters is the infrastructure and design.

• If all cities matched Copenhagen’s cycling network extent, global emissions from private vehicles could drop ~6%, and the health benefits would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

For the Philippines:

• Many urban areas (e.g., metro Manila, Cebu, Davao, etc.) already have high densities and many short trips. This is an advantage.

• If we bolster walking/cycling infrastructure (bike lanes, pedestrian‑friendly streets, mixed‐use neighborhoods) we can tap into latent potential for active mobility.

• Reducing vehicle dependency helps reduce congestion, air pollution (which affects health), and transport emissions (which matter for climate commitments).

• Health gains from active travel (more walking/cycling) include reduced risk of chronic disease, improved wellbeing and reduced health system burdens.

Specific Opportunities & Considerations for the Philippines

1. Urban planning & mixed‐use development In many Philippine cities, residential areas and workplaces/shopping/amenities may be separated, so short trips get done by vehicle or motorcycle. Encouraging mixed‐use development (homes, shops, offices closer together) helps make walking/cycling feasible.

2. Safe, continuous infrastructure for active travel Simply having a painted bike lane is not enough. The global study emphasized street‐design: separation from vehicle traffic, safe crossings, comfort for walkers/cyclists. In the Philippines, many sidewalks are discontinuous, obstructed, or absent; many bike lanes are fragmented or share space with vehicles. Upgrading these can raise walking/cycling rates.

3. Contextual fit & local culture The study shows: you don’t have to replicate Copenhagen exactly to succeed. What matters is tailoring to local conditions — topography, climate, culture, travel habits. For the Philippines, for example, around‑the‑year warm/humid climate is the norm, so shade, green corridors, rain protection might matter more. Hilly terrain or informal settlement patterns may present challenges.

4. Equity and inclusion Many Filipinos rely on walking and cycling out of necessity (not choice). Infrastructure upgrades must consider low‑income neighborhoods, safe access for women, children, elderly. Also linking active travel with public transit is key (so you can walk/cycle to the bus/train station).

5. Health and climate co‑benefits

   • Health: more walking/cycling → more physical activity → fewer chronic diseases, lower health system costs, improved quality of life.

   • Climate & emissions: lower reliance on private motor vehicles → fewer GHG emissions. This helps the Philippines meet its climate goals and reduces vulnerability from transport‑related air pollution.

   • Resilience & efficiency: A diversified mobility system that includes walking/cycling is more resilient (less dependent on fuel, less vulnerable to traffic jams) and more space‐efficient (less land used for parking, roads).

A Few Action Steps for Local Government & Communities

• Conduct a mobility audit: identify neighborhoods with high short‑trip potential (schools, workplaces, shops within 1‑3 km) and lacking safe walking/cycling infrastructure.

• Prioritize pedestrian first: wide continuous sidewalks, safe crossings, shade trees, lighting.

• Expand and connect bike lane networks: ensure continuity, safe intersections, visibility, and links to transit hubs and workplaces.

• Promote mixed‐use zoning and local amenities so shorter trips become practical.

• Launch behavioral campaigns: encourage walking/cycling by showing benefits, safety tips, community‑rides, walking groups.

• Measure and monitor progress: track mode‑share of walking/cycling, infrastructure length, safety outcomes, health metrics.

• Secure funding: active‑travel infrastructure tends to deliver strong cost‑benefit (health + environment) so build the business case for local budgeting or donor funding.

Why This Matters Now

The Philippines is at a critical juncture: urbanization is increasing, vehicle fleets are growing, climate change risks are mounting, and public health burdens are rising. Investing in walking and cycling isn’t just an “add‐on” — it’s a strategic investment in sustainable mobility, healthier citizens, and lower emissions. The global study gives strong evidence: the infrastructure choices we make today will shape health and climate outcomes for decades.

Conclusion

If the Philippines can shift more mobility toward walking and cycling — by density‐friendly development, robust infrastructure, and inclusive design — we stand to gain on multiple fronts: better health, less traffic stress, cleaner air, fewer emissions, more livable cities. The roadmap is there; what we need now is the will, the planning, and the action.

millard-ball-et-al-2025-global-health-and-climate-benefits-from-walking-and-cycling-infras.

Download • 2.81MB

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate