http://www.nordis.

net/2017/10/history-of-land-transport-in-the-phillipines-14/

History of land transport in the

Philippines (2/4)
patnugutan October 29, 2017 Featured, national, transport
By PIO VERZOLA JR.
www.nordis.net

SECOND OF A FOUR PART SERIES

Click here for first part
3. Railways in the last decade of Spanish rule
The bigger and more dramatic push was in building railways. In 1875, the Spanish government
authorized a Manila committee to propose railways projects. Three lines were suggested,
totaling 1,730 km of track: the Manila-Dagupan line (which was to be extended later to Laoag);
the Manila-Bicol line, which would reach Albay; and the Manila-Batangas route that would
reach Taal town.
In 1878, a Manila public works official proposed a streetcar system (tranvia) with five lines,
with Plaza San Gabriel in Binondo as main hub. The lines were to run to Intramuros via what is
now Jones Bridge; to Malate church; to Malacanang; to Sampaloc; and to Tondo. The system
was built by a Spanish firm (La Compania de Tranvias de Filipinas) from 1885 to 1889. The
Malacanang line was later dropped in favor of the Malabon line, which started operating in
1888 to serve Malabon’s cigar-making factories, milkfish ponds, and a British-owned sugar
mill. The Malabon line ran on four German-made steam locomotives with eight coaches (nine
passengers each), while the other four lines were horse-drawn omnibuses for 12 seated and 8
standing passengers. The system became very popular with commuters.

Note: There is some documentation that when the Katipunan issued a call for general
mobilization and assembly in the Caloocan area right after its discovery in August 1896, a number
of its Manila forces (possibly including the Bonifacio brothers and other top leaders) rode on the
tranvia, got off at Caloocan, and cautiously proceeded on foot towards Balintawak for the general
assembly prior to the Cry of Pugadlawin.
The single largest infrastructure project during the Spanish period was the Manila-Dagupan
railroad (built from 1887 to 1892), with a short spur line from Tutuban to the Binondo quay of
http://www.nordis.net/2017/10/history-of-land-transport-in-the-phillipines-14/

the Manila port. It was an early PPP model: the Manila government shouldered all the risks and
awarded the BOT rights to British-owned Manila Railway Company. Dagupan was probably
chosen as the northern terminal of the railway because it was the single most important
shipping point through which rice and other farm products from Pangasinan and northern
Tarlac were gathered and shipped to Manila. Prior to the railway era, the Manila-Dagupan line
referred to steamers regularly plying that marine route.

Note: The two other planned lines, to Bicol and Batangas, were shelved due to financial problems
and the outbreak of the Philippine revolution. It would take the US colonial regime to continue
where the Spanish regime left off.
While the steam engine started to make itself felt in long-haul land transport, traditional horse,
mule and carabao power continued to predominate the field. There were more horse carriages
in Manila than in any other Asian city (which relied more on human-drawn rickshaws). In the
1880s, there were more than 1,000 horse-drawn calesas and nearly as many carromatas and
carabao carts in Manila alone.

Meanwhile, within and between the towns not directly served by watercraft and the railway,
the masses continued to rely on ages-old foot-based and horse-based modes of transport along
Spanish camino reals connecting major towns, and through each major town’s street system.
Spanish trails were also built across mountains to connect military garrisons especially in
unpacified regions. Otherwise, people especially in the vast rural areas walked, carried bamboo
poles on which hung heavier cargo (or hammocks for people who couldn’t walk), or rode on
horseback, alongside pack mules and carabao-pulled sleds and carts.

4. The US colonial period

The US colonial period saw, in its early stages (1899-1920s), the further nationwide expansion
of the railway and shipping system, and then towards its later stages (1930s-1946), the gradual
decline of the railways. Major Visayan islands also had localized railways in late-Spanish and
American periods, although mainly to transport plantation crops for export. The indigenous or
Spanish-period ship- and boat-building industries also suffered a decline, as the US colonial
regime preferred the use of big foreign-made ships. These two big trends were closely related
to a third: the tremendous expansion of the road system and US-manufactured motor vehicles.
http://www.nordis.net/2017/10/history-of-land-transport-in-the-phillipines-14/

These three major developments and other changes in the transport system were part of the US
economic policy of expanding and enhancing the colonial pattern of trade initially established
in the last 50 years of Spanish rule (export crops, imported finished goods), and converting its
local feudal base into a semi-feudal one. Colonially encouraged industries (light industries and
related commercial activities) flourished in and around Manila and a few other port towns, in
addition to mining and logging in outlying provinces. These further impelled the expansion of
the transport system.

The growth of US military bases and Filipino bureaucracy also played a big part. We are
reminded that throughout the US colonial period, including the Commonwealth period, the US
regime built and maintained an immense bulk of military and civil infrastructure in all major
islands, or improved on existing Spanish-era towns and forts. These included big US Army forts
and camps such as Fort McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio), Fort Stotsenberg (later Clark Air Force
Base), the whole of Baguio City as the colonial regime’s summer capital, US naval bases in Subic
and Sangley Point, and later airfields for the budding US Army Air Force. These in turn greatly
reshaped the geographic distribution of population and socioeconomic activity. Mindanao, the
Cordillera and other hinterlands were opened up as the final frontiers.

By the start of the American colonial period in 1898, features of urbanization had begun to
overflow from the city of Manila to the surrounding towns, which were soon covered by the
new Rizal province (thus the convenient and long-accepted term “Manila-Rizal”). Manila’s
dominant role attracted migration from the provinces, which had started even during the
Spanish period, and encouraged the gradual urbanization of adjacent towns which had started
in the 1930s. The population of areas that now comprise metropolitan Manila increased rapidly
from less than 75,000 at the start of the 20th century to approximately 900,000 by late 1941.
Urban growth also accelerated in smaller cities such as Baguio, Angeles, Cebu, Iloilo, and Davao.

In Manila, the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company (Meralco) took over the tranvia
system, with 12 electric tram lines operating by 1905. A reconstruction program from 1920 to
1924 upgraded the system to 170 cars servicing many parts of Manila and its outskirts, proving
to be an efficient mass transport for a population of 220,000. It was supplemented by
ubiquitous horse-drawn carriages (calesas, carretelas and carromatas), river and estuary boats,
http://www.nordis.net/2017/10/history-of-land-transport-in-the-phillipines-14/

and an increasing number of private cars. Almost 9,000 horses were listed in the 1903 Manila
census; this expanded to 25,000 shortly before World War II.#

Author’s note: These are Sections 1-7 of “History of Philippine land transport”, which in turn is
Part II of a draft framework paper on Philippine mass transport that I’ve been writing with the
help of representatives of KMU, PISTON and a few others.

We saw the value of tracing the roots of our current-day transport problems through the
broader socio-historical context, in order to better appreciate the challenge of seeking long-
term solutions. Historical accounts are also inherently fascinating, like unearthing one’s
ancestral lineage.

As specialized histories typically require specialized research, this historical backgrounder will
obviously stand as a work in progress. It is not comprehensive, but rather imparts focus on
land transport trends related to urbanization. What was supposed to be Section 8, on the last
30 years (1986-present), will be included in Part III which will dwell with the current-day land
transport conditions and problems.

Author’s note: These are Sections 1-7 of “History of Philippine land transport”, which in turn is
Part II of a draft framework paper on Philippine mass transport that I’ve been writing with the
help of representatives of KMU, PISTON and a few others.
We saw the value of tracing the roots of our current-day transport problems through the broader
socio-historical context, in order to better appreciate the challenge of seeking long-term solutions.
Historical accounts are also inherently fascinating, like unearthing one’s ancestral lineage.

As specialized histories typically require specialized research, this historical backgrounder will
obviously stand as a work in progress. It is not comprehensive, but rather imparts focus on land
transport trends related to urbanization. What was supposed to be Section 8, on the last 30 years
(1986-present), will be included in Part III which will dwell with the current-day land transport
conditions and problems. # nordis.net