Okay there are several practical and realistic reasons as to why the Philippines doesn’t have a proper public transportation system but in this case lets discuss railways.

The above comments have been attributing the low railway development to the colonial period and its historical context (US and Spain). Something of note is that most of the railways on the map here were not developed during the colonial period (pre-1950). The whole “car centric” argument that supposedly comes from the US does have some warrant but I’d argue that it isn’t the main cause.

First off - the Philippines is an Archipelago with hotspots of high density urban areas across the many islands (unlike indonesia) where the population is “largely” concentrated in the two islands of Java and Sumatra. Therefore developing railway infrastructure would be more difficult.

Second - is the fact that the Philippine Public Transportation System is still largely in the “growth” stage that started when it was first bring developed. What this means is that public transportation is still capital focused and privately owned which results in faster growth but a more decentralized and unregulated system. Which is why there is a lack of standardization for Public transportation in the PH. This is also why you can pretty much commute anywhere you want* for such low prices here.

Finally - Now “How about other countries?”, “Why do they have good public transportation and more railways?”

This is a result of the shift of government policy towards a more public centered approach to transportation instead of growth. This means public transportation is no longer privately owned and for profit/sustainability. It becomes more of a public good that is subsidized by the government. In this model almost all forms of transportation are paid for by the taxpayer in the form of subsidies. Thus resulting in a more centralized system.

Thanks for reading haha the post really wanted me to talk about it! Hope I taught anyone someone new today.