Introduction: A Daily Dose of Chaos
Every Filipino who commutes or drives regularly knows that traffic is not just a problem—it’s a way of life. But there’s a specific traffic “solution” that has long puzzled me: the U-turn slot.
Initially designed to ease congestion, these slots have instead added confusion and danger to our roads. I’m not in the transportation industry, but I do work in UX design and have background in process improvement—and I can’t help but see the parallels between bad interface design and bad road design. And frankly? Traffic lights make a lot more sense.
When Did U-Turn Slots Become a Thing?
The widespread use of U-turn slots in the Philippines gained momentum during the early 2000s, particularly in Metro Manila. The idea was simple: remove traffic lights, replace intersections with median openings, and theoretically allow cars to move continuously.
This concept was inspired by practices in other countries like the Michigan Left Turn in the U.S.—but here’s the thing: it was adapted without proper context. In Michigan, the road widths, traffic behavior, and enforcement systems support that method. In Metro Manila? Not so much.
Why U-Turn Slots Don’t Work Anymore
They might have worked before when traffic volume was lower, but these days:
- Bottlenecks form as vehicles wait for a gap in oncoming traffic just to make a U-turn.
- Confusion reigns, especially for non-local drivers or first-time visitors unfamiliar with where U-turns are allowed.
- Safety issues arise due to vehicles slowing down or stopping in fast lanes to make the turn.
- No timing control—unlike a stoplight, there’s no regulation of flow, leading to unpredictable, dangerous road behavior.
A design intended to reduce stops has ironically led to more delays, risk, and frustration.
What Other Countries Do Differently
In many countries, controlled intersections with timed traffic lights remain the standard. Singapore, for example, implements smart traffic light systems that adjust in real time based on congestion levels. Japan emphasizes pedestrian safety and logical lane progression. Even in the U.S., roundabouts and traffic signals are deployed with clear road markings and ample space.
Meanwhile, we’ve often sacrificed predictability and safety for the sake of “continuous flow.”
UX Lessons from the Road
This is where my background kicks in. Good UX—whether digital or physical—is about clarity, predictability, and safety. Roads are interfaces. Vehicles are users. Signs, lights, and lane markings are the navigation elements. When the system is inconsistent or forces users to make risky moves just to follow the flow, it fails.
Process improvement in UX often involves removing bottlenecks, reducing error rates, and simplifying decision-making. Isn’t that what we want on our roads too?
A Better Way Forward
I’m not claiming traffic lights are perfect. But they offer structured timing, equal opportunity for crossing, and better pedestrian integration. They can be paired with sensors, timers, or even adaptive algorithms. More importantly, they allow urban planning to evolve around a system that’s based on rules—not guesswork.
So while I don’t work in urban development, I strongly believe in designing for the user, whether that’s a website visitor or a bus driver navigating EDSA.
Final Thoughts
Traffic solutions need more than borrowed templates. They need human-centered design, just like anything else meant to serve the public. U-turn slots might have been an attempt at innovation, but it’s time we retire them in favor of something more sensible—like the humble traffic light.
Sometimes, going back to basics is the best form of progress.
About Me
I’m JP B. Bantigue, CLSSBB—a multidisciplinary digital professional with a background in UI/UX design, front-end development, and project strategy. I’ve spent over a decade navigating life in startups and agencies, wearing many hats along the way. Through it all, I’ve learned that growth doesn’t only come from wins. It often comes from burnout, difficult decisions, and learning how to let go.
