Just to be clear, my views on this project is independent of any outside influence. No one has approached me, nor am I on the employ to defend this. I am just speaking my mind. For those who know me, I have always pushed for sustainable transport. I believe in moving people not cars. When I was in government, I pushed for sustainable mass transport leading me to my stint with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as their low carbon transport advisor. Why do I need to say this? Because I believe the Pasig River Expressway (PAREX) project can work towards sustainable mobility and I see that those opposing the project, most of whom are my friends and allies in many noteworthy environmental transport-related causes, might be barking up the wrong tree.
Reducing carbon emissions in Metro Manila should be taken in its totality, and not just with one highway infrastructure. Policies that need to be in place that we committed to do as a signatory to the Paris agreement as well as the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN are still far away from being passed as laws. Regulatory cover for electric vehicles and their low carbon counterparts, as well as the needed ecosystem will most likely not make it in this administration. Pursuing this should be our focus, not just this one PAREX corridor.
The PAREX corridor can in fact help us achieve our low carbon targets. Aside from the promised BRT and bicycle lanes, PAREX is a long-haul corridor with virtually no in-between stops. This replaces the present stop and go east-west routes of Shaw Boulevard and Commonwealth Ave. Such stop and go motion burn more fuel, therefore more emissions. And the nuance of this corridor is that it is mostly composed of trucks loaded with materials from the quarries of Rizal. A straight uninterrupted journey of these heavy haulers will result in lesser burning of fuels, therefore lesser emissions.
With traffic reduced from the current city streets, we can begin to look at converting most of them into bike lanes, walkways and even pocket parks that we so direly need. With fewer cars on these once congested roads, there can be more room to convert to breathable open spaces. Induced congestion and its corresponding urban heat trap need not be a given with proper planning.
Environmentally speaking, the Pasig River is already damaged with or without PAREX. I had been part of the Pasig River ferry revival since about seven years ago and I have seen first-hand that the damage on the river is not even caused by those at the riverbanks. It comes all the way from its tributaries up north from Quezon City and Bulacan. If one wants to fix the river, then we need to push for the proper government enforcement beyond stopping the PAREX deal. In fact, another area where we should focus on are the many vanished esteros that once made Manila the Venice of the East. Not all of them dried up. A good number of buildings are currently illegally encroaching on these waterways.
The idea that an elevated highway will only be an eyesore and will bring the real estate costs down is not entirely true. Estero de Galino, where the Naia Expressway currently traverses, was then an eyesore, a polluted stagnant river that all of us ignored. Definitely the river looked much better now when the structure was built. We can also speak of examples of riverside highways that have succeeded. On both sides of the Han River in Seoul, Korea are elevated highways that blend well along with parks and walkways beside that long river stretch. Tokyo riverside is no different. Alongside the elevated roadway are numerous cafes and parks. We had also been assured that PAREX will in no way intervene with the historical sites along the river, much less damage them. Let’s look at their plans and see if indeed it is so. There is no point in objecting if we are not sure if the plan is indeed objectionable.
I am sure that my friends opposing PAREX will not be happy to know where I stand on this project, but I hope they also respect me in as much as I respect them. I invite them to view this from another angle. Rather than oppose it, why don’t we see areas where we can work together with the PAREX proponents who should also begin sitting down with the oppositors. PAREX can be a winning project for both the environment and economic progress if we give it a chance to succeed.
The author may be reached at: thomas_orbos@sloan.mit.edu