Last week saw the demise of the Metro Manila BRT Line 1 project after the World Bank granted the Philippine government’s request to cancel its loan agreement amounting to $64 million. This is unfortunate considering that the BRT project could have greatly alleviated our current transport crisis in Metro Manila, especially in the perennial bottleneck of a corridor that is Quezon Avenue-España Boulevard, connecting the two most populated cities of Quezon City and Manila. The BRT project was projected to shelve half the present travel time from the two city halls of Manila and Quezon City, with a projected ridership of 300,000 passengers per day. This would practically almost equal the same ridership as that of the Metro Manila subway (370,000), which costs a staggering 100 plus times more ($7 billion). Unfortunate because the cancellation could have been avoided.
For those who are unfamiliar with the BRT system, it basically refers to a public transport mode, in this case, made up of specially built buses that operates on a fixed line, similar to a train but without the rail system. Made popular in Bogota, Colombia in the 1990s, it became a preferred mode of transport for developing countries for the obvious reason that it is way cheaper than a rail system, not to mention that a BRT line fits the narrow road corridors in third world urban areas. For a quick comparison, a light rail costs $100 million/km; ground rail around $200 million/km, and a subway at a staggering $300 million/km. A BRT, on the other hand, costs just $10 million/km. There are other advantages. BRTs are faster to construct, easier to maintain and easier to expand, lessen or modify, which means the BRT can adjust to current traffic trends if need be. However, this does not mean that we can do away with rails. In the transport ecosystem, both rail-based and road-based transport systems are needed, having their inherent strengths that complement each other. In fact, successful railway lines in major corridors worldwide are linked to road transport such as trams and buses, making travel seamless and therefore more beneficial for commuters.
Going back to the cancellation of the BRT project, the World Bank cited several reasons for the failure of the project to move forward. The reason of pandemic slowdown notwithstanding, noteworthy were the other reasons cited, namely: the “inexperience” of the BRT program management office, lack of general budget management allocation and inefficient procurement management. All of which could have been addressed adequately similar to how the subway project was pursued. Change of priorities, lack of political will, other mode preferences, politics? Whatever the reasons, the cancellation is a loss to all of us suffering commuters, especially those taking the Quezon Avenue-España Boulevard corridor. There is also the loss of taxpayer’s money for the government time and resources spent for this project under the past two administrations.
On a good note, though, the BRT preference in the Philippines is now being championed by several local government administrations with assistance from the national government as well as the private sector. For the LGUs, you have Cebu and Davao as LGU BRT pioneers, although the Cebu BRT project, also with World Bank funding, had been much delayed as well. For the private sector, San Miguel Corporation is leading the way, incorporating the BRT component in most of its present and future road infrastructure projects such as the Pasig River Expressway. We also still have the rudimentary BRT line, the Edsa Carousel, which, I can proudly state, I had a hand in its conceptualization when I was still in government. For those who comment negatively that the Edsa carousel should have been better planned; you may fall off your seats to know that there was once an Edsa BRT project proposal with funding from the Asian Development Bank, but it was also canceled.
Without pointing fingers at whom to blame for the BRT cancellation, at the very least, we must learn from this situation and avoid such a debacle in the future. Administrations come and go, and they are remembered in a major way with the infrastructure that they have built. That is why the San Juanico Bridge of Marcos, Sr., the several Edsa flyovers of Cory Aquino, the nautical highway of GMA and the massive Build, Build, Build program of Duterte stand out in our consciousness. In the same manner, in that very corner near the Welcome Rotonda at the border of Quezon City and Manila, we will continue to wonder in the next succeeding years how it could have been much more convenient for commuters had we succeeded in seeing through the completion of the BRT line.
The author may be reached at tmo45@georgetown.edu