Parex: A test
River. It is apparent that Filipinos want a riverfront environment that offers green public space for leisure and recreation as well as a safe, comfortable corridor for walking or using a bicycle. Moreover, the Parex is clearly in conflict with the Pasig Bigyang Buhay Muli program of the Marcos administration, launched in January 2024.
SMC and the TRB should recognize that urban elevated expressways create more harm than good. Urban tollways deliver the message that you need to be in a private motor vehicle (and on a tollway) to escape the traffic below. Tollways therefore encourage increased private car use at a time when Philippine cities are already suffering from excessive road congestion and worsening motor vehicle heat, noise and pollution. Of course, tollway operators benefit when there are more motor vehicles and more traffic — the very conditions that motivate motorists to use tollways.
Urban elevated expressways have often brought urban blight and economic decline to their surrounding areas. The introduction of massive, concrete structures blocking natural sunlight usually turns the street underneath into a wasteland. The area around Plaza Azul in Pandacan, once a thriving community with a beautiful park and playground, is an example of the destructive impact of an elevated tollway (i.e., Skyway 3) on nearby neighborhoods.
And then there is the additional congestion that an urban tollway brings to a neighborhood that is already experiencing heavy traffic. A new tollway ramp can consume significant sidewalk and road space at the ground level, creating a bottleneck and attracting more motor vehicles to the area. The neighborhood around a tollway exit or ramp usually ends up with even worse congestion and pollution because many more vehicles are funneled into the narrow streets at ground level (observe, for example, the Quezon Avenue exit of Skyway 3). While the tollway operator may prosper, the losers are local communities who suffer worsening traffic and negative environmental and health impacts.
The absence of any clamor for Parex should be of concern to SMC and the TRB. There are no transportation experts or urban planners who have independently expressed support for the proposed tollway. Instead, you have scientists, academicians, cultural and heritage preservation experts, student and youth organizations, environmental specialists, urban and transportation planners, private sector groups, homeowners associations, commuter groups, affected barangays and ordinary citizens united in opposing the Parex.
Proceeding with the project at this time will make Metro Manila a laughingstock among cities and a “live” example of exactly what not to do. We have only to look at the experience of the most livable cities and countries to know what constitutes good practice. Cities like Paris, Seoul, Portland and San Francisco, which have removed or decommissioned expressways along or above waterways, have all earned accolades.
SMC, have you listened to your own “values” statement? This is what you say: “We advocate sustainable development. We do what is right. We think innovation. We help our people succeed. We take accountability for our decisions. We are a good neighbor. It’s not just how we do things. It’s what we do.” These words ring hollow, especially when SMC says one thing but does the other, especially when SMC claims that it has heard the sentiments of the public but proceeds to ignore feedback from affected communities, experts and other stakeholders. SMC’s statement of values is not worth much when the announcements of its president and CEO cannot be relied upon.
As for the TRB, it has an obligation to act in the public interest and for the common good. It is not in the business of protecting tollway operators. Moreover, the TRB should not view tollways as an unmitigated good in all circumstances — to be constructed wherever and whenever possible. Knowing the harm that tollways can bring, the TRB has a responsibility as a regulator to ensure that any tollway that is likely to cause significant hardship or damage should not proceed. Experts and stakeholders have already told the TRB all it needs to know about the Parex’s damaging impact; SMC itself knows that the basic project concept of an elevated six-lane expressway above a river is flawed and recognized the need for a major revision in project design. These are more than sufficient justifications for the TRB to cancel the Parex.
It has always had ample reason and authority to nullify Parex’s Supplemental Toll Operations Agreement, or STOA. (My March 9 column, “Time to Junk Parex,” presented several grounds.) If there is any financial cost to a unilateral cancellation, the TRB should be willing to disclose the amounts involved. Why should such a cost (or even the full STOA document) be kept confidential? It may be insignificant compared to the social, environmental and economic damage associated with the Parex.
Will SMC look beyond its narrow commercial interest and “do what is right,” as its corporate values dictate? Will the TRB recognize its obligation to work in the interest of all Filipinos even if it means canceling a bad tollway project? This is a test of integrity and leadership in our public and private sectors. I hope they pass it.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate. He is a co-convenor of the Move As One Coalition. He can be reached at mobilitymatters.ph@ yahoo.com or followed on Twitter at @ RobertRsiy.