SO far, the information that the public has been able to gather about San Miguel Corp.'s (SMC) controversial Pasig River Expressway (Parex) project has come from media statements from SMC itself as well as commentary on social media and in interviews from a few credible experts such as renowned architect and urban designer Paulo Alcazaren. All this has been enough information to properly horrify virtually everyone who has read or heard it, but it lacks detail and is rationally not really enough to form a judgment about the project.
However, a piece of information that is detailed enough to allow one to form a sound conclusion is one entitled, "Project Description for Scoping: Pasig River Expressway Project," prepared by SMC Infrastructure earlier this year. The 44-page document does not specify a date other than "2021," but it was uploaded by the Environmental Management Board (EMB) to its website on July 14.
The EMB, because it tends to take a rather accommodating view of propriety depending on who is involved, considers the scoping part of the environmental impact assessment process, even though the only acknowledgment of environmental impact in the document provided by SMC is the phrase "Environmental Impact Statement" in the header of the document's pages.
I am not an engineer or an urban planner, so my first reaction to obtaining a copy of this publicly available but not necessarily easy to find document was to forward it to experts who are one or both of those things to seek their views; those comments will be shared here or elsewhere in these pages once they have time to respond. In the meantime, however, there are some general — and alarming — impressions of the project description that need to be highlighted.
The first disturbing detail was already mentioned above, the utter lack of any discussion of the project's environmental impact. SMC does discuss, in very casual terms, its plan to dredge and remove garbage from the Pasig River, but in an extremely vague, offhand way. That part of the project is only allotted three sentences, 77 words, in one of the introductory paragraphs, and is not mentioned again, despite being reported since (by SMC itself) as being a huge undertaking with an initial investment of P2 billion and a 30-year time frame.
The second thing that stands out as a huge red flag is the glaring absence of any detailed rationale for the project, other than this statement: "Traffic congestion is truly a monstrous problem in Metro Manila since the roads are narrow and widening them will entail so much more disturbance to the already worst traffic.... Parex's primary benefit is traffic management. Traffic will be decongested in Metro Manila roadways and travel time will be greatly reduced."
At a minimum, the project scope should provide a basic explanation of the how conclusion was reached that the Parex would decongest traffic, including, at least in the form of an estimate, how much traffic will be "decongested." None of that is supplied; SMC simply makes the bald assertion and doesn't even bother to do it with proper grammar.
In connection with that, SMC doubles down on its lack of project study rigor by completely blowing off any discussion of alternatives to the proposal. Under the section with the heading, "Project Alternatives," SMC has exactly this much to say about the topic: "The 'no-go' alternative is the option of not proceeding with the proposed Pasig River Expressway Project."
This is particularly infuriating, because the need for an efficient east-west traffic route across Metro Manila has been identified for years in numerous transportation studies, such as those carried out by the Japan International Cooperation Agency. Two very obvious alternatives to the Parex are the two heavily congested, inadequate ones that already exist — Radial Road 6 (R-6), Aurora Boulevard and the Marilaque Highway, and R-5, Ortigas Avenue and the Manila East Road. Elevated highways are rapidly going out of style, but one might actually be practical along either of these two routes, and could be built without posing any undue risk to the city's main waterway, its rapidly disappearing heritage sites, or established residential and commercial areas.
Were these alternatives considered in the planning for the Parex? Evidently not; we are supposed to take SMC's word for it. Because they wish to build it, the Parex is the best possible idea and no alternative apart from "doing nothing," an option that can be glibly dismissed, need even enter anyone's consciousness.
The arrogance of SMC in presenting this sloppy, incomplete project description is truly breathtaking. Here is a company that evidently has decided it has the divine right to build profit-generating infrastructure when and where it wants to and does not need to justify it to the government or anyone else. SMC has taken a garbage approach to presenting a garbage project and shame on this government of sycophants for endorsing it. It will have to be up to public pressure to put a stop to this nonsense and put SMC in its place.
ben.kritz@manilatimes.net
Twitter: @benkritz
However, a piece of information that is detailed enough to allow one to form a sound conclusion is one entitled, "Project Description for Scoping: Pasig River Expressway Project," prepared by SMC Infrastructure earlier this year. The 44-page document does not specify a date other than "2021," but it was uploaded by the Environmental Management Board (EMB) to its website on July 14.
The EMB, because it tends to take a rather accommodating view of propriety depending on who is involved, considers the scoping part of the environmental impact assessment process, even though the only acknowledgment of environmental impact in the document provided by SMC is the phrase "Environmental Impact Statement" in the header of the document's pages.
I am not an engineer or an urban planner, so my first reaction to obtaining a copy of this publicly available but not necessarily easy to find document was to forward it to experts who are one or both of those things to seek their views; those comments will be shared here or elsewhere in these pages once they have time to respond. In the meantime, however, there are some general — and alarming — impressions of the project description that need to be highlighted.
The first disturbing detail was already mentioned above, the utter lack of any discussion of the project's environmental impact. SMC does discuss, in very casual terms, its plan to dredge and remove garbage from the Pasig River, but in an extremely vague, offhand way. That part of the project is only allotted three sentences, 77 words, in one of the introductory paragraphs, and is not mentioned again, despite being reported since (by SMC itself) as being a huge undertaking with an initial investment of P2 billion and a 30-year time frame.
The second thing that stands out as a huge red flag is the glaring absence of any detailed rationale for the project, other than this statement: "Traffic congestion is truly a monstrous problem in Metro Manila since the roads are narrow and widening them will entail so much more disturbance to the already worst traffic.... Parex's primary benefit is traffic management. Traffic will be decongested in Metro Manila roadways and travel time will be greatly reduced."
At a minimum, the project scope should provide a basic explanation of the how conclusion was reached that the Parex would decongest traffic, including, at least in the form of an estimate, how much traffic will be "decongested." None of that is supplied; SMC simply makes the bald assertion and doesn't even bother to do it with proper grammar.
In connection with that, SMC doubles down on its lack of project study rigor by completely blowing off any discussion of alternatives to the proposal. Under the section with the heading, "Project Alternatives," SMC has exactly this much to say about the topic: "The 'no-go' alternative is the option of not proceeding with the proposed Pasig River Expressway Project."
This is particularly infuriating, because the need for an efficient east-west traffic route across Metro Manila has been identified for years in numerous transportation studies, such as those carried out by the Japan International Cooperation Agency. Two very obvious alternatives to the Parex are the two heavily congested, inadequate ones that already exist — Radial Road 6 (R-6), Aurora Boulevard and the Marilaque Highway, and R-5, Ortigas Avenue and the Manila East Road. Elevated highways are rapidly going out of style, but one might actually be practical along either of these two routes, and could be built without posing any undue risk to the city's main waterway, its rapidly disappearing heritage sites, or established residential and commercial areas.
Were these alternatives considered in the planning for the Parex? Evidently not; we are supposed to take SMC's word for it. Because they wish to build it, the Parex is the best possible idea and no alternative apart from "doing nothing," an option that can be glibly dismissed, need even enter anyone's consciousness.
The arrogance of SMC in presenting this sloppy, incomplete project description is truly breathtaking. Here is a company that evidently has decided it has the divine right to build profit-generating infrastructure when and where it wants to and does not need to justify it to the government or anyone else. SMC has taken a garbage approach to presenting a garbage project and shame on this government of sycophants for endorsing it. It will have to be up to public pressure to put a stop to this nonsense and put SMC in its place.
ben.kritz@manilatimes.net
Twitter: @benkritz