The Parex project: Oppositions and the need to seek common ground

Currently confronting the planned Pasig river expressway project of San Miguel Corp. is the opposition by various groups, among which are the “Move as One Coalition,” a transport and people mobility group, and the renacimiento Manila (rebirth Manila), a group pushing for preserving the historic sites such as the old bridges that will be affected because of the Parex project. For these and other groups as well, Parex will not in the long term be beneficial to Metro Manila and will not work along its planned traffic mitigation objective.

The privately initiated Parex project is a 19.37-kilometer, sixlane expressway that would link the much-neglected east-west Manila corridor. The expressway would run the length of the Pasig River, encroaching in some areas on the river itself. Projected to cost P 81.5 billion, it is highlighted as one of the major undertakings of San Miguel Corp. under its visionary leader, Ramon S. Ang. For RSA, he sees Parex as not just a traffic-decongesting pipeline in Metro Manila but will also provide the needed economic jump-start on the eastern side, all the way past the province of Rizal.

For the anti-parex groups, building more highways such as this will only induce motor vehicle usage, thus leading to increasing GHG emissions and traffic congestion that such infrastructures aim to eradicate in the first place. And rather than help contribute to the cleaning and revival of the river, it will even contribute to its ecological decay and historical deprivation, with several historic landmarks affected. For these groups, it would be better to utilize such funds into building the needed micro-mobility infrastructure that we sorely lack.

Despite the opposition, it may well be that the Parex project will be pursued. Truth to tell, both sides have value in their agendas—the need to push for economic development and the need to preserve the environment. Moving forward, there is a need to seek common ground. Some suggestions for the proponent that may find some common grounds with those opposing the project:

1. Be the environmental guardian of the river. Do regular river clean ups, not just one big overhaul at the onset. In its original proposal, the proponent shall do a major river clean up and dredging work at the onset. Better if this is done on a regular basis for the duration of the concession. And fund an environmental patrol that will monitor and enforce environmental regulations on all entities along the riverbanks.

2. Rather than on-river, why not use the old Manila railroad spur line that runs from Ayala, then Nielsen Airfield all the way to Taytay, Antipolo and Montalban. If you look at the old maps of Metro Manila or check it out on Google, you will see what is now a non-existent Manila Rail line that stretches parallel to the river. Why not check the viability of using this corridor? There may be establishments there now that may need to be demolished, but its right of way costs will definitely not be as expensive, and definitely cheaper than piling up the posts for an inriver structure.

3. Make Parex an integrated roadway that will encourage low carbon transport while providing the needed corridor for motorized vehicles. Toll discounts for e-vehicles, a BRT in the middle; bike lanes and walkways on the side and ferry boat docks along the way connecting the Pasig tributaries will be much appreciated.

4. Take extra care on the heritage side. Avoid invading the picturesque properties of the old bridges and other historic sites along the river. In fact, be the main promoter and conservator of these sites. Promote tours. Allocate a certain part of the toll revenues for this end.

I am sure someone like RSA will care to listen to and work together with these groups. He is known for integrating environmental safeguards in his past projects, such as his mega airport and Metro Rail Transit 7 projects, where in the latter the line went underground to preserve the Quezon Circle. For progress and preservation to work in harmony, there will always be common grounds where project proponents and opposition can both stand. All it needs is the willingness of both groups to find these common grounds and begin working together.