Why the Pasig River Expressway should be rejected

By Robert Siy, 14 Aug 2021

THE Pasig River Expressway, also known as Parex, is a proposed 19.37-kilometer six-lane elevated expressway running the length of the Pasig River with an estimated cost of P81.5 billion. The project proponent is the San Miguel Corp. It is still under evaluation by the Tollways Regulatory Board. Here are nine reasons why the proposed project should be rejected.

1. Parex will worsen traffic congestion and climate change. Based on the phenomenon of “induced demand,” the building of new urban roads to alleviate traffic will provide only temporary relief; Parex will lead to greater motor vehicle use and ultimately more congestion. Both sides of the Pasig River have densely populated urban neighborhoods that are already filled with motor vehicles during rush hour; Parex will channel more private motor vehicles into these neighborhoods, making them even more congested. With the climate crisis at alarming levels, it is not a time to be building more infrastructure to accommodate more motor vehicles.

2. Communities beside and underneath the expressway will suffer negative health outcomes from increased air and noise pollution. Vehicles using Parex will generate noxious fumes and engine noise that will affect the densely populated neighborhoods on both sides of the river. The pollution from thousands of vehicles going by homes, schools and workplaces daily in a constant stream will increase the incidence of various illnesses and shorten lives. The most vulnerable are the elderly and young children.

3. Neighborhoods in the shadow of the expressway will experience urban decay. The global experience with elevated expressways traveling through the center of a city is that the areas underneath and in the vicinity of the expressway will experience degradation because such neighborhoods will become less attractive for either businesses or residences. Research has shown that land values drop in neighborhoods along the path of the elevated expressway.

4. The ecology of the river will be significantly affected. In several parts of Pasig, close to half of the river will be under the shadow of the six-lane expressway; these areas will be deprived of natural sunlight affecting the plants and organisms that thrive in the river. There will also be significant disturbance from embedding pillars into the riverbed plus the heavy construction activity, which will last several years. The pillars themselves will narrow the channel in several sections and possibly impede the flow of the river.

5. Important national cultural assets – the river itself and several heritage structures along the Pasig River – will be damaged. The Pasig River itself is a national treasure and its historical and cultural significance should be respected. Along the Pasig River are many important historical and architectural treasures that may suffer damage to their structure and façade from, initially, the heavy construction work and, later on, by the constant vibration and soot-laden emissions from vehicles traveling on Parex. For these reasons, many cities with valuable historic and cultural assets, such as Rome and Milan, are restricting fossil-fueled motor vehicles from their city centers. Infrastructure that will harm our most valuable heritage assets needs to be shunned.

6. Manila’s city plans have long envisioned scenic walkways along the Pasig River. During the Spanish period, Intramuros was already surrounded by a promenade. Subsequently, Daniel Burnham, in his 1905 Manila city plan report, expanded on this concept and recommended public, walkable green space along both banks of the Pasig – a continuous shaded boulevard interspersed with small parks and fountains. If Parex is built, these grand visions of a pedestrian promenade along the Pasig River would no longer be possible.

7. Economic and social development along the river will be substantially curtailed. In the most livable cities around the world, waterfront districts are the most vibrant, captivating and dynamic areas. Rivers and harbors are suitable for all kinds of leisure activities and attract many types of commercial and residential development. They contribute to the physical and mental wellbeing of the community and help to make a city more “livable.” Great cities develop their waterways into top tourist attractions (e.g., the Seine in Paris; Sydney Harbor; the Chao Phraya River in Bangkok). Parex would destroy such potential. Apart from Parex “photobombing” the entire Pasig River and altering its vista, the fumes and noise from motor vehicles on the expressway would dampen appreciation of the river and discourage visitors. Placing a six-lane expressway in the middle of the Pasig will tarnish the image of the waterway and reduce its value for cultural and recreational activities; this, in turn, will diminish Metro Manila’s attractiveness as a place to live, work and invest.

8. The benefits of the proposed expressway will accrue to private motor vehicle users who represent a small minority. The travel time and vehicle operating cost savings of private cars using Parex are likely to be offset by the costs of more traffic due to induced demand and added congestion in downtown areas. Any net gains from vehicle time and cost savings will therefore not be substantial. In addition, Parex will tend to benefit those who are already better off. In Greater Manila, only about 12 percent of households own a private car, a very small minority. This is the segment of the population that is already privileged because of their ability to travel independently and in isolation; in our current crisis, this segment should be our last priority. New urban transportation infrastructure should cater to the needs of those who are most vulnerable – the vast majority without access to a private car.

9. The harm from the proposed project far outweighs any expected benefits. Any net savings in vehicle operating costs and travel time from the proposed expressway pale in comparison with the increased incidence of illness and lives lost from the negative impacts on health, from the reduction in incomes and livelihoods as a result of foregone economic opportunities, and from the damage to the priceless cultural and historic assets of our nation. The biggest risk San Miguel Corp. faces is the potential damage to its image as a national cultural icon, associated with many good Filipino traditions. Even if San Miguel Corp. commits to the clean-up of the Pasig River, it would not be sufficient to compensate for the widespread and multidimensional damage that Parex could cause.

My sincere hope is that the management of San Miguel Corp. will undertake an objective assessment of the proposed project covering the above considerations. If they do so, they will conclude that Parex is not in the best interest of the Filipino people.