October 2, 2021 | The Manila Times
By Robert Siy
In the past week, announcements have been made that the Pasig River Expressway (Parex) Project will be approved in October 2021 by President Rodrigo Duterte. Presidential approval of Parex should be placed on hold until an assessment of economic, social and environmental impacts is conducted.
For all major infrastructure projects, whether public or private, a required step is for the project proponent to show that benefits outweigh the various costs and any negative impacts of the project. We don’t want projects that benefit a few while causing serious harm.
At this time, it is not even known whether Parex delivers a positive net benefit to society. Many argue that it doesn’t. But project decisions should not be based on words or promises; there needs to be careful analysis.
All major public and private infrastructure projects are required to demonstrate that benefits exceed costs before being approved because public welfare is at stake. Projects above a certain scale go through the scrutiny of the National Economic Development Authority‘s Investment Coordination Committee to ensure that each delivers a reasonable rate of economic return after considering all project impacts. Parex has not gone through any similar scrutiny.
Parex has profound implications for all of us — even for the image and good will of San Miguel Corp. (SMC). This is a very large infrastructure project, described by SMC as costing over P95 billion. It will sit above the most important waterway in our country and cast a shadow over a significant part of its surface.
Many experts are saying that the project will have significant negative impacts, especially for riverside communities and for many assets that are part of our national patrimony. It is important that we pause and consider this project with “eyes wide open.”
What we have heard from SMC is about the expected good that the project will bring and how Parex will solve traffic. Experts warn that the easing of traffic from building new urban roads is only temporary; before long, because of induced demand, road expansion attracts greater car use and brings even more congestion, pollution and climate change. This is what happens all over the world. Road expansion to fix traffic is like buying bigger pants to cure obesity.
But what has not been assessed or disclosed by SMC is the potential damage that the project will bring to people and property including priceless national heritage. For a project of this magnitude, it is not enough for SMC to say that it will do its best to repair any damage once it knows what harm will be inflicted (and that it will hire the best experts to tell it what to do). It is possible that some damage might exceed SMC’s capacity to mitigate.
As a responsible corporate citizen concerned about its contribution to national development, SMC should have prior understanding of the potential problems and issues associated with Parex and should disclose what those are — especially Parex’s impact on the communities along its path. If SMC has not yet performed such an assessment, if it has not studied and quantified the potential harm that its project will bring, the honorable and responsible thing to do would be to first withdraw the project from consideration until this important step is accomplished.
Placing on hold the final project approval will give SMC time to investigate further and answer several questions that are crucial for determining whether Parex is economically, socially and environmentally feasible — whether its projected benefits exceed its expected costs and negative impacts:
(a) How wide will the expressway be in different sections and how much of the river will it cover? How will its shadow affect the ecology of the river?
(b) How will covering part of the river, plus the “urban heat island effect” of the six-lane concrete road, affect neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Pasig River?
(c) How much additional air pollution will people living or working along the Pasig River be exposed to and what will the impact be on their health and life expectancy?
(d) How much additional vehicle noise will people along the Pasig River be exposed to and how will this affect their physical and mental well-being?
(e) How much additional disaster risk will residences and other structures along the Pasig River be exposed to due to vibrations during construction and expressway operation, given the potential for liquefaction of structures on riverbanks and riverbeds with wet, sandy soils?
(f) What is the potential for loss in property values for areas along the Pasig River that will become less desirable and livable because of their proximity to the heat, noise and air pollution from an unattractive expressway?
(g) To what extent will the elevated expressway block the sight lines of prime tourism and heritage sites along the Pasig and degrade visual access to these national treasures?
(h) What will be the impact of expressway construction and operation on the many heritage structures along the Pasig River including the important Intramuros heritage zone? Will some of these heritage structures suffer damage due to vibrations and/or increased pollution associated with Parex?
(i) What will be the impact of the expressway on the physical and mental health of Metro Manilans with the loss of a major corridor with fresh cool air and green open space?
(j) What are the earthquake risks related to the project, especially with a section of the proposed expressway along the West Valley Fault at the intersection with C5?
An estimate by the Move As One Coalition places the health cost at P67 billion due to reduced life expectancy from the increased pollution around Parex. Urban blight and the loss of economic opportunities are expected to cut land market values by about P97 billion in the neighborhoods around the Pasig River. This conservative estimate of P167 billion in economic costs does not even include the heritage, environmental, ecological and indirect health or Covid-19-related impact of Parex.
Before Parex is approved by the President, wouldn’t it be better to know much more about its implications?