14 reasons why Parex should not proceed

Robert Y. Siy

THIS week, San Miguel Corp. (SMC), as well as the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB), confirmed that the Pasig River Expressway (Parex) was still a "live" project, despite earlier statements from SMC chief Ramon Ang that the project would no longer be implemented. Here are 14 reasons why proceeding with the project will be a huge mistake:

– The Pasig River is being handed over for use by SMC for free as if the river were a valueless resource without any users. It is not. Pasig belongs to all Filipinos, and many depend on it for their livelihood, health, mobility and recreation/leisure activities. The river is also a repository of the nation's history and culture.

– Parex is incompatible with Executive Order 35 of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., issued on 25 July 2023, to develop the Pasig River's potential for tourism, green public space, new housing development, mass transit, riverside bike lanes and promenades, and heritage preservation. A massive 19-kilometer six-lane expressway along the waterfront would destroy the vast tourism and recreational potential of Pasig.

– Pasig provides significant green, public space at a time when there is a severe deficit in public parks in Metro Manila. Parex would channel significant vehicle exhaust, engine heat and noise into the entire Pasig River corridor, undermining the river's value for millions of Filipinos.

– Riverfront areas, usually the most dynamic and vibrant neighborhoods in a city, will be less suitable for recreation, culture and tourism because of Parex. The priceless vista will be damaged by the insertion of a massive six-lane concrete structure along the entire length of the river. The "line of sight" of many important historical and cultural properties along the river will be severely degraded.

– Parex will not solve traffic; it will make traffic worse. Road expansion for cars ultimately attracts greater car use. Urban expressways (e.g., NAIAX, Skyway 3) end up generating more road congestion and pollution, especially along the narrow ground-level streets leading to expressway access ramps.

– High-quality public transportation along the Pasig River should be pursued instead of Parex. The proposed MRT 4 railway from Taytay to EDSA and the proposed Manila Bay-Pasig River-Laguna Lake Ferry System are the solutions needed to facilitate travel between the east and west sections of Greater Manila. According to a 2023 value engineering/value analysis report commissioned by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), these are the kinds of investments that should be pursued in place of Parex.

– The health and life expectancy of Filipinos in neighborhoods around Parex will be affected by the noise and air pollution emitted by thousands of motor vehicles channeled by Parex into these areas daily.

– Parex will make nearby communities warmer at a time when the country is already experiencing extreme heat. Apart from bringing to Pasig the heat from many thousands of motor vehicle engines, Parex would exacerbate the "urban heat island effect" by installing large concrete slabs above the river that will absorb solar heat during the day and release stored heat during the day and night into surrounding neighborhoods. Parex will also reduce the natural cooling effect of the river by blocking the natural air flow and evaporation around waterways.

– Along the river are many important cultural and heritage properties that may suffer damage, initially from the heavy construction work, and later, from the constant vibration and soot-laden emissions coming from vehicles traveling on Parex.

– Major sections of Parex are patently illegal. Parex will pass right alongside the walls of Intramuros, violating Presidential Decree (PD) 1277, "Providing for the Preservation of the Walls of Intramuros and the Restoration of Its Original Moat and Esplanade." Section 3 of PD 1277 requires the maintenance of a "clear space of 55 meters from and along the outer face of the walls, bastions and ravelins" of Intramuros.

– The ecology of the Pasig River will be damaged significantly. In some parts of the river, Parex will cast a shadow on more than half the width of the waterway. These areas will be deprived of natural sunlight, affecting the plants and organisms that thrive in the river. Toxic wastes from motor vehicles above — engine oil and microplastics (fine particles from tires and brake pads) — will contaminate the waters below. Because the Pasig River flows into Manila Bay, the pollution from Parex will be detrimental to the bay as well.

– Parex will expose Metro Manilans to higher disaster risk and reduce our responsiveness if a major earthquake should happen. Most of the proposed expressway lies in a high seismic risk zone as well as in a high liquefaction hazard zone. Parex intersects with the West Valley Fault, a major earthquake source capable of generating tremors of magnitude 7.0 or greater. A Parex collapse during an earthquake could completely block the waterway and prevent the river from serving as an alternate route for transporting emergency supplies and evacuating victims. Moreover, a collapse will likely damage bridges across Pasig and paralyze the flow of people and goods traveling between the northern and southern sections of Metro Manila.

– SMC failed to include a directly affected local government unit, the municipality of Taytay, Rizal, in the preparation of the project and in the related consultations with stakeholders. The failure of SMC to consult the Taytay local government and its residents is a major deficiency invalidating the draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by SMC to the Environment Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

– The Pasig River should not be handed over for the use of a private entity without understanding what Filipinos would lose — there needs to be a full accounting of the value of foregone opportunities as well as the damage and harm associated with Parex. Because Parex is only considered by the TRB as an extension of an existing tollway, the project has never had a proper assessment of its economic, social and environmental impacts or subjected to the scrutiny of the NEDA's Investment Coordination Committee, something that is required of all major infrastructure projects whether public or private. For a project of this magnitude (P95 billion estimated cost) to escape any comprehensive and objective evaluation of its economic costs and benefits should be regarded as anomalous.

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 [email protected] or followed on Twitter at @RobertRsiy.