This is my contribution for World Cities Day, observed on October 31st, the United Nations initiative

meant to encourage international cooperation to promote sustainable urban development.

PAREX IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO MANILA’S TRAFFIC PROBLEM

On June 24, 2022, Tokyo began work on dismantling and rerouting an elevated portion of the
Metropolitan Expressway, prompted by public protests that the road obscured the view of the historic
Nihonbashi Bridge, a Japanese cultural landmark from 1603.

By 2041, the bridge will be free from the expressway's shadow --- a move that’s part of an urban renewal
endeavor costing a whopping ¥320 billion (US$2.4 billion).

Tokyo’s decision to dismantle the section of the expressway that casts a shadow over the river reflects a
global trend seen in cities like Paris, San Francisco, and Seoul. This trend is meant to improve mobility,
revitalize rivers and safeguard both the environment and cultural heritage. In the Philippines, we’re
stubbornly bucking the trend.

Despite strong protests and compelling pro-environment, pro-community, and pro-heritage arguments
against it, the Philippine government expedited permit processes for the San Miguel Corporation (SMC)
to construct the Pasig River Expressway (PAREX).

PAREX, spanning 19.37 km, aims to link Metro Manila's east and west from Radial Road 10 to C6 Road in
Taguig City. This is meant to reduce the substantial losses the metro incurs due to congestion, which the
Japan International Cooperation Agency says potentially exceeds ₱5 billion yearly. But while addressing
traffic is an urgent concern, is a ₱95.4-billion, six-lane elevated expressway over the Pasig River truly
the right solution to this?

Due to their social and ecological impacts, caution should always surround massive multibillion-peso
projects. But where PAREX is concerned, there’s been a rush and a careless disregard for due process.

Approvals from the Toll Regulatory Board and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
lacked legally mandated engagement with key agencies (the science and technology, and tourism
departments, the national culture and historical commissions, and even the Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology). The Supplemental Toll Operations Agreement (STOA) was approved in
only two months, from July to September 2021, formalizing the government’s deal with the SMC.

Despite opposition from affected communities, nearly 1,000 concerned taxpayers, and 70 groups of
environmentalists, scientists, fisherfolk, architects, urban planners, students and artists, the Office of the
President (under former President Rodrigo Duterte) approved the STOA on March 14, 2022, leading to
calls to postpone the subsequent project scoping due to claims that the first one was riddled with
procedural irregularities.

Adding to the controversy, SMC's consultant was found to have plagiarized the 388-page draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that it submitted to DENR. This discovery, made through
plagiarism detection software, showed that huge blocks of text were copied from EIS’s of totally
unrelated projects.

PAREX: Harms the Environment, Hurts People, Threatens Cultural Heritage

The SMC had made rosy claims that PAREX will serve all modes of travel (motorists, public transit,
cyclists, and pedestrians), will “resolve congestion, generate jobs, enhance productivity, make
commuting more convenient, provide flood control, revive the Pasig River and restore Metro Manila's
appeal.”

But evidence contradict these claims. Scientists warn the expressway could harm the fragile Pasig River
ecosystems, disrupt flood control, water security, and urban biodiversity functions. It will endanger
native trees and disturb the migration pathways of 20-30 bird species that visit the Arroceros Forest Park
each year. The car-focused expressway in an already car-congested city will also worsen air pollution and
global warming. Right now, the Philippines already has a high number of air pollution deaths (World
Health Organization), a potential GDP loss of 1.9% from poor air quality (Greenpeace), and is susceptible
to climate-triggered disasters.

PAREX endangers Manila's cultural heritage. Over 40 architectural gems, historic bridges, and districts
line the Pasig River's banks, and urban planner Paulo Alcazaren warns that the expressway threatens to
erase the charm brought by these historical structures, as well as the intangible Tagalog identity
historically tied to the Pasig river.

Worse of all, PAREX will not solve traffic woes --- it’s main objective.

The "induced demand" phenomenon, observed globally, suggests that new expressways stimulate
increased car usage. PAREX will also worsen income inequality, as it will benefit the city’s wealthy
minority who own private cars, while the majority --- who rely on walking, cycling, and public transit ---
are deprived of the secure and sustainable mass transportation systems they need.

Instead of rushing PAREX, why doesn’t it consider comprehensive restoration alternative plans that
preserve the Pasig River’s integrity?

Today, a convergence of three crises— post-pandemic recovery, a substantial economic downturn, and
the pressing need for climate change mitigation — offers a unique opportunity to deviate from prevailing
norms in infrastructure and transportation. It’s a chance for government to prioritize people and the
environment in its transportation and urban development strategies. It’s an opening to embark on a path
towards a green, low-carbon, nature-centric urban growth that caters to the majority of Metro Manila's
population. Should we miss this opportunity presented by the crises? Can we afford to? #