It will have to be Clark

TOKYO, Japan – I took the Philippine Airlines flight to Haneda last Friday and it occurred to me the Narita-Haneda combination may be our future in a NAIA-Clark dual international gateway system. The next president will have to make a decision on what to do within his first month in office.

Haneda was the primary international airport serving Tokyo until 1978 when Narita came into service. From then up to 2010, Haneda handled almost all domestic flights to and from Tokyo, as well as “scheduled charter” flights. Narita handled almost all of the international flights.

But Haneda was too good to underutilize. It was also convenient for business travelers because Narita was a bit far… just about the same distance to Tokyo as Clark is to Metro Manila. So they reconfigured Haneda and in 2010, a dedicated international terminal was opened. That was also the time when they completed a fourth runway.

The Japanese government is currently encouraging the use of Haneda for premium business routes and the use of Narita for leisure routes and by low-cost carriers. Haneda by passenger throughput, was the third busiest airport in Asia and the fourth busiest in the world.

I have taken the position that we need a gateway closer to Metro Manila’s business hubs. But the reason I am now saying we need to fast track the development of Clark as a major international hub is because we no longer have a choice. The Aquino DOTC has dillydallied on a decision about the expansion of NAIA, the building of an alternative to NAIA and the development of Clark.

It takes at least five years to properly develop a world class international airport. We no longer have time to waste because NAIA is seriously over crowded. If we do nothing soon, we will start to feel a strong negative impact on the economy.

There have been many airport studies done through the years but this administration asked for another one from JICA. The preliminary recommendation is for a new airport in Sangley or on the shores of Laguna de Bay.

But a noted Filipino geologist warned that neither site is good. Both areas are prone to liquefaction in case of an earthquake triggered by the so-called Marikina Fault.

It is beginning to seem like Clark is it… Clark is our only viable site for an international gateway that can relieve existing capacity pressure on NAIA in the shortest time. If this is the case, the rejection by the NEDA Board of a Clark expansion plan as being too ambitious should be reversed by the new administration.

The way this government works is infuriating. In mid 2013, DOTC requested a grant from the French government to conduct a study for a Low Cost Carrier terminal for Clark Airport. Aeroports de Paris Ingenierie (ADPI) was hired. Results of their 10-month extensive study proposed to build a terminal with an initial annual capacity of five million passengers, with room to expand to eight and 16 million passengers in the future.

DOTC, the NEDA-ICC technical committee and the Cabinet committee approved the study. When it reached the NEDA Board for final approval, however, the capacity was downgraded to three million passengers, expandable to between five and eight million. I can’t believe they didn’t see that aside from diverted traffic from NAIA, with Clark Green City, the need for more capacity at Clark Airport will be there sooner than later.

There were neither technical nor economic justifications other than a fear of P-Noy that it might be too big. According to Dino Tanjuatco who heads Clark Airport management, the NEDA Board (that’s really P-Noy) was worried the airport, once completed, would only become a white elephant. P-Noy, who heads the NEDA Board, played expert and decided against a thorough study by an internationally reputable consulting group.

The French consultants examined flight and passenger density in the country, citing current and future needs. In dumping the French study, our officials said it was anyway just a grant that didn’t cost the Philippine government a thing. Our officials have no respect for the money of the French taxpayers.

We can imagine how the French authorities feel now that a grant officially requested by DOTC is simply trashed after Aeroport De Paris worked on it for almost a year. Why didn’t we give the right parameters to begin with?

The French group has produced the architecture and engineering plan and design of the airport, including passengers terminal, control tower, aircraft  hangar and maintenance facilities, that can accommodate eight million passengers by year 2022. Sayang naman!

Now it has been announced the Philippine government would hire a new consultant, at Filipino taxpayer expense, to produce a new design. There seems to be a cartel embedded in NEDA doing all these studies and no one is really concerned if the studies are ever implemented.

What this NEDA rejection reveals is P-Noy’s inability to plan infrastructure with a mind to future needs. Our planners, unlike the Singaporeans, are also unable to think of timeframes beyond a presidential term.

This reminds me of P-Noy’s reaction to the plan to extend LRT2 by four kilometers to Masinag in Antipolo. He reportedly remarked “baka walang gumamit” and asked that a market study be made.

Of course there were completed market studies, but then DOTC Sec Mar Roxas probably didn’t know. If Mar visited Masinag before presenting to P-Noy, he would have been able to tell him the only market study they need is a mall in the area being built by Henry Sy. That proves existence of sufficient foot traffic.

Indeed, they should have extended LRT2 much further to COGEO where many low salaried government workers live. These employees and their children could use the mass transport to go to work and school.

As I wrote last week, in Singapore, they anticipate passenger volume and build new airport terminals in Changi before the need becomes obvious. That’s how to plan for development.

I hope the next NEDA head has experience in the corplan department of major conglomerates like Ayala and SMIC. There is a need to infect those bureaucrats with some vision and a sense of urgency to move studies to actual infrastructure.

The other big concern about Clark is distance to Metro Manila and the long travel time due to serious traffic jams on EDSA. It would take at least 10 years to put up a worthy fast train system for a government with little or none of the execution problems we have with ours.

But as expected, they are having problems building those two NLEX-SLEX connector roads. With those roads, the problem of accessibility may not be as bad.

Last I heard, they still have serious right of way acquisition problems on the San Miguel road project that is delaying construction. The Toll Regulatory Board has failed to deliver the ROW on time.

As for the MPIC connector road project, after doing nothing about it for five years, government bureaucrats decided a Swiss Challenge is necessary. But even then, they are unable to set the parameters for the Swiss Challenge to take place.

So for Clark, with the junking of the Aeroport De Paris plan, the completion target year of 2017 for its expanded terminal building is now in limbo. We can only hope the new administration takes over sooner than June and will act with more dispatch.

Heaven knows how long it will take the bureaucrats at DOTC to bid out a new study that could get us going on Clark.

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @boochanco.