Decongest

We were told, early this week, that traversing Edsa is now seven minutes quicker.

That does not make much sense to motorists trapped in traffic snarls. Twice the past month, it took me over three hours to drive from North Avenue in Quezon City to Ayala Avenue. There ought to be more palpable improvements to traffic flow than the claim seven minutes have been saved one way.

The DOTC is reportedly taking charge of the traffic crisis now paralyzing the metropolitan area. We can only hope the agency can think up more decisive solutions to the congestion than simply adding more and more bright orange delineators along the vital avenue.

In 2014, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) completed a study of the Metro Manila traffic situation. The study was requested by the NEDA.

The headline finding of that study is that government and the general public lose P2.4 billion a day due to the traffic congestion. As the situation worsens, JICA estimates the economic cost for metro traffic alone to rise to P6 billion per day by 2030. That means we lose in a year the equivalent of this year’s total national budget.

Beyond the calculation of the economic losses we incur because of traffic congestion, JICA makes several recommendations that could be done immediately. These include relocating the Manila North Harbor to the Batangas port and the Manila airport to Sangley Point in Cavite.

Both the port and the airport directly contribute to the vehicular traffic in the metropolis. From the port and the airport, passengers and cargo spill put to the streets of the city.

The volume of containerized cargo moving out of the port to the industrial zones south of Manila justifies relocating the port to Batangas. We invested much in building that large port which today is underutilized. We invested as well in the network of roads in the area that could take the cargo moving out of the Batangas port.

One of the reasons the Batangas port was built up is, in fact, to relieve the congested Port of Manila. We should have started relocating port operations years ago.

In the case of the Manila International Airport (we should stop calling it the NAIA), several options have been put forward.

We could transfer the bulk of airport operations to Clark, although the JICA study does say this world-class airstrip is too far from the city. San Miguel Corporation has unsolicited proposals either to build another runway alongside the existing ones or construct an entirely new facility on reclaimed land at the bay.

The transfer of operations to Sangley Point will require building road access to the facility. We are not sure if the runway could take bigger commercial aircraft. At any rate, the JICA study recommends it as the more feasible solution.

There was a proposal a couple of years ago to build a fourth passenger terminal for the Manila airport. That will not address the problem of congested runways. Nor will it solve the problem of harried passengers getting to the terminals or out of them to the hellish traffic in the area.

Renewal

The MMDA identified all the roads leading out of the harbor area in its list of traffic-prone road in the metro area. These are: C-3, Mabini St., Dagat-Dagatan Avenue, North Bay Boulevard and R-10.

If North Harbor is shut down, traffic load will be relieved in the roads mentioned above. Containerized cargo trucks are the main reasons these roads are often choked.

Metro Manila grew out of the port area. Today, after all the urban sprawl of the last century, it seems insane to continue unloading the cargo at the Manila port and trucking them out through our small and vulnerable city streets.

The JICA study observes that if we move North Harbor and relocate it to Batangas, there would be significant savings in ship operating costs. When the volume of container handling is upgraded in that port, this might entice foreign vessels to use that port as well.

When port operations are transferred, JICA observes, land will be freed up. North Harbor occupies about 600 hectares of valuable urban land, right at the heart of the metropolis.

This is the beautiful part: the land currently occupied by North Harbor could be converted into a mixed-use property development. “For the City of Manila,” JICA notes, “this represents an opportunity to revitalize the city and regain its old glory.”

Today, the area around the port is the cesspool of the metropolitan area. It is a rotting inner city district crying out for urban renewal.

The rot extends beyond North Harbor itself. The contiguous areas – covering parts of Caloocan, Malabon and Navotas – are occupied by container yards, warehouses and concentrations of the urban poor. This is the most unsightly part of the metropolis.

If Manila is to undertake massive urban renewal, this should begin by relocating the North Harbor.  Without that, our capital city will continue rotting away. Its road system will be clogged with container traffic. The city’s economic opportunities will remain constrained. It will be left behind in another century.

Billions, maybe trillions, worth of valuable urban land is trapped by the continued stay of North Harbor. The economic potential of releasing those land values by way of urban renewal is incalculable.

Of all the recommendations of the JICA study, including subways, relocating the North Harbor and upgrading the Batangas port requires least cost.