Opposition to the CBRT: A curious case

There is something odd about the seemingly coordinated opposition of local politicians against the Cebu Bus Rapid Transit (CBRT). It's odd because of the timing and nature of the opposition to the CBRT --why only now, when phase 1 of the project is already in full swing and expected to be completed within months?

Earlier, there were moves within the Cebu City Council advocating for the cancellation of phases 2, 3, and 4 of the project. Cebu City Councilor James Anthony Cuenco mentioned observing problems with the BRT system, similar to those reportedly encountered in Hanoi, Bangkok, and New Delhi. Cuenco claimed that Cebu's BRT also grapples with issues such as delays, inadequate road size, and poor design.

The Cebu provincial government soon issued a memorandum to halt the CBRT construction on Osmeña Boulevard in front of the Capitol building, citing heritage reasons. Cebu City Vice Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia later gave a privilege speech in the City Council, backing the Capitol's move to stop the construction of a CBRT station facing the Capitol due to concerns over “heritage and aesthetics”.

Then, with seemingly exact timing, the Cebu Provincial Board on Monday, March 4, adopted a resolution calling for a halt to the civil works of the long-delayed CBRT, citing violations of heritage laws and the project’s “contribution to the worsening traffic condition.”

Clearly, the current opposition is a coordinated effort to halt the project for any reason these politicians can find. I agree with former Cebu City mayor Tomas Osmeña. The opposition is not only ill-timed but also shameful to our international donors and creditors. With this kind of behavior from our local officials opposed to the CBRT, no international funding agency will ever take Cebu's local governments seriously again.

But let's put that argument aside for now and look at the reasons these local officials opposing the CBRT are providing, along with their so-called proposed alternatives.

The concern that the CBRT station's design does not align with the Capitol building's aesthetics is overstated. Frankly, the Capitol building, while significant, doesn't hold such extraordinary architectural or historical value as to warrant halting a modern urban transit project, which can be thoughtfully designed and planned to complement it. Calling for a halt to the station’s construction raises this question: Where were these politicians during the project's design stage?

Councilor Cuenco's argument, which cites the alleged failures of BRT systems in Hanoi, Bangkok, and New Delhi, amounts to a false analogy. This becomes especially clear when compared with the comprehensive studies conducted by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) on Metro Cebu's urban transport system.

Instead of hastily assuming similar outcomes, a more logical approach involves looking at what the experts saw in Metro Cebu. The JICA report (2019) did not fail to mention the implementation of a BRT system for Metro Cebu. It cited plans for the CBRT project as part of a broader strategy to improve the urban transportation system in Metro Cebu.

There are those who suggest the need for a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) or railway system instead. Do you recall who mentioned that and when? It was shortly before the pandemic, during a visit by then President Rodrigo Duterte to Cebu, an idea his officials in the Visayas had earlier touted. All I can say is, where is the MRT now? Not even a shadow of a single platform can be seen. How is it just all talk, lip service, “laway”? The answer lies in the same JICA study.

While the JICA mentioned BRT and MRT for Metro Cebu, it noted that the National Economic and Development Authority had so far only approved the resumption of the BRT project, along with its revised schedule and realignments.

Planning for an MRT includes demand assessments, feasibility studies, and phased implementation design that span into the future, reaching as far as 2050. We simply cannot afford it now. If you were to ask a credible private company, such as the builders and operators of CCLEX, to build and operate an MRT system in Metro Cebu, they would immediately balk at the idea. Even Metro Manila could not sustain its MRT system without subsidies from the national government, which means contributions come from the pockets of taxpayers, including those outside Metro Manila.

So whoever is touting MRT as an alternative to the BRT is just spewing hot air. (To be continued)