MAP Insights

When the long-awaited rehab of EDSA was announced, it was inevitable that it would encounter rough sailing. That somehow, objections and criticisms would pop up to hinder its fruition.

 

True enough, protestations poured in, causing the rehab to be put on hold for a month, then for seven more months, and most likely would end up being shelved completely.

 

The closer the reconstruction gets to the next election, the higher the possibility that it would stall. By then, it would have become an election issue rather than a feather in the Administration’s cap.

 

Why were the critics’ reactions predictable? Because it’s human nature to abhor inconvenience and misery. And the EDSA rehab would generate tons of both. Man’s natural tendency is to deflect distress in whatever way possible.

 

That is not to say the critics’ dissent was baseless, but they seemed to miss the point or the rationale for such a bold and necessary endeavor.

 

For objectivity’s sake, let us review and take stock of the major arguments against the proposed project.

 

The most telling objection is that it would give rise to a nightmarish carmageddon. Heavy traffic would worsen due to the reduction of road space along EDSA during the repair.

 

But aren’t we already in such a state? The horrendous traffic is now a daily occurrence; the EDSA rehab would exacerbate the situation, but what choice do we have? If we delay it, Metro Manila (MM) residents would inevitably buy more vehicles, thereby multiplying our traffic woes. Carrying out the rehab then would become doubly difficult.

 

The best solution would have been executing it 20 years ago. Too bad that option was not heeded and is no longer available. The next best thing is to do it now. The longer we postpone the rehab, the harder it would be to tackle. Unless, we are already resigned to having the worst main thoroughfare in the region in terms of appearance, maintenance, and usefulness.

 

If so, EDSA will be a good addition to our growing list of screw-ups: worst airport on the planet, the most dangerous place for tourists to visit, and the disaster capital of the world.

 

The next argument is more of a suggestion by former MMDA officials. Their recommendation is to undertake the rehab in stages to mitigate the inconvenience to the riding and driving public. This was actually incorporated into the DPWH’s plan. The rehab will be done one lane at a time which is why it will take two years to finish.

 

It might be worth noting, however, that if the past MMDA administration started the initial stages of the rebuild during their term, it should have been completed by now. Instead, they resorted to the ineffective, piecemeal solution of re-blocking.

 

Another oppositionist, a respected urban planner, advocated that before we even touch EDSA, we should first construct other necessary infrastructure above or across the said highway. These would include parallel roads and bridges, and elevated bicycle lanes and walkways.

 

These suggestions, though meritorious, should have been incorporated into EDSA’s original development plan.  Doing it now would only lengthen the required time for EDSA’s revival. If we can’t even master the political will to resuscitate EDSA in its simplified configuration, what more if we added complicated components to the equation?

 

The last of the objections is the EDSA rehab will not add an iota of additional space while subjecting the public to unnecessary inconvenience.

 

This observation, while true, is nonsensical, nonetheless.  If we adopt the same principle for all our road maintenance requirements, we would end up with the poorest quality passageways in the world. There’ll be no need to repair or beautify them knowing it would not stretch their capacity anyway. Mediocrity shall reign, and admittedly we do excel in this department.

 

One favorable consequence of starting the EDSA rehab is that it would nudge car owners to try out public transport for a change. For many, using their private vehicles everywhere they go has become a habit, an addiction even.

 

If they do try out public transport, they will realize EDSA is not that bad after all. The riding comfort of the MRT and the Busway is now comparable to that of other countries. The air-conditioning is working, and the transport is more or less safe and clean. They have gone a long way in terms of improving their services.

 

There is still room for improvement, e.g., adding more coaches and buses and perfecting the way passengers get in and out of the stations. But overall, the ride is more than tolerable.

 

The real problem is the transport systems that would bring the riding public to and from EDSA. In this aspect, a major upgrade is needed.

 

Having put forward the necessity of immediately implementing the EDSA rehab, there are two important caveats that the government must be wary of.

 

First, the quality of work must be above par. If we are to sacrifice two years of our lives traversing in hardship, it must not be wasted.  The new EDSA should not break down in four or five years and make us go through the same difficulties all over again. Sadly, this is the condition of most of our roads today because of too much corruption.

 

Second, the infrastructure and transportation improvements must not start and end with EDSA. It should just be the beginning. It must include the whole of MM and later on, beyond it. Otherwise, the EDSA revival will be a mere palliative.

 

When confronted with a difficult situation, the easy way out is to pass it on to the next generation or administration for resolution. Let them carry the burden of addressing the problem in the future, while we savor whatever benefits we can squeeze from the present setup.

 

It is the adherence to such twisted logic that many countries lag in development, while others that do not procrastinate progress beyond belief.

 

When our country had to go through a challenging phase in the past, and many of our countrymen were unwilling to act, a forgotten Filipino nationalist was quoted as saying, “Kung ‘di tayo kikilos, sino? Kung ‘di ngayon, kailan pa? Obliquely, we are faced with the same questions when we talk of the EDSA rehab. “If we do not act, who will? If not now, when?

 

[The author is member of Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) Agribusiness Committee.  He is Adviser of Philippine Disaster Resilience Foundation (PDRF) and former President of UCPB-CIIF Finance and Development Corporation, and UCPB-CIIF Foundation. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <edgardo.amistad@yahoo.com>].