 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Subway under the Pasig? By Antonio C. Abaya Written Jan.19, 2005 For the Philippines Free Press, January 29 issue A regular Fil-Am viewer of this column has sent me a concept paper for a subway system proposed to be built under the Pasig River, and has asked me to comment on its merits (or demerits). The proposal, called MMSS, or Metro Manila Subway System, was conceived by Jaime J. Lim, PE, identified as President, United Engineering, Inc., of Portland, Oregon, and President of the Philippine American Chamber of Commerce of Oregon, with email address at [email protected]. As spelled out in the concept paper, MMSS seeks to address the three problems of Metro Manila: a) extreme vehicular congestion along all existing major arteries; b) degradation of the riverfronts of the Pasig River and its tributaries; and c) unregulated squatter settlements on the riverbanks. To solve these problems, the proponent proposes a subway system to be built on the river bed of the Pasig and the San Juan and Marikina rivers along the entire 35 km stretch, from Marikina town to Manila Bay. According to the concept paper, MMSS will occupy one third of the river bed, the construction of which will avoid extensive geologic exploration and excavation, as well as costly underground utility displacement and disruption of metro surface activities. When completed, MMSS will handle upwards of one million daily commuters, and integrate the MRT and LRT rail systems. Parking will be built over the subway, as well as residential and commercial structures. There is even allowance for a freeway to be built, presumably also above the proposed subway. Construction will be from a fleet of barge-mounted equipment. The riverbed will be dredged to an appropriate depth, and the sludge will be used to reclaim a site in Manila Bay for a sewage treatment plant �to make sure that waste water dumped into the Bay has been cleaned and treated.� My first reaction to this proposal is that it is really a real estate project pretending to be a transportation project, like the original EDSA MRT proposal of Ira Levin which had envisioned 16-storey skyscrapers at major stations, and which I opposed in my Philippine Star column, precisely because of this ruse. The second question I would raise about MMSS would be about the engineering problems it may encounter. The steel tube or concrete culvert that would serve as the subway�s carriageway would have to be buried deep in the mud of the riverbed. Otherwise, it woulde displace a large amount of water and raise the river surface to higher levels that would make the riverfronts more vulnerable to flooding than they are right now. This is especially true of the Marikina River which, during the rainy season, is fed by rainwater rushing down from the foothills of the Sierra Madre, as well as overflow water from the shallow Laguna de Bay through the Manggahan Floodway. Would not the presence of the subway tube or culvert in the riverbed, plus the superstructures for parking, residences and shopping malls above the subway, impede the natural flow of water, especially during the rainy season? The proponent would have to give convincing reassurances about this. Otherwise it would be very hard to sell it to the public and to the local government units. Thirdly, has the proponent done any market study of the potential patronage for this subway? Claiming one million commuters for the system sounds like that number was pulled out of thin air without doing any actual traffic survey. This is essentially an east-west artery that branches to the north in San Juan and Pasig, both of which will soon be served by the almost-finished LRT-2, which is going to be interconnected with the existing LRT-1 and. EDSA MRT. Can MMSS realistically draw one million commuters away from this evolving network? I rather doubt it. Furthermore, there is a move to revive, for the second time, a river ferry system from Marikina City to Makati, using air-conditioned boats, to give commuters between these two points an alternative to the buses and jeepneys that they now take. Those who are awarded the franchise to operate this river ferry will doubtless oppose the riverbed subway as it will disrupt their ferries during construction and compete for the same commuters when finished. And lastly, although the project will presumably be financed by private banks, a loan guarantee from the Philippine government would still be required by the financiers. I doubt if the government, faced as it is with fiscal, forex and financial crises, would be eager to assume an additional dollar liability. ***** Reactions to [email protected] or fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Subway under the Pasig� Dear Mr. Abaya, I appreciate the desire of our Fil-Am friend to solve the traffic problem of Metro Manila through a subway system under the Pasig river. But I find the proposal too extravagant and therefore not viable. Did the old ferry system in Pasig close down because there were not enough riders? I believe a more viable solutions to the traffic problem should consider the reason why there are too many vehicles on our narrow roads. First, most companies utilize their own messengerial service. Imagine how many vehicles are on the road trying to deliver a letter or a package. If only our postal service can be rehabilitated and cleaned of pilferages, we could perhaps start using it to send documents and packages within Metro Manila. This would lessen the number of vehicles on the road that serve as messengers for both private and public entities. Second, our public transport system does not offer equivalent service for those families residing outside the regular lanes of the metrorail system and bus service. Imagine how many cars are on the road every day to bring students to school. Perhaps, we should expand the "school bus" service to include practically all primary and high schools in Metro Manila. Third, our public transport system is unable to cope up with the larger number of daily commuters. Perhaps the metrorail and bus services should be integrated. Buses should be used to bring commuters to metrorail stations, or ply only those routes where there are no metrorail service. Yours very truly, Virgilio C Leynes, [email protected] February 01, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, Jimmy Lim is a well known engineer here in Portland, Oregon. I am sure he has submitted a complete plan of a subway under the Pasig. The Philippine economy will benefit from the MMSS Project if transportation problem will improve. Besides, this project will temporarily increase jobs for the Filipino. I am not an engineer so I cannot comment much about the engineering problems. >Is it possible that ridership of the LRT 1 and the LRT 2 be coordinated with the MMSS ridership? This may be a challenge but I have faith with the ingenuity of Filipinos and it could work. Your concern about the financial guarantee of the Philippine Government has merit. If the plan of building residential as well as commercial sites above or around the river will be cut from the plan, it will minimize the budget that the Philippine Government will guarantee. Thank you for acting as "watch dog" for our country. We need people like you to be concerned and keep watch! Remember, the Philippines is a democracy. Dissenting ideas and comments are encouraged and be considered during the planning stage. [email protected] Portland, Oregon, February 01, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww This idea looks fine on paper but if the gov't cannot even straighten out the drainage above ground I dn't think it can convince anyone to go underground and not drown. Ross Tipon, [email protected] February 01, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, I know the logical reactions and questions from your readers as soon as they read this article. However, my comments and questions are only few and simple. 1. Has there been such kind of undertaking in other countries, building a subway in a river? 2. Does this not go against nature, creating obstructions in a river? 3. Isn�t it ridiculous that even if subway is in a land location, potential flooding is still imminent considering MM is �submerged�, so how much more if subway lies beneath a body of (dirty) water? Thanks and Regards, Jerome Escobedo, [email protected] Fberuary 01, 2005 MY REPLY. Although I do not support the subway-under-the-Pasig and am not endorsing it, it has to be said, in reply to your comments that 1) I am not aware of any similar project in any other country, but it does not mean there should not be a first one; 2) if the tube or culvert is buried UNDER the riverbed, then it would not be obstructing the water flow; 3) fear of flooding is no longer a valid argument against subways: The Channel Tunnel between England and France and the Hong Kong Cross Harbor Tunnel are under water 24 hours a day. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Through pldt egroup) Would work... proven and tested in other countries. But if not funded and maintained properly, the consequences would be catastrophic and SCARRYYY!!!!! Monty, [email protected] February 01, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, There is absolutely no way the Philippines can afford a subway, anywhere. They cost a bundle per kilometer. The government cannot afford to subsidize it, and the passengers cannot afford to pay full fare. So it does not pencil. Ayala looked at a subway under Ayala Ave pre-1997. Nothing has happened there, where ridership would be very dense. Best, John Forbes, [email protected] February 01, 2005 MY REPLY. Hello, John. Actually when a subway was being contemplated in the mid-1990s, under the existing PNR tracks from Muntinlupa to Caloocan, a Spanish firm that was interested in bidding for it estimated that such a subway would cost only slightly more, per kilometer, than an elevated LRT, as long as the method used was the cut-and-fill, no deeper than seven meters. What would be expensive would be digging a deep tunnel and using a tunnel boring machine or TBM., as in London or Moscow. Of course, building the subway on or under the Pasig riverbed would present special engineering problems that would make the project unaffordable. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Through the pldt egroup) the construction proposal is quite logical in the sense that there will be no roads to be blocked or diverted for the project, but given that the earlier ferry system during Ramos time failed due to lack of passengers, how could a subway even make a difference? VINZ, [email protected] February 01, 2005 monty <[email protected]> wrote: Would work... proven and tested in other countries. But if not funded and maintained properly, the consequences would be catastrophic and SCARRYYY!!!!! wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I have just one question in mind Tony. Has the flooding problem in Manila been fixed ? If not underground would not be feasible. Ray Eced, [email protected] February 02, 2005 MY REPLY. Although I am not endorsing the subway-under-the-Pasig idea, your fear-of-flooding is not a valid argument against subways. The Channel Tunnel between England and France, and the Hong Kong Cross Harbor Tunnel are under water 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The subways in San Francisco, New York, Washington, London, Paris, Stockholm, Madrid, Tokyo, Singapore, etc all cross bodies of water (rivers, lakes, bays) everyday. St. Petersburg is built on a swamp and Bangkok is partially below sea level, but both have operating subways. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww We should have thought of this before we did LRT-2, and before that stupid Joey Lina authored his stupid Lina Law on squatters. Now it's redundant. Lito Banayo, [email protected] February 02, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thank you for adding me to your mailing list. Do send me more of your essays. Best regards, Art Villasanta, [email protected] February 03, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| Dear Sir Abaya, I was present when this resolution was proposed and approved for study (recommendation, whatever). I know the proponent and someone very closely associated with the plan. I just pray and wish for this with Good Luck. Think of the English Channel that connects UK to France - nothing is impossible. Elsa Bayani, [email protected] February 07, 2005 MY REPLY. You mean the Channel Tunnel. Nothing is indeed impossible as long as someone is willing to foot the bill. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| Mr. Abaya, Thank you for writing about my proposal. I just accessed you TAPAT website and some of the feedback on your article. There are some are very interesting observations. However, many people seem to think that construction in or close to water is impossible. Actually it is done often. Maybe not in the Philippines. Construction technology has advanced into the twenty first century in other countries. In fact, the construction that I�m suggesting is not that difficult, almost similar to construction on land except for some minor kinks.. The only difficult part of this construction as I see it is the laying of the foundation base after the pile driving. But it is very doable. Tremie concrete (or other methods) is usually poured in situations like these. Sheet piling might even be an option. After the foundations are laid, the rest is fairly simple. Precast-prestressed or post tensioned concrete might even be practical for this kind of construction. Cofferdams and dewatering will probably be employed in solving some of the engineering situations that will be encountered during the construction. But then again that�s why we have engineers. They can do very ingenious things. From my experience, (I have 45 years of experience in the Structural Engineering and construction field in the USA) this kind of project is within reach. I proposed installing �big pipes� sewage collection systems at the same time that the system is being built to help clean up the city and reduce, if not eliminate the flooding problems. (In Portland, Oregon, the city where I live, the most livable city in the US, we are installing a twenty-foot diameter big pipe under the city and under the river to solve our overflow during heavy rainfall. We probably have one of the cleanest rivers in the US) The financial aspect of this project can be implemented and the system properly and effeciently run as long as there is the �profit motive�. Investors will be willing to invest their money as long as there is the prospect of a good return on their investment. This project need not cost the government a single centavo. The only thing it needs is for the government to realize that they owe it to the people to provide better services, good living conditions and a better way of life. The people deserve as much. And if the political will and the leadership is there, it can be done. Thank you again Mr. Abaya. I�m just trying to give back, free of charge to my country of birth, some of the knowledge that I acquired from my adopted country. I came to American as a young boy and now I want to give back some of what I learned before my time runs out. There is no charge for my services. By the way, I also publish a newspaper here in Portland. You may check it out at www.asianreporter.com. Jaime Lim, P.E., [email protected] Portland, Oregon, March 08, 2005 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |