Malacanang Palace, supposedly the palace of the people, is now the fortress of a paranoid president. It is already reinforced with defenses that prevent ordinary Filipinos and foreign tourists alike from visiting or even taking a glimpse of the official residence of the most important public official of the land. Gate 7 of the palace is permanently closed, container vans are placed near the Mendiola gate to ward off protesters; and if these structures fail to deter the mob, the palace is still protected by electric fences. Big Brother can instantly detect any suspicious activity in the vicinity because of the CCTV cameras placed around the palace, especially in Recto and Mendiola.

But for the present occupant of Malacanang, these steel barricades and surveillance instruments are not enough to guarantee the safety of the First Family. Another iron gate is being constructed at the foot of Mendiola which would immediately block protesters from advancing beyond the historic Don Chino Roces Bridge. Not only would it deny citizens the opportunity to air their sentiments in front of the palace, which is essential in a democratic society, it is also named most inappropriately as Mendiola Peace Arch.

Building the so-called peace arch is a violent gesture on the part of the government and naïve acquiescence on the part of Mendiola school owners who approved the design of the structure. The new gate reflects the thinking of palace ideologues who interpret peace as the absence of dissent or contrary opinion to government propaganda. The aim of the palace is not to celebrate peace but to enforce it by depriving critics of any space to challenge the official lies peddled by government apologists. Perhaps palace subordinates still cling to the archaic belief that only the president has the right to speak in behalf of the people and they do not want to recognize the legitimate claim of the grassroots to address and represent the public as well.

The peace arch is worse than the barbed wire barricade in Mendiola Bridge because the gate is a permanent structure while the latter can still be removed by determined protesters. It symbolizes a dangerous version of peace because it actually names the place as an abode of stability when in fact it is a contested territory between the dominant and emerging political forces in society. It is obvious that the government is hell bent in reclaiming Mendiola as its exclusive domain.

The gate or peace arch is a repressive structure which was erected by the state to warn opposition groups that the existence of peace in the area is conditional – that is if the protesters will behave and submit to the wisdom of the steel structures in Mendiola. Dare to cross the gate and the protesters will receive a proper water and truncheon treatment courtesy of Malacanang’s resident firemen and anti-dispersal unit of the police.

Mendiola is the holy ground of the parliament of the streets. It is through this junction where student protesters stormed the presidential palace in 1970. Landless farmers were massacred here in 1987. Through the same road, Malacanang was attacked by Edsa Dos and Edsa Tres forces in 2001. In the past 40 years, many Filipinos fighting for an egalitarian ideal lost their lives in the altar of Mendiola. The Mendiola Peace Arch is an insult to the heroism of countless Filipinos who defied the Marcos dictatorship and those who continue to dream of a more just and humane society. The palace is wrong if it thinks the peace arch will make the Filipinos forget the traumatic and violent episodes which took place in Mendiola. You cannot heal the wounds of the past by building vulgar structures.

The construction of the peace arch is one of the last inglorious acts of President Gloria Arroyo. The Malacanang fortress testifies to the political isolation of Arroyo. Maybe her desperation to survive in the wake of numerous political scandals hounding her government had forced her to create a steel blockade around the palace. The economist who had advocated the removal of free trade barriers is the same pitiful politician who constructed steel barriers around the palace to protect her weak presidency.

The new president must not only choose his bachelor pad; he must also dismantle the real and symbolic fences erected by his predecessor. He must decide whether he wants to continue living in an elegant garrison or he can start the journey towards the promised land by first opening the palace grounds to the poor. The new president should be reminded that the ordinary poor cannot access the just path (daang matuwid) towards Malacanang because it is enhanced with several roadblocks.

But the new president is also a traditional politician who probably possesses the same political instincts that made Arroyo infamous. Maybe the new president will keep the gates of the palace and the peace arch closed so that protesters will be discouraged from holding rallies in Mendiola. If the president will do nothing about these structures, he should be prepared for battle. That peace arch, that repulsive thing will embolden the militants to stage bigger and more aggressive political actions in Mendiola. Rallyists will find other creative ways to reach Malacanang Palace. No metal roadblock, even barricades made from wolverine claws, can stop the advance of the people’s movement for genuine change. The overkill security set-up around Malacanang betrays the true sentiment of the party in power – it is afraid of the people. The gates are built to delay the victory of the people. But the poor, the fighting poor, will smash these oppressive structures which perpetuate the old order.

Related articles:

Who owns Mendiola?
Real and symbolic fences
Recto: Fake capital
Open the gates of Forbes Park

“Before the construction of the flyovers, one of the more stinging criticisms against the Aquino Administration was that it did not have any accomplishments to show” – Jessica Soho, 1992.

Every administration wants to leave a concrete legacy. A literal concrete legacy. Marcos’ edifice complex is well-known. Aquino’s flyovers were built to show some accomplishments. Ramos initiated the construction of MRT and Skyway. Erap has mansions for her mistresses. Arroyo seems to be the most accomplished with her extensive network of roads, bridges, RoRo, new LRT lines, SCTEX, NLEX, and SLEX. Ten flyover projects will be finished before the end of Arroyo’s term.

Every politician is proposing a road project. DPWH expenses are dominated by national roads and congressional allocations. Since Metro Manila roads are already cemented, local politicians have concocted something else: beautification of street sidewalks. But some politicians and bureaucrats are unable to correct some old habits. They destroy good roads so that they can have a legitimate reason to propose the asphalting of these roads. Clever!

It is puzzling that abortion roads (or rough roads) still dot the Philippine countryside even if most politicians, national and local, boast of sponsoring various road projects. It is surprising that Arroyo has listed infrastructure development as her positive legacy. A closer look at the country’s infrastructure competitiveness numbers point to the underwhelming performance of the Arroyo administration in terms of improving the country’s roads.

The Philippines has 29,650 km of total national road network. But only 23 percent or 6,811 km are in good conditions. The rest are decorated with potholes, depressions, ruts, shoving, cracks, and failed sections. There are 812 temporary national bridges. It’s not the number of road projects that counts, but the quality of these construction activities.

The country’s paved roads ratio is at 73 percent. Compare this number with Myanmar’s 80 percent, Kazakhstan’s 93 percent, and Thailand’s 98 percent. The regions with the lowest paved roads ratio are CAR (40 percent), Mimaropa (48 percent), and CARAGA (53 percent). The Philippines ranked 57th in the 2009 Basic Infrastructure Competitiveness Index in Asia. Only 57 countries were surveyed last year.

Road projects are politicized. Malacanang decides which political dynasty will receive preferential treatment when dividing the spoils. Distribution of road funding is not based on urban-rural planning. For example, Rizal and Bulacan provinces received P215 million and P211 million respectively in 2007 from the funds collected through the Motor Vehicles User’s Charge. Meanwhile, Isabela City was allotted only P990 thousand and Marawi was given P2 million.

There are 334 local bills in the 14th Congress proposing the nationalization of hundreds of local roads. Is this good or bad? National roads are maintained by the national government. If roads are nationalized, it means more funds for the local governments but fewer funds for the social and economic projects of the national government.

Politicians want road projects because they are visible and permanent accomplishments. Roads are built to gather more votes on election day. But politicians must also appreciate the economic benefits of improving the country’s road network. Roads handle 90 percent of the country’s passenger-movement and 50 percent freight movement. Because of poor transport infrastructure quality in the country, road accidents cost US$894 million in 2002. This was equal to more than 1 percent of the GDP.

Good roads improve lives and livelihood. Good roads attract more tourists. The construction of the circumferential road in Bohol enhanced the tourism profile of the province. Studies show that a 1 percent increase in road access can bring a 0.11% increase in income of the poor. A 1 percent improvement in the International Roughness Index for national roads would yield a 4 percent reduction in vehicle operating cost.

The country’s poorest provinces have high unpaved roads ratio. Tawi-Tawi, Masbate, Sulu, Lanao del Sur and Ifugao are provinces with high incidences of poverty and poor provincial roads. The presence of rough roads also signifies the existence of rebel groups.

Flyovers and LRT lines are political investments in the urban. They do not just decongest the metropolis, they are built to impress the opposition-leaning urban voters. The RoRo is another effective political infrastructure. It links the islands. It is an appropriate transport network in an archipelagic country like the Philippines. It allows the weak state to dominate the wild spaces and places in the rural. It tames the rough seas. It gives an illusion that the weak state is able to lead by transporting people and products throughout the islands. But the RoRo is treated by some technocrats as a mere economic project. Its political value is not appreciated. Gibo wants mega bridges, mega tunnels to connect the islands. (Mega sources of corruption too). Maybe it is his answer to the recent cases of maritime disasters.

There are paved roads and rough roads. There are local roads and national roads. There are tourism roads, accident-prone roads, corruption roads, insurgency roads, and RoRo roads. There are colonial roads (Kennon) and freedom roads (Mendiola, Edsa). There are political roads and there are economic roads. Building roads has never been an innocent enterprise.

*Thanks to the Congressional Planning and Budget Department of the House of Representatives for the DPWH data cited in this post.

Related articles:

National roads
Corruption in the Philippines
Old highways
Recto-Doroteo Jose

The Philippines has more than 85 airports, 9 of which are international airports. That’s about one airport per province. Composed of more than 7,000 islands, the Philippines must have an efficient transportation network to move people and goods within the country. But do we really need to build more airports? Based on the 2009 State of the Nation technical report, the government plans to create 5 more international airports. What is the ideal number of airports for a small country like the Philippines?

Batanes, that beautiful tiny province in the north, has two airports: Itbayat and Basco. The Ilocos Region has two international airports: Laoag and San Fernando (Poro Point). To increase tourist arrivals in the sparkling Hundred Islands, Alaminos in Pangasinan wants to build its own airport even though the city is a mere 4 hour drive from Manila.

Metro Luzon has four international airports: Subic, Clark, Ninoy Aquino (in Pasay), and the soon to be constructed Southern Luzon International Airport. Palawan, the so-called last frontier of the Philippines, has four airports: Balabac, Puerto Princesa, San Vicente, and Busuanga. Negros Island, the land of sugar barons, has three airports: Bacolod-Silay, Kabankalan, and Dumaguete. Panglao Island in Bohol, the next Boracay of Visayas, is not satisfied that there is a nearby Tagbilaran airport. It wants to build its own airport. Siargao Island, the surfing capital of the country, is going to have its own airport even though the island is very accessible from Surigao City. If the Laguindingan Airport in Misamis Oriental is completed, what will happen to the Cagayan de Oro airport which is also located in the same province?

Building airports requires huge investments (usually foreign loans). The Filipino people and airline passengers will pay for these mega infrastructure. Airports occupy large tracts of land. Prime agricultural land can be converted into airports. Expanding the airport system can undermine the country’s food security. Feed the hungry by destroying a rice field so that an airport can be built where rice donations from abroad can be transported?

Airports can improve tourism numbers but it can also damage the environment. Airports can destroy the natural habitats of endangered species. Airports generate pollution (noise and air pollution). Flying is more dangerous than driving in terms of impact on environment. Stop being so harsh on tricycle drivers for polluting the air. Wanna stop climate change? Then reduce air travel.

Tourists want to visit the country’s exotic islands because they appreciate and enjoy the natural beauty of the Philippines. If we build a runway and airport facilities in a unique island like Panglao, are we not spoiling the country’s natural treasure? In the long run, building too many adjacent airports can be counter-productive. Commercial overdevelopment can destroy the attractiveness of our wow islands. Remember Boracay. Remember Baguio.

Building airports is not the first requirement to enhance tourism numbers. There must be a sound tourism plan. There must be exciting promotional packages like what the local government did in Camarines Sur (which by the way is the country’s number one tourist destination of the year). Improving the tourism infrastructure is crucial but it is not always necessary to depend on airports to attract tourists. Tourism must also address the needs of the community over that of foreigners. Are we building airports to generate tourism dollars alone?

Indeed, airports stimulate economic activities. They bring in money, goods, investors, and our very own balikbayans. But airports also bring in pedophiles, human smugglers, and military warships. We have to rethink the economic activities that airports are supposed to produce. We have 85 airports (at the moment) yet we remain impoverished. Our economic profile remains the same: agricultural, pre-modern, pre-industrial. If the national leadership continues to worship the neoliberal dogma, then our airports will continue to transport cheap imported goods, prostitutes, and politicians. Don’t confuse airport building with national industrialization. Don’t equate airport expansion with economic growth. The road (or runway) to prosperity starts with the basics: productive agriculture, strong basic industries, skilled workforce. These goals cannot be attained by building airports alone.

The academe must intervene. It should identify the maximum number of airports the country should build, maintain, and develop. The transportation infrastructure plan should be comprehensive. As an archipelago, shouldn’t the Philippines focus on shipbuilding? Build more fast ferries. Build more modern ports. Encourage water transport. Bullet railways are needed in Luzon and Mindanao.

But politicians and technocrats, being what they are, will always prefer mega projects which can yield mega kickbacks too. Airports create a veneer of modernity; airports are perfect infrastructure legacies for politicians in search of legitimacy and credibility.

There are 7,000 islands in the country. Are we aiming to build 7,000 airports too?

Related articles:

Review of Philippine Airports
Philippine tourism situation

Before SLEX, what road did people use to travel to the south? I don’t know.

C-4 is EDSA (Highway 54); C-5 is a popular alternate route to EDSA; C-6 will connect NLEX and SLEX through a planned Lakeshore Highway near Laguna Lake. Do people still remember C-1, C-2, and C-3?

In the Disney animated film Cars, Radiator Springs was once a famous stop-over for motorists along Route 66. But the construction of an interstate highway gave the people a faster route towards their destinations. Radiator Springs was soon abandoned by many residents, business establishments, and motorists. It became a ghost town.

When NLEX was constructed, did it create ghost towns in McArthur Highway? How did residents survive if their livelihoods depend on tourists and motorists who use the highway?

Thanks to NLEX, we can arrive in Baguio in 5-6 hours but we are deprived of the chance to pass through several historic towns in Bulacan and Pampanga like Malolos and Apalit. Soon, NLEX will be extended up to La Union. What towns in Tarlac and Pangasinan will be erased from our mental map?

Before the Pinatubo eruption, buses passed through the towns of Mabalacat, Bamban, and Capas (remember the Death March?). After the eruption and the destruction of several bridges in the area, buses diverted to Concepcion to reach Tarlac City. Today, buses still use the Concepcion route. What happened to the socio-economic profiles of the towns in the old route? What happened to the famous Wonderland Resort in Bamban?

The “world-class” Subic Clark Tarlac Expressway allows us to reach Subic in less than two hours. Travel time between Clark and Subic economic hubs is now only 40 minutes. Impressive. But the message is clear: The endgoal is to reach Subic and Clark. Forget old towns like Lubao, Dinalupihan, San Fernando, and Olongapo.

Soon, SLEX will be extended up to Lucena. What towns in Laguna, Batangas, and Quezon will be erased from our mental map?

This can be an interesting subject for an anthropological study: the socio-economic and cultural local impact of abandoning old highways. How do small suburban communities adapt as motorists withdraw from using nearby old highways? When famous highways lose their strategic value, do they become notorious and killer roads where criminality and traffic accidents are rampant?

Modern highways are established to connect places and to move people faster. In the so-called fast-paced world, a modern highway is an essential infrastructure to increase mobility in society and to promote economic growth. However, developers and engineers often only draw a straight line on a map to connect two destination points. They rarely consider the historic value of towns that will be bypassed. They sometimes ignore the natural curving of the land. If a mountain is blocking the route of a proposed new highway, developers will blast that unwanted lump of land (similar to what they did in SCTEX). If they can demolish shantytowns, they are capable of destroying the unclaimed, untitled natural resources of the country. A minor sin that will serve a bigger cause (like faster travel time to smuggle hot goods).

This quote from the film Cars captures the change in attitude of planners in designing road networks: “(Forty-years ago), the road didn’t cut through the land like that interstate. It moved with the land, it rose, it fell, it curved. Cars didn’t drive on it to make great time. They drove on it to have a great time.”

We use the NLEX because it saves us time. It makes travel faster and more convenient. The destination, not the journey, is more important to urbanites like us. We use the SLEX for the same reasons. Did SLEX prevent the conceptualization of a road network that would have provided us with a magnificent glimpse of the majestic Laguna Lake? Instead of designing a lakeside highway, we chose a faster but less scenic route to exit Metro Manila.

Why? Because we value time so much. We want efficient roads that would quickly transport us to other places. We have no time to enjoy and experience the rural scenery. We are not artists anyway. We want to escape the pesky and perpetual problems like traffic and dirt which are prevalent in old towns. We want to travel like modern citizens in modern cities. We want superhighways.

Because of faster travel time (thanks to the wide, clean and expensive highways), we have more time to spare. And what do we do with our free time? Do we use it to solve the world’s problems? Do we devote more time to enhance our knowledge? Or perhaps we are using it to watch more TV shows and to update our Facebook pages?

To pass through the old highways is to revisit fragments of the past and to confront the third world realities of our society. In these once famous highways, cars run slower on narrow and dilapidated streets. Giant trucks, overloaded vans, and unregistered vehicles collide with tricycles, wooden carts, stray animals, and jaywalkers. Traffic lights are unreliable; traffic laws are obeyed sometimes. These are some of the spectacles which are now hidden from our eyes.

The modern history of the Republic is buried in these old highways. Through these almost-forgotten roads, a nation was built. The least we can do is to memorialize these once great highways.

Related articles:

GPS and travel
National roads
Rough roads

Tourist arrivals in the Philippines registered a 16.5 percent growth in the 1st semester of 2009, according to the Department of Tourism. The country’s top 16 tourist destinations attracted close to 4 million visitors (800,000 international tourists and 3 million domestic tourists). The DOT claims this is an achievement noting that the country managed to improve tourist arrivals despite the spread of A(H1N1) virus and the worsening global financial crisis. But the tourism numbers are still low if we compare the number of tourists in neighboring Southeast Asian countries.

What is the top tourist destination in the Philippines this year? Boracay? No! Guess again. Cebu? No! Palawan? No!

Camarines Sur is now the most popular tourist attraction in the country. More than 900,000 domestic and foreign tourists visited the province during the 1st semester of the year. The local government’s investment in wakeboarding tourism has yielded very positive results. This success story can inspire other local governments to draft and implement innovative and exciting tourism programs. Camarines Sur was not among the top tourist destinations last year.

Cebu is the 2nd most popular tourist hotspot in the country. It is also the favorite destination of foreign tourists. More than 320,000 foreigners and half a million local tourists visited the province during the 1st semester of the year.

The very famous Boracay Island only ranks 3rd. This is somewhat surprising and alarming. Surprising because everybody assumes Boracay is the most visited tourist attraction in the country. Everybody who plans to relax and spend money wants to stay in that world-famous island. Alarming because Boracay is already experiencing sanitation problems despite attracting only 380,000 tourists. It seems the tiny sparkling island is not ready to receive too many visitors. We need to promote other island gems. Boracay should not suffer the fate of Baguio City. Baguio used to be the country’s beautiful summer capital; the refreshing mountain vacation resort. Now it is overcrowded and dirty. Sagada is the new Baguio.

Puerto Princesa in Palawan and Bohol also attracted a bigger number of tourists this year. How? They promoted diving, ecotourism, birdwatching, adventure and incentive tourism. Dive tourism grew by 60 percent this year. Adventure tourism is the buzzword today. For example, spelunking in the Sohotan Caves in Basey, Samar. In Danao, Bohol, adventure tourism features a thrilling 45 meters plunge, 1km suislide, caving, river tubing, rappelling, kayaking and root climbing.

Where do international tourists come from? Korea (600,000), United States (580,000), and Japan (360,000). The fastest growing tourist markets come from Russia, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.

DOT should not just promote the Philippines as a unique travelling destination. It should also aim to improve the country’s tourism competitiveness. The Philippines was given a dismal ranking of 86 in the 2009 Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index report of the United Nations World Tourism Organization. Singapore scored 10 in the tourism competitiveness index, Malaysia 32, Thailand 39, and Indonesia 81.

The Philippines scored lowest in ASEAN in terms of infrastructure competitiveness. The country also fared badly in safety and security (kidnapping?), health and hygiene (coliform? lack of clean public toilets? By the way, Dagupan has the most number of clean public toilets in the country), ground transport infrastructure, tourism infrastructure, ICT infrastructure, and availability of qualified labor (shortage of tourism graduates that can be employed in managerial positions). On the other hand, the Philippines scored high in cultural resources and price competitiveness.

The Philippine government should be worried with the lower score of natural resources index. The lower ranking reflects the inadequate measures adopted by the government in addressing the negative impact of tourism in preserving our pristine natural resources. Promoting tourism to generate dollar revenues must be pursued without destroying our cultural and natural treasures.

Tourism activities also engender prostitution, children and women trafficking, illegal drug trade and labor exploitation. Steps must be undertaken to prevent the spread of these criminal activities. Pedophiles must be punished. Foreign tourists should be compelled to respect and obey our laws and customs.

The DOT is now promoting wellness programs that include medical tourism. It is not wrong for hospitals to develop medical packages that will benefit foreigners but they should not abandon and reject poor and sick Filipinos. It is not wrong to build retirement villages for foreigners in the rural areas but the government must also address the housing needs of homeless and landless Filipinos.

The bulk of DOT’s budget for promotions is focused on international tourists. This is understandable since the government wants to earn more tourist dollars. But the DOT should not forget that domestic tourism significantly increased this year. This means we can rely on our kababayans to expand the tourism industry. Because of the lingering financial crisis, we can’t depend too much on foreign markets. Filipinos should be encouraged to visit the different islands of the country.

Related articles:

Festivals and politics
Philippine airports
Rough roads
South Korean invasion

- Baclaran-Monumento LRT-1 which became operational in 1984.
- North Avenue-Taft MRT-3 which started operation in 2000.
- Recto-Santolan LRT-2 which opened in 2004.
- Tutuban-Alabang line of the Philippine National Railways which resumed operations in 2009.

Ongoing and proposed rail projects

1. LRT Line 1 North Extension – connecting Monumento of LRT-1 to North Avenue of MRT-3. This is the “closing the loop” project. There will be three new stations: Balintawak, Roosevelt, and Common Station (most probably in front of SM North EDSA).

2. Northrail (Caloocan to Clark). Phase 1 of the project includes the construction of railway from Caloocan to Clark. Phase 4 features an extension of the line to Poro Point in San Fernando, La Union. There are 5 major stations for Phase 1: Caloocan, Marilao, Malolos, San Fernando, Clark. The government plans to adopt Diesel-Electric Multiple Units with a capacity of 1,800 passengers per train set. Hindi ba obsolete at madumi ang teknolohiyang ito? At mabagal pa ang mga tren.

The work has been suspended since February 2008. May kinalaman kaya ang away ni PGMA at JDV?

3. Northrail-Southrail linkage (Caloocan to Alabang).

4. LRT Line 1 South Extension (Baclaran-Bacoor). The project will benefit passengers who live in the cities of Paranaque and Las Pinas and the municipality of Bacoor, Cavite. Eight new stations will be built.

5. LRT Line 2 East Extension (Marikina-Antipolo). The expansion will start from Santolan Station in Marikina City to Masinag Junction in Antipolo, Rizal. The project will serve the communities of Marikina, Cainta and Antipolo. Government statistics reveal that Antipolo City is the fastest growing city in the country.

6. Northrail-Southrail linkage (Alabang to Calamba).

7. Southrail (Calamba-Sorsogon). Minimum rehabilitation project of the Bicol line of the PNR.

8. MRT-7 (North Avenue to San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan). The railway line will be built above Commonwealth Avenue and then under the Elliptical Road in Quezon Memorial Circle. There will be 14 stations from EDSA to San Jose Del Monte.

Reactions

a. Magkano ba ang lagay diyan? Magkano ang overprice? Saan ang bukol?

b. This interesting sentence from a Congress Committee Report: “The LRTA was very confident that it will be able to “close the loop” (LRT-1 and MRT-3) before President Arroyo’s term ends.” Ito ba ang pahabol na pamana ni Arroyo bago siya bumaba sa puwesto? Parang Ortigas flyover ni Cory at Skyway ni Ramos?

c. Why should the common station be directly connected to supermalls? Another manifestation of the power of big business to influence government infrastructure projects. The North EDSA central station will be built in front of a Bus Terminal giving direct access to SM City Sky Garden. The SM Group of Companies is willing to donate PhP200 million for the depot. Baka mas mababa ang offer ng mga Ayala.

d. Separate government entities are supervising the railway projects. There should be a single authority to coordinate the projects and plans of the government. Case in point: The MMDA is complaining that the viaduct structure of the extension line from North Avenue to Monumento is too low to accommodate future constructions of pedestrian footbridges. Hindi pa nga natatapos, nag-aaway na.

e. Ramos “removed” the face of poverty in the country by closing the world-famous Smokey Mountain in Tondo. Arroyo copied this tactic by removing the poor who live near railway tracks. Mukhang wala nang Home along da Riles ngayon. More than 25,000 households living near the Caloocan-Alabang tracks were moved to relocation sites. Almost 7,000 families near the Alabang-Calamba railway were relocated too. Then and now, solving poverty remains the same: transport the poor to faraway places where their filthy, ugly presence cannot be seen by the civilized classes.

f. It took 16 years before a new railway was developed between 1984-2000. Failure of Aquino leadership?

g. Arroyo’s railway projects will further expand Mega Manila. The urban will invade more rural spaces. Metro Luzon is slowly emerging. The western corridor of Luzon is likely to produce the major urban centers of the country. How about the agricultural communities of the eastern part of Luzon? (Cagayan Valley). How do we link them to the urban?

It is no longer Imperial Manila; it is now Imperial Mega Manila. Soon, it will be Imperial Metro Luzon. To be exact, Imperial Western Luzon.

h. The railway lines will connect former military bases which are now business and trading centers: Fort Bonifacio, Clark, Subic, Poro Point. The railways will promote business activities especially the export-import industry in the former military bases. Foreign investors will earn superprofits from the rail projects which may explain their willingness to finance some of the components of the proposed mass transit programs.

i. To decongest the National Capital Region, constructing more railways is not enough. Improving the water-based transport system is also essential. Develop fast ferries. Promote sea travel. Maximize the Laguna Lake to connect Manila and the provinces of Laguna, Rizal, and Quezon. Maximize Manila Bay to link Central Luzon, Manila, and Southern Tagalog.

Developing water transport infrastructures is easy and less costly. It will also not affect the country’s food security because it will not invade agricultural spaces in the provinces. But local bureaucrats are more enthusiastic with railway projects maybe because the kickbacks from these investments are bigger.

j. Are there also exisiting railway projects in other regions of the country? What is the status of the Mindanao Railway Project?

k. Railway workers should be allowed to join and form unions. Rallyists from the provinces can ride the trains to participate in mass actions in downtown Manila. Urban-based activists can use the trains to reach the countryside more quickly.

l. The railway projects can be seen too as part of the state offensive to tame the wild and rebellious rural spaces. By conceptualizing the northrail-southrail lines, the state taunts the rural-based left which claims to exert political control in remote towns and communities in the provinces. What will be the response of red cadres from the countryside?

How do we invade the city from the countryside if the city is now in the countryside? Or to be more precise, if some elements of the city are invading the spaces of the countryside, what should be the left’s revolutionary response?

m. The state wants to prove its hegemony over public spaces in Metro Manila by evicting the urban poor dwellers along railway tracks. The state, a la Mussolini, can prove that order prevails in society by making the trains run on time. Through the railways, the ruling class of the state in power can assert that it is the only political entity that can command and facilitate the flow of goods and people in Mega Manila. That it is the political force that can effectively link various urban centers like Metro Manila, Metro Laguna, Metro Cavite, Metro Bulacan. That it is the overlord of Metro Luzon.

The state under Arroyo has developed its political infrastructure through the railways and RoRo. The left, the opposition, and other dissenting forces should develop a proper radical response to the seemingly spatial hegemony of the state.

The state seems to be winning because it has the initiative to dominate and lead spaces and places in Luzon Island. But oppositional forces can steal the momentum of the state and regain initiative in the war of position.

n. The trains can serve the agenda of victorious political forces in the future. During the 1896 revolution, the Manila-Dagupan railway was used by revolutionaries to liberate towns and provinces. Will today’s revolutionaries use the northrail-southrail to liberate the mega city?

Related articles:

Ebolusyon ng Metro Manila
MMDA: Space and resistance
National roads
War and transportation
Imperial Manila