The problem with the issue of flyovers is that it has this writer’s relatives and friends divided. His relatives mostly do not mind flyovers while quite a number of his closest friends are vehemently opposed to it. And since this writer cannot ever allow himself to tread “carefully” over anything, this being for him the first step to being less than honest, the issue is that much more difficult to write about.
But first of all, there is the question of how important the issue truly is for us in the first place. Resolved either way, how much impact would the issue really have? My relatives who are for flyovers claim that the issue is an urban land owner issue. What they mean is that most of those who oppose it are middle- to upper-middle class who own land in the city. They travel in private cars instead of public transportation like jeepneys. The idea is that they do not need flyovers half as much as those who are lower-working class who will most likely get salary deductions if they show up to work late. This assertion can’t be scientifically proven in the absence of definitive statistical research. But it seems an immediately credible conjecture just judging from the voices that have been raised on the issue.
On the other hand, those who oppose flyovers do make a point when they assert flyovers are “ugly” and they block the view to heritage sites, in this case the Asilo de la Milagrosa church and possibly also the Inmaculada Concepcion school campus. The arguments raised have been many. They include the concept of the sustainable city, the use of bicycles and generally solving the traffic problem by lessening the number of cars on the road.
This argument, of course, inevitably leads to the issue of developing an efficient public transportation system for the city. Public transportation is the core idea into which all arguments with regard to the issue of flyovers actually converge. Whether one is upper or lower working-middle class, the need for good public transportation is a no-brainer. The issue is not just about moving people to work or to schools every day; the issue impacts as well the environment and greenhouse gases. It impacts other core issues such as land use, housing accessibility, congestion, individual and collective productivity and so therefore poverty in general.
Efficient public transportation not just through the cities but all over the islands will make life better for everyone. It is the ultimate answer. The issue of flyovers is just a small sub-issue that should be logically subsumed under the larger argument for an efficient public transport system. This much is easy for everyone to understand. We all agree at his juncture. The big problem with this option, however, is that it is supposed to be expensive for now. Indeed, the first step towards this end has not yet been taken. And so more modest steps have been proposed to move us slowly towards this end.
This more modest step includes the fielding of metro buses that travel regularly at timed intervals, stopping at designated stops, ideally 200 to 500 meters from each other. The buses would have their own designated lanes. They would be the more efficient alternative to what we have now for public transportation, which are loosely regulated jeepneys.
Will this solution work? There can be no absolute guarantee, and to be absolutely sure, it will also be opposed. But in the absence of any other alternative, we should give it a try anyway if for no other reason than just simply because it is better than doing nothing besides arguing about flyovers, which is what we are doing now. This is not to downgrade the act of argument and discussion. This writer believes argument and discussion are the very basis of democracy. That we argue is the best sign our democracy is operating. Even so, it seems logical that those arguing for sustainable cities should probably include the issue of efficient public transportation as part of the ultimate argument against flyovers. They should demand for it if not as much then even more than they argue now for a “total ban” on fly-overs.
Experience has taught this writer that this is a country where all arguments for a “total ban” of anything always fails. If they ban logging, it will just smoothly flow into the underground economy. It is already late to enforce a total mining ban. Yet despite the obvious ills this industry has unleashed on us, mining is still here. And there will be some who will argue that this is all for the good of all of us. Would a total ban on flyovers actually be acceptable to all of us? It is truly possible to build a consensus against it for now and in the medium-term future?
My own position is to let the argument continue as it would. However it might eventually be resolved is important only to the extent that it contributes or takes away from the real issue. And the issue does have to do with sustainability. How do we move the most people from one place to another for the lowest material and social cost possible? Sustainable public mobility as alternative to the unregulated proliferation of private cars is the main issue we should address. How best to do this? With or without flyovers? That’s the better question to dwell on.