Wenceslao: The BRT concept

IF there’s one point I like in the press statement by the Cebu Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCCI), it is its call for everybody to set aside political differences to solve a crisis situation.

“Cebu is in crisis situation. Cebu Chamber would like to enjoin all sectors of society to set aside political differences and work together to solve the traffic problem in order to achieve our common desire to have a Cebu where quality family life and business shall flourish,” the press statement said.

The businessmen were responding to the ongoing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vs. Light Rail Transit (LRT) debate, which actually boils down to a Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña (pro-BRT) and Presidential Assistant for the Visayas Michael Dino (pro-LRT) tug-of-war.

The truth is, without the political and personal differences between Osmeña and Dino, there would never have been a clash between the proponents of the BRT and the LRT projects in the first place. Meaning that Implementing two mass transport projects in Cebu would have been smooth-sailing. Each leader would have been using their powers for both projects: Osmeña at the local level and Dino via Malacanang.

But there’s a disturbing point in the CCCI press statement, which is its insistence that if the BRT project is pursued, the affected road should be widened. The businessmen seems to have fallen for the argument presented by Dino and Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade in their letter to Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez calling for the scrapping of the BRT.

The argument goes like this: the roads designated for the BRT are narrow (but I say not all) and if these are not widened the BRT buses would be forced to use the lanes where the other vehicles are.

(This is an interesting claim that I don’t think is true considering that the scenario would not be in keeping with the BRT concept that has buses operating in dedicated lanes. Would the experts who studied the BRT concept allow that to happen? That is precisely why road widening is an important component of the BRT project. In fact, the areas to be widened have already been designated by the project’s implementers. Or just look for marking on the sides of the designated roads from Bulacao to Talamban.)

Incidentally, I like the BRT concept. As a mass transport system, it is cheaper to have than the LRT system because it is simpler. You just have to redesign your roads to accommodate lanes to be used solely by buses (meaning, no need to buy a train and build iron tracks where the train passes). The buses are operated like trains moving passengers one bus after the other.

You need a bigger investment to buy a train, which is also more expensive to maintain. If government does the buying and the maintaining, it would be resource-sapping. If a private entity does that, the demand for return-of-investment (translation: profit) would result in expensive fare considering the big investment poured. Which is essentially the language of capitalism.

Operating and maintaining buses? That’s a different thing altogether. Just ask our bus operators, who already abound here.

What I am saying is that why won’t the BRT proponents stand up and enlighten the public—again—on the advantages of the BRT system?

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph