MANILA, Philippines — I get cheap thrills whenever I pass through the SLEX skyway. From Bicutan to Buendia, sweeping aerial views of Taguig, Pasig, Makati and Manila give me a sense of pride as to how far we’ve come as a city.

The thick greenery of the Heritage Park at the Fort and mature trees of Dasma and Forbes provide a fantastic foreground to the dense sea of skyscrapers beyond it. From that perspective, Manila looks like any other modern city in the developed world.

Reality bites, however, as I exit the skyway towards Arnaiz Avenue. The growing pains of a city expanding faster than its infrastructure can hack becomes painfully palpable. Crippling traffic, pollution, lack of open spaces, hideous billboards and urban squalor are reminders of how much more needs to be done to make our capital more livable. Suddenly, I become a cynic again. It’s amazing how easily perceptions can change.

Like me, many Manileños have become overcritical of their city. Living through the daily grind and having to deal with the city’s choked up roads, water scarcity and pollution has taken its toll on all of us. I don’t wish to be a cynic, but it’s hard to be otherwise, given the circumstances we face on a daily basis.

Last week, I attended a talk given by a Harvard-educated Pinoy, Benjamin dela Peña, now the associate director for Urban Development of the Rockefeller Foundation. Benjamin led me to view things in a different light. Having worked with governments and city planners all over the world, the New York City-based Pinoy technocrat provided a fresh perspective on how Metro Manila is faring, developmentwise; and where it could possibly head in the future.

Benjamin began by putting things into context. Unknown to many, Metro Manila is the 7th largest megacity on the planet with a whopping 14.7 million inhabitants. It has 67,000 jeepneys; 11,000 buses; 61,000 tricycles; and 1.5 million cars plying its streets. It is more akin to Mexico City, Tokyo, Jakarta and Bogota than it is to microcities like Singapore.

Having said that, Benjamin assures us that the problems we face are true in every other megacity in the world. Traffic, squalor and over-density, he claims, are characteristics of successful cities. This is because people are attracted to the commercial activities and the economic benefits that cities provide. The more economically vibrant a city is, the denser it becomes; and vice versa.

Taken in this context, Metro Manila is one of the most productive cities in the world. It is a city with an area of 638 square kilometers (roughly 2.1 percent of the nation’s land area), yet contributes up to 30 percent to gross domestic product. Each square kilometer of Metro Manila yields about $3 billion a year in national income.

Benjamin further asserts that for a city that has developed independently for just 65 years (after the American independence), Manila is developing at a good pace. The audience, composed of government city planners and the property sector, literally broke out in laughter…we all thought he was joking. But Benjamin was serious. He cited London, one of the best-managed cities today, as an example of contrast.

Comparisons

It took London close to two centuries to develop into the city it is today. As recent as 1860, London was considered the filthiest urban center in the planet; given that the River Thames was an open pit sewer where industrial waste, human excrement and commercial waste were dumped. It took the city 150 years to cleanse the Thames.

It took the same amount of time to put a proper flood and waste management system in place, not to mention its famed underground transit system, roads and linkages. Manila, in contrast, has established its basic infrastructure in just 65 years. True, much needs to be done to bring it up to capacity, but we are certainly much better off than other megacities.

Mumbai, for instance, is a city with close to 20 million residents; yet its water cisterns and sewerage systems are only sufficient to serve 2 million people. Cairo, a city inhabited by 14 million people, pumps its wastewater into the Nile for lack of appropriate waste treatment systems. Jakarta, a city of 9.5 million, has been consuming water from its underground basin for many years and is now depleting. Shanghai, a city of 18 million people, suffers from air pollution close to toxic levels.

Again, one’s perspective can easily change depending on how you view things.

Some myths

More roads, less traffic. Most old school politicians believe that building more roads automatically solves the traffic problem. Studies have shown that this is not the case. While additional byways may temporarily relieve congestion, the proliferation of free road spaces in a vibrant city only induces its citizens to travel more and acquire their personal means of transportation (motorcycles and cars). This exacerbates the problem in the long term. Such is the predicament Bangkok finds itself in today, following its road-building spree in the ’90s.

Alternative public transport equals decongested streets. The same school of thought applies to the notion that increasing public transportation capacities via buses and trains can decongest our streets. This solution may be effective at the onset, but past experience has proven that it is bound to backfire in the long run.

The MRT along EDSA is an excellent example of this. When it came online in 1999, we all thought that EDSA would flow more fluidly and public buses would decrease. The opposite has, in fact, happened. The presence of the MRT induced land developers to build more residences and commercial buildings along the highway, which in turn translated into higher densities.

Building satellite cities will deflect population growth. Some sectors also believe that building alternative satellite cities outside the main city center would deflect population growth in the latter. Again, this has proven to be a myth. A city’s foundation is not its physical structure, but the economic activity it generates. Unless there are enough job opportunities to attract new residents to it, a new city will not succeed in inducing migration.

Case in point: Clark and Subic. Government has long envisioned the former U.S. bases to be satellite cities of Metro Manila and a natural destination for its surplus population. Close to 20 years since its establishment as economic zones and it has not achieved its purpose. Sluggish economic activities brought about by a dearth in foreign investments is the primary reason for this.

Proven solutions

Certain cities have adopted ingenious solutions to solve their congestion and pollution problems. Our city planners can learn a thing or two from their experiences.

Shanghai: Mandated their public officials to utilize public transport at least once a week so they can relate to the problems faced by their constituents. This simple act provided their authorities with fresh insights towards finding innovative solutions for their problems.

New York City: Arguably the densest city in the world, NYC solved their congestion and air pollution problems in two ways. First, it made public transportation the primary and most convenient option to traverse the city (via taxi and subway). Secondly, it transformed itself into a “pedestrian first” city by mandating a minimum two-meter easement for sidewalks in both primary and secondary streets.

London: Imposes a congestion tax on vehicles that enter certain parts of the city during peak hours.

Montreal: Charges a premium for gasoline to dissuade the use of public vehicles and encourage the use of public transport.

Bogota: Adopted a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that plied the primary and secondary arteries of the city. The BRT system combines the convenience of using a central station (similar to an MRT station) with the flexibility of buses that are able to service even secondary routes. It is a system that is convenient, inexpensive and far-reaching. It has become the first choice of transport of most Bogota residents and has been successful in decongesting its roads of personal cars.

Copenhagen: Transformed itself into a biking city, with dedicated citywide biking lanes. It also enacted specific laws to protect the rights of bike riders.

Vancouver: Mandates all public buildings to have free, open spaces within their compounds for the citizens to enjoy.

Back to Manila

Metro Manila has come a long way, but much has yet to be done to prevent it from imploding on itself.

We are not lacking in solutions as cited above. Our authorities can draw lessons from cities all over the world that faced the same problems and successfully surmounted them. Two things, however, are essential to make these solutions work for us: a clear, coherent and ambitious vision for the city, and political will.

The MMDA, Metro Manila city mayors and the Office of the President have their work cut out for them.

Andrew is an economist, political analyst and businessman. He is a 20-year veteran in the hospitality and tourism industry. For comments and reactions, e-mail andrew_rs6@ yahoo.com.