It would be a comedy of errors if the completion of the Cebu Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) would be delayed by as simple an item as the two skywalks across Osmeña Boulevard - one near Fuente Osmeña across the Metrobank Building and another near Cebu Normal University (CNU). Their original utility is without question, due to the width of the road. Osmeña Boulevard has three lanes in both directions in much of its entire length, but at these two places, it has four lanes in both directions. At-grade crosswalks may be viable with six lanes but crossing eight lanes in a busy road would be a major safety issue, to say the least. Hence, the skywalks, built “through the efforts of Cong. Raul del Mar” are valuable.
There are many of these all over the country, built by DPWH across national roads which they built and own. Some are originally designed integral to the road system while others are added afterwards, at the request of the district congressmen, before and during budget deliberations. It was former Congressman Raul del Mar who proposed their inclusion in the DPWH budget.
Now these need to be demolished to make way for the construction of two Cebu BRT stations. Some already commented on social media why we need to destroy what is useful and still working. Well, we usually need to do that when we are looking at improving things. Like when we were trying to build the new/second Mactan airport terminal. The old one was still usable, but it needs to give way for the new. In the BRT’s case, the skywalks are still useful, but they have to give way for the new public transport system. Their utility will not be discarded, though, pedestrian crossing will be returned at grade, through the station itself, which needs the crossings anyway, to allow BRT users to board and disembark. The stations will also revise the original four-lane dimensions at these areas, making at-grade crossings already viable and safe.
What triggered the current impasse was the request of the Cebu BRT-PIU to the Cebu City government (CCG) to “assume” ownership of the two skywalks. Didn’t the Department of Transportation (DOTr) know that these skywalks were implemented by DPWH and thus owned by that agency. And I wonder what “assume” means or if that word or act even exists in the guidelines of the Commission on Audit (COA). Does it mean it would be transferred from the books or Registry of Assets of DPWH to CCG? If that was the case, it should have been DPWH who requested CCG for the transfer. But for what purpose? For its demolition? Why not talk to DPWH directly?
This is where the BRT-National Steering Committee (NSC) I described last week would have been the best avenue. It was precisely for this need of coordination that this was formed through DOTr Department Order (DO) No. 2012-14 in 2012. DOs are not enacted without reason, and this is perfectly it. Not having done it before should not be a reason for not doing it now. There will be more issues ahead in the BRT’s implementation.