The idea is not really novel. I have given it quite a lot of column inches here as I have always supported its implementation. Past administrators of the metropolis have also mentioned such plans during their incumbency. We were told though that the "lobby" of those bus companies that would have been affected was too "intense" that it was so hard for them to resist, therefore the idea just stayed as an idea.
This could be one acid test for the incumbent chairman–will he be able to resist the "lobby" that can be so "intense"?
For me the concept of having two major bus terminals–one south of the metro and the other in the north side, is most ideal. Part of the overall infrastructure plans however, should include shuttle services or public utility vehicle routes to these areas for the convenience of the commuting public.
I once had a talk with Mr. Mike Potenciano of BLTB, one of the country’s biggest bus companies, and which also has terminals along EDSA, regarding this prospect and I clearly remember him saying that he fully supports the idea. And if my memory is serving me right, he also qualified that it should be a matter of rule to be applied to all bus companies regardless of size.
I saw the MMDA chairman on TV saying that the problem was the land in which the terminal could be situated. In this case, the government should probably consider for the southern terminal some of the areas of the former FTI or the Food Terminal Inc., which I know has been for sale for quite some time. What I do not know is whether it has been sold already. The northern terminal, on the other hand, could be located in those old PNR properties along Samson Road in Calookan City, now a haven for squatters, I was told.
As the present MMDA chairman’s reputation of having a strong will precedes him, I see no reason for him not to find a way.
I have been receiving, heaven knows how many, similar requests for endorsements on which brands to buy, not only from our column’s readers but from our TV viewers as well.
My answer has always been consistent and that is, "It all depends on first, your budget, then, your needs and also your aesthetic preference."
Let’s start with your aesthetic preference. This is important because after all you would be using the same vehicle, especially if its entry level, day in and day out, that if you don’t like it at all, you’ll never be happy seeing it until the day you would decide to part from it.
Your overall need for the vehicle if very important because if it will not meet your regular basic transport requirements, like capacity and weight-bearing capability, then you won’t have much use for the vehicle, except probably for a Sunday drive.
And the most important of all is the amount of money that you can afford to part with in having the vehicle of your choice. A vehicle may meet all of your basic criteria but is priced way above what you can afford, then you’ll find yourself in square one.
Most of the other elements in the decision-making process like safety features, engine performance, amenities, etc., depend on the price tag of the vehicle, so all of these will depend on your budget.
I would also throw in, as important considerations in deciding to buy a vehicle, the track record of the car manufacturer for reliability–the availability of spare parts, the level of after sales service and other "unquantifiables", which all add up to your comfort level as a buyer.
And finally, we have this segment on our TV show Auto Focus (Tuesday, 11 pm Channel 4 Manila and nationwide via satellite on the National Broadcasting Network), entitled "Head-to-Head", which makes direct comparisons of vehicles that more or less belong to the same "price band". The comparisons are based on brochure data of both models and only make it easier for one to readily see the differences.
That’s the best I can do to answer your question Mr. Onrubia. Thanks for writing.
Poor Rubens Barichello’s hopes of a podium finish were dashed when the Ferrari pit crew had a miscue in one of his stops — it actually lasted a full 17 seconds. He settled for 4th place, while BMW-Williams’ Juan Pablo Montoya and Ralf Schumacher finished 2nd and 3rd respectively. McLaren’s David Coulthard came in 5th, and Nick Heidfeld of Sauber salvaged the last championship point.
David’s teammate Kimmi Raikkonen had a very disappointing race — a far cry from his splendid drive in France. The Renaults of Jenson Button and Jarno Trulli couldn’t hack the pressures of Hockenheim, as both failed to finish as well.
For a while I was just waiting for the death bell to sound that would signal the end of a 15-year-old institution, which has been solely dedicated to serve the motoring public, the local motoring industry and motor sports enthusiasts. A Sunday viewing habit much awaited by its regular viewers for the wealth of information it offers and actual hands-on help to solve motoring problems, which range from the repair of dilapidated streets, fixing of non-working traffic lights, dismantling of traffic obstructions like illegal jeepney and tricycle terminals, and the list goes on and on.
Well, like I said in the past, I shall fight "tooth and nail" just to keep the program alive and continue with its tradition of public service. With the Lord’s help, a miracle just happened and we thank Him for that.
Next to the One up there, we also have the National Broadcasting Network, under the leadership of Ms. Mia Concio, its very understanding chairman and president, to thank for appreciating our predicament and recognizing the show’s social relevance.
Well, motoring enthusiasts and motor sports fans, your "Sunday viewing habit" lives on!
Happy motoring!!!
For comments: (e-mail) motoring-star@sunshine-tv.com