Flyover I can see, or masterplan I only hear?

The objections of those who oppose the construction of more flyovers have been heard. That does not mean they should prevail. Common sense cannot give way to empty words, no matter how beautifully crafted.

 The two main arguments against flyovers are that they are ugly to look at, and that they do not really solve the worsening traffic problem. There is another argument that has largely been left unsaid: The selfishness of those who think only of their own interests.

 Let us take up the first argument, which is ugliness. To be a thing of beauty was never a purpose of flyovers. This elevated bridge is a piece of infrastructure whose only reason for being is to alleviate (it never claimed to solve) traffic congestion at certain intersections.

 For oppositors to flog flyovers as ugly is a hypocrisy, considering that not once have they raised a peep against the far more numerous other eyesores in the city. Take “spaghetti” wires, for instance. Has any oppositor ever knelt in prayer against “spaghetti” wires?

 The truth is, the oppositors merely found ugliness a convenient excuse to hide the real reason for their opposition, which is their fear that the proposed flyovers could affect their properties and their businesses.

 Granting the proposed flyovers will affect their properties, why can’t the oppositors be like other property owners who submit to expropriation proceedings by the state? They can always consider it their civic duty to contribute to the task of nation-building.

 But of course they will never do that. They are the kind of people who watch idly as the state expropriates the properties of others in the course of other projects, such as widening of roads. To them, it is all right for properties to be affected, so long as they belong to others.

 Now let us take up the second argument, which is that flyovers do not really solve the traffic problem. But of course a flyover cannot solve the problem by itself. Nobody ever said it was. The mere complexity of the problem necessitates a variety or combination of solutions.

 And that is precisely why proponents and supporters of flyovers have remained consistent in describing these projects as being solely for the purpose of alleviating the inconvenience and unproductiveness of the traffic situation in certain areas.

 If a lasting solution to the traffic mess is to come from somewhere, it will not come from flyovers. That has always been pretty clear to everyone, including the flyover proponents. To use it now in arguing against flyovers is nothing more than sneaky semantics.

 Oppositors also talk of a masterplan. Now, that is something I can agree with. This city has long needed a masterplan. But why it doesn’t have one, despite being the Queen City of the South, is to me proof that sometimes we are just all talk and no action.

 But while I agree Cebu City needs to have a masterplan, I do not go along with the idea that a masterplan replaces the need for flyovers. Masterplans deal with how to cope with future situations. Flyovers deal with situations that are here and now.

 A masterplan is called a masterplan because it is intended to solve tomorrow’s problems tomorrow. Between an ugly flyover I can use now and a beautiful masterplan that is just on the lips of someone, I will always go for the former. So, do we just talk or do we do?

 Flyovers may not always be what they’re cracked up to be. But all things being equal, I am pretty sure each and every oppositor, if they can only be honest with themselves, must have had many occasions to be thankful for the presence of flyovers.

On the other hand, if oppositors find flyovers so irritating to their sensibilities, I think it would be in keeping with their principles to never use flyovers for as long as flyovers exist in the city.