LRT/MRT common station pinaiimbestigahan
Pinaiimbestigahan sa Kamara de Representantes kung bakit itinuloy ng Duterte government sa plano ng Aquino administration na magkaroon ng unified station ang Light Rail Transit Line 1 at 7 at Metro Rail Transit 3 sa pagitan ng dalawang malalaking mall sa Quezon City. Inihain ni Bayan Muna Rep. Isagani Zarate ang House Resolution 470 sa paniwala na mahihirapan ang mga mananakay sa desisyong ito ng Department of Transportation. “Whereas, it is clear at the onset that the compromise agreement is not primarily for the convenience and interest of the commuting public, but to merely appease competing business interests—and now the Department of Transportation under Sec. Tugade is carelessly adopting it,” saad ng resolusyon. Sinabi ni Zarate na mas malaki ang gagastusin ng gobyerno kung sa gitna ng dalawang mall itatayo ang istasyon na nangangahulugan na kakailanganin na mas mahal ang bayarang pasahe ng mga sasakay. “Whereas, many have assailed the transfer, and even the current design since the original design of the tri-station is more efficient because it is designed as a grand central terminal which neatly connects the three lines in one place, The original plan also took into consideration the Department of Public Works and Highways’ EDSA/North, West and Mindanao Avenues Interchange.” Noong una ay plano ng DOTr na itayo ang common terminal sa tapat ng SM pero nagbago ito dahil mas matipid umano kung sa Trinoma ito itatayo. Ang paglipat ay nangyari matapos na makuha ng Light Rail Manila Consortium ng Ayala, ang may-ari ng Trinoma , ang P64 billion LRT Line 1 Cavite Extension PPP. Sa huli ay napagkasunduan na sa gitna na lamang ito ng dalawang mall ilagay. “Whereas, just when the public thought that the common station issue shall be resolved in a way that is most beneficial, convenient, and efficient to them—through the construction of a grand central terminal—DoTr Sec. Art Tugade merely retained then DOTC Sec. Joseph Abaya’s compromise agreement: the clearly inefficient construction of two rail terminals between SM North EDSA and Trinoma.” 30
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Bandera. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.