Inter-island Bridges Are Not Always the Answer: Why Train Ferries Make More Sense for an Archipelago
By Karl Garcia
Whenever congestion worsens and ferries back up, the instinctive solution is familiar: build a bridge. Fixed links promise permanence, speed, and economic integration. For island nations, they are often framed as symbols of progress.
But in a storm-battered, earthquake-prone archipelago like the Philippines, bridges can also be symbols of fragility.
Inter-island bridges may decongest ferries, but they create a different problem: they lock mobility into immovable infrastructure exposed 24/7 to typhoons, seismic faults, storm surges, and long-term climate stress. Once damaged, a bridge does not detour—it fails.
There is a quieter, less glamorous alternative that deserves serious attention: cargo train ferries and rail ferries, where freight—and even passengers—cross seas without leaving their trains.
The Problem with Fixed Links in a Dynamic Environment
Bridges work best where nature is predictable. The Philippines is not.
Long-span bridges in tropical seismic zones must be designed for:
- Extreme wind loading
- Strong currents and wave action
- Liquefaction-prone seabeds
- Active fault lines
- Accelerated corrosion from salt and humidity
This pushes costs dramatically upward—not just in construction, but in maintenance for decades. And when something goes wrong, the consequences are binary: open or closed. There is no flexibility.
Climate change only sharpens the dilemma. Higher design standards mean higher costs. Ignoring them means higher risk. Either way, bridges become high-stakes bets.
Rail Ferries: Floating Bridges with an Off Switch
Rail ferries flip the logic.
Instead of forcing nature to accommodate infrastructure, they allow infrastructure to adapt to nature.
Rail ferries carry:
- Freight wagons
- Container flats
- Fuel cars
- Even full passenger coaches
Cargo rolls on at one port and rolls off at another—no unloading, no rehandling, no cargo exposure. When seas are rough, operations pause. When storms pass, service resumes. Damage is limited to ports and vessels, which are far quicker to repair than collapsed spans.
In disaster management, this distinction matters.
You cannot “turn off” a bridge during an earthquake.
You can delay a sailing.
This Is Not a New or Experimental Idea
Rail ferries are proven technology.
- Italy still runs train ferries across the Strait of Messina, choosing them over a mega-bridge in a highly seismic zone.
- Germany once carried passenger trains directly onto ferries across the Fehmarn Belt, with travelers remaining in their coaches.
- Japan, before the Seikan Tunnel, relied on rail ferries in some of the world’s roughest seas.
- China operates high-capacity rail ferries across the Bohai Sea to reduce logistics costs and emissions.
- Russia uses them to connect isolated rail networks in extreme climates.
These are not poor countries avoiding progress. They are pragmatic states managing risk.
Why Rail Ferries Make Sense for the Philippines
First, freight matters more than cars.
Most inter-island congestion is not caused by tourists—it is caused by food, fuel, construction materials, and consumer goods. Every time cargo is unloaded from trucks, transferred to ships, then reloaded on the other side, costs rise and delays multiply.
Rail ferries eliminate this inefficiency.
Second, they scale gradually.
A bridge must be fully funded and completed before delivering any benefit. A rail ferry system can start with one route, a few vessels, and basic port upgrades—then expand as demand grows.
Third, they support redundancy.
One bridge serves one alignment forever. A ferry fleet can be rerouted, reassigned, or doubled during peak demand or emergencies. Redundancy is not a luxury in an archipelago; it is survival infrastructure.
Fourth, they integrate naturally with multimodal transport.
Rail ferries connect ports to inland logistics hubs, dry ports, and industrial zones. They support cleaner freight movement and reduce dependence on long-haul trucking—a major source of congestion, emissions, and road damage.
Bridges vs. Rail Ferries: A Strategic Comparison
Bridges offer speed and symbolism—but little flexibility.
Rail ferries offer resilience, adaptability, and system efficiency.
In a country regularly hit by typhoons and earthquakes, the question is not which is more impressive, but which fails more gracefully.
A Smarter Infrastructure Conversation
This is not an argument against bridges. Some crossings will justify them. But treating bridges as the default solution reflects a continental mindset, not an archipelagic one.
A smarter strategy would ask:
- Where does freight dominate over private vehicles?
- Where are fault lines active or waters deep?
- Where would flexible routing reduce disaster risk?
- Where can rail, ports, and industry be integrated instead of isolated?
In many cases, the answer will not be concrete and steel fixed to the seabed—but steel wheels rolling onto a ship.
The Bottom Line
Infrastructure is not just about moving faster. It is about recovering faster.
For the Philippines, rail ferries offer a way to decongest routes, strengthen supply chains, and adapt to a volatile climate—without betting everything on structures that cannot move when the earth or sea does.
Sometimes, the most resilient bridge is one that floats.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
Infrastructure should be built in order of capacity weighed by difficulty.
For example: Rail infrastructure is complicated where the rail lines must transverse discontinuous routes; more complicated by complicated terrain and/or lack of right-of-way. The Philippines is unfortunate here since even if the major islands are counted considerable distance separates each major island and each major island themselves have difficult terrain to pass through. All these greatly complicate and increase the cost of rail infrastructure. I think that rail infrastructure would be important for the Philippines, but be limited initially to carrying bulk cargo to further integrate the internal Philippines economy. In addition ferries have fallen out of favor in most of the world because they just don’t make sense in an era of panel vans, semi-trailer trucks, and light passenger vehicles, all which are more flexible.
Instead, consider a combination of RORO ferries and LOLO ferries. RORO are mixed use and can carry both passengers and cargo. Some RORO ferries can carry standardized containers as well, either the containers upon detached trailers or loaded via crane. LOLO ferries are for cargo purposes and are essentially small container cargo ships for regional use. LOLO ferries would use port-side cranes to load and unload containers, just like an ocean-going container cargo ship.
When I approach problems that need to be solved, I tend to stick with as simple a solution as possible to reasonably accomplish the goal. The goal here is to further integrate the regional, domestic and export economies with infrastructure. I just think that train ferries are too complicated. Much of the complication is actually not in the train ferry itself, but due to the fact that rail infrastructure needs to be built out beforehand on land, and that rail infrastructure needs to be interoperable, on the same gauge, and on the same standards. If trains and containerized rail owned by various groups and corporations are transversing a given section of rail, it would also make more sense for the government to own such rail infrastructure as privately owned tracks may not give access to rivals. Given these risks, and given the fact that rail ferries and dockside rail depots are usually *extensions* of existing rail infrastructure rather than rail infrastructure existing because of dockside rail depots, and given the additional fact that road infrastructure is more flexible for mixed-use, it would make more sense to build out the national road infrastructure for general use first. Important to remember that the transnational rail networks of countries that went through the First Industrial Revolution were purpose built for specific connections between industrial and labor centers. National level rail networks back then, and now, were built to carry cargo and passengers along known and fixed destinations, which in some instances can greatly increase efficiencies but when used generally becomes a quick money sink. Rail is inherently inflexible.
Hi Joey!
I missed your comments.
You can back read anytime, though it is same old same old. And you csn comment here.
Anyways your KISS presription
should be prescribed even to monday morning quarter backs figurong out WHICH came frst or Who is on third.
Well I think rail infrastructure is a must for the Philippines, but rail is more useful for point-to-point connections contained within a region or land mass. So it is of utmost importance for a trans-Luzon and (probably even more so) for a trans-Mindanao rail system to transport goods. Leyte-Samar would also be a good candidate for a trans-Leyte-Samar rail system as well. These rail systems should be connecting industrial centers (factories and raw material extraction/processing sites) with import/export/cargo centers (ports mainly, secondarily cargo airports which don’t currently exist).
For inter-island connect rail is less useful. Train ferries have largely fallen out of favor long ago for the reasons I opened in my previous comment, chiefly the greater flexibility of road transport. We must remember that the heyday of rail being the main form of mass transport AND cargo was during the period prior to the proliferation of automobiles and trucks. And even then cargo was the original reason for rail transport. I consider light rail to be more of an extension of urban mass transport, and would be in a different category.
Inter-island bridges (which would not preclude bridges that also carry rail) would still be more efficient for transport, though of course the island topology of the Philippines and the sea depth of the channels separating major island groups is a problem. But not as much as a problem as the consistent lack of funding and engineering capacity.
But either inter-island bridges and rail are more complicated to achieve. It would make more sense in the short-to-medium term to improve and build out road infrastructure which sucks in most parts of the Philippines, and connect islands using RORO and LOLO ferries. When crafting a solution one must be wary of seemingly “perfect” solutions that require ideal situations. I always tell my engineers: aim for good enough while covering known risks. Energy should be saved to tackle new risks that emerge later. More complicated solutions can be built atop completed projects. Being able to finish something comparatively “simple” builds momentum and confidence to be able to do bigger things later.
***
Yeah thanks Karl. Interestingly internet connectivity in a war-torn country such as Ukraine was better than cellular signal in rural Philippines. I gave up on trying to connect after a while and fell back to getting the news through the “tita network” aka chika. Apparently my 5+ year old iPhone does not support certain common cellular bands used by Smart and Globe. Philippine telcos barely got onto the eSIM bandwagon last year to begin with. Our work here was largely a success. A few dozen solar irrigation pumps installed, tied to a microcontroller of my own design, bringing drip irrigation to hundreds of calamansi in the hills and mountains of Zamboanga Sibugay and Zamboanga del Norte.
My thinking was Minda goods to Luzon.
Hoping that importing would no longer be cheaper if we can get goods from Viszmin cheap
Even transport within a relatively small island like Cebu is terrible. If I were infrastructure czar I would fix local issues first before national integration. Until then inter-island links need only to be “good enough.”
Take for example Cebu island. The rural seaside municipality of Boljoon is a producer of high quality vegetables and seafood. Boljoon is 104 km (64.6 mi) from Cebu City, yet it takes over 3 hours to travel between Boljoon and Cebu City on a good day with no traffic. In the US 100 km can be traveled in less than an hour, even with traffic. As a consequence any perishable goods produced in Boljoon would be greatly reduced in quality by the time those goods reach Cebu City. I have hitched rides in the back of panel vans and box trucks, including from Boljoon to Cebu City, sitting alongside vegetables actively withering in the heat while stuck in traffic. Cebu province is probably too small for a rail network, so improved road infrastructure is more appropriate here. Possibly Cebu and Bohol can be linked by rail via an inter-island bridge which has been proposed from time to time for decades now.
But yes, Visayas and Mindanao can be a producer of agricultural goods for NCR if high speed ferries with refrigerated cargo holds (or refrigerated containers) are used. Remember that ferries are extensions of transport infrastructure and are largely useless if not connected to land-based road/rail infrastructure. The rapid loss of Luzonian agricultural lands is alarming, while the assumption of “we will just make new agricultural land in Mindanao” is unrealistic as much of those theoretical Mindanaoan agricultural lands are still virgin forest/jungle.
Many thanks for your inputs.
we in cebu are quite well hydrated! below is from AI.
Yes, inter-island ferries in the Philippines, including those serving Cebu, regularly transport various cargo, including perishables like seafood, fruits, and vegetables, often in specialized sections or under specific arrangements with ferry operators like Island Shipping and Super Shuttle or Oceanjet. While common ferries carry general cargo, dedicated cargo services or specific arrangements for temperature control might be needed for highly sensitive perishables, but standard transport from port to port is routine.
How Perishables Are Transported:
Key Operators & Services:
Oceanjet: Serves routes from other regions to Cebu, handling both passengers and cargo.
Island Shipping & Super Shuttle Ferry: Common for routes like Cebu to Bantayan Island, carrying passengers and various goods.
Many thanks KB,
But are you in favor of the inter island bridges?
I’m neutral about inter island bridges.
Instead of rail ferries which are more complicated (one of the reasons rail ferries went out of favor), how about:
1.) Better road infrastructure that can handle semitrailer trucks without excessive traffic
2.) Containerize everything. One major reason why rail ferries were popular 100 years ago is because the modern standardized ISO shipping container was not invented yet. ISO containers are designed to move containerized cargo from rail rolling stock, truck, semitrailer, RORO/LOLO ferry, container cargo ships, cargo airplane without needing to unload/load cargo. One of the biggest causes for cargo delay in the Philippines is the need to unload/load cargo manually with literal human labor. For refrigerated cargo, containers with self-contained refrigeration systems exist and are commonly used in North America and Europe
3.) Containerized cargo being standard sizes also maximize internal cargo space as well as makes the cargo carrier (truck, ship, aircraft what have you) be able to handle any container as long as it is of standard
4.) Unload/load needs to be minimized aside from initial or destination unload/load instead of unloading/loading at every stop. How many processes and “common sense” in the Philippines involves substituting cheap human labor rather than following long established standards and inventions? I sent an air cargo from the US to the Philippines to give as gifts upon arrival before Christmas, yet somehow my two parcels took a week to get from Manila to Cebu, even after paying 35k in cargo fees. So my gifts were late to hand out before Christmas
Well my family happened to own a small trucking/transport firm for about 2 decades with a fleet of about 2 dozen semitrailers and tractor trucks as my dad’s “sideline” outside of his government job, so logistics is an area of some knowledge to me.
Great ideas from Joey to complement Karl’s essay. Many years ago I read Lee Kuan Yew’s Memoir and I was impressed by his common sense approach to make Singapore significant in world commerce (as opposed to irrelevant). He observed that in th 1960s, international ocean shippers took 5-7 days to unload cargo at a port. Main cause of delay was paperwork processing.
Lee set a goal of 24 hours for Singapore.
Thanks to AI, I found this excerpt from the memoir:
“We had to create a new kind of economy, try new methods and schemes… We had to build up a reputation for efficiency, for reliability, for being a place where things worked.” — Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First
Can you imagine a Filipino leader with that kind of attitude?
One of his strategies, I recall from his book, was to put all offices for the required paperwork in ONE BUILDING!
AI reminded me of these steps: >>Eliminating “Idle” Time
Lee Kuan Yew pushed for:
I can see Joey appreciating this attitude judging from his experience and that of his parents in the cargo moving business. Lee did push for container ports which was still in the infancy stage in those days. Experts advised him against it, probably because of cost. But Lee decided to gamble on container shipping. He (and Singapore) won that gamble!
Another thanks, Salud!
My thoughts on the Singapore comparison is that Singapore’s population and territory is much smaller than the Philippines; even more so in 1960 a year after LKY took power. So while yes, inspiration may be gained from any success story, including Singapore, how those lessons are ingested and replicated is also important. It is of my belief that Filipinos often take the wrong conclusion from Singapore’s success rather than the applicable points. Not saying what you’re saying here in your comparison is wrong. Just something to keep in mind.
That being said, smaller population and territory aside, Singapore is bereft of natural resources and had a large-for-Singaporean-size unemployed population in the 1960s. Singapore solved those problems by taking lessons elsewhere and applying it *consistently.* Consistently is the operative word here, something that even the highly educated class of Filipinos have often have difficulty with.
“It is of my belief that Filipinos often take the wrong conclusion from Singapore’s success rather than the applicable points. Not saying what you’re saying here in your comparison is wrong. Just something to keep in mind.” – Joey
Yes I agree. I always keep that in mind.
“Singapore solved those problems by taking lessons elsewhere and applying it *consistently.* Consistently is the operative word here, something that even the highly educated class of Filipinos have often have difficulty with.” – Joey
Yes, Karl G. has recently pointed out in his essays that our planning and execution lack *integration.* He pointed out how when an administration changes, priorities AND funding also change. No continuity, hence no consistency. But then again I think your point is that even the educated class of Filipinos struggle with the CONCEPT of consistency. Am I right on that? If yes, I am not surprised. My doctor acquaintance would call that part of PinoyThink.
Lee Kuan Yew was able to maintain consistency partly because he himself was consistent AND his political party maintained control for I believe decades. I’m sure that helped and that was planned by LKY. Karl G. might call that luck. I don’t.
I don’t think it is necessarily a requirement for a political party to maintain control over the period of a decade or more. The US post-war consensus domestically lasted until Nixon across both parties, 25 years. The US post-war consensus in foreign affairs lasted nearly 75 years again across both parties. For much of this period both American major political parties were effectively center-left and center-right arguing over essentially how much money to dedicated towards certain policies rather than the core policy itself.
Of course having a party maintain control helps, such as in the Singapore example. But how far have parties swung back and forth in the Philippines based on the person of the movement leader? PDP and Laban are most famous recent examples, both being the vessel of opposition against Marcos Sr., holding center-left policy, until Duterte remade the PDP-Laban into an eclectic syncretism of far-left and far-right populist grievances.
National consensus is important to consistency, as well as gate keeping against the extreme fringes. In the Philippines, I see little consensus, so it is unsurprising that there is no consistency. Most things operate at an ad hoc level, a “YOLO” attitude, plans dropped for new plans that are subsequently dropped for new-new plans. Philippine political parties in former and current iteration, it seems to me, are more vehicles for dynastic coalitions, readily reconfiguring like Voltron when various power centers deem convenient.
National consensus requires national identity. Singapore had no national identity upon independence, so they built a national identity around a multi-ethnic state that opened stakeholdership to all groups. So a start would probably for the Philippines to find her own identity.
“I don’t think it is necessarily a requirement for a political party to maintain control over the period of a decade or more.” – Joey
Specifically in the case of Singapore in the 60s you don’t think so?
“Singapore had no national identity upon independence, so they built a national identity around a multi-ethnic state that opened stakeholdership to all groups. “ – Joey
My impression is that Lee Kuan Yew chose a national identity for Singapore and used state power to make it happen over time.
“So a start would probably for the Philippines to find her own identity.” – Joey
Not sure what that means. Philippines has been around for quite a while. No identity? Aren’t we known around the world for being domestics and care givers? That is a start.
Yes CV
no chamba, ginagawa yan.
That us what baskeball fans of opposite teams say to each other after a spectacular shot, after supporter shouts Chamba!
This is about potential opportunities the Philippines had.
Historically, PH had strategic advantages similar to Singapore:
A geographically strategic location for trade and shipping in Southeast Asia.
Natural resources and an educated English-speaking population.
Early exposure to Western-style governance and education.
The “could have” emphasizes that PH had the ingredients to become a regional economic hub like Singapore.
Example: In the 1960s, before the Marcos era, the Philippines had a per capita income comparable to South Korea and higher than Singapore, suggesting the potential for rapid growth.
This is about what might have happened under different circumstances.
Singapore’s path shows that with effective governance, anti-corruption measures, and long-term planning, rapid development is possible.
The Philippines “would have” been able to industrialize, reduce poverty, and develop world-class infrastructure if institutions were strong and governance effective.
The focus here is more structural: policies, leadership, stability, and investment in human capital determine whether potential turns into reality.
Example: Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew systematically invested in education, infrastructure, and clean governance. The Philippines had periods where similar policies could have been implemented but were undermined by corruption or political instability.
This is more normative: what the Philippines ought to have done given its resources and position.
It emphasizes missed lessons and opportunities—not just external factors.
The “should have” reflects a moral-economic critique: the country had enough to succeed but failed to implement necessary reforms.
Example: PH should have strengthened rule of law, invested in industrialization, improved logistics and port infrastructure, and controlled political patronage systems—things that Singapore prioritized and did consistently.
Thanks, Karl….but like we used to say back in high school – “No use crying over spilled sperm!” 🙂
Joey,
Great ideas, I was anti truck when it comes to traffic but without them we would shut down.
My friend just started a logistics business and no way will I tell him that he is causing traffic. Hehe.
trucks and heavy haulers usually operate at night when roads are not that busy. though there are firms that operate 24/7 specially during yuletide season.
we really should have ring roads, so trucks and heavy haulers can bypass crowded cities to get to their destination.
Another good catch kb.
Traffic during yuletide is 24 by 7
Expansion of highways and roads would be a great improvement. Definitely containerized trucking is more flexible. Even in Australia which is a relatively flat land mass went for super-sized semitrailer trucking (they call those “road trains”) rather than rail which is more suitable for fixed point-to-point connections.
Germany which already had a lot of rail has built what is called “Umschlagbahnhöfe” (interchange freight stations) where containers are offloaded from trains into trucks. Freight trains do make sense in spatially congested countries like Germany, as trucks put a heavy load on the roads, but being able to easily reload containers from ports into freight trains and then from freight trains into regional Umschlagbahnhöfe (usually at the edge of major towns like Munich, see picture below, and close to major Autobahns so the trucks can take care of the last kilometers) is key for logistics over here. So a container might automatically be moved from a huge ship in Rotterdam, the biggest container port in Europe, take its way down to Munich-Riem Umschlagbahnhof and then go all the way to Burghausen along the Inn river on a truck, for instance to supply the Wacker silicon wafer factory there with stuff it needs. I never worked for Wacker in any way, so this is just speculation, but it can work that way. For major supplies like for instance iron ore or coal, Germany does use barges on rivers or canals a lot, also because water-based transport is most cost-efficient for stuff where time doesn’t matter.
my personal equivalent to what Otis Redding sang about in “Sitting On the Top of the Bay” was smoking and watching barges go up and down the Rhine river in Bonn in my youth, often in situations similar to the famous song, sometimes just enjoying the hot and humid summer in that part of Germany. For perishables BTW matters are entirely different. A truck with for instance halves of cows just slaughtered have to go straight into a frozen container, often very early in the morning which is when a lot goes on in some slaughterhouses, and the truck driver has some hours to take the meat to other major hubs were it undergoes further processing until it reaches the freezer section of a supermarket somewhere. As for the Munich wholesale market (fruits and vegetables) it is beside a freight train station, but most supplies come via container trucks, with retailers buying from wholesalers usually before 6 a.m. to fill their shelves with fresh stuff. The trucks often come from as far as Spain, with drivers sometimes taking the wrong route and ending up under old bridges that are too low for them. The worst case is you fit under the 3 meter 6 bridge (4m is the modern European standard clearance) fully loaded and get stuck under it when you leave unloaded. But I digress.
Technically transference of cargo (containerized or not) between modes of transport would be called “multi-modal transfer,” while “interchange” is the changing of cargo from one cargo handler (company) to a receiver (company) who will continue on the next leg of the transport chain. Interchange was originally a rail term but now applies to truck-to-truck or ship-to-ship transfer as well.
That big thing in the attached pic is a gantry crane which are commonly used at transfer points/depots. There are very big gantry cranes for container ships, medium-ish versions for trains, and small cranes for trucked containers.
Railroads were a key development that enabled the rapid expansion of the First Industrial Revolution, which is why cargo rail networks still exist in countries that industrialized early on. In China, most trains are more of the passenger type similar to European high-speed passenger rail, while the bulk of cargo goes by barge.
Of course, railroads preceded the automobile (and the truck extension thereof). Animal-based transport existed alongside sprawling railroad lines back then, and animal-based transport was the common mode of transportation up until the exponential growth of the automobile, as seen in old pictures of main streets from a little over a century ago.
For all intents and purposes though, I think it would be vastly expensive and complicated to build an extensive rail network in the Philippines, though Philippines rail would be useful for example to transport raw materials from extraction sites to factories, then onward to export points. Bulk materials might be things like nickel, iron, coal, etc.
A real problem in the Philippines is the regular folks don’t have the wherewithal and prerequisite knowledge to effectuate change, while the intelligentsia and political classes “want all the things” without first doing the obvious things right in front of them. I can’t remember how many times a Filipino friend had shared with me about some new fancy project some fancy politician proposed. It sure looked futuristic, yet was never *realistic.* I tend to lean towards practicality that improves quality-of-life, of which enabling more economic activity via improved transportation would be one of them.
the German Mitteland canal is probably as important as the Erie canal in the USA – it was built in “Imperial” times to link the industrial heartland of the Ruhr area with Berlin (via another canal) and also connect major rivers like the Ems and the Elbe, even other canals leading to Hamburg harbor. The Volkswagen main plant is directly along that canal and I believe they do get a lot of raw materials or processed stuff like steel via the canal. Pulling stuff along canals or even rivers via animals was common in so many countries before industrialization, and as in Russia it was even via people, as a famous song of Volga boatmen shows. 19th century Upper Bavaria had rafts not for joy rides like today, but to bring logs down from the mountains to Lower Bavaria. An old guild rule of river boatmen for instance along the Inn river was not to be able to swim so they wouldn’t literally jump ship but watch out for the load they carried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelland_Canal#/map/0
ack. The MRT3 issues of some years ago made me compare what kind of maintenance urban railways need over here and it is the same. Wheels can “square out” and need to be re-rounded, doors (similar to elevators) can be damaged by people pulling them too much or pushing them open (which is why people are conditioned not to do it over here, and big stations have people to make sure it doesn’t happen), the pantograph for the electricity has to be well-adjusted to not spark too much. Even the stairs of stations that are outside need regular maintenance because they wear out – they allowed that to happen on some MRT stations – and escalators also need regular maintenance because they break down if they don’t get it.
Not to mention how catastrophic it is that even in Metro Manila, the different lines have incompatible rolling stock in terms of size and current supply. That kind of issue is understandable in classic metropolitan railways like London, Paris and New York, even Hamburg or Berlin, but not in a system started in the 1980s.
That is the theoretical-practical gap I have long noticed in the Philippines. The regular folks are tinkerers par excellence, think of talyer shop folks or those who put jumpers on electrical cables to get electricity for slum areas. Those who are college-educated over there are too disdainful of blue-collar details to know what is realistic or not – and systems thinking is something EXTREMELY few have over there. Dr. Mahar Lagmay has it – for flood control matters.
I have met Filipinos who were major execs in international software firms over there but they couldn’t conduct a convo about software architecture I could conduct with most average senior IT professionals here in Germany. I tried to explain to a chat group of batchmates back in 2009 (Ondoy) what preemptive water release was when it comes to dams (I suspected then based on water flow that most of the floods were because of Sta Mesa dam just overflowing) but it seemed they didn’t get it – and we are graduates of Philippine Science High School. Sure, that would be a higher level issue than the low reading comprehension in the Philippines, or maybe they are just tongue-tied and not as bold when it comes to opinions as Westerners and knew all of that, but I somehow doubt it, seeing what happens there and that NO preemptive release happened in Cagayan valley when typhoon Ulysses struck late 2020, hell barely even early warning as the water flowed down the big river.
EDIT: maybe those who would have the conceptual strength to grasp systems in the Philippines mostly don’t care about anything except their comfortable lives, their freaking Fortuner SUVs and their consumerism. The few who do care like Dr. Mahar Lagmay might be exceptions to that.
Yes, canals being used as animal-drawn towpaths are an old technology which was used in the Erie Canal back then as well. Throughout human history societies have figured out new things to leverage labor to accomplish more work due to lack of human labor or to free up humans to endeavor in other things. I do know of any similar towed-barge or transport canal system in the Philippines. Human labor is cheap there, such was the experience of a farmer kuya friend who took my proposal to obtain loans in order to mechanize but had his neighbors not come on board to share the investment burden. Philippine farms still use sweat labor provided by plenty of idle workers. Philippine warehouses and docks still largely use manual loading/unloading rather than forklifts. I once asked a foreman why he hired laborers to move stuff rather than using manual pallet jacks. He replied that the company did not want to invest in a pallet jack when they could just hire workers. Blows the mind.
The reality is much of the development in recent decades has been driven by capital infusion from OFW remittances, and more recently BPO workers. I shudder to think of what will happen when one or both revenue streams gets damaged.
Education the general population would be a long-term fix. In the near-term people can be taught with hands-on experience to upgrade themselves. It is appalling for an outside “foreigner” like myself the compatriots on my current trip to be the ones bringing improvements. Private and charity means do not have capacity beyond small projects. Whenever I do one of these projects it is my hope that those helped would learn something about what we are doing, and be able to replicate it. In the Philippines, that has never happened though I had old project participants in Africa and Central America report later they were able to copy the initial work. Aside from preferring to do things “the old way,” I can’t help but think that the powers that be (and which keep get voted for due to name familiarity) do not want their countrymen to become upgraded. After all the cardinal sin in the Philippines is for the lower person to “look better” than the higher person.
that reminds me of the story in the now defunct Antipinoy blog where a gardener refuses to use a lawnmower and cuts the grass with a big scissors instead, and told FilAm BongV aka the Antipinoy “ser this is what I am accustomed to”.
The highest person over there has to look like Rajah Mangubat in Amaya, like a somehow magical ruler. Otherwise the followers will not “bilib” in him as the “magic” is gone. Duterte was the embodiment of that. Marcos Sr. is somehow even more modern in that he has specialist people like Transport Secretary Dizon and doesn’t mind if they look “magaling” also. Still he knows well enough never to appear weak, given how Philippine culture is.
I think a lot of Philippine organizations get blindsided by that culture of not wanting to “shaim” (that is how Mocha Uson spelled shame, it was a DDS demo accusing yellows of exposing Duterte to ridicule) a higher-up. Japan at least has a culture of giving feedback to bosses as long as done POLITELY. The consequence of PH culture is that bosses have to micromanage, check stuff onsite in the Philippines, as subordinates often dare not tell the truth. Sure that exists to some degree worldwide, like in the infamous Dilbert comic where Dilbert tells his boss the status of a task is red, his boss reports upwards that it is yellow and that level reports it to the top as green. Stuff held in check by reality in capitalism and democracy, hehe imagine the Philippines as a communist state, it would be more delusional than Eastern Europe was when it was close to collapse in the late 1980s, or North Korea in these days..
Thanks Joey and Irineo for valuable inputs.
Good to hear about your activities, more power!
I think your Comprehensive Maritime Strategy, Karl, should take priority over this. For one, the former also deals with national security, a major concern with China wanting to take over West Philippine Sea.
Thanks and I think you are right. I guess we need to learn how to prioritize and sequence without the need to do chicken and the egg debates.
Karl, I believe your Comprehensive Maritime Strategy actually covers some (if not a lot) commercial applications. If that aspect is implemented (big if), then the problem that train ferries may seek to solve may be smaller, perhaps much smaller.
Thanks CV , the current DOTR Usec for maritime once told me in a viber forum that they have something similar planned. It may not be during his time or our lifetimes but that is good enough.
“It may not be during his time or our lifetimes but that is good enough.” – Karl G.
Lee and Singapore certainly did not have that “good enough” attitude, else they would not be where they are now.
In tagalog pwede na yan.
Those great ones like LKY also had luck by their side.
We too had luck but bad luck.
Because I could not say we did not try at all
We do short cuts, we have wrong sequencing and actually everyone is in charge.
“Those great ones like LKY also had luck by their side.” – Karl G.
Really? Like what? I saw they had a lot of what you preach – integration, focus, discipline, systems governance. Often when you have that, luck follows.
That was what I meant, magaling na swerte pa. Others with promise stay at potentially great through some twist of fate. PH can not even get an A for Affort.
Yeah…what motivational speakers teach – your effort is within your control, luck is not. So you do your best in what is within your control, and hope God or luck come through on their end.
Of course motivational speakers also speak of influencing your luck. Its funny how people who we can give an A for effort also seem to be so lucky.
Thanks for this CV.