COSTLY QUICK FIX?: Think tank flags RoRo ramps expansion along Muelle Loney

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

The Institute of Contemporary Economics has urged the Iloilo City Council to withhold support for a Philippine Ports Authority proposal to build additional roll-on, roll-off (RoRo) ramps along Muelle Loney and Lapuz Road, warning that the project would lock a vehicle-heavy port function into a riverfront corridor with far higher long-term value.

In a position paper submitted June 18 to Councilor Sedfrey Cabaluna, chairperson of the Committee on Transportation, the Iloilo City-based think tank framed the proposal as a city-shaping land-use decision rather than a routine port engineering or traffic decongestion matter.

ICE said it took note of the matter through Cabaluna’s public Facebook post on a recent committee hearing, where the project was presented as a response to growing ship calls, RoRo demand, and vehicle movement between Iloilo City and Guimaras Province.

The group said its opposition was not rooted in indifference to Iloilo–Guimaras connectivity, which it described as important for the movement of people, vehicles, goods, workers, students, patients, tourists, and families.

The issue, ICE said, is whether the city should answer congestion by allowing additional fixed, vehicle-heavy port infrastructure along Muelle Loney and Lapuz Road, a riverfront and heritage-adjacent corridor.

“A real transport problem can still be answered by a bad urban decision,” the position paper said.

ICE argued that Muelle Loney, Lapuz Road, and the Iloilo River edge should move toward waterfront recovery, pedestrian access, heritage activation, tourism, civic space, and higher-value mixed-use redevelopment, rather than expanded RoRo queuing and loading.

The larger cost, the group said, is opportunity cost, as every ramp, queuing lane, and enforcement routine makes it harder to reposition the riverfront for higher-value use.

Under a credible waterfront redevelopment scenario, the corridor could support hospitality, dining, retail, offices, residential mixed-use, structured parking, cultural uses, civic space, and riverfront public-realm improvements, according to the paper.

A conservative redevelopment could represent PHP 5 billion to PHP 7 billion in investment, ICE said, while a district-scale scenario could reach PHP 12 billion to PHP 18 billion over time, and a larger transformation tied to the downtown and riverfront could exceed PHP 20 billion.

A PHP 12 billion to PHP 18 billion mixed-use district could generate roughly PHP 170 million to PHP 450 million per year in recurring local fiscal and economic value through real property taxes, business taxes, permits, local fees, tourism-linked activity, employment, and consumption, the group estimated.

Over 10 years, that would amount to roughly PHP 1.7 billion to PHP 4.5 billion, before land-value uplift, private reinvestment, and the branding effect of a stronger waterfront district, ICE said.

On congestion, the group said it could model only planning ranges in the absence of full PPA traffic data.

A base scenario of 1,500 vehicles per day with 20 minutes of added urban delay would imply roughly PHP 60 million to PHP 80 million per year in congestion cost, the paper said.

A heavier scenario of 2,500 vehicles per day with 30 minutes of delay could imply PHP 180 million to PHP 220 million per year.

Factoring in enforcement burden, road wear, illegal stopping, pedestrian conflict, barangay disruption, and fuel wastage, ICE placed a working range of PHP 70 million to PHP 250 million per year in congestion and externality costs.

Even if presented as temporary, the ramps would create users, routes, habits, enforcement assignments, commercial reliance, and political defenders that make later relocation harder, the group warned.

ICE said the burden of proof should rest on the PPA, which should demonstrate why the ramps cannot be placed in a more appropriate port location, why operational reforms cannot reduce the pressure, and how the project aligns with the city’s long-term land-use, transport, tourism, heritage, and waterfront objectives.

The think tank said the usual defenses, including congestion relief, Iloilo–Guimaras connectivity, practicality, and PPA’s port jurisdiction, were not enough to justify the location.

It urged the council, through the Committee on Transportation, not to endorse, facilitate, or accept the proposal in its present location unless the PPA first proves that no better alternative exists and that the project is consistent with the city’s development direction.

“The solution to a transport problem should not create a larger development problem,” the position paper said.