THE former US Armed Forces base in Clark has been in the news of late, partly because of the rather unflattering publicity generated by the country’s premier airport in the capital metropolis. The problems associated with the single runway and the long-delayed rehabilitation of Terminal 1 have finally come to bear, and planners have started to take a longer and harder look at building up the necessary infrastructure to make the use of Clark a more viable option.
Since I live in the southern suburbs, a trip to Clark is usually a daunting experience, but only for one reason. First, the SLEx and NLEx legs are pretty relaxing and can be made in relatively short times, 15 to 30 minutes for the SLEx and about 1 hour for the NLEx. What makes the journey difficult is the need to traverse the metropolis, either through traffic-prone EDSA or other routes in older parts of the megalopolis. But to be fair, if one leaves early enough, crossing EDSA from the south can take only 20 – 30 minutes. It is the return trip that takes the cake, as anyone who has to travel the course daily through EDSA or alternative routes knows all too well.
This is why the government should wake up and activate the unsolicited proposal to connect the SLEx and NLEx, which would make the commute more pleasant and much-much shorter! The proponents have, moreover, agreed to accepting a Swiss challenge just to get the job done.
There are all sorts of proposals for rail links on the drawing board. All government planners have to do is focus on one or two possible alternatives and decide if using ODA or simply letting a private sector group put up the necessary infrastructure will be the best bet. There is a temptation to use ODA because this allows for a longer repayment term and also capitalizes on very low interest rates. The caveat is that this route will take more time to implement. It is up to those concerned to decide whether one alternative is better than the other, or to see if a hybrid model might be in order (a mix of ODA and private sector participation).
The lead agency involved in all this is the DOTC, which has the mandate to oversee all land, sea, and air transportation issues and policies. Thus, the DOTC has been exploring all sorts of modes to employ, among them, the possibility of a twin airport system with both the NAIA (3 Terminals) and the Clark (2 + 1 Terminals) airports to complement each other. The DOTC will set forth the policies and directions, and BCDA and its subsidiaries will actualize and implement said policies.
Meanwhile, the people concerned with the development of the whole Clark complex, namely BCDA, CIAC, CDC (Bases Conversion Development Authority, Clark International Airport Corp., and Clark Development Corp.) have not been sitting on their haunches. A decision has been made for BCDA to take the lead in the infrastructure requirements for building the two main terminals that will allow for Clark to tackle some 50-million passengers. Both terminals will be built on a modular basis, allowing for expansion as the traffic builds up to even beyond the 50-million mark. With over 2,200 hectares of available land, the existing two runways can be expanded to two main parallel runways, the conversion of the present jet-fighter runway to a taxiway, and the setting up of an adjunct dependent runway to be used for emergencies or other purposes.
The direct involvement of the BCDA in the construction of the two terminals means that its extensive experience in construction and development will be brought to bear on the project, aside from its very healthy balance sheet. The BCDA has also allowed CIAC to look into unlocking the inherent values in the land under its care under a usufruct arrangement. CIAC will handle all airline- and airport-related issues and market the terminals so that local and foreign airlines will find it attractive as a destination.
Private sector investors and developers may be pleased to learn that, as in the case of the SCTEx, both terminals may – in turn – be bid out to the private sector for management after the construction phase. This will allow CIAC to get the terminals they want, and avoid the pitfalls of another Terminal 3 (NAIA) being dumped on their hands.
The Master Plan for the Clark Airport includes cargo terminals that can be put up by the BCDA/CIAC combine and/or the private sector under separate arrangements. In addition, more and more private sector involvement has been coming in through FBO and MRF (Fixed Base and Maintenance and Repair) facilities. The big boys like Singapore Airlines are already in place and have started work on their expansion programs. Big airline manufacturers have decided to set up their own facilities to service the airplanes they have sold to operators in the region, especially since it is too expensive to base in neighboring airports in other countries.
Meanwhile, the existing terminal is about to get an expansion – to be finished by end 2012 -- to allow it to handle the projected traffic brought about by the introduction of more flights by budget airlines like Air Asia, SeaAir-Tiger, CebuPac, Airphil, and others. Notably, the airport recently got the green light from the US-Homeland Security’s TSA for flights to and from the US. This November, a small Guam based airline called Fly Guam will begin regular service. Talks are now ongoing with Chinese airlines for flights to and from China. (When the Budget and Legacy terminals are finally in place, the existing terminal will become the Domestic terminal.)
The Air Asia case is a good example of how the airport will grow. Air Asia plans to use Clark as both a domestic and regional hub. Flights to and from Davao are about to start, with other routes like Puerto Princesa, Kalibo, Cebu, etc. in the works. Meanwhile, the regional hub will tie up with other Air Asia hubs, but especially the one in Japan where Air Asia is partnered with ANA. Flights to and from the US are seen to originate from the Clark hub too. Those who have flown Air Asia know that the planes, though classified as single-class budget, look and feel much better than the cattle class that one inevitably sees in legacy airlines.
It is inevitable that some of the other airlines locating in Clark will also follow this path.
Clark Development Corp. and other assets under the aegis of BCDA will surely benefit from the incoming and outgoing traffic, and demand for hotel rooms and amenities will soar. But more than Clark is the vision that those concerned have for making the entire area north of Metro a tourist destination. Already, plans are afoot to tie in the golf courses and other assets under BCDA in a seamless arrangement (Clark, Poro Point, John Hay) with other promising tourist spots in the region like Subic and Baguio. CIAC is going to promote a commuter airline or airlines that will sponsor flights to Poro Point in La Union with buses or ongoing flights to Baguio’s Loakan airport to bring visitors to the BCDA-owned John Hay property. If this pans out, the small planes will also ferry in passengers from the Metro area.
The country’s major developers should take a second look at two areas that could be developed extensively. The first one is the Clark-Subic corridor, which is made more accessible by the SCTEX. PEZA-accredited zones and other development initiatives should find the place welcome. Then, there is the roughly 28,000 hectares called the Clark Sub-Zone that can become a very inviting planned development, with light industry, residential, commercial, cultural, sports and other facilities built in. Of course, since it is now proper to go Green, the area must have lots of greenery and must be built to strict environmental standards.
The way to Clark is clear, and in the coming five years, this momentum should grow as the Budget Terminal and the Gateway Terminal are constructed.
