senseneres: BUILDING RAILROADS LIKE HIGHWAYS

BUILDING RAILROADS LIKE HIGHWAYS

Can we separate the function of building railroads from managing railways?

My answer is yes — and not only that, we should. Separating these two functions is not some wild, experimental idea. It’s a proven model in many parts of the world, where it has promoted competition, transparency, and efficiency. The concept is called vertical separation, and it’s one reason why some countries have faster, cheaper, and more reliable train systems while we, sadly, still debate where to begin.

In simple terms, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) could handle railroad construction, while the Philippine National Railways (PNR) or its future successor could handle railway operations. It’s the same way we treat roads: DPWH builds the highways, while buses, jeepneys, and logistics companies use them. Why not do the same for railroads? For that matter, some of the rolling stock could even be owned by private companies.

Building a nationwide rail network is one of the costliest infrastructure undertakings, but the solution may lie in breaking it down into smaller, manageable projects—just as we do with highways. Why not award contracts by section? Each contractor could take on a specific portion of the track or a particular station. This approach would spread out the financial load and attract more participants, including local developers.

And here’s a radical thought: why not allow developers to build rail stations for free—in exchange for the right to develop commercial or residential projects nearby? This is not a new idea. In Japan, railway companies have long funded their operations through transit-oriented development (TOD)—building malls, hotels, and housing complexes around stations. The result? Efficient public transport integrated seamlessly with thriving local economies.

I know, some of these ideas may sound far-fetched. But sometimes, we have to think outside the box—especially since we are decades behind our Asian neighbors. While we argue about feasibility, other countries are already running magnetic levitation and bullet trains.

It makes me wonder—how long before the Philippines has its own high-speed link between Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao?

I remember a conversation I once had with my late mentor, Dr. Jose Conrado Benitez, who suggested building a railroad all the way to Mindanao. I hesitated, saying right-of-way issues could be a nightmare. But his answer was simple and brilliant: “Build it along the coastlines.”

That idea has stayed with me. If we had pursued it decades ago, perhaps we would already be exporting Mindanao produce faster and cheaper, or moving people and goods across islands without depending on expensive and polluting air or sea transport.

When I was a child, I used to ride the Panay Railroad, which once linked the towns of Iloilo to Roxas City. It’s painful to recall that this vital artery no longer exists. Imagine what progress Panay Island might have achieved if that rail line had survived. Instead, we now spend hours stuck on narrow roads, wishing for the train that once was.

What Would This Separation Look Like?

Infrastructure Managers – build, maintain, and upgrade tracks, stations, and signaling systems.
Railway Operators – run the passenger and freight trains using those tracks, under clear access agreements.

This setup is similar to how we run airports and seaports: the government or a public authority manages the infrastructure, while multiple airlines or shipping lines operate independently.

Global Examples We Can Learn From

European Union: EU law requires separation of infrastructure and operations. Germany’s DB Netz handles tracks, while DB Regio runs trains.
Sweden: Publicly owned tracks, privately operated trains.
Japan: The Japan Railways (JR) companies evolved from state ownership to regional private operators that integrate infrastructure and real estate.
United Kingdom: Network Rail manages infrastructure, while private companies run the trains under franchises.

The Benefits Are Clear

Encourages competition – multiple operators can run services on shared tracks.
Improves transparency – clear accounting and reduced cross-subsidization.
Promotes specialization – infrastructure engineers can focus on tracks, while operators focus on service quality.
Opens the door for PPPs – the government retains control of the network while private firms bring in capital and innovation.

But There Are Real Challenges

Coordination between infrastructure and operations must be tight—especially for scheduling and maintenance.
Fair cost-sharing and access fees need strong regulation.
Poor coordination can lead to delays and finger-pointing, as the UK learned during the early years of separation.

A Model for the Philippines

We could adapt this model to our own realities. Imagine:

Barangay-level rail cooperatives running short-haul trains for farmers and goods.
Local governments investing in modular, climate-resilient rail corridors.
Open-access frameworks that allow SMEs and cooperatives to operate freight or passenger services on national tracks.

Railways need not be a monopoly. They can be a commons—a shared infrastructure that supports multiple operators, industries, and communities.

If we build railroads the way we build highways—piece by piece, through partnerships and shared access—we might just catch up with the rest of Asia.

We owe it to the next generation to make sure that the trains we once had are not just remembered, but reborn—this time, faster, fairer, and built for everyone.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.comsenseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/06-02-2026