Lapu-Lapu mass transport feasibility study MOU signed
LAPU-LAPU CITY, Philippines- Lapu-Lapu City has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the Mass Transport System Project feasibility study with a private company.
The city was represented by Mayor Junard “Ahong” Chan during the signing of the MOU with Futran Philippines, Inc., represented by its president, Jose Christopher Fornier II.
Among the proposed mass transport system that Futran Philippines, Inc. wants to venture into in the city were monorail, light rail, and/or personal rapid transit that utilizes the “green concept.”
The green concept involves sustainable and renewable energy.
“We are one of the fastest-growing cities in the Philippines, so we need to upgrade our system, especially for transportation,” Chan said.
Under the agreement, the private proponent will converge its technical experts and financial capacities to undertake and conduct the feasibility study to determine the technical and financial viability of the people-mover project.
If viable, Futran Philippines, Inc. will submit a recommendation for its implementation.
“As we all know that Lapu-Lapu City is a tourist city, at the same time we have an economic zone, we have about 120,000 workers in the industrial zone. And we have an expansion for the city for another 600 hectares of reclamation and we are expecting companies to come in and we need to have this kind of transportation,” Chan added.
Chan said that this will help ease the traffic problem in the city.
The feasibility study will last for a period of six months and can be extended for another six months if there may be unforeseeable delays in the study.
The city shall not also entertain the proposal of other private entities to carry out the same study while the consortium is conducting the development of the feasibility study of the project. /rcg
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.