Dear Editor,
I was excited when I saw the headline in the Stabroek News edition of Wednesday October 7 “Public transport system policy being developed-Benn.” My excitement, however rapidly faded into despair by the time I got to the second paragraph of the article and ended up concluding that the headline had either misrepresented what the minister said or that if the minister actually said that, what he really meant was the development of strategies for improving the existing system of public transport rather than a new policy for the country’s public transport system.
When I saw the headline, I thought that, at last, the Government was taking the bull by the horns to correct the chaotic system of public transport that has developed in the country over the past 20 years and was assuming its responsibility for public transport which is a vital component of the infrastructure of any developed country or country on a serious development path; one just has to look at the world’s developed or rapidly developing countries-even those that are the bastions of
talism and private enterprise, to see that public transport is one area over which there is little debate about state involvement, and little challenge even to state monopoly. What has happened in Guyana, however, is that the responsibility for public transport has been placed entirely into the hands, not just of the private sector, but an unorganized private sector. What the minister said, suggests that the government has fully endorsed the system and as usual, it takes one or two senseless, horrific accidents involving mini-buses to send a wake up call to the public and even the government (see the proliferation of letters in the media following the Linden highway accident and the proposed new government regulations), to what is obviously an inherent weakness of an unorganized system where 1,000 (excuse the hyperbole), individual operators are all hustling, most of them, first, to meet their onerous daily financial commitment to the owners of the buses and secondly, to earn an adequate wage to meet their newly acquired lifestyle. It is surprising that at the time the system was being implemented, it was not predicted as a prescription for chaos and it has taken 20 years for this to be recognized. Such a system inevitably leads to the kind of behaviour we see at the bus parks and on the roads and the kind of ruthless competition which eventually reduces them all to a state of mere subsistence; many of those who own the buses are often unable to meet their monthly instalments, even to replace tyres when this become necessary, to say nothing about replacement of the buses when down-time and repair and maintenance costs far exceed their income. I am anxiously looking forward to see the extent to which the new strategy, involving regulations and enforcement mechanisms, would invoke order to an inherently disorderly system.
The pertinent questions to be asked about the existing system of public transport are, first, how did we ever get into it and second, how could we get out of it?. Immediately the first question is raised, I can hear the nostalgic moans over the dismantling of South America’s first railway and suggestions for criminal action against those responsible for its demise. But while the closure of the railway may be blamed for what has developed along the Georgetown-Rosignol and probably the Vreed-en-Hoop-Parika routes, it could hardly take blame for the developments in Georgetown and New Amsterdam or on the Georgetown-Linden, New Amsterdam-Canje-Corriverton, Supenaam-Charity, East and West Bank Demerara and East Bank Berbice routes.
The Guyana government, in the early 1970s moved in the direction of establishing a national public transport system, starting with a regular bus service on the Georgetown-Rosignol route as a replacement for the derelict and uneconomic East Coast railway.and rapidly moving to most of the other areas and routes mentioned above. For the records, which, so often in Guyana are not adequately documented and stored, and consequently become distorted, the intention at the time was not the establishment of a completely state-owned entity. Discussions were held with the owners of franchises for the Georgetown-Rosignol bus route and the Transport Workers Union with a view to their participation in the new transport company that was to be established. These discussions failed because the only contribution the owners of the franchises were prepared to make was the derelict buses they operated, while the Union, with a contribution of less than 10% of the capital for the investment (which, incidentally the government offered to underwrite for them with one of the local financial institutions since they could not raise the amount involved), wanted control over the management of the company; out of this, Guyana Transport Services emerged as a 100% state owned company. While it enjoyed a monopoly on bus service along the Georgetown-Rosignol route and the other routes later acquired, it never had a monopoly on public transport since there was never any restriction on registered hire cars and even private hire cars, which provided effective competition to the bus service on all the routes along which it operated. Guyana Transport Services, was, however, disbanded in the late 1980s. The true reasons for the disbanding of the service have never been clear; those advanced, however, all focus around unprofitability caused by the two broad accusations normally levelled against state-owned enterprises-mismanagement and corruption. When pressed for specifics, one hears of management blunders at the planning stage such as the idiocy in establishing the Georgetown terminal on Hadfield Street behind Brickdam Police station rather than at Stabroek Market Square: the stupidity of setting up its own service workshop at Rosignol rather than utilising the services of the roadside garages around Georgetown, and later the investment in Tata buses which had to be delivered with spare engines and transmission systems since many of them broke down on their first trip negotiating the hills to Linden with a full load, and Soros buses which often had to be parked due to the unavailability of wind-screen wipers and other spares.
In the area of corruption, apart from the widespread dishonesty levelled against conductors, you get incredible accounts of buses leaving Georgetown with new tyres and returning with old worn out ones, spares imported to rehabilitate six buses being exhausted after three of the buses were rehabilitated, and truck owners actually boasting that they bought their tyres from Guyana Transport Services which was the cheapest supplier in the country.
Attempts were made to correct some of the management errors by moving the Georgetown terminal to Stabroek Market Square, and dismantling the Rosignol workshop; I am not sure what difference these measures made. Except for the prosecution and dismissal of one manager, little appeared to have been done to solve the dishonesty and corrupt practices, through, what I understand, was the influence of the Union which apparently assumed the control over the management they sought at the beginning without having to make any financial contribution While these are often the reasons advanced for the dismantling of the service and handing public transport over to anyone who could acquire a vehicle that could be converted to a mini-bus, I rather suspect the decision was more motivated by the new privatization policy that developed in the country and “the small man becoming the real man” paradigm of the era. These developments have propelled us to the chaos that currently prevails. and have placed the authorities in the dilemma of having to grasp at a plethora of piece-meal strategies for a solution.
My second question is -how could we get out of it? This immediately raises a third, but directly related question -do we want to get out of it? I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it would be extremely difficult for us to abandon the mini-bus sy
stem that has developed over the past 20 years. Any attempt to replace the mini-buses would be, as we say in Guyanese parlance, “mashing the corns” of a significant number of influential people in the society who are the real owners and beneficiaries of the mini-bus fleet, to say nothing of the uproar and accusations of discrimination from the small owners and operators who have become, not necessarily real men, but empowered through their ownership or operation of mini-buses. I am not sure any government would be prepared to deal with the fall out from such an adventure.
But it is not the reaction of the minibus owners and operators that bothers me most; it is that of the Guyanese travelling public. We now have a generation of Guyanese who know little about standard 45 seat buses and relatively orderly public transport and are well into the second generation of those who know nothing about such buses, comfortable seating, bus schedules, or bus stops; unfortunately, the latter group now constitutes the majority of the travelling public and has apparently accepted the minibus system as the ultimate in public transport. They have developed a minibus culture which I have reluctantly admitted would be difficult to eradicate. The atmosphere at the minibus parks is not one of concern or frustration, but almost festive, which I think many of the travellers actually enjoy and would feel cheated if it is removed. You do not see a look of resentment on the faces of young ladies being dragged, sometimes by both arms in different directions to different mini-buses; you get the feeling that many of them enjoy it-probably with a feeling of empowerment. I was alarmed, when some time ago I had to join a mini-bus at Prospect on the East Bank for Stabroek Market Square, to see the condition of the seats and the general interior of the bus, but the incident that shattered me was the equanimity with which a well dressed, highly fragranced young lady, was prepared to board an already overloaded bus and squeeze into an already fully occupied seat next to a roughly dressed young man wearing an armless vest with beads of perspiration on his shoulders and arms.
To complete my journey home in Lamaha Gardens, I decided to join a Sophia mini-bus outside Demico House; this provided a perfect example of the now established culture of the Guyanese traveller to consider it below their dignity to have to walk 100 yards to join a bus or to disembark that distance from their destination. In spite of the almost uninhabited stretch between the junction of Brickdam and Vlissengen Road and Mandela Avenue along Homestretch Avenue, and the stretch along Mandela Avenue through the Botanical gardens, the bus made 17 stops for embarking and disembarking passengers, the first disembarkment being at Brickdam Police Station and the second at Camp Street and Brickdam. The most stunning one, however, was the passenger who asked to be put off at the NIS building after another had just disembarked at the GT&T Customer Service building on the other side of the corner. Ask the minibus driver at the Georgetown-Rosignol bus park what time he would be leaving for Rosignol and the answer is “when I get a full load”.
The speeding which appears now to be the focus of attention is only a minor part of the problem; and I am not sure what role alcohol plays in the type of driving you see. Look at the overtaking to get to a prospective passenger before your competitor reaches him/her; the rush by mini-bus drivers to beat the traffic light only to stop abruptly immediately they cross the corner, stopping in the middle of the road to pick up and drop off passengers and moving off without signalling just as another vehicle id\s about to pass, and the now commonplace practice of occupying the through lanes at traffic light junctions before the light changes, making it difficult for drivers turning to make a safe turn. When I observe the things that mini-bus (and do not forget their compatriots, hire-car drivers) do on the roads, I think the fatal accident rate which normally makes the headlines, is a poor indicator of the state of the system.
I have been intrigued by the suggestions in the numerous letters in the press over the past two months for possible solutions to the minibus chaos. One notable feature of all these proposals is the focus on safety, which I agree is important, but which I think is peripheral and is probably a diversion from the real problem. I see letters now proposing 22 and 28 seat buses (maxi mini buses); this is not surprising since the letters probably emanate from members of the generations mentioned earlier who are unaware of the existence of 45 and 48 seat buses which constitute the backbone of bus transportation around the world.. The replacement of the entire 14 seat mini-bus fleet (which I suspect none of the writers is advocating), by 22 and 28 seat ones which would reduce the number of buses on the road by 33 and 50 percent, respectively, should, theoretically reduce the number of accidents , through the reduction of congestion on the roads. If this is envisaged as one method for improving the safety of the system, why stop at maxi mini buses and not move right up to 45-48 seat standard buses which would reduce the total mini-bus fleet by nearly 67 percent.
But while the focus appears to be on safety, what of the economics of the system? I am yet to see one proposal or hear any debate on this issue which I think should, at least be of concern to the government in terms of fuel consumption and cost, and cost to the travelling public. My research into the fuel cost for moving one passenger one mile between Georgetown and Rosignol at current gasoline and diesel prices, utilizing a reasonably efficient vehicle, indicates $0.66 (66 cents) for a regular 45 seat bus compared with $1.66 for a mini bus. It also requires at least three mini-bus drivers and conductors to transport the 45 passengers transported by one 45 seat bus- probably a boom for employment, but certainly not cost effective. I also have a gut feeling that the cost of maintaining three or four mini-buses must be higher than that of maintaining one 45 seat bus.. There may be areas where the cost of operating the mini-buses may be lower, but this could be verified by detailed analysis.
Some years ago, I thought of at least one partial solution to the mini-bus syndrome; unfortunately, all the persons with experience in the system who I consulted gave the same answer and have persuaded me not even to consider it, The plan involved the judicious introduction of a number of regular buses (coach type buses with comfortable seating and scheduled operations), to compete with the mini- buses on the longer routes. All those persons told me bluntly that it would just not work, in every case citing the failed attempt of the Sparta buses to access the Georgetown-Rosignol route and the tragedy of the Brazilian buses which had to be quickly withdrawn. In both cases they attributed the failure to “customer boycott”-the Guyanese travelling public simply refusing to subject themselves to the discipline of the service being offered – and in addition, some apparent “mashing of corns”, in the case of the Brazilian buses which the administration was not ready to deal with.
While I still feel that my suggested plan could have some measure of success; it apparently would be successfully implemented only if undertaken by the government along with a restriction on mini-bus licences to specified routes. I am not at all advocating a complete scrapping of mini-buses ( I still walk and drive along the roads in Guyana and am mindful of my safety.). There is no doubt that mini-buses provide the kind of flexible service needed in small conurbations like Georgetown and New Amsterdam and could supplement the regular bus service along some of the longer routes. The system, however needs to be organized; and effectively managed; the fact that the buses are owned by individuals does not preclude such organization and management -just look at the Greek and Norwegian shipping industries where s
hips owned by individuals and even companies are put into pools and centrally managed. The concept of state-owned buses along the long-distance routes supplemented by mini-buses where necessary, and the establishment of mini-bus pools under organized management to service specified routes with licences granted only to owners who are members of the pool, should introduce some semblance of order to the country’s public transport system.
Yours faithfully,
Sylvester Carmichael
