Dear Editor,
In 1956 President Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act, officially putting into action the construction of the Interstate Highway System of the United States. In 1957 work began on the first section in Kansas. Eisenhower had previously experienced the German Autobahn system in 1944 during World War II and it sparked his vision for a similar national highway system in the USA. Big projects have to be conceptualized and visualized by leaders for 20 years into the future and more. Present-day leaders are not meant to be “yesterday’s” men/women. Vision must then be converted into actionable projects with the primary mission being human development with a forward thinking focus. My focus is on the issue of the Corentyne River Bridge and to ask those who are having doubts to suspend those doubts and consider this Project from all angles to fully understand why this project is feasible. What makes this project bankable?
1. Financial Viability – The Corentyne River Bridge is a public good for both Suriname and Guyana. Thus any investor will require some support and why not; it happens on any public bridge project globally. In the mecca of capitalism (the United States) both the Mario Cuomo Bridge in New York and the Cape Cod Canal Bridge System could not have been built without Federal Funding. The total cost of the Mario Cuomo Bridge Project was US$4 billion and the Federal Government injected US$1.4 billion while the State of New York injected US$2.6 billion. That is 65% of the required funding coming from the taxpayers and why not? Who has benefited from this Project directly? The taxpayers! In the case of present-day Guyana, where we have an oil economy, is it not developmentally sound to ensure that this new source of funding is injected into transformational projects like the Corentyne River Bridge? Are we as a people not allowed to dream big and bridge gaps between peoples? This is perfectly normal behaviour of any Government in an economy that is growing above 6%. Just reflect on India.
2. Technical Feasibility – This is an area I would not venture into because I expect my Government will be hiring the best engineers to design a bridge that will withstand a traffic flow of over 185,000 vehicles per year in the first year climbing up to over 560,000 after four years.
3. Economic and Social Feasibility – The developing economic relationship between Guyana and Suriname is gravid with new opportunities for our peoples. This bridge will be the catalyst that can unleash the potential of the Guiana Shield as we all prepare for the post-oil era. What this Bridge will do is significantly reduce travel time, better connect nations, and facilitate economic development especially in the border communities of Corriverton and Nikerie by opening new trade relations. Even essential services for a fee can be enhanced, like English schooling for Surinamese in Guyana, visits by Surinamese to the newly built hospitals in the Upper Corentyne, and even cross-border access to work for those who want to work. Right now I am aware of Surinamese who are working in Berbice with contractors as plumbers because of the dire shortage of that skillset in Berbice.
The true fruits of this Bridge will be a bounty to be reaped by the 20-year-olds of Guyana when it is fully unleashed. May I humbly ask that those who have already made their contribution, quite inexpertly, to measure their “spiritus negandi” as to the potential of this bridge? Sometimes we as a people must think of the next generation first. We may not enjoy the fruits, but so what; think of the children of Guyana who are the true inheritors of the bounties of this nation. Those who still have concerns should spend some time in these geographic areas to truly understand the socio-economic importance of this Bridge in these border communities. Seeing is believing, and you cannot learn about human development behind a keyboard; get out into the fields to understand the social-economic good that this bridge will create for thousands of human beings.
Every project has its positives and its negatives but to focus on the negatives only is nothing but disingenuous. Any capable project manager will advise you when the technical, financial, and socio-economic considerations are fused; that this Corentyne River Bridge makes absolute macro-economic and national development sense for both Guyana and Suriname, very much like the first section of the Interstate Highway System of the United States.
In 1975, when the first data was collected on the Kansas Interstate Highway system, some 9,936 vehicles traversed that rural Interstate Highway System. In 2018, some 2,021,905 vehicles traversed the same road system. Who would have thought a road system hardly used in 1975 is now so fully populated that they are now thinking of expanding it? I am sure there were negaholics in 1957 trying to stall the vision of President Eisenhower. If he had buckled to their unjustified pressure, some two million drivers would have lost the opportunity to benefit from the rural I-70 System in 2023, costing them billions of dollars in lost time. My humble suggestion to all is just to build the bridge and fast. Build baby, build!
Sincerely,
Sasenarine Singh
