Guyana is planning to build a railway so as to move large
numbers of persons who will soon begin to occupy some of the new
housing schemes in the country.
The railway is thus seen as solving the transportation problems
that will develop as a result of the massive housing drive under
taken by the government of Guyana.
It is anticipated that with more and more persons settling along
a narrower strip of area, problems of traffic congestion and the
need to move large numbers of persons will force the
establishment of a railway.
In fact, the President of Guyana has
already indicated that a railway is on the cards. (hoax
to grab votes)
President Bharrat Jagdeo and Trinidad & Tobago Prime Minister Kamla ...
wants to examine the feasibility of relocating the aluminium smelter
originally proposed for the southwestern Trinidad town of La Brea being built here.
............SN Wednesday, June 23, 2010
(his lund cannot generate
enough
power to operate the aluminium smelter)
But where will this railway be built? Where will the lines and
how will it criss-cross the existing roadways.
Railways are meant to move large numbers of persons and goods.
It therefore has benefits for the country.
But it is also costly to establish and to run. Unless there is
guaranteed heavy flow of persons and goods, a rail system cannot
be viable.
Guyana once has a railway network. The PNC closed it down. At
the time the option was to go for roads, since this formed part
of the manifesto of one of the coalition partners of the
government.
The leader of the United Force had promised “highways to
happiness” and after the ousting of Jagan, the West was
willing to throw a great deal of money behind Burnham so as to
curtail the communist threat that they perceived came from the
PPP. As such they gave a great deal of money to build the United
Force’s “highways to happiness’. These highways linked
various parts of the country.
At the time that money was given to construct these highways,
the cost of fuel was low and thus the government of the day,
anxious to show that progress was being made, and eager to
create jobs, opted to close the railway line and build a network
of public roads.
Most of these new highways were built ten to fifteen years
before their time. They were greatly underutilized in the early
days and even when a toll was charged this could not meet the
expenses of maintaining or paying back for the roadways.
The government of the day was not bothered by this fact because
the highways, to them , represented visible signs of progress,
never mind that soon after they were constructed, the oil crisis
hit and forced the government to regret their decision to close
down the railways.
The PNC government regretted the closure of the railway line.
But it may have been doing itself and the country a favour
because the railway would have run bankrupt under the PNC.
At the time of its closing, there were problems with not enough
persons using the trains. The railway company was not in good
shape and even if Burnham did not close it down, it would have
closed by the fact that it was running bankrupt.
It was also becoming difficult to keep free riders off the
trains. Many persons were known to hitch a free ride on the
train, and the conductors could not have controlled this, very
much like what happened later with the public bus transportation
when persons got on the bus and when it was time to show their
tickets had none to present.
It was not surprising, therefore, that the bus company
experienced problems but its eventual demise was due to the
bankruptcy of the government and its inability to maintain its
fleet or to find money for spares.
When the PPP returned to power in 1992, President Cheddi Jagan
requested the Indian government to examine the feasibility of
restoring the railway lines.
That study, done when oil prices were below US$20 per barrel,
determined that it would not be feasible to reintroduce the
railway. Gasoline was cheap and therefore not much savings would
be had for the average citizen for switching to a rail system
rather than travelling by public road transport.
The rise in oil prices may be a factor that could however make a
railway line viable today. With oil prices tipping at over
US$100 per barrel and with the travelling public increasing, it
may make sense to reintroduce the old railway system.
However, there are other factors which would suggest that such a
plan would not be feasible. For one, Guyanese are now accustomed
to fast travel and a train having to stop at almost every
village will not attract many customers, not when there are some
minibuses which get you to your destination much faster.
The other problem is who will run a railway. A railway cannot be
administered by the government.
If a state railway line is introduced in Guyana, it will go
broke within weeks because there will so many free-riders that
the revenues would never be able to compensate for cost of
running the system.
What Guyana needs is a better system of roads along the coast.
The population is too small to invest in a railway system to
move workers and consumers.
However, a railway is needed to allow for travel to the
hinterland. Imagine what a spectacular view it will be to travel
by train across the Rupununi Savannahs.
This will certainly help tourism. It also will allow for the
easier movement of goods over such long distances. It makes
sense instead of building a road to Lethem if a rail system
could be introduced. But for the city?. Nah!
Saturday, June 18, 2011
