Rapid Rail All Wrong? More Style Than Substance

Many were elated with the award of the current Comprehensive National Transport Study (CNTS), although some of us who have been trained at the State’s expense were disappointed that we could not be part of such a major almost once-in-a-lifetime project that you only dreamed about. The investigators should be just about to complete their diagnostic of the current situation of the transportation system of each of the modes and their joint performance, including users, means, facilities, operations, institutional aspects, service aspects, administrative aspects and policies in effect, among other things.

But even before this study has delivered anything of substance, we have the Transport Minister Colm Imbert stating at the Informational Meeting for the Trinidad Rapid Rail Project at Crowne Plaza on March 14, that “the Government has decided that the preferred mode of mass transit is rapid rail as it is appropriate at this time to reintroduce rail… and Government believes this… and is committed to fast-track the rapid rail project.” There is that word “fast-track” again!

The minister then went on to tell the audience that he was viewing the website of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs earlier in the morning and found that 70 percent of workers commute by trains in Japan. May I remind the minister that up until 1996, 60 percent of workers in Trinidad travelled by public transit that is still almost exclusively unsubsidised, unsupported, and totally unmanaged by Government, at that!

PULLING BULL

Anywhere else in the world the government would have been proud of such a transit usage. Currently, less than 40 percent use public transit, aided by Government policy which continues to favour private car ownership. The best current values in developed countries for public transport range between 30 and 50 percent; and the acceptable range for developing countries is 50 to 70 percent.

The CNTS has never stated that the most efficient mode of mass transport for Trinidad is rapid rail, but Imbert and Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) are already trying to convince the top international rail developers and promoters that rapid rail is the way to go.

At the meeting, the rapid rail project goals and technology were explained by Mr Paul T Bakas PB’s technical specialist. He stated that the Government (GOTT) wishes to implement a rapid rail system to alleviate traffic congestion due to the predicted growth in traffic. According to him the project goals are:

•Minimise time to project award;

•Fast and frequent rail service;

•Reasonable project cost;

•Alleviate growth of traffic congestion on highways;

•Minimise disruption during construction;

•Aesthetically pleasing system;

•Minimise environmental and noise impact;

•Safe and secure system;

•Technology transfer;

•Landmark station in Port-of-Spain; and

•Efficient and affordable system for users.

Imagine the primary goal is to have a rapid award! He then went on to state that the procurement goal was to minimise the time to the project award. The procurement approach was also to secure the services of a Design-Build-Operate-Maintain Contractor (DBOM) with focus on DBOM qualifications.

The technology goals were to:

(a) Alleviate congestion due to growth of traffic on the highways, and the rapid rail system must be attractive to automobile users; and

(b) Reasonable project cost and efficient and affordable system for users, the emphasis would be to build at-grade as much as possible, to reduce costs.

RAPID RAIL: ATTRACTIVE

Bakas added that the rapid rail transit should be made attractive to automobile users through (i) Fast and frequent rail service: Trains on each line between five and ten minutes during peak hours; space stations reasonably far apart; high speed service (80 -100 kmph)

(ii) Easy access to stations – ample parking; easy drop off areas; maxi-taxi provisions; weather protection where possible.

(iii) Safe and secure system: security for parked cars; sense of safety in the stations; sense of safety on the trains; and

(iv) Pleasant Experience – Attractive stations: comfortable cars; secondary distribution.

Other key goals stated were: Minimise disruption during construction; technology transfer; and, landmark stations.

The rail technology requirements are: rail car technology will be open; operate on exclusive Right of Way (ROW); and avoid-at-grade road crossings.

What if the GOTT were to give the same priority and requirements for exclusive ROW or busways for a well-developed bus rapid transit, including elevated crossings at intersections, and a well-administered and technology supported public transport authority, wouldn’t the nation be able to have the appropriate level of transit efficiency, satisfaction and attractiveness within a very small fraction of the cost and time to implement a completely new system as rapid rail?

The minister also spoke about adopting a multi-faceted approach to solving the traffic problems, including a ferry system from Port-of-Spain to San Fernando, but how can there be any balance in transport investments when there are likely to be huge sunk costs in the development of rapid rail. If ferry is not proving viable, the vessels may easily be shifted to other suitable routes, such as destinations in Venezuela or Grenada. But what can you do if rail is consuming too much GOTT subsidy? (Continued next week)

e-mail: lfsystems@carib-link.net