Bus,
not rail, preferred by Govt consultants
By
Raffique Shah
Trinidad Express
Port
Spain
Petroleumworldtt.com
10 01 06
WITHOUT
doubt, rail systems-light, rapid, heavy and monorail-are
cost-efficient when compared with the primary mode
of transport in Trinidad and Tobago, motor vehicles.
The re-introduction of rail into this country after
the last system was dismantled some 40 years ago
could bring multiple benefits to commuters. But
its success is dependent on too many variables,
which is why specialists in transport engineering
and traffic management have grave reservations over
government spending tens of billions of dollars
on the proposed rapid rail system (RRS).
"There
is too little focus on traffic demand management,
too much on construction of new roads, highways
and now a railway," said Dr Philbert Morris,
whose company, Softcom, produced a report for the
Works and Transport Ministry last February titled
"Short-Term Measures for Traffic Mitigation".
In
its overview, the report stated: "Traffic arises
out of the desire and need of people to travel from
one place to another for business or pleasure. Consistent
traffic congestion is caused by trips which persons
are obliged to make, for work or for school."
It pointed out there are engineering solutions and
regulatory solutions to mitigate or eliminate such
congestion. "There are measures to influence
choice of mode, enforcement provisions and administrative
improvements. There are measures such as the controlling
of the types of vehicles which may use various roads
or lanes at given times. There are land use controls,
such as controlling the location of places of work."
The Report called for "the urgent need for
strengthening of the Traffic Management capability
of the Ministry (of Works and Transport)."
It
said, too, that "proposals for rationalising
the intersection of the CR and Uriah Butler Highway
.will not solve the traffic problem along the CR
Highway unless other intersections, and the entrances
to Port of Spain, are addressed." Regarding
public transportation, the report recommended:
-
Re-designing, refurbishing and rebuilding City Gate.
Commuters tousle for transportation at City Gate.
-
A Paratransit Hub in San Fernando.
-
Improving the walking experience in POS.
-
Establishing Park and Ride Facilities in POS.
-
Optimisation of the PBR.
-
Introduction of Water-Taxis.
Underscoring
its focus on traffic management, the report charged:
"The Traffic Management Branch (of the Transport
Ministry), the agency charged with the responsibility
for traffic management, has not grown in size, status
or capability since it was first established in
1978." The number of vehicles has, however,
"increased tremendously over the last 20 years
.while the Branch has lost rather than gained the
capacity to deal with the situation."
Regarding
the highly-touted CR/Butler interchange, the report
stated emphatically: "Improvements to the CRH
and other intersection improvements east of POS
would be ineffective if significant bottlenecks
continue to exist at the entrances to POS. The consultant
will be required to redesign existing, or propose
new designs, for access to the city."
The
report continued: "To attract more persons
to public transport, we must improve all of the
facilities for public transport. City Gate is the
portal, from the east, to the capital city, and
yet it looks dirty and unattractive. Improvements
should include, but not be limited to, weather-protection,
pedestrian crossings, street furniture and lighting."
With respect to the "park and ride" facilities,
it recommended that co-operative groups of maxi-taxi
operators be given the opportunity to bid for a
shuttle service.
On
the only high occupancy vehicle (HOV) road in the
country, the PBR, the report (and other transport
experts who spoke with Business Express concurred)
noted: "The initial purpose of the PBR was
to enhance the desirability of bus transport by
providing a high-speed exclusive link between major
urban centres. This would encourage a modal shift
to more efficient HOVs away from private cars. There
is a high demand for use of the PBR by private cars
based on some concept of the status or importance
of the individual or agency operating the vehicles."
This free-for-all on the PBR has resulted in around
1,000 private vehicles using the PBR. "When
the PBR was designed, it was never intended for
use by private vehicles," said Dr Trevor Townsend,
an engineer who worked on that project. "Now
that the politicians have opened the door to this
over-use of what was intended to be a HOV, it no
longer serves the purpose it was intended to. There
are traffic jams of the PBR."
The
Softcom report warned: "Many people see the
current travel problems as 'traffic problems', not
'transportation problems'. They advocate solutions
which might, at best, lead to minimising the travel
times of vehicles, not people. Congestion on the
bus route increases travel times for public transport
users, and reduces the carrying capacity of the
PBR." On north-south travel, the idea of "water
taxis", long touted as another alternative
to ease road traffic congestion, was raised. The
report called for a study to determine the feasibility
and general operational parameters of a water-taxi
system linking POS to Point Fortin, with intermediate
stops at Point Lisas and San Fernando. On this mode
of transport, it warned about capital investment
in wharf facilities and passenger interchange areas
and the issue of subsidy.
Continuing
its analysis of the causes of traffic congestion,
it added: "On many major roads safety is compromised
by the existence of illegal entrances to highways.
Along some major routes traffic jams are commonly
caused by the pedestrian, paratransit and private
vehicle activity generated by businesses with inadequate
facilities. Improvements in the location of parking-lot
entrances, pedestrian crossings, etc., may help
to alleviate some of the problems." On the
public transport lay-bys suggested for all main
arteries, the report noted that "enforcement
is difficult when there is pressure for maxi taxis
to compete on the road". "The maxi taxis,
the main providers of public transport, do not behave
in a disciplined fashion because the structure of
the system encourages competition on the road."
The
four traffic experts who spoke with Business Express
(Dr Townsend, Dr Morris, Dr Rae Furlonge and Mr
Vaughn Lezama) argue that Government, like members
of the public, was taking the wrong approach to
solving our traffic woes. "That interchange
at the CR/Butler intersection has become a political
issue," they echoed. "The initial design
was not based on any proper study of the causes
of the traffic jams leading into POS. There was
the so-called 'Humphrey Arch', again, another design
that was without merit. When the PNM Government
came to power, it felt under public pressure it
had to continue with the project. But there is nothing
to suggest that the interchange will even mitigate,
far less solve our traffic woes. People clamour
for it, so the politicians deliver."
They
argue, too, that the Government Campus-four multi-storied,
high-density office structures in lower POS-will
only exacerbate the traffic problems. "That
campus was initially slated for St Joseph, part
of a wider proposal to decentralise government operations,"
said the group. "The Government has gone ahead
with it in the worst possible location, and added
several similar structures in its waterfront project.
These will mean more people commuting to downtown
at the same times, mornings and afternoons. Worst
of all is the construction of a 1,600-capacity,
multi-story car park. All studies show that that
size park is undesirable in city centres. It will
take vehicle owners up to two hours to enter or
exit that park at peak traffic hours. The Government
was advised to construct two, or better still, four
such separate car parks with a similar cumulative
capacity."
They
point, too, to the high density of motor vehicles
on our roads, exacerbated by the mass ownership
of foreign-used vehicles. "Government was warned
that this was a road to self-destruction,"
the engineers said. "One Works Minister (under
the UNC Government) said this business brought considerable
revenue to government and made cars available to
poor people. It was a populist measure that the
new government inherited and kept. No one bothered
to look at, say, Singapore, where ownership of private
vehicles is severely restricted. They have efficient
public transport services and little or no traffic
jams-and this in a country that is close to one-tenth
our size with three-times our population. In Bermuda,
each family is entitled to only one vehicle. We
not only allowed a free-for-all, but that was coupled
with a decline in our public transport capacity
and heavily-subsidised fuel."
Against
this background, the engineers do not see rapid
rail as an answer to our traffic problems. "Can
you imagine trying to woo our many vehicle owners
to using the train, say, from San Fernando to POS,
or even Chaguanas to POS? Where are the safe car
parks where they can park their vehicles and ride
the trains? Do such parks form part of the proposed
rail system? Assuming you get many vehicle owners
to park and ride, where is the shuttle system in
POS, or in any other city or major town? So we may
well invest $20 billion in capital costs, not forgetting
cost-overruns that are accepted in rail systems,
then add another $3 billion annually for operating
and maintaining the system, and find that the trains
run half-empty while our roads remain clogged!"
In
examining transport demand management-providing
travellers with choices of mode, location, route
and time-Furlonge suggests the following options:
-
HOVs with one lane on each major highway reserved
for vehicles carrying two or more persons.
-
Well-organised transit system that delivers high
quality passenger services in a safe, cost-effective
environment.
-
Parking management control.
-
Land-use growth management.
-
Staggered work hours.
-
Ridesharing (car pooling)
-
Road congestion pricing (charging motorists a price
that represents the cost they create by using a
particular road).
Interestingly,
Parsons-Brinckerhoff (PB), the firm of consultants
to the Ministry of Works and Transport which is
providing the Comprehensive National Transportation
Study (its report is due later this month), sees
Bus Rapid Transit, not rail, as "the next generation
of public transportation". According to a PB
brochure, from which Furlonge quoted heavily in
an article (Newsday Business), it states: "Around
the world, transit owners are turning to bus rapid
transit (BRT) to provide communities with efficient,
flexible, affordable transportation. Whether in
congested urban areas or suburban travel corridors,
BRT is attracting new riders by combining the high-performance
characteristics of rail with the flexibility and
economy of buses. Transit providers are discovering
that BRT achieves the excellent quality of service
that customers associate with rail, but at significantly
reduced cost."
Since
PB is yet to deliver its CNTS report to Transport
Minister Colm Imbert, it would be interesting to
see if the consultants will recommend rapid rail
or BRT as a prime option for Trinidad and Tobago.
If BRT is the preferred option, will the Government
still pursue the $20 billion rapid rail project?
There are other considerations, too. How does Singapore,
a highly developed country with a population density
of 6,400 people per square kilometre, cope with
its transportation challenges?
Are
there lessons we can learn from them-and other countries
in which traffic congestion has been dealt with?
In the final part of this article in next week's
Business Express, these and other problems and solutions
to traffic congestion will be discussed.
Trinidad
Express
Wednesday, September 27th 2006
Copyright
©2006 Trinidad Express . All Rights Reserved.
