Rapid
rail lacks transparency
By Boyd Reid
The Trinidad Guardian
Port
Spain
Petroleumworldtt.com
02 11 07
Despite suggestions to the contrary, the T&T
Transparency Institute (TTTI) is not against the
proposed Trinidad Rapid Rail Project per se. No
right thinking person would, in principle, be opposed
to any initiative aimed at easing, if not solving,
the horrendous traffic problems that commuters face
daily.
What
we are against is the Government proceeding with
the project without providing the public with good
reason to believe that a rapid rail system is the
solution or even part of the solution to those problems.
Furthermore
the project’s procurement process violates
the Government’s own policy on public procurement
contained in the White Paper that was laid in Parliament
in September 2005. According to this, all procurement
must, above all, be true to the principles of value
for money, transparency and accountability. The
project violates each one of these.
Value
for money?
The
project fails the value for money test because it
commits the country to a massive investment (estimated
initially to be $20, then $15, then $10 and now
$7 billion) without the benefit of a financial feasibility
study that would show that rapid rail is the best
option available to us.
What
is very worrying about the Government’s approach
to this investment is that Colm Imbert, Minister
of Works and Transport, is on public record as saying
that he sees no need for such a study. In effect
he has said to us: we have a traffic problem; rapid
rail is the answer; so it’s full speed ahead;
trust us not to spend any more of your money than
necessary.
This
cavalier approach to what should be responsible
management of taxpayer’s money is both difficult
to understand and impossible for us to accept.
Transparency?
The
TRRP fails the transparency test because the Government
has decided to commit the country to this massive
and expensive project without sharing fully with
the citizens the technical studies that informed
that decision.
All
that the Government has told the people—on
whose behalf the decision was taken—was that
several studies done from 1967 to date have concluded
that rapid rail was the way to go.
Where
is the transparency in that approach? Why are the
latest studies, paid for by taxpayers, not released
for public information? If it is that the studies
are not yet complete, is it not premature to use
them as the basis for the choice of rapid rail?
Why
was a public consultation not held to inform citizens
of the available options and the reasons for preferring
rapid rail?
Such
a consultative approach is currently being adopted
by the same Minister of Works and Transport with
respect to the proposed Princes Town to Mayaro Highway
with four public hearings advertised for the month
of January. Why, therefore, no consultation on the
TRRP that is wider in technical complexity and scope,
far more costly, and of far greater significance
to the future development of Trinidad? Why the lack
of transparency on this project?
Accountability?
The
TRRP fails the accountability test because already
there are worrying signs about who would be held
responsible for the outcome of the project. At the
outset, the Government announced that the National
Infrastructure Development Company (Nidco) was charged
with implementing the project. However, Nidco has
been noticeably silent on the matter.
Where
is Nidco’s voice among the tens of thousands
of words being spoken about the project?
During
his address to the breakfast meeting at the Chamber
of Industry and Commerce, on January 16, (at which
we were represented), Minister Imbert said that
it was obvious that Nidco did not have the in-house
technical expertise to evaluate the work of the
foreign consultants and contractors who might be
engaged on the project. Therefore Nidco had been
hiring, and would continue to hire, the best available
foreign consultants to supervise the work of the
other foreign consultants and contractors and to
advise.
But
if Nidco has such a deficiency of expertise, how
can it make proper choices of such consultants?
In these circumstances, if the outcome of the project
is less than expected and promised, who will be
held accountable? Would it be the minister, or Nidco,
or the foreign consultants whom Nidco employed to
supervise on its behalf (and who would have long
since departed from our shores)?
The
situation begs the question: who will guard the
guards?
TTTI
suggests that accountability would be greatly improved
if Nidco would employ local transportation engineers
to oversee the technical implementation of this
project. Where specialised local expertise might
be short, local consultants could hire the necessary
foreign expertise under their direction. This approach,
together with Nidco being responsible for the management
and client representation and the minister responsible
for policy directives, should make for greater accountability.
In
adopting it, the Government would actually be following
the recommendations made by the Commissioners of
the Piarco Airport Inquiry.
TTTI
warns the Government that the TRRP, as currently
envisaged, is getting off to an uncertain and alarming
start. However, it is not too late to pause, analyse
where the project has reached and to change direction
as needed.
We
caution the Government and the national community
that, with five times as much money at stake, we
must do better this time.
TTTI
joins with other key stakeholder groups in urging
the Government to pause, think again, be completely
open with the public and listen to all views.
Boyd
Reid is the secretary of the local chapter of Transparency
International
A
repeat of Piarco?
There
are worrying similarities between what we are seeing
on the TRRP and what we saw on the Piarco Airport
Development Project.
Fast-tracking
The
TRRP is being fast-tracked as was the airport project,
both for reasons never fully explained. In the name
of fast-tracking, corners were cut at Piarco with
disastrous results. Already we are seeing corners
being cut on the TRRP that could result in serious
problems later on.
Poor
oversight
On
the TRRP, as happened on the airport, the supervising
agencies providing project oversight are inadequately
staffed.
In
the Piarco case, the Airports Authority fired the
local technical staff on the very day that tenders
were received for evaluation.
As
a result, the Airports Authority relied on the tender
recommendations of foreign Consultant Birk-Hillman.
The rest is history.
In
the case of the TRRP, Minister Imbert has confirmed
that Nidco has not hired in-house expertise to evaluate
tenders and to supervise the foreign consultants
and contractors. Instead, Nidco will rely on the
advice of other foreign consultants. Can we feel
confident that the national interest will be protected?
Political
interference
In
the case of Piarco more than one minister of government
usurped the authority of Nipdec and the Airports
Authority with resultant management breakdown. In
the case of the TRRP, Minister Imbert appears to
have assumed the role of project manager, reminiscent
of what then Minister John Humphrey did at Piarco.
The
country knows only too well what poor project implementation
led to in the case of the Piarco Airport: cost and
time overruns, a product that neither contributed
to national development and expertise nor met the
people’s expectations and massive corruption;
a scenario which is still playing itself out in
local and foreign courts of law.
The
Trinidad Guardian
Thursday 8th February, 2007
Copyright
©2006 The Trinidad Guardian. All Rights Reserved.
