The decision was taken by the People’s Partnership Government not to proceed with the rapid rail project on September 8th, 2010. This resulted in the continued overcrowding of the nation’s roads and loss of productivity in the work place and the classrooms.

In 2018, countless, thousands of workers and schoolchildren continue to arrive at work and school under needless stress occasioned by traffic jams and requiring time to unwind thus, effectively, reducing their output.

The multi-passenger rapid rail trains would have been positioned to lift, say, 800 to 1,000 each as opposed to the four or five-seater conventional taxi or private car; the 12-24 passenger maxi taxi and the larger 50-passenger bus. In turn, the utilisation of the rapid rail would have meant that far less gasolene and compressed natural gas would have been needed on an annual or five to ten-year basis, thus releasing the volume of energy saved to earn additional valuable foreign exchange.

The discarding of the rapid rail programme should not have been based on the initial cost of laying down the tracks, acquiring the trains and operating the system.

Hundreds of millions of dollars would have been saved annually through workers reaching their places of employment well in time and stress free.

Additionally, the man hours saved would have made the country’s products, whether energy based or non-energy based, that much more competitive, not only in regional and international markets but in the domestic market as well. It would have been a plus as the nation moved toward diversification of its economy. The introduction of rapid rail would have, tacitly, subsidised manufacturing costs of many a product and this would have been reflected in increased demand for our goods and services.

It would have been myopic for the People’s Partnership Administration to have viewed what clearly should have been a smooth running and efficient service in terms of profit and loss.

Guido Moss, the celebrated United States transport expert, who had been sent to Trinidad and Tobago by the US Operation Mission to the West Indies to advise on the establishment of a transport system, stated: “Public ownership of transport is very generally operated at a financial loss.”

Admittedly, Moss, who submitted his Report and recommendations on February 20, 1961, had been commissioned to investigate bus transport.

Nevertheless, his arguments with respect to the multi-passenger bus as opposed to the conventional taxi could be employed today for rapid rail in relation to even the buses and, certainly, the maxis and taxis.

Moss stated: “With its five passengers per taxicab compared to 50 passengers for a bus, ten taxicabs are required to carry the load of one bus.” Similarly, for one train lifting, say, 1,000 passengers, 200 five-passenger taxis would be needed and 20 50-passenger buses!

What would have been important as well would have been the effective marketing of the rapid rail system. This would have included marketing the spin off benefits of promoting stress free travel, on time arrival at offices and job sites and classrooms, greater productivity in the work place leading to T&T goods being more competitive.

Meanwhile, if the People’s Partnership Government had reservations about the cost of the rapid rail cars and models which the previous People’s National Movement government had accepted, other models and designs could have been considered.

The journeys would have been hassle free in air conditioned comfort. Residents offering their patronage would have been guided by time tables.

The former railway service which was phased out on December 28, 1968, had been around for almost a century.

2 comments on “September 2010- RAPID RAIL PROJECT CANCELLED (Part One)

  1. Anonymous on

    Also considering the very deteriorated fleet of buses that the country is running now ,the transport on time becomes more critical.
    the cost of maintenance for the old fleet far exceeds the cost on next countries .
    1. One artic bus can carry 170 passengers theoretically replaces about 4 of the normal 40 seats buses ,but the fleet of artic buses which is now less than 20 operational units is more than 12 years old increasing the maintenance costs.
    2 the rest of the fleet with represents more than 70% OF the bus fleet is Chinese manufactured .the lasting life of a Chinese bus is 5 years and 85% OF the buses is more than 7 years old increasing the maintenance costs .
    3 the poor experience of the purchasing officials on the parts for bus business ignoring where to purchase, what to purchase and the right costs , qualities and quantities , increase the maintenance costs .
    4 the concentration of the main maintenance garage in the crowdy area of central down town ,considering that a big percentage of the workers live far from work place facing the heavy traffic on high ways forcing them to start the trip to work very early in the morning and coming back home late and night reduces drastically the daily productive hours to less than 3.5 hours a day per worker ,increasing dramatically the maintenance .
    6 if the country continues purchasing small 40 seats chinese buses instead of concentrating on purchasing good quality long articulated buses to increase the passengers capacity and reduce the quantity of vehicles on the main corridor ,like many south American cities are doing with the rapid transit systems, the transit to work areas in the country will be chaotic and unsustainable and the bus company will never contribute to the transportation solutions for the country .

  2. Christine Edwards-Farrow on

    These ppl don’t want progress through the PNM GOVERNMENT but will come with it if they get a chance to do so.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.