Chirimoya said:
- Is it aimed at people who already take public transport - conchos and guaguas?
This is aimed to everyone who lives and/or visits the city and wishes to travel from one end of town to the other in a much faster manner than is currently possible.
So yes, it's aimed at users of the current public transport system, if it could be called that.
Chirimoya said:
If the answer is yes - that would be good, to eliminate those vehicles from the roads, but it's not that simple.
Yes, it will be good and, of course, its not a simple process. However, even things that are not simple have solutions.
Chirimoya said:
- Remember that no government has really had the guts to confront the transport unions - so what happens there?
Transport unions have already attempted to struck this project to the ground and they have not succeeded.
The alternative is for them to negotiate with the authorities and come to new conclusions and agreements regarding public transport.
Chirimoya said:
- There were murmurs about giving union members jobs in the metro, but is that realistic?
It's realistic to a certain point. A metro system will require less employees than the current union has as members, so obviously all union members will not be employed.
However, the most influential union members will most likely be offered some of the best positions the metro project will create and, as is usually the case, they will most likely accept them.
The metro will not put every single current public transport union member out of work, because the metro will not eliminate the entire fleet of publicos and guaguas. What it will do is alleviate the demand for such inefficient transport system, but not completely destroy it. Thus, many members will continue to have their current jobs, even after the first metro lines have been completed.
Chirimoya said:
- Will the cost of a ticket be competitive enough for non-car owners (existing public transport users) to choose the metro?
This depends on several factors, among them the cost of operating an existing public transport vehicle vs. operating a metro.
One of the biggest expenses current public transport vehicles have is petroleum and all indications are that petroleum prices will continue to increase for the time being.
Competitiveness is not just calculated in pure monetary terms, but also in other forms such as time, efficiency, etc. People often are willing to pay a premium for better service of the same thing. In this case, a metro will undoubtedly transport a person from one end of town to the other in a much quicker and safer way. Thus, assuming the price of a concho or guagua and the price of a metro are the same, the result will be an increase in metro ridership up until the amount of time it takes to load/unload and transport people via the metro equalizes the amount of time it takes to cover the same trayectory via the current transport system.
Even if the cost of riding a metro is slightly higher than it is for a concho or guagua, the speed (ie. efficiency) will still make the metro much more attractive to commuters of all kinds. They will be able to criss cross the city much faster and thus, be able to do whatever they planned to do as quickly as possible.
Think of the current system of air conditioned public buses and the non-air conditioned public buses (both are part of OMSA). The a/c buses are more expensive than the non-a/c buses, but the a/c buses continue to attract a significant number of commuters, despite the higher cost of ridership. Of course, this is not a fair example, because the difference between an a/c bus and a non-a/c bus is that one offers a luxury the other does not. There is little increase in efficiency in criss crossing the city on either bus, thus choosing one bus over the other is simply the result of which bus is closer to the bus stop the potential rider is located and whether he/she wants to sweat or not along the way.
With the metro, the benefit comes in shorter transport time, thus choosing a metro over a bus is much more obvious and real than is the difference between an a/c bus and a non-a/c bus. Having said this, a person who uses an a/c bus will be less tired than a person who uses the non-a/c buses and thus, that person's quality of life has been improved, even if its marginally.
Any improvement is better than none.
Chirimoya said:
- Will the government have to subsidise the cost? Is the government able to do this?
There will be some subsidizing of the cost of this project until the population of the city has grown to levels that would cause enough ridership to produce a profit or breakeven. Such subsidies will be more than justified via an increase in sales tax receipt, as more and more people will do more economic oriented activities that they otherwise would have procrastinated due to the time and effort it currently takes to criss cross the city. This is where the most benefit of this project will be seen.
Is the government able to do this? I think it has a better chance than before. In previous years, the government had subsidies covering many basic necessities the poor uses on a daily basis. Many of those subsidies were eliminated as part of the IMF/World Bank budget balancing and opening of the economy plan. Such conditionalities need to be put in place prior to any disbursement of loan. BTW, the average nation has around 160 conditionalities to implement, each and every time a loan is being taken from the IMF. Sometimes governments are allowed to keep some subsidies, if the government pleades with the IMF, as the Leonel administration did last autumn refusing to eliminate the subsidy on cooking gas because it will adversly affect the livelyhood of too many people. Sometimes the IMF allows such thing, but its rarely.
However, one of the subsidies that governments are allowed to carry are subsidies on efficient transportation (ie. a metro) and those subsidies the DR government has eliminated over the year at the request of the IMF can be re-implemented into this project.
Chirimoya said:
- 1. Has the government done any studies on car-ownership patterns in the target commuter neighbourhoods? Any public surveys?
- 2. Why was Villa Mella selected?
- 3. Will car-owners from Villa Mella leave their cars at home and take the Metro instead?
- 4. Why have they skipped the preliminary geological/structural investigation stage?
1. I am not sure on this, however given the neighborhoods being connected with the first lines of the metro, it's obvious that the government is trying to connect poorer neighborhoods (where many employees lives) with their places of work in the central part of the city.
2. I think answer to question 1 gives a slight insight as to why.
3. Many car owners, particularly from the poorer sectors, double as conchos. Most people depend on public transport, thus most are not car owners. The few who are car owners will most likely not leave their cars at home, unless the cost of driving a car becomes more expensive than it would to take a metro on a weekly, monthly, even yearly basis. Taking a metro means no purchasing of gasoline or diesel. As the price of such commodity increases on the commodities market and at the gas pumps, the attraction of a metro will become even more appealing to the average person.
4. It's not clear if they have skipped such investigations or if such investigations have simply not been made public yet. Of course, the media is quick to give the impression that such investigations have not been made yet, but let's not forget that the media lives from the sales of newspapers and/or advertising space. The more people read their papers, the more value their advertising has and in this modern day and age, speculation and fear far outsells good news.
Chirimoya said:
- What about the power cuts?
From the first public statement about this project, the government officials have reiterated that the metro will include its own independent electrical production.
The media has forgotten to include this in their reporting, except on the first report when the news was made public last year. Again, advertising space is highly lucrative and the more papers are read, the more value their advertisement has.
Chirimoya said:
- Even if there were a convincing case for a mass-transit system, and I agree that there is - why has the most expensive option been chosen - an underground railway, with all the risks it entails in the light of the erratic power situation, the structural issues and geological risks?
This is something that should be asked to the authorities directly.
The only reason I can think of is to produce the least amount of interference to current traffic patterns along its main routes, given that the metro will be built along the main arteries of the city. Additionally, a metro (ie. underground) can run much faster than a monorail or above ground train, thus allowing for the greatest decrease in transaction cost in urban travel.
-NALs