Since 1961, governments have spent US$700 million on public transportation and have yet to solve the problem. Many voices have been raised against the construction of an underground rail system, or subway or metro, just as many were opposed to the skyways and underpasses on the 27th of February and JFK Avenues and which have eased congestion to some extent.
Fausto Adams, writing in Sunday’s Hoy, says that in spite of the fact that no numbers or studies have been released, these are things that must be studied just how much fuel, time and work hours will be saved by the metro system. Nonetheless, the most cogent and deafening arguments against the system have come from the senator that happens to represent the province where the subway is to be built, Santo Domingo.
Senator Jose Tomas Perez said recently that instead of using the money to build the Metro, these resources should be used to move families that live along the Ozama and Isabela Rivers, in order to restore the program called RESURE, and rescue the river banks. For the senator this is a much higher priority than the subway.
However, one of the most, perhaps the very most, prominent promoters of the project is the President of the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernandez, who may hope that the metro will solve once and for all public transport problems in Santo Domingo. In fact, in his speech before Congress yesterday, Fernandez told the national television audience and the assembly to “Get on the train of happiness.” The chief executive did admit that the project needed to be “thought about” somewhat but insisted on an efficient solution. However, a group of engineers that were consulted on the project told the reporter that the “project is ambitious, and it also certain that it will not pay for itself in the time its promoter Diandino Pena has mentioned.”
According to the numbers put forth by Pena, the metro system will save US$376 million in “social benefits” during the first five years of use. These social benefits are listed as “savings by the riders, since the cost will be lower, time spent riding to work and the lessening of traffic on the surface roads, among others.”
Critics of Fernandez’ remarks were quick to point out that the President kept referring to foreign countries such as France in the 19th century and the United States in the 20th century. Urbanist Emilio Jose Brea pointed out that the Dominican Republic is neither the US during the Depression nor France during the Industrial Revolution. Brea admitted that Fernandez’ speech was an attempt to insert the Dominican Republic into the “strat of development.”
According to Hamlet Hermann, a traffic expert, the President made a mistake with his examples, and instead of using the Eiffel Tower and the New Deal, he should have referred to the Columbus Lighthouse, because the metro will be built against public opinion and the needs of the nation. Refusing to discuss the technical aspects of the project, Hermann said that the “motivations in back of the plan are not based in the needs of the city, but rather in the dreams of somebody, dreams that may become nightmares.”