The Legislative Assembly discussed and approved, in a first reading, the regulations concerning the future operation of the Light Rail Train. The government has reiterated the promise to open the Taipa section before the end of the mandate. The legislators expressed some concerns about the ticket prices, among other things. The debate was, possibly without surprise, filled with vaguely defined concerns, few precise explanations, and not a few noticeable omissions.
Vague concerns are no substitute for substantive discussion. Especially if we are committed to ensuring that such an expensive (and much-delayed) system is to provide a significant contribution to addressing the current or future city’s traffic needs.
Let us focus on the tariff issue first. It has two clear impacts. It will influence how people use the various available means of transportation and will affect the financial viability of the operation. Prices will be set on par with the bus tariffs, the legislators were told. What that means in practice is not clear; much less why it is so.
Several questions pop to mind. How the price is set is more than detail and requires some context — in particular, pondering how the Taipa section of the LRT fits within the general transportation network and policies. What are its linkages with the various existing systems?
Who are the expected users of the system, what flows are projected? Will other systems, namely the buses, public concessions or private operations, be replaced, changed, synchronized with it? The list of questions could go on. No clear answers appear available, lessening the meaning and usefulness of any discussion about the trip price.
Secondly, what operational costs are anticipated? Rightly or wrongly, the idea that the rail would fail to generate a surplus has long been presumed. How significant are the anticipated deficits? What sources of income, other than the public budget, will be considered? Again, there is not much detail on these (not minor) questions.
On a related topic: how was the managing concessionaire chosen, and how was the cost of that service determined? It is indisputable that we had to find an outside source of competence in the matter, and the capabilities of the one chosen are not in question. That does not mean, however, that no explaining is appropriate about how the choice was made and the service cost was fixed.
