Dear Editor,
As the highway between Linden and Lethem takes centre stage, given the expressed Brazilian re-committal to its completion, it caused me to revisit a letter published in September 2006, in which I recommended that, as a highway did not make much economic sense because the traffic could not justify its capital expenditure, a railway would be more suited not only from the standpoint of its lower costs, but for its being better equipped to handle the main flow between the two countries: cargo.
My letter had followed an article published on September 14, 2006, in which President Jagdeo was quoted as saying, “You can’t spend US$200 million on paving a road that earns you US$500,000 a year”.
Here is some of what I had said then: “Although I don’t usually agree with the application of cost/benefit analyses for public projects, it is difficult to disagree with the President on this one. There are more pressing infrastructural works which would better justify such an outlay of capital and which would touch the lives of many more Guyanese. Some high-priority projects that come to mind are the strengthening of the water conservancies on which the mainstay of Guyana’s economy, agriculture, depends; improving sea defences or, alternatively, relocating the country’s main population from the ravages of the Ocean as its level rises from melting ice caps (remember New Orleans); and stabilising the cost of energy by substituting local energy sources (hydro, wind, solar, tidal) for imported ones (hydrocarbons). Nevertheless, I do see regional integration, of which a transportation link to Brazil is part, as an essential requirement for the development of Guyana.
“Although I’m not in a position to estimate the cost of building a rail system to Lethem, intuitively I feel it should be significantly lower that a paved road. The existing all-weather road would offer a sound foundation on which to lay the tracks. Railroad ties or sleepers are produced in Guyana, and metal tracks can be obtained from Brazil’s very competitive steel industry. If the country’s electric transmission system is interconnected to Brazil’s, then it would run parallel to the rail system and provide electric power for the trains. Otherwise, the trains would be diesel operated.
“Besides construction cost savings, other benefits would include lower operational cost, improved security along the route, less environmental degradation; and railways can be privately funded, owned and operated, saving public outlays.”
It’s amazing how very little has changed over the fourteen years since that letter was published. If I had to upgrade my recommendation, I would substitute electric power from the Amaila Falls project as an option to the integration of the Brazil/Guyana electric power grid. In addition, the rail system would not terminate at Linden, but at the Deep Water Harbour in the Berbice River, allowing connection to a rail sub-system into Suriname across the proposed Corentyne River Bridge. These two connection points would allow Brazilian suppliers and consumers access to World markets, thus making the project extremely valuable to Brazil. This value could move it out of the realm of a public project funded by Guyanese taxpayers to a private project with Brazilian and Guyanese capital.
As the country rolls out infrastructural development projects, given the opportunity presented by its imminent oil wealth, it must do so in a comprehensive and well-thought-out manner to minimise waste and inefficiency. Such planning would allow more to be accomplished with available funds. And to start this process, the country should build a railway, instead of a highway to Lethem.
Sincerely,
Louis Holder
