Peter Espeut

I was asked by the Portmore Citizens' Action Committee to be guest speaker at their 'anti-toll bridge' rally last week. I readily agreed, because I believe in the justice of their cause.

A few days before the rally, I received a call from an engineer, a member of the Jamaica Institution of Engineers, with some interesting information. Apparently, Mr. Ivan Anderson, chief executive officer of the National Works Agency, had been invited to address the engineers during 2005 Engineers' Week (long before the opening of the Portmore toll bridge). During the question-and-answer period after his address, Mr. Anderson was asked a series of questions by Howard Chin, an engineer in the audience. My informant provided me with a copy of the tape of the session (I suppose in case I doubted his veracity). Below is a transcript of the relevant section.

Chin: Mandela Highway; before

Highway 2000; what level of

capacity was it running at?

Anderson: Mandela Highway was

running at about 6,000 vehicles

per day.

Chin: No, I mean as a percentage

of its capacity?

Anderson: About 80 per cent.

Chin: 80 per cent! It was close to max.

before Highway 2000!

This is hard evidence that the Government knew that Mandela Highway could not have been a suitable alternative route to the toll bridge because it was already running close to its maximum capacity before the opening of the toll bridge. Only a small number of the more than 20,000 vehicles which were taking the causeway daily before Highway 2000 would have been able to exercise their option to take an 'alternative route' before absolute gridlock set in. Therefore, Mandela Highway was never a viable alternative. And the Government knew this. In fact, the gridlock on Mandela Highway could force people to take the toll bridge even if they normally took Mandela Highway before Highway 2000!

Never viable

I'm sorry this information did not come to light before the court case; it might have made a difference. In any case, I can't understand how anyone who knows the area could assert that the Mandela Highway is in the same area as the Portmore Causeway and could function as an 'alternative route'. Might not the Dunbeholding Road also be an alternative route? And what about the route over Sligoville? How far from Kingston Harbour would a road have to be for it not to qualify as an alternative route?

In my view - and in the view of thousands - the only real alternative route to the toll bridge worth the name is the causeway. But the area across the toll bridge is so short that if the causeway were available, I can't imagine that anyone would ever take the toll bridge! The executive arm of Government is very fortunate that the decision of the judicial arm of Government went in its favour!

I believe that it would be worth a try to take the case to court again with the new evidence! All the way to the Privy Council! But then, I am not a lawyer.

Boycott to continue

The Portmore Citizens' Action Committee has no alternative but to continue their boycott; otherwise, they will have to resign themselves (if they drive a van) to an extra J$8,000 on their travel budget every month - about J$100,000 per year! Plus, whatever raises are awarded in the next few months.

Instead of defending the citizens of Portmore, the Government is defending the toll road owners - which, of course, includes itself since it is a big shareholder in the toll road company. No entity with so much power should be in business; the customers/citizenry will always be at a disadvantage. This is what is meant by a conflict of interest.

Press on, residents of Portmore. Despite what the Rev. Garnet Roper says, God is with you!

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon.