Proceso 914
August 17, 2000
ISSN 0259–9864
 
 

Editorial The public transportation problem
Politics The national crisis in transportation
Economy Transport stoppage: the economic implications
Society Alternatives with no command
 
 
 

EDITORIAL

    Last week a group of public transport businessmen decided to call a work stoppage, but this time as a means to pressure the government to maintain, among other things, the subsidy on fuel which their buses use and to give them preferential treatment in the payment of taxes on the importation of replacement parts. The stoppage, even while it was not supported by all businessmen in the transport sector, brought with it undeniable economic costs together with the difficulties which those who use public transportation had to deal with in order to reach their workplaces and the gridlock situation resulting from the work stoppage which those driving cars had to deal with.

    The decision by the public transportation line owners to engage in the work stoppage placed the problem of public transportation on the agenda for discussion once again. One thing is clear: it is not a problem which is the exclusive province of the government and businessmen. Rather, it involves all sectors of the society who are the most affected by the decisions (or lack thereof) taken by the government and businessmen. On this point it is necessary to recognize old trues which, at times, because they are obvious and well known, easily go unnoticed. The first is that on the question of the problem of public transport—concerning its administration and the lack of solution to the situation—the PDC administration and the two ARENA administrations have some responsibility in that they predicted what is happening now. Functionaries of these administrations—either for money or favors of the most diverse kind (for example, to mobilize voters during electoral periods)—extended licenses right and left for the use of various transportation lines, gave favors to the transportation sector in the form of direct economic measures (i.e., subsidies and easy credit)—and were tolerant of the disorder, arrogance and abuse which slowly and inexorably became part of the ethos of the public transportation busline owners and their employees (drivers and those who charge the fares).

    A second truth in the context of this problem marks the responsibility of the businessmen who own the buslines and buses. On the one hand, they not only played along with governmental corruption and took advantage of it to benefit themselves from it, but now demand benefits and unethical favors as inalienable rights. They indignantly present demands in a violent manner; they sound off because almost no one can find anything legitimate in what they demand so aggressively. Obviously their demands have one principal focus, and that is the ARENA administration, from whom they have received such preferential treatment on previous occasions and to whom this sector has offered such important service during electoral periods. On the other hand, the transportation businessmen feel themselves to be at home in their noisy measures involving force and pressure. The transportation stoppage is an example of this, but it is not the best example. Bus and microbus drivers harass those who use public transportation services on a daily basis as well as those who attempt to cross the street, be they pedestrians or the drivers of a car. It would seem that from their particular point of view, no one’s rights are to be respected because it is their law which rules on the streets and highways.

    The easy way out for these transportation businessmen—especially when it is a question of assigning responsibilities for fatal accidents—is that the busdrivers are the guilty ones and they have no control over them. Aside from the fact that many bus and bus-line owners drive their own buses, the answer is, by any measure, absurd: busdrivers give free reign and maximum expression to the voracious and arrogant logic of their bosses who encourage and protect them in their abuse of citizens. It is true: the owner of a bus or microbus is not the one who threatens the lives, safety and dignity of Salvadoran citizens on a daily basis, but it is he who hires and pays the salary of the person who is willing to do it.

    Given the foregoing, a third fact follows, and that is that public transportation is a public service which is, paradoxically, an affront to public security. It ought not to be this way, but unfortunately it is. It does not go against public security as an exception but permanently, day after day, inside and outside the buses, whether one is on foot or in a private vehicle. This is a serious situation because it is a public good or service which ought to favor the population can so that they can get to their workplace or school; it shortens distances; it saves time; protects one against the inclemencies of the environment—yet it has become a public enemy. In other words, public transportation in El Salvador, instead of raising up the quality of life, has made it worse in the extreme, making of it a factor for the lack of safety and security for the citizenry. And what is most serious of all is that this has been the case not as a result of a law of nature but as a result of the corruption of government functionaries and the voracity of some few businessmen who do not bat an eye when it comes to making a profit at the cost of the safety of the population.

    So it is, then, that criticism of public transportation businessmen does not presuppose favor with the government, nor, on the other hand, does criticism of the government presuppose favor with the transportation businessmen. Each of them has an enormous quota of responsibility in the problem and does more ill than good in their enthusiasm for taking up arms against the government, supporting a sector which places the lives of Salvadorans at risk on a daily basis. This fact, in and of itself, ought to constitute a red flag alert for those who tend, precipitously, to support any cause which smacks of anti-government sentiment. But there is also the fact that the demands of the transportation line owners are not demands which can be taken up by other labor sectors, be they private or public, as the declaration of MOLI (Movement of Integrated Labor Organizations) might suggest. They are, plain and simple, the demands of a group of businessmen whose proposal is to make a profit as a result of the state protection they enjoy. Obviously those who, to stay on the good side of the government administration, also do ill when they allege that all of the ills of public transportation are the result of the busline and bus owners and their employees. Insistence on governmental corruption must be consistently drawn attention to, supported, as it is, by incompetence in urban planning, which was a causal factor in the problem.

    Neither in favor of nor against the government administration or businessmen. Always in favor of, not against, the well-being of the citizens. These are the criteria which should orient the search for a solution to the problem of public transportation once and for all. And it is that while political or business interests continue to prevail, public transportation will become a public good only with difficulty. In the measure in which things continue as they have up until now, politicians and businessmen are going to continue to reap benefits at the cost of public safety for the populace.

POLITICS

    Given the most recent events and situations, it is no longer possible to harbor the least doubt that the national public transportation system is a disaster and, given this, it is always necessary to denounce mistreatment and abuse of any kind when passengers using the national transportation system are the victims. Neither should one be silent regarding the responsibility of the Salvadoran state for the horrendous service the owners of the national network of buslines offers the public. The crowning irony is that, after trampling on the dignity of the passengers, of driving under the influence of every kind of drug and causing unfortunate disasters—in all of which the owners of the busses and buslines are accomplices but who later deny any link with the murderous drivers—proceed to the paralysis of the already deficient public transportation service.

    In this context, last week the country was the scene of a work stoppage on the part of the public buses which was promoted by some of the owners of buses and buslines. Long lines of exhausted pedestrians and traffic congestion caused by busses parked crosswise on the principal streets of the capital city were the most noteworthy events of the two-day stoppage. The owners of busses and buslines held the government responsible for the problem because they refused to increase the amount of diesel subsidies conceded to the line owners in order to cushion the price of passenger fares charged to users of public transportation service. As always, passengers ended up paying the costs of the push and pull between the government and the passenger buses.

    On the other hand, the government took advantage of the generalized discontent among the populace to engage in a publicity campaign against the stoppage and call upon the line owners to change their attitude. Everything came to a head with the suspension of the measure and the return by the line owners to the negotiating table—a situation which, at first blush appeared to put the line owners at a disadvantage because they not only had to cede to the demand to return to the negotiating table—from which they had earlier withdrawn—but they also had to deal with the sanctions arising form their participation in the work stoppage which could mean even the annulment of their license to operate the buses on the buslines. In this trench warfare, the government came out ahead because it succeeded in forcing the bus line owners to back down from their pressure tactics. A highpoint, politically speaking, came at the moment in time when the ghost of the unhandy handling of the social security workers’ strike made an appearance when the courts ordered the reinstatement of those fired on the basis of a ruling that stated that the authorities had violated the collective bargaining contract in effect in the ISSS at the time of the strike.

    This way the Presidency saw its efforts to disparage the busline owners crowned, and once and for all succeeded in its publicity strategy against social protest movements. This time there was a kind of coincidence between the government interests and the interests of the population against the busline businessmen. The majority of the population repudiated the strike and urged the busdrivers and line owners to spend their time in improving the service offered instead of demanding a greater part of the national budget in ill-needed subsidies.

    Nevertheless, the momentary suspension of the bus transportation protest ought not to allow us to forget the seriousness of the situation of public transportation. In and of itself, the repudiation and demands for hard sanctions against the busline owners are not going to solve the problem in the transportation sector. Beyond cheering the triumph against the work stoppage, one ought to take advantage of the conjuncture at the present time in order seriously to pose the solution to the national transportation crisis. One must seek the roots of the problem in order to be able to contribute to its efficient solution, given the economic and social importance of public transportation.

    The public transportation system is one of the categories in which the countries must invest significant amounts of resources and effort. Without it mattering that a neoliberal system is being defended—one in which private intervention in economic activity is given privileged status, the state cannot relax to such an extent that the citizens are mobilized on a daily basis to their workplaces, schools and recreation spots. So it is that the majority of big countries earmark a good portion of their resources not only for research on the topic of passenger transportation in order to make each day more rapid, efficient and safe in terms of transportation but also spend significant amounts of their municipal budgets to subsidize public transport. Will the new talks between the president and the administration bring with them an understanding of the importance of the transportation sector for the country?

    In our country it is nothing new for government administrations and busline owners and drivers to meet and analyze the problems of the sector. It is also nothing new that, up until now, these meetings have represented time lost with nothing to show. Previously the problems of environmental contamination which buses in downtown San Salvador cause have been posed. Even at this very moment a commission is working on a proposal to improve transportation in the greater San Salvador area. On the other hand, the busline owners and drivers have been criticized for their refusal to admit any project to put things in order in the downtown area. Every day we hear of accidents for which the “barbarous and uncouth busdrivers” are responsible. But what has not been amenable to analysis is the political responsibility of the state functionaries charged with intervening in the discussions on the topic of transportation.

    If the busline owners and drivers are characterized by their constant obliviousness to the most minimal norms of respect for passengers, it must be said that they have, in good measure, been able to count on the silent complicity of government functionaries—sometimes a very active complicity, it must be said. In this sense, it is not sufficient to accuse the drivers of being unscrupulous businessmen without pointing a finger as well at the government functionaries who have turned the process of the allotment of licenses for bus routes and the handling of diesel subsidies into a very profitable business and a mechanism for paying back political favors. The demands of the president of AEAS [a transportation owners’ business association for public bus transport line and unit owners. Translator’s note], Genaro Ramírez, on the ARENA administration, which collaborated, says Ramírez, in the mobilization of sympathizers in the recent elections, illustrate well the problem under discussion.

    On the other hand, the political handling and manipulation of the allotment and assignment of licenses for buslines is a public secret. Military personnel were the first to be favored during and after the civil war. Thereafter appeared deputies with interests in the transportation sector. These factors have contributed to generating sentiments of arrogance and of being above the law which encourages transportation businessmen. In fact, these folks have never been obliged to respect the laws and some legislative bills which can benefit passengers in case of accidents—obligatory insurance, for example—have been held back indefinitely. If these problems are not dealt with, a quick solution to the challenges which the public transportation system will be found only with difficulty. The bottom line is to design a transportation policy which contemplates, among other things, not only a justified proposal of the measures such as subsidies, but also mechanisms for preventing corruption which has been generated around this sector. And it is that, when nothing is done to fight corruption in this area, one does not have sufficient moral capacity to speak of unscrupulous businessmen. Businessmen can only be obliged to respect the law and improve their services when the authorities stop playing favorites and engaging in pork barrel politics in the transportation sector. If government functionaries do not act on these issues, it will be difficult to convince transportation businessmen to change their attitudes. Definitively speaking, the struggle against impunity and corruption, as well as a decidedly firm political will in the government sphere are key pieces in the solution to the problem of national public transportation.

ECONOMY

    No one can ignore the fact that transportation plays an important role in the economy because, from it issues the mobilization of raw materials as well as capital goods and workers who play a part in production. From this it follows that the interruption of public passenger service for two days (August 9 and 10) caused high direct and indirect costs to families as well as businessmen of the country. In addition to the work hours lost and the increases in the costs of transportation which were available, must be added costs related to the mobilization of national freight vehicles to fulfill part of the transportation demand and the additional consumption of fuel to automobile drivers who were trapped between the barricades mounted by the bus and busline owners.

    The bottom line of the transportation stoppage is eminently economic: transportation sector businessmen sought increases in rates and fares and in the subsidy which the state provides for them on an annual basis as well as aiming to get preferential or easy credit. This also carries with it the need to ask the question of what, in reality, the problem is in the last analysis in this sector: is it that the activity of public transportation is not profitable? Is it that the diesel subsidy to busdrivers and line owners is not sufficient? Or, if none of this is the case, do the motives of the busline owners and drivers involve only visions of limitless profits?

    To answer these questions it is indispensable to have access to data on income and outlays occasioned by public transportation units in order to determine the approximate amount of profitability generated by this activity. Unfortunately this data is difficult to obtain and what is known is that, according to these same transportation businessmen, public transportation is not a profitable activity and it requires government support (in the form of subsidies and exemptions). All in all, below are some general reflections on the profitability of the public transportation sector in order to argue that in reality this sector exaggerated its economic demands. But before this, some partial estimates of economic costs incurred during the last work stoppage will be reviewed and some categories, which might be open to consideration, are suggested.

    According to governmental estimates, the economic costs of the first day of the transportation stoppage rose to 97 million colones, within which are included costs occasioned by delays in beginning work in factories and businesses. To the foregoing should be added 17 million colones which the government spent to move heavy units of the public works and national defense ministries. All in all the costs for a single day of the transportation stoppage rose to 114 million colones, which implies that during the two days of the transportation stoppage the losses are on the order of 228 million colones (a figure close to the amount of the subsidy which the government issues to the transportation sector. Losses incurred for the hours not worked by workers which were already included in the recent calculations presented reached 21 million colones, according to estimates by El Salvador’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

    Although the government has not detailed the components of the global figure for costs outlined, it is worth mentioning that some costs which could be included in an evaluation of the transportation stoppage: income lost by drivers who did not cover their routes during the two days, costs for hours not worked by workers affected by the stoppage, losses incurred by the government in efforts to deal with the transportation emergency, additional costs incurred by busline passengers who had to use transportation means which charged higher fares, additional costs incurred by automobile drivers as a result of the higher consumption of fuel caused by traffic jams and gridlock and, finally, costs incurred by businesses as a result of delays in production and sales.

    This accumulation of losses reveals the necessity for adopting measures which provide a solution, once and for all, to the problem of public transportation in El Salvador and this gives rise to the necessity for consideration of the topic of profitability of the sector.

    According to representatives of the busline and bus owners and drivers who are members of the Association of Salvadoran Bus Businessmen (AEAS, for its initials in Spanish) in El Salvador the fare which would cover the costs of such operations would be 3.35 colones, or almost 123% over and above current fare fixed by those buses who receive subsidized diesel (1.50 colones). Consonant with the foregoing, representatives of the Association of Passenger Transportation (ATP) declared that, currently, bus and busline owners run on a deficit of 1.85 colones in fares. From the foregoing declarations must be derived the fact that bus and busline owners are operating at an astounding loss equivalent to 123% of their income.

    Obviously these premises are totally false and twisted and only pursue the creation of conditions which would broaden the margins of profit currently in place in the sub-sector of public transportation. This is shown by even the simplest of exercises in estimates of the gross for a typical bus or busline owner.

    Basing our estimates on percentages of passengers per municipality carried out by Israeli transportation experts, a figure of 145,390 passengers for public transportation is arrived at which demand daily services for coming and going, except to the municipality of San Salvador. If one considers, additionally, that in San Salvador, an estimate of 120,000 persons also demand transportation services which, for a total, are close to 265,00 people demanding transportation services in the Greater San Salvador area.

    On the other hand, if it is assumed that on an average, each passenger uses collective transportation three times and that the fare for each trip is an average of 2 colones, one must spend an average of 6 colones on transportation (the value of fares oscillates between 1.50 and 2.50 according to whether one is dealing with buses or microbuses). This is to say that a total of 1,590,000 colones is spent on transportation each day, which, divided among 4,336 busses operating in the Greater San Salvador area leaves an average of 367 colones of gross income daily, which would mean more than 11,000 colones per month in gross income per bus, from which, of course, one would have to subtract operating costs.

    Given this, it might be pertinent to point out that this figure is only an average and that, in the case of buses, the figure is greater, owing to the fact that the buses receive a greater percentage of passengers because the double or triple passenger capacity for buses, according to each case. Additionally the proprietors of buses are benefited by minor costs of operation owing to the fact that they have access to the purchase of diesel at subsidized prices. Paradoxically, precisely these bus and busline owners who have declared the work stoppage while the owners of microbuses continued with their service even though they do not receive diesel subsidies and draw a lower number of passengers as compared with the big busses.

    Still, this economic analysis must be looked into more deeply and it turns out to be evident that it is impossible for bus and busline owners to operate at a loss because, were this the case, they would have simply to stop their service. On the other hand, losses associated with radical measures such as transportation stoppages justify serious research and study of the transportation sector in order to define, with greater precision, the necessity for (or futility of) the subsidy on diesel. Evidently the government must be required, as well, to adopt a more energetic posture when confronted with irrational postures which the bus and busline owners are assuming with greater and greater frequency.

SOCIETY

    The work stoppage which several public transportation associations held for two days throughout diverse points of the national territory was lifted in the midst of suspicions and annoyances. President Francisco Flores, complying with one of the requirements presented by the busdrivers for ending the transport stoppage, delegated to his Vice President, Carlos Quintanilla, the position of representing the government at the negotiating table “at the highest level” in which authorities of the San Salvador Mayor’s Office also participated together with several government ministers. Up to this point all seems to indicate that those who set out the rules of the game to unfold at the negotiating table—and not necessarily with the concourse of governmental authorities—were the bus and busline owners who called and encouraged the stoppage. So it is that the conclusion of the embarrassing process which went before the dialogue brought the most elemental solution to the population: the normalization of the bus service throughout the whole country.

    In this sense, other more fundamental elements in the discussion of this problem have not even been ventilated yet. For the moment, no one has been able to offer even the minimum of clarity concerning the terms under which the end of the transport stoppage were concluded, but also—and even more important—what the objectives of the negotiations, in fact, were. The government, for its part, has used this situation to reaffirm before public opinion its willingness to resolve problems by consensus. The municipality of San Salvador has maintained a doubtful presence throughout these discussions, above all because its real offering to the process of solving the problem was not yet defined. The transportation associations have maintained the most hermetic silence since their buses return to run their routes in the daily chaos of the city streets. So then, after all the sacrifice that the stoppage implied for the population which must make use of public transportation systems, what, concretely, is to be obtained in the negotiations begun last week? Who will be those who are responsible for the construction of a definitive solution to the problem? How will the viability of the proposals to be discussed be determined? Some considerations of possible responses to these questions are presented below.

Who plays what role in the negotiations?

    Speaking logically, there are two roads which might be followed in the dialogue between the government and the bus and busline owners: on the one hand, to work out, once and for all, a viable alternative to the current structure of public transporation. On the other, take a chance on a profound recomposition of what already exists and, from this, overcome the outrageous vices, which plague it. In each of these cases, the debate which almost daily feeds the slick posture of the government and the arrogance of the bus and busline owners have already sketched out solutions which might merit a place in the discussion. There are those who speak of placing passenger transportation in the hands of the municipalities. Others throw their lot with the nationalization of the sector and there is no lack for those who call for the absolute liberalization of the service, which would imply the irremediable liberalization of the busfares.

    Up to a certain point, one might pause hopefully and think about these and other solutions to a problem, the dimensions of which stretch out into the unacceptable. But what one must not lose sight of is that for these alternatives to come to life and really become viable alternatives, they ought to be accompanied by a correct definition of the role that each and every one of those who are involved in the process play. And it is precisely the dialogue which governmental, municipal and business representatives have begun which is lacking in such definition. During the days of the transportation stoppage, the government made enormous efforts to show the population that it really understood each and every one of its complaints and demands. But up until now, nothing seems to indicate that it will continue to play that role. Instead, a thick smokescreen has been raised between public opinion and the rhythm at which the negotiations are proceeding. This being the case, anything at all might come forth from the government, be it a hardening of its position against the abuses of the busdrivers—for which not the least modicum of certainty might be said to exist—or favor them with its more customary and irresponsible indulgence.

    The same complaint might be made of the capital city municipality on the question of its role in these negotiations. For the moment, the colaboration offered by mayor Hector Silva in seeking a solution to the transportation problem in the Greater San Salvador Area has been reduced to taking some few isolated actions. So then, all seems to indicate that the local governments will have to take on the clearing of the way in which the government and transportation line businessmen will draw up the guidelines for a definite solution. From this it might be said that its most urgent work would be the clearing away of the streets through which the majority of the bus routes run in the metropolitan area as soon as possible. Definitively speaking, the current situation of the negotiations submerged, as they are, in vagaries and lack of clarity, will serve for very little in order to give form and shape to some of the alternatives which are currently being discussed with regard to the problem of transportation.

The viability of the alternatives

    If a decision is taken to work in favor of the municipalization of public transportation, one fundamental difficulty would have to be overcome: to achieve a state of affairs in which the municipalities which share in the problem—the most emblematic of cases being the municipalities which make up Greater San Salvador—be coordinated in such a way as to set in motion their resources in the creation of a safer and more efficient transportation enterprise. After all, it is no secret that the problem of transportation exceeds by a great deal the boundaries of the municipalities and, in view of this situation, surely the municipalities do not, for now, have the institutional tools adequate for dealing with the demands inherent in the problem.

    To opt for the nationalization of transportation would pose a serious problem to deal with the disintegration or posing of new propositions to the current structure, which suffers the deficiencies of the sector itself. In fact, the state’s responsibility in the cleaning up of this structure is what most encourages and feeds the complaints and demands of civil society at the moment when an evaluation of the dimensions of the problem is to be made. Functionaries related to the situation of public transport know perfectly well that they are obliged to redefine—if not eliminate—the policy for incentives for bus and busline owners, establish better mechanisms of control for the handling of the diesel subsidy, coordinate and verify the process of renewing transportation units and make them comply with the law with no ambiguities or vacillation. And all of this they know because society itself has taken charge of throwing it in their face on a daily basis. All of the responsibilities which the government ought to have assumed a long time ago and to which it has not been able to give an adequate response—other than indifference.

    If the time should come in which the scales tip in favor of a complete liberalization of the public transportation market, surely the government would risk, as never before, the stability of millions of Salvadoran citizens who depend upon this service to carry out their daily activities. The risks which this option would presuppose are not compensated for by the hypothetical benefits which might accrue to the population. If it is true that with action of this kind a liquidation of the system upon which the problem of public transportation has been based would be more probable—at least because the subsidy would no longer have any raison d’être. And a generalized increase in busfares would be unstoppable.

    Summing up, then, it could be said that the minimal proposals for beginning to conjure up a solution to this problem are—and have been for some time now—only awaiting an initiative to get started. Unfortunately, the minimum to be hoped for from those currently discussing these proposals is still not clear: a firm compromise to place the well being of the population as a first item on the negotiating table. If the option selected does not, finally, take this triple consideration into account (i.e., benefit to the population, definition roles, viability of proposals for solution) it might be suggested that it will be very difficult for the necessary steps be taken actually to cut the Gordian knot into which public transportation in our country is tied.