A constructive discussion...

[Willi]

Conserve today or tomorrow we pay
published: Wednesday | May 30, 2007

Mark Kerr-Jarrett, Contributor
Given the increasing cost of fuel and its impact on our national [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]budget[/COLOR][/COLOR], I would like to present the following proposal which could reduce our fuel bill, according to my calculations, $3.33 billion per annum, by replacing the majority of the taxis with diesel-powered minibuses. My assumptions and calculations are as follows:
First, I chose the following vehicles for my analysis; a four-passenger [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Toyota [COLOR=orange! important]Corolla[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], a 12-seater Urvan minibus, a 29-seater Toyota Coaster and a 40-seater Motor Bus. Then, I calculated the cost per passenger kilometre for each type of vehicle:
Therefore, if we implement a combination of these [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]transportation[/COLOR][/COLOR] options, then we can be guaranteed a substantial annual savings on our national fuel bill.
We could also make a percentage of the savings available as [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]loans[/COLOR][/COLOR] to the displaced taxi operators to upgrade to buses, and the money could be routed through the commercial banks and the new vehicles used to secure the loans.
The other question is, how do we now convince the travelling public to use the higher-occupancy vehicles, as they have become accustomed to the taxicabs. Here I would suggest that we use a fare structure to promote this by adjusting the PPV licensing fees for example:
40-seater motor bus PPV annual licensing fee = $X
Coaster bus PPV annual licensing fee = $2X
Urvan minibus PPV annual licensing fee = $3X
Taxicab PPV annual licensing fee = $4X

It will, therefore, be cheaper to ride the buses and minibuses than the taxicabs, and in that way our goal of mass transportation can be achieved.
I believe that this same principle, of replacing gasolene-powered vehicles with diesel, can be utilised with great cost savings to all aspects of government services, especially in the police force for their fleet of SUVs and other four-wheel-drive vehicles.
I am convinced that we cannot be lulled into a false sense of security or apathy because of the PetroCaribe deal, but must act decisively. And the sooner we do it the better.
Mark Kerr-Jarrett, a former president of the Montego Bay Chamber of Commerce, is managing director of Barnett Limited.
Corolla Urvan Coaster Bus# pax 4 12 29 40Fuel Gas Diesel Diesel DieselMiles/Gal 26 15 12 9Km/Litre 9.15 5.28 4.22 3.17$/Litre $ 60.24 $ 47.09 $ 47.09 $ 47.09$/Km $ 6.58 $ 8.92 $ 11.15 $ 14.86
$/Pax-Km
$ 1.65 $ 0.74 $ 0.38 $ 0.37
Next, I made the assumption that 40,000 persons in Montego Bay and its environs travel an average of 10 kilometres daily by taxi, and if they changed to one of the other three diesel modes shown above the savings could be:
MoBay
FuelSavings/pax kmDaily savingsMonthly savingsYearly savingsUrvan $ 0.90 $ 360,931 $ 8,301,422 $ 99,617,074Coaster $ 1.26 $ 504,448 $ 11,602,315 $ 139,227,785Bus $ 1.27 $ 509,574 $ 11,720,204 $ 140,642,453
If we expand this to the national level and assume that 30 per cent of the population, which is conservative when you take into account the adults and school children, take taxi cars and we estimate the population at 2,800,000, then 840,000 people commute at least 10 kilometres daily; then the savings are as follows:
Nationally
Fuel Savings/pax km Daily savings Monthly savings Yearly savingsUrvan $ 0.90 7,579,560 $ 174,329,880 $ 2,091,958,566 Coaster $ 1.26 10,593,418 $ 243,648,624 $ 2,923,783,488Bus $ 1.27 10,701,056 $ 246,124,293 $ 2,953,491,520
If we add to these fuel savings, the saving derived from the reduction in tyres used by the higher occupancy vehicles, for example for every Urvan used, this replaces three cars, therefore saving 10 tyres for every Urvan introduced, and four tyres plus one spare for each car replaced.
Assume a set of tyres lasts eight months, then the annual savings for each bus type are as follows:
Tyres Trips/day saved Car trips/day Tyres saved $/tyre Total savingsUrvan 140,000 12 87,500 $ 3,200 $ 280,000,000Coaster 181,034 12 113,147 $ 3,200 $ 362,068,966Bus 189,000 12 118,125 $ 3,200 $ 378,000,000

If we combine the saving from the fuel and the tyres, the potential savings are as follows: Fuel Tyres TotalUrvan $ 2,091,958,566 $ 280,000,000 $ 2,371,958,566Coaster $ 2,923,783,488 $ 362,068,966 $ 3,285,852,454Bus $ 2,953,491,521 $ 378,000,000 $ 3,331,491,521

[Karl]

Are Mark's figures correct?

What is the situation that holds in Jamaica on the cost of diesel fuel vs gasolene as it relates to cost at the pumps? Is a gallon of diesel fuel still the more expensive?

Would the operators of the buses need a government subsidy to effect a lowering of their fuel costs? ....or, would they come out ahead in out of pocket expenses for fuel costs given milage and or lower upkeep of the diesel powered vehicles?

Based on the figures presented it may be that even if a subsidy to the owners of the vehicles was needed the country would still save big time?

...certainly this is something the government should look at, if it has not been looking at it already. ...in any case, a response by the powers that be is necessary.

[Muadib]

Are Mark's figures correct?

What is the situation that holds in Jamaica on the cost of diesel fuel vs gasolene as it relates to cost at the pumps? Is a gallon of diesel fuel still the more expensive?

Would the operators of the buses need a government subsidy to effect a lowering of their fuel costs? ....or, would they come out ahead in out of pocket expenses for fuel costs given milage and or lower upkeep of the diesel powered vehicles?

Based on the figures presented it may be that even if a subsidy to the owners of the vehicles was needed the country would still save big time?

...certainly this is something the government should look at, if it has not been looking at it already. ...in any case, a response by the powers that be is necessary.

The Govt spoke on this some time ago.

"More man have cyar.."

In Bermuda you are allowed 1 car per household.

[Karl]

The Govt spoke on this some time ago.

"More man have cyar.."

In Bermuda you are allowed 1 car per household.

Well...
I am sure many here would like to see that statement!
Kindly post the government's take on the matter.
Thanks!

[Mosiah]

Come now! In Bermuda, you can walk to everything in less than 20 minutes! And I wouldn't be surprised if every household in Bermuda actually has one car. Jamaica is far from that.

I get your point still.

[Muadib]

The Govt take on the matter is what you see with your eyes.

Actions speak louder than words.

What have you SEEN that speaks to any SERIOUS energy management policy ?

[Muadib]

Come now! In Bermuda, you can walk to everything in less than 20 minutes! And I wouldn't be surprised if every household in Bermuda actually has one car. Jamaica is far from that.

I get your point still.

It has nothing to do with distance... it is a mentality.

[MdmeX]

But is the Govt. concerned about conserving energy? Within the last 3 months didn't some Ministries just get some gas guzzling new SUV's?

[OJ]

buy why deisel, why not hybrids? People dont want to take bus... its smilar to the HVOC lanes and carpool foolishness. When I am ready to leave work and get somewhere in half and hour I need my ride or cab and cant accomodate shared transportation unless its commuter trains or something. Maybe why not invest in Rapid transit system in the coporate area.

[Willi]

Agreed. the y dont want conservation as less gas sold means less revenue!!! That is all they care about.

[Willi]

OJ, yuh not understanding the discussion. The taxis already exist AND the passenger volume is already there. These are robot taxis, not the private cabs. His proposal is about substituting a packed taxi infrastructure with a more efficient diesel bus infrastructure.

The possible flaw in the analysis (taking MoBay as an example) is that we already have some diesel bus infrastructure. Thus if the 40,000 estimate of PAX is not exclusively the robot taxi volume as opposed to total PAX system volume then, he is OVERESTIMATING the savings. If not, and quite possibly so, since his figures seem very conservative, then we dont have that issue. One upside is that he only speaks of diesel bus. Possibly, we could have more system savings with Hybrid vehicle, but at the price of HIGHER up front investment in both vehicle costs AND new fuel distribution infrastructure. At least of we could enhance the diesel with an addition of locally produced ethanol, then we would have potential for FX savings.

The reason why I like diesel as the main "bet" is because the distrib. infrastructure is already built and the potential for further savings arise from the use of BIO-diesel. That is, the today problem we have from the disposal of used cooking oils and some motor oil which poses a minor hazard today, could quite pratically be converted to bio-diesel in varios locales in Jamaica. Hell, its viable business right now and the tech is proven and getting cheaper by the minute. Several people here have posted this info on this very forum...including me!

One final point and perhaps the most critical one is that he is using pump prices in his calculation. This is a flaw in his analysis, if the goal is to make FX expenditure savings for Jamaica as a whole. If his goal is reducing system costs for the participants then he is using the wrong parameter AND he is "harming" the Govt. Reducing end user proices will just reduce taxation income to Govt and they wont like that, even if the pockets of society at large benefit.

If his goal is FX expenditure reduction for Jamaica, then instead of pump prices, he should be using end user volume savings in litres AND then multiplying that by direct FX costs to Jamaica to import. This argument thus presented has a chance to pressure the GOJ to act responsibly, even if they lose revenue from this angle.

[Willi]

What kind of questio is this.

The pump prices of the fuels are clearly set out in the article.

No need for subsidy per se...taxation policy as he indicated will shift the economics and the market will be forced to adjust.

The man called for financing facilities to help with the shift...not hand out subsidies.

[Willi]

It takes 6 hours to walk lengthwise Bermuda. Its about 10miles by 2 miles.

Its so coincidental, I spend last weekend with some Bermudan friends.

They have 65K population and tons of Kakans live there. Tons of Portugese as well!

[Willi]

The speed limit is 20mph and only new cars and "classics" can be imported. After the first 2 years, inspection every year and even the smallest rust causes U to fail inspection.

[Karl]

OJ, yuh not understanding the discussion. The taxis already exist AND the passenger volume is already there. These are robot taxis, not the private cabs. His proposal is about substituting a packed taxi infrastructure with a more efficient diesel bus infrastructure.

The possible flaw in the analysis (taking MoBay as an example) is that we already have some diesel bus infrastructure. Thus if the 40,000 estimate of PAX is not exclusively the robot taxi volume as opposed to total PAX system volume then, he is OVERESTIMATING the savings. If not, and quite possibly so, since his figures seem very conservative, then we dont have that issue. One upside is that he only speaks of diesel bus. Possibly, we could have more system savings with Hybrid vehicle, but at the price of HIGHER up front investment in both vehicle costs AND new fuel distribution infrastructure. At least of we could enhance the diesel with an addition of locally produced ethanol, then we would have potential for FX savings.

The reason why I like diesel as the main "bet" is because the distrib. infrastructure is already built and the potential for further savings arise from the use of BIO-diesel. That is, the today problem we have from the disposal of used cooking oils and some motor oil which poses a minor hazard today, could quite pratically be converted to bio-diesel in varios locales in Jamaica. Hell, its viable business right now and the tech is proven and getting cheaper by the minute. Several people here have posted this info on this very forum...including me!

One final point and perhaps the most critical one is that he is using pump prices in his calculation. This is a flaw in his analysis, if the goal is to make FX expenditure savings for Jamaica as a whole. If his goal is reducing system costs for the participants then he is using the wrong parameter AND he is "harming" the Govt. Reducing end user proices will just reduce taxation income to Govt and they wont like that, even if the pockets of society at large benefit.

If his goal is FX expenditure reduction for Jamaica, then instead of pump prices, he should be using end user volume savings in litres AND then multiplying that by direct FX costs to Jamaica to import. This argument thus presented has a chance to pressure the GOJ to act responsibly, even if they lose revenue from this angle.

Just questioning - Why is it 'the look' is not comprehensive when matters of say, taxation and need to provide citizens with 'best of all worlds'?

Why is it this matter 'fuel costs to the nation' has to be debated in isolation...far removed from 'making transporation most efficient/ most beneficial to the country' (& incidentally the people ...hah! ) keeping costs to all concerned at a minimum?

Why for example - What the hell does it matter if the government 'Tax take here is lowered'...yet the country as a whole benefits? Will the savings to the country mean a gain even if 'lower taxes here' is the result? ...but, I return to the matter of, is it not...'all matters'/matters of economic importance to the country...all linked?

Aside: Frankly I would like to see a total ban on all taxes except a flat income tax system and a comprehensive sales tax system.

Let each individual...excepting *those receiving aid from the state who shall receive exemptions as necessary...pay the sales tax. Give each individual the absolute right of choice on how his or her income (income - flat tax) is spent and how much is not spent/saved!

*Charities, churches, other entities and itemized receipt of 'gifts' by certain specialized groups - perhaps, operators of say - 'soup kitchens'/material and or products gathered to feed and clothe the poor...institutions providing certain social services and other deemed 'special services' e.g. education institutions, etc...