THOUSANDS of commuters in the twin cities were once again at the mercy of the public transit providers last week when the latter went on strike for two days, ostensibly to protest against the strict enforcement of traffic laws by the new Islamabad Traffic Police.

The strike not only highlighted once more the deficiencies in the existing public transport system, which is basically a para-transit service provided by mini-buses, wagons and pick-ups; it also reminded the commuters of the failure of the government to deliver a reliable mass transit system.

The para-transit service has already been frequently criticized by commuters and in the press for its irregularity, non-adherence to published fares, non-completion of stated routes, forced evacuation of passengers halfway through the journey to make room for other passengers, and discourteous staff.

Another important drawback of this service is the limited passenger-carrying capacity of the vehicles as a result of which passengers are often found riding dangerously on the roof-tops.

The problems faced by public transport commuters in the twin cities can only get worse if this inefficient para-transit service is not eased out and replaced soon.

The concentration of government jobs in Islamabad on the one hand and affordable housing in Rawalpindi on the other has been a major reason behind the growing commuter traffic between the twin cities.

This traffic is expected to increase considerably when the General Headquarters of the Pakistan Armed Forces, the largest employer in Rawalpindi, is relocated in Islamabad in the next few years.

It is a reflection of poor planning on the part of the local administrations in the twin cities that a viable alternative public transport system has not been established so far to replace the long defunct state-subsidized urban transit buses.

Beginning from the 1970s, the government, apparently under pressure from multilateral donor agencies, had started to de- regulate the state-subsidized urban transit. It was not until 1998 however that the state-run buses were completely stopped. By this time, a large number of small private operators had already flooded the twin cities with mini-buses, wagons and pick ups, all of which were not appropriate public transit vehicles.

Many city governments in other countries have adopted either the mass transit railway or the bus system or a combination of both systems for efficient public transit of their urban populations. For more than a decade now, there has been some effort to establish a mass transit rail and/or bus system in the Islamabad-Rawalpindi area, but these efforts have so far been unsuccessful.

The idea of a mass transit for the twin cities never even reached the drawing board stage. Our governments had been mulling over such a system since the mid-1990s when a National Mass Transport Authority was actually established for the purpose.

In 1995, a study on transport planning in the twin cities prepared by the National Transport Research Centre in association with foreign consultants had come up with a possible mass transit system configuration for the Islamabad-Rawalpindi area that consisted of both a railway and mass transit line.

By the late 1990s however, the National Mass Transport Authority mysteriously ceased to exist, and hopes of a modern and attractive transport system in the twin cities evaporated as well.

Then in 2000, a franchise bus system operated by Varan Tours was implemented and its fleet of 155 large buses with an average capacity of 50 to 70 commuters provided the public with a relatively more efficient and regular transit service. (Bus- franchising schemes in the Punjab province offer exclusive rights to operators on dedicated routes and in return, the transit operators guarantee a certain level of service.)

But from day one the non-franchised para-transit operators and their political supporters in the twin cities strongly opposed this new system. Their main argument was that thousands of households would lose their livelihood because their route permits were cancelled to allow exclusive operating rights to franchised buses.

The local authorities failed to mediate and settle the concerns of the para-transit operators and finally in February 2005, after political unrest, strikes and demonstrations by the affected non-franchised operators, Varan Tours ceased operations, depriving commuters in the twin cities of the only decent public transit service.

The failure of the local authorities to ensure the successful operation of the franchise bus scheme in the twin cities speaks of its determination (or rather the lack of it) to provide the public with a reliable urban transit service.

But why should commuters in the Islamabad-Rawalpindi area be deprived of a more efficient transit service provided by franchise operators when similar franchise bus schemes are operating successfully in other cities like Lahore (where six franchise operators are running 500 over buses), Faisalabad (where two franchise operators are running 80 buses), and Multan (where one franchise operator is running over 80 buses)?

According to a recent research paper on public transit for the urban poor in Pakistan by two faculty members of McGill University in Canada, the franchised bus service is a definite improvement in quality when compared with the para-transit service. But the fares of franchised bus operators cannot be very low, otherwise such services are less likely to be financially sustainable and thus, would disappear over time.

The research paper argues that it is the low to middle level income group, particularly women, the elderly and the disabled, who generally welcome the regular, courteous and efficient franchised transit service. They prefer improvement in the transit quality and are willing to pay for comfort and service. It is the very poor commuters who do not bother about quality service and complain about the relatively higher transit fares of franchised operators.

The ultimate challenge, the authors say, is to compensate those who are made worse-off by the introduction of a more efficient transit service, viz., those very poor commuters who cannot afford the higher fares and the para-transit operators who would lose their livelihoods.

The paper suggests the authorities enforce a fare regime on the franchisers that is affordable for most commuters. In this case, the government may have to subsidize transit operators. A direct subsidy, involving financial assistance to the operators, has been tried in the UK where line operators were subsidized by the state.

Conversely, the research paper suggested, students, pensioners/the elderly and low income commuters could receive vouchers from the government to bridge the gap between what they can afford and what is being charged by the transit operators. Similarly, the authors suggest that the government should provide vocational training to those transit operators who have lost livelihoods because of the franchised transit.

(It is interesting to note that such reseach on transport development in Pakistan should be carried out in a foreign university rather than in any local institution or organization.)

On 1 January 2006, it was reported in Dawn that the Capital Development Authority (CDA) was considering developing a mass transit railway between Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Judging by the government’s past record in mass transit development in the twin cities, commuters worry that CDA’s mass transit railway project will be stuck in the “consideration” stage for umpteen more years to come!

Particularly since our government seems to be keener on projects like the Margalla Tunnel and the private golf course in F-7 than on a project like the mass transit system that would directly benefit the masses, for whom public transit is the only viable means of commuting to access employment, education, health and other urban services.

The above 1995 study by the National Transport Research Centre asserted that the issue of public transport is not only a matter of different technology, but also of organization and financing, thus, entailing an unavoidable public sector involvement.

It is precisely the lack of these factors - organization, financing and public sector involvement - that is preventing the twin cities from having an efficient and reliable public transit system.