THIS IS WRONG!

Jan 13, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Many persons have been questioning the tolls being charged to cross the Berbice River Bridge. They have questioned the fares because of the wide disparity between what is being charged there as compared to what is being charged to cross the Demerara Harbour Bridge.
The two bridges have a fundamental difference. The Demerara Harbour Bridge belongs to the people of Guyana while the Berbice River Bridge is owned by a consortium of businesses and the government of Guyana.
This makes the Berbice River Bridge a private bridge, no less private than the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company. The telephone utility is considered a private company despite the government owning 20 per cent of the shares.
The Berbice River Bridge was built with money put up by a consortium of banks and insurance companies, along with funds provided from the government. The private investors are making an investment and therefore require a return on their investment. The return we are told is about 11 per cent per annum.
Many Guyanese have accounts and insurance policies with these private companies and therefore the investment by this consortium in the bridge project is an investment of all those who have money or policies with the banks and insurance companies that comprise the consortium.
No Guyanese who would have directly invested in the bridge would wish to not get a return on his or her investment. Similarly, we should not begrudge these companies for having to charge tariffs that would allow them to gain the agreed rate of return because indirectly Guyanese who are clients of the consortium will be benefitting.
There are of course legitimate grouses over some of the tariffs. For example, to charge a minibus with a seating capacity of 30, the sum of $7,200 when a minibus with a seating capacity of 15 is only charged $2,200 would seem to be distortive.  It is also highly prohibitive to charge certain luxury pick up vehicles which may have been designed for the carriage of guns but which are registered as private vehicles, sums as high $13,000. There may be vehicles designed for the carriage of goods but when these are registered as private vehicles and being used for personal transportation they should not be attracting such high tariffs.
One of the reasons why many persons are not using the bridge is because of these high tolls and the consortium that is managing the bridge should appreciate that the less persons use the bridge, the less tolls would be collected and thus less profits for the investors, including the government.
There is clearly a need to reexamine the toll structure for vehicles. Private vehicles should on average not pay more than $2,500 to cross the bridge regardless of the unladen weight of the vehicle. But goods-carrying vehicles should be charged a higher tariff.
It makes no sense that a tractor be being charged $7,600 to cross the bridge but a Titan being used for personal transportation and registered as a non-goods carrying vehicle should be charged $13,000.
The bridge has to generate income sufficient to provide for its maintenance and guarantee the 11 per cent rate of return to the investors which is far more than the consortium would have received had they invested in Treasury Bills.  Businesses have to make profit and no one should begrudge the investors of the bridge making a profit while providing a valuable service to the nation.
However, this profit should not come at the expense of the Guyanese people. The Guyanese people and particularly the working man also have an investment in the bridge in the form of the shares held by the National Insurance Scheme.
The NIS too is entitled to its share of the cake so that it can secure the future pensions of workers. The NIS has sunk pension funds into the bridge and as is known pension funds should always be invested in safe instruments with a guaranteed rate of return. Pension funds should never be invested in volatile securities or projects that place the pension funds at risk of default.
In this regard, it is extremely worrying to learn that the government is contemplating waiving its rate of return on its investment on the Berbice River Bridge. This is totally unacceptable because this would amount to the government giving up its profits so that the private investors could get their rate of return. It would amount to a transfer of profits from the government to private investors.
The Guyanese people should protest any move by the government to waive its rate of return.  It is a travesty for the government to invest money that belongs to the people of Guyana in the bridge and then to not obtain its rate of return on this investment. This should not happen.

---

---