A well-developed public transport system not only helps to relieve traffic congestion but also minimize other negative impacts such as air pollution, noise pollution and the huge space consumption by car parks and expressways. Furthermore, the public transport system ensures the mobility of the transport-disadvantaged, including those who do not have a car available or cannot drive.
We can say that finally, decent trains are here; and for the first time in over sixty years we have a brand new railway station in the country. But not many people are boarding the trains yet; at least for the moment. This is mainly due to the prohibitive fares introduced.
The challenges that Kenya railway is faced with are mainly as a result of two prevailing Nairobi scenarios; the dispersive settlement structure that Nairobi has taken and Kenya’s low per capita income.
Research has conclusively shown that for mass movers and transit systems to work, such as metro trains, the preferred mode of settlement is high density mixed use development. This means large numbers of people living and working in a small area. Think about cities such as Hong Kong, Beijing, Maputo e.t.c.
Nairobi’s settlement scenario is different as people travel long distances to places of interest like shopping or work. People living in places like Ngong or Syokimau have to travel 30km to places of work.
The ideal scenario is for people to work and live in transit oriented developments within a radius of 5km or less. The long distances trains have to cover to places like Syokimau make their operation very expensive.
The second unfavourable factor is the income per capita. Large scale metro transits (heavy railway systems in urban areas with high speed and exclusive rights-of way) are known to be successful for cities with over 5 million population and a per capita income of over US$18,800 at today’s rates.
The expense of person haulage in a city like London at per capita income at US$35,500 is more expensive than Hong Kong at per capita income at US$ 50,000. The denser settlement in Hong Kong makes the cost of carrying a passenger in a train cheaper than London’s which has lesser settlement per square kilometer and lower per capita income.
For Nairobi, it gets even more expensive due to the lower per capita income at US$1780 and an even less dense population. Nairobi will therefore have to rely on huge government subsidy for the metro transit to work, or invoke very creative strategies to subsidize the expensive haul of train journeys.
Since we are already at odds with the enabling scenarios, how do we go around this issue as it remains a fact that we need the trains?
The government can for a start put in place proper policies to encourage high density mixed use settlement for a long-term metro transit phenomenon.
In the short term however, the strategy has to be different and will involve a huge government subsidy for the trains to attract as many people as possible and make them the most preferred mode of transport to the city centre for the majority of the people.
Kenya Railways must change strategy from the current one of targeting the motorists, most of who need their cars for reasons other than just to take them to work. For some, it’s a status symbol while for the majority; trains won’t simply provide the flexibility offered by their cars.
How can you do this with a train? Drop your kids to school, pick your wife from work, pass by the supermarket to shop, drop off a friend, or take a drive to another part of town on a weekend?
Nobody used to comfort of their car would consider trains. And for those who don’t mind taking the train and leaving the car parked at Syokimau, like the Kenya Railways targets, the numbers simply are not sufficient to get the train operator break even.
Therefore the solution lies in encouraging the masses take up the trains rather than the matatus. The adjusted operational cost (difference in real operation cost and the cost the passenger is able to afford) could be realized through other ways, for instance allowing the train operators into a public private partnership where they lease and operate land next to the train stations for large-scale use. These could be tax free regions or duty free centres where cheap schools would be constructed, large scale industries would be found, where the cheapest shopping malls would be located, and where cheapest housing would be found thus encouraging people live and work next to train stations.
The effect would be attracting lots of people for railway use and at the same time creating a pool of lucrative real estate to be owned by the train operating company who would in turn subsidize the train fares to a rate the majority of city dwellers could afford.
By doing this, the railway would cease to be an imposition on the city and be an integral part of city living and to a huge extent begin shaping Nairobi’s urban form by effecting the efficient settlement scenario and preventing sprawl.
If the intention of the government is to discourage the use of the private car and therefore ease congestion, then the solution is not the trains. The trains won’t ease congestion; they would only afford an alternative for travellers who prefer using them.
The solution to easing congestion has to do with change of lifestyle, methods of reducing work to home journeys, and public education, it has nothing to do with building more roads or railway lines for people to use.
You will always get more people buying cars to occupy new built roads and they become like huge parking lots. For the trains, they afford just an alternative for people who consider using them rather than discouraging people with private cars from using their cars.
