Action, not words, needed to effectively implement fare hike

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Days after the increase in bus and taxi fares, I dismissed with a sense of disgust and bewilderment reports in the media of transport authorities forcing operators to return the amounts being overcharged to commuters. In one instanc,e the authorities boasted that all passengers were reimbursed with the extra $20 they were charged.

Days later, I was even more disappointed when I heard of the minister of transportation, Daryl Vaz, encouraging people to boycott buses that overcharged. It showed further the ineptitude of a governance structure that after setting the rules, does very little to ensure that it is adhered to. The fares were published and as such, there was no doubt to operators what they should be charging. However, these operators also know the essential value of their service and the importance of transportation. They know that unless they are bound by the rules, they can take advantage of people’s need to move from one point to another.

The fare from Kingston to Spanish Town moved from $150 to $ 180 with the 19 per cent that was granted. However, the amount being charged is $200, which represents a 33 per cent increase. I have very little doubt that when the second increase is granted next April, operators will charge $250. If this occurs, it will mean that the fare would have increased by 66.7 per cent from its original amount. So the regulated increase would have been nothing but a charade.

I am reminded of Fitz Jackson and his fight with the banks in regard to cheque fees. What if he was not a politician who made a public spectacle of the bank’s atrocious practice? Would the bank have simple returned to him the fee he paid for changing the cheque, while continuing to charge those who didn’t have the means or the medium to make a spectacle? Where are we going to get a Fitz Jackson to fight to ensure that these operators do not continue to overcharge commuters, in light of the weak enforcers and regulators? Can one sue an operator for overcharging, or sue them so that would sufficiently convince them to adhere to the proper rates? Why is it that though we have employed persons to act on our behalf, and have given them handsome increases to influence good output, the best advise we can get is that we should boycott those who overcharge? What purpose do they serve if this is all they can advise?

I suggest that these authorities place persons on the buses and taxis and get first-hand evidence of what is being charged, and use this evidence to charge offenders and ensure that order is implemented.

MARK CLARKE