There should be a comprehensive review of parking in the city to explore possibilities rather than covering the canals

Dear Editor,

Once again, we, at the Mayor and City Council, have been taken by surprise by the announcement made by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon, to cover city canals. We are particularly worried with three aspects of this recently announced proposal.

First, the Mayor and City Council was not consulted on the proposal. This is deeply troubling because the Mayor and Councillors are the people’s representatives. They should be properly informed and involved in major projects, such as the one announced, that add or take away value from the economy and general welfare of city. Covering canals in order to provide additional space for parking is both adding to and taking from the value of the city.

However, we heard the announcement in the local media but have no other information about time- frames, objectives, engineering and technical logistics and related risks and benefits to the citizens of Georgetown.

Moreover, if the justification for covering the main waterways in the city is to facilitate the parking of vehicles because they are being imported at a fast rate in the country then it has to be said that this is a very simplistic way of looking at an issue which requires more in-depth study and general consultations with the people’s representatives and all stakeholders. Covering canals cannot be the solution to the problem of parking; it will trigger other challenges.

In 1996, Mayor Hamilton Green proposed a ring-road concept.

Then, in 2001, Professor Akhbar Khan, Chartered Town Planner, submitted the Greater Georgetown Development Plan 2001 to 2010. It was accepted by the Mayor and City Council. In that plan, Mr Khan spoke to the issue of parking. He suggested, inter alia, the re-routing of vehicles, minibus control, waiting restrictions, the creation of pedestrian areas, cycling schemes, traffic calming schemes and onsite parking for muiti-storey buildings.

Also, he suggested inner-city linkages and the creation of termini at various points of the city of Georgetown. Generally, the plan was aimed at facilitating order, efficiency, the reduction of greenhouse gases and beauty.

It is very clear that there needs to be a holistic and comprehensive plan on parking in the capital city of Georgetown. Merely covering city canals, as was proposed, will not cut it.

Second, the debate over the balance of costs and benefits of this initiative must be given full space among experts and local citizens. Designing and developing appropriate structures to cover city canals will, no doubt, require massive sums. Would it not be better to spend those sums developing proper parking facilities for vehicles in more suitable areas, in and beyond the city?

Covered canals have serious financial implications for the Georgetown municipality. For example, council will have to remove and replace those covers every time it wants to dredge those channels. Perhaps, this will require special equipment or tools, which, we know, are not in the possession of the council. Clearly, the council will have to find additional sums to carry out works in these waterways. If council is bowing low beneath the current burden to maintain those vital drainage facilities then exactly what will happen when main city canals are covered for parking?

The other dimension to that is management of the city’s solid and liquid waste.

Some time ago, council experimented with this very approach to parking on South Street. What we discovered, at that time, was that individuals were removing the covers to dump waste in the canals. This affected the free flow of water through these channels. Eventually, the council had to remove these covers; that approach did not work.

The recent overtopping in Georgetown, gives us a clue of the magnitude of the challenge awaiting us with this venture. Imagine plastic, styrofoam and other non-biodegradable materials under those covers during the heavy rains and high tides. The picture that emerges is, to say the least, worrying.

Third, historically, the city of Georgetown has been defined by its well laid out system of canals. Therefore, these canals have aesthetic value. Covering those canals will immediately diminish that value and in a way redefine Georgetown as a city. According to the Town Planning Act, the Central Housing and Planning Authority ought to be enhancing those amenities not negatively affecting their value. Critics will argue on the point of our inability to keep those very canals clean. However, that inability is contingent on the lack of resources, and we will have to divert further resources from other developmental works to clean those waterways if they are covered. Again, we can do much better if we are allowed to implement new revenue projects.

We have not even touched on the ecological factors involved and their impact on the natural environment and the general public health of the city, particularly in circumstances where we are experiencing unprecedented environmental events.

The combined existence of the aforementioned factors and the paucity of crucial information have led to our uneasiness and doubt about the plan to cover all of our canals – a significant element in our fragile drainage system – in the city. We are not very optimistic that it will in effect assist the extant traffic congestion and parking confusion in the city.

Finally, having regard to our knowledge, expertise, the local culture of the city, the fragility of the city’s drainage system, and our own experience, might we suggest a comprehensive overview of the issue of parking exploring other possibilities such as the ones discussed in Professor’s Khan Greater Georgetown Plan.

Yours faithfully,

Royston King

Mayor and City Council