Dear Editor,
There was an exciting feeling in the air at the beginning of this year. There was a lot of talk about oil revenues and the idea that it might be possible for Guyana to build out game-changing infrastructure throughout its lands and to do it within reasonable time. I believe most citizens would agree that we have an urgent need for more and better built spaces. Our nervous systems are under siege by having to share minimal carriageways among trucks, bicycles, cars, people, animals and the idiosyncrasies that come with complex metropolises like ours. We are under a lot of pressure. Poor infrastructure makes life harder. Further, if space is not created for people to connect with each other across distances, the task of scaling up the economy becomes impossible.
Recently the Rice Producers’ Association floated the idea of importing foreign workers to meet the needs of the rice industry, given observed low birth-rates. Several questions come to mind here.
When faced with a problem like possible future worker shortages in a given region, why does such a polarizing idea take centre stage? Do we really have to look outside for agricultural labour? Why is inter-regional migration not seen as a possibility? Could our labour force not optimize itself, if given the option to do so by expanded transport infrastructure? Do the regions not envision themselves as dense-becoming, sustainable population centres? In that case, what would it take to make our regions more attractive to inward migration? These questions may awaken all kinds of interesting depths though I would like to use them to make a point about the power of infrastructure and the need to think at scale.
Editor, it is sometimes said on the streets of Georgetown, that the Arthur Chung Conference Centre was built ‘back-to-front’. Though it represents an interesting design choice, it is not that the building stands testimony to such a bemusing kerfuffle. The site can be entered from both sides, North and South. Perhaps the Chinese builders had envisioned that the Railway Embankment would one day reclaim its rightful place as a zone for rail transport and decided to eagerly accommodate for this in the building’s design. Whatever the case, the Railway Embankment is perfect for rail, as it evenly bisects the populated coastline and runs from Demerara to Berbice, with eagerness to cross the two rivers. This was extremely forward thinking and optimal on the part of those who initially designed and utilized this railway.
Editor, we have heard recently that a new housing development (the triangular-shaped one) is about to be constructed along a segment of this old train line zone near the Mahaica River. Are we to take from this that rail along the optimal Railway Embankment pathway is outright scrapped as a concept from our long-term vision for infrastructure? Would we be missing a great opportunity by neglecting this already proven possibility? Imagine getting to Georgetown from Berbice, or Parika, or beyond, in a matter of minutes. Imagine living in Berbice and working on the West side in region two or three. Would we need to bother with importing foreign workers then? Could major industries exchange workers with a rail such as this one? Could a rail such as this one become a boon to train-ride tourism, as it did in Panama? Do we see the benefits of electric rail in the context of high fuel bills and high transmission costs for electricity? Could a raised rail also provide us with a massive transmission interconnect for a modern multi-source energy grid? Editor, should we really give up on the Railway Embankment Zone cold turkey?
Sincerely,
Emille Giddings
