Improving discipline in matatus is the way to go

By Charles Kanjama

A year ago, Nairobi Governor Evans Kidero noted during his inauguration speech: “Nairobi’s contribution to Kenya’s GDP lies somewhere between 50 and 60 percent.” Since then, Nairobi residents adopted 60 per cent as their GDP share, leaving the other 46 counties and their ninety-plus percent of Kenya’s population to share a measly 40 per cent.

The figures are striking, and if true, would send Kenya’s income inequality and Gini coefficient off the charts! Notably, the incomes in Nairobi also fit the normal income distribution curve, and only a minority of its population earns a majority of its income.

In the aftermath of the disruptive matatu strike, it was typical to complain: “How can we allow goons to stop 60 per cent of Kenya’s GDP?” The truth is rather less dramatic, since Nairobi truly generates only half of its claimed GDP share, which is still substantial. Yet this dramatic claim has been standardised into a cliché, similar to the “one million inhabitants in Kibera” claim that collapsed after the 2009 census.

Methinks a similar casual attitude has been adopted to the equally passé criticisms of the matatu sector in Kenya in regard to transport efficiency.

The ‘Ban the Matatu’ crowd is growing among Nairobi’s middle classes, hand in hand with calls for a sophisticated rapid transport system. But do their economic arguments make sense?

Tanzania has already started works on a bus rapid transit system along one of their main arteries in Dar es Salaam. A proper bus rapid transit system requires special buses that should operate a substantial part of their journey with a fully dedicated right of way so as to avoid traffic congestion.

The dedicated bus-ways are typically built on a slight elevation from the rest of the highway, in the middle of the road, with dedicated station platforms for entry/exit where off-board fare collection is done, and with a traffic system that gives buses priority at road junctions.

Bus rapid transit systems have worked well in many cities, especially in Latin America and Asia. These systems are cheaper than light rail or metro services, though the capital cost of implementing the systems is still substantial. In contrast, conventional bus services have less capital and running costs, though they tend to be rather inefficient in regard to transport speeds, even when given dedicated bus lanes.

In comparison, Nairobi’s foray into passenger rail, with the high-end Syokimau-CBD transit, was launched amid great hopes of transforming city commutes, but failed to attract most of its target market.

This initiative, the Nairobi Commuter Rail Service, still retains its appeal. It will also connect Ruiru, Kikuyu, Jomo Kenyatta International Airport and Embakasi to the CBD, along existing railway corridors, with upgraded track, modern stations and carriages, and higher transit speeds. Makadara and Imara Daima stations were launched last year, with others expected at Buru Buru, Pipeline, Umoja, Githurai and Donholm.

In subsequent phases, the rail service will connect Thika, Limuru and Lukenya along existing rail corridors, and then develop new rail corridors to target Nairobi’s satellite towns, including Ongata Rongai, Kiserian, Ngong, Kiambu, Ruai and Kangemi.

Without doubt, Nairobi residents continue to look forward to these and other proposals, including light rail or metro service and rapid bus transit.

What surprises me though is the general condemnation of the commuter matatu transport, despite its obvious current advantages.

Unlike other systems, it is cheap, efficient and available. It requires no costly subsidies or preferential treatment

 It is dynamic and versatile, and can reach and serve city residents everywhere.

Matatus are preferred over buses and trains by most commuters for sound economic reasons. They tend to be faster in traffic than private vehicles, while buses are slower.

They cover more routes, and can work with the current state of roads, while buses often cannot.

They fill up faster than buses/trains, and are cheaper to run. Finally, at 14 passengers per vehicle, they are more likely to attract middle-class motorists, whose average 1.5 passengers per car is the real cause of traffic congestion in the city, rather than their competitors.

Improving discipline in the matatu sector is the way to go, rather than overheated calls to ban the city matatu.