I like to see the world through other people’s eyes. Through mine, I’ve seen it on a daily basis, and by this age, the opinions are quite, let’s put it politely, developed.
So I often ask people around, from taxi drivers to potential investors: What do you think should be fixed in our country and cities ASAP?
By the way, by “people around” I don’t mean political circles but, sorry, the real people.
And almost right after the reform of the system of justice and overall corruption, we come to old minibuses — known better in Ukraine as “marshutkas,” the vehicles that haul people from here to there for a small amount of money.
“Something should be done about them” is the united answer, no matter who is asked.
And something should be done in many ways. It is really painful to see this “bus graveyard material” still driving around, with the drivers sometimes being offensive and the pensioners facing discrimination.
And it’s actually not about someone really wanting to be rude or loving and not letting go of the old marshutkas, but about the system, that results in such behavior. And unless the system will be changed, nothing in this situation will. Let me explain.
In different cities, there is a different share of bus passengers and routes. It depends on the historical reasons and of the shape of the city, as well as the priorities of city leadership.
For example, if the city is tall and narrow, with fewer inhabitants in the suburbs, there is a reason for minibuses or marshutkas, not the tolleys or trams.
As well, if you remember, the metro was historically built only in cities of 1 million inhabitants. And yes, the different news about the metro in Lviv is a joke. So in some cities that are quite tall and have many remote areas, the microbus is the most common way to get from one point to another. For example in Dnipro up to ⅔ of trips are taken by minibuses, so it is critically vital that the buses are of good quality and equally accessible for everyone.
But today the routes are procured to operators based on a competition held by the city that quite often is not too transparent. And then, “the route is yours with its losses and incomes.” So the revenue of the bus operators comes from what is collected from the passengers. So, to put it cynically, for the route operator, every passenger that does not pay in cash is lost income. Yes, the cities have to compensate for the subsidized categories, but that does not always happen to the full extent. So it results in “we already have subsidized passengers, you cannot come in” and sometimes even separate queues of paying customers and subsidized. It is really painful to see this treatment.
But as well, as the ticket prices are not based on the market price but on social fairness and political decisions, the money collected from the routes is too little to compensate for the income from the route, especially if it happens to be not the most crowded one. So if you do not get enough income, you cannot afford new vehicles, unless backed by subsidies from the city up to 30-90%.
The city pays some extra and can demand high quality and up-to-standard vehicles with terminals for the credit cards and cashless payments. And yes, as you guessed, in Ukraine the cities, according to law, cannot subsidize. So we are really in the stalemate situation. We want quality but the operators cannot afford it and we cannot financially support them to demand it.
So it is truly the time for reform that the Ministry of Infrastructure suggests and that has already been called as “The end of the old marshrutkas.” Actually, it is called “death,” but too radical and tragical.
The new reform suggests changing the whole principles of the game as nothing less would work. By the new law, still in amendment and hopefully to be in parliament this autumn, it is suggested four fundamental changes.
Firstly, to shift from competitions to open procurement for transportation service in ProZorro. The calculation would be based on the kilometers of the route multiplied to the price of a kilometer and procured in an open tender for the lowest price. What is the change? The operator gets the money from the city from kilometers driven, and will not even care how many passengers are subsidized, or not, and who pays cashless. It will get its money anyway.,
Secondly, the city is allowed to define the socially important routes and can subsidize them, if needed. The possibility to subsidize will allow demand quality and the minimum requirements for the quality will be defined by the Cabinet.
Thirdly, the driver nor operator does not really care how many passengers it is transporting and how they are paying, so it will truly allow the launch of different payment options from much longed for e-tickets to bank cards. It will now not be lost revenue for the operator as the payment comes from the city-based simply on kilometers.
Fourthly, the prices for the trips closer to market price will allow the competition to be born and the competition always results in better quality for the passengers.
We don’t pick the easy battles and neither is this one, but the battle of “the end of the old marshutkas” will truly allow a change in the quality of life and perception of cities.
