Bus Blues & Boycotts

TO RIDE OR NOT TO RIDE...

We in Dominica have gotten used to an outrageous phenomenon: when external factors cause the price of petrol to go up, we square our shoulders and somehow learn to cope with higher prices for gas and bus fares.... But when global or regional prices return to "normal", our local prices do not seem to reflect that. Think about the fact that, presently, we do not really blink twice about paying about twenty dollars for a single round trip between our two largest municipalities. (And the centralization that makes going to Roseau absolutely necessary is another story in itself.) I am sure it has even happened to many of us that our reason for making the trip costs less than the fare itself, and this may be true for car owners as well.

Meanwhile, for bus drivers, it is very understandable that they do not want to give up the few extra dollars or cents that have made repaying loans or just putting food on the table a tad bit easier. It is tough enough to make a decent profit due to circumstances beyond the nation's control. And when the increased costs to drivers comes from our own government's policies, it can be, in a sense, even more frustrating. 

Buses in town are often lined up and awaiting customers to fill up the seats before heading out.

Well, the soon-to-be-implemented Highway Maintenance Levy (HM Levy), courtesy of our elected political administration and revealed at the controversial budget address a few weeks ago, may create that very scenario, come September. Bus drivers interviewed by Dominica News Online reporters expressed disapproval and disappointment with this decision, not only because their expenses will be higher but also because their customers will no doubt bear a great part of that burden. One driver from Mahaut seriously urged that the levy collections be used to improve road conditions. Hmmm, it is almost as if he knows that that is not the true motive of this tax. And one should indeed wonder why our "highways" need to be maintained at the extraneous expense of vehicle owners rather than having the cost deducted from the countless other taxes that we all currently pay. Read more of DNO's reporting on this issue here.

Now, it is one thing for bus drivers to have to hike their fares so that they can keep making a living wage. It is another thing for bus riders and private vehicle owners to have no choice but to spend more. At the very least, the drivers are able to churn out a direct profit, albeit inadequate. For everyone else, especially those who must take the bus to get to their place of work, it is just another flat-out expense. People cannot decide to get paid more by their employers to offset the higher bus fare. It does not work like that. It just means less money at the end of the month.

And perhaps the demographic most affected by this policy is the student population, in particular students from rural areas who attend the Dominica State College (DSC). I dare say a large fraction of college students do not work full-time, and nothing can quite compare to the stress of constantly-increasing expenses in the absence of a steady income. Those not fortunate enough to have parents or sponsors who can handily cover the high costs of tertiary education will tell you that this situation compounds a smorgasbord of existing hurdles to students' academic achievement: cross-country travel is costly, diminishes time that could be devoted to study, reduces social contact with students from other backgrounds, limits extracurricular involvement, encourages truancy, causes noticeable exhaustion, and incurs indirect costs that would not otherwise arise. Moreover, spending hours a day squeezed in a bus while being held to the same standards of scholastic performance as those who live minutes away and/or in more affluent homes is a plight that, were it not for the innovation and resilience of rural students, would be far more apparent.

Stockfarm bus stop in Roseau, where DSC students are 'put down', coming from the college campus.

Keep that in mind as we delve into another DNO article that follows the action of the Stockfarm Bus Association (SBA) in light of the HM Levy. College attendees have, until now, been afforded a student discount, regardless of age - students pay $1.25, while adult non-students pay $1.75 for the short ride up the hill to the DSC. Vice President Phillip Dover depicts the reluctance of some SBA members to hike the fare by just FIFTY CENTS for adult students whom they feel are "abusing" this system. SBA drivers will be subject to the same $150 HM Levy in September as all other drivers, mind you, yet Dover said only about half of his comrades felt justified in charging the adult students $1.75. A $1.50 flat rate for all students was the final decision, but Dover notes that Stockfarm drivers sometimes make less than $50 a day during off-seasons such as summer holidays. With less than 40 buses covering this route, it amazes me that they are able to support themselves at all in between semesters.

Alright, we have shuffled the proverbial deck enough. Let us pull out the race card.

It was only 60-odd years ago that, in many other Southern states in the USA, racial prejudice was as real at the bus stop as it was in the lynch mob. Yes, that's right: bus seats (like water fountains, restaurant entrances, and post offices) were segregated according to state law.

"White people only could sit up front and black people could sit from the fifth row back, however if a white person didn’t have a place to sit in the first four rows, then the black person sitting in the fifth row would have to give up their seat and move further to the back." - Sir Daniel, WordPress blogger (x)

Segregated business places were common in the Jim Crow era.

This practice was barely tolerated by people of color until a few courageous young people took action. Between 1944 and 1955, four women - Irene Morgan, Claudette Colvin, Mary Louise Smith, and Rosa Parks - refused to give up their seats to white people on buses in Montgomery, Alabama and Middlesex County, Virginia. Of the four, Parks is most widely renowned as she was the best face of the revolution that followed her brave actions. Of course, she was arrested like the other three women. But, upon being released on bail, Parks (the NAACP secretary at the time) became the poster child of an effective strike-back against the unfair policy that had led to her conviction: a bus boycott.

On the same afternoon of her trial, the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) was formed and elected as its president a young minister named Martin Luther King, Jr. The MIA's very first action was a boycott of Montgomery buses, using Parks' defiance as an exemplar of bravery and the pursuit of justice. Realizing that they comprised nearly 75% of bus passengers, black people in Montgomery refused to take the bus, choosing instead to walk or hitchhike. Black vehicle owners began carpools and taxi systems that allowed the boycott to continue undaunted, despite sabotages and wild arrests from the state.

Black-owned taxi operating during the Montgomery bus boycott. Note the empty bus in the background.

 The boycott lasted an astounding 381 days: from December 5, 1955 to December 20, 1956. It ended when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was forced to order Alabama statesmen to amend the law that segregated the bus lines. Finally, people were free to sit wherever they wanted on the buses. All it took was for black people to keep their money in their pockets. Other racist laws persisted in Alabama and throughout the US thereafter, so it cannot be said that the boycott elicited a sudden love of racial integration in the white government, only that it hurt them financially and they had no other choice in order to recover their profits through taxation of public transportation revenue. Read more about the boycott here and here.

Now, do not misconstrue the bottom line. This is not to paint Dominican bus drivers or our government or our people as the villains in our unfavorable public transport dilemma. The truth is there may be no clear-cut villains, though the majority of us are victims. This comparison is meant to inspire us all to peaceful revolutions that can lead to advantageous change. It should remind us as civilians that our most compelling point of negotiation is our position as law-abiding taxpayers and that we deserve equitable and reasonable treatment from the systems that we pay to serve us as well as from the persons we elect to represent our interests.

Should we boycott the buses? Maybe not, because bus drivers stand to lose as much as we do once this levy comes into effect. It is not inconceivable that one family unit or household may consist of a bus driver covering one route and a company worker riding on another route, with both partners needing to support themselves and, possibly, their children. In such cases, what is gainful for one may be detrimental to the other.

Should some of us begin the trend of bicycling to work or school? Maybe, as it would:

• save money by purchasing a quality bicycle as a long-term investment; 
• allow us to follow in the footsteps of countries around the globe that gain revenue from bicycle sales (see top 10 cycling countries here)
• reduce the impact of vehicular exhaust on environmental pollution and respiratory health, most notably with respect to ozone;
• (thus) further our island's reputation as an eco-friendly destination...a "Nature Isle", if you will;
• strengthen our efforts to lower the incidence of obesity and endorse healthy habits among our population;
• and, naturally, eliminate unattainable expenses for disadvantaged or low-income individuals.

Then again, maybe not...as it could potentially put short-route bus drivers completely out of business and, of course, is not applicable to those who need to travel long distances or across mountainous, dangerous terrain. Furthermore, Japan's ban on commuting to work by bicycle is a prime example of how a civilian trend like cycling can be snuffed out by corporate policy.

But should we - and by "we" I mean all of us affected - demand a respectable audience with our elected leaders to air our concerns, hash out our ideas, voice our discontent, and come to a decision that benefits (or merely least harms) all those involved?

Hell yes.