Zambezia (1983), XI (ii).RESEARCH REPORTPUBLIC TRANSPORT IN HARARETHE ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY of public transport in Zimbabwe's capital city isof interest because it includes ultra vires actions by a Governor and a localauthority, two examples of central government intervention in local affairs andtwo (possibly three) examples of government legislating at the request of alocal authority. There are, at present, three forms of public transport in Harare;the bus service, metered taxis and pirate (now 'emergency') taxis.The bus service is operated by private enterprise under a monopolygranted by the City Council and it is of interest that the arguments advanced in1952 for the establishment of a public bus monopoly are at least only partiallyvalid in support of the present monopoly. The objective is still, as it was in1952, to provide 'cheap continuous and reliable services for all sections of thecommunity'.1 In this connection, the operating efficiency of the bus service ishigh. In the conclusion to this article, however, I have distinguished betweenwhat could be called the economic or social efficiency of the system and itsoperating efficiency. There is little doubt that there is room for improvement.Zimbabwean urban local authorities became involved in the provision ofpublic transport in the 1930s. Since then, two aspects Š monopoly andsubsidy Š have, again and again, been the subject of debate. In 1935 theSalisbury City Council, as it then was, asked the central government, throughthe Local Government Association, to amend the Municipal Act to givecouncils which had established a bus service the power to prohibit, for suchperiod as the Governor approved, the carrying on by any other person (otherthan one with whom a council had an agreement) of any such service.2 Duringthe consequent passage of the Municipal Further Amendment Bill (Act No. 31of 1937) in the House of Assembly in 1937, two backbenchers spoke. Onespoke in support of the amendment but the other expressed doubts aboutwhether a council should be allowed to enter a contract granting a monopoly tosome other person or organization. The Minister replied:If municipalities are to establish a bus service or grant concessions toothers for the running of such a service there must be some protectionagainst those who might come in and endeavour to compete on anuneconomic basis ... There is to my mind some good reason for pro-tecting the municipal service of the kind that is proposed to be set up.3Meanwhile a City Council committee had reported:On several occasions recently the Council has been approached byresponsible parties for the grant of a concession to establish a busservice in Salisbury.'City of Salisbury, Is a Bus Monopoly really Necessary? (Salisbury, Municipal Circular toRatepayers, 1952); there is a copy in Harare Town House, Archives], 12/63/5 (Bus Monopoly),Jacket 2.2See Nat[iona]l Arch., [Zimbabwe. Harare], LG/93 [Local Government Archives: SalisburyMunicipality, Minute Books], 38 [12 Aug. 1937 - 9 Feb. 1938], Finance and General PurposesCommittee, 10 Sept, 1937, minute 14.'Southern Rhodesia, Debates of the Legislative Assembly . . . 1937, XVII, 1956-8(quotation at 1958).127All the applicants have sought a monopoly within the City'sjurisdiction; all have anticipated a loss on operations, and ail haveasked for a cash subsidy for a term of years, as well as requiring thesupport of the Council with a view to securing certain remissions ofGovernment taxation, etc.The general purport of the offers made to the Council was, putbluntly, that losses were to be bome wholly by the Municipality, butsmall profits were to be appropriated by the concessionaires. Largerprofits were to be shared between the concessionaires, the Munici-pality and the public . . , Experience the world over has shown,however, that the intrusion of private enterprise into the legitimatesphere of municipal and governmental activities has provedexceedingly difficult to eradicate, and Salisbury should beware ofpermitting such an intrusion at the present time.4Consequently the Council decided to hold a public ballot amongst theratepayers to ascertain the degree of support for the establishment of amunicipal bus service. The result was 3,489 votes for and only 275 votesagainst the establishment of a municipal service; and so the decision was madeto go ahead,5EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL BUS SERVICEIn 1939 the Council ordered eight buses, at an estimated cost of £21,000 fordelivery from the United Kingdom. However, owing to the intervention of theBritish Government as a result of the outbreak of the war, these buses werenever delivered and it was not until 1942 that the Council was able, using busesfrom various sources, to begin operating a service.6 At this stage, no attemptwas made to establish a monopoly as there was no competition.The municipal service operated within the City boundaries and it was onlyin September 1948 that a proposal was made for a service to cover the peri-urban areas. These, at that time, had their own, independent, town councils ortown management boards. The proposal came from Transrhodes Services Ltdwhich, having obtained the agreement of the peri-urban authorities, asked theCity Council if it had any objection to its operating services between the Cityand Highlands, Meyrick Park, Hatfield, Cranbome, Ardbennie, Prospect andParktown. The City Council replied saying that it had no objection providedthe Company confined its services to passengers travelling to and from theperi-urban areas. Thereupon the Company established a service between theperi-urban areas and a bus stop on Third Street opposite Cecil Square,7In 1950, however, it was reported to the City Council that the Companywas setting down passengers at points other than at the authorized bus stop inThird Street and was picking up passengers within the City area en route to4 Reported In The Rhodesia Herald, 15 Mar, 1938.5Natl Arch,, LG/93/38, Finance and General Purposes Committee, 4 Feb. 1938, minute12; 39 (11 Feb.-25 July 1938), Finance and General Purposes Committee, 13 May 193 8, minute6, and Council, 22 June 1938, minute 7; 41 (3 Jan.-30 May 1939), Council, 6 Feb. 1939, minute 1.*Ibid., 42 (1 June-21 Sept. 1939), Finance Committee, 21 Sept. 1939 minute 27- 47 (6June-6 Oct. 1941), Council, 28 July 1941, minute 3; 49(14 Jan.-14 May 1942), Council, 5 Feb.1942, minute 1, and Public Works Committee, 30 Apr, 1942, minute 16; 50 (15 May-20 Aug.1942), Council, 25 June 1942. minute 6, and Public Works Committee, 10 July 1942, minute 19.7Ibid., 81 (16 July-14 Sept 1948), Public Works Committee, 17 Aug. 1948,'minute 35;Harare Town House, Arch., 12/63 (Bus Service) and 12/63/9 (Monopoly re Council's OmnibusServices), Jacket 1, passim,128Third Street.8 In response, the Council applied to the Governor for the soleright to operate a service for all races within the City area and a service forAfricans within a twelve-mile radius of the Salisbury Post Office (there were atthis time three independent operators running services for Africans, in additionto the Municipal service and the Transrhodes service),9 In accordance with theterms of the Municipal Act, the Council advertised its intentions and, as aresult, a variety of objections were received.10 More importantly, the peri-urban authorities refused to agree to the proposed African service.MONOPOLY OF MUNICIPAL BUS SERVICE ESTABLISHEDNevertheless the Governor approved a monopoly within the City area for busservices, for White persons only; but the Council did not, as required by theAct, advertise the new proposals, nor did it subsequently appoint separatebuses or parts of buses for different races. It continued to provide, within itsown area, a universal service.11 The monopoly became effective only as thelicences of other buses operating within the area expired. Services operatingfrom outside the City, and the African services, were unaffected.However, by June 1952, Transrhodes was running buses on an inner-circular route around the central business district and was operating a bus(S31327) for which the licence had expired and had not been renewed. On 26June 1952, therefore, the Council obtained a rule nisi in the High Court callingupon the Company to show cause why an order restraining it from operatingS31327 within the area under the Council's jurisdiction should not be issued.A month later the Court held:(a) that the Council had not followed the prescribed procedure in thatit had not advertised its intention to pass a resolution establishing aservice for Whites only: in other words that the Council's resolutionestablishing the monopoly was ultra vires;(b) that the Governor's power was restricted to approval of the periodof the proposed monopoly and he could not vary the conditions; inother words, he also had exceeded Ms powers; and(c) that the Council was only able to prohibit 'such service' as it itselfprovided which was a universal service; the Company provided aWhites-only service.12The Council appealed against this decision but lost, the Appeal Courtconsidering the first ground only.13 Meanwhile the Council proceeded to re-process the monopoly as a universal service within its area of jurisdiction.14The Officer Administering the Government, in the absence of the Governor,approved the new monopoly on 8 November 1952 for a period expiring on 30June 1966. The Council passed a resolution imposing the new monopolywhich was published in November 1952.15 The licences of the Transrhodes28,8LG/93/97 (19 July-7 Sept, 1950), Public Works Committee, 11-12 Aug. 1950, minute9Ibid., 101 (8 Jan.-14 Feb. 1951). Public Works Committee, 15 Jan. 1951, minute 15.10Ibid., 102 (9 Feb.-15 Mar. 1951), Public Works Committee, 12 Mar. 1951, minute 26."Ibid, 110 (1 Feb.-13 Mar. 1952), Public Works Committee, 14 Feb. 1952, minute 24."Salisbury Municipality v. Transrhodes Services Ltd, 1952 (4) S.A. 14 [S.R.1."1953 (lj S.A. 319 [AiD.J.14Natl. Arch., LG/93/113 (26 June-5 Sept. 1952), Council, 1 Aug. 1952, special meetingminute."Southern Rhodesia. Government Gazette (21 Nov. 1952), 940.129Services Ltd buses had varying times to expiry, the last seven being due toexpire on 31 December 1953, which became the date from which themonopoly would be effective.The argument over the establishment of a monopoly was essentiallybetween the City Council and Transrhodes; other operators and members ofthe public did object when the Council's intention as advertised, but the maindispute was between the Council and the Company and at times became mostacrimonious. On the Council side, staft were deployed to board theCompany's buses and note contraventions of the no-setting-down and no-picking-up rule and to make notes regarding new routes introduced by theCompany. Allegations were made that the Company's double-decker buseswere damaging street trees and road surfaces. The Council refused to improvethe Third Street bus stop. Company and Council buses could, on some routes,be seen racing each other for passengers. Surprisingly, the Company neverchallenged the monopoly in terms of the High Court interpretation of'suchservice'.The Council put its point of view in a pamphlet addressed to ratepayers on7 October 1952:Is a Bus Monopoly really Necessary?Many people have asked that question in recent times, and thepurpose of this article is to explain the circumstances in whichmonopolies are essential, not only for the suppression of wastefulcompetition,' but because the establishment of certain monopolies arebased on a genuine desire to serve the public interests.FORMS OF MONOPOLYExamples of that form of monopoly which are vested in a publicauthority are postal, telephone and telegraph services. The generationand supply of electricity is also a form of monopoly because it can becarried on only under a licence issued by a statutory authority. Thesupply of water is a virtual monopoly because it would not be feasiblefor private enterprise to obtain the rights over land which are entailedin the distribution of water to thousands of consumers.THE COUNCIL'S SERVICEIt is also public policy in this Colony and other countries to grantsole rights of bus operation to public authorities . . .It is of interest to mention that in Great Britain, as recently as1930, the lack of method in licencing and regulating omnibuses wasresponsible for chaotic conditions in road transport, and the positionof local authorities operating transport was both uncertain andunsatisfactory. Licences were granted frequently with little thought ofwasteful competition, and the practice arose of operators choosingonly the remunerative routes, thereby reducing the ability of theregular operators to supply services on unremunerative routes . . .'Racing', 'cutting-in' and fare-cutting were also commonlypractised in Great Britain, thereby causing an increase in trafficdangers, and financial losses to local authorities . . . The Council130estimates that during the current financial year the loss on the existingmunicipal service will amount to £16,000 and that no less than£10,000 of that total is directly attributable to the services whichtoday operate in competition with the municipal buses. As more andmore buses are put into competitive uses on the routes which areremunerative to the Council, the loss to ratepayers will corres-pondingly increase.ARE MULTIPLE SERVICES NECESSARY?A local authority has a duty to provide cheap, continuous andreliable services for all sections of the community, and it is not everyroute which can be made to pay its way . . ,BUS SERVICE LOSSESSince the inception of the Municipal service in 1942 theaccumulated loss has grown to £44,000 . . .It is estimated that the bus services which run in competition withthe Council travel over 1!4 million miles per annum over the cityroads. It is unquestionable that the size and weight of the vehicles andtheir frequent stopping and starting have a direct bearing on thedamage done to road surfaces. What is not generally known, however,is that the Council does not receive one penny by way of licences orother revenue from these competitive services. The ratepayers arethus not only bearing a greater financial loss than is necessary, but arecompelled to make money available for the provision andmaintenance of the roads . . .THE 'CREAM' ROUTESAn additional reason for creating monopoly conditions in thehands of a public authority is that the ever-present problem of supplyand demand is capable of a more satisfactory solution when it isdefinitely known that no other operator is likely to step in and convey aportion of the traffic. Capital expenditure can be more accuratelyascertained and restricted to the point of maximum return, while asteady income is assured . . .MONOPOLY SUMMARISEDThe arguments in favour of the municipal service being pro-tected against competition in the manner provided for by thelegislature may be summed up as follows:(a) Since passenger transport has a real and vital socialsignificance in the life of modern towns, it is more suited forcivic than private operation;(b) Passenger transport services are instruments in townplanning, which is one of the most important functions of a localauthority; co-ordination of the two functions is more likely to beachieved by both being under one control;(c) Passenger transport is a practical necessity of life, particularlyto the poorer classes of the community; if social justice is to be131done to them the profit moti¥e must be wholly eliminated and thiscannot be done by private enterprise;(d) Passenger transport is most efficiently and economicallyoperated under monopoly conditions;(e) Under municipal operation greater attention tends to be givento efficiency, safety and convenience of service and to the welfareof employees;(f) As municipalities borrow on the security of all their assets,rates and revenues they can raise loans at lower rates than private Łenterprises;(g) Municipalities are models of economy in the operation oftrading undertakings of this nature, as they have in effect unpaidand public-spirited boards of management.The Council went on to acknowledge, in the penultimate paragraph of itspamphlet, the effect of establishing a municipal monopoly might be to putTransrhodes Services Ltd out of business and thereby deprive the peri-urbanareas of their bus services,16 but the Municipal Act was nevertheless amended(No. 34 of 1952) to increase the penalty for infringing a bus monopoly from£10 to £100.RETURN TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISEDespite this vehemence in public against a bus service run by privateenterprise, the Salisbury City Council in private was nevertheless prepared toconsider alternatives to its shouldering the responsibility of providing amonopoly bus service. In Bulawayo, Gwera and Mutare at this time, theCouncils had established monopolies but were not operating the bus servicethemselves, as envisaged by the Salisbury City Council. Instead they hadconcluded agreements with private-enterprise companies to operate serviceson their behalf. All three agreements provided for a fixed subsidy which wasreduced if the company made a profit in excess of 5 per cent. None in fact had,but in 1950 the Bulawayo Omnibus Company Ltd proudly announced itslowest loss up to that time (£ll,960)17 Š a fact which possibly promptednegotiations between that company and the Salisbury City Council in Juneand July 1951 which led to a provisional agreement to the terms proposed bythe Company for a take-over of the municipal fleet and bus service. Thesenegotiations were later broken off, for reasons that are not clear but perhapsderived from the opposition of the Trades Union Congress to the employmentof African drivers and conductors (as was the practice in Bulawayo). Feelingin the Council then swung towards an alternative to both private enterprise anda municipal service ŁŠ namely the establishment of a national non-profit-making transport authority along the lines of the London Passenger TransportBoard which had been established in 193 3 and had incorporated all the smalleroperators in the London area.Then in March 1953, only four months after the municipal monopoly hadbeen established, and nine months before it would become entirely effective,the pendulum had swung back to private enterprise. On 16 March 1953 theCouncil invited tenders for the establishment, maintenance and operation of anomnibus service. One tender was received, from United Transport (Africa)"ŁCity of Salisbury, Is a Bus Monopoly really Necessary?, passim.11 The Bulawayo Chronicle, 27 Mar, 1951,132Ltd; this company had absorbed Transrhodes and had finance and staffavailable as a .result of the nationalization of its operations in the West ofEngland. Preliminary agreement between the Council and the Company wasreached In October 1953 but it was not until September 1954 that the OfficerAdministering the Government approved the terms and period of theFranchise Agreement,18Part I of the Agreement provided for a monopoly within a sixteen-mileradius of the Salisbury Post Office but exempted the two remaining Africanservices until 30 June 1966. The Agreement itself covered the period up to 30June 1975. The Company was to continue to operate the Transrhodesservices, purchase the municipal fleet and expand services generally within itsfranchise area. Routes and schedules required Council's approval, as did fareincreases above IVid, per passenger mile on first-class services and lYid. perpassenger mile on second-class services. For both services a minimum fare of3d. was fixed. There was also provision for a concessionary fare forschoolchildren to be fixed by mutual agreement and, in the following year, a 10per cent concession was agreed for schoolchildren travelling oo the first-classservices (i.e. those serving the low density residential areas). Part II of theAgreement established a committee, with, members nominated by the peri-urban local authorities, which had power to negotiate with the Companyregarding the operation of services in the peri-urban areas.The Council sold its ieet of eighteen buses, together with spares and otheraccessories, to the Company for just over £30,000 and on 9 September 1954the Company took over eleven first-class routes and two second-class routes; 9bus shelters and 125 bus seats (street benches), which the Company was toprovide in the future, were handed over by the Council during the followingmonth. There followed a period of rapid expansion with new services beingadded at approximately three-month intervals.SUBSIDIES AND FARESThe arguments advanced by the City Council in favour of a monopoly are onlypartially valid when related to a private monopoly. However, two factors Šthe need to provide services on unremueerative routes and the need to plancapital expansion Š are strong arguments for a bus monopoly whether it is ranby private or public enterprise. The arguments for subsidizing a publictransport service are essentially different and the decision usually a politicalone. In 1982 Hedley" pointed out the degree to which services are subsidized:CityNew YorkMilanBrusselsBerlinParisLondon* reduced to 12 per cent in mid-1982Subsidy as Percentage of Costs727170615646*"Natl. Arch,, LG/93/120 (11 Sept-11 Nov. 1953), Council, 26 Oct. 1953, minute 2; 127(6 Sept.-18 Oct. 1954), Council, 9 Sept 1954, minute 3,"R, Hedley, 'GLC chief seeks fares classification'. Local Government Chronicle (5 Mar.1982), 228,133In all these cities the decision to subsidize was taken essentially as an income-redistribution measure. In Harare, the decision could hardly be put in thiscategory but it was nevertheless a political one.In 1956, the Company, with the agreement of the Council, announcedincreases in the second-class bus fares. The announcement was followed by abus boycott and rioting. The government responded, after order had beenrestored, by appointing the Commission of Inquiry into the Transport Servicesof Greater Salisbury and Greater Bulawayo. The Commission recommendeda change in the fare structure for the second-class services and this was broughtinto effect in February 1957. The new fares were based on Id. per passengermile for the first mile, and Id. per passenger mile thereafter, with a maximumfare of Id. (as compared with the existing highest fare of 1(M.).20The maximum fare remained at Id. until 1969 when higher fares wereintroduced on extended routes.21 The immediate effect was that the Companyincurred a deficit; but also, almost immediately, an increase in bus usage byAfricans was reported,22 which was eventually to contribute towards the phasingout of the subsidy.Initially, the subsidy of urban transport was seen as a central governmentresponsibility and in 1958 the Employers' Levy Bill was passed through theHouse of Assembly to provide the machinery to collect revenue to pay it.However, before the Governor had given his assent to the Act, theGovernment fell. The new Government felt that transport subsidies should bea local responsibility and appointed the Commission of Inquiry into Urban andPeri-Urban Omnibus Passenger Services to investigate the matter. Whereasthe previous Commission had recommended a reduction of subsidy when thereturn on share capital exceeded 8 per cent, the new Commissionrecommended a reduction only when the return exceeded 12 per cent. It alsorecommended that the cost of subsidization should be borne by those membersof the community who could be said to obtain a reasonably direct benefit fromthe location of the African townships and the availability of their residents asworkers. Specifically, the Commission proposed that half the cost ofsubsidizing the buses would be borne by residential rates and the other half by adifferential rate on industrial properties.23The Salisbury City Council opposed this proposal (in particular theomission of commercial ratepayers and the inclusion of domestic employers)and suggested instead that the cost of the subsidy shouild be met by a levy to bepaid by the employers of commercial and industrial labour. As a result, theServices Levy Act (No. 47 of 1960) was promulgated in February 1961,empowering the Council, amongst others, to collect a levy from employers ofnon-domestic workers which was to be used to subsidize transport and low-cost housing. The Act empowered the Minister to require a local authority tosubsidize bus services. Bus subsidies had thus effectively become a localresponsibility, and the Salisbury City Council paid subsidies for the second-20Southern Rhodesia, Report of Commission of Inquiry into the Transport Services ofGreater Salisbury and Greater Bulawayo (Sessional Papers, C.S.R. 24, 1956)."Harare Town House, Arch., Finance Committee Minute Book, 31 Mar. 1969 - 11 Mar.1970, 20 Oct. 1969, minute 4."Rhodesia United Transport Ltd, Annual Report, 1957 (Salisbury, The Company, 1957);this company was the parent company of the franchise holder, which had now changed its name toSalisbury United Omnibus Co. Ltd."Southern Rhodesia, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Urban and Peri-UrbanOmnibus Passenger Services (Sessional Papers, C.S.R. 8, 1960).134class services from 1961 to 1965 when the service, because of increasedpassenger usage, became once again economic.NEW AGREEMENTSThe Franchise and Subsidy Agreements between the City Council and theCompany expired on 30 June 1974 and were replaced by new Agreements.The new Agreements were to last to 30 June 1987 and provided for theCouncil to approve routes, frequencies and fares, and for arbitration if therewas disagreement on these aspects, Terminal points and bus stations were tobe provided by the Council and leased to the Company. The Company had theright to submit revised fare tables if the return on capital employed (not, aspreviously, the share capital) appeared likely to fall below 30 per cent; and asubsidy was to be paid, by the Council, if the return fell below 20 per centPayment was to be made monthly. Second-class fares were to be based on aformula starting at 1.02 cents per passenger kilometre and falling to 0.60 centsper passenger kilometre 26 kilometres from the Post Office. In fact, thisformula was found to bear too heavily on the long-distance commuters and allfares were raised 1 cent above those in use in June 1974. This was followed byadditional 1 cent 'blanket' increases, in response to rising fuel and labour costs,in September 1976, May 1977, March 1978-and April 1979, and a 1 centincrease on short journeys together with a 2 cent increase on long journeys inJuly 1979. Although the fixed maximum of 14 cents (the Id. of 195 7) had beenabandoned in 1969, the manner in which fares were later fixed has perpetuated -a relatively low maximum fare.In 1976, the Salisbury United Omnibus Company's service was extendedto cover the Zengeza Township which was then under the jurisdiction of theCity Council.24 However, on 1 January 1978 the Chitungwiza Urban (nowTown) Council was established with Zengeza as part of its area. The questionnow arose as to which authority was responsible for the provision of bustermini in that part of the franchise area which fell under the ChitungwizaUrban Council. This question was further complicated by the granting of afranchise for the remainder of the Chitungwiza area, by the Minister of LocalGovernment and Housing in terms of the Urban Areas (Omnibus Services)Act (No. 6 of 1977), to Zimbabwe Express Motorways.The City Council provided and leased facilities within its own area toZimbabwe Express Motorways and, ultimately, the government took over thefinancial responsibility of providing facilities in Chitungwiza. A tripartiteAgreement was entered into between the government on behalf of theChitungwiza Urban Council, the Salisbury City Council and Salisbury UnitedOmnibus Company. Neither this Agreement nor the Zimbabwe ExpressMotorways Franchise Agreement provided for subsidies; the latter did,however, require governmental approval of fare increases which,25 until 1980,was given in line with the increases approved by the City Council for SalisburyUnited Omnibus Company.26Meanwhile, at the end of 1978, the 10 per cent concessionary fare forschoolchildren travelling on the first-class service was withdrawn.uRhodesia Government Notice, 988 of 1975 (supplement to Rhodesia Government Gazette,24 Oct 1975)."Harare Town House, Arch., Finance and Development Committee Minute Book, 23 July1975 - 3 June 1976, 21 Aug. 1975, minute 33.MSee, for example, Ibid., 14 Mar.-8 Sept. 1977, 9 May, minute 44.135In October 1980 the City Council received a request from the Salisbury *~United Omnibus Company for a farther fare increase to meet rising costs. Inthe usual way, this was referred by the Council to the Minister of LocalGovernment and Housing so that he could make simultaneous arrangements rwith Zimbabwe Express Motorways. However, the new Government did notthink the time appropriate for a fare increase and no increase was authorized *until October 1981 when a 2 cents 'blanket' increase was introduced.*7Meanwhile, in terms of its Agreement, the Council began paying a subsidy to »the Company.28In mid-1981 the Government directed the Council to cease paying the *subsidy with effect from the end of June and pending the result of negotiationswith the Company, The subsidy paid for the first half of 198 J was ZS977.710.This was paid from Services Levy funds accumulated between 1964, when asubsidy had last been paid, and the phasing out of the Act by the previousGo¥ernment in 1978-9.Thus on 1 July 1981, at the beginning of its financial year, the Council wasfaced with the probability of having to pay, despite the Government's <direction, and in terms of its legally binding Subsidy Agreement everincreasing amounts to the Company without having a corresponding revenue *source. If any subsidy is paid in the future it will be paid from the generalrevenues of the Council, The fare increase in October 1981 improved thesituation but did not eliminate the subsidy liability Š or, to put it differently,was not sufficient to enable the Company to continue financing expansionfrom its own resources.29 tTo return to that position, there are three alternatives: to pay subsidiesonce more; to raise fares; or to improve efficiency, in respect of the last, the yrecent 'Diagnostic Study of Traffic and Transport Conditions in the SalisburyRegion' by the World Bank30 regards both companies as efficient andcomments on their low ratio of employees to vehicles The most promisingavenue, both to reduce the need tor subsidies and to reduce fares, is to reducethe peak-hour requirement for buses. This requires an examination of thepublic transport system as a whole.EFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN HARAREIn Harare, 74 per cent of industrial workers and 61 per cent of central-business-district workers start work between 6,00 and 8.00 a.m. Morningschool starts within the same period. In the afternoon, 83 per cent of industrialworkers and 67 per cent of central-business-district workers end work between4.00 and 6.00 p.m. In both peak periods approximately 440 buses are on theroad, whereas at the other times there are only 150. For most of the day. two-thirds of the buses Ft and idleDuring the monr.mi peak Ł' J per ce:it ox the buses are used on r schoolservice One -trapk ; .vssNhu thereto:* . i> to change school houis s»o as to - >achieve a boner tis^eo; >t the v vw in £ fee \ «nxt if possible, to reduce it by 10 percent This v/r^-H ha^ The efrect oi improving the profit margin and reducing'Ł 'I 'i'A'j, :~!1 T Dec. 1981. 20 Sept. iy81. minute 10.x t.^Kv <s v~.)rr".'ff \u vile Book, 27 July 1981 -- 25 K-h 1982,'i Ł>, '- 'at' : ^ . .'^ Mar, 19^2, minute 6.., '- . . .-t IIT.IU in.3 Transport Condition* m the Salisburyn.. . I ., ,,-,.v )',.,—. t f>p , 1981).I 3oU SiRee«IDU-. tMbi.' r"W orld>n" (Nair, ^iŁ,C"'the capital employed (the base figure from which subsidy is calculated) andbecause the school service operates at peak hours only, and therefore must becosted at marginal cost, would reduce the subsidy to be paid by a much largerproportion (approximately 35 per cent).Similarly savings could be achieved by staggering shop hours. A change inthe shop hours in the City centre would spread the peak and reduce therequirement for buses not only because the shop workers would not requirebuses at the same time as the industrial and office workers but also becauseother workers would shop during the present peak hours.A further possibility, which has been under investigation since 1978 is thelegalization and development of the use of what used to be called 'pirate'taxis.31 There are, at present, three forms of public transport in Harare, buses,'emergency' taxis and metered taxis. Their characteristics can be summarized:BusesEmergency Taxis Metered TaxisRoutes and times> Cost per passen-ger kilometreFares1 Licence, etc.InsuranceHealth of driverNumber ofpassengers andwhether controlledNumber ofFixed0.95cLowest and fixedPublic ServiceVehicleFullA.nrual testPC75 (Z.E.M.)Flexiblel.OlcNegotiated (usually25 c where bus is13-17c and 20cwhere bus is lessthan 13 c)Class iThird Party .No testAverage = 7.66No685Flexible18.6c(1 passenger)Highest andmetered 40c perkilometrePublic ServiceVehicleFullAnnual testAverage = 1.47Yes558vehicles in 590 (S.U.O.C.)operationThe 'emergency* taxis form a low-cost mode of transport, intermediatebetween buses and metered taxis. They cost the passenger more to use than abus but are more flexible and they are both less expensive and less flexible thana metered taxi. They have operated illegally for many years withoutapparently affecting the operation of the other two modes except to supplementthem. Their role is on the jjneconomic bus routes and in the dispersal ofpassengers from bus termini at a reasonable cost Their low cost of operationcan be attributed to low purchase prices (second-hand cars), low depreciation,minimum insurance cover, do-it-yourself repairs and second-hand parts, thelack of a road service permit and public service vehicle licence, and thepractice of always travelling full. In its simplest form an 'emergency' taxi ismerely a 'lift club' (also illegal) cany ing a group of workers to and from workand usually doing this during the peak hours. The effect is to reduce the numberof buses required during the peak hours. Legalization, entailing the control of"The first steps have been taken; see Zimbabwean Government Gazette, 20 Dec. 1983,General Notice, 986B of 20 Dec.137the number of passengers and roadworthiness, would probably mean anincrease in the numbers of both the 'lift club' sort of taxi and the full-time'emergency5 taxi with consequent beneficial effects on the economics of thebus service.CONCLUSIONThe public transport system in 1983 is providing a fairly continuous andreliable service, but it is not doing so as cheaply as is possible. The reason forthis is the uneconomic use of capital by the bus service Š which in presentcircumstances is forced on the Company by the need to provide buses toservice the exaggeratedly high peak-requirements.Harare City Council J.D. JORDAN138