Lack of routine maintenance costing the country more

THE EDITOR, Madam:

It’s time to recognise the preventable nature of the damage caused by the lack of routine maintenance. Hurricane Beryl has served as a stark reminder of the consequences of our neglect. The extensive damage to the JPS power lines, caused by fallen trees and old, rotten, wooden poles that were not routinely replaced and maintained, is a clear example of this. We can no longer afford to ignore the importance of routine maintenance.

Many years ago, JPS cleared electricity poles and power lines of tree branches and heavy vegetation as routine maintenance. This maintenance work was usually done before the hurricane season, but it seems that this doesn’t exist any more; at least, not that I have been experiencing.

The JPS also had a drive where they were striving to replace all wooden poles with concrete ones. This was following Hurricane Gilbert’s devastation of the electrical distribution network, which consisted of mainly wooden posts at the time. When Gilbert hit Jamaica in 1988, the restoration of the JPS network took over six months – and up to a year. Can you imagine if Beryl had hit us directly, with the eye passing over Jamaica? I don’t even want to imagine the disaster that would have taken place. I am sure that had the JPS continued with this programme, the level of disruption that we have experienced from Beryl would not have been this great; and the cost that is being put out by the Government for restoration work would certainly not have been as significant.

The financial implications of having to restore the services after a natural disaster such as Beryl are far costlier than if routine maintenance were being done. A cost analysis would likely show that proactive maintenance is a more cost-effective solution, rather than having to carry out major restoration work as a result of the damages, due to the lack of maintenance. Other significant costs that are associated with a lack of routine maintenance not only include the direct costs of reinstalling lines and replacing broken poles, but also, there are indirect costs. These include loss of productivity, income from economic activities, and the suffering of individual households due to loss of perishable items from the long delays in restoring electricity services. In simple terms, the cost of neglecting maintenance is substantial.

A proactive maintenance programme is a cost-effective solution, offering reassurance that such damage can be kept at a minimum and restoration can be much faster. Proactive routine maintenance must be a part of our infrastructure going forward, not only with JPS, but also with all of the other institutions responsible for the country’s infrastructure.

AUBYN PERKINS

Mandeville, Manchester