Fuel Crises and a Misunderstood Solution: Why Cutting Public Transport Makes Things Worse

Sri Lanka is once again grappling with a familiar and recurring challenge: a fuel crisis. Each time such a crisis emerges, the national response tends to focus on securing fuel supplies, through imports, negotiations, and short-term distribution measures. While these responses are necessary, they rarely address a deeper and more structural issue: the country’s heavy dependence on fossil fuels for everyday mobility.

A more fundamental question therefore remains largely unaddressed: how can Sri Lanka reduce its dependence on fuel in the first place?

One of the most effective yet underutilized answers lies in public transportation. However, in Sri Lanka, a critical contradiction emerges during fuel shortages. In an attempt to conserve fuel, public transport services are often reduced, through fewer bus and train operations, lower frequencies, or service cutbacks. At first glance, this appears to be a rational measure. Yet in practice, it produces the opposite outcome.

When public transport services are reduced, commuters do not simply stop travelling. Instead, they shift towards alternative modes, private cars, three-wheelers, and motorcycles. These modes carry far fewer passengers per vehicle and are significantly less fuel-efficient on a per-passenger basis (International Energy Agency, 2023).

This shift fundamentally alters the efficiency of the transport system. A single bus can carry between 50 and 60 passengers (all seated), replacing dozens of smaller vehicles on the road. When that bus service is removed or reduced, those same passengers disperse across multiple vehicles, leading to increased congestion and higher total fuel consumption. Studies on urban transport efficiency consistently show that high-occupancy modes such as buses and rail systems consume significantly less energy per passenger-kilometer than private vehicles (ITDP, 2017; NACTO, 2016).

In effect, the system transitions from efficient mass mobility to inefficient individual mobility.

This has two immediate consequences. First, traffic congestion intensifies, particularly in already constrained urban environments such as Colombo and Kandy. Second, national fuel consumption increases on a per-passenger basis, undermining the very objective of reducing fuel use.

This reveals an important but often overlooked insight: cutting public transport during a fuel crisis can actually increase overall fuel consumption. Conversely, strengthening public transportation offers a powerful dual benefit. By enabling the movement of more people in fewer vehicles, it reduces traffic congestion while simultaneously lowering fuel demand. The concept of prioritising modes based on passenger throughput rather than vehicle throughput is widely recognised in global street design and transport planning practice (NACTO, 2016; Global Street Design Guide).

Despite this, public transportation in Sri Lanka remains under-prioritized and under-invested. More critically, it is often treated as expendable during times of crisis, precisely when it should be safeguarded and enhanced.

Reframing public transport as essential infrastructure is therefore crucial. Reliable, frequent, and comfortable services can encourage a modal shift away from private vehicles, improving both system efficiency and urban livability. Evidence from multiple cities shows that investments in high-quality bus systems and rail networks lead to measurable reductions in congestion and energy consumption (International Energy Agency, 2023).

In the long term, reducing dependence on fossil fuels is not only about energy policy, it is also about transport policy. The way people move within cities has direct implications for national fuel consumption, economic productivity, and environmental sustainability.

Sri Lanka’s recurring fuel crises present an opportunity to rethink this relationship. Rather than focusing solely on how to import more fuel, policymakers must begin to consider how to move more people using less fuel. Public transportation is central to this transition. If the country is serious about building resilience against future fuel shocks, it must stop treating public transport as a variable to be reduced, and start recognizing it as a system to be strengthened, especially in times of crisis.

References

• International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). Transport and Energy Outlook.

• Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). (2017). The BRT Standard.

• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). (2016). Global Street Design Guide.

• Global Designing Cities Initiative. (2016). Global Street Design Guide.