On the one hand, you've got several new satellite cities around Cairo, which were built as early as the 1980s to relieve demographic pressure from the capital: think 6th of October, which is one of the largest and is located to the North-West of the city; as well as Obour, Shorouk, Orabi, Badr, etc to the North-East.
Save a few pockets of wealth, inhabitants are generally middle class, who were lured by government promises of local development, easy transportation to the city, and who often bought their little plot of land directly from the government at preferential rates. There's now little money to be made for the government there.
Many - especially 6th of October city - are also home to industrial concentrations; I was recently told (but cannot confirm) that a third of the nation's industrial production came from the 6th of October city; an overstatement probably, but it gives an idea of its importance.
Public transportation in either directions is particularly weak, and traffic is a constant nightmare.
On the other hand, you have New Cairo, an immense swath of land slowly being built and inhabited. New Cairo is home, among other things, to the American University in Cairo, the German University in Cairo, as well as a number of gated communities of the Kattameya Heights and Hyde Park (photo) variety.
New Cairo's land has been sold to real-estate developers for peanuts - it was, after all, desert land - who made bazillions reselling the 'exclusivity' of the location.
Now if you're a government and have a limited amount of resources to build a line of tram to connect either. Which will you choose?
In a democratic state, priorities would have it that serving a large number of middle-income people would take precedence over servicing a less congested, less populated, and wealthier neighbourhood.
But Egypt is not a democracy: it is ruled by private interests and kleptocrats who combine economic with political power: case in point, after this month's rigged elections, 35 percent of the new parliament's seats belong to businessmen, including many real-estate developers.
So we get this:
Save a few pockets of wealth, inhabitants are generally middle class, who were lured by government promises of local development, easy transportation to the city, and who often bought their little plot of land directly from the government at preferential rates. There's now little money to be made for the government there.
Many - especially 6th of October city - are also home to industrial concentrations; I was recently told (but cannot confirm) that a third of the nation's industrial production came from the 6th of October city; an overstatement probably, but it gives an idea of its importance.
Public transportation in either directions is particularly weak, and traffic is a constant nightmare.
On the other hand, you have New Cairo, an immense swath of land slowly being built and inhabited. New Cairo is home, among other things, to the American University in Cairo, the German University in Cairo, as well as a number of gated communities of the Kattameya Heights and Hyde Park (photo) variety.
New Cairo's land has been sold to real-estate developers for peanuts - it was, after all, desert land - who made bazillions reselling the 'exclusivity' of the location.
Now if you're a government and have a limited amount of resources to build a line of tram to connect either. Which will you choose?
In a democratic state, priorities would have it that serving a large number of middle-income people would take precedence over servicing a less congested, less populated, and wealthier neighbourhood.
But Egypt is not a democracy: it is ruled by private interests and kleptocrats who combine economic with political power: case in point, after this month's rigged elections, 35 percent of the new parliament's seats belong to businessmen, including many real-estate developers.
So we get this:
"Egypt to launch Cairo-AUC supertram by 2015". Yes. Apparently, we're willing to put 5 Billion LE (900 million USD) to serve the wealthy residents of New Cairo and the private universities' students, whom either have their own cars or use the dedicated university bus service.
When faced with a serious problem such a transportation and traffic to Cairo's satellite cities, a respectable government would endeavour, invest, and work on it.
What our government did was to shut its eyes, look the other way - in fact, look at the glimmering shiny New Cairo, and decided that it would get it right this time, others be damned.
The policy is simple really - if it's too complicated to solve, ignore it.
By the same stroke, news of the tram will unavoidably raise the price of the land in New Cairo, land which belongs to either the state or its private realter friends.
I'm very much in favour of connecting all of Cairo by a solid transportation infrastructure. And a tram to AUC will surely serve many people. But the State's priority here is not to serve the largest number of people, but its own financial interests and those of the real-estate lobby; while ignoring the legitimate needs and demands of hundreds of thousands of less well-off voters.
Oh wait, they don't vote.
When faced with a serious problem such a transportation and traffic to Cairo's satellite cities, a respectable government would endeavour, invest, and work on it.
What our government did was to shut its eyes, look the other way - in fact, look at the glimmering shiny New Cairo, and decided that it would get it right this time, others be damned.
The policy is simple really - if it's too complicated to solve, ignore it.
By the same stroke, news of the tram will unavoidably raise the price of the land in New Cairo, land which belongs to either the state or its private realter friends.
I'm very much in favour of connecting all of Cairo by a solid transportation infrastructure. And a tram to AUC will surely serve many people. But the State's priority here is not to serve the largest number of people, but its own financial interests and those of the real-estate lobby; while ignoring the legitimate needs and demands of hundreds of thousands of less well-off voters.
Oh wait, they don't vote.
