Stonix News
THE introduction of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as an alternative fuel for commercial vehicles was widely presented as part of the Federal Government’s response to the economic difficulties that followed the removal of petrol subsidy.
The logic is straightforward: if commercial transport operators can reduce their fuel costs through CNG, commuters should, in principle, benefit from more affordable transport fares.
But across Ibadan and parts of the South-West, an important question is increasingly being raised by commuters: where is the benefit of cheaper CNG if passengers are still paying the same fares as those using petrol-powered vehicles?
In Ibadan, for example, commuters on some routes reportedly pay about ₦600 for a tricycle journey from Ojoo to Mokola Roundabout, regardless of whether the tricycle is powered by CNG or petrol.
This situation deserves closer scrutiny.
It is important to acknowledge that the cost of operating a commercial vehicle is not determined by fuel alone. Operators have expenses such as vehicle maintenance, spare parts, tyres, insurance, licensing, levies, labour and other operating costs. Therefore, the mere installation of a CNG system does not automatically mean that a particular fare should be reduced by a specific amount.
However, where the cost of the principal fuel input has been substantially reduced, particularly through government-supported CNG conversion programmes, commuters are justified in asking whether some of the resulting savings should translate into lower fares.
The concern becomes more significant when CNG conversion is supported through public resources. If government invests public funds to make CNG adoption easier for commercial transport operators, the policy should not end with the conversion of vehicles. Its economic benefits should ultimately be felt by the wider public, including the millions of Nigerians who depend on commercial transport every day.
Government must monitor the gap
The Federal Government, state governments and relevant transport authorities should therefore establish a transparent monitoring mechanism for CNG-powered commercial vehicles.
Such monitoring should not amount to arbitrary price control. Rather, authorities should first establish the actual cost of operating CNG and petrol-powered tricycles and public buses on comparable routes.
Transport unions, operators, commuters and government representatives should be involved in determining realistic fare bands based on prevailing operating costs.
Where evidence shows that CNG operators have significantly lower operating costs, the authorities should encourage or require an appropriate fare adjustment, subject to existing transport regulations.
Introduce route-based fare monitoring
One practical solution would be the introduction of route-based fare benchmarks.
For example, transport authorities could periodically assess routes such as Ojoo–Mokola and publish recommended fare ranges for CNG-powered and petrol-powered commercial tricycles and buses.
This would make it easier for passengers to know what they should reasonably expect to pay and would reduce arbitrary fare increases.
There should also be a simple complaint mechanism through which commuters can report operators who deliberately charge above approved or agreed fares.
Make CNG benefits measurable
The government should also publish periodic information on the CNG programme.
How many commercial vehicles have been converted? How much has the government spent on subsidies or conversion support? What is the average fuel-cost saving for an operator? And, most importantly, how much of that saving is reaching commuters?
These are legitimate public-interest questions.
The success of a transport intervention should not be measured merely by the number of vehicles converted. It should also be measured by whether the intervention improves affordability and mobility for ordinary Nigerians.
Operators also have a responsibility
Commercial transport operators, for their part, should recognise that government support for CNG conversion is not simply a business advantage. It is part of a broader effort to reduce the economic burden on citizens.
Operators should therefore be encouraged to pass a reasonable proportion of their fuel savings to passengers while still maintaining sufficient margins to cover maintenance and other legitimate costs.
Transport unions can play an important role by working with government to develop transparent fare structures rather than allowing individual operators to determine prices arbitrarily.
The bigger picture
The CNG initiative can only achieve its intended social and economic impact if its benefits travel beyond the vehicle’s fuel tank and reach the passenger sitting inside it.
If a commuter pays essentially the same fare for a CNG-powered tricycle as for a petrol-powered one, the question is not necessarily whether the operator is automatically acting unlawfully. The more important question is whether the economic savings expected from the policy are being translated into meaningful public benefit.
Government should therefore move from simply promoting CNG conversion to measuring its impact, monitoring fares and ensuring transparency.
The objective should be a balanced system in which operators remain economically viable, while commuters receive a reasonable share of the benefits created by lower fuel costs.
The success of the CNG policy should ultimately be seen not only in the number of vehicles converted, but also in the relief it brings to the pockets of Nigerians who rely on public transport today.
