PHILIPSBURG:--- Traffic congestion on St. Maarten is not worsening due to a lack of discussion. It is deteriorating due to a lack of execution. Every day of delay compounds economic cost, public frustration, and lost confidence in governance. When public announcements about solutions begin to contradict one another, the problem extends beyond the roads themselves. In such circumstances, clarity is not optional but necessary.
On 23 December 2024, The Daily Herald reported that the Minister of VROMI had engaged the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) to develop a comprehensive action plan to alleviate traffic congestion on the island. The language at the time conveyed a clear impression that a technical process had already been initiated and that strategic solutions were being actively pursued.
More than a year later, on 16 January 2026, the Government of Sint Maarten announced the signing of a Letter of Intent between the Ministry of VROMI and UNOPS to improve national mobility. One is left to wonder whether the public is being informed of a new milestone or being asked to re-read last year’s announcement under a different headline.
Taken together, these two announcements appear to describe the same process, separated not by outcomes but by time.
This sequence raises several fundamental questions that deserve clear answers:
- Does the Letter of Intent represent the conclusion of the traffic study referenced in December 2024, or the formal start of it?
-If it marks the start, what explains the more than one-year gap between public announcement and signing?
- If the study was completed, why have its findings, timelines, and recommendations not been disclosed?
- If the study is still to be conducted, what are the specific deliverables, timelines, and decision points the public should expect from it?
If the Letter of Intent is indeed the starting point of work first announced in December 2024, then the timeline suggests a prolonged period between intention and execution. Absent a clear explanation, such a delay risks being interpreted as inaction rather than strategy, particularly on an issue that has only intensified with time.
If, on the other hand, the study was already conducted during the intervening period, then transparency requires that its findings be shared. To date, no traffic analysis, recommendations, timelines, or implementation framework have been made public to demonstrate that such preparatory work took place.
What further complicates matters is that both announcements, despite being more than a year apart, were framed as progress. Yet progress, by definition, implies movement from one stage to the next. Without clarity on which stage we are actually in, repeated announcements risk creating the appearance of action rather than its substance.
When official public statements consistently require post hoc clarification to reconcile them with timelines and facts, it inevitably raises concerns about whether communication is being used to inform the public or to manage perception.
This is not a semantic debate. Traffic congestion carries tangible costs. Delayed emergency response times, lost productivity, increased fuel consumption, higher operating expenses for businesses, and daily frustration for residents are all real and measurable impacts that demand urgency, not uncertainty.
As a Member of Parliament, I have formally written to the Minister of VROMI seeking clarification on these matters, as I am receiving questions from residents who have been following these developments closely and are struggling to reconcile the narrative being presented with the timeline observed.
St. Maarten does not lack announcements. It suffers from delayed execution. Clear timelines and disclosed deliverables would allow Parliament and the public alike to assess progress on substance rather than announcements. Clear answers at this stage would help restore trust, align expectations with reality, and demonstrate the seriousness of purpose that this issue demands.
Traffic solutions cannot be built on circular messaging. They must be built on clarity, timelines, and results.
