Public transport subsidies have to increase

Studies indicate that the real cancer factory in Malta is not the BWSC power station in Delimara, as the Prime Minister suggested before the general election, but the ever-increasing number of cars on the road. So if we want to address pollution and congestion we need to invest in a good and reliable public transport system.

The PN seems to be going down the populist road on public transport, pitting taxpayers against subsidies for public transport.

PN public transport spokesman Toni Bezzina observed that state-owned Malta Transport “lost €7 million” (they were operating expenses) in the first three months of this year, noting that the losses were borne by Maltese taxpayers and were equivalent to the subsidy given to Arriva in a year.

But if government keeps subsidies at the same level given by the previous government to Arriva while expecting a better service, probably nobody would be interested in operating the service.

What Bezzina does not recognise is that the amount of subsidies given by the previous government were clearly not enough to ensure a good service and that Arriva ended up making tremendous losses which can be partly attributed to the government’s reluctance to fork out more money.

I was one of the few commentators who recognised that Arriva was not just a negative phenomenon, and that Labour in opposition was going down the populist road by continuously lambasting the service.

In fact, I consistently observed that the problem with Arriva was that the government was trying to square the circle by expecting an improvement in public transport while reducing funding. That is why we ended up with long-winded panaromic routes and a shortage of buses.

In reality what you get is what you are wiling to pay for.

Bezzina is right in criticising government for stopping some night services and the use of vehicles that are inaccessible for the elderly and people with disabilities. It is positive that now government will replace these coaches with 45 Euro-5 buses provided by a UK operator.

It would have been preferable if the arrangement formed part of the new bid, and if the replacement of bendy buses was conducted in orderly way.

But it was simply unacceptable that for the past months the government was paying €210,000 a month for buses which were not accessible for all. In my opinion this direct order was much more questionable than that now offered to the British company.

At the end of the day, we have to choose: either a good system funded by taxpayers’ money or a bad service costing less money for taxpayers.

What concerns me is that so far the government seems more concerned with satisfying the needs of present commuters than implementing a real nodal shift, by making public transport attractive to those who do not use it.

This can only be achieved through a mixture of incentives and disincentives: more use of night buses, a gradual movement from the Valletta-centred system by creating good direct connections between other urban hubs, and an ‘Oyster card’ system for regular users. Free public transport on the Estonian model could also be explored – at least on some days of the year.

The disincentives could include congestion charges and even driving bans on certain days of the year, especially when pollution levels are exceeded.

Moreover, we cannot continue to issue planning permits which create more traffic on our roads at junctions where the situation is already unsustainable. Ignoring the link between air quality and planning is one of the greatest shortcomings of this government.

The fact that only three companies have expressed an interest in the new public transport system is disappointing and may reflect uncertainty among bidders on the government’s offer.

But if government keeps subsidies at the same level given by the previous government to Arriva while expecting a better service, probably nobody would be interested in operating the service.

At the end of the day, we have to choose: either a good system funded by taxpayers’ money or a bad service costing less money for taxpayers. Surely taxpayers have a right to expect that their money is well spent and that it does not end up in a bottomless pit, as used to happen before Arriva when subsidies were used to make up for the inefficient work practices of self-employed bus drivers.

I hope that Malta finally gets the service it deserves: a well-funded transport operation which offers a good service for all while offering decent working conditions for smart employees.

Surely enough. money for public goods does not grow on trees. That is why the current fiscal populism, which gives the impression that public services can be improved while taxes are cut, is unsustainable.