Editorial

It has long been evident that the Maltese are not satisfied with the public bus service. Every time the bus owners press for an increase in bus fares - which may be justified, especially if it has to cover higher fuel prices and running costs - public disgruntlement rises, since no corresponding improvement in the service is evident.

And, judging by the results of our latest opinion survey, public discontent would be even greater were many of the ideas now being mooted to make the bus service "sustainable" to be put into effect.

Already, a relative majority (42.7%) consider that there has been no improvement in the public bus service in the last 12 months, during which the average bus fare has gone up by a third; only 9% believe that things have improved; 15% say the service has actually deteriorated.

And opposition to some of the ideas being mentioned is virtually total: such as that fares should be increased (again), that less-frequented services should be stopped, that direct services should in many cases be replaced by interchanges (e.g., instead of taking a direct bus from Valletta to Mellieha, passengers would have to stop at Mosta to take another bus to Mellieha), and that duplicated routes (by buses using the same 'corridor') should be reduced.

Meanwhile, whereas in 1989 over 42 million passengers used the public bus service, the figure today is 31 million. Inevitably, a number of routes are operating at a loss, which increasingly the government is under pressure to make up for. The latest spat, in fact, was precisely about the amount of subsidy; owners were asking for Lm1.6 million, while Government adamantly refused to go beyond Lm1.1 million. The subsidy and a wide-ranging reform are now being discussed between the owners and the Malta Transport Authority (ADT).

According to our survey, a majority favour the taking over of the public transport system by the government, since they believe service would thereby improve. However, this does not mean that it would not still require government subsidies, especially if there is pressure to retain certain routes and services which are losing money.

Nevertheless a state-owned transport system should also bring about a certain rationalisation (such as the introduction of a shift system to replace the current day on/day off schedule) and a more customer-friendly service.

Above all, the government could then make a determined effort to encourage greater use of public transport through various incentives - issuing season tickets, with a considerable savings on ordinary fares; increasing routes to serve new communities and if necessary suppressing others, and providing a more comprehensive night service.

The Halcrow report, commissioned by ADT (a copy of which has been seen by The Sunday Times) does not recommend a nationalisation of public transport, but the creation of nine geographically-based route groups, with interested parties invited to bid to provide services for each. The ADT would ensure that contracted services are delivered according to contractual requirements, and monitor and plan network performance.

Many of the recommendations in the report - such as reducing services and the number of buses - are intended to make the present service economically viable (bus owners' income is considerably supplemented by private work on their off days, a factor which naturally makes Government averse to increasing the subsidy further, especially as this would not be benefiting the public, as it is intended).

However, the public perception is that public transport should also be a social service, i.e. providing services to the still considerably large sector of the population who do not have their own means of transport. It is in response to this that the government, during the stand-off with the bus owners, introduced an emergency bus service to hospitals.

Incidentally, a reform of the public transport system should also bring the taxi service into the equation. Were taxi fares not so arbitrarily high, use of taxis would be much more frequent and could complement public transport.

Clearly, any reform undertaken should aim at the rationalisation of the bus service and, at the same time, persuading more people to use public transport as an alternative to using their own cars. But for this to take off, public transport really has to be frequent, efficient, and cheaper in the long run. With fuel prices set to continue rising, and the threat of environmental pollution looming larger, meaningful public transport reform is a matter of urgency.