Travel is closely related to lifestyles and land use and as standards of living improve people increase their activities and seek more and distant opportunities. This causes increased travel followed by an increase in infrastructure supply.

Careful land use and transport planning ensures that activities and their locations match and satisfy lifestyle needs. Over the years Malta’s increased car ownership quickly translated into car dependence as income increased, activities became more demanding and the reliance on the car over any other mode of transport increased.

This was all fine until we realised that all this mobility comes at a cost. For many countries this realisation came in the 1990s when cities experienced gridlock and pollution levels threatened public health. A new paradigm for transport was therefore proposed, one which moved away from the car and focused on greener and more efficient modes.

One after another, cities started to focus their efforts on restraining car use and building infrastructure able to carry large numbers of people efficiently. City centres were pedestrianised and cycle lanes expanded. Slowly, the space for cars was replaced with spaces where people can access public transport (unhindered by congestion) and can walk and cycle. These cities are called progressive and future looking.

Malta followed the same initial path by increasing infrastructure for cars through the building of an extensive road network and uncontrolled parking, so much so that cars, whether moving or parked take up much of the public road – the same one which used to serve communities walking to school, to shops and to engage in other activities in our villages.

Congestion, accidents, climate change adaptation, noise and air pollution cost the economy a whopping €274 million in 2012. The WHO estimated the economic costs of premature deaths in Malta from air pollution at €540 million in 2010.

Much more needs to be studied about the wider impacts on public health, equity and social exclusion for the transport disadvantaged.

But it is the congestion and gridlock situations that hit people hard, with much written on the local media about the need for a solution. I here refer to drivers, bus users and pedestrians, since despite the latter not contributing to congestion and pollution, they suffer just the same.

Much of the discourse has focused on a solution in the form of a mass transport system. This slight change from “building more roads” might suggest that we are approaching an understanding that we cannot build ourselves out of congestion. In terms of actions, sadly we are still pretty much building more roads and more infrastructure for the car.

With little investment in car restraint only a bus-based mass transit system is feasible

So is the mass transport system going to solve the problem?

The answer is that if planned and designed separately from a wider strategy that looks at integrating land use planning, restricting car use, managing parking and giving streets back to the people, then no! More important, for a mass transport system to work, it requires priority – priority in terms of dedicated road space, consistent political and financial investment, and a long-term plan that ensures successful implementation and sustainability.

Mass transport systems are a wide variety of systems that range from segregated bus systems, trams and light rail, trains and underground systems.

Considering the islands’ geography a quick review of these systems suggests that with little investment in car restraint only a bus-based mass transit system is feasible.

If given the right priority, this has the highest chance of success due to its low cost and short-term implementation. Bus rapid transit systems have recorded high levels of success in many cities and they could well turn out to be a very good first step.

However, with a stronger commitment towards prioritising public transport and disincentives towards car use, more ambitious segregated tram systems might be feasible in the long-term if proper demand studies are carried out and the system is phased in such a manner which complements car restraint and parking management, integrated land use planning, regeneration of town centres and complementary bus and active transport is encouraged.

Sounds impossible? No. Malta has a track record of also taking difficult decisions in transport. The decisions to pedestrianise streets and squares, the investment in park-and-ride systems, the introduction of the CVA system in Valletta, are all very good examples.

All had documented positive impacts on people and place. But the success of introducing these measures and other more difficult ones is dependent on a number of factors including timing, purpose and goals and most important, a political champion.

Maria Attard is head of geography and director of the Institute for Climate Change and Sustainable Development at the University of Malta.

www.um.edu.mt/iccsd