You jump in the car, you drive down the road, you shift to third gear and suddenly everyone stops: here you are, stuck in traffic again.

Sound familiar? Everyone seems to have a very strong opinion about transport in Malta and yet (perhaps, understandably), very few have probably read Transport Malta’s vision for the future in the form of its national master plan.

We want congestion to disappear, so TM shows us the same defective tricks like a tired magician. It just might work this time, right? The recipe is the same: more bypasses and the removal of bottlenecks. We know that removing bottlenecks will only get us to the next bottleneck faster, but still let ourselves be tricked.

TM’s projects will cost millions but will lead nowhere. Providing infrastructure is perfectly fine for those who go everywhere by car. I tried to walk from Birkirkara to Mater Dei once – 400 metres. I’d prefer a poke in the eye to doing that again.

Is this what the authority should be aiming for? Should facilities be provided for the 57 per cent of drivers or for the 100 per cent of travellers? Because once we prioritise the 57 per cent, it will naturally grow to 60 per cent, then 70 per cent, and so on.

Transport Malta has taken steps to mitigate this dependency, with more ambitious projects aiming to improve public transport and active transport modes like walking and cycling. However, its priorities are clear: first the bottlenecks (the “do minimum” scenarios) and then and only then will it attempt “do something” scenarios.

Note some of TM’s delayed ambitions: Transit Oriented Development (2019); Incentivise alternative transport modes (2021); low emission urban zones (2025); reduce vehicle age (2022); improve pedestrian, cycling and public transport provision (2018); public transit corridors (2021); lift to Valletta ferry (2022); design guidelines for shared urban space (2021).

Why should bottlenecks receive priority over these measures?

Improving the transport network’s traffic flow is indeed vital for our economy. To achieve this, however, TM talks of the “installation of crash barriers [and] safety fences to prevent surface crossing” by pedestrians. Instead of tackling the problem of bus passengers having to change buses, TM makes this interchange even more difficult. Will this attract more bus passengers? Unlikely.

Giving priority to urban motorways with the installation of crash barriers invites speeding. Speeds of 70+ km/h are not remotely necessary. At reduced speed you might even see your colleagues arriving by bike, scooter or on foot. You might actually see people on the street!

As long as speed is prioritised over people, we will see more motorways and more traffic. Postponing real measures cannot wait.

Let’s play with TM’s numbers. Apparently Maltese taxpayers will be forking out €800,000,000 by 2050 to address the bottlenecks with more flyovers. Those who are to be privileged enough to use the new infrastructure, of course, need to own a vehicle.

Let’s say we spend an entry-level €4,000 on a car. Going on TM’s numbers of average trip distance (5.5km) and average number of trips (3.2), we will be travelling 17.6km a day, costing €1.4 per day (17.6 x 0.08c). That’s around €10 a week. Add that to about €520 in taxes a year, the cost of maintenance and a new car every 10 years, and our spending will reach €12,000 in a decade – roughly €40,000 by 2050.

With current vehicle fleet usage and ownership, this will amount to €10,280,000,000 (€10 billion!) in all.

Should facilities be provided for the 57 per cent of drivers or for the 100 per cent of travellers?

Now, let’s assume that instead of using the bypass and vehicle combination, Transport Malta could (and actually, should) follow the EU guideline to increase sustainability and transport modality in EU-financed TEN-T projects and invest more of that €800,000,000 into dedicated segregated cycle lanes.

Calculated using continental engineering figures, that could total 4,000km of quality cycle lanes which may well attract you, too, to take shorter trips by bike. You could also buy a high-end electric bike for €2,000, for which charging would cost €0.1 a week. That would set you back €5.20 annually, plus some new tires and maintenance: €80 (1/10th of the car).

I’m not suggesting that Malta should ban the private car altogether as Hamburg is currently doing. However, we must realise that providing infrastructure for everyone returns substantially higher benefits than providing for vehicles only. A recent Dutch study attributes €31 billion in annual health care savings to increased cycling.

TM must recognise that providing for vehicles will only attract more vehicles. Prioritising a dedicated bus network will result in drivers choosing the faster, more efficient bus network. And if safe provision was available for cyclists, then it is very likely that Maltese under-18s would not be driven to school by their parents, but like fellow Dutch teenagers, 87 per cent of them would cycle to school.

The inclusion of a cycling provision in TM’s master plan is welcome, however neither the authority nor the ministry seem to demonstrate any dedication to the projects, some of which were meant to be developed in 2016.

One key factor seems to be clear though: any physical alteration to a street is considered a pilot scheme and will “not reduce the road capacity” (Page 313). It seems ironic that the Sliema promenade, one of the few areas where the island can be proud of its pedestrian provision, may be scrapped to provide space for cycling. The hidden message is that we don’t mind cycling so long as vehicles are not slowed down. TM puts as much thought into cycle planning as it does to sketches in its masterplan, with cars in the pictures not even on the correct side of the road.

According to TM, the 10km cycle lane will add to the existing 25km of cycle lanes in Malta, which will amount to 78km/million inhabitants. These figures make as much sense in a city-size nation as risking one’s life on the existing ‘cycle lanes’.

Interestingly, not one word is mentioned about driverless vehicles, which will likely merge private and public transport modes and will remain the only “transport mode” beside walking and cycling. Driverless taxis are roaming around in Pittsburgh as we speak. Tesla’s Model S can already drive without any input in Malta. And yet, Transport Malta mentions these vehicles exactly zero times overall in two strategic documents and suggests vehicle ownership will not be affected by Uber, Tesla, Google and the like.

As Gibson aptly observed, the future is already here, but not evenly distributed. There are more bicycle trips in Amsterdam and Copenhagen than vehicle trips. Cities like Paris, London, New York, Budapest, Helsinki, Milan, etc. are also following this pattern and not because their commuters want to cycle or do exercise, but because it is a no brainer. It gets you to places without depending on others at a fraction of the price of car or bus use.

While transport in Malta is a challenge, there is a great opportunity to transform transport networks efficiently and rapidly to benefit everyone. With EU funds and a favourable policy, we can transform the island in a few years to become a cycling capital of the South, a title Seville gained in only a few years.

The benefits of less traffic, healthier lifestyles, more business going to retailers and services, not to mention the increased volume of job provision, should convince any government to invest heavily in cycling. The benefits are striking but appropriate action needs to be taken.

Sign the petition if you agree at http://malta.bicyclize.com .

Peter Biczok is a sustainable mobility consultant.