The article ‘Let’s leave cars in 2016’, by Peter Biczók (The Sunday Times of Malta, January 1) is a baseless attack on Transport Malta’s National Transport Master Plan.
Ironically, Mr Biczók claims to promote cycling as a viable commuter option and yet attacks the first document in Malta’s transport policy history that does that.
We invite Mr Biczók to fully read the Transport Master Plan 2025 as he appears to have selectively read, misread and misquoted the document out of context. He missed what is perhaps the most important underlying principle behind the Transport Master Plan, namely:
“The option to address traffic congestion by only increasing the supply and capacity of roads in Malta is neither an effective nor a sustainable solution in the medium term. For maximum effectiveness and benefits, a comprehensive transport demand management strategy would need to combine ‘pull’ incentives, such as improved travel options with ‘push’ incentives, which aim to disable habitual behaviour and discourage individuals from car use, by making it less attractive.”
Mr Biczók referred to the planned improvement of safety on a section along the National Road, at Portes de Bombes. He claimed that the Authority is making the interchange more difficult rather than tackling the problem of bus passengers having to change buses.
All road users familiar with this road section will agree that the uncontrolled, random crossing of a three-lane dual carriageway by bus users is surely dangerous. The upgrade, criticised by Mr Biczók, is a much needed safety measure for pedestrians and bus passengers. The upgrade is, in fact, a measure to promote the commuting patterns the author is so vehemently promoting.
As a sustainable mobility consultant, Mr Biczók should know the legal requirements, guiding principles and aims behind the EU guidelines for the development of the TEN-T network. The master plan describes the detailed analytical process that was undertaken for the prioritisation and selection of TEN-T road projects in the context of developing a sustainable multi-modal network. Mr Biczók seems to have unfortunately missed this section.
He also confused the principles of scenario testing and options analysis. In his article, he considered ‘Do minimum’ scenarios as the Authority’s preferred option. The master plan devotes a whole chapter to explain the scenario testing carried out and then identifies the preferred option in a dedicated chapter. Mr Biczók incorrectly suggests that Transport Malta is recommending that the government follow the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario, which in reality is only a comparative tool to explain what would happen if government did nothing more in the transport sector than it had committed to in 2014.
Mr Biczók’s estimates of the cost of private cars is hardly the type of scientific approach that would be expected from a mobility consultant. In the Transport Master Plan, the cost of relying on private vehicles has been quantified. The impact of the congestion on society as a whole has been estimated both for the base year of 2014 as well as future years within the scope of the master plan.
Mr Biczók claimed that not one word was mentioned about driverless vehicles. We use the correct technical term – ‘connected and automated vehicles’ – and there are various references in the document.
For the first time in many years, Malta now has a 10-year plan of implementation of all the various measures that will encourage sustainable transport in the longer term. The master plan sets these out clearly and succinctly.