Rumour has it that the government intends to raise the cost of day tickets for public transport from €1.50 to a speculative €2 as of next year. If this is so, such a rise is quite out of place at a time when keeping tariffs low might help to promote the much-needed shift from private car use to public transport with the coming new transport system. This is also of significance to those of limited means because it is way out of proportion to the stingy proposed cost of living increase of 58c per week.
The last 12 months have also seen an unprecedented addition of more than 8,000 new passenger cars to our existing fleet of over 300,000 on our roads. Malta is now one of the most densely car-populated countries on the planet. There is nothing inherently wrong with near-universal car ownership. For instance, Holland has one of the highest car ownership rates, yet, as a result of years of changing motorist attitude and adapting the roads for multi-modal travel, over a quarter of trips are made by bicycle in this country.
Malta’s fundamental problem is therefore not one of too many cars but of people becoming too reliant on the car as a result of lack of facilities that permit other mobility options. Malta’s near-total car-dependency is the direct consequence of decades of narrow-minded preferential treatment to car drivers and simultaneous catastrophic neglect of public transport and other mobility options.
Any solution which further favours car use will only add to traffic congestion
Two guiding principles for decreasing traffic congestion from excessive private car use were suggested during the keynote lecture at a recent seminar on ‘The future of traffic management in Malta’. These were provision of cheaper and efficient public transport and tangible environmental benefits from decreased traffic congestion. A long list of 10 possible measures needed to reduce private car use was outlined in some detail; the measures included both incentives and deterrents.
A number of suggestions for the improvement of our public transport system were presented by participants and one hopes these will stimulate debate on novel solutions. Much of the discussion after the presentation centred inappropriately on private car transport while encouragement of bicycle use for short trips barely received a mention. But the most notable omission at this seminar was mention of the potential of harbour ferry transport network, when one quarter of Malta’s population lives in this area.
The real challenge facing Transport Malta is the phenomenal task of rescuing public transport from the abyss into which it sank and of providing a system that is not expensive and offers shorter transit times. Innovative out-of-the-box thinking will be needed. The new public transport system must also include other transport modalities in addition to buses. If transport route design remains flawed, as demonstrated by the fiasco of the so-called transport reform of 2011, then any new system will be doomed to failure.
Even though car traffic has reached saturation point, Transport Malta persists in a stubborn obsession with (motor) traffic management schemes, nation-wide creation of parking facilities, flyovers, re-arranging etc., in an attempt to improve private car traffic flow. This goes diametrically contrary to the trend in modern western cities which are doing a lot to encourage alternative mobility, such as public transport, walking and the bicycle.
Transport Malta’s approach compounds the problem by failing to take one basic factor into account, namely, that Malta’s car traffic situation is a simple supply/demand situation: the increase in demand for more space by car traffic can no longer be met on our little island. Any solution which further favours car use will only add to traffic congestion which will, in its turn, further impede public road transport.
Another factor which continues to be ignored is street pollution from exhaust emissions. This has risen in parallel with our increase in traffic congestion and now exceeds crisis levels. What our air quality monitoring stations tell us is not representative of the true situation in many of our narrow congested thoroughfares. Being a car-obsessed nation, we remain unworried about this threat to our health as long as we can continue using our car.
The health consequences of pollution, both short term and long, are many and serious. Chief among these are increased cancer rates primarily due to particulate and benzene pollution and shortened life spans due to increases in heart and lung disease.
There is also a link to breast cancer.
It is now common knowledge that our pollution is responsible for what is arguably the highest world incidence of asthma in our children. Less well-known is that children who grow up in areas exposed to traffic pollution are subject to retardation of lung development, which has lifelong consequences.
The health burden of our high prevalence of obesity and type II diabetes, which is partly due to our car-dependency, adds to the public health expenses incurred from the harm done by traffic pollution.
As vehicle traffic increased, so urban streets and the road environment became more dismal and pedestrian-unfriendly. The experience of walking or cycling in our streets became correspondingly unattractive and further intensified our deeply ingrained car-dependency. Our roads have become unsafe, especially to children and the aged.
The approach to better road and urban transport must be holistic and cater for all mobility options. This has to include improvement of the street environment. In this context, it is worth mentioning that people are starting to consider using a bicycle for short trips but are deterred by the hostile conditions on our roads. Applying old solutions for new problems has become futile.
The objective must now be a new modern policy aimed at a systematic redesign of urban and residential roads based on modern concepts by creation of shared spaces (now aptly called ‘complete roads’ in the US), pedestrian-only zones, urban traffic calming and provision of cues to prompt healthier lifestyle choices by encouraging mobility options as walking (and this includes walking to a bus stop) and making cycling safe for short trips.
Introduction of traffic calming measures and urban 30 km/h speed limits with an even lower limit of 20km/h in the vicinity of schools or shopping malls are now standard in much of Europe and other progressive countries. There must be avoidance of ‘zoning’ that makes people more reliant on cars for everyday needs. Two classical examples of zoning in Malta are the placing of supermarkets far from residential areas or the concentration of entertainment in a small area as in Paceville, which results in a massive migration of cars at weekends.
In addition to the recent event, there have been two other seminars on this topic, one held by the Association of Local Councillors and another on ‘Creating streets for all users’, organised by the Chamber of Architects, when modern approaches to urban design and mobility were advocated by the key speakers. These should have provided food for thought and a basis for solving our problem. However, our inability to learn from other countries will continue to dominate. So far, modern concepts and philosophies to road/street design continue to be ignored and our solutions remained outdated and ineffective.
George Debono is the author of ‘Healthy mobility in Sliema: a case study’, published by the Today Public Policy Institute.