Transport is high on the electorate’s agenda, since it is difficult to find a voter who has not been affected by horrendous congestion.
Joseph Muscat’s party promises a free bus service for students and the resurfacing of all roads. The Nationalist Party on the other hand have produced a very reasonable plan to reduce car dependence and yet are more often heard speaking about the grand plan of a metro line for future generations.
While everyone likes a bit of sugar coating or grand designs, my impression suggests that the public is reasonable enough to understand that what this island needs (and can sustainably afford) is not faster, wider roads to mimic Dubai or the Jubilee underground line of London, but mobility solutions that have the least impact possible on our tiny, beautiful islands while providing accessibility for all segments of society.
Mobility should essentially enhance all the other uses of space in our public realm instead of damaging it. We must always prioritise solutions where the local economy, tourism, historical conservation and quality of life are enhanced by mobility and not impeded by it. Air and noise pollution, fast traffic in cities, restricted pedestrian access, street parking, moving mountains for roads, constructing flyovers and underground metro lines hardly protect our fragile heritage.
Electrically assisted scooters and bi- or tricycles limited to a speed of 25km/h tick all the above boxes, and more!
Cycling can offer the physical activity that would prevent 20 premature deaths annually, not to mention the instant reduction of congestion costs that today amounts to €200 million annually. With regard to the local economy, eight times more customers can park outside shops and restaurants, etc. when they arrive by bicycle instead of car. A normal road width is capable of carrying 2,000 people by car per hour – or 14,000 people by bicycle. Drivers need traffic lights to communicate, while cyclists manage as safely as pedestrians, easing junction interaction.
Residents of Gżira, Sliema, San Ġwann, etc. will have a strong incentive to cut their commute to Valletta from six to eight kilometres sitting in traffic to a 1-1.5km breezy cycle or walk through the park of Manoel Island
Does this island have space for more car-based mobility?
Infrastructure usage is a chicken-and-egg circle – once we have roads, we use cars, and since we have cars we need more space for them, so we demand more roads, and so on. To shift to a more efficient transport mode like cycling (or walking) we need infrastructure, but who will be bold enough to break the spiral? Unless there is a critical mass of current cyclists we won’t see mainstream infrastructure development proposals and therefore no mass usage. What does mobility have to do with Manoel Island?
Manoel Island provides an opportunity the next government cannot miss! The challenge is to utilise the land economically while also ensuring public access to a park. The developer – thinking along the lines of simplicity – proposes hotels and casinos to attract consumer traffic and make the project feasible, while the public demands green areas in the heart of the urban zone.
When we link Manoel Island to Valletta with a pedestrian/cycle light bridge, residents of Gżira, Sliema, San Ġwann, etc. will have a strong incentive to cut their commute to Valletta from six to eight kilometres sitting in traffic to a 1-1.5km breezy cycle or walk through the park of Manoel Island. Valletta residents instantly gain a park on their doorstep.
The two combined could attract enough visitors to the island for the developer to monetise the units without focusing on high net worth part-time visitors or casino tourism.
Most importantly, a wider segment of the public could use the national treasure in a broader timeframe daily, and core users, like joggers, can feel safe in the vicinity of other strollers and commuters, even at a late hour.
Thanks to Manoel Island’s topography, the movable bridge would not affect the view of Valletta. Moreover, the use of sustainable transport modes reinforces its Unesco World Heritage status.
A light openable bridge would ensure relatively little intrusion in nature and is adaptable, for example it could land at the Valletta ditch leading straight to the Barrakka lifts for the less sporty or for users not using electrically assisted bicycles. It has a relatively low construction cost and its potential to operate as a TEN-T alternative link is also a valid reason for EU funding.
The most essential element of this concept, however, is its potential to prompt more people to leave their cars behind and to become an agent for the entire nation’s active transport (r)evolution.
While these aims coincide with the EU-sponsored National Transport Master Plan, only Alternattiva Demokratika seem to campaign along these principles. Indeed, the PN’s Traffic Management report discusses cycling measures to enhance non-vehicle use, however I invite the PN to raise the electoral debate’s bar and communicate more about their short-term mobility plan.
After all, the current electoral debate has rarely discussed topics that are more relevant to our everyday living. Corruption is no doubt grave but makes little change to our everyday life. Transport and questions on how we use our public space on the other hand have serious consequences on each and every one of us. We must answer whether we prefer socialising, seeing people and enjoying our streets or whether we want to limit them to dangerous, noisy roads and storage space for private transport.
The lack of debate and decision on this topic means that we are choosing the latter option, as Benjamin Franklin said: “If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail.”
Peter Biczok is a city and transport planner, and founder of Bicyclize, which helps cities transform their public spaces to more human-focused, attractive ones. He has raised the bridge concept with the mayor of Gżira.