Two years ago we had the failed liberalisation of hearses. More competition in the organisation of our ultimate transfer was successfully sabotaged. It was this rather bumpy prelude to the introduction of the new transport system that prompted those generous handouts for the present bus owners.

But this mishap at the beginning does not explain why the new public transport system had to take such monopolistic, expensive and heavy turns. We have been promised a better service but it is no feat at all to offer a better service after all these years of dismal public transport. The question is whether this service would be good enough to entice people to leave their cars at home and use the public transport instead.

The envisaged fares and higher demand for subsidies do not augur well. It is quite evident that the new company will have every incentive to service the lucrative routes while neglecting investments in the less densely populated areas. Instead of paying for the operating licence, the bidders are asking for money from the outset. Mind you, these handouts are free of any condition that the number of commuters has to reach certain levels.

From the outset the company running our new transport system will have enough leverage to press the government of the day for higher subsidies if the whole system does not yield the expected profits. Like so often in the past, things have been planned hastily. The system should have been organised in a way as to avoid monopolies by roping in more players and by giving a greater role to the local councils to feed in the main routes. The latter should have been serviced by more than two companies. Other means of transport such as using the waterways within the harbour area like the one operating in Venice should have also been contemplated.

Nobody is against the idea of cross-subsidising public transport. With the new public transport, we all wish to reduce carbon emissions and therefore it is quite logic that the private car owners would have to come up for the financing of the public transport in the form of a yearly parking fee for all cars and of a levy on all garages with a ‘no parking’ sign. This revenue together with a very low fare consisting only in yearly, monthly and weekly tickets could have covered the operating costs and allowed for a handsome profit for all the public transport operators. Supplementary services such as adverts could have bolstered their profits.

In this way the proliferation of private car ownership would have been reversed resulting in fewer cars on the road. The public transport would have had a better flow. Ticketing would have done away with costly machines and controls. And those who afford a weekly, monthly or even a yearly ticket will without doubt make frequent use of it. The possession of a yearly ticket could have made the second family car redundant. While the short lived, eye-opening Helisureste venture left Gozo without an air-link, we cannot afford to live without an efficient public transport system.

Agnes Debono

Kercem