The general public was promised a new, efficient, and comfortable public transport system. After two years of planning, without consultation with the local councils or the commuters concerned, the new system turned out to be a disaster.

The larger new buses (especially the articulated/bendy buses) which had been rejected in other places, and are unsuitable to local narrow roads were accepted for the new public transport system with the consequent extended delays both in boarding the buses and the duration of the journeys. What is the use of having most of them air-conditioned when commuters have to wait longer for the bus in the sweltering summer heat, and then are refreshed on a tour around the island when the intention is to travel from point of origin to destination in the shortest time possible.

It is not just Maltese commuters who have been complaining of the bad service, but several tourists have been seen on the news media airing their grievances and promising that they would not come back to Malta unless the old Malta buses are reinstated.

In reviewing the old transport system, one surely admits that practically none of the old buses had air-conditioning and the few ones that had it were kept switched off. But when properly ventilated, the commuter could bear the summer heat on a trip which would normally take from quarter to half an hour and did not need to be chilled and crammed in large buses on a longer trip to arrive at the place of work, returning home, or whatever. The much hyped air-conditioning system in the new buses may well turn out to be detrimental especially as the colder season approaches whereby the internally circulated cooled or heated air in crammed sealed large buses could be the cause of spreading diseases such as the H1N1 influenza (swine flu), bird/Avian flu, etc.

All is not yet lost, there is still light at the end of the tunnel. Bring back the bone shakers (old Maltese buses) and let the commuter decide which means of transport is preferable. The re-introduction of the old buses can be done on the same previous fare structure albeit rounding up the fare for efficiency sake. They can fill up the void of unserviced routes, and can pick up stranded commuters left by the overloaded new buses. The compensation already awarded to owners of the old buses should not be considered as redemption of the old vehicles but as a recompense for forsaking the monopolistic nature of the previous old service and thereby affecting their livelihood. If our government truly favours free enterprise, and has not intended to replace an old monopoly with a new inept one, then let the commuter decide, unless the authorities concerned have signed a monopolistic contract with Arriva in which case breaches EU regulations.

In view of this disastrous situation, and as usually happens in civilised countries, the minister concerned should resign. If he is not willing to do so, then it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to terminate his services, the sooner the better before he inflicts more damage. If the Prime Minister has been quoted correctly when speaking to the US Ambassador that he was scraping the barrel (so to speak) in selecting his Cabinet (WikiLeaks), he should at least replace the ones who cause damage.

■ Raymond Sammut

Mellieħa