The reform of the public transport was on the national agenda for too many years. Successive ministers made various attempts to bring about improvements in public transport. All made significant inputs but public transport remained far from reaching commuters’ expectations although taxpayers had to foot the bill for subsidy after subsidy.

The level of service remained poor with too many shortcomings. Commuters complained about the lack of bus cleanliness, some drivers’ awful behaviour, reckless driving, lack of air conditioning and low floors, filthy emissions and other issues. This guaranteed that newspapers’ editors had their letters to the editor pages filled.  

On the other hand, drivers had no canteen facilities where they could have a decent break and a bite, no place where to shower, no lavatory facilities.  Bus drivers had a raw deal and worked in a difficult and strenuous environment. While commuters at times had a rough ride it was no easy ride for the bus drivers either.       

At times a handful of bus drivers behaved in an appalling manner which was not acceptable by any standard, making things worse for all bus drivers.  They played into the hands of those who were unable - or maybe did not want - to understand and take into account bus drivers’ needs in the public transport reform.  Unfortunately, the good of the many was blackened by the few.  As were the bus routes that were clouded with poisonous exhaust.  Driving behind buses was a real health hazard. Households living on route roads could see for themselves the level of air pollution without the need for sophisticated instruments to measure air pollution. Water draining out of a washing machine after a wash load of curtains would have impressed most people living in rural areas.  Unintentional masochists who briskly pounded the streets on the public transport network were doing more harm to their health than anything else. In a nutshell, the public transport reform was truly and well written on the wall, necessary and long overdue.  

Sooner or later, someone had to take the bull by the horns.  Former bus drivers felt that they were so well positioned that no one could ever take them to task. A whispering campaign was launched which alarmed most of the bus drivers and ruffled bus owners. Their reaction was out of proportion and bus drivers and owners lost the support of the general public. The clash of the titans was inevitable. Personalities came into play and by then it was necessary to show the rest of the islands who really was in charge and had the power.  The public transport reform was relegated from a national priority to a clash of personalities and a power struggle instead.    

Heated discussions reported in the media continued to fuel the very bad atmosphere at the tables. Rather than negotiating in good faith, with the hope to find the best possible option for commuters and bus owners, negotiations turned sour.  Those involved in that process wanted to have the last word at the end of the deal.  They may have missed the woods for the trees. 

While this was brewing the general public was held hostage. Bus drivers were pushed with their back against the wall and in retaliation they threatened to stop the public transport service. Bus owners had their livelihoods at stake. The consultation process with the general public, the media and bus owners was badly mishandled, which continued to fuel public opinion against bus owners.

Public transport experts were called in and reports commissioned. The public breathed a sigh of relief with the public transport reform finally in place.  A day was set for the new buses to serve our streets.  On a hot summer evening, speeches highlighting the efforts of those involved in the process were made.  A couple of jibes and remarks below the belt could not be resisted and, months later, these are still making the rounds.

At the end of the eminent inaugural speeches, guests were invited to welcome the new fleet of buses which drove slowly past those present with fireworks on both sides of the road.  Finally a new dawn for commuters and a reformed public transport was taking shape.

I will not go into the numerous episodes which the new ‘private’ public transport company had to be called in to adjust, amend and improve routes and other shortcomings which commuters complained about incessantly, especially in the first weeks of operation.  Such was the public outcry that the former Prime Minister deemed it necessary to convene a task force under his direction to deal with the public outcry which clearly demonstrated that the new public transport routes were not meeting the needs of commuters. Teething trouble in such a large-scale reform was expected, but the extent of the complaints outweighed and wiped out completely the feelgood factor which was expected from the public transport reform. 

Unfortunately, public transport reform continues to make news even now, with three bendy buses catching fire on three consecutive days. Thankfully no one was injured. Once again reports were commissioned to determine the cause of fire, while bendy buses were suspended from service pending investigations.

Undoubtedly, the public transport reform was necessary.  However, to be truly successful, this reform had to ensure that commuters are well and efficiently served while convincing car owners to leave their car keys on the side table opting to use public transport more frequently, easing the traffic congestions which have  become a nightmare particularly at rush hours.  Roads are becoming so chaotic that people must be encouraged to leave their cars at home and use public transport more.  Unfortunately the short reprieve of school’s out for summer will soon be over and it back to mayhem especially at certain hours.

Like all private companies Arriva is not here to provide commuters a service for the fun of it.  Arriva is not a charitable institution. Ultimately Arriva is here to make a profit. Government, on the other hand, is duty bound to ensure that Arriva, a service provider, is providing commuters a satisfactory service which is efficient and value for money.

Indeed, Government is obliged and may be pushed to improve subsidies further than the agreed financial terms as commuters exercise more pressure on local councils and central government to further improve bus routes than those originally planned.

Looking at financial figures published in various sections of the media show that Arriva has made substantial losses. This raises concerns.  One wonders how Arriva will be able to honour its ten-year contract unless more subsidies are dished out from public coffers.  Arriva like all other private companies should not be supported financially or subsidised directly or indirectly from public funds to honour its commitments.

At this juncture one may start thinking about other business models as a fall-back position.  Co-operatives have worked magnificently in our ports and today they provide a sterling service to our industry at very competitive prices. They have invested heavily in training and equipment and some, more than others, are leaders in their sector within the Mediterranean and further afar.  Empowering people at their place of work has been a successful story in our ports.  These were ventures which had been agreed upon by the major stakeholders.  Those involved entered into discussions without a clouded head or a pre-determined conclusion. Success ensued.  Unfortunately, so far our public transport system has failed to reach what others have managed to secure in other sectors of our economy. 

It is expected that one learns from past mistakes. Like many others I have learnt lessons from life and I look forward to learn some more.  Hopefully new ones! One trusts that others will learn too.

[email protected]