The prime minister's decision to appoint a task force to oversee public transport was not a good idea. For various reasons, some more weighty than others.
Its very creation was mysterious at best, desperate at worst. Why create such a high powered administrative instrument on the heels of a confidence vote on the sector and hours before another one on the government itself a few feverish days later? Bruising as Friday's debate was and bruised as the transport minister came out of it, the matter should have been politically closed after the counting of heads in parliament. Whatever the PM's reasoning was to reopen it with the setting up of a task force, he did not share it.
I also do not understand the task force's purpose. Is it going to revisit bits of the original cabinet decision? Will it check the operations of the minister and the apparatuses under him? Is the contribution of the police and armed forces so crucial to the reform as to merit their respective butts two task force seats?
Finally, I do not understand why the prime minister has taken the treacherous politcal gamble by chairing his creation. He has already, and rightly, assumed collective responsibility for decisions on public transport in parliament. Correctly, he did not cast out Austin Gatt to sink or swim in parliament.
Yet it is one thing for the primus inter pares to assume collective responsibility. Assuming it within a ministry is quite another. Whatever the good intentions and caveats, from this point onwards the political buck on transport will stop at Castille, not at the ministry responsible for transport on Merchants Street.
That is never a good place for a prime minister to squeeze himself in. Politically, he should always be the last port of call, the ultimate fixer when all else fails. Because if things go wrong, or continue to do so, there will be no further recourse upstairs.
12 comments:
Has Mr. V Laiviera posted an "off the record " comment yet on just how much he enjoyed watching his boss Angle make an ass of himself on Bondi+ ?
It's very simple: the PM has had enough of Arriva's nearly-there situation, just as much as the people have. It was the right and responsible thing to do.
Those responsible have had enough time to counter all the various setbacks, and the end was nowhere in sight.
It was time for him to step in and kick some arse.
Lou, one day you should discuss the expectations that Govt and the public in general have of public transport.
The premise that public transport in the form of scheduled mass transit of passengers will replace the use of private transport to any substantive degree, in Malta, is fallacious.
At least one of two requirements must be met for this form of transport to be efficient and successful.
1) Population density. Many labour under the misconception that Malta's PD is high, ergo, public transport will be successful. The truth is that Malta's PD is high, but no-where near the PD of an average European city. We are wrongly comparing PD's on a country to country basis, whereas we tend to forget that it is only in cities that public transport is frequent and efficient. Hence such a comparison is worthless, or at least it is until Malta's population quadruples and the PD then equals that of a city.
In the suburbs of any city, private trasport is still king, and public transport is as infrequent and under-utilised on a percentage basis as it is in Malta.
2) Distance. Public transport also comes into it's own when larger distances are involved. It is worth the expenditure of time and inconvenience of connecting to a public transport channel if the actual trip is likely to take a considerable time. A connect time of 20 minutes fades into insignificance when the trip is likely to take 2, 3 hours or more. Also, there are generally savings to be had, not to mention the fact that the journey is likely to be less stressful and tiring.
Waiting 10 minutes on a bus stop that is 5 minutes walk away for a journey that takes 14 minutes by private transport door to door, and will take 43 minutes by bus, is just not going to work.
Let's get real - the buses are for people who don't drive, or for those for who the particular routes and timing and plans for the day are convenient and simple.
I have not used the buses for many, many years. I have no intention of doing so, possibly ever. There is nothing at all that indicates to me that using the buses would be more advantageous in any way shape or form, than using my car. I'd also much rather get stuck in traffic than use a bus. The inconvenience is minor, compared. I wish politicians would understand this latter point, in particular. Don't make these choices for me. Austin Gatt has in the past hinted that after the public transport reform, he would introduce measures to disincentivise the use of private transport. In other words attempt to force us to use the buses. In a way I am over the moon that the public transport "reform" is turning out to be a near non-starter and close to a total flop. In effect, it is simply translating into nicer buses and better drivers. About as much of an earthquake as Joseph Muscat's. Birdie from me to Mr Gatt, with pleasure.
The other simple truth is that there already exist plans to redesign many of the traffic congestion areas and eliminate these bottlenecks. Get them implemented and the improvement in traffic flow will be far more substantial than any bus service can ever hope to influence.
Why have they not been done?
We could have spent the bus money on these worthwhile projects and kept the old buses instead, at least they were dirt cheap and there was nothing to stop the introduction of new routes, bus replacement, driver training, etc, in effect all that we are ending up with at the end of the day in any case.
Gahan makes some very acute observations, the most important of which is the one regarding distances.
It makes absolutely no sense to wait for 10 minutes on a bus stop, only to spend 30 minutes on the bus, when the same trip by car takes 15 minutes.
In a letter that was published on the Sunday Times last week (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20111106/letters/A-public-underground-rail-system-.392449), I pointed out that most people who can afford a private car, WILL use the private car. It is only those who don't drive, or who cannot afford it, who will opt for the bus.
In the same letter I proposed the introduction of some kind of underground rail system, and while some commentators pointed out that Malta is too small for such a system to be economically feasible, there are in fact small cities with even smaller populations than Malta, that have a complex rail system (Lausanne is a case in point).
It is only such a system that could prove to be a good alternative to the car, for the simple fact that journeys be even shorter than one by car.
Now the argument of population density may once again be put forward. However, while it is true that Malta's density is nowhere comparable to most European cities, which tend to have densities which are three times more than ours, one cannot ignore the fact that most of Malta is not urbanized.
So while on paper Malta has a population density of 1300/sqkm, the population density of the island of Malta is actually 1600/sqkm, and if one had to consider only towns and cities (which is where the vast majority of us live), the population density would be in the 5000-10,000/sqkm range, which is comparable to the densest cities in the world (New York, Hong Kong, London).
As we stand today, however, and as Gahan very well pointed out "There is nothing at all that indicates to me that using the buses would be more advantageous in any way shape or form, than using my car", except, if I might add in defence of the bus, the cost savings.
Lawrence said : “The buck stops here” with this task force .
The answer to your questions is obvious and consists of two words; Franco Debono.
Gahan made a very good analyses of the problems. However, I think he left one factopr out - parking.
What's the use of getting there, in your car, in half the time it takes by bus if, once you get there, parking is impossible or prohibitively expensive?
Dear Mr Bondi,
your main guest in your program of this evening did a big disservice to your viewers especially the younger ones who do not were not born then.
The main protagonists of the politico-religious dispute of the sixties cannot be judged with today's eyes and without FIRST giving a short background of what life in post-war Europe was like at the start of the cold war when Europe was effectively divided by the Iron Curtain.
The events covered in your program occured at a time when;
1.All of Europe east of the Iron curtain was under the SHARIA of Communism.
2.All believers wether Christian , Jew or Muslim were persecuted in the Europe east of the Iron Curtain . People were persecuted for posessing a Bible, Torah or Koran.
3.The memory of the thousands of Christians who were massacred in nearby Hungary in 1958 was still fresh.
4.People like Cardinal Mitzenty of Poland were arrested , tortured and left to rot in prison for refusing to abjur their faith.
5.The largest Communist party in the free west was in nearby Italy.
By failing to mention this background , your program this evening was nothing short of pandering to the blatently anti-clerical element in the Labour party that got recently revived with the blessing of Joseph Muscat.
@ Andrew -
There is but one failing in your reasoning (re population density)
Malta IS the size of a large city. In no way can one compare a Maltese "city" with a typical medium-large Euro city. There are no Maltese "cities" where it is even necessary to take any form of transport at all to get from one end of them to the other.
So much so that as far as I can tell all routes in Malta are inter-"city" whereas the inverse is true for ordinary buses overseas.
So, one can only compare the PD of Malta as a whole, to that of a Euro city as a whole, since they are of the same size, and transport, one must not forget, is all about the movement of people or goods across DISTANCE.
Lou,
I'd just like to make a few points about yesterday's dnub mejjet programme.
Firstly, to explain where I'm coming from, like you, I'm an atheist. Unlike you I'm probably rather more militant and a reason in my long list of reasons to hold Mintoff in contempt is the fact that he chickened out, caving to the church.
My actual comments / questions.
1) Why does nobody ever mention that Archbishop Gonzi was formerly an elected member to the senate on behalf of the Labour Party?
2) Why does nobody ever mention that in his day, the Labour party was a Christian Socialist party and that this move away from that must have irked Gonzi as much as Sant's changes irked Mintoff?
3) Is there some taboo that prevents us from making the observation that Gonzi is to Mintoff as Mintoff is to Sant, and as usual, Labour screws up the rest of us with its internal battles?
4) You or Lino Spiteri, who is somehow rehabilitated notwithstanding his participation in a government ruling against the will of the people, with a police force of torturers, mentioned that Gonzi was obsessed with the spectre of a communist dictatorship which Mintoff would bring us to. In hindsight, was his obsession not justified? My father, a staunch nationalist, needed to be persuaded to vote for independence because he thought the same, and eventually voted for it because he knew it would come anyway. Better take your independence than have it forced upon you. But his fear was that without the British to hold him back, he'd set up a dictatorship.
5. Finally, why do we take the 'mizbla' burials as fact without moderation or comment about the hyperbole? Are we talking about the maghtab landfill here? Or are we in fact talking about the area of the cemetery reserved for foreigners and non-catholics, which, unless crematoria are allowed, is the fate people like you and me can expect?
Gahan I didn't exactly say that we shouldn't compare Malta to other cities as a whole. I simply pointed out that one must take into consideration the fact that while the geographical area of European cities tends to be urbanized in its entirety, this is not the case with Malta.
Practically the entire west side of Malta (especially North) is undeveloped.
So the population density on paper is not exactly an accurate representation of the true situation.
@ Andrew.
Somewhat true, that the density is not evenly spread out, but logically density without distance is no use.
If we would be taking the inner harbour area where density is greatest, the reasons for opting for public transport in lieu of a 10 minute (max) journey fade fast.
Would I catch the bus instead of using my car to travel from, say Paola to Hamrun? No. Birkirkara to Santa Lucia? No. Mriehel to Lija? No.
Nevertheless this zone is where it works best, but one would have to add that this is no small part due to the fact that the attraction was / is Valletta where a) parking is difficult and b) direct services existed from several outlying towns all passing through major thoroughfares thus the frequency within this area would be high.
If I'm not travelling to Valletta, or somewhere nearby and well connected such as Msida, then scratch all the above, and give me my car.
But hey, we're supposed to be talking about public transport serving the whole country, not just the harbour area.
Odd (not) therefore that the "new" system is finally acknowledging these obvious facts and seems to be reverting to the "old", after several months of stress to commuters. Since this appears to be the case then back to square one - I never felt that public transport would be a better option for my travels before, and since nothing of substance will be changing (due to our country's limitations, I hasten to add, and not to anyone's shortcomings) then I still am of the same opinion.
Post a Comment