Another thing. Whether Malta defines itself as a state or a city-state doesn’t really matter. What’s on paper doesn’t really matter. What matters is what’s on the ground. The fact remains that Malta functions as one city; one urban area; a city surrounded by its suburbs. So urbanistically one has to treat it as such.

On to the transport issue. In other countries like the UK they differentiate between inner-city transport network and inter-city transport network. That is, the London transport network is separate than the Manchester transport network or any other city network but the network that joins the cities is common. Malta doesn’t have this distinction. It has one network; an inner-city network, so it has to be compared with such. So yes, one has to compare Malta’s transport network with city networks. Statehood has nothing to do with it.

I agree. Malta is a state. But it is also a city. It is actually a city-state. I was reading lately that even the EU classifies Malta as a city-state. It uses the concept of ‘Large Urban Zone’ and since the huge majority of most Maltese live in one urban area, Malta is technically a city-state even though it doesn’t define itself as such. So there Malta is a state but also a city.

I happen to have studied the Venice transport system as part of research on sustainable development. The Venice situation is very particular since the resident population amounts to a mere 71,000 while the yearly tourist population amounts to a staggering 17,000,000.

You can clearly understand, therefore, the massive inconvenience tourism causes to Venice residents, who have been steadily moving out of the citta’ storica. In an effort to control the impact, and cover the huge administrative costs that mass tourism imposes on the local administration’s coffers, they have devised various strategic transportation plans to control the overall city population, particularly in peak seasons. One of these is to favour residents over tourists (including Italian ones) in the water bus fares.

Local administration must ensure that Venice does not become a theme park by encouraging residents to stay and others to return.

Malta’s situation is obviously completely different. The message conveyed by a two-tier fare system is that tourists are an inconvenience to locals and should be taxed for using the public transport system or even rent a car!

Bus fares, if used intelligently, can ensure a successful transportation strategy. However, it seems to me that in this case decisions on the fares are being taken independently of the overall strategy. It seems that the overiding objective of the strategy is an operative one: upgrading the buses, improving standards, introducing new routes, etc.

This is not sufficient for a successful outcome. Transport planning should be focused on reducing car dependency. In the nineties we saw various Transport Ministers taking pride in the volume of new cars that were being bought in Malta. It was even considered a sign of wealth and economic growth. Worse still, MEPA imposes fines for new developments that do not provide sufficient off-street parking.

Research has proved, over the past fifty years, that increasing available parking spaces results in increased car use to the detriment of public transport and the environment.

The continued subsidisation of public transport, even after Arriva start operating, comes across as defeatist. There needs to be a plan on a progressive reduction of subsidies coupled by a significant increase in patronage of the transport system.

I also note with great dismay the car scrappage scheme that was introduced in the last budget. The fundamental point behind such schemes is to aid the manufacturing industries in the automotive sector. They are normally the first to be hit in a recession. Governments in most industrialised countries introduce such schemes to encourage consumption and ensure that the impact of a downturn is curtailed so as to minimise layoffs. Malta does not have any such industries, so the only beneficiaries will be foreign manufactures and local importers. If emissions of old cars is a serious concern, then public transport should be the clear solution.

Rover, I am not in favour of subsidies in general, but there may always be exceptions.

The point here is that government is subsidising PUBLIC transport, which is therefore regarded as a public service, in the same way that government subsidises public libraries, public schools, and the road network.

You probably know quite well that remote and disadvantaged areas would degenerate more unless they have good infrastructure connections on par with the rest.

I think that subsidies to public transport are more like subsidies to Airmalta, rather than subsidies on hobz, gobon and butir tal-landa.

Pat, I do not follow exactly your argument that tourists coming here are net contributors in terms of the tax they pay.

If we are talking about income tax, which was the sort of tax I referred to, and also the tax you referred to in your first paragraph, then as far as I am aware, tourists do not normally pay income taxes here. At most they pay VAT and other indirect taxes where they still exist.

Therefore, I do not understand your last point that by my reasoning, we should lower the tax burden further on tourists. If anything, I am suggesting we would need to increase their taxes so that we are not discriminated against. But of course, I am not suggesting anything of that sort.

In terms of your point about tax and double tax treaties, this does not change the substance of the argument that non-residents pay little or no taxes here, since Malta now has double tax treaties with most of our major tourist markets.

Love the end news headline: Kirk Douglas named sexiest man barely alive.

The Onion is an endless source of amusement.

… erm … that’s a joke, Leonard.

http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/

Pensioners who live in Malta pay a reduced fare on the buses, and tourists who are pensioners pay the full fare. So may I ask what is your point? I am not a pensioner and when I visit London I pay the same amount as any Londoner.

I disagree with you on this one Daphne. Yes Malta is a state, but it is very similar in many ways to districts or cities.

[Daphne – That’s where you’re wrong. It’s not similar at all. Size has nothing to do with it. Statehood does. Manchester is not a state, nor is Venice. Malta is.]

A person living in Manchester will not commute to London on a daily basis. However, people in Malta commute daily to towns all over the island. So comparing like with like is a bit more complex.

The principle of charging some more than others is not fundamentally wrong. We must remember that market forces are not allowed to work on the bus service. Else, some routes would be more expensive than others and some might be totally scrapped because they are not commercially viable.

The way it was done however is stupid. It will slow down the service and introduce administrative difficulties.

We must admit that if the service turns out to be of good quality, 12 Euros for weekly ticket is peanuts.

@T Westacott: Sorry but Venice was a horrible example. They have tourist fleecing down to an art over there. There are also very few people actually living in Venice and they practically all work in tourism.