The traffic situation in Malta is a major headache which is resulting in certain parts of the island becoming gridlocked while making life hell for motorists. Faced with this situation some experts who recently took part in a public discussion insisted that the way forward to alleviate the problem is to impose a raft of taxes and fiscal measures. According to these experts, government should among others raise fuel prices, charge for on-street parking and introduce a tax for households having more than one car. In a few words, the idea is to punish those who for some reason, regardless if it is valid or not, opt to use their car. The logic is that such approach will result in less cars on the roads and consequently reduce traffic.

If these are the solutions being advocated by the experts, they do not bode well for the creativity of our policy makers. The easiest way out in such situations is to introduce a tax, but one has to see the consequences especially in the long term. In this case, such measures will have a strong social impact as they will impact mostly low-income households to the extent that certain category of workers will seriously question whether they should remain in employment as a substantial part of their income could be eaten up by transport. Taxation would undermine efforts under the ‘making-work-pay’ policy and unemployment would increase. Moreover, those who could afford to pay these taxes would be the ones to profit as parking would no longer be an issue for them given that low-income earners would not use their car.

With all due respect to these experts there are other measures that could be considered prior to start introducing taxes. First of all, we are still in a situation whereby every morning 30,000 government employees commute to the capital.  How is it possible that no solution has been found so that most of them work remotely from home thus reducing a substantial amount of traffic? How is it possible that we have not yet started decentralising some services from Valletta to regional centres to reduce traffic congestion around the capital? Such measures do not envisage new taxes but would nonetheless help to alleviate the situation.

The same approach could be applied to appointments at the Law Courts, Government Departments and Mater Dei Hospital. How is it possible that no measures have yet been taken to distribute appointment schedules to avoid bottlenecks during certain times of day?  The fact that in places like Mater Dei the waiting rooms are not big enough, clearly shows that appointments could be spread out better.

Another solution worth considering is to establish hubs in strategic parts of the island comprising underground car parks and other facilities such as shops selling essential items like groceries. Such hubs would serve as a facility whereby one could leave their car and do the rest of their journey by bus or shuttle service through popular routes serving commercial and industrial zones. These projects could be financed through the fines which the Planning Authority imposes on projects in which the developer does not provide enough parking spaces. It is also worth noting that these fines should be reviewed to serve their purpose as a deterrent.

These are just some of the measures that should be considered prior to taking drastic decisions to reduce traffic. Before opting for spectacular solutions that cost hundreds of millions such as flyovers and the metro, we should start considering the aforementioned ones. Imposing taxes and socially unjust measures to address traffic, as this stage would be a huge mistake.