Light rail plans: are they the right solution or are we missing the mark?

Transport experts have mixed reactions to government plans to build a light rail line linking St Paul’s Bay to the airport as part of redesigned transport network integrating buses, ferries and cycle routes.

Friends of the Earth Malta campaigner Suzanne Maas, who holds a PhD in sustainable mobility, cautiously welcomed the plan but expressed concern that not enough was being done to disincentivise car use.

Her concerns were echoed by University of Malta professor and transport expert Maria Attard, who advocated for a short- to medium-term solution that could cost less while still easing traffic woes while questioning why supporting studies had not been made available to the public.

UK-based Maltese engineer and light rail consultant Christopher Micallef, meanwhile, said he was “excited” by the project, describing it as “robust”, while reframing the lack of studies as a benefit that could help the project adapt to unforeseen challenges.

Plans for the 24km light railway were announced last month to much fanfare by Transport Minister Chris Bonett, who framed the railway as the “backbone” of a redesigned transport network dubbed ‘Malta in Motion’.

Described by Bonett as “the largest infrastructural project in Malta’s history,” the line – some of which will be underground – is slated to link up with expanded bus, cycling and walking infrastructure.

The network is due to take some 15 years and cost a total €2.8 billion, including 45 per cent contingency costs.

Maas was among those invited to a pre-announcement meeting, which saw NGOs and other stakeholders shown the plans in advance of the public launch.

She noted that “not much info” had been provided at the meeting, however.

On the plans, she said “We’ve seen a change in tack,” contrasting the plans with former, now-abandoned “bombastic” plans for a metro.

“It’s not just about one solution, but about an integrated transport solution – which is really important”.

She expressed disappointment that the plans, which rule out on-street parking fees and include residential parking facilities in various localities and park-and-ride facilities near transport hubs, did not include disincentives for car use, however.

“We need to make driving less attractive, and nobody wants to say it – which was disappointing”, she said.

“Without disincentives for what we want to see less of [cars], it won’t work”.

‘Reclaim public spaces’

Calling traffic jams an “extremely inefficient use of space”, Maas stressed the need to reclaim public spaces as had been successfully implemented in cities such as Paris, Brussels, Seville, Barcelona and Bologna. She also advocated car speed limits of 30km/h to help create “safer shared spaces” with cyclists.

Despite the positive steps indicated by the recent plan, Maas said she was concerned that the government was announcing such a measure while “still pushing through projects like the Msida Creek overpass and footbridge”, which, she argued, would not encourage sustainable transport.

Without disincentives for what we want to see less of [cars], it won’t work

Attard echoed Maas’ concerns about a lack of disincentives: “I expect governments to take seriously the most effective measures to reduce congestion and improve the transport system, but instead we keep avoiding what is required, the disincentives to driving.”

She said that by introducing paid parking and investing more in bus and walking infrastructure, more motorists could be convinced to seek alternatives modes of travel.

“If we keep providing more for the car, like more free parking, all we are doing is feeding the very cause of the problem”, Attard warned. 

The professor, who heads the university’s Institute for Climate Change and Sustainable Development, said she would not have first advocated for a long-term project like the announced proposal.

“I would have tried to provide a short- to medium-term solution which could – but not necessarily – lead to such expensive infrastructure,” she said.

Transparency

Stressing the importance of transparency, Attard said it was difficult to judge the recent plans without seeing the studies supporting it.

“What are the basic assumptions and parameters for the proposed infrastructure and, more importantly, station location – where is underground and above ground, what is the disruption timeframe for affected communities?” she asked.

If we keep providing more for the car, like more free parking, all we are doing is feeding the very cause of the problem

“And what alternatives were taken into consideration, especially when one considers easier and cheaper systems which can be implemented in much shorter timeframes?

“I’m not being sceptical; I’m being fair to whoever made the proposal,” she said, adding her proposals had been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, “so to me it is clear what the mass transport system should be”.

“The announcement should have been the publication of the study for public consultation, to ensure everyone can understand what is being proposed and what is to be expected, and why.”

Attard supports “visible and accessible” surface solutions such as bus rapid transit services, adding that public transport should “never” be placed underground to favour cars. “And, of course, walking should be given priority on this very small island where trips are very short”.

UK-based Maltese engineer and light rail consultant Christopher Micallef, meanwhile, noted the absence of studies available to the public.

“It would have been easier to present more concrete plans, but if you cement decisions early in the project, you’re on the wrong track,” he said, noting that Malta had seen “huge changes” in recent years, “so even five-year-old data would be out of date”.

Instead, he called for up-to-date feasibility studies “to know if it’s right to keep in the same direction, or whether we need to consider other options”.

Micallef also promoted more “front-end” spending in the early stages of the project, which he said tended to lead to better results.

‘Excitement’

He said his first reaction to the project had been one of “excitement; in principle, it’s a really robust, solid proposal; they’re treating it as a holistic system, which is very important”, referring to plans to link the light rail with bus, walking and cycling infrastructure.

“It takes courage to admit it will take time and require a holistic approach,” he said.

Micallef noted that countries such as India had pursued transport networks focusing only on a metro solution but quickly found it had not significantly improved transport issues in cities. In isolation, these systems don’t deliver, he said.

Asked about the estimated 15-year timeline for the light rail project, the engineer said it was “definitely not too much time; these projects are very complicated”.

Similarly, cost estimates of €2.8 billion were “not high and in line with other implementations”, noting that light rail costs varied hugely depending on the work required, such as whether part of the route required tunnelling works or traversing uneven terrain, for example.

Micallef added that companies building technology used in light railways typically had order books filled for up to seven years, with such solutions gaining popularity across the world as countries realised “they’re the only way to solve traffic issues”.

“You can’t solve a car problem with a car solution,” hesaid.

He noted that other parts of the government’s plan could deliver results in a much shorter time in the meantime, with buses mimicking eventual light rail routes until the system was fully up and running.

With the timing of the plan unveiling so close to announcing the general election having raised some eyebrows however, does he think it could be an election gimmick?

“It seems like a lot of good work has gone into it, so it doesn’t seem to be,” he said, noting that the absence of permits to “start digging straight away” suggested the plan was the “opposite of an election gimmick”.