Kelli ngħaddi siegħa ċ-Ċirkewwa waqt l-aħħar mawra tiegħi f’Malta. Kien waqt dawk is-siegħat kiefra ta’ wara nofsinhar fejn id-dell isir iktar prezzjuz miż-żejt u fejn kull taħrika ta’ ġismek tkun kawża ta’ gelgul ta’ għaraq ibelġen ma’ tul is-sinsla ta’ darek. Ipparkjajt fejn it-Terminal, kont qed nistenna’ ‘l xi ħadd biex niġbru minn fuq il-vapur. Kelli stennija. Tfajt lenti quddiem is-sigarett u qabad waħdu. Ħa naraw ftit.
Mill-parkeġġ stajt nara u nosserva ir-ritmu alternanti taċ-Ċirkewwa nhar ta’ Ġimgħa. Jinġemgħu n-nies għat-traġitt li jmiss u tiżdied magħhom it-tensjoni u l-kaos. Karozzi fuq xulxin, nies mexjin f’nofs it-triq mingħajr ħsieb għat-traffiku, u xemx. Ħafna sħana u nervi. Dak li suppost qed jidderieġi il-karozzi fir-ringieli ta’ stennija għal fuq il-vapur ilha li qabżitlu. Għalxejn il-biċċa ma għonqu biex tilqa’ il-galluni ta’ likwidu inixxu minn moħħu. Qabżitlu, u bir-raġun.
Ilħaqt rajt ukoll in-nies jinġemgħu fuq l-istand tax-xarabank biex jistennew dik li jmiss. Daż-żmien m’għadux żmien il-45. Valletta-Ċirkewwa via kull raħal li setgħu ideffsu. Le issa hemm diretti mill-Belt, mill-Ajruport, minn Tas-Sliema u iktar. Frott l-Arriva u l-ippjanar ġdid tar-rotot. Imma l-Arriva m’għadhomx hemm. Keċċewhom. Għamlulhom ħajjithom infern u ma setgħux ħlief iparpru.
In-nies jinġemgħu fuq l-istand. Parti mit-Terminal ġdid fjamant dan. X-xemx tispara diretta fuqhom. L-ebda dell ma jwennes. L-istand għandu taparsi saqaf tal-ħġieġ li ovvjament ikun inħareġ tender u rebħu xi perċimes li ipprovda naqra ta’ saqaf trasparenti babaw – trasparenti x’ċuċ hu t-tender. Insomma żgur ma hux xempju ta’ arkitettura prattika u dan jixhduħ il-mijiet ta’ passiġġieri li jispiċċaw jinqlew jistennew il-misħuta Xarabank filwaqt li jgħidu rota rużarju bit-tama li l-erkondixin jaħdem.
In-nies jistennew fuq l-istejġ “fid-dell”.
Iżda laqtuni l-iktar ix-xarabankijiet. Ma kienx hemm waħda bħal l-oħra. Addio l-uniformi ta’ l-Arriva. Ismijiet taż garaxxijiet differenti u numri imwaħħlin ta’ kafkaf bil-kartun. Naħseb għoddejt seba’ kumpaniji differenti tal-kowċis li ipprovdew xarabank għas-servizz pubbliku. Kien hemm minnhom li kont tisma’ s-sħana tidgħi weħidha minn ġewwa qalb is-sedili miksija drapp oħxon u pattern tal-leopard. Basta bil-purtieri imdendla biex taparsi jilqgħu ix-xemx.
Dak il-ħin kien ovvja x’ġara iktar minn qatt qabel. Ta’ Tagħna Lkoll kienu telgħu bl-għajta tar-riforma. L-ewwel qażżu ‘l Alla u oħtu jeqirdu dwar is-servizz li suppost kien tan-nejk u kif telgħu qabdu qabda mat-tedeski sakemm parpru ‘l hemm. Imbagħad biex taparsi “salvaw” is-sistema qabbdu xeba’ karozzi privati u garaxxijiet biex jaħdmu fuq ir-rotot. Sabiħa din. Is-sussidju tal-gvern li qabel kien imur għand kumpanija li għamlet l-għalmu tagħha biex tlaħħaq mal-idjosinkraziji ta’ pajjiż miġnun issa tqassam bħaċ-ċejċa lil numru ta’ kumpaniji privati biex taparsi isoddu it-toqba.
Customer care u ngħid. Kullħadd mgħaffeġġ, vidjos ta’ xufiera li jiġi f’idejhom l-isteering, korteżija li splodiet barra t-twieqi u t-temperatura dejjem tiela. Imma l-ġaħan ferħan għax ir-rivoluzzjoni soċjalista saret għal ġieħ il-poplu. Servizz tagħna lkoll li bih paxxa erba’ prieċem tal-garaxxijiet li ħelsu mix-xarabankijiet li kellhom fuq żaqqhom u qed idawru sold bis-sussidji tal-poplu. Mela żikk. L-aqwa li meta jmurlek id-dawl jidhirlek il-Ministru jitfantas fuq xi ex gratia payment li lanqas tiswa rota ta’ karrellu tal-lidl. U meta jmurlek id-dawl għal erba’ u għoxrin siegħa ftakar li tort ta’ Gooonzi u boiler number 7.
Ara biss taħseb li qed jitnejku bik f’wiċċek u jħalluk tinqela’ fix-xemx ġewwa ċ-Ċirkewwa tistenna x-xarabank sura li donnha ma hi se tasal qatt.
How many more times will we see taxis speed through the streets of Paceville as though their life depended on rounding the next corner like a crazy Le Mans driver? I went out for dinner with the family in our home urban conglomerate yesterday and walking back home past Burger King in the direction of Wembley (Saint George’s Road) at least three white taxis sped past us without any concern for pedestrians.
In every case, without fail, the taxi driver would have one hand on the wheel and another on his phone – deeply engaged in conversation. Hands free? Why? All the talk about the PN’s strong fist with all things transport and yet the Taxi Drivers Inc (the white taxis) still rule the land in Paceville. The area opposite Burger King is their territory. Double, triple, parking and the walls of the former Enemalta building used as a latrine.
Cowboys of the road and harassers of tourists. That is all they are. Will someone -administration, police or whatever – be strong enough to get some order with these energumens? I doubt it. Venture in any city abroad and taxis stick to their designated places. If you need a taxi, you walk to the taxi stand. The taxi does not plonk itself in the middle of the most vibrant part of the area only to zoom away at turbo speed in what should be a maximum 15 km/h zone.
Hope? My guess is that the taxi drivers are probably mostly part time canvassers for some politician or other. Given the trend in that department it would hardly be surprising.
In this country we don’t solve problems. We nurture them.
The last few visits to Malta have included the use of the extremely convenient Sliema-Valletta ferry service. Even in the dastardly heat of August, the short trip across the harbour and (admittedly) arduous uphill walk to the Republic street is an overall pleasant affair.
When Transport Malta calls for tenders for harbour ferry services though it is not holidaymakers like myself and tourists that are the primary concern but rather the creation of a viable and practical alternative to the heavily congested road traffic. Even if we were to have had a near perfect transition to all that was promised by Emanuel Delia’s Arriva the use of water transport as an alternative was always going to be a useful complementary solution.
It’s good to see some forward thinking being applied – such as the free Valletta Lift use for all ferry ticket holders (always an added incentive). The condition of a maximum of 30 mins between each ferry trip is also important to ensure a constant flow – ferries with skeleton provision tend to be impractical for the consumer.
I’m not too sure about the “toilet facilities” requirement for what is after all less than a 15 minutes trip. Recently the Gozo Channel company that operates a 25 minute trip was quoted in the Times as saying that it did not feel the need to provide such Emergency services as defibrillators on short trips and that anyway there was no obligation. Surely available public toilets at each end of the Ferry service should suffice.
On the whole I would use the Venice Vaporettos (see picture) as a good standard reference point and would add a few suggestions of my own:
Sliema, Marsamxett and Inner Dockyard are a good start. A (maybe summer) route linking Portomaso – Exiles – The Tower – Tigne – Sliema Ferry might be an option.
Venice has many floating “ferry stops”. The Inner Harbour stops could be served by these – it might be a bit harder in the exposed areas for the summer route (see what happened to Sliema Pitch addition this year).
Ticketing system. Just in case the idea even floated in your mind: forget discriminating between residents and non-residents. Just use season tickets the 10€ weekly pass is a good start.
I am sure you thought of it but just in case, ferry users need to get to the ferry point. Is there going to be a similar deal with Arriva for a combo bus/ferry ticket? It’s evident there will be no car park + ferry ticket because Sliema parking is what it is.
What about you? Do you have any other suggestions for the new system? Do you care?
ARRIVA is due to launch the new nationwide transport system on the 3rd of July this year. Drivers are being trained, fares have been calculated and new routes have been on the drawing board for quite some time now. While the size and type of transition will justify glitches along the way there is an irritating feel to the kind of transitional glitches that have surfaced recently. Two of them in particular:
1. The Bisazza Street gaffe: The man who would love to seem to be the brains behind the scenes a.k.a Manuel Delia of the Austin Gatt ministry (and PN candidate to be) explained that the detour around newly pedestrianised Bisazza Street would throw Arriva’s intelligent information system out of the window. As pathetic excuses go this one takes the ticket. Even the online commentators on the Times – not usually the best measure for spontaneous bursts of intelligent remarks – pointed out that an intelligent system does not get “thrown out of the window” every time there is a deviation.
It then transpires that, based on the agreement negotiated by Manuel Delia’s government with Arriva, the transport company will be entitled to compensation every time government works will oblige it to reroute. If we were to take the Times reporting as a fact then it would seem that such compensation is only due in the case of permanent rerouting:
The contract also lays down a formula for compensation under which a re-routing of this nature* will have to take place. This is calculated by multiplying distance by frequency, with the latter being the crucial element in this case. (…) Meanwhile, Mr Delia said rumours that councils would have to pay some form of compensation to Arriva for closing a road off temporarily were “complete rubbish”. In such cases, councils should inform Transport Malta of the planned closure which would in turn inform Arriva, who would tell its customers accordingly, he said.
*we are not told what “of this nature” really means and are assuming it is “permanent”
So in a country where roadworks are the norm – blockages almost a standard and government planning as controlled as a Brighton Beach Party – we have a government that ties this kind of clause into a contract. At least there is always the Resources Ministry to blame if the government is obliged to pay compensation for a Transport Ministry sanctioned contract. (see ADDENDUM) The left hand blaming the right anyone? So Mr. Delia… I guess what with all the lovely clauses you negotiated you also have one explaining to the taxpayer why he must cover the bill for your half-arsed planning.
2. The Bus Driver Shortage. And since bus drivers are not in great abundance it seems that the Transport Authority is having difficulties finding bus drivers to run the current system since many drivers are off training at ARRIVA.
As the yellow buses struggle to keep the public transport service running, with drivers being taken up for training by the new operator, Transport Malta has stepped in to ease the burden by helping with dispatching. (Times)
You cannot really blame ARRIVA can you? Then again.. what were they thinking?
3. Fare’s Fair?
Unless I am completely mistaken the fare business seems to have been settled. ARRIVA will be going ahead with the resident/non-resident distinction as the tiny disclaimer at the foot of the FARES page will show you:
*All the fares shown above are discounted Adult fares for Malta ID card holders. To take advantage of these fares you must carry your ID card when travelling. Full fare information for non-residents, as well as concessionary fare details, can be accessed here.
There is also the ARRIVA SAVER card that will require you to download and print a form, trundle off to the POST office (33 available branches), pay a €5 administration fee and choose between a 30 and 90 day top up.To be fair it seems that online top ups are in the pipeline. Still… this will not be the last that we hear on discrimination on basis of residence.
Interestingly there is this disclaimer regarding Gozitans or what seem to be the Maltese who carry an ID with an address in Gozo to save on the Gozo Ferry fee…
Please note, the Arriva Saver Card can be used in Malta only – unless when applying the customer can produce a relevant Malta ID card with a Gozo address, in which case they can also use their Saver Card for travel in Gozo.
I cannot understand this one. Is it telling me I cannot use the card in Gozo for buses in Gozo? What else can you have if not a Malta ID card? What kind of difference/distinction/discriminatory condition is “a relevant Malta ID card with a Gozo address”? This seems to me a very convoluted way of justifying the double-insularity exception for Gozo (the same one that allows Gozo Channel to “discriminate” fees). It would probably have been easier for two companies to have been formed ARRIVA MALTA and ARRIVA GOZO – each with their separate ticketing system. But hey… who am I to know?
It turns out that it was only on 21 April – five months after Transport Malta signed the agreement with Arriva – that the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs asked Transport Malta to consider the complete pedestrianisation of Bisazza Street. This meant the decision to have a fully pedestrianised street was left up until too late for any changes to the Arriva contract.
Which might seem to be a saving point for the negotiators of the contract. Sure, until you realise that this will (probably) not be the last time the government (and yes, it’s useless pointing fingers at separate ministries) will decide to restructure the urban landscape. The timing of THIS pedestrianisation is not as much to blame as the clause that allows for compensation for rerouting in certain circumstances.
Gareth Compton, Conservative councillor for Erdington in Birmingham (UK), was released on bail on the eve of Armistice Day after he was arrested for an offence under the Communications Act of 2003 on suspicion “of sending an offensive or indecent message”. Compton was questioned about the content of a Tweet of his which read: “Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a blessing, really.”
Compton argued that this was “an ill-conceived attempt at humour in response to Alibhai-Brown saying on Radio 5 Live that no politician had the right to comment on human rights abuses – even the stoning of women in Iran”. Tories and Labourites in the West Midlands joined the chorus of disapproval aimed at Compton’s ill-judged tweet and the police moved in with the charge.
In another corner of the UK, Doncaster Crown Court rejected Paul Chambers’ appeal against a Magistrates Court decision that had found him guilty of “sending a menacing electronic communication”. Chambers’ case also involved a tweet. This time the tweet was angrily directed to nearby Robin Hood Airport. With the airport shut down because of snow and Chambers’ travel plans thus thwarted, the tweeter vented his frustration to his 600-odd followers on the micro-blogging site: “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”
Tough Guy (now recant)
Judge Jacqueline Davies of the Crown Court was not impressed by the defendant’s argument of “just kidding”. In her words, “We find it impossible to accept that anyone living in this country, in the current climate of terrorist threats, would not be aware of the consequences of their actions in making such a statement.” Both Compton and Chambers tried to write off the relative weight of their statement by claiming that their actions were performed in jest. There might be a substantial difference between a politician inviting people to stone a journalist on the one hand and a private individual venting his frustration in a colourful manner in another, but at the end of the day the lesson to be learnt is to be very careful when venturing into the world of mass communication. That iPhone at your fingertips can land you in deep do-do indeed.
I get the impression that Malta is still not sufficiently hooked on Twitter to provide this kind of interesting legal twist. The chronicles of court affairs are choking with the facts of intra-familial battles raging from the ballistic nose-breaking prodigies of one husband, to the wife who claimed that her husband was obsessed with an Italian late-night show over 20 years after it had gone off air. There are no tweeting offences as yet and while the Plategate saga rolls on in the background of the trendier chronicles, the battles in communication are taking place in more conventional fora – such as The Times letter pages.
When I first heard of Prime Minister Gonzi’s foray into the murky waters of The Times letter pages correspondence, I thought I’d give it a miss. Egged on by others, I finally got round to reading the prime ministerial letter – signed by the Prime Minister himself. Apparently Dr Gonzi had not liked a particular missive by a certain Bonett Balzan (BB for short) that had appeared in the pages of His Master’s Voice the previous Saturday. Dr Gonzi seemed intent on making a couple of points: firstly that he is not an “ends justifies the means” kind of guy (so no Luxol Grounds last-minute backstab on political allies from him, I guess); and secondly, he issued what I describe on the blog as a sort of fatwa from the head of our constitutionally Catholic state.
Here are his words: “I condemn all hatred expressed in all circumstances and reiterate my appeal to all concerned to keep political language within the bounds of what should be acceptable in a mature democratic society.” The question everyone (not to be confused with Everybody) was asking was: What prompted this letter?
Sure Shot
(political communication)
And you couldn’t blame “everyone” in the end. After reading Dr Gonzi’s letter, I had to look for the letter that had triggered the reaction by the head of government. Dr Gonzi had quoted from the offending letter and specified what had caused him to take offence. The Prime Minister stated that he took particular offence at the phrase “taken of the law into his own hands with fatal consequences”. Prima facie it seemed like a rather harsh phrase – one that would have any spoudaios (Gk. – average man) rushing to his desk and typing a measured response.
It all went kind of sour when I read the context from which the phrase was lifted. There was nothing remotely injurious in fact. True, BB’s letter was astonishingly similar to much of the crap that passes for intelligent discussion on blog comment boards nowadays. It was an illustration of anything but the “enlightened times” that were referred to in the letter and its author is a perfect example of conservative, ignorant bigotry that has become common fare in most discussions.
Having said that, the whole bit about the taking of judicial matters into one’s own hands with dire consequences was actually part of a description of the habitual goings on among husbands and adulterers. Bonett Balzan was simply illustrating how adulterers would have been treated a while back, before the enlightened times of this government “ably led” by “the job-creating” Dr Gonzi (BB’s words). Yes, Bonett Balzan does come out as a fervent (never a more apt term) follower of the GonziPN creed – he is, in fact, appalled at the dilution of its values by upstarts such as JPO.
Put fairly and squarely, Bonett Balzan’s letter was no less of an abuse of the freedom of expression as that exercised by the myriad liberated voices that populate Internet comment boards every day of the week. Why then had the Gonzi-radar zoomed in on this particular manifestation of not-so-illuminated literary intervention in order to vent the prime ministerial fury? There was only one explanation. Dr Gonzi might be a professed anti-divorcist, but he will not take kindly to being automatically associated with the Maltese version of redneck backwaters. It was in such a spirit that the prime ministerial letter was penned and to such a letter was appended a glorious appendix.
For the Gonzi letter ended in a blanket condemnation of hatred expressed in all circumstances, as well as an appeal to maintain a decent level of political discourse. We’d have loved to applaud this noble initiative had it not jarred with the fact that the intervention (“scendere in campo” as Berlusconi is wont to say) was too isolated and seemed to ignore other more serious and more prominent offenders who have contributed to the general debasement of political discourse. The selective lifting of dubiously offensive quotations only served to water down the import of Dr Gonzi’s letter – leading to the incredulous reaction from the nation’s cognoscenti.
Get It Together (please)
Ill communication was not monopolised by the Office of the Prime Minister. It’s getting tiring to follow the concerted practice (that’s the second anti-trust term in this paragraph) of political acolytes of the Labourite persuasion in drumming their various stories home on the basis of “fairness”. “Mhux fjer” (not fair) has been translated into a political mantra and the Labour monks are busy exposing their hurts (“wegghat”) and the levels of unfairness with every political development on the political scene.
Chief Economist Muscat led the way last week with his budget reactions. This week we had the story of the 1,000 Air Malta employees declared surplus to requirements according to a report. Tony Zarb and most PL-leaning commentators were busy preparing wailing laments for the thousand family members on whose sweat, blood and tears the success story that is Air Malta had been created, only to be given a hint of the exit (and I am not talking Safety Exits here) at this moment of economic uncertainty.
“Mhux fjer” they yelled. Who will love their children? Which is OK for a trade union leader, but not OK for a political party that should be planning our way out of whatever mess they seem to be oh so keen to highlight. If there is a mess, and I am not saying that there isn’t, the role of an opposition party is not to highlight the problem but to confidently claim and prove that it has a solution at hand.
The communication lines of the new PL seem to be built with a very short-term goal in mind. They tend to ignore the fact that once in government the exposure of the ills, pains and injustices of society will not suffice, and that people will actually expect them to deliver the goods. I quizzed some Labour supporters, asking what they would do if they found themselves at the head of a government that had just been presented with the 1,000-surplus workers report. The first reply? Ah, we would commission a report to find out who is responsible for the overstaffing of the airline. Bravo indeed. Now THAT is a great solution. Get ready for a headless government that blames its shortfalls on the 2012 version of “il-hofra”. Progressive? Bah.
Sabotage (discrimination)
And then there was the communications cock-up, which was the announcement of the new bus fares once Arriva take over. What should have been the groundwork for a much-awaited new bus system ended up in bawling and exchanges on the media about the proposal to charge tourists a higher fare. Apart from this being the most pea-brained idea since Bush decided to publish his memoirs, the clumsy handling of the aftermath and backlash was mind-boggling.
We had a ministry spokesman (one of those) declaring that charging tourists more than the Maltese does not amount to discrimination. It was a case of knowing what he intended to say but also recognising what a cock-up the actual statement was. The whole point of discrimination is of creating criteria that turns like into unlike. Here was a ministry spokesman who was claiming that charging two rates for the same trip would not be discrimination. But it is, dear spokesman. The words he was looking for was justified discrimination because under EU law there are instances where discrimination can be justified if reasonably argued.
Which is where Minister Gatt piped in with the whole notion of resident v non-resident. Residents, it seems, are eligible for a subsidised fare because they pay taxes. Non-residents (tourists) don’t. Really? What was that tax increase in the last budget? Who pays it? Residents? Or tourists? There’s no knowing when the politicians of this world will come up with the next blooper that’s the size of a BWSC contract investigation gone wrong. (Bravo Parliament incidentally).
All that the men at the Ministry of Transport had to do was look at public transport systems worldwide. Take London’s Oystercard. There is no discrimination on the basis of residence. The only discrimination is the usual justified discrimination in favour of seniors and students. Other than that you pay according to how much you use it. Most travel cards give you more benefits the longer the validity. This is based on the basic assumption that a resident (frequent user) will, more often than not, take long-term credit on his card (a one-year travel card) to benefit from the lower price that would ensue in normal offers on a normal market.
Tourists are not precluded from buying a one-year travel-card but it would not make sense economically. Instead they will probably opt for a seven- or three-day card. A resident could buy that card but it does not pay him as much as a yearly card. You see? No discrimination on the basis of residence or nationality that has to be justified on the basis of some spurious taxation excuse. Instead you have a scaled system of cards accessible to all but that actually makes sense for different categories – the only discrimination is in the consumer’s mind at the moment of purchase. Who am I kidding? I am sure the guys at Arriva know all this and will soon be showing the way on this matter.
Roots Down (travel)
Speaking of travel, I will be in Versailles this weekend – a birthday treat from my better half. In that palace lived a woman who never actually uttered the fabled words “Let them eat cake”. It’s just so unfair that sometimes it is the words that are unsaid that end up making the biggest noise.
www.akkuza.com From the Hall of Mirrors to Le Petit Trianon, all in a weekend’s work. Titles of this week’s article (barring brackets) brought to you courtesy of the great Beastie Boys album “Ill Communication” (1994).
Why does the government seem to be replete with spokespersons when it comes to the need to call a spade a spade or say something that is closer to black on white than the catch-all statements of your standard politician? Whether it is Arms or Aviva there seems to have been a proliferation of spokesmen (we have yet so read of a government spokeswoman incidentally) who are at hand to fill the gaps of information as their master commanded.
The relative anonymity of the spokespersons could be chalked down to a couple of reasons: (1) their closeness to one newspaper means that they will not reveal their true identity because they would have to explain why other papers were not given the same news at the same time, or (2) a linked explanation is that these spokespersons are really a smokescreen for a leaked ministerial idea that is best not attributed to the minister himself/herself for fear that it would all seem to be too un-ministerly.
Take the ministerial spokesperson speaking about Aviva Bus Tickets this morning. You’d like to know who he is in order to ask him a supplementary question. Of course, this being a government spokesman being quoted by a newspaper (and not a government press release) we also have to factor in the ever increasing possibility of the newspaper reporter making a hash of the quote. But first the quote (Times, of course):
Tourists will pay higher bus fares than local residents to ensure that subsidies on the new public transport system are focused in favour of those who pay for them through taxes, according to the Transport Ministry. For this reason, a ministry spokesman insisted, the difference in bus ticket prices will not discriminate against visitors.
Now I know I am being (legally) finicky but what the spokesperson/paper is missing here is that the whole point of a difference in rates between those paid by tourists/visitors and those paid by locals is to discriminate. The quote/statement/leak is unfortunate because it seems to, as they say in logic, tell a lie about itself. It’s an amazing way to get stuck in a rut by making things sound complicated when they are not.
The point being made by the Transport Ministry seems to be that Malta – or the transport operator engaged by Malta – will be fully justified in introducing different prices for tourists than those for locals. In other words they are trying to explain that there will be discriminatory fares but that this discrimination will be justified. But in order to say that, they actually say: “‘No discrimination’ in new bus fares (Times headline). which is wrong and misleading.
The reason being given for the eventual discrimination, albeit in a convoluted manner, is that locals pay taxes while tourists do not (really?) and it is the locals taxes that subsidise the ticket.
I honestly do not think that AVIVA will have a problem creating a fare structure that incentivises use by locals but I do think that all this fuss and clamour will lead straight into the hands of a certain Commission Européenne if we go on in this direction. After all, all that needs to be done is to look around how transport operates in huge touristic cities and get a general idea which can then be localised to cater for certain needs. I was amazed at the efficiency of the Venetian transport system which seemed to have plenty of local patrons notwithstanding the fact that a single fare costs an exhorbitant 12€.
The key it seems is not in discriminating between local and foreigner but in the length of the bus ticket. Not the physical length silly, but the length of time you can use it. “Oyster” style, rechargeable cards can be offered with the greater discounts for long term purchases. The usual other incentives that discriminate – not by nationality or residence but by age and regularity of use – would (should) work wonders for the regular user.
That is why any visitor to Venice is bound to purchase a three or seven day transport card that at most costs 55€ (7 days). Now I am not saying that should be the fare in Malta but a similar line of thinking would probably work (at different rates of course). Italian transport has long done away with most exchanges with drivers/conductors and the only familiar interaction I got with the Vaporetto personnel was the Venetian equivalent of “move back” in order to let other commuters jump onto a dancing boat.
Kelli ngħaddi siegħa ċ-Ċirkewwa waqt l-aħħar mawra tiegħi f’Malta. Kien waqt dawk is-siegħat kiefra ta’ wara nofsinhar fejn id-dell isir iktar prezzjuz miż-żejt u fejn kull taħrika ta’ ġismek tkun kawża ta’ gelgul ta’ għaraq ibelġen ma’ tul is-sinsla ta’ darek. Ipparkjajt fejn it-Terminal, kont qed nistenna’ ‘l xi ħadd biex niġbru minn fuq il-vapur. Kelli stennija. Tfajt lenti quddiem is-sigarett u qabad waħdu. Ħa naraw ftit.
