This week, I was following a debate and the discussions that ensued about the traffic problem. Indeed, I have written extensively about it and cited the economic theory behind the traffic problem. Back then, when I wrote about the Jevons Paradox, I applied the theory to the traffic problem, and explained that when roads are widened and upgraded, the real money poured into the upgrade does not solve the traffic problem permanently, but rather to house additional cars on the road for short-term gains, as well as to improve the quality of our lives by having better, and secure, road infrastructure. Certainly, the Jevons Paradox, like technology, is a function of efficiency, and the more we improve efficiency, the greater the demand becomes, ending up where it all started.
Against the backdrop of the EU’s push for sustainability, we cannot expect that technology, on its own, will solve the traffic problem when applied to road network upgrades and flyover construction. It will help us, but it won’t solve all the problems. I reiterate that the road network upgrades were desperately needed. Prior to the PL taking over the administration of the country, our road network was in a real dilapidated state. I still remember the Santa Venera tunnels wrapped in Perspex to redirect water dripping out. In 2017, the upgrades started, and I can tell you that they were desperately needed. Surely, we need to have such upgrades and complement them with a continuous process of behavioural and institutional adjustments. This never happened since the 1990s. Change does not happen overnight, especially when it comes to changing the behaviour of using our vehicles. We would have been better off had we started this in the 1990s. However, there were other priorities back then, including our application to join the EU, and GDP was low.
The Jevons Paradox describes how, in economic theory, increasing efficiency – such as upgrading road networks – ultimately raises demand rather than lowering it. If we build a new road, it is only to be used. And more vehicles will use it. In the long run, the improved efficiency attracts more users, leading to heavier traffic and bottlenecks. Short-term benefits from these upgrades are quickly eroded, as rising demand offsets the initial gains, a phenomenon known as the rebound effect. I analysed this back in October 2024 in this weekly column, termed “The Jevons Paradox and the traffic problem”. Even mass transportation improvements face the same pattern. Increased efficiency boosts demand, reducing marginal benefits over time, especially if we give everything away or do not apply price discrimination as we do with the bus transportation system. It is simple economics.
It can be difficult to measure how efficiency improvements compare with changes in demand because of varying assumptions. Nevertheless, the Jevons Paradox is evident both locally and in the EU. If traffic persists after network upgrades, it’s because demand outpaces efficiency gains. It was always clear that Malta’s road upgrades would only offer short-term relief, especially in the south. In the long-term, sustained investment in alternative transport and a shift in user behaviour are vital. Currently, we often drive even for short errand trips. And this is where the problem lies.
It is irrelevant to propose a mass transport system if we do not change our behaviour. True, the Opposition might have engineers working on a quick-fix solution. Or perhaps a short-term solution for the 2027 election campaign, but the reality is different. Although the discussion is welcome, placing this issue high on the national agenda is not equivalent to the PL’s proposal to reduce utility bills or shift from Heavy Fuel Oil to Liquefied Natural Gas. In my honest opinion, the Nationalist Party cannot make this its main campaign promise because as much as time wasted in traffic is measured in money, in tangible terms people do not feel its direct effect, that is, the pinch in their pockets, as much as when they used to receive a utility bill. The bimonthly surcharge differing from one bill to another forced households to cut back on electricity use and rush to fuel stations simply to make ends meet by the end of the month.
From my experience in politics, whether direct or indirect, people do not change a government because of traffic, as they know the problem won’t be solved immediately. If that were the case, the PN wouldn’t have survived 25 years in government, because traffic has been around that long, coupled with a poor infrastructure system. And please, this requires a bipartisan agreement to start thinking differently, also for the next 25 years. This mass transportation system must complement the Malta Vision 2050. We cannot keep taking the electorate for a ride. The Opposition and government must sit down with maturity and talk to each other civilly about such problems. We need to tackle them as a country, not as individual political parties. Can’t you all realise that people have had enough of petty politics?
A complete behavioural shift toward mass transportation will not happen quickly. My idea of using the sea as a transport corridor for the urbanised eastern coast offers an alternative, and EU support may be available. However, successful implementation demands infrastructure investment and policies that motivate people to shift from private vehicles. And let’s be honest: who are those politicians, on either side, truly prepared to risk political suicide without a bipartisan agreement, so that voters know exactly what they are getting if they choose the PN or the PL? Politics should prioritise public service, not short-term image.
In summary, I support developing a mass transportation system, but real progress requires realistic timelines, cost transparency, and honest discussion of challenges. While a Manchester overground-style system could work if connected to the sea, technology or infrastructure upgrades alone won’t solve traffic. The key takeaway is that lasting solutions depend on behavioural change and a bipartisan, long-term approach, not just quick fixes on the eve of a general election.
