Categories
Politics Transport

PM meets Emmanuel Cini

20110726-081854.jpg

If last night’s reports turn out to be true it seems that the PM got over any qualms that he might have had of meeting hunger striker Emmanuel Cini. The reports also mention a fruity break to the hunger strike when Cini ate a kiwi. It was Emmanuel’s 10th day of striking and the hype around the man had all but subsided. While the positive side might still be that Cini did not meet a useless death for the sake of a transport reform, the whole story has given us loads to reflect about the way our press reacts in the face of such stories – not to mentiothe lack of ethics demonstrated by political opportunists.

20110726-081938.jpg

Categories
Transport

Unplanned

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?

ADDENDUM: In a MaltaToday report we read the following:

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.