Opposition MP defends traffic proposals from government 'ridicule'

Shadow transport minister Marthese Portelli shrugged off government criticism on her recent proposals to counter traffic congestion.

“The document is based on incentives, rather than disincentives and taxes,” she said in her parliamentary adjournment. “It has been endorsed by all social partners, including the General Workers’ Union who described it as a positive document with factual proposals that can be implemented immediately.

“Government exponents have tried to ridicule the document, simply because the Opposition was more pro-active and released its document before it did. However, it is not simply discarding the document but the praise of all social partners, including the GWU.”

Transport minister Joe Mizzi said last week that the vast majority of the proposals have either already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.

Leafing through the document’s 35 short-term proposals, she called on government to launch an information campaign on driving knowledge – such as not driving slowly on the fast lane and the need to move crashed cars out of the middle of the road.

She also called on government to adopt holistic plans on roadworks, accompanied with wide-reaching information campaigns on road closures.

Notably, the document proposes that government subsidise school transport for independent and Church schools, as it currently does for state schools.

“Many parents take their children to school themselves because they are concerned about the safety and reliability of the school transport,” she said.

It calls for dedicated transport to and from popular destinations such as the university, MCAST, the hospital and industrial estates. It also states that government should also offer dedicated transport to its employees to work.

It proposes financial incentives –such as cheaper registration and car insurance fees –for people who choose not to use their private car during peak hours on certain days.            

“The government had a golden opportunity to open its doors to constructive debate, but it chose the wrong path,” she said. “I hope it realizes that it made a mistake and that it takes these proposals on board.”