Malta’s transport debate is stuck in traffic

Malta’s transport debate keeps circling around the same junction: New infrastructure, new modes of transport, new technologies. Yet the country’s congestion problem is not a matter of finding “the next big thing”. It is a systemic failure rooted in incentives, behavioural economics, and the political reluctance to confront one simple truth: Unless it becomes more expensive and less convenient to own and use a private car, no new transport system will ever be enough. 

For years, Malta has chased silver bullets when discussing traffic solutions. A metro. A tram. More buses. More roads. Fewer roads. Flyovers. Tunnels. Ferries. Every few years, the country discovers a new idea and treats it as the answer. But transport is not physics. It is human behaviour. Cars do not appear on the road by accident. People choose them because the system rewards that choice. We built an economy, a planning system, and a fiscal structure that makes private car ownership not only logical but almost unavoidable. The result is a vicious cycle: more cars, more congestion, more frustration, more proposals for costly new infrastructure. 

EU’s highest motorisation rates 

The National Transport Master Plan 2030 makes this clear in its own understated language. The plan highlights that Malta has one of the highest motorisation rates in the EU, and that simply increasing road capacity will not solve congestion; it will induce more demand. This is exactly the dynamic we see today. Roads were widened, junctions redesigned, flyovers built, and yet traffic is worse. Because the problem is not supply. It is incentives. 

A metro or a tram would offer alternatives, but without system-wide changes, they would absorb only a fraction of trips. A mass transit system works only in a country where the majority of people choose not to drive. That requires behavioural nudges and strong disincentives, not just infrastructure. Hong Kong, one of the world’s most successful mass-transit societies, did not arrive there by accident. High taxes on car ownership, expensive parking, congestion charges, strict planning rules, and reliable public transport made driving the inconvenient option. Malta is the opposite: driving is the default and often the easiest choice. 

Which raises the question: What are we prepared to nudge? Are we ready to introduce fiscal measures that raise the cost of owning and using a car? Are we prepared to impose restricted zones, high parking levies, and congestion pricing? Are we willing to redesign cities so that cars are guests rather than masters? These are politically difficult measures. Yet without them, any mass transit dream will collapse under the weight of Malta’s car dependency. 

It's about behaviour 

This is where economic thinking matters. Transport is not just an engineering challenge but an incentives problem. People respond to price signals. They respond to convenience. They respond to time savings. If the system continues to make driving cheap and easy, no amount of public transport enhancement will create the behavioural shift Malta desperately needs. 

The National Transport Master Plan 2030 makes the case for a “sustainable modal shift,” but modal shift does not happen because government wishes it. It happens when the relative cost of choices shifts. For years, Malta has tried to encourage public transport through subsidies, free bus travel, and infrastructure improvements. All of these are positive, but they are not enough to counter the entrenched incentives that favour driving. A systems approach requires both encouragement and deterrence. 

Consider school traffic. One of the largest daily contributors to congestion is the school run. If Malta changed school hours, or enforced proper car-free perimeters around school zones, or required mobility plans for every independent school, the effect would be immediate. Yet these measures are rarely discussed seriously. Similarly, staggering work hours, encouraging hybrid working models, and incentivising corporate mobility plans could flatten peak demand. These are not expensive reforms. They simply require a whole-of-system approach and political will. 

Then there is land use. The Master Plan hints at this too: scattered development patterns and car-dependent urban design have locked Malta into an unsustainable transport model. We built too far, too wide, too quickly. Reviving town cores, restricting new parking-heavy developments, and shifting future growth toward transit-served zones are essential. Transport is downstream of planning; if planning is wrong, no transport system can fix it. 

Fiscal nudges and bipartisan consensus 

Fiscal nudges must also be central. Parking levies in commercial districts. A surcharge on second and third private vehicles per household. Higher registration taxes for large-engine cars. Removing tax advantages for fleets that incentivise more vehicles on the road. Dynamic congestion pricing in the most saturated zones. These measures are not radical; they are standard in successful transport systems across the world. 

The challenge is that Malta’s politics is shaped by the fear of upsetting drivers. Any measure that raises the cost of car use risks a voter backlash. This is where political maturity becomes essential. Congestion already imposes an unseen tax: time lost, stress accumulated, productivity eroded, emissions rising. A society that is serious about its future cannot allow short-term political calculations to dictate long-term national wellbeing. 

This is why cross-party alignment is vital. A sustainable transport transition will take decades, far beyond one legislature. Without bipartisan consensus, every shift risks being reversed. The master plan itself gestures at long-term visions, but visions without political stability remain blueprints on paper. Malta needs a national pact on mobility, one that commits future governments to a clear, consistent direction: Fewer cars, better public transport, cleaner cities, and pricing mechanisms that make this possible. 

None of this implies making life difficult for ordinary families. It means offering people real alternatives. A tram network integrated with buses and ferries. Safe cycling corridors that are not symbolic but genuinely useful. Pedestrianised neighbourhoods where families can walk safely. More ferries serving new localities, building on the success of the harbour routes. And yes, eventually, if justified by demand and feasibility, a metro spine that links Malta’s densest corridors. 

But until the system changes the incentives around car ownership, any infrastructure investment will disappoint. As long as driving remains the cheapest, fastest, most convenient option, people will continue to choose it. And Malta will continue to choke on congestion. 

The country deserves better. The master plan provides some direction, but the real work lies in designing the nudges, taxes, regulations, and urban shifts that make alternative modes the rational choice. The transport challenge is not technological. It is behavioural. It is political. And without the courage to change the underlying system, Malta will forever remain stuck in traffic.