Finance Minister Clyde Caruana on Tuesday said that he had yet to see the studies for the proposed light rail project and remains uncertain whether Malta could afford it, speaking during a Times of Malta pre-budget event.
Malta’s proposed €2.8 billion light rail system has raised questions about whether the country can afford such a major investment at a time when public finances remain in deficit and Government continues to subsidise energy and fuel prices.
However, two experts who spoke to WhosWho.mt believe that the country should not abandon the idea of mass transport, although they differ on how Malta should approach such an investment.
Economist Lino Briguglio believes funding should not be an insurmountable obstacle if Government reprioritises spending, while transport expert Prof. Maria Attard argues that cheaper, faster alternatives could offer a more practical starting point.
Professor Briguglio argues that the financial challenges could be overcome through better prioritisation of public expenditure and potential private-sector investment. Meanwhile, transport expert Prof. Maria Attard believes Malta should first consider more affordable and quicker solutions, particularly Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), before committing to more ambitious infrastructure projects.
The light rail proposal was announced in April by then Transport Minister Chris Bonett, who estimated its cost at €2.8 billion, including a contingency allowance of between 40 and 45 per cent to account for potential risks.
'Funding should not be an insurmountable problem'
For Economist Lino Briguglio, the potential benefits of a light rail network are substantial enough to warrant serious consideration, despite the considerable upfront investment required.
"The most obvious benefit of introducing light rail in Malta is that it would create a high-capacity, rapid and reliable structure within the country's public transport network," he told WhosWho.mt.
He explained that light rail could encourage more people to switch from private vehicles to public transport, potentially reducing congestion and air pollution.
However, Prof. Briguglio acknowledged that construction costs and disruption would represent significant obstacles.
Malta's limited land availability and dense urban environment could make identifying suitable routes particularly challenging, while the construction of tracks and stations could affect existing roads, buildings and infrastructure.
"In my view, the government should take up the challenge. With careful planning, the disruption mentioned above could be minimised," he said.
On the question of affordability, Prof. Briguglio suggested that Government could create additional fiscal space by reviewing existing expenditure commitments.
Among the measures he proposed were limiting the employment of persons of trust, reducing what he described as excessive public-sector employment and reconsidering electricity subsidies for households that can afford to pay higher energy costs. He also suggested exploring opportunities for private-sector investment.
'Bus Rapid Transit would be the fastest and cheapest to implement'
Transport expert Professor Maria Attard, meanwhile, believes Malta should prioritise improvements that build on the existing bus network rather than immediately committing to large-scale infrastructure.
She also raised concerns about the lack of available information about the various mass transport proposals announced in recent years.
For Prof. Attard, the starting point should be the development of dedicated public transport corridors that allow buses or trams to operate independently of traffic congestion.
"Malta needs to invest in a mass transport system which adds value to what we already have (the bus system) and works at prioritising public transport in busy corridors and making sure that the buses do not get stuck in traffic," she explained.
She identified two potential solutions: Bus Rapid Transit, which uses dedicated road lanes to provide faster and more reliable bus services, and Light Rail Transit, which operates using tram lines.
Of the two, she believes BRT offers the most immediate opportunity.
"Bus Rapid Transit would be the fastest and cheapest to implement. It does not require much infrastructure to start with, can be built on existing corridors and, as a public transport system, it has a long track record of success in different parts of the world."
Tram lines could follow at a later stage, particularly when integrated with urban regeneration initiatives, pedestrianisation and improvements to commercial streets.
Prof. Attard noted that Malta has already undertaken studies on both BRT and light rail, meaning the country would not necessarily need to begin the planning process from scratch.
Although the current Government proposal concerns light rail, Prof. Attard also cautioned against pursuing an underground metro system before Malta has established the necessary planning framework.
"I do not think that Malta is ready yet for an underground system," she said.
She pointed to the financial difficulties experienced by other cities that embarked on underground transport projects without sufficient economic and planning foundations.
According to Prof. Attard, Malta faces additional complications arising from its geology, archaeological heritage and densely developed urban areas.
Underground construction could result in significant cost overruns, particularly where unexpected geological conditions or archaeological discoveries arise.
She also stressed that underground systems require long-term land-use planning because routes cannot easily be altered once construction begins.
This presents a particular challenge for Malta, where she believes the necessary long-term coordination between transport planning and land development remains inadequate.
Prof. Attard also questioned how large underground stations could be incorporated into Malta's existing urban environment without substantial financial, environmental or heritage-related costs.
She referred to an earlier metro proposal that envisaged a station outside Valletta's City Gate, questioning whether sufficient consideration had been given to the historical significance of the location and what lies beneath it.
Main Image:
