Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1083753
maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 20 FEBRUARY 2019 9 LETTERS & EDITORIAL maltatoday MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN EXECUTIVE EDITOR: MATTHEW VELLA DEPUTY EDITOR: PAUL COCKS Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt Mikiel Galea THE Prime Minister has announced that government will introduce free bus- es linking Gozo to the airport, Mater Dei Hospital and other strategic locations across the mainland. This goes half-way towards addressing criticism that the tunnel would drastically increase private car traffic to Gozo: with the inevitable deterioration in air quality, congestion and pressures on the road network that this will bring about. Muscat has meanwhile shot down proposals to integrate the tunnel into a national metro system: arguing that completing a metro system would take a quarter-century, and that we cannot drag our feet on upgrading the country's infra- structure till then. In so doing, however, Muscat does not address the possibility of immediately limiting traffic in the new tunnel only to public transport buses. One reason why this is not possible is that private investors would be unable to recover the capital costs of building the tunnel, if everyone went to Gozo by bus for free. Yet there is probably more than meets the eye in Muscat's proposal. The declara- tion comes amidst reports, in last week's edition in MaltaToday, that costs for the tunnel have been revised upwards from €200 million to €300 million. This exposes a basic contradiction in tunnel economics. While public policy dictates encouraging a nodal shift from private cars to public transport, prospective developers can only recover the capital expense through tolls paid by car users. Essentially, the more passengers cross to Gozo by car, the more financially viable the project becomes. Presumably, the bus company will also be paying a toll to use the tunnel. And in light of Muscat's announcement, it now appears that the government will take upon itself the social cost of providing free public transport across the tunnel. This risks making the tunnel even less finan- cially viable than ever, raising the prospect that it will be dependent on taxpayer mon- ies for its long-term survival. It also raises the prospect of hidden government subsi- dies meant to sustain the tunnel operation, disguised as public transport subsidies. Another worrying aspect of the Prime Minister's declaration is that it takes for granted that the tunnel will be approved to begin with; even if Environment Im- pact Studies and geological studies still have to be published. Moreover the terms of reference for this EIA specify that the study must also consider the zero op- tion: i.e. not developing the tunnel at all. It also calls for studies on "alternative solutions for inter-island transportation." The ERA's terms of reference make it clear that these "alternatives, including the zero option, should be considered in sufficient detail as a plausible scenario in the EIA, wherever relevant, and not dis- carded upfront without proper discussion of its implications." This raises the question: is the Gozo tunnel already a fait accompli? Are these studies simply being conducted as a cos- metic exercise, without any real implica- tion on the decision-making process? If so, it would be a gravely irresponsible state of affairs. These studies may well in- dicate that aspects of the current proposal – like passing a tunnel through Pwales and l-Imbordin – may have unacceptable envi- ronmental and cultural heritage impacts. In the most extreme scenarios, there could be irreversible impacts on the water table, and possibly even geological problems that make the tunnel impossible in practice (or, worse still, dangerous). It is, in effect, to study these possibilities that the entire planning process exists in the first place. One cannot just override it at will: no matter how urgent the social (or political) need for any given project may be. Otherwise, where would this leave enti- ties like the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage, the Planning Authority and the Environment and Resources Author- ity: whose legal duty is to safeguard the Maltese environment and local heritage including cultural landscapes irrespective of any electoral mandate? The government also seems committed to a project which will create a massive amount of construction waste: in turn, rendering land reclamation inevitable… once again, even if studies on this option are still being conducted. To be fair, a nationwide metro system may also cre- ate similar impacts. But at least, in this scenario the negatives will be offset by a major public gain. In the case of the Gozo tunnel, the government seems intent on unleashing a domino effect which would bind future decisions on land reclamation and transport. Moreover, Muscat ignores the possibil- ity of offering similar subsidies to a fast ferry service linking Gozo to the harbour area. The introduction of a fast ferry ser- vice was also part of the Labour Party's 2013 electoral mandate. For some mys- terious reason, however, Gozitans were never given the chance to experience such a service. And yet, it could even be pos- sible that the provision of an efficient fast ferry service would have addressed most present-day problems related to connec- tivity. One is tempted to suspect that such a service was never given a chance, for fear that it would take the wind out of the sails of any financial interests behind the Gozo tunnel and ancillary developments. The prime minister would do well to remember that he was elected to represent very different interests: namely, those of the people of Malta and Gozo. Is the Gozo tunnel a fait accompli? FAM OUS BRE AK-UPS IN HIST ORY