Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1339768
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 14 FEBRUARY 2021 INTERVIEW underground route. So in Paola, for example, there would have to be regular shuttle buses to the Three Cities. Likewise in Mosta: with shuttle links to Rabat, Dingli, and so on, every five minutes. The metro and buses will be complemented by cycling and walking. In other countries like London and Paris, there are schemes to rent bicycles on a tem- porary basis. This is, in fact, the beauty of this system: it is designed to incorpo- rate different modes of transport, mapped out to facilitate mobility from the most densely populated parts of the country, to the least linked areas. Nonetheless, your proposal al- so involves an extended under- ground tunnel system, eventu- ally linking Birzebbugia, in the south of Malta, to Marsalforn in the north of Gozo. There is already a plan for a tunnel link between the islands – admitted- ly for cars, not for a metro – but why should the environmental objections to that project, not also apply to the proposed un- derground railway? There are marked differences, though: including that the car tunnel will feature long access ramps leading to the tunnel from Pwales and Nadur, through the superficial soils. This will cause irreversible damage to the envi- ronment and fertile agricultural land… which may also contain as- yet undiscovered archaeological remains. The metro, on the other hand, would be located at roughly the same depth throughout - deep enough not to disturb any po- tential archaeological remains - with no need of any ramps: even though it would still need to be subject to detailed environmental, geotechnical and archaeological surveys, before the exact metro route and station locations can be confirmed. Moreover, the car tunnel is sim- ply not viable, in my opinion. No- body has yet mentioned what the toll would amount to, for instance. But if you look at the Frejus tun- nel, linking France to Italy - which is roughly the same length (14km) as the Malta-Gozo route; and rel- atively easier to build, too, as it involved a straight, ground-level tunnel under the Alps – the toll is €46.60 (€58.20 return) per car; and considerably higher for lor- ries and container trucks. Coming back to the Malta-Gozo car tunnel: it is estimated by the authorities that around 6,500 cars will use it every day – that is near- ly 2.37 million vehicle trips per annum – and on those figures, the cost per vehicle to use the car tun- nel on a 100-year return period is likely to be approximately €30 per return trip, if not more… Subject to detailed environ- mental studies, the approximate- ly 4 million m3 of inert waste from our metro proposal could be used for land reclamation to form a nature reserve. This could be complemented by an offshore wind farm and/or an offshore solar farm with the renewable energy created connected to the grid, thus offsetting the energy demands of the metro system and complementing the sustainability credentials of the whole project. Speaking of costs: you have es- timated that the metro system would be viable – if not prof- itable, eventually – at the cost of a mere €2 per ticket. Given that, by your own estimates, the metro will be much more expensive to build than the car-tunnel… how did you arrive at that figure? Let's start with the cost of the project itself. The entire metro project, including the anticipated 40 trains, is likely to cost approx- imately €4 billion… which is, ad- mittedly, considerably more than a car tunnel between Malta and Gozo. Part of the capital costs of the metro link between Mellieha and Gozo (approximately €675m) could be eligible for EU funds. €1.575 billion would be financed by government bonds with ma- turity over 20 years. The remain- ing €1.75b would be paid by the national coffers, amounting to €175m per annum over 10 years, which is not too far off from the amount the country has been spending per annum in road wid- ening schemes in the past few years. But these costs have to also be weighed against other forms of expenditure involved in our cur- rent approach. How much is the government currently spending to treat respiratory illnesses – for example, asthma – caused by ve- hicular air pollution? Not to men- tion the loss of productivity, aris- ing from all the time wasted stuck in traffic. Apart from the environ- mental benefits of a metro system, it could also save the country mil- lions, in the long-term...and that's not counting the improvement in quality of life, as people would be spared the stress and aggravation of being stuck in traffic so often. As for the cost of an individual ticket: based on this conservative estimate of around 53 million people using the metro every year - assuming a local population of 500,000, and 2.5 million tourists per annum (i.e. same amount of tourists as 2019) - the target reve- nue from ticketing would amount to €245m per annum, on a typi- cal fare of €2 per metro trip (and capped at, say, €5 per day for un- limited daily use of the metro). Revenue from advertisements on trains and stations, and from leasing space in stations for re- tail, would also generate a further €55m per annum. And yet, successive govern- ments have never taken this sort of proposal seriously. Previous suggestions for mass-transit systems – including a proposal by industrialist Anglu Xuereb, in the early 2000s – have also been ignored. How do you ac- count for this? Do you think it is the result of lobbying from a powerful extended automotive industry? I wouldn't want to speculate on the reasons; but historically, there are parallels with, for instance, the introduction of tramways in the early 20th century. There was strong resistance, at the time, from owners of horse-drawn car- riages… who, naturally, stood to lose a lot of business. And it's un- derstandable, too. You can't en- tirely blame people for defending their own private interests; even if they might conflict with the na- tional interest. But then as now, the change was bound to happen. In a way, it's like the changes imposed upon the energy sector by climate change. There are powerful interests in- volved in keeping the oil industry alive; but at the same time, oil-rich countries like Norway are now pledging not to invest any more in fossil fuel industries. There is a huge shift towards renewable sources of energy: and it comes at a cost… sending huge shockwaves throughout the markets. The shift itself, however, is nec- essary… and in a sense, inevita- ble. We all know that, unless our approach to energy changes, the entire planet will suffer. And on a smaller level, the same goes for the local shift towards alternative modes of transport. That is why, what we are saying is: let's rethink our strategy. It's a case of asking the right question; and the question to ask is not, how can we accommodate more cars, to reduce congestion? It is: how can we reduce the number of cars? Right now, the problem is that there is simply no alternative. Unless their destination is with- in walking distance, people tend to use their cars for more or less everything: to drop off their chil- dren at school; to pick up grocer- ies; to go to University… and you can't blame them for it, because they don't really have a choice. But as soon as there is an alter- native – if people are told that: in 10 years' time, there will be a vi- able, convenient and safe way to get to your destination without driving… that's when people will realistically consider making sac- rifices.