Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/604914
14 THERE are some issues in this country that keep cropping up spo- radically from time to time: flaring up as controversies, then retreat- ing into the background, then flar- ing up again… but without ever actually materialising, and without ever dying out completely. Oil exploration is one example. In the past, it was golf courses. But the one that has proved most persistent over the years is the proposal for a road-link between Malta and Gozo. Some sort of 'sub-seabed tun- nel' between the two islands has been in the pipeline – if you'll excuse the awful pun – for years. But unlike earlier propos- als (now largely forgotten) for a permanent airfield on Gozo, the tunnel proposal seems to have assumed greater credibility over the years. Various feasibility studies have emerged to claim that a tunnel is economically 'viable'. The latest was presented by the Gozo Busi- ness Chamber only yesterday… and when I meet one of its mem- bers, Euchar Vella, to discuss its contents, it quickly becomes clear that this chamber really does mean business. But first things first. The Gozo Chamber is determined to achieve this pipe-dream once and for all. Why, in its opinion, is a tunnel to Malta so important for Gozo? "It's important for both islands. This is not just about Gozo. That's old talk. Gozo is part of Malta, and with the tunnel Gozo will improve Malta's GDP. For those who travel there twice a year, this might not be an issue. The ferry offers them an experi- ence…after all, it's a boat cruise offering the best scenery. But for those who cross frequently – many on a daily basis – not hav- ing to spend an extra two hours daily in commuting, or two hours overtime or more leisure time makes a big difference. Unfortu- nately, many of these believe it's too good to be true…" From the perspective of the Gozo Chamber, he adds, many of the problems faced by Gozitan businesses ultimately stem from connectivity. "When it comes to enterprise, how can we compete fairly, when besides having to pay for access to the Maltese road network, we also have to pay our employees an extra two hours daily? Then there are many issues with at- tracting new industries to Gozo. Many have flourished in Malta, while in Gozo they barely exist. For example, attracting confer- ences to Gozo. We have all the facilities in place... but the un- certainty of keeping to the strict timeframes, because of missing the ferry, makes the organiser automatically choose Malta… I don't blame them. Why the risk?? Then, he adds, there's tourism. "A lot of tour operators don't in- clude Gozo on their schedules, because if they need to meet a tight deadline – for example, a flight at the airport – they know they can't rely on the ferry serv- ice." Gozo's connectivity issues are in fact well-known even in Brus- sels, where the European Com- mission recognises the argument for State subsidies to the Gozo Channel Line. But this, Vella argues, does not address the problem itself. "How long are we going to keep asking for subsidies to address the issue of connectivity? We don't want to play the victims, always moan- ing for government aid. We just want to be Maltese, like all the others." The Gozo Business Chamber yesterday unveiled a feasibility study, authored by economist Gordon Cordina, on various options for a permanent link. It concluded that a sub-seabed tunnel is by far the cheapest and most reliable option, when com- pared to a bridge. At a glance, this does not seem to make much sense. The re- port provides very specific esti- mates for capital expenditure on both scenarios: 800 million for a bridge, and only 300 million for a tunnel. Yet at the same time, this study (like a previous study by Mott MacDonald) also points out that further geological studies are required to determine the cost structure. Isn't that a contradiction? If more studies are required to know the actual cost, how can we be so certain that a tunnel will turn out cheaper? And how did the report arrive at such specific figures anyway, in the absence of the necessary information?" "The report gave three options, not two. And more importantly the tunnel works out cheaper al- so than the ferries," Vella replies. "The first option is to keep the ferry service, which will soon be due to be replaced. In six to eight years' time the current ferries will have to be decommissioned, and new ones bought…" Turning to the computation of figures, he disagrees that there is not enough information. "When you are thinking of do- ing a project, you first look at the high level figures; then, if proven viable, you invest in further stud- ies. The Geological Maps of the Maltese Islands, drawn up by the British in 1955, are detailed enough to tell us where the faults are, and what kind of material exists at various depths. Again, we acted conservatively and de- cided to go 25m deeper just to make sure that we pass through the lower Coralline segment, the same material extracted for aggregates in the Qala quar- ries. You need to avoid passing through soft clay to keep costs down…" The bridge estimates were lift- ed from a study conducted by the China Communications Con- struction Company in 2014 "When it came to the tunnel option, we looked at what has been happening in Norway. It is the country with the largest number of sub-seabed road tun- nels in the world. There are 30 already in operation, and anoth- er 15 under construction. All to- gether Europe has not built half this number. This has been going on since 1985: ironically before we commissioned the present ferries, designed in Norway." Based on Norway's experience, and with adjustments for infla- tion to today, the costs never exceeded €13,670 per running metre: which in Malta's case is equivalent to a maximum of €164 million for a 12km, three- lane, single tube tunnel. "The €13,670/km benchmark is their very worst case scenario imaginable… that is, very poor rock conditions. To be ultra- prudent, we almost doubled it to 300 million…" But cheaper than the ferry serv- ice? How is that possible? Ad- mittedly, the fleet will have to be replaced. Yet how can a project estimate to cost around 300 mil- lion be cheaper than buying (or building) three new ferry boats? "On the level of capital expend- iture, it isn't. The sum required to change all three ferries is 120 million, although the increase in traffic dictates that a fourth ves- sel will be needed. But this was not taken into consideration. It's the operational costs which is the answer. The fuel, wage, mainte- nance and depreciation costs are by far more than that of a tun- nel or even a bridge. Then there is also another cost many tend to ignore. In a few years' time we will have to start paying for the pollution we create. Again the tunnel came out the cleanest. Ships are major pollutants…" What sort of operational costs are we talking about for a tunnel, anyway? I imagine it includes maintenance work on a tunnel situated 100 metres below sea level. Doesn't sound cheap. "Again, we were conservative in our estimates. The Norwegians run their tunnels at not more than 1% of the capital cost per year. These are not estimates, but actual running costs. Taking €300 million as the capital cost, in our case that's a maximum of €3 million a year. We shot this figure up to €9 million, to be ab- solutely on the safe side." Interestingly, he adds that the more time passes, the lower this recurring expenditure becomes in practice. The reason proves to be a little complicated. Vella explains that the pressure of the sea above causes water to invari- ably seep into the tunnel, which in turn must be pumped out. In time, organic growth in the tun- nel rock cover – mostly algae – seals off the fissures and reduces water ingress. "Let's be clear on this, not to cause any misunderstandings. There is no visual water seepage; it all drains behind the lining/ cover of the tunnel circumfer- ence. It drains into channels and is collected in a reservoir at the bottom of the tunnel by gravity, from where it is pumped out. But is this the only maintenance required in a sub-seabed tunnel? Vella shakes his head. "No, there are others. Ventilation, lighting, tolling system, management, stand by emergency crew… the asphalt will also have to be re- placed from time to time…there is also basic maintenance which has to be carried out in non-busy hours. But pumping out water seepage is the one that consumes the most energy, In Norway, for instance, they do it at night, to avail of cheaper night tariffs…." All the same, he insists that these costs are much lower than either ferry or bridge "What emerges from our feasi- bility study is that, yes: even with the most conservative estimates, the tunnel option is most viable and the cheapest option. The government is moving fast on it too. Ferries replacement is im- minent so there is no luxury of time available. At the same time, Vella seems Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2015 Tunnel under troubled My message to Gozitans: It's useless complaining without taking action. For the first time something will be done. Inform yourself with facts, not the hatred of some blogs ACTION I have a right, like all the Maltese do, not to pay to drive through the streets to get to work. Why should a Gozitan pay? That's discrimination, right there DISCRIMINATION 14 Interview