Tender for breakwater bridge issued

Raymond Sammut

Oct 5th 2009, 19:04

@ victor pulis It probably comes down to funding, and sourcing the funds. The MMA is funding the bridge. They seem to be putting an outlay of around 3M. In return, they get a much improved harbour entrance; giving it better appeal. One has to look at the larger picture, which generates the revenue. There are other enterprises in the maritime sphere of Malta, such as the planned yacht marinas in the Grand Harbour. The forts, not just St Elmo, belong to another sphere, accessing other funding sources. To be honest, I am not familiar with how projects are funded in Malta. The Piano project, for example, is funded purely from Maltese taxes, while the forts could be partially funded from EU sources. I see no reason why the forts couldn't also receive the attention they need, as well. Gatt announced plans for St Elmo only recently. He probably thinks St Elmo is more important than St Angelo, and of course, people can disagree; but he has to start from somewhere. I see no problem with MMA funding the bridge and ensuring that the project starts soon. It should have started in 1949; that's a project 60 years behind.

victor pulis

Oct 5th 2009, 16:09

@Raymond Sammut
'When we look at the fort from the opposite side of the harbour, it actually looks OK. I visited the fort a number of times, and only after we enter through the gate and walk up the narrow curving path we get shocked by what we find.'
The fact that the fort 'looks OK' from the side of the breakwater doesn't make the situation any better.
'Using the logic of 'priority' is in effect saying the bridge will never be re-built, which is unacceptable.'
Priority means doing the most important things first. On the one hand we have a non existant bridge leading to an arm of the breakwater which is not in danger. On the other hand we have a historical fort dating back hundreds of years which is actually crumbling to bits.
Logic dictates that the fort is in more need of looking after than the rebuilding of a bridge which nobody asked for. Besides I can't think how a bridge can be compared to a fort.

Raymond Sammut

Oct 5th 2009, 10:59

@ Galea. L

Presently, it would not be safe, since no bridge is in place. With a fully certified bridge installed, and proper manning, surveillance, lighting and management, we could all have a chance to visit and explore -- even if one has to make a booking for security reasons -- all the way to the lantern, as Mr Cauchi describes. One thing I would like to recommend to Minister Gatt is, that upon completion, a plaque would be placed near the entrance of the bridge on which Dun Karm's sonnet is inscribed. That would encourage us to read, just as we did at prep, and to pay some thoughts to those who perished at this historical site and to those Maltese fishermen who got hit by friendly fire -- prior to the expected arrival of the daring 16 (from memory).

Galea. L

Oct 5th 2009, 09:48

"Mr Carmel had the privilege to walk across the original bridge and along the historical breakwater. All of us should have the opportunity to do just that."

Only if rules are changed Mr Sammut, because presently no one can go there due to security (terrorism) reasons. Anyone trying to go there will find himself going back on an AFM patrol boat.

Raymond Sammut

Oct 5th 2009, 02:27

@ victor pulis

I think the gap captures more attention. When we look at the fort from the opposite side of the harbour, it actually looks OK. I visited the fort a number of times, and only after we enter through the gate and walk up the narrow curving path we get shocked by what we find. Since the war, the fort had received substantial amounts of work, but no ongoing maintenance. I never saw public-works people there, but I used to see some fifteen of them loafing around at Buskett. The least they could do for the fort is to free it up from all the unsightly and harmful vegetation, and rescue it from the atrocities of the British services.

The bridge is a maritime project funded separately by the MMA. This will be the first time since the Italian attack that anything will have been done. It's truly a shameful disgrace. Mr Carmel had the privilege to walk across the original bridge and along the historical breakwater. All of us should have the opportunity to do just that. Using the logic of 'priority' is in effect saying the bridge will never be re-built, which is unacceptable.

victor pulis

Oct 4th 2009, 19:06

@Raymond Sammut
If as you say the first thing tourists see as they enter harbour is the gap, the second 'thing' they see is surely crumbling fort St. Angelo. Now which of these two sites do you think captures the more attention? Which of these two should be a priority? The gap is not in danger of becoming wider while the fort is in danger of becoming a heap of rubble. How many tourists do you think will take the walk round Valletta to cross over to the break water (if they're allowed that is?) The only people to benefit from this extravagant waste of money would be perhaps some fishermen with their rods and this only in calm weather. We must get our priorities right before it's too late.

lgalea

Oct 4th 2009, 19:02

c. camilleri
The chapter was only closed due to the hatred perpetrated by the PN throughout the years and because the eu wanted to eliminate competition to its mainland shipyards.

Pule' Carmel

Oct 4th 2009, 18:40

When young I played on that breakwater often, I run along the tunnel in it. The top flat surface It is long enough and wide enough for a small STOL ( short take off and landing) aircraft to fly from it. I saw the aircraftcarrier Ark Royal launching Sea Hawks while she was anchored near Bighi and these planes just skimmed the breakwater. I learnt about phase velocity and group velocity in signal transmission by noting how waves reflect on the sides of that breakwater.
If I was responsible of the whole issue, I would have made the Mgarr harbour in Gozo much larger by starting the breakwater more towards Xlendi Bay whereby the breakwater would have been longer, hence the top of the breakwater would have been flattened and used as a runnway to link Gozo more safely . That would have been land reclamation in time which now we cannot afford to do.

Raymond Sammut

Oct 4th 2009, 18:06

@ Pule' Carmel

Lucky it's not hovering over the water. That would have made it a relative of Tardis.

Pule' Carmel

Oct 4th 2009, 17:52

The two original pillars are not still standing. Only one is. The other was knocked over and is lying beneath the surface of the water nearby.

Raymond Sammut

Oct 4th 2009, 17:46

This bridge, like the Opera House, has been long overdue. The pillars are 'scheduled', meaning that they have historical significance and will be retained. I disagree with those who argue that the project will not have 'economic benefit'. Malta's major industry is tourism, and the first thing tourists --who reach Malta via the Grand Harbour-- see is the 'disconnected' breakwater. From my own seafaring experience, having seen first hand so many harbours around the world, this breakwater is nothing less than a magnificent piece of maritime engineering. The bridge will give this masterpiece the completion it deserves -- both for its beauty and dignity, and also for being such a big money earner (in economics terms, it is called 'opportunity cost'); by my reckoning, far more than the 2.8M Gonzi will be spending.

One of my personal delights when in Malta is to go for a walk around Valletta's bastions. I recall with sorrow every time I climbed those 'zonqor' steps only to look at that fateful gap. It reminds me of Dun Karm's sonnet, and makes me angry at how quickly we forget. My opinion is that whoever wins the next election, Gatt should be retained as minister.

c. camilleri

Oct 4th 2009, 17:41

@ l galea Pls stop dreaming. The dockyard workers have had their chances for many yrs but they always failed because the dockyard was always considered as political tool rather than a commercial entity by both the LP and GWU. At long last it is a close chapter which people of your political inclination should do well not to bring it back again.

c. camilleri

Oct 4th 2009, 17:30

I am sure that the company losing the tender will protest and contest the result in our courts. Of causing a lot of unnecessary delay.

Nigel Lawrence

Oct 4th 2009, 16:00

but a tender for the reconstruction of the €2.8 million--

Even more of Gonzi PN arrogance, throwing away money on a completely insignificant project with no actual function but decorative and GonziPN ego tripping.

Duska Malesevic

Oct 4th 2009, 15:16

2,8 million euros? For what? The reconstruction of a bridge that once stood there? And what it will be used for? Having a nice view of the entrance to the Harbour? We can still have that view even without blocking sailing boats with a high must from passing from there.
Interesting that the Government is giving it such a priority.
Also interesting that MMA has so much money on its disposal for projects that are purely estetic.

Paul Barrett

Oct 4th 2009, 14:56

@ Rocco Cauchi
If I remember correctly from a previous article on this project, members of the public would be allowed to go onto the bridge but not the breakwater - hence my comment, a bridge to nowhere.
With a mounting deficit it does appear to be an unnecessary expense at this difficult time as I personally can see no practical, social or financial benefit.

victor pulis

Oct 4th 2009, 14:02

Who knows? perhaps the workers constructing the bridge will have a grandstand view of St. Angelo's imminent collapse. This is a typical example of warped priorities and waste of money. Who in heaven's name asked for this bridge to nowhere to be built when we have a monument like St. Angelo falling to pieces?

James Dimech

Oct 4th 2009, 13:20

@lgalea

of course the shipyard workforce is the most flexible on the planet ! Had we given them this project, it would have been infested with GWU interference, politics, would have cost MMA triple, would have taken triple the time and would have been a loss making venture for the shipyards. A success it would have been!

Franco Farrugia

Oct 4th 2009, 12:35

While it is certainly an embellishment, I would have put it at a lower priority at the moment. But it's just my opinion.

lgalea

Oct 4th 2009, 11:51

Burning money away when we are in dire need in other sectors such as health, education, old peoples homes etc.

This also shows the hatred for the Shipyard workers who could have easily made the required structure but hatred perpetrated throughout the years by the PN for the Shipyards workers knew no bounds.

Ftakru li Alla ma jhallasx bin-nhar ta' Sibt.

Jimmy Magro

Oct 4th 2009, 11:47

The failure in governance applies to this project too. Where is the vision of this project?

Tender issued within one month and then it comes seven months late!

Another typical project based on wastage of taxpayers' money and with negative value for money - there are no social or economic benefits.

Rocco Cauchi

Oct 4th 2009, 11:44

"The original pillars are still standing and are scheduled, which means they cannot be touched."
Reading between the lines, does it really mean that the two rusty pillars and underlying concrete base are too "precious" in our eyes as to make us lose the full aesthetic view of the new bridge, or that government is unwilling to spend more than e2.8 million on this project? An experienced demolition blaster would remove the relic in no time at minimal cost.
While at it, once we have now joined Europe, why all this fuss about old-time memories? The Opera House ruined by a German bomb comes to mind, and now the Italian-torpedoed breakwater bridge? Or may we already be thinking about post-EU Europe when each country goes its separate ways again?
A bit of memory of yonder times. Families used to cross over the bridge and walk all the way to the lantern during their Sunday afternoon walk before WWII. Would walking over the breakwater now be still possible, for free?

Paul Barrett

Oct 4th 2009, 11:27

Money to burn? This does appear to be an awful lot of money for a bridge that goes nowhere and does nothing useful.

J. Mercieca

Oct 4th 2009, 11:26

In my opinion 2.8 million Euros could be put to better use - health care services, road infrastructure, just to mention a couple.