The debate on the tunnel/bridge to Gozo has been couched in terms of Gozo’s economic isolation as against environmental impact.

The 2010 Mott-MacDonald Report concludes that the tunnel is economically viable, and the best of the options explored.

These options are, however, not all the options available.

Some other issues need to be addressed before we take any facile decisions.

It has to be acknowledged that the isolation of Gozo has a significant socio-economic impact on its residents.

There are issues of employment opportunities for young people, as well as a magnification of the insularity problems that also beset Malta.

But it has to be acknowledged that this same isolation has resulted in the Gozo as we know it today.

Gozo’s isolation explains why there is a general hospital, a university campus, a dedicated ministry or parliamentary secretariat, a court, a diocese, and even why there are specific shops and services.

None of these particular facilities can be found in any other ‘isolated’ part of Malta, not in the northernmost regions nor in the southernmost.

In spite of anybody’s promises, the removal of relative isolation will also remove the justification for these facilities or services.

The argument that providing a permanent link will encourage industrial investment also needs to be looked at critically. Mellieħa and Marsascala are both permanently linked to the centre of Malta, but in neither location is there any queue (or desire) for industrial investment.

Any industrial activity interested in export or distribution needs to be located close to the primary export nodes, namely the airport and the harbours.

When industrial activity is so located, almost inevitably, so are residential areas, and consequently, all the amenities that are required for urban and social life.

This has always been the pattern of development everywhere in the world, and there is no reason to think that it should be different in Malta and Gozo. One might even argue that, with a permanent link, the process of abandonment of the ‘fringes’ is facilitated and not impaired.

The Mott-MacDonald Report calculates that a crossing will be reduced by 17 minutes, but that, overall, trips from, say, the airport, would be reduced by up to 72 minutes.

This assessment takes into account the much faster travel time across the Channel, from 25 minutes to about eight minutes, and the avoidance of waiting time on the quays.

However, this assumes that vehicles will travel at 80kph – the crossing will take longer if the speed limit is set at, say, 35kph, as it is in many tunnels, and as it surely will be at the entrance and exit zones.

The problem is that a tunnel perpetuates dependence on the private vehicle; and this mode of thinking is no longer sustainable in Malta

Waiting time is then calculated on the assumption of an infrequent schedule of 1.5 hour intervals. This is a very blinkered view of the whole trip.

The Mott-MacDonald report ties the economic viability of the tunnel to traffic growth, in proportion to GDP growth.

However, even this model only generates sufficient recurrent income to make up for management and maintenance costs, and will not make up for the capital investment, even with tolls which are twice current ferry fees, or more.

Herein lies the crunch. Vehicular traffic in Malta may really increase in line with GDP, but the current road infrastructure is not coping, and is therefore a drag on economic productivity.

2010 data shows that Gozitan residents bought an average of 1,200 to 1,400 passenger tickets a day, with negligible seasonal variation, compared to total daily ticket sales varying from 2,000 in January to 6,000 in August.

Nearly half of this daily traffic consisted of foreign tourists. Vehicular traffic has a different pattern: 600-900 Gozitans buy vehicle tickets per day, with minimal seasonal variation, as compared to 900 to 1,800 total daily vehicle tickets.

The economic model envisages that an annual average of 1,500 daily vehicles will increase to 2,300 by 2021, and 3,000 by 2031. Possibly.

But what will happen to road congestion between the tunnel entry/exit points and the centres of production, export or administration?

Using the same model, in August, 6,000 daily vehicular crossings will increase to 9,200 in 2021, and 12,000 in 2031.

Unfortunately, the report does not address what happens when this high level of traffic starts to negatively affect those who might choose to travel to and from Gozo, as against those who have to. Will the volume of “leisure” passengers not be affected by the increase in traffic volume, and hence congestion?

The Mott-MacDonald report makes no mention of the impact of public transport. Traffic congestion has reached levels where most people agree on the need for better modes of public transport.

Above-ground rapid transit systems are much less expensive than underground systems.

A recent study (vide maltarail.org) has explored potential costs per kilometre for a nation-wide system, and potential journey times and frequency of service.

Typically, a trip from Buġibba to Valletta via an overground mono-rail train would take 18 minutes, with trips leaving Buġibba potentially every 15 minutes, even with one train.

If this system, extended to Ċirkewwa, were available to Gozitans, who currently depend on unreliable buses, would so many of them cross over with their cars?

And if they did not cross over with their cars, could there not be much more frequent passenger-only boat trips?

The trip could effectively start and end in Gozo, and this could apply, in reverse, to many Maltese and foreign visitors to Gozo.

This type of trip could be more productive, for example with on-board wifi allowing people to work whilst travelling, and more comfortable (breakfast, anybody?)

The problem is that a tunnel perpetuates dependence on the private vehicle; and this mode of thinking is no longer sustainable in Malta.

The investment in a better public transport system has to start now.

A smart public transport system represents public money better spent – and the result may obviate the very need fora tunnel.

So let us not put the cart before the horse.

Alex Torpiano is dean of the Faculty for the Built Environment, University of Malta.