Already crowded due to Maltese with a second residence on the island going there for summer breaks, Gozo will soon be overflowing as the traditional destination for holidaymakers over the feast of Santa Marija.
It is easy to guess that one of the topics of conversation, especially as queues of cars wait for the ferry, will be a permanent link between the two islands.
Those who argue in favour of such a link include many who think it will be a means of ensuring that Gozo continues to thrive.
Those who are against the link give the opposite argument – a permanent link would take away Gozo’s identity as an island.
I belong to the latter school of thought. Gozo is a charming place making one almost believe that the legend of Ulysses and Calypso was true – the doughty warrior lingered on the island because he was captivated by it, not just by the beautiful Calypso’s charms.
It is beautiful in its structure, with a hilly topography quite different from that of Malta and a mix of coves and beaches where one can relax as if detached from reality.
It is also beautiful precisely because it is a small island. The sea trip is an experience in itself, which most of those who make it for pleasure appreciate as part of their fun.
Not a few Gozitans will consider that argument as a flight of fancy, an escape from their reality.
It is one thing visiting Gozo for pleasure, on a day or weekend stay, and another thing having to cross daily to work in Malta. The extra distance and the winter moods of the weather and the sea have to be recognised.
It is also a fact that those who think that way ignore the fact that outside our islands, getting to work is often more of an arduous task than crossing the Malta-Gozo divide.
That said, I recognise the fact that the last word about the principle of a permanent link has to be left to those who live permanently in Gozo.
Moving from principle to enactment, however, other considerations come into play. Primarily these concern feasibility and cost.
In terms of physical feasibility it is likely that both a tunnel as well as a bridge connection are feasible, if one allows for the negative effect a bridge would have on the channel sea bed and a tunnel would have both in two-way location as well as disposal of the tons of rock that would have to be tunnelled.
In terms of cost, I am not aware that anyone has come up with a realistic estimate of the alternatives. It might be that the Chinese company that offered to carry out a feasibility study on the bridge alternative will also come up with a financial estimate.
Who am I to put a value on discomfort and other disadvantages Gozitans experience on a daily basis?
An estimate of how much a tunnel would cost, on a like-for-like basis in terms of timing and the present value of money, would be necessary for comparative purposes.
Probably we’re talking huge millions, far more than any other project has cost so far. That estimated cost would have to be seen in terms of the priorities and constraints of the national budget.
Resulting from the estimated cost, the charge to be made for using either a bridge or a tunnel would have to be worked out.
Depending on whether a full charge against capital cost is made, I very much doubt whether the connection can work without tariffs being subsidised, to become a recurrent budgetary outlay.
To my mind, the environmental and financial arguments against a permanent Malta-Gozo connection can be reckoned to outweigh such benefits as might be seen in it.
But then, Gozitans will tell me, who am I to put a value on discomfort and other disadvantages Gozitans experience on a daily basis in view of their dependency on Malta-sourced services and activities?
I concede the point. But the reality of the required financial outlay will make no such concessions.