The latest episode in the Kappara junction saga is the news that after reviewing the results of the Environment Impact Statement submitted by Transport Malta, Mepa’s own Environment Protection Directorate (EPD) has insisted that Mepa should stick to the original plans that involve the widening of the already-existing road and slightly encroaches in the scheduled Wied Għollieqa, thus discarding the latest option that practically involves the construction of a completely new road parallel to Triq Tas-Sliema and running through Wied Għollieqa.
No decision that fully satisfies everyone is possible- Michael Falzon
I wonder how many people following the news realise what the difference between the two options implies. There are essentially two options (and some variations of them) because after Transport Malta made its formal proposal by submitting a Mepa application for the necessary works, a group of residents living in the upper part of Kappara had not only objected to the works but had even proposed an alternative to Transport Malta’s scheme; hence the second option or variations thereof.
Their objection was mainly the result of the proposed upper level of the road being at eye-level with their residences – with drivers literally snooping at the windows overlooking onto their backyards! Their decision to follow their protest with the submission of a practical alternative that overcomes their objections is a rare example of civic responsibility and is to be commended. One would then have thought that the problem was solved. Not so.
After the plans for the second option submitted officially to Mepa were made public, the claim that the second option involves the destruction of over 300 trees in Wied Ghollieqa prompted sixenvironmental NGOs to issue a joint statement expressing their objection to it.
While acknowledging that Kappara junction needs to be upgraded, the NGOs even pontificated that “no studies have been carried out to assess the effect of the increase in traffic that it will generate within residential areas”, and also put in a word or two on behalf of the residents of the lower part of Kappara and Gżira who are definitely against the second option. One particular NGO head went on to claim that they represented the interest of the public.
The Gżira local council then entered the fray by filing an official objection to the project – i.e the second option – submitted to Mepa by Transport Malta with the Gżira mayor saying that the council is advised (by whom?) that Transport Malta and Mepa should consider the proposals in their wider context, namely the impact upon the traffic footprint.
I have no qualms with people objecting to development proposals on realistic planning and environmental grounds. Indeed, I have had more than a hand in giving this right to citizens when the Planning Authority was set up. But some statements made by objectors seemed out of place. The junction improvement is necessary and long overdue, as anyone trying to drive round the existing roundabout during rush hours can confirm.
The improvement should be aimed at easing the existing traffic flow. The possibility that this improvement will increase the traffic in residential areas is a red herring – the sort that some NGOs are fond of producing, even when their objections are otherwise sensible.
In this case, the interest of the public and the interest of Transport Malta are essentially the same: there should be no doubt that Transport Malta is proposing the junction improvement for the benefit of the common good. Claiming that an NGO’s interest is also the public interest is silly and presumptuous; again obfuscating what could be a reasonably justified objection.
The truth is that for the volume of traffic that passes every day through that particular junction, there is no real solution other than a multi-level intersection and whatever version of this solution is adopted, there are bound to be negative side effects. Trying to think of other solutions that shift the existing traffic bottleneck at the junction to another node in the road system is short-sighted and blatantly amateurish. Shortening the daily travel period of so many commuters means enormous economic and environmental pluses that far outweigh any other disadvantages. Even so, these must be the minimum possible.
Mepa is in the unhappy position that it has to consider not accepting the advice of its own EPD. This input should be considered solely on its own merits and not considered to be of more value than that of Transport Malta or of other entities just because the EPD is part of Mepa.
In truth, this is yet another circumstance that exposes the folly of the merger between what used to be the Planning Authority and what used to be the Environment Protection Department: a decision that I have consistently criticised from day one.
It is Mepa’s remit to consider and weigh the different negatives in the different options and to find the best compromise by deciding which is the option that keeps these setbacks to a minimum. After Mepa’s decision is taken, there will be some who will be satisfied while others will feel short-changed.
No decision that fully satisfies everyone is possible.
micfal@maltanet.net