The state of the road network, both urban as well as arterial, is subject to endless discussion centred on incessant complaints. Many of our roads are among the worst in the civilised world. They are harmful to our vehicles and a source of discomfort to all those who either drive or travel as passengers.
The network is also a source of danger, not least through not being marked adequately at all, because the bulk of our road signs have either disappeared or are fading away. It was inevitable that the parliamentary debate on the motion for the House of Representatives to approve the Public Transport Authority's financial estimates for 2009 would include various references to the road network - the authority has been given responsible for it.
Winding up the debate the Transport Minister Austin Gatt had some relevant things to say about it all, both in reply to points raise by those who intervened in the discussion as well as in the context of how he saw the overall situation.
Not surprisingly, given the outcome of the European parliamentary elections and the fact that several of his colleagues in the government parliamentary group are understood to have pointed a finger at him over the PN debacle, Minister Gatt obliquely referred to his stance. The government will not give up on the principle of liberalisation, he declared.
He motivated his statement. Open markets, he said, were more efficient from the point of view of investment, and inefficiencies must not be perpetuated. That lies at the core of liberalisation. Minister Gatt is not being criticised for it, but rather for his brusque style as well as for forcing his stand through without being sensitive enough to comments about it, as in the case of the water and electricity tariffs.
That aspect of Minister Gatt's modus operandi lies in the field of pure politics and should not be central to this particular column. My concern here is the light shed and unshed by the minister on the state of the roads and related affairs.
Minister Gatt focused on the finances related to the road network, as he needed to do since there is a long-felt feeling among the general public that we do not get value for money from the substantial outlays spent on road maintenance and building.
The government, said the minister, was budgeting €16 million, with (a further) €18 million to come from the EU for the resurfacing of existing roads. Local contractors, according to Dr Gatt, had shown they could build roads - they had been used by foreign contractors, as in the roads built under the Italian protocol.
The minister opined that there were various reasons for the current state of roads, including past methods of cheap construction. Unless new systems were adopted it would mean continuing to throw good money after bad, he declared. Several roads were simply not coping with traffic and were collapsing.
That is a clear enough description of the situation. But what does the government propose to do about it? Minister Gatt's team of experts has come up with what is known as the Pathfinder project. That, explained the minister, had adopted the example of Portsmouth, with a predetermined length of roads taken on in public-private partnership so that there would be no need to call for tenders every time.
The minister declared that if every road in Malta and Gozo was desired to be on a par with European standards, more must be spent on them. Malta already spent some €35 million a year on road maintenance.
That might well have been a statement of the obvious, but it fell far short of being enough. It matters a lot how much money is allocated to the road network. Yet it is equally important to start off from the premise that funds have to be spent efficiently and give proper value for money. For that to happen the right technology and techniques have to be used. In that regard there was a glaring omission in the roads part of minister Gatt's winding up.
Very recently Andrè Camilleri, an acknowledged and very experienced road expert, contributed an insightful Talking Point to this newspaper. He gave an introduction as to what road building and maintenance should be all about and briefly described how we have been going about it through the years. Architect Camilleri concluded that we are not doing it the right way.
Andre' Camilleri's exposition effectively raised a serious of points which should be taken up one by one and evaluated. I'm sure he could not be exhaustive in the space available to him. Minister Gatt did not refer to the article. I hope he read it, and that the Prime Minister did so as well.
It offers much food for thought. It is not enough to throw money at the road network, whether it is from our taxes or from EU funds. Financial resources have to be spent well and as effectively as could be in the circumstances. It is doubtful that is being done. Mr Camilleri concluded that with the present techniques it will take 100 years to have a proper network in place and, given that good road lasts under 30 years, even that may not be achievable.
Such evaluations cannot be ignored. The government ought to come up with its technical comments as soon as possible.