The Times' claims that (some) engineers are worried about the quality of the resurfacing works hurriedly carried out on roads coinciding with the itinerary of His Holiness was countered by Transport Malta's public relations manager Daniela Borg Mizzi (April 12).

Engineers are very necessary when roads are being rebuilt and rerouted; but for resurfacing?

What road resurfacing needs are internationally established standards of practice with the right choice of materials, how these are applied, and adequate and objective supervision by Transport Malta. An engineer is necessary to determine if areas of subsidence should be attended to before resurfacing is applied.

I ask Ms Borg Mizzi if best resurfacing practices include material recycled from the old road surfaces. What means were used, during recent hurried roadworks, to ensure the material used in creating the new surfaces contained the right grade of bitumen and aggregate quality and mix? Could Ms Mizzi convey what are the standards when applying hot tar or bitumen to the open subsurface as a requisite for adequate adhesion of the top layer? Are the resurfacing works carried out in the past few weeks bound by a quality and durability guarantee clause, or have these clauses been waived? The resurfaced roads are documented as the Pope's published itinerary. We will see if these surfaces last even four out of the five years before needing attention.

There is no doubt that there has been improvement in the rate and quality of road rebuilding in the past decade. They are also of a standard never yet seen before. Yet if a rebuilt road needs to be redone every 25 years, should not a schedule of road rebuilding have been started at the yearly rate of six kilometres of arterial roads and 16 kms of residential or distributor roads? The rate is substantially lower and no, as motorists and taxpayers we do not realistically expect to have all the 150 kms of arterial roads and 400 kms of other roads completed within one or two years.

This is no excuse not to embark on a guaranteed yearly rate of rebuilding as I have suggested. The prohibitively high expense of €700 million (last year, Ms Borg Mizzi's director said it would cost a billion) to complete all the roads is no excuse either. A 25-year cycle of road building would cost less than €40 million annually. This amount is a fraction of the €150 million skinned from motorists from various vehicle and fuel-related taxes. The authorities, unfortunately, have recognised that Malta's dilapidation of its roads (and its heritage) have become an asset and a motive to attract EU funds.

Motorists are a good source of revenue to finance all sorts of social and non-social government expenditures. To say that there is no funding to do the roads has become a lame excuse. All we ask as some of the highest taxed motorists in the EU (proportionate to PPS) is to fence in the required funding from all road vehicle-related revenue. Since our shoddy roads are also the result of our road builders' practices, a reasonable fee for their services should be based only on audited expenses.