The Gozo-Malta tunnel idea is supported mainly by some businesses in Gozo that regularly import materials from Malta, by Gozo-residents attending daily work, college or university in Malta and by some people who are bothered by a 20-minute sea-trip in inclement weather.
Accepting that these people have genuine and valid reasons for wanting the tunnel, and assuming the construction of the tunnel is feasible, there are questions that must be answered before the idea is responsibly acted upon.
One question is whether a tunnel is really necessary, whether it would help these people substantially and is truly beneficial for the country. Another question is: what is involved in the building and long-term maintenance of the tunnel?
An under-sea connection between the two islands may appear to be convenient, but is it truly necessary and would it solve the purported problems? The distance between the two islands is a mere seven kilometres and is covered easily by a safe 25-minute cruise. With relatively clear roads, it should take about 40 minutes to drive from Ċirkewwa to the conurbation further south.
If waiting to board the ferries is a problem, the frequency of trips could be increased; if three ferry boats are not enough, a fourth one could be acquired and a shuttle service established round the clock.
The real problem for commuters from Gozo is not so much the ferries but the vehicle congestion and hold-ups in Malta. The proposed tunnel would not solve the Gozitans’ problem if it just leads them straight into obstructive mainland traffic congestion. Failing elimination of the intractable traffic problem, the provision of additional fast ferry services from Gozo to St Paul’s Bay, Marsamxett, Grand Harbour and Birżebbuġa would solve the problem that the tunnel would not solve.
Before the tunnel is authorised, unhurried due diligence studies in planning an enterprise of such magnitude is essential to anticipate and calculate the technical and environmental problems involved in the construction and subsequent maintenance of the structure.
One has to undertake reliable geological and seismological studies, consider in detail the technical difficulties and overall cost of the project, including the engineering demands, experienced manpower requirements and the proper disposal of millions of tons of material excavated.
The depth of the sea to be traversed and the minimum acceptable inclines may demand extending the tunnel beyond the coast to end well inland on each island. Apart from danger to the workers during construction, there is the possibility of damage to aquifers and to archaeological artefacts. Several ventilation shafts would be required and their placement carefully selected.
One obvious question is: where would all the tons of dug-out material be deposited? If the material is placed on land, Malta will have another ‘mount’, possibly higher and wider than Magħtab, with unaffordable loss of precious land area; if it is dumped in the sea, it will cause irreversible environmental damage to marine life and the diving industry; using it to reclaim land would not make it more environmentally acceptable, unless it is sensibly utilised to construct the projected breakwaters in Marsalforn and Marsaxlokk, and another breakwater to enlarge the Mġarr harbour for the purpose of enhancing berthing facilities for the projected fast ferries.
Hotels in Gozo would lose custom because people from the mainland would use the tunnel for fleeting visits instead of spending several days there
This enormous undertaking must not go ahead before such serious studies are completed by professional experts who have no vested private interests in the project, followed by discussions between the government and the informed public.
It is alarming to learn that calls for tenders may soon be out without detailed information having been reported to the concerned public regarding the many serious implications and possible permanent deleterious effects of the construction of this 14-kilometre tunnel under sea and land. A project of such magnitude and consequence imposes a heavy responsibility on those who push it through any phase of its planning, construction and permanent maintenance.
In the long term, the tunnel may become a burden to the country as a whole in terms of unrelenting expensive power demands, repairs, physical hazards and staffing problems. Once the tunnel is ready and functioning, continuous monitoring and maintenance by dedicated workers, trained in engineering and civil protection, is essential for the safety of the structure and its users.
The stress on the electricity power grid and the expense of power supply will be severe because the tunnel would require constant lighting, ventilating, water suction, surface maintenance and repairs throughout its existence. One wonders if an estimate has yet been made of the long-term cost of the continuous and permanent electric power supply and manpower needs required for this 14-kilometre-long tunnel.
It is anticipated that the tunnel could be harmful to Gozo. It would remove the advantages inherent in Gozo’s insularity and risk the loss of its profitable claim as a region in Europe and as an independent diocese.
If the tunnel becomes a reality, little Gozo will be constantly invaded by hordes of visiting cars from the mainland, increasing the already existing road congestion, air pollution, parking problems and littering.
As a result, Gozo will be spoiled like several overcrowded, noisy holiday places in Malta, and it will cease to be the peaceful island where one could happily reside or experience a pleasant visit in a healthy environment. The island could lose its attractiveness to foreign tourists, settlers and the Maltese themselves.
The hotels and other accommodation businesses in Gozo would lose custom because people from the mainland would use the tunnel for fleeting visits, just for a day or an evening, instead of spending several days there. It must be emphasised that such changes are likely to be progressive and irreversible.
Accidents will happen, and the tunnel will make them more critical than they would be in open ground. In a tunnel, it takes very little for a tragedy to occur. The presence of just one person under the influence of alcohol or other drugs is a potential hazard that would demand the checking of every vehicle and driver before they enter the tunnel, a safety measure impossible to maintain effectively for more than a short time.
If the proposers think that the tunnel will be a straight, empty road through which they will whizz in 10 minutes and arrive at their destination in good time, they need to be more thoughtful and less naïve. I dare predict a 14-kilometre queue of slow-moving, smoking vehicles, including huge lorries and laden trucks, driven in polluted air by frustrated, partly claustrophobic drivers. On exiting the tunnel, drivers from Gozo are likely to get stuck in Malta traffic jams and any travel time they gain through using the tunnel would be neutralised.
Eventually and typically, after the initial euphoria of the tunnel’s inauguration fades with time, an anti-climax may happen, people will begin to begrudge the toll charges and prefer to travel by boat: back to square one!
In conclusion, I believe that the problem the tunnel is supposed to solve is not the Gozo ferries’ waiting time, but the excessive number of motor vehicles on the road, the inadequate road infrastructure and traffic management and people’s reluctance to use public transport. It is likely that this tunnel would not solve these intractable, underlying problems and, in the long run, it would do more harm than good.
However, having said all the above, I should add that if the construction of the tunnel is eventually approved, it should be designed to be used exclusively by either non-polluting electric vehicles (as was recently suggested in this newspaper), or by an electrically powered train connected to a rail system in Malta (as was suggested by the Gozo Tourism Association and others).
The objections to a “monorail” system that appeared in this paper on January 23 – that one would have to go back to the drawing board and delay the project, and that such a system would cost much more than a basic road – indicate that not all possibilities were considered in planning this mammoth project, as due diligence would demand.
There seems to be an unholy urgency to start digging and my message is to beware the Maltese proverb: Il-qattusa għaġġelija frieħ għomja tagħti (A cat in a hurry is likely to produce blind kittens).
John B. Pace is a retired Gozitan consultant surgeon and past administrator of Gozo Hospital.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece