The boring of tunnels for the proposed metro will produce an estimated 10 million tons of construction waste, equivalent to almost 1.5 million truckloads, a Times of Malta exercise has found.

The 4.9 million cubic metres of waste is five times greater that estimated for the Malta to Gozo tunnel, which is projected to produce one million cubic metres of waste if carried out. Land reclamation is one of the options to dispose of the construction waste.

The calculation is based on an estimate provided by international experts appointed by Transport Malta to conduct a technical study for a proposed metro. Arup was appointed as consultant in December 2016.

It is a pity that we aim to build a mega expensive underground without having built the interim infrastructure to support it.

In its consideration on the best transport system, Arup considered five options: a bus rapid transit, a surface tram, the proposed underground light metro, an elevated light metro, and a combined system with an underground light metro and a surface tram.

Each of the modes were then assessed under certain criteria which included capital and operational costs, the reliability and quality of public transport, and the impact on existing transport networks.

The underground light metro option was chosen as the preferred one because according to the consultants’ assessment, an underground light metro option represented the most advantageous mass rapid transit mode option, notwithstanding its high capital costs, estimated at around €6 billion.

The proposed underground light metro system is concentrated within the principal urban area to provide an integrated public transport network in the densest part of Malta. However, Arup warned that the current bus network would need to be reorganised to feed directly into the metro system.

It said this may require the employment of smaller buses servicing the network in a more frequent manner. The existing bus system would be replaced with a combination of regional and local bus routes and there would no longer be a concentration of bus services outside the city gates in Valletta and at Mater Dei.

Based on the conceptual ground models, excavation support measures are likely to consist of sprayed concrete and rock bolts for station caverns and tunnels. A minimum depth of 10 metres is proposed.

Platforms will be 45 metres long and the trains will have a maximum operational speed of 90 kilometres per hour.

Following the presentation of the initial concepts and designs, the next steps includes further technical studies, including economic, geological and environmental impact studies.

Experts demand more studies

Prof. Maria Attard, one of Malta’s leading urban transport academics, believed that the potential for a mass transit system is major, but monorail and underground metro systems exceed their “potential and limitations”.

Speaking to Times of Malta, Attard questioned the €6 billion price tag, saying costs of such mega projects are usually heavily underestimated in the preliminary stages and are therefore “conservative”. Since the studies do not include ones related to geology and the environment, the true cost cannot be estimated.

She said some of the alternatives were dismissed because of landscape impact. “If the bus is ugly, how much uglier are endless queues of cars stuck in congestion,” she asked.

She questioned why the metro option was chosen when there were “low hanging fruits” such as a rapid bus transit, which can be implemented over a very short period of time and would improve connectivity on already existing bus corridors.

The twin tunnel configuration suggested by consultants for Malta’s underground metro system, each with a single track.

“It is a pity that we aim to build a mega expensive underground without having built the interim infrastructure to support it.”

She asked if any consideration had been given to the fortifications that lie beneath the stops in sensitive areas such as outside Valletta or Cottonera while the only green lung in Birkirkara should not be sacrificed to build “a sterile looking underground station”.

She said she would be happy to contribute to the national debate once the studies are published and more studies undertaken. “I think Malta can become a place where such a system may exist in the future, but first we need to start looking at upgrading the infrastructure we have, and then decide whether we need the underground.”

Construction magnate and hotelier Angelo Xuereb, who had also proposed his own version of a monorail, said his primary concern on the published plans was that the metro stations were placed in the heart of towns and villages rather than the periphery where one could accommodate cars for those choosing to travel on the metro.

The periphery would also attract larger number of commuters, while retaining stations in the village squares would require more feeder buses, possibly creating a congestion of such buses in village squares.

Writing in today’s Times of Malta, architect Konrad Xuereb, who was one of the first to propose a metro system, said he was pleased his proposal was finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.

He suggested that the inert waste produced could be used for land reclamation to form a nature reserve, complemented by an offshore wind farm or a solar farm, with the renewable energy created connected to the grid.

Questions sent to Transport Malta on how Arup company was chosen and how much it was paid for its technical study remained unanswered by the time of writing.