Metro feasibility study vague on alternative options assessment

A feasibility study for the Malta metro includes very scant information on an ‘option assessment’ which led government to discard other mass transit options, namely a rapid bus transit system, a surface tram, an underground light metro, an elevated light metro and a combined system with an underground metro and a surface tram. 

The feasibility report only includes a table which simply ticks the advantages and disadvantages of the various options, but gives no details on the cost of each option or any explanation on the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Neither is the amount of excavated waste created by each option assessed.

The table indicates that the metro is the most expensive option with capital and operational costs marked as a “major disadvantage”.  Its impact on natural environment is also listed as a “minor disadvantage”.

On the other hand, the impact of metro on the landscape, network integration, transport user safety, population catchments, the existing transport networks are listed as a major advantage.

And the major advantage of a bus rapid transit system or a surface tram are their impact on the environment and their relatively low capital cost.

But both options score low on their impact on the existing transport network. The major disadvantage of an elevated metro is its visual impact.

The combination of an underground and elevated metro has no major disadvantage according to the study but the underground metro scores higher over a combined option as regards its impact on existing traffic network.

A timeline published last week states that the “options assessment” was held in February 2017 but it is unclear whether the exercise was limited to a table listing the advantages of each option or whether detailed studies were conducted assessing each option. 

Annual net cost of €43 million, investment breaks even after 37 years

According to the study published by ARUP, it is estimated that the metro investment breaks even after 37 years.

The total estimated cost of the full network is estimated to amount to €4,306 million with an annual net cost of €43 million.

The calculated benefit to cost ratio is of 1.4, which would mean that for each €1 invested, €1.40 is expected to be generated long-term. In contrast, the London Crossrail in the UK has a cost-benefit ratio of 2 and the Gozo-Malta permanent link is of 1.1.

Public transport share up to 22%

After the construction of Phase 1, public transport use is expected to increase by 16%, with the full metro achieving a public transport mode share of 22%, up from the current 17%.

It is estimated that with the full metro network running in 2050, there will be 15 million less cars on the road, and 10 million more public transport users.

10 million tonnes of excavated rock and 700kwh per hour to be consumed

Around 10 million tonnes of rock will be generated after the excavation works, with Phase 1 generating around 5.8 million tonnes.  A reference to land reclamation has been made in the study as the potential reuse of the waste reuse.

Energy consumption is estimated to be in the region of 700kwh per hour. Due to the hot climate of Malta, the study emphasises the need of a cooling system, with a chiller room for station platforms.

Ħal Far depot preferred option over Ta’ Qali 

The study evaluated the area of Ta’ Qali for the construction of a depot between stations in Mosta and Attard. Due to the sensitivity of the area, Ħal Far would be the preferred area, with the depot being built between the current raceway and the industrial area.

Around 13-15 hectares (130,000-150,000sq.m) of area is estimated to be taken. Should the Ħal Far depot be chosen, the metro line would have to be extended, with the continued construction of tunnels under airport and then rise to the surface to access the depot area.

READ MORE: Three-line Metro system proposed for national discussion