Following a Freedom of Information request filed by Mark Camilleri Gambin on behalf of Momentum, Transport Malta has "finally released a previously undisclosed" Grant Thornton report titled "Report for the Provision of a Scheduled Passenger Fast Ferry Service from Marsascala to Valletta."
The release of this document has confirmed the fears of the Marsaskala Residents Network: the project appears to be a predetermined political move rather than a feasibility-based initiative, the party said.
The Grant Thornton report is dated September 2025. This timeline suggests the government had already committed to the service and planned its launch before the feasibility study was concluded. This chronology validates the concerns raised by Marsaskala residents in early August, who announced their protests against a ministerial decision that had seemingly bypassed the necessary consultative and investigative stages, Momentum said.
While the report attempts to justify the project through demand analysis and projected fuel savings, a review of the document against the original FOI request reveals "glaring omissions regarding environmental safety, infrastructure, and logistical reality".
Mark Camilleri Gambin, Momentum General Secretary stated: "The release of this report has raised more questions than it answers. The timeline discrepancies and the lack of critical data regarding environmental impact, parking logistics, and structural safety suggest a project driven by political will rather than sound planning."
Despite the specific questions submitted in the FOI request, the released report fails to address fundamental concerns regarding the viability and safety of the project, Momentum said.
It lists them as follows:
1. Environmental risk: The report recommends a Small Water-plane Area Twin Hull (SWATH) vessel design. However, it completely fails to address whether this design will require deep dredging of the Marsaskala harbour. The FOI specifically requested studies on environmental impacts, including the seabed and marine species. The report provides no data on the ecological damage dredging could cause to the port's delicate ecosystem.
2. Operational reliability: While the report states the vessel must handle "adverse weather and sea conditions", it offers no calculation of the specific number of days the service would be non-operational due to the exposed nature of Marsaskala bay. This omission leaves the reliability of the service in question for daily commuters.
3. Displacement of locals: The FOI requested studies on the social impact. The report ignores the displacement of amateur fishermen and swimmers, providing no data on how many residents will lose access to the bay's recreational waters due to the ferry fairway.
4. Failure to assess alternatives: The FOI explicitly asked for a comparative study between a direct ferry and a shuttle bus service connecting Marsaskala to the existing Bormla ferry. The report fails to provide this comparison regarding time, efficiency, and public expenditure, ignoring a potentially cheaper and less invasive solution.
5. Traffic calculations and parking chaos: The report claims the ferry will result in 19,875 avoided car trips. However, it bases its demand on commuters driving from neighbouring towns like Żabbar, Marsaxlokk, and Għaxaq to Marsaskala to catch the ferry. The report fails to answer a critical logistical question: where will these cars park? By inviting traffic from surrounding towns, the project risks turning Marsaskala into a congested car park, negating the claimed benefits. A dedicated shuttle bus service is not evaluated.
6. Missing architectural and structural data The FOI requested detailed architectural plans for the terminal and the promenade, as well as records regarding the structural integrity of the damaged promenade. These are entirely absent from the report. There is no evidence provided that the current infrastructure can support the proposed terminal or heavy foot traffic.
7. Missing Marmara survey The FOI specifically requested the results of the survey conducted by Prof. Vincent Marmara. The Grant Thornton report relies on 2021 National Household Travel Survey data and JobsPlus data, with no mention of the specific results from the Marmara survey. The whereabouts and findings of this taxpayer-funded survey remain a mystery.
Momentum said it remains steadfast in its demands for transparency, especially around large projects that have tremendous impact on our localities.
In a statement, the Marsaskala Residents' Network said the report is dated September 2025 - a time when the decision to introduce a fast ferry from Marsaskala had already been publicly announced. This report therefore cannot be considered an independent study determining whether such a service should be introduced from Marsaskala, but rather a document prepared after the political decision had already been taken.
The report presents a feasibility study for a fast ferry departing from Marsaskala and completely excludes the exploration of other localities in the southern part of Malta as alternative departure points - including localities that already have suitable infrastructure to offer such a service, the network said. In Marsaskala, this infrastructure would need to be created from scratch, would involve dredging within the bay, and would inevitably result in negative environmental impacts, including on protected species and habitats - an aspect that is entirely overlooked in the report.
Furthermore, the study neither compares nor explores these alternative localities. Had this been done, it could easily have emerged that it would be more feasible for residents who are said to benefit from this service - namely residents of Marsaxlokk, Birżebbuġa and nearby localities such as Ħal Għaxaq - not to depart from Marsaskala. Likewise, no study was carried out to assess whether it would be preferable to introduce, at the same time, a shuttle service to the Bormla ferry for residents of Marsaskala and Żabbar, which would certainly have offered easy and feasible access.
All this clearly shows that the study was not intended to explore the best possible options, but rather to confirm a position already adopted by the Minister - namely that the fast ferry should depart from Marsaskala - despite the strong opposition this project was facing from Marsaskala residents and Marsaskala Residents' Network. This opposition began to be clearly expressed as early as April 2025 and continued throughout the summer, the statement added.
The study also fails to explore how the decision to locate the ferry terminal in the middle of Marsaskala Bay was taken - in a narrow inlet that does not exceed 200 metres in width - precisely at the point where a designated swimming zone ends and where dredging would be required. No reference is made to the environmental damage that such dredging would cause. No alternative options outside Marsaskala Bay were explored, nor was any study conducted on the traffic impact within Marsaskala that would be generated by people travelling from other localities to use this service.
Although the report mentions the type of vessel to be used (SWATH), it does not clarify what type of energy it will operate on. The report advises that there should be "zero operational emissions", yet it remains unclear whether the vessel will operate on electricity or through a hybrid system - a term that has so far consistently been used in official discourse. Nor does it explain how much fuel or energy will be used by the fast ferry in calm sea conditions and in rough weather. Even if the vessel were to operate 100% on electricity, it must be recalled that electricity in Malta is generated largely from fossil fuels.
On page 27, the report states that this fast ferry would reduce 19,875 trips per year - equivalent to around 54 trips or 27 cars per day removed from our roads - a clearly disappointing figure. In this context, one must ask whether it is true that this fast ferry would lead to a real reduction in emissions in the country, whether operating as a hybrid or even if it were 100% electric, the network said.
The demand study begins by analysing from which localities it would be "convenient" for people to catch the ferry from Marsaskala, since this would be the closest departure point (in the absence of other new departure points along the eastern and south-eastern coast). Residents of Birżebbuġa, Ħal Għaxaq, Marsaskala, Marsaxlokk and Żabbar are identified. However, one cannot assume that all foot passengers who have so far crossed to Gozo via the ferry from Ċirkewwa would be willing to start using the fast ferry from Valletta, when the Valletta ferry is a paid service, while the Ċirkewwa ferry is free for a wide segment of the population, namely the elderly.
The study then assumes that people from these localities who work in Valletta would choose to use the ferry from Marsaskala to reach their destination. This is a flawed assumption. A person travelling to Gozo from Birżebbuġa for an errand, hospital visit or leisure has different reasons and needs from someone commuting daily to Valletta for work. Consequently, it is unrealistic to assume that it would be convenient or practical for residents - especially those from Ħal Għaxaq, Birżebbuġa and Marsaxlokk - to use a ferry from Marsaskala to reach Valletta.
All this clearly shows that demand for the ferry from Marsaskala to Valletta has been artificially inflated by including residents from localities who are far more likely to use other routes and modes of transport. This leads to the conclusion that the primary purpose of this fast ferry is not to serve local communities, but to cater for tourism-related objectives. This is despite the constant discourse about the need to aim for quality rather than quantity in tourism - as the projections on page 27 of the report clearly show that the target will remain an increase in the number of tourists.
Furthermore, the projections regarding increased popularity of the service on page 17 are based on the experience of an inner-harbour service. One must question whether such a comparison is valid, when what is being proposed here is an operation in open sea rather than within a sheltered port.
Finally, this report fails to seriously and responsibly address the negative impacts - including environmental and social impacts - of the fast ferry from Marsaskala, a shortcoming that substantially undermines its credibility as a feasibility study, the network.