Oh cry the beloved Gautrain - it seems the legacy of delays is far from being paid to rest as underground water seepage delays the extended service between Joburg and Pretoria. Bombela, the company responsible for building the Gautrain is set to make a joint announcement with the Gauteng province later this week concerning the issue.
I don't think this project has ever really been met with open arms. Can you recall the initial protests over planned routes and the environmental impact way back when it was first being conceptualised at the turn of the millennium?
Yes, as with most crucial eco initiatives, green progress can often take a very, very long time. The adoption of the Kyoto protocol automatically springs to mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm not insinuating that the Gautrain's eco friendliness would in any way dent our reported 12th slot ranking among the world's biggest CO2 emitters. But it's always been posited as one of its main aims, considering it would reduce the daily amount of cars on arguably SA's busiest highway in the province with the most cars per capita.
Ever in the firing line with an equal list of pros and cons, some of us did give a bit of a cheer as operation of its OR Tambo - Sandton line started just in time for the 2010 Soccer World Cup. Collectively, we all breathed a sigh of relief because it actually worked. And works well, if my last trip is anything to go by.
But the latest snag has resulted in a dispute between the Gautrain Management Agency (GMA) and construction company Bombela - delaying the new service of the already R28.1 billion high-speed train.
An estimated 7.8 million litres of water is being pumped out of the Gautrain tunnel between Park station in the Johannesburg CBD and Rosebank every day into Sandspruit. The Department of Water Affairs granted permission for 7.32m litres of water to be pumped out of the tunnel - yet both Bombela and the Gautrain Management Agency have confirmed the agreed amount is currently being exceeded. But what they're not saying is exactly by how much.
In addition to this an environmental impact study meant to have been submitted to the department in March hasn't been received, nor the application for the extended water licence. Which means nobody knows for sure what the effect of this water dumping is in respect of the lowering of the water table or its affects on soil stability in this built-up part of the city.
Judith Taylor, who heads the Sandspruit Committee, paints a murky picture of added pollution all while the river's banks erode due to the added water capacity. She says "Johannesburg Road Agency, who are responsible for the maintenance of the banks [of the river], plea poverty and do nothing. Joburg Water does the same. Consequently, we are left, as communities, with a water source that is becoming a threat to human health and life generally. No proper planning appears to have been done around the issue."
Doesn't it seem ludicrous that reports lament the potential damage to three golf courses in the tunnel's immediate environment ahead of worrying concerns that the quality of water could be affected since traces of grease and oil have been found in Sandton water?
Even more troubling - why is such a precious resource, that many South Africans struggle for every day, being treated like waste and being dumped?
While most complaints about the delay tend to focus solely on the financial or economical drawbacks, what concerns me most are the new ecological factors that are surfacing. I understand millions of rands (an estimated R100-million if the latest reports are to be believed) and probably quite a few egos are on the line here, but I would imagine contaminated water, not to mention drinking water, to be a far bigger concern - even if it does mean delaying the extended service for an additional 10 months, if not a year.
There is no clarity on when the train route will be fully operational. But it all begs the questions - Is a quick-fix to get the train up and running acceptable or should we rather invest in the necessary research to determine the long term effects.
Surely the cost of our progress shouldn't be the very environment it seeks to preserve?
