Closure of the MA-15 at Sant Llorenç: Necessary — but how much burden can the village bear?

Closure of the MA-15 at Sant Llorenç: Necessary — but how much burden can the village bear?

Key question: Is the four-month closure the lesser evil — or does the diversion through narrow lanes bring new risks for residents and traffic?

On the edge of Sant Llorenç, where in October 2018 the Llevant cruelly showed how quickly water can tear away streets and lives, work on the MA-15 bypass has been underway since the end of April. The project foresees widening the bridge and channeling the stream. Authorities cite an investment of nine million euros and speak of increasing the flow capacity from 105 tonnes per second to 500 tonnes per second. At the same time, a roughly one-kilometer section between two roundabouts is planned to be closed for up to four months and traffic diverted through the town center.

On paper that sounds like prevention. On the road it means congestion, noise and additional burden for residential streets, cafés and small shops. On the narrow Carrer de la Vila, where early in the morning the bakery brings the first loaves, there could soon be coaches and delivery vans bumper to bumper. At a street corner a dog barks while a tractor tries to pass a waiting rental car — scenes like these I have seen in recent days when construction vehicles were already unloading material.

Critical points that remain: First, the public presentation lacks a clear traffic concept with reliable figures. How many additional vehicles will pass through the town per hour? Which peak times were modeled, especially during the tourist season? Second, it is unclear how rescue and emergency vehicles will keep their routes if the main axis is blocked. Third, the impact of heavy traffic must be discussed: lorries and feeder vehicles that normally use the MA-15 can cause enormous damage on cobblestones and tight turns — to house façades, to pipelines, and to the residents' quality of life.

Public authorities have announced plans to install protective and traffic safety measures as well as signs for speed control and to coordinate the police. That is necessary but not sufficient. What is missing from the discussions is transparency about the construction phases, about alternative routes for heavy transports, about fixed delivery time windows and genuine involvement of fire brigades and emergency services in test runs.

Concrete, pragmatic measures that could be implemented quickly include: a temporary bypass reinforced only for heavy traffic outside the town center (for example by preparatory strengthening of farm tracks and temporary makeshift bridges), a clear restriction of heavy traffic to defined time windows (at night or very early), and keeping a continuous lane free for emergency vehicles, signed and monitored. Mobile traffic lights and dynamic traffic signs, coupled with a local information page and push messages by SMS for residents, would reduce congestion and uncertainty.

In addition, a phased construction schedule would help: if the bridge works can be planned so that part of the bypass remains open at all times, the burden on the town center would drop dramatically. Night work within noise limit regulations can relieve daytime peak times. And: independent monitoring of air and noise pollution during the closure should be mandatory so that the municipality can intervene and correct in good time.

What has so far hardly been addressed in the public debate is the social dimension: who will pay the consequential costs for residents? Homeowners, shopkeepers and landlords will be affected by loss of sales, damaged façades or lost parking spaces. Shop owners already observe disturbed delivery cycles. A small compensation model, e.g. parking permits or temporary tax relief, would be a sign that the municipality is distributing the burdens fairly.

The background remains serious: the goal of channeling the stream against heavy rain events and redesigning the roundabouts so that they do not retain water is understandable and urgent. The memory of the 2018 disaster justifies swift action. Still, the solution must not mean that people have to bear more risk and stress in their daily lives than necessary.

Conclusion: The closure can make sense if it is not carried out over the heads of the residents. The key question remains: will the construction site protect Sant Llorenç in the long term — or will it shift the problem into the village? Those responsible must now present clear figures, binding alternative routes, a plan for emergency vehicles and compensation measures. Otherwise a protective measure will become an additional burden for the people who live here every day.