Environmental concerns now part of planning process for rail in Israel
Haaretz
By Sharon Kedmi
The momentum of the past few years in the laying of infrastructures, to the
unprecedented tune of tens of billions of shekels, has gradually turned Israel
into an effectively smaller and even more accessible country than it was
previously. Hundreds of kilometers of train lines have been laid, connecting
one town to another. En route, they often cross through open areas and have a
detrimental effect on the surroundings. How can the balance therefore be found
between the immense investments in infrastructure and the maintenance of the
values of nature and scenery that some will contend are no less vital to the
common weal than train lines?
That was one of the central questions under discussion last week at a conference
on nature preservation in the face of infrastructure investment, which took
place at Tel Aviv University.
An example of this dilemma is the public argument over the future of the express
train line to Jerusalem, A1, which is destined to cut across nature preserves,
according to Alona Shefer-Karo, the director of Life and Environment, the
umbrella group for the country's non-governmental environmental organizations.
She says that the environmental groups have for years been calling for massive
investments in a rail line to Jerusalem, but today are pondering whether the
ecological price that will be paid for the line's development is not too high.
Many times, she says, there is internal disagreement among the
environmentalists about the order of priorities.
Yeshayahu Ronen, who is in charge of transportation planning in the
Transportation Ministry, says there is no point in claiming that train lines do
not cause harm to the surroundings, but argues that in view of the alternatives,
the lines are the lesser of the evils. Ronen says: "The efforts in this respect
must be focused on finding the right formula, and not on presenting the train
as the enemy of the environment."
One of the most decisive views was expressed by Prof. Eran Feitelson from the
Hebrew University's Federmann School of Public Policy and Government. He said
that the train, like any other form of transportation, is not an end in itself
but rather a means for furthering social objectives. The questions that need to
be asked are what objectives the train is supposed to further, and how these
objectives will be integrated with the objective of preserving nature.
The extent to which railway lines harm nature is not uniform, but rather varies
from line to line. The most problematic lines are those that run through
relatively open landscapes. Therefore the most troublesome lines are those in
the peripheral areas: Beit She'an, the line to Carmiel, the line between
Ashkelon and Be'er Sheva, the Eilat line, and to a lesser extent the new line
to Jerusalem - even though these are the lines which, on the face of it, could
open up new opportunities for the periphery. Projects in which additional lines
are added in parallel to existing lines, like most projects in the center of the
country, are from this point of view less problematic.
>From the point of view of intra-generational equality, the question must be
asked whether the train benefits weaker populations or weaker areas, and if so,
if it is the most effective tool for doing so. As a general rule, the train is
not a cheap means of travel and for the most part it is possible to supply
cheaper means of public transport. In this respect, travel by bus on parallel
lines, such as the route to Be'er Sheva, costs less than the same ride on a
train. This means that the train serves the middle class principally, the
weaker sectors less, with the exception being soldiers, who travel for free.
Feitelson says that Israel is currently investing many billions in a system
whose effectiveness has not been sufficiently tested. On the other hand, it is
possible to determine its effect on nature relatively easily. He believes there
should be a moratorium on additional investments in the more troublesome lines,
in terms of natural resources, until a detailed feasibility study that examines
the effect on the environment is carried out, with the participation of external
experts.
Hanoch Tsoref, who is administers the railway project on behalf of the Jewish
National Fund, says that experience of many years has taught that correct
planning, including with regard to the environmental issues, cuts down on
building time in the long run, and reduces both costs and damage to the
surroundings. Correct planning, not merely with regard to the Jerusalem line,
can be carried out in a short time.
Today, since many billions have been allocated to Israel Railways for immediate
work, there is pressure to start the work even before the necessary planning
stages have been completed.
Surprisingly, the voice of the government office in charge of protecting the
environment has hardly been heard. According to Ephraim Schlein, who heads the
planning division in the Environmental Protection Ministry, the infrastructure
development for railway lines has been accompanied by constant improvement of
the attitude of the planners to environmental considerations.
The upgrading of the Nahal Soreq line, in the area between Beit Shemesh and
Jerusalem, was a good lesson, he says, in a move that did not internalize the
aspects of nature preservation in the planning stages, but today the situation
has changed. "If a few years ago, Israel Railways regarded demands about nature
and the environment with amazement," he says, "today demands for alternatives to
the route, made at an early stage in planning, on the basis of considerations of
nature and environment, are part of the planning process. The landscape aspect
is examined in a professional manner when the lines are being planned."