Proper planning and citizen participation as prerequisites for the … · 2014-05-19 · Proper planning and citizen participation as prerequisites for the successful design of a

Proper planning and citizen participation as prerequisites for the successful design of a modern tramway system: lessons learnt from the Athens Tramway example

E. C. Matsoukis1 & C. Ambakoumkin2

1Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Greece 2National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Abstract

The modern tramway, as a means of transport, has several advantages. The main objectives of the planning process consist of indicating its merits in every specific application and reducing its demerits. A successful result requires avoiding any omissions in the planning process, while it is also necessary to solve any technical problems, related to the feasibility of the application and its consequences, at the early stages of the planning process. Moreover, the participation of citizens at the early stages of the planning process is of great importance for the success of the final result and for the reduction of the contrasts. The citizen participation is especially necessary since for most of them, the tram is a new means of transport that they are not familiar with. The planning team is a team of experts that investigate the various issues and the technical problems and should not confuse its role with the decision power of the citizens who will fund, benefit from and suffer the consequences of each application. The present paper focuses on the above-mentioned topics in relation to the Athens New Tramway System. This was introduced in order to serve passengers during the Athens Olympics 2004; this system, which is under construction, however, faced severe criticisms and the great reaction of people of neighboring areas. Keywords: tramway systems, planning process, citizen participation, the Athens Tramway System.

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-720-5The Sustainable City III, N. Marchettini, C. A. Brebbia, E. Tiezzi & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

1 Introduction

Trams have a breadth of characteristics. In a recent International Conference [1], a distinction was already made in Simple Tramways and Surface Metro Systems. The distinction in at least two types can also be found in the literature [2]. This distinction is based on operational as well as infrastructure characteristics. In cases of a substantial length of train, high transportation capacity, a corridor of exclusive use, and a frequent implementation of grade interchanges the term “Light Rail”, is usually applied. Respectively in cases of trains of confined length, low transportation capacity, few or no grade interchanges, mixed use of traffic at significant parts of the tramway route, the term “Conventional Tramway” is used. Modern technology provides various means for the acquisition of a really “good” tramway system, on the condition that there is appropriate exploitation of the technology available, as well as appropriate planning. However, technology by itself is not enough. A “good” tramway system can only result if other factors of essential importance are also examined and if it satisfies successfully the criteria, which are set. The following can be considered as criteria for the tramway evaluation: - The degree of satisfaction of the targets and objectives set. - The harm, or potentially the improvement, that is caused to the remaining

surface traffic of vehicles, pedestrians, etc. - The optimal use of urban space for the tramway installation. - The economic reciprocation of the project. - The monetary stability of the project. - The already realised approval, by the citizens that will be served, of the

new transportation system. The tool for the success of a new tramway line (or lines) lies in “Proper Planning”. This may be considered as an obvious necessity, but there exist cases where this is totally forgotten. The Planning process of such a project includes the following objectives: • To prove the achievement of targets for which it is realised • To prove the rational use of resources which are necessary for the project

evaluation. • To demonstrate that the choices that were made with respect to the technical

characteristics of the whole project are optimal • And, in general, to give analytical and justifiable answers to certain, perhaps

simple at first sight, but of vital importance, questions, such as: 1. Why the project is carried out? 2. Why is it done under the scheme and the characteristics that are given to it and

why at the chosen location? 3. Why is it done now, that is to say at this specific point in time? Obviously, the need for “Proper Planning” applies in every project/work; however, it can be argued that for a new tramway system it is of much greater importance.


516 The Sustainable City III

Indeed, tramways as a means of fixed track, do not allow wrong choices on issues such as the choice of location, or the characteristics of the system. The reason is simple: a wrong choice cannot easily be treated, under the usually limited resources that are available. The significant investment needed for the infrastructure acquisition, is a big obstacle for the treatment of wrong choices in the tramway design. “Proper Planning” is thus necessary-and this is an activity of important extent and depth.

2 Tramway characteristics

Tramway is a means of transport with fixed track and electrical motion. Out of these main characteristics, other characteristics and possibilities arise [3], such as: • The possibility of composing trains, which respectively results in an

increase of transportation capacity up to 8.000 pas/h-dir (for the conventional railway) or to 10 ~ 12.000 pas/h-dir (for the light-rail).

• The possibility of reducing resistances, which correspondingly results in a reduction in the consumption rate of the electric energy (J / pas)- in cases where volume reaches high levels.

• The potential of reducing personnel, when composing trains. • It presupposes high infrastructure investment • It provides capabilities of introducing automation. . • Electrification means practically that during operation, there is no

emission of pollutants. It is inaccurate (and perhaps misleading) to report the above as generally being tramway advantages or disadvantages; as, only after getting the planning process results, is it (conceptually/logically) allowed for anyone to comment on the comparative advantages and disadvantages of any solution, in relation to other alternative solutions If, for example, we only conduct a simple comparison of tramways’ and buses’ capacity, it would follow that: A tramway has a higher transportation capacity than a bus running in an exclusive bus lane. However, to give this as an advantage, one should first examine which is the demand under consideration. If the demand is lower than that, which the bus running in the bus lane must serve, then there is no comparative advantage. The simple comparison of characteristics of various transportation means is useful in the planning process, only as a driver to the development of alternative solutions that will be further examined. A “Proper Planning” is called upon, to fully utilize the possibilities provided by the characteristics, and to reveal advantages and disadvantages of a specific solution. An “Improper Planning” is one that fails in the exploitation of the above possibilities and in the identification of the resulting consequences. E.g. placement of tramway in a corridor of low demand; or provision of an exclusive


The Sustainable City III 517

corridor in a location that does not offer substantial increase in travel speed, while it has negative effects on pavements, trees etc. In relation to the tramway competition with other urban space users, the following should be mentioned: tramway – in contrast to the metropolitan/urban railway- lies, in a (big or small) percentage of its lines’ length, on the surface. Thus the tramway is in strong competition with the rest of the surface users of urban space, particularly: • pedestrian traffic (pavements and/or pedestrianized streets) • urban green, which is precious • bicycle traffic • All the other various types of road traffic users (buses, private cars, vehicles

of special type and use, etc.) • corridors of walk, optical comfort etc. In cities like Athens, where: • the urban green is very limited • the pavements vary from insufficient to unacceptable, and pedestrianized

streets are completely infrequent • bicycle lanes do not exist, while the necessity of their development is

obvious The allocation of part of the existing public space to a tramway corridor- because supposedly there is no other option- is a wrong action. It can be argued that the hierarchy of needs considering the urban space allocation is: - firstly the pedestrians /walkers and their safety - secondly the urban green - thirdly the public transportation means(among these the tramway) - afterwards come the rest This hierarchy corresponds to international standards. In the case of Athens and for the majority of other Greek cities it is even more necessary to maintain this hierarchy, as the city layouts is very dense and the public use of space is profoundly confined.

3 Content of tramway planning

The aim of a tramway system is to contribute to the upgrading of the citizens’ quality of life. Tramway is not a self-target. A campaign that was used/is still used for the Athens tramway is that many tramways are in operation in European cities – therefore, it is now time for Athens to acquire one also; this leads to impermissible and scientifically unacceptable mimicry. In contrast, in many European and American cities, it was proved that good solutions resulted via a right and complete Planning Process, and these solutions did not include a tramway option. The above aim further leads to the determination of objectives, which have to be satisfied during the planning process. The main objectives for a transport system, in general, are:



- The upgrading of the overall level of transport service. - The attraction of private car trips to the mass transport media. Satisfaction of these objectives is not an exclusive privilege of the tramway, particularly when the demand is such that it can be served by buses as well as by tramways. Thus, the planning process should examine all the alternative solutions (e.g. with or without a tramway system) and determine the degree of satisfaction of the objectives in each case; then, after a comparative evaluation, the best solution will be chosen.

Figure 1: The width of main arterial roads is substantially confined by the tram layout.

Planning is the only scientific tool to ensure that the proposed solution will satisfy the above-mentioned objectives and commitments. The planning process is usually developed in the following steps/units: 1. Precise determination of the objectives and commitments mentioned above. 2. Development of alternative solutions, for each of which it is speculated that it

can satisfy the above objectives (and commitments). 3.Restriction in the number of alternative solutions, on the basis of an

analytically justified exclusion of some of these. 4. Study of each of the alternative solutions. 5. Determination of the evaluation criteria, and of the precise content of each of

them. 6. Determination of the relative values of these criteria (by classification,

grading, or any other way). 7. Evaluation of solutions. 8. Final conclusion. In relation to the above, the following should be borne in mind: 1. The main objective mentioned above, that of “the overall transport service

upgrade”, presupposes, that any solution should integrate in the overall transport system of the area under study.



2. A usual criterion of measuring overall transport service is the “total generalized cost of travel” for all journeys that have their departure and/or arrival point within the area under study.

3. A further examination of the alternative solutions is necessary; the alternative solutions should be studied and developed:

- In relation to the means of transport (that is to say solutions with and solutions without tramway, e.g.. with modern buses)

- In relation to the tramway corridor placement within the assigned width of the road space or on the pavements.

- In relation to other factors, such as e.g. the time needed to carry out the project 4. The study of each alternative solution must proceed in equivalent depth. 5. The study of the difficult parts of design e.g. tram intersections with the rest of

road traffic, may be that which would prove the feasibility of a solution. Basic information should exist for all solutions (including demand, zones, antiquities, monuments and important buildings, streets’ trees, green etc).

6. The limitation on the number of solutions can be achieved, only by rejecting those solutions that obviously do not satisfy the criteria.

For any solution that contains a tramway system (due to the fact that tramway includes surface parts) – there is always the problem of further choices such as: • Conventional tramway or light rail? • Giving to the tramway an exclusive corridor, or not? • How many grade interchanges will be needed? • In which way and to what extent is the road network influenced? • What are the impacts for each choice? The evaluation should also include the so-called “do-nothing” or “null” solution. The study of demand is an essential part of planning. This study presupposes: - The in-depth understanding of the trips generated in the area before the

planned “project” implementation. In-depth understanding means inter alia, sufficient knowledge of the characteristics of supply.

- The knowledge of the elasticities of the (per medium) trips in relation to the generalized cost of journeys, and to the change of transport means.

- The sufficient knowledge of other design projects in the wider area, which can affect the demand, or the modal split.

The planning process is composed of a number of studies, some of which have already been mentioned. These are: 1. The study of demand of the wider area that will be served. This must give

sufficient information on the expected users of the tramway and also on the users of the other transport means.

2. Precise maps of candidate –subject to choice– corridors for the tramway and other details for the design in space.

3. Technical studies (usually at the stage of pre-study [4]) of the dominant solutions, and for each of them.

4. Traffic studies for the controlled tram corridor and for the surrounding local roads, particularly in the areas where the tramway (or the alternative public transport) will change level (grade intersections)

5. Transport study for a rearrangement of the bus lines.



6. Study of pedestrian flows. 7. Study of accident prevention. 8. Study of environmental impact assessment on all the following factors: • Air quality • Flora, fauna • Acoustic environment • Antiquities-monuments • Urban environment • Socio-economic environment (including enterprises and commercial activities) 9. Fare policy study. 10. Economic evaluation study. 11. Study of monetary stability of the whole investment.

4 The new Athens tramway – review and comments

4.1 Review

The Athens tramway project is currently under implementation as a project to be ready for and to serve the Olympic Games 2004 [5]. The Greek State decided to proceed with the implementation of the tram project in the year 2000. This decision followed a long period of gestation and planning which started in the early ’80s [6]. The project consists of 24 km of main revenue line, one depot including 2.2 km of access line and 35 vehicles. The entire line, with a small exception, is provided on dedicated right of way. The tram vehicle will have priority at most signalized intersections [7]. In order to pave the way for the project implementation it was decided to use the services of “ATTIKO METRO SA” (AM) ,the company that had recently implemented two new lines for the Athens metro. A project team was assembled within AM to proceed with the necessary actions while at the same time an AM subsidiary company was organized, under the name “TRAM SA” to assume the role of project owner. The AM project team handled the project between October 2000 and April 2001 while the whole “maturing” period lasted for 14 months until December 2001. The pre-tender design should have covered all aspects of the project i.e. civil works, electromechanical systems, rolling stock, depot, urban design and environmental protection measures. However this did not happen, under the pressure of meeting project deadlines on time and before the Athens Olympics: some studies were carried out later on i.e. not in the proper order, and some were omitted. Design was supposedly performed up to the 50% level to allow proper costing for tendering contractors. The contracting strategy selected was to tender two major contracts. One tender was issued for the construction of civil works, installation of electro-mechanical equipment and system integration and a second one for the supply of rolling stock. Another contract was tendered for the supply of expert technical services to the project owner and a final tender concerned the supply of



consulting services to identify a concessionaire who would undertake the operation and possibly the construction of extensions to the tram under implementation. The final decision though in this area was for TRAM SA to operate the system with its own operating service. The project was financed in a way similar to the one used for the metro system i.e. 50% grant through the EU structural funds program, EIB loan up to 40% of the project budget guaranteed by the Greek Government, while the balance is provided by Greek State public investment funds. The total project budget comes up to 343 million Euros.

Figure 2: The allocation of part of the public space (road) to a tram corridor consists a matter of ambiguity.

4.2 Comments and problems

The following are in effect to the study of the Athens Tramway. 1. An economic assessment of the – proposed for acquisition – road space was

not made. It is feasible to calculate this, and a way of approach is through the calculation of the commercial value of the neighbouring privately-owned areas.

The above is an important element in the comparative evaluation of solutions. Its disregard may lead to wrong choices e.g. a solution can be rejected as costly without even being thoroughly examined.

2. There was always a possibility to go underground for the road through traffic. The expense of the necessary excavations et al works should have been compared to the value of the land acquisition of the surface solution. In the case of the Athens tramway, the solution of allocating road traffic in two carriageways under the coastal avenue was not examined- although the local authorities demanded this The truth is that the cost of the two underground carriageways is not only comparable but is even less than the commercial value of the road space



that has to be acquired for a tramway corridor of exclusive use .The advantages of such a solution considering other criteria (circulatory, environmental) were also ignored. It is believed that the main reason for the rejection was the perception, that the communal space has null economic value. However, even in inaccessible mountainous regions the Greek Government pays a price for a property expropriation. Does the corridor that the tramway will occupy for its exclusive use have null value? Certainly it does not.

3. The property regime of the allocated corridor had, under any circumstances, to be examined and in particular when the institution for the realization of the project is a public-owned company.

4. The legal form of the institution of exploitation of the tramway system was also not examined.

5. The more the anticipated demand approaches the tramway’s capacity, the more:

• the investment becomes more retributive • the, per transported passenger, average prices of energy consumption,

moving personnel productivity, and operational expenses are improved. Consequently, the utilisation of this means is advisable, when the expected demand is high, for example, at least 5.000 pas/h-dir. However, if the rate of the projected demand is low, the solution of modern bus lines, with or without bus lanes, emerges as the most advisable. For the Athens tramway such a solution was totally ignored.

6. Even so, it is necessary for various further versions to be examined-and this was not made. Versions related to the placement of tram lines:

- Within a bus lane. - Or in a lane of mixed circulation. - Or by making use of a pair of roads with low local traffic.

The first version is in effect when it is provided that buses will also co-exist. The second can function for the initial period of operation gradually mutating into a lane exclusively used by the tramway. The third is more attractive, because the mixed use of pavement, in case of low traffic, gives good solutions for the tramway.

7. Surface tramway always crosses the flows of pedestrians. It is certain that these flows will be affected because of the tramway. The necessity of the complete study of the flows of pedestrians is obvious. Such a study was not undertaken for the Athens tramway.

8. Tramway, as already mentioned, can turn out to be environmentally friendly. However the impact on the environment should be comprehended and appreciated. The competition of tramway to the road traffic for space occupation can cause new levels of congestion, or a more extended duration of congestion in the road scene. Thus it is a vague and empty statement, to say, “the tramway is friendly to the environment”. The right argument is that the tramway can – if it is rightly planned in the each particular case – reduce the pollutant emission. This, however, can be achieved only if the planning



of the particular project succeeds to attract to the tram as many private car trips, as needed, in order to reduce road traffic, so much that:

• The traffic remaining on the road to be served, without congestion. • The traffic diverting to the local network, or to other intersecting roads,

and which obviously causes additional pollution, to be very limited

5 Need of acceptance of the project by the citizens

It was previously reported that there exist sufficient conditions for the construction/installation of a “good” tramway system. As already stressed, a necessary condition for this is “Proper Planning”. However what does “good” or “bad” mean? Who characterizes good or bad? The experts that design it? The administrative mechanism or the Minister who is in charge of the office/institution that promotes the work? The only reasonable answer is that only those that will be burdened economically by its construction, and also those that will profit or be damaged by its operation – that is to say the citizens – have the right to give the characterizations “good”-“bad”. The role of experts should only be supportive and certainly not decisive. The role of the active Administration and of its political representatives is important, since they have the main responsibility to guarantee for a right Planning Process, for a right Process of expressing opinions and for the final decision taken by the citizens. It is worth mentioning, that today the whole world envisages a society of active citizens as a counter-weight to the reigning force of big private interests. The “good” or “bad” for a tramway system, which requires substantial consumption of resources and which influences an area for a long period of time, should be decided by the citizens, with the aid of experts and of the administrative mechanism. In Greece, transportation projects that have direct relation to the citizens are planned (as long as they are planned, and the example of Athens tramway is a “model” of improper planning), are decided (in some cases before even the studies are completed, and this is again the case of the Athens tramway) and are constructed, in absentia of citizens [9]. Citizens have certainly the right to resort to the High Court, but this involves a process particularly costly and tedious. In Greece, the only legally guaranteed process of informing the citizens, concerns the SEI (Study of Environmental Impacts). The Law however provides a very strict margin for a right briefing, as it sets a deadline of only one-month after the notification of SEI, for briefing on the study by the citizens and for expressing opinions, which in any case have not binding character. For any other type of studies, sufficient institutional pledges are not provided. In some cases, initiatives by public services are expressed, that; the latter, even though they are not compelled, seek the opinion of local institutions and authorities.

The right for the final choice belongs to the citizens

The citizens must have the right and the power to contribute to the Project Planning. They must be given the right of in-time and complete briefing, since



the Constitution guarantees the citizen’s right to information. In other countries, participation of citizens from the initial stages of Planning has been secured. The experts develop alternative solutions and explain details of a technical nature to the citizens, without however, promoting the solution that they consider being best i.e. the experts are not instructors. The citizens are called upon to make the final choice, either via representatives, which should express all the various tendencies on the project and which should have already participated in the comparative evaluation; or, in some cases , via a referendum (indeed in many cities, even the simplest projects are adopted\ rejected by a referendum.) The U.S. Department of Transport alleges that the in-time participation of citizens in the Planning process and in the final decision has many advantages, such as the potentiality of implementing better solutions (since the citizens have good knowledge of the local problems), the convergence of opposing views, etc. All these are highly educative. They give substantial content to Democracy. The role of the Planner(s) is: • To carry out all studies that concern Planning • To assist citizens in their briefing and to support them in the configuration of

aims and commitments. The citizens should have: • decisive role in the final determination of objectives and commitments of the

project, as well as in the final choice • auxiliary, but equivalent to the planner’s, role in the development of

alternative solutions and in the restriction of the number of solutions that will finally be studied

They also should have free access to the studies during their development, and the right to express their opinion. The Government and its political representatives should have: • the responsibility of keeping the right procedures in all steps of the planning process • the responsibility of securing sufficient financing to the project • the responsibility of ratification of the final solution • The responsibility of realisation of the final solution. The local authorities (via representatives) should participate and intervene, when they consider it is necessary in all stages of the planning process.

6 Conclusions

Tramway (conventional or light rail) is a valuable and promising means for the achievement of objectives, such as [8]: • the upgrading of transport services, • the attraction of private car users to the Public(or Mass) Transport Media, • and at the same time the fulfillment of other commitments such as: - The preservation or even the upgrading of the urban environment in all of its

components, such as: pedestrian lanes and pavements, urban flora, etc.



- The respect to the communal space, that it traverses. In order to achieve these, i.e. to successfully develop a tramway system, an essential condition is the “Proper -hence complete- Planning” (under the meaning given previously). An “Improper” Planning leads to mistakes and substantial damages. These offend the urban environment, and its uses. Tramway is a means of achieving objectives. It is not an end in itself. The selection of the final solution has as a necessary pre-condition the in-depth study and the comparative evaluation of the defined number of alternative solutions. It is unacceptable for citizens to remain simple observers of events. After all, the citizens are those who pay for the project; and those who suffer the damages that may be caused by erroneous planning, and also those who gain profits through right planning. The citizens should have active participation from the very first stages of planning. They should also have full briefing and the right of opinion on all studies that are being carried out. The top role of citizens, is their inalienable right to make the final choice and to decide on the solution to be adopted. The active participation of citizens is therefore of the utmost importance. It satisfies basic rules of Logic and of Democracy, and secures the successful completion of such a transportation project. In Athens, a new Tramway System is under construction, a tramway that was not needed. The negative effects are already felt by most citizens. What can be done? The example of Edmonton, Canada [9] can be used: the works have to stop; and the plans need to be reviewed by knowledgeable outsiders; changes in Planning are necessary; the future of the city of Athens should not be mortgaged by the Olympic Games needs- the latter can be easily served by buses. After all, the Games last for fifteen days, while transportation works last for a substantial period of time.

References

[1] Patras International Conference: Contemporary Tram and LRT Systems, organized by the University of Patras, Greece and the Greek Institute of Transportation Engineers, May 2003.

[2] INRETS. Metros Legers, Bruxelles, 1986. [3] TRB. Track Design Handbook for the Light Rail Transit, TCRP Report 57,

2000 . [4] Matsoukis, E.C.. The Role of a Feasibility Study in Planning a New LRT

System, Proceedings of the International Conference: Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century. WIT Press, 25-34, 2003 .

[5] Ansaldobreda-Sirio, Line Interface Data, Rev 0, Athens, 2002 . [6] Tram S.A, General Final Study, Tram of Athens, 2000 . [7] LDK, Nama, Hamburg Consult, Implementation Studies for the Tram of

Athens, (2002-2003).



[8] Hue R., Rat H. Conclusions of the 5th UITP Conference. Melbourne, Australia, 2000 .

[9] Bakker J.J.. Changes in LRT Planning in Edmonton, TRB Report, 52-58, 1985 .



Documents

Proper planning and citizen participation as prerequisites for the … · 2014-05-19 · Proper planning and citizen participation as prerequisites for the successful design of a