(n.d.l.r.) Following our article yesterday regarding the statements from the socialists, we are also receiving contributions from the Association “Les Quartiers de Nice” (1) and the Alternatifs (solidarities – ecology – feminism – self-management) (2), from the PC via its general councilor elected in Nice’s 3rd canton, Jacques Victor (3), and from the PRG via its departmental president Jean-Christophe Picard.
We are publishing them in their entirety to allow our readers to form a personal opinion on all the positions expressed.
(1) We have always been in favor of the tramway in Nice and were among the first to demand it. However, this tram-metro project is dangerous, too expensive, and unnecessary.
Dangerous, because one cannot impede the North-South flow of underground waters without consequences.
You cannot pass through unstable alluvium and under our old buildings, which all lack substantial foundations, without risks.
It is unwise to dismiss lightly the rising waters, seismic risk, and the dangers of the collapse of a heavy and brittle structure parallel (over 3 km) and close (200 to 300 m) to the sea.
Too expensive, because there is no justification for undertaking such a dangerous project, and by attempting to reduce the risks, making it equally expensive, while a surface tramway, without any risks, would cost at most half the price.
The big football stadium we are constructing will cost us 300 million euros.
The savings we could make by continuing our surface tramway network could therefore pay for the Grand Stadium.
Unnecessary, yes, this tram-metro project is unnecessary because being underground it will not reduce automotive traffic in the city center which will remain three times more polluted than the Parisian city center.
It will not allow us to renovate all the supply networks nor will it enable us to make new streets more attractive for trade so that local shops can effectively compete with large chains established in the outskirts.
Who would want to find Avenue Jean Médecin and Avenue de la République with all the pollution, including the noise from its cars, motorcycles, and diesel or gas buses…!
The antique dealers of the port are the merchants who have the most to lose from this reckless adventure not only because they would be the payers of this unnecessary-expensive-and-dangerous tram-metro but also because they would be penalized by an un-redevelopable street and the presence of the trench that would bring the tram-metro back out in front of their shops.
The only response to this overflow of poor calculations is to be able to propose a new project for investigation by asking the investigating commissioners to give an “UNFAVORABLE OPINION” on “THIS” underground project in order to develop the one we desire in a new consultation.
This is the only way to proceed. It is classic and mandatory.
Let us not forget that it is us, the people of Nice and new metropolitan residents, who will be the payers of all the broken pots.
(2) First, a reminder:
- The Alternatifs are in favor of collective modes of transport and particularly the tramway;
-
The Alternatifs, particularly their elected official on the municipal council of Nice during the previous term, have been mobilized for the realization of the tramway on rails and not on tires, and for the extension of line 1 to its end (servicing the Nice district of Ariane and the commune of La Trinité).
Regarding the public inquiry.
The Alternatifs are pleased:
- with the increase in the number of points (three) where the inquiry can be consulted;
-
with the presence of multiple investigating commissioners.
On the other hand, the Alternatifs regret:
- the insufficient number of files available (given that each file’s volume requires several hours of reading);
-
the presentation of the files, mixing both “communication” elements (highly biased, almost pure propaganda), useful information for understanding, and other enticing but almost useless information. This mix can only make access to essential data very random for the majority of the population.
Regarding the project itself.
I – Priority choice of realization of line 2.
The Alternatifs have always demanded the realization of the extension of line 1 to Ariane and La Trinité before any other execution. The promise of this extension had in fact conditioned State aid during Minister Gayssot’s time.
The justification through the calculation (population + employment)/km of a higher ratio (17,000/km against 10,000/km) on the future line 2 route compared to the extension route of line 1 does not seem pertinent to us. This calculation does not take into account the sociology of the populations concerned (age, income, travel needs other than work, etc.).
If we only consider the calculation (population + employment)/km, the residents of Ariane and La Trinité will never see the tram arrive at their homes, since the ratios calculated for hypothetical lines 3 (12,000/km) and 4 (13,000/km) are higher than those concerning them.
II – The Route.
1 – The Alternatifs approve the double service, in a fork, of the terminals (T1 + T2) of the airport on the one hand, the Moulins district, Nikaïa, and CADAM on the other.*
They oppose, however, the abandonment of the terminus at Riquier. Riquier station, with 1,360,000 passengers/year, is a point where multimodal exchange is necessary. It is worth noting that the Riquier station is significantly considered in the development of TER linked to the realization of the LGV (see the consultation currently underway on the Nice-Italy section of the new line and the reorganization of TER in this sector).
2 – The tunnel (3.2 km)
a. The Alternatifs refute the arguments presented in favor of the underground passage of a part of the line between Grosso and Garibaldi:
- during construction, the “inconveniences” caused by the tunnel drilling and the execution of underground stations, with the volume of rubble to evacuate (by truck) that this represents, with the setup of the tunneling machine, etc., will be as heavy as the nuisance of a surface line construction.
-
at the end of the realization, the freedom of movement left to automobiles goes against the sought-after goal, both in terms of urban conviviality and in terms of pollution.
-
the tunnel passage does not allow for a real interconnection between the existing line 1 and the new line 2.
-
if the respect of the 19th-century city comes from the disappearance underground of the tram (contrary to the aerial part which “highlights” the 20th-century city), what becomes of the place Île-de-Beauté? where is it during the amputation of the Alsace-Lorraine garden, yet classified JIM (Major Interest Garden)?
-
as for the argument “the underground passage allows to escape disturbances related to social demonstrations,” it is very, very expensive (at least 300 million euros) for a few annual hours of “disturbances”!
b. The Alternatifs are outraged by the incredible weakness and inaccuracy of the geological study, to the point of doubting the real intention of the decision-makers to see this tunnel realized. They are, however, concerned about the consequences if the tunnel were realized under such conditions, with the installation of a watertight tube of more than three kilometers in aquifers which it will considerably modify in evolution, with the risks that this entails for the existing buildings.
c. The Alternatifs know from experience that the costs announced during tunnel piercing projects are never respected. The final cost is generally (at best) multiplied by two. What would it be in Nice, based on such a summary “study”? A multiplication by two? by three? by ten?
III – Conclusion.
The Alternatifs are in favor:
- of the immediate and prioritized realization of the extension of line 1, through Ariane, to its end in La Trinité.
-
of the realization of line 2, on the surface, from CADAM and the airport to Riquier (becoming a real multimodal hub) by the route deemed best of the five routes studied before the bizarre idea of the tunnel: Californie-Liberté-Joffre, with real interconnections at J. Médecin and Garibaldi.
*Indicating the service of the MIN, effectively a positive point, at a time when its relocation to La Gaude is scheduled, does it reveal a form of humor or hidden resistance to an absurd decision (moving the MIN)?
Everywhere repeated are phrases such as “The project should not have impacts…” (p.559). But when you read on page 560 that “This apparent contradiction can be interpreted as a consequence of the conceptual approximations of the model (…) “and that “The model developed to try to assess the hydrogeological impact of the projected infrastructures requires the adoption of simplifying assumptions,” we are astonished at the conclusion “The effects related to the tunnel are barely noticeable”!
(3) At Riquier, multimodality and ignored populations!
Already during the definition of Line I, the absurd choice not to pass the Tramway near the Riquier Station had penalized the legitimate principle of multimodality. An essential principle in matters of public transport network mesh that our City most needs.
For Line II, it will be the same since in Mayor Christian ESTROSI’s choice, no link with Riquier Station is planned. The multimodality of transportation means and the needs of Riquier’s populations will again be ignored. What then becomes of the efficiency of public transport offer in a district suffering from the suffocation of car traffic?
Beyond the more than questionable choice from all points of view (notably for its cost) of the underground passage of a Tramway (???), it has to be acknowledged that City Hall will have privileged once again the “nice neighborhoods” of the City (Dubouchage – Victor Hugo) at the expense of the popular neighborhoods of Riquier.
While this axis (Dubouchage – Victor Hugo) presented all the advantages for a surface passage (wide roads, limited presence of shops, …), it would not have been useless to examine the possibilities of an underground passage on the Port – Riquier Station axis, and to only make choices post hoc for the most effective, least expensive solution and generating the least nuisances for the inhabitants.
It is always necessary to seek the possibilities of essential interconnection with Riquier Station, taking into account the wishes of the populations, anticipating the flow of travel from South-North, North-South, in an area where car concentrations are already particularly high. Especially with those circulating from the Port and those pouring in from the A8, the Paillon thoroughfare, La Trinité, Ariane, ending up in Riquier at the end of the funnel.
The interest of public transport, of Tramway Line II, of the populations concerned, is to make technical and financial choices that are not subject to political and clientelist contingencies, but are part of a coherent global travel scheme ensuring the best possible network of the urban territory.
It is in this sense that I solicit the Commissioners of the Public Inquiry into Tramway Line II to reconsider a priori choices that do not take into account the collective interest of all neighborhoods and populations on the envisioned route.
Jacques VICTOR General Councilor
(4) Contribution from the PRG 06 on the West-East tramway line project
Within the framework of the public inquiry on the realization of the West-East tramway line, here is the contribution submitted by the PRG 06…
-Conduct of the public inquiry
It will be regretted that residents are unable to submit their observations via the internet.
-Riquier railway station
Contrary to what is planned, it is evident that the West-East line should serve the Riquier railway station to enable intermodality between the tramway and the train.
-The underground part of the line
The underground part of the line is a bad idea for several reasons:
The nuisances caused by underground works will be significantly greater than those that would be caused by works solely on the surface.
This underground work raises significant safety problems, both during its execution and during the operation of this line.
The additional cost of this underground work (350 million euros) is enormous in relation to the total cost of the project (758 euros).
The underground work will prevent any connection between line 1 and line 2, which would have facilitated transfers for users and presented many advantages: the possible transfer of trams, the use of the same maintenance center, etc.
Above all, the underground work does not allow for the neighborhood served to be requalified – as line 1 had done – particularly by reducing the place of the car.
-Work
It will be necessary to properly compensate the merchants and not to repeat the failures known with line 1 until May 2006: it was absurd that only establishments located on the tramway route itself could seek compensation. All merchants affected by client distance or neighborhood disenchantment, even those located on streets adjacent to the work site, deserve assistance. Moreover, it would be fair to revalue the amount of compensation that currently only partially covers the real loss of revenue.
Jean-Christophe Picard
President of PRG 06
