As strong supporters of the development of the tramway and public transport, we nonetheless voted against this decision at the City Council meeting on March 29.
The reasons for this vote are manifold, as elaborated by Emmanuelle Gaziello in her speech:
Financial: There is no serious cost estimate available today; the figures presented by C. Estrosi have constantly changed and notably underestimate the final cost of the tunnel option. We have voiced our concerns about this on several occasions. We are marking this date… But as of now, the financial cost of Line 2 severely jeopardizes the realization of Line 3 and the extension of Line 1 towards Ariane and Trinité.
The aberration of the tunnel choice: The tramway is a symbol of clean transport. By choosing the tunnel option for very short-term considerations—avoiding the displeasure of certain merchants and the funding of underground network renewals (water, etc.), which will need to be done sooner or later—Estrosi is opting to bury “clean” transport and leave surface-level automobile pollution. A strange notion of sustainable development in a city heavily affected by pollution.
The safety of users of such infrastructure: The SDIS (Departmental Fire and Rescue Service) letter of observations points to numerous concerns.
It should be noted that 6 carriages could be involved in the underground structure, equating to over 1,800 people to evacuate in case of a major incident. The cross-section plan reveals a route that does not maintain a consistent slope from one end to the other of the structure.
“Siphons” appear and could become critical points in the event of an incident. The risk study shows that the collision of two carriages or a carriage fire with no ability to return to the station, or panic following a breakdown, could abruptly confront the SDIS with a particular and challenging operation involving a large number of people or victims.
The investigative commission appears to settle for a video surveillance solution and refers the Project Manager to a consultation with the SDIS.
Seismic risk: The structures have been calculated using the latest construction standards, particularly the “Eurocode 8,” which addresses the design and dimensioning of structures for their earthquake resistance. However, as stated by the SDIS, there is no prior experience in our waterlogged alluvial soils which amplify the seismic phenomenon.
Robert Injey: “Without answers to our questions, we voted against this project.”
