|
A Very Short History of Recycling in Jerusalem!
Amanda Lind
As the population of Jerusalem grows the need for advanced city services is becoming more acute. Linked to the pressing issues of lack of space and water, the treatment of solid waste is an ever-increasing problem. Israel creates enough waste in a year to fill the Azrieli Center 50 times over! The law requires every municipality to recycle 15% of solid waste, and Jerusalem has not yet met its responsibilities.
Under Teddy Kollek, a pilot project introduced recycling to Har Nof and Baka-Makor Haim and was well received by residents but was doomed to failure, as there was no industry infrastructure to create the cycle. In 1996 the Jerusalem branch of the SPNI set up a recycling forum, which lobbied the Jerusalem Municipality to promote recycling. The absence of any municipal attempt to reduce the effect of the pollution caused by the some 1000 tons of garbage produced daily by 'Jerusalem' led to the formation of the 'Jerusalem Compost Network' in 1997. The goal was to promote the reuse of organic waste by returning it to the soil (approximately half of our solid waste is compostable!). This effort has been continuing ever since through school projects such as that at the Adam school where the 'Shmitta' year was honored at Tubishvat with parents bringing food scraps to the school compost heap. A community effort exists in Baka where the educational farm has a 24-hour 'compost bank'- there you can return your debt to nature! The SPNI holds a compost drop in every Tuesday between 4-6pm where all are welcome to learn how to compost and you can buy a composter subsidized by the Ministry of Environment. The 'green course' (Megama Yeruka) are in their 5th year of composting on campus. From this project we have learnt that the process of change is slow but eventually the majority will understand that we have a renewable resource. In 1999 as part of the 'Sustainable Jerusalem' initiative Merkaz Hamagshemim Hadassah formed 'Atid Yarok' a group of young activists who wanted to change the situation. They chose plastic recycling as an achievable goal and demonstrated in imaginative ways to raise awareness. Together with the SPNI and the Baka-Makor Haim Community Center and with subsidy from the Ministry of Environment, the funds were raised to rent 72 Bottle bins for one year in the German Colony and Baka-Makor Haim. The project required cooperation with the Municipal Sanitation Department and worked! The pilot project began in spring 2000 and was a huge success. Many residents from other neighborhoods began to enquire why they didn't have the same service! The Municipality has been convinced that this is a worthwhile venture. As I write the 'Aviv Plastics' are setting up 300 bottle bins in 8 neighborhoods. As each one can only provide an efficient service for 300 residents the SPNI have found funding to add a further 500. With the blessing of the General Director of the Municipality this joint project can have a real affect on reducing the amount of waste tipped in Abu Dis. Jerusalem's residents will now be able to make their personal contribution to the environment by showing that recycling is an option! If you want to get involved in this grass roots project you can join the newly formed 'recycling forum' which already has 40 members from across the city. For details on any of the above call: Amanda Lind 02 6428743. |
What's the issue?
As in most Israeli cities, public transport in Jerusalem canot compete with the private car.
The reason over half the residents use public transport is simply financial: they cannot afford private cars.
What prevents public transport from winning the battle against cars?
Whatever they declare, the planning authorities are in fact promoting private transportation by building new motorways like the Begin Highway and by planning new heavy-duty roads such as No. 9 through the Arazim Valley and No. 16 through the Jerusalem Forest.
These roads make it easier for private cars to drive into the city.
Furthermore, exclusive bus lanes are provided neither inside the city nor at its entrance.
Bus users are therefore subjected both to traffic jams caused by private cars and to the tangle of buses such as the 36 lines crawling along Jaffa Road. The bus stranglehold is responsible for Jaffa Road having one of the highest pollution levels in Israel.
Pedestrians in the city center want to escape the noise, pollution and heat emitted by the buses, as fast as possible.
Long-range solutions for these problems are outlined in the Transportation section. However, a new spirit is already astir among the Jerusalem public, causing it to take the initiative of founding IMA, a volunteer organization of bus users. IMA works within the framework of SPNI in Jerusalem. IMA considers bus passengers to be consumers and as such is a member of the Consumers Union, representing its constituency to all service providers, be they bus co-operatives, the Ministry of Transportation or any other body. IMA offers a new approach. Instead of searching for ways to bring car owners back to the buses, it asks what can be done to keep current users in the buses, satisfied with the service they are getting. Among the many interesting ideas promoted by IMA are decent sidewalks for use between bus rides, and even clean air to breathe as they go about their affairs both downtown and in their neighborhoods. IMA has begun to have an influence on the deployment of bus lines in the city, insisting on its right to participate in the decision-making process for the light-rail and its incorporation into the urban bus network. Recently IMA received a special grant from "Transportation Today and Tomorrow" in order to formulate a Charter of Bus Users' Rights. IMA works from the Jerusalem branch of the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI). The Sheli Foundation has given it seed-funding for activities. IMA works hand in hand with Jerusalem for Bicycles. |
High-rise building policy in Jerusalem is currently a subject of public discussion in various forums.
Click here for access to the map of high-rise building in Jerusalem
There are differing views within the community of Jerusalem architects and city planners on the topic of high-rise building in the city.
On a simplistic level, the policy of high-rise building may be presented as a way of saving expensive land resources, including intra-urban open spaces and areas earmarked for conservation. This approach, however, needs to be countered by ecological, socio-economic and cultural concerns which mitigate against high-rise building - as well as by the damage it causes to the unique image of Jerusalem's historic neighborhoods. Moreover, it is important to note that high-rise building does not necessarily save space. Dense and saturated low-rise building can result in the same number of living units as a multi-storey tower built on the same sized plot. Developers and the Jerusalem Municipality maintain that high-rise building is the ultimate solution to revitalizing the city center. This policy does not take into account such ecological considerations as airflows, shadows, visual obstruction and traffic overloads, which in turn cause air and noise pollution. In general, developers are not obliged to perform studies of the environmental consequences of specific construction plans, so the ill effects of a particular building are impossible to predict. This approach to revitalizing the city center ignores the findings of many worldwide studies which have demonstrated that buildings higher than 8-10 storeys are unsuitable for low-income segments of the population due to their high maintenance costs. Therefore, far from attracting young couples to the city center, high-rise building will encourage the phenomenon of holiday apartments in "ghost houses," thus accelerating the deterioration of the city center. We claim that although revitalizing the city center is of utmost importance, high-rise building is not necessary for achieving it. On the contrary, in many old cities throughout the world revitalizing the city center was done precisely by carefully preserving the historical fabric. The activities of the many environmentally-concerned bodies united in the Sustainable Jerusalem coalition brought these issues to the focus of public attention. As a result, both local and regional planning bodies issued position papers without coordinating with one another. None of these, however, became a binding planning document. A meeting to discuss high-rise building in Jerusalem was therefore called by the National Planning and Building Council on 13 February 2001, at which the various parties presented their positions. The Jerusalem Municipality undertook to prepare a high-rise building plan for the city within several months, and produced an interim plan as a stop-gap measure. The general policy of the Municipality's interim plan stipulated that the maximal height of high-rise buildings should be determined by their distance from the Old City. The farther from the Old City, the higher a building may be: up to eight storeys closest to the Old City; up to 12 storeys in the area adjacent to that; up to 24 storeys along Jaffa Road and King George Street; and up to 33 storeys at the city entrance. We in Sustainable Jerusalem believe that building in accordance with this policy will damage the unique fabric of Jerusalem's neighborhoods and characteristic skyline. The city's appearance and the cultural values embodied in its architectural heritage will be adversely affected. We say this in view of the fact that most of the existing high-rise buildings in Jerusalem have turned out to be badly planned and are conspicuous by their uninteresting and faulty design. |
Expanding Jerusalem's boundaries westward and/or establishing a new city in Tsur Hadassah: a recipe for Jerusalem's decline and deterioration
Background
For the past four years the Jerusalem Municipality has been engaged in intensive building activity in the Judean Hills, beyond the present municipal boundaries. The Jerusalem Development Authority and the Municipality's Moriah Company are in partnership with the Israel Lands Authority to promote the establishment of a new city in the region of Tsur Hadassah and Mevo Beitar, as well as to create new neighborhoods on land belonging to Beit Nekufa, Even Sapir and Beit Zayit. During the past two years the Municipality has been trying to expand Jerusalem's boundaries westward in order to annex these proposed neighborhoods and the new city, none of which have to date been approved by the relevant planning committees.
The Municipality's two claims justifying these moves:
1. The "demographic threat" to Jerusalem and Israel's control over it,
as a result of emigration of Jewish residents and an expected growth of the Arab population. 2. A shortage of areas for building housing units for Jews sufficient to maintain the desired population ratio of 70% Jews and 30% Arabs. The statistical prediction of some 300,000 Arabs in Jerusalem by the year 2020 makes it necessary, according to the Municipality, to have more than 700,000 Jews living in the city. According to this calculation over 72,000 additional housing units will be required by then, for which the solution is the annexation of large areas of the Judean Hills for the sake of massive building to the west of the city. These arguments by the Municipality and its partners, and the data on which they are based, have been set forth in various documents, most recently the inter-ministerial committee document on residential building in Jerusalem, 1999. Most of the arguments and the data have been rejected by the National Planning and Building Council, the authors of TAMA 35 (National Outline Plan #35) and its steering committee, and experts employed in various planning and academic institutions. Since December 2000 a commission of inquiry for Jerusalem's borders (headed by Moshe Nativ), established by the Interior Minister some two years ago, has been examining these arguments.
The position of the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) and its partners in environmental struggles:
1. All of the position papers prepared by the Jerusalem Municipality and
its partners present a false picture in that they rely upon ungrounded assumptions, speculatively distorted data, and total disregard for the possible implications of their proposals and for the need for a genuine examination of alternatives. 2. The demographic prediction presented by the Jerusalem Municipality has virtually no chance of materializing, insofar as it would require the use of all the land available for Arab construction, in highly unusual density for that sector, and the resolution of thorny problems of land ownership and allocation. 3. The prediction for Jerusalem's population which emerges is significantly and unrealistically higher than all other predictions, and is even higher than the TAMA 35 forecast for the entire Jerusalem district! 4. The implications of an enlarged Jerusalem's high population prediction for the other settlements in the metropolitan area, and the possibility of a retardation, to the point of a total halt, of their development were not examined in any of the documents. 5. The planning reserves available up to 2020, according to these documents, do not conform to the estimates proposed by other bodies, including the Municipality's own planning teams, which present much larger figures, according to which there are enough reserves in the city and in the district for that period without necessitating the location and annexation of additional areas for construction, and without having to subordinate the future development of the other metropolitan settlements (from Beit Shemesh to Ma'aleh Edumim) to the requirements of an ungrounded demographic prediction. 6. The possible influences of the transfer of the center of gravity of Jewish development and settlement in Jerusalem far to the west constitute a sure-fire recipe for the city's decline and decay:  Dilution of the historic city. Concentration of weak population (Jewish
and Arab) in the city center. Weakening of the identity and identification of the "western residents"
of the city.
Continued westward migration to beyond the expanded borders,
which would include present-day residents of the district. Far-reaching economic, social and political influence of the
weakening of the established Jewish presence in the city center and the eastern neighborhoods. Laying down infrastructure over a vast area, with problematic
topography, would raise its cost and thus significantly increase the burden on the Municipality and its residents. The huge budget required for effecting the western expansion would
detract from vital projects designed to rehabilitate and improve construction and quality of life in the city's core, to the point where the chance of that happening would shrink or disappear altogether. Neglect of the city center would be perpetuated. 7. Intensive construction in the west would have serious consequences for nature and the environment in the Judean Hills, which constitute the largest, most continuous and most important "green lung" in Israel: Serious damage to the catchment basin of the "mountain aquifer" as
a result of a significant reduction of penetration areas and an increased pollution potential. Reduction of the most vital space available to the residents of
Jerusalem and Israel's central region (compising most of the country's population) for recreation and relaxation in open countryside. Irreparable damage to the internationally unique ecosystem that still
exists in the Judean Hills. Damage to national heritage sites, nature reserves and state parks as
a result of the (proposed) change in their status or the encroachment
of development in their vicinity. 8. It is not by chance that any examination of alternatives is absent from all the position papers prepared by the Jerusalem Municipality and its partners. Such an examination would enable decision-makers to at least consider other possibilities: Within the current municipal boundaries there exist land reserves
sufficient for realistic population growth needs. Effort and investment should be concentrated on their maximal use - especially the renewal and rehabilitation of the city center - while adhering to obligatory conservation policies, as well as construction in appropriate areas of the territory annexed to Jerusalem in 1993. All this points to an urgent need for a new, binding master plan for the city. Only investment and construction within the city, which will make it
more attractive and improve its quality of life, can strengthen it. Small and medium-sized settlements play an important role in a
proper metropolitan constellation. Such a constellation is forming in the Jerusalem district and it should not be harmed by unnecessary expansion of the mother city. Proper functioning of the metropolitan constellation will be
guaranteed by the consensual establishment of an umbrella municipality possessing the broad, long-range perspective which can make it possible for the area to undergo comprehensive development. Our inevitable conclusion is that the position of the Municipality and
its partners is, as far as we can tell, "policy by project", the main purpose of which is to prepare and promote large real-estate and development projects which have up to now been rejected by the planning bodies because they contradict national outline plans and policies. The motive behind these projects lies in the interests of land tenants, real estate agents, and bureaucrats seeking to justify their own existence. |
ALTERNATIVE RAILROAD LINES TO JERUSALEM :
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Position of the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI)
The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) supports the promotion of public transport and considers the railroad to be the means best suited to that purpose. Mass rail travel would eliminate the pressure of private vehicles on Israel's roads, especially during daily rush hours, and reduce the pressure to construct new roads which "gobble up" the country's ever decreasing land resources.
The SPNI considers a rapid, efficient rail link between Jerusalem and metropolitan Tel Aviv to be a vital need of the country's transportation network, as well as a crucial element in improving and rehabilitating the city's economic, social and demographic situation and reinforcing its status as the national capital. Because of the Judean Hills' great importance, for both their landscape and their ecological value, the implementation of each of the alternative rail lines to Jerusalem under discussion would have an environmental impact well beyond its actual route. In addition to the need to minimize any damage which may be caused to the environment, the alternatives must be judged by their results. Environmental damage is justified only if the best alternative is implemented. It is not justified if the alternative implemented meets national and regional needs only partially or unsatisfactorily, or not at all. Alternative G : the Nahal Sorek - Nahal Refa'im alternative
Between Tel Aviv and Beit Shemesh (via Ramla-Lod), this alternative would follow the old railroad route to Jerusalem, with minor changes for the purpose of doubling and straightening the tracks. Because of the nature of the area and the flat topography of this route up to Beit Shemesh, and despite the partial damage to open spaces (primarily agricultural), the impact of this section to the landscape and the environment would be small.
From Beit Shemesh to Jerusalem, however, the situation is entirely different. In order to double and straighten the tracks (and to shorten the general traveling time), extensive earthworks would be required, at a considerable distance from the old tracks. It would actually be tantamount to constructing a new line for 25 km. of the route, all of which would lie within nature reserves, national parkland, and natural and afforested woodland protected in outline plans. This is one of the most impressive, best conserved and hitherto least damaged regions of the Judean Hills, familiar to travelers on the old railroad line to Jerusalem. According to Israel Railroads plans for this alternative, as we know them, constructing this line would require tunneling along the edge of Mount Ya'alah, through the Bohen and Ya'ar extensions, and along the edge of Mount Pitulim - all within the nature reserve of Nahal Sorek (the Sorek riverbed). Additional tunneling (or even more extensive earthworks above the surface) would be required along the edge of Mount Giora, lying within the Mount Giora nature reserve, along the edge of Mount Refa'im within Begin Park, on the Kobi extension and in other places within the Nahal Refa'im (Refa'im riverbed) nature reserve to be determined in more detailed plans. Bridges would connect the tunnels wherever the line crosses Nahal Sorek-Refa'im. Additional bridges would be required at other points along the route. At each portal of each tunnel and at the sites of most of the bridges, new access roads would have to be constructed. For the easternmost part of this section, within the Nahal Refa'im nature reserve, the route of a new road to Jerusalem, Road No. 39, has already been approved, with its own tunnels and bridges, the construction of which would cause significant damage even if the highest standards of construction and landscape rehabilitation are observed. It would also reduce the qualitative open space along its route and the value of that open space in preserving ecological continuity in the Judean Hills. The damage to the environment and the landscape which would be caused by work on the G route would be of intolerable dimensions. It should be implemented if and only if it is proved that this is the best alternative, in which case comprehensive environmental analyses would be required, as well as optimal engineering and landscape solutions for the problems and obstacles it would create. Judging by the data presented to us by Israel Railroads and the Transport and Finance Ministries, this alternative falls far short of fulfilling the requirements of a rapid rail link between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. It is inferior as a competitive national-transport or economic-financial answer to the glut of private vehicles on the roads. This being the case, it does not justify the extensive environmental damage it would cause.
Alternative G1
The Jerusalem Development Authority has suggested solving the environmental problems on the Nahal Sorek - Nahal Refa'im route by excavating a 15 km. tunnel from Beit Shemesh to the vicinity of the proposed train station in Malcha, overlooking Nahal Refa'im. This alternative, which has not been planned out in detail and has been considered on a preliminary basis only, would in fact solve the environmental problem posed by Alternative G, but it would remain an inferior transport alternative for the desired link between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Alternative A1: the rapid rail alternative
This alternative, for a rapid line via Ben Gurion Airport and Modi’in en route to
Jerusalem, would require new tracks along its entire route. Up to the western slopes of the Judean Hills, in the Canada Park area, its environmental and landscape implications would be limited, due to the nature of the open spaces and the relatively flat topography it would traverse. Meticulous environmental and landscape analysis and appropriate planning would be required for the section passing through the northeast borders of Ayalon Valley, Canada Park and the portal area of the tunnel (or pair of tunnels) under the Judean Hills.
The route calls for a 12-14 km. tunnel under the Judean Hills National Park and Rabin Park, emerging at the northwest edge of the Arazim Valley where it meets the Einot Telem National Park. From there, according to current plans, the route would continue another 3 km. along the borders of the Alona Hills and Mitzpeh Naftoah, partially over a high viaduct, before entering another tunnel along the perimeter of Lifta village en route to Jerusalem's new central bus station in Romema. The Arazim Valley is defined in Israel's outline plans as a "natural resource area" and "open rustic landscape", most of which is "natural forestland to be conserved and cherished". The small Einot Telem National Park in its western section is currently outside the planned route and should remain so. There would be significant impact on the landscape at the exit portal of the tunnel to the Arazim Valley, at the construction site of the viaduct and additional earthworks, and at the entrance portal of the tunnel near Lifta. Guaranteed free passage of people and animals under the viaduct is crucial. Besides all the infrastructure required for the railway, the section of Road No. 9 which passes through the eastern part of the valley has already been approved, and a high tension (KV400) line to Mishor Adumim has been proposed for that part of the valley as well. Sewage and communications lines already go through it and there is a proposal to run an additional sewage line in the direction of the Sorek sewage treatment plant. The excavation works and construction of the viaduct in the Arazim Valley would cause damage to the landscape. Meticulous environmental analysis and appropriate planning would be required around Lifta too, in order to enable this special place to be rehabilitated and developed. At the same time, non-implementation of the extensive construction plans for Mitzpeh Naftoah and the Alona Hills would still be the best guarantee that most of the valley could be planned and developed as a "northern park", as recommended in the Jerusalem Municipality's "Master Plan for Open Spaces" (1994). Implementing the plan to build housing, along with the railroad tracks and other infrastructure planned for the valley, would preclude the development of a worthwhile park there. If the data provided by Israel Railroads and the Transport and Finance Ministries are correct, this is the optimal alternative: as an answer to the need for a rapid rail link between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, from an economic-financial perspective, and as a national-transport answer to the private-vehicle congestion on the roads. As such, it does justify the environmental damage its implementation would cause. Alternative S: rehabilitation and improvement of the existing railroad line
This alternative is proposed as a transitional, short-term solution (feasible within 18 months, according to Israel Railroads) in order to resume the rail link between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and to assure a permanent rail link between Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh.
The entire length of the tracks on the old route would be replaced, their base widened and earthworks carried out to improve the line along the borders of the nature reserves and the national park. All the proposed earthworks would have serious implications for the landscape. However, specific damage to protected areas and their environmental attributes would be limited. This project would require meticulous environmental analysis, especially vis a vis the landscape, and appropriate planning as well as great care in executing the work. Highly qualitative and thoroughly comprehensive landscape rehabilitation under the supervision of the Nature Reserve and National Park Authority would also be essential. This alternative has no value as a rapid rail link connecting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, or as an answer to national traffic congestion. It has limited value as a reasonable link connecting Beit Shemesh with Jerualem, and as a tourist attraction. As a renewed rail link between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, it would have symbolic value only.
Conclusion
All the professionals and the documents which have been shown to us are of the opinion that Alternative A1 is the only alternative for a rail link between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that would be fast, competitive vis a vis other means of transport, and economically and financially viable despite its high costs. It offers a suitable answer to Israel's national transportation needs as well as to Jerusalem's real development and reinforcement needs, even if it exacts a price in terms of limited damage to the environment, as described above.
The environmental damage expected from implementation of Alternative G would be much more extensive and therefore would be unjustified in view of G's inferiority. The SPNI and its partners in environmental campaigns have taken and will continue to take every possible action to prevent this alternative from being implemented and the severe environmental damage it would cause from being perpetrated. As of this writing, the Minister of Transport has decided (in June 2001) to adopt Israel Railroads' plan for Alternative A, which would take 8-10 years to complete. Planning for this alternative is in an advanced stage in the planning institutions, and a significant annual allocation of funds from the Transport Ministry's budget would be required to assure its implementation. At the same time, the Minister has also decided to upgrade the existing rail line (Alternative S) within two years. His position has been supported by the Prime Minister against opposition from the Finance Ministry and the Jerusalem Municipality. The SPNI is following this matter closely in order to ensure that Israel Railroads upholds its undertaking to significantly minimize whatever damage is caused by upgrading the Nahal Sorek-Nahal Refaim line. |
|
The Subjects |