Comparison of Urban Development Projects in Europe
Introduction
There two projects which I will try to make a comparison of: The first project which is located in United Kingdom, is the Channel Tunnel Rail Link; this is a double track high speed rail link that is located in the Channel Tunnel to the central London. It was officially opened to public use in the month of November of 2007 (Butcher Louise 2011; Basf-admixtures 2006). It is applied to use in three intermediate stations. The stations have led to the development and upgrading of the livelihood of the areas it surrounds, for which it was intended, which are; the St Pancras International Station that is located in the central London, there is also the Stratford International Station which is located in the East London, there is also the Ebbsfleet International Station which is based at the North Kent and finally there is the Ashford International Station which is based in mid-Kent (UCL 2011a, b). The second project which is located in Germany is the Tiergarten Tunnel, this project was built with the aim of improving the road and rail links the city, which is Berlin (Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG 2010). It was additionally meant to connect the long distant rail lines from their various locations; this in consequent made the access to the roads an easy and free mode of transport as well as creating room for its regeneration and advancement to higher standards. The building of the tunnel leads to the significant reduction in traffic. The Hauptbahnhof, which is located in the Central station, also forms part of the project. It was scheduled to be opened earlier, but due to several sectors of opposition it was opened in the year 2006. According to the planning of the project there were additionally a metro tunnel and a city railway tunnel as part of the project.
Acquired from http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/studies/cases/tunnel-berlin_tiergarten_2.php
Acquired from http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/studies/cases/hsr-ctrl_2.php
There were several parties that were involved in the planning, construction and operation. There was the Federal Government inclusive of its bodies and departments; there was the German Bundestag which was made the capital of the reunified nation by its members in 1991. This contributed to the decisions to begin the planning of the transport facilities in the city center for the aim of provision of the much needed infrastructure for the project. There was also the Federal Government which advanced the thought of the railways’ plans in 1992. This was made possible through the Ministry of Transport Building and Urban Affairs whose main task was to draw up the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan in the year 1992. The Plan laid its considerations to the forecasts in traffic in 2010 which was the basis for future developments in Germany’s Transport industry. The plan was to make the node transport bigger so as to incorporate the north-south railway interface. The necessity of funding was satisfactorily taken care of by the Ministry. Another mandate of the ministry in relation to the act on expansion of federal track systems, the government was placed liable for financing the project. Its other responsibility was to fund the larger part of the road, metro and city railway tunnel. Another party that played part of the establishment of the tunnel was the Federal Railway Authority (EBA) which was part of the project from the start, it was mandated to manage and issue consent for the Germany Railways it was mandated to approve the procedure of the transport infrastructure in the city centre. There was also the local government bodies/ departments; the Berlin Senate which passed laws on the issues relating to planning of traffic in the city central. There was the German Railways who initiated the idea of a North-South Railway Connection and construction/ translation of the stations along the railway line.
There was the Berlin Transport Authority which was catered with the task for building and the operation of the metro line U55. Pressure groups also played a part in the establishment of the Berlin Tunnel, where in 1993 approximately 50 groups created an Anti-Tunnel GmbH which was against its construction, but after consultations, they were involved in the accompaniment of the process of transport facilities. Finally, there were the contractors who involved civil engineers for the construction of the transport network mode in the city centre. The contractors involved the German Railways with its components companies.
For the UK Channel Tunnel Rail Link project, it came to be as a result of the decision reached by France and the UK to continue with the project in the late 1980s. The organizations that took part were the Central Government Bodies/Departments which are; the UK parliament which enabled the passage of the CTRL Act although there were several petitions which were mostly concerned with environment, but their concerns were addressed and readily went through. There were also the Forums and Meetings which made its way 1992, this was crucial in the sense that it played a pivoted role in the enhancement of the design, solutions to the problem as well as making briefings to the local community. Individual authorities ensured the project’s consistency in coming up with the decisions (Dept for Transport, 2006). There was also the Department of Transport (DoT) was the key fancier to the whole project and was mandated to monitor all the processes involved in the preparation tasks which were being performed by the British Rail as well as holding discussions with the private sector mandated or tasked to deliver the project. Its work was to assess the holding capacity of the present rail system to allow international services as well as forecasts for capacity needs ahead of time. It held responsibility to sponsoring the 1994 hybrid bill to gain powers for the CTRL; it was also mandated to assess the applicability of project. The Roles of the British Rail involved key duties as: it worked jointly with the French Railways in the Channel Tunnel as well as the rail links to their respective cities, it created several studies of the railway structures, it pointed out the many routes that would be used for the rail link, it was tasked to undertake a research on the viability, cost as well as the financing of the project, it availed to the public on the various routes available and allowed them to make a choice, it participated in the development of the station; that is the Ashford International Station, it was additionally mandated to assess the development options for the Railway Lands located at the King’s Cross. The British railway’s task was however taken up by the private sector and later the Network Rail. There was also the Local Government, although plagued with doubt and investigations, played part to being consulted as the project preparation took place, this was with the essence of preserving the environment in the affected area. There was in addition the British Rail worked to ensure that all the factors involved in the preparation work of the CTRL were amicably done. It collaborated with the DoT to issue ideas on the need and Viability of the CTRL. There were also contractors who involved the civil engineers on the compromise of the CTRL.
The Tiergarten Tunnel project has significant effects to the environment, according to the environmental statement which encompassed an intensive analysis and evaluation of the impact caused to the environment during and after the construction, where while the project was under way there was noise pollution and air pollution through the dusts emitted. The survey undertaken claimed that the compensation would minimize the impact on the environment, the compensation was through planting trees, building noise barriers, greening, and unsealing. This assessment however received criticism from the ‘Anti-Tunnel GmbH’ it argued that there insufficient data as well as time in the analysis. The compensation however was not conclusive as instances of the concepts measured were not completed successfully while others were completely not done; this was as a result of the study undertaken by The Cooperation and Advice for environmental issues which was based in Berlin Institute of Technology. There were also regeneration issues of the building of the VZB at the Central Station northerly of the government quarter. This was an impediment to the three sites next to it which were the Lehrter Urban quarter, the Heidestrasse quarter and finally there was the Humboldt harbour. There was rigid regeneration method that was applied to the VZB project, similarly there weren’t any gains accrued to it when we look at the near future. This was caused by the adverse building in the Berlin market; the regeneration scheme was hence not fruitful. There was the problem of land acquisition as the state of Berlin and the German Railways were constructing the railway, it was meant to be on the city centre mainly on their own land. The acquisition took place in the instance of applying it in the construction, it also seized land for the essence of permanent use as the land was limited, there was also on temporary use as the land was similarly minimal as the project was underway. The ‘Anti-Tunnel GmbH’ went to court to protest against the ecological damage that had resulted from the tunnel construction on the Tiergarten Park, this protest was against the VZB, this was however unsuccessful.
In the United Kingdom, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was a successful project which was able to address several issues as the project was underway and also at its completion. The project was able to recognize the effects it could cause to the environment and hence took several measures to uphold the environmental protection (Click press 2007). There was the landscaping of land where an approximated 8 million meters cubed of land was excavated, there was also the ecological mitigation where millions of trees were planted, hundreds (230 ha) of hectares of woodland was established, there was the creation of a grassland, plantation of a hedgerow, creating of ponds and wetlands (Theotherside 2000). There was a preservation of the cultural heritage of some archeological areas, the CTRL archeologists who were in coherence with the heritage and Kent County Council program to assess the archeological sites and if any alterations were needed, they were made at the primary stage of the whole process. This was in essence to prevent any conflict that may result from the construction with the cultural heritage of the region it is located in. The construction process was more involving as it took into consideration the community and gave them a chance to play in the construction process of the project. Over 500 submissions were received to the planning department as well as the environmental and highway sectors. The community was involved in the highway arrangements, drainage arrangement, designing of the noise barriers thus the accomplished in liaison with the contractors, Rail Link Engineering as well as the Union Railways group. It presented data as well as information to the public as well as responding calls from them. In consideration to the environment the noise, vibration and the air were readily addresses. The noise was sorted out through the use of earthworks bunding as well as noise barriers in relevant areas; the monitoring of the same was done by the local authorities and contractors as a requirement. There was also a restoration of the countryside; this meant to be accomplished by the restoration of the 200 hectares back to its initial quality. Stringent measures were observed to ensure that the soil structure was not damaged. Moreover, the agricultural restoration which was applicable to the Countryside Management Scheme was undertaken; the Rail Link Countryside Initiative received a 2 million finical support for the need of developing the environment in the rural CTRL arena. Regeneration was a success as it was encouraged in the areas surrounding the international stations along the CTRL route, the regeneration process created jobs for several people, the building of the Thames Gateway made it possible for additional development projects to be underway which was approximated to be £500 million and over 8000 people got employed, the CTRL paved way for several development projects that hovered around £8 billion. In the area of archeology and heritage, the buildings that were in the way of the project’s construction were reconstructed elsewhere as well as receiving a much needed renovation, the Pancras Chamber which was graded as 1 received refurbishment and transformed into a hotel and luxurious flats, the destruction of the Old and Water Street Cottages that were located in Maidstone were taken to the Museum of Kent Life for the sole purpose of re-erection, Brockton Barn located in Tenterden, was similarly recorded and dismantled for re-erection. In reference to land acquisition, there was large amount of land that was on the pathway hindering construction of the tunnel rail, individual properties were not left out, this was however solved by the selling of this land, most of this land will be given back once the construction was done and sold back a total of 12000 interest and 300 houses were involved.
Comparison of the two projects
The two projects similar in the essence of the government objectives to the Germany Tiergarten Tunnel Project which revolved around the improvement of the transport infrastructure of Berlin; the construction of the structure to try and tackle the traffic as well as to integrate the national transport system with the European transport system (European Commission 2005). While the UK’s Tunnel Rail Link had the government to be objected with the task of increasing the capacity of the tunnel by 50% act as an international railway link between London and Europe.
In both instances the government was involved in the project, in the German project, it was the Federal government that was involved among other departments, while in the UK project it was the central government bodies that were involved as well as other departments. The two projects encompassed civil engineers who undertook the project from start to finish.
The two projects were similar in the sense that they both had pressure groups that were against the construction of the two projects. In Germany, there was the ‘Anti-Tunnel GmbH’ while in UK there were several groups; SAMBRE, PEARL, RACHEL and TALIS which all had various aspects that they stood for. This can also be a contrast in the sense that Germany had a single pressure group while in the UK the pressure groups were various.
Both cases had the aspect of land acquisition, where huge lands which were in the way of the construction were taken up and used for the construction process.
The effects caused by the projects had a similarity in the sense that they all had an adverse impact on the environment in terms of noise and air pollution, but they varied in the sense that the measures taken up in the compensation process in Germany was quite unsatisfactory as there some that were unaccomplished while in the UK the project had a satisfactory impact that preserved the initial state that was there.
The environmental statements issued to both companies varied in the instance that it never gave the German’s project a clean bill of health while the UK one had satisfactory implication hence was commendable.
The construction work undertaken in UK had the involvement of various sectors of the community; the archeologists as well as the community. While making a comparison to the German project, it had little or even no consultation or involvement to the public. This later had adverse implications to the whole project where the German one had affected adversely the environment and little measures were applied to solve it, while the UK one, due to their involvement gave little effect that were bad but later successfully corrected.
The Regeneration process in Germany was quite poor as it resulted to overbuilding which resulted to poor site regeneration. In contrast, the regeneration process in UK was a success and was further encouraged; it led to employment and preservation of the culture of the city in museums.
References
Butcher Louise, 2011, Railways: Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1), acquired on 30th April 2011 from <http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-00267.pdf >
Basf-admixtures, 2006, Channel Tunnel Rail Station, Kings Cross, London acquired on 30th April 2011 from < http://www.basf-admixtures.co.uk/en/projectreferences/Pages/CTRLStation.aspx?mode=print >
Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), 2010: Building for the Future. Extension of the U5. The U55 Shuttle Line from Hauptbahnhof to the Brandenburg Gate [online]. Available from: http://www.u55.info/en_u55/start.htm acquired on 30th April 2011.
Click press, 2007, Firstco’s project management experience and expertise helps the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, acquired on 30th April 2011 from http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/51786005cp.shtml
Dept for Transport (2006a), the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [online] Available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/ctrl/thechanneltunnelraillinkprin3441 Accessed: 30th April 2011.
Dept for Transport (2006b), Chronology of the Channel Tunnel Link. [online] Available from:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/ctrl/chronologyofthechanneltunnellink Accessed: 30th April 2011.
Dept for Transport, dft.gov.uk – Environment and heritage regarding the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, accessed 23rd October 2006 Dept for Transport (2006b), Facts and Figures on the CTRL to date. [online] Available from: < http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/ctrl/factsandfiguresonthectrl> Accessed: 30th April 2011.
Dept for Transport – The need for a Channel Tunnel Rail Link – How the need for a CTRL developed, http://www.dft.gov.uk , accessed on 30th April 2011.
Dept for Transport – Environment and heritage regarding the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, available from , http://www.dft.gov.uk , accessed 30th April 2011
Dept for Transport – Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Route Description and Simplified Maps,
http://www.dft.gov.uk , accessed on 30th April 2011
European Commission (2005): Trans-European Transport Network. TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005: p.14 [online]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/projects/doc/2005_ten_t_en.pdf acquired on 30th April 2011.
European Commission, Trans-European Transport network: TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005, European Commission, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2005. Downloaded from http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/projects/doc/2005_ten_t_en.pdf accessed on 30th April 2011
Theotherside, 2000, Channel Tunnel, accessed from http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/tunnel.htm, accessed on 30th April 2011
UCL, 2011a, Berlin Tiergarten Tunnel, Germany, acquired on 30th April 2011 from <http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/studies/cases/pdf/PROFILE_TIERGARTENTUNNEL_120411.pdf >
UCL, 2011b, UK Channel Tunnel Rail Link, acquired on 30th April 2011 from <http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/studies/cases/pdf/CTRL-20080808.pdf>
