Presentation on theme: "THE BUDA SIDE LOWER EMBANKMENT CASE „ILLUSTRATING THE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM IN CEE” Tamás Fleischer MTA Világgazdasági Kutatóintézet"— Presentation transcript:
THE BUDA SIDE LOWER EMBANKMENT CASE „ILLUSTRATING THE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM IN CEE” Tamás Fleischer MTA Világgazdasági Kutatóintézet http://www.vki.hu/~tfleisch/ Course for Sustainability Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe Szentendre, 10th of October, 2006
Mouth of the ‘Ördögárok’ (Devil’s ditch) End-of-pipe unsolvednesses
End-of-pipe unsolvednesses – and the century-old dream of the sewage collector and the central cleaning plant Changing role of the embankments in the life of the cities The planned four lane road to solve the traffic problem. The report of the mission of UNESCO and ICOMOS experts The interpretation of the Report of the mission Present perspectives [Questions, remarks] The Buda-side lower embankment case
What about the Danube? Do we turn to it or turn our back to it?
The Danube was a frequented trading corridor with a tracker- route and with ports along its embankment The direct trading role gradually decreased, Houses were built along the riverside, the city began to turn toward the river. Swimming pools, boats, ships, promenade, urban life. Better water supply, more and more sewage water – and all goes to the river. The mouth of the Devil’s ditch is now the end of the pipe. As a matter of fact we again turn now our back to the Danube, but this time with bad conscience. …That is why we decided to extend the pipe and the sewage water of two-third Buda transport 8 km-s to Csepel island. By that way ‘we let the Danube being again clean and attractive’.
What about the Danube? Do we turn to it or turn our back to it? I personally have doubts if it were an up-to-date solution to collect the sewage water of half of a metropolis and transport it to great distances just for handling it together in a huge cleaning plant. The sewage system gradually should be changed from unified (sewage and rain water together) system to a separated system. The existing open-end sewage system would be good for the rain water, that keep on can directly be driven into the Danube – while the household sewage water could be cleaned in small local cleaning plants, and from those it could also be gone to the Danube along the old sewage system. This is not happening, because the whole system has a huge inertia, (path-dependence). Even if it is known, that the direction we follow is not good, we are not able to change. We are not able to change our mind.
… and joining to the sewage water system construction „if the supporting wall is to be transposed anyway ” it seemed to be an excellent occasion to widen the road with two extra traffic lines. …in order to let here go those traffic, that we decided to send here in a period, when we were just turning back to the river! That type of ‘relative through traffic’ is normally sent to those parts of the town that can be easily sacrified in order to help the traffic flow. The inner Buda embankment is definitively not such a part of Budapest. What about the Danube? Do we turn to it or turn our back to it?
Otherwise – we called the attention – the sewage collector could be constructed under the lower embankment, or under the upper embankment, or under the pavement in Fő utca, or in the river bed, or under the river bed - too. In such a case it could have been said ‘if the pavement is to be changed anyway’ it would be possible to build a pedestrian pavement, an exclusive road for public transport, a calmed traffic street, an extended tram line – that is investments for a better life in the district, rather than improve the circumstances of the transit road traffic.. All these latter suggestions could be much more harmo-nised with the official targets: to decrease the traffic load, the through traffic, the environmental pollution. What about the Danube? Do we turn to it or turn our back to it?
In an urban fabric, one can decrease the traffic load of a section, if I make the site less attractive for car traffic: if it is net possible to drive along the whole section, if the road has no priority, if because of speed limits it is not worthy to choose that way, if one have to pay if want to use thet section etc. Just differently, the official plan wanted to make more attractive the lower embankment for the through traffic. It increased the car traffic, by that way perpendicularly also increasing the feeding traffic. The result is, that the traffic in the district - that was declared to be protected from the traffic - does not decrease, while the connection with the Danube changed definitely worse. What about the Danube? Do we turn to it or turn our back to it?
Paris 2002 Plage at the Seine
Budapest 2004 Plage at the Pest
South-Korea: Cheon before and after
Düsseldorf Rhine embankment
Source: P.-M. Tricaud. B. Maldoner. Evaluation of Buda Embankment Wastewater Collector and Road Project 20-22 March 2005.
Interpretation of the Mission Evaluation I have never heard communicating, what really was the preferred alternative the two authors found best Namely: „removing the road and restoring the former aspect of the embankment” It is true, that the authors correctly added that this solution ‘was not acceptable by the current position of technicians with regards to functional issues’ But, when these technicians refer to the opinion of the foreign experts, it would have been right to quote similarly correctly their statement
The good news is that the four lanes widening of the embankment was abandoned. The bad news is that the planners didn’t want to understand the real message: a more liveable environment needs calm, less traffic, pedestrianisation, more public space. What is planned now, formally follows the advises of the non- widening of the embankment, but want to send more lorry traffic to the area maintains the place for a future tunnel under the lower embankment, - that is still they want to press here the north- south through traffic of Buda. Present perspectives
THE BUDA SIDE LOWER EMBANKMENT CASE „ILLUSTRATING THE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM IN CEE” Tamás Fleischer MTA Világgazdasági Kutatóintézet http://www.vki.hu/~tfleisch/ Course for Sustainability Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe Szentendre, 10th of October, 2006 THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION !