Genoa – “Synthetic and summary” cost-benefit analysis, inadequate to justify the chosen solution. And a series of surveys on the road management front, both during the works and once the work has been completed, from a hydraulic and geological point of view, also given the delicate position close to the Bisagno, and with regard to the structural calculations, in particular those in support of the connecting viaduct to Brignole.
For this reason it Skymeter, as it was submitted by the Municipality to the Superior Council of Public Works, it cannot go forward. Or, to put it with the members of the third section of the highest technical body of the Ministry of Infrastructure, «we reiterate the need to have the complete and updated project in light of the aforementioned changes to be made. The deadlines for expressing the opinion are interrupted.”
The work designed to give Valbisagno a rapid transport system must therefore slow down. At least until the specifications requested by the ministry, which has expressed its opinion on the Technical-economic feasibility plan (Pfte), which precedes the actual project. «The opinion, mandatory although not binding, is part of the process of the Services Conference which also includes the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in progress», replies the councilor for Mobility Matteo Campora, who assures that the municipal offices have already sent what was requested to Rome: «We are waiting to have the opinion to conclude the authorization process».
However, the findings of the Superior Council were no small matter. Already in the introduction of the document, dated 23 November, it is noted how «in the meeting of 9 November… with the municipal technicians, it emerged that the project is currently under reviewalso in relation to the part in which the route is characterized by a double curvature (the junction immediately upstream of Brignole ed)”, and adds that the commission “in order to be able to express itself must have a Pfte complete in all its parts, also in consideration of the very tight deadlines imposed by the law”.
The opinion is effectively frozen, but the technicians still delve into the merits. The evaluation of the cost/benefit ratio – explicitly required by the Procurement Code – and the comparison with other hypotheses is judged to be very incomplete: «The comparison appears to be addressed in generic, synthetic and therefore insufficient terms»; furthermore «they cannot be found transport studies placed at the base of the sizing of the line”; with respect to road aspects “the documentation is lacking”; then there are a series of observations relating to the «criticality of the route close to the Bisagno» which requires «core drilling to detail the reference hydrogeological model», which were not made (or which the Municipality did not include in the report); from a hydraulic point of view, “an assessment of the impact on the infrastructure” is needed in the event that the spillways do not work properly. As regards the deck that will have to support the line, the Council clearly underlines that «the preliminary calculations presented are not sufficient», and that for the project of the bridge over the Bisagno, «the structural solution can hardly be left to a design of as high as the one proposed.”
It's still, technicians talk about the nominal life of the infrastructure (the useful life of the work adequately maintained), defined as 50 years, which is considered “anachronistic”, underlining how “more suitable levels of durability, such as 100 years, can be obtained with negligible costs”. The latest censorship comes on the “acoustic and vibrational aspects” of the work, considered very important, precisely because the Skymetro will have to pass through houses and often very close to them; the technicians appointed by the ministry, on this point, point out that “no document appears to have been provided”.
The Municipality, Campora assures, has «provided all the requested additions, both in terms of design detail, starting from the “double S” layout which has been overcome, and in terms of requests for hydraulic and other matters. All in good time to be able to carry forward the approval of the Plan according to the steps envisaged by the Services Conference”. But why is the plan already in the environmental impact assessment phase, moreover in a short form, if the Council has not expressed its opinion? «They are two tracks that travel together, they are not contradictory: we will have both conclusions at the end of the month or early February and thus we will make the synthesis to further improve the project. The opinion of the Council is very important and will be taken into the utmost consideration, but it is not binding”, says Campora.
However, the committees against the work are worried. «We would like to be able to say that we are happy, because the Council has underlined a series of things that we had also underlined, since the appearance of the first drawings and the first hypotheses – says Vincenzo Cenzuales, of the opposition committee to Skymetro – But we're not. Beyond our opposition to the merit of the work, we are disconcerted by the method that is followed, if we can speak of a method at all.
The Council basically said: “We don't understand what you are doing, if you want, come back and explain it to us”, which is exactly what we keep saying. This project is constantly changing, how can you make observations on the Way if every day there is something new? Projects should follow their own approval times: preliminary, definitive, executive, according to a logical evolution. Not the Skymetro: every now and then someone gets up and proposes their modification, and we continue like this, navigating by sight. It's not a serious procedure, we can't keep up with these continuous developments.”
#Genoa #Skymetro #MIT #freezes #project #gaps #evaluated
