The momentum of the past few years in the laying of infrastructures, to the unprecedented tune of tens of billions of shekels, has gradually turned Israel into an effectively smaller and even more accessible country than it was previously. Hundreds of kilometers of train lines have been laid, connecting one town to another. En route, they often cross through open areas and have a detrimental effect on the surroundings. How can the balance therefore be found between the immense investments in infrastructure and the maintenance of the values of nature and scenery that some will contend are no less vital to the common weal than train lines?

That was one of the central questions under discussion last week at a conference on nature preservation in the face of infrastructure investment, which took place at Tel Aviv University.

An example of this dilemma is the public argument over the future of the express train line to Jerusalem, A1, which is destined to cut across nature preserves, according to Alona Shefer-Karo, the director of Life and Environment, the umbrella group for the country's non-governmental environmental organizations. She says that the environmental groups have for years been calling for massive investments in a rail line to Jerusalem, but today are pondering whether the ecological price that will be paid for the line's development is not too high. Many times, she says, there is internal disagreement among the environmentalists about the order of priorities.

	Advertisement

Yeshayahu Ronen, who is in charge of transportation planning in the Transportation Ministry, says there is no point in claiming that train lines do not cause harm to the surroundings, but argues that in view of the alternatives, the lines are the lesser of the evils. Ronen says: "The efforts in this respect must be focused on finding the right formula, and not on presenting the train as the enemy of the environment."

One of the most decisive views was expressed by Prof. Eran Feitelson from the Hebrew University's Federmann School of Public Policy and Government. He said that the train, like any other form of transportation, is not an end in itself but rather a means for furthering social objectives. The questions that need to be asked are what objectives the train is supposed to further, and how these objectives will be integrated with the objective of preserving nature.

The extent to which railway lines harm nature is not uniform, but rather varies from line to line. The most problematic lines are those that run through relatively open landscapes. Therefore the most troublesome lines are those in the peripheral areas: Beit She'an, the line to Carmiel, the line between Ashkelon and Be'er Sheva, the Eilat line, and to a lesser extent the new line to Jerusalem - even though these are the lines which, on the face of it, could open up new opportunities for the periphery. Projects in which additional lines are added in parallel to existing lines, like most projects in the center of the country, are from this point of view less problematic.

From the point of view of intra-generational equality, the question must be asked whether the train benefits weaker populations or weaker areas, and if so, if it is the most effective tool for doing so. As a general rule, the train is not a cheap means of travel and for the most part it is possible to supply cheaper means of public transport. In this respect, travel by bus on parallel lines, such as the route to Be'er Sheva, costs less than the same ride on a train. This means that the train serves the middle class principally, the weaker sectors less, with the exception being soldiers, who travel for free.

Feitelson says that Israel is currently investing many billions in a system whose effectiveness has not been sufficiently tested. On the other hand, it is possible to determine its effect on nature relatively easily. He believes there should be a moratorium on additional investments in the more troublesome lines, in terms of natural resources, until a detailed feasibility study that examines the effect on the environment is carried out, with the participation of external experts.

Hanoch Tsoref, who is administers the railway project on behalf of the Jewish National Fund, says that experience of many years has taught that correct planning, including with regard to the environmental issues, cuts down on building time in the long run, and reduces both costs and damage to the surroundings. Correct planning, not merely with regard to the Jerusalem line, can be carried out in a short time.

Today, since many billions have been allocated to Israel Railways for immediate work, there is pressure to start the work even before the necessary planning stages have been completed.

Surprisingly, the voice of the government office in charge of protecting the environment has hardly been heard. According to Ephraim Schlein, who heads the planning division in the Environmental Protection Ministry, the infrastructure development for railway lines has been accompanied by constant improvement of the attitude of the planners to environmental considerations.

The upgrading of the Nahal Soreq line, in the area between Beit Shemesh and Jerusalem, was a good lesson, he says, in a move that did not internalize the aspects of nature preservation in the planning stages, but today the situation has changed. "If a few years ago, Israel Railways regarded demands about nature and the environment with amazement," he says, "today demands for alternatives to the route, made at an early stage in planning, on the basis of considerations of nature and environment, are part of the planning process. The landscape aspect is examined in a professional manner when the lines are being planned."