Selections from the Environmental Poverty Report 2004
Fast-track highways
In recent years, Israel has undergone intensive highway development with no comparable investment in mass transit systems. During 2004, plans for many new roads were approved, both through the regular planning system and through the “planning bypass,” the National Infrastructure Committee. The NIC was established in 2002 as a fast track for large infrastructure plans with far fewer provisions for environmental assessments and public consultation than in the regular planning system.
Construction of Israel’s mega road, the Trans-Israel Highway continues to have a massive impact on the country’s landscape. While the highway is privately funded, the state has committed to building a series of access roads, many of which are unnecessary. Superfluous new access roads will force the public to bear high financial and environmental costs in order to serve a small section of the population who choose to pay a toll and travel on the Trans-Israel highway.
Highway 461 will connect the Trans-Israel Highway with the area around Ben Gurion Airport. If built, the road will cut through rural areas and break up what is now an uninterrupted green landscape consisting of agricultural features and low hills.
After a ten-year battle with planning authorities who deemed highway 461 as unnecessary, the Public Works Department approached the National Infrastructure Committee, which quickly approved the most environmentally damaging route. The NIC did not consider an alternative route that would take into account all the external (including environmental) costs. IUED has submitted a petition to the Supreme Court in order to demand that the committee considers all the alternatives before making a decision.
Section 18 of the Trans-Israel Highway is planned to cut through Ramot Menashe, an area of forests, streams and hilltop landscapes unequalled in the country and known as the “Tuscany of Israel”. The plan approved for the road relates only to the intended outline route and not the details (including whether bridges or tunnels would be used and how the roadside landscape would be designed), which were meant to be finalized after the completion of an environmental impact assessment.
A tunneling expert concluded that a tunnel on the intended route would minimize its environmental and ecological impacts, and would even be cheaper than the option of a surface road.
However, despite repeated requests from environmentalists and the community to consider the tunneling option, the planning authorities and the government have refused to weigh any alternative plans. The issue is now the subject of a Supreme Court petition submitted by environmental organizations, with the support of the local councils whose quality of life, tourism and air quality will be most affected by this section of the highway.