by InTrieste
The Trieste-based No-Ovovia Committee, staunchly against the development of the Trieste-Opicina metropolitan cable car, systematically criticizes the recently unveiled €62 million project in a point-by-point analysis.
At the core of the committee’s objections is the accusation leveled by municipal executive Giulio Bernetti, who dismissed criticisms of the project as “baseless gut feelings.” Maurizio Fermeglia, the Wwf’s regional representative and former dean of Engineering and Architecture at the University of Trieste, counters, “The municipality’s calculations on vehicular traffic are scientifically questionable, not our opinions.” Fermeglia adds a touch of sarcasm, saying, “According to the plan, the cable car will miraculously reduce traffic by 1.5%, slashing CO2 emissions by 48.3%. Perhaps, we should build two cable cars and solve global warming!”
Franco Musi, formerly in charge of regional Parks and Nature Reserves, refutes claims that the municipality secured a waiver for traversing the Natura2000-protected forest. “The EU granted passage with a third-level Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), contingent on compensations,” Musi explains. These compensations, he emphasizes, cannot merely restore existing environments but necessitate the reconstruction of habitat in a new site linked to the affected area, a process requiring 7-8 years.
The committee challenges the municipality’s artistic representations, presenting them as fantastical depictions of the project. They point out intersections of the cable car route with road surfaces, a reduction in parking spaces at Park Bovedo to accommodate the station housing motors and cable car storage, public greenery where space constraints make it implausible, the lack of concrete bases for pylons, and an illusory intersection with rack railway tracks toward the Faro della Vittoria.
Even the aesthetics of the stations in Porto Vecchio face scrutiny, with the committee rejecting designs by Fuksas in favor of “anonymous structures, crafted from sheet metal and glass, which might again draw objections from the Soprintendenza.”
Responding to the contentious situation, committee president William Starc announces a petition drive to the European Parliament “against a ‘sustainable mobility’ project that harms the natural environment and the citizenry.” Starc notes that due to numerous appeals lodged with the Administrative Court (Tar), the hearing initially set for early next year has been postponed until April, allowing time to present counterarguments.
Nevertheless, Starc underscores that the municipality is proceeding undeterred, emphasizing the need to finalize the definitive project, the currently unfavorable EIA, and the ministerial Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). This timeline, he optimistically concludes, aligns with the anticipated Tar decision, noting that the initially proposed 100 days for the definitive project have extended to 190.
