« La Petite Ceinture du Grand Paris » versus the

Herrmann-Debroux Viaduct in Brussels

------------------------------------------------------------------

Antoine Struelens, 4Cities 2011-2012

Abstract

This paper wants to analyse two important urbanist developments in Paris (the possible reaffectation

for public transport of the old Petite Ceinture railway track (or Petite Ceinture Ferroviaire, from now

on PC) or its reconversion into a green promenade and the broader debate on “Grand Paris”); and

the discussion on the fate of the Herrmann-Debroux road viaduct (from now on H-D) in Brussels,

compared to these two previous cases. There are two parts. In the first part both Parisian

developments are confronted with each other (the notion of scale being the dominant theme in the

developed discussion); in the second part the Petite Ceinture (Paris intra-muros) is compared to the

Herrmann-Debroux Viaduct in Brussels. At the same time these two case-studies are embedded in

the mobility debate of both capitals. An in-extenso analysis of both cases would be too ambitious

right now, the aim here is rather to present these three case studies: PC, GP and H-D. Within their

context (big transport infrastructure projects and mobility in or around these two Western European

capitals that want to foster their international aura). A comparison emphasizing the common points

and differences between the reuse of rail- versus road infrastructure in European cities and the

different economical, social and environmental questions it poses, will be launched. In a second

phase I would like to elaborate these themes further in a master paper which would also include an

empirical study on the H-D Viaduct. It could pose the question of scale not only or mainly on the local

and regional levels, but also on the national and European levels. This could be done by the heuristic

and empirical outcome of the further research on one, two or three of the case-studies touched

upon here to the problematic of big railway infrastructure works which might often favour

investments in long-distance travelling above integrated public transport networks within the

agglomerations themselves or between the agglomerations and their surrounding hinterlands.

Keywords

1

Paris, Petite Ceinture Ferroviaire, Grand Paris, Brussels, Hermann-Debroux, Promenade de l'ancien

Chemin de fer, Transport Infrastructure, Green networks

Short presentation

I am a first year 4cities student starting the second 2011-2012 semester of this European

master in urbanism at the Univesität WIEN. I am finishing my master in history of art-

archaeology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Free University of Brussels). I’m starting this

new semester in Vienna participating at this Professional Seminar for enabling me to

strengthen my knowledge on urbanism in Central and Eastern Europe.

INTRODUCTION

This first part presents two important debates on city planning taking place in Paris and the

Île-de-France region, as well as the relations between both. The question on the re-affectation

of the Petite Ceinture (or Petite Ceinture Ferroviaire, from now on PC) as well as the

creation of new infrastructure as Le Grand Huit/La Double Boucle and the Arc Express

recently combined to “Grand Paris Express” related to the project of Grand Paris (from now

on GP), apart from their relevance – or not, as far as public transport, mobility and ecology

are concerned also crystallises other tensions. Tensions between the commune of Paris and its

banlieue (including the small as well as the big crown, “petite et grande couronne”), those

between the region and the state (the state plays a prominent role in the realisation of the GP

but is also indirectly invited around the negotiation table for the future of the PC thanks to

national public companies, such as the railway company SNCF).

So the problematic analysed here is as much about the decision making process and the role

of different players in them, as on the urban projects themselves. I here want to give an

introduction for further research on this theme: the PC, the GP and the relation between both.

2

I. La Petite Ceinture

The Petite Ceinture (or Petite Ceinture Ferroviaire) is an ancient – 32km long – circular

railway track constructed between 1852 and 1869, which connects or used to connect all the

train stations of central Paris. The PC was used for the transport of troops, merchandise and

passengers. On its high day – with the World exhibition in 1900 - it transported no less than

39 million passengers; later it was gradually abandoned by passengers traffic because of the

expanding metro network. From 1934 to the beginning of the 1990’s the tracks were used for

goods transport1. The creation and use of the PC has been together with the Haussmannisation

of Paris an important element in the development of the banlieue2.

Today, the Southern and Western part of the PC are used by the RER D, but the other 23 km

remain mainly vacant. There have been a lot of propositions for re-affectation in the past few

years; the city of Paris and the arrondissements would like to create a promenade plantée or

coulée verte (inspired by the success of the coulée verte – Viaduc des Arts between Bastille

and Bois de Vincennes in the 12th arrondissement). An other option being a reuse for

passengers-transport as defined by other actors such as the members of the “Association

Sauvegarde Petite Ceinture” (ASPCRF). Both options don’t have to exclude one another as

ASPCRF is willing to combine their tram or train with a garden where possible, and the

municipality of Paris also envisages to prolong existing tramlines on these rails on part of the

23 km.

3

But, before talking about the current project (or the current proposals) and their evolution, let

us first take into consideration the debate of the tram in Paris, more precisely the implantation

of the Tram3 (T3) on the Boulevard des Maréchaux (between Garigliano and Porte d’Ivry).

This debate rises a lot of questions related to urban planning such as the relations of Paris with

its banlieue and the role of both specialists and politicians regarding mobility issues, bringing

us to the animated dispute in Paris’s recent past.

1 Most of the freight now takes the Grand Ceinture in the banlieue (further outside the city of Paris).

2 HARVEY, D. (2003, p 113)

Why isn’t the PC reused yet?

In: “Ville et territoires face aux défis de la mondialisation. Les indicateurs de mobilité

durable: nouveaux pouvoirs ou nouvelles contraintes?” (Colloque de l’ASRDLF), Philippe

Zittoun takes the T3 and the debate on the line it had to follow as a case study to demonstrate

the importance of sustainable growth in the discourse, and the complexity of urbanism

because of the interferences of different institutional levels (region, state, Europe).3 In the

middle of the 1990’s the mayor of Paris takes the decision to build a tram in the southern

bypass of Paris. A workgroup then studies two possible trajectories: the first one follows the

PC railway, the second one is put on the Boulevard des Maréchaux, a boulevard that also

circles around Paris, parallel to the périphérique motorway on its inside. This road is heavily

used by cars. The group compares both solutions with objective criteria. The PC trajectory

clearly wins: almost on all aspects (travel time, rapidity, capacity of passengers per hour and

cost) gain with the PC, only the interconnections with other public transport lines slightly

favours the Maréchaux option. But in 2000 a “Contrat de Plan État/Région” is signed in

favour of the second option, and during the municipal elections of 2001 both left- and right

wing candidates defend the political choice of having the T3 on the Bd. des Maréchaux, going

against the arguments of the experts.4

How can this be explained?

4

The first reason is an “ideological” one: building a tram line on a boulevard heavily used by

cars would change mentalities by reducing the space for automobiles and enabling an

important shift from the car- to the tram use. The second reason was that if the municipality of

Paris would have chosen to use the PC, they would have had to negotiate with more different

actors around the table like the SNCF or the “Mairie du 15e arrondissement”. City

government was favoured above local governance.5 This choice led to the mobilisation of

members of associations defending the first and more logical option, who questioned the

public actors about it. The debate became heavily polarised until a public transport users

association, “Association des Usages du Transport d’Île-de-France”, printed a leaflet

3 ZITTOUN, P. (2005, p 1)4 Idem , p 105 Idem , p 12

introducing the notion of “scale”, saying both trajectories were useful but that the PC had a

regional vocation and the Bd. des Maréchaux a Parisian one, which therefore couldn’t be

compared. Both trajectories didn’t oppose one another any longer, they became

complementary.

Which future for the Petite Ceinture?

Different options are proposed, the most concrete one is to create (during at least 7 years) a

1,3 km long green promenade – while maintaining one track – in the 15th arrondissement, in

the north the T8 from Saint-Denis could be prolonged to les Buttes-Chaumont or even Père-

Lachaise on the PC.

5

We have to know that right now every option is not possible for the PC, as a five years 2006

agreement links the RFF (Réseau Ferré de France, owner of the PC) with the city of Paris.

This means a new agreement will come up this year. Olivier Milan (responsible for the

dossier to the regional direction of RFF gives the tone: “Until now, we stuck to the

preservation of all the rails in order to restore the trafic. From now on we are willing to

abandon the railway future of certain slices.” Gréco, B. (2011, JDD 13 novembre).

If this turnaround is confirmed the next question would be if a green corridor is an option on

the remaining 23 km of mostly unused tracks. According to the Association Sauvegarde

Petite Ceinture (ASPCRF), who prone to the rehabilitation of the PC by a train- or tramline on

the whole route, this isn’t possible because only half (11) of these 23 km can be used (8 km

are tunnels from 100 to 1300 m long) and 3 km are sliced. These slices are up to 10m deep,

which makes them quite narrow, difficult to access and not really pleasant. So only half of the

perimeter would fit as a Parisian highline – the New York highline itself being inspired by the

planted promenade between Place de la Bastille and Bois de Vincennes – keeping in mind that

it will never be a continuous promenade because of these tunnels and tranches. Again

according to ASPCRF the linear route of the PC makes that the average width is around 10 m,

which is not of course a lot, but the same can be said about the promenade plantée in the 12th

arrondissement, especially on the Viaduct des Arts section. Other more convincing arguments

against the dismantling of the railway tracks and its replacement by a park are that the

promenade plantée passes through neighbourhoods which are more central and more

frequented than the ones that would be served by the PC (laying in the periphery of the city

centre). And that a public transport line would in any case be more intensively used in any

period of the year and on any time of the day, hundreds of thousands would use a tramline in-

staid of thousands a park. And there might be as many or more noise problems from a green

corridor as from a tramline, so this argument is invalid. If the choice of taking part of the PC

route out of the railway network in for instance the 14th and 15th arrondissements would be

confirmed, a lot of connections between transport lines wouldn’t be possible. The RFF (who

owns the PC) also pretends the situation for the southern part of the tracing has changed since

6

the T3 – which will be prolonged to the east and the north – has been installed. This rhetoric

clearly contradicts the complementarity of both routes, previously defended. T3 is now

presented as fitting both the Parisian and regional scale – as it would circle around the whole

inner city and would facilitate displacements both in, to or from Paris as from banlieue to

banlieue. A strange argumentation, because of the bigger possible capacity and commercial

speed of the PC.

Maybe the Parisian authorities are favouring a green promenade above a re-use of the PC by

light rail or trams because of the density of inner Paris, the scarcity of available land and the

fact that they don’t want to admit that their initial political intuition about taking more space

to the car at the Bd. des Maréchaux leading to an increasing turn-over of users from car to

public transport (T3) was wrong. A study demonstrates that these intermodal shifts are very

marginal – only about 2-3% of T3 users drove their car on the same road before its

introduction6 – and that the redevelopment of this ring boulevard, lead to an increase of

traffic at the Périphérique, only 300m further.7 The same study, Paris: a tram named desire,

concludes that the overall ecological and economical impact of this implantation has

6 PRUD’HOMME, R. (2007, p 23) 7 Idem , p 8

been negative instead of positive, with a slight mobility improvement for the Parisians but a

decrease for the Banlieusards (inhabitants of the banlieue).

An updated PC network could be used as both an inter-city and regional network (as the

architects of GP also recognised), having an almost circular high capacity public transport

bypass network; this would change the layout of the public transport network in a much

cheaper way by reusing part of the ancient infrastructure which is still available and

combining it with new ones – as the Grand Paris Express. Except linking most Parisian train

stations the PC would also connect all the RER lines with one another. This however doesn’t

mean the whole railway route can’t be opened for the public for temporary use, but this

“temporary use” of part of the available infrastructure sometimes even considered as

7

“wasteland” thereby not recognising the opportunity of the network, could make it more

difficult to reengage a negotiation process for a renewed transport use of the PC in a second

phase. Especially if actors as the RFF would be more attracted by speculating on the land

value of their strategic railway land instead of focussing on their core business – being the

management of their railway infrastructure.

II. Le Grand Paris

Le Grand Paris can be defined in various ways: it first was a designation to promote

institutional reform in the dense part of the Parisian agglomeration. Recently it was associated

with an architectural competition and finally this led to the creation of an organism creating

the Post-Kyoto Paris, which main realisation is now the sketch for an automatic metro

network: the Grand Paris Express, linking historical Paris to its bigger agglomeration through

its “competition poles”.8

GP enhances the problematic of the city centre of Paris (the 20 arrondissements or districts)

and the bigger agglomeration around it. What we consider as Paris – administratively

speaking, inner Paris: the 20 arrondissements inside the Périphérique road, is only a small

8 WIEL, M. (2010, p 9).

part of the urban area (both in demographical and geographical terms). In comparison, other

world cities such as London, New York or Tokyo have a bigger administrative centre

controlling a bigger share of the agglomerations territory and population, representing their

city more as a whole. In the Paris agglomeration there are different layers of power: the

municipalities (with Paris as the central and most important one), the 8 départements and the

Île-de-France region. The state has also always played an important role, partly because of the

important centralist tradition, but also because there is only one world city or capital in

8

France, which is different from for instance the situation in Spain where there is the Madrid –

Barcelona competition, and Germany that has a few bigger cities: not only Berlin, but also

Hamburg, Munich, or the Rhur area. In this sense we could compare Paris with London. The

state plays an important role in the Île-de-France region by taking (if not imposing) its own

initiatives; this contradicts with the process of decentralisation which gave more autonomy to

the regions also enabling them to have metropolitan projects around a core city in the

provinces; these urban communities were created top-down by the state, or have organically

grown under the impulse of a city administration. In cities such as Lyon these urban

communities led to a coherent urban vision.9

This thematic is illustrated in the book of Marc Wiel, Le Grand Paris, Premier Conflit né de

la décentralisation. As an urbanist, not coming from Paris or the Île-de-France region but

from Brest, Wiel analyses the institutional complexity of the Parisian agglomeration and its

bigger urban region together with its history regarding urban intervention in the light of the

decentralisation process and the recent GP debate, taken over by president Nicolas Sarkozy

(having pushed forward a GP law, fixing the modalities of its realisation). Wiel ends with a

critical vision on the GP proposal (the transport network and the architect’s competition)

linking it to the discourse around it, before giving his view over modern urbanism and the

road the Parisian agglomeration should follow. The most important theme of this book – and

the most elaborate proposal in the Grand Paris debate – is the public transport network (Wiel

wonders if public transport really has to be the core principle on building the Post-Kyoto

Paris, and questions the fact of “over-subsidised” home-work transport – especially on long

distances, by saying that there are different kinds of mobility: the daily and the residential

mobility.10 If the residential mobility increases, the daily work – home mobility could

9 Idem, p31

decrease, as more people (the majority) will be able to live close to their work, this would

drastically reduce the cost of public transport for both the state and the employers. We cannot

substitute the one by the other, we can’t continue to compensate the lack of residential

mobility by megalomaniac transport infrastructure – whether by road or by rail. Both daily

9

and residential mobility should be integrated and bettered. This twofold mobility also

questions the need for frequent and fast connections; fast interconnectivity between urban

centres within a conglomeration as the Paris agglomeration would become less crucial if

citizens lived close to their work and were encouraged to do so. Transport mustn’t be

considered as an isolated theme but is linked to other proposals on (social) housing,

(competitive) poles/hubs, land policy and employment. The link between transport and

urbanism, urban morphology, the way a city looks like, is organised and develops, all this

depends on mobility (the way we – citizens, organise our displacements in the city). This

crucial insight is now recognised but isn’t necessarily leading to well thought city planning.

A divided Paris in a divided France

Wiel talks about the Parisian microcephaly absorbing the region around it. From its inception

with the haussmannisation, the creation of the PC or the construction and extension of the

underground network, a districting was created between the “real city” and the “non city”,

which was less dense than Paris intra-muros, not or poorly connected with the metro network.

The contradiction between Paris and its leftovers – the banlieue – has always played a crucial

role in French urbanism. The comparison of Paris and its bigger region with the rest of France

forms another line of demarcation in French history and thought often viewed in terms of

competition – Paris against the rest. This difference between Paris and the Île-de-France

region and the rest of the hexagon is accentuated by the state which is treating its capital in

another way, taking its autonomy. When the SDRIF or Schéma Directeur de la Région Île-de-

France (the planning scheme for the Île-de-France region) was almost elaborated, the state

came in the debate proposing its own views by calling GP an O.I.N. (operation of national

interest). This resulted in two opposed big infrastructure projects for public transport.

Speaking about an invading or invasive state wouldn’t be an exaggeration here. This state

reaction created a situation where two projects competing one another, Grand Huit and Arc

Express, finally had to be reconciled by combining both.

10 Idem, p 85-86

10

The governance system of the Île-de-France region is not efficient because too complex.

Which solution should be implemented to get a more coherent urban policy? Subra and Wiel

propose to regroup the 4 central departments of the 8 Île-de-France departments (the

municipality of Paris (75) and the 3 departments around it: Seine-Saint-Denis (93), Val-de-

Marne (94) and Hauts-de-Seine (92)), forming the majority of central Paris and its banlieue.

This would restore the institutional situation as it was before 1964, with the difference that

with the decentralisation process this newly recombined department would have a more

important role to play than in that time, leading to a more effective urban policy. Like cities as

Grenoble, Lille, Lyon, Montpelier the Île-de-France should work harder on a SCOT ( Scheme

of territorial Concordance) to have cooperation between the different institutional levels (from

beneath and not arbitration from above (from the state, playing a divide and rule game)). The

other solution – not having to chose between complex cooperation and unilateral arbitration is

Wiels core principle: realizing useful reforms without creating useless power concentration

(2010, p32). By doing this we could also cope with the always changing power balances

between the different levels. Wiel emphasizes the contrasts between growth coalitions

focussing on needs and opportunities, in other words on an urban strategy in cities as Lille and

Lyon and the specificity around Paris, where the state continues to plan in an authoritarian

way by not giving priority on local actors but on big infrastructure.

Planning is definitely more complicated in a big capital city than in a smaller “provincial”

one; the urban region is bigger than the Île-de-France, but the agglomeration of Paris is

smaller, and in Paris you don’t have one, but different employment areas. This has its

implications on housing policy and mobility, combined with a bigger commuter zone.

According to Wiel these elements demand: an adjustment of the GP project and modification

of the rules for urban governance that would make working on the level of proximity,

agglomeration and the metropolis easier. Both de- and recentralisation are needed. Not the

construction of new social housing and public transport, which are of course important

elements, but the mastering of the land- and real Estate Market must be the main social

objective. Doing this would empower us to find the ways to reach the environmental criteria

11

without suffering congestion. We follow the transport demands and simultaneously create

new needs without questioning the causes of these demands.

How to solve the transport problem?

The overinvestment in expensive public transport would be a repetition of previous patterns:

dating from the sixties and seventies when they were car oriented, passing through a transition

period in the eighties and nineties relying on both car and public transport and now ending

with massive investment going to public transport in the first place. So the expressways

within a city (autoroutes urbaines), the RER and the new super-metro would all be mistakes.

Of course a new transport network alone – even if working well - can’t solve all societal

problems. This is Wiel’s main critique on the address of Sarkozy: a way of communicating

that uses collective ignorance to create mobilizing myths (Wiel, M., p191). Maybe these

investments will on the contrary foster existing problems by further commuting. If these

infrastructures exist, there will be no willingness to harmonize both residential and daily

mobility, because of the argument of the need for return on investment; once the infrastructure

is (being) built, it must be used. Or the other way round: the future use of it – possible

minimal and maximal capacities – justifies the infrastructure and its type (bus, tram or metro).

The problem is not only about finding the investment, but also on how the infrastructure itself

is functioning. It is true that the close periphery is quite dense and needs more bypass

infrastructure (from banlieue to banlieue without passing through Paris), and that the big

periphery has almost no bypass links. But at the same time the financial mechanisms which

disconnect localisation and mobility capacities need to be criticized.

Another element which should be touched upon is the relationship between public transport

and the car. The “detoxification” from the car isn’t only problematic because of an emotional

connection but also because of the city’s morphology: the land cost and polycentricism of the

post-Fordist with an in-adapted public transport network.11 The solution is not to change the

public transport network and adapt it to the city, but to rethink both. Competition between the

12

car and a “new generation of collective transports” without putting into question the role of

the car itself doesn’t work, we have to treat different modes of mobility in a different way.

The economic relationship of Paris and its banlieue is changing: on employment for instance

Paris lost to the banlieue, with important poles such as La Défense. On the political level, the

same should take place with the municipality of Paris collaborating with the surrounding

11 Idem, p 154

agglomeration and not taking a leadership position. Central Paris still has a crucial role to play

due to its population share, density and historical value, but cannot act on its own and avert

the consequences of local choices to the neighbours – as has been the case from the T3 and

the PC, as discussed above.

The economic relevance of Grand Paris

GP places a lot of importance on economic issues such as competitivity and job creation, and

in his discourse president Sarkozy says there is no time to lose. Did Paris and the Île-de-

France region lose the game in the global race of leading cities or will they do so if the GP

proposals are not realized?

Paris and London are very often on the first or second place in different European rankings.

The main difference between both is that London hosts more financial services. Knowing

power relations are shifting on a worldwide scale, this situation could of course be very

different within a decade or two, but for the moment there is nothing to worry about, both

cities maintain their top-ranking. Subra also answers the question if "Paris and the French

desert" is a representation of the past: “The population of the region only grows due to a

strong natality, because for twenty years the number of Franciliens that moved to the province

is bigger than that of people from the province that move to work in Paris.” 12. So maybe the

13

leading role of Paris in the world is less under pressure than its role within France and maybe

this last element can partly be explained by a more coherent urban policy in booming

provincial towns. The region has a good but maladjusted public transport network; it actually

has different networks which aren’t integrated. Here again the lack of public transport is

criticized: “Collective transport from one banlieue to another forming a circle does not exist

yet.”13 At the same time the investment in new road infrastructure continued. The problematic

can be applied to other services: in absolute terms Paris isn’t really suffering from a lack of

social housing, because its percentage lays above the national average and the average salary

is also higher. But the high real-estate market creates a bigger need for social housing.

Unfortunately GP doesn’t take the question of social and ethnic segregation into account.

12 SUBRA, P. , p 64

13 Idem., p71-72

Which future for the Petite Ceinture and the Grand Paris?

The PC needs a regional Paris-banlieue or Île-de-France debate, linked to or inspired by the

GP. Infrastructure of regional importance claims participation at the same scale. If a new

institutional framework is not applied for the GP it could be done for future projects such as

the planning of PC future or the way in which to exploit the GP infrastructure – once in place.

Inspired by the negotiations over the future of the péripherique – linking Parisian

arrondissements with neighbouring municipalities these challenges of reuse of abandoned

infrastructure, the creation of new one, but ideally the combination and integration of both,

should be seized as opportunities to redesign political and administrative relationships within

the Parisian agglomeration or its bigger urban region. The state should still have its role to

play in the debate, but not more than in any other French region.

III. The Herrmann-Debroux Viaduct in Brussels

14

The H-D viaduct is a 950m long archway situated in the municipality of Auderghem (in the

regions southern bypass), the road is named after one of its mayors. H-D was built in the

1970’s and opened in 1973, with about 40.000 cars using it each day it is one of the main

entrances of the Brussels Capital Region – with the E411 highway from Namur and

Luxembourg ending there.

The debate on H-D is comparable with the discussions around the PC in the sense that here

too, the question of scale is posed and municipality and region share conflicting visions on

how to find a solution for the mobility issues – even if their rhetoric of reducing the car-

imprint is similar. At the same time there are a lot of differences between both cases. With H-

D we aren’t talking about (former) railway infrastructure in the city centre, but about heavily

used road infrastructure in the periphery. In contrast to the PC, the actual H-D debate focuses

on: 1. keeping everything as it is – with or without prolonging the E411 exit; or 2. destroying

the obsolete viaduct for replacing it by an urban boulevard or green promenade (a green

promenade with or without car tunnels underneath). It is interesting to note that the reuse of

the concrete structure for building a green promenade on top of it – such as is often the case

with rail tracks, isn’t even considered by any local or regional authority or pressure group.

The viaduct is considered as: 1. practical for cars, or as: 2. an urban scar cutting

neighbourhoods into two without any esthetical quality or potential; this is also illustrated in

both the project presentations by the tree architecture offices at the municipal ideas

competition of 2007 and the general attitude of the mayor in the dossier. More information

can be found here:

The two conflicting views are on the one hand a further extension of the E411 viaduct by an

“urban boulevard” towards the core city; and on the other hand it’s replacement by another

urban boulevard or green promenade along the former viaduct track. Interesting is the double

discourse of the region of Brussels which wants to reduce car traffic by 20% (as proposed in

its Iris 2 mobility plan) and wants to prolong an urban highway at the same time. On the

other hand we could ask ourselves the question if the intention of the municipality of

Auderghem to erase the viaduct is realistic, at a time where car ownership is still increasing,

the realisation of the RER (Regional Express Rail) which will allow a better connection

between Brussels and the 135 municipalities around takes more time than expected, the

15

Flemish region wants to enlarge the northern part of the Ring road around Brussels by the

creation of a double deck viaduct and is at the same time disinvesting in public transport.

Also, the Parisian Bd. des Maréchaux example illustrates that reducing car traffic in one street

can lead to a more important overall congestion if it isn’t thought well.

Another element which should be included here is the existence of the almost 7km long

promenade on the former Brussels-Tervuren railway line. The construction of this track

linking Brussels' Leopold Quarter to the small town of Tervuren was realized in 1882. As was

the case with the PC, the line was popular at a certain time, transporting 3 million passengers

per year by the end of World War II - still only 10% of the PC capacity in its glory days.

Between 1958 and 1970 the Brussels-Tervuren line was only used for goods transport.

Starting from the 1970's part of the space left was reused by the E411 road infrastructure

which includes the HDB viaduct. From the 1980's both public transport (underground and

tram) reused the parts of the line situated in the centre (between the municipalities of

Auderghem and Brussels) and the periphery (between Stockel and Wezembeek). The

remaining 6 km, recently prolonged to 7 km, between Auderghem (Delta) and Stockel, were

gradually transformed into a green promenade which included the building of new overpasses

for pedestrians and cyclists, because the previous railway bridges had been dismanteled.

Important is that the Delta-Stockel green ancient railway line connects different parks in the

Woluwe-valley to each other. Different from the PC, most of the Delta-Stockel line is not

entrenched - the promenade is mainly situated at the height of the gardens or overlooking

them, opening it to its surroundings. The "Promenade de l'ancien Chemin de Fer Bruxelles-

Tervuren" as it is officially called is part of the bigger regional green promenade connecting

many of Brussels' most important green areas trying to form an inner-city green belt along its

60km of paths. The Delta-Stockel part of the "Promenade Verte" is heavily used on sunny

weekends, but because it is quite large and not contained by ancient engineering works such

as the Viaduc des Arts for the Promenade Plantee and the multiple tunnels (hindering a

16

possible promenade on the PC), it is still easily bike-able.

The succes story of the "Promenade de l'ancien Chemin de Fer Bruxelles-Tervuren" which

has been prolonged next to the viaduct towards the Delta transport hub and the adjacent ULB

and VUB University campuses would form another argument for reusing the viaduct in a

green way because this would not only reinforce the possibilities for soft mobility at one of

the main entrance gates to the region, it would also strengthen the ecological corridors in the

region linking the Woluwe valley area to the Soignes Forest in the south.

Because the investments proposed by the three architecture offices easily exceed 200 million

€, while municipalities face with budget problems and because destroying a heavy concrete

structure is not as sustainable as re-using it. I would argue that both the municipality of

Auderghem and the region of Brussels, together with their colleagues from Flanders and

Wallonia should seriously consider the reuse of this viaduct for soft mobility while at the

same time investing more in alternatives. The so called “urban boulevard” already exists

under the bypass.

CONCLUSION

The ancient railway track Petite Ceinture Ferroviaire, the project of a high capacity automatic

metro network enclosing all major transport hubs in the Parisian agglomeration to realise the

GP, as well as the H-D Viaduct, the RER-construction and the Iris2 plan are all linked to the

questions of public transport, infrastructure and mobility. Even if the debates on these projects

are held in a different way and on a different scale they should be held on the regional,

agglomeration or metropolitan levels. Good practices from other cities or from the same city

as the Delta-Stockel green promenade on the former Brussels-Tervuren rail line,

should be followed and the debate shouldn’t only be about reducing car traffic in central

parts, hiding or burying negative externalities of car-use but also on tackling car-use and

ownership itself.

17

REFERENCES

http://www.auderghem.be/index.php?

option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=29&id=113&Itemid=247&lang=fr

IF_EV_Parcs_Promenade_du_Chemin_de_fer_FR1.pdf

Analyse du projet de coulée verte sur la Petite Ceinture ferroviaire. Website ASPCRF:

http://www.petiteceinture.org/Analyse-du-projet-de-coulee-verte.html

Petite Ceinture ferroviaire: non à la chronique d’un démantèlement annoncé! Oui à son

utilisation pour renforcer les transports publics! 21 novembre 2011. Website ASPCRF:

http://www.petiteceinture.org/Petite-Ceinture-ferroviaire-non-a.html

GEIPEL, F. (2009) Grand Paris, Métropole Douce. Propositions for the Post-Kyoto

GRÉCO, B. (2011) La reconquête de la Petite Ceinture, in: Le Journal du Dimanche, 13

novembre 2011.

GRÉCO, B. (2011) Grand Paris: Un accord “historique”, in: Le Journal du Dimanche, 26

janvier 2011.

HARVEY, D. (2003) Paris, Capital of Modernity. New York – London: Routledge.

PRUD’HOMME, R. et al., Paris: un tramway nommé désir, 11 janvier 2007:

http://www.rprudhomme.com/resources/2008+Tramway+Paris+Transports$29.pdf

SUBRA, P. (2009) Le Grand Paris (25 questions décisives). Paris: Armand Colin.

18

WIEL, M. (2010) Le Grand Paris, premier conflit né de la décentralisation. Paris:

L’Harmattan.

ZITTOUN, P. (2005) Ville et territoiress face aux defis de la mondialisation. Les

indicateurs de mobilité durable: nouveaux pouvoirs ou nouvelles contraintes? Colloque

de l’ASRDLF. Dijon, 5-7 septembre 2005.

19