Residents want new Jal al-Dib bridge plan

BEIRUT: The two bridges planned to replace the crumbling Jal al-Dib bridge should be connected, a group of citizens following up on the issue said Wednesday, arguing the current plan would actually exacerbate traffic rather than alleviate it.

The group, which includes residents from Jal al-Dib and other Metn coastal areas, demanded that plans to build two separate bridges, as stated in a Cabinet decision issued May 9 of last year, be stopped. The group, citing their own analysis, said traffic flows would overwhelm the main service road in between the bridges if they were constructed.

“One should never build two U bridges separately on a highway,” Elie Yachoui, an economist acting as the spokesperson of the group, told The Daily Star.

Jal al-Dib’s bridge was dismantled in 2012 after many officials warned it was at severe risk of collapsing.

Yachoui explained that according to the Cabinet decision, one of the bridges would be built at the edge of Zalka, one minute away by car from a U bridge in Nahr al-Mott.

The second bridge would be built in Antelias, less than a minute by car from a road leading to the Antelias Bridge, which goes to the capital.

“Separating two U bridges goes against international standards,” Yachoui said.

The group complained in a statement issued after a meeting that according to plans, the two bridges would be too far from Jal al-Dib’s main intersection. It added that the plan ran against technical standards set by the Council of Development and Reconstruction, which is tasked with constructing the bridges.

Despite irregularities, Yachoui explained that the CDR would have to abide by the Cabinet’s decision.

“The two U bridges, according to international standards, can’t but be connected and not separate,” the group said in a statement.

The group called for an alternative to the proposed project that will not worsen traffic, adding that it would make more sense to rebuild the crumbling Jal al-Dib bridge.

Yachoui said building two bridges would have other negative consequences, adding that the government hadn’t adequately considered the environmental impact. “There are no comparisons that can be drawn between the pros and cons [of the project],” he said, because the costs far outweighed the benefits.

“The two bridges will lead to real-estate losses,” he added.

The group has evaluated that 50 buildings and more than 100 shops would be negatively affected by the project.