Here you can read few AdParentes newspapers from year 1986 and 1987. AdParents was a newspapers published by parents association from many years ago.
Expert opinion of road engineer
As known to most of you, I’m only looking into the “infrastructure” issue and not the provision of public transport services. However, as these rely on the capacity of the underlying infrastructures, I got quite concerned. The discussion below is understandably revolving around service related issued that need to be fixed, and for which solutions can be found and implemented within a short timeframe once agreements are reached. My fear however is that there is a serious danger that even best service concept
will get “stuck on the road” for lack of the needed infrastructure capacity.
To recap:
- out of professional interest I read the documents called the “mobility plans”
- one element that puzzled me were the bus timetables, showing some bus timings looking perhaps achievable in quiet hours of the day but not necessarily during rush hour. Just one example: Mamer-Tossebierg to EE2 (i.e. behind school car parkings) in 2 minutes, and 3 minutes later arriving at Belle Etoile.
So I went to the mobility plan presentation by the transport ministry in February. After the meeting I approached Mme Weyckert from the ministry, asking her how the road and parking capacity issues had been considered, of particular concern as there are only two access and one single exit lane to/from the school campus which are shared by cars and public transport, and pointing out to her the rather unfortunate configuration – according to the plans put on the school website – that cars attempting to leave the school parking have to cross incoming traffic once or even twice at the
roundabout near the school, risking a self-blockade.
- Mme Weyckert kindly responded that capacity issues were ‘not’ the remit of the Ministry, but of Ponts&Chausees (P&C). So it appears the Mobility Plan was drawn up on an empty roads assumption, at least did/does not consider the existing road saturation during the morning peak….which may explain the bus timetable assumptions…..or other constraints.
- after a lengthy process and with great support of Director Tournemire, a meeting with P&C became possible. P&C, and their consultant, showed us calculations that the roundabout in front of the school should offer just about sufficient capacity, if (a) no more than 20% of pupils are taken to school by car, and (b) they arrive ‘equally distributed over one hour’, i.e. between say 7h30 and 8h30. The reply when gently challenging the latter assumption and suggesting that most parents would like to get their children to school within a say 20 minute time slot before start of school hours was that designing a system with enough capacity for such a situation was not possible.
- the perhaps even bigger surprise came, when asking about the parking capacity at the school (kiss and go for kindergarten children, 105 spaces for 1050 primary children etc), that P&C was not aware of “what’s happening inside the school fence”, and therefore did not assume any interaction between parking capacity and the public road space.
- it is great to see that 80% of parents are in principle ready to entrust their children to public transport, as shown by both the recent EE2 survey and the somewhat more detailed … survey. Leaving potential survey bias aside, this is however subject to conditions being rightly met, such as supervision, routes, timings etc – that’s what some colleagues are focusing on.
Transport engineering and travel behaviour experience however says that such trust must be gained: (Close to) 100% of parents will use the car in the first couple of days (that is, together with EE2 staff, almost 2000 cars – equivalent of a bumper-to-bumper queue of cars between EE1 and EE2). If they see that the bus system works fine the buses and navettes will fill up.
The big trouble I see coming is the outcome of the school roundabout providing only just about enough capacity for 20% car users according to P&C, and these being disciplined enough to arrive in equal numbers from 7.30 onwards, and ignoring the parking space limitations. Therefore the buses and navettes will be stuck in the car traffic jam, for lack of a separate access route to the school for public transport, and will offer no alternative to “beat the jam” – hence likely will fail to get close to the 80% modal share hoped for (whether supervised or not).
At P&C I argued that the least that should be done, was an audit of the mobility concept incorporating the capacity constraints of the road access infrastructure at EE2 as well as the parking constraints, while applying realistic assumptions on the desired arrival times at the school. In an iterative process this would feed back to achievable bus timetables.
Hereby I want to underline/reinforce this argument. With so much time having passed without tangible result (at least result visible to an outsider), a very opaque division of responsibilities and omission of crucial interdependencies, and the daily life of more than 1000 families at stake, in my personal opinion seen through the glasses of a transport engineer it is by now time to show a “big gun” to the authorities: Each vehicle needs a roadworthiness certificate before entering service, for new major roads nowadays an independent road safety audit is required by EU directives. Along the same lines, the new school campus should not be allowed to start operating before an independent audit confirms that the school mobility concept is mature, implementable and workable, and therefore ensuring an orderly operation of the school by making it possible that pupils (and staff) can arrive at reasonable and predictable times.
Parents challenge flawed transport plan for segregated European School
Parents at the European School in Luxembourg have challenged plans to impose daily commutes of over 3 hours on pre-school and primary children selected for a new out-of-town school on the basis of their language, nationality and property status. Representing a large number of those parents, the European School Non-Discrimination Campaign is currently preparing legal proceedings to be served on the school authorities in September.
The campaign is seeking a reversal of the so-called ‘vertical split’ of the school, under which favoured language groups are to remain at the Kirchberg site, where most of the parents work in the EU institutions. The less-favoured groups, consisting mainly of Italians, Greeks and those from neighbouring new Member States, have been assigned to a new school in the outlying town of Mamer. Language groups present on both sites (English, French and German) have been divided up so that richer officials living close to Kirchberg will retain the privileges of the work-located school, while those living in lower-cost areas are now obliged to undertake an even longer commute. Typically, children in the less-favoured groups will have to commute first to Kirchberg and then get a supervised bus through peak-hour traffic.
The parents are confident that the vertical split decision will be struck down in court on grounds of unlawful discrimination. ‘No objective reason has been given to divide the children on the basis of their language, nationality or postal code. We want them to be treated equally, with all young children remaining on the Kirchberg site. This is the only way to ensure a reasonable work-life balance. The Mamer site should be reserved for secondary school children, who can travel to school on buses without supervision.’
The parents claim that the authorities are rushing to open the school in September in spite of outstanding safety issues, to achieve a fait accompli. A private study carried out on behalf of the parents reveals many serious flaws in the current transport plan, including:
(1) An assumption that only 20% of parents will use their car, arriving at the school at a uniform rate between 7.30 and 8.30 am. In fact, the level of car usage will be much higher, with most arriving at the same time, 15 minutes before the school opens.
(2) The study suggests that the poor design of the access infrastructure and shortage of parking spaces will cause a self-blockade and gridlock at the roundabout, with an estimated additional 600-1000 cars expected on the narrow main road.
(3) The plan is based on an ‘empty roads’ hypothesis, which does not reflect the reality of peak hour traffic in the locality.
(4) No provision is made for delays caused by flyover works at the site.
The campaign is approaching local political parties to support its call for a road safety audit:
‘The new mobility plan is being presented to the public two months before the school is due to open and lacks credibility. A safety audit will give us time to investigate the real issues and to win our non-discrimination case. Then we can keep our younger children in Kirchberg and effectively eliminate the need for private cars going into the school.’
The campaign demand for a ‘horizontal split’ is supported by parents and trade unions in the EU institutions. Recent correspondence with the Commission reveals that the only resistance to the equality demand comes from the Luxembourg Government itself. It is believed that property developers influenced the original decision to locate the new school in Mamer and that their interests now militate against a purely secondary level European School – insisting on crèche, primary and after school care facilities at the school forces those parents who can afford it to move to the area, driving up prices and facilitating the development of new apartment blocks. The campaign spokesperson believes this is what has led to controversial and unorthodox transport arrangements for the children affected, aged 3 to 18.
‘The fact is that most of the EU workers targeted by the discriminatory split cannot afford to move to Mamer. This leaves two serious questions to be answered: First, what were the motivations that led to a European School and European Commission crèche and after school care facilities being built outside of Luxembourg-Ville, in contravention of the Decision of the Member States of 8 April 1965, Article 9 (confirmed in Edinburgh in 1992)? And second, is it acceptable that large amounts of public money should be wasted on unethical, badly supervised transport for young children simply to allow developers in Mamer to maximise the return on their investment?’
Document dated 2009 from the Commission regarding the possibility of a horizontal split in Luxembourg
This is the letter from Commission and dates in year 2009.
Interpretation de Particle 3.1 de la Convention portant Statut des Ecoles europeennes : lettre de la Commission
COMITE ADMINISTRATIF ET FINANCIER
Sloppy, Superficial and Misinformed Answer of Mr. Marco-Umberto MORICCA, Director, Directorate-General for Human Resources and security at EC
Subiect: Your letter of 6 June 2012 (Ares(2012)669392)
Dear Mr. Mackenzie,
Thank you for your above-mentioned letter answering my letter of 25 May 2012. In your letter you comment my answers to the points you had raised in your letter to the Vice-President of the Commission, Ms Reding, in your letter of April 2012.
As I explained in my letter, in the opinion of the Commission, the Decision of the Board of Governors of 2003 against a horizontal split does not constitute an unjustified discrimination on the basis of language, gender or income of the parents whose children attend the European School Luxembourg II, because their main language is covered by the language sections offered there.
However, the legal expert opinion joined to your letter does not offer new arguments for your position. If it is true that it is less expensive to live close to or in Bertrange than on the Kirchberg, it is difficult to understand, how this factor, which is entirely outside the control of the Luxembourg government, negatively discriminates lower income colleagues. On the
contrary, it seems that this allows them to live closer to the school, than if they had their children enrolled on the Kirchberg.
If one compares the transport scheme put at the disposal by Luxembourg for the European School in Bertrange and for the European School on the Kirchberg, there is no argument for discrimination nor can one speak of a disadvantage for pupils attending Bertrange. While Luxembourg only pays for the bus lines to Luxembourg I (Kirchberg) that originate in
Luxembourg City, all school bus lines to and from Luxembourg II (Bertrange) are paid for by Luxembourg. In addition to the service home – school – home, Luxembourg also offers the service work – school in the morning and school – safe place close to work (Luxembourg I) in the afternoon. This type of service is offered in no other European School.
You also point out that the parents newly arriving in Luxembourg do not have 8 years to prepare for moving to Bertrange. Actually, parents newly arriving to Luxembourg do not need time to adjust to a different situation in Luxembourg and are free to establish their residence where they wish.
While it is true that the “new” Member States were not yet members of the Board of Governors, when the decisions concerning the language sections was taken, all of them ratified the Convention being aware of the Decision. And when the matter was discussed again later on, none of these Member States, whose citizens are concerned, requested a
horizontal split.
In a recent meeting of the Contact Commission of the Local Staff Committee of Luxembourg, the staff representatives did not raise the issue of a horizontal split, but rather addressed practical matters with respect to the surveillance of the pupils from Bertrange taking the shuttle to the Kirchberg upon their return at Luxembourg I after school. In fact, many organisational and pedagogical reasons, partly drawn from the present experience, have been brought forward against a pure secondary school of that size and complexity.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that the European Schools are managed by an intergovernmental organisation, in which many decisions, as the one concerning a possible horizontal split, require unanimity. Thus, even though the Commission has sympathies for the idea of a horizontal split, such a decision could not be adopted by the Board of Governors regarding Luxembourg I and II, because Luxembourg was and continues to be opposed to it. As recently as 2009, when the possibility of a horizontal split was rediscussed in the Board of Governors Luxembourg took a clear position against a vertical split.
With respect to a possible misunderstanding concerning the nature of the school in Bertrange on the part of the Luxembourg authorities to which you refer, I would like to reassure you that the representative of Luxembourg in the Board of Governors is well aware that a vertical split means that Luxembourg II will not be a “Lycée” but a fully fledge, classical European school.
Yours sincerely,
Marco-Umberto MORICCA