Executive Summary - Lahore Metro aur Aap | Lahore · Web viewThe route of the Orange Line...

Directorate General of ArchaeologyYASA&T Department, Government of the Punjab

REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEECONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE ANTIQUITIES ACT, 1975

Directorate General of Archaeology, YASA&T Department

Report of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975

Executive Summary

Executive SummaryGovernment of Punjab intends to start a Mass Transit Project namely “Lahore

Orange Line Metro Train” in urban congested area of Lahore. The alignment of this

project starts from Dera Gujjran and follows G.T. Road, Mecload Road, Nabha Road,

Multan Road, Raiwind Road and terminates at Ali Town. The 27.1 km long track of

Orange Line will pass within 200ft of five heritage sites which are protected under

Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012.

As per requirement of Section 3 (1) of the Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by

Amendment Act of 2012 an Advisory Committee consisting of archaeologists,

architects, historians and member of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab was

constituted by the Competent Authority for the purposes set out in the Antiquities Act

1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012.

The Director General Archaeology (Government of the Punjab) entrusted Advisory

Committee with the assignment of carrying out an independent evaluation of the

impact of Orange Line project on following heritage sites.

1. Shalamar Garden

2. Gulabi Bagh Gateway

3. Budhhu’s Tomb

4. Chauburji

5. Tomb of Zaib-Un-Nisa

The Advisory Committee held several meetings and discussed in detail the concerns

and impacts of this project on protected heritage sites which are listed as below:

i. Violation of the Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012

is taking place as according to this law no new construction can be

undertaken within 200 ft of heritage site.

ii. Complete or partial demolition of Heritage sites due to construction of this

metro train.

3


Executive Summary

iii. Structural damage to heritage sites due to vibrations and noise of metro train.

iv. Precautionary measures to be adopted during execution of work to save the

monuments from dust.

v. Limited access, obstruction of view of heritage sites.

vi. Dust and other pollution may compromise the environment.

vii. Traffic congestion

viii. Minimum and maximum distance of track of Orange Line Metro Train from the

monuments.

ix. Plans for beautification/ landscaping of area around monuments.

Detailed deliberations and discussions were held in different meetings of this

Advisory Committee about these concerns. In first meeting, the committee members

were briefed about the Orange Line project and presentations were given by the

Chief Engineer, LDA and Project Manager NESPAK. The committee held general

discussion about project and decided the following way forward:

a. It is decided that committee will evaluate each monument separately.

b. The committee decided to visit the sites to have first-hand information

about the monuments and have better understanding of ground

realities.

c. The committee requested LDA to ask independent structural Engineer,

Dr. Javed Yunas Uppal who evaluated the effect of this train on these

historical structures during construction as well as operational phase to

brief the committee.

d. Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers was requested to apprise the impact

analysis of the project on the heritage sites.

In second meeting, a site visit of these 5 under discussion monuments was

conducted. During this visit, the committee members physically inspected each

monument and verified the distance of Orange Line track from protected

4


Executive Summary

monuments. Different observations and questions raised by the committee members

about each monument which were replied by the Technical Staff of LDA and

NESPAK.

In third meeting, the committee was briefed about the concerns / objections raised in

court cases. The Project Manager, NESPAK explained the vibration analysis report

and concluded that there would be no adverse effect of vibrations on these heritage

sites due to Orange Line. The Committee members were also briefed about

environmental benefits of the project.

In fourth meeting, the Committee again visited all monuments in light of data and

reports presented to them. In this meeting, Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers discussed the

impact analysis of the project on the heritage sites. Dr. Javed Yunas Uppal, an

independent structural engineer presented findings of his report. His conclusion was

also in support of NESPAK findings that all heritage sites are located at a safe

distance from Orange Line. But he added that positive vibration barriers can further

reduce the vibrations.

In fifth meeting, the Committee discussed the draft of this report in detail and

finalized their recommendations and conclusions.

This report presents the findings of Advisory Committee regarding the impact of

construction of Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project (Ali Town – Dera Gujran) on

nearby five heritage sites. This report aims at the evaluation of the concerns raised

in respect of the project including the short and long term possible impacts of the

project on protected Heritage sites which fall within 200ft of the alignment. After

analyzing the data, and detailed deliberations, the Advisory Committee found that

the permission / NOC already granted was correct. It however gave some additional

suggestions detailed in this report. The Advisory Committee also proposed a

monitoring mechanism in this report.

5


Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................... I

Table of Contents...................................................................................................... IV

List of Tables............................................................................................................VII

List of Figures..........................................................................................................VIII

Report of the Advisory Committee..............................................................................9

1. Background..........................................................................................................9

1.1. ANTIQUITIES ACT 1975 AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2012..9

2. FORMATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.......................................................9

3. FIRST MEETING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE...............................................10

3.1. CONCERNS OF CIVIL SOCIETY / PETITIONERS.....................................11

3.2. CONCERNS OF MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE...............12

3.3. PROPOSED AGENDA.................................................................................12

4. SECOND MEETING / PHYSICAL INSPECTION DURING SITE VISIT OF

MONUMENTS BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE...........................................................13

4.1. SHALAMAR GARDEN.................................................................................13

4.1.1. History & Architecture:...........................................................................13

4.1.2. Observations and Briefing:....................................................................14

4.2. GULABI BAGH GATEWAY..........................................................................16

4.2.1. History & Architecture............................................................................16


4.3. BUDDHU’S TOMB.......................................................................................18


4.3.2. Observations and Briefing.....................................................................19

4.4. CHAUBURJI GATEWAY..............................................................................20

4.4.1. History and Architecture:.......................................................................20


6


Table of Contents

4.5. TOMB OF ZAIB-UN-NISA............................................................................22



5. THIRD MEETING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE...............................................23

6. FOURTH MEETING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE...........................................34

7. FIFTH MEETING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE................................................35

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY

COMMITTEE:............................................................................................................36

8.1. SHALAMAR GARDEN.................................................................................36

8.1.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Petitioners and

Advisory Committee...........................................................................................36

8.1.2. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................40

8.2. GULABI BAGH GATEWAY..........................................................................40

8.2.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Petitioners and

Advisory Committee...........................................................................................40


8.3. BUDDHU’S TOMB.......................................................................................41

8.3.1. Observations Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Advisory Committee.41


8.4. CHAUBURJI GATEWAY..............................................................................42

8.4.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Advisory Committee42


8.5. TOMB OF ZAIB-UN-NISA............................................................................44

8.5.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Advisory Committee44


9. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................45

9.1. Vibration Impacts from train operations:......................................................45

9.2. Visual Barrier Created by Elevated Train.....................................................46

9.3. Conservation and Restoration of Historical Buildings..................................47

7


Table of Contents

9.4. Improvement of the Roof Tops of the Buildings...........................................47

9.5. Speed of the Train.......................................................................................47

9.6. Awareness Campaign..................................................................................47

10. MONITORING AND REPORTING..................................................................47

8


List of Tables

List of TablesTable 1 Theoretical Vibration magnitude and Safe limits according to DIN 4150

standard....................................................................................................................28

Table 2 Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment (CALTRAN).......30

Table 3 “n” values based on soil Classes (CALTRAN).............................................30

Table 4 Reduction in bus flow on G.T. road..............................................................32

Table 5 Reduction in bus flow on Multan road..........................................................32

Table 6 Sites Near Elevated Piers............................................................................37

9


Report

List of FiguresFigure 1 View of Shalamar Garden...........................................................................14

Figure 2 Advisory Committee at Shalmar Garden.....................................................16

Figure 3 View of Gulabi Bagh Gateway....................................................................17

Figure 4 Advisory Committee at Gulabi Bagh Gateway............................................18

Figure 5 View of Buddhu's Tomb..............................................................................19

Figure 6 Advisory Committee at Buddhu's Tomb......................................................20

Figure 7 View of Chauburji Gateway.........................................................................21

Figure 8 Advisory Committee at Chauburji Gateway................................................22

Figure 9 View of Tomb of Zaib-un-Nisa.....................................................................23

Figure 10 2D FEA Model of Viaduct and surrounding soil system............................25

Figure 11 Dynamic Model of Train by Xia, 2001.......................................................26

Figure 12 Load history on pier by moving train obtained from Xia’s (2001) model. . .26

Figure 13 Response Acceleration Time History at Node 347 (at pile cap)................27

Figure 14 Response Velocity Time History at Node 347 (at pile cap).......................27

Figure 15 Response Displacement Time History at Node 347 (at pile cap)..............28

Figure 16 Equipment vibration (PPV) wrt Distance...................................................30

10


Report

Report of the Advisory Committee

1. BackgroundThe Province of Punjab through Directorate General of Archaeology is the custodian

of the monuments protected under the Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by

Amendment Act of 2012. The basic function of Directorate General of Archaeology is

to preserve, conserve and restore the archaeological sites and monuments of the

province of Punjab. The vision of the Directorate General is under:

“To highlight the archaeological heritage of Punjab, as located in the

province of Punjab, in all its dimensions, through archaeological

explorations, recoveries, documentation, analysis, interpretation,

preservation, restoration and exhibition of material remains & artifacts

and their conservation”.

1.1. ANTIQUITIES ACT 1975 AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2012

The Antiquities Act, 1975 was enacted by the Federal Government for the

preservation, protection of immovable and movable antiquities. After the 18 th

Amendment in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the monuments

located in the Province of Punjab were transferred to Government of the Punjab. The

Punjab Government with some amendments adopted this Act in February, 2012

under the title “Antiquities (Amendment) Act, 2012”.

2. FORMATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEESection 3(1) of the Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012

provides that the Government shall constitute an Advisory Committee consisting of

archaeologists, architects, historians and member of the Provincial Assembly of

Punjab. This Advisory Committee was previously constituted in 2012 for the specific

purpose to settle the dispute of Rock Carving of Chiniot. Therefore, there was a need

11


Report

to constitute a permanent Advisory Committee with the primary objective of advising

the Directorate General of Archaeology on various issues for the purpose of the

Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012.

Keeping in view the requirement of Section 3 (1) of the Antiquities Act 1975 as

amended by Amendment Act of 2012 the Competent Authority has been pleased to

constitute an Advisory Committee with following composition:

1. Director General Archaeology, Punjab Chairman

2. Prof. (Retired) Khurshid Ahmad MemberVisiting Professor, National College of Arts, Lahore.

3. Mr. Khalid Abdul Rehman, Architect. Member

4. Prof. Dr. Kanwal Khalid, MemberGovernment College for Women, Gulberg, Lahore.

5. Dr. Anjum Rehmani, MemberEx-Director, Lahore Museum, Lahore/

Visiting Professor, Govt. College University, Lahore.

6. Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers, MemberHeritage Management Expert.

7. Khwaja Imran Nazir, MPA. Member

8. Engr. Qamar Ul Islam Raja, MPA. Member

This Advisory Committee comprises of independent experts.

3. FIRST MEETING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEEFirst meeting of the Advisory Committee, constituted under Section 3(1) of the

Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012 was held on 15-02-

2016 in the Committee Room of Youth Affairs, Sports, Archaeology & Tourism

Department under the Chairmanship of Director General of Archaeology, Punjab.

The Director General Archaeology briefed the members that Government of the

Punjab has launched a mega project namely Lahore Orange Line Metro Train project

in the transport sector. The route of the Orange Line Metro Train passes nearby the

12


Report

following monuments which have been protected under the Antiquities Act 1975 as

amended by Amendment Act of 2012:

1. Shalamar Garden, G.T. Road, Lahore.

2. Gulabi Bagh Gateway, G.T. Road, Lahore.

3. Buddhu’s Tomb, G.T. Road, Lahore.

4. Chauburji Gateway, Lahore.

5. Tomb of Zaib-un-Nisa, Multan Road, Lahore.

The members observed that their primary objective is the preservation of heritage

sites and highlight any negative impact on the heritage sites due to any development

project to the Competent Authority. They inquired that what are the facts about the

concerns and reports appearing in print and electronic media which are generally

about the violation of the Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of

2012 and demolition of heritage sites. The Committee was briefed about the

following concerns appearing in media and among the different segments of society.

3.1. CONCERNS OF CIVIL SOCIETY / PETITIONERSThe objections of the Civil Society/Petitioners mostly revolve around the following

issues:-

i. Violation of the Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012 is taking place as according to this law no new construction can be undertaken within 200 ft of heritage site.

ii. Complete or partial demolition of Heritage sites due to construction of this metro train.

iii. Structural damage to heritage sites due to vibration and noise of metro train.

iv. Limited access, obstruction of view of heritage sites.v. Dust and other pollution may compromise the environment.vi. Traffic congestion.

It was decided to place the above mentioned issues before the Advisory Committee

for discussion and their evaluation. The Advisory Committee discussed the issues

and also gave their independent observations regarding the monuments under

13


Report

discussion in relation to the Orange Line Metro Train Project. The Chief Engineer,

LDA, and Project Manager NESPAK gave presentations to the members of the

Advisory Committee. During the presentations, a number of queries were raised and

asked from the Chief Engineer / Technical staff of the LDA/ NESPAK and officers of

the Directorate General of Archaeology by the members of the Advisory Committee.

3.2. CONCERNS OF MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The questions asked by the members of the Advisory Committee are listed as under:

i. Any potential damage to the structures during construction activities and

safety measures thereof.

ii. Precautionary measures to be adopted during execution of work to save

the monuments from dust.

iii. Effect of the vibration on the monuments.

iv. Minimum and maximum distance of track of Orange Line Metro Train from

the monuments.

v. Noise and dust pollution during operation of train.

vi. Visual barriers being created.

vii. Plans for beautification/ landscaping of area around monuments.

3.3. PROPOSED AGENDAAfter opening discussion and initial remarks, the committee framed its agenda for in

depth deliberation on all aspects of the matter. Following are the salient features of

the way forward:-

a. It is decided that committee will evaluate each monument separatelyb. The committee decided to visit the sites to have first-hand information

about the monuments and have better understanding of ground realities.c. The committee requested LDA to ask independent structural Engineer to

evaluate the effect of this train on heritage sites. The Chief Engineer, LDA informed that during presentation to Supreme Court, it was pointed out that opinion of an independent structural engineer should also be

14


Report

obtained. Therefore, LDA has already engaged Dr. Javed Yunas Uppal who is working on evaluation of the effect of this train on these historical structures during construction as well as operational phase. The members desired that he should brief the committee about his findings.

d. Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers was requested to apprise the impact analysis of the project on the heritage sites.

4. SECOND MEETING / PHYSICAL INSPECTION DURING SITE VISIT OF MONUMENTS BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The second session of the Advisory Committee meeting was held on 16-02-2016

during which the committee made a visit to the following archaeological sites and

monuments which fall along the Orange Line Metro Train route:-

i. Shalamar Garden

ii. Gulabi Bagh Gateway

iii. Buddhu’s Tomb

iv. Chauburji Gateway

v. Tomb of Zaib-Un-Nisa

The members of the Advisory Committee except Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers, Dr.

Kanwal Khalid and Khwaja Imran Nazir, MPA, were taken to following historical sites:

4.1. SHALAMAR GARDEN

4.1.1. History & Architecture:Shalamar Garden inscribed on the World Heritage List of UNESCO, was built by

Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in 1642 AD. This terraced and walled gardens with

pavilions and canals running through the center were another innovation introduced,

for the very first time in the architectural history of the sub-continent.

15


Report

Figure 1 View of Shalamar Garden

The garden occupies 40 acres of land and was built on the plan of the Royal

Gardens in Kashmir and was completed at a cost of Rs.6 lacs. The uppermost

terrace of the garden is called ‘Farah Bakhs’ (pleasure giving), and the middle and

lower most terraces combined are named as ‘Faiz Bakhs’(bountiful). The garden

suffered much during troublous times of Ahmad Shah Abdali (1747-1772 A.D.)

Shah Nahar was planned by Ali Mardan Khan, the Persian Canal engineer of Shah

Jahan, and completed by Mulla Ala ul Mulk Tuni, an expert in hydrology. Water of

the Shah Nahar was brought by channels through Anguri Bagh, northwards through

Inayat Bagh and then via the complex of settlement tanks into Shalamar Gardens.

After irrigating the gardens and filling the channels of the upper garden and main

central tank, it exited under Daulat Khana-e-Khas into Mehtabi Bagh to the north.

Ultimately it was discharged into the Ravi River.

4.1.2. Observations and Briefing:Members of the Advisory Committee physically inspected the site of construction of

Orange Line Metro Train track south of Shalamar Garden. The Chief Engineer, LDA

16


Report

briefed the members about distance of orange line track from Shalamar Garden. He

informed that the minimum distance of Orange Line from one end of this monument

is 95 ft and 75 ft on the other end. The members observed that the existing road is

passing only at a few feet away from this monument but still Government opted to

provide a special curve for the train in front of this monument so as to obtain

maximum distance away from this monument. The Chief Engineer, LDA informed the

Committee that if Government is insensitive about this monument then this special

curve would not be provided and the track would have been passing over the central

median of existing road. However in order to preserve this heritage site a special

curve was provided after acquisition of additional 10.4 kanals land. The committee

members were also shown the dismantled buildings. The committee members also

observed that the old baghs like Inayat Bagh and Anguri Bagh have been

encroached and thus compromising the beauty of this garden. It was further

observed by the Committee that remains of Inayt Bagh and Anguri Bagh can now be

seen after the recent demolition done for alignment of Orange Line Metro Train

route. The Archaeology Department explained that there is Anguri Bagh behind

these privately owned buildings. The Advisory Committee desired to look into this

matter as it is of heritage importance. The Chief Engineer, LDA took the team

members to the exact location where piers of the track would be erected. The

committee carefully examined the site and it was noted that the distance from the

perimeter wall of Shalamar Garden was sufficient enough that the development work

and the operation of the train would not have harmful impact on the structure of

Shalamar Garden nor would have it have effect on the setting or appearance of the

monument. The team members expressed satisfaction that due to the acquisition of

a number of structures on south of G.T. Road the open space on south of Shalamar

Garden has further increased which will not only preserve rather will enhance the

setting, appearance and beauty of Shalamar Garden. The team members proposed

that the area around the hydraulic tank should also be given special attention in

order to improve appearance and setting of the track.

Engineer Qamar Ul Islam Raja pointed out that parking area has been developed

between GT road and boundary wall of Shalamar Garden through brick soling. He

suggested that it would be better if this brick soling is removed and soft landscaping

17


Report

is done to improve the aesthetics of the area. The committee members were

satisfied with the alignment of orange line track south of Shalamar Garden.

Figure 2 Advisory Committee at Shalmar Garden

4.2. GULABI BAGH GATEWAY

4.2.1. History & ArchitectureA significant Mughal structure, carrying the stunning tile mosaic examples, is the

Gulabi Bagh (Rose Garden) Gateway located on the northern side of GT Road,

Lahore. It was the entrance to a garden which, like many other Mughal Era gardens

in Lahore, has now disappeared. It was constructed by a Persian Noble Mirza Sultan

Baig who was “Amir-al-Bahr” (Admiral of fleet) during the Mughal Era. It is said that

in 1657 A.D., while on a hunting excursion to the royal hunting reserve at Hiran

Minar near Sheikhupura, he died from the bursting of an English gun given to him by

Shahjahan. The title “Gulabi Bagh” (Rose garden) occurs in the last line of the

inscription of over the archway which not only describes the kind of the garden, but

as a chronogram, also gives the date of its construction, (1066 AH/1655 AD. The

Gulabi Bagh Gateway is notable for its excellence of rich and vivid mosaic tile work

and superb calligraphy on plaster base.

18


Report

Figure 3 View of Gulabi Bagh Gateway

4.2.2. Observations and Briefing:At the next stop, the team members visited Gulabi Bagh Gateway. The Advisory

Committee members checked the distance of monument on the maps which is 69ft

and compared it with on-ground situation. They were satisfied that in accordance

with the technical data provided by NESPAK regarding the vibration of train which

would be less than 0.3 mm/second and is within permissible limit and there is no

possibility of any negative/harmful impact on the structure of Gulabi Bagh Gateway.

They have also examined and inspected the site for the possibility of any adverse

impact on the setting and appearance of the site. The Committee was satisfied that

the construction and operation of the project would not result in any such

effect/impact. However, they suggested to the Chief Engineer LDA to make

necessary arrangements to control the dust pollution especially during the

construction phase so that it would not affect the decorative work of Gulabi Bagh

Gateway. The Chief Engineer LDA promised that all possible steps would be taken

in order to control any dust pollution and further emphasize that DG Archaeology and

his department would be constantly monitoring the whole phase.

19


Report

Figure 4 Advisory Committee at Gulabi Bagh Gateway

4.3. BUDDHU’S TOMB

4.3.1. History & Architecture:Buddhu was a brick manufacturer during the time of Shah Jahan. The tomb situated

on the right side of Grand Trunk Road near Gulabi Bagh Gateway is a brick

structure. It has one arched opening on each side and is surmounted by a low

pitched dome, carried on a high cylindrical drum over an octagonal base. The

exterior of the building is paneled and finished with plaster. The dome carried on

quenches is decorated with enameled tiles in blue, yellow, white, green and light

brown colors laid in ziz-zag pattern. Domed tomb likely once stood amidst a garden,

but all traces of landscaping have vanished. Although the monument is called

Buddhu’s tomb, it is, in all probability, the tomb of Faqir Abdul Haque, a saint who

died in 1671 A.C.

20


Report

Figure 5 View of Buddhu's Tomb

As per some other historians, it may be the tomb of the wife of Khan-i-Dauran

Bahadur Nusrat Jang, a high-ranking nobleman in the court of Shah Jahan.

4.3.2. Observations and BriefingAt the next stop the members of Advisory Committee visited Buddhu’s Tomb. They

examined the area/site and found that the distance of monument shown on the

drawing/map i.e. 59 ft was taken from the edge of protected open space while actual

distance from the monument was almost 81 ft which is more than that mentioned on

the map. After the visit and detailed inspection of the site the Committee expressed

its satisfaction that there would be no negative affect on structure, appearance and

setting of the monument. However, they again stressed for taking all possible steps

and measures to save this monument from dust pollution as a result of construction

21


Report

work. The Chief Engineer LDA undertook to resolve this issue at the site of Buddhu’s

Tomb as well through extensive sprinkling of water on regular basis.

Figure 6 Advisory Committee at Buddhu's Tomb

4.4. CHAUBURJI GATEWAY

4.4.1. History and Architecture:Situated on the Multan Road, the monument was actually a gateway to a garden that

has now disappeared. It is called Chauburji (the four minarets) because of its four

corner minarets, out of which one on the north-west corner was lost and rebuilt by

Archaeology department. The fragmentary inscription on its eastern archway records

that the garden was founded in 1646 A.D. by a lad, mentioned metaphorically as

“Sahib-e-Zebinda, Begum-e-Dauran”(one endowed with elegance, the lady of the

age) and was bestowed upon one Mian Bai.

22


Report

Figure 7 View of Chauburji Gateway

The reference is most probably to Jahan Ara Begum, the eldest daughter of Emperor

Shahjahan, who was entitled as ‘Begum Sahib’ and for all official purposes, was the

‘lady of the age’ after the death of her mother in 1631. That there was a garden of

Jahan Ara Begum at Lahore is confirmed by two letters of Emperor Aurangzeb

addressed to her.

Main architectural merit of the building is its rich mosaic decoration with which its

entire façade including the octagonal corner minarets are brilliantly embellished. The

minarets are slender for their height and end at the top in coved platforms which

once carried arched pavilions. The panel over the main-vault is inscribed with

Ayat-al-Kursi, a verse of Holy Quran, in blue enameled letters. The end of this

inscription, the year A. H. 1056 (1646 A.D.) is also given.

4.4.2. Observations and Briefing:All members of the Advisory Committee reached Chauburji Gateway and examined

& inspected the same carefully from all angles. The minimum distance of Orange

Line track from Chauburji is 53 ft. On a query the Chief Engineer LDA explained that

distances between the piers being constructed was less due to curvature of the track

of the train and in order to protect the safety of the monument. On an another query

by one member of the Advisory Committee, the Chief Engineer explained that if the

23


Report

track was moved further away it would result in an increase of cost of 9 billion rupees

and displacement of another 1300 people in the area whereas at present only 2777

people would be displaced along the entire 27.1 km. Further, the curvature has been

carefully designed keeping in view the expected speed of Orange Line Metro Train.

The members observed that there will be no visual obstruction from western side of

Chauburji. It has further been observed that even without any construction Chauburji

is not visible from Bahawalpur road due to curves and local construction until

reached very near to Chauburji chowk. They, therefore, expressed their view that

any further shifting of the alignment on eastern side will not be of any use or lead to

any improvement. Keeping overall situation the committee is satisfied that the

development project would not have any adverse impact on structure, appearance or

setting of the monument.

Figure 8 Advisory Committee at Chauburji Gateway

4.5. TOMB OF ZAIB-UN-NISA

4.5.1. History & Architecture:The Tomb of Princess Zaib-Un-Nisa is located on the Main Multan Road near Mor

Samanabad. This impressive Tomb is of Mughal Period constructed during 17 th

Century A.D. The tomb is erroneously called the Tomb of Princess Zebun Nisa, the

Daughter of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb Aalamgir. About 270 feet west of the

24


Report

Gateway at Nawankot lies the stripped brick core of the undated tomb containing two

unknown graves one perhaps of Princess Zaib-Un-Nisa. Portion of the original

tessellated floor with Shahjahanian touch and delicacy and has white and black

marble with sang-e-badal patterned, have survived the vandalism of the Sikhs who

stripped the tomb of its ornamentations and stone facing. The existing patches of

sang-e-badal flooring are exactly similar to that of the veranda in Jahangir’s tomb.

Its pyramidal dome, curvilinear externally and hemispherical internally is the only

example of this style in Lahore.

Figure 9 View of Tomb of Zaib-un-Nisa

4.5.2. Observations and Briefing:At Zaib-un-Nisa’s Tomb the members observed that the track of Orange Line Metro

Train is sufficiently far away from the Tomb i.e. 110 feet and the view of the tomb

has already been blocked due to local construction and it is not visible from the

existing road. Hence this track would not affect the monument in any way.

5. THIRD MEETING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEEThird meeting of the Advisory Committee, constituted under Section 3(1) of the

Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012, was held on 18-02-

25


Report



In this meeting, all issues listed above were discussed in detail. Environment Impact

Assessment and Vibration Analysis Report by NESPAK were also examined.

The members of the committee requested that objections taken by the petitioners in

various court cases regarding effect of Orange Line on heritage sites should also be

presented. The Chief Engineer briefed the members about the following objections in

the court case regarding effect of Orange Line on heritage sites:

i. Construction within the distance of 200 feet of the premises of protected Antiquities along the route of Orange Line without approval of Director under section 22 of Antiquities Act, 1975.

ii. NOC’s issued by the Archaeology Department and procedure adopted for the issuance of NOC.

iii. Disturbance and apprehension of damages to the buildings due to vibration and other adverse effects of metro train.

iv. Protection and preservation of National Heritage sites, historical buildings and religious sites along the route of Orange Line.

v. Obstructed view and reduced access.

vi. Noise, Dust, and air pollution.

The Chief Engineer briefed that LDA is not violating Antiquities Act 1975 as

amended by Amendment Act of 2012. LDA had applied for NOC to Director General

of Archaeology before starting the construction work. After detailed consideration,

DG Archaeology was satisfied that Orange Line train would not cause any adverse

effect on the heritage sites. Hence, NOC was issued.

The Project Manager NESPAK explained that a comprehensive vibration analysis

had been conducted in which a 2-dimensional model is prepared using structural

analysis program SAP2000, with the objective of vibration time history analysis of the

Viaduct. The model consists of pier, pile cap, the piles and surrounding soil. All the

materials in the model are modelled as elastic materials. The thickness of 2D model

is kept as 1m. The out of plane thickness of the piles, pile cap and the pier are

proportioned based on the calibration of model with the 3D model of viaduct. The

26


Report

time period of the pier in the 3D model is observed to be around 1.1 sec. The out of

plane thickness of the pier is adjusted so that the 2D model provided similar

fundamental time period (1.27 sec for 2D model). Since the soil is modelled as an

elastic material (a very simplifying assumption), the model had to be calibrated to the

3D model for similar vertical deformations. The modulus of elasticity of the soil

material is adjusted so that the vertical deflection of 3.8 mm that is observed in the

3D viaduct model is obtained from the 2D model. The model was calibrated at

modulus of elasticity of 2000MPa for soil for which the vertical deflection under the

pier is determined as 4mm. Figure 10 shows the 2D SAP2000 model. The surface

nodes are labelled where the response time histories are obtained from the FEA

analysis.

Figure 10 2D FEA Model of Viaduct and surrounding soil system

27


Report

Figure 11 Dynamic Model of Train by Xia, 2001

Figure 12 Load history on pier by moving train obtained from Xia’s (2001) model

28


Report

Figure 13 Response Acceleration Time History at Node 347 (at pile cap)

Figure 14 Response Velocity Time History at Node 347 (at pile cap)

29


Report

Figure 15 Response Displacement Time History at Node 347 (at pile cap)

According to the German Standard DIN 4150 Part 3-1999 “”Structural Vibration in

Buildings”, the maximum vibration velocity at the foundation level of the heritage

structure shall be less than 3mm/sec. Maximum acceleration levels of 0.005 m/s2

are considered acceptable for human comfort during night.

Table 1 Theoretical Vibration magnitude and Safe limits according to DIN 4150 standard

Heritage SiteDistance from

Pier(m)

Peak velocity at site [mm/s]

Safe Limits

for velocity as per

DIN 4150

standard

Peak acceleration

s at site [mm2/s]

Safe Limits for

acceleration*

Shalamar Garden 29 <0.01

< 3m

m/s

for H

erita

ge

Site

s

<2

< 10

mm

/s2

for H

erita

ge

Site

s

Gulabi Bagh’s Tomb 21 0.06 4

Buddu’s Tomb 18.1 0.08 5

Chaburji 16 0.12 6Zaib un Nisa’s

Tomb 33.5 <0.01 <2

30


Report

Moreover, Trains to be operated for Orange Line Project do not fall in the category of

high speed trains. The average operating velocity of the train will be 38-km/hr to 42-

km/hr whereas the maximum operating velocity will be less than 80km/hr. Piers

supported on deep piles transmit the loads to greater depths. Thus, the ground

borne vibrations due to passage of trains on structures supported on Piles are

limited. As per report of Vibration Analysis of Viaduct by NESPAK, it is concluded

that beyond a distance of 33-39 ft of the main piers of the rail, the ground borne

vibrations shall be as little as <0.30mm/sec, i.e. one tenth of the permissible limits.

Hence there will be no adverse effect of vibrations on any heritage site.

The following construction equipment shall be used during construction activities

near the project site.

• Auger drilling Equipment

• 1.1 m3 Excavators

• 250 ton capacity Cranes

• 6 m3 Transit Mixers

• Loaders up to 3.1 m3

• Dumper Trucks 60 m3

• Trailers and Tractors

Auger drilling method for the construction of piles has been adopted for design,

which is the recommended method to reduce the noise and vibrations. The vibration

effects of other construction equipment are estimated based on the CALTRAN’s

method to estimate the construction induced vibrations.

According to CALTRAN, the peak particle velocity induced by construction

equipment can be estimated as

PPV EQUIPMENT=PPV Ref ( 25D )

n

(in/sec)

The values for PPVREF and “n” are provided in the Table 2 and Table 3. “n” values for

1.5 is estimated for the soil conditions of along the route of Orange line.

31


Report

The equipment vibrations effects along the distance from the location of equipment

are given in Figure 16. The vibrations levels at locations of Heritage sites are within

the allowable limits.

Table 2 Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment (CALTRAN)

Table 3 “n” values based on soil Classes (CALTRAN)

32


Report

10 15 20 25 30 35 400.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00

Equipment Vibration Models

ExcavatorLoaderMixer/CraneTractor/Trailer

Distance, [m]

PPV

[mm

/sec

]

Figure 16 Equipment vibration (PPV) wrt Distance

The locations of five heritage sites along Metro Orange Line are analysed for the

vibrations induced by the passage of train over the Viaduct bridge. Based on FEA

modal vibration analysis of the Viaduct, it is concluded that the vibrations are within

the limits set up for Heritage sites according to international standards. The impacts

of the construction equipment induced vibrations are within the allowable limits.

The Chief Engineer, LDA further briefed about the visual barrier that the elevated

structure of the Orange line is very slim and sleek and will not create visual barrier.

Furthermore, the Soffit level of the deck is 39 ft that will allow a clear view of the

monument while traveling on ground. Maximum permissible sharp turning radius and

curves have been designed near these monuments specifically to ensure maximum

possible distance and at the same time keeping private property demolition to a

minimum. The piers are placed on the center of the road to minimize disturbance to

the adjoining properties and hence reduce demolition works and land acquisition.

The Project Manager, NESPAK briefed that Orange Line train is electrically operated

hence it will not contribute in any environmental pollution. In fact construction of this

train will provide a comfortable and hassle-free transportation which will attract more

passengers and reduce environmentally polluting vehicular travel as people will

33


Report

prefer to travel on this train instead of motor bikes and cars. This will reduce the

traffic congestion on the roads and hence result in less noise, reduction in vehicular

emission and dust. This Project contributes to sustainable development with respect

to Environment Improvement, low greenhouse gas emission per passenger kilometre

and social Improvement in terms of following:

Less travel time due to reduction in traffic congestion

Less respiratory diseases

Reduction in accidents

Low greenhouse gas emission.(e.g chloroflurocarbons)

Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions as estimated through Clean Development Mechanism is 145227.5 ton per annum pro rata – Dehli Metro.

After implementation of this project, following reduction in bus flow on G.T. road and

Multan road is expected:

Table 4 Reduction in bus flow on G.T. road

34


Report

Table 5 Reduction in bus flow on Multan road

This reduction in traffic will significantly reduce air, noise and dust pollution. Direct

economic benefits in terms of passenger travel time savings and vehicular operating

cost savings are as under:

Direct Economic Benefits In First Year of Operation Annual Average Over 30 Years Period

Passenger Travel Time

Savings

PKR. 9.29 Billion PKR. 29.5 Billion

Vehicle Operating Costs

Savings

PKR. 5.62 Billion PKR. 9.87 Billion

Total PKR. 14.9 Billion PKR. 39.38 Billion

The members asked that what precautions are being taken to minimize the dust

during construction phase. The Chief Engineer, LDA informed that continuously

sprinkling of water is being done on site to reduce the dust. Moreover, mostly new

35


Report

and imported construction machinery is being used which has minimum vibrations

and noise. Emissions due to operation of these machineries are also within safe

limits.

The members inquired about the plans for beautification / landscaping of area

around monuments. The Chief Engineer, LDA informed that additional green belts

and landscaping works will also be done all along the route of Orange Line by PHA.

Funds have already been allocated for this purpose.

It is informed that Dr Javed Yonas Uppal needs some more time to present his

findings. The chair requested to present conclusion of his report in next meeting

which will be on 21-02-2016.

6. FOURTH MEETING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEEThe fourth session of the Advisory Committee meeting was held on 21-02-2016 in

which Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers discussed the impact analysis of the project on the

heritage sites and Dr Javed Yunas Uppal presented the findings of his report and a

visit was also made to following archaeological sites and monuments which are

protected under the Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012

and falling near the Orange Line Metro Train track:-

i. Shalamar Garden

ii. Gulabi Bagh Gateway

iii. Buddhu’s Tomb

iv. Chauburji Gateway

v. Tomb of Zaib-Un-Nisa

Dr. Ayesha Pamela briefed the members about the basis of her analysis in light of

the international best practice. It was observed that the overall assessment leans in

favour of the proposed project.

36


Report

Dr. Javed Yunas Uppal briefed the members about his report “Study of Control of

Vibrations, Noise and Foundation Undermining for Protection of Heritage Sites”. The

conclusion of his report is as follows:

A typical structure – soil – structure interaction model on finite element has been run

with and without the soft barrier. A heritage site is placed on one side and a pier is

placed on the other side. The results have been shown in table below:-

Table 6 Sites Near Elevated Piers

Sites Without Soft Barriers With Soft BarriersVibration

Characteristics for Heritage

Sites

Amplitude

mm

Velocity

mm/sec

Acceleration

mm/sec2

Amplitude

mm

Velocitymm/sec

AccelerationMm/sec2

ISO Standard Limits 1.00 3.00 10.00 1.00 3.00 10.00

Chauburji 0.6 0.30 8.00 0.2 0.10 3.00Zaib un Nissa

Tomb 0.2 0.05 2.00 0.1 0.02 0.50

Bhudu’s Tomb 0.5 0.2 6.00 0.2 0.08 2.00Gulabi bagh

Tomb 0.3 0.3 4.00 0.1 0.1 1.50

Shalimar Garden 0.2 0.06 2.00 0.1 0.02 0.50

The vibration characteristics are within limits prescribed for heritage sites.

The system as provided, considering the distances so encountered, cuts down the vibrations and noise to sufficient extent. Further positive barriers can be provided at places where vibration and noise can be extremely curtailed.

7. FIFTH MEETING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEEFifth meeting of the Advisory Committee, constituted under Section 3(1) of the

Antiquities Act 1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012, was held on 29-02-



37


Report

In this meeting, draft of report was presented to all the members of the advisory

committee. After detailed discussion and deliberations the members finalized

following recommendations and conclusions:

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

The following parameters were kept in mind by the Advisory Committee:

i. The impact of the planned development on the physical structure of each heritage site.

ii. The impact of development on the overall appearance and setting of the heritage site.

iii. The impact of various factors such as vibration and dust etc. during construction and operation phase of the project.

Based on meetings, visits, presentations, objections of various segments,

discussions/analysis and reports, the committee finalized its report, observation and

recommendations regarding each site as follows:

8.1. SHALAMAR GARDEN

8.1.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Petitioners and Advisory Committee

i. No construction should be allowed within 200 ft of the perimeter wall of Shalamar Garden.

ii. Would the project result in reduced access and compromised environment in the Garden.

iii. Are the Shalamar Hydraulic Works safe in the view of the proposed alignment.

iv. The Orange Line Track will create visual barrier.

v. Effect of the vibration on Shalamar Garden.

vi. Minimum and maximum distance of track of Orange Line Metro Train from the monument.

vii. Noise and dust pollution during operation of train.

The above mentioned questions/ queries were discussed with the Engineering/

Technical Staff of LDA/ NESPAK and officers of Directorate General of Archaeology,

38


Report

the answers were given to the members of Advisory Committee with the help of

drawings and aerial views of the track. The Advisory Committee was briefed that

government is not going to demolish or damage any heritage site during construction

or operational phase of this metro train. However, the distance of this train from

heritage sites is sufficient and it will not cause any adverse effect to these sites. The

distance from the perimeter wall of Shalamar Garden is sufficient enough that it

would not affect the structure of Shalamar Garden physically as well as visually. The

minimum distance of track from Shalamar Garden is 95 ft on one end and 75 ft on

the other end. The southern perimeter wall of the Shalamar Garden runs adjacent to

G.T. Road. The track of Orange Line is also proposed to be constructed towards the

southern side of the Shalamar Garden. The standard alignment of orange line is

elevated over central median of existing roads. In order to protect the integrity and

outstanding universal value of Shalamar Garden, a special curve alignment is

provided in front of this Garden. The track of the Orange Line would be raised at the

farthest possible side towards the South and away from the G.T. Road. Moreover,

the track is so designed as not to encroach upon any portion of the buffer zone

presently existing between the southern perimeter wall of Shalamar Garden and the

road farthest towards the South. Again, the track of Orange Line is elevated with

maximum turning radius and curves away from Shalamar Garden’s southern wall.

The purpose of this special curve is to protect the integrity of this historical place and

to ensure maximum possible distance from it which has resulted in additional land

acquisition of 10.4 kanals including private and government property.

The special curve alignment resulted in shifting of track sufficiently away from the

hydraulic tank as well. There will be no adverse effect on this tank. G.T. road is

already passing between the wall of Shalamar Garden and hydraulic tank but

Orange Line track is outside the hydraulic tank premises.

The elevated structure of the Orange Line is very slim and sleek and will not create

visual barrier. Furthermore, the track is on the farthest side towards the south and

the avg. Soffit level of the deck is 39 ft that will allow a clear view of the monument

from the ground. There will be no visual barrier for commuters of G.T. road travelling

towards Ring Road because Shalamar Garden will be on their left side and track will

be on right. The commuters travelling towards UET will also not face visual barrier as

39


Report

the track will be over their head for most of the part and just a slight visual hindrance

will be faced due to piers. Moreover, the view and beauty of Shalamar Garden is

from inside and its outside view is only of its perimeter wall. The proposed Metro

Track will also provide a unique visual tour of Shalamar Garden for the commuters of

this train.

Trains to be operated for Orange Line Project do not fall in the category of high

speed trains. The average operating velocity of the train will be 38-km/hr to 42-km/hr

whereas the maximum operating velocity will be less than 80km/hr. As per the report

of Vibration Analysis of Viaduct by NESPAK, it is stated that according to the

German Standard, the maximum vibration velocity at the foundation level of the

heritage structure should be less than 3mm/sec. Based on the theoretical 2D FEA

model of pier-ground system of similar light rail train viaduct system, the maximum

vibrations from the running of the Orange Line Metro, beyond a distance of 33-39 ft

of the main piers of the rail, shall be as little as <0.30mm/sec, i.e. one tenth of the

permissible limits. As noted above, the proposed track of the metro line will be

placed overhead, approximately 39 feet above the ground, with the support of piers,

which will significantly reduce the effect of any vibration from the metro on the

Shalamar Garden. Piers supported on deep piles transmit the loads to greater

depths. Thus, the ground borne vibrations due to passage of trains on structures

supported on Piles are limited.

Moreover, presently, traffic load at Shalamar Bagh Chowk in front of southern side of

Shalamar Gardens which is located on the G.T Road and also caters heavy traffic

from Shalamar Link Road is facing frequent traffic congestions which are resulting in

increase in vehicular emissions such as CO2, NOx, SOx, and Particulate Matter and

dust. The effects of these pollutants on Shalamar Gardens are described as under:

The life of historical buildings is remarkably reduced. Effects of soiling,

degradation, corrosion and erosion caused by SO2 are very much serious.

The effect of air pollution on building materials may be seen in terms of

discoloration, material loss, structural failing and soiling of Shalamar Garden.

Air pollutants deteriorate in five ways such as abrasion, deposition and

removal, direct chemical attack, indirect chemical attack and corrosion.

40


Report

Damage to materials in polluted atmospheres like Shalamar Bagh Chowk can

be attributed to dry or wet deposition of pollutants, or dissolution in rainfall in

the case of stone. Brick work, limestone and marble have a high sensitivity to

air pollution.

A Survey conducted by MVA Asia Ltd, a consultation firm specialising in

Transportation and Urban Planning, establishes that the Shalamar Garden station of

Metro Train is expected to divert / absorb, on daily basis, at least 6,000 commuters

with a line load of about 40,000 passengers, presently travelling on Buses, Wagons,

Rickshaws and Motorcycles plying on the roads towards the Southern side of

Shalamar Gardens, thereby considerably reducing the number of such vehicles on

these roads as soon as it could become operational.

The same study shows that by 2025, at Shalamar Garden station about 9,300

number of passengers with a line load of about 77,000 passengers are expected to

be shifted daily from local transport like buses, vans, rickshaws and taxis which are a

major source of vehicular emissions in that area, to a much more environmental

friendly urban transport that will be operated on electricity causing negligible

emissions. This will result in significant decrease in air emissions due to reduced

traffic congestions on G.T Road in the vicinity of Shalamar Garden, and it will,

thereby, be conducive to conserve the historic structure of this monument rather

than, in any manner, causing any kind of damage to it.

The noise pollution will also reduce because this train operates on electric power.

More visitors will be able to visit the Shalamar Garden due to better facility of

transportation.

The Committee members examined all issues noted above in the light of the reports

from LDA, NESPAK, independent consultants as well as information gathered during

their visits to the sites and satisfied that the construction of the project and its

operation will neither cause any physical damage to the sites in question nor will it

have adverse or harmful impact on the setting and appearance of the project. They

have also noted on the basis of vibration analysis reports by both NESPAK and Dr.

Javed Yunas Uppal that neither the construction nor the operation phase of the

project will in any manner affect the monument and the vibrations during both phase

41


Report

are well within the recognized and internationally accepted range. The Committee

further expressed satisfaction that the acquisition of number of structures on the

south of the G.T. Road, resulted in more open space in front of Shalamar Garden

which will not only preserve but rather enhance the setting and appearance of the

monument.

8.1.2. RECOMMENDATIONSThe Advisory Committee gave following recommendations regarding Shalamar

Garden:

i. The area around the Hydraulic tank should also be properly attended and developed into green belt.

ii. A wall to camouflage the shabby structures on the southern side of the track should be constructed.

iii. The decorative motifs of the Shalamar Garden should be replicated on the nearby station of the Garden.

iv. The parking area in front of Shalamar Garden may be shifted and proper landscaping should be done in this area to enhance the beauty of this Garden.

v. Special allocation should be made for the conservation & preservation of Shalamar Garden.

vi. Design and alignment of Orange line is acceptable.

8.2. GULABI BAGH GATEWAY

8.2.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Petitioners and Advisory Committee

i. Elevated track of Orange Line Metro Train is within 200 ft of Gulabi Bagh Gateway.

ii. Obstructed view, reduced access.

iii. The Orange Line Track will create visual barriers.

iv. Effect of the vibration on Gulabi Bagh Gateway.

v. Minimum and maximum distance of track of Orange Line Metro Train from the monument.

vi. Noise and dust pollution during operation of train.

42


Report

Above mentioned questions/ queries were replied by the Engineering/ Technical

Staff of LDA/ NESPAK and officers of Directorate General of Archaeology, and were

explained to Advisory Committee with the help of drawings and aerial views of the

track.

The Committee was briefed that the track is at safer distance of 69 ft from this

monument where ground borne vibrations are so weakened that it cannot cause any

damage. There will be no visual barrier for commuters of G.T. road travelling towards

Shalamar Garden. However, slight visual hindrance in terms of piers of this track will

be observed by commuters of G.T. road travelling towards Railway Station.

The Advisory Committee members checked the distance of monument on the maps

which is 69 ft and compared it with on-ground situation. They were satisfied that in

accordance with the vibration analysis report by NESPAK regarding the vibration of

train which would be less than 0.3 mm/second at distance of 33-39 ft from pier, there

would be no negative impact on the structure of Gulabi Bagh Gateway. However, the

members of the Advisory Committee suggested that the Chief Engineer LDA may

make necessary arrangements to control the dust pollution so it would not affect the

decorative work of Gulabi Bagh Gateway.

8.2.2. RECOMMENDATIONSThe Advisory Committee gave following recommendation regarding Gulabi Bagh

Gateway:

i. Tile mosaic motifs of the Gulabi Bagh Gateway should be used on the decoration of nearby station of the Gateway.

ii. Design and alignment of Orange line is acceptable.

8.3. BUDDHU’S TOMB

8.3.1. Observations Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Advisory Committee

i. Elevated track of Orange Line Metro Train is within 200 ft of Buddhu’s Tomb.

ii. The Orange Line Track will create visual barriers.

iii. Effect of the vibration on Buddhu’s Tomb.

43


Report

iv. Minimum distance of track of Orange Line Metro Train from the monument.


The Advisory Committee visited Buddhu’s Tomb and found that the distance of

monument shown on the drawing was taken from the edge of protected open space

and actual distance from the monument was even more than what was mentioned

on the map. The distance of edge of protected space of this monument to the

Orange Line track is 59 ft, hence it is located at a safer distance from track as per

Vibration Analysis Report of NESPAK. The shifting of track further away from

monument will result in unnecessary displacement of thousands of people. There will

be no visual barrier for commuters of G.T road travelling towards Railway Station as

the tomb will be on their left side and metro track will be on right. However there will

be slight visual barrier in form of piers for the commuters of G.T. road travelling

towards Ring Road. The committee expressed their satisfaction that there would be

no negative impact on this monument. However, they again stressed for taking

protective measures to save this monument from dust pollution in the result of

construction work. The Chief Engineer LDA undertook to control this situation by

extensive sprinkling of water on regular basis.

8.3.2. RECOMMENDATIONSThe Advisory Committee gave following recommendation regarding Buddhu’s Tomb:

i. The area around the Tomb should be developed into garden and conservation of the decayed portions of the Tomb should be immediately carried out.

ii. Tile mosaic patterns of the Buddh’s Tomb should be used on the decoration of nearby station of the Tomb.

iii. Design and alignment of Orange line is acceptable.

8.4. CHAUBURJI GATEWAY

8.4.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Advisory Committee

i. The track of the Orange Line Train is within 200 ft of the monument.

ii. Obstructed view of the monument from Bahawalpur Road.

iii. Effect of the vibration on Chauburji Gateway.

44


Report

iv. Minimum distance of track of Orange Line Metro Train from the Chauburji Gateway.


The minimum distance of Orange line track from Chauburji Gateway is 53 ft. All

members of the Advisory Committee examined carefully the drawings and exact

locations of piers at Chauburji Gateway. The Chief Engineer LDA explained that

distances between the piers being constructed was less due to curvature of the track

of the train and in order to protect the safety of the monument. The Chief Engineer

further explained that if the track was moved further away it would result in an

increase of cost of 9 billion rupees and displacement of another 1300 people in the

area whereas at present only 2777 people would be displaced along the entire 27.1

km. Further, the curvature has been carefully designed keeping in view the expected

speed of Orange Line Metro Train.

Three alternate options were considered:-

a. Shifting of alignment further away on Eastern side.

b. Shifting of alignment on Western side

c. Underground

If the track of orange line is either shifted further on eastern side or western side, it

will increase public displacement / land acquisition to such an extent that it will not be

socially feasible. While travelling on Bahawalpur road, the committee observed that

even in existing situation due to curves and construction of Mosque near the chowk,

Chauburji is not visible and its setting and appearance had already been effected.

Therefore shifting of alignment further on Eastern side will not in any manner

enhance the setting and appearance of the monument rather it would only result in

displacement of people and further enhancement of cost without any positive gain.

Underground option was also discussed in detail and was not found viable due to

technical constraints of slopes and curves. Moreover this option will result in

massive, drastic and unjustifiable displacement of general public. The current

feasible option is selected in such a way so that there will be no adverse effect of

vibrations on Chauburji and it will cause minimum displacement of the general

public. The simulation given in the presentation showed that the track would be 39 ft

high from ground level and the portal already under execution has been abandoned

45


Report

and single pier would be constructed to hold the track. This change in design would

improve the visibility and setting and appearance of monument while coming from

Bahawalpur Road. Keeping in view various factors and while balancing them in

larger public interest and to avoid displacement of general population and extra

ordinary additional cost, the Committee after going through all factors is of the view

that present design and alignment of project is most suitable option.

The studies conducted by the NESPAK and data provided by LDA, the issue of

vibration has been properly addressed and nullified. According to feasibility study,

this train will help in reduction of traffic congestion on side roads which will

consequently reduce air, dust and noise pollution. Pollution can cause early

deterioration of historical buildings and make these places unattractive for the

tourists. So reduction in pollution due to this train will help in preservation of heritage

sites and clean environment with hassle-free access will attract more tourists.

8.4.2. RECOMMENDATIONSi. Proper landscaping of park around Chauburji to further enhance its

beauty.

ii. Visual inspection of indicators other than cracks, such as loosening of decorative tiles will also be part of the Monitoring Plan.

iii. The speed of the train should be reduced while passing in front of the monument.

iv. Design and alignment is acceptable.

8.5. TOMB OF ZAIB-UN-NISA

8.5.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Advisory Committee

i. The track of the Orange Line Train is within 200 ft of the monument.

ii. The Orange Line Track will create visual barriers.

iii. Effect of the vibration on Tomb of Zaib-Un-Nisa.

iv. Maximum distance of track of Orange Line Metro Train from the monument.


46


Report

At Zaib-un-Nisa’s Tomb the members observed that the track of Orange Line Metro

Train is 110 feet which is sufficiently away from the Tomb. The Committee further

observed that the setting and appearance of the monument has already been

compromised and its view is already blocked due to construction of existing

structures, hence the track or operation of the train would not in any manner

adversely affect the setting and appearance of the monument. All committee

members agreed that this track would not affect the monument.

8.5.2. RECOMMENDATIONSi. The situation of at the roof tops of the houses and commercial buildings is not

giving a pleasant look. Government should also do something to improve their

roof top condition to have a better look/ view during operation of train. A

proposal to develop the roof tops as a sort of Kitchen Garden was also given

by the members.

ii. Design and alignment is acceptable.

9. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONSFurther recommendations given by the Advisory Committee are as under:-

9.1. Vibration Impacts from train operations:Refer to the Vibration Analysis Report By NESPAK, The German Standard states

that the maximum vibration velocity at the foundation level of a heritage structure

should be less than 3mm/sec. Based on the theoretical 2D FEA model of pier-ground

system of light rail train viaduct system similar to Orange line project, it is concluded

that beyond a distance of 32 – 39 ft. from the main pier of rail the ground borne

vibrations (GBV) will be negligible at 0.3 mm/sec, a measurement far below that

recommended by studies and industry standards. On this basis, it can be stated that

there will be no adverse impact to historic fabric located more than 32 feet from the

source of vibrations from operation of the trains. Furthermore, committee also

considered the report of Dr Yunas Uppal, an independent Structural Engineer. His

findings also supported this fact that there will be no adverse effect of vibrations on

any heritage site. To further mitigate the risk of ground borne vibration damage to

sensitive historical fabric the following measures will be taken:

47


Report

i. Vibration monitoring will be carried in these three historic buildings as part of the Monitoring Plan using crack measurement devices such as the Avogard Standard tell-tales. Monitoring will take place for an agreed period of 6 – 10 weeks to evaluate any impacts and will cease or continue depending on findings.

ii. If levels of vibration remain within safe limits then monitoring will stop; if they exceed safe limits then further action will be taken to bring the levels down, such as adjustment of train speed, use of additional buffers etc.

iii. Visual inspection of indicators other than cracks, such as loosening of roof elements or decorative tiles will also be part of the Monitoring Plan.

iv. The situation of the roof tops of the houses and commercial buildings does not give a pleasant look. Government should also do something to improve their condition to have a better look/ view. A proposal for sort of Kitchen Garden was given by Architect, Khalid A. Rehman and appreciated by all members.

v. Dr. Kanwal Khalid proposed that a soft image of the track should be created by decorating it near the monuments through the motifs and designs of the monuments. This proposal was appreciated by the members.

vi. Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers suggested that the LDA may consider to shift G.T. Road on the south of the proposed track of Orange Line Metro Train and the area so cleared through this process should be developed as landscape entrance to Shalamar Garden.

vii. Dr. Anjum Rehmani suggested to reduce the speed near the archaeological buildings on both sides of track.

9.2. Visual Barrier Created by Elevated TrainVisual impact refers to the direct impacts of the development on setting and

appearance as a result of intrusion or obstruction; the overall impact on visual

amenity, be it degradation or enhancement and the reaction of viewers who may be

affected. This includes the view of passerby, from street level and from elevated train

level, and visitors looking inwards to the heritage site and the view outwards from the

site or building towards the elevated sections of the alignment.

The slight visual impacts should be mitigated / offset by sympathetic design of the

viaduct and stations in terms of colour and reflectivity so that the setting and

appearance of the heritage sites may be as far as possible preserved and enhanced.

48


Report

The visual envelope of these monuments has already been compromised by already

existing infrastructure, buildings and encroachment. The project will provide an

opportunity for landscaping and streetscape to preserve rather enhance the setting

and appearance of the environment around the monuments.

9.3. Conservation and Restoration of Historical BuildingsA program has been developed to carry out cleaning, conservation and restoration

works on the affected monuments after completion of the construction works. Work

will focus on the five heritage buildings under the protection of the Antiquities Act

1975 as amended by Amendment Act of 2012. The Director General Archaeology

may supplement this condition in NOC that funding for landscaping, conservation

and restoration of these monuments may be done through this project.

9.4. Improvement of the Roof Tops of the BuildingsThe roof tops of the buildings on both sides of the track should be improved to give a

pleasant look while sitting in the train during the travelling.

9.5. Speed of the TrainThe speed of the train should be reduced while passing nearby the historical

buildings to reduce the vibration affects and better aerial view for the travelers.

9.6. Awareness CampaignA comprehensive awareness campaign should be launched on electronic, print and

social media and highlight the steps taken to protect the archaeological sites and

monuments by the Government.

10. MONITORING AND REPORTINGReports regarding the health of structure and condition of each heritage site should

be prepared on regular intervals and presented to the Advisory Committee. The

Committee will evaluate these reports and give its recommendations to Director

General of Archaeology. Regular monitoring of cultural heritage will be carried out in

the construction as well as operational phase by a team led by an independent

experienced Conservation Engineer familiar with the baseline conditions of each of

the properties. Each building will be monitored on site fortnightly, when all mitigation

measures will be checked, photographed/video and documented. These reports will

49


Report

be submitted to the designated officer(s) in Directorate General Archaeology Punjab

for review.

The Director General of Archaeology thanked the member of sparing their precious

time for this important issue and appreciated their efforts for preparation of this

report.

50


Report

51

Date post:	08-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongthien
View:	223 times
Download:	4 times

Executive Summary - Lahore Metro aur Aap | Lahore · Web viewThe route of the Orange Line...

Documents