executive summary - lahore metro aur aap | lahore · web viewthe route of the orange line...
Post on 08-Mar-2018
226 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Report of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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
Report of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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
Report of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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
4.2.2. Observations and Briefing:....................................................................17
4.3. BUDDHU’S TOMB.......................................................................................18
4.3.1. History & Architecture:...........................................................................18
4.3.2. Observations and Briefing.....................................................................19
4.4. CHAUBURJI GATEWAY..............................................................................20
4.4.1. History and Architecture:.......................................................................20
4.4.2. Observations and Briefing:....................................................................21
6
Report of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
Table of Contents
4.5. TOMB OF ZAIB-UN-NISA............................................................................22
4.5.1. History & Architecture:...........................................................................22
4.5.2. Observations and Briefing:....................................................................23
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
8.2.2. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................41
8.3. BUDDHU’S TOMB.......................................................................................41
8.3.1. Observations Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Advisory Committee.41
8.3.2. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................42
8.4. CHAUBURJI GATEWAY..............................................................................42
8.4.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Advisory Committee42
8.4.2. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................44
8.5. TOMB OF ZAIB-UN-NISA............................................................................44
8.5.1. Observations/ Issues Raised by the Civil Society/ Advisory Committee44
8.5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................45
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
Report of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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
Report of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
Report
2016 in the Committee Room of Youth Affairs, Sports, Archaeology & Tourism
Department under the Chairmanship of Director General of Archaeology, Punjab.
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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-
2016 in the Committee Room of Youth Affairs, Sports, Archaeology & Tourism
Department under the Chairmanship of Director General of Archaeology, Punjab.
37
Report of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
Report
iv. Minimum distance of track of Orange Line Metro Train from the monument.
v. Noise and dust pollution during operation of train.
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
Report
iv. Minimum distance of track of Orange Line Metro Train from the Chauburji Gateway.
v. Noise and dust pollution during operation of train.
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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.
v. Noise and dust pollution during operation of train.
46
Report of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
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 of the Advisory CommitteeConstituted u/s 3(1) Of The Antiquities Act, 1975
Report
51
top related