TERAMO – The reopening, after more than a year, of Via S Antonio (moreover, in the presence of the mayor, prime minister, surviving councilors and various councillors, it wasn’t even a question of inaugurating a pharaonic work of great strategic importance) was accompanied by innovations in terms of urban traffic: the pedestrianization of the aforementioned Via S Antonio and the reversal of the direction of travel of the parallel Via Cirillo which, now, will only be passable from Corso Cerulli-De Michetti towards Via Savini and no longer in the direction that allowed exit from the center. The reason for this change is unknown but the method used, now usual for this administration, is very well known: intervening in an episodic way outside of a general framework, of a plan that takes into account the entire city and the overall needs of the historic center . In this case the reference plan should have been the PUMS, the plan for sustainable urban mobility, much discussed and so little implemented. It makes sense to change a direction of travel, to pedestrianize a street in the center, if not within an overall framework where parking, stops, pedestrianization and traffic directions are not decided as isolated facts but are part of a system designed to guarantee citizens the best possible use of the city? Of course, it will be said, that once the pums becomes operational, it can be adapted, modified, adjusted; with great discomfort we add, citizens forced to continually change habits, to implement useless changes that bring nothing in terms of liveability and development of the historic center. Let’s also pedestrianize Via S Antonio with its new paving: a small island that exists on a street with a high traffic rate, without a perceptible overall network that connects and defines the pedestrian areas, connections, travel routes and areas parking. What will be the effect of this closure and the change of direction in via Cirillo on commercial activities and the use of the historic center? It does not seem to us that there can be any positive effects because it is a disorganized, occasional intervention, disconnected from the general context of the historic center and above all not supported by clear and defined objectives. There is no reference strategy that could and should be given by a general plan, namely the PUMS.
In short, this is why cities equip themselves with PUMS but in Teramo they continue to proceed in single episodes.
The question is obligatory: How does this administration intend to support commercial activities now in a coma, the “resuscitation” of the historic center, the use of urban roads? Do you finally want to implement a serious pums, calibrated to the real needs of Teramo or do you intend to continue along the path of individual occasional inorganic and harmful episodes? – Berardo Rabuffo, Lega –
