The municipality of Rotterdam has publicized the results of the investigation into the measures to improve air quality in Rotterdam. Those responsible have reported that the measures are "effective". The emission of soot (EC) and nitrogen dioxide (NoX) has decreased by 29 and 12 percent respectively. This is evident from the figures from October 2015 to November 2016. Lower emissions of soot and nitrogen dioxide have a positive effect on health. The decrease in soot emissions is mainly due to the scrapping scheme in combination with the environmental zone: this prevented the most polluting cars from the inner city of Rotterdam.
The package of measures adopted by the city council in 2015, the Air Quality Policy Document, works according to the municipality of Rotterdam. The ambition is to reduce 40% soot and a significant decrease in the concentration of nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Alderman Pex Langenberg (including mobility and sustainability): “The air quality in Rotterdam was relatively poor and that is not good for the health of the people of Rotterdam. Two years ago we decided to put a lot of effort into this, among other things by setting the environmental zone in combination with a large scrapping scheme. I am pleased that we have taken this step and that all measures have a healthy effect on air quality in Rotterdam. "
Soot
On the busiest roads in the city, no less than 50% of the soot in the Rotterdam air was caused by the emission of motorized traffic. Alderman Langenberg: “We could not wait until all residents drive a cleaner car and companies make their fleet more sustainable. Healthier air is of vital importance, therefore the robust package of measures. ”Up to and including 2016, more than 5.000 Rotterdam residents have offered their dirty cars for demolition. According to TNO, the outflow of diesel-powered passenger cars from 2015 in Rotterdam has fallen dramatically since 2001 in Rotterdam. "Many times stronger than in other cities."
Traffic increase
It is remarkable that the environmental zone - in combination with the scrapping scheme - is seen as the most important driver for effectiveness. And that is a statement that is fought with verve by the opponents of the environmental zone. Niels van Ham, chairman of the Rotterdam Classics Foundation, reported on Radio 1 that “cars are indeed part of the air pollution problem, but not that small group of classics that is being banned. There are 315.000 cars in the city, and 3.000 cars are excluded by the environmental zone measure. Furthermore, the traffic intensity in Rotterdam has grown, and 99% of the traffic can still go into the city. That is where the problem lies. But the municipality of Rotterdam apparently does not have the guts to take real measures with regard to traffic intensity. Keeping many cars out of the city apparently costs a lot of money. "
"Groningen precursor"
The Adem action group also responded. “It is good to take a look at the way in which Groningen - and we are talking about measures 30 years ago. There, those responsible ensured that the through traffic was stopped. Groningen was a forerunner. In Rotterdam, traffic is still happily guided through the city. The real solution to the problem is that the public space must be arranged differently. The car should just be a guest and have less space. And there must be more public transport. Especially now that the economy is picking up, the Randstad is going to be completely full. "
VVD: "Calculation instead of measurement does not work"
After the evaluation was made public, the VVD fraction in Rotterdam responded directly through Jan Willem Verheij. “The figures show that the improvements that are made, such as the reduction of soot and particulate matter in the air, are comparable to other cities that do not have an environmental zone. 2016 also sees a doubling of clean cars in Rotterdam. We are also seeing a decrease in the number of fewer "clean" cars. 'The improvement assumed by the Commission appears to be largely calculated in the report and not measured. That is juggling numbers. Taxpayers' money can be spent much more effectively. That is why the VVD is calling for the environmental zone to be abolished, ”says Verheij, who, incidentally, did support the scrapping scheme.