The judge in preliminary relief proceedings today ruled that the controversial environmental zone in the center of Utrecht will remain provisional. He believes that more time is needed to evaluate figures and reports on the effect of the environmental zone. For the substantive discussion about the signposting in the city and the standards used, the judge refers to the multiple chamber. The court case will be continued later this year, but for the time being the environmental zone in Utrecht will be maintained because the judge gave priority to the interests of the municipality of Utrecht and its citizens.
The Royal Dutch Automobile Club (KNAC) had filed summary proceedings. The organization wanted, partly on behalf of a number of vintage car clubs, an immediate ban on the zone. She used starting points that were closely related to the unproven effects of zones in German cities and traffic signs.
Demolition with subsidy
According to Utrecht and Milieudefensie, the exclusion of old, dirty cars from the city center saves 30 percent soot emissions on an annual basis. Since Utrecht decided in 2013 to set up an environmental zone, owners of the vehicles in question have had the opportunity to have this car scrapped with a subsidy. They also received a contribution for the purchase of a cleaner means of transport. According to the municipality, that scheme is widely used.
Selective criterion
According to the judge, citizens themselves decide whether they buy a cleaner car or take the risk of a fine. “The municipality is not responsible for that. Therefore, the costs arising from it cannot be a reason to prohibit the environmental zone. ”What the court did not include in the considerations was that it was the municipality of Utrecht that imposed the scrapping premium and therefore actually encouraged the citizen to buy to switch to another, cleaner car. The criterion of holding the municipality of Utrecht not responsible therefore has a selective character.
Legal inequality was not discussed
In addition - and that has not been discussed - there is a high degree of legal inequality. Entrepreneur Ton Aarts recently reported via Twitter that "it is crazy that someone with an efficient VW Lupo 3 L from 2000 is not allowed to enter the zone and someone with a much more diesel-consuming Hummer from 2006 - which also meets the same Euro standard satisfactory. It is also questionable whether a person who drives an APK-approved diesel car from 2000 and pays MRB properly may be banned from certain areas, while someone who meets the same criteria but a diesel from 2001 or later has the same areas may enter.
Complexity requires more time
What also obscures a clear perspective is that the municipality of Utrecht is still driving dirty city buses around, while according to TNO it has already been demonstrated that clean buses can achieve the most environmental benefits. In addition, polluting regional buses can also enter the environmental zone. On the other hand, it is raining fines for offenders entering the environmental zone with a diesel from a construction year for 2001 with Dutch registration. According to the KNAC, these are just a few examples of the inconsistencies within the scope of the environmental zone. The fact that the environmental zone still raises many questions indicates that the KNAC's intention to suspend the zone was the right one. Because it is not surprising that the court in preliminary relief proceedings needs more time to unravel the complexity of the measure. That is also why the zone should have been suspended - at least for the time being. Later this year there will certainly be a follow-up case.
Source: ANP and KNAC
Edited: Erik van Putten, Auto Motor Klassiek
It also recently came out that the consumption and emissions of new cars are presented much more rosy, because the tests are manipulated with, among other things, different oil, masking of seams, disconnection of dynamo and other devices, tires inflated with high speed, etc.
That seems to me to be of great importance for the establishment of an environmental zone, because it means that the cars that are admitted do not meet the standard on which admission is based.