Inspreekreactie mevrouw Etten-Rueppell- Herinrichting Koninginneweg

Written “Inspraak” for bespreeking Raadscommissie Mobiliteit, Luchtkwaliteit en Water (MLW) regarding the definitive Nota van Uitgangspunten Herinrichting Koninginneweg (“NvU”), dated 2.2.2021. Belanghebbende: Melanie Etten-Rueppell, bewoner Koninginneweg 208hs Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is first of all important to understand the situation of the past couple of years, after the renovation of the de Lairessestraat in 2017. Since then, the Koninginneweg, a mostly residential street that is narrower and was less frequented than the de Lariessestraat has seen • •

a massive increase in through-traffic (especially heavy traffic and touring busses) and a doubling of the tram frequency so that a tram now passes each house every 3 minutes.

This has led to many traffic incidents and accidents, speeding, persistent and long daily traffic jams at various points of the KW (even on weekends), aggressive and dangerous behaviour of tram drivers effectively pushing cars onto the bicycle lanes or vehicles doing this by their own accord to bypass the traffic jam. Many large and long vehicles cannot drive down the curvy KW without cutting corners on bicycle lanes or crossing over to the other side of the road. Residents cannot use the parking spaces because of the persistent queues. In addition to the danger, the levels of noise are unacceptably high throughout the day as is likely to be the level of pollution. The dominant impression pre-Corona on KW was one of perennial traffic chaos, danger, noise and polluted air. The Projectteam behind the NvU (“Projektteam”) should be well aware of these problems as it was explained first and at length at the 1st meeting between residents and Rocco Piers (GroenLinks), members of the NvU Projectteam and Rashna Kadier from the Gemeente of Amsterdam in the fall of 2018. On this occasion, also a USB stick was handed over with photographs and video footage of the described incidents, the general traffic chaos and to illustrate the persistence and the lengths of the traffic jams, the noise and the resulting air pollution.

The problems were also explained by residents in several “spreekuuren” with Rocco Piers (GroenLinks) and Sebastiaan Capel (D66) and in the inloopavonden with Els Weijers (D66, Lid Stadsdeelcommissie)) and other members of the stadsdeelcommissie Zuid. Also, GVB and Vervoerregio has been informed of unacceptable conduct by tram drivers but did not react to effect change to this. The residents and entrepreneurs of KW have made very clear again and again since 2018 that we have here an unacceptable state of affairs, in large part caused by the redesign of the de Lairessestraat and the rerouting of the tram (see our petition with more than 2600 signees from 2018: https://www.change.org/p/stadsdeel-zuid-amsterdam-nl-geenongecontroleerde-verkeersdump-op-de-koninginneweg-maak-verkeerveilig/dashboard?source_location=user_profile_started)

1

Since this is mainly a residential street, it should have been expected that there is a certain level of protection/law enforcement local residents/entrepreneurs should have and that, if this is not anymore intact, everything should be done, in a timely fashion, to restore the safety, liveability and character of this residential street. Instead, since 2018 nothing has been done to change this untenable situation. Then, the restructuring of the KW was scheduled because of the tram tracks and the pipes under the street needed renewal (end of 2018). This was seen as an “opportunity” to also take other concerns on board which the Gemeente now remembered it had been told about. At the same time, the Gemeente made clear that nothing would be done about the situation before the restructuring (now planned for 2022). In a situation like this, in my view, it should have been clear that the most important stakeholders (local residents/entrepreneurs) are heard appropriately, and their input carries a key weight. However, this is not at all what has happened – a clear de-residentialisation was planned, having only marginally to do with the original concerns of the local residents and entrepreneurs.

Through several Klngboardgroep (KBG) meetings (my husband is a member and I represented him on occasions), the local residents and entrepreneurs tried to inform the projectteam of the nature and scale of the problems, their wishes as well as the problems with the proposed designs. All of this has largely been ignored and been misrepresented. The Variant 1 which is the favoured solution today was already the clear contender at the first meeting – effectively this was a foregone conclusion. All the arguments that were made against it were just ignored or were (and are) countered with arguments that do not stand up against any closer scrutiny whatsoever. This is very clear when one sees the table of the pros and cons of the different traffic variants. There are not many and mainly weak advantages in favour of the chosen Variant 1 and yet it is concluded that it is superior. The chosen Variant 1 was therefore not chosen for any clear general merits as measured against the objectives set out in the NvU. Throughout the process, key basic principles of transparent and professional project working were missing, e.g., no minutes of meetings have been produced throughout the process and, unfortunately, the numerous requests for such transparent documentation have been resisted to by the projectteam. The behaviour of the projectteam has therefore led to incomplete representation.

The projectteam demonstrated lack of basic knowledge about or disregards for the rights of residents, the status of the street etc. Suggestions for change of the design or an open debate about the shortcomings of the design were not possible. Fittingly, the level of analysis/debate in the meetings with the projectteam were inadequate for a subject of such complexity. In the words of a civil engineer with experience in urban planning who lives on the KW, the NvU’s level of analysis, methods and conclusions were of “terrible” quality. The KBG was simply always told by the projectteam, “there is no other way”. It soon became clear that this seemed to mean “the GVB/the Gemeente want it that way” and that the objectives were not quite as stated as in the NvU. What local residents and entrepreneurs wanted was only ever possible only to the extent that it did not compromise the GVBs/Gemeente’s key need - in essence to get its high frequency tram

2

schedule fulfilled without too much delay. Unfortunately, this prerogative makes a lot of safety/speed reducing measures impossible. That this whole process was not in the least about the local residents/entrepreneurs’ wishes and needs was finally clear when it was criticised that the street surface was planned to be done in klinker. Local residents/entrepreneurs argue (backed up by research) that any advantage 30km/h would bring in noise reduction was cancelled out by an increase in noise due to the klinkers. The response by the projectteam was that 30km/h streets in Amsterdam need to have klinker because in Amsterdam klinker signalled “30km/h”. My guess is that this is factually incorrect today and will also be in future not true as the Gemeente’s plan is to change more streets to 30km/h. I very much doubt that the surface is changed every single time a street is converted. Apart from that, noise is one of the big issues for local residents and entrepreneurs, so that with regard to this, this proposal is unacceptable to them. Add to this removing more than 117 parking spaces and any traffic light for crossing both, as was clearly written in earlier versions because they bother the tram and the picture is getting more complete. The whole process leading to the NvU was a farce with regard to the local participation.

Sadly, the Klangboardgroep got in conflict over this issue and its represenatives today are not representatives of the street (therefore individual members of the KBG have written their own, dissenting zienswijzen as have more than 100 other people). The projectteam and the Gemeente were informed about the problematic situation with the KBG without any meaningful reaction from them. Because the main objective seems to be the seamless high frequency of the tram and this conflicts with the other objectives, it does not come as a surprise that the 3 objectives of the original Nota van Uitgangspunten (projectdoelstellingen):

3

1) increase traffic security, 2) increase tram movement and decrease traffic jams and 3) increase liveability of surroundings. will likely not be achieved, especially the non-tram ones. But even where tram movement is concerned - be it because of poor analysis, wishful thinking or other external objectives (the commuters into Amsterdam?), the set objectives are unlikely to be met. (I have analysed the likely traffic effects of the Variant 1 in detail in reactie/zienswijze 1051 and will not repeat it here – it can be read up there or you can ask me). The key is to substantially reduce traffic, and this is not anything the NvU credibly commits to. Traffic jams etc. could even get worse. In my original “reactie” I conclude that for greater traffic safety and liveability, in addition to 30km/h we urgently need2: •

•

• • •

Effective reduction of the currently massive through-traffic, which includes the underutilized trams that are running at a frantic schedule of one per every 3 minutes reducing massive queuing, dangerous incidents and noise and air pollution. Modern technology should be used to achieve this. Barriers that protect the bicycle lanes from motorized traffic everywhere where there are no parking spaces. Cars bypassing on bicycle lanes must be impossible or undesirable. This is also a question of incentives, i.e., when it is too full this is what drivers do.3 Strict and effective enforcement of speed limits, ideally with a self-enforcing structure which truly achieves a narrowing of the road for vehicles Ban on commercial long and heavy vehicles on the KW (unless they must attend business in KW) An extension of the 30km/h to Willemsparkweg (WPW) as WPW naturally suffer from the same traffic overload problems. Zeilstraat and Hoofdorpplein should be considered, too, as the boundaries of Amsterdam shift West.

This being so, RSPC stakeholder have communicated very clearly, from the outset of NvU design almost two years ago, that there is an expectation that the excessive and dangerous car/tram traffic and thus excess noise, vibration and air pollution/ reduced liveability would

1 The projectteam seems to be confused as to whether this is a zijnswise or a reactie. Legally, these

are different things.

In light of this it seems entirely inappropriate that the projectteam is even alluding to the possibility that KW cannot be reduced to 30 m/h. This approach adds insult to injury as the KW and especially the residents but also cyclists and pedestrians are – as was clearly admitted by the Gemeente2 - the victims of the failed redesign of the De Lairessestraat in 2017, leading to a huge increase in cars since 2017 and a doubling of the tram frequency in 2018 (clearly by design but without asking the residents, cyclists or pedestrians and without checking the safety implications). 2

Of course, the bicycle lane could go up to make the car lane truly narrow – the NvU argues this is not possible but, like so many things in the NvU, the arguments are not convincing. 3

4

be fixed for good through this project4. Interestingly, even the NvU webpage makes clear that one of the key deliverables initially was to reduce the number of cars. Since the resident’s cars are minor relative to the trough-traffic, this can only mean through-traffic was supposed to be reduced. The following screenshot from 8.9.2020 is from the Gemeente of Amsterdam, project Koninginneweg makes this clear:

Figure 1: Stated objectives of the NvU, as of 8.9.2020

• •

Source: Website Gemeente Amsterdam, September 2020

So what went wrong? Moving the tram stop from Zeilstraat to KW: Here, again, the pros and cons have, conveniently been weighted so that moving the stop seems to be the only possible solution. What the projectteam has conveniently ignored is that the plans foresee to move the stop right in front of a number of residential houses (with the exception of one shop) in a narrow part of the streets where windows are at a low level. The residents were not even asked about whether they wanted the stop. I am very sure if every resident had been asked about this in a neutral way, i.e., whether they would mind a stop in front of their house (not knowing where it was planned to be), almost everyone would have objected. The tram stop is thus a further step in the forced de-residentialisation of the KW by the Gemeente. All of this is clearly unacceptable but has not been considered or at least not been explained adequately in the NvU.

In fact, in a meeting with the KBG the planners have already admitted that the idea of an extra tram stop on KW is more a planning mistake rather than anything else: the planners said in a KBG meeting that Zeilstraat had to be renewed in 2019 without it being possible to properly plan this – in fact, only a quick fix regarding the tram tracks was done, leaving Zeilstraat in the problematic state it is known for (even though Zeilstraat was closed for many weeks). There was, according to the planners, currently no fixed plan when to do the Zeilstraat. But because planning had been so rushed, and the public money been spent so lightly (akin to opening the Amstelveenseweg several times), it was now necessary to save money and it would be cheaper to put it on KW even though it was a bad idea, and the stop 4

Initially this was to be in 2021. Now the restructuring is planned for 2022. The RSPC made clear that something needed to be done before the restructuring as the situation is untenable.

5

was really needed on Zeilstraat. The argument that Zeilstraat has insufficient space for a safe stop compared to KW also does not seem to be supported by the facts and seems to support the impression that this decision has nothing to do with facts. Again, a detailed analysis how this tram stop will further increase traffic jams, traffic danger and parking problems can be found in my “reactie” if you are interested. In conclusion, the raadscommissie should really consider what it wants for Oud-Zuid. As I see it, Amsterdam has major housing and traffic problems. Under the current proposals Koninginneweg (and Willemsparkweg) are only changed from being a bad highway to a better highway, •

• •

by potentially forcing it to stay one of the main streets for through-traffic from the West (i.e., from the highway exit 109 as well as the new West), leaving through-traffic unchanged (note that project autoluw has nothing in general and anyway not to date anything to say about reducing this kind of through traffic in any major way). robbing KW of its residential character as at least half of the parking spaces are removed (as if most cars on KW are residential cars) and then possibly repeating the same mistake on Zeilstraat/Hoofdorpplein (a newly emerged area to live for young families).

This will not solve any housing problem because people will not want to live on a highway and will make way for offices. Traffic problems will also not be solved. There are many issues here, e,g, it is also not clear whether the tram frequency needs to be so high: the West has 2 metro stops which are likely to be much more efficient for most users of today’s tram – the tram being at any rate a backward technology. Where is the “gentle push” to use the Metro in case of line number 2?

2.2.2021, signed: Melanie Etten-Rueppell

This is also written in the name of my petition, mentioned above. The letter from the project team announcing your meeting and referring to the Memorandum of Response was sent on January 28 and delivered to local residents yesterday afternoon, Monday, February 1. That gave us less than a day to study the NvB and formulate a response. Is participation really wished for oe wonders.

6