The Warsaw Council has adopted a project for a Clean Transport Zone (SCT) covering the city centre. Some criticize him for radicalism, others for excessive conservatism – the strangest thing is that both sides are somewhat right.
Warsaw SCT It has been operating since the middle of this year in parts of Srodmiescie and surrounding districts, i.e. in the center of Warsaw. The ban on entering the clean transport zone will initially only apply to vehicles older than 27 years (petrol) or 19 years (diesel), which are not owned by drivers paying tax in the capital, but eventually, in 2032, all vehicles aged 18 and above. 19 years, 12 years will disappear from the center, i.e. produced in the second decade of the 21st century.
A loud cry of the indignant “car drivers” was heard against such “eco-terrorism”. Even though they are right indicating their fanatical opposition to any ecological change In the cities, they forget that even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day – so it is here, because the criticism of SCT also includes righteous anger at “ecology” for the rich. The proud owner of a three-ton Tesla Cybertruck will be able to drive downtown, but a four-times-light Fiat Seicento from the turn of the century will be dismissed as harmful to the city and the environment.
Half-baked ecology, ie problems with SCT
The city government's plan has been criticized by urban activists for its modest ambitions, the small size of the zone and its slowness to impose restrictions on the old “lump”. The overall philosophy is less often questioned and drivers' concerns are reduced, even when they come from those who will be financially affected by SCT.
There is an argument that instead of buying a new one, you will be able to exchange one used car for another, slightly younger one – this is true, but it is difficult to consider the situation completely unproblematic. The prices of used cars that meet the age criteria are likely to increase, so their purchase will not be a trivial expense for many. Some would say that this is good because the number of cars will decrease, but turning them into a luxury product is not a fair transformation and will not generate sympathy for green initiatives.
Since the problem is emissions of carcinogenic nitrogen oxides, the planned SCT, like in Berlin, should focus on diesel engines. It was also worth starting with strict monitoring of emission standards in cars with such engines, because even relatively new cars, particulate filters (DPF) are usually removed and it is very rarely detected, and low fines do not effectively prevent drivers from such an action. practices.
However, if the most important thing for us is to fight climate change, encouraging people to replace their cars with new (or newer) cars more often is pointless. Much of the emissions are related to manufacturing, and the longer a car is on the road, the greater the depreciation of that initial cost. It is true that replacing combustion vehicles with electric vehicles will be a plus, but with the high costs of battery production and electricity from coal, these gains will remain relatively small – certainly much smaller than from switching to public transport.
Leaving aside this obvious conclusion for a moment, let's look at criteria other than age and driving, on the basis of which access to the center can be regulated.
Or maybe we should fight the Jeeps instead of the poor?
An alternative way to make cities more citizen-friendly is to remove unsuitable vehicles. Off-road vehicles, pickup trucks, and especially popular SUVs are big, heavy, and… Less ecological production and use. They take up more space on streets and parking lots, are more dangerous for pedestrians and place a greater burden on infrastructure, leading to increased public spending. Therefore, there are ideas to limit their presence in urban spaces.
Paris is currently heading in that direction The referendum will be held on February 4 Regarding the number of jeeps in the city. The city is proposing to triple the parking fees for large passenger cars to prevent owners from driving them downtown. This applies to both combustion vehicles (weighing more than 1.6 tons) and electric vehicles (two tons or more) that are not owned by residents of Paris. Consequently, the effects will be limited, but this first step may be followed by others.
City Hall representatives point out that SUVs are on average 6-7 thousand euros more expensive than standard cars of similar capacity, so higher fees will primarily hurt the rich and at the same time finance investments in public infrastructure, which is a form of redistribution. – Unlike the case of SCT, which is a kind of tax on poverty, but both strategies can be considered complementary. Paris started the fight against old diesels years ago.
Green city not just for show
The anti-SUV movement is driven by a desire to impose the costs of a green transformation on those who have never felt it in the slightest before, who buy a car every few years and support clearing clutter from the streets to make room. for their new purchases. The Warsaw SCT caters to this group, while for the rest it is a rotten compromise between the conflicting demands of “car drivers” and urban activists.
On the one hand, the latter want clean traffic zones to cover larger areas and force the phasing out of old vehicles faster, but at the same time. They see them as half-measures and a potential alibi for local government officials. Banning old things from the city center is easy, but comprehensive development of public transport, closing selected streets to passenger cars or introducing wider changes in the design of the city is a more difficult task. These types of actions will not make drivers enthusiastic, but will affect them equally and be more efficient.
Gitkiewicz: with a pension ticket from Katowice to Slavkov. How does Silesian-Zagłębie ZTM work?
Read also
A general problem with ecology is its often elitist image. While anti-green populism is usually fueled by myth and manipulation, poorly executed environmental policies can add fuel to the fire. This may be a case of SCT in its current form promoting changes for clean air while imposing direct costs mainly on the less affluent.
In the end, it's not about the fact that some people travel with three-ton monsters, and others choose the bus only because of the budget, not because of comfort and travel time. Public transport should be the default mode of transport for everyone, from the construction worker to the businessman. But if one of them is already going to the center by car, he should still do it by city car.
(translate tags)Fajer 2-2