SO Contribution Further Proof Track Resolution A27 / A12 Ring Utrecht

October 18 2022

PvdD SO Contribution Further Proof Path Resolution A27 / A12 Ring Utrecht

The Party for the Animals faction members noticed the Minister’s intention to proceed with this totally unnecessary extension of the road.
They ask the minister to reverse this decision immediately and to refrain from widening the road.

There are many reasons for this.
First of all, the climate crisis. This calls for decisive measures to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. Maintaining a stable living environment is at stake. Members consider it irresponsible for us to take more risks than is already the case. This minister’s intention to build more highways at the expense of private nature is completely at odds with the climate and nature ambitions expressed by the Cabinet with a word.
The need is high. In the words of the Secretary-General of the United Nations; “The window to prevent the worst effects of the climate crisis is closing fast.”[1] The minister’s decision only exacerbates the problem. Members of the PvdD group consider this reckless and irresponsible, and therefore they ask the Minister to explain how his decision relates to the above-mentioned climate crisis.

Second, the members mentioned nature and the crisis of biodiversity. This crisis also requires interventional measures that significantly reduce emissions and deposition of nitrogen compounds. The current proposal exacerbates this crisis by making more emissions possible (by expanding highways) and making it difficult for the government to stick to the chosen solution, which focuses primarily on voluntary procurement. Does the Minister acknowledge that by purchasing ranchers who want to voluntarily stop for a road project, it has become more difficult to solve the nitrogen problem on a voluntary basis? Why did he decide to do that? Has the Minister consulted with the Minister of the LNV responsible for nature conservation? Has the Minister consulted with the VRO Minister responsible for housing construction? What do they think of the fact that the minister’s decision to expand the highway will make their task of protecting nature and building homes more difficult?

The third reason that members of Party for the Animals see the expansion of this path as unnecessary is a lack of necessity. More asphalt isn’t really necessary anywhere, but the fact that only a small portion of this road reaches the annual traffic jam in the top 50 is typical of members. They ask the minister why, however, he thinks it is necessary to put more asphalt as a priority here? Certainly given the fact that it is already known that we will have to reduce the number of cars in the Netherlands because (proportionate fair share) there are not enough raw materials to power all cars. Can the minister assure members that the expansion would not be entirely necessary if the number of cars were reduced from the current 8.9 million to nearly a million that can drive in the Netherlands on the basis of a fair share of raw materials?

Other reasons such as loss of historical nature, health of local people, use of raw materials, ground water problems and costs are also a reason in itself for not expanding these methods. Party for the Animals faction members ask the minister why he’s holding on so tightly to this futile project?

Indeed, members of the Party for Animals faction state that with the necessary reduction in the number of cars, the shift to other modes of transport and a decrease in the number of passenger kilometers, the plan to narrow the roads has become inevitable in the long run. Being. Why did the minister not come up with such a plan? Can the minister come out with a plan to narrow the roads? If not, then why?

Members also have a number of more specific questions.
For example, members ask the minister to respond to the news that a variant that would allow more nature to be preserved is being withheld.[2]Why did the minister not share this with the House of Representatives? What showed that, as the minister said, an unsafe situation would arise? Couldn’t an “unsafe” situation be prevented simply by creating fewer runways or, for example, reducing the speed? Why wasn’t this brought to the house?

Why does the minister insist that this project is necessary for “inestable reasons to override the public interest”? On what basis does the Minister base his assessment that this decision will stand before the courts? Did the minister consider that with this plan the air quality would deteriorate more than it would harm health in the region? Could the minister also include in his response that a preliminary question of the European Court held that states are responsible for health damage caused by their failure to tackle air pollution and could even be forced to pay compensation?[3]How much damage to health does the minister think he will have to pay later because he is now making that course decision? Has the minister watched the Nederland radio full of traffic as it became painfully clear how the health damage caused by air pollution had eventually caused a young girl in the intensive care unit many times? Does the Minister consider this kind of health damage acceptable?[4]If so, is he willing to explain it to young children in Lunetten or in schools within a kilometer of the road?

Can the minister also provide an update on the expansion alternative that is being worked on? Will the entire project area be included or just the strip near the Amelisweerd?
How can an alternative be worked on while the Secretary calls the ADC, where the letter A denotes the obligation to test whether there is no alternative? How can a minister make a decision that there is no alternative while an alternative is being sought?
Is it permissible to go through the legal methods of compensation and (external) compensation at the same time within one project? If so, what does that show?
Can the minister also decide which alternative will be tested? Does he agree that it makes no sense to use the amount of cars that can pass as an indicator for example, since this ignores the possibilities of controlling the amount of cars that will drive there? Why doesn’t the minister make much use of the options before him to manage less car traffic and traffic jams, such as encouraging work from home, public transportation, or charging peak-time fees when pay-as-you-go?

What is the latest situation regarding costs? Are there any indications that costs will be higher? Has 2 billion already been crossed? At what point does the minister no longer consider investing more money worth? Or is this an endless hole and it’s still full? Do you agree that the costs and benefits of this project are no longer positive? If not, on what basis is this inferred? If so, why would he go through it?

Finally, the members asked the Minister for strong objective proof of the 25 km limit used. Given the conclusions of the Hordijk Commission, they consider it highly unlikely that the 25 km run will be made in court. Finally, Hordijk says that only 10% of the nitrogen oxides were deposited after 20 km. Can the Minister inform the House of Representatives of the latest status in Via15 (in which this separation limit is being discussed for the first time)? When is the judgment expected? Does he undertake not to argue for another delay or postponement? Can the Minister also respond to Mr. Remix’s comment that single exchange of ammonia and nitrogen oxides is undesirable? How does the use of the 1 to 1 cut-off and interchange limit relate to differences in precipitation as described by Hordijk?

[1] Window to prevent worst effects of climate crisis closing fast, Secretary-General warns Austrian global summit, calls for 21st century peace plan for renewable energy | united nations press
[2] Breadth A27: Members of Parliament are stunned by the secret variant that saves the forests of Utrecht | Utrecht | gelderlander.nl
[3] CURIA – Documents (europa.eu)
[4] Holland is full | Season 1 4 | traffic movement

Leave a Comment