Mobiliteit is een kernprobleem in het organiseren van de samenleving wereldwijd. Het gaat echt wel om meer dan files op de autosnelwegen, verkeerscongestie in de steden of CO2 uitstoot auto's, vrachtvervoer of vliegverkeer. Het gaat ook om een (zij het niet erkend) mensenrecht want fundamentele behoefte om als volwaardige burger deel te nemen aan de samenleving. Maar hier bekijken we het voornamelijk vanuit Gents perspectief.
Er valt heel wat te vertellen over de recentste beleidskeuzes voor De Lijn
en voornamelijk de manier waarop die worden gejustifieerd. Laat ik
alvast beginnen met het meest hypocriete argument van minister Weyts:
"Als we de indexering niet zouden doorrekenen, laat je die
kostendekkingsgraad weer los. Uiteindelijk zou de belastingbetaler
daarvoor moeten opdraaien." Dit klopt natuurlijk volledig, alleen speelt
Weyts hier demagogisch op het antibelastingsentiment van de modale
Vlaming terwijl het zijn verdomde taak is om correct geïnde en
verantwoord bestede belastingen met alle middelen te verdedigen en uit
te leggen. Al was het maar omdat zijn riant loon, dat hem overigens
volledig gegund wordt, ook met diezelfde publieke middelen betaald
wordt.
Waarom worden zoveel middelen uit belastinggeld in de
financiering van openbaar vervoer gestopt? Om Sinterklaas te spelen en
iedereen ongelimiteerd leuke ritjes doorheen het Vlaamse land te laten
maken? Om de vakbonden te plezieren met zoveel mogelijk werkgelegenheid
in die sector? Neen.
Wel omdat basismobiliteit
een recht is. Waarom? Omdat volwaardig burgerschap ons nu eenmaal
verplicht om mobiel te zijn want onze basisbehoeften (waaronder arbeid,
sociaal contact, deelname aan het culturele leven en gewoon boodschappen
doen) kunnen steeds minder gelenigd worden in de eigen straat of wijk.
Ten
tweede omdat omdat individueel gemotoriseerd vervoer een enorme
belasting op het milieu en op onze gezondheid betekent én dan nog eens
voor immense kosten zorgt, vele malen datgene wat wij aan het openbaar
vervoer besteden. Die kosten behelzen zowel de kost van wegenbouw,
-infrastructuur en omkadering als de materiële en menselijke schade bij
ongelukken plus het enorme verlies dat onze economie op alle niveaus
lijdt door de dagelijkse files.
Daarvoor betalen wij belastingen.
Let
wel! Ik heb absoluut geen principiële bezwaren tegen een eventuele
verhoging van de biljetprijs wanneer dit billijk zou blijken en de
toegankelijkheid voor alle lagen van de bevolking hierdoor niet geschaad
zou worden. Dit is een kwestie van afwegen. Ik ben ook sinds altijd een
fervente tegenstander van gratis openbaar vervoer, behalve in een zeer
specifiek beleidsondersteunend kader zoals de geplande citybusjes in de
kuip van Gent of een shuttledienst in het kader van Park & Ride.
Maar
dan mensen die zich geen I-Phone of Smartphone kunnen veroorloven, laat
staan een duur abonnement ervoor, bestraffen met een meerprijs van 30
cent per rit via sms is totaal van de pot gerukt. Het initieel idee
erachter, namelijk vermijden dat operatoren het elektronisch biljet ook
nog eens duurder maken is eerbaar maar dan zelf de zwaksten in hun
portemonnee treffen is, om het zwak uit te drukken, onkies.
Car-free Belgium: why can't Brussels match Ghent's pedestrianised vision?
In
Belgium, cars are cherished possessions and driving is a staple of
everyday life. But two of its major cities are making forcible efforts
to cut down the traffic on their streets – with wildly different results
One
morning in 1997, Frank Beke, the mayor of Ghent, woke up to find he’d
been sent a bullet in the post. For the next few weeks Beke wore a
bulletproof jacket, while police stood guard outside his house and
accompanied him everywhere he went. “I was very anxious for my family,”
he says. “I was protected by police but my wife and my children
weren’t.”
The culprit was eventually found and
arrested – a man who owned a shoe shop in the Belgian city’s medieval
centre. His motive? Beke’s plans to pedestrianise the area around his
shop.
“It was a
rather radical plan to ban all cars from an area of about 35 hectares,”
recalls Beke. “With every decision you take, there can be some
opposition – but I never expected a bullet, of course.”
There
were protests outside Ghent’s city hall: businesses were afraid they’d
lose their customers, elderly residents were concerned about being cut
off from their children. But Beke stood his ground, and although a few
businesses that relied on car access had to move, today the city centre
is thriving.
His successor, Daniël Termont,
says that if he were now to reintroduce cars into the city centre, he’d
be the one wearing a bulletproof jacket. In all, 72% of Ghentians are in favour of Termont’s new plans to expand the pedestrian zone by 15 hectares (a further 17% are neutral).
That’s
not to say the project – due to commence in April 2017 – is progressing
without a hitch. As well as the car-free area, Ghent’s new mobility
plan includes dividing the city into six sections, each of which can
only be entered via a ring road, to reduce through-traffic. In 2015, 40%
of journeys in Ghent were made by car, down from 48% in 2012. By 2030,
Termont wants to see that drop to 27%.
“Before you do such things you have to work months and months and even years to explain it, to prepare people,” he says.
Termont’s
deputy mayor and mobility minister, Filip Watteeuw, has taken
communication very seriously. His wife was nicknamed the green widow:
Watteeuw is from Belgium’s Green party, and for two years he was almost
never at home, spending long evenings at public consultations. The city
government is now recruiting for a citizen’s cabinet: 150 local
residents to advise the mobility minister on a more permanent basis. “So
many people have an opinion about every element of the mobility plan,”
says Watteeuw. “And their concerns are all understandable.”
For
many Belgians, he says, cars are a symbol of status and independence.
They resent being told where not to drive. And there are just so many
cars: the country is heavily suburbanised, and in response to its high
tax system, employers often choose to hand out company cars instead of bonuses and pay rises. In 2008, the federal government gave €4.1bn (£3.5bn) in tax benefits to company cars.
In
an attempt to derail the mobility plan, the political opposition in
Ghent is trying to force a referendum on it. They need signatures from
10% of the city’s population, and Termont is not sure how a vote would
play out. Ghentians are notoriously stubborn.
But
Watteeuw is confident the city is moving in the right direction. “What
happened in 1997 is very important for now,” he says. “For the first
time in Ghent, people saw what could happen if you make a change for
people and not for cars.”
Brussels: trouble in pedestrian paradise
But
perhaps Watteeuw and co have it easy. In Brussels, the attempts to
pedestrianise a stretch of Boulevard Anspach – a four-lane urban highway
that cuts through the city’s centre and connects its north and south
stations – have proved even more fraught.
The
Belgian capital is renowned for gridlock. Every day, 225,000 people
commute into the city, where drivers spend an average of three days and
11 hours of every year stuck in traffic.
In
2012 the Belgian philosopher Philippe Van Parijs, fed up with a city he
felt had been “massacred by cars” and inspired by projects in Ghent,
called for an unauthorised picnic
on Place de la Bourse, a public square in front of Brussels’ former
stock exchange building. Thousands turned up with picnic blankets, BBQs
and ping pong tables, blocking vehicles and sparking a campaign that
eventually forced the city government to commit to a car-free zone.
In
July 2015 three squares including Bourse, plus the section of Boulevard
Anspach that connects them, were pedestrianised. It was touted as the
biggest car-free zone in Europe outside of Venice and was introduced
during a heatwave, giving the city centre a festival feeling. In the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks in March, people were able to spontaneously convene on the car-free Place de la Bourse, and leave flowers, candles and messages of solidarity.
“We
need squares like this for people to come together,” says Van Parijs,
who chose Bourse as the site of his protest because it’s a relatively
poor area, more frequented by locals than tourists.
But the Brussels attacks – and the Paris attacks
that preceded them – prompted a city lockdown, which Van Parijs
believes has had a negative impact on his campaign for
pedestrianisation. “For weeks, the metro stopped at 10pm. It really
killed the nightlife,” he says. “It took a long time to recover. That
strengthened the lobbying of people objecting to [pedestrianisation].”
Shop
owners, hotels and restaurants in that area reported income losses in
the months following the introduction of the car-free zone. While a few
can legitimately claim loss of earnings due to the sudden lack of car
access, much of the downturn, Van Parijs believes, is because people
were simply more afraid to go out.
Shopkeeper
Alain Berlinblau, however, is adamant that pedestrianising the
boulevard has deterred potential customers, preventing them from
accessing car parks. He complains of poor security during the evenings
in the car-free zone; many homeless people live in that area, and some
residents feel unsafe walking through it at night. He also insists that
traffic has merely been displaced, with residents on neighbouring roads
complaining of increased congestion and pollution. President of the
central Brussels traders group, Berlinblau has mounted a legal
challenge, appealing against the city government’s urban development
permit.
“The
city of Brussels refuses to listen and is stubbornly sacrificing
commercial activity for the sake of this project,” says Berlinblau. “The
city centre is dying because of pedestrianisation.”
Yet according to a survey of local shopkeepers,
85% are in favour of the car-free zone – while 92% say it was badly
implemented. This is how Jerome Vandermeulen, founder of Manhattn’s
restaurant, feels. Last year, he chose to locate a second restaurant
right in the middle of the car-free zone, because he believes
pedestrianisation will improve the city’s international appeal. But he’s
disappointed with the lack of progress on revamping the public squares.
“They
should have started construction immediately. That’s what made
everybody angry, because they just closed the street and left it without
anything,” says Vandermeulen.
Renovation
work began recently, more than a year after the boulevard was
pedestrianised, allowing time for the voices of dissent to get louder.
The Brussels city mayor, Yvan Mayeur, was kicked out of a restaurant
because its chef was angry with him. Local residents and business owners
complain that the project was not well communicated, while some
campaigners feel it hasn’t done enough to reduce car traffic or promote
alternatives, such as cycling.
A
spokesperson from Mayeur’s office concedes that he has encountered
problems. “But it seems unfair to suggest that these were due to a lack
of communication between the city of Brussels and the locals,” they say.
“We have provided ample opportunity for people to voice their opinion
and put ideas forward.”
Mayeur
is one of 19 mayors in Brussels, which has 19 municipalities. The
pedestrianisation project was on his patch, but it also involved the
federal government and the capital’s regional government. Pascal Smet,
mobility minister for the region, believes there are too many levels of
power, meaning projects are hampered by lengthy negotiations, political
games and slow progress. “We have to become one city with one mayor,
where the regional level becomes the city level,” says Smet.
But
politicians are unlikely to give up power willingly. With local
elections coming in 2018, the pressure is on to speed up public works
programmes before discontent really sets in.
Ghent’s living streets
Back
in Ghent, the city government and its partners are now experimenting
with new ways to counter residents’ resistance to change, with the Living Streets project.
It
gives locals a chance to reclaim their streets: they can apply to make
the road outside their home car-free, usually for a two- or three-month
period over the summer. It started as a two-street initiative in 2013,
and by 2016 there were 18 car-free areas dotted around residential parts
of the city.
As
well as gaining local government approval and the advice of the fire
department, Living Streets advocates have to speak to all their
neighbours who will be affected. If there’s a problem, solutions have to
be found before the project can be approved.
What started as an exercise in thinking about sustainable mobility became, for many people, more about the social benefits.
Take
Biekorfstraat, just east of Ghent city centre. “It’s a small street
with little houses and no gardens. People didn’t know each other,” says
Sofie Rottiers of Trojan Lab, which facilitates the project.
When
the street was pedestrianised this summer, people really came together.
An 83-year-old man would sit outside his house every morning and wave
to his neighbours on their way to work and school. The residents
organised events together on the street, and even kept chickens, which
laid eggs that everyone shared between them.
An
earlier version of the project was Ghent’s “playing streets”: if a
resident got support from 70% of their neighbours, they could apply to
make their street car-free for a few hours a day over the summer. Mayor
Daniël Termont is determined to make his city the most child-friendly in
Flanders, and is fully behind the Living Streets experiment in
democracy.
“We have to change our old-fashioned view of running a city,” he says. “And that takes a lot of political courage.”