The pilot test for the traffic turnaround in Untere Au and Obergiesing will end on October 25th – a week earlier than planned by the town hall. The city and several residents who had sued against the approval of the TU Munich research project “Car-Reduced Neighborhoods” agreed on this settlement on Wednesday in the Munich Administrative Court.
There are “borderline cases of road law” here, said judge Dietmar Wolff in the oral hearing. Therefore, as a compromise, he suggests an early end to the traffic experiment. “Even if it only has a certain symbolism, the comparison is face-saving for both sides,” the judge found.
This outcome of the proceedings, which the plaintiffs can certainly see as a success, is the icing on the cake in a debate surrounding a pilot project that not only caused an uproar in the neighborhoods, but also shook up city politics and made waves far beyond Munich has.
The starting point was the “real-world laboratory” set up by TUM, where the aim was to investigate how car traffic in the city could be reduced and at the same time improve the quality of life for people. To be more precise, there were two areas that were redesigned in the summer. On the one hand, the TUM researchers closed Landlstrasse in Obergiesing from July, set up raised beds and seating there and set up two mobility points for renting e-scooters, e-bikes and car-sharing cars.
On the other hand, the renovation work on Columbus Street, which was also closed, was far more serious. 41 parking spaces were removed here in order to set up pavilions and furniture, as well as to lay out turf and create an XXL sandpit. In addition, three mobility points and two neighborhood squares were created as meeting points for the neighborhood, which resulted in the loss of a further 60 parking spaces.
An asphalt desert became a green oasis – at least that’s how supporters see it. However, right from the start of the project, criticism was at least as loud from a number of residents who found the traffic attempt in front of their front door a harassment – because of the noise, because of the loss of parking spaces and because they felt ignored.
For some, the anger was so great that they filed the lawsuits that were now being heard – just two weeks before the traffic trial was supposed to end anyway. In its hearing, the administrative court consolidated two lawsuits because, following the example of the critics in the Au, four residents of Walchenseeplatz had also taken legal action against the real-world laboratory there.
According to their legal challenges, the loss of parking spaces has increased parking pressure in the district, the road closures force drivers to make “serious detours,” and as a result of the redesign with turf, sandpits, etc., residents are suffering from “noise pollution” and garbage.
But all of this only played a minor role in the negotiation. Rather, the court’s inquiries were primarily aimed at the question of the extent to which the exemptions granted for the research project were legal. It is undisputed that the city council can enforce such road closures, said Judge Wolff. “But the question is whether or not this pilot project was enforceable with the legal means chosen.” Specifically, the court criticized the fact that the permits issued by the city under the road traffic regulations actually required a dangerous situation. But this is not apparent in the present cases.
Last but not least, these critical words apparently persuaded the city’s representatives to ultimately agree to a settlement. Accordingly, the two real-world laboratories must be dismantled by October 25th at the latest – and not by the end of the month as originally planned. “We are very satisfied with this settlement,” commented Steffen Winkels, one of the plaintiffs, on the outcome of the proceedings. “Now we’re looking forward to the dismantling by October 25th and we’ll be happy when the road looks like it did before.”