BLOG-bd de la woluwe (6)

Works along the boulevard de la Woluwe: what consequences for Kraainem?

BLOG-bd de la woluwe (6)

INTRODUCTION

Works along the Boulevard de la Woluwe (= R22): closure of Exit 5 of the Ring towards R22 (in Machelen), cut R22, impact on Kraainem … Many rumors circulate on this subject on social networks: update on the situation.

In order to answer the many questions of the inhabitants, Johan Forton
(alderman for mobility in Kraainem) and Bertrand Waucquez (mayor of Kraainem) have produced a document allowing you to see more clearly. This document has been validated by Agentschap Wegen & Verkeer as well as by De Werkvennootschap. You will therefore find here reliable information concerning the reasons for this work, the schedule and the consequences for the inhabitants of Kraainem.

After the Roads and Traffic Agency (AWV) carried out in 2017 a complete overhaul of the links between the Brussels ring road (R0) and the boulevard de la Woluwe (which remained unused for many years, while ‘it was still planned to extend the E19 towards Brussels), it is now giving Boulevard de la Woluwe itself a “total makeover”. Once the renovation is complete, motorists coming from Diegem and Chaussée de Haecht in the direction of Vilvorde will be able to pass through a tunnel six hundred meters long under Boulevard de la Woluwe (thus freeing up space for a bus lane). two-way free and for safe and comfortable cycle paths along this boulevard) and will also be able to use the access ramps which were renovated in 2017 (see map below). In other words, from this moment, not only the inner ring but also the outer ring will be directly linked to the Boulevard de la Woluwe.

Crossroads with traffic lights for a smooth passage between Boulevard de la Woluwe (R22) and the Brussels ring road (R0) (near the E19 x R22 in Machelen)

At the new entrances and exits of the Brussels ring road (at the E19 x R22 in Machelen), there will be a crossroads with traffic lights, for traffic coming from the ring towards Boulevard de la Woluwe and vice versa.

Safe and comfortable cycle and pedestrian paths along Boulevard de la Woluwe

AWV will also work on the development of safe and comfortable cycle paths. These will be set up all along the route, on both sides of Boulevard de la Woluwe, with an underground passage at the level of the new R0 / R22 complex so that cyclists are separated from the cars.

Two-way bus route for the Ringtrambus

Between the Chaussée de Haecht and the Kerklaan, AWV will install a two-way bus lane for the Ringtrambus, among others, on the side of the boulevard where traffic is currently in the direction of Diegem and Woluwe-St.-Lambert. Thanks to this lane, the bus will not have to queue on the Boulevard de la Woluwe at the same time as the dense car traffic during rush hour. Therefore, public transport on this crucial stretch will become an interesting and comfortable alternative for many people. The works of the Werkvennootschap will make it possible to extend this bus route in the direction of Diegem (from the chaussée de Haecht) and Vilvorde (from the Kerklaan).

More details on Roadworks on Avenue Woluwe | WVN (werkenaandering.be) and https://wegenenverkeer.be/woluwelaan (NL)

The Kraainem point of view:

A distinction should be made between works already planned (for example the closing of exit 5 of the Ring) and works which are still at the design stage and which have not yet been definitively decided (for example the cut of the R22 in the Woluwe valley in Sint-Stevens-Woluwe and the optimization of ASC Kraainem).

The works already planned have a very limited long-term impact on mobility in Kraainem, while the works in the design phase have a clear potential impact on mobility in Kraainem.

Regarding the work in the design phase with an impact on Kraainem:

De Werkvennootschap studies different scenarios and possibilities. There have already been several preliminary discussions between De Werkvennootschap and the municipalities concerned about these proposals, during which the municipality of Kraainem has always defended its point of view, that is to say, among other things, an unfavorable opinion on the cut-off of Boulevard de la Woluwe R22 (see above “Reaction / input from the municipality of Kraainem”).

For the next phase (first months of 2021), De Werkvennootschap will provide additional information on this concept and will seek the opinions of different interest groups (nature and environmental protection organizations, mobility organizations, etc. ). In this context, information sessions for and with the inhabitants will be organized by De Werkvennootschap (as has already been done several times in the past for cycle paths, for example), virtually or not. The necessary NL / FR communication will also be provided in time for the population to be properly informed.

After additional preparatory talks with the municipalities concerned, as well as information sessions / consultations with interest groups and citizens, a preferred solution for the redevelopment of Boulevard de la Woluwe / R0 Nord will be developed by De Werkvennootschap (in cooperation with AWV), in particular with regard to whether or not the cut-off on R22 is to be maintained. Page 7 of 7

It is important to note that no concrete and final decision has yet been taken at this stage regarding this work, whether for the cut-off of R22 or for the redevelopment of the Kraainem interchange (“ASC”). The municipal authorities of Kraainem and the competent bodies (Werkvennootschap / AWV) are closely monitoring this development.

Timing: the preferred solution should be offered in 2022

detecteur_CO2_2

Some considerations on ventilation and the COVID-19 health crisis

Under normal conditions,
– We breathe 450 l of air per hour, or 10.8 m3 per 24 h, or 13 kg …
– We emit per person 18 l of CO2 per hour
– The concentration [CO2] of the outside air is 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04%.
– The air we breathe out has a [CO2] concentration of 40,000 ppm, or 4%
– We therefore breathe in air at min 400 ppm to reject it at 40,000 ppm
– There are several hundred potential pollutants in a building (paints, glues, furniture, etc.), and it is impossible to measure them all. On the other hand, we can ventilate, and use CO2 as a marker
– In the case of COVID, it is assumed that aerosols are a significant source of contamination. A contagious person will emit contaminating aerosols, but also CO2 when breathing. If we limit CO2, we therefore limit the risks.
 

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the medical profession in general, good ventilation of indoor spaces is one of the preventive measures that make it possible to limit the spread of COVID-19 by aerosols. Therefore, the municipality of Kraainem has been providing CO2 sensors (*) free of charge since summer 2020 for spaces accessible to the public. The use of these devices makes it possible to determine when additional ventilation with outside air is required, for example by opening windows and doors. At the beginning of March 2021, we had distributed in the Municipality more than 170 sensors in restaurants, cafes, municipal buildings, police offices, shops, doctors’ offices, physiotherapy rooms, hairdressers, etc.

(*) The device indicates the CO2 concentration (in ppm, “parts per million”, 1% = 10,000 ppm) and also gives basic indications by means of indicator lights. The lower the values, the better (the CO2 concentration outdoors is estimated to be around 400 ppm). The question is, of course, what is the “safe” level of CO2, and for how long? To this question there is no clear answer at the moment (**). The reason is that it is difficult to say today which dose (= concentration x duration of exposure, see graph below) of aerosols becomes dangerous, and therefore no one can give a limit (concentration or duration ) under which the aerosol situation is 100% certain.

 

For now, we must therefore limit ourselves to the ventilation RD for non-residential buildings [New rules for the quality of indoor air in work premises – Federal Public Service for Employment, Labor and Social Dialogue (belgium. be)], which is actually 900 ppm for most buildings. With an orange light from 800 ppm for our CO2 sensor, we are doing a little better, but it is certainly not a 0 risk guarantee.

Graph: Dose = concentration x duration of exposure [CO2 is used as a marker of a potential virus concentration]: one hour at 2000 ppm is equivalent in terms of “dose” to 8 hours at 600 ppm (assuming that the outdoor concentration is 400 ppm). Nobody knows today if 600 ppm for 8 hours is “safe”, there are indications that even 500 ppm would not be sufficient (***) … FYI, this graph was established following several exchanges that I had with former colleagues (CTSC and University of Ghent) with whom I spent several years on the new version of the AR Ventilation when I worked as Energy Advisor for the Confederation of Construction before becoming mayor from Kraainem.

(**) Things get complicated as soon as we try to define a limit to be respected in order to obtain a “safe” situation under current conditions. What are we talking about: what kind of variant, what exposure time, the mask worn or not, the type of activities, … All kinds of parameters which can obviously play an important role. Ideally, we would like to be able to offer the above type of graph to managers and managers of buildings accessible to the public, the level of the curve would depend on the sector of activity considered, as well as other parameters mentioned above.

(***) Professor Jimenez from the University of Colorado, with whom we are in regular contact, recommends staying below 700 ppm at first, but also says that even at 500 ppm, it cannot guarantee a risk 0. On the other hand, in schools, for example, it is better to aim for 700 ppm by opening the windows as often as possible, rather than the 3000 ppm that are conventionally found in many establishments …. We must therefore limit ourselves, at least for the moment, to note that, if we stay in the green zone of the sensor (which turns orange at 800 ppm), the ventilation is “better” than what the legislation prescribes (900 ppm) .

 

Following steps ?

As soon as we accept a residual risk, we could obviously consider the sustainable reopening of a whole series of activities as long as they are strictly supervised by means of a strict protocol. This is the subject of Professor Clumeck’s carte blanche (among others) published in Le Soir of 2021-04-12, and which advocates a “covid safe” label. Other labels of the same kind are proposed and also go in the direction of reopening certain activities and / or establishments under good safety conditions, rather than decision-making for entire sectors without any distinction between those who can. ensure the required level of security and others.

There probably won’t be a quick fix, and all contributions are welcome. Opening windows and doors doesn’t pose a particular problem in summer, but once the temperatures drop, it’s something else. It is then that filtration and / or air purification systems can make sense, as long as there is a medical green light [sine qua non in my opinion before being able to consider any installation at the level of a municipality].

The “covid safe” label is undoubtedly one of the elements of the puzzle, but will have to be well thought out in order to avoid chaotic situations, discussions and conflicts of all kinds.

In Professor Clumeck’s carte blanche, it is mentioned that the municipalities could be invested with the responsibility of advising, supporting and verifying the “covid safe” compliance of public places. This is fundamental because the best system will not have much effect if control and / or monitoring is not assured.

verite

Let’s set the record straight

Introduction

We have always communicated transparently and try to reach out as much as possible to the opposition to move the many projects forward in Kraainem.

Unfortunately, it is clear that several projects are undermined by bad information on social networks or fueled by rumors.

This article will be updated regularly to restore the truth and better understand the projects with the elements relating the real facts.

BLOG-bd de la woluwe (6)

Werken langs de Woluwelaan: welke gevolgen voor Kraainem?

INTRODUCTION

Works along the Boulevard de la Woluwe (= R22): closure of Exit 5 of the Ring towards R22 (in Machelen), cut R22, impact on Kraainem … Many rumors circulate on this subject on social networks: update on the situation.

In order to answer the many questions of the inhabitants, Johan Forton
(alderman for mobility in Kraainem) and Bertrand Waucquez (mayor of Kraainem) have produced a document allowing you to see more clearly. This document has been validated by Agentschap Wegen & Verkeer as well as by De Werkvennootschap. You will therefore find here reliable information concerning the reasons for this work, the schedule and the consequences for the inhabitants of Kraainem.

After the Roads and Traffic Agency (AWV) carried out in 2017 a complete overhaul of the links between the Brussels ring road (R0) and the boulevard de la Woluwe (which remained unused for many years, while ‘it was still planned to extend the E19 towards Brussels), it is now giving Boulevard de la Woluwe itself a “total makeover”. Once the renovation is complete, motorists coming from Diegem and Chaussée de Haecht in the direction of Vilvorde will be able to pass through a tunnel six hundred meters long under Boulevard de la Woluwe (thus freeing up space for a bus lane). two-way free and for safe and comfortable cycle paths along this boulevard) and will also be able to use the access ramps which were renovated in 2017 (see map below). In other words, from this moment, not only the inner ring but also the outer ring will be directly linked to the Boulevard de la Woluwe.

Crossroads with traffic lights for a smooth passage between Boulevard de la Woluwe (R22) and the Brussels ring road (R0) (near the E19 x R22 in Machelen)

At the new entrances and exits of the Brussels ring road (at the E19 x R22 in Machelen), there will be a crossroads with traffic lights, for traffic coming from the ring towards Boulevard de la Woluwe and vice versa.

Safe and comfortable cycle and pedestrian paths along Boulevard de la Woluwe

AWV will also work on the development of safe and comfortable cycle paths. These will be set up all along the route, on both sides of Boulevard de la Woluwe, with an underground passage at the level of the new R0 / R22 complex so that cyclists are separated from the cars.

Two-way bus route for the Ringtrambus

Between the Chaussée de Haecht and the Kerklaan, AWV will install a two-way bus lane for the Ringtrambus, among others, on the side of the boulevard where traffic is currently in the direction of Diegem and Woluwe-St.-Lambert. Thanks to this lane, the bus will not have to queue on the Boulevard de la Woluwe at the same time as the dense car traffic during rush hour. Therefore, public transport on this crucial stretch will become an interesting and comfortable alternative for many people. The works of the Werkvennootschap will make it possible to extend this bus route in the direction of Diegem (from the chaussée de Haecht) and Vilvorde (from the Kerklaan).

More details on Roadworks on Avenue Woluwe | WVN (werkenaandering.be) and https://wegenenverkeer.be/woluwelaan (NL)

The Kraainem point of view:

A distinction should be made between works already planned (for example the closing of exit 5 of the Ring) and works which are still at the design stage and which have not yet been definitively decided (for example the cut of the R22 in the Woluwe valley in Sint-Stevens-Woluwe and the optimization of ASC Kraainem).

The works already planned have a very limited long-term impact on mobility in Kraainem, while the works in the design phase have a clear potential impact on mobility in Kraainem.

Regarding the work in the design phase with an impact on Kraainem:

De Werkvennootschap studies different scenarios and possibilities. There have already been several preliminary discussions between De Werkvennootschap and the municipalities concerned about these proposals, during which the municipality of Kraainem has always defended its point of view, that is to say, among other things, an unfavorable opinion on the cut-off of Boulevard de la Woluwe R22 (see above “Reaction / input from the municipality of Kraainem”).

For the next phase (first months of 2021), De Werkvennootschap will provide additional information on this concept and will seek the opinions of different interest groups (nature and environmental protection organizations, mobility organizations, etc. ). In this context, information sessions for and with the inhabitants will be organized by De Werkvennootschap (as has already been done several times in the past for cycle paths, for example), virtually or not. The necessary NL / FR communication will also be provided in time for the population to be properly informed.

After additional preparatory talks with the municipalities concerned, as well as information sessions / consultations with interest groups and citizens, a preferred solution for the redevelopment of Boulevard de la Woluwe / R0 Nord will be developed by De Werkvennootschap (in cooperation with AWV), in particular with regard to whether or not the cut-off on R22 is to be maintained. Page 7 of 7

It is important to note that no concrete and final decision has yet been taken at this stage regarding this work, whether for the cut-off of R22 or for the redevelopment of the Kraainem interchange (“ASC”). The municipal authorities of Kraainem and the competent bodies (Werkvennootschap / AWV) are closely monitoring this development.

Timing: the preferred solution should be offered in 2022

detecteur_CO2_2

Enkele overwegingen over ventilatie en de gezondheidscrisis COVID-19

Under normal conditions,
– We breathe 450 l of air per hour, or 10.8 m3 per 24 h, or 13 kg …
– We emit per person 18 l of CO2 per hour
– The concentration [CO2] of the outside air is 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04%.
– The air we breathe out has a [CO2] concentration of 40,000 ppm, or 4%
– We therefore breathe in air at min 400 ppm to reject it at 40,000 ppm
– There are several hundred potential pollutants in a building (paints, glues, furniture, etc.), and it is impossible to measure them all. On the other hand, we can ventilate, and use CO2 as a marker
– In the case of COVID, it is assumed that aerosols are a significant source of contamination. A contagious person will emit contaminating aerosols, but also CO2 when breathing. If we limit CO2, we therefore limit the risks.
 

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the medical profession in general, good ventilation of indoor spaces is one of the preventive measures that make it possible to limit the spread of COVID-19 by aerosols. Therefore, the municipality of Kraainem has been providing CO2 sensors (*) free of charge since summer 2020 for spaces accessible to the public. The use of these devices makes it possible to determine when additional ventilation with outside air is required, for example by opening windows and doors. At the beginning of March 2021, we had distributed in the Municipality more than 170 sensors in restaurants, cafes, municipal buildings, police offices, shops, doctors’ offices, physiotherapy rooms, hairdressers, etc.

(*) The device indicates the CO2 concentration (in ppm, “parts per million”, 1% = 10,000 ppm) and also gives basic indications by means of indicator lights. The lower the values, the better (the CO2 concentration outdoors is estimated to be around 400 ppm). The question is, of course, what is the “safe” level of CO2, and for how long? To this question there is no clear answer at the moment (**). The reason is that it is difficult to say today which dose (= concentration x duration of exposure, see graph below) of aerosols becomes dangerous, and therefore no one can give a limit (concentration or duration ) under which the aerosol situation is 100% certain.

 

For now, we must therefore limit ourselves to the ventilation RD for non-residential buildings [New rules for the quality of indoor air in work premises – Federal Public Service for Employment, Labor and Social Dialogue (belgium. be)], which is actually 900 ppm for most buildings. With an orange light from 800 ppm for our CO2 sensor, we are doing a little better, but it is certainly not a 0 risk guarantee.

Graph: Dose = concentration x duration of exposure [CO2 is used as a marker of a potential virus concentration]: one hour at 2000 ppm is equivalent in terms of “dose” to 8 hours at 600 ppm (assuming that the outdoor concentration is 400 ppm). Nobody knows today if 600 ppm for 8 hours is “safe”, there are indications that even 500 ppm would not be sufficient (***) … FYI, this graph was established following several exchanges that I had with former colleagues (CTSC and University of Ghent) with whom I spent several years on the new version of the AR Ventilation when I worked as Energy Advisor for the Confederation of Construction before becoming mayor from Kraainem.

(**) Things get complicated as soon as we try to define a limit to be respected in order to obtain a “safe” situation under current conditions. What are we talking about: what kind of variant, what exposure time, the mask worn or not, the type of activities, … All kinds of parameters which can obviously play an important role. Ideally, we would like to be able to offer the above type of graph to managers and managers of buildings accessible to the public, the level of the curve would depend on the sector of activity considered, as well as other parameters mentioned above.

(***) Professor Jimenez from the University of Colorado, with whom we are in regular contact, recommends staying below 700 ppm at first, but also says that even at 500 ppm, it cannot guarantee a risk 0. On the other hand, in schools, for example, it is better to aim for 700 ppm by opening the windows as often as possible, rather than the 3000 ppm that are conventionally found in many establishments …. We must therefore limit ourselves, at least for the moment, to note that, if we stay in the green zone of the sensor (which turns orange at 800 ppm), the ventilation is “better” than what the legislation prescribes (900 ppm) .

 

Following steps ?

As soon as we accept a residual risk, we could obviously consider the sustainable reopening of a whole series of activities as long as they are strictly supervised by means of a strict protocol. This is the subject of Professor Clumeck’s carte blanche (among others) published in Le Soir of 2021-04-12, and which advocates a “covid safe” label. Other labels of the same kind are proposed and also go in the direction of reopening certain activities and / or establishments under good safety conditions, rather than decision-making for entire sectors without any distinction between those who can. ensure the required level of security and others.

There probably won’t be a quick fix, and all contributions are welcome. Opening windows and doors doesn’t pose a particular problem in summer, but once the temperatures drop, it’s something else. It is then that filtration and / or air purification systems can make sense, as long as there is a medical green light [sine qua non in my opinion before being able to consider any installation at the level of a municipality].

The “covid safe” label is undoubtedly one of the elements of the puzzle, but will have to be well thought out in order to avoid chaotic situations, discussions and conflicts of all kinds.

In Professor Clumeck’s carte blanche, it is mentioned that the municipalities could be invested with the responsibility of advising, supporting and verifying the “covid safe” compliance of public places. This is fundamental because the best system will not have much effect if control and / or monitoring is not assured.

verite

Rechtzetten van de waarheid

Introduction

We have always communicated transparently and try to reach out as much as possible to the opposition to move the many projects forward in Kraainem.

Unfortunately, it is clear that several projects are undermined by bad information on social networks or fueled by rumors.

This article will be updated regularly to restore the truth and better understand the projects with the elements relating the real facts.