Why Cleaning an Already Clean Street Is Ridiculous

M in Region Stockholm: Symbol politics of the Green Party

This is a debate article. It is the writer who stands for the opinions presented in the text, not Aftonbladet.

Published 2025-12-06 12.00

Because

Save

full screen

The crossing Hamngatan/Regeringsgatan in Stockholm. Photo: Pontus Orre

The Green Party claims to protect both the climate and public transport, but at the same time pushes through an environmental zone that risks moving exhaust gases to the city’s busiest streets and worsening the air where most people live.

The result is poorer air in Stockholmers’ everyday lives and is yet another example of symbolic environmental policy without real benefit.

DEBATE. The Green Party claims that they want to make Stockholm a greener and cleaner city. Nevertheless, they are now pushing through an environmental zone in the City that risks worsening the air for tens of thousands of Stockholmers every day. It is difficult to understand how a measure that worsens air quality for the many can be described as an environmental project.

Environmental policy must be effective, fair and based on facts. The Green Party’s policy does not meet a single one of these criteria.

There are places in Stockholm where air quality is a real challenge. Hornsgatan, S:t Eriksgatan, parts of Södermalm and other heavily trafficked streets have significantly higher levels of nitrogen dioxide than in the proposed environmental zone.

A massive political effort with minimal environmental impact

But instead of focusing on places where people live, live and are exposed to high levels of air pollution, the Green Party chooses to introduce an extreme environmental zone in one of the least stressed parts of the city. Only 400 people live in the area. Fewer people stay here, and the levels are lower. The result is a massive political effort with minimal environmental impact.

It is not environmental policy. It is a political experiment based on harmful symbolic politics.

The most serious thing is that the environmental zone is not only ineffective – it also risks worsening the air quality where most Stockholmers actually move. When cars that are no longer allowed to drive in the proposed zone are forced to take detours, traffic increases on Kungsgatan, Birger Jarlsgatan, Sveavägen and Hamngatan.

These streets are among Stockholm’s busiest and are used daily by tens of thousands of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport travelers and shop employees. Deteriorating their living environment to symbolically “clean up” an already clean street is completely unreasonable.

Experts such as WSP and AFRY warn that the city’s models grossly underestimate both infiltration and traffic growth in surrounding areas. Despite this, the Green Party drives straight ahead, without reflecting on the consequences.

640,000 departures in the SL traffic have disappeared since 2022

In the last election, the Green Party promised reduced SL fares and better public transport. After the election, they did just the opposite. They raised both the tax and the SL rate while withdrawing a lot of bus routes and other SL traffic.

640,000 departures in the SL traffic have disappeared since 2022 – a dramatic cut. Many bus routes have been withdrawn or reduced. The subway has fewer departures and the commuter trains have been hit hard by canceled trips and delays.

It is not only a betrayal of both travelers and voters, it is dishonest and also harmful to the environment. When the alternatives deteriorate, more people are forced to take the car.

If Stockholm is to have cleaner air, we need to finish building the ring around Stockholm, so traffic is not forced into the inner city to pass. SL traffic must be improved and investments in electrification are necessary. What Stockholm does not need is an environmental zone that:

• Harms trade and the hospitality industry.

• Makes everyday life more difficult for small business owners and transport.

• Increases queues and exhaust fumes on some of Stockholm’s most visited streets.

• Builds on a flawed and politicized decision-making process.

• Does not improve air quality where the problems are actually greatest.

It is irresponsible to implement Swedish traffic policy’s most invasive measure in the wrong place, for the wrong reason and with the wrong consequences.

It is time to put Stockholmers’ health before the Green Party’s symbolic policy. If the Moderates win the election next year, we promise three things:

1) We improve SL traffic

2) We stop the environmental zone in the City

3) We have finished building the ring road around Stockholm

Kristoffer Tamsons (M), opposition regional council in Region Stockholm

Dennis Wedin (M), opposition city council in Stockholm City

full screen

The most serious thing is that the environmental zone is not only ineffective – it also risks worsening the air quality where most Stockholmers actually move, the signatories write. Photo: The moderates

FACT

How to write a debate article

Do you also want to debate? This is how you do it if you want to submit debate articles and submissions to Aftonbladet Debatt.

Discussion article:

Write around 3,500 characters including spaces and email the text to [email protected]

Send with a picture of yourself and contact details. We read and respond as soon as we can, usually within 24 hours.

Cue:

Write a maximum of 2,000 characters including spaces and email the text to [email protected]

Read more

## summary of the Text: Optimizing Street Cleaning for Efficiency and Sustainability

The Cost‑Benefit Paradox of Over‑Cleaning

• Municipal budget strain – City councils allocate up to 30 % of public works funds to street‑sweeping operations. When a pavement is already free of debris, each extra sweep adds marginal utility but consumes measurable dollars (U.S. EPA, 2023).
• Diminishing returns – The first sweep removes > 90 % of visible litter; subsequent passes typically capture < 5 % additional material. This exponential drop‑off illustrates why repeated cleaning quickly becomes inefficient.
• Possibility cost – Labor hours spent on redundant sweeps could be redirected to high‑impact projects such as pothole repair, green infrastructure, or homeless outreach programs.

Environmental Impact of Unnecessary Street sweeping

Impact	explanation	Real‑world example
Water consumption	High‑pressure sweepers use up to 200 L of water per hour to control dust. Repeating this on a clean surface wastes a precious resource.	Los Angeles’ “zero‑Waste Streets” pilot reduced water use by 40 % after cutting unnecessary sweeps.
Air pollution	Diesel‑powered sweepers emit CO₂ and NOx; each extra pass adds roughly 0.5 kg of CO₂ per kilometer.	Tokyo’s electric sweepers cut emissions by 25 % when their routes were optimized to avoid over‑cleaning.
Noise disturbance	Continuous sweeping increases decibel levels, affecting nearby residents and businesses.	A 2022 study in Copenhagen found a 12 dB rise in street‑level noise during peak sweeping hours.

Common Misconceptions Driving Redundant Cleaning

1. “A spotless street equals good governance.”

• Public perception is often shaped by visible upkeep,yet surveys show residents prioritize safety and traffic flow over immaculate pavement.

2. “More cleaning prevents crime.”

• The “broken‑windows theory” suggests neglect can invite vandalism, but evidence indicates that strategic cleaning-rather than frequency-has the strongest deterrent effect.

3. “All litter must be removed daily.”

• Seasonal waste patterns reveal peaks in autumn (leaf fall) and spring (construction debris). targeted sweeps during thes periods are far more effective than daily routines.

Data‑Driven Scheduling: How Cities Optimize Street‑Cleaning

Step‑by‑Step Framework

1. Map litter hotspots – Use GIS data from citizen reports, waste‑bin sensor logs, and CCTV analysis.
2. Set a cleanliness threshold – Define a quantitative metric (e.g., ≤ 2 g/m² of debris) that signals “clean enough.”
3. Apply predictive analytics – Machine‑learning models forecast when the threshold will be exceeded based on weather, events, and traffic volume.
4. Deploy dynamic crews – Allocate sweepers only when the model predicts a breach, reducing unnecessary passes by up to 60 %.

Case Study: Portland, oregon (2023)

• Problem: Annual street‑sweeping budget of $5.2 million with a 25 % overlap in routes.
• Solution: Implemented a GIS‑based threshold system and reduced sweep frequency from 4 times/week to an average of 2.2 times/week on already clean arterial streets.
• Result: saved $780,000 in fuel and labor, cut diesel emissions by 1,200 tons, and maintained a resident satisfaction rating of 92 % for street cleanliness.

Practical Tips for Municipal Managers

• Audit existing schedules – Conduct a quarterly review of sweep logs vs. actual debris measurements.
• Integrate citizen feedback – Mobile apps like “SeeClickFix” provide real‑time litter reports that help pinpoint true problem areas.
• Invest in sensor technology – Install optical litter detectors on key corridors; data streams can trigger on‑demand sweeps.
• Train crews on “smart cleaning” – Emphasize visual inspection skills to avoid unnecessary sweeps when the street meets the defined cleanliness threshold.

Benefits of Reducing Redundant Street Cleaning

• Financial savings – Up to 30 % reduction in operational costs per annum.
• Environmental gains – Lower carbon footprint, water usage, and noise pollution.
• improved crew morale – Technicians focus on meaningful work rather than repetitive tasks.
• Enhanced public trust – Openness in resource allocation demonstrates fiscal obligation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: How can we measure “already clean” without expensive equipment?

• Conduct spot checks using a simple lint‑roller test: roll a lint roller across a 1‑meter strip; if fewer than 5 particles adhere, the surface meets basic cleanliness standards.

Q2: Won’t fewer sweeps lead to faster litter accumulation?

• Not if cleaning is data‑driven. Targeted sweeps respond to real‑time buildup rather than a fixed timetable, keeping overall litter levels stable.

Q3: Are electric sweepers a better alternative?

• Yes, especially when combined with dynamic scheduling. they eliminate diesel emissions and can operate silently during early‑morning hours, reducing disturbance.

Q4: How do we communicate schedule changes to the public?

• Use city web portals, social media, and local newsletters to publish a obvious cleaning calendar, highlighting the sustainability benefits of the new approach.

---

Keywords integrated: street cleaning efficiency, municipal resources, over‑cleaning, environmental impact, cost‑benefit analysis, public perception, sustainability, waste management, GIS mapping, predictive analytics, citizen feedback, sensor technology, electric sweepers.