I forbindelse med vores roadpricing-udspil vil jeg gerne forsøge at stille nogle eksempler op på hvilke konskevenser vores forslag har – f.eks. på familiens økonomi.

Derfor håber jeg at I vil hjælpe mig med at svare på 7 hurtige spørgsmål:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=qoXeMS0koZVuYjrUyVoevA_3d_3d

Send meget gerne linket videre – så jeg får så mange og så varierede svar som muligt.

Og jeg er klar over at dette ikke er videnskabeligt, bredt dækkende eller noget, men det er bare for at kunne opstille nogle konkrete konskevens-eksempler.

Så er 1. hovedbestyrelsesmøde efter valget overstået. Et møde der samtidig var 2. møde med ny formand. En formand, der tilsyneladende ikke har en politisk holdning. I hvert tilfælde ikke en han deler med sine medlemmer. Nu har der selvfølgelig kun været de to møder, så der er stadig tid til udvikling, hvilket jeg bestemt håber at komme til at se, for ellers tror jeg vi skal se frem til afvikling. Men Klaus skal have ros for, at selvom han ikke selv er godt til at tage et initiativ, så kan han godt reagere på andres. Så hermed en opfordring til en politisk reaktion

En stor del af debatten i dag handlede selvfølgelig om valget. Og jeg tror det vigtigste var at alle fik lidt luft for egne synspunkter og holdninger til resultatet. Nu håber jeg så at der også bliver plads til en mere struktureret evaluering, som måske kan bruges mere fremadrettet. Derfor vil jeg håber at alle der har en kommentar til hvad der har været godt, hvad der har været skidt, hvad der kan være anderledes, hvad der ikke kan være anderledes osv. skriver det ned og sender ind til sekretariatet (som jeg så håber vil samle det sammen og sende retur samlet).

Min egen kommentar i dag var at jeg synes vi har kørt en fin valgkamp, men i Region Sjælland har det ikke haft nogen betydning, da folk stemmer lokalt på trods af eller netop på grund af at det er et regionsvalg. Samtidig tvivler jeg på det flytter mange stemmer at vores MF’ere er med ude, men det batter altså på den mentale konto, så derfor en tak til dem der har gået aktivt ind i valgkampen. Især synes jeg Anne Marie har gjort det smukt ved netop at deltage i valgkampen med emner der havde relevans for valget – det fortjener stor ros.

Der blev snakket en del om KBH’s konstituering – min kommentar hertil er at jeg ikke ønsker at være med i et parti, der arbejder på at udelukke andre. Jeg har intet grundlag for at udtale mig for eller imod konstitueringen, da jeg ikke har været med i lokalet. Men at vi skal profilere os på at lægge afstand til bestemte partier/personer ønsker jeg ikke. Lad os i stedet profilere os på vores politik og være det parti der lægger vægt på det brede samarbejde, der hvor det er muligt.

Sagen i midtjylland skabte en smule debat om hvorvidt vi skal kunne eksludere medlemmer. Politisk arbejder vi for øget kommunalt selvstyre – lad os starte med at være det gode eksempel internt. Kammeratlige samtaler osv. er ok, men ekskludering er lidt for topstyre-agtigt for min smag.

Plakater var selvfølgelig også et emne. Og det er da et problem at vi ikke har et ensartet udtryk. Men så længe at der ikke er noget bedre for centralt hold, så nej tak (og det er jo ikke ligefrem nyt at vi kandidater ikke er glade for den). Derudover så håber jeg at selvom der kommer et bedre bud fra centralt hold, at vi stadig kan have lov at lave vores egne. Men hvis en plakat er designet godt er jeg også sikker på at flere vil bruge den. Så til sekretariat og Margrethe – lad være at beklag jer over vores egenrådighed – lav istedet noget bedre (og husk medlemsinddragelsen). Jeg vil langt hellere rose alle de fantastisk kreative idéer. Hvor er det dejligt med medlemmer der kan tage et initiativ

Et andet punkt på dagsordenen var drøftelse af road pricing-udspil. Formanden for miljøudvalget fremlagde sekretariatets udspil – selvom de jo egentlig ikke har været en (særlig stor) del af processen bag. Det kan undre en smule, men tror det var meget korrekt set af dem, der bad Tyge om at han fremlagde det, da det kan virke som en baglands-blåstempling.

Udspillet lyder at alle og enhver skal betale en krone ekstra pr. kørt kilometer. For ikke at lave total slagside, vil der så blive et lidt forhøjet kørselsfradrag til dem der bor i udkanterne eller dem som kører ekstra langt. Jeg synes ikke det er et godt forslag. Jeg synes, at vi burde kigge på lastbilerne, fokusere mere på offentlig transport og evt. en omlægning (ikke en afskaffelse) af befordringsfradraget (det foreslog jeg også på det møde der blev holdt inde på Christiansborg, men jeg kan ikke rigtig se, at nogle af de forslag der blev fremført derinde er tænkt med). Jeg har også foreslået at vi venter til der er en bedre teknologisk løsning! Men der er åbenbart vigtigere at komme ud med noget (og endnu vigtigere at komme ud med det inden regeringen) end at komme ud med noget der er fornuftigt

Det sidste jeg her vil kommentere er manglen på medlemsinddragelse. Jeg har igen og igen og igen anmodet om at vi offentliggør hovedbestyrelsens mødedatoer, dagsordner og referater til medlemmerne. Ja, vi har faktisk fået det vedtaget i hovedbestyrelsen. Hvis de bliver offentligjort internt, så er det i hvert tilfælde ikke annonceret hvor og så kan medlemmerne jo ikke vide at de har mulighed for at følge vores arbejde. Jeg har slet ikke ord for hvor kritisabelt jeg synes det er. Sker der ikke snart noget synes jeg måske man burde begynde at placere et ansvar. Nu har det trukket ud i over et år – hvor længe vil vi acceptere at hovedbestyrelsesbeslutninger (og involvering af vores medlemmer) bare syltes?

På falderebet vil jeg lige komme med dagens gode nyhed – endelig bliver hovedbestyrelsen taget seriøst nok til at vi får et weekendmøde. Det har vi brug for.

Toll Roads News, a “journalistic venture” by some liberal cretin, is truly the stuff of legendary nightmares capable of inducing suicide, heart attack, coma and even death in some.  Such generic, and furthermore excessively stupid, nonsense is vile. A pro-toll propagandist, to this end using liberal rhetoric that surely finds fans amongst the anti-tax and individualist imbeciles, a vile monsterous perversion of all sensibility of any worth–

CRUSH THE TOLLCISTS!

Anyway, let’s closer examine the idiocy of this nonsensical “background” article closer:

Around the world there’s an upsurge in toll roads because tax financing is not producing good enough highways.

Of course, this is strictly not true. There are several reasons that a State would want to pursue toll road financing rather than tax income and public spending; but “good enough” (quality) is not one of them. The state might have very limited funds available, or desire to shift the responsibility onto a body which it in turn can blame (to avoid it self being blamed) for any potential problems that arise with the execution and operation of a motorway or a system of such.

The reason for this “upsurge” is many, but this “upsurge” is largely illusory outside of parts of Europe and the U.S. Much of the world has for long time had motorways being primarily tolled networks. British advisor’s in the 1950’s encouraged Japan to establish a network of toll roads to speed up the development of new roads and infrastructure.  In the U.S. and Europe, those politicians and organisations arguing for the establishment of more toll systems (many always have and still do, exist) use various ideological arguments at times to justify their decisions, arguing from (like the author of that moronic piece of yellow “journalism” that is the TRN) the liberal market-loving perspective, but the true reason is simply one of cheapness. The U.S., burdened by the perverse disease known as Congress and the corrupt Senate, full of failed politicians the brain-dead American public constantly vote in and cherish like the sacred cow of liberty, has for long time been unwilling to provide funding for roads, and thick-witted local governments remain just as unwilling and inexcusably inept. Thus, they ponder different solutions, and one of those is giving the mission to a corrupt money-hungry investment banker, the vilest devils of them all; a good example of this kind of verminous dregs are the filthy criminal scum of Macquarie Infrastructure Group.

Voters reject tax hikes because they don’t get highway value for the tax dollar.

Voters reject tax hikes because most of the time they are short-sighted idiots, something politicians and corrupt commercial enterprises like to encourage. This is not always the case however. Phoenix voted yes to a series of tax increases to fund the regional motorway network, and Phoenix is a terrible desert hell-hole. This has nothing to do with “highway value for tax dollar”, a majority of voters don’t think in such terms, and furthermore, even if they did so, there would be no meaningful way of comparison, no picture complete to make it easy to comprehend, the geography of the matter is far too complex. Something our intellectually challenged “journalist” would have a hard time understanding.

And they are frustrated by congestion on inadequate overloaded roads & tie-ups which cost tens of billions in wasted fuel, missed meetings, downtime from work, and unnecessary pollution and accidents.

Oh, personalisation of the problematique, great. Never fails to convince idiots of whatever you’re trying to sell.

Tolling is a way to build and rebuild roads without having to resort to taxes. Toll roads dip into the capital markets for their funds, not into taxpayers’ pockets.

Capital markets funds came from nowhere. Typical liberal rhetoric, “not into tax payers pockets”. Alluding to the whole “tax is theft” argument. If something is theft, property is. Propertarian cunt.

It’s the fairest system and the most efficient…

As fair as fair tax. Never seen that nonsense before.

And the prospective toll revenues will often allow special measures such as the complete undergrounding of roads in environmentally sensitive areas, special services such as separate cars-only roadways, and electronic guideways for hands-off, feet-off driving (the ‘automated highway’) to make roads safer.

Prospective. An often absent prospect, I might add. Since when is the automated highway a good thing anyway? It’s basically an new form of that old stupid concept of Personal Rapid Transit. It’s as stupid and loathsome as flying cars. And those other things apply to tax-funded projects all the same, but to be honest, roads are rarely tunnelled due to environmental concerns. As is known, at best, it only shifts the location of the pollution. It’s generally done to satisfy whiny NIMBY’s and people whose idea of environmental concern is fighting something they think is “ugly” from being near them.

Because of the logic in favour of tolling

Shit logic.

major new road projects around the world will mostly be built as toll facilities

Not because of your great toll-logic, even if so.

And increasingly as old highways need rebuilding private sector funds and management will be needed. Tolls will be the way people pay.

Fuck your system.

The important thing is they all bring highway service into the market economy.

Oh, no, I know where this is going. Do you?

Change is difficult. The automobile is an intensely ideological contrivance and its associated infrastructure is equally controversial. An important part of elite opinion dreams of a return to rail transit and bicycles, and opposes most new provision for motor vehicles. Populists denounce tolls as “taxes” and assert that “we have already paid for roads” in gas taxes.

ELITE! Is that the so called “liberal elite” (meaning soft-centrist social-liberals in the U.S.)? We can see from what political perspective this person speaks. He speaks for the liberal capitalists, the children of the 1980’s, the Raygunites, the psychotic lunatics, the raving insane, for the owners of investment banks, for the supporting pillars of world capitalism. You’re not being controversial, your controversy is an illusion. You’re perfectly in line with what is expected.

Tolls are not taxes but the price for a service. Now that service may be well or poorly provided. It may, or may not, be considered value for money. But the user-pays principle of tolls – that those who benefit from a road pay directly for its use – is good.

No. The user-pays principle is always bad. That’s the argument of those who oppose any social programs. “Why should I pay for their (insert some nonsense about homeless, hobos, drunks, criminals as slurs for poor people) health care/ education / whatever?” Mind you I am not a supporter of the price system whatsoever however. But this is not about what I want. This is about how vile this person is.

So army engineers have built roads and general taxes have been used to finance them, but in the early days of the industrial revolution the most common method was the corvee, or forced labor. Each able-bodied citizen was required to present himself with pick, shovel or other tools to work for several days per year fixing the local roads & or else send a substitute. ‘Pitching in’ for the common good worked when the people doing the work were the ones who benefitted so the corvee sometimes worked on a very small scale, but most roads are used by outsiders and the people doing the work then resent it.

“Why should we slave away, take time off from our income-producing job when the guy who benefits is that merchant passing through or those sightseers going by?” they ask. The ‘corvee’ was described in the late 18th century in England as a “ridiculous farce” because of evasion, favoritism, loitering and general ineffectiveness (p101) In Virginia citizens eligible for statute labor were described as “working out the road tax” and taxed the equivalent hourly wage rate if they failed to show up for statutory road work. Like other kinds of taxation the corvee was seen as unfair and oppressive and enlightened thinkers argued for the user-pays principle.

Enlightened scum argued for the user-pays principle. Notice also the intentional induction of “forced labour” and the comparison of this with taxation (as well as classic liberal slurs, “unfair” (poor rich folks worked so hard to earn their honest money!) and “oppressive”, totally original nonsense. Fuck you.

“When the carriages which pass over a highway or bridge…pay toll in proportion to their weight or tonnage, they pay for the maintenance of those public works exactly in proportion to the wear and tear which they occasion of them. It seems scarcely possible to determine a more equitable way of maintaining such works.” So wrote the famous thinker Adam Smith in his “Wealth of nations.”

What’s with this use of the strange wording “thinker” anyway? Fuck Adam Smith. Fuck the Wealth of Nations.

At a time when Americans (and many other peoples) are skeptical about the value they get back for taxes paid seeking loans and investment secured against toll revenues is often the only practical way to finance needed new roads

Blah blah. Ugh. I get a headache.

Only overhead gantries such as those used for signage are needed for the electronic toll ‘readers’ and for video license plate recognition cameras. In this way electronic tolls can be collected more economically than road taxes and are less likely to be squandered by politicians and bureaucrats!

Typical anti-tax liberal American.

A further major advantage of tolls in the era of microcircuitry and electronic communications is that toll rates can be varied by time-of-day to help combat traffic congestion and guarantee a swift trip through to those who really need it, as measured by their willingness to pay a premium for that privelege. As the stop-&-go traffic on the urban highways of America and Europe make painfully clear, highway space is a scarce and highly valued commodity, especially during rush hours. The prices of food, telephone calls, fuel, airline seats, metals and many other items vary according to supply and demand to the benefit of consumers and suppliers alike and there is every reason why urban highwayspace should do the same. It will provide revenues to improve transportation facilities, help transit compete, and persuade those who can reorganize their movement to leave the scarce roadspace to those motorists who need it most. Best of all it will offer people choices & spend less, get less or pay a premium for premium road service. It’s the way the rest of the market economy works.

So much for being controversial. The market economy is failure.

Such toll projects if properly implemented will be win-win reforms.

Reformist! I hate reformists! Shitty reforms at that.

“There’s a simple solution to this traffic problem. We’ll have business build the roads. And government build the cars.”
- Will Rogers quoted Bay Area Council

Liberal humour is so unfunny.

“There’s no such thing as a free road. There’s a toll road, or there’s a taxing road, or there’s no road.” Our adaptation of an IBTTA (the tollsters trade association) slogan. 1996

If free is the absence of the price system, then there is such a thing as a free road. Tollroad Pigs Lobbyist Propaganda Association.

“Road building is not a government monopoly any more. Those days are over.”

- Federico Pena, US Secretary of Transportation, Transportation Research Board address, Washington DC, January 8, 1996.

Again, what a surprising thing for a populist idiot to say. Since when was road building a government monopoly anyway? The only thing that has been anything even remotely approaching that is planning and funding… But idiots, etc.

Apparently the ingrates in the Netherlands are planning to enact a road pricing scheme… sickening– the world is spiralling into an abyss of failure the likes of which never have been seen before.

In closing, Toll Roads News suck.

The proponents of highway expansion here like to characterize traffic congestion as an environmental problem. Look at all those stalled cars, they say, pumping out pollution into the air. If that traffic was moving there would be less pollution. An article in the Wall Street Journal today takes the opposite view. “Traffic jams, if they’re managed well, can actually be good for the environment“

What spurred the WSJ’s interest was the appointment of Jay H. Walder  as chairman and chief executive officer of New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority. He helped design London’s congestion pricing scheme. Not that he admits to planning to introducing congestion pricing to New York – yet. But clearly in London – as in New York – there is a good alternative to driving – an extensive rapid transit network. In both cities most people get into the centre – the major employment area- on trains. The commute pattern in Greater Vancouver is not nearly so centralized. And we do not have much of a rail network. Only part of the region gets the choice of a fast ride on transit.

Induced Traffic

What is important to note is that the arithmetic used by the road promoters ignores induced traffic. The reason that road building does NOT cure congestion is that traffic expands to fill the space available. The author, David Owen, inserts the word “almost” before “always end up making the original problem worse”. I would like someone who thinks otherwise to come up with just one example where this solution worked for more than just a brief period. Gordon Price issued that challenge to the Gateway proponents, and they have never answered.

Who pays?

In 1999, the Australian researchers Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy concluded that “there is no guarantee that congestion pricing will simultaneously improve congestion and sustainability,” and mentioned several ways in which congestion pricing can defy the expectations of its supporters, among them by causing motorists to “drive exactly as they always have if the congestion charge is covered by their firms (e.g., a majority of London’s peak-hour commuters have company cars and perks).”

It is also important to note that the second stage of the London scheme included areas with lots of residents. Most of them are well off – these are some of the most expensive addresses in London – and are car owners. And of course, the jobs they hold also have the same perks of company cars and “free” parking at work. Either the employer pays or it can be set off against tax as a business expense.

Yes idling cars are wasting fuel, but that is much less than the increase in fuel used by increasing the number and length of car trips. Which is what has always been the consequence of highway spending.

Congestion is a more effective deterrent to driving than congestion charges where there is capacity on an attractive alternative. In London, what congestion pricing did was make drivers more aware of their route choices. Most did not need to be in Central London at all but were taking a direct, shorter route as it seemed quicker than using the ring roads. In fact, earlier efforts to persuade drivers to divert from congested areas tended to fail simply because diverted drivers were quickly replaced by others. The M25 – the major motorway around the rim of the metropolitan area – attracts so much traffic that is has been widened several times, but remains as congested as ever. Drivers actually came out of the centre, to enjoy a section of apparently faster driving, before re-entering further around the rim.

Fortunately, planners in London were much more successful in directing employment development, especially for offices, to places served by railways. Major office developments were directed to Croydon or Ealing – both on main line railways – or to the Docklands where much was spent (and is still being spent) on both the underground and the Dockland Light Railway.

It is often forgotten that other places that invest heavily in highways also invest in railways. “Residents of the New York metropolitan area are extraordinarily committed transit users—they account for almost a third of all the public-transit passenger miles traveled in the United States.” I would have liked to have seen a figure for transit mode share in New York.   We think we do well here at 11% because the Puget Sound area has only 5%. In the US as a whole it was around 1% in 2004. But then my Google search simply demonstrated to me that the whole area of mode share calculation in the US is controversial. But clearly New York and Chicago resemble London more than we do. “Seventy-two percent (4.8 million) of people who enter Manhattan’s Central Business District each workday take public transit”

It is absurd, in New York, that the East River bridges still don’t charge tolls and that curbside parking in much of the city is free.

But again if employers and businesses would pay those fees, all that tolls and parking charges would do is change who drives, not how much is driven. And indeed, congestion charges may well work the same way. I have often used the argument myself – congestion charges replace those with time to waste with those who have money to spend. Like all regressive tax measures (those that take no account of ability to pay) they hit the poor much harder than the rich. In Metro Vancouver there would be significant geographic inequity, since only a few area have anything like adequate transit. So while the theory of getting road users to pay for more transit is attractive, the process of getting there would be very painful, unless there was a very significant upfront investment in much more transit before the new charge is levied.

The end of last week brought some interesting news stories about tolling in BC. Three Richmond councillors wanted to stand up in opposition to any plans to toll the Knight Street Bridge and the Mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson was musing on the idea of tolling the sea-to-sky highway to make up for TransLink’s budget shortfall. I have a couple of thoughts on this. The former appeared as part of TransLink’s 2010 10-year plan which is fine. Its amazing to think that TransLink is coming up with another plan. It seems like they do that every few weeks. Someone more cynical than I would probably say that if they spent half as much time and energy on buying buses and building new metro, then we might have a better transit system here without having these constant complaints about funding shortfalls.

That being said, I don’t have a problem with including road pricing in such a plan. Especially since plans are much different than actions. No one at TransLink has committed to tolling the Knight Street bridge as far as I know. However, road pricing is on the table as a possible funding option, which could mean that 5-10 years from now we will be talking about tolling Vancouver bridges. But won’t necessarily mean that. So I think this is a brilliant non-story. Three Richmond councillors opposing a hypothetical situation that won’t occur for 5-10 years if at all. Its good to get your position on something out there early.

I personally think road pricing wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Drivers are subsidized heavily through the construction of roads and bridges. Plus commuting to work in a car is about the least efficient and most environmentally costly way to get to work. If you choose to make that choice, the cost is not yours alone. You require more space for parking. You require more road space. You pollute the air that we all breathe. However, you also have a freedom and flexibility that many people who commute in others do not. What I am saying is that driving to work this way is a priviledge and should be treated as such and the costs are ones that we all share.

We live in a society where we are blessed with freedoms. However, these freedoms have and continue to come at a price. As far as I am concerned road pricing is a necessary tax. It lets us better fund options for potential cyclists, transit riders and pedestrians. People who commute in a single occupancy vehicle should pay more because what they have is a priviledge and the cost they inflict on society is far greater than the cost inflicted on the individual driving. Road pricing provides the revenue needed to create options that help get people out of their vehicles and the extra cost acts as an incentive for drivers to carpool or switch to other modes.

Some drivers, and apparently these councillors, would complain that such a world (one that does not yet exist in the Lower Mainland) would unfairly penalize drivers. I would disagree. It absolutely punishes drivers, but it is drivers who need to be punished. In order to incentivize them out of their metal boxes.  Drivers cost more (especially when they are by themselves) and not just in roads and bridges, but to society as a whole. They should appreciate those costs. And if it takes a hit to the wallet to get them to come to realize it, then so be it.

As for the sea-to-sky highway, I think it is absolutely adorable that Gregor Robertson wants to toll it. Mainly because he is the mayor of Vancouver. He has absolutely no jurisdiction over it; he is a very smart man most of the time and I’m pretty sure he knows this one is out of his hands. Highway 99 is part of the provincial highway network. Gregor couldn’t put a toll on it even if he was able to convince enough people it was a good idea – either through TransLink council of mayors or through his position as mayor.  I truly like the guy, but if he hopes to be premier one day, than he has to be careful about taking up causes that are either too big or too far outside of his jurisdiction. The mayors chair is powerful, and I have no doubt that he could influence the provincial government on a lot of policies. But putting a toll on a provincial highway in a municipality he doesn’t represent. Its not going to happen, not just because the Mayor of Vancouver wants it.

And I support road pricing. Tolling is absolutely a good idea. However, under the province’s current tolling policy, tolling Highway 99 was not an option. Under the current set-up, the bridge or highway would have to receive significant improvements (usually in a big investment of dollars) and users have to have access to a reasonable untolled alternative.What is the option to avoid Highway 99? Oh right, you have to go north through Lytton. It doesn’t sound especially reasonable to me. Plus, some would have you believe that Highway 99 was built so Campbell’s friends would have better access to their ski chalets, which is a crock. I believe the highway before this one was seen as a little unsafe in terms of head on collisions and subject to occasional rock slides. Fixing it cajoled the Olympic organizing committee to choose Vancouver for the games, and I believe the benefit will extend after the games.

You might also wonder then why  the Golden Ears Bridge, the future Port Mann Bridge and eventually the new Pattullo Bridge will be tolled. As I’ve said, I wouldn’t mind seeing them all tolled and use that money to build Vancouver a half decent transit system. The Pattullo and Golden Ears Bridge are regional connectors and TransLink has been given responsibility for them. TransLink is not subject to the provincial policy and has been looking at these on a case-by-case basis. As for Port Mann, you’d have to go a few minutes out of your way to the current untolled Pattullo or to the Alex Fraser. Its a far cry from Lytton. And if you want to drive 15-20 minutes out of your way to avoid a 3 dollar toll, then so be it, no one is stopping you. The last time I checked that trip still takes gas and your time does count for something as well. You’re paying more for the new, faster upgraded route. Its not the same thing as spending all day driving down from Lytton. Try to keep some perspective.

As far as I’m concerned, TransLink would be irresponsible not to have road pricing on the table as a possible funding option. And when it comes, which I think it eventually will, I hope it is done right. Everyone pays. People who drive further pay more. People pay more at peak times. Alternatives are built in improved transit and cycling infrastructure.

Its asking a lot, but considering the Port Mann won’t be finished until 2012 and the Pattullo by 2020, I wouldn’t expect these changes to happen quickly. There will be a lot more time yet for the debate about how to best use road pricing in the Lower Mainland.

Vancouver Sun

I am only going to look at what is new in this announcement – not go over again all the arguments about who pays for what.

The vehicle levy has long been an option – but road pricing was regarded as an alternative, not in addition to a levy, mainly because a levy can be put in place quite quickly, but installing tolling technology takes much longer. Since the vehicle levy is at best a coarse tool – one that impacts everyone no matter how far, when and what they drive – it could be replaced by one that varies by type of vehicle, time of day (and day of week) and distance driven, which obviously has much better effect on travel patterns. The suggestion that all bridges get tolled has always stumbled on the fairly obvious – which bridges – and the fact that if there is to a set of “cordons” at which the toll is levied, presumably based on distance from Vancouver in concentric arcs, there are a lot of people along the Burrard Peninsula who escape. A drive from north east Coquitlam to UBC would be toll free, while Ladner to downtown crosses three water bodies. (The story does not say “tunnels” but I would bet the Massey would get tolled but not the Cassiar.) Obviously some places like Richmond get hit much harder than Burnaby – which has a much greater range of destinations available without a bridge on the way. The devil, as they say, is in the details and this announcement seems remarkably light on detail.

Road pricing is one of those things that makes obvious sense to economists (The Economist newspaper endorsed it many years ago) but is very hard for motorists to accept. First there’s the use of the word like “freeway” (which actually refers to the flow of traffic not the cost) and ideas like the freedom to travel where and when you like that is part of the illusion sold by the car industry. And the fact that we pay for roads through our taxes already – even though the taxes directly levied on fuel and vehicles are well below the cost to society of road use. This is also the problem with the levy – motorists in the region will feel even more put upon, especially when compared to those who can register their vehicles outside the region. But secondly, and more importantly, road space is a highly perishable commodity – like seats on planes. For many hours of the day it has very little value – but at peak periods its value soars. That ought to be reflected in road pricing but so far this element seems to be greatly neglected. It is not just the use of the road that causes the problems, but the use of the road when everybody else wants to use it. Without a price system to ration demand, we resort to queues. Just as they did in the Soviet Union for almost everything. Or how they allocate seats at Bard on the Beach.

Without new revenue, TransLink is projected to go into deficit by 2011, as it subsidizes the private operators of the Canada Line and the Golden Ears Bridge for four to five years until they reach projected ridership figures. [emphasis added]

Now that is news. I have been tracking both these projects for a while – and the general discussion about how wonderful P3s are supposed to be and I have not heard of these requirements before. If you know differently than I expect you to provide a citation and a link to the evidence. My understanding of the P3 case was that it removed the need for public sector funding and that the private sector would take on the risk, which obviously includes low revenue in the early years in return for a bigger share of the fat years at the end of the deal. I have always been critical of the way that these two projects have sucked up Translink’s resources since neither should have been such a high priority in a region that is starved of basic bus service.

And that is the second bit of news – that all of this appears to be implemented ahead of transit improvements for most of the region. This is just stupid. In London, when the congestion charge was introduced, bus services – and bus priority measures – were significantly increased when the new charge was imposed. Obviously people have to have some alternative – in London’s case much of that could be satisfied simply by diverting since many car trips through the centre did not need to go that way at all. There were already other, better routes available. Imposing new fees and charges now and promising better service later will not do at all. Because the whole point is to change behaviour at the same time as raising revenue. This is why this plan will once again be characterised as a cash grab. Because there is no alternative but to pay more, becuase there is simply no bus to get on.

Translink has been put into an invidious position – partly by the province’s unreasonable demands and policies but also by its own decisions to press ahead with expensive capital projects and then noticing too late that it dod not have enough to fund even existing operations let alone new ones.

It is also the case that the province has always stuck to the policy that tolls can only be applied to new infrastructure – which was why the Golden Ears got built and the ferry was not replaced because only the bridge could be tolled. So all of this simply puts Translink at loggerheads with long established provincial “principles”.  Nothing new there then.

UPDATE 2pm

TransLink must look for in-house savings before passing on transportation costs to taxpayers said Premier Gordon Campbell at a press conference today.

“I think that before people start talking about tax increases, they should start talking about savings in their own organization,” said Campbell.

This just in on the Sun webpage. In other words even before the review he commissioned has started, he has determined what the outcome will be.  Of course he does not just talk about tax increases – he has just brought in a big one under the guise of “harmonisation” – and pretends that will reduce costs. Which it will for the province and some businesses but will cost taxpayers plenty. I don’t see him rushing to pay big chunks of his own compensation either – something Maggie Thatcher liked to boast about (without mentioning the wealth of her husband of course).

He also said the transit authority overstepped their boundaries in planning tax increases.

“What I’ve heard of the report is that it is outside the framework of their legislation. …and I think everyone’s disappointed they haven’t acted within their legislation and they have a responsibility to do that,” Campbell said.

This is called being disingenuous. If they act “within their legislation” and also try to implement his “$14bn transit plan” the books don’t balance. In fact they don’t balance if they just keep on going as they are. Pretending this can all be sorted out by cutting Board members compensation and a few mythical savings is assinine. As is the provincial requirement to install faregates on SkyTrain which will be a huge money losing proposition.

Campbell can find $3bn for Highway #1 widening  but he can’t find any money to keep the buses running. And this is called ” a balanced plan”.

No doubt local opposition will rally around their local hero...

Are they bold, or are they brave, or are they stupid to try to introduce this?

Asking people to pay for parking in work is maybe not so controversial as it once was. A lot of people already have to do that. I know civil servants who have to pay at their own workplace because the buildings are all owned by the PFI partner of the government department. So to them, this isn’t very new.

This is one of those tricky political decisions. It’s bound to be a local issue at the next elections. There will be much talk of how councillors have betrayed the local area. There will be much ink spilled and much wailing and moaning about further taxes on the poor, downtrodden motorist – especially if the trial proves to be successful.

But, to me, this should be a much broader issue. It says it all that powers that were given to local councils in 2000 are only now being put into action. Typical of this government which has always been big on the headlines but not quite so brave when it comes to implementing them. It seems they planned this one all along so that local councils would take the rap. Let them take the risk, in the same way as they let Ken Livingstone take on the vested interests when he introduced the congestion charge.

This is the kind of thing that we are going to have to do if we’re serious about tackling the issues of congestion and climate change. The real terms cost of motoring simply must rise to an extent that public transport is a genuine alternative. This would be one small piece in that jigsaw. After all, you normally pay to park at a retail shopping centre. What’s the difference with driving to work? It’s generally not your land that you wish to place one tonne of metal and electronics on – so what right do you have to do so?

Yet all of this is obscuring the real issue. The one that I threatened to return to a long time ago about national road pricing. Because that is, actually, the best solution. Best in terms of fairness, in cost, in revenue raised, in tackling the environment impact of road use: the one that will even deal with that often cited problem of “what about rural drivers with no public transport?”

I still want to write a more considered post on this at a later date setting out my full thoughts. But, in the meantime, I am pleased to see at least one council is prepared to take on the business interests that are, unfortunately, going to stand in the way of every effort to try to deal with the horrendous congestion that is choking our towns and cities.

Maybe this gentle step in the right direction is a sign that some politicians at least are prepared to take unpopular decisions – because, let’s face it, what self-interested, rational road user will welcome this? – but ones that are necessary for dealing with some of the problems this country faces.

Traffic congestion: Stalled | The Economist.

Scary numbers:

Even though congestion dropped between 2006 and 2007, it still forced urban Americans to travel for 4.2 billion extra hours and buy an extra 2.8 billion gallons of petrol. The cost of all these delays was $87.2 billion, an increase of more than 50% over 1997. The problem affects metropolitan areas of all sizes, but big ones—the country’s economic engines—are in the worst shape. Drivers in Los Angeles suffer the most: in 2007 the average driver spent 70 hours inching along streets and freeways.

The article seems to refer things are getting better. The reason? Cost. Ceteris paribus, with a higher price-per-mile, people drive less:

Declining congestion can be attributed to two main factors: rising fuel prices and, more recently, a slumping economy—so the figures for 2008 and 2009, when they are compiled, will presumably be a lot better. But neither development is welcome or permanent. History suggests that as the economy rebounds congestion will too, as shipments and commutes resume.

So, there you have it: price of petrol goes up, people drive less, congestion diminishes. Plain and simple. However, if there’s one thing politicians will not be seen doing is rising prices – and when voters decide, the result is quite clear.

Punchline: Raise the price of fuel – put a price on carbon. If you can…

The Fat Controller asked Thomas what it was like to be owned by a bank, and then leased to a private company, while run on rail maintained by a not-for-profit public company, who sub-contract the maintenance of the rail to private firms. Thomas's face remained resolutely fixed in his usual, happy, smile. Bless.

It seems our government did the only decent thing it could do when it took the advice of The Divine Comedy and, quite literally, took the National Express.

Well, they’ve sort of taken the National Express. They’ve taken something off them. Or, at least, they’re going to. Not yet. Clear?

Of course not. The government though has taken a highly principled stand of sort-of nationalising a rail franchise because, at some point in the future, they’re not going to bother paying the bill that they promised they would. And pioneering Transport Secretary Lord Adonis, who recently spent five days travelling the country by train, thought the best response would be to hit them where it hurts.

I’m sure National Express will be very saddened to lose the financial burden the franchise was to them. Oh yes. What anguish they will suffer, no longer having to pay the government all the promised £1.4bn that they overbid, just like their predecessors in GNER, for the rights to run what should be the best, prestigious and most lucrative rail franchise in the country.

In case you haven’t guessed already – I have a keen interest in transport issues. My real concern about this whole agenda is something that actually highlighted even by one Peter Hitchens in tonight’s Question Time. Roads receive vast amounts of public money. It is seen as an essential investment in keeping this country ticking over. Meanwhile, rail is the Cinderella at the ball. It is not invested in. It receives subsidies, which are being steadily withdrawn as the years go by. And, on top of all that, it is widely understood that it is government policy to make the passenger pay more directly for usage of the network. That is, higher fares.

The logical equivalent in the road network would be not just road tolls, but the national road pricing schemes that has been indefinitely shelved because 2m people (or whatever) signed a petition on the subject. But somehow, the motorist is not treated in the same way.

Why should that be? Certainly in places like London, almost everyone is uses the rail network at some point. In the rest of the country, much less so. But it is still a significant proportion of the population… except for the fact that there are undoubtedly more car users.

So is it a case of numbers? An unusual case of government favouring the many and not the few? To a certain extent, yes.Let’s not forget that the road lobby is incredibly powerful. Organisations like the AA and the RAC have huge amounts of members. Rail users are disunited and disparate by comparison.

But the true nub of the issue is this: with a privatised railway, or any utility, the government can wash its hands of problems.  For the same reason why so much power is given to bureaucrats and quangos, why the government is determined to have foundation hospitals and trust schools, the less the government can be held to account, the better. It allows them to blame everyone but themselves.

But somehow, they just can’t escape from their road responsibilities. That’s probably why we’ll never get national road pricing – despite it arguably being the only answer to road congestion. Maybe I’ll return to that thorny issue another time.

At its heart though – for the same reason why roads should never be privatised, rail shouldn’t too. It is an administrative mess, with too much buck-passing. It is costly. It allows the private sector to take all the profits while leaving the taxpayer with the risk. It is an industry of strategic national interest. It is also a natural monopoly, like water (though we managed to privatise that too!): there is no genuine free market here, and so to pretend there is by going through the sham of a franchise and bidding process is just farcical.

But politics isn’t about principles. It’s about convenience. And it was convenient for the Tory Party of the 90s to sell it off, making a fast and easy buck. It freed them of the responsibility too. New Labour likes that very much. That’s why this will only be a “temporary” nationalisation.

More’s the pity. Let’s just say, if even Peter Oborne and John Prescott agree that the railways should be in public hands – well… we’re obviously having the piss taken out of us by our politicians again.

Before I tell you what it is, though, please believe me when I say that I really haven’t thought it through, not even the most infinitesimal iota. This should sufficiently lower your expectations, as should the following list of recent ideas I have had:

1) A film in which all the scenes are shown in the correct order, but the soundtrack is played backwards. Once you think they’ve reached the exact middle point of the film, you put your hand up. Closest to the actual middle wins fudge.
2) If you fit all car bumpers with really strong magnets that repel each other, you’ll surely never have another crash again.
3) I wonder what this Brie would taste like if I dipped it in my tea?

So, here’s my ‘logic’. The government – let’s call them ‘Labour’ for the sake of argument – is deep in debt. So deep, in fact, that Domino’s Pizza won’t even allow them to set up a tab, delivery men instead instructing them that “it’s company policy, you gonna have to write to head office”. (Which, by the way, I’ve always imagined as just this one guy, sat on a pepperoni-encrusted throne at the back of a large chamber, accessible only by crossing a moat of melted cheese.)

At the same time, though, the world is slowly heating up because we’re being such shits to it, and before long we’ll be faced with the catastrophic, apocalyptic, worst-case scenario: being told “I told you so” by the Left. Or at least, the eight of them that genuinely did see this coming, and didn’t just go along to the rallies because they quite fancied that chick with the nose ring, who everyone said might swallow if given the appropriate opportunity.

Two seemingly intractable problems, then, with seemingly conflicting solutions. Which itch to scratch first? The less serious but more easily approached itch on your nose, or the more irritating but less accessible perplexment of your balls? Decisions, decisions.

In the circumstances, I humbly present my double-ended, nose/ball scratching device: sell the motorways.

As a non-expert, I don’t know how much Britain’s motorways are worth. It may turn out that the price you’d fetch for them would just about clear out the annual bill for Alistair Darling’s eyebrow dye. On the other hand, they might find that cat’s eyes are actually made of real diamonds, pushing the asking price sky-high. Whatever. I drive, but I’m still marginally less bothered about the ownership of the motorway network than I am about, say, the lingering possibility of a Fugees reunion. Let somebody else lay out traffic cones on the M62 at one in the morning.

When those eyebrows turn eighteen, they're going to turn round and shout: "You're not my real face! I'm going to find my real face!" And that'll be that, true enough.

“Oh!” you squeal, but private companies will start charging people to use the roads, turning a simple trip to the next county to see Aunt Dora into a pocket-gouging highway to hell. But, you see, road pricing was already on the way, it was just being introduced in a clumsy, cack-handed manner by a government who, let’s be honest, never really know what to charge for anything, be it a prescription or a peerage. If they ran a record store, they would probably charge on the basis of something like how long the album was, unwittingly rendering So Solid Crew’s They Don’t Know the most expensive piece of music in Britain. Let somebody else stick all those cameras in the ground and employ people to sit in a cold, windy booth for eleven hours a day collecting fistfuls of coins encrusted with used chewing gum. Get on with something important. Those eyebrows won’t darken themselves.

But the main, and crucial, consequence will be that eventually, as exasperated by the useless roads as they are by the useless trains, people will stop driving and retreat to more traditional forms of travel, such as the barge, the plough, and the ‘Mutton-Chugger’. Voilaaaar. Planet saved, national debt paid off, Liew knighted, knighthood rejected by Liew on the grounds that “it’s a bit white”.

Congestion on heavily trafficked roads could become a valuable revenue stream to finance the 21st century transportation infrastructure. An express lane can be value-priced. The pricing would be dynamic, responding to the amount of congestion. Drivers see the price at the toll entrance and have the option to use the express lane. When traffic is at standstill the express lane could bring in significant monies to finance lightrail and subsidize electric cars.

“Expansion of toll systems, including high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, value express lanes, truck-only lanes, and congestion pricing of existing lanes, could significantly increase revenues to offset the costs of new construction.” from The Role of Road Pricing in Reducing Traffic Congestion: Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, by Robert Atkinson published at the Progressive Policy Institute http://www.ppionline.org

The carpool lane opens the door to a notion of different levels of service. In economic life, product differentiation is usually accomplished by pricing. New toll roads can serve as congestion relievers and generate state revenue for infrastructure spending.

Areas of high-congestion with a toll lane are (HOT) “high occupancy/toll” lanes. See Kenneth A. Small’s article on “Transportation” in Making Cities Work: Prospects and Policies for Urban America.

There are two prerequisites for road-pricing – public familiarity and a feasible charging technology. Pricing is “dynamic”. The price varies in real time, depending on congestion levels in the adjacent lanes, in order to keep the HOT lanes busy yet congestion free. Drivers find tolls acceptable because reasonable substitutes remain free.

For research and results: Kenneth A. Small, Department of Economics, University of California-Irvine

Bern Grush is a congestion pricing advocate with awesomely-named blog.   Recently he put together a very helpful tutorial for why road pricing is a great idea.   Have a look:

Robin Chase on Zipcar and her next big idea | Video on TED.com.

I hadn’t visit TED.com for a while, but I’ve had two colleagues talk about two different talks on TED.  So I thought it was time to swing by that part of my bookmark list again and take a gander.

I wish the talks were more recent, but I guess the conference has to have some relevance when it’s held.  So I guess they delay all the videos until well after the conference.

In any case, Robin Chase is the founder of Zipcar.  Zipcar is one of two car sharing businesses in Vancouver.  The Cooperative Auto Network is the other one.

Robin talks about her Zipcar experience and what it’s done.  She also mentions a new venture called, Goloco, which builds on the idea of carsharing and transforms it into ridesharing.  Ridesharing that is arranged through wireless devices where you all arrange one ride for many people.

Her bigger idea in the second half of her talk is to change the country with peer to peer wireless devices that form a mesh network. I’m not familiar with the jargon, so it’s a bit confusing.  The talk is limited to under 15 minutes, so she doesn’t have time to get into what mesh networks really are and how they work. However, the concept looks like it has a lot of potential.  She wants a national system of mesh networks that can be easily set up and built up.  She criticizes existing wireless networks for being closed and proprietary.  I guess it’s how you may use Shell’s EasyPay for gas and MasterCard has PayPass to pay at select stores for food or groceries.  But what if they all worked on one network that everybody used.  If there is one network, then there can be a national interstate mesh network in place so that road pricing and tolls could be collected nationally.

I wish she had more time to talk, though.  The idea sounds exciting, but it needs more fleshing out for the ordinary person to understand better.

It’s one of the Internet’s great discussions when gas prices are high: should people “Drive Less” (copyright env-econ) or is there some cunning, effcient-based way we can have our cake and eat it too? I go for the first approach: supply and demand dictate price, so in the face of inelastic supply, reduce demand.

Yes, exactly what everyone loves to prescribe for everyone else, but hates to do by him/herself. Incidentally, anedoctal evidence seems to prove this position right (from Reuters: Americans hit the road again as gas prices fall):

As gasoline prices surged to record highs last year, drivers in the world’s top energy consumer cut fuel use at the greatest pace since 1983.

For U.S. consumers pinched by the economic crisis, falling gasoline prices have created what some analysts call a sort of “stimulus package” that has pumped billions of dollars in disposable income back into their wallets.

The modest increase in demand comes as average U.S. gasoline prices run at about $1.93 a gallon, down $1.23 from a year ago and about half the price of last July, according to government data issued this week.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said Wednesday that demand for motor fuel over the four weeks to February 27 hit 9.03 million barrels per day, up 2.2 percent from a year ago, as the price drop rekindled Americans’ famous love affair with their cars and the road.

…

“It’s better now because it used to cost me $60 to fill up. Now it’s $38,” she said. But costs remained a concern to her.

Yes, we just can’t escape the laws of supply and demand, now can we?

Is it the end of the road for road pricing? Two thirds of motorists say that they would not use proposed high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, according to the AA president addressing The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) seminar on road pricing today.

The new survey1 showed 65% of 7,380 AA Populus panel members said they would not use HOT lanes. Conversely 28% said they would use the lanes on occasions and 3% said they would use them all the time.

Raised speed limit
Even if they had the option to use the lane when in a hurry and the speed limit was raised to 80mph, only 35% would but 51% would still not use it out of principle.
These lanes, in which car sharers go free or those alone pay a small toll, were proposed by former Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly when she published Roads – ‘Delivering Choice and Reliability’ in July2. The Government and new Transport Secretary, Geoffrey Hoon are looking at taking these plans forward.
In April 2008 AA Populus panel members were asked whether they supported the principle of HOT lanes and 58% were opposed (17,400 responses April 2008). This latest research was carried out to explore in more detail motorists’ attitudes to HOT lanes.

Regional variation
Drivers in London and those in the North West said they were most likely to use these lanes (37% and 34% respectively) whilst those in Yorkshire and Humberside were least likely to (25%).

In a hurry
Panel members were also asked if they would pay to use a HOT lane when in a hurry and if the speed limit was set at 80mph rather than 70mph – panel members were still reluctant with only 35% saying that they would use them. Those in the 18-34 age category (45%) and drivers in London (57%) were most likely to say they would use the lanes in these circumstances.

Safety concerns
The proposal for having a higher speed limit in a HOT lane is not a firm one from the government but AA Populus panel members were in no doubt that there would be some safety concerns with 64% either somewhat (21%) or strongly (43%) agree that this sounded like a dangerous idea.

Coming home for Holidays, I was confronted with the fact that a long-feared measure for my fellow portuguese might be imminent: our SCUT are about to be priced.

The SCUT novella is a long, sorry one. Most of the facts can be read here – in Portuguese -, but the idea can be explained easily: the Portuguese government created, in 1997, a network of non-paid highways (SCUT is a Portuguese acronym for “Sem CUstos para os Utilizadores” – No COsts to the Users), ostensibly to help develop less developed areas of the country – and then ended up planting a large portion of them in the most developed areas, with the most voters, just as you would expect after reading anything about Political Economy. Problem was, there was no money to do it – so, instead of borrowing it, the then-government decided that the concept would be that of a highway with virtual tolls, the government paying a private contracted the fee for the estimated users. Essentially a toll give-away.
11 years have passed, and most of the have been filled with struggle about the SCUT network: they are simply too expensive for the Portuguese state. Besides, the “No COsts to the Users” concept itself is contrary to anything economists and environmentalists point out as desirable – the “User-Payer” or “Polluter-Payer” principles. So, I should be quite happy this pricing will happen. Road pricing and any measure that helps internalize the cost of driving around will reduce pollution and increase society welfare.

Not quite. The fact is these highways have become an important part of the Portuguese road transportation network, for instance linking the largest sea-port and the second largest airport in Portugal (Porto de Leixões and Aeroporto Francisco Sá Carneiro, respectively) to the rest of the country. Many of them have terrible, old alternatives, lacking in conditions for the predictable increase in traffic that will result from this measure. The increase in traffic inside villages and cities, to avoid the now-paid SCUTs will be a nuisance and might lead to unfortunate accidents. It will also, predictably, increase congestion, CO2 and other gases emissions, and fuel consumption. It will waste people’s time and hurt economic activity and the environment. Overall, everyone is poised to be worse-off, except for the Portuguese state.

Is there an alternative to pricing the SCUTs? Probably not. The whole idea is silly and unsustainable. It is a money drain from non-users to the precious few users. It might allow for slightly cheaper products in stores at the other end of the SCUT – but how much cheaper? But the fact is that there are no real alternatives to these highways – some of the cities linked don’t have train lines anywhere near and have delayed mending old, little used roads.

Off the top of my head, a few pointers for success of road pricing as an environmental measure:
- price highly congested areas, like cities, not the connections between them;
- yield management of pricing: charge lower congestion fees off-peak, rise them as congestion increases;
- tax vehicles according to their C02 emissions;
- provide alternatives, like buses and trains. Make sure these alternatives are competitive.
- price road usage especially high at weekends and bank holidays. Recreational usage of vehicles must be heavily taxed.

As you might imagine, I am sorry London substituted Ken Livingstone for Boris Johnson. And yes, I am a Top Gear fan as well.

Congestion charging in Britain, also known as road pricing, has been a hugely unpopular, constant threat to British people for several years. This week, the good people of Manchester voted overwhelmingly to reject congestion charges for cars driving in and out of the city. There was a high turnout (53% turnout as reported on the news) and a massive no vote. 79% voted against congestion charging in Manchester, which is almost four out of five people demonstrating that they are against road pricing.

Congestion charging is a flawed idea in Bully Britain anyway. Here’s why:

1. Pro-congestion charging people say that road pricing reduces pollution. However, the truth is that if we introduce a set of charges for driving at different times on different roads then drivers will feel it necessary to drive extra distance on varied, longer routes in order to save money.

2. Congestion charging is unfair to the poor. The entire concept of road pricing is to reduce the number of cars on the road by making it more expensive to drive, thus there will be less poor people on the road, leaving roads clearer for the rich to drive. Hardly charitable or considerate, is it? Talkjack thinks that this concept is immoral and tantamount to the rich bullying the poor off the roads.

3. Britain already has some of the most expensive, most highly taxed petrol and insurance in the world. British motorists pay more than enough for the privilege of driving.

4. The rationale behind road pricing is to reduce congestion on the roads. The inconvenient real reason for congestion on British roads is that the population of Bully Britain has risen dramatically due to immigration, and the average population age of Britain has increased over time. Therefore there are more tax paying motorists, but investment in new roads has been deliberately held back for political reasons.

5. Congestion charging is bad for local businesses because they will get less customers, and deliveries become more expensive.

Was the Manchester vote fair?

I believe that the Manchester vote was conducted in a way which actually increased the odds of a ‘Yes’ vote to the congestion charge. Here’s why:

The charge was advertised as mainly non-residents of Manchester would pay the charge (i.e. people commuting into or out of the city would mainly have to pay), and yet only the residents of Manchester were allowed to vote on it. I believe that controlling the right to vote, and denying everyone affected by a decision the chance to vote is a method which controls results, and if the vote goes your way allows you to claim that democracy made the decision when in fact politics and money speak louder in Britain.

Compare this to the voting for the unpopular Coventry BIDS scheme for example

No means No!

Will the authorities of Bully Britain listen to the ordinary people when they say a clear ‘No’ to congestion charging? Sounds unlikely. Already those who want to impose congestion charging on us against our wishes are moaning about the low turnout, when in truth 53% of the public is a rather high proportion these days.

To those with power in Bully Britain, I say: “Please listen to the ordinary people for a change. No means No!”

(c) Copyright Talkjack 2009

Image via Wikipedia

No one has a corner on success.
Pay the price for it and it is yours.

There is no easy road to success.
You’ve got to work a great deal harder than most people to get it.
Nothing worthwhile will come easily to you.
Hard work will accomplish results that last.

No matter what you want from life, you’ve got to give up something to get it.

There is no success at bargain basement prices.
You’ll find that the highway to success is a toll road.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Traveling Europe By Car
• Mexico City to Oaxaca – The Drive
• Canada’s oldest tollkeeper cottage opens in T.O.
• Terminating the Turnpike Authority: Good, Bad, Ugly?
• Increased Road Privatization On The Way, According to the Washington Post [Industry News]

Globe and Mail

Transport Canada is one of the sponsors of a conference in Toronto on road pricing. But there is little political interest in actually doing something – or, when there is an election in the offing – even thinking about doing something. But as David Mac Issac says

“If you look at the evidence … pricing is pretty much a guaranteed way to reduce greenhouse gases in the transportation sector,”

But his boss is warning the Tory party not to be “ideological”

Not that be opposed to new taxes around election time or worrying about budget deficits more than the probability of recession (or worse) is “ideological”.  Oh no, that’s just pragmatism.

In reality the sudden spike in fuel prices earlier this year showed that drivers do respond to price signals. They now look for cheaper cars to drive and in places where the transit system has some capacity to accommodate them, use transit more. It has been a good year for bicycle sales too.

Germa Bakker, project manager of Amsterdam’s road-pricing pilot project, said the Netherlands’ planned national road-pricing scheme, expected to start in 2012, will actually be revenue neutral. All other taxes applied to gas and automobiles will be phased out: “The principle is, the people who drive a lot will pay a lot.”

That seems very pragmatic to me too. For all of my career the big issues have really been about the seemingly unstoppable rise of automobile use.  It has alsways been blindingly obvious that as a society we could not afford the car. Firstly becuase of the number of people killed and seriously injured, which would be totally unnacceptable for any other mode of transportation. Then becuase of the impact on our lungs of all those emissions. Yes governments acted to increase control of both vehicle emissions and fuel standards, but the increase in vkt usually made up for any gains in that sphere. We began to be concerned about the impact on cities – of both congestion and the road building that was supposed to reduce it – usually long after it was clear that our politicians really did not have the intestinal fortitude to do what other places have been doing. And the same is true of greenhosue gas emissions which now sem to have trumped all other environmental issues – but of course not financial or economic ones.

Pricing is going to have to be the way that most sectors deal with ghg emissions, not just transport. And we are going to need politicians who are a lot better than Gordon Brown or Stephen Harper at tackling Big Issues. Brown gets some credit for coming up with a package of measures that were adopted in Britain to cope with the credit crunch. The fact that they looked at all good says a lot about what was wrong elsewhere – espcecially in the US. But again that is a short term issue. And painful though it might be, these things will sort themselves out as markets tend to do.

But the change in our climate is happenning much faster than anyone thought possible and all sorts of tipping points are whizzing by like missed deadlines. And what is now being contemplated are not just distant possibilities but inevitable collapse of systems on which we all depend. And you cannot argue with physics.

Of course Canadian cities are going to have to use road pricing.  Of course carbon prices are way too low right now. Of course politicians are going to have to make decisions that will not be popular and no one ever believes that a tax can be “revenue neutral”. But that does not exempt us from the need to do things very differently in future – and now – than we have in the past. And the sooner politicans get that idea into their heads the better.

Singapur will gruene Formel1

Grosse Pläne hatte er schon immer, Singapurs Gründervater Lee Kwan Yu. Bereits vor 40 Jahren, als er den Stadtstaat aus der Taufe hob, träumte Lee von einem «sauberen und grünen Singapur». Ein Ziel, dass er bis heute nicht aus den Augen verloren hat.

Der Mann, der auch mit 86 Jahren im Hintergrund die Zügel immer noch straff in der Hand hält, will aus Singapur die grünste Stadt Südostasiens machen. Waren es anfangs vor allem grosszügig angelegte Parkanlagen, mit denen Singapur sauber und grün werden sollte, will Lee die Bevölkerung heute zum Umdenken bewegen. Mit Anreizen will er Firmen und auch Privathaushalte zum Energiesparen anregen. Wer die Umwelt besonders schont, darf seine Firma zum Beispiel mit dem «Energy Smart Office Label» schmücken.

Aber auch in Singapur, der Stadt mit Vorbildfunktion in Asien, läuft der Umweltschutz vor allem über das Portemonnaie. Schon in den Siebzigerjahren führte Singapur, als erste Stadt der Welt, ein «Road Pricing»-System ein: Wer morgens mit dem eigenen Auto zur Arbeit fährt, wird kräftig zur Kasse gebeten. Die Rechnung liegt dann pünktlich zum Monatsende im Briefkasten und kann sich locker auf 60 Franken und mehr belaufen. Doch es hat sich gelohnt: Heute ist Singapur nicht nur die einzige Stadt in Südostasien ohne Stau und Smog-Glocke, sondern auch der Ort mit dem besten öffentlichen Verkehrssystem, an dem sich selbst europäische Städte orientieren, wie die Einführung des Road Pricings in London zeigt.

Und schon ruft Gründervater Lee ein weiteres Mal: «Majulah Singapora!» Bis 2020 soll es weiter vorwärts gehen mit der grünen Stadt und der Energieverbrauch pro Kopf um 20 Prozent gesenkt werden. Da passt der erste grüne Grand Prix voll und ganz ins Konzept.

Singapur die Löwenstadt
Singapur ist ein Insel- und Stadtstaat und das kleinste Land in Südostasien. Seine Fläche ist gerade mal so gross wie der Genfersee. Der Name stammt aus dem Sanskrit und bedeutet «Löwenstadt». Von den insgesamt 4,9 Millionen Einwohnern sind rund 77 Prozent Chinesen, 14 Prozent Malaien und 7,9 Prozent Inder. Hinzu kommt eine grosse Zahl von Gastarbeitern. Der Tourismus ist eine wichtige Einkommensquelle, jährlich besuchen etwa 12,6 Millionen Touristen Singapur. Gegenwärtig gibt es rund 120 grosse Hotels, ihre Zahl wächst aber ständig. Touristen sind hier meist auf der Durchreise: Sie bleiben im durchschnittlich nur 3,67 Tage.

Pascal Nufer, Journalist, erschienen auf powernewz.ch