Xinhua comments on congestion charging: taxpayers pay for bad public service | smog | congestion charge | taxpayers _ news

Rule blocking on "restricted", and haze "blows", or much the same in the future, charges.

Earlier media questioning many of the parking mess unanswered, in Beijing to ease traffic congestion and to receive a "congestion charge". Recently, the Beijing Municipal Committee of the CPPCC proposal handling smog control, held consultations the outgoing message, Beijing Municipal traffic Commission municipal development and Reform Commission, environmental protection agency, the departments of public security traffic management Bureau, Beijing traffic congestion charge has been preliminary policy options and technical solutions, is currently organizing a further in-depth study and discussion.

Congestion charging, in heavy traffic periods, some regional economic instruments for road user charges a fee. Its written is sounds a bit awkward in fact very simple: which block and which charge when plug when charging.

The money is in one sense is the use of economic levers move the motorist to avoid the hot sections, or using public transportation. The other hand, the conventional understanding, congestion charges will also be used to ease traffic congestion. But in Beijing, many of the so-called "General block" is actually a daily traffic of "path". "The only way" whether congestion is really just because it caused it?

Suzhou bridge from North to South, North third ring road, for example, is almost daily plug plug points, its North-South Road in just 900 metres in length, from differentiation to 3-lane overpass sections 1-lane, with drivers saying, "no blocking is singularly strange." In Beijing, such as unreasonable scheme and amendments to the sections very difficult everywhere.

Vehicles to avoid blocking points, also need to road vehicles optional, no optional congestion charges and highway money what's the difference? From the perspective of urban planning is not reasonable cause congestion, congestion charges and can be understood to make taxpayers pay for bad public services. Congestion caused by such unwise plan and that we the inefficiency of the city cannot be "sins", simply due to the "cart".

In addition, another objective of the congestion charge is to reduce the intensity of use of motor vehicles, driven by public transportation. But considering the actual situation of Beijing public transport, Metro, buses and other public vehicles in rush-hour congestion has become an office worker tortured journey. Continue to increased intensity of congestion, passenger limits or vehicle capacity can reach the needed scientific explanation? And trace it to its source, as we all know, is concentrated in the inner city in the workplace, resulting in internal and external traffic tidal day after day, root knot of urban planning abuses are not resolved. Now once the congestion charge levy, will guide the vehicle user to switch to public transport, when a sudden increase in the number of public resources is used, the original user will feel public interest losses.

More crowded, more crowded, more crowded, crowded not ... ... They hire who who? This truth consistent with the cascade effect of odd-row--to sacrifice not to buy a car The way is clear the interests of the people.

Public awareness on the charge given "understand" the only reason, that is, to achieve the effective mitigation of congestion, thereby improving the overall efficiency of city. But for now, the authorities concerned have not given a clear data, collecting congestion charge can reduce the number of vehicles travel? Need to reduce the number of cars on the road can significantly alleviate congestion? Improved efficiency benefits over congestion charging the increased travel costs?

In short, the current congestion charge levy is still in public opinion does not support, logical not fluent, objectives are not clearly defined "three noes" position.

"Congestion charge" how to position this initiative, has always been the symptoms, not the causes. Traffic jam is every mega-city-dwellers in the world, cars not only from the growing number of direct testimony on China's economic takeoff, more evidence that he failed to keep pace with the rapid city planning when traffic demand. Deviations from expected appear in urban planning should be to find ways to alleviate and correct as soon as possible.

Congestion charge if the introduction, where people not only need to see the money, and more to see that behind the decision to correct what the root of the urban planning act. "Legacy" is the difficulty of correcting, and not radical means should be avoided and only limited lines, paying election election of the "excuses".

Responsible editor: Chen yan SN225

Article keywords:
Smog congestion charge taxpayers

I want feedback
Save a Web page
Xinhua

新华社评拥堵费:让纳税人为糟糕的公共服务买单|雾霾|拥堵费|纳税人_新闻资讯

　　治堵靠“限”，治霾靠“吹”，未来或将又多一样，收费。

　　此前媒体追问多次的停车费乱象尚未得到解答，北京市为缓解城市拥堵又要收取一项“拥堵费”。近日，北京市政协召开的雾霾治理问题提案办理协商会传出消息，北京市交通委会同市发改委、环保局、公安交管局等部门，已初步制定了北京市交通拥堵收费政策方案和技术方案，目前正在组织进一步深入研究和论证。

　　拥堵费，指在交通拥挤时段，对部分区域道路使用者收取一定的费用的经济手段。其书面道理听起来有些拗口实际上非常简单：哪堵哪收费，啥时候堵啥时候收费。

　　这笔钱从一方面讲，是用经济杠杆撬动驾车人避开热点路段，或者改用公共交通出行的方法。另一方面，常规理解，拥堵费也将使用于疏解交通拥堵的用途。但在北京市，很多所谓的“常规堵点”实际上是日常交通中的“必经之路”。而这些“必经之路”的拥堵是否真的是仅仅因为车多而造成的呢？

　　以北京市北三环苏州桥由北至南的路段为例，几乎是每天必堵的堵点，其由北至南的道路在短短900米的长度内，从原本的3车道分化至立交桥路段的1车道，用司机的话说，“不堵就奇了怪了”。在北京，如这样因为规划不合理且修正难度极高的路段在可谓比比皆是。

　　引导车辆规避堵点，也需要让车辆有路可选，无路可选的拥堵费与拦路收钱有何区别？从城市规划不合理导致拥堵的角度来看，拥堵费又可以被理解为让纳税人为糟糕的城市公共服务买单。而这种失策规划所造成的拥堵，亦证明了我们不能将城市运行效率低下的“罪过”，简单归结于“车多”上来。

　　此外，拥堵费的另一目的是降低机动车使用强度，驱使大家采用公共交通出行。但结合北京的公共交通实际情况来看，地铁、公交等公共交通工具在高峰期的拥挤程度已然成为上班族的煎熬旅程。继续增大拥挤强度，乘客的承受极限或者车辆调度能力能否达到需要有科学的解释？而且，究其根源，其实众所周知，是工作场所高度聚集于内城，导致内外城交通潮汐日复一日，城市规划的根结弊端不解决。而如今拥堵费一旦开征，将引导机动车使用者改用公共交通，当使用公共资源的人数突然增多时，原本的使用者就会感到自己的公共权益受到了损失。

　　更挤、更挤、更挤、压根挤不上去……他们招谁惹谁了？这一道理与单双号限行的连带效应基本一致——为了道路通畅而牺牲了没有购买汽车人群的利益。

　　公众对这一收费赋予“理解”的唯一理由，就是能够实现对拥堵的有效缓解，从而提高城市运行的整体效率。但从目前来看，有关方面并未给出相关明确清晰的数据，收了拥堵费能减少多少车辆出行？道路上需要减少多少车才能明显缓解拥堵？提高的效率利益能超过拥堵费所增加的出行成本吗？

　　简而言之，目前拥堵费的征收依然处于民意不支持、逻辑不通顺、目标不清晰的“三不”境地。

　　无论把“拥堵费”这一举措如何定位，始终是治标不能治本的方法。堵车是世界上每一个特大型城市的通病，汽车数量的增长不仅从直观上见证了中国经济的起飞，更证明了彼时的城市规划没能跟上突飞猛进的交通需求。城市规划中出现与预期的偏差，应尽快想办法缓解和纠正。

　　拥堵费如果真的开征，市民不仅需要看到这笔钱用在何处，更要看到决策背后为城市规划的纠正还做出哪些治本之举。“历史遗留”是纠正的难点，而不应是避开根治手段而只在限行、收费上选来选去的“借口”。

责任编辑：陈琰 SN225

文章关键词：
雾霾 拥堵费 纳税人

我要反馈
保存网页
新华网