Follow this blog:
RSS

Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?

By | September 25, 2009, 8:00 AM PDT

Anyone who drives in and around major metropolitan areas at rush hour doesn’t have to be told that traffic congestion is going from bad to worse. There’s nothing relaxing about driving the Capital Beltway around Washington, D.C. or I-405 in Los Angeles at 8:00 a.m. or 5:30 p.m.

According to a new IBM research report, as the world becomes more urbanized — with 70% of the population living in cities by the year 2050 — a number of cities are struggling to keep pace with increased traffic and congestion problems accompanying urban growth. The report shows that transport has emerged as an urgent priority for municipal planners who need to improve traffic flow in order to promote cleaner, less congested cities.

These bottleneck zones have a significant cost all around in lost hours spent in traffic delays.  In one study a few years back, the US Federal Highway Administration estimated that the infamous I-5 “Orange Crush” interchange outside of LA results in a total of 16 million hours annually of delays to commuters. (Yes, you read that right — millions of hours. And that’s based on 2002 stats — so you can imagine that figure would be much higher now.)  Here are some other shining examples:

  • Atlanta’s “Spaghetti Junction” interchange — the convergence of I-285 at I-85 — was estimated to waste more than 17 million hours a year in traffic jams and bottlenecks.
  • In Las Vegas, the “Spaghetti Bowl” is not a pasta feast, but rather a messy, overcooked sauce where U.S. 95 meets I-15, consuming more than 11 million hours annually.
  • Tampa’s “Malfunction Junction” — where I-275 meets I-4  — takes out more than 14 million hours a year. (The interchange was redesigned and reopened last year.)
  • U.S. 101 Ventura Freeway may be the stuff songs are written about, but when it crashes into I-405, it only has commuters singing the blues — to the tune of more than 27 million lost annually.

How can this congestion be alleviated?  Various strategies have been employed, from High-Occupancy Vehicle lanes to building out more mass transit.

What if we applied the laws of incentives to commuting habits? That is, if we want to use the most heavily traveled routes at rush hour, we’d be expected to pay for that privilege?

Here’s where information technology is stepping in to help. A compelling example emerging in Europe is a “congestion charging system” that has been employed with impressive results in Stockholm, Sweden.

IBM, the primary contractor for the system, said the system has significantly improved access to the Swedish capital by halving queuing times on access roads to the city in the mornings. City traffic is down by 18%, and CO2 emissions in the inner city have been cut by between 14% and 18%, based on estimates by Stockholm City Traffic authorities.

In addition, the number of “green” tax-exempt vehicles has almost tripled, with the study showing that the congestion charging system is the most influential factor in the decision to choose a “green” car. The number of commuters on public transport has increased by around seven percent or 60 000 passengers per day. During 2008, approximately 82 million vehicle passages were handled by the congestion charge system, which proved to be almost 100% accurate.

The system was rolled out in August 2007, following a successful pilot. Ulla Hamilton, Stockholm city commissioner of traffic and environment, describes how the results have panned out:

“It is quite clear that the positive effects of the congestion charging system are continuing. Reducing traffic volumes, decreasing CO2 emissions and improving accessibility is bringing significant benefits to the city, its visitors, and residents, and has been a major factor in Stockholm being awarded European Green Capital for 2010.  It is also satisfying to see that the retail business in the city has not suffered as a result of the traffic charging system, as many critics originally feared.”

The congestion charge is a national tax, with net income expected to be USD $84 million in 2010, returned to the Stockholm region for investment in traffic infrastructure.

The Stockholm system is the largest of its kind in Europe, with 18 barrier-free control points around the inner city equipped with cameras to identify vehicles around a 15-square-mile area. IBM said it is also assisting the cities of London, Singapore and Brisbane to address traffic management and congestion challenges.

Of course, European cities are far more compact than those in North America, which tend to sprawl in all directions, with the interstates following. Would the long-suffering commuters passing through the Orange Crush or Spaghetti Junction every day be willing to pay a little more for a little less congestion?

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Joe McKendrick

About Joe McKendrick

Joe McKendrick is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Joe McKendrick

Joe McKendrick

Contributing Editor, Business

Joe McKendrick is an independent analyst who tracks the impact of information technology on management and markets. He is the author of the SOA Manifesto and has written for Forbes, ZDNet and Database Trends & Applications. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in Pennsylvania.

Follow him on Twitter.

Joe McKendrick

Joe McKendrick

Joe McKendrick is an independent consultant and editor. Joe has performed project work for the following companies in the IT marketspace: IBM, Systinet/HP, Teradata. He has performed project work for the following organizations in partnership with Unisphere Research (Unisphere Media): IBM, Oracle Corp., International Oracle Users Group, Oracle Applications Users Group, Professional Association for SQL Server, International DB2 Users Group, International Sybase Users Group.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
30
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
I think it would be very effective, until...
...politicians do what they do, and start granting exceptions and
exemptions to various special interest constituencies. Sure, we're start off
exempting "green" cars. But in 5 or 10 years as more of the fleet
becomes "green" that will be nearly everybody. Such regulation would
discriminate against the "working poor" people, so there will have to be
exemptions or subsidies there, so on so forth until basically I'd be the only
one left actually paying.

I'd be all for it, if it were actually possible to stick to the basic concept.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
28th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Make it a tax on employers, so they would allow time-shifting. Otherwise, it just burdens people who would have to pay up almost regardless!
Posted by Roger Davis
28th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
The time lost while traveling during rush hour is already a significant tax. If people already have easy solutions in their lives to rush hour they've already taken them. But the problem is that many people simply cannot shift their lives by the hours each day necessary to avoid rush "hour". By definition, rush hour isn't over until the people leaving at 5 pm have reached their destinations, no matter how long it takes. So if you wait for rush hour to end before leaving work you still will always arrive later than if you started out during rush hour. This is the fundamental problem with any kind of scheme to alleviate rush hour congestion. It simply does not save time to travel during non-rush hour periods unless you can shift your whole life by hours. If you have kids or other responsibilities, how practical is that?

Just what would a monetary tax do to alleviate this? It won't build new roads unless it's huge, and that's just not possible in today's economy. You might have special lanes for green cars and carpoolers, but it won't be long until these fill up as well (after all, in a few years many cars will probably qualify as "green"). I suppose you could, for example, make the tax so large that it's cheaper to pay a babysitter for longer hours with the kids, but most people would abhor the loss of time with their kids (in many cities young kids are in bed before evening rush hour ends). Thus trying to solve rush hour woes by putting a monetary tax on top of the existing time tax is a misbegotten attempt at social engineering that will not solve anything.
Posted by zackers
28th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
How about encouraging alternative start times / leave times. For example, most business start around 8:00 AM, but what about an incentive for those businesses that start at 9:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 11:00 AM, or for companies that stagger their workforce's start times along those same lines (ex. a 1/3 comes in at 9:00 AM, next third at 10:00 AM, and so on)? - S. David Brown
Posted by godbacchus
28th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Slick idea, except for ...
Parts of the US have the population density to support high capacity mass transit, others don't. To enact a 'one size fits all' law is ludicrous at best, and can even be challenged as regionally discriminatory, or, if the ethnic makeup of a negatively-affected region is sufficiently different from the national norm, racially discriminatory at worse.

The closer the law makers are to the regions being impacted, the better. Regional authorities (not state, and definitely not federal) must be given the authority to review each situation on its own merits and impose a solution that works best for the area.
Posted by LarryPTL
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Typical Big Government thinking
Boy the socialists running around this country just can't charge enough taxes. Big Government needs more regulations and more of our money to waste.

Get it a rest ! People are saddled enough as it is if we even have jobs. May be if we lose enough jobs we won't have to worry about rush hour. May be that is this administration's plan all along !

People are tired of hearing the myth of global warming. The globe is indeed cooling. Enough taxes and regulations. Pretty soon we will be the USSA here. This socialist crap doesn't work in other countries and is ruining this one.

Another poorly researched left-wing article published by ZDNet.
Posted by pizzaman7
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Not in the USA they won't
Congestion charging works in Europe because the poorest people tend to live in the city centre where the mass transit networks they rely on are cheap and fairly well funded.

Wealthy commuters may choose to afford to drive through the city, price sensitive commuters probably won't.

This isn't the case in the majority of American cities where the poorest workers are often faced with the longest commutes and would be the main victims of it.

A minimum wage commuter living in the suburbs probably won't have access to a metro or commuter line, they have no choice but to drive.
Posted by webbod
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
I've been driving for nearly 40 years and have logged millions of miles from coast to coast. In my experience, the biggest cause of traffic congestion (and vehicle related pollution) is the concept espoused by traffic control experts that the best way to control traffic is to bring as many cars as possible to a complete stop, as often as possible, for as long as possible. In my hometown, they have even put stop lights on highways, just to cater to the local universities football fans.

With this mindset, is it any wonder people spend a large portion of their day sitting in an idling vehicle, wasting fuel and adding pollution to the atmosphere?

Historically, raising taxes has never solved any problems, just created more. And, what effect would this tax have on people already drowning in debt?
Posted by Presspop
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Of course it won't work, but it would allow government to collect more taxes and build more government to administer this new department with more people who need more of your taxes to grow their ever expanding staff. Did commuter lanes ease traffic? Only when there is no traffic. Eventually we have to face the reality that our world is a limited resource. No matter how efficient we become we will run out of resources such as water and space. The population needs to stabilize and that is not going to happen as long as you have mass migrations. Migration is the most significant factor in population surge.
Posted by dougbeer
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
I think that Mr. Henry Ford when He started the assembly line never thought about massive transportation an moving out of work at the same time. Now We all have to faced. After living and working in the New York area for 11 years, I can only agree in one thing,there is a time to do things, and things to do in a special time. But I also think that it would be best improve in regulate in a scalate way the time We get in to work. Only if we can change in 30 minutes intervals, or even get out of the city the people who lives more far away first in intervals; and later the people who lives closer also in intervals, would make it easier for everyone.
Example: From Eastnorthport in Long Island to New York City is about 1 hour with no traficc, but it takes 2 to 3 1/2 hours when is rush hour.
How many millions of hours/gas/and peace of mind that would bring. Besides using ?green?cars,for the moment in time whe have to already do those changes,for the health and always benefit on peoples lives , not on the pockets of governments.
From spain
Posted by ivanson1962@...
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Taxing commuters is a dumb idea, especially in the U.S. This country was created to be mobile, and the only solution for traffic congestion around cities is staggered hours, which are allowed to change between businesses so that everyone has a chance to get off work early at times.
Posted by ITOdeed
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Astonished
It truly amazes me how, in North-America, everyone is so self-centric. No solution to improve anything will ever pass because nobody is willing to consider changes that will somehow require changes in their lives. "Green" tax is bad because Americans don't want to give up their 2-ton SUVs or Pickups, and doing so would be subject to a "waste-tax".
North-America is only days off of anarchy (imagine 2-weeks of no electricity or rationed supply of fuel) - it is not socialism to try to restructure the society so none of that would take place. Sorry, but Individual wants must take back seat to societal needs.
Posted by TrustMe_z
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Here's a pro-public transport European view (British):
I have visited LA area and the Beltway too - warnings for other countries of the futility of building more and bigger Roads !
A rush-hour tax or Congestion Charge appears to me to work reasonably well but only where there exist - or are created - cost-effective alternatives to car use, i.e. changing behaviour can avoid the tax.
It is all too easily condemned as just another money-raising ruse.
The problem is complex of course - for instance, free and easy parking at workplaces hardly discourages car use.
I appreciate that in the USA in particular (see Who Framed Roger Rabbit) alternatives have sometimes been killed by those who make more Cash from us consuming cars, tyres, fuel, etc. Does Exxon or Texaco care if you sit in traffic - you still burn fuel? .
There is often a problem of "perceived need" i.e. My journey must be by Car, You and They should be on the bus.
Tax money collected needs to be seen to be put into viable alternatives: in London large numbers of new buses accompanied the C-Charge introduction.
I disagree with one previous post suggesting that only the "urban poor" travel by mass transit: here in the UK fares tend to make it quite well-heeled really:-)
BUT an issue for persuading people out of cars - again where any alternative exists - is to ensure that say, buses are not perceived as dangerous and/or scummy.
Investment is the key - when there is a social Problem affecting most of us and commerce backs the problem, surely only government can help solve it?
Posted by laytonai
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
I think more Rail service is to be discussed. There is alot of "Wasted space" under all these 4-8 lane hiways and medians that are just sitting there to be exploited. Albiet, not all hiways benefit from alot of unused realestate. Figure on how this could create jobs, bring in more revenue for gov't, business alike. Be a little greener. We also have the technology to borrow under almost anything imaginable, so conjestion due to destruction/construction could be minimized. Fund it by stopping "Pork- belly Politics"; spending on stupid stuff like giving money away to countries that support or have supported terrorism; lowering Congressional salaries; Stop ongoing Wars...,etc.! This is the tip of the iceburg for everything concidering finances. Congress will never get it right no matter what or how they do it anyways. I feel that this issue with transportaion will never really be solved! Until one day no more Oil to burn...then what next? A tax on producing Electricity?
Posted by jabos69
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Inappropriate; Wrong Tool
Taxes are to be used to raise the money to pay for things that the general
public needs. They are NOT to be a forced morality.

I get a job that requires that I be there at such and such hours, I am NOT
choosing to sit in bottlenecked traffic an extra hour of my life. You'll be
extorting money, but it won't do much (if anything) about the bottleneck.
Posted by SpectreWriter
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Interesting replies I have to say. Currently living in Chicago area where
15 minute drive at right time can take two up to three hours if anything
"interesting" has happened on road. Interesting means someone just
stopped way out of the road. Or when you hit drivers going one at the
time when lights change, they first have to end the phone
conversation. Or when someone thinks that changing lanes 40 times
in a mile gets them faster where ever they are going. Or - when you try
to keep on speed limit and hit every light just turning red in front of
you?

So, many reasons! Yes, sometimes it is the weather but even then it's
the drivers trying to make five lanes on three lane road and, of course,
messing the whole system up.

There are many ways, one teaching the drivers and really forcing the
traffic laws / rules. This helped amazingly well for example on 280 in
CA, you block the traffic and get a ticket, the difference was like day
and night. Cops watch the speeding but if you block, they ticket you,
not the car speeding - since then the driving has been much nicer
there. Same mostly in Europe, block the traffic, intersection, whatever
and get a ticket. Of course the "green waves" have helped - Helsinki,
Finland which can have very bad traffic started those in 70's, much
better (not even near perfect!) since then.

Now, no country can have a public transportation everywhere but at
least I, driving years 30K to 50K per year, take public transportation if
it's available. Most places not too bad, not even in US, even in
Seattle, going between west and east, there is public transportation
and almost always faster than using own car. Chicago and suburbs
have (mostly) it very good but still - a lot of people choose sitting 1
and half to two hours in car both ways, go figure?

Maybe if the universities still would use traffic (and elevator)
simulation / optimizing in their education material, we might have it
better? Used to be 101 in CS but haven't seen it a long time?
Posted by tuomo@...
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Well Here in Miami they solved the problem: remove 2 free expressway
lanes and make them variable toll 'express lanes', then a few cars will
ride less slowly while all around is stucked! Miami is becoming TollCity
and the traffic is getting worse.
I lived many years in Paris France, inner city no need for a car. Just
rent one to go in weekend. An dense grid of efficient mass
transportation allow to reach any point of the city in less than 30mn,
and you can read while travelling.
The only way is high speed and efficient mass transportation with well
interconnected lines (high speed train, express metro, metro and bus)
Metro is to be the main transport as bus get stucked also in the traffic.
I Miami we voted for a half penny sales tax for a mass transportation,
but our crooked politicians stole a big part of that money in wage raises
and benefit raises, and bad contract to friends....
As I read above, I always say why no build metro lines with the express
ways, there is plenty of space for that and those are running E/O and
N/S, this would be a good start for express metro lines.
Put big parking at big stations and people can park and ride.
In the 19 century, Baron Haussman started big works in Paris, opening
the streets, he start building the metro.
That was not an easy task. We need such big projects, and this could
help the economy.
In the future, the winning cities will have mass transportation in place.
You can add to that sharing electric cars.
Then what can be done in
Posted by belpoub
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
As others have pointed out, much of the cause of rush hour congestion isn't the number of cars on the road so much as the way they are driven. Simulations have shown that people pursuing strategies to speed up their commute often cause massive backups for others. Huge backups often result from the slightest disruption in the normal flow of traffic, such as when someone hits the brakes unnecessarily.

The solution to the problem could be in developing the technology to link cars wirelessly with the smarts to cooperate with each other at speeds faster than humans can achieve. For example, during lane merges adopting an every other car weave of the two lanes is much more efficient than having one car rush to the very end of the merging lane and then "demanding" to be let in, causing a huge backup behind it. As another example, at street lights with a lot of cars backed up, many more cars would make it past the intersection if all cars immediately accelerated and moved ahead at the same rate when the light turned green, instead of waiting a half minute or more in the back to start out. These kinds of "virtual" commuter trains could go a long way to increasing the capacity of our roads without a massive infrastructure investment.
Posted by zackers
29th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Pizzaman7, you got it..
Pizzaman7 in post #6 said it all.. I only hope that the problem can be corrected in 2012, unless it will be to late..
Posted by tgreaves21227@...
30th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Of course it would not work. Having traveled the 101 405 Freeway nightmare commute, I assume all doing the same have the similar situation that they have tried every alternative and the alternatives are even worse ie. costlier in out of pocket and or time expense
Posted by billt1961@...
5th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Yes, in the same way it avoid the "not billionaires" to enjoy space tours.

I live in Sao Paulo, Brazil, a major inflated size megalopolis which have the same problem. For about 15 years we've been using a system like "from 7:00 Am through 10:00AM and from 5:00PM through 8:00PM, cars which have plates ending in 1 or 2 cannot drive on central areas at Mondays. At Tuesdays the goal is cars having finals 3 and 4 and so on".

It does not work either. Here in Brazil, the working mass can only afford to possess 1 car, while the "richer" have many cars to escape the process.
Posted by Vedolin
6th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Don't forget the side effects
What other traffic snarls would a congestion tax cause? How much would it affect surface streets and other roads not in the network?

Atlanta is a great case study for that. They implemented ramp meters to limit the number of cars that could merge onto the freeway. It improved the speed of freeway traffic. However, it pushed the congestion back to the feeder streets. My 40-minute freeway drive might only be 30-minutes with the ramp meters on, but the 5-minute drive to get to the onramp turned into a half-hour. (That particular ramp meter is now turned off more often than not.)
Posted by demhart@...
6th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
You have lived with this system, building networks to encourage it for gemerations. You pay me for the inconvenience it's going to cause me for your short-sightedness
Posted by SammyNE
8th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Telecommute? De-centralize?
Nanny-state thinking never ceases to amaze me. The solution to every problem is another tax, another agency or bureau and more pork for politicians and their cronies.

Whatever happened to out-of-the-box thinking? American know-how and creativity? How many of these commuters go to work every day, sit at the same desk, use the same computer and answer the same phone? Perhaps they attend a meeting or two?

ALL of those activities can be done via telecommuting! VPNs, IP Phones, and Virtual meetings with Web cams can accomplish these tasks NOW at minimal cost.

How about a reward (carbon credit?) for work-hours of employees who telecommute, rather than a punishment (tax) on commuters who must come to work?

It can be a win-win-win: Employees get back the hours and expense of commuting EVERY DAY; the employer gets a happier employee who is better rested, the need for expensive office space goes down, and many studies have shown that telecommuting employees are more productive with fewer distractions; and the the nation and planet get less-crowded roads, fewer cars and less pollution.

Costs to the employer: a little technology and some security practices. Cost to the employee: a home office that may be tax-deductible and some digital bandwidth that the employer may choose to reimburse. Cost to the nation: nothing unless the politicians decide on a tax credit. (translation: nothing.)

But the politicians lose their pork. So it won't happen.
Posted by oldbaritone
9th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Great observations and discussion -- thanks, readers. Personally, if it were up to me, I would put in a lot more light rail systems throughout US cities (European cities are well networked with light rail), and encourage telecommuting in a big way. I agree with the previous reader's comment that telecommuting does not cost anything, and saves a lot in the long run -- both in employee health, corporate costs (real estate), and the environment. No taxes required.
Posted by Joe McKendrick
10th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
I really don't think that would work!
Posted by kilokila
15th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Tax would solve nothing but lightening wallets
Alleviate? No. A tax would deter some people from driving, but for the majority who have no other option, it would simply make commuting more expensive. Then we'd have to drive farther for higher pay to cover the tax, compounding the problem.

As others already experienced, it would also spread the congestion to other areas.

I'd love to be able to use public transit, if it were available. As I'm in a service industry, that isn't a viable option for me. Let me have a fully remote office at home and now we're talking progress.
Posted by Suncat2000
24th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
It has not worked so well as you are led to believe.
Hello, I live and work in Stockholm Sweden, in fact i drive LHVs (25 meter long goods vehicles) in and around the stockholm area allday everyday! and have done for a good few years. The congestion problems in stockholm have been very bad for a long time,and it is good to see that the gouvernment are trying to do something to relieve it. The traffic queues here used to begin around 7 or 8 in the morning in the worst areas, and would last untill well after 9. Since the implementation of this toll there hasnt been much of a change for the better. I believe the results that people have been fed are statistics from the summer months when Sweden almost completely shuts down and the vast majority are on holiday (and creating conjestion elsewhere).

In reality all this part-time toll charge has created is a shift in the rush hour. What i mean by this is instead of traffic starting at 7a.m the queues now begin around 5.45 or 6am BEFORE the tolls do.

OK now lets look at this from another angle so people can make their minds up. At the beginning of this article you wrote,

'The congestion charge is a national tax, with net income expected to be USD $84 million in 2010'

a part time charge ONLY applying to Swedish registered vehicles (non swedish registered vehicles are required to pay, nor are eco vehicles, taxis or busses) and a population of 1.3 million people in the district of Stockholm, how many vehicles need to pass the toll control points to get close to this sum you are mentioning.

Sounds ok, well consider that an average person pays between 31 and 33% tax on their wages 22% VAT on the goods they buy, and still have to pay a yearly road tax, amongst others.

Toll times in stockholm,

Tax amount per trip both in and out of City.

Prices are in swedish kronor (10kr is 1.46 USD)
06.30-06.59 10
07.00-07.29 15
07.30-08.29 20
08.30-08.59 15
09.00-15.29 10
15.30-15.59 15
16.00-17.29 20
17.30-17.59 15
18.00-18.29 10


Det maximala skattebeloppet per kalenderdygn och bil ?r 60 kronor.

source:-http://www.skatteverket.se/skatter/fordon/trangselskatt.4.383cc9f31134f01c98a80001292.html
Posted by tony2dzenii
15th Nov 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Would a rush-hour tax alleviate our worst traffic bottlenecks?
Whenever the price of gas goes up, my commute improves, so just tax gasoline more and use the revenue for mass transit (light rail, street cars, improved bus service and high speed rail).

I have previously lived in Seattle (freeway oriented) and returned to Portland (transit oriented) because the commute is so bad in Seattle.
Posted by mbrown@...
19th Nov 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah... more socialism won't hurt business! No way... never!
According to city planning bureaucrat Ulla, everything's just great!

Freedom? Lessons of history? Reality? None are given a moment's worth of discussion here. Disgusting.

Heather, and Joe bill themselves as "Business Brains". I say it's not hard to tell which part of their anatomy their brains reside.
Posted by Fasty
8th Dec 2009
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!