论文部分内容阅读
The government of Beijing announced in a press conference in early September that the city is planning to collect rush hour fees in the coming years, an attempt to relieve increasingly serious traffic congestion.
Due to the rapid development of China’s auto industry and market, the number of cars in downtown Beijing has increased sharply within just a few years. Meanwhile, traffic infrastructure construction is far outpaced by the wild growth of vehicles. In order to improve local traffic conditions and smooth traffic flows, particularly in rush hour, Beijing is to implement a series of new traffic regulations, including the collection of rush hour fees.
Rush hour fees are not a new idea. In 2007, the coastal city of Shenzhen in south China’s Guangdong Province attempted to collect such fees to ease traffic jams during peak hours. The city discussed charging the fees again in March this year, but still failed to implement it because of the controversy it provoked.
The decision of Beijing to collect congestion fees once again put the topic in press headlines. Jiang Kejun, a researcher with the National Development and Reform Commission, said that now is not an ideal time for Beijing to collect rush hour fees because public transportation has not been improved to meet the demand. Drivers also have concerns that congestion fees will aggravate their burden of owning a car. The following are excerpts of some opinions:
Supporters
Zhong Nanshan (www.sina. com.cn): Collecting rush hour fees is a kind of administrative interference, and in the long run, it will help to greatly ease traffic jams. In addition, fumes from car exhaust are a major cause of PM 2.5 pollution. When this fee is implemented, drivers will be discouraged from flooding the streets. Thus, I support the collection of this fee.
Cui Dongshu (China Youth Daily): Issuing rush hour fees is a reasonable tool to control traffic jams—more effective than the limits on car purchases. Today, Beijing’s downtown area is already unable to support the increase of cars. Besides, congestion fees will not affect Beijing’s auto market, because it is only imposed on the downtown area. The limit of using cars will not discourage people from buying vehicles.
Zhang Zhiyong (China Youth Daily): Compared with the current policy of car purchase limitations and restricted driving, collecting rush hour fees is more reasonable. If it is properly handled, traffic congestion and environmental pollution can be better addressed. Restricting the purchase of cars not only is unfair but also will affect the development of the auto industry and even the tourism industry. On the contrary, traffic congestion fees will not.
Opponents
Luo Xu (Dazhong Daily): South Korea began to collect rush hour fees in Seoul as early as 1996. Some experts in the country have said that since the fee began to be collected, average travel time has greatly reduced. Though the fee charge policy was successful in Seoul, we must still ask whether a policy suitable for South Korea will suit China as well.
One thing is certain: South Korea has fewer official cars than China, not only in terms of the total number, but also in terms of the average number per capita. It is a conservative estimate that China owns around 3.5 million official vehicles. Today, local governments’ official car expenses are increasing at a pace of 20 percent every year. What I want to stress is that these official cars depend on public expenses, so they will not be affected by the collection of rush hour fees.
In the late 1990s, London began to push forward the scheme of rush hour fees. Up to now, London has collected a total of ￡800 million ($1.28 billion), but the city’s traffic congestion remains terrible.
When London, a city of far fewer official cars, fails to solve traffic congestion by collecting these fees, how can we expect China—a country of a huge number of official cars—to solve this problem using similar means?
Actually, some experts have already pointed out that curbing the number and growth of official cars is an effective way to relieve traffic pressure on city roads. This is also a common practice elsewhere in the world.
For example, in South Korea, there were once 2.78 million cars. In order to solve the problem of traffic congestion and limited parking, the municipal government of Seoul started a reform of official cars. When Seoul’s total official cars decreased to 47, the city’s traffic congestion was effectively eased. Seoul’s traffic problem was solved by means other than rush hour fee collection. So, in China the first step to solving the traffic congestion problem in cities is to control official cars, rather than rely on fees.
Sun Ruizhuo (China Business News): Beijing is planning to collect rush hour fees to ease the pressure on the city’s traffic. The question is whether this fee program will really help to clear Beijing’s overcrowded streets.
In my opinion, we need to learn lessons from London’s negative example. The traffic situation is worse comparing when the plan was first put forward. In 2007, it took a car 2.27 minutes to travel 1 km, while it took 2.3 minutes in February 2003.
The government’s administrative expenditures ate up a large amount of the collected fees, while little was spent on the improvement of the city’s public traffic system. In the year 2007, while administrative expenditures reached ￡160 million ($256 million), less than￡10 million ($16 million) of the revenue was spent on bus upgrades and the improvement of the traffic system. As a result, London’s rush hour fee collection system is criticized as a bureaucratic waste.
Without a reasonable plan for improving the overall traffic system, rush hour fees will easily be embezzled as funds to serve a small group of privileged people or departments. More importantly, rush hour fees should come with the condition of building a fully developed public traffic system and a more mature traffic management and road planning system. Otherwise, no matter how heavy the fee burden is, city traffic will not ease up.
Pei Jiaojian (Xinmin Evening News): On one hand, we cannot guarantee that other countries’ success can be repeated in China. On the other hand, car users who earn less and are unwilling to pay the extra fee may ultimately bend to it because of their need to drive. Today, gas prices are already very high, but seldom do we see drivers give up cars because of these high expenses. As long as public buses, subways and other public traffic options are less than ideal, collecting rush hour fees will do little to ease traffic pressure in big cities.
Actually, Beijing has already set a good example in solving the congestion problem by offering cheap public transportation services. In the first working day after the New Year holiday, when the new transportation program was launched by Beijing Public Transport Holdings Ltd., buses were operating in a good order. Buses were sent on routes at much shorter intervals than ever before, while 70 percent of the buses reached their destinations on time. All bus lines are working smoothly, and most buses charge passengers only 0.4 yuan ($0.06) no matter how long the bus line is. More and more people are choosing public buses, and though the roads are still very crowded sometimes, the situation has improved greatly. This proves that a welldeveloped and friendly public transportation service network is the best solution to congestion problems, rather than the proposed rush hour fees.
Due to the rapid development of China’s auto industry and market, the number of cars in downtown Beijing has increased sharply within just a few years. Meanwhile, traffic infrastructure construction is far outpaced by the wild growth of vehicles. In order to improve local traffic conditions and smooth traffic flows, particularly in rush hour, Beijing is to implement a series of new traffic regulations, including the collection of rush hour fees.
Rush hour fees are not a new idea. In 2007, the coastal city of Shenzhen in south China’s Guangdong Province attempted to collect such fees to ease traffic jams during peak hours. The city discussed charging the fees again in March this year, but still failed to implement it because of the controversy it provoked.
The decision of Beijing to collect congestion fees once again put the topic in press headlines. Jiang Kejun, a researcher with the National Development and Reform Commission, said that now is not an ideal time for Beijing to collect rush hour fees because public transportation has not been improved to meet the demand. Drivers also have concerns that congestion fees will aggravate their burden of owning a car. The following are excerpts of some opinions:
Supporters
Zhong Nanshan (www.sina. com.cn): Collecting rush hour fees is a kind of administrative interference, and in the long run, it will help to greatly ease traffic jams. In addition, fumes from car exhaust are a major cause of PM 2.5 pollution. When this fee is implemented, drivers will be discouraged from flooding the streets. Thus, I support the collection of this fee.
Cui Dongshu (China Youth Daily): Issuing rush hour fees is a reasonable tool to control traffic jams—more effective than the limits on car purchases. Today, Beijing’s downtown area is already unable to support the increase of cars. Besides, congestion fees will not affect Beijing’s auto market, because it is only imposed on the downtown area. The limit of using cars will not discourage people from buying vehicles.
Zhang Zhiyong (China Youth Daily): Compared with the current policy of car purchase limitations and restricted driving, collecting rush hour fees is more reasonable. If it is properly handled, traffic congestion and environmental pollution can be better addressed. Restricting the purchase of cars not only is unfair but also will affect the development of the auto industry and even the tourism industry. On the contrary, traffic congestion fees will not.
Opponents
Luo Xu (Dazhong Daily): South Korea began to collect rush hour fees in Seoul as early as 1996. Some experts in the country have said that since the fee began to be collected, average travel time has greatly reduced. Though the fee charge policy was successful in Seoul, we must still ask whether a policy suitable for South Korea will suit China as well.
One thing is certain: South Korea has fewer official cars than China, not only in terms of the total number, but also in terms of the average number per capita. It is a conservative estimate that China owns around 3.5 million official vehicles. Today, local governments’ official car expenses are increasing at a pace of 20 percent every year. What I want to stress is that these official cars depend on public expenses, so they will not be affected by the collection of rush hour fees.
In the late 1990s, London began to push forward the scheme of rush hour fees. Up to now, London has collected a total of ￡800 million ($1.28 billion), but the city’s traffic congestion remains terrible.
When London, a city of far fewer official cars, fails to solve traffic congestion by collecting these fees, how can we expect China—a country of a huge number of official cars—to solve this problem using similar means?
Actually, some experts have already pointed out that curbing the number and growth of official cars is an effective way to relieve traffic pressure on city roads. This is also a common practice elsewhere in the world.
For example, in South Korea, there were once 2.78 million cars. In order to solve the problem of traffic congestion and limited parking, the municipal government of Seoul started a reform of official cars. When Seoul’s total official cars decreased to 47, the city’s traffic congestion was effectively eased. Seoul’s traffic problem was solved by means other than rush hour fee collection. So, in China the first step to solving the traffic congestion problem in cities is to control official cars, rather than rely on fees.
Sun Ruizhuo (China Business News): Beijing is planning to collect rush hour fees to ease the pressure on the city’s traffic. The question is whether this fee program will really help to clear Beijing’s overcrowded streets.
In my opinion, we need to learn lessons from London’s negative example. The traffic situation is worse comparing when the plan was first put forward. In 2007, it took a car 2.27 minutes to travel 1 km, while it took 2.3 minutes in February 2003.
The government’s administrative expenditures ate up a large amount of the collected fees, while little was spent on the improvement of the city’s public traffic system. In the year 2007, while administrative expenditures reached ￡160 million ($256 million), less than￡10 million ($16 million) of the revenue was spent on bus upgrades and the improvement of the traffic system. As a result, London’s rush hour fee collection system is criticized as a bureaucratic waste.
Without a reasonable plan for improving the overall traffic system, rush hour fees will easily be embezzled as funds to serve a small group of privileged people or departments. More importantly, rush hour fees should come with the condition of building a fully developed public traffic system and a more mature traffic management and road planning system. Otherwise, no matter how heavy the fee burden is, city traffic will not ease up.
Pei Jiaojian (Xinmin Evening News): On one hand, we cannot guarantee that other countries’ success can be repeated in China. On the other hand, car users who earn less and are unwilling to pay the extra fee may ultimately bend to it because of their need to drive. Today, gas prices are already very high, but seldom do we see drivers give up cars because of these high expenses. As long as public buses, subways and other public traffic options are less than ideal, collecting rush hour fees will do little to ease traffic pressure in big cities.
Actually, Beijing has already set a good example in solving the congestion problem by offering cheap public transportation services. In the first working day after the New Year holiday, when the new transportation program was launched by Beijing Public Transport Holdings Ltd., buses were operating in a good order. Buses were sent on routes at much shorter intervals than ever before, while 70 percent of the buses reached their destinations on time. All bus lines are working smoothly, and most buses charge passengers only 0.4 yuan ($0.06) no matter how long the bus line is. More and more people are choosing public buses, and though the roads are still very crowded sometimes, the situation has improved greatly. This proves that a welldeveloped and friendly public transportation service network is the best solution to congestion problems, rather than the proposed rush hour fees.