It is necessary to think twice about levying congestion charges

According to Beijing's "Twelfth Five-Year Plan" traffic development plan, Beijing will issue a congestion charging management policy and supporting measures, and the old city within the Second Ring will be the first to levy.

It is foreseeable that once Beijing first starts collecting congestion charges, other cities will follow suit. Some commentators therefore believe that some cities in China may enter the era of congestion charging.

The question is: What is the effect on the improvement of urban traffic even if the congestion charge is imposed against the public? The domestic auto market will show what kind of change?

As far as the feasibility is concerned, on the surface, Beijing’s previously issued tail number restrictions and high parking fees are still difficult to cure chronic illnesses. Beijing has the need to further manage congestion. However, in fact, policy makers have not solved the problem from the perspective of urban planning, which is the main cause of congestion. Take Beijing, which has a population of 20 million people, as an example. A large number of office workers move back and forth between their homes in the suburbs and the CBD in the city. The weak public transport simply cannot meet the commuting needs. Driving is a must, not a choice.

If the problem is solved simply through simple and brutal charging behavior, it will not only increase the burden on the owner of the vehicle, but it will also be a kind of “lazy behavior” that lacks wisdom and ability. In fact, the current domestic charges for private cars have been considerable: purchase tax, fuel tax, travel tax, tolls, bridge tolls, parking fees, etc., and many of these taxes also include urban infrastructure and traffic management. Such expenses will have even greater negative impacts if congestion fees are imposed again and there is no reasonable and legal basis.

From the perspective of validity, regardless of the limited number, limit license, or up parking fees, congestion blocking fees, are only to adjust the travel structure, can not suppress the total travel demand. What cannot be ignored is that the collection of congestion fees may lead to further social injustice. Rich people are not sensitive to charges, and for those who are working 9-5, they are further exacerbated by travel difficulties.

Even from the few foreign cities in London and Singapore that impose congestion charges, there is actually a problem of diminishing marginal benefits after the collection of congestion charges. The longer it takes to collect, the less restrictive the congestion fee will be for the owner. Eventually, it was caught in the cycle of “limited-trip tolls—short-term relief—demand surges—stricter restrictions and charges”.

As for the impact on the auto market, only the worst expectations can be expected. Once the city collects traffic congestion fees, it will inevitably lead to a sharp increase in the cost of car owners, and further reduce consumer enthusiasm for buying cars. Those price-sensitive consumers with limited economic capabilities will bear the brunt of the impact. In particular, self-owned brands, mainly low-end ones, will have the greatest impact. After the restriction of purchase, Beijing can prove that many independent brands have already left the market. Surprisingly, the total car consumption in Beijing has not dropped sharply, and the market share of the self-owned brand has been almost entirely sold to multinationals. High-end car brand.

It can thus be seen that after the city congestion fee is imposed, whether it is the policy planner itself or the local car company that the policy strongly encourages, the final impact will not be the result that people would like to see.