TCS: No to Mobility Pricing
DANGEROUS ACQUISITION The TCS rejects the Federal Council's bill to allow pilot projects for mobility pricing. Mobility, it said, is an achievement that must not be jeopardized. On February 3, the Federal Council opened a consultation with the aim of allowing pilot projects for mobility pricing. Cantons and municipalities should thus be given the opportunity to develop novel tariff structures [...]
On February 3, the Federal Council opened a consultation process with the aim of enabling pilot projects for mobility pricing. This is intended to give cantons and municipalities the opportunity to test new types of tariff structures to influence traffic utilization and mobility behavior.
Compulsory taxation
As the TCS communicates, it rejects this bill. Not everything can and should be regulated by price. Mobility is one of the basic human needs and is essential for our economic and social prosperity. Instead of promoting mobility, this law would inhibit it.
Moreover, the bill is unfair and anti-social, as it would primarily hit those who have the least leeway in terms of working hours. This would be tantamount to a forced taxation of commuters who are on the road in the mornings and evenings to support their income.
Other measures required
TCS therefore demands that other measures be taken to solve the problem of traffic congestion. Potential solutions already exist and could be implemented today.
Experience during the pandemic has shown the potential of making office and school hours more flexible and of home office to break traffic peaks. Such measures could sustainably relieve the traffic infrastructure and be implemented at the local level where congestion regularly occurs.
It would therefore make more sense and be more purposeful to launch pilot projects in this area. Tests could be carried out in large cities, for example, by postponing the opening and closing times of schools and other public facilities by one hour.
Patchwork
Furthermore, the introduction of mobility pricing projects is neither sensible nor necessary. On the one hand, this would turn Switzerland into an unconstitutional patchwork.
On the other hand, similar projects have already been implemented abroad, the results of which are not convincing. This is neither with regard to the rush hours nor with regard to the huge implementation costs.
Example London
In fact, experience from the example of London, among others, shows that the charging system has hit the poorer strata of society hard and that success in terms of traffic reduction and congestion lasted only a few years after the system was introduced.
Finally, the TCS rejects the draft law also for the reason that it does not offer any perspective regarding the crucial issue of the sustainability of the financing of the transport systems in Switzerland.
Due to the decrease in fuel consumption due to the higher fuel efficiency of vehicles and the increasing electrification of the vehicle fleet, this is no longer assured in the long term.
