TheLocal.se: Gothenburg toll cameras hit in 'paintball' attack (http://www.thelocal.se/46812/20130319/)
QuoteIn an apparent protest against Gothenburg's new congestion charges, local residents have sabotaged eleven of the city's toll-booth cameras in what is suspected to be a paintball attack.
QuoteThe attack, which was carried out on Sunday night, left eleven of Gothenburg's toll cameras covered in yellow paint.
Covering cameras with paint is commonplace in Europe. Unfortunately it's not a permanent solution.
why the malice against the toll collection cameras?
if I had to choose a type of transportation camera to sabotage, I'd definitely go with the speed control one.
It's goatborg.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2013, 03:46:23 PM
why the malice against the toll collection cameras?
if I had to choose a type of transportation camera to sabotage, I'd definitely go with the speed control one.
Those and the red light revenue machines..er..cameras.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2013, 03:46:23 PM
why the malice against the toll collection cameras?
The toll system is unpopular. The Stockholm one was put up for referendum but following an embarrassing defeat in all suburbs, they decided not to consult the population in the Göteborg area. Unlike Stockholm, through traffic also has to pay in Göteborg. And Sweden is a high-tax country, where toll roads are not really necessary like in the U.S. where motorists don't pay enough taxes to fund major projects. Besides that, the bulk of the toll revenue goes to public transportation, which makes it feel like you are paying tolls to fund nothing you use, which undermines the "user pays principle".
Quote from: Chris on March 22, 2013, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2013, 03:46:23 PM
why the malice against the toll collection cameras?
The toll system is unpopular. The Stockholm one was put up for referendum but following an embarrassing defeat in all suburbs, they decided not to consult the population in the Göteborg area. Unlike Stockholm, through traffic also has to pay in Göteborg. And Sweden is a high-tax country, where toll roads are not really necessary like in the U.S. where motorists don't pay enough taxes to fund major projects. Besides that, the bulk of the toll revenue goes to public transportation, which makes it feel like you are paying tolls to fund nothing you use, which undermines the "user pays principle".
I agree regarding high taxes in Sweden, but I believe you are incorrect regarding what the congestion tax revenues are being spent on.
At least in Stockholm, much of the congestion tax revenue will fund the new 21 km long (and long-planned) Stockholm Bypass Motorway (
Förbifart Stockholm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rbifart_Stockholm) in Swedish). Congestion taxes will fund about 80% of this new motorway (much of which will be in tunnel).
I am not so sure that the congestion tax is so unpopular in Stockholm as one might think. And it is true that the municipalities surrounding Stockholm did vote against it, but Stockholm's size is sufficiently large that it was able to "swing" the vote in favor of the tax. It is also important to note that a very large part of the suburbs of Stockholm, especially the suburbs to the west and south of the regional core, were long ago annexed by Stockholm, and are officially part of the city, even though they are very much suburban in nature (the best U.S. analogy is the San Fernando Valley, part of the City of Los Angeles, but in reality and function, a suburb).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 22, 2013, 03:43:38 PM
I agree regarding high taxes in Sweden, but I believe you are incorrect regarding what the congestion tax revenues are being spent on.
At least in Stockholm, much of the congestion tax revenue will fund the new 21 km long (and long-planned) Stockholm Bypass Motorway (Förbifart Stockholm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rbifart_Stockholm) in Swedish). Congestion taxes will fund about 80% of this new motorway (much of which will be in tunnel).
The Göteborg congestion charge will only fund one short immersed tunnel which could have been funded out of the general budget as well. The rest is spent on major rail projects (including a rather long rail tunnel underneath the city and the replacement of an existing bridge to make space for more transit).
QuoteI am not so sure that the congestion tax is so unpopular in Stockholm as one might think. And it is true that the municipalities surrounding Stockholm did vote against it, but Stockholm's size is sufficiently large that it was able to "swing" the vote in favor of the tax.
It was already decided beforehand that the implementation of the tax was only to be based on the Stockholm proper outcome, and to ignore the outcome of the suburban voters. Stockholm voted in favor with a small majority, all other suburban municipalities voted against it.
But the difference between the Stockholm and Göteborg tax is that only traffic to central (historic) Stockholm pays the tax, whereas in Göteborg all intersuburban traffic is tolled as well (both the western bridge and the eastern tunnel along E6). Which means a much larger share of commuters have to pay the tax in Göteborg than in Stockholm, given that the majority of our commuting is outside the city centers.