Ruglandi notkun hugtaka?

Skemmtileg grein um bķla ķ pressunni. 

Žar sem ég hef įšur skrifaš um bifreišaeign og ašallega fólksbķlaflotann velti ég žvķ fyrir mér hvort hugtök séu notuš ķ greininni eins og žau eru skilgreind ķ umfjöllun Samgöngustofu. Žaš skiptir mįli aš menn noti skilgreind hugtök meš réttum hętti og finnst mér żmislegt ekki ganga upp ķ talnefninu m.v. uppgefnar tölur hjį Samgöngustofu.

Ökutęki er mun višfešmara hugtak en bifreiš. Er ekki įtt viš bifreišar žarna? Um sķšustu įramót voru 244.842 bifreišar ķ umferš, bifreišar į skrį voru 298.588. Er įtt viš bifreišar ķ umferš? Fólksbifreišar ķ umferš voru sķšan 213.855 en į skrį voru 257.100, žannig aš varla er įtt viš fólksbifreišar.
Hvaš varšar mešalaldur bķla kemur ekki fram hvort žaš er mešalaldur bķla į skrį eša ķ umferš og hvort žaš eru fólksbifreišar eša allar bifreišar. Žaš er um tveggja įra munur į mešalaldri fólksbķla ķ umferš og fólksbķla į skrį.
Meš flotans er žį įtt viš flotans ķ umferš eša į skrį og er įtt viš bifreišar eša fólksbifreišar?

Śrvinnslu­sjóšur įętl­ar aš allt aš 12 žśsund öku­tękj­um verši skilaš til förg­un­ar ķ įr. Žaš yrši met­fjöldi. Fyrra metįriš var 2017. Žį var um 9.500 ökutękjum skilaš til förg­un­ar, sem var tęp­lega 50% aukn­ing frį įr­inu 2016.

Eft­ir efna­hags­hruniš jókst hvat­inn til aš halda göml­um bķl­um leng­ur gang­andi. Meš aukn­um kaup­mętti og meira fram­boši notašra bķla, ž.m.t. bķla­leigu­bķla, viršist sem marg­ir hafi nżtt tęki­fęriš ķ įr og lįtiš farga göml­um bķl­um.

Töl­ur Śrvinnslu­sjóšs benda til aš mešal­ald­ur bķla sem fara til förg­un­ar hafi nįši hį­marki 2016. Gušlaug­ur G. Sverris­son, rekstr­ar­stjóri Śrvinnslu­sjóšs, seg­ir stytt­ast ķ aš gjald sem bķla­eig­end­ur greiša fyr­ir förg­un­ina verši hękkaš.

Um 245 žśsund öku­tęki voru skrįš hér į landi um sķšustu įra­mót. Förg­un 12 žśsund öku­tękja sam­svar­ar žvķ 5% flot­ans, aš žvķ er fram kem­ur ķ um­fjöll­un um mįl žetta ķ Morg­un­blašinu ķ dag.

Meš fyrirvara um aš ég er bara bśin aš sjį Mbl śtgįfu blašsins hefši veriš gaman aš sjį umfjöllun um śrvķnnslukerfi bifreiša, uppbyggingu śrvinnslugjalds, önnur śrvinnslugjöld į bifreišum, fyrirhugaša hękkun į śrvinnslugjaldi (ef žaš stendur til), tölur um bifreišaeign, hlutfall bifreiša į skrį sem er ķ umferš, muninn į mešalaldri bifreiša į skrį og ķ umferš og vangaveltur um hversvegna ašeins 82% bifreiša į skrį er ķ umferš.


Ef öll bķlastęši vęru veršlögš m.v. kostnaš?

Stundum koma stašreyndir upp į yfirboršiš um kostnaš viš bķlastęši. Eitt dęmi er žegar Reykjavķkurborg kostaši 300 milljónir samkvęmt fjįrhagsįętlun til aš byggja bķlastęšiš viš HR į veršlagi įrsins 2009. Hér er annaš dęmi. Hvert stęši kostar um 9-10 milljónir króna eša um andvirši tveggja venjulegra bķla en andvirši eins bifreišahlunnindabķls. Leigugjaldiš fyrir kvöld- og nęturstęši veršur į bilinu 12-15 žśsund į mįnuši, dagpassinn į 18-20 žśsund og sólarhringspassa lķklega į 25 žśsund krónur. Leiga į sér­merktu stęši veršur į bil­inu 60 til 70 žśsund į mįnuši.

Žetta eru aušvitaš dżr stęši en žó ekki svo mikiš dżrari en önnur stęši. Oft er talaš um aš ķ venjulegum hįlfnišurgröfnum bķlakjallara sé veršiš į stęšinu um 5-6 milljónir, ķ bķlahśsi ofanjaršar um 4-5 milljónir og ķ stęši į yfirborši um 0,8-1,0 milljónir. Žetta er bara byggingakostnašur en landverš er ekki reiknaš inn ķ stęši sem taka plįss į yfirborši, sem į viš um bķlastęši į yfirborši, bķlastęšahśs og oft nišurgrafna kjallara lķka.

Hvaš mundi nś gerast ef öll bķlastęši vęru veršlögš mišaš viš kostnaš viš byggingu og višhald og žjónustu viš žau svo ekki sé minnst į landverš fyrir stęši į yfirborši? Sennilega er mešgjöfin meš hverju "ókeypis" bķlastęši allnokkur. Žaš verš er ķvilnunin (eša nišurgreišslan) meš žessum feršamįta sem bķlaeigendur njóta umfram ašra feršamįta.

Hér kemur fram aš viš įętl­un hśsa­leigu sé al­gengt aš nota marg­fald­ar­ann 120-160. Marg­feldiš vķs­ar til hlut­falls leigu­veršs af stofn­kostnaši fast­eign­ar­inn­ar. Ég eftirlęt lesendum aš gera žennan śtreikning og įtta sig į hvaš er raunverulegt leigugjald fyrir hvert bķlastęši į  mįnuši hvort heldur er ķ langtķmaleigu eša skammtķmaleigu. Skammtķmaleigan er aušvitaš höfš hęrri eins og ķ stöšumęli enda hefur leiguveršiš žar lķka žaš hlutverk aš tryggja umsetningu ķ stęšinu žannig aš žaš losni og verši ašgengilegt fyrir ašra bķlaeigendur sem žurfa aš sękja žjónustu ķ nįgrenni stęšisins.

Aš hafa rétta veršlagningu į gęšum eins og bķlastęšum skiptir verulegu mįli. Ef bķlastęši hefšu veriš veršlögš frį upphafi mišaš viš kostnaš og landnotkun hefši žróun žéttbżlis į Ķslandi oršiš önnur en hśn varš. Aš skaffa ókeypis bķlastęši ķ óhóflegu magni hefur kostaš žjóšfélagiš grķšarlega fjįrmuni og haft skemmandi įhrif į žróun og skipulag byggšar. Krafan um žessa ófjįrfestingu heldur žó įfram ķ nżrri ķbśšabyggš og hśn er rekin įfram af ótta skipulagsyfirvalda og almennings viš bķlastęšaskort. Žar vęri ekkert aš óttast ef bķlastęšin vęru veršlögš eftir kostnaši. Žaš yrši ekki skortur žvķ eftirspurnin eftir stęšunum er minni ef žau eru rétt veršlögš.

Žaš ętti aš vera gjaldskylda ķ öllum opnum bķlastęšum ķ öllu žéttbżli. Sala į ķbśšum og bķlastęšum ętti aš vera ašgreind og bķlastęši ętti mun oftar aš vera skipulögš innan hverfis frekar en innan hverrar lóšar til aš fį samnżtingu stęša fyrir ķbśšir og žjónustu. Sala į žeirri žjónustu sem bķlastęši eru ętti aš vera eins og sala į hverri annarri žjónustu sem fólki stendur til boša žó oft gęti hśn veriš rekin af hśsfélögum eša hśsnęšisfélögum.

Viršingarleysi landans fyrir bķlastęšum mį sennilega aš miklu leyti skżra meš žvķ aš hann lķtur į bķlastęši sem gęši sem honum į aš standa til boša frķtt. Žar gildir aš viršing fęst meš verši. 

Mynd. Stęšin viš HR kostušu skattborgara a.m.k. 300 milljónir.

HR loftmynd1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mynd. Sjaldan launar žó kįlfurinn ofeldiš. Af "bķlastęši" HR.

HR4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mynd. Viršingar leysi landans. Viršing fęst meš verši. Frį sundlaug Kópavogs.

Bķlar 1


mbl.is Bķlastęšin į 60-70 žśsund kr. į mįnuši
Tilkynna um óvišeigandi tengingu viš frétt

Of mikiš ekiš ķ litlum bę

Akureyri er eitt af žremur (brįšum 4) sveitarfélögum sem eru meš bķlastęšasamžykkt. Akureyri gerši hinsvegar žau mistök aš hafa ekki gjaldskyldu ķ stęšunum heldur tķmaskķfu meš žeim įrangri aš of mikiš er ekiš ķ litlum bę. Žvķ fylgja slęm loftgęši į veturna.

Megniš af bęnum er meš um 10 min. hjólaradķus

Akureyri 10 min kort


mbl.is Lķtil loftgęši į Akureyri
Tilkynna um óvišeigandi tengingu viš frétt

79 bķlastęši laus ķ Trašarkoti nśna

Fleiri fastir og vatnsheldir fletir ķ borginni eru ķ sjįlfu sér ekki fagnašarefni. 

Žaš mį spyrja sig hvort žetta verkefni sé gott innlegg ķ loftlagsstefnu rķkisstjórnarinnar?

Žarna hefši t.d. veriš hęgt aš hafa tré og nokkur bķlastęši fyrir fatlaša į gegndrępum fleti eša bara hreinlega almenningsgarš. Į móti Žjóšleikhśsinu er bķlastęšahśsiš Trašarkot žar sem ķ žessum skrifušum oršum eru laus 79 bķlastęši. Ég vona žó aš žaš verši a.m.k. gjaldskylda į bķlastęšinu žannig aš allur almenningur žurfi ekki aš borga fyrir žį fįu sem leggja žarna.

Her mį sjį laus stęši ķ bķlahśsum Bķlastęšasjóšs.


mbl.is Sķšasta malarbķlaplaniš
Tilkynna um óvišeigandi tengingu viš frétt

"Betri borgarar" endurnżja bķlana sķna meš stušningi rķkisins

Eins og sjį mį į listanum yfir bķlategundir eru žetta ekki bķlar sem tekjulįgir kaupa. Meš stušningi rķkisins ķ Noregi ķ formi nišurfellingu bķlagjalda, viršisaukatts og eldsneytisgjalda eru "betri borgarar" aš endurnżja bķlana sķna.

Žaš mį spurja sig hvort žetta sé besta, ódżrasta eša réttlįtasta leišin til aš draga śr śtblęstri frį samgöngum? Žaš vęri fróšlegt aš sjį greiningu į žeim žjóšfélagshópum sem njóta žessa stušnings hins opinbera ķ sķnum bķlakaupum.

Tesla Model 3 (10.000)
    Audi e-tron (6.300)
    Hyundai Kona Electric (6.000)
    Kia Niro Electric (5.900)
    Nż kyn­slóš Nis­s­an Leaf (3.000)
    Jagu­ar I-Pace (3.000)
    Porsche Taycan (2.300)
    Mercedes EQC (2.200)
    DS Cross­back E-Ten­se (1.350)
    BMW iX3 (1.000)

Svo žvķ sé haldiš til haga gerir Noregur gerir lķka margt gott ķ almenningssamgöngum og stušningi viš göngu og hjólreišar. Vegagerš žeirra noršmanna kemur mikiš aš žeim mįlum og viršist standa sig vel.


mbl.is 30.000 rafbķlar ķ pöntun
Tilkynna um óvišeigandi tengingu viš frétt

Misnotkun ökutękjastyrkja

Ķ tilefni af žessari frétt langar mig til aš birta aftur grein sem ég skrifaši ķ Moggann og birtist 13. aprķl 2018. Hśn er hér aš nešan. Ķ stuttu mįli eru ökutękjastyrkir nišurgreišsla meš akstri og umferš sem hvetur til bifreišaeignar og aukinnar umferšar. Žaš er óréttlįtt aš žetta form greišslna frį launagreišanda sé sérstaklega skattalega hagstętt og hvatt til notkunar žess af stjórnvöldum og skattayfirvöldum meš žvķ móti. Hętta žarf aš misnota ökutękjastyrki sem yfirborganir, upphęš ökutękjastyrkja žarf aš miša viš raunverulegan kostnaš viš akstur og skattleggja žarf ökutękjastyrki žannig aš skatthlutfall samsvari skatthlutfalli launatekna.

Misnotkun ökutękjastyrkja

Įsmundur Frišriksson žingmašur var ķ fréttum fyrir skemmstu vegna žess aš hann hefur hugsanlega misnotaš ökutękjastyrk (=ökustyrk) sem hann fęr frį Alžingi ķ eigin žįgu. Morgunśtvarpiš į Rįs 2[1] fékk FĶB til aš reikna śt hvaš žaš kostar aš reka bķl eins og žann sem Įsmundur į ķ eitt įr. Nišurstašan var sś aš reksturinn, meš fjįrmagnskostnaši, kostar 2,07 milljónir į įri en žaš er um 2,53 milljón króna minna en Įsmundur fékk ķ endurgreiddan aksturskostnaš ķ fyrra sem var 4,6 milljónir króna.

Mikiš hefur veriš rętt og ritaš um žįtt Įsmundar en lįtum hans žįtt liggja milli hluta. Žaš sem žetta mįl varpar ljósi į fyrst og fremst er mešferš ökustyrkja ķ skattalegu tilliti samkvęmt tekjuskattslögum og skattmati Rķkisskattstjóra (Rsk.)[2]. Žingmašurinn fęr greitt 4,6 millj. og um 55% af upphęšinni er umfram rekstrarkostnaš ökutękis sem nemur ašeins 45% af endurgreiddum aksturskostnaši. Endurgreiddur ökustyrkur er sem sagt langt umfram ešlilegan rekstrarkostnaš bķls. Fjįrhęšin į km. sem śt er greidd er ķ samręmi viš įkvöršun feršakostnašarnefndar rķkisins [3] en sś upphęš er mjög rķfleg og umfram skattmat Rķkisskattstjóra Rsk. og skattmat Rsk. er sķšan enn umfram rekstrarkostnaš bķls žannig aš žaš er śtilokaš annaš enn aš fį ofgreiddan ökustyrk. Hvernig Įsmundi farnast ķ skattaskżrslunni žegar hann telur aksturinn fram hefur ekki komiš ķ ljós en gera mį aš žvķ skóna aš hann rķši feitum hesti frį žeim višskiptum viš Rsk.

Mergur mįlsins er aš skattlagning ökustyrkja er meš žeim hętti frį hendi tekjuskattslaga og skattmati Rsk. aš menn stórgręša į žvķ aš fį greidda ökustyrki žvķ žeir eru langt umfram rekstrarkostnaš og skattaeftirlit er sķšan nįnast ekkert. Žvķ er mikil freisting fyrir hendi aš dulbśa laun og yfirborganir sem ökustyrki. Žaš er žvķ lķklega viša stundaš ķ atvinnulķfinu aš greiša mönnum ökustyrki fyrir akstur sem žeir inna ekki af hendi fyrir vinnuveitendur einfaldlega vegna žess aš žvķ fylgir skattalegt hagręši fyrir bįša ašila, launamann og vinnuveitanda. Launamašur žarf ekki aš greiša tekjuskatt af žessum tekjum eša a.m.k. mjög lįgt skatthlutfall og launagreišandi getur greitt hęrri laun įn žess aš standa skil į tryggingagjaldi og öšrum launatengdum gjöldum. Skattlagning ökustyrkja er meš žeim hętti aš tekjuskattshlufall fyrir žann hluta ökustyrkja sem er umfram rekstrarkostnaš ökutękis nįlgast 0% ef menn halda akstrinum innan įkvešinna marka. Jafnvel žótt mikiš sé ekiš eins og hjį Įsmundi eru reglurnar žaš lausar ķ reipunum aš skatthlutfalliš af žessum tekjum veršur mjög lįgt.

Misnotkun ökustyrkja er žrķžętt:

  1. Greiddir eru ökustyrkir fyrir akstur sem er ekki inntur af hendi fyrir vinnuveitanda. Oft er žaš gert i formi yfirborgana upp aš žeim  mörkum ķ skattmati Rsk. aš ekki žurfi aš telja fram rekstrarkostnaš bķls (um 3.000 km. = 330.000 kr)[4].
  2. Upphęšin sem feršakostnašarnefnd rķkisins įkvaršar er allt of hį m.v. raunverulegan rekstrarkostnaš bils og kostnašarmat Rsk. er sömuleišis of hįtt.
  3. Skattlagning ofgreiddra ökustyrkja er of lįg og langt undir skattlagningu venjulegra launatekna. Sem dęmi mį nefna aš hęgt er aš draga sömu upphęš frį sem afskriftir af bķl įr eftir įr óhįš veršgildi bķlsins ķ skattframtali. T.d. mį draga frį 0,72 millj. ķ afskriftir fyrir bķl sem upphaflega kostar 1,5 milljónir. Eftir aš hafa įtt bķlinn ķ 8 įr er bśiš aš afskrifa žennan 1,5 millj. kr. bķl um 5,7 milljónir sem koma til frįdrįttar ķ framtali eša gróft tališ um 4 milljónir umfram raunverulegt kaupverš. Žaš sem ökutękiš er einkabķll og er lķka notaš til einkaerinda er ekki ešlilegt aš rķkiš nišurgreiši kaupveršiš aš fullu og meira til.


Žaš er lķklega óžarfi aš taka žaš fram aš žaš eru sennilega karlar sem eru oftast žiggjendur ökustyrkja og gęti žetta veriš umtalsveršur žįttur ķ launamun kynjanna.

Aš mķnu mati er žaš slęmt aš byggja upp kerfi sem mismunar fólki eftir žvķ į hvaša formi launatekjur žeirra eru greiddar. Žaš ętti aš vera sama eša svipaš skatthlutfall fyrir launatekjur, fjįrmagnstekjur, hlunnindagreišslur og ökustyrki. Besta leišin til aš draga śr misnotkun ökustyrkja er lķklega aš lagfęra skatthlutfall žeirra žannig aš žaš verši ekki lęgra en lęgsta skattprósenta launatekna. Viš žaš ętti skjįlfkrafa aš draga śr žessari misnotkun. Rķkisskattstjóri ętti lķka aš gefa skżr skilaboš um aš misnotkun ökustyrkja verši ekki lišin. Rķkisstjórnin ętti sömuleišis aš skipa rķkisstofnunum aš hętta aš nota ökustyrki sem yfirborganir ef žaš tķškast ennžį.

[1] http://www.ruv.is/frett/kostar-rumar-2-milljonir-ad-reka-bil-asmundar

[2] https://www.rsk.is/einstaklingar/tekjur-og-fradraettir/okutaekjastyrkur/#tab1

[3]https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/mannaudsmal-rikisins/kjarasamningar-laun-og-starfskjor/ferdakostnadur/auglysingar/

[4] https://skattalagasafn.rsk.is/?reg=591.1987.0&tab=1 (1. mgr. 3. gr. „ ... undir žeim mörkum sem rķkisskattstjóri setur hverju sinni.“)


Sundabraut, raunhęf hugmynd?

Mikiš hefur veriš rętt og ritaš um Sundabraut sķšustu įratugi um leišina sem brautin į aš fara og hvernig kosta eigi gerš hennar. Minna hefur fariš fyrir umręšum um hvaša markmiši vegurinn eigi aš žjóna. Nefndar hafa veriš upphęšir ķ kringum 70 milljarša fyrir gerš allrar brautarinnar frį tengingu viš Sębraut aš tengingunni viš Vesturlandsveg į Kjalarnesi. Žaš er ansi mikill peningur fyrir veg sem viš höfum ekki skżra mynd af hvaš hlutverki eigi aš žjóna, sérstaklega ef hśn veršur gerš ķ einkaframkvęmd og notendur eiga aš borga veggjöld fyrir. Aš mķnu mati gęti žessi vegur žjónaš mörgum hlutverkum eftir žvķ hvaša hluta hans er um aš ręša. Žaš er aš:

  1. Tengja hverfiš Grafarvog viš vestari hluta Reykjavķkur meš brś yfir Ellišaįrvog.
  2. Skapa skilyrši fyrir žéttingu byggšar ķ Grafarvogi og ķ Gufunesbę meš brś yfir Ellišaįrvog.
  3. Skapa skilyrši fyrir uppbyggingu ķ Geldinganesi og sķšar į Įlfsnesi meš tengingu yfir Eišsvķk og Leirvog og tengja atvinnusvęšin į Esjumelum og Leirvogstungumelum.
  4. Tengja Vesturland betur viš höfušborgarsvęšiš meš tengingu yfir Kollafjörš.
  5. Skapa samfellt hafnarsvęši ķ Ellišaįrvogi frį Sundahöfn aš Gelgjutanga.
  6. Tengja yfir Ellišaįrvog ķ plįssfreka starfsemi į gömlu sorphaugunum ķ Gufunesi. Geymslusvęši fyrir hafnarsvęši gęti veriš žar og lķka endurvinnsla jaršefna į höfušborgarsvęšinu.
  7. Skapa betri tengingu fyrir žungaflutninga tengdum höfnunum į Vesturlandi.
  8. Sundabraut myndi bara aš litlu leyti draga śr umferšartöfum į höfušborgarsvęšinu og žį fyrst og fremst į töfum śr Grafarvogshverfi og fyrir umferš af Vesturlandi.

Ekki er óešlilegt aš framkvęmdin öll yrši ķ žróunarfélagi sem tęki veggjöld til aš standa undir byggingu og rekstri brśa og vegtenginga. Fyrsta brśin yrši yfir Ellišaįrvog. Gjaldtaka gęti veriš lįg žar vegna mikillar umferšar. Ef mišaš vęri viš 20.000 bķla mešalumferš į sólarhring og 100 kr. į ferš vęri žaš um 730 millj. į įri. Žaš fęri sennilega létt meš aš borga fyrir gerš žeirrar brśar į višunandi įrabili. Sķšar meir kęmi brś yfir Eišsvķk ķ Geldinganes og sķšar frį Geldinganesi yfir ķ Gunnunes og aš lokum brś yfir Kollafjörš į Kjalarnes.Gjaldtaka yrši ašlöguš aš žessum framkvęmdum en aš lķkindum žyrfti 2-3 gjaldstöšvar meš ólķku gjaldi, sem vęri innheimt meš tęki ķ hverjum bķl eša sjįlfvirkum myndum af bķlnśmerum. Mešfylgjandi mynd sżnir legu Sundabrautar.

Aš mķnu mati žarf kostnašur viš gerš Sundabrautar ekki aš vera eins hįr og fyrri įętlanir hafa ętlaš. Sennilega hafa žęr gert rįš fyrir talsvert stęrri framkvęmdum en raunhęft er og žörf er į nęstu öld eša svo. Žaš viršist alveg nóg aš byggja Sundabraut upp meš 2+2 veg yfir Ellišaįrvog og meš 1+2 veg yfir Eišsvķk, Leirvog og Kollafjörš, ž.e. meš rįšstöfunum fyrir framśrakstur. Ef žarf aš bęta viš sķšar mį einfaldlega bęta nżjum brśm yfir seinni vogana viš hliš hinna fyrri. Žį mį nota hringtorg frekar en mislęg gatnamót žar sem plįss er litiš eša til aš gera framkvęmdin ódżrari. Vķša er žó ekki erfitt aš koma fyrir mislęgum tengingum t.d. viš Gufuneshöfša, ķ Geldinganesi og ķ Įlfsnesi ef menn nota žaš aš sprengja vegin nišur eša ķ gegnum klettahöfšanna.

Umhverfisžįtturinn viš lagningu Sundabrautar er talsvert umfangsmikill og veršur aš foršast aš skerša leirur og fuglasvęši meš žvķ aš hafa brżr nęgilega langar og foršast uppfyllingar til aš skerša ekki sjįvarföll. Žaš er ķ sjįlfu sér tęknilega mögulegt og sennilega ekki of dżrt ef brżrnar standa į stöplum sem ganga ofan ķ leirurnar.

Ķ annarri grein ętla ég aš fjalla um hugmyndir mķnar um hvernig hęgt er aš byggja fyrsta įfanga Sundabrautar meš brś yfir Ellišaįrvog sem aš mķnu mati gęti veriš ódżrari en fyrri hugmyndir.

Greinin birtist fyrst ķ Stundinni 8. september 2018.


mbl.is Endurskoša žarf Sundabraut
Tilkynna um óvišeigandi tengingu viš frétt

Ekki hįlfdręttingur į viš Įsmund Frišriksson

Mér sżnist hann vera ašeins 1/4 dręttingur į viš Įsmund. Michael sęnski hęgrimašurinn fékkk 4,5 milljónir į fjórum įrum en Įsmundur ķslenski hęgrimašurinn halaši inn rśmlega žį upphęš (4,6 milljónir) į ašeins einu įri.

Nś bķšur mašur spenntur eftir žvķ aš eftirlit Alžingis krefji hann um endurgreišslu eša aš skatturinn taki hann ķ skošun og krefji hann um nótur. Žaš eru samt litlar lķkur į žvķ reyndar. Akstursgreišslur og bifreišahlunnindi eru heilög ķ ķ huga skattsins og žar į bę vilja menn ekki hręra ķ žeim potti. Žaš er miklu žęgilegra aš lįta žaš vera skattlķtiš eša skattlaust og nišurgreiša neyslu og akstur toppana įfram. wink


mbl.is Krafšist aksturspeninga en var erlendis
Tilkynna um óvišeigandi tengingu viš frétt

Veišileyfi į bķlstjóra

Žaš viršist vera komiš veišileyfi į bilstjóra ķ sķmanum.

Žį er bara aš taka upp sķmann og fara aš mynda bķlstjóra ķ sķmanum, keyrandi yfir į raušu ljósi, viršandi ekki stöšvunarskyldu o.s.frv. Fyrst Mogginn birtir svona geta vķst flestir gert žaš. 

Žaš fylgir reyndar ekki sögunni hvort sį sem mundaši sķmann var lķka bķlstjóri į ferš. wink


mbl.is Strętisvagnstjóri ķ sķma undir stżri
Tilkynna um óvišeigandi tengingu viš frétt

Félagsleg hugmyndafręši einkabķlsins

Hér į eftir fer grein į ensku sem heitir The social ideology of the motorcar, eftir André Gorz sem er sótt héšan: http://unevenearth.org/2018/08/the-social-ideology-of-the-motorcar/

cars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The social ideology of the motorcar

This 1973 essay on how cars have taken over our cities remains as relevant as ever
August 11, 2018

Image: Stuart Richards
by André Gorz

The worst thing about cars is that they are like castles or villas by the sea: luxury goods invented for the exclusive pleasure of a very rich minority, and which in conception and nature were never intended for the people. Unlike the vacuum cleaner, the radio, or the bicycle, which retain their use value when everyone has one, the car, like a villa by the sea, is only desirable and useful insofar as the masses don’t have one. That is how in both conception and original purpose the car is a luxury good. And the essence of luxury is that it cannot be democratized. If everyone can have luxury, no one gets any advantages from it. On the contrary, everyone diddles, cheats, and frustrates everyone else, and is diddled, cheated, and frustrated in return.

This is pretty much common knowledge in the case of the seaside villas. No politico has yet dared to claim that to democratize the right to vacation would mean a villa with private beach for every family. Everyone understands that if each of 13 or 14 million families were to use only 10 meters of the coast, it would take 140,000km of beach in order for all of them to have their share! To give everyone his or her share would be to cut up the beaches in such little strips—or to squeeze the villas so tightly together—that their use value would be nil and their advantage over a hotel complex would disappear. In short, democratization of access to the beaches point to only one solution—the collectivist one. And this solution is necessarily at war with the luxury of the private beach, which is a privilege that a small minority takes as their right at the expense of all.

Now, why is it that what is perfectly obvious in the case of the beaches is not generally acknowledged to be the case for transportation? Like the beach house, doesn’t a car occupy scarce space? Doesn’t it deprive the others who use the roads (pedestrians, cyclists, streetcar and bus drivers)? Doesn’t it lose its use value when everyone uses his or her own? And yet there are plenty of politicians who insist that every family has the right to at least one car and that it’s up to the “government” to make it possible for everyone to park conveniently, drive easily in the city, and go on holiday at the same time as everyone else, going 70 mph on the roads to vacation spots. The monstrousness of this demagogic nonsense is immediately apparent, and yet even the left doesn’t disdain resorting to it. Why is the car treated like a sacred cow? Why, unlike other “privative” goods, isn’t it recognized as an antisocial luxury? The answer should be sought in the following two aspects of driving:

Mass motoring effects an absolute triumph of bourgeois ideology on the level of daily life. It gives and supports in everyone the illusion that each individual can seek his or her own benefit at the expense of everyone else. Take the cruel and aggressive selfishness of the driver who at any moment is figuratively killing the “others,” who appear merely as physical obstacles to his or her own speed. This aggressive and competitive selfishness marks the arrival of universally bourgeois behavior, and has come into being since driving has become commonplace. (“You’ll never have socialism with that kind of people,” an East German friend told me, upset by the spectacle of Paris traffic).
The automobile is the paradoxical example of a luxury object that has been devalued by its own spread. But this practical devaluation has not yet been followed by an ideological devaluation. The myth of the pleasure and benefit of the car persists, though if mass transportation were widespread its superiority would be striking. The persistence of this myth is easily explained. The spread of the private car has displaced mass transportation and altered city planning and housing in such a way that it transfers to the car functions which its own spread has made necessary. An ideological (“cultural”) revolution would be needed to break this circle. Obviously this is not to be expected from the ruling class (either right or left).
Let us look more closely now at these two points.

When the car was invented, it was to provide a few of the very rich with a completely unprecedented privilege: that of traveling much faster than everyone else. No one up to then had ever dreamt of it. The speed of all coaches was essentially the same, whether you were rich or poor. The carriages of the rich didn’t go any faster than the carts of the peasants, and trains carried everyone at the same speed (they didn’t begin to have different speeds until they began to compete with the automobile and the airplane). Thus, until the turn of the century, the elite did not travel at a different speed from the people. The motorcar was going to change all that. For the first time class differences were to be extended to speed and to the means of transportation.

This means of transportation at first seemed unattainable to the masses—it was so different from ordinary means. There was no comparison between the motorcar and the others: the cart, the train, the bicycle, or the horse-car. Exceptional beings went out in self-propelled vehicles that weighed at least a ton and whose extremely complicated mechanical organs were as mysterious as they were hidden from view. For one important aspect of the automobile myth is that for the first time people were riding in private vehicles whose operating mechanisms were completely unknown to them and whose maintenance and feeding they had to entrust to specialists. Here is the paradox of the automobile: it appears to confer on its owners limitless freedom, allowing them to travel when and where they choose at a speed equal to or greater than that of the train. But actually, this seeming independence has for its underside a radical dependency. Unlike the horse rider, the wagon driver, or the cyclist, the motorist was going to depend for the fuel supply, as well as for the smallest kind of repair, on dealers and specialists in engines, lubrication, and ignition, and on the interchangeability of parts. Unlike all previous owners of a means of locomotion, the motorist’s relationship to his or her vehicle was to be that of user and consumer-and not owner and master. This vehicle, in other words, would oblige the owner to consume and use a host of commercial services and industrial products that could only be provided by some third party. The apparent independence of the automobile owner was only concealing the actual radical dependency.

"For the first time in history, people would become dependent for their locomotion on a commercial source of energy."

The oil magnates were the first to perceive the prize that could be extracted from the wide distribution of the motorcar. If people could be induced to travel in cars, they could be sold the fuel necessary to move them. For the first time in history, people would become dependent for their locomotion on a commercial source of energy. There would be as many customers for the oil industry as there were motorists—and since there would be as many motorists as there were families, the entire population would become the oil merchants’ customers. The dream of every capitalist was about to come true. Everyone was going to depend for their daily needs on a commodity that a single industry held as a monopoly.

All that was left was to get the population to drive cars. Little persuasion would be needed. It would be enough to get the price of a car down by using mass production and the assembly line. People would fall all over themselves to buy it. They fell over themselves all right, without noticing they were being led by the nose. What, in fact, did the automobile industry offer them? Just this: “From now on, like the nobility and the bourgeoisie, you too will have the privilege of driving faster than everybody else. In a motorcar society the privilege of the elite is made available to you.”

People rushed to buy cars until, as the working class began to buy them as well, defrauded motorists realized they had been had. They had been promised a bourgeois privilege, they had gone into debt to acquire it, and now they saw that everyone else could also get one. What good is a privilege if everyone can have it? It’s a fool’s game. Worse, it pits everyone against everyone else. General paralysis is brought on by a general clash. For when everyone claims the right to drive at the privileged speed of the bourgeoisie, everything comes to a halt, and the speed of city traffic plummets—in Boston as in Paris, Rome, or London—to below that of the horsecar; at rush hours the average speed on the open road falls below the speed of a bicyclist.

"When everyone claims the right to drive at the privileged speed of the bourgeoisie, everything comes to a halt, and the speed of city traffic plummets"

Nothing helps. All the solutions have been tried. They all end up making things worse. No matter if they increase the number of city expressways, beltways, elevated crossways, 16-lane highways, and toll roads, the result is always the same. The more roads there are in service, the more cars clog them, and city traffic becomes more paralyzingly congested. As long as there are cities, the problem will remain unsolved. No matter how wide and fast a superhighway is, the speed at which vehicles can come off it to enter the city cannot be greater than the average speed on the city streets. As long as the average speed in Paris is 10 to 20 kmh, depending on the time of day, no one will be able to get off the beltways and autoroutes around and into the capital at more than 10 to 20 kmh.

The same is true for all cities. It is impossible to drive at more than an average of 20 kmh in the tangled network of streets, avenues, and boulevards that characterise the traditional cities. The introduction of faster vehicles inevitably disrupts city traffic, causing bottlenecks-and finally complete paralysis.

If the car is to prevail, there’s still one solution: get rid of the cities. That is, string them out for hundreds of miles along enormous roads, making them into highway suburbs. That’s what’s been done in the United States. Ivan Illich sums up the effect in these startling figures: “The typical American devotes more than 1500 hours a year (which is 30 hours a week, or 4 hours a day, including Sundays) to his [or her] car. This includes the time spent behind the wheel, both in motion and stopped, the hours of work to pay for it and to pay for gas, tires, tolls, insurance, tickets, and taxes .Thus it takes this American 1500 hours to go 6000 miles (in the course of a year). Three and a half miles take him (or her) one hour. In countries that do not have a transportation industry, people travel at exactly this speed on foot, with the added advantage that they can go wherever they want and aren’t restricted to asphalt roads.”

It is true, Illich points out, that in non-industrialized countries travel uses only 3 to 8% of people’s free time (which comes to about two to six hours a week). Thus a person on foot covers as many miles in an hour devoted to travel as a person in a car, but devotes 5 to 10 times less time in travel. Moral: The more widespread fast vehicles are within a society, the more time—beyond a certain point—people will spend and lose on travel. It’s a mathematical fact.

The reason? We’ve just seen it: The cities and towns have been broken up into endless highway suburbs, for that was the only way to avoid traffic congestion in residential centers. But the underside of this solution is obvious: ultimately people can’t get around conveniently because they are far away from everything. To make room for the cars, distances have increased. People live far from their work, far from school, far from the supermarket—which then requires a second car so the shopping can be done and the children driven to school. Outings? Out of the question. Friends? There are the neighbors… and that’s it. In the final analysis, the car wastes more time than it saves and creates more distance than it overcomes. Of course, you can get yourself to work doing 60 mph, but that’s because you live 30 miles from your job and are willing to give half an hour to the last 6 miles. To sum it all up: “A good part of each day’s work goes to pay for the travel necessary to get to work.” (Ivan Illich).

"In the final analysis, the car wastes more time than it saves and creates more distance than it overcomes."

Maybe you are saying, “But at least in this way you can escape the hell of the city once the workday is over.” There we are, now we know: “the city,” the great city which for generations was considered a marvel, the only place worth living, is now considered to be a “hell.” Everyone wants to escape from it, to live in the country. Why this reversal? For only one reason. The car has made the big city uninhabitable. It has made it stinking, noisy, suffocating, dusty, so congested that nobody wants to go out in the evening anymore. Thus, since cars have killed the city, we need faster cars to escape on superhighways to suburbs that are even farther away. What an impeccable circular argument: give us more cars so that we can escape the destruction caused by cars.

"Since cars have killed the city, we need faster cars to escape on superhighways to suburbs that are even farther away. What an impeccable circular argument: give us more cars so that we can escape the destruction caused by cars."

From being a luxury item and a sign of privilege, the car has thus become a vital necessity. You have to have one so as to escape from the urban hell of the cars. Capitalist industry has thus won the game: the superfluous has become necessary. There’s no longer any need to persuade people that they want a car; it’s necessity is a fact of life. It is true that one may have one’s doubts when watching the motorized escape along the exodus roads. Between 8 and 9:30 a.m., between 5:30 and 7 p.m., and on weekends for five and six hours the escape routes stretch out into bumper-to-bumper processions going (at best) the speed of a bicyclist and in a dense cloud of gasoline fumes. What remains of the car’s advantages? What is left when, inevitably, the top speed on the roads is limited to exactly the speed of the slowest car?

Fair enough. After killing the city, the car is killing the car. Having promised everyone they would be able to go faster, the automobile industry ends up with the unrelentingly predictable result that everyone has to go as slowly as the very slowest, at a speed determined by the simple laws of fluid dynamics. Worse: having been invented to allow its owner to go where he or she wishes, at the time and speed he or she wishes, the car becomes, of all vehicles, the most slavish, risky, undependable and uncomfortable. Even if you leave yourself an extravagant amount of time, you never know when the bottlenecks will let you get there. You are bound to the road as inexorably as the train to its rails. No more than the railway traveller can you stop on impulse, and like the train you must go at a speed decided by someone else. Summing up, the car has none of the advantages of the train and all of its disadvantages, plus some of its own: vibration, cramped space, the danger of accidents, the effort necessary to drive it.

And yet, you may say, people don’t take the train. Of course! How could they? Have you ever tried to go from Boston to New York by train? Or from Ivry to Treport? Or from Garches to Fountainebleau? Or Colombes to l’Isle-Adam? Have you tried on a summer Saturday or Sunday? Well, then, try it and good luck to you! You’ll observe that automobile capitalism has thought of everything. Just when the car is killing the car, it arranges for the alternatives to disappear, thus making the car compulsory. So first the capitalist state allowed the rail connections between the cities and the surrounding countryside to fall to pieces, and then it did away with them. The only ones that have been spared are the high-speed intercity connections that compete with the airlines for a bourgeois clientele. There’s progress for you!

The truth is, no one really has any choice. You aren’t free to have a car or not because the suburban world is designed to be a function of the car and, more and more, so is the city world. That is why the ideal revolutionary solution, which is to do away with the car in favour of the bicycle, the streetcar, the bus, and the driverless taxi, is not even applicable any longer in the big commuter cities like Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, Trappes, or even Brussels, which are built by and for the automobile. These splintered cities are strung out along empty streets lined with identical developments; and their urban landscape (a desert) says, “These streets are made for driving as quickly as possible from work to home and vice versa. You go through here, you don’t live here. At the end of the workday everyone ought to stay at home, and anyone found on the street after nightfall should be considered suspect of plotting evil.” In some American cities the act of strolling in the streets at night is grounds for suspicion of a crime.

So, the jig is up? No, but the alternative to the car will have to be comprehensive. For in order for people to be able to give up their cars, it won’t be enough to offer them more comfortable mass transportation. They will have to be able to do without transportation altogether because they’ll feel at home in their neighborhoods, their community, their human-sized cities, and they will take pleasure in walking from work to home-on foot, or if need be by bicycle. No means of fast transportation and escape will ever compensate for the vexation of living in an uninhabitable city in which no one feels at home or the irritation of only going into the city to work or, on the other hand, to be alone and sleep.

“People,” writes Illich, “will break the chains of overpowering transportation when they come once again to love as their own territory their own particular beat, and to dread getting too far away from it.” But in order to love “one’s territory” it must first of all be made livable, and not trafficable. The neighborhood or community must once again become a microcosm shaped by and for all human activities, where people can work, live, relax, learn, communicate, and knock about, and which they manage together as the place of their life in common. When someone asked him how people would spend their time after the revolution, when capitalist wastefulness had been done away with, Marcuse answered, “We will tear down the big cities and build new ones. That will keep us busy for a while.”

These new cities might be federations of communities (or neighborhoods) surrounded by green belts whose citizens-and especially the schoolchildren-will spend several hours a week growing the fresh produce they need. To get around everyday they would be able to use all kinds of transportation adapted to a medium-sized town: municipal bicycles, trolleys or trolley-buses, electric taxis without drivers. For longer trips into the country, as well as for guests, a pool of communal automobiles would be available in neighborhood garages. The car would no longer be a necessity. Everything will have changed: the world, life, people. And this will not have come about all by itself.

"Above all, never make transportation an issue by itself. Always connect it to the problem of the city, of the social division of labour, and to the way this compartmentalizes the many dimensions of life."

Meanwhile, what is to be done to get there? Above all, never make transportation an issue by itself. Always connect it to the problem of the city, of the social division of labour, and to the way this compartmentalizes the many dimensions of life. One place for work, another for “living,” a third for shopping, a fourth for learning, a fifth for entertainment. The way our space is arranged carries on the disintegration of people that begins with the division of labour in the factory. It cuts a person into slices, it cuts our time, our life, into separate slices so that in each one you are a passive consumer at the mercy of the merchants, so that it never occurs to you that work, culture, communication, pleasure, satisfaction of needs, and personal life can and should be one and the same thing: a unified life, sustained by the social fabric of the community.

From Le Sauvage September-October 1973. Translator not known.

André Gorz was a philosopher, journalist, and writer. He was known as one of the first ecosocialists and political ecologists.


Nęsta sķša »

Höfundur

Árni Davíðsson
Árni Davíðsson
Höfundur er líffræðingur og kennari í hjólafærni. Allar skoðanir höfundar eru hans eigin og skal ekki yfirfæra á aðra einstaklinga eða samtök. Tölvupóstur: arnid65@gmail.com

Des. 2018

S M Ž M F F L
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

Nżjustu myndir

  • Akureyri 10 min kort
  • cars
  • Hagatorg
  • Ellidaarborg
  • EllidaarborgTafla

Nżjustu myndböndin

Frá Birkimel á Eiðistorg

Frá Nesveg í Kópavog

Frá Suðurlandsbraut á Birkimel

Frá Eiðistorgi á Laugaveg

Kársnes Höfðabakkabrú Mosfellsbær

Innskrįning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveikiš į Javascript til aš hefja innskrįningu.

Hafšu samband