Høringssvar vedrørende Handlingsplan for Grøn Mobilitet

Allow me to contribute in my native English: The "Green Mobility action plan" is a well written catalog of initiatives for balancing the need for transport services with other social goals such as improving public health and a reducing carbon emissions. The main criticism I have of the plan is what is missing, in particular what is missing from the section "Incentives".  It is a farce to talk about incentives without even naming the incentive that matters most: the economic incentive.  There is a broad consensus among experts that raising the marginal price of private motoring to reflect the social costs is a necessary and sufficient condition for fulfilling the goals of this green plan.  The price of private motoring is too low, and ignoring the elephant in the room in an otherwise well informed plan is almost scandalous.  The most obvious, and immediately available economic tool for internalizing the social costs of private motor transport is setting the right price for parking.  The right price for parking, as defined by Donald Shoup, is the lowest price that ensures ca. 10% of spaces are available. Together with reduced availability of parking, higher parking prices (also and especially for residents of Copenhagen) can reduce motor traffic to a level that can co-exist with dense human settlements. What good is initiative #19 "Smart (IT) Information" if it tells most users that the fastest and cheapest (for the individual) mode of transport is their private vehicle? Besides excluding the economic incentive, the plan is also missing a focus on reducing the speed of private motor traffic in densely populated areas, though initiative 13 "Vejnetsplan" comes close.  The plan describes reduced road speeds as something negative, but when it applies to private motor traffic, and not bikes or public transport, slower speeds contribute to re-balancing transport choices towards "greener" alternatives.  Lower speeds contribute to greater traffic safety, lower emissions of noise and lower energy use.  Speeds are also easy and cheap to reduce by creating "vejchikaner" and improving control. All residential areas should have a speed limit of 30 km/t. Parking:  Page 25 says "Borgerrepræsentationen i juni 2011 [indgik] aftale om etablering af mere end 1700 nye p-pladser i København" ... with the predictable consequence of increased congestion on our roads, and reduced air quality in direct contradiction with the goals of this plan. There are more valuable uses of public space than storage of private vehicles. "Miljøzoner": They have proven an effective tool for excluding the worst emitters from the most densely populated areas.  Why don't strict regulations apply to all kinds of health harming emissions, including noise?  A small number of poorly maintained vehicles emit noise which is orders of magnitude louder that average vehicles in the same class. These few vehicles should be denied access to our city. “Busser på Alternative Drivmidler”: The report describes "manglende driftsefering" as barrier to the adoption of electric busses.  The report was referring to in immature state of battery-electric buses. However, "electric" buses which draw power from "køreledninger" have been in use for decades all around the world and should be considered a highly viable propulsion option to reduce the emissions (noise, CO2, NOx) and operating cost of the most heavily used bus routes.  The frontier of trolly bus technology is hybrid diesel-electric buses that use "køreledninger" on the main trunk roads and diesel on more thinly served branches. “Strøggader”: Frederikssundsvej is classified as a "strøggade" in Bronshøj, but not the NothWest district. I think it would be more natural to classify the entire route from Norreport to Bronshøj as a shopping street.