Convinced? Rate this contribution from the community — and help make the best ideas visible.
9 comments
Join the discussion: ask questions, challenge ideas, and add context so the post becomes clearer.
1000 characters remaining
L. E.Author
2 months ago
Thank you for the input.
There are about 5 million cars per year and it should already pay off. The following adaptation:
- €10 per passage for everyone, thus EU‑compliant. For most Swiss it is not a huge amount. The costs can also be sponsored by hotels, companies (as a marketing initiative).
- 4‑pass subscription with 10 % discount, 8‑pass subscription with 20 % discount, etc., up to 40 %; additional discount for electric vehicles.
- A portion of the revenue to Uri and Ticino.
0
L. E.Author
2 months ago
Thank you very much for the constructive comments. My proposal can certainly be improved.
My core concerns (by priority):
1. In F, I, and AT, (partially massively higher) fees apply.
2. As simple and uncomplicated handling as possible (no bureaucratic monster).
3. No weakening of domestic tourism.
4. Cost truth / principle of the responsible party.
5. The price should not be seen as a penalty, but as a reasonable cost contribution.
I cannot resolve the dilemma of better treatment for Swiss people either. The best option would have been an increase of the vignette, but that was unfortunately rejected by the voting bloc.
0
O. H.Partner in Crime
2 months ago
To my opinion, Switzerland is already allowed to charge higher tolls for a passage. In Switzerland, the costs for construction and operation are also the highest compared to neighboring countries. The CHF 25 for a month, i.e., for an ordinary traveler CHF 25 for a single trip to Italy, seems to me clearly too cheap. Environmental damage and noise add to that. For the beautiful Gotthard Tunnel, CHF 50 per passage would be appropriate.
-1
S. B.
2 months ago
The question is whether all your concerns are factually compatible:
1. If the price for usage is lower than in AT/FR, the guiding effect is lost.
2. Bureaucracy: there are systems where it is automatically recorded at a certain point during passage and the amount is debited – as seen in Chile. The costs for this system would also need to be included in the price.
3. No weakening of domestic tourism: this will hardly be possible because, due to EU agreements, either everyone or nobody has to pay. Tessiner would then also have to pay per passage to the north. Or one offers a Pender subscription that is more expensive than 2 passages in 30 days.
4. Cost truth: which costs – only those for road and tunnel construction or also for maintenance? Including environmental and noise damage? Has anyone ever calculated what an average passage would cost? What if the costs are cheaper than in AT/FR?
5. Vignette: would also have been too cheap even at 100.-
0
M. H.
2 months ago
Ich stimme ebenfalls nicht zu, da es zu günstig ist. Einfach wie bei anderen Tunnels pro Durchfahrt (Arlbergtunnel 11 Euro).
0
S. M.
2 months ago
Das ist mir schon klar, aber die Mehrheit der Urlauber wird innerhalb von 30 Tagen nicht mehr als zwei Mal durch den Gotthard fahren. Ich bin gegen eine solche Gebühr, weil die Kosten des Gotthard eigentlich mit der Vignette abgedeckt sein müsste.
Eine Lenkungsabgabe/Strafgebühr für diejenigen, die unbedingt an Ostern in den Süden fahren müssen, wäre durchaus denkbar.
0
M. H.
2 months ago
Ergänzung für Stefan M.: bei zwei Durchfahrten wäre es günstiger wenn der gleiche Betrag erhoben werden würde wie beim Arlbergtunnel, korrekt. Aber man kann nicht während 30 Tagen mehrmals hin und her. Und kein Unterschied zwischen Nationalität. Einfaches Verursacherprinzip: wer den Tunnel benützt, bezahlt.
0
S. M.
2 months ago
Wäre ja dann günstiger bei dir. Einmal hin und zurück -> 22.- ;-)
0
S. B.
2 months ago
Stimme nicht zu, weil 25.- zu wenig sind für 30 Tage. Und weil wir aufgrund von Verträgen mit der EU die Ausländer nicht diskriminieren dürfen,