The local newspaper says the construction of the underground parking garage will start this summer, unless complaints cause delays. The last price I've heard is 73 million euros, more than double from the original 30 million estimate and a bit more than the 60 million quoted last year.
Today's paper had an opinion piece complaining how the Administrative Court dismissed the case (complaint) against the decision to build The Dig. The court found that the city council followed the laws and procedures of making a decision. But the court said preparing and informing the public about the decision to be made were not their problem, the complainant should go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman exercises oversight to ensure that public authorities and officials observe the law and fulfill their duties. The scope of oversight includes also other parties performing public functions. The aim is to ensure good administration and the observance of constitutional and human rights.
The writer of the opinion piece claims the Ombudsman can not do anything about the case. He claims the public was not told what the city council decided in an unofficial meeting in 2002. No records were kept, but it is known three alternate plans for underground car parking in the downtown area was discussed.
In 2010 the costs had doubled, and the city council decided to cancel the plans. But only a few days after the meeting a working group was set to compare the options for parking. The public was not informed about this, and opponents thought the underground garage plans were buried and thus they didn't prepare alternate plans for the city council meeting 6 months later when the parking garage resurfaced and got approved.
The complainant also claims the public was lied about the finances. Instead of being profitable, the garage will need subsidies for the whole 30 years. Or maybe it more accurate to say it is profitable as a whole, with private businesses and large chain stores reaping the profits from the customers and the tax payer subsidizing the parking.
€73 million for 900 parking places means each costs 81000 euros. Thirty years times 365 days is about 11000 days. So each parking place should earn about 7,3 euros each day just to pay the construction costs without interests and other fees. At 2€/hr the dig would need to average 4 hours of parking in every place they have. That's 4000 cars every day, and I don't believe that is realistic. Half the lot will be empty except weekends.
I have to admit as I haven't recently paid for parking, I had no clue what the prices are at the parking meters. A quick search on the city's web page says street side parking is 1,2-2€/hr in the area of The Dig, and at parking garages about the same. Monthly fees at garages are only about a third (75€/month) of what a place should cost at the the Dig (7x30=210€).
Showing posts with label driving is expensive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label driving is expensive. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
12c increase in Diesel Fuel taxes
With the new year came some changes in regulations and taxes. In the news the most attention has been given to the change in car taxes. The government hiked up the taxes of diesel fuel about 13 cents. This will bring the price at pump close to 95E10, although it will still be a few cents cheaper. A web site following fuel prices at service stations says yesterdays average prices were 1.569€/L for 95E10 and 1.519€/L for diesel. That's in US prices about $7,69/gal and $7,44/gal. Oh, and the 95E10 got 2 or 3 cents more on taxes, but that gets hardly mentioned.
It used to be that those who drive a little were better off with a petrol engine. With diesel you paid the diesel tax (which petrol cars don't have) upfront but the cheaper diesel fuel made if cheaper, if you drove enough. Which one was cheaper, depended on the model and make of the car, but you needed to drive about 15000km or 20000km per year to get even, and more than that to make up the difference in the price of the cars as diesel cars are a bit more expensive.
This new tax hike brings the fuel prices almost even and all previous calculations are useless. It's not all doom and gloom for diesel owners, though. The diesel cars have a 'diesel tax' on them, and this tax was cut by 18%. In effect, the base cost of operating a diesel car goes down, but the cost of fuel goes up. People who drive less will save money, and those who drive a lot will pay more.
The new changes will move the equilibrium a bit, making the diesels more competitive earlier. People might buy a bit more fuel efficient diesel instead of petrol car, even though they aren't driving a lot. On the other hand it makes them less cheap to drive for those who drive a lot and they might cut some excess driving. Energy will get saved on both ends of the scale. Sounds good!
Of course, the government doesn't mind the tax money coming in. :-D
Edit: Taxes on new cars will change in April. A little lower taxes (a few hundred €) on low-emission cars, but the taxes on a big high-emission car might go up a few thousand euros. Some big-ass SUV's might get 10k€ increase in taxes.
It used to be that those who drive a little were better off with a petrol engine. With diesel you paid the diesel tax (which petrol cars don't have) upfront but the cheaper diesel fuel made if cheaper, if you drove enough. Which one was cheaper, depended on the model and make of the car, but you needed to drive about 15000km or 20000km per year to get even, and more than that to make up the difference in the price of the cars as diesel cars are a bit more expensive.
This new tax hike brings the fuel prices almost even and all previous calculations are useless. It's not all doom and gloom for diesel owners, though. The diesel cars have a 'diesel tax' on them, and this tax was cut by 18%. In effect, the base cost of operating a diesel car goes down, but the cost of fuel goes up. People who drive less will save money, and those who drive a lot will pay more.
The new changes will move the equilibrium a bit, making the diesels more competitive earlier. People might buy a bit more fuel efficient diesel instead of petrol car, even though they aren't driving a lot. On the other hand it makes them less cheap to drive for those who drive a lot and they might cut some excess driving. Energy will get saved on both ends of the scale. Sounds good!
Of course, the government doesn't mind the tax money coming in. :-D
Edit: Taxes on new cars will change in April. A little lower taxes (a few hundred €) on low-emission cars, but the taxes on a big high-emission car might go up a few thousand euros. Some big-ass SUV's might get 10k€ increase in taxes.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Saving fuel and money by cycling
So, fuel for the car costs 0,1€ = 10 cents per kilometer. How much do I save if I go shopping by bike instead of car? Lets compare the roundtrip distances to some of the shops I have gone to by car and by bike:
The trips are distances to the parking lot, or in the case of bike, to the front door where the bike parking is. Rotuaari, the pedestrian shopping street has obviously no parking, so one will have to park somewhere else and walk to the destination. There's been some plans that cycling on the pedestrian steet would be banned, but it's not happened yet.
One can quickly see that it's most profitable to go to the first supermarket by bike, as the trip is almost half compared to the car. For that trip, the bikeways are more direct and the car has to stop at several traffic lights. Fuel cost by car is at least 70c, divided by 4km on bicycle means I save 17,5c per kilometer every time I go shopping there.
The downtown supermarkets, the market square and Rotuaari are south of the river. There's only a limited number of bridges which limits the route options. Also the downtown area has streets on a grid, so the bike routes are on the grid too. No short cuts for bikes there. The difference between car and bike is lost. So the savings will drop to 10c per kilometer plus parking.
| shop | trip by car | trip by bike |
|---|---|---|
| supermarket | 7,0km | 4,0km |
| cheapomart west | 5,6km | 3,8km |
| cheapomart norteast | 6,4km | 5,4km |
| supermarkets downtown | 9,0km | 8,8km |
| market square | 7,2km | 6,4m |
| rotuaari | 7,4km | 7,4km |
The trips are distances to the parking lot, or in the case of bike, to the front door where the bike parking is. Rotuaari, the pedestrian shopping street has obviously no parking, so one will have to park somewhere else and walk to the destination. There's been some plans that cycling on the pedestrian steet would be banned, but it's not happened yet.
One can quickly see that it's most profitable to go to the first supermarket by bike, as the trip is almost half compared to the car. For that trip, the bikeways are more direct and the car has to stop at several traffic lights. Fuel cost by car is at least 70c, divided by 4km on bicycle means I save 17,5c per kilometer every time I go shopping there.
The downtown supermarkets, the market square and Rotuaari are south of the river. There's only a limited number of bridges which limits the route options. Also the downtown area has streets on a grid, so the bike routes are on the grid too. No short cuts for bikes there. The difference between car and bike is lost. So the savings will drop to 10c per kilometer plus parking.
Cost of driving with E10 and 98E5
For some reason, the new fuel mix E10 has not become as popular as predicted. It is a new product and nobody wants to let fuel companies use their car for testing. Despite assurances that the fuel is good and can be used on cars which are on the 'E10 compatible vehicles list', many people prefer to use the slightly more expensive 98E5. Maybe they suspect that the list is not accurate (as there has been several cars added/removed on the list already) or that any damage caused by the fuel will be diffucult to prove, and the car owner will have to pay the repairs themselves and they can't shift the costs to those who sold them the defective fuel and told them it is safe to use on their car.
One finnish tabloid newspaper, iltalehti has an article (in finnish) about their quick, not very accurate test drive. They drove a stretch of about 350km twice, once using E10 and the return trip using 98E5. Most of the trip was on quiet roads, following speed limits. They found out that using the more expensive 98E5 was cheaper in the end than the E10 fuel. The Ford Mondeo with 1,6l engine used 6,25 liters/100km of 98E5 and 6,68 liters/100km. The cost of using E10 was about 3,5% higher than 98E5.
The three lines below the cars are: fuel consumption reported by car computer, measured consumption, cost per 100km. The final cost is pretty much the same, 10€ vs 10,35€ per 100km. That's ten cents per km, on fuel alone.
One finnish tabloid newspaper, iltalehti has an article (in finnish) about their quick, not very accurate test drive. They drove a stretch of about 350km twice, once using E10 and the return trip using 98E5. Most of the trip was on quiet roads, following speed limits. They found out that using the more expensive 98E5 was cheaper in the end than the E10 fuel. The Ford Mondeo with 1,6l engine used 6,25 liters/100km of 98E5 and 6,68 liters/100km. The cost of using E10 was about 3,5% higher than 98E5.
 |
| (Source: iltalehti) Check the costs! |
Monday, February 14, 2011
How to reduce car traffic- Short Trip Congestion Charge
Consider these three things:
Does the idea have any obvious faults that I haven't thought about?
- There has been some plans to base insurance fees or taxes on vehicle miles travelled. The less you drive, the lower your fees or taxes.
- Bikeshares usually give you the first 30 minutes for free. After that, you'll have to pay.
- A lot of trips made by car are short. So short that a bike could be used instead.
- A gadget in the car measures the trip
- Unlike the bike share, the first two miles cost you extra. The first mile will count as 5 miles for counting the insurance fees / taxes. The second mile will count as 3 miles.
- after that, 1 mile = 1 mile
Does the idea have any obvious faults that I haven't thought about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)