It was noted with interest that the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had managed to execute his "congestion charge" system of taxing users of Central London's roads - theoretically a policy fraught with political danger - whilst actually increasing his popularity with the voting public.

I recall a conversation with Governor Apirak three years ago. I had asked if he had considered using "zero tolerance" on issues related to traffic infringements. He smiled politely and I never heard him mention it again. I think he also realised that whilst the perception was that all traffic matters are the responsibility of the BMA, the reality was that it was really in the hands of the police. Still, this concept was a bug in my mind that would not go away. We are all delayed in roads with clear "no parking" signs that are littered with parked vehicles. We are slowed because taxis stop for passengers anywhere without consideration for other road users, or buses that weave in and out of lanes, often stopping for passengers in the middle of the road. As a Bangkok MP I receive many complaints from communities whose common areas have been effectively turned into car parks. Yet the police seem unable or unwilling to deal with the problem.

Before we even think of a congestion charge, we need to reclaim roads for public use - not personal car parks. A congestion charge in any case is a measure that will discriminate against the poor. Strict enforcement of traffic regulations will however, be less discriminatory. It will also force a habit change and make people think twice about driving their cars. Eventually this will mean greater use of taxis as well as other public transport.

In parallel we need to significantly improve the buses. In this regard, the Democrat Party has already pledged to take control of the Transport Company and allocate proper resources as well as route planning to improve the quality of the service and make it complementary to the rail network that is being expanded by both the BMA and central government.

In a recent discussion with my Democrat colleagues at the BMA, they said they are already thinking about relaxing the regulation which forces a minimum number of car parking facilities on the developers of residential condominiums. The argument is that the need to provide substantial car parking adds to the cost of building these condos - and unit cost could be reduced by as much as 20 per cent to the consumer if they were not bound by regulations to provide car parks.

The BMA is also in the process of launching the BRT - basically a very comfortable bus with its own dedicated lanes. Personally I support most schemes that will wean the public away from their cars, but I have made a point of reminding the BMA that very little can be achieved unless the provision of alternatives is coupled with stricter enforcement of discipline.

Specifically, here are some other ideas designed to enhance public discipline in the use of roads.

1. We need to upgrade the ticketing system. At the moment the percentage of written tickets entered into the system is so low as to encourage recipients of tickets to pay their fine. It would be worthwhile also making the penalty significant enough to be a deterrent. A friend of mine was hit with a US$300 ticket for parking in a handicapped person's space in Los Angeles. He never made that mistake again. A Bht500 ticket for speeding is really no deterrent at all for the owner of a car that's worth Bht5, 10 or 20 million.

2. Why not let the police do police work and outsource traffic work to the private sector? Incentive schemes whereby private operators share in the penalties levied would certainly ensure greater vigilance - and less corruption. Towing and impounding of cars could be introduced by the private sector. I am sure we can change behaviour in less than 6 months through this method.

3. In addition we could link traffic infringements to the cost of insurance premiums. This also makes sense, as careful drivers should represent a better risk.

4. Streetside cameras could be introduced - especially to catch those who jump traffic lights, not least as it is a life threatening infringement. This investment could be made by the private sector.

If there were greater discipline there would be better traffic flow, and with lower car usage an important benefit be pollution reduction. Indeed, additional measures could be taken to reduce pollution through emissions from motor cars. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York has recently launched a campaign to replace the ubiquitous yellow cabs with hybrid cars - ones that run on electricity at low speed and petrol at higher speed. Bloomberg estimates that emissions would be cut by half over the next decade.

This is a good idea, but since hybrids are more expensive, the government will have to think of concessions on customs and excise tax duties to make them affordable - and the BMA may in addition have to provide additional financing to help taxi drivers make the switch. In addition, the BMA's policy of introducing mass transport such as the BRT and extensions to the BTS is clearly hugely relevant.

This 'carrot and stick' approach is crucial to policy success. I believe that the time has come to make a move towards changing behaviour. The reality is that politicians love to provide carrots - more trains, more roads etc, but invariably shy away from providing the sticks like as tough enforcement and strict rules.

We need both.

Korn Chatikavanij

Special to The Nation

Korn Chatikavanij is deputy secretary-general of the Democrat Party and a former MP for Bangkok Constituency 7. He can be reached via email at: korn@democrat.or.th.