Battle looms over EU-wide road charging scheme[fr][de] 

The idea of establishing a uniform 'user-pays' system for all forms of transport is not new. However, it has usually been brushed under the carpet – as was the case during the Eurovignette debate – because of the complexity of calculating external costs. 

The question of which costs should be considered as transport-related externalities – whether it should just be CO2 emissions or also things like the hospital costs of people involved in road accidents – is the main bone of contention, notably between green groups and 'softer' transport associations on the one hand and road industry representatives on the other. 

Another point of argument is what should be done with the money raised from internalising these costs (currently, the Eurovignette leaves it up to member states to decide). 

The International Union of Public Transport (UITP) stresses: "The current financial cost of use of different transport modes does not reflect the real cost to society. The poor contribution of private car usage to covering the external costs it produces creates a situation of unfair competition with the "softer" modes of urban transport (public transport, cycling and walking)." 

The Union highlights the deficiencies of the current Eurovignette Directive, which deals only with commercial vehicles and long distance transport, despite the fact that the majority of transport-related external costs are concentrated in urban areas. 

It therefore calls on the Commission to present a model that takes full account of urban mobility problems and "develops guidance for concrete measures for the internalisation of external costs resulting from car traffic and parking in urban areas". 

"With regard to passenger transport, the models should target the private car. Public transport should be exempted from tax burdens and should benefit from the revenue of hypothecated taxation on indirect beneficiaries," it stresses. 

However, the European Association of Automobile Manufacturers (ACEA), the European Road Federation (ERF), the International Tourism Alliance (AIT) and the International Automobile Federation (FIA), argue that "motoring already pays for itself". They say existing taxes, including fuel and vehicle taxes, already reach over €360 billion, thereby easily covering the costs inflicted by road users. 

ERF Policy Director Tom Antonissen further adds that, while he fully agrees that the road transport sector should be made to pay for its emissions of CO2, "the debate needs to be fair and tax-neutral," implying that current taxes, which are not based on an estimation of external costs, such as registration and ownership taxes, should first be scrapped. 

The road industry also insists that only CO2 should be considered as an external cost to society, because internalising the marginal costs of accidents and congestion "is neither feasible nor the most efficient instrument available to deal with these serious social issues". 

According to a study prepared for ACEA: "The rationale of internalisation is to make economic agents aware of the costs they inflict upon society and induce them to modify their behaviour accordingly. The probabilistic nature of car accidents will prevent this from happening."

It explains that increasing the cost of auto usage would likely have no impact on road safety. "Will it make them drive more prudently, take a better care of their vehicles, be more sober, respect driving rules and prohibitions, and more generally 'avoid accidents'? Obviously not. If anything, the additional money they will spend on fuel will not be spent on improving their vehicles, and this will increase the accident rate."

Furthermore, while stressing that only CO2 should be considered as an external cost, ERF’s Antonissen says that the benefits generated by road users must also be integrated into the cost calculation: "If you talk about the costs of road transport to society, you should certainly offset them against the benefits, including job creation, trade, competitiveness, social cohesion and poverty alleviation." 

Lastly, the industry insists that any income raised from road usage be invested back into optimising road transport. "We are against cross-subsidising, where all the income from the road sector is used to invest even more massively into the rail sector. We simply cannot allow that when there are still so many roads in Europe that need improving," Antonissen told EurActiv. 

The European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E)  however rejects the argument that that transport is already heavily taxed: “This is far from the truth,” it stresses, saying that total taxes of €360 billion “only recoup about half of the total social costs” – which the group estimates at more than €680 billion, including costs for climate change, air pollution, accidents, noise, landscape and urban effects. 

"Making road users pick up the bill for the environmental and social damage they cause would dramatically reduce these negative impacts and make the sector more efficient," T&E Policy Officer Nina Renshaw told EurActiv. She explained: "A study by the German Federal Office for Freight Transport, on the impact of Germany's distance-based toll for trucks, introduced in January 2005, is illuminating...There has already been a 13% decrease in 'empty truck kilometres'." 

She urged the Commission to "waste no time in coming forward with a new Eurovignette proposal that enables the inclusion of external costs in road charges".