This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
THE VIEW European Transport Financing Dr Andreas Kossak


What matters in road pricing: fairness, efficiency or sustainability?


Dr Andreas Kossak is Principal of AK Research & Consulting, based in Hamburg, Germany drkossak@aol.com


I


n 1995 the European Commission released the Green Paper Towards Fair and Efficient Pricing in


Transport. Five years later the German government-appointed High Commission on Financing the Transport Infrastructure (the Pällmann Commission, oſten referenced in this column) recommended a gradual total change to financing road infrastructure based on distance and strain-related road user charges (variable by location and time/traffic management) – in particular referring to the criteria of fairness, efficiency and sustainability. Te recommendation was accepted and welcomed by all relevant lobbyist groups in Germany – and subsequently by politics too. All high-level commissions


worldwide that worked on the respective subject in the subsequent years came up with principally the same results like the Pällmann Commission, including: • UK Commission for Integrated Transport (Paying for road use, 2002),


• Swedish Road Taxation Commission (Skatt pả väg, 2004)


• US National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission (Paying our Way, 2009).


Germany started the change by preparing the introduction of distance-related tolling for the use of Autobahns by heavy trucks. According to the recommendation of the Pällmann Commission tolling was


based on GNSS/GSM technology in order to be able to expand it to non-limited access roads, and in


78


the future cars, without technology change. In those days Germany was internationally envied for both its decision and its plans in this respect. Before tolling started in January 2005 however, the government decided, contrary to the recommendations of the Pällmann Commission and to its own previously stated promises: • To use the toll revenue not for bridging the undisputed latent financing gap in the road sector but to reduce the financing budget by the same amount; and


• To distribute the revenue to all transport infrastructure sectors, although this more a case of same money, different pocket.


In reaction to that lobbyist groups immediately revoked their approval for the expansion of road user charging to a total refusal. In such a situation it seems to be


the simplest solution for politicians to hide their fear of not being re- elected by taking over even the most


thinkinghighways.com


abstruse lobby arguments against road user charging – thus acting in contradiction to their primary task as public representatives to strive for the best solutions for the public. In the foreword to the 2011 publication Te Acceptability of Road Pricing, Prof. Steven Glaister, the director of the UK Royal Automobile Club Foundation (RACF) made it clear that “we should be willing to embrace the messages of this report and to recognize the benefits that new charging systems for roads have delivered… in many countries... Far from being a vote-loser the evidence is, that if it is introduced in the right way, road pricing can be perfectly acceptable for the majority of the population.” Tis has obviously not yet been





Lobbyist groups


reacted to the German Government’s decision by immediately replacing


their approval of the


expansion of road user charging to a total refusal





heard and “embraced” respectively everywhere. Te final report of the German Commission on the Future of Financing the Transport Infrastructure of December 2012 included the systematic expansion of road user charging as part of a “toolkit”; as a political commission it was supposed not to recommend certain tools or options. Shortly aſter the publication of the report a member of the commission declared in a press release: “In full compliance with all Federal States that I am representing in the commission (five out of 16) I clearly reject any road pricing for cars.” Te arguments behind that position are, according to, admittedly, rumour, that collecting user charges from cars is unfair and antisocial. Facts and expert knowledge still


seem not to be convincing enough to pave the way for a future fair, efficient and sustainable financing of the road infrastructure. Tis means that there is still a lot of work to be done.


Vol 8 No 2 Europe/Rest of the World


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84