European Economic and Social Committee

1
European Economic and Social Committee
Urban road pricing in Europe Presentation by
Mr Eric Ponthieu Head of Unit EESC TEN
Section Brussels Parliament 5 November 2008
Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and
Information Society
2
1. Content of the presentation

• What does the EESC TEN Section?
• The EU level approach
• Green Paper on Urban Mobility
• Follow-up to the Green Paper
• EU research
• Local research
• Conclusions

European Economic and Social Committee
3
1. EESC TEN Section

• Responsible for delivering opinions on the EU
  legislative and non legislative proposals
  relating to energy, transport, information
  society and services of general interest
• To ensure that these policies are designed for
  the benefit of all sectors of the society,
  employers, employees, agriculture and handicraft
  businesses, etc., and above all of citizens
• The transport sector is pivotal to the European
  way of life and to the functioning of our
  economy as such its operation has also to be
  consistent with the EU Sustainable Development
  Strategy and needs to minimise impacts on Climate
  Change

European Economic and Social Committee
4
2. The European context

• 1986 first Urban Road Pricing Scheme in Europe
• Bergen (Norway), then Oslo and Trondheim
• objective to raise funds for road construction
• 2008 around 10 Urban Road Pricing Schemes in
• Europe, with rather positive experiences
• London, Stockholm, Milan, Rome, Bergen,
• Oslo, La Valetta, Durham (UK) and Znojmo,
• (Czech Rep.)
• objectives to reduce congestion or to reduce
• environmental pollution, or both
• Other cities are examining the application of
  URP
• schemes e.g. Amsterdam, Manchester, Athens,

European Economic and Social Committee
5
3. EU level approach (1)

• European Commission has a neutral position,
  based on the subsidiarity principle local,
  regional and national governments are responsible
  to introduce the urban mobility schemes that they
  decide are best suited to match their needs
• No EU policy on Urban Road pricing
• But innovative approaches towards congestion and
  pollution reduction through the EU research
  policy (best practices) and an encouragement to
  the use of market-based instruments to support
  environmental policy
• External costs of urban transport on the rise
• congestion 1 of EU GDP (105 billion) in 2010
• air pollution and climate change 10 of all CO2
  emissions 2/3 of European cities exceed EU
  ambient AQ standards
• accidents and safety one fatal accident in
  three in urban areas
• noise 2/3 urban population exposed to high
  sound levels

European Economic and Social Committee
6
4. EU level approach (2)

• July 2008 proposal for a new directive on the
  charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of
  infrastructure ('Eurovignette' directive)
• to charge heavy goods vehicles according to air
  and noise pollution caused by traffic, as well as
  to congestion
• charges to vary with the travelled distance,
  location and time of use of roads
• revenues to be used to alleviate negative
  impacts of transport, e.g. for sustainable
  transport research and infrastructure projects
• leaves it open to the Member States to take the
  appropriate measures regarding charging in urban
  areas
• calculation method and which costs to be
  included still under debate at the EP and Council
  (TRAN Committee 3/11)

European Economic and Social Committee
7
5. Green Paper on Urban Mobility (1)

• September 2007 EC adopted the Green Paper
  "Towards a new culture on Urban Mobility"
• Urban road user charging addressed in a neutral
  way, leaving to local, regional and national
  authorities to decide on applying urban road
  charging schemes
• Refers to urban charging schemes in London and
  Stockholm as having demonstrated positive impacts
  on the fluidity of transport
• Warns about risk of creating a fragmented
  patchwork of urban areas with new border lines
  across Europe
• Stakeholders calling for guidance and
  development of harmonised rules at the EU level
  to enable a wide use of such measures without
  creating disproportionate barriers to mobility
  for citizens and goods

European Economic and Social Committee
8
6. Green Paper on Urban Mobility (2)

• Green Paper questions related to urban charging
  
• Should criteria or guidance be set out for the
  definition of Green Zones and their restriction
  measures?
• What is the best way to ensure their
  compatibility with free circulation?
• Is there an issue of cross border enforcement of
  local rules governing Green Zones?
• Should towns and cities be encouraged to use
  urban charging?
• Is there a need for a general framework and/or
  guidance for urban charging?
• Should the revenues be earmarked to improve
  collective urban transport?
• Should external costs be internalised?

European Economic and Social Committee
9
7. Follow-up to the Green Paper (1)

• Green Paper consultation finished on 15 March
  2008
• Action Plan on Urban Mobility expected by the
  end of 2008
• 9th of July 2008 EP resolution on Rack Report
• calls for specific European rules and/or
  guidance for the standardisation and
  harmonisation of the design and functioning of
  green zones road pricing
• considers that the decision on whether to
  introduce these measures should be taken at local
  level taking account of the specific situation of
  each conurbation
• special emphasis on avoiding the establishment
  of divergent initiatives in different Member
  States

European Economic and Social Committee
10
8. Follow-up to the Green Paper (2)

• Key recommendations of EESC opinion on the Green
  Paper, rapporteur Mr. Hernandez-Bataller and
  co-rapporteur Barbadillo Lopez
• There should be common rules at European level,
  through the harmonisation of criteria for
  calculating charges
• Charging or toll systems for access to city
  centres are in the public interest and have
  satisfactory immediate results, but discriminate
  against those with lower incomes, and have little
  dissuasive effect on those in higher income bands
  
• Local authorities should adopt measures to
  overcome any negative effects, for example by
  promoting the use of public transport or
  providing reduced rate passes

European Economic and Social Committee
11
9. EU Research promoting URP schemes the CURACAO
project (1)

• European Commission FP6 research project CURACAO
  (2006-2009) Coordination of Urban Road-User
  Charging Organisational Issues
• objective monitoring and sharing the results of
  the different schemes
• User Group including 21 cities interested to
  study/examine/implement Urban Road Pricing
  schemes in their areas
• CURACAO workshops chaired by Bristol City
  Council, who coordinated both PROGRESS and
  EUROPRICE under FP5
• main result expected the development of a
  generic urban blueprint that can serve as a
  catalyst for the implementation of road pricing
  in European cities

European Economic and Social Committee
12
10. EU Research promoting URP schemes the
CURACAO project (2)

• Cities from the different user groups have
  different needs for outputs
• Number of products to be created during the
  project
• a handbook to support decision makers in the
  design and implementation of road pricing
  measures policy recommendations
• targeted fact sheets possible impacts/barriers
• online searchable good practices database, which
  will contain facts and figures on scheme
  specification, processes, impacts, barriers and
  solutions from the CURACAO case studies
• a categorised contact database containing key
  stakeholders from the target groups
• final report providing guidelines on successful
  implementation of URP

European Economic and Social Committee
13
11. National/local research Road pricing study
in Paris (1)

• Ex-ante impact assessment of an URP scheme in
  Paris
• Compared the direct effects (i.e. monetary cost
  and changes in travel time) of 9 possible
  scenarios
• a toll on traffic travelling in or through Paris
  at different price levels from 0.70 to 4.25
  per trip, geared at reducing traffic by 10, 20,
  30, or 50
• charging only traffic entering Paris from the
  suburbs
• charging in the central zone but providing a 90
  reduction in the charge for residents
• charging in the central zone but reducing by 50
  the toll for greener vehicles (less than 180g
  CO2 per km)
• using the proceeds of a charge to reduce the
  cost of public transport
• distributing the proceeds of a charge evenly
  among all commuters in the form of lump sum
  payments

European Economic and Social Committee
14
12. Road pricing study in Paris (2)

• Research variables included the cost of cars
  versus public transport, the value placed by
  different income groups on reduced travel times,
  availability of free parking, household income,
  number of children and number of cares per
  household,
• Results as a function of which groups of
  commuters (motorists or public transport users)
  are winners or losers in terms of toll cost and
  reduction of journey time

European Economic and Social Committee
15
13. Road pricing study in Paris (3)

• On the whole, motorists tend to loose
  financially by the introduction of tolls
• Among those who continue to use their car
  following the introduction of a toll, higher
  income motorists loose less than lower-income
  ones
• Lower-income motorists would increasingly switch
  to public transport if toll income is used to
  subsidise public transport
• Lower-income motorists would benefit from the
  schemes that include rebates for greener vehicles
  or seek to combine reductions in vehicle numbers
  with faster journey times on public transport
• Lower-income motorists would be hardest hit by
  the scenario that charges motorists entering a
  zone from outside, as they tend to live in the
  suburbs

European Economic and Social Committee
16
14. Road pricing study in Paris (4)

• In relative terms, tolls are always more
  detrimental to lower income groups
• In absolute terms, results depend crucially on
  how much the traffic is reduced
• More stringent tolls can favour lower-income
  individuals if this leads to greater traffic
  reduction with motorists switching to public
  transport loosing less in terms of time and money
  
• Political acceptability would be improved if
  city centre residents were partially exempted
• Main conclusion Scheme design and the degree to
  which journey times are improved substantially
  affect the pattern of take-up among commuters

European Economic and Social Committee
17
15. Conclusions

• A growing number of European policy-makers/city
  authorities consider road pricing as a credible
  instrument to tackle urban congestion
• No EU policy on URP (subsidiarity)
• URP schemes efficiency largely depend on
• Careful design
• Political support
• Public acceptance and perceived fairness by
  different income groups
• Adequate communication (cf. Edimburgh)
• URP can provide extra financing to improve
  public transport capacities and public transport
  greening (cf. EU directive on the promotion of
  clean and efficient vehicles, EC adoption by 19
  December 2007)

European Economic and Social Committee
18
16. Urban mobility pattern 1976-2001
European Economic and Social Committee
19
17. The evolution of the modal split
European Economic and Social Committee