Oslo-Akershus workshop
Inventory report: Road User Charging
Tor Bysveen, 07.03.2011
Presentation of the findings of the SWOT:
• Road user charging on national level.
• 4 groups of MRs, according to their current position
on road user charging.
• 7 main thematic categories of arguments.
• Arguments systemized in accordance with the
thematic categories.
• The main findings for each MR.
– A more detailed summary is distributed on paper.
MRs with road user charging on national
level:
• Berlin-Brandenburg (toll for trucks using motorways)
• Budapest (motorway tolls)
• Ljubljana (toll for using the highways)
• Oslo (toll on major roads to cover major investment costs)
• Rome (toll on motorways)
• Vienna (national toll on freeways and urban freeways)
MRs with road user charging on
metropolitan level (1):
• MRs with road user charging on metropolitan level:
– Oslo/Akershus (toll ring introduced in 1990)
• MRs planning to introduce road user charging:
– Gothenburg (toll ring)
– Budapest (obliged to introduce congestion charging
through the contract with the European Commision about
co-financing the Metro 4 project.)
MRs with road user charging on
metropolitan level (2):
• MRs discussing road user charging
– Ljubljana (first discussions of congestion charge in the city
municipality of Ljubljana)
– Rome (discussions about motorway tolls not concluded)
• MRs that are very unlikely to introduce or discuss road user
charging
– Berlin-Brandenburg (discussions on a very general level about road
user charging, but strong majority against it)
– Vienna (not for passenger cars)
Categories of arguments:
• A: Transport
– A1: Public transport
– A2: Cars
• B: Governance/legal issues
• C: Economy
– C1: Revenue
– C2: Costs
•
•
•
•
D: Data/information
E: Environment/sustainability
X: Path dependency/X factor
W: Welfare
Planning road user charging: Budapest
Strengths
Weaknesses
Public transport: Increased capacity Lack of up-to-date information
and efficiency
Outdated pt system
Revenue reinvested
Fragmented pt responsibility
Political consensus
No legal framework
Opportunities
Threats
Co-financing
Low publ. acceptance
Environmental consciousness
High implementation costs
Car as status symbol
Planning road user charging: Gothenburg
Strengths
Weaknesses
Increased capacity & efficiency in pt Lack of up-to-date information
Revenue reinvested
Political consensus
High implementation &
maintenance costs
Environment benefits
Goals not properly communicated
Better traffic safety
Opportunities
Threats
Co-financing (bigger birthday cake!) Insufficient pt supply
Improved pt
Negative attitudes
From congestion charge to access
fee
Insufficient revenue
Discussing road user charging: Ljubljana
Strengths
Weaknesses
Public transport: Increased capacity Public support takes time
and efficiency
High implementation costs
Businesses can loose
Revenue reinvested
Environment benefits
Better traffic safety
Opportunities
Threats
Changing travel patterns
Social exclusion
Revenues reinvested
Delocalisation of businesses
Environment benefits
No legal framework
Social inclusion
Low public trust
Data protection
Discussing road user charging: Rome
Strengths
Weaknesses
Public transport: Increased capacity Congestion of alternative roads
and efficiency
Tariff will not lead to shift from car
Revenue reinvested
to public transport
Environment benefits
Opportunities
Threats
Social exclusion
Delocalisation of businesses
No legal framework
Insufficient park and ride
Congestion of public transport
Very unlikely til discuss or introduce ruc:
Berlin-Brandenburg
Strengths
Weaknesses
Public motivation
Lack of public and political
acceptance.
Revenue reinvested
Environmental benefits
Opportunities
Threats
User charge a strong symbol
Social exclusion
Environmental consciousness
Users of public transport rewarded.
Very unlikely til discuss or introduce ruc:
Vienna
Strengths
Weaknesses
Good public transport service
Increased cooperation
High ability to pay
Good experience with parking
management
Lack of public acceptance.
Low parking costs
Fragmented pt responsibility
Unclear legal framework
Low cost recovery rate
Opportunities
Threats
Environmental consciousness
Fulfilment of policy goals
High implementation & maintenance
costs
Technology development
Technical challenges
Data protection
Oslo-Akershus
– after 20 years of road user charging
Strengths
Weaknesses
High level of revenue
Municipalities are authorities of land
use, but not public transport.
Solid political support
Legal framework in place
Temporary plan – what happens in
2027?
Opportunities
Threats
Environmental consciousness
Slow in dealing with environmental
challenges.
Very low running costs
System may also be used for road
pricing given political will.
High use of cars, especially in the
outskirts.
What explains the differences?
• All MRs except Gothenburg already have motorway
tolls. Some MRs also have other traffic restrictions.
– Is it unacceptable to add an additional charge?
• Are agreements with central governments/EU a
prerequisite?
• Historical, economical and cultural backgrounds.