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Public transport: Increased capacity Lack of up-to-date information and efficiency Outdated pt system Revenue reinvested Fragmented pt responsibility Political consensus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.