The Transportation Demand Management Economics Essay
It is acknowledged that motorway is built for public purposes and everyone is able to utilize the motorway. Unfortunately, this purpose is not equally reached. Motorway is used only by car owner. Carelessly, this inequality has to be paid in the same amount by the whole community. Decreasing air quality, rising noise perception, and numbers of accident are some costs that has to be shared even by non user of motorway. Initiated by the awareness of a sustainable transportation, the notion transportation demand management became major issue recently. The basic idea of charging motorway is reducing dependency on government budget of infrastructure funding. Some other remarks regarding toll is also reducing the traffic by shifting to the un tolled motorway and also shifting the time of travel. Other purpose is improving environment quality.
Currently, most of European countries have applied toll system. There are four main toll system appears: time toll variation, time and space toll variation, vehicle category toll variation, and users pay principle variation. Since the opening of toll system, motorway infrastructure cost that has to be paid by government diminishes. This means, budget of motorway could be reallocated to other sectors. Unfortunately, this success story is not followed by slowing down the number of traffic. Travel still exists and tends to be increasing.
Transportation demand management in term of toll system is still unable to manage the demand. It is favorable outcome to increase more revenue but fails to break the travel demand.
Table of Content
Abstract i
Table of Content ii
List of Figures ii
List of Tables iii
1 Introduction 1
2 Preliminaries 2
2.1 Background 2
2.2 Problem 2
2.3 Objective 3
2.4 Methodology 3
3 Theoretical Framework 4
3.1 Economy of Transport 4
3.2 Transportation Demand Management 5
3.3 Toll 7
4 Road Toll Implementation 8
4.1 Toll in Italy 8
4.2 Toll in France 10
4.3 Toll in Austria 11
4.4 Toll in Switzerland 12
4.5 Toll in Germany 13
5 Discussion 14
6 Conclusion 16
Bibliography 17
A. Annexes 19
List of Figures
Figure 2‑1 Assessment Process in Evaluating TDM Strategies 4
Figure 4‑2 Trend of Traffic in Italian Motorways 10
Figure 4‑3 Average Daily Traffic on Tolled Motorway in France 10
Figure 4‑4 Length of Tolled Motorway in France 11
Figure 4‑5 Km Traveled on the ASFINAG Network 12
Figure 4‑6 Map of the Austrian Network 12
Figure 4‑7 Traffic Condition in Motorways 13
Figure A‑8 Vehicle Class in Italy 19
Figure A‑9 Toll Revenue in Italy 19
Figure A‑10 Toll Accident in Italy 20
Figure A‑11 Traffic at Tolled Facilities in France 20
Figure A‑12 Annual Revenue in France 21
Figure A‑13 Toll Accident in France 21
Figure A‑14 Toll Death Rate in France 22
Figure A‑15 Kilometers Traveled in Austria 22
Figure A‑16 Accident in Austria 23
Figure A‑17 Key Performance of Toll in Austria 23
Figure A‑18 Vignette Sticker in Switzerland 24
Figure A‑19 Travel Index in Switzerland 24
Figure A‑20 Traffic Growth in Switzerland 25
Figure A‑21 Congestion Source in Switzerland 25
Figure A‑22 Emission Category in Germany 26
Figure A‑23 Heavy Vehicle Traffic in Germany 26
List of Tables
Table 2‑1 Assessment Criteria 3
Table 3‑2 A Survey of Possible Economic Incentives and Instrument 4
Table 3‑3 TDM Measurement 6
Table 4‑4 Traffic in Italian Motorways 9
Table 4‑5 Emissions Classes as per Toll Rate Regulations 14
Table 5‑6 Comparison of Toll 14
Table 5‑7 TDM Assessment in Toll System 15
Table A‑8 Vehicle Classifications in France 20
Introduction
It was well known that travel costs nothing on the motorway for the user, despite the fact that the road infrastructure they used has to be paid. Moreover, this reality brought more problems rather than financial dilemma. In such case, this complexity leads to broader and wider perspective.
Recently, when people become more sensible to the notion of sustainable development, this free use of motorway is slowly diminishing. People now realize that they have to pay the use of infrastructure they utilize to accomplish their travel.
Starting in 1970s, the awareness of sustainable transportation reflected in terms of transportation demand management. Many factors stimulated this new notion. Oil price and scarcity, congestion leap, and increasing numbers of pollution are some major indicators that worsen the transport quality.
This new term also then became main consideration in sense of motorway. Initiated mainly by lacks of budget, government tried to overcome this limit. Government is no longer function as a provider and operator in motorway. Private companies now become a player in providing traffic provision by building new motorway infrastructure, operating motorway and maintaining the whole system.
By shifting the operation to private sector, motorway is now no longer free of charge. As a basic nature of private, the operator intends to have profit by gaining more revenue. This revenue comes from the charge from the use of motorway and leasing of motorway service areas. To attract more users, operator tries to give better services. Mostly motorway is now equipped by the high end technology so that user could easily use the motorway and maintain the performance of the motorway itself.
Indirectly, this user charge of motorway becomes a tool to manage the demand. Based on the transportation demand objectives, tolling the motorway is one of the measurements to reducing the infrastructure cost providing by government in their budget. Furthermore, applying toll on motorway is a bargain for reducing a single occupant cars in motorway so that the numbers of cars run in motorway could decline in proportional amounts. In addition, applying toll address another objective which is providing better transport quality for a sustain services. This aim is measured by lowering the impact of the traffic such as accident, air and noise pollution, and providing more services.
This paper tries to give an overview of the toll system in some European countries with their characteristics. The description of toll system then examines and analyzes its role in the frame of transportation demand management. To give a better description, this paper is divided into five parts. Chapter two gives a basic understanding of the background of this paper. Chapter three builds the theoretical skeleton that guide the analysis. Chapter four describes current toll situation in some European countries. They are chosen because of their characteristic in applying toll. Chapter five discusses the relation of toll system and transportation demand management. This chapter is divided into two parts. First part explains the data that is successfully collected. The second part discusses the transportation demand management measurement. The last part is conclusion that tries to summarize the previous chapters to finalize the whole description and analysis.
Preliminaries
This part describes the principles of the paper. This first part consists of four subcategories. Background explains the main reason of this analysis; problem pictures the current situation that makes the topic is important; objective carries the aim and the hypothesis of the paper; and methodology defines the approach of describing and analyzing the paper.
Background
Most passenger and goods traffic goes by road. In 1998, road transport accounted for nearly half of all goods traffic (44%) and more than two-thirds of passenger traffic (79%). The motor car – because of its flexibility – has brought about real mass mobility, and remains a symbol of personal freedom in modern society. Nearly two households in three own a car.
Between 1970 and 2000, the number of cars in the Community trebled from 62.5 million to nearly 175 million. Though this trend now seems to be slowing down, the number of private cars in the Community is still rising by more than 3 million every year, and following enlargement the figure will be even higher.
Every day, another 10 hectares of land are covered over by new roads. Road-building has been particularly intense in the regions and countries furthest from the centre, as a means of helping their economic development, and particularly in the cohesion countries, where motorway density increased by 43% in the ten years from 1988 to 1998, though it remains below the Community average. Taking the Union as a whole, the number of kilometers of motorway trebled between 1970 and 2000 (European Commission, 2005, p. 22).
At a time when the life-styles of many groups are more dependent than ever on the motor car, the negative impacts of widespread car use are becoming more apparent, as set out, for example, in European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT, 1990). These include:
Traffic congestion (resulting in longer and less predictable journey times);
Traffic accidents/road safety;
Traffic noise;
Vehicle pollution;
Carbon dioxide emissions and global warming;
The colonization of various public spaces by illegally parked cars;
Severance of social networks; and
The general unpleasantness of using street spaces on foot.
As a respond to this finding, European Community then came up with the policy that reflected in The White Paper. The white paper developed guideline to align the principles for charging for infrastructure use and integrate external costs to encourage the use of modes of lesser environmental impact and, using the revenue raised in the process, allow investment in new infrastructure, as proposed by the European Parliament in the Costa report. The current Community rules, for instance Directive 62/99 on the “Eurovignette”, therefore need to be replaced by a modern framework for infrastructure-use charging systems so as to encourage advances such as these while ensuring fair competition between modes of transport and more effective charging, and ensuring that service quality is maintained (European Commission, 2005, p. 16).
Problem
It is generally acknowledged that not always and not everywhere do the individual modes of transport pay for the costs they generate. As a result, there is no real incentive to use the cleanest modes or the least congested networks.
In a good many cases, taking external costs into account will produce more revenue than is needed to cover the costs of the infrastructure used. In other words, tolls or fees would be levied on an entire area in order to finance future infrastructure.
Economic Theory establishes that prices are an efficient mechanism to allocate resources when they are established under marginal production costs. In this sense, pricing the use of motorways must rely on efficiency concerns and it is necessary to stress the double role that tolls must play in a concession system. On the one side, tolls must be high enough to fund construction and operating costs. On the other side, pricing must follow efficiency criteria in order to regulate traffic demands (Albalate, Bel & Fageda, 2007).
Non-efficient pricing schemes can generate either congestion or overcapacity problems. The first one is a negative externality that causes a deviation of social marginal costs from private marginal costs. On the contrary, overcapacity implies the inefficient use of public or private resources.
Objective
This paper is delivered to analyze the role and impact of toll on motorway in relation to transportation demand management. The main aim of transportation demand management is to influence people’s travel behavior in such a way that alternative mobility options are presented and/or congestion is reduced. On the other side, tolling system is set up as a tool to increase the revenue of the state to fund further development of road infrastructure.
By describing the roles and impacts of toll system in motorway, this paper attempts to give discussion and critical reflection on effects of toll on motorway.
The hypothesis of the writer is that toll system is currently not sufficient for strengthen the role of transportation demand management.
Methodology
This paper is using literature review approach. Sources are acquired from books, journal and also websites. Practical experience is gained mostly from companies’ website. Analysis is carried by descriptive and comparative approach. Parameters are developed based on theoretical review. Differentiation in toll implementation is used to compare each practice and analyze through the transportation demand management parameter.
Assessment of impact on motorways toll in this paper is based on the report of toll operator in each country. Indicators are developed based on transportation demand management criteria adopted from European Commission report (see Figure 2 -1and Table 2 -1). Assessment measures several indicators based on current situation and some facts that are successfully gained during the observation.
Valuation is developed by the possibilities to achieve the objectives based on facts and figures. Some indicators might not have precise valuation.
Table 2‑1 Assessment Criteria
TDM objective
Assessment Criteria
Reduce transport cost – infrastructure
Vehicle kilometers
Reduce accidents
Number of accidents
Raise finance
TDM measures revenues transport specific taxes revenues
Other taxes revenues
Costs of TDM measure
Maintenance cost
Reduce trips by cars
Vehicle kilometers light vehicle
Source: European Communities, 1999 and analysis, 2009
LV = light vehicles; HV = heavy vehicles
Figure 2‑1 Assessment Process in Evaluating TDM Strategies
TDM objectives and strategies
Assessment criteria and indicators
Evaluation
Source: European Communities, 1999
Theoretical Framework
This part delivers theoretical background of tolling system. Economy of transport, transportation demand management, and toll are the theories that might be a basis of explaining toll system in this paper.
Economy of Transport
The economic diagnosis of the transport problems is quite simple. Transport produces a number of negative side effects or externalities that users of the transport infrastructure either completely ignore, or insufficiently take into account in making their travel decisions. As a consequence, there is generally too much traffic (de Borger & Proost, 2001).
Motor vehicle travel tends to be under priced (Litmann, 2004). This means many of the costs of driving are indirect, borne by society in general rather than individual motorists. Many market reforms charge motorists directly for the costs they impose. The suggested economic solution to the externality problem is quite simple as well. Users of all transport modes and services should be charged for the marginal costs, including all external costs they inflict on society. This gives motorists an incentive to use vehicle more efficiently and provides a new opportunity to save money by driving less. Some researchers have developed possible instruments that allow authority to charge transport use (see Table 3 -2).
Table 3‑2 A Survey of Possible Economic Incentives and Instrument
Type of Incentive or Disincentive
Possible Economic Instrument
Selected Economic Measure
Discourage motorized vehicle ownership
Tax/charge on vehicle purchase/ownership/scrappage
Annual vehicle tax
Registration tax/charge
(re)sales tax/charge
Scrappage tax/charge
Restricting the number of vehicle and/or new registrations
Auction schemes competitive bidding for new license
Licensing car ownership
Discourage motorized vehicle use
Encourage switch to public or non motorized transport
Tax/charge on vehicle use
Fuel tax
Pay at the pump (sur)charges
Tax/charge on road and/or infrastructure use
Restricting access to urban centers or special areas
Parking fees
City tolls
Road pricing
Bridge tolls
Cordon pricing
Congestion pricing
Subsidies for public transport and/or multimodal transport (modal subsidies)
Subsidized public transport fees
Subsidized for public transport networks and operation
Tax-deduct able public transport expenses
P&R schemes
Encourage lower emission technology use and innovation
Taxes/charges on vehicle purchase/ownership/scrappage
Taxes/charges on vehicle use
Taxes/charges on road and/or infrastructure use
Tax differentiations based on emissions
Carbon/energy taxes
Emission fees
Emission based surcharges
Subsidies, tax rebates for low emission vehicle/technologies
Source: Jan Schwaab and Sacha Thielmann, 2001 on Breithaupt, 2004
Transportation Demand Management
Beginning in the early 1970’s, urban transportation policy in the US at the federal and local levels introduced a relatively new concept into urban transportation planning – how can an existing urban transportation system be better managed so that increasing travel demand could be satisfied without building more capacity? To some extent, this system management concept was in response to a declining funding base for providing new infrastructure. In addition, and occurring at about the same time, the environmental consequences of the heavy reliance on the automobile for personal transportation became the focus of federal and state laws whose intent was to reduce the use of single occupant vehicles. In particular, the oil supply disruptions of the 1970’s and the Clean Air Act provisions (and their linkage to federal transportation policy) created new interest in managing the demand for travel. Instead of focusing on how to move more vehicles, clearly the focus of the transportation profession for decades, managing travel demand had as its primary focus the more efficient movement of people, in some cases, at the expense of efficient vehicle movement (Meyer, 1999, p. 576).
In its broadest sense, transportation demand management (TDM) is any action or set of actions aimed at influencing people’s travel behavior in such a way that alternative mobility options are presented and/or congestion is reduced. Three broad categories of such actions include, (a) offering travelers one or more alternative transportation modes or services that result in higher per vehicle occupancy, (b) providing incentives/disincentives to reduce travel or to push trips to off-peak hours, and/or (c) accomplishing the trip purpose through non-transportation means (such as substituting the use of telecommunications for work or shopping trips).
Traffic management in a traditional sense denotes any activities in which the movement of traffic is controlled by altering the designated use of road space. The targets of traffic management through time have, in rough sequence, been (a) increasing traffic efficiency and capacity, (b) providing alternatives for large-scale infrastructure investment, (c) reducing the consumption of fuel in the face of serious fuel supply disruptions, (d) improving air quality through more effective use of road space, and more recently (e) mutually reinforcing a resurgent concern for land policy and urban densification.
Transport demand management measures (including fiscal policies):
Land use development controls
Public transport integration
Parking controls and management
Regulatory controls such as odd/even systems
Physical measures such as bus and pedestrian priority
Pricing & charges through fuels, annual taxes
Congestion charging
The measurement of transportation demand management could be categorized based on objectives. This objective then has several criteria to be assessed in order to decide whether the objective could be achieved (see ).
Table 3‑ TDM Measurement
TDM objective
Assessment Criteria
Reduce congestion length and time
Average speed
PPHTV LV
PPHTV HV
Reduce travel time
Average speed
Reduce traffic volume in peak periods
PPHTV LV
PPHTV HV
Reduce average trip length
Average trip length, passenger transport
Average trip length, freight transport
Reduce transport cost-user
Average speed
Fuel consumption
Vehicle kilometers LV
Vehicle kilometers HV
Occupancy level
Truck load factor
Reduce transport cost – infrastructure
Vehicle kilometers LV
Vehicle kilometers HV
Reduce air pollution
Volume of emissions
Vehicle kilometers LV
Vehicle kilometers HV
Average speed
Fuel consumption diesel
Fuel consumption gas
Reduce noise
Vehicle kilometers LV
Vehicle kilometers HV
Average speed
Reduce accidents
Number of accidents (by severity and property damages)
Vehicle kilometers LV
Vehicle kilometers HV
Average speed
Reduce energy consumption
Fuel consumption diesel
Fuel consumption gas
Vehicle kilometers
Average speed
Share of low fuel vehicles
Shift to other modes
Modal split passenger transport
Modal split freight transport
Shift to other routes
Vehicle kilometers base route
Vehicle kilometers alternative route
ADT base route
ADT alternative route
Average speed base route
Shift to other time period
PPHTV LV
PPHTV HV
Increase public transport share
Modal split passenger transport
(possibly by trip purpose)
Increase car occupancy
Occupancy level
Vehicle kilometers pass. Transport
Increase truck loading efficiency
Truck load factor per volume unit
Truck load factor per weight unit
Vehicle kilometers freight transport
Raise finance
TDM measures revenues transport specific taxes revenues
Other taxes revenues
Costs of TDM measure
Maintenance cost
Increase share of intermodal transport chains
Modal split freight transport
Vehicle kilometers HV
Truck load factor per volume unit
Truck load factor per weight unit
Reduce trips by cars
Modal split passenger transport
Vehicle kilometers light vehicle
Source: European Communities, 1999
PPHTV = peak period hourly traffic vehicle
LV = light vehicles
HV = heavy vehicles
ADT = average daily traffic
Toll
Johansen (1989) describes characteristic of toll. Tolling requires costly, restricted road access to limit the number of collection points. Recurrent road costs double with tolling: toll related administration and collection expenses per kilometer of toll road amount to as much as the physical road maintenance cost per kilometer, on average. The scope for revenue diversion by collectors is broader with tolling than with general road user charges. Additional costs are imposed on users as vehicles have to stop to pay the toll and traffic is slowed down. Availability of alternative tolled and toll-free roads tends to introduce distortions, at a cost. Traffic will avoid the toll road, to avoid paying the toll, and use more resources by using less economic roads, because of longer distances, poorer road quality, poorer service level, etc. Over time, untolled alternatives are generally left to deteriorate, and users are thereby “pushed” onto the tolled alternative. In cities, limited access expressways provide a higher service level to users, but most likely it worsens traffic flows and conditions for other traffic in the expressway area. And conventional tolling with toll booths is not a feasible solution for congestion pricing in cities.
Because of the limitations imposed by collection costs, tolling may be a good solution on only some congested corridors, such as suburban commuter corridors, where service level differentiation and congestion pricing are sought. Differentiation is the more desirable the more heterogeneous the traffic mixes, (e.g. where slow or non motorized traffic moves alongside motorized traffic). If tolls raise the efficiency of resource allocation, then the extra collection cost may be fully justified. Toll rates may be varied flexibly according to hour, day of the week or season, and vehicle type to reflect accurately varying conditions; road use cost can thus be recovered without cross-subsidization. Commuters are willing to pay the price for a faster trip. However, to reduce traffic levels and congestion through pricing, road demand has to be price-elastic; it may be very price inelastic as income effects dominate. Where incomes are such as to produce heavy motorization and public transport is poor, quantitative, restrictive measures may be needed until additional road capacity becomes available.
The main objectives of toll typically included:
A charge in the time of travel: from peak to off peak traffic with a consequent reduction of peak period traffic and a potential reduction of total traffic.
A shift in routes: to roads without tolls or less tolled roads
A shift towards a more sustainable traffic mode (transit, carpooling, cycling etc)
A reduction in negative environmental effects
An improvement in the quality of urban life
A means to generate revenues.
Method of payment in toll could be categorized as:
Charge for use of road or area
Fixed or time-of-day fees
Paid in a variety of ways:
Electronic payment
Cash payment
Prepayment
In European framework, toll is already ongoing project that is implemented in several European countries. This toll system is a favored means to manage the traffic demand in order to use existing road network more efficiently. Toll system is able to limit the traffic, spread or shift demand to alternative routes depending on the context and tariff scheme. By introducing spatial and time variation of tolling, the demand is adjusted to the available capacity (European Communities, 1999).
Different types of toll variation can be implemented according to the context and the problems to be solved. These types are categorized as:
Time toll variation. This type applies increasing tariff during peak period or particularly heavy traffic days, differentiate night and day, or dynamic variation depending on the traffic level and the related to the noise and pollution level
Time and space toll variation. This type implements the decreasing tariff on an alternative routes to make it more attractive and increasing the tariff on the congested route.
Vehicle category toll variation. This type categorizes the vehicle into several classifications and charges the toll based on the classification.
Users pay principle. This type ensures infrastructure charging based on the “user pays” principle to maintain and expand the motorway network.
Road Toll Implementation
This part describes various types of tolling system implemented in several European countries. Type of toll, toll explanation and traffic figures of each countries are described in this chapter.
Toll in Italy
The motorway toll is the sum that the client must pay for the use of the motorway. The unit tariff to apply depends on different factors (Autostrade per l’Italia., 2009):
The type of vehicle (5 classes). On the stretches of Autostrade per l’Italia and on almost all the other concessionaires vehicles are classified following measurable criteria, the eight of the vehicle at the front axis for vehicle with 2 axis (classes A and B), the number of axis for vehicle with more than two (classes 3, 4, 5).
Type of stretch of motorway used (plains or mountains). The unit tariff takes into account construction, management and maintenance costs of motorway (that is why mountainous stretches including viaducts and tunnels are more expensive).
Managing Concessionaire society; in case the stretch of motorway considered is divided between different managing societies, it will be necessary to calculate separately each stretch with different unit tariffs before applying the rounding up.
In some cases the toll amount does not depend of the number of kilometers driven and is fixed. These stretches of motorway are called “open systems” (for ex. A8 Milan-Lakes, A12 Rome-Civitavecchia and some single stations) where the customer does not pick up a ticket to register the point he gets onto the motorway and where he gets off. The actual journey is unknown, so that the kms on which the toll amount is calculated is a fixed to a certain amount with ANAS approval.
This so-called open system is opposed to the “closed system”, which is the majority, where the customer picks up a ticket when entering the motorway and hands it back at the exit, paying a toll corresponding the length of journey.
Payment method of tolls of Autostrade per l’italia could be either in cash or through automatic payments. User pays the toll at the exit gate with various types of lane based on its payment method.
Traffic on the Autostrade group network at 2008 recorded that 83.1 million vehicles were driven on Autostrade Group motorways (Autostrade per l’Italia, 2009). This was higher decreasing compare to traffic recorded at 2007 (see ). Generally, number of traffic travel in motorway in Italy is increasing from year to years. This trend indicates the increasing number of vehicle runs in motorway (see ).
Table 4‑ Traffic in Italian Motorways
ANNI
TOTALE PERCORRENZE
(miliardi di veic-km)
PERCORRENZE AGGIUNTIVE
(miliardi di veic-km)
1998
66,0
2,8
1999
68,1
2,1
2000
70,5
2,3
2001
73,1
2,6
2002
75,2
2,1
2003
77,4
2,2
2004
79,2
1,7
2005
79,4
0,2
2006
81,8
2,5
2007
83,8
1,9
2008
83,1
-0,7
Source: Autostrade per l’Italia., 2009
Figure 4‑ Trend of Traffic in Italian Motorways
Source: Autostrade per l’Italia., 2009
Toll in France
Tolls (péage) are levied in France for all vehicles on many motorways by several toll operators. Only in Alsace, Lorraine, Brittany and on parts of the A75 can motorways be used largely free of charge. This also applies as a rule on motorways through conurbations or by-passing them.
Toll charges depend on distance and the tariff amount depends on the type of vehicle. The toll amounts also depend on the costs for building the route. Automated toll payment used to be only possible for users with a French bank account. Currently toll tickets and its service partners provide a Liber-t Box to all European users outside France without the need for a French bank account.
There are two options for paying toll in France:
Fully automated toll recording by means of a small electronic receiver (Liber-t). This device is simply fixed to the windscreen.
Use the reserved lanes with no queues or waiting
Currently, total of tolled road network is 8,522 km growing from 8,427 km in 2007 (see ) with slight changes in average daily traffic. At 2008, total daily traffic is decreasing to 26,771 compare to 27,417 at 2007 ().
Figure 4‑ Average Daily Traffic on Tolled Motorway in France
Source: ASFA, 2009
Figure 4‑ Length of Tolled Motorway in France
Source: ASFA, 2009
Toll in Austria
The Austrian toll system consists of a time-related toll (vignette only for cars and motorcycles) and a distance-related toll. Recipient of the toll revenues is ASFINAG, also responsible for toll collection. ASFINAG is operating the special toll sections in alpine regions by charging a distance-related toll for all vehicles via a manual toll system, while toll for vehicles above 3.5 tons is charged electronically via a free flow multi lane DSRC system.
The toll rates are charged according to the number of axles (three classes). They were originally fixed in November 2002 and updated in June 2007 by a decree from the Minister of Transport given on the basis of the law concerned. Furthermore it was decided to start within 2008 adapting the tariffs for the distance-related toll for vehicles above 3.5 tons as well as for the vignette system based on the yearly consumer price index.
Since 1st of May 2008 the tariffs for vehicles with two axles is 0.158 €/km (2007: 0.155 €/km), with three axles 0.2212 €/km (2007: 0.217 €/km) and with four or more axles is 0.3318 €/km (2007: 0.3255 €/km) excluding VAT. There are new rates for vehicles below 3.5 tons since 1st of January 2008. The price for the vignette for cars up to 3.5 tons is € 73.80 for a year, € 22.20 for two months and € 7.70 for ten days including VAT. The prices for the vignettes for motorcycles for 2008 are: € 29.50 for a year, € 11.10 for two-months and € 4.40 for ten days including VAT.
Number of traffic in Austrian motorways grows significantly. Total kilometers traveled in 2008 increases from 26,354 compare to 2007 (25,850).
Figure 4‑ Km Traveled on the ASFINAG Network
Source: ASFINAG, 2009
Figure 4‑ Map of the Austrian Network
Source: ASFINAG, 2009
Toll in Switzerland
Toll in Switzerland has been applied since 1985. Toll is charged to the use of national roads in the first and second class with motor vehicle up to 3.5 tones. Method of payment is through the purchase of a vignette. The price of vignette is 40 euro flat in all motorways in Switzerland. The vignette has to be appropriately attached in the windshield of the vehicle.
Toll in Switzerland is enforced by law. Therefore the invalid vignette will be fined based on law. The sticker must be paid for the entire calendar year and will not be refunded. The sticker is valid for the period 1 December to 31 January following the printed year. The sticker can be purchased in Post offices, petrol stations, garages, touring club offices (TCS) and Customs.
Traffic condition measured at 2008 in all motorways can be seen in .
Figure 4‑ Traffic Condition in Motorways
Source: Bundesamt für Strassen ASTRA, 2008
Toll in Germany
Since 1 January 2005, a successful scheme has been in operation in Germany to charge heavy goods vehicles a distance-based charge for the use of motorways (BMVBS, 2009).
In 2005, gross toll revenue totaled 2.86 billion euros. By the end of November 2006, toll revenues totaling over 2.8 billion euros had been generated. This is as much as in the whole of 2005. By the end of the year, the figure will be over 3 billion euros – significantly more than estimated in the budget (2.9 billion euros). HGV tolls are thus making a significant contribution to the funding of transport infrastructure in Germany. Most of the investment goes to the federal trunk roads sector.
Since being launched on 1 January 2005, German and foreign HGVs with a maximum permissible weight of 12 tones or more have been subject to the compulsory toll on German motorways. In introducing the toll, the Federal Republic of Germany is implementing a system change – from tax-based funding to user-based funding of motorway construction. With the HGV toll, the Federal Government is pursuing the following objectives:
Infrastructure charging based on the “user pays” principle:
HGVs, in particular, impose high motorway maintenance and operation costs. A “40-tonner” places around 60,000 times more strain on the road surface than a passenger car;
Securing funding for the upgrading and maintenance of the transport infrastructure;
Creating an incentive for an ecologically desirable shift towards rail and waterway-based freight transport and more efficient use of HGVs;
Promoting innovative technologies.
The level of the toll is based on the emissions class and number of axles on the truck and on the distance traveled on the toll route as shown in . The new German Heavy Goods Vehicle Toll Level Ordinance, that came into force on 1st January 2009, assigns each vehicle to one of four categories, A to D, based on its emissions class. The new toll rates mean that trucks with the latest-generation exhaust systems and those that have been upgraded with particle reduction systems pay significantly less than high-emission vehicles. Therefore, trucks in emissions class S2, combined with particle reduction levels 1, 2, 3 or 4, now enjoy the lower toll rates of category C, while vehicles in emissions class S3, combined with particle reduction levels 2, 3 or 4, pay the category B rates. Users are required to make accurate declarations of emissions classes (principle of self-declaration). Registered vehicles classified in emissions classes 2 or 3, fitted with the required particle reduction systems, can be re-registered to a lower toll rate with Toll Collect.
Table 4‑ Emissions Classes as per Toll Rate Regulations
Category A
Category B
Category C
Category D
From 1st January 2009
S5, EEV class 1
S4, S3 with PMK 2, 3 or 4
S3 without PMK, S2 with PMK 1, 2, 3 or 4
S2 without PMK, S1 and vehicles not assigned to an emissions class
Source: Toll Collect GmbH, 2009
*PMK: Particulate reduction classes are retrofit standards to reduce particulate emissions. The particulate reduction classes PMK 1 or PMK 2 will generally be considered for (heavy) goods vehicles subject to tolls.
Discussion
This section further compares the toll system exists in several countries. The first part of the analyses focuses on the relationship between tolls criteria and approximate indicators of the assessment. The second part of the analyses focuses on the valuation of the TDM measurement.
Toll system that is implemented in the examples differs from one country to others. Each country implements its own system. Comparing the types, each example has their uniqueness. There are four major types of tolling: time, distance, vehicle types and user pays principle.
Numbers of traffic vary in each country. The highest number of traffic occurs in Germany. This might be reasonable if the location factor is taken into account. Germany is located in the heart of western European and this makes traffic passes over Germany along their journey. Especially freight transport connecting western and eastern European has to go along Germany to reach their destination.
Total gross revenue gained from toll operation indicates alteration. The highest gross revenue is acquired by France up to 7.8 billion euros. This achievement is a result from total number of motorways that are being tolled. Large number of toll up to 8,522 km motorway stretches through the whole country boosts the income of the operator.
On of the interesting fact is number of accident. Accident that takes place in tolls shows a significant reduction although the exact numbers still displays substantial amount. The immense achievement is happened in Italy. The operator succeeds to lower down the accident rates up to 10%.
Table 5‑ Comparison of Toll
Criteria
Italy
France
Austria
Switzerland
Germany
Type of Toll
Users pay principle
Vehicle category toll variation
Users pay principle
Vehicle category toll variation
Time-related toll
Distance-related toll
Vignette up to 3.5 tons vehicle
Vignette
Applies only for heavy vehicle
Number of Traffic
81,8 million
36.7 million
26,354 million
–
220.1 million (HV only)
Average Daily Traffic Total
–
26,771
–
33,101
48,490
Revenue
4,534 million (1.6%)
7.8 billion
2,011 million
200 million
2.86 billion
Accident
-10%
91
2,137
Source: Analysis, 2009
Based on the data and analysis in previous part, some remarks regarding transportation demand management could be taken into account to measure the effectiveness of TDM objective. This part tries to examine the relation of toll on motorway and the objective of transportation demand management.
Some objectives that would like to be analyzed are reducing transport cost infrastructure; reducing accidents; raising finance; and reducing trips by car. These measurements are mainly considered in this paper based on the appropriateness of toll system.
The main result appears distinctively in finance factor indicated by the increasing of income. This factor might be the most preferred by the operators when they apply toll. Unfortunately, the raising in revenue might result the increasing number of trips as a consequence of gaining income. It is natural law when someone wants to achieve something they have to give other things.
As a result from attaining more income is reducing cost infrastructure that has to be paid by government. Government now can reallocate the budget into other things instead of funding motorway. This budget is now overtaken by private by means of special mechanism.
In order to attract more traffic, toll operators attempt to improve their services. One factor that is seriously taken into account is the provision of safer toll infrastructure. Operators try to lower the number of accident involving tolled motorway. This attempt is slowly improving by decreasing number of accident in each country.
The last objective that is reviewed in this part is reducing trips by cars. This indicator unfortunately is not success to be analyzed. There is no direct data show the reducing trips by car.
Table 5‑ TDM Assessment in Toll System
Objective
Italy
France
Austria
Switzerland
Germany
Reduce transport cost – infrastructure
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
To be proven
Reduce accidents
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
To be proven
Raise finance
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Reduce trips by cars
Not Indicated
Not Indicated
Not Indicated
Not Indicated
Not Indicated
Source: Analysis, 2009
Conclusion
The most interesting conclusion is that toll has profit indicates by the increasing number of income of the operators from time to time. All reports show a positive rising in the financial report annually.
The descriptive analysis indicates that various types of toll exist in the European countries. Each country may apply different system even the neighboring countries may have fully different system. The analysis also indicated that (a) special offer for frequent user is lower than both cash and ETC tolls; (b) smaller vehicles pay lower tolls than larger vehicles; (c) toll system makes trips more convenient by offering benefits to the user; (d) objective of toll system itself is not fully achieved.
The analyses also highlighted that tolls for heavy vehicles, particularly large trucks, seem to be higher than the tolls for passenger vehicles, in terms of both their absolute values and their contributions to road space consumption and pavement deterioration. However, since these analyses were based on raw data, further research is needed to reassess the validity of this conclusion.
The paper poses final remark that tolls are set according to revenue generation objectives, which would contradict the vast majority of public statements made by toll authorities that tend to justify toll increases in terms of economic and environmental benefits. Another thing that the writer wants to point out is that the appropriateness of categorization of toll system into transportation demand management. If the real objective of toll is gaining more revenue, than the major aim of managing demand would never be achieved. This statement is based on the relation between income and trips. Income will increase if only the trips rise. Therefore the limitation or attempt to reduce travel will not be achieved.
However, the analysis presented in this paper needs more improvement and further research. Some obstacle that writer faced during the analysis are (a) lack of accurate data; (b) difficulties in defining specific parameter; (c) time consuming in translating some materials; (d) and finally the time limitation.
