-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction to the Dutch solution of roadpricing

In May 2004 the Minister of Transport in the Netherlands asked mr. PaulNouwen, the former president of the Dutch ANWB, where in Denmark this is theFDM (Forenede Danske Motorejere), to help the minister to make a plan in whichall the Dutch organisations in regard to car traffic where involved.Mr. Nouwen asked me to help him, and together we organised the PlatformAnders Betalen voor Mobiliteit (Platform “Paying differently for the use of theroad“).In this Platform 17 different organisations where involved, only on the highestlevel, and after 9 months we did agree on a selection of around 14 differentmeasures.What where the features of the proposed national Dutch scheme?Then and now, people pay in the Netherlands for car ownership in four ways:1 the luxury tax on car purchases;2 the road tax;3 surtaxes by provincial authorities; and4 V.A.T. on petrol.Under the envisioned system of “Paying different for the use of the road,” therewould be a very low car tax. The road tax and surtaxes of provincial authoritieswould be abolished, although V.A.T. on petrol would remain.In total it was a shake up for around 10 billion euro’s yearly that would not(directly) go to the State.The new system was based on paying per kilometre travelled on all Dutch roadsby every motor vehicle, with prices varying according to time, place andenvironmental factors. The level of charges has not yet been determined. Therewould be exceptions for fire brigades, police, ambulances, motorcycles and carsnot subject to existing taxes.The Parliament had decreed that no more than 5% of system revenues could gotoward its operation.In 2006 we had our regular elections and a new crew of Statesman came topower. The new government’s position on Paying different for the use of theroad,” (expressed in the letter of 30 November 2007 to the Dutch House ofRepresentatives) announced that an irreversible step would be taken within thegovernment period towards achieving a Road Pricing System. This, because ofthe fact that it was not yet possible to introduce the system all at once.To achieve this irreversible step, the Dutch House of Representatives did agreeto preliminary realisation decision on “Paying different for the use of the road,”(before the proposed road pricing act was discussed) so that tendering couldtake place for a number of critical and time-critical components needed to beable to carry out the operational tests (including a large-scale practice test, the2011-11-041

Proof of Concept) and to be able to start road pricing in time for goods and othermotor vehicles.Developing and building system components up to the time of the tests requiredapproximately € 167 million. These systems could then be expanded aftersuccessful testing.The preliminary realisation decision was part of a series of decision-making timesregarding the road pricing system. Decisions would be made as follows:Preliminary realisation decision further to the road pricing systemimplementation plan – before summer 2008;Further elaboration of the role of private service providers in collecting roadpricing fees – after summer 2008;Proposed road pricing act – early 2009;Realisation decision – late 2009;Implementation decision – 2011;Delivery decision – 2016.The preliminary realisation decision provided a go moment for achieving systemcomponents of the Road Pricing System such that its operation could bedetermined in a large-scale practice (of operational) test. Once this wassussecfull, it would have been possible to further expand the system after therealisation decision. The system would have taken effect after theimplementation decision was made (2011).After complete implementation, the delivery decision would have been made,determining whether the system had to be fully compliant with the requirements.There were in effect two parts to the implementation plan. Part 1 covered thechoice of organisational model on which the technical system was based andoutlined the road pricing system in the operational phase (including technicalaspects) on the basis of that model. Part 2 addressed implementation of thesystem, i.e., how the Road Pricing System would have been achieved and whatsteps had to be taken.The preliminary realisation decision provided a go moment for achieving systemcomponents of the Road Pricing System such that its operation would have beendetermined in a large-scale practice (of operational) test. Than tom it could havebeen possible to further expand the system after the realisation decision.The system would have taken effect after the implementation decision wasmade. But…..then the government collapsed and we in the Netherlands had newelections. (2010).

In this elections, the subject of “Paying different for the use of the road,” was akey issue when mobility came in the discussions. At the end, two parties whowere against the new system, the Dutch Liberal Party (VVD) and an right wingparty called the PVV, together with the Christian democrat party (CDA) whereable to form the new government and immediately closed down all thepreparations for the introduction of Paying different for the use of the road,”.The main reason, and this is an personal opinion, was that the VVD and the PVVwhere moreenthusiasticin building more roads than, in there opinion, bullyingthe roaduser and having him paying for the use of the road.To what extent did technological challenges influence the decision to cancel theplans to introduce road pricing in the Netherlands, you could ask.In my opinion this influence was very little.I wrote earlier on that there were two mainstreams of operation to theimplementation plan. The industry from all over the world did participate in aopen dialog with the Ministry in regard to the (technical) problems that couldemerge, but all the way, the technical system was in all extend feasible allparties agreed.