December 3 2009 www.thebullet in.be 21

People’s resistance to fork out money suddenly for something that has traditionally been free of charge is understandable, especially during a tough recession in a country boasting one of the world’s highest income taxes. “Don’t

you have anything better to do with your time?” asked one disgruntled cybernaute when I invited people via Twitter to share their thoughts on introducing a conges-tion charge into Brussels. “I don’t want to pay even more taxes,” grumbled my partner after I mentioned the subject to him. “They should tax the construction sites around Brussels in that case because they’re the ones causing all the congestion,” said a friend, adding that “it will never happen anyway”.

But with more than five million cars on Belgian roads in 2009, the country and its capital are stuck in traffic. And if you look beyond national borders you will notice that the days of free-for-all road access are counted. Over the past decade a range of cities, including London, Oslo, Stockholm and Rome, have successfully implemented an inner-city congestion charge. In each of these capitals, a significant reduction in traffic volumes has been noted (on average around 20 or more percent), as well as an increase in the use of public transport. Meanwhile Australia launched its first congestion pricing scheme at Sydney Harbour Bridge in January 2009, and San Francisco is likely to apply a similar strategy to the Golden Gate Bridge in the coming years. Even Vietnam recently announced a congestion charge trial for Ho Chi Minh, involving radio beacons and a camera control network covering the city’s densest arteries.

“Cities implement a pricing scheme for different rea-sons. In London it was clearly targeting congestion. In Stockholm and Rome, on the other hand, it was more the environment that was at stake,” explained transport econ-omist David Blackledge who coordinated the EU-funded CURACAO research project. Based on extensive case study analyses, the programme helps cities interested in “urban road user charging” to identify potential issues and overcome barriers.

“Bussels is an interesting case which would need to be studied in depth. Designing a scheme could be quite tricky because the city and surrounding region have a dif-ferent congestion structure to London and Stockholm. Plus it’s not just about implementing the scheme. You also need to take into account the public transport capability and evaluate the impact of changing the road system. The research and development cost millions of euros and take at least five years,” said Blackledge.

However inner-city tolls are not the only option to make our road system more environmentally friendly and less

congested. In a European first, the Dutch government announced last month that it will scrap all road and vehi-cle tax by 2012 and replace it with a ‘green’ charge based on the distance driven. After more than ten years of weighing the pros and cons, the transport ministry concluded that a national kilometre charge (NKC) would significantly cut CO2 emissions, reduce accidents and halve traffic jams in one of the continent’s most congested road networks.

I drive, therefore I paySo how will the Dutch scheme work? Except for taxis, buses and motorcycles, every vehicle, from family cars to trucks, will be equipped with a GPS tracking system. The device will record each journey and send the information to a central billing agency. By the same token the govern-ment is set to abolish the purchase tax, which currently makes up roughly a quarter of the cost of a new vehicle.

“At the moment, when you buy a mid-range car, you have to pay a registration tax of more than €10,000,” said Dutch Transport Minister Camiel Eurlings.

Initially the NKC will start off at three euro cents per kilometre, rising to 6.7 cents by 2018. In addition, the rate will be higher during rush hour and for more polluting vehicles. There is also a clause (and one that is bound to worry some observers) allowing for the tax to be adjusted if the revenues generated are not in line with expectations. Still, the Dutch government argues that at the end of the day most drivers will pay less once the changes get imple-mented because the charge will not exceed current taxes.

Alongside its environmental component, the NKC indicates a vital shift in governance because it eman-cipates motorists both as consumers and citizens. In the future motorists will pay for using their car rather than owning it. Furthermore, the NKC represents an effective way for governments to raise additional rev-

Until now drivers got a free ride on Belgian roads, but expect that to change within the next few years, writes Nina Lamparski

Fare for all

Over the past decade experts like Belgian road consultancy Stratec have developed various scenarios about where to implement a toll charge in Brussels. The most likely case suggests establishing roughly 45 control points at various ring entries (compared to 18 in Stockholm and 173 in London). In a 2007 editorial, Le Soir journalist Frédéric Sourmois cautions that several regional border roads would have to be shut down to avoid their turning into free detour routes.

Where would the toll go?

shuttersto

ck

22 www.thebullet in.be December 3 2009

ECO SPECIAL

enues and pour them directly into upgrading and expanding the trans-port and road infrastructure.

Penality for BrusselsThe Dutch decision is likely to hasten the implementation of NKC legislation in Belgium, where most political parties – regardless of what region they represent – seem to be supporters of the scheme. It “hands the responsibility back to consum-ers by changing the system from a fixed-rate tax to a tax linked to the number of kilometres travelled”, wrote Brussels Region’s Economy and Employment Minister, Benoît Cerexhe, in the national broadsheet Le Soir last year.

But although the Christian Democrat (cdH) backs the NKC, he is a vocal opponent of the inner-city congestion tax, which in his opinion would ultimately “penalise” Brussels from an economic point of view. “The question of mobility in and around Brussels can only be considered from a broader viewpoint [and] the thought process needs to occur not only within a Brussels but also a Belgian con-text, in perfect dialogue with the two other regions, ” said Cerexhe.

This is where the political debate goes wrong, accord-ing to Dudley Curtis from the non-profit organisation Transport and Environment.

“It is not a matter of choosing either the national kilo-metre charge or a congestion tax because they both target separate issues,” said Curtis. “One is directed at heavy freight traffic on highways and national roads to limit CO2 and other polluting emissions. An inner-city toll is targeted at a local issue. It focuses on easing urban traffic, inviting people to avoid driving at peak hours, go to work at an earlier or later time, and opting for public transport. I think Belgium needs both.”

Capital gainsSo does the federal State Secretary for Finance and Environmental Tax, Bernard Clerfayt, a member of the liberal party (MR).

“After the Dutch decision to introduce a national kil-ometre charge, Belgium evidently needs to follow,” he said during a phone interview. “It is more effective, more targeted than, say, the carbon tax on petrol which cannot be adapted to the moments when we choose to drive. But I am also clearly in favour of an urban toll system. While the kilometre charge needs Wallonia and Flanders to implement the same electronic system before the plan can go ahead, Brussels Region can address its local traffic problems without having to wait for anyone else.”

In response to the economic argument against the congestion charge, Clerfayt countered that traffic jams are the bigger money waster because we waste precious minutes stranded on Brussels roads. In addition, he emphasised the financial damage arising from

indirect costs such as pollution and stress.

Following Clerfayt’s own cal-culations, “if we charged people who don’t live in Brussels a reason-able sum of say €7 a day, five days per week, for using our roads, the Region could raise around €700 mil-lion net in revenue. This would pay off the congestion system and help upgrade public transport.”

His theory certainly addresses a major pitfall in the Belgian tax reve-nue system: you pay your income tax where you live, not where you work. So although hundreds of thousands

of people enter the capital on a daily basis, they choose to live outside the Region to avoid Brussels’ high taxes. As a result, not much of the money made here actually flows back into the city to help local authorities address serious socio-economic and environmental issues. With a conges-tion tax this flawed system could possibly be overhauled.

However, at the same time critics point out that a con-gestion tax also inevitably puts increased financial pres-sure on the poor and lower middle class – a fact, which Clerfayt acknowledged but brushed aside.

“Calling the toll system an anti-social measure is totally wrong,” he argued. “Statistics show that many poor people don’t have cars so they will not be affected by the tax one way or another. Less congestion will help them financially because we will be able to spend more money on public transport and thus offer better access. I already told [Brussels Region’s Minister President] Charles Piqué about my plan but surprisingly there is no interest.”

A champion’s causeHowever, while the Piqué government does not consider introducing a congestion charge, it is worth putting the debate on the table. According to Blackledge, public opin-ion always tends to be negative at first and cities have taken different approaches to implement the congestion tax.

“Stockholm did something very risky by implementing a full-scale congestion charge experiment for six months and then holding a referendum,” said Blackledge. “If the public had voted no, it would’ve been a very expensive experiment. But the city believed that the public needed to get an idea directly of what the scheme meant for them. The effects of a congestion charge are very difficult to judge in isolation.”

Many cities will most likely not get away with this kind of guerrilla technique. A safer option is to “have a strong political champion or figurehead who believes that a con-gestion charge is urgently needed”.

“The best example is London’s former mayor Ken Livingstone whose election campaign was centred on introducing a congestion charge into the city,” said Blackledge. “You need someone with courage and strong beliefs, someone who people trust to make the right decision for them.”

Not an easy feat for Brussels, then.

“If we charged people who don’t

live in Brussels for using our

roads, the Region could raise €700

million”