 |
Netherlands plans massive road-pricing schemePay-as-you-drive system can fight congestion and emissions
How did I miss the fact that the Netherlands is planning to wire up the entire nation for a massive road-pricing scheme, starting in 2011? Sort of the love child of a congestion pricing program and a gasoline tax, the scheme will use satellite technology* to track every vehicle in the country and charge them per-mile-driven according to a flexible rate schedule. Initially the program will cover just commercial trucks, expanding over time to all vehicles by 2018. According to the (surprisingly lucid) government proposal, the road pricing will be “differentiated by time, place and environmental characteristics while proportionally eliminating fixed charges.” It’s worth unpacking this a bit:
That last point is worth underlining. The knee-jerk reaction to such programs is that they’re regressive intrusions that saddle all drivers, but particularly low-income drivers, with new fees in the pursuit of some lofty environmental goal. This program is revenue-neutral, and will help to make roads more accessible to low-income drivers by charging people for actual road use rather than for car ownership. The system will also benefit drivers by reducing the amount of time stuck in traffic. One interesting quirk of the system: because a straight vehicle tax is being swapped for a per-mile fee, cars will actually become cheaper and car ownership should therefore go up. Total miles driven, on the other hand, will drop. This sort of “mobility as a service” arrangement may become more common in the future. For example, Shai Agassi has been on a tear recently with Better Place, which aims to sell electric vehicles on a pay-as-you-go cell phone model. Road pricing is also be considered by cash-strapped local governments here in the U.S. Facing crumbling roads and a nearly-bankrupt public transportation system, Rhode Island is considering imposing a per-mile fee. The system would be less sophisticated than the one in the Netherlands — relying on odometer readings rather than satellites — so it wouldn’t bundle in a congestion pricing program. Also, because Rhode Island is in the United States, the proposal will be removed from consideration when enraged drivers burn down capitol building in protest. * For those freaked out by the privacy implications of the satellite-tracking system, your concerns may be assuaged by the extensive privacy controls the Dutch government is planning to put in place. Or they may not. Via How We Drive. Image by Google Maps. Comments
The comments section is now closed. |
|
About Us | Press | FAQ | Site map | Contact us | Jobs| Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Customer service | Logos & badges © 2004-2010, TerraPass Inc. All rights reserved. TerraPass is a trademark of TerraPass Inc.
|
Bravo to the Nederlanders! Their creative approach to managing and utilizing small spaces should be a resource to all countries.
Reply
While I believe this could be an equitable system, who really wants the government tracking your every move and knowing where you are at all times. It's 1984 in 2008!
Reply
I am an American living in the Netherlands, and I am consistently impressed by the environmental laws here.
I am quite in favor of the proposed change. When I owned a VW Vanagon with a 1.6L diesel engine, I paid 365 euros EVERY THREE MONTHS in road tax alone. :-(
Now, I own a Honda Civic running on propane. Propane costs about 1/3 of what gasoline costs, the mileage is nearly equivalent, and I get a subsidy from the government for road tax because I invested in my car to make its carbon footprint smaller. My road tax is now 24 euros a month. :-)
Road tax here is quite a burden and the implementation of the policy a bit unfair, so people like the idea that they would be charged for how much they drive, and not just for owning a car that they might not use. And because private information is readily visible but its use strictly protected, I don't mind having a chip in my car to track my kilometers. I have a Tom-Tom anyway.
Reply
Revenue neutral to get acceptance, then guess what? Let history be our guide!
Reply
While I commend the intention of the proposed program, it seems expensive and complicated to implement.
What ever happened to the idea of funding road taxes with fuel taxes? Fuel taxes effectively charge the user based on the amount they drive and how efficient their car is. I understand a gas tax begins to fail as people begin driving more alternative-fueled vehicles.
As far as privacy goes, people forget that almost everyone carries an individual tracking device in the form of a cell phone. People tend to have a knee jerk reaction to any change, but quickly forget and just accept it and move on.
Reply
Wow, this is really something.
Our system in the US already has a tax on gas. That has had no effect at all whatsoever. People purchased gas guzzling SUV's, chevy suburban, etc. Most people drive to work without carpooling in the suburbs. The only time they changed their habit, and cut down their driving was when Gas was at $5.00 a gallon. People started buying Toyota Prius's like crazy out of desperation.
Unfortunately, Gas is now below $3.00 --- and people have become extremely wasteful again. I loved when gas rose to $5.00, there were less cars on the roads & people cared only because it cost them more money. The gas tax is useless, and completely ineffective.
I myself had cut my driving, planned my trips & hyper-miled. I am still doing it, and the price of gas had no effect on me (since I did these things). I will still continue to conserve & think (before, during) driving.
This article really struck me hard. I thought that eventhough I conserve, if this was implimented here in the US, it would definitely effect me, since my vehicle is less efficient getting about 20mph.
If they enacted this same method here I would immediately be out shopping for the most fuel efficient hybrid electric vehicle that I could plug in & charge at night. I would also sell my condo & purchase a small house, so I would definitely, without a doubt have access to an outlet to plug in my car. I would even get a 100% electric vehicle, since there would be an outlet available to charge the car. (unfortunately, the condo complex has no outdoor outlet for charging electric vehicles.)
If this was enacted here in the US, I would definitely without a doubt change my residence to a house & purchase such a vehicle. I haven't purchased a new vehicle, since I thought it was less damaging to the environment, by using my current vehicle sparingly, wisely, & with terrapass co2 offset. But, this would definitely cause action in me.
I believe that if this were done here, it would have a huge impact. This is the most impressive legislation I have seen that would definitely cut down on pollution & depletion of our natural resources.
Reply
This is the way of the future and it gets back to the basic idea that the polluter pays. Dont worry about the chip in your car if you have a phone, atm card or any other form of electronic interface device then you can be tracked anyway.
Reply
I'm with Eli. It seems like alot of excessive spending to do what a fuel tax will do. By taxing fuel, drivers that drive alot pay more and those with more efficient cars pay less. Also, you don't need elaborate tracking devices which will inherently bring controversy and probably an entire industry of litigators.
What I don't understand is why does a fuel tax fail with alternative fuels? Don't you just tax each fuel differently?
Reply
For what it's worth, one of the stated goals of the system is that the cost to implement will be held to 5% of the revenue or less. Of course, they may not achieve that goal, but the intention is to keep overhead low.
As to whether a gas tax would be better -- it would certainly be simpler. There are a few ways, though, that the pay-per-mile system differs from a straight gas tax. For one thing, you can't cheat by going over the border to fill up. Also, the congestion pricing aspect is impossible with a gas tax.
Anyhow, it will certainly be fascinating to see how it works out.
Reply