Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures {SEC(2008) 2208} {SEC(2008) 2209}
Date: 2008-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commercial vehicle, toll, transport infrastructure, vehicle tax

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.7.2008 
COM(2008) 436 final 

2008/0147 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of 
certain infrastructures 

{SEC(2008) 2208} 
{SEC(2008) 2209} 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL  

1.1. 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal  

In 2006, the European Parliament and the Council called on the Commission to draw 
up  a  report  on  a  generally  applicable,  transparent  and  comprehensible  model  for 
assessing the external costs of transport, such as pollution and congestion, to serve as 
the  basis  for  calculating  infrastructure  user  charges.  The  Commission  was  asked  to 
propose a strategy for stepwise implementation of the model for all transport modes, 
accompanied if appropriate by a proposal for revising Directive 1999/62/EC on the 
charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of infrastructure1. 

More recently, in its resolution of 11 March 2008 on sustainable European transport 
policy, Parliament urged the Commission to come up with such a model, a strategy 
for implementing it in all modes, and legislative proposals starting with a review of 
the Directive. 

A Communication comprising a model and a strategy is submitted to Parliament and 
the  Council  together  with  this  proposal  (see  COM(2008)  435).  The  goal  is  to  set 
transport  prices  correctly  so  that  they  better  reflect  the  costs  of  the  actual  use  of 
vehicles, trains, planes or ships in terms of pollution, congestion and climate change. 

This calls for a stepwise approach in all transport modes, but in particular in the road 
sector given its influence on the transport system and its contributory effect on traffic 
and  emissions.  In  this  sector,  this  implies  greater  recourse  to  tolls  which  vary 
according to the distance travelled, the location and the time of use in proportion of 
the external costs caused by vehicles. 

The  attached  proposal  contributes  to  this  broader  strategy.  Its  objectives  are  to 
encourage  Member  States  to  implement  differentiated  charging  to  improve  the 
efficiency  and  environmental  performance  of  road  freight  transport.  It  seeks  to 
amend Directive 1999/62/EC to establish a framework which enables Member States 
to calculate and vary tolls on the basis of the costs of traffic based pollution and of 
congestion in a way compatible with the internal market. 

Such  charges  will  encourage  transport  operators  to  use  cleaner  vehicles,  to  choose 
less  congested  routes,  to  optimise  the  loading  of  their  vehicles,  and  ultimately  to 
make more efficient use of infrastructure. 

1.2. 

General context 

Transport plays a crucial role in the economy and society. But it relies heavily on oil 
and its use produces costs on society in terms of health costs and loss of production 
due to air and noise pollution and accidents; time and fuel wasted in congestion; and 
broader environmental damage such as climate change. 

1 

Article 11 of amended Directive 1999/62/EC  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Currently these external costs are borne by the rest of society either through general 
taxation  to  pay  for  policing,  road  management  services,  and  hospital  treatment  or 
through the impact of noise, emissions and accidents on people’s health and quality 
of life.  

Roughly 90% of these negative impacts is usually attributed to road transport and a 
quarter to road freight transport. Given the steady growth of road freight transport, in 
particular  international  road  freight  transport,  which  forecasts  see  as  possibly 
doubling between 2000 and 2020, these social costs are most likely to increase. 

As outlined by the 2006 review of the European Transport Policy, a wide range of 
policy tools at EU and Member State level is required to optimise European logistics 
chains,  make  all  transport  greener  and  more  efficient,  and  ultimately  ensure  more 
sustainable  transport.  The  right  policy  mix  must  not  only  act  on  the  supply  of 
transport, it must address pricing, which in a market economy is an efficient way to 
better manage transport demand and achieve more efficient use of infrastructure.  

Current levies on road freight transport reflect a wide variety of approaches between 
Member States. Some countries rely on a mix of different taxation instruments (fuel 
and  vehicle  taxes).  In  others,  the  fiscal  mix  is  more  diverse  and  includes  road  user 
charges to recover infrastructure costs from hauliers using motorways. User charges 
take  the  form  of  time-based  fees  (e.g.  the  Eurovignette2),  introduced  often  as  a 
transitional  system,  or  distance-based  charges  (tolls)  levied  on  individual  road 
sections or the full primary network.  

In  most  cases,  current  levies  by  Member  States  fail  to  send  the  right  price  signals. 
Road users are all treated alike, irrespective of the congestion or pollution they cause. 
They are not provided with effective incentives to use cleaner vehicles and to adapt 
their choice of route and mobility behaviour. While a lorry may be charged a toll to 
use a motorway crossing a rural area, it usually does not pay any user charge when 
crossing  a  densely  populated  area  even  though  its  cost  in  terms  of  pollution  and 
congestion may typically be five times higher.  

With  the  exception  of  climate  change,  most  of  the  external  costs  are  borne  by  the 
population  and  the  local  or  national  governments  of  the  territory  where  transport 
takes place and not where the vehicle is registered, nor where the vehicle is refuelled. 
These costs vary according to the travelled distance, the environmental performance 
of  vehicle  (e.g.  Euro  emission  standards)  and  different  points  in  time  (peak  or  off 
peak) and space (densely  populated area or not). This is especially the case for the 
costs of air pollution, of noise and of congestion.  

The best pricing instruments for assigning these costs to users in a fair and efficient 
way  are  tolls.  The  main  reason  is  that  tolls  can  vary  according  to  the  main  cost 
drivers of pollution and congestion. Unlike fuel taxes, they can vary according to the 
emission standards of vehicles; contrary to vehicle taxes or time-based user charges 
(vignettes), they can vary according  to the intensity,  location  and  time  of  use.  This 

2 

A vignette or sticker based on an agreement between several Member States which gives access to the 
network on each other’s territory — hence the term ‘Eurovignette’. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
allows the tolls to be set at a level which better reflects the real use of vehicles and 
therefore the external costs that users actually cause.  

The impact analysis carried out by the Commission suggests that even with a simple 
degree of differentiation tolls calculated on the basis of the cost of traffic-based air 
and noise pollution and of the cost of congestion imposed upon other vehicles would 
yield  considerable  welfare  benefits  in  terms  of  saving  time,  reducing  pollution, 
improving  road  safety  and  optimising  the  use  of  infrastructure  and  of  the  transport 
system at large. By reducing the consumption of fuel wasted in congestion, it would 
also  reduce  emissions  of  CO2  from  road  transport.  Hence,  such  tolling  schemes 
would be a welcome contribution to the climate change strategy. It should be stressed 
that a toll set in a Member State on the basis of the costs of congestion and pollution 
has a direct relationship with the use of infrastructure. Its key goal is to optimise the 
transport system and make mobility more sustainable. The toll is a payment for costs 
to  the  Member  State,  to  the  infrastructure  provider  and  to  the  local  population.  In 
return, this payment gives the right to use the infrastructure and to consume scarce 
capacity  and  resources.  As  envisaged  in  the  attached  proposal,  its  revenue  will  be 
used to develop transport alternatives (cleaner vehicles, new infrastructure). Since a 
toll is payable by all users, irrespective of their Member State of registration (where 
domestic vehicle taxes are due) or of where the vehicle is refuelled (where domestic 
fuel taxes are paid), there is no risk that it distorts competition between hauliers from 
different Member States.  

As to climate change, the impact of motor vehicles is global. Its cost does not depend 
on the time and place where the vehicle is used but on fuel consumption. Hence, fuel 
taxes  are  usually  considered  a  simple  and  efficient  way  of  internalising  this  cost 
irrespective of any other measures taken to achieve the target agreed at the level of 
the  European  Union  for  reducing  CO2.  On  this  issue,  the  Commission  has  already 
proposed invoking Article 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to 
improve  coordination  of  taxes  on  motor  fuels,  partly  by  raising  the  minimum 
Community rate for commercial diesel fuel3. The Commission will further review the 
general  energy  taxation  Directive  to  ensure  that  it  better  reflects  the  EU's  climate 
change and energy goals. However, if the results achieved are not satisfactory by the 
end of 2013, the Commission will assess whether to further review the Directive on 
charging heavy goods vehicles so that it does not prevent Member States to include a 
CO2 charging element in tolls.  

Lastly  road  accidents  make  up  an  important  part  of  the  social  costs.  In  2003,  the 
Commission proposed to enable the inclusion of accident costs in the calculation of 
tolls.  But  this  particular  provision  was  eventually  rejected  by  Parliament  and  the 
Council4.  Accident  risks  are  related  not  only  to  the  distance  travelled  but  also  to 
complex factors such as speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol or failure to 
use seat belts, hence instruments like insurance rates might be a more effective tool. 
This  issue  will  be  further  reflected  upon  in  the  review  of  the  European  road  safety 
Action Programme that the Commission intends to carry out until 2010.  

3 

4 

Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/96/EC as regards gas oil used as motor fuel 
for commercial purposes, COM(2007)52 final. 
Proposal for a directive amending Directive 1999/62/EC, COM(2003) 448 final 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

Directive in force  

Directive  1999/62/EC  recognises  the  “user  pays”  principle  by  allowing  Member 
States  to  levy  distance-based  charges  (tolls)  to  recover  the  cost  of  construction, 
maintenance  and  operation  of  infrastructure.  The  Directive  also  authorizes  time-
based charges below a maximum rate.  

Toll  rates  may  be  varied  according  to  vehicle  emission  standards  or  congestion 
levels,  but  under  a  condition  of  revenue  neutrality  on  a  biennial  basis.  However, 
except  in  Germany  and  the  Czech  Republic  this  option  has  hardly  been  exercised. 
One of the reasons is the great complexity for infrastructure operators to adjust their 
charging structure to the demand response in a way that keeps their revenue constant.  

In 2006, the Directive was amended by Directive 2006/38/EC to set out the rules for 
calculating chargeable infrastructure costs. It has allowed tolls in mountainous areas, 
to be marked-up by up to 25% to co-finance alternative infrastructure labelled trans-
European network priority projects by Parliament and the Council. This mark-up is 
currently applied on the Brenner motorway (Austria) to co-finance the Brenner rail 
base  tunnel  that  forms  part  of  the  priority  axis  from  Berlin  to  Palermo.  The 
amendment  also  inserted  a  provision  on  regulatory charges specifically designed to 
combat pollution and congestion but has left legal uncertainties about where and how 
to apply them. This makes Member States reluctant to apply them.  

The  above  provisions  constitute  a  step  in  the  right  direction  to  improve  the  price 
signal.  But  they  still  do  not  enable  Member  States  to  apply  optimal  pricing.  The 
Directive  indeed  limits  revenues  from  tolls  to  what  is  strictly  necessary  to  recover 
infrastructure costs, even in areas exposed to traffic-based pollution and congestion 
costs above the recoverable construction costs. It fails to provide effective incentives 
to differentiate charges so as to align them with the main cost drivers which are the 
time periods, the place and the types of vehicles. Moreover, it covers only the use of 
the  trans-European  network,  which  may  lead  to  inconsistent  pricing  structures 
between  the  main  corridors  and  other  inter-urban  roads  used  by  international 
transport. 

1.4. 

Unlock more efficient and greener charging  

Existing road levies have not proved effective enough to internalise external costs of 
road freight transport. Tolls could be made more effective, but the current Directive 
blocks it.  

The Commission has long advocated greater recourse to differentiated infrastructure 
charges  which  reflect  external  costs.  It  proposed  legislative  measures  as  early  as 
19965 to authorise Member States to integrate in tolls levied on heavy goods vehicles 
an  external  cost  element.  At  that  time,  the  Member  States  considered  such  a  step 
premature  because  of  uncertainties  both  about  calculating  external  costs  and  about 
the maturity of the required toll technologies.  

These reasons are no longer valid.  

5 

Proposal for a Council Directive on charging heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure, 
COM (1996) 331 final. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Methods of monetising the external costs of pollution, noise and congestion caused 
by  vehicles  are  now  available.  Most  are  in  fact  already  used  to  various  degrees  in 
nearly all Member States to carry out cost/benefit analysis of infrastructure projects. 
Furthermore the model devised by the Commission following the EP’s initiative (see 
COM  (2008)…)  provides  reliable  methods  and  a  range  of  unit  values  which  can 
serve as a basis for the calculation of road user charges.  

As  to  tolling  technologies,  electronic  systems  combining  automatic  payment 
transactions  and  location  of  vehicles  are  already  in  operation  in  several  Member 
States and have proven to be reliable and cost-effective. A number of other Member 
States announced their intention to install them on their main road network by 2011. 
Full  technical  and  contractual  interoperability  for  users  is  already  provided  by 
Directive 2004/52/EC. Such systems have other advantages; they do not cause local 
queues and nuisances as do tollbooths where lorries often have to stop. 

To  unlock  greener  and  more  efficient  road  charging,  the  Commission  envisages  a 
stepped  approach.  The  step  proposed  now  is  to  enable  Member  States  to  calculate 
tolls on the basis of the costs of local pollution and, on congested roads during peak 
periods,  of  congestion.  It  also  provides  incentives  to  both  differentiate  toll  rates 
accordingly and install toll collection systems without tollbooths.  

The proposed framework leaves it to Member States to decide whether or not to levy 
tolls based on external costs. There are still uncertainties about the cost/benefit of the 
required  toll  systems  on  some  Member  States’  lesser-used  networks.  In  these 
circumstances,  a  phasing-in  approach  enabling  pilot  schemes  and  encouraging  a 
gradual build-up and sharing of experience is preferable to a binding approach based 
on  mandatory  user  charges.  However,  the  Commission  will  review  this  strategy  in 
2013  to  identify  whether  a  more  binding  approach  towards  the  internalisation  of 
external  costs  is  conceivable  in  the  light  of  further  likely  falls  in  the  cost  of 
technology  to  enforce  tolls.  Depending  on  progress  in  defining  a  common  fuel  tax 
element related to climate change in the Energy Taxation Directive, the review will 
also  assess  whether  the  cost  of  CO2  emissions  should  be  allowed  to  be  included  in 
tolls.  

To  ensure  that  tolls  based  on  external  costs  are  applied  homogeneously  within  the 
internal  market,  the  attached  proposal  lays  down  certain  rules  akin  to  those  in  the 
current Directive concerning tolls to recover infrastructure costs. These rules prevent 
any discrimination between domestic hauliers and foreign hauliers. They ensure that 
tolls  neither  create  disproportionate  obstacles  to  freedom  of  movement,  nor  entail 
controls  or  checks  at  the  internal  borders.  In  particular,  they  establish  common 
charging  principles  and  mechanisms  to  avoid  overcharging  by  infrastructure 
monopolies.  They  impose  the  use  of  a  common  and  transparent  method  of 
calculating  chargeable  costs.  Furthermore,  they  promote  recourse  to  electronic  toll 
systems which do not create hindrance to the free flow of traffic. Lastly they make 
sure that a document indicating the amount of the charge is issued to the haulier so 
that the latter can easily pass on the cost to the shipper.  

Sustainable  transport  requires  recourse  to  better  pricing  instruments  but  also 
considerable investment in research and development and infrastructure. Funding is 
particularly  needed  to  reduce  road  pollution  at  source,  improve  CO2  and  energy 
performance  of  vehicle  and  offer  a  wider  choice  of  realistic  alternatives  for  users. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Charging  will  be  more  effective  when  these  needs  are  properly  addressed.  The 
current  Directive  recommends  that  revenue  from  infrastructure  charges  should  be 
used  to  benefit  the  transport  sector  and  optimise  the  entire  transport  system.  In  the 
case of the mark-up in mountainous areas, the legislator specified that such a mark-
up on tolls paid by users coming from all the EU could be levied but only if revenues 
were  clearly  earmarked  to  specific  projects  of  the  trans-European  network,  hence 
transport projects with a general Community interest. Inspired by the same principle, 
the Commission proposes that any additional revenue from the part of a toll which is 
related to pollution and congestion is used to make transport more sustainable, hence 
with a Community interest and long-term benefits for transport users at large. 

On a final note, it should be stressed that failing to enable more efficient and greener 
road  pricing  is  not  an  option,  neither  for  sustainable  mobility,  nor  for  the  internal 
market.  Given  the  growing  environmental  impact  of  transport,  time  is  pressing  and 
efficient pricing is a good way to reduce the negative impact of transport at least cost 
to  the  economy.  Local  governments  in  areas  exposed  to  high  congestion  and 
pollution  caused  by  international  transport  could  be  left  with  no  alternative  but  to 
take  up  in  an  uncoordinated  way  other  sorts  of  measures,  like  sectoral  traffic  bans. 
This would disrupt supply chains and create disproportionate obstacles to freedom of 
movement.  

1.5. 

Consistency with the other policies and the objectives of the Union  

is  part  of 

the  Commission’s  work  programme 
The  proposed  directive 
(TREN/2008/073) and of the ‘Greening Transport’ package. From a general point of 
view, it contributes to both the EU Lisbon agenda and the Sustainable Development 
Strategy  as  it  enables  action  to  better  manage  congestion,  to  curb  transport  air 
emissions and as it encourages the development of cleaner transport technologies. 

2. 

CONSULTATION  OF 
ASSESSMENT  

INTERESTED 

PARTIES  AND 

IMPACT 

The public consultation and the impact assessment covered both the broader strategy 
related to all transport modes and the attached proposal. 

An internet consultation was carried out between 29 October and 31 December 2007 
and followed by a hearing of stakeholders on 31 January 2008.  

The  respondents  supported  the  principle  of  internalising  the  external  costs  of 
transport,  considered  that  air  pollution  and  congestion  were  the  two  biggest 
nuisances  in  road  transport  and  that  the  best  economic  instruments  to  tackle  these 
costs  were  differentiated  user  charges.  As  to  climate  change,  the  use  of  energy 
taxation,  or  the  integration  of  transport  in  the  Emission  Trading  System,  were 
considered  as  more  appropriate.  It  was  generally  felt 
that  revenue  from 
internalisation  should  be  invested  into  alternative  transport  infrastructures,  cleaner 
technologies or used more generally to reduce the negative externalities of transport6.  

6 

The summary of the contributions received and a report of the hearing are available on the following 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/consultations/road_market_en.htm.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  impact  assessment  gives  an  overview  of  the  external  expertise  that  provided 
methodological  or  modelling  support  for  drafting  the  proposal.  In  particular,  the 
Commission  carried  out  a  study  to  review  the  state  of  the  art  in  the  theory  and 
practice of estimating and internalising external costs7 . 

The assessment confirmed that the “business as usual” scenario, i.e. no new actions 
to  encourage  efficient  pricing,  would  fail  to  achieve  sustainable  mobility.  It  was 
shown  that  differentiated  user  charges  were  more  efficient  than  the  usual  transport 
taxes to tackle air pollution, noise costs and congestion in road transport.  

The  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  mandatory  versus  optional  charging  schemes 
for road freight transport were compared. It was found that while there are clear and 
immediate benefits to be reaped in Member States with a lot of traffic, the financial 
viability  of  charging  systems  for  external  costs  in  Member  States  with  low  traffic 
requires further studies.  

Levying  a  specific  CO2  charge  or  tax  on  top  of  the  air  pollution  and  noise  charges 
was looked at as well. The conclusion was that, although this could deliver additional 
benefits,  it  should  better  be  addressed  through  a  more  coordinated  approach  at  EU 
level to reduce greenhouse emissions based on either the Emission Trading System 
or a common fuel tax element in the Energy Taxation Directive. 

The  impact  of  levying  a  congestion  charge  on  congested  links  was  also  assessed. 
This  option  would  reduce  congestion  but  would  also  significantly  reduce  both 
pollution  and  CO2  emissions,  particularly  if  similar  charges  are  applied  to  cars  as 
well. 

It  was  also  found  that  extending  the  scope  of  the  charging  schemes  for  the  trans-
European  network  to  other  interurban  roads  may  avoid  the  problem  of  potential 
traffic diversion from toll motorways to non-toll interurban roads.  

The advantages and disadvantages of earmarking revenue from external cost charges 
were also examined from both an economic point of view and in terms of facilitating 
better understanding and support among transport users.  

If all Member States opt for road charging as allowed by the proposal the assessment 
estimates  a  significant  reduction  in  emissions  of  local  pollutants  and  of  carbon 
dioxide  from  road  freight  transport,  and  reductions  in  congestion  and  in  road 
fatalities. Variation of charges according to the vehicles’ Euro emission standard will 
accelerate  fleet  renewal,  resulting  in  improved  environmental  performance.  The 
positive effects on congestion will also deliver a reduction in consumption of diesel 
by lorries of 8% and therefore of CO2 emissions. It would be a clear contribution to 
reducing  pollution  and  fighting  climate  change.  There  would  be  no  impact  on  the 
general level of mobility (see SEC(2008)… for more details).  

7 

EN 

“Handbook 
external 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/handbook/index_en.htm. 

estimation 

the 

on 

of 

cost 

in 

the 

transport 

sector”: 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

3.1. 

Summary of the proposed action  

The proposed Directive enables Member States to integrate in tolls levied on heavy 
goods vehicles an amount which reflects the cost of air pollution and noise pollution 
caused  by  traffic.  During  peak  periods,  it  also  allows  tolls  to  be  calculated  on  the 
basis of the cost of congestion imposed upon other vehicles. The amounts will vary 
with  the  travelled  distance,  location  and  time  of  use  of  roads  to  better  reflect  these 
external  costs.  The  proceeds  will  have  to  be  used  by  Member  States  for  making 
transport  more  sustainable  through  projects  such  as  research  and  development  on 
cleaner  and  more  energy  efficient  vehicles,  mitigating  the  effect  of  road  transport 
pollution or providing alternative infrastructure capacity for users.  

Member  States  which  opt  for  it  must  respect  common  charging  principles  together 
with  mechanisms  for  notifying  and  reporting  tolling  schemes  to  the  Commission. 
Member States must designate independent authorities to set the chargeable costs by 
using  a  common  method  which  can  be  easily  monitored  and  adapted  to  scientific 
progress. This will ensure that charging schemes are transparent, proportional to the 
objective pursued and do not discriminate against the nationality of hauliers.  

The  charge  must  be  collected  through  electronic  systems  which  does  not  create 
hindrance to the free flow of traffic and local nuisance at tollbooths, and which can 
be extended to other part of the network at a later stage without significant additional 
investments. A transition period for the current systems with barriers is planned. To 
avoid undue charging of users, other conditions must be met when a charge based on 
the costs of congestion and pollution is combined with a charge to recover the cost of 
infrastructure.  

The proposal extends the scope of the current Directive beyond the trans-European 
network  to  avoid  inconsistent  pricing  schemes  between  major  corridors  and  other 
interurban roads. It makes more practicable the provisions in the current Directive on 
the mark-up levied in mountainous areas to co-finance EU labelled priority projects.  

It does not prevent Member States from applying on urban roads regulatory charges 
specifically  designed  to  reduce  traffic  congestion  or  combat  environmental  impacts 
in built up areas. 

3.2. 

Legal basis, subsidiarity and proportionality principles 

The  proposal  is  based  on  Article  71  of  the  Treaty,  as  improving  the  efficiency  and 
environmental  performance  of  road  freight  transport  is  a  key  goal  of  the  common 
transport policy.  

It  complies  with  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality.  Given  the 
importance of transport for the internal market, its growing cross-border dimension 
and external cost, common charging principles must be established for all interurban 
roads,  including  the  trans-European  network,  to  enable  Member  States  to  recover 
external  costs  through  tolls.  This  can  only  be  achieved  by  modifying  an  existing 
directive and therefore cannot be achieved by the Member States alone. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The  proposal  leaves  Member  States  the  freedom  to  decide  whether,  and  on  which 
roads,  to  levy  tolls  and  whether  or  not  to  incorporate  local  environmental  and 
congestion costs in the tolls. The choice of projects to be financed with the proceeds 
of  such  charging  is  also  left  to  the  discretion  of  Member  States  provided  that  the 
projects  chosen  contribute  to  sustainable  mobility.  The  proposal  therefore  does  not 
exceed what is required to achieve its objective.  

The proposed instrument is a directive since a regulation might unnecessarily restrict 
the margin of discretion of Member States.  

It  concerns  a  matter  relevant  to  the  European  Economic  Area  and  should  therefore 
extend to it.  

It will not affect the Community budget. 

4. 

DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSAL 

Article  2  adds  new  definitions  relating  to  tolls,  infrastructure  cost  charges,  external 
cost  charges,  costs  of  traffic  based  air  and  noise  pollution  and  costs  of  congestion. 
The former concept of weighted average toll is replaced by the concept of weighted 
average infrastructure charge.  

Article  7  specifies  that  a  Member  State  cannot  impose  both  country  wide  tolls  and 
user charges, and must therefore choose between the two systems.  

Article 7a specifies the proportions to apply between the daily, weekly, monthly and 
annual  rates  of  time-based  charges  (vignettes)  to  ensure  that  charges  paid  do  not 
discriminate against occasional users, which are usually foreign hauliers.  

Article 7b enables Member States to levy through tolls either a charge based on the 
cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution and congestion or a charge to recover the 
construction, maintenance and operation of infrastructure, or both.  

Article 7c imposes to vary the charge based on external costs according to types of 
vehicles,  roads  and  time  periods.  The  amount  of  the  charge  will  be  set  by  an 
independent authority according to the method of Annex IIIa. 

Article 7e allows a mark-up on alternatives of the main route on which a mark-up in 
mountainous  area  is  levied  and  introduces  a  rule  to  avoid  double  charging  when  a 
charge based on external costs is levied in combination with a mark-up.  

Article 7f(5) avoids double charging which would result of a double variation of both 
the charge related to infrastructure cost and the charge based on external costs.  

Article 7g updates the notification requirements. 

Article 7h prohibits discounts or reductions in charges based on external costs. 

Article  7i  requires  to  collect  a  charge  based  on  external  costs  by  means  of  an 
electronic  toll  system  which  avoids  hindrance  to  the  free  flow  of  traffic  and  which 
can be subsequently extended without the need for barriers which imply significant 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
additional  roadside  investment.  A  transition  period  is  planned  for  existing  tolls.  A 
document  indicating  the  amount  of  the  charge will also have to be delivered to the 
haulier. 

Article  8c  ensures  that  the  Commission  is  involved  when  several  Member  States 
cooperate in introducing a toll system. 

Article 9(1)a specifies that regulatory charges are allowed on urban roads in built up 
areas. 

Article  9  earmarks  the  part  of  the  toll  based  on  external  costs  to  various  measures 
contributing to sustainable transport.  

Article 9b-c empowers the Commission to adapt to scientific progress the method to 
calculate the charges. 

Article 11 introduces reporting requirements for Member States and the Commission. 
A report on a further extension of the Directive is due by 31 December 2013. 

Other articles repeat existing provisions and are inserted for reason of legal clarity.  

(Articles refer to the amended Directive and not to the amending Directive). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
2008/0147 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of 
certain infrastructures 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 
71(1) thereof,  

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission8, 

Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee9, 

Having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions10, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  promotion  of  sustainable  transport  is  a  key  element  of  the  common  transport 
policy. To this end, the negative impacts of transport, in particular congestion, which 
impedes mobility, pollution, which creates health and environmental damage, and its 
contribution  to  climate  change  must  be  reduced.  Moreover  environmental  protection 
requirements  must  be  integrated  into  the  definition  and  implementation  of  other 
Community policies, including the common transport policy.  

The objective of reducing the negative impacts of transport should be achieved in such 
a  way  as  to  avoid  disproportionate  obstacles  to  the  freedom  of  movement  in  the 
interest of sound economic growth and the proper functioning of the internal market.  

To optimize the transport system accordingly, the common transport policy must use a 
mix of instruments to improve the transport infrastructure and technologies and enable 
a more efficient management of transport demand. This calls for a further recourse to 
the “user pays” principle and the development of the “polluter pays” principle in the 
transport sector.  

8 
9 
10 

… 
… 
… 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Article 11 of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council11 
called on the Commission to present a model for the assessment of all external costs 
arising  from  use  of  the  transport  infrastructure  to  serve  as  the  basis  for  future 
calculations of infrastructure charges. This model was to be accompanied by an impact 
analysis of the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport and a strategy 
for  a  stepwise  implementation  of  the  model  and,  if  appropriate,  by  proposals  for 
further revision of that Directive. 

In order to move towards a sustainable transport policy, transport prices should better 
reflect  the  costs  related  to  traffic-based  air  pollution,  traffic-based  noise  pollution, 
climate change and congestion caused by the actual use of vehicles, trains, planes or 
ships  as  a  means  of  optimising  the  use  of  infrastructure,  reducing  local  pollution, 
managing  congestion  and  fighting  against  climate  change  at  least  cost  for  the 
economy.  This  calls  for  a  stepwise  approach  in  all  transport  modes,  taking  into 
account their particular characteristics.  

In  the  road  transport  sector,  tolls  being  distance  based  charges  for  the  use  of 
infrastructure  constitute  a  fair  and  efficient  economic  instrument  to  achieve  this 
objective since they have a direct relation with the use of infrastructure and can vary 
according to the distance travelled, the environmental performance of vehicles and the 
place and time of use of vehicles and therefore can be set at a level which reflects the 
cost of pollution and congestion caused by the actual use of vehicles. Moreover tolls 
do  not  create  any  distortion  of  competition  within  the  internal  market  since  they  are 
payable by all operators irrespective of their Member State of origin or establishment 
and in proportion to the intensity of use of the road network.  

The  impact  analysis  shows  that  applying  tolls  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of 
pollution, and on congested roads, on the basis of the cost of congestion would have a 
positive  effect  on  the  transport  system  and  contribute  to  the  EU  strategy  to  fight 
climate change. It would reduce congestion and local pollution by encouraging the use 
of cleaner vehicle technologies, optimising the logistic behaviour and reducing empty 
returns.  It  would  indirectly  play  an  important  role  in  reducing  fuel  consumption  and 
contributing  to  the  fight  against  climate  change.  Tolls  which  integrate  in  their 
calculation for using congested roads a cost element related to congestion will be more 
effective in reducing congestion if Member States include other road users outside the 
scope of this Directive in a scheme of a similar nature.  

The costs of traffic-based air and noise pollution and congestion, such as health costs, 
including medical care, crop losses and other loss of production, and welfare costs, are 
born within the territory of the Member State in which the use of transport takes place.  

The  model  devised  by  the  Commission  for  calculating  these  external  costs  provides 
reliable methods and a range of unit values which can already serve as a basis for the 
calculation of road user charges. 

(10)  There  are  still  uncertainties  about  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  systems  required  to 
enforce differentiated usage charges on roads with low traffic. Until such uncertainties 

11 

OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42. Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2006/103/EC (OJ L 363, 
20.12.2006, p. 344). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
are removed, a flexible approach at Community level appears most appropriate. This 
flexible approach should leave Member States to decide whether and on which roads 
to introduce external cost charges on the basis of the local and national characteristics 
of the network.  

(11)  Time-based  user  charges  and  tolls  should  not  be  applied  simultaneously  within  the 
territory of a Member State in order to avoid a fragmentation of the charging schemes 
with negative effects for the transport industry, except in certain specific cases where 
this is necessary to finance the construction of tunnels, bridges or mountain passes.  

(12)  Time-based user charges levied on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis should not 
discriminate against occasional users, since a high proportion of such users are likely 
to be non-national hauliers. A more detailed ratio between daily, weekly, monthly and 
annual rates should therefore be fixed.  

(13) 

Inconsistent charging schemes should be avoided between the trans-European network 
and  other  parts  of  the  road  network  which  may  be  used  by  international  traffic. 
The same charging principles should therefore be applied to the entire interurban road 
network.  

(14)  Tolls  based  on  the  distance  travelled  should  be  allowed  to  include  an  external  cost 
element based on the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution and on roads usually 
congested  and  during  peak  periods  congestion  costs  which  are  mostly  borne  at  local 
level. The external cost element included in tolls should be allowed to be added to the 
cost of infrastructure, provided that certain conditions are respected in the calculation 
of costs so that to avoid undue charging.  

(15)  To better reflect the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution, and congestion, the 
external cost charge should vary according to the type of roads, type of vehicles and 
time  periods  such  as  daily,  weekly  or  seasonal  peak  and  off  peak  periods  and  night 
period.  

(16)  The  smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market  requires  a  Community  framework  in 
order to ensure that road charges set on the basis of the local cost of traffic-based air 
transparent,  proportionate  and  non-
and  noise  pollution  and  congestion  are 
discriminatory.  This  requires  common  charging  principles,  calculation  methods  and 
unit values of external costs based on acknowledged scientific methods together with 
mechanisms for notifying and reporting tolling schemes to the Commission.  

(17)  The authority which sets the external cost charge should also have no vested interest in 
setting  the  amount  at  an  undue  level  and  should  therefore  be  independent  from  the 
body  which  collects  and  manages  toll  revenue.  Experience  has  shown  that  adding  a 
mark-up to tolls in mountainous areas in order to finance priority projects of the trans-
European network is not a practicable option for infrastructure operators if the traffic 
diversion which may result from an increase of the toll is such that it implies a loss of 
revenue. To remedy this situation, a mark-up should be allowed on alternative routes 
to which traffic could otherwise be diverted.  

(18) 

In  order  to  give  the  precedence  to  the  construction  of  priority  projects  of  European 
interest, Member States which have the possibility of applying a mark-up should use 
this  option  before  levying  an  external  cost  charge.  To  avoid  an  undue  charging  of 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
users,  an  external  cost  charge  should  not  be  combined  with  a  mark-up  unless  the 
external  costs exceed  the amount of  the mark-up already levied. In such a case, it is 
thus appropriate that the amount of the mark-up should be deducted from the external 
cost charge. 

(19)  Where differentiated external cost charges are levied, a variation in the infrastructure 
charge for the purpose of reducing congestion, optimising the use of the infrastructure, 
minimising infrastructure damage or road safety would represent an undue burden on 
certain categories of users and should accordingly be precluded.  

(20)  Discounts  or  reductions  of  the  external  cost  charge  should  not  be  permitted  as  there 
would  be  a  significant  risk  that  they  would  unduly  discriminate  against  certain 
categories of users.  

(21)  Charging  external  costs  through  tolls  will  be  more  effective  in  influencing  transport 
decisions  if  users  are  aware  of  these  costs.  They  should  accordingly  be  identified 
separately  on  a  statement,  a  bill  or  an  equivalent  document  from  the  toll  operator. 
Furthermore such document may make it easier for hauliers to pass on the cost of the 
external cost charge to the shipper or any other clients.  

(22)  The use of electronic tolling systems is essential to avoid disruption to the free flow of 
traffic and to prevent adverse effects on the local environment caused by queues at toll 
barriers. It is therefore appropriate to ensure that the external cost charge is collected 
by means of such a system, subject to compliance with the requirements of Directive 
2004/52/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on  the 
interoperability  of  electronic  road  toll  systems  in  the  Community  that  foresees 
appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure that technical, legal, commercial and 
data protection and privacy concerns are properly addressed in the implementation of 
electronic  tolling.12  Furthermore  such  systems  should  be  designed  without  roadside 
barriers and in a way which allows subsequent extension to any parallel roads at low 
cost. Provision should however be made for a transitional period in order to permit the 
necessary adaptations to take place.  

(23)  For  reasons  of  legal  clarity,  it  should  be  specified  where  regulatory  charges 
specifically  designed  to  reduce  traffic  congestion  or  combat  environmental  impacts, 
including poor air quality are permitted. 

(24) 

In  accordance  with  the  transport  policy  objectives  of  this  Directive,  the  additional 
revenue generated from an external cost charge should be used in projects with a broad 
Community  interest  and  designed  to  promote  sustainable  mobility  at  large.  Such 
projects should therefore relate to facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport 
pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of 
vehicles,  and  developing  alternative  infrastructure  for  transport  users.  It  includes  for 
example research and development on cleaner vehicles and the implementation of the 
transport  part  of  the  action  plans  under  Council  Directive  96/62/EC  on  ambient  air 
quality  assessment  and  management13  and  Directive  2002/49/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  June  2002  relating  to  the  assessment  and 

12 
13 

OJ l 166, 30.4;2004, p. 124; 
OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
management  of  environmental  noise14,  which  may  comprise  measures  to  mitigate 
traffic-based noise and air pollution around large infrastructure and in agglomerations. 
Earmarking  this  revenue  does  not  release  Member  States  from  the  obligation  laid 
down  in  Article  88(3)  of  the  Treaty  to  notify  the  Commission  of  certain  national 
measures, nor does it prejudge the outcome of any procedures initiated under Articles 
87 and 88 of the Treaty. 

(25) 

In  order  to  promote  interoperability  of  tolling  arrangements,  two  or  more  Member 
States  should  be  allowed  to  cooperate  on  introducing  a  common  system  of  tolls, 
subject to compliance with certain conditions. 

(26)  A  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  experience  acquired  in  those  Member  States 
which apply an external cost charge, in accordance with this Directive should be sent 
in due time by the Commission to the Council and Parliament. This assessment should 
also include an analysis of progress in the strategy to fight climate change, including 
in  defining  a  common  fuel  tax  element  related  to  climate  change  in  the  Council 
Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for 
the taxation of energy products and electricity15, including of the fuel used by heavy 
goods vehicles. In the light of these progress the question of carbon dioxide emissions 
should be included and an analysis of any other further appropriate actions should be 
carried on. .  

(27)  Article 55(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down 
general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social 
Fund and the Cohesion Fund16 provides that the revenue generated by charges borne 
directly  by  users  must  be  considered  in  the  determination  of  the  funding-gap  in  the 
case  of  a  revenue-generating  project.  However,  since  the  revenue  generated  by  an 
external  cost  charge  is  earmarked  to  project  aiming  at  reducing  road  transport 
pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of 
vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users, it should not be 
considered  in  the  calculation  of  the  funding-gap.  The  measures  necessary  for  the 
implementation  of  this  Directive  should  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  Council 
Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of 
implementing powers conferred on the Commission17.  

(28) 

In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adapt Annexes 0, III, IIIa and 
IV to technical and scientific progress, and Annexes I and II to inflation. Since those 
measures  are  of  general  scope  and  are  designed  to  amend  non-essential  elements  of 
this directive, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.  

(29)  Since the objectives of the action which are to encourage differentiated charging based 
on  external  costs  as  a  means  towards  sustainable  transport  cannot  be  sufficiently 
achieved by the Member States alone, and can therefore, by reason of the importance 

14 
15 

16 
17 

OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12. 
OJ L283, 31.10.2003, p.51. Directive as last amended by Directive 2004/75/EC (OJ L 157, 30.04.2004, 
p.100). 
OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25–78 
OJ  L  184,  17.7.1999,  p.  23.  Decision  as  amended  by  Decision  2006/512/EC  (OJ  L 200,  22.7.2006, 
p. 11). 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of the cross-border dimension of transport, be better achieved at Community level, the 
Community  may  adopt  measures  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  as 
set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, 
as set out in that Article, this directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order 
to achieve those objectives. 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Directive 1999/62/EC is amended as follows: 

Article 1 

1. In Article 2, points (b) and (ba) are replaced by the following points: 

"(b) 

(ba) 

(bb) 

(bc) 

(bd) 

(be) 

(bf) 

(bg) 

‘toll’ means a specified amount payable for a vehicle based on the distance travelled 
on a given infrastructure and comprising an infrastructure charge and/or an external 
cost charge;  

‘infrastructure  charge’  means  a  charge  levied  through  a  toll  for  the  purpose  of 
recovering the costs incurred by a Member State related to infrastructure;  

‘external  cost  charge’  means  a  charge  levied  through  a  toll  for  the  purpose  of 
recovering the costs incurred by a Member State related to traffic-based air pollution, 
traffic-based noise pollution and congestion ;  

‘cost  of  traffic-based  air  pollution’  means  the  cost  of  the  damage  caused  by  the 
release of certain harmful air emissions in the course of the operation of a vehicle;  

‘cost of traffic-based noise pollution’ means the cost of damage caused by the noise 
emitted by a vehicle or created by the interaction of a vehicle and the road surface;  

‘cost of congestion’ means the additional cost in terms of time loss, unreliability of 
travel time, increased fuel consumption and vehicle maintenance costs imposed upon 
other vehicles when the infrastructure use approaches capacity limits;  

‘weighted average infrastructure charge’ means the total revenue of an infrastructure 
charge over a given period divided by the number of vehicle kilometres travelled on 
the road sections subject to the charge during that period; 

‘weighted average external cost charge’ means the total revenue of an external cost 
charge over a given period divided by the number of vehicle kilometres travelled on 
the road sections subject to the charge during that period;" 

2. Articles 7, 7a and 7b are replaced by the following:  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
“Article 7 

1. Member States may maintain or introduce tolls and/or user charges on their road network 
or on certain sections of that network under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 
of this article and Articles 7a to 7j. 

2.  Member  States  shall  not  impose  within  their  territory  both  tolls  and  user  charges  on  any 
given  category  of  vehicle.  However,  a  Member  States  which  imposes  a  user  charge  on  its 
network may also impose tolls for the use of bridges, tunnels and mountain passes. 

3. Tolls and user charges shall not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of the 
nationality  of  the  haulier,  the  Member  State  or  the  third  country  of  establishment  of  the 
haulier or of registration of the vehicle, or the origin or destination of the transport operation. 

4. Member States may provide for reduced toll rates or user charges or exemptions from the 
obligation to pay tolls or user charges for vehicles exempted from the requirement to install 
and  use  recording  equipment  under  Council  Regulation (EEC)  No 3821/85  of  20 December 
1985 on recording equipment in road transport18, and in the cases covered by, and subject to 
the conditions contained in, Article 6(2) (a) and (b) of this Directive.  

5. For a transitional period until 31 December 2011 inclusive, a Member State may choose to 
apply tolls and/or user charges only to vehicles having a maximum permissible laden weight 
of not less than 12 tonnes. From 1 January 2012, tolls and/or user charges shall be applied to 
all  vehicles  within  the  meaning  of  Article  2(d)  unless  a  Member  State  considers  that  an 
extension to vehicles of less than 12 tonnes would: 

(a) 

(b) 

create  significant  adverse  effects  on  the  free  flow  of  traffic,  the  environment, 
noise levels, congestion or health; or 

involve administrative costs of more than 30% of the additional revenue which 
would have been generated by that extension. 

Article 7a 

1. User charges shall be in proportion to the duration of the use made of the infrastructure and 
shall be available for the duration of a day, week, month and a year. In particular, the annual 
rate  shall  be  no  less  than  80  times  the  daily  rate,  the  monthly  rate  shall  be  no  less  than  13 
times the daily rate and the weekly rate shall be no less than five times the daily rate.  

A Member State may apply only annual rates for vehicles registered in that State. 

2. User charges, including administrative costs, for all vehicle categories shall be set by the 
Member State concerned at a level which is no higher than the maximum rates laid down in 
Annex II. 

18 

OJ  L 370, 31.12.1985,  p. 8,  as  last  amended  by  Commission  Regulation (EC) No 432/2004  (OJ  L 71, 
10.3.2004, p. 3). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 7b  

1. The infrastructure charge shall be based on the principle of the recovery of infrastructure 
costs.  The  weighted  average  infrastructure  charge  shall  be  related  to  the  construction  costs 
and the costs of operating, maintaining and developing the infrastructure network concerned. 
The  weighted  average  infrastructure  charge  may  also  include  a  return  on  capital  or  a  profit 
margin based on market conditions.  

2. The external cost charge shall be related to the cost of traffic-based air pollution, the cost of 
traffic-based noise pollution, or both. On road sections subject to congestion the external cost 
charge may also include the cost of congestion during the periods when these road sections 
are usually congested.  

3. The costs taken into account shall relate to the network or a part of the network on which 
tolls are levied and to the vehicles that are subject thereto.  

Article 7c  

1. The external cost charge shall vary according to the type of road and EURO emission class, 
and  also  the  time  period  in  cases  where  the  charge  includes  the  cost  of  congestion  and/or 
traffic-based noise pollution.  

2.  The  amount  of  the  external  cost  charge  for  each  combination  of  class  of  vehicle,  type  of 
road and time period shall be set in accordance with the minimum requirements, the common 
formulae and the maximum chargeable external costs in Annex IIIa.  

3.  The  amount  of  the  external  cost  charge  shall  be  set  by  an  authority  designated  by  the 
Member  State  for  this  purpose.  The  authority  shall  be  legally  and  financially  independent 
from the organisation in charge of managing or collecting part or all of the charge. However, 
if that organisation is controlled by the Member State, the authority may be an administrative 
entity of that State. 

Article 7d 

1. Member States shall calculate the infrastructure charge using a methodology based on the 
core calculation principles set out in Annex III. 

2. For concession tolls, the maximum level of the infrastructure charge shall be equivalent to, 
or less than, the level that would have resulted from the use of a methodology based on the 
core calculation principles set out in Annex III. The assessment of such equivalence shall be 
made  on  the  basis  of  a  reasonably  long  reference  period  appropriate  to  the  nature  of  that 
concession contract. 

3. Tolling arrangements which were already in place on 10 June 2008 or for which tenders or 
responses to invitations to negotiate under the negotiated procedure were received pursuant to 
a public procurement process before 10 June 2008 shall not be subject to the obligations set 
out in paragraphs 1 and 2 for as long as these arrangements remain in force and provided that 
they are not substantially amended. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Article 7e 

1. In exceptional cases concerning infrastructure in mountainous regions, and after informing 
the Commission, a mark-up may be added to the infrastructure charge levied on specific road 
sections which are subject to acute congestion, or the use of which by vehicles is the cause of 
significant environmental damage, on condition that: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

(a) the revenue generated from the mark-up is invested in financing the construction 
of  priority  projects  of  European  interest,  identified  in  Annex III  to  Decision 
No 1692/96/EC,  which  contribute  directly  to  the  alleviation  of  the  congestion  or 
environmental damage and which are located in the same corridor as the road section 
on which the mark-up is applied;  

(b) the mark-up does not exceed 15% of the weighted average infrastructure charge 
calculated in accordance with Article 7b(1) and Article 7d except where the revenue 
generated is invested in cross-border sections of priority projects of European interest 
involving infrastructure in mountainous regions, in which case the mark-up may not 
exceed 25%; 

(c) the application of the mark-up does not result in unfair treatment of commercial 
traffic compared to other road users; 

(d)  a  description  of  the  exact  location  of  the  mark-up  and  proof  of  a  decision  to 
finance  the  construction  works  referred  to  in  point  (a)  are  submitted  to  the 
Commission in advance of the application of the mark-up; and 

(e) the period for which the mark-up is to apply is defined and limited in advance and 
is consistent, in terms of the expected revenue to be raised, with the financial plans 
and  cost-benefit  analysis  for  the  projects  co-financed  with  the  revenue  from  the 
mark-up. 

The first subparagraph shall apply to new cross-border projects subject to the agreement of all 
Member States involved in that project. 

2. After informing the Commission, a mark-up may also be applied to a road section which 
constitutes an alternative route to that covered by the mark-up referred to in paragraph 1, if:  

–  the application of a mark-up on a road would result in a significant share of traffic being 

diverted to this alternative route ; and 

–  the conditions set out in points a)-e) of paragraph 1 are complied with." 

3. A mark-up may be applied to an infrastructure charge which has been varied in accordance 
with Article 7f.  

4. When the Commission receives the required information from a Member State intending to 
apply  a  mark-up,  it  shall  make  this  information  available  to  the  members  of  the  Committee 
referred to in Article 9c. If the Commission considers that the planned mark-up does not meet 
the  conditions  set  out  in  paragraph  1,  or  if  it  considers  that  the  planned  mark-up  will  have 
significant adverse effects on the economic development of peripheral regions, it may reject 
or request amendment of the plans for charges submitted by the Member State concerned, in 
accordance with the consultation procedure referred to in Article 9c (2). 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
5. On road sections where the criteria for applying a mark-up pursuant to paragraph 1 are met, 
the Member States may not levy an external cost charge unless a mark-up is applied.  

6. The amount of the mark-up shall be deducted from the amount of the external cost charge 
calculated in accordance with Article 7c.  

Article 7f 

1. Toll rates which comprise only an infrastructure charge shall be varied according to EURO 
emission  class  in  such  a  way  that  no  toll  is  more  than  100%  above  the  toll  charged  for 
equivalent vehicles meeting the strictest emission standards.  

2.  Where  a  driver  is  unable  to  produce  the  vehicle  documents  necessary  to  ascertain  the 
EURO emission class of the vehicle in the event of a check, Member States may apply tolls 
up to the highest level chargeable. 

3. Tolls which comprise only an infrastructure charge may also be varied for the purpose of 
reducing  congestion,  minimising  infrastructure  damage  and  optimising  the  use  of  the 
infrastructure concerned or promoting road safety, on condition that:  

– 

– 

– 

(a) the variation is transparent, openly published and available to all users on equal 
terms; and  

(b) the variation is applied according to the time of day, type of day or season; 

(c) no toll is more than 100% above the toll charged during the cheapest period of the 
day, type of day or season.  

4. The variations referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall not be designed to generate additional 
toll  revenue,  any  unintended  increase  in  revenue  being  counterbalanced  by  changes  to  the 
structure  of  the  variation  which  must  be  implemented  within  two  years  of  the  end  of  the 
accounting year in which the additional revenue is generated.  

5. If a toll includes an external cost charge, paragraphs 1 and 3 shall not be applied to the part 
of the toll consisting of an infrastructure charge.  

1.  At  least  six  months  before  the  implementation  of  a  new  infrastructure  charge  tolling 
arrangement, Member States shall send to the Commission: 

Article 7g  

(a) for tolling arrangements other than those involving concession tolls: 

– 

– 

the  unit  values  and  other  parameters  used  in  calculating  the  various 
infrastructure cost elements, and 

clear  information  on  the  vehicles  covered  by  the  tolling  arrangements,  the 
geographic  extent  of  the  network,  or  part  of  the  network,  used  for  each  cost 
calculation, and the percentage of costs that are intended to be recovered. 

(b) for tolling arrangements involving concession tolls: 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
– 

– 

the concession contracts or significant changes to such contracts, 

the  base  case  on  which  the  grantor  has  founded  the  notice  of  concession,  as 
referred  to  in  Annex VII  B  to  Directive 2004/18/EC;  this  base  case  shall 
include  the  estimated  costs  as  defined  in  Article 7b  (1)  envisaged  under  the 
concession, the forecast traffic, broken down by type of vehicle, the levels of 
toll  envisaged  and  the  geographic  extent  of  the  network  covered  by  the 
concession contract. 

2.  The  Commission  shall,  within  six  months  of  receiving  all  the  necessary  information  in 
accordance with paragraph 1, give an opinion as to whether the obligations of Article 7d are 
complied  with.  The  opinions  of  the  Commission  shall  be  made  available  to  the  Committee 
referred to in Article 9c. 

3.  At  least  six  months  before  the  implementation  of  a  new  external  cost  charge  tolling 
arrangement, Member States shall send to the Commission: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

 precise information locating the road sections where the external cost charge is 
to  be  levied  and  describing  the  class  of  vehicles,  type  of  roads  and  the  exact 
time periods according to which the external cost charge will vary;  

the  envisaged  weighted  average  external  cost  charge  and  the  envisaged  total 
revenue;  

the name of the authority designated in accordance with Article 7c(3) to set the 
amount of the charge, and of its representative; and  

the  parameters,  data  and  information  necessary  to  demonstrate  how  the 
calculation method set out in Annex IIIa will be applied. 

4. The Commission may, within six months of receiving the information in accordance with 
paragraph 3,  decide  to  ask  the  Member  State  concerned  to  adapt  the  proposed  external  cost 
charge,  if  it  considers  that  the  obligations  laid  down  by  Articles  7b,  7c,  7i  or  9(2)  are  not 
complied  with.  The  decision  of  the  Commission  shall  be  made  available  to  the  Committee 
referred to in Article 9c. 

Article 7h 

1. Member States shall not provide for discounts or reductions for any users in relation to the 
external cost charge element of a toll.  

2.  Member  States  may  provide  for  discounts  or  reductions  to  the  infrastructure  charge  on 
condition that: 

–  the resulting charging structure is proportionate, openly published and available to all users 
on equal terms and does not lead to additional costs being passed on to other users in the 
form of higher tolls; and  

–  such  discounts  or  reductions  lead  to  actual  savings  in  administrative  costs  and  do  not 
exceed  13%  of  the  infrastructure  charge  paid  by  equivalent  vehicles  not  eligible  for  the 
discount or reduction. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
3. Subject to the conditions contained in Article 7f(4) and the second indent of Article 7f(3), 
toll rates may in exceptional cases, for specific projects of high European interest, be subject 
to other forms of variation in order to secure the commercial viability of such projects, where 
they  are  exposed  to  direct  competition  with  other  modes  of  vehicle  transport.  The  resulting 
charging structure shall be linear, proportionate, openly published, and available to all users 
on equal terms and shall not lead to additional costs being passed on to other users in the form 
of  higher  tolls.  The  Commission  shall  verify  compliance  with  these  conditions  prior  to  the 
implementation of the charging structure in question. 

Article 7i  

1. Tolls and user charges shall be applied and collected and their payment monitored in such a 
way  as  to  cause  as  little  hindrance  as  possible  to  the  free  flow  of  traffic  and  to  avoid  any 
mandatory  controls  or  checks  at  the  Community’s  internal  borders.  To  this  end,  Member 
States  shall  cooperate  in  establishing  methods  for  enabling  hauliers  to  pay  user  charges  24 
hours  a  day,  at  least  at  the  major sales outlets, using all common  means  of  payment,  inside 
and  outside  the  Member  States  in  which  they  are  applied.  Member  States  shall  provide 
adequate facilities at the points of payment for tolls and user charges so as to maintain normal 
road safety standards. 

2. The arrangements for collecting tolls and/or user charges shall not, financially or otherwise, 
place  non-regular  users  of  the  road  network  at  an  unjustified  disadvantage.  In  particular, 
where a Member State collects tolls and/or user charges exclusively by means of a system that 
requires  the  use  of  a  vehicle  on-board  unit,  it  shall  ensure  that  appropriate  on-board  units 
compliant with the requirements of Directive 2004/52/EC can be obtained by all users under 
reasonable administrative and economic arrangements.  

3. If a Member State levies an external cost charge on a vehicle, the amount of such charge 
shall be indicated in a document provided to the haulier.  

4.  An  external  cost  charge  shall  be  levied  and  collected  by  means  of  an  electronic  system 
which complies with the requirements of Article 2(1) of Directive 2004/52/EC and which can 
subsequently be extended to other road sections without the need for roadside barriers which 
imply significant additional roadside investment.  

5.  However,  for  a  transitional  period  until  31  December  2013  inclusive,  an  external  cost 
charge  may  be  levied  and  collected  by  means  of  an  existing  tolling  arrangement.  In  such  a 
case,  the  Member  State  concerned  shall  notify  the  Commission  of  a  plan  to  change  by  31 
December 2013 at the latest to a system which complies with the requirements of paragraph 4. 

Article 7j 

This Directive does not affect the freedom of Member States which introduce a system of tolls 
and/or  user  charges  for  infrastructure  to  provide,  without  prejudice  to  Articles 87  and 88  of 
the Treaty, appropriate compensation for these charges. 

3. The following Article 8c is inserted:  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
"Article 8c  

1.  Two  or  more  Member  States  may  cooperate  in  introducing  a  common  system  for  tolls 
applicable to their territories as a whole. In that case, those Member States shall ensure that 
the  Commission  is  closely  involved  in  such  cooperation  and  in  the  system’s  subsequent 
operation and possible amendment. 

2. The common toll system shall be subject to the conditions set out in Articles 7 to 7j and 
shall be open to other Member States."  

4. Article 9 paragraph 1a is replaced by the following:  

“This  Directive  shall  not  prevent  the  non-discriminatory  application  by  Member  States  of 
regulatory charges specifically designed to reduce traffic congestion or combat environmental 
impacts, including poor air quality, on any urban road located in a built up area."  

5. Article 9 paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:  

"  A  Member  State  in  which  an  external  cost  charge  is  levied  shall  ensure  that  the  revenue 
generated  by  the  charge  is  earmarked  for  measures  aimed  at  facilitating  efficient  pricing, 
reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy 
performance of vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users.  

A Member State in which an infrastructure charge is levied shall determine the use to be made 
of  revenue  generated  by  that  charge.  To  enable  the  transport  network  to  be  developed  as  a 
whole, revenue from charges should be used to benefit the transport sector and optimise the 
entire transport system 

6. Article 9b is replaced by the following: 

“Article 9b 

The Commission  shall facilitate  dialogue and the  exchange  of  technical  know-how  between 
Member  States  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  this  Directive  and  in  particular  the 
Annexes. The Commission shall adapt Annexes 0, III, IIIa and IV in the light of scientific and 
technical progress and Annexes I and II in the light of inflation. Those measures designed to 
amend  non-essential  elements  of  this  Directive  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the 
regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 9c (3).” 

7. Article 9c is replaced by the following:  

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee.  

“Article 9c 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall 
apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.  

3.  Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Article  5a  (1)  to  (4)  and  Article  7  of 
Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.” 

8. Article 11 is replaced by the following: 

“Article 11 

1. Every four years and for the first time by 31 December 2012, Member States which levy an 
external cost charge and/or an infrastructure charge shall draw up a report on tolls levied on 
their territory and shall forward it to the Commission. The report shall comprise information 
on:  

– 

– 

– 

the weighted average external cost charge and the specific amounts levied for 
each combination of class of vehicle, type of road and period of time; 

the  total  revenue  raised  through  the  external  cost  charge,  and  information  on 
the use of that revenue;  

and  the  weighted  average  infrastructure  cost  charge  and  total  revenue  raised 
through the infrastructure charge.  

2. No later than 31  December 2013,  the Commission shall present a report to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive, in particular 
as regards the effectiveness of the provisions on the recovery of the costs related to congestion 
and traffic-based pollution and on the inclusion of vehicles of more than 3.5 and less than 12 
tonnes. The report shall also assess:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

the  relevance  of  integrating  in  the  calculation  of  tolls  other  external  costs, 
especially  the  cost  of  carbon  dioxide  emissions  should  the  definition  of  a 
common  fuel  tax  element  related  to  climate  change  have  not  yielded 
satisfactory results, the cost of accidents and the cost of biodiversity loss;  

the  relevance  of  extending  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  other  categories  of 
vehicles; 

the possibility of adopting a revised classification of vehicles for the purposes 
of  varying  tolls  taking  into  account  the  average  impact  on  the  environment, 
congestion  and  infrastructure,  their  CO2  and  energy  performance,  and  the 
practical and economic feasibility of levying and enforcing tolls; and 

the  technical  and  economic  feasibility  of  introducing  on  the  main  inter-urban 
roads  minimum  distance-based  charges.  The  report  shall  identify  the  possible 
type of road sections to be charged, the possible ways of levying and enforcing 
in a cost-effective way such charges and a common simple method to set the 
minimum rates". 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
9.  In  Annex  III,  the  words  “weighted  average  tolls”  are  replaced  by  “weighted  average 
infrastructure charge”. 

10. The Annex to this Directive is inserted after Annex III. 

Article 2 

1.  Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions 
necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  by  3l  December  2010  at  the  latest.  They  shall 
forthwith  inform  the  Commission  thereof  and  supply  a  table  of  equivalence  between  those 
provisions and this directive. 

2. When Member States adopt such measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive 
or  shall  be  accompanied  by  such  reference  at  the  time  of  their  official  publication.  The 
procedure for such a reference shall be adopted by Member States. 

3. Member States shall send the Commission the text of the main provisions of domestic law 
which they adopt in the field covered by this directive.  

This Directive shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official 
Journal of the European Union. 

Article 3 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Article 4 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
ANNEX IIIA 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LEVYING AN EXTERNAL COST CHARGE 
AND MAXIMUM CHARGEABLE EXTERNAL COST ELEMENTS  

This  Annex  sets  out  the  minimum  requirements  for  levying  an  external  cost  charge  and  the 
maximum authorised cost elements to be included when setting the amount.  

1. THE PARTS OF THE NETWORK CONCERNED  

The Member State shall specify precisely the part or parts of network which are to be subject 
to an external cost charge.  

Where a Member State chooses to levy an external cost charge on only a part or parts of the 
network, the part or parts shall be chosen after an assessment establishing that: 

•  vehicles’  use  of  the  roads  where  the  external  cost  charge  is  applied  generates 
environmental damage and congestion higher than that generated on average on other parts 
of the road infrastructure network that are not subject to a external cost charge, or 

•  the imposition of an external cost charge on other parts of the network might have adverse 
effects on the environment, congestion or road safety, or levying and collecting an external 
cost charge on them would entail disproportionate cost. 

2. THE VEHICLES, ROADS AND TIME PERIOD COVERED 

The Member State shall notify the Commission of the classification of vehicles according to 
which the toll shall vary. It shall also notify the Commission of the location of roads subject 
to  higher  external  cost  charges  (hereafter  “suburban  roads”)  and  of  roads  subject  to  lower 
external cost charges (hereafter “other interurban roads”).  

Where applicable, it shall also notify the Commission of the exact time periods corresponding 
to the night period and to the various daily, weekly or seasonal peak periods during which a 
higher  external  cost  charge  may  be  imposed  to  reflect  greater  congestion  or  greater  noise 
annoyance. 

The  classification  of  roads  and  the  definition  of  time  periods  shall  be  based  on  objective 
criteria  related  to  the  level  of  exposure  of  the  roads  and  their  vicinities  to  congestion  and 
pollution  such  as  population  density,  the  yearly  number  of  pollution  peaks  measured  in 
accordance  with  Directive  96/62/EC,  the  average  daily  and  hourly  traffic  and  the  level  of 
service  (percentage  of  the  day  or  the  year  when  road  usage  is  close  to  or  above  capacity, 
average delays and/or queues lengths). The criteria used shall be included in the notification.  

3. AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE  

For each vehicle class, type of road and time period, the independent authority shall determine 
a  single  specific  amount.  The  resulting  charging  structure  shall  be  transparent,  openly 
published and available to all users on equal terms.  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
When  setting  the  charges,  the  independent  authority  shall  be  guided  by  the  principle  of 
efficient  pricing  that  is  a  price  close  to  the  social  marginal  cost  of  the  usage  of  the  vehicle 
charged.  The  charge  shall  be  set  as  close  as  possible  to  the  external  costs  which  can  be 
allocated to the category of road users concerned.  

The charge shall also be set after having considered the risk of traffic diversion together with 
any adverse effects on road safety, the environment and congestion, and solutions to mitigate 
these risks.  

The independent authority shall monitor the effectiveness of the charging scheme in reducing 
environmental  damage  arising  from  road  transport  and  in  relieving  congestion  where  it  is 
applied. It shall regularly adjust the charging structure and the specific amount of the charge 
set  for  a  given  class  of  vehicle,  type  of  road  and  period  of  time  to  the  changes  in  transport 
demand.  

4. EXTERNAL COST ELEMENTS  

4.1. Cost of traffic-based air pollution  

When a Member State chooses to include all or part the cost of traffic-based air pollution in 
the  external  cost  charge,  the  independent  authority  shall  calculate  the  chargeable  cost  of 
traffic–based air pollution by applying the following formulae or by taking the unit values in 
Table 1 if the latter are lower:  

PCVij = ∑k EFik x PCjk where: 

– 

– 

– 

air  pollution 

PCVij 
(euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

cost  of  vehicle 

class 

i  on 

road 

type 

j 

EFik emission factor of pollutant k and vehicle class i (gramme/kilometre) 

PCjk monetary cost of pollutant k for type of road j (euro/gramme) 

Only the emissions of particulate matter and of ozone precursors such as nitrogen oxide and 
volatic organic compounds will be taken into considerations. The emission factors shall be the 
same as those used by the Member State to draft the national emissions inventories provided 
for  in  Directive  2001/81/EC  on  National  Emission  Ceilings  (which  requires  use  of  the 
EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook)19. The monetary cost of pollutants shall 
be  taken  from  Table  13  of  the  “Handbook  on  estimation  of  external  cost  in  the  transport 
sector”20.  

Table 1: Air pollution cost of vehicle (PCV)  

Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre  
EURO 0 
EURO I 
EURO II 
EURO III 
EURO IV 
EURO V and less polluting 

Suburban roads 
16
11
9
7
4
3

Other interurban roads 

13 
8 
8 
6 
4 
2 

19 
20 

Methodology of the European Environmental Agency http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR5/. 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/handbook/index_en.htm. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Values in euro cents, 2000  

The  values  in  Table  1  represent  arithmetic  averages  of  the  values  given  in  Table  15  of  the 
"Handbook on the estimation of external cost in the transport sector"21 for vehicles belonging 
to four different weight classes. Member States may apply a correction factor to the values in 
Table 1 to reflect the actual fleet composition in terms of vehicle size. The values of Table 1 
may be multiplied by a factor of up to 2 in mountain areas to the extent that it is justified by 
the gradient of roads, altitude and/or temperature inversions. 

The  independent  authority  may  adopt  alternatives  methods  using  data  from  air  pollutant 
measurement  and  the  local  value  of  the  monetary  cost  of  air  pollutants,  provided  that  the 
results do not exceed the results which would have been obtained with the above formulae or 
the above unit values for any class of vehicles. 

All  parameters,  data  and  other  information  necessary  to  understand  how  the  chargeable  air 
pollution cost is calculated shall be made public.  

4.2 Cost of traffic-based noise pollution  

When a Member State chooses to include all or part of the cost of traffic-based noise pollution 
in  the  external  cost  charge,  the  independent  authority  shall  calculate  the  chargeable  cost  of 
traffic –based noise pollution by applying the following formulae or by taking the unit values 
in Table 2 if the latter are lower:  

NCVij (day) = ∑k NCjk x POPk / ADT  

NCVij (night) = n x NCVij (day) where  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

NCVij noise cost of vehicle class i on road type j (euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

NCjk noise cost per person exposed on road type j to noise level k (euro/person)  

POPk  population  exposed 
(person/kilometre) 

to  daily  noise 

level  k  per  kilometre 

ADT average daily traffic (vehicle) 

n night correction factor 

The population exposed to noise level k shall be taken from the strategic noise maps drafted 
under Article 7 of Directive 2002/49/EC on the evaluation and management of ambient noise. 

The cost per person exposed to noise level k shall be taken from Table 20 of the “Handbook 
on estimation of external cost in the transport sector”22. 

The  average  daily  traffic  shall  assume  a  weighting  factor  of  no  more  than  4  between  heavy 
goods vehicles and passenger cars. 

21 
22 

Idem 
Idem 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 2: Chargeable noise cost of vehicles (NCV)  

Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre  

Day  

Night  

Suburban roads  

Other interurban roads  

Values in euro cents, 2000  

1.1  

0.13 

2  

0.23 

Source: Handbook on the estimation of external cost in the transport sector, table 2223  

The values of Table 2 may be multiplied by a factor of up to 5 in mountain areas to the extent 
that it is justified by the gradient of roads, temperature inversions and/or amphitheatre effect 
of valleys 

All parameters, data and other information necessary to understand how the chargeable noise 
cost is calculated shall be made public.  

4.3 Cost of congestion  

On  congested  roads,  a  Member  State  may  choose  to  include  all  or  part  of  the  cost  of 
congestion in the external cost charge provided that the Member State demonstrates that the 
congestion cost imposed by a vehicle on other users exceeds the infrastructure development 
cost already charged for this vehicle. In such a case, the independent authority shall calculate 
the  chargeable  congestion  cost  for  the  different  periods  of  time  by  applying  the  following 
formulae or by taking the unit values in Table 3 if the latter are lower.  

CCV

=

MEC

Qo
(

)

−

IDC

QMEC

(

)

=

VOTxQ
Qv
(
)²

x

QvQv
((
)
(
−
Q

∆

∆−

Q

)

where  

– 

– 

– 

CCV chargeable congestion cost (euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

IDC infrastructure development cost already charged (euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

Qo optimal hourly traffic (vehicle/hour)  

–  MEC(Q) marginal external cost of congestion (euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

– 

– 

– 

– 

VOT value of time (euro/hour.vehicle)  

Q average hourly traffic (vehicle)  

∆Q small change in hourly traffic  

v(Q) average traffic speed (kilometre/hour)  

23 

Idem  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
The average daily traffic shall assume equivalence factor between heavy goods vehicles and 
passengers cars of no more than 3.  

The optimal hourly traffic shall be computed by iteratively raising the cost until equilibrium is 
reached between the hourly traffic and the marginal external cost of congestion. Alternatively, 
the ratio between the chargeable congestion charge (CCV) and the marginal external cost of 
congestion (MEC) shall be 0.5.  

The speed-flow function shall be based on standard engineering curves. 

The value of time shall be based on state of the art surveys of the willingness to pay.  

Table 3: Chargeable congestion cost of vehicles (CCV) 

Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre  

Time 
period A 

Time 
period B  

Time 
period C  

Suburban roads  

Other interurban roads  

Values in euro cents, 2000  

0 

0 

20 

2 

65 

7 

Source: Estimated from the "Handbook on the estimation of external cost in the transport sector", table 7 24  

Time period A is an off peak period with stable flow of traffic 

Time period B is a peak period or close to peak period with unstable flow of traffic 

Time period C is an extreme peak period with forced or breakdown flow of traffic  

All  parameters,  data  and  other  information  necessary  to  understand  how  the  chargeable 
congestion cost is calculated shall be made public. 

24 

Idem  

EN 

31 

   EN