COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document 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 and Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicle for the use of certain infrastructures, as regards certain provisions on vehicle taxation
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: axle tax, common transport policy, motor vehicle, reduction of gas emissions, road transport, toll, transport infrastructure, vehicle tax

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2017  SWD(2017) 181 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document 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 and Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicle for the use of certain infrastructures, as regards certain provisions on vehicle taxation  {COM(2017) 275 final} {COM(2017) 276 final} {SWD(2017) 180 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on the revision of Directive 1999/62/EC 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
Four problems are addressed: 

1.  Road  transport  is  responsible  for  17%  of  the  EU's  CO2  emissions  and  the  uptake  of  low-  and  zero-

emission vehicles is insufficient to meet the 2030 climate and energy targets  

2.  The quality of EU roads is degrading, due to falling infrastructure investments and deferred maintenance 

schedules not taking long term economic impacts into account 

3.  Some Member States introduced time-based charges (vignettes), which discriminate against occasional, 

foreign drivers 

4.  Air pollution and congestion generated by road vehicles represent significant costs to society 

All of these problems could be addressed through fair and efficient road pricing. However, the application of tolls 
in the EU is incomplete and fragmented, hardly reflecting the real cost of road use. 

What should be achieved?  
The objective is to promote sustainable and equitable road transport through wider application of the 'user pays' 
and 'polluter pays' principles: 

1.  Contributing to the reduction of CO2 emissions in transport via pricing 
2.  Contributing to adequate road quality 
3.  Ensuring that road charging schemes do not discriminate against non-resident motorists, and 
4.  Making use of road charging as an effective tool in reducing air pollution and congestion. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
High CO2 emissions are a global problem calling for concerted action at all levels. The problem of discrimination 
of non-resident drivers  is cross-border by nature, and can only be solved at  a supra-national level. Degrading 
quality of roads, air pollution and congestion have both local and EU-wide implications. Co-ordination of national 
actions is needed to ensure the free movement of people and goods across the Union. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why?  
Policy options (PO) differ by the level of intervention, ranging from relatively light to heavy. 

The most important measures of PO1 are simplifying existing provisions, extending the scope to buses/coaches 
and, for provisions on non-discrimination, to light vehicles. 

PO2  builds  on  PO1  and  introduces  the  variation  of  charges  based  on  CO2  emissions  with  the  phasing  out  of 
vignettes for HDVs (HGVs and buses/coaches), while incentivising the introduction of distance-based charging. 

PO3,  with  two  variants,  includes  additional  measures  for  cars  and  vans,  addressing  interurban  congestion  (3a 
and 3b) as well as CO2 and pollutant emissions by differentiating tolls and user charges for light vehicles (PO3b). 

PO4 phases out vignettes for all vehicles and mandates external cost charging for HDVs. 

PO3b is the preferred option. PO4 would be more effective in reaching the objectives, but it entails higher costs. 
Subject  to  political  decision,  some  measures  of  PO4  could  be  added  to  PO3b  with  sufficiently  long  phasing-in 
period to allow gradual adaptation and spreading the costs. 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
PO1  is  generally  supported  by  stakeholders,  although  some Member  States oppose  measures on  road  quality. 
The  promotion  of  low-emission  vehicles  (PO2)  is  widely  supported,  while  a  few  Member  States  oppose  the 
phasing  out  of  HGV  vignettes.  Measures  on  congestion  charging  (PO3)  were  met  with  some  scepticism,  but 
stakeholders agree that if implemented, such charges should apply to all vehicles. PO4 was seen with reserve, 
as it contains strong obligations for Member States. 

2 

 
 
 
 
C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  

PO3b would 

 

 
 
 
 

reduce congestion costs by €9 billion  by  2030, provide additional toll revenues of €10 billion/year and 
help increase investment in roads by 25% 
significantly reduce CO2, NOx and particulate matter emissions 
improve public health and reduce the costs of air pollution and accidents (€0.37 billion by 2030) 
allow generating up to 208,000 new jobs and additional benefits of 0.19% of GDP, and 
contribute to the equal treatment of EU citizens by halving the price of short term vignettes. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  

Freight  transport  costs  could  increase  by  1.1%,  with  costs  for  passengers  unchanged.  Costs  to  authorities 
include  the  deployment  of  new  tolling  systems  or  expanding  existing  ones  for  the  Member  States  concerned 
(one-off  investment  of  €1.2-1.4  billion  altogether),  and  operating  costs  of  €168-200  million/year.  Extension  of 
road charging to new parts of the network and new user groups could increase compliance costs for road users 
by €198-228 million/year. 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

Close  to  100%  of  road  haulage  companies  are  SMEs.  The  extension  of  road  tolls  would  increase  compliance 
costs for them; however, most of the additional costs are passed on to clients, leading to a marginal (less than 
0.25%) increase in prices. The possibility to decrease vehicle taxes could compensate for part of the cost rise. 

Increased investment in infrastructure would have a strong positive impact on the construction industry. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

The public sector will benefit from additional revenues, which come at the cost of investment in the deployment 
and operation of new electronic tolling systems. The net impact on  Member State budgets could amount to a 
surplus of close to €10 billion per year. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

A relatively strong reduction in diesel consumption (by 1.3%) is expected. 

Proportionality?  

The initiative merely contributes to the achievement of the objectives. Rather than mandating the application of 
road  charging,  it  co-ordinates  and  facilitates  national  action.  Costs  to  Member  States,  businesses  and  citizens 
are  limited  compared  to  potential  benefits.  Thus  it  does  not  exceed  what  is  necessary  to  solve  the  identified 
problems and meet the objectives. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

The Commission will evaluate the new legislation in 2025. 

3