Sustainable transport infrastructure charging and internalisation of transport externalities : main findings.
Date: 2019-07-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
Subjects: Canada, EU Member State, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, United States, charges for use of infrastructure, cost analysis, polluter pays principle, transport economics, transport infrastructure, transport policy

Sustainable Transport 
Infrastructure Charging and 
Internalisation of Transport 
Externalities: Main Findings 

May 2019  

BY: Arno Schroten (CE Delft), Huib van Essen, Lisanne van Wijngaarden (CE Delft), Daniel Sutter 
(INFRAS), Ella Andrew (Ricardo) 
May 2019 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Directorate A — Policy Coordination 
Unit A3 — Economic analysis and better regulation 

Contact: Rolf Diemer 

E-mail:  MOVE-A3-SECRETARIAT@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

1 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of 
the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the 
information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 

ISBN: 978-92-76-03076-8 
doi: 10.2832/004905 

© European Union, 2019 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

2 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 
Charging and Internalisation of 
Transport Externalities: Main Findings 

May 2019  

This report is prepared by: 

Arno Schroten, Huib van Essen, Lisanne van Wijngaarden (CE Delft), Daniel Sutter (INFRAS), Ella Andrew (Ricardo) 

Delft, CE Delft, May 2019 

Publication code: 19.4K83.070 

Client: European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 

Publications of CE Delft are available from www.cedelft.eu 

Further information on this study can be obtained from the contact person Arno Schroten (CE Delft) 

© copyright, CE Delft, Delft 

 CE Delft 

Committed to the Environment 

Through its independent research and consultancy work CE Delft is helping build a sustainable world. In the 

fields of energy, transport and resources our expertise is leading-edge. With our wealth of know-how on 

technologies, policies and economic issues we support government agencies, NGOs and industries in pursuit of 

structural change. For 40 years now, the skills and enthusiasm of CE Delft’s staff have been devoted to 

achieving this mission. 

3 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Content 

List of tables 

List of figures 

Abstract 

Executive summary 

Glossary 

Introduction 
1.1  Background of the Study 
1.2  Objective 
1.3  Scope 
1.4  Outline of the study 

Infrastructure costs 
2.1  Introduction 
2.2  Methodology applied 
2.3  Infrastructure costs of transport in the EU28 
2.4  Robustness of infrastructure cost estimates 

External costs of transport 
3.1  Introduction 
3.2  Recommended methodology to estimate external costs 
3.3  External costs of transport in the EU28 
3.4  Robustness of the external cost methodologies and estimates 

Transport taxes and charges 
4.1  Introduction 
4.2  Transport taxes and charges applied in the EU28 
4.3  Revenues from transport taxes and charges 
4.4  Robustness of estimates on tax/charge revenues 

State of play of internalisation in the European transport sector 
5.1  Introduction 
5.2  Methodology applied 
5.3  Cross-modal comparison of total costs and revenues 
5.4  Total/average cost coverage 
5.5  Marginal cost coverage 
5.6  The broader context of internalisation 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

17 

30 
30 
31 
31 
33 

34 
34 
34 
36 
41 

42 
42 
42 
47 
53 

54 
54 
54 
56 
60 

61 
61 
61 
64 
66 
77 
78 

4 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
6 

A 

Conclusions 
6.1  Main conclusions 
6.2  Policy applications 
6.3  Recommendations for further research 

References 

Detailed external cost figures 
A.1  Introduction 
A.2  Total external cost figures 
A.3  Average external cost figures 

82 
82 
83 
84 

86 

87 
87 
87 
88 

5 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
List of tables 

Table 1 – Infrastructure costs in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted) ........................................ 10 
Table 2 - External costs in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted) ............................................... 12 
Table 3 – Tax/charge revenues in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted)....................................... 13 
Table 4 - Overview of the indicators for average cost pricing............................................................... 14 
Table 5 – Overview cost coverage ratios for the average cost perspective ................................................ 15 
Tableau 6 – Coûts infrastructurels dans les 28 États membres de l’UE en 2016 (tous les chiffres sont ajustés  
selon les SPA) ...................................................................................................................... 18 
Tableau 7 - Coûts externes dans les 28 États membres de l’UE en 2016 (tous les chiffres sont ajustés selon  
les SPA) ............................................................................................................................. 21 
Tableau 8 - Recettes issues des taxes/droits dans les 28 États membres de l’UE en 2016 (tous les chiffres sont 
ajustés selon les SPA) ............................................................................................................. 23 
Tableau 9 - Vue d’ensemble des indicateurs pour la tarification en fonction du coût moyen .......................... 24 
Tableau 10 – Vue d’ensemble des taux de couverture des coûts sous l’angle de la tarification en fonction du  
coût moyen ......................................................................................................................... 25 
Table 11 - Transport modes and vehicle types covered ...................................................................... 31 
Table 12 – Externalities covered in this study ................................................................................. 43 
Table 13 – Recommended/used methodologies to estimate total/average external costs .............................. 43 
Table 14 – Overview of main internalisation strategies ...................................................................... 61 
Table 15 – Overview of the indicators for average cost pricing ............................................................. 62 
Table 16 – Example of marginal cost scenarios (passenger car) ............................................................. 64 
Table 17 - Overview of key EU-level non-pricing measures responding to external costs ............................... 80 
Table 18 - Total external costs 2016 for EU28 passenger transport by cost category and transport mode ........... 87 
Table 19 - Total external costs 2016 for EU28 freight transport by cost category and transport mode ............... 87 
Table 20 - Total external costs for selected EU28 (air)ports ................................................................ 88 
Table 21 - Average external costs 2016 for EU28 passenger transport by cost category and transport mode ........ 88 
Table 22 - Average external costs 2016 for EU28 freight transport by cost category and transport mode ............ 89 
Table 23 - Average external costs for selected EU28 (air)ports ............................................................. 89 

6 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1 – Approach to estimate infrastructure costs ......................................................................... 35 
Figure 2 – Composition of total infrastructure costs in 2016 for road, rail and inland waterway transport in  
the EU28 ............................................................................................................................ 36 
Figure 3 – Total infrastructure costs in 2016 for road, rail and inland waterway transport in the EU28   
(billion €, PPS adjusted) .......................................................................................................... 37 
Figure 4 – Average infrastructure costs in 2016 for passenger modes in the EU28a (€-cent/pkm, PPS adjusted)..... 38 
Figure 5 - Average infrastructure costs in 2016 for freight modes in the EU28 (€-cent/pkm, PPS adjusted) ......... 39 
Figure 6 – Marginal infrastructure costs in 2016 for passenger transport modes in the EU28a  (€-cent/pkm,  
PPS adjusted) ...................................................................................................................... 40 
Figure 7 - Marginal infrastructure costs in 2016 for freight transport modes in the EU28 (€-cent/tkm,  
PPS adjusted) ...................................................................................................................... 40 
Figure 8 – Total external costs 2016 for EU28 (excluding congestion) ...................................................... 48 
Figure 9 - Share of the different cost categories on total external costs 2016 for EU28 ................................ 49 
Figure 10 - Share of the different transport modes on total external costs 2016 for EU28 ............................. 49 
Figure 11 - Average external costs 2016 for EU28: passenger transport (excluding congestion) ....................... 51 
Figure 12 – Average external costs 2016 for EU28: freight transport (excluding congestion) ........................... 52 
Figure 13 - Composition of total tax/charge revenues in 2016 for road, rail and inland waterways transport  
in the EU28 ......................................................................................................................... 57 
Figure 14 - Total tax/charge revenues for road, rail and inland waterway transport in the EU28   
(billion €, PPS adjusted) .......................................................................................................... 57 
Figure 15 - Average tax/charge revenues in 2016 passenger transport in the EU28 (€-cent/pkm, PPS adjusted) .... 59 
Figure 16 - Average tax/charge revenues in 2016 freight transport in the EU28 (€-cent/tkm, PPS adjusted) ........ 59 
Figure 17: Total external and infrastructure costs vs. total taxes and charges (bn €). Rail,raod, IWT for EU28; 
Maritime and aviation for selected 33 airports and 34 ports ................................................................ 65 
Figure 18 – Total external and total variable infra costs vs. total taxes and charges (bn €). Road, rail and IWT  
for EU28; Maritime and aviation for selected 33 airports/34 ports. ........................................................ 66 
Figure 19 – Average external and infrastructure costs vs. average taxes/charges for passenger transport ........... 68 
Figure 20 – Average external and infrastructure costs vs. average taxes/charges for freight transport .............. 69 
Figure 21 - Average external and average variable infrastructure costs vs. average taxes/charges for passenger 
transport ............................................................................................................................ 70 
Figure 22 - Average external and average variable infrastructure costs vs. average taxes/charges for freight 
transport ............................................................................................................................ 71 
Figure 23 - Average variable external and infrastructure costs vs. average variable taxes/charges for passenger 
transport ............................................................................................................................ 72 
Figure 24 - Average variable external and infrastructure costs vs. average variable taxes/charges for freight 
transport ............................................................................................................................ 73 
Figure 25 - Average infrastructure costs vs. average infrastructure taxes/charges for passenger transport ......... 74 
Figure 26 - Average infrastructure costs vs. average infrastructure taxes/charges for freight transport ............. 75 
Figure 27 - Average variable infrastructure costs vs. average infrastructure taxes/charges for passenger  
transport ............................................................................................................................ 76 
Figure 28 - Average variable infrastructure costs vs. average infrastructure taxes/charges for freight transport ... 77 

7 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
Abstract 

This report presents the main findings of the project ‘Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 
Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities’. The overall aim of this project was 
to assess to what extent EU Member States and selected other countries (i.e. Norway, 
Switzerland, United States, Canada and Japan) have implemented the ‘user-pays’ and the 
‘polluter-pays’ principles. It provides an overview of the progress EU Member States have 
made towards the goal of full internalisation of external and infrastructure costs of 
transport and to identify approaches for further internalisation. As input for this analysis, 
the infrastructure and external costs of all main transport modes (i.e. road, rail, inland 
navigation, maritime transport and aviation) were estimated and a comprehensive overview 
of transport taxes and charges applied in the various countries was made.  

The results of the project show that the external and infrastructure costs of transport in the 
EU28 are only partly internalised. For most transport modes, only 15 to 25% of these costs 
are covered by revenues from current transport taxes and charges. There is also little 
evidence that marginal social cost pricing principles are applied on a large scale in transport 
pricing in the EU28. Finally, for most transport modes (except maritime transport and 
aviation) the infrastructure costs are not covered by infrastructure charges, reflecting that 
the ‘users-pays’ principle is often not met.  

8 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

The project ‘Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport 
Externalities’ aims to assess the extent to which existing policies internalise the external 
and infrastructure costs of transport and to discuss ways by which further internalisation 
could be achieved. As input for this assessment, the infrastructure and external costs of the 
various transport modes are estimated and a comprehensive overview of transport taxes 
and charges applied in the various countries is provided. The results of these assessments 
are presented in four separate deliverables1. This report summarises the main findings from 
these deliverables.  

The project considers all main transport modes, i.e. road transport, rail transport, inland 
waterway transport (IWT), maritime transport and aviation in the EU28 Member States, 
Norway, Switzerland, Japan, and some US states and Canadian provinces. For maritime 
transport and aviation, assessments were performed at the level of (air)ports instead of 
countries. In this report, we only present aggregate results for the EU28 (and the selection 
of EU28 (air)ports considered). For country-specific (or (air)port-specific) results we refer to 
the other deliverables of this study. All results in this study are presented for the year 2016.  

Infrastructure cost 

For this study, infrastructure costs are defined as the direct expenses plus the financing 
costs. Annual infrastructure costs in 2016 are thus equal to the sum of the annual 
depreciation and financing costs. The transport infrastructure costs include investments 
in new infrastructure, renewal costs of existing infrastructure, expenditures on the 
maintenance of infrastructure, and operational expenditures enabling the use of transport 
infrastructure.  

Total infrastructure costs 

For road, rail and inland waterway transport (IWT), the total infrastructure costs in the 
EU28 amount to € 267 billion for 2016 (€ 184 billion for road, € 81 billion for rail, and  
€ 3 billion for IWT). The main part of these costs can be attributed to passenger cars and 
heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), as is shown in Table 1. The total infrastructure costs for the 
33 selected EU28 airport and 34 selected EU28 maritime ports are equal to € 14 billion and 
€ 1.4 billion, respectively.  

________________________________ 
1   CE Delft et al. (2019a) – Overview of transport infrastructure expenditures and costs. 

CE Delft et al. (2019b) – Transport taxes and charges in Europe – An overview study of economic internalisation 
measures applied in Europe. 
CE Delft et al. (2019c) – Handbook on the external costs of transport. 
CE Delft et al. (2019d) – The state-of-play of internalisation in the European transport sector. 

9 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Average infrastructure costs 

For passenger transport, the average infrastructure costs (in €-cent/pkm) are higher for rail 
transport than for road transport (see Table 1). This is mainly explained by the higher fixed2 
costs (e.g. construction costs) for rail transport than for road transport. The average costs 
are highest for diesel passenger trains, which is due to the lower occupancy rate of diesel 
trains (compared to electric trains). An additional explanation is the lower utilisation rate 
of diesel rail infrastructure compared to electric rail infrastructure. 

Table 1 – Infrastructure costs in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted)  

Vehicle category 

Total infrastructure 
costs  

Average infrastructure 
costs 

Marginal infrastructure 
costs 

Passenger transport modes 

Billion € 

€-cent/pkm 

€-cent/pkm 

Passenger car 

Bus 

Coach 

Motorcycle 

High speed train (HST) 

Electric passenger train  
(incl. HST) 

Diesel passenger train 
Aircrafta 

Light commercial vehicles  

Light Commercial vehicle 

Freight transport modes  

Heavy Goods Vehicle 

Electric freight train 

Diesel freight train 

IWT vessel 
Maritime vesselab 

98 

8 

13 

3 

12 

51 

18 

14 

Billion € 

20 

Billion € 

42 

9 

3 

3 

1 

2.1 

4.0 

3.7 

1.8 

10.6 

13.4 

27.0 

1.6 

0.1 

1.9 

1.8 

0.1 

0.8 

1.6 

3.5 

0.5 

€-cent/vkm 

€-cent/vkm 

4.1 

0.3 

€-cent/tkm 

€-cent/tkm 

2.3 

3.0 

3.2 

1.9 

n/a 

0.7 

0.6 

0.6 

0.1 

n/a 

a  The figures for aviation and maritime transport refer to the 33/34 selected EU28 (air)ports. 
b  Due to a lack of data, no average and marginal costs (in €-cent/tkm) for maritime transport could be calculated.  

For road transport, the average infrastructure costs for buses/coaches are significantly 
higher than for passenger cars, which can be explained by the relatively high weight-
dependent infrastructure costs caused by these vehicles. Finally, the average infrastructure 
costs for aviation are relatively low (in the same order of magnitude as those for passenger 
cars). However, the result for aviation is an average, covering short-, medium- and also 
long-haul flights to and from European airports. As aviation only competes with other modes 
on short distances, this figure cannot directly be compared to the results for the other 
vehicle categories3.  

Table 1 also shows the average infrastructure costs for road, rail and inland navigation 
freight transport. The highest costs for passenger transport are for rail transport, followed 
by road transport and IWT.  
________________________________ 
2   Fixed costs are costs that do not vary with transport volumes (on the short term). Construction costs of new 
infrastructure are an example of fixed infrastructure costs. Variable costs, on the other hand, do vary with 
transport volumes. Maintenance of potholes is an example of variable infrastructure costs.  

3   The average infrastructure costs will be higher for short-haul flights than for medium- or long-haul flights (as 
the fixed infrastructure costs are allocated to a lower number of passenger kilometres). However, due to a 
lack of data, the average infrastructure costs for aviation could not be differentiated to flight distances.  

10 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Marginal infrastructure costs 

Marginal infrastructure costs refer to additional costs to the transport infrastructure 
manager caused by an additional vehicle kilometre (or LTO or call) on the network. 
As shown in Table 1, the highest marginal infrastructure costs for passenger transport are 
again found for diesel trains. However, the difference between the marginal infrastructure 
costs experienced by road and rail vehicles is significantly lower than the difference in the 
average infrastructure costs borne by these modes, which can be explained by the fact that 
marginal infrastructure costs are not affected by the relatively high fixed costs of rail 
infrastructure (in contrast to average costs).  

For freight transport, the highest marginal infrastructure costs are found for heavy goods 
vehicles (HGVs), reflecting the relatively large variable element of road infrastructure 
costs. Marginal infrastructure costs for IWT are relatively low, as only a limited share of 
infrastructure costs directly depends on the actual use of the inland waterways.  

External costs 

Based on state-of-the-art methodologies and cost factors, the total, average and marginal 
external costs for transport in the EU28 have been estimated. For this purpose, the 
following externalities were taken into account: accidents, air pollution, climate change, 
noise, congestion, well-to-tank emissions, and habitat damage.  

Total external costs 

The total external costs of transport in the EU28 are estimated at € 987 billion. This figure 
only includes congestion costs for road transport, as it was not possible to estimate 
congestion costs for other modes. In general, the most important cost category is accident 
costs equating to 29% of the total costs, followed by congestion costs (27%). Overall, 
environmental costs (climate change, air pollution, noise, well-to-tank and habitat damage) 
make up the remaining 44% of the total costs. However, large differences exist between 
transport modes.  

As shown in Table 2, road transport (and particularly passenger cars) is the largest 
contributor to external costs (83% of the total costs, € 820 billion), which is partly explained 
by the large share of road transport in the total EU28 transport performance4. The total 
external costs for rail transport and IWT amount to € 18 billion and € 3 billion, respectively. 
Finally, for aviation and maritime transport the external costs in the EU28 are roughly 
estimated to be € 48 and € 98 billion.  

Average external costs 

As shown in Table 2, motorcycles cause the highest average external costs, which is due to 
relatively high noise and accident costs. The average external costs of buses/coaches are 
significantly lower than for passenger cars, which can be explained by the higher occupancy 
rates of these vehicles. For rail transport, the average external costs for diesel trains are 
significantly higher than for electric trains. This is mainly explained by the significantly 
higher air pollution costs of diesel trains as well as their lower occupancy rates.  

________________________________ 
4   Excluding congestion, road transport would still make up for 77% of the total costs. 

11 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
For freight transport, HGVs have the highest external costs, followed by IWT, rail transport 
and maritime transport. The relatively high external costs for HGVs are mainly explained by 
relatively low load factors relative to rail. Furthermore, for road transport congestion costs 
are taken into account, but are not included for the other modes. The average external 
costs for IWT are currently slightly higher than for rail transport, which is mainly explained 
by the relatively high air pollution costs of IWT5. The low average external costs for 
maritime shipping cannot be directly compared to the other modes, as this figure is an 
average for both short sea shipping and long-distance shipping (and only the former directly 
competes with the other modes).  

Table 2 - External costs in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted)  

Vehicle category 

Passenger transport modes 

Total external costs  

Average external costs 

Billion € 

€-cent/pkm 

Passenger car 

Bus/coach 

Motorcycle 

High speed train 

Electric passenger train 

Diesel passenger train 

Aircraft 

Light commercial vehicles  

Light Commercial vehicle 

Freight transport modes  

Heavy Goods Vehicle 

Electric freight train 

Diesel freight train 

IWT vessel 
Maritime vessel 

565 

19 

41 

1 

11 

48a 

Billion € 

118 

Billion € 

78 

5 

3 
98a 

12.0 

3.6 

24.5 

1.3 

2.6 

3.9 

3.4 

€-cent/vkm 

24.7 

€-cent/tkm 

4.2 

1.1 

1.8 

1.9 

0.7 

a Rough estimations. For more details, see CE Delft et al. (2019c). 

Transport taxes and charges 

Transport taxes and charges are defined in this study as all taxes/charges that are directly 
related to the ownership and use of transport vehicles, including the taxes/charges related 
to infrastructure use6. For road transport, all EU28 Member States apply fuel taxes and 
vehicle taxes (e.g. purchase and registration taxes), while in most countries road charges 
(tolls and/or vignettes) are also applied. For rail transport, rail access charges are applied 
in all EU28 Member States. Diesel taxes (and to a lesser extent) electricity taxes are also 
applied. For IWT and maritime transport, most countries/ports only apply port charges. 
Finally, for aviation, airport charges (for local externalities) and the EU ETS7 (for all CO2 
emissions from intra-EU flights, although non-CO2 climate impacts are not covered) are 
applied in the EU28. They are supplemented with aviation taxes in some countries.  

________________________________ 
5   Engines of IWT vessels have rather long economic lifetimes (e.g. compared to HGVs) and hence the penetration 

of new, less polluting engines in the fleet is relatively slow. As a consequence, the average air pollutant 
emissions per IWT vessel decrease at a slower pace than the average emission levels of HGVs.  

6   This definition excludes general taxes like profit taxes and wage taxes, as they are only indirectly related to 

transport activities. VAT levied on transport related taxes and charges are nevertheless included.  

7   Although the EU ETS is neither a tax nor charge (but rather a market-based carbon pricing measure), it is 

nevertheless considered in this study as a tax.  

12 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
Externalities are, to a limited extent, used as differentiation parameters for transport taxes 
and charges. These differentiations are more frequently applied to road transport, e.g. CO2 
differentiated vehicle taxes and road toll for HGVs differentiated to air pollutant emissions 
standards. Airport charges are frequently differentiated to noise levels of the aircraft 
(about 50% of the considered airports apply such a differentiation). Rail access charges, on 
the other hand, are hardly differentiated to externalities in the EU28, while port charges 
(for IWT and maritime transport) are differentiated to environmental standards in only a 
limited number of ports. 

Total tax/charge revenues 

The total tax/charge revenues from road, rail and inland waterway transport in the EU28 
amount to € 370 billion for 2016 (€ 350 billion from road, € 20 billion from rail and € 0.4 
billion from IWT). As is shown in Table 3, the majority of these revenues (81%) is from 
passenger cars, which reflects the large share this vehicle category has in total transport 
performance and the relatively high tax/charge burden on these vehicles. The total 
tax/charge revenues for the 33/34 EU28 (air)ports are approximately equal to € 14 billion 
and € 1.8 billion, respectively.  

Average tax/charge revenues 

For passenger transport, the highest average tax/charge revenues are identified for diesel 
trains (see Table 3). These revenues are significantly higher than for electric passenger 
trains, which can be explained by the lower occupancy rate of diesel trains and, even more 
important, the higher energy taxes (diesel taxes for rail transport are — on average — 
higher than electricity taxes for this mode). The higher average tax/charge revenues for 
passenger cars and motorcycles compared to buses/coaches is explained by higher vehicle 
tax levels and lower occupancy rates. Finally, the relatively low average tax/charge 
revenues for aviation should be considered carefully, as this figure is an average (including 
both short-, medium- and long-haul flights) and hence cannot be compared directly to the 
other modes.  

For freight transport, the highest average revenues are found for HGVs, followed by diesel 
trains, electric trains and IWT vessels. The higher revenues for diesel trains compared to 
electric trains are mainly explained by the higher energy tax levels for diesel trains.  

Table 3 – Tax/charge revenues in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted) 

Vehicle category 

Passenger transport modes 

Passenger car 

Bus/Coach 

Motorcycle 

High speed train 

Electric passenger train 

Diesel passenger train 
Aircrafta 

Light commercial vehicles  

Light Commercial vehicle 

Freight transport modes  

Heavy Goods Vehicle 

Electric freight train 

Diesel freight train 

Total tax/charge revenues  

Average tax/charge revenues 

Billion € 

267 

7 

9 

4 

8 

5 

14 

Billion € 

35 

Billion € 

33 

2 

1 

€-cent/pkm 

5.4 

1.2 

5.0 

3.0 

2.6 

6.8 

1.5 

€-cent/vkm 

7.3 

€-cent/tkm 

1.5 

0.5 

1.3 

13 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
Vehicle category 

IWT vessel 
Maritime vesselab 

Total tax/charge revenues  

Average tax/charge revenues 

0.4 

2 

0.3 

n/a 

a  The figures for aviation and maritime transport refer to the 33/34 selected EU28 (air)ports. 
b  Due to a lack of data, no average tax/charge revenues (in €-cent/tkm) for maritime transport could be 

calculated.  

State-of-play of internalisation  

The extent to which external costs and infrastructure costs are internalised by current taxes 
and charges in the EU28 is assessed from two perspectives: 
1.  Average cost pricing: charges/taxes are set at the level of average infrastructure and 

external costs.  

2.  Marginal social cost pricing (MSCP): variable charges/taxes are set at the level of 

marginal infrastructure and external costs.  

Five indicators have been used to assess the extent of internalisation from the perspective 
of average cost pricing (see Table 4). To assess the extent of internalisation from the MSCP 
perspective, we made use of the marginal cost coverage ratio. This ratio compares the 
marginal external and infrastructure costs with the marginal tax/charge revenues for 
three/four specific situations. 

Table 4 - Overview of the indicators for average cost pricing 

Cost coverage ratio 

Explanation 

Overall cost coverage ratio 

Overall cost coverage ratio excluding 
fixed infrastructure costs 

Comparison of revenues from all taxes/charges with all external and 
infrastructure costs. 

Comparison of revenues from all taxes/charges with all external and 
variable infrastructure costs (i.e. excluding fixed infrastructure 
costs)a. 

Variable external and infrastructure 
cost coverage ratio 

Comparison of revenues from variable taxes/charges with variable 
external and infrastructure costs. 

Overall infrastructure cost coverage 
ratio 

Comparison of revenues from infrastructure charges with all 
infrastructure costs. 

Variable infrastructure cost coverage 
ratio 

Comparison of revenues from infrastructure charges with variable 
infrastructure costs. 

a This indicator is in line with the ambitions of the Commission to realise full internalisation of external costs, 
including wear and tear costs. It recognises that fixed infrastructure costs are sunk costs and that paying for 
these costs may result in (further) underutilisation of existing infrastructure (e.g. rail).  

The results for the assessment of the extent of internalisation from the average cost pricing 
perspective are given in Table 5. Based on these results, the following conclusions can be 
drawn: 
—  External and infrastructure costs of transport in the EU28 are only partly internalised 
by current taxes and charges. As shown by the results in the second column of Table 5, 
the overall costs are not covered by revenues from transport taxes/charges for any of 
the vehicle categories. For most vehicle categories, only 15 to 25% of the external and 
infrastructure costs are covered. For IWT and maritime transport, much lower cost 
coverage ratios were found (6 and 4%, respectively), reflecting the limited tax/charge 
burden levied on these transport modes. Even if we exclude fixed infrastructure costs 
from the analyses (see third column of Table 5), current taxes and charges do not cover 
the external and infrastructure costs for most vehicle categories (except for high speed 
trains).  

14 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
—  Little evidence for application of marginal social cost pricing. The results of the 

analyses of marginal social cost coverage ratios show that for many transport modes, 
the marginal cost coverage ratios differ widely between the various scenarios. This 
indicates that current taxes and charges are often not able to capture the large 
variance in the size of marginal external and infrastructure costs across different 
situations. Therefore, the analyses provide a first indication that there is a lack of 
charging in accordance with the MSCP principle in the EU28. Therefore, some form of 
averaging seems inevitable. However, even in a more simplified way, MSCP is not 
achieved at the EU28 level, as is shown by the fourth column of Table 5. Variable 
infrastructure and external costs are generally not covered by variable taxes/charges. 
An exception is rail transport (particularly high speed trains and diesel passenger 
trains), where the rail access charges and diesel taxes reflect the variable nature of the 
external costs and the variable part of the infrastructure costs. 

—  Limited use of the ‘users-pays’ principle in the EU28. As shown by the results for the 

total infrastructure cost coverage, for most vehicle categories only 15 to 30% of the 
infrastructure costs are covered by infrastructure charges8. Exceptions are aviation and 
maritime transport. The revenues from (air)port charges do cover for (most of) the 
infrastructure costs of (air)ports. On the other hand, the variable infrastructure costs 
(i.e. wear and tear costs) are covered by the revenues from infrastructure charges for 
most vehicle categories (see the last column of Table 5). The main exceptions are heavy 
road vehicles (HGV, bus, coach), which can be mainly explained by the high weigh-
dependent infrastructure costs caused by these vehicles. The very high coverage ratios 
for variable infrastructure have to be considered in the context of the low overall cost 
coverage ratios, as infrastructure charges also serve as internalisation measures of both 
external and infrastructure costs. 

Table 5 – Overview cost coverage ratios for the average cost perspective 

Overall cost 
coverage  

Overall cost 
coverage 
excluding fixed 
infra costs 

Variable 
infrastructure 
and external 
cost coverage 

Total 
infrastructure 
cost coverage 

Variable 
infrastructure 
cost coverage 

Passenger transport 

Passenger car 

Bus 

Coach 

Motorcycle 

High speed train 

Electric pax train 

Diesel pax train 

Aircraft 

Freight transport 

LCV 

HGV 

Elec. freight train 

Diesel freight train 

IWT vessel  

Maritime vessel 

51% 

17% 

18% 

19% 

26% 

16% 

22% 

34% 

43% 

26% 

12% 

26% 

6% 

4% 

63% 

24% 

26% 

20% 

145% 

61% 

91% 

45% 

53% 

37% 

30% 

55% 

12% 

4% 

48% 

21% 

23% 

15% 

208% 

70% 

101% 

46% 

48% 

33% 

35% 

61% 

13% 

4% 

27% 

3% 

3% 

35% 

28% 

19% 

16% 

82% 

11% 

14% 

16% 

25% 

12% 

127% 

417% 

6% 

6% 

576% 

394% 

160% 

122% 

247% 

153% 

44% 

86% 

138% 

176% 
4,571%a 

a  This very high cost coverage ratio can be explained by the fact that the variable share of port infrastructure 

costs is assumed to be low. Combined with the fact that port charges are often set to cover (most of the) total 
infrastructure costs, this results in very high variable infrastructure cost coverage ratios.  

________________________________ 
8   Although users do pay taxes other than infrastructure charges that can be used to fund infrastructure projects. 

15 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
Broader context of internalisation 

In addition to transport taxes and charges, other policy instruments (e.g. command and 
control measures and subsidies) may also contribute to achieving the objectives of 
internalisation, in particular the reduction of the external costs of transport. Non-pricing 
measures are applied instead of, or in addition to, taxes and charges for several reasons. 
For example, some of the externalities have transboundary impacts (e.g. climate change, 
air pollution) and addressing them at the EU level has added value. As transport 
taxes/charges are under Member States competence, they cannot be easily harmonised at 
the EU level and hence using alternative EU-wide instruments may be preferred. The fact 
that non-pricing instruments can be applied in a harmonised way at the EU level also 
reduces the risks on distortions of the internal market and provides better conditions to 
invest in technologies reducing external costs9. The lack of social and political support for 
implementing or raising taxes and charges is another example where non-pricing measures 
may be more appropriate. Finally, some externalities (particularly accident costs) are not 
targeted by taxes and charges, mainly because it is not straightforward to do so. In these 
cases, other policy instruments (e.g. command-and-control measures) are more appropriate 
to reduce the external costs.  

Options for further internalisation 

The assessment of the state-of-play of internalisation shows that there is room for 
improvement with respect to the internalisation of external and infrastructure costs of 
transport in the EU28. For that reason, a scoping analysis of potential further internalisation 
options has been carried out. The main results of this analysis are:  
—  Wider use of distance-based road charges differentiated to vehicle characteristics, 
location and/or time may improve the extent of internalisation for road transport. 
For urban areas, the use of specific urban road charging schemes may be considered to 
address the relatively high external costs of urban transport.  

— 

—  Wider application of noise differentiations in rail access charges may be an option to 
further internalise the noise costs of rail transport. Mark-ups on these access charges 
may be used in case a larger share of the fixed infrastructure costs should be covered.  
Introducing fairway dues or higher port charges may be options to internalise a larger 
share of the external and infrastructure costs of IWT. Applying differentiations to air 
pollutant emissions in these instruments may help to address the relatively high air 
pollutant costs of this transport mode. Current legislation does, however, prohibit the 
introduction of fairway dues on the Rhine and its tributaries (the most important inland 
waterway(s) of the EU).  

—  Environmentally differentiated port charges or fairway dues may be options to further 
internalise the air pollution cost of maritime transport. With respect to GHG emissions 
of maritime transport, the EU already works with global partners in the International 
Maritime Organisation (IMO) on further policy instruments.  

—  Further policies in the field of GHG emissions from aviation are being developed in 

cooperation with global partners in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). 
Furthermore, environmentally differentiated airport charges or aviation taxes may be 
options to further internalise externalities of aviation. 

________________________________ 
9   EU harmonised policies may provide a broad level playing field, providing vehicle manufacturers (and other 

industry) the same specifications that should be met by externality reducing technologies/actions at the entire 
EU. This improves the investment climate for these types of technologies/actions. 

16 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
Résumé 

Le projet  Tarification de l'infrastructure de transports durables et internalisation des 
externalités dans le secteur des transports » vise à évaluer dans quelle mesure les 
politiques existantes internalisent les coûts externes et infrastructurels des transports et à 
examiner différentes manières de parvenir à un niveau d’internalisation supérieur. 
Cette évaluation s’appuie sur une estimation des coûts externes et infrastructurels des 
divers modes de transport et sur un bilan complet des taxes et droits relatifs aux transports 
appliqués dans les différents pays. Les résultats de ces évaluations sont présentés sous la 
forme de quatre éléments livrables10 distincts. Ce rapport fait la synthèse des conclusions 
principales tirées de ces éléments livrables.  

Le projet prend en considération tous les modes de transport principaux, à savoir le 
transport routier, le transport ferroviaire, le transport fluvial, le transport maritime et le 
transport aérien dans les 28 États membres de l’UE, la Norvège, la Suisse, le Japon et 
quelques États des États-Unis d’Amérique et provinces canadiennes. Dans les cas du 
transport maritime et du transport aérien, les évaluations ont été effectuées au niveau des 
(aéro)ports plutôt que des pays. Ce rapport ne présente que des résultats globaux pour les 
28 États membres de l’UE (et les (aéro)ports des 28 États membres de l’UE pris en 
considération). Pour les résultats propres à chaque pays (ou (aéro)port), le lecteur est 
renvoyé aux autres éléments livrables de cette étude. Tous les résultats présentés dans 
cette étude se rapportent à l’année 2016.  

Coût infrastructurel 

Dans le cadre de cette étude, les coûts infrastructurels sont définis comme le total des 
dépenses directes et des coûts de financement. Les coûts infrastructurels annuels en 2016 
sont donc équivalents à la somme des coûts liés à la dépréciation et des coûts de 
financement annuels. Les coûts infrastructurels du transport comprennent les 
investissements d’expansion infrastructurelle, les coûts de renouvellement de 
l’infrastructure existante, les dépenses liées à l’entretien de l’infrastructure, et les 
dépenses de fonctionnement permettant l’utilisation de l’infrastructure de transport.  

Coûts infrastructurels totaux 

Pour le transport routier, ferroviaire et fluvial, les coûts infrastructurels totaux dans les 28 
États membres de l’UE s’élèvent à 267 milliards d’euros pour 2016 (184 milliards d’euros 
pour le transport routier, 81 milliards d’euros pour le transport ferroviaire et 3 milliards 
d’euros pour le transport fluvial). L’essentiel de ces coûts peut être attribué aux voitures 

________________________________ 
10   CE Delft et al. (2019a) – Overview of transport infrastructure expenditures and costs. (Vue d’ensemble des 

dépenses et coûts associés à l’infrastructure de transport.) 
CE Delft et al. (2019b) – Transport taxes and charges in Europe – An overview study of economic internalisation 
measures applied in Europe. (Taxes et droits de transport en Europe - Une étude synoptique des mesures 
d’internalisation économiques appliquées en Europe.) 
CE Delft et al. (2019c) – Handbook on the external costs of transport. (Livre de référence sur les coûts externes 
du transport.) 
CE Delft et al. (2019d) – The state-of-play of internalisation in the European transport sector. (État des lieux de 
l’internalisation dans le secteur du transport européen.) 

17 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
particulières et aux poids lourds, comme indiqué dans le Tableau 6. Les coûts 
infrastructurels totaux pour l’échantillon choisi de 33 aéroports et 34 ports maritimes des 
28 États membres de l’UE s’élèvent respectivement à 14 milliards d’euros et 1,4 milliard 
d’euros.  

Coûts infrastructurels moyens 

Pour le transport de voyageurs, les coûts infrastructurels moyens (en centimes d’euro/voy-
km) sont plus élevés pour le transport ferroviaire que pour le transport routier (voir le 
Tableau 6). Ceci s’explique principalement par les coûts fixes11 (par ex. les coûts de 
construction) supérieurs pour le transport ferroviaire par comparaison avec le transport 
routier. Les coûts moyens sont les plus élevés pour les trains de voyageurs diesel, en raison 
du taux d’occupation moindre des trains diesel (par rapport aux trains électriques). Une 
explication supplémentaire réside dans le taux d’utilisation inférieur de l’infrastructure 
ferroviaire diesel comparativement à l’infrastructure ferroviaire électrique.  

Tableau 6 – Coûts infrastructurels dans les 28 États membres de l’UE en 2016 (tous les chiffres sont ajustés 
selon les SPA)  

Catégorie de véhicule 

Modes de transport de 
voyageurs 

Voiture particulière 

Bus 

Car 

Moto 

Train à grande vitesse (TGV) 

Train de voyageurs électrique 
(dont TGV) 

Train de voyageurs diesel 
Aviona 

Coûts infrastructurels 
totaux  

Coûts infrastructurels 
moyens 

Coûts infrastructurels 
marginaux 

Milliards d’euros 

Centimes d’euro/voy-
km 

Centimes d’euro/voy-
km 

98 

8 

13 

3 

12 

51 

18 

14 

2,1 

4,0 

3,7 

1,8 

10,6 

13,4 

27,0 

1,6 

0,1 

1,9 

1,8 

0,1 

0,8 

1,6 

3,5 

0,5 

Véhicules utilitaires légers  

Milliards d’euros 

Centimes d’euro/véh-
km 

Centimes d’euro/véh-
km 

Véhicule utilitaire léger 

Modes de transport de 
marchandises  

Poids lourd 

Train de marchandises 
électrique 

Train de marchandises diesel 

Navire fluvial 
Navire maritimeab 

20 

4,1 

0,3 

Milliards d’euros 

Centimes d’euro/t-km 

Centimes d’euro/t-km 

42 

9 

3 

3 

1 

2,3 

3,0 

3,2 

1,9 

s.o. 

0,7 

0,6 

0,6 

0,1 

s.o. 

a  Les chiffres pour le transport aérien et le transport maritime concernent l’échantillon choisi de 33/34 

(aéro)ports des 28 États membres de l’UE. 

b  En raison d’une insuffisance de données, il n’a pas été possible de calculer les coûts moyens et marginaux (en 

centimes d’euro/t-km) pour le transport maritime.  

________________________________ 
11  Les coûts fixes sont des coûts qui ne varient pas en fonction des volumes de transport (à court terme). Les 

coûts de construction d’expansion infrastructurelle sont un exemple de coûts infrastructurels fixes. Les coûts 
variables, en revanche, varient en fonction des volumes de transport. La réparation des nids de poule est un 
exemple de coûts infrastructurels variables.  

18 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
Pour le transport routier, les coûts infrastructurels moyens pour les bus/cars sont 
considérablement plus élevés que pour les voitures particulières, ce qui peut s’expliquer 
par les coûts infrastructurels en fonction du poids relativement élevés générés par ces 
véhicules. Pour finir, les coûts infrastructurels moyens pour le transport aérien sont 
relativement faibles (du même ordre de grandeur que ceux des voitures particulières). Le 
résultat pour le transport aérien est toutefois une moyenne, incluant les vols court, moyen 
ainsi que long-courriers, à destination et en provenance d’aéroports européens. Le 
transport aérien n’entrant en concurrence avec les autres modes que pour les courtes 
distances, ce chiffre ne peut être comparé directement aux résultats pour les autres 
catégories de véhicule12.  

Le Tableau 6 indique également les coûts infrastructurels moyens pour le transport routier, 
ferroviaire et fluvial de marchandises. Les coûts les plus élevés pour le transport de 
voyageurs sont associés au transport ferroviaire, suivi du transport routier et du transport 
fluvial.  

Coûts infrastructurels marginaux 

Les coûts infrastructurels marginaux correspondent à des coûts additionnels pour le 
gestionnaire de l’infrastructure de transport résultant d’un véhicule-kilomètre (ou un 
décollage/atterrissage ou une escale) additionnel sur le réseau. Comme indiqué dans le 
Tableau 6, les coûts infrastructurels marginaux les plus élevés pour le transport de 
voyageurs sont à nouveau associés aux trains diesel. Cependant, la différence entre les 
coûts infrastructurels marginaux correspondant aux véhicules routiers et ferroviaires est 
considérablement inférieure à la différence entre les coûts infrastructurels moyens associés 
à ces modes, ce qui peut s’expliquer par le fait que les coûts infrastructurels marginaux (à 
la différence des coûts moyens) ne sont pas influencés par les coûts fixes relativement 
élevés de l’infrastructure ferroviaire.  

Pour le transport de marchandises, les coûts infrastructurels marginaux les plus élevés 
correspondent aux poids lourds, ce qui reflète la composante variable relativement grande 
des coûts infrastructurels routiers. Les coûts infrastructurels marginaux pour le transport 
fluvial sont relativement faibles, étant donné que seule une part limitée des coûts 
infrastructurels dépend directement de l’utilisation effective des voies fluviales.  

Coûts externes 

Les coûts externes totaux, moyens et marginaux pour le transport dans les 28 États 
membres de l’UE ont été estimés en s’appuyant sur des facteurs de coût et des 
méthodologies à la pointe des connaissances actuelles. Pour ce faire, les externalités 
suivantes ont été prises en compte : accidents, pollution de l’air, changement climatique, 
bruit, congestion, émissions du puits au réservoir, et dégradation des habitats.  

Coûts externes totaux 

Les coûts externes totaux du transport dans les 28 États membres de l’UE sont estimés à 
987 milliards d’euros. Ce chiffre n’inclut les coûts liés à la congestion que pour le transport 
routier car il n’était pas possible d’estimer les coûts liés à la congestion pour les autres 

________________________________ 
12   Les coûts infrastructurels moyens seront plus élevés pour les vols court-courriers que pour les vols moyen ou 
long-courriers (étant donné que les coûts infrastructurels fixes sont rapportés à un nombre inférieur de 
voyageurs-kilomètres). Cependant, en raison d’une insuffisance de données, les coûts infrastructurels moyens 
pour le transport aérien n’ont pu être différenciés en fonction des distances de vol.  

19 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
modes. De manière générale, les coûts liés aux accidents, constituant 29% des coûts totaux, 
représentent la catégorie de coûts la plus importante, suivis des coûts liés à la congestion 
(27%). Dans l’ensemble, les coûts environnementaux (changement climatique, pollution de 
l’air, bruit, bilan du puits au réservoir et dégradation des habitats) constituent les 44% 
restants des coûts totaux. D’importantes différences existent toutefois entre les modes de 
transport.  

Comme indiqué dans le Tableau 7, le transport routier (et notamment les voitures 
particulières) est le plus gros contributeur aux coûts externes (83% des coûts totaux, 
820 milliards d’euros), ce qui s’explique en partie par la part importante du transport 
routier dans la performance totale des 28 États membres de l’UE sur le plan du transport13. 
Les coûts externes totaux pour le transport ferroviaire et le transport fluvial s’élèvent 
respectivement à 18 milliards d’euros et 3 milliards d’euros. Enfin, pour le transport aérien 
et le transport maritime, les coûts externes dans les 28 États membres de l’UE sont 
approximativement estimés à 48 et 98 milliards d’euros.  

Coûts externes moyens 

Comme indiqué dans le Tableau 7, les motos génèrent les coûts externes moyens les plus 
élevés du fait de coûts liés au bruit et aux accidents relativement élevés. Les coûts 
externes moyens des bus/cars sont considérablement inférieurs à ceux des voitures 
particulières, ce qui peut s’expliquer par les taux d’occupation plus élevés de ces véhicules. 
En ce qui concerne le transport ferroviaire, les coûts externes moyens pour les trains diesel 
sont considérablement supérieurs par comparaison avec les trains électriques. Ceci 
s’explique principalement par les coûts liés à la pollution de l’air qui sont considérablement 
plus élevés pour les trains diesel, ainsi que par leurs taux d’occupation inférieurs.  

En ce qui concerne le transport de marchandises, les coûts externes les plus élevés sont 
associés aux poids lourds, suivis du transport fluvial, du transport ferroviaire et du transport 
maritime. Les coûts externes relativement élevés des poids lourds s’expliquent 
principalement par des coefficients de charge relativement faibles par rapport au transport 
ferroviaire. En outre, pour le transport routier, les coûts liés à la congestion sont pris en 
compte, tandis qu’ils ne sont pas inclus pour les autres modes. Les coûts externes moyens 
pour le transport fluvial sont actuellement légèrement plus élevés que pour le transport 
ferroviaire, ce qui s’explique principalement par les coûts liés à la pollution de l’air qui 
sont relativement élevés dans le cas du transport fluvial14. Les coûts externes moyens 
faibles associés au transport maritime ne peuvent pas être comparés directement avec les 
autres modes, étant donné que ce chiffre est une moyenne pour le transport maritime à 
courte distance et le transport maritime à longue distance (et que seul le premier entre en 
concurrence directe avec les autres modes).  

________________________________ 
13   Sans compter la congestion, le transport routier représenterait tout de même 77% des coûts totaux. 
14   Les moteurs des navires fluviaux possèdent des durées de vie économiques plutôt longues (par ex. en 

comparaison des poids lourds) et la pénétration de nouveaux moteurs moins polluants dans la flotte est, de ce 
fait, relativement lente. En conséquence, les émissions moyennes d’agents de pollution de l’air par navire 
fluvial diminuent à un rythme plus lent que les niveaux d’émissions moyens des poids lourds.  

20 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Tableau 7 - Coûts externes dans les 28 États membres de l’UE en 2016 (tous les chiffres sont ajustés selon les 
SPA)  

Catégorie de véhicule 

Coûts externes totaux  

Coûts externes moyens 

Modes de transport de voyageurs 

Milliards d’euros 

Centimes d’euro/voy-km 

Voiture particulière 

Bus/car 

Moto 

Train à grande vitesse 

Train de voyageurs électrique 

Train de voyageurs diesel 

Avion 

565 

19 

41 

1 

11 

48a 

12,0 

3,6 

24,5 

1,3 

2,6 

3,9 

3,4 

Véhicules utilitaires légers  

Milliards d’euros 

Centimes d’euro/véh-km 

Véhicule utilitaire léger 

Modes de transport de 
marchandises  

Poids lourd 

Train de marchandises électrique 

Train de marchandises diesel 

Navire fluvial 
Navire maritime 

118 

24,7 

Milliards d’euros 

Centimes d’euro/t-km 

78 

5 

3 
98a 

4,2 

1,1 

1,8 

1,9 

0,7 

a Estimations approximatives. Pour plus de détails, voir CE Delft et al. (2019c). 

Taxes et droits de transport 

Les taxes et droits de transport sont définis, dans le cadre de cette étude, comme 
l’ensemble des taxes/droits directement liés à la possession et à l’utilisation de véhicules 
de transport, y compris les taxes/droits associés à l’utilisation de l’infrastructure15. En ce 
qui concerne le transport routier, les 28 États membres de l’UE appliquent tous des taxes 
sur le carburant et des taxes sur les véhicules (par ex. taxes d’achat et d’immatriculation), 
la plupart des pays prélevant également des droits d’usage de la route (péages et/ou 
vignettes). Dans le cas du transport ferroviaire, des droits d’accès au réseau ferroviaire sont 
perçus dans l’ensemble des 28 États membres de l’UE. Des taxes sur le diesel et (dans une 
moindre mesure) des taxes sur l’électricité sont également appliquées. En ce qui concerne 
le transport fluvial et le transport maritime, la plupart des pays/ports appliquent 
uniquement des droits d’usage des ports. Enfin, pour le transport aérien, des droits d’usage 
des aéroports (pour les externalités locales) et le système d'échange de quotas d'émission 
de l'Union européenne16 (pour toutes les émissions de CO2 résultant de vols au sein de 
l’Union, bien que les impacts climatiques non liés au CO2 ne soient pas couverts) sont 
appliqués dans les 28 États membres de l’UE. Des taxes de transport aérien s’y ajoutent 
dans certains pays.  

Les externalités sont, dans une certaine mesure, utilisées comme paramètres de 
différenciation pour les taxes et droits de transport. Ces différenciations sont plus 
fréquemment appliquées au transport routier, par ex. les taxes sur les véhicules 

________________________________ 
15   Cette définition exclut les taxes générales telles que les impôts sur les bénéfices et les impôts sur les salaires, 
celles-ci n’étant qu’indirectement liées aux activités de transport. La TVA prélevée sur les taxes et droits liés 
au transport est cependant incluse.  

16   Bien que le système d'échange de quotas d'émission de l'Union européenne ne soit ni une taxe, ni un droit (mais 

plutôt une mesure de tarification du carbone reposant sur les mécanismes du marché), il est toutefois 
considéré comme une taxe dans le cadre de cette étude.  

21 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
différenciées en fonction des émissions de CO2 et les péages pour les poids lourds 
différenciés en fonction de normes d’émissions d’agents de pollution de l’air. Les droits 
d’usage des aéroports sont fréquemment différenciés en fonction des niveaux de bruit de 
l’avion (environ 50% des aéroports pris en considération appliquent une telle 
différenciation). Les droits d’accès au réseau ferroviaire, en revanche, ne sont 
pratiquement pas différenciés en fonction des externalités dans les 28 États membres de 
l’UE, tandis que les droits d’usage des ports (pour le transport fluvial et le transport 
maritime) sont différenciés en fonction de normes environnementales uniquement dans un 
nombre limité de ports. 

Recettes totales issues des taxes/droits 

Les recettes totales issues des taxes/droits pour le transport routier, ferroviaire et fluvial 
dans les 28 États membres de l’UE s’élèvent à 370 milliards d’euros pour l’année 2016 (350 
milliards d’euros pour le transport routier, 20 milliards d’euros pour le transport ferroviaire 
et 0,4 milliard d’euros pour le transport fluvial). Comme indiqué dans le Tableau 8, la plus 
grande partie de ces recettes (81%) provient des voitures particulières, ce qui reflète la 
part importante de cette catégorie de véhicule dans la performance totale sur le plan du 
transport et la charge de taxes/droits relativement élevée pesant sur ces véhicules. Les 
recettes totales issues des taxes/droits pour les 33/34 (aéro)ports des 28 États membres de 
l’UE représentent respectivement un montant approximatif de 14 milliards d’euros et de 
1,8 milliard d’euros.  

Recettes moyennes issues des taxes/droits 

En ce qui concerne le transport de voyageurs, les recettes moyennes issues des taxes/droits 
les plus élevées sont associées aux trains diesel (voir le Tableau 8). Ces recettes sont 
considérablement plus élevées que dans le cas des trains de voyageurs électriques, ce qui 
peut s’expliquer par le taux d’occupation inférieur des trains diesel et, de façon plus 
importante encore, par les taxes énergétiques supérieures (les taxes sur le diesel pour le 
transport ferroviaire sont — en moyenne — supérieures aux taxes sur l’électricité pour ce 
mode). Les recettes moyennes issues des taxes/droits supérieures pour les voitures 
particulières et les motos par comparaison avec les bus/cars s’expliquent par des niveaux 
de taxation des véhicules supérieurs et des taux d’occupation inférieurs. Enfin, les recettes 
moyennes issues des taxes/droits relativement faibles dans le cas du transport aérien 
doivent être interprétées avec circonspection, ce chiffre étant une moyenne (incluant les 
vols court, moyen et long-courriers) et ne pouvant donc pas faire l’objet d’une comparaison 
directe avec les autres modes.  

Pour ce qui est du transport de marchandises, les recettes moyennes les plus élevées 
proviennent des poids lourds, suivis des trains diesel, des trains électriques et des navires 
fluviaux. Les recettes supérieures associées aux trains diesel par comparaison aux trains 
électriques s’expliquent principalement par les niveaux de taxation énergétique supérieurs 
pour les trains diesel.  

22 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
Tableau 8 - Recettes issues des taxes/droits dans les 28 États membres de l’UE en 2016 (tous les chiffres sont 
ajustés selon les SPA) 

Catégorie de véhicule 

Recettes totales issues des 
taxes/droits  

Recettes moyennes issues des 
taxes/droits 

Modes de transport de voyageurs 

Milliards d’euros 

Centimes d’euro/voy-km 

Voiture particulière 

Bus/car 

Moto 

Train à grande vitesse 

Train de voyageurs électrique 

Train de voyageurs diesel 
Aviona 

Véhicules utilitaires légers  

Véhicule utilitaire léger 

Modes de transport de 
marchandises  

Poids lourd 

Train de marchandises électrique 

Train de marchandises diesel 

Navire fluvial 
Navire maritimeab 

267 

7 

9 

4 

8 

5 

14 

5,4 

1,2 

5,0 

3,0 

2,6 

6,8 

1,5 

Milliards d’euros 

Centimes d’euro/véh-km 

35 

7,3 

Milliards d’euros 

Centimes d’euro/t-km 

33 

2 

1 

0,4 

2 

1,5 

0,5 

1,3 

0,3 

s.o. 

a  Les chiffres pour le transport aérien et le transport maritime concernent l’échantillon choisi de 33/34 

(aéro)ports des 28 États membres de l’UE. 

b  En raison d’une insuffisance de données, il n’a pas été possible de calculer les recettes moyennes issues des 

taxes/droits (en centimes d’euro/t-km) pour le transport maritime.  

État des lieux de l’internalisation  

La mesure dans laquelle les coûts externes et les coûts infrastructurels sont internalisés par 
les taxes et droits actuels dans les 28 États membres de l’UE est évaluée sous deux angles : 
1.  Tarification en fonction du coût moyen : les droits/taxes sont établis au niveau des 

coûts infrastructurels et externes moyens.  

2.  Tarification en fonction du coût social marginal : les droits/taxes variables sont établis 

au niveau des coûts infrastructurels et externes marginaux.  

Cinq indicateurs ont été utilisés pour évaluer la mesure de l’internalisation sous l’angle de 
la tarification en fonction du coût moyen (voir le Tableau 9). Pour évaluer la mesure de 
l’internalisation sous l’angle de la tarification en fonction du coût social marginal, le taux 
de couverture des coûts marginaux a été utilisé. Il s’agit du rapport entre les coûts externes 
et infrastructurels marginaux et les recettes issues des taxes/droits marginales pour 
trois/quatre situations spécifiques. 

23 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
Tableau 9 - Vue d’ensemble des indicateurs pour la tarification en fonction du coût moyen 

Taux de couverture des coûts 

Explication 

Taux de couverture globale des coûts 

Comparaison entre les recettes issues des taxes/droits et la totalité 
des coûts externes et infrastructurels. 

Taux de couverture globale des coûts 
excluant les coûts infrastructurels 
fixes 

Comparaison entre les recettes issues des taxes/droits et la totalité 
des coûts externes et des coûts infrastructurels variables (c’est-à-dire 
excluant les coûts infrastructurels fixes)a. 

Taux de couverture des coûts externes 
et infrastructurels variables 

Comparaison entre les recettes issues des taxes/droits variables et les 
coûts externes et infrastructurels variables. 

Taux de couverture globale des coûts 
infrastructurels 

Comparaison entre les recettes issues des droits d’usage de 
l’infrastructure et la totalité des coûts infrastructurels. 

Taux de couverture des coûts 
infrastructurels variables 

Comparaison entre les recettes issues des droits d’usage de 
l’infrastructure et les coûts infrastructurels variables. 

a Cet indicateur est en conformité avec les ambitions de la Commission visant une internalisation complète des 

coûts externes, y compris les coûts d’usure. Il intègre le fait que les coûts infrastructurels fixes sont des coûts 
irrécupérables et que le fait de payer pour ces coûts peut se traduire par une sous-utilisation (accrue) de 
l’infrastructure existante (par ex. du réseau ferroviaire).  

Les résultats de l’évaluation de la mesure de l’internalisation sous l’angle de la tarification 
en fonction du coût moyen sont indiqués dans le Tableau 10. On peut formuler, à partir de 
ces résultats, les conclusions suivantes : 
—  Les coûts externes et infrastructurels pour le transport dans les 28 États membres de 
l’UE ne sont que partiellement internalisés par les taxes et droits actuels. Comme le 
montre les résultats dans la deuxième colonne du Tableau 10, les coûts totaux ne sont 
couverts par les recettes issues des taxes/droits relatifs au transport pour aucune des 
catégories de véhicule. Pour la plupart des catégories de véhicule, 15 à 25% seulement 
des coûts externes et infrastructurels sont couverts. En ce qui concerne le transport 
fluvial et le transport maritime, on a constaté des taux de couverture des coûts bien 
inférieurs (respectivement 6 et 4%), ce qui reflète la charge de taxes/droits limitée 
imposée à ces modes de transport. Même si l’on exclut les coûts infrastructurels fixes 
des analyses (voir la troisième colonne du Tableau 10), pour la plupart des catégories de 
véhicule (à l’exception des trains à grande vitesse), les taxes et droits actuels ne 
couvrent pas les coûts externes et infrastructurels.  

—  Peu de données à l’appui de l’application d’une tarification en fonction du coût social 

marginal. Les résultats des analyses des taux de couverture des coûts sociaux marginaux 
montrent que, pour bon nombre des modes de transport, les taux de couverture des 
coûts marginaux diffèrent grandement entre les divers scénarios. Ceci indique que les 
taxes et droits actuels ne sont souvent pas en mesure de prendre en compte l’important 
écart de grandeur des coûts externes et infrastructurels marginaux dans différentes 
situations. Par conséquent, les analyses ne fournissent qu’une première indication du 
fait que l’imposition est insuffisante conformément au principe de la tarification en 
fonction du coût social marginal dans les 28 États membres de l’UE. Le recours à une 
certaine moyenne semble donc inévitable. Cependant, même en simplifiant davantage, 
la tarification en fonction du coût social marginal n’est pas effective au niveau des 28 
États membres de l’UE, comme le montre la quatrième colonne du Tableau 10. Les 
coûts externes et infrastructurels variables ne sont généralement pas couverts par les 
taxes/droits variables. Le transport ferroviaire (en particulier les trains à grande vitesse 
et les trains de voyageurs diesel) constitue une exception, les droits d’accès au réseau 
ferroviaire et les taxes sur le diesel reflétant la nature variable des coûts externes et la 
part variable des coûts infrastructurels. 

24 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
—  Utilisation limitée du principe de l’« utilisateur-payeur » dans les 28 États membres de 
l’UE. Comme le montre les résultats de couverture des coûts infrastructurels totaux, 
pour la plupart des catégories de véhicule, 15 à 30% seulement des coûts 
infrastructurels sont couverts par les droits d’usage de l’infrastructure17. Le transport 
aérien et le transport maritime font exception. Les recettes provenant des droits 
d’usage des (aéro)ports assurent la couverture (de la plus grande partie) des coûts 
infrastructurels des (aéro)ports. En revanche, les coûts infrastructurels variables (c’est-
à-dire les coûts d’usure) sont couverts par les recettes provenant des droits d’usage de 
l’infrastructure pour la plupart des catégories de véhicule (voir la dernière colonne du 
Tableau 10). Les principales exceptions sont les véhicules lourds de transport routier 
(poids lourd, bus, car), ce qui peut s’expliquer principalement par les coûts 
infrastructurels en fonction du poids élevés générés par ces véhicules. Les taux de 
couverture très élevés pour les coûts infrastructurels variables doivent être appréciés 
dans le contexte des faibles taux de couverture globale des coûts, les droits d’usage de 
l’infrastructure servant également de mesures d’internalisation à la fois des coûts 
externes et des coûts infrastructurels. 

Tableau 10 – Vue d’ensemble des taux de couverture des coûts sous l’angle de la tarification en fonction du 
coût moyen 

Couverture 
globale des 
coûts  

Couverture 
globale des 
coûts excluant 
les coûts 
infrastructurels 
fixes 

Couverture des 
coûts 
infrastructurels 
et externes 
variables 

Couverture des 
coûts 
infrastructurels 
totaux 

Couverture des 
coûts 
infrastructurels 
variables 

Transport de voyageurs 

Voiture 
particulière 

Bus 

Car 

Moto 

Train à grande 
vitesse 

Train de voyageurs 
électrique 

Train de voyageurs 
diesel 

Avion 

Transport de marchandises 

Véhicule utilitaire 
léger 

Poids lourd 

Train de 
marchandises 
électrique 

Train de 
marchandises 
diesel 

Navire fluvial  

51% 

17% 

18% 

19% 

26% 

16% 

22% 

34% 

43% 

26% 

12% 

63% 

24% 

26% 

20% 

145% 

61% 

91% 

45% 

53% 

37% 

30% 

48% 

21% 

23% 

15% 

208% 

70% 

101% 

46% 

48% 

33% 

35% 

27% 

3% 

3% 

35% 

28% 

19% 

16% 

82% 

11% 

14% 

16% 

417% 

6% 

6% 

576% 

394% 

160% 

122% 

247% 

153% 

44% 

86% 

26% 

55% 

61% 

25% 

138% 

6% 

12% 

13% 

12% 

176% 

________________________________ 
17   Les utilisateurs payant toutefois des taxes autres que les droits d’usage de l’infrastructure qui peuvent être 

employées pour financer les projets infrastructurels. 

25 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
Couverture 
globale des 
coûts  

Couverture 
globale des 
coûts excluant 
les coûts 
infrastructurels 
fixes 

Couverture des 
coûts 
infrastructurels 
et externes 
variables 

Couverture des 
coûts 
infrastructurels 
totaux 

Couverture des 
coûts 
infrastructurels 
variables 

Navire maritime 

4% 

4% 

4% 

127% 

4.571%a 

a  Ce taux de couverture des coûts très élevé peut s’expliquer par le fait que la part variable des coûts 

infrastructurels portuaires est présumée faible. En ajoutant à cela le fait que les droits d’usage des ports sont 
souvent établis de façon à assurer la couverture (de la plus grande partie) des coûts infrastructurels totaux, il en 
résulte des taux de couverture des coûts infrastructurels variables très élevés.  

Contexte élargi de l’internalisation 

Outre les taxes et droits appliqués au transport, d’autres instruments de politique (par ex. 
des mesures de réglementation stricte et des subventions) peuvent également contribuer à 
l’atteinte des objectifs d’internalisation, en particulier la réduction des coûts externes 
associés au transport. Des mesures non tarifaires sont appliquées au lieu, ou en plus, de 
taxes et de droits pour diverses raisons. Par exemple, certaines des externalités ont des 
impacts transfrontières (tels que changement climatique et pollution de l’air) et une 
approche communautaire offre une valeur ajoutée. Les taxes/droits relatifs au transport 
relevant de la compétence des États membres, il est difficile de les harmoniser au niveau 
communautaire et il est donc possible que l’utilisation d’autres instruments à l’échelle 
communautaire soit préférée. Le fait que des instruments non tarifaires puissent être 
appliqués de manière harmonisée à l’échelle communautaire réduit également les risques 
d’altérations du marché intérieur et offre de meilleures conditions pour l’investissement 
dans les technologies réduisant les coûts externes18. Le manque de soutien social et 
politique pour la mise en place de taxes et de droits ou leur augmentation est une autre 
raison faisant que des mesures non tarifaires pourraient être plus appropriées. Enfin, 
certaines externalités (en particulier les coûts associés aux accidents) n’entrent pas dans le 
champ d’application des taxes et droits, principalement parce qu’il est difficile de les 
inclure. Dans ces cas, d’autres instruments de politique (par ex. des mesures de 
réglementation stricte) sont plus appropriés pour réduire les coûts externes.  

Options pour une internalisation accrue 

L’évaluation de l’état des lieux de l’internalisation indique qu’il y a matière à amélioration 
sur le plan de l’internalisation des coûts externes et infrastructurels relatifs au transport 
dans les 28 États membres de l’UE. C’est pourquoi une étude des options potentielles pour 
une internalisation accrue a été menée. Les principaux résultats de cette étude sont :  
—  Une plus grande utilisation de droits d’usage des routes basés sur la distance 

différenciés en fonction des caractéristiques du véhicule, du lieu et/ou de l’heure peut 
accroître l’internalisation sur le plan du transport routier. Dans le cas des zones 
urbaines, l’utilisation de systèmes spécifiques de prélèvement de droits d’usage des 
routes urbaines peut être envisagée afin d’apporter une réponse aux coûts externes 
relativement élevés associés au transport urbain.  

________________________________ 
18   Des politiques harmonisées au niveau communautaire pourraient assurer des conditions équitables étendues, 
dans le cadre desquelles les fabricants de véhicules (et les autres industries) auraient à répondre aux mêmes 
exigences par des technologies/actions réduisant les externalités dans l’ensemble de l’UE. Il en découle un 
climat d’investissement plus favorable pour ces types de technologies/d’actions. 

26 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
—  Une plus grande utilisation de différenciations fondées sur le bruit au niveau des droits 

d’accès au réseau ferroviaire peut être une option pour accroître l’internalisation des 
coûts associés au bruit dans le cas du transport ferroviaire. Des hausses de ces droits 
d’accès peuvent être employées si la couverture d’une part plus importante des coûts 
infrastructurels fixes est requise.  

—  L’introduction de cotisations d’usage des voies navigables ou de droits d’usage des ports 
plus élevés peuvent constituer des options pour internaliser une part plus importante 
des coûts externes et infrastructurels associés au transport fluvial. L’application de 
différenciations en fonction des émissions d’agents de pollution de l’air au sein de ces 
instruments peut contribuer à apporter une réponse aux coûts relativement élevés 
associés aux agents de pollution de l’air dans le cas de ce mode de transport. Toutefois, 
la législation actuelle interdit l’introduction de cotisations d’usage des voies navigables 
sur le Rhin et ses affluents (qui représentent les voies fluviales les plus importantes de 
l’UE).  

—  Une différenciation environnementale des droits d’usage des ports ou l’application de 
cotisations d’usage des voies navigables peuvent être des options permettant une 
internalisation accrue du coût associé à la pollution de l’air généré par le transport 
maritime. En ce qui concerne les émissions de gaz à effet de serre du transport 
maritime, l’UE travaille déjà sur d’autres instruments de politique avec des partenaires 
mondiaux au sein de l’Organisation maritime internationale (OMI).  

—  D’autres politiques portant sur les émissions de gaz à effet de serre produites par le 

transport aérien sont en cours de développement dans le cadre d’une coopération avec 
des partenaires mondiaux au sein de l’Organisation de l'aviation civile internationale 
(OACI). En outre, une différenciation environnementale des droits d’usage des aéroports 
ou l’application de taxes de transport aérien peuvent être des options permettant une 
internalisation accrue des externalités du transport aérien. 

27 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
Glossary 

Term 

Explanation 

Average cost pricing 

Internalisation approach where charges/taxes are set at the level of average 
infrastructure and external costs. 

Average costs/revenues 

Costs/revenues per transport performance unit (e.g. Euro per pkm, Euro per tkm).  

Avoidance cost approach  Approach to valuate external costs. This approach determines external cost valuation 

Baumol pricing 

Bus 

Charge 

Coach 

Cost driver 

Damage cost approach 

Deadweight costs 

Delay costs 

Enhancement costs 

Equivalency factor 
method 

External cost 

factors (i.e. shadow prices) by determining the cost to achieve a particular policy 
target (e.g. EU CO2 reduction targets).  

Internalisation approach where charges/taxes are set at the level that is expected to 
be sufficient to achieve a given (environmental) objective. 

Passenger road motor vehicle designed to carry more than 24 persons (including the 
driver), and with the provision to carry seated as well as standing passengers.  

Compulsory requited payment, where requited means that the payer does receive 
anything directly in return.  

Passenger road motor vehicles designed to seat 24 or more persons (including the 
driver) and constructed exclusively for the carriage of seated passengers.  

Factor that expresses the responsibility or the causation of a vehicle for the level of 
total costs.  

Approach to valuate external costs. It values all damage experienced by individuals 
as a result of the existence of an externality (e.g. health impacts due to traffic 
noise). 

Measure to define road congestion costs as the value of utility loss due to congestion 
levels above the economically optimal levels.  

Measure to define road congestion costs as the value of the total travel time lost 
relative to a free-flow situation.  

Costs of new infrastructure or expansion of existing infrastructure with respect to its 
functionality and/or lifetime.  

Approach used to allocate the total infrastructure costs to various vehicle categories, 
based on selected cost drivers (proportionality factors). 

Unintended cost imposed on third parties for which no compensation is received. 
Important types of external costs are: air pollution, climate change, noise, accidents 
and congestion.  

Fixed costs 

Costs that do not vary with transport volumes. 

Gross Domestic Product 
(GDP) 

Aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross value added of all 
residents, institutional units engaged in production. 

Heavy Goods Vehicle 
(HGV) 

Goods road vehicle with a gross vehicle weight above 3,500 kg, designed, exclusively 
or primarily, to carry goods.  

High speed line (HSL) 

Rail lines dedicated to high speed trains (see: High speed train). 

High speed train (HST) 

Trains designed to operate at a speed of at least 250 km/h on dedicated high speed 
lines (see: High speed line).  

Infrastructure costs 

Inland Waterway 
Transport (IWT) 

Landing and Take-Off 
(LTO) 

Light Commercial 
Vehicle (LCV) 

The direct expenses on infrastructure plus the financing costs or - regarded from a 
different point of view - the opportunity costs for not spending the resources for 
more profitable purposes.  

Any movement of goods and/or passengers using inland waterway vessels which is 
undertaken wholly or partly on navigable inland waterways. 

Cycle of landing and take-off of an aircraft. 

Four-wheeled goods road motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of not more than 
3,500 kg. Also known as van.  

28 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
Term 

Explanation 

Maintenance costs 

Marginal costs 

Marginal Social Cost 
Pricing (MSCP) 

Motorcycle (MC) 

Operational costs 

Passenger car 

Passenger kilometre 
(pkm) 

Perpetual Inventory 
Method (PIM) 

Price index figure 

Purchase Power 
Standard (PPS) 

Ramsey pricing 

Renewal costs 

Costs referring to the costs of ‘ordinary’ maintenance. These are relatively minor 
repairs with an economic lifetime of less than 1 to 2 years.  

Additional costs caused by an additional vehicle kilometre (or LTO or call) on the 
transport network.  

Internalisation approach where charges/taxes are set at the level of marginal 
infrastructure and external costs. 

Two-, three- or four-wheeled road motor vehicle not exceeding 400 kg of unladen 
weight. All such vehicles with a capacity of 50 cc or over are included.  

These costs refer to the costs of the organisation of efficient use of the 
infrastructure.  

Road motor vehicle, other than a moped or a motorcycle, intended for the carriage 
of passengers and designed to seat no more than nine persons (including the driver).  

Unit of measurement representing the transport of one passenger over one 
kilometre.  

Method to estimate infrastructure costs based on time series data on infrastructure 
expenditures. To estimate enhancement and renewal costs, the annual depreciation 
costs are calculated by distributing the initial investments over the lifetime of the 
infrastructure. In addition, financing costs are calculated by using an appropriate 
interest rate. The sum of depreciation and financing costs equals enhancement 
and/or renewal costs. Operational and maintenance costs are based on running 
expenditures.  

Indicator measuring the weighted average of prices in a predetermined basked of 
goods (and/or services). Changes in this indicator are used to correct monetarised 
data for inflation.  

Indicator reflecting the purchasing power of countries. This indicator is used to 
correct monetarised figures for differences in purchasing power of an euro across 
countries. 

Internalisation approach where charges/taxes are set at the level that maximises 
revenues.  

All costs associated with the renewal of (parts of) the infrastructure.  
The renewed (parts of) the infrastructure will at least have a lifetime of more than 
1-2 years. Renewal costs do include extraordinary maintenance with a lifespan of 
more than 1-2 years.  

Ship-kilometre 

Unit of measurement representing the movement of a ship over one kilometre. 

Subsidy 

Tax 

Fiscal support with direct relevance to public budgets and with no direct service in 
return.  

Compulsory unrequited payment, where unrequited means that the payer does not 
receive anything directly in return.  

Tonne-kilometre (tkm) 

Unit of measurement of goods transport which represents the transport of one tonne 
over one kilometre.  

Total costs 

Total costs within a certain geographic boundary (e.g. EU28 or a country) associated 
to the relevant transport infrastructure (e.g. road network).  

Train kilometre 

Unit of measurement representing the movement of a train over one kilometre.  

Transport infrastructure 

The physical and organisational network which allows movements between different 
locations.  

Value of a Statistical 
Life (VSL) 

Measure for how much people are willing to pay to reduce their risk on death.  

Value Of Life Year lost 
(VOLY) 

The amount of money that people are willing to pay for one year of additional life 
expectancy.  

Variable costs 

Costs that vary with transport volumes.  

Vehicle kilometres (vkm)  Unit of measurement representing the movement of a vehicle over one kilometre.  

29 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
1 

Introduction  

1.1 

Background of the Study 

Transport is a precondition for the functioning of modern society and for the wellbeing of 
people and the economy. However, transport comes with various external effects, such as 
air pollution and accidents. In addition, constructing and managing transport infrastructure 
gives rise to significant costs. The external and infrastructure costs of transport tend not to 
be borne by transport users (without policy intervention), and hence users tend not to 
consider them when making transport decisions. By internalising the external and 
infrastructure costs (by using transport taxes and charges), the efficiency of the transport 
system can be increased.  

According to economic theory, marginal social cost pricing results in an efficient amount 
and allocation of transport. However, there are several alternative approaches of 
internalisation often applied and sometimes even more appropriate in the context of policy 
making. For example, charging vehicles at their average costs (‘average cost pricing’) 
ensures that total external and/or infrastructure costs are covered. Furthermore, average 
cost pricing may be considered to be fair, as it is more in line with the ‘user pays’ and 
‘polluter pays’ principles. Other alternative internalisation approaches are Baumol pricing19 
and Ramsey pricing20. 

The aim of the project, ‘Sustainable Transport Infrastructure charging and internalisation 
of Transport Externalities’, commissioned by the European Commission DG MOVE to a 
consortium led by CE Delft, is to better understand the extent to which existing policies 
internalise the costs of transport (both from the perspectives of average and marginal cost 
pricing) and to discuss ways that further internalisation could be achieved. The focus of the 
project is on the EU28 Member States, but also assessments for Norway and Switzerland and 
some non-European countries are carried out as well. 

In order to assess the current state of play of internalisation, detailed assessments of 
transport infrastructure costs and external costs have been carried out. Furthermore, a 
thorough analysis of the transport taxes and charges applied in the countries considered has 
been performed. Based on these data, the state of play of internalisation in the EU28 
Member States (and the other relevant countries) has been assessed, both from the average 
cost pricing and marginal cost pricing perspective. Finally, options for further 
internalisation have been formulated.  

The methodologies used for these different types of assessments and their results are 
presented in four separate deliverables (see the following text box). This report provides a 
summary of the main findings from these four deliverables. 

________________________________ 
19   Taxes/charges are set at a level at which a certain objective (e.g. congestion level) is met.  
20   Taxes/charges are set at a level which maximises total revenues.  

30 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Textbox 1 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities 
project deliverables 

—  Overview of transport infrastructure expenditures and costs. 

• 

This deliverable provides an overview of the infrastructure costs of all transport modes and 
countries. 

—  Handbook on external costs – version 2019. 

• 

This deliverable provides an overview of the methodologies and input values that can be used to 
provide state-of-the-art estimates for all main external costs of transport. Furthermore, the 
deliverable presents the total, average and marginal external costs for all transport modes and 
countries.  

—  Transport taxes and charges in Europe - An overview study of economic internalisation measures applied 

in Europe. 
• 

This deliverable provides an overview of the structure and level of transport taxes and charges 
applied for the various transport modes. Furthermore, this study presents the total revenues from 
transport taxes and charges for the various transport modes and countries. 

—  The state of play of internalisation in the European transport sector. 

• 

This deliverable shows the extent to which external and infrastructure costs are internalised by 
current taxes and charges for all countries and transport modes. It also investigates recommended 
options for further internalisation. 

1.2 

Objective 

This report summarises the key findings from the deliverables produced as part of the 
project. These findings include: 
—  an overview of the infrastructure costs, external costs and taxes/charges of all 

transport modes in the EU28; 

—  an assessment of the state of play of internalisation in the EU28; 
—  options for further internalisation of the external and infrastructure costs of transport. 

1.3 

Scope  

1.3.1  Transport modes 

This report considers road transport, rail transport, inland waterway transport (IWT), 
maritime transport and aviation. The vehicle types per mode that are considered are 
presented in Table 11.  

Table 11 - Transport modes and vehicle types covered 

Road transport 

Rail transport 

IWT 

Maritime transport 

Aviation 

—  Passenger car 
—  Motorcycle 
—  Bus 
—  Coach 
—  Van 
—  Heavy Goods 

Vehicle (HGV) 

—  High speed passenger 

— 

train (HSL) 
—  Passenger train 
electrica 

—  Passenger train diesel 
Freight train electric 
— 
Freight train diesel 
— 

Inland 
vessel 

— 

Freight vessel 

—  Passenger 

aircraft 

a  Passenger train electric consists of both high speed and conventional electric trains.  

31 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
1.3.2  Geographical coverage 

For road, rail and inland navigation transport, this report presents results for the EU28. 
For aviation and maritime transport, this report presents aggregate results for 33 selected 
EU28 airports21 and 34 selected EU28 ports22. Country-specific (or (air)port-specific) results 
and results for the non-EU28 countries can be found in the other deliverables of the 
project.  

1.3.3  Total, average and marginal costs/revenues 

In the study, different types of costs and tax/charge revenues are considered: 
—  Total costs/revenues refer to all costs/revenues within a geographical boundary 

(e.g. EU28) related to (a specific mode of) transport. Total costs/revenues are usually 
presented in billions or millions Euros.  

—  Average costs/revenues are closely related to total costs/revenues, as they express the 
costs/revenues per transport performance unit (e.g. €-cent/pkm, €-cent/tkm or €-cent 
per vkm).  

—  Marginal costs/revenues are the additional costs/revenues occurring due to an 
additional transport activity. In this study we consider short run marginal 
costs/revenues, i.e. costs/revenues linked to constant infrastructure capacity. 
Generally, marginal costs/revenues are presented in the same units as average 
costs/revenues. 

1.3.4  Transport subsidies 

In this study, we do not consider transport subsidies and public service obligations (PSO), 
with the exception of tax/charge breaks or exemptions. The latter are implicitly addressed 
when assessing taxes and charges. In addition, subsidies for infrastructure (e.g. CEF 
funding), are fully accounted for in calculating the transport infrastructure costs. Other 
subsidies (e.g. subsidies to purchase low-emission vehicles) are not considered, as data 
availability on these types of subsidies is rather poor. Only a few, incomplete and mostly 
older studies are available on this subject at the European level (e.g. CE Delft et al., 2017; 
Ecologic, CE Delft and TU Dresden, 2006; Ecologic, 2005). Collecting data on all transport 
subsidies applied in Europe is therefore out of the scope of this study (also because a large 
number of subsidy and PSO schemes exist, both at the national and regional/local level). 

1.3.5  Transport performance data 

Several types of transport performance data (e.g. vehicle-kilometres, tonne-kilometres, 
passenger-kilometres) have been used in the wide range of assessments carried out in this 
project. For the purpose of this project, a consistent set of transport performance data 
have been composed, mainly based on EU aggregated sources (like Eurostat and COPERT).  

________________________________ 
21   This selection includes: Wien-Schwechat, Brussels, Sofia, Zagreb Pleso, Larnaka, Prague Ruzyne, Copenhagen-
Kastrup, Tallinn, Helsinki-Vantaa, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Paris Orly, Frankfurt, Munich, Athens Eleftheriios 
Venizelos, Budapest Liszt Ferenc, Dublin, Roma Flumicino, Riga, Vilnius, Luxembourg, Luga, Amsterdam 
Schiphol, Warsaw Chopina, Lisboa, Bucharest Henri Coandă, Bratislava M.R. Stefanik, Ljubljana Brink, 
Barcelona El Prat, Adolfo Suarez Madrid – Barajas, Palma de Mallorca, Stockholm Arlanda, London Heatrow, 
and London Gatwick. 

22   This selection includes, i.e. Antwerp, Varna, Rijeka, Split, Limassol, Arhus, Helsingør, Tallinn, Helsinki, Calais, 
Le Havre, Marseille, Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Travermünde, Piraeus, Dublin, Genova, Trieste, Venice, Riga, 
Klapeida, Marsaxlokk, Rotterdam, Gdansk, Sines, Constanta, Koper, Algericas, Barcelona, Bilbao, Valencia, 
Goteburg, and Felixstowe.  

32 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
Road transport performance data has been taken from Eurostat, following the nationality 
principle, i.e. transport activity is allocated to countries where the vehicle is registered.  
In an alternative approach, the territoriality principle, transport activity is allocated to the 
countries where the activity actually takes place. The territoriality principle would have 
been more consistent with the scope of the infrastructure and external costs as well as 
some of the taxes/charges (e.g. fuel taxes, road charges). However, as a detailed EU-wide 
data set on road transport performance, based on the territoriality principle, is not 
available, the official Eurostat dataset, based on the nationality principle, has been used 
for this study23. This choice affects the results of the study and should be taken into 
account when considering the results of this study. Results at country level are much more 
affected than EU28 results.  

1.3.6  Base year 

All costs, taxes and charge levels quoted in this report are presented for 2016. If some data 
were not available for 2016, data for the most recent year (preferably 2015) was used.  

1.3.7  Price level  

All financial figures are expressed in Euro price levels of 2016. Data from sources where 
price levels from other years were used have been translated to price level 2016 by using 
relevant price index figures (from Eurostat). Furthermore, all financial figures are adjusted 
for differences in purchase power between countries (by using Purchasing Power Standards, 
PPS), in order to allow for direct comparisons between countries. This implies that all 
financial figures are shown for the EU28 average price level. 

1.4 

Outline of the study 

The report is structured as follows: 
—  Chapter 2 presents the main findings of the assessment of infrastructure costs, including 

a discussion on the methodology applied and the main results for the EU28.  

—  Chapter 3 provides a brief description of state-of-the-art methodologies to estimate the 

external cost of transport and an overview of the external costs for the EU28.  

—  Chapter 4 presents an overview of the transport taxes and charges applied in the EU28 
as well as a discussion on the tax/charge revenues raised for the various transport 
modes.  

—  Chapter 5 provides an overview of the state of play of internalisation in the European 

transport sector as well a discussion on the broader context of internalisation.  

—  Chapter 6 presents the main conclusions of the study and an overview of some relevant 
policy applications. Furthermore, the main recommendations for further research are 
presented in this chapter.  

________________________________ 
23   To estimate the infrastructure costs of road vehicles, data on vehicle weight and axle load is required as well. 
Territorialised activity is presented by Eurostat only at aggregate level, i.e. no data on weight and axle load is 
available. See CE Delft  (2019a) for more details. 

33 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
2 

Infrastructure costs 

2.1 

Introduction 

A good understanding of the total, average and marginal infrastructure costs of transport is 
essential to assess the current state of internalisation of transport in Europe. Therefore, a 
detailed assessment based on country and mode specific data on transport infrastructure 
expenditures has been carried out in order to provide state-of-the-art estimates of 
infrastructure costs for all transport modes. In this chapter, we briefly discuss the 
methodology applied (Section 2.2), the main results for the EU28 (Section 2.3) and the 
robustness of the results found (Section 2.4). For more detailed results and a broader 
discussion on the methodology applied, we refer to CE Delft et al. (2019a).  

2.2 

Methodology applied 

2.2.1  Defining infrastructure costs 

Infrastructure costs can be defined as the direct expenses on transport infrastructure24 plus 
the financing costs or — regarded from a different point of view — the opportunity costs for 
not spending the resources for more profitable purposes (Fraunhofer-ISI & CE Delft, 2008). 
These costs consist of various types of costs: 
—  Enhancement costs: costs of new infrastructure or expansion of existing infrastructure 
(e.g. construction of a new rail line or adding an additional lane to a motorway).  
—  Renewal costs: costs associated with the renewal of (parts of) the infrastructure. 

The renewed infrastructure will at least have a lifetime of more than 1 to 2 years.  
—  Maintenance costs: costs associated with ‘ordinary’ maintenance, i.e. relatively minor 

repairs with an economic lifetime of less than 1 or 2 years.  

—  Operational costs: costs made to enable an efficient use of the infrastructure 

(e.g. lighting).  

Infrastructure costs can be further classified as fixed or variable costs. The enhancement 
and operational costs are fully fixed, while also part of the maintenance and renewal costs 
are considered fixed as well (e.g. maintenance of traffic signs, traffic lights and road sides). 
The remaining part of the maintenance and renewal costs are assumed to be variable, i.e. 
they vary with transport volumes and hence are directly linked to the usage of the 
infrastructure. 

________________________________ 
24   Transport infrastructure is defined as the physical and organisational network which allows movements 

between different locations (HLG, 1999). By applying this definition, organisational aspects (e.g. transport 
policy, traffic management) are considered as part of the infrastructure as well.  

34 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
2.2.2  Methodology 

A top-down approach has been applied to estimate infrastructure costs for the various 
transport modes (see Figure 1), consisting of three steps: 
1.  Estimation of total infrastructure costs per transport mode. Total infrastructure costs 
were estimated based on the widely applied Perpetual Inventory Method (PIM)25. As for 
the enhancement and renewal costs, the approach calculates the annual depreciation 
costs by distributing the initial investments (for a period of 35 years) over the lifetime 
of the infrastructure. Additionally, interest/financing costs are estimated by using an 
appropriate interest rate. The sum of depreciation and financing costs equals the total 
enhancement and renewal costs. Regarding the maintenance and operational costs, the 
PIM assumes that they are equal to the running costs (expenditures in 2016) and hence 
no capitalisation (as done for the enhancement and renewal costs) is required for these 
cost elements.  

2.  Allocation of the total infrastructure costs to the various vehicle categories. The total 
infrastructure costs per transport mode (road, rail, IWT, maritime and aviation) are 
further allocated to the various vehicle categories by using the equivalency factor 
method. This method allocates the various cost categories based on relevant cost 
drivers (e.g. number of vehicle kilometres, number of axle-load weighted kilometres).  

3.  Estimation of marginal infrastructure costs. This is achieved by assuming that the 
marginal costs are equal to the variable share of the average infrastructure costs.  

Figure 1 – Approach to estimate infrastructure costs 

________________________________ 
25   For maritime transport and aviation data availability was insufficient to apply the PIM for enhancement and 
renewal costs. For aviation, the depreciation costs were not calculated but taken directly from the annual 
reports of the respective airports. For maritime transport, depreciation costs were assumed to be equal to the 
investments in 2016.  

35 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
2.3 

Infrastructure costs of transport in the EU28 

2.3.1  Total infrastructure costs 

The total infrastructure costs for road, rail and inland waterway transport in the EU28 
amount to € 267 billion for 2016. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of these costs (69%) is 
caused by road transport (€ 184 billion). Rail transport is responsible for 30% of these costs 
(€ 81 billion), while IWT contributes 1% to the total costs (€ 3 billion). Figure 2 presents the 
total infrastructure costs by passenger and freight transport: 71% of the total infrastructure 
costs of road, rail and inland waterway transport are allocated to passenger transport, 
while 29% to freight transport.  

Figure 2 – Composition of total infrastructure costs in 2016 for road, rail and inland waterway transport in the 
EU28 

A.  By transport mode 

B. By passenger and freight transport 

The total infrastructure costs for the various road, rail and IWT vehicle categories are 
presented in Figure 3. The highest total costs can be attributed to passenger cars, which 
can be explained by the large share this vehicle category has in the total number of vehicle 
kilometres (vkm). Also conventional rail and HGVs significantly contribute to the total 
infrastructure costs in the EU28.  

36 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

69%30%1%RoadRailIWT71%29%Passenger transportFreight transport 
  
 
 
               
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 – Total infrastructure costs in 2016 for road, rail and inland waterway transport in the EU28  
(billion €, PPS adjusted) 

Finally, the infrastructure costs for maritime transport and aviation have been estimated 
for a set of selected ports and airports (see Section 1.3 for more details). For the selected 
34 EU ports the infrastructure costs are estimated at € 1.4 billion, while the costs for the 33 
EU airports amount € 14 billion. It was not possible to determine what the share of these 
costs in the total infrastructure costs of maritime transport and aviation in the EU28 is.  

2.3.2  Average infrastructure costs 

The average infrastructure costs of passenger transport in the EU28 are presented in  
Figure 4. These costs are significantly higher for rail transport than for road transport.  
This is partly explained by the higher fixed costs (e.g. construction costs) of rail 
infrastructure: the infrastructure costs per kilometre of road in the EU are about € 30,000, 
while the cost per track-kilometre rail amount to slightly more than € 200,000. Another 
explanation is the — on average — lower utilisation rate of rail infrastructure compared to 
road infrastructure, such that the fixed costs are allocated to fewer passenger kilometres 
(pkm). The average infrastructure costs for aviation are approximately equal to those for 
passenger cars and hence significantly lower than for rail transport. It should, however, be 
noted that we consider the average infrastructure costs for an average airplane26, which 
competes on a completely different market than an average passenger car or passenger 
train. Therefore, the results for the various modes cannot be directly compared.  

The highest average infrastructure costs are found for a diesel passenger train, which is 
partly due to the low occupancy rate of these trains (compared to electric trains). 
Furthermore, the utilisation rate of rail infrastructure by diesel trains is lower than by 
electric trains, leading to higher average cost figures. The average infrastructure costs for 
high speed trains are lower than for other passenger trains, particularly due to higher 
utilisation rates of the HSL network and higher occupancy rates.  

________________________________ 
26   I.e. the weighted average of the airplanes used for short-haul, medium-haul and long-haul trips.  

37 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

020406080100120Passenger carMotorcycleBus/coachHSLConventional railLCVHGVRailIWTPassenger transportFreight transportTotal infrastructurecosts 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
For road transport, the highest average infrastructure costs are found for buses and 
coaches, which can be explained by the relatively large share of variable (weight 
dependent) infrastructure costs caused by these vehicles.  

Figure 4 – Average infrastructure costs in 2016 for passenger modes in the EU28a (€-cent/pkm, PPS adjusted) 

a  For aviation, the average infrastructure costs are estimated based on data for the 33 selected EU airports.  

The average infrastructure costs for freight transport in the EU28 are shown in Figure 5. 
Regarding freight transport, the main elements of the infrastructure costs is fixed 
(particularly for IWT). The highest average cost figures are found for rail transport27, 
followed by HGVs and IWT. For maritime transport, no average infrastructure costs (in  
€-cent/tkm) were estimated due to lack of relevant transport performance data. 

________________________________ 
27   The average cost figures for diesel trains are slightly higher than for electric freight trains. This can be 
explained by — on average — slightly lower load factors for diesel trains compared to electric trains. 

38 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

051015202530Average infrastructure costsFixedVariable 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5 - Average infrastructure costs in 2016 for freight modes in the EU28 (€-cent/pkm, PPS adjusted) 

2.3.3  Marginal infrastructure costs 

The marginal infrastructure costs for passenger transport modes in the EU28 are presented 
in Figure 6. The highest cost figures are found for diesel passenger trains. The fact that 
these figures are significantly higher than those for electric passenger trains is again 
explained by lower occupancy rates and utilisation rates of rail infrastructure. Compared to 
the average cost figures, the differences in marginal cost figures of road and rail transport 
are less significant. This can be explained by the fact that the relatively high fixed costs of 
rail infrastructure costs (an important explanation of the high average infrastructure costs 
for rail) are not part of the marginal costs. Finally, with respect to aviation it should again 
be mentioned that an average airplane competes on another market than road and rail 
transport and hence the marginal cost figures are not directly comparable. 

39 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

00.511.522.533.5HGVRail electricRail dieselIWTAverage infrastructure costsFixedVariable 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6 – Marginal infrastructure costs in 2016 for passenger transport modes in the EU28a  
(€-cent/pkm, PPS adjusted) 

a For aviation, the average infrastructure costs are estimated based on data for the 33 selected EU airports.  

The marginal infrastructure cost figures for freight transport (excl. maritime transport) are 
shown in Figure 7. The highest costs are found for HGVs, reflecting the significant wear and 
tear costs caused by this vehicle category. Marginal infrastructure costs for IWT are 
relatively low, as only a limited share of the infrastructure costs directly depend on the use 
of inland waterways.  

Figure 7 - Marginal infrastructure costs in 2016 for freight transport modes in the EU28 (€-cent/tkm, PPS 
adjusted) 

40 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

00.511.522.533.54PassengercarBusCoachMotorcycleHSLRail electricRail dieselAviationMarginal infrastructure costs0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8HGVRail electricRail dieselIWTMarginal infrastructure costs 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4 

Robustness of infrastructure cost estimates 

The infrastructure cost figures presented in the previous section are calculated based on 
state-of-the-art methodologies and the best available data. However, there are some 
uncertainties with respect to the methodology and data that should be kept in mind when 
interpreting the results of the assessment.  

In general, direct comparisons between transport modes should be made carefully, 
since data availability and quality vary significantly between modes. Particularly the 
infrastructure cost calculations for maritime transport and aviation are hampered by a lack 
of (robust) data, resulting in higher levels of uncertainty. Furthermore, total cost figures 
are considered more reliable than figures per vehicle category, as the allocation of total 
figures to vehicle categories results in some additional uncertainty. Finally, total cost 
figures are more robust than average and marginal cost figures, as the latter have to deal 
with relatively large uncertainties in traffic performance data (particularly for road 
transport, see Section 1.3). 

41 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
3  External costs of transport 

3.1 

Introduction 

As part of the project an updated and extended version of the Handbook on External Costs 
of Transport has been produced (CE Delft; INFRAS; TRT, 2019c). This Handbook provides 
state of the art methodologies, input values and output values for total, average and 
marginal external costs of transport, both at the EU28 level and at the level of individual 
countries. This is done for all transport modes and all (main) external cost categories. 

Textbox 2 - Previous versions of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport 

The current Handbook on External Costs of Transport is the successor of two previous versions:  
— 

In 2008 the European Commission commissioned the first Handbook on External Costs of Transport, as part 
of the IMPACT study (INFRAS; CE Delft; ISI; University of Gdansk, 2008). This Handbook presented best 
practices on the methodology and input values (e.g. value of time or the value of a statistical life) that can 
be used to produce estimations of external costs by users of the Handbook themselves. In addition, the 
Handbook presented external cost figures which could be used directly by the users. The 2008 Handbook 
focus was on marginal external costs, covering all main external cost categories.  
In 2014, the Handbook was updated with new developments in research and policy (Ricardo-AEA; TRT; 
DIW-Econ; CAU, 2014). In line with the 2008 version, the focus of the 2014 Handbook was on marginal 
external costs of transport.  

— 

In the remainder of this chapter, we briefly discuss the methodologies recommended/ 
applied to estimate the external costs of transport (Section 3.2). The main results for 
external costs at the EU28 level are presented in Section 3.3. Finally, the robustness of the 
results is discussed in Section 3.4. 

3.2 

Recommended methodology to estimate external costs 

3.2.1  The concept of external costs 

External costs, also known as externalities, arise when the social or economic activities of 
one (group of) person(s) have an impact on another (group of) person(s) and when that 
impact is not fully accounted, or compensated for, by the first (group of) person(s). In other 
words, external costs of transport are generally not borne by the transport user and hence 
not taken into account when they make a transport decision. Cars exhausting NOx emissions, 
for example, cause damage to human health, imposing an external cost. This is because the 
impact on those who suffer damage to their health is not taken into account by the driver 
of the car when deciding on taking the car.  

External costs of transport refer to the difference between social costs (i.e. all costs to 
society due to the provision and use of transport infrastructure) and private costs of 
transport (i.e. the costs directly borne by the transport user). As the market does not 
provide an incentive to transport users to take external costs into account, they only take 
part of the social costs into account when taking a transport decision, resulting in  
sub-optimal outcomes. By internalising these costs, externalities are made part of the 
decision making process of transport users.  

42 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Using market-based instruments to internalise external costs is generally regarded as an 
efficient way to limit the negative side effects of transport and/or to generate income for 
the government. Applying these instruments in an efficient way requires detailed and 
reliable estimates of external costs. External cost figures are also useful parameters for 
other applications (e.g. use in Cost Benefit Analyses) 

3.2.2  External costs of transport 

This study covers all main externalities of transport, as is illustrated in Table 12. 
Although congestion (or scarcity costs) can be relevant for the non-road modes as well, 
these are not addressed in detail in the study due to a lack of data.  

Table 12 – Externalities covered in this study 

Externality 

Accidents 

Air pollution 

Climate change 

Noise 

Congestion 
Well-to-tank emissionsa  

Habitat damage 

a  Emissions of energy production. 

Road 

Rail 

IWT 

Maritime 

Aviation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the external costs mentioned in Table 12, other externalities caused by 
transport can be identified, including soil and water pollution, up- and downstream 
emissions (e.g. emissions from the production, maintenance and disposal of vehicles), 
separation impacts in urban areas, etc. These externalities are briefly discussed in the 
Handbook, but are not considered in this report. 

3.2.3  Methodology to estimate total/average external costs 

The methodology to estimate the total and average external costs differs between the 
various cost categories. Based on a thorough review of the latest evidence on estimating 
external costs of transport in research and policy, we have updated the Handbook on 
External Cost of Transport within this project. The Handbook provides a recommended 
methodology to quantify and monetarise these effects for each externality.  
Table 13 provides an overview of these methodologies and also presents some of the most 
important input values. 

Table 13 – Recommended/used methodologies to estimate total/average external costs 

Cost category 

Used/recommended methodology 

Accidents 

Damage cost approach 
Top-down approach, based on the following input 
values: 
— 

accidents: number of casualties (fatalities, 
injuries) per vehicle category 
costs per casualty (human costs, production loss, 
medical costs, administrative costs, material 
costs) 

— 

Important input values (EU28 
values) 

Total external cost per casualty: 
fatalities: € 3,274,000 
— 
serious injuries: € 498,600 
— 
slight injuries: € 38,500 
— 

Value of statistical life:  
€ 3.6 million  

43 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost category 

Used/recommended methodology 

Important input values (EU28 
values) 

Air pollution 

Climate change 

Noise 

Congestion 

— 

allocation to different transport modes 
(according to responsibility) and to vehicle types 
(according to damage potential/intrinsic risk) 

Damage cost approach, covering the following 
impacts: health effects, crop losses, material and 
building damage, biodiversity loss. 
Bottom-up approach, based on the following input 
values: 
— 
— 
— 

emission factors (per vkm) 
transport performance 
cost factors (health costs and non-health costs) 

Avoidance cost approach: global avoidance costs, 
based on the targets from the Paris Agreement Paris 
Agreement, i.e. preventing temperature rises above 
1.5-2 degrees Celsius (i.e. CO2-concentration in the 
atmosphere below 450 ppm). 
Bottom-up approach, based on the following input 
values: 
— 
— 
— 
— 

greenhouse gas emission factors per vehicle type 
transport performance data  
climate change costs per tonne of CO2 equivalent 
factor 2 increase for aviation due to non-CO2 
impacts; however it should be noted that there is 
currently still high uncertainty regarding the non-
CO2 impacts and thus the factor to be used.  

Damage cost approach, covering health effects and 
annoyance due to noise exposure. 
Bottom-up approach, based on the following input 
values: 
— 

number of people exposed to noise for each 
transport mode 

—  noise costs per person exposed (health costs and 

annoyance costs) 

Two approaches have been developed to estimate 
congestion costs at urban and inter-urban level: 
—  delay costs 
—  deadweight loss 
For both methodologies common input values are: 
— 
— 

speed-flow functions 
transport demand curves (based on literature 
cost elasticity) 
value of time for car and coach passengers by 
purpose (i.e., commuting, business and leisure) 
and for road freight transport. 

— 

Some important cost factors for 
average air pollution damage costs: 
—  NOx transport city: 21.3 €/kg 
—  NOx transport rural: 12.6 €/kg 
—  PM2.5 trsp. Metrop.: 381 €/kg 
—  PM2.5 transport city: 123 €/kg 
—  PM2.5 transport rural: 70 €/kg 
—  PM10 average: 22.3 €/kg 
— 
SO2: 10.9 €/kg 
—  NH3: 17.5 €/kg 
—  NMVOC: 1.2 €/kg 
Value Of Life Year lost (VOLY): 
€ 70,000  

Cost factor for CO2 emissions (based 
on literature review): 
—  Central value for the short-

and-medium-run costs (up to 
2030):  
• 
•  main value used in 

€ 100/tCO2-eq. a 

handbook 

—  Central value for the long run 

costs (up to 2060): 
• 

€ 269/tCO2-eq. b 

Noise costs per person exposed, 
differentiated by noise class: 
decibel-class Lden (dB(A)).  
Costs for road transport: 
— 
50-54 dB: 17 €/dB/person/year 
— 
55–59 dB: 31 €/dB/person/year 
— 
60–64 dB: 34 €/dB/person/year 
— 
65–69 dB: 63 €/dB/person/year 
— 
70–74 dB: 67 €/dB/person/year 
—  ≥ 75 dB: 72 €/dB/person/year 
Elasticity values: e.g. for cars: 
— 
• 

urban demand, 
commuting-business -0.49 
urban demand, personal -
0.58 
inter-urban demand, 
commuting-business -0.56 
inter-urban demand, 
personal -0.67 

• 

• 

• 

— 

value of time: e.g. the average 
for cars:  

44 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
Cost category 

Used/recommended methodology 

— 

average vehicle occupancy/load factors for cars, 
buses, coaches, LCVs and HGVs 

Additional inputs to estimate urban congestion: 
—  data on the level of congestion and road network 
length by road type (i.e., trunk urban road, other 
urban road), average delay per day and total 
accumulated delay per year (related to peak 
period journeys) 
car mode share in a set of European cities 

— 
—  population of European cities 
— 

typology of NUTS3 according to the degree of 
urbanisation urban/mixed/rural 

Well-to-tank 
emissions 

Additional inputs to estimate inter-urban congestion: 
localisation of the congested spots on the 
— 
European inter-urban road network 
road network characteristics to determine speed-
flow functions of the roads where the spots are 
located in order to estimate the amount of 
vehicles experiencing congestion in in peak time 

— 

Daily traffic profiles 

Damage cost approach for the air pollutioncosts and 
avoidance costs for the climate change costs caused 
by the well-to-tank emissions of energy production  
Bottom-up approach, based on the following input 
values: 
— 

e production and transport/transmission of fossil 
fuels and electricity (differentiated by country) 
transport performance 
cost factors: air pollution and climate change 
costs 

— 
— 

Habitat damage 

Restauration cost approach for the following costs: 
habitat loss (ecosystem loss) and habitat 
fragmentation. 
Bottom-up approach, based on the following input 
values: 
— 
— 

infrastructure network length (or area)  
average cost factors for habitat loss and habitat 
fragmentation 

Important input values (EU28 
values) 

• 

• 
• 

• 

short distance, 
commuting-business 13.3  
€ per passenger per hour 
long distance, commuting-
business 16.3 € per 
passenger per hour 
personal 6.1 € per 
passenger per hour 

vehicle occupancy/load factors 
level of congestion available 
from TomTom for a set of 
European cities 
localisation of congested spots 
on the European inter-urban 
road network,provided by the 
EC, Joint Research Centre 

— 
— 

— 

See cost factors for air pollution 
and climate change costs. 

Total habitat damage costs per 
year: 
— 

road motorways: 93,500 
€/km/y 
road other roads: 4,100 €/km/y 
rail high speed: 84,500 €/km/y 
rail other rail: 14,100 €/km/y 
aviation: 437,500 €/km2/y 
inland waterways: 6,600 
€/km/y 

— 
— 
— 
— 
— 

a Short-and-medium-run costs: cost range from € 60/tCO2-eq. (low estimate) to € 189/tCO2-eq. (high estimate). 
b Long run costs: cost range from € 156/tCO2-eq. (low estimate) to € 489/tCO2-eq. (high estimate). 

45 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
3.2.4  Methodology to estimate marginal external costs 

For some cost categories, the marginal external costs are equal to the average external 
costs. This is true for the air pollution costs, the climate change costs, and the well-to-tank 
emission costs. For habitat damage, it is assumed that the marginal costs are zero, since 
they primarily occur due to the construction of infrastructure. For the other externalities 
(i.e. noise costs, accidents costs, and congestion costs) the marginal costs differ from the 
average costs. The methodologies used to estimate these marginal costs are described 
hereafter.  

Marginal accident cost 

The marginal accident costs represent the extra costs that adding an extra vehicle to the 
traffic flow brings. The main input values for marginal accident costs are the accident risk 
per vehicle type and road type, the costs per casualty and the risk elasticity. The costs per 
casualty are the same as those used for the calculation of total and average costs. 
Combining the accident risk with assumptions on the degree of risk internalisation, the 
external costs per casualty and the risk elasticity allows us the calculate the marginal 
external accident costs per vehicle category.  

Marginal accident costs are only calculated for road transport. For all other modes of 
transport, the marginal accident costs are considered to be equal to the average costs. 
This is because the other modes are scheduled services, which implies that the accident risk 
is less dependent on the amount of traffic for these modes. 

Marginal noise costs 

Marginal noise costs differ from average noise costs mainly because local factors influence 
the noise level and the damage and annoyance level. There are three main cost drivers for 
marginal noise costs: population density, existing noise levels (depending on traffic volume, 
traffic mix and speed), and time of the day.  

For road and rail transport the marginal noise costs are estimated based on earlier 
calculations of marginal costs (INFRAS & IWW, 2004; CE Delft, INFRAS & Fraunhofer ISI, 
2011). For deriving up-to-date marginal noise costs, the development of the average noise 
costs per transport mode and vehicle type over time, i.e. between the older studies and the 
average noise costs calculated in the present Handbook, has been taken into account. 

Marginal congestion costs 

The social marginal road congestion cost has been estimated starting from the outputs of 
the deadweight loss approach, because the estimation of the social marginal cost curve is 
required for this purpose. It is worth noting that the social marginal cost curve is an 
additional input needed with respect to the delay cost approach, which estimates the road 
congestion costs only relying on information of the private cost curve. Furthermore, 
because road congestion is highly dependent on the context, the estimation has been 
developed using representative types of circumstances, which have been reflected in (i) 
different road types (i.e., urban roads, urban trunk roads, inter-urban roads and 
motorways) and (ii) different levels of traffic intensity (i.e., near capacity, congested and 
over capacity).  

46 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Two different approaches have been considered: on the one hand, the estimation has been 
made assuming the perspective of a vehicle incurring in a situation of road congestion, 
which allowed to take into account differences in values of time (and elasticity of demand). 
On the other hand, marginal social costs generated by vehicle type has been carried out 
(where the costs generated by road vehicles other than passenger cars are derived from the 
valued estimated for passenger cars by using the Passenger Car Equivalent coefficient 
(PCEs) of each vehicle type). The latter approach allows the comparison with the marginal 
external costs computed for the other categories. 

3.3 

External costs of transport in the EU28 

3.3.1  Total external costs 

Figure 8 presents the total external costs of transport for EU28 by transport mode and cost 
category for 2016. The total external costs for road, rail, inland waterway transport, 
aviation and maritime (excluding congestion costs, because they are not calculated for all 
modes) amount to € 716 billion, which corresponds to 4.8% of the total GDP in EU28. 
The congestion costs amount to another € 271 billion for 2016 (delay costs generated by 
road transport modes28). The total external costs including congestion costs sum up to 
€ 987 billon (6.6% of the GDP). More detailed figures on the total external cost per vehicle 
category can be found in Annex A.2.  

For aviation29 and maritime transport, the detailed calculation of the external costs has 
only been undertaken for a set of selected airports and ports (see Section 1.3.2). For the  
33 selected EU airports the external costs amount to € 33 billion, whereas the costs for the 
34 selected EU ports amount to € 44 billion. The total external costs for EU28 for aviation 
and maritime have been roughly estimated30 at about € 48 billion and € 98 billion per year. 
This is approximately 0.3 and 0.7% of the GDP, respectively. The total external costs of road 
transport for EU28 in 2016 amount to € 820 billion including congestion (€ 550 billion 
excluding congestion), the external costs of rail transport are € 18 billion and for inland 
waterways they amount to € 3 billion (those values are included in the total of € 987 billon 
mentioned above).  

________________________________ 
28   Please note that out the € 271 billion — that are the total ‘delay costs’ — only a part is not internalised. 

The other costs are already internalised, i.e. borne by the transport users themselves.  

29   Climate change cost of non-CO2 emissions are also considered. 
30   Based on extrapolation of the values for the selected (air)ports. It should be noted that these estimates are 

relatively rough, as they assume that the transport to/from the selected (air)ports (in terms of aircraft, ships 
and distances) are representative for the entire EU28. Furthermore, not for all external costs categories an 
estimation of the total EU28 costs for aviation and maritime transport can be calculated. For those (small) cost 
categories without specific EU28 estimation, the results for the selected airports and ports have been used. 

47 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
Figure 8 – Total external costs 2016 for EU28 (excluding congestion) 

Note: Data for aviation and maritime transport is based on rough estimations for EU28. 

In general, the most important cost category is accident costs equating to 29% of the total 
costs, followed by the congestion costs (27%) (see Figure 9). Overall, environmental costs 
(climate change, air pollution, noise, well-to-tank and habitat damage) make up for the 
remaining 44% of the total costs. Climate change and air pollution costs each contribute to 
14% of the total costs, noise costs are 7% and habitat damage are 4% of the total costs. 
Well-to-tank emission costs due to energy production and distribution lead to 5% of the 
costs. However, large differences do exist between the various transport modes. For road 
transport, accident and congestion costs are indeed the main externalities, but for IWT and 
maritime transport, air pollution costs contribute most to the total external costs (about  
65%). For aviation the majority of the external costs consists of climate change costs (about 
70%). Finally, for rail transport noise costs contribute most to the total external costs 
(about 35%). For more details on the size of the various total external cost categories per 
vehicle category, see Annex A.2. 

48 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

050100150200250300350400CarBus/CoachMCRailAviationLDVHGVRailIWTMaritimePassenger transportFreight TransportBillion € per yearAccidentsAir PollutionClimateNoiseWell-to-TankHabitat damage 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9 - Share of the different cost categories on total external costs 2016 for EU28 

Note: Including data for aviation and maritime transport, which is based on rough estimations for EU28. 

As is shown in Figure 10, road transport is the mode that causes by far the most external 
costs (83% of the total costs incl. aviation and maritime; 97.5% excl. aviation and 
maritime). This is partly explained by the fact that the main share of transport performance 
in the EU28 can be attributed to road vehicles31. 10% of external costs can be attributed to 
maritime transport causes, 5% to aviation, 1.8% to rail transport and 0.3% to inland 
waterways (see Figure 10). Furthermore, the results show that 69% of the total costs are 
due to passenger transport, while 31% of the costs are caused by freight transport (including 
LCVs). 

Figure 10 - Share of the different transport modes on total external costs 2016 for EU28 

Note: Data for aviation and maritime transport is based on rough estimations for EU28. 

________________________________ 
31   Excluding congestion, road transport would still make up for 77% of the total costs.  

49 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

29%27%14%14%7%5%4%AccidentsCongestionAir PollutionClimateNoiseWell-to-TankHabitat damage83%10%5%1,8%0,3%RoadMaritimeAviationRailIWT 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.2  Average external costs 

The average external costs of transport are expressed in Euro cent per passenger kilometre 
(pkm) and tonne kilometre (tkm). Please note that for aviation and maritime, the EU 
average costs are averages for the selected EU-(air)ports that may not be representative for 
all EU (air)ports. More detailed average external cost figures can be found in Annex A.3.  

Considering passenger transport (see Figure 11), cars cause external costs of 7.8 €-cent per 
pkm without congestion and 12.0 €-cent/pkm including congestion. The highest average 
external costs per pkm are caused by motorcycles, which is a result of their high accident 
and noise costs (plus their low occupancy rate)32. For buses and coaches the average 
external costs are significantly lower than for passenger cars (3.6 €-cent/pkm), which is 
mainly explained by the higher occupancy rates of these vehicles.  

The average costs of passenger rail transport amount to 2.8 €-cent/pkm, which is 2.8 times 
lower than the costs for the road sector (without congestion). Average costs for rail 
transport differ a lot between electric trains and diesel trains. Due to significantly higher 
air pollution costs, the average costs of diesel trains are 3.9 €-cent/pkm, whereas the costs 
of electric trains only amount to 2.6 €-cent/pkm (average of all electric trains). The cost of 
high speed rail is even lower, i.e. 1.3 €-cent/pkm. A second reason for this difference 
(apart from the higher emission factors) is the fact that passenger diesel trains have lower 
load factors (number of passengers per vehicle) than electric trains.  

The average costs of air transport are around 3.4 €-cent/pkm, which is only about 20% 
higher than average rail costs. However, the result for air transport is an average, including 
data for short, medium and also long haul flights to and from European airports33. 
The average costs between these distance classes differ from 4.3 €-cent/pkm for short haul 
flights, to 2.8 €-cent/pkm for medium haul and 3.2 €-cent/pkm for long haul34. 
When comparing aviation and rail for the same distance classes, external costs of aviation 
(short haul flights: 4.3 €-cent/pkm) are 3 times higher than rail (high speed rail: 1.3 €-
cent/pkm). 

________________________________ 
32   As discussed in CE Delft et al. (2019b), motorcycles are involved in a relatively high number of accidents, often 
resulting in victims in the opposing vehicle as well. As a consequence, motorcycles have relatively high average 
accident costs. As motorcycles produce relatively much noise (compared to other vehicle types) they also 
contribute significantly to the noise costs caused by road transport.  

33   Main cost drivers for the external costs of aviation are the share of the LTO cycle of the total flight (which is 
higher for short haul flights), the size and fuel use of the aircrafts and the load factor. All these factors differ 
widely between short, medium and long-haul flights.  

34   The average external costs per pkm for medium-haul flights are slightly lower than for long-haul flights. This is 
mainly a consequence of the slightly lower greenhouse gas emission factors per pkm for medium flights than 
for long-haul flights. This again is mainly influenced by the high average occupancy rate for medium-haul 
flights according to statistics. Another factor for the higher greenhouse gas emissions of long-haul flights is the 
higher share of the cruise at high altitude of the whole flight (with a higher global warming potential in high 
altitude).  

50 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11 - Average external costs 2016 for EU28: passenger transport (excluding congestion) 

Note: The figures for aviation are averages for selected EU28 airports. 

For freight transport (see Figure 12), the average costs for rail transport are 1.3 €-cent/ 
tkm. The average costs for road freight transport (HGVs) are 3.4 €-cent/tkm (without 
congestion) which is 2.6 times higher than for rail. Including congestion, the average costs 
for road freight transport are 4.2 €-cent/tkm (3.2 times higher than for rail freight 
transport).  
The higher average costs for HGVs compared to rail (and IWT) can be explained by the 
lower average load factors. Drawing on the data used from the noise maps, the noise costs 
for rail are higher per tkm than for a HGV. There are separate maps for road and rail 
transport, which reveal that fewer people experience noise nuisance per vkm on the road, 
compared to the number of people that experience noise nuisance per vkm on the railway 
tracks. 

The costs for inland waterways are slightly higher (1.9 €-cent/tkm) than for rail. IWT mainly 
cause air pollution costs, which are significantly higher than for the other freight modes. 
Due to the relatively long economic life time of the engines of IWT vessels, the replacement 
of older engines with high air pollutant emissions is relatively slow. As a consequence, the 
share of older vessels in the European IWT fleet is relatively high, resulting in high average 
air pollution costs.  

The lowest average external costs for freight transport are identified for maritime shipping, 
i.e. 0.7 €-cent/tkm. However, it should be noted that this is an average, including both 
short sea shipping and long-distance shipping. As the air pollution costs (the main 
externality of maritime shipping) are mainly related to the kilometres made in the 
continental waters, the external costs for short sea shipping are expected to be 
(significantly) higher than for long-distance shipping. However, in this project no distinction 
between different types of maritime transport has been made and hence no direct 

51 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

051015202530CarBus/CoachMCRailAviationPassenger transport€-ct per pkmAccidentsAir PollutionClimateNoiseWell-to-TankHabitat damage 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
comparison between short sea shipping and the other freight transport modes35 can be 
made.  

Finally, for air cargo freight transport, no external costs have been calculated due to lack 
of data.  

Figure 12 – Average external costs 2016 for EU28: freight transport (excluding congestion) 

Note: The figures for maritime transport are averages for selected EU28 ports. 

Light commercial vehicles (LCV) are used both for freight and passenger transport. 
Therefore, a comparison with other passenger or freight modes cannot be easily made. 
The derivation of average costs per tkm or pkm is not feasible as it is not known which part 
of the transport performance (vkm) is freight or passenger transport36. Therefore, the 
results for LCV are presented in €-cent per vkm. The average external costs are equal to 
about 25 €-cent per vkm. Congestion costs are the main part of these costs (47%), followed 
by accident costs (about 16%).  

3.3.3  Marginal external costs 

In this project a large range of marginal cost figures have been estimated, differentiated to 
vehicle characteristics, infrastructure types, traffic situations, locations, time of the day, 
etc. An overview of these marginal cost figures can be found in CE Delft et al. (2019c). It is 
important to state that these marginal external costs reflect very different conditions 
regarding the vehicle type, road/infrastructure type and many other characteristics like 

________________________________ 
35   Such a comparison would be most relevant, as short sea shipping directly competes with the other transport 

modes.  

36   Furthermore, as LCVs are often used for services related transport (e.g. by plumbers), the average load of 

these vehicles is relatively low. Therefore, presenting average cost figures in €-cent/tkm would result in very 
high and meaningless values.  

52 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0HGVRailIWTMaritimeFreight Transport€-ct per tkm AccidentsAir PollutionClimateNoiseWell-to-TankHabitat damage 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
population density, time of the day, traffic situation, level of congestion etc. The marginal 
costs presented are not necessarily representative for the real world and can therefore 
differ significantly from the average costs. 

3.4 

Robustness of the external cost methodologies and estimates 

The calculation of the external costs of transport in this study has been undertaken 
according to the most recent and high quality evidence and methods. Nonetheless, there 
are a few aspects that are sources of uncertainties, both in data and methodology:  
—  Emission factors (air pollution, climate change, well-to-tank): The emission data have 
been taken from the most recent sources that provide data for all European countries 
and the vehicle categories covered. However, data has not been available for all 
differentiations that are required (e.g. detailed vehicle categories, size or emission 
classes).  

—  Valuation of immaterial damage to humans: An important factor for uncertainties is the 

valuation of immaterial damage (i.e. the value of value of life year lost VOLY). 
The value used is based on a meta-analysis. However, due to results from various 
studies varying significantly, some uncertainty in the value used is unavoidable.  

—  Cost factor for greenhouse gas emissions: The cost factor used to monetise the costs of 

climate change is based on an avoidance costs approach. The literature review 
confirmed that, at present, the use of avoidance costs is a superior method to the use 
of damage costs (see full discussion in Handbook). However, uncertainties will always 
remain37. To take away some of that uncertainty, the calculations in the Handbook also 
provide high and low case climate change costs, which can be used as a sensitivity 
analysis.  

—  Congestion costs: Due to the fact that road congestion costs are so highly dependent on 
the methodological approach and specific for local conditions, there is a huge variation 
in total, average and marginal congestion costs estimations. This large variation 
conceptually complicates what is meant by road congestion costs, as a unique approach 
does not exist. For this reason, total and average road congestion costs have been 
estimated for both delay and deadweight loss in the Handbook. 

—  Transport data: The results for total/average/marginal external costs are directly 

affected by the transport performance data used (vkms, tkms, pkms). As discussed in 
Section 1.3.5, for this study a consistent set of transport performance data has been 
composed. However, some uncertainties remain, e.g. due to different approaches of 
national transport statistics, mainly for the differentiated vehicle categories. The road 
transport data based on Eurostat follow the nationality principle, i.e. transport activity 
is allocated to countries where the vehicle is registered. This causes some 
inconsistencies with some of the other data used, e.g. the accident and noise data, 
which are in line with the territorial principle. The difference between these two 
approaches mainly has an impact in countries with a high share of transit traffic and is 
therefore likely to impact the results.  

—  Other uncertainties: There are also a number of other uncertainties for the different 
cost categories, e.g. the share of the accident costs that transport users internalise in 
their transport decision, the damage cost factors for different cost categories (mainly 
air pollution costs, noise costs) and the number of people exposed to noise (based on 
noise maps). For more detailed discussions of the uncertainties, please see the 
Handbook on external costs of transport. 

________________________________ 
37   Another high uncertainty is related to the estimation of the non-CO2 impacts of air transport. 

53 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
4  Transport taxes and charges 

4.1 

Introduction 

Transport taxes and charges are defined in this study as all taxes/charges38 that are directly 
related to the ownership and use of transport vehicles, including the taxes/charges related 
to infrastructure use39. A brief overview of the main transport taxes and charges applied in 
the EU28 and their link to internalising external and infrastructure costs is provided in 
Section 4.2. The revenues of transport taxes/charges in the EU28 in 2016 are discussed in 
Section 4.3, while the robustness of these figures are discussed in Section 4.4. For a more 
detailed discussion on the transport taxes and charges applied in the EU28, we refer to 
CE Delft et al. (2019c).  

4.2 

Transport taxes and charges applied in the EU28 

4.2.1  Road transport 

The main pricing instruments applied for road transport are fuel taxes, vehicle taxes 
(purchase and ownership taxes) and road charges (tolls and vignettes)40. Fuel taxes are 
applied in all EU Member States, with levels set equal to or (often) above the minimum 
levels set in Directive 2003/96/EC. In some countries (i.e. Denmark, Finland, France, 
Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden) specific CO2 taxes are incorporated into 
the fuel taxes for road transport.  

Purchase or registration taxes are applied in most EU28 Member States for passenger cars 
and motorcycles and in a significant number of countries for LCVs. However, only a minority 
of countries apply these taxes for heavy vehicles (i.e. Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, 
Italy, Poland, and Romania). For passenger cars, CO2 emissions are used by about 55% of the 
purchase tax schemes as differentiation parameter. For motorcycles and LCVs only 10% of 
the schemes apply a differentiation to CO2 emissions, while for heavy duty vehicles no 
differentiation to CO2 emissions is applied41. Differentiations to emission class (e.g. Euro 
standards) are applied by about 10% of the schemes, while differentiations to fuel type is 
particularly applied for passenger cars (about 40% of the schemes).  

Ownership taxes are widely levied on all road vehicles in the EU28. In all Member States this 
tax is applied for HGVs, while the other vehicle categories are only exempt from this tax in 
a few countries. As for purchase taxes, CO2 emissions are widely used as differentiation 
parameter for passenger cars (about 50% of the schemes), while ownership taxes for 
motorcycles and LCVs are differentiated to CO2 emissions for about 10% of the schemes. 
Differentiations to air pollutant emissions are applied by about 10% of the schemes, while 

________________________________ 
38   Only charges that can be considered compulsory payments to governments and infrastructure operators are 
taken into account. Payments for transport services delivered by other semi-private agents are considered 
internal costs and are not taken into account.  

39   This definition excludes general taxes like profit taxes and wage taxes, as they are only indirectly related to 

transport activities.  

40   Other pricing instruments are insurance taxes, taxes for bridges/tunnels and the VAT on transport taxes.  
41   As no CO2 labelling exist for HDVs, such that there is no good tax base that can be used to implement a CO2 

differentiation.  

54 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
differentiations to fuel type is particularly applied for passenger cars (about 35% of the 
schemes).  

Distance-based road tolls and/or vignettes are applied in almost all European countries. 
In 2016, only Cyprus, Estonia, Finland and Malta did not have such a system in place. 
Road charging schemes for passenger cars are applied in 17 EU Member States, of which 
nine apply a distance-based road charge, while the other eight have implemented vignette 
schemes. For HGVs, 15 EU Member States have implemented a distance-based road charging 
schemes, while nine other countries apply vignettes for these vehicles. About 40% of the 
road charging schemes in the EU are differentiated to emission standards (mainly for heavy 
vehicles), while differentiations to CO2 emissions are not applied in any of the schemes 
currently implemented in the EU. 

4.2.2  Rail transport 

The taxes and charges applied for rail transport in the EU28 are fuel taxes (diesel), 
electricity taxes and rail infrastructure charges. Emissions Trading System (ETS) for the 
electricity used in rail is also considered. Fuel taxes on diesel consumed by rail transport 
are taxed in most countries (rail transport in Belgium, Hungary and Sweden is exempt from 
this tax), while 16 EU28 Member States also tax electricity consumption by rail transport. 
Electricity consumption is also indirectly charged as electric power supply falls under the  
EU ETS. All these different types of energy taxes/charges are directly linked to the CO2 
emissions of rail transport. Furthermore, diesel taxation is linked to air pollutant emissions 
as well.  

In addition to the various types of energy taxation, all countries are also obliged to apply 
rail infrastructure charges, which provides infrastructure managers a mechanism to recover 
the infrastructure costs borne. These charges currently hardly consider external costs: in 
Austria, Germany and the Netherlands access charges are differentiated to noise, while 
Sweden is the only country that applies a differentiation to air pollutant emissions. 

4.2.3  IWT 

The main charge applied for IWT are port charges, which is applied in all relevant IWT 
countries. These charges are used to cover part of the infrastructure costs of IWT. 
There are large differences in the charge levels and structures applied by the various IWT 
ports in the EU28. Differentiation parameters that are applied include tonnage, type of 
cargo, number of calls, etc. In some ports a differentiation to environmental standards is 
applied as well.  

In addition to port charges, fairway dues are applied on (parts of) the IWT network in six EU 
countries, and are usually calculated as charges per ton-kilometre for different types of 
goods. In Belgium and Poland, specific dues for the use of bridges and locks are also 
applied. These types of infrastructure charges are not applied on the Rhine or any of its 
tributaries, as this is not allowed according to the Mannheim Convention42. 

Because of the same Mannheim Convention, fuel taxes are only applied in some of the non-
Rhine states. Finally, water pollution charges (expressed in € per litre fuel) are used in 
some EU countries to cover for the costs of collection, deposit and reception of waste 
produced during navigation on the Rhine and its tributaries.  

________________________________ 
42   The Mannheim Convention is an agreement between the Rhine-States that Member States must refrain from 

imposing any fee on the fact of navigation in the Rhine area.  

55 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.4  Maritime transport 

Port charges are the main pricing instrument applied for maritime transport. These charges 
are applied in all 34 selected EU28 ports, although there are large differences in the fees 
levied on maritime vessels calling these ports. A large range of differentiation parameters 
are applied as well (e.g. gross tonnage, net tonnage, amount of cargo handled, type of 
cargo, number of calls, etc.). In 11 ports a rebate on environmental grounds (based on the 
environmental ship index43 (ESI) of the vessel) is provided. Furthermore, the structure and 
level of port charges heavily depend on the pricing policies of ports, including (unofficial) 
discounts provided. For this reason, the uncertainty on the revenues from port charges is 
relatively high.  

In addition to port charges, three EU countries (Estonia, Finland and Sweden) also apply 
fairway dues. The levies do not consider external costs in any of these countries. 
Finally, based on the Energy Taxation Directive, maritime transport is exempted from fuel 
taxes in the EU.  

4.2.5  Aviation 

Airport charges are used by all airports to cover the (operational) costs of providing airport 
infrastructure and related services. A large range of specific airport charges are applied by 
the various airports considered for this study. Specific noise charges are applied by 
11 airports from the set of 33 EU28 airports considered, while another 7 airports apply noise 
differentiated LTO charges. Differentiation of airport charges to emission level of the 
aircraft is hardly applied at the considered airports. In a few countries (i.e. Austria, 
Germany, France, Croatia and UK) aviation taxes were applied in 2016 in addition to the 
airport charges. These taxes are mainly differentiated to destination of the passenger, 
while external costs are hardly considered. 

The CO2 emissions of aviation are partly covered by the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) 
since 2012, as all CO2 emissions of intra-EEA flights emission allowances have to be 
submitted. On the other hand, fuel taxes on commercial aviation are not applied by any of 
the EU28 Member States.  

4.3 

Revenues from transport taxes and charges 

4.3.1  Total revenues 

The total tax/charge revenues from road, rail and inland waterway transport in the EU28 
amount to € 370 billion for 2016. This is about 2.5% of the EU28 GDP. As shown in  
Figure 13, the majority of the revenues (about 95%) come from road transport (about 
€ 350 billion). Rail transport contributes about 5% (about € 20 billion), while IWT is 
responsible for 0.1% of the revenues (about € 0.4 billion) It is also shown that passenger 
transport is responsible for 81% of the tax/charge revenues, while the remaining part is 
from taxes/charges levied on freight transport.  

________________________________ 
43   The ESI covers NOx, SOx and GHG emissions.  

56 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13 - Composition of total tax/charge revenues in 2016 for road, rail and inland waterways transport in 
the EU28 

A. By transport mode 

B. By passenger and freight transport 

5.2%

0.1%

19%

94.7%

81%

Road

Rail

IWT

Passenger

Freight

As is shown in Figure 3, the main share of the total revenues are from taxes/charges levied 
on passenger cars, which can be explained by both the large share this vehicle category has 
in total transport performance and the relatively high tax/charge burden on these vehicles. 
Next to passenger cars, also light commercial vehicles and HGVs contribute significantly to 
the total tax/charge revenues. For all road vehicles, energy taxes (mainly fuel taxes) 
contribute most to the total revenues. Vehicle taxes are particularly relevant for passenger 
cars and motorcycles, and to a lesser extent LCVs. Infrastructure charges contribute most to 
the tax/charge revenues from HGVs. For the non-road modes, the infrastructure charges are 
responsible for the majority (more than 80%) of the total tax/charge revenues.  

Figure 14 - Total tax/charge revenues for road, rail and inland waterway transport in the EU28  
(billion €, PPS adjusted) 

57 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

050100150200250300Passenger carMotorcycleBus/coachHSLRail conventionalLCVHGVRailIWTPassenger transportFreight transportTotal revenuesEnergy taxesVehicle taxesInfrastructure charges 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finally, the revenues for the 33 selected EU airports are estimated at about € 13.5 billion, 
while the revenues for the 34 selected EU ports are (roughly) estimated at €1.8 billion44. 
For both aviation and maritime transport, these revenues consist mainly of revenues from 
infrastructure charges (i.e. airport charges and port charges, respectively).  

4.3.2  Average revenues 

Figure 15 presents the average revenues of taxes and charges for the various passenger 
transport modes in the EU28. These revenues are highest for diesel passenger trains, 
followed by passenger cars and motorcycles. The relatively high tax/charge revenues for 
diesel trains (compared to electric trains) can partly be explained by the lower occupancy 
rate of these trains. Another important explanation is the fact that diesel taxes in the EU28 
are — on average — higher than the electricity taxes for rail transport45. The higher average 
tax/charge revenues for high speed trains compared to conventional trains is mainly 
explained by the — on average — higher access charge levels levied on these types of 
trains46.  

The higher average tax/charge revenues for passenger cars and motorcycles compared to 
buses/coaches are explained by higher vehicle tax levels (e.g. only in a few countries 
purchase taxes are levied on buses/coaches, while they are levied on passenger cars in most 
EU countries) and lower occupancy rates.  

Finally, for aviation the average tax/charge revenues are relatively low compared to the 
other passenger transport modes. However, it should be taken into account that the 
tax/charge burden for an average aircraft is considered (weighted average of aircrafts used 
on short-, medium- and long-haul flights) and hence a direct comparison with road and rail 
transport is difficult (as aviation do not compete with these modes on medium- and  
long-haul flights).  

________________________________ 
44   These are the revenues collected in 30 EU ports, as for 4 ports no data on tax/charge revenues was available.  
45   In 12 EU Member States, rail transport is exempted from electricity taxes or no electricity tax is levied at all.  
46   These higher access charge levels may reflect the fact that in some countries the access charges for 

conventional (regional) trains may be kept low by subsidising rail operators. As these subsidies are not assessed 
in this project, we are not able to quantify this aspect. 

58 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Figure 15 - Average tax/charge revenues in 2016 passenger transport in the EU28 (€-cent/pkm, PPS adjusted) 

The average tax/charge revenues for freight transport vehicles are presented in Figure 16. 
The highest average revenues are found for HGVs, followed by diesel trains, electric trains 
and IWT vessels. The higher revenues for diesel trains compared to electric trains are 
explained by the higher energy tax for diesel trains (the average diesel tax for rail transport 
significantly exceed the average electricity tax) and the (slightly) lower load factors for 
diesel trains.  

Figure 16 - Average tax/charge revenues in 2016 freight transport in the EU28 (€-cent/tkm, PPS adjusted) 

59 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

012345678PassengercarBusCoachMotorcycleHSLRailelectricRail dieselAviationAverage tax/charge revenues 0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.8HGVRail electricRail dieselIWTAverage tax/charge revenues 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3.3  Marginal revenues 

In this project, we have also assessed in detail the marginal tax/charge revenues (or levels) 
for the various vehicle categories and taxes/charges. An overview of these marginal 
tax/charge levels in specific situations is provided in the Excel database accompanying 
CE Delft et al. (2019c). We refer to this database for more information on this issue.  

4.3.4  Earmarking of revenues 

Part of the revenues from transport taxes and charges are earmarked for expenditures on 
transport infrastructure. Earmarking of revenues is often considered as a way to gain public 
support for the implementation of new tax/charge schemes or for increasing existing 
tax/charge levels. However, according to economic theory earmarking of revenues leads, in 
general, to a loss of efficiency. This is because there is no guarantee that transport 
infrastructure projects are the most efficient projects available to be financed with the 
revenues. Second, earmarking creates inflexibility, as programmes may last longer than is 
optimal because of bureaucratic or vested interests’ obstruction to reform. 
Third, earmarking of revenues may also lead to distortion of price signals. If revenues are 
used to (partly) reimburse those responsible for the externality, the initial price incentive 
(i.e. to change the behaviour of these agents) is partly offset.  

Our study shows that at the EU28 level about 10% of the road transport tax/charge revenues 
are earmarked for expenditure on transport infrastructure. For rail transport, the revenue 
of rail access charges (about 85% of the total tax/charge revenues from rail transport) are 
earmarked to cover part of the rail infrastructure costs. No evidence was available for 
earmarked revenues from other rail transport taxes/charges. For IWT, maritime transport 
and aviation, only fragmented data on earmarking of taxes/charges in the EU28 is available. 
It seems that (at least part of) the (air)port charges are earmarked to cover infrastructure 
expenditures, but no quantitative evidence is available.  

4.4 

Robustness of estimates on tax/charge revenues 

The main uncertainties with respect to the tax/charge revenues are: 
—  For some taxes/charges, the total revenues in 2016 were not available (for all 

countries). In these cases, the revenues have been estimated by using data for earlier 
years or using bottom-up approaches47.  

—  The allocation of total tax/charge revenues to various vehicle categories have been 

estimated based on specific allocation approaches, resulting in a certain extent of 
uncertainty.  

—  To estimate average revenues, transport performance data have been used. 

However, as the scope of these data is inconsistent with the scope of some of the 
taxes48, alternative second-best approaches have been applied to estimate the average 
revenues for some of the road transport taxes/charges.  

________________________________ 
47   Total revenues are estimated based on data on tax/charge levels and specific transport performance data.  
48   Transport performance data applied in this study is defined on the basis of the nationality principle (transport 
performance is allocated to the country in which the vehicle is registered), while the scope of some of the 
taxes and charges (e.g. fuel taxes, road tolls, vignettes) is more in line with the territoriality principle. See 
Section 1.3 for more details.  

60 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  State of play of internalisation in 
the European transport sector 

5.1 

Introduction 

This chapter assesses the extent to which external and infrastructure costs are internalised 
by current taxes and charges for all countries and modes in the European transport sector. 
We discuss the methodological framework, providing an overview of the internalisation 
approaches considered and offering justification for the use of average and marginal cost 
coverage ratios (Section 5.2). A brief comparison of the total external and infrastructure 
costs and tax/charge revenues for the five transport modes (road, rail, IWT, maritime 
transport and aviation) is given in Section 5.3. The conclusions for the average and marginal 
cost coverage ratios for all vehicle categories are presented afterwards (Section 5.4 and 
Section 5.5). Finally, a summary of the broader context of internalisation is offered, to 
discuss the contribution non-pricing measures introduced may have in meeting the 
objectives of internalisation strategies (Section 5.6).  

5.2 

Methodology applied 

5.2.1  Brief overview of internalisation approaches 

A summary of various internalisation approaches, their main objective(s) and their 
relevance is given in Table 14.  

Table 14 – Overview of main internalisation strategies 

Brief description 

Main objective(s) 

Relevance 

Internalisation 
approach 

Marginal social cost 
pricing (MSCP) 

Variable charges/taxes are set 
at the level of marginal 
infrastructure and external 
costs 

— 

Influencing 
behaviour to improve 
efficiency of the 
transport system 

—  Theoretical optimum 
—  Approach applied e.g. 
for external cost 
charging in the 
Eurovignette 
Directive 

—  Often applied 
Fairness is 
— 
socially/politically 
relevant criterion 

—  Often applied 
— 

Effectiveness is 
socially/politically 
relevant criterion 

Average cost pricing 

Charges/taxes are set at the 
level of average infrastructure 
and external costs 

Increase fairness 
— 
—  Generating revenues 

Baumol pricing 

Ramsey pricing 

Charges/taxes are set at the 
level that is expected to be 
sufficient to achieve a given 
(environmental) objective 

Charges/taxes are set at the 
level that maximises revenues 

— 

Influencing 
behaviour to realise 
specific objectives 

—  Generating revenues  —  Often applied, 
although other 
approaches (i.e. 
Baumol pricing) have 
become more 

61 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
Internalisation 
approach 

Brief description 

Main objective(s) 

Relevance 

relevant over the last 
decade(s) 
—  Not in line with 
internalisation 
philosophy of the 
Commission 

Marginal Social Cost Pricing (MSCP) and average cost pricing were selected to assess the 
state-of-play of internalisation for the five transport modes in this study. Both approaches 
are (partly) in line with the ‘user-pays’ and ‘polluter-pays’ principles, which are 
cornerstones in the European internalisation strategy (see the EU Transport White Paper 
(EC, 2011)). Furthermore, MSCP can be regarded as a theoretical first-best approach and 
hence can be considered a good benchmark to evaluate the state-of-play with respect to 
internalisation in the various European countries. Average cost pricing, on the other hand, 
provides insight into the extent to which total external and infrastructure costs are covered 
by taxes and charges.  

Considering the state-of-play of internalisation from the perspective of Baumol pricing can 
be relevant as well, particularly as the design of many transport taxes/charges have 
recently been changed in order to increase their effectiveness in achieving a specific 
environmental goal (e.g. by adding CO2 differentiation to existing taxes/charges). 
However, assessing the state-of-play of internalisation from this perspective requires a 
detailed assessment of all relevant policy objectives for all transport modes, externalities 
and countries, which is beyond the scope of this study. Finally, the perspective of Ramsey 
pricing is not applied in this study, as it is not in line with the internalisation principles of 
the European Commission. 

5.2.2  Indicators applied to study the state of internalisation 

As mentioned above, the state-of-play of internalisation is assessed from both the average 
cost pricing and MSCP perspective. To assess the extent of internalisation from the 
perspective of average cost pricing, five types of indicators are used. These indicators are 
presented in Table 15, including a brief explanation and justification of those indicators.  

Table 15 – Overview of the indicators for average cost pricing 

Cost coverage ratio 

Explanation 

Justification 

Overall cost coverage 
ratio 

Overall cost coverage 
ratio excluding fixed 
infrastructure costs 

Comparison of revenues from all 
taxes/charges with all external and 
infrastructure costs. 

Good indication of the extent to which 
transport user pays for the average external and 
infrastructure costs caused. 

Comparison of revenues from all 
taxes/charges with all external and 
variable infrastructure costs (i.e. 
excluding fixed infrastructure costs). 

This indicator is in line with the policy of the 
Commission to realise full internalisation of 
external costs, including wear and tear costs. It 
recognises that fixed infrastructure costs are 
sunk costs and that paying for these costs may 
result in (further) underutilisation of existing 
infrastructure (e.g. rail).  

62 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Cost coverage ratio 

Explanation 

Justification 

Variable external and 
infrastructure cost 
coverage ratio 

Comparison of revenues from 
variable taxes/charges with variable 
external and infrastructure costs. 

Overall infrastructure 
cost coverage ratio 

Comparison of revenues from 
infrastructure charges with all 
infrastructure costs. 

This indicator is measuring MSCP, in a simplified 
way (as proposed by the Communication of the 
Strategy for the internalisation of external 
costs). However, fixed taxes (and costs) are not 
considered at all, while they have an important 
role in many countries.  

This indicator may provide an indicator of the 
extent by which the user pays principle is met. 
However, it should be noted that infrastructure 
charges are also used to cover external costs 
and that other taxes and charges can be used to 
fund infrastructures.  

Variable infrastructure 
cost coverage ratio 

Comparison of revenues from 
infrastructure charges with variable 
infrastructure costs. 

As discussed above, there may be reasons to 
consider the level of internalisation without 
fixed infrastructure costs.  

To assess the extent of internalisation from the MSCP perspective, we make use of the 
marginal cost coverage ratio. This ratio compares the marginal external and infrastructure 
costs with the marginal tax/charge revenues for three/four specific situations. In case MSCP 
is perfectly applied, this ratio will be 100% for all scenarios. Ratios below (above) 100% 
indicate that marginal taxes/charges may be too low (high) from a MSCP perspective. Large 
differences in the marginal cost coverage ratios between scenarios indicate that there are 
options to bring the taxes/charges more in line with the MSCP principles by further 
differentiating these taxes/charges based on the main cost drivers of the 
external/infrastructure costs.  

The following four marginal cost scenarios are considered: 
—  Representative scenario: this scenario presents weighted average marginal cost 

coverage ratios, comparing weighted average marginal external and infrastructure costs 
with weighted average marginal tax/charge levels. The weighting of both the costs and 
tax/charge levels has been based on transport performance data for the various 
countries. This implies that this scenario presents the actual ‘average’ marginal cost 
coverage ratios.  

—  High external cost scenario: this scenario is based on a selection of cost drivers 

(e.g. vehicle type, type of infrastructure, etc.) that results in relatively high marginal 
external costs. 

—  Low external cost scenario: this scenario is based on a selection of cost drivers that 

results in relatively low marginal external costs. 

—  Very low external cost scenario: this scenario is based on a selection of cost drivers that 
results in relatively low marginal external costs. This scenario is mainly applied for 
vehicle categories where electric propulsion is an appropriate alternative for the 
combustion engine (i.e. passenger car, motorcycle, bus, LCV).  

For each vehicle type, these three/four scenarios are clearly defined. An example of the 
detailed definition of these scenarios is presented in Table 16, for passenger car.  

63 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 16 – Example of marginal cost scenarios (passenger car) 

Representative scenario  High external cost 

Average vehicle  
Average daytime/night 
Average congestion level 
Average road 

scenario 

Large car 
Diesel EURO 3 
CO2 emissions: 176 g/km 
Daytime 
Congested traffic 
Urban road in 
metropolitan area 

Low external cost 
scenario 

Small car 
Petrol EURO 6 
CO2 emissions: 99 g/km 
Daytime 
Thin traffic 
Motorway in rural area 

Very low external cost 
scenario 

Battery Electric Vehicle 
Daytime 
Thin traffic 
Motorway in rural area 

5.3 

Cross-modal comparison of total costs and revenues  

In this section we present a comparison of the total external and infrastructure costs and 
total tax/charge revenues for the five main transport modes: road, rail, IWT, maritime and 
aviation. Two types of comparisons are made: one including all costs and revenues and one 
including all cost except fixed infrastructure costs and all revenues.  

When comparing the results for the various modes, care should be taken, as they do not 
often compete within the same market. For example, the average airplane operates in a 
completely different market than the average train. Furthermore, for maritime transport 
and aviation no EU28 figures were available. Instead, costs and revenues estimated for a 
selection of maritime ports and airports were considered.  

Figure 17 presents the total external and infrastructure costs and the total tax and charge 
revenues for the various transport modes in the EU28. The highest costs are found for road 
transport (about € 780 billon), with accident costs (€ 279 billion) and infrastructure costs  
(€ 184 billion) as the main cost categories49. As the total revenues of road transport 
taxes/charges sum up to € 350 billion, about 45% of the road transport external and 
infrastructure costs are covered50. For rail transport, the total infrastructure and external 
costs in the EU28 are equal to € 98 billion. The main part of these costs (about 80%) are 
related to the construction, maintenance and operation of rail infrastructure. About 20% of 
the total external and infrastructure costs are covered by tax/charge revenues (€ 20 
billion). Finally, the total external and infrastructure costs for IWT in the EU28 are about 
€ 6 billion, mainly covering infrastructure costs (about 50%) and air pollution costs (about 
33%). As there is only a limited number of relevant taxes/charges levied on IWT in the EU28 
(in many countries only port charges are levied), the cost coverage ratio found for IWT is 
relatively low (about 6%).  

________________________________ 
49   Please notice that for road congestion costs the deadweight loss costs are presented in this chapter. These costs 
only reflect part of the external congestion costs (i.e. the congestion costs that arise due to congestion levels 
above  the  economically  optimal  level).  Therefore,  the  total/average  cost  coverage  ratios  presented  in  this 
chapter for road transport are (slightly) too high, as they do not reflect all external costs.  

50   For the cross-modal comparison, LCVs are included within the road cost coverage, as this section looks at total 
figures, rather than average figures, where disparities in the services provided by HGVs and LCVs result in 
difficulties aggregating the figures for freight transport in a meaningful way. 

64 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
As  explained  before,  for  maritime  transport  and  aviation  no  EU28  figures  were  available. 
Instead  we  estimated  the  total  costs  and  revenues  for  a  selection  of  maritime  ports  and 
airports. The total external and infrastructure costs for the 34 maritime port considered sums 
up to € 45 billion51. The main part of these costs consists of air pollution costs (about 65%) 
and  costs  of  GHG  emissions  (about  23%).  As  for  IWT,  only  a  limited  number  of  tax/charge 
schemes are in place for maritime transport in the EU28 (often only port charges are levied52), 
resulting  in  a  low  cost  coverage  ratio  (about  4%).  The  cost  coverage  ratio  for  aviation  is 
significantly higher. The total external and infrastructure costs of about € 47 billion for the 
33 selected airports is covered for 30% by the revenues from taxes and charges. 

Figure 17 - Total external and infrastructure costs vs. total taxes and charges (bn €). Rail, road, IWT for EU28; 
Maritime and aviation for selected 33 airports and 34 ports 

In Figure 18, the total external costs and variable infrastructure costs are compared to the 
total revenues of taxes and charges for the various transport modes. As fixed infrastructure 
costs are excluded from the analysis, these cost coverage ratios are in general higher than 
the overall cost coverage ratios. However, there are some main differences between the 
various transport modes.  

The highest coverage ratios for this indicator are found for rail transport (69%), followed by 
road transport (56%), aviation (37%), IWT (12%) and maritime transport (4%). Particularly for 
rail transport, this cost coverage ratio is significantly higher than the overall cost coverage 
ratio for this mode, which is 20%. This can be explained by the relatively high fixed 
infrastructure costs (particularly investment and renewal costs) for rail transport, which 
contributes significantly to the total external and infrastructure costs of rail transport 
________________________________ 
51   Due to lack of data, the uncertainty in the port infrastructure costs estimated is rather large. This should be 

taken into account when considering the results for maritime transport.  

52   Due to lack of data, the uncertainty in the port charge revenues of maritime transport is rather large. This should 

be taken into account when considering the results for maritime transport.  

65 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
(about 70% of the total external and infrastructure costs of rail transport consist of fixed 
infrastructure costs, while for road transport this is only 20%). The doubling of the cost 
coverage ratio for IWT (compared to the overall cost coverage ratio) can also be explained 
by the relatively high share fixed infrastructure costs have in the total external and 
infrastructure costs (about 46%).  

Figure 18 – Total external and total variable infra costs vs. total taxes and charges (bn €). Road, rail and IWT 
for EU28; Maritime and aviation for selected 33 airports/34 ports 

5.4 

Total/average cost coverage 

In this section we discuss the various cost coverage ratios for the various vehicle categories 
at the EU28 level. It should be noted that there are differences between EU Member States 
with respect to some of these ratios, and even within countries these ratios may differ 
significantly on different parts of the network (e.g. motorways vs. urban roads and between 
vehicle types (heavy vs. light trucks)). However, the analysis presented in this section is 
mainly focused on the comparison of EU28 and network-wide average external and 
infrastructure costs, and tax and charge revenues/levels for passenger and freight vehicles.  

As mentioned above, the various vehicle types do not often compete within the same 
market and hence their cost coverage ratios cannot directly be compared. This should be 
considered when interpreting the results presented in this section.  

For road transport, LCVs are not included in the graphs. As LCVs are often used for service- 
related transport (e.g. by plumbers), the average load of vans is relatively low. Therefore, 
presenting the average costs and revenues in €-cent/tkm would result in very high and 
meaningless values. It is however possible to calculate ratios based on the total costs and 
revenues collected (in million €). These ratios are presented in each subsection in a 
footnote. 

66 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Finally, for maritime transport no data was available for tonne-kilometres. Therefore, 
average cost and revenue figures could not be calculated for this transport mode. For this 
reason, maritime transport is not included in the graphs presented in this section. 
However, the cost coverage ratios for maritime transport could be calculated, based on 
total cost and revenue data (as was done in the previous section as well). These ratios are 
also presented as a footnote in each subsection.  

5.4.1  Overall cost coverage 

The overall cost coverage ratio provides an insight into total cost recovery, determining 
whether external and infrastructure costs are internalised by the tax and charge revenues. 
Figure 19 shows a comparison of the average external and infrastructure costs and the 
average tax/charge revenues for all passenger vehicle types.  

The highest average cost coverage ratio is found for passenger cars; the average tax/charge 
level of 5.5 €-cent/pkm covers 51% of the average external and infrastructure costs of 
about 11 €-cent/pkm. Despite similar levels of taxes and charges being collected for 
motorcycles (5.0 €-cent/pkm), the vehicle has a cost coverage of 19%. This is due to 
extremely high external costs, 26 €-cent/pkm, as a result of significant accident and noise 
costs. The cost coverage ratios for buses and coaches are also low, about 17 and 18% of the 
average external and infrastructure costs are covered, respectively. Typically, significantly 
lower taxes are applied to these vehicles compared to passenger cars; the average taxes 
and charges are found to total about 1.2 €-cent/pkm, for both buses and coaches.  

For rail transport, the cost coverage ratios for the different types of passenger trains are in 
the same range. For high speed trains the ratio is equal to 31%, while for overall electric 
(including high speed) and diesel passenger trains these ratios are 20 and 23%. 
Differences in infrastructure utilisation, load factor and energy taxation (diesel vs. 
electricity taxes) are the main explanations for this variance in cost coverage ratios.  

Finally, about 32% of the average external and infrastructure costs of aviation (about  
4.8 €-cent/pkm) are covered by taxes and charges53. However, it should be noticed that this 
is the cost coverage ratio for an average airplane (covering both short- and long-haul 
flights) and hence cannot directly be compared to the cost coverage ratios of the other 
modes. 

________________________________ 
53   Note that this figure does not include the EU ETS, as it is not possible to attribute such charges to individual 

airports, or the different flight types (long, medium and short-haul). 

67 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 19 – Average external and infrastructure costs vs. average taxes/charges for passenger transport 

Figure 20 presents the comparison of average external and infrastructure costs and average 
tax/charge revenues for the various freight vehicle types54,55. As for the passenger vehicle 
types, the costs exceed the revenues for all freight vehicle types.  

For HGVs about 26% of the average external and infrastructure costs are covered by 
tax/charge revenues, which averages at 1.5 €-cent/tkm. For rail transport, the cost 
coverage ratios for diesel freight trains are higher than for electric freight trains, at 27% 
and 13% respectively. This higher ratio is mainly explained by the relatively high diesel tax 
levels compared to electricity tax levels (see Section 4.3.2). As discussed in Section 5.3, the 
cost coverage ratio for inland navigation in the EU28 is 6%. 

________________________________ 
54   As explained above, for maritime transport no average cost and revenue figures could be calculated. For that 
reason, maritime transport is not included in the graphs in this Section. The overall cost coverage ratio, 
however, could be calculated based on data on the total external and infrastructure costs and tax/charge 
revenues for the selected EU28 ports. As discussed in Section 5.3, this ratio is equal to 4%. This low ratio is 
explained by the limited number of tax/charge schemes that are in place for maritime transport in the EU28 
(often only port charges are levied).  

55   As explained above, the cost coverage ratio for LCVs has been calculated based on total revenues and external 

costs and is equal to 43%.  

68 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

05101520253035CostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesPassenger carBusCoachMotorcycleHigh speed railElectricpassenger trainDiesel passengertrainAircraftAverage external + infra costs vs. average taxes and charges (€-cent/pkm)Road & rail for EU28; Aviation for selected 33 airportsAccidentsAir pollutionClimate changeNoiseCongestionWTTHabitatInfrastructureTaxes and charges 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 20 – Average external and infrastructure costs vs. average taxes/charges for freight transport 

5.4.2  Overall cost coverage excluding fixed infrastructure costs 

The overall cost coverage excluding fixed infrastructure costs displays the extent to which 
all external costs and variable infrastructure costs are internalised by all taxes and charges. 
Variable infrastructure costs refer to all traffic-dependent renewal and maintenance costs. 
Figure 21 shows the EU28 average external and average variable infrastructure costs of the 
various passenger vehicle types, compared to the average taxes/charges. 

For the road vehicles the highest cost coverage ratio is again found for passenger cars  
(63%), followed by the coach (26%), bus (24%) and motorcycle (20%). As mentioned in 
Section 5.4.1, the lower cost coverage ratios for buses and coaches compared to passenger 
cars is mainly explained by the relatively low tax/charge levels (about at 1.2 €-cent/pkm) 
for these vehicles. For motorcycles, the relatively high average external costs (particularly 
accident and noise costs) are the main explanation for the relatively low cost coverage 
ratios.  

Rail transport cost coverages are higher for this ratio: High speed rail trains exceed full cost 
coverage (181%), this is followed by diesel passenger trains (97%) and electric passenger 
trains (75%). The differences in cost coverage ratios between the various types of trains are 
mainly explained by differences in tax/charge levels. For high speed rail, these average 3.7 
€-cent/pkm, for diesel passenger trains about 7.3 €-cent/pkm and for electric passenger 
trains about 3.2 €-cent/pkm. The differences are caused by different levels in energy 
taxation for different fuels and differences in access charges applied to high speed and 
conventional trains (as explained in more detail in Section 4.3.2).  

Finally, for aviation, the cost coverage ratio including all flights of the 33 selected airports 
(including short-, medium- and long-haul flights) is shown in Figure 3. The ratio is equal to 
41%, which is roughly 9% higher than the overall cost coverage ratio.  

69 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

0123456CostsTaxes & chargesCostsTaxes & chargesCostsTaxes & chargesCostsTaxes & chargesHGVElectric freight trainDiesel freight trainIWTAverge external + infra costs vs. average taxes and charges (€-cent/tkm)Road, rail & IWT for EU28AccidentsAir pollutionClimate changeNoiseCongestionWTTHabitatInfrastructureTaxes and charges 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 21 - Average external and average variable infrastructure costs vs. average taxes/charges for passenger 
transport 

Figure 22 shows the average external costs and variable infrastructure costs against the 
average tax/charge revenues for freight vehicle types56. For all vehicle types, the cost 
coverage ratios are higher than the ratios for overall cost coverage (as fixed infrastructure 
costs are excluded). The largest differences are found for rail transport, because for this 
mode fixed infrastructure cost has the largest share in total external and infrastructure 
costs.  

The highest cost coverage ratio for this indicator has been identified for diesel trains (56%), 
followed by HGVs (36%), electric trains (32%) and IWT vessels (12%). As discussed before, 
the difference in cost coverage ratio between diesel and electric freight trains is mainly 
explained by differences in energy taxation (EU28 average diesel taxes are much higher 
than EU28 average electricity taxes). 

________________________________ 
56   The cost coverage ratio of maritime transport is equal to 4%, while for LCVs it is equal to 53%.  

70 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

0510152025CostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesPassenger carBusCoachMotorcycleHigh speed railElectricpassenger trainDiesel passengertrainAircraftAverage external + average variable infra costs vs. average taxes and charges (€-cent/pkm)Road & rail for EU28; Aviation for selected 33 airportsAccidentsAir pollutionClimate changeNoiseCongestionWTTHabitatInfrastructureTaxes and charges 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 22 - Average external and average variable infrastructure costs vs. average taxes/charges for freight 
transport 

5.4.3  Variable infrastructure and external cost coverage 

This ratio compares revenues from variable taxes/charges with variable external and 
infrastructure costs. The cost coverage ratios for passenger transport are shown in  
Figure 23. For all passenger vehicle categories, the variable costs exceed the variable 
tax/charge revenues. 

For the road vehicles, the cost coverage ratio for passenger cars (48%) and motorcycles  
(15%) is lower than the previous two indicators. These are reduced due to a reduction in 
total tax/charges levels, as fixed vehicle taxes (i.e. registration, ownership and 
insurance taxes) are not included in this ratio. This results in EU28 average revenues of 
3.9 €-cent/pkm for cars and 3.6 €-cent/pkm for motorcycles. However, buses and coaches 
cost coverage increases to 21 and 23% respectively, as result of the fixed external costs 
(habitat damage) being excluded. 

Cost coverage is greater than total cost coverage for passenger rail transport. The ratios for 
high-speed rail, diesel passenger trains and electric passenger trains are 258%, 110% and 
86%, respectively. These are a result of rail transports’ high fixed costs being excluded from 
this ratio, while at the same time all rail taxes/charges being included, as they are 
considered variable. 

Aviation’s cost coverage of 41% is comparable to the total cost coverage ratio excluding 
fixed infrastructure costs. This is because all aviation taxes/charges are considered variable 
and fixed costs other than fixed infrastructure costs (excluded here) are not significant.  

71 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

0,00,51,01,52,02,53,03,54,04,5CostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesHGVElectric freight trainDiesel freight trainIWTAverge external + average variable infra costs vs. average taxes and charges (€-cent/tkm)Road, rail & IWT for EU28AccidentsAir pollutionClimate changeNoiseCongestionWTTHabitatInfrastructureTaxes and charges 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 23 - Average variable external and infrastructure costs vs. average variable taxes/charges for passenger 
transport 

Figure 24 shows that the variable external and infrastructure costs of the various freight 
vehicle types exceed the revenues from variable taxes/charges levied on these vehicles57. 
The highest variable cost coverage share is found for diesel trains (62%), which is 
significantly higher than for electric trains (37%). Although the overall external costs for 
diesel freight trains are higher than for electric freight trains58, this is more than 
compensated for by higher diesel tax levels (compared to electricity tax levels). HGV’s cost 
coverage of 33% is achieved through from revenues from variable taxes and charges, road 
tolls and fuel taxes, amounting to 1.3 €-cent/tkm on average in the EU28. For IWT, the cost 
coverage ratio is equal to 13%.  

________________________________ 
57   For maritime transport, the cost coverage ratio is equal to 4%, while for LCVs this ratio equals 48%.  
58   While in general, the noise costs per tonne kilometre for a diesel and electric freight train are highly 

comparable, Figure 22 shows that electric freight trains noise costs are 0.2 €-cent/tkm higher than for diesel. 
This is because some countries with low noise costs, due to low population densities, happen to only use diesel 
freight trains. This has effectively lowered the EU28 average noise costs per tonne kilometre for diesel trains. 

72 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

0510152025CostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesPassenger carBusCoachMotorcycleHigh speed railElectricpassenger trainDiesel passengertrainAircraftAverage external + average variable infra costs vs. average taxes and charges (€-cent/pkm)Road & rail for EU28; Aviation for selected 33 airportsAccidentsAir pollutionClimate changeNoiseCongestionWTTHabitatInfrastructureTaxes and charges 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 24 - Average variable external and infrastructure costs vs. average variable taxes/charges for freight 
transport 

5.4.4  Overall infrastructure cost coverage 

The overall infrastructure cost coverage ratio provides insight into whether revenues from 
infrastructure charges internalise all infrastructure costs. As Figure 25 shows, total 
infrastructure costs exceed the total infrastructure charges for all passenger vehicle types. 

Buses and coaches’ coverage is particularly low, at 3%. This is due to significant wear and 
tear costs caused by these vehicles as well as by exemptions on road charges in several 
Member States. Cost coverage is higher for the remaining road vehicles, i.e. passenger cars 
and motorcycles. Motorcycles have revenues of 0.5 €-cent/pkm and cars generate 0.6 €-
cent/pkm, which results in an overall infrastructure cost coverage of 22% for passenger cars 
and 28% for motorcycles. 

For rail transport, the highest average infrastructure cost coverage are found for high speed 
rail (34%), followed by electric passenger trains (23%) and diesel passenger trains (18%). 
The differences in average costs shown in Figure 25 are mainly explained by the differences 
in infrastructure costs and infrastructure charge levels discussed before.  

Finally, the infrastructure cost coverage ratio for passenger aircraft is 82%, indicating that 
the aviation-related infrastructure costs are largely paid for by the air passengers.  

73 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

0,00,51,01,52,02,53,03,54,04,5CostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesHGVElectric freight trainDiesel freight trainIWTAverge variable external + infra costs vs. average variable taxes and charges (€-cent/tkm)Road, rail & IWT for EU28AccidentsAir pollutionClimate changeNoiseCongestionWTTInfrastructureTaxes and charges 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 25 - Average infrastructure costs vs. average infrastructure taxes/charges for passenger transport 

Figure 26 shows that, as with passenger vehicles, the total infrastructure costs caused by 
the freight vehicle types exceed the infrastructure charges levied on these vehicles59,60. 
HGV’s cost coverage is 13%, with revenues (about 0.3 €-cent/tkm on average) coming from 
distance-based or time-based road charges. The relatively low cost coverage ratio is 
explained by the fact that infrastructure charges for HGVs are (mainly) applied on 
motorways, while a significant part of the infrastructure costs are associated to non-
motorways.  

For rail transport, the cost coverage for diesel freight trains (25%) is higher than for electric 
freight trains (17%). The higher revenues on diesel freight trains mainly originate from 
higher average rail access charges in countries where all rail freight transport is performed 
by diesel trains, resulting in higher average access charge levels for diesel trains in the 
EU28.  

The overall infrastructure cost coverage for IWT vessels is equal to 12%, because of low 
average taxes and charges (0.24 €-cent/tkm) compared to average costs (1.92 €-cent/tkm).  

________________________________ 
59   An exception is maritime transport. For this mode, the total revenues from port charges are in line with the 
total infrastructure costs (cost coverage ratio of 127%). However, as discussed in previous chapters, due to 
limited maritime data availability, the uncertainty of both the total infrastructure costs and total port charge 
revenues for maritime transport is high.  

60   For LCVs, the overall infrastructure cost coverage ratio is 11%. 

74 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26 - Average infrastructure costs vs. average infrastructure taxes/charges for freight transport 

5.4.5  Variable infrastructure cost coverage 

Figure 27 compares the average variable infrastructure costs with the total revenues from 
infrastructure charges for the various passenger vehicle types. For most vehicle types the 
infrastructure charges far exceed the variable infrastructure costs: passenger car (347%), 
Motorcycle (473%), high speed rail (477%), electric passenger train (190%), Diesel passenger 
train (137%) and aircraft (247%).  

The exceptions are buses and coaches, whose cost coverages are 5 and 6% respectively, as a 
result of high wear and tear costs (of about 1.9 €-cent/pkm and 1.8 €-cent/pkm, 
respectively) and the — on average — limited scope of road charges for these vehicles. 
The variation seen for passenger trains, largely relates to the taxes and charges levied, in 
particular on the variations in access charges between vehicles types.  

It is important to note that external costs and fixed infrastructure costs are not included 
here. In other words, while these graphs show that users are overcompensating variable 
infrastructure costs, the previous analysis shows that the opposite is true if we consider all 
external costs and infrastructure costs. 

75 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 27 - Average variable infrastructure costs vs. average infrastructure taxes/charges for passenger 
transport 

Finally, the average variable infrastructure costs and revenues from infrastructure charges 
for the freight vehicle types are presented in Figure 2861,62. HGV taxes and charges do not 
cover costs, with a cost coverage of 43%. For rail freight, no full cost coverage is found for 
electric freight trains (90%) while for diesel freight trains (140%) it is. As mentioned in the 
previous section, this can be explained by the higher EU28 average access charge levels for 
diesel trains. Finally, the revenues from infrastructure charges for IWT exceed the variable 
infrastructure costs for this mode with a cost coverage ratio of 176%.  

________________________________ 
61   For maritime transport, the revenues from port charges exceed variable infrastructure costs by a factor of 46. 

This high cost coverage ratio can be explained by the relatively low share of variable costs in total 
infrastructure costs (which is lower than for the other modes). However, as mentioned before, the uncertainty 
in the infrastructure cost and tax/charge revenue estimates for maritime transport is high and hence this 
result should be interpreted carefully.  

62   For LCVs, the variable infrastructure cost coverage is 153%.  

76 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5CostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesCostsTaxes &chargesPassenger carBusCoachMotorcycleHigh speed railElectricpassenger trainDiesel passengertrainAircraftAverage variable infra costs vs. average infra charges (€-cent/pkm)Road & rail for EU28; Aviation for selected 33 airportsInfrastructureTaxes and charges 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28 - Average variable infrastructure costs vs. average infrastructure taxes/charges for freight transport 

5.5 

Marginal cost coverage 

To assess the extent of internalisation from the perspective of Marginal Social Cost Pricing 
(MSCP), we utilise the marginal cost coverage ratio, as discussed in Section 5.2.2. A key 
limitation of the analysis is that the marginal cost coverage ratios have only been estimated 
for a few scenarios. Therefore, we are not able to assess marginal cost coverage ratios in a 
broad range of situations, limiting the number of final conclusions that can be drawn from 
this analysis for specific vehicles or road types. For example, for electric cars we only 
consider the marginal cost coverage ratio on motorways in rural areas. This scenario is not 
necessarily representative of real-world situations, as it is expected that electric vehicles 
will primarily operate in urban areas, over shorter distances.  

The analyses carried out do, however, show that for many transport modes (except rail 
transport) the marginal cost coverage ratios differ widely between the various scenarios. 
This indicates that the current taxes and charges are often not able to capture the large 
variance in the size of marginal external and infrastructure costs across different situations. 
This highlights that in practice, there is great difficulty in charging in accordance with the 
MSCP principle. This would require that highly differentiated taxes and charges are applied. 
For example, to completely internalise marginal external congestion costs, a road charge 
differentiated by road segment and by time (minute by minute) should be implemented. 
Even if the marginal cost levels could be charged at this level of detail, it is unlikely that 
transport users would account for continuously fluctuating marginal external congestion 
cost levels. In addition, the technological solutions available for charging rapidly-varying 
levies are not straightforward. For these reasons, a certain degree of simplification 
(i.e. averaging of marginal cost figures) is inevitable when implementing MSCP. 

The results of the marginal cost coverage analyses also show that the marginal cost 
coverage ratios for rail transport (except for high speed trains) are rather constant over the 
scenarios, indicating that the rail taxes and charges show some relevant aspects of marginal 
social cost pricing. This can be explained by the fact that rail access charges are (often) 

77 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
calculated with respect to marginal infrastructure costs. However, it is important to note 
that these are first, indicative statements and further assessment is required. 

5.6 

The broader context of internalisation 

In addition to transport taxes and charges, other policy instruments (e.g. command and 
control measures and subsidies) may also contribute to achieving the objectives of 
internalisation. The analysis carried out focused on the contribution of these policy 
instruments towards reducing the external costs of transport. This review presents the key 
EU-level non-pricing measures, discussing their capacity to address market failures and 
their interaction with pricing measures. Table 17 provides a comprehensive list of the  
EU-level non-pricing instruments implemented in response to externalities in the transport 
sector, some of which are discussed below. 

Non-pricing policies are applied instead of, or in addition to, taxes and charges for several 
reasons. Firstly, some external costs, such as air pollution, are international in nature and 
engender transboundary effects. Therefore, responding to these costs at an international 
(EU) level, brings added value. For example, the European emission standards, which define 
the acceptable limits for exhaust emissions of diesel locomotives and railcars, address the 
cross-border effects of air pollution associated with these rail vehicles. The effects of air 
pollution are not limited to the local level and cross-border pollution can make national 
solutions (including national tax/charge measures) ineffective. Addressing rail diesel 
emissions by national (tax/charge) instruments may potentially result in a wide range of 
different regimes hampering the effectiveness by which the air pollution issue is tackled.  

Therefore, a harmonised approach at the European level, by applying emission standards to 
complement national taxes, may be preferred. In addition to rail, emissions standards also 
tackle the cross-border nature of air pollution for road, IWT, maritime and aviation, adding 
value to national instruments.  

As transport taxes and charges lie under the authority of Member States, it is difficult to 
harmonise these at the EU level. Therefore, there is significant variation in taxes and 
charges between Member States, which may distort the internal market, as Member States 
implement varying specifications and place differing demands on industry. For this reason, 
EU-level harmonised measures may be preferable to national pricing measures. 
For example, noise regulation for road vehicles creates a level playing field for vehicle 
OEMs, as all vehicles must satisfy the same standards. The clear framework, including the 
timeframe provided by the regulation, promotes research towards reducing noise. 
Therefore, this regulation not only ensures that administrative burden is consistent across 
all Member States, but also supports investment in noise-reducing technologies, 
establishing a level playing field for investment and enabling the development of economies 
of scale. Similar noise regulations apply to rail and aviation transport, enabling Member 
States to tackle noise through innovation.  

Furthermore, as non-pricing measures are deemed less volatile than taxes and charges, they 
are likely to offer longer-term certainty to investors. For example, CO2 performance 
standards for road vehicles are required to accelerate the market uptake of low-emission 
vehicles (LEVs). This complements preferential taxes and charges, through requiring a 
minimum standard and hence, reducing coordination and first-mover issues. In another 
example, the standards in place for professional drivers ensure that companies invest in 
training their employees and provide adequate working conditions, encouraging a high level 
of professionalism in the sector and enhancing road safety. 

78 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Non-pricing measures can also help to address the energy paradox, which refers to cases 
where vehicle owners are not incentivised to invest in fuel-reducing technologies, despite 
resultant reductions in fuel costs offsetting any investment costs. This can occur due to 
consumer myopia, barriers to financing options, imperfect information or split incentives. 
Although purchase and registration taxes differentiated by CO2 emissions can partially solve 
the paradox, instruments such as fuel efficiency and CO2 performance standards, are better 
equipped to solve it, as they provide consumers with greater certainty to invest in 
technologies and benefit from economies of scale. Concurrently, CO2 differentiated taxes 
can support the demand for fuel-efficient vehicles, increasing the likelihood of meeting CO2 
performance standards in a cost-efficient way. 

The provision of information to consumers, through instruments, such as labelling, has the 
potential to engender behavioural change and reduce the likelihood of the energy paradox. 
The EU implements car and tyre labelling schemes, to address the asymmetries of 
information between manufacturers and vehicle owners, with respect to fuel efficiency and 
the rolling-noise levels of tyres respectively. Tyre labels also allow national governments 
to introduce incentives for choosing energy efficient, safe or silent tyres (e.g. by 
differentiating taxes/charges based on these labels). Therefore, greater provision of 
information to consumers can help to address externalities, through encouraging consumers 
to act upon newfound awareness of the external costs caused by the transport sector.  

A lack of social and political support for implementing or increasing taxes and charges may 
also provide the justification for implementing non-pricing measures. In some cases,  
non-pricing measures can even incentivise the implementation of pricing measures. 
For example, local authorities and national governments can draw upon the Ambient Air 
Quality Directive (AAQD), which requires Member States to adopt and implement air quality 
plans, to justify the implementation of taxes and charges. Pricing instruments may increase 
the pace of change, enabling countries and cities to meet the air pollutant concentration 
limits set by the AAQD over shorter timeframes. Therefore, in situations where charging 
vehicle owners or companies is unpopular, combining these measures with (or solely relying 
on) infrastructure investments, target-setting directives and softer measures, is more likely 
to effectively tackle the external cost at hand. 

Non-pricing measures are also key to addressing externalities which are not targeted by 
taxes and charges. For example, accident costs are not directly addressed by current 
transport taxes and charges, largely due to the difficulty of internalising accident costs 
through pricing measures (CE Delft et al., 2008). Other policy instruments (mainly command 
and control measures) are used to improve transport safety. For example, road safety is 
regulated at the EU level by command-and-control measures, primarily through setting 
(minimum) safety standards or requirements. These EU-level measures, combined with 
national-level requirements (e.g. speed limits), provide a comprehensive response to 
external accident costs. 

79 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Table 17 - Overview of key EU-level non-pricing measures responding to external costs 

Non-pricing Measure 

Relevant Modes 

Description 

Climate change 

CO2 standards 

Road, Aviation 

Sets mandatory targets for the average CO2 emissions of 
vehicles/aircraft. 

Car Labelling Directive 

Road 

Clean Vehicle Directive 

Road 

Informs consumers on the fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions of 
new cars. 

Requires that energy and environmental impacts linked to the 
lifetime of vehicles are taken into account in public 
procurement. 

Alternative Fuels 
Infrastructure Directive 

Road, IWT 

Requires Member States to provide minimum infrastructure 
for alternative fuels. 

Fuel Quality Directive 

Road, Rail, IWT 

Renewable Energy 
Directive 

TEN-T Programme 
Funding 

Regulation on the 
monitoring and reporting 
of emissions 

Single European Sky 
Initiative 

Road, Rail, IWT 

Rail 

Maritime 

Aviation 

Requires a reduction of the greenhouse gas intensity of 
transport fuels by 2020, to be achieved by using less CO2 
intensive fuels. 

Sets targets for the share of renewable energy used in 
transport. 

Funds electrification of rail infrastructure networks for the 
core TEN-T network. 

Provides insight into robust and verified emissions data and 
stimulates the uptake of energy efficiency solutions. 

Harmonise air traffic management systems through the 
deployment of innovative technological and operational 
solutions. 

Air pollution 

Ambient Air Quality 
Directive 

National Emission 
Ceilings Directive 

Emissions Standards 

Noise 

Environmental Noise 
Directive 

Vehicle Noise Regulation  Road 

Noise regulation with 
respect to tyres 

Tyre Labelling 

Road 

Road 

Railway Interoperability 
Directive 

Rail 

Road, Rail, IWT, 
Maritime, Aviation 

Road, Rail, IWT, 
Maritime, Aviation 

Road, Rail, IWT, 
Maritime, Aviation 

Defines ambient air quality standards which require Member 
States to adopt and implement air quality plans. 

Sets national total emission reduction targets and requires 
Member States to develop National Air Pollution Control 
Programmes. 

Defines acceptable emission limit values covering NOx, carbon 
monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons and non-volatile particular 
matter emissions. 

Road, Rail, Aviation 

Monitors noise by requiring Member States to draw up 
'strategic noise maps', provide information to the public and 
provide action plans to prevent or reduce exposure to noise. 

Establishes requirements for the type-approval of all new 
motorised vehicles in relation to their sound level and 
silencing systems. 

Sets tyre-rolling noise requirements to ensure parameters 
relating to safety and environment are accounted for. 

Introduces labelling requirements including information on 
the fuel efficiency, wet grip and external rolling noise of 
tyres. 

Requirements for newly built wagons to meet certain noise 
emission limits. 

Noise Certification 
Standards 

Aviation 

Regulates aircraft noise at source through noise standards. 

Operating restrictions at 
Community airports 

Aviation 

Regulates procedures concerning the introduction of  
noise-related operating restrictions. 

80 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
Non-pricing Measure 

Relevant Modes 

Description 

Accidents 

Technical 
vehicle/vessel/aircraft 
regulations 

Vehicle/Vessel 
Inspection 

Road, IWT, 
Maritime, Aviation 

Regulation on type-approval requirements sets out safety and 
environmental requirements. 

Road, Maritime 

Periodic technical inspection of vehicles/vessels and 
minimum standards for testing facilities. 

Driving Licenses 

Road 

Provides harmonised EU-wide rules on driving licences. 

Professional Driving 
Regulations 

Road, Rail, IWT, 
Maritime, Aviation 

Road Infrastructure 
Safety 

Road 

Railway Safety Directive  Rail 

Shift2Rail Joint 
Undertaking 

River Information 
Systems 

Rail 

IWT 

Vessel Traffic Monitoring  Maritime 

Passenger Safety 
Regulations 

Maritime 

European Aviation Safety 
Agency 

Aviation 

Several measures are in place, such as required training and 
qualifications, minimum standards for working conditions and 
requirements for the use of speed limitation devices. 

Obliges Member States to conduct safety impact assessments 
and audits at the design, planning and operation stage of 
important European roads. 

Creates a common European regulatory framework for safety 
and defines the tasks and responsibilities related to a safety 
management system (SMS). 

A public private partnership, which pursues research 
activities in support of the achievement of the Single 
European Railway Area and aims to improve the 
competitiveness and safety of the European rail system. 

Establishes a framework for the deployment and use of 
harmonised river information systems. 

Establishes a vessel traffic monitoring and information 
system. 

Sets safety rules and standards for passenger ships, such that 
safety of life and property on new and existing passenger 
ships on domestic and international voyages is harmonised. 

Establishes the working methods of the European Aviation 
Safety Agency such that it can conduct standardised 
inspections. 

81 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
6  Conclusions  

6.1 

Main conclusions 

External and infrastructure costs are only partly internalised 

The analyses carried out in this study show that the transport taxes and charges levied in 
the EU Member States are — in general — insufficient to fully internalise the external and 
infrastructure costs of transport. For most vehicle categories, only 15 to 25% of the external 
and infrastructure costs are covered by tax/charge revenues. The cost coverage ratio for 
passenger cars is higher (about 50%), which is mainly because of the relatively high fuel and 
vehicle tax levels applied in (some of) the EU Member States for these vehicles. For IWT and 
maritime transport, much lower cost coverage ratios were found  
(6 and 4%, respectively), reflecting the limited tax/charge burden levied on these modes in 
the EU.  

Even if we exclude fixed infrastructure costs from the analyses63, the current taxes and 
charges do not cover the external and variable infrastructure costs for most vehicle 
categories. High speed trains are an exception, as for these trains the current taxes and 
charges do cover all external and variable infrastructure costs.  

Little evidence of using marginal social cost pricing 

Variable external and infrastructure costs are generally not covered by variable taxes/ 
charges at the EU28 level, indicating that marginal social cost pricing in a simplified way is 
not achieved. This finding is supported/supplemented by the results of the analyses of 
marginal social cost coverage ratios. Despite the limitations of this analyses, it provides a 
first indication that there is a lack of charging in accordance with the MSCP principle in the 
EU28. Current transport tax/charge schemes are often not able to capture the large 
variance in the size of marginal external and infrastructure costs across different situations. 
In road passenger transport in particular, taxes and charges are very far from providing an 
approximate reflection of actual costs. 

An exception is rail transport (particularly high-speed trains and diesel passenger trains), 
where the rail access charges and diesel taxes reflect the variable nature of most of the 
external costs and part of the infrastructure costs. However, improvements can be made, 
even for rail, e.g. by further differentiating the access charges to noise.  

Limited application of the user pays’ principle  

The ‘user pays’ principle is only applied to a limited extent in the EU28, as for most vehicle 
categories only 15 to 30% of the infrastructure costs are covered by infrastructure charges. 
For buses and coaches, even lower cost coverage ratios are found (3%), which reflects the 
relatively high (weight dependent) infrastructure costs caused by these vehicles as well as 
________________________________ 
63   This indicator is in line with the ambitions of the Commission to realise full internalisation of external costs, 
including wear and tear costs. It recognises that fixed infrastructure costs are sunk costs and that paying for 
these costs may result in (further) underutilisation of existing infrastructure (e.g. rail).  

82 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
the fact that these vehicles are exempted from infrastructure charges in many EU Member 
States. In contrast to the land-based modes, aviation and maritime transport do meet the 
‘user pays’ principle. The revenues from (air)port charges do cover for (most of) the 
infrastructure costs of (air)ports. 

Although the total infrastructure costs are only partly covered by infrastructure charges, 
the variable infrastructure costs are internalised by these charges for most vehicle 
categories. The main exceptions are the heavy road vehicles (HGV, bus, coach), which can 
be mainly explained by the high weigh dependent infrastructure costs caused by these 
vehicles. Also for electric freight trains, full coverage of variable infrastructure costs is not 
achieved at the EU28 level. 

Varying results with respect to earmarking of revenues 

The revenues from transport taxes and charges in the EU28 are partly earmarked for 
expenditure for transport infrastructure. However, significant differences do exist between 
modes. For road transport, about 10% of the taxes/charges are earmarked, while for rail 
transport this is about 85%. For the other modes, only fragmented data on earmarking was 
identified, showing that (at least part of) the (air)port charges are earmarked to cover 
infrastructure expenditures.  

Earmarking of revenues may be used to gain public support for future initiatives to increase 
the extent of internalisation of external and infrastructure costs of transport. However, it 
should be noted that applying earmarking results in a loss of efficiency, because revenues 
are not necessarily used to finance the most efficient projects (i.e. there may be 
economically more profitable projects to finance than transport infrastructure projects). 
Furthermore, earmarking of revenues may also lead to distortion of price signals. 
If revenues are used to (partly) reimburse those responsible for the externality, the initial 
price incentive (i.e. to change the behaviour of these agents) is partly offset.  

6.2 

Policy applications 

Based on the results discussed above, a scoping analysis of potential policy options to 
further internalise the external and infrastructure costs of transport has been carried out. 
Some main options for further internalisation are:  
—  For road transport, the introduction of distance-based road charges differentiated to 

vehicle characteristics, location and/or time. This instrument may increase the overall 
internalisation rate, while at the same time it improves the internalisation of the 
(marginal) external air pollution, noise, climate change and congestion costs. Such a 
road charging scheme may complement other policy instruments addressing the external 
costs of road transport, like the various types of vehicle standards (e.g. CO2 standards, 
Euro standards, noise standards). For urban areas, specific urban road charging schemes 
may be considered in order to address the relatively high external costs of urban 
transport.  

—  For rail transport, mark-ups on rail access charges to cover the fixed infrastructure 

costs (although there may be arguments for not internalising these costs, as discussed 
above). Furthermore, the introduction of noise differentiations in the rail access 
charges may speed up the implementation of noise abatement measures at the existing 
fleet, effectively complementing the impact of the noise limits that are set for new 
wagons. 

—  For IWT, the appliance of fairway dues on a larger share of the EU inland waterways. 

By differentiating these dues by air pollutant emissions, this instrument may contribute 

83 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
to reducing the air pollutant costs of IWT (by far the most important externality of 
IWT). It complements the existing emission standards for new vessels, as this instrument 
also incentivise investments in emission reduction technologies for the existing fleet. 
Current legislations do, however, prohibit the introduction of fairway dues on the Rhine 
and its tributaries (the most important inland waterway(s) of the EU). Another option to 
further internalise the external costs of IWT is by extending the use of environmentally 
differentiated port charges.  

—  For maritime transport, environmentally differentiated port charges or differentiated 

fairway dues may be options to further internalise the air pollution costs. 
These measures would complement the IMO emission standards set for new vessels. 
With respect to GHG emissions, the EU works with global partners on further policy 
instruments.  

—  For aviation, further policies in the field of GHG emissions should preferably be done in 
cooperation with global partners in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). 
Furthermore, environmentally differentiated airport charges or aviation taxes may be 
options to further internalise the local externalities of aviation (i.e. air pollution, 
noise). 

Although taxes and charges are efficient policy instruments to reduce the external costs of 
transport, other types of policy instruments (e.g. command-and-control measures, 
subsidies) are applied as well to achieve this objective. Applying (differentiated) 
tax/charge measures to further internalise these costs may not be straightforward, 
particularly for (external) accident costs, as the level of these costs depend on a complex 
set of cost drivers. In this case, command-and-control measures are often more 
appropriate. Policies aimed to increase the utilisation rate of transport infrastructure 
(e.g. rail tracks) may result in lower average infrastructure costs and hence higher cost 
coverage ratios. But also for other externalities, non-pricing policies may effectively 
complement tax/charge schemes, e.g. by providing EU-wide harmonised incentives to invest 
in certain reduction technologies or because they are politically/socially more acceptable.  

6.3 

Recommendations for further research 

This project provides state-of-the-art estimates of infrastructure and external costs of 
transport as well as a comprehensive overview of the transport taxes and charges applied in 
the EU28. Furthermore, a detailed overview of the extent of internalisation of the external 
and infrastructure costs of transport is given. However, there are some options to further 
improve and elaborate the analyses done in this project. For that purpose, further research 
on various topics is recommended. The main recommendations are to(see the other 
deliverables of this project for a more detailed description of the issues for further 
research):  
— 

Improve the accuracy and consistency of transport performance data sets at the 
EU level. There are considerable differences between various sources on transport 
performance data in Europe. Improving and harmonising these data would be 
recommended. The composition of a consistent dataset based on the territoriality 
principle would significantly improve the assessments, particularly for road transport. 

—  Construct more detailed and harmonised datasets on transport infrastructure 
expenditures. More complete, detailed and harmonised datasets on transport 
infrastructure expenditures would result in more accurate estimates of infrastructure 
costs. For road, rail and IWT, data on transport infrastructure expenditure is available, 
but these data is often incomplete and not harmonised between countries, negatively 
affecting the robustness of the infrastructure cost estimates. For aviation and maritime 
transport, these data are currently not publicly available. 

84 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
—  Assess the size and structure of transport subsidies in Europe. The extent of 

internalisation is affected by the amount of subsidies provided in the various countries 
to the different vehicle categories. However, due to a lack of data on these data it was 
not possible to include subsidies in our assessments for this report. It is therefore 
recommended to further investigate the size and structure of transport subsidies 
applied in EU Member States for the various transport modes. 

—  More detailed comparisons of total/average costs and revenues. As the various vehicle 
categories do not always compete on the same markets (e.g. average airplane vs. 
coach), it is recommended to carry out the analysis of average cost based pricing for 
specific sub-markets (e.g. short-haul trips) or corridors (e.g. Paris-Amsterdam) as well. 
Furthermore, detailed assessments for specific parts of the network (e.g. urban roads) 
may be interesting, as both external/infrastructure costs and tax/charge levels differ 
widely between different parts of the network. 

85 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
References 

CE Delft, INFRAS & Fraunhofer ISI, 2011. External costs of transport in Europe. Delft: CE 
Delft. 
CE Delft; Ricardo; TRT; INFRAS, 2019d. The state-of-play of internalisation in the European 
transport sector, Delft: CE Delft. 
CE Delft; TM; Consult, HERRY; BME; Consult; SSP, 2017. Case study analysis of the burden 
of taxation and charges on transport – Final report, Brussels: European Commission, 
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. 
CE Delft; TRT; Planco; ISL; INFRAS; PMR; Ricardo, 2019b. Transport taxes and charges in 
Europe: An overview study of economic internalisation measures applied in Europe, Delft: 
CE Delft. 
CE Delft; TRT; Planco; ISL; PMR; INFRAS; Ricardo, 2019a. Transport infrastructure 
expenditures and costs, Delft: CE Delft. 
CE Delft; INFRAS; TRT, 2019c. Handbook on the external costs of transport, Delft: CE Delft. 
EC, 2011. White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area : Towards a 
competitive and resource efficient transport system, Brussels: European Commission (EC). 
Ecologic; CE Delft; TU Dresden, 2006. Size, structure and distribution of transport subsidies 
in Europe, Berlin, Berlin: Ecologic - Institute for International and European Environmental 
Policy. 
Ecologic, 2005. The Use of Subsidies, Taxes and Charges in the EU Transport Sectors, 
Berlin: Ecologic - Institute for international and European Environmental Policy. 
Fraunhofer-ISI & CE Delft, 2008. Internalisation Measures and Policies for All external Costs 
of Transport (IMPACT) - Deliverable 2: Road infrastructure cost and revenue in Europe, 
Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer-ISI. 
HLG, 1999. Calculating transport infrastructure costs. Final report of the expert advisors 
to the high level group on infrastructure charging , Berlin/Zürich: High Level 
Group,working group 1 (HLG). 
INFRAS & IWW, 2004. External costs of transport: Update study. Karlsruhe & Zürich: Infras 
& IWW. 
INFRAS; CE Delft; ISI; University of Gdansk, 2008. Handbook on estimation of external costs 
in the transport sector, Delft: CE Delft. 
Ricardo-AEA; TRT; DIW-Econ; CAU, 2014. Update of the Handbook on External Costs of 
Transport – Final Report, London., London: Ricardo-AEA. 

86 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
A  Detailed external cost figures 

A.1 

Introduction 

In this Annex, some more detailed external costs figures (at the EU28 level) are presented. 
In Annex A.2, we present detailed total external cost figures, while Annex A.3 shows the 
detailed average external cost figures.  

A.2 

Total external cost figures 

The total external cost figures (at the EU28 level) for passenger transport and freight 
transport are presented in Table 18 and Table 19.  

Table 18 - Total external costs 2016 for EU28 passenger transport by cost category and transport mode 

Passenger 
car 

210.2 

33.4 

55.6 

26.2 

196.1 

18.1 

25.9 

565.4 

Road transport 

Bus 

Coach 

Motorcycle 

HST 

5.3 

4.5 

1.4 

0.8 

0.8 

0.3 

0.2 

2.7 

1.6 

0.9 

0.5 

0.4 

19.3 

625.2 

4.2% 

0.06 

0.002 

0.00 

0.4 

0.3 

0.7 

1.4 

21.0 

1.8 

1.5 

14.8 

n/a 

0.8 

0.5 

40.5 

637.7 

Rail transport 

Conventional 
electric train 

Diesel 
train 

2.0 

0.52 

0.22 

0.9 

0.1 

0.5 

0.03 

0.00 

2.6 

2.7 

1.4 

11.0 

12.5 

0.1% 

Cost category 

Accidents 

Air pollution 

Climate 

Noise 
Congestiona 

Well-to-Tank 

Habitat damage 

Total 

Total per mode 

Total as % of EU28 
GDP 

Total passenger 
transport 

a  Congestion in terms of delay cost. 

Table 19 - Total external costs 2016 for EU28 freight transport by cost category and transport mode 

Road transport 

Rail transport 

IWT 

Cost category 

Accidents 

Air pollution 

Climate 

Noise 
Congestiona 

Well-to-Tank 

Habitat damage 

Total 

Total per mode 

Total as % of EU28 GDP 

Total freight transport 

a  Congestion in terms of delay cost. 

LCV 

19.8 

15.5 

13.2 

5.4 

55.5 

3.8 

4.4 

117.6 

HGV 

23.0 

13.9 

9.6 

9.1 

14.6 

3.7 

3.6 

77.5 

195.1 

1.31% 

Electric train 

Diesel train 

Inland vessel 

0.7 

0.2 

0.4 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

5.4 

5.4 

0.04% 

0.01 

0.00 

2.1 

0.5 

0.8 

203.4 

0.1 

1.9 

0.4 

0.2 

0.3 

2.9 

2.9 

0.02% 

87 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 20 presents the total external costs for the selected EU28 (air)ports.  

Table 20 - Total external costs for selected EU28 (air)ports 

Passenger 

Freight (belly freight) 

Total 

Aviation 

Maritime 

Cost category 

Short 

Medium 

Long 

Short 

Medium 

Long 

Accidents 

Air pollution 

Climate 

Noise 

Congestion 

0.24 

1.9 

0.32 

4.9 

0.30 

12.3 

0.03 

0.21 

0.06 

0.63 

0.1 

0.8 

n/a 

Well-to-Tank 

0.86 

Habitat 
damage 

Total selected 
(air)ports 

Total for 
selected 
(air)ports as % 
of EU28 GDP 

1.84 

0.050 

28.6a 

0.2% 

4.93 

0.09 

0.26 

0.006 

4.3 

0.03% 

a   Noise and accident costs have been allocated to passenger transport. 

0.06 

2.06 

0.90 

0.1 

1.0 

22.0 

0.8 

n/a 

8.9 

0.056 

0.1 

29.1 

10.6 

n/a 

n/a 

3.9 

n/a 

32.9 

43.6 

0.3% 

A.3 

Average external cost figures 

The average external cost figures (at the EU28 level) for passenger transport and freight 
transport are presented in Table 21 and Table 22.  

Table 21 - Average external costs 2016 for EU28 passenger transport by cost category and transport mode 

Cost category 

Accidents 

Air Pollution 

Climate  

Noise 
Congestiona 

Well-to-Tank 

Habitat damage 

Total 

Environmental 
Costsb 

Passenger 
car 

4.5 

0.7 

1.2 

0.6 

4.2 

0.4 

0.5 

12.1 

3.4 

Road transport 

Bus 

Coach 

Motorcycle 

HST 

Rail transport 

Conventional 
electric train 

1.0 

0.8 

0.5 

0.4 

0.8 

0.2 

0.1 

3.8 

2 

1.0 

0.7 

0.4 

0.2 

0.8 

0.1 

0.1 

3.3 

1.5 

12.7 

1.1 

0.9 

9.0 

0.5 

0.3 

24.5 

11.8 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.3 

0.6 

1.3 

1.2 

0.5 

0.01 

0.0 

0.8 

0.8 

0.6 

2.71 

2.21 

Diesel 
train 

0.5 

0.80 

0.3 

1.4 

0.1 

0.8 

3.9 

3.4 

a  Congestion in terms of delay costs. 
b  Air pollution, climate, WTT, noise and habitat damage costs. 

88 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 22 - Average external costs 2016 for EU28 freight transport by cost category and transport mode 

Road transport 

Rail transport 

IWT 

LCV (diesel) 

HGV 

Electric freight 

Diesel freight 

Inland vessel 

Cost category 

€-cent/vkm 

€-cent/tkm 

€-cent/tkm 

€-cent/tkm 

€-cent/tkm 

Accidents 

Air Pollution 

Climate  

Noise 
Congestiona 

Well-to-Tank 

Habitat 
damage 

Total 

Environmental 
Costsb 

4.1 

3.4 

2.8 

1.1 

11.6 

0.8 

0.9 

24.7 

9 

1.3 

0.8 

0.5 

0.5 

0.8 

0.2 

0.2 

4.3 

2.2 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.6 

0.2 

0.2 

1.1 

1 

0.1 

0.7 

0.2 

0.4 

0.1 

0.2 

1.7 

1.6 

0.1 

1.3 

0.3 

n/a 

0.1 

0.2 

2.0 

1.9 

a  Congestion in terms of delay costs. 
b  Air pollution, climate, WTT, noise and habitat damage costs. 

Finally, Table 23 presents the average external costs for selected EU28 (air)ports.  

Table 23 - Average external costs for selected EU28 (air)ports 

Aviation passenger 

Short haul 

€-cent/pkm 

Medium haul 

€-cent/pkm 

Long haul 

€-cent/pkm 

Maritime 

Maritime ship 

€-cent/tkm 

0.04 

0.30 

2.39 

0.46 

n/a 

1.06 

0.03 

4.28 

4.24 

0.01 

0.13 

1.85 

0.11 

n/a 

0.70 

0.01 

2.81 

2.8 

0.00 

0.06 

2.24 

0.01 

n/a 

0.91 

0.00 

3.22 

3.22 

0.001 

0.44 

0.16 

n/a 

n/a 

0.06 

n/a 

0.66 

0.66 

Cost category  

Accidents 

Air Pollution 

Climate  

Noise 

Congestion 

Well-to-Tank 

Habitat damage 

Total 

Environmental 
Costsa 

a Air pollution, climate, WTT, noise and habitat damage costs. 

89 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person  

    All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct 

information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

 On the phone or by email  

    Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the 

European Union. You can contact this service:  

    – by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge 

for these calls),   

    – at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or   

    – by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

 Online 

    Information about the European Union in all the official languages of 

the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en  

EU publications  

    You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free 
publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 
).  

EU law and related documents  

    For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 
1952 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU  

    The EU Open Data Portal ( http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en ) provides 

access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for 
free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.  

90 

4.K83 - Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: 

Main Findings 

 
  
 
  
 
 
 
M
I
-
0
1
-
1
9
-
4
1
8
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN: 978-92-76-03076-8 

doi: 10.2832/004905