El juego de poder-saber en el examen

Our calculations of the direct land take associated with roads encompass all traffic lanes (incl. bus lanes) and verges, but excluding roundabouts, major traffic intersections, acceleration/deceleration and other ‘weaving’ and turning lanes, and bus-stops46. In urban areas we also excluded pavements, town squares and ‘fancy’ streets from our calculations, as these are all mainly for the benefit of pedestrians. Table 30 summarises the land take associated with the key elements of Dutch road infrastructure, with these figures representing a lower bound.

46 _{If one assumes an additional 10% land take for roundabouts, intersections and the various traffic lanes} cited, this would add almost 22 km2 _{to the direct land take of national and provincial road infrastructure.}

table 30 Land take of Dutch road infrastructure (km2)

Urban Rural

Metalled roads 356.7 682.9

Unmetalled roads 3.3 65.1

Parking space 119.1 n.a.

Motorway service areas n.a. 15.8

Total 479.1 763.8

In this study we have allocated the costs of urban and rural road infrastructure separately. It is important to reiterate in this connection that the prime concern of our analysis here is to establish whether the transport sector ‘pays its way’ in terms of the costs it causes. There is a fundamental difference in the way ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ roads are funded, however, as set out briefly below. The issue is discussed at greater length in annex H.

In the Netherlands ‘rural’ roads are centrally funded, i.e. paid for by the taxpayer. There is consequently virtually no direct linkage of interests between the users of a particular item of infrastructure and those funding it (it is a very select group of taxpayers indeed that actually use any particular item). Of course, these expenditures are to some extent offset by revenues from fuel excise duty and vehicle circulation and purchase taxes, all of which go to the national treasury, but in general there is no direct linkage between those paying and those enjoying the resultant benefits. From the efficiency perspective, then, there may be good reason to charge infrastructure users for use of this category of ‘rural’ road infrastructure.

In urban areas, on the other hand, land purchase for transport infrastructure as well as the costs of building new local infrastructure (and often major elements of supra-local infrastructure, too) are paid out of the revenues later accruing from development. The costs are consequently paid for by the users of the area in question, i.e. local residents and businesses. In this case, then, the linkage of interests between those paying and benefiting is more direct, particularly when the infrastructure in question is used mainly by local traffic. The costs of urban transport infrastructure can therefore be said to be borne by those to whom the services are provided and are thus covered, at least in part, by an interested party. The more this holds, the less correct and ‘fair’ it becomes to pass on these costs a second time to those same parties, but now as infrastructure users. On top of this, there will probably also be a significant overlap between those for whom the infrastructure services are provided and those indeed using them. In residential districts, after all, it is residents themselves who are responsible for much of the traffic. To levy a user charge for local infrastructure would then be a form of double-charging. This might – again from the perspective of fairness – be reimbursed to home owners and/or businesses, as appropriate.

The weakest link in all these calculations is the direct land take of parking space. In the Netherlands there is no quantitative review of the total amount of public parking space. There are three basic modes of parking: public car parks (open- air, multi-storey), roadside parking (parking bays) and private car parks. For the

purposes of the present study, concerned with financial valuation, we are interested solely in public car parks and roadside parking along the public highway. The latter has already been included in calculations of the land take of the road network itself. In the case of private car parks (in residential areas, at shopping centres, outside business premises), the parking space has already been duly paid for on purchase by the property owner. In the case of privately owned multi-storey car parks, it is users who pay for the parking space.

The land take we have allocated here is for parking in dedicated public parking bays in residential districts. Being in urban areas, these are intended for – and have therefore been allocated to – passenger cars and light goods vehicles. Even though parking fees may be charged, in many cases the full costs may not be recovered, so that costs and benefits must be included in the analysis (cf. [IOO, 2002]).

The referenced IOO study estimates the number of public parking spaces in the Netherlands at a minimum of 8.9 million (possibly 12 million), with 81% of these on or along roads, 17% in open-air car parks and 2% in multi-storey car parks [IOO, 2002]. Of these 8,864,000 parking spaces, 137,000 are on private property, though, leaving 8,727,000 on publicly owned land. This latter category of ‘public’ parking space covers an area of 164.2 km2 _{altogether. However, this includes} roadside parking. In this study we have therefore used the land take figure from the VU study, which does not include parking on or along the public highway. The costs of land take for petrol stations, sales areas, servicing facilities, garages and suchlike have in all cases already been internalised (the activities in question taking place on privately owned land) and have not therefore been included in our analysis. The only exception here are motorway service areas, which are built on public land.

One other specific vehicle category included in the analysis are mopeds. Since 15 December, 1999, mopeds are in principle no longer permitted to use cycle tracks, unless considerations of traffic safety prevent them from using the public highway. This is the case on roads with a speed limit over 60 km/h. Local councils are free to deviate from this general rule, however, allowing them to restrict moped traffic to cycle tracks even when a lower speed limit is in force. According to a study by the Dutch Cyclists Union ENFB, many local councils make use of this provision, with 17% of councils surveyed indicating that mopeds were permitted on over a quarter of cycle tracks. Away from urban areas, the difference in speed between mopeds and other traffic will generally be such that mopeds are likely to be delegated to cycle lanes. At the same time, though, in rural areas there are often dedicated cycle tracks through woods and other natural areas.

The direct land take associated with urban and rural cycle tracks/lanes amounts to 25.3 km2 _{and 40.3 km}2_{, respectively. In both cases this is almost 5% of the} total amount of land take of road infrastructure. When asked, ENFB said their study did not allow them to estimate the proportion of cycle tracks/lanes, urban

and rural, on which moped traffic was permitted. Allocation must therefore remain fairly arbitrary and we have here opted for 25% allocation in urban areas and 50% in rural areas.

6.3.2 Indirect land take

As defined here, the ‘indirect’ land take of road infrastructure arises as a result of the zoning regulations associated with transportation of hazardous substances and noise emissions.

Along parts of the routes on which hazardous goods and substances are transported there are physical planning restrictions in force. These routes coincide largely with the fine-meshed structure of LPG transport and distribution on the Dutch road grid. According to the Transport ministry, the land take associated with road transportation of hazardous substances amounts to 32.7 km2 _{in all [V&W, 2003a]. This figure includes the land occupied by the roads} themselves, however. The ministry’s Freight division told us that deduction of this figure would leave some 21 km2 _{to be designated as indirect land take.}

Besides transportation of hazardous substances there is also LPG storage at filling stations. The licensing conditions for these filling stations are stipulated in the ‘LPG at Filling Stations Decree (Nuisance Act)’ of 11 March, 1988. In this case, then, there are no restrictions on use of adjacent land, as the surrounding area does not have to adapt to the filling station, which is simply refused a license if it fails to meet the conditions in force. In other words, the associated costs have already been internalised by means of regulation. From this perspective, LPG installations at petrol filling stations are accompanied by no indirect land take and in our analysis this aspect has therefore been ignored. With respect to noise zoning, for the purpose of this study the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) calculated the total area of roadside land falling within 70 dB(A) contours. The resultant area of indirect land take amounts to some 400 km2_{, about 65 km}2 _{of which is in urban areas. There} are two problems here when it comes to allocation. In the first place, although planning regulations stipulate that no new development is permitted here, particularly in urban areas there will be very little space available for development anyway. Secondly, the development restrictions associated with noise emissions overlap to a major extent with those for hazardous goods transport, while the former need to be allocated across all vehicle categories and the latter solely to freight vehicles.

The third category of indirect land take, sight zones, is only relevant for inland shipping and is discussed below in section 6.5.2.

6.4 Land take by railway infrastructure