Representación de sociodramas

The costs of air pollution and climate change are slightly higher for LGVs (figure 41) than for passenger cars (compare figures 34 and 35). This is because vans have a higher engine rating and consequently burn more fuel. In addition, the emission standards in force for LGVs are not as strict as those for cars, and

emissions are consequently higher. Noise production is also greater, because of the heavier engine and greater axle load, creating more road-tyre noise.

figure 41 Variable social costs and user charges, LGV, best and worst case (€ct/vehicle kilometre) LGV 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 charges costs LGV, worst case charges costs LGV, best case Eurocent/vkm

infrastructure M/O, variable traffic accidents

noise nuisance air pollution climate emissions congestion fuel excise duty

In the best case, user charges (i.e. fuel excise duty) cover approximately half the social costs of LGV use. In the worst case, there is less than 10% cost coverage, a similar figure to that for diesel passenger cars, it may be added.

10.4 Freight transport

10.4.1 Road

With heavy goods vehicles, too, we see congestion costs exerting a major influence on the overall picture (figure 42 versus figure 43). In this case, though, the relative influence is less pronounced than for smaller road vehicles, because the other costs are higher. This is particularly true of emission costs but holds for accident costs, too. Because of their far greater weight, HGVs burn more fuel and, in relative terms, cause more traffic casualties among drivers of other vehicles.

Surprisingly, perhaps, the per-kilometre costs of light goods vehicles are not much lower than those of their (far) heavier counterparts. To a certain extent, however, this is due to the high proportion of kilometres driven by vans in urban areas, leading to higher emission, noise and accident costs.

figure 42 Variable social costs and user charges, HGV, best case (€ct/vehicle kilometre) HGV, best case 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 charges costs HGV tractor-trailer charges costs HGV > 12 tonne charges costs HGV < 12 tonne Eurocent/vkm

infrastructure M/O, variable traffic accidents noise nuisance air pollution climate emissions traffic congestion fuel excise duty

figure 43 Variable social costs and user charges, HGV, worst case (€ct/vehicle kilometre) HGV, worst case 0 50 100 150 200 250 charges costs HGV tractor-trailer charges costs HGV > 12 tonne charges costs HGV < 12 tonne Eurocent/vkm

infrastructure M/O, variable traffic accidents noise nuisance air pollution climate emissions traffic congestion fuel excise duty

Note that this graph is on a different scale to that for the best case!

10.4.2 Rail

With rail freight transport there is an enormous difference in costs between the best and worst case scenarios. The best case (figures 44 and 45) is for an electrically powered, non-bulk freight train running unladen in a rural area. The electrical traction gives rise to virtually no air pollution and because of the relatively low weight, energy consumption is also down, as are the variable costs of infrastructure maintenance and operation (low axle loads causing less wear and tear of the track). Running through a (less populated) rural area, the hypothetical train also gives rise to lower noise costs.

figure 44 Variable social costs and user charges, rail freight transport, best case (€ct/train kilometre; costs of infrastructure renewal assumed part-variable)

Freight train, best case, infrastructure renewal costs part-variable

0 100 200 300 400 500

charges costs

Eurocent/vkm

infrastructure M/O, variable traffic accidents

noise nuisance air pollution climate emissions charge for rail infra use fuel excise duty+REC

figure 45 Variable social costs and user charges, rail freight transport, best case (€ct/train kilometre; costs of infrastructure renewal assumed fixed)

Freight train, best case, infrastructure renewal costs fixed

0 100 200 300 400 500

charges costs

Eurocent/vkm

infrastructure M/O, variable traffic accidents

noise nuisance air pollution climate emissions charge for rail infra use fuel excise duty+REC

In the worst case (figures 46 and 47) we have a diesel locomotive pulling a fully laden freight train with bulk goods (such as ore) through an urban area. In this scenario, the higher weight causes far more track degradation, reflected in comparatively high variable M/O costs. Diesel traction gives rise to greater pollutant emissions, which are associated with greater health damage, furthermore, because they occur in (more populated) urban areas. The same applies to noise emissions.

figure 46 Variable social costs and user charges, rail freight transport, worst case (€ct/train kilometre; costs of infrastructure renewal assumed part-variable)

Freight train, worst case, infrastructure renewal costs part-variable

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 charges

costs

Eurocent/vkm

infrastructure M/O, variable traffic accidents noise nuisance air pollution climate emissions charge for rail infra use fuel excise duty+REC

Note that this graph is on a different scale to that for the best case!

figure 47 Variable social costs and user charges, rail freight transport, worst case (€ct/train kilometre; costs of rail infrastructure renewal assumed fixed)

Freight train, worst case, infrastructure renewal costs fixed

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 charges

costs

Eurocent/vkm

infrastructure M/O, variable traffic accidents noise nuisance air pollution climate emissions charge for rail infra use fuel excise duty+REC

Note that this graph is on a different scale to that for the best case!

Across the board, i.e. from the best to the worst case, usage-dependent charges cover only a fraction of total variable social costs.

10.4.3 Inland shipping

As with rail freight transport, in the case of inland shipping we again see enormous differences. Here the main differences relate to emissions of CO2 (climate impact) and air pollutants. In the best case (figure 48) we have a small vessel burning approximately 20 times less fuel than the quadruple pushed barge unit of the worst case (figure 49) and weighing in at 350 tonnes loading capacity compared with 8,000 tonnes for the latter type of vessel. In addition, every vessel

consumes about twice as much fuel when fully laden (worst case) than when sailing empty (best case). Of less relevance here are river velocity (20% difference) and engine efficiency (15% difference).

figure 48 Variable social costs and user charges, inland shipping, best case (€ ct/vessel kilometre)

Inland shipping, best case

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

charges costs

Eurocent/vkm

infrastructure M/O, variable traffic accidents air pollution climate emissions harbour dues

The influence of all this on the variable costs of waterway maintenance and operation remains unrecorded here, it may be noted, as we have taken these costs as varying with number of passages rather than vessel kilometres.

figure 49 Variable social costs and user charges, inland shipping, worst case (€ ct/vessel kilometre) Inland shipping, worst case

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

charges costs

Eurocent/vkm

infrastructure M/O, variable traffic accidents air pollution climate emissions harbour dues

10.5 Synopsis

There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn with respect to variable costs:

Road passenger vehicles

• For virtually every category of road passenger vehicle, variable user charges add up to less than the variable costs of infrastructure maintenance and operation and other external costs. This conclusion holds even before the costs of traffic congestion are factored into the equation. Once included, they immediately dwarf all other costs.

• Petrol-driven cars are the only vehicle category of which it cannot be said with any certainty that it does not pay its way, in terms of external costs being recovered from user charges. Once congestion sets in, however, cost recovery falls to no more than about 10%.

• In the case of diesel cars, LPG cars and diesel light goods vehicles, variable charges (currently, fuel duty) cover only about half to one-tenth of the variable costs, for diesel and LPG cars, respectively. In this context, it would be wise to use the leverage of fuel duty to recover climate costs (CO2 emissions), using a different instrument (a kilometre charge indexed to vehicle environmental performance, for example) to recover the costs of pollutant emissions (in particular, NOX and fine particulates). (We return to this issue in the concluding chapter).

Light goods vehicles

Because of their heavier engines and greater axle loads, LGVs are associated with somewhat higher nose and emission costs than passenger vehicles. The degree of cost recovery is roughly the same as for diesel passenger cars.

Heavy goods vehicles

The situation is much the same for each of the HGV categories distinguished in this study. In each case, the extent of cost recovery is between about half and one-quarter. Cost coverage is greatest for tractor-(semi)trailer combinations, as these vehicles make greatest use of motorways, where the costs of accidents, pollutant emissions and noise are lowest in relative terms. In addition, this category of HGV pays the most fuel duty per kilometre.

Rail

With respect to both passenger and freight rail transport, it can be concluded that variable costs are subject to considerable variation, depending on train weight, type of traction and urban versus rural operation. Across the board, however, only a fraction of the variable costs are recovered in the form of variable charges.

Inland shipping

11

Conclusions and recommendations