Abstract
01/03E
National Traffic and
Transport Plan
2001-2020
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COUNCIL IN THE NETHERLANDS
The Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-Economische Raad, SER)
advises government and parliament on the outlines of national and
international social and economic policy and on matters of important legislation in the social and economic sphere.
Employers, employees and independent experts are equally represented in the SER. Their recommendations voice the opinion of
organised industry.
In addition to its advisory function, the council is responsible for the
execution of certain laws.
A brochure on tasks, structure and procedures of the SER can be
obtained, free of charge, from its Sales Department. Please also visit
the SER’s home page on the Internet: (www.ser.nl). It offers a host
of information, such as the composition of the Council and its committees, press releases and the latest news.
© 2001, Sociaal-Economische Raad
All rights reserved. Sections from the SER advisory reports may be
used for the purpose of quotation, with due acknowledgement of
the source of the publication.
Social and Economic Council
Bezuidenhoutseweg 60
PO Box 90405
2509 LK The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel: 0031 (0)70 - 3 499 499
Fax: 0031 (0)70 - 3 832 535
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.ser.nl
Sales Department
Telephone: 0031 (0)70 - 3 499 505
Nationale Traffic and
Transport Plan
2001-2020
SociaalEconomische
Raad
1
This is an abstract of the SER-advisory report:
Nationaal Verkeers- en Vervoersplan 2001-2020
2001, 84 pp., ISBN 90-6587-776-2, orderno. 01/03, ƒ 12,50 / € 5,65
Translated by: Balance Maastricht/Amsterdam
Order no. 01/03E
ISBN 90-6587-791-6
2
Table of contents
1.
Introduction
005
2.
General evaluation of the NVVP
006
3.
The market for mobility
008
4.
Towards a differentiated kilometre charge
010
5.
Accessibility, quality of life and decentralisation
014
3
4
1.
Introduction
In its National Traffic and Transport Plan (NVVP), the Cabinet outlines Dutch
traffic and transport policy for 2001-2020. Traffic and transport policy is a
much-discussed issue in the Netherlands because of increased mobility and
congestion, the large number of traffic accidents, the increase in polluting
exhaust emissions and the amount of scarce space taken up by the traffic
infrastructure. These issues have led to objectives being formulated in the
NVVP for accessibility, safety and quality of life.
In the present Advisory Report, SER (the Social and Economic Council)
sets out its opinion on the NVVP (see section 2). SER makes use of this
opportunity to examine the concept of a market for mobility in greater
detail. From the social point of view, applying the price mechanism can
produce better results in terms of accessibility, safety and quality of life.
These matters are dealt with in sections 3 and 4.
Section 5 goes into a number of issues of spatial planning and traffic and
transport policy – in urban and rural areas – and the decentralisation of
traffic and transport policy proposed in the NVVP.
Nature conservation and environmental protection organisations
participated in producing this Advisory Report.
Key message of the NVVP
The National Traffic and Transport Plan 2001-2020 (NVVP) attempts to
indicate how mobility, accessibility, safety and quality of life should be
managed in the next two decades. Mobility, safety and quality of life all
contribute to prosperity and well-being. The main aim of the NVVP is for the
government to accommodate the increasing need for mobility while at the
same time improving safety and the quality of life. The main ways of doing
this are:
– by making better use of the existing infrastructure;
– by putting a price on mobility by varying and differentiating costs (which
are currently to a large extent fixed);
– by constructing new infrastructure where bottlenecks remain.
The approach taken by the NVVP also features a businesslike approach to
the use of instruments, respect for the choices made by the public and by
businesses (if the costs involved in those choices are paid by the same public
and businesses) and decentralisation of traffic and transport policy. It also
features leeway for public-private partnerships in constructing and
exploiting infrastructure.
5
2.
General evaluation of the NVVP
SER approves of the businesslike approach of the NVVP: the strategy chosen
opens up the prospect of an effective market for mobility. SER is also very
much in favour of the simultaneous improvement of accessibility, safety
and quality of life. Achieving this ambition makes major demands on the
instrumentation and implementation of policy and on the integration of
traditionally differing areas of policy (traffic and transport, environment,
spatial planning). There are of course clear tensions between the three
elements of the main aim.
It will not be possible to incorporate all aspects of accessibility, safety
and quality of life into the pricing on the market. This means that the
government will also need to continue to create public frameworks in
order to take full account of people’s preferences and views in public
decision-making. These policy frameworks still need to be clarified and
detailed in the NVVP.
The deployment of effective instruments and proper monitoring of policy
with feedback to the instrumentation are of crucial importance if the aim is
to be achieved.
Objectives, indicators and instruments
SER has evaluated the policy set out in the NVVP in accordance with the
objectives, the indicators – against which one can decide whether the
objectives have been achieved – and the instruments. The main aim of the
NVVP is to accommodate the need for mobility and at the same time to
improve safety and the quality of life. SER endorses this threefold main aim,
while at the same time recognising the tension that exists between the three
elements. This objective requires the integration of traffic and transport
policy, spatial planning policy and environmental policy.
Where the NVVP’s indicators are concerned, SER wishes to point out that not
all of these are equally quantifiable or capable of being monitored. This will
make it difficult to decide whether or not the targeted objectives have been
achieved.
As far as the instruments mentioned in the NVVP are concerned, SER wishes to
point out that pricing policy takes a central position. One of the aims of the
pricing policy is to ensure that road users pay all the costs associated with
their own mobility. This means, for example, that owning a car will not
make it subject to taxation but driving it will. Pricing policy will also play a
role in investment in traffic infrastructure via the three principles of “use,
price, construct”. The NVVP aims to bring together supply and demand via
6
both routes. In doing so, the NVVP is implicitly referring to the development
of a market for mobility. An effective market for mobility means that the
external cost to the public of mobility is consistently charged to road users
(see below).
Not all objectives receive the same emphasis
Against the background of the balanced threefold main aim of the NVVP,
SER considers that the instrumentation is not evenly balanced as regards the
three elements of accessibility, safety and quality of life. For example, the
effectiveness of the proposed policy mix is only calculated for accessibility
indicators, meaning that certain tensions between accessibility, safety and
quality of life are not considered. The financing aspect is also uneven.
The NVVP considers that measures to improve accessibility can be financed
according to current thinking within existing frameworks, whereas extra
funds will probably already be necessary for the safety and quality of life
aspects before 2010. SER considers that it is obvious that an evenly balanced
approach to the three elements of the objective also requires sufficient
funds to be reserved before 2010 for each of them. Finally, SER regrets the
fact that the NVVP merely refers to existing policy where reducing carbon
dioxide emissions is concerned (the Climate Policy Implementation Plan).
This plan may well be insufficient to achieve the Kyoto objective. It would be
a good thing for the NVVP (which covers the period up to 2020) to state how
traffic and transport policy can contribute to achieving (long-term) climate
policy objectives.
7
3.
The market for mobility
As we have seen, the NVVP implicitly refers to the development of a market
for mobility. SER will deal with this concept of a market for mobility in
greater detail in the present Advisory Report. SER views the market for
mobility as an instrument with which to apply the price mechanism so as to
achieve better results in terms of accessibility, safety and quality of life. Road
users must be confronted with all the costs borne by the public as a result of
their mobility behaviour, primarily such external costs as those for dealing
with noise, accidents, NOx and CO2 emissions and for maintaining the
traffic infrastructure. All these external effects need to be allowed for in the
price as effectively as possible, preferably in a charge per kilometre travelled.
This (kilometre) charge will tackle the use of a vehicle and the infrastructure
and not, as is currently the case, the ownership of a vehicle.
Given a broad concept of well-being, this approach can promote the optimisation – with a view to the demands of accessibility, safety and quality of
life – of both the choice for mobility and the availability of infrastructure for
traffic and transport. Individual preferences can then be respected as much
as possible, with public decision-making on mobility issues being based
more on rational considerations.
However, not all the external effects can be allowed for in pricing. Effective
operation of the market for mobility therefore requires clearly defined
public frameworks. These involve, amongst other things, guarantees for
a sufficient level of competition, spatial planning and the protection of
human life. Public transport and chain mobility also need to be facilitated
within frameworks.
The market for mobility consists of a number of subordinate markets and
these differ in the extent to which they are able to express concern for
public objectives via the market mechanism or require special political
decision-making. SER distinguishes between:
– the market for transport services (the use of vehicles and infrastructure);
– the market for vehicles;
– the market for fuels;
– the market for infrastructure.
Use and construction of infrastructure
The subordinate markets making up the market for mobility are naturally
closely associated with one another. There is, for example, a clear crossconnection between the market for infrastructure and that for the use of
the infrastructure. Available capacity influences the price for using the
infrastructure. In a perfect market, a price for using the infrastructure
8
which rose in accordance with congestion would foster the extra provision
of infrastructure. However, the construction of infrastructure cannot be left
entirely to the market mechanism because investment in infrastructure
creates external effects, for example when it produces noise or cuts through
nature conservation areas. In order to optimise well-being, it is necessary to
take such effects into account; in order to achieve this, political decisionmaking is necessary. Political responsibility will be all the more important
the “softer” the values considered are and the less they can be effectively
expressed in monetary terms.
An integrated public cost-benefit analysis is a vital aid to political decisionmaking because it allows various different alternatives to be considered
simultaneously (for example better use of infrastructure as opposed to
physically expanding it; construction with and without public-private
partnerships). The credibility of the cost-benefit analysis as an integrated
instrument for deciding between partly conflicting interests depends
entirely on the care with which all the interests and values are taken into
account.
One important component of the market for mobility is the pricing aspect.
This will be dealt with in the next section.
9
4.
Towards a differentiated kilometre charge
The European background
In July 1998, the European Commission published a White Paper with
proposals for an EU system for determining charges for the use of infrastructure1. In its Advisory Report Doorberekening van maatschappelijke kosten
bij verkeer en vervoer (Passing on the cost to the public of traffic and transport)
SER evaluated the paper primarily with regard to the consequences for
public well-being2. SER considers that the maximum contribution to public
well-being by traffic and transport can be promoted by making as much
use as possible of the market mechanism. This means that when taking
decisions on mobility individuals must be confronted with the actual cost
to the public in accordance with the principles of “the user pays” and “the
polluter pays”. Where costs are external (for example for the environment),
government intervention is often necessary in the form of regulations or
charges.
From the perspective of the economics of well-being, the primary objective
of charging in order to recover the cost to the public is to improve allocation
by promoting optimum use of the available funds. The level of the charge
must therefore be set in such a way as to allow for the cost to the public
created by extra traffic and transport movements at a given moment and
in a particular place. This requires far-reaching differentiation of charges,
depending on the differences between vehicles, geographical circumstances
and other relevant factors.
SER therefore endorses the principle that all transport sectors should bear
the cost to the public that they cause. In this connection, SER has attached
seven conditions to the EU charging system (see box)3.
1
2
3
10
European Commission, Fair payment for infrastructure use: a phased approach to a common transport
infrastructure charging framework in the EU (White Paper), COM (1998) 466, Brussels, 22 July 1998
SER Advisory Report Doorberekening van maatschappelijke kosten bij verkeer en vervoer (Passing on the
cost to the public of traffic and transport), publication no. 99/01, The Hague 1999.
SER Advisory Report Doorberekening van maatschappelijke kosten bij verkeer en vervoer (Passing on the
cost to the public of traffic and transport), publication no. 99/01, The Hague 1999, pp. 6, 7, 34 and
35.
Conditions for an EU charging
system
1. The system must be a transparent
and well-founded one and its correct
and non-discriminatory applicatio
must be monitored.
2. The level of the charges must be
derived directly from the extent of
the (marginal) public costs that are
not already charged for in any other
way. The charge must be periodically
adjusted to take account of (actual)
trends in external costs.
3. The system must not be allowed to
have any substantial negative effect
on competition, either between the
Member States of the European
Union or between or within transport
sectors. The principle should be that
of full recovery of the cost to the
public. The level of the charge will
differ between transport sectors
and between Member States, with
comparative advantages being
4.
5.
6.
7.
visible. This pattern of comparative
advantages must not be disturbed
by any major differences in the rate
at which the Member States or
transport sectors introduce the
charging system.
Any distortion of competition with
non-EU countries which do not
recover the full cost to the public
of traffic and transport must be
prevented.
Where the new charging system will
lead to significant cost changes,
phased implementation will be
required.
The charging system must not be an
aim in itself. Other instruments may
be more suitable for recovering
certain public costs.
Existing EU regulations as regards
charges for traffic and transport
will need to be amended. It would
therefore seem to be reasonable for
the minimum EU rate of road tax
(MRB) to be set at zero.
National policy
SER regrets that the NVVP fails to indicate the current position as regards
the White Paper. This makes it difficult to assess how the proposals set out
in the NVVP for the introduction of a kilometre charge relate to the EU
charging system which is to be developed. In this context there are pressing
questions of a strategic and operational nature, such as:
– how can the national initiative for a kilometre charge be taken forward
most effectively in order to introduce an EU charging system?
– how will the interoperability of monitoring and charging systems within
the EU be guaranteed?
SER endorses the pricing policy set out in the NVVP and in particular the
proposal for a kilometre charge which is differentiated according to time,
place and environmental impact. The pricing policy must ensure that
optimum use is made of society’s own ability to see to it that the objectives
of accessibility, safety and quality of life are achieved simultaneously.
11
Calculations carried out by the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy
Analysis confirm that the pricing policy will be beneficial to the public.
In the view of SER, the primary reason for recovering the cost to the public is
to improve allocation. For this purpose, a better balance needs to be achieved
between the individual benefits and the public cost of mobility. The proceeds can be invested in construction, maintenance and improvement of
the infrastructure and in solving the environmental and spatial planning
problems created by traffic and transport. This also opens up possibilities
for public-private partnerships where the provision of infrastructure is
concerned. For the possibilities of public-private partnerships to be used
effectively, payment for using infrastructure will of course need to be made
which benefits the body managing the infrastructure concerned. The NVVP
does not make clear the government’s reasons for proposing a pricing policy.
It is important that these should be transparent because it is the reasons
that determine the actual system of charges.
The NVVP foresees the phased introduction of a kilometre charge: first a
peak charge, then a system of variation in existing fixed charges; next the
introduction of norms will lead to a fall in the external cost of mobility, and
finally the external costs will be incorporated into the price. SER considers
that phased introduction will be a good thing. It must of course be well
thought out and determined in a transparent and a convincing manner
so that businesses and private individuals can take it into account when
making decisions on purchasing and investment. SER asks that there should
be specific attention to this aspect because the passages in the NVVP dealing
with phasing in the kilometre charge do not provide an adequate groundwork for the effective introduction of the system.
Tradable emission rights
The kilometre charge is an important instrument for recovering costs borne
by the public but it is not the only one. In the framework of climate policy,
SER recommends making use of the mechanism of tradable emission rights.
The Netherlands will need to make major efforts to achieve the internationally agreed 6% reduction in emissions on 1990 levels by 20104. Given the
continuing high level of CO2 emissions for which it is responsible, the traffic
and transport sector cannot be allowed to get off lightly in this respect.
The introduction of tradable emission rights for greenhouse gasses means
that optimum use can be made of the self-regulating ability of society. Given
the emission objectives, the market will itself select the most cost-effective
4
12
See also SER Advisory Report Uitvoeringsnota klimaatbeleid, deel 1 (Implementation memorandum,
part 1), publication no. 99/14, The Hague 1999.
measures for reducing emissions5. This will be a particularly attractive
situation in the case of CO2 because the actual geographical location where
emissions are reduced is irrelevant in mitigating the greenhouse effect.
SER is in favour of a global trade (beginning in Europe) in CO2 emission
rights between businesses. Research will be needed to determine how the
traffic and transport sector can take part in such trading.
5
See SER Advisory Report Emissiehandel in klimaatbeleid (Tradable emission rights in climate policy),
publication no. 00/06, The Hague 2000.
13
5.
Accessibility, quality of life and decentralisation
Accessibility and quality of life in urban areas
City centres have a large number of functions concentrated in a small area.
Achieving a good balance between accessibility, safety and quality of life in
urban areas requires efficient traffic solutions which take account of the
needs of residents, businesses, cyclists and pedestrians. Allocating scarce
space and promoting the intensive, multiple, high-quality use of space are
among the biggest challenges facing city administrators.
More specifically, consideration needs to be given to the necessary parking
policy and the position of public transport. A parking policy that will
support urban vitality needs to be tailor-made at local level because there
are major differences in the situation of different cities. This need for locally
tailored policy does not mean that government guidance will not be necessary. National frameworks and instruments will still be necessary as a basis
on which local and regional authorities can give shape to parking policy and
co-ordinate it.
Public transport plays an important part in ensuring the accessibility and
vitality of (inner) cities. With urban vitality in mind, SER endorses the
ambition expressed in the NVVP to bring about a major improvement in
public transport. This will demand major investment in physical infrastructure and material and in the organisations responsible.
Accessibility and quality of life in rural areas
In rural areas too there is tension between accessibility and quality of life.
This involves primarily the reduction in size of nature conservation areas
and (cultivated) landscapes by traffic infrastructure. Cutting into such areas
leads to fragmentation and creates barriers to the mobility of fauna (and
of pedestrians and cyclists). The value of nature and the landscape cannot
be expressed as a price, which is why the government must create public
frameworks in order to protect these values.
SER also considers it logical and desirable that when infrastructure needs
to be expanded, roads and railway lines should be widened in preference
to new ones being constructed. This will prevent further fragmentation of
the landscape. It goes without saying that before there is any expansion of
capacity there will need to be careful consideration of the cost and benefits
for the public.
14
Regional mobility funds
The NVVP is staking a lot on far-reaching decentralisation of traffic and
transport policy. This will be carried out in various ways, including by
setting up regional mobility funds. In the first few years, the funds involved
will be intended entirely for infrastructure. In the longer term, they will
also need to cover the cost of public transport and other traffic and transport policy. This will need to provide local and regional authorities with
sufficient funds to make possible integrated decision-making within the
various spatial planning policy fields.
SER entirely endorses the policy decentralisation proposals set out in the
NVVP and agrees that regional mobility funds should be set up. Regional
mobility funds can help integrate regional traffic and transport policy with
adjoining policy fields (spatial planning, housing construction, location
policy, urban renewal). In this connection, the exploitation of regional
public transport should be subsumed within the mobility funds before too
long. This will give local and regional authorities more leeway to make
agreements with such groups as real estate developers and site operators
(recreation parks, office buildings, conference centres and shopping centres)
as to the quality and funding of public transport links.
Ensuring cohesion between regional traffic and transport policy and other
fields of policy demands an area-oriented approach and an integrated
management body that can make democratically based decisions. The final
budgetary responsibility for the mobility funds will therefore always need to
lie with a province or a municipality.
15
Translated publications
Abstracts of recent opinions in English, French and German
00/12D
Auf dem Weg zu einem gesunden
Krankenversicherungssystem
2000, 28 pp., ISBN 90-6587-785-1
99/18E
Promoting labour participation among
older people
1999, 12 pp., ISBN 90-6587-735-5
00/12F
Vers un système sain d’assurances maladie
2000, 28 pp., ISBN 90-6587-786-X
99/16E
The Enlargement to the East of the
European Union
1999, 15 pp., ISBN 90-6587-729-0
00/09E
Long-Range Equal Opportunities Policy
Document
2000, 16 pp., ISBN 90-6587-761-4
00/08E
Medium-term social and economic policy,
2000-2004
2000, 33 pp., ISBN 90-6587-753-1
00/08F
Politique économique et sociale de
2000 à 2004
2000, 35 pp., ISBN 90-6587-767-3
00/PK/F
Les retraites complémentaires aux
Pays-Bas
2000, 44 pp., ISBN 90-6587-769-X
00/PK/D
Rentenkarte der Niederlande
2000, 44 pp., ISBN 90-6587-768-1
00/PK/E
Pension Survey of the Netherlands
2000, 41 pp., ISBN 90-6587-754-1
00/02E
Social and economic policy co-ordination in
the European Union
2000, 17 pp., ISBN 90-6587-738-0
00/01F
Coordination des poliques économique et
sociales au sein de l’Union européenne
2000, 18 pp., ISBN 90-6587-742-8
00/01E
Social Security in the Netherlands:
the need for organisational reform
2000, 30 pp., ISBN 90-6587-734-7
16
99/12E
Market and government
1999, 17 pp., ISBN 90-6587-733-9
99/04E
Higher Education and Research Plan 2000
1999, 20 pp., ISBN 90-6587-719-3
98/18E
European Social Dialogue
1998, 20 pp., ISBN 90-6587-710-X
98/09E
ICT and the consumer
1998, 21 pp., ISBN 90-6587-692-8
98/08E
Socio-economic policy 1998-2002
1998, 27 pp., ISBN 90-6587-701-0
98/04E
Agenda 2000: financing and enlarging the
European Union
1998, 18 pp., ISBN 90-6587-686-3
96/09E
Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy
1996, 24 pp., ISBN 90-6587-632-4
96/09D
Reform der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik
1996, 25 pp., ISBN 90-6587-633-2
96/09F
Réforme de la politique agricole commune
1996, 25 pp., ISBN 90-6587-634-X
96/05E
Towards an innovative economy
1996, 33 pp., ISBN 90-6587-631-6
Published by:
Social and Economic Council
Bezuidenhoutseweg 60
PO Box 90405
2509 LK The Hague
The Netherlands
ISBN 90-6587-791-6 / CIP