EU to start taxing road freight (HGVs et al)

CIE

Article at EurActiv web site

Minimum vehicle weight is 3.5 tonnes. The taxes are not only on vehicle emissions (including pollution and "pollution"), but also noise and infrastructure costs. Still under consideration is the issue of whether to charge for congestion. Critics have noted that there is no requirement to reinvest all of the revenue in infrastructure.

Hmm...has Ireland shot itself in the foot as far as railfreight? I think we all knew this kind of taxation was coming.

corktina

i doubt it.As the principle is "the polluter pays" ,, its only a matter of time before IE get hit with a huge bill for all those smoky engines left running 24/7

Cookie_Monster

So rather than placing more tax and restrictions on private cars, the majority of which are not really needed, they are going to tax freight, the life blood of many economies even more

How does that make sense?

SeanW

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So rather than placing more tax and restrictions on private cars, the majority of which are not really needed, they are going to tax freight, the life blood of many economies even more

How does that make sense?

The private motorist is already taxed and regulated six ways to hell.

Neither makes sense.

corktina

lets face it, most of us would survive without our cars, how many would survive if there werent any trucks though?

Stinicker

Personally I'd favour if Government and EU spending was cut back and scrap half the bureacracy and leftwing horsedung, cut taxes and cut out the waste and get the economy back to work. Communism is what the EU is, a bunch of libtards who haven't a clue what the real world is about.

foggy_lad

Is this just more locosexual freight haul fastrack scaremongering or something that is going to happen in the next year or two?

Just read the report and it is already in place here as it is in relation to electronic tolls on roads that are tolled! Most trucks pay a much higher rate than cars or vans based on their number of axles which will limit or dictate the maximum weight for these vehicles.

So looks like more scaremongering?

Victor

Stinicker wrote: »

a bunch of libtards

Can be keep things constructive and not reduce ourselves to jingoistic name calling?

Heroditas

corktina wrote: »

i doubt it.As the principle is "the polluter pays" ,, its only a matter of time before IE get hit with a huge bill for all those smoky engines left running 24/7

IE are already hit by the carbon tax and also have to reduce their energy consumption by 33% by 2020 anyway.

CIE

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So rather than placing more tax and restrictions on private cars, the majority of which are not really needed, they are going to tax freight, the life blood of many economies even more

How does that make sense?

No, they're taxing lorries. Their methods are a bit haphazard though, but that's what you get out of an unelected oligarchy.

Since this legislation is mostly brought forward by politicians from countries that themselves have large electrified railway networks, they'd be able to withstand a sizeable shift of freight from road to rail; other countries that are still hell-bent on focussing on 1950s-style transport infrastructure construction get left in the cold. (Also note that freight gets transported on the traditional railway network rather than the high-speed passenger lines.)

Certainly the railway company lobbies are pleased about it to a degree.

The Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER) welcomed in particular "the acceptance of the principle of earmarking, with the recommendation in the directive that revenues should be used to benefit the transport sector, and those generated from external cost charges in particular invested in projects to make transport more sustainable. However, it regrets that while this advice is clear, any final decision on the spending revenues ultimately lies with member states still". ...

French European People's Party MEP Dominique Riquet welcomed the measures, saying "[t]he definitive adoption of the new 'Eurovignette' system will allow us to introduce the polluter-pays principle at the European level in the area of road transport. ... It would be incoherent to introduce such measures for rail transport if we do not do it for road transport..."

CIE

corktina wrote: »

i doubt it.As the principle is "the polluter pays" ,, its only a matter of time before IE get hit with a huge bill for all those smoky engines left running 24/7

That doesn't put out as much pollution as high-revving HGVs. Besides, this is great impetus to electrify the rest of the railways, isn't it? Or who knows, maybe you'll have wires going up all over the place to accommodate trolley-lorries...

tweedledee

Ohhhhh the joys of being in the EU:mad:

Aard

Has anyone actually read the article? All it really does is allow a higher toll for HGVs (<12t vehicles can be excluded) during no more than 5 hours per day. Also, it's only for electronic toll booths. It's mean to ease congestion during the peak commute hours.

A little bit of an over-reaction by some, I think.

corktina

ihgh revving HGVs? isnt the point of the diesel engine that it is slow revving?

dowlingm

No doubt Ireland will square an exemption like the one they have for internal competition in rail and for separating IE infrastructure and IE operations.

Max Power1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So rather than placing more tax and restrictions on private cars, the majority of which are not really needed, they are going to tax freight, the life blood of many economies even more

How does that make sense?

Well they can fcuk right off with that one.

More tax? The private motorist already pays enough motor tax and fuel duties. I pay €600 p/a motor tax and almost €1/ltre in fuel taxes. Thats enough.(far far too much)

corktina

Park it up mate, starve them of their taxes, that'll fix em...

CIE

Max Power1 wrote: »

More tax? The private motorist already pays enough motor tax and fuel duties. I pay €600 p/a motor tax and almost €1/ltre in fuel taxes. Thats enough (far far too much)

The "Carbon Caesars" over in Brussels certainly don't think so.

Watch for commodity prices to go up (especially food) once they get this lorry tax scheme in place, BTW. The countries with well-developed railway systems won't be as badly off...(but perhaps this is by political design?)

corktina

where are they ?

foggy_lad

CIE wrote: »

The "Carbon Caesars" over in Brussels certainly don't think so.

Watch for commodity prices to go up (especially food) once they get this lorry tax scheme in place, BTW. The countries with well-developed railway systems won't be as badly off...(but perhaps this is by political design?)

This is not a lorry tax scheme but as stated a simple way of cutting back on the number of heavy trucks using busy roads at peak times. It will work by increasing the already existing tolls at tolling booths only for vehicles over a certain weight. This will hopefully keep larger delivery Lorena to a minimum in busy city areas thus making bus and car transport better and cheaper for everyone!

CIE

foggy_lad wrote: »

This is not a lorry tax scheme but as stated a simple way of cutting back on the number of heavy trucks using busy roads at peak times. It will work by increasing the already existing tolls at tolling booths only for vehicles over a certain weight. This will hopefully keep larger delivery Lorena to a minimum in busy city areas thus making bus and car transport better and cheaper for everyone

You appear to be oblivious to how dependent Ireland has made itself on road freight transport. Those heavy trucks you speak of will not simply disappear into a pocket universe to reappear when convenient. If they aren't running during peak times, that means they will have to run off-peak, most likely when you're trying to sleep. Deliveries will be at very odd times of day, and lead times will be extended meaning that goods will sometimes not be there when you actually need them. Costs will indeed go up, not down. Government policy has made things so bad on the rail side so as to make railfreight not be a ready alternative without heavy re-investment in both infrastructure and motive power/rolling stock. (No, the canals are less of an alternative. What next, air drops?)

Aard

Another thought: this might just be to nudge countries towards railfreight. Certainly in France you can load your truck up onto a train and avoid the roads altogether. Switzerland (I know, not EU) have the same idea against HGVs traversing their country. There was something mooted from Brussels a while ago about big (in the trillions) investment in rail infrastructure over the next forty years across the Union; one thing that sticks out in my memory is a mandatory (?) rail link to all major airports. This then would tie in with rail-freight.

L1011

I would expect we'll be able to negotiate an exemption from this for a period of time by wailing about how poor our rail freight and regional ports are; and how we can't bring in mass market rail equipment due to gauge - gauge being the main reason we managed to get an exemption from open access for so long and still have one for open access domestic passenger services.

howiya

Heroditas wrote: »

IE are already hit by the carbon tax and also have to reduce their energy consumption by 33% by 2020 anyway.

If they keep closing railway lines they'll hit that target without any difficulty

CIE

MYOB wrote: »

I would expect we'll be able to negotiate an exemption from this for a period of time by wailing about how poor our rail freight and regional ports are; and how we can't bring in mass market rail equipment due to gauge - gauge being the main reason we managed to get an exemption from open access for so long and still have one for open access domestic passenger services.

Not if the whole "carbon" movement at the top echelons continues inexorably. If wailing gets louder about how "poor" the railfreight and ports infrastructure is, then that can be countered with (valid, sadly) criticism about how the government deliberately moved to close more of its railway and port interchange infrastructure. Add to that having a spotlight shone on the bias towards roads spending (IIRC, 90% of transport infrastructure funds spending) and the powers that be would tell the national government to start shifting more spending towards the "greener" (as it were) modes, even if that includes erecting lots of OHLE over the railways or using "greener" diesel-electric units (which, coincidentally, Siemens and Bombardier are engaged in building)...