Comparative
information on transport prices and taxation across Europe
Compiled by T&E,
Brussels, September 2000
Road tolls in different European countries
Fuel prices in European countries
Eco-points (and brief
technical explanation of the eco-point scheme)
Road charging schemes (Introduction,
Switzerland, Germany, Austria)
Road tolls in different European countries
Not all European countries operate road tolls. It is difficult to get hold of information on the level of tolls in all countries which have them, as companies tend not to publish them and there is not easily accessible central information point which lists them.
See Annex 1 for a list of French toll prices: it is used as an example. See Annex 2 for the organisations operating tolls in those European countries which have them.
Charging systems in EU15 (from T&E 99/6)
|
Charging system |
Number of
EU Member States applying it |
|
Fuel tax |
15 |
|
Annual vehicle tax |
15 |
|
Eurovignette |
6 |
|
Registration / sales tax |
5 |
|
Road tolls (excluding tunnels / bridges |
5 |
|
Tax on vehicle insurance premiums |
11 |
Fuel prices in European countries
Minimum levels of excise duty applicable to road fuels
in the EU, € per 1,000
litres, currently and proposed (table from T&E 99/6)
|
|
Proposed for 1/01/1998 |
Proposed for 1/01/2000 |
Proposed for 1/01/2002 |
|
|
Petrol |
287 |
417 |
450 |
500 |
|
Diesel |
245 |
310 |
343 |
393 |
Levels of motor fuel excise duties in EU15 plus Norway
and Switzerland in September 1998. The table also provides information on how many individual countries
will have to increase their excise duties in order to comply with the proposed
EU minimum levels for 2002. Excise
duties on diesel and unleaded petrol (€ per 1,000 litres and percentage
increase) in the countries of Western Europe as of 1 April 1999 and required
increase for complying with the proposed EU minimum levels for excise duties in
2002. From T&E 99/6.
|
Petrol
excise duty |
Petrol
excise duty %
required increase |
Diesel
excise duty |
Diesel
excise duty %
required increase |
|
|
Austria |
414.4 |
21 |
289.7 |
36 |
|
Belgium |
507.2 |
0 |
290.0 |
36 |
|
Denmark |
506.5 |
0 |
307.7 |
28 |
|
Finland |
559.7 |
0 |
304.7 |
29 |
|
France |
589.5 |
0 |
371.7 |
6 |
|
Germany |
531.8 |
0 |
347.7 |
13 |
|
Greece |
318.5 |
57 |
256.6 |
53 |
|
Ireland |
378.7 |
32 |
330.1 |
19 |
|
Italy |
541.8 |
0 |
403.2 |
0 |
|
Luxembourg |
347.3 |
44 |
252.9 |
55 |
|
Netherlands |
586.8 |
0 |
a323.3 |
22 |
|
Portugal |
498.8 |
0 |
295.3 |
33 |
|
Spain |
371.7 |
34 |
269.9 |
46 |
|
Sweden |
486.9 |
0 |
b291.1 |
35
|
|
United Kingdom |
624.5 |
0 |
c609.0 |
0 |
|
Norwayd |
565.0 |
0 |
438.0 |
0 |
|
Switzerland |
456.0 |
6 |
473.0 |
0 |
a Includes a
payback arrangement for > 100 litre filling-up actions of € 22.7 per 1,000
litres;
b Ultra sulphur diesel
(environmental class 1) which dominates the Swedish market. The charge on
standard diesel (class 3) is € 346 per 1,000 litres;
c Low sulphur diesel,
which has gained a large market share since the beginning of 1999. The rate for
normal diesel is € 638.8;
d Levels as of 1 September 1998.
Sources: EC DG XVII’s (now DG TREN) Oil Bulletin 28 March 1999 (including €31 increase for petrol and diesel in Germany as of 1 April 1999), and T&E´s member organisations in Norway and Switzerland.
Austrian transit traffic takes ‘buy now, pay later’ approach
(T&E Bulletin 89, June 2000)
Environmental concerns are
taking a back seat in Austrian transit traffic.
This is the opinion of
T&E member VCÖ, reacting to the news that important environmental
safeguards on transit traffic, negotiated as part of Austria's membership of
the EU, are being ignored and could be modified.
For environmental reasons,
Austria insisted on limits to transit traffic when it joined the EU, and these
were incorporated under Protocol 9 of the accession agreement. Under the
protocol, member-states are given a certain fixed number of “eco-points” to
distribute to their hauliers, with the total number of eco-points being reduced
each year.
Each lorry passing through
Austria pays a number of eco-points proportional to its emissions. The goal is to reduce pollutants by 60% over
12 years.
The protocol also limits the
absolute number of transit journeys. If the total in any one year exceeds the
base year (1991) by more than 8%, then there is a 20% reduction in available
eco-points the following year. This happened in 1999, but so far in 2000 member
states have ignored the reduction and used their eco-points as if they had a
full allocation.
If the agreement is to be
implemented, transit traffic should halve between now and January 2001. The
Commission has instead proposed spreading the reductions over a four-year
period, 2000-03, as it believes implementing the agreement would have
“disproportionately major negative consequences”.
While there will be debate
about which option to take, there are concerns that the environment will be the
real loser. “In principle, it doesn’t
really matter which of the two options is taken,” said Wolfgang Rauh of VCÖ.
“The most important thing is
that the spirit of the agreement is kept and the environment protected. Member states have so far ignored the
environmental agreement with impunity, and it seems likely they will want to
continue their ‘buy-now, pay-later’ approach to the accession agreement.”
Brenner issue (& Eco-points)
Citizens take to the streets (T&E Bulletin 90, July
2000)
Citizens living in Austria’s delicate Alpine
region are so alarmed about the problem of transit traffic they have taken
matters into their own hands.
Accusing the Commission of not sticking to
Austria’s EU accession agreements, and the Austrian government of not doing
anything about it, the groups, co-ordinated by Transitforum Austria Tirol,
blockaded the Brenner pass for 29 hours late last month [= June 2000]. And they
have threatened more action in the autumn if the problem
is not solved.
Fritz Gurgiser of Transitforum said the
blockade was “a signal that the people affected most by international traffic
are ready to fight for their survival.”
The blockade was over two related
issues. Firstly, it was a protest against the likely European Court of Justice
ruling against Austria over the Eurovignette. Austria is accused of breaching
two aspects of the Eurovignette directive in its attempts to charge lorries for
the damage they do to the environment and local residents (see March 2000 Bulletin for the full story).
Secondly, citizens want the “ecopoint” system
to be implemented as agreed. Ecopoints are designed to reduce pollution in the Alpine
region, and limit the absolute number of transit journeys in a given year. If
the number of journeys is too high in one year, as was the case in 1999, then
there must be a significant reduction in the following year. Therefore, if the
agreement is to be implemented, then transit traffic should halve between now
and January 2001, but no action to reduce transit traffic has yet been taken
(see June Bulletin).
In a strongly-worded letter to the Austrian
chancellor in early May, Transitforum accused the European Commission of a
“conscious breach of contract which it is knowingly intensifying” over the
ecopoints scheme, and called on the government to take action.
The Commission has argued that fully
implementing the agreement in 2000 would have “disproportionately major
negative consequences” and has instead proposed spreading the reductions over a
four-year period, with reductions coming mainly from those countries which most
use the routes.
The transport Council, meeting just after the
blockade, failed to agree the Commission’s suggested four-year spread, with five countries forming a blocking
minority against it. Austria voted against the proposal, arguing for immediate
cuts in traffic, while Germany, Italy, Belgium and Greece argued there is no
need for traffic cuts at all. If the Council cannot reach agreement within
three months the Commission can adopt its proposal unilaterally.
T&E’s Austrian Member VCÖ said that while the
Brenner blockade doesn’t solve any problems, it should be seen as a useful
opportunity to rethink traffic policy and develop better solutions.
Attempt
to charge true road costs judged illegal (T&E Bulletin, March 2000)
Attempts in Austria to charge lorries for the
damage they do to residents and the environment have run off the road.
The European Court of Justice’s advocate
general Antonio Saggio said last month [= February 2000] that the tolls Austria
currently levies on heavy goods vehicles using the Brenner Pass motorway are
against EU law. The level of the toll
was set to protect the Alpine communities living near the motorway.
Although Saggio’s report is not binding on the
full court, it is in effect a pre-judgement and means Austria might soon have
to repay billions of euros.
The Commission says Austria is breaching two
aspects of the Eurovignette directive, both the original 1993 version and the
updated version from last year: firstly, the Brenner toll discriminates against
non-Austrian lorries; and secondly, its level exceeds the cost of building or
maintaining the motorway.
Wolfgang Rauh of T&E’s Austrian member VCÖ
said: “The current level of the Brenner toll should be legitimate. The judgement from the European Court is
justified on legal grounds because the Eurovignette directive says only the
infrastructure costs can be charged for, not the environmental and other
external costs.
“The Commission has been suggesting for years
that external costs should be internalised in charges such as this. It is now high time these suggestions become
part of a new directive on charging for road use.”
To avoid discriminating against non-Austrian
lorries, the VCÖ suggests not eliminating the Brenner toll but extending it to
another trans-Tyrol route, the Inntal motorway, which it says would be
consistent with EU law.
Meanwhile Germany has announced it wants to
introduce a national distance-based charging scheme for heavy vehicles in
2002-03 which will include taking exhaust emissions into account “if
technically possible”. The initial
suggested charge is €0.13 per km travelled, which would be too low to include
any external costs (France currently charges €0.14 and Italy €0.10-0.15).
T&E and its main German member VCD have
welcomed the announcement, though stressing that this can only be a first step
on the road to fair and efficient pricing.
Road Charging
schemes (taken from T&E 99/6, updated in 2000)
Introduction
The possible
introduction of a scheme for electronic Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) charging
should be viewed as much as possible in an international context. Harmonisation
of the charge base (vehicle classes) and, to a certain degree, of the technical
and payment systems, is of utmost importance to achieve the maximum efficiency
from the charging regime.
In this
chapter we present an overview of activities in the countries that are
currently most active in the area of electronic kilometre charging for HGVs:
Switzerland, Germany and Austria.
Annex A of
T&E 99/6 (available free on T&E’s web-site http://www.t-e.nu)contains a
description of experiences with km charging systems in Scandinavia, Australia
and New Zealand, as well as experiences and plans with electronic road pricing
for passenger cars in Singapore and the Netherlands.
Swiss kilometre charge (2001)
In a recent
agreement with the EU[1],
Switzerland agreed to replace its ban on HGVs over 28 tonnes with a
kilometre-based charging scheme. The scheme is due to be introduced in 2001 for
all HGVs with GVW > 3.5 tonnes. The system is unique as it is the only
system up to now announced in Europe that will cover all kilometres driven in a
country.
Main system
Switzerland
has decided to use an OBU (On Board Unit) linked to the tachograph as the
primary technology. GPS is used as a backup system in order to perform a check
on the kilometres indicated by the tachograph. The OBU will contain vehicle
characteristics such as the registration number, GVW etc. The OBU will also
contain a function indicating whether a trailer is coupled or not.
The
measurement of the mileage is based on the tachograph. Nearly all tachographs
currently in use have a built-in output where electrical pulses that are
proportional to distance driven are available. Currently, the OBU is connected
to this output and counts these pulses. Calibration of the OBU ensures that the
mileage reading on the OBU equals the one on the tachograph. In the future,
when the new European digital tachograph is introduced, the mileage could be
transmitted from the tachograph to the OBU directly as a digital numerical
value.
Beacons
installed at the Swiss border will work with DSRC (Dedicated Short-Range
Communications, microwave) systems. These beacons will serve three purposes:
1
first, they will be installed at the Swiss
border in order to switch the system on or off;
2
second, the beacons will perform an extra check
by reading OBU-log-file entries to verify whether OBU data (e. g. registered
vehicle and trailer characteristics, mileage, user manipulations) are
consistent. Video pictures will be taken of HGVs passing beacons in order to
check whether the number plate is consistent with the OBU registration number
and if the vehicle is articulated or not;
3
third, they could be installed at entrances to
certain transit routes in order to switch to a higher charge level[2].
Exception system for non-equipped vehicles
There is an obligation for all 52,000 Swiss HGVs
to have the OBU installed by 2001. This implies an exception system will only
be necessary for foreign drivers (who do not want to buy an OBU).
The system is
a semi-electronic self-service system with a so-called ‘ID-card’. At the
border, the driver gets a vehicle ID-card indicating vehicle data and payment
data (only tank cards or custom accounts are acceptable). Every time they pass
the border, they enter the card and their actual mileage and trailer data (yes
/ no, weight) into a terminal; then they receive a ticket presenting the
relevant data. When leaving the country, the driver fills in their new mileage
on the ticket and hands it over to the customs authorities. If the card
indicates an account number, payment is made electronically.
Charge
levels
In the
agreement with the EU, the maximum average kilometre charge (weighted for
engine emission class) is related to a reference trip with a length of 300 km.
The average maximum level as of 2005 is set at € 180 for a 40-tonne HGV. This level will be increased
to € 200 as soon
as the first transalpine tunnel is opened, or from 2008 at the latest. The € 200 fee is equal to € 0.5 per tonne GVW for this reference
trip, or € 0.017 per
gross tkm. The Swiss intend to charge all Swiss road transport with GVW over 28
tonnes the maximum permissible average amount. See Table 1.
Table 1 Maximum
permissible km charge rates to be applied in Switzerland for HGVs, in €
per vkm |Agreement between EU and Switzerland 1999|
|
Year |
Euro 2 |
Euro 1 |
Euro 0 |
Average |
Weight |
|
2001-2004 |
0.30 |
0.36 |
0.42 |
not fixed |
34 tons |
|
2005-2007* |
0.52 |
0.59 |
0.73 |
0.60 |
40 tons |
|
2008- |
0.58 |
0.66 |
0.82 |
0.67 |
40 tons |
Based on an exchange rate of CHF 1 =
€ 0.624.
* If the Lötschberg railway tunnel is opened
before 2008, the 2008 rates will apply from the day the tunnel is opened. According
to a protection clause, HGV charges may be increased by 12.5% for a maximum
period of one year in the case of under-utilisation of the Lötschberg tunnel
capacity (less than two thirds used for a period of at least 10 weeks).
The national GVW before 1.1.05
is 34 tonnes. Within the bilateral agreements on transport between the European
Union and Switzerland a limited number of vehicles per year of up to 40 tonnes
are allowed before 2005. The rates per kilometre for these limited number of
vehicles are higher than the normal rates shown in Table 1.
HGVs with GVW up to 28 tonnes
may face a slightly lower charge (on average about € 0.0155 instead of € 0.017
per gross tkm from 2008).
Furthermore, in the period 2001-04
there will be a transitional quota arrangement for at most 220,000 trips per
year with HGVs with an actual GVW up to 28 tonnes (empty HGVs and HGVs
with certain light goods). These vehicles will have to pay a flat fee,
increasing from € 31 in 2001 up to € 50 by 2004 for each alpine transit. As of
2005 these vehicles will have to pay the normal charge. This is a compromise in
the EU-CH agreement.
Finally, the agreement allows
charge level differentiation between alpine transit kilometres and other kilometres
on Swiss territory. As maximum charge levels may not be exceeded in any
circumstance, this would in practice mean a lower overall charge level. No
political decision has yet been taken in Switzerland about the introduction of
an alpine transit tax. Therefore, the rates shown in Table 1 will be used for
kilometre charging but they also include a potential future alpine transit tax.
As the
introduction of the charges is linked to the cost-cutting increase of the
maximum permitted GVW from 28 to 40 tonnes, it is expected that final road
haulage costs will not increase substantially compared with the current
situation.
Costs
The OBU will
cost about € 800 per
HGV. If we assume 60,000 vehicles (52,000 Swiss, 8,000 foreign) to be equipped
with an € 800 OBU,
the OBU costs will amount to € 48
million per vehicle generation. Development costs will be about € 25 million, investment costs about € 80m, and operating costs will
amount to about to € 16m per
annum. If we assume OBU costs to be written off over seven years (the average
HGV lifetime), and development and investment costs over 15 years, we find
total annual costs of about €
35m. The final revenues of the charging system are estimated at € 1 billion. This implies that total
costs will amount to about 3 to 4% of total revenues. It must be stressed that
these are only estimates which include a degree of uncertainty which cannot be
avoided when looking this far ahead.
It should be
noted here that Switzerland is a pioneer, and that its HGV fleet is rather
small. Costs will probably be lower for countries that follow.
The
authorities will have to take care to ensure that distortions of competition do
not arise between Swiss hauliers and foreign hauliers. The two groups must be
offered the systems on the same conditions though with some requirements as
guarantees for foreign vehicles.
Payment
For Swiss
hauliers, the system will work on a post-payment basis. The OBU entries will be
read each month by a chip-card which then has to be sent physically to the
authorities. The authorities check the data and send an invoice. At a later
stage, the transmission of the OBU-data via the internet could be considered.
For foreign
hauliers, electronic post-payment is only considered feasible if they have a
tank or a customs account. If not, the evasion risk is considered too high and
cash payments will have to be made.
Interoperability
The Swiss
strive towards interoperability between their system and other European systems
in the following ways:
·
by keeping the system’s architecture as open as
possible;
·
by complying with the CEN pre-standards for the
DSRC system;
·
by having the OBU, border beacons and
enforcement stations in different tenders, so that several suppliers are forced
to test interoperability for each others’ systems in practice. (However, the
tendering processes has resulted in limiting the suppliers to Kapsch and
Q-Free);
An
illustration of the Swiss system can be found on page 8 of T&E 99/6
(available for free on the “Publications” page of T&E’s web-site: http://www.t-e./nu).
Current
information about the Swiss Heavy Vehicles Tax can be found on the website of
Swiss Customs Authority [http://www.zoll.admin.ch].
German motorway kilometre charge
Germany
has announced that it will introduce a kilometre charge for HGVs with a GVW
over 12 tonnes. With reference to the agreement between the partners within the
German government, the introduction is foreseen early in the near future. This
could be before the end of 2002. The charge will only apply to HGV kilometres
driven on motorways.
The
process is still at quite an early stage. The German government has decided to
set up a list of requirements the system should fulfil and have consortia bid
for the job. The exact requirements for the system are currently being worked
out.
Although,
there have not been taken yet any political decision, a expert group has
already signalised that the financing of the infrastructure should move from
taxes to user charges. The same expert group has suggested to fix the HGV
kilometre charge at 0.25 DM/km (http://www.bmvbw.de)
corresponding to € 0.128. However, in recent years no signals on charge levels have been
given from the Ministry.
Germany
will play a very important role in the progress of kilometre charging in Europe
because of its economic weight and central geographical position. Therefore, it
is highly recommended that Germany start negotiations with Switzerland, Austria
and the Eurovignette countries in order to ensure a smooth introduction and
good interoperability with other future km charging systems.
Austrian motorway kilometre charge
(2002)/Ecopoint system
The
situation in Austria is uncertain on a political level. However, Austria has
also signalled its intention to introduce a km charge for HGVs with GVW over
3.5 tonnes driving on its ‘high performance’ roads. Austria has about 2,000 km
of these roads, 1,700 km of motorways and 300 km of other fast roads.
Currently
Austria operates the so-called ‘Ecopoint’ system for HGVs making full transits.
This is a remnant from EU accession negotiations. Part of the deal was
abolition in 2003. The introduction of the km charge is currently scheduled for
2002, i.e. before the Ecopoint deadline. In the text below, we first describe
the Ecopoint system, then we will describe the new charging plans.
In the first
years, the Ecopoint system was operated manually. In 1998 automatic point collection
with an on-board responder (‘Ecotag’) was introduced. The system has two
switches; green (Austrian transit mode, Ecopoints required) and red (other).
When passing the Austrian border, the system is automatically turned green, so
the driver has to switch it back to red when he is not going to make a full
transit. Beacons register the number of Ecopoints required, give a signal to
the Ecotag that the transaction has been performed and send it to the central
computer in Vienna. This computer contains data from all firms operating the
Ecotag system and checks whether the number of points required is available.
When exiting Austria, the system is turned ‘green’ again.
The system
is not watertight due to the manual switch to ‘red’. When no manual checks are
performed, it is possible to transit Austria with a ‘red’ Ecotag (so no
Ecopoints are registered). There is not much of an incentive to do so, as there
is no serious shortage of Ecopoints. However, frequent manual checks are
performed. If faulting is detected a fine of €1,450 is levied. As hauliers do
not benefit from cheating, quite a high percentage of the fines is due to
unintended cheating[3]:
·
in some cases the beacons do not ‘read’ the
Ecotag, especially when it’s raining and the windscreen wipers are working
(also sometimes the beacons just do not work properly);
·
the driver cannot see whether Ecopoints have
been read or not;
·
the system does not give a signal if the
batteries are not working properly;
·
the glue to attach the Ecotag to the window is of
poor quality.
Austria
wants to use parts of the Ecopoint system for the km charge system. Experience
to date suggests that Austria will have to do some work to improve reliability
and user-friendliness of the system at the same time.
New charging
system
The system
will consist of an OBU, which will enable the driver to drive his vehicle
through a beacon at about 30 km/h. Kilometre registration is not necessary,
because the motorway system is closed. Therefore the OBU system only has to
contain vehicle and payment data. In total, 90 payment points will be
installed. The system will look quite like the French péage, with automatic and
manual payment lanes (the latter for the exception system).
Charging
levels will be differentiated according to the number of axles (2, 3 or 4+) and
will on average amount to €
0.09, € 0.12 and € 0.15 per km respectively. Charges
may be higher for expensive bridges, tunnels etc. No environmental
differentiation is foreseen yet.
The
development and investment costs are estimated at € 290m. Operating costs are estimated at € 55m per annum. OBU costs will be
relatively low. If investment costs are assumed to be written off over 15
years, total annual costs will amount to about € 82m. The annual charge revenues are estimated at € 250m. This implies costs will be
about one third of the revenue, quite a high value. The main reasons for this
are the rather low charge level and the fact that it will be applied to
motorway kilometres only.
Évolution
des taux kilométriques moyens du péage (average prices, 1995-1998)
|
En centimes/kilomètre |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
|
Véhicules légers |
38 |
39 |
41 |
42 |
|
Poids lourds |
83 |
86 |
91 |
94 |
|
TUNNEL DU FREJUS |
|||||
|
Classe |
Types de véhicules |
Aller |
Aller |
Aller/Retour |
Aller/Retour |
|
1 |
Véhicules dont l'empattement est inférieur ou égal à
2,30 m |
101,00 |
15,45 |
130,00 |
19,91 |
|
2 |
Véhicules dont l'empattement est supérieur à 2,30 m et inférieur
ou égal à 2,63 m |
154,00 |
23,44 |
192,00 |
29,29 |
|
3 |
Véhicules dont l'empattement est supérieur à 2,63 m et
inférieur ou égal à 3,30 m |
200,00 |
30,46 |
254,00 |
38,66 |
|
4 |
Véhicules à 2 essieux dont l'empattement est supérieur
à 3,30 m |
482,00 |
73,43 |
786,00 |
119,76 |
|
5 |
Véhicules à 3 essieux |
734,00 |
111,86 |
1 170,00 |
178,51 |
|
6 |
Véhicules à 4 essieux et plus |
971,00 |
148,01 |
1 556,00 |
237,26 |
|
ITINERAIRES LES PLUS FREQUENTES |
||||||||||
|
Itinéraires |
Classe 1 |
Classe 2 |
Classe 3 |
Classe 4 |
Classe 5 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paris-Lyon (A6) |
161,00 |
24,54 |
185,00 |
28,20 |
306,00 |
46,65 |
421,00 |
64,18 |
96,00 |
14,64 |
|
Paris-Lyon (A5) |
170,00 |
25,92 |
197,00 |
30,03 |
327,00 |
49,85 |
446,00 |
67,99 |
102,00 |
15,55 |
|
Paris-Tours |
114,00 |
17,38 |
172,00 |
26,22 |
197,00 |
30,03 |
266,00 |
40,55 |
69,00 |
10,52 |
|
Paris-Bordeaux |
262,00 |
39,94 |
401,00 |
61,13 |
443,00 |
67,53 |
610,00 |
92,99 |
158,00 |
24,09 |
|
Paris-Calais (A1/A26) |
108,00 |
16,46 |
162,00 |
24,70 |
178,00 |
27,14 |
242,00 |
36,89 |
65,00 |
9,91 |
|
Paris-Calais (A16) |
99,00 |
15,09 |
149,00 |
22,71 |
169,00 |
25,76 |
247,00 |
37,65 |
59,00 |
8,99 |
|
Paris-Lille |
75,00 |
11,43 |
111,00 |
16,92 |
126,00 |
19,21 |
171,00 |
26,07 |
45,00 |
6,86 |
|
Paris-Marseille |
277,00 |
42,23 |
365,00 |
55,64 |
490,00 |
74,70 |
677,00 |
103,21 |
166,00 |
25,31 |
|
Paris-Strasbourg |
184,00 |
28,05 |
279,00 |
42,53 |
320,00 |
48,78 |
427,00 |
65,10 |
113,00 |
17,23 |
|
Paris-Caen (A13) |
69,00 |
10,52 |
101,50 |
15,47 |
107,00 |
16,31 |
156,50 |
23,86 |
42,50 |
6,48 |
|
Paris-Caen (A14) |
107,00 |
16,31 |
177,50 |
27,06 |
221,00 |
33,69 |
308,50 |
47,03 |
61,50 |
9,38 |
|
Paris-Nice |
360,00 |
54,88 |
489,50; |
74,62 |
624,50 |
95,20 |
863,50 |
131,72 |
216,00 |
32,93 |
|
Paris-Genève (A6/A40) |
212,00 |
32,32 |
256,00 |
39,03 |
400,00 |
60,98 |
550,00 |
83,85 |
127,00 |
19,36 |
|
Paris-Genève (A5/A39) |
221,00 |
33,69 |
268,00 |
40,86 |
421,00 |
64,18 |
575,00 |
87,66 |
133,00 |
20,28 |
|
Paris-Nantes |
176,00 |
26,83 |
266,00 |
40,55 |
305,00 |
46,50 |
400,00 |
60,98 |
106,00 |
16,16 |
|
Paris-Rennes |
148,00 |
22,56 |
220,00 |
33,54 |
260,00 |
39,64 |
344,00 |
52,44 |
89,00 |
13,57 |
|
Paris-Toulouse |
355,00 |
54,12 |
545,00 |
83,08 |
594,00 |
90,55 |
817,00 |
124,55 |
214,00 |
32,62 |
|
Lyon-Montpellier |
119,00 |
18,14 |
184,00 |
28,05 |
191,00 |
29,12 |
265,00 |
40,40 |
71,00 |
10,82 |
|
Clermont Ferrand-St Etienne |
54,00 |
8,23 |
84,00 |
12,81 |
90,00 |
13,72 |
124,00 |
18,90 |
32,00 |
4,88 |
|
Lyon-Grenoble |
53,00 |
8,08 |
83,00 |
12,65 |
83,00 |
12,65 |
112,00 |
17,07 |
29,00 |
4,42 |
|
Nantes-Bordeaux |
113,00 |
17,23 |
175,00 |
26,68 |
182,00 |
27,75 |
251,00 |
38,26 |
68,00 |
10,37 |
|
Toulouse-Montpellier |
104,00 |
15,85 |
161,00 |
24,54 |
172,00 |
26,22 |
234,00 |
35,67 |
62,00 |
9,45 |
|
Reims-Genève (A5/A39) |
242,00 |
36,89 |
307,00 |
46,80 |
460,00 |
70,13 |
625,00 |
95,28 |
145,00 |
22,11 |
|
Reims-Genève (A5/A6/A40) |
242,00 |
36,89 |
307,00 |
46,80 |
460,00 |
70,13 |
625,00 |
95,28 |
145,00 |
22,11 |
|
|
AUTRICHE |
|
|
|
BELGIQUE |
|
|
|
ESPAGNE |
|
|
|
FRANCE |
|
|
|
GRÈCE |
|
|
|
HONGRIE |
|
|
|
ITALIE |
|
|
|
NORVÈGE |
|
|
|
PORTUGAL |
|
Example: Real changes in cost of transport and in disposable income, UK
1974 – 1999.
