Search

European legislation implies the use of marginal social cost pricing in rail access charges levied on rail operators. Thus, they may include specific environmental charges to internalise the impacts of rail transport. However, when applying these principles in practice, several difficulties call for second-best settings adapted to the particularities of the rail market. In this context, few European railway administrations are already implementing rail access charges with an environmental dimension. This paper reviews the literature on the issue and assesses the current European experience in noise and air pollution rail charges. For this purpose, an analytical framework is built on the definition of four basic dimensions: charging approach, allocation of abatement efforts, degree of differentiation and intermodal approach. The qualitative examination of the existing systems suggests that the level of environmental surcharges can be generally increased given the low substitutability between rail and road and that the range of abatement possibilities should be enlarged by further differentiating charges. It is also found that the pricing scope should be adapted to achieve particular cost-efficient allocations of abatement efforts among rail operators and upstream agents. Finally, further research requirements for a quantitative assessment are defined. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

As the international dimension of environmental laws and legislation is gaining in importance, it has become increasingly essential to compare and assess international data. Can international data on noise, often produced by using different national calculation methods, be compared? And what does it mean for (inter)national noise policy? This paper focuses on international data on noise created by road and railroad traffic. Research shows possible differences in the outcome of noise calculations using different national methodologies of up to 15 dB(A). Furthermore, national noise indices and noise standards differ considerably, making it even more difficult to compare data on noise exposure. Therefore, harmonization of calculation methods and noise indices, as initiated by the European Commission, is a necessary first step. Although noise standards are left to the Member States, an effective European noise policy would be enhanced if the same type of indices were used for both noise‐level calculations and noise standards. L aeq ‐type indices are recommended in this regard. Although harmonizing noise calculations and using the same kind of indices would make noise data more comparable, it would still not make Europe quieter. This is why noise measures, preferably at the source, are necessary. The European Commission in Brussels plays a major role in introducing these noise measures. Reduction of tyre noise by tightening emission limits is the most promising option. This may be supported at the national level by applying silent pavements. Integrating noise into spatial planning is the most cost‐effective option at the local level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]