Brussels quietly abandons revolutionary congestion pricing programme

 Background

Belgium is a federation of three highly autonomous regions. Since 2016 it has operated Viapass, a nationwide heavy-vehicle distance-, weight- and emissions-based road user charge for trucks over 3.5 tonnes. Viapass is run jointly by the three regions rather than the federal government; pricing and network coverage vary by region (all roads in Brussels; selected roads in Flanders and Wallonia). It replaced Belgium’s participation in the Eurovignette system, which charged trucks of 12 tonnes and over for time-based access to main highways across participating countries. Viapass is a great success. Six companies offer accounts and the necessary equipment for trucks using the charged network. It is mandatory for trucks registered in Belgium and all those visiting it.  Brussels charges trucks more for using local roads compared to the motorways.  The rate structure is here. 

For light vehicles, distance-based charging has seen little progress. Fuel duty sits at €0.60 per litre. Registration fees remain high. Brussels attempted to change this with SmartMove, a pilot project designed to cut high annual vehicle registration fees and replace them with a distance-based charge that also varied by time of day and location within the Brussels Capital Region.

The aim was to shift taxation from ownership to use, cut congestion and emissions, and encourage modal shift.

I wrote back in 2020 about it and again in 2021. This was a system, piloted in 2021 designed to replace the high annual vehicle registration fees for light vehicles in Brussels, with a distance based charge, which would vary by time of day.  

I said it was interesting for three reasons:

1. It is the latest attempt to introduce distance-based RUC for light-vehicles in Europe, replacing an existing tax. (Since then Iceland has done so, for all vehicles, but on a vehicle class basis distance fee, not one that varies by location and time of day)

2. It seeks to combine RUC with a form of congestion charging, by varying distance by time of day and location. The time of day factor is intended to charge higher rates for peak time travel, and the location factor being that only distance travelled within the Brussels Capital-Region would be subject to a fee.

3. Smartmove intends to pioneer using smartphones as a means of identifying and measuring vehicle trips. This has not been successful elsewhere to date, primarily because of the difficulties in ensuring that the phone is always linked to the vehicle, and the vehicle always has a smartphone operating to measure and report trip data. 

The project had several key objectives. Reduction of congestion, reduction of emissions, encouraging modal shift and shift motor vehicle taxation from ownership to usage.

Deloitte led key elements: designing and building the smartphone app prototypes for large-scale testing; developing gamification and “nudging” tools to encourage shifts to public transport; and creating the public campaign and website.  Unfortunately, all of this has disappeared (although the Wayback Machine is always our friend).

Part of the former SmartMove website

Proposed Brussels area for distance charging

Registration fees in Brussels start at €79–€6,358 for initial registration, with annual road tax ranging from €107 to around €4,000. Reducing these fixed costs while introducing a usage charge would have made car ownership more accessible, giving flexibility to own a vehicle while raising the cost of peak-time driving. 

Modelling by Transport and Mobility Leuven (reports in French and Dutch) indicated that full implementation could cut total kilometres driven in Brussels by 12% on an average working day, 18% in the evening peak, and delays by 30%. Even after cutting registration fees, the scheme was projected to generate an additional €250 million a year, partly from visiting vehicles.

Some of the benefits modelled for SmartMove were:

• €54.1m per annum in economic benefits for all of Belgium
• €11.4m per annum in health benefits (mainly from more active travel and the subsequent health benefits)
• €10.6m per annum in reduced accident costs
• €9.8m per annum in reduced emission costs

The project noted that on an average weekday, around half of all light vehicles driven in Brussels are not registered in Brussels. Pricing those vehicles alongside local ones would be essential to reducing congestion.  Notable, the average car trip length in Brussels is only 6km. 

Why was SmartMove potentially revolutionary?

SmartMove would have been pioneering. Unlike Singapore’s evolving GNSS-based ERP 2.0, it relied on ubiquitous consumer smartphones rather than dedicated on-board units or OEM telematics. With the ability to price by distance, location, time of day and vehicle type (lower rates for EVs and micro-cars, higher for larger ICE vehicles and SUVs), it could have differentiated arterial routes from local streets and applied fine-grained peak pricing. The app was also intended as a broader Mobility-as-a-Service platform offering journey planning, pricing and ticketing for alternatives to driving.

SmartMove could have been the most highly evolved road pricing system anywhere. 

By using mobile phones, it was a significant shift from concepts involving bespoke equipment being installed in vehicles, or accessing OEM telematics, to a consumer product that is almost ubiquitous – smartphones. Technology that hardly anyone in either the Intelligent Transport System or transport planning community anticipated.

SmartMove website sales pitch

What happened?

The test phase began in August 2020 with 100 Brussels Transport Authority employees, expanding in September to 2,000 citizens. The pilot costed the Brussels government €24.8 million and it ran through the pandemic, being extended to June 2022. €51 million EU grant toward a total estimated implementation cost of €68 million), ran through the pandemic and was extended to June 2022.

The app showed participants what they would have paid under the new system versus existing fees and awarded points (with real value) for driving less at peak times or switching modes. Because no real money changed hands, the trial mainly tested technical feasibility and user appeal. Preparation for full rollout included purchasing ANPR cameras in 2022 to match vehicles to accounts and fine those without an active app. Forgetting a phone, a dead battery or app failure would have risked a fine—an obvious practical weakness.

Opposition and cancellation

Perhaps the biggest critics, and understandably so, were residents (and politicians) from neighbouring Belgian states. Belgium is a federation, with Brussels being one of the three constituent states. If Brussels implemented SmartMove it would have granted Brussels residents a significant cut in vehicle registration fees in exchange for paying the charge.  However, owners of vehicles registered in Wallonia or Flanders that commute into Brussels would face the charge, without any such reduction. After all, the other states would not get any revenue from it, so it would effectively be a charge on non-residents driving into Brussels. Legally, Brussels was required to implement it on a co-operative approach with the other states, and it was likely that had it proceeded it would face a legal challenge, constitutionally, due to their opposition. 

However, it was opposition in Brussels that saw the programme fail, and the main reason was that it was seen as being anti-car, anti-motorist and was (wrongly) interpreted as being alongside a whole package of other measures (called GoodMove) which were designed to make driving slower (for safety), more difficult (by reallocating road space to other modes and reducing on street parking), and less attractive. 

The changes to the Brussels Government, following the June 2024 election and over 600 days of coalition negotiations, were the death knell of the project. The coalition government is now led by the Reformist movement - the centre right liberal French-speaking party, in coalition with five others. The length of those negotiations indicated how fraught they were, and anti-car measures have been cancelled as a result.

On top of making driving slower and more difficult, there was opposition to the cost, and with the possibly of legal challenges from the other states, it was easy to cancel. Furthermore, actual support for the proposal was muted. A key reason for this was the emphasis on implement road pricing to reduce emissions and encourage changes in behaviour, rather than seeing it as a measure to reform the taxation of motor vehicles in a way that would reduce congestion.

Motorists are more likely to support congestion pricing if other charges are cut, and if it can be proven to reduce congestion.  They are less likely to do so if it is seen as a tool to "correct" them, as if they are themselves failing by how they choose to get around, and they are especially less likely to do so if it is just seen as a new tax, with little benefit (unless you stop driving). 

That’s unfortunate, because it could have been recast as a project to make driving more accessible and efficient with lower fixed fees, but better mobility at peak times. By primarily being a redesign of the tax system around motor vehicles, it could have been seen as improving fairness. Poorer people, single parents or pensioners who use cars to access employment on the urban periphery, or social services, or visit family and friends could have had lower costs of travel with lower registration fees.

What can be learned?

Leaving aside the constitutional issues, as it was bold to even think it could have been plausible to tax motorists from outside Brussels, while only compensating those within, the main mistake in Brussels was seeking to do too much in one step and to not sell it as being primarily about making motoring taxes fairer.

It is always a big deal to convince people that paying more to drive reduces congestion, but to do so without being able to convince people they would also save a lot of money from owning a car was difficult. Emission reductions are good of course, as is making public transport (especially buses) move more freely and improving the urban environment altogether, but it needs to be about the people most directly affected - the motorists. While there were some efforts made to sell congestion reduction benefits to business, these were overwhelmed by concern about the cost.

The app concept was a challenge, as it presented the risk that if you forgot your phone or it did not work, you would be fined for not paying. That should not have been the only way to interact with the system as it risked mistakes being punished.

Options of paying a flat fee for driving per day would have been easier to understand, and not hard to implement without it being punitive. The app could have been one option alongside a more blunt ANPR based scheme. 

So there was a failure in policy, driven in part by technologists wanting their solution to be all encompassing. Most of all there is a failure to communicate enough to motorists and design a policy that can be acceptable to them. Furthermore to do this alongside a whole host of other measures to make driving more difficult makes the main objective look like it is anti-car.  Despite the best efforts of some transport planners and politicians, perhaps the biggest lesson in the past few years politically is that the public don't like being told that what they do is wrong and they need to be corrected.

Other jurisdictions have proven that distance based road user charging can be implemented for private car owners and be acceptable, as long as it replaces another tax very clearly and transparently. Others have proven that congestion pricing can be implemented if it makes driving for those paying easier, more reliable and faster.

Unfortunately, the Brussels Government and the SmartMove programme can join the list of cities that nearly implemented congestion pricing, and help inform those who might actually do it.

Romania to be the next country to implement heavy vehicle road user charging

Following on from the Netherlands on 1 July, Romania will become the 15th European country to launch a distance based road user charging system (truck toll in European parlance), using GNSS technology. It becomes the 16th full country worldwide to have heavy vehicle RUC and the 20th jurisdiction globally to introduce such a system (bearing in mind I am counting the nationwide DSRC based toll systems in Austria and Slovenia in this count, as they are priced by distance across the national highway networks).

TollRo as it is branded is expected to be launched on 1 October (this is a second delay from 1 July and 1 January) and will effectively mean heavy vehicle RUC systems will apply from the Low Countries at the English Channel (Belgium/Netherlands) all the way through central and eastern Europe to the Greek border, and the borders of the former USSR (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova).  TollRo will be the responsibility of CNAIR.

CNAIR is the National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration.

It applies to travel on all motorways (“A” roads), expressways (“DE” roads) and national roads (“DN” roads). This covers over 18,100km of roads (around 29,000 miles).

TollRo will apply to all heavy vehicles with a registered gross vehicle weight of more than 3.5 tonnes.  It will replace Romania’s vignette system for those vehicles (although the vignette will remain for light vehicles). The rates for the vignette (essentially a time based pass for those unfamiliar) are below

Category	Vehicle type	Validity	RON	US$
C	Goods vehicle 3.5 t–7.5 t	1 day	20.39	$4.00
C	Goods vehicle 3.5 t–7.5 t	7 days	81.54	$16.00
C	Goods vehicle 3.5 t–7.5 t	30 days	163.08	$32.00
C	Goods vehicle 3.5 t–7.5 t	12 months	1,630.82	$320.00
D	Goods vehicle 7.5 t–12 t	1 day	35.67	$7.00
D	Goods vehicle 7.5 t–12 t	7 days	142.70	$28.00
D	Goods vehicle 7.5 t–12 t	30 days	285.39	$56.00
D	Goods vehicle 7.5 t–12 t	12 months	2,853.93	$560.00
E	Goods vehicle ≥12 t, up to 3 axles	1 day	45.87	$9.00
E	Goods vehicle ≥12 t, up to 3 axles	7 days	183.47	$36.00
E	Goods vehicle ≥12 t, up to 3 axles	30 days	366.93	$72.00
E	Goods vehicle ≥12 t, up to 3 axles	12 months	3,669.34	$720.00
F	Goods vehicle ≥12 t, 4 or more axles	1 day	56.06	$11.00
F	Goods vehicle ≥12 t, 4 or more axles	7 days	280.30	$55.00
F	Goods vehicle ≥12 t, 4 or more axles	30 days	616.65	$121.00
F	Goods vehicle ≥12 t, 4 or more axles	12 months	6,166.52	$1,210.00

Charges will be based on:

• Distance travelled;

• Vehicle weight category;

• Road type (different rates for motorways compared to national highways); and

• Emissions class.

Vehicle owners will have two initial choices to comply with the system:

• Account with a telematics provider (typically supplying a GNSS enabled on-board unit)

• Pre-declared single trip route ticket

To enable interoperability between account managers for toll and RUC systems across Europe into Romania, it has set up an organisation called Serviciul European de Taxare Rutieră Electronică (RoSETRE). It is essentially the European Electronic Tolling System platform for Romania. This will enable existing providers in neighbouring countries to sign up to be certified to operate in Romania, so that, for example, a Hungarian registered truck using a service provider for the Hungarian HuGO system, could use that very system and the account for that system to pay Romania’s charges.  

The rates for motorways and expressways are as follows (per kilometre in Romanian Leu):

 

Vehicle Mass	Euro 6	Euro 5	Euro 4	Euro 3	Euro ≤2
3.5 t - 12 t	0.31	0.38	0.43	0.52	0.61
Over 12 t	0.42	0.49	0.56	0.69	0.81

 

Lower rates apply for “main national roads” presumably reflecting the lower level of service

 

Vehicle Mass	Euro 6	Euro 5	Euro 4	Euro 3	Euro ≤2
3.5 t - 12 t	0.25	0.30	0.35	0.43	0.49
Over 12 t	0.32	0.39	0.45	0.56	0.62

 

For US readers, the rates in US$ per mile are below

 

Motorways and expressways — approximate charges in US$ per mile

Vehicle Mass	Euro 6	Euro 5	Euro 4	Euro 3	Euro ≤2
3.5 t - 12 t	$0.111	$0.136	$0.154	$0.186	$0.218
Over 12 t	$0.150	$0.175	$0.200	$0.247	$0.290

 

Main national roads — approximate charges in US$ per mile

Vehicle Mass	Euro 6	Euro 5	Euro 4	Euro 3	Euro ≤2
3.5 t - 12 t	$0.089	$0.107	$0.125	$0.154	$0.175
Over 12 t	$0.114	$0.140	$0.161	$0.200	$0.222

Seven providers are apparently registered to be account managers for the Romanian system. I'll provide more details once it is up and running (and hopefully it won't be delayed for a third time)!

Iceland's world first: What does it teach others?

Ten years ago nobody talked about Iceland and road user charging.  Even five years ago there was little thought given to the small European island, which is both outside the European Union and inside NATO.  With a population barely exceeding 400,000, it ranks alongside the Bahamas and Brunei in numbers.  In economic size it sits alongside Honduras, Cyprus and Georgia, although in GDP per capita (PPP) it exceeds Australia, Germany, Japan, France and Saudi Arabia.   Iceland's land area is slightly smaller than Guatemala, but larger than Hungary, south Korea or Jordan.  It's more than double the size of Switzerland or the Netherlands.  However, its road network is small in length, akin to Burundi and smaller than North Macedonia. It has a similar road density to Australia, indicative of a vast area of undeveloped land.

Around 64% of the population of Iceland lives in the Reykjavik metropolitan area. Around a fifth of its population are immigrants, a quarter of whom are Poles. 93% of the population speak Icelandic, but around 98% know English.

The point of all this is to note it is unique in many ways, but it is not especially small compared to many countries. It certainly is a high-income country, and has a notable number of immigrants as a proportion of population.

Given all that, the launch on 1 January 2026 of the world's first all vehicle road user charging (RUC) system is notable as an achievement. 

I wrote before about the launch of EV/PHEV/Hydrogen light vehicle RUC as a big step forward and then again in 2025 it was confirmed that Iceland would transition all vehicles to RUC, and abolish fuel tax. 

Not only is it an expansion of scope of the EV/PHEV/Hydrogen vehicle "kilometer tax", but it also appears to replace the heavy vehicle kilometer tax that has been in place since 

How is it being implemented?

Electric, plug-in hybrid and hydrogen light vehicles have been subject to the fee since early 2024, so will continue to pay as before.  They comprise around 16.5% of the vehicle fleet as of the end of 2025.  Around a third of cars sold new in Iceland in 2025 are battery electric vehicles, with another 21% cars sold being plug-in hybrid vehicles.  

As the fee applies for distance travelled in January 2026, it is expected that an odometer reading will be submitted on 1 February 2026 (with the deadline of 14 February for submitting it).  Those that have not submitted a reading for distance travelled in January will be assessed based on the average distance travelled by a car in Iceland during the month of January.  This is the basis for future fee payments. Either provide a measurement or be invoiced for an average.

If no odometer reading is made by 1 April 2026, a fine of ISK20000 (US$164.28) will be levied and it will be mandatory for the vehicles to be driven to a vehicle inspection point to have the odometer read.  On this occasion, vehicle owners will have 30 days to do this after 1 April.

There are various options for vehicle owners to submit odometer readings:

• The Icelandic Government's "island.is" app;
• Icelandic Government's internet portal account;
• N1 app (app for a  fuel, EV charging station and convenience store chain)
• At scheduled vehicle safety inspections (Most vehicles are required to be inspected annually)
• Scheduling an odometer reading at a vehicle inspection station.

Vehicles up to a maximum registered weight of 10 tonnes (and rental cars) must submit a reading at least once a year, but may do so every 30 days.  Vehicles above that weight must submit a reading at least once every six months, but can submit new ones at a time. 

Given the legal requirement for vehicle safety inspections, this becomes the primary enforcement mechanism.

Change of ownership triggers a requirement to report the odometer reading at that point, so that the previous owner can be invoiced for the final amount, and the subsequent one has the account for the fee.

There are no telematics based options in Iceland at present, although it appears likely that there will be a strong case for enabling this for trucks with trailers at least, to reduce compliance costs.

How often must you pay?

Vehicle owners are required to pay monthly (with 14 days to pay after each invoice). The choice being whether to send an odometer reading so that it is actual distance driven, or to have an estimate calculated. Estimates will be based on previous readings, or if not available, but the average reading by vehicle type calculated by the Directorate of Internal Revenue (which for cars is 40km per day). 

How much are vehicles being charged?

The rate structure is based on registered vehicle weight as follow (US$ are rounded estimates based on today's conversion from Icelandic Krona.

Vehicle class/weight	ISK per kilometre	US$ per kilometre
Motorcycle/moped	4.15	0.034
0 – 3.5 tonnes	6.95	0.057
3.5 – 5 tonnes	9.85	0.08
5 – 6 tonnes	10.44	0.086
6 – 7 tonnes	11.06	0.09
7 – 8 tonnes	11.73	0.096
8 – 9 tonnes	12.43	0.102
9 – 10 tonnes	13.18	0.108
10 – 11 tonnes	13.98	0.115
11 – 12 tonnes	14.81	0.124
12 – 13 tonnes	16.29	0.134
13 – 14 tonnes	17.92	0.147
14 – 15 tonnes	19.71	0.162
15 – 16 tonnes	21.68	0.178
16 – 17 tonnes	23.86	0.197
17 – 18 tonnes	26.25	0.215
18 – 19 tonnes	27.37	0.224
19 – 20 tonnes	28.55	0.234
20 – 21 tonnes	29.77	0.244
21 – 22 tonnes	31.06	0.255
22 – 23 tonnes	32.40	0.266
23 – 24 tonnes	33.79	0.277
24 – 25 tonnes	35.24	0.289
25 – 26 tonnes	36.75	0.301
26 – 27 tonnes	38.04	0.312
27 – 28 tonnes	39.36	0.323
28 – 29 tonnes	40.74	0.334
29 – 30 tonnes	42.17	0.346
30 – 31 tonnes	43.65	0.358
Over 31 tonnes	45.17	0.37

Buses get a 10-30% discount for the first three years, and electric, hydrogen, methanol and methane powered heavy vehicles get an 80% discount for the next five years. 

Trailers with registered weights over 10 tonnes face similar fees as powered vehicles do in the above table.  Trailers are not required to be fitted with hubodometers (as in New Zealand), but those that do not have the fees added to the powered unit, with an independent recording needed to be made by the owner of that unit for distance travelled with trailers (it seems likely that this could be a compliance issue). 

Exemptions

Three categories of vehicles are exempt:

- Vehicles for use by rescue teams

- Vehicles registered no later than 1 January 1965 or earlier if demonstrated that the vehicle has no odometer and cannot be equipped with one

 - Vehicles owned by foreign embassies and diplomats.

Fuel tax?

On 1 January 2026, fuel tax was abolished in Iceland, resulting in a reduction in the price of petrol and diesel by around US$0.656-0.738 per litre on average (with some petrol dropping by around US$0.78 per litre).  This is a reduction of around 30% in the price of petrol and diesel overall.

Revenue from the new system is expected to be akin to that from fuel tax, being around ISK22 billion (US$180 million) per annum.

Lessons to draw?

It is possible to rollout a simple odometer based RUC system, with easy means to report distance travelled using apps as long as it is backed up by a regular vehicle inspection system that provides solid evidence of distance travelled from each vehicle.  Together, it means that there is a backup that reduces the risk of fraud.

Invoicing vehicle owners monthly, either by actual or estimated distance travelled means RUC can be seen as more of a utility bill, than a toll or an irregular tax.

Having the option of estimated bills helps to lower the burden for those who don't want to report distance regularly, but also incentivises vehicle owners to report distance to get exact invoices.

Starting with a smaller proportion of the fleet (EVs/PHEVs) reduces risks of any system, because it can provide a bedding in of the business rules and processes with a smaller number of customers (and in particular, ones more likely to be compliant).

Abolishing fuel tax at the same time as rolling out RUC for all vehicles, helps build public acceptance and trust that RUC exists to replace fuel tax, but it is unclear how easy it would be to introduce RUC for all vehicles in one step, if the vehicle fleet were significantly larger.

Having a RUC rates table based on weight classes is likely to better reflect the different levels of wear and tear on the network based on weight, noting that fixed costs don't vary by vehicle weight.  However, I question whether one tonne increments are necessary from 5 tonnes upwards, rather than wider bands to reflect averages.

Sure, Iceland has a small population, with many concentrated in one city, and it has little cross border travel  (so there is no need for any sophisticated means to distinguish distance travelled outside the country or to tax visitors' vehicles, as this happens infrequently), but it has the foundations of a functional, efficient system to collect revenue and send reasonable price signals as to paying for the costs of providing road infrastructure.  

There was some opposition to the tax, mainly from vehicle retailers concerned the tax would suppress EV sales, which it appears to have initially done, but there remains significant savings from owning an EV compared to a petrol vehicle, based on operating costs. 

It's early days to determine how much non-compliance there is, which will be important to watch. In particular, whether it affects vehicle registration compliance or if residents of rural areas may be less compliant.  

One thing to note is Iceland largely did all of this without a pilot, and without an extended period of detailed design and testing.  Iceland had a small amount of help in the early days, but between showing interest in RUC and putting all vehicles on it, has been a period of under five years.  The contrast with pretty much any other jurisdiction is astonishing, and perhaps demonstrates a clarity of policy objectives and assessment of options that other jurisdictions could do well to emulate.