Context: Forta funds and the road funding gap
The energy transition is intersecting with public finance in Switzerland as officials confront a widening gap in funding for national roads and urban traffic management. The Forta fund (Fonds pour les routes nationales et le trafic d’agglomération), long sustained by the fuel tax on gasoline, has begun to shrink. For the first time, Forta’s reserves dipped from CHF 3.83 billion in 2023 to about CHF 3.67 billion this year, according to preliminary estimates. That erosion is sparking a policy debate about how to maintain road quality and safety in a changing transport landscape where electric vehicles (EVs) are becoming more common and gasoline tax receipts are eroding.
The underlying logic is straightforward: as drivers switch from internal combustion engines to electric propulsion, the revenue that funds road maintenance from fuel duties declines. The question policymakers face is how to replace or resize that revenue without undermining the goals of cleaner transport and affordable mobility.
What the electric vehicle tax plan aims to do
The proposed electric vehicle tax plan would broaden the revenue base that pays for roads and urban traffic management. In its current form, it contemplates introducing charges tied to EV usage or ownership, or implementing a mileage-based or use-based fee for electric vehicles. The aim is not to penalize electrification but to ensure that the users of the road system—whatever powertrain they drive—contribute fairly to its upkeep.
Advocates for the plan argue that it is a necessary step to stabilize Forta finances and prevent underinvestment in crucial infrastructure. They note that as the vehicle mix shifts toward electric mobility, there must be policy tools to fund road repairs, bridge maintenance, decongestion initiatives, and safety improvements without relying exclusively on a shrinking gasoline tax base.
Public reaction and concerns
Public response to the EV tax proposal has been mixed and often passionate. Many motorists and EV owners worry that new charges could offset the cost savings associated with electric driving, complicating the economics of owning a modern electric car. Critics warn that if the tax is perceived as punitive toward clean mobility, it could slow the transition to electric vehicles, dampen consumer demand, and dampen business investment in EV charging networks.
Supporters counter that the policy seeks fairness: if drivers benefit from road networks daily, they should help finance them, regardless of vehicle type. They emphasize that revenues would fund essential maintenance and congestion relief projects, ultimately improving safety and travel times for all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians who share the same streets.
Implications for drivers and the EV transition
The debate raises important questions about competitiveness, fairness, and climate goals. A graduated approach—combining a continuation of some fuel-based funding with a carefully phased EV-specific charge—could strike a balance between encouraging the shift to electric mobility and preserving road quality. Transparent guidelines on exemptions for low-income households and rural areas could help address equity concerns, while revenue recycling—investing in public transport or charging infrastructure—might bolster the broader energy transition.
Businesses, particularly fleet operators and manufacturers planning new EVs, are watching how the policy evolves. A predictable and stable funding model is crucial for long-term investment in charging networks, urban mobility projects, and safety upgrades that support a growing EV ecosystem.
Next steps and policy options
Parliament and Forta officials are expected to debate several options: a straightforward EV-use fee, a vehicle-weight or emissions-based surcharge, or a hybrid scheme that blends existing fuel taxes with a new EV contribution. The path chosen will hinge on fiscal data, public feedback, and the perceived fairness of cost distribution among drivers, EV owners, and transit users.
The outcome will shape the pace of Switzerland’s electric mobility strategy and the integrity of its road network for years to come. Policy makers face a delicate balancing act: keeping the climate transition affordable while ensuring safe, well-maintained roads that support economic activity and daily life.
Conclusion
Switzerland’s road funding challenge sits at the intersection of fiscal prudence and environmental ambition. The electric vehicle tax plan reflects a pragmatic attempt to adapt financing to a changing vehicle landscape. Whether it earns public acceptability or faces resistance will depend on the clarity of its design, its fairness, and the tangible improvements it delivers to roads and urban mobility in a world increasingly powered by electricity.
