The four-fold tax consultant had proposed only 1 euro per 100 km

The transition fee the government has imposed on Durres-Kukes route is up to 4 times higher than the price recommended by the consulting company, writes Mapo, broadcast Periscopi.

Top Channel publishes the confidential report of the company Egnantia Ozhos, which the Albanian government hired to make the strategy on road taxation in Albania.

The report was handed over to the transport ministry in August 2015. In the document, the company has compiled the list of possible excises that can be made at payment and prices citizens must pay.

According to the report, maximum price affordable by Albanian families is 3.5 euros per 100km. But this is the highest possible ceiling. While the opitmal rate recommended by the consultant is 1 to 2.5 euros per 100km. According to the report, this is the most affordable fee by Albanian families, which not only stipulates a fair cost but also eases social effects from the road tax.

But what did the government decide? The concession of the nation's road does not encompass the entire Durres Kukes road. Consortium of companies “Kastrati” and “Salillari” will maintain only the segment from Milot to Morina, while the rest will be maintained with budget money being paid but by citizens. The Milot-Morina segment is 118km long and whenever citizens switch to it by auto, they will pay 5 euros to the private concession. Otherwise, the crossing fee on Milot Morina Street is 4.2 euros per 100km or 2 to 4 times higher than the private consultant recommended.

But that is not all. Beyond direct payments, citizens will pay the concession even from the budget. The Albanian government has guaranteed private concession to at least 7.9m euros in revenue annually. If the concessionor collects less of the payments, then the government will pay the difference from the state budget.
Placing the crossing fee on Milot-Morine Street is a paradoxical situation. The consulting company, while not in charge, has taken care of public interest, while the government, which should protect public interest, in this case seems to have protected other interests by taxing citizens four times heavier than the recommended level.