EFC issues for NRA’s Conclusions & recommendations

EFC and Tolling  Pay-for-use is a politically attractive approach for infrastructure issues like: –financing, –congestion, –Environment  Free flow Electronic Fee Collection (EFC) is needed for cost-effective and save collection of toll or charges  EFC is not new: –Austria, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden and Denmark use tags –Germany and Switzerland use more intelligent On Board Units  Most EFC implementations are dedicated

All traffic Many schemes implemented → extensive experience DSRC Norway, France etc… HGV New schemes → some experience Different technologies Germany, Austria,… Urban areas Few schemes implemented → little experience DSRC, Camera’s London,Stockholm FINANCINGTRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AREAS of EFC-IMPLEMENTATION Maintenance Distribution of traffic New constructions Congestion/ environment Traditional NRA responsibilitesNetwork operations

EFC Interoperability  Clear driver needs: –EFC must be very simple, –the On-Board Unit (OBU) must work everywhere in Europe –only one invoice is expected containing all charges.  Interoperability doesn’t create added value, not all operators are willing to bear the costs. Who should pay for it?  Interoperability didn’t come by itself, therefore the European Commission issued the directive 2004/52/EC on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community  It is the ambition of the European Commission to create a pan-European EFC service available at every EFC location.

EFC Implementation model

Policy making  Before the introduction of an EFC system the following aspects must have been addressed: –Determination of objectives –Political and administrative roles and responsibilities –Adaptation of legislative framework –Realistic time schedule –Political will, public acceptance

Influencing factors  EU directive limits the options  The NRA and his specific role, bridging the gap between policy makers and implementation  Reasoning behind introduction of toll or User Charging, operational area, type of vehicles, ….  Planned and unexpected side effects  Technology concepts

Technology  Major costs of EFC implementation are generated by: –Chosen technology –In-car and Road-side equipment –Back-Office systems  Possible technologies: –DSRC tag based systems –GPS/GSM/GPRS with digital map for calculation of distance travelled –GPS/GSM/GPRS with tachometer for calculation of distance travelled

Costs  DRSC systems have low cost tags, but (sometimes many) expensive gantries  GPS/GSM systems require more expensive OBU’s, but fewer gantries  High recovery rate and significant enforcement require additional roadside equipment  Operational costs depending choices they can can range from 7% to 40%.

Implementation  Implementation timetable must be realistic: typically 4 years  Avoid introduction of new requirements during process  Legal problems with tender procedure can be expected  Contract must have go/no-go breakpoints  Implementation scenario must be carefully chosen  Give extra attention to public acceptance in all phases of project to secure political backing  50% of the success is good communication with the public.

Recommendations(1)  NRA’s are recommended to: –define their roles and responsibilities explicitly. –have a leading role or at least influence the framework for the EFC implementation –closely follow the decision making process with regard to interoperability of EFC in the EU –safeguard the consistency of the chosen policy –be pro-active and consider all options in relation to his specific infrastructure conditions and associated costs and benefits. –consider the benefits and risks of combining different applications: a “killer” application can trigger the marketplace.

Recommendations (2)  NRA’s are recommended to: –put emphasis on a practical and straightforward approach –secure that enforcement aspects and processes become a dedicated and integral part of the EFC operation. Recovery rate and enforcement have a large influence on the success of the EFC implementation and operation in terms of costs and public acceptance. –monitor the procurement process to secure compliance with legal regulations to avoid time consuming appeals against the results of the procedure. –exchange best practice experiences with the other NRA’s –safeguard public acceptance in all phases