Road tolling and charging - An interactive ITS Handbook for

Road tolling and charging
Index
Purpose
Description
Relevance for Large Scale Events
Options
Technologies
Impacts
Integration potential
Implementation
Best Cases and Examples
1 of 12
Purpose
The aim of road tolling and charging is to charge the user for the direct use of the road infrastructure.
Road tolling and charging are usually levied for multiple purposes, among which the most relevant are:





To raise funding;
To reduce congestion;
To reduce pollution;
To improve road safety, the transport network, the parking facilities and the quality of life.
To manage transport demand, aiming to maximising the throughput of the area/infrastructure,
discouraging the excessive use.
Recently new considerations are emerging, such as equity, social inclusion, economic growth, health and
safety, future generations and liveability.
Usually road tolling and charging measures combines “carrots and sticks” measures that can have a positive
impact on car ownership and single occupancy driving. A pricing scheme combined with efficient public
transport services, other transport alternatives and parking facilities can have a beneficial impact on
congestion within the city centre as well as on air quality and quality of life in general. “Carrots” measures
should ideally be in place before the “stick” measures are introduced.
Campaigning would foster public acceptance and could be financed through the pricing scheme. The
message delivered should focus on real and personal benefits that can be achieved thanks to the pricing
scheme and the complementary measures.
top ↑
Description
Road tolling are quite complex systems, since they have to take into account several elements and can see
the interactions of at least three actors:



The toll charger is the responsible for the infrastructure (it can be either the owner or the
concessionaire);
The service provider is the entity in charge of collecting and clearing revenues, and it is usually in
charge of the ITS supporting toll charge;
The end user is the subject who can access the infrastructure and then has to pay the toll, by
contract or by regulation.
The system is then composed by different elements:




Regulation/contract issuing
Structure of the toll
Payment
Enforcement and control
2 of 12
Road charging can be implemented in several different ways and schemes, according to the mix of aimed
objectives, that can nowadays be supported by new technologies.
The main inputs for designing a road charging schemes are:




Definition of road charging objectives;
Definition of the charge (where, when and on whom it is levied);
Definition of the payment systems;
Definition of the targets in terms of equity, acceptance, effectiveness, performances.
top ↑
Relevance for Large Scale Events
The use or road charging as a specific transport measure during a large event is not known: usually traffic is
regulated with mandatory rules, i.e. stop to certain vehicles in a certain time period, or fully reserved lanes
are established. Nonetheless the measure has large potentialities to manage transport demand with some
flexibility degrees, and in theory could have a relevant role during large event. In fact the technology allows
to modify time/price schemes according to the event’s needs, or specific charging areas could be
established (especially if the scheme is based on GNSS). A critical issue to implement road charging is, as
explained hereafter, the acceptance and the communication campaign to support acceptance, therefore
such elements should be taken into account if such a measure is going to be implemented for the good
sake of a large event.
top ↑
Options
There are several variants of road tolling systems, depending on the infrastructure to be told, the overall
aim of tolling, the structure of the toll, the technologies used. The following describes the different
possibilities.






Single Infrastructure Tolling (highway, tunnel, etc…): toll is due when a vehicle access to the
infrastructure, passing a manual barrier-controlled toll booth or a free-flow multi-lane gate;
Time Based Charges and Access Fees: a road user has to pay for a given period of time in which he
may use the associated infrastructure. For the practically identical access fees, the user pays for the
access to a restricted zone for a period or several days.
Kilometre or Area Charging: In a kilometre or area charging system concept, vehicles are charged
per total distance driven in a defined area;
Open/closed systems: the tolled infrastructure can have entry and/or exit points, stations, toll
booth or gates.
Infrastructure/on-board account: it can be either the infrastructure having the identification
systems or the on-board unit plays a role in identification of the users and eventually in the
definition of the fees (the two option can coexist);
Payment: the access to the infrastructure can be pre-paid, real-time, or post-paid.
3 of 12
Road charging systems can be designed in several ways:





Point-based;
Cordon-based;
Area license-based;
Distance based;
Time-based.
The several differences are related to users and vehicles charged, as well as the time slot when charges
applies.
Then several variants can emerge when analysing the overall business model, which beyond the technical
design includes the payment, enforcement and claims management.
top ↑
Technologies
Technologies have been straightforward in the implementation of effective and efficient road tolling/
charging schemes. Key challenges for technology include reliability, cost of implementation and operation.
Well-designed technology can provide greater flexibility in choices, e.g. by enabling complex charging
schemes and overcoming equity concerns by permitting varying charges and exemptions for different types
of user.
Main technologies used to implement road tolling/ charging are:






Automatic coin collection machines;
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);
Dedicated Short Range Communication/Electronic tags/on board unit (DSRC);
Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS);
Electronic Payment Systems;
Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
4 of 12
The technologies used should then depend on the scheme design and objectives, and since technology
usually plays a relevant role in the implementation and sustainability of such measures, the following list
reports the main outcomes gathered from road user experiences:






The technology should be seen as the enabler of the policy, not the driver (then define the system
requirements first and then choose the technology);
Consider using a DSRC or straightforward ANPR system if distance-based charging is not essential to
achieve the scheme’s objectives;
Charging and payment are separate events;
Charging relies on capturing evidence of a vehicle’s presence at a specific location at a specific time.
It is strongly linked to the enforcement system;
Payment concerns transferring funds from the user of an electronic charging scheme to the scheme
operator. Several methods of payment can be used, and drivers may pre-pay or post-pay;
Keeping costs down is essential to providing an operation with sufficient revenues to finance other
elements of the integrated transport strategy.
top ↑
Impacts
Although the impacts of road charging schemes can be very relevant, they are directly related to the
implemented scheme. In the last 20 years many road charging schemes have been implemented in Europe
and abroad. On average, implemented schemes have been able to reduce the number of vehicles in the
charged zone from 14% to 23%. The following table [cfr CURACAO project] sums up some results.
5 of 12
Road charging
CRITERION
TRAFFIC
EFFICIENCY
IMPACT
LEVEL
***
COMMENTS
MEASURED
IMPACTS*
Road charging has an effect in reducing traffic
flows and delays in the applied zone by up to a
third. This reduction may be eroded over time if
road space is reallocated to other purposes,
such as public transport reserved lanes.
London
 -16% in vehicles (2006 versus
2002 figures)
 -30% reduction in average
delays in minute per km (2002
versus 2004 figures)
Stockholm
 -22% in traffic (crossing
congestion charge cordon
during charging period, trial
period)
 -33% reduction in delay time
for inbound traffic during
morning peak.
PT EFFICIENCY
**
MODAL SHIFT
***
AIR POLLUTION
***
The improvement in public transport efficiency
is directly related to the reduction of congestion
in the controlled area.
Higher charges for entering to the controlled
zone during peak hours can encourage greater
use of public transport.
The impacts on the environment are also usually
relevant when implementing road charging
schemes.
London
 -16% CO2 (2002 versus 2003
figures)
Milan
 -14% CO2 (change after 9
months of operation of the
scheme)
Stockholm
 -13% CO2 (change after trial
period, Jan-July 2006, inner
city))
SAFETY OF
VULNERABLE
ROAD USERS
CONVENIENCE
**
The reduction of congestion and traffic can also
lead to the reduction of accidents
Milan
 -20% of accidents (total
accidents, after the
introduction of the Ecopass)
The city benefits from increased income and the
public transport operator from additional
business and reduced journey times.
6 of 12
Road Tolling
CRITERION
IMPACT
LEVEL
TRAFFIC
EFFICIENCY
**
PT EFFICIENCY
**
MODAL SHIFT
**
AIR POLLUTION
***
SAFETY OF
VULNERABLE
ROAD USERS
**
CONVENIENCE
***
COMMENTS
MEASURED
IMPACTS*
An urban tolling system can substantially
influence traffic efficiency and lower traffic
pressure in sensitive areas. For instance, in
Norway tolling systems have led to redistribute
trips in different time and spatial patterns and
to reduce congestion during peak hours.
The improvement in public transport efficiency
is directly related to the reduction of congestion
in the controlled area.
If used in combination with public transport
incentives and park & ride systems, urban tolling
can effectively increase modal change towards
public transport.
One of the main impact of an urban tolling
system can be considered to be the reduction of
pollutant emissions within the controlled area.
Urban tolling systems can be improve safety of
vulnerable road uses by changing the modal
split reducing travelling by car and by rerouting
traffic to roads with lower accident rates.
Urban tolling system can divert traffic from
sensitive areas and lead it to areas where traffic
disturbance is less. Moreover the income
generated from tolling can be used for
improving the urban road network or the
transport system.
top ↑
Integration potential
Other ITS which can be integrated with the tool in order to improve its effectiveness
7 of 12
top ↑
Implementation
Despite the potential and the proved efficacy, road and tolling charging schemes can be difficult to be
implemented at city level. The experiences of several cities show that a strong political commitment is
essential to implementation and sustainability of these schemes.
Recent research on the implementation of road charging shows that some good practices can be applied:








Define the problem and set objectives before considering road charging as the proper tool;
Specify one or two principal objectives and treat the others as constraints on the design;
Design a comprehensive transport strategy, where road tolling or charging is integrated with other
measures;
Use the objectives consistently through the design process, including prediction, appraisal and
evaluation;
Start simple and expand later;
Be clear about revenue use;
Good communication is essential for acceptability (e.g. ensuring that the public are aware of the
impact of the measure on congestion levels compared with other types of measures or a ‘do
nothing’ scenario;
Equity aspects, environmental concerns, and financial considerations provide fuel and stumbling
blocks for the process
At the same time recent research investigated the cases where urban charging was rejected or failed,
showing the mistakes that should be avoided:




Avoid to change the objectives mid-way through the process;
Do not specify objectives that are inherently difficult to measure;
Do not look at road charging in isolation - it must be part of a wider strategy and package of
measures;
Do not underestimate the importance of investment and operational costs. They are critical in the
choice between different technologies.
top ↑
8 of 12
Examples
Case studies describing use of the tool:
b) in more general contexts
London
One of the most relevant road charging at urban level is the London Congestion Charging scheme
(http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/).
The Congestion Charging Scheme was introduced as a result of the increasing congestion within Central
London. The Mayor’s transport objectives the congestion charge was set up to contribute to were: the
reduction of congestion; improving bus services; better journey time reliability for car users; and making
the distribution of goods and services more efficient.
It was introduced in Central London on 17 February 2003 as a cordon charging scheme. The Western
Extension was implemented on 19 February 2007. The ‘original’ 2003 zone covers approximately 22 square
kilometres and the Western Extension covers a further 20 square kilometres.
Users pay a daily charge to enter or be within the Charging Zone. They can then exit and enter as many
times as they like during the day. The charge is operational between the hours of 0700 and 1800 Monday
to Friday.
The charge was originally set at £5 (€5.75) per day which rose to £8 (€9.20) per day in July 2005. This
assumes payment in advance of travel. There are many ways to make payments such as: via the internet;
telephone; retail outlets and petrol stations; self-service stations in car parks; and by post. Some vehicles
are exempt from the charge such as black cabs, NHS vehicles and emergency services vehicles. Residents of
the zone have a 90% discount.
9 of 12
The system relies on Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
technology
Revenues from the charge have been used for improvements public transport and road networks, road
safety initiatives and enhanced walking and cycling facilities.
During charging hours in 2006, there was a reduction in cars and taxis entering the charging area by 36%
(compared with the 2002 levels i.e. before charging was introduced). Emissions of NOx have fallen by 17%,
PM10 by 23% and CO2 by 3% in 2006 (compared with 2002 levels) Alternatives to car travel such as pedal
cycles have become very popular – a 49% increase between 2002 and 2006.
In terms of network speed, Transport for London observes a fluctuation over time since the introduction of
Congestion Charging in 2003. The figure in 2003 was approximately 17 km per hour, compared to 14 km per
hour in 2002. More recently, observed charging hour speeds have fallen to 16 km per hour in 2005 and 15
km per hour in 2006.
Bus patronage figures for passengers entering Central London increased year on year between 1999 and
2002 – from approximately 70,000 passengers in 1999 to just below 88,000 passengers in 2002. There was
a significant increase in 2003 to approximately 104,000 passengers, and a further rise to 116,000 in 2004.
Patronage stabilised at around 116,000 in 2005 and 2006.
The Underground has seen less of a significant change in patronage since 2003. A recorded average of
approximately 516,000 passengers exited stations in and around the central charging zone during the
morning peak period in 2002. This rose to 523,000 in 2006 having been 498,000 in 2005.
The key change in 2008 has been the change in political administration. The new Mayor of London, Boris
Johnson, announced in November 2008 that he had initiated the process to remove the Western Extension.
This is in response to results from a non-statutory public consultation exercise.
Congestion tax in Stockholm
10 of 12
A congestion tax is imposed on Swedish registered vehicles driving into and out of the Stockholm inner city
zone on weekdays between 6.30 and 18.29. No tax is charged on Saturdays, Sundays, public holidays, the
day before a public holiday or during the month of July.
Control points Passages are registered weekdays between 6.00 and 19.00. During these hours, vehicles are
automatically registered at “control points”. Each passage costs 10, 15 or 20 kronor, depending on the time
of day. The maximum accumulated tax per day and vehicle is 60 kronor.
The accumulated passages made by any vehicle during a month are aggregated into what is called a “tax
decision”. Once a month a tax decision on the total amount payable is sent to the registered owner of the
vehicle. The tax is to be paid within a month .
Emergency vehicles, vehicles for disabled, buses and for practical reasons also foreign vehicles and
motorbikes. And alternatively fuelled vehicles registered before 2009 are exempted from the tax. Two
special problems have been the artery road E4/E20, which is the main route for bypassing Stockholm from
north to south, and the island Lidingö, for which the only connection to the mainland is over a bridge that
connects directly to the Stockholm inner city and the congestion zone. Both these passages are exempted
from the tax, in the Lidingö-case with the special rule that vehicles should enter and leave the cordon area
within 30 minutes.
During the trial phase 3th Jan to 31th July 2006, the number of passages was reduced by 22 % compared to
same period in 2005 with no congestion charging. Over time the number of exempted passages has
increased and the reduction is now (autumn 2008) about 18 % compared to 2005. The number of
exempted passages made by clean vehicles is expected to decrease.
Oslo Toll Cordon
The Oslo toll Cordon is the largest toll project in Norway, in operation since 1990. It is a classic cordon
pricing scheme with 19 toll stations circling the centre of Oslo. People driving into the city centre pay a fee
when passing the toll cordon line. Every car accessing the city centre necessarily has to pass a toll station.
Leaving the city centre is free. The current configuration of the toll ring allows to optimise revenues
11 of 12
(highest possible traffic volume paying) with a minimum of toll station to make the ring complete.
Furthermore, availability of space for the toll stations and fairness towards citizens living outside the
cordon were other issues. With the adopted solution, 50% of the population of the city are living outside
the ring.
Charging used to be done by means of OBUs and coin machines/attendants, since 2008 the charging
system is fully automatic, based on On-Board Units (OBU), specifically AutoPass tags based on DSRC
(provider Tecsidel) and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology for vehicles not equipped
with OBUs.
Full national (and Nordic) interoperability allowing motorists to use the same OBU in all Norwegian and
Nordic toll projects (One OBU – One Contract – One Invoice). It is estimated that one in two Norwegian
vehicles are equipped with the AutoPASS OBU.
The results show that ITS-based toll collection is highly profitable from an economic point of view. The
reasons show that ITS-based toll collection relieves congestion at toll points thereby leading to time savings
for road users, reduced noise and pollution associated with slow movement of vehicles at toll points,
improvement of the city's landscape because toll booths and signposts are removed and reduced costs
associated with operating tolls.
Further information: http://www.autopass.no/
top ↑
12 of 12