CEDR – Task O6 To harmonise electronic fee collection (EFC)

1. CEDR – Task O6To harmonise electronic fee collection (EFC) Report to O1 - Sept. 2006 Jacob Trondsen, NPRA

2. EFC Team in SG Telematics > O6 • SG-Telematics (WERD) addressed EFC and interoperability • SG-Telematics set up an ”EFC team” • experts from NL, NO, SE, DE, PT, FR, BE-V, PL, CH • O6 is a new structure based on EFC Team • Chairmanship divided by NL and NO

3. Tasks for O6 in Strategic Plan • Identify and exchange experiences from those countries that have already implemented EFC; • Disseminate these results to CEDR members; • Identify issues that are of importance to CEDR based on the information gathered; • Propose further internal and external actions towards the Commission and • Draw up a questionnaire covering several aspects: policies, organisational structure, and future activities relevant to the harmonisation of EFC and road charging;

4. Deliverables • Finalised: Briefing Note (NL) • “Concrete and practical issues for NRA’s” covering tasks 1, 2 and 3 • Finalised: Position Paper (NL) • ”Issues to be communicated by CEDR with EU-COM with respect to the Directive on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community” covering task 4 • On-going: Questionnaire (NO) covering task 5

5. Questionnaire 2006 • A follow-up to the WERD survey on User Charging and Road Tolling undertaken in 2002. • Developments in EFC since the last survey: new schemes introduced; EFC Directive in force; technology developed. • Original deadline for the questionnaire was 15 June 2006. • To date replies have been received from 17 members: BE-V, CH, DE, DK, ES, EE, FI, FR, GR, IS, LT, LU, NL, NO, PL, SE, IT. • Reminder sent to those members who have yet to reply: AT, BE-W, HU, IE, LV, PT, SI, UK • Most of the ”missing” members have experience in EFC. • Replies from all will produce optimum results from the EFC survey.

6. Questionnaire 2006 Preliminary “flavour” from the 16 answers • 12 of the 17 have EFC in operation • Free flow EFC only in four countries • NRAs play a limited role towards EFC • DSRC is the predominant technology • 8 report to have some degree of interoperability • High demand for interoperability in states with EFC • Implementing EETS: • EC approach too complex • Members expect delays to EC time plan • Most crucial are enforcement, clearing guarantees, contracts • Interoperability with GNSS and DSRC possible but not necessary • Members mostly agree on a need for close cooperation on EFC interoperability amongst NRAs

7. Questionnaire 2006 The following slides give a preliminary analysis of the 17 answers in more detail

8. Update of Status in Member State (1) • Existing Systems • 12 of 17 members who have replied have EFC schemes in operation. • LT, LU, PL, FI and EE don’t have any EFC schemes. • Most EFC schemes are for infrastructure financing. • 6 members have over 50% EFC of total tolling system • Free flow is only experienced in 4 member states • Where there is free flow enforcement is through ANPR, manual checking of license plates, OBU functions and mobile checks. • Overall the NRAs play a limited role in EFC schemes. NO and SE have direct roles but other countries are, if at all, involved in EFC policy (EETS, standardisation, harmonisation).

9. Update of Status in Member State (2) • Organisation of EFC schemes • Mostly OBUs and contracts are issued by toll companies • Schemes are mainly operated by concessionaires; • NRAs have ownership of EFC infrastructures in NO, ES, SE. Otherwise concessionaires or toll companies; • Functional and technical specificiations are owned by concessionaires or toll operators. Public Administrations own them in NO, SE and CH.

10. Update of Status in Member State (3) • Technologies in the EFC Scheme(s) • EFC schemes predominantly employ DSRC • GNSS is employed in CH & DE. • IR used in DE & NL. • ANPR in SE (Stockholm). • Enforcement technologies • Mostly ANPR • Some barriers (FR, ES, NL) • Others OBU functions • Introduction of new technologies: new OBUs in CH, advanced enforcement in NL, CSS & fully automatic in NO.

11. Update of Status in Member State (4) • Interoperability (1) • 9 of the members with EFC schemes have some level of interoperability • Of the 9 all claim technical interoperability; 3 contractual and 3 procedural. • NO, FR, and ES have technical, procedural and contractural (full) interoperability. • Mostly interoperabilty at national level,but 5 also cross-border. NO and ES regional as well.

12. Update of Status in Member State (5) • Interoperability (2) • Responsibility for interoperability lies with NRAs or toll operators. • Users take part in the interoperable scheme as a normal part of their EFC scheme (e.g. NO, ES) or by signing a contract with another operator (e.g. CH & AT). • Coverage of costs varied • Most members plan some form of interoperability

13. National Plans and Strategies (1) • Plans for new schemes • Most intend to introduce new schemes, unless mature national EFC schemes already exist. • Most plans at discussion stage but others more advanced. • Purpose a mixture of HGV and infrastucture financing • ITS Strategy • Only NO, ES, SE include EFC technologies • Most members won’t piggy-back other ITS applications off EFC. • EFC using GNSS may change this in some cases

14. National Plans and Strategies (2) • Interoperability • High demand for interoperability in states with EFC schemes. • Demand not limited to professional users • Perceived benefits of interoperability are better service to users and reduced costs to operators. • Potential costs are seen as clearing, enforcement, transaction security and communication between operators. • Costs should be borne by operators, but users should pay for the OBUs

15. Implications of the EFC Directive (European Electronic Tolling Service) (1) • Implementing EETS • Members disagree with the EC’s item-by-item approach • Preferable to agree the overall design and principles of EETS first. • Top down approach preferred. • Describe EETS then show costs of benefits • EC approach too complex

16. Implications of the EFC Directive (European Electronic Tolling Service) (2) • Realistic Timeplan for implementing EETS • Members expect delays. Average expectations from answers received: • 2008: Completion of EETS detailed definition • 2009: Necessary equipment available • 2011: Implementation for HGVs • 2013: Implementation for all vehicles • Most crucial contractual instrument • Enforcement, clearing guarantees, contracts between issuers and chargers • Interoperability with GNSS and DSRC possible but not necessary desirable. • Some NRAs directly involved in CT, others via Expert Groups.

17. Implications of the EFC Directive (European Electronic Tolling Service) (3) • Enforcement issues • Most members require changes to existing national legislation • Proof of passage required in most countries • Question of anonymity unclear. • Many states give national operators access to their vehicle registration databases, but not many foreign operators.

18. Implications of the EFC Directive (European Electronic Tolling Service) (4) • Role of CEDR in developing EETS • Members mostly agree on a need for close cooperation amongst NRAs • Not convinced that it is necessary to set up a separate body for monitoring and providing CEDR input. • Some support for additional harmonisation activities but unclear what, when and by whom.