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

1. CEDR – Task O6To harmonise electronic fee collection (EFC) Report to O1 – 02.01.2007 Jacob Trondsen, NPRA

2. Questionnaire 2006 Progress since 01 meeting in Trondheim • Replies received from Austria, Italy and Latvia • Reminder sent to those members who have yet to reply: BE-W, HU, IE, PT, SI, UK • Draft version of report prepared and sent to O6 29. November 2006 • There has been no feedback

3. Update of Status in Member States (1) • Existing Systems (based on replies received) • 13 of 19 members who have replied have EFC schemes in operation. • Most EFC schemes are for infrastructure financing. • 7 members have over 50% EFC of total tolling system • Free flow is experienced in 5 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, not involved in EFC policy (EETS, standardisation, harmonisation). • Predominant charging technology is DSRC

4. Update of Status in Member States (2) List of Abbreviations used in Table : Purpose: IF – Infrastructure; HGV – Truck tolling; DM – Demand Management; O - Other Technology: DSRC & GNSS; O - Other Main responsibility: PA – Public Administration; CON – Concessionaire; TO – Toll Operator; SYS – System supplier Involvement in Interoperability: NAT – National interoperability; INT – International interoperability (cross-border and/or regional); * Countries who have not submitted a reply but about whom some relevant information is known

5. Update of Status in Member State (3) • Interoperability • 10 of the members with EFC schemes have some level of interoperability • Of the 10 all claim technical interoperability; 5 contractual and 6 procedural. • NO, FR, and ES have technical, procedural and contractual (full) interoperability nationally • High demand for interoperability mostly for the benefit of HGV users. • Benefit of interoperability is mainly improved services for users and reduced costs for operators

6. National Plans and Strategies • Plans for new schemes

7. 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

8. Implications of the EFC Directive (European Electronic Tolling Service) (2) • Timeplan for implementing EETS • Members expect delays. • Most crucial contractual instrument • Enforcement, clearing guarantees, contracts between issuers and chargers • Interoperability with GNSS and DSRC possible but not necessarily desirable (from commercial/business point of view). • 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.

9. Implications of the EFC Directive (European Electronic Tolling Service) (3) • 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.