Road tolling and charging

Transcription

1 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

2 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. 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

3 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. 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. 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

4 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. 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

5 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. 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

6 Road charging CRITERION TRAFFIC EFFICIENCY IMPACT LEVEL COMMENTS *** 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. PT EFFICIENCY ** The improvement in public transport efficiency is directly related to the reduction of congestion in the controlled area. MODAL SHIFT *** Higher charges for entering to the controlled zone during peak hours can encourage greater use of public transport. AIR POLLUTION *** The impacts on the environment are also usually relevant when implementing road charging schemes. London MEASURED IMPACTS* -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. London -16% CO 2 (2002 versus 2003 figures) Milan -14% CO 2 (change after 9 months of operation of the scheme) Stockholm -13% CO 2 (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 The city benefits from increased income and the public transport operator from additional business and reduced journey times. Milan -20% of accidents (total accidents, after the introduction of the Ecopass) 6 of 12

7 Road Tolling CRITERION TRAFFIC EFFICIENCY IMPACT LEVEL COMMENTS ** 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. PT EFFICIENCY ** The improvement in public transport efficiency is directly related to the reduction of congestion in the controlled area. MODAL SHIFT ** If used in combination with public transport incentives and park & ride systems, urban tolling can effectively increase modal change towards public transport. AIR POLLUTION *** One of the main impact of an urban tolling system can be considered to be the reduction of pollutant emissions within the controlled area. SAFETY OF VULNERABLE ROAD USERS ** 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. CONVENIENCE *** 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. MEASURED IMPACTS* Integration potential Other ITS which can be integrated with the tool in order to improve its effectiveness 7 of 12

8 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. 8 of 12

9 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 ( 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 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 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

10 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 In terms of network speed, Transport for London observes a fluctuation over time since the introduction of Congestion Charging in The figure in 2003 was approximately 17 km per hour, compared to 14 km per hour in More recently, observed charging hour speeds have fallen to 16 km per hour in 2005 and 15 km per hour in 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 There was a significant increase in 2003 to approximately 104,000 passengers, and a further rise to 116,000 in Patronage stabilised at around 116,000 in 2005 and The Underground has seen less of a significant change in patronage since A recorded average of approximately 516,000 passengers exited stations in and around the central charging zone during the morning peak period in This rose to 523,000 in 2006 having been 498,000 in 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

11 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 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 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 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 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

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: 12 of 12