CEDR – Task O6 To harmonise electronic fee collection (EFC) Report to O1 – Jacob Trondsen, NPRA

Norwegian Public Roads Administration 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

Norwegian Public Roads Administration 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, involved in EFC policy (EETS, standardisation, harmonisation). –Predominant charging technology is DSRC

Norwegian Public Roads Administration 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

Norwegian Public Roads Administration 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. –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

Norwegian Public Roads Administration National Plans and Strategies Plans for new schemes

Norwegian Public Roads Administration 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

Norwegian Public Roads Administration 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 necessary desirable. 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.

Norwegian Public Roads Administration 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.