Etc, Etc September 2007

etc etc

Supplement to

THIN KING

HIG HW AYS Volume 2 Issue 3 Sep/Oct 2007

The international road pricing review

Orski, Borras & Grush on congestion charging: “New York has the chance to either be the first city to do it right or the last city to do it wrong”

Bern Grush on waiting for Galileo Mark Garrity on smart DSRC OBUs Stefan Hoepfel on a trip around the world Simon Albutt on ITS and ETC Bob McQueen on rewarding the good Blum & Fific on Germany’s PPP plans the

INTELLIGENT

choice

Sayeg & Bray on congestion optimisation Steinar Furan on intelligent road pricing Aguigui & Hewitt on basic ETC principles Paul Wadsworth on implementation AND Vibeke Ulmann on India’s five new toll roads Policy • strategy • technology • finance • innovation • implementation • integration • interoperability

    


    
           !    
     ! # 
        "   

!          !               ! !       ! 
      
!



Foreword Thinking Kevin Borras

Kevin Borras is publishing director of H3B Media and editor-in-chief of Thinking Highways and ETC, etc. To contact him email [email protected]

Shall we decide to be indecisive... or not? Stockholm starts. Manchester says yes. Cardiff is thinking about it.The Netherlands gets a bit twitchy. New York says yes.Then no.Then maybe... I think it’s fair to say that quite a lot has happened in the road pricing arena in the last six months. It’s also fair to say that we have deliberately not covered all of them in this issue of ETC, etc. We simply don’t have the space, largely because this publication has to be smaller than the issue of Thinking Highways that it accompanies, and we would rather do justice to 13 stories then give scant regard to 20. However, this opening gambit is really for anyone who questions our decision to publish ETC, etc twice a year. “Is there really so much to talk about that you can fill two magazines a year with road pricing, congestion charging and electronic toll collection articles?” comes the question with a greater degree of regularity than you’d expect. Enough for two? Six articles I received for this issue had to be held over and it was pretty much the same total for our

Editor-in-Chief Kevin Borras

Web Design Code Liquid

Sales and Marketing Luis Hill, Tim Guest

Visualisation Tom Waldschmidt

Design and Layout Phoebe Bentley, Kevin Borras Sub-Editor and Proofreader Maria Vasconcelos Senior Editorial Advisors Bern Grush, Jack Opiola, Andrew Pickford, Harold Worrall Contributors to this issue Kevin Aguigui, Simon Albutt, Michael Blum, David Bray, Sascha FIfic, Steinar Furan, Bern Grush, Melissa Hewitt, Stefan Hoepfel, Bob McQueen, Ken Orski Phil Sayeg, Mark Garrity, Viebeke Ulmann Paul Wadsworth

first issue of 2007 in April. The fact that we could have very easily made this a 104page issue speaks volumes for this sector of the advanced traffic management industry. We very much hope that you appreciate the diversity of the stories that we chose to include. Those articles we couldn’t use have not gone to waste, though. We are producing a bespoke road pricing review in time for our UK Road Pricing Think Tank in November which will originally have a limited print run but then all the pieces will get posted onto our website. Talking of the Think Tank (which as editor I am contractually obliged to do, but as publishing director I drew up that contract so the temptation to say no to myself was surprisingly hard to resist), by the time you read this it will be almost upon us. It’s really taken and indeed changed shape since we first conceived the idea earlier this

ETC etc,, a twice-yearly supplement to thinking by H3B Media Ltd in the UK.

Subscriptions and Circulation Pilarin Harvey-Granell

Editorial and Advertising H3B Media Ltd, 15 Onslow Gardens, Wallington, Surrey SM6 9QL, UK Tel +44 (0)870 919 3770 Fax +44 (0)870 919 3771 Email [email protected]

www.h3bmedia.com

Highways,

is published ISSN 1753 4348

Thinking Highways is published quarterly in two editions – North America and Europe/Rest of the World - and is available on subscription at £30/€40 (Europe/RoW) and US$50 (North America). Distributed in the USA by DSW, 75 Aberdeen Road, Emigsville PA 17318-0437. Periodicals postage paid at Emigsville PA. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to THINKING HIGHWAYS, 401 S W Water Street, Suite 201B, Peoria IL 61602.

Conferences and Events Odile Pignier

Financial Director Martin Brookstein

year. Take a look at the speaker programme on pages 34-36 and you’ll see for yourself that this really is no ordinary event. If you want to see endless streams of manufacturers, suppliers and consultants talk about how great they and their products are, then this is not the event for you. There’s plenty of others you can attend if you want that. Of course, our event has sponsors but each of them has welcomed the chance to involve themselves in politically- and sociallycharged debate. “This style of event has long been needed as a way to communicate and get the discussion flowing,” said one recently paid-up attendee. When one of your event’s sponsors thanks you for giving him the opportunity to express his views and not just advertise his company’s services, you know you are on to a good thing. See you there. E

Managing Director/CEO Luis Hill Publishing Director Kevin Borras

www.h3bmedia.com

Although due care has been taken to ensure that the content of this publication is accurate and up-to-date, the publisher can accept no liability for errors and omissions. Unless otherwise stated, this publication has not tested products or services that are described herein, and their inclusion does not imply any form of endorsement. By accepting advertisements in this publication, the publisher does not warrant their accuracy, nor accept responsibility for their contents. The publisher welcomes unsolicited manuscripts and illustrations but can accept no liability for their safe return. © 2007 H3B Media Ltd. All rights reserved. The views and opinions of the authors are not necessarily those of H3B Media Ltd. Reproduction (in whole or in part) of any text, photograph or illustration contained in this publication without the written permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited. Printed in the UK by Stones The Printers

ETCetc Autumn 2007

01

Tailored solutions for individual needs

Road user charging As the supplier and operator of the Western Extension Zone (WEZ) of the London congestion charging scheme for Transport for London and the recently announced Low Emission Zone (LEZ), Siemens Traffic Controls is an established enforcement specialist. With over 60 years‘ experience in the UK traffic market, we are equipped to provide flexible, inter-operable and scalable road pricing schemes and are proven integrators of ANPR, DSRC and GNSS technologies. Siemens – Your high performance partner for the road ahead. www.siemenstraffic.com

04

COVER STORY

It’s a big question to ask, but Bern Grush wonders we why need to wait for Galileo to deploy GNSS-based road user charging GNSS

Why wait for

Nationwide Road-User Charging using only GPS is possible by 2009. This article will outline the technologies, business methods and roles to make this possible. The smartest way to deploy a road user charging (RUC) program is to satisfy Nobel Economist William Vickrey’s rules for congestion pricing. The most critical among these rules describe Time, Distance and Place (TDP) charging – specifically basing charges on when a facility is used, how much is used, and where it is used. TDP-RUC is the fairest and most effective all-in-one approach to the triple problem of road finance, traffic congestion and automotive pollution. The arguments for this have been made so often and so well that they are now self-evident to anyone who has given this any serious thought. The qualified successes of the Singapore/London/ Stockholm cordon-style systems are very limited – and these systems demand an exorbitant front-end outlay for their constrained capability. These are crude time (e.g., 0600-1800) and place (e.g., Central London) systems that do not recognize a critical component of congestion pricing: distance travelled. Since there are as yet no area-based systems that provide all three components, we have no more satisfied Vickrey’s congestion pricing tenets than Conestoga wagons is a transcontinental railway. London and Singapore (and, one would suspect, Stockholm) know this and continue to seek technology to enable full TDP pricing. There are only three things needed to deploy a RUC program that satisfies Vickrey’s TDP rules for congestion pricing: technology, political will and a suitable business process.

’t ! on et D rg fo

m es r co su te . is gis dia re re e tu e bm fu as 3 e le .h iv p w ce tc ww re , e at C To ET W of NO e lin on

CONTENTS Galileo?

Coming to a city near you...

Infrastructure-free satellite-based technology for full TDP operations in harsh GPS signal environments is available now. While a few companies have made this claim, teams from my company, Skymeter Corp, have demonstrated accurate, reliable, gapless, multipath mitigation in the inner urban cores of London, Toronto, Montreal, Singapore and New York (See Figure 1). We will soon run more tests in other cities. Certainly Galileo is absolutely critical to EU navigation and safety-of-life applications, but Galileo’s value relative to congestion pricing will be in system and signal redundancy, and a new level of accuracy that will enable a parking meter - even in urban canyon.

Galileo is critical to EU navigation and safety-of-life applications but, says BERN GRUSH, we no longer need to wait for it to deploy GNSS-based Road User Charging - even in the dreaded urban canyon. (That grinding sound you can hear is the gnashing of numerous sets of teeth in Brussels) 46

10

www.h3bmedia.com

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

47

GERMANY Michael Blum and Sascha Fific on the role of public-private partnerships in German road infrastructure financing

16

SMART THINKING Just how intelligent are the ITS systems in the road pricing arena, asks Steinar Furan

20

PROGRAMME DESIGN Outcome-based ITS programmes are the future for road pricing schemes, says Simon Albutt

24

p52

NEW YORK CITY Ken Orski and Kevin Borras look at the facts, figures and opinions behind the Big Apple’s congestion pricing plans 48

36

32 38

New York’s sustainability plans - could they become unsustainable, asks Bern Grush EVENT PREVIEW H3B Media’s 1st UK Road Pricing Think Tank

52

CONCEPTS AND IDEAS Bob McQueen on rewarding good driver and travel behaviour Concepts and Ideas

Concepts and Ideas

Behave yourself

58

priced tolling schemes, for example, in which drivers pay higher tolls at peak congestion times. In return, they receive better service. This can be likened to promising the aforementioned child dessert if he or she eats their broccoli. Positive reinforcement, on the other hand, reinforces what a child is doing right rather than concentrating on what a child is doing wrong. Child psychologists and good parents have known all along that positive reinforcement increases the likelihood that the behaviour will be repeated. It supports the child’s positive deeds and qualities through enthusiasm, descriptive encouragement, and natural, logical rewards. So here’s the crazy thought – can we define a radically positive reward system that provides a positive incentive for great travel behaviour? In other words, take what the psychologists have learned and apply it to transportation. This really appeals to me as I have a fascination for looking over the fence at other industries and enterprises to see what lessons we can learn, practices we can modify and adopt and technologies that we can use.

BOB MCQUEEN and PROFESSOR KAN CHEN have been mulling over an interesting question that they would like to share with you- should we reward good travel behaviour?

Positive traveler rewards

The tricky part in providing a positive rewards system is determining where the revenue or resources for the rewards will come from. Consider the scenario in which a traveler receives a reward for, say, traveling at off-peak highway times or carpooling or taking transit instead of driving. The reward from a public transportation agency could be, for instance, use of a prime parking spot at a transit station. Or a reduced toll cost. Or a free ride on a transit system. The reward scheme could be based on points, much the same as many “loyalty programs.” In the retail world, loyalty programs are structured marketing efforts that reward, and therefore encourage, behaviour that is potentially of benefit to the issuer. In a “congestion avoidance rewards” program, the issuer’s (i.e. the transportation agency’s) overall benefit would be getting better use of existing roadway capacity. The two desired outcomes would be to increasing the peak-travel-time spread, and to promote a modal shift to transit or HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes. Here’s how it would work.

It’s helpful every once in a while to step back from our day-to-day world, take a look at the big picture and envision the future. Those of us in the transportation industry have a tendency to get caught up in day-to-day traffic management issues. We would do well to ask some basic questions like, “What are the fundamental issues we’re facing and how can we use wisdom and experience to solve them?” It doesn’t get much more fundamental than basic human behaviour. Travelers in our transportation systems are exhibiting a facet of their fundamental human needs and desires. They need to get from one place to another and, not unreasonably, they want their trip to be safe and convenient. Can the transportation industry build a new model based on managing human behaviour? I think we can agree that good public behaviour includes being aware of the environment, using good manners, and making choices that balance individual needs with a respect for others’ needs. Why not reward good public behaviour?

Leveraging ETC data

The dominant paradigms

Since February 2003, the City of London has charged a fee for driving private automobiles in its central area during weekdays as a way to reduce traffic congestion and raise revenues to fund transport improvements. Put in another way, drivers choose if they want to pay a higher fee to drive their own vehicle into an urban zone or use less-expensive public transit instead. This approach has proven to be highly successful in London, Singapore and more recently Stockholm and has created a “virtuous circle” of positive effects in each of these cities. Transportation professionals now have a very effective mechanism to manage demand, achieve the desired results and avoid any undesirable side

46

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

64

effects. At the same time, a new revenue stream has been established by way of the congestion charge fees and this can be used to make transportation even better. It strikes me that if we can have such an amazing success with what is essentially a somewhat negative reward system: consumers pay (with a negative impact on their wallets) for the costs they impose (greater congestion on London’s streets), then could we do even better with www.h3bmedia.com

a positive reward system. At a very naïve level, the type of reward system that we are currently implementing serves as a negative incentive to use resources efficiently, much the same way that a child is given a “time out” if he or she behaves badly. US value pricing implementation has indicated that a positive reward model could work. Consider variablewww.h3bmedia.com

For the past decade or so, the huge push in the tolling industry has been to design, install, and operate electronic toll collection (ETC) systems – in which tolls are paid automatically via radio communication between a transponder in a vehicle and a receiver at the toll booth. A similar big push has been to get the traveling public to use ETC in lieu of cash. In some locations, ETC represents upwards of 65 per cent of the tolls paid. That means that well over half of the vehicles on a toll system are now equipped with transponders. ETC has certainly reduced congestion at toll plazas. The big push in the future will be mining ETC data and using it to win the overall war on congestion. An offer ETCetc Autumn 2007

47

68 42

IN MY OPINION Intelligent thinking can solve our congestion problems, suggests Mark Garrity. Who would have thought it?

72

THE FUTURE, part 2 Kevin Aguigui and Melissa Hewitt on the basic, fundamental principles of congestion pricing ROAD USER PRICING Paul Wadsworth on how road pricing schemes can have multiple positive impacts on the community OPTIMISATION How is Australia looking to define congestion optimisation? Phil Sayeg and David Bray explain GLOBAL ISSUES Stefan Hoepfel’s Phileas Fogg-like whistlestop world tour of electronic toll collection projects INDIA Five new toll roads are set to open soon in India. Vibeke Ulmann talks to project manager Manoj Dave Advertisers Index

Nationwide Road User Charging using only GPS is possible by 2009. This article will outline the technologies, business methods and roles to make this possible. The smartest way to deploy a road user charging (RUC) program is to satisfy Nobel Economist William Vickrey’s rules for congestion pricing. The most critical among these rules describe Time, Distance and Place (TDP) charging – specifically basing charges on when a facility is used, how much is used, and where it is used. TDP-RUC is the fairest and most effective all-in-one approach to the triple problem of road finance, traffic congestion and automotive pollution. The arguments for this have been made so often and so well that they are now self-evident to anyone who has given this any serious thought. The qualified successes of the Singapore/London/ Stockholm cordon-style systems are very limited – and these systems demand an exorbitant front-end outlay for their constrained capability. These are crude time (e.g., 0600-1800) and place (e.g., Central London) systems that do not recognize a critical component of congestion pricing: distance travelled. Since there are as yet no area-based systems that provide all three components, we have no more satisfied Vickrey’s congestion pricing tenets than Conestoga wagons is a transcontinental railway. London and Singapore (and, one would suspect, Stockholm) know this and continue to seek technology to enable full TDP pricing. There are only three things needed to deploy a RUC program that satisfies Vickrey’s TDP rules for congestion pricing: technology, political will and a suitable business process.

Coming to a city near you...

Infrastructure-free satellite-based technology for full TDP operations in harsh GPS signal environments is available now. While a few companies have made this claim, teams from my company, Skymeter Corp, have demonstrated accurate, reliable, gapless, multipath mitigation in the inner urban cores of London, Toronto, Montreal, Singapore and New York (See Figure 1). We will soon run more tests in other cities. Certainly Galileo is absolutely critical to EU navigation and safety-of-life applications, but Galileo’s value relative to congestion pricing will be in system and signal redundancy, and a new level of accuracy that will enable a parking meter - even in urban canyon.

Galileo is critical to EU navigation and safety-of-life applications but, says BERN GRUSH, we no longer need to wait for it to deploy GNSS-based Road User Charging - even in the dreaded urban canyon. (That grinding sound you can hear is the gnashing of numerous sets of teeth in Brussels) 04

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

GNSS

Why wait for

Galileo?

www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

05

GNSS

Figure 1a: This is from an August 2007 test of a beta OBU in NYC, the red points are from an off-the-shelf, high-sensitivity receiver from μ-blox, arguably one of the best navigation-grade GPS receivers on the market. The blue points are from a Skymeter OBU. These points represent the first of three stages of processing that do not require map-matching. The final result of processing provides a repeatable, integrity characterized, non-refutable toll calculation (not shown)

Processing methods that we have developed already provide the required accuracy and evidentiary assurance demanded for CBD-GNSS tolling applications. There is no longer any technical reason to wait for Galileo. Clearly, sufficient political will is apparent in many places besides London, Stockholm, Singapore and Dubai. The Netherlands and now Manhattan are two evident examples. I am personally aware of several other cities that are seriously looking at this. It will blossom in numerous cities and regions following on the heels the first success. Perhaps your particular city or country will wait for stronger or more progressive leadership before you can see the benefits to mobility and air quality in your city. What is left to develop, then, is a suitable business process that requires minimum government expenditure to initiate.This article describes a system that would cost a road authority a fraction of the cost of the London Congestion Charge system to establish. The possible

assumptions are thus: 1) The use of Global Navigation Satellite Systems such as GPS (and later Galileo) for positioning (hence no fixed roadside infrastructure); 2) A resolution for privacy concerns; 3) The guarantee of accurate, reliable and repeatable tolling charges; and 4) availability of an evidentiaryweight record of road use that is nonrefutable in the event a use-charge is challenged. Given these assumptions are satisfied – and they can be – we divide motorists into three classes: fully compliant motorists with an operational on-board unit (OBU); occasional motorists (e.g., visitors) who intend to comply with the charge scheme but who do not have an on-board meter; and motorists who do not wish to comply. We call these OBU users, guests and evaders respectively. The business process we propose will set up three self-funding workflows one for each of these three types of motorists.

“The three things needed to deploy an RUC program: technology, political will and a suitable business process”

06

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

GNSS

Figure 1b: This is a January 2007 test of an earlier (alpha) device in London, England. Here red is μ-blox and green is Skymeter

See Figure 2 on page 08 for an overview of the proposed business process.

Pricing service role (OBU users only)

Rate setting: The first step in this process is that a road authority, mostly likely a department of transport, sets out the pricing requirements – how much will be charged for which types of vehicles at which places and at which times. Map preparation: A system then ingests these pricing requirements to generate a “pricing-map” – a geocoded database that holds this information in a way that can be used to calculate subsequent bills. Data collection: A suitable OBU mitigates multipath signal error, establishes integrity measures and compresses path and time information. This trip data is forwarded to a rating service that can generate a billing feed. This can be done privately or anonymously depending on what a road authority will allow. Health assurance: This same OBU forwards information about its operating condition to a device health status service. This is used to determine whether the device is operational, jammed, tampered, shielded, power-low, etc. This information is used to establish device status, warn the motorist via lights on the device, send citations, and so on. Bill generation: A rating service or billing engine compares this trip information to the pricing map, and generates a bill itemized for each tolling authority whose infrastructure was used by the respective vehicles since the last billing cycle. This is in turn formed into a mass billing feed to a billing service that can be operated in tandem or independently of the rating engine. The OBU pricing contractor would be permitted to retain a portion of the OBU tolling revenue (well under 10 percent) to pay for the OBUs and the data services. As this same service vendor is able to increase service revenues from parking and PAYD insurance (all handled by the same system), the relative cost to the road authorities should contunue to drop. Since the capital costs to

set up this system are already dramatically reduced compared to a tag and beacon system, a transportation authority can expect to invest far less up front, and to spend far less to operate such a system.

Guest management role

Guests are defined as motorists without an operational OBU to record and establish electronic charges, but who are willing to comply with the charges. Guest payment, associated directly to a vehicle’s licence/number plate can be handled in several ways: phone, web, kiosk at local convenience stores, etc. While motorists reluctant to use a meter can use a Guest Pass, these passes are intended as a way for occasional visitors, tourists and those with a meter under repair to pay without penalty or citation. Such payment, made in advance, would be modest, perhaps equivalent to slightly more than an average daily meter payment. But guest fees for any one vehicle must increase over time to prevent abuse: motorists using facilities frequently, but on a guest basis would soon find an OBU far less expensive to use than daily or weekly passes. This is similar to the pricing arrangement on Toronto’s 407 which charges a processing fee to process your number plate each time you use the highway without a tag. If you use that highway more than once every couple of months, it’s worth renting a tag. Payments for Guest Passes are voluntary and motorist-actuated. A contractor to handle this subsystem would operate payment systems (online, call center, SMS); manage fulfilment “(in the event physical passes or OBU rentals are needed)); provide an enforcement feed of temporarily “paid” license plates for the enforcement contractor (below); set up and maintain signage; handle marketing to users and visitors both locally and abroad; receive payment and make residual payments to the road authority that has authorized the contract. Excepting the activity of maintaining road signage, all of these activities parallel those of managing cellular phone distribution and billing, so such a business would be in a position to execute this.

“If you use Toronto’s Highway 407 more than once every couple of months, it’s worth renting a tag”

www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

07

GNSS

Figure 2: This is a highly simplified overview of a full business flow. The core enabler, “Pricing Data” (in the gold boxes) is concerned with the on-board-unit and its network support. The Rating Engine and the Health Check capabilities are likely to be in the same datacenter – but are very important to distinguish. The full system includes handling guests, evaders, billing and collection. This can be managed by a single integrator, a consortium or by a government who acts as prime directly managing four major contracts: pricing, enforcement, guest passes and billing/collection.

08

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

GNSS Enforcement role

Enforcement is necessary for three types of evaders and can be handled by a combination of mobile and handheld licence plate recognition (LPR) devices. Intentional evaders who have neither an OBU nor a Guest Pass (previous sections) will be discovered via mobile LPR on a random basis and will receive citations. This is analogous to receiving a parking ticket, rather than a citation for a moving violation. Intentional evaders who have a tampered OBU are known to the data centre by plate number via the health-check subsystem. A tampered OBU has a specific light (LEDs) configuration for driver notification and easy handheld LPR capture when the vehicle is moving slowly near intersections or parked. Good stations to discover such evaders are places where vehicles stop momentarily to discharge or pick up passengers or any form of public parking facility. Users of anonymous OBUs that are tampered are also discovered via handheld LPR and physically ticketed or booted, as permitted in the respective jurisdiction. In this case, the vehicle licence plate is not known prior to discovery of the offence, due to anonymity. Unintentional evaders are those whose OBU has failed, or whose prepaid account has been exhausted and who have not noted the LED failed-status indicator (this may not be accidental, but that is unprovable). While there are remedies for this, the point is that these motorists must be issued a citation unless they have purchased a Guest Pass while waiting for an OBU replacement. Citation rates and amounts need to be balanced to ensure that evasion management encourages OBU (or Guest Pass) adoption and is at least self-funding after program expenses of mobile and handheld LPR vehicles, collections, labour, etc., as is best practice for parking enforcement. Mobile and handheld units will be updated in nearreal time with license-plate lists of valid OBU users and valid Guest Passes – i.e., there are data connections among the three services: OBU Users, Enforcement, and Guest Pass. The tolling authority must decide whether the vehicle must be stopped or whether a citation may be mailed to the evader. As an exception, a few fixed LPR gantries can be strategically placed on major routes on the inside edges of the charging area. These can be used for guests who intend to pay and choose to enter under one of those gantries. This registers them for the day and automatically bills the account attached to their number plate, saving those guests the trouble of calling, visiting a kiosk, or going online to order a pass.

less of whether handled directly or through a proxy, collection is made easier if the motorists understand that registered entitlement to drive a vehicle on chargeable roads may be denied if use-charges go unpaid. Hence, there should be a direct and apparent connection between a department of transportation and motorists relative to collection. The business process described here is neutral to collection agency so long as the authority to collect fees is backed by firm rules regarding government registration of vehicles with unpaid use-charges.

Strong privacy and anonymity

Another key value of this business and workflow architecture is that strong privacy is easy to implement. In addition to encryption and access security that would be demanded by any such payment service application there is an additional burden of preserving location privacy. Fortunately, there are two solutions. Strong privacy is provided by ensuring that the entity doing the pricing service role (the yellow boxes in figure 2) has no access whatsoever to the personal information of the vehicle registrant. All pricing transactions are tagged with an OBU account number and do not require motorist or vehicle ID. As well, no location data is required by the billing service. In other words, there is never a database to associate both location and personal information. The only person who may need to audit location information relative to a specific bill is the motorist himself. This information can be made available online or via kiosk via a motorist controlled password associated with the OBU number. Full anonymity is provided by allowing a motorist to acquire a numbered OBU with cash and without identification (except to state the vehicle-class that the meter will be mounted on to prevent someone attaching a meter for a lower-fee class of vehicle). As the vehicle is driven, the pre-paid account is decremented. LEDs on the OBU say when money is low and when it reaches zero. An anonymous OBU with no cash reserves is the same as having no OBU, hence enforcement and guess-pass schemes then apply.

“The only person who may need to audit location information relative to a specific bill is the motorist himself”

Billing service role

Billing, CRM and Collection: Financial and customer management issues may be best handled directly by government. This is especially true if the fees are described as a tax rather than as a user-charge. Regardwww.h3bmedia.com

2009: a satellite odyssey

Given GPS-based technology that provides a reliable evidentiary record,fledgling political will that is increasingly evident in some cities and countries, and a business process that dissipates huge up-front costs, there is nothing in the way of time, distance and place road user charging deployment one year from deciding the program. 2009 TDP-RUC is now as easy a target for such leaders as the 2003 TP-RUC was for Mayor Livingstone’s London Congestion Charge in 2001. E Bern Grush is chief scientist at Skymeter Corp, based in Toronto, Canada. [email protected] www.skymetercorp.com ETCetc Autumn 2007

09

The Herrentunnel near Lubeck under construction (above) and in operation (right)

Double Deutsch Are public-private partnerships the salvation for overcoming financing deficits for German road infrastructure ask SASCHA FIFIC and MICHAEL BLUM 10

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

In Germany the public authorities are responsible for the planning, financing, construction, maintenance and operation of expressways (Autobahns) and Federal roads (secondary network). Planning and public budget are codified on a long-term basis within a national transport infrastructure plan, the so-called Bundesverkehrswegeplan (BVWP). By means of benefit-cost analysis and consideration of environmental impacts, projects for road-, rail- and waterway infrastructure are identified and labelled as “urgent requirements”. Since the fulfilment of the infrastructure demand is restricted by the public household, not all economically reasonable infrastructure projects (with a Benefit-Cost Factor >1) can be considered as urgent requirements. In fact, the current BVWP of 2003 with a planning horizon until 2015 and a budget of €150 billion only allows road infrastructure projects to be realized which possess a Benefit-Cost Factor >5.2. This is also the result of the politically desired equal treatment of road and rail transportation which restricts the needed budget for www.h3bmedia.com

Germany

Herrentunnel toll plaza

road infrastructure even more. Additionally, quotas for the 16 Federal states avoid that the existing budget is allocated efficiently. Need for action definitely exists because 30 per cent of national roads are not fully operational (last surveyed in 2000)1 and about 15 per cent of engineering works (bridges, tunnels, etc.) are in critical or even insufficient condition 2.

A commitment against political arbitrariness

Germany’s road infrastructure is traditionally financed by taxes on mineral oil and an annual tax on motor vehicles. The overall income of these taxes amounts to about €44 billion per annum, of which “only” about €17 billion are spent on road infrastructure (including non-national roads as well3) . Since the beginning of 2005 the German state also generates revenues (about €3 billion in 2006) from the distance-based tolling of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) on expressways and selected federal roads. The Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) system replaced the Euro-Vignette and represents a further step from tax financing to user-based financing in Germany. It is often said that the introduction of the ETC system for HGVs did not increase the budget available for road infrastructure, because tax revenues, once designated for the road sector, were cut off simultaneously. However, these critics appear somewhat narrow-minded because, according to German legislation, the introduction of a charge instead of a tax guarantees revenues earmarked to the specific sector on a long-term basis.

The institutional framework for PPP

Already in the 1990s Public Private Partnerships (PPP) were regarded as a solution to reduce the financial deficit of Germany’s road infrastructure. The general idea of PPP is for private investors to take over planning, financing, construction, maintenance and operation including all the incorporated risks. In case of road infrastructure the refunding should normally result from fee revenues paid by the users of the respective infrastructure. The objectives of PPP are, firstly and foremost, the inclusion of private capital which should enable infrastructure projects to be realized faster and independent from restrictions regarding the public household. Secwww.h3bmedia.com

ondly, one expects more cost efficiency, a higher transparency of the performance, an optimal risk allocation and an operation which aims directly at the needs of the user4. In Germany, the so-called F-Model and A-Model were developed to open the road transportation sector for PPP. Subsequently, both models will be described and evaluated. By the way, with the “Functional Building Contract” another variation of PPP is used for road infrastructure, but it does not include any components of user financing.

F-Model : for crystal ball professionals?

On the basis of the “Bundesfernstrassenprivatfinanzierungsgesetz”, since 1994 private investors have been allowed to take over planning, financing, construction, maintenance and operation of bridges, tunnels and mountain passes which belong to expressways. After 30 years of operation the private investor is committed to hand over the infrastructure to the public authority in a quality which is determined in the operating contract. It depends on the time of the political decision to use an F-Model for financing an infrastructure project whether the private investor may have an influence on the technical design of the project. Therefore, the F-Model can either be regarded as DBOT- (Design-Build-OperateTransfer) or BOT-Model (Build-Operate-Transfer). To refund his costs the private investor is allowed to charge a tolling fee for all users of the infrastructure. Additionally, the public authority may “push” the operator by providing a maximum of 20 per cent of the overall investment sum. The costs covered by the public subsidy may not be incorporated in the calculation of the toll rate. Since 1994 two F-Model-projects have been awarded to private investors and the construction of both objects is completed. The operation of the “Warnowtunnel”, which saves commuters travelling to Rostock up to 30 minutes, began in September 2003. The “Herrentunnel” of the city of Lübeck was opened for traffic in August 2005. Currently, three more projects are designated to be conducted as F-Models, but tendering is delayed mostly because of drawn-out planning approval procedures. ETCetc Autumn 2007

11

Germany

Manual toll collection at the Warnowtunnl

Warnowtunnel

The tender process for the Warnowtunnel started at the end of 1994. In July 1996 a project corporation was awarded with the project. The current associates of this corporation are the French Bouygues Construction Group and Australia’s Macquarie Infrastructure Group. The overall investment sum added up to €219m from which about 12 per cent were public subsidies. The toll for using the Warnowtunnel is differentiated between several vehicle types (depending on the number of axes and height of the vehicle) and summer and winter months. At the beginning of the operation the toll varied from €1.50-2.50 for passenger cars and €7.50-17.50 for HGV and busses. This range includes available discounts for frequent users5. However, instead of estimated 20,000 vehicles per day the traffic volume only reached about 7,500 vehicles per day. This forced the project corporation and the responsible public body to readjust the level of the tolls starting in January 2007 (€1.70-2.80 for passenger cars and €8.50-13.00 for HGV and busses6 ). However, the main modification was the extension of the concession duration to 2053. This addition of 20 years should give the project corporation the opportunity to refund its investments properly, although accepting a considerable delay in time. Currently, the traffic

volume averages considerably over 10,000 vehicles per day7.

Herrentunnel

This tunnel project was tendered as an F-Model in 1997 to replace the dilapidated bridge called “errenbruecke. In 1999, the contract was awarded to a consortium consisting of the two German construction companies Hochtief and Bilfinger & Berger. The financing model of the Herrentunnel differs considerably from a normal F-Model described above, because in this case 51 per cent of the overall investment sum (€176m) were provided by public subsidies. The reason: the federal state of Germany was obliged to fund the replacement investment for the Herrenbruecke anyway and, therefore, agreed to co-finance a tunnel project (which was favoured by the city of Luebeck) amounting to the costs the construction of a new bridge would have created8. Similar to the Warnowtunnel, the estimations of traffic volumes for the Herrentunnel were overcast. After the start of the operation in 2005 the tunnel was used by 21,000 vehicles per day – 16,000 vehicles less than estimated at time of the contract signing9. As a reaction the toll was slightly increased, passenger cars being charged with €1.10 and HGVs with €8.8010. Discounts for frequent users are available.

“The main modification was the extension of the concession duration to 2053”

12

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

Germany Approach to the Warnowtunnel

A-Model – still only pure theory

In contrast to the F-Model the A-Model is not legally codified. Instead, it was developed by the German “Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs” supported by external consultants11 and is in force since 2001. It provides the opportunity to outsource the lane extension of an expressway section (typically 40-60 km) with already four or six lanes to a private investor. This investor shall be responsible to take over planning, building and financing of the additional lanes. Furthermore, the investor commits to operate and maintain the whole expressway section for 30 years. In return for the incurred costs the private operator receives, on the one hand, the revenues resulting from the tolling of HGVs for this section. On the other hand, the public authority provides subsidies (to a maximum of 50 per cent) to compensate for the costs created by all other vehicles (shadow tolling). The level of the public subsidy is the main criteria for the bidding competition. After the introduction in 2001, 12 projects were identified as potential A-Models. But later the number was reduced to five projects, two of them were recently awarded. The first project concerns the extension of a 37km long section of the A8 expresswaybetween Munich and Augsburg. Operator will be the private consortium Autobahnplus.The second project is part of the expressway A4 in the Federal state of Thueringen.

Mission accomplished?

PPP experiences from other sectors/countries show a cost saving potential up to 20 per cent compared to conventional provision by the state. This generally depends on whether efficiency gains resulting from Life-CycleCost optimization are able to outweigh higher costs for financing or transactions in the course of renegotiations with the client. With only two completed F-Modelprojects a cost-comparison on any terms seems rather inappropriate. Unfortunately, the two projects were also planned without comparing the alternative costs of private and public provision12. However, it can be stated that the contractual design of F-Models offers few incentives for the private operator to work cost-efficiently because all costs are basis for the calculation of the toll rate which is adjusted accordingly every couple of years. Given the small number of completed/planned PPP-projects in Germany, the effects on the public transportation budget can be neglected. The same applies to A-Model-projects, also because private operators are refunded with parts of the income of HGV tolling which have to be withdrawn from the public transportation budget.

today because it did not belong to the projects identified as urgently required within the BVWP. Another positive aspect is the ability of private investors to speed up the planning process. It took the project corporation of the Herrentunnel a record time of only six months to complete all necessary approval documents12.

Risk allocation

Optimal risk allocation means that the involved parties bear the respective risks they can mitigate best. But the design of the F- and A-Model prevents the achievement of this objective because besides the project costs, the private investor has to take over the risks for traffic volume as well. The costs of the project are mostly controllable, however, the demand risks i.e. the amount of users willing to pay, cannot be mitigated in a better way than by the public client. Within the F-Model, the calculation method for the tolling fee is fixed, therefore, leaving the private operator no chance to influence or induce the demand on the price side. Because financing costs weigh heavily in the beginning of the operation, the tolling fee starts on a rather

“The contractual design of F-Models offer few incentives for the private operator to work cost-efficiently”

Realization period

Experience proves that the objective of better time efficiency can definitely be achieved after the political decision to handle a project using PPP is finally made. The Warnowtunnel presumably would not even exist www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

13

Germany high level14 which is not helpful to get users accustomed to user-based financing. Regarding the A-Model, the options to influence the traffic volume is even worse. The toll rates for HGVs are regulated on federal level and the private operator possesses few possibilities to make the quality of the service visible to the users. As an A-Model investment only refers to a defined number of sections, accounting for only a portion of the chosen trip, service improvements on a certain part of the trip may have little chance to increase the willingness to pay. Eventually, of course, it is questionable if the volumes for freight transport are predictable over an operational period of 30 years.

Room for improvement

Though the intention to include private capital for the financing of road infrastructure is judged positively, the use of PPP should not be rushed either. Possible PPPprojects should be selected carefully and cost comparisons between public and private provision adopted as a rule. As explained the transfer of the traffic volume risk to the private investor presents a huge deficit in the design of the A- and F-Model. Instead, this risk should stay on the side of the public client and the private investor could be paid a fixed price for his services. This would increase the incentives for the contractor to work more cost efficiently. Heading in this direction is the so-called “Availability Model” where the private operator is paid for the number of lanes being kept accessible for the users. It seems obvious that the profitability of tolled road infrastructure objects leaves a lot to be desired if there exist parallel routes which are free of charge. It should be questioned if the estimation of traffic volumes presents a common problem within the benefit cost analysis of road infrastructure, or if the proven discrepancy is mainly caused by a wrong perception of the user’s willingness to pay. Generally, an extension of user-paid financing based on the whole road network should be the preferred solution. Existing monopolies can be regulated, e.g. by using the price-cap model.

situation. But it is foreseeable that the next economic slump will put the pressure on the social security systems even more than the last time. Traditionally, politicians react by cutting investments in favour of expenses for purposes of consumption. It is the opinion of the authors, that over middle-term only the complete change from tax- to user-based financing will assure that Germany’s road network can be extended and kept in its quality. To avoid a displacement of traffic from expressways to the secondary road network a distance-based ETC-system for all vehicles is only reasonable if it is applied on the whole road network. Both from a technological and an economic point of view, such a system cannot be implemented within the next 10 years. Therefore, it is often correctly suggested to bridge this period using a vignette-system. E

References

1 BMVBS (2002): Straßenbaubericht 2001, p.9. 2 BMVBS (2006): Straßenbaubericht 2005, p.9. 3 Pöyry Infra GmbH (2007): Nutzerfinanzierung: Straße – Wohlfahrtsökonomische Einschätzung und Einbindung in die Finanzierung der Straßenverkehrsinfrastruktur, p.15. 4 Deutsches Verkehrsforum (2003): Betreibermodelle für die Straßeninfrastruktur - F- und A-Modell im Fokus, p.1. 5 Dornier Consulting GmbH (2006): Erfolgsfaktoren und Bewertungsmöglichkeiten von PPP-Projekten für Verkehrsinfrastruktur, pp.62. 6 www.warnowquerung.de/tarife. html, data retrieved on 4 September 2007. 7 www.macquarie.com.au/au/mig/ assets/traffic.htm, data retrieved on 31 August 2007. 8 Beckers,T (2005): Die Realisierung von Projekten nach dem PPP-Ansatz bei Bundesfernstraßen, p.163. 9 www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrentunnel, data retrieved on 4 September 2007. 10 www.herrentunnel.de/maut.html, data retrieved on 4 September 2007. 11 Martens, C.-P. et al. (2004): Gutachten zur Erarbeitung der Muster eines Konzessionsvertrages und Regelungen für die Ausschreibung/Vergabe von Konzessionen für das Betreibermodell für den mehrstreifigen Autobahnausbau (‘A-Modell’). 12 Beckers, T. (2005): Die Realisierung von Projekten nach dem PPP-Ansatz bei Bundesfernstraßen, p.160. 13 Kulle, B. (2007): Verkehrsinfrastrukturfinanzierung aus Sicht der Privaten, in: Öffentliche vs. Private (Straßen-) verkehrsfinanzierung, Ifmo, p.50. 14 Beckers, T (2005): Die Realisierung von Projekten nach dem PPP-Ansatz bei Bundesfernstraßen, p.173.

“An extension of user-paid financing based on the whole road network should be the preferred solution”

Conclusion

The analysis has shown that the utilization of PPP-models does not have the ability to solve the financial challenges of Germany’s road network. At best, the options enable time savings because projects can be realized earlier or, in case of the Warnowtunnel, at all. Under the current institutional framework PPP will remain a niche option to finance road infrastructure in Germany. Nevertheless, the public authorities have to learn from the past mistakes by not only eliminating the deficiencies of the existing PPP-models, but of the overall approach of infrastructure planning and financing as well. Currently, Germany profits from a positive economic

14

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

The authors can be contacted via email at: [email protected] [email protected] www.dornier-consulting.com www.h3bmedia.com

YOU’LL FIND US CREATING SEAMLESS TRAVEL

Interoperability is key when it comes to creating the world’s most innovative intelligent transport solutions. Thales is one of the world’s leading transport system providers. We develop and implement innovative solutions that are expertly integrated and secure. Tolling and road user charging are among our core competencies, and our fully interoperable fare collection systems are transforming mass transit in Europe, Asia and the Americas. Thales DSRC tag-andbeacon technology combined with state-ofthe-art satellite positioning systems, are revolutionising road-charging schemes across the world. In short, if you can think it, we can link it. We provide the expertise you need to get your intelligent transport project connected and moving, fast.

Thales – Sponsors of 1st UK Road Pricing Think Tank, 27-28 November 2007, Mercedes-Benz World, Weybridge

The world is safer with Thales www.thalesgroup.com/security-services

xxxx

Just how smart is this technology anyway?

Q-Free’s STEINAR FURAN wonders exactly how intelligent ITS systems, especially those prevalent in the road pricing arena, actually are 16

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

Anyone who works with electronics knows that a transistor has a will of its own. If anything consists of two or more transistors, the circuit has a soul. The good engineer might, however, wonder if the transistors really are intelligent, as they oscillate and fume by themselves. There is no guarantee that a circuit or a construction is smart, even if it is made up of millions of transistors. The same goes for computer systems. An enormous amount of code lines does not necessarily mean that the compuwww.h3bmedia.com

Smart Thinking making the daily life of citizens better. The success of good ITS solutions however means that many actors would like to call their solution an “ITS solution”. To bring some common sense into this scene, it is very tempting to set a definition for a genuine ITS solution, a suggestion might be: Intelligent Transport Systems are systems characterized by the following properties: • The system relies partly or entirely on the use of information originating from other sources than the ITS solution itself; • The system makes available results from its operation so that these results can easily be used by other ITS solutions; • The system operates under conditions where the system owner has granted rights for others to use some of the data generated by the system.

Intelligent on the inside

ITS, applied in a proper manner, can provide great savings for the society, the individual user and for the environment. To be able to reach the goals of less pollution, no congestion and a significant reduction in traffic accidents, ITS will have to be used extensively. The vital keywords to make this happen are “interoperability” and “standardization”. Interoperability in this context means that the owners of ITS make legal and commercial arrangements to allow for the exchange of data between the ITS solutions. Standardization means adherence to international standards, securing that the systems are technically capable of exchanging data. The requirement seems simple, but experience from the last decades shows that while it is easy to achieve technical interoperability through standardization, the commercial and legal agreements for interoperability have been more difficult to reach. The Nordic countries of Sweden, Denmark and Norway have been able to do this with their common electronic toll collection solution named ‘EasyGo’. The project is a brilliant example of real interoperability, as it allows all users to use the foreign services without any additional actions from the user’s side.

Soft sell

ter is performing well. As a computer is able to perform errors and even repeat them and reproduce errors at impressive speeds, the results of a complex computerized system can be pure anarchy. A relevant question in this regard would be: “How do we make sure that our computerized systems are working in an intelligent manner?” In this article, the topic will be discussed and some possible paths shown. ITS solutions have contributed to important results when it comes to improving traffic management and to www.h3bmedia.com

So how do we at Q-Free contribute to the realization of projects like EasyGo? Q-Free has, unlike some other actors, never really paid much attention to a particular technology. Q-Free’s approach has always been to first determine the true requirements of each solution, then to select the technology best fit for each case and finally to strictly comply with standardized architectures and interfaces. A side effect of this has been that Q-Free has always been in the forefront when it comes to presenting new products to be used in the solutions. Q-Free deployed the first commercial 5.8 GHz system in Portugal in 1995, the first commercial large scale 5.8 GHz DSRC system in Austria in 1998 and the first fully automated ANPR charging system in Stockholm in 2006. The common factor in all these projects is that they all strictly adhere to an open standardized architecture. ETCetc Autumn 2007

17

The Future need to benefit from the system, it must be able to make its data available to others. Q-Free’s strong initiative in the development of CALMtechnology is a clear signal that many new intelligent transport systems will be offered in the future. These will use GNSS navigation and broadband communication besides offering new means of data presentation and human interfaces. Q-Free believes that within this technology lies a considerable potential for saving lives and making traffic more efficient. The fundamental key to an intelligent transport system solution here is open interfaces. Open interfaces have been secured in the DSRC-segment as the customers have applied the DSRC-standards. The same is valid for other applications, and it is fundamentally important that also these systems strictly adhere to international standards and architectures. Failure to do so will inevitably mean that the solution becomes “unintelligent” hindering future integration with other solutions. In a correct implementation, a GNSS-based system can bring interesting opportunities. If the solution is made incorrectly, the system will become unproductive and chaotic.

Licence to detect

Future perfect or tense?

What will that bring for the future? Q-Free sees that the good, efficient system solutions will utilize different technologies. New features will be offered, bringing new business opportunities for the customers. Furthermore, efficient solutions will be using state-of-the-art technology. Q-Free has a number of such inventions cooking in the oven, so what could we expect here? The road user charging systems and congestion charging systems have successfully been using DSRC technology. In these systems, security and processing capacity are paramount and the DSRC technology is very well suited to handle these challenges. Over time, the mass-produced unit has enabled a considerable price cut in this technology, making DSRC available to small systems. Obviously, in conventional toll collection systems, DSRC will remain a stable and preferred foundation for the system solutions for many years still. When money comes into the equation, DSRC is often the only logical answer. Some clients demand more services than only making a payment for a service. In particular, this is valid for the fleet management systems, where the information exchange between the vehicle and the roadside is more complex and where in-vehicle data processing capacity could be desirable. Here, systems based on navigation are logical choices, but a navigation unit alone cannot perform all the tasks here. For such systems to become “intelligent”, they will have to be able to use information available and, if people other than the driver

ANPR has been available for many years, but only recently the performance of the system has been sufficient to rely on the automatically decoded number. In former systems, the video image would be manually inspected before a user would be charged. Q-Free’s technology is enabling a fully automated use of ANPR for direct user charging, thus making a huge cut in the operational cost. In areas where the risk for fake license plates is low, the use of ANPR is a very efficient solution for systems requiring identification only. As time goes by, copycats enter the market trying to push a particular technology rather than finding the right solution.Typically, these will offer copies of yesterday’s technology, often with interfaces that don’t comply with standards, wrapped up in a modern packaging. For the customer, this results in difficulty making the right choice when flooded with new technical gadgets.Well maybe or maybe not. For the customer, the important thing is to always remember the purpose of the solution and to define this purpose within the context of stable international standards. The customer should keep his focus on what is important, namely the functions, the interfaces and the cost. Keeping that focus, the customer can be relatively sure that he is on the right track. At Q-Free, we have been making intelligent transport systems with different technologies the last twenty years. Through a number of projects, Q-Free has proven its ability to enhance functionality and integrate the solutions with other technologies and systems. These are examples of true intelligent transport system solutions. We will maintain our focus on the right solutions, meaning that the market will see many new technological inventions applied in a smart way for future systems. E

“When money enters the equation, DSRC is often the only logical answer”

18

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

Programme Design

The fairer

six

The future for ITS programmes, says SIMON ALBUTT, is outcome-based

Finding innovative solutions to complex problems is what many organisations implementing intelligent transportation systems (ITS) set out to do. But often, when there are multiple projects involved in an ITS Programme, solutions can easily end up far more complex than is warranted by the problems they were designed to solve. It doesn’t have to be like that. The way to avoid this is to ensure your programme is based on outcomes. This means knowing what outcomes you want to achieve and using this to drive and steer the programme and its constituent projects. This is easy to say but harder to do in practice. This article offers some practical insights into how to design an ITS programme that is truly “outcomebased”.

1. “Healthy teams make fertile ground for innovation” 2. “Outputs matter, outcomes matter more” 3. “We want the same things” 4. “Perception is not always reality” 5. “Focusing on the outcome allows flexibility when things change” 6. “Measurement and Governance are your friends.”

“Healthy teams make fertile ground...”

“The key difference between an outcome and an output, is the real world aspect of an outcome”

Six principles

In designing an outcome-based ITS Programme, there are six fundamental principles that will help you succeed:

20

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

Ensuring that ITS programmes address the real needs of road users and Government organisations is a complex challenge. Experience shows that programmes that are driven by the end goal or desired outcome rather than just by the project task is a way of maintaining the team’s focus on the important issues – this is essential to providing the climate in which innovation can

flourish. Coupled with an inclusive design policy that allows multiple members of the team, including those with operational experience, to have a say permits the www.h3bmedia.com

Programme Design design of real world solutions in the most innovative way, and gains substantial buy-in from the community.

“Outputs matter, outcomes matter more”

The key difference between an outcome and an output, is the real world aspect of an outcome. An outcome may be enabled by a project but that project will not be the only thing that is required. For example, an outcome for a speed camera installation programme might be a reduction in vehicle speeds at accident blackspots. The cameras might be installed and the public might be aware of the accident statistics for a particular road junction. The installation and the public awareness of the facts would both be “outputs”. But without a change in attitudes amongst drivers the scheme will not address the desired outcome – a reduction in accidents and casualties. No project can deliver this change in attitudes alone – although things can be done to influence drivers and to alter behaviour. But ultimately the outcome is dependent on a range of factors, some of which are outside of the project’s direct control. One might take the attitude that if the outcome cannot be determined, focusing on it is a waste of time. Conversely, putting effort into projects that do not deliver the required results is similarly futile. Practical experience of running programmes based on clearly defined outcomes, demonstrates that subtle changes in the programme’s implementation will affect the outcomes. Clearly, the practical project delivery still needs to take place – planned and delivered to specification, to time and to budget. There are many ways to achieve the project result and some will support the desired outcomes better than others.

Figure 2: Multiple projects will lead to multiple outomes

“We want the same things”

Those involved in designing and delivering ITS programmes all want to deliver a similar list of outcomes. These tend to fall into several categories of overall policy objectives. In the sphere of road travel and demand management, for example, most programmes are seeking to achieve improvements in tackling: • Congestion,; • Sustainability and environment; • Vehicle-related crime; • Accidents and casualties; • Fraud (thereby improving the revenue raised from a scheme); • Equality of access and commercial opportunity. Addressing these, in whole or in part, is not straightforward. Practical implementation of this technique requires that these strategic outcome goals are broken down into more tactical and operational outcomes in support of overall aims.

“One might take the attitude that if the outcome cannot be determined, focusing on it is a waste of time”

“Perception is not always reality”

Any potential ITS scheme will address these outcomes to a greater or lesser degree. Speed camera installations are principally focused on safety (although the public perception of the policy purpose is different), whilst the Central London Congestion Charge is focused on tackling congestion with a side benefit of raising revenue that can be addressed at public transport thereby reducing congestion still further. Interestingly the current proposal to charge large vehicles more would address the environmental/pollution angle more than at present, if implemented.

“Focusing on the outcome...”

Figure 1: The ITS outcomes

www.h3bmedia.com

Typically any intervention addresses more than one outcome and designing a programme to address a particular objective will have side effects on other outcome objectives, which may support or detract from programmes already in place to address those aims. The end objectives need to be constantly reviewed and the progress towards the desired end goal underETCetc Autumn 2007

21

Programme Design

Figure 3: Governance models for an outcome-based programme.

Figure 4: An outcome value chain for addressing road safety

stood. Projects that focus on delivering a specification in the absence of the desired outcome that specification is designed to address will fail when the environment changes. Defining and designing programmes in outcome terms and driving projects within those programmes within an overarching governance structure allows flexibility to be introduced whilst still maintaining control. It is of course necessary to define what each project is designed to do and to specify early on how it must do it – without such a specification the project would deliver very mixed results. However, allowing a challenge to the project scope if it is no longer in the best interests of the organisation is entirely proper and permits the most effective course of action to be taken to address the objectives in place.

On target

The principal objective was an improvement in road safety, achieved through more – targeted enforcement activity by a relatively small number of enforcement officers – the focus was to improve the effectiveness of those personnel. Targeted enforcement required access to better information at the roadside, which in turn necessitated the right analysis to be done to support better decision making. Each desired outcome led to a project, which was focused on improving the agency’s performance against the specific outcome. Together the programme delivered a substantial improvement in the effectiveness of the traffic examiners. The Six Principles of Outcome-Based Programme Design will not give you a short-cut for “by-passing” all the hard work of ITS programme design and delivery. But they will stop your solution from becoming more complex than the problem it is trying to solve. And they will help you cope with the unexpected and get closer to the outcomes you seek to achieve. E

“Each desired outcome led to a project which focused on improving the agency’s performance”

“Measurement and governance...”

A key step in any programme of this type is the measurement of results so that the effectiveness of the steps can be continuously assessed. As well as informing the programme management, this also allows the readjustment of interventions to be carried out to ensure the optimal benefit. Many projects start off being very focused but grow until their scope is unmanageable. Experience of large scale programmes shows that collections of small projects delivering incremental benefits often leads to much better results – the projects are easier to plan and the results are much clearer. A tiered governance model where projects fit within an established programme of work with appropriate management controls can help a great deal to address this.

22

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

Simon Albutt is an Associate Director at Consulting Stream Limited, a world leader in the design and implementation of multi-disciplinary programmes, with a strong history of engagements in the ITS arena. Simon’s career has focused on large programmes in the public and transport sectors, including outcomebased programmes in the area of targeted enforcement leading to significant improvements in roadside safety. He can be contacted via email at [email protected] www.h3bmedia.com

Dr. Ondrej Pribyl, Product Manager, Key Account

“Forget all you ever knew about Weigh-in-Motion. We combine high precision measurement with free flow.”

Precise weight measurement with digital image documentation under high speed free flow conditions for fully automatic enforcement solves overweight vehicle problems like larger risks in traffic and damages to the road.

ROBOT Visual Systems GmbH Opladener Strasse 202 40789 Monheim, Germany Tel. +49 (0) 21 73 - 39 40 - 190 Fax +49 (0) 21 73 - 39 40 - 234 [email protected] www.robot.de

JENOPTIK Group.

New York City

Definitely maybe KEN ORSKI and KEVIN BORRAS examine the facts, figures and thinking behind New York City’s consistently headline-making plans to implement a congestion pricing scheme Behind the celebratory headlines announcing the Federal award of US$354m to New York City lies one little noticed fact: the bulk of the federal grant cannot be spent on the implementation of a congestion pricing scheme. Most of the Federal grant is funded with dedicated transit dollars which federal law requires to be spent for transit-related purposes. That is why all but a fraction of the grant will be devoted to bus-related improvements (US$213.6m), an initial phase of a Bus Rapid Transit system (US$112.7m) and a regional ferry service (US$15.8m). Only US$10.4m has actually been earmarked for equipment and installation necessary to make congestion pricing work. That equipment includes a computerized system and hundreds of cameras to monitor traffic, charge motorists

24

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

using E-ZPass and pursue drivers without E-ZPass through a photographic license-identification- and-billing system. (It gets worse: only US$1.6m of the grant is made immediately available; the remainder is to be released only upon legislative approval of a traffic reduction plan within 90 days of the opening of the next session of the New York State Legislature - roughly the end of March 2008. But that’s another story.) In its application to the Federal government, the city requested US$179m in Federal dollars toward the cost of this installation whose total cost is estimated at US$223m.

Red faces

Mayor Bloomberg is now faced with an embarrassing task of coming up with US$169m in extra money to implement the congestion pricing plan - money that is

www.h3bmedia.com

New York City not in the budget and that the Mayor did not anticipate having to spend. Fortunately there may be a way out of his dilemma. The Federal grant does not specify that the reduction must be realized through the imposition of an areawide congestion pricing fee. It merely requires the city to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the congestion pricing zone by 6.3 per cent and to use pricing as the principal mechanism to achieve this reduction. Tolling the currently free East River bridges might accomplish substantially the same result. An E-ZPass toll collection system could be installed on those bridges at a small fraction of the cost of implementing a fully fledged areawide pricing system. And while a US$6 or US$8 toll on the East River bridges might not achieve precisely the same reduction in traffic as the Mayor’s plan had promised, it might come close enough to satisfy the conditions of the Federal grant. After all, the objective of the federal Urban Partnership Program is to demonstrate that tolls and pricing work to reduce congestion, not to prove that they can achieve some arbitrary reduction in VMTs. In his press conference, Mayor Bloomberg said that he was open to new ideas. Tolling the East River bridges in place of the costly and burdensome congestion pricing plan is one such idea he can ill afford to ignore.

So, what’s next for NYC?

As was expected, the New York State legislature took the first step on 25 July towards the possible implementation of congestion pricing in Manhattan by voting to establish a “New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission.” The Commission, in the words of the bill, is to “undertake a review and study of plans to reduce traffic congestion within the City of New York... including but not limited to issues relating to the implementation of the traffic congestion mitigation plan to be developed by the Mayor...” The bill also establishes a rigorous timeline for the development, review and approval of the traffic mitigation plan, with 1 April 2008 as the target date to give the

www.h3bmedia.com

City the green light to proceed with implementation of the traffic mitigation plan. The vote was 122-16 in the Assembly and 39-19 in the Senate in favour of the legislation. The establishment of the Commission marks an initial step in what promises to be a complicated and contentious process whose outcome is difficult to predict. The plan to implement congestion pricing in Manhattan has to clear two major hurdles. The first is to obtain a federal grant under the US DOT’s US$1.2billion Urban Partnerships program. The Albany bill stipulates that the program cannot proceed unless the City obtains at least US$250m in funding - either in the form of a single federal grant of US$250m or with a federal grant of US$200m to be supplemented by a City commitment of US$50m. The federal commitment must be in place by 1 October (the day after this issue goes to press) and the city commitment by 31 December.

Mitigating circumstances

The second hurdle facing Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal is of a more substantive nature. It involves both convincing the 17-member politically appointed Congestion Mitigation Commission that congestion pricing ought to be a key element of its overall congestion mitigation implementation plan while simultaneously persuading three independent politically elected bodies - the City Council, the State Senate and the State Assembly - to adopt the implementation plan substantially as proposed by the Commission. The bill, which uses the term “congestion mitigation” rather than “congestion pricing” in its title, empowers the Commission to come up with alternatives to areawide congestion pricing. However, the bill stipulates that the adopted congestion mitigation measures must produce at least a 6.3 per cent reduction in average VMTs, as promised in the Mayor’s original plan. Such a reduction might possibly be accomplished by tolling the aforementioned East River bridges.

ETCetc Autumn 2007

25

New York City Obtaining Federal Financial Support

The US Department of Transportation is now faced with a difficult decision. It must decide whether New York City has met the conditions of the Urban Partnerships program and qualifies for a federal grant under that program. The Department has stipulated from the very outset that applicants must show evidence of having the authority to move forward with their proposed pricing strategy. New York City currently lacks such authority. The City will obtain authority to act only if and when the City Council and the State Legislature approve the implementation plan recommended by the Congestion Mitigation Commission. The consent will come at the end of March 2008 at the earliest. By selecting NYC for an award despite its current lack of authority to act, the DOT would open itself to accusations of favouritism, since it had disqualified other candidate cities, such as Los Angeles, precisely because they offered to “study” rather than implement congestion pricing. The quandary from the Federal perspective comes from the fact that the NYC project offers a unique opportunity to demonstrate the concept of areawide (cordon) congestion pricing. It is generally agreed that New York City offers the most favourable venue for such a demonstration. A congestion pricing showcase in Manhattan could significantly enhance the political legitimacy of this concept and accelerate its public acceptance throughout the country - an avowed policy goal of US DOT leadership. There may also be some discomfort in denying an award to an important “client” such as New York City, although the DOT would, however, be on solid ground in defending a decision to turn the City down because of its inability to meet the program’s eligibility criteria. A possible way out of this dilemma is for the Department to employ the mechanism of a “pre-implementation grant” under the discretionary Value Pricing Pilot (VPP) Program. An award of US$200m in the form of a pre-implementation grant would enable the New York initiative to go forward without damaging the Urban Partnerships program’s selection criteria. The proceeds of the pre-implementation grant could go toward providing financial support to the Congestion Mitigation Commission and funding the City’s activities preparatory to implementing the Commission’s recommendations (as, for example, improving bus service.)

portation Committee, “Speaker Christine Quinn and I and our colleagues in the Council will be looking very carefully at the issues involved. We have local constituents who are very concerned about the impact that congestion pricing will have on their neighbourhoods.” The latest Quinnipiac poll tends to support the lawmakers’ concerns. It shows NYC respondents to be against congestion pricing by a margin of 52 per cent to 41 per cent (Manhattan voters support it 59 per cent to 37 per cent).

A far from easy pass

Challenges may be expected to many aspects of the Mayor’s proposal. Among them are the proposed northern boundary of the charge zone (63rd Street), the proposed schedule of fees, the number and nature of exempted categories of drivers, the nature and timing of transit service improvements, ways of handling traffic and parking at the periphery of the zone, methods of collecting fees from drivers that do not have E-ZPass, and the possibility of substituting a targeted tolling component for a citywide congestion fee. The Commission may also want to raise the larger question of the impact of congestion pricing on residents of other boroughs and of suburban jurisdictions. Finally, there’s the possibility of a lawsuit challenging the plan on the grounds it lacks an environmental impact statement, an eventuality that could seriously delay implementation. “I am afraid the final outcome may bear little resemblance to what Mayor Bloomberg had in mind,” one local elected official who considers himself supportive of the Mayor’s plan told us. What he meant was that a number of things could still derail or seriously modify the congestion pricing plan or delay the start of implementation. Adding further uncertainty is the fact that 2009 is a mayoral election year. Congestion pricing could well become a volatile electoral issue.

“NYC offers a unique opportunity to demonstrate the concept of areawide, cordon congestion pricing”

The second hurdle

At each stage of the process, opponents of congestion pricing will have an opportunity to challenge the Mayor’s proposal, question his assumptions, offer amendments to his plan and propose other traffic mitigation alternatives . “Real questions are going to be asked and answered, whether the mayor likes it or not,” says Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a sharp critic of the Mayor’s plan. Echoed John C. Liu, Chairman of the City Council’s Trans-

26

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

Implementation timeline

Since the last edition of ETC, etc was published in April, a number of important milestones have been reached and further goals been set. 26 July 2007: The state legislature approves A9362, a bill to establish the New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, a 17-member body appointed by the Governor (3 appointees), the Mayor (3), City Council (3), State Senate Majority Leader (3), State Assembly Speaker (3), Senate Minority Leader (1), and Assembly Minority Leader (1). 1 August 2007: The Mayor submits a congestion pricing plan to the Commission. The Commission may hold hearings and consider a variety of options before producing an “Implementation Plan.” 8 August 2007: US DOT announces finalists in the Urban Partnerships Program. US DOT must award New York City at least US$200m or the deal is off. 1 October 2007: The NY State DOT and the Metropoliwww.h3bmedia.com

“Not another road pricing conference!”

www.h3bmedia.com/tnetworx/ruc.cfm

New York City

At each stage of the process, opponents of congestion pricing will have an opportunity to challenge the Mayor’s proposal”

tan Transportation Authority submit comments on the Mayor’s plan, including additional capital required by the plan. US DOT must “commit” at least US$200m or again, the deal is off. By 31 January 2008: The Commission votes on an Implementation Plan. By March 28, 2008: The City Council must vote on the Implementation Plan, and sends a “home rule message” to the state legislature indicating the outcome of its vote. By March 31, 2008: The New York State Assembly and Senate will vote on the Implementation Plan.

What does the community think?

Transportation secretary Mary Peters has stated the New York City would receive only US$1.6m initially. The balance of the money would be made available “as soon as the proposal has been made and legislation is in place that would allow that proposal to proceed, but that must occur not later than 90 days after the 2008 legislative session convenes in New York.” Effectively, that date is the end of March 2008. Supporters and opponents of congestion pricing immediately began to react to the federal announcement. United States Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of Queens, said in a statement: “This Federal funding will help make New York a cleaner, greener and healthier city for our children. These critical resources will finance major mass transit enhancements that will vastly improve the day-to-day lives of Queens and Bronx families. It will also establish

28

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

New York City as a leader in the effort to preserve our environment for future generations.” Walter McCaffrey, a former city councilman from Queens who has been coordinating opposition to the mayor’s plan, said in a statement: “If the goal truly is to reduce traffic, the city has a moral and legal obligation to seek any and all alternatives before adding a new tax scheme to overburdened New Yorkers. Further, the plan foresees less than an 8 per cent improvement in traffic density, with the bulk of the federal funding earmarked for the city to spend on other priorities. The fact remains that the overall congestion tax and vehicle surveillance plan still can - and should - be derailed by the various legislatures if its proponents fail to prove the plan will not cause our citizens, especially those so vigorously opposed in the outer boroughs, an onerous expense and disruption. At all times, the public’s best interest should be in the driver’s seat, and we will keep our hazard lights on to continue warning all New Yorkers to the problems ahead.” Kathryn S Wylde, the president of the Partnership for New York City, the city’s leading business group, which supports the mayor’s plan, said in a statement: “In selecting New York City for the Urban Partners Program, the federal Department of Transportation has allowed us to meet the threshold criteria established by recent state legislation for implementation of a comprehensive program to reduce traffic congestion and improve mass transit in the region. The Partnership has www.h3bmedia.com

“This is the same people saying the same things as last time. At least I can get some sleep...”

www.h3bmedia.com/networx/ruc.cfm

New York City documented the high cost of excess traffic, which results in losses of more than US$13billion and 50,000 jobs each year from our regional economy. Federal funding provides the carrot that will help pay for new buses, faster subways and the other measures required to incentivize people to get out of their cars and on to public transportation. This is a tremendous breakthrough in the struggle to achieve a more efficient, mobile city.” Marcia Bystryn, executive director of the New York League of Conservation Voters, said in a statement: “This is great news for anyone who breathes in New York City and the metro area. Today’s vote of confidence from the federal government is proof-positive that PlaNYC is the best way to clean our air, reduce traffic and improve mass transit. The next step is for all sides to come together and craft the best implementation plan possible.” Robert D. Yaro, the president of the Regional Plan Association, said in a statement: “New York has taken a major step forward on its way to solving its congestion problem. With the agreement from the federal government to partner with the City and State on a pilot congestion pricing program, we are one step closer to reducing New York’s growing traffic challenges and raising critical funds for transit improvements our region so desperately needs. Although the Federal award is for congestion pricing in Manhattan, the impact - both in terms of reduced traffic loads and

improved transit alternatives - will benefit the rest of the City, Long Island, the Lower Hudson Valley and North Jersey. We look forward to working with the new Congestion Pricing Mitigation Commission to make this reality.” Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman, a Queens Democrat, released a statement noting that allowing US$10.4m to implement congestion pricing appeared to be allocated in the US$354m total. Noting that Deputy Mayor Daniel L Doctoroff had estimated that implementation would cost US$225m, Lancman asked,“Who is going to pay the rest of the US$225m?” He added, “This conditional award fails to live up to the Mayor’s promises. Not only does it seem to leave NYC taxpayers footing the bill to implement the Mayor’s congestion price tax, but at least insofar as the Mayor intends to spend the money, it leaves outer borough commuters who would jump at the chance to use mass transit no better off at all.” E

“This is great news for anyone who breathes in New York City and the metro area”

30

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

Additional reporting by Irvin Dawid (Planet Citizen) and Michael Grynbaum (NY Times). This article contains interpolations from two issues of Innovation Briefs, the urban mobility newsletter edited by C Kenneth Orski. Visit the website at www.innobriefs.com

www.h3bmedia.com

NOT JUST ANOTHER ROAD PRICING CONFERENCE. This is the 1st UK Road Pricing Think Tank organised by H3B Networx, the events division of H3B Media, publishers of Thinking Highways and ETC, etc. C

Learn how to make your road pricing scheme publicly acceptable from public affairs and advertising experts.

C

Listen to the industry’s best speakers talk about the policy, strategy, technology, implementation, interoperability, integration and innovation - the issues that REALLY affect the road pricing sector.

C

Take part in genuine debate and help to shape the future of road pricing.

C

Find out how road tolling schemes in the UK, USA, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and France were funded, financed and operated and how that can apply to your scheme.*

27-28 November 2007 Mercedes-Benz World, Weybridge, Surrey

For more details visit www.h3bmedia.com/networx/ruc.cfm or email [email protected] You can also register for your FREE copy of Thinking Highways at www.h3bmedia.com *(Not to mention the innovative networking opportunities, speed thinking session, gourmet dinner, Loire Valley wine-tasting and a whole host of other attractions.)

H B Media

The 1st UK Road Pricing Think Tank Tue 27/Wed 28 November 2007 “I’M NOT GOING TO ANOTHER ROAD PRICING CONFERENCE UNTIL ...” ...27 November 2007. Selling The Idea: The 1st UK Road Pricing Think Tank is a different kind of conference altogether. In fact, it’s not really a conference at all in the traditional sense. Across the two days there will be intense, interactive debates, forums and problemsolving sessions focusing on policy and politics, funding and finance, interoperability and integration, implementation and innovation. Experts from not only the road pricing, congestion charging, road user charging and electronic toll collection sectors, but also from the spheres of advertising, public affairs and finance will help you make YOUR scheme publicly acceptable. THINKING DIFFERENTLY What road pricing needs is a positive spin. Drivers need to be told why it’s a good idea and that by paying to use the roads they are making a positive contribution to society. But how best to get this message across? Our advertising expert will explain how to convince the public that road pricing is something they want and need. “You are selling them a product and it’s a product they must have. Once you have sold them the idea, you are on to a winner.” Financial analysts and risk assessment specialists will share their experiences of how they applied their expertise to various tolling projects and how they are relevant to yours, while experts from the petrochemical industry will explain how the two sectors are inextricably linked in Germany and how it’s a link that needs to be more adroitly exploited in the UK. Another innovative feature will see representatives from the major political parties in the UK engage in a free-form Question & Answer session with local authorities, original equipment manufacturers and suppliers. This ‘Town Hall’ format will be co-hosted and moderated by former BBC and Sky News presenter Nici Marx (pictured) and Kevin Borras, H3B Media’s publishing director and editor-in-chief of its Thinking Highways and ETC, etc magazines.

more >>>

“Selling the Idea”

www.h3bmedia.com/networx/ruc.cfm

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION No serious event organiser would ever attempt to promote one of its seminars solely on the back of the venue, but in Mercedes-Benz World, we have a stunning location in store. Recently built within the grounds of Brooklands Motor Museum, one of the UK’s first motor racing circuits, it possesses not only the finest conference facilities available (including a cinema that we will make good use of) but it also houses the biggest collection of Mercedes-Benz and Maybachs in Europe and a magnificent array of visitor attractions. Delegates will have full use of what Mercedes-Benz World and Brooklands has to offer (not that you’ll have that much time to explore) and an opportunity to take a spin on the skid pan and high-speed track in a top of the range Mercedes. Have a look for yourself on the website: www.mercedes-benzworld.co.uk

Mercedes-Benz World, Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0SL, UK

A SPEAKER PROGRAMME TO SHOUT ABOUT “A stellar line-up of speakers” is not usually a claim that holds very much water. We think you will agree that in the case of the 1st UK Road Pricing Think Tank we can use the word “stellar” with a fair degree of justification.

DAY ONE: 27 November 2007 10.00: POLICY AND POLITICS part 1 Steve Norris, former Conservative Minister for Transport, UK Jenny Jones GLA, Green Party/Mayor of London’s Green Transport Advisor, UK Peter Vine, Congestion Charging, Transport for London, UK TBA, Department for Transport, UK Luke Blair, London Communications Agency, UK Representatives from the event’s sponsors, Siemens,Thales, Q-Free, Kapsch and Booz Allen Hamilton will be invited to respond to the points raised in the Policy and Politics session 12.00: FINANCE AND FUNDING Andy Graham, White Willow Consulting, UK Bob McQueen, Senior Road Pricing Advisor, PBS&J, USA Paul Wadsworth, Capita Symonds, UK Jack Opiola, Booz Allen Hamilton, UK Simon Albutt, Consulting Stream, UK 14.30: PROBLEM SOLVING Daryl Dunbar, British Telecom 21CN Portfolio Development, UK Eric Sampson, Chairman, ITS UK Andrew Pickford, Transport Technology Consultants, UK Jack Opiola, Booz Allen Hamilton, UK Bern Grush, Skymeter Corporation, Canada David Hytch, LogicaCMG, UK Ian Catling, Ian Catling Consultancy, UK 16.30: DELIVERING STOCKHOLM Birger Höök, Swedish National Road Administration, Sweden Jamie Houghton, IBM, UK

18.00: SPEED THINKING Day one will be rounded off in style with a novel Speed Thinking session. Similar in format to the idea of speed dating, this session will see a panel of eight experts answering pertinent questions from delegates in a series of two-minute on-the-spot interviews. When the time is up, a bell will ring and it will be another delegate’s turn to ask a question. Fun, maybe, but this unique and informal networking opportunity could lead anywhere. 19.15: LOIRE VALLEY WINE-TASTING SESSION and GOURMET DINNER

DAY TWO: 28 November 2007 09.30: INNOVATION AND THE FUTURE Phil Blythe, Professor of ITS, Newcastle University, UK Bern Grush, Skymeter Corporation, Canada Daryl Dunbar, British Telecom 21CN Portfolio Development, UK Wiebren de Jonge, TIP Systems/Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands Eric Wurmser, Egis Projects, France Representatives from Vodafone, Orange and O2 have been invited to take part in a mobile communications forum as part of the Innovation and The Future Session 11.15: TIF ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION Representatives from Manchester, Norwich, Cambridge, Greater Bristol and the aborted West Midlands bid will take part in a lively Transport Innovation Fund debate 14.00: POLICY AND POLITICS part 2 Tom Antonissen, International Road Federation Brussels Programme Centre, Belgium Tim Hockney, London First, UK Jenny Bird, Institute of Public Policy Research, UK Richard Bourn, Transport 2000, UK Dr Andreas Kossak, Kossak Consultancy, Germany Paul Watters, Automobile Association, UK Representatives from the event’s sponsors will be invited to respond to the points of view put forward in the Policy and Politics session

www.h3bmedia.com/networx/ruc.cfm +44 (0)870 919 3770

H B Media

15.45: PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE AND “POSITIVE SPIN” Paul Watters, Automobile Association, UK David Pearson, InnovITS, UK Jack Opiola, Booz Allen Hamilton, UK Russell H Smith, Richmond Strategic Management, UK Birger Höök, Swedish National Road Administration, Sweden Richard Harris, WSP, UK Duncan Matheson, PA Consulting, UK Andrew Pickford, Transport Technology Consultants, UK Jamie Houghton, IBM, UK 17.00: TOWN HALL FORUM All speakers will be invited to take part in the closing session -an open question and answer forum, hosted by Nici Marx and Kevin Borras. The quality of this session relies heavily on the audience asking searching, pertinent questions and raising insightful points. The Town Hall Forum will be what you make it - so don’t disappoint yourself!

THE COST OF ATTENDING THIS TWO DAY EVENT Public Authority £550 + VAT Private Sector £750 + VAT For further details contact ODILE PIGNIER via email at [email protected] or call +44 (0)870 919 3770

SPONSORS

FOR SPONSORSHIP DETAILS CALL LUIS HILL ON +44 (0)870 919 3770 OR EMAIL [email protected]

SUPPORTED BY

Meanwhile, back in NYC

As New York’s congestion pricing indecision shows signs of resolution, BERN GRUSH wonders if sustainability could become unsustainable 36

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

New York City

The New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYC-EDC) is soliciting expressions of interest from vendors and consultants regarding provision of services for NYC’s intended Congestion Pricing Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) system. The assumed, but apparently not absolutely fixed, technological approach for the system is the E-ZPass tag and beacon system that has operated for some years regionally in the New York area and other US regions. This would be complemented with license plate recognition (LPR) cameras to enforce payment from motorists that elect not to use E-ZPass. At first, this approach makes some sense: • E-ZPass is already installed in more than 70 per cent of vehicles that enter Manhattan, hence motorists are familiar with it. • LPR cameras work with relative accuracy in London, Stockholm, Toronto and other pricing applications.

No pros without some cons

On the other hand, however, the E-ZPass approach has drawbacks: • It is infrastructure-heavy. This means high capital expense, intrusion on NYC’s urbanscape, and exposure to vandalism – all of which are acknowledged in the RFEI. • It is expensive. The costs of such infrastructure will leave less money to fund much-needed transit additions. In London, it cost £2.40 to collect £5 and this led to an increase in the congestion charge to £8. (The two congestion zones in London use a similar number of camera gantries as is suggested in the NYC RFEI. We cannot point to a comparison to Stockholm, since this peninsular-based city required only 18 gantries, less than 10 per cent of what the NYC RFEI suggests.) www.h3bmedia.com

• It is complex. The complexity of performing partial tolling in an area that is already partially tolled will require a system of physical, social and monetary exceptions (plus a rebate scheme), whose complexity far exceeds anything in either London or Stockholm. • It is unambitious. The RFEI traffic reduction goal of 6.3 per cent within the charging zone will do little to ease congestion in New York City. The goal needs to be at least twice that in order to meaningfully impact bus congestion, bike safety and air quality. Without a significant drop in bus congestion and bus delays, congestion charging would not have worked in London and may not work in New York. • It is inflexible. Once the system is in place, changing the zone boundaries – i.e., adding or removing a street or new area – will be prohibitively expensive. While no system can be perfect, designing-in inflexibility at the start diminishes the value of the investment. • It is not extensible. When the time comes to congestion-price part of the boroughs, new gantries would have to be installed at a similar, new expense. This is in clear evidence in London where the first zone cost just under US$300m and the second zone has cost the same. • It is not scalable. The NYC system, slated to serve 1.4m vehicles, will serve nine times more customers then the original London system on an equivalent number of gantries. Hence a gantry failure (say, due to vandalism) will generate nine times the loss-volume as would a similar failure in London. • It risks evidentiary gaps. If an enterprising citizen set up a website to report failed gates, motorists without tags may be able to evade charges more readily. The cons win 8-2. It’s clear, surely, that we need to find a better technology scheme. E ETCetc Autumn 2007

37

Concepts and Ideas

Behave yourself BOB MCQUEEN and PROFESSOR KAN CHEN have been mulling over an interesting question that they would like to share with you - should we reward good travel behaviour? It’s helpful every once in a while to step back from our day-to-day world, take a look at the big picture and envision the future. Those of us in the transportation industry have a tendency to get caught up in day-to-day traffic management issues. We would do well to ask some basic questions like, “What are the fundamental issues we’re facing and how can we use wisdom and experience to solve them?” It doesn’t get much more fundamental than basic human behaviour. Travelers in our transportation systems are exhibiting a facet of their fundamental human needs and desires. They need to get from one place to another and, not unreasonably, they want their trip to be safe and convenient. Can the transportation industry build a new model based on managing human behaviour? I think we can agree that good public behaviour includes being aware of the environment, using good manners, and making choices that balance individual needs with a respect for others’ needs. Why not reward good public behaviour?

The dominant paradigms

Since February 2003, the City of London has charged a fee for driving private automobiles in its central area during weekdays as a way to reduce traffic congestion and raise revenues to fund transport improvements. Put in another way, drivers choose if they want to pay a higher fee to drive their own vehicle into an urban zone or use less expensive public transit instead. This approach has proven to be highly successful in London, Singapore and more recently Stockholm and has created a “virtuous circle” of positive effects in each of these cities. Transportation professionals now have a very effective mechanism to manage demand, achieve the desired results and avoid any undesirable side

38

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

effects. At the same time, a new revenue stream has been established by way of the congestion charge fees and this can be used to make transportation even better. It strikes me that if we can have such an amazing success with what is essentially a somewhat negative reward system: consumers pay (with a negative impact on their wallets) for the costs they impose (greater congestion on London’s streets), then could we do even better with www.h3bmedia.com

Concepts and Ideas priced tolling schemes, for example, in which drivers pay higher tolls at peak congestion times. In return, they receive better service. This can be likened to promising the aforementioned child dessert if he or she eats their broccoli. Positive reinforcement, on the other hand, reinforces what a child is doing right rather than concentrating on what a child is doing wrong. Child psychologists and good parents have known all along that positive reinforcement increases the likelihood that the behaviour will be repeated. It supports the child’s positive deeds and qualities through enthusiasm, descriptive encouragement, and natural, logical rewards. So here’s the crazy thought – can we define a radically positive reward system that provides a positive incentive for great travel behaviour? In other words, take what the psychologists have learned and apply it to transportation. This really appeals to me as I have a fascination for looking over the fence at other industries and enterprises to see what lessons we can learn, practices we can modify and adopt and technologies that we can use.

Positive traveler rewards

The tricky part in providing a positive rewards system is determining where the revenue or resources for the rewards will come from. Consider the scenario in which a traveler receives a reward for, say, traveling at off-peak highway times or carpooling or taking transit instead of driving. The reward from a public transportation agency could be, for instance, use of a prime parking spot at a transit station. Or a reduced toll cost. Or a free ride on a transit system. The reward scheme could be based on points, much the same as many “loyalty programs.” In the retail world, loyalty programs are structured marketing efforts that reward, and therefore encourage, behaviour that is potentially of benefit to the issuer. In a “congestion avoidance rewards” program, the issuer’s (i.e. the transportation agency’s) overall benefit would be getting better use of existing roadway capacity. The two desired outcomes would be to increase the peak-travel-time spread, and to promote a modal shift to transit or HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes. Here’s how it would work.

Leveraging ETC data

a positive reward system? At a very naïve level, the type of reward system that we are currently implementing serves as a negative incentive to use resources efficiently, much the same way that a child is given a “time out” if he or she behaves badly. US value pricing implementation has indicated that a positive reward model could work. Consider variablewww.h3bmedia.com

For the past decade or so, the huge push in the tolling industry has been to design, install, and operate electronic toll collection (ETC) systems – in which tolls are paid automatically via radio communication between a transponder in a vehicle and a receiver at the toll booth. A similar big push has been to get the traveling public to use ETC in lieu of cash. In some locations, ETC represents upwards of 65 per cent of the tolls paid. That means that well over half of the vehicles on a toll system are now equipped with transponders. ETC has certainly reduced congestion at toll plazas. The big push in the future will be mining ETC data and using it to win the overall war on congestion. An offer ETCetc Autumn 2007

39

Concepts and Ideas could be extended to travelers with ETC transponders that consistently drive at peak travel times like the morning or afternoon commute. The offer would be structured like this: “change your traveling behaviour so that you avoid driving at peak travel times and we’ll reward you.” For example, we determine that there are 3m vehicles per day entering a city and that 10 per cent of them are traveling at the very peak travel time.We target this customer group and ask them if they would like to participate in a congestion rewards program. We sign the willing up to the program, monitor their travel, suggest changes, and reward them when we document the changes using our electronic system.

Computer Recognition Systems

Motivation

Would a rewards program reduce congestion on major urban highways? Again, we can rely on the fundamentals of child psychology to help explore the answers. For instance, a parent needs to understand which reward will be most effective for his or her child. Will the promise of one extra hour of GameBoy time entice your son to quit teasing his sister for a week? Or will it require the promise of two extra hours? Some focus groups and a pilot test with a smaller number of travelers would be useful to test the elasticity of the rewards program: what number of points per positive behaviour – or what suite of rewards – will influence traveler behaviour? In the larger scheme, how many travelers need to be enrolled in the rewards program to reduce congestion significantly? Most studies show that reducing the number of peak time travelers by as little as10 per cent would have a significant impact on congestion. Customer loyalty programs are a multi-billion-dollar industry worldwide – with significant cross-over between points and rewards. The transportation industry could widen its reach by offering positive traveler behaviour points to select loyalty program operators in exchange for advertising that program – much the same way as purchasing groceries can accrue frequent-flyer miles.

    
 eyes of a HAWK

 "!  !!!"!  !! !!  #!   !
!!! !  !!! ! !!  !!!!    !!!


HOV, HOT, and what’s FAIR Hawk kindly supplied by The Hawk Conservancy Trust

 
       
       
               www.crs-vision.com

 " #'&$)"!&"!)(%& % %#"!%)"%)*)"! )*) $%)*)) & )
) )  ))  $
$ $ $  %#  USA: Davin Optronics Inc 334 Ebenezer Road * Knoxville * TN 37923 t: +1 (865) 769 8010  $
$

$  #! %! 

40

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

There is no question that HOV lanes put more people on each square foot of highway. There are HOV lanes in nearly every major metropolitan area in the US. The problem is that the HOV lanes are typically underutilized. They have spare capacity. Some transportation agencies are considering selling this spare capacity to travelers that are willing to pay extra for the privilege of using the HOV lanes. HOV lanes then become “HOT” (high-occupancy toll) lanes. HOT lanes reward bad behaviour by encouraging people to drive. The mitigating factor, though, is that HOT lanes generate revenues that are applied to transportation improvements. “FAIR” (Fast and Intertwined Regular) lanes are a hybrid of the two. The FAIR concept moves the industry closer to a congestion avoidance rewards program. FAIR lanes are being considered in California and other www.h3bmedia.com

Concepts and Ideas locations. Multiple freeway lanes are separated by pylons and striping into two sections: fast lanes and regular lanes. The fast lanes are electronically tolled express lanes. In the regular lanes, travelers with transponders are awarded credits equal to a percentage of the toll rate in the adjacent fast lanes.

Parallel worlds

FAIR lanes offer flexibility and choice, two things most consumers value in their day-to-day transactions. But some in the transportation industry might ask, “Why should we pay a reward for what people are already going to do?” On any given day, a traveler is either in a hurry or not in a hurry. They either choose to spend money for the toll or they don’t. In the FAIR concept, rewards are proffered to those who are not in a hurry or don’t have toll money. Why? Consider an analogy with carbon trading, which is a widely popular administrative approach to improve air quality by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. Highway congestion is like air pollution. Fewer cars (like less particulate matter in the air) mean better highway traveling conditions (better air quality). Carbon trading works by setting an overall limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted (much like a highway has a maximum vehicular capacity). Companies or groups that emit the pollutant are given credits or allowances that represent the right to emit a specific amount. Companies that pollute beyond their allowances must buy credits from those who pollute less than their allowances or face heavy penalties. In effect, the buyer of a credit is being fined for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions. Thus companies that can easily reduce emissions will do so and those for which it is harder will buy credits that reduce greenhouse gasses at the lowest possible cost to society. Hopefully these fairly radical thoughts on how we might approach congestion pricing in the future will stimulate some thoughts and perhaps even provoke you into a dialogue or debate about them. There could be many issues and barriers associated with positive rewards congestion pricing, but just ask yourself a question – if someone asks you to do something are you more likely to do it and do it well if you are rewarded? So, should we reward good travel behaviour or not? E Bob McQueen, C.Eng. MICE, is Senior Vice President & Senior Advisor at PBS&J and an internationally recognized expert in the field of ITS. He is currently serving as Senior Advisor to the San Diego Association of Governments, providing expert level consulting and advice on the application of advanced technologies to transportation, the selection and use of management solutions for transportation operations and the development of innovative business models for technology operations. Bob can be reached at [email protected] www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

41

In My Opinion

Charge of the smart brigade

According to MARK GARRITY, some clever, lateral thinking is in order if we are to solve the increasing problem of congestion 42

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

In My Opinion

“Rush” hour has long been something of an ironic, contradictory term for the commuter. Congestion, with its concomitant effects of pollution and economic stagnation is a tangible, major problem that cannot be solved by a single solution. Our transport infrastructure faces long-term challenges that need to be addressed by a portfolio of ITS solutions that will eventually integrate our transport choices. The introduction of road pricing, whether it be an area congestion scheme or time/distance/placebased tolling, as one of these solutions is a frequently debated, highly emotive issue and never more so than now. The challenge, both politically and socially, as always, is public acceptability. Can the public be persuaded to think of a road as just another form of public transport for which a fare should be paid? Can we take the step to a vision of a “personal” mobility payment system that merely adds a road to the choice of getting from A to B, with financial incentives to encourage a switch from road use to public transport alternatives? Quite possibly, when weighed in the balance of gridlock and pollution damaging local economies and the environment and restricting our freedom of movement. But any solution will have to be fair, trusted and convenient. And thereby hangs the tale.

A road pricing scheme, but not as we know it

Existing and emergent road pricing schemes, traditional gate-line toll applications and area congestion schemes, are based on component technologies, selected and integrated to meet particular local objectives with discreet business and legislative models. With a wider deployment of demand managementfocused road pricing expected in the next 5 to 10 years, the debate has evolved to encompass many interoperability issues, and industry is being challenged to come forward with more cost-effective, innovative solutions. The predominant component technologies for capture and enforcement in the arena, Dedicated ShortRange Communications (DSRC) and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), are almost at the commodity price point, so the issue turns to billing and customer service. Assuming that a charge structure for a scheme is deemed fair and appropriate by its effected constituency it falls to technology to make it easy to pay. Smart cards, especially contactless smart cards, are rapidly becoming the preferred registration and payment means for public transportation worldwide. They bring very high flexibility in terms of product definition and user product profiling, they are operationally efficient, user-friendly and most importantly enable elegant interoperability solutions in complex multistakeholder and multiple transport mode environments. www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

43

In My Opinion The immense success of Transport for London’s Oyster card and the national-scale interoperable public transport e-ticketing solutions using contactless smart cards being deployed by Thales Transportation Systems in the Netherlands and Toronto, Canada are a perfect illustration of these advantages. However, the road domain lags behind public transport with respect to smart card exploitation. The introduction of smart cards in urban congestion charging schemes will enable significant progress in a number of areas, compared to the existing solutions based only on ANPR or dedicated card-less DSRC OBUs: • It would favour the multi-modal use of transportation and bring the operators new means of demand management based on dynamic tariffing, through the consumer’s view of a simple, unified payment means; • It would open the door for an economically efficient coupling of various services linked to the vehicle and the user such as parking, petrol stations or car wash amongst others; • It would ease interoperability with other congestion schemes or tolling schemes as cards are much more easily configured and updated than OBUs. “The technology exists today. There are regulatory and legislative barriers but these will be addressed in the years to come,” says Pierre-Antoine Benatar, Marketing Director at Thales Transportation Systems.

Technical challenges and current solutions

Interoperable on-board unit configuration

DSRC OBUs are very convenient for vehicle-toinfrastructure communications, but they need specific Autumn 2007 ETCetc

User roaming

Consumer demand to be able to switch from one vehicle to another will probably be significant, from existing experience on DSRC systems around the world. Future roaming from one scheme operator to another in a national or international context is another thing altogether. The current generation of OBUs rely on a one-to-one relationship between the vehicle and the OBU and due to the price of the OBU, this creates a barrier to wider acceptance from the public if you have to buy a tag for each vehicle you drive. It is technically feasible to configure an OBU with a multiple vehicle registration record association but this would cause some technical performance problems when associating a DSRC transaction and a license plate image at the charging point increasing operational overheads for scheme operators. With a card-based OBU, the OBU-vehicle association may remain one-to-one, with the OBU containing vehicle specific characteristics such as the emissions class or other such classification, whilst the card would be configured with driver-specific payment information, including discounts/exemptions and so on enabling easy vehicle-to-vehicle roaming of any given driver. The price barrier of multiple OBUs remains in such a case although in time such technology will probably become part of standard in-vehicle technology from the car manufacturers.

“Can the public be persuaded to think of a road as just another form of public transport for which a fare should be paid?”

Contactless smart card technology is perfectly mature. However, coupling it with the pre-dominant tolling technology (DSRC) raises a number of challenges. DSRC devices are battery powered and contactless cards are power-hungry by comparison. Fortunately this problem can be solved, operating in close vicinity, namely the card being introduced into the OBU casing, with a minimum reduction in battery life. Some contactless cards have a high security level, requiring the presence of Secure Access Module (SAM) in the reading equipment. This can also be solved technically by fitting appropriate SAMs in OBUs if desired. The cost of the SAMs is however quite significant compared to the OBU cost, and their use would require significant modifications to the DSRC OBUs production lines. Contactless cards’ real-time processing capabilities are not adequate for free flow vehicle transactions, even at urban speeds. This has been tackled by recent standards (ISO 25110 draft), and different solutions of ‘caching’ or buffering the card data enabling the real-time constraint to be allocated to the DSRC communication, with an off-line process taking place between the card and the OBU for toll payment.

44

and expensive equipment for configuration and are not regulated by international standards at this juncture. The basic functionality of the card would of course be around the account settlement usage, but it could also provide an elegant means of updating the data configuration of the OBU. This would mean that when a given user wants to extend the use of his congestion charge tag to another scheme – perhaps a public transportation one, he might contact the scheme operator, who would in turn either: • Mail the user a new card that would be prepersonalised for the public transport domain, and contain OBU configuration information as well. • Transfer the relevant data to dedicated retail points of sale, and update the user’s card with the configuration data. • This avoids a caveat in the DSRC schemes roaming, and is certainly convenient and appealing for both the users and other DSRC scheme operators.

Expected evolutions

Affordable card-linked DSRC OBUs will be commercially available from several vendors in a two-year timeframe. The next step would be the use of high security cards, with corresponding SAMs becoming part of DSRC OBUs. If this is to be at a reasonable price, the SAMs definitely www.h3bmedia.com

OUR CUSTOMERS DRIVE OUR TECHNOLOGY Transurban’s integrated approach to tolling and customer service means customer needs drive our technology—not the other way around. With the largest electronic tolling customer base in Australia, we’re constantly refining our systems to ensure our three million customers enjoy seamless 24/7 service both on and off our roads.

A few of our most recent tolling and customer service innovations include: - Partnering with Australian

telecommunications giant Telstra to deliver customer information via SMS on Melbourne’s CityLink - Delivering value-added services

to customers via an ‘i-TAG’®—a cashless payment system based on our e-TAG® device technology - Working with Siemens

and Telstra on a trial to prove that GPS and e-TAG tolling technologies can be interoperable. Transurban technology— Keeping customers moving CRD1072

“Transurban’s business was built on a philosophy of innovation…The corporate values reflect a strong focus on continued innovation to maintain a competitive edge globally.” Business Council of Australia report, March 2006

For more information visit

www.transurban.com.au

Intertoll Europe is an Independent Toll and Motorway Infrastructure Developer and Operator Our mission is to ■ Successfully develop

and manage motorway infrastructure projects; ■ Pursue road user charging, tolling and allied activities as a specialist integrator and operator; ■ Effectively manage the diverse activities necessary for the operation and maintenance of concession motorways.

Our services include: ■ Concession development ■ Management and

integration of toll motorway infrastructure services ■ Design and project management of toll facilities ■ Operations and maintenance of concession infrastructure projects

Contact Intertoll Europe for concession projects in Europe: INTERTOLL EUROPE HUNGARY Lurdy Ház 3 emelet Könyves Kálmán krt. 12-14 Budapest, 1097 Hungary Tel: +36 1 456 1376 Fax: +36 1 215 6165 e-mail: [email protected]

INTERTOLL EUROPE UK 220 Vale Road Tonbridge Kent, TN9 1SP England Tel: + 44 1 732 373 060 Fax: + 44 1 732 373 061 e-mail: [email protected]

www.intertoll.eu

In My Opinion need to be integrated into the OBUs circuit boards, which will only happen if the first simple versions lead to a significant commercial market. High security is not really critical for pre-paid or account-based congestion charge schemes as such (DSRC security is probably sufficient) but will almost certainly be required to extend the use of the card to multiple services where credit services would be beneficial. In the longer term, two possible evolutions may be of interest. GNSS OBUs should become affordable for use in light vehicles, and this brings a large conceptual difference, since the GNSS charging model is essentially an off-line post-processing of charge data, so the real-time payment concepts of smart card + DSRC are not transposed as such. Rapid development in the service features of mobile phones and the generalisation of Near Field Communication (NFC) capabilities may provide an alternative to the card + DSRC combination, provided NFC services comprise some communication medium adapted to moving vehicles – DSRC for instance. This business service model would couple a congestion charge scheme with mobile telephone industry, which has already moved into the mass market and the billing principles are trusted or at least ignored by the consumer.

A demanding public

The most obvious one in the short term is parking. Many of the regions investigating congestion charging in the UK are considering an expansion in park and ride facilities as one of their congestion-related demand management options. Coupling a DSRC congestion scheme with parking fee payment and bus fares all on one smartcard, where a driver can chose to drive into town but if he elects not to, he get discounted parking and cheap bus fares – this really starts to look like integrated transport! Taking a quick glance at the marketing dynamics of the loyalty card industry you can begin to see all sorts of possibilities. In truth, additional services are only limited by imagination the will for agencies and transport operators to cooperate and the competitive business models of other industries not traditionally associated with road pricing.

To end at the beginning

So, going back to the original question: Can the public be persuaded that a road is just another form of public transport for which a fare is paid? Technology developments can only provide part of the solution. Multi-modal public transport smart cards are here today. We have discussed some of the technical challenges but it is a small conceptual step to integrate this technology into road pricing solutions. The remaining challenge is, essentially, a political one. E Mark Garrity is Director of Revenue Collection Systems at Thales www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

47

Economies of s(c)ale KEVIN AGUIGUI and MELISSA HEWITT look at the basic principles of congestion pricing

Join us on a journey back in time to Economics 101. In that 500-seat, echoing auditorium, those of us not sleeping off yesterday’s all-night study session learned the basics of the principle of supply and demand (that in a competitive market, basic supply and demand principles guide successful business models). While the fundamental principle applies to goods in particular, a similar model underlies service industries, infrastructure and public services. Whether you consider a road as a “good” or a “service” congestion pricing provides a business model that allows fixed infrastructure to adapt to fluid and ever-increasing demands. Opponents would say that roads should be

48

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

accessible to all; that so-called “Lexus Lanes” mean that only the well-to-do will have access leaving behind the less fortunate. While at face value, this may appear to be the case, there are different factors which influence that this perception is not accurate. Before tackling this issue, let’s start with the basics.

What is it?

There are many different articles and reports and ongoing studies about congestion pricing, or road pricing, or value pricing, or even variable pricing. They are all derived from the tolling concept, or what we refer to simply as congestion pricing. The truth is that they all mean the same thing: charge www.h3bmedia.com

Toll Finance people will use it and thus one benefit is reduced delay on the facility itself which in turn results in increased travel speeds. The cause for these benefits is the shifting of trips either to another non-tolled facility or shifting on times of travel. The other outcomes include reduced emissions, increase reliability for other modes like transit and for some situations a decrease in safety related accidents. It has been reported that many congestion pricing projects outside of the United States have been able to pay for themselves… and more. For example, in Singapore, it has been reported that only 12 per cent of the revenue generated is needed to pay administration costs, and that Norway generates up to five times the revenue required to maintain the toll system. This clearly demonstrates the financial feasibility of congestion pricing. However, just because one is financially feasible does not mean that the public will accept it.

Why do it?

motorists some monetary amount to gain access to a roadway. The amount that is charged could be dependent on a host of different things including length of travel on the facility, time of day, congestion levels, type of vehicle being driven, or any combination thereof. There are hosts of other reports with much more detailed and definitive definitions, but do we care? It doesn’t matter how one looks at it, the basic concept is to charge motorists for driving on a facility.

Benefits?

The concept of congestion pricing can have several different benefits aside from the obvious one of generating revenue. Because it is a “pay for service” concept, fewer www.h3bmedia.com

We like to think of the answer with another question: Can we afford not to do it? At its root, congestion pricing is intended to be a demand management strategy. We have all this demand for use of the existing roadway infrastructure, and with fewer and fewer new roadways being built, we need a way of controlling the demand. With the ever increasing frustration from people sitting longer and longer on congested roads, if the demand is not controlled, this frustration will continue to increase. For congestion pricing, its success depends on many different variables, much of it is not technology related. These include implementing effective marketing strategies, gaining public acceptance and support, and ensuring that with a facility slated for congestion pricing, that there are other travel alternatives or alternate routes. As many studies have found, congestion pricing is the most effective when people have travel alternatives, alternate routes, alternate departure times, transit, or ridesharing. This way people can choose to travel during less-congested times if they feel it’s not worth paying to drive into the priced area during congested periods. One of the clear benefits of congestion pricing systems is that the revenues that are generated from congestion fees can be used to fund significant transportation improvements or maintenance activities, like better transit service, road improvements and bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Who does it?

Congestion pricing systems and schemes are typically implemented by the highway agencies or local transportation officials. Sometimes other levels of government are involved in the approval process (for example, in the US, federal law restricts tolling on the Interstate Highway System). In the San Francisco Bay Area, there has been a lot of good press about the success in garnering funds under the Urban Partnership Program (UPP). This national strategy to reduce congestion is based on the four Ts: Tolling, Transit Investments, Telecommuting and ETCetc Autumn 2007

49

Toll Finance

Technology. A large part of the region’s success in securing the funds was highlighting a variable tolling program in the proposal. For San Francisco, this includes the Doyle Drive approach to the Golden Gate Bridge. A substantial amount of funds will go towards the installation of tolling equipment and reconstruction of the roadway. Moreover, the concept of value pricing and tolling using High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes appears to have the necessary momentum and support from the transportation officials and politicians. Other projects in the San Francisco Bay Area that are based on the concept of congestion pricing include the HOT Lanes projects on I-580/680, I-880, and the I-580/680 FAIR Lanes Project (FAIR stands for Fast and Intertwined Regular). One of the approaches being looked at is the concept of FAIR Lanes along with Dynamic Ridesharing. This is in response to having complementary measures with value pricing to increase the public’s acceptance of the value pricing concept. Using web-based and telephone-based systems, dynamic ridesharing would enable users to find carpool partners on a near “real-time” basis. Because casual carpooling is already an acceptable form of commuting in the Bay Area, this new type of ridesharing is expected to be more readily acceptable in the Bay Area than elsewhere. The net result is expected to be cost and time savings (with free use of express lanes), and added benefits including reserved premium parking spaces at Bay Area Rapid Transit stations. These projects have a lot to offer the San Francisco Bay Area, especially since we were just rated the second worse in the nation in congestion delays, second only to Los Angeles.

Economics 101

Now let’s finish the discussion we started with on the idea of congestion pricing being the “Lexus Lanes” of the roadway. In our view, this is not only inaccurate, but

50

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

it appears to be carried on the premise that no one will be able to afford the tolls. It is true that tolls add costs to driving, but the case that this makes roads inaccessible by low income users is only a perception. The cost of driving today consists of numerous cost items: purchase of a vehicle, cost to maintain the vehicle and/or the depreciating value, cost of gas, and cost of delay. As gas prices rise, shipping and trucking companies operate on tighter profit margins, and the costs of the goods that we purchase every day increase. We experience daily and in every facet of our lives the cost of our failing infrastructure. One can spend over US$200 per month on gas used to get to an office to earn enough to pay over US$5 a gallon for milk three times a week. In the midst of this cycle one’s commute can be as long as three hours a day tied up in the mayhem of a broken down transportation system. A tally of the cost of driving, according to the Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility report is about one week’s worth each year. In other words, traffic delays cost the typical commuter one week’s worth of pay. Not cheap. So who are those unfortunate ones who can afford this cost, but not the cost of a toll? Add to this the cost of delay and we would say that every person in a car during the peak periods is already paying the price. Compare this with the scenario of congestion pricing with the factor of the toll cost added and the reduced delay cost subtracted. The net effect is a reduction is the cost of driving. Voila – capitalism at work. Incidentally, the only component of equation one that is not supply/ demand driven is the infrastructure. There is the view that the use of the public roadway infrastructure is a basic right. While it is a public infrastructure, the use of it by vehicles is not a right. Driving a motorized vehicle is a privilege, not a right with the law requiring all drivers to have a driver’s license. Thus, it is a privilege to use the roads. So, while we agree that www.h3bmedia.com

Toll Finance government should be responsible for providing basic rights, we are not of the same opinion that the public roadway infrastructure is one of them.

Needs must

There are all kinds of other services and goods like electricity and water that are supplemented for those individuals and families in need. These services are still provided at a cost to those people in need. Those who are more fortunate are not subject to the supplemental program, and thus they pay more for the same set of services. It our opinion, why should roads be any different? In the case of congestion pricing, it is fair that some pay a higher price for the use of the roads because it is a choice and a privilege and not a right. There is also the view that congestion pricing is a form of “double taxation” where people who pay taxes and tolls are getting hit twice. However, this view is somewhat uninformed and naïve. The price for those people who use the road typically includes the value of their own time plus the operating costs of their vehicle. But when one considers the other costs outside of the individual motorist, the picture becomes a little clearer. There are the delay costs that peak period drivers imposed on other users by slowing travel speeds resulting in the deterring of travelers and shipments of goods (the most valuable time) and the wasting of large amounts of other people’s travel time. Moreover, those drivers sitting in congested traffic

also impose pollution costs not covered by gas taxes. Despite the magnitude of the costs imposed by commuter vehicle users, they are not charged for these costs. Thus, we feel that separate congestion charges are appropriate.

Conclusion

We all should understand the true costs of congestion and delay. Putting it in perspective, if we lose a week of work per year, but paying a toll to use a facility that could save us a fraction of that time, it wouldn’t take an economist to figure out that congestion pricing has a definite net monetary benefit. We all want better roads, better services, better goods, better everything, but there is a cost and if paying a toll will help providing a better transportation infrastructure, then we’re all for it! The challenge now is to be able to deliver the improvements within an acceptable time frame after the congestion pricing is implemented. This will have to be the topic for another article. E Kevin Aguigui, PE, CSEP, is Senior Systems Engineer with Kimley-Horn & Associates in Oakland, CA and can be contacted via email at [email protected] Melissa Hewitt is Senior Systems Planner at KimleyHorn & Associates’ Los Angeles, CA office and can be contacted via email at [email protected]

HOW EUROPE WORKS 1st European Road Pricing Think Tank

4 April 2008/Intertraffic Amsterdam

[email protected] www.h3bmedia.com

H B Media www.h3bmedia.com

thinking highways

ETCetc Autumn 2007

51

Road User Pricing

Choice not

charging! The debate on implementing road user pricing began with a bang earlier this year with an online petition and continues to build as motorists question a perceived road network ‘tax’ when there appears to be few viable alternatives. Meanwhile, Local Authorities are taking time in considering their approach to the potential powers granted them in the Draft Transport Bill and the funds available from the Transport Innovation Fund. You do not have to be a transportation professional to realise that congestion is beginning to strangle our economy, our quality of life and our environment. The once gloriously predicted future of ‘hover cars’ on giant automatic networks has become a depressing reality of gridlock, fumes and overheated engines on our daily commute to work. Unfortunately, it seems that the public debate on the matter has been solely focussed on ’how much’ and the perception that the ordinary motorist will be almost taxed off the road by a covert levy. This has meant that we have moved away from the central point – that there is simply far too much congestion on our roads and it has to be tackled.

52

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

Of course, it’s not only the delays in dropping the kids off at school, or the hour taken to drive three miles across town on the way to work, it’s also the environmental damage – the noise and the choking air quality - that is pushing us towards a potential abyss. That 25 per cent of UK greenhouse gas emissions come from vehicles already on our roads is a sobering thought but the Department for Transport (DffT) figures are even more worrying - 33m registered vehicles on the road in 2005 (a rise of 7m since 1996); by 2015 congestion could be 25 per cent worse; one in five cars on urban roads at 0850 during school term time is on the school run; and one in four car journeys is less than two miles. This bleak outlook was further reinforced by the Eddington report which estimated that by 2025, congestion could cost all road users between £22-24billion more than today.

A change of thinking

The real crux of the matter is that road pricing on its own will solve nothing – it can only happen as part of a wider overhaul of public transport infrastructure in our urban areas. There’s no point making the humble driver pay to www.h3bmedia.com

Road User Pricing

PAUL WADSWORTH assesses the issues and demonstrates how it is possible to successfully finance and implement road pricing schemes while revolutionising public transport and revitalising urban centres…

www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

53

Road User Pricing use city roads at peak times if public transport infrastructure from bus to rail, cycle path to pedestrian walkway, isn’t safe, clean and reliable. A step change, with real, up-front investment in the infrastructure, pioneering technology, real-time information on the choices, and incorporating road user pricing, can encourage commuters to change their habits and enable the highway network to contribute significantly to the community.

Innovative approach to fulfilling local needs

The Transport Innovation Fund established by the DfT to incentivise local authorities in developing and deploying, “smarter, innovative, local and regional transport strategies”, rewards those authorities looking beyond ‘soft’ demand management (travel planning, car sharing etc) to measures such as road user charging as part of an integrated package. However, Local Authorities will need to consider innovative funding mechanisms and models for delivery and operation if they are to successfully implement a real step change in public transport infrastructure. Of course, the problem is that there are many competing pressures on public finance and, although transportation is still a top five funding priority for most town halls, it is not at the top. Nevertheless, there is the option of a holistic, “not for profit”, partnership model that can provide the required up-front funding for an upgraded public transport system that facilitates a behavioural change in commuters’ transport habits, while aiding urban regeneration on the wider scale.

How it can be done

This innovative solution is based around a simple premise – take out a significant partnership loan to fund an overhaul in public transport infrastructure (the amount being specific to the local requirements). This is then repaid through increased public transport usage, park and ride facilities, parking tariffs, and road pricing at peak travel times in areas of heavy congestion. It is estimated that the average city can raise over £1bn in this way. The important point is that the loan pays for upfront investment in public transport, cycle lanes, pedestrianisation,travel information and other improvements that will help facilitate a change in travel habits, thus reducing congestion and promoting wider community regeneration. A key political and public sticking point of providing alternatives to car travel prior to the introduction of RUP is thus eased.

Example scenario

An average British city typically has around 200,000 people with approximately 40,000 vehicles entering it each day during the ‘peak’ 0700-1000 period. The first stage is to analyse traffic patterns. A unique overview of the city’s traffic patterns is required, detailing traffic mix and volumes. The size and shape of the charging zone needs consideration, the peak and offpeak charges,residential exemptions,business charges, design and placement of park and ride sites, bus lanes

54

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

Systems from Kapsch TrafficCom for Urban Road User Charging, nationwide HGV schemes, Road Pricing, City Charging, Area Tolling or simply electronic fee collection. Whatever system you need, make sure it’s from Kapsch TrafficCom. | www.kapsch.net

Britain has it. Australia has it. Chile has it. Soon Czech Republic will have it too!

Road User Pricing and other transport infrastructure need evaluation to form a complete transport solution. The key point is that a unique, flexible solution must be provided for each urban area, enabling the Local Authorities to adapt its solution to their specific congestion problems.

“There is the option of a holistic, ‘not for profit’, partnership model that can provide the required up-front funding”

Considerations

Travel information communicated across all modes of travel is a highly manageable and it is a vital part of an overall RUP strategy. For example, before a journey even begins, mobile phone technology, linked to a state-ofthe-art traffic management system, can help travellers plan their journeys, choosing when it is best to travel and how. Travellers are able to ascertain the best route or mode of transport, the best time to travel, the predicted journey time, the amount of pollution, the cost, and even the journey’s safety in terms of security, cleanliness and reliability.

The benefits

The benefits of reducing traffic using road pricing and improved public transport infrastructure are well understood and have been demonstrated in London and Stockholm. Our experience of the London congestion scheme tells us that there is a short period of adjustment. After an initial change in habits, people begin to understand the new cost of travel, a more steady state pattern begins to emerge as commuters seek and settle on using other options such as public transport, cycling and walking hence lessening their reliance on cars and greatly reducing congestion. As road space is freed up, the highway network is able to support continued growth and new areas within a city can become more attractive to investors and businesses. A safer, cleaner and more reliable public transport system brings improved mobility to all, particularly socioeconomic groups who rely on such services. City centre management becomes a real possibility with the ability of authorities to bring an integrated approach to management of the city environment including road space, public transport, bus lane and parking enforcement, security, pollution, and the management of information. Such approaches will support economic regeneration.

Broadening horizons

Road pricing in the UK will continue to be much maligned while we limit its horizons, seeing it as a standalone solution that simply charges motorists to use busy roads at peak times. However, by using it as part of a wider, more ambitious, revolution in public transport infrastructure and city centre management, we are looking at a key enabler of a modern, integrated, sustainable transport network that will help regenerate communities across the country for decades to come. E Paul Wadsworth is a Director of Road User Pricing at multidisciplinary consultants Capita Symonds. As part of the Capita Group, it worked on the implementation of the London Congestion Charging Scheme and is currently involved in the Cardiff Transportation Partnership www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Vol x No x

57

Optimisation

58

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

Optimisation

The pursuit of

emptiness Transport planners can learn a lot from industry when charged with optimising congestion, say PHIL SAYEG and DAVID BRAY Increasing congestion and associated excessive pollution, greenhouse house emissions and energy use are all typical concerns to government policy makers and communities anywhere. Congestion is increasing and its rise appears inevitable both temporally and geographically. Discretionary travel such as recreation is increasing and there are increasing quantities of high value and time sensitive freight on our roads. Increasing congestion is associated with unstable traffic flow, which in turn results in an increasing number of incidents (non-recurrent congestion) with consequent negative traffic effects. Consciously or otherwise, congestion is often used as a policy instrument – with good or bad consequences for the economy. Many of the transport strategies prepared by governments’ transport planners are limited in their impact as they do not usually show an in-depth understanding of the transport and land use market in which people and firms make location and travel decisions and in which government interventions need to be made (Bray, 2002). Consequently, Bray argued that these strategies could be improved by a detailed understanding of:

www.h3bmedia.com

• The nature of decisions by individuals and firms with respect to land use and transport; and • Mechanisms by which policy interventions may influence behaviour. We contend that transport planners who normally work in the public sector, either directly as employees or indirectly as consultants, can improve their knowledge of appropriate strategies and interventions by observing the behaviour of industry such as logistics firms and shippers (eg manufacturers and major agricultural producers). The purpose of this article is therefore to: • Identify lessons that transport planners can derive from industry and how congestion can be ‘optimised’; • Show how transport planning can be made more relevant by taking advantage of the potential of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). ‘Optimise’, for the purposes of this article means: • Intervention measures by government to reduce congestion to an optimal level; and • Response of an individual or firm to minimise the impact on them with flow-on positive impact if, for example, real-time information leads to avoidance of unduly congested areas and routes.

ETCetc Autumn 2007

59

Optimisation Effect of congestion

The consequences of excessive congestion for private motorists are additional and more variable travel time and frustration. For freight transport, the consequences are more substantial. Congestion will affect industry through factors such as: • Higher vehicle operating costs, labour costs and freight damage; • A higher cost of obtaining inputs and serving markets; • Reduced reliability for delivery of inputs and distribution of finished goods; and • Reduced access and scale economics, which increases input costs and the cost of production. Research findings also provide other insights into the effect of congestion and industry response: • Weisbrod et al (2003) showed that congestion does raise industry costs (in complex ways) and results in suboptimal outcomes (eg effects on access to specialised labour, economies of scale); • Runhaar et al (2004:38) report the results of several studies that suggest that unreliability is a more serious problem than an increase in average travel time; • Studies indicate that adaptation of transport operations such as less frequent deliveries and higher stock levels was the main response to rising congestion; though • McKinnon (1998:1) indicated for UK “delays… increase the amount of inventory in transit on the road network …likely to be a minor item.” Slow and unreliable travel adds to industry costs, especially where just-in-time inventory management is used. An increased number of trucks may be needed to carry the same quantity of freight, and higher levels of stock need to be held to insulate businesses from unreliable delivery of supplies. The consequences of the increase in transport costs should not be exaggerated because transport accounts for only a relatively small share of the total production cost of goods. Nevertheless, in an internationally competitive environment, any additional cost causes a loss of competitiveness and hence has detrimental consequences.

Table 1: Lessons for transport planners Lessons from industry • Firms respond to congestion in different ways – they have different degrees of freedom and interest.

• Logistics firms make tactical decisions and shippers make periodic medium-term strategic decisions.

Freight transport’s significance

At 9 percent of GDP and with an estimated value of A$57billion (€35billion) in 1999-2000 (Industry Steering Committee 2002), Australia’s logistics industry appears slightly more efficient than in Europe and USA. Perhaps more importantly in Australia, transport is estimated to represent the largest single component of total logistics cost at 3.6 per cent of GDP or A$22.8billion in 1999-2000. Nevertheless as a whole, non-transport activities were estimated to be more economically significant than transport at 5.4 per cent of GDP. The relative higher share of non-transport costs in logistics is also evident for Europe. Logistics is generally considered to comprise four, interrelated activities: transport1; warehousing; inventory; and administration and order processing. As a consequence, freight transport cannot be addressed in

60

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

• Logistics firms and operators optimise what they can control within total supply chain using technology where benefits are felt at bottom line – investments are not for show.

• Logistics firms and operators value real-time information on traffic conditions and state of inventory because they need reliability.

www.h3bmedia.com

Optimisation

Implications for transport planners • “One size does not fit all”. ITS can facilitate selectivity in regulation and provision of information allowing individuals and firms to optimise their response (ie choice). • Outsourcing affects concerns and priorities, and results in lags. • Tactical improvements are rational, straightforward and suited to ITS. • Effecting strategic change requires sending the right signals, eg pricing, land use (to influence location decisions), road and traffic management, etc. • Focus on things that can be controlled. • Agencies have scope for use of ITS technologies to improve the efficiency of the network and to influence demand in a desirable way. • Reliability and other attributes of congestion (eg emissions) are important not just average speed. • Transport policies may improve the reliability, quality and safety of travel with little impact on average speed. • Real-time information on network conditions – actual current, forecast and historical can be used for planning and optimisation purposes by agencies, logistics firms and motorists.

www.h3bmedia.com

isolation, but rather is a part of logistics which is in turn integrated with the entire modus operandi of business. Nevertheless, transport is still important because its cost and convenience will have a bearing on where businesses locate, where they source their materials, how they manage their material and products, the transport modes that are used, and the types of transport services used. Changes in these factors will affect the relative mix of transport and other resources that are used by companies. It is possible for the detrimental effects of transport inadequacies to be amplified, for example late delivery of materials needed for just-intime based production can cause disruption to the entire production process. The four categories of logistic cost will be influenced by a range of factors, including the extent to which warehousing is centralised (rather than being dispersed). Using a larger number of warehouses reduces transport costs because distribution to the warehouses can be undertaken with larger vehicles and the cost of distribution from the warehouses involves shorter travel distances. However, administration, inventory and storage costs rise with use of a larger number of warehouses. Total logistic costs can be minimised by selecting the appropriate number of warehouses. Due to competitive pressures, industry (shippers) and hence logistics firms, in developed countries with fairly open markets, are constantly seeking to reduce logistics costs. As in Europe over the late 1980s to early 2000s, Australian logistics costs declined due to deregulation, improved vehicle design, use of larger trucks, outsourcing and more efficient fleet management. Having achieved these savings, in Australia the focus has shifted to non-transport components of logistics, especially as the lower transport costs and more efficient transport practices support innovation and new non-transport logistic practices to occur (EPS/ PAS 2005). This appears to explain why despite rising interurban and urban congestion, the logistics industry has in recent times been now more concerned with improving the efficiency of non-transport components of logistics as a means for securing lower costs and improved quality. For example, Coles Myers one of Australia’s major retailers, has reduced the number of their distribution centres from 48 to 24, including 13 to serve the biggest consumer areas. Overall for Australia, then, it is concluded to date that: • There is no strong evidence to date that traffic congestion on roads is causing businesses in general to change their transport, location and other logistic decisions, and some evidence that significant rises in congestion may still not do so; • Business is not homogenous, and some businesses will be more sensitive to congestion than others; and • transport costs are still significant, and rising traffic congestion will increase them yet further, with detrimental effects on business performance.

Possible industry response

In addition, firms have a variety of strategies they can adopt to cope with congestion including: ETCetc Autumn 2007

61

Optimisation

You are entering a congestion charging zone

But fortunately we don’t have any congestion. Have a nice day. • Switching from road to rail which generally occurs to a modest extent; • Changing the type of vehicle used, for example making greater use of smaller, nimbler trucks in some instances and use of larger trucks to gain scale economies in others; • Re-timing trips to less congested times and routes; • Holding greater inventories to account for unreliability; • Whifting risk to others eg by subcontracting on fixed price terms; • Relocating activities, including sources of materials and intermediate goods, the location of manufacturing, and the number and location of warehouses. Based on the observations of how industry behaves in the face of congestion some key lessons for transport planners are set out in Table 1.

Role of ITS in optimising congestion

Intelligent transport systems can: • Complement pricing measures which in turn may be most appropriately delivered by ITS technologies by providing timely and accurate information to individuals and firms on road network conditions (eg performance measures such as length and variability of trip times and incidents) and parking; • Permits individuals and firms to respond in the way that is best for them; • Assist in managing access and use of the network on a more selective basis; • Allow more efficient use to be made of the transport system; • Increase vehicle (car and bus) speeds hence increasing their perceived attractiveness. Particular ITS opportunities would include: • Complementing/ delivering pricing – from individual toll roads to network-wide pricing;

62

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

• Access control eg London congestion charging; heavy vehicle charging, Germany; • Intelligent Access Project, Australia; • Bus lanes, managed lanes, USA (HOT lanes); • Bus/truck lanes (uncommon), truck/transit lanes (possible but likely low acceptability to public); • Advanced multi-modal traveller information systems making use of real-time information; • Integrated traffic control: • Middle of day peaks... variable… less predictable... perhaps more scope for dynamic intelligent traffic systems; • Integrated traffic control recognising traffic control/ incident management and real-time information now intimately related due to expected rise in non recurrent congestion; • Bus and truck fleet management; • Bus contract compliance; and • Market driven applications – to allow motorists to optimise their own situation (ie there is an economic rationale); • consumerisation of navigation – being bought as beneficial; • Location-based services which incorporate real-time information... there are consumer benefits by definition as they choose to purchase services; • Pay-as-you-drive insurance.

The reality of it all

How much real-time information do we need? Comprehensive real-time information seems desirable and “as much as possible” is probably better. Technologies to develop and disseminate real-time information are now commonly available (mobile phones 3G etc, Internet). But while some real-time information services may develop of their own accord experience to date is that they are likely to be limited due to the difficulty of comwww.h3bmedia.com

Optimisation mercialising them. Are governments doing enough given to promote real time travel information services given real-time information should have wider benefits than the individual? In Australia, the answer is “Yes” as most State road agencies which provide basic ITS infrastructure that captures real-time information provide basic data to third parties at cost only.

Conclusion

ITS can be used for enhancing efficiency of supply and influencing demand in a somewhat selective way. ITS complements pricing and traditional traffic management approaches and can provide information to allow firms and individuals to optimise their travel with likely flow-on wider benefits. New ITS developments which rely on real-time information offer enhanced potential and are worthy of increased consideration by transport planners. E Phil Sayeg, Policy Appraisal Services Pty Ltd ([email protected]) David Bray, Economic and Policy Services Pty Ltd ([email protected])

References

1 Transport cost includes all relevant costs including the extent to which congestion may cause transport costs to rise.Even moderate congestion may not increase

overall transport cost greatly depending on the characteristics of a firm’s transport task. Bray, D (2002),“Urban traffic congestion – do transport strategies help?” Article published in Smart Urban Transport magazine, September (original version of article published in proceedings of the 2002 BTRE Transport Policy Colloquium). Bray, D (2003), “Road pricing issues and options,” Article published in Smart Urban Transport magazine, February. Economic and Policy Services and Policy Appraisal Services (2005), “Exploring the relationship between accessibility and the viability of industry and trade,” Prepared for Brisbane City Council. Industry Steering Committee of the Freight Transport Logistics Industry Action Agenda (2002) Freight Logistics in Australia - An Agenda for Action, May McKinnon, AC (1998) “The Impact of Traffic Congestion on Logistical Efficiency”, Institute of Logistics Research Series, Heriot-Watt University, September Policy Appraisal Services (2006), “Sketch Plan – Traveller Information,” Prepared for Main Roads, Queensland Runhaar ,H and van der Heijden, R (2005) “Public policy intervention in freight transport costs: effect on printed media logistics in the Netherlands”, in Transport Policy no 12 Weisbrod, G, Vary, D and Treyz, G (2002) “Measuring the Economic Costs of Urban Traffic Congestion to Business”, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting

real vision

Inspiring reality Can you see it ? ÒSmartÓ highways steering drivers to better, safer routes ... tolls adjusting to trafÞc demand ... transit systems integrating seamlessly into the community ... innovations that push the industry forward? By applying our experience and creativity to todayÕs difÞcult mobility problems, and by building partnerships based on respect and trust, PBS&J is helping transportation agencies bring visions like these to reality every day.

Visualize the future. Then call PBS&J. OfÞces throughout the US pbsj.com ¥ 800.477.7275 www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

63

Global Issues

A global business STEFAN HOEPFEL goes around the ETC world in 1300 words, visiting standards, innovation, interoperability and nationwide tolling along the way

The Prussian Army was resoundingly defeated in the twin battles of Jena and Auerstedt in 1806. But only hours before these battles, no one could have imagined that such a thing could possibly happen. Wasn’t the Prussian Army battle-hardened? Hadn’t it won fame and honour? And wasn’t it the best army in Europe? Hadn’t these Frenchmen only been successful up until this point, and shouldn’t their triumphant progress now finally be stopped? No, things turned out very differently, as the history books tell us. This powerful new army, with its unconventional tactics – at least by the standards of those days, was fast, manoeuvrable, and could do more than just move ahead, line abreast. Now, what has that got to do with tolling? Basically, nothing at all really. But, on the other hand, the German electronic toll collect system is known throughout the world. It has been in existence for just 36 months - 36 months which might have changed the world of road user charging. But one thing at a time. Mobility is almost unquestionably the key to a nation’s prosperity and growth. For good mobility, we need to have not only railroads but also excellent road networks. However, these are now having to carry ever higher traffic volumes, and need to be maintained, widened or even rebuilt. In short, one has to be able to afford to finance them. On the other hand, we’re always wanting more information. The same applies in everyday life as it does on the road. Road users would be grateful to know about current traffic conditions, and control centers would be glad to have more reliable traffic control and guidance capabilities. Third parties would also be thankful for more information. They could then offer road users their services on the basis of the information they had obtained.

64

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

And now the electronic toll has entered the game. Multi-lane, free-flow systems have become standard over the years. But only those countries with sufficient space and low labor costs can afford such large-scale toll stations. I would now like to mention two distinct systems. On the one hand, there is the microwave-based 5.8GHz DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communications) technology and, on the other hand, the satellite-based GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) technology. DSRC is an integral part of the electronic toll world. Canada’s Highway 407 and Melbourne’s City Link are outstanding examples of two different approaches to barrier-free toll systems. In this article I would like to concentrate on nationwide systems, as this is the only level at which I can see real potential for discussing the pros and cons of these two technologies.

Yes, but what have we got, exactly?

DSRC has been tried and tested repeatedly, and it works. As one advertising slogan put it, “Wwe’ve got it”. I am sorry about this but I just can’t identify with that last statement. “We’ve got it.” That’s all very well but are we thinking about other possible uses for it? Aren’t most of us now using satellite signal positioning for our navigation system – and wish to have things like dynamic route guidance? Can we nowadays afford to do without the information being generated by millions of vehicles? Isn’t there enough incentive for controlling our chronically congested roads by varying the charges on specific roads according to the route, time of day – and thus smoothing out traffic peaks? Wouldn’t it help our efforts to reduce air pollution if we could control vehicles of specific environment classes in an intelligent manner, and reward www.h3bmedia.com

Global Issues

“I just can’t identify with the advertising slogan ‘We’ve got it’. That’s all very well but are we thinking about other uses for it?” www.h3bmedia.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007

65

the German one, and it has now been running faultlessly for three years. Moreover, navigation devices are in strong and increasing demand, and fleet management systems are now in common use, at least among larger shipping companies. And what else has happened? Another European country has introduced a nationwide turnpike system, with the result that a DSRC-based system is now in operation.Was, here again, the source of revenue considered more important than the use of information? One can hope that the system was selected to the best of knowledge and belief. But how reliable is this system? It’s probably generally pretty good, but the press reported that its toll performance had dipped to 94 per cent in September. By way of comparison, the press also stated that the reliability of the German satellite supported system was 99.7 per cent in August. But, as I see it, what primarily makes this decision unfortunate is that it represents a missed chance. A chance that could have been used for more than merely raising revenue. It could have become a beacon for future-oriented technologies. those who move out of congestion? Isn’t one of the goals of the current safety debate to improve safety by tracking the progress of hazardous goods along their routes? This list could be extended almost indefinitely. At the price level, the discussion of pros and cons is determined by two simple variables: DSRC tags which are, as before, cheaper than the on-board units used for satellite supported tolls. However, the latter are becoming considerably cheaper, and are only about half the price they were three years ago. Moreover, DSRC systems are an indispensable part of the communication with road-side equipment. That is the gantries and beacons, that one can’t do without, but which make the overall system considerably more expensive. This eliminates the price advantage of tags over on-board units. Operational and back office costs should be about the same in both systems, as the procedures subsequent to data collection are similar. Both systems are also greatly affected by the complexity of the route network and the number of vehicles. As a rule of thumb, one can say that the advantages of the GNSS system become increasingly clear as complexity increases. When it comes to the number of vehicles, the economies of scale in the production of on-board units also have to be taken into account. There’s still no large scale system based on satellite technology. However, those that are planned are looking closely at the use of so-called value-added services, if not as an integral part then as an option. To sum up, the flexibility of a GNSS system, its intrinsic capability for third-party data use, and its capability for unlimited expansion of the toll area make it, all in all, superior to a pure DSRC system for nationwide application.

Reliability-central

Returning to our starting point, the long-propagated Galileo satellite system will be coming into operation much, much later than planned. The world’s only satellite-based toll system so far is

66

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

Now, what’s the rest of the world doing?

Australia is thinking pragmatically. Transurban, their largest turnpike operator, is not considering giving up its DSRC-based toll - far from it. They have realized that GNSS can co-exist parallel with existing schemes, and that this technology can be introduced step by step. Japan is going its own way within the scope of its socalled SMARTWAY project. Here, a GNSS-compatible on-board unit will be able not only to collect and transmit information but also to receive data from road operators and third parties. This is intended to satisfy not only drivers’ needs for information and but also their interest in entertainment, which is very strong in Japan and Korea. The DSRC tag will continue to be used parallel to this for levying the electronic toll. The Road User Charging (RUC) project (“Anders Betalen for Mobiliteit”) is progressing in the Netherlands. On the basis of their approach, which has been discussed very openly, we can assume that, by 2012, we will be seeing for the first time a country in which eight million vehicles are using a highly efficient satellitebased system.

Have the switches already been thrown?

I think that the next four months are going to be very interesting, as two European countries are currently planning to introduce a nationwide toll. We’ll have to wait and see whether this time one or both countries decide to use satellite technology. We can only be certain of one thing, using the existing infrastructure has always been cheaper than building a new one. Well, now what actually happened after the twin battles of Jena and Auerstedt? Napoleon won, the Prussians capitulated, and had to reduce the size of their army considerably. And Napoleon paid his respects at Frederick the Great’s tomb just a few days later. E [email protected] www.h3bmedia.com

simplyADVANCED ADVA NCE D T E CHNO L O GY T HAT M E R GE S S IM PL ICIT Y A ND S O PHIS T ICAT IO N

Introducing Autoscope Terra Technology > High-performance video detection employing sophisticated technology to simplify installation, setup and use. > Streaming digital video via Ethernet for system and traffic monitoring. > Web browser communications to connect from virtually anywhere. > Highway and intersection Wizard for easy setup. > Fewer wires for quicker installation. > All of this results in safer, enhanced traffic flow and improved air quality. ®

Find out more at autoscope.com/terra

© 2007 Image Sensing Systems, Inc.

India

Fifth

amendment

One of the world’s leading providers of fibre optic transmission equipment designed for CCTV surveillance operations has won a contract to supply five new toll roads in India.VIBEKE ULMANN spoke to MANOJ DAVE, Head of O&M (Roads) at Larsen & Toubro Ltd, the company subcontracted by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the new projects Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) was founded in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1938 by two Danish engineers, Henning Holck-Larsen and Soren Kristian Toubro. Both of them were strongly committed to developing India’s engineering capabilities to meet the demands of industry. Today L&T has evolved into a technology, engineering, construction and manufacturing company and it is one of the largest and most respected companies in India’s private sector. The company has been subcontracted to execute the engineering work for the National Highways Authority of India’s (NHAI) five new toll roads. Adding almost 300 km to the Indian Highways system, the toll roads are located in different parts of the country. Four of them are contracted on a Build, Operate & Transfer (BOT) basis. For practical reasons, each of the projects is associated with individual subsidiary companies and in the following information the projects are referred to by company name. Manoj Dave, head of roads at L&T describes the background for the projects: “Firstly there is the Larsen & Toubro Panipat Elevated Corridor Limited, awarded by NHAI on a BOT basis covers widening the existing four lane portion of the stretch between 86km and 96km. The project covers Panipat

68

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

city, on national highway no.1 (NH1) in the state of Haryana and will comprise a six-lane elevated structure covering road crossings, city bus stand and skylark tourist complex as well as widening and construction of peripheral lanes. The total length of the project is 10km. “The Larsen & Toubro Interstate Road Corridor Limited awarded by NHAI covers design, engineering, construction, development, finance, operation abd maintenance of the 264km to 340km segment referred to as Plalanpur-Swaroopgunj, National Highway no. 14 (NH-14) in the state of Gujarat & Rajasthan. Total length of the project stretch is 76km. “Thirdly we have the Larsen & Toubro Vadodara Bharuch Tollway Limited project - awarded by NHAI for increasing to six lanes the stretch between 108/700km and 192/000km, referred to as the Vadodara to Bharuch section of NH-8 in state of Gujarat on BOT Basis. Total length of the project stretch is 83.3km. “The Larsen & Toubro Krishnagiri Thopur Toll Road Private Limited project was awarded by NHAI on BOT basis. The project covers 94km (end of proposed Krishnagiri Flyover) to 156km stretch (Thumpipadi), plus improvement, operation and maintenance of the 156km (Thumpipadi) to 163.4km segment (Thopurghat) on NH-7 in the state of Tamil Nadu. Total length of this www.h3bmedia.com

India


 

 
 

 




 

 
  
 
  
   

  
 
 
   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


 
   
    
    

 
  

 
  
  
  

 
     
 
  

    


   
    


 
   
    
  

     

        
 

  

9hƒWj_ed0B[i;Z_j_ediijhWjƒ]_gk[i0Jƒb$0&'*/*./-/.

We integrate your Toll Solution with Modular turn-key toll solutions ETC interoperability Fully automatic payment range

O Complete turn-key toll solutions, from design to maintenance O Modular software concept MultiToll® O Integration of all types of toll collection: conventional, ETC, free-flow and truck tolling O Full nationwide ETC interoperability O Automatic multi-mode lane payment range of equipment O Recognised expertise for over 40 years. Tried and tested systems in operation worldwide

www.h3bmedia.com

Ascom S.A. Toll Collection Systems 250, avenue des Grésillons 92600 Asnières - France Tel: +33 1 41 32 70 61 Internet: www.ascom.com

ETCetc Autumn 2007x

69

India

Intelligent Solutions for Traffic Surveillance

VITRONIC product range • PoliScansurveillance Acquisition and identification of vehicles for crime prevention • PoliScanspeed Digital speed measurement - mobile and stationary • PoliScandigital Evaluation of speed and digitally recorded red-light offences • TollChecker Free-flow and multi-lane toll enforcement

Meet the digital future

VITRONIC Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH Hasengartenstr. 14 D-65189 Wiesbaden Fon + 49 [0] 611-7152-0 Fax + 49 [0] 611-7152-133 www.vitronic.com [email protected]

TRMI designs integrated software, hardware and network solutions for the future of electronic toll collection systems. From FasTrack® to Smart Tag® to E-Z Pass®, we provide custom engineering, programming, and manufacturing for niche and enterprise solutions. And our open-design software opens your future to a choice of vendors for expansion or enhancements. Grow forward. Contact TRMI today.

www.trmi.com 845.626.8655

70

Autumn 2007 ETCetc

www.h3bmedia.com

India project portion is 69.4km. “Finally there is the Larsen & Toubro Western Andhra Tollways Private Limited. This Project was awarded by NHAI on a BOT basis covering the 80.05km (Jadcherla) to 135.4km segment (end of the proposed Kotakatta Bypass) on NH-7 in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Total length of the project stretch is 55.419 km.”

Pan, tilt, zoom, control

Each road is supervised by one control room and all the projects called for a CCTV solution with Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) cameras as well as a number of variable message signs, automatic traffic counter-cum-classifiers and metrological stations etc. All of the signals are to be routed back to the individual control rooms which in some cases are located several kilometers away and the control room operators further require real time control of the PTZ camera movements. Dave explains, “There were a number of reasons for selecting the AMG 3700 system for the projects. Most notably they all called for a dual redundant system for real time uncompressed video transmission and the ability to cope with multiple add-on modules via Ethernet. We needed this capability over all the project stretches, irrespective of normal or redundant path of data transmission, without additional equipment or repeaters. The SNMP compliant network management for remote fault monitoring, reporting and diagnosis, was also a must. All of this was something the 3700 system handles without any issues. “As I mentioned, the backbone network is dual redundant and each AMG field unit will have four fibres connected, 1 Tx 1 Rx for Primary ring and 1 Tx 1 Rx for Secondary ring. The Ethernet capability of the AMG equipment was an important factor because there are

www.h3bmedia.com

stretches on the projects where we do not have cameras installed. However, instead of using dedicated Backbone devices the other equipment such as variable message signs, automatic traffic counter-cum-classifiers, metrological stations etc. at those locations will connect to the nearest AMG field unit’s Ethernet port via a media converter. “In particular the Ethernet capability comes in handy at the Larsen & Toubro Interstate Road Corridor Limited project where we have 2 toll plaza and using the Ethernet capability means that we can share data between them,” Dave concludes.

Build, operate, transfer, integrate

Although the end client ultimately is the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), L&T have won the concessions for a period of 15 to 20 years including the construction period on the BOT based projects. Outside of being responsible for design, engineering, construction, development, finance, operation & maintenance of the roads and their facilities, L&T will also be responsible for toll tollection and traffic management, two of the prime activities, over the length of the concession periods, post construction. For the 76km stretch on the Plalanpur-Swaroopgunj section on National Highway no. 14 (NH-14) in the state of Gujarat & Rajasthan, L&T is responsible for design, engineering, construction, development, finance, operation & maintenance of the road and its facilities, but the toll collection shall be done by the NHAI. The Data Transmission systems on all five new toll road will be installed, tested and commissioned by L&T’s Electrical Business Group (EBG) along with their systems integration partner, Croatian firm Telefon Gradnja. E

ETCetc Autumn 2007

71

  4*
!
#



                                                  !"  
# #   "$ % & '  $
 ( )   *   #
 )  +  $
 ,   *      )         $   #  '    (  *  # $    *   +  #   *   - )      *  
    .  (   *$ 
  



          
  
       

          !         "  !   

   
  
    

 
  
   
 


    $ /      * 0
%        /    12 30
 $          $  
% 4     $    5   $  


                 

Advertisers Index Ascom .......................................................69 Aselsan ......................................................41 Capita Symonds ......................................69 Computer Recognition Systems..........40 Consulting Stream ..................................56 GMV ..........................................................19 H3B Media Road Pricing Think Tank........ ........................................... 27, 29, 31, 32, 34 IET..............................................................72 Image Sensing Systems...........................67 Intertoll .....................................................46

Kapsch TrafficCom .................................55 OSI ............................................. back cover PBS&J .........................................................63 Q-Free .......................... inside front cover ROBOTVisual Systems ..........................23 Satellic ............................inside back cover Siemens .....................................................02 Thales ........................................................15 Transurban ...............................................45 TRMI..........................................................71 Vitronic ....................................................71

For more information on advertisers in this issue go to www.h3bmedia.com 72

Vol 1 No 1 ETC etc

www.h3bmedia.com