Wednesday, 20 July 2016

Germany's proposed introduction of road user charging for cars

Germany has had a distance-based road pricing scheme for heavy goods vehicles 12 tonne and over since 2005, initially for the autobahns, which has been expanded in scope to include vehicles down to 7.5 tonnes since 1 October 2015 and increasingly Federal highways (not just motorways).  Indeed, from 2018 all Federal Highways will be subject to the charge (known as LKW-Maut).  I've written more about the expansion here.  In time I'd expect the charge to cover all heavy vehicles down to 3.5 tonnes, as the logical next step.  Indeed, Federal Finance Minister,  Wolfgang Schäuble, has said that over time there will be road pricing on all public roads for all vehicles.  
Map of Federal Highways to be subject to heavy vehicle charge

A more controversial development has been the plan to expand charging to include light vehicles (up to 3.5 tonnes).   It was originally to come into force on 1 January 2016, but has been deferred because the European Commission (EC) believes it is illegal and there is some political controversy about it in Germany.  It is unclear when the car vignette (known as PKW-Maut) will be introduced.

German car vignette

The proposal is to introduce a time based charge, known throughout Europe as a vignette which is based on pre-purchasing access to the road network for a set number of days.  As it stands now, the proposal is as follows:

- All German licensed cars will be required to purchase a one-year vignette to use any public roads.  The rate be determined on environmental factors described as "will be calculated based on their engine capacity and environmental performance. For every 100 ccm increment of cylinder capacity up to a defined cap of 130 euros"

- All foreign licensed cars will choose from either a one-year, two-month or ten-day vignette only required to use the motorways.  Depending on the environmental category of the vehicle it ranges from €16 to €30 for a two-month vignette, or €5 to €15 for a ten-day vignette.

The days for a vignette are consecutive.  A one-day trip on the motorways requires a ten-day vignette, and it is valid for ten consecutive days, not ten separate one-day trips on different months.  

Vignettes will be fully electronic, meaning they are enforced by automatic number plate recognition. They will be able to be purchased online, or in registered retail outlets (filling stations).  

Gross annual revenue is estimated at €3.9 billion (in today's values presumably), comprising €3.2 billion from German drivers and €700 million from foreign ones.  Operating costs are estimated at €200 million per annum.  However, the countervailing reduction in the domestic vehicle tax will reduce revenue by over €2 billion per annum.   The estimated first year net revenue is €500 million, but this is expected to increase rapidly 

All revenue raised from the vignette will be hypothecated into the same transport fund as the heavy vehicle LKW Maut goes into, which is unlike existing motoring taxes.    The table below depicts the range of vignette prices. 

Level
Price of annual vignette
Price
10 days
Price
2 months
From
To
1
-
39
€5
€16
2
40
69
€10
€22
3
70
130
€15
€30

EC objections

The EC launched an infringement case against Germany (it said it would launch a similar one on the UK for its HGV Levy, but the Brexit vote has effectively stalled this).  The two reasons it regards Germany as infringing the EU Treaty are:

- German drivers effectively will not pay as they receive a commensurate discount in vehicle tax;
- The vignette prices for short term visitors are seen as being disproportionately high.

The German Government is convinced its proposal is legal and personally I do not agree with the first point.  Vehicle tax is a national matter and it is up to Member States as to the level they set it at.  If they want to shift taxation from owning a vehicle to operating it, then it is up to them.  The mandatory one-year vignette for German vehicles using all roads, may be seen as making the vignette different, but this is discriminatory in favour of foreign motorists.  Foreign motorists don't pay when using roads other than motorways, but Germans do.  It would be much more equitable to apply the vignette for Germans to motorways only, but I suspect this would result in significant traffic diversion.  Otherwise, the vignette for foreigners could be applied to all roads, although the EU may still regard this as "disproportionate".  No Member State applies vignettes to all roads, but that is not in itself a reason why they should not be so applied (particularly as, for light vehicles, the marginal costs of their use of motorways is lower than that for local roads, and negligible in any case).  

In short, as long as the same price applies to foreign as to German vehicles, for the vignette, then what is done with other taxes appears to me to be a national matter.  

On the relative prices,  the issue is more subtle.  A vignette, as a daily charge to use the network, seeks to recover costs that should be something akin to usage.  That doesn't mean that a rate for a year should be 36.5x the price for 10 days (or vice-versa), bearing in mind that a short-term user is likely, on average, use the roads much more in terms of time and distance than a long-term user.  Short term users may transit the entire country, or visit it to many places, long-term users may spend days without using their cars.  

I will just point to this report of which I was one of the authors.  The methodology we used to compare the prices of short and long term vignettes was to establish the average daily price and the ratio in daily price between the shortest and longest period products.  

This extract from the report outlines the findings (for prices in 2011):

EU vignette price ratios between longest and shortest term products
As you can see, at the time Slovenia charged by far the highest price for a short term product compared to a long term one, probably because it knew it could charge high prices for what is a two hour drive between Croatia and Italy or Austria.  Austria, by contrast, had the lowest ratio.  What about Germany?  

Applying the same methodology, to the middle environmental category, the ratio per day is:

€0.15 per day for an annual vignette in the mid-range of "Level 2".
€1 per day for a ten day vignette in Level 2.  So the ratio between the long and short term product is 6.7, putting it much closer to the high charge countries than the lower charge ones.

Bear in mind since that report, following representations from the European Commission, Slovenia has altered its vignette rates by increasing its annual charge, so it now charges:

€0.30 per day for an annual vignette for cars;
€2.14 per day for a one-week vignette for cars, with a ratio now of 7.1

It seems difficult for Germany to justify charging cars over 6x as much for a short term vignette than a long-term vignette, as this presumes the average distance or time spent on the network is 6x greater for a 10-day vignette user than an annual user.   There may be statistics to justify this from the BMVI (Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure), but I have not seen them.  I would suggest the Austrian and Hungarian ratios of 3-4x are more realistic.

Where to from here?

I suspect that whatever the findings of the infringement action against Germany, it will continue with the charge, if only because it is unlikely that any fines will significantly offset the €500 million net revenue it will receive.

However, for Germany the vignette should be an interim measure.  It makes some revenue from foreign cars, which is what it is designed to do, but it isn't much of a reform in terms of changing behaviour or in encouraging the more efficient management of roads.

As it expands the LKW Maut in 2018 to Federal Highways, the case for expanding the scope for all vehicles down to 3.5 tonnes must be high, given that neighbours Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland all have heavy vehicle road user charging systems that apply to such vehicles.

For light vehicles, it could do with observing the pilots underway in Oregon and California, and looking at move from vignettes to distance charging, even if it is as simple as odometer reporting. Furthermore, it should do so not simply to rebalance charges from taxes on owning vehicles (which are regressive) but also from fuel taxes which are inevitably eroding in yield and fairness, due to the appearance of more fuel efficient and electric vehicles.  Such a shift would apply primarily to Germans, but could mean Germany charging much lower fuel prices than its neighbours (down closer to the EU legal minimum fuel tax rate), and for all road use to be charged by distance and vehicle size, emissions rating.   Foreign vehicles could simply be required to have distance charging accounts and have distance measured whilst in Germany (and have it apply to all roads at the same rate, unless users want to pay according to road type - with higher charges for local roads, lower for Federal Highways and the least for motorways).  

Those that do not pay by distance, would not be able to receive fuel tax refunds.

Of course there are a number of complications and issues around doing this, but the platform already exists to do this.  Moving the LKW-Maut down to 3.5 tonne vehicles has to be the first step, but the case for distance charging of cars exists now and Germany would be well placed to look at how it could progress this, to replace the vignette it is about to introduce.


Sunday, 10 July 2016

Auckland road pricing should be full network charging says report

I've written about Auckland plenty of times, not least because I am originally from New Zealand. (NZ)  There have been two major discussions about road pricing in Auckland in the past 12 years, the third has now come from the interim report of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (PDF).

Auckland motorway network
Later I will write a more detailed look at road pricing in Auckland and New Zealand, but for now a quick summary.

Summary

Auckland Council and the NZ Government have been disagreeing about a future transport strategy for the city for the past few years.  It has focused on the priority Auckland Council has given to an underground railway loop through the city's downtown Central Business District (CBD), but has wider implications.  Auckland Council has prioritised significant capital spending in fixed public transport infrastructure, but the NZ Government has been sceptical about the economic efficiency and value for money for such spending.  Auckland Council's primary revenue raising instrument is property rates, and it is political unsustainable to fund the proposed capital works from rates alone (rates already pay for around 60% of the costs of maintaining and upgrading local roads, not motorways and state highways), and pay for around 50% of the costs of subsidising public transport).  The NZ Government fully funds motorways/state highways and pays for 40% of the costs of maintaining and upgrading local roads, and the other 50% of the costs of subsidising public transport, it also owns the railway network and motorways/state highways.  The funds spent on transport by central government are mostly raised from hypothecated motoring taxes on road users, being fuel tax, a weight/distance tax on heavy vehicle and light diesel vehicles, and  registration/licensing fees.

The Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) as the project name suggests, is a joint project between NZ Government and Auckland Council representatives to get alignment between both levels of government on a 30 year strategy for transport in the city.

Talk of road pricing goes back over ten years, with an initial report (Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study) concluding the blatantly obvious, that you can reduce congestion and raise revenue from introducing road pricing.  However, the options considered were limited, in part because the lead consultant and the client decided that only point based charging was proven and feasible (that is charging using DSRC/tag and beacon, or automatic number plate recognition technologies).  The only options modelled at the time were cordon charges, area charges and motorway charges.  The cordon/area charge options had to be large to have any meaningful impact (a downtown cordon would have little impact on traffic and generate limited revenue).  Furthermore, by placing cordons across suburbs, there would be significant impacts on businesses and residences either side of these artificial boundaries, as those just inside would lose value and those just outside would benefit, and congestion impacts would be blunt.  Motorway only charging was ruled out because it would greatly increase congestion on local streets.

Subsequently, Auckland Council has proposed motorway charges, as a way of raising additional revenue to pay for rail projects, but as the motorways are owned by the NZ Government (and Auckland Council has no powers to introduce any form of road pricing on existing roads), it has been a point of difference with the NZ Government.  With that issue, and a broader concern about the need for a coherent strategy for Auckland transport, to address congestion and accommodate a growing population, ATAP was set up.

The first report of ATAP (Foundation Report-PDF) was published in February 2016, outlining the key strategic issues, which are:
- ensuring access of residents to employment and employers to labour;
- reducing congestion;
- increasing the mode share for public transport, to help reduce congestion (and to ensure adequate utilisation of considerable capital spending on public transport infrastructure).

The interim report which has just been released came to the conclusion that changing the scope and type of capital investment in the next 30 years will not make a substantial difference in transport outcomes.  Much heavier spending on public transport instead of roads or targeted investment on specific high value road and public transport projects will have localised impacts, but will not adequately address the key challenges.  It also concluded that shared mobility options and connected vehicle technologies (and greater automation) could contribute towards improving "network performance".  However, it also came to the conclusion that variable network pricing by time of day and location, could significantly relieve congestion.

Urban network pricing or beyond?

There is no specific proposal on pricing, but two suggestions made in the report indicate a direction that hasn't been picked up by the NZ media.  One suggestion was that heavy vehicles be the first to move towards such pricing and the other was that fuel tax could be replaced with such pricing.

NZ has long had a weight/distance road user charge (RUC) applied to all heavy vehicles and all diesel vehicles (including cars and light commercial vehicles) on all public roads (fuel tax is only applied to petrol, LPG and CNG, not diesel).  A prepaid distance permit is bought by road users, by reference to the vehicle's hubodometer reading for heavy vehicles and odometer reading for light vehicles.  In the past six years the option of having a GPS based on board unit and paying a certified service provider has been available, although it is still to pay for prepaid electronic permits.

Where to go from here?

Rather than have an Auckland specific variation on this, a logical policy path would be to evolve the existing road user charge, because the only way that variable network charging is going to work effectively will be if all vehicles are on it.  To do that would mean:

- Providing a post-payment option for RUC (even with a prepaid account) so that road users can more closely relate usage to what is paid, linked to electronic measurement of distance.  This would best be provided by private account managers;
- Transition away from hubodometers and paper RUC licences to all heavy vehicles being on electronic systems that are capable of charging by time of day and location.  One way to do this would be to make electronic systems mandatory for all newly registered heavy vehicles or to have a transition period of say five years;
- Introduce some location based charging to heavy RUC, based on infrastructure costs (e.g. cheaper on motorways than local roads) and even time of day incentives for off peak driving in urban areas;

That alone would enable heavy vehicles to be charged with more disaggregation, but the much bigger step will be for light vehicles.

- There are options now for electronic measurement of distance for light vehicles paying RUC, but this should be encouraged further.  A transition towards universal electronic light RUC could be achieved by making it compulsory for newly registered diesel vehicles.  Lessons should be learned from the Oregon and California pilots on how this may best be achieved;
- Transition dual-fuel vehicles towards light RUC by piloting a mechanism to deliver fuel tax refunds for such vehicles, and removing fuel tax on LPG and CNG (which will also remove a costly compliance burden on many users of those fuels who are not using it on road and claim fuel tax refunds as a result). This should also be a time to remove the exemption on RUC for electric vehicles;
- Introduce RUC as an option for petrol powered vehicles instead of paying fuel tax;
- Develop a process to transition petrol powered vehicles to RUC.

Of course all of this raises big questions.  One is privacy, another is what sort of organisation should be responsible for price setting of disaggregated variable road charges.  I doubt it should be any that exist now, and there is a strong case for transitioning road management towards more commercial entities with the power to set such prices and vary them based on demand conditions.  That means taking the power to set RUC away from central government politicians and moving the management of roads from central and local government entities to independent companies.  I doubt ATAP will go quite that far, but the greatest benefits from dynamic variable road pricing will come when roads can be priced according to changes in demand, supply and infrastructure costs.

ATAP is about a thirty year time horizon for transforming Auckland.  To implement the sort of road pricing that will deliver the greatest benefits for Auckland will need around half that time, but it will be for all of New Zealand, and will also challenge both road and public transport capital spending ambitions.  Most of all, it will change the relationship between road users and road providers, and also provide a major challenge to assumptions around all transport modes.  After all, once roads are priced relatively efficiently, so congestion is significantly reduced, what remains the case for subsidising peak provision of public transport, when road users are paying fully for the costs of their road use (and incentivising the use of other modes)?



Monday, 4 July 2016

California launches Road Charge pilot

On the 1st of July the most populous and richest state in the US launched its pilot programme to trial road user charging, for both light and heavy vehicles, called the California Road Charge Pilot Program.  
California Road Charge pilot logo

For the next nine months, participants will simulate paying for road use by distance or time, after which Caltrans will assess the performance and public reaction to the various charging options.   Undoubtedly this is the highest profile live pilot of road user charging for cars anywhere in the world, and so not only is it being watched in the US, but around the world.

 Over 7,500 individuals had expressed interest in participating in the pilot with 5,000 having been chosen to participate.   Selection of participants has been partially focused on achieving a demographic spread based on income and location as seen below:

Target Demographic of California Road Charge participation

Charging options

Participants have five different options to choose:

1. A prepaid time permit which allows unlimited use of the roads over a fixed period of time, in 10 day, 30 day and 90 day increments (akin to vignette systems seen in Europe);

2. A prepaid distance permit, prepaying mileage in advance in 1000, 5000 or 10000 mile increments (similar to New Zealand's traditional Road User Charge system for light diesel and heavy vehicles);

3. A postpaid odometer reading distance charge, with the motorists reporting mileage through odometer readings;

4. Postpaid automated distance reporting using on-board vehicle technology without location; 

5. Postpaid automated distance reporting using on-board vehicle technology with location (to distinguish off-road and out of state driving).

The process for participation is outlined below.

California Road Charge pilot volunteer process

Privacy matters

I'm more interested in the three latter options, partly because I doubt that a time permit can co-exist with a distance based permit without road users gaming the options to their advantage.  There are advantages and disadvantages of all, and the key reason why there are multiple options is privacy.  In the US, there is considerable concern that any distance based charging system involving GPS will become a mass surveillance system.  This is being addressed in two ways.  Firstly, by offering options that do not involve location data being collected.  Secondly, by having private companies offer the service and collect the charge.  This separates the state government from the collection of data.

Competition

The pilot is not being operated by a one-size-fits-all single operator, but rather choice is the keyword, with competitive delivery of account service delivery.   This competitive dynamic should help to ensure the performance of all participating companies is enhanced, and may offer a taster of how deployment of this sort of system may progress in the future.

Azuga and Intelligent Mechatronic Systems (IMS - branded as Drivesync) are offering multiple mileage based accounts for participants (covering options 4 and 5).   Azuga offers options including a plug in device for the vehicle, a car's built in telematics (if compatible) and a smartphone app.  Drivesynch offers a plug in device or a car's telematics.   

Arvato Bertelsmann is operating the California State Account Manager, which is supplying options 1 to 3.  EROAD is offering solutions for heavy vehicle participants (options 4 and 5). 

Purpose

The reason for the pilot is simply revenue. The chart below is the California Air Resources Board forecast of future traffic demand and fuel consumption in the state.  This pilot is intended to develop a medium to long term solution to this problem which cannot be resolved by simply increasing fuel tax.


The basis for the pilot is Senate Bill 1077 which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law on 29 September 2014, which requires the state of California to design and implement a statewide pilot program to study the implications of a road charge model no later than January 1, 2017.

The Bill states as follows:

(a) An efficient transportation system is critical for California’s economy and quality of life.
(b) The revenues currently available for highways and local roads are inadequate to preserve and maintain existing infrastructure and to provide funds for improvements that would reduce congestion and improve service.
(c) The gas tax is an ineffective mechanism for meeting California’s long-term revenue needs because it will steadily generate less revenue as cars become more fuel efficient and alternative sources of fuel are identified. By 2030, as much as half of the revenue that could have been collected will be lost to fuel efficiency. Additionally, bundling fees for roads and highways into the gas tax makes it difficult for users to understand the amount they are paying for roads and highways.
(d) Other states have begun to explore the potential for a road usage charge to replace traditional gas taxes, including the State of Oregon, which established the first permanent road user charge program in the nation.
(e) Road usage charging is a policy whereby motorists pay for the use of the roadway network based on the distance they travel. Drivers pay the same rate per mile driven, regardless of what part of the roadway network they use.
(f) A road usage charge program has the potential to distribute the gas tax burden across all vehicles regardless of fuel source and to minimize the impact of the current regressive gas tax structure.
(g) Experience to date in other states across the nation demonstrates that mileage-based charges can be implemented in a way that ensures data security and maximum privacy protection for drivers.
(h) It is therefore important that the state begin to explore alternative revenue sources that may be implemented in lieu of the antiquated gas tax structure now in place.
(i) Any exploration of alternative revenue sources shall take privacy implications into account, especially with regard to location data. Travel locations or patterns shall not be reported, and legal and technical safeguards shall protect personal information.
The Bill establishes already that charges that vary by location are not being considered.  California's Road Charge is not a trojan horse for any form of congestion pricing.  It is seen as a pure revenue replacement exercise.

Of course California is at the forefront of plug-in electric vehicle takeup in the US as seen by this image from the US Department of Energy in 2015:

Electric vehicles in the US by state

California is clearly the highest, with Hawaii second (and also investigating running a pilot) with Washington, Georgia, Oregon and Vermont the remaining states with more than 1 per 1000 people.  Of course Washington and Oregon are developing or running pilots already.   Yet road user charging isn't primarily about electric vehicles, but about fuel efficiency.   Road Charge would replace California's gas tax if it were implemented.

Fuel tax isn't a good way of charging for road use

Fuel tax is a very poor way to charge for road use.  It is only a very rough proxy for road use and about the only thing it is useful reflecting is CO2 emissions.  It is not even good at reflecting noxious emissions, as highly fuel efficient diesel vehicles may emit many more toxins than less efficient petrol vehicles.

Fuel tax cannot reflect variations in infrastructure costs or demand/supply.  Neither can it adequately reflect the increased costs of wear and tear imposed on roads by heavier vehicles, as fuel consumption does not rise at the same rate as wear and tear which increases exponentially along with weight per axle.   Likewise, fuel taxx charges light vehicles differentially for infrastructure costs even though the marginal costs imposed by all of them are identical.  Those with smaller, newer vehicles pay less than those with larger, older ones.  

I hope that the California Road Charge Pilot gets a good response from participants and lots of useful information to inform the assessment of the options.  Getting the public involved is important.  I wish all participants the very best.  California, the USA and the world are watching.

More details at the pilot project website.

California Road Charge brochure download here
California Road Charge Pilot Technical Advisory Committee meeting details here 

Disclaimer: D'Artagnan Consulting is supporting Caltrans in managing the California Road Charge and I am working on the California Road Charge Pilot Program.

Thursday, 12 May 2016

Committee for Sydney says road pricing is the only way to address congestion

The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the Committee for Sydney's new report called A Fork in the Road (PDF), which advocates road pricing to address the city's traffic congestion problems.  The Committee for Sydney claims it is an independent think-tank that aims to champion the city.  Its executive board includes bank, law firm, consultancy and infrastructure representatives.  Although I broadly agree with the findings of the report, it isn't exactly new or ground breaking, some of the terminology used is odd (it talks about vehicle miles traveled charges charging for kilometres) and it fails to consider the wider strategic context of highway charging, funding and management.   It's a useful contribution to the debate about transport in Sydney, and its conclusions are largely sound, with its call for an inquiry into road pricing being welcome.  However, I think it could have gone much further and thought more strategically about how roads are managed, charged and funded.  It's lacking some context, which to me is the Infrastructure Australia, Australian Infrastructure Plan which called for road pricing on all roads for all vehicles within 10 years. Surely that should be relevant?

It repeats conclusions that are far from new or ground-breaking, such as how simply providing new capacity is insufficient, although it does seem to exaggerate the over generalised assertion of induced demand.   Induced demand is a valid assertion in conditions of continued growth, but is not applicable to all (or indeed much) new capacity in other situations and most importantly, when capacity is priced efficiently.  Almost all cases cited of induced demand involve the almost cost-free provision of new infrastructure.  It is also never claimed of public transport, although that do has an induced demand effect (and it too is rarely priced efficiently at peak times).  

The fundamental problem of ALL major cities is that peak travel demand is underpriced on all motorised modes.  This means that supply cannot efficiently match demand (as unless it is priced to pay for the peak supply cost, it has to be subsidised by non-users).  The answer is for peak demand to spread by time of day, route and location, and that means road and public transport use.  However, if all road users and public transport users faced those costs tomorrow, it would mean a significant economic dislocation, so transition needs to be gradual.

The report does note that simply increasing public transport supply (at someone else's cost, because urban public transport is typically not fully or even predominantly paid for by the users) is insufficient (and indeed nowhere has traffic congestion been addressed by this alone).   On page 9 it notes that TDP (Time, Distance, Place) based road pricing is the answer, curiously using a term I've only ever seen in the UK. 

It is critical of tolling in Sydney claiming such projects are promoted because they are fundable, rather than necessary or the "best way" of meeting an access need (although I'm wary of groups that claim they are best placed to know what projects are "necessary" if users are willing to pay for them).

It cites dated data about the London congestion charge (traffic congestion is now at levels before the charge was introduced), although the Stockholm, Milan and Singapore case studies are more robust (although I'm surprised there is no mention of Singapore's transition towards GNSS based charging that enables "TDP" charging).  

The big surprise to me is that not a word is uttered about the examples of distance charging extant already in Europe, the US and New Zealand, including the pilots underway in Oregon and soon California.  Nothing is said about the clear distortions and inefficiencies of vehicle registration fees and fuel taxes, and the longer term revenue and equity sustainability issues around those.   Furthermore, a shift towards road pricing raises the question as to what sort of entity should manage roads and set prices.  It is unlikely to be optimal to have an entity that requires legislative changes to alter prices and has a high degree of political direction.

It is likely that New South Wales will move in the next decade to having distance, weight and maybe even location and time of day charging for all heavy vehicles, which provides a platform that could also be used for light vehicles.    This may offer one path ahead, but meanwhile the conclusion of the report that there ought to be a public inquiry into road pricing in New South Wales is welcome.   The Committee for Sydney should be applauded for wading into an issue that could easily be unpopular and create a backlash among many, the key will be ensuring that public acceptability and perceptions of fairness are addressed.   

Wednesday, 11 May 2016

Free flow Dartford Crossing tolls still causing angst

The Observer reports numerous stories of vehicle keepers charged for use of the Dartford Crossing (Kent, UK) without actually using it because the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system for identifying vehicles is generating errors in number plate recognition. Stories include cases of change of ownership that get ignored, and also an account that had automatic top up but had the top up declined, without the motorist being aware of it. 

Failures in ANPR reading will, of course, happen. Classic errors include getting 0 and O mixed up along with 1 and 7, but some of the errors in enforcement appear to be strange. Any lookup of a number plate with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) should identify the vehicle make, model and colour which ought to rule out most errors of identification.  

Highways England interestingly reports 93% compliance with the toll, which is not bad, but clearly not at an optimal level (I would have thought over 95% would be the target). However, the article outlines a number of theories as to the compliance issues. One being the alleged lack of signage about the toll, including the use of the “C” congestion charge sign used there (seen below).  Dartford Crossing is, legally, a congestion charge, because the capital costs of all three stages have been recovered, so it remains as a traffic management measure (although the cost of maintaining and operating the two tunnels and bridge is around half the net revenues from the toll). Yet many people consider the “C” sign to refer to the London Congestion Charge. To almost anyone, Dartford Crossing is a toll, as it applies to a single route, it replaced a toll and there is little sign that the charge reflects demand by time of day (except that it does not apply overnight).

All of this ought to be teething problems, and it appears that some effort is being made at “soft” enforcement with initial penalties being waived within two weeks for motorists who may well have not known of the need to pay. For me, I think this demonstrates the importance of people in the toll and highway management industry thinking of road users as customers, rather than people who ought to simply do what they are told.

The Dartford Crossing is a service that is charged for, and what is needed is for those who encounter it for the first time to understand that they need to pay and to have options to pay that are easy. Imagine a motorist driving alone for the first time over the crossing, with obviously no chance to write down a phone number or website address to pay. Yet options ought to clearly exist for the few motorists without web based payment access to go to a service station or a kiosk to pay by cash or card.

Tuesday, 10 May 2016

Vehicle miles travelled grow in the US, but not fuel consumption

Arthur Berman on the site oilprice.com reports on an interesting statistic indicating two key trends that should be of interest to transport policy makers in the US.

This figure indicates that vehicle miles travelled are at a record high.  For some time, green transport advocates have claimed that what they called "peak car" had been reached, implying that there had been a generational switch away from growing car trips and mileage:

Gasoline sales and Vehicle miles travelled

The claim was generally an assertion, whereby it was thought that younger generations preferred to use public transport, were more environmentally conscious and so the age of the private car was starting to wane.  This appeared to be an overly simplistic interpretation of data which seemed to reflect that with the economic slowdown associated with the so-called "Global Financial Crisis" (GFC) and high oil prices, that this reflected a cultural trend (one which may seem apparent in some relatively affluent urbanised centres like Berkeley, but which was much more questionable outside the geographic and cultural locations of those who made the claim).   That doesn't appear to hold true.

It would be simplistic to say that the drop in oil prices has helped promote demand, but Berman says that the relationship doesn't appear to be that direct, although it undoubtedly helped.

US gasoline sales related to prices
This graph indicates that as prices declined, demand did not respond immediately, no doubt because for many the cut in that price was a saving that could be used for other expenditure, not necessarily more transport.    Further analysis in the report indicates a lack of price sensitivity around demand for gasoline, but this appears to be a bigger issue when it looks like gasoline is increasingly a less important element in road transport costs.

For those of us in the world of funding and charging roads, the most interesting statistic is how the rise in vehicle miles travelled is not matched by fuel consumption.  There was a 3% increase in total vehicle mileage over a year in 2015, but a 2% increase in gasoline sales.  Does that mean that increased VMT are resulting in only a 50% increase in fuel consumption?  It may be too soon to conclude quite that, but there is definitely a declining correlation between fuel consumption and distance travelled.

Inflation adjusting fuel tax wont be enough

What this means is clear.  Even inflation adjustment of fuel tax wont be enough to offset ever declining yields.   Higher traffic levels don't necessarily mean proportionate increases in road maintenance costs, unless the increase is from heavy vehicles.  Around 40-60% of road maintenance costs may be fixed, and unrelated to traffic volumes, but increases in traffic do tend to mean increased capital spending on improving capacity at bottlenecks.   So continuing to use fuel taxes to recover road capital and maintenance costs is not going to be sustainable (and inflation adjustment is likely to only to delay the inevitable by a few years).

Alternatives will have to be found, unless it is deemed politically and economically desirable to simply keep increasing fuel tax, with the costs of road infrastructure falling on a reducing proportion of road users.  Taxation of vehicle ownership has its own limitations, as it imposes deadweight economic costs that distort wider economic activities.   The most economically advantageous approach would be to move towards charging for road use.

Some jurisdictions are using tolls as a way of achieving this, although tolls may be viable for major highways and crossings, they will not enable efficient charging of all roads.  Only charges based on distance or time will do this.

So it will be the likes of Oregon and California, pioneering such options in the US, that will be ahead of this. Charging by distance or time (and by time I mean actual time on the network, not so much prepaying like a vignette in Europe), with factors for vehicle size and weight, will far more accurately charge for road infrastructure costs than a proxy such as fuel consumption.  There is also more potential to charge varying by location, to reflect infrastructure costs and time to reflect congestion factors, but these are neither necessary, nor always desirable.

The issue of fuel use vs. road use is one of sustainable revenues at the moment, it is increasingly going to be an issue of equity, for it is difficult to see why the motorist who buys a Tesla and pays nothing to use the roads, should be subsidised by the low income motorist with a twenty year old 6-cylinder car.

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Jakarta abandons 3-in-1, moving to 4-in-1 as congestion charging is delayed again

You may wonder what is going on in Jakarta as it seems on the cusp of introducing a Singapore style  ERP (Electronic Road Pricing) system, but as I wrote on 5 April, it has temporarily suspended its existing high-occupancy vehicle rule (known as 3-in-1, which is self explanatory) until May 14 because of concerns of child exploitation.

Now a website called Coconuts Jakarta (a new online news website chain that started in Bangkok) has suggested that 3-in-1 may be replaced by 4-in-1 in part because of the time that would be taken to implement congestion pricing in the city (the website suggests 1.5 years, which is a reasonably minimum in my view).   The Deputy Head of the Jakarta Transportation Agency,  Sunardi Sinaga, is quoted as saying it is one option once the 3-in-1 suspension is over, but 4-in-1 would only apply in the afternoon peak (presumably because the congestion is more severe during that time).  

As the report points out, unless the Police enforce laws against people paying others to sit in their vehicles (known as jokis - (jockeys)), which was a source of concern in the first place (as it is some of Jakarta's poorest seeking to make money from this, and some either rent their children out for this role or abandon them unaccompanied whilst they "jockey"), it wont make much difference.

Meanwhile, according to the Jakarta Post, the city has banned motorcycles on one area (Hotel Indonesia Traffic Circle from Jl. MH Thamrin to Jl. Merdeka Barat), which is surprising, as they are not the least efficient vehicles from road space terms, but has refuted rumours it may expand this ban further.  The report said the tender for ERP will be released later this year for implementation next year (which still seems ambitious to me).

It is not yet clear whether reliability of number plate recognition and accuracy of vehicle registration database details for enforcement have been addressed yet.

Friday, 22 April 2016

California's Road Charge Pilot Program progressing

The most exciting trial of road charging in the world today is the one that is about to start in California.  California is going to pilot 5000 volunteers, a mix of private and commercial vehicles, for five options that it seeks to appraise.  The policy intention is clear.  The intention is to replace the fuel tax with a new way of charging for road use.  Why? Because the significant growth of electric, hybrid and ultra-fuel efficient vehicles is eroding gas tax revenue, and even the existing proposal to increase the gas tax for the first time (and remove the current fuel tax swap) will not provide a sustainable solution to California's highway funding dilemma.

It is no exaggeration to say that the rest of the US is watching California.  If the California Road Charge Pilot is a success and there is broad agreement to implement it, then it is likely other states may follow.  Yes, Oregon was first, but California has the largest GDP of any state in the USA (indeed its economy is larger than Brazil, Italy, India or Russia).  

As California prepares for the launch of its road charge pilot program on 1 July, Caltrans has  announced the companies that will be managing the accounts for the 5000 volunteers during the pilot:

- Azuga (Azuga is already an account manager for the OReGO pilot in Oregon);

- Intelligent Mechatronic Systems (a Canadian company that supplies telematics and connected car technology);

- Arvato Mobility Solutions (a German company that provides outsourcing solutions for mobility); and 

- EROAD (a New Zealand company that is an account manager for the NZ and Oregon weight-distance road charging systems).

Azuga and Intelligent Mechatronic Systems (IMS) will offer mileage based accounts and Arvato will offer a state-run account management service.  EROAD will manage all heavy vehicle accounts for the pilot.

The pilot has an excellent website here which has useful information.  There are links to other information including this fact sheet (PDF).  Details on decisions on how the pilot will be implemented are here (PDF).

The following five charging options are to be piloted:

- Time permit: Purchase of unlimited use of the roads for a set period of time (similar to "vignette" systems in various European countries);
- Mileage permit:  Purchase of a set number of miles to use the roads, in advance.  Once the permit is exhausted, an additional permit would be required  (similar to New Zealand's manual Road User Charge system);
- Odometer charge: Pay for miles used based on periodic odometer readings, after they have been driven.  This is similar to manual weight/distance taxes in a few US states.
- Automatic mileage reporting including general location: Pay based on in-vehicle technology measuring distance travelled.  A third party service provider would receive this information and bill the account holder.  Location information would only be used to avoid charging out of state and off-road miles.
- Automatic mileage reporting without general location: Similar to the above example, but no geographic data is supplied.

All but the first option involve distance charging, but all but the last distance charging option would raise the issue of crediting for out of state or off-road miles.

Volunteers will not actually pay any charge, but will choose options of simulated charges to test the technology and participant responses to the various road charge options. Azuga, IMS and EROAD may provide value added services at no cost to volunteers as part of the pilot. Volunteers will choose an account manager in June.  The graphic below outlines what volunteers need to do to participate.

California road charge volunteer process


NOTE:  This is the 500th post of this blog.  I hope you enjoy reading the posts and find them interesting and informative.  I know I have covered some matters in past years that I have not covered more recently.  Rest assured I have more time to dedicate to blog articles, so there will be consistently fresh content every week.  Best regards, Scott

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

New York toll reform plan goes to State Assembly

Some years ago there was hope that New York would join London, Stockholm and Singapore in implementing some form of congestion pricing.  Mayor Bloomberg had a plan for a lower Manhattan congestion charge cordon, but it failed to get support.  However, since then a much more nuanced and cleverer plan has emerged.

It's been a while since I've written about the Move NYC Fair plan, not least because a lot was going on behind the scenes to tweak it and get a coalition of support behind it.  I endorsed it two years ago, and believe that again - although it is not perfect - it is a great leap forward for New York City.

The plan introduces tolls on untolled crossings of the East River, but cuts tolls on seven other crossings by up to 48%, essentially changing the philosophy of the tolls from one of local cost recovery and revenue maximisation to one that reflects demand and congestion.  Given the chronic state of congestion in New York, this makes a lot of sense.  It would have peak time charges, have a cap on charges (which in the medium term might need to be revised compared to raising toll prices). 

The New York Times and New York Daily News both appear to endorse the plan.

An illustration of the plan is here:

Move NY Fair Plan to reform tolls

The net revenues are forecast to be $1.35 billion of which just under $1 billion would support public transit improvements, the rest would be to adequately maintain the bridges and address the significant maintenance deficit on New York's roads (I did say two years ago that those who pay will need to see some benefit from doing so).

The news now is that the proposal has finally reached the State Legislature as Assemblyman Robert Rodriguez (D - Manhattan) has introduced a Bill to implement it according to Crains New York.  The Bill has 14 co-sponsors, but may face problems in the Senate which is Republican controlled, and so needs a Republican sponsor to get it introduced there. 

Disappointingly, neither Governor Andrew Cuomo, nor Mayor Bill de Blasio has shown any enthusiasm for the plan, demonstrating that neither are interested in pushing something they think it politically controversial - notwithstanding that it ought to fit right into agendas both share on improving public transit, reducing pollution, reducing contributions to climate change and improving economic activity.   It ought to be a "no-brainer" in principle, even if some of the details should be ironed out (e.g.  although helpful in selling the concept, what the net revenues are spent on should be subject to independent appraisal of the net benefits of each project).

What about the FAST Act?

The FAST Act provides 50% Federal Funding for states interested in progressing various forms of road charging.  This proposal would appear to be able to be supported by that, although I have a better idea that is much wider than that.  The deadline for funding applications this year is May 20th, so it is getting almost too late for New York to make an application for funds.  Yet this would look like a project that could do with funds to consider the implementation issues for a more integrated and fully electronic free flow tolling system, including questions around enforcement.

What about heavy vehicles?

New York has a Highway Use Tax applied to heavy vehicles  that resembles the weight/distance taxes seen in Oregon, New Zealand and Europe.  Yes, it is not widely known. However, it uses manual technology, is cumbersome to collect and imposing considerable compliance costs on those that pay it.  

New York ought to consider funding a pilot that trials GPS and other technologies to update that tax and to link this towards it being used to automatically collect tolls on crossings in the state.  It could investigate how charging in New York could evolve in coming years, not only to accommodate reform of tolls around NYC, but also to better charge trucks for road us and provide an alternative to state gas taxes.  Such a pilot could be sold to the trucking industry as a way of reducing its costs, ensuring they do not pay for out-of-state miles and that they could get refunds in gas tax in exchange for a reform in distance based charge rates.

Yes, again it may be too late for New York to apply for the first tranch of funds to do this, but Oregon has shown success in a low cost transition towards electronic technology for its weight-mile tax.  It would be good for the economy and for sustainable revenues for New York to pilot reform of its Highway Use Tax.