Danish Productivity Commission promotes road pricing, but politicians reject it

Denmark is getting to be a little more like the Netherlands when it comes to road pricing.  The issue is regularly on the agenda, and swings from being promoted to being rejected on a regular basis.

Since I started this blog, there was debate about congestion charging for Copenhagen in 2011, with the new government at the time supporting such a charge (with debate focused on a cordon charge for the city).

However, in 2012 government had gone cold on the idea, because only one of the parties in the ruling coalition (the Socialist People's Party) supported it, with the Social Democrats far less keen.   The debate having moved on from being opposition to congestion pricing, to opposition to the proposed cordon type implementation of it.  There was also less support because the expected net revenues couldn't fund expectations of radically lower public transport fares.

Meanwhile, Denmark's focus on road pricing moved over to charging heavy goods vehicles by distance. This had also been supported by the new government in 2011 and was looking to charge all trucks 12 tonnes and above to use all main roads.  The driver being to increase revenues and reduce the environmental impact of trucks, but it was also to replace Denmark's participation in the multi-country time based charge called the "Eurovignette".

Yet April last year I reported on how the lorry road pricing programme had also been shelved. The reason being that expected costs were going to be too high relative to revenues.

So now with the Copenhagen Post reporting that Denmark should have some form of road pricing, I am sceptical that anything will come of it in the short term.

The report focuses on charging for congestion, suggesting something different to what was envisaged for the Copenhagen congestion charge or the lorry road pricing scheme.  

The report stated that the Commission proposed: "charging drivers 2.5 kroner (about US$0.46) for every kilometre they drive in the city centre during rush hour in exchange for reducing or abolishing other car levies"

In other words, instead of it being an additional tax, it would be a more efficient way of charging for road use, compared to the punitive taxes imposed on owning and buying cars in Denmark.  

Irish Transport Minister rejects more road pricing, but Ireland can do better

In an unsurprising announcement, the Irish Times reports that Minister for Transport Leo Varadka has "ruled out" new tolls or congestion charging during the term of the current government.

The point appeared to be that public transport wasn't good enough to allow for the imposition of additional charges on motorists, so on the face of it, it looks like a rejection of any congestion charge for Dublin (which is the only sort of scheme that the comments would seem to be directed towards).

The report quoted him saying:

"We need major improvements for public transport before we bring in any new taxes on motorists. Places like London, Oslo and Singapore have congestion charges but they put in place top class public transport first. That is the right way to do it in my view but the current state of the public finances means we have limited resources to invest in public transport".

It is curious that several other dimensions to pricing don't appear to have been entertained at all.  

One being to replace some existing motoring taxes with some form of road pricing, as I advocated in a presentation to the ITS European conference in Dublin last year.

The obvious example would be to replace the high tax on ownership of heavy vehicles with a distance/weight based charge for using all untolled roads in Ireland.  This could evolve into a system whereby motorists choose to pay by distance for using their cars, with a significant discount on fuel taxation and ownership taxes.

Ireland, being a relatively self contained country (its border with northern Ireland creates some issues, but also some opportunities) can evolve towards a more efficient way of charging for its roads, and take the success of individual toll roads and use it towards a road pricing system that isn't about paying more, but about recovering the same revenue more efficiently and fairly.

Yet why should this be done in Ireland?

News briefs - Australia, China, USA (California, Texas, Washington)

Australia - CEO of South Australian borough calls for congestion pricing

Unley is one of the boroughs of Adelaide and according to the Herald Sun, the Unley Council  Chief Executive, Peter Tsokas has proposed to the South Australian State Government, that congestion charging be introduced to raise revenue for public transport.  He specifically called for charges on some roads at peak times to manage congestion.  The reaction has been negative from the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia, although not completely dismissive:

Automotive policy manager Mark Borlace said congestion charges were more suitable in heavily gridlocked traffic zones.  He said the priorities for Adelaide should be improving traffic flow on the city rim, upgrading the north-south transit corridor and improving public transport connections. "When you know that people have ways of going around the congested areas where you don't want cars, then you can have those kind of behavioural things (such as congestion charging)," 

A South Australian state government spokewoman said the government was opposed to tolls and congestion charging.  It's notable that all of the comments under the article were anti congestion charging, except for one that advocated tolling for a new road as long as the toll paid for the road and ended after the debts for constructing the road were paid.

Of course, any debate about congestion charging in Adelaide ought also to include whether it would be an option to replace some existing taxes.

China - Future for congestion charging

Charles Komanoff writes in Streetsblog about his view on where congestion pricing might head in China.   He notes rightly that air pollution is as much an issue as congestion, but revenue generation is not important.

However, the key problems China faces in implementation are around the vested interests and potential losers from any sort of implementation. China needs a comprehensive strategic approach to how road vehicles are taxed and charged, which simply doesn't exists at present.  A key part of this is having the legal framework to enforce any fines or violation notices in a country where traffic safety violation enforcement is haphazard at best.

China has a long way to go, and it could do worse than encourage Hong Kong to implement one of the options extensively studied well over a decade ago, and to encourage at least one mainland city to introduce a cordon charge.

California - Orange County rejects tolling new lanes on I-405

Further to the post I wrote in December on this,  Orange County voted to add an additional lane to the I-405, but rejecting tolling according to the LA Times. It appears that there was little argument made about making highway expansion more sustainable and efficient, but rather that because improvements are partly funded out of a sales tax (don't ask, it's a weird socialist concept that some in the US adopt of dedicated taxes on retail activity to pay for roads).  Voice of OC describes the rather shallow debate.  Whereas NBC reports that the new lanes will cost around US$700 million, which of course will come predominantly not from those using them or directly benefiting from them.  

Texas - HOT lane fines unenforceable

Associated Press, carried by The Trucker, reports that  Houston Metro has no means to legally force non-compliant motorists to pay fines.  Apparently US$740,000 in fines have been issued, but although violators are notified three times of the fines and asked to pay, there is no legal means to enforce it.

This is absolutely laughable as a public policy failure.  Questions ought to be asked.  Who approved for such lanes to be introduced without a legal means to enforce violations?  Was it an oversight by policy makers, or did politicians ignore warnings and decide to press on regardless?  Is this a case of a system being introduced designed by engineers, without advice from lawyers or policy consultants?

Given this is now news, I wouldn't be surprised if, within a few months, the lanes prove to be an abject failure when it becomes well known that the fines are simply requests to pay with no means to do anything about it.

Enforcement is a core component of any electronic free flow tolling system, and needs to include the legal means to treat non-payment of tolls, and fines, as debts that can be recovered like any others.  At the very least, it seems absurd that such fines can't be treated as a penalty for trespass - for unauthorised usage of HOT lanes might be seen as such, if the law would properly define it.

Meanwhile, a report from local TV station KFox14 in El Paso notes that the new toll lanes on the Border Highway are not physically separated from the untolled lanes, but separated by double white lines.  This raises concerns that some road users will weave to avoid detection in the lanes and weave back across the lines, but the answer to this is to enforce the existing prohibition on crossing double white lines on the road. Enforcement of that law is expected to effectively enforce the separate toll lanes.   Hopefully, this should work if done resolutely and sufficiently.

USA - Trucking lobby sceptical about distance based taxation

I read with some amusement an article in The Trucker.Com commenting about Oregon's plans to introduce a vehicle mileage tax.  The key points being:

The American Trucknig Association being concerned about "collection costs, privacy and information security issues, significant potential for evasion and various very difficult institutional issues, including the potential for a lack of interstate interoperability".  Given almost all of these issues are resolvable, I think there may be a bigger concern that the charges set will inevitably mean the heaviest trucks travelling the longest distances will pay more.  The problem is that there is little evidence in the US as to whether there is an appropriate recovery of infrastructure costs now.

What is needed is not resistance, but a reasoned economic debate about the true infrastructure costs of highways and how to efficiently allocate those costs among types of vehicles.  Sadly in the US there is precious little decent analysis about this, and insufficient political will to let charges for road use be based on objective values.  

Washington - State discusses options for future revenues

The Kent Reporter notes that the Washington State Transportation Commission is completing an evaluation of the business case for ways to replace the gas tax with a road usage charge system.

It is intended to report in January 2014 about options to move forward with charging vehicles according to how much they use the roads, rather than fuel, with this work being informed substantially by the trials underway in Oregon.  The findings of work done so far can be found in this presentation, which outlines the key issues very well.  According to this paper, the final report will be issued on 11 January.

Houston prefers HOVs to toll payers

Impact News reports on how Houston Metro (Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County) is raising toll rates on several HOT lanes to reduce peak congestion on the lanes, but paradoxically also increasing the hours during which HOVs can use the lanes.

Typically HOT lanes have evolved in the US as HOV lanes were often undertutilised, and transport authorities wished to get better use by charging other motorists to use the valuable capacity.  Houston has taken quite a different approach, because it appears that its HOV capacity is not  underutilised at peak times.   

As such, its HOT lanes are HOV only at the peak, the economic assumption being that high-occupancy vehicles are a more valuable use of the road space than anyone willing to pay a toll. 

So in response to growing peak congestion, it is increasing the period of exclusive HOV usage and increasing tolls at the either side of that period.

Now the policy position at Houston is that the lanes exist for HOVs first and foremost, which is all very well, except that it isn’t sustainable.  Ultimately, if demand continues to grow to use these lanes, like others, then they will be congested, and either more capacity will be needed, or the lanes will have to be priced – for all users.

I’ve never been convinced that HOV lanes are a good response to the demand/capacity problem of highways, if only because they are predicated on vehicles with multiple occupants having a higher value of time than those with one and on incentivising more efficient use of road space, by making car-sharing more attractive.  However, one survey from the State of Washington indicates that by far the most prevalent car sharing is that of household members, indicating that in many cases use of such lanes is fortuitous rather than planned.   A California PATH Research Report undertaken by the University of California, Berkeley,  indicated that HOV lane systems don’t actually add capacity compared to conventional lanes claiming that “A system with one HOV lane and three general purpose lanes carries the same number of persons per hour as a system with four general purpose lanes”.   That may counter-intuitive, but it reflects actual behaviour rather than the wishful thinking of some policy makers.  

Surely a better approach would be to charge all users. The price per user would be spread across multiple individuals for HOVs, which would give a more equitable indication of the value of the scarce resource (road space) for those using it.  It would also provide a revenue stream that may eventually be leveraged to provide more capacity if pricing gets particularly high.  Meanwhile, raising the HOV threshold to three or more occupants and then four, may be an interim measure, but leaves the question of excluding a wider group of users from the lanes at the time they most want to use them.

Those motorists unhappy about paying have always got a choice, they can use the untolled lanes that everyone else uses, including freight (which almost never is offered similar opportunities to save time and avoid congestion, even though the costs of delay for trucks can be significantly higher than that for car users).

Houston’s approach appears to be “buying time”, but I think the next obvious step is to start charging for HOV use at peak times.   The case for pure HOV lanes is not clear, and the Houston policy will need to be revisited sooner or later.  Bear in mind that Houston Metro is a transit authority, which means it is driven by promoting use of public transport in the city.  Whether that necessarily fits in best with maximising the efficient use of the existing highway network is not clear.  

London seeking to increase congestion charge prices

According to the Transport for London consultation website, it is proposed to increase the price of the London Congestion Charge, along with a wide range of other measures to incrementally reform the scheme.

The proposal would see a 15% increase in the standard charge from £10 (US$16.38) to £11.50 (US$18.84), with a similar nominal increase for registered automatic payment users (£9 (US$14.74) going to £10.50 (US$17.20)), as with fleet users (typically used for goods vehicles).  

Other charges to raise include the "pay next day charge" (the price for those who fail to pay on the day they travel, but pay on the next day) going from £12 (US$19.66) to £14 (US$22.93).

Those subject to the registered residents' discount see an increase in the daily charge from £0.90  (US$1.47- to £1.05 (US$1.72) per day.  Residents are those living within or immediately adjacent to the charging zone. 

The proposed increase would come into effect in June 2014 and is now subject to public consultation.

The intention is that is match inflation.  The basic charge was increased to £10 for the start of 2011, so is a 15% increase fair for mid 2014?  Given that inflation since 2011 has been closer to 3%  per annum, this would appear to be above inflation.

So what will London motorists who pay the charge (who are a small proportion of all London motorists) get for this?

It simply isn't clear.  It is fair to presume that the extra money raised will likely be spent on a number of initiatives around cycling safety on existing roads, and some intersection improvement works, although there has been no announcement of the expected revenue increase.  After all, part of the expectation is that the increased charge will result in a slight reduction in expected traffic levels.

It would be helpful if there was a bit more transparency around this.  Certainly the current Mayor Boris Johnson has presented himself, in contrast to previous Mayor Ken Livingstone, as not being "at war" with motorists and supporting measures to improve traffic flow.  However, very little is publicly announced about measures to achieve this.  Certainly there is no lack of potential projects to improve traffic flow on London roads.

I strongly suspect this increase will go through will little concern, largely because few Londoners pay it from day to day.  Only slightly more than half of London households have access to a car as it is, and cars come well behind trains, the underground and buses as a means of commuting into the charged zone.  However, it would be a good move if there was some indication that without such an increase, some improvements to highways might not proceed.   It is reasonable for those expected to pay to ask that question.  After all, fare increases tend to be touted in terms of paying for improvements (even though in many cases the fares don't may not recover the operating costs of the public transport services themselves), so should increases in the congestion charge.

Other measures

Other proposals are also set out in the consultation, most of which should not be controversial.

Happy New Year 2014

I wish all my readers a Happy New Year and hope 2014 brings them prosperity, good health and happiness for themselves and their loved ones.

I wish to apologise for the more haphazard level of writing in 2013.  That has been driven largely because of the tragic terminal illness of my father, who is suffering from laryngeal cancer.  I have spent some considerable time with him in the past nine months.  Secondly, work has been very busy in that time and so my free time to dedicate to this blog has been more limited than I would have liked (although I am far from unhappy about being busy with valuable work).

The past year in road pricing has seen continued growth in the application of tolling worldwide, and despite some controversy, network road pricing systems are about to be implemented in France for trucks, and in Belgium for trucks (and a vignette system for cars).  In the United States, difficulties in raising fuel taxes continue as states move forward either with expanding the application of tolls for new highways (e.g. in Texas and Florida) or in new forms of charging (e.g. Oregon's implementation of distance based highway taxation).  This appears to have percolated north, with stronger interest in forms of road pricing in Canada.

Gothenburg has now completed its first year of congestion pricing, although there is little sign of significant moves forward towards such pricing elsewhere.  More notably, Denmark seems to have backed off introducing congestion charging in Copenhagen.  

Fundamentally, the key problem faced by governments at all levels and highway authorities is that it is becoming less satisfactory to raise money from road users by taxing motor fuels, when vehicles fleets are becoming so much more efficient.  Parallel to that is growing resistance from voters to increases in such taxes, especially when they are sceptical as to whether politicians will use such revenues wisely.  Although motorists may resent them, at least tolled roads raise money for using roads directly and the revenue raised is spent on those roads.  Similarly, whilst economic slowdown in many countries has seen reduced concern for congestion, it still remains that major cities cannot significantly address traffic congestion by simply building more highway capacity or public transport capacity, but must address the underpricing of urban road capacity at peak times.  It is notable that cities such as Jakarta, Beijing and Shanghai appear to be at the forefront of considering congestion pricing, rather than those in Europe and North America.

Yet, despite all of this, there are significant challenges in convincing governments and voters of the merits of charging directly for road use.  For all of the economic arguments, there is a strong undercurrent of scepticism and resistance, as so many think that road pricing is just another way of governments to extract more money from them for little value.

When governments don't reduce other taxes or don't provide means to dedicate such revenue to (more of less) objectively defined high value projects, then I am hardly surprised.  Road pricing doesn't succeed when the whole governance, funding and management structures of roads are driven by short term political imperatives rather than delivering service to customers.  It is curious indeed that this problem is seen widely in the United States, and less widely in parts of Europe, where commercial and private sector management of major highways is more widespread and acceptable.  

Finally, it is worth talking briefly about technology.  Costs keep coming down, and most notably it is becoming clearer that there is a future in using smartphones, connected intelligently to vehicles, as a means of introducing road pricing.  It is becoming more difficult for opponents to road pricing to claim cost is a reason to reject it.  Their biggest argument remains a lack of trust towards those who would implement it.

It remains, in my view, that this is the key challenge.  In a political environment of mistrust of government, there is a need to recast arguments about road pricing in terms of changing the relationship between road users and the provision of roads.  In most jurisdictions, there remains little real useful feedback between road users and providers, and expectations remain low.  In a world where more automated road use is looking ever more likely in the medium term, this will have to change, simply because traditional political/engineering based ways of managing such infrastructure wont be dynamic enough.

Think how telecommunications and the internet would be if it were subject to political and bureaucratic horizons as to what you need.

That is today what happens with roads.

So whether you work as an infrastructure manager, engineer, policy maker, researcher, politician or a road user, think how much more innovative this sector could be, and what would happen if the cynicism and doubts so often seen are replaced with creativity and intelligent debate about practical change.  

Road pricing almost always will appear negative to those used for taking what exists for granted, it is the role of those of us who can see a vision of better highways, cities and transport networks to address the real concerns of so many.  It isn't about telling people how to get around, or punishing them, or trying to take more money from some to give to others with grand visions, but actually about being more rational about what is done now.  

News briefs - Brazil, UK, USA (California and Texas)

Brazil to let major private highway concession on existing road

Infranews reports that the ANTT (Agência Nacional de Transportes Terrestre - National Transportation Agency) has announced it will be auctioning a 30 year concession for a US$3.4 billion toll road. The route is a 817km section of federal highway BR-040 between Brasília and Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais.

What the auction effectively means is that prospective concessionaires have to bid to finance, build, operate and toll the road, and the offer that will do so, with the lowest tolls, is more likely to win.  Studies on the project indicate it can more than generate enough toll revenue to pay for the upgrade of the highway.  The proposed maximum toll rate is BRL 0.0973 (US$ 0.041) per km, or BRL 9.73 (US$ 4.12) for 100km. The successful concessionaire will have to demonstrate it can operate, maintain and upgrade the road to the required standard at tolls with a discount on those rates.  Recent concessions have been awarded to groups that offered to do other routes with discounts of over 40% on the proposed rates.

This is quite some road, being roughly the distance from London to the top of Great Britain as the crow flies, and being most of the main highway from Brasilia to Rio.  Interesting of course, that it is to be tolled to fund the upgrade.  The section from Rio to Juiz de Fora is already tolled and subject to a concession held by the company Concer, since 1996.

BR-040 in red

Interesting that leasing out large stretches of highway to private companies to upgrade, using tolls, is being implemented by a leftwing government in Brazil.  A similar concept in the United States or the UK would provoke howls of outrage from some quarters.

UK- Vehicle Excise Duty to be made fully electronic

The BBC reports that as of October 2014, the annual (or 6 monthly) "tax disc" that is proof of payment of Vehicle Excise Duty (a tax on vehicle ownership), is to be scrapped.  Proof of payment will now be linked to number plates and Police checks of payment will be enforced by ANPR cameras.

Vehicle Excise Duty is rated on vehicle size (to charge trucks more to reflect wear and tear they impose on the network) and CO2 emissions.  It raises about £6 billion a year in revenue.  None of it is hypothecated for road spending.  The UK Government spends £9 billion a year on roads in England, funding for roads in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is contained within the budgetary contribution to those devolved governments.   Of course, revenue from fuel tax exceeds £27 billion a year as well.

UK - Further comment on scrapping of toll plan for the A14

Guy Bentley at City AM argues for network road pricing to manage congestion and encourage more efficient investment in roads.

AutoExpress reports that the Labour Opposition blames the Government for a cost increase in the project due to delay, and called tolls "half-baked".

USA - California - Orange County debates free lanes over toll lanes

According to the LA Times, there is general agreement that there needs to be additional lanes on the San Diego Freeway (I-405) between Long Beach and Costa Mesa.   The debate is whether they should be HOT or untolled lanes.  Caltrans (the state entity responsible for managing the state highway network) wants toll lanes, on the basis that new capacity should be paid by those directly benefiting from it.  However, six of the boroughs that the freeway passes through want the lanes to be untolled.  

I-405 upgrade corridor

The report said, of a latter signed by the Mayors of the six cities:

"Constructing toll lanes is a breach of trust with Orange County residents," the letter stated, adding that residents agreed to a half-cent sales tax increase that would fund one additional general-purpose lane on the 405 Freeway.

One option is to add a free lane and a HOT lane, but that would seem ridiculous.   The HOT lane would have so little demand to make it not worthwhile.  Either there is money to widen the road or there isn't.

Now I consider sales taxes being used to pay for highways to be economic insanity.  Why should people shopping have to pay for an additional lane on a road many of them do not use regularly and most wont benefit from?  However, if it is there, in part, to pay for it, then it is difficult to argue against, unless of course, the sales tax is cut when the toll lanes open.

The report also says:

City leaders expressed worry that the project would push traffic onto their streets, or that motorists traveling in the toll lanes would find it too difficult to pull off the highway and patronize local businesses.

The first point makes no sense, as the lanes are additional capacity.  They will improve traffic conditions for those who pay, and a little for those who don't.  I also doubt whether those wishing to pay to use the toll lanes (who are more likely to be those on a time constrained trip) have any special interest in pulling off the highway.

If the lanes can be substantially funded by being tolled, they should be, and let sales taxes for transport be cut.

Orange County Transportation Authority website on the project.

USA - Texas - El Paso getting its first toll lanes 

I noted this proposal two years ago.

El Paso is getting its first toll lanes opening soon.  A 9 mile stretch of the I-10 will see one new lane each way from the interchange with US-54 to Zaragoza Road with a toll of US$0.10 per mile. The Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority encouraging "sticker tag" installation of users.  These lanes will be pure toll lanes, with no option for high occupancy vehicles to get a free trip.

Austin

An 11-mile stretch of Austin’s MoPac Boulevard will expand to eight lanes from six to accommodate a growing population.  Neither the Texas Department of Transportation nor any of the local entities involved in the $200 million project are predicting it will transform MoPac into a free-flowing thoroughfare.  The project is the responsibiilty of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority.  It is to accommodate population growth.  The key is the extra lanes are pure toll lanes, not HOT lanes.   Carpooling will not give you a free trip, the reason apparently being that the lanes are intended to maintain a minimum level of service.   By not allowing carpooling, it saves on enforcement and means that the lanes are purely managed by price.  

According to the Texas Tribune, the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority board is hoping it will boost bus patronage as buses will use the new lanes toll free.  Bus routes are to be revised to see how much they can usefully take advantage of the new lanes.  "Registered van pools" and emergency vehicles are also exempt.

The price will be set dynamically with the lowest price being US$0.25, and an average expected to be less than US$4 with trip lengths being a minimum of 5 miles.  However, unlike many toll systems elsewhere, there is no price ceiling.  The price will be as high as is necessary to maintain good free flow conditions.  Of course, those not liking that can use the parallel untolled lanes.

The payment system is a simple DSRC 915MHz system compatible with TxTag, TollTag or EZ-Tag.   Users without tags will be billed to their home address traced by ANPR cameras and accessing of motor vehicle registration databases.

Allied to the project are improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities ( US$5 million, including 3 miles of new path and 4 miles of footpaths).

The MoPac website says...

The project is being financed through a unique partnership with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). CAMPO and TxDOT have approved grants totaling $199.5 million to fund the project. As part of the partnership arrangement, the Mobility Authority has agreed to set up a Regional Infrastructure Fund, and over the next 25 years, will deposit $230 million into the fund. CAMPO can then allocate money from the fund to other transportation projects in the region.

So the lanes are taxpayer funded, but will they raise enough money to recoup that expenditure?

UK A14 highway project to proceed toll free, due to public opposition

So it is not to be.  It appears that the proposed A14 toll road is going to be built - but not as a toll road.

In the Autumn Statement of the British Government it is to be announced that the major upgrade of the A14 will proceed, but as a conventional highway project funded by Treasury, according to the BBC.

I've written extensively before about the project:

UK investigates more tolling and private finance;

A new toll road for Britain?

UK government adds new (A14) toll road to programme

Lukewarm reception for A14 toll road idea

A14 project to have one tolled section

A lonely toll road that wouldn't come remotely close to paying for itself

So this is a story of some wishful thinking, which I'll admit, I agreed with at the time.  It was right to investigate whether tolling could usefully help pay for a project.

A very large highway project, involving mostly new capacity, was ready to go.  Then came the General Election in 2010, and a change of government.  It faced a fiscal crisis and had to rein in some major spending commitments by the previous government to address the budget deficit, and freezing development of this highway project was one way to do that.

The road itself is considered critical because it is frequently congested and carries high volumes of truck traffic linking the West and East Midlands (including the city of Birmingham) to the ports in Suffolk and Essex at Felixstowe and Harwich.  About a quarter of the traffic involves HGVs, which makes it a critical freight corridor.  It suffers from peak congestion as commuters travel between various towns, with Cambridge as a key attractor.  Whilst some efforts have been made to promote rail freight (successfully) and public transport, it is not considered likely that mode shift can alleviate the remaining regular congestion, and the route is considered to be a bottleneck on the development of the Midlands, given it provide the primary port access for the region's towns and cities.

The A14 upgrade project in detail

The map above is a detailed description.  The upper part depicts the Huntingdon Southern Bypass (which looked like it could be tolled) , the lower part the doubling of capacity on the A14 northwest of Cambridge from 2 to 4 lanes each way, and then the widening of the Cambridge northern bypass (with a series of junction and link improvements.

France's EcoTax suspended - politics triumphs for now

It appears that France's EcoTax (HGV distance based road charging/tolling system) is now on hold, although the latest reports indicate that it will still be introduced on 1 January 2014.  It is not because of any technical problems, it is politics.

France does protests on a level unseen elsewhere

I am not surprised.  The politics of France is peppered with disruptive protests by vested interests unhappy whenever governments implement major changes to the status quo - typically by specific interests negatively  affected (never by the wider group of citizens positively affected).  The OTRE (Organisation des Transporteurs Routiers Européens), a trucking industry association, comprised mainly of smaller operators, has protested that it would hurt their businesses.  Their protests have included road blocks, with a deliberate attempt to halt foreign trucks (they aren't so keen on competition from their European partners).  Protests have included vandalism and arson against enforcement gantries (which include ANPR cameras, laser profilers and DSRC detectors).

It is difficult to imagine that level of anger in many other countries.

France's Ecotax truck toll network

Ecotax isn't a creation of Hollande's socialist government, but wasn't opposed when in Opposition

The Ecotax proposal was approved by the previous centre-right Sarkozy administration, and was supported by the Socialists (who run the current government) at the time, but some in the government now think that the amount that Ecomouv - the consortium that won the contract to develop, install and operate the system - is paid, is excessive (Ecomouv is to receive 20% of the gross revenue, which is quite generous).  Ecomouv is a consortium comprised of Autostrada (the well known Italian toll road owner/operator), Thales (a French technology, aerospace and defence company), SNCF (the French national railway), SFR (French telecommunications company, primarily operating mobile services) and Steria (French IT-services company).  

So the socialist bent of the French Government is coming out in thinking that the private sector may be profiting too much from the system.  

My view is that costs are quite high, although they ought to come down over time, and part of the procurement is to allow for competitive service delivery, which ought to keep pressure on costs (although it isn't clear that Ecomouv has quite the same pressure). 

However, the simple point is that a large government contract to collect revenue is always going to be a chance for operators to ensure they minimise costs so they maximise their own revenue.  That obviously is controversial when it comes to a tax.  Given the system does involve GNSS based technology with on board units, communicating via the mobile phone network, the simple point is it will be costly to introduce.  owever, I would not be surprised if political risk is factored into the price - which is wise.

Meanwhile, it appears, in rather typical French style, that government is now negotiating with protestors over what to do next - even though the contract with Ecomouv binds the French Government.  In short, the key risk is that rates will be lowered, but Ecomouv will insist on receiving the fees it contracted for.  General taxpaers, the interest group that seems to be least loud, may pick up the difference for a short while at least.

Jakarta proceeding with congestion charging system UPDATE: May go for a simpler approach

According to the Jakarta Post, the city will proceed with the first stage of a congestion charging system (called electronic road pricing because of its parallels to the Singapore system) in early 2014.  Jakarta Governor Joko Widido ideally would like to see it operational in the first quarter of 2014.  However, the Jakarta Transportation Agency believes a bylaw needs to be amended before there is full legal authority to start collecting tolls.

The system is expected to be very similar to that in Singapore, primarily because the proximity has enabled officials to observe the results of the Singaporean system, which is clearly the most comprehensive and successful such operation to date.  All motorised vehicles (except motorcycles, and there is some debate about whether they also should be included) using the charged roads, would need to have a DSRC transponder installed with a read-write smartcard inserted, that would deduct stored value from the card every time the vehicle passed under a charging gantry.

Prices are expected to vary by individual roads, and have different charging periods.   Previous plans to introduce a controlled zone based on only allowing vehicles with odd or even numbered licence plates are to be scrapped.  

In advance of the new system, an unspecified number of new buses are to be introduced, with the intention that the charge will first apply to the Rasuna Said area because of the busway corridors that exist through it. The initial charge will be Rp. 21,000 (US$1.87), but one report indicates that prices could be lowered if traffic levels drop by more than is necessary to achieve free flow traffic.  A previous post I wrote described where it looked like charging would be introduced.

Interestingly, it appears that there is strong political interest in having a state wide electronic vehicle identification system in place by 2015, to enable rapid, accurate and effective enforcement of traffic laws. Jakarta's electronic road pricing system will be compatible with that. 

I am highly sceptical that such a system can be operational by early 2014, with the testing, distribution of transponders and enforcement processes fully effective in such a time, but I thoroughly applaud the decision to move forward.   Jakarta has chosen a bold approach, but I predict some big issues around enforcement and managing the changes in traffic patterns that come from an incremental introduction of such charges.   It may have been better to await the implementation of the electronic vehicle ID programme, as the ability to more readily enforce traffic laws (and deter and remove non-compliant vehicles), may deliver some useful gains in reducing congestion.

Nevertheless, if Jakarta can make this work, it will be the largest city in the world with such a road pricing system, given its metropolitan population of over 25 million people.

UPDATE:  It would appear that the complexities of introducing a Singapore style system in less than 6 months are causing some concern, as a report from the Jakarta Post seems to be indicating a partial backdown, as there is now some interest in introducing a "manual" system rather similar to the original Singapore Area Licensing System that was introduced in 1975.

What is proposed is holographic stickers for monthly or annual access to the city centre, essentially an urban "vignette".  This would be far simpler to implement, although the enforcement would be labour intensive, requiring a large number of enforcement officers targeting parked vehicles, or visually identifying vehicles crossing cordon points and pursuing them for fines (or sending them violation notices).  It is thought the idea may be implemented once 800 new buses are added to the urban fleet, allowing for the expansion of services.  The article suggests "scanners" could be used at parking lots, but this is far from tried and unless the stickers had some sort of RFID device (and it was illegal to install them incorrectly, and it was possible to read a number plate of a vehicle that didn't have one), this seems quite an unwieldy approach.

It is suggested that buses to the charged area could be free, but meanwhile the "vehicle transfer fee" (a tax on transferring ownership of a car) is to be increased to 20% of the vehicle's value.  I'm unsure what that will do other than make a small difference to the cost of ownership, and encourage people to continue to operate older cars.  

What all of this implies is some mismatch between decision-making and good quality advice for the authorities.  Yes, Jakarta could implement an urban vignette, but the fundamental problem of any system - enforcement will be little easier with that compared to an electronic option.   It would appear that there ought to be a rethink, and perhaps some more consideration that Jakarta cannot simply transplant Singapore's success.