What is Electronic Toll Collection?

Road Usage Charging (RUC) is revolutionising how we fund and manage road infrastructure. Moving beyond traditional fuel taxes, RUC charges drivers based on actual road usage, aligning costs more directly with wear and tear on infrastructure. This approach is seen as a more equitable and sustainable method for financing road networks. The funding challenges demonstrated by HS2 in the United Kingdom have exposed how central funding of major infrastructure projects can fail, resulting in major re-scoping. RUC avoids such issues by wrapping construction funding with the operation and commercial reward for such projects, meaning domain owners (i.e., governments) get the economic benefits of the infrastructure without the initially required capital expenditure.

A Brief History of RUC

The concept of RUC isn't new. Its roots trace back to the early 20th century, notably with Germany’s Autobahn toll system in the 1930s, designed primarily for freight. Modern implementations began to take shape in the late 20th century, with New Zealand introducing a comprehensive Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) scheme for heavy vehicles in 1977, which was pivotal in shifting maintenance costs to those most responsible for road wear.

Singapore further advanced the ETC concept in the 1990s with its Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. This aimed to reduce urban congestion by leveraging technology to charge vehicles based on their use of congested roads, setting a precedent for using ETC to manage traffic flow and environmental impact.

How Does RUC Differ Around the World?

United States

In the US, the tolling landscape is highly fragmented, with state and local authorities operating various toll roads. Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) systems, such as E-ZPass, dominate, using RFID technology for automatic fee deduction. More recently, not least facilitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend towards Open Road Tolling (ORT) and All-Electronic Tolling (AET) has gained traction, removing the need for physical toll booths and enhancing traffic efficiency.

However, interoperability in the US remains a significant challenge. Different regions employ differing systems, creating barriers for seamless travel. Initiatives like the National Interoperability Agreement aim to unify these systems, but progress is ongoing and complex.

Europe

In contrast, Europe has adopted a more harmonised approach to electronic toll collection, driven by EU legislation. The key to this harmonisation is the European Electronic Toll Service (EETS) initiative. The concent is very simple, insofar as national electronic toll collection companies now have the legislative infrastructure and support to apply for, and provide, electronic toll collection services in neighbouring countries, and in the process make a significant step towards cross-border interoperability. The intention is for a single on-board unit (OBU) to function across multiple countries, which currently, for international road freight in the EU is uncommon, leading to many OBUs and unwanted complexity in paying for tolls between neighbouring countries. EETS has been designed specifically to facilitate smoother international transport and reduce administrative burdens.

Middle East and Africa

The Middle East and Africa are also embracing electronic toll collection. In the UAE, Abu Dhabi’s Darb toll system, launched in 2020, exemplifies the region’s commitment to modernising road funding mechanisms. Similarly, South Africa’s e-toll system on the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) is a significant ETC initiative in Africa. GFIP stands as a cautionary tale however. The project was funded through a controversial electronic toll collection system, which faced significant public opposition and led to a high level of non-compliance among motorists. This non-compliance resulted in SANRAL (South African National Roads Agency Limited) accumulating substantial debt, estimated to be around £1.9 billion by 2022.

Interoperability: A Key Objective for Future RUC

As mentioned, interoperability is a cornerstone of effective electronic toll collection systems. The ability for a single tolling device or account to work across multiple jurisdictions simplifies logistics and enhances user convenience. The European Electronic Toll Service and the MOVE project in the US exemplify efforts to standardise technology and regulatory frameworks. However, achieving full interoperability remains complex, with technical, regulatory, and commercial barriers to overcome.

Europe's approach to interoperability, underpinned by EETS, aims to provide seamless tolling services across all EU member states. It requires standardised OBUs that can communicate with various national tolling systems and uses multiple technologies, including satellite-based systems, to track vehicle movements and ensure accurate billing. The integration of these systems is facilitated by a common framework of regulations and standards, which are consistently enforced across member states.

The technical backbone of EETS involves a harmonised set of interfaces and communication protocols, enabling different toll operators to interact smoothly. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) plays a crucial role in defining these standards, ensuring compatibility and reliability across borders.

The US faces a more fragmented landscape, with numerous state and local tolling authorities. The National Interoperability Agreement aims to address this by creating a unified system where various tolling technologies can coexist and communicate. One of the primary challenges in the US is the variation in tolling infrastructure and policies across states. For instance, the E-ZPass system is widely used in the Northeast and Midwest, while other regions use different systems, such as California’s FasTrak, Florida’s SunPass, and Texas’ TxTag. Efforts to standardise these systems involve significant technical and regulatory coordination. The Interagency Group (IAG) and the Alliance for Toll Interoperability (ATI) are key players in this endeavour.

What Are the Differences in Approach?

The primary technical difference between European and US interoperability systems lies in the underlying technologies and regulatory frameworks. Europe is moving towards GNSS/satellite-based tracking, which allows for more flexible and precise tolling across large areas. This is essential for cross-border transport. EETS is not GNSS-exclusive, with DSRC and ANPR also included in the list of recommended technologies. Additionally, the EETS framework provides a robust regulatory environment that standardises equipment and communication protocols, facilitating smoother integration across diverse national systems.

In contrast, the US system is heavily reliant on RFID and DSRC technologies, well-suited to the existing infrastructure but posing challenges for long-distance and cross-regional travel. The lack of a centralised regulatory framework like the EU’s means that achieving interoperability requires extensive coordination between independent tolling authorities. This decentralised approach can slow down the integration process and make it more challenging to implement a unified system nationwide.

So Which Is the "Best" Approach?

While the US and Europe showcase different approaches, the global trend towards electronic toll collection is clear. Interoperability remains a critical issue for ETC systems. Any approach that affords flexibility and facilitates transition from fragmented beginnings into a harmonised federal scheme is the correct approach.

Europe’s EETS and the US’s efforts towards a National Interoperability Agreement illustrate how different strategies to achieve seamless tolling across multiple jurisdictions can exist. While Europe has followed a more centralised and standardised approach, it has not been without its problems. Earlier GNSS-only proposals had to be amended to include options such as DSRC as a technical alternative. However, the strength in EETS comes from the regulatory centralisation that enables back-end interoperability. The US, despite having similar technologies at its disposal, does not have similar regulations, resulting in a fragmented landscape. Encouragingly, initiatives such as RUC America (an evolution of RUC West) are making ground, assisted by grants from initiatives like the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives initiative (STSFA). In the short- to medium-term, any successful interoperability scheme must balance providing flexibility to foster interoperability buy-in while laying the foundations for harmonised back-office processes and standards with as little friction as possible.