auckland council road charging options study: scheme...

Auckland Council

Auckland Council Road Charging Options Study: Scheme Design and Costing

Review of the Operational and Business Requirements of a Road Charging Scheme

1 October 2014

Part A - Review of the Operational and Business Requirements of a Road Charging Scheme

Table of Contents

Key conclusions 2

1. Introduction 4

2. Customer channels and engagement 7

3. Vehicle detection and technology 14

4. Back office 26

5. Enforcement and legal powers 32

6. Operating costs 35

7. Conclusions 39

Annex A – Terms of reference 41

Annex B – Road charging options 42

Annex C – ANPR performance challenges 44

Annex D – Examples of mounting structures for roadside equipment 47

Part A - Review of the Operational and Business Requirements of a Road Charging Scheme 1

Glossary

Abbreviation Definition

AC Auckland Council

ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition

AT Auckland Transport

ATM Automatic Teller Machine

CBD Central Business District

DSRC Dedicated Short Range Communications

ERP Electronic Road Pricing (Singapore)

ETC Electronic Toll Collection

GPS Global Positioning System

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

HRV Heavy Rigid Vehicle

LRV Light Rigid Vehicle

LPR Licence Plate Recognition (same as ANPR)

LTA Land Transport Authority

MCL Melbourne City Link

NG Northern Gateway

NZ Transport Agency New Zealand Transport Agency

OBU On-Board Unit

OCR Optical Character Recognition

PCN Penalty Charge Notice

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

SMS Short Message Service

TfL Transport for London

VRM Vehicle Registration Mark


Key conclusions

Though there are many operational and technical “lessons” that can be applied from other schemes to

the potential road charging schemes being considered for Auckland, the main conclusions we can

make are:

a) It needs to be made easy for drivers to understand and use; collecting payments through

customer accounts and the internet are the preferred and lowest cost methods for the majority

of schemes elsewhere. Cash/retail and call centre channels may also be required but have

high processing costs. Casual users – those without accounts - need to have an easy means

to pay that is also cost effective for the operator.

b) Once drivers have become used to the operation of a scheme, early provisions for excess

customer channel capacity can be fine-tuned to optimise customer service and operating

costs. Lower cost channels should have incentives to attract customers. The continuing

optimisation of customer channels and costs has been demonstrated on the Northern

Gateway toll road as well as other schemes around the world.

c) Customer privacy is a key concern; the scheme needs to carefully address what and how

data is stored.

d) The majority of city area or cordon schemes use cameras for vehicle detection. Tag and

beacon is primarily used as an addition to cameras where there is strong business case for

improved detection rates, given the additional cost of issuing and managing tags; this is

usually where there are multiple detection events needed to calculate the charge due. There

are no urban schemes that use GPS devices for road charging.

e) Data quality is a key driver of scheme operating cost and efficiency in collecting revenue,

including enforcement evidence, customer data and transaction data. In most cases charging

schemes have gone live with an acceptable level of quality and then fine-tuned the operation

to improve quality, reduce costs and collect additional revenue.

f) The quality of vehicle registration data held on the Motor Vehicle Register is a key

determinant of the feasibility of enforcement.

g) The on-street detection infrastructure can become a focus for opposition; for an urban

scheme the aesthetic appearance of equipment needs to be carefully designed to be

acceptable, especially if it is on residential roads. The detection equipment can also impact

nearby parking, driveways and access which can make it hard to locate.

h) Enforcement processes should build on existing proven processes that drivers already

understand primarily to make them acceptable and thereby reduce the risk of challenge.


i) The categories of exemptions and discounts should be minimised as there can be significant

costs in processing them in addition to the revenue not collected. For example, in London

over 60% of vehicles driving in the city are exempt or discounted.

j) The costs of other schemes are generally not a reliable benchmark for planning a new

scheme as there are so many factors that make the schemes different. Cost of collection as a

proportion of the revenue collected can range from 15-70% depending on many local factors.

Unit costs, are however, more comparable e.g. per camera, call centre payment, card

payment. Therefore, it is generally more useful to model the costs and revenue of a specific

scheme based on the intended charging parameters, a high level design, traffic data, and unit

costs for the transactions involved. Most charging scheme projects initially under-estimate the

costs of operation and interacting with customers and take some time to fine tune their

operations.


1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose of this document

This document sets out experience and ‘lessons learnt’ from previous road charging schemes, and

identifies how their outcomes may be used to guide the options being considered for road charging in

Auckland. Annex A describes the terms of reference for this report.

1.2. Road charging scheme options

In summary the road charging options being considered for Auckland are:

• A motorway charging scheme

• A cordon-based scheme.

Further details of these schemes are set out at Annex B.

1.3. Structure of this document

Our intent is to capture the lessons learnt from other road charging schemes in a way that then

assists in defining the business and technical requirements for these options. The document is

structured according to the main business process and technology elements of a road charging

operation identifying lessons in the relevant area.

Figure 1 summarises a high level process model which is used as a checklist to bring out lessons

learnt in each of:

a) Customer channels and engagement (section 2)

b) Vehicle detection and technology (section 3)

c) Back office (section 4)

d) Enforcement (section 5).

Section 6 explores the relevance of costs of other schemes to Auckland.

In Section 7 we summarise the main areas where lessons from other schemes have impact.


Figure 1: High level process summary for typical road charging activities

In each area we identify selected aspects where the experience of other schemes is useful and

relevant to Auckland.

Table 1 on the following page provides a summary of the main schemes we draw on as references in

this document.

1. Customer Channels• Contact channels• Payment channels• Cash collection• Account management• Marketing and communications

2. Vehicle Detection• Vehicle passage records• Tag transactions• Manage detection data quality• Manage on-street infrastructure• Store evidence

3. Back Office• Reconcile vehicle transactions

and payments/accounts• Manage exemptions and

discounts• Process customer accounts and

registrations• Manage customer data quality• Reconcile interoperable accounts• Verification of vehicle detection

records• Refer non-payers to enforcement• Process top-ups/billing of post-

pay accounts

4. Enforcement• Validate violation data/evidence• Gather owner records from Vehicle

Registrar• Issue violation/penalty notices• Receive penalty payments• Manage enforcement data quality• Register debts• Manage input to court process• Manage appeals• Identify persistent non-payers• Initiate debt collection/bailiff action• On-street enforcement• International debt collection


Table 1: Reference scheme summary

Scheme Operating hours

Charge/Tax/Toll Payment Detection/Enforcement Transactions/trips per day

Go-live Capital cost

Operating cost

Stockholm Congestion Tax

Weekdays 6.30 am – 6.30 pm

Cordon crossing

SEK 10, 15, 20 with maximum of SEK 60 per day

Monthly in arrears Cameras at 18 locations 350k-400k 2007 following 2006 trial

1.9bn SEK

($342m)

220m SEK ($39.6m)

London Congestion Charging

Weekdays 7am-6pm

Area daily charge

£11.50 casual user

£10.50 account holder

Various discounts and exemptions

In advance, on the day or following day; or for accounts monthly in arrears

Cameras at ~ 180 locations on the boundary and 25 locations internally

170k unique vehicles of which only 67k pay

Feb 2003 £162m

($324m)

£90m

($180m)

Milan Area C Weekdays 7.30am-7.30pm, excl Thurs 7.30 – 6pm

Area daily charge

€5

Discounts and exemptions

In advance, on the day or next day – ticket activation based

€15 late payment

Cameras at 43 surveillance points – of which 7 are only for public transport

100k unique vehicles

Jan 2012 – was previously Eco-pass environmental zone

Not published

€7m

($11.2m)

Dartford ‘Freeflow’ river crossing

7 days a week 6am-10pm

Charge for a river crossing

£2.50 for a car but varies by class of vehicle

Web

Call centre

Account (with and without a tag)

Cameras and tag detectors on gantries across each carriageway

140k-150k crossings Nov 2014 conversion from barrier to open road. ETC from 1991

£62m

($124m)

£36m

($72m)

Northern Gateway

7 days/week $2.20 LRV per trip

$4.40 HRV per trip

Within 5 days of trip

Cameras at one location 13k trips 2009 $446k $5.3m


2. Customer channels and engagement

2.1. Scheme complexity, user understanding and acceptability

One of the key challenges for road charging is whether users can easily understand how the scheme

operates and therefore the actions they must take to use it efficiently. The high cost of compliance for

end users often stems from users not being able to easily understand the scheme; this can then

impose additional loading and costs on the operation of customer channels and also feed stakeholder

objections if service levels are not met under high loading conditions.

Singapore

The Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme in Singapore is relatively complex with both a Central

Business District (CBD) charging zone and motorway/urban expressway charging and charges

varying by time of day and direction of travel. The main objective was to reduce congestion. ERP

went live in 1998. At first glance, the complexity has not been a significant problem for users.

However, Singaporeans were already used to paying for use of the road through a paper-based Area

Licensing Scheme introduced in 1975. The change in 1998 was merely to the method of collection

from users who were already very familiar with road charging.

London

The London Congestion Charging Scheme is a simple single zone operating as a charged area. It

went live in 2003. Though there is a boundary, the driver is liable to pay for driving inside the “area”

for a flat daily charge during operating hours (0700-1800, Mon-Fri). The charge was set at £5 in 2003

(an amount equivalent to a return tube fare from Zone 3) to drive modal shift and reduce congestion in

central London. Drivers also had the choice to select an alternative route – driving around the zone.

Though the scheme was simple to understand, because Londoners were generally not used to paying

a charge for use of the road, a substantial publicity and education exercise was needed. In addition

the customer contact channels needed to be able to service a high and relatively unpredictable

volume of calls before and during go-live.

Additional provision for customer contact resources was made to handle a “bow-wave” of customer

events at go-live. Retail channels for cash payment were provided – although they have since been

phased out. Regarding call centre usage, TfL reported in Congestion Charging Six Months On (Oct

2003):

Following 17 February 2003 payments or enquiries via the call centre fell from 167,000 to around 70,000 per week over the summer months. The reduction in call volumes since February is explained by increased public awareness of the scheme both in terms of policy and its operation, and reduced use of the call centre for payments. Average call time reduced from just over three and a half minutes in the early weeks of the scheme, to below three minutes after three months of operation. This reduction in average call time has been sustained.


Stockholm

The Stockholm Congestion Tax went live in 2006 as a trial and then following a referendum in 2007

was implemented permanently. It is a relatively complex scheme:

• It is a cordon scheme

• Charges vary by direction of travel

• Charges vary according to time spent inside the cordon but are capped at a maximum amount

for the day

• Some users are not charged if they transit the city within a given time.

However, it is geographically very simple – the boundary is very well defined through the bridges and

islands as indicated in Figure 2 below. The infrastructure used to detect vehicles is also very visible

and imposing – there is little likelihood that a driver will not see they are approaching a cordon point.

Figure 2: Stockholm scheme boundary and example detection infrastructure

Source: SNRA

The cordon points are located on areas where there is lots of space for equipment and there are large

gaps between the premises inside and outside the cordon.

The congestion tax cannot be paid through the call centre, but rather using other channels following

issue of monthly tax bills. Because the scheme is legislated as a tax, all users must be registered.

This reduces the costs associated with the call centre.


Milan

The Area C congestion zone went live in Jan 2012 in Milan. It covered the same area as the earlier

Ecopass environmental zone, illustrated in Figure 3 below, which had been in operation since January

2008. The change to a congestion zone was easy for users to understand. Also the zone boundary

follows the very well understood city wall – the Cerchia dei Bastoni. The scheme was treated as a trial

in 2012 to gauge public reaction; partly because it used a wide range of payment channels to procure

a “ticket” (which then had to be activated) - including shops, bank ATMs, web, call centre, parking

meters, selected garages, and SMS. This was introduced in a conservative and cautious manner

giving users maximum opportunity to understand and comment. It is an Area scheme.

Cars entering Milan’s ‘Area C’ are detected by a system of 43 electronic gates equipped with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology. The fee charged per day is €5. Mopeds, motorcycles, electric cars, vehicles for disabled people as well as some other vehicle categories are exempt. Residents have 40 free accesses per year and pay €2 from the 41st access.

Figure 3: Ecopass access gates (from 2008) – evolved into Area C in 2012

Area C Camera Detection Site – Porto di Romano – 2 Lanes

Source: Comune di Milano Source: Google

Melbourne City Link

Melbourne City Link (MCL) is the main link between Melbourne’s south east and the airport. It went live in the summer of 2000 as one of the world’s first fully free flow electronic toll roads at a time when there were many tourists in town and many Melbourne residents had gone on holiday. This unfortunate timing was further complicated by the fact that up to that point Melbourne had had no experience of paying tolls (electronic or otherwise) apart from a rudimentary system on a river crossing which had been removed some years previously. The prior marketing campaign aimed at the residents did not reach the tourists in the city, causing overloading of contact channels by those who did not understand the scheme. It took Transurban, the owners of MCL some time to implement effective customer service operations with efficient account management, service quality and customer satisfaction.


Key Conclusions for Auckland

• Where there has been a similar scheme or trial already in operation it reduces the risk:

o That customers will not understand the scheme

o Of contact channel overloading

• Where a new charging scheme is to be introduced without a predecessor, the charging policy and

system needs to be very simple. Otherwise there is a risk of high levels of non-compliance and systemic

opposition.

• There needs to be a full customer education and marketing campaign for a scheme to be successful. In

addition there needs to be consideration of casual users who can easily discover how to pay the charge

without placing a heavy burden on the operation.

• Provision of spare customer service capacity to serve high demand scenarios can have a significant

cost impact but in the short term may be needed to ease customer acceptance.

• The means of payment in the early stages may need to be more varied (and therefore more costly); the

long term payment channel strategy can be optimised later once users have understood the system.

• Delivery of customer service for open road charging is similar to any service oriented business –

banking, telecoms, and utilities - and differs from traditional ‘toll plaza’ cash collection models.

2.2. Casual users

There needs to be a simple means for visitors or casual users to participate in the scheme at

acceptable cost.


Casual users – without a CC Autopay Account (private vehicles) or CC Fleet Account (commercial

vehicles) – can pay on the day or the following day over the internet or call centre. The daily charge

was £10 ($20) and rose to £11.50 ($23) on 16 June 2014, if paid on the day; if paid the following day

the charge is now £13.50 ($27).

Stockholm

As a tax it does not apply to foreign vehicles and all Swedish vehicle owners must be registered for

tax.

Milan

The €5 charge can be paid by casual users up to midnight on the following day through the wide

range of payment channels. This involves two steps:

• Purchasing the “entrance ticket”

• Activating the ticket for the specific day.

The ticket can be purchased at:

• Parking meters

• Newsagents and tobacconists

• Branches and ATMs of the Intesa Sanpaolo bank


• Online at www.areac.it

• Through the call centre at the number + 39.02.48684001

• Garages and petrol stations.

There is a high cost for operating this wide range of payment channels.

Northern Gateway

Most users have tolling accounts on the Northern Gateway toll road; however, casual users can pay

within 5 days of their trip either at kiosks, on the web, or through the call centre.


• Making it easy for casual users to pay without having accounts reduces the operational costs of the

scheme.

2.3. Use of digital channels

Wider usage of mobile phones, the internet and payment accounts have reduced the cost of operation

for a charging scheme. But not all users can operate digital payment channels and some are

concerned about privacy so do not wish to register their details.

Northern Gateway

NZ Transport Agency found that its direct costs per transaction for payments in 2009 were:

• Web - $0.14

• Kiosk - $0.35

• Call centre - $2.70.

There was a decision to encourage customers towards accounts and the lower cost channels by

introducing administrative fees for call centre and kiosk payments and to reduce the account minimum

top-up from $40 to $20. The result has been significant increases in account take up. In 2012/13 over

60% of payments were by accounts, with only 1% using the call centre.

Table 2: Northern Gateway channel loading 2012/13


Figure 4: Evolution of Northern Gateway channel loading

Source: NZ Transport Agency

London payment channel loading

When London went live in 2003 there were only fleet accounts for commercial vehicles. Personal

accounts were not introduced until January 2011 following recognition that there were significant

savings in operating costs and this would ease costs of user compliance. Payment channel loading

over 2003-2013 (see Figure 5 below) has substantially changed as a result.

Figure 5: London payment channel loading evolution, 2003 - 2013

Source: TfL

In 2013 over 70% of payments were made through personal or fleet accounts with retail (which had

been nearly 40% by volume in 2003), now reduced to less than 4%. TfL removed the retail channel in

summer 2013 following a consultation exercise.


• Tariffs charged to accounts need to be more attractive financially than a casual user tariff in order to

drive take up.

• The channel mix at go-live may be very different from steady state so there needs to be flexibility in the

scheme to allow and potentially drive channel change and thereby reduce operating costs.

• For either a city cordon scheme or a motorway option account take up should be targeted at 50-70% or

more, with encouragement of web based payments.

• If feasible and politically acceptable there should be a differential cost by channel to encourage use of

digital channels.

• In some cases it may be feasible to remove channels that have become underused.


2.4. Privacy

Many users are concerned about whether personal data gathered might be used for other purposes

such as parking fines, traffic offence prosecution or car-related crime.

In London the Home Office Minister required TfL to make its data from Congestion Charging available

to the police through a Ministerial Directive. There were a number of instances where major crimes

triggered requests for camera records, for example:

• Following the London bombings in July 2005 police requested data on vehicle movements.

• After the ‘Tiger Tiger’ car bomb in June 2007 data from congestion charging cameras was

requested and used to re-construct the route the car took before being parked and identify the

driver.

In Stockholm the Congestion Tax is billed retrospectively through a monthly tax bill. As a tax, users

must already be registered for payment of taxes and cannot object to being registered, provided that

data gathered about their movements is only stored for the purposes of tax collection and is disposed

of when the tax is paid.

The UK Department for Transport decided that a Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) was not by itself

personal data – it becomes personal only when linked to the owner/keeper; this stance was at odds

with the UK Information Commissioner who regarded VRMs as personal. At the same time TfL

decided that any VRM officially held should be treated as personal data. This resulted in additional

complexities and constraints for managing VRM data.


• There need to be formal mechanisms in place to minimise privacy intrusions. Many users/residents are

very concerned about privacy matters: whether their trips are recorded or whether their personal details

are retained and potentially shared with other agencies. This can impact customer sign-up for accounts.

• There needs to be consensus on what is personal data within the Council and NZ Transport Agency.

The Privacy Commissioner should be consulted on the procedures adopted.

• Where data sharing with another agency is authorised, there should be effective mechanisms to meet

these requirements whilst protecting the integrity of the personal information.

• The proposed charge or tax should allow the operator to hold personal data to enable its recovery, as is

already the case for the AT HOP Card.


3. Vehicle detection and technology

3.1. Technology adopted

Table 3-Table 5 identifies the technology adopted by selected city, motorway and truck charging

schemes.

Table 3: Technology adopted by city charging schemes

City Scheme and technology When implemented

Singapore Paper Area Licence 1975

Bergen Cordon: Autopass Tag with toll plaza 1986 manual tolling; electronic from 2004

Oslo Cordon: Autopass Tag with toll plaza From 1991

Trondheim Cordon then area: Manual payment (toll plaza) or Autopass tag

1991 cordon, then area from 1998

Singapore ERP Area: DSRC Tag/on-board device 1998

London Area: ANPR detection Feb 2003

Durham Area: Barrier based payment initially, then ANPR based detection

2002

Stockholm Cordon: ANPR with tags from 2006, then just ANPR from 2007

Trial from 2006. Full operation from 2007

Milan Area: ANPR detection Jan 2012

Gotenborg ANPR Jan 2013

Motorway/express tolling schemes are typically quite different and may involve a series of charges

being applied by section. They typically use a mix of technologies including ANPR, DSRC tags and

GPS systems. The majority of GPS based systems implemented to date are for heavy goods vehicle

charging. Distance based charging schemes have been primarily implemented for heavy goods

vehicles and include those set out in Table 5.


Table 4: Examples of motorway charging/tolling scheme technology

Scheme Technology When implemented

Liber-t: French Autoroutes Tags and manual payments with barriers 1980s

Italian motorways Tag and beacon with barriers 1990

Dartford Crossing, UK Manual payment (toll plaza) or Dart tag until Nov 2014 – when it will move to ANPR based detection

1991

Toronto ETR 407, Canada Cameras and tag and beacon – open road 1997

ERP, Singapore Electronic OBUs – open road 1998

Melbourne City Link, Australia Went live with tag and beacon DSRC with video tolling payments for occasional users – open road

2000

M6 Toll, UK Barrier-based with manual payments and tags 2003

Salik, Dubai Tag and beacon with RFID OBUs (ISO 18000 6B)

2007

Dublin M50, Ireland Tag or video payment account or occasional user video payment

2008

Golden Ears/Port Mann Bridges, Canada/US

Tag and beacon with RFID OBUs (ISO 18000 6B) and more recently 6C tags + video tolls

2009 Golden Ears

2012 Port Mann

Northern Gateway, NZ ANPR based detection 2009

Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project South Africa

Tag and beacon with camera enforcement 2012

Table 5: Summary of distance charging schemes

Scheme Technology Status/When Implemented

Swiss LSVA Tachograph/GNSS with manual enforcement 2001

Austrian Maut Tag and beacon with camera enforcement Jan 2004

German Maut GNSS with camera and infra-red DSRC enforcement

Jan 2005

Czech Truck Toll Tag and beacon with camera enforcement 2007

Slovak Skytoll GNSS with DSRC and camera enforcement 2010

Poland: HGV charging Tag and beacon with camera enforcement July 2011

French Ecotaxe GNSS with DSRC and camera enforcement Scheme was suspended pending political decisions (Oct 2013)

UK HGV Levy Paper-based vignette April 2014

Belgium HGV Charging GNSS with DSRC and camera enforcement Due to go live in 2016


• ANPR-based detection use for city schemes has risen as this technology has improved.

• GPS-based systems are only suitable for national schemes with distance based charging like the

current Heavy Goods Road User Charge.

• Tag and beacon is primarily used for motorway/expressway schemes in addition to cameras which are

required for enforcement.


3.2. Evidential quality of data capture for enforcement

The proposed cordon scheme will need to capture evidence from the roadside that a vehicle crossed

the cordon line and was therefore liable for the charge.

Northern Gateway

The Northern Gateway toll road uses cameras with ANPR capability mounted on an overhead gantry

to capture vehicle images of those users liable to pay the toll. The cameras are understood to be

“gazetted” and meet the evidential requirements of New Zealand to enable enforcement. We

understand that the vehicle images are encrypted and secured on capture by the camera and passed

to the image processing back office. In addition:

• There is a vehicle detector and classification device – this helps identify there is a vehicle

present and trigger the number plate reader.

• Cameras face in both directions directly over each lane capturing front and rear plates using

spatial information from the classification device to identify where the front and rear plates

should be for the type of vehicle.

• In the back-office there is a secondary ANPR device reviewing the images captured and

number plates interpreted from the picture to assure and make corrections.

Northern Gateway went live in 2009. Initially motor-cycles were not tolled; given successes with

detection of motorcycle rear plates, they are now tolled.

Though Northern Gateway also procured a tag reading device which is on the gantry, the decision

was made to rely only on ANPR detection data because it provided sufficient quality.

London

In 2000 when London Congestion Charging was being planned there was little precedent in place on

what evidence was required to enforce, even though the offence of non-payment was just a civil

offence and only required proof “on the balance of probabilities” (unlike a criminal offence which

requires “proof beyond reasonable doubt”). As a result TfL had to:

• Define what was needed as evidence – an evidential record.

• Define the security mechanisms that protected the evidential integrity of the captured data from

tampering.

• Determine what approvals (if any) were needed for camera equipment used. This was in an

area where to date most camera equipment used to capture evidence in an ‘unattended

manner’ (without a witness) had to be tested and type approved by the Home Office.

TfL decided to parallel existing processes used for criminal prosecution to easily “clear the hurdle” for

evidence quality, except that it did not require equipment type approval which would have limited the

available solutions and increased camera related costs.


Stockholm

In Stockholm the charge for crossing the cordon was classed as a tax and it was determined that the

only admissible evidence which could be used for enforcement was photographic. The tag and

beacon system originally used in the 2006 trial was removed as a result following advice from the

Swedish Ministry of Justice and consideration of the additional operational costs.

Melbourne City Link

The MCL Regulations legislation defined prescribed devices – focusing on the camera as evidentially

important. The tag is also categorised as a prescribed device.

Extracted from Melbourne City Link Regulations, 2009, S/R 7/2009

Part 5, 11 Prescribed tolling devices r. 11

(1) For the purposes of Part 4 of the Act, a digital toll camera unit is a prescribed tolling device.

(2) For the purposes of section 74 of the Act, a tag is a prescribed tolling device. Tag – definitions section

tag means a vehicle transponder known as a Tag (Model Numbers TS 3204/00A, TS 3204/01A, TS 3204/02A, TS 3204/02B, TS 3203/10A, TS 3203/11A, TS 3203/10B, TS 3203/11B, TS 3203 1xA, or TS 3203/1xB);

However in practice the state is the enforcing authority and it was decided that camera evidence

would be used to support violation notices.


• There needs to be a well-defined link between the evidence to be captured that a charge applies and

the enforcement powers to collect payments. Though legislation is generally in place the form of the

evidence to be captured to allow collection to be pursued through the Ministry of Justice is not defined.

The assumption is that the same evidence as for Northern Gateway is needed, but for an Auckland road

charging scheme with a nominated highway authority with enforcement powers.

• To maximise value for money and have access to the widest range of camera solutions the need for

type approvals/gazetting should be balanced with cost. The lead time for approval and costs of testing

may limit what is available on the market otherwise. The evidential strategy for ensuring protection of

camera evidence (encryption, watermarking, storage, requirement for calibration or witnessing of

maintenance etc.) must be defined.

• For the purposes of the cordon the evidence required of a vehicle crossing a defined ‘cordon line’ should

not be onerous.

• The recent court case between NZ Transport Agency and a non-payer of tolls on Northern Gateway

should be reviewed for the robustness of evidence that the driver was liable for the toll.

• If tags are to be used, provision may also be made for a tag transaction stored in the system, or on the

tag, being regarded as evidence of a charge being due.


3.3. Vehicle registration data quality

Payment and enforcement will rely on the quality of data within the Motor Vehicle Register. Quality

checks also typically make use of validation rules drawn from the list of all number plates so that:

• ANPR readers do not report VRMs that do not exist.

• Users cannot erroneously pay for or register an incorrect VRM.

London

In London there was a major programme to improve the quality of vehicle registration data so that

non-payers could be reliably enforced against. Additionally, the database listing all 34 million vehicles

(but not owner details) in the UK was made available to support cleansing of ANPR data and

validation of VRMs for accounts and casual payments. For example Figure 6 below shows the

confirmation step on the vehicle make, model and colour before payment can be made for ‘ABC123’.

Figure 6: Screen dialogue for congestion charge payment validating the VRM.

Source: TfL

Northern Gateway

Based on NZ Transport Agency reports between 2009 and 2013 about Northern Gateway operation, it

seems that less than 1% of debt for tolls is non-recoverable because vehicles are incorrectly

registered. This indicates a high level of vehicle registration in New Zealand.


• Vehicle registration data quality does not seem to be a significant problem in NZ, though this needs to

be validated with NZ Transport Agency. The volume and mix of drivers in Auckland may mean that the

compliance rate differs from the 13,000 daily users of Northern Gateway.

• The scheme operator will need to agree with NZ Transport Agency that access can be provided to the

VRM database for the purposes of validating vehicle registrations for which users are paying or

registering; and cleansing ANPR data. In addition access will be required to pursue non-payers through

violation notices.


3.4. Trip data quality and billing accuracy

The different road charging technologies have varying capabilities to accurately capture trip data

reliably. This can result in loss of data, incorrect data capture and additional costs for secondary

checking of the data. Depending on the charging policy, data capture may need to:

• Be >98% accurate every time a vehicle passes – as is implied by a cordon charge, like

Stockholm – quite a demanding requirement;

• Select the best data capture event out of a series of detection events over a day to support a

daily charge – like London and Milan - less demanding;

• Use two detection events to calculate a route between two locations and apply a distance

based charge – can generate a geometric error from the product of two read rates;

• If direction of travel needs to be captured then there is usually a need for segregation of the

carriageway, and the on-street equipment needs to be set up to monitor each lane;

• Capture multiple detections each of which is charged and presented on a bill or statement –

very demanding.

ANPR performance

Number-plate recognition systems have been implemented to perform at read rates as high as 99%.

Northern Gateway cites its read rate at 97-99%; Stockholm claims a 98% read rate; the contractual

read rate on Dartford Crossing Freeflow (due to go live in Nov 2014) is 98%. As an area scheme the

read rate in London did not need to be so high; typically a vehicle was captured 2-4 times over the

day so only the best picture needed to be retained to establish the vehicle was liable for the daily

charge.

Even if lighting and camera set up are perfect, other factors that may reduce performance include:

• Obscuration of the plate by other vehicles in closely bunched traffic or because of high sided

vehicles

• Broken or damaged plates

• Dirty plates

• Foreign plates

• Lack of a front plate – in New Jersey there is no requirement to have a front plate

• Colour markings are not read by infra-red – so it may not be possible to interpret separate

coloured markings on plates.

It can be more difficult to:

• Detect motorcycles – which only have rear number-plates that are readable

• Detect the rear plates of trucks – which often have dirty or obscured number-plates – so front

plates are usually best for recognition.


Using additional cameras or detection sites can improve likelihood of capture.

Annex C explores ANPR performance in more detail.

Figure 7 below illustrates a typical 2-lane bi-directional configuration with cameras mounted on a

roadside pole – typical for an urban street in a city environment. Each camera covers a single

direction of travel/lane and has a “letterbox” shaped field of view within which it looks for number-

plates; here the field of view is shown as 3.5m – a lane width.

Figure 7: Illustrative ANPR installation with pole and 2 camera and bi-directional road

Similar equipment is implemented on motorways, but typically mounted overhead on a gantry. On the

Northern Gateway motorway ANPR detection is used with cameras detecting front and rear plates

with associated triggering and vehicle tracking. A dual gantry approach is used so that front and rear

plates can be captured. This is a very robust implementation with vehicle classifiers which is probably

why it is achieving the quoted 99% collection rate.

Figure 8: Northern Gateway gantry installation (facing northbound)

Source: Kapsch


We understand that the ANPR system on Northern Gateway uses:

• An ‘on-camera’ ANPR algorithm for number-plate reading – a primary reader working in real

time as each vehicle passes. This process also applies a “read confidence” measure

• A back office ANPR reader which reviews the captured images “off-line” and using additional

business rules and other pixel processing techniques, determines whether the original read

was correct, and which may then apply amendments – a secondary reader

• Manual checking by staff that inspect the image and interpreted plate to validate or correct the

read.

These three activities, together, result in the 97-99% read rate which has been quoted; the

performance of the ANPR camera by itself has not been identified. Annex C examines in more detail

how ANPR camera performance can degrade in poor conditions and typical performance measures.

Each site needs to be engineered to get maximum performance. The more ‘safety margin’ left in when

commissioned, the lower the likelihood of degradation. Sites may need to be relocated to improve

performance. The setup of a site needs to be “commissioned” and measured.

A local trial should be carried out to get locally relevant performance measures. The performance of

the systems currently installed on Northern Gateway should also be reviewed.

Tag and beacon

This technology uses radio communications primarily governed by the European CEN standard for

Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) and a US standard for Radio Frequency ID (ISO

18000). The mature DSRC solution adopted in Europe, Australia and some parts of South America

uses 5.8 GHz radio to communicate between a reader (mounted overhead) and a tag (transponder)

mounted in the vehicle as indicated below.

Figure 9: Illustration of tag and beacon operation and geometry


The dimensions for the installation need to meet specific geometry with the reader mounted to

capture a vehicle approximately 2-8 metres away from the mounting pole or gantry as the vehicle

approaches.

DSRC typically achieves detection rates of >99.8% subject to the tag functioning and being correctly

fitted in the vehicle. Typical reasons for a tag not being read correctly or not at all include:

• Driver places tag in the glove box or elsewhere in the vehicle

• Vehicle has a metallised windscreen without an open patch (by the rear view mirror) e.g. for the

Audi A8, and does not allow the radio communications signal through

• Tag battery has expired – they may last 5-8 years

• Motorcycles do not always have an optimum location to mount a tag

• Tag in a car was obscured by a high sided vehicle – less likely to occur when the reader is

mounted overhead.

This is often combined with number plate recognition (for enforcement, validation of tag and number

plate relationships and to identify casual users) all mounted on a gantry.

Along with equipment designed to gather vehicle specific data (VRM and/or tag read information) the

toll-point equipment will also usually include a system of vehicle class (car, truck, taxi etc)

identification using various possible mechanisms including radar, road embedded axle counters,

specific tags allocated to different classes etc. and supporting equipment to position the tag

accurately within specific vehicles to reduce the risk of tag/vehicle mismatches.

Because of the differing geometry for detecting the licence plate and reading the tag, either a single

gantry approach is used (as shown for Melbourne City Link below – pre-2008) or dual gantries as

shown for Northern Gateway above. MCL implemented a second gantry in 2008 to improve detection.

[Note: Northern Gateway’s gantries have been equipped with tag readers as well as cameras – NZ

Transport Agency has not exercised the option to use tags yet.]

Figure 10: Single gantry arrangement on Melbourne City Link (pre-2008)

Source: Transurban



• Camera-based ANPR without the use of tags is more widely used for city charging schemes (e.g.

Stockholm, London, and Milan). Tag and beacon schemes operate primarily on motorway and

expressway environments.

• In both cases systems require significant mounting infrastructure to be located.

• It is unlikely that an ANPR system would achieve significantly better than 98% read rate for vehicles

passing a single detection point.

• The level of confidence required to be sure that the automatic read is accurate is a key determinant of

the cost associated with ANPR. This is driven by the acceptable level of risk of automatic billing based

on a false positive read, vs the cost of manual checking.

• Though tag and beacon technology can provide higher read rates, 99.8% or better, there are significant

capital costs and infrastructure needed to mount the tag readers and other factors, like incorrect

mounting by the user, or battery failure can become the dominant factors reducing overall performance.

• Better read rates are achieved when equipment is mounted over a lane – this is more feasible with

gantries in a motorway environment than in a more urban or residential environment.

• There is a high risk that ANPR ‘misreads’ will create ‘false positives’ – other valid registrations registered

on the system which will be wrongly charged. Secondary automated checks and manual checking, as

applied on Northern Gateway, can be used to alleviate this but has a cost.

• Where multiple detection events are required, e.g. to support entry and exit from a motorway scheme,

the probability of capturing both events correctly is the product of two read rates – in the case of an

ANPR system operating at 98% for a single site, the product is 96%. For a DSRC system operating at

99.8% for a single site, the product is 99.6%.

• Improvements to read rates need to be carefully designed into each detection site and into back office

data cleansing processes.

• The intelligent application of business rules about registered, known or previously manually viewed

licence plates (known as ‘golden databases’, white/blacklists etc.) can add significant value to the task

of reducing the rate and cost of human image viewing. In each system these rules need to be locally

tailored.

3.5. Public realm impact

On-street equipment requires enough mounting space for the technology to detect vehicles reliably.

However poles, cantilevers and gantries may not fit well with the local streetscape and public realm

strategy. Choosing a cordon boundary therefore requires careful consideration of how detection

equipment may affect space and streetscape. This factor may make acceptance of the infrastructure

by local businesses and residents challenging if:

a) It is intrusive and out of character with the local ‘streetscape’ – this may have planning

implications under the Resource Management Act

b) The equipment requires the removal of parking at the kerbside along the length of its

detection zones to avoid obscuration of passing vehicles. In the case of tag and beacon

systems a vehicle parked near a tag reader will cause the tag battery to expire quickly

because of the continual read attempts. The amount of kerbside made unusable for parking

may be of the order of 11-20m in the case of single direction facing systems or 20-30m for bi-

directional systems.

Figure 11 illustrates the equipment used in Stockholm for the cordon scheme. This type of mounting

may be acceptable on some of the proposed major cordon access points, but may not be acceptable

on residential streets.


Figure 11: Stockholm gantry based camera system

Source: Q-Free

Additionally, the infrastructure may require strong poles, gantries and cantilevers to be embedded in

concrete bases at the roadside. It is not always feasible to locate such a concrete base on the

highway or footway because of local services (cables, ducts, gas, and power supplies), access to

premises (driveways). As a result there needs to be flexibility to choose the installation site without too

much disruption to local services.

Though there have been a number of attempts to develop low impact mountings for equipment, the

current ‘off the shelf’ solutions may not fit well into Auckland’s streetscape.

Annex D explores examples of where equipment has been specially designed to reduce its impact on

the street.


• Each site on the cordon will need to be considered for its visual impact.

• Provision for parking near the detection site may need to be removed in order to allow clear line of sight for the detection equipment and also, if tags are adopted, to prevent battery failure for tags mounted in parked vehicles.

• It may not be feasible to locate equipment precisely on the cordon boundary given obstructions, and requirements for civil works to mount a pole; the equipment may need to be located some distance inside the boundary.

• A budget for tailoring the mounting structure will be needed to balance visual impact with effective mounting of the camera (and potentially tag reader) to optimise detection rate.


3.6. Interoperability with other schemes

The scheme could be made interoperable with existing and future New Zealand toll roads to improve

the customer experience. Australia has implemented interoperability between all tolling schemes

through a common tag technology, number-plate data exchange and inter-operator agreements.

Interoperability has been in place in Australia since 2000. It now covers 3 states, 16 toll roads totalling

over 250 km, 13 operators and 8 different tag issuers through an agreement amongst the operators to

standardise around a common set of technical and commercial principles and a system of data

exchange administered by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) in NSW. RMS is both a regulator

in NSW and also a participant in interoperability because it operates the tolling schemes on the

Sydney Harbour Bridge and Tunnel.

State government regulations in each jurisdiction mandate that all current and future tolling

infrastructure (tags and roadside equipment) must comply with an Australian Standard (AS4962)

entitled ‘Electronic Toll Collection – Transaction Specification for Australian Interoperability on the

DSRC link’ which is based on the European CEN Standards for DSRC operating in the 5.8GHz

microwave band.

The system works well from both the customer’s (road user) perspective who can travel on any road

in Australia with a single tolling account and also for the operator who can take advantage of the

reduced cost and complexity of having to deal individually with each of the other operators and

possibly tens of thousands of ‘foreign’ customers travelling on their roads.


4. Back office

4.1. Exemptions and discounts

Stockholm

As a tax the Stockholm Congestion scheme applied to all users. The only drivers who are exempt are

foreign drivers as they are not registered for tax. The trial in 2006 exempted taxis, but this exemption

was removed for the full scheme in 2007; low emissions vehicles were also exempt, but this

exemption ceased for low carbon vehicles purchased after 2009. This meant that the vast majority of

vehicles crossing the cordon are liable.

London

The London Congestion Charging scheme offers a 90% discount to residents, and taxis and buses

are exempt, as are ‘blue badge’ (disabled) users, motorcycles and low emissions vehicles.

The process for proving entitlement to the resident’s discount required original utility bills or bank

statements, plus a copy of the vehicle registration document (warrant) which had to identify the user:

a) As a resident

b) As the ‘keeper’ of the vehicle concerned.

A significant part of the back office operation concerned the processing of discounts and exemptions

at a substantial cost. The result is that today (2013) out of ~170,000 unique vehicles driving in the

zone each day, only ~67,000 actually pay the full charge.

Dartford Crossing

In 2008 Dartford Crossing introduced a residents discount allowing 50 toll free trips per annum and

further trips at 90% discount. This was in response to a political decision to continue tolls on the

crossing as a congestion reduction measure after the bridge had been paid for. The process for

applying for the discount involved submission of a range of paper documents (residency, council

tax/rates bill, vehicle registration document to prove ownership of the vehicle) to be processed by the

back office and returned. Also a new process for reading residents’ number-plates was introduced at

the toll plaza. This impacted the toll system which required enhancement, reduced revenue and

increased back office costs.

Milan

The Milan Area C has a series of exemptions and discounts, and like London there are substantial

resources involved in processing them, as well as impacts on revenue. As Area C had previously

been an environmental zone 2008-2011, ‘Ecopass’, many of the exemptions and discounts were

related to the previous charging policy.



• The decision on which drivers are liable to pay and those that are discounted or exempt is likely to have

long term impacts on the cost of the operation and the net revenue. The charging policy needs to be

carefully considered.

• The method for establishing exemptions or discounts needs to be simple to process for the back office

and not incur substantial resource costs.

• There needs to be a clear commitment to review exemptions and discounts on a regular basis to re-

assess if they are still valid in the light of the traffic impacts and user base at the time.

4.2. Pre-pay or post-pay accounts

User accounts make it simpler to process transactions within the back office, as a registered user

listed against the relevant vehicle registration generally incurs a lower transaction cost.

In recognition of the lower processing cost it is usual for operators to offer a discount to the advertised

tariff particularly if the account is set up on a pre-pay basis, but conversely if, for example, a tag is

provided, there may also be a monthly charge and/or a deposit.

Northern Gateway

Northern Gateway requires account holders to pre-pay for their use of the road. We understand that

at go-live the minimum balance was $40, but this was reduced to $20 and may be reduced even

further to encourage account take up. Account take up is >60%.

UK toll roads

In the UK each toll operator decides its own policy on level of discount. The table below summarises

examples of policy for operating accounts on UK tolled or charging schemes.

Table 6: UK toll road examples of account operating policy

Dart Tag Account

Severn Tag M6 Toll Mersey Tunnel Fast Tag

London CC Auto-pay

Vehicle detection Tag + ANPR Tag Tag Tag Number-plate read

Scheme Barrier-based

Open road from Nov 14

Barrier-based operation

Barrier-based Barrier-based Open road

Monthly charge No charge No charge £1 No charge No charge

Deposit on tab (OBU)

No charge £30 £5 returnable No charge subject to initial balance

No charge

Application fee £10 0 £25 or £30 0 £10

Initial balance £10 free credit on successful

application

0 Quickstart - £40 Sufficient to meet estimated monthly

spend

0

Payment event Pre-pay Pre-pay Pre-pay Pre-pay Post-pay

Discount from cash toll

33% for cars

13% for HGVs

0% 5% 13% for all vehicle classes

10%

Other payment channels

Cash Cash Credit card Contactless card

Cash

Cash Web, telephone


Auckland Transport HOP Card

The Auckland Transport public transport payment card currently offers an average 10% discount on

normal bus, train and ferry fares, but is pre-pay. The minimum top-up is currently $10. Account take

up is > 70%.

Given the credit on the account is regarded as a financial instrument it is subject to regulation by the

Financial Markets Authority (FMA).

The operator would therefore be subject to the FMA which requires that:

• Any person who advises on financial products; provides an investment planning service in New

Zealand; makes investment management decisions on behalf of another person under an

authority; or receives, holds, pays or transfers client money is subject to disclosure

requirements and conduct obligations under the Financial Advisers Act 2008 (FAA).

• Persons providing services relating to more complex products will generally also have to

become authorised by the Financial Markets Authority and meet qualification, training and

competence requirements. Persons providing services on simpler products will generally need

to be registered in New Zealand. The FAA applies regardless of the country in which the

person performing the services resides.

• The Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 (FSPA)

requires that any person or entity which provides a financial service is registered on the

Financial Service Providers Register and (if they provide financial services to the public) is a

member of a dispute resolution scheme. This includes financial advisers under the FAA, banks,

securities issuers, KiwiSaver managers, custodians, money managers, credit contract

providers, credit card providers, travellers cheque providers, currency exchanges, insurers,

trustees, listed companies, and foreign exchange and futures dealers. Generally the FSPA will

not apply to financial service providers who reside outside New Zealand and provide financial

services in New Zealand.

• Securities trustees and statutory supervisors are registered under the Securities Trustees and

Statutory Supervisors Act 2011. Insurers are regulated by the Insurance (Prudential

Supervision) Act 2010.

• The Financial Transactions Reporting Act sets out the current anti-money laundering regime,

requiring financial institutions to carry out customer due diligence, identity verification and

suspicious transaction reporting. An expanded regime, reflecting the FATF Recommendations

will apply from 30 June 2013, under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of

Terrorism Act.

Refunds of unused credit on the pre-payment account are permitted for the HOP card, subject to an

administration fee. This is a more attractive model for the customer than, for example, than a pre-pay

SIM card where typically unused balances are lost. Most pre-pay charging schemes allow refund of

unused balances.


Melbourne City Link

MCL opened in 2000 as the second fully free flow electronic toll road in the world and without the

benefit of hindsight or the advantages of ‘lessons learnt’ from other roads it started with a tolling

transaction focus, largely based on early toll-plaza ‘cash collection’ thinking. Transurban, the owner

and operator of MCL did not adequately assess the need to interact with its road users as customers

and was unable to meet their expectations for service and access to information. Its immediate

response was to increase customer facing resources (at considerable extra cost) and the construction

of a temporary database to handle customer accounts.

Transurban quickly realised that it was running a ‘customer service’ business and after some adverse

publicity generated by disgruntled road users it decided in 2001 to undertake a complete review of its

customer operations and systems. This resulted in the adoption of a Customer Relationship

Management (CRM) package integrated with the tolling transaction system and the incremental

development of a range of access channels for account management and the progressive

development of a range of tolling ‘products’ aimed at satisfying various customer needs and

requirements. This approach set the standard for all future electronic tolling operations in Australia.

As evidence that Transurban has learnt the lessons of the past it now regards itself as being a leader

in tolling customer management with the introduction of initiatives such as:

• A dedicated customer care team charged with resolving any case that can’t be handled by the

front line customer service centre

• An internal resolution team independent of Customer Care

• A Customer Charter underpinned by service objectives and KPIs

• A published annual scorecard of performance against all objectives and KPIs

• An external Customer Ombudsman.

NZ Heavy Vehicles Road User Charging Scheme

New Zealand already operates a road user charging scheme for heavy vehicles over 3.5 T. The

scheme operates through having pre-pay accounts where units of 1,000 km are purchased. There are

a number of approved methods and devices for measuring distance actually travelled – one of these

methods or devices must be used for the heavy vehicle concerned.


• Pre-pay accounts for road charging are acceptable and can help with the processing of vehicle

registration data to reduce ANPR errors and reduce payment channel costs.

• A minimum top-up of the order of $10-$20 is practical given the potential charge level of $2-$3.

• To drive account take up a discount of at least 10% should be considered – 15% may be more realistic.

• If tag accounts are offered and there is a clear benefit to the customer then a deposit or account charge

may also be feasible to mitigate loss of the tag and its capital cost.

• Pre-pay account models are well established with appropriate financial market regulation for acting as a

deposit taker for transport services.

• The key to customer acceptance for large scale open road charging schemes is implementing effective

customer services.


4.3. Manual checking of ANPR/OCR records

London

The ANPR system used in London graded each vehicle record captured and interpreted into a

registration mark with a confidence level ranging up to 100%. This meant the accuracy of a read could

be graded and:

• Some records automatically applied to a user account without a manual check – e.g. for > 95%

confidence

• Other records could be ranked and have sampled checks applied – e.g. for 85-95%

• Remaining records could be passed through a secondary OCR process.

Additionally a series of filters were applied, including:

• Removal of duplicates – caused by multiple captures of the same vehicle as it moved back

across the camera field in slow moving traffic

• Whether the registration mark existed on the national database

• Whether there was a registered account with the registration mark.

This meant that the final ‘bucket’ of images for checking was substantially reduced.

Two manual checking processes were adopted:

a) Where the checker had to retype the registration mark interpreted – an operator could typically

check 250-300/hour.

b) Where just visual inspection was used to compare the image of the vehicle with the interpreted

VRM – an operator could typically check 500-600/hour.

Typically only 6-8 manual checkers were required given London is an area scheme and only the best

image over a day needs to be retained out of typically 2-4 images captured per vehicle.

Northern Gateway

Northern Gateway has adopted a similar filtering and manual check process to that applied in London,

applying confidence levels and ranking the records in a way to prioritise how filters are applied and

manual checking performed. A secondary OCR process is also applied to review and correct

misreads. The resulting read rate is quoted as 97-99%.


Melbourne City Link

MCL also uses a system of manual checking to either verify automatic reads that have not been

produced with a sufficient level of confidence or to correct low quality or badly rendered images. The

expected level of confidence is set at around 80% before it will take the image as ‘correct’ and send

the transaction for billing without human viewing and validation.


• Metrics for filtering and manual checking of ANPR reads are well established and the staff time involved

can be quantified and prioritised. As a worked example:

• If a cordon or motorway scheme generated ~200,000 – 300,000 records a day and automated filters

removed two-thirds of the records then, at 600 records per hour the staff needed for checking may be of

the order of 13-20 FTE.


5. Enforcement and legal powers

5.1. Build on existing processes

Stockholm

Non-payment of taxes in Stockholm is an offence so when the Congestion Tax was introduced there

was a requirement for an enforcement process that was sufficiently robust. Following the initial trial in

2006, it was decided that for the full operation key elements were:

• Tax decisions based on a witness statement of vehicle liability.

• An evidential record based around the vehicle registration – already a legal means of

identifying a unique vehicle.

• A mapping from the vehicle registration to the owner who became liable for the tax.

• The tax being collected along with other tax liabilities for the owner as part of the usual monthly

process.

London

There was no precedent in place for road charging in London. In 1999 when the new Greater London

Authority (GLA) was being created, the legislation supporting the GLA also empowered the Mayor to

implement a congestion charge, for which non-compliance was a civil offence. The closest precedent

for such an offence related to parking enforcement; it was therefore decided to adopt a similar legal

process and powers to enforce the congestion charge through:

• Accessing vehicle keeper details on the national vehicle registration database.

• Issuing a penalty charge notice (PCN) to non-payers – a PCN was already understood for

parking.

• Allowing a customer to make a representation if they wished to challenge the PCN.

• Using the established traffic enforcement centre (effectively a court) as a means to register a

debt.

• Operating an independent appeals process using the already operational Parking and Traffic

Appeals Adjudicator.

Though there were some differences with parking, they were primarily addressed through secondary

legislation.


Key Conclusion for Auckland

• Adopt as far as possible an established enforcement process, for example, a model similar to that

operated by NZ Transport Agency for the Northern Gateway or parking enforcement in Auckland.

5.2. Evidential robustness

Though non-payment of a charge may be a civil offence, because of the politically high profile of

charging schemes it is important that the evidence of a vehicle being liable for a charge is very robust

and cannot be challenged in court.

Auckland Council parking enforcement

Experience from parking enforcement in Auckland is that the presiding justice has substantial latitude

to interpret the situation, and any departure from a fully documented procedure, or flaw in how an

evidential record is captured, may result in the case being rejected. Auckland Council therefore takes

care to capture all pertinent evidence of an offence, including capturing:

• Images of the vehicle registration plate.

• Images of the vehicle’s warrant of fitness.

• Images of the vehicle relative to signage which sets out the parking restrictions.

• The witness statement of the enforcement officer.

• Notes that the officer makes in a notebook.

An equivalent level of detail and care is needed for evidence that liability for a charge has been

incurred.


As the evidence captured was by an ‘unattended camera’ there was no human witness to make a

statement. To establish the integrity of the evidence and demonstrate that an error could not have

been made, and the evidence could not have been interfered with, a number of mechanisms were

adopted, including:

• Each camera had its location, identity and lane details programmed into the camera head at

commissioning so it could not be altered by an engineer remotely.

• Each image captured was time-stamped, encrypted, and watermarked.

• An integrity indicator showing the camera was working correctly was applied.

• A camera “session” was adopted with clear start and end records and sequential numbering of

frames, to demonstrate the image could not have been inserted.

• If camera sites or their related cabinets were undergoing maintenance then evidence from the

cameras concerned was flagged as potentially having less integrity.


• The equipment was specified to have the same level of integrity as equipment typically used for

criminal enforcement, even though there was no formal requirement for the system to be “type

approved” (gazetted) by the police.

• The overall system including communications network and datacentre was subject to

demanding security requirements meeting ISO 27001.


• The camera system needs to be specified very carefully with a supporting evidential strategy that could

withstand the most detailed scrutiny and challenge of the technology and capture process.

• The end to end system used to capture, store and present the evidence needs to be secured in a

manner that can demonstrate the integrity of the evidence.


6. Operating costs

6.1. Comparison of costs

The overall cost of road charging systems varies substantially with each project. Each scheme has its

own parameters and commercial operating model and reports its costs and revenue differently. The

charges applied to the end user also vary substantially (for example, London will be £11.50/day as of

June 2014 while Auckland is considering testing a somewhat lower cordon crossing/motorway

charge) which usually makes comparison of collection costs as a % of revenue quite meaningless.

Few cities report the costs of their schemes in a fashion that allows easy comparison. Commercial

operators also tend not to report costs and revenues as this data is sensitive. In many cases it is not

simple to separate out the one-off capex costs for the project, system related costs, civil and highway

works, staff operating costs, costs of contract change and other items such as project management,

procurement, trials, complementary traffic and transport measures and then the costs of managing

through the political and stakeholder challenges relevant to the locality.

The costs of other schemes are generally not a reliable benchmark for planning a new scheme as

there are so many factors that make the schemes different. In practice it is far more useful to model

the costs and revenue of a specific scheme based on the intended charging parameters and a high

level design and traffic model; even then estimates of revenue and costs may have an error range of

20%-30%. For example, the very detailed modelling and revenue and cost analysis done for London

did not foresee the extent of traffic reduction achieved, in line with the primary congestion mitigation

objective; this meant that net revenues were initially lower than expected by some £20m-£30m

(NZ$40-NZ$60m) per annum.

The degree to which drivers will change their behaviour or be compliant in paying the charge also

varies – in Stockholm users were largely compliant; in London there was greater non-compliance than

expected. Market research will be needed to assess the extent to which drivers in Auckland will (a)

comply, (b) switch travel modes, and (c) have a preference for payment channels (accounts, web,

retail, call centre) – the cost of which drives much of the operation.

Revenue collection rates are also influenced by the ability of the operator to enforce violations and

collect unpaid tolls. This in turn is often a balance between the potential revenue uplift through strict

enforcement and collection and the additional operating costs that this will generate.

Australian experience suggests that while the rate (and cost) of strict enforcement varies substantially

with the level of traffic, the rate of violation and the cost of enforcement and debt collection processing

in the various State jurisdictions, the rate of violations and final collection rates are remarkably similar.


On Transurban’s Sydney toll-roads for example, where traffic is high, the rate of revenue that remains

uncollected after standard billing processes (expressed in terms of total traffic) is currently 4%-6%.

This reduces to 2.5%-3% after the first stage of enforcement and debt collection and finally to 1.5%-

2% after which the effort and cost of collecting the debt outweighs the revenue benefit. The cost of

debt collection in NSW is high.

On MCL where traffic is also high, but the cost of enforcement and debt collection is lower than in

NSW, the rate of uncollected revenue after standard billing is currently 4%-5%. This drops to 3% after

the first stage of enforcement and 2% after which the matter is handed over to the police to pursue.

In Queensland QML figures indicate that like in NSW and Victoria 4%-6% of tolls remain outstanding

after standard collection processes which represents AUD$18m+ of revenue. This is reduced to 2%

after enforcement.

The above comments notwithstanding, the following section seeks to make some cost comparisons.

6.2. Typical cost structures

Table 7 identifies the typical cost elements of a road charging system.

Table 7: Typical cost elements

Capex elements Opex

• High level scheme design

• Detailed design and specification

• Legislative change and traffic orders

• Procurement of the system and business operation (customer channels, back office, enforcement)

• Implementation of on-street equipment, customer channels, back office, enforcement

• On-street signs and lines

• Publicity and public awareness campaigns

• Consultation

• Customer management and contact

• Payment processing

• On-board unit supply chain distribution/asset management (where applicable)

• Enforcement/violation processing and debt collection

• System operation and maintenance

• On-street equipment maintenance

• Communications network operation

• Signs and lines maintenance

• Contract management

• System enhancements

• Ongoing publicity and awareness

The underlying cost structure is usually composed of:

• One-off client team project costs, which some city authorities choose to include, for the life of

the project, from feasibility stage onwards, while others do not.

• One-off supplier costs – where suppliers take a major role in delivery, some one-off supply

costs can be recovered through being amortised costs within a service charge.

• Client team annual operating costs – before any user transactions are considered.

• Supplier annual operating costs – before there are any user transactions considered.

• The marginal costs of a transaction (vehicle day/detection event, payment, enforcement event

etc).

What is more generally reported is total operating cost, excluding one-off costs. The marginal costs of

a transaction are typically not reported, but it is usually these costs that are more comparable

between schemes.


6.3. Cost of collection as a proportion of revenue

An analysis by Jacobs Engineering Group in 2010 (see National Cooperative Highway Research

Programme, Report 689, 2011) of toll road operations in North America identified:

• Operational costs as a percentage of revenue collected varied from 15% (Toronto) to 90%

(SANDAG) with an average of 35%.

• Transaction costs varied from US$0.16 to US$1.43 with an average of US$0.54.

The same report analysed the area/cordon schemes at the time and indicated costs of collection of

between 11% (Oslo) and 55% (London) with an average of 38%. The others were Milan (54%) and

Stockholm (29%).

In May 2011, Walker (The Acceptability of Road Pricing, RAC Foundation) reported the following

comparative operating costs by scheme:

Table 8: Comparative operating costs by scheme

Scheme Operating cost as a % of revenue

London Congestion Charging 42%

Stockholm 21%

German Lorry Charging 12-25%

Austria Lorry Charging 11%

Swiss Lorry Charging 6%

Norway City Tolling 8-14%

Singapore ERP 20-30%

In general our research indicates that many transport authorities estimate their operating costs at the

“lower end” of what is probable and many exclude key areas of scope like enforcement.

6.4. Comparison of two city scheme costs

London and Stockholm’s revenue and costs were reported as follows:

Table 9: Comparison of London and Stockholm revenue and costs

London (2012/13) Stockholm (2008)

User charge £10.50 ($23) 10, 15, 20, SEK ($1.7, $2.5, $3.4) with daily cap of 60 SEK ($10.2)

Capital cost £162m ($324m) (2001-03) of which ~ £80m ($160m) was on traffic management

~ 1.9bn SEK (2005-07) ($323m)

Income £220m ($440m) 850m SEK ($144m)

Operating costs £89.9m ($180m) 190m SEK ($32.3m)

Net revenue £132.1m ($264m) 660m SEK ($112m)

Typical vehicles/passages/day 170k (unique vehicles) 350k-400k (cordon crossings)

Typical charged vehicle passages/day

68k 350k

Cost of collection 40% 22%


London (2012/13) Stockholm (2008)

Effective cost per charged vehicle transaction

£5.51 (per day) ($11) 2.26 SEK (per cordon crossing) ($0.38)

The effective cost per charged day in London ($11) based on the reported operating costs, is

substantially higher than the charge being tested for Auckland. The cost per cordon crossing in

Stockholm ($0.38) is more in line with US toll road examples. We suspect that in practice the

comparison is not on a like-for-like basis.

6.5. Cost per transaction

It is probably more useful to consider individual costs per transaction in Auckland. Each cost needs to

be tailored to fit the local resource base, supply chain and event volume. Hence, below we identify

typical calculations for some example events.

Table 10: Typical calculations for example events

Event Relevant assets Illustrative calculation/assumption Notes Indicative value

Camera detection event

Capital cost of camera infrastructure and image processing back office, network and associated operating cost

• Camera infrastructure @$40m capex amortised over 5 years

• Opex @ 12%

• Capturing 250k cordon images/day

This is just an example calculation

$0.21/ image

Contact Centre Call

Call centre agent time

Capital and operating costs of call centre equipment & premises

• 3.5 mins/call

• agent cost of $50k pa - $1.60 per call

• Equipment + premises @ $0.90 per call

NZ Transport Agency report a cost of $2.70 1

$2.50/call

Web-Payment by Credit Card

Capital cost of web portal + merchant acquirer fee

• 2% of payment made

• Payment of $10

AT report a MA fee of 2%

NZ Transport Agency report a cost of $0.14

$0.20/ payment

Retail kiosk

Retailer commission • Commission of 15%

• Payment of $3

NZ Transport Agency reports a kiosk cost of $0.35 on a $2.20 toll

$0.45

Issue Violation Notice

Owner details lookup

Staff time to check

Capital and operating costs of system

Postage

• Lookup of vehicle with Registrar costs $0.50

• Time to check 30 secs - $0.22

• Cost of system - $0.50

• Postage of $0.50

$1.72

1 Source: NZTA for Northern Gateway.


7. Conclusions

Table 11 summarises the main areas where our analysis indicates there could be significant impact or

relevance on the feasibility and costs of the two charging options being considered and which

therefore need careful consideration for a scheme in Auckland.

Table 11: Summary of our analysis of impacts of ‘lessons learnt’ by scheme option

Lessons learnt area Relevance of impact2 Notes on impact for Auckland, and possible mitigation options

Cordon Motorway

1. Customer engagement

Scheme complexity XXX XX Depends on final scheme design. Drivers not used to paying city tolls; will need more education and allowance for “bow wave” call centre capacity. This was the key lesson learnt from Melbourne City Link.

Casual user XXX XXX It is hard to know which scheme will have more casual users: both may be quite high. Higher levels of casual users will tend to drive a greater need to have more payment channels (e.g. retail), and be more costly to operate. Milan is the scheme with the most payment channel options, but also the most expensive to operate.

Digital channels XX XX Account take up is the main priority. Lower cost digital channels established for Northern Gateway (NG) although this is a simple closed road scheme with a single charge level. Allow for evolution of channel mix and incentivise take-up of digital channels where possible. London has increasingly emphasised use of digital channels to reduce cost and improve customer convenience.

Privacy XX XX Formalise privacy policy for Cordon. Privacy model already established for NG, however the potential size of the scheme does change the perception. Use of kiosks may be less viable for such a large scheme.

2. Vehicle detection & tech

Evidence capture XXX XX Links closely to enforcement powers. More challenging to gather evidence on the cordon due to dense urban environment. Possible mitigation measures could be to move boundary to allow positioning of cameras on less challenging locations (similar to Stockholm), or change to a flat daily charge similar to London and Milan.

Minimise requirement for gazetting of equipment.

Vehicle registration data quality

XX X Some users may not know their registration. Unregistered vehicles may be less likely drive on motorways – not considered a big risk in Auckland.

2 Inevitably this is a subjective judgement


Lessons learnt area Relevance of impact2 Notes on impact for Auckland, and possible mitigation options

Cordon Motorway

Trip data quality and customer billing

XXX X ANPR more widely used for city (cordon/area) schemes.

Accuracy of trip data likely to be poorer for cordon scheme under the current design (location). Mitigation measures could include heavier manual checking in the back office, changing to a daily charge – or an Area scheme - to allow for multiple detection events, or moving the boundary.

Motor-cycles likely to have a poor detection rate (if charged) and only where cameras are rear facing.

Public realm impact XXX X Equipment visual impact on cordon sites may be significant in some locations. Design mitigations are possible but can be costly.

Interoperability X XX Users are likely to assume/ demand interoperable accounts with toll roads based on the motorway connecting with the Northern Gateway, particularly if the scheme is motorway based.

3. Back office

Exemptions, discounts and special vehicles

XX X Minimise exemptions and discounts, except where straightforward to administer (e.g. already linked to vehicle registration). May be more pressure for discounts to a cordon scheme, particularly from residents. Options include requiring residents to register for an account and offering X trips for free.

Pre- and post-pay accounts X X Assume pre-pay for regular non-commercial users. Post-pay for registered commercial users. Post-pay per trip for casual users.

Manual checking XXX XXX Needed resources can be quantified subject to camera read rate. Both schemes have challenges, if minimising error rates and maximising revenue collection are priorities.

4. Enforcement

Build on existing enforcement processes

XX XX Assumed to use an existing enforcement model.

Evidential robustness X X Assumed to use established standards for evidence.

5. Costs

Comparison with other schemes

XXX XX Cordon transaction cost likely to be higher than motorway based on experience elsewhere. Cost may vary substantially with payment channels and setup cost amortisation. Both will have significant costs.

Capital costs XX XXX Motorway scheme likely to have higher up front cost based on up to 200 detection points for a closed scheme.

Notes: XXX indicates major impact; XX indicates medium impact; X indicates minor impact.


Annex A – Terms of reference

Review of the operational and business requirements of road charging scheme

The document is to provide:

A review of international system examples, technology applications and trends, including:

• Current systems

• Developing technologies

• International benchmarking of operating costs

• Relevance to New Zealand.


Annex B – Road charging options

Cordon scheme option (extracted from Don Houghton’s paper of April 2013)

Cordon charging scenarios propose the tolling of all roads entering a particular part of the urban area.

The single cordon scenario assumes all roads would be tolled crossing a cordon surrounding central

Auckland, cutting the Auckland Harbour Bridge, Tamaki Drive and Orakei Road, and running along

the northern side of Green Lane Road, Balmoral Road and St Lukes Road before cutting Meola Road.

It is assumed that the charge points would be tolled using DSRC/ANPR systems requiring 40 charge

points. DSRC (tags) would be the prime collection technology with ANPR (number plate reading) also

required for casual users and for enforcement purposes.

The layout of this scenario assumed for costing purposes is outlined below.

Figure 12: Layout of Cordon scheme option


Motorway option

For the purposes of this scenario the strategic network is made up of:

• SH1 from just north of Warkworth (assuming Puhoi – Warkworth is constructed) to just south of

Drury interchange.

• SH 16 from the start of the motorway in Grafton Gulley to just south of the roundabout at

Brighams Creek Road.

• SH20 from SH16 to SH1.

• SH20A from SH20 to just north of Kirkbride Road.

• SH18 from SH16 to SH1.


Annex C – ANPR performance challenges

C.1 Degraded conditions

When lighting or weather conditions degrade, ANPR products may vary in how their performance

changes. Some products will continue to perform while others may be affected. There is no single

reference profile that can be used as a benchmark under such conditions – each product needs to be

measured under the potential adverse scenarios. This varies according to:

• How the ANPR ‘triggers’ that a plate may be in view – e.g. self-triggering (looking for plates in

the field of view with a series of frame-stores which are successively analysed), vs loops in the

road (external trigger), vs laser (external) trigger.

• How the product matches characters to pixel patterns/shapes – e.g. template-based matching

or neural networks.

• The number of pixels needed to get character resolution (typically minimum of 3-4 across the

width of a ‘stroke’ - the white-black-white transition across a line) and the vertical resolution

needed (typically a minimum of 14-16 pixels top to bottom).

• How different lighting conditions exercise the camera contrast/gain – sun blinding can cause

infra-red (IR) contrast to be completely lost and the read rate to fall to zero, depending on the

angle of the sun at a particular time of day, and site geometry; use of IR narrow band filters and

lens hoods can reduce this effect depending on the site.

• Snow and heavy rain may cause some obscuration of plates.

• Strong wind can cause the camera head to move around, depending on how it is mounted, but

generally wind and rain have little impact.

• Light reflections off buildings, vehicles and the road surface can affect the camera. For

example, with some systems, a wet road surface can generate false triggers.


C.2 ANPR performance measures

The following measures relate to the plate recognition process at the camera:

• Capture rate - the number of vehicles which cause one or more usable Records to be

generated (i.e. including correct reads and misreads but excluding false triggers), as a

percentage of vehicles which actually pass the site (usually excluding bikes and motorbikes).

• Trigger rate - the number of vehicles which cause one or more usable records to be generated

(i.e. including correct reads and misreads but excluding false triggers and partial reads) as a

percentage of vehicles with readable license plates passing a camera site – not all plates may

be readable.

• Correct read rate - the proportion of records that contain correctly interpreted license plates as

a percentage of all records.

• Misread rate - the proportion of records that contain an incorrect interpretation of a visible

license plate as a percentage of all Records.

• False read rate - the proportion of records that do not contain a license plate image as a

percentage of all records. This tends to go up with heavy rain and reflections.

The most challenging measure is the proportion of ‘false positives’ contained in the misread rate –

where a plate is incorrectly read but interpreted as another genuine plate. There is no generic means

of quantifying this measure as much depends on the pool of genuine plates and the characters

misinterpreted.

In order to manage the risk of accepting a false positive read as genuine, business rules can be implemented that specify the confidence levels associated with the automatic read. For example, an operator may specify that the ANPR system must be 100% confident that it has read the plate correctly (i.e. no false positives) otherwise the image must go to human viewing. In this case a 99% automatic read rate (or anywhere near it) will be very difficult to achieve.

Most operators who are not so risk averse will set their confidence levels at around 85% to strike a

balance between the reputational risk of getting the read wrong and the cost of manual viewing.

In addition, the back office can compensate for performance through:

• A secondary OCR processor which reviews the captured images in slow time – but depends on

input of the raw pictures captured when the system triggers.

• The use of reference databases of previously manually reviewed and authenticated images

which can be automatically billed without going to further human viewing.

• The use of known licence plates that can be processed at the roadside (black lists or white

lists) without the need for back office processing.

• Manual inspection and checking of an image to correct a read or remove a false read.


Performance is usually specified within a contract on the basis of:

• A percentage of “readable plates”, where readable plates excludes broken, dirty, incorrectly

mounted or missing plates.

The overall resulting read rate is the end result of all these measures and processes, each of which

may be affected differently by the particular adverse conditions.

The more sites there are, the wider the range of geometries and lighting conditions.


Annex D – Examples of mounting structures for roadside equipment

This Annex identifies examples of how mountings for cameras and tag readers (beacons) have been

tailored to better integrate with the streetscape.

Figure 13: Camera and tag and beacon system mounted either side of the street

Source TfL


Figure 14 illustrates a cantilever being used instead of a full gantry to mount cameras and tag

readers.

Figure 14: Single cantilever used to mount cameras and tag readers

Source TfL

Figure 15: Single cantilever used to mount cameras and tag readers

Source TfL


Figure 16: Dual cantilevers used to mount cameras and tag readers

Source TfL

Figure 17: Roadside trial of Kapsch equipment in Singapore (Woodlands gantry)

Source: Kapsch

Old Pole

New PoleNew Pole


Figure 18: Experimental gantry at Kapsch Development Site, Sweden

Source: Kapsch

Though it is possible to develop a toolkit of solutions, essentially each site requires tailoring to

minimise its local impact. Q-Free has developed a toolkit of single gantry based solutions for a range

of lane configurations, as illustrated in Figure 19 below. However the solution is still gantry-based and

requires a significant section of highway to be dedicated to vehicle detection.

Figure 19: Toolkit of single gantry configurations

Source: Q-Free


The examples shown above are all for integrated camera and tag and beacon systems. Alternatively,

camera only solutions can be mounted with reducing degrees of roadside infrastructure:

Overhead cameras – like those used for Northern Gateway - deliver better performance than side

mounted cameras; but kerb side mounted cameras – as used in London - can more easily blend in

with the surroundings (see Figure 20 and Figure 21 below).

Figure 20: London Congestion Charging camera site

Source: TfL Figure 21: Side-mounted camera pole in London

Source: TfL

auckland council road charging options study: scheme...

Documents