Overview of present activities and developments in respect to the Directive of Interoperability

4th meeting EFC Team, Berlin, Germany20 January 2006

Topics:– EU-COM activities:

– Planning– Interesting/critical issues– Cesare III

– NORITS & MEDIA– Overview projects in Europe

What is happening in Europe?

Topics:– EU-COM activities:

– Planning– Interesting/critical issues– Cesare III

– NORITS & MEDIA– Overview projects in Europe

What is happening in Europe?

EU-Com Activities

Quotes:– A lot of work is coming from expert groups

and will be voted on before July– Not all the work will be ready by then, some

workgroups haven’t even started– Expert groups have different perspective on

overall concept and architecture. You need to bring them in line before you can make decisions

– Important discussion points are still floating– It is chaotic, to say it mildly

EU-Com planning

Directive should have been adapted in National Legislation by 20 Oct. 2005

Definition of European EFC Service should be ready on 1 July 2006

HGV and coaches should be implemented mid 2009

All vehicles mid 2011

Conclusion: Planning is slipping

Topics:– EU-COM activities:

– Planning– Interesting/critical issues– Cesare III

– NORITS & MEDIA– Overview projects in Europe

What is happening in Europe?

Interesting/critical issues

EETS provider Enforcement Definition of OBU Galileo, GNSS issues DSRC vs GPS/GSM ( or GNSS/CN) Some other issues

EETS providers

The concept of roaming contracts between all toll operators has been left behind. The EETS concept has come in its place.

EETS providers provide the “one contract, one OBU” European EFC service.

More than one EETS expected (DWK, Siemens, Shell..) Every EFC operator must accept all EETS providers EFC operator can also be an EETS provider EETS provider “sells” OBU and has contract with end-

user Many consequences for operators:

– must open up systems, – will be responsible for enforcement of EETS customers– no monopolies possible

Some consequences of EETS

Every EETS can have its own certified OBU, but with different value added ITS services

Who is paying the EETS services Tariff structure and rebates

Consequences for NRA: He must prepare himself to do business with outsiders. It will add additional, new requirements to enforcement.

Other issues are: blacklisting, security, rebates, liability

Enforcement

International enforcement– Ongoing discussion about approach: is it a directive

related issue or not– Keeping it outside means a faster solution is

possible (perhaps)– Making it a directive issue addresses the real

issue: the European service requires a standard approach, addressing the GNNS/CN weaknesses

– Infrared is not part of the Directive technologies yet

– Workgroup 10 will propose technologies and specifications ( Feb. 2006), workgroup 3 will take charge of organisational and contractual matters (so does Cesare III)

Enforcement (2)

Should be solved nationally, Workgroup 3 should address this topic

Enforcement is a responsibility of the local operator, EETS customer must fit into it

How to control GNSS/CN customers– GPS/GSM log not accepted– Stopping is not allowed– DSRC not effective– Infrared not standard in EETS OBU

Legal <> Commerce and theory <>practical issues. Present procedures commercially not feasible

Enforcement (3)

Vera 2 leads to new directive, secure network for exchange of data (Vera 3 eNFORCE network) and certification procedures for equipment

Results fit for traffic violatons but not for civil offences (not paying toll)

Definition of OBU

Specification of OBU– Still open ended:

– either complex system, capable of running all toll operators applications

– or simple system informing Back-Office systems about location, time etc

– Existing legislation is limiting factor, this can be changed

– Directive is to strict, limits future developments Workgroup 9 has 7 models, but will propose 1.

Should this not be a political decision?

RCI OBU (Ertico)

Own specs, industry concept– Local enforcement responsibility not yet in

specs– “All or nothing” approach: communicates

only with EETS provider or with everyone. Discussion issue

Tender for RCI OBU May/June 2006, perhaps to soon, since the Regulatory committee still has to make many decisions

Galileo

EU-COM wants to give Galileo at least the same position as other technologies

Czech tender did exclude GNSS technologies EU-COM is making up its mind now, but

probably waits for the outcome of present appeals

However: Galileo project slips too…

GNSS issues

GNSS is not flawless, but with a smart approach its weaknesses can be overcome.

Galileo is European and makes us less dependant on others

Additional measures are needed in some locations (F.I infrared beacons in tunnels)

Less reliable in urban areas.

DSRC vs GNSS/CN

Interests are high for existing users, just look at the numbers.

The traditional users want to keep control over the system and don’t want to deal with telco’s

The discussions become sharper and there is no solution in sight on the short term

The good news is that they are talking

Other issues

Classification model, now only suitable for HGV’s

CEN is doing work on its own based on own ideas

Stockholm group organises strategy workshops to define big picture. Wants to put a halt to all technicians solutions. Many proposals have unacceptable consequences or are conflicting

Topics:– EU-COM activities:

– Planning– Interesting/critical issues– Cesare III

– NORITS & MEDIA– Overview projects in Europe

What is happening in Europe?

Cesare III

Develops MOU to be signed by all parties, EETS providers can only work after signing. Regulatory committee manages MOU

Prepares contracts for cooperation, adepts previous results to Stockholm group needs

Addresses organisational interoperability

Topics:– EU-COM activities:

– Planning– Interesting/critical issues– Cesare III

– NORITS & MEDIA– Overview projects in Europe

What is happening in Europe?

NORITS and MEDIA

Both projects going as planned No specific issues at this moment My opinion: These projects are solving

all interoperability issues in a practical manner. Will be ready and in operation long before the first EETS is there

Topics:– EU-COM activities:

– Planning– Interesting/critical issues– Cesare III

– NORITS & MEDIA– Overview projects in Europe

What is happening in Europe?

Projects in Europe

UK HLUC plans put forward Flemish-Belgium preparing study Walloon-Belgium will cooperate with Flemish,

plans are put forward Stockholm trials started, referendum in

September, outcome unclear Appeals against outcome of Czech tender, EU-

COM critical about tenders specifications Slovenian tender won by local outsider Ireland is preparing tender for free-flow EFC Dutch road pricing plans

Dutch road pricing plans (1)

Road pricing is back on the political agenda Public opinion and political agenda’s

prevented earlier plans to become reality A national stakeholder platform proposed an

approach last year, this has been used for new policy making. Actual implementation was put forward. Realistic cost/benefit scenarios had to be determined first

Parliament now has forced the Minister to include concrete plans in the public works agenda

Dutch road pricing plans (2)

Minister has agreed under the condition that the collection costs will be significantly lower than suggested in the report of the stakeholder platform

The Government will elaborate on two ways of EFC:– A number of infrastructure projects will be

implemented sooner than originally anticipated. Toll will be used to finance this. It is not yet decided which projects this will be

– It is the current policy to have nation wide road charging implemented by 2012. The charge will be based on location, time, distance and environmental aspects.

Questions

Do you agree with these observations? What are the consequences of all this

for our/any NRS? Should CEDR do something with this in

its relation to EU-COM?