INTERNATIONAL SCAN:

REDUCING CONGESTION & FUNDING TRANSPORTATION 

USING ROAD PRICING

April 2010

T
SUMMARY

The purpose of the International Scan was to identify new 

ideas and practical, workable models for integrating 

road pricing approaches into state, local, and regional 

policies, programs, and practices. The fi ndings are intended to inform the U.S. road pricing research agenda 

and identify best practices from international experience 

that will assist U.S. practitioners. 

The scan team visited with representatives from Sweden, 

the United Kingdom, Singapore, Germany, the Czech 

Republic, and the Netherlands in December 2009. The 

team was composed of representatives from the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA); the Georgia, Minnesota, Virginia, and 

Washington State Departments of Transportation; the Port 

Authority of New Jersey and New York; and SRF Consulting Group, Inc. A list of scan team members is presented 

on the back cover.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Road Pricing

International Scan Overview

Sponsors

Country Overviews. . . . . . . . 3

Demand Management

- Stockholm Congestion Tax

- London Congestion Charge

- Singapore Electronic Road 

Pricing

Revenue Generation

- German Heavy Goods Vehicle 

Tolling

- Czech Republic National 

Truck Tolling

Demand Management & 

Revenue Generation

- Netherlands Distance 

Based Tax

Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . 11
“The evidence in the countries 

visited in this scan shows that 

road pricing can play a vital 

role in creating new funding 

for transportation, encouraging 

improved quality of life in the 

urban environment, advancing 

economic productivity for 

goods movement and business, 

increasing the use of public 

transit, and reducing congestion 

and emissions.”

GENERATE REVENUE

Pay for roadway infrastructure, 

operations and/or transportation 

system capacity with road 

user charges (i.e., fl at toll rates, 

variable charges, or distancebased user fees)

MANAGE DEMAND

Reduce traffic congestion, 

promote environmental goals, 

improve cost of doing business, 

and support livability and quality 

of life with road charges based 

on amount of traffic reduction 

sought (i.e., congestion pricing, 

cordon/urban area pricing, 

facility pricing).

Purposes of Road Pricing

1

INTRODUCTION

Road Pricing

Road pricing has a long history in the form of tolled bridges, tunnels and turnpikes, designed to generate revenue 

to pay for the construction, operations and maintenance of these facilities. In the last half century, road pricing has 

been viewed as an opportunity to leverage the principles of supply and demand to manage traffi c in the form of 

congestion pricing. This is achieved by charging drivers a user fee (i.e., a toll or other charge) that may vary by 

traffi c demand, time of day, vehicle classifi cation, and/or other factors. In practice, road pricing provides a tool for 

road operators to manage limited roadway capacity to reduce congestion and maintain free–fl ow traffi c conditions 

on highways as well as to generate revenues that help to pay for the capital, operating, and maintenance costs. 

The broad application of congestion pricing in the U.S. has been limited due to political, institutional and public 

acceptance concerns. However, variable charges have been used successfully by many U.S. industries, including 

hospitality, air travel, utilities, and telecommunications. Both the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the 

American Association of State Highway Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO) have made the issues of economic and 

environmental sustainability and community livability top priorities. 

While there are a number of basic objectives that may underlie a road pricing program, the scan team focused on 

two primary purposes of road pricing: (1) to manage demand and (2) to generate revenue. The graphic below illustrates the fact that there are some programs that emphasize one objective or another, and others that seek to blend 

the two objectives in one harmonious program. 

International Scan Overview

The scan included visits to meet with representatives from urban and nation-wide road pricing efforts in Stockholm, 

London, Singapore, Germany, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands. Over a 12-day period, the scan team 

interacted with host country experts to develop an understanding of the political, institutional, and technical factors 

that contributed to the successful implementation of road pricing and, in some cases, to their rejection. Findings from 

this scan are intended to focus attention on the potential for road pricing as an effective part of a sustainable 21st 

century transportation system.
“Projects implemented to date reveal 

that travelers are willing to pay for 

improvements in transportation service 

and that pricing can lead to more 

effi cient use of existing facilities. People 

respond to price signals when making 

transportation decisions.”1

1 Bhatt, Kiran and Higgins, Thomas and Berg, John T. Lessons 

Learned from International Experience in Congestion Pricing. K.T. 

Analytics, Incorporated; Federal Highway Administration, 2008.

2

COUNTRIES VISITED PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE TYPE OF PRICING MILESTONE DATES

Stockholm, Sweden:

Congestion Tax

Manage congestion (primary) 

Promote transit and protect environment 

(secondary) 

Cordon pricing in city center by time 

of day 10 SEK to 20 SEK (about US 

$1.50 to $3) per crossing of cordon 

line into and out of city center

Trial: January - July 2006

Referendum: September 2006

Permanently reinstated: August 2007 

London, 

United Kingdom:

Congestion Charge

Manage congestion (primary) 

Promote transit and protect environment 

(secondary)

Area pricing in central London and its 

western extension 

Flat daily rate of £8 (US $13)

Started in Central London: February 2003

Price increased from £5 to £8 (60% increase) 

in July 2005

Western extension: February 2007

Repeal of western extension: Planned in 2010

Singapore:

Electronic Road Pricing (ERP)

Manage congestion (primary)

Promote transit (secondary)

Cordon and expressway pricing by time 

of day and vehicle class

Cordon pricing via manually enforced paper 

permit system in 1975.

Transition to ERP in 1998, followed by 

expressway pricing

Germany:

Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) 

Charging on Highways

Generate revenue and promote “user 

pays” principle (primary) 

Protect environment; encourage mode 

shift to rail and water (secondary)

Truck tolls for heavy goods vehicles 

(> 12,000 Kg) on the autobahn 

and limited portions of other national 

highways based on distance traveled, 

number of axles, and emissions class

 Opened in January 2005

Czech Republic:

Truck Charging on Highways

Generate revenue and promote “user 

pays” principle (primary) 

Advance environmental objectives 

(secondary).

Truck charges on selected national 

highways based on distance traveled, 

number of axles, and emissions class

Opened: January 2007

Originally for heavy goods vehicles > 

12,000 kg;

Expansion to include trucks > 3,500 kg in 

January 2010

Netherlands:

National Distance Based Tax

Planned to manage congestion, 

replace vehicle tax revenue, and 

promote “user pays” principle (primary)

Promote transit and protect environment 

(secondary)

National distance-based road pricing 

of all vehicles (commercial trucks and 

private cars) on all roadways

Phased implementation originally planned to 

commence in 2011, with all trucks covered 

by 2012 and all vehicles by 2018

Demand Management Generation Planned
• Monetary units converted using prevailing currency exchange rate in January 2010 3

TECHNOLOGY MEASURED IMPACTS ANNUAL REVENUES AND COST DISTRIBUTION OF 

NET REVENUES

Automated number plate recognition (ANPR) 

to assess tax to vehicle owner 

20% reduction in traffi c congestion 

in the city center

10-14% decrease of emissions

Gross revenues (2009): 850 million SEK 

(US $118.5 million) 

Net revenues: (2009): 530 million SEK 

(US $74 million) 

Overhead costs: 320 million SEK 

(US $44.5 million) about 37% of revenues

Collected by national government 

and transferred to City of 

Stockholm. Net revenues used to 

invest in transit and new roads

Automated number plate recognition (ANPR) 

to track compulsory payment compliance 

and identify violators

Initial traffi c reductions of 25% and 

19% (central London and western 

extension respectively)

Gross revenues (2008): £268 million 

(US $435 million) 

Net revenues: £137 million (US $222 million) 

Overhead costs: £131 million (US $212 

million) about 50% of revenues

Capital costs for Central London zone: £130 

million (US $211 million)

Net revenues used for transit 

(80%) and other transport (20%) 

improvements within greater 

London.

Dedicated short-range communications 

(DSRC) in-vehicle units with removable storedvalue smart card for payment. ANPR for 

enforcement

Achieves free-fl ow road speed 

targets of 45-65 kph on 

expressways, and 20-30 kph on 

arterials.

Gross revenues (2008): SGD $125 million 

(US $90 million)

Net revenues: SGD $100 million 

(US $72 million)

Overhead costs: SGD $25 million 

(US $18 million) 20% of gross revenues

Net revenues returned to vehicle 

owners through tax rebates - 

heavy investment from general 

fund in transit and highway 

systems

Global positioning system (GPS) for vehicle 

location;

Global system for mobile communications 

(GSM) for data transmission;

DSRC and ANPR for enforcement.

Manual booking system via kiosk terminals 

and internet for those without on-board units.

Violations < 2%;

Empty truck trips declined by 7%;

58% shift from dirtier truck models 

(Euro class 1,2,3) to cleaner trucks 

(Euro class 4,5)

Gross revenue (2008): €3.5 billion 

(US $5 billion) 

Overhead costs: 15% -20% of gross revenues

Average toll rate: €0.163 per kilometer (US 

$0.378 per mile)

Net revenues for Roads (50%),

Rail (38%), and

Waterways (12%).

€560 million (US $815 

million) per year for trucker 

“harmonization” program

Transponder based DSRC system with 

gantries on mainline highways.

ANPR for enforcement

Average toll rate of US $0.35 per 

mile on freeways

Gross revenue (2008): CZK 6 billion 

(US $340 million)

Overhead costs: 30% of gross revenues

Average toll rate: CZK 4.05 per kilometer 

($0.36 per mile) for highways; CZK 1.90 per 

kilometer ($0.17 per mile) for fi rst class roads

Net revenues for roads and 

highways, railway lines, and 

inland transport routes

Under development, likely GPS for vehicle 

location, GSM-based data communication, 

and DSRC interrogation with ANPR for 

enforcement

2020 forecasted results:

10%-15% reduction in vehicle miles 

traveled;

40-60% reduction in delays;

10% reduction in CO2;

6% increase in public transit usage

Gross revenues (2019 forecasted): €9 billion 

(US $13.1 billion)

Overhead costs: TBD (capped in law at 5% of 

gross revenues)

Capital costs (estimated): €5.7 billion (US 

$8.3 billion)

Revenues intended to replace 

existing vehicle ownership taxes 

COUNTRY OVERVIEWS

Road pricing has received considerable attention outside of the U.S. since the inception of Singapore’s cordon 

congestion pricing system in 1975. Many countries in Europe, Asia, and the Pacifi c region have explored, experimented, and, in some cases, successfully implemented road pricing to address congestion, environmental, and 

transportation funding issues. Large-scale operational pricing projects have been implemented in the U.K., Norway, 

Sweden, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Chile, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia over 

the past three decades.

The table below summarizes the characteristics of the road pricing projects that were visited during the scan. Based 

on similar purposes and characteristics, Stockholm, London and Singapore are grouped as cordon pricing concepts that aim to reduce urban congestion. Germany and the Czech Republic are paired, as both are national truck 

tolling systems with the primary goal of revenue generation. The Netherlands is unique among the sites visited, as 

it is in the planning and implementation stages for a national road pricing system that will likely charge all vehicles 

based on distance traveled, time of day, and vehicle type.
DEMAND MANAGEMENT: LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE

In 2003, under the leadership of Mayor Livingstone, 

London launched a bold initiative to designate a cordon around central London and charge vehicles to travel 

within the eight-square-mile area. In 2007, the charging 

area was doubled in size with a western extension. Due 

to changes in leadership and public consultation, the 

western extension will be repealed in 2010. 

With London roads congested most of the day prior to 

the congestion charges, it was estimated that delays 

were costing people and businesses £4 million (US $7 

million) to £6 million (US $10 million) per week in time 

and money. Thus, the objective of the congestion charge 

was to reduce traffi c, improve travel times for buses, 

generate new revenues for public transit, and enhance 

the quality of life in Central London. The mayor’s vision 

included a 40 percent increase in public transit service 

by 2011, with the immediate expansion of bus services 

prior to congestion charging began in 2003. 

The fl at weekday charge was initially set at about £5 (US 

$12) and was then raised to £8 (US $16) in 2005. The 

charging is effective between 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. 

Various exemptions and discounts are allowed, including 

a 90 percent discount for residents living in the pricing 

zone. Buses, taxis, emergency vehicles, hybrid cars, and 

motorcycles are exempt as well.

Central and western London congestion charging zone 

Enforcement is conducted using more than 650 closedcircuit cameras set up along the cordon and within the 

zone with roving vans policing the zone. Live video images of the license plates of all vehicles are captured. 

Results of the Congestion Charge

The number of vehicles entering the charging zone decreased by 25 percent and the amount of circulating 

traffi c fell by 15 percent after the fi rst year of implementation. Travel speeds increased by 30 percent, trip times 

decreased by 14 percent, and traffi c delays plummeted 

by 25 percent in the charging zone. Transport for London (TfL) reported an average of 70,000 fewer vehicle 

trips than in the year prior to the congestion charge. Of 

those reduced trips, they estimate that 50 to 60 percent 

shifted to transit, 20 to 30 percent of the trips were eliminated, and 15 to 25 percent are carpooling. 

Congestion in Central London has steadily returned, so 

that in 2009 congestion levels are equal to those before 

2003. This is, in part, due to the conversion of various 

streets into pedestrian malls, implementation of bus lanes, 

and reconstruction of water and sewer lines in preparation for the 2012 Olympics.

Revenues from the congestion charge were £268 million (US $437 million) in 2008. When accounting for 

expenses (approximately 50 percent), the congestion 

charge generated about £137 million (US $222 million) 

in 2008, which, by law, must be spent on transportation 

in London. 

While the objectives of the congestion pricing in London 

were achieved, critics point to the high operating costs 

of the system as a drawback. Much of the success of the 

system rests with its relative simplicity, with only one price 

(£8 per day) when the system is in operation. Based 

on TfL’s 2006 and 2007 reports, the business and economic impacts of congestion pricing have largely been 

neutral.

Note: The Federal Reserve certifi ed currency exchange rate for December 12, 2009 

was used (US $1.62 per £1.00)

44
DEMAND MANAGEMENT: STOCKHOLM CONGESTION TAX

The purpose of the Stockholm road pricing project is to 

reduce traffi c congestion and vehicle emissions in the 

inner city area (CBD). It was initially introduced by the 

Green Party and Social Democrats as part of a larger, 

full-scale trial with the objectives of reducing congestion, 

improving access and mobility, promoting transit, and 

promoting environmental sustainability.

The concept involves a cordon around the Stockholm city 

center and charge a variable fee for crossing the cordon. 

Vehicles registered in Sweden are charged when they 

pass one of 18 “control points” entering or exiting the 

CBD on weekdays between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. 

The rates vary from 10 SEK (US $1.50) to 15 SEK (US 

$2.25) depending on the time of day for crossing a control point, up to a maximum of 60 SEK (US $9) per day. 

Since the congestion charge is managed as a tax by the 

national government, any change in the fee schedule 

requires parliamentary action.

The road pricing project in Stockholm was unique in that 

it was initially introduced by a seven-month demonstration period, after which the system was turned off. Prior 

to the demonstration, public support was at 25 percent. 

After the demonstration a public referendum was held, 

and public support from Stockholm voters grew to 50 

percent in favor of reinstating congestion pricing. Stockholm residents realized the tangible benefi ts of congestion pricing coupled with signifi cant investments in transit service.

The overall implementation included a 1.3 billion SEK 

(US $180 million) investment for the tolling system plus 

2 billion SEK (US $280 million) in related public transit 

improvements. The transit investment funded a 10 percent expansion of the Stockholm public transport system, 

which included 200 articulated buses (equivalent of 

10,000 new seats), 2,400 new park-and-ride spaces, 

bus-priority at traffi c signals, improved rail service, new 

dedicated bus lanes, and 12 new express bus routes. 

The transit and tolling systems were to be launched in 

tandem. However, the transit service enhancements went 

into operation six months before the congestion charging system due to tolling system procurement delays. It 

is noteworthy that transit usage and congestion levels 

did not change with the introduction of the new transit 

service. It was only after the congestion charging system went live that travel behaviors changed and a 20% 

reduction in traffi c was realized, along with concurrent 

increases in transit usage.

Vehicles exempt from paying fees include public buses, 

taxis, certain alternative fuel vehicles (ECO-cars, LPG, 

and electric), emergency vehicles, motorcycles, vehicles 

with handicap plates, and foreign-registered vehicles. An 

exemption is also provided to the residents of the Island 

of Lidingö, who can only access the rest of Sweden by 

traversing the CBD. Vehicles driving between the Island 

and the bridge control points have 30 minutes to make 

a through trip without being charged. However, if they 

remain in the CBD for more than 30 minutes, charges 

are applied. The capital cost to institute the “Lidingö 

Rule” was estimated at more than 200 million SEK (US 

$28 million) plus ongoing exemption costs due to system 

downtimes. Another exception is through-traffi c on the 

E4/E20 Essingeleden Highway going past Stockholm. 

In total, about 30 percent of total vehicles are exempt.

The toll collection system was installed to include three 

overhead gantries at each control point, which include 

digital imaging cameras that capture front and rear license plate images of all vehicles, and dedicated short 

range communications (DSRC) antennas that were used 

in conjunction with in-vehicle transponders that were 

available to travelers during the trial. With the adoption 

of the permanent system, offi cials decided that the automated number plate number recognition (ANPR) system 

performed so well that the transponder-based option was 

not necessary and eliminating it offered an opportunity to 

reduce overall system operating costs. 

Demonstration Results

Overall, the congestion tax reduced traffi c volumes by 

10 to 15 percent and congestion fell by 20 percent in 

the CBD. Transit ridership grew by 6 to 9 percent during 

the demonstration. This resulted in a 14 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled and a 10 to 14 percent 

decrease in emissions. After the system was taken offl ine 

at the end of the demonstration, traffi c volumes returned 

to approximately the same level as before the trial. After 

its permanent reintroduction in August 2007, data shows 

that access to the CBD has improved, travel times were 

lower, and a 15 percent reduction in traffi c was realized.

Note: The Federal Reserve certifi ed currency exchange rate for December 12, 2009 

was used (US $0.14 per 1.00 SEK )

5
DEMAND MANAGEMENT: SINGAPORE ELECTRONIC ROAD PRICING

In 1975, Singapore undertook a bold new approach 

to manage traffi c and improve air quality by introducing a fee for vehicles entering the CBD during the morning peak period between 7:30 and 9:30 a.m. Since 

its inception as a non-electronic, pre-paid windshield 

permit, Singapore’s road pricing system has expanded 

and modernized to become the most extensive cordonbased demonstration of congestion pricing in the world.

Known as Electronic Road Pricing (ERP), the system is fully 

automated, with more than 60 charging points covering 

the center city and some primary high-volume expressways.

The ERP system uses dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) and Automatic Number Plate Reader (ANPR) 

technology for enforcement. Vehicles are charged while 

traveling at full highway speeds. All vehicles registered in 

Singapore are required to have a transponder with a prepaid “stored value smart card” inserted. The smart cards 

are available through various banks and can be replenished online, by telephone, at kiosks, and at ATMs. A new 

generation smart card was introduced in 2006 and can 

be used to pay transit fare, parking, and at various retail 

stores, with the intent of increasing the card’s utility to the 

holders. Vehicles without an active transponder detected 

face a SGD $70 (US $50) fi ne, while those with insuffi -

cient smart card funds are charged an administrative fee 

of SGD $8 (US $6). This automated enforcement keeps 

violations at less than one percent. The introduction of 

ERP was accompanied with new park-and-ride lots, expanded transit service into the CBD, and a 30 percent 

decrease in CBD parking rates.

The price varies by time of day, location, and vehicle 

classifi cation. Adjustments to the pricing schedule 

are considered every three months to ensure free fl ow 

speeds. Speed targets are 45 to 65 kph on expressways 

and 20 to 30 kph on other streets. The rates vary from 

zero to approximately US $2 per cordon crossing and 

are in effect from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. every weekday. On 

expressways, the price varies from zero to about US $4 

and is in effect weekdays from 7 a.m. to 9:11 a.m. and 

5:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

Revenues

In 2008, annual gross revenues were SGD $125 million (US $90 million) with net revenues of SGD $100 

million (US $72 million). While all of the net revenues 

are directed to the general fund, vehicle owners receive 

periodic rebates on their vehicle taxes that are funded 

by the ERP net revenues. Investments from the general 

fund are provided to appropriately address the needs of 

Singapore’s multimodal transportation system.

Note: The Federal Reserve certifi ed currency exchange rate for December 12, 2009 

was used (US $0.72 per SGD $1.00 )

6
REVENUE GENERATION: GERMANY HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE TOLLING

The German Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) tolling program began commercial operations in January 2005. 

It is the world’s fi rst satellite-based, country-wide electronic tolling system and applies only to trucks weighing 

more than 12 tons. All trucks, irrespective of national 

registry, are tolled based on the number of axles, vehicle 

emissions rating, and distance traveled. 

The key policy objectives were to raise revenue by imposing a national mileage-based, “user-pays” infrastructure fee for trucks. The pricing is based on distance traveled, emission levels, and number of axles. In addition 

to revenue generation, the objectives of the system were 

to create incentives to shift freight truck traffi c to rail and 

waterways, promote the use of cleaner truck technologies, encourage more effi cient routing and scheduling of 

trucks, and provide funding for maintenance and expansion of transportation infrastructure. 

Using an innovative 

combination of satellitebased (GPS), mobile 

communications (GSM), 

on-board computers 

(OBUs), dedicated short-range communications (DSRC), 

and automated number plate readers (ANPR), toll rates 

range from 14.1 to 28.8 euro cents per kilometer (22.6 

to 35.1 US cents per mile). The average toll rate is 16.3 

euro cents per kilometer (34 US cents per mile). Annual 

gross revenues have grown steadily from €2.86 billion

(US $4.4 billion) in 2005 to €3.5 billion (US $5 billion) 

in 2008. With about 90 percent of toll transactions automated, the annual operating cost is estimated between 

15 to 20 percent of revenues (about 6 to 8 US cents per 

mile). While manual bookings are 10 percent of all 

transactions, they represent more than one third of total 

operating costs. 

Initially predicted to be fi ve percent, the actual violation 

rate is less than two percent. Fines are €400 (US $624) 

for intentional violations and €200 (US $312) for unintentional violations. The maximum fi ne is €20,000 (US 

$31,200), and the responsibility for fi nes is split equally 

between the driver and shipper.

Revenues are allocated by Parliament using the framework of 50 percent to roads, 38 percent to rail, and 

12 percent to waterways. Initially, to gain support from 

the German trucking community, these additional revenues were added to the general fund allocation for 

roads, rail and waterways.

“The idea of a distance-based charge was conceived 

in 1989. Studies were conducted subsequently, and, 

in 1995, based on the recommendations of the 

German High Commission (Paellman Commission) 

on Financing of Federal Transport Infrastructure, the 

federal government decided to introduce distancebased tolls. Initial opposition turned into acceptance 

because tolling of all heavy goods vehicles was 

considered fairer for German trucks vis-à-vis foreign 

trucks, which accounts for about 35 percent of all of 

the country’s truck traffi c.”2 

2 Robinson, Ferrol. Heavy Vehicle Tolling in Germany: Performance, Outcomes and 

Lessons Learned for Future Pricing Efforts in Minnesota and the United States. 

Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, October 2008.

Note: The Federal Reserve certifi ed currency exchange rate for December 12, 2009 

was used (US $1.45 per €1.00) 

7
REVENUE GENERATION: CZECH REPUBLIC NATIONAL TRUCK TOLLING

Situated at the center of the EU, 40 percent of the trucks 

using the Czech highway system are foreign-based.

Thus, the primary goal of the Czech Truck Tolling program is to generate revenue from foreign trucks that were 

perceived to not be paying their fair share of system 

costs. The tolling program began operations in January 2007 and uses DSRC-based tolling points on the 

highways mainline with automated number plate readers 

for enforcement. At the outset, the toll applied only to 

trucks weighing more than 12 tons. As of January 2010, 

the truck toll was being applied to all commercial trucks 

weighing more than 3.5 metric tons. 

This implementation of truck tolling on freeways and expressways is considered to be the fi rst phase of a more 

comprehensive road pricing system. Future plans (phase 

2) are to extend to 800 km of additional roadways by 

2017, by including some arterial and local roads. The 

capital costs for the initial implementation (phase 1) and 

future expansion (phase 2) of the system is estimated at 

approximately CZK 18 billion (US $1 billion). When 

complete, Phases 1 and 2 will include 1,120 miles of 

expressways and freeways as well as 43 miles of connecting main roads. This expansion of the existing system will seek to employ microwave technology and GPSbased on-board units, because the cost associated with 

installing additional gantries on arterials and local roads 

is seen as excessive.

Revenues from the program generated about Czech Koruna (CZK) 6 billion (US $340 million) in 2008, with an 

average toll rate of CZK 4.05 per kilometer (US $0.36 

per mile) for motorways and highways and CZK 1.90 

per kilometer (US $0.17 per mile) for fi rst class (i.e., 

principal arterials) roadways. Certain types of vehicles, 

including fi rst responders and law enforcement, are exempt from the toll, but are still required to register and 

install an on-board unit. 

Note: The Federal Reserve certifi ed currency exchange rate for December 12, 2009 

was used (US $0.06 per CZK $1.00 )

8
REVENUE GENERATION & DEMAND MANAGEMENT: NETHERLANDS

The Netherlands, a small, densely populated country 

with highly congested roads, is in the process of implementing an ambitious national road pricing program. 

They plan to roll out a country-wide distance-based road 

user fee for trucks by 2012 and to expand the toll to all 

vehicles (about 8 million) by 2018. 

In late 2007, the Dutch Cabinet decided to implement 

a national road payment based on the following four 

policy goals:

Improve mobility and accessibility to benefi t the 

economy.

Develop a more fair system that focuses on use of 

the road system rather than on vehicle ownership 

(replace current license fees and vehicle taxes).

Enhance the environment. 

Improve road safety.

While the precise price per kilometer is still in planning, 

the program’s current expectation calls for tariffs for autos 

at the start of implementation to be 0.030/km (US $0.07 

per mile), with the rate expected to reach 0.067/km (US 

$0.155 per mile) at full implementation. The lower rates 

at the program’s start refl ect the fact that the vehicle ownership taxes will be phased out over time, with the user 

fees ramp up in parallel. The per-kilometer tariffs for other 

vehicles upon implementation are planned to be 0.017/

km (US $0.039 per mile) for commercial vans; 0.028/

km (US $0.065 per mile) for buses; and 0.024/km (US 

$0.056 per mile) for trucks. The relatively low rate for 

trucks corresponds to the fact that trucks pay relatively 

lower rates for the vehicle taxes that will be replaced 

by the road charging system. In addition to pricing by 

vehicle type, the system is planned to take into account 

the vehicle emission class, and time of day pricing for 

peak and off-peak travel. All revenues will be dedicated 

back to the road system to offset existing license and 

registration fees. 

Although the method of toll collection and vendors have 

not been selected, it has been determined that satellite-based (GPS) technology combined with in-vehicle 

equipment and mobile communications is the preferred 

method. Key next steps include extensive consultation, 

the amendment of legislation, and development of a 

more detailed migration plan from vehicle taxes to the 

distance-based tax.

Note: The Federal Reserve certifi ed currency exchange rate for December 12, 2009 

was used (US $1.45 per €1.00)

9
10
11

MAJOR FINDINGS

The host EU countries and Singapore are ahead of the U.S. in broad-scale road 

pricing implementation. They each provide valuable case studies for learning for U.S. 

transportation professionals and decisions makers. Overall, the experience in each host 

country has proven that road pricing is an effective tool to manage demand and raise 

revenue. 

Based on discussions and observations made during and after the scan, the team developed the following nine major fi ndings:

1. Host countries and regions with clearly defi ned and well-understood policy goals 

were able to achieve their targeted outcomes most effectively.

The city-center urban road pricing programs visited all targeted congestion mitigation 

as a central goal. Generally, road pricing was one element of a larger program of 

initiatives working collectively to address traffi c congestion and its impacts. 

Singapore identifi ed clear transportation goals as a critical foundation for urban 

development and economic growth plans, and has maintained this focus for 

many years. Congestion management objectives include road pricing tied 

directly to targeted minimum speed thresholds for urban streets and arterials. In 

addition to the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system, congestion management 

is also addressed through multimodal transportation investments as alternatives 

to driving, parking management systems to facilitate identifi cation of available 

parking, and national quotas that cap increases in vehicle ownership. Highly 

integrated land-use and transportation planning also support congestion 

management objectives.

Stockholm’s congestion tax was designed to reduce congestion in the city 

center in a manner that promoted public acceptability and fairness through 

setting reasonable toll prices, daily maximum charges, expanded transit and 

park-and-ride services as alternatives to driving, and exemptions for traffi c from 

the Island of Lidingö that are unable to avoid traversing the city center. The 

congestion pricing program improves the quality of life in the city center for 

residents and travel options for drivers. Revenues from the congestion tax In 

Germany and the Czech Republic, the distance-based charging of commercial 

vehicles is designed to capture revenues aligned with the infrastructure life-cycle 

costs required to maintain roadways for heavy vehicle use. Political decisions in 

Germany to divert existing general funds from transportation in order to address 

other budget shortfalls contradicted commitments to use road-pricing revenues 

to augment existing infrastructure investment, fueling resentment and skepticism 

from trucking interests. 

The Germans and Czechs viewed their pricing programs as an opportunity 

to capture road revenues from foreign through truck traffi c but found manual 

booking systems for those without in-vehicle units are expensive to operate. 

The Netherlands is planning a “tax consolidation” approach to develop 

aggressive and comprehensive replacement for fragmented transportation taxes 
into a single distance-based charge for all vehicles and roadways. . The 

Dutch government believes a true user tax would be more effective than the 

current ownership taxes. The ownership taxes “overcharges” car owners who 

don’t drive much. For example, owners of classic cars pay an ownership 

tax even if they don’t drive the cars. The universal “user pays” principle in 

the Netherlands is expected to generate strong environmental benefi ts from 

trip consolidation and alternative mode choices. The environmental benefi ts 

achieved by the Germans and Czechs are evident through price incentives for 

cleaner vehicles and a reduction in empty truck movements. 

2. A large-scale demonstration project is a powerful tool for public acceptance, 

allowing people to experience the benefi ts of congestion pricing.

Stockholm’s trial of the congestion tax system from January to July 2006 demonstrated 

the benefi ts of congestion pricing fi rst-hand. Sequencing a referendum vote 

after the trial concluded was instrumental to garnering public support. The pilot 

demonstration also provided technical and administrative staff the opportunities to 

refi ne the system and its performance, streamline business processes, and reduce 

operating cost.

3. Thorough planning and performance measurement pays benefi ts in ensuring 

achievement of overall goals, managing the pricing program as an element of 

overall transportation system performance, and directing implementation and 

operations effectively.

Comprehensive network planning was integral to the pre-implementation efforts 

for the road pricing systems examined on this scan. The best in class road pricing 

programs have integrated public transport options into their planning and preimplementation actions. 

Stockholm, London and Singapore made signifi cant advanced investments in 

transit equipment, facilities and services.

In planning the Stockholm system, internationally recognized traffi c experts 

were retained to measure network effects of various confi gurations of the 

charging zone to ensure that there were no unintended effects outside of the 

congestion charging zone.

The Netherlands has undertaken comprehensive planning exercises to look 

at network effects of proposed tariffs across several modes, as well as the 

operating performance of the network when travel demand is redistributed by 

time of day.

Singapore is using advanced analytics and traffi c models to better understand 

the network impacts of pricing on parking and transit. 

Performance measurement is key to managing and maintaining goal attainment.

All new pricing systems adopted direct performance measurements of traffi c 

reductions, travel speed increases, mode shift, and clean vehicle adoption, as 

well as estimates of business impacts and emissions reductions. 

12
Singapore’s ongoing management of their congestion charge includes 

quarterly verifi cation of travel speeds and refi nement of prices to ensure that 

85th percentile travel speed standards are maintained on two different classes 

of roadways.

The Netherlands has adopted comprehensive risk analyses to manage 

program schedules and budgets. 

Post-implementation planning and performance assessments focused on the right 

measures have proven to ensure cost effi ciency and operating effectiveness. Stockholm has benefi ted from ongoing assessments of system redundancies 

and business practices to reduce operating costs while maintaining system 

performance. Changes to payment methods, payment processes, and image 

processing have saved systems and operating costs.

The Czech Republic is seeking relief from contractually high DSRC OBU costs, 

by planning system expansion to employ GPS and microwave technologies.

Germany’s truck tolling system suffers from high costs for manual bookings, but 

the joint venture contract incentivizes system accuracy not cost performance. 

4. Linking the pricing structure to the benefi ts received by the user contributes to 

public acceptance and helps to avoid the potential negative impacts from traffi c 

diversion.

In order to maintain support for road pricing, some of the sites visited attempt to 

connect the pricing structure to the benefi ts received by the toll payer. In Sweden, toll rates on new roadway infrastructure are set at levels that 

refl ect the value of the reduced travel time and operating costs relative to 

existing non-priced routes. While this strategy may not fully recover the costs 

for the new infrastructure (thus requiring public subsidy), it ensures that the 

new infrastructure will be used optimally, (i.e., traffi c will not stay on existing 

free routes simply to avoid the toll). In Stockholm, the price schedule for the 

cordon charges was set to refl ect the expected benefi ts to those who would 

be paying the new charges. There was a concern that if tolls were perceived 

by the public to be too high, they would be less acceptable. Toll rates were 

set at the minimum levels needed to manage congestion, and not to achieve 

any specifi c revenue target. The congestion tax rates were set to match the 

value of time saved. Since its introduction, the congestion charging rates 

have not been changed; while there is a recognition that they will need to be 

increased in the future to address growing travel demand and infl ation, public 

acceptability of any rate changes is an important consideration. However, 

since the congestion charge is defi ned as a national tax, it can only be 

changed by an act of parliament, which makes it less nimble.

In Singapore, the price is reviewed and can be adjusted every 3 months to 

ensure that targeted “optimal” speeds can be maintained for at least 85% of 

vehicles that pay the toll. There is particular concern that the public obtain 

value, in terms of free fl owing traffi c, in return for the tolls paid. In the early 

days of operation, the Land Transport Authority attempted to set toll rates to 

13
achieve the targeted speeds “on average” but quickly found out that this 

meant that only about half of the toll-payers received the targeted service 

levels, and therefore felt that they had not received value for tolls paid. This led 

the Authority to institute that 85th percentile standard. All net funds collected 

via ERP are returned to the general fund and redistributed to road users in 

the form of vehicle ownership tax rebates, which further emphasizes that the 

purpose of road pricing is not to generate revenue but to improve service 

levels during peak hours. Singapore’s ERP has the most dynamic and fl exible 

pricing structure of the sites visited.

The German truck toll rates for use of the freeway system (i.e., Autobahns) 

are low enough that there is little or no diversion of truck traffi c to toll-free 

alternatives. While there was some diversion immediately after implementation 

in 2005, truckers quickly realized that time and operating cost savings on the 

Autobahn system more than compensated for new toll charges for use of the 

Autobahns. The Germans set the truck toll rates to average 16.3 euro cents 

per kilometer (37.8 US cents per mile) to capture the impact of heavy goods 

vehicles on the transportation system. The fairness of the toll rates as charges 

for services is reinforced by the method by which toll rates are calculated. 

To determine the average toll rate, the estimated infrastructure costs imposed 

by HGVs (estimated in 2010 to be 5.2 billion) was divided by the total 

number of HGV kilometers on the highway system (29.8 billion kilometers). 

This is calculated to 17.4 euro cents per kilometer, so the 16.3 cents actual 

average toll rate is perceived to be fair. It captures more than 90 percent of 

the estimated HGV impacts on the highway network. In addition, the 560 

million (US $815 million) annual harmonization fund for truckers is dedicated 

for use by the trucking community for safety training and equipment purchases, 

which provides a direct nexus between the funding source and the use of 

funds. 

5. Public outreach and communications was a key component of the program at 

every stage: prior to making the implementation decision, during the program 

design process, as well as during the operational phase.

Both London and Stockholm had years of public debate about congestion charging 

before the political decision to implement was made. London’s program benefi ted 

from promotion by business groups concerned about congestion, while the 

Stockholm program was spearheaded by environmental groups. Both programs 

were designed to address public concerns, and include a number of exemptions 

and discounts to mitigate negative impacts on particular segments of the public. 

After several attempts to implement a distance charge, the Dutch realized that 

proactive stakeholder outreach during the planning and concept development 

stage is essential. Over the past two years, staff and leadership at the Dutch 

Ministry of Transport have invested heavily in public outreach and education. By 

engaging in a thorough and thoughtful planning and public involvement process, 

the Dutch developed clear, salient, and timely messages about the purpose and 

benefi ts of pricing. A key message is “drive less, pay less.” 

In Singapore, key messages continue to be conveyed to the public to ensure 

continued support. These messages include:

14
“keep roads free-fl owing,” 

“people-centered transportation,” and 

“public transit is a viable choice.” 

As system expansion continues, before a new gantry is installed, there is extensive 

outreach in the neighborhoods that would be impacted to address concerns. 

For example, the timings for operation of expressway pricing were modifi ed to 

respond to public comments.

The Czech and German programs achieved support from local truckers by 

emphasizing the effect on “leveling the playing fi eld” with foreign haulers and the 

fairness of “user pays.” 

6. Open-source system designs offer long-term advantages in leveraging market 

competition to manage costs of implementation and operations, ensure system 

fl exibility and scalability, and establish a foundation for system interoperability.

The Netherlands plan will establish standards and requirements that will allow 

multiple vendor solutions to create a competitive environment.

The Dutch procurement will encourage market engagement in all aspects of 

the system, driving down costs for system implementation, equipment, and 

in-vehicle installations.

Through open-standards and private sector engagement, the Netherlands will 

encourage private value-added services for on-board devices that help defray 

operating costs as well as drive consumer adoption and public acceptance 

of road pricing.

The Dutch goal is for system operating costs to not exceed 5 percent of gross 

revenues.

Singapore’s second generation smart card for the in-vehicle unit fi nancial purse 

is designed to be interoperable with the transit fare media and parking payment 

systems, as well as being accepted for retail purchases and linked to bank 

accounts.

7. Interoperability among states and countries is recognized as a critical issue that 

needs to be addressed at high levels. 

The EU has adopted Directive 2004/52/EC, which outlines requirements for 

member countries to adopt interoperable standards (i.e., European Electronic Toll 

Service [EETS]) for electronic tolling, allowing one vehicle, to pay road user fees 

anywhere in the EU via one contract and with one on-board unit. 

Technical, administrative and legal hurdles have made advancing 

interoperability time consuming and challenging. The European Parliament 

and EU Council approved the directive in 2004 and fi ve years later a decision 

on the EETS defi nition was approved in October 2009.

Existing systems with large sunk costs in proprietary applications and equipment 

heighten the challenge of transition.

15
Interoperability addresses technical, business, administrative, fi nancial and legal 

issues, requiring thorough treatment and multi-disciplinary expertise.

Intergovernmental coordination in sharing national vehicle registry information 

between agencies is key to today’s operations and enforcement, and for 

interoperable systems of the future.

All sites visited have procedures in place between agencies within their own 

country to share vehicle registry data for easy applications of license plate 

imaging for invoicing and violation processing.

The use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technologies for 

enforcement was ubiquitous, being used in Singapore, London, Stockholm, 

Germany, and the Czech Republic. More agreements to share information 

across borders are still needed.

Clearly defi ned and well-understood policy goals in Stockholm guided 

decisions large and small, such as revenue usage, rate schedule, and 

appropriate technology solutions. 

The Netherlands is using a “tax consolidation” approach to develop aggressive 

and comprehensive replacement for fragmented transportation taxes into a 

single distance based tax. 

8. Equity and privacy concerns are addressed by host countries through exemptions, 

revenue use, technology, and business rules.

Exemptions are used in London and Stockholm to help address issues of 

equity. In addition, their emphasis on using toll revenues to fund transit sends 

a strong and clear message about equity and the project purpose.

Privacy was elegantly handled by Singapore’s use of a “smart cash card” that 

does not contain user data. The primary data on the smart card is the account 

balance, which can be used to pay for parking or other amenities. 

9. The urban area pricing projects integrated public transit investments and land 

use planning in order to manage congestion.

Stockholm and London made robust investments in public transit and alternative 

modes leading up to and following the introduction of road pricing. In 

Singapore, offi cials have adopted and committed funding to realize a master 

transportation plan which integrates road pricing, transit, roadway expansion 

and land use.

The coordination of road pricing policy with public transportation investments 

is best coordinated by a single entity. In London, Transport for London (TfL) 

is responsible for implementing the Mayor’s Transport Strategy for London 

and for managing transportation services for all modes of transportation 

and throughout the city. In Singapore, the Land Transport Authority plans the 

long-term transportation needs of Singapore for those who drive and those 

who take public transportation. The Swedish Government is in the process 

of consolidating its transportation agencies to bring all modes under one 

umbrella.

16
Scan Team Members

Vance Smith, Co-Chair and Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation

Bob Arnold, Co-Chair and Director of Offi ce of Transportation Management, Federal Highway Administration

Rodney Barry, Georgia Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

Jayme Blakesley, Attorney-Advisor, Offi ce of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration

Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Tolling and Pricing Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration

Mark Muriello, Assistant Director of Tunnels, Bridges and Terminals Department, The Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey 

Gummada Murthy, Director of Operations and Security Division, Virginia Department of Transportation 

Patty Rubstello, Director of Toll Systems Development, Washington Department of Transportation 

Nick Thompson, Director, Offi ce of Policy Analysis, Research and Innovation, Minnesota Department of Transportation

John Doan, Report Facilitator and Senior Associate, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 

17
The scan was cosponsored by the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO), the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program (NHCRP). 

For more information, contact:

John Q. Doan, PE, Report Facilitator and 

Senior Associate, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

(763) 355-8746

18

TRANSPORTATION

RESEARCH BOARD

National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program

American Association 

of State Highway 

and Transportation 

Offi cials

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Transit Administration