Reducing Congestion and Funding 

Transportation Using Road

Pricing in Europe and Singapore

International Technology Scanning Program

Sponsored by: In cooperation with:

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway 

DECEMBER 2010 Research Program
NOTICE

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public 

in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-10-030

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation 

Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore 

5. Report Date

December 2010

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Robert Arnold, Vance C. Smith, John Q. Doan, 

Rodney N. Barry, Jayme L. Blakesley, 

Patrick T. DeCorla-Souza, Mark F. Muriello, 

Gummada N. Murthy, Patty K. Rubstello, 

Nick A. Thompson

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-99-C-005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract

Congestion pricing use has been limited in the United States because of political, institutional, and public 

acceptance concerns. The Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, and National Cooperative Highway Research Program sponsored a scanning 

study of Europe and Singapore to identify ideas and models for integrating road pricing approaches 

into U.S. practices.

The scan team found that countries with clearly defined and well-understood policy goals were able 

to achieve targeted outcomes most effectively. The team also learned that a large-scale demonstration 

project is a good tool to build public acceptance of road pricing.

Team recommendations for U.S. implementation include enhanced outreach and communication on 

road pricing use and research on public perception issues and implementation barriers. The team 

also recommended development of a road pricing toolkit to provide transportation professionals 

with a comprehensive decision analysis tool to assess the merits of road pricing options.

17. Key Words

congestion pricing, cordon pricing, distance-based 

charge, environmental pricing, facility-based charge, 

HOT lane, road pricing, tolling, zone-based charge

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public from the: Office of International Programs, 

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classify. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classify. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

68

22. Price

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Reducing Congestion and Funding 

Transportation Using Road

Pricing in Europe and Singapore

Prepared by the International Scanning Study Team:

Bob Arnold (Cochair)

FHWA

Vance C. Smith (Cochair)

Georgia DOT

John Q. Doan (Report Facilitator)

SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 

Rodney N. Barry

FHWA

Jayme L. Blakesley

Federal Transit Administration

Patrick T. DeCorla-Souza

FHWA

Mark F. Muriello

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

Gummada N. Murthy

Virginia DOT 

Patty K. Rubstello

Washington State DOT 

Nick A. Thompson

Minnesota DOT

and

American Trade Initiatives

for 

Federal Highway Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Research Program

December 2010
iv |International Technology Scanning Program

International Technology 

Scanning Program

T

he International Technology Scanning Program, 

sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 

and the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP), evaluates innovative foreign technologies 

and practices that could significantly benefit U.S. highway 

transportation systems. This approach allows advanced 

technology to be adapted and put into practice much more 

efficiently without spending scarce research funds to re-create 

advances already developed by other countries.

FHWA and AASHTO, with recommendations from NCHRP, 

jointly determine priority topics for teams of U.S. experts to 

study. Teams in the specific areas being investigated are 

formed and sent to countries where significant advances and 

innovations have been made in technology, management 

practices, organizational structure, program delivery, and 

financing. Scan teams usually include representatives from 

FHWA, State departments of transportation, local governments, transportation trade and research groups, the 

private sector, and academia. 

After a scan is completed, team members evaluate findings 

and develop comprehensive reports, including recommendations for further research and pilot projects to verify the value 

of adapting innovations for U.S. use. Scan reports, as well 

as the results of pilot programs and research, are circulated 

throughout the country to State and local transportation 

officials and the private sector. Since 1990, more than 80 

international scans have been organized on topics such as 

pavements, bridge construction and maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management, winter 

road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, 

planning, and policy. 

The International Technology Scanning Program has resulted 

in significant improvements and savings in road program 

technologies and practices throughout the United States. In 

some cases, scan studies have facilitated joint research and 

technology-sharing projects with international counterparts, 

further conserving resources and advancing the state of 

the art. Scan studies have also exposed transportation 

professionals to remarkable advancements and inspired 

implementation of hundreds of innovations. The result: large 

savings of research dollars and time, as well as significant 

improvements in the Nation’s transportation system.

Scan reports can be obtained through FHWA free of charge 

by e-mailing international@dot.gov. Scan reports are also 

available electronically and can be accessed on the 

FHWA Office of International Programs Web site at 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov. 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | v

International Technology Scan Reports

Safety 

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe (2010)

Improving Safety and Mobility for Older Road Users in Australia 

and Japan (2008)

Halving Roadway Fatalities: A Case Study From Victoria, Australia

(2008)

Safety Applications of Intelligent Transportation Systems in Europe 

and Japan (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, Operations, 

and Emergency Response (2006)

Roadway Human Factors and Behavioral Safety in Europe (2005) 

Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and Australia (2004) 

Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe (2003) 

Managing and Organizing Comprehensive Highway Safety in Europe

(2003) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Commercial Vehicle Safety, Technology, and Practice in Europe (2000) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European 

Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe (1999) 

Road Safety Audits—Final Report and Case Studies (1997) 

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe and 

Australia (1996) 

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand

(1995) 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany, and the 

Netherlands (1994) 

Planning and Environment 

Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road 

Pricing In Europe and Singapore (2010)

Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability (2010)

Streamlining and Integrating Right-of-Way and Utility Processes 

With Planning, Environmental, and Design Processes in Australia 

and Canada (2009)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives to 

U.S. Practice (2006)

Risk Assessment and Allocation for Highway Construction 

Management (2006)

Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, England, 

and New Zealand (2005)

Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, Japan, 

and New Zealand (2004) 

European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices (2002) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2002) 

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways (2002) 

Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe (2001) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and Technology

(1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994)

Policy and Information 

Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia 

(2009)

European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development 

(2003) 

Intelligent Transportation Systems and Winter Operations in Japan

(2003) 

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and 

Services (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information From Abroad (1994) 

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information (1994) 

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality 

Enhancement (1994) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and Technology

(1994) 

Operations 

Freight Mobility and Intermodal Connectivity in China (2008)

Commercial Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Enforcement in Europe

(2007)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

Management (2007)

Effective Use of Weigh-in-Motion Data: The Netherlands 

Case Study (2007)

International Technology Scanning Program: 

Bringing Global Innovations to U.S. Highways 
vi|International Technology Scan Reports

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives to U.S. 

Practice (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, Operations, 

and Emergency Response (2006)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and Specifications 

in Europe (2004) 

Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market (2003) 

Meeting 21st Century Challenges of System Performance Through 

Better Operations (2003) 

Traveler Information Systems in Europe (2003) 

Freight Transportation: The European Market (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European 

Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe (1999) 

European Winter Service Technology (1998) 

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems (1997) 

European Traffic Monitoring (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

Winter Maintenance Technology and Practices—Learning from 

Abroad (1995) 

Advanced Transportation Technology (1994) 

Snowbreak Forest Book—Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure 

Manual (1990)

Infrastructure—General 

Public-Private Partnerships for Highway Infrastructure: Capitalizing 

on International Experience (2009)

Audit Stewardship and Oversight of Large and Innovatively Funded 

Projects in Europe (2006)

Construction Management Practices in Canada and Europe (2005) 

European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development 

(2003) 

Contract Administration: Technology and Practice in Europe (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2001) 

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe (1999) 

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing (1993) 

Infrastructure—Pavements

Warm-Mix Asphalt: European Practice (2008)

Long-Life Concrete Pavements in Europe and Canada (2007)

Quiet Pavement Systems in Europe (2005)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and Specifications in 

Europe (2004)

Asphalt Pavement Warranties: Technology and Practice in Europe

(2004)

Pavement Preservation Technology in France, South Africa, and 

Australia (2003) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999) 

South African Pavement and Other Highway Technologies and 

Practices (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

European Concrete Highways (1992) 

European Asphalt Technology (1990)

Infrastructure—Bridges 

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)

Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe (2008)

Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems in Japan and Europe

(2005) 

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe (2005)

Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in Europe and South Africa

(2005) 

Innovative Technology for Accelerated Construction of Bridge and 

Embankment Foundations in Europe (2003)

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges in 

Europe (2001) 

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan (2001) 

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability 

Countermeasures (1999) 

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan (1997) 

Asian Bridge Structures (1997) 

Bridge Maintenance Coatings (1997) 

Northumberland Strait Crossing Project (1996) 

European Bridge Structures (1995) 

All publications are available on the Internet at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | vii

Contents

Executive Summary........................... 1

Road Pricing ................................ 1

Major Findings .............................. 2

Implementation.............................. 2

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................... 3

Purpose of Road Pricing Scan ................... 4

Panel Scope, Sponsorship, and Composition ........ 4

Panel Topics of Interest ........................ 4

Host Delegations ............................. 5

Chapter 2: General Observations................ 7

Demand Management: Stockholm’s Congestion 

Tax ...................................... 10

Demand Management: London’s Congestion 

Charge ................................... 13

Demand Management: Singapore’s Electronic 

Road Pricing ............................... 16

Revenue Generation: Germany’s Heavy Goods 

Vehicle Tolling .............................. 19

Revenue Generation: Czech Republic’s 

Truck Tolling ............................... 23

Demand Management and Revenue Generation: 

The Netherlands’ Proposed Distance-Based Tax ..... 25

Chapter 3: Major Findings .................... 27

Chapter 4: Lessons Learned .................. 33

Political and Policy Considerations ............... 33

Legal and Institutional Issues................... 35

Planning and Performance Measurement.......... 36

Procurement ............................... 37

Technology ................................ 38

Operations and Enforcement ................... 39

Outreach and Public Acceptance ................ 41

Chapter 5: Implementation Recommendations ... 43

APPENDIX A: Scan Team Members ............. 45

APPENDIX B: Scan Preparations and Itinerary ... 49

APPENDIX C: Amplifying Questions............. 51

APPENDIX D: Literature Review and Internet 

Sources.................................... 55

APPENDIX E: Host Country Contacts............ 57

APPENDIX F: Currency Exchange Rates ......... 59

Figures

Figure 1. Purposes of road pricing. ............... 1

Figure 2. Scan team members in Singapore. ........ 5 

Figure 3. Eighteen congestion charging control points 

create the Stockholm cordon.................... 11

Figure 4. Congestion charge fee schedule. ........ 11

Figure 5. Public support for Stockholm congestion tax 

(2005–2007)............................... 12

Figure 6. Stockholm pricing zone, new transit routes, and 

expanded park-and-ride facilities ................ 12

Figure 7. One of 18 control points using the threegantry electronic toll collection system............. 14

Figure 8. Central London congestion charging zone.

Figure 9. Congestion charging sign............... 14

Figure 10. A total of 1,360 cameras are located on 

all routes into and out of the zone as well as within 

the zone................................... 14

Figure 11. Example of a penalty charge notice. ..... 14

Figure 12. Public service advertisement promoting 

shift to transit............................... 15

Figure 13. Public service advertisement promoting 

use of 2008 congestion charge revenues. ......... 15
viii| Contents

Figure 14. Singapore’s Electronic Road Pricing 

(2005). ................................... 16

Figure 15. In-vehicle units (six types are available based 

on vehicle classification) with prepaid stored-value smart 

cards are required in every motor vehicle, including 

motorbikes, registered in Singapore............... 17 

Figure 16. ERP charging point. ................. 18

Figure 17. LTA Transportation Gallery interactive 

exhibit. ................................... 19 

Figure 18. German autobahn system. ............ 20

Figure 19. Automatic tolling and manual booking 

processes. ................................ 21

Figure 20. Federal Office for Goods Transport mobile 

enforcement vehicle. ......................... 22

Figure 21. Truck vehicle-miles show a shift from dirtier 

(Euro 1, 2, and 3) to cleaner (Euro 4 and 5) trucks 

(2005 to 2009). ............................ 23

Figure 22. Czech truck tolling network. ........... 24

Figure 23. Congestion on the roadway system in the 

Netherlands. ............................... 26

Figure 24. Example of open-source system design. . . 37 

Tables

Table 1. Summary of pricing projects. ............. 8

Table 2. Summary of traffic results in Orchard and 

Bugis-Marina areas on Saturdays after July 2008 

enhancements. ............................. 18
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore |ix

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials

ANPR automated number plate recognition

BAG German toll enforcement vehicles 

CBD central business district

CO2 carbon dioxide

COE Certificate of Entitlement

CRD Congestion Reduction Demonstration

CURACAO Coordination of Urban Road-User 

Charging Organizational Issues

CZK Czech koruna

DOT department of transportation

DSRC dedicated short-range communications 

EETS European Electronic Toll Service

ERP Electronic Road Pricing

EU European Union

EUR euro

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GBP U.K. pound

GmbH German legal designation for company 

incorporation 

GPS Global Positioning System

GSM Global System for Mobile Communications

HGV heavy goods vehicle

HOT lane high-occupancy toll lane

ITS intelligent transportation systems

IU in-vehicle unit

km/h kilometers per hour

LTA Land Transport Authority

OBU onboard unit 

PCU passenger car unit 

PPP public-private partnership

SEK Swedish krona

SGD Singapore dollar

TfL Transport for London

USD U.S. dollar 
x |
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 1

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, operation, 

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 

traffic with congestion pricing. This is achieved by charging 

drivers a user fee (i.e., a toll or other charge) that may vary 

by traffic demand, time of day, vehicle classification, or other 

factors. In practice, road pricing provides a tool for road 

operators to manage limited roadway capacity to reduce 

congestion and maintain free-flow traffic conditions on 

highways, as well as to generate revenues that help pay 

capital, operating, and maintenance costs. 

The broad application of congestion pricing in the United 

States has been limited because of 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.

Road pricing has been instituted on a broader basis 

in other countries, notably the Czech Republic, 

Germany, Singapore, Sweden, and the United 

Kingdom, and is in the midst of comprehensive 

planning in the Netherlands. The scan team traveled 

to Europe and Singapore to meet with transportation 

officials with expertise in road pricing programs to 

learn firsthand about their approaches and practices. 

While a number of basic objectives may underlie 

a road pricing program, the scan team focused on two 

primary purposes of road pricing: to manage demand 

and to generate revenue. Figure 1 illustrates the fact 

that some programs emphasize one objective, and others 

seek to blend the two objectives in one harmonious program. 

The countries visited in this scan can be viewed through the 

lenses of revenue generation and demand management. 

London, Singapore, and Stockholm are in the demand 

management circle, while the Czech Republic and Germany 

fall solidly in the revenue generation circle. The aim of the 

Netherlands is to transition on a revenue-neutral basis to a 

more fair transportation funding system that charges users 

for vehicle use instead of vehicle ownership. A clear understanding of the primary policy objectives behind the implementation of road pricing and consistent decisionmaking 

aligned with the objectives were essential elements for all 

successful projects reviewed as part of this scan. 

Both the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) have made economic and environmental 

sustainability and community livability top priorities. The 

evidence in the countries visited in this scan shows that road 

pricing can play a vital role in creating new funding for 

Generate 

Revenue

Pay for roadway infrastructure,

operations and/or transportation

system capacity with road

user charges (i.e., flat toll

rates, variable charges,

or distance-based

user fees).

Figure 1. Purposes of road pricing.

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.

Executive Summary

Manage 

Demand

Reduce traffic congestion, promote 

environmental goals, improve cost of 

doing business, and support liability

and quality of life with road charges

based on amount of traffic reduction 

sought (i.e., congestion pricing, 

cordon/urban area pricing,

facility pricing).
2 | Executive Summary

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. 

Major Findings 

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. Based on discussions and observations made during and after the scan, the 

team developed the following nine major findings:

1. Host countries and regions with clearly defined and 

well-understood policy goals were able to achieve 

their targeted outcomes most effectively. 

2. A large-scale demonstration project is a powerful tool 

for building public acceptance, allowing people to 

experience the benefits of congestion pricing.

3. Thorough planning and performance measurement 

pay benefits in ensuring achievement of overall goals, 

managing the pricing program as an element of overall 

transportation system performance, and directing 

implementation and operations effectively.

4. Linking the pricing structure to the benefits received 

by the user contributes to public acceptance and helps 

avoid the potential negative impacts of traffic diversion.

5. Public outreach and communications were key 

components of the program at every stage: before 

making the implementation decision, during the program 

design process, and during the operational phase. 

6. Open-source system designs offer long-term advantages by leveraging market competition to manage 

implementation and operations costs, ensure system 

flexibility and scalability, and establish a foundation for 

system interoperability.

7. Interoperability among states and countries is recognized as a critical issue that needs to be addressed at 

high levels. 

8. Equity and privacy concerns are addressed by host 

countries through exemptions, revenue use, technology, 

and business rules.

9. The urban area pricing projects integrated public 

transit investments and land use planning to 

manage congestion.

These findings are complemented by more than 30 

documented lessons learned that are characterized by seven 

functional categories and business disciplines. The lessons 

learned are intended to provide more indepth discussions of 

the findings from discussion with the host countries. They are 

organized to enable subject matter experts to examine the 

areas of greatest interest most effectively.

Implementation

Based on the key findings and lessons learned, the team 

recommends that additional resources and effort be 

focused on three strategic areas:

1. Enhanced outreach and communications. To advance 

the use of road pricing in the United States, it is paramount that transportation leaders, policymakers, key 

stakeholders, and a larger cross-section of the public 

understand the benefits and implications of broader 

road pricing.

2. Additional research needs. With the application 

of road pricing in the United States limited to highoccupancy toll lanes, there is a continued need for 

additional research to better comprehend issues 

related to public perception, implementation barriers, 

behavioral effect, and integration of road pricing with 

multimodal land use and transit options.

3. Road pricing toolkit. Transportation professionals lack 

a comprehensive decision analysis tool to assess the 

merits of various road pricing options to address specific 

problems. The toolkit would include a module to assist 

in making design decisions, a guidebook or primer to 

assist technical managers in developing financing and 

procurement strategies, comprehensive and synergistic 

transportation plans that incorporate road pricing 

concepts applicable in the U.S. context, and analytical 

tools to estimate performance and costs of alternative 

concepts in comparison with conventional tax-based 

approaches. The tools would culminate in a decision 

tree to help transportation leaders make informed 

decisions on the relevance and feasibility of a road 

pricing alternative.
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 3

T

ransportation networks affect virtually every aspect 

of peoples’ lives—where they live, where they work, 

where they shop, and how much they pay for goods 

and services. In many U.S. metropolitan areas, 

congestion is a significant and growing problem. Road pricing 

holds great promise as a strategy for reducing the absolute 

levels of congestion, while at the same time raising revenue 

for transportation, reducing environmental impacts of traffic, 

and allowing people to consider the full cost of transportation 

and land use decisions. The primary purposes of road pricing 

include congestion or value pricing to manage demand, 

environmental pricing to reduce environmental impacts, and 

tolling to generate revenues (see “Types of Road Pricing”).

The scale of application of road pricing may also be used to 

categorize it into facility-based pricing, zone-based pricing, 

or distance-based pricing (see “Scale of Application”). 

At any scale of application, charging systems 

may have rates that vary by time of day, traffic 

volumes, vehicle classification, and other factors 

to garner the advantages of a congestion pricing 

approach or to address environmental impacts. 

U.S. transportation agencies have a long history 

of facility-based tolling for revenue generation 

and have made great strides in managing 

demand on specific highway lanes using congestion pricing. However, broader scale applications 

of road pricing (i.e., zone-based or regionwide) 

have been limited because of political, institutional, and public acceptance issues. Zonebased pricing (e.g., in urban centers) and 

regionwide pricing of roadway systems have 

fallen short of implementation in the United 

States and have been evident only in research, 

demonstration pilots, and proposals that failed 

to get to implementation, such as the New York 

City cordon pricing proposal. 

Variable charges have been used successfully 

to manage demand in many U.S. industries, 

including the pricing of hotels, airfare, electricity, and mobile 

phone services. Many economists view road pricing, or using 

pricing signals to manage demand, as the single most viable 

approach to reducing traffic congestion. Yet, the application of 

variable pricing in the United States has been limited primarily 

to a few toll facilities and high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in a 

handful of cities. 

Both the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) address traffic congestion in their programs. U.S. DOT’s Urban Partnership (UP) and Congestion 

Reduction Demonstration (CRD) programs have set the stage 

for adding several facilities to the list of U.S. examples of 

pricing. One of the UP/CRD cities, Seattle, WA, will price all 

lanes on an existing facility. In addition, U.S. DOT and the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provide technical 

Types of Road Pricing 

(Based on Purpose)

Congestion or value 

pricing—Fee charged by time 

of day or traffic volume to reduce 

traffic, manage traffic flow, and/

or maintain target travel speeds.

Environmental pricing—

Fee charged to reduce the 

environmental impacts of traffic.

Tolling—Generic fee paid to 

access a road, bridge, or tunnel 

to generate revenue to cover the 

costs of construction and/or 

operations.

Scale of Application 

of Road Pricing

Facility-based charges—

Charges for use of specific roadway 

facilities or dedicated lanes on 

these facilities.

Zone-based (area or 

cordon) charges—Variable 

or fixed charges to drive within 

or into a congested urban area. 

Under a cordon system, such 

as in Stockholm and Singapore, 

users pay a fee every time they 

cross the cordon boundary. In an 

area-priced system, such as in 

London, users pay a fee to enter, 

leave, or travel within a defined 

area. 

Regionwide or nationwide distance-based 

charges—Per-mile charges 

on all roads within a prescribed 

region or country. 

Chapter 1| Introduction
4 | Chapter 1: Introduction

assistance and conduct research on road pricing as a 

demand-management and revenue-generation strategy. 

FHWA established an office to promote implementation 

of innovative program delivery strategies, such as road 

pricing and public-private partnerships (PPP).

One of AASHTO’s key objectives under its strategic goal to 

reestablish transportation as a national priority recognizes 

the need to increase mobility by encouraging multimodal 

and intermodal solutions, policies, and technologies. 

AASHTO’s goal to “provide world-class technical services” 

includes facilitating the use of emerging technologies, 

processes, and programs and advancing innovative 

practices. Road pricing is an innovative strategy that 

can help achieve these goals.

The results of this international road pricing scan will inform 

the U.S. road pricing research agenda, but, more important, 

it will identify best practices from international experience 

to assist U.S. practitioners in considering and implementing 

broader road pricing strategies.

Purpose of Road Pricing Scan

The purpose of the scan was to identify new ideas and 

practical, workable models for integrating road pricing 

approaches into State, local, and regional policies, programs, 

and practices. This scan reviewed urban and nationwide road 

pricing approaches in Europe and Singapore so that the U.S. 

participants could develop an understanding of the political, 

institutional, and technical factors that contributed to their 

successful implementation and, in some cases, their 

rejection. These insights have helped the scan participants 

recognize the conditions and objectives in which road pricing 

can play a productive and meaningful role. Their perspectives 

will be communicated to a broad U.S. audience of policy- and 

decisionmakers. The best practices from the places visited 

will be used to develop and apply new strategies for implementing broader forms of road pricing in the United States 

and help focus attention on the potential for road pricing as 

an effective part of 21st century transportation operations 

and financing policies, programs, and practices. 

Panel Scope, Sponsorship, and Composition 

The U.S. panel met with officials from Berlin, Germany; 

the Czech Republic; London, United Kingdom; Singapore; 

Stockholm, Sweden; and The Hague, Netherlands, from Dec. 

7 to 18, 2009. The face-to-face visits enabled participants 

to gain a deeper understanding of each host country’s 

history and context, the goals and objectives that were 

established, how road pricing was designed to address 

transportation and policy objectives, and the hurdles that 

were faced and how they were overcome. The exchanges 

provided an opportunity to gain indepth understanding 

of program goals and methods, implementation costs, 

benefits, transportation impacts, revenue generation and 

use, operating and technical practices and their costs, 

financing approaches, effects on safety and the environment, and public acceptance.

The panel was cosponsored by AASHTO, FHWA, and the 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NHCRP). 

The 10 members of the multidisciplinary team included 

transportation professionals from four State departments 

of transportation (DOT), one regional transportation agency, 

FHWA, the Federal Trade Administration (FTA), and private 

industry. Bob Arnold of FHWA and Vance Smith of the Georgia 

DOT were the cochairs, Patrick DeCorla-Souza of FHWA 

served as the Implementation Team chair, and John Doan of 

SRF Consulting Group was the report facilitator. Other team 

members were Rodney Barry of FHWA, Jayme Blakesley of 

FTA, Mark Muriello of the Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey, Gummada Murthy of the Virginia DOT, Patty Rubstello 

of the Washington State DOT, and Nick Thompson of the 

Minnesota DOT. Contact information and biographies for 

each team member are in Appendix A. Details on the 

scan preparation and itinerary are in Appendix B.

Panel Topics of Interest 

Major topics of interest included the following: 

❖ Urban and nationwide pricing 

❖ Strategies for addressing political, regulatory, and legal 

barriers, particularly those related to public acceptance

❖ Institutional arrangements and interagency collaboration 

to enable effective applications of pricing techniques

❖ Implementation strategies and costs 

❖ Experience with quantifying projected and actual 

benefits (e.g., congestion reduction, safety, and 

environmental) and developing performance metrics

❖ Relationship between road pricing as a revenue stream 

and operational strategy to reduce congestion, improve 

safety, or enhance the environment
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 5

❖ Equity concerns, particularly redistribution issues and 

strategies related to toll revenues

❖ Relevance and importance of including supporting 

strategies such as transit enhancements, system 

operations strategies and technologies, and travel 

demand management

Specific questions on the panel’s interests in these topics 

are in Appendix C. These amplifying questions were sent to 

country hosts before the U.S. visits to help them determine 

whom to invite to the meetings with the U.S. contingent 

and to ensure that presentations addressed the interests 

and needs of the scan team.

Host Delegations

During the scanning study, the team members met with 

representatives from more than a dozen organizations that 

represented a broad range of road pricing practitioners, 

executives, and key stakeholders. The majority of the organizations represented one of the following perspectives: road 

agency (city, regional, or national), infrastructure financing 

agency, trade group, or research organization. In addition, 

the scan team had informal conversations with residents of 

the locations visited, including taxi drivers, hotel staff, tour 

guides, and others, to better understand the local context.

Figure 2. Scan team members in Singapore (left to right):

Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Rodney Barry, Nick Thompson, Patty Rubstello,

Jayme Blakesley, John Doan, Mark Muriello, Bob Arnold,

Gummada Murthy, and Vance Smith. 
6 |
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 7

Road pricing projects have been implemented on five 

continents (Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and 

South America) and include notable facilities in 

Canada, Chile, Germany, Singapore, Sweden, and 

the United Kingdom. Bhatt et al. provided a concise overview 

in Lessons Learned from International Experience in 

Congestion Pricing (2008):

Over the past 30 years, congestion pricing concepts 

have received considerable attention outside of the 

U.S. Compared to the U.S., Britain, Europe, and 

countries in Asia and the Pacific region have a longer 

history of interest in exploring the potential of pricing 

approaches to address congestion, environmental 

and transportation funding problems. Individual 

countries, as well as the European Union (EU), have 

established road pricing initiatives aimed at studying, 

implementing and evaluating a wide range of 

congestion pricing demonstrations and operational 

programs.

These projects have demonstrated that road pricing can be 

an effective means of managing demand and generating 

revenue and can also be politically and publicly acceptable. 

Pricing programs have reduced congestion on facilities and 

in priced areas, improved use of existing road capacity, 

created new travel options to driving adopted by travelers, 

and achieved the goals of demand management, emission 

reductions, and revenue generation. Revenues from pricing 

have been used to provide funding for multimodal 

transportation improvements.

Much like the U.S. experience, overseas road pricing projects 

have been met with considerable resistance and political and 

public debate. Models of new roadway capacity, propelled by 

the toll financing that is more prevalent overseas, are being 

met with less resistance and often allow for private sector 

participation in construction, finance, and operation of newly 

built priced roads. While models involving distance-based 

highway charges for commercial vehicles and urban zonebased congestion pricing have encountered far greater 

scrutiny and debate, they have tended to achieve more 

targeted transportation goals. They also have achieved 

broader objectives aimed at addressing the environmental, 

livability, and quality of life impacts of transportation in urban 

areas. Many international examples indicate that public 

acceptance and approval of pricing programs improves 

significantly after project implementation, when the benefits 

and impacts can be weighed in tangible terms based on the 

context of its application.

Many international road pricing programs are breaking new 

ground and providing important lessons for those interested 

in exploring the use of market-based approaches to address 

traffic congestion. Projects implemented to date have proven 

that travelers are willing to pay for road use provided there 

are demonstrable improvements to travel conditions 

coupled with other enhancements to the transport system. 

Pricing signals have had measureable effects on the 

traveling public’s transportation decisions, evident in more 

efficient use of existing roadways and other transportation 

facilities, such as transit services. Although road pricing is 

operational in multiple locations abroad, it is still a new and 

innovative concept in the United States—one that requires 

careful planning, coalition building, public education and 

participation, and sufficient time and resources to develop 

well-designed and locally acceptable project plans.

Table 1 (see next page) summarizes the characteristics of the 

road pricing projects the team visited during the scan. Based 

on similar purposes and characteristics, London, Singapore, 

and Stockholm use urban congestion pricing concepts that 

aim to reduce urban congestion by managing demand

through zone-based (i.e., area or cordon) or facility-based (as 

on Singapore expressways) pricing. The Czech Republic and 

Germany have distance-based charging systems for heavy 

commercial vehicles on selected highways with the primary 

goal of generating revenue. The Netherlands is unique 

among the sites visited because it is in the planning and 

implementation stages for a nationwide road pricing system 

that may charge all vehicles based on distance traveled, 

time of day, and vehicle type for the combined purposes 

of managing demand and generating revenue to shift to 

a more user pays basis.

Chapter 2| General Observations
8 | Chapter 2: General Observations

Table 1. Summary of pricing projects.

Countries Visited Purpose/ Objective Type of Pricing Milestone Dates Technology Measured Impacts Annual Revenues 

and Cost (in USD)*

Distribution of Net Revenues

Stockholm, Sweden: Congestion Tax

Manage congestion (primary) Promote transit and protect environment (secondary)

Cordon pricing in city center by time of day at SEK10 to SEK20 (about US$1.50 to US$3) per crossing of cordon line into and out of city center

Trial: January–July 2006Referendum: September 2006Permanently reinstated:August 2007

Automated number plate recognition (ANPR) to assess tax to vehicle owner

20% reduction in traffic congestion in the city center10–14% decrease in emissions

Gross revenues (2009): SEK850 million (US$118.5 million)Net revenues (2009): SEK530 million (US$74 million)Overhead costs: SEK320 million (US$44.5 million), about 37% of revenues

Collected by national government and transferred to the city of StockholmNet revenues used to invest in transit and new roadsNet revenues used to invest in transit and new roads

London, United Kingdom:Congestion Charge

Manage congestion (primary)Promote transit and protect environment (secondary)

Area pricing in central London and its western extensionFlat daily rate of £8 (US$13)

Started in central London: February 2003Price increased from £5 to £8 (60% increase) in July 2005Western extension: February 2007Repeal of western extension: planned in 2010

ANPR to trackcompulsory payment compliance and identify violators

Initial traffic 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 revenuesCapital costs for central London zone: £130 million (US$211 million)

Net revenues used for transit (80%) and other transport (20%) improvements within greater London

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 1975Transition to ERP in 1998, followed by expressway pricing

Dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) in-vehicle units with removable stored-value smart card for paymentANPR for enforcement

Achieves free-flow road speed targets of 45–65 km/h on expressways and 20–30 km/h on arterials.

Gross revenues (2008): SG$125 million (US$90 million)Net revenues: SG$100 million (US$72 million)Overhead costs: SG$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

Demand Management 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 9

Germany: Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) Charging on Highways

Generate revenue and promote user-pays principle (primary) Protect environment and encourage mode shift to rail and water (secondary)

Truck tolls for HGVs greater than12 metric tons on the autobahn and limited portions of other national highways based on distance traveled, number of axles, and emissions class

Opened in January 2005

Global Positioning System (GPS) for vehicle locationGlobal System for Mobile Communications (GSM) for data transmissionDSRC and ANPR for enforcementManual booking system via kiosk terminals and Internet for those without onboard units

Violations less than 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 revenuesAverage toll rate: €0.163 per km (US$0.378 per mi)

Net revenues for roads (50%), rail (38%), and waterways (12%)€560 million (US$815 million) per year for trucker “harmonization” program

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

Opening: January 2007Originally for HGVs >12 metric tonsExpansion to include trucks >3.5 metric tons in January 2010

Transponder-based DSRC system with gantries on mainline highwaysANPR for enforcement

Average toll rate of US$0.35 per mi on freeways

Gross revenue (2008): CZK6 billion (US$340 million)Overhead costs: 30% of gross revenuesAverage toll rate: CZK4.05 per km (US$0.36 per mi) for highways; CZK1.90 per km (US$0.17 per mi) for first-class roads

Net revenues for roads and highways, railway lines, and inland transport routes

The Netherlands: National DistanceBased Tax

Planned to manage congestion, replace vehicle tax revenue, and promote user-pays principle (primary)Promote transit and protect environment (secondary)

National distancebased road pricing of all vehicles (commercial trucks and private cars) on all roadways

Phased implementation originally planned to begin in 2011, with all trucks covered by 2012 and all vehicles by 2018Implementation on hold because of parliamentary elections in June 2010

Under development, likely GPS for vehicle location, GSM-based data communication, and DSRC interrogation with ANPR for enforcement

2020 forecasted results: 10–5% reduction in vehiclemiles traveled40–60% reduction in delays10% reduction in CO2

6% increase in public transit use

Gross revenues (2019 forecasted): €9 billion (US$13.1 billion)Overhead costs: to be determined (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

*See Appendix F for currency exchange rates

Revenue Generation Planned
10 | Chapter 2: General Observations

Each host country has unique geographic, cultural, and 

political contexts that drive the decisionmaking and public 

involvement process. All of the countries have parliamentary 

democracy forms of governance, in which the executive power 

lies in a cabinet led by a prime minister and supported by 

parliamentarians who lead the ministry of transport. In 

addition, the urban pricing regions visited (London, Singapore, 

and Stockholm) have high-density development, making 

certain types of road pricing more applicable and the 

provision of multimodal services such as transit, biking, 

and walking more feasible and effective.

Demand Management: 

Stockholm’s Congestion Tax

The purpose of the Stockholm road pricing project is to reduce 

traffic congestion and vehicle emissions in the inner-city area. 

It was initially introduced by the Green Party and Social 

Democrats as a full-scale trial with the objectives of reducing 

congestion, improving access and mobility, promoting transit, 

and promoting environmental sustainability.

The concept involves charging a variable tax for crossing 

a cordon drawn around the Stockholm city center. Vehicles 

registered in Sweden are charged when they pass one of 18 

control points while entering or exiting the congestion zone 

in the city’s center on weekdays between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 

p.m. (figure 3). The rates vary from 10 Swedish kroner (SEK), 

or about US$1.50, during offpeak hours to SEK15 (about 

US$2.25) during the shoulders of the peak periods and 

SEK20 (about US$3) during the peak periods (7:30 to 8:30 

a.m. and 4 to 5:30 p.m.). Vehicles are charged each time 

they cross a control point, up to a maximum of SEK60 

(about US$9) per day (figure 4). 

Because the congestion charge is managed as a tax by the 

national government, any change in the fee schedule requires 

parliamentary action. It has not yet been determined how this 

provision for price adjustments will impact the effectiveness 

of maintaining roadway conditions at uncongested levels. No 

price change has been contemplated since the system was 

permanently adopted in August 2007. 

The plan was originally developed in spring 2003. The options 

for the charging zone were carefully analyzed using traffic 

simulation tools that defined the details of the system. The 

traffic analysis was a critical element of proper planning, 

ensuring that there would be no unintended impacts elsewhere in the network as a consequence of the congestion 

charge. The planners originally contemplated more complicated charging schemes, but the program’s schedule constraints did not allow these to be pursued. The final system 

was simple and easy to understand, which contributed to 

successful operation and public acceptance.

The road pricing project in Stockholm was unique in that it 

was introduced with a 7-month demonstration period, after 

which the system was turned off and subjected to a public 

referendum by Stockholm residents to inform a final decision 

by policymakers on its continuation as a permanent system. 

In June 2003 the Stockholm City Council voted to conduct 

a trial implementation of congestion pricing in its central 

business district (CBD). The project became operational in 

January 2006 and was shut down as scheduled at the end 

of July 2006. Six weeks later, on Sept. 17, 2006, Stockholm 

residents voted on whether to reactivate or terminate the 

road pricing system.

Before the demonstration, public support for the pricing 

program was at 25 percent. After the demonstration, public 

support from Stockholm residents voting in the referendum 

Stockholm’s Congestion Tax

(Trängselskatt i Stockholm)

Purpose: Manage congestion (primary), promote transit 

and reduce emissions (secondary)

Application: Urban cordon pricing 

Fee structure: Time-of-day pricing

Use of revenues: Fund transportation and transit 

improvements in the city of Stockholm

Technology: Automated number plate recognition 

(ANPR) 

Milestones: January 2006 (trial began), 

July 2006 (trial ended), September 2006 (referendum), 

August 2007 (reopened)

Managing authority: Swedish Transport Administration

Other highlights: Coupled with significant transit 

investment in equipment, facilities, and operations; 

exempts through traffic (30 percent of vehicles from 

Lidingö Island and on Essingeleden bypass); 

7-month preimplementation demonstration

Results: 20 percent reduction in traffic, 10 to 14 

percent decrease in emissions, 2 to 10 percent 

improvement in air quality
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 11

was more than 50 percent in favor of 

reinstating the congestion tax. The referendum counted only Stockholm residents who 

realized the most tangible benefits of congestion pricing coupled with significant investments in transit. Optional votes taken in 

some of the surrounding suburbs at the 

same time as the city referendum showed 

less than 50 percent support from those 

communities. These votes were not mandated by Parliament, but were requested by 

localities that questioned the wisdom of the 

scheme. Recent opinion polls show that 65 

percent of the public would vote in favor of 

the system in its current form, 17 percent 

would like to see the price raised, and 25 

percent would like to see the price decreased 

(figure 5, see next page). 

The overall implementation included a 

SEK1.3 billion (US$180 million) investment 

for the tolling system plus SEK2 billion 

(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-andride spaces, bus priority at traffic signals, 

improved rail service, new dedicated bus lanes, and 

12 new express bus routes (figure 6, see next page). 

Originally, the transit and tolling systems were scheduled to 

be launched in tandem. However, the transit service enhancements went into operation 5 months before the congestion 

charging system because of tolling system procurement 

delays. Transit usage and traffic congestion levels in the city 

center did not change with the introduction of the new transit 

service. It was only after the congestion tax was implemented 

that transit use grew significantly and a 20 percent reduction 

in traffic was realized. Half of the operation and maintenance 

cost associated with the new bus services was covered by 

fares and half by taxes. 

Vehicles exempt from paying fees include public buses, taxis, 

certain alternative-fuel vehicles, emergency vehicles, motorcycles, vehicles with handicap plates, and foreign-registered 

vehicles. An exemption is also provided to residents of the 

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

Figure 4. Congestion charge fee schedule.

Figure 3. Eighteen congestion charging control points create the Stockholm cordon.

Source: Gunnar Soderholm Presentation, City of Stockholm, Dec. 8, 2009

Congestion charges and times

Peak Periods

7.30–8.30 a.m., 4–5.30 p.m. SEK20 €2

Semipeak Periods

7–7.30 a.m., 8.30–9 a.m.

3.30–4 p.m., 5.30–6 p.m. SEK15 €1,5

Medium-Volume Periods

6.30– a.m., 9 a.m.–3.30 p.m.

6–6.30 p.m. SEK10 €1

Maximum Charge: SEK60/day €6

Evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays: No Charge
12 | Chapter 2: General Observations

SEK200 million (US$28 million), plus ongoing exemption 

costs from system downtimes. For example, if even a single 

gantry is not functioning, all charges must be suspended 

on the entire system to avoid the possibility of an erroneous 

charge for an exempt through trip from Lidingö. Another 

exception is through traffic on the E4/E20 Essingeleden 

Highway going past Stockholm. In total, about 30 percent 

of vehicles passing through the city center are exempt from 

the congestion tax.

The toll collection system includes three overhead gantries at 

each control point (figure 7). The outer two gantries house the 

digital imaging cameras that capture front and rear license 

plate images of all vehicles. The middle gantry houses the 

dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) antennas 

used in conjunction with in-vehicle transponders available to 

travelers during the trial. With the adoption of the permanent 

system, officials decided that the automated number plate 

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. 

During the congestion tax trial, vehicles with transponderbased accounts and those that did not have transponders 

had until noon the following day to pay the charge via the 

Internet or at a physical retail location, which included 

7-Eleven and Pressbyran convenience stores, Giro Banks, and 

stand-alone kiosks. Charges not paid during the grace period 

are assessed a SEK70 late fee (US$8) for the first reminder 

and SEK450 (US$62) fee for the second reminder. Swedish 

laws governing the collection of taxes required that the 

system capture all license plates, whether or not a transponder was used. Therefore, the transponder-based system was 

duplicative. Because of the extra operating costs resulting 

from administration and complexity of the transponder-based 

payment option, it was phased out with the implementation of 

the permanent system. The options for payment were also 

changed to increase convenience for taxpayers. Under the 

current arrangement, drivers receive a monthly billing 

statement from the state. 

The Stockholm system processes about 450,000 transactions per day. The original IBM contract was worth SEK1.9 

billion (US$265 million), and was contracted through the 

Swedish Road Administration. The gross revenue from the 

system in 2009 was SEK850 million (US$118.5 million). The 

cost of 2009 operations was about SEK320 million (US$44.5 

million), or about 38 percent of total revenues. With anticipated process streamlining and operating cost reductions, 

operation costs were expected to decrease to SEK220 

million (US$30.6 million) in 2010 and 2011. 

The operating cost reduction initiative for the system is a 

serious multiyear effort with clear established targets. The 

fear of failure for the technology loomed large as the system 

was being designed for the trial period. The Stockholm system 

planners knew that the trial system needed to run nearly 

flawlessly to gain public confidence and acceptance. The 

consequence was an expensive system to operate. This has 

led to an aggressive refinement of operating practices to 

reduce ongoing costs. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Yes No

DEC 2005

SEP 2006

DEC 2007

25%

75%

52%

45%

65%

35%

Figure 5. Public support for Stockholm congestion tax (2005–2007).

Tax zone

Park & ride

Stockholm

 city

New public

transportation

P

P

PP

P P

P

P

P

P

P

P

PP

Figure 6. Stockholm pricing zone, new transit routes, and expanded 

park-and-ride facilities.

Source: Gunnar Soderholm Presentation,

City of Stockholm, Dec. 8, 2009

Source: Bhatt, et al. “Lessons Learned from International

Experience in Congestion Pricing.”
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 13

Overall, the congestion tax reduced 

traffic 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 offline at the end 

of the demonstration, traffic volumes 

returned to about the same level as 

before the trial. After its permanent 

reintroduction in August 2007, the data 

show that access to the CBD improved, 

travel times were lower, and a 20 percent 

reduction in congestion was realized.

Demand Management: 

London’s Congestion Charge 

In 2003, under the leadership of Mayor Ken Livingstone, 

London launched a bold initiative to designate a congestion 

charging zone in central London and charge vehicles to travel 

within the 8-square-mile (20.7-square-kilometer) area (figure 

8, see next page). In 2007, the charging area was doubled in 

size with a western extension. Because of changes in leadership and public consultation, the western extension was 

scheduled to be repealed in 2010. 

With London roads congested most of the day before the 

congestion charge, it was estimated that 40 percent of 

England’s congestion was in greater London, with central 

London the most congested. Average all-day speeds were less 

than 9 miles per hour (mi/h) (14.4 kilometers per hour (km/h)) 

in central London. Delays were costing people and businesses 

£4 million to £6 million (US$7 million to US$10 million) per 

week in time and money. Thus, the objective of the congestion 

charge was to reduce traffic, 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 before the start of 

congestion charging in February 2003. 

The flat weekday charge was set at £5 (US$10.50) initially 

and raised to £8 (US$13) in August 2005. The charge is in 

effect on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. (figure 9, see 

next page). Various exemptions and discounts are allowed, 

including a 90 percent discount for residents living in the 

Figure 7. One of 18 control points using the three-gantry electronic toll collection system.

Source: Gunnar Soderholm Presentation,

City of Stockholm, Dec. 8, 2009

London’s Congestion Charge

Purpose: Manage congestion (primary), promote 

transit and reduce emissions (secondary)

Application: Urban area pricing 

Fee structure: Flat rate of £8 (US$12) per day 

(90 percent discount for residents in the zone)

Use of revenues: Fund improvements to London 

transit (80 percent) and transportation (20 percent) 

Technology: ANPR

Milestones: February 2003 (central London zone 

began operations), August 2005 (charge increased), 

February 2007 (western extension of zone), 2010 

(repeal of western extension)

Managing authority: Transport for London

Other highlights: Significant investment in transit, 

repeal of western extension in 2010, 30 percent of 

vehicles entering the zone are exempt

Results: 25 percent and 19 percent reduction in traffic 

(central and western extension, respectively), net annual 

revenues of £137 million (US$220 million) in 2008
14 | Chapter 2: General Observations

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

and motorcycles are exempt as well.

Enforcement is conducted using 1,360 closed-circuit cameras 

at 348 sites along the cordon and within the zone with roving 

vans policing the zone, capturing live video images of the 

license plates of all vehicles (see figure 10). Every operational 

weekday, the ANPR system captures and processes 1.45 

million images. The daily charge must be paid by the end of 

the day following the day the charge was incurred and can be 

paid online, by phone or text message, or in specific stores 

with the “epay” or “congestion charge” logo. If the charge 

is not paid by midnight of the day following the day of the 

charge, the cost increases by 25 percent to £10 (US$16.25). 

The penalty for nonpayment is about £40 (US$65) if not paid 

until after mail receipt of a penalty charge notice (figure 11). 

To minimize erroneous penalties, key data and images for 

every possible penalty charge is manually checked before 

being issued. The penalty triples to £120 (US$195) if not paid 

within 4 weeks. Users can pay up to 90 days in advance for 

travel within the charging zone. In addition, monthly and 

annual passes are available at a discounted rate.

Figure 8. Central London congestion charging zone. Figure 9. Congestion charging sign.

Figure 10. A total of 1,360 cameras are located on all routes

into and out of the zone as well as within the zone. Figure 11. Example of a penalty charge notice.
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 15

After implementation of the London congestion charge, 

the number of vehicles (four or more wheels) entering the 

charging zone decreased by 25 percent, or 70,000 fewer 

vehicles per day, and has remained constant. The amount 

of circulating traffic fell by 15 percent after the first year of 

implementation. Travel speeds increased by 30 percent, trip 

times decreased by 14 percent, and traffic delays plummeted 

by 25 percent in the charging zone. Transport for London (TfL) 

reported an average of 70,000 fewer daily vehicle trips than 

in the year before the congestion charge. Of those reduced 

trips, an estimated 50 to 60 percent shifted to transit (figure 

12), 20 to 30 percent of the trips were eliminated, and 15 to 

25 percent involved carpooling.

Despite the successes of the London congestion charge, 

traffic congestion in central London has gradually returned. 

In 2009, congestion levels within the central charging zone 

were equal to those evident before 2003. This is partly 

because of the decision to take advantage of the lower 

vehicular use of London’s central roadways by converting 

portions of various streets or entire streets for pedestrians 

and bicycles and for dedicated bus lanes. The reconstruction of urban infrastructure (e.g., water and sewer lines) and 

construction related to preparations for the 2012 Summer 

Olympics have also consumed some street capacity, adding 

to vehicle congestion levels.

Revenues from the congestion charge were £268 million 

(US$435 million) in 2008. When accounting for expenses 

(about 50 percent), the congestion charge generated about 

£137 million (US$222 million) in the same year, which by law 

must be spent on transportation in greater London. Of the 

2008 net revenues, 82 percent went for bus improvements, 

9 percent for roads and bridges, and the remaining 9 percent 

for road safety, pedestrian and cycling facilities, borough 

plans, and environmental improvements (figure 13). 

While the objectives of the congestion pricing program in 

London were achieved, critics point to the high operating 

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

the system from a user’s perspective rests with its relative 

simplicity, with only one price (£8 per day) charged when the 

system is in operation. Based on TfL’s 2006 and 2007 reports, 

the business and economic impacts of congestion pricing have 

been largely neutral. Furthermore, a 2007 Coordination of 

Urban Road-User Charging Organizational Issues (CURACAO) 

report stated, “The level of acceptability of road user charging 

before the introduction was rather stable at about 40 percent. 

This also holds true in comparison with other scenarios such as 

workplace commuter tax schemes. After the introduction 

acceptability has risen above 50 percent.”

Other urban area pricing proposals have been pursued 

unsuccessfully in the United Kingdom, notably in Edinburgh, 

Scotland, and Manchester, England. In both cases, the 

proposals were put to voter referendums before implementation. Without the opportunity for constituents to experience the 

tangible benefits of the road pricing initiatives, both proposals 

failed to garner sufficient voter support at the polls. Nationally, 

because of the 2010 elections and perceived lack of public 

support, neither major party actively considered or embraced 

road pricing on a broader level at the time of the scan.

Figure 12. Public service advertisement promoting shift to transit.

Figure 13. Public service advertisement promoting

use of 2008 congestion charge revenues.
16 | Chapter 2: General Observations

Demand Management: 

Singapore’s Electronic Road Pricing

Singapore is distinctive in its geography as an island city-state 

situated at the southern end of the Malaysian peninsula, 

which limits the capacity for physical growth. Singapore’s 

politics and culture are supportive of its ability to address 

these constraints by integrating multimodal transportation 

policies that incorporate stringent land use and vehicle 

ownership standards.

In 1975, Singapore undertook a bold new approach to 

manage traffic and improve air quality by introducing a fee 

for vehicles entering the CBD during the morning peak period 

of 7:30 to 9:30 a.m. Since its inception as a nonelectronic, 

prepaid windshield permit, Singapore’s road pricing system 

has expanded and modernized to become the most extensive 

congestion pricing system in the world. 

The paper-based road pricing system was converted to fully 

electronic in 1998 with the adoption of standardized invehicle units that employ DSRC for road pricing. The system 

also employs ANPR technology for enforcement. Both technologies allow the system to operate with vehicles traveling 

at full freeway speeds (up to 120 km/h). 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 (see figure 14).

All vehicles registered in Singapore are required to have 

one of six types of in-vehicle unit (IU) installed (figure 15). 

Figure 14. Singapore’s Electronic Road Pricing (2005).

Source: Bhatt et al. Lessons Learned from International

Experience in Congestion Pricing

Electronic Road Pricing

Purpose: Manage congestion (primary), promote transit 

(secondary)

Application: Cordon with time-of-day pricing in city 

center, as well as expressway and outer ring roads

Fee structure: Varies by time of day, location, and 

vehicle classification, with prices revised quarterly to 

maintain travel speed standards

Use of revenues: Returned to vehicle owners through 

tax rebates (through the general fund)

Technology: DSRC with in-vehicle units (known as IUs) 

equipped to accept smart cards tied to banking for 

payment, ANPR for enforcement

Milestones: 1975 (original permit scheme opened), 

1998 (electronic charging began)

Managing authority: Land Transport Authority

Other highlights: Multimodal investments, vehicle 

quota system, integration with land use and transit 

planning, smart card technology protects user privacy, 

use of interactive gallery exhibit to educate younger 

audiences about road pricing and other transportation 

options 

Results: Achieved target speeds of 45 to 65 km/h on 

expressways and 20 to 30 km/h on arterials, net revenue 

of SG$100 (US$75 million) in 2008 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 17

Each type is programmed to charge different rates based 

on the vehicle type. For example, a passenger car or taxi is 

charged for one passenger car unit (PCU), the price (SG$2.00) 

shown in the upper right of the pricing sign (see figure 16, 

next page). A motorcycle is charged 0.5 PCU, in this case 

SG$1.00, while a small bus is charged 1.5 PCU (SG$3.00) 

and a large bus is charged 2 PCU (SG$4.00). 

A separate prepaid, stored-value smart card is inserted into 

the IU by the driver when the vehicle is in use. The smart 

card protects user privacy by not storing personal data on 

the card. The IU has a visual display and audio signal that 

tells the owner when a toll is charged and when the smart 

card balance is low. The smart cards are available through 

various banks and can be replenished at automatic teller 

machines, kiosks, gas stations, online, and by telephone. 

A newer generation smart card, called CEPAS (short for 

Contactless E-Purse Application Standard), was introduced 

in 2006 with the intent of increasing the card’s utility to 

holders. It can be used to pay for transit fares and parking 

and at various retail stores. 

ANPR technology is used for enforcement. Vehicles without 

an active transponder detected face a SG$70 fine (US$50), 

while those with insufficient smart card funds are charged an 

administrative fee of SG$8 (US$6). This automated enforcement keeps violations at less than one percent. The introduction of ERP was accompanied by new park-and-ride lots, 

expanded transit service into the CBD, and a 30 percent 

decrease in CBD parking rates. 

Because of the ERP system’s longevity in Singapore, its 

effects on travel behavior and traffic conditions are well 

known and predictable. By some accounts, it would require a 

three-fold gas tax increase to cause the same travel behavior 

change as a one-fold increase in ERP. Overall, prices in the 

CBD are set to maintain average travel speeds at 25 km/h. 

In October 2005, the cordon was extended to include the 

Orchard Area, the region’s most prominent shopping district. 

Traffic and retail sales data were collected before and after 

ERP was introduced in the Orchard Area. Analysis of these 

data showed that ERP did not affect destination traffic to the 

shopping district. Sales continue to be healthy and grow at 

the same rate as before the ERP system was introduced to 

the area.

Singapore’s ERP system varies its prices by time of day, 

location, and vehicle classification. Both upward and downward adjustments to the pricing schedule are considered 

every 3 months based on routine collection of traffic data on 

roadway speeds. The prices are set to ensure that targeted 

speed standards are maintained at an 85th percentile level 

to ensure free-flow speeds for at least 85 percent of vehicles 

charged. Speed targets are 45 to 65 km/h on expressways 

and 20 to 30 km/h on other streets. ERP prices can vary for 

a passenger car from zero to about SG$3 (US$2) per CBD 

cordon crossing and are in effect from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on 

weekdays. In addition, ERP hours of operations for the 

Orchard District include Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. 

On the expressways, the price varies from zero to about SG$5 

(US$3.50) and is in effect weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. and 

Figure 15. In-vehicle units (six types are available based on vehicle 

classification) with prepaid stored-value smart cards are required in 

every motor vehicle, including motorbikes, registered in Singapore. 

Fitted on more than 99% of local vehicles

Exempted

Very Heavy 

Goods Vehicle

Taxi

Motorcycle

Heavy Goods 

Vehicle

Passenger Car/Light 

Goods Vehicle
18 | Chapter 2: General Observations

5:30 to 10:30 p.m. Unlike in Stockholm and London, no 

vehicles are exempt from the charge in Singapore, except 

emergency and military vehicles.

A major review of the ERP system was conducted as part 

of the Land Transport Master Plan in 2008. A number of 

enhancements were advanced, including 16 new ERP gantry 

locations, changes to the performance criteria, and rate 

changes. Traffic analysis showed that these enhancements 

resulted in an 18 to 25 percent decrease in traffic volumes in 

the Bugis-Marina area and a 7 to 21 percent decrease in the 

Orchard District on Saturdays (table 2).

Table 2. Summary of traffic results in Orchard and Bugis-Marina 

areas on Saturdays after July 2008 enhancements.

Traffic Volume 

Decrease 

Traffic

Speed 

Traffic Speed 

Improvement 

Within the 

Bugis-Marina 

Centre Cordon 

18–25% 20–22 km/h 3–2%

Within the 

Orchard 

Cordon

7–21% 21–25 km/h 1–30%

In 2008, annual gross revenues were SG$125 million (US$90 

million), with net revenues of SG$100 million (US$72 million). 

While all of the net revenues are directed to the general fund, 

vehicle owners receive periodic rebates on vehicle taxes 

funded by ERP net revenues. Investments from the general 

fund are provided to appropriately address the needs of 

Singapore’s multimodal transportation system.

Singapore’s demand management techniques involve a 

combination of vehicle ownership and usage measures. 

Usage measures include ERP charges, gas taxes, parking 

restrictions and fees, and offpeak car registration permits 

that are purchased at a discounted rate and allow use of the 

vehicle only during weekends and nonpeak hours during 

weekdays. Car ownership is closely controlled by a quota 

on the number of vehicle licenses permitted each year. This 

vehicle quota system was implemented in 1990 to regulate 

the growth of the vehicle population in Singapore. These 

permits, called Certificates of Entitlement (COE), are acquired 

through an open online auction. In November 2009, the cost 

for a COE ranged from about SG$16,500 (US$11,800) to 

SG$18,300 (US$13,100). Other costs of vehicle ownership 

include vehicle registration fees, excise duties, and road 

taxes. In total, these taxes and fees increase the price of new 

vehicle acquisition to three to four times the actual cost of the 

vehicle. For example, a new Toyota Corolla with a dealer cost 

of SG$17,850 (US$12,800), costs about SG$70,000 

(US$50,200) to purchase.

The Singaporean government takes a long-term approach to 

public outreach and education. It recently opened the Land 

Transport Authority (LTA) Transportation Gallery, an interactive 

Figure 16. ERP charging point. 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 19

exhibit that targets school-age children and teaches them 

about the past, present, and future of transportation planning 

and policies in Singapore. Gallery admission is free and 

includes a 1-hour guided tour through the following six 

transportation exhibits:

❖ Journeys—Provides an overview of land transport 

systems in the world’s major cities, including 

Singapore’s own modes of transportation

❖ Memories—Brings visitors back to experience the 

transportation modes available during Singapore’s 

preindependence era

❖ Formative Years—Highlights key milestones in 

Singapore’s land transportation development and the 

challenges faced during the nation’s formative years

❖ Land Transport Today—Explains how LTA addresses 

the challenges of managing road usage and meeting 

the diverse needs of people

❖ Challenge Theatre—Engages visitors by putting them 

in the role of a transport planner in an interactive, 

multiplayer game about how to best develop and 

manage land transportation

❖ Vision and Aspirations—Propels the visitor into the 

future via interactive multimedia activities that provide 

a peek at what the Singapore transportation landscape 

might be like in 2030

The LTA Transportation Gallery is a powerful and engaging 

tool that teaches the next generation about the need for good 

transportation planning and how ERP is an effective demand 

management tool (figure 17). 

Revenue Generation:

Germany’s Heavy Goods Vehicle Tolling

Germany is at the crossroads of Europe, with significant 

east-west and north-south freight movements via trucks. 

German motor fuel taxes did not prove to be an effective 

means of revenue generation to pay for highway infrastructure 

maintenance resulting from the volumes of heavy trucks 

moving across Germany. As a consequence, the Germans 

sought a new source of revenue through distance-based 

charging on the autobahns, the equivalent of the U.S. interstate highways. The German HGV tolling program began 

commercial operations in January 2005. It is the world’s first 

satellite-based, countrywide electronic tolling system and 

applies only to trucks weighing more than 12 tons on the 

autobahns and a small number of other national highways. 

Figure 17. LTA Transportation Gallery interactive exhibit. 

Germany’s HGV Tolling

Purpose: Generate revenue for transportation funding 

and shift to user-pays approach (primary), reduce 

emissions and modal shift to rail/water (secondary)

Application: Distance-based pricing on selected 

national highways for heavy trucks

Fee structure: Based on distance, vehicle type, and 

truck emissions rating

Use of revenues: 50 percent to roads, 38 percent to 

rail, 12 percent to waterways 

Technology: GPS, GSM, and DSRC with OBU and ANPR 

for enforcement

Milestones: January 2005 (opened)

Managing authority: German Ministry of Transport and 

Toll Collect GmbH (contractor)

Other highlights: Dual automated toll collection system 

and manual booking system, 35 percent of trucks are 

foreign, less than 2 percent violations

Results: Empty trucks declined by 7 percent, 58 

percent shift from dirtier to cleaner trucks, revenues 

of $5 billion in 2008
20 | Chapter 2: General Observations

All trucks, irrespective of national registry, are tolled based on 

the number of axles, vehicle emissions rating, and distance 

traveled. 

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 distance-based 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 account for about 35 percent of all 

of the country’s truck traffic.—Robinson, 2008

The key policy objectives were to raise revenue 

by imposing a national distance-based, user-pays 

infrastructure fee for trucks. The pricing is based 

on the distance traveled, vehicle emission class, 

and the number of axles. In addition to generating revenue, the objectives of the system were to 

create incentives to shift freight truck traffic to 

rail and waterways, promote the use of cleaner 

truck technologies, encourage more efficient 

routing and scheduling of trucks, and provide 

funding for maintenance and expansion of 

transportation infrastructure. 

The system covers about 7,700 road miles (mi) 

(12,392 kilometers (km)), including 30-plus mi 

(48 km) of local roads and more than 2,460 

access points (figure 18). Truckers have two 

payment methods (see figure 19): 

❖ An automated system using a combination 

of satellite-based (GPS) tracking via 

onboard units (OBU), mobile communications (GSM), and DSRC for enforcement 

interrogation

❖ A manual booking system, which allows 

trucks without OBUs to book their travel via 

the Internet or through roadside terminal 

kiosks available to arrange for payments 

Both payment methods are enforced through 

an ANPR system housed at 300 control point 

gantries, supplemented by 280 mobile enforcement vehicles. The dual system of stationary and 

mobile enforcement ensures that violations are kept to 

a minimum. Initially predicted to be 5 percent, the actual 

violation rate is less than 2 percent. Fines are €400 

(US$580) for intentional violations and €200 (US$290) 

for unintentional violations. The maximum fine is €20,000 

(US$29,000), with the responsibility for fines split equally 

between the driver and shipper.

While 90 percent of all payments are made with OBUs, the 

remaining 10 percent of the vehicles, most foreign, opt for 

manual booking. While manual bookings represent only 

10 percent of all transactions, they represent more than 

one-third of total operating costs. There are 3,600 manual 

terminals in Germany and neighboring countries. Manual 

bookings require the acquisition of a ticket as proof of 

Figure 18. German autobahn system.
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 21

payment before using the autobahn. The system was 

designed to ensure nonstop, highway-speed tolling 

and has achieved this objective. 

The OBU calculates the toll, adding segments together and 

charging the appropriate unit rates. As soon as the accumulated cost reaches €20 (US$29), the OBU communicates the 

cost information to the central processing unit. This threshold 

is established to avoid the costs of more frequent communication. The OBU also sends the data every 72 hours, or 

whenever the truck leaves the country. The OBU has three 

communication channels: 

❖ GPS is used for georeferencing of when a tolled route is 

entered. Typically, three to four satellites at a minimum 

are required for accuracy. 

❖ A DSRC module, employing infrared microwave technology, provides interoperability and communication with 

enforcement gantries while also supporting positioning. 

❖ GSM communicates from the OBU to the central 

computing center. The GSM is a bidirectional communication stream through which the data processing center 

is connected to the OBU. 

New tariffs are communicated to the OBU via this capability, 

with tariff tables stored on the OBU. The OBUs were specially 

designed and are provided by two competing vendors, which was a requirement of 

the government contract. 

The OBUs will be a platform for future 

value-added services, but they only provide 

toll collection functionality today. Toll Collect 

is limited to toll collection functionality for 

OBUs by virtue of its government contract 

and cannot develop value-added services 

for the in-vehicle units. The cost of installing 

the OBU is paid by the hauler, and costs 

vary by country. It costs about €50 to €60 

(US$73 to US$87) for installation. Many 

new trucks come equipped with the cables 

and connections for OBUs preinstalled. 

Toll Collect left the whole business of OBU 

installation to the private sector. The cost of 

the OBU, about €250 (US$363), has fallen 

significantly from the early days of the 

system’s introduction. 

A European Union directive lays out the principles for toll rates 

and revenues. Toll rates are based on the cost of the infrastructure on a life cycle basis. The toll rate is related to the 

cost of construction and periodic infrastructure upgrades and 

maintenance required. Toll rates range from about €0.141 to 

€0.288 per km (about US$0.327 to US$0.669 per mi). The 

average toll rate is €0.163 per km, or about US$0.378 per mi. 

Certain European Union directives restrict the highest toll rate 

from being more than twice the lowest toll rate. Annual gross 

revenues have grown steadily from €2.86 billion (US$4.1 

billion) in 2005 to €3.5 billion (US$5 billion) in 2008. 

To comply with European Union Directive 2004/52/EC, which 

requires equal treatment of foreign vehicles, accommodations were made to provide a manual payment option at the 

German border. While manual bookings represent about 10 

percent of all transactions, they represent more than onethird of total operating costs. Those who use manual bookings 

have 3 days to make their trip once registered at one of the 

3,600 terminals in Germany and neighboring countries. An 

online manual booking option is also available, but not well 

used. Truckers using the manual method are considered 

hard-core users and do not appear willing to install an OBU.

The GPS-based tolling system was procured through a 

public-private partnership (PPP) formed between the 

Ministry of Transport, Building, and Housing, responsible 

Figure 19. Automatic tolling and manual booking processes.
22 | Chapter 2: General Observations

for contracting and system regulation; the Federal Office 

for Goods Transport (BAG, figure 20), responsible for 

enforcement; and Toll Collect GmbH, a private-sector joint 

venture responsible for the system’s design, implementation, operations. and maintenance. Toll Collect is a private 

joint venture comprised of Daimler Financial Services (45 

percent), Deutsche Telecom (45 percent), and Cofiroute (10 

percent). Cofiroute provided the international tolling experience dictated by the German procurement. The Ministry of 

Transport entered a 15-year design-build-finance-operate 

contract with Toll Collect GmbH. As part of this procurement, 

Toll Collect paid for the system’s capital cost and is required 

to maintain system accuracy and availability at or above 99 

percent. The specifics of the PPP contract are not publicly 

available because of confidentiality agreements that protect 

sensitive details related to Toll Collect’s proprietary software, 

technology, and business processes.

Toll Collect received €598 million (US$868 million) in 

compensation for services in fiscal 2007–08. This includes 

operations of the automated and manual toll collection 

systems; service fees for payment providers; operation of 

the toll terminals, enforcement gantries, and mobile enforcement equipment; mobile communications; system depreciation; and net income before taxes and interest. In 2009, it 

was expected that 11 percent of total toll revenue would be 

required for Toll Collect’s compensation. While it is difficult 

to ascertain specific operating costs and profit for Toll 

Collect, annual operating costs are estimated at 15 to 20 

percent of revenues, about US$0.057 to US$0.076 per mi. 

Costs of operations have been reported in the media to be 

as high as 30 percent of revenues, which would be about 

€1.05 billion for 2008. Toll Collect officials claim this is 

misleading because the manual system is responsible for 

€140 million of the cost and depreciation is €120 million. 

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 industry, these additional revenues were added 

to the general fund allocation for roads, rail, and waterways. 

In addition, a freight mitigation fund was created to help 

truckers purchase more environmentally friendly equipment 

and provide training. An annual appropriation of €560 

(US$815 million) derived from the net HGV toll revenues 

was budgeted by Parliament to support this harmonizing 

fund. However, the level of funding allocated from the 

general fund has been reduced by an amount about equal 

to the new revenue generated by HGV toll collections. 

Although the harmonizing fund continues to be fully supported, the promised funding increase for roads using 

revenues from HGV tolls has not materialized because of 

significant federal budget shortfalls. Since roadway funding 

continues to be flat, the original promise to dedicate all new 

revenues generated by HGV tolling to the transportation 

system has not occurred.

Initially, there were concerns that HGV tolling would divert 

freight trips from the autobahns to toll-free local routes. 

To address these concerns, three connector segments 

that total a little more than 30 mi (48 km) of nonautobahn 

roadways were integrated into the HGV tolling system. 

Initially, some truckers tried to bypass the HGV tolls by using 

local routes, but they quickly realized that the cost in time 

and additional operating expenses exceeded the cost of the 

toll. Diversion to alternative routes faded and the proportion 

of trucks shifting from the freeway system to local roads is 

now negligible.

In part because of the imposition of higher tolls on higher 

polluting trucks, a dramatic growth in cleaner trucks was 

observed. Based on the European Union’s five-step emission 

classification scale (with Euro 5 being the cleanest vehicles 

and Euro 1 the dirtiest), the number of vehicle-miles using 

cleaner trucks (Euro 4 and 5) rose from 2 percent in 2005 

to over 62 percent in 2009. Conversely, the number of 

Figure 20. Federal Office for Goods Transport

mobile enforcement vehicle.
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 23

vehicle-miles driven by dirtier trucks (Euro 1, 2, and 3) 

declined by 60 percent, from 98 percent to 38 percent 

of the fleet-miles traveled (figure 21).

While the costs for operating the HGV tolling program are 

considerable, Germany has demonstrated that distancebased tolling can be successfully implemented at a national 

level to accomplish the following:

❖ Shift to a user-pays approach. 

❖ Improve system efficiency by creating incentives to 

reduce empty truck trips.

❖ Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by promoting the 

use of cleaner trucks and truck technology.

❖ Generate substantial new funding for infrastructure.

Tracking about 1.5 million trucks annually, the system 

is flexible, scalable, and robust. Road segment distances 

are regularly audited to ensure accuracy. In addition, 

road segments can be added, time-of-day toll rates applied, 

and differentiation by road type introduced without the 

need for costly roadside infrastructure. While there is 

no public interest to expand the HGV tolling system to all 

vehicles, the technical feasibility of adapting the system 

to accommodate such an effort would be relatively 

straightforward.

Revenue Generation: 

Czech Republic’s Truck Tolling 

Like Germany, the Czech Republic’s central location in Europe 

draws high volumes of through truck traffic both east-west 

and north-south. About 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, including infrastructure wear and 

tear. The tolling program began operations in January 2007 

and uses a transponder-based system relying on DSRC-based 

tolling points on the highways’ main line to calculate distances. ANPR equipment is employed for enforcement. At the 

outset, the toll applied only to trucks weighing more than 12 

metric tons. In January 2010, the truck toll was applied to all 

commercial trucks weighing more than 3.5 metric tons. 

The Czech government approved moving forward with the 

truck tolling program in 2004. The procurement documents 

for the tolling system were issued in 2005 with four suppliers responding. After the selection of the winning bid, the 

unsuccessful bidders filed objections and complaints. 

Figure 21. Truck vehicle-miles show a shift from dirtier (Euro 1, 2, 

and 3) to cleaner (Euro 4 and 5) trucks (2005 to 2009).

Czech Republic’s Truck Tolling

Purpose: Revenue generation 

Application: Truck-only distance-based pricing on 

selected national highways

Fee structure: Distance, vehicle classification, 

emissions rating

Use of revenues: Road and railway improvements 

Technology: DSRC for toll collection and ANPR for 

enforcement

Milestones: January 2007 (all trucks 12 metric tons 

or more pay toll), January 2010 (expansion to include 

trucks 3.5 metric tons or more)

Managing authority: Czech Ministry of Transport

Other highlights: 40 percent foreign trucks, implemented in under 10 months, special law prohibiting truck 

operations on Sundays and peak times on Friday evening 

and Saturday morning

Results: Average toll rate of CZK4.05 per km (US$0.36 

per mi) for highways and CZK1.90 per km (US$0.17 per 

mi) for first-class roads, revenues of CZK6 billion 

(US$340 million) in 2008
24 | Chapter 2: General Observations

Construction of the phase I tolling system was scheduled to 

begin in January 2006, but was delayed by the unresolved 

complaints surrounding the procurement. On March 29, 

2006, the Czech Office for Economic Competition ruled in 

favor of the selected bidder, and a 10-year design-buildfinance operate contract was signed. The procurement 

delays forced the stage I construction period to be reduced 

to 9 months. This aggressive delivery timetable was 

achieved by using a 5.8 gigahertz system similar to one 

recently deployed in Austria. Pilot operation of the electronic 

tolling system started in the Czech Republic on Dec. 15, 

2006, and the system was launched on Jan. 1, 2007. The 

open road tolling system was designed and implemented 

based on European Union directives 1999/62/EC, 

2006/38/EC, and 2004/52/EC, which address environmental consequences of roadway use, cost constraints, and 

interoperability of electronic toll services.

The Czech tolling system has the lowest rates of those 

charged in central Europe, significantly lower than the 

roadway charges in effect in Germany and Austria. As a 

consequence, there has been some commercial traffic 

diversion of trans-European cargo movements from other 

countries to the Czech highways.

Revenues from the program generated about 6 billion Czech 

korun (CZK) (US$340 million) in 2008, with an average toll 

rate of CZK4.05 per km (US$0.36 per mi) for motorways and 

highways and CZK1.90 per km (US$0.17 per mi) for first-class 

roadways (i.e., principal arterials). The Czech government 

requires that all trucks using Czech roads install an OBU. 

Certain types of vehicles, including first responders and law 

enforcement, are exempt from the toll, but are still required 

to register and install an OBU. While specific system operating 

costs are not publicly available, it is estimated to be about 

30 percent of gross annual revenues. 

Truckers or their firms submit a deposit of CZK1,550 (US$88) 

to the government, which pays for the cost of the OBU, its 

installation, and administration. In December 2009, 420,000 

transponders were in use with another 100,000 transponders 

expected to come online in 2010 because of the change in 

the gross vehicle weight threshold subject to a charge from 

12 metric tons to 3.5 metric tons. Changes to the toll rate are 

proposed by the transport minister and require approval by 

the Czech Parliament.

When the scan team met with Czech tolling representatives, 

national laws were being debated that impose unique 

restrictions limiting truck movements on Friday afternoon and 

weekend days to preserve roadway capacity for nonfreight trips 

on weekends. Resistance to these measures was significant 

from freight interests unable to work a full week. Other problems with the Friday restrictions were lack of capacity for truck 

parking and incompatibility with driver restrictions in other 

countries. The restrictions on Friday truck traffic reduced traffic 

Figure 22. Czech truck tolling network.
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 25

congestion on Czech highways 50 to 60 percent, according to 

Czech officials. Toll rates were changed on Feb. 1, 2010, to 

increase regular truck toll rates by 25 to 50 percent on Fridays 

from 3 to 9 p.m. in an apparent effort to use market pricing 

rather than vehicle restrictions to manage commercial traffic 

demand during that peak congestion period. 

This implementation of truck tolling on freeways and 

expressways is considered the first phase of a more comprehensive road pricing system (figure 22). Future plans (phase 

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

2017 by including some arterial and local roads. Capital 

costs for the initial implementation (phase 1) and future 

expansion (phase 2) of the system are estimated at about 

CZK18 billion (US$1 billion). When complete, phases 1 and 

2 will include 1,120 mi (1,802.4 km) of expressways and 

freeways and 43 mi (69.2 km) of connecting main roads. 

This expansion of the existing system will seek to employ 

microwave technology and GPS-based OBUs because the 

cost associated with installing additional gantries on 

arterials and local roads is considered excessive. 

Demand Management and Revenue Generation: 

The Netherlands’ Proposed DistanceBased Tax

The Netherlands is a small, densely populated country 

with an integrated, multimodal transportation system, but 

it nonetheless experiences highly congested roads. As a 

consequence, the Netherlands has been planning an 

ambitious national road pricing program. The plans have 

been to introduce a countrywide distance-based road user 

fee for trucks by 2012 and to expand the system incrementally 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 policy goals:

❖ Improve mobility and accessibility to benefit the 

economy.

❖ Develop a more fair system that focuses on use of the 

road system rather than on vehicle ownership and 

replace current license fees and vehicle taxes.

❖ Enhance the environment.

❖ Improve road safety.

The Dutch Cabinet considers a distance-based road-user fee 

to be a more transparent and equitable method to fund the 

transportation system and effectively manage congestion. 

The new system is designed to be revenue neutral by phasing 

out high license fees and other vehicle ownership taxes and 

introducing a per-kilometer charge in their place. While the 

precise price per kilometer is still in planning, the expected 

tariff for autos at the start is €0.030 per km (US$0.07 

per mi), with the rate expected to reach €0.067 per km 

(US$0.155 per mi) at full implementation. The lower rates 

at the program’s start reflect the fact that vehicle ownership 

taxes will be phased out over time and user fees will increase. 

The per-kilometer tariffs for other vehicles at implementation 

are planned to be €0.017 per km (US$0.039 per mi) 

for commercial vans, €0.028 per km (US$0.065 per mi) 

for buses, and €0.024 per km (US$0.056 per mi) 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 was planned to take into account 

vehicle emission class and time-of-day pricing for peak and 

The Netherlands’ Kilometer Tax

Purpose: Improve mobility, manage demand, and shift 

to user-pays approach (primary)

Application: National distance-based pricing of all 

roads for all vehicles

Fee structure: Based on distance and vehicle type 

with option to include emissions class and time of day

Use of revenues: Replacement of vehicle ownership 

taxes now in place

Technology: GPS, ANPR, GSM

Milestones: 2012 launch (trucks only), 2018 (all 

vehicles)

Managing authority: Dutch Ministry of Transport 

Highlights: In planning stages and under development, 

unique requirements that minimize system installation 

and operating costs, revenue neutral (offset by reduction 

in other transportation taxes)

Forecasted results (2020): 10 to 15 percent reduction in vehicle-miles traveled, 10 percent reduction in CO2

emissions, 6 percent increase in public transit use
26 | Chapter 2: General Observations

offpeak travel. All revenues will be dedicated to the road 

system to offset existing license and registration fees.

Based on 2020 forecasts, the distance-based tax would 

result in the following:

❖ Ten to 15 percent reduction in kilometers traveled

❖ Travel time savings of 40 to 60 percent

❖ Ten percent reduction in CO2 and PM10 emissions 

by passenger cars

❖ Six percent increase in miles using public transport

❖ Seven percent increase in traffic safety

The method for toll collection and vendor selection has 

not been decided, but the Dutch high-level system design 

envisions a satellite-based (GPS) technology combined 

with in-vehicle equipment and mobile communications. 

The procurement approach will be to employ open systems 

design standards that comply with the European Union’s 

future standards for tolling interoperability. The intent is to 

enable free marketplace access to the road-pricing system by 

certified suppliers of products and services. The procurement 

will involve market-based parties whenever possible, leaving 

detailed system designs, system implementation, and 

equipment installation in vehicles to private sector companies 

and giving the government the role of ensuring installation 

quality. This open approach to design, implmentation, and 

installation is intended to create market competition and 

provide private interests with the incentive to develop valueadded services for the equipment being deployed. Similar 

to what is occuring in the mobile device industry, this would 

enable a wide variety of developers to provide enhanced 

applications and services that deliver the basic toll collection 

function, but also provide greater value to users. This 

approach is expected to yield revenues that may offset the 

cost of initial implementation and ongoing operating costs. 

Administrative costs are a major concern for the Dutch. To 

manage costs, they have looked aggressively at technologies 

and business processes to minimize them. The Dutch 

Parliament has set a goal for operating costs to not exceed 

5 percent of gross revenues and for OBUs to cost less than 

€100 (US$145) installed. At the proposed fee structure, it is 

estimated to cost US$0.0075 per mi, based on 5 percent of 

US$0.155 per mi, to collect and enforce the Dutch kilometer 

tax program.

The Dutch have also created a €100 million (US$145 million) 

fund to support innovative congestion management projects 

from 2007 to 2011. This fund is intended to provide more 

immediate, short-term congestion relief through road pricing 

pilots in selected corridors without adding new roadway 

capacity. Next steps include extensive consultation, amendment of legislation, and development of a more detailed 

migration plan from vehicle taxes to the distance-based tax. 

While the Dutch political climate is unsettled because of 

upcoming elections, steps have been taken to conduct 

a large-scale system test in 2010.

On Feb. 20, 2010, about 2 months after the scan team 

returned to the United States, the three-party majority 

coalition comprised of the Christian Democratic Alliance, 

Christian Union, and Labor Party collapsed over the issue 

of continued Dutch troop support of North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization efforts in Afghanistan. The coalition government 

held only 46 of the 150 Parliament seats with the departure 

of the Labor Party and was relegated to a caretaker government role until the June 2010 elections. With Camiel Eurlings’ 

resignation in March 2010 from the post of transport minister, 

the fate of a future large-scale test and overall implementaFigure 23. Congestion on the roadway system in the Netherlands. tion of the Netherlands’ distance based tax was uncertain.
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 27

T

he countries the scan team visited are ahead of the 

United States in broadscale road pricing implementation. They each provide valuable case studies for 

learning for U.S. transportation professionals and 

decisionmakers. Overall, the experience in each host country 

proved that road pricing is an effective tool to manage 

demand and raise revenue. 

The scan team developed the following nine major findings: 

1. Host countries and regions with clearly defined 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 traffic congestion 

and its impacts. Programs that sustain a focus on traffic 

congestion have sustained traffic-reduction benefits.

❖ Singapore identified 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 ERP system, congestion management is also 

addressed through multimodal transportation investments as alternatives to driving, parking management 

systems to facilitate identification 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 reasonable toll 

prices, daily maximum charges, expanded transit and 

park-and-ride services as alternatives to driving, and 

exemptions for Lidingö Island traffic 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. In Germany and 

the Czech Republic, the distance-based charging of 

commercial vehicles was designed to capture revenues 

aligned with the infrastructure life cycle costs required 

to maintain roadways for HGV use. Political decisions in 

Germany to divert existing general funds from transportation 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 traffic, but found that manual booking 

systems for those without in-vehicle units are expensive 

to operate. 

❖ The Netherlands plans to introduce a distance-based 

charge for all vehicles and roadways. This kilometerpriced system would replace motor vehicle taxes on 

passenger cars and commercial trucks and eliminate 

vehicle purchase taxes on passenger cars and motorcycles. As such, roadway network users would pay for 

vehicle use, not vehicle ownership. Existing fuel taxes 

would remain in place. Thus, the government’s policy 

goal is to improve mobility and quality of the environment. The Dutch government believes a true user tax 

would be more effective for managing demand than the 

current ownership taxes, which have the effect of 

overcharging car owners who do not drive much. 

For example, owners of classic cars pay an ownership 

tax even if they do not drive the cars. The universal 

user-pays principle in the Netherlands is expected to 

generate strong environmental benefits from trip 

consolidation and alternative mode choices. The 

environmental benefits achieved by the Germans and 

Czechs are evident through price incentives for cleaner 

vehicles and a reduction in empty truck movements. 

Chapter 3| Major Findings
28 | Chapter 3: Major Findings

2. A large-scale demonstration project is a powerful tool 

for building public acceptance, allowing people to 

experience the benefits of congestion pricing.

Stockholm’s trial of the congestion tax system from January 

to July 2006 demonstrated the benefits of congestion pricing 

firsthand. Sequencing a referendum vote after the trial 

concluded was instrumental in garnering public support. The 

pilot demonstration also provided technical and administrative staff with opportunities to refine the system and its 

performance, streamline business processes, and reduce 

operating cost.

3. Thorough planning and performance measurement 

pay benefits 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 

preimplementation 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. 

❖ London, Singapore, and Stockholm made significant 

advance investments in transit equipment, facilities, 

and services.

❖ In planning the Stockholm system, internationally 

recognized traffic experts were retained to measure 

network effects of various configurations of the 

charging zone to ensure that there were no unintended 

effects outside 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 uses advanced analytics and traffic 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 traffic reductions, travel speed 

increases, mode shift, and clean vehicle adoption, as 

well as estimates of business impacts and emissions 

reductions. 

❖ Singapore’s ongoing management of its congestion 

charge includes quarterly verification of travel speeds 

and refinement 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. 

Postimplementation planning and performance assessments focused on the right measures have ensured cost 

efficiency and operating effectiveness. 

❖ Stockholm has benefited 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 benefits the user 

receives contributes to public acceptance and helps 

avoid potential negative impacts from traffic diversion.

To maintain support for road pricing, some of the sites 

studied attempt to connect the pricing structure to the 

benefits received by the toll payer. 

❖ In Sweden, toll rates on new roadway infrastructure are 

set at levels that reflect the value of the reduced travel 

time and operating costs compared to existing nonpriced 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., traffic will not stay on existing 

free routes simply to avoid the toll). In Stockholm, the 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 29

price schedule for the cordon charges was set to reflect 

the expected benefits to those who would pay the new 

charges. The concern was that if the public perceived 

tolls to be too high, they would not accept them. Toll 

rates were set at the minimum levels needed to 

manage congestion, not to achieve a specific 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 future increases will be needed to 

address growing travel demand and inflation, public 

acceptability of any rate changes is an important 

consideration. Because the congestion charge is 

defined as a national tax, it can be changed only 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 percent of vehicles 

that pay the toll. The concern is that the public obtain 

value in the form free-flowing traffic in return for the 

tolls paid. In the early days of operation, LTA attempted 

to set toll rates to achieve the targeted speeds on 

average. It quickly learned that this meant that only 

about half of the toll-payers received the targeted 

service levels, and the public perceived it had not 

received value for tolls paid. This led the authority to 

institute the 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 flexible 

pricing structure of the sites visited.

❖ The German truck toll rates for use of the freeway 

system (i.e., autobahns) are low enough that little 

or no truck traffic is diverted 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 using the autobahns. The Germans set the truck 

toll rates to average €0.163 per km (US$0.378 per mi) 

to capture the impact of HGVs on the transportation 

system. The fairness of the toll rates as charges for 

services is reinforced by the way toll rates are calculated. To determine the average toll rate, the estimated 

infrastructure cost imposed by HGVs (estimated in 

2010 at €5.2 billion) was divided by the total number 

of HGV km on the highway system (29.8 billion km). 

This is calculated at €0.174 per km, so the €0.163 per 

km 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 to trucking community use 

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 were key 

components of the program at every stage: before 

the implementation decision, during the program 

design process, and 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 benefited 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 2 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 benefits 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 the following:

❖ “Keep roads free-flowing” 

❖ “People-centered transportation” 

❖ “Public transit is a viable choice” 
30 | Chapter 3: Major Findings

As system expansion continues, before a new gantry is 

installed, there is extensive outreach in affected neighborhoods to address concerns. For example, the times for 

operation of expressway pricing were modified to respond 

to public comments.

The Czech and German programs achieved support from 

local truckers by emphasizing the effect on leveling the 

playing field with foreign haulers and the fairness of the 

user-pays concept. 

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

costs of implementation and operations, ensure system 

flexibility and scalability, and establish a foundation for 

system interoperability.

The Dutch 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 valueadded services for onboard 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 financial purse is designed to be interoperable with the transit fare media and parking payment 

systems, as well as 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 European Union 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 European 

Union via one contract and with one OBU. 

❖ Technical, administrative, and legal hurdles have made 

advancing interoperability time-consuming and challenging. The European Parliament and European Union 

Council approved the directive in 2004. Five years later, 

a decision on the EETS definition was approved in 

October 2009.

❖ Existing systems with large sunk costs in proprietary 

applications and equipment heighten the challenge 

of transition.

Interoperability addresses technical, business, 

administrative, financial, and legal issues, requiring 

thorough treatment and multidisciplinary 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 in their own country to share vehicle registry 

data for easy applications of license plate imaging for 

invoicing and violation processing.

❖ The use of ANPR technologies for enforcement is 

ubiquitous. It is used in the Czech Republic, Germany, 

London, Singapore, and Stockholm, but more 

agreements to share information across borders 

are needed.

❖ Clearly defined and well-understood policy goals in 

Stockholm guided decisions large and small, such as 

revenue use, rate schedule, and appropriate technology 

solutions. 

❖ The Netherlands plans to use a tax-consolidation 

approach to transition fragmented vehicle ownership 

taxes to a single distance-based user fee.

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, the emphasis on 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 31

using toll revenues to fund transit sends a strong, 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 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, 

officials adopted and committed funding to realize a 

master transportation plan that integrates road pricing, 

transit, roadway expansion, and land use.

❖ The coordination of road pricing policy with public 

transportation investments is best accomplished 

by a single entity. In London, TfL is responsible for 

implementing the mayor’s Transport Strategy for 

London and managing transportation services for all 

modes of transportation and throughout the city. In 

Singapore, LTA 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.
32 |
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 33

I

n addition to the major findings cited in the last chapter, 

the scan team found it useful to consider a number of 

lessons learned that are characterized by functional 

categories and business disciplines. The seven categories of lessons learned discussed in this chapter include 

the following:

1. Political and policy considerations

2. Legal and institutional issues

3. Planning and performance measurement

4. Procurement

5. Technology

6. Operations and enforcement

7. Outreach and communications

The lessons learned are intended to provide more indepth 

discussions of the findings from discussion with the host 

countries. They are organized to enable subject matter 

experts to examine the areas of greatest interest most 

effectively. 

1. Political and Policy Considerations

A. Strong champions were critical to initial implementation of road pricing in several countries. The 

successful programs blend government leadership to 

guide executive and legislative government agendas 

with strong program manager champions in the 

implementing agency.

Executive champions, such as former London Mayor 

Ken Livingstone and Stockholm Mayor Annika Billstrom, led the charge to implement road pricing to 

improve livability and sustainability in their capital 

cities, despite fervent opposition and divided public 

support. Their vision, understanding, and political 

aptitude created the executive mandate for road 

pricing and laid the framework for the political 

coalitions and legislative changes required to institute 

congestion pricing. In Stockholm, a strong city manager 

directed the congestion pricing program implementation, while the London program management benefited 

from key leadership appointments at TfL. In both 

cases, agency leaders worked in concert with elected 

city executives to ensure implementation aligned with 

overall objectives of the pricing program.

After the scan team’s visit to the Netherlands, the ruling 

government coalition dissolved and the Dutch champion 

of road pricing, Transport Minister Camiel Eurlings, 

resigned. Eurlings set road pricing as a national priority, 

so his departure created a vacuum in leadership, project 

guidance, and legislative action in early 2010. A number 

of political parties still support the distance-based road 

pricing system, and the leading party in the former 

government coalition, the Christian Democratic Alliance, 

has said it will recommend a revised version of the 

distance-based charge in an upcoming proposal. 

Nonetheless, the Netherlands’ comprehensive, 

multidisciplinary approach to guiding implementation 

has suffered a setback because of changes in leadership and champions. 

In contrast, the consistency of Singapore’s government 

leadership and singleness of purpose at LTA to strive for 

a sustainable and effective transportation system have 

been hallmarks of the road pricing program’s success. 

B. Simplicity matters on policy goals, messages, 

business rules, and technology solutions.

Stockholm’s Lidingö Rule was created to provide an 

exemption from the congestion tax to Lidingö Island 

residents, who must cross the Stockholm charging zone 

to access the national road network. The rule allows free 

passage for any vehicle that exits the charging zone 

within 30 minutes of entering the zone at the Lidingö 

Island control point or vice versa. This exemption 

Chapter 4| Lessons Learned
34 | Chapter 4: Lessons Learned

maintained a policy of free access to the national 

highway network, but added more than US$20 million in 

capital and operating costs. It also added considerable 

system complexity to toll operations because every 

vehicle needs to be tracked to verify if it is making a 

qualifying trip for this exemption. If one gantry fails to 

operate properly, all vehicles during that period must be 

assumed to qualify for the Lidingö Rule and are exempt 

from the congestion charge. 

Stockholm advanced simplicity in its permanent 

system implementation through a number of revisions 

during the 11 months between the referendum and the 

activation of the permanent system. The first was a 

conversion to fully video-based transactions, eliminating the cost of transponders, DSRC field equipment, 

and operations to support a second payment method. 

Second, a rule requiring that congestion taxes be paid 

by the day after the charge was incurred was revoked. 

This allowed the elimination of a costly system of 

payment channels, including Internet, retail locations, 

and stand-alone kiosks. Instead, drivers receive a 

monthly billing statement from the state for their 

congestion tax transactions, which saves significant 

operating costs and simplifies the system for drivers. 

Finally, these changes were accommodated by an 

alignment that placed the congestion tax program and 

the national vehicle registry under the same organizational oversight, creating efficiencies in data sharing 

and invoicing.

To comply with European Union Directive 2004/52/EC, 

which requires equal treatment of foreign vehicles 

in domestic road pricing programs, the German truck 

tolling system was required to establish a manual 

payment option for trucks that did not acquire an 

in-vehicle unit. While only 10 percent of truck 

transactions are paid via the manual system, manual 

transaction processing represents over one-third of 

the total operational costs. 

German business objectives for the truck tolling system 

included the ability to have a flexible road network for 

expansion and scalability, as well as a flexible tariff 

schedule. These objectives were achieved through a 

complex remote device management process by which 

changes in the road network and pricing are centrally 

propagated to all users’ OBUs in a seamless and 

consistent manner. The system’s sophistication 

requires maintenance of a complex network of 

geographic data in five distinct layers to detail 

roadway links, distances, locations, and related tariffs 

and decision analytics. System maintenance requires 

regular updates of 640,000 OBUs with 600 geographic 

data changes per year and 400 annual tariff changes. 

While the system meets the goals established, it 

requires a high level of technical input and system 

administration to ensure accuracy of OBU functionality 

in a secure manner.

London began its congestion charging program with a 

simple set of policy objectives that prioritized reductions 

in traffic volumes and related congestion. The program’s 

well-documented success in both the original charging 

zone and the western extension created roadway 

capacity. This newfound capacity provided an opportunity to address a larger set of urban needs, including 

new bicycle and pedestrian uses of streets in the city 

center and infrastructure modernization such as water 

supply. These actions have consumed street capacity 

to the extent that traffic congestion in central London is 

reportedly back to levels experienced before congestion 

charging. By attempting to address a broader set of 

objectives after successes in congestion reduction, the 

London system has lost ground in its simple origin of 

congestion reduction. 

C. Equity concerns and perceptions of fairness can 

be addressed on multiple levels.

Equity concerns are typically addressed via exemptions 

and discounts to the congestion charge. For example, 

traffic passing through Stockholm’s city center is 

exempt from the congestion tax to ensure that residents of Lidingö Island have access to the national 

highway network. Among its various discounts, London 

also maintains a 90 percent discount for residents in 

the central London congestion charging zone. 

In London, Singapore, and Stockholm, where demand 

management was a prime objective for urban road 

pricing, significant investments in transit were made 

in tandem with the implementation of the road 

pricing program to ensure viable options to driving. 

Furthermore, the net revenues, directly or indirectly, 

are used to fund future multimodal enhancements.
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 35

The use of revenue has been another means of addressing equity and perceptions of fairness. In Germany, a 

truck harmonization fund created from road pricing 

revenue pays for new truck equipment and training for 

cargo haulers. In Singapore, net revenues not invested 

in transportation projects are returned to motorists 

through rebates in vehicle taxes. 

D. Political timetables and deadlines create 

opportunities and challenges for implementation.

The Stockholm demonstration period was a prescribed 

timeframe in which the areawide pricing system needed 

to be operational on a trial basis before the planned 

referendum. While the schedule created urgency for 

system delivery, it also caused problems because of 

legal challenges to the procurement. The Stockholm trial 

was delayed 5 months from its original planned startup, 

requiring extraordinary effort by business consultants, 

the system integrator, and agency staff to deliver the 

system as a 7-month trial. The Czech Republic also 

experienced a compressed delivery schedule because 

of procurement challenges. The system integrator and 

construction contractors had only 9 months to install 

and test the Czech truck tolling system.

These examples illustrate that expedited delivery of 

high-functioning and reliable pricing systems is possible. 

However, both Stockholm and the Czech Republic are 

managing systems that are expensive to operate and 

maintain. The Stockholm program is undergoing a 

multiyear program of business process and systems 

reengineering to reduce operating costs.

2. Legal and Institutional Issues 

A. The statutory and legal authority for road pricing 

was an essential foundation for all programs and 

often requires time to establish.

Road user fees first became possible in Sweden in 

1988 through a change in law, which allowed tolls on 

the bridges to Norway and Denmark. Stockholm’s 

congestion-pricing proposal became a matter of national 

debate and legislation because the city has no power 

or authority to charge nonresidents. 

B. The statutory and legal basis for road pricing 

programs has implications for system design, 

operations, and enforcement.

Stockholm defines its road pricing as a national tax, 

since the city of Stockholm has no power to tax 

nonresidents. As a consequence, changes to the fee 

schedule require parliamentary action. In London and 

Singapore, the congestion charge is considered a fee, 

which allows the rates to be adjusted by the managing 

authority and fines to be resolved through administrative actions. Stockholm officials report that the benefit 

of treating congestion charges as a tax is higher 

collections because taxes are paid with higher 

frequency than other fees. 

C. Interagency agreements and relationships were 

evident for effective operations and enforcement.

All pricing programs reviewed on the scan have procedures and relationships in place to share vehicle registry 

data for operations and enforcement among agencies. 

Some agencies, such as the new Swedish Transport 

Agency, operate the priced facility and manage vehicle 

registration, further streamlining data sharing, billing 

processes, and associated costs.

D. Legal requirements governing the use of road 

pricing revenues can protect revenues for targeted 

transportation investment, but flexible provisions 

for revenue use have leveraged revenues to their 

best advantage. 

In Germany, the revenue generated from the truck tolling 

program is legally required to be allocated to projects 

for roads (50 percent), rail (38 percent), and waterways 

(12 percent). This preserves the majority of the revenue 

benefit for road users, but helps meet a national goal of 

multimodal transportation solutions to address mobility 

and future capacity needs. 

In Sweden, the national government has established a 

long-term 2010–2030 investment plan for infrastructure investment, with the equivalent of US$14.5 billion 

programmed from a variety of revenue sources, 

including the Stockholm congestion tax and plans for 

congestion taxing in Göteborg. The investment plan 

allocates 53 percent of the funding to road projects 

and 47 percent to rail projects. The Swedish policy of 
36 | Chapter 4: Lessons Learned

“advancement” is incorporated in the Road Act to allow 

municipalities to augment national funding, making 

more investment possible and creating higher design 

and operating standards.

E. Limits to the price-setting mechanism through 

laws and directives may be required to gain public 

acceptance, but may also constrain the ability to 

use price signals most effectively. 

A European Union directive dictates that the differential 

between the highest and lowest toll rate cannot be 

more than two times the lower value. Some European 

officials claim that this differential is not significant 

enough to manage traffic effectively in urban areas. 

The argument is that the limited price differential is 

insufficient to allow efficiencies to be realized through 

substantial temporal or mode shifts or avoided 

road trips. 

European Union Directives 1999/62/EC and 2006/38/

EC cover vehicle taxes, tolls, and user charges imposed 

on vehicles intended for the carriage of goods by road 

and having a maximum permissible gross laden weight 

of not less than 12 metric tons. The directives establish 

total revenue thresholds that must not exceed infrastructure costs, which some officials view as limiting 

for network investment purposes.

3. Planning and Performance Measurement

A. The best planning practices address education, 

outreach, and stakeholder management 

comprehensively. 

The Dutch have studied distance-based charging and 

engaged key stakeholders on the subject several times 

since the 1980s. Recent implementation planning in 

the Netherlands involved extensive outreach during the 

system design and development process with a wide 

range of public agencies, private interests, and industry 

user groups. The Dutch provided significant funding for 

implementation research in a US$150 million congestion mitigation program.

Singapore, on the other hand, used grassroots representatives to gauge public sentiment before expanding the 

charge to the Orchard Area shopping district and 

expressways. Consultation typically starts with core 

stakeholders and later reaches out to the public through 

communications programs.

B. For many of the pricing programs reviewed, 

comprehensive network planning and performance 

measures were integral to preimplementation 

efforts, as well as ongoing system management.

Most sites use advanced analytics and traffic models 

to better understand the network impacts of pricing on 

parking, transit, and system diversion issues. In planning 

the Stockholm system, internationally recognized traffic 

experts were retained to measure network effects of 

various configurations of the charging zone to ensure 

that there were no unintended effects outside the 

congestion-charging zone. Similarly, the Netherlands 

has also undertaken comprehensive planning exercises 

to look at network effects across several modes.

Singapore’s ongoing management of its congestion 

charge includes quarterly verification of travel speeds 

and refinement of prices to ensure that 85th percentile 

travel speed standards are maintained on two different 

classes of roadways.

C. The best-in-class road pricing programs have 

transport options integrated into their planning 

and preimplementation actions. 

London, Singapore, and Stockholm made significant 

investments in transit to ensure that those impacted 

by the new road-user fees would have alternatives to 

driving. Such plans provided adequate capacity and 

service levels to ensure balanced transportation 

network demand, and limited minimal impacts to 

mobility and businesses with urban charging zones. 

When provisions of modal alternatives to driving are 

not feasible, several pricing programs have employed 

exemptions or discounts to the road-user charge. 

Stockholm exempted Lidingö Island residents who pass 

through the city center to access the national highway 

network from the congestion tax. Similarly, residents 

in the central London and western extension charging 

zones enjoy a 90 percent discount on the congestion 

charge. 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 37

D.Geography has played a role in the design and 

business rules of many of the pricing programs 

visited.

Stockholm’s city center is an island with well-defined 

access points that served to define roadside equipment 

locations and customer understanding of the limits of 

the charging zone.

Both Germany and the Czech Republic are central to 

European goods movement, handling high volumes of 

out-of-country movements on their national highways. 

Pricing system designs and business rules were established specifically to meet objectives for both native 

and foreign truckers. 

Singapore is an island city-state with limited land 

available for development and economic expansion. 

As a consequence, Singapore has instituted regulations 

and planning processes to target specific land uses, 

encourage high-density development linked to transit, 

and manage the demand for new vehicles through its 

vehicle quota service.

A public consultation process preceded the London 

congestion charge, leading to many exemptions from 

the charge. A public consultation held after Mayor Boris 

Johnson took office recommended discontinuing the 

congestion charging in London’s western extension. 

4. Procurement

A. Open-source system designs provide significant 

advantages.

Open-source system designs create a competitive 

bidding environment for capital and operating costs 

associated with initial implementation, including 

system development and integration, roadside and 

in-vehicle equipment, construction, and back office 

(figure 24).

The German truck tolling system contract required a 

minimum of two vendors capable of providing in-vehicle 

units to ensure a competitive pricing environment. The 

Dutch system planning has expanded on this concept by 

proposing to allow multiple vendor solutions, creating a 

competitive environment for equipment and systems 

development and an open environment for value-added 

services that may defray costs and support public 

acceptance. 

In Singapore, second-generation stored-value smart 

cards for in-vehicle units are designed with an open 

standard to be interoperable with the transit system and 

permit interfaces with financial institutions and businesses. The new smart cards will allow value-added 

services and cashless payment options for many goods 

and services.

Figure 24. Example of open-source system design. 
38 | Chapter 4: Lessons Learned

B. Road pricing system contracts have been competitive and lucrative for the businesses supporting 

them, inviting contentious legal challenges to 

procurement decisions. 

Legal procurement challenges from vendors in the 

Czech Republic, Germany, and Stockholm affected 

implementation schedules and some system requirements. Procurements of this type are often delayed by 

challenges to the selection process, so it is advisable 

to build in schedule contingencies to accommodate 

these circumstances.

The complexities of the Dutch procurement plans for 

open systems designs and significant private sector 

participation led the Netherlands to employ extensive 

risk assessment and cost estimation planning to 

assess private sector procurement options.

C. Rapid implementation schedules for pricing projects 

are possible, but have driven up capital and ongoing 

operating costs. Clarity and specificity of the project 

scope greatly influence cost and schedule.

Stockholm worked with an open scope, which was 

deemed necessary to deal with the compressed delivery 

schedule for the trial program and evolving legislation 

that was not resolved at the time of the procurement. 

The consequence was schedule delays in the trial 

startup because of scope changes to access legislative 

outcomes and high implementation and operating costs.

The Czech Republic selected an off-the-shelf DSRCbased system that had relatively high OBU costs and 

a design-build-finance-operate PPP contract over 10 

years. The contractor started receiving payments after 

6 months’ worth of revenues were generated. The 

German private consortium also fronted the capital cost 

for a 15-year design-build-finance-operate PPP contract.

Stockholm and London used more traditional designbuild-operate procurement methods and found that 

initial capital and operating costs were high, requiring 

subsequent actions to reduce ongoing costs.

D. PPPs have been used in some road pricing deployments, leveraging no upfront costs for implementation, but incurring high operating costs.

The German Toll Collect consortium put up all the 

money required to develop and implement the German 

system through 2005, with no public funding. The 

private consortium is bound by contractual standards 

for availability and accuracy and is audited by the 

federal government on a regular basis. Toll Collect’s 

compensation is about 11 percent of total toll revenue 

and includes operation of the automated and manual 

systems; a service fee for payment providers; operation 

of the toll terminals, enforcement gantries, and mobile 

equipment; mobile communications; system depreciation; and net income before taxes and interest. The 

nature of the contract provides little incentive for cost 

efficiency, which drives disproportionate spending to 

ensure performance standards. 

Similarly, the Czech system is a PPP with a longterm contract that locks in relatively high costs 

of operations.

5. Technology

A. Business and functional requirements should 

guide technology selection.

Several pricing programs realized benefits from a 

requirements-based approach to program development 

and systems design. Countries that had business, 

functional, and technical requirements at the core of 

their procurement processes tended to be more successful in engaging public and private partners to 

achieve objectives. 

The Germans chose GPS-based technologies to meet 

their business requirements of an easily expandable 

and scalable priced roadway network. The functional 

requirement for OBUs to be managed remotely with 

downloadable roadway location networks and tariff 

schedules drove the technology selection.

The Czech Republic opted to prioritize the implementation schedule as a critical consideration. As a consequence, the Czechs chose an off-the-shelf DSRC/

radio-frequency identification system, which was rapidly 

deployable. Relatively high unit costs and a long-term 

contract constraint have given the Czechs a reason to 

explore alternative technologies as they plan to expand 

the pricing system to new roadways. 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 39

Addressing privacy protection and the perception of 

privacy was a key consideration in Singapore and in 

the plans for the Netherlands. In Singapore, privacy 

concerns were mitigated by a requirement for OBUs 

to accept a stored-value smart card as the payment 

mechanism. Since the prepaid smart card is portable 

and does not hold any personal data, an individual’s 

privacy is protected. Similarly, the Dutch plan to require 

a trusted element as a feature for privacy protection.

B. Initial technology applications often evolve after 

implementation, especially with the experience 

of full-scale operations.

Stockholm migrated from a system that employed both 

transponders and a video toll collection system to one 

that relies solely on ANPR. The dual payment methods 

were costly to operate and Swedish tax law required that 

the Stockholm congestion tax system capture photos of 

all license plates. After the demonstration period, the 

system was permanently reopened and the transponders were phased out, allowing the conversion to a 

monthly billing statement rather than requiring users 

to pay per trip. 

Singapore migrated from a paper permit to a 

transponder-based system and is now exploring 

GPS technologies.

London is reviewing its charging techniques to find 

ways to reduce the operational costs of the system.

C. Requirements that add complexity to the collection 

system also have significant impacts on costs.

A fundamental decision in Singapore was to require an 

OBU in every vehicle, which greatly simplified technology 

requirements and keeps ongoing operating costs low.

While only 10 percent of transactions in the German 

system are manual, they account for over one-third of 

the total operating costs.

The Lidingö Rule in Stockholm added substantively to 

the systems development and processing requirements 

to handle the complexity of the decision algorithms 

required to check for exempted through-traffic movements. The increased complexity has added significantly 

to capital and ongoing operating costs.

D. Interoperability of road pricing systems among 

European Union member states is a challenge.

The European Union has adopted Directive 2004/52/

EC, which outlines requirements for member countries 

to adopt interoperable standards (i.e., EETS) for electronic tolling that allow a vehicle to pay road-user fees 

anywhere in the European Union via one contract and 

with one OBU. Technical, administrative, and legal 

hurdles have made advancing interoperability timeconsuming and challenging. The European Parliament 

and European Union Council approved the directive in 

2004. Five years later, a decision on the EETS definition 

was approved in October 2009.

While interoperability may be viewed as a technological 

concern, it interfaces with a full range of business, 

administrative, financial, and legal issues. Establishing 

standards is a critical first step, but ultimately interoperability will require multidisciplinary approaches. Existing 

systems with large sunk costs in proprietary applications 

and equipment heighten the challenge of transition.

6. Operations and Enforcement

A. Enforcement is key to ensuring a financially viable 

and fair system.

Video enforcement is an essential element in every site 

visited. Enforcement has played a large role in public 

acceptability by ensuring fairness because those paying 

for use of the road want to know that others are paying 

as well. Many pricing programs do not consider enforcement penalties as a revenue tool (i.e., fines and fees 

need not be higher than administrative costs), but do 

view enforcement as a critical element of ensuring that 

base road charges are collected without substantial 

leakage. All of the sites studied, except Stockholm, treat 

violations as administrative fees, not as criminal acts.

B. Violation enforcement systems require effective 

system integration and linkages with motor vehicle 

registries.

Typically, enforcement is managed through video 

capture of license plate images and an ANPR system. 

Back office processing centers use license plate 

information to identify the vehicle owner and collect 

payment.
40 | Chapter 4: Lessons Learned

In systems that rely on video systems and ANPR as 

the means of charging for road use, the enforcement 

process is an exception-based business process to 

pursue those who have not paid after some period 

of time. This process leverages one set of roadside 

equipment for dual functionality (i.e., primary collection 

and enforcement). This is the case in London and 

Stockholm. 

In systems that rely on OBUs (i.e., transponders or 

GPS) for toll collection, the video enforcement process 

is a stand-alone subsystem that requires roadside 

video equipment for enforcement and systems 

integration to ensure violation transactions and 

electronic toll transactions are uniquely identified and 

properly distinguished. The systems in the Czech 

Republic, Germany, and Singapore rely on separate 

violations enforcement subsystems. All these systems 

supplement the automated violations enforcement 

systems with mobile and roadside enforcement efforts 

for periodic spot enforcement.

The use of ANPR enforcement requires an effective 

working relationship with motor vehicle registries for 

accurate information of vehicle owners from license 

plate data. Systems that include pricing for significant 

populations of foreign-registered vehicles (e.g., Germany 

and the Czech Republic) have a more complex set of 

relationships to establish and maintain in a costeffective manner.

C. Performance standards ensure operational effectiveness through requirements in system design and 

procurement, as well as in service-level agreements 

for operations.

Performance standards cover a wide range of operating 

interests. For roadside operations, they often address 

system and roadway availability, traffic data capture 

requirements, and image reject rates of video equipment. For back office operations, typical performance 

standards include the error rate in invoicing, call center 

customer wait times, unprocessable image rates, and 

uncollectable transactions. The best practice in pricing 

programs is to establish service-level agreements with 

both external contractors and internal agency service 

providers to maintain operating performance with 

financial incentives. 

Careful selection of performance standards is critical 

to ultimate outcomes. Systems that have emphasized 

accuracy and availability over financial performance 

have experienced high-cost operations with redundant 

systems and processes. 

D. Best practice for back office operations depends on 

translating operating concepts into clear business 

rules and refining practices based on operating 

experience.

Business rules are the foundation of successful back 

office operations. Agencies involved in their development and refinement tend to gain advantages in 

managing operating performance and costs. For 

instance, Stockholm’s move to a complete video-based 

system has resulted in 47 business rules governing the 

optical character recognition aspects of image processing, driving performance in accuracy and collections. 

Germany’s decision to outsource the entire toll operation to Toll Collect has resulted in good system and 

operating performance, but relatively high operating 

costs. 

Many programs have found the need to refine operating 

practices after implementation to manage costs more 

effectively. Over time, this has resulted in contractor 

changes in several pricing programs to best meet the 

operational and technical requirements at a competitive 

cost. London and Stockholm have both recently changed 

operators, while Germany and the Czech Republic face 

long-term contracts that provide less flexibility for 

managing operating costs more effectively.

Stockholm has also adopted a policy of insourcing that 

seeks to identify elements of the operation that may be 

managed with effective performance and lower costs 

by in-house resources rather than by outside services. 

E. Payment channels and methods add operational and 

system complexity, but not always commensurate 

benefits.

During the congestion tax trial in Stockholm, vehicles 

without transponders had until noon the following day 

to pay the charge via the Internet or at a physical retail 

location, which included convenience stores, banks, 

and stand-alone kiosks. Charges not paid during the 

grace period were assessed a SEK70 (US$8) late fee 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 41

for the first reminder and a SEK450 (US$62) fee for 

the second reminder. Since Swedish laws governing 

the collection of taxes required that the system capture 

all license plates as evidence of incurring the congestion tax, the transponder-based system was duplicative. The permanent Stockholm program phased out 

the transponder payment option and the associated 

costs of distribution and account maintenance. 

Adopting an all video-based system also created the 

opportunity to reduce the systems and accounting 

required for multiple postpayment channels. Instead, 

Stockholm placed the congestion pricing program and 

national vehicle registry in one organization that could 

take advantage of monthly invoices for the congestion 

tax. This reduced the cost of collection substantially 

and improved the collection rate. 

Despite the many successes of the London congestionpricing program, the high costs of operations have been 

often criticized. While transaction processing costs in a 

video-based system tend to be higher than those with 

OBUs (i.e., DSRC or GPS units), the multiple payment 

channels also add cost to the London system. Germany 

is also faced with high operating costs of its manual 

booking system, which requires more than one-third 

of its operating costs to handle 10 percent of the traffic 

volume. In Singapore, the payment method was simplified by standardizing in-vehicle units and designing a 

stored-value smart card interface that allows replenishment at banks and other outlets.

7. Outreach and Public Acceptance 

A. Many forms of public involvement based on the 

cultural and political context of the host country 

were used to address public concerns about 

road pricing. 

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 2 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 benefits of 

pricing, including “drive less, pay less.” 

Public outreach in Singapore included the opening of 

the LTA Transportation Gallery, an interactive exhibit that 

teaches younger audiences about concepts such as 

mobility, access, sustainability, land use, and demand 

management. The gallery is a powerful educational tool 

that explains the history, context, and future of ERP and 

other transportation options in Singapore. 

B. Clear, salient, and timely messages about the 

purpose and benefits of pricing were used to 

help educate key stakeholders and garner public 

acceptance.

Singapore targets education about transportation 

solutions such as road pricing at youth with an 

interactive transportation gallery. Key messages 

used in Singapore include “keep roads free-flowing,” 

“people-centered transportation,” and “public transit 

is a viable choice.”

Czech and German truckers supported pricing in an 

effort to “level the playing field” with foreign haulers 

and promoted the message of “user pays.” 

Based on prior false starts, the Dutch are investing 

heavily in stakeholder outreach and are committed to 

a revenue-neutral road-pricing scheme. Their mantra 

is “drive less, pay less.”

C. Issues of equity and privacy were dealt with 

differently in each locale.

Equity issues related to a person’s ability to pay the fee 

were not widespread in London, Singapore, or Stockholm because of the high cost of car ownership and 

existence of good transit alternatives in all three cities. 

Lower income commuters in these cities tend to use 

transit because the driving cost differential is significant. 

In addition to substantial transit investments, London 

and Stockholm provide a variety of exemptions and 

discounts to various users (i.e., transit vehicles, taxis, 

hybrids, monthly and annual pass purchasers, residents 

within the charging zone or in adjacent communities). 

Singapore, on the other hand, provides few exemptions 

(only for military and emergency vehicles). Because 

many transit providers in Singapore are privately 

contracted and operated, all transit vehicles are 

required to pay. 
Privacy concerns were not as prevalent with the German 

and Czech truck toll systems because of the commercial 

nature of the enterprise. In Singapore, the privacy issue 

was dealt with through the use of an IU that requires a 

prepaid, stored-value smart card that did not hold any 

personal data. The smart card provides users with a 

high level of anonymity.

D.Short-term gains may negatively impact longer term 

program sustainability.

The western expansion of London’s congestion charging 

zone was championed by Mayor Ken Livingstone and 

made effective in 2007. In 2010, under the administration of Mayor Boris Johnson, the western expansion was 

repealed after a series of public consultations. 

Commitments from the German Parliament that HGV 

toll revenues would augment roadway funding were not 

kept, which jeopardizes future prospects to price other 

vehicles based on distance traveled or emissions class.

E. The focus on changing behavior through pricing is 

clear.

The Dutch Ministry of Transport’s goal is to shift the cost 

from vehicle ownership to usage to create a more 

sustainable transportation system.

The Germans have adopted a user-pays principle for 

freight haulers. In addition, by having a graduated toll 

schedule for cleaner trucks, they have seen a 60 

percent shift away from the Euro 1, 2, and 3 emissionlevel trucks to the cleaner Euro 4 and 5 emission-level 

trucks.

Singapore estimates that its gas tax would need to be 

raised by SG$3 to achieve the same traffic reduction 

that a SG$1 increase in its ERP system because of the 

transparency and direct price signal of the system.

42 | Chapter 4: Lessons Learned
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 43

Over 2 weeks in December 2009, the scan team 

engaged with practitioners, champions, and the 

foremost international experts on road pricing. 

In some respects, the host countries are akin to 

individual States or regions in the United States. Thus, from 

an implementation perspective the findings and lessons 

learned that form the basis for implementation ideas may 

be best suited for application at the State or regional level.

While all scan team members are integral to implementation, 

a six-person subset of the scan team, known as the Implementation Team, will facilitate efforts to advance the application of road pricing in the United States. The team, chaired by 

Patrick DeCorla-Souza, developed an Implementation Plan 

designed to capture and cultivate the key findings and 

lessons learned. The team recommends that additional 

resources and effort be focused on the following three 

strategic areas:

1. Enhanced outreach and communications—To 

advance the use of road pricing in the United States, it 

is paramount that transportation leaders, policymakers, 

key stakeholders, and a larger cross-section of the 

public understand the benefits and implications of 

broader road pricing.

2. Additional research needs—With the application 

of road pricing in the United States limited to HOT 

lanes, there is continued need for additional research 

to better comprehend issues related to public perception, implementation barriers, behavioral effect, and 

integration of road pricing with multimodal land use 

and transit options.

3. Road pricing toolkit—Transportation professionals 

lack a comprehensive decision analysis tool to assess 

the merits of various road pricing options to address 

specific problems. The toolkit would include a module 

to assist in making design decisions, a guidebook or 

primer to assist technical managers in developing 

financing and procurement strategies, comprehensive 

and synergistic transportation plans that incorporate 

road pricing concepts applicable in the U.S. context, and 

analytical tools to estimate performance and costs of 

alternative concepts in comparison with conventional 

tax-based approaches. The tools would culminate in a 

decision tree tool to help transportation leaders make 

informed decisions on the relevance and feasibility of 

a road pricing alternative.

It will require strategic partnerships as well as social capital 

and funding to initiate the first phase of a technology and 

policy program that captures the best of the findings from the 

scan. The scan team will use the products developed in the 

efforts outlined to target selected States and regions that are 

the most likely candidates for the advanced road pricing 

approaches the scan team observed firsthand in the countries visited.

The following describes a series of foundational implementation items that would enable practitioners, elected officials, 

and other key stakeholders to advance the state of the 

practice in road pricing in the United States:

1. Outreach to transportation agency leaders and 

policymakers—This effort will involve targeted outreach to transportation leaders, policymakers, and 

various stakeholder organizations. This will include short 

briefs on how road pricing helps achieve various societal 

goals and a document providing responses to questions 

and concerns often made about road pricing. 

2. Messaging and public involvement—This effort will 

focus on the psychology and messaging issues around 

pricing. It will include developing a more detailed 

understanding of the Dutch and Singaporean approach 

to communicating a radical change in paying for 

transportation to the public and stakeholders and 

translate it to the U.S. context. 

3. Behavioral implications and impacts of various 

pricing concepts—This effort will include development 

of sketch-planning tools to estimate the travel behavior 

and consequent traffic, environmental, and economic 

Chapter 5| Implementation

Recommendations
44 | Chapter 5: Implementation Recommendations

impacts of various alternative pricing concepts in 

comparison with traditional methods of road funding. 

An example is the analytical approach used in Singapore 

to estimate that it would need a SG$3 gas tax increase 

to effect the same behavior change as a SG$1 increase 

in the ERP system. 

4. Road pricing decision tree—This will provide a tool to 

assist transportation leaders in defining a road pricing 

scheme that best suits identified needs, socioeconomic 

climate, terrain and network constraints, and available 

technology and resources. It will address such issues 

as the specific purpose for pricing, potential negative 

impacts of change to the status quo, public acceptance, 

capital and operating costs, speed of implementation, 

potential for private participation, procurement alternatives, and technology options. 

5. Technology, procurement, and PPPs to implement pricing—This effort will provide guidance on 

defining business and system requirements that are 

aligned with the stated objectives of a program that 

employs pricing as a fundamental element of its 

approach to transportation management and infrastructure improvement. It will build on an understanding of 

the procurement processes and financing techniques 

employed in the Czech Republic, Germany, and the 

Netherlands, including PPPs and other private sector 

roles in advancing pricing programs and the related 

infrastructure improvements and operations. This effort 

will attempt to develop guidance and specific applications for sustainable program successes in the U.S. 

context. 

6. Developing concepts applicable to the United 

States based on lessons learned—Not all lessons 

learned on the scan are directly transferable to the U.S. 

context because of the differing political, social, urban 

development, and transportation mode characteristics 

in the areas visited. This effort will develop an array of 

alternative concepts based on the lessons learned that 

could potentially be applied in various U.S. contexts. 

These concepts would be promoted to targeted metropolitan areas and regions, potentially one or more of 

the areas represented on the scan team. 

7. Integrating pricing, land use, and transportation 

investment—This effort will provide guidance on 

developing synergistic pricing, land use, and 

transportation policies and investment strategies. 

It will build on the approach used in Singapore to 

develop synergistic policies to create an efficient and 

effective transportation system by integrating demand 

management (including land use) and multimodal 

investment strategies. 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 45

Robert (Bob) Arnold (FHWA Cochair)

Director, Office of Transportation Management

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590 

Telephone: 202-366-1285

E-mail: robert.arnold@dot.gov

Vance C. Smith, Jr. (AASHTO Cochair)

Commissioner

Georgia Department of Transportation

600 W Peachtree St. NW

Atlanta, GA 30308

Telephone: 404-631-1005

E-mail: vsmith@dot.ga.gov

John Q. Doan (Report Facilitator)

Senior Associate

SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

1 Carlson Parkway, Suite 150

Minneapolis, MN 55447

Telephone: 763-475-0010

E-mail: jdoan@srfconsulting.com

Rodney N. Barry

Division Administrator, Georgia Division

Federal Highway Administration 

61 Forsyth St., Suite 17T100

Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: 404-562-3630

E-mail: rodney.barry@dot.gov

Jayme L. Blakesley

Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel

Federal Transit Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-0304

Fax: 202-366-3809

E-mail: jayme.blakesley@dot.gov

Patrick T. DeCorla-Souza

Program Manager, Office of Innovative Program Delivery

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-4076

E-mail: patrick.decorla-souza@dot.gov

Mark F. Muriello

Assistant Director, Tunnels, Bridges, and Terminals 

Department

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

One Madison Ave., 5th Floor

New York, NY 10010

Telephone: 212-435-4836

E-mail: mmuriello@panynj.gov

Gummada N. Murthy

Director, Operations and Security Division 

Virginia Department of Transportation

1211 East Broad St., 4th Floor 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Telephone: 804-786-2978 

E-mail: gummada.murthy@vdot.virginia.gov

Appendix A| Scan Team Members
46 | Appendix A: Scan Team Members

Patty K. Rubstello

Toll Systems Development Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

WSDOT/Goldsmith Building

401 2nd Ave. S, Suite 300

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone: 206-716-1299

E-mail: rubstep@wsdot.wa.gov

Nick A. Thompson

Director, Office of Policy Analysis, Research, and Innovation 

Minnesota Department of Transportation 

MS 670

395 John Ireland Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55155-1899

Telephone: 651-366-3152

E-mail: nick.thompson@dot.state.mn.us

Biographies

Robert E. Arnold (FHWA cochair) is the acting director 

of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of 

Transportation Management and director of the Office of 

Transportation Operations. These offices are responsible for 

national programs focused on reducing roadway congestion. 

The Office of Transportation Management deals with 

recurring congestion in such areas as pricing, active traffic 

management, and traveler information, while the Office of 

Transportation Operations has the nonrecurring side. This 

includes incident management, work zone operations, 

emergency transportation and organizational preparedness, 

the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and various 

road weather management programs. As a member of 

FHWA’s Senior Executive Service, Arnold is responsible for 

contributing to the development of overall strategic planning, policies, and legislative proposals for the administration. He was FHWA’s New York Division administrator from 

February 2001 to September 2007. FHWA Divisions work 

primarily with State departments of transportation to ensure 

that each State’s highway system is an integrated, effective, 

and efficient part of the national transportation system. 

Arnold has also held positions with FHWA as assistant 

division administrator in New Jersey, district engineer in 

New York, field operations engineer in Oklahoma, construction engineer in FHWA’s Western Region, and area engineer 

in Baltimore, MD. He received a bachelor’s degree in civil 

engineering from Ohio Northern University in 1983 and has 

worked for FHWA since graduation. Arnold is also a 2006 

graduate of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s 

Federal Executive Institute.

Vance C. Smith, Jr. (AASHTO cochair) is the commissioner 

of the Georgia Department of Transportation. He was 

elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1993 

and has continuously served Georgia’s 129th District. Smith 

has chaired the House Transportation Committee for the 

past 5 years and served as a member of the Appropriations, 

Economic Development, and Tourism and Rules committees. 

He was cochair of the General Assembly’s 2007 Joint Study 

Committee on Transportation Funding. Smith is a graduate 

of Columbus State University with a bachelor’s degree in 

business. He is a graduate of the Leadership Georgia 

program. Smith has held posts with the Council of State 

Governments, National Conference of State Legislatures, 

Southern Legislative Conference, and American Legislative 

Exchange Council. 

John Q. Doan (report facilitator) is a senior associate at 

SRF Consulting Group in Minneapolis, MN. Doan leads SRF’s 

road pricing practice with national and local expertise in 

transportation planning, innovative finance, public involvement, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). At SRF, 

he helped develop the Minnesota Urban Partnership 

Agreement proposal and is the lead public outreach consultant for the Interstate 85 high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes 

conversion project in Atlanta, GA. Before joining SRF, 

Doan worked in Wells Fargo’s Public Finance Division, was 

assistant to the commissioner at the Minnesota Department 

of Finance, and most recently served as the MnPASS 

program director for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. He earned his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering 

and public policy from Carnegie Mellon University and a 

master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University’s 

Kennedy School of Government. Doan is a registered 

engineer, member of the University of Minnesota Transportation and the Economy Research Council, SRF’s liaison to the 

International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association, and 

member of the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) 

Congestion Pricing Committee. 

Rodney N. Barry is the division administrator of FHWA’s 

Georgia Division. Barry directs a staff of 31 responsible for 

administering the Federal-aid highway program in Georgia. 
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 47

Since arriving in Georgia in 2007, he has worked with the 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and various 

other State and local transportation agencies to address 

congestion in the Atlanta metropolitan area, one of the 

nation’s most congested cities. He is assisting GDOT in 

implementing an HOT lane facility. Barry has been with FHWA 

for 23 years and held positions in North Carolina, Florida, 

Kansas, Nebraska, and FHWA headquarters in Washington, 

DC. He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in civil engineering from Auburn University. He is a licensed professional 

engineer in North Carolina. 

Jayme L. Blakesley is an attorney-advisor with the U.S. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of Chief Counsel. 

He is FTA’s lead attorney on road pricing, transit-oriented 

development, and public-private partnerships. Blakesley 

entered Federal service through the Presidential Management Fellowship Program, of which he is a graduate. Before 

joining FTA, he worked on transportation issues for the Office 

of the Utah Attorney General and the Utah Transit Authority. 

Blakesley has been recognized for work he performed to 

implement the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on 

America’s Transportation Network and for his significant 

contributions to the public transit industry. Blakesley is a 

graduate of Brigham Young University and has a law degree 

from the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law. He 

is a licensed member of the Utah State Bar. Blakesley is vice 

chair of the Alexandria (VA) Transportation Commission and 

a member of TRB’s Committee on Transit and Intermodal 

Transportation Law. 

Patrick T. DeCorla-Souza is the program manager for 

tolling and pricing in the FHWA Office of Innovative Program 

Delivery in Washington, DC. DeCorla-Souza has led U.S. 

Department of Transportation efforts to promote congestion 

pricing since 1999. He oversees congestion pricing initiatives 

across the United States, working with public and private 

sector partners to implement innovative road pricing strategies. DeCorla-Souza has developed new approaches to 

address public acceptance issues related to road pricing, 

new performance-based public-private partnership 

approaches for implementing pricing with complementary 

transit services, and simplified analytical tools that make it 

easier to provide critical impact information on road pricing 

strategies to decisionmakers. His ideas and research have 

been published in various U.S. and international professional 

and trade journals. He is the author of more than 100 

technical papers and articles on road pricing, public-private 

partnerships, multimodal transportation evaluation using 

benefit-cost analysis, travel demand modeling, air quality 

analysis, and public involvement. DeCorla-Souza has master’s 

degrees in transportation planning and civil engineering and 

cochairs the TRB Congestion Pricing Committee.

Mark F. Muriello is the assistant director of tunnels, bridges, 

and terminals for the Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey. He is responsible for the six vehicular bridges and 

tunnels between New York City and New Jersey and two 

interstate bus terminals, which collectively serve 1.25 million 

customers each weekday. Muriello directs a wide range of 

functions, including transportation planning and policy, traffic 

and revenue programs, business and strategic planning, and 

operation and maintenance of the Port Authority’s E-ZPass 

electronic toll collection system and time-of-day toll pricing 

program. He has 27 years of experience in transportation and 

public finance, covering toll, bus, rail, and marine terminal 

operations, as well as the electric utility industry. Muriello has 

a bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering and operations 

research from Columbia University and a master of business 

administration in finance from New York University. Muriello 

cochairs TRB’s Congestion Pricing Committee, represents 

the Port Authority on the E-ZPass Interagency Group’s Policy 

Committee, chairs the Technical and Operations Committee 

for TRANSCOM (Transportation Operations Coordinating 

Committee), cochairs the Policy and Strategic Planning 

Committee of the I-95 Corridor Coalition, and is a member of 

the International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association’s 

Communications and Outreach Task Force.

Gummada N. Murthy is the director of the Operations and 

Security Division at the Virginia Department of Transportation 

(VDOT). He is responsible for developing and issuing statewide policy and procedures for all operations related to 

technology and ITS programs that support incident management, roadway weather information systems that support 

snow and ice removal programs, and VDOT’s HOT and pricing 

programs. Murthy also has a responsible role in research and 

implementation of innovative technology in VDOT operations 

programs such as Global Positioning System (GPS) -based 

roadway information mining programs, and active traffic 

management and commercial vehicle operations. He served 

with VDOT for 3 years and has more than 25 years of experience in all phases of transportation planning and engineering 

with a focus on operations of roadway and roadside infrastructure, including ITS, signal systems, ITS deployment and 

operations, and roadway maintenance programs. Murthy has 

a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of 

South Florida. He is a licensed professional engineer in 
48 | Appendix A: Scan Team Members

Virginia and serves on several technical committees of the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO). 

Patty K. Rubstello is the tolling and systems development 

engineer for the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Rubstello is responsible for developing and 

implementing toll systems for the State of Washington. 

This includes conducting public education and outreach for, 

assessing the environmental effects of, and constructing toll 

systems. Over the past 7 years, she has managed several 

studies on how pricing could improve the operations of a 

number of highways in the Puget Sound region. In 2008, 

Rubstello implemented the first HOT in Washington State. She 

manages the implementation of pricing on an existing toll-free 

highway in the Seattle area. Rubstello’s educational background is in mathematics and civil engineering. She is a 

licensed civil engineer in Washington. Rubstello participates 

in a number of pricing-related forums, such as the TRB 

Congestion Pricing Committee and the National Pricing 

Discussion Group hosted by WSDOT.

Nick A. Thompson is the director of policy analysis, 

research, and innovation for the Minnesota Department 

of Transportation (Mn/DOT), in St. Paul, MN. Thompson 

directs the implementation of Minnesota’s Urban Partnership Program, which includes a project to expand Minnesota’s congestion management HOT lane program, MnPASS, 

to its second transportation corridor. He has worked for Mn/

DOT for 13 years. Before his current position, he was the 

project manager for implementing Minnesota’s first congestion pricing HOT lane, freeway operations manager, and area 

manager responsible for transportation project development 

in suburban and rural communities. He holds a bachelor’s 

degree in geography from Gustavus Adolphus College and 

a master of urban planning degree from the University of 

Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Thompson has served as a member 

of TRB’s Freeway Operations Committee, chaired the 

Transportation Management Center Pooled Fund Study, 

and served on the board of ITS Minnesota.
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 49

Scan Preparation

Planning for the road pricing scan trip began in February 

2009 with a kickoff meeting that included original cochairs 

Peggy Catlin of the Colorado Department of Transportation 

and Regina McElroy of the Federal Highway Administration. 

The initial preparation culminated with the completion of a 

desk scan in April 2009 and an organizational meeting in 

Washington, DC, on April 30, 2009. The following were the 

objectives of the desk scan:

❖ Further the efforts of the full scan team in acquiring 

information of value to the U.S. transportation 

community.

❖ Increase the cost-effectiveness of the full scan by 

advising the team where best to commit its limited 

time abroad.

❖ Refine the scope of the scan by identifying relevant 

sources of information abroad and clarify the focus 

of the scan if it is determined to be too broad. 

The scope of the desk scan was limited to office-based 

information gathering, designed to supplement and further 

refine the broader issues associated with implementing 

road pricing. The information that supported this desk scan 

originated from three primary sources: published literature, 

various Internet sites, and U.S. and international experts in 

the field.

A review of relevant published literature was conducted using 

the Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) 

Online, with a particular emphasis on articles published in the 

last 10 years. In addition, other online tools such as Google, 

Wikipedia, and official road pricing program or project Web 

sites published by the sponsoring authority provided further 

project details. A list of relevant published literature and Web 

sites used for the desk scan is in Appendix C.

U.S. and international experts in the field of road pricing were 

identified based on the literature review, the report facilitator’s contacts through the Transportation Research Board’s 

(TRB) Congestion Pricing Committee and International Bridge, 

Tunnel, and Turnpike Association, and recommendations from 

other experts.

The desk scan recommended that the team visit Germany, 

the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. After the desk scan was completed, a request was 

made to add meetings with representatives from the Czech 

Republic based on new information. While other countries, 

including Australia, Chile, Italy, Norway, and South Korea, 

were considered, the selected six countries could be visited 

within the constraints of a 2-week scan and provided the 

optimal combination of advanced practices and innovative 

implementation. 

Team Meetings and Travel Itinerary

During the scan, the team visited representatives in five 

countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, 

and the United Kingdom. Because of the logistical challenges 

of making a sixth country stop, representatives from the 

Czech Republic met with the scan team in London. The team 

members left the United States on Dec. 4, 2009, and held 

their first team meeting on Dec. 6 in Stockholm, Sweden. 

They met with Swedish representatives Dec. 7 and 8, and 

then flew to Berlin, Germany. Meetings with the German 

delegation occurred Dec. 9 and 10.

The first week ended in The Hague, Netherlands, with 

discussion on the upcoming Dutch implementation of a 

distance-based user fee on Dec. 11. The midpoint team 

meeting was held Dec. 13 in London, followed by meetings 

with British officials on Dec. 14 and the Czech delegation on 

Dec. 15. The team left the United Kingdom Dec. 15 and 

arrived in Singapore on Dec. 16. Meetings with representatives in Singapore occurred on Dec. 17 and 18, and the 

wrap-up team meeting was held Dec. 19 in Singapore.

The team developed a scan summary presentation and 

shared it with various TRB committees and subcommittees 

at the annual TRB Conference in Washington, DC, in January 

2010. A summary report as well as drafts of the final report 

and implementation plan were written and produced for 

Appendix B| Scan Preparations

and Itinerary
50 | Appendix B: Scan Preparations and Itinerary

distribution at the team’s reassembly meeting in Washington, 

DC, on March 10 and 11. The following chart summarizes the 

team meetings and travel schedule.

Date Location Purpose or Hosts

April 30, 2009 Washington, DC Initial team meeting to determine emphasis areas and 

countries to visit and develop amplifying questions

Dec. 6, 2009 Stockholm, Sweden Kickoff trip meeting to review travel plans, set personal 

scan goals, and assign roles

Dec. 7–8, 2009 Stockholm, Sweden Meeting with Swedish Road Administration, Traffik 

Stockholm, and City of Stockholm 

Dec. 9–10, 2009 Berlin, Germany Meeting with Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and 

Urban Development, Federal Infrastructure Finance 

Group, Toll Collect GmbH, and German Trucking 

Association 

Dec. 11, 2009 The Hague, Netherlands Meeting with Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and 

Water Management

Dec. 13, 2009 London, United Kingdom Midtrip meeting to review findings to date

Dec. 14, 2009 London, United Kingdom Meeting with British Department for Transport and 

Transport for London

Dec. 15, 2009 London, United Kingdom Meeting with Czech delegation from the Ministry of 

Transport and Czech Technical University

Dec. 17–18, 2009 Singapore Meeting with Ministry of Transport and Land Transport 

Authority

Dec. 19, 2009 Singapore Final trip meeting to identify key findings and develop 

preliminary recommendations
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 51

General/Background 

1. What is the financial health of transportation in the 

country? Are there sufficient funds to meet needs? 

Have there been any major changes in funding/costs 

in the last 10 years, and what does the future look 

like for revenue?

2. Beyond tolling, pricing, and fare revenue sources, how 

are transportation in general and highways specifically 

funded?

3. Other than monetary fees, have other incentives/

disincentives been used to change user behavior?

4. Did general/traditional tolling exist before the variable 

pricing concept was developed?

5. Did you experience any setbacks or outright failures 

during the project development process? If so, what 

were the causes and what would you do differently?

 Concept Development and Planning 

1. Where did the idea for this project come from? How long 

did the idea take to go from concept to operation?

2. What was the more important driver in launching this 

program—politics, transportation funding shortfalls, 

congestion levels, or environmental issues? Has the 

focus changed over time on why this is needed?

3. How are “pricing” and “tolling” concepts defined and 

distinguished—at the policy/program level and at the 

network application/operation level?

4. How was the pricing program developed? Did the cost 

estimates for such projects include operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs in addition to the capital 

costs? Was pricing structure validated to generate 

theoretical revenues that guaranteed to support 

such functions?

5. What is the relationship between road pricing as 

a revenue stream and an operational strategy to 

reduce congestion, improve safety, or enhance 

the environment?

6. What are the relevance and importance of including 

supporting strategies such as transit enhancements, 

system operations strategies and technologies, and 

travel demand management?

7. Are there plans to expand the system or add different 

types of congestion pricing?

8. What is the concept of operations for tolling and 

pricing—at the project scoping level through operations—

encompassing policy, strategic, technology, and interagency elements with what-if scenarios built in (if any)?

Political, Organizational, and Institutional 

Issues

1. What was the purpose of the pricing initiative?

2. Who is responsible for the overall program? 

How are the transportation responsibilities 

segmented (local, national, private)? 

3. What are private and public relationships in the 

design, construction, and operations of the system? 

For public-private partnerships (i.e., concessions, if any) 

what resources were provided by the agency vis-à-vis 

the private partner?

4. What were the political challenges that had to be 

overcome to create the program?

5. Were transit improvements required as part 

of a package to get acceptance for the idea? 

If so, what were the components?

6. Were any legal changes needed to implement 

the system?

Appendix C| Amplifying Questions 
52 | Appendix C: Amplifying Questions

7. What political barriers had to be addressed to gain 

acceptance of the pricing initiative? What strategies 

were used to address political history and regulatory 

and legal barriers, particularly those related to public 

acceptance?

8. What was the level of mainstreaming pricing/tolling into 

the institutional planning, construction, and operations 

programs? 

9. What institutional arrangements and interagency 

collaborations were needed to enable effective 

applications of pricing techniques? Were there institutional barriers or interagency conflicts that had to be 

overcome?

Pricing Policy 

1. Is maximizing revenue, minimizing congestion, or a 

combination a goal of the pricing scheme?

2. What types of users/vehicles are exempt from paying 

the toll or receive a discount? How do the prices differ 

for local residents and nonresidents?

3. Was the pricing initiative on a new or existing transportation facility?

4. How is pricing set? What factors drive the price—day, 

time of day, level of congestion, distance, emissions 

standards, or environmental conditions?

Costs and Revenues 

1. How much did it cost to implement your pricing program 

(capital and ongoing)? 

2. How much revenue does the system generate? Does it 

pay for capital and operating costs?

3. Do revenues meet expectations projected before the 

program launched? Are revenues adequate to support 

targeted service levels? What’s the safety cushion for 

unforeseen shortfalls?

4. How are net revenues (after debt and O&M cost are 

covered) distributed (to other transportation projects, 

other modes, nontransportation uses, etc.)? Is it 

legislatively mandated?

5. Has the program achieved economies of scale yet?

6. Does the private sector share in the revenue? 

If not, was this considered?

7. How are revenues incorporated into the agency 

budgeting and program development process? 

8. How are revenues faring in the current economic 

climate?

Tolling Technology and Roadway Design

1. What technology is used for revenue collection and 

enforcement? What are the technical details of the 

pricing system? 

2. How did the revenue collection system evolve (standardized and then implemented, independent systems, or a 

mixture of systems that have been cobbled together into 

a single back office)? Have there been any major 

evolutions or changes in the pricing system since the 

start of the program?

3. Did implementing pricing require any specific design 

changes for geometrics, signing, etc., or modification 

of the legal code? If applicable, at the termini of the 

pricing project/area, how are the upstream and 

downstream connections made (i.e., going from 

a priced to nonpriced facility)?

Operations

1. What technologies for operations were used, such as 

traditional intelligent transportation systems solutions 

and their expansive application to pricing and tolling 

applications, lane control dynamic message signs for 

variable pricing, active traffic management, or integrated weather and actionable roadway condition 

reporting systems to manage weather and other 

nonrecurring events?

2. How do the back-office tolling operations interface with 

other roadway management operations (incident 

clearance, freeway monitoring, dispatch, etc.)?

3. Are there cases when the tolls are waived or turned 

off, such as under extreme events or systemwide 

requirement? Who makes that decision?

4. Is there any delineation of the operations and maintenance service level for priced and nonpriced facilities?
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 53

5. How is interoperability of toll systems handled?

6. How does your enforcement system work? Who does 

the enforcement, what are the fines, and is it meeting 

your goals? What is your violation rate and who are the 

typical cheaters?

7. What has been the operational experience of pricing 

and/or tolling on freight haulers in terms of route 

diversion and time-of-day use? Other than the actual 

amount charged, are commercial freight haulers 

handled differently under the pricing schemes? 

8. What transit alternatives are available? Were additional 

transit alternatives provided as a part of the project?

9. How long did it take for the pricing program to reach 

an operational phase that began to deliver tangible 

benefits?

Evaluation of Impacts and Performance 

Measurement 

1. What performance measures do you have? How do you 

report them?

2. Have you been able to identify any economic impact 

(positive and negative) on consumption-oriented 

businesses (sales, delivery charges, inventory control, 

staffing, etc.) caused by pricing?

3. What has been your experience with quantifying 

projected and actual benefits (e.g., reduction of 

congestion, safety, and environmental) and developing 

performance metrics for them?

4. What has been the effect of pricing on adjacent 

nonpriced facilities or areas? What have been the 

boundary effects?

Public Acceptance and User Issues

1. How have users and nonusers reacted to your pricing 

program and its associated technology? What was 

the initial public reaction? Has it changed over time?

2. What successful or unsuccessful techniques/strategies 

were developed and employed to gain acceptance of 

pricing and tolling programs?

3. Did the public have any privacy concerns and, if so, 

how were they mitigated?

4. What, if any, were the socioeconomic concerns of 

pricing and what way, if any, did you address them?

5. Are users required to have transponders or preregister 

to use the facility?

6. Who were your key champions and project 

spokespeople?

7. What were your key messages and how did you 

develop them?

8. Did you do any market research or consumer 

studies before or after implementation? 
54 | Appendix D: Literature Review and Internet Sources

Published Literature

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

Learned from International Experience in Congestion Pricing.

K.T. Analytics, Inc., Federal Highway Administration, 2008. 

CURACAO. Work Package II: State of the Art Report (Draft). 

Coordination of Urban Road User Charging and Organizational 

Issues, University of Leeds for the EC Curacao Project, United 

Kingdom, 2007.

DeCorla-Souza, Patrick. The Pricing’s Right: Examining 

High-Performance Highways. Auto Intermediates Limited, 

2008. 

Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water 

Management. Making a Start on a Price per Kilometre. 

December 2007. 

Eggers, William, et al. Road User Pricing Could Help Ease and 

Manage International Traffic Congestion. Deloitte Research, 

November 2003.

Federal Highway Administration. Congestion Pricing—A Primer. 

December 2006.

Floyd, Doug. Road Pricing in an Urban Context. Transportation 

Association of Canada Briefing, Urban Transportation Council, 

February 2008.

Hin, Leo Tan Wee, and Subramaniam, R. Congestion Control 

of Heavy Vehicles Using Electronic Road Pricing: The Singapore Experience. International Association for Vehicle Design/

Inder Sciences Enterprises Limited, 2006. 

ITS International Journal. “Island Solution—Birger Hook, 

Project Director of Stockholm’s Congestion Charging Trial, 

Talks about the Moves to Make the Scheme Permanent.” 

ITS NA Edition, July/August 2007.

May, Anthony D., and Sumalee, A. One Step Forward, Two 

Steps Back? An Overview of Road Pricing Applications and 

Research Outside the United States. Transportation Research 

Board, 2005. 

Replogle, Michael. Is Congestion Pricing Ready for Prime 

Time? American Planning Association, 2008. 

Robinson, Ferrol. Pricing Experience in Northern Europe: 

Lessons Learned and Applicability to Minnesota and the 

United States. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, 

University of Minnesota, October 2006.

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.

Stockholm Moves To Beat Congestion. Route One Publishing 

Limited, 2005. 

Thorpe, N. Public Acceptance Of Road-User Charging: 

A Case-Study Of The Toll Rings In Norway. International 

Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 2002. 

Wachs, Martin. Then and Now: The Evolution of Congestion 

Pricing in Transportation and Where We Stand Today.

Transportation Research Board, 2005. 

Willoughby, C. Singapore’s Experience In Managing Motorization and Its Relevance To Other Countries. World Bank, 2000. 

Woodroofe, Ian. Continental Shift: Road Tolling Across Europe 

is Changing. Auto Intermediates Limited, 2006. 

Appendix D| Literature Review and

Internet Sources
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 55

Web Sites

Singapore

Land Transport Authority, www.lta.gov.sg/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Area_Licensing_

Scheme

United Kingdom

Transport for London, www.tfl.gov.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

Sweden

Swedish Transport Agency, www.transportstyrelsen.se/en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_congestion_tax

Germany

Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban 

Development, www.bmvbs.de/en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Collect

http://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm

http://www.toll-collect.de/frontend/Homepage

Czech Republic

Ministry of Transport, www.mdcr.cz/en/HomePage.htm
56 | Appendix E: Host Country Contacts

Sweden

Swedish Road Administration

Fredrik Friberg

International Strategist 

Swedish Road Administration 

Vägverket

Röda vägen 1

SE-781 87 Borlänge, Sweden

Telephone: 011+46 243 752 56

Mobile: 011+46 70-398 51 27 

E-mail: fredrik.friberg@vv.se 

Germany

Federal Ministry of Transport, Construction, 

and Urban Development

Ulfert Joop

Robert-Schuman-Platz 1

D53175 Bonn (Germany)

Telephone: 011+49 228 300 5141

E-mail: joop@bmvbs.bund.de 

Transport Infrastructure Finance Corporation

Stefan Buitkamp

Georgenstrabe 25 

10117 Berlin, Germany

Telephone: 011+49 30 520 02 6221

Fax: 011+49+30+520 02 6212

E-mail: stefan.buitkamp@vifg.de 

Toll Collect

Martin Rickmann

Toll Collect GmbH

Linkstraße 4

10785 Berlin, Germany

Telephone: 011+49 (0)30 74077-2400

E-mail: martin.rickmann@toll-collect.de

The Netherlands

Ministry of Transport, Public Works, 

and Water Management

Monique van Wortel

Senior Policy Advisor, ABvM/Road Pricing Project

Plesmanweg 1-6

PO Box 20901

2500 EX The Hague, Netherlands 

Telephone: 011 +06 525 96 940

E-mail: monique.van.wortel@minvenw.nl 

United Kingdom

Department for Transport

Neil Schofield

Department for Transport Zone 3/01

Great Minster House

76 Marsham St.

London SW1P 4DR

Telephone: 011+44 300 330 3000

E-mail: neil.schofield@dft.gsi.gov.uk 

Transport for London

Maxwell Forwood 

Visits Executive

13th Floor, Windsor House 

50 Victoria St. 

London SW1H 0TL 

Telephone: 011+020 7126 4557 

Fax: 011+020 7126 4972 

E-mail: maxwellforwood@tfl.gov.uk 

Web site: www.tfl.gov.uk 

Appendix E| Host Country Contacts
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore | 57

Czech Republic

Ministry of Transport

Vaclav Cerny

Head of Unit, Telematics and Road Network Charging

Nábřeží Ludvíka Svobody 1222/12

110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic

Telephone: 011 +420 225 131 241

E-mail: vaclav.cerny@mdcr.cz 

Czech Technical University in Prague

Ladislav Bina (Assoc. Prof., Ing., CSc.)

Faculty of Transportation Sciences

Department of Logistic and Transportation Processes

Horska 3, 128 03 Praha 2, Czech Republic

Postal Address: Konviktska 20, 110 00 Praha 1

Telephone: 011+420 234 359 175

Fax: 011+420 224 919 017

E-mail: bina@fd.cvut.cz

Web site: www.fd.cvut.cz 

Singapore 

Land Transport Authority

Lim Lay Kim

Corporate Marketing 

No. 1 Hampshire Rd.

Singapore 219428

Telephone: 011+ 65 6396 1597

Fax: 011+65 63961650

E-mail: lay_kim_lim@lta.gov.sg 

Land Transport Authority

Hisam Hasim 

Corporate Marketing 

No. 1 Hampshire Rd.

Singapore 219428

Telephone: 011+65 6396 1641 

Fax: 011+65 6396 1650

E-mail: hisam_hasim@lta.gov.sg 
58 | Appendix F: Currency Exchange Rates

The following table illustrates the exchange rates between the 

official currency of the host country for each scan site and the 

U.S. dollar. These exchange rates are certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank of New York based on data collected from a 

sample of market participants. The exchange rates are for 

Dec. 12, 2009. 

CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE

USD per Unit Unit Per USD

United Kingdom 

Pound (GBP)

1.6234 0.6159

European Union 

Euro (EUR)

1.4514 0.6891

Czech Republic 

Koruna (CZK)

0.0566 17.6599

Swedish Krona 

(SEK)

0.1392 7.1829

Singapore Dollar 

(SGD)

0.7172 1.3943

Source: Federal Reserve Statistical Release, March 17, 2010. Foreign Exchange 

Rates, Historic Data, www.federalreserve.gov/RELEASES/H10/Hist/.

Appendix F| Currency Exchange Rates

OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP)

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9636

Fax: (202) 366-9626

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-PL-10-030

HPIP/12-10(3.5)EW