Why the European Union's EFC Directive is Failing to Deliver Interoperability in Road User Charging, and How it Could be Achieved Simply and Effectively Hamilton, Carl J
Publication details: Bryssel ITS in daily life: 16th world congress and exhibition on intelligent transport systems and services, Stockholm 21-25 September 2009. Paper, 2009Description: 4 sSubject(s): Bibl.nr: VTI P1835:16 [World]Location: Abstract: In 2004 the European Union issued a Directive to force the road user charging market to supply pan-European interoperability. By this, they meant that any road user facing a road user charging scheme would be offered a service subscription contract and an onboard device that would be sufficient for traveling through all but the smallest and manually managed toll charging domains in the Union. Furthermore, the road user would only be sent one single invoice for all of these charges and tolls. The Directive was issued to counter a movement towards new and non interoperable solutions, where there was no sign of the heterogeneity of the market to reduce by itself. On the contrary, the development at the time pointed in the direction of local monopolies, proprietary technical specifications, and non compatible equipment. This development has to a large extent continued, and there is no less need for harmonization today than there was in 2004.| Current library | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut | Available |
In 2004 the European Union issued a Directive to force the road user charging market to supply pan-European interoperability. By this, they meant that any road user facing a road user charging scheme would be offered a service subscription contract and an onboard device that would be sufficient for traveling through all but the smallest and manually managed toll charging domains in the Union. Furthermore, the road user would only be sent one single invoice for all of these charges and tolls. The Directive was issued to counter a movement towards new and non interoperable solutions, where there was no sign of the heterogeneity of the market to reduce by itself. On the contrary, the development at the time pointed in the direction of local monopolies, proprietary technical specifications, and non compatible equipment. This development has to a large extent continued, and there is no less need for harmonization today than there was in 2004.