Written evidence from Sanef Operations Ltd (SRC0033)

 

1.    Executive Summary

2.    Introduction

The Transport Committee has asked:

The Committee asked for a submission from Sanef, particularly as they are interested in Dart Charge and Mersey Gateway, how the technology works and how transferable it is for consumers who wish to use it to pay at other river crossings in the UK and Europe.

3.    About Sanef

Sanef is part of the Abertis infrastructure group that manages more than 4900 miles of roads across the world. It is the key operator in Chile and Spain, and is one of the biggest in France, Brazil and Puerto Rico as well as the US and Canada.

Sanef is firstly the manager of our own road concessions, notably in Northern France, where we have over 1100 miles of motorways with an annual turnover of €1. 566 billion from 270million toll transactions. Secondly we provide and operate tolling services for other organisations, both free flow roads and large river crossings. This includes conversion of the M50 toll barriers in Dublin to free flow, toll systems at the Pont De Normandy in France and in 2012 toll technology and operations at the Port Mann Bridge in Vancouver, Canada (the world’s widest toll bridge).

In the UK we have two key projects.

Both of the above projects have given us extensive experience in the UK to share. We also have over 70,000 UK customers who use a Sanef tag for travel across France which gives us experience in the UK interoperable tolling market (like making a UK mobile phone work for calls abroad).

4.    Sanef’s response about technology

4.1        To toll or not to toll?

The decision on whether to toll is a local one, but the traditional disbenefits of barrier tolling (queues, cost of collection, unfair to local users…) are no longer relevant. We can provide a variety of local resident discount and exemptions, charging packages and accounts that mitigate the costs and impacts to different types of users.

But our key recommendation is that any future infrastructure that is tolled, and indeed all existing large crossings where congestion is an issue, should be “free flow”. We have proved the technology and service operations internationally and now in the UK. .

We have experience in solutions where some cash payment barriers remain alongside free flow and will watch the deployment of such a scheme at the Humber Bridge closely. These can work at low flows and where there is enough space to provide payment kiosks (and safely manage the queues that develop). However, the case for retaining cash payment would be reduced by interoperable services discussed below.

4.2        The technology

We have extensive experience of all types of charging technology.  On Dartford and Port Mann we use many sensors to identify, classify, record and if required enforce vehicles making crossings without requiring them to stop or even slow down.

 

C:\Users\andyg\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4KSOM4N8\114DSC_2404 (2).jpg

Figure 1: Freeflow gantries and technology on the QE2 Bridge at Dartford (Photo: Connect Plus)

The above photograph shows the lasers, tag readers and Automatic Number Plate Reading (ANPR) cameras we use at Dartford (installed on the 2 gantries nearest the camera). These are closely integrated to identify a vehicle in any lane or straddling a lane, at a speed way in excess of the speed limit (including stationary traffic). The technology works 24/7/365 to identify around 70,000 vehicles per day. Similar technology is used on the Tunnels at Dartford, except that here the detection is reversible for when the tunnels are used in contra flow.

Our ANPR cameras read both front and back plates and have sophisticated processing to read UK and foreign plates.  Vehicle data is collected in a secure way (should it be needed for enforcement evidence) and then packaged for transmission on a secure network to our “back office” for processing. Here vehicle data such as number plates and tags are matched to:

The key is that payment is now remote (i.e. there is no way to pay at Dartford itself). So we have a website that is mobile phone friendly, a large call centre in Leeds and also 20,000 retail sites where cash payment can still be made. The key however is to get people to open an account so they don’t need to remember to pay and also save money, rather than pay for individual crossings. We have been delighted with the way Dart Charge has expanded so that now over 400,000 accounts exist with over 1 million vehicles, more than doubling the previous Dart Tag size. An active public information campaign from the Highways Agency contributed greatly to the adoption of accounts.

4.3        ANPR adds cost

From our experience, Automatic Number Plate Recognition on its own is not optimal for charging at river crossings , as it requires manual review for example during bad weather (eg fog) and when plates are obscured or do not follow the format required by legislation. This manual review process adds cost and delays. There are also issues of cloning of vehicles. ANPR can however work well in city schemes, where speeds are lower and there are multiple chances to record a vehicle inside a charging zone.

Using tags overcomes this. The Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) tag is widely used in Europe and the UK (Dart Charge, Tyne, Mersey, Tamar, Severn, M6toll…) as it uniquely identifies a vehicle and has a very high reliability. It is also part of the European Electronic Toll System (EETS) Directive. This requires major crossings (in the UK Dartford, Severn and M6Toll) to support various technologies like DSRC and allow other parties to provide payment services for use of the road - “interoperability”.

But DSRC tags are expensive (c. £10 each) and a little bulky in the vehicle. An alternative is the RFID “sticker” we use in the US and Canada, which is far cheaper and easier to use (it can be posted in a letter or simply given away at a petrol station). This is not supported by EETS but is useful for local users not wanting interoperability.  We will be using this on Mersey Gateway (with DfT permission) to reduce the costs of the local resident’s scheme, as well as of course supporting DSRC tags.

ANPR also is more of a challenge for collecting tolls from foreign visitors, as we read plates in many foreign formats and as a set of letters and numbers on a UK plate is not unique across Europe. This often requires manual verification to ensure we capture revenue. Tags would overcome this challenge, especially as we show below as many visiting foreign HGVs already have a tag fitted. 

4.4        Interoperability

DSRC tags are designed to be read on many different schemes. They are widely used across Europe in a much more interoperable way than the UK – e.g. all sanef tags work with all other French road operators so French users need only one tag and receive one invoice. A sanef subsidiary called Eurotoll already provides interoperability for HGVs, so many foreign HGVs entering the UK already have a tag. The same is true of Liber-t the French light vehicle interoperable scheme. All Irish tags are also interoperable through a system provided by Sanef. This reduces costs for hauliers and also improve compliance – once the tag is fitted the operator or driver needs to do nothing else.

But while the road and vehicle tag technology is already interoperable in the UK, there is no business interoperability here (including London Congestion Charge). This is like a mobile phone being able to get a signal in a foreign country but not actually make or receive calls. This results in users having to have separate tags for say Dartford, Mersey and Severn as shown below. But one tag could provide all UK and European services on one bill if the businesses became connected.

 

C:\Users\andyg\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4KSOM4N8\DSC00100.JPG

Figure 2: Having a different tag for Dartford. Mersey and Severn could be replaced by one tag

The reasons for this lack of connection are:

The Dartford Contract allows for adding interoperability and we are very keen to see this option progressed. Number plate interoperability (as opposed to tag) is possible and used in the US but we would prefer tag based for international interoperability. A connection to London Congestion Charge which due to its closeness and maturity could be supported by number plate only.

4.5        Keeping charges simple

Toll charges at barrier booths are relatively easy to assess as the operator can for example see the vehicle to assess what to charge it (for example, if it is a multi-axle vehicle on Dartford, it costs more than a 2 axle). But with free flow this has to be done with either DVLA data or sensor / image data.

So we would recommend any free flow scheme keeps charges and exemptions very simple, for users to understand and service providers to deploy. Charges should be very easy to determine remotely. All parameters for deciding the charge should be always available directly from DVLA (eg just tax class) and by image review for foreign vehicles. Some parameters used for charging such as length or weight can be measured at the roadside but this adds cost and complexity.

It would be also ideal if a single set of charges could be used at all UK toll schemes as they currently differ and this can be confusing for the user. This might require changes to several schemes but these changes may need to be made anyway to support freeflow.

4.6        Using DVLA data

The data we access on the tax class and vehicle type for a given number plate from DVLA can be up to three months old. This causes issues with brand new vehicles, vehicles that have changed owner and people who change vehicles when they have a personal plate. In any future system real time access as is already provided for the London Congestion Charge should be made.

4.7        Other issues

 Enforcement of foreign non complaint users is a challenge but given that the HGV Levy is in place and that we are an island with Border Controls, we see great opportunities for joined up data sharing around non complaint vehicles. This should be not just for tolls and London Congestion Charge but also parking fines, Low Emission Zones and so on. The Cross border enforcement directive is in discussion but currently it does not include tolls. Parliament might consider raising this.

4.8        Conclusions

Dartford has been live for less than a month at the time of writing, but a strong team effort from Sanef, Connect Plus and the Highways Agency has removed queues into Kent and reduced queues into Essex, which will reduce even more once roadworks are complete. We have 400,000 accounts and 1 million vehicles registered. There have of course been teething problems but by and large the reaction is positive, as it was on M50 and Port Mann.

Sanef believes that any new tolled infrastructure should have as its design philosophy a free flow solution, right from the earliest concepts. 

5.    Commercial Aspects

5.1        Dartford and Mersey – two different approaches to two different problems

Dartford is an existing toll/ charge scheme where freeflow collection of a charge is required plus customer service and enforcement aspects. Sanef is employed by the Secretary of State to collect charges and is paid according to performance.

This scheme has been understandably impacted by the need to keep traffic flowing, by the physical constraints of the site and by the many organisations involved in installing equipment over a live road. We have also had to migrate users from Dart Tag to Dart Charge and add additional users.

Any change for an existing scheme is likely to have similar challenges. We would suggest that the technology is not key challenge but that the scheme design, interfaces and interoperability are real issues.

The Dartford Contract allows its software to be reused at any other UK scheme and hence shared services could be deployed using Dartford’ s back office services to reduce costs. Mersey Gateway also provides a similar opportunity to avoid setting up whole new businesses to effectively do “more of the same”.

In complete contrast, Mersey is a new bridge alongside an existing free crossing. We have a new role as toll collector (the DMPA co) that has to deliver a given revenue to the local authority to help fund the crossing. If we increase use of the crossing and give reliable journey times, we are paid a bonus. Hence right from the start we have been integral to the service, as opposed to many schemes where a tolling operator joins once the bridge is being built. So on Mersey we have influenced the design of the bridge itself so that our tolling equipment is optimally placed. This gave the lenders of funds confidence that we could deliver the revenue. Any new scheme should consider this.

5.2        Attracting private investment

To attract greater investment from the private sector this Mersey structuring can be duplicated for any new crossing. A new concession would benefit from a strong tolling operator to show how revenues will be collected and to take some risk on their delivery. We strongly recommend that any new crossing is procured as a “system of systems” for delivering reliable journeys and improved access at least cost, with tolling an integral part of the service not as a bolt on.

For Mersey, initially there was no Infrastructure UK financing but only a State warranty on 50% of the long term debt and three consortia submitted compliant bids. Heavy private investment with limited public investment is possible but it does require a financially strong operator to optimize the toll collection which will secure the lenders’ revenue.  The dual structure of the Mersey project (SPV Co/DMPA Co) enables off balance sheet financing.

5.3        Reducing costs of tendering

We would have preferred if the Dartford Free Flow project was a competitive dialogue rather than restricted tender, but we do find competitive dialogue procurement for well-defined services especially retenders long and expensive. Competitive dialogue should be used where the service required is new and or unique and where the industry is able to bring experience from elsewhere or has a solution on the shelf.

6.    Summary of recommendations for action

January 2015