Background

Traffic congestion is costly to individual as well as society. To In 1975, Singapore operated a manual road-pricing scheme called the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS), which was the world’s first pricing scheme. This scheme required motorists to purchase a paper license and display it to the enforcement officer before entering a restricted zone (RZ).  In 1995, the ALS was replaced by an automatic Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) system called the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme. The main components (See Figure 1) are the In-Vehicle Unit (IU), a notebook sized device fixed on the windscreen of vehicles and a CashCard. The different features between ALS and ERP are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 1. Singapore’s new dual-mode IU with a CashCard

Source: Courtesy of Singapore Land Transport Authority

Table 1. Summary of Features

	ALS	EPR
Enforcement	Manual	Cameras
Demarcation of Area	Cordon	ERP Gantry (see picture Figure1)
Payment	Cash	Smart Card
Identifier	Paper License (Different shapes for different vehicles and color codes for different months)	Electronic Tag (IU)
Operating Hours	Restricted hours of 7:30am-9:30 am, but not for Sundays and public holidays	The whole day
Violations	Heavy	No IUPenalty of S$70=US$58No CashCards or Insufficient value in Card Administrative fee S$10=US$8.28. (Lower fee if paid via e-Payment services
Exemptions	Taxis (later removed), public transport, buses, goods vehicles, motorcycles, and passengers	The emergency vehicles(cannot find the specific items)
Disadvantages	Cumbersome, labour-intensive and inflexible	Privacy maybe violated.The revenue is lower than revenue raised under ALS
Advantages	Car-polling was a good way to optimize vehicle usage and save money.	Improve capacity AND smooth the ride Convenience, time saving AND RELIABLE

Resource: This table is built based on http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/Chin_Kian%20Keong.pdf

Figure 2. An ERP Gantry in Singapore

Source: Courtesy of Singapore land Transport Authority

Figure 3. ERP Working Process

Resource: http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/managing-traffic-and-congestion/electronic-road-pricing-erp.html

ERP Rates 

According to the Land Transport Authority (LTA), “ERP rates are determined by a quarterly review of traffic speeds of priced roads and during the June and December school holidays.” The LTA concluded that the prices are charged mainly based on two parts: Passenger Car Unit (PCU) equivalent and the time entering RZ. (See Table 2) Besides, the motorists should control their speeds between 20km/h to 30km/h on selected ways and between 45km/h and 65km/h on expressways.

Table 2.Two parts of Charges

PCU equivalent	The time entering RZ
Cars, taxis and light goods vehicles are 1PCU. Motorcycles are 0.5PCU; heavy goods vehicles and small buses are 1.5PCU. Very heavy goods vehicles and big buses are 2PCU.	During peak hours, charges change every half hour to take into account traffic volumes. This helps to spread the traffic flow over a longer period.

Resource: http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/managing-traffic-and-congestion/electronic-road-pricing-erp.html

We can see that the ERP rates vary for different time and roads periods and can be adjusted based on local traffic conditions. From Figure 3 we can see that 9 Am is an expensive time to drive, but in noon the rate is very cheap. For some alternative routs, the motorists don’t need to pay any fees. Therefore, this scheme encourages the motorists to make adjustments on their mode of transport, time of travel and travel route. The ERP scheme is very flexible and adaptive. However, some problems appeared. For example, to avoid higher charges time, some motorists would wait until the cheaper period started. To solve this problem the LTA introduced graduated ERP rates, which introduced a new rate for the last five minutes if the next period has a lower ERP rate.

Figure 3. EPR Rates and ALS Rates

 

 

 

Resource: http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/Chin_Kian%20Keong.pdf

The effectiveness of ERP

1) Traffic Impact

After replacing the ALS with ERP system, traffic levels have decreased a further 15 percent. In Figure 6, the traffic volume into the Central Business District (CBD) showed a significant decrease from 1975. Although the vehicle population and car population had been increasing, the traffic volume almost stayed unchanged and also showed a small decrease. In Singapore, increasing number of citizens chooses public vehicles as their main transportation tool, round 63% by public transportation.

Figure 6. Traffic Volume Changes

 

 

 

 

 

Resource: http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/Chin_Kian%20Keong.pdf

2) Costs and Revenue

From Figure 5, we can conclude that compared with other countries, Singapore had very high ratio of annual cost to revenue, which results from high purchase and installation cost of ERP equipment and UI. However, the operating cost was very low. Singapore’s ERP system is operated by the control center Compared with other countries’ scheme, the ERP system is flexible and not labor intensive. As Walker (2011) showed, “the cost of managing and maintaining the ERP system has increased over the years, consistent with the increase in the number of gantries and IU numbers, but remains at 20–30% of total revenue collected, the objective is traffic management, not revenue generation.” For example, between 2007 and 2009, ERP revenue increased by $44 million, but at the same time, the additional registration fee (ARF) and vehicle tax revenue fell by $329 million in total. The revenue from the system is mainly used for construction and maintenance of roads and public transportation.

Figure 5. Cost-Effectiveness Matters

 

 

 

 

Source: European Conference on Transport Minister, 2006, http://www.cemt.org/topics/taxs/Paris06/Conclusions.pdf

Conclusion

In Singapore, technology has brought a lot benefits to the society. I think ERP is a very effective road management tool, which could be a lesson for other countries. The revenue neutral of this scheme avoid the fight from citizens. The motorists can enjoy a smoother drive, change their schedule to pay lesser charges and choose an alternative road. When we analyze the benefits of a road pricing scheme, we should think about externalities such as time saving, higher speeds, CO2 reduction, Fuel saving and also alternative road’s congestion problem. In my blog, I cannot get enough information on this point. In London’s case, we can have more sense of how to measure the efficiency of a road policy. 

References:

Land Transport Authority http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/managing-traffic-and-congestion/electronic-road-pricing-erp.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_pricing#cite_note-34

John Walker(2011), The Acceptability of Road Pricing http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/the%20acceptability%20of%20road%20pricing%20-%20walker%20-%20main%20report%20(may%2011).pdf

ERP System in Singapore http://duniainformation.blogspot.ca/2012/11/erp-system-in-singapore.html

http://www.imprint-eu.org/public/Papers/IMPRINT3_chin.pdf

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08047/02summ.htm

http://www.cemt.org/topics/taxs/Paris06/Conclusions.pdf

http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/Chin_Kian%20Keong.pdf

http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities-2/all-cases/transport/singapore-the-worlds-first-digital-congestion-charging-system/?bbredirect=true

 

Background

The Netherlands has the highest environmental taxes in the world. Citizens and companies in the Netherlands pay 27 billion euros annually, together with charges on polluting behavior. Water has always played an important part in Dutch life. The Netherlands(41,000 km2, including 3,000 km2 of fresh water and 4,000 km2 of saltwater) is a low-lying country in the delta of four European rivers: the Rhine,the Meuse, the Scheldt and the Ems. Since 1960, the quality of surface water in Netherlands deteriorated rapidly, which lead to government’s great concern. In the late 1960s the water boards were reorganized and they were provided with the responsibility of collecting levies for discharges. The rejection to proposal for large-scale state subsidies to the Water Boards for the construction of local sewage treatment plans results in “a full-recovery scheme based on revenues from emission charges  (in accordance with the polluter-pay principle)” (UCD). In 1970, the Dutch wastewater levy was set up with the 1970 Surface Waters Pollution Act and came into effect in 1971. Therefore the original aim for the state water levy is to curb water pollutions by using revenue to support municipal sewage treatment plan as well as in-house pollution abatement in industry.  Since 1996, the subsidy scheme for industry was abolished.

Coverage and Tax Rates

The levy is imposed on all direct and indirect surface water to surface waters. The tax rate varies for different polluters. Households pay a flat rate, small firms pay a fixed rate, medium sized firms and large firms can pay according to direct measurements. Here the medium sized firms also can pay by non-measured factors. I think if the households pay a flat rate, will this cause the distribution problem? Because the poor people maybe get worse off.  But until now I cannot find evidence on it.

The waste tax taxes the amount of waste that is delivered at a waste-processing firm or dumping ground (this tax is levied on the weight of the waste). The waste water tax applies to the discharges of organic material, mercury, cadmium, copper, zinc, lead nickel, chromium and arsenic. Here taking the year of 2008 to 2009 as an example to show main emissions to water.

http://www.wavespartnership.org/waves/sites/waves/files/images/Netherlands%20env%20accts%202010.pdf

The tax rates have increased many times since it was introduced. According to UCD, “from 1972 to 1990, the levy rate tripled and from 1990 to the end of the 1990’s the levy rate doubled once again”. The tax rate varies ate state level and at Water Boards level (regional level), it is 25 Euro per pollution unit for state waters levy and 37 Euro per pollution (on average) for Water Board levy. State waters are defined as the main rivers as well as the North Sea and are admonished by the water management department of the Ministry for Transport and Public Works.  There are 27 regional Water Boards in Netherlands and they are responsible for regional waters and to their sewage treatment plants. These Water Boards are powered by provinces, but their levy is not bond to the law. I think this maybe a issue for Netherlands water pollution control policy.

 Revenue

The revenue from the state waters levy is used to support both municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial in-house pollution abatement. Revenue recycling was particularly important during the early years of the scheme, when several of the most polluting industries were assisted in implementing emission reduction measures (RIZA, 1995).

When the levies were first introduced, several thousand consumers took part in an organized boycott campaign against their payment, as the levies were seen as unjust and the Water Boards as illegitimate. Consumers didn’t recognized themselves as polluters. However, the cost to the Dutch household is relative lower because there was less need for investment in public sewage treatment capacity. And also, the results seemed very positive. Andersen (1994) the levy system encouraged technology innovation which were promoted by subsidies from the levy, so this tax policy worked comparatively more efficient than similar programs in neighbouring coutries. In the meantime, the cost of this policy cannot be ignored. According to published data, in 1995, water pollution control costs made up about 25 percent of total environmental costs and ranked as send largest after waste management. Because I cannot get more recent data on this topic, I am concerned about the update information may tell a different story from what I did research on Netherlands waste water tax. And also Data on the annually discharged amount of damage units as defined by the waste water tax law are not available.

Reference: 

http://www.dutchdailynews.com/environmental-taxes/

RIZA, 1995. Waste-Water Charge Schemes in the European Union. A report for the European commission, Office for Publication of the European Communities.

Environmental Taxes: Implementation and Environmental Effectiveness (Environmental issues Series No.1), European Environment Agency, Copenhagen 1996, pp59-60

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/ch7_waste_water.pdf