12 Oct Tolling Agreement Eur Lex
As explained in section 5.2.2, the development and implementation of an electronic toll system and its operation entail very significant costs. However, these costs are not necessarily proportional to the size of the toll network and the number of toll vehicles. In other words, the larger the network and the greater the number of vehicles subject to tolls, the lower the cost of collecting the toll per vehicle-kilometre. Closer cooperation between toll chargers, which could range from better coordination of toll standards and practices to the development of a common system for two or more networks, could generate hundreds of millions of euros in considerable savings. The general message was that, although there was a market for interoperable toll services for heavy goods vehicles, it was difficult to assess their size, but that there was only limited demand for these services for heavy goods vehicles. Fees paid to petrol station transmitters were generally considered to be very low, but it was pointed out that refuelling cards should not be considered as a means of payment in their own right. Toll service providers provide many different services to their customers and toll chargers, but carriers will not be willing to pay more for EETS. While a lack of harmonization was seen as an obstacle to the provision of interoperable services, it was suggested that it should be addressed by harmonizing the application of existing standards and not by developing new standards. The SET Directive provided that Member States had to ensure that all electronic toll systems requiring the installation of an on-board unit and used after 1 January 2007 used one or a combination of three technologies: microwave communications, satellite positioning and mobile telecommunications (Article 2).
This provision has been largely respected by the Member States. Systems using alternative technologies are rare and were generally in place before 2007 (see section 2.2 for details). A network-wide electronic toll system stands out from the crowd. These are the Hungarian toll systems for heavy goods vehicles, the implementation of which costs between 1/8 and 1/6 of the costs of comparable systems in other Member States and whose operation costs much less (the lack of data does not allow to estimate precisely how much). The system aims to achieve a lower level of performance than other EU systems (in particular as regards the effectiveness of implementation), but it meets the toll targets of the Hungarian authorities and offers similar flexibility to elsewhere in the EU. The fact that Hungary is to date the only Member State to have opted for such a `cheap` solution shows that EETS legislation has not effectively encouraged tax collectors to opt for the most cost-effective technical solutions for electronic tolls. · To enable the general public and stakeholders to provide input on key issues related to electronic tolling and how it is regulated at EU level and to make their views known on possible/desirable changes to the regulatory framework. . .