Electronic Payment & Pricing (37 unique benefit summaries found)

In Florida, the addition of Open Road Tolling (ORT) to an existing Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) mainline toll plaza decreased delay by 50 percent for manual cash customers and by 55 percent for automatic coin machine customers, and increased speed by 57 percent in the express lanes.(21-25 January 2007)

In Florida, the addition of Open Road Tolling (ORT) to an existing Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) mainline toll plaza decreased crashes by an estimated 22 to 26 percent.(21-25 January 2007)

Pre-clearance systems that use interagency coordination to deploy interoperable electronic toll collection (ETC) and electronic screening (E-screening) systems improve the efficiency of motor carrier operations by saving time and money. Interoperable applications incorporated into a single transponder can save carriers between $0.63 to $2.15 per event at weigh stations. (12/2/2005)

An evaluation of electronic toll collection systems at three major toll plazas outside Baltimore, Maryland indicated these systems reduced environmentally harmful emissions by 16 to 63 percent. (January 2002)

The E-ZPass electronic toll collection system on the New Jersey Turnpike reduced delay for all vehicles by 85 percent saving an estimated 1.2 million gallons of fuel each year and eliminating approximately 0.35 tons of VOC and 0.056 tons NOx per weekday.(August 2001)

Implementation of the E-ZPass electronic toll collection system on the New Jersey Turnpike reduced delay for all vehicles by 85 percent saving approximately 2.1 million hours per year.(August 2001)

In Florida, the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority found that driver uncertainty about congestion at E-PASS toll stations contributed to a 48 percent increase in crashes.(March 2001)

A survey of travelers indicated that 20 percent of motorists traveling on two bridges in Lee County, Florida adjusted their departure times in response to an electronic payment value pricing program that gave motorists a 50 percent discount on bridge tolls during off peak periods.(1-4 May 2000)

During the initial deployment of electronic toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge (1996-1997) there was an increased number of crashes and personal injuries.(March 1999)

In California, electronic toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge decreased annual emissions of Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons.(March 1999)

In California, the time saving benefits of electronic toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge saved travelers more than a million dollars per year.(March 1999)

In California, electronic toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge saved 25,193 hours per year by improving traffic movement through the toll facility and reducing the time required to process transactions.(March 1999)

Impacts of Electronic Toll Collection on Vehicle Emissions(11-15 January 1998)

In Japan, a field test found that conventional toll collection takes an average of 14 seconds per car, while electronic toll collection takes only 3 seconds per car. (October 1997)

On the Tappan Zee Bridge toll plaza, a manual toll lane can accommodate 400 to 450 vehicles per hour while an electronic lane peaks at 1000 vehicles per hour.(5-8 August 1995)

In Europe, ITS evaluation reports show that electronic toll collection can decrease traffic volumes by up to 17 percent.(1994-1998)

A feasibility study for electronic toll collection on the Florida Turnpike indicated that a 10 to 30 percent participation rate would yield benefit-to-cost ratios of 2:1 to 3:1, respectively.(1990)

In the Puget Sound region of Washington State, a fare payment integration system that used joint passes to allow base fares to be transferred between agencies increased the percentage of riders that made transfers.(25 March 2005)

Proof-of-payment systems that use ticket vending/validating machines can reduce boarding times by up to 38 percent.(August 2004)

In Chicago, A CTA survey of smartcard users found that features related to convenience, rail use, and speed were most liked by program participants; 21 percent rated convenience over the magnetic stripe card as their single favorite feature of the system. The most desired features were the multi-use functions and ability to recharge the smartcard via the Internet and credit card.(13-17 January 2002.)

Impacts of Transit Fare Policy Initiatives Under an Automated Fare System(Summer 2000)

In 1996, the project benefits of existing and planned deployments of transit ITS technologies were estimated to yield between $3.8 billion and $7.4 billion (discounted dollars for 1996) within several years.(July 1996)

Based on a travel reduction ordinance requiring Phoenix employers with over 100 employees to reduce single-occupancy commuting trips by 5 percent, the City Public Transport Agency led the development of a Bus Card Plus system and as of 1996, 190 companies participated with a resulting 90 percent of express route fares paid by these bus pass cards.(1996)

Smart card electronic payment systems can increase ridership, reduce administrative costs, and decrease fare evasion.(November 1995)

In Manchester, UK, transit smart cards that improve data accuracy and reduce data collection costs saved $1.5 million.(September 1995)

In the Washington, D.C. region, SmarTrip cards used to pay both parking fees and subway fares were considered easy to use and were rated high for usefulness.(25 March 2005)

The Washington, D.C. region Metrorail service required that SmarTrip cards be used to pay for parking at all Metrorail stations increasing the purchase of cards from 8,000 per month to 75,000 per month during the first two months.(25 March 2005)

The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) smart parking system field test increased BART trips and resulted in an average of 9.7 fewer vehicle miles traveled and decreased the average commute time by 2.6 minutes.(1 August 2007)

In Central Florida, focus group participants involved in a smart card study using a single card for multiple payment applications indicated that the card provided convenience and improved their transportation experience.(8/1/2004)

A study of the congestion charging scheme in central London found benefits exceeding costs by a ratio of 1.5:1 for a £5 charge and 1.7:1 for an £8 charge.(July 2007)

Congestion charging in London resulted in pollutant emission reductions: 8 percent for oxides of nitrogen, 7 percent for airborne particulate matter, and 16 percent for carbon dioxide.(July 2007)

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, survey data collected prior to the deployment of MnPASS Express Lanes (HOT lanes) on I-394 examined travelers' willingness-to-pay to avoid congestion. (22-26 January 2006)

Survey data collected from an organization of approximately 500 businesses in London indicated that 69 percent of respondents felt that congestion charging had no impact on their business, 22 percent reported positive impacts on their business, and 9 percent reported an overall negative impact.(January 2006)

Congestion pricing in London decreases inner city traffic by about 20 percent and generates more than £97 million each year for transit improvements.(January 2006)

In California, public support for variable tolling on SR91 was initially low, but after 18 months of operations; nearly 75 percent of the commuting public expressed approval of virtually all aspects of the Express Lanes program.(June 2005)

On the Pennsylvania Turnpike, EZ-Pass participation and variable tolling were projected to decrease peak period traffic congestion at urban interchanges by 15 to 20 percent and have minimal impacts on non-turnpike diversion routes.(8 March 2004)

Impacts of Transit Fare Policy Initiatives Under an Automated Fare System(Summer 2000)