Border-Wide Assessment of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Technology—Current and Future Concepts
Final Report
CHAPTER 3. TOLLING IN BORDER REGIONS
The use of tolls for roads and bridges is at least 2,700 years old, as tolls had to be paid by travelers using the Susa–Babylon highway under the regime of Ashurbanipal, who reigned in the seventh century B.C. (5). In the United States, the first toll roads or turnpikes started operation in the early 1800s. Toll collection technology has evolved very slowly, and it was not until the last two decades that tolling evolved from traditional manual collection to automatic coin machines, and later to ETC with the introduction of transponders and video tolling.
On this project, a detailed scan of the current and envisioned tolling technologies, operations, and transaction processing at the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders was conducted. With a 1,945-mile-long Mexican border and 3,987-mile-long Canadian border, it is understandable that each State, region, or facility has its own rules and systems for collecting, processing, and enforcing tolls. Integration was not paramount when these systems were initially deployed years or decades ago. The objective of this task was to provide a clear picture of what is being used or planned by agencies and facilities along the international borders and what are the benefits, challenges, and opportunities related to tolling. This section presents a comprehensive view of the current state-of-the-practice for toll collection in the border regions.
The first step consisted of performing a comprehensive literature review on the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada border crossings. The second step involved developing a questionnaire to fill the gaps from the literature review and contacting selected key personnel familiar with border tolling issues at select border crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Published information related to tolling in border-crossing regions is limited. Part of the reason for this is the limited number of crossings that include tolling, the small size of these systems in comparison with other inland toll collection systems, and the lack of integration among border-crossing facilities. In 2009, approximately 105,850,000 passenger and commercial vehicles crossed the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders, including tolled and non-tolled border crossings. In comparison, a single major toll road, the New Jersey Turnpike, had approximately 634,000,000 toll transactions during the same period; thus, a single toll road had six times as many toll transactions as the entire cross-border traffic. This illustrates a major reason why research studies and reports are mostly focused on toll roads within the United States rather than at its borders.
As part of the literature review and interviews with key personnel, the following information related to transaction processing, operations, and tolling technology used or envisioned for border crossings was researched, assessed, and documented:
- Transaction processing (e.g., interoperability, charging, collections);
- Electronic tolling operations (e.g., account management, customer service); and
- Technology.
Transaction Processing (Interoperability, Charging, Collections)
As of 2010, a total of 46 border crossings were in operation at the U.S.-Mexico border. Table 2 lists these border crossings grouped by individual states. Currently, none of the land border crossings collects tolls; toll collection only occurs at selected bridge crossings over the Rio Grande River. (It should be noted that “land” in this narrow sense refers to a crossing without a bridge; “land” is used elsewhere in this report to refer more broadly to a port other than a marine or airport.) A total of 28 bridge crossings are currently under operation, and all of them are located in Texas. The number of bridges continues to grow to handle the cross-border traffic growth. In the next several years, at least five new bridges are planned to open at international border crossings on the southern border. In the near future, California and Arizona have plans to start collecting tolls at selected border crossings. New Mexico’s current state law prohibits tolling statewide.
| Border Crossing | U.S. City | U.S. State | Passenger Vehicle | Commercial Vehicle | Pedestrian | Type of Crossing | Mexican City | Mexican State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Veterans International Bridge | Brownsville | TX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bridge | Matamoros | Tamaulipas |
| Gateway International Bridge | Brownsville | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Matamoros | Tamaulipas |
| B&M Bridge | Brownsville | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Matamoros | Tamaulipas |
| Free Trade Bridge | Los Indios | TX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bridge | Lucio Blanco | Tamaulipas |
| Progresso International Bridge | Progresso | TX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bridge | Nuevo Progresso | Tamaulipas |
| Donna International Bridge | Donna | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Rio Bravo | Tamaulipas |
| Pharr-Reynosa Intl. Bridge on the Rise | Pharr | TX | Yes | Yes | NA | Bridge | Reynosa | Tamaulipas |
| McAllen-Hidalgo-Reynosa Bridge | Hidalgo | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Reynosa | Tamaulipas |
| Anzalduas International Bridge | Mission | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Reynosa | Tamaulipas |
| Los Ebanos Ferry | Los Ebanos | TX | Yes | No | NA | Ferry | Gustavo Diaz Ordaz | Tamaulipas |
| Rio Grande City-Camargo Bridge | Rio Grande | TX | Yes | Yes | NA | Bridge | Ciudad Camargo | Tamaulipas |
| Roma-Ciudad Miguel Aleman Bridge | Roma | TX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bridge | Ciudad Miguel Aleman | Tamaulipas |
| Lake Falcon Dam | Falcon Heights | TX | Yes | NA | NA | Bridge | Ciudad Guerrero | Tamaulipas |
| Juarez-Lincoln Bridge | Laredo | TX | Yes | No | No | Bridge | Nuevo Laredo | Tamaulipas |
| Gateway to the Americas Bridge | Laredo | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Nuevo Laredo | Tamaulipas |
| World Trade Bridge | Laredo | TX | No | Yes | No | Bridge | Nuevo Laredo | Tamaulipas |
| Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge | Laredo | TX | Yes | Yes | No | Bridge | Columbia | Nuevo Leon |
| Camino Real International Bridge | Eagle Pass | TX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bridge | Piedras Negras | Coahuila |
| Eagle Pass Bridge I | Eagle Pass | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Piedras Negras | Coahuila |
| Del Rio-Ciudad Acuña International Bridge | Del Rio | TX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bridge | Ciudad Acuña | Coahuila |
| Lake Amistad Dam | Del Rio | TX | Yes | No | NA | Bridge | Ciudad Acuna | Coahuila |
| Presidio Bridge | Presidio | TX | Yes | Yes | NA | Bridge | Ojinaga | Chihuahua |
| Fort Hancock-El Porvenir Bridge | Fort Hancock | TX | Yes | No | NA | Bridge | El Porvenir | Chihuahua |
| Fabens-Caseta Bridge | Fabens | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Práxedis Guerrero | Chihuahua |
| Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge | El Paso | TX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bridge | Ciudad Juarez | Chihuahua |
| Bridge of the Americas (BOTA) | El Paso | TX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bridge | Ciudad Juarez | Chihuahua |
| Good Neighbor (Stanton) Bridge | El Paso | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Ciudad Juarez | Chihuahua |
| Paso del Norte Bridge | El Paso | TX | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Ciudad Juarez | Chihuahua |
| Santa Teresa | Santa Teresa | NM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | San Jeronimo | Chihuahua |
| Antelope Wells | Antelope Wells | NM | Yes | No | Yes | Land | El Berrendo | Chihuahua |
| Columbus | Columbus | NM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | Puerto Palomas | Chihuahua |
| Douglas | Douglas | AZ | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | Agua Prieta | Sonora |
| Naco | Naco | AZ | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | Naco | Sonora |
| Nogales DeConcini | Nogales | AZ | Yes | No | Yes | Land | Heroica Nogales | Sonora |
| Nogales Mariposa | Nogales | AZ | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | Heroica Nogales | Sonora |
| Sasabe | Sasabe | AZ | Land | Sasabe | Sonora | |||
| Lukeville | Lukeville | AZ | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | Sonoyta | Sonora |
| San Luis | San Luis | AZ | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | Rio Colorado | Sonora |
| San Luis II | San Luis | AZ | No | Yes | No | Land | Rio Colorado | Sonora |
| Andrade | Andrade | CA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | Los Algodones | Baja Calif. |
| Calexico East | Calexico | CA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | Mexicali | Baja Calif. |
| Calexico West | Calexico | CA | Yes | No | Yes | Land | Mexicali | Baja Calif. |
| Tecate | Tecate | CA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Land | Tecate | Baja Calif. |
| Otay Mesa (Commercial) | Otay Mesa | CA | No | Yes | No | Land | Tijuana | Baja Calif. |
| Otay Mesa (Passenger) | Otay Mesa | CA | Yes | No | Yes | Land | Tijuana | Baja Calif. |
| San Ysidro | San Diego | CA | Yes | No | Yes | Land | Tijuana | Baja Calif. |
Sources: (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11).
As part of the literature review, researchers selected the busiest Canadian border crossings to assess tolling issues at the U.S.-Canada border. Table 3 shows the 10 busiest border crossings with Canada. These 10 border crossings represent more than 55 percent of the total traffic volume at the northern border (12).
| Border Crossing | U.S. City | U.S. State | Passenger Vehicle Traffic | Comm. Vehicle Traffic | Pedestrian Traffic | Type of Crossing | Canadian City | Canadian Province |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue Water Bridge | Port Huron | MI | Yes | Yes | NA | Bridge | Point Edward | Ontario |
| St-Bernard-de LaColle | Champlain | NY | Yes | Yes | NA | Land | LaColle | Quebec |
| Lewiston-Queenston | Lewiston | NY | Yes | Yes | No | Bridge | Queenston | Ontario |
| Whirlpool Rapids | Niagara Falls | NY | Yes | No | NA | Bridge | Niagara Falls | Ontario |
| Rainbow Bridge | Niagara Falls | NY | Yes | No | Yes | Bridge | Niagara Falls | Ontario |
| Peace Bridge | Buffalo | NY | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bridge | Fort Erie | Ontario |
| Ambassador | Detroit | MI | Yes | Yes | No | Bridge | Windsor | Ontario |
| Detroit-Windsor | Detroit | MI | Yes | Yes | No | Tunnel | Windsor | Ontario |
| Pacific Highway | Blaine | WA | Yes | Yes | NA | Land | Surrey | BC |
| Peace Arch (Douglas) | Blaine | WA | Yes | No | NA | Land | Surrey | BC |
Sources: (6), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), and (19).
U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada Bi-National Tolling Implementation Approaches
For a new southern border crossing to open, there must be a great deal of bi-national cooperation between the United States and Mexico. Both countries need to coordinate the complexities that a new crossing involves, from a presidential permit (for bridges built after 1972) and Coast Guard approval on the U.S. side and approvals from the Mexican state and federal government on the Mexican side, to accessibility and traffic and environmental impact studies (11).
There are various bi-national groups that participate in the definition of new international border crossings or expansions to existing crossings. The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) meets regularly to define border crossings.
Tolling at international crossings is agreed to between the two neighboring countries, and tolls are collected in the originating country. At the U.S.-Mexico border, Caminos y Puentes Federales de Ingresos y Servicios Conexos (CAPUFE) or a State agency, depending on the crossing ownership, usually collects tolls in Mexico. For example, the World Trade Bridge in Laredo is owned by the state of Tamaulipas, and a state agency manages and collects tolls for trucks crossing from Mexico into the United States. The Colombia Solidarity Bridge crossing has a similar scheme in which the state of Nuevo Leon also operates and collects tolls. For southbound traffic, the City of Laredo collects tolls at the World Trade Bridge.
Currently, there is no interoperability between U.S. and Mexican tolling agencies. Even though most of the technologies that are currently being used are similar, there are no interoperability or enforcement agreements. In the case of El Paso, some preliminary discussions about future interoperability between Promofront, the Mexican operator of the Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge, and the City of El Paso border crossings have taken place.
In some instances on the U.S. side, when the same agency operates multiple border-crossing facilities, these facilities are interoperable at the local level, such as in the Laredo and El Paso areas.
Tolling Overview in Texas beyond the Border
Currently, all tolled border crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border are in Texas. This section will describe the tolling state-of-the-practice in Texas beyond its border with Mexico and the level of interoperability with the tolled border crossings. There are six agencies that operate toll roads in Texas, excluding the operators of tolled border crossings. Table 4 lists these agencies and their primary transponder programs. The TxTag, TollTag, and EZ TAG programs are interoperable. This means that with the exception of the border crossings and the Dallas-Fort Worth and Dallas Love Field airports, all tolled ETC facilities within Texas are interoperable.
| Toll Operator or Agency | Region | Primary Transponder Program |
|---|---|---|
| Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA) | Statewide | TxTag |
| North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) | Dallas-Fort Worth | TollTag |
| Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA)1 | Houston Metro | EZ TAG |
| Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) | Austin | TxTag |
| Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority (CCRMA)2 | Brownsville | TxTag |
| Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority (FBCTRA)1 | Houston Suburbs | TxTag |
1 HCTRA and FBCTRA entered into an agreement giving HCTRA rights to operate and maintain the Fort Bend County toll roads (20).
2 Tolling will start in May 2011.
TTA operates the Camino Colombia (SH 255) toll road that begins near the Colombia Solidarity International Bridge and stretches 22 miles east to I-35 north of Laredo. This is the closest toll road in Texas to a border crossing (21). This road is an all-electronic tolling (AET) facility. The primary method of payment is via a transponder. Vehicles without a transponder are video-tolled (1-dollar surcharge), and if no payment is received, a violation occurs. Since the toll road is so close to the U.S.-Mexico border, a high percentage of its users are from Mexico.
CCRMA opened the first phase of the new SH 550 Toll Road to drivers on March 10, 2011. SH 550 is an AET facility located east of Brownsville near the U.S.-Mexico border. SH 550 will be toll-free for the first 2 months; on May 2011, tolling will start. TTA is providing the toll collection system (22).
TTA offers a Day Pass option to prepay tolls. TTA does not currently have an interoperability agreement with any tolled border-crossing facilities, other U.S. states, or any Mexican agencies. On the other hand, there is some level of cooperation with at least one of the largest border-crossing operators in Laredo. A customer with the Laredo Trade Tag program is allowed to open a separate account with the TxTag program and enroll his or her Laredo Trade transponder. The user benefits by installing only one transponder instead of two and still being able to use all the toll facilities in both programs. TTA is also having preliminary interoperability talks with some border-crossing facilities and tolling agencies in Oklahoma and Kansas.
TTA offers the eGo Plus sticker transponders from Transcore based on the American Trucking Associations (ATA) protocol. TTA is assessing the use of 5.9 GHz technology but does not currently have concrete plans for that frequency.
Most of the toll roads in Texas have fixed tolls. Currently, only Houston has managed lane facilities with variable pricing. In the Dallas-Fort Worth region, several new managed lane projects with variable pricing are in the pipeline and scheduled to open in the next 3 to 5 years.
NTTA and CTRMA are members of the Alliance for Toll Interoperability (ATI) group. TTA has applied for ATI membership. ATI was formed to promote and implement interstate interoperability. In March 2011, the ATI issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Interoperability Network Pilot Program (INPP) in the United States. The INPP consists of the development and implementation of a Pilot License Plate Interoperability (LPI) Hub for the exchange of account holder license plate information and account holder identification. Three hubs are proposed to operate a maximum of 6 months during the pilot. The ATI INPP transaction-processing concept provides a method to process license-plate-based transactions that cannot be identified by the toll operator as belonging to an existing toll account or a known violator at an Away Agency. This program is envisioned to be an interim solution for the toll industry to establish national interoperability until the toll industry adopts open-source RFID equipment or compatible multiprotocol RFID devices (23).
The need for interoperability among border crossings and toll roads within the United States will continue to increase as more toll roads near the border are built, such as the Loop 375 César Chávez managed lanes in El Paso, Texas. Furthermore, in the near future, California is planning to add tolled border crossings such as the Otay Mesa East POE. The Otay Mesa East border crossing will most likely be interoperable with existing (SR-125) and future (SR-11) toll roads in the San Diego area (24). On the Mexican side, there are four toll facilities that operate near the border:
- Carretera Federal 2 in Reynosa—this highway runs parallel to the border between Matamoros and Reynosa.
- Corridor Fiscal (Carretera Federal 15) in Arizona—this highway leads to the Nogales Mariposa border crossing.
- Carretera Federal 2 in Baja California—this highway runs parallel to the border with California.
- Puente Cucapá near San Luis Colorado—this bridge crosses Carretera 2 leading to the San Luis II border crossing.
There are no corresponding tolling facilities on the U.S. side. The first three facilities are part of the Identificación Automática Vehicular (IAVE) program (described in the section below) and are therefore interoperable. The Puente Cucapá opened in 2010 and is not part of the IAVE program. This bridge is operated by CAPUFE on behalf of the concessionaire (25).
Methods of Toll Collection
Normally, tolling agencies or operators select the methods for collecting tolls based on the technology available at the time of implementation, the budget, the market, and, to some degree, what nearby toll facilities have implemented. The most typical methods for collecting tolls are manual collection, electronic toll collection, and automatic toll collection via automatic coin machines.
In manual toll collection, which is the simplest toll collection, a collector operating from a booth collects the toll. Automatic coin machines (ACMs) allow collection of several methods of payments such as coins, tokens, smart cards, and credit cards without the need for a collector. ETC is the most complex and latest method for collecting tolls. Although it has been in use for more than 20 years, ETC continues to evolve.
ETC is comprised of four subsystems: AVI, automatic vehicle classification (AVC), violation enforcement system (VES), and transaction processing, which includes a back office and customer service center (CSC). AVI is the most visible part of the system and probably the only one the user is aware of. AVI allows the proper identification of the vehicle so a toll can be charged to a particular customer. In terms of equipment, ETC can be accomplished through various technologies: a bar-coded label affixed to the vehicle and read by an optical device, a proximity card that is waved at a card reader, an RFID transponder mounted in the vehicle and a roadside unit to read it, and automatic license plate recognition (ALPR), in which an image of the vehicle’s license plate is captured and then matched to an account or the vehicle’s owner.
Of the 46 U.S.-Mexico border crossings, only 21 collect tolls (excluding the Los Ebanos Ferry crossing). Table 5 shows the U.S.-Mexico tolled border crossings. On the U.S.-Mexico border, Texas is the only State with tolled border crossings. The San Luis II POE has a connecting bridge on the Mexican side where tolls are collected in both directions by the Mexican operator. Because no toll is collected on the U.S. side, this bridge is considered – for the purpose of this study – a tolled facility near the border instead of a typical tolled border crossing.
| Border Crossing | U.S. City | ETC Technology on the U.S. side | ETC Technology on the Mexican side |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veterans International Bridge | Brownsville | Barcode AVI (installed in 1999) | Transponder (IAVE) |
| Gateway International Bridge | Brownsville | Barcode AVI (installed in 1999) | Transponder (IAVE) |
| B&M Bridge | Brownsville | HID Proximity Card (Xpress Card Plus) | None |
| Free Trade Bridge | Los Indios | Barcode AVI (installed in 1999) | None |
| Progresso International Bridge | Progresso | None | Transponder (IAVE) |
| Donna International Bridge | Donna | None | None |
| Pharr-Reynosa Intl. Bridge on the Rise | Pharr | Transponder (eGo Tag) | Transponder (IAVE) |
| McAllen-Hidalgo-Reynosa Bridge | Hidalgo | HID Prox, Card (EZCrossBridge TollTag) | Transponder (IAVE) |
| Anzalduas International Bridge | Mission | HID Prox, Card (EZCrossBridge TollTag) | None |
| Rio Grande City-Camargo Bridge | Rio Grande | Barcode AVI | Transponder (IAVE) |
| Roma-Ciudad Miguel Aleman Bridge | Roma | None | Transponder (IAVE) |
| Juarez-Lincoln Bridge | Laredo | Transponder (Laredo Trade Tag, eGo) | Transponder (IAVE) |
| Gateway to the Americas Bridge | Laredo | Transponder (Laredo Trade Tag, eGo) | Transponder (IAVE) |
| World Trade Bridge | Laredo | Transponder (Laredo Trade Tag, eGo) | None |
| Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge | Laredo | Transponder (Laredo Trade Tag, eGo) | None |
| Camino Real International Bridge | Eagle Pass | HID Proximity Card Reader | None |
| Eagle Pass Bridge I | Eagle Pass | HID Proximity Card Reader | Transponder (IAVE) |
| Del Rio-Ciudad Acuna Intl. Bridge | Del Rio | Barcode AVI | Transponder (IAVE) |
| Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge | El Paso | Barcode AVI | Transponder |
| Good Neighbor Bridge | El Paso | Barcode AVI | Transponder (IAVE) |
| Paso del Norte Bridge | El Paso | Barcode AVI | Transponder (IAVE) |
Note: HID = Hughes Identification Devices Global Inc.
Sources: (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), and (26).
Of the 21 tolled border crossings, 18 currently have AVI technology already in place and 3 have not implemented AVI yet. The sites with AVI have various types of AVI technology. Five sites use transponder-based AVI technology, five sites use proximity cards that are electronically read by card readers with the tolls automatically debited from the customers’ accounts, and eight sites use barcode technology. On the Mexican side, the situation is different; the number of border crossings equipped with ETC technology does not match the U.S. sites so equipped. On the Mexican side, 14 border crossings have AVI, and all of them use transponder-based technology.
In Mexico, the agency in charge of operating most of the toll highways and border crossings nationwide is CAPUFE. Private concessionaires such as Ingenieros Civiles Asociados (ICA), also operate toll highways, but to a lesser extent after the Mexican government had to bail out most of the private concessions after the Mexican economic crisis of 1994. CAPUFE is a toll corporation owned by the Mexican federal government, which currently operates more than 700 toll lanes (27). CAPUFE ETC transponder-based technology uses the Transcore ATA protocol, although it is upgrading to multiprotocol readers capable of reading multiple protocols such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 18000-6B eGo tag.
CAPUFE’s ETC program is called IAVE and currently has 385 lanes equipped with AVI equipment. While CAPUFE has standardized ETC on its IAVE system, the other concessions have not standardized it. IAVE is currently accepted at 13 U.S.-Mexico border crossings. Of all the Mexican crossings with transponder-based AVI, only the Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge is not part of IAVE. The obvious advantage of having a single agency operating most of the toll facilities is the use of the same transponder/reader protocol, consolidated CSC operations, and no interoperability issues. Figure 5 presents an overview of the toll road operations, management, and funding in Mexico.
Figure 5. Diagram describing Mexican toll road concessionaires, operators, integrators and customer service centers.
The Mexican government agency that owns most of the toll roads in Mexico is called Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios Público (BANOBRAS). CAPUFE operates BANOBRA’s toll roads on its behalf. Another example of agencies working together is the Fideicomiso de Apoyo al Rescate de Autopistas Concesionadas (FARAC) which “rescues” highways that had been under a concession, and these are operated by the Operación y Conservación de Autopistas Concesionadas (OCACSA). Currently, BANOBRAS is involved in a study to make all the tolling facilities in Mexico interoperable. As part of this study, BANOBRAS is evaluating how to leverage the plans of the Mexican Department of Motor Vehicles to install a transponder in all vehicles for registration. In 2008, the Mexican Department of Motor Vehicles selected Neology to provide 30 million ISO 18000-6C sticker transponders for this purpose. Technically, these transponders could be used for tolling as well.
Table 6 shows toll collection methods utilized at U.S.-Canada tolled border crossings. Seven out of the 10 selected border crossings are tolled, and unlike on the southern border, these tolled crossings are located in different states. All of the tolled border-crossing operations on the northern border use ETC technology for toll collection with the exception of the Blue Water Bridge, where the only method of payment available is cash and tokens. For those border crossings using ETC technology, six use transponder-based technology and one uses proximity cards.
| Border Crossing | U.S. City | U.S. State | ETC Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blue Water Bridge | Port Huron | MI | None, tokens/cash |
| Lewiston-Queenston | Lewiston | NY | Transponder, ExpressPass program (Transcore eGo tag) |
| Whirlpool Rapids | Niagara Falls | NY | Transponder, NEXUS card used for tolls (IBM tag identical to eGo) |
| Rainbow Bridge | Niagara Falls | NY | Transponder, ExpressPass program (Transcore eGo tag) |
| Peace Bridge | Buffalo | NY | Transponder, E-ZPass |
| Ambassador | Detroit | MI | Transponder (Mark IV) |
| Detroit-Windsor | Detroit | MI | Proximity cards for tolls (NEXPRESS), tokens |
Sources: (6), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), and (19).
Toll Rate Determination Based on Time of Day and Congestion Levels
All of the tolled border crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border and the selected tolled border crossings on the U.S.-Canada border currently have fixed toll rates. Currently, there is no pricing in place to adjust tolls based on congestion levels or toll rate schedules based on the time of the day and day of the week. The fixed toll rates are generally based on the type of vehicle, number of axles, and weight. The future Otay Mesa East POE will include a pricing component that is based on wait/crossing time, congestion management, and emissions reduction.
Coordination of Toll Rates between Operators on Opposite Sides of Borders and Supporting Agreements
On the U.S.-Canada border, there is coordination of toll rates on opposite sides of the border. In most cases, this is due to the way the agency was set up. Table 7 lists U.S.-Canada border crossings and direction of tolling. Four of the border crossings are tolled in only one direction. The other three border crossings—Blue Water Bridge, Ambassador Bridge, and Detroit-Windsor tunnel—are tolled in both directions, and tolls are the same in both directions for passenger vehicles. The same agency operates the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, so toll rate coordination is inherent. The Blue Water Bridge is operated jointly by the Michigan Department of Transportation (DOT) and Blue Water Bridge Canada; tolls are the same in both directions for all vehicle classes.
| Border Crossing | U.S. City | U.S. State | Direction of Tolling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blue Water Bridge | Port Huron | MI | Both ways |
| Lewiston-Queenston | Lewiston | NY | One way |
| Whirlpool Rapids | Niagara Falls | NY | One way |
| Rainbow Bridge | Niagara Falls | NY | One way |
| Peace Bridge | Buffalo | NY | One way |
| Ambassador | Detroit | MI | Both ways |
| Detroit-Windsor | Detroit | MI | Both ways |
Sources: (6), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), and (19).
For the U.S.-Mexico border, there is no published information about the level of coordination for setting tolls. Unlike U.S.-Canada border crossings, most of the bridges on the Mexican side are owned/operated by the Mexican government. The only exceptions are the B&B Bridge operated by the Brownsville & Matamoros Bridge Company, the Ebanos Ferry operated by private citizens, the World Trade Bridge (Puente III) operated by the state of Tamaulipas, and the Colombia Bridge operated by the State of Nuevo Leon. Interviews with selected border crossings indicate that there is no coordination of toll rates between U.S. operators and CAPUFE; each party sets tolls independently. In addition, there is no coordination in the setting of toll rates among U.S. operators along the U.S.-Mexico border. Tolls are set by each operator depending on its operations, budgetary and maintenance needs, and local conditions. However, operators tend to check the rates of the other operators when updating their tolls. This explains why the tolls are similar along the border. For example, the toll for a passenger vehicle currently ranges from $2.25 to $3.00.
In-Lane and Post-Event Enforcement Strategies for Drivers Avoiding Tolls
In manual lanes where a toll collector is present, usually the toll evasion rate is rather small. The use of toll barriers or gates is another method for deterring toll evaders. Toll barriers can be used in manual, automatic, or ETC lanes. Tolled border crossings in El Paso, Texas, have toll barriers. The downside is that vehicle throughput is reduced significantly even with high-speed gates with opening and closing times of less than 1 second. Regardless of the lane type, a VES is used to reduce the number of violators by acting as a deterrent. There are several types of VESs.
Police presence at the collection point or downstream of it is a very effective deterrent, but the cost associated with this makes it very costly if used on a regular basis. A more cost-effective solution is the use of cameras taking images of license plates; the cameras then perform optical character recognition (OCR) scans of the image to get the owners’ information. Most of the current VESs perform the OCR automatically, thus reducing the cost for manual processing. Only those images in which the OCR does not meet a certain confidence level are reviewed by a person. Most of the toll roads where ETC is used have a VES component.
Published information about border-crossing enforcement is limited. Interviews with key personnel at select border crossings confirmed the use of gates to reduce toll evasion as their primary deterrent. In the case of El Paso, cameras are present at each lane to take an image of the license plate, but there is no integration with the Department of Motor Vehicles to try to locate the vehicle owner. This is not considered a true VES system. The number of violations in toll roads near the borders, such as the Camino Colombia near Laredo, by vehicles with Mexican license plates is rather low. However, this might change as more AET toll roads are built near the border.
Accepted Currency for Manual Payment Facilities
At the U.S.-Canada border, all of the selected tolled bridge crossings accept U.S. and Canadian currency. At the U.S.-Mexico border, all the Mexican and the largest U.S. border-crossing operators accept U.S. and Mexican currency for toll payment. The exchange rate varies by crossing and is set by the operating agency.
Technology
Cross-Border Scan of Tolling Technologies and Tolling Standards Used by Regional Partners
As mentioned earlier, there is no interoperability at the U.S.-Mexico border on tolling operations. In the European Union (EU), there are several tolling systems that are currently being used. The most common time-based fee is the Eurovignette, which is a vignette or sticker-based system used in an agreement between several EU Member States that gives access to the road network on each other’s territory—hence the term “Eurovignette.” The EU is harmonizing tolling systems as well as rates using various technologies such as stickers (vignettes), global positioning systems (GPS), and RFID. TheEuropeanElectronic TollService (EETS)is being developed with the anticipation that it will eventually enable road users to easily pay tolls using one system throughout the whole EU.
Enforcement Technologies Being Applied for Toll Payment Capture
A VES system is considered a subsystem of the toll collection system. A description of the various VES systems available is presented earlier in the document. This section will discuss mainly a camera-based VES. Its original use was solely for capturing license plate images of toll evaders. However, in the last few years, as newer cameras and illumination systems have become available in conjunction with greatly improved ALPR technology and OCR engines, VES systems have also started to be used for video tolling. The main purpose of the VES is to capture images of the vehicle license plates. Depending on the toll authority and business rules, the VES system captures the rear and/or front images. The VES equipment consists of a camera (or array of cameras), an illumination system, and a controller card or computer that interfaces with the lane controller and/or the back office.
In an open road toll (ORT) environment, the cameras and illumination system are usually mounted on an overhead canopy. The number of cameras and layout depends on the lane configuration (single lane vs. multilane), lane width, shoulder width, need for capturing front and/or rear license plates, and type of camera used. In a traditional lane with booth configuration, the VES cameras are usually located in the island or mounted on the booth’s roof. VES systems have been widely used since the 1990s; however, reading of the license plate was traditionally done manually at the back office. In recent years, OCR and ALPR technology accuracy has evolved to the extent that now license plate reading is left mostly to the ALPR engine, leaving manual review for only those images that are too complex for the ALRP engine. The significant cost reduction for processing images and the high degree of accuracy of ALPR technology have allowed toll operators to offer video tolling as an alternate payment method without the need of a transponder.
Despite the recent progress made in OCR and ALPR, video tolling and VES systems still have several shortcomings (40):
- Poor image resolution, usually because the plate is out of focus.
- Blurry images, particularly motion blur, most likely at higher vehicle speeds.
- Poor lighting and low contrast due to overexposure, reflection, shadows, or plate background color or style.
- Difficulty in extracting the number plate due to:
- An object obscuring (part of) the plate, often a tow bar or dirt on the plate.
- A different font, as in out-of-state plates and vanity plates.
- Different plate styles, as in Federal vehicles.
- Circumvention techniques (such as reflective plates).
There are other types of VES systems than camera-based. As mentioned in an earlier section, police enforcement and toll gates are the simplest types of enforcement but are not necessarily cost effective or efficient. Some toll roads have been using mobile readers to identify violators on-site. An example of this is the mobile transponder readers used by police on the Minneapolis I-394 high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. Enforcement vehicles contain portable transponder readers, enabling enforcement officers to validate operational transponders while driving alongside of or immediately behind a target vehicle (41). Toll roads near the border, such as SR-125 near San Diego, California and SH-255 near Laredo, Texas use ALPR as their primary enforcement technology. Tolled border crossings, on the other hand, rely more on toll barriers (gates) and in some cases – such as the El Paso region – on a basic camera-based VES without ALRP or the means to send violation notices.
Dedicated Short Range Communication Technology Use at the Border
The 915 MHz Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) has been the de-facto ETC technology in the United States. In October 1999, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allocated in the United States 75 MHz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for DSRC to be used by ITS (42). Its main advantages are low latency, range, and security. One of the many applications for 5.9 GHz DRSC is in the tolling industry. The 5.9 GHz DSRC technology is interoperable and open source. This means that equipment replacements, upgrades, and spares can be bought from multiple manufacturers and operate seamlessly.
In a tolling environment, the roadside equipment will communicate with the vehicle’s on-board equipment (OBE). The OBE might take several forms and shapes as it transitions from its earlier implementation phase to the ultimate goal of having the OBE embedded in the vehicle as it comes from the assembly plant. Due to the years it will take for vehicle manufacturers to start producing vehicles with integrated OBE and reach significant market penetration, the tolling industry is developing interim OBE that are portable and self-powered and will resemble the 915 MHz toll transponders currently in use.
The literature review did not indicate that the 5.9 GHz DSRC technology is planned in the near future for toll facilities in the U.S. Interviews with selected border-crossing operators indicated that they are following 5.9 GHz developments closely but know of no concrete plans in the near future. In the medium- to long-term range, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), as part of its regional transportation plan, has identified future plans for Connected Vehicle vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)/Smart Roads platform concepts, which specify 5.9 GHz.
Current Deployments
The 5.9 GHz technology is still in the demonstration and trial phases. Its use in tolling applications is moving forward at a slow pace. Although there has been interest in advancing this technology, no toll road operator or authority has issued an RFP specifying 5.9 GHz DRSC as the sole AVI requirement. A few recent RFPs, such as the Triangle Expressway in North Carolina and SR-520 in Washington State, do mention 5.9 GHz as a requirement, but only to the extent of asking proposers for an AVI solution that will allow them to migrate from 915 MHz to 5.9 GHz in the future. The Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority I-85 HOT lanes RFP gives the option to propose either 915 MHz or 5.9 GHz technology. As of today, 5.9 GHz has been deployed only as a test bed or in demonstration projects. Some of these demonstration projects related to tolling applications are listed below.
V2V/V2I Proof-of-Concept Test: Researchers conducted this test in Detroit, Michigan, in 2008. It tested the ability of DSRC to enable interoperable vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and V2I transactions for a suite of safety and mobility applications.
Denver 5.9 GHz Toll Test Bed: This project consisted of testing an ETC system for ORT at one of the mainline barrier plazas on the E-470 highway near Denver for a two-week period in August and September 2008. As part of the test, 5.9 GHz DSRC equipment from Kapsch was used. Kapsch equipment included readers, antennas, and transponders. According to the test results, a 100 percent read success rate was achieved (43).
ITS World Congress DSRC Live Demonstration: As part of the 15th ITS World Congress, Kapsch demonstrated its first fully live, functional 5.9 GHz DSRC interoperable technologies and integrated safety systems network in Manhattan and on the Long Island Expressway. More than 40 roadside equipment units were deployed as part of this demonstration (44).
EPS (Electronic Payment Services): This project entails developing a vehicle-to-roadside (V2R) electronic payment services national interoperability specification (EPSNIS) and confirming that the specification and use thereof supports a legacy environment (clearing transactions from toll roads and merchants through a toll authority) (45). The test phase of this project includes collocating 5.9 GHz equipment next to the 915 MHz AVI equipment at one bridge of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This project is in progress.
5.9 GHz Test at Port of Hood Toll Bridge: The Oregon-Washington Bridge Company is conducting this test. The equipment was installed in the fall of 2010. One lane was equipped with a Kapsch 5.9 GHz reader along with the existing 915 MHz Transcore reader. This test allows for live testing in parallel with the Transcore eGo sticker transponders. Two hundred transponders are part of the test, which is expected to last 6 months (46).
5.9 GHz DSRC Wireless Roadside Inspection System for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority: Kapsch will develop, demonstrate, and commercialize a system to allow State enforcement agencies to conduct virtual truck inspections evaluating the real-time safety of the commercial vehicle at highway speeds. The key components are in-vehicle applications on a Kapsch 5.9 GHz DSRC aftermarket device. The first of its kind, this virtual inspection system will be deployed at the Schodack integrated electronic screening site on I-90 near Albany, New York, and is expected to be operational in 2011. The system will validate driver’s licenses; the status of registration; credentials; weight; and on-board safety systems including brakes, lights, and tires of participating trucks. This project supports broader efforts that are part of the FMCSA Wireless Roadside Inspection (WRI) Program as well as many of the USDOT’s Connected Vehicle Program goals (47).
Assessment of Equipment Manufacturers for Tolling Applications
This section will explore the progress made by the industry in terms of having a commercially available 5.9 GHz solution specifically for tolling applications. A scan of the major vendors was conducted for this report, and the results are presented below. The information was obtained from several sources and not always directly from the manufacturer due to confidentiality issues.
Kapsch: Kapsch has offered a 5.8 GHz solution for several years. It recently acquired a unit of TechnoCom’s mobility solutions business based in California, which is deeply involved in V2I technologies. In 2010, Kapsch announced its 5.9 GHz solution and showcased it in the ITS World Congress and Denver trials. In January 2011, Kapsch acquired Mark IV industries, which is the sole source transponder and reader supplier for the E-ZPass® group.
Transcore: Transcore is a member of the Omniair consortium and is involved in V2I. As part of V2I, Transcore is one of the four AVI equipment manufacturers responsible for prototyping a 5.9 GHz solution. The prototype tasks include development of standards, hardware, software, and testing. The other three members are Mark IV, Sirit, and Raytheon. Transcore has proprietary 915 MHz solutions such as the eGo sticker tags and Encompass® reader. On September 14, 2009, Transcore announced that its Encompass 6 reader has been engineered to accommodate the future upgrade to 5.9 GHz technology.
Mark IV: Mark IV is a member of the Omniair consortium, is involved in V2I, and has been very active in developing and testing 5.9 GHz technology. As part of the V2I/V2V proof-of-concept testing in Detroit, Michigan, Mark IV tested its 5.9 GHz equipment in 2008. At some point, Mark IV offered its 5.9 GHz OTTO on BoardSM product, which consists of an OBE and roadside unit. However, this product was oriented toward the ultimate V2I goal of having the OBE integrated to the vehicle infrastructure. With Kapsch’s recent acquisition of Mark IV, the future of the OTTO on BoardSM product is not clear.
Sirit: Sirit is a member of the Omniair consortium and is involved in V2I. Its involvement in the 5.9 GHz arena appears to be more of a supporting role in developing and proving radio frequency test tools. As part of the V2V/V2I proof-of-concept testing in Detroit, Sirit provided a sniffer test tool to independently verify transmitted DSRC data and protocols.
previous | next
