(Note: If you post a comment using the "Anonymous" profile in blogger, we ask that you please include your name in the comment block. Thank you.)On October 29, 2009, in Washington, DC, IBTTA assembled a group of experts from different stakeholder organizations, all of whom have a keen interest in the future of mobility and interoperability in North America, to focus on this question: “What is IBTTA’s role in advancing universal tolling interoperability?”
The Full Report of this meeting – linked here – presents the highlights of the discussion that took place during the forum. This report represents the beginning of a discussion on this important issue. Through the discussions at the forum and subsequent conversations in other venues, we hope to give the IBTTA board, elected officials, regulatory officials, and other stakeholders a clear grasp of the technical, institutional, legal, regulatory, financial, and logistical challenges that must be addressed to achieve interoperability at regional, national, and, possibly, even international levels. As the proceedings from this meeting show, achieving universal tolling interoperability is not a simple matter of flipping a switch. It will involve flipping a hundred switches and changing the way thousands or millions of people go about their daily routine.
What Should Be Done About Interoperability of Electronic Tolling in North America?
Posts
We invite all of our IBTTA expert bloggers to weigh in on this important report. Looking forward to reading your views. -- Pat Jones
ReplyDeleteI just started reading the report and it is an excellent examination at the many issues that need to be addressed to bring about full interoperability of ETC in the US. I would encourage members of Congress and their staff to read this before they write a law that would be precipitous in this regard. -- Ed Ames
ReplyDeleteThere are many people who are much more expert in these issues than I am. However, I find this report to be an impressively thoughtful and well researched document. I’m looking forward to reading the reviews, comments, and debate points of others. -- Bob Hertzwig
ReplyDeleteThe timeline in the center of the report was very helpful. It really helped me to SEE the building blocks of all electronic tolling around the world as well as the efforts that have been building up, little by little, to bring about interoperability. -- Susannah Fischer
ReplyDeleteETC in North America is just at a crossroad. The two "extreme" options are a full fledged VMT and, instead, a free-market-bottom-up introduction of interoperability. More soloutions could fall in between, but the two main options suffice to depict the most interesting challenges. Nation-wide, or North-American-wide VMT would imply complex legislation (some of it possibly outside transport sector sphere), sound technical standards, perhaps a transition time from the legacy ETCs to the common one(s). Satellite location would be an obliged option, car industry would have to brought in the game. From the IBTTA standpoint this would be a very challenging options, since new "big guys" would enter the arena, DOTs could simply swallow some of the current IBTTA members, the toll sector could be at risk of being taken over by Federal and States administrations, in a de-facto nationalization. Yet, tolling is a field on its own, and it is very difficult to find real expertize outside IBTTA members, thus taking over the current player could prove to be, in practical terms, wishful thinking. IBTTA should be ready to show what the implications are, what critical issues are at stakes and how an independent tolling sector could ease, rather than hinder, the introduction of a VMT system.
ReplyDeleteOn the other extreme, the path towards a market driven, bottom-up ETC interoperability implies respect of the current players investments (legacy technologies), the sharing of a common vision for a long term sustainable solution, a stepwise approach based on a shared roadmap. Within this option some market competition would undoubtedly put strain on IBTTA members mutual relationship, but being all the actors in IBTTA would make of the Association the natural fertile ground to cultivate and grow the interoperable ETC, from the seeds (of which some might not survive) to the plants, the most resistant and adapted of which would eventually survive the Darwinian struggle for life and become the shared ETC tools.
In either option (and forgetting not that other intermediate options can exist) IBTTA should first devise the complete matrix of the ETC components (techs, procedures, organizations, legal implications etc.) from the simple provider-voluntary-user to the mandatory-flull-fledged-VMT.
Such an exercise would further put IBTTA at the leading edge of the ETC interoperability and prevent awkward attempts to move forward without taking into account all the critical issues.
What should be done about interoperability in North America? Let's ask the customer. What do they need? Are they willing to pay extra for it?
ReplyDeleteThe industry should provide only what will appeal to a broad customer base. How do toll customers view interoperability? It is simply about benefit and convenience. On a local level, a large number of customers will see interoperability as a benefit if it simplifies their local options. Many people in Orlando use their Sunpass for both tolls and airport parking- a great convenience on a local trip level. On a regional level, interoperability is a benefit, but to a smaller number of users. On a national level, interoperability is also a benefit, but to an even smaller number of users. There is a law of diminishing returns with providing broad geographic interoperability over institutional borders on a macro level. The broader the geography covered with a single transponder, the higher the cost of interoperability and the smaller the user group. That’s not an attractive business model. The business model to support national interoperability may be more industry driven than customer driven, and that is a concern.
Functional interoperability, such as paying for parking for a local trip, may be a better goal from a customer service standpoint.
In summary, whole trip based functional interoperability supported by a large customer base should be the goal.
Dan Baxter
Several things should be done immediately:
ReplyDelete1. Toll agencies should recognize that interoperability - even on a limited basis is worthwhile and benefits them. They should take control of their own destiny and stop being dictated to by vendors who only sell proprietary equipment. Interoperability should mean multiple vendors competing for a open interface which drives down price, makes procurement more competitive and provides long term stability to the marketplace. Proprietary systems enslave the toll authorities to products the vendors wish to sell, technology development that enhances the vendors, not the clients service offering and stymies development of other ITS services since other ITS users are also restricted to working (and paying the proprietary vendor).
2. Communications protocols and security should be enhanced to allow wider ITS applications to provide greater value to near term related services. Common communication protocols like the new 5.9 GHz support these band widths, capacities and security measures.
3. Regional Authorities, example EZPass States int eh IAG, should bound together and demand open, interoperable protocols and communications. Independent third party associations like Omniair should oversea certification to ensure that all vendors play by the same rules and not create proprietary protocols like what happen to the ISO 18006 "b" standard.
4. We should reach out to our international members and apply their experience and invested effort/time to help forge a solution with minimum re-learning and wasted effort.
5. IBTTA should continue to the forum to meet, address and resolve differences to these issues rather than just being a forum to meet and discuss them.
5. Lastly, if we can move forward on 1-5 above, then and only then should we address our solution for interoperability to FHWA, DOT, Treasury, EPA and Congress.
Tolling has started as a very low profile activity (not an industry) involving cash collection at the toll booths. At the early years it was nothing else but public authorities collecting money for the use of the road. Now days, TOLLING has emerged as an INDUSTRY of its own. And it is a big one. However, with the technological evolution the toll (money) collection is another business, which is the activity of others. Tolling agencies are of course responsible for collecting tolling fees. But why do we insist doing this work on our own?. Money collection (electronic) is now being done in a better way by others. Interoperabilty? Look elsewhere. The credit card industry is a good example. You can use your credit card anywhere in the world. The mobile telephony is another good one. You use your mobile phone anywhere in the world. Why not your tag?
ReplyDeleteI think it is us (the tolling agencies) that are talking about interoperability, but we are putting forward so many conditions that make it impossible to proceed in a unified way. We play with technology (Satellite, DSRC, 5.8 MHz, 5,9 MHz) and then we come along to become the heroes who want “integration”. If we want an area wide (or even global interoperability) we have to see the real picture. There are lots of devices that can be read by us. We read license plates also. We can read what we need so that we make sure who uses our roads and we can calculate who much they own us. But collecting from each one has also its cost. Unfortunately they are not too many people out there who are willing to GUARANTEE payment to us. And the ones that are willing to do that want to charge us a fee. But do we have a choice? Let’s start talking to them. Has anyone of us talked to Microsoft or to Google? How about talking to Master Card and Visa? How about talking to Vodafon, AT&T and the automotive industry?
I can say that we should let the “experts” in electronic money collection to come in. They collect from the thousands of or users and we collect from them. Why aren’t we doing that? Are we afraid of loosing influence? Are we afraid of having someone else stepping in? It may be. But if we continue to want to remain “independent” we will have to deal with issues of interoperability. Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Operation is our business. It appears that in a few years there will be no “free roads”. But consider the conversion of the New Jersey Turnpike into a fully Open Road Tolling Highway. E-Z Pass collects the money and the New Jersey Highway Authority operates the infrastructure. Who do we want as a member of IBTTA? Do want E-Z Pass of the NJ Turnpike Authority?
Bottom line. Interoperability can be achieved by involving others under our full support. But the Toll Road Industry ought to start dealing with the idea to let toll collection to others and to concentrate on what we do best and that is Highway Operation and Maintenance, using of course toll revenue from our users, not the taxpayers as a whole. Do I sound like a “Highways” guy? Yes, I am. Am I a Tolling business advocate? Yes, I am. And I think that all us should be advocating these ideas. Active Traffic Management, VMT, tolling, maintenance etc are all under one label that reads highway traffic “efficiency”. Let’s approach others and that by itself will be a boost to interoperability. There will be only winners here. There are no losers.
POSTING 1 OF 2 -- -- Jack Opiola, Senior Partner, D’Artagnan Consulting
ReplyDeleteThere are three major components to the "interoperability" question - technical, operational and financial. The report addresses these three factors and we should constantly keep them in mind if we are to be successful in establishing interoperability. We are at a crossroads in our industry and we have to take leadership of our destiny or others who do take control will dictate our destiny.
Technical appears to get the majority of attention, but it is the easiest to address. Toll Agencies get what they ask for, not what they concede to procure. The one writer is correct, Toll Agencies appear to kowtow to the vendors and get locked into proprietary systems that do not serve them, their customers or the market as a whole. Technology is about communications protocols and open, non-proprietary communications protocols have shown in the IT and mobile telephone market work — and work well. Unlike some pundits, it does not limit creativity but enhances creativity. Again, look at the range of mobile telephones - everything from a "smart" iPhone to a "dumb" Nokia phone exists and provides services that the user deems necessary for his/her lifestyle. Likewise common network protocols provide laptops to notebooks in the IT industry. They work because of open and non-proprietary communications protocols and security measures.
Much is presented in the report on operations or "business rules". The contracts between the users and the agencies, between the agencies to each other and agencies to the financial systems are important but controllable. We have over 20 years ETC experience now to call upon and launch a combined effort to codify and rationalize the business rules. It is tough, demanding and painstaking work - but within our means to collectively produce. This is where a professional society like the IBTTA can help collect and muster its learned members to produce guidelines and draft business rules for its members to use and adjust. I am sure the brain power, experience and knowledge exists to produce such a collective effort. I am not sure the "will" exists in the association or agencies to join together, ferret out and co-operate to produce a set of operational rules that can be distilled into a subset of key inter-operational business rules for the industry. But if it does not come from such collective efforts, domestic and international, where will it come from?
--continued to next posting
POSTING 2 OF 2 (CONTINUED) -- -- Jack Opiola, Senior Partner, D’Artagnan Consulting
ReplyDeleteLastly is the least addressed area - financial interoperability. It is many times confused or co-mingled with technical, but it is truly the essence of interoperability. As pointed out by other blog contributors on this site - it is the heart and soul of tolling and road pricing. The industry exists to provide access and services for a fee. The payment and financial efficiency of handling that payment is what the industry is about. Users in all service industries typically call for simplicity, ease of payment and choice - yet, we offer none of these in our current ETC systems. We think we "own" our users, but the time savings, price elasticity and reliability of our toll roads own our customers, not our back office systems, fancy shirts or smiling faces in toll booths. Our customers just want the reliability, time savings and ease of payment with the least complication and most direct means to pay for those benefits. Maybe it is time we offer dynamic payments with today’s available technology of contactless bank credit cards, wireless communications and rigorous security. Our “users” or “customers” have shown in other industries that they enjoy paying for services. It is time for toll agencies to act more like retail shops than another intermediary or transaction processing center that bills and complicates their lives. Let the users – regular, irregular, infrequent or occasional pay their tolls with credit or pre-paid cards through secure transponders and systems.
Certainly, Starbucks, Macy’s and countless other services have discovered that their customers enjoy the choice, freedom and simplicity of direct payment. Maybe it is time we offer interoperability across multiple toll agencies, HOT lanes and managed lanes through financial interoperability. I applaud the IBTTA efforts and all those brave agencies that decide to push interoperability. EZPass is a good first stop and has shown that there are benefits in interoperability in a Region and across State lines. Again, it is not the end, but only a good first step to wider interoperability. It is not only time we address it, but we are overdue in applying technical, operational and financial interoperability to our industry.
-- Jack Opiola, Senior Partner, D’Artagnan Consulting
While the forum produced an excellent discussion of the issues, I was very disappointed in the two conclusions. Both seem flawed. And, I also have reservations with the last statement, that IBTTA or the industry would have to invest significant resources to make interoperability happen.
ReplyDeleteNOTE: Because of the size limits for the blog, I am breaking my response down into two segments.
As pointed out by Greg Le Frois, the Sunpass-IAG Pilot Project has become complicated. Based on the requirements that IAG customers have to opt-in to take advantage of the program, the likelihood of achieving meaningful data from this effort is minimal. This type of pilot does not replicate the goals of interoperability expressed in this forum as long as it does not provide a universal opportunity for customers to travel without the requirement for active subscription beyond their normal account. And the small sample of those who do opt-in to use the pilot is not going to provide us with an understanding of what the true opportunity is for interoperability between Florida and the IAG and what the true costs are for a higher volume operation.
The other conclusion related to the long-term, however, is the more important of these two conclusions because it identifies the direction that this group apparently believes the industry needs to undertake to achieve interoperability. And, that is a more serious problem because the group clearly identified that the toll industry should "establish" a structure for nationwide seamless systems and lay the "foundation" to support a "nation VMT charging program" -- both of which have serious flaws.
First, there is no need for IBTTA or anyone else in the industry to spend time and resources developing a "nationwide seamless system" because those systems already exist within the United States. Well established nationwide systems are already in place servicing the banking, cell phone, insurance, delivery, credit card, home mortgage and utility industries (as well as many others). Why should the toll industry spend any of its precious time and resources reinventing this wheel while we should be taking advantage of existing proven national systems that have already been developed, vetted and are operating at extremely high levels of efficiency and security. Our focus should be on better understanding how to take advantage of what these existing national systems offer to us (with the current technologies we have) while moving forward to solve our the unique problems that our current technologies pose.
Secondly, when did the toll industry become the spokesman for national VMT? And, why is national VMT one of the focuses of our interoperability development - especially when there is no guarantee that national VMT will ever overcome a laundry list of very challenging political hurdles? I believe we should be developing an interoperability approach that functions for the toll industry - and, if that approach facilitates national VMT, that would be gravy.
Marty Stone
The remainder of the response is included in Segment #2.
Marty Stone Segment #2
ReplyDeleteConcerning the last statement related to the cost of interoperability, it is easy to understand someone thinking it will cost a great deal if the developmental focus includes being able to accommodate national VMT. However, if our focus is on evolving to national interoperability for the toll industry, we have already identified a low-cost first tier approach that would require virtually no costs from agencies that already employ cameras for violation enforcement that would allow us to settle transactions for customers of agencies with incompatible transponders using financial clearance and settlement networks that already exist. By beginning with that model, we are leveraging the investments made by others who already clear transactions in a very efficient and secure manner. We then have the ability to evolve that system to include violation enforcement (customer identification and collections) and, once the technology issues with transponders are eliminated (whatever that solution will be), we will be in position to easily evolve to a complete national toll interoperability system.
Why do many people within the toll industry continue to think we have to do everything ourselves? This "desert island" approach has resulted in transaction costs that are often 2-3 times above those for other industries. Maybe it is time for to take advantage of the efficiencies that have already been developed for the mainstream industries in the US.
On the positive side, EVR could certainly be a solution, but waiting for all states to adopt might take us to the next century. This goes back to the "chip-in-the-car" philosophy of OmniAir. Whether it is an electronic "sticker" on the windshield or an electronic platform in the vehicle, it must be universal to effectively provide us with national interoperability - which means the federal government has to be involved in some fashion to make this happen - and that could range from carrot-and-stick approaches to mandates - but they need to be at the table with us (and us with them).
By the way, the map of agencies and transponders should be redone. While all of the agencies in the IAG are considered "home" agencies, not all of them operate their own service centers and fulfillment operations - but they have still been included in your identification of the number of toll agencies within the IAG. You have left those similar agencies in Texas and Florida out of your identification which tends to skew those numbers down. Also, the number of transponders "sold" does not truly represent the volume of business we have as an industry. The number of active accounts, number of annual transactions and dollar volume of annual transactions would be much more representative of the size of our business. Representing our metrics correctly is important if we are to begin partnering with other industries and service organizations who need to see numbers that truly represent the size of our industry and the opportunity we present.
Marty Stone
Part 1
ReplyDeleteInteroperability is proceeding in multiple dimensions.
First, the methods used by agencies to accommodate the "cash" customer in an all-electronic environment are easily adaptable to a toll agency customer who is traveling on toll road outside of their transponder jurisdiction. These options include utilizing third parties who provide convenience store/gas station outlets that allow people to put money on their license plates, implementing so-called "grace period" toll payment methods that allow people to pay for their travel online within a certain period after travel, and extending the grace period toll functionality to offer people the option to prepay for travel. These methods attempt to replicate the interoperability that comes with cash.
Second, the third-party data aggregators such as PlatePass and Rent-A-Toll might scale up to serve individual travelers. One can envision a system where you register your vehicle with such a company and they supply the necessary data to toll agencies throughout the country. You get one bill for your travel on roads outside of your transponder jurisdiction. Better yet, the charges are deducted from your existing transponder account.
Third, toll agencies should find it their best interest to make sure that their customers can travel in other transponder jurisdictions at the lowest cost. Interoperability makes "your" customers "their" customers, keeping down the tolls and administrative fees that your customers will have to pay for travel on their roads. Interoperability thus enhances the value of an agency's transponder franchise. There must be some value to be able to say "[Name of Transponder]--It Works Everywhere in North America!" That value might even be reflected in the transponder fees charged by the issuing entities.
Fourth, the growing developer community of smartphone Apps could be a useful source of consumer-friendly applications that make it easier for people to pay for travel outside of their transponder jurisdiction. Such software would leverage the work being done in the other three dimensions. Imagine, for example, an iPhone App that pops up on your cellphone when you have traveled on a road outside of your transponder jurisdiction telling you of the charge and asking you to click here to pay.
Finally, effective capture and processing of license plate images is a key technical component of interoperability. This technology is less bound up in the intellectual property restrictions that have made interoperability on the transponder/reader side so challenging. The greater the image capture rate and the better the coordination among state DMVs with respect to supplying accurate vehicle registration information, the easier it will be for toll operators to let go of hand collection and to move to invoicing and other cash alternatives that lend themselves to interoperability.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe IBTTA can help by continuing to bring the parties working in these dimensions together and applying moral suasion to encourage them to work together for the good of our customers and the prospects for the tolling industry. There are two items that the IBTTA should consider pushing for in the upcoming transportation bill:
-- Requiring some drivers license format standardization that will assist in video capture without denying state DMVs the ability to offer vanity plates and the like--in other words, something short of national standardization of license plates but something that might incrementally improve video capture. I don't know if the technical benefits merit the political heavy lifting but they might.
-- A principle that any toll authority that offers interoperability to the customers of another toll authority must be given interoperability for its customers by that other toll authority in return. The IBTTA could help by drafting language defining what "interoperability" means and setting reasonable time frames for implementation once a toll authority makes it known that it is offering interoperability for the customers of another toll authority. Public toll agencies should be allowed to use private sector interoperability solutions so long as they meet the interoperability standard. This variation on the golden rule might speed interoperability.
A final note. Solving the interoperability puzzle will help the tolling industry be taken seriously in the transportation debates. What better way to demonstrate the capabilities of the industry than making it possible (a) for any toll agency transponder customer to be recognized as a customer on any toll facility and (b) for "cash" customers to easily access tolled facilities and pay for the privilege.
Disclaimer: These are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of my agency.
Tom Bamonte
First of all, the postings so far are as thoughtful a discourse on interoperability as I have heard anywhere - including IBTTA meetings (no offense to the meeting czars).
ReplyDeleteSecond, it is nice to see people submitting their names to their posts. While I understand why someone may wish to remain anonymous (interoperability and open standards are dirty words), unfortunately, we need people who are accountable to their convictions if we wish to move forward.
Third, with dozens of excellent posts 'above' mine, it is quite difficult to add anything new. But...
I think Dan Baxter implied what I am going to write first - that 'interoperability' is not the end-result. Assuming those interoperable systems are based on open standards, In-Op is actually the 'means' to some quite extraordinary ends. Ends such as:
1. More innovation (being able to experience and stretch a technology to new uses, rather than only being permitted to deploying the technology as per the vendor's wishes;
2. Scalability, as in freedom to apply the technology to new value-add applications that improve the B/C of the technology. Here I also include 'increased functionality', and the end of wasteful, single-use stove-pipe investments. Who can afford these anymore? Who can defend buying these anymore?
This is where I slightly disagree with the comment that the larger the scale of interoperability, the fewer the benefactors.
The exact opposite has been true for every other industry sector that adopted standards and created open interfaces! The customer won! the industry - though it operated on slightly lower margins, won! By inviting a greater variety of players to the playing field, we improve the game.
This speaks a bit to Maurizio's comment that IBTTA better lead or it will put itself at risk of being subsumed or co-opted by a more comprehensive solutions provider - some 'outsider.'
This is evolution. This is growth. This is what IBTTA is about. Its still 'tolling' isn't it?
Next, regarding that evolution, that's a key word. The industry's investments must be respected. One cannot realistically turn off a legacy (typically proprietary) system and deploy a new (hopefully standards-based) one.
But one of the contributors - in a previous conversation, not here - suggested that one way IBTTA could advance interoperability is to help the industry - who are interested, but conservative - adopt a reasonable medium-term implementation plan with a set of steps. Very simply presented here, they could include:
One - choose a technology - that would be RFID-based tolling, the most similar (to what we do now) and time-tested efficient approach to doing toll collection. The protocol would be 5.9, which in many thought-leaders minds is the protocol of choice. This endorsement would do a great deal to generate interest from the vendor community to get into the 5.9 game.
Two - with your biggest regional groups - say the IAG - draw a timeline in the sand such as "after 2015 IAG will no longer procure proprietary systems and will only place 5.9 in it's RFPs.
In one year from that statement, you would go from one company offering 5.9-based systems (Kapsch) to probably ten. Why? 20 million tags and 3,000 lanes is quite the incentive.
During those 5 years, the supposedly stubborn institutional, business and financial issues - who's gatekeepers never had a real incentive to solve - suddenly have a clear motivation to address them.
Oh, and publicize the effort because 1) IBTTA wants the credit and needs it if it wishes to play a role in its own future and 2) it is very easy to 'fail privately.'
I look forward to the next posts. And I thank you all for the education.
Well,
IBTTA - what should it do for interoperability?
This has been a facinating exchange and I am glad to see it however it seems a bit light on the actual question of what should IBTTA do? Tin began to address this in his post.
ReplyDeleteIf IBTTA were to "set the table" and invite the various US coalitions..Omni Air, E-ZPass, ATI and the unaffiliated toll operators (California etc.) to come together, I am sure that they would do so.
What would be the charge: Short term: define the minimum requirements to allow for interoperability and long term, determine what it will take for agencies to adopt interoperability.
Excellent comments. I find myself agreeing with them all in varying degrees and therein may lie one of the many challenges for interoperability. Interoperability is a great concept and benefit for many. The "industry" can develop standards and protocols but it can't enforce them. Sad to say, transportation is not a business. It is a highly political public service. Yes, people will and like to pay for services, but those same people don't like to pay that much for public services such as roads. The cost of interoperability has to be remain low and relative to the benefit it provides to the customer and the politicians. Because unlike a cell phone, a toll road that is not interoperable with an adjacent state will not lose money, but the toll system providers will. It's in their best interest to have an interoperable protocol or system that appeals to a wider market of potential users.
ReplyDeleteMarcelle Jones
I am arriving a bit late to this debate but would like to start by congratulating the host and the participants for the quality of the postings. I will post a longer first part and then a shorter one with conclusions.
ReplyDeleteMy first comment is about the very question at stake: “what should be done about interoperability of ETC in North America?” The question suggests that there is "something" to be done by "someone" about the issue; but by whom? why? as a result of what motivation?
For now, I will refrain to enter the debate about how it could be achieved, and where not to go (for we, Europeans, have seen some silly mistakes already done in other places about toll interoperability)
I. Why, by whom, as a result of what?
My view is that there are various “natural sources” of pressure for advancing interoperability. I would choose two of them as those to be taken more seriously: 1) the first one is the “historical trend towards open standards” (a subject Tim McGuckin has already very wisely touched); 2) the second might well be an increasing pressure resulting from the customers.
On top of such “natural” causes, I would elect a few “artificial” ones: 3) the incredible capacity of politicians to fill empty spaces of the social debate; 4) the very fact that interoperability is being discussed and developed elsewhere (mostly for the same reasons I am invoking here), namely within the European Union; 5) finally, I would also pick the “lateral” VMT theme, for the obvious reason that VMT requires interoperability in place.
1) Open standards: my optimistic view is that history shows that open standards always win, for the unbeatable reason of it rendering lower costs to the final user. Indeed, my view is that one of the main causes for sub-optimal operating costs in the toll industry in North America results from the sort of relations that toll operators have (not) developed with their technology providers. The emergence of open standards (regardless of their quality) would (will?) have a huge impact in the main component of operating costs in our business: that of collecting (enforcing, managing, etc.) tolls. It will not only allow for more competition – a great (the greatest?) source of efficiency –, but also for increased scale, both in favour of the customers – the toll operators and the road users. Although interoperability does not need to be achieved through a new open standard, if this would be the path, then it would bring one (first?) great positive contribution to the toll operators.
2) user pressure: I believe this will be, sooner or later, one of the most significant factors shaking the interoperability arena. Either because users might have tasted the benefits of interoperability elsewhere (look at the huge area already covered by EasyPass – providing seamless usage across different states) or because they will show increased difficulty in understanding – as many of the previous postings have already mentioned – why we cannot provide the same sort of convenience they face when using their mobile phones, just to adhere to the strongest example. Indeed, one of the notorious sources of pressure towards interoperability in Europe was the class of professional truck drivers, unwilling to fill their windshields with all sorts of tags and the corresponding lot of different monthly bills.
3) political action: interoperability, as a subject, represents a bridge to potentially increased public satisfaction, thus rendering it a nice political subject. That, in it, should suffice to ensure it will come to the agenda, regardless of its merits…
5) relation with VMT: interoperability does not imply VMT but the reverse does. In face of the present debate on the funding of transport infrastructures, it seems wise to take it seriously that VMT and their likes might represent a serious push for a given kind of interoperability.
(tbc)
In conclusion, I think there will be various and diversified sources of pressure for the interoperability debate to proceed and to develop.
ReplyDeleteHowever, regardless of the concrete developments that our industry may face in that direction, most of that pressure seems to be “external”, i.e. does not result from a generalized conviction that we need it and should fight for it. We, toll operators – from toll agencies to concessionaires – will hardly be able to built sound business cases able to endure the additional investment costs (Capex) and the increased operational costs (Opex) associated with interoperability, the former resulting from replacement or upgrading of the legacy solutions, the latter being associated with “roaming” costs and revenue assurance. With interoperable tolls in North America our customers might be better served, but someone has to pay for achieving such additional convenience.
II. What’s in it for the IBTTA?
With my second comment I will try to refrain enthusiasm about interoperability and include my opinion of what could be IBTTA’s role in advancing this cause.
The fact that the potential benefits of toll interoperability will not come without additional costs that have to be paid, brings me to a less comfortable stance: if we believe that the debate about interoperability will lead to concrete developments – being it technological, contractual, legal, political or financial –, and if the benefits to our industry are not, say, obvious, then we should act in a pre-emptive manner.
My personal belief is that, in general, leading is better than to be lead, especially in a process of change. Therefore, the IBTTA’s role in advancing universal tolling interoperability could be (should be?) one of conducting the debate, furthering the analysis, the studying and the awareness about the various components and facets of toll interoperability, never losing sight of all the consequences for the community it represents.
By conducting the debate, such as with this present blog, IBTTA is providing the best of contributions: on that may leads us, as a community, to make conscious and informed decisions.
A personal note. I drove from Illinois to Ohio and back this weekend. Having a single transponder that worked on the Illinois Tollway, Chicago Skyway, Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike made the trip smoother and more pleasant. The customer service importance of interoperability was driven home to me on my journey.
ReplyDeleteIn Indiana there is new legislation authorizing a PPP to build and operate the Illiana Expressway, a new toll road:
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2010/Jan10/011810/012110-01.htm
The legislation appears headed to Governor's desk. This is occurring just a few years after the long-term lease of the Indiana Toll Road to a private company kicked up a political firestorm in the state. I'm convinced that the upgrade of Indiana Toll Road to electronic tolling that offers regional interoperability helped turn public opinion in favor of a new toll road.
Inoperability, in other words, serves customers well and helps make tolling and toll roads more attractive to the public.
Tom Bamonte
(Views expressed are solely my own.)
I think Anonymous 1 & 2 of January 20th touched on it very nicely in their reference to some level of reform on license plate design at the state level. The ubiquitous license plate, currently used primarily for violation enforcement, does have the ability to step in as the primary means of vehicle classification and identification. With license plates already available on all vehicles, in their current form it is difficult to imagine accuracy to compete with claims made by transponder suppliers. In a communication with Peter Samuels, on a piece he did on VMT in TOLLROADSnews , I offered that l license plates are, after all, passive optical tags and we should look at ways of improving the accuracy of reading them. States currently issue license plates with any number of combinations of stacked letters, similar syntaxes to neighboring states, confusing graphics, and a very wide array of plate types. Such diversity among license plates makes the last six to ten percentage points of accuracy more difficult to achieve than is necessary when attempting to electronically read those plates. There are a few ways that new plate design could enhance the technology’s ability to have very high accuracy, one to compete with RF tags. There certainly seems to be consensus within the toll industry that an effort to affect better plate design it is a project worthy of attacking. The difficulty may very well lie in the number of individual state agencies that would have to be dealt with, along with the number of special interest groups and the value they bring via the revenue streams they provide. Customized (vanity) license plates bring in about $200,000,000 annually across the fifty states. An argument could likely be made as to what the savings to individual states would be if the plates were easier to read electronically – certainly an easy argument for states with toll roads -and there could be other cost saving benefits to the state.
ReplyDeleteThe task of getting consensus from every state on some reasonable sense of uniformity on plate design appears a big mountain to climb. Perhaps it requires federal involvement and it certainly requires the acknowledgement and weight of organization such as the IBTTA. Even if it just improves the role ALPR plays in existing toll road systems or the similar role it will play in any future VMT systems – that of violation enforcement – it is a benefit to their members.
This comment comes from Dan Faust:
ReplyDeleteWe are at a transitional period in the tolling industry, as we move from ETC and cash collection to AETC. I agree with Dave Kristick that the AETC operating environment implies interoperability, with the customer demanding multiple account options.
To date much of the debate and discussion has centered around an exchange of ideas, opinions and experiences. The views are many and in some cases contradictory. For example there are conflicting opinions within our industry regarding the accuracy and reliability of today's OCR technology. Legacy agencies in particular are skeptical, and many continue to focus on the "lost revenue" metric. As a former legacy agency chief engineer, I understand this view, however I believe it is misguided - the new focus should be on net revenue, with an emphasis on driving down operational costs. This implies a better understanding of who our customers are, how frequently they use our facilities - without this we can not provide access to our facilites for all customers, at the lowest cost.
The move toward AETC represents a unique opportunity for IBTTA to play an important leadership role. Owners need a reliable "clearing house" for information, but more importantly guidance and best practices on what it means to be interoperable. IBTTA should create such a publication, with and tangible guidance on policy, business rules, technology, etc. IBTTA is the only entity that can do this, because only IBTTA understands the need to balance such guidance against the unique and specific needs of each agency.
Final comment - I wholeheartedly agree with the comments of Marty and others regarding VMT; we should not be the spokespersons for VMT, nor should we equate VMT with true, customer-focused interoperability.
Dan Faust
The success of tolling as an alternative means to finance, operate and maintain large-scale infrastructure projects will eventually be determined by the tolling industry’s ability to offer customers a seamless toll experience no matter where they travel in North America. IBTTA should be a leader in this effort and work with other industry leaders, OmniAir, ATI, AAMVA, etc. to help our industry plan for and establish interchangeable business rules and operating procedures that establish:
ReplyDelete- Short-term interoperability: Solutions that toll authorities can utilize immediately;
- Long-term interoperability: Solutions that toll authorities can begin to plan for now and implement over a number of years;
- Universal Interoperability based on Vehicle Miles Traveled.
As an industry, we are being pressured now to establish interoperable systems, and in a very short period. Many bloggers have already hit the nail on the head recognizing that an immediate overhaul of our current systems is out of the question because of its costs and an often-contentious political playing field. Yet we are getting pressure from elected officials, our customers, and just as important, ourselves, to establish some form of interoperability. However, we cannot plan for tomorrow without planning for today.
While IBTTA has started the process of debating our options for future interoperable programs, a serious discussion of options that we can begin to implement today must be our number one concern. If we are unable to show immediate progress on our own, change will be forced on us by people who do not understand our business, customers or operating systems.
Change is coming, and we must embrace it. As Darwin put it so elegantly, “In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment.” We must ask ourselves the serious questions. Are we meeting and anticipating our customers needs ? Are we addressing the concerns of our elected officials? Are we adapting or are we preparing for extinction?
We must start identifying, discussing and working towards viable solutions to bridge the information and technology gaps that keep us in a 20th Century business model. No solution will come without its issues but we will never move forward if we fail to work towards solving our problems while planning for the next obstacle of a new technology standard, 5.9, GPS, smart phones, ect…
Bringing together great minds from different backgrounds in a ‘role up your sleeves and solve it’ atmosphere is a skill IBTTA has that few other groups can rival. IBTTA can bring to the table new talent from other industries – businesses that do not necessarily fit the toll industry mold. While we search for solutions, we will likely find new efficiencies and opportunities for growth.
IBTTA cannot get us to interoperability alone. Those of us that work everyday in the toll trenches must do the heavy lifting. We must solve these issues from the bottom up. Polling our customers, establishing working relationships with state partners (DMVs, State Patrols, governing bodies) and starting a national working group can only help. IBTTA – with the proper input - can help define a clear message for the industry. IBTTA can promote this message to federal leaders, vendors and future vendors. With IBTTA as a clearinghouse of knowledge and our industry’s voice, it must also be a neutral meeting ground while the agencies continue the footwork of planning, implementing and deploying new systems.
Change is coming. Let us begin the work today that will determine our success tomorrow.
JJ Eden
Individual tolling authorities are already interoperable if they allow a post-transaction payment such as a bill and pursue collection of these bills out-of-state, adding only reasonable fees. Missing beyond the regional level for the moment is the interoperable OBU/transponder-based transaction and a national toll account, which can allow a traveler to receive one bill from one tolling entity. I am unsure the demand on the customer side for the missing pieces is high enough to inspire action.
ReplyDeleteIf a national toll policy is needed in the future to support a new program such as VMT, creating a master interoperability agreement, which is complex for a variety of reasons, will be an initial step. The most immediate way to ensure individual tolling entities work as one may be via a requirement for mutual agreement. If this requirement comes in the form of Federal legislation, to be successful, it must come via input from the authorities or qualified delegates. The IBTTA is probably the most likely facilitator of this approach. If the legal framework allows the authorities to retain business rules that create efficiencies, removing individual preferences for non-consequential policies and staying clear of dictating the technology to be used, traction would ensue.
Economies of scale have been proven to result from using fewer back offices and should be part of a national approach. Previously, back office technology did not accommodate business rule differences when aggregating back offices, but is now readily addressable. The issue of closed tag protocols would need to be addressed with enough industry cohesion (or force of law) to change demand and subsequently supply.
This comment is from Dan Dornan.
ReplyDeleteThe fastest way to national interoperability of all toll systems in the US is for the Federal government to toll the entire Interstate System while eliminating the Federal gas tax. While controversial, this is the fastest way to refurbish the national transportation trust fund and achieve national interoperability. This is because a single tolling protocol would be required for tolling the full Interstate Highway System. While this is challenging politically, I believe it is nevertheless inevitable. This might be a VMT-based system using GPS, with a three-tier pricing system for rural, urban, and congested urban roads.
Disclaimer: These are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or conclusions of KPMG.
Dan Dornan