state-of-the-practice scan final technical memorandum i · 2019-03-26 · project 5001545 sr...

PROJECT 5001545 SR 11/OTAY MESA EAST PORT OF ENTRY ITS TECHNOLOGY PRE-DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY PHASE 1 DELIVERABLE 11-2 STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SCAN FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM I

VERSION: 3.0

FEBRUARY 2012

Project 5001545 State-of-the-Practice Scan SR 11/OME POE ITS Pre-Deployment Strategy D11-2: Final Technical Memorandum I

February 2012

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Client: SANDAG

Project Name:

SR 11/Otay Mesa East POE ITS Technology Pre-Deployment Strategy Phase 1

Report Title:

STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SCAN FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM I

Reference: 5001545

Version: 3.0 – Final Copy Submitted to Client

Digital Master:

Projectmanager.com\My Home\Documents\Projects\5001545 – ITS Predeployment Study for POE and SR 11 – Stage 1\State-of-the-Practice\Final State of the Practice Scan V3

Originator: Juan Carlos Villa (TTI)

Reviewers: Rajat Rajbhandari (TTI), Mark Jensen (CAMSYS), Don Murphy, Simon Smith, Chris Kimbrell, Victoria Campillo (all IBI Group)

Approver: Tina Casgar, SANDAG

Circulation List:

Post to www.projectmanager.com SANDAG project 5001545

Initial distribution to ITS Team Only – Week of August 7, 2011

Distribution to ITS Team & Project Managers – Week of October 23, 2011

History: 1.0 Initial Draft for Internal Review

2.0 First Draft for Client Review

3.0 Final Copy Submitted to Client

4.0 Additional Input from Client

Deliverable 11-2 State-of-the-Practice Scan final Technical Memorandum I


February 2012 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... i

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... vii

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2.1 Border Crossing Operations .............................................................................. 1 1.2.2 Tolling At Border Crossings and Beyond ......................................................... 2 1.2.3 Traffic Management and Traveler Information ................................................. 3

1.3 Emerging Technologies .......................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Emerging Technologies ..................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 International Technology Developments ........................................................... 5 1.3.3 USDOT Connected Vehicle Program (CVP) .................................................... 6

1.4 Implications and Recommendations for the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry ........... 6 1.4.1 Border Crossing Operations Implications for the OME POE ........................... 6 1.4.2 Tolling Implications for the OME POE ............................................................ 6 1.4.3 Traffic Management and Traveler Information Implications for the

OME POE ......................................................................................................... 7 1.4.4 Data Management Implications for the OME POE ........................................... 8 1.4.5 Enforcement and Inspection for the OME POE ................................................ 9

2 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 10 2.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Objectives of the Project ....................................................................................... 10 2.3 Objectives of the State-of-the-Practice Scan ........................................................ 11 2.4 Organization of the Report .................................................................................... 11

3 BORDER INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES ................. 13 3.1 USA-Bound Commercial Vehicle Crossing Process ............................................ 13

3.1.1 The Mexican Export Lot.................................................................................. 14 3.1.2 The US Federal Compound ............................................................................. 14 3.1.3 The State Safety Inspection Facility ................................................................ 14 3.1.4 Commercial Border Crossing Security Programs ........................................... 15 3.1.5 Technology Used to Screen Commercial Motor Vehicles .............................. 15

3.2 Mexico-Bound Commercial Vehicle Crossing Process ........................................ 16 3.3 US-Bound Passenger Vehicle Crossing Process................................................... 17

3.3.1 SENTRI ........................................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 NEXUS ............................................................................................................ 19

3.4 Mexico-Bound Passenger Vehicle Crossing Process ........................................... 20


February 2012 Page ii

3.5 USA-Bound Pedestrian Crossing Process ............................................................ 20 3.5.1 READY Lane .................................................................................................. 20 3.5.2 Global Entry .................................................................................................... 21

3.6 Mexico-Bound Pedestrian Crossing Process ........................................................ 22 3.7 Technology Deployed by CBP to Improve Security ............................................ 22

4 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ....... 24 4.1 Stakeholder Agencies at the California-Mexico Border ....................................... 24 4.2 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities at the Border .......................................... 26

5 TOLLING AT BORDER CROSSINGS AND BEYOND ............................... 28 5.1 Tolling at Border Crossings .................................................................................. 28

5.1.1 Binational Tolling Implementation Approaches ............................................. 28 5.1.2 Overview of Tolled Roadways Leading to and from the USA-Mexico

Border ............................................................................................................. 30 5.1.3 Methods of Toll Collection.............................................................................. 31 5.1.4 Toll Rate Determination Based on Time of Day and Congestion Levels ....... 35 5.1.5 Coordination of Toll Rates between Operators on Opposite Sides of

Border ............................................................................................................. 35 5.1.6 In-Lane and Post-Event Enforcement Strategies ............................................. 36 5.1.7 Accepted Currency for Manual Payment Facilities ......................................... 37

5.2 Congestion Pricing and User Fee Collection ........................................................ 37 5.2.1 PierPASS: Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, California ................................ 37 5.2.2 The Lee County Variable Pricing Project: Lee County, Florida ..................... 37 5.2.3 SR 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California ....................................... 38 5.2.4 Study of Potentials of Congestion Pricing at International Border

Crossings in El Paso ....................................................................................... 38 5.2.5 Central London, United Kingdom ................................................................... 39 5.2.6 Collection of User Fees for Trucks in Germany .............................................. 40

5.3 Existing and Future Technology ........................................................................... 41 5.3.1 Technology Trends for Collection of Tolls ..................................................... 41 5.3.2 Tolling Technologies and Tolling Standards Used by Cross-Border

Regional Partners ............................................................................................ 43 5.3.3 Enforcement Technologies Being Applied for Toll Payment Capture ............ 43 5.3.4 Dedicated Short-Range Communication Technologies .................................. 44 5.3.5 Assessment on Equipment Manufacturers for Tolling Applications ............... 45

6 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TRAVELER INFORMATION .............. 47 6.1 Traffic Management at and around Border Crossings .......................................... 47

6.1.1 Data Sharing and Integration with Mexican Partners ...................................... 47 6.1.2 Planned Special Events at and around Border Crossings ................................ 49 6.1.3 Real-Time Incident Management at and around Border Crossings ................ 51 6.1.4 Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ............................................. 54 6.1.5 Integration between Traffic Operations and Management Systems on

Opposite Sides of the Border .......................................................................... 56 6.2 Traveler Information at and around Border Crossings ......................................... 59


February 2012 Page iii

6.2.1 Collection of Wait Times and Crossing Times ............................................... 62 6.2.2 Use of RFID Technology ................................................................................ 62 6.2.3 Use of Bluetooth Technology .......................................................................... 63 6.2.4 Use of Truck GPS Data ................................................................................... 65 6.2.5 Use of Other Technologies’ GPS Data ............................................................ 65 6.2.6 Collection of Vehicle Volume and Queue Length .......................................... 66 6.2.7 Dissemination of Traveler Information ........................................................... 69 6.2.8 Use of Variable Message Signs at and around Border Crossings ................... 69 6.2.9 Use of Social Networking Sites, Websites, and Mobile Devices .................... 71 6.2.10 Effectiveness of Traveler Information at Border Crossings ............................ 78

6.3 Archived Data Management ................................................................................. 80 6.3.1 Use of Archived ITS Data for Border Infrastructure Planning and

Operation......................................................................................................... 80 6.3.2 Existing Sources of Archived Cross-Border ITS Data .................................... 83 6.3.3 Deployment Issues ........................................................................................... 86 6.3.4 Temporal and Spatial Granularity of Data ...................................................... 87 6.3.5 Size and Scope of ITS Data ............................................................................. 87 6.3.6 Data Filtering and Aggregation ....................................................................... 88 6.3.7 Data Storage Management ............................................................................... 88

7 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................... 90 7.1 Emerging Technologies at Other Border Crossings ............................................. 90

7.1.1 FAST – Technology Infrastructure .................................................................. 90 7.1.2 Other CBP and Federal Technologies at the Border ....................................... 91 7.1.3 Pacific Northwest International Mobility and Trade Corridor ........................ 93 7.1.4 SecureOrigins Secure Border Trade Cargo Tracking and Screening

Project (El Paso/Juarez) .................................................................................. 94 7.2 Emerging Technologies for Other Modes ............................................................. 96

7.2.1 Maritime Cargo Screening ............................................................................... 96 7.2.2 Air Cargo Screening ........................................................................................ 99

7.3 Emerging Technologies – International Developments ...................................... 101 7.3.1 Canada – Intelligent Border Crossing ........................................................... 101 7.3.2 Europe –EURIDICE Cargo Logistics and Security Monitoring System ...... 102 7.3.3 Europe – the e-Freight Initiative .................................................................... 104 7.3.4 Asia – Singapore HAZMAT Transport Vehicle Tracking System ............... 105

7.4 USDOT Connected Vehicle Program ................................................................. 106 7.4.1 Wireless Roadside Inspection (Vehicle-to-Roadside Communications) ....... 106 7.4.2 International Border Crossing E-Screening Program .................................... 108 7.4.3 Dynamic Mobility Applications and Cross-Town Improvement

Program (C-TIP) ........................................................................................... 108 7.4.4 Commercial Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (CVII) ................................. 110

8 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED CONSIDERATIONS FOR OTAY MESA EAST PROJECT .................................................................................. 112

8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 112 8.2 Application and Technology Matrices ................................................................ 112


February 2012 Page iv

8.3 Key Issues and Suggested Considerations .......................................................... 123 8.3.1 Tolling ........................................................................................................... 123 8.3.2 Traffic Management ...................................................................................... 124 8.3.3 Traveler Information ...................................................................................... 125 8.3.4 Archived Data Management .......................................................................... 125 8.3.5 Enforcement and Inspection .......................................................................... 126

9 References .......................................................................................................... 128


February 2012 Page v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 SENTRI Border Crossings at the USA-Mexico Border .......................................... 18 Table 2 Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders at the Border Crossing ........................ 26 Table 3 Toll Collection Technology at USA-Mexico Tolled Border Crossings .................. 33 Table 4 Toll Collection Technology at USA-Canada Tolled Border Crossings ................... 35 Table 5 Direction of Tolling at USA-Canada Border Crossings .......................................... 36 Table 6 Appropriateness of Transponder Protocols.............................................................. 42 Table 7 Candidate ITS Standards for the Border Wait Time Project on the

USA-Canada Border ................................................................................................ 49 Table 8 Method of Communication and Use of ITS to Inform Motorists for

Planned Special Events ............................................................................................ 50 Table 9 Roles and Responsibilities of Various Local, State, and Federal

Agencies ................................................................................................................... 51 Table 10 Method of Communication and Use of ITS to Inform Motorists for

Incident Management ............................................................................................... 52 Table 11 Use of ITS by Border Agencies for Disaster Preparedness, Response,

and Recovery ........................................................................................................... 55 Table 12 Existing and Planned Deployment of Traffic Management Centers in

Cities around Various Border Crossings.................................................................. 57 Table 13 Existing and Future Interface between Agencies in USA and Mexico

in the ITS Architecture for Individual Regions ....................................................... 59 Table 14 List of Technology Implementations to Measure Volume, Wait Times,

Crossings Times at Various Border Crossings ........................................................ 61 Table 15 Strengths and Weaknesses of Commercially Available Vehicle

Detection Technologies ........................................................................................... 68 Table 16 Deployment of DMS by Agencies for the Purpose of Relaying

Information about Border Crossings ........................................................................ 70 Table 17 Use of Social Networking Sites, Email, and Mobile Devices by

Agencies to Relay Border Crossing and Wait Times .............................................. 71 Table 18 Use of Websites by Agencies to Relay Traffic Conditions Around

Border Crossings ...................................................................................................... 73 Table 19 Use of Social Networking Sites, Email, and Mobile Devices by

Agencies ................................................................................................................... 77 Table 20 Use of Archived Border Crossing Data by Agencies .............................................. 81 Table 21 Type and Scope of Border Crossing Related Data Available from

Bureau of Transportation Statistics .......................................................................... 84 Table 22 Timeline for Electronic Advance Manifest Information ......................................... 91 Table 23 ITS Application Areas to Achieve Project Goals and Objectives ......................... 114 Table 24 Use of Broadly Categorized Technologies to Implement ITS

Application Areas in Relation to the Project ......................................................... 116 Table 25 Strengths and Weaknesses of Specific Technologies in the Context Of

the Project .............................................................................................................. 118 Table 26 Comparison of Technologies to Measure Various Border Performance

Parameters .............................................................................................................. 121 Table 27 Suggested Use of Specific Technology to ITS Application Areas ........................ 122


February 2012 Page vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 USA-Bound Commercial Vehicle Border-Crossing Process .................................. 13 Figure 2 RFID Card Reader Used in the SENTRI Program .................................................. 18 Figure 3 Global Entry Kiosk at an International Airport in the USA .................................... 22 Figure 4 Technology Implementations at USA Federal Compound at Bridge

of the Americas ........................................................................................................ 23 Figure 5 Toll Rates at Border Crossings in El Paso, Texas ................................................... 29 Figure 6 Mexican Toll Facilities Near the USA/Mexico Border ........................................... 31 Figure 7 Overview of Toll Road Arena in Mexico ................................................................ 34 Figure 8 Sample Memorandum of Agreement between USA and Canadian

Agencies for Cross-Border Incident Management .................................................. 48 Figure 9 Tijuana ITS Project – Operational Diagram ............................................................ 58 Figure 10 Installation of RFID Equipment at the Pharr-Reynosa International

Bridge ....................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 11 Monthly Variations of Average Crossing Times and Buffer Index as

Measured by the RFID System Deployed at BOTA ................................................ 63 Figure 12 Typical Portable Bluetooth Equipment Used for Travel Time

Measurement ............................................................................................................ 64 Figure 13 Snapshot of the BCMoT Website Showing Traffic Conditions

around the Peach Arch Border Crossing .................................................................. 74 Figure 14 Snapshot of the WSDOT Website Showing Traffic Conditions

around the Peach Arch Border Crossing .................................................................. 75 Figure 15 Video Snapshot of the San Ysidro Port of Entry Provided by

BorderTraffic.com ................................................................................................... 76 Figure 16 San Diego Area 511 System .................................................................................... 77 Figure 17 Planned Nationwide 511 Traveler Information System in Mexico ......................... 78 Figure 18 Proposed Centralized Repository of Archived Border-Crossing Data .................... 80 Figure 19 Snapshot of Cascade Gateway Border Data Warehouse Query

Screen ....................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 20 ElectronicEscort© Service Physical Architecture ................................................... 95 Figure 21 Relationship of Port Security Programs to International Supply

Chains ...................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 22 GE’s Concept for a Tamper Evident Security Container ........................................ 98 Figure 23 Example of a Future Port/Intermodal Security System (General

Electric) .................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 24 EURIDICE Vision of Intelligent Cargo and Value-Added Services

for Different Stakeholders ...................................................................................... 103 Figure 25 Overview of Wireless Roadside Inspection System .............................................. 107 Figure 26 Volvo’s CVII Connected Truck Concept .............................................................. 111


February 2012 Page vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials ACE Automated Cargo Environment ACE/ITDS Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System ACM Automatic Coin Machine ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ADOT/MVD Arizona Department of Transportation – Motor Vehicle Division AET All-Electronic Tolling ALPR Automatic License Plate Recognition ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Association ATI Alliance for Toll Interoperability ATIS Advanced Traveler Information Systems ATMS Advanced Traffic Management Section AVC Automatic Vehicle Classification AVI Automatic Vehicle Identification BANOBRAS Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios Públicos BCC Border Crossing Card BCMoT British Columbia Ministry of Transportation BOTA Bridge of the Americas BSIF Border Safety Inspection Facility BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics BWT Border Wait Time Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAPUFE Caminos y Puentes Federales de Ingresos y Servicios Conexos CBP Customs and Border Protection CBSA Canadian Border Security Agency CCRMA Cameron Country Regional Mobility Authority CCSP Certified Cargo Screening Program CCTV Closed Circuit Television CHP California Highway Patrol CSC Customer Service Center C-TIP Cross-Town Improvement Program C-TPAT Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism CVISN Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks DCL Dedicated Commuter Lane DHS Department of Homeland Security


February 2012 Page viii

DPS Department of Public Safety DSRC Dedicated Short-Range Communication EBTC Eastern Border Transportation Coalition EETS European Electronic Toll Service e-Manifest Electronic Manifest EMC Emergency Management Center EMS Emergency Medical Services EOC Emergency Operations Center EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPIC Expedited Processing at International Crossings EPS Electronic Payment Services EPSNIS Electronic Payment Services National Interoperability Specification E-screening Electronic Screening ETC Electronic Toll Collection EU European Union FARAC Fideicomiso de Apoyo al Rescate de Autopistas Concesionadas FAST Free and Secure Trade FCC Federal Communications Commission FDA Food and Drug Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System GSA General Services Administration GSM Global System for Mobile Communications GUTSA Gutsa Construcciones, S.A. de C.V. HAR Highway Advisory Radio HAZMAT Hazardous Material HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HOT High Occupancy Toll HOV High Occupancy Vehicle IAVE Identificación Automatica Vehicular IBC E-screening International Border Crossing Electronic Screening IBI IBI Group IBIS Interagency Border Inspection System ICA Ingenieros Civiles Asociados IMIP Instituto Municipal de Investigación y Planeación


February 2012 Page ix

IMTC International Mobility and Trade Corridor INDABIN Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales INTEGRA Integra Corporation of Mexico ISM Industrial, Scientific, and Medical ISO International Organization for Standardization IAG E-ZPass Interagency Group ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers ITS Intelligent Transportation System IVAG Imperial Valley Association of Governments MAC Media Access Control MAGs Installed Digital Magnetometers MARHNOS Marhnos Engineering and Construction MCES Motor Carrier Efficiency Study MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation MDT Montana Department of Transportation MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTO Ministry of Transportation of Ontario NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NB Northbound NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NFBC Niagara Falls Bridge Commission NITTEC Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition NMBA New Mexico Border Authority NMDOT New Mexico Department of Transportation NTCIP National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol NYDOT New York State Department of Transportation NYSTA New York State Thruway Authority OBE On-Board Equipment OBU On-Board Unit OCACSA Operación y Conservación de Autopistas Concesionadas OCR Optical Character Recognition OME Otay Mesa East ORT Open Road Tolling OVC Overview Camera PDN-RMIS Paso Del Norte Regional Mobility Information System POE Port of Entry PSE Planned Special Event QC Query Central


February 2012 Page x

QNA QinetiQ North America QWS Queue Warning System REPUVE Registro Público Vehicular RF Radio Frequency RFID Radio Frequency Identification RFP Request for Proposal RSS Real Simple Syndicate RTMS Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SB Southbound SCT Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes SDMS Short Data Message Set SENTRI Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection SIMEX SIMEX Integración de Sistemas, S.A. SNS Social Networking Site SOA Service Oriented Architecture SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle SWIM Slow Weigh-in-Motion TC Transport Canada TDMA Time Division Multiple Access TG Turnpike Global THALES THALES Group TMC Traffic Management Center TMDD Traffic Management Data Dictionary TOC Traffic Operation Center TRMI TRMI Systems Integration TSA Transportation Safety Administration TTA Texas Toll Authority TTI Texas Transportation Institute TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation USA United States USDOT United States Department of Transportation V2I Vehicle-to-Infrastructure V2R Vehicle-to-Roadside V2V Vehicle-to-Vehicle VES Violation Enforcement System VHF Very High Frequency VMS Variable Message Sign


February 2012 Page xi

VWI Vehicle Waveform Identification WCOG Whatcom Council of Governments WebEOC Web-Based Emergency Operations Center WHTI Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative WIM Weigh-In-Motion WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation XML Extensible Markup Language


February 2012 Page 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 BACKGROUND

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and with cooperation from other federal, state, and binational agencies, intends to develop a new border crossing known as the Otay Mesa East (OME) Port of Entry (POE) to be located east of the existing Otay Mesa border crossing.

Goals of this new border crossing include reducing delays caused by traffic congestion, better accommodating projected trade and travel demand, and increasing economic growth and job opportunities on both sides of the border without sacrificing border safety and security. The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSs) and other technologies is one way in which capacity at the border crossings could be increased and also enhanced to improve the coordination between stakeholders on both sides of the border.

The major focus of the project is to create a clean, green, and smart border crossing. Cross-border traffic will have incentives to use the OME tolled crossing due to the fact that it will provide shorter and more reliable wait times. Shorter wait times will also reduce emissions by preventing extended idling of vehicles waiting to cross the border.

The purpose of the State-of-the-Practice Scan is to familiarize the team with state-of-the-practice for binational tolling projects and relevant technologies, as well as the institutional arrangements for such projects. This task supports and advances the partnership planning approach and the partners’ knowledge about binational tolled crossings. Part of this report focuses on Mexican experiences and specific project elements in Mexico that will need to interface with the OME POE project.

This section of the report presents a series of key findings for each of the different aspects of border crossing ITS and technology, as well as implications and recommendations for the OME POE. More detailed discussions on implications are provided in Chapter 7 of this document.

1.2 KEY FINDINGS

1.2.1 Border Crossing Operations

The commercial border crossing process at land ports of entry involves many stakeholders from the USA and Mexico, from Federal, State and local government agencies, as well as private sector stakeholders. Sometimes the objectives of these stakeholders are not aligned thus creating congestion and delays.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the main stakeholder as it is required to perform security inspections to passenger and commercial vehicles. CBP performs two crucial roles in facilitating trade to and from the USA and around the globe: securing the USA from acts of terrorism and assuring that goods being imported into the USA are legitimate with appropriate duties and fees paid.

Trusted-traveler programs such as Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) have been implemented at land POEs. FAST offers expedited clearance to carriers that have demonstrated supply



chain security and are enrolled in the Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism (C-TPAT), and SENTRI provides expedited CBP processing for pre-approved, low-risk travelers at the USA-Mexico border.

CBP is currently using several technologies to aid its mission. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), FAST, and SENTRI programs use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) enabled travel documents and windshield tags on vehicles.

1.2.2 Tolling At Border Crossings and Beyond

Tolling at Border Crossings

In the next several years, at least five new land border crossings are scheduled to open along the USA-Mexico border and will be potentially implementing toll systems.

USA and Mexico authorities need to better coordinate the complexities that a new crossing involves.

Although there have been preliminary discussions, there are no interoperability or enforcement agreements between USA and Mexican tolling agencies.

Of the 46 USA-Mexico border crossings, only 21 collect tolls and are mostly located in the State of Texas.

Congestion Pricing and User Fee Collection

There are no pricing schemes in place at the USA-Mexico or the USA-Canada borders to adjust tolls based on congestion levels.

Although there is a coordination of toll rates between the USA and Canada operators, interviews indicated that there is no coordination of toll rates between USA and Mexican operators.

The PierPASS system implemented at the Los Angeles/Long Beach harbors has shown that a congestion pricing mechanism can work to effectively reduce peak period trips in a maritime port setting.

Evidence suggests that the Lee County Variable Pricing Project (Florida) regime has had the desired effect of shifting significant amounts of traffic out of peak travel times. Additionally, a study performed by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) in 2007 about congestion pricing at international border crossings in El Paso, concluded that given the resource constraints of the agencies involved in managing the area’s border crossings, it is likely that the most feasible option will be the implementation of a variable pricing regime.



Existing Tolling and Future Technology

For the non-satellite-based toll collection systems, the most predominant technology is RFID and specifically Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC). These systems are well established, reliable, and enforceable.

In the European Union (EU), there are several tolling systems that are currently being used. The most common time-based system the “Eurovignette” appears feasible for implementation along the Canada-USA-Mexico borders. The Eurovignette is a vignette or sticker based on an agreement between several EU Member States that gives access to the road network on each other’s territory.

Germany has implemented distance-based toll for all trucks of 12 tons gross vehicle weight and above. The toll system is capable of calculating and collecting road use charges based on the distance traveled using a global navigation satellite system. This system has no application at land ports of entry.

Although the Violation Enforcement System (VES) is widely used, there are still some shortcomings to resolve before deciding to implement this technology in border crossing regions. Shortcomings include, but are not limited to, poor image resolution, blurry images, poor lighting and low contrast due to overexposure, different plate styles, and fonts to be read.

A popular application for 5.9 GHz spectrum in the tolling industry is DSRC. However, interviews with selected border-crossing operators indicated that there are no concrete plans in the near future to implement 5.9 GHz DSRC technology.

Other short-range communication solutions for tolling applications are: the TechnoCom’s Mobility Solutions, the eGo sticker tags and Encompass® reader, and OTTO on BoardSM.

1.2.3 Traffic Management and Traveler Information

Traffic Management at and around Border Crossings

Interviews with USA-Mexico officials revealed that sharing of real-time traffic management data and ITS usage between agencies from both sides of the USA-Mexico border is limited compared to USA-Canada counterparts.

Interviews also revealed that, in the absence of Traffic Management Centers (TMCs), communication between agencies on both sides of the border is limited to methods such as radio and mobile phones.

Special events at and around border crossings (e.g., concerts, cultural and sporting events, major holidays) are planned ahead using ad-hoc meetings between agencies of all levels. Each agency lays out its subsequent roles according to its jurisdictions to assist traffic management during the event.



Compared to agencies on the USA-Canada border, their counterparts on the USA-Mexico border have deployed ITS only to a very limited degree with the specific purpose of incident management around border crossings.

Despite the need to share information in real time between agencies in Mexico and the USA, none of the agencies have developed such a system.

Even though sister city agreements allow agencies on both sides of the border to utilize communication to share information while planning, responding, and managing hazardous incidents in real time, such systems have not been developed due to lack of funds.

Traveler Information at and around Border Crossings

CBP and the Canadian Border Security Agency (CBSA) measure border wait times and share the information in the public domain. However, accuracy of such wait times is often questioned by the stakeholders. FHWA and other state agencies have implemented several projects in Texas with capabilities to measure commercial vehicle wait times and crossing times accurately and reliably. FHWA is in the process of releasing several documents that would benefit other agencies to deploy similar systems.

Bluetooth technology seems to be a viable technology for measuring border crossing and wait times of passenger vehicles. This technology is being implemented along the USA-Canada border and has been recently tested in a USA-Mexico POE.

The use of technologies such as smart phones, radar traffic sensors, and vehicle waveform identification, has shown improvements in collection of wait and crossing times.

Predominant sources of traffic information are still television and radio, even though Internet and mobile devices have become much more ubiquitous and pervasive.

Social networking sites are potential tools for traveler information. With the amount of time that most drivers spend behind the wheel increasing, along with traffic congestion, social networking has recently been tested and will inevitably find its way into vehicles.

For many users, the best strategy has been to allocate extra time to cross the border based on past experience and historical occurrences of delay. This extra time has a direct correlation with reliability of the wait time information received by the users.

Archived Data Management

A centralized repository of archived data would significantly reduce data redundancy; reduce data collection and storage cost, and increase efficiency of data retrieval.

CBP’s need for highly granular border crossing data is higher than other state and local agencies. In addition, local agencies need information such as queue lengths, wait times, and crossing times. This information is normally obtained by a short period of data collection at the border.



A major problem in data storage management is the reluctance in purging data due to fear of losing it. Maintaining aggregated data in the core database and archiving and compressing raw data outside of the database should help. Users can still retrieve the raw data whenever necessary. Undoubtedly there will be added cost to do this. In addition, it is advisable to move the archived and compressed raw data out of the core database and store it separately, which will also make the database more efficient.

1.3 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

1.3.1 Emerging Technologies

Vehicles equipped with FAST windshield tags are expedited through border crossings, helping agents target a smaller pool of potentially high-risk vehicles for closer inspection. In practice, there are still some infrastructure changes that are required at land POEs to improve the efficiency of the system.

The border crossing card and Laser Visa have expedited the process of driver identification and hence customs clearance.

Results of modeling the Pacific Northwest International Mobility and Trade Corridor (IMTC) show that there is a need for more uniformity in transponder interoperability to preclude motor carriers from having to equip their vehicles with several transponders.

Through the SecureOrigins program, intelligent alerts known as LiveLogistics™ have the advantage of: ensuring authorized route adherence of mobile assets or cargo; monitoring critical conditions such as temperature, leakages, and truck speed; and reducing shrinkage and prevention of cargo contamination.

The most popular technologies for maritime and air cargo screening is: Radiation Portal Monitors (RPM), Intelligent Video Systems, Crane Mounted Sensors, and RFI. Standard operational methods such as canine olfaction are still widely used in several ports of entry.

1.3.2 International Technology Developments

Canada – The innovative Intelligent Border Crossing (IBC) project is an excellent example of state-of-the-art ITS technology application to enhance the security and capacity of the various land border crossings.

Europe – the EURIDICE Cargo Logistics and Security Monitoring System represents a visionary cargo service to ease real-time transport monitoring and secure cargo’s integrity while on the move.

Europe – the e-Freight Initiative constitutes a lead in the future to intelligent cargo, meaning that goods will become self-contextual and location-aware, automating further the transportation management process.

Asia – The Singapore HAZMAT Transport Vehicle Tracking System is a very sophisticated tracking system that allows officials at the SCDF headquarters control room to monitor the truck’s location and movement in real time. The system has shown



excellent results for allowing or denying vehicle accessibility and monitoring vehicle speed.

1.3.3 USDOT Connected Vehicle Program (CVP)

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) CVP has been considered as a key building block for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) objective of significantly expanding the number of inspections that are conducted each year and the base of data on which to make performance-based enforcement decisions.

The Wireless Roadside Inspection (WRI) is an emerging technology used in the USA that has been tested with outstanding results for examining the condition of the vehicle and driver by assessing data collected by on-board systems.

Other emerging technologies that have the potential to be implemented at the border crossings in the near future included: the Dynamic Mobility Applications and Cross-Town Improvement Program (for freight information) and the Commercial Vehicle Infrastructure Integration.

1.4 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE OTAY MESA EAST PORT OF

ENTRY

1.4.1 Border Crossing Operations Implications for the OME POE

Policy

It is important to engage all stakeholders (USA, Mexico, public and private sectors) throughout the process of the OME POE design. CBP is a key stakeholder that drives the operation of the POE, hence input and coordination with this agency is crucial.

Technical

Infrastructure and layout design within the POE and the serving road network should take into account all current and future security and safety programs, such as FAST, SENTRI and WHTI. Infrastructure design should be developed binationally, working closely with Mexican counterparts.

1.4.2 Tolling Implications for the OME POE

Policy

Congestion pricing is certainly one of the goals of the project, but pricing based on different time of the day should be determined by monitoring probable traffic demand. However, it is crucial to recognize the fact that dynamic pricing requires more sophisticated technology deployment (vehicle counters, OBUs, etc.) than variable pricing. In addition, commercial carriers and shippers from Mexico do not prefer dynamic pricing since it does not assist them with planning which POE/route to take.



Even though there is no such previous experience at POE’s, the implementation of a binational unified toll-collection revenue distribution system could be implemented at the OME POE.

Technical

Transponders, if distributed by different agencies, should be compatible with the equipment that will be deployed to identify them on both sides of the border.

Enforcement of toll violators is a big challenge since USA agencies do not have access to Mexican driver and registration databases, and vice versa.

The feasibility should be explored of using prepaid transponders or charge cards for drivers who do not wish to open credit card accounts for the toll charges.

Neology tags, following G6 protocol, are only being placed on new cars for vehicle registration purposes. However, multi-protocol readers are available to read both Title 21 and G6 tags. The other issue is because older cars are more prevalent in the border region, deployment of dual protocol readers may not help with Day 1 of OME operation, but may benefit in the long run. Also, SANDAG may be obliged to distribute Title 21 tags only. In any case, commercial freight operators prefer Mexican tags because of tax incentives.

1.4.3 Traffic Management and Traveler Information Implications for the OME POE

Policy

Traffic management around border crossings becomes even more difficult to manage during major incidents. ITS technology already deployed at border regions, represents an opportunity to develop active traffic management and reduce congestion at tolling booths.

Major incidents such as closure of several lanes at the proximity of toll booths and border crossings will require multi-agency coordination to reduce clearance time.

Sharing of data and information in real time using a unified situation management system should be a key component of coordination between the binational agencies.

Due diligence for providing traveler information via mobile devices should be performed, since agencies must be careful not to encourage texting while driving. Public agencies should not appear to encourage texting while driving and at the same time provide traveler information via mobile devices.

There are numerous traveler information systems in place at the USA-Canada border. However, studies and documentations indicating their effectiveness are limited. A more comprehensive approach to designing and implementing a traveler information system is recommended for OME. Such an approach requires focus group studies as to what/where/how the information should be relayed.



Design of traveler information should be cognizant of the fact that commercial freight carriers and shippers have to mention the port code they will be crossing while submitting the electronic manifest to CBP. Consequently, the border crossing cannot be changed en-route. Passenger vehicles do not have such restrictions.

An obvious recommendation for OME is that the level of traveler information available (e.g., scope, frequency, reliability) should be the same for all four local border crossings. This will allow users to make informed decisions on which border crossing to choose. It is undesirable to have traveler information available for OME and not have any for other border crossings.

Technical

Real-time sharing of traveler information between binational agencies is essential and allows travelers coming from Mexico to find out traffic conditions on the USA side, and vice versa.

Translation and interpretation protocols of the Traffic Management Data Dictionary (TMDD) should be agreed upon so that the agency in the USA can understand messages from Mexico and vice versa.

Even though there is currently a diversification of communication technology, traditional media (television and radio) and the Internet are more effective in relaying traffic conditions to motorists who are planning to take the trip across the border.

1.4.4 Data Management Implications for the OME POE

Policy

The need for archiving border crossing related data emanating from different ITS components should not be secondary for OME, since archived data has numerous applications required for operating and maintaining an efficient border crossing.

The literature review and discussion with state DOTs/cities/MPOs indicated that acquiring and maintaining human resources for creating and maintaining archived ITS data is challenging but should not be a deterrent.

OME should have policies and procedures in place for archiving and sharing data with outside agencies including ones in Mexico. Hence, OME should include a system to share and transmit data with external agencies in non-proprietary or agreed-upon format. TMDD could be one such format since this is widely used in the USA and Mexico has developed one in Spanish.

OME should include a centralized repository of archived border crossing data, or at least one repository on each side of the border. Both repositories should follow the same agreed upon guidelines and standards. A centralized data repository will significantly reduce data collection and processing costs, and provide consistent/reliable data to users such as planners and decision makers.



Technical

Designs of archived data for OME should ensure that data archives in Mexico and in the USA are compatible and consistently maintained. Meaning, it is preferable that data archives in both countries follow similar standards, guidelines, quality, and reliability.

Unfortunately, there are no commercial software applications that can easily integrate the wide variety of field ITS data without needing customization.

1.4.5 Enforcement and Inspection for the OME POE

Policy

The recent interest among border crossing stakeholders regarding the implementation of separate lanes for trucks has to be reviewed since most of the older border crossings were not designed with such considerations and hence are suffering from overcapacity and long wait times.

To avoid undesirable results based on past experiences, special emphasis should be placed in separation of lanes for different vehicles types in the OME POE planning stage.

Dynamic allocation of FAST and non-FAST lanes using ITS to maximize the usage of different vehicle types lanes should be explored.

The OME POE will greatly benefit from implementing an e-screening vehicle safety program, hence should closely monitor development and outcome of the FMCSA project.



2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 BACKGROUND

Cross-border transportation is an important element of the nation’s transportation system. In 2010, more than 92 million personal vehicles entered the USA – 28.8 million from Canada and 64.0 million from Mexico (1). Canada and Mexico are the first and third largest USA trading partners, respectively. In 2010, more than 10.1 million commercial vehicles crossed into the USA at both the northern and southern borders, handling trade valued at more than $964 billion. USA merchandise trade with Canada and Mexico rose by 53.2 percent in the five years between 2003 and 2010 (2), and growth is expected to continue as the economy recovers.

The San Diego region has several major crossings on the USA-Mexico border. San Ysidro is the busiest border crossing in terms of annual passenger vehicle crossings, and Otay Mesa is the second busiest border crossing in terms of commercial vehicles. Wait times at both border crossings easily extend to several hours on a typical day. Hence, the San Diego Association of Governments, in partnership with the California Department of Transportation and with cooperation from other federal, state, and binational agencies, intends to develop the OME new border crossing east of the existing Otay Mesa border crossing.

Goals of this new border crossing include: reducing delays caused by traffic congestion, better accommodating projected trade and travel demand, and increasing economic growth and job opportunities on both sides of the border without sacrificing border safety and security. The use of ITS and other technologies is one way in which capacity at the border crossings could be increased and also enhanced to improve the coordination between stakeholders on both sides of the border.

2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

The major focus of the project is to create a clean, green, and smart border crossing. Cross-border traffic will have incentives to use the OME tolled crossing due to the fact that it will provide shorter and more reliable wait times. Shorter wait times will also reduce emissions by preventing extended idling of vehicles waiting to cross the border.

SANDAG and Caltrans are pursuing multiple objectives with the new border crossing, including building additional physical capacity at the border, maximizing the efficiency of the new facility by using state-of-the-art ITS technologies and innovative operating concepts, and financing the facility development predominantly as a self-help project.

The construction of the new border crossing will be funded through tolls and other innovative financing tools by introducing a toll pricing model at the border that is based on wait/crossing time and focused on congestion management and emissions reduction at the border. The border crossing will be developed as a national model for public/private partnering, and it will exemplify both environmental and economic stewardship.

SANDAG was awarded Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding to create an ITS predeployment strategy that will evaluate ITS technologies to facilitate the creation of a binational concept of operations, including technology options to enable variable toll rates, advanced traveler information, state-of-the-art toll-collection technologies, and new institutional relationships to accelerate and optimize deployment.



One of the key pre-implementation tasks was to incorporate findings from earlier USA, Mexican, Canadian, and international cross-border studies that could potentially assist SANDAG in designing and deploying ITSs at the new POE.

2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SCAN

The purpose of this Scan was to familiarize the team with state-of-the-practice for binational tolling projects and relevant technologies and institutional arrangements for such projects. This task supports and advances the partnership planning approach and the partners’ knowledge about binational tolled crossings. Part of the Scan focuses on Mexican experiences and specific project elements in Mexico that will need to interface with the SR 11/OME POE project.

More specifically, the objective of this task was to conduct an assessment of the use of current and future ITS technologies and operational concepts at and near USA land border crossings. The scan focuses on current practices related to vehicle and pedestrian screening, tolling, traffic management, traveler information, and archived data management. The task also scanned existing and future technologies that have bearing on the operation of tolled crossings and related subject matter. Other objectives included:

Identifying the usage of ITSs and other technology by federal, state, and local governments and other entities in border regions, as well as any coordination between agencies.

Documenting how updates to technology or its obsolescence could be handled.

Documenting appropriate agencies/entities to operate and maintain operations on both sides of the border, and identifying potential funding sources and models.

Researching, assessing, and documenting barriers to technology adoption in border regions.

In order to reach the objective, the initial task was to conduct a scanning assessment of ITS technologies with a primary focus on the USA-Mexico border, extending also to the United States-Canada (USA-Canada) border. The approach to document the state-of-the-practice and future developments and concepts of ITS at the border included a thorough literature review of documentation from the USA, as well as other countries, and communication with subject matter experts within the consultant, SANDAG, and other stakeholder agencies.

2.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This report is organized into eight chapters with specific focus on different aspects of state-of-the-practice at border crossings.

Chapter 1 is an Executive Summary of the report and focuses on key findings of the state-of-the-practice scan as well as implications and recommendations for the OME POE.

Chapter 2 (this chapter) describes overall goals and objectives of the project itself as well as the purpose of the state-of-the-practice scan.



Chapter 3 presents a detailed description of the border-crossing process in general and in the state of California. Programs and technologies already in place for inspection of commercial vehicles, passenger vehicles, and pedestrians are described.

Chapter 4 describes stakeholders that operate at the Otay Mesa POE and also their individual roles and responsibilities.

Chapter 5 describes tolling and includes ITS transaction processing (interoperability, charging, and collections) and electronic tolling operations (e.g., account management and customer service). The final topic under tolling is the use and planning of ITS technology at border crossings as well as on the highway network. Examples of innovative tolling techniques beyond the USA are also included.

Chapter 6 describes the state-of-the-practice related to management of traffic around border crossings, screening of commercial vehicles for safety and enforcement, practices related to providing wait time and crossing time information, and management of archived data for planning and performance measurement. The chapter also includes descriptions of ITS projects being undertaken by the Mexican government at the USA-Mexico border.

Chapter 7 describes emerging technologies and programs being developed by federal and state agencies that have potential for improving the cross-border flow of freight.

Chapter 8 provides conclusions drawn from the study regarding current state-of-the-practice at border crossings throughout the USA. Based on these conclusions, several suggestions and key considerations have been included that will assist in achieving overall goals and objectives of the OME POE. These key issues and suggestions will greatly assist subsequent ITS design and deployment activities at the border crossing.



3 BORDER INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES

3.1 USA-BOUND COMMERCIAL VEHICLE CROSSING PROCESS

The original trucking provisions under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) regarding opening the USA border to Mexican trucks were designed to improve transportation efficiency by enabling more seamless cross-border trucking operations. Currently, Mexican tractors are restricted to circulation in a narrow commercial zone extending out to 25 miles from the border (or up to 75 miles in Arizona). Therefore, Mexican truck shipments into the USA are required to use a drayage or transfer tractor that picks up a trailer on the Mexican side of the border and then hauls it into the USA, where it is dropped off to a USA long-haul tractor that can carry the trailer into USA territory.

The typical northbound border-crossing process requires a shipper in Mexico to share shipment data with both Mexican and USA federal agencies, prepare both paper and electronic forms, and use a drayage or transfer tractor to move the goods from one country to the other. Once the shipment is at the border with the drayage or transfer tractor and an authorized driver, the process flows through three main potential physical inspection areas: Mexican export lot, USA federal compound, and/or USA state safety inspection facility. A description of the main activities that take place in the USA-bound border-crossing process of commercial vehicles is illustrated in Figure 1 and presented in the following sections.

Figure 1 USA-Bound Commercial Vehicle Border-Crossing Process



3.1.1 The Mexican Export Lot

A drayage driver with the required documentation proceeds into the Mexican Customs (Aduanas) compound. For audit and interdiction purposes, the Mexican Customs Agency conducts inspections consisting of a physical review of the cargo of randomly selected outbound freight prior to its export. Shipments that are not selected proceed to the exit gate, cross the border, and continue on to the USA POE.

There are several international crossings along the USA-Mexico border that are tolled. Tolls are collected in Mexico for northbound traffic and in the USA for southbound traffic. Toll collection is manual (cash) and electronic. All of the crossings along the Texas-Mexico border are bridges that cross the Rio Grande River, and most of them are tolled. Before crossing into the USA, commercial vehicles pay tolls and proceed to the USA Federal Compound.

3.1.2 The USA Federal Compound

At the primary inspection booth, the driver of the truck presents identification and shipment documentation to the processing agent. The CBP inspector at the primary inspection booth uses a computer terminal to cross-check the basic information about the driver, vehicle, and cargo with information sent previously by the carrier via the CBP’s Automated Cargo Environment (ACE) electronic manifest (e-Manifest). The CBP inspector then makes a decision to refer the truck, driver, or cargo for a more detailed secondary inspection of any or all of these elements, or alternatively releases the truck to the exit gate.

The e-Manifest is electronically submitted by motor carriers and enables CBP to pre-screen the crew, conveyance, equipment, and shipment information before the truck arrives at the border. This allows CBP to focus its efforts and inspections on high-risk commerce and to minimize unnecessary delays for low-risk commerce.

A secondary inspection includes any inspection that the driver, freight, or conveyance undergoes between the primary inspection and the exit gate of the USA Federal Compound. Personnel from CBP usually conduct these inspections, which can be done by physically inspecting the conveyance and the cargo or by using non-intrusive inspection equipment (such as x-rays). Within the compound, the USDOT, FMCSA, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have personnel and facilities to perform other inspections when required. A vehicle audit may take place at the Federal Compound or the State Safety Inspection Facility depending on practice.

CBP has specific responsibilities for inspecting hazardous material (HAZMAT) as it enters the USA from Mexico. CBP is authorized and responsible for cleaning up and reporting HAZMAT incidents in the legally defined port area. Due to the reporting responsibilities, CBP acts much like a fire, police, or sheriff department. This dual responsibility creates a specific HAZMAT vulnerability because CBP has a significant amount of responsibilities in the complex port movement; CBP personnel receive basic levels of training; and CBP has a limited amount of response equipment and infrastructure, as well as limited space and other resources to respond to a spill or incident. Because of this, the CBP may not immediately notify the appropriate HAZMAT response team from the nearby city or county.

3.1.3 The State Safety Inspection Facility

In the majority of land border crossings, state safety inspection facilities are located adjacent to the federal compound. State police inspect conveyances to determine whether they are in compliance with USA safety standards and regulations. If their initial visual inspection finds any



violation, they direct the truck to proceed to a more detailed inspection at a special facility. After leaving the state safety inspection facility, the driver typically goes to the freight forwarder or customs broker yard to drop off the trailer for later pickup by a long-haul tractor bound for the final destination.

3.1.4 Commercial Border Crossing Security Programs

The FAST program is in operation at most of the major land border crossings. Its objective is to offer expedited clearance to carriers that have demonstrated supply chain security and are enrolled in the Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism program. The FAST program allows USA-Canada and USA-Mexico partnering importers expedited release for qualifying commercial shipments (3). For a shipment to be considered a “FAST shipment,” it needs to comply with very specific regulations. The shipper in Mexico, the carrier that is transporting the cargo across the border and the driver all have to be C-TPAT certified.

The time required for a typical Mexican export shipment to make the trip from the yard, the distribution center, or the manufacturing plant in Mexico to the exit of the State Safety Inspection Facility depends on the number of secondary inspections required, number of inspection booths in service, traffic volume at that specific time of day, and whether the shipment is eligible for FAST.

3.1.5 Technology Used to Screen Commercial Motor Vehicles

Several states bordering Mexico and Canada are implementing technologies to increase efficiency at border crossings. The Arizona Department of Transportation – Motor Vehicle Division (ADOT/MVD) and the FHWA implemented a project at the Nogales POE in 1998 called Expedited Processing at International Crossings (EPIC), which combined proven ITS technologies to expedite processing, compliance monitoring, and traffic management. The ITS features included the Slow Weigh-in-Motion (SWIM) system, closed circuit television (CCTV) monitoring, automatic vehicle identification (AVI), variable message signs (VMSs), digital imaging equipment, future installation of thermal imaging for safety-related issues, and USDOT number readers sending data to the database system for storage and integration of information from all of the technologies, communications system, and ancillary equipment. EPIC also provided a means to access and update information from motor carrier services records. Currently, the ADOT is coordinating the implementation of EPIC III with the commercial border crossing and wait time projects.

In Texas, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and, in California, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) operates the border safety inspection facilities (BSIFs). DPS, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), is implementing a RFID-based system to monitor inspection times inside the BSIFs and also to identify carriers that should not bypass the inspection process based on their safety records. The system is similar to the FAST system, but it is based on information from the carrier’s safety records. This system is being implemented at the Bridge of the Americas (BOTA) in El Paso and is not fully deployed yet.

The BSIFs in Texas and California have weigh-in-motion systems that identify overweight vehicles as they enter the vehicle safety inspection stations. Commercial vehicle weight regulations in Mexico and Canada are different from those in the USA. Rules and regulations for the two US NAFTA trading partners allow for heavier trucks. Therefore, it is important to verify that trucks coming into the USA comply with local standards.



The FMCSA is currently investigating freight electronic screening (E-screening) via wireless inspection that enables more efficient operations at border crossings under the Motor Carrier Efficiency Study (MCES) program. The International Border Crossing Electronic Screening System (IBC E-Screening) for trucks and buses is a planned alert-based system that expedites the safe and legal flow of freight and passengers across northern and southern USA borders while targeting unsafe operations by wirelessly obtaining commercial vehicle information and verifying compliance with relevant requirements during the border-crossing process.

The IBC E-Screening system will leverage FMCSA’s investment in the Query Central (QC) and CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS) to provide an automated, data-driven approach to the selection of vehicles for inspection at the northern and southern borders. The system will enable uniform and consistent application of policies and procedures related to safety and compliance assurance of cross-border commercial traffic.

The goal of the FMCSA project is to test technologies at four international land border crossings. The objectives of the IBC E-Screening project that FMCSA is launching are to reduce the potential for large truck collisions by designing, developing performance specifications, testing, and evaluating the IBC E-Screening system that will:

Electronically identify the carrier, truck, trailer, and driver associated with commercial truck trips entering the USA at land ports, using the RFID transponders that are already on 90 percent of the trucks entering the USA from Mexico and Canada.

Electronically screen each component of that trip for factors of interest to state and FMCSA inspectors, providing for full safety and compliance verification of carriers, trucks, trailers, and drivers, each time they enter the USA.

Display the screening results to state and FMCSA enforcement officers and inspectors to assist them in making more informed inspection selection decisions in fixed and mobile operations, and mainline and ramp settings, significantly increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations.

Enable data monitoring/reporting by states and FMCSA to better position each organization to fulfill its mission.

3.2 MEXICO-BOUND COMMERCIAL VEHICLE CROSSING PROCESS

The southbound commercial vehicle crossing process has only one inspection station by the Mexican Customs Agency. The process in Mexico is a red light/green light decision in which a loaded commercial vehicle is randomly selected for a secondary inspection if it gets a red light. Empty vehicles cross with no need to stop at the Mexican Customs booths. The Mexican Customs Agency uses Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) technology to measure the weight of commercial vehicles at the POE to make red light/green light decisions.

Recently, CBP has started to perform random manual inspections on the USA side of the border for commercial vehicles crossing into Mexico, aiming to identify illegal shipments of money and weapons. The border crossings are not designed for southbound commercial inspections on the USA side of the border, and consequently this has created congestion.



3.3 US-BOUND PASSENGER VEHICLE CROSSING PROCESS

On the Mexican side of the border, passenger vehicles are required to pay tolls at those crossings that have tolls, usually the international bridges. Tolls are paid manually or via electronic collection systems. Once passenger vehicles pay the toll, if necessary, they proceed to the USA Federal Compound where passenger vehicles go through primary and sometimes secondary inspections. At the primary inspection booths, CBP officers must ask the individuals who want to enter the country to show proper documentation, such as proof of citizenship, and state the purpose of their visit to the USA. Additionally, during this stage of the process, a query on the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) is executed to review the past records of violations that the traveler(s) may have. If necessary, the vehicle is sent to secondary inspection.

At the primary inspection booth, license plate readers and computers perform queries of the vehicles against law enforcement databases that are continuously updated. A combination of electric gates, tire shredders, traffic control lights, fixed iron bollards, and pop-up pneumatic bollards ensure physical control of the travelers and their vehicles.

At the secondary inspection station, a more thorough investigation is performed concerning the identity of an individual and the purpose of his/her visit to the USA. During this step, individuals may also have to pay duties on their declared items. Upon completion, access to the USA is either granted or denied.

3.3.1 SENTRI

Similar to the FAST program for commercial vehicles, SENTRI provides expedited CBP processing for pre-approved, low-risk travelers at the USA-Mexico border. Applicants must voluntarily undergo a thorough biographical background check against criminal, law enforcement, customs, immigration, and terrorist indices, a 10-fingerprint law enforcement check, and a personal interview with a CBP officer. The cost for enrollment is USD $122.25 and gives the member a five-year membership to the SENTRI program (4).

Once an applicant is approved, he/she is issued a document with the RFID that will identify his or her record and status in the CBP database upon arrival at the border crossing. A sticker decal is also issued to the applicant’s vehicle or motorcycle. SENTRI users have access to specific, dedicated primary lanes into the USA. SENTRI dedicated commuter lanes exist at the Otay Mesa, El Paso, San Ysidro, Calexico, Nogales, Hidalgo, Brownsville, Anzalduas, Laredo, and San Luis POEs on the USA-Mexico border.

When an approved international traveler approaches the border in the SENTRI lane, the system automatically identifies the vehicle and the identity of its occupant(s) by reading the file number on the RFID card. The file number triggers the participant’s data to be brought up on the CBP officer’s screen. The data is verified by the CBP officer, and the traveler is released or referred for additional inspection.

Participants in the program wait for much shorter times than those in regular lanes waiting to enter the USA. Critical information required in the inspection process is provided to the CBP officer in advance of the passenger’s arrival, therefore reducing the inspection time (5). The program helps ease traffic congestion, but it is still not widely utilized. According to CBP, about 28 percent of motorists and just 2 percent of pedestrians who cross the San Ysidro POE use SENTRI.



The technology used in the SENTRI program is very similar to the one used for tolling. It is based on a sticker transponder mounted on the left side of the windshield and read by an overhead antenna (see Figure 2) and an RFID card that is waived by the driver in front of an antenna mounted on the side of the road, as shown in Figure 2 below. Each person in the vehicle needs to have a valid SENTRI RFID card. Transcore is the equipment manufacturer and system integrator for the SENTRI system.

Figure 2 RFID Card Reader Used in the SENTRI Program

The border crossings with SENTRI systems are shown in Table 1. The table is divided into two groups: tolled and non-tolled border crossing. It is important to make a distinction because the non-tolled border crossings are relatively simple on the Mexican side, while the tolled border crossings require special handling by the Mexican operators and users.

Table 1 SENTRI Border Crossings at the USA-Mexico Border

Border Crossing USA City USA State Tolled

Veterans International Bridge Brownsville TX Y

McAllen-Hidalgo-Reynosa Bridge Hidalgo TX Y

Anzalduas International Bridge Mission TX Y

Juarez-Lincoln Bridge Laredo TX Y

Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge El Paso TX Y

Good Neighbor Bridge (SB only, NB DCL) Stanton El Paso TX Y

Paso del Norte Bridge (Pedestrian Only) El Paso TX Y

Nogales DeConcini Nogales AZ N

San Luis San Luis AZ N

Calexico East Calexico CA N

Calexico West Calexico CA N

Otay Mesa (Passenger) Otay Mesa CA N

San Ysidro San Diego CA N



When crossing from Mexico into the USA using tolled SENTRI lanes, users need to enroll in the Linea Express program. The Linea Express program was created to allow SENTRI users use of dedicated lanes as they enter the border crossing from the Mexican side and for toll payment. Enrollment in the Linea Express program can only be obtained after the users have been granted SENTRI status. In addition, the users have to pay an annual toll fee that allows them unlimited crossing privileges on the northbound direction. The annual fee varies by bridge crossing, but it is approximately USD $320 (6). Users still need to pay the regular toll to the USA bridge operator each time they cross in the southbound direction.

In terms of technology, the Linea Express program technology is very similar to the one used for tolling. Caminos y Puentes Federales de Ingresos y Servicios Conexos (CAPUFE) issues a transponder valid only on the border crossings that it operates to grant access to the dedicated Linea Express lanes. CAPUFE operates most of the border crossings with Linea Express lanes. Promofront, who is the concessionaire on the Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge, has two payment options: prepaid tickets, which allow users to pay the toll per use, and annual membership, which provides unlimited border crossings for one year, and a transponder is provided (7). Neither of these transponders is compatible with the SENTRI-provided transponder. Unlike the SENTRI membership that can be used in any border crossing along the USA-Mexico border, the Linea Express program rules, membership, and fees vary by bridge/crossing operator. In some cases, such as El Paso, the user needs to obtain separate memberships if he/she wishes to use the Linea Express at the Good Neighbor Stanton and the Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge. These border crossings are only 13 miles apart. In this case, the user, assuming he/she selects the annual membership with transponder at the Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge, may end up having three different transponders (8).

3.3.2 NEXUS

At the USA-Canada border, a similar trusted-traveler program was established in 2002 as part of the Shared Border Accord. NEXUS is a joint program with the Canada Border Services Agency that allows prescreened, approved travelers faster processing. Users enrolling in this program receive a NEXUS card, which is a Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative compliant document for land and sea travel, as well as air travel when traveling to and from airports using the NEXUS program, and provides expedited travel via land, air, or sea to approved members between the USA-Canada border. A NEXUS card also fulfills the travel document requirements of the WHTI that have required a passport or other secure travel document by all USA and Canadian citizens (9) (10).

Sixteen USA-Canada border crossings currently offer dedicated passenger vehicle lanes for NEXUS members (11). The application-processing fee for NEXUS membership is $50 per applicant. The membership is valid for five years.

The two main differences between the NEXUS and SENTRI programs are that 1) in the SENTRI program, the vehicle also needs to be enrolled; and 2) the NEXUS card is valid for entering Canada and the USA, while the SENTRI membership provides benefits only when traveling from Mexico to the USA.

The technology used in the NEXUS program is RFID based. The NEXUS card is an RFID card similar to a credit card in size. Intermec is the equipment provider for the NEXUS program. Once in the lane, the user holds the card up to an RFID reader positioned well in front of the inspection booth. The reader flashes the participant’s photo and information onto a computer



screen inside the booth. The inspector verifies that the photo on the screen matches the vehicle occupant and, if all checks out, authorizes the car to proceed (12).

Although the NEXUS card is not generally used for toll payment at the border crossings, at least one creative authority has found a way to tie the NEXUS card to its toll-collection system. The Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, operated by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (NFBC), offers the NEXUS/Toll program that allows NEXUS users to open a prepaid toll account and tie their NEXUS card number to it. When the user presents his/her NEXUS card to the NEXUS reader located in front of the entrance gate at the Whirlpool Bridge, the card is checked for security clearance and a toll charge is deducted from his/her account (13).

3.4 MEXICO-BOUND PASSENGER VEHICLE CROSSING PROCESS

The southbound passenger vehicle crossing process has only one inspection station by Mexican Customs. The process in Mexico is a red light/green light decision in which a loaded commercial vehicle is randomly selected for a secondary inspection if it gets a red light. The Mexican Customs uses WIM technology to measure the weight of passenger vehicles at the POE to make red light/green light decisions. The Mexican Customs has also installed automatic license plate readers to verify individual license plates to identify violators with criminal records.

Recently, CBP has started to perform random manual inspections on the USA side of the border for passenger vehicles crossing into Mexico, aiming to identify illegal shipment of money and weapons. The POEs are not designed for southbound inspection on the USA side of the border, and consequently this has created congestion.

3.5 USA-BOUND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROCESS

Pedestrians desiring to enter into the USA from Mexico proceed directly to the US Federal Compound. At the US Federal Compound, pedestrians go through primary and if necessary secondary inspection. At the primary inspection booths, CBP officers ask the individuals who want to enter the country to show proper documentation, such as proof of citizenship, and state the purpose of their visit to the USA.

The vast majority of Mexican nationals crossing through land border crossings carry border crossing cards (BCCs) to enter into the USA. A BCC (also referred to as a DSP-150) may be issued as a laminated card, which has enhanced graphics and technology, similar to the size of a credit card, or as a visa in a passport. It is valid for travel until the expiration date on the front of the card or on the visa, usually 10 years after issuance. USA citizens and lawful permanent residents are required to carry USA passports and green cards, respectively, to enter the USA through the land border crossings.

3.5.1 READY Lane

READY Lane is a dedicated primary vehicle lane for travelers entering the USA at land border ports of entry. Travelers who obtain and travel with a WHTI-compliant, RFID-enabled travel document receive the benefits of utilizing a READY Lane to expedite the inspection process while crossing the border. The USA passport card, the SENTRI card, the NEXUS card, the FAST card, the new enhanced permanent resident green card, and the new border crossing card are all RFID-enabled documents.

RFID technology allows information contained in a wireless “tag” to be read from a distance, enabling officers to process travelers more quickly, reliably, and accurately. The driver stops at



the beginning of the lane and makes sure each passenger has his/her card out. The driver slowly proceeds through the lane, holds all cards up on the driver’s side of the vehicle, and stops at the officer’s booth (14) (15).

READY Lanes are available at selected POEs at the USA-Canada and USA-Mexico borders, including:

Blaine, WA – Peace Arch

Del Rio, TX

Detroit, MI – Ambassador Bridge

El Paso, TX – Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge

Nogales, AZ – DeConcini

Progreso, TX – Donna-Rio Bravo International Bridge

Otay Mesa, CA

Additional READY Lanes are planned in the near future.

3.5.2 Global Entry

Global Entry is a US CBP program that allows expedited clearance for pre-approved, low-risk travelers upon arrival in the USA via air (16). At airports, program participants proceed to Global Entry kiosks, present their machine-readable passport or USA permanent resident card, place their fingertips on the scanner for fingerprint verification, and make a customs declaration. The kiosk issues the traveler a transaction receipt and directs the traveler to baggage claim and the exit. A snapshot of the kiosk is shown in Figure 3. Although Global Entry is intended for frequent international travelers, there is no minimum number of trips necessary to qualify for the program.

Travelers must be pre-approved for the Global Entry program. All applicants undergo a rigorous background check and interview before enrollment. This pilot program is available to USA citizens who are members of CBP’s Global Entry, NEXUS, and SENTRI Trusted Traveler programs at 20 international airports throughout the USA.

Although the program has not been tested and implemented at land border crossings, the system has potential to reduce long wait times among pedestrians at the crossings.



Figure 3 Global Entry Kiosk at an International Airport in the USA

Source: http://www.globalentry.gov/

3.6 MEXICO-BOUND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROCESS

At this time, Mexico-bound pedestrians are not subject to inspections either on the USA side or the Mexican side. Non-Mexican pedestrians are, however, required to voluntarily show their visa documents at the Mexican immigration office. Pedestrians heading into Mexico rarely experience long queues.

3.7 TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYED BY CBP TO IMPROVE SECURITY

CBP’s dual mission is to secure the nation’s borders while facilitating legitimate trade and travel. CBP enforces a number of trade laws and protects domestic industry by applying quota and visa restrictions. CBP enforces these laws related to trade and security by performing three broad categories of inspections:

Immigration inspections: These inspections enforce the immigration laws and focus on keeping aliens who violate any USA laws from entering the country.

Customs inspections: These inspections control the import and export flows to and from the USA, facilitate the collection of necessary revenues, and prevent the smuggling of illicit objects.

Agriculture inspections: These inspections are meant to ensure safe agricultural imports through the international border.

CBP has implemented technologies at land border crossings, and the most recent implementation is part of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Other technologies for scanning were implemented as part of the trusted-traveler programs for commercial and passenger vehicles (FAST and SENTRI).

Figure 4 presents the technology that currently is in operation at the federal compound at the Bridge of the Americas, including the stages of the process and the programs under which these technologies operate.



Figure 4 Technology Implementations at USA Federal Compound at Bridge of the Americas

*Advanced backscatter x-ray imaging is an emerging technology, and it is being implemented on a limited basis at certain land POEs (e.g., San Ysidro).

Legend

1

2

3

4

5

8

9

6

8

9

7

1

4

5

5

6

6

8

1. Closed Circuit Television 2. Fingerprint Recognition 3. K 9 Unit 4. License Plate Reader 5. Passport Readers 6. Proximity Cards 7. Gamma Ray Imaging 8. Radio Frequency Identification 9. Radiation Portal Monitor 10. X-Ray Imaging

Source: (17)



4 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1 STAKEHOLDER AGENCIES AT THE CALIFORNIA- MEXICO BORDER

USA and Mexican Customs Agencies – The Department of Homeland Security, especially the CBP, is responsible for all customs service operations at international border crossings on the USA side. CBP is one of the Department of Homeland Security’s largest and most complex components, with a priority mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the USA. They also has the responsibility of securing and facilitating trade and travel while enforcing hundreds of USA regulations, including immigration and drug laws. CBP performs two crucial roles in facilitating trade to and from the USA and around the globe: securing the USA from acts of terrorism, and assuring that goods being imported into the USA are legitimate with appropriate duties and fees paid. CBP’s counterpart on the Mexican side of the border would be Mexican Customs, or Aduanas.

US General Services Administration (GSA) – The GSA owns and leases over 354 million square feet of space in 8,600 buildings in more than 2,200 communities nationwide. In addition, GSA properties include land ports of entry at the USA-Mexico and USA-Canada border. GSA develops and maintains standard processes and procedures and program oversight to ensure that the land ports of entry are built consistently and to an acceptable standard.

US Department of Transportation – The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) is a cabinet-level agency of the Executive Branch of the US government. The FHWA is a major agency of the USDOT. The mission of the FHWA is to move goods and people safely, comfortably, economically, and without harm to the environment. The FHWA seeks to create the best transportation system in the world through proactive innovation.

The Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) – The SCT is Mexico’s federal entity with the main mission to set and conduct policies and programs to develop transportation and communications in line with the country’s needs. In addition, SCT awards concessions and licenses to operate cargo transport services through federal highways and monitors the performance of operations and the compliance with pertinent legal provisions.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) – The FMCSA was established as a separate administration within USDOT, pursuant to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. The primary mission of the FMCSA is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. In order to accomplish its mission, the FMCSA develops and enforces data-driven regulations that strive to balance safety with industry efficiency. At border crossings, the FMCSA partners with state vehicle inspection agencies to assure vehicle safety. The FMCSA has a specific responsibility for the safe transport of hazardous material across the border. As part of its efforts to improve vehicle safety and security, the FMCSA has developed the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) program. The CVISN program focuses on safety enforcement on high-risk operators and facilitates the screening of commercial vehicles through the creation of an online review of safety records and credentials.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – The FDA is the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the USA Federal Government. Its origins can be traced back to around 1848. Its modern functioning began in 1906 with the Pure Food and Drugs Act. The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety of drugs, biological products, medical devices, the nation’s food supply, and products that emit radiation. During the past



decade, the FDA has been looking at means to monitor the movement of high-risk products, particularly food and drugs, under its responsibility to assure the security of these shipments.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – The EPA is a cabinet-level agency of the executive branch of the USA government created in 1970. The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. The EPA has specific responsibility over hazardous materials policies in the USA. Recently, the federal EPA has undertaken a study of the application of RFID technology for the real-time monitoring of transport of hazardous material across the international border. The EPA also provides expertise while responding to incidents related to hazardous material. In Mexico, the first responders for HAZMAT incidents are primarily the local fire stations, under the direction of Civil Protection.

California State Department of Transportation – The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages more than 50,000 miles of California’s highway and freeway lanes (including the ones leading to and from land ports of entry), provides inter-city rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans carries out its mission of improving mobility across California with six primary programs: Aeronautics, Highway Transportation, Mass Transportation, Transportation Planning, Administration and the Equipment Service Center. The department has been active in moving the people and commerce of California for more than 100 years, from a loosely connected web of footpaths and rutted wagon routes to the sophisticated system that today serves the transportation needs of more than 30 million residents.

US Regional Transportation Planning Organization – The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a legislatively created regional government agency that serves as a technical and informational resource for the area’s 18 incorporated cities, the county government, and tribal governments, who collectively are the Association of Governments. SANDAG also serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Commission for the region. Through SANDAG, local governments work together to solve current problems and plan for the future. SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the San Diego region’s quality of life. In addition, SANDAG is the regional tolling agency with authorization to operate high occupancy toll (HOT) facilities. In particular, Senate Bill 1486 (Ducheny), entitled the OME Toll Facility Act, and grants SANDAG the authority to impose tolls and user fees along the State Route 11 corridor in the County of San Diego or at the OME POE. Senate Bill 1486 is codified in the California Streets and Highways Code at Section 31460 et seq.

USA and Mexican Toll Authorities and Concessionaires – On the USA side of the border, SANDAG is the legislatively mandated toll authority for the region. On the Mexican side of the border, CAPUFE is a decentralized body of the Mexican federal government and has a legal authority to own infrastructure assets as well as preserve, reconstruct, improve, manage, and operate roads and bridges. The agency also manages federal road and bridge concessions through the settlement of contracts. They also participate in investment and co-investment projects with individuals, for the construction and operation of channels of communication under concession models.

USA and Mexican Departments of Public Safety – On the USA side, California Highway Patrol (CHP) has a mission to provide the safety, service, and security to the people of California. CHP is also responsible for the inspection of commercial vehicles entering the USA



through the land ports of entry and coordinates its efforts with the FMCSA. CHP operates in facilities separate but adjacent to the CBP for inspection of commercial vehicles. On the Mexican side, Civil Protection alongside Aduanas has a similar role as CHP in the inspection of trucks entering into Mexico.

Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association of America – The local Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association of America plays an integral role in preparing documentation for cargo entering the USA. Personnel interface electronically with the CBP to permit documentation to be presented before the conveyance reaches the border. The organization accounts for the majority of import documentation presented to the federal government.

Private Media and Traveling Public – Media plays a crucial role in relaying information regarding the conditions at border crossings to the traveling public. The majority of the public receives such information through traditional media such as radio and television, even though the Internet and mobile devices are increasingly being utilized as information sources.

The composition of travelers that cross from Mexico to California includes students (college and high school students), tourists, workers, and business commuters. These travelers make frequent cross-border trips that vary widely and depend on several factors or seasonal effects such as school cycles, holidays, business, and others. Accurate crossing-time information will provide these stakeholders with data that will allow them to modify or adjust trip characteristics (selecting different routes and international crossings).

4.2 STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE BORDER

Stakeholders on both sides of the USA-Mexico border include private entities and public-sector agencies from the state and local governments, shippers and truckers, bridge/crossing authorities, and the traveling public. These stakeholders could be divided into two main groups: those that actively participate in the border-crossing process and those that physically are not present during the border-crossing process but influence the border-crossing operation. A brief description of the roles and responsibilities of these stakeholders is listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders at the Border Crossing

Agency Responsibilities

USA and Mexican Customs Customs agencies (CBP and Aduanas) are responsible for managing land border crossings, preventing the passage of individuals and goods from entering the respective countries unlawfully.

US General Services Administration

GSA secures the buildings, products, services, technology, and other workplace essentials needed by federal agencies. Responsibilities include planning and constructing infrastructure at border crossings. In Mexico, Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales (INDABIN) has similar responsibilities.

USA and Mexican Federal Departments of Transportation

In the USA, the USDOT monitors the performance of border crossings as bottlenecks for movement of goods and people and also provides funding for border-related studies. In Mexico, the SCT regulates, funds, designs, and constructs infrastructure at and around border crossings.

US Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FMCSA’s mission is to prevent commercial motor vehicle-related crashes. FMCSA performs commercial vehicle inspections at the USA-Mexico border to ensure that Mexico-domiciled commercial vehicles operate safely in the USA.



Table 2 (cont.) Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders at the Border Crossing

Agency Responsibilities

Other USA and Mexican Federal Agencies (e.g., FDA, EPA, CBP)

These agencies on both sides of the border regulate specific type of commodities crossing the border. For example, the FDA monitors and inspects agricultural goods entering the USA, while CP on the Mexican side of the border is responsible for incidents related to HAZMATS, as is the EPA on the USA side.

US State Departments of Transportation (DOTs)

The state DOTs are responsible for managing, operating, and/or maintaining state-owned transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads, airports, transit, and railways) around the border crossings.

USA Regional Transportation Planning Organizations

MPOs in the USA serve as support agencies for local governments in developing and administering transportation planning activities at and around border crossings.

USA and Mexican Toll Authorities and Concessionaires

These include government agencies and possibly public-private partnerships responsible for the administration, operation, and maintenance of bridges, tunnels, turnpikes, and other fee-based roadways. Responsibilities also include setting tolls and managing toll collection using manual and automatic methods. These agencies also operate a clearinghouse of information to share tolling data among various toll authorities and other government agencies.

USA and Mexican State Departments of Public Safety

The CHP operates border safety inspection facilities at the USA-Mexico border crossings to inspect safety of trucks entering the United States.

USA Emergency Management Agencies

These include county and state agencies that coordinate overall responses to large-scale incidents or major disasters. These agencies have mandates to set up emergency operations centers to respond to and recover from natural, manmade, and war-caused emergencies and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.

USA and Mexican County or Municipal Public Safety Agencies

These agencies include law enforcement and first responders for public safety in the USA and Mexico, including city or county police departments; fire, rescue, and ambulance services; sheriff’s departments; state police; and Mexican federal police.

USA and Mexican Private Commercial Shippers and Carriers

These companies include private commercial vehicle operators who dispatch fleets of commercial vehicles. Due to circulation restrictions of Mexican-domiciled trucks beyond the 25-mile commercial zone at the border, most of the carriers handling cross-border trade are drayage companies that haul trailers back and forth at the border.

USA and Mexican Freight Forwarders and Customs Brokers

These agents coordinate the logistics of freight transportation across the border and engage in shipment of freight by multiple modes of transportation. They file and process customs documentation and pay duties when needed.

USA and Mexican Media and Private Travelers

These include various media that provide traveler information to motorists and pedestrians crossing the border as commuters or visitors.

Source: Adapted from the Border Information Flow Architecture (2006)



5 TOLLING AT BORDER CROSSINGS AND BEYOND

5.1 TOLLING AT BORDER CROSSINGS

A detailed scan was conducted of the current and envisioned tolling technologies, operations, and transaction processing in the USA-Mexico and USA-Canada borders. 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 is to provide a clear picture of what is being used or planned by agencies and facilities along the 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 of the USA-Mexico and USA-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 USA-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 between border-crossing facilities. In 2009, approximately 105,850,000 passenger and commercial vehicles crossed the USA-Mexico and USA-Canada borders. This included tolled and non-tolled border crossings. In comparison, a single large toll road, the New Jersey Turnpike, had approximately 634,000,000 toll transactions during the same period. Thus, a single large toll road had six times more toll transactions than the entire cross-border traffic. This illustrates the point that 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 (interoperability, charging, collections).

Electronic tolling operations (account management, customer service).

Technology.

5.1.1 Binational Tolling Implementation Approaches

As of 2010, a total of 46 land border crossings were in operation at the USA-Mexico border. Currently, land border crossings which have bridges over waterways collect tolls. California and Arizona have plans to start collecting tolls in the near future at selected border crossings. New Mexico’s current state law prohibits tolling statewide, including international border crossings. A total of 28 bridge crossings are currently under operation, and all of them are located in Texas. The number of bridge crossings continues to grow to handle the cross-border traffic growth. In the next several years, at least five new land border crossings are scheduled to open on the USA-Mexico border.



For a new southern border crossing to open, a great deal of binational cooperation between the USA and Mexico is necessary. 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 USA side and approvals from the Mexican state and federal government on the Mexican side, to accessibility and traffic and environmental impact studies (18).

There are various binational groups that participate in the definition of new international border crossings or expansions to existing crossings. The International Boundary and Water Commission meets regularly to define border crossings.

Tolling at international crossings is agreed on between the two neighboring countries, and tolls are collected in the originating country. At the USA-Mexico border, tolls in Mexico are usually collected by CAPUFE or a state agency, depending on the crossing ownership. 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 USA. The Colombia Solidarity 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 USA 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 El Paso, tolls are collected on both sides of the Zaragoza-Ysleta International Bridge. Vehicular traffic and pedestrians heading northbound into the USA are assessed a toll by the Mexican federal agency CAPUFE through a private concessionaire. Southbound traffic is assessed a toll by the City of El Paso. CBP officials assess an additional toll prior to clearance for entry into the USA. The Bridge of the Americas is toll-free in both directions. The El Paso City Council voted on August 8, 2007, to increase tolls for USA-bound commercial vehicles from $3 per extra axle to $3.50 and to increase tolls for non-commercial vehicles from $1.65 to $2.25 (19). Figure 5 shows toll rates for different vehicle types at border crossings in the El Paso region.

Figure 5 Toll Rates at Border Crossings in El Paso, Texas

(a) Southbound Border-Crossing Toll Rates (b) Northbound Border-Crossing Toll Rates

Source: (19)

Class Vehicle Type Toll Amount per Extra Axle1 Non-Commercial Auto, Pickup 1.65$ 0.85$ 2 *Commercial 2 Axle Vehicles 6.00$ 3.00$ 3 *Commercial Vehicles, 3 Axle 9.00$ 3.00$ 4 *Commercial Vehicles, 3 Axle 12.00$ 3.00$ 5 *Commercial Vehicles, 3 Axle 15.00$ 3.00$ 6 *Commercial Vehicles, 3 Axle 18.00$ 3.00$ 7 Bus or Recreational Vehicle 6.00$ 3.00$ 8 Motorcycle 1.65$ NA9 Pedestrian 0.35$ NA

* All commerical vehicles pay a flat $7 toll on the Ysleta-Zaragoza BridgeSource: City of El Paso

City of El Paso Toll Rates

Paso del Norte Bridge Toll AmountCars 2.00$ per extra axle 1.00$ Trucks and Buses 4.00$ per extra axle 2.00$

Source: Caminos y Puentes Federales de Ingresos y Servicios Conexos

Zaragoza-Ysleta Toll AmountCars 2.00$ Trucks and Buses (up to 3 axles) 5.00$ Trucks and Buses (up to 3 axles) 10.00$ Trucks and Buses (up to 3 axles) 16.00$ Source: Promofront SA DE CV

CAPUFE Toll Rates



5.1.2 Overview of Tolled Roadways Leading to and from the USA-Mexico Border

There are six agencies that operate toll roads in Texas, excluding the operators of tolled border crossings. 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 electronic toll collection (ETC) facilities within Texas are interoperable.

The Texas Toll Authority (TTA) operates the Camino Colombia (State Highway SH255) 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 (20). 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 surcharge) and, if no payment is received, it becomes a violation. The Comino Columbia day pass is another option especially useful for international travelers. This option allows a traveler to prepay tolls based on the number of trips planned on the facility.

The Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority (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 USA-Mexico Border. SH 550 was toll-free for the first two months, but in May 2011, tolling started. TTA is providing the toll-collection system (21).

TTA offers a day-pass option to prepay tolls. TTA does not currently have an interoperability agreement with any tolled border-crossing facilities, other 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/her Laredo Trade transponder. The user benefits by installing only one transponder instead of two while 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 eGo Plus sticker transponders from Transcore. The transponders are based on the American Trucking Association (ATA) protocol. TTA is assessing the use of 5.9 GHz technology but does not currently have definitive plans to implement the technology.

On the Mexican side, there are five toll facilities that operate near the border:

Carretera Federal 2 in Reynosa – This highway runs parallel to the border between Matamoros and Reynosa.

Corredor Fiscal or Libramiento Nogales (Carretera Federal 15) in Nogales – This highway leads to the Nogales Mariposa border crossing.

Puente Cucapá near San Luis Colorado – This bridge crosses Carretera 2 leading to the San Luis II border crossing.

Carretera Federal 2 in Baja California (Tecate-Tijuana) – 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.

Tijuana – Ensenada Escenic Road, that runs from the west end of Tijuana to Ensenada.



Figure 6 presents the location of these toll facilities in relation to the US/Mexico Border. All these facilities, except for the Puente Cucapá, are part of the IAVE program (CAPUFE’s ETC Program) 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 (22).

Figure 6 Mexican Toll Facilities Near the USA/Mexico Border

5.1.3 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, budget, market, and, to some degree, what nearby toll facilities have implemented. The most common methods for collecting tolls are manual collection, electronic toll collection, and automatic toll collection via automatic coin machines.

Manual toll collection, the simplest of the toll-collection techniques, consists of a collector operating from a booth while manually collecting 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.

Electronic Toll Collection (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 five subsystems:

Automatic vehicle identification (AVI).

Automatic vehicle classification (AVC).



Violation enforcement system.

Transaction processing.

Customer service center (CSC).

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 such as 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 USA-Mexico border crossings, only 21 collect tolls (excluding the Los Ebanos Ferry crossing). Table 3 shows the USA-Mexico tolled border crossings. On the USA-Mexico border, Texas is the only state with tolled border crossings. The San Luis II border crossing 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 USA side, this bridge is considered, for the purpose of this study, a tolled facility near the border instead of a typical tolled border crossing.

Of the 21 tolled border crossings, 18 currently have AVI technology already in place, and three 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, which are electronically read by card readers, and then the tolls are automatically debited from the customers’ accounts; and eight sites use barcode technology. On the Mexican side, 14 border crossings have AVI technology, all of which use transponder-based technology.

In Mexico, the agency in charge of operating most of the toll highways and border crossings nationwide is CAPUFE. Figure 7 illustrates toll road operations in Mexico. Private concessionaires, which are privately owned companies, also operate toll highways, but to a lesser extent after the Mexican government had to bailout 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 (23). CAPUFE ETC transponder-based technology uses the Transcore ATA protocol, although CAPUFE is upgrading to multiprotocol readers capable of reading multiple protocols, such as the International Organization for Standards (ISO) 18000-6B eGo tag.

CAPUFE’s IAVE program 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 USA-Mexico border crossings. Of all the Mexican crossings with a 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 non-interoperability issues. Figure 7 presents an overview of the toll roads’ operation, management, and funding in Mexico.



Table 3 Toll Collection Technology at USA-Mexico Tolled Border Crossings

Border Crossing USA City USA State

ETC Technology

USA Side MexMexicoan Side

Veterans International Bridge Brownsville TX Barcode AVI (installed in 1999) Transponder (IAVE)

Gateway International Bridge Brownsville TX Barcode AVI (installed in 1999) Transponder (IAVE)

B&M Bridge Brownsville TX HID Proximity Card (Xpress Card Plus) None

Free Trade Bridge Los Indios TX Barcode AVI (installed in 1999) None

Progresso International Bridge Progresso TX None Transponder (IAVE)

Donna International Bridge Donna TX None None

Pharr-Reynosa Intl. Bridge on the Rise Pharr TX Transponder (eGo Tag) Transponder (IAVE)

McAllen-Hidalgo-Reynosa Bridge Hidalgo TX HID Prox, Card (EZCrossBridge TollTag) Transponder (IAVE)

Anzalduas International Bridge Mission TX HID Prox, Card (EZCrossBridge TollTag) None

Rio Grande City-Camargo Bridge Rio Grande TX Barcode AVI Transponder (IAVE)

Roma-Ciudad Miguel Aleman Bridge Roma TX None Transponder (IAVE)

Juarez-Lincoln Bridge Laredo TX Transponder (Laredo Trade Tag, eGo) Transponder (IAVE)

Gateway to the Americas Bridge Laredo TX Transponder (Laredo Trade Tag, eGo) Transponder (IAVE)

World Trade Bridge Laredo TX Transponder (Laredo Trade Tag, eGo) None

Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge Laredo TX Transponder (Laredo Trade Tag, eGo) None

Camino Real International Bridge Eagle Pass TX HID Proximity Card Reader None

Eagle Pass Bridge I Eagle Pass TX HID Proximity Card Reader Transponder (IAVE)

Del Rio-Ciudad Acuna Intl. Bridge Del Rio TX Barcode AVI Transponder (IAVE)

Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge El Paso TX Barcode AVI Transponder

Good Neighbor Bridge El Paso TX Barcode AVI Transponder (IAVE)

Paso del Norte Bridge El Paso TX Barcode AVI Transponder (IAVE)

Note: HID = Hughes Identification Devices Global Inc.

Sources: (24), (25), (26), (27), (28), and (18)

Project 5001545 State-of-the-Practice Scan SR 11 / OME POE ITS Pre-Deployment Strategy D11-2: Final Technical Memorandum I


CAPUFE operates most of toll roads in Mexico. Currently, the Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios Públicos (BANOBRAS) has embarked on 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 National Public Vehicle Registry (Registro Público Vehicular - REPUVE) to install Neology transponders in all vehicles for registration. RFID data from the transponders along with license plate images will be transmitted to a central database which matches the data to vehicles of interest, enabling enforcement agencies to recognize identified vehicles on a watch list and take appropriate action. Technically, these transponders could be used for tolling as well.

Figure 7 Overview of Toll Road Arena in Mexico

Source: (29) Note: OCACSA: Operación y Conservación de Autopistas Concesionadas FARAC: Fideicomiso de Apoyo al Rescate de Autopistas Concesionadas ICA: Ingenieros Civiles Asociados

Table 4 includes toll-collection technologies utilized at USA-Canada tolled border crossings. Seven out of the 10 selected border crossings are tolled, and unlike on the southern border, these tolled crossing 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.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCT

(Ministry of Transportation and Communication)

FARAC (Rescued Concession

Highways)

CONCESSIONAIRES ICA MARHNOS GUTSA

OPERATORS CAPUFE OCACSA

INTEGRATORS SIMEX CONTROLES ELETRO

MECANICOS

THALES INDRA TRMI

CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTERS

I+D INTEGRA



Table 4 Toll Collection Technology at USA-Canada Tolled Border Crossings

Border Crossing USA City

USA State

ETC Technology

Blue Water Bridge Port Huron MI None, token/cash

Lewiston-Queenston Lewiston NY Transponder, ExpressPass program (Transcore eGo tag)

Whirlpool Rapids Niagara Falls

NY Transponder, NEXUS card 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), accepts tokens too

Sources: (24), (30), (31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (36), and (37)

As mentioned in the previous section, all of the international crossings between Texas and the USA are tolled; this is because international bridges are needed to cross between the two countries and to cross the Rio Grande. All the tolled border crossings at the Texas-Mexico border are tolled in both travel directions and the large ones in terms of traffic volume have implemented ETC technologies. In the San Diego/Tijuana region, existing toll roads are the Tecate-Tijuana and Ensenada-Tijuana toll roads on the Mexican side of the border and the South Bay Expressway (SR 125) in the USA side of the border. The two Mexican toll roads in the region accept the IAVE ETC system as well as cash toll collection. Frequent travelers in these tolls roads in Mexico are IAVE users.

5.1.4 Toll Rate Determination Based on Time of Day and Congestion Levels

All of the tolled border crossings on the USA-Mexico border and the selected tolled border crossings on the USA-Canada border currently have fixed toll rates. Currently, there is no pricing scheme in place to adjust tolls based on congestion levels, time of day, or day of week. The fixed toll rates are generally based on the type of vehicle, number of axles, and weight.

5.1.5 Coordination of Toll Rates between Operators on Opposite Sides of Border

On the USA-Canada border, there is coordination of toll rates on both sides of the border. In most cases, this is due to the way the agency was set up. Table 5 lists USA-Canada border crossings and the corresponding tolling directions. Four of the crossings are tolled only in 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 Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel are operated by the same agency, so toll rate coordination is inherent. The Blue Water Bridge is operated jointly by the Michigan DOT and Blue Water Bridge Canada; tolls are the same in both directions for all vehicle classes.



Table 5 Direction of Tolling at USA-Canada Border Crossings

Border Crossing USA City

US 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: (24), (30), (31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (36), and (37)

For the USA-Mexico border, there is no published information about the level of coordination for setting tolls. Interviews with selected border crossings indicate that there is no coordination of toll rates between USA operators and CAPUFE; tolls are set by each party independently. In addition, there is no coordination in the setting of toll rates between USA operators along the USA-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 ranges from $2.25 to $3.00.

5.1.6 In-Lane and Post-Event Enforcement Strategies

In manually operated 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 significantly reduced, even with high-speed gates with opening and closing times of less than one second. Regardless of the lane type, a VES can be 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 an effective deterrent for toll evasion, but the cost associated with this practice may be too high to consider using this technique on a regular basis. A more cost-effective solution is the use of cameras that take images of the license plate and subsequently perform an optical character recognition (OCR) of the image to get the owner’s information. Most of the current VESs perform the OCR automatically, thus reducing the cost for manual processing. The only images reviewed manually are those in which the OCR does not meet an acceptable confidence level. 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 as the primary deterrent to toll evasion. 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 (e.g., 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.



5.1.7 Accepted Currency for Manual Payment Facilities

At the USA-Canada border, all of the selected tolled bridge crossings accept USA and Canadian currency. At the USA-Mexico border, all of the Mexican and largest USA border-crossing operators accept USA and Mexican currency for toll payment. The exchange rate varies by crossing and is set by the operating agency.

5.2 CONGESTION PRICING AND USER FEE COLLECTION

Congestion pricing (sometimes called value pricing) is a way of harnessing the power of the market to reduce the waste associated with traffic congestion. Congestion pricing works by shifting purely discretionary rush hour highway travel to other transportation modes or to off-peak periods, taking advantage of the fact that the majority of rush hour drivers on a typical urban highway are not commuters. By removing a fraction (even as small as 5 percent) of the vehicles from a congested roadway, congestion pricing enables the system to flow more efficiently by allowing more cars to move through the same physical space. A basic economic principle of congestion pricing is that motorists should pay directly for the costs they impose as an incentive to use resources efficiently.

5.2.1 PierPASS: Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, California

The PierPASS system utilized at the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach was implemented in July 2005 as a means of reducing traffic leaving the area’s ports and entering the regional transportation system. All cargo entering these ports arrives in standardized containers. Each container, depending on its size, is assessed a flat fee prior to being allowed to exit the terminal where it was unloaded. The fee is $50 per 20-foot equivalent unit with all containers larger than a 20-foot equivalent unit being assessed a $100 charge. These charges are only applied during peak periods (Monday through Friday, 3:00 AM to 6:00 PM) while the fees are waived for containers leaving the terminal during off-peak periods (38).

PierPASS officials estimate that during the course of the program from July 2005 through May 2007, five million truck trips were diverted from peak traffic hours with an estimated 13,000 trucks per off-peak period. This represents an estimated 36 percent of all container traffic at the ports.

On January 12, 2006, PierPASS instituted a program known as Truck Tag to further improve processing times and security at area ports. The program is still being developed, in conjunction with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, but will rely on RFID tags within trucks to more efficiently process container manifest information and pay applicable tolls prior to leaving the port facility.

The PierPASS system has shown that a congestion pricing mechanism can work to effectively reduce peak period trips in a POE setting. Port officials recognized that peaks in vehicular traffic leaving the port had a negative effect on surrounding infrastructure and implemented the program to smooth out these peaks. The program has been largely successful due to its ability to alter the behavior of shippers leaving the area’s ports.

5.2.2 The Lee County Variable Pricing Project: Lee County, Florida

Variable pricing on the Midpoint and Cape Coral toll bridges began in August 1998 in an attempt to reduce peak period travel (39). Travelers were offered a 50 percent discount on their toll if they chose to drive during specified, off-peak times (6:30 AM through 7:00 AM, 9:00 AM through



11:00 AM, 2:00 PM through 4:00 PM, and 6:30 PM through 7:00 PM). It is estimated that the average daily traffic on these bridges exceeds 75,000 vehicles.

Evidence suggests that this pricing regime has had the desired effect of shifting significant amounts of traffic out of peak travel times, with traffic on the Midpoint Bridge increasing by 19 percent during the 6:30 AM to 7:00 AM off-peak window and an observed 7 percent decrease in traffic during the peak window of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Similar though less dramatic results have been observed for discounted periods throughout the remainder of the day, with increases in off-peak traffic averaging around 5 percent.

Like the PierPASS program, the Lee County Variable Pricing Project is a good illustration of the potential for pricing to have a positive result in reducing peak period travel. Bottlenecks were occurring on the Lee County bridges prior to the point of toll collection.

5.2.3 SR 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California

The four variably priced express lanes in the median of the State Route (SR) 91 Freeway opened in December 1995 (40). The toll schedule is adjusted every three months based on traffic observed over the three-month period. Speeds are 60 to 65 MPH on the express lanes, while congestion on the free lanes has reduced average peak hour speeds to no more than 15 to 20 MPH. During the peak hour, which occurs on Friday afternoon (5-6 PM) in the eastbound direction, the two “managed” express lanes each carry almost twice as many vehicles per lane than the free lanes because of the effect of severe congestion on vehicle throughput in the free lanes. Toll revenues have been adequate to pay for construction and operating costs. In fact, in 2003 the private company that had the franchise to build and operate the facility sold the franchise to the Orange County Transportation Authority for a profit.

5.2.4 Study of Potentials of Congestion Pricing at International Border Crossings in El Paso, Texas

In 2007, the Texas Transportation Institute performed a study to analyze the potential of applying congestion pricing at international border crossings in the El Paso region, where USA-bound commercial and passenger vehicles already experience high wait times (19). Unlike roadways and freeways, where demand management has a significant role in reducing congestion, border crossings face a different set of challenges in reducing congestion. Congestion at border crossings cannot be attributed to one or even a few causes, nor can it be addressed with one solution. The study analyzed potentials of three pricing mechanisms: dynamic, variable, and freight value at border crossings in El Paso.

Recent technological developments in pricing have allowed innovative and tolled transportation facilities, such as managed lanes, to actively monitor traffic and adjust toll rates in real time as volumes warrant. This is known as dynamic pricing, and it can be very effective at mitigating congestion in areas where technology permits. Operators must be able to actively monitor conditions of the facility, in this case a border crossing, and be able to accurately determine the optimal toll rate to bring congestion of the facility to a desired level. Obviously, this requires extensive technological investment by the facility’s operator.

Variable pricing, on the other hand, is a more viable pricing option in areas where technological constraints do not permit dynamic pricing. Variable pricing may take many forms, the most common of which is variable pricing by time of day. In this pricing schedule, times of day where traffic and congestion are heaviest would be the times with the highest toll rates. For example,



the number of vehicles queuing to cross one of El Paso’s tolled border crossings would be an indicator of the toll charge for that particular bridge at that particular time. The aim of such a pricing mechanism would be to shift traffic from peak times, when queues are longest and tolls are highest, to times where queues are shortest and tolls are lowest. The pricing system itself would only require intermittent reevaluation to ensure that prices are effectively mitigating congestion, unlike the near constant monitoring required of a dynamic pricing mechanism.

Freight-value pricing allows for users of a given facility to pay a toll in order to expedite their use of the facility based on the relative value of each shipment. In this case, a shipper with a very time sensitive delivery, which increases its value to the shipper, has the option of paying an extra amount to jump to the front of the inspection queue and expedite his/her clearance to enter the USA. The segregation of vehicles based on time sensitivity and value has been recommended for decreasing the incidence of congestion at border crossings. Freight-value pricing, which would allow for these vehicles to pay a fee in order to avoid further delay, is another option for improving border-crossing efficiency for all vehicles. Freight-value pricing is heavily dependent on the ability of vehicles to segregate according to value in order for time savings for those vehicles to be realized. As it now stands, existing programs such as FAST suffer greatly from the inability of their participants to benefit in the form of time savings. This is mostly due to the absence of a separate lane with adequate storage length dedicated to FAST trucks. Hence, implementing a pricing schedule that is dependent on the ability of vehicles to segregate prior to arriving at an inspection station is risky unless a separate lane with adequate storage length is dedicated to FAST trucks.

The study concluded that given the resource constraints of the agencies involved in managing the area’s border crossings, it is likely that the most feasible option will be the implementation of a variable pricing regime. A stable schedule of rates would reduce the need for extensive information conveyance and would allow area operators to slowly adapt routing schedules to the new system. An initial step in implementing such a program may be to merely reduce or eliminate tolls during desired, off-peak periods.

5.2.5 Central London, United Kingdom

In February 2003, London implemented an ambitious plan for using pricing to combat congestion in central London (41). The scheme involves a standard per-day charge for vehicles traveling within a zone bounded by an inner ring road. The congestion charge, together with improvements in public transit financed with revenues from the charging system, led to a 15 percent reduction in traffic in central London, with no significant displacement to local roads outside the area. The majority of ex-car users have transferred to public transport. Travel delays have been reduced by 30 percent. Excess waiting time on buses has fallen by around one-third.

Motorists are currently charged £8 a day to drive within the central city zone between 7 AM and 6:30 PM on Monday through Friday. There are some exemptions, including motorcycles, licensed taxis, vehicles used by disabled people, some alternative fuel vehicles, buses, and emergency vehicles. Area residents receive a 90 percent discount for their vehicles. Drivers using a vehicle in the central zone pay the charge either in advance or on the day of travel. Drivers are able to pay on a daily, weekly, monthly, or annual basis by telephone, regular mail, Internet, or at retail outlets. The registration numbers of their vehicles are entered into a database. A network of fixed and mobile cameras observes the license plates of vehicles entering or moving within the central zone. There are no toll booths, gantries, or barriers.



Drivers do not have to stop. Their license plate numbers are matched against vehicle registration numbers of those who have paid the charge.

This system is not considered optimal because:

The fee is not based on how many miles a vehicle has driven within the charging area.

The fee is not time variable, that is, the fee is not higher during the most congested periods and lower during less congested periods.

The fee does not vary by location. It would be more efficient to have higher rates on more congested roads.

The system has relatively high overhead costs.

Transit service (particularly the Tube) is crowded and unreliable, although this is changing as bus service improves and pricing revenue is used to upgrade the system.

This has significantly increased traffic speeds within the zone. Average traffic speed during charging days (including time stopped at intersections) increased 37 percent, from 8 mph (13 km/hr) prior to the charge up to 11 mph (17 km/hr) after pricing was introduced. Peak period congestion delays declined about 30 percent, and bus congestion delays declined 50 percent. Bus ridership increased 14 percent, and subway ridership increased about 1 percent.

5.2.6 Collection of User Fees for Trucks in Germany

In January 2005, Germany implemented a new system to toll trucks on the autobahns. The system was developed and implemented in response to severe infrastructure financing issues with respect to both maintenance of existing infrastructure and the development of added capacity. The Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) fee system was presented as a means of collecting revenues from heavy vehicle operators who were not viewed as paying for their fair share of infrastructure and as a way of meeting various environmental-related goals. It replaces the Eurovignette system for heavy vehicles and covers about 12,500 km of the German autobahn and three segments of second-class roads. Fees are levied on trucks that are greater than 12 tons (roughly 13.5 North American tons), and rates are based on the distance traveled, the number of axels, and the emissions class of the vehicle. The average fee is €0.163 per km, or about USD $0.378 per mile.

An average user charge of EUR €0.15 per km (about USD $0.31 per mile) replaced the previous fees for time-based permits called Eurovignettes. All trucks with a permissible gross weight of 12 or more tons are charged electronically using global positioning systems (GPSs). The tolls are based on distance traveled, number of axles, and the vehicle’s emissions class. Net toll revenues contribute to funding for transportation infrastructure.

Mileage is determined through the use of on-board units (OBUs) equipped with GPS technology and a microwave-based transmitter. The location component is currently reliant on the American GPS system, and if the GPS device becomes inoperable, a backup system is activated that relies on information from the vehicular tachometer and odometer to estimate mileage. OBUs forward charge information to central servers at the administrative back office through the use of the global system for mobile communications (GSM). It is estimated that fee assessment is 99.7 percent accurate. Violations are estimated at around 2 percent (42).

Fee calculation occurs within the OBUs themselves. They contain a digital map that, in conjunction with satellite-based GPS signals, forms the foundation for road use assessment.



Road segments traveled, as determined by the GPS component, are combined and a toll is calculated. When the total amount owed reaches € 20, the OBU transmits the fee information to the central processing unit. This threshold was adopted in order to reduce the number of transmissions required by the system. The OBU utilizes three communication channels. (40)

Global Positioning System – for use in determining when a tolled route has been accessed.

Dedicated Short-Range Communication – for use in communicating with enforcement gantries and as support for the positioning component.

Global System for Mobile Communications – for use in communicating fee amounts to the central processing center.

Maps and fee amounts have to be downloaded to the OBU, which is done wirelessly through GSM communication signals.

5.3 EXISTING AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGY

5.3.1 Technology Trends for Collection of Tolls

For the non-satellite-based systems, the most predominant technology is RFID and specifically DSRC. These systems are well established, reliable, and enforceable. The systems that utilize DSRC are generally confined to specific roadways. Those systems that attempt to charge over the whole road network utilize satellite-based systems.

In an RFID-based AVI system, the gantry-mounted antenna/reader communicates with a transponder mounted on the vehicle using DSRC technology. There are multiple DSRC frequencies used in tolling applications around the world, such as the 915 MHz, 2.45 GHz, and 5.8-5.9 GHz bands. In most of Europe and Japan, migration to the 5.8 GHz band started several years ago and has become the standard. The 915 MHz band, which is actually a range from 902 to 920 MHz, is the prevailing frequency used in the USA. There is no national standard for a DSRC protocol in the USA at this time. Several years ago, the 5.9 GHz band was set aside for the development of a national, interoperable DSRC protocol (43).

A study conducted by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for the SR 520 reconstruction project identified the major transponder standards in the USA and classified them by their main attributes (Table 6).



Table 6 Appropriateness of Transponder Protocols

Requirement Protocol

5.9 GHz IAG Super eGo™ TDMA Title 21 18000 6C

Open Road Tolling (ORT) Best Acceptable Acceptable Better Acceptable Acceptable

Field Deployment Status

Testing Deployed Deployed Deployed Deployed Deployed

Security Better Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Read/Write Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Self Declare

Yes Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes

Enforcement Better Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Limited Acceptable

Multiple Suppliers Intent Maybe No Possible Possible Yes

Supports Connected Vehicle program

Yes No No No No No

Form Factor Hard Case Hard Case Sticker Tag (Available In Hard Case)

Hard Case

Hard Case (Available In Sticker Tag)

Sticker Tag (Available In Hard Case)

Notional Costs per Transponder $25 1 $20-25 $10 $20-25 $20-25 $2-$3 1

Source: (43) Note 1: Cost of $24.80 for 5.9 GHz transponders and $1.59-$3.05 for ISO 18000 6C transponders based on responses to the Georgia I-85 HOT lanes request for proposal (33) .

Note 2: American Trucking Association protocol was not included in the original table. This is a legacy protocol, which is still being used in some regions such as Texas.

Another recent development in the AVI arena is the recent offering of switchable transponders that allow the user to select a particular mode of operation. This technology has a specific niche market, such as the HOT lanes, where it is critical to identify if the vehicle is HOV2, HOV3, or single occupancy vehicle (SOV). Sirit offers the ISO 18000-6C (on/off switch) and Title 21 (3-way switch) transponders.

Telematics Wireless from Israel offers a transponder that has an on/off switch that is activated when pushing the transponder into the cradle. This model is used in the MnPASS HOT lanes.

Transcore offers the eZGo Anywhere HOT/HOV OBU transponder with a switch that, when pressed, causes the OBU to transition from one nomination mode to another.

The Kapsch TS3304/01 switchable 5.9 GHz transponder features the capability to declare the number of passengers riding in the car by pressing the push button and toggling the status of the transponder.



5.3.2 Tolling Technologies and Tolling Standards Used by Cross-Border Regional Partners

As mentioned earlier, there is no interoperability at the USA-Mexico border on tolling operations. In the European Union, 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 on 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 sticker (vignette), GPS, and RFID. The European Electronic Toll Service (EETS) is being developed with the anticipation that it will eventually enable road users to easily pay tolls using one EU system.

5.3.3 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 was presented earlier in the document. This section will discuss mainly the 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 uses in addition to the traditional enforcement role. 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 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, the 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 has allowed toll operators to offer video tolling as an alternate payment method without a transponder.

Despite the recent progress made in OCR and ALPR, video tolling and VES systems still have several shortcomings (44):

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.

An object obscuring (part of) the plate, quite 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 the camera-based VES. As mentioned in an earlier section, police enforcement and toll gates are the simplest type 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 the police department on Minneapolis’ I-394 HOT lanes. Enforcement is done by adding a portable transponder reader in the enforcement vehicles, enabling enforcement officers to validate operational transponders while driving alongside of or immediately behind a target vehicle (45). 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, they rely on basic camera-based VES without ALRP or means to send violation notices.

5.3.4 Dedicated Short-Range Communication Technologies

The 915 MHz DSRC has been the de-facto ETC technology in the USA. In October 1999, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allocated 75 MHz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for DSRC to be used by ITSs (46). Its main advantages are low latency, range, and security. One of the many applications for 5.9 GHz DSRC 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 may 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 many 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 is portable, 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 in toll facilities in the USA. Interviews with selected border-crossing operators indicated that they are following 5.9 GHz developments closely, but there are no concrete plans in the near future. In the medium- to long-term range, SANDAG, as part of its regional transportation plan, has identified future plans for connected vehicle/smart roads platform concepts that specify the use of 5.9 GHz technology.

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 DSRC 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 – This test was conducted in Detroit, Michigan, in 2008. It tested the ability of DSRC to enable interoperable vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (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. The Kapsch equipment included readers, antennas, and transponders. According to the test results, a 100 percent read success rate was achieved (47).

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 networks in Manhattan and on the Long Island Expressway. More than 40 roadside equipment units were deployed as part of this demonstration (48) .

Electronic Payment Services (EPS) – 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) (49). 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 – This test is being conducted by the Oregon-Washington Bridge Company. 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 six months (50).

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 virtual inspection system, which is a first of its kind, 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 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 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Wireless Roadside Inspection Program as well as many of the USDOT’s Connected Vehicle program goals (51).

5.3.5 Assessment on 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 for the major vendors was conducted, 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 for several years has offered a 5.8 GHz solution. 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, a sole source transponder and reader supplier for the E-ZPass® group.

Transcore – Transcore is a member of the Omniair consortium and 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 had been engineered to accommodate a future upgrade to 5.9 GHz technology.

Mark IV – Mark IV is a member of the Omniair consortium, 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, it is not clear the future of the OTTO on BoardSM

product.

Sirit – Sirit is a member of the Omniair consortium and 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 (RF) 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.



6 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TRAVELER INFORMATION

6.1 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AT AND AROUND BORDER CROSSINGS

Several regions along the USA-Mexico border need to maximize the efficiency of transportation operations at their international border crossings using traditional as well as advanced technology, including ITSs. The objective of this chapter is to research, assess, and document the current state of use of ITS technologies and operational concepts by agencies on the USA-Mexico and USA-Canada border to improve traffic management and transportation management around the border crossings.

This chapter describes binational coordination, as well as where there are possibilities for coordination between agencies across the border in support of traffic management and operation around the border crossings. As an example, a list of technologies deployed at various border crossings along the USA-Mexico and USA-Canada borders were compiled on a separate project. The information obtained from the literature review was updated through interviews with the stakeholder agencies.

6.1.1 Data Sharing and Integration with Mexican Partners

Review of regional USA ITS architectures provides a significant insight into how individual regions prioritize information sharing with Mexican agencies. Based on a brief overview of regional ITS architectures from the USA side, it is clear that stakeholders from individual regions have placed different priorities on interfacing with Mexican counterpart agencies. For example, Laredo’s ITS architecture does not include stakeholders from Mexico, while Pharr’s ITS architecture includes Mexican emergency management agencies as a stakeholder group and interfaces with TMCs operated in the Pharr region – even though none exist at present. New Mexico’s statewide architecture mentions interfaces with New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) District 1 (Las Cruces region) with a Mexican regional TMC. Analysis of inconsistencies between regional ITS architectures regarding information sharing with Mexican agencies should be investigated.

The literature review and interviews with officials on both sides of the border revealed that sharing of real-time traffic management data between agencies from both sides of the USA-Mexico border has been limited. Compared to Canadian agencies on the USA-Canada border, Mexican counterparts on the USA-Mexico border have only deployed, to a very limited degree, ITS with the specific purpose of incident management around border crossings. Also, none of the cities on the Mexican side of the border have deployed TMCs to manage and operate transportation systems including border crossings. TMCs are a crucial platform for sharing information between regions. However, officials mentioned that there has been little or no progress in USA agencies sharing their TMC data with agencies in Mexico.

This may change in the future. SCT is planning to deploy several TMCs in the border region. SCT is going ahead with construction of regional TMCs in the cities of Monterrey and Chihuahua. The TMCs will monitor Mexican federal roadways and toll roads, many of which terminate at international border crossings. These TMCs will be able to operate ITS field devices deployed on roadways close to border crossings and provide advanced traveler information, which will include traffic conditions on roadways as well as border crossings (52). In addition, the ITS system envisioned by SCT includes TMCs to be operated by toll concessionaires that will share real-time data with TMCs on the USA side of the border (53).



Interviews with officials revealed that agencies from both sides of the border make requests for assistance while responding to disasters. In the absence of TMCs, communication between agencies on both sides of the border is limited to methods such as radio and mobile phones. It is important to keep in mind that requests for information/assistance between the two countries happen at the city level and not county or state level (54). Thus, data sharing between cross-border agencies should happen at the local level because of the immediate need to respond to incidents and emergencies when local enforcement agencies are the first ones to respond. However, such cooperation should trickle from a larger understanding set between two binational regions. As an example, Figure 8 illustrates a memorandum of agreement between the Province of British Colombia and Washington State regarding regional protocol for binational and interagency communication about highway and border station incidents.

Figure 8 Sample Memorandum of Agreement between USA and Canadian Agencies for Cross-Border Incident Management

Source: http://resources.wcog.org/border/tbwgBCWA-ATIS.pdf

Regions in the USA have adopted a consistent set of standards for information exchange. A recommended list of standards can be found in a report prepared by the National ITS Architecture Team for the recent Border Wait Time Project on the USA-Canada border. The



standards come from the National ITS Architectures of both the USA and Canada. A list of candidate ITS standards is shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Candidate ITS Standards for the Border Wait Time Project on the USA-Canada Border

Lead SDO Standard Name

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)/ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

Traffic Management Data Dictionary (TMDD) and Message Sets for External TMC Communications

AASHTO/ITE/ National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP) Center–to-Center Standards Group

AASHTO/ITE/NEMA NTCIP Center-to-Field Standards Group

AASHTO/ITE/NEMA Global Object Definitions

AASHTO/ITE/NEMA Object Definitions for CCTV Camera Control

AASHTO/ITE/NEMA Object Definitions for Data Collection and Monitoring Devices

AASHTO/ITE/NEMA Object Definitions for CCTV Switching

AASHTO/ITE/NEMA Data Element Definitions for Transportation Sensor Systems

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Standard Practice for Metadata to Support Archived Data Management Systems

Source: (55)

An efficient binational data exchange can only take place if agencies on both sides of the border follow common standards, whether the exchange takes place between centers or field devices. The SCT recently finalized the National ITS Strategic Plan, which includes planning, development, and implementation strategies for ITS at the national, regional, and local levels. Other studies include the development and update of ITS processes, standards, and protocols. The objective of the study was to use this result to promote ITS system implementation and interoperable applications at the local and regional levels. The project will ensure software and hardware consistency, interconnectivity, and compatibility. It will define the institutional structure needed to supervise the implementation of the Mexican National ITS Strategic Plan.

Different levels of adoption of current ITS standards by both countries (and regions across the border) will most likely hinder exchange of real-time traffic data. It remains to be seen how ongoing and future projects will plan and implement real-time data exchange between agencies (rather than TMCs) in both countries.

6.1.2 Planned Special Events at and around Border Crossings

Federal, state, and local agencies play a significant role in planning and responding to planned special events (PSEs) that impact operation of border crossings and the surrounding areas. PSEs include visits to the border by high-profile individuals, major cultural and sporting events, major holidays (e.g., Easter and Christmas) that draw huge cross-border shopping trips, large cross-border cattle movements, and introduction of new identification requirements to cross the border. While none of these events requires closing the POE, one may severely increase the wait times of passenger vehicles entering the USA.

Based on the interviews conducted with the stakeholder agencies of the border regions, such events are planned ahead using ad-hoc meetings between agencies of all levels (56). Table 8 lists the agencies and their roles, methods of communication, and ITS use at different border regions. Each agency then lays out its subsequent roles according to its jurisdictions to assist



traffic management during the event. In most cities, even if the roadways are state-maintained, they may be operated by the cities. In such cases, local law enforcement agencies respond to incidents around border crossings. One major difference between the USA-Canada and the USA-Mexico borders is that most major border crossings on the USA-Mexico border are situated in the middle of urban centers (often downtown and central business districts) on both sides of the border. Hence, local law enforcement agencies are expected to be significantly involved while planning and managing special events around border crossings.

While responding to the event, agencies with access to ITS field devices use such devices to monitor the progression of traffic around border crossings. However, none of the border regions have developed a centralized information system through which communication and data sharing could occur between the agencies to monitor the progression of traffic during the event. Communication between agencies on both sides of the border is limited to methods such as radio communication and mobile phones.

Table 8 Method of Communication and Use of ITS to Inform Motorists for Planned Special Events

Border Region Agencies and their Roles in Managing Planned Special Events

Method of Communication

Use of ITS to Inform Motorists

Laredo-Nuevo Laredo

Webb and Hidalgo County MPO, Nuevo Laredo, City of Laredo, Police and Fire Department, TxDOT, Mayor’s Office from both cities across the border, CBP, EPA, DPS.

City of Laredo/Hidalgo County MPO coordinates the meetings to plan for a specialevent and brings rest of the agencies together. Each agency then lays out its subsequent role(s) according to its jurisdiction to assist traffic management during the event.

While responding to an event, agencies on the USA side use ITS field devices but do not have centralized information systems in placethrough which communication and data sharing could occur among the agencies to monitor the progression of traffic during the event.

Mostly limited to display of information via fixed VMSs on the USA side only and press releases carried through local media.

El Paso-Ciudad Juarez

El Paso MPO, Ciudad Juarez, City of El Paso, Police and Fire Department, TxDOT, Instituto Municipal de Investigación y Planeación (IMIP), Mayor’s Office from both cities across the border, CBP, EPA, DPS.

El Paso MPO coordinates the meetings to plan for a special event and brings rest of the agencies together. Each agency then lays out its subsequent role(s) according to its jurisdiction to assist traffic management during the event.

While responding to an event, agencies use ITS field devices on the USA side but do not have a centralized information systems in place through which communication and data sharing could occur among the agencies to monitor the progression of traffic during the event.

Mostly limited to display of information via fixed VMSs on the USA side and press releases carried through local media.

Santa Teresa-Ciudad Juarez

New Mexico Border Authority (NMBA), City of Sunland Park, City of Las Cruces, Ciudad Juarez, Police and Fire Department, NMDOT, Mayor’s Office from both cities across the border, CBP, EPA, DPS.

NMBA coordinates the meetings to plan for a special event and brings rest of the agencies together. Each agency then lays out their subsequent roles according to its jurisdiction to assist traffic management during the event.

Mostly limited to face-to-face meetings and telephone calls.

Press releases carriedthrough local media.



6.1.3 Real-Time Incident Management at and around Border Crossings

State and local agencies play a significant role in responding to incidents around border crossings. Individual roles of these agencies depend on the presence of state and/or local roadways that lead to and from the border crossings and their current jurisdictions for traffic operation on these roadways. In most cities, because border crossings are in the middle of urban centers, local law enforcement agencies are much more involved in incident management on the USA-Mexico border, while state and county agencies play a larger role on the USA-Canada border.

While local police and fire departments respond to all incidents, local fire departments have a much bigger role in responding to HAZMAT-related incidents. Local fire departments are trained to contain HAZMAT spills. Given the circumstances of the spill and nature of the hazardous material, the EPA and regional emergency management may be called upon to contain the incident.

All of the border states’ DOTs at the USA-Mexico border operate TMCs with significant investments in ITS for incident management. Compared to agencies on the USA-Canada border, their counterparts on the USA-Mexico border have deployed ITS only to a very limited degree with the specific purpose of incident management around border crossings. Table 9 describes roles and responsibilities of local, state, and federal agencies on the both sides of the border for real-time incident management.

Table 9 Roles and Responsibilities of Various Local, State, and Federal Agencies

Agency Description of Roles and Responsibilities Access to ITS USA and Mexican County or Municipal Public Safety Agencies

These agencies are responsible for law enforcement and first response and include city or county police departments, fire and ambulance services, sheriff’s departments, and state police. Fire departments are de-facto response agencies for HAZMAT-related incidents at and around border crossings.

Cities on the USA side of the border have agreements with state DOTs to access ITS field devices.

US State Department of Public Safety/Highway Patrol

The State Department of Public Safety (in TX, NM, and AZ) and the Highway Patrol (in CA) manage incidents on state highways in the USA.

State DPS and Highway Patrol have agreements with state DOTs to access ITS field devices.

US State DOTs State DOTs are responsible for managing, operating, and/or maintaining state-owned transportation infrastructure around border crossings. Services provided include advanced traffic management, traveler information, and other services.

State DOTs own and operate a wide range of ITS field devices for incident management.

Mexican Army The Mexican Army inspects trucks entering the USA for narcotics and illegal goods.

None.

USA and Mexican Federal Law Enforcement

These agencies respond to major incidents at and around border crossings.

None.

USA and Mexican Toll Authorities

These agencies include government agencies (and could include public-private arrangements) responsible for the administration, operation, and maintenance of bridges, tunnels, turnpikes, and other fee-based roadways. They help local police and fire departments.

ITSs are equipped with CCTV and dynamic message signs (DMS) on their facilities and agencies use them to monitor toll violators, and if needed, field devices can be used for traffic management.



Table 9 (cont.) Roles and Responsibilities of Various Local, State, and Federal Agencies

Source: (57) and (58)

Table 10 describes how various border regions manage incidents and how motorists are provided with incident-related information.

Table 10 Method of Communication and Use of ITS to Inform Motorists for Incident Management

Border Region Agencies and their Roles in Managing Incidents

Method of Communication Use of ITS to Inform

Motorists

Laredo-Nuevo Laredo

City of Laredo, Nuevo Laredo, police department, fire department, TxDOT, CBP, EPA. Because all the border crossings are within the city limits, police and fire departments have jurisdictions to respond to incidents around the border crossings. CBP responds to all incidents within its compound and occasionally requests assistance from the local fire department and EPA to respond to HAZMAT-related incidents within the CBP compound.

During the event, there are no information systems in place through which communication and data sharing could occur between agencies on both sides of the border to monitor the progression of traffic during the incident. USA agencies such as TxDOT, police departments, and fire departments do, however, exchange information via Very High Frequency (VHF) radio and have access to CCTV cameras installed by TxDOT on state roadways.

Mostly limited to relay of information via fixed dynamic message signs and local media in the USA.

Agency Description of Roles and Responsibilities Access to ITS US Emergency Management Agencies (EMAs)

These include county and state agencies that coordinate overall response to large-scale incidents or major disasters. These agencies have mandates to set up emergency operations centers to respond to and recover from natural, manmade, and war-caused emergencies, and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.

Agencies coordinate with state DOTs to access ITS field devices during incident response.

Mexican EMAs These EMAs are in charge of dispatching police, medical, and fire fighter units in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Anyone can call this number to notify authorities regarding all kinds of incidents including HAZMAT incidents.

The agency uses the same technology as the one used by the 911 system in the USA. The only difference is that the agency can identify the location of the nearest field unit using GPS devices.

US EPA EPA call center will assist with basic containment and call EPA contractor that is specially trained to respond and contain specific HAZMAT problems. Local law enforcement will assist with the HAZMAT containment along with local fire department.

State DOTs and/or city police and fire departments assist the EPA with traffic management activities during HAZMAT incidents, but the EPA doesn’t have access to ITS field devices.



Table 10 (cont.) Method of Communication and Use of ITS to Inform Motorists for Incident Management

Border Region Agencies and their Roles in Managing Incidents

Method of Communication Use of ITS to Inform

Motorists


City of El Paso, Ciudad Juarez, City of Sunland Park, police department, fire department, TxDOT, CBP, EPA. Because all the border crossings are within the city limits, police and fire departments have jurisdictions to respond to incidents around the border crossings. While CBP responds to all incidents within its compound, it occasionally requests assistance from the fire department and EPA to respond to HAZMAT-related incidents within the CBP compound.

During the event, there are no information systems in place through which communication and data sharing could occur between agencies on both sides of the border to monitor the progression of traffic during the incident. USA agencies such as TxDOT, police department, and fire department do, however, exchange information via VHF radio and have access to CCTV cameras installed by TxDOT on state roadways.

Mostly limited to relay of information via fixed DMS and local media in the USA.

Santa Teresa- Ciudad Juarez

Highway Patrol is the major agency responsible for managing incidents around border crossings, since none of them are within city limits, except for City of Columbus.

During the event, there are no information systems in place through which communication and data sharing could occur between agencies on both sides of the border to monitor the progression of traffic during the incident. USA agencies such as the Highway Patrol and fire departments do however exchange information via VHF radio. There are no CCTV cameras deployed close to border crossings.

There are no DMSs close to border crossings. Hence, incidents are relayed through the 511 system in the US.

Otay Mesa-Tijuana CHP and police/fire departments from the border cities are responsible for managing incidents around bordercrossings.

During the event, there are no information systems in place through which communication and data sharing could occur between agencies on both sides of the border to monitor the progression of traffic during the incident. USA agencies such as the CHP and fire departments do, however, exchange information via VHF radio. There are no CCTV cameras deployed close to border crossings.

There are no DMS close to border crossings. Hence, incidents are relayed through the 511 system in the USA.

Along the USA-Mexico border areas, many cities have signed sister city agreements. Many of these agreements were inspired by the USA and Mexico Border 2012 program. The cities of Laredo and Nuevo Laredo developed a cross-border contingency plan in 1998 as part of the sister city agreement to allow either city to utilize resources and manpower essential to respond to emergencies and disasters within the two federal boundaries (59). A similar binational emergency plan (focused on HAZMAT) was signed in 2007 among the City of El Paso, Ciudad Juarez, and the City of Sunland Park under the 14th border sister city agreement (60). The plan calls for police, fire, paramedics, and other emergency response personnel from both sides of the border to respond quickly to large fires, dangerous chemical spills, or other emergencies. In 2000, the border cities of Nogales in Arizona and Sonora also signed a binational prevention



and emergency response plan to improve their ability to prevent and respond to fire, chemical, and/or HAZMAT emergencies (61).

However, due to liability issues associated with the risk of responding to a HAZMAT incident on the other side of the border, fire departments on the USA side are not allowed to cross into Mexico and directly respond to HAZMAT incidents (57). For example, one of the most important liability issues is disability insurance. Insurance companies in the USA will neither recognize nor pay disability to USA fire station personnel if they are injured when responding to an incident in Mexico.

This dilemma might be changing soon because authorities are trying to mandate disability coverage regardless of where the accident or the disability occurred. However, no authority will risk predicting the outcome. In spite of these hurdles, the cities of El Paso and Sunland Park on the USA side maintain a close relationship with colleagues from Ciudad Juarez and provide frequent training in HAZMAT response. There are existing information-sharing agreements, some of which are formalized and some of which are informal. For example, the El Paso Fire Department has close ties with counterparts in Ciudad Juarez and communicates with fire stations from the other side of the border via telephone calls in case of a HAZMAT incident.

6.1.4 Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

About 5,000 tons of HAZMAT, worth over USD $4 billion, was exported to Mexico in 2002. The USA-Mexico border region experiences a concentrated flow of HAZMAT. On the Mexican side, 2,600 manufacturing plants use and/or produce an enormous amount of HAZMAT, which is then processed at factories in Mexico; the products are then shipped around the world, and the remaining HAZMAT is brought back to the USA. Under NAFTA requirements, all HAZMAT that is shipped into Mexico or generated during the manufacturing process must be shipped back to its point of origin, typically the USA. The USA side has concentrated areas of storage and disposal facilities. Thus, the delivery and return of HAZMAT has created a HAZMAT transportation corridor.

Fifty percent of the trade that crosses through Laredo involves HAZMAT. Laredo has an enormous potential for a disaster involving HAZMAT due to the volume of HAZMAT cargo and commerce alongside the tourism present on both sides of the border (62). Additionally, Laredo has over 60 million square feet of warehouse space, and at least a quarter of that space contains HAZMAT and is highly vulnerable to terrorism, including biochemical terrorism.

The literature review and interview with officials from border regions revealed that disasters due to HAZMAT are the greatest concern – even greater than natural disasters.

Border cities and counties have formed emergency management offices/centers, which work closely with state and federal emergency agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US EPA. The purpose of the Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) is to provide a location where multiple levels of government, agencies, and organizations can coordinate decisions, resources, and public information on a strategic level. Emergency Management Centers (EMCs) are also responsible for developing emergency plans, implementation, training, public outreach – and most importantly – coordinating local, state, and federal officials responding to major disasters.

For example, the El Paso County Office of Emergency Management is responsible for the development and implementation of plans for the protection of the community and for



minimizing the effects of a natural or manmade disaster. The agency is further responsible for designing and directing local emergency exercises, coordinating the activities of local agencies and resources during a disaster, coordinating requests for assistance, and providing information to the state and federal agencies during disaster operations. The agency also coordinates with other city and county departments regarding responsibilities during a disaster and compiling and submitting all reports required by the state and federal agencies. This agency is also responsible for responding to HAZMAT incidents. The agency has defined disasters as incidents that require mass emergency evacuations, natural and manmade disasters, HAZMAT incidents, and border violence incidents.

The El Paso County Office of Emergency Management also provides an emergency notification service that contacts individuals and provides vital information/instructions during a city-wide emergency or disaster. The agency maintains an emergency alert system called EPEMERGENCYALERT.COM and can send alerts to the county residents only. It uses geographic information system (GIS) technology to send alerts to only those target areas.

Similar EMAs exist in all USA cities along the USA-Mexico border region, as shown in Table 11. All of these agencies, except Mexican agencies and the agencies in Nogales, have capabilities to alert their residents about impending situations.

Table 11 Use of ITS by Border Agencies for Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

Border Region

Disaster Response

Plan

Agencies Involved in Responding

Use of ITS

Laredo-Nuevo Laredo

Yes City of Laredo, Countyof Webb, TxDOT

Not Available.


Yes City of El Paso, El Paso County, TxDOT

El Paso Emergency Alert System run by the City/County of El Paso delivers messages by telephone, text messages, email, etc., to its residents. The system provides radio operators with all forms of communications as well as provides supplemental communications to the Sheriff's Office. City/County also uses a web-based Emergency Operations Center (WebEOC) as a crisis information management system and provides secure real-time information sharing among partner agencies. TxDOT relays information to motorists on fixed DMSs about the hazardous conditions.


Ciudad Juarez under the direction of Civil Protection

There is no centralized alert system like the ones in El Paso and San Diego.


Yes Dona Ana County Emergency Operations Center is operated by Luna and Dona Ana Counties. The center communicates with the first responders, but there is no centralized alert system like the ones of El Paso and San Diego.


Ciudad Juarez under the direction of Civil Protection

There is no centralized alert system like the ones of El Paso and San Diego.



Table 11 (cont.) Use of ITS by Border Agencies for Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

Border Region

Disaster Response

Plan

Agencies Involved in Responding

Use of ITS

Nogales- Nogales

Yes Pima County, City of Nogales

A system is available for residents of the county to receive alerts via text messages and email (63). Service does not extend to residents across the border.

Otay Mesa- Tijuana

Yes San Diego County and 18 other incorporated cities within the county (64).

San Diego County and other incorporated cities use the WebEOC (64).

The cities of Laredo and Nuevo Laredo developed a cross-border contingency plan in 1998 as part of the sister city agreement to allow either city to utilize resources and manpower essential to respond to emergencies and disasters within the two federal boundaries (59).

It is obvious from the literature review and interviews with officials that despite the need to share information in real time between agencies in Mexico and the USA, none of the agencies has developed such a system. Interviews with officials revealed that agencies from both sides of the border do make requests for assistance in time of disasters. Most of the requests for assistance and coordination still happen through a traditional method of communication – telephones. Even though sister city agreements allow agencies on both sides of the border to utilize communication to share information while planning, responding, and managing hazardous incidents in real time, such systems have not been developed due to lack of funds.

6.1.5 Integration between Traffic Operations and Management Systems on Opposite Sides of the Border

Sharing of real-time data between agencies on both sides of the USA-Mexico border has been non-existent so far. None of the cities on the Mexican side of the border have deployed TMCs to manage and operate transportation systems including border crossings. However, SCT is planning to deploy several TMCs in the border region. Table 12 includes a list of border regions on both sides of the USA-Mexico border that have existing and planned TMCs.



Table 12 Existing and Planned Deployment of Traffic Management Centers in Cities around Various Border Crossings

Border Crossing Country TMC Location Agency Status

San Ysidro and Otay Mesa USA San Diego SANDAG Existing

San Ysidro and Otay Mesa Mexico Tijuana SCT Planned

Calexico East and West USA Calexico Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG*)

Planned

Mariposa-Nogales USA Tucson ADOT Existing

Santa Teresa USA Las Cruces NMDOT Planned

El Paso (BOTA, Ysleta, Paso Del Norte)

USA El Paso TxDOT Existing

El Paso (BOTA, Ysleta, Paso Del Norte)

Mexico Chihuahua City SCT Planned

Laredo (World Trade, Camino Colombia)

USA Laredo TxDOT Existing

Note: * has plans to use SANDAG’s existing 511 system to relay border wait times.

SCT is going ahead with construction of regional TMCs in the cities of Monterrey and Chihuahua. The TMCs will monitor Mexican federal roadways and toll roads, many of which terminate at international border crossings. These TMCs will be able to operate ITS field devices deployed on roadways close to border crossings and provide ATI that will include traffic conditions on roadways as well as border crossings (52). In addition, the ITS system envisioned by SCT includes TMCs to be operated by toll concessionaires that will share real-time data with TMCs on the USA side of the border (53).

Figure 9 shows a sample ITS design for sharing border-crossing-related data between USA and Mexican agencies in the Tijuana region. On the other hand, major cities on the USA side have one or more TMCs operated by the cities and/or states. City-operated TMCs mostly focus on local arterials, and the state-operated TMCs manage traffic on state-maintained highways and freeways. However, conversations with officials mentioned that there has been little or no progress in sharing the TMC data with agencies in Mexico.



Figure 9 Tijuana ITS Project – Operational Diagram

Source: (53)

ITS architectures developed for border regions provide roadmaps to integrate transportation systems among agencies within the region and countries. ITS architectures typically identify stakeholder agencies and define roles and responsibilities that each agency plays in the region. Also, the architecture identifies functions, market packages, equipment packages, and how agencies interface for specific purposes. It also includes current interfaces between agencies and ones that the region plans to implement in the future. Table 13 lists existing and planned interfaces between agencies on both sides of the border as reflected in their corresponding regional ITS architectures. The list also demonstrates that stakeholders from individual regions have placed different priorities on interfacing with Mexican counterpart agencies.



Table 13 Existing and Future Interface between Agencies in USA and Mexico in the ITS Architecture for Individual Regions

USA Border Region, State

Interface Between Agencies on Both Sides of the Border Status

El Paso, Texas (65) Includes Juarez IMIP as the only stakeholder from Mexico to exchange archived data with the El Paso MPO

Existing

Laredo, Texas (65) The Regional ITS Architecture does not include stakeholders from Mexico -

Pharr, Texas (65) Includes Mexican EMAs as a stakeholder group and interfaces with TMCs operated by the cities of Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen, Pharr, and TxDOT Pharr for emergency management.

Future

Las Cruces, New Mexico (66)

The Regional ITS Architecture does not include stakeholders from Mexico. -

New Mexico Statewide (67)

Includes Mexican Customs and Border Patrol, which represents the border patrol agency in Chihuahua, Mexico.

Interfaces with NMDOT District 1 Traffic Operation Center (TOC) and regional EOC for traffic incident management and disaster response and recovery, respectively.

Future

Includes Mexico Public Safety, which represents public safety providers (police, fire, and Emergency Management Services [EMS]) in Chihuahua, Mexico, and the surrounding Mexican States. Interfaces with New Mexico Statewide EOC and Regional EOCs for disaster response and recovery. Interfaces with New Mexico DPS Dispatch Center and NMDOT District 1 TOC for emergency call taking and dispatch and traffic incident management, respectively.

Future

Includes Mexico Regional TMC that represents the regional TMC located in Chihuahua, Mexico, that would coordinate traffic information or operations with New Mexico. Interfaces with the NMDOT District 1 TOC to regional traffic control.

Future

Imperial County California (68)

The Regional ITS Architecture does not include stakeholders from Mexico. -

Entire Mexico ITS design includes real-time information sharing between concessionaire’s TMC and state-operated ones in the USA along the border regions

Future

Mexico’s National ITS Architecture was first drafted in 2005. The architecture will coordinate the management and operation of various transportation facilities throughout Mexico and support personal and goods movements. The effort of development of the architecture was led by the SCT. The architecture provides a great deal of emphasis on standardization and harmonization of information exchange among Mexican and USA agencies at all levels.

6.2 TRAVELER INFORMATION AT AND AROUND BORDER CROSSINGS

Traveler information allows motorists to choose the most efficient mode and route to their final destinations. Traveler information systems use ITSs to provide timely and detailed information about traffic incidents, weather, construction, special events to improve travel time predictability, allow drivers to make better choices, and reduce congestion. Traveler information applications use a variety of technologies, including Internet websites, telephone hotlines, television, and radio to allow users to make more informed decisions regarding trip departures, routes, and mode of travel (69). It is generally believed that the traveler information systems are among the most cost-effective investments that a transportation agency can make (70). From a systems perspective, traveler information has potential to reduce travel times, delay, fuel consumption,



and emissions. From a motorist’s perspective, traveler information can increase efficiency of travel, relieve stress, and increase trip reliability.

Traveler information is divided into two categories – pre-trip and en-route. Pre-trip traveler information provided via Internet websites, wireless devices, 511 telephone numbers, other telephone services, television, radio, or kiosks allows users to make a more informed decision for trip departures, routes, and mode of travel. En-route traveler information provided via wireless devices, 511 telephone numbers, other telephone services, radio, and in-vehicle signing allows users to make informed decisions regarding alternate routes and expected arrival times.

Investments in infrastructure to collect and disseminate traveler information at freeways and roadway networks have been substantial and ubiquitous. Comparatively, similar investments in deployment of ITSs at international land border crossings have been limited, especially on the USA-Mexico border. One of the core reasons such investments have been limited on the USA-Mexico border is lack of funding opportunities, especially on the Mexican side of the border. Table 14 includes a list of border crossings and agencies deploying various ITS technologies to collect data such as volume of approaching vehicles, crossing times, wait times, and queue length.



Table 14 List of Technology Implementations to Measure Volume, Wait Times, and Crossing Times at Various Border Crossings

Location Proponents Technology Direction Vehicles Factors Measured Status

Blaine-Pacific Highway and Douglas (Peace Arch) crossings at the Washington-British Columbia border

BCMoT, WSDOT, IBI, WCOG, TC

Loop Detectors + License Plate Reader

US-bound and Canada-bound

Cars only, extending to trucks at Northbound Blaine crossing

Volume of vehicles, toll collection

Operational since 2003

Sarnia, Ontario-Port Huron, Michigan

MTO, Delcan, TC Loop Detectors US-bound only Separate measures for cars and trucks

Volume of vehicles End of 2008

Lacolle, Quebec-Champlain, New York

Tecsult, MTO,TC RADAR Detectors

US-bound only Mixed traffic Volume of vehicles Spring 2008

Buffalo, New York-Niagara Falls, Ontario (three locations)

NYDOT, NYSTA, MTO, NITTEC

RFID US-bound and Canada-bound

Mixed traffic, but planning to separate cars and trucks

Crossing times October 2008

Lynden and Sumas, Washington WSDOT License Plate Readers

Canada-bound only

Cars only Volume of vehicles, toll collection

Summer 2008

Bluetooth Functionality Test TC (Ontario), TG Bluetooth Readers

US-bound and Canada-bound

Cars only Crossing times Data collected since late 2006

GPS project at seven locations in Ontario and Quebec

TC (Ontario), TG, EBTC

GPS logs US-bound and Canada-bound

Trucks only Crossing times Pilot ongoing since Spring 2006

El Paso, Texas-Mexico Bridge of the Americas

FHWA, TTI/ Battelle

RFID US-bound only Trucks only Crossing times and wait times


Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge

TxDOT, TTI, City of Pharr

RFID US-bound only Trucks only Crossing times and wait times


Mariposa-Nogales POE ADOT, TTI/ Battelle RFID US-bound only Trucks only Crossing times and wait times

2011

San Ysidro, California-Mexico Premier Wireless Video Image Processing

US-bound only Cars only Volume of vehicles, toll collection

Discontinued in 2005

Douglas, Arizona-Mexico Sentrillion, NTMI Video Image Processing

US-bound only Cars only Volume of vehicles, toll collection

No longer in operation

World Trade and Camino Colombia International Bridges

TTI, TxDOT RFID US-bound only Trucks only Crossing times End of 2010

Otay Mesa, California-Mexico FHWA, Delcan GPS US-bound only Trucks only Crossing times Spring/Summer 2008

Adapted from: (71)



6.2.1 Collection of Wait Times and Crossing Times

The CBP and the CBSA are two agencies that measure border wait times and share the information in the public domain. CBP measures wait times of vehicles inbound to the USA using one of five methods depending on the POE: unaided visual observation, cameras, driver surveys, time-stamped cards, and license plate readers. The CBSA uses similar techniques (71). CAPUFE, the Mexican federal agency that operates its border crossings, does not relay border wait times. Mexican motorists rely on the information relayed by the CBP for such information.

6.2.2 Use of RFID Technology

Understanding the shortcomings of the data relayed by the border agencies, the FHWA and TxDOT have deployed several ITS projects. These deployments use RFID technology to measure and relay highly accurate and reliable wait times and crossing times of commercial vehicles.

The FHWA funded a project to deploy RFID technology to measure truck crossing times at the Bridge of the Americas in El Paso, Texas (6). Subsequent to the success of the project, TxDOT funded a similar system in Pharr, Texas, and is planning to deploy a similar system in Laredo, Texas, and other major international crossings. Also, ADOT is in the process of deploying a similar system at the Mariposa POE. The RFID system at the Bridge of the Americas includes two RFID stations – one south of the Mexican federal inspection area and one at the exit of the Department of Public Safety compound. The system at the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge includes four stations, including two stations in Mexico and two on the USA side of the border. The RFID system at BOTA went into operation in July of 2009, and the system in Pharr went online in October 2009.

Figure 10 shows installation of RFID equipment at the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge.

The objective of these deployments is to implement systems that would automatically and accurately collect, archive, and disseminate crossing and wait times for northbound commercial freight. Additionally, the deployments were designed to sustain long-term data collection and also be easily transferable to other border crossings.

The RFID-based system provides field-measured and true crossing times of commercial vehicles. The system has the ability to provide a continuous stream of crossing-time data. In addition to being able to archive the data, the continuous data stream can also be converted into advanced traveler information (e.g., current crossing time at the border crossings). From a planning and long-range performance monitoring perspective, archived data can be used to determine monthly and annual variation of performance indices such as average crossing times, buffer index, etc.

For example, Figure 11 shows the monthly variation of performance indices for both border crossings. The left vertical axis represents indices related to crossing time (average, 95th percentile, and median) in minutes and the truck volumes in thousands, which was provided by the CBP. The right axis represents a buffer index, which measures the reliability of travel service and is calculated as the ratio between the difference of the 95th percentile travel time and the average travel time divided by the average travel time.



Figure 10 Installation of RFID Equipment at the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge

On the side of the road leading to the Mexican Customs

At CBP’s primary inspection booth canopy

Figure 11 Monthly Variations of Average Crossing Times and Buffer Index as Measured by the RFID System Deployed at BOTA

6.2.3 Use of Bluetooth Technology

TTI collaborated with Turnpike Global (TG) to perform a study to apply Bluetooth technology for measurement of border-crossing times of passenger vehicles at international POEs in the El Paso region (72). Figure 12 shows a typical portable Bluetooth equipment that is placed on the roadside for data collection.

Bluetooth technology operates in the unlicensed industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) band at 2.4 to 2.485 GHz. Bluetooth technology’s adaptive frequency hopping capability was designed

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

JULY, 09

AUGUST, 09

SEPTEMBER, 09

OCTO

BER, 09

NOVEM

BER, 09

DECEM

BER, 09

JANUARY, 10

FEBRUARY, 10

MARCH, 10

NB Truck Volume (In thousands)

Average Crossing Time

95 Percentile Crossing Time

Median Crossing Time

Buffer Index



to reduce interference between wireless technologies sharing the 2.4 GHz spectrum. The operating range, depending on the device class, can be from 1 meter, or 3 feet, to 100 meters, or 300 feet. The highest range is primarily for industrial use.

The Bluetooth protocol uses an electronic identifier in each device called a media access control (MAC) address. Bluetooth readers are able to search for nearby devices using a refresh rate defined by the software running inside the reader and can obtain the MAC addresses of Bluetooth-enabled devices along with a timestamp. Because each MAC address is unique, traditional matching algorithms analogous to those used for license plate, cellular, or toll tag tracking can be used to estimate travel time between two locations on a highway. MAC addresses are not directly associated with any of the users’ personal information, thus minimizing privacy concerns.

Figure 12 Typical Portable Bluetooth Equipment Used for Travel Time Measurement

Source: (73)

The study managed to match, on average, about 5 percent of the total entering vehicles with the exiting vehicles; the attributed reasons were the market penetration and percentage of drivers enabling the Bluetooth technology, and possibly poorer data collection capability of the Bluetooth technology under higher speeds of traffic.

Private concessionaires on the USA-Canada border use Bluetooth technology to measure crossing times of passenger vehicles. The information is relayed to motorists via the Internet and DMSs. However, there are concerns that private concessionaires operating international bridges that are collecting wait time and crossing time information may be reluctant to report longer wait times if there are competing concessionaires operating in the same region.



6.2.4 Use of Truck GPS Data

The Border Wait Time project conducted by the FHWA explored the use of GPS technology at Otay Mesa to obtain wait times of commercial vehicles (74). It was considered as a cost-effective solution for obtaining travel time data over a large region. Different deployment models that have been identified by the FHWA for use in travel time estimation are as follows: (1) collect GPS data by deploying units in trucks; (2) purchase GPS data from vendors (no carrier involvement); (3) have carrier request GPS data from vendor to be exported to study team; and (4) collect travel time information from third-party provider (e.g., Calmar, Inrix). The risks associated with Number 1 or Number 2 were qualitatively evaluated in terms of budgetary requirements, sustained data availability (or long-term viability), and privacy concerns and found to be high, while Number 3 was medium and Number 4 was low/medium. The last option was thus recommended for the Otay Mesa cross-border travel time estimation.

According to the report, third-party providers are experienced in paying and contracting with carriers to acquire data. These data can be geo-fenced to determine travel time characteristics of different movements, including laden, FAST, and empty as well as movements requiring secondary inspection by CBP or state inspection. The costs are, however, variable and may increase (or decrease) based on coverage and market conditions.

6.2.5 Use of Other Technologies’ GPS Data

The Border Wait Time (BWT) work group comprised of the US Customs and Border Protection, Federal Highway Administration, Canada Border Services Agency, and Transport Canada (TC) has been working together to foster the use of technologies for automating the measurement and dissemination of USA-Canada land border-crossing wait time data (75). The working group is undertaking a Border Wait Time Project, which has the purpose of (1) identifying and evaluating automated, technology‐based solutions for measuring border wait times; and (2) deploying an automated, technology‐based solution for measuring border wait times at two border-crossing locations along the USA-Canada land border.

The initial phase of the project will provide testing of a range of approaches to border wait time determination (e.g., queue length measurement systems, fixed-point vehicle re-identification systems, and dynamic vehicle tracking systems) at two international border crossings:

Peace Bridge – Buffalo/Niagara Region

Pacific Highway – British Columbia/Washington Region

The following sections provide a brief overview of each selected vendor’s technology, including sites and directions where the technology will be tested and associated system components and sensors.

A solution using smart phones and developed by G4 Apps Inc. is being tested at Peace Bridge in both the northbound and southbound directions. Using the phone’s GPS capability, the application identifies certain events and/or locations and transmits data securely. The application continuously runs in the background on the smart phones. The concept behind this solution is that actual wait times for vehicles equipped with smart phones will be measured. Each smart phone reports its location and the time when the vehicle arrives at the end of the queue and when it arrives at the primary inspection booth, as well as intermediate locations such as entering or leaving a holding area or duty free zone. Once a table is built up over time to match the end of queue locations with actual wait time, the system can use the current location of the end of queue to estimate current wait time. Over time, the system builds historic



data of actual wait times that can be used along with vehicle and current wait time data to predict wait times for a future period.

A solution developed by QinetiQ North America (QNA) is being tested at both Pacific Highway and Peace Bridge in both northbound and southbound directions. The solution integrates traffic data from installed side-looking radar traffic sensors with a queue storage model to estimate wait times. This concept requires measurement of traffic volume (vehicles/unit of time) upstream and downstream of the traffic restriction. The small, remote traffic microwave sensor (RTMS) G4 radars provide true presence detection of vehicles in multiple lanes by projecting an oval footprint and receiving reflected signals within their beams that measure vehicle volume, lane occupancy, vehicle speed, and size under all weather conditions. The sensors are networked locally with radio modems and are controlled and monitored through a wide-area cellular data link. The system is queried to provide approach and exit vehicle volumes and, through a separate internal server wait time calculator, increments the integrated number of vehicles in the queue and calculates wait time by differencing the number of vehicles in the queue and the exit volume. The system performs reporting through a Web portal and will provide an extensible markup language (XML) data feed.

A solution developed by FreeAhead is being tested at both Pacific Highway and Peace Bridge in both northbound and southbound directions. The solution integrates BluFax detection units or Bluetooth detectors, which record the MAC address of cellular devices in passing vehicles at a point upstream and another point just before the POE. Each approach has one upstream detector and one for each individual vehicle type. At each location there is an installed equipment container that holds the BluFax detection unit or Bluetooth detector.

The Intelligent Imaging Solution is being tested at Pacific Highway in the southbound direction. The solution uses a vehicle waveform identification (VWI) system as its main solution. The VWI system collects passenger and commercial vehicle data through the use of installed digital magnetometers (MAGs). Each vehicle passing over the surface MAG array (speed table) will produce a distinct vehicle waveform based on the distribution and density of metal within its own structure and cargo. These waveform patterns, or “fingerprints,” are automatically time stamped and collected at different nodes and then sent wirelessly to a local server (located nearby) for processing. The server, equipped with Smart Roadside software and patented internal algorithms, will be used to collect all roadside fingerprint data and estimate travel time distributions in real-time by processing, re-identifying, categorizing, and matching vehicle anonymous magnetic signatures, as well as removing any outliers and false matches. It will also perform all related reporting. The system consists of 28-foot-long by 12-foot-wide temporary speed tables with embedded MAGs, which are point sensors designed to mimic the performance of larger inductive-loop detectors and provide additional data. Long-range wireless antennas and supporting modems will be installed in conjunction with the speed tables and other equipment, which includes a temporary, inductive on-road loop detector, an ALPR camera, and an overview camera (OVC).

6.2.6 Collection of Vehicle Volume and Queue Length

Deployment of vehicle detection technology for the purposes of measuring traffic volume and queue length at border crossings is limited. Very few agencies on the USA-Canada border have deployed vehicle detectors at border crossings. The Ontario Ministry’s Advanced Traffic Management Section (ATMS) led an initiative to implement an intelligent Queue Warning System (QWS) on Hwy 402 to automatically detect queues and warn motorists in advance of the queue via VMSs. The system leveraged the experience gained from a similar system



previously implemented by ATMS on the Hwy 405 and QEW Niagara USA border crossing. The system consisted of inductive-loop detectors to detect vehicle queue, CCTV cameras for queue verification, flashing beacons, and DMSs to warn approaching motorists. Instead of physically connecting camera sites to a TMC, the system uses a long-haul wireless Ethernet system utilizing existing communications towers as repeater sites using 5.8 GHz spread spectrum radio (76).

Volume of vehicles that cross the border is also collected by customs agencies (both CBSA and CBP, but not CAPUFE) and is distributed to state DOTs and other agencies in highly aggregated temporal granularity. In addition, agencies operating at the border are also interested in deploying vehicle detectors to count volume of approaching vehicles with hopes of using that information to estimate queue lengths and delay time. Both Washington State DOT and British Columbia Ministry of Transportation (BCMoT) have installed inductive-loop detectors on roadways approaching the Cascade Gateway border crossing. A system maintained by the Whatcom Council of Government archives the vehicle detector data and provides historical wait time, volume, queue length, and service rate data to regional organizations, agencies, and the public (77).

However, past studies have shown conflicting results in terms of these algorithms being able to accurately estimate queue lengths and wait times. A fundamental problem is that the reliability and accuracy of counting vehicles and speed reduces significantly with increasing density and slow-moving traffic, which is typical at major border crossings.

Vehicle detection technologies are divided into two broad categories – intrusive and non-intrusive. Intrusive detection technologies include inductive loops, which are widely used for a variety of transportation applications. Non-intrusive detection technologies include microwave radar, active radar or laser, and video image processing. Non-intrusive detection technologies have an advantage over intrusive detectors because they do not disrupt traffic flow during installation and maintenance and are highly reliable and flexible. These benefits have encouraged some transportation professionals to replace inductive-loop detectors with non-intrusive detectors. Table 15 includes a brief description of strengths and weaknesses of inductive-loop, microwave radar, laser, and video image processing-based vehicle detection technologies.



Table 15 Strengths and Weaknesses of Commercially Available Vehicle Detection Technologies

Technology Strength Weakness

Inductive Loops Flexible design to satisfy large variety of applications.

Mature, well-understood technology.

Large experience base.

Provides basic traffic parameters (e.g., volume, presence, occupancy, speed, headway, and gap).

Insensitive to inclement weather such as rain, fog, and snow.

Provides best accuracy for count data as compared with other commonly used techniques.

Installation requires pavement cut.

Improper installation decreases pavement life.

Installation and maintenance require lane closure.

Microwave Radar

Typically insensitive to inclement weather at the relatively short ranges encountered in traffic management applications.

Direct measurement of speed.

Multiple lane operation available.

Cannot detect stopped vehicles.

Video Image Processing

Monitors multiple lanes and multiple detection zones/lane.

Easy to add and modify detection zones.

Rich array of data available.

Provides wide-area detection when information gathered at one camera location can be linked to another.

Performance affected by inclement weather such as fog, rain, and snow; vehicle shadows; vehicle projection into adjacent lanes; occlusion; day-to-night transition; vehicle/road contrast; and water, salt grime, icicles, and cobwebs on camera lens.

Reliable nighttime signal actuation requires street lighting.

Laser Transmits multiple beams for accurate measurement of vehicle position, speed, and class.

Multiple lane operation available.

Operation may be affected by fog when visibility is less than 20 feet (6 m) or blowing snow is present.

Installation and maintenance, including periodic lens cleaning, require lane closure.

Source: (78)

Non-intrusive vehicle detectors such as microwave and laser are slowly replacing inductive-loop detection technology. These detectors have gained a significant portion of vehicle-detection-related market share over the last five years, especially for freeway traffic operations and management. Many state agencies are replacing older inductive loop detectors with microwave radar detectors. Because microwave detectors stay on the side of the road and are non-intrusive, their maintenance cost is much lower than that of inductive loop detectors, which require lane closures and pavement removals during replacement and maintenance (79). Laser technology is relatively new compared to radar. However, the technology is slowly becoming popular, especially for toll-collection applications.

Non-intrusive vehicle detection technology has improved significantly over the last few years as a result of increased demand for such technology. For example, in a report published by the University of Utah in 2003, the non-intrusive technologies rated lower, with the average level of



satisfaction ranging from 2.8 to 3.4, compared to inductive loops. This was mainly due to factors such as immature technology, lack of experience and familiarity with new technologies, complexity of the installation process, maintenance requirements, and expense (79).

Direct hardware and software purchase costs are not the only costs associated with a sensor. Installation, maintenance, and repair should also be factored into the sensor selection decision. Installation costs include fully burdened costs for technicians to prepare the road surface or subsurface (for inductive loops or other surface or subsurface sensors), install the sensor and mounting structure (if one is required for over-roadway sensors), purchase and install conduit, close traffic lanes, divert traffic, provide safety measures where required, and verify proper functioning of the device after installation is complete.

6.2.7 Dissemination of Traveler Information

Every state in the USA incorporates some form of traveler information on freeways, state highways, and arterials. Across the country, cities collect information with varying levels of sophistication, from simple highway patrol reports to complex systems of camera surveillance and electronic traffic sensors. Likewise, the means of disseminating the information varies. The most common methods of information dissemination are highway advisory radio (HAR), DMSs, and telephone information services. A growing number of cities also provide web/Internet sites and personal data assistant-type in-vehicle devices for traveler information (70).

With the growing number of systems being deployed at border crossings to measure crossing times and wait times, more and more state and regional agencies relay the information to motorists and commercial vehicle operators. The information typically includes wait times, crossing times, traffic conditions, and visual queue conditions around border crossings. These systems are able to relay information to traveling motorists and commercial vehicle operators as pre-trip and en-route information.

One of the most widely used methods of relaying wait times to users is through agency websites, which are then further relayed by local media outlets such as radio and television stations. Some of these agencies also have a separate web page with the same information for mobile users. A few agencies in California and Washington have integrated the wait time information into their regional 511 systems and relay digitally pre-recorded messages with wait times. Agencies have also started to use Real Simple Syndicate (RSS) to “push” wait time information. Because many agencies re-relay CBP-published wait time information, the frequency of relay is the same as the one used by the CBP, which is hourly. Only two agencies were found that use social networking websites such as Twitter to relay wait time information.

6.2.8 Use of Variable Message Signs at and around Border Crossings

A quick review of agency websites and the literature review revealed that none of the agencies on the USA-Mexico border provide border-related information on DMSs. Several agencies on the USA-Canada border provide queue warning and wait time information through DMSs deployed at approaches leading to border crossings. Table 16 includes a list of agencies on both the USA-Canada and USA-Mexico borders that have deployed either fixed or portable DMSs for the purposes of relaying information about border crossings.



Table 16 Deployment of DMSs by Agencies for the Purpose of Relaying Information about Border Crossings

Agency Fixed Signs Portable Signs

Texas Department of Transportation (80), (81) Yes No

New Mexico Border Authority (82) No No

New Mexico Department of Transportation (83) No No

Arizona Department of Transportation (84) No No

SANDAG and Caltrans (85) No No

Washington State Department of Transportation (86) Yes No

British Columbia Ministry of Transport (87) Yes No

New York State Department of Transportation (88) No No

Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority (Peace Bridge) (89) Yes No

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (90) No No

Blue Water Bridge Canada (91) No No

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) (92) No No

Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) (93) No No

SCT (53) Planned No

However, SANDAG is planning to relay border-crossing information on SR 905, which provides essential connection between the OME POE with Mexico and the regional freeway system in California. This project will construct a six-lane freeway from I-805 to the busiest commercial border crossing on the California-Mexico border. This project, along with the future OME POE and SR 11, will provide for efficient transportation of goods and services in the Otay Mesa border region. The first half of the six-lane freeway began construction in April 2008, and the remaining half began in June 2009.

This includes the 511 travel information system, fiber optic communication traffic monitor systems, ramp meter systems, signals with video detection, CCTV systems, and changeable message systems all connecting to a base communication hub. A corridor management plan for the proposed SR 905 project is intended to provide a unified, multimodal system management concept for managing and preserving freight mobility in the corridor (94).

Agencies planning to deploy DMSs for border crossings need to be aware that the efficiency of such deployment depends upon whether travelers understand the information correctly, how they value the usefulness of information, and whether they follow the suggested alternates. Studies have shown that the preferences on route switching increase with the information content provided by the dynamic message signs. When only qualitative information is provided through the DMS, the rates of switching routes were low. On the contrary, when the DMS provided guidance information, most travelers tended to switch because it was implied that the alternative routes were the best routes (95). Whether a similar conclusion can be drawn for border crossings is a topic of future research – mainly because motorists do not have many choices when it comes to border crossings.

Also, an analysis of diversions for different incident messages showed that the number of diversions varied considerably according to incident circumstances. It is apparent that it is not only the severity of the problem reported that influences the level of diversions but also other factors such as the specific location mentioned and the availability of viable alternative routes to



avoid the problem location. The results for route guidance information showed that substantial diversions occur when the route advice differs from normal.

6.2.9 Use of Social Networking Sites, Websites, and Mobile Devices

Almost all state DOTs, CBP, and CBSA relay border-crossing-related information using agency websites over the Internet. CBP and CBSA relay border wait times using RSS as well. State DOTs such as Washington and California relay border wait time information using existing 511 systems. On the USA-Mexico border, the only source of border wait times is the CBP since none of the border crossings are instrumented to measure wait times or crossing times, except BOTA and Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge. On the USA-Canada border, even though the primary source of border wait times is CBSA, several privately operated bridges relay wait time and crossing time information using technologies that are primarily used for toll collection. Table 17 lists agency use of social networking sites (SNSs), email, and mobile devices by agencies to relay border crossing and wait times.

Table 17 Use of Social Networking Sites, Email, and Mobile Devices by Agencies to Relay Border Crossing and Wait Times

Agency Facebook Twitter Email RSS 511 Website Mobile

CBP (96) No No No Yes No Yes Yes

CBSA (97) No Yes No No No Yes Yes

SCT (53) No No No No Yes*** Yes*** Yes***

TxDOT (80), (81) No No No No No Yes* No

NMBA (82) No No No No No Yes* No

NMDOT (83) No No No No No No No

ADOT (84) No No No No Yes Yes Yes

SANDAG and Caltrans (85) No No No No Yes Yes* No

WSDOT (86) No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

BCMoT (87) No No No No No Yes** No

NYDOT (88) No No No No No No No

Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority (Peace Bridge) (89)

No No No No No Yes Yes

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (90)

No Yes No No No Yes No

Blue Water Bridge Canada (91) No No No No No Yes No

MDOT (92) No No No No No No No

MDT (93) No No No No No No No

Note: * Same as CBP wait times, ** Same as CBSA wait times, *** Planned

SNSs are web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (98). Examples of these sites include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and FourSquare. Government agencies, including several other state transportation departments, are using new media such as social networking sites to enhance their efforts to provide information to the public.



These sites function differently than standard web pages and feature the consolidation of different information sources onto one page, often with information pushed to them. The sites generally require individuals to register and select sources they wish to follow with updates flowing to their social networking pages automatically.

Social networking sites have dramatically altered how people interact and share information. With the amount of time most drivers spend behind the wheel increasing along with traffic congestion, social networking will inevitably find its way into cars. It has already, when one considers the fact that some motorists feel compelled to update their status on a phone when they should be looking at the road (99).

Some companies are already developing interfaces that will allow motorists to receive audible tweets (short messages sent via Twitter) and Facebook status updates, as well as record their own by using voice control and steering-wheel buttons. Similarly, location-aware applications could easily allow car owners to note their location and find where friends are via social networking sites like Foursquare. The car itself could even send tweets and check in at locations (99).

Many state agencies including state DOTs publish real-time traffic information on these social networking sites, assuming that these sites allow wider dissemination of traffic information to motorists. There seems to be significant (latent) demand for personalized information services that would allow users to retrieve information when needed, to the point where a significant number of San Francisco Bay-area travelers stated they would be willing to pay either on a per-call basis or a monthly subscription fee for a customizable service. However, the new information must be superior to the information that can be obtained for free through radio or television or other Internet outlets and services (100).

Being able to send messages regarding traffic conditions to mobile devices has come with mixed feelings. Safety experts and policymakers are wondering whether they are giving a mixed message to motorists regarding the use of mobile devices while driving. At least 22 states that ban texting while driving also offer motorist information services via Twitter. Those information services provide locations of road emergencies, traffic congestion reports, and more (101). Some supporters of text-messaging bans say that states that provide traffic information via Twitter are undermining these laws.

Agencies also use Internet websites, mobile devices, and SNSs to relay information regarding traffic conditions around border crossings. Compared to the USA-Mexico border, agencies on the USA-Canada border have deployed more ITS devices to relay such information to motorists.

Table 18 lists agency use of Internet websites to relay traffic-related information around border crossings. The most prevalent information includes CCTV snapshots of queue conditions, wait time information, color-coded speed information, etc.



Table 18 Use of Websites by Agencies to Relay Traffic Conditions around Border Crossings

Agency CCTV Snapshots

Color-Coded Speed

Information

Textual Speed Information

Incident Location

CBP - - - -

CBSA - - - -

SCT (53) Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes*

TxDOT (80), (81) Yes Yes Yes Yes

NMBA (82) No No No No

NMDOT (82) No No No Yes

ADOT (84) No No No Yes

SANDAG and Caltrans (85) No Yes Yes Yes

WSDOT (86) Yes Yes Yes Yes

BCMoT (87) Yes Yes Yes No

NYDOT (88) Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes No No No

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (90) Yes No No No

Blue Water Bridge Canada (91) Yes No No No

MDOT (92) Yes Yes Yes Yes

MDT (93) No No No Yes

Note: * Planned

In the Washington area on the USA-Canada border, the Canadian government recently announced implementation of ITSs at two new British Columbia border crossings. The system measures and reports wait times to allow travelers to make informed route choices. Transport Canada and the Province of British Columbia each funded 50 percent of the $2.6 million total cost. The federal funds come from the Intelligent Transportation Systems at Border Crossings program, a contribution program that provides funding to transportation operators to deploy transportation technology at Canada-USA land border crossings. The website (as shown in Figure 13) for the traveler information shows video snapshots from cameras installed close to border crossings as well as wait times measured using loop detectors.



Figure 13 Snapshot of the BCMoT Website Showing Traffic Conditions around the Peach Arch Border Crossing

Source: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/ATIS/index.htm

A complementary system that shows the traffic condition on the USA side of the border was developed by WSDOT and shows video snapshots and wait times on the USA side of the border, as shown in Figure 14 .



Figure 14 Snapshot of the WSDOT Website Showing Traffic Conditions around the Peach Arch Border Crossing

Source: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/border/SR543_TruckSpur.htm

There are several other private websites that show snapshots and/or live video feeds from surveillance cameras operated by state and provincial governments on the USA-Canada border. Bordertraffic.com, a private company, provides real-time video to its users at several POEs on the USA-Mexico and USA-Canada border. The company charges a nominal fee to view the video of traffic conditions of SENTRI lanes. A snapshot of the live video is shown in Figure 15.



Figure 15 Video Snapshot of the San Ysidro Port of Entry Provided by BorderTraffic.com

Source: www.bordertraffic.com

State and federal agencies also relay border-crossing information through SNSs, RSS, and emails. Only a few state DOTs on the USA side of the Canadian border have integrated these systems with their statewide 511 system. On the USA-Mexico border, only SANDAG provides border-crossing-related information through its regional 511 system. Table 19 lists use of social networking sites, email, the 511 system, and mobile devices by agencies to relay traffic conditions around border crossings. A snapshot of SANDAG’s 511 system website is shown in Figure 16. A proposed countrywide 511-type system being developed by the SCT is shown in Figure 17.



Table 19 Use of Social Networking Sites, Email, and Mobile Devices by Agencies

Agency Facebook Twitter Email RSS 511 System Website

TxDOT (80), (81) N Y Y N N Y

NMBA (82) N N N N N N

NMDOT (82) N N N N Y Y

ADOT (84) N N N N Y Y

SANDAG and Caltrans (85) N N N N Y Y

WSDOT (86) N N Y N Y Y

BCMoT (87) N N N N Y N

NYDOT (88) N N N N Y Y


N N N N N Y

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (90) N N N N N Y

Blue Water Bridge Canada (91) N N N N N Y

MDOT (92) N N N N N Y

MDT (93) N Y N Y Y Y

SCT (53) N N N N Y* Y*

Note: * Planned only on toll roads leading to and from international border crossings at the USA-Mexico border.

Figure 16 San Diego Area 511 System

Source: www.511sd.com



Figure 17 Planned Nationwide 511 Traveler Information System in Mexico

Source: (53)

6.2.10 Effectiveness of Traveler Information at Border Crossings

The literature review revealed that effectiveness of traveler information at and around border crossings has not been studied. Past studies have focused only on traveler information effectiveness on urban freeways and arterials. However, conclusions similar to the ones drawn for urban freeways can be applied to border crossings. From these past studies, a general consensus is that motorists use traveler information to the extent that they perceive it to deliver reliable, resourceful, and relevant information (102).

In a study performed among Seattle-area travelers, it was found that the use of advanced information is fairly uncommon, with travelers seeking information on only 10 percent of their trips and making a change in response to information on less than 1 percent of their trips. Information sources included radio, television, website, and DMSs (103). As to why travelers often do not seek any information in the first place, this seems most closely tied to trip characteristics. Simulation models of traveler information usage suggest that the overall user benefit to consulting traveler information is quite modest but that information can be of great value for certain types of trips, particularly those of high traffic variability and time sensitivity. When an attempt is made to consult information, no information may be available for the trip in question, or it may not be detailed or accurate enough to be useful in making decisions. Even when learning of delays, travelers may have (or feel that they have) no real alternatives for changing their trip or route.

A similar study comparing responses from motorists in Seattle and Los Angeles to online traffic information also revealed that location matters, as motorists in Los Angeles experience significantly longer commutes and greater congestion and volatility in traffic conditions. While



motorists in both regions gave positive assessments of the traffic websites, Seattle respondents were more enthusiastic. On several dimensions, Seattle respondents expressed more intense support for their site. Moreover, Seattle motorists were more likely to benefit from the service, with greater numbers agreeing that online traffic information saved them time and reduced the stress of traveling. An analysis of the data indicates that underlying traffic conditions in the two regions bear greatly on customers’ responses to the service. The greater congestion and volatility in Los Angeles increased motorists’ demand for up-to-the-minute information and also undermined customers’ expectations that any information service can provide much relief (104). One of the most interesting findings from both studies is that the predominant sources of traffic information are still television and radio – even though Internet and mobile devices have become much more ubiquitous and pervasive.

In a survey performed among Seattle-area travelers, it was found that less than 50 percent of the respondents were aware of the fact that traffic information was available through Internet websites, and only 22 percent had used the service, while more than 95 percent of the respondents were aware of similar traffic information being provided by television and radio, and more than 60 percent used one or both information sources (103). Hence, it would be safe to say that the majority of travelers at present probably use radio and television to obtain information about border crossings, rather than Internet or mobile devices. Quantification of effectiveness of providing advanced traveler information about border crossings, both pre-trip and en-route, is still elusive even though its benefit is not doubtful.

A user’s response to current wait times is at best subjective and anecdotal. There do not appear to be studies that have documented users’ responses to wait times in the short term. Were there to be, questions might include:

Do users set a preference for border crossings?

If they do, then what are the factors and threshold values of these factors that influence decisions to choose one border crossing over the other?

For many users, the best strategy is to allocate extra time to cross the border based on past experience and historical occurrences of delay. This extra time is in fact what transportation engineers describe as the buffer time, and which has a direct correlation with reliability of the wait time information received by the users. Longer buffer times by users indicate unreliability of the information they are receiving (or have received) and lesser confidence that the wait time will improve after they have received such information prior to crossing the border. Scientific, reliable techniques to measure crossing and wait times will significantly decrease this lack of confidence, but it will take time to educate the users about the reliability of these techniques.

How users react to en-route wait time information relayed by field ITS devices such as the DMSs and local media is still unknown. In freeway operation and management, researchers have used focus group studies, interviews, and visual simulations to understand motorist behaviors in real-time traffic conditions. Similar studies might be helpful to understand users’ behavior to real-time information at border crossings.

It is also unclear which pre-trip and en-route information sources are comparatively more effective: CCTV snapshots compared to wait time for pre-trip information? Local media versus DMS messages for en-route information? Also, what would happen if a significant portion of users are sent the same information about current delay at one of the border crossings? Will all



or a major portion of the users shift to another border crossing and in doing so increase the delay at the other one? Intuition and studies have shown that this is a likely scenario. So the question is how to provide targeted information to users and at the same time receive feedback on how the users are reacting to the information that is being provided to them.

6.3 ARCHIVED DATA MANAGEMENT

One of the features of ITS is the large amount of data it produces. Archived ITS data have a tremendous value in planning infrastructure, measuring performance, and evaluating strategies and management decisions. However, archived ITS data are greatly underutilized by agencies, mostly due to complex data transformation (hence, the cost and labor) required to convert the data into usable information. It is important to note that the archived data should not be limited to the data collected by ITS at the border but should also include data collected using non-ITS methods such as intercept surveys and manual data collection.

A centralized repository of archived data would significantly reduce data redundancy, reduce data collection and storage cost, and increase efficiency of data retrieval. A centralized repository would also be responsible for maintaining and updating the data on behalf of all participating stakeholders. As illustrated in Figure 18, a proposed border-crossing information system should provide a centralized repository of archived data and enhance the data by aggregating in different spatial and temporal granularity (58). In addition, users can obtain archived data from a single repository instead of multiple agencies, thereby reducing overall cost and increasing efficiency of data retrieval.

Figure 18 Proposed Centralized Repository of Archived Border-Crossing Data

Source: (58)

6.3.1 Use of Archived ITS Data for Border Infrastructure Planning and Operation

It is a well-known fact that archived border-crossing data are used by private and public agencies with responsibilities to plan, operate, and manage border-crossing infrastructure. However, limited studies have been performed to document how agencies archive and use archived ITS data for planning and operational purposes. Archived data are then used by



agencies, such as MPOs, city agencies, CBP, and GSA, to plan future infrastructure improvements and manage resources to operate border crossings efficiently. Private travelers, freight shippers, and carriers may use the archived data in limited scope.

Local and regional agencies such as metropolitan planning agencies use archived border-crossing data, especially volume to develop near- and long-term regional travel demand models. In these models, border crossings are treated as external zones. Table 20 lists agency use of archived border-crossing data.

Interviews with several MPO personnel revealed that their need for highly granular border crossing data is higher than other state and local agencies. MPOs use such data for demand modeling ranges from hourly volume to annual volume trends. They also use hourly volumes for model calibration, which is crucial for simulation of traffic around border crossings. MPOs, however, do not have access to continuously accessible finely granular data and have to rely on short project studies to obtain such data. In addition to volume of vehicles in both directions, MPOs also need information such as queue lengths, wait times, and crossing times. This information is normally obtained by a short period of data collection at the border.

Also, none of the agencies listed in Table 20 has developed specifications and requirements for archived border crossing data in terms of accuracy, reliability, scope, and usability.

Table 20 Use of Archived Border Crossing Data by Agencies

Agency Current Application

Data Types Archived

Data Types Required for

Archival

Future Applications

TxDOT (54) Project-driven studies, project planning, funding requests

Monthly volume of northbound vehicles

Smaller temporal granularity volume, wait times, crossing times

Project-driven studies

El Paso MPO (56) Project-driven studies, saturation counts for travel demand modeling


Smaller temporal granularity volume, wait times, crossing times

Identification of peak periods for calibration of travel demand models

IMIP Not available Not available Not available Not available

NMBA (105) Project-driven studies, project planning, funding requests

Daily, weekly, monthly volume of northbound vehicles

Wait times, crossing times


Las Cruces MPO (105) Project-driven studies, saturation counts for travel demand modeling




NMDOT (105) Project-driven studies




Note: * Planned

The deployment of ITSs at border crossings has increased the possibility of collecting border-crossing-related data to support a set of performance measures and ultimately a performance management process for evaluating and improving international border crossings for freight as well as passenger movement. Such performance measures should be applied to:



Compare border-crossing performance nationally.

Take into account local operation of crossings.

Derive from a system to provide travel time information to travelers and shippers.

Apply archived travel time data and travel time reliability information.

Consider causal data that explains the differences in travel time.

Reflect changes in operating practices and infrastructure at individual crossings.

The unique elements of the border-crossing system mean that the performance measure must satisfy the typical measurement requirements as well as several factors as described earlier. Given the wide range and diversity of available measures, it is important to have a clear basis for assessing and comparing border-crossing performance measures. However, collection and estimation of border-crossing performance measurement indices should consider the following:

Performance measures should be calculated from operational and policy data that are collected as part of daily operations.

Performance measures should be consistent with the procedures used by all three countries at the international border.

The levels of performance are perceived differently by shippers, manufacturers, crossing operators, and the inspection agencies. It is important that the statistics are relevant for the variety of audiences. This will require that the measurement base lines or comparison standards be evident or easily communicated.

Changes in designs, demand, and operating procedures at individual border crossings should be reflected in the performance measure.

Estimation of performance measures should be independent of the data collection technology used to collect travel time related parameters.

One of the major parameters to measure performance at border crossings should be related to travel time for both freight and passenger movement, which would be a basis for establishing common indices to compare performances of border crossings throughout the USA-Mexico and USA-Canada border, irrespective of characteristics of individual crossings.

However, the literature review and the subsequent interviews with officials from various agencies revealed that none of the transportation agencies on border regions have adopted performance measures at border crossings. Most agencies use annual volume trend as a de-facto performance measure. These agencies did express interest in adopting travel time-based performance measures of border crossings if such data were available.

With the implementation of wait time and crossing time measurement systems for commercial vehicles by FHWA, TxDOT, and ADOT the discussion on which performance measures is appropriate has resurfaced. Since the completion of RFID-based wait time and crossing measurement system, FHWA has been using buffer index to monitor performance of land border crossings. Other measures that have been suggested include average and total delay, percentage of trucks delayed, etc.



CBP, on the other hand uses, performance measures that are more geared towards its goal of securing the border. CBP’s Office of Field Operations identified several performance measures for POEs in the Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2007-2011. For each of the five goals the following performance measures have been identified: Goal 1: Advanced Knowledge

Percentage of people/goods conveyances providing advance information Number of mitigating actions taken prior to arrival at a POE

Goal 2: Effective Inspections

Percentage of people/goods/conveyances screened Security: Percentage of adverse actions Facilitation: Average wait time Percentage of secondary enforcement actions that have findings recorded in Treasury

Enforcement Communications System (TECS) Goal 3: Focused Security

Number of non-system-generated targets resulting in enforcement actions Number of successful adverse actions resulting from specialized enforcement teams’

work Goal 4: Secure Environment

Number of CASC operations Number of sensors in place Number of cameras in place Percentage of decrease in port runners Percentage of decrease in gate outs

Goal 5: Successful Implementation

Number of officers assigned to JTTFs and other joint activities, including liaison with other agencies at the National Targeting Center

Percentage of vacancies filled for core operational positions Percentage of required training received Retention rate Level of technology availability

Under the Effective Inspections goal, the objective is to maintain flexible, agile and streamlined inspection, where the performance measure is Average Wait Time. This performance measure is one that could be measured with ITS technologies and share information with CBP.

6.3.2 Existing Sources of Archived Cross-Border ITS Data

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) maintains a centralized repository of border-crossing-related data that can be accessed through a public-domain website. Table 21 lists type and scope of border-crossing-related data provided by the BTS. However, data available from BTS are highly aggregated (monthly and annually) by port group instead of by individual border crossing. For example, border wait times at POEs (collected by CBP) available from BTS are averaged monthly for a particular port group. In a port group, there may be some crossings that are rarely congested and some that are always congested. Also, from an



operational standpoint, monthly averages of border wait times are not useful and lack information such as hourly fluctuations. In addition, agencies such as MPOs that analyze the impact of border-crossing trends to plan for short- and long-term infrastructure improvements require highly disaggregated border-crossing data in terms of type of transportation modes and vehicle entry programs. Highly aggregated data are not adequate for these agencies to understand hourly and daily trends at individual border crossings.

Table 21 Type and Scope of Border-Crossing-Related Data Available from Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Type of Data Data Scope

Commercial Vehicles

Volume Only northbound monthly and yearly total data for each POE starting in 1994

HAZMAT Only northbound monthly and yearly total data for each POE starting in 1994

Travel Time of Segments Entering and Exiting POE

Not available

Number of Trips and Average Travel Time of Trips within the Region

Not available

Distribution of Ultimate Origin-Destinations of Trucks

Not available

Export and Import Value by Origin Port and Destination State

Monthly and yearly total data for each POE starting in 1994

Export and Import Volume by Origin Port and Destination State


Import and Export Value by Commodity and Mode


Passenger Vehicles


Travel Time of Segments Entering and Exiting POE

Not available

Vehicle Occupancy Not available

POE Preference Not available

Length of Stay Not available

Frequency of Trips Not available

Transit and Pedestrians


Trip Purpose Not available

Frequency of Trips Not available

North and Southbound Volume Only northbound monthly and yearly total data for each POE starting in 1994

North and Southbound Bus Passengers Only northbound monthly and yearly total data for each POE starting in 1994



In 2003, both the BCMoT and WSDOT installed Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATISs) for passenger cars at the Blaine-Pacific Highway and Douglas (Peace Arch) border crossings. The systems use loop detectors to estimate the wait times for cars crossing the border in both directions. The collected data are archived and available online at http://www.cascadegatewaydata.com/. Measures of delay, queue length, number of vehicles in the queue, traffic volume, and the number of vehicles departing the queue per five minutes can be viewed online or downloaded for further analysis (77). The archived data are aggregated into different temporal granularities such as hourly, daily, and monthly.

One of the earliest deployments of archived border-crossing data was implemented by the Whatcom Council of Governments (WCOG) in 2002. The system is referred to as the Cascade Gateway Border Data Warehouse and was designed to archive real-time traffic data from the Cascade Gateway system of border crossings on the USA-Canada border (77). The archived data in the data warehouse is managed by the WCOG. A snapshot of the data warehouse is shown in Figure 19. ITS data are supplied to the data warehouse by the BCMoT on the Canadian side and WSDOT on the USA side. Both agencies operate independent systems, which include a series of inductive loop detectors. The data is used to calculate traffic volumes and arrival rates, as well as estimated wait times of passenger vehicles.

Figure 19 Snapshot of Cascade Gateway Border Data Warehouse Query Screen

Source: www.cascadegatewaydata.com



The Paso Del Norte Regional Mobility Information system was developed by the Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research at TTI and has been in operation since 2007 (106). The system not only provides real-time traffic conditions and border-crossing information to motorists in the El Paso region but also provides archived data from various ITS devices deployed in the region. The system archives border wait-time-related data relayed by CBP. The data include delay and number of lanes open for commercial and passenger vehicles. The system also archives external information such as weather, daily exchange rate, messages relayed by dynamic message signs, and incident locations.

TTI, with funding from the FHWA, is developing a prototype web tool that will relay and archive crossing and wait times for USA-bound commercial vehicles from various ITS deployments on the USA-Mexico border funded or supported by the FHWA. The objective of the prototype web tool is to provide an effective and efficient web-based platform for dissemination of real-time traveler information and archived border-crossing related data to stakeholders on the USA-Mexico border. Real-time traveler information includes current border wait and crossing times obtained from the RFID deployments, number of lanes open, and bridge closure information. Archived data include historic wait times and crossing times, number of lanes open, weather, and total vehicular volume. Historic data include trends shown in different temporal and spatial granularities, summarized and aggregated data, and simple summary statistics.

6.3.3 Deployment Issues

Archived data in ITS refers to the systematic retention and re-use of transportation data generated for various purposes (107). Data archiving is also referred to as data warehousing or operations data archiving. Sensors and detectors used in ITS deployments produce a huge amount of data, which have to be converted into information for effective use of the data. To achieve this, the raw data have to be archived, filtered, and aggregated into useful information. Only then can archived data be used in managing existing and planning future infrastructure.

The widespread deployment of vehicle detectors and sensors by state and local DOTs has created massive amounts of raw data. Agencies mostly use the aggregated data, such as daily and annual volume of vehicles, for project design, studies, and other planning purposes. However, archived data have many other benefits such as real-time operation of transportation infrastructure, real-time decision making, performance evaluation monitoring, environmental analysis, and theoretical research. Even though these benefits are obvious to the agencies, very few of them have implemented a well-structured data archiving program. While deploying ITSs, many agencies do not prioritize archived data and mostly focus on operational benefits of real-time data. There are several reasons why agencies do so:

Agencies are mostly focused on day-to-day operation and do not see the utility of archiving the raw data (107).

Planning/decision-making bodies of agencies are not familiar with ITS deployments and their products, and thus may not know the full extent of the benefits of archived data or the capabilities they offer.

Limited resources to operate and maintain archived data exist. Most importantly, agency personnel are not fully aware of strengths and benefits of archived ITS data.

Development and maintenance of a border-crossing data warehouse, whether small or large, requires highly skilled resources, continuous funding, and most of all support from the stakeholders. One of the challenges facing the Cascade Gateway Data Warehouse has been



retaining highly skilled database administrators and software developers to maintain the warehouse.

6.3.4 Temporal and Spatial Granularity of Data

Granularity refers to the level of detail of the data archived. High granularity refers to data that are at or near the transaction level or raw data. Low granularity refers to data that are summarized or aggregated. Granularity of archived data is directly proportional to the size of the data warehouse and thus the cost of maintaining the system. The higher the granularity, the more storage space required to archive the data. Also, the higher the granularity, the more rows (records) that constitute tables resulting in additional storage requirements.

Data warehouses mentioned above store data in various temporal granularities – mostly in minutes, hours, days, months and years. However, there are no guidelines and standard procedures regarding granularities of the archived data. In most cases, the decision to create and maintain certain levels of temporal granularity of data depends on aggregated data needs. For example, for many traffic studies, vehicle volume is required at 15- and 60-minute periods. Raw data from vehicle sensors often come in less than 1-minute packets (i.e., aggregated in less than 1 minute), which is used to create 15-minute and 60-minute data. Thus, the data warehouse will include multiple levels of temporal granularities because there is computing overload if 1- or 15-minute data have be used every time users query for 60-minute data.

The raw data as it is archived represents the highest granularity in terms of space (i.e., spatial granularity). For example, data from one or more detectors from a single location represent the highest granularity data. Data from more than one location can be aggregated to obtain information about longer roadway segments. In terms of border crossings, the smallest spatial granularity should be by individual border crossing and the highest should be by individual lane type (e.g., SENTRI or FAST). The Cascade Gateway Data Warehouse archives vehicle detector data by individual detector, lane, route, and direction and wait times by individual lane type, direction, and the border crossing.

6.3.5 Size and Scope of ITS Data

Archived data should be most preferably implemented in data warehouse architecture. This allows systematic retention, processing, and management of a large amount of ITS data. This will also allow multiple types of border-related data to be stored in a relational database structure. For example, wait times and crossing times of vehicles can be related to volume of vehicles and external factors such as fuel prices and exchange rates. Data warehouse architecture is suitable to archive voluminous data and is not suitable to store transactional data that need to be accessed by hundreds of users at the same time for their daily work. The Cascade Gateway Data Warehouse and Paso Del Norte Regional Mobility Information System (PDN-RMIS) have grown significantly in size.

All of the above-mentioned data warehouses do not have policies to limit the scope of ITS data to be archived. Depending on availability of resources to manage the data warehouse and the ability to acquire storage space size and scope of an ITS, the amount of data is not of great concern. However, the data should be the ones that can be used to measure operational performance of border crossings.



Latest generation database servers allow storage of geospatial data and allow users to perform spatial query. GPS data from vehicles can be easily archived and processed to obtain border-related information and information related with data from other ITS devices.

6.3.6 Data Filtering and Aggregation

Data filtering is crucial to impose appropriate quality control over the data. Data filtering needs to occur at different levels of aggregation and should include removal and reporting of erroneous data, imputation or removal of missing data, and removal of inaccurate data. Causes of erroneous/missing/inaccurate data occur very frequently and are mostly due to causes such as equipment failures, telecommunication failures, and equipment calibration errors.

Many ITS devices can sense equipment errors and have capabilities to flag such errors along with the data that are transferred. These errors are easy to identify and remove prior to further aggregating. Correcting missing data due to short equipment and telecommunication failure can be easy or extremely complex and depends on the span for which the data are lost. It is preferable to define algorithms to impute missing data and have it implemented in the data warehouse. Systematically produced inaccurate data due to equipment calibration errors are most difficult to detect early on because the data may have very subtle differences from the true data. In such cases, it will be difficult to flag the raw data as erroneous. Business intelligence tools can be used to identify subtle differences in raw and aggregated data.

On the other hand, quick notification of an erroneous data stream to the system administrator will help identify hardware- and software-related problems. Thus, mechanisms should be put in place to notify the system administrator if erroneous data are coming from field devices or if failure of hardware/software occurs. One should bear in mind that sizable resources are required to establish robust filtering algorithms in the data warehouse.

In the end, all archived data user services should have mechanisms to report quality of data that are being relayed to the end users.

Data aggregation depends on the need for different levels of spatial and temporal granularity. Usually, algorithms can be built into the data warehouse to periodically aggregate the data (at pre-defined time intervals), or algorithms can be triggered when new data enter the data warehouse. Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages and trade-offs in the form of performance and computing overhead.

Data aggregation at pre-defined times can be performed when the system is not being used heavily, such as at nighttime or during off-peak periods. If the aggregation requires processing huge numbers of records, this technique is also efficient. Publishing daily, weekly, or monthly data can be done with some time lag, and the algorithm does not need to run every time new data enter the database. On the other hand, while publishing, real-time information such as current crossing time or predicted crossing time for next hour aggregation and processing of data should take place as soon as new data become available.

6.3.7 Data Storage Management

TMCs, whether they are responsible for regional multimodal transportation operations or for smaller municipal traffic systems, are typically the first entity responsible for storing and maintaining archived ITS data. Eventually, the data might be shared with other agencies with interests in the archived data. Irrespective of the entity responsible for maintaining the archived



ITS data, one of the biggest concerns of these entities is to determine the length of time data have to be archived and the threshold for physical size archive before decisions can be made to destroy the data. The length of time data are stored is obviously dependent on temporal granularity of data as well as number of ITS devices from which data are being collected. Both factors have a direct correlation with storage size. Smaller granularity data require less storage space compared to raw and highly granular data. Also, a database with raw data that has grown substantially over the years poses performance-related problems. Thus, two things need to happen – development of policies to purge data after a certain time has elapsed and movement of the data to a separate and independent physical storage medium (e.g., DVD or magnetic tapes). However, there is reluctance in purging data due to fear of losing aggregated data. Maintaining only aggregated data in the core database will undoubtedly result in improved performance, especially when end users query the data.



7 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

7.1 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AT OTHER BORDER CROSSINGS

7.1.1 FAST – Technology Infrastructure

While the FAST program was described earlier in this document, this subsection provides more specific information on the technologies that support the FAST program.

As detailed earlier, FAST is a clearance process for known low-risk shipments through dedicated lanes. Any truck using FAST lane processing must be a C-TPAT-approved carrier, carrying qualifying goods from a C-TPAT-approved importer, and the driver must be in the possession of a valid FAST commercial driver registration ID card. The southern border has two additional requirements. The manufacturer must be an approved C-TPAT participant, and it must also adhere to CBP high security seal requirements.

The two cargo release methods for FAST-eligible shipments are as follows:

FAST System (formerly National Customs Automated Prototype) – This is a fully electronic and completely paperless cargo release mechanism put into place by the CBP. Paperless processing is achieved through advanced electronic data transmissions and transponder technology.

Pre-Arrival Processing System – PAPS is an Automated Commercial System border cargo release system that utilizes barcode technology to expedite the release of commercial shipments while still processing each shipment through Border Cargo Selectivity and the Automated Targeting System. Each PAPS shipment requires a unique barcode label, which the carrier attaches to the invoice and the truck manifest while the merchandise is still in Canada or Mexico. The barcode consists of the Standard Carrier Alpha Code and Pro-Bill number or entry number. The licensed US Customs broker in the USA must indicate this sequencing of SCAC code and unique number in the BCS entry in ACS. Upon the truck’s arrival at the border, the CBP officer scans the barcode, which automatically retrieves the entry information from ACS.

The FAST system outlined above consists of RFID tags, tag readers (deployed at CBP POE facilities) and a back-office computer system/software application. The FAST windshield sticker tag is a paper-thin, RF-programmable, battery-free, low-cost, tamper- and weather-resistant tag that operates in the 915 MHz range. The tag has a read range of 5 meters. The tag has a 1,024-bit memory, capable of reading, writing, and rewriting information or permanently setting individual bytes.

The FAST system can be described as an intelligent border-crossing system that can have the potential to more swiftly move trusted and legal truck freight through border crossings. More specifically, FAST allows CBP agents to instantly identify designated low-risk vehicles and drivers who are compliant with the C-TPAT. These vehicles, equipped with FAST windshield tags, are expedited through border crossings, reducing congestion and helping agents target a smaller pool of potentially high-risk vehicles for closer inspection. In practice, though, in many deployments of FAST on the northern and southern USA borders, including the Bridge of the America’s in El Paso, the approach lanes to the FAST gates are not separated from the general truck (or in some cases, passenger) lanes, thus minimizing most of the potential throughput benefit that might be realized from the system.



7.1.2 Other CBP and Federal Technologies at the Border

The following describes in a chronological order some of the goods-related programs and activities taken up by the CBP since its establishment:

2003. CBP adopted the ACE Secure Data Portal to provide easy-to-use access to consolidated border processing information to increase import and export efficiency while enhancing border security.

December 5, 2003. CBP published rules, as required by the Trade Act of 2002, mandating submission of electronic advanced manifest information on all cargo shipments entering and leaving the country. The timeline for presentation of this information for the different shipment types is shown in Table 22. This helps the National Targeting Center, a coordination point of all CBPs’ anti-terrorism efforts, to perform transactional risk assessments, evaluate potential national security risks, and identify cargo that may pose a threat prior to its arrival at the border.

Table 22 Timeline for Electronic Advance Manifest Information

Trade Type Mode of Shipment

Additional Description Timeline

Import Air & courier From nearby areas

“wheels up”

From other foreign locations

4 hours prior to arrival in the USA

Rail – 2 hours prior to arrival to a USA POE

Vessel – 24 hours prior to lading at foreign port

Truck FAST 30 minutes prior to arrival in the USA

Non-FAST 1 hour prior to arrival in the USA

Export Air & courier – 2 hours prior to scheduled departure from the USA

Rail – 2 hours prior to the arrival of the train at the border

Vessel – 24 hours prior to departure from USA port where cargo is laden

Truck – 1 hour prior to the arrival of the truck at the border

Source: (98)

2004. CBP unveiled new highly sophisticated radiation portal monitors that scan cargo shipments in Jersey City, New Jersey, to prevent the smuggling of radiological materials used in nuclear and radiological dispersal devices through USA seaports. The portals are now deployed at several land border POEs.

2004. CBP partnered with the FDA to establish the 24/7 Prior Notice Center to assess the risks of imported food shipments.

2005. CBP created the AG/Bio-Terror Countermeasures program to prevent the entry of ag/bio-terrorists and their weapons and equipment.



2007. CBP launched the National Agriculture Release Program, an automated program that allowed the inspection of high-volume, very-low-risk commodities to be expedited.

2007. CBP deployed the ACE electronic truck manifest (e-Manifest) systems to the land border POEs.

Additionally, according to an article on the Tucson Citizen website (108), the CBP is planning to introduce a new RFID for people crossing the border at the Mariposa POE in Nogales. The device is capable of reading information stored in a chip embedded in USA passport cards up to 20 feet before the vehicle approaches the border using the RFID technology. It would transmit information on a person’s biographical information, immigration status, and photographs entered into the system when the passport card was issued. It seems possible to extend the development to the truck driver identification process at the commercial border crossings.

In a related article on the Government Executive website (109), it was mentioned that the State and Homeland Security Departments awarded more than $160 million in contracts for electronic identifying systems using radio frequencies that are designed to speed up border crossings. General Dynamics, on behalf of the State Department, was given the contract to develop an RFID identification passport card that travelers can use at USA land border crossings and sea ports of entry. Unisys, on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security’s CBP, was given the prime contract to provide the RFID equipment needed to read the new passport cards and to install technologies that can capture images of automobile license plates as travelers drive through customs. Intermec was selected by Unisys to supply the RFID readers for the border project, and Perceptics was going to provide the license plate reader technology. These developments are likely to bring substantial operational improvements to passenger travel across the border. At the time of the article, the application of electronic identifying systems for commercial traffic was still not finalized.

Immigration regulations and policies have long held that alien truck drivers may qualify for admission as B-1 visitors for business to pick up or deliver cargo traveling in the stream of international commerce. Canadian citizen drivers entering the USA as visitors or for business do not need either a passport or a visa. However, each applicant for admission is required to satisfy the inspecting officer regarding his or her citizenship. On the other hand, Mexican citizen drivers entering the USA as visitors for business are required to present a valid passport and nonimmigrant visa. They must carry one of the following:

B-1/B-2 visa (issued at both USA and Mexico Consulates with or without Mexican border crossing card (issued only at Consulate of Mexico).

Form DSP-150, “Laser Visa,” a credit-card-style document that is both a border crossing card and a B-1/B-2 visitor’s visa obtained by applying at a United States Consular post in Mexico. The Laser Visa may be obtained by applying at one of the following United States Consular posts in Mexico: Mexico City, Ciudad Juarez, Guadalajara, Hermosillo, Merida, Matamoros, Monterrey, Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Tijuana, and at the Tijuana and Mexicali Temporary Processing Facilities.

The border crossing card and Laser Visa have expedited the process of driver identification and hence customs clearance. On October 1, 2008, a second generation of the Laser Visa commenced (110).



7.1.3 Pacific Northwest International Mobility and Trade Corridor

IMTC is a partnership established between the public and private stakeholders in Washington State and British Colombia. The IMTC partnered with US DOT, TC, WSDOT, and others to deploy the first fully operational and binational electronic border-crossing system for trucks in North America, also referred to as the trade corridor. It was funded jointly by northbound and southbound automated border-crossing development projects and field operational tests of electronic cargo container seals and freight information exchanges based on DSRC technology. The operational prototype system was intended to provide services of dedicated ITS truck lanes on both sides of the border and binational weigh-in-motion data sharing enhanced systems and thus elimination of broker visits. The field operation tests under the International Border Crossing program studied mainly the technology effectiveness. The findings and conclusions from these assessments are summarized below:

Utility of Dedicated ITS Truck Lanes at the Border – Using a previously built and validated border travel demand model, corridor ITS inputs, and a 10-year benefit-cost model, it was found that even under the most conservative modeling scenario (only 10 percent of trucks with transponders in 2003 growing to 15 percent in 2013), the deployed dedicated ITS truck lanes (including reduced broker stops) would have resulted in significant benefits to the regional economy, mainly through motor carrier travel and operations savings for both ITS and non-ITS equipped trucks. Depending on level of ITS market penetration, the benefit-cost ratio ranged from 29:1 to 42:1.

Utility of Binational Virtual Weigh Stations – Significant time savings for motor carriers and resource savings for enforcement personnel were estimated in the 10-year benefit-cost analysis, which was based on statistical weigh station usage data provided by WSDOT, and focused on five weigh stations along the IMTC corridor. The corridor bypass time savings occur as driver/vehicle/shipment are screened initially via electronic means or through physical inspection, then are cleared from further inspections along the corridor. Again, depending on the level of ITS participation, the benefit-cost ratio ranged from 4:1 to 8.5:1.

Private Sector Benefits – The analysis showed that the motor carriers would have realized net positive returns on ITS participation almost immediately, given the relatively small costs of participation with the large travel time benefits. This was demonstrated by using a sample mid-size trucking firm.

Public Sector Benefits – Public-sector costs involve ITS deployment infrastructure at the border crossing and weigh stations, while benefits accrue to the public sector through enhanced motor carrier safety enforcement and improved air quality impacts. The estimated public-sector benefit-cost ratios ranged from 1.6:1 to 4.4:1, moving from a low to high ITS deployment scenario.

Lessons Learned from the IMTC Partnership – An international model for development of freight border ITS projects across international borders was established. The IMTC and project stakeholders successfully addressed a concern related to the freight data privacy of this system. The partnership has also facilitated open discussions between the customs agencies of the USA and Canada at the Blaine/Surrey international border crossing. A primary issue identified was that as use of transponders expands in the IMTC region, there is a need for more uniformity in transponder



interoperability to preclude motor carriers from having to equip their vehicles with several transponders.

The IMTC program described here also tested electronic container seals in partnership with an ongoing E-seal testing program being conducted between 2000 and 2009 by Washington State. Traditionally, containers in international trade are secured using manual cargo seals. There are no international standards for the manual seals. The shipment integrity is dependent on the shipper practices. An E-seal, on the other hand, is an electronic device used to transmit container information including alerts due to tampering or damage, thus enabling tracking of shipments and determining the integrity of the shipment while in transit or storage.

There are several types of E-seals depending on the method for communications with the reader: RFID, infrared, direct contact, long-range cellular, or satellite. Among these, RFIDs are the most commonly used E-seal. Similar to other RFID technologies, these seals could be active (use in-built battery power to initiate signal) or passive (use energy from a reader signal or on-board power to initiate signal).

The series of E-seal field operational tests completed by Washington State showed that E-seals can increase the efficiency and improve the security of containerized cargo movement (111). They have a great potential in expediting the customs clearance process. Although there is a potential to improve efficiency and security, there are also some concerns in using electronic seals that need consideration: (1) risks of increasing complexity, opening new avenues of attack, and generating false confidence; (2) need for independent assessment of vendor claims; (3) need to assess operational impacts as well as technical performance; and (4) requirement to manage and sift increased data flow, identify false positives, and act on true positives. Nevertheless, ISO 18185 is a Draft International Standard for electronic container seals. It includes passive and active protocols. The active protocols have been subject to disagreements and lack of consensus amongst nations due to political, regulatory, and private company market advantage issues.

7.1.4 SecureOrigins Secure Border Trade Cargo Tracking and Screening Project (El Paso/Juarez)

With a combination of financial support from an FHWA program and from the local maquiladora industry, the Secure Border Trade technology system is currently being developed by SecureOrigins (note: under subcontract to Transcore for the FHWA funding). SecureOrigins is an El Paso-based border-based technology services company that is focused on leveraging new and emerging technologies and software innovations to improve supply chain logistics and security. The company has developed a technology platform focused on origin-to-destination supply chain visibility for cross-border cargo (and mobile assets) with intelligent alerts known as LiveLogistics™.

LiveLogistics is a solution architected in such a way that it delivers supply chain visibility and security in one package; it provides (1) quick response to changing customer and market needs; (2) scalability; (3) a holistic solution; (4) minimization of supply chain risk with real-time alerts and resolution options, resulting in overall shipment reliability and security; (5) reduction in supply chain cost and improvement in supply chain productivity; and (6) ElectronicEscort™ service (see Figure 20).

SecureOrigins headquarters features a live, state-of-the-art command center (see Figure 20) that fuses information in real time. The Command Center is utilized for software research and



development, live monitoring, supply chain event recreation, and client demonstrations and audits. A video wall displays live supply chain assets and solution applications in action. The Command Center utilities a high-speed, high-volume capacity, world-class data center that supports global telecommunications.

Figure 20 ElectronicEscort© Service Physical Architecture

Source: SecureOrigins, El Paso, Texas

Due to its pivotal location at the intersection of two major transportation corridors for international trade, the crossroads of two nations and three states, the company claims to be an “international urban laboratory” and presents a unique array of opportunities for solutions that address the realities of many borders and trade corridors throughout the world.

The advantages of LiveLogistics™ in terms of freight efficiency are that it makes informed, timely decisions with intelligent alerts that get the right information to the right person at the right time and it sends alerts to multiple platforms with the ability to formulate and notify the decision breakdown structure.

The advantages of the solution in terms of freight security are that it:

Ensures authorized route adherence of mobile assets or cargo; uses intelligent devices to secure each shipping container or trailer, providing six-sided protection; and has special sensors to monitor critical conditions, such as temperature, leakages, and truck speed.



Reduces shrinkage and prevention of cargo contamination. ElectronicEscort© reports every aspect of the shipment, including authorized driver, route, timing benchmarks, and authorized stops and checkpoints.

7.2 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR OTHER MODES

7.2.1 Maritime Cargo Screening

Each year, about 60 million cargo containers are handled between the world’s ports. More than a quarter of these typically enter the USA, but less than 2 percent are opened and inspected when they arrive at USA seaports (112). Since 9/11, the primary security focus at USA and most worldwide seaports has been in introducing operational and technological changes that reduce the risk of allowing materials related to weapons of mass destruction to enter a country through its ports, and in particular, through intermodal container supply chains that traverse its ports. Figure 21 provides a supply chain-centric overview of the collection of port cargo security programs, rules, and testing programs that have been fielded by the USA government since 9/11.

Figure 21 Relationship of Port Security Programs to International Supply Chains

Source: (112)

Currently in the USA, the Container Security Initiative, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, and sophisticated threat targeting systems and software that examine cargo manifests all work together to help protect against WMD threats. Moreover, the security assessment begins before the containers are loaded onto ships headed to the USA. Under the CSI, anecdotal information suggests that around five percent of containers bound for the USA meet high-risk criteria and are inspected. Additionally, at the USA ports themselves, it is estimated that between one and two percent of containers are inspected.

For the containers that are targeted for inspection, whether in an overseas port or in a USA port, a number of technologies and operational strategies have been deployed over the past decade that have assisted security monitoring efforts. These include, but are not limited to:



X-Ray, Gamma-Ray, Neutron, and Radiation Portal Monitors – X-rays, backscatter x-rays, gamma-rays, neutron scan devices, and radiation portal monitors are used to scan containers for the presence of dangerous objects or illegal cargo, weapons, and drugs. Additionally, they enable port security to examine the contents of containers as trucks or rail cars. If the manifest states that the content is cigarettes, for example, but a scan indicates a profile more common to explosive materials, security teams perform a visual inspection of the cargo. Therefore, these technologies are good for ascertaining whether there is a threat.

Intelligent Video Systems – Once containers arrive at a foreign port, they may not be loaded immediately onto ships, and it can be this down time that is the weakness in the port security chain. Intelligent video systems can help ensure the integrity of the containers as they wait. These systems can scan large numbers of containers night and day, and with intelligent video-video combined with behavior recognition software, there is no need to continually monitor the often-dull video of containers sitting in a warehouse or in a storage compound. The intelligent software of today can detect anomalous events, such as an unauthorized person walking in the vicinity of a container or the opening of a container’s door, and the technology allows security guards to be alerted and respond in real time.

Crane-Mounted Sensors – The majority of the containers that come into the USA are trans-shipped. That is, a ship arrives in a port such as Singapore, and containers are off-loaded and put on a ship headed to the USA. These containers do not pass through the gate of the port, and today, unless they are flagged by the manifest system as high risk, they are put on the ship and arrive at the USA port without inspection. One emerging technology to help address the inherent risks is a sensor that attaches to the end of the loading crane. Speed is important in crane operation, and this technology enables detection of radioactive or nuclear material, for example, in a seamless manner. The crane picks up the container and if it detects a threat, it puts that container aside and picks up another. Loading continues uninterrupted while the security team inspects the suspect container.

Radio Frequency Identification and Electronic Container Seal Tags – Whether the container is on a truck, train, or ship, RFID and/or electronic container seal tagging can help authorities identify the current location and the transit path of the container. If an RFID E-seal tag is applied as soon as the cargo is loaded, the container’s position can be updated whenever it transits using an RFID/E-seal reader (e.g., at the port gate or on a freeway). Using this technology, if a truck deviates from its charted track and does not pass by a reader by the prescribed time, enforcement and the trucking company dispatcher can be immediately alerted, and the incident can be investigated.

Maritime Domain Awareness – Currently, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) monitors all USA air space and air traffic; however, there has been no parallel program for the maritime domain. In 2005, the White House issued a document titled “Our Maritime Strategy,” outlining a program for domain awareness of all ships approaching USA coasts. While maritime domain awareness is not a technology in itself, it is based on technologies working in unison. As government agencies work together toward funding and achieving this goal of monitoring sea traffic, technology investments will include an integrated coastal radar system that can also assimilate intelligence data. There is even the possibility of using surveillance devices such as unmanned air vehicles.



Beyond the current technology and operational programs described above, DHS, CBP, and others have also been investigating more advanced technologies. While not yet ready for deployment, advanced technologies could potentially provide for improved security assessment both across supply chains and at ports and intermodal facilities. Perhaps the most fully developed example of an end-to-end port and intermodal container security system is the General Electric CommerceGuard® system, which grew out of the DHS’s Operation Safe Commerce program, CBP’s former “SmartBox” smart container technology program, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperative’s series of cargo security demonstrations in the mid-2000s (113).

As shown in Figure 22, the heart of the CommerceGuard® system includes devices that are deployed directly on intermodal containers. This includes the main door seal/communications device that is mounted behind the door of the container (with the antenna panel external), which can directly detect all door openings and closings, including unauthorized entry and breaking of the container seal. In turn, a number of security enhancements to the container are also utilized, including video monitoring.

Figure 22 GE’s Concept for a Tamper Evident Security Container

Source: TESC Fact Sheet, General Electronics

The overall CommerceGuard® System is outlined in Figure 23. This figure illustrates the end-to-end security and logistics management capabilities of the system.



Figure 23 Example of a Future Port/Intermodal Security System (General Electric)

Source: (113)

Across two-phases of testing of the CommerceGuard® system in 2004 to 2006, 1,500-contained moves on trade lanes from Europe and South America were tested. In these trade lanes, fixed readers were installed at the point of stuffing in Europe/South America and at the point of deconsolidation in the USA. Results on the effectiveness of the CommerceGuard® testing, and all other Operation Safe Commerce program testing, are considered as security sensitive information.

It should also be pointed out that container-centric security systems such as CommerceGuard® provide a natural platform to support additional security or logistics information sensors. Such sensors could detect the presence of chemical and biological materials, could provide real-time inventory polling with pallets in the container containing RFID tags, and could also detect movements within the container. These systems also provide the major advantage of allowing CBP to monitor high volumes of “smart containers” from a central point and provide real-time alerts.

7.2.2 Air Cargo Screening

Since 9/11, an emerging security concern is that air cargo may be a potential target for terrorists. Air cargo may be seen as a weak link in that screening and inspection of air cargo is currently not as extensive as required for screening of passengers and checked baggage. Potential risks associated with air cargo security include the introduction of explosive devices placed in air cargo and shipment of undeclared HAZMAT materials aboard aircraft. In particular, cargo pallets carried aboard passenger aircraft may represent a significant risk since passenger aircraft can be highly attractive terrorist targets. In this regard, it is important to note here that most passenger flights are carrying some freight, with airlines making a significant percentage of their revenue from air cargo.



In 2007, Congress passed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act, more commonly known as the 9/11 Act. This law requires that all cargo transported on a passenger aircraft be screened for explosives as of August 1, 2010. Currently, the air cargo industry is struggling to achieve this 100 percent goal, as every shipment of cargo carried on passenger aircraft could potentially require screening at piece level prior to being transported on any passenger aircraft. Skids and pallets have to be taken apart, screened, and reconfigured. The 9/11 Act also specifically identifies the types of screening allowed ranging from physical inspection to various technologies.

Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) has recently implemented the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) as a solution to help the industry reach the 100 percent screening mandate. The program enables freight forwarders and shippers to pre-screen cargo prior to arrival at the airport. Most CCSP shipper participants have been able to quickly incorporate physical screening into their shipping process at a small cost to their operation. Similar to C-TPAT and CSI in the maritime environment, CCSP allows cargo companies to be certified by the government to establish screening sites outside of airports to inspect packages, with TSA being able to continually inspect and certify that proper screening procedures are being followed at these facilities.

Until the CCSP is fully implemented, TSA will continue to utilize a multi-layered approach to air cargo security, including allowing only known and established shippers to offer cargo to passenger airlines for shipment, randomly screening a significant percentage of all cargo, deploying explosive detection canine teams at high-volume cargo airports, and conducting covert tests and no-notice inspections of cargo operations. James May, President and CEO of the Air Transport Association, said “achieving the 100 percent level will be difficult. The biggest challenge in meeting the August 2010 deadline is the lack of TSA-certified screening technology to inspect large air cargo pallets. Most pieces of cargo transported on wide-body aircraft are consolidated into large shipments and 75 percent of cargo is transported on wide-body aircraft. That fact gives you an idea of the magnitude of the challenge that we face” (114).

In this environment, a number of key technologies are being employed to assist freight forwarders, shippers, and air cargo facilities in screening air cargo. The technology used for cargo screening is obviously much larger than that used on baggage systems but is essentially the same. Medium-sized equipment in this category has openings large enough to accept palletized cargo. Mobile x-ray1 systems carried by large trucks can scan cargo housed in large vehicles by driving slowly alongside the parked vehicle. There are also building-sized x-ray scanners designed so that tractor-trailers can pull into the building, park on a platform, and undergo examination. Jack O’Neill, the DHL Express head of operations in the USA, said the company inspects packages using a variety of tools, including x-rays and explosives detectors. The company’s site at Kennedy Airport in New York, for instance, is also equipped with a system that can pick up small radioactive sources.

The following provides a brief overview of two current systems that can potentially provide for detailed wide aperture x-rays of air cargo pallets in support of CCSP requirements:

L-3 also has cargo screening systems that TSA has been testing the past couple of years. The goal of these tests is to be able to detect something in an air cargo container

1 Procedures involving x-rays still depend very much on human interpretation of images. The difficulty in detecting a threat item in a 50 cm x 50 cm passenger bag is relatively low, compared to a 1.5 m x 2 m piece of cargo, for example. It is extremely difficult to find an IED in such a large item.



that might be a pound or 2 pounds of C-4 amidst a whole bunch of clutter: automotive parts, flowers, liquids, fruits – this requires a very advanced x-ray system capability. In addition to fixed X-ray stations with built-in cargo conveyor belts, L-3 offers mobile x-ray trucks, and even a gantry x-ray system (which operates like a car wash). L-3 has installed cargo screening systems designed to scan containers at airports in such foreign cities as Amsterdam and Bangkok.

Smiths Detection has been working with the TSA to test a pallet-screening system originally designed for ocean cargo and adapted for air cargo. The goal is to operate large-opening x-ray systems that could x-ray entire air cargo pallets. The big challenge with this test is to push the limits on the throughput – i.e., to keep commerce moving and screen large volumes of air cargo pallets quickly.

As another example, in September 2008, a mobile scanning machine capable of screening the contents of large cargo containers was used for the first time to check trucks entering O’Hare International Airport. The exercise, part of a drill involving federal and city agencies, is rapidly becoming a common security practice to support the TSA requirements for 100 percent cargo screening for passenger planes.

Additionally, standard operational methods utilized include hand search, flight simulation (including decompression), and canine olfaction, which are used worldwide on a daily basis for detecting hazardous substances and threat items.

In regards to canine olfaction, a company in Europe has recently introduced an advanced technology solution that utilizes Remote Air Sampling for Canine Olfaction. The main idea is to collect air samples from closed cargo volumes – trucks, containers, and wrapped pallets – onto a special filter. The filter is then presented to two highly trained explosives detection dogs. The air sampling itself takes place at the cargo site, and the dogs perform their work inside an analysis center building (the “analysis room”). This technique has screened over 100,000 trucks and pallets and over 1.5 million metric tons of air cargo since live operations began in the United Kingdom and France.

Finally, a company called Geovox manufactures human-heartbeat detection systems that can identify the presence of stowaways in trucks and containers. Geovox successfully demonstrated its technology for the first time at a USA screening facility on the USA-Mexican border in Laredo, Texas, in 2002. Although the TSA has not yet certified Geovox technology for air cargo applications, the company has studied how to transfer its capability from fixed stations to portable handheld devices, which could speed throughput in air cargo applications. Geovox units have been installed to detect stowaways in air cargo at airports in Europe, North America, and Asia.

7.3 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES – INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

7.3.1 Canada – Intelligent Border Crossing

The Intelligent Border Crossing is a concept of how border crossings could operate in the future using ITS. The project, which is a joint initiative of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and Transport Canada, includes planning, detailed design, and very extensive stakeholder consultation with the administrators and users of all the border crossings in Ontario. The project brings state-of-the-art ITS technology to enhance the security and capacity of the various land border crossings of Ontario.



With the Intelligent Border Crossing, the motorist (commercial driver, commuter, tourist) will be able to select the best crossing location and time of day for his/her trip to suit his/her requirements; travel safely to the crossing with updates to any changes in the trip status; and cross safely without delay or with an understanding of the expected timeframes. The Intelligent Border Crossing will also support border security by assisting in the management and security of traffic through customs facilities and will complement existing risk assessment and security procedures.

The Intelligent Border Crossing will incorporate use of innovative technology at Ontario’s border crossings, such as:

Queue end monitoring and warning systems (on Highway 402 in Sarnia).

Traffic management systems (traffic cameras on Highway 3 and at the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel).

Smart border technology, such as cameras and electronic message boards to improve traffic management along the approaches to the Blue Water Bridge.

Traveler information systems.

Commercial vehicle and passenger car pre-screening systems.

Electronic toll payment.

Hazardous goods/oversize/overweight load tracking systems.

One of the initial phases of this project identified and analyzed the feasibility of “early win” ITS projects. These early wins were developed for implementation in advance of the overall project completion. Many of the projects identified as early wins have been constructed and are operational today (e.g., ITS for the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel).

7.3.2 Europe –EURIDICE Cargo Logistics and Security Monitoring System

EURIDICE is an integrated project (started in 2008) funded by EU’s Seventh Framework Programme Information and Communications Technology for Transport Area. The basic concept of EURIDICE is based on the assumption that in the future, the usage of passive and active RFID chips will increase and, as such, the availability of intelligent mobile devices will likewise also increase. This leads to a situation where more and more local intelligence is available, which allows the local processing of information and thus leads to local decisions on the basis of this information. Figure 24 illustrates the high-level concept of EURIDICE.

The EURIDICE project has the following main objectives:

Supporting the interaction of individual cargo items with the surrounding environment and users on the field.

Improving logistic performances through application of the intelligent cargo concept and technologies in the working practices of operators and industrial users.

Developing collaborative business models to sustain, promote, and develop an intelligent cargo infrastructure.

Realizing more secure and environmentally friendly transport chains through the adoption of intelligent cargo to support modal shift and door-to-door intermodal services.



The core design of the platform is based on available standards like Service Orientated Architecture (SOA). This core is enhanced with implemented services derived from extensive requirements analysis from different stakeholders in logistics chains (e.g., logistics service providers, infrastructure providers, ports and authorities, and production companies) (see Figure 24). The project builds upon an ICT platform providing value-added services on top of an SOA infrastructure. Through combination and orchestration of the available services, holistic business processes can be implemented on top of the platform. By utilization of the offered services and implementation of the concepts for “intelligent cargo,” the platform can react autonomously on defined events.

Figure 24 EURIDICE Vision of Intelligent Cargo and Value-Added Services for Different Stakeholders

In the EURIDICE vision, the combination of RFID tags and advanced sensors, networked with globally available positioning and communication services at low costs, will ease real-time transport monitoring and secure cargo’s integrity whilst on the move. SOA, globally accepted standards, and semantic techniques will allow for distribution and intelligent composition of cargo information services, linking transported goods and their related information closer to each other. The full realization of this vision will have a significant impact in terms of diffusion and effectiveness of ICT support to freight transportation, producing relevant benefits for businesses and the society.

The stated benefits are as follows:

Enhanced and widespread capability to monitor, trace, and safely handle moving goods at the required level of detail, from full shipments to individual packages or items.

Increased efficiency of transportation networks, by improving synchronization between logistic users, operators, and control authorities.

Improved sustainability of logistic systems, by reducing their impact on local communities in terms of traffic congestion and pollution.



One of the pilot applications carried out in the frame of the EURIDICE project is based on the real-end users involved in freight transit at the Port of Trieste (Italy). The pilot aims at demonstrating the applicability and benefits of the Intelligent Cargo approach in typical interactions of cargo with authorities and infrastructure operators. Applied to shipments of hazelnuts coming from Turkey, the EURIDICE infrastructure allows secure access along the route to the identity context, the location of goods, and the related up-to-date information and to extend it with useful information-based services.

The main functionalities implemented in this pilot are:

Real-time updating of cargo status (arriving at the port, exiting the terminal area, exiting the port, entering the warehouse area, and exiting the warehouse area).

Automated certification of goods in transit.

Automated payment of customs tariffs based on fixed duties and goods value.

Prepaid secure billing system.

Automated security control decisions.

The processes are started and the services are invoked thanks to the communication between the cargo and the EURIDICE infrastructure that recognizes the kind of procedures to be started or completed. The approach taken in developing the pilot application is to create a Cargo Identity Module including technology components and basic services that give the possibility to memorize and access the identity, the context, the location of goods, and the related up-to-date information, and then to extend it with useful information-based services. In this pilot case, the information includes a univocal code of identification that prevents duplication of information, such as weight, quality, quantity, and origin of goods. These data can be accessed anywhere along the flow of goods to support automated certification and to fulfill payments of fixed and variable costs as customs and shipping tariffs.

The main features of this solution are that cargo interaction is supported by a smart device integrating identification based on RFID, connectivity, and computational capabilities, based on mobile and SOA technologies. The smart device communicates directly with a hosted service that performs several operations, like univocal identification of the cargo item, the cargo owner, and position (context detection); activation of the corresponding web services published by the cargo owner to perform the required operations (user services); and activation of further services from different stakeholders, based on rules defined by the cargo owner.

7.3.3 Europe – the e-Freight Initiative

The Freight Logistics Action Plan was launched by the European Commission, amongst a number of policy initiatives, to help Europe address key transport challenges including sustainable quality and efficiency, simplification of transport chains, “green” freight transport corridors, urban freight logistics, vehicle dimensions, and loading standards. The Freight Logistics Action Plan relies on co-modality and on advanced technology to provide a competitive European surface freight transport system whilst promoting environmental sustainability.

In this context, the notion of e-freight was introduced as a means to support electronic exchange of information in business-to-business and business-to-administration relations. E-freight is also part of the Action Plan for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe. E-freight



denotes the vision of paperless freight transport processes where an electronic flow of information is linked to the physical flow of goods. Specific objectives include:

Administrative simplification across transport modes.

Standardization of information exchanges relating to location and other cargo information.

Development of secure ways of making supply chain information (including en-route information on the location and condition of transported goods) available online to customs, other regulatory authorities, and businesses.

Development of practical ways of using positioning and communication technologies (e.g., RFID, DSRC, and applications of the satellite positioning system).

Improved integration and interoperability of computer applications used by different stakeholders involved in freight transport.

Synergistic development with the e-Maritime and other related EU initiatives.

E-freight related developments are expected to lead in the future to intelligent cargo, meaning that goods will become self-contextual and location-aware as well as connected to a wide range of information services, thus automating further the transportation management process.

7.3.4 Asia – Singapore HAZMAT Transport Vehicle Tracking System

In July 2005, Singapore began operating its HAZMAT Transport Vehicle Tracking System (HTVTS), the world’s first HAZMAT transportation security system. The HAZMAT Transport Vehicle Tracking System is operated by the Singapore Civil Defense Force (SCDF) the government agency responsible for protecting the country from terrorist attacks. Singapore’s HTVTS provides the SCDF real-time tracking of HAZMAT trucks carrying high-hazard materials over Singapore’s road system. Alerts from trucks straying out of authorized routes or traveling during unauthorized hours are immediately sent to SCDF enforcement personnel by the HTVTS. Beginning October 2007, HAZMAT trucks are automatically immobilized by the HTVTS if the trucks violate route requirements.

A small but sophisticated computer/GPS tracking device installed on a HAZMAT truck allows officials at the SCDF headquarters control room to monitor the truck’s location and movement in real time. HAZMAT trucks are restricted to certain routes and are only allowed to travel on the roads during certain times. The system will trigger an alert in the event of the following:

Tampering with the tracking device.

Unauthorized diversion from approved routes.

Unauthorized transportation during prohibited hours.

Unauthorized entry into restricted areas.

Unauthorized disengagement of trailers.

The HTVTS also monitors vehicle speeds. About 500 domestic trucks and 150 foreign HAZMAT haulers are currently monitored by the HTVTS. The technology underlying the HTVTS is highly scalable – any size fleet can be tracked and monitored, over any size road system. The HTVTS built by Astrata integrates various wireless and positioning technologies. The system reportedly can monitor more than 10,000 vehicles simultaneously using GPS and GSM tracking assets as they move through tunnels and underground facilities using Astrata’s



Geo-Location Platform technology (also known as Sirius-Lite outside the USA). Astrata’s GLP couples a built-in computer processor and operating system with a variety of wireless communication options and tracking technologies, including quad-band GSM or code division multiple access, general packet radio service, short message service, circuit switched data, Bluetooth, and wireless local area network to continuously monitor fleets, assets, and shipping containers.

The points below summarize some of the lessons learned by the SCDF in building and operating the HTVTS:

Voluntary doesn’t work – regulations have to drive technology deployment. The first and most important decision is what to regulate. This early-on decision determines how many companies will be regulated, the size and scope of the tracking program, etc.

Regulations and technology have to be in alignment – a regulatory program that outreaches what is possible from a technology perspective will fail. The SCDF carefully tailored “smart truck” technology to its regulatory needs for real-time vehicle tracking and vehicle immobilization.

Organizational roles and responsibilities must be understood.

Carriers prefer not to be regulated and will go to substantial lengths to avoid regulation (beat the system). Some companies will resist regulation and/or will look for regulatory loopholes to escape being regulated.

An effective security program must include vehicle immobilization –- just knowing the location of a truck may not be enough. For example, even if the system detects a hijacking in progress, a terrorist can take the shipment into a vulnerable area and use it as a WMD unless there is a way to immobilize the truck.

Back-office systems are critical and require suitable investment. The systems that ensure the smooth functioning of the administrative aspects of a truck-tracking program are essential to success.

People have to be involved in decision making – the system cannot do it all.

Driver identification is important – SCDF did not require biometric devices on trucks to prevent unauthorized drivers from gaining access to a HAZMAT shipment. The SCDF decided that biometric devices cost too much and would be disruptive given that trucks often have multiple drivers. The SCDF believes, however, that there needs to be an administrative/regulatory framework to screen out people that should not be handling HAZMAT shipments.

Public outreach is critical.

7.4 USDOT CONNECTED VEHICLE PROGRAM

7.4.1 Wireless Roadside Inspection (Vehicle-to-Roadside Communications)

Under the USDOT Connected Vehicle Program, the FMCSA Wireless Roadside Inspection program is evaluating different strategies for identifying and inspecting commercial vehicles at the roadside using a mix of technologies including DSRC, satellite-based technology, and license plate reader technology. FMCSA is coordinating and will be evaluating three separate deployments of the WRI architecture in the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, and New York. Inspection results will be made available in real time to motor carriers as well as state and



federal enforcement personnel. This program is viewed as a key building block for FMCSA’s objective of significantly expanding the number of inspections that are conducted each year and the base of data on which to make performance-based enforcement decisions.

A wireless inspection is a process where public-sector entities (people and systems) examine the condition of the vehicle and driver by assessing data collected by on-board systems. The data used in the assessment is termed the Safety Data Message Set (SDMS). The SDMS will be delivered using wireless communications in real time to the public-sector infrastructure. The SDMS will contain basic identification data (for driver, vehicle, carrier, container, and cargo), record of duty status, and vehicle condition data that are typically available to safety inspectors during current roadside inspections. The roadside enforcement sites that will query and receive SDMSs from commercial vehicles are envisioned to include fixed weigh stations, unmanned remote sites on bypass routes and state borders, and mobile police cruisers. Depending on the availability of enforcement resources, interdiction strategies acting on the SDMS will include real-time and non-real-time scenarios.

The concept was significantly differentiated from current electronic pre-screening programs in that real-time information about the condition of the vehicle (e.g., brake, tire diagnostics, etc.) and the driver (e.g., hours-of-service status) would be transmitted to enforcement agencies. Current pre-screening programs such as NorPass and PrePass only transmit a unique ID number (via the on-board RFID tag), which is then cross-referenced to a USDOT number in an off-board operation. Furthermore, the proposed concept would call for driver- and vehicle-specific ID information to be transmitted, thus facilitating the implementation of more sophisticated and accurate screening strategies.

The Wireless Roadside Inspection for Trucks and Buses project currently has completed the proof of concept and is in the pilot testing phase. Figure 25 provides an overview of the Wireless Roadside Inspection System.

Figure 25 Overview of Wireless Roadside Inspection System

Source: FMCSA



7.4.2 International Border Crossing E-Screening Program

As part of a broad-based umbrella program, the expanded use of technologies is being facilitated in partnership by the FHWA/FMCSA through the Smart Roadside Initiative that includes but is not limited to FHWA’s Virtual Weigh Station concept, FMCSA’s CVISN e-screening program, and FMCSA’s Wireless Road Inspection program. In 2008, FMCSA sponsored the development of the IBC E-screening concept to enable states and FMCSA to focus limited enforcement resources on inspection and enforcement rather than identification and manual verification.

The IBC E-screening concept leverages FMCSA’s investment in the FMCSA QC and CBP’s ACE/ITDS to provide an automated, data-driven approach to selection of vehicles for inspection at the northern and southern borders, enabling uniform and consistent application of policies and procedures related to safety and compliance assurance of cross-border commercial traffic. IBC E-Screening enables northern and southern border states and FMCSA to allow more than 20 additional screening factors, in an automated system-to-system environment, enabling identification and full safety/compliance verification of carriers, trucks, trailers, and drivers electronically, within three seconds or less of a truck’s presentation at a state IBC processing point rather than the current 15-minute manual process.

The IBC E-screening demonstration project sponsored by the FMCSA and undertaken at the Santa Teresa border crossing in New Mexico was designed to address the inherent inefficiencies of manual inspection selection processes by using RFID technology to electronically identify the vehicle and driver, in conjunction with an electronic database and screening algorithm to verify compliance with safety and credential compliance requirements.

The FMCSA is moving to the next phase of the IBC E-Screening concept by deploying the system at four ports of entry on the USA-Mexico and USA-Canada border. The project includes tasks to select four ports of entry, develop high and low level designs, develop equipment recommendations and performance specification, procure equipment, perform field tests, perform system evaluation, and finally hand over the system to the stakeholders at the state.

7.4.3 Dynamic Mobility Applications and Cross-Town Improvement Program (C-TIP)

Under the USDOT Connected Vehicle Program, the C-TIP is a pilot technology application to improve the efficiency of intermodal container transfers via truck between cross-town railroads. A preliminary C-TIP system has been in place since 2007 in Kansas City. This program is being funded by FHWA and includes an evaluation of freight wireless and in-vehicle technologies (including dynamic routing). Beginning in November 2010, C-TIP deployed these technologies on intermodal drayage trucks that serve rail intermodal terminals in the Kansas City regions. The primary benefits expected from this project include a reduction in truck travel times through dynamic rerouting of truck trips. The results of this evaluation will guide future testing and eventual full deployment of C-TIP.

Major components of the C-TIP architecture are:

Intermodal Move Exchange — Facilitate the exchange of load data and availability information between railroads, terminal operators, and trucking companies. The primary function will be to allow collaboration on defining pickup and delivery schedules and locations that maximize the potential for linking moves, and eliminate bobtail and empty moves.



Real-Time Traffic Monitoring (RTTM) — Provide a means for up-to-the-minute information regarding roadway conditions, travel speeds, and predicted travel times to be captured and passed along to the trucking community. Using a combination of traditional roadway sensors, traffic probes (i.e., vehicles that report their progress while traveling on the roadways), and third-party providers, RTTM will provide the traffic information necessary for drivers and dispatchers to make informed decisions regarding routing and departure times.

Dynamic Route Guidance — The dynamic route guidance engine of RTTM will utilize inputs from RTTM and a GIS source along with simulation tools, to act as an intelligence tool to provide real-time visual routing around congested areas.

Cambridge Systematics (CS) is currently under contract with FHWA to provide an independent evaluation of the C-TIP test, which is underway in Kansas City, Missouri. CS’s technical approach for this evaluation is expected to result in findings later this year that will cover the results, lessons learned, and benefit assessments of the C-TIP IMEX and other technologies to both the private and public sectors, including:

Detailed assessment of quantitative intermodal freight transportation systems benefits.

Focused development of system user perceptions and inputs to develop additional conclusions that will approach the credibility level of defensible quantitative results.

Demonstration of a new type of intermodal freight data collection using state-of-the-art web-based data collection and analysis technologies now available in the private sector.

Answers to key questions of interest to FHWA, including the following: (1) How many truck trips were eliminated per day through the use of C-TIP; (2) Was overall operational efficiency improved through better access of information concerning load movement and traffic routing; and (3) Did C-TIP contribute to the reduction in levels of diesel emissions for standard truck trip times, idling time, and stop-and-go conditions?

Development of recommendations concerning future deployment of C-TIP technologies based on the conclusions of the evaluation.

Additionally, CS was recently selected by USDOT to develop the Concept of Operations for the first three freight-centric elements of the USDOT’s Dynamic Mobility Applications (DMA) program. Over the next nine months, this project will develop the USDOT’s technical approach for proceeding with testing of the following three freight DMA components:

Freight Real-Time Traveler Information with Performance Measures – Much of the traveler information components of this application already are emerging today in the marketplace, with key providers having already deployed a Freight DMA system that serves multiple trucking fleets. What is missing is the connection to transportation systems performance monitoring. Based on this need, a successful approach to deploy this component must both leverage the emerging industry applications, while also partnering with industry to ensure inclusion of performance monitoring and specialized freight operations information (e.g., rest-stop locations, oversize/overweight [OS/OW] routing, air quality monitoring).

Freight Dynamic Route Guidance – This DMA will be developed based on incremental enhancement to the Freight Real-Time Traveler Information with Performance Measures DMA described above. Here, the results of the C-TIP test point out how it would be preferable to leverage emerging industry technologies and applications. For example,



one company (INRIX) already has deployed an initial capability that can provide an in-vehicle alert (through a voice alert from an iPhone or Android phone) with rerouting information to a truck driver, thus enabling real-time dynamic route guidance. Based on these factors, the focus of this project should be on partnering the development of the concept of operations with private industry, and then ensuring that the public-sector freight performance monitoring needs (e.g., assessing air quality through route diversion) are met.

Drayage Optimization – Much of this functionality is also available in the freight marketplace today. A lead firm in this area (Loadmatch.com) has a mature web-based container load matching system that has been in place for over a decade, and which is used by over 1,700 drayage providers. This includes a software application called ProfitTools, which automatically feeds empty container availability data into the system and sends out push alerts to prospective drivers. What is missing here is the connection to an appointment system, which would allow for major benefits to be achieved in terms of queue delay reductions at terminals (benefiting both the public and private sectors). Based on this need, a successful approach to deploy this component must leverage these industry applications while at the same time providing a method on exchanging information with intermodal terminals. So, the goal here in addressing this area would be for the integration of loadmatching and freight information exchange systems, into an integrated application that could fully optimize drayage information, thereby reducing bobtails and spreading out the traffic arriving at terminals throughout the day, thereby resulting in reduced trips, reduced miles, and corresponding improvements in air quality.

Future Connected Vehicle Program Elements – Another program need is the migration of any initial set of applications and technologies developed from this ConOps to future versions that could work seamlessly with the Connected Vehicle program’s V2I and V2V 5.9 GHz DSRC and SmartRoadside technologies. More specifically, any initial deployments of this system’s components must be designed in a “future proof” environment that will allow them to support future interaction with vehicle-to-roadside and vehicle-to-vehicle DSRC 5.9 GHz technologies.

7.4.4 Commercial Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (CVII)

Under the USDOT Connected Vehicle Program, the Commercial Vehicle Infrastructure Initiative Program is the first major testing of 5.9 GHz-based DSRC systems for use with trucking operations. Connected Vehicle 5.9 GHz DSRC systems rely on a frequency band that the FCC and similar agencies around the world have allocated free of charge for road safety application. Building upon work previously done by the I-95 Corridor Coalition and FMCSA, CVII is a project funded by the NYDOT and the I-95 Corridor Coalition, led by an industry consortium headed by Volvo, and supported by CS and others. The purpose of the CVII project is to design, test, and demonstrate various applications that leverage the 5.9 GHz link, using appropriate IntelliDrive-supported protocols and the Volvo Connected Truck platform. Figure 26 provides an overview of the Volvo “Connected Truck” concept for the CVII program.



Figure 26 Volvo’s CVII Connected Truck Concept

New York’s CVII program is the first in the nation designed to leverage a real-world IntelliDrive deployment for commercial vehicle applications (e.g., verification of driver license status, wireless inspections, maintenance vehicle to maintenance vehicle communication). One of New York’s three vehicle infrastructure integration (VII) corridors (i.e., Manhattan local streets, Long Island Expressway, Spring Valley Corridor) will be used as the communications backbone for this project. The program requires complete interoperability using standard message sets and communication protocols, as well as the ability to duplicate the design at other locations. A follow-up phase of the work has been proposed to test and demonstrate integration between the commercial vehicle, passenger vehicle, and infrastructure.



8 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED CONSIDERATIONS FOR OTAY MESA EAST PROJECT

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The stakeholders of the OME POE are pursuing multiple objectives including building additional physical capacity at the border; maximizing the efficiency of the new facility by using state-of-the-art ITSs and innovative operating concepts; financing the facility development predominantly as a self-help project that is significantly funded through tolls and other innovative financing tools; introducing a toll pricing model at the border that is based on wait/crossing time and focused on congestion management and emissions reduction at the border; developing the project as a national model of public/private partnering; and designing a project that exemplifies both environmental and economic stewardship.

Goals of this new border crossing include reducing delays caused by traffic congestion, better accommodating projected trade and travel demand, and increasing economic growth and job opportunities on both sides of the border without sacrificing border safety and security. The new border facility and companion project will become part of a seamless Mexican connection to trade corridors in the USA and Mexico.

Deployment of ITSs is one of the key tools in achieving such goals. However, the deployment of ITSs is by itself not a silver bullet and should be supported by all necessary institutional instruments in place to maximize the benefits of ITSs.

Even though the focus of this project is on the new POE, the project stakeholders emphasized that all four ports of entry in the region should be viewed as one system and should work as one system. This systematic approach for operation of all three border crossings will allow customers to reliably choose between the border crossings to maximize their trip benefits.

The goal of this task and this State-Of-The-Practice document, in many ways, is to assist SANDAG, project stakeholders, and the ITS deployment team with subsequent development of concept of operations, detailed design, and implementation of ITS components and functions.

This chapter includes several conclusions drawn from this State-Of-The-Practice related to deployment of ITSs at border crossings. The chapter also includes several matrices that match numerous ITS application areas (pertaining to operation of OME POE) and technology solutions. Subsequently, key issues (both technical and institutional) that will significantly influence the development of ITSs at the border crossing are discussed. Finally, it makes recommendations regarding the ITS deployment and selection of technology for specific application and ITS goal areas that are aligned with the goals of the project.

8.2 APPLICATION AND TECHNOLOGY MATRICES

The following matrices have been provided primarily to develop recommendations related to selection of the right combination of ITS technologies to be deployed at the OME POE to achieve said goals at the border crossing. These matrices (illustrated as tables) answer the following key questions:

Table 23 – How should project goals and objectives regarding use of ITSs be achieved?



Table 24 -- How should technology (categorized by broad definitions) be used to implement the ITS application areas and its components in relation to the project?

Table 25 – What are the strengths and weaknesses of specific technologies in the context of this project?

Table 26 – How do technologies compare in terms of deployment costs, operation and maintenance cost, scalability, flexibility, stakeholder acceptability, and overall suitability to measure wait times, crossing times, volume, and queue of passenger and commercial vehicles?

Table 27 – What are specific technologies that are suggested to implement ITS application areas considering their individual strengths and weaknesses, time sensitivity, availability of devices in the market, and effectiveness?

The matrices are designed to be self-explanatory. As a side note, the nomenclatures for the ITS application areas were adopted from the USDOT’s ITS Benefits and Cost Database.



Table 23 Description of How ITS Application Will Achieve Otay Mesa East Project Goals and Objectives

ITS Application at the Border and Surroundings

Enhance Safety Improve Mobility Efficiency Energy and Environment

Customer Satisfaction

Arterial management around border crossings

By implementing and deploying necessary safety devices, signs, and other safety features.

By improving flow of traffic close to the border crossing and leading to and from the toll road.

By providing efficient traffic signal coordination around border crossings.

By providing signal coordination on arterials around border crossings.

By providing efficient signal coordination and lane separation around border crossings.

Freeway management leading to and from border crossings

By deploying strategically placed warning signs, quick response to incidents, and proactive detection of incidents and traffic management.

By implementing proactive as well as reactive traffic management.

By implementing active traffic management and by quick clearance of incidents.

By reducing response and clearance time of incidents, by reducing secondary incidents on freeways, and reducing congestion at toll booths.

By reducing congestion on freeway around toll booths.

Transportation management centers

By deploying DMS and removing stalled vehicles quickly, this will reduce secondary crashes.

By implementing proactive and reactive incident management techniques, including relaying pre-trip and en-route traveler information to increase trip choice, POE choice.

By better coordination between TMCs on both sides of the border in real time using real-time data as well as voice communication.

By actively reducing the impact of traffic congestion, TMCs contribute significantly toward reduction of green house gas.

By increasing reliability of trips that include travel across the border and on freeways.

Traffic incident management

By reducing secondary incidents following primary incidents.

By reducing incident clearance times.

By reducing incident clearance times.

By reducing incident clearance times, which reduces backup of vehicles and reduces number of slow vehicles.

By providing quick response to incidents and faster clearance, this contributes to good maintenance of reliability of travel.

Emergency management

By dispatching emergency vehicles, contacting 911 and other EOCs.

By monitoring movement of traffic and open/close lanes/approaches during incidents.

By providing quick response to incidents.

By reducing incident clearance times, which reduces backup of vehicles and reduces number of slow vehicles.

By providing quick response to incidents.



Table 23 (cont.) Description of How ITS Application Will Achieve Otay Mesa East Project Goals and Objectives

ITS Application at the Border and Surroundings

Enhance Safety Improve Mobility Efficiency Energy and Environment

Customer Satisfaction

Electronic payment and pricing

By implementing ORT, crashes at toll booths can be reduced.

By introducing efficient ETC such as ORT that will reduce congestion at the toll booths, mobility will be significantly enhanced.

By introducing open road tolling that reduces congestion at toll booths and hence increases efficiency of the tolling operation.

By reducing congestion at toll booths by maximum use of open road tolling.

Right pricing is the key here, and ITS can assist in making congestion pricing decisions based on real-time/archived data.

Traveler information By providing messages related to incidents and hazardous conditions at the right time to right travelers using field, mobile, and in-vehicle devices.

By providing “unified” traveler information on both Mexico and USA sides.

By providing traveler information to drivers at the right time, all POEs in the system will be able to share the traffic load and avoid one POE being overly congested.

By keeping the system in optimal condition, GHG emissions can be limited.

By providing traveler information effectively, reliability of the system among customers can be maintained and improved.

Information management

By analyzing crash-related data and effectiveness of past incident management practices along with archived operations data; safety of motorists can be enhanced and improved.

By continuously monitoring mobility-related performance measures using archived ITS data, improvements can be planned and implemented to maintain and/or improve mobility.

By continuously monitoring mobility-related performance measures using archived ITS data, improvements can be planned and implemented to maintain and/or improve efficiency.

By analyzing archived ITS data emission levels at the vicinity of border crossings infrastructure can be forecasted, planned, and implemented to improve GHG emissions.

By continuously researching archived ITS data, reliability of the system can be improved by implementing new technologies and solutions.

Border inspection and enforcement

By using weigh-in-motion in combination with RFID and ALPR, inspection of commercial vehicles for safety can be enhanced.

By using new technology to expedite inspection process of trucks and passenger vehicles, wait times and crossing times can be reduced, increasing the overall mobility without compromising the safety.

By using new technology to expedite inspection process of trucks and passenger vehicles, resources at the inspection facility can be optimized for more efficient operation.

By using new technology to expedite inspection process of trucks and passenger vehicles, wait times of vehicles can be reduced, which will reduce idling time of trucks and cars at border crossings.

By providing wait time information to cross-border travelers, reliability of the system among customers (and their trips) can be maintained and improved.



Table 24 Use of Broadly Categorized Technologies to Implement ITS Application Areas in Relation to the Otay Mesa East

Application Areas for ITS

Vehicle Presence Detection Vehicle Identification Visual Surveillance Information Dissemination

Information Storage

Arterial management around border crossings

Count traffic at intersections connected to the freeways for ramp metering and traffic control to manage the system, and archive the data for performance monitoring.

Estimate travel times on roadway segments.

Monitor traffic congestion, incidents, and weather conditions.

Use DMSs, Internet, mobile devices to relay traffic conditions.

-

Freeway management around border crossings

Count traffic and vehicle type, measure speed and density for automated incident detection, plan traffic management strategies, and archive the data for performance monitoring.

Estimate travel times on roadway segments.

Monitor traffic congestion, incidents, and weather conditions.

Use DMSs, lane control signals, Internet, mobile devices to relay traffic conditions.

-

Transportation management centers

Automate incident detection, plan and implement active traffic management.

- Monitor traffic congestion, incidents, and weather conditions; assist incident clearing process.

Use DMSs, lane control signals, Internet, mobile devices to relay traffic conditions.

Archive ITS information such as volume, speed, crash statistics, and derived performance measures.

Traffic incident management

Automate incident detection, plan and implement active traffic management.

- Monitor traffic congestion, incidents, and weather conditions; assist incident clearing process.

- -

Emergency management - - Assist incident clearing process.

Use DMSs, Internet, mobile devices to relay traffic conditions.

-

Electronic payment and pricing

Activate presence of vehicles at toll lanes.

Identify vehicle owners to charge toll accounts and issue citations for toll violations.

Maintain constant monitoring of the tolling premises for security and violations.

Relay tolling price changes, open and closed lanes for transactions.

Toll transaction processing.



Table 24 (cont.) Use of Broadly Categorized Technologies to Implement ITS Application Areas in Relation to the Otay Mesa East

Application Areas for ITS

Vehicle Presence Detection Vehicle Identification Visual Surveillance Information Dissemination

Information Storage

Traveler information Measure wait times, crossing times, and queue length of vehicles north or southbound.

Measure wait times, crossing times, and queue length of vehicles.

Verify queue lengths and queuing conditions.

Use DMSs, Internet, mobile devices to relay traffic conditions including wait times, crossing times, and queue lengths.

Use archived data to predict traffic conditions, wait times, crossing times, and queue lengths at the border.

Information management Archive volume and speed of vehicles for automated incident detection, mobility monitoring, etc.

Archive driver and vehicle database for toll enforcement, border-crossing inspection, etc.

Not applicable. Use archived data to estimate predicted traveler information.

Use structured databases and data warehouse to archive ITS data.

Border inspection and enforcement

Measure wait times, crossing times, and queue length of vehicles north or southbound, provide advanced warning to federal and state inspectors about wait times, queue lengths for resource management. At state safety inspection facility, WIMs can double as vehicle presence detector.

Measure wait times, crossing times, and queue length of vehicles north or southbound, provide advanced warning to federal and state inspectors about wait times, and queue lengths for resource management, vehicle e-screening.

Maintain constant monitoring of the premises for security and violations.

Use DMS to notify of inspection status and cleared vehicles.

Use archived data to predict traffic conditions, wait times, crossing times, and queue lengths at the border for state and federal agents for resource management.



Table 25 Strengths and Weaknesses of Specific Technologies in the Context of Otay Mesa East

Specific Technology

Description Strength Weaknesses

Inductive Loop Inductive-loop detectors sense the presence of a conductive metal object by inducing electrical currents in the object. Inductive loops are embedded inside the pavement and are connected to roadside control unit. Loops measure vehicle presence volume, speed, length assessment, queue measurement, and classification.

Legacy technology. Relatively inexpensive.

Prone to wear and tear due to vehicles and pavement quality.

Replacement requires closing lanes which may be highly undesirable on lanes leading to inspection booths.

Many state agencies are phasing out loop detectors.

Higher maintenance cost. Microwave Radar

Microwave radar detectors transmit low-energy microwave radiation at the detection zone, and based on the frequency shift that results from relative motion between a frequency source and a listener, passing vehicles are detected. Laser radars provide vehicle presence at traffic signals, volume, speed, length assessment, queue measurement, and classification.

Wider deployment and gaining popularity.

Lower maintenance costs.

Accuracy is an issue when measuring volume at queuing conditions at border crossings. However, this needs to be substantiated with a thorough study.

Higher initial deployment cost.

Laser Laser radars are active sensors in that they transmit energy in the near-infrared spectrum. These detectors use multiple laser diode sources to emit a number of fixed beams that cover the desired lane width. Laser radars provide vehicle presence at traffic signals, volume, speed, length assessment, queue measurement, and classification.

Wider deployment at toll booths to detect vehicles but not for measuring volume and speed as the radar technology.

Lower maintenance costs. Higher accuracy in distinguishing

vehicle class.

Accuracy is an issue when measuring volume at queuing conditions at border crossings. However, this needs to be substantiated with a thorough study.

Higher initial deployment cost.

Video Image Processing

Video image processing (VIP) detectors measure changes between successive video image frames. Passing vehicles cause variations in the gray levels of the black-and-white pixel groups. VIP systems analyze these variations to determine vehicle passage. Laser radars provide vehicle presence at traffic signals, volume, speed, length assessment, queue measurement, and classification.

Widely used at intersection control and signal coordination.

Lower maintenance cost.

Higher initial deployment cost due to fiber optic network as the backbone.



Table 25 (cont.) Strengths and Weaknesses of Specific Technologies in the Context of Otay Mesa East

Specific Technology


DSRC 915 MHz or 5.9 GHz

DSRC allows high-speed communications between vehicles and the roadside, or between vehicles, for ITS; it has a range of up to 1,000 meters. Current applications operate at 915 MHz and primarily use proprietary technology. The new 5.9 GHz frequency permits much higher data-transmission rates.

Highly accurate vehicle identification. Widely used for tolling. Low maintenance cost. Already in use by CBP and some state

agencies for safety inspection.

Higher initial deployment cost. Higher penetration of transponders is

required to measure wait times and crossing times.

GPS The GPS is a satellite-based navigation system. GPS provides in a constant basis geographical position of the receiver unit.

Widely used by freight carriers and shippers for vehicle tracking and monitoring.

Widely available in mobile devices. Low initial deployment and maintenance

cost.

Higher post processing cost to derive wait times, crossing times, travel speeds.

Privacy concerns.

Bluetooth Bluetooth is a proprietary open wireless technology standard for exchanging data over short distances between electronic devices. It is widely used to connect mobile phones with the headset.

Relatively cheaper than RFID to measure wait times and crossing times of passenger vehicles.

Low maintenance cost. Penetration rates of Bluetooth-enabled

mobile devices and vehicles are rapidly growing.

May not be suitable for measurement of wait times and crossing times of commercial vehicles due to low penetration rate of Bluetooth-enabled mobile devices.

Low initial deployment cost.

ALPR ALPR uses optical character recognition on images to read the license plates on vehicles. The technology is widely used in tolling industry.

Widely used for tolling enforcement and at border crossing for E-screening of vehicles for pre-clearance programs.

Very high deployment cost. May not be very effective in tolling

enforcement due to the absence of binationally integrated driver and vehicle registration database.

WIM WIM devices are designed to capture and record axle weights and gross vehicle weights as vehicles drive over a measurement site. Unlike older static weigh stations, current WIM systems are capable of measuring at normal traffic speeds and do not require vehicles to stop or drive at low speed, making them much more efficient. Widely used at border crossings to enforce truck safety.

Widely used at roadside and border crossings for gross weight measurement of commercial vehicles along with vehicle identification technologies such as RFID and ALPR.

Needs a sophisticated information system to verify driver, vehicle, and carrier credentials.



Table 25 (cont.) Strengths and Weaknesses of Specific Technologies in the Context of Otay Mesa East

Specific Technology


DMS DMS is an electronic traffic sign used on roadways to relay traveler information.

Widely used technology to relay traveler information on freeways and slowly being used to relay wait times around border crossings.

Smaller sized DMSs are becoming popular for deployment on arterials to relay travel times and detours.

Very high initial deployment cost.

CCTV CCTV is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place. Extensively used on freeways and state highways for traffic monitoring.

Widely used technology. Very effective for real-time monitoring of

traffic condition.

Very high deployment cost due to communication components, which often need fiber network.

CBP may have concerns regarding installation of CCTV near its premises.

OBUs OBU is a generic term used to describe small devices placed inside a vehicle that interact with roadside devices for the purposes of toll collection, congestion charging, etc.

Used in Europe to collect road user fees from commercial vehicles.

Uses GPS technology to measure travel distance and location and DSRC (5.9 GHz) to charge the road user fee.

Has the ability to collect location data for travel time and congestion monitoring.

Due to privacy concerns, needs willingness from the vehicle owners (or carriers) and drivers to enroll in the program. Besides, collection of road user fees based on distance traversed is still new in the US.

511 Federal Communications Commission designated "511" as the single traffic information telephone number to be made available to states and local jurisdictions across the country to provide traveler information.

Deployed by all the border states, except Texas.

Easily integrated to relay border-related information.

Easy access to motorists who do not have access to Internet.

Initial deployment is expensive. Many states have opted to procure third-party private companies to run the system. In the absence of wide-area ITS data collection capabilities in place, the system is not effective.

Local Media Local media includes radio and television stations, which routinely relay traffic information.

Still the most widely used and most effective medium for relaying traveler information.

Sharing information with local media is inexpensive.

Local media can only relay messages at certain times of day and cannot provide continuous traveler information.

RSS RSS is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works—such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video—in a standardized format. A standardized XML file format allows the information to be published once and viewed by many different programs.

Widely used and accepted technique for sharing messages and small data packets through Internet protocol.

Inexpensive to implement.

RSS is not effective in sharing large blocks of data, but rather it is used to relay short bursts of messages.



Table 26 Comparison of Technologies to Measure Various Border Performance Parameters Applicable for Otay Mesa East

Functional Areas Technology Intitial Deployment Cost O&M Cost Scalable Flexible Stakeholder Acceptance Overall Suitability

Loops Medium High Low Low Low Low

Radar High Low Medium Medium High Medium

Laser High Low Medium Medium Medium Medium

VIVID High Medium Medium Medium Low Low

RFID High Low Medium Medium High Medium

GPS High Medium High High Medium High

Bluetooth Low Low High High High High

ALPR High Low Low Low Medium Low


Radar High Low Medium Medium High Low

Laser High Low Medium Medium Medium Medium

VIVID High Medium Medium Medium Low Low

RFID Medium Low Medium Medium High High

GPS Low Medium High High Medium Medium

Bluetooth Low Low High High Low Low

ALPR High Low Low Low Medium Medium


Radar High Low High High High High

Laser High Low High High Medium Medium

VIVID High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

RFID High Low Medium Medium High High

GPS High Medium High High Medium Medium

Bluetooth Medium Low High High High High

ALPR High Medium Low Low Low Low

Loops Medium High Less Less Medium Medium

Radar High Low High High High High

Laser High Low High High Medium Medium

VIVID High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

RFID Medium Low Medium Medium High High

GPS High Medium High High Medium Medium

Bluetooth Medium Low High High Low Low

ALPR High Medium Low Low Low Low

Wait time and

crossing time

measurement of

passenger vehicles

Wait time and

crossing time

measurement of

commercial

vehicles

Volume and queue

detection of

passenger vehicles

Volume and queue

detection of

commercial

vehicles



Table 27 Recommended Use of Specific Technology to ITS Application Areas for Otay Mesa East

Application Areas for ITS Loops Radar Laser VIVID RFID GPS Bluetooth ALPR WIMArterial management around border crossings N N N Y N N N NA NA


N Y N N N N N NA NA

Transportation management centers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Traffic incident management N Y N N NA NA NA NA NA

Emergency management NA NA NA NA NA Y NA NA NA

Electronic payment and pricing N N Y N Y N N Y NA

Traveler information (includes wait time measurement)

N Y N N Y Y Y N NA

Information management Y Y Y NA Y Y Y Y Y

Border inspection and enforcement N N N N Y N Y Y Y

Application Areas for ITS DMS CCTV LCS Internet Mobile OBU 511 Local Media RSSArterial management around border crossings NA Y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


NA Y Y NA NA NA NA NA NA

Transportation management centers Y Y Y Y Y NA Y Y Y

Traffic incident management NA Y Y NA NA NA NA NA NA

Emergency management NA Y Y Y Y NA Y Y NA

Electronic payment and pricing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y

Traveler information (includes wait time measurement)

Y Y Y Y Y NA Y Y Y

Information management NA NA NA NA Y Y NA NA Y

Border inspection and enforcement Y NA NA NA NA Y NA NA NA

Note: NA – Not Applicable / N – No / Y – Yes



8.3 KEY ISSUES AND SUGGESTED CONSIDERATIONS

The following section describes key issues and considerations that will influence and ultimately contribute toward ITS deployment at the OME POE. These issues are primarily based on the experience gained by the consulting team while deploying technology at border crossings, output from the workshops conducted by the team as part of a recent FHWA funded project, and broad understanding of strengths and weaknesses of specific technologies. Key issues are also based on known policy and institutional constraints that may have to be overcome to achieve project goals.

8.3.1 Tolling

One of the goals of the project is to collect tolls from motorists at both sides of the border but only once during a trip in one direction (either northbound or southbound direction). These toll areas are separated from the border crossings and hence reduce congestion at the actual border-crossing areas. Even though the precise nature of tolling has not been determined yet, the following issues and considerations are suggested:

Transponders, if distributed by different agencies, should be compatible with the equipment that will be deployed to identify them on both sides of the border. However, there is a great deal of interest in using a single transponder for crossing the border and paying tolls. If the goal is use of a single transponder, then equipment to identify transponders should be the same or functionally identical on both sides of the border.

A unified system for collection of toll and distribution of revenue should be implemented. The system should be transparent for both toll-collection agencies at the border. It is possible that the toll collector will be different in USA and Mexico.

Enforcement of toll violators is a big challenge since USA agencies do not have access to Mexican driver and registration databases, and vice versa. Hence, a risk analysis through random survey and historic data from Mexican toll operators should be performed to understand the extent of loss in revenue.

During the workshop conducted by the FHWA for border-wide assessment of ITSs, several stakeholders who have extensive experience working with toll-collection systems in Mexico expressed concern that 100 percent open road tolling or 100 percent transponder-based tolling may not be feasible at the border crossing. They hold the view that a significant portion of the travelers will not register to receive transponders and would prefer to use traditional methods of payment such as cash payment. However, this can be overcome with public education and the ability to have non-registered accounts. Hence, a proper mix of toll payment methods (ORT, cash, tokens, prepaid cards) should be explored as part of the market assessment and traffic revenue study.

The feasibility of using prepaid transponders or charge cards for drivers who do not wish to open credit card accounts for the toll operator to charge should be explored. DSRC (5.9 GHz) technology can be used to directly charge tolls through the prepaid transponder from the ORT. Providing kiosks to re-charge prepaid cards payable in both Mexican and USA currencies would be helpful.

Congestion pricing is certainly one of the goals of the project, but pricing based on time of the day should be determined by monitoring traffic demand. Archived ITS data regarding hourly trends of volume of vehicles and revenue will be necessary. One



challenging aspect of congestion pricing is coordination between binational tolling agencies so that such measures are effective.

8.3.2 Traffic Management

Management of traffic on arterials and freeways leading to and from the border crossing is crucial and in many ways contributes to reducing wait times of vehicles. As much as inspection process at the border is attributed to longer wait times, cross-border vehicle demand is also a contributing factor to longer wait times. It may get worse if the arterials and the street system leading to the border crossings are not properly planned and managed. Traffic management around border crossings has several fronts and key issues, and suggestions are as follows:

Traffic management around border crossings during major incidents becomes even more difficult to manage. A closure of a single lane will produce substantial backup of vehicles, especially during peak hours. With the level of ITS deployment planned at the border crossing, there is an opportunity to develop active traffic management strategies to manage flow of traffic from arterials and freeway systems to reduce congestion at toll booths.

Major incidents such as closure of several lanes at the proximity of toll booths and border crossings will require multi-agency coordination to reduce clearance time. If incidents require transferring victims across the border, then some form of agreement between the two border cities has to be in place. Also, terrorist and drug-related incidents and threats can easily shut down the border. Many binational agencies do communicate via mobile phones for coordination to respond to major incidents and seek assistance from each other. However, there is an opportunity to develop a “unified situation management system” by which agencies on the both sides of the border can monitor traffic movement and make decisions when and how to open the border or let the traffic back in.

In the past, sister city agreements have been signed by many border cities, especially on the USA-Mexico border, to provide assistance while responding to incidents where one city may lack equipment. For example, City of Sunland Park (New Mexico) has such an agreement with Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. One of the objectives of the agreement is to let the fire department from the USA assist in responding to HAZMAT incidents in Mexico. However, fire department personnel from the USA side are not allowed to be engaged in such response due to insurance-related restrictions.

Sharing of data and information in real time using a unified situation management system should be a key component of coordination between the binational agencies. Calling each other during emergencies and hazardous situations will not be enough. Binational agencies should start by drafting umbrella data sharing agreements and putting forward specific agreements such as sharing fiber optic networks, traveler information, archived data, etc. Agencies may or may not have independent authority to implement such types of binational data sharing agreements, and these should be explored early on.

On August 1, 2011, the FCC announced major spectrum sharing agreements with Canada and Mexico enabling 4G wireless broadband service and advanced systems for critical public safety and emergency response communications in the border areas. The FCC has reached arrangements with Industry Canada and Mexico’s SCT for sharing commercial wireless broadband spectrum in the 700 MHz band along the USA-Canadian and USA-Mexican border areas. One distinct advantage of this notice is that



emergency responders on both sides of the border should eventually be able to communicate with each other using common wireless service, which was not available until now.

8.3.3 Traveler Information

Traveler information (if relayed at the right time and at the right location) can contribute significantly toward improving reliability of the transportation system. If all the border crossings in the region are to be treated as one system, then traveler information should include traffic conditions at all three POEs on both sides of the border. A question that begs an answer is whether all three POEs will have equal level of ITS deployment on both sides of the border. If there is no information coming from one POE about its conditions, then travelers will not be able to choose between the POEs. Funding wise, this is a tremendous challenge. Key issues and suggestions regarding implementation of traveler information at the border crossing include the following:

Real-time sharing of traveler information between binational agencies is essential. This will allow travelers coming from Mexico to find out traffic conditions on the USA side, and vice versa. However, agencies on both sides of the border sharing the real-time data should have already-established protocols. The Internet does provide an efficient and cost-effective medium of data sharing but comes with a need to blanket the data for security purposes.

In the USA, the Traffic Management Data Dictionary (TMDD) is an established data exchange protocol. Mexico has already produced its own version (in Spanish) of the TMDD. However, translation and interpretation protocols should be agreed upon so that the agency in the USA can understand messages from Mexico and vice versa.

The Border Wait Time Measurement Project funded by the USA-Canada Joint Working Committee is testing several innovative technologies to measure wait times and queue lengths of passenger vehicles. These technologies if successfully deployed could be duplicated at the OME POE. Prediction of wait times and measurement of queue length is especially interesting since these two parameters have been difficult to measure.

Similarly, FHWA, TxDOT, and ADOT have deployed and are successfully deploying technologies to measure wait times and crossing times of USA-bound commercial vehicles. In months to come, several documents regarding step-by-step guidelines to implement similar systems, a guidebook to measure and disseminate wait time and crossing time, and a prototype web tool to disseminate real-time and archived data will be published. Lessons learned from these deployments will be a valuable resource for this project.

Due diligence for providing traveler information via mobile devices should be performed, since agencies should be careful not to encourage texting while driving.

Dynamic message signs are still the most effective means of communicating traveler information to motorists who are already on the road. Traditional media (television and radio) and the Internet are more effective in relaying traffic conditions to motorists who are planning to take the trip across the border.

8.3.4 Archived Data Management

Archived data in ITSs refers to the systematic retention and re-use of transportation data generated for various purposes. Archived data has applications in planning, operations, and



decision making. However, in many regions, use of ITSs has been limited to day-to-day transportation operations and has not fully realized the benefit of archived ITS data. Some of the key reasons are that processing archived data to produce any kind of meaningful information requires considerable resources. Other issues and suggestions include the following:

Need for additional resources for creating and maintaining archived ITS data should not be a deterrent. The benefits outweigh the resource needs.

Many agencies do not have policies and procedures in place for archiving and sharing data with outside agencies. Also, many do not follow available data archiving standards. Many ITS vendors do not produce their data compatible with these standards, and hence archiving data from multiple ITS devices provided by multiple companies is difficult and resource extensive.

There are few commercial off-the-shelf software applications that can easily integrate the archived ITS data. This means any agency that wants to continuously use archived ITS data requires either in-house or outside resources available on a constant basis to integrate archived data from multiple resources.

One challenging issue is to make sure data archives in Mexico and in the USA are compatible, consistently maintained, and able to be shared. For this, ITS data archives in both countries should follow existing standards for archiving ITS data.

8.3.5 Enforcement and Inspection

In discussion with stakeholders at various border crossings, the impact of FAST and SENTRI (in the USA-Mexico border) programs in reducing wait times of commercial vehicles have been questioned, especially at border crossings where there is not enough lane separation (and storage) for FAST-eligible trucks to form a queue. The case with SENTRI-eligible passenger vehicles is similar. However, at OME, innovative ideas to reduce queue of trucks and passenger vehicles should be explored. Other issues and suggestions include the following:

There is a renewed interest among stakeholders at many border crossings in implementing separate lanes for trucks carrying empty trailers or without trailers at all. This is especially true at border crossings where there is significant cross-border drayage operation. However, most of the older border crossings were not designed with such considerations and hence are suffering from overcapacity and long wait times for empty trucks even though they are inspected and cleared quickly at the federal facilities.

Because OME POE will be a completely new border crossing with adequate land available on both sides of the border, separation of lanes for different vehicle types (FAST trucks, empty trucks) should be considered. The planning of the POE should focus, among other considerations, on adequate storage and separation of lanes outside the federal and state inspection facilities, and should be supported by adequate overhead and roadside signs.

Dynamic allocation of FAST and non-FAST lanes using ITSs to maximize the usage of such lanes should be explored. For example, if the ITS data (based on e-Manifest data) shows more FAST trucks come in at certain times of day, then a few of the non-FAST lanes would be designated as FAST lanes using dynamic overhead signs in those time periods. Similar concepts can be explored for SENTRI lanes. This would require close coordination between federal agencies in the USA and Mexico.



The FMCSA is moving ahead with the award of the contract to design and deploy the IBC E-Screening system at four ports of entry on the USA-Mexico and USA-Canada border. FMCSA’s goal is to significantly reduce the time to inspect the commercial vehicles for safety compliance and to enhance the system used by the states for doing so through innovative technology and integration with the ACE/ITDS program. The OME POE will greatly benefit from implementing a similar system at the border crossing and hence should closely monitor development and outcome of the FMCSA project. In addition, ITS design considerations for the OME POE should include IBC E-Screening type systems.

One of the key goals of the OME POE project is to reduce GHG emissions at the border. Trucks and passenger vehicles that promote or participate in lowering emissions may qualify for a discount in tolling. These trucks and passenger vehicles can provide evidence of lower emissions by sharing emissions data collected by the on-board units.



9 References

1. Research and Innovative Technology Administration: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Border Crossing/Entry Data: Query Detailed Statistics, Cited: July 18, 2011. http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_BC/TBDR_BCQ.html.

2. North American Transportation Statistics Online Database, Cited: January 25, 2011, http://nats.sct.gob.mx/nats.

3. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Free and Secure Trade Program, Cited: September 10, 2011, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_security/ctpat/fast/.

4. SENTRI Eligibility and Fees, Cited: March 2011, 03, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/sentri/sentri_eligibility.xml.

5. SENTRI Program Description, Cited: January 28, 2011, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/sentri/sentri.xml.

6. Caminos y Puentes Federales, Linea Express de CApufe (LINEXP), Cited: March 07, 2011, http://www.capufe.gob.mx/portal/site/wwwCapufe/menuitem.b890cedd73bc7f015a034bd7316d8a0c/ .

7. PROMOFRONT, Puente Internacional Zaragoza-Ysleta, Cited: March 07, 2011, http://www.puenteinternacionalzaragozaysleta.com/index.html.

8. Foreign Trade Association, Dedicated Commuter Lane/Linea Express II Zaragosa/Ysleta/ Port of Entry, Cited: 03 08, 2011, http://www.epfta.org/news_detail.sstg?id=13.

9. U.S. Custom and Border Protection, NEXUS Program, Cited: March 08, 2011, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/nexus_prog/ .

10. Protection, U.S. Custom and Border, Nexus Fact Sheet, 2010.

11. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Border Wait Times, Cited: October 18, 2010, http://apps.cbp.gov/bwt/.

12. Intermex, NEXUS Supports Life in the Fast Lane with RFID Border Crossing Program, Cited: 03 07, 2011, http://www.intermec.com/learning/content_library/case_studies/cs981.aspx.

13. Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, Nexus Toll Program, Cited: 03 07, 2011, http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/nexus_toll_program.php3 .

14. U.S. Customes and Border Protection, Ready Lane - WHTI compliant Radio Frequency Identification, Cited: 05 02, 2011, https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1210/~/ready-lane---whti-compliant-radio-frequency-identification-%28rfid%29.

15. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Ready Lane, Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, Cited: 05 02, 2011, http://www.getyouhome.gov/html/rfid/RFID_FAQ.html.

16. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Global Entry Program, Cited: July 18, 2011, http://www.globalentry.gov/.



17. Villa, J. C., Screening, Scanning, and Inspection Processes (SSIP), DHS National Center for Border and Immigration Security, 2009.

18. Texas Department of Tranportation, Texas-Mexico International Bridges and Border Crossings Existing and Proposed, 2010.

19. Baker, R. T., Ungemah, D., and Boyd, M. A., Barriers and Benefits: The Realities of Congestion Pricing at El Paso Border Crossings, Texas Department of Transportation, 2007.

20. Texas Department of Transportation, Cited: March 05, 2011, http://caminocolombia.org/.

21. Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, FirstSection of SH 550 Toll to Open March 10, News Advisory, 2011, Brownsville.

22. Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes, Sala de Prensa, Cited: June 2011, http://www.sct.gob.mx/despliega-noticias/article/comunicado-154-operara-sct-puente-cucapa-del-cruce-internacional-san-luis-rio-colorado-ii-en-son/.

23. Samuel, P., TransCore's eGo sticker tag challenged by Neology in Mexico contract. Tollroadsnews, May 4, 2010, Vol. 4731.

24. U.S. Department of Transportation, Toll Facilities in the United States Bridges-Roads-Tunnels-Ferries, Cited: January 20, 2011, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage.htm.

25. City of McAllen, City of McAllen, Cited: January 23, 2011.

26. HNTB, El Paso Border Operations Plan, Cited: January 20, 2011, http://www.elpasoborderplan.org/index.php?b=st.

27. Laredo Trade Tag, Cited: December 20, 2010, http://laredotradetag.com/.

28. City Of Eagle Pass, Eagle Pass International Bridge System, Cited: February 2, 2011., http://www.eaglepasstx.us/default.aspx?name=Bridge_Tolls_Services.

29. TRMI Systems Integration, Mexico: Toll Industry Overview, Mexico City, 2009.

30. Transportation Border Working Group, Border Map, Cited: January 14, 2011, http://www.thetbwg.org/map-michigan_e.htm.

31. Michigan Department of Transportation, Michigan's publicly-owned bridges, Cited: February 1, 2011, http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9618---,00.html.

32. Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, Express Pass Toll Program. Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, Cited: January 10, 2011, http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/ExpressPass.php3.

33. Samuel, P., Sticker tags infiltrate heart of E-ZPass - Niagara bridges NY-Ontario, Tollroadsnews, Issue 3202, 2007.

34. Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, Current Toll Rates, Cited: January 8, 2011, http://www.peacebridge.com/ntr.php.

35. Ambassador Bridge, Auto Reward Card, Cited: January 10, 2011, http://www.ambassadorbridge.com/Fuel/AutoRewardCard.aspx?Auto=Y.



36. Blue Water Bridge, Toll Rates. Blue Water Breidge Canada, Cited: January 10, 2011, http://www.bwba.org/toll_e.html.

37. U.S. Department of Transportation, Border Crossing/Entry Data, Cited: January 03, 2011, http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_BC/TBDR_BC_QuickSearch.html.

38. Pierpass Program, Cited: July 19, 2011, http://www.pierpass.org.

39. Burris, M. W., Swenson, C. R. and Crawford, G. L., Lee County's Variable Pricing Project, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, April 2002, Vol. 72.

40. Federal Highway Administration, Congestion Pricing: A Primer, Cited: July 11, 2011, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/congestionpricing/sec4.htm.

41. Litman, T., London Congestion Pricing: Implications for Other Cities, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2006.

42. Robinson, F., Heavy Vehicle Tolling in Germany. Minneapolis, Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, 2008.

43. IBI Group., Toll Collection Technology: Is it Time for a Change?, Washington Department of Transportation, 2009.

44. Dr. Khali Persad, et. al. Toll Collection Technology and Best Practices, Center for Transportation Research, 2007.

45. HNTB, Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Conversions Guidebook, FHWA, 2007.

46. Commission, Federal Communications, FCC ALLOCATES SPECTRUM IN 5.9 GHz RANGE FOR INTELLIGENT, FCC, 1999, Washington, D.C.

47. Kapsch, Big Success with the Performance Evaluation of the new 5.9 GHz tolling technology from Kapsch TrafficCom at the Trial Facility in Denver, Colorado, Press Release, 2008.

48. ITS America Call for Best New Innovative Practice, Kapsch, 2009.

49. Muriello, M., Development and Testing of Electronic Payment Services National Interoperability Specification for Next Generation ETC Services, I-95 Corridor Coalition, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York .

50. Samuels, P., 5.9GHz ET test at Hood River OR-White Salmon WA Toll Bridge Over Columbia River, Tollroad News, Issue 4897, 2010.

51. PRWEB, Kapsch TrafficCom to Deploy Real-time 5.9 GHz DSRC Wireless Roadside Inspection System for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Press Release, Carlsbad, 2011.

52. Manuel, C., Secretariat Communicacion de Transporte, Personal Interview, July 2009.

53. Erazo, J. J., Cuan, M., National ITS Studies in Mexico, Presented to Joint Working Committee, San Diego, 2010.

54. Fino, E., Texas Department of Transportation, Personal Interview, Februrary 2010.



55. U.S. Department of Transportation, National ITS Architecture, Border Wait Time Project ITS Architecture, 2010.

56. Medina, M., Assistant Director, El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization, Personal Interview, January 24, 2011.

57. Rajbhandari, Rajat, et al, Pilot Information System for Cross-Border HAZMAT Transportation, Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, 2009.

58. Rajbhandari, R., Villa, J. and Aldrete, R., Expansion of the Border Crossing Information System, University Transportation Center for Mobility, Texas A&M University, College Station, 2009.

59. Cross Border Contingency Plan, U.S.-Mexico Sister Cities Laredo/Nuevo Laredo. 1998.

60. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua Regional Workshop, Cited: January 28, 2011, http://www.epa.gov/Border2012/regional/chi-sister.html.

61. EPA Announces Nogales Sister City Response Plan, Business News America, Cited: January 28, 2011, http://www.bnamericas.com/news/waterandwaste/EPA_Announces_Nogales_Sister_City_Response_Plan.

62. City of Laredo, Emergency Operations Center, Homeland Security, Cited: January 27, 2011, http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/CASS/Pres_Fed/content/homeland_security/emergency_operations_center.html.

63. Pima County, Pima County Health Department, Local Emergency Planning Committee, Cited: February 02, 2011.

64. County of San Diego, Office of Emergency Services, Cited: February 02, 2011, http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_EM.html.

65. Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Regional ITS Architecture Home Page, Cited: November 2, 2010, http://www.consystec.com/texas/default.htm.

66. Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization, Las Crucel Regional ITS Architecture, Cited: November 2, 2010, http://www.consystec.com/lascruces/web/_regionhome.htm.

67. New Mexico Department of Transportation, Final New Mexico Statewide ITS Architecture, Cited: November 2, 2010, http://www.consystec.com/nm/web/_regionhome.htm.

68. Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California Regional ITS Architecture, Phase 2.1-Imperial County Regional ITS Architecture, Version 4.0, Los Angeles, California, 2005.

69. U.S. Department of Transportation, Applications Overview, Rsearch and Innovative Technology Administration, Cited: November 1, 2010, http://www.itsoverview.its.dot.gov/green_level.asp?System=TI.



70. Kristof, T., Lowry, M., Rutherford, S., Assessing the Benefits of Traveler and Transportation Information Systems, Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington, Seattle, 2005.

71. Sabean, J., Jones, C., Inventory of Current Programs for Measuring Wait Times at Land Border Crossings: Report for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security and Canada Border Services Agency. 2008.

72. Rajbhandari, R., Field Experiment to Identify Potentials of Applying Bluetooth Technology to Collect Passenger Vehicle Crossing Times at the U.S.-Mexico Border, Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research, Texas Transportation Institute, El Paso, July 2009.

73. Texas Transportation Institute, Bluetooth-Based Travel Time/Speed Measuring Systems Development - Final Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2010.

74. Delcan Corporation, Measuring Cross-Border Travel Times for Freight: Otay Mesa International Border-Crossing Technology Evaluation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., March 2008.

75. SAIC and Delcan Corporation, Border Wait Time Measurement: Test, Evaluation and Deployment of Automated Real-Time Technologies, Border Wait Time Working Group, June 2010.

76. Browne, R., Byrne, A., Highway 402 Queue Warning System (Wireless Long Haul Application), Presented at the 2008 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Toronto, 2008.

77. Whatcom Council of Governments, Border Data Warehouse: User Guide. Cascade Gateway Data, Cited: November 5, 2010, http://cascadegatewaydata.com/docs/Userguide.pdf.

78. Klein, L A, Mills, M K and Gibson, D R., Traffic Detector Handbook, Third Edition - Volume I, Federal Highway Administration, Turner Fairbank Research Center, McLean, Virginia, 2006.

79. Martin, P T, Fend, Y and Wang, X., Detector Technology Evaluation. Utah : University of Utah, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2003.

80. Texas Department of Transportation, TransVista Traffic Information. El Paso District News and Information, Cited: October 19, 2010, http://elpits.dot.state.tx.us/its-trafficinfo/.

81. Texas Department of Transportation, Traveler Information Map: STRATIS, Cited: October 19, 2010, http://its.txdot.gov/LRD/lrd.htm.

82. New Mexico Border Authority, Cited: October 19, 2010, http://www.nmborder.com/.

83. New Mexico Department of Transportation, New Mexico Road Conditions, Cited: February 03, 2011, http://nmroads.com/.

84. Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona 511, Cited: February 03, 2011, http://www.az511.gov/adot/files/traffic/.



85. San Diego Association of Governments, Recent 511 Deployer Updates/Issues, California 511 Workshop, San Diego, 2008.

86. Washingington Department of Transportation, Canadia Border Traffic, Cited: October 18, 2010, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/border/.

87. British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Wait Times for Peace Arch Crossing, Cited: October 18, 2010, http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/ATIS/index.htm.

88. New York State Department of Transportation, Traffic Conditions. 511 Traffic, Travel And Transit Info, Cited: October 18, 2010, http://www.511ny.org/traffic.aspx.

89. Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, The Peace Bridge, Cited: October 19, 2010, http://www.peacebridge.com/webcam.php.

90. Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, Traffic Conditions, Cited: October 19, 2010, http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/traffic_conditions.php3.

91. Government of Canada, Blue Water Bridge Canada, Cited: October 19, 2010, http://www.bwba.org/main_e.html.

92. Michigan Department of Transportation, Michigan's Publicly Owned Bridges, Cited: October 19, 2010, http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9618---,00.html.

93. Montana Department of Transportation, Traveler Information Map, Cited: October 19, 2010, http://roadreport.mdt.mt.gov/map/.

94. California Department of Transportation, State Route 905/125 Interchange at Otay Mesa Port of Entry, Transportation Border Congestion Relief Program Application. 2008.

95. Jou, R., et al., Real-Time Traffic Information and Its Impact on Route Switching Behavior of Expressway Drivers, Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 38, pp. 187-223,

96. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Border Wait Times, Cited: October 18, 2010, http://apps.cbp.gov/bwt/.

97. Canada Border Services Agency, Border Wait Times, Cited: October 18, 2010, http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/general/times/menu-e.html.

98. Boyd, D. M. and Ellison, N. B., Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13(1), 2007.

99. Edmunds Daily, Telematics Detroit 2010: Smartphones and Apps Change Everything, Cited: October 22, 2010, http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/2010/06/telematics-detroit-2010-smartphones-and-apps-change-everything.html.

100. Yim, Y. and Khattak, K., Traveller Response to New Dynamic Information Sources: Analyzing Corridor and Area-Wide Behavioural Surveys, Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2002.

101. MSNBC, States give mixed signals on texting and driving, Cited: October 22, 2010, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32919375/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/.



102. Chorus, C G, Molin, E J and Wee, B V., Use and Effects of Advanced Traveller Information, Transport Reviews, Vol. 26, March 2006.

103. Pierce, S. and Lappin, J., Why don't more people use advanced traveler information? Evidence from the Seattle Area, Paper Presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Boar, Washington D.C., 2004.

104. Petrella, M. and Lappin, J., Los Angeles and Seattle: A Comparative Analysis of Customer Response to Online Traffic Information, Presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2004.

105. Creek, James, Executive Director, New Mexico Border Authority, Personal Interview, March 7, 2011.

106. Rajat R., Rafael A., Paso Del Norte Regional Mobility Information System - Creating Archived Transportation Data User Services and Advanced Traveler Information System, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2121, pp 110-120, Washington D.C., 2009.

107. Turner, S., Guidelines for Developing ITS Data Archiving Systems, Report 2127-3, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 2001.

108. Echavarri, F., New Technology at Nogales Border Crossing Aimed at Reducing Delay. Tuscon Citizen, Cited: October 13, 2010, http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/09/05/95840-new-technology-at-nogales-border crossing-aimed-at-reducing-delays/.

109. Brewin, B., State, DHS grant RFID Contracts to Speed Border Crossings, Government Executive, Cited: October 13, 2010, http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0108/011708bb1.htm.

110. U.S. Department of State, Border Crossing Card, Cited: October 13, 2010, http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1266.html.

111. McCormack, E., Lessons from Tests of Electronic Container Door Seals, Transportation Research Board,Washington D.C., 2009.

112. Pillai, N., Key Issues and Challenges in Intermodal Transportation Security, Transportation Research Forum, 2006.

113. General Electric, International Convergence Trends in Cargo Security – A Discussion Paper by General Electric for STAR III, Third Conference on Secure Trade in the APEC Region, Incheon, Korea, 2005.

114. Mouwad, J., For Air Cargo, a Screening Conundrum, The New York Times, December 20. 2010.

115. Middleton, D and Parker, R., Initial Evaluation of Selected Detectors to Replace Inductive Loops on Freeways, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 2000.

116. Mimbela, L. and Klein, L., A Summary of Vehicle Detection and Surveillance Technologies Used in Intelligent Transportation System. Las Cruces, New Mexico, The New Mexico State University, 2000.



117. Gilliet, H., Toll roads-the French experience. Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Transrouts International, 1990.

118. Federal Highway Administration, Intelligent Transportation Systems at International Border - A Cross Cutting Study, 2001.

119. Villa, J C., Status of the USA-Mexico Commercial Border Crossing Process: Analysis of Recent Studies and Research, Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1966, Washington, D.C., 2006.

120. New Mexico Border Authority, New Mexico Ports of Entry, Cited: January 21, 2011.,http://www.nmborder.com/index.html.

121. California Department of Transportation, San Ysidro Port of Entry Border Investment Strategey, Transportation Border Congestion Relief Program Application. 2008.

122. SANDAG, San Diego Traffic, Transit, and Commute Info. San Diego 511, Cited: December 22, 2010, http://www.511sd.com/.

123. Harris County Toll Road Authority, Frequently Asked Questions – Interoperability, Cited: 03 10, 2011, https://www.hctra.org/about_faq/interoperability/.

124. SANDAG, California-Baja California Border Master Plan - Executive Summary, San Diego,2008.

125. Alliance for Toll Interoperability, Interoperability Hub Request for Proposal, 2011.

126. Byrd, E., Rules for Improving Cargo Security, Customs and Border Protection Today, Cited: October 8, 2010, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2004/March/Other/rules_cargosecurity.xml .