AUTHOR REPLIES Toll Plaza Design

From Al Schaufler, Parsons Brinckerhoff, author of “Toll Plaza Design: A Synthesis of Highway Practice” TRB NCHRP Synthesis 240”

Having been in the toll business for nearly 30 years, I have a pretty good knowledge of toll agencies and the technology and am quite upset at some of your remarks (see TRnl#20 Oct 97 p8). Therefore I would like to respond to them.

(1) You insinuate that the report is "flawed" and should be read with skepticism. My question would be where and why? You referred to the picture of the Norfolk-Virginia Beach Expressway as no longer being tolled. If you look at the photo it states that it is the "former" toll facility and that the photo is intended to show a typical location for a stairwell. You then remark that the use of video enforcement by 30% of the responding facilities may be an obsolete result too, inferring that other results may likewise be flawed. Your observations that violations at remote unmanned plazas would be the source of greater violation is probably correct, however the cost of installing video enforcement as compared to the potential losses in low volume traffic areas where most unmanned operations exist (except in Illinois) makes such an application uneconomical. Enforcement is also a problem since you must be certain that the ACM or bill changer didn't malfunction or the coins merely missed their mark. The survey did cover the major toll operators so unless conditions changed drastically (in the toll industry) the survey should provide a good representation of the (state of) "practice" as of 1994/5.

(2) You seem to take exception to the term "reluctance in going forward with (ETC)..." I stand by this statement knowing what is the current driving force behind many of the larger systems - POLITICS. Most agencies are still uneasy with issues such as cost (ETC is NOT cheap!), interoperability, and market. Not every agency though has a plan to install ETC. The smaller players are waiting while the bigger ones are looking for a way to have Public-Private Partnership pay the lion’s share.

(3) Your reference to OOCEA not having a 28' 8" toll booth I believe has been clarified. If you reference Appendix B Column 24b , Item H of the survey you will see the list of amenities housed in their ramp facility. This was taken directly from there survey input and if the reader reviews the appendices the details are apparent. (see TRnl response below)

(4) As for my "editorializing" against diversity, I believe I editorialized for more consistency in certain aspects of plaza design such as booth ergonomics, and more standardization in equipment location (To avoid monopolies by equipment manufacturers) plus uniformity in pavement markings , signing and lighting for improved driver awareness and safety. I was a member of the four person Toll System Design Team who developed the concept initially for TCA to use bypass/express ETC mainline toll lanes in conjunction with a conventional full service toll plaza. I carried this concept to E-470 where I was working as a Technical Advisor. E-470 then became the first to actually implement the plan. I guess that this concept might be considered innovative!

(5) "Mars! Call ya lawyers" — reliability can be defined in many ways. Here as you pointed out bill acceptors (BA) don't always work given the condition of US currency — something which is not going to change which should be factored into the design. As for the use of BAs in a toll lane vs. ones in transit use there is a big difference in the expectations of the agencies and the patrons. In a toll lane the need to process vehicles is paramount. The BA is slow and prone to jams. Just imagine for a moment you insert a crisp $5 bill in the BC for a $2 toll and your change comes into the hopper all quarters and the delay that could occur in getting your change when you are 2 feet from the return and sitting in your car or truck or better yet the bill doesn't process. ( By the way our office soda machine "ate” my last "crisp " $1.00 bill. Enough for reliability!)

Some agencies have recently installed BAs at unmanned ramps where the demand is low, however they have not been embraced at other locations. They are just too slow and not as reliable as other equipment here in the US toll market.

(6) I got what is a good representation of facilities and geographic spread.

(7) "Verbal smog" and "Muddleheaded verbiage" - I'd suggest you talk to IBTTA and the toll industry about this one. It seems that the terminology "OPEN and CLOSED Toll Systems" and " Barrier" tolls have been around as long as I have.( My God that seems like an eternity!) Better yet the use of "Ticket and cash" with respect to a "Closed toll system " have as well. In my own archieves I've found reference to them in such documents as an IBTTA publication entitled "Proud Hertiage, Bright Future” edited by Dan Cupper circa 1990 and in the " E - 470 Toll System Workshop / Summary Report" dated April, 1989 plus the Orange County Calif. " Preliminary Toll Road Feasibility Assessment" from 1982. I spent the better part of 15 minutes finding these references.) However your phraseology of " Point Tolling " and "Trip Tolling " is rather good. It does describe the processing or philosophy which applies to " Open and Closed Toll Systems ". "Point Tolling" can be used in either system while "Trip Tolling " is generally attributed to Closed systems as the process for determining the charge for particular vehicle classes. The Garden State Parkway in the northern end (Mile Post 138 to 165) and the Central portion from Raritan to Toms River (Mile Post 125 to 80) is a " Closed Cash System" with tolls collected at a combination of mainline barriers and Exit/Entry ramp plazas. Not all "Closed" systems use entry plazas to collect tolls as you noted, nor just exit tolls as I stated. Another example of a "Closed Cash System is the Atlantic City Expressway where between Hammonton (Mile Post 28) and Pleasantville (Mile Post 2) tolls are collected upon entry eastbound and on exiting westbound with two interim Mainline barriers. The Ohio Turnpike and the Penn Turnpike are great examples of " Closed Ticket Systems " which are formulated on the principle of "Trip Tolling". All bridges and tunnels on the other hand are " Closed Cash Systems" which rely on "point tolling" for collection. ( There are " no free rides"in either case.) An " Open Toll System,” where " Point Tolling" is imposed exists on the southern sections of the Florida Turnpike System as well as on the southern end of the Garden State Parkway and on the New Hampshire turnpike plus the proposed Chesapeake (Rt.168 ) Toll Road. The Open System philosophy is one which attempts to charge the longer distance traveler or "Thru Trip" rather than the local trips. the toll is a basic flat rate for a vehicle class with little relationship to the trip length. It is driven by total operating and maintenance cost including

debt coverage and reserves as compared to the projected traffic demand by vehicle class.

The report reflects "cash and tickets " because that's the way the majority of toll transactions are handled now and will likely be handled for a long time into the future. Remember that the optimum market share that can be achieved today for ETC usage appears to be 30 - 40 % of the total users of a facility. This has been borne out on many facilities and was aptly described in Dan Greenbaum's presentation at IBBTA in Denver (see separate report pXXXXXXX).

The intent of this report was to define and describe "Toll Plaza Design" practices in the US (a "First") and not to herald ETC....Yours, Al Schaufler

Apology, but...

After the last issue with my harsh criticisms of Schaufler’s report went to the printer I met him for the first time. He’s such a knowledgeable, interesting, and likeable guy, I could not possibly have written what I did had I known him when I wrote! I regret its tone. I hurt a wonderful guy and I feel rotten for that. I still think the report could have been much clearer and that it is inexcusable that a report of such a rapidly changing subject as tolling should take nearly 5 years to get into print. The TRB’s process of “peer review” seems to me Kafkaesque in its complexity and slowness, and in the way mistakes still get through, including bad ones involving unclear concepts and loose language.

But let the author have the last word except on point 3 above on which there is more detail.

Toll house not toll booth: The report says that collector toll booths vary in size from 20sq ft to 228 sq ft (2m2 to 21m2). Intrigued as to why any toll collector would need 228 sq ft I asked the Orlando pike (OOCEA) whether they really had such large toll booths. OOCEA responded first that they had no such giant toll booths, so I reported that 228sf as a mistake. Since then it trnaspires that OOCEA had indeed reported a giant 28'8 x 7'8 (228sf) toll booth as he’d written, but their response appears to reflect misunderstanding of the questionaire terminology. The giant 228sf “toll booth” is shown in plan below, and is in fact not a toll booth at all, but a combination (1) toll booth, (2) a staff bathroom, accessed through the toll collector area and (3) a plaza work room with separate entrance. This is more a “toll house” than a “toll booth.” The design occurs at the Orlando authority's small ramp plazas, and as well as providing a toll booth serves the role of a mini-plaza administration building — providing a bathroom, space for computers, making coffee, storing stuff and counting money.

The TRB report has separate descriptions of toll administration and support buildings from toll booths so to lump in a toll house that incorporates these support functions with dedicated toll collection booths is a mistake. The report is therefore inaccurate in stating that US toll booth sizes range up to 228 sq ft. It was flawed in not getting a rather central concept “What is a toll booth?” clear for its base survey. Loose use of words tripped them up...but as I said, despite imperfections the report is worth buying and is a valuable contribution to the open literature. I thank Al for his valuable and interesting info here also. (Contact TRB 202 334 3244 fax 202 334 2519 sliff@nas.edu, Al Schaufler 609 734 7056 schaufler@pbworld.com )