STANDARDS Toll agencies insist standard embrace existing e-toll systems

STANDARDS

Toll agencies insist standard embrace existing e-toll systems

The turnpikes and other toll agencies were the new force in the latest round of argument (February 6) on North American standards for electronic (e-) tolling and other vehicle-to-roadside communications (VRC). And the users main theme at ITS America's 'DSRC Executive Roundtable' was that any new standard should accomodate the systems now being installed — be 'backwards compatible.' And while international compatibility might be desirable it should have a much lower priority than moving toward a more efficient system on the highways of the contiguous states of the U.S. and Canada, most said.

A standards meeting in New Orleans late last year, attended mainly by the competing manufacturers and system integrators had adopted guidelines (ASTMv7) which downplayed existing electronic toll systems saying the new standard need not be 'backwardly compatible' to them. And there was a push by several to embrace the European CEN standard with existing e-toll systems being pushed aside on the argument that this was the only way to get a level playing field for the competition to transition out of proprietary systems and produce and sell to an open standard.

Heavies show: The large attendance by top officers of some of the major toll agencies at the all-day February 6 meeting in a hotel near Washington National Airport reflected their alarm at the possibility that the federal government would throw its weight behind a start-from-scratch standard which could render their present e-toll systems obsolete. At the same time a January 6 USDoT request for comment in the Federal Register had produced a bunch of letters from users and system suppliers that was critical of such a federal move. At the Feb 6 meeting the Feds gave no indication they would follow through on the threat mentioned in their Federal Register filing to "stop the proliferation of non-interoperable DSRC (dedicated short range communications) systems" unless the industry could identify a solution "immediately." There was overwhelming opposition in both the comments on the Fed Register docket (96-49) and at the Feb 6 meeting itself to early federal intervention to impose a standard. In response officials from USDoT tacitly agreed to hold off for the moment on intervention and give more time for the loose 'stakeholder' standards-setting process that has been under way for some time, sometimes paralysed, other times leaping wildly one way and then another, oftentimes just tediously trying to sort out technical problems and negotiate business compromises, but arguably in the messy way of the American pluralistic system, moving a bit toward resolution.

Henry Yermack: The federal government is funding a number of consultants to help resolve the standard with Kissinger-like shuttle diplomacy by Lee Armstrong and Larry Yermack and innovative technical staff work by the likes of Ray Yuan, Brodie Cash and a number of corporate engineers who are best left unnamed. The overall goal — an honorable peace settlement and the framework for constructive if still rivalrous coexistence between the contending Activists and Passivists (see Insert TR#10 Dec 96).

In such affairs, they say, truth is often the first casualty and even the best intentioned peacemakers will posture and propagandize, bluff and bluster. The Feds in retrospect were NOT REALLY demanding the "immediate" decision on a standard of the Federal Register filing; they were NOT REALLY ignorant of extensive regional interoperability but it suited their political purposes to exaggerate the problem in the Federal Register; they were NOT REALLY intending to assert federal jurisdiction over state and local toll authorites or contemplating the imposition of a federal standard that would obsolete successful e-toll systems just coming into use. But there was just a chance, many in the states thought, that the federal bull might run wild in their china shop, so best mark off Feb 6 and get the breakfast flight to Washington National to make sure the beast was safely corralled. For their part by their posturing the feds managed to haul in the heavies and many of the smartest soldiers in the business — about 120 of them for the show at the Hilton in Crystal City VA.

Lake Tahoe: At the meeting the feds immediately did what Washington does best: offer more money to move things. USDoT official Bill Jones said they would consider footing the bill at a hotel on Lake Tahoe, that sparkling mountain resort area on the California/Nevada border, for all the major people involved if they would agree to stay there and work continuously until the standard was defined (henceforth the 'Feds Tahoe gambit.') Noone was sure how far Jones was jesting but he highlighted continued Federal impatience. That is rooted in a belief that deployment of electronic credentialing and clearance equipment in commercial vehicles is being delayed by the lack of interoperability among systems. In addition there is pressure from key staffers on the transport funding committees of Congress to go with a VRC standard for all federal funding. Getting a standard was spelt out in the Fiscal 1997 appropriations law and is likely to be written into future appropriations, acting as an instruction to the civil servants to push the process.

Feds say 'great': Michael Onder director of commercial vehicle operations at the ITS office of USDoT told us that it is vital to have a standard when ten states implement electronic credentialing under a program called CVISN in 1998 and 1999. Moreover the use of DSRC at border crossings with Canada and Mexico is proceeding and truck weigh station clearance corridors are expanding, all demanding a standard for their success. Onder described the Feb 6 meeting as "wonderful" because it got so many toll operators and user agencies involved and clarified many issues.

Lee Armstrong a Boston-based contract worker on the physical and link layers of the standard that is within the ambit of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) says he hopes to meet USDoT demands for an accelerated schedule, even if it doesn't involve a sojourn to Lake Tahoe. Already hoarse like a campaigning politician from far too much talking he says huskily he hopes to respond to the Tahoe gambit with a schedule that would produce a standard for ASTM ballot by July this year, compared to the previous schedule of December. The standard will have to accomodate both active transmitting transponders of the kind in use in the northeast and on trucks North America-wide, as well as the passive backscatter 'tags' that are used in vehicles in e-tolling in the south and the west. He told us on the phone that the ballot will force a choice between a dual-mode in-vehicle device and dual-mode transceiver gear on the over-road gantry — sometimes called a choice between a super-tag and a super-reader arrangement.

Larry Yermack a Parsons Brinckerhoff worker on the standards process said at the Feb 6 meeting that his negotiating team is working to accomodate the needs of the contending groups: "We are seeking a compromise here, not the technical ideal."

'They love it': Michael C. Ascher, head of New York's MTA Bridges & Tunnels, the largest grossing toll agency in the U.S. led off comment at the Feb 6 meeting saying that demand for new tags in his system is running at 20,000 per week with about 400,000 in use at the turn of the year: "This is an extraordinary technology. The customers love it. If anyone is thinking of hauling them back in (for new standard tags) then you are kidding yourself." Ascher said his authority was budgeting to amortize the investment in the current Mark IV active electronic tolling sysystem over 15 years. Until 2012!

James Griffin director of the Texas Turnpike which has had a passive backscatter Amtech system for several years said their existing system "serves our needs very well" but the authority is prepared to follow a "reasonable migration path" to a new standard — that he said should incorporate a smart card interface. Griffin said that the best time to switch will be when the batteries of the current tags give out which is expected to be after about 8 years use, which would make the year 2000 or 2001 a sensible switchover period for the TTA.

The manager of tolling for the Ontario Transport Capital Corp, Gabriel Heti said he was "very concerned" about any moves to obsolete existing equipment which is built around ASTM draft 6 because Ontario is currently spending tens of millions of dollars and has ensured interoperability of tolling, truck clearances, border crossings, and airport vehicle management using v6. Heti said he thought 15 years was perhaps too long a period but there was a need for a substantial life for systems just being installed.

Richard J Weiland of the SEI Technology Group of Rosemont Illinois says: "We need to continue to emphasize that neither the standards efforts, nor the Federal Government, make 'any' demands on toll or truck operators to switch out of their current deployments any sooner than makes good internal economic sense. The situation we should strive to engineer is that when operators are ready to transition to their next generation system, a standardized environment will be ready for them to move to."

The Plan: Yermack and his P B Farradyne colleague Sompol Chatusripitak working under contract to USDoT both said it was the plan to allow toll agencies freedom to deploy to a standard according to a timetable of their own choice and not to force a new standard on anyone. Noone was impolite enough to draw attention to the contrast between this conciliatory line and the tone of his client in the Federal Register!  Yermack and 'Sompol' (few attempt his last name) suggested at the meeting that if a draft standard is voted in this year it could be followed by:

• development and testing of standard products in 1988

• a prototype standard product in 1999

• standard products available for deployment 2001

There were disagreements over likely truck versus private car deployment, Farradyne suggesting both might occur around 2000 to 2001 as original equipment, with a Mack truck representative saying many truck manufacturers are planning to build transponders into cabs earlier than that, and Gregory Shipman of Delco Electronics saying that the auto industry doesn't see the required consumer demand for built-in transponders for cars until well beyond 2001. So the plastic moulded boxes and their velcro fasteners may be around for a while yet! National financial clearing house arrangements will emerge, most agreed, and some smart card interfaces around that time too. As predicted by Faradyne the new standard VRC products will gradually become more attractive as economies of scale and security of multiple sourcing develop. Existing systems will be wanting to upgrade as technologies and markets change and new uses are developed. Migration to the new standard can be designed into upgrades and new purchase cycles.

Grace & order: The several major manufacturers Mark IV, Hughes, AT/Comm, Texas Instruments, Combitech and Amtech each endorsed the idea of supporting existing systems and providing what was often called an orderly path to any new standard. Graceful transition was another term of the day. Most agreed that it should be possible to accomodate one active and one passive system in the new dual mode standard. There were a couple of dissenters. Joe Crabtree of the Kentucky Transportn Center and a pioneer of e-clearance for trucks in the I-75 corridor said in a docket comment that the dual mode approach will compromise capability: "The decision to include both active and passive techologies in the standard is driven not by technical requirements but by ‘politics’ — the inability of the vendor community to reach consensus on the best technology. If technical reviews by objective third parties show that one technology can provide what is needed we would be better off to 'flip a coin' and choose a single approach than to continue to pursue the dual approach standard. In lieu of flipping a coin, an objective third party could be asked to serve as an arbitrator, hearing the case for each side and making a selection. It appears perhaps that either choice, active or passive would be better than refusing to make a choice."

An IAG view: But that is not going to happen. The feds aren't going to buy that kind of fight. The federal docket 96-49 comment is dominated by papers from the northeastern Interagency Group (IAG) members (NY,NJ,PA,DE) and considerably supported by most of the rest of the industry. The IAG members had clearly exchanged a basic position paper but each had its own twist. Extracts from a typical one (Ed Gross dir NJ pike): "As demonstrated by the IAG’s enormous and successful implemention the lack of standards has not been an impedient to providing interoperability or reciprocity within the NY/ NJ region and will not be an impediment to extending interoperability throughout the northeast US. We are concerned by the statement that 'maybe forced to seek a process to stop the proliferation...' The FHWA must exercise some patience and respect for the standard writing process. The very nature of this process strives for consensus among competing interests...IAG has already invested substantial resources ($200m), time and political capital in advancing the state of ETC systems thereby paving the way for the development of a myriad of other ITS applications...any standard must be backwards compatible....National interoperability can only be successfully implemented over a period of time...The (standards) writing groups should embrace existing technology and work forward. Anticipated benefits (from adopting international standards) are unfounded...different frequencies (are) a greater barrier...We recommend a minimum of ten years before compliance is required with a single standard...A single standard for all applications (tolling and CVO) may require those applications with lesser technology requirements to incur costs that they would not otherwise have incurred without the single standard. The commercial carrier requirements vary from mid-size and small carrier requirements which vary from the toll agencies reqirements. The toll agencies do not wish to, nor should they be required to, support the needs of commercial carriers beyond the point where the two share requirements. Compatible interoperable standards for the various need areas should be established so that the agencies and organizations may select the type of system and the extent of interoperability they are willing to implement. There need not be a single standard for all applications."

That seems to be the way we are moving toward a standard, or standards, or whatever you call them. (Contacts: Rick Schuman ITSA 202 484 4543, Sompol Chatusripitak, PB Farradyne 301 998 6620 schatusripitak@farradyne.com, Lee Armstrong ASTM 617 261 7151. Rena Barta, IAG 212 360 3181, Rick Weiland, 847 699 7800 rweiland@wwa.com, Mike Onder USDoT 202 366 2639 michael.onder@fhwa.dot.gov)