Undemanding FHWA "rules" for fed-OKd toll systems published in Federal Register

FHWA has published undemanding if sometimes confused "rules" for tolls on value priced or express lanes, and newly tolled interstate construction under federal control.  The rules do nothing to "accelerate progress toward the national goal of achieving a nationwide interoperable electronic toll collection system," stated as an objective in federal SAFTEA-LU law enacted August 2005, but US legislators set FHWA an impossible task there, given the consistent failure of past federal efforts at sponsoring interoperability.

ASTMv6 toll system sponsored by FHWA in the 1990s as a US national standard for electronic toll collection and funded as such by US taxpayers was adopted by tollroads in Canada (407ETR) and Israel (H6), but until recently adopted by MnDOT for HOT lanes in Minneapolis (CORTRECTION 2009-10-15) not a single toll operator in the US had used it. Lately the feds have been retreating from support of 5.9GHz OmniAir/VII as a national standard after a decade of funding, just when many in the industry favor it. In its place is a nebulous program called IntelliDrive.

"Requiring" what is industry practice anyway

In the latest rules FHWA's rulemakers have ignored the SAFETEA-LU interoperability standard-writing mandate. Instead they have worked to do as little harm as possible to toll collection by keeping the rules woolly - a relief to people in the toll industry.

Called "Part 950 Electronic Toll Collection" the rules are on page 51771 of Federal Register Vol 74 No 194, Thursday Oct 8 2009.

The rules start by saying [par 950.5 (a)] that toll projects seeking federal support must use electronic toll collection - a toothless requirement given that all toll operators have planned for electronic toll collection for new projects for about 20 years now, and many are moving to all-electronic toll collection.

Cash OK

Cash toll collection is acceptable to the feds so long as it doesn't "create unsafe conditions on the toll facility" - also innocuous since no one designs for unsafe conditions on toll facilities.

Privacy policies have to be developed and implemented, but they do not have to be submitted for US Gov approval. Also fine since this endorses standard practice.

Mix-up

More problematic is that electronic toll collection is oddly defined in the new federal rules: "Electronic toll collection means the ability for vehicle operators (translation: drivers) to pay tolls automatically without slowing down from normal highway speeds."

They got mixed up with open road tolling (ORT) there. (ADDED: we discover FHWA accepted bad advice from Raytheon on this definition - editor 2009-10-15)

Most electronic tolling involves some slow down from highway speeds for safety, since it occurs close by cash collection, and it is unsafe to have traffic going at full highway speeds right alongside.  ET lanes are usually posted below speed limits allowed on the open road.

Safety related lower speed limits apparently will disqualify the equipment as electronic tolling in the eyes of the feds.

In practice this strangely drafted rule is unlikely to matter since most new facilities will be open road tolling, often without any lower posted speed limit. And the courts would always likely support a toller against the feds if lower speeds were argued for on safety grounds.

One rule for locals, a different rule for visitors

A source of some head-scratching will be a requirement in the new rules [950.5 b] that a toll agency using electronic toll technology "must develop and implement reasonable methods to enable vehicle operators that are not enrolled in a toll collection program that is interoperable with the toll collection system of the relevant toll facility to use the facility." (Read a minimum of three times - editor)

The feds apparently want a motorist from the east coast with an E-ZPass transponder or one from Texas with a TxTag to be able to use an express toll lane in San Francisco or Los Angeles where state law requires Title 21 electronic toll equipment.

Video tolling using cameras and license plate recognition would perhaps satisfy this requirement. All operators will have cameras anyway for enforcement so adapting it for tolling the odd interstate visitor will not be too onerous.

There will be head-scratching however over the practicability of one rule for locals - enroll in Fastrak and get a T21 transponder and a different rule for interstate visitors namely "Visitors, we'll read your license plate and bill you."

3.5 years late

On interoperability the FHWA rulemakers just disregarded the demands of the SAFETEA-LU law as unworkable. SAFETEA-LU required promulgation of a "final rule" specifying national standards for automatic toll collection "not later than 180 days after the date of enactment (Aug 10 2005)."  
The law required rulemaking on standards for toll collection by early February 2006!!!

This is three and a half years later and the rulemaking does not specify any standard. And the interoperability requirements of the rules are comfortably within present practice as observed in the absence of any federal rules.

Identifying users?

Under par 950.7 "Interoperability Requirements" the rules require the toll agency to "identify the projected users." They probably do not mean identify in the sense of delivering the names and addresses of likely users, but their general characteristics such as whether they are mostly commuters or through traffic, the county where most live, and suchlike.

This is stuff every plan for a new toll facility attempts to address anyway.

Identify future technology

Next they have to "identify" the dominant electronic toll technology likely to be in use for the next five years. Also a pushover.

(ADDED 2009-10-15: An exception is "border areas" like the Carolinas located between areas of a dominant toll system where there is a serious dilemma as to the best system to adopt.)

The toller will have to demonstrate to FHWA that the toll collection system they choose has "the highest reasonable degree of interoperability" with technologies currently deployed locally and the technology likely to be in use for the next five years.

Again a toller is most unlikely to want a toll technology different from that, fed rules, or no fed rules.

The rulemaking of October 8 2009 responds at least in theory to this section of SAFTEA-LU law of Aug 2005:

"(6) Interoperability. -
        "(A) In general. - Not later than 180 days after the date of
      enactment of this Act [Aug. 10, 2005], the Secretary [of
      Transportation] shall promulgate a final rule specifying
      requirements, standards, or performance specifications for
      automated toll collection systems implemented under this section
      [enacting provisions set out as a note under this section and
      amending provisions set out as a note under section 149 of this
      title].
        "(B) Development. - In developing that rule, which shall be
      designed to maximize the interoperability of electronic
      collection systems, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent
      practicable -
          "(i) seek to accelerate progress toward the national goal of
        achieving a nationwide interoperable electronic toll collection
        system;
          "(ii) take into account the use of noncash electronic
        technology currently deployed within an appropriate
        geographical area of travel and the noncash electronic
        technology likely to be in use within the next 5 years; and
          "(iii) seek to minimize additional costs and maximize
        convenience to users of toll facility and to the toll facility
        owner or operator.

Tolling in HR3 SAFTEA-LU:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/23/129.html


COMMENT: the federal rules themselves are inconsequential, hardly worth the paper they are written on. They require what is standard practice anyway. More interesting is the account of different views within the toll industry, which we'll look at in a separate report shortly.

TOLLROADSnews 2009-10-13 (ADDITIONS, REVISIONS 2009-10-15 15:16)