Mexico and the US slow to adopt ETC interoperability

Splinteroperability is a word devised by Travis P. Dunn and Victor J. Michelet C. to encapsulate the lack of progress towards ETC harmonisation in the US and Mexico.

Five thousand miles of tolled roads and bridges. Widespread implementation of electronic toll collection (ETC) systems. One dominant interoperable ETC service provider covering just over half the nation’s toll facilities. Numerous other ETC service providers offering alternative visions of interoperability. Years of customer requests for better service and discussions among toll industry leaders and federal government overseers about the importance of national interoperability. Little progress.

Despite their distinct transport policies and business cultures, Mexico and the US have experienced a remarkably similar pace and stakeholder dynamic as they independently crawl toward ETC interoperability. The parallel efforts of the two countries to stitch together splintered interests offer lessons learned and opportunities for innovation. Among them, leaders on both sides of the border would be wise to consider the advantages of open systems. They might also look ahead to the lurking challenge of continental interoperability.

US interoperability activities

The latest reauthorisation of federal funding for US transportation infrastructure, MAP-21, became law in 2012. It requires the toll industry to develop interoperable practices by July 2016. Congress did not specify how to achieve that, instead leaving the solution to industry stakeholders it deemed better equipped to solve the problem.

Motivated by the Congressional mandate and the spectre of federal regulation should they fail, the US toll industry is taking this challenge seriously. Important progress has already occurred: 81 Kapsch and 4981 E-ZPass Group, the largest network of interoperable toll agencies in the US, announced in October 2012 that they would publish technical specifications of its equipment. Last year also saw the successful launch of the Alliance for Toll Interoperability, which demonstrated the concept of an interoperable hub was feasible.

Meanwhile, 63 IBTTA’s National Interoperability Committee represents the five major US ETC regions (California, the E-ZPass Group of northeastern states, Florida, Texas, and 18000-6C protocol users) and Canada. One of the ideas that the Committee is exploring is the notion of a “national tag” featuring an open, nationally-recognised tolling communications protocol. Under this approach, toll facility operators would install multi-protocol readers to read the legacy protocol of their local tag as well as a second tag that might be the interoperable national tag. It might also be a tag of the adjacent state or region offering technical interoperability. The E-ZPass Group is also offering its administrative and fiscal procedures on how this can be done.

Still, much remains to be done to achieve true interoperability defined as “one tag, one account.” Achieving technical interoperability (the ability for tags and readers to communicate), although by no means trivial, is the simplest part of the equation. The more difficult challenge is to agree on business rules, including performance requirements and financial transactions, necessary to provide customers with a truly seamless ETC experience. As yet, there is no definitive path forward.

Mexico interoperability activities

As reported in the last issue of ITS International, Mexico  faces a similar ETC interoperability challenge as the US. All toll roads in Mexico, although owned by the federal government, are operated under concession agreements with many (over 40) distinct operators, each with the right to pursue its own ETC policies and systems. To date, there are six ETC brands, with room for many more in the coming years:

• IAVE is the largest provider with over one million tags distributed, used across approximately half of the nation’s 8,000 km of toll roads. IAVE features bidirectional technical interoperability with Televía and Pase Urbano in Mexico City, and unidirectional interoperability with QuickPass. IAVE is owned by I+D.
  

• Pase Urbano is a new service provider for several toll  concessions in Mexico City, also owned by I+D and fully interoperable with IAVE.

• Televía is an ETC brand created and owned by concessionaire OHL for use on several urban toll roads in Mexico City and another highway facility nearby. Televía and Pase Urbano are interoperable in Mexico City.

• QuickPass is the ETC service provider created by concessionaire Isolux-Corsán for tags sold for its Saltillo-Monterrey Toll Road in  northern Mexico.
  
  
• E-Pass is the brand created by the State of Chihuahua as an ETC service provider and tag distributor for all the toll highways of the state of Chihuahua.

• ViaPass is the brand created by concessionaire Pinfra for tags sold for use on three toll facilities near the Mexico City metropolitan area and three smaller facilities along the Pacific Coast.

Efforts to achieve national interoperability, loosely organised by the Federal Ministry of Transport, call for one tag, one account, and one factura (a business receipt required for tax records). Currently, all eyes are on a major contractual decision that will impact the future of interoperability. Later in 2013, CAPUFE/Banobras (state-owned concessionaire/operator of half the nation’s toll roads and bridges) will decide whether to renew its contract with the largest ETC service provider in the country, I+D (currently marketed as IAVE and Pase Urbano). CAPUFE/Banobras may opt to continue with I+D, which has the largest number of customers and the strongest branding. However, although the probability is small, a new competitor could emerge through the new contract for ETC service that also intends to promote interoperability among all service providers.

As in the US, the principal cause of the absence of interoperability is not technology. Rather, there is no mutual will or consensus among toll road operators, concessionaires, ETC providers, and authorities, on the business rules, and various financial and technological models of interoperability.

Observations and opportunities

Several observations can be made about the current ETC paradigm and interoperability efforts in the US and Mexico. First, a single, centralised clearinghouse is not a prerequisite for interoperability. In both countries, a limited, regional interoperability (in some cases merely technical, but in other cases “full” interoperability) has been relatively easy to achieve through technical standardisation among regional partnerships, working through interconnected regional hubs. Regional hubs make sense for geographically networked toll agencies, given the large amount of travel across multiple toll roads in certain regions. Regional hubs also have the advantage of allowing agreements to be negotiated among a smaller number of stakeholders. Unfortunately, this trend has solidified technology choices for cost savings and made regional business rules uniform, making national harmonisation more difficult.

Secondly, the regional approach is thus far the most promising avenue for cross-border interoperability. Achieving cross-border interoperability in this way would actually be simpler than national interoperability. For example, ETC technology used in Texas is already the same as that used by QuickPass and IAVE in Mexico. It is conceivable that Mexican ETC service providers could join the Texas hub, with participants agreeing to a set of business rules. Such an agreement would deliver great benefits to cross-border traffic, particularly trucks using toll facilities in both countries. The authors would not be surprised if such a scenario occurred prior to the achievement of full national interoperability in either country.

Finally, relative to other industries, the pace of technological change in ETC has been slow. The toll industry remains a world of closed, vendor-protected systems and, in many cases, dated technologies due to long-term, locked-in supply contracts. The authors believe that the reliance on closed systems has been the single most important factor hindering interoperability in both the US and Mexico. Vendors fight to protect their market share despite the best intentions of governments or operators seeking a better customer service model. By opening the market for ETC service provision through simple data exchange protocols and outcome-based standards, agencies can invite more competition and innovation to toll collection.

Unfortunately, efforts thus far to achieve interoperability in both countries have further enshrined existing, closed systems and technology paradigms. For example, a requirements matrix recently drafted by the IBTTA’s Interoperability Committee provides hardware performance characteristics and does not support outcome-based, open system interoperability of multiple technologies. Similarly prescriptive hardware requirements have been debated in Mexico. Although perhaps necessary to gain the short-term agreement among stakeholders, this hardware-prescriptive approach does not support innovative tolling solutions — for example, solutions involving smartphones, GPS-based systems, telematics, or other as yet unforeseen approaches.

The inability to achieve interoperability to date in Mexico, where a strong federal government not only regulates toll roads but also owns them, should serve as an eye-opening reality check for US efforts, where the interests are even more diverse and widespread. Likewise, the stumbling blocks to interoperability encountered by the US over the past decade should serve as a reminder to Mexico’s relatively more nascent efforts that herding a range of closed systems into an interoperable solution is neither easy nor fast.

• The opinions expressed by Travis P. Dunn, partner, D’Artagnan Consulting, USA, and Victor J. Michelet C., chief of information technology systems, Saltillo-Monterrey Highway, Isolux Infrastructure México, in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the organisations they represent.