BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 242
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: wyland
VERSION: 4/1/2013
Analysis by: Eric Thronson FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: April 16, 2013
SUBJECT:
Highway toll collection pilot programs
DESCRIPTION:
This bill permits the California Department of Transportation or
local and regional transportation agencies to conduct a pilot of
alternative electronic toll collection technologies.
ANALYSIS:
Toll agencies may employ an automatic vehicle identification
system to facilitate toll operations, such as the FasTrak
transponder that is commonly used in California. These systems
allow subscribers to prepay tolls thereby eliminating the need
to stop and pay at a toll plaza.
Last summer, Congress passed and the President signed the
surface transportation reauthorization bill, the Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). Among MAP-21's
many provisions is the requirement that all highway toll
facilities that were constructed with federal funds implement
technologies or business practices that provide for the
interoperability of electronic toll collection (ETC) by October
1, 2016. The goal of interoperability is that pre-paid toll
customers are able to pay tolls on any participating toll
facility in the country using a single account. Currently,
there are roughly 10 different ETC system standards in use
around the country with varying degrees of interoperability
between states.
Existing law requires that the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and toll operators develop functional
specifications and standards for ETC systems to ensure
interoperability between systems in the state. These
specifications rely on radio-frequency identification (RFID)
technologies, which involve a transmitter in each vehicle and a
SB 242 (WYLAND) Page 2
reader to process the vehicle as it enters the toll facility.
While state toll operators have achieved interoperability
between toll facilities within the state, California toll
collection devices are not currently interoperable with
out-of-state toll facilities.
In 2010, the Legislature passed SB 1268 (Simitian), Chapter 489,
which established privacy protections for subscribers to ETC
systems and anyone else using toll facilities. Specifically,
SB 1268 prohibited transportation agencies from selling or
otherwise providing personally identifiable information about
their subscribers, with some minor exceptions such as for law
enforcement purposes or to comply with the state's
interoperability efforts.
This bill permits Caltrans or local and regional transportation
agencies to conduct a pilot of alternative ETC technologies to
the existing RFID technology by exempting the pilot from all
provisions of state law, including state interoperability
requirements. The pilot projects may last up to four years
commencing on January 1, 2014. Any participating agency must
submit a summary report to the Legislature and the governor on
or before June 1, 2018, that discusses the following:
The effectiveness of the technology,
Market performance,
Congestion management results,
Safety issues,
Implementation and related management obstacles and
opportunities, and
Other relevant factors.
The alternative technology vendor must cover all operating costs
incurred by the state or participating agency, including the
preparation of the required report.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . According to the author, encouraging alternatives to
existing RFID tolling technology has the potential to save
millions of dollars in infrastructure costs while accelerating
toll revenues that can be reinvested back into needed
infrastructure. Existing law only authorizes RFID
technologies for toll collection in the state, which has
eliminated the option to apply new and advanced technologies
to toll collection. Utilizing infrastructure-free technology
SB 242 (WYLAND) Page 3
such as GPS or existing cellular networks may provide for
lower cost tolling infrastructure and lower operating costs.
This bill creates the opportunity for regions to create
limited pilot projects to test these new technologies and
determine their feasibility, with the intention of enabling
technology to help us address our transportation challenges at
reduced costs.
2.The MAP-21 interoperability mandate . As mentioned above, the
federal government requires that all ETC systems in the
country be interoperable by 2016. Because of the many
challenges involved with achieving interoperability, however,
industry groups suggest that this mandate may not be possible
without substantial public funding. The Federal Highway
Administration has not released guidance on this mandate, and
it is unclear if and how it will be accomplished and what the
ramifications may be for states out of compliance. In some
instances, a state's noncompliance with federal law can lead
to a reduction in federal aid highway funds. This bill allows
pilot projects in the state that do not meet interoperability
requirements; presumably these pilots will not be in
compliance with the MAP-21 requirements as well. To protect
the state's federal funding, it is important that the agency
and vendor resolve this issue before undertaking any pilot
project. The committee may wish to amend the bill to require
that any pilot not lead to the reduction of federal funds.
3.Only reimburse operating costs ? This bill currently requires
the vendor participating in the pilot to reimburse the public
agency conducting the pilot for any operating costs incurred.
This should be sufficient to avoid financially burdening the
public if the pilot is utilizing infrastructure-free
technologies, but alternative technologies could include other
costs such as capital expenditures. If this bill intends to
create equal opportunity for a public agency to implement any
alternative technology as a pilot, it should require the
participating vendor to reimburse all costs incurred. The
committee may wish to amend the bill to require a vendor to
reimburse all costs incurred by the public agency.
4.Pilot timeline . Currently, this bill requires any pilots to
commence on January 1, 2014, and for the implementing agency
to report on results of its pilot by 2018. These dates seem
arbitrarily selected, and it is unclear whether that timeline
would work for either implementing agencies or potential
vendors. In order to ensure that this opportunity is
SB 242 (WYLAND) Page 4
available for any potential participants, a more effective
strategy might be to simply create a window of opportunity for
such pilots, with a requirement that any agency implementing a
pilot submit the required report within four years of
commencement, and then set an end date for the authority to
conduct these pilots. For clarity, the committee may wish to
amend the bill to authorize pilots until 2018, at which time
the authority would sunset, and require a report within four
years of commencing any pilot within that timeframe.
5.Notwithstanding the law . According to the author, this bill
is necessary to allow pilot projects that may not meet
interoperability requirements in existing law. In order to
implement these pilots, there may also be a need to exempt a
pilot from statutory requirements involving signage of toll
lanes. This bill currently exempts the pilots from any
provision of law, however, which includes many important
requirements that are not relevant to the ability of public
agencies to run pilots of alternative toll collection
technologies, such as the privacy protections in SB 1268
(Simitian) of 2010. The committee may wish to amend the bill
to exempt the proposed pilots from only the specific sections
of existing law necessary to conduct the pilots.
6.Technical amendments .
On page 2, lines 5 and 6, strike "market test" and
insert "pilot"
On page 2, line 11, strike "test" and insert "pilot"
On page 3, beginning on line 10, strike "to the
chairpersons of the Senate Committee on Transportation and
Housing and the Assembly on Transportation, and," and on
line 13, after "the Governor" insert "and to the
Legislature pursuant to Section 9795, not subject to
Section 10231.5 of the Government Code."
RELATED LEGISLATION:
AB 493 (Daly) permits operators of toll facilities, on or after
July 6, 2016, to implement technologies or business practices
that provide interoperability consistent with federal law.
Pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 10,
2013.)
SB 242 (WYLAND) Page 5
SUPPORT: TransCore (sponsor)
OPPOSED: None received.