Cost / benefit analysis of electronic license plates

              Cost/ Benefit Analysis of Electronic
License Plates
Final Report 637
Prepared by:
Andrew Eberline
1069 N. Poinciana Rd.
Gilbert, AZ 85234
June 2008
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or
policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that
may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report.
The U. S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA- AZ- 08- 637
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
5. Report Date
June 2008
4. Title and Subtitle
Cost/ Benefit Analysis of Electronic License Plates
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
Andrew Eberline
8. Performing Organization Report No.
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Andrew Eberline
1069 N. Poinciana Rd.
Gilbert, AZ 85234
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR- PL- 1-( 67) 637
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
FINAL
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Project Manager: John Semmens
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The objective of this report is to determine whether electronic vehicle recognition systems ( EVR) or automatic
license plate recognition systems ( ALPR) would be beneficial to the Arizona Department of Transportation ( AzDOT). EVR
uses radio frequency identification technology tags ( RFID) that would be placed on all registered vehicles so that RFID
readers could read vehicles’ plate numbers as they pass using the radio frequency signal emitted by the RFID tag. ALPR
technology uses cameras and alphanumerical recognition software to read license plates as they pass.
The literature review looks into the previous applications of both ALPR and EVR. Departments of Transportation
( DOTs), tolling authorities and law enforcement all have used various applications of this advanced electronic technology.
Based on the literature review and the benefits section ( Chapter 3), the potential benefits of an ALPR / EVR system are:
1. The ability for AzDOT to potentially monitor traffic flow more accurately,
2. The ability to better enforce license and registration compliance,
3. The ability to better enforce auto insurance compliance,
4. The ability to implement a toll, or congestion charge,
5. The ability to aid law enforcement in finding suspected criminals.
Chapter 4 determines the potential costs of an ALPR or EVR system and then compares the costs with the total
quantifiable benefits using two case studies. In the first case study, an ALPR system was set up on all major valley
freeways, and in the second case study, an EVR system was set up on all major valley freeways. The ALPR case study
concluded that such an ALPR system could be set up for about $ 10 million dollars and it could generate up to $ 400 million
dollars in direct benefit per year and up to $ 1.3 trillion in benefits to highway users per year. The EVR case study concluded
that such an EVR system could be set up for about $ 50 million, and it could generate up to $ 407 million in direct benefit per
year and up to $ 1.33 trillion in benefits to highway users per year. A direct benefit profits the state directly with cash, while
benefits to highway users helps society as a whole but the state receives no revenue.
Chapter 5 looked into the legality of a potential ALPR or EVR system. This chapter concluded that AzDOT has the
authority to implement an ALPR / EVR system in Arizona. However this section also concluded that AzDOT should seek
legislative support to increase public support.
This report concludes that at the present ALPR should be further researched and/ or implemented by the State of
Arizona. The reasons for this recommendation are because of: ALPR’s previous applications, ALPR’s lower up front cost,
ALPR’s ability to read out- of- state plates, ALPR’s potential lower degree of public opposition, and the possibility that ALPR
would have to back up an EVR system. All in all, these technologies are changing at a rapid rate and a change in any of
these variables that generated this recommendation could change this recommendation.
17. Key Words
Automatic vehicle identification, electronic license
plate, radio frequency identification, technology, tolls,
cost/ benefit
18. Distribution statement
Document is available to the
U. S. public through the National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
91
22. Price
23. Registrant’s Seal
SI* ( MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons ( 2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
mg
( or “ t”)
mg
( or “ t”)
megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
1.102 short tons ( 2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE ( exact) TEMPERATURE ( exact)
º F Fahrenheit
temperature
5( F- 32)/ 9
or ( F- 32)/ 1.8
Celsius temperature º C º C Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
º F
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot- candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot- candles fc
fl foot- Lamberts 3.426 candela/ m2 cd/ m2 cd/ m2 candela/ m2 0.2919 foot- Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/ in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/ in2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 1 — Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........... 7
Chapter 2 — Literature Review....................................................................................................... 9
2.1 – London Automatic License Plate Recognition System ( ALPR)............................................ 9
A) History of the London ALPR System ........................................................................................... 9
B) Implementation of the Congestion Charge ................................................................................. 10
C) How the Congestion Charge Works ............................................................................................ 11
D) Costs and Benefits of the Congestion Charge....................................................................... 14
E) ALPR Usage by Police in England .............................................................................................. 15
F) Future Tolling Mechanisms in London........................................................................................ 16
G) Conclusion: London’s Usage of ALPR Mechanisms................................................................ 17
2.2 – RFID in Tolling.................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 - E- ZPass ............................................................................................................................... ..... 18
A) Implementation of E- ZPass .............................................................................................. 18
B) Implementation of E- ZPass .............................................................................................. 20
C) Benefits of E- ZPass .......................................................................................................... 21
D) PrePass........................................................................................................................ ..... 22
E) Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 23
2.2.2 Express Toll Route 407 ( Ontario)............................................................................................ 24
A) How the ETR 407 Works ................................................................................................. 24
B) ETR 407 Obstacles ........................................................................................................... 25
C) Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .. 26
2.3 HOT Lanes.......................................................................................................................... ... 26
A) Interstate 15 – San Diego FasTrack............................................................................................. 27
B) State Route 91 – Express Lanes ................................................................................................... 29
C) Other HOT lane networks ............................................................................................................. 30
2.4 Homeland Security – e- Passport............................................................................................. 31
2.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 32
Chapter 3 — The Benefits of an EVR or ALPR System.............................................................. 33
3.1 Benefits to AzDOT ................................................................................................................. 33
3.1.1 Monitor Traffic Flow................................................................................................................. 33
3.1.2 Unpaid License and Registration ............................................................................................. 35
3.1.3 Insurance Compliance ............................................................................................................... 36
3.1.4 AzDOT’s Ability to Implement Congestion Charges, Tolls, HOT Lanes, etc. ............... 38
A) Cordon Congestion Tolls.................................................................................................. 38
B) Corridor Congestion Tolls................................................................................................ 39
C) HOT Lanes ....................................................................................................................... 39
3.2 Benefits to Law Enforcement ................................................................................................. 40
3.3 Commercial Benefits .............................................................................................................. 42
Chapter 4 — Possible EVR or ALPR Estimates and Cost Benefit Analysis................................ 45
4.1 Automatic License Plate Recognition Estimate...................................................................... 45
4.2 Estimate for EVR.................................................................................................................... 46
4.3 Cost Comparison Chart........................................................................................................... 50
4.4 Cost Benefit Analysis, ALPR Case Study .............................................................................. 50
A) Cost Benefit Analysis Case Study of ALPR Technology ...................................................... 51
4.5 – Cost Benefit Analysis, EVR Case Study ............................................................................. 63
4.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 68
Chapter 5 — Legal Aspects and Public Opinion of a Potential ALPR or EVR Application ....... 69
5.1 Legal Aspects of an ALPR or EVR Application .................................................................... 69
5.2 Authority of Arizona Department of Transportation .............................................................. 70
5.3 Lawsuits for Records .............................................................................................................. 71
5.4 Arizona Transportation Quality Initiative............................................................................... 71
5.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 72
Chapter 6 — Conclusion / Recommendations............................................................................... 73
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... . 76
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Costs and Benefits of the Case Study with Tolling 5
Table 2 Costs and Benefits of the Case Study without Tolling 5
Table 3 Congestion Revenues 14
Table 4 Characteristics of Uninsured Motorists. 37
Table 5 Length of Arizona Highways 43
Table 6 Possible Costs of a Statewide ALPR System in Arizona 45
Table 7 Estimated Number of Highway Miles Per Camera 46
Table 8 Cost of a Potential EVR Application 47
Table 9 Possible EVR Estimates 48
Table 10 Estimated Number of Highway Miles Per Camera 49
Table 11 Potential Number of Arizona Residents Captured by Case Study 54
Table 12 Funds Generated by Noncompliant becoming Compliant 55
Table 13 Funds Generated by Ticketing Noncompliant 55
Table 14 Registration Ticket Fines by City ALPR 56
Table 15 Revenue Gains to AzDOT from Improved Insurance Compliance ALPR 56
Table 16 Insurance Ticket Fine by City 57
Table 17 Sample Data Collected to Determine Traffic Count Information 60
Table 18 Traffic Count Totals for Each Highway 60
Table 19 Sum of Revenue Gains to AzDOT for ALPR 61
Table 20 Total Indirect Benefits of an ALPR Application: 62
Table 21 Overall Benefits / Return on Investment of ALPR Case Study 63
Table 22 Cost of EVR Trial 63
Table 23 Potential Number of Arizona Residents Captured by EVR Case Study 63
Table 24 Registration Fines by City EVR 64
Table 25 Revenue Gains to AzDOT from Improved Insurance Compliance 65
Table 26 Insurance Fines by City 65
Table 27 Sum of Revenue Gains to AzDOT from EVR 66
Table 28 Total Indirect Benefits of EVR 67
Table 29 Overall Benefits of EVR Case Study 67
Table 30 Costs and Benefits of Case Study ( with Tolling) 68
Table 31 Costs and Benefits of Case Study ( without Tolling) 68
Table 32 Percentage of Arizonans that Oppose Increases in the Following to
Improve Arizona Roads and Highways ( according to the Arizona
Transportation Quality Initiative)
72
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Cost vs Number of EVR/ ALPR Systems 4
Figure 2 London's " Inner- Ring" 11
Figure 3 Western Expansion of the Congestion Charge 11
Figure 4 Congestion Charge CCTV Cameras 12
Figure 5 A Mobile Enforcement Vehicle 12
Figure 6 Symbol Designating the Congestion Charging Zone 13
Figure 7 How London's Congestion Charge Works 14
Figure 8 An ALPR System Monitors the Roads of Manchester, England 15
Figure 9 Canyoning and the Multi- path Reflection Errors in GPS systems 17
Figure 10 The Logo for E- ZPass 18
Figure 11 States in which E- ZPass is Acceptable Form of Payment 19
Figure 12 Pennsylvania- issued E- ZPass 20
Figure 13 How the E- ZPass Works 20
Figure 14 E- ZPass Lane in Delaware 21
Figure 15 How PrePass Works in Conjunction with a WIM System 22
Figure 16 Example of a PrePass / E- ZPass System
Figure 17 How a Vehicle that does not have a Transponder is Photographed 24
22
Figure 18 Tracking a Motorcycle that Is Maneuvering Evasively between Gantries 24
Figure 19 ETR 407' s Laser Curtain is Vital 25
Figure 20 Interstate 15 FasTrak Location 27
Figure 21 Example of an RFID Passport 31
Figure 22 Police Cruiser with a Mounted ELPR System 41
Figure 23 Components of an ELPR System. 41
Figure 24 Valley Freeway System 44
Figure 25 Placement of RFID Readers in an EVR Application. 47
Figure 26 Cost Comparison Chart 50
Figure 27 Arizonans’ Hourly Income 59
Glossary of Acronyms
3M Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic
ACIC Arizona Crime Information Center
ALPR Automatic License Plate Recognition
AMBER America’s Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response
ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition
AzDOT Arizona Department Of Transportation
BMP Beginning Mile Post
BOT Build, Operate, and Transfer
CAD Canadian Dollars
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CNN Cable News Network
CPTC California Private Transportation Company
DOT Department of Transportation
DPS Department of Public Safety
DSRC Dedicated Short Range Communication
DVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
ELPR Electronic License Plate Reader
ETR Express Toll Route
EVR Electronic Vehicle Registration
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
GPS Global Positioning System
HOT High Occupancy Free, Others Toll
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
IAG Interagency Group
ID Identification
III Insurance Information Institute
IRC Insurance Research Council
MOT Ministry of Transportation
MVD Motor Vehicle Division
NCIC National Crime Information Center
OCTA Orange County Transit Authority
PD Police Department
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
ROI Return on Investment
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
TTI Texas Transportation Institute
TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation
U. K. United Kingdom
USD United States Dollars
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
1
Executive Summary
Electronic technology such as automatic license plate recognition systems ( ALPR) and
electronic vehicle registration systems ( EVR) have increasingly been used by
departments of transportation ( DOTs), tolling authorities, and law enforcement to find
innovative ways to achieve their unique objectives. This project was commissioned to see
if these advanced electronic systems might be beneficial to the Arizona Department of
Transportation ( AzDOT). This report will primarily focus on ALPR technology and EVR
technology as a means to benefit AzDOT. Possible benefits that these technologies could
offer AzDOT are: the ability to better enforce registration laws, the ability to better
enforce insurance laws, the ability to implement tolls, the ability to acquire more accurate
traffic count data, and the ability to aid law enforcement by screening for vehicles
associated with crimes.
Literature Review — The Technologies
ALPR
Chapter 2 reviews the literature on ALPR and EVR technologies. ALPR technology
utilizes cameras and alphanumerical recognition software to read license plates as they
pass.
This technology has been used by Transport for London in implementing the congestion
charge. In London, there is a network of cameras that surround what is the most
congested part of London, called the charging zone. As vehicles enter the charging zone
they pass by ALPR cameras that read the license plates. The London congestion charge is
a flat fee of £ 10.00 ( or approximately $ 20) that road users entering the charging zone
must pay daily. No matter how many times the camera systems recognize a particular
vehicle each day, each vehicle is only charged once per day. It is each person’s
responsibility to either pre- pay the congestion charge, pay the charge the day of entering
the charging zone, or pay the day after entering the charging zone. Those that need to pay
the congestion charge can do so either online, by text message, by phone, or via
collection machines set up within the charging zone. If a road user enters the charging
area but does not pay the charge, they are subject to fines up to £ 100 by mail
( approximately $ 200 in USD). Vehicles of residents that reside in the charging zone
receive a 90 percent discount on the charge, while taxis, ambulances, and the disabled are
exempt from the congestion charge. One hundred percent of the profits from the
congestion charge go towards improving public transportation. According to Transport
for London, the annual net income ( the annual costs minus the annual expenses) of the
congestion charge since 2003 is as follows1:
• 2003: (£ 58.3 million) ( or a loss of $ 116.6 million USD)
• 2004: £ 45.3 million ($ 90.6 million USD)
• 2005: £ 96.4 million ($ 192.8 million USD)
• 2006: £ 106.3 million ($ 212.6 million USD)
• Net Operating Total of £ 189.7 million ($ 379.4 million USD)
1 Transport for London. Transport for London Homepage. 28 May 2007 < http:// www. cclondon. com/>.
2
ALPR technology has also been used for law enforcement purposes by police in Arizona,
in other states in the United States, and in other countries. As a police cruiser equipped
with ALPR drives around, the mounted ALPR cameras are constantly reading license
plates and then checking the license plate numbers against both the NCIC database
( National Crime Information Center) and the ACIC database ( Arizona Crime Information
Center). These databases contain information about persons wanted by police. If it turns
out that the vehicle is listed in the database either for being stolen or for being associated
with a person who is suspected of a crime, the computer inside the police car will alert
the officer. The $ 25,000 - $ 50,000 ALPR systems in squad cars have proven to be
effective, and thus the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Phoenix police, Mesa
police, Chandler police, Tempe police, and Tucson police all have purchased ALPR
systems for squad cars. In fact the Arizona Department of Public Safety has just
purchased 20 additional ALPR systems. Note that the ALPR technology used inside
squad cars is sometimes referred to as ELPR ( electronic license plate readers). ALPR
technology and ELPR technology are really one and the same.
ALPR technology was also utilized in a separate effort by law enforcement in the United
Kingdom. Law enforcement in the U. K. ran a one- year field test of using ALPR
technology in random locations. The test produced some staggering results. In the test, 28
million plates were read by the system. Of that 1.1 million plates came up in at least one
of the crime or traffic databases ( 3.9 percent of the total number of plates read were
recognized in one or more databases). Of the 1.1 million flagged, 181,543 vehicles were
stopped. This led to 13,499 arrests ( 7.5 percent of the total stopped), of which 2,263 were
for theft or burglary, 3,324 were for driving offenses, 1,107 were for drug offenses, and
1,386 were for automobile- related crime. More than 1,152 stolen vehicles worth £ 7.5
million were recovered ($ 15 million USD), £ 380,000 of illegal drugs were confiscated
($ 760,000 USD), and £ 640,000 worth of stolen goods were recovered ($ 1,280,000 USD).
Also 50,910 tickets were given out for minor offenses such as failure to pay for the
mandatory Vehicle Excise Duty. 2
EVR Technology
EVR technology utilizes radio frequency identification ( RFID). RFID tags and RFID
readers are the two main components of RFID technology. RFID tags emit a radio
frequency that can be read by an RFID reader. RFID technology has become very
prevalent as a means of payment for tolls in the United States3, giving easy access to
HOT ( High Occupancy Toll) lanes. Perhaps E- ZPass is the most well known RFID
application in the United States. E- ZPass is a voluntary program that allows toll users to
set up a pre- paid account to pay tolls. When an E- ZPass user uses a toll that accepts E-ZPass
they enter a special lane. After entering the lane, the user pulls up to an E- ZPass
reader. The reader identifies the vehicle and corresponding E- ZPass account, and then the
2 PA Consulting Group. " Driving Crime Down - Official Report for the Home Office." October 2004.
Police Home Office Website ( UK). ( Accessed 4 June 2007) < http:// police. homeoffice. gov. uk/ news- and-publications/
publication/ operational- policing/ Driving_ Crime_ Down_-_ Denyin1. pdf? view= Binary>.
3 High Occupancy Toll lanes or HOT lanes are similar to HOV lanes, except single- occupancy vehicles can
pay a toll to drive in a HOT lane, whereas HOV lanes require all users to be driving with two or more
people in a vehicle.
3
toll user is electronically charged and is allowed to pass. All of this is done without
interacting with a human or having to exchange money. One disadvantage of E- ZPass is
that vehicles still have to wait in line to stop in front of the RFID reader so that their
account can be charged. HOT lanes in California on Interstate 15 and State Route 91
eliminate this inconvenience. On these toll laness the corresponding RFID payment tags
can be read at the speed of regular freeway traffic, because the RFID readers are
suspended above the HOT lanes. If a vehicle does not have an RFID tag for the toll lane,
the license plate’s picture is taken and the driver receives a ticket by mail.
Costs and Benefits of ALPR or EVR
The purpose of Chapter 3 is to identify the possible benefits of an EVR/ ALPR system.
The potential benefits of an EVR or ALPR system were for AzDOT to:
1. Potentially monitor traffic flow more accurately,
2. Better enforce license and registration compliance,
3. Better enforce auto insurance compliance,
4. Implement a toll, or congestion charge,
5. Aid law enforcement in finding suspected criminals.
The first part of Chapter 4 quantifies what the cost of a possible ALPR or EVR system
would be. The cost of either system depends on the number of cameras ( for ALPR) or
RFID readers ( for EVR) set up. The costs for both systems were developed using the help
of leading manufacturers of both systems. The manufactures’ names were omitted in this
report as a condition of acquiring the cost estimates.
The estimated cost of an ALPR system is defined by the following equation:
($ 20,000 * C) * 1.2 = Total Cost of an ALPR system
• C = the number of cameras ( there is always one camera per lane at each proposed
camera site)
• $ 20,000 = the cost of each ALPR camera
• 1.2 = takes in to account the 20% estimated soft costs such as installation and
fiber optics.
The cost of an EVR application is defined by the following equation:
($ 9 * RV) + [($ 3000 * 2 * s) * 1.2] = Total Cost of an EVR system
• RV = the number of applicable registered vehicles ( in Arizona there are currently
4,556,448 registered vehicles)
• s = the number of RFID sites.
• 2 = the number of RFID readers needed per site.
• $ 9 = the cost per RFID tag installed
• $ 3000 = the cost per RFID reader
• 1.2 = the 20% added to account for soft costs for the RFID reader such as
installation and fiber optics.
4
The following graph ( Figure 1) illustrates the cost comparison between the two
technologies.
Figure 1 ‐ Cost vs Number of EVR/ ALPR Systems
Note: The EVR line ( the line that is most flat) assumes that the number of registered
vehicles in Arizona is 4,556,448. The ALPR line with a greater slope assumes that the
average ALPR site will have 10 cameras ( five in each direction of traffic). The ALPR
line with a smaller slope assumes that the average ALPR site will have eight cameras
( four in each direction of traffic).
Notice that the break even cost between EVR and ALPR is somewhere between 173 to
218 total sites. The cost at the break even points is around $ 41 million. The obvious
advantage to ALPR is that it does not have a high up- front cost. On the other hand, EVR
has an advantage if there are more than 173 total sites.
The second part of Chapter 4 gives a possible cost/ benefit analysis for a theoretical case
study of both an ALPR system and an EVR system. In the case study, 55 different sites
were selected for a camera application or RFID reader application ( depending on which
technology is theoretically being used). The 55 different sites are some of the busiest
segments of Arizona freeways according to the Arizona Department of Transportation’s
Average Annual Daily Traffic Report ( AADT).
( 217.66, $ 41,791,625)
( 173.47, $ 41,632,520)
5
For the ALPR case study a total of 416 cameras were proposed for the 55 sites. Each site
has one camera for each lane of traffic. The total cost for this proposed ALPR system is
$ 9,984,000 according to the cost formulas. For the EVR case study two RFID readers
were used for each site for a grand total of 110 readers. The total cost of the proposed
EVR case study is $ 49,605,638. The next step of the case study was to quantify the
benefits so that they can be compared to the costs. The quantifiable benefits that could be
measured in the case study were:
1. The potential to levy road usage tolls, or HOT lane tolls,
2. The ability to better ensure registration compliance,
3. The ability to better ensure insurance compliance,
4. The ability to locate stolen vehicles.
Based on these quantifiable benefits, the case study could be conducted. Two types of
benefits were measured: revenue gains to AzDOT and benefits to highway users.
Revenue gains to AzDOT are benefits that would mean direct income for the State of
Arizona such as income from registration or insurance compliance tickets. An indirect
benefit would benefit society but would not provide extra income to the state directly. For
instance, reducing the number of uninsured drivers reduces the number of uninsured
accidents, thus reducing the cost of uninsured accidents to society. The benefit data is
split up into two tables; Table 1 lists the total benefits including tolling, and Table 2 lists
the total benefits without tolling. All of the benefits listed in the table are reported in
dollars per year. The cost reported is the total installation cost.
Table 1 ‐ Costs and Benefits of the Case Study with Tolling
ALPR EVR
Cost $ 9,984,000 $ 49,605,638
Direct Benefit $ 399,876,493 $ 407,468,842
ROI of Direct Benefit 4005% 821%
Indirect Benefit $ 1,302,627,417 $ 1,335,923,513
Total Benefit $ 1,702,503,910 $ 1,743,392,355
Table 2 ‐ Costs and Benefits of the Case Study without Tolling
ALPR EVR
Cost $ 9,984,000 $ 49,605,638
Direct Benefit $ 158,547,613 $ 166,139,962
ROI of Direct Benefit 1588% 335%
Indirect Benefit $ 695,307,417 $ 728,603,513
Total Benefit $ 853,855,030 $ 894,743,475
Legality of an ALPR or EVR System
Chapter 5 investigates the legality of a potential ALPR system or EVR system. The
chapter finds that AzDOT does have the authority to implement such a system. However
6
the chapter concludes that AzDOT should seek public approval through the legislature in
order to implement such a system.
Conclusion:
ALPR technology was recommended as the technology of choice to accomplish the
previously stated goals for AzDOT in the present. ALPR was chosen for the following
reasons:
a) ALPR’s Previous Applications – ALPR has been used successfully in London for
the congestion charge.
b) The Low Cost of an ALPR Trial vs the High Up- Front Cost of EVR – With
ALPR a trial run can be conducted at a low cost. EVR’s high up- front cost makes
such a trial not possible.
c) ALPR’s Ability to Read Virtually Any State’s License Plate – ALPR technology
can assist Arizona in recovering lost revenue due to Arizona residents using out-of-
state plates. EVR would not be able to read out- of- state plates unless the state
that issued the plate also required an RFID device be placed in the vehicle.
Currently no states utilize EVR technology as a means of enforcing vehicle
registration.
d) The Possibility that EVR Technology Will Require ALPR Technology – It’s
possible that EVR technology would require a camera system similar to ALPR in
order to be effective. This is because it is conceivable that an Arizona resident
could tamper with a required RFID tag and disable it.
e) The Potentially Lower Degree of Public Opposition to ALPR – ALPR might be
perceived by the public as less intrusive. Thus there might be less overall
opposition to ALPR vs EVR.
Both ALPR technology and EVR technology are rapidly progressing in effectiveness and
affordability. A change in the technology’s effectiveness, the technology’s affordability,
or U. S. policy regarding an RFID standard could change the variables that generated the
recommendation for ALPR technology. This report is simply suggesting that, based on
the information available today, it appears that ALPR technology should be further
researched and implemented, more so than EVR technology.
7
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Today an increasing number of entities, including departments of transportation ( DOTs),
tolling agencies, and law enforcement agencies, are looking to advanced electronic
technology to meet their increased needs. For instance, DOTs in the United States and
abroad have used electronic technology in toll lanes and HOT lanes, while law
enforcement agencies have used plate recognition cameras to enforce the law. For the
purposes of this study, two types of such electronic plate systems’ costs and benefits will
be studied in order to determine their effectiveness if implemented by the Arizona
Department of Transportation ( AzDOT). The first technology is automatic license plate
recognition systems ( or ALPR). ALPR is also referred to in Europe as ANPR or
automatic number plate recognition systems. For this report, the technology will always
be called ALPR. The second technology that will be looked at is radio frequency
identification technology or RFID. For the purposes of this study RFID technology will
be referred to as EVR or electronic vehicle registration.
Automatic License Plate Recognition Technology ( ALPR)
ALPR technology uses a camera along with alphanumerical recognition software to
actually read license plates. The cameras use infrared technology so that license plates
can be read regardless of the time of day or the weather conditions. This technology has
been used by Transport for London in implementing a congestion charge ( or toll), it has
been used in police cruisers to scan for vehicles associated with warrants, and it has been
used to assess tolls at freeway speeds in Ontario, Canada. These examples along with
others will be further investigated in the literature review ( Chapter 2).
Electronic Vehicle Registration Technology ( EVR)
EVR technology uses RFID technology to function. For EVR to work an RFID tag would
need to be placed on all registered vehicles. The RFID tag would transmit a given
vehicle’s license plate number ( its identity). Then an RFID reader at the side of a road or
highway could collect and record passing vehicles’ identities ( or license plate numbers)
transmitted by the vehicles’ RFID tags. The RFID tag would most likely need to be
installed on the windshield of a vehicle to work optimally. EVR is currently in the
process of being implemented on the island of Bermuda. This will be the first
countrywide implementation of an EVR system. Despite this being the first true EVR
system, RFID has been used in many tolling applications in the United States and abroad.
The most common use of RFID technology in the United States is E- ZPass. An E- ZPass
is an RFID tag that is accepted as a method of payment at many toll roads on the east
coast of the United States. Acquiring an E- ZPass is totally optional, but is generally a
more convenient method of paying tolls for the frequent toll user. Several HOT lanes in
California, along with tolls in Canada, also use RFID technology to bill or charge road
users. These examples will be further examined in the literature review ( Chapter 2).
8
Goals of Research
The purpose of this research is to determine if an electronic license plate system could be
useful in meeting some of the needs of AzDOT.
The initial goals of an ALPR system or EVR system are to provide AzDOT with the
ability to:
1. Potentially monitor traffic flow more accurately,
2. Better enforce license and registration compliance,
3. Better enforce auto insurance compliance,
4. Implement a toll, or congestion charge,
5. Aid law enforcement in finding suspected criminals.
In order to determine if these goals can be met, this report extensively reviews other
applications of ALPR or EVR in the Literature Review ( Chapter 2). Then in Chapter 3
the benefits of an Arizona ALPR or EVR system are researched. Chapter 4 determines
the potential costs of an ALPR or EVR system in Arizona and analyzes the potential
costs vs. the potential benefits. Chapter 5 focuses on the legal aspects of an ALPR or
EVR system, while Chapter 6 makes a recommendation on whether an ALPR or EVR
system would be beneficial for Arizona.
9
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Today there are no true EVR applications currently in use. Therefore, information on
actual EVR applications currently in use is non- existent. However, there is only one
country, the island of Bermuda, that is planning a nationwide EVR system to be put into
place by July 2008. The 21- square mile island, which has 63,000 residents and 47,000
registered vehicles, will issue windshield sticker tags to residents and businesses. The
EVR mechanism would be based on a tamper- resistant eGO sticker placed on a vehicle’s
windshield. 3M and Transcore were contracted to create the system that will identify
vehicles. After identifying the vehicle, the computer system will validate registration,
issue violations, and identify criminal vehicles. The EVR technology’s main purpose
would be to automate compliance monitoring and support traffic management initiatives.
These were all the details that have been made public so far; however, this is likely to
change in the near future.
There has been a wide application of RFID in tolling mechanisms. London’s use of
ALPR and the testing of other tolling mechanisms are perhaps the most cutting- edge
examples of electronic tolling in use. On the East Coast of the United States, the usage of
E- ZPass shows RFID technology’s ability to charge motorists electronically while
offering flexibility to motorists traveling across state lines. At the same time, Ontario has
combined the benefits of London’s ALPR system with the benefits of the U. S. E- ZPass to
create the first open- road tolling mechanism. High Occupancy vehicles free, others Toll
( HOT) Lanes throughout the United States have also created an open tolling format for
charging road users. These uses of electronic means for tracking transportation are worth
looking at when researching the effectiveness of electronic license plate options. Another
important issue that needs to be looked at is privacy. Several potential privacy concerns
have arisen as a result of using RFID. These subjects will be the basis of the literature
review.
2.1 – London Automatic License Plate Recognition System ( ALPR)
ALPR is a competing technology that is different from RFID. However, similar goals can
be achieved with either system. The largest scale use of ALPR is in London. London is
far ahead of most of the world in using technology in innovative tolling techniques.
London officials are also looking to further upgrade the present ALPR system to an RFID
system. Looking even further down the road, Transport for London intends to upgrade to
a Global Positioning System ( GPS). This makes London a prime example for studying
the effectiveness of electronic tolling mechanisms.
A) History of the London ALPR System
The first ever ALPR system was installed in London in 1979 at the entrance to the
Dartford Tunnel, which is east of London. Its purpose was to detect stolen vehicles and
other vehicles of interest and notify police. The first ALPR system was far less
10
sophisticated and far less accurate than the ALPR systems of today, but it’s worth noting
that the people of London are more accustomed to the appearance of ALPR systems and
camera systems throughout the city. Nothing major came of this first experiment until
much later.
In the early 1990s, the United Kingdom was trying to solve two problems. The first was
the worsening congestion in cities such as London. The second was the way taxes were
collected for roads. Much like the United States, the United Kingdom and European
Union charge a fuel tax in order to help with the building of future roads and the
maintenance of existing roads. One problem with this tax is that it is not indexed for
inflation, and when the tax is increased, it is met with taxpayer resistance. One way the
U. K. attempted to deal with the problem of the fuel tax was by creating a Fuel Duty
Escalator. 4 The goal of the Fuel Duty Escalator was to increase the fuel tax ahead of
inflation. The annual increase of gas taxation was introduced in 1993 at a rate of 3
percent ahead of inflation. This rate was later upped to 5 percent, until in 2000 the Fuel
Duty Escalator Tax was done away with due to widespread protest throughout the U. K.
In the mid- 1990’ s London sought to solve its own congestion problems ahead of any
countrywide solution. The Government of London sought to weigh the benefits and costs
of a congestion charging program. In July 1995, the London Congestion Research
Programme’s report was released by the Government Office for London. This research
found that a congestion charge for London would be favorable in terms of a reduction in
traffic congestion. However, the research report found that “ whilst electronic
technologies are already available which have many of the necessary features, no system
exists at present which would operate in London's traffic conditions or would be
acceptably unobtrusive,” according to a Department of Transport summary. 5 The report
also pointed out that there would be great administrative challenges in any electronic
system and that the system would have to gain the support of the people of London to be
successful. In 1999, in part because of technological advances and the advice of the
London Congestion Research Programme, Parliament passed the Greater London
Authority Act of 1999 which gave the next Mayor of London the power to impose a
congestion charge.
B) Implementation of the Congestion Charge
The newly elected mayor in 2000, Mayor Ken Livingstone, published a proposed
Transport Strategy that included a congestion charge in January 2001. Input both from
the public and from Transport for London led to a final Transport Strategy, which was
published on January 18, 2002. As a result of this Transport Strategy, London became
one of the first municipalities worldwide to use ALPR on a large scale when it
implemented a congestion charge to the busiest part of the city. The congestion charge
was introduced in central London on February 17, 2003. The original area affected by the
congestion charge is demonstrated in Figure 2. The congestion charge was extended in
4 Bayliss, David. " Road User Charging and Taxation." Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Thomas Telford, 2006. 147- 152.
5 Department of Transport. City Congestion Charging in London. 29 June 2007
< http:// www. dft. gov. uk/ pgr/ regional/ policy/ archive/ urbanandlocaltransportcompen3715? page= 6>.
11
2007 to include parts of west London ( demonstrated by Figure 3). The total size of the
charging zone is 40 square kilometers ( about 15.5 square miles).
Figure 2 - London's " Inner- Ring" is shown by the red shaded area on the map. This was the first area
affected by London's congestion charge in 2004.
Figure 3 - Western Expansion of the Congestion Charge. The left side of the shaded figure demonstrates the
western expansion of the congestion charge. This map is provided by Transport for London, www. tfl. gov. uk.
C) How the Congestion Charge Works
The congestion charge was initially £ 5.00 per day ( or approximately $ 10, but it was
increased to £ 8.00 per day ( or $ 16) on July 4, 2005. Since then, it has been announced by
the mayor that in 2008 the charge will be increased again to £ 10.00. The charge is
12
applicable to most vehicles entering the congestion charging zone between 7: 00 AM and
6: 00 PM, Monday through Friday ( except on holidays). Exemptions to the congestion
charge are granted to the disabled, motor- cycles, and alternative fuel vehicles.
Furthermore, residents that live within the congestion charging zone are granted a 90
percent discount when they register their vehicles with Transport for London. 6
Vehicles entering the congestion zone are
monitored by Closed Circuit Television ( CCTV)
cameras positioned around entry points of the
congestion zone. Stationary CCTV cameras and
mobile CCTV cameras are positioned within the
charging zone as well. When the congestion
charge began, about 700 cameras were situated
in and around the charging zone. This breaks
down to 150 static camera sites ( see Figure 4)
around the charging zone, 52 static camera sites
within the charging zone, and 10 mobile cameras
( see Figure 5) within the zone ( more than one
camera is located at any camera site). 7
Unfortunately, more up- to- date information on
the camera breakdown within the expanded
congestion charging zone is not available.
According to a news article by the BBC before
the technology went into effect, the cameras are
calibrated to be pointing toward the middle of a
traffic lane toward the front number plate, and
they take four still, black and white photographs
per second. Infra- red reflectors are flashed while
the photograph is being taken to help pick out the
number plates. 8 The number plates in the U. K.
for the most part are reflective so they are picked up relatively well by the cameras. The
reason the cameras take photographs of the front plate is because in the U. K. they are
centrally located on all vehicles, whereas back plates can be on either side or in the center
of the vehicle. After the photographs have been taken, they are sent to a central computer
system that identifies the plates using the ALPR recognition system. The system is not
completely foolproof; in reality it only recognizes the plate 70 to 80 percent of the time. 9
There are several reasons the ALPR system might not be able to identify a vehicle plate.
First, a road user may be tailgating the car ahead and thus his/ her front number plate is
not visible. Second, it might also be the case that there may be a commercial truck in
6 Transport for London. Transport for London Homepage. 28 May 2007 < http:// www. cclondon. com/>.
7 " Congestion Charging: In London." BBC News. ( Accessed 4 June 2007.)
< http:// news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ shared/ spl/ hi/ uk/ 03/ congestion_ charge/ exemptions_ guide/ html/ works. stm>.
8 Symonds, Tom. " Preparing for Congestion." BBC News. 5 June 2007
< http:// news. bbc. co. uk/ 1/ hi/ uk/ 2748319. stm>.
9 Evans, Jeremy and Dan Firth. " Transport for London, Congestion Charging Technology Trials, Stage 1
Results." 12th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems. San Francisco: ITS America, 2005.
Figure 4 ‐ Congestion Charge CCTV cameras near
Vauxhall Bridge. Photo provided by Transport for
London.
Figure 5 ‐ A mobile enforcement vehicle is used
to photograph number plates within the London
congestion charging zone. Photo provided by
Transport for London.
13
front of a compact car and thus the compact car’s front number plate is out of sight of the
camera. Third, the ALPR system might pick up other text on a vehicle, like a bumper
sticker or an advertisement for a service truck. Some road users purposely put bumper
stickers that look like number plates to fool the ALPR system. Sometimes this works,
sometimes it doesn’t, because photographs such as these may be flagged and identified
manually by a human. Fourth, the ALPR system may miss a car’s number plate because
the driver is changing lanes as the photograph is being taken. Fifth, a number plate may
be simply dirty and thus unrecognizable to the ALPR system. Lastly, drivers may apply
films over their number plate to try to obscure the appearance of their number plate
despite the fact that this practice is illegal. 10 Despite all of the factors that might make a
number plate unreadable, the congestion charge is still effective since the charge is only
assessed once to any given vehicle per day. Thus, a vehicle only needs to be
photographed and recognized once for the system to be effective.
After a vehicle has entered the charging zone ( see Figure 6), it is up to
the driver to pay the charge; no bill will be sent to the driver. The driver
has a variety of options to pay the charge. If the driver is paying on the
day that he/ she entered the congestion charging zone payment can be
sent online, via text message, via a designated pay station ( there are
several throughout London, at retail stores and gas stations), or via
telephone. The driver also has the option to pay the charge the following
day by calling the call center or by paying online. There is a £ 2
surcharge for paying the day after ( currently, this amounts to a total
charge of £ 10 for entering the congestion charging zone).
By midnight of the day after a given charging date, all of the recognized number plates
are consolidated to get rid of duplicates. Payments are matched with the recognized plates
and are exempted from any ticket. Normally exempted vehicles ( taxis, vehicles of the
handicapped, buses, etc) are also removed from the pool that will receive tickets. For the
remaining vehicles, tickets are issued via the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
( DVLA) records. Payments for vehicles that were not recognized by ALPR on the day of
the congestion charge are not refunded or credited to a vehicle’s future days. Therefore if
a road user always pays the congestion charge, the road user never really knows if their
vehicle was photographed and recognized by the system. To deter drivers from not
paying the charge, heavy penalties are in place for non- payment. Vehicles that should
have paid but did not do so are issued a Penalty Charge Notice of £ 100 ( approximately
$ 200). Prompt payment within 14 days leads to a reduction in the charge to £ 50. Failure
to pay the charge after 28 days results in the penalty being increased to £ 150. Further
non- payment of the charge can lead to further legal action and the possibility of the
vehicle being immobilized. 11 It is worth noting that to enforce payment, foreign number
plates are difficult to impossible. This is because foreign countries have very little
10 " Congestion Charging: In London." BBC News. 4 June 2007
< http:// news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ shared/ spl/ hi/ uk/ 03/ congestion_ charge/ exemptions_ guide/ html/ works. stm>.
11 Transport for London. Transport for London Homepage. 28 May 2007 < http:// www. cclondon. com/>.
Figure 6 ‐ Symbol
designating
the congestion
charging zone in
London. Photo
provided by
Transport for
London.
14
incentive to help identify violators of the congestion charge. A diagram illustrating how
the system works can be seen in Figure 7.
D) Costs and Benefits of the Congestion Charge
Table 3: Congestion Revenues
By several accounts,
the London congestion
charge has been a great
success. In its first year
of operation, travel
within the congestion
zone has dropped by 14
percent. 12 The average
speed within the
congestion zone at
peak hours has
increased from 13
km/ hr to 17 km/ hr
( approximately 8.1
mph and 10.5 mph). 13
Transport of London
estimates that the number of car trips to the congestion zone has fallen by as many as
150,000 trips per day. These effects have led to a shift in demand from road usage to
public modes of transportation. The charge alone has led to a 35 percent increase of
people entering the charging zone by bus. 14 Since 2003, the congestion charge has
collected a total of £ 677.4 million. This includes a total of £ 189.7 million in cumulative
12 Nash, Chris. " Road Pricing in Britain." Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 41 ( 2006): 137.
13 Quddus, Mohammed, Alon Carmel and Michael Bell. " The Impact of the Congestion Charge on Retail."
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy ( 2006): 114- 115.
14 Graham, Daniel. " Road User Charging." Public Transport International ( 2006): 32.
Figure 7 ‐ How London's congestion charge works. Note that the penalty listed has increased to £ 100 since this
diagram was created. This image came from the BBC News.
http:// news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ shared/ spl/ hi/ uk/ 03/ congestion_ charge/ exemptions
TfL Congestion Charge Income ( in millions of £)
Annual Report Yr. Revenue Costs Net Income
2003 18.5 76.8 ( 58.3)
2004 186.7 141.4 45.3
2005 219.8 123.4 96.4
2006 254.1 147.8 106.3
Operating Totals £ 6 79.1 £ 489.4 £ 189.7
Set- up Costs 161.7 ( 161.7)
Net £ 6 79.1 £ 651.1 £ 28.0
Income generated by the congestion charge according to annual reports by
Transport for London ( 2003‐ 2006). Each fiscal year ends on March 31.
Therefore the 2003 Annual Report Covered April 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003.
Note the congestion charge started on Feb. 17, 2003.
15
operating income that just covers the £ 161.7 million set- up costs of the congestion charge
system. 15 By law, all of the surplus pounds generated by the congestion charge’s
operating income must be reinvested into London’s transport system. Transport 2000
estimates that 29,000 additional bus passengers are entering the zone on the 560
additional bus runs offered as a result of the additional funding from congestion
charging. 12 The extra funding has also helped pay for hybrid buses, resulting in a 31
percent drop in carbon dioxide emissions by buses. 12
As far as other pollutants are concerned, Transport for London says that there has been a
13percent reduction in nitrogen oxide, a 15 percent reduction in particulate matter, and a
16 percent reduction of carbon emissions since the congestion charge was put into
effect. 12 This is in large part due to the public seeking alternative modes of transportation.
Whether it’s riding a bike, taking a bus, or using the subway, alternative modes of
transportation lead to much lower emissions. This in turn decreases the negative
externalities imposed on those that live within the charging zone. A less publicized side
effect of the congestion charge is the effect it has had on general safety. According to
Transport for London, the £ 42 million supplementary investment on safety ( provided by
the congestion charge), has resulted in a 40 percent decrease in serious injuries or
fatalities, and a 40 to70 percent reduction in private vehicle crashes. The £ 42 million
have been used to increase the number of cameras, increase traffic calming measures and
increase the number of safety campaigns throughout the city.
Although many feared the congestion charge would hurt retailers, in fact it has not
significantly hurt the majority of retailers. A recent study in the Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy found that retailers as a whole were not significantly affected by
the congestion charge in the long term. The study found that in most cases any downturn
in business had more to do with cyclical economic factors than the congestion charge. 16
E) ALPR Usage by Police in England
ALPR is also used by police forces
in the United Kingdom for crime
enforcement ( see Figure 8).
However, crime enforcement is not
linked directly to the congestion-charge
ALPR cameras. Police
operations are run on separate
cameras throughout the United
Kingdom. These crime cameras’
only job is to crosscheck recognized
number plates with the Driver and
Vehicle Licensing Agency ( DVLA)
database, the Police National
Computer and the intelligence
15 " Congestion Charge." 2007. BBC News. 4 June 2007
< http:// www. bbc. co. uk/ london/ content/ articles/ 2006/ 11/ 21/ congestion_ update_ feature. shtml>.
16 Quddus, Mohammed, Alon Carmel and Michael Bell. " The Impact of the Congestion Charge on Retail."
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy ( 2007): Vol. 41, pp. 114- 115.
Figure 8 ‐ An ALPR system monitors the roads of Manchester,
England, checking motorists identity compared to three
databases. Photo courtesy of MSNBC.
http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/ 15221111/
16
computer system. Crime- scanning ALPR cameras have been highly praised by police
forces throughout the U. K., have produced staggering numbers of arrests and have
recovered millions of pounds in stolen property. For instance, throughout the U. K, 23
police forces evaluated the use of ALPR in a one- year field test. In the test, 28 million
plates were recognized, of which 1.1 million plates came up in one of the databases ( 3.9
percent of the total number of plates read were recognized in one database or more). Of
the 1.1 million flagged, 181,543 vehicles were stopped. This led to 13,499 arrests ( 7.5
percent of the total stopped), of which 2,263 were for theft or burglary, 3,324 were for
driving offenses, 1,107 were for drug offenses, and 1,386 were for auto crime. More than
1,152 stolen vehicles worth £ 7.5 million were recovered, £ 380,000 of illegal drugs were
confiscated, and £ 640,000 worth of stolen goods were recovered. Also 50,910 tickets
were given out for charges stemming mainly from failure to pay for the Vehicle Excise
Duty, insurance coverage, or MOT ( Ministry of Transportation) taxes. 17 Although the
usage of ALPR by police has been highly successful in locating serious crime offenders,
the public is very critical of its usage to hand out citations for minor offenses. Thus,
ALPR usage by police is still a very controversial and contested issue in England.
F) Future Tolling Mechanisms in London
Despite the overall success of the ALPR initiated congestion charge and police scanning,
there are problems with relying only on ALPR technology. First, the evidential integrity
of digital photography can be questionable. It is well known that images can be digitally
manipulated and thus they may not satisfy the evidential requirements of the courts.
Second, an ALPR system generates high volumes of data that need to be retained, which
in the end costs money. Last, the cost of telecommunications and fiber optics for an
extensive ALPR are very expensive to initially construct and maintain for a long term.
These problems have led Transport for London to test various other technologies such as
RFID technology ( also known as “ tag and beacon” technology), infra- red Dedicated
Short Range Communication ( DSRC), satellite positioning, and digital mobile
telephony. 18 Of these technologies Transport for London is hoping to implement the tag
and beacon or RFID technology by 2009. Transport for London also hopes to implement
a satellite GPS by 2014.19 A tag and beacon system would give road users the option to
carry a credit card- sized RFID transmitter in the car that would act as a debit card for
tolling and congestion charging purposes. When a road user would enter the congestion
charging zone, he/ she would pass under the RFID receiver and his/ her account would be
debited. If the road user did not have an RFID transmitter, the ALPR system would still
be able to photograph the road user’s number plate and the road user could pay the
congestion charge the same way it is presently paid. The advantages of having the RFID
receiver would be that it would be less likely that a driver would be charged a penalty for
forgetting to pay the congestion charge. Also a driver carrying a RFID transmitter would
17 PA Consulting Group. " Driving Crime Down - Official Report for the Home Office." October 2004.
Police Home Office Website ( UK). < http:// police. homeoffice. gov. uk/ news- and-publications/
publication/ operational- policing/ Driving_ Crime_ Down_-_ Denyin1. pdf? view= Binary>.
( Accessed 4 June 2007.
18 Evans, Jeremy and Dan Firth. " Transport for London, Congestion Charging Technology Trials, Stage 1
Results." 12th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems. San Francisco: ITS America, 2005.
19 Webster, Ben. " Electronic Tags for Cars as Congestion Charge Spreads Out." 22 February 2006. Times
Online. < http:// www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ news/ article733481. ece>. ( Accessed 5 June 2007.)
17
be able to take advantage of variable congestion charging rates that Transport for London
is looking at implementing ( as opposed to paying a flat charge). For instance, the driver
might get a discount for entering the charging zone after 10 AM as opposed to 8 AM.
Another major advantage to the tag and beacon system is that it is reputed to have a 99.55
percent accuracy rate in tests performed by Transport for London. 20
Further into the future, London,
along with the U. K. in general and
many other European countries, are
looking to GPS satellite tolling as a
standard. This would allow any
given government to charge road
users by the mile for their travels.
Although GPS is readily available
today, the technology is not
accurate enough according to tests
run by Transport for London.
However, it is estimated that it will
be ready by 2014. One problem
cited in the tests is
“ canyoning.”( See Figure 9.)
Canyoning is when a large building
or other obstructions prevent a clear
path between a GPS receiver and a
satellite. The cause of canyoning is the relatively few satellites currently available to
accurately determine a GPS receiver’s position. Another problem is that GPS has a
tendency to reflect signals off of tall buildings. One weakness of current GPS technology
is its inability to pinpoint the exact position of a moving object. When GPS was tested by
Transport for London, the average location error was 9.7 meters ( about 32 feet). Also in
the tests, the GPS only had a confidence level of 75 percent when a vehicle was given a
14- meter buffer zone; the GPS had a 90 percent confidence level if the buffer zone was
28 meters; and finally, the GPS had a confidence level of 99 percent if the buffer zone
was 57 meters. This means if today a GPS receiver were positioned exactly on the
congestion charging border, it is probable that 1 percent of cars would be mistakenly
considered to be within the congestion charging zone when really they were 57 meters or
more away from it. The current buffer zone that would be necessary is too large, but
inevitably the technology will get better in the future as more satellites are launched and
the GPS transmitters become more accurate.
G) Conclusion: London’s Usage of ALPR Mechanisms
In retrospect ALPR has been a good choice for London in the times it was implemented.
Many today are criticizing London’s expansion of the ALPR congestion charging system
into western London when the system may be replaced by tag and beacon technology in
less than two years. However, Transport for London argues that the cameras will still be
20 Evens, Jeremy and Dan Firth. " Transport for London, Congestion Charging Technology Trials, Stage 1
Results." 12th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems. San Francisco: ITS America, 2005.
Figure 9 ‐ This figure demonstrates canyoning and the multi‐ path
reflection errors in GPS systems. Image courtesy of “ Transport for
London, Congestion Charging Technology Trials, Stage 1 Results” final
report.
18
needed to back up the future tag and beacon technology. Therefore, in its point of view,
the money to finance west London’s ALPR system is not being wasted. 21 Many have also
criticized London’s congestion charge because although it is accepted by the people who
live inside London, it is really paid by the people who live outside of London. Thus, the
majority who pay the charge have no political voice in whether the charge should exist in
the first place. No matter how you view the congestion charge, the charge has generated a
large surplus in just a little time, and the money is being used for improving the current
public transportation system. The charge has also reduced London’s original problem of
congestion in the heart of London. It has helped road users realize the negative
externalities they impose by driving during the charging period and thus has increased
patronage to public transportation. Also ALPR has helped police locate large numbers of
serious crime offenders in little time.
2.2 – RFID in Tolling
2.2.1 - E- ZPass
The largest usage of highway RFID technology in the United
States is undoubtedly E- ZPass ( see Figure 10). E- ZPass is a
tolling mechanism used mostly on the northeast coast of the
United States. The E- ZPass itself is an RFID transponder that
emits a radio frequency identifying a given road user. When a
road user drives through a tolled location, the road user is charged for the toll
electronically. Just like that the road user is through the tolled location, without as much
as a stop to pay the toll.
A) Implementation of E- ZPass
Prior to the wide usage of E- ZPass, separate electronic tolling programs were being used
throughout the United States. For instance, Massachusetts had Fast Lane/ MassPass,
Virginia had Smart Tag, Illinois had I- Pass, Maine had TransPass, Maryland had M- Tag,
and New York has had E- ZPass. All of these states clearly saw the benefits that could
arise from an electronic RFID tolling method. However, the problem with all of the states
having different passes was that if a given road user traveled between states, he/ she
would need a separate pass for each state. This would be quite a burden to frequent
interstate drivers considering how close these states are to each other. Not to mention, it
would make quite a spectacle to have four or five different passes attached to one car
windshield.
Luckily for those drivers, northeastern states collectively sought a standard tolling
mechanism. In 1990 the Interagency Group ( IAG) was formed by seven independent
northeastern tolling agencies. It was their goal to come up with the electronic tolling
standard. In the mid- 1990’ s that standard became a reality throughout the northeastern
U. S. 22 Many states did not change the name of their pass despite it becoming E- ZPass
compatible. Massachusetts for instance calls their pass Fast Lane, but really the pass is an
21 " C- charge plans ' will waste £ 166m'." 21 June 2006. BBC News.
< http:// news. bbc. co. uk/ 1/ hi/ england/ london/ 5098642. stm>. ( Accessed 7 June 2007.)
22 Inter Agency Group. Inter Agency Group - E- ZPass. 2005. 1 June 2007 < http:// www. e-zpass.
info/ index5. htm>.
Figure 10 ‐ The logo for
E‐ ZPass. It designates E‐ ZPass
lanes across the northeastern
United States.
19
E- ZPass and is compatible with any other E- ZPass charging toll. The merging of the
majority of northeastern states to one pass has led more than 14 million motorists to
acquire an E- ZPass. Today, 60 percent of all U. S. tolls are paid by some form of
electronic collection. 23 As of 2007, states that use E- ZPass include New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Massachusetts, and Illinois ( see Figure 11). Both Ohio and Indiana are planning on
providing E- ZPass as a form of toll payment in the near future. 24
Figure 11 - States in which E- ZPass is an acceptable form of payment. Note that both Indiana and Ohio will
have E- ZPass in the near future. Photo provided by the Pennsylvania Turnpike -
http:// www. paturnpike. com/ ezpass/ pdf/ IAG_ E- ZPASS_ M
Registration for E- ZPass varies by state. Generally one would register for an EZ- Pass in
his/ her own state. In most states the E- ZPass account is a debit account that must be
preloaded by the user; in other states commercial accounts are credit accounts and the
road user is billed at the end of the month. For instance in Pennsylvania, companies that
spend $ 1000 or more per month on E- ZPass expenses may register for a commercial
23 Samuel, Peter. " Technologies Will Work in Parallel." World Highways. ( 2005): 54- 55.
24 E- ZPass New York Service Center. E- ZPass Information. 1 June 2007 < http:// www. e-zpassny.
com/ static/ info/ index. shtml>.
20
credit account ( see Figure 12). Individuals in
Pennsylvania, regardless of how much they spend on
E- ZPass, must preload their E- ZPass account. Most
states require that a minimum deposit be made to an
E- ZPass account and that some form of
administrative/ equipment fee be paid on a periodic
basis. In Pennsylvania, a $ 25 deposit must be placed
on a new E- ZPass account ( this is the money used to
pay tolls), and then a $ 3 non- refundable annual
charge must be paid by the user. No interest is paid on
account balances or deposits; paper statements are
available for a fee. Pennsylvania E- ZPass card
holders can view their account breakdown online.
Pennsylvania E- ZPass holders have two options for
reloading their card: They can do it manually every
time their account balance falls below $ 15, or they can do it automatically by registering
a credit card to replenish the E- ZPass. 25 All other states maintain and replenish E- Z Pass
accounts similarly.
B) Implementation of E- ZPass
So how does E- ZPass work? As
Figure 13 illustrates, first a
vehicle with an E- ZPass
mounted in the upper left hand
corner of the vehicle pulls up to
one of the specially marked E-ZPass
tolling lanes. The E-ZPass
tag is a Mark IV active
RFID tag that is activated by an
antenna above the vehicle on
the tolling structure. As the
vehicle approaches the E- ZPass
booth, the vehicle must proceed
at a low speed of 5 mph. An
RFID receiver reads the RF
signal emitted by the E- ZPass.
Then the vehicle is allowed to
proceed through the toll location.
After the vehicle is recognized, the driver’s account is charged electronically. For
enforcement purposes, some booths have traffic gates that open after the E- ZPass is
recognized, others have cameras that photograph vehicles that don’t have a recognizable
E- ZPass on board. Vehicles that don’t have an E- ZPass on board are issued a ticket.
Vehicles that aren’t recognized but that do have an E- ZPass account in good standing are
generally charged an administrative fee for the cost of someone manually charging their
25 Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. PA Turnpike E- ZPass Agreement. 4 June 2007
< http:// www. paturnpike. com/ ezpass/ personalterms. htm>.
Figure 13 ‐ This diagram shows how the E‐ ZPass works. This image
courtesy of www. howstuffworks. com.
Figure 12 ‐ A Pennsylvania‐ issued
EZ‐ Pass. Photo courtesy of
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.
http:// www. paturnpike. com/ ezpass/ v
isual. htm
21
E- ZPass account using a photographed license plate. 26 It is important to note that again
the rules vary slightly by transit authority.
C) Benefits of E- ZPass
The greatest benefit E- ZPass brings to road users is convenience and customer
satisfaction. E- ZPass is simple to install, simple to maintain, and simple to use. E- ZPass
members receive discounts at many tolls for their low maintenance trip through the toll
booths. For example, in New York users of the Metropolitan Transit Authority ( MTA)
bridges and tunnels receive a $. 50 to a $ 1 discount at all tolling sites. Also many transit
authorities offer road users even larger discounts if they purchase a pre- paid monthly or
yearly commuter plan. This is convenient for commuters that use the same toll road on a
frequent basis. Transit authorities also offer discounts to residents that live near a toll
road. Another advantage of E- ZPass is that E- ZPass lanes move much quicker as users
are able to drive slowly through them instead of having to stop and pay. For added
convenience, those traveling to JFK, LaGuardia, Newark Liberty, or Albany airports can
use E- ZPass as a form of payment for parking. It’s easy to see that for the commuter or
casual toll road user, the time savings and monetary savings far outweigh the cost of any
administrative charges of E- ZPass. Making this obvious are the 14 million transponders
that road users have requested and use. However, it’s not just road users that benefit
from E- ZPass, it’s also the transit authorities and the local governments that benefit.
Transit authorities and the surrounding
community greatly benefit from E- ZPass.
Transit authorities are easily able to
collect over $ 1.3 million annually with E-ZPass.
27 E- ZPass also allows transit
authorities to charge variable tolls very
easily. This allows the transit authorities
to give incentives to different vehicles or
to commuters who drive at different
times. For instance, hybrid cars in New
York can apply for a 10 percent discount
off of the E- ZPass toll. Also, several of
the tunnels and bridges that lead to New
York City offer a $ 1 discount for drivers
that enter the toll road during an off- peak
time of the day. Many toll roads charge a
different toll depending on the number of
axles a vehicle has. With the help of sensor strips in the tolling lane E- ZPass can quickly
charge the road user the correct amount. Without E- ZPass it would take a toll operator
time to identify these factors and thus the lane would become less efficient. Another
major benefit E- ZPass brings to the surrounding community besides less road congestion
26 Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. PA Turnpike E- ZPass Agreement. 4 June 2007
< http:// www. paturnpike. com/ ezpass/ personalterms. htm>.
27 Inter Agency Group. Inter Agency Group - E- ZPass. 2005. 1 June 2007 < http:// www. e-zpass.
info/ index5. htm>.
Figure 14 ‐ An E‐ ZPass lane in Delaware. Photo courtesy of the
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
22
is less vehicle emissions released into the atmosphere. E- ZPass is clearly a win- win
situation for the commuter and for transit authorities.
D) PrePass
For commercial vehicles ( mostly commercial trucks) companies can participate in
PrePass Plus ( see Figure 15). PrePass Plus is a special transponder that has the benefits of
E- ZPass tolling along with an onboard color coded system that gives commercial users
the possibility of legally passing weigh stations. 28 When a truck approaches a weigh
station supported by Prepass, the truck is weighed by a Weigh In Motion ( WIM) scale.
The truck’s identity from the PrePass along with the truck’s
overall weight and weight per axle is electronically sent to the
PrePass database. Then the PrePass database checks that the
truck is compliant with weight restrictions and that the truck’s
credentials are up to date. If the truck is in compliance
( according to the database) and the PrePass database deems
there is no reason for the truck to stop at the next weigh
station, then the truck will be notified to pass the weigh
station via a green light and audible noise on the PrePass
transponder. If a truck needs to be stopped for
noncompliance, bad credentials, or for a random check, then
the driver is signaled with a red light and a sound via the
PrePass. 29 PrePass is designed to help filter out trucks that are
more likely to be compliant so that trucks that are less likely
to be compliant can be more intensively scrutinized ( see
Figure 16). In the process, time, money, and fuel are
28 PrePass FAQ. 5 Dec 2007 < http:// prepass. com/ faqplus. htm>.
29 Ernzen, Julie M. Port Runners - Impacts and Solutions. AzDOT Report. Phoenix, AZ: AzDOT, 2005.
Figure 16 ‐ An example of a
PrePass / E‐ ZPass system. Image
courtesy of PrePass Web site.
http:// prepass. com/ plustransponder
. htm
Figure 15 ‐ How PrePass works in conjunction with a WIM system. Diagram courtesy of
U. S. Department of Transportation report “ Electronic Toll Collection/ Electronic
Screening Interoperability Pilot Project.”
http:// www. itsdocs. fhwa. dot. gov// JPODOCS/ REPTS_ TE// 14256_ files/ 14256. pdf
23
conserved. Time is saved when drivers can bypass weigh- stations or wait in a shorter line
at the weigh- station. Money is saved by conserving time for commercial companies. Fuel
is conserved by less time being wasted by trucks idling in weigh- station lines. A
byproduct of this is lower emissions. A recent study in the Transportation Research
Record found that commercial vehicles using E- ZPass emitted 30. percent less VOC
emissions, 23.5 percent less carbon monoxide ( CO) emissions, and 5.8 percent less
nitrous oxide ( NOX) emissions ( assuming that the vehicles are processed at a rate of 10
mph or less). If vehicles are processed at speeds of 20 mph, the report states that “ reduc-tions
in VOC emissions due to truck traffic alone could be as high as 50 percent.” 30 In
Arizona, PrePass commercial vehicles are processed at much faster highway speeds ( 50
to 70 mph) because there aren’t any tolls to be paid in Arizona. In E- Zpass applications a
truck would still be required to pull up to a toll booth, wait for his E- ZPass to be detected,
and then drive through. This still creates a queuing situation that reduces a truck’s speed
to 0 to 20 mph ( in most cases). Presumably, the PrePass used in Arizona would yield
higher reductions of emissions due to the lack of a queue for most PrePass users.
One problem with PrePass is that traffic authorities are not able to override the decision
by the PrePass system. The only way authorities can stop the truck if the truck is given
the green light is to physically catch up to the truck on the highway. Authorities’ only
power over the system is to either complain to PrePass or turn the system off entirely.
Another problem with PrePass is that there are RFID systems similar to PrePass that are
made by separate companies in different regions. Recently there has been an effort made
by Arizona to update WIM systems to support other devices similar to PrePass. Prior to
this renovation effort, Arizona authorities were only able to screen between 5 to 7 percent
of all passing trucks. After the renovations 12 to 15 percent of all truck traffic can be
screened. 31 Although these renovations have by and large been helpful, there are still
problems being worked out between government authorities and PrePass.
E) Conclusion
E- ZPass has proven to be a good solution for all parties involved. Fourteen million road
users get convenience and discounted tolls, governments get higher efficiency levels with
fewer man hours, and communities get a less congested and less polluted residential
environment. But can E- ZPass technology be better? It could certainly be argued that if
E- ZPass lanes were converted to true open- road tolling lanes, the benefits of E- ZPass
would be enhanced. Another element that might make E- ZPass better is expanding the
usage of time- based variable tolling. The E- ZPass system is perfectly capable of this,
however, it isn’t widely used. In 2005, New York bridges and tunnels introduced a $ 1
price increase during peak operation hours. However, the $ 1 charge simply wasn’t
enough of a price hike to make a significant difference in tolling volumes during peak
periods. 32 Open- road tolling and more variable pricing would allow even more
30 Venigalla, Mohan and Michael Krimmer. " Impact of Electronic Toll Collection and Electronic Screening
on Heavy- Duty Vehicle Emissions." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 1987 ( 2006): 11.
31 Data based on information obtained from Steve Abney, Head of AzDOT’s Mobile Enforcement Division.
32 Wolff, Carolyn. " Congestion Pricing as a Traffic Management Tool : Evaluating the Impacts at New
York City's Interstate Crossings." Transportation Research Board 2007 Annual Meeting. National
Research Council, 2007.
24
convenience, more efficiency, less congestion, and less pollution. In contrast to E- ZPass,
Express Toll Route 407 is a prime example of an open- road tolling mechanism.
2.2.2 Express Toll Route 407 ( Ontario)
Ontario’s Express Toll Route ( ETR) 407 combines the best feature of an E- ZPass system
and London’s Congestion Charge system. That’s because this 43- mile toll road combines
ALPR with a Mark VI RFID Transponder system in an open- road tolling setting. This
means that there are no toll booths on this route. This makes ETR 407 one of the most
advanced electronic toll roads in the world.
Figure 17 - How a vehicle that does not have a
transponder is photographed. 29
Figure 18 - How a motorcycle that is
maneuvering evasively is tracked between both
gantries. Such evasive maneuvers pose no
problem for the RFID transponder system.
A) How the ETR 407 Works
When road users get on the toll route, they pass by two overhead gantries that house all of
the required equipment for the toll lane to work ( see Figures 17 and 18). The first gantry
contains lights and license plate cameras. The second gantry contains a vehicle
detector/ classifier, a read/ write antenna, and a locator antenna. If the second gantry’s
antenna detects a transponder, then no image is captured by the first gantry’s camera. If
the antenna detects there isn’t a transponder, then the camera captures an image of the
vehicle’s license plate. When the vehicle then exits the toll route, it passes through the
same detection/ classification system. The vehicle’s exiting RF identification, or license
plate identification, is matched with the entering RF identification, or license plate
identification, so that a toll can be assessed. 33 As of 2007, toll rates for ETR 407 are
$ 0.176 CAD/ km34 during peak travel ( 6 AM – 10 AM, and 3 PM – 7 PM, Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays), and $ 0.168 CAD/ km for off- peak hours
33 Castro, Alex. " H- 407, All Electronic Toll Collection System." Report of the Annual Meeting :
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association ( 1998): 145- 167.
34 Canadian Dollars per Kilometer.
25
($ 0.267 USD/ mile35 and $ 0.254 USD/ mile respectively). Vehicles that do not carry transponders
are charged a video toll charge of $ 3.55 CAD per trip along with a $ 2.35 CAD per month
account fee. Transponder users are charged either $ 2.35 CAD/ month or $ 19.95 CAD/ year
for the lease of their transponder. Vehicles that have license plates that are unrecognized
by the ALPR system are charged a flat rate of $ 50 per trip. 36 Higher fees are charged for
heavy unit vehicles.
B) ETR 407 Obstacles
Multiple obstacles had to be overcome to ensure
that ETR 407’ s tolling mechanism would work.
First, multiple antennas had to be used on the
second gantry in order to prevent “ shadowing.”
Shadowing is when a larger vehicle blocks a
smaller vehicle’s communication path between
the smaller vehicle and a road side antenna ( see
Figure 19). The height of the gantry also helps
reduce the risk of shadowing.
Second, a solution was needed to prevent
vehicles from changing lanes to avoid not being
charged for the toll. To solve this problem,
multiple transponders allow for the triangulation
of the position of the vehicle. This allows the
vehicle’s lane position to be tracked between
the gantries, therefore ensuring that the exact
lane of the vehicle is known by the time it reaches the second gantry. For vehicles that
don’t have transponders, a laser curtain located at the second gantry senses the position of
the vehicle and relays that information to the appropriate camera on the first gantry.
The last major problem that needed to be overcome was cuing the cameras to capture an
image at the correct time and cuing the system that a transponder vehicle has passed the
second gantry. The solution of this problem was achieved by the laser curtain at the
second gantry. The laser curtain senses the end of a vehicle and either cues the camera to
capture an image or indicates to the processing system that a transponder customer has
exited the charging zone. The laser curtain also detects the height and width of a vehicle
to help the processing unit determine what type of vehicle is driving through. When the
unit knows what type of vehicle is driving through ( say a semi- truck vs. a mini- van) it
can anticipate when the vehicle will pass the second gantry, or when is the right time to
capture an image. Knowing when a vehicle starts and when a vehicle ends is crucial to
the effectiveness of the system, and thus the laser detection system is vital to ETR 407.37
Although ETR 407 has been highly successful, several problems have been encountered
along the way. ETR is one of the first toll roads built with the “ Build, Operate, and
35 United States Dollars per Mile.
36 407 ETR. 407 ETR - Tolls & Fees. 1 June 2007 < http:// www. 407etr. com/ about/ custserv_ fees. asp>.
37 Castro, Alex. " H- 407, All Electronic Toll Collection System." Report of the Annual Meeting :
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association ( 1998): 145- 167.
Figure 19 ‐ ETR 407' s laser curtain is vital to the
effectiveness of the tolling mechanism. Otherwise it
would be difficult for the system to know when a
vehicle starts and when a vehicle ends.
26
Transfer” ( BOT) design in mind. 38 BOT is a method in which a municipality builds a toll
road, begins the operating process, and then transfers the road to a third- party private
company. After the road was built and after tolling was operational, ETR 407 was
privatized under a 99- year lease and the ensuing company became 407 International Inc.
Since the road has been privatized, several disputes have arisen between the Ontario
authorities and 407 International. The first dispute came when the 407 International
increased the tolling rate. The government claimed that 407 International had to consult
the government with any toll increases according to the lease agreement. The courts ruled
in favor of 407 International and the price increases on the ETR 407 stood. 39 However,
the second dispute came when 407 International was granted a court order requiring the
government to not renew the registrations of delinquent ETR 407 users. Ontario fought
the court order through several appeals and lost. After losing the appeals, Ontario and 407
International reached an out- of- court agreement in which Ontario would not issue plate
renewals to those who had outstanding ETR 407 debts of 90 days or more. For this 407
International agreed to allow toll users with disputed charges to have the right to an
ombudsman to act on their behalf. They also agreed to set up an independent arbitration
process that would allow ETR 407 users the right to argue their cases. 40 The somewhat
contentious relationship between the Government of Ontario and 407 International might
be important to consider when a government tries to have a toll road privatized.
C) Conclusion
Despite the quarrelsome relationship between Ontario and 407 International, there are a
lot of winners in the building of ETR 407. The people have a quicker alternative to one of
the busiest highways in the world, Highway 401.41 The Government of Ontario was able
to build a road in a dramatically quick fashion with the help of private funds. And, of
course, 407 International has done well in the purchase of ETR 407. All in all, ETR 407
seems like a good solution to congestion in Ontario.
2.3 HOT Lanes
A modern trend throughout the U. S. has been the reassignment of High Occupancy
Vehicle lanes ( HOV lanes) to High Occupancy Toll lanes ( HOT lanes). HOV lanes are
special lanes that are restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants ( sometimes three
or more occupants depending on the road). Like HOV lanes, HOT lanes are also
restricted and vehicles with more than one occupant are allowed in the lane. The unique
element of HOT lanes is that they typically allow single occupancy vehicles access to the
lane by paying a toll. The lanes are managed in terms of pricing to keep a steady flow of
traffic flowing even during peak operating hours. According to a report by the Federal
Highway Administration, “ The advantages of a HOT lane are to: expand mobility options
38 Hauer, Ezra. " Safety Review of Highway 407." Transportaton Research Record ( 1999): 9.
39 TollRoads News. " 407 ETR Vindicated By Arbitrator - Govt Can't Interfere in Tolls." 10 July 2004
< http:// tollroadsnews. info/ artman/ publish/ article_ 569. shtml>. . ( Accessed 22 May 2007.)
40 Government of Ontario. " Province And 407 ETR Agree To Better Deal For Drivers." 31 March 2006.
Government of Ontario, Canada - News.
< http:// ogov. newswire. ca/ ontario/ GPOE/ 2006/ 03/ 31/ c1204. html? lmatch=& lang=_ e. html>. ( Accessed 1
June 2007.)
41 Nassereddine, Imad. " Toronto - Transportation Systems for the 21st Century." Institute of Transportation
Engineers ( 1998): 32.
27
in congested urban areas by providing an opportunity for reliable travel times to users
prepared to pay a significant premium for this service; to generate a new source of
revenue which can be used to pay for transportation improvements, including enhanced
service; and to improve the efficiency of HOV facilities which is especially important
given the recent decline in HOV mode share in 36 of 40 largest metro areas.” 42 Therefore
HOT lanes create more favorable, efficient conditions while generating revenue. Several
HOT lanes across the United States utilize electronic RFID technology to collect tolls.
A) Interstate 15 – San Diego FasTrack
Interstate15’ s two- lane HOT lane was originally
constructed as an HOV lane in 1988. Both lanes were
constructed using Federal Transit Administration
dollars. The toll lanes were designed to encourage
car pooling, however the lanes were underutilized. In
order to increase usage of the lane, the San Diego
Association of Governments ( SANDAG) participated
in a Federal Value Pricing program to construct the
HOT lane ( see Figure 20).
In December 1996, the HOT lane was ready for use.
As part of the program’s Phase I, SANDAG released
500 monthly permits sold at a price of $ 50 per
month. A permit ( then called an ExpressPass),
granted the toll user unlimited use of the HOT lanes.
By February 2007, the permit price was increased to
$ 70 per month, and 200 more permits were released.
In June 1997, electronic transponders were released
to those that had permits. This allowed HOT lane
users to enter the HOT lanes without visual
inspection.
By March 1998, Phase II of the project began. This
phase included variable priced tolling, charged on a
per trip basis. Tolls typically range between $. 50 to $ 4.00 per trip. However the toll can
be raised as high as $ 8.00 per trip if traffic is particularly congested on the I- 15. In order
to determine the toll charge, real time traffic volumes are measured every six minutes.
Vehicles with two or more occupants always can utilize the lanes for free. One unique
feature of the I- 15 HOT lanes is that they are both one- way lanes that operate southbound
in the morning commute ( 5: 30AM- 11 AM), and operate northbound on the evening
commute ( 3: 30AM- 7: 30 PM).
Toll users’ FasTrak accounts are prepaid similar to E- ZPass. Similar to E- ZPass, FasTrak
is accepted as a form of payment for several other tolls throughout California. However,
the greatest advantage FasTrak has over E- ZPass is that users can travel at highway
42 Perez, Benjamin and Gian- Claudia Sciara. " A Guide for HOT Lane Development." Research Report
FHWA- OP- 03- 009. 2003. http:// www. its. dot. gov/ JPODOCS/ REPTS_ TE/ 13668. html. Accessed
July 16, 2008.
Figure 20 I- 15 FasTrak location. 37
28
speeds when being assessed a toll. This is done via overhead antennas that read
transponders at freeway speeds. Currently, road users that have a FasTrak, but don’t
spend at least $ 4.50 per month, are charged a minimum of $ 4.50 in account maintenance
fees. Users that spend more than $ 4.50 per month are not charged these fees. 43 FasTrak
users must put down a deposit of $ 40 for the transponder, the deposit is returned once the
transponder is returned. The deposit can be avoided by providing a valid credit card to
FasTrak. Similar to E- ZPass, FasTrak uses highway cameras and the local police to
enforce laws that require HOT lane users to have either a transponder or more than one
person in their vehicle. Penalties for noncompliance start at $ 341 for first- time offenders.
One obstacle for FasTrak was winning the support of government and the public. The
first step in gaining support involved SANDAG hiring a consultant to gather marketing
data. I- 15 commuters were the subject of focus groups, phone surveys, and intercept
surveys on their attitude towards a possible electronic variable tolling program. The data
gathered from these surveys was the basis of the planned Phase I and Phase II. The
second step was convincing state legislative officials. This was essential because
although the proposed I- 15 HOT lanes had support from the federal government, it
needed state legislation to become a reality. With the help of a political leader that
strongly supported the proposed HOT lanes, enough support was available to pass
Assembly Bill 713 that authorized the four- year demonstration project from 1994 to
1998. 44 After the demonstration, the continuation of the I- 15 HOT lanes has been
extended several times with great success and many backers.
After the four- year demonstration of HOT lanes in San Diego and a couple of extensions
for continued operation, an 800- person telephone survey was conducted to gauge public
opinion about the I- 15 HOT lanes. The findings were quite positive. The survey found
that 91 percent of those surveyed think that travel time savings options provided by the I-
15 HOT lanes are a “ good idea;” 66 percent of drivers who do not use the I- 15 HOT lanes
support them; 73 percent of non- HOT lane users agree that the HOT lanes reduce
congestion in the corridor; 89 percent of I- 15 users support the extension of the HOT
lanes; and 80 percent of the lowest income motorists using the I- 15 corridor agreed with
the statement: “ People who drive alone should be able to use the I- 15 express lanes for a
fee.” 45 It’s safe to say that a majority of people in the San Diego area feel that the I- 15
HOT lanes are a good solution to congestion.
The costs and benefits are the best indicator of FasTrak’s success. The cost of converting
I- 15 HOV lanes into HOT lanes was roughly $ 140 million. The bulk of this cost was
electronic tolling equipment as the lanes for the HOT lane had already been constructed.
43 SANDAG. San Diego's Regional Planning Agency. 23 March 2007.
< http:// www. sandag. org/ index. asp? classid= 29& fuseaction= home. classhome>. ( Accessed 10 June 2007.)
44 Perez, Benjamin and Gian- Claudia Sciara. " A Guide for HOT Lane Development." Research Report
FHWA- OP- 03- 009. 2003.
45 SANDAG. San Diego's Regional Planning Agency. 23 March 2007.
< http:// www. sandag. org/ index. asp? classid= 29& fuseaction= home. classhome>. ( Accessed 10 June 2007.)
( Accessed 10 June 2007)
29
Reported revenues from FasTrak are $ 7.5 million per year. 46 This allows annual
operating costs to be completely funded by the tolls, and there is money left over for
other public purposes. For instance, half of the tolls’ generated income goes to financing
the Inland Breeze bus service. As of 2005, FasTrak had 27,921 customers. Since FasTrak
started, the average daily usage of the carpool lanes has increased from 9,400 to 20,116
vehicles per day. 47
SANDAG’s FasTrak has been a great success in the eyes of commuters, and the
government. Supporting this claim is the significantly high approval ratings FasTrak gets
among commuters, and the fact that in 2004 the government approved a bill that allowed
SANDAG to create similar HOT lanes in San Diego. By 2012, State Routes 163 and 78
will feature a 20- mile state- of- the- art managed lane facility. 48 FasTrak has been viewed
as one of the revolutionary HOT lane facilities in the United States and has encouraged
other projects throughout the country.
B) State Route 91 – Express Lanes
State Route 91 ( SR 91) is another HOT lane system in California. The two- lane SR 91
runs approximately 10 miles in each direction in the Orange County/ Riverside area.
Originally planned to be a toll road, SR 91 became the first road to feature fully
automated electronic HOT lanes to supplement the public lanes. SR 91 was also the first
toll road in the United States to feature a variable pricing scheme when it opened in
December 1995. The $ 134 million road was fully funded by private funds mostly from
the California Private Transportation Company ( CPTC). As part of the funding
agreement, the CPTC has the right to lease the SR 91 for 35 years. 49
SR 91 is for the most part similar to I- 15. It utilizes the same FasTrak transponders that
are used on the I- 15. One difference with SR 91 is that tolls are fixed according to day
and time. Therefore at 2 PM on Monday the toll will always be the same. SR 91
encourages carpooling by offering a 50 percent discount to vehicles with three or more
occupants. This discount is administered using a special lane on the SR 91.
One notable similarity between SR 91 and the ETR 407 is the tension between the
government and the private company running the toll route. In 1999, the California
Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) wanted to add general- usage lanes to SR 91. The
CPTC opposed any such addition as it would cut into their profit margins in operating SR
91. The CPTC subsequently sued Caltrans to stop the addition of the additional lanes.
The CPTC argued that under the original 35- year lease agreement, no improvements to
general purpose lanes would occur without the consultation of the CPTC. This provision
was made so that the CPTC’s ability to recoup its initial investment would not be
46 Wilbur Smith Associates. " I- 15 Managed Lanes Value Pricing Project Planning Study." February 2002.
SANDAG Homepage. < http:// fastrak. sandag. org/ pdfs/ concept_ plan_ vol1_ part1. pdf>. ( Accessed 29 May
2007.)
47 SANDAG. San Diego's Regional Planning Agency. 23 March 2007.
< http:// www. sandag. org/ index. asp? classid= 29& fuseaction= home. classhome>. ( Accessed June 10 2007.)
48 I- 15 FasTrak. " Construction Progress Continues on I- 15." Spring 2007. SANDAG Official Website.
< http:// www. sandag. org/ uploads/ publicationid/ publicationid_ 1288_ 6680. pdf>. ( Accessed 29 May 2007.)
49 Perez, Benjamin and Gian- Claudia Sciara. " A Guide for HOT Lane Development." Research Report
FHWA- OP- 03- 009. 2003.
30
hindered. Later in a legal settlement, Caltrans dropped the plans to increase the number of
general- purpose lanes. The inability of Caltrans to add lanes to SR 91 caused public
opinion of the SR 91 HOT lanes to waver. As a result of this, in 2003 the Orange County
Transit Authority ( OCTA) agreed to purchase SR 91 from the CPTC for $ 207.5 million.
The use of private funds to build a road is quite enticing for local and state authorities;
however the ensuing tension between a private company and a government authority may
be inevitable. Government authorities and private companies perhaps just can’t see eye to
eye due to their differing goals.
SR 91 has proven that variable electronic pricing is a system that can work in highly
congested areas. Early research was correct when it predicted that people in the Orange
County/ Riverside area were willing and able to pay for an alternative to a congested
freeway. In 2006 alone, revenues topped $ 29 million. 50 However, despite the usage of the
express lanes, support for the HOT lanes was almost withdrawn over a dispute between
Caltrans and the CPTC. This raises important questions for governments eliciting private
support for electronic tolling mechanisms.
C) Other HOT lane networks
Several other electronic RFID HOT lane networks are in place across the United States.
Other roads that include HOT lanes are: Interstate 10 and U. S. Route 290 in Houston,
Interstate 394 in Minnesota, Interstate 15 in Salt Lake City, and Interstate 25 in Denver.
A handful of other states including Washington, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Florida, and New Jersey have proposed HOT lanes. The stories of other current HOT
lanes and future HOT lanes are very similar to those already mentioned. All of these
HOT lanes face logistical, political, and public challenges before becoming a reality.
It is vital to a HOT lane’s survival to offer a significant amount of time savings to justify
the cost. Road users in many metro areas have demonstrated that they are willing and
able to pay for a reduced commute time. Electronic tolls allow for HOT lane systems to
be tweaked so that a balance can be struck between the general roads and HOT lanes. For
instance, the Houston QuickRide program at one time allowed any vehicle with two or
more occupants to travel in the then HOV lane. Since only one lane in each direction
existed on the HOV lane, the lane was over utilized. The public gave the HOV lane an F
in one survey at the time. Then TxDot began only allowing vehicles with three or more
occupants to drive in the HOV lane, which led to a 30 percent drop in traffic. However,
the Katy Freeway HOV lane in Houston was being underutilized. To allow the perfect
balance on the HOT lane, TxDot deployed QuickRide. With the RFID- enabled
QuickRide, users with two occupants can pay a toll of $ 2.00 to use the HOT lane. Road
users with three or more occupants still ride free. 51
All in all the surge of existing HOT lanes and potential HOT lanes demonstrates the
success of the HOT lane concept. With HOT lanes, no longer are HOV lanes
50 Orange County Transportation Authority. SR 91 Current Traffic and Revenue Information. 2006
< http:// www. 91expresslanes. com/ learnabout/ trafficrevenue. asp>. . ( Accessed 31 May 2007.)
51 Perez, Benjamin and Gian- Claudia Sciara. " A Guide for HOT Lane Development." Research Report
FHWA- OP- 03- 009. 2003.
31
underutilized. Furthermore, administrators can monitor traffic flow and make changes to
a HOT lane system to ensure the HOT lane’s continued value to commuters.
2.4 Homeland Security – e- Passport
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the U. S. Congress passed the Real ID Act. This
act requires states and the Federal Government to meet strict guidelines in designing and
issuing identifications such as driver’s licenses and passports. The act originally set May
11, 2007, as a deadline for U. S. Government Entities to meet the requirements of this
law, but the deadline has since been delayed to December 2009.52 The law also stipulates
that IDs be machine- readable. However no clarification is
given on what this entails.
In part because of the Real ID Act, the U. S. State Department
began issuing e- Passports that include RFID ( see Figure 21).
The RFID is supposed to promote higher security by cutting
down on human error on the part of immigration officials.
With an e- Passport, an immigration official could simply
wave an e- Passport past a special RFID reader and then all of
the passport holder’s information would show up on a moni-tor.
Everything, from a picture of the traveler to the traveler’s
date of birth, can be seen with a single scan. On the surface
this would make the e- Passport even more difficult to forge.
For instance an e- Passport’s photo couldn’t simply be cut out
and replaced. Also RFID passports could help streamline the
customs process with less paperwork that needs to be retain-ed
by immigration officials. Immigration officials would also
be able to have a more organized, more searchable database
of travelers entering and exiting the country.
However, several concerns about the RFID passports have been raised before and after
the RFID passport reached the hands of U. S. citizens. One concern is that an RFID
passport could be “ skimmed,” or read by someone remotely. This could be used by
individuals to target the location of tourists in another country, or it could be used to steal
a traveler’s identity. 53 U. S. State Department officials have countered that the new e-
Passports are encrypted so that information can not simply be read by anyone. But
privacy advocates predict that the new passports will eventually be hacked or passport
databases worldwide could be the subject of hacking. In one demonstration in August
2006 a German security expert demonstrated how he could clone an e- Passport. The
expert believed he could use the cloned e- Passport profile to assume the identity of a
52 Stuckey, Mike. " Privacy Lost: Where Rubber Meets the Road in Privacy Debate." 20 October 2006.
MSNBC. < http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/ 15130989/>. ( Accessed 20 April 2007.)
53 Zappone, Christian. " Technologists Object to U. S. RFID Passports." 13 July 2006. CNN Money.
http:// cnnmoney. printthis. clickability. com/ pt/ cpt? action= cpt& title= Technologists+ object+ to+ U. S.+ RFID+
( Accessed 1 May 2007.)
Figure 21 ‐ Example of an RFID
passport, designated by the chip‐looking
insignia below the words
" United States of America."
32
traveler relatively easily. 54 It remains to be seen whether this technology may be
exploited in the future.
Privacy experts’ worries about the e- Passport reveal potentially dangerous holes in any
RFID system that broadcasts private data. Despite no major problems being reported as
of yet, RFID technology in passports has only been around in the United States since the
spring of 2006. The fact is that RFID signals can easily be picked up by anybody that has
a reader. As a CNN report suggests, “ The equipment needed to skim an RFID chip
neither has to be large nor expensive. Nokia sells cell phones capable of reading RFID
chips. Texas Instruments sells kits to do the same thing.” 55 An important element of a
statewide EVR technology should be that no sensitive information ( i. e. the owner’s name
and information) be stored on an EVR. The EVR should only broadcast information that
can be seen on the plate ( the license plate number, expiration date, etc). It should be the
job of a network database to identify any sensitive information about a vehicle. This
would greatly reduce the risk of EVRs becoming a source for identity thieves.
2.5 Conclusion
The literature has shown both the cost and benefits of implementing an array of RFID
applications around the world. The findings of these implementations should be carefully
considered when designing an RFID system to support the needs of the state of Arizona.
The next step of this research is to take the information learned from the literature review
and then apply it directly to the state of Arizona.
54 Stuckey, Mike. " Privacy Lost: Where Rubber Meets the Road in Privacy Debate." 20 October 2006.
MSNBC. < http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/ 15130989/>. ( Accessed 20 April 2007.)
55 Zappone, Christian. " Technologists Object to U. S. RFID Passports." 13 July 2006. CNN Money.
< http:// cnnmoney. printthis. clickability. com/ pt/ cpt? action= cpt& title= Technologists+ object+ to+ U. S.+ RFID
+ passports+-+ Jul.+ 13% 2C+ 2006& expire=-
1& urlID= 18841767& fb= Y& url= http% 3A% 2F% 2Fmoney. cnn. com% 2F2006% 2F07% 2F13% 2Fpf% 2Frfid
_ passports% 2F& partnerID= 2200>. ( Accessed 1 May 2007.)
33
Chapter 3
The Benefits of an EVR or ALPR System
Analyzing the potential benefits of an EVR or ALPR system is the purpose of this
section, as well as applying those potential benefits to the State of Arizona. This section
will focus not only on the benefits relating to the AzDOT but also on potential benefits to
the local society and to the commercial community.
3.1 Benefits to AzDOT
3.1.1 Monitor Traffic Flow
Currently AzDOT measures traffic flow, like many DOTs, to assist in future road plan-ning
and so that proper federal and state funding can be allocated toward Arizona roads.
AzDOT uses several methods; these methods include the use of loops, tubes, and acoustic
pads. Loops on a given highway are the most common traffic flow monitoring mechan-ism
that is currently in use. In a loop, two wires are placed under a road or highway about
18 feet apart. As a car drives over the first and second loop, the vehicle is counted be-cause
the vehicle disturbs the magnetic field between the loops. The loop also can detect
what type of vehicle ( say a car or a commercial truck) passed through and in which lane
the vehicle was driven. One problem with this technology is that it’s not always accurate.
The loop system requires somewhat constant maintenance and frequently breaks or
malfunctions. If these malfunctions result in slightly fewer cars being counted sometimes,
it can be harder for AzDOT to detect the malfunction in the system. Also in the loop
system, cars that switch lanes in the 18 feet between the two loops are not counted.
AzDOT also uses tubes to calculate traffic flow on less busy roads. In this mechanism
air- filled tubes are placed underneath a given road and the tube mechanism can sense the
pulse of vehicles driving over it. The reason air tubes are used more on lower volume
roads is because they can’t take the constant high- speed use of a busy highway or the
heavy traffic of vehicles on a major freeway. The air tube mechanisms seem to have the
same downfalls in terms of their reliability.
The counting method AzDOT uses the least involves the use of acoustical pads above a
given road. The pad uses the acoustical vibrations given off by cars to count the number
of cars that pass the system. One problem with this mechanism is that it has to be
constantly calibrated. The pads must be set for either free- flow traffic or busy traffic.
Otherwise, counts from the acoustical mechanism can be inaccurate.
The consensus among several traffic engineers at AzDOT was that the loop system was
the most accurate system currently in use. That being said, correction factors and graph
smoothing software is utilized to make an educated correction of data collected from all
mechanisms used. These corrections typically attempt to take into account errors that
include cars not being counted, a counting mechanism going completely down, and
unusually recorded datasets. AzDOT engineers currently estimate that a good dataset is
roughly 5 percent off the actual count of cars ( plus or minus 5 percent). It’s arguable that
5 percent off is a significant amount of error. This has led AzDOT to look for other non-intrusive
ways to monitor traffic flow. In the next few months, one way in which AzDOT
34
is looking to fill this need is with the use of lasers. Lasers could perhaps give a more
accurate picture of traffic flow.
One potential benefit of an EVR or ALPR system is that the flow of traffic could be
measured more accurately. In the instance of an ALPR system, every time a car would
pass by one of the cameras the car’s license plate would be read. If cameras were
positioned over every lane of traffic at any point of interest on the highway, an accurate
traffic flow analysis could be taken. For every plate that is read, a tally could be taken to
monitor the traffic flow during all hours of the day with little human interaction being
necessary. One obstacle with the ALPR system is that, as reported earlier in the literature
review, in London the accuracy of an ALPR system is around 70- 80 percent. New and
improved ALPR systems are more accurate, they recognize about 90 percent of vehicles
in a single pass. 56 When it comes to attempting to monitor traffic flow, the accuracy of
reading the plate is not important; however, if the tally counted anything that it attempted
to read, the tally might become inflated. This is because, as reported in London, the
ALPR system will sometimes pick up other text from vehicles such as bumper stickers.
Furthermore, vehicles changing lanes when passing through the cameras might not be
counted. In order for an ALPR system to monitor traffic flow accurately, the system
would have to be calibrated and monitored at least initially.
Instead of an ALPR system an EVR system would be much more accurate if imple-mented.
London’s trials of the EVR system reported an accuracy rate of 99.55 percent.
Possible sources of error in an EVR system could be drivers having a faulty RFID
transmitter, drivers tampering with and damaging an RFID transmitter, or by vehicles
with plates without RFID chips passing the RFID sensor ( without being counted). If the
RFID transmitter were embedded in the license plate, removing the RFID transmitter
would be more difficult. If the RFID transmitter were displayed on the windshield, the
driver would more easily be able to remove the transmitter. One weakness of the RFID
system is that it’s not able to produce data regarding what lanes vehicles traveled on. One
positive of an RFID system would be the low cost of placing RFID sensors at points of
interest. RFID sensors could easily be mobile and set up at temporary points of interest.
It seems error is inherently present in all mechanisms that are used to monitor traffic
flow. It’s hard to say without a doubt, without empirical evidence, that an EVR or ALPR
system would improve the monitoring of traffic flow. However, if an ALPR system or
EVR system were implemented, perhaps the best decision in terms of traffic monitoring
is to utilize older methods such as loops in conjunction with the EVR or ALPR system.
This would produce a more accurate picture of traffic flow and give traffic engineers at
AzDOT more data to work with. Data missed by an EVR system due to an out- of- state
plate would probably be picked up by the loops. These technologies working together
work similarly to how the RFID and ALPR system work together on ETR 407. Two data
sets could also lead to more accurate correction factors for the data. Another advantage of
two monitoring systems is that if one of the two monitoring systems went down, the other
could still collect the data. This would reduce the number of holes in the continuous
monitoring of the data.
56 Evens, Jeremy and Dan Firth. " Transport for London, Congestion Charging Technology Trials, Stage 1
Results." 12th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems. San Francisco: ITS America, 2005.
35
3.1.2 Unpaid License and Registration
Unregistered vehicles are a costly problem for AzDOT. An estimated 200,000 vehicles
are unregistered in Arizona. 57 A separate report estimates that 4 percent of Arizona
residents don’t register their vehicles, resulting in a loss of $ 25 million in tax revenue per
year. 58 The noncompliance losses are the result of many factors including: the high rate
of the vehicle license tax, the high number of winter visitors in Arizona, Arizona’s lack
of a grace period to register vehicles, and the difficulty of enforcement. The current prot-ocol
to encourage citizens to register their vehicles involves issuing registration stickers
to those that register their vehicle. The sticker identifies the expiration date of the current
registration, and drivers are notified via mail when their registration is set to expire.
Vehicle owners can then renew their registration by mail, by phone, or via the Internet.
When law enforcement visually sees a license plate that has an expired registration tag,
the car is subject to being stopped and ticketed. The tickets can vary greatly, depending
on the municipality involved where the unregistered vehicle is cited. In the city of
Tempe, the fine for not having a valid registration is $ 586; however, if the noncompliant
driver registers his/ her car before appearing in court, the fine is reduced to $ 136.
Regardless of being ticketed, if a resident of Arizona fails to renew his/ her registration,
AzDOT charges an additional $ 8 for the first month late, and then $ 4 for each additional
month. This could result in late fees of $ 52 for a year of noncompliance.
An EVR or ALPR system would help issue citations to those not in compliance with
registration laws. These systems would work similar to a red light camera. After a vehicle
is detected to have an expired Arizona tag, a citation could be automatically issued and
mailed to the motorist. The ALPR system could also alert law enforcement so that the
noncompliant could be stopped by a patrol officer. This option would be necessary if it is
unclear that an individual is in fact an Arizona resident. Current laws require that there be
proof that someone is a resident before a ticket can be issued for failure to register a vehi-cle.
Current Arizona law states that an individual must live in Arizona seven months out
of the year to be considered a resident who is required to pay Arizona vehicle registration
taxes. An ALPR or EVR system would be able to keep logs of when a particular vehicle
has been spotted. This could aid in issuing citations to those that claim to not be Arizona
residents when really they are residents according to the law. The software behind the
ALPR or EVR system could be designed to flag vehicles with out- of- state plates that are
suspected to be owned by residents. This could be very useful in increasing compliance
since the largest problem in enforcing registration laws is identifying would- be residents.
A positive side effect of reducing the number of unregistered vehicles in Arizona, would
be a reduction in the number of vehicles that are not compliant with Arizona’s emissions
standards. Currently in Arizona, a vehicle must pass emissions tests on a periodic basis
depending on how old the vehicle is. Passing vehicle emissions is a condition that must
be met prior to a vehicle’s Arizona registration being renewed. Therefore, a registered
vehicle is always in compliance with emissions laws. By reducing the number of
57 Olsen, Jeremy. " Arizona House Bill 2443." Representative J. P. Weiers, 2007.
58 Windtberg, Mark., & Bain, Andrew. Options for Improving Compliance with Vehicle Registration Laws.
Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation. 2004.
36
unregistered vehicles, the state would also be reducing the number of vehicles that may
not comply with Arizona emissions standards.
Predicting the long term effectiveness of an ALPR or EVR system in regard to vehicle
registration is difficult as there are many variables that go into noncompliance. An ALPR
or EVR system would definitely increase the number of citations issued, which, at a
minimum, would help recover the cost of noncompliance. Fine structures like the ones in
the city of Tempe that give greater incentives to comply with registration laws would also
aid in increasing the rate of compliance.
3.1.3 Insurance Compliance
Similar to registration compliance, drivers driving without insurance is another problem
facing Arizona. The Insurance Research Council’s ( IRC) 2006 report estimates Arizona’s
uninsured rate to be 22 percent, which is the fifth highest uninsured rate by a state in the
United States. 59 The IRC’s previous report from 2000 estimated Arizona’s uninsured rate
to be 16 percent. AzDOT’s Motor Vehicle Division ( MVD) estimates that roughly 11
percent of registered drivers are uninsured. Based on this data it is likely that the
uninsured motorist rate in Arizona is somewhere between 11 percent and 22 percent. The
11 percent to 22 percent estimated uninsured rate implies that there may be as many as
500,000 to 1,000,000 motorists without insurance driving some of the 4,556,448
registered private vehicles in Arizona. 60 The number of uninsured drivers may have
dropped more recently due to Arizona State Senate Bill 1420 being signed into law in
April 2005. The law went into effect 90 days after the end of the 2005 legislative session.
The law requires that an uninsured driver’s vehicle must be towed and impounded for at
least 30 days if it is involved in an accident. Also a mandatory $ 500 fine is imposed on
uninsured drivers that are involved in accidents. The IRC can not yet calculate the effect
of this legislation on uninsured driving. The IRC’s 2006 report used data from 2002.
Despite this possible step forward in reducing the number of uninsured drivers, uninsured
drivers cost insured drivers a lot of money. One source estimates that uninsured vehicle
crashes cost U. S. victims $ 27 billion annually. 61 This estimate is based on a figure from
the National Safety Council estimating that $ 192 billion in damages result from U. S.
vehicle crashes annually, and 14 percent of drivers nationwide are uninsured. Based on
the number of registered vehicles estimated by the Federal Highway Administration, 200
million, the cost of uninsured drivers per registered driver per year is approximately
$ 135.
Using this same methodology with Arizona’s estimated uninsured rate of 11 percent to 22
percent, along with the AzDOT’s 2005 Crash Statistics, produces staggering numbers.
AzDOT’s 2005 Crash Statistics estimate that $ 3,421,034,916 in total economic losses
were a result of the crashes that occurred in Arizona in 2005. If 11 percent of these
59 Insurance Research Council. “ Uninsured Drivers Increasing; Vary by State; Miss. Highest, Maine
Lowest.” Insurance Journal http:// www. insurancejournal. com/ news/ national/ 2006/ 06/ 28/ 69919. htm
( Accessed 15 September 2007.)
60 Arizona Department of Transportation. " Arizona Motor Vehicle Crash Facts." 2006. Arizona Department
of Transportation. < http:// www. azdot. gov/ mvd/ Statistics/ crash/ PDF/ 05crashfacts. pdf>.
61 Roth, G. J.. Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Roads. Transaction
Publishers. 2006.
37
economic losses were uninsured, the total cost of uninsured drivers in Arizona could be
as high as $ 376,313,841. If 22 percent of these economic losses were uninsured, the total
cost of uninsured drivers in Arizona could be as high as $ 752,627,682. The Arizona
Crash Statistics report also says that there were 4,556,448 registered vehicles in Arizona
in 2005. Therefore, the cost of uninsured crashes in Arizona per registered vehicle is
between $ 82.59 and $ 165.18 annually.
There are many potential reasons that can be cited for Arizona’s high uninsured rate. One
that is more unique to southern states is the issue of immigration. In 1999, 9.9 million
vehicles with more than 25.2 million passengers crossed the Mexico- United States border
into Arizona. 62 This figure does not include illegal aliens. In order to get insurance one
must have a driver’s license, in order to have a driver’s license in Arizona one must prove
residency and be a U. S. citizen. Therefore it is impossible for illegal aliens behind the
wheel to comply with Arizona laws requiring drivers to have insurance. States such as
California have long considered allowing illegal aliens to apply for driver’s licenses.
Supporters of such a measure claim that giving licenses to illegal aliens would make the
roads safer as they would have to pass a driver’s test and would increase the number of
illegal aliens that have insurance. Opponents of such a measure claim that by giving illegal
aliens driver’s licenses, you are in fact giving government approval of an illegal alien’s
status. Even if illegal i