Office of Operations Freight Management and Operations
Table of Contents

Measuring Border Delay and Crossing Times at the U.S.–Mexico Border—Part II
Step-by-Step Guidelines for Implementing a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) System to Measure Border Crossing and Wait Times

PROJECT PLANNING

Key Steps in Planning a Project to Deploy the RFID-Based Border Crossing Time and Wait Time Measurement System

This section describes key planning-related steps to be undertaken by an implementing agency seeking to deploy an RFID-based border crossing time and wait time measurement system at U.S.–Mexico border crossings. The purpose of this section is not to guide the agency with detailed pre-procurement planning activities but rather to focus on key issues that need to be addressed before the agency decides to procure the project. Key steps in planning an RFID-based border crossing time and wait time measurement system project are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Flowchart. Key steps in planning an RFID-based border crossing time and wait time measurement system project. Step 1 is to identify regional needs for deploying the system. Step 2 is to define the goals and objectives of the system. Step 3 is to identify funding sources that allow installation of equipment on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Step 4 is to identify appropriate procurement techniques. Step 5 is to apply systems engineering processes.
Figure 2. Key steps in planning an RFID-based border crossing time and wait time measurement system project.

Identifying Regional Needs

The success of any project is dependent on support from its stakeholders, who need to be convinced that there is a strong need for a system to measure border crossing and wait times. Even though the region may have already included such a project in its short- and long-term formal planning process, it is strongly recommended that the region obtain buy-in from key stakeholders to deploy such a system. A statement defining the needs of the stakeholders acts as a blueprint for subsequent activities related to procurement and deployment of the system.

The implementing agency can identify the need to measure performance of border crossings through the following:

  • Ad-hoc and formal meetings with high-level decision makers.
  • Discussions with key stakeholders, especially Federal and State agencies, trade groups, shipper and carrier trade associations, and industry.
  • Past studies related to the impact of high crossing and wait times on the local, regional, and national economy.
  • Observed trends such as growth in volume of northbound trucks and anecdotal values of wait times and delay at the border crossings.

By measuring performance of border crossings, the region can undertake the following:

  • Quantify the impact of long crossing and wait times on local, regional, and national trade and economy.
  • Plan, program, and develop border crossing and surrounding infrastructure that feeds into the border crossings to reduce long crossing and wait times.
  • Provide traveler information to motorists, shippers, and freight carriers regarding current conditions at and around border crossings.

Using Regional Intelligent Transportation System and Border Information Flow Architecture

Many border regions have developed regional intelligent transportation system (ITS) architectures, which provide a framework to support planning and programming of ITS projects in the region. The architecture can also be used for a variety of border-crossing-related systems. Before using the regional ITS architecture, it is prudent to identify portions in the architecture that are relevant to the project. These include market packages, inventory elements, information flows, and functional requirements. In the absence of a regional ITS architecture, agencies can refer to concepts used in the border information flow architecture (BIFA) as a framework for identifying stakeholders, system requirements, and other key information (4).

Identifying Project Goals and Objectives

It is important to use a top-down approach along with successive refinement of the set of goals and objectives of the project, envisioned solutions, and stakeholder expectations, because the ultimate goal is to create a system widely accepted by the stakeholders. Thus, the goal of the project needs to be broad enough to allow successive refinement and allow future expansion based on changing needs of the stakeholders in the region.

For example, the project’s goal could be something similar to the following: The goal of the project is to plan, design, deploy, operate, and maintain a system to measure, relay, and archive crossing and wait times of commercial vehicles crossing the international ports of entry on the U.S.–Mexico border. Objectives of the project would then include specifics that are derived from the project’s goal. For example, objectives of the project would include the following:

  • Plan, design and deploy an RFID-based border crossing time and wait time measurement system at key locations on both the U.S. and Mexico side of the border.
  • Archive crossing and wait time data for applications related to planning, decisionmaking, and research.
  • Relay current and predicted crossing and wait time information to the public, freight carriers, local media, shippers, and so forth.
  • Measure performances of border crossings in terms of efficient and reliable movement of commercial vehicles.
  • Operate, maintain, and expand the system for the benefit of regional stakeholders.

Identifying Sources of Funding

Several sources are available for border regions to obtain funds to deploy border wait time measurement systems. It is imperative that these funding sources allow installation of infrastructure on both sides of the U.S.–Mexico border by allowing the implementing agency to contract with counterpart agencies from the other side of the border. The objective of these guidelines is not to provide guidance on how to obtain funding but to point out various funding sources available. It is useful to refer to Web sites of these funding sources and have discussions with individuals (either within their organization or from outside) who have had prior experience obtaining funds from these sources. Also, it is important to be aware of the possibility that one or more funding sources may not be available in the future. Hence, this document is neither a definitive list nor a predictor of funding sources for undertaking ITS projects at international border crossings.

The Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program

The Coordinated Border Infrastructure (CBI) program is a formula grant program whose purpose is to improve the safe movement of motor vehicles at and across U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico (5). Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) program, a total of $833 million is authorized to be distributed by formula to States.

States may use funds in a border region, defined as any portion of a border State within 100 mi of an international land border with Canada or Mexico, for the following types of improvements to facilitate/expedite cross-border motor vehicle and cargo movements:

  • Improvements to existing transportation and supporting infrastructure.
  • Construction of highways and related safety and safety enforcement facilities related to international trade.
  • Improvements to operations, including those related to electronic data interchange and use of telecommunications.
  • Modifications to regulatory procedures.
  • International coordination of transportation planning, programming, and border operation with Canada and Mexico.

A border State may use these funds to construct a project in Canada or Mexico if the project directly and predominantly facilitates cross-border vehicle and cargo movement at an international POE in the border region of the State. Canada and Mexico must assure that the project is constructed to standards equivalent to those in the United States and is maintained and used over the useful life of the facility only for the purpose for which the funds are being allocated.

Regional Mobility Authorities

Regional mobility authorities (RMAs) are political subdivisions formed by one or more counties to finance, acquire, design, construct, operate, maintain, expand, or extend transportation projects (6). RMAs were created and operate under the Texas Transportation Code Chapter 370 and are authorized under the State law to implement a wide range of transportation systems including roadways, airports, land ports, sea ports, and transit services. RMAs also have the authority to undertake projects in Mexico and enter into contracts with other governmental entities in the United States.

In essence, RMAs are not a direct source of funds but are institutions with the authority to request funds from various State and Federal sources to construct projects in Mexico. However, RMAs may acquire, construct, operate, maintain, expand, or extend a transportation project into another State or Mexico if:

  • A city that borders Mexico has a population of 500,000 or more and has the same authority as a county to create an RMA.
  • Political subdivisions where the project is to be located approve of the RMA action.
  • The RMA member county/city receives significant transportation benefits.
  • The county of another State/Mexico is adjacent to the RMA county/city where the project is being developed.
  • The Texas governor approves project development.

By law, RMAs require authorization from the Texas Transportation Commission to enter into a contract with Mexico.

The North American Development Bank

The North American Development Bank (NADB) and its sister institution, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), were created under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to address environmental issues in the U.S.–Mexico border region. The two institutions initiated operations under the November 1993 Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank (the “Charter”).

The purpose of the North American Development Bank is to provide financing endorsed by the United States and Mexico, as appropriate, for community adjustment and investment in support of the purposes of NAFTA.

The NADB provides financial assistance to public and private entities involved in developing environmental infrastructure projects in the border region. Potable water supply, wastewater treatment, and municipal solid waste management form the core sectors of the bank’s activities and are its primary focus. However, assistance can also be provided in other areas—such as air quality, clean energy, and hazardous waste—where sponsors are able to demonstrate tangible health and/or environmental benefits for residents living in the area. Eligible communities must be located within 100 km (about 62 mi) north of the international boundary in the four U.S. States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and within 300 km (about 186 mi) south of the border in the six Mexican States of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Baja California.

State Planning and Research Program

The State Planning and Research Program (SP&R) is authorized by Title 23, USC and is regulated under 23 CFR Part 420.2 SAFETEA-LU requires that States set aside 2 percent of the apportionments they receive from the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation, Highway Bridge, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, and Equity Bonus programs for the State’s planning and research activities. Of this amount, States must allocate 25 percent for research, development, and technology. These activities involve researching new areas of knowledge, adapting findings to practical applications by developing new technologies, and transferring these technologies via the process of dissemination, demonstration, training, and adoption of innovations by users.

TxDOT has in the past funded deployment of RFID-based border crossing time and wait time measurement systems in Laredo and Brownsville through its SP&R funds. FHWA has allowed TxDOT to use the SP&R funds to deploy RFID-based border crossing time and wait time measurement systems in lieu of CBI program funds and reimburse 100 percent of the project cost. This has eliminated the need for TxDOT to seek a 20 percent match from a local funding source, which is a key requirement under the CBI program.

Identifying an Appropriate Procurement Method

The successful procurement of ITS is a challenging task for State and local transportation agencies. The procurement process must be flexible enough to accommodate the uncertainties of complex system acquisitions but at the same time structured enough to ensure that the responsibilities of the participants are fully defined and their interests are protected (7) Although there are several options for procuring ITS projects, some options are more appropriate than others. For more information on procuring ITS projects, the reader is encouraged to refer to the Guide to Contracting ITS Projects—NCHRP 560. (7) This guide presents a decision model that helps agencies identify the most appropriate procurement options depending on complexity and risks associate with the ITS project. The procurement process includes four dimensions: work distribution, method of award, contract form, and contract type, which are illustrated in Figure 3 . A typical procurement process includes choosing an appropriate method of selecting a contractor and consultants, selecting a method of award, forming a contract, and selecting the type of contract. However, an agency needs to customize its procurement process based on its legal, technical, and institutional constraints.

Figure 3. Organizational chart. Four dimensions of a procurement process. Procurement has four dimensions. The first dimension is work distribution, which includes low-bid contractor, systems manager, systems integrator, design build (DB) and operate maintain (OM), commodity (commercial-off-the-shelf), consultant services, and services. The second dimension is method of award, which includes low bid, negotiated, sole source, and best value. The third dimension is contract form, which includes phased, task order, and purchase order. The fourth dimension is contract type, which includes fixed price, cost reimbursable, incentive, and time and materials.
Figure 3. Four dimensions of a procurement process.

Applying the Systems Engineering Process

According to the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), systems engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems. It focuses on defining customer needs and required functionality early in the development cycle, documenting requirements, and then proceeding with design synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem.

Systems engineering integrates all the disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort, forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation. Systems engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs.

The primary benefit of systems engineering is that it reduces the risk of schedule and cost overruns. Other benefits include the following:

  • Better system documentation.
  • Higher level of stakeholder participation.
  • System functionality that meets stakeholders’ expectations.
  • Potential for shorter project cycles.
  • Systems that can evolve with a minimum of redesign and cost.
  • Higher level of system reuse.
  • More predictable outcomes from projects.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) recognized the potential benefit of the systems engineering approach for ITS projects and included requirements for a systems engineering analysis in the FHWA Rule/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Policy that was enacted in 2001. The Rule/Policy requires systems engineering to be performed for ITS projects that use funds from the Highway Trust Fund (8) Many different process models have been developed over the years that specify a series of steps that make up the systems engineering approach. Among these models, the “V” model, shown in Figure 4, has emerged as a de facto standard way to represent systems engineering for ITS projects.

Figure 4. Diagram. 'V' model diagram. The V diagram represents systems engineering for intelligent transportation systems, and shows a timeline with lifecycle processes, decomposition and definition, development processes, integration and recomposition, and then the end of the processes. Lifecycle processes include regional architecture(s) and feasibility study/concept exploration. The downward part of the V is decomposition and definition, which include concept of operations, system requirements, high-level design, and detailed design (with document/approval after each). The lower part of the V is the development processes, which include software/hardware development, field installation, and implementation. The upward part of the V is integration and recomposition, which include unit/device testing, subsystem verification, system verification and deployment, and system validation (with document/approval after each). The end of the V includes operations and maintenance, changes and upgrades, and retirement/replacement. Concept of operations is tied to system validation through the system validation plan. System requirements are tied to system verification and deployment through the system verification plan (system acceptance). High-level design is tied to subsystem verification through the subsystem verification plan (subsystem acceptance). Detailed design is tied to unit/device testing through the unit/device test plan.
Figure 4. "V" model diagram.

Even when the project is not be funded by the Highway Trust Fund, it is strongly recommended that agencies use the systems engineering approach throughout the life of the project and also require its vendor/contractor/systems integrator to use the approach. Even though the intent of this document is not to provide detailed steps for using the systems engineering approach, subsequent sections describe key steps shown in the “V” diagram. Agencies have the flexibility to elongate left and right wing portions of the “V” diagram according to their unique conditions.

Evaluation Questionnaire

The implementing agency should prepare a list of questionnaire that should be considered prior to undertaking next steps for analyzing feasibility for an RFID based system to measure wait times and crossing times of trucks. A recommended list of evaluation questionnaire is as following:

  • Is there a broad consensus among the stakeholders that long wait times at the border are a major concern?
  • Have the stakeholders expressed need for a reliable system to measure crossing and wait times of vehicles at the border?
  • Are the stakeholders aware of ITS deployment technologies at the border, especially which parameters can be collected using which technology?
  • Have you identified funding sources? Is a funding source limited due to the fact that some field devices have to be installed in a different country?
  • Have you identified how the system will be operated and maintained in the future?
  • Have you assessed your agency’s readiness in procuring and deploying ITS?
  • Have you decided which strategy you will use to procure the system (e.g., request for proposal for a turnkey project or use of a system integrator)?

2 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/general/spr/legsregs.cfm ↑

previous | next