View By Application

Electronic Payment & Pricing


Electronic payment systems employ various communication and electronic technologies to facilitate commerce between travelers and transportation agencies, typically for the purpose of paying tolls and transit fares. Pricing refers to charging motorists a fee or toll that varies with the level of demand or with the time of day.


Develop a detailed cardholder recruitment plan in the planning phase of the project, to provide guidance on processes to set pricing, and to ensure high user involvement and loyalty.(8/1/2004)

Seek assurances from your suppliers and sub-contractors, that their production and manufacturing schedules will meet your project schedule and inventory requirements throughout the lifecycle of the project.(8/1/2004)

Establish a forum for decision-makers and project managers to come together to receive project updates, work through critical project issues, make decisions, and support successful institutional collaboration in a project involving multiple agencies.(8/1/2004)

Provide for large sample sizes when conducting before/after data collection efforts, to avoid impacting the ability to reveal statistically significant differences during the evaluation's statistical analysis.(8/1/2004)

Include significant planning and development time in the overall project schedule to accommodate identifying and addressing the various compatibility issues, to integrate existing legacy system equipment across multiple agencies.(8/1/2004)

Implement smart parking systems at sites that experience high parking demand, are located close to a major freeway or arterial, and are configured to accommodate parking sensors at entrances and exits to promote accurate parking counts.(June 2008)

Identify key design issues in the deployment of advanced parking management systems (APMS).(January 2007)

Involve all appropriate stakeholders in a formal and collaborative manner during each phase of the advanced parking management systems (APMS) project.(January 2007)

Consider the impact of different technical and design factors when making cost estimates for advanced parking management systems (APMS).(January 2007)

Ensure proper operations and maintenance of advanced parking management systems (APMS)(January 2007)

Continue to promote carpooling and transit services during an incremental deployment of Express Toll lanes.(03/21/2014)

Continually monitor effect of tolls on traveler behavior to maintain operational livelihood.(January 21, 2011)

Recognize that reducing congestion is at least as important as revenue generation for implementing congestion pricing or managed lanes.(April 2009)

Provide early outreach and education to elected officials, decision makers, key stakeholders, and the public about managed lanes and variable tolls. (April 2009)

Engage local operations, traffic control center and maintenance staff in the planning process for managed lanes and congestion pricing projects.(April 2009)

Incorporate managed lanes and congestion pricing projects into the metropolitan transportation planning process.(April 2009)

Incorporate managed lanes and congestion pricing projects into the metropolitan transportation planning process.(April 2009)

Be prepared to make policy tradeoffs between HOV incentives and revenue goals when developing managed lanes and congestion pricing projects.(April 2009)

Consider the complexity of the public-private partnerships when implementing managed lanes and congestion pricing projects.(April 2009)

Verify data collection and equipment reliability when implementing mileage-based user fee programs that use smartphones.(02/01/2013)

Verify data collection and equipment reliability when implementing mileage-based user fee programs that use smartphones.(02/01/2013)

Recalibrate parking rate adjustment models when changes to parking policies and regulations may affect non-payment behavior.(11/13/2015)

When implementing congestion pricing, considerations must be made for the impact dynamic tolling will have on travel choice and behavior among a specific region and/or corridor’s travelers.(04/17/2014)

Engage political champions to keep controversial High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane projects on track.(15 December 2011)

Establish contacts early and assure continued communications between planners and stakeholders to promote public and political acceptance of proposed pricing plans.(February 2011)

Continually monitor effect of tolls on traveler behavior to maintain operational livelihood.(January 21, 2011)

Use business and functional requirements to guide technology selection for a road pricing program and understand that the technology selected initially evolves over time.(12/01/2010)

Enforce congestion toll collection and create integration linkages between pricing system and motor vehicle registries to process violations.(12/01/2010)

For successful implementation of a road pricing program, strive for simplicity in policy goals and strong championing of the program by the executive and legislative leaders.(12/01/2010)

Develop public outreach programs based on the cultural and political context of the project location and provide clear, salient, and timely messages about the purpose and benefits of congestion pricing.(12/01/2010)

Develop a statutory and legal framework for as a foundational step for levying road pricing fees and utilizing revenues.(12/01/2010)

Consider stakeholder outreach and education, transport modes that offer an alternative to driving, performance measurement, and area geography with high importance in the planning phase for road pricing programs.(12/01/2010)

Create performance standards for operational effectiveness of a pricing program, define business rules for back-office operations, and refine operations practices based on needs.(12/01/2010)

Be prepared to face the opportunities and challenges posed by political timetables, project deadlines, as well as pricing-equity issues for road pricing procurement and implementation.(12/01/2010)

Understand that while the viability of pricing programs is impacted by political actions, pricing signal is a potential tool for developing a sustainable transportation system.(12/01/2010)

Define clear goals and pay attention to key institutional and technical factors for successful implementation of road pricing programs.(12/01/2010)

Consider advantages of open-source designs and beware of legal challenges in road pricing systems procurement.(12/01/2010)

Beware that schedule and costs of road pricing projects are affected by various factors including legislative outcomes, clarity and specificity of scope, and contracting methods.(12/01/2010)

Grow regional road pricing policies from individual projects and develop modeling tools that reflect a wide range of impacts.(09/13/2010)

Assure public acceptance prior to implementation of electronic congestion pricing solutions.(September 2009)

Package road value-pricing strategies with technology upgrades and conduct extensive outreach that involves champions, stakeholders, and the general public.(August 2008)

Address toll enforcement issues during the initial phase of planning process; with particular attention paid to the legal structure and potential enforcement technologies. (September, 2006)

Evaluate pros and cons of different methods for electronic toll collection.(September, 2006)

Optimize back office tolling operations.(September, 2006)

Consider various toll methods to push traffic demand away from peak hours.(September, 2006)

Consider tolling as a tool for managing travel demand and increasing efficiency, as well as for generating revenue.(2006)

Consider public/private partnerships and unique financing methods as ways to cover costs for managed lanes projects.(2005)

Consider the appropriateness of different lane management strategies.(November, 2004)

Utilize public education and outreach in managed lane projects.(November, 2004)

Consider operational issues of electronic toll collection and enforcement with value pricing projects.(November, 2004)

Engage in comprehensive planning and coordination of managed lanes projects.(November, 2004)

Engage in active management of managed lanes projects.(November, 2004)

Ensure effective public and stakeholder outreach in order to garner support for HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Utilize standard highway project management procedures and tools to successfully implement HOT lane projects.(March 2003)

Set toll prices and vehicle occupancy requirements to maintain favorable travel conditions on HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Ensure that privatization agreements for the management of toll lanes retain the right for the public agency to improve upon or build transportation facilities that may potentially compete with the privatized toll lanes.(December 2000)

Strengthen public acceptance of congestion-based pricing of express lanes by preserving the option to use free lanes, maintaining good levels of service, and prioritizing safety.(December 2000)

Distributing electronic toll collection tags for free is the most effective way to encourage individuals to adopt electronic toll collection and increase use of toll roads in Spain.(November 4, 2017)

Requiring HOT lane users to be subject to visual inspection systems can help quantify and limit the number of occupancy violators in managed lanes.(07/14/2015)

Continue to promote carpooling and transit services during an incremental deployment of Express Toll lanes.(03/21/2014)

Engage political champions to keep controversial High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane projects on track.(15 December 2011)

Grow regional road pricing policies from individual projects and develop modeling tools that reflect a wide range of impacts.(09/13/2010)

Package road value-pricing strategies with technology upgrades and conduct extensive outreach that involves champions, stakeholders, and the general public.(August 2008)

Consider public opinion when implementing tolling or road pricing initiatives.(January 2008)

Address toll enforcement issues during the initial phase of planning process; with particular attention paid to the legal structure and potential enforcement technologies. (September, 2006)

Ensure electronic toll collection systems are interoperable with neighboring toll facilities.(September, 2006)

Evaluate pros and cons of different methods for electronic toll collection.(September, 2006)

Avoid privacy concerns by ensuring that protecting legislation is in place prior to implementing tolling technologies.(September, 2006)

Optimize back office tolling operations.(September, 2006)

Draw on the strengths of complementary relationships between the public and private sectors for successful implementation of ITS projects.(August 2006)

Consider tolling as a tool for managing travel demand and increasing efficiency, as well as for generating revenue.(2006)

Use a flexible approach and accepted techniques for project management.(12/2/2005)

Apply process re-engineering techniques to increase the likelihood of successful ITS deployment.(12/2/2005)

Consider public/private partnerships and unique financing methods as ways to cover costs for managed lanes projects.(2005)

Consider operational issues of electronic toll collection and enforcement with value pricing projects.(November, 2004)

Implement compatible Electronic Toll Collection systems in every state.(October, 2004)

Ensure effective public and stakeholder outreach in order to garner support for HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Utilize standard highway project management procedures and tools to successfully implement HOT lane projects.(March 2003)

Set toll prices and vehicle occupancy requirements to maintain favorable travel conditions on HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Enable and enforce managed lane facilities using various ITS tools.(January 2003)

Use non-proprietary software for ITS projects to ensure compatibility with other ITS components(2001)

Developing a regional fare policy or system requires, at a minimum, analysis of travel patterns, transit market analysis, and review of institutional barriers and challenges.(March 2010)

Anticipate, understand, address and manage the risks associated with fare card technologies and the vendor relationship.(4/14/2006)

Understand the issues, strategies and trade-offs that motivate agencies to join in a regional partnership and provide appropriate support.(4/14/2006)

Plan for greater time and project complexity than expected.(4/14/2006)

Consider a consensus organizational model to help assure support and participation of partners in a regional fare card project.(4/14/2006)

Provide for appropriate legal support services to address the many significant legal issues faced in implementing a regional fare card project.(4/14/2006)

Establish a coordinated fare structure to effectively accommodate differences in fare structures across participating agencies.(4/14/2006)

Examine the contextual factors and carefully manage the associated issues that will determine the success or failure of a regional fare card project.(4/14/2006)

Seek a variety of funding sources to support a regional fare card project, and offer a finance plan that encourages participation.(4/14/2006)

Consider the value of implementing a limited fare pass system initially to serve as an interim experience base for a comprehensive region-wide electronic fare card system.(4/14/2006)

Install an electronic transit card system to enhance rural transit agency performance and coordinate human service transportation between agencies to achieve more efficient services.(9/1/2005)

Anticipate challenges in planning and deploying smart card technology in a rural environment.(9/1/2005)

Develop a detailed cardholder recruitment plan in the planning phase of the project, to provide guidance on processes to set pricing, and to ensure high user involvement and loyalty.(8/1/2004)

Seek assurances from your suppliers and sub-contractors, that their production and manufacturing schedules will meet your project schedule and inventory requirements throughout the lifecycle of the project.(8/1/2004)

Establish a forum for decision-makers and project managers to come together to receive project updates, work through critical project issues, make decisions, and support successful institutional collaboration in a project involving multiple agencies.(8/1/2004)

Provide for large sample sizes when conducting before/after data collection efforts, to avoid impacting the ability to reveal statistically significant differences during the evaluation's statistical analysis.(8/1/2004)

Include significant planning and development time in the overall project schedule to accommodate identifying and addressing the various compatibility issues, to integrate existing legacy system equipment across multiple agencies.(8/1/2004)

Establish a clear understanding among all partners on the level of technical support to be provided by suppliers and integrators, as equipment provided in-kind or at a reduced cost is often provided with minimal technical support.(8/1/2004)

Establish a champion and open communication among stakeholders to help enable regional smart card programs.(9/1/2001)

Establish a pricing structure for the new fare media that makes them competitive with other available fare media.(9/1/2001)

Ensure customer acceptance of new technology.(9/1/2001)

The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) smart parking system field test increased BART trips and resulted in an average of 9.7 fewer vehicle miles traveled and decreased the average commute time by 2.6 minutes.(1 August 2007)

In Central Florida, focus group participants involved in a smart card study using a single card for multiple payment applications indicated that the card provided convenience and improved their transportation experience.(8/1/2004)

A dynamic time-of-day parking meter pricing system in Los Angeles increased revenues by 2.5 percent and lowered the average parking meter rate by $0.19 per hour.(08/31/2015)

Variable Pricing Systems worldwide indicate an increase in transit use and improved travel times and speeds system wide (priced lanes and general purpose lanes).(February 2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

A Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) smart parking system encouraged 30 percent of surveyed travelers to use transit instead of driving alone to their place of work.(June 2008)

Survey data indicate the most popular reason commuters use smart parking is that a parking spot will be available when they need it.(June 2008)

In the Washington, D.C. region, SmarTrip cards used to pay both parking fees and subway fares were considered easy to use and were rated high for usefulness.(25 March 2005)

The Washington, D.C. region Metrorail service required that SmarTrip cards be used to pay for parking at all Metrorail stations increasing the purchase of cards from 8,000 per month to 75,000 per month during the first two months.(25 March 2005)

Deployment of variable rate, all-electronic, open road tolling on SR-520 Bridge near Seattle yielded $55 million of revenue in 2012.(12/02/2014)

After deployment of pricing and electronic tolling on SR 520, travel-time reliability improved by 6 to 13 minutes during peak periods on that route.(12/02/2014)

After tolling the SR 520 Bridge, mean travel speeds increased by over 10 mi/h in both directions during both peak periods.(12/02/2014)

Emissions decreased by 30 to 37.9 percent and fuel consumption decreased by 32.2 percent on the SR 520 bridge after electronic tolling was deployed.(12/02/2014)

Benefits from an initial HOT lanes deployment in Minneapolis St. Paul were maintained in the long term, while a system expansion resulted in fewer benefits, but at a much cheaper cost.(April 2013)

Full deployment of mobility applications may be capable of eliminating more than 1/3rd of the travel delay that is caused by congestion.(12/10/12)

Annual boardings for the I-85 Xpress bus service increased seven percent, more than twice as fast as Xpress bus services in other areas of the city after HOT lanes were implemented to address congestion on I-85 in Atlanta.(16 July 2012)

A mileage-based user fee study in Minnesota generated nearly $38,000 in simulated revenue over six months.(02/01/2013)

A mileage-based user fee study in Minnesota generated nearly $38,000 in simulated revenue over six months.(02/01/2013)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has potential to increase person throughput 14 to 38 percent.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has potential to reduce average travel times 48 to 58 percent.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has projected benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 4:1 to 6:1.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM solution for the I-95/I-395 corridor would cost approximately $7.45 Million per year.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has potential to reduce fuel consumption 33 to 34 percent.(June 2014)

Speeds in general purpose lanes slightly increased with the implementation of HOT lanes.(November 2006)

Enabling connected vehicles to pay for priority at signalized intersections yields a benefit cost of at least 1.0 at 20 percent CV penetration and as much as 3.0 at 10 percent CV penetration when including reduced network delay for all vehicles.(08/01/2015)

Benefit-cost ratio of 6.0:1 obtained from converting high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) to high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, adding Priced Dynamic Shoulder Lane (PDSL), MARQ2 express bus lanes, and other improvements.(January 4, 2013)

During the planned expansion of the I-15 HOT lanes in San Diego a survey of facility users found that 71 percent considered the extension fair with few differences based on ethnicity or income.(February 2011)

Variable Pricing Systems worldwide indicate an increase in transit use and improved travel times and speeds system wide (priced lanes and general purpose lanes).(February 2011)

The conversion of HOV to HOT lanes on I-394 reduced mainline crashes by 5.3 percent.(23-27 January 2011)

Cordon pricing in Stockholm and Milan contributed to transit ridership increases of 4.5 percent and 5.7 percent respectively.(2011)

Navigation systems with eco-routing features can improve fuel economy by 15 percent.(January 2011)

Conversion of HOV to HOT lanes decreases express bus travel time from 25 to 8 minutes, increases bus speeds from 18 to 55 mph, and increases reliability and ridership.(January 2011)

Cordon pricing in Stockholm contributed to a 3.6 percent reduction in crashes.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Cordon pricing contributed to a 14 percent reduction in climate gases in Stockholm and a 14 percent reduction in airborne particulate matter in Milan.(2011)

In Singapore, the Electronic Road Pricing program has enabled maintaining target speeds of 45 to 65 kilometers per hour on expressways and 20 to 30 kilometers per hour on arterials.(12/01/2010)

The Stockholm congestion tax project reduced traffic congestion by 20 percent and vehicle emissions by 10 to 14 percent in the Central Business District.(12/01/2010)

In Germany, vehicle-miles traveled using cleaner trucks (Euro 4 and 5) rose 60 percent from 2 percent in 2005 to over 62 percent in 2009 because of the nationwide heavy-goods-vehicle tolling program.(12/01/2010)

After implementation of the congestion charge in London, the number of vehicles entering the charging zone decreased by 25 percent, travel speeds increased by 30 percent, trip times decreased by 14 percent, and traffic delays plummeted by 25 percent.(12/01/2010)

Conversion of an HOV lane to a HOT lane in Washington State allowed for a 3 to 19 percent increase in speeds in general purpose lanes despite a 2 to 3 percent increase in volumes in the general lanes.(November 19, 2010)

Benefit-to-cost estimates for dynamic pricing applications on freeway shoulder lanes ranged from 1.1 to 8.2.(September 2010)

In Puget Sound, variable tolling on SR-167 made more efficient use of carpool lanes without delaying buses; average speeds in general purpose lanes increased by 21 percent while average speeds in HOT lanes increased by 6 percent.(Winter 2009/2010)

CO2 emissions can be reduced up to 15 percent using in-vehicle performance monitoring systems for Eco-Driver Coaching.(September 16, 2009)

ITS pricing strategies can reduce traffic congestion and enhance the quality of service of buses.(September 2009)

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies that promote integration among freeways, arterials, and transit systems can help balance traffic flow and enhance corridor performance; simulation models indicate benefit-to-cost ratios for combined strategies range from 7:1 to 25:1.(2009)

Early HOV to HOT conversion projects implemented in San Diego saved I-15 FasTrak users up to 20 minutes compared to main line travelers.(August 2008)

In 2007, the Transport for London (TfL) stated that between 2003 and 2006, NOX emissions fell by 17 percent, PM10 by 24 percent and CO2 by 3 percent, with some of this improvement being attributed to the effects of better traffic flow, and the rest of the improvements, a result of improved vehicle technology.(August 2008)

In Puget Sound, planners estimated that the conversion of HOV to HOT on a nine mile section of SR-167 would allow 13 percent more vehicles to travel the SR-167 corridor daily, and increase use of HOV/HOT lanes by 38 percent.(August 2008)

In Denver, soon after the conversion of HOV to HOT lanes on I-25/US-36, 10 to 15 percent of all daily person trips occurred in the HOT lanes, at full highway speeds, while those in the general-purpose lanes experienced stop-and-go congestion.(August 2008)

Since introducing Electronic Road Pricing in the late 90's, Singapore has reduced weekday traffic in the "Restricted Zone" by 24 percent, resulting in an increase in the average speed of 10 kilometers per hour.(August 2008)

In Minneapolis, converting HOV to HOT lanes with dynamic pricing increased peak period throughput by 9 to 33 percent.(August 2008)

In Stockholm the permanent charging program (Cordon Charging) produced improvements in the environment by reducing carbon dioxide by 10 to 14 percent, NOX by 7 percent, and particulates by 9 percent.(August 2008)

In London, the Central Congestion Charging program reduced traffic delays by 25 percent, and increased travel speeds by 30 percent in the zone.(August 2008)

In London in 2006, the Central Congestion Charging program reduced traffic entering the central London charging zone during charging hours by 21 percent.(August 2008)

Recent data in Stockholm shows that the permanent charging program, reintroduced in August 2007, has reduced traffic by 18 percent exceeding the project goal of 10 to 15 percent.(August 2008)

In the Seattle metropolitan area, a network wide variable tolling system reduced the aggregate travel demand of a targeted study group; weekly vehicle miles traveled (VMT) decreased 12 percent and travel time decreased 8 percent.(April 2008)

In the Seattle metropolitan area the net benefits of a network wide variable tolling system could exceed $28 billion over a 30-year period resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 6:1.(April 2008)

Congestion charging in London resulted in pollutant emission reductions: 8 percent for oxides of nitrogen, 7 percent for airborne particulate matter, and 16 percent for carbon dioxide.(July 2007)

A study of the congestion charging scheme in central London found benefits exceeding costs by a ratio of 1.5:1 for a £5 charge and 1.7:1 for an £8 charge.(July 2007)

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, survey data collected prior to the deployment of MnPASS Express Lanes (HOT lanes) on I-394 examined travelers' willingness-to-pay to avoid congestion. (22-26 January 2006)

Survey data collected from an organization of approximately 500 businesses in London indicated that 69 percent of respondents felt that congestion charging had no impact on their business, 22 percent reported positive impacts on their business, and 9 percent reported an overall negative impact.(January 2006)

Congestion pricing in London decreases inner city traffic by about 20 percent and generates more than £97 million each year for transit improvements.(January 2006)

In California, public support for variable tolling on SR91 was initially low, but after 18 months of operations; nearly 75 percent of the commuting public expressed approval of virtually all aspects of the Express Lanes program.(June 2005)

On the Pennsylvania Turnpike, EZ-Pass participation and variable tolling were projected to decrease peak period traffic congestion at urban interchanges by 15 to 20 percent and have minimal impacts on non-turnpike diversion routes.(8 March 2004)

Value pricing has been shown to increase revenue, reduce congestion by maximizing lane capacity and reduce travel time of highway transportation.(27 February 2003)

Impacts of Transit Fare Policy Initiatives Under an Automated Fare System(Summer 2000)

Gross toll revenue of the I-10 ExpressLanes was $8,918,985 and I-110 ExpressLanes was $18,704,961 in the first 16 months of HOT lane operation.(08/31/2015)

Deployment of variable rate, all-electronic, open road tolling on SR-520 Bridge near Seattle yielded $55 million of revenue in 2012.(12/02/2014)

After deployment of pricing and electronic tolling on SR 520, travel-time reliability improved by 6 to 13 minutes during peak periods on that route.(12/02/2014)

After tolling the SR 520 Bridge, mean travel speeds increased by over 10 mi/h in both directions during both peak periods.(12/02/2014)

HOT lane conversion improved travel times during peak periods and influenced 49 percent of new I-85 Xpress bus riders to start using transit.(03/21/2014)

During the planned expansion of the I-15 HOT lanes in San Diego a survey of facility users found that 71 percent considered the extension fair with few differences based on ethnicity or income.(February 2011)

Variable Pricing Systems worldwide indicate an increase in transit use and improved travel times and speeds system wide (priced lanes and general purpose lanes).(February 2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

In Germany, vehicle-miles traveled using cleaner trucks (Euro 4 and 5) rose 60 percent from 2 percent in 2005 to over 62 percent in 2009 because of the nationwide heavy-goods-vehicle tolling program.(12/01/2010)

In Puget Sound, variable tolling on SR-167 made more efficient use of carpool lanes without delaying buses; average speeds in general purpose lanes increased by 21 percent while average speeds in HOT lanes increased by 6 percent.(Winter 2009/2010)

Early HOV to HOT conversion projects implemented in San Diego saved I-15 FasTrak users up to 20 minutes compared to main line travelers.(August 2008)

In Puget Sound, planners estimated that the conversion of HOV to HOT on a nine mile section of SR-167 would allow 13 percent more vehicles to travel the SR-167 corridor daily, and increase use of HOV/HOT lanes by 38 percent.(August 2008)

In Denver, soon after the conversion of HOV to HOT lanes on I-25/US-36, 10 to 15 percent of all daily person trips occurred in the HOT lanes, at full highway speeds, while those in the general-purpose lanes experienced stop-and-go congestion.(August 2008)

In Minneapolis, converting HOV to HOT lanes with dynamic pricing increased peak period throughput by 9 to 33 percent.(August 2008)

In Florida, the addition of Open Road Tolling (ORT) to an existing Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) mainline toll plaza decreased delay by 50 percent for manual cash customers and by 55 percent for automatic coin machine customers, and increased speed by 57 percent in the express lanes.(21-25 January 2007)

In Florida, the addition of Open Road Tolling (ORT) to an existing Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) mainline toll plaza decreased crashes by an estimated 22 to 26 percent.(21-25 January 2007)

Violations fell from 20 percent to 9 percent with implementation of transponder-based electronic tolling(November 2006)

Pre-clearance systems that use interagency coordination to deploy interoperable electronic toll collection (ETC) and electronic screening (E-screening) systems improve the efficiency of motor carrier operations by saving time and money. Interoperable applications incorporated into a single transponder can save carriers between $0.63 to $2.15 per event at weigh stations. (12/2/2005)

Value pricing has been shown to increase revenue, reduce congestion by maximizing lane capacity and reduce travel time of highway transportation.(27 February 2003)

An evaluation of electronic toll collection systems at three major toll plazas outside Baltimore, Maryland indicated these systems reduced environmentally harmful emissions by 16 to 63 percent. (January 2002)

The E-ZPass electronic toll collection system on the New Jersey Turnpike reduced delay for all vehicles by 85 percent saving an estimated 1.2 million gallons of fuel each year and eliminating approximately 0.35 tons of VOC and 0.056 tons NOx per weekday.(August 2001)

Implementation of the E-ZPass electronic toll collection system on the New Jersey Turnpike reduced delay for all vehicles by 85 percent saving approximately 2.1 million hours per year.(August 2001)

In Florida, the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority found that driver uncertainty about congestion at E-PASS toll stations contributed to a 48 percent increase in crashes.(March 2001)

A survey of travelers indicated that 20 percent of motorists traveling on two bridges in Lee County, Florida adjusted their departure times in response to an electronic payment value pricing program that gave motorists a 50 percent discount on bridge tolls during off peak periods.(1-4 May 2000)

During the initial deployment of electronic toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge (1996-1997) there was an increased number of crashes and personal injuries.(March 1999)

In California, electronic toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge decreased annual emissions of Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons.(March 1999)

In California, the time saving benefits of electronic toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge saved travelers more than a million dollars per year.(March 1999)

In California, electronic toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge saved 25,193 hours per year by improving traffic movement through the toll facility and reducing the time required to process transactions.(March 1999)

Impacts of Electronic Toll Collection on Vehicle Emissions(11-15 January 1998)

In Japan, a field test found that conventional toll collection takes an average of 14 seconds per car, while electronic toll collection takes only 3 seconds per car.(October 1997)

On the Tappan Zee Bridge toll plaza, a manual toll lane can accommodate 400 to 450 vehicles per hour while an electronic lane peaks at 1000 vehicles per hour.(5-8 August 1995)

In Europe, ITS evaluation reports show that electronic toll collection can decrease traffic volumes by up to 17 percent.(1994-1998)

A feasibility study for electronic toll collection on the Florida Turnpike indicated that a 10 to 30 percent participation rate would yield benefit-to-cost ratios of 2:1 to 3:1, respectively.(1990)

Transit Smart Card fare payment has ability to significantly reduce time buses spend waiting at bus stops for passengers to board.(08/01/2015)

Bus speeds increase by 29 mph after High Occupancy Toll conversion and opening of Priced Dynamic Shoulder Lanes. (January 4, 2013)

Joint deployment of scheduling software and Automatic Vehicle Location/Mobile Data Terminals (AVL/MDT) increased ridership and quality of service for two rural transit providers.(December 2010)

Smart card technology reduces fare collection transaction time by more than 30 percent.(March 2010)

Data archive warehousing pays for itself in less than 1.4 years and scheduling software saves almost four weeks per year for operations planners.(December 2009)

Implementation of ITS with AVL, real-time passenger information, and electronic fare media in a mid-sized transit system resulted in a minimum 3.9:1 benefit/cost ratio.(July 2009)

Fare collection systems that use electronic tickets or passes can reduce passenger boarding times by 13 percent compared to driver operated systems that require exact change.(February 2009)

Transit users and individual operators enjoy most of the benefits of smart cards, while individual transit operators and multiple agencies bear the majority of the deployment costs.(August, 2008)

Full ITS deployment in Seattle projects personal travel time reductions of 3.7 percent for drivers and 24 percent for transit users.(May 2005)

In the Puget Sound region of Washington State, a fare payment integration system that used joint passes to allow base fares to be transferred between agencies increased the percentage of riders that made transfers.(25 March 2005)

Proof-of-payment systems that use ticket vending/validating machines can reduce boarding times by up to 38 percent.(August 2004)

In Chicago, A CTA survey of smartcard users found that features related to convenience, rail use, and speed were most liked by program participants; 21 percent rated convenience over the magnetic stripe card as their single favorite feature of the system. The most desired features were the multi-use functions and ability to recharge the smartcard via the Internet and credit card.(13-17 January 2002.)

Impacts of Transit Fare Policy Initiatives Under an Automated Fare System(Summer 2000)

In 1996, the project benefits of existing and planned deployments of transit ITS technologies were estimated to yield between $3.8 billion and $7.4 billion (discounted dollars for 1996) within several years.(July 1996)

Based on a travel reduction ordinance requiring Phoenix employers with over 100 employees to reduce single-occupancy commuting trips by 5 percent, the City Public Transport Agency led the development of a Bus Card Plus system and as of 1996, 190 companies participated with a resulting 90 percent of express route fares paid by these bus pass cards.(1996)

Smart card electronic payment systems can increase ridership, decrease fare evasion, and reduce administrative costs.(November 1995)

Transit AVL can improve O&M and reduce operating expenses.(November 1995)

In Manchester, UK, transit smart cards that improve data accuracy and reduce data collection costs saved $1.5 million.(September 1995)

In Arizona, an automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) system has an estimated benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.6 due to improved vehicle registration and insurance compliance.(June 2008)

In Arizona, an electronic vehicle recognition (EVR) system has an estimated benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.03 due to improved vehicle registration and insurance compliance.(June 2008)

The annual operating costs for a parking pricing system in central London averaged $77 million.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

The capital cost to implement a smart parking system having two roadside DMS units, an integrated web-based reservation system, and IVR support was estimated at $205,000(June 2008)

System to support the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority multi-agency electronic fare payment card cost approximately $25.5 million.(February 2004)

Deployment of freeway congestion pricing system in 5 major U.S. metropolitan areas estimated to cost $1.8 billion (13-17 January 2008)

The capital cost to install a next generation transit signal priority system in the Portland area was estimated at $500,000.(06/01/2010)

Minnesota Urban Partnership Agreement project costs total $380 million over a 10-year post-deployment timeframe. (January 4, 2013)

Between 2003 and 2007, annual operating costs and revenues at 15 tolling agencies averaged $85.825 million and $265.753 million, respectively.(2011)

Between 2003 and 2008 operating costs for cordon pricing in European cities ranged from $9.2 million to $238.5 million.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Estimates to implement and operate a comprehensive VMT-based charging system for all road use in the Netherlands by 2016 averaged $2.255 billion and $667.59 million per year, respectively.(2011)

Capital cost estimates to implement MnPASS dynamic pricing on freeway shoulder lanes ranged from $6 million to $23 million per mile.(September 2010)

Annual operating costs for congestion pricing systems can exceed $161,000,000.(September 2009)

In California, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) purchased a four-lane 10-mile long limited access variable toll facility for $207.5 million.(August 2008)

Value pricing projects conducted in three metropolitan areas indicated the costs to convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes ranged from $9 million to $17.9 million.(August 2008)

In the Seattle metropolitan area, a network wide variable tolling system would cost roughly $749 million to implement and $288 million to operate each year.(April 2008)

Cost estimates of operational concepts for converting HOV lanes to managed lanes on I-75/I-575 in Georgia range from $20.9 million to $23.7 million.(April 2006)

London congestion pricing annual O&M costs are estimated at £92 million.(January 2006)

The cost to convert two reversible high-occupancy vehicle lanes on an eight-mile stretch of the Interstate-15 in San Diego to high-occupancy toll lanes was $1.85 million. Evidence also suggests that costs to build new high-occupancy toll lanes are substantially higher, but financially feasible.(Spring 2000)

Transit improvements, carpooling campaign, and HOV to HOT conversion demonstration project cost $70,460,779 for capital and $55,896,725 for ongoing maintenance.(03/21/2014)

Between 2003 and 2007, annual operating costs and revenues at 15 tolling agencies averaged $85.825 million and $265.753 million, respectively.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

I-70 Corridor ITS Study identifies system costs for several technology applications.(June 2010)

In California, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) purchased a four-lane 10-mile long limited access variable toll facility for $207.5 million.(August 2008)

Value pricing projects conducted in three metropolitan areas indicated the costs to convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes ranged from $9 million to $17.9 million.(August 2008)

In Florida, a limited-access tolled expressway featuring express electronic toll collection (ETC) lanes and open road tolling (ORT) cost $237 million.(21-25 January 2007)

In San Diego County, the cost to implement ETC with managed lanes on a 26 mile section of I-5 was estimated at $1.7 million.(April 2006)

In Miami, the cost to implement open road tolling (ORT) on five expressway segments was estimated at $56.5 million.(March 2006)

TMC central hardware costs can exceed $200,000 if regional communications and system integration are required.(5 August 2004)

Operating costs of electronic toll lane is 1/10th that of staffed lane.(1997)

Conversion to card-based electronic payment system for small transit agency costs $380,800.(March 2010)

Transitioning to electronic, card-based transit fare collection system costs $41,999,739 for a large transit provider.(March 2010)

Deployment of an Advanced Public Transit System (APTS) for a mid-size transit system costs $150,000.(July 2009)

Capital costs to implement ITS fare collection systems for bus rapid transit (BRT) ranged from $2 million to $6 million.(February 2009)

Capital costs to implement ITS applications for bus rapid transit (BRT) can vary widely ranging from $100,000 to more than $1,000,000 per mile.(February 2009)

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority installed two fare vending machines—one full service and one cashless—at each of the Logan Airport terminal stops at a total deployment cost of $1.26 million.(1 June 2007)

The projected operating costs for a regional smartcard financial clearing center totaled less than $4 million per year.(6 February 2007)

Driver assist and automation systems can substantially increase the cost of a new bus.(2007)

The cost to implement the ICTransit Card system was estimated at $635,700. (9/1/2005)

The annualized life-cycle costs for full ITS deployment and operations in Tucson were estimated at $72.1 million. (May 2005)

A modeling study evaluated the potential deployment of full ITS capabilities in Cincinnati. The annualized life-cycle cost was estimated at $98.2 million.(May 2005)

The annualized life-cycle costs for full ITS deployment and operations in Seattle were estimated at $132.1 million.(May 2005)

TMC central hardware costs can exceed $200,000 if regional communications and system integration are required.(5 August 2004)

System to support the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority multi-agency electronic fare payment card cost approximately $25.5 million.(February 2004)

The cost to develop the Central Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination Project was estimated at $42.1 million. (29 April 2003)

The cost of the capital infrastructure of the Cape Cod Advanced Public Transit System—which included radio tower upgrades, local area network upgrades, AVL/MDT units (total of 100), and software upgrades—was $634,582.(January 2003)

Electronic fare payment was implemented on 109 buses operated by the Ventura County Transportation Commission for $1.7 million.(13 December 2002)

In Arizona, the estimated cost of a statewide Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system at 55 sites is $9.98 million.(June 2008)

In Arizona, the estimated cost of a statewide Electronic Vehicle Registration (EVR) system using radio frequency identification (RFID) technology is $49.6 million.(June 2008)

Pager service - Capital cost/unit - $55(July 2009)

Voice Recognition System Hardware - Capital cost/unit - $20000(June 2008)

Smart Parking Reservation Website - O&M cost/unit - $1000(June 2008)

Voice Recognition System - Telephone - Capital cost/unit - $125000(June 2008)

Smart Parking Reservation Secure Communication - O&M cost/unit - $1000(June 2008)

Voice Recognition System Software Customization - Capital cost/unit - $20000(June 2008)

Toll plaza structure - Capital cost/unit - $15000 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 8 years(2/4/2013)

Onboard unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $225(2011)

Onboard unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $225(2011)

Onboard unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $225(2011)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

Pager service - Capital cost/unit - $55(July 2009)

Software for Dynamic Electronic Tolls - O&M cost/unit - $225000(September 2008)

Integration for Dynamic Electronic Tolls - O&M cost/unit - $225000(September 2008)

Labor for HOT lanes management - O&M cost/unit - $225000(September 2008)

Smart Parking Reservation Website - O&M cost/unit - $1000(June 2008)

Smart Parking Reservation Secure Communication - O&M cost/unit - $1000(June 2008)

Electronic Toll Reader - Capital cost/unit - $15000 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 8 years(07/28/2006)

Toll plaza structure - Capital cost/unit - $15000 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 8 years(2/4/2013)

Onboard unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $225(2011)

Onboard unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $225(2011)

Onboard unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $225(2011)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Toll Plaza Structure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice enclosure - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable conduit - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable splice - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Detector Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Fiber optic cable pull box - Capital cost/unit - $5500(02/25/2010)

Electronic Toll Collection Structure - Capital cost/unit - $30000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2008)

Software for Dynamic Electronic Tolls - Capital cost/unit - $20000 - O&M cost/unit - $2000 - Lifetime - 10 years(September 2008)

Electronic Toll Reader - Capital cost/unit - $10000 - O&M cost/unit - $1000 - Lifetime - 10 years(September 2008)

Electronic Toll Collection Software - Capital cost/unit - $20000 - Lifetime - 10 years(September 2008)

High-Speed Camera - Capital cost/unit - $20000 - O&M cost/unit - $2000 - Lifetime - 10 years(September 2008)

Labor for HOT lanes management - Capital cost/unit - $20000 - O&M cost/unit - $2000 - Lifetime - 10 years(September 2008)

DS1 Communication Line - Capital cost/unit - $750 - O&M cost/unit - $6600 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2008)

Electronic Toll Reader - Capital cost/unit - $15000 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 8 years(07/28/2006)

High-Speed Camera - Electronic Toll Collection - Capital cost/unit - $20000 - O&M cost/unit - $2000 - Lifetime - 10 years(5 August 2004)

Mobile Data Terminal - Fixed Route Service - Capital cost/unit - $1747(July 2009)

Electronic Farebox (with smart card reader) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Magnetic Farecard Processing Unit (upgrade) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Validating Farebox (includes magnetic card processing unit) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Electronic Registering Farebox - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Smart Card Processing Unit - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Magnetic Farecard Processing Unit (upgrade) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Automated passenger counter (APC) system software - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Smart card - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Automated passenger counter (APC) on-board unit - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Electronic Registering Farebox - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Electronic Farebox (with smart card reader) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Smart Card Processing Unit - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Automated passenger counter (APC) system software - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Smart Card Processing Unit - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Validating Farebox (includes magnetic card processing unit) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Smart Card Processing Unit - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Validating Farebox (includes magnetic card processing unit) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Automated passenger counter (APC) on-board unit - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Automated passenger counter (APC) Interface to AVL - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Magnetic Farecard Processing Unit (upgrade) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Magnetic Farecard Processing Unit (upgrade) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Electronic Registering Farebox - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Automated passenger counter (APC) Interface to AVL - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Validating Farebox (with smart card reader) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Electronic Registering Farebox - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Validating Farebox (with smart card reader) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Electronic Registering Farebox (with smart card reader) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Validating Farebox (with smart card reader) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Smart card - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Validating Farebox (with smart card reader) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Electronic Registering Farebox (with smart card reader) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Validating Farebox (includes magnetic card processing unit) - Capital cost/unit - $6000(February 2009)

Electronic Card Fare Payment System - Capital cost/unit - $550000(March 2003)