|
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
STAFF BRIEFING
Dewitt Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas
7:30 a.m. Thursday, December 14, 2000
Briefing
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
JOHN W. JOHNSON, Chairman
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
DAVID M. LANEY
DEPARTMENT STAFF:
CHARLES W. HEALD, Executive Director
KIRBY W. PICKETT, Deputy Executive Director
MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Asst. Executive Director, Engineering
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 7:32 a.m. and I
will call this briefing of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. For the
record, public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was
filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 8:59 a.m. on December 6.
Wes, I'll turn the meeting over to you for our
agenda.
MR. HEALD: Okay. I'll basically just introduce
Ed, Ed Wueste. He's the expert as far as our border initiatives go, and Ed is
going to make the introductions and kind of lead off here.
MR. WUESTE: Thank you, Wes.
MR. LANEY: Before you begin, Mr. Wueste, are you
an expert?
(General laughter.)
MR. WUESTE: No, sir. He embellished the
introduction a little bit, but we try.
Just a little bit of background. I think you're
familiar with Senate Bill 913 which required TxDOT to build for DPS one-stop
inspection stations at El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville, only, though, if the
federal inspection agencies agreed to come and occupy these new one-stop.
Well, we found out real quickly that the federal
inspection agencies weren't about to vacate their existing facilities; they had
too much invested in them, et cetera. And then we further found out that the
intent of Senate Bill 913 was not to build safety inspection stations, but to
really -- that was part of it, but more importantly, I think, for the author --
in further discussions with the author of it who was Senator Shapleigh, was to
help implement the flow of trade traffic.
So after months of trying to finally figure out
what was going on, figuring out we couldn't really implement Senate Bill 913, as
written -- we still, though, wanted to prepare for safety inspection stations
which we made the decision to go ahead and start planning, along with DPS, for
those, but we also wanted to meet the intent of Senator Shapleigh and that was
to implement the flow of trade traffic.
So in April of this year, of 2000, TxDOT entered
into a contract with the University of Texas Center for Transportation Research
and TTI at Texas A&M to design -- come up with design criteria for a model
border crossing facility which would bring all of the inspection agencies, both
federal and state, together at one location, and then to further use intelligent
transportation systems to eventually, hopefully, end up with the majority of the
traffic not even having to stop at the inspection facilities.
Now, we've got a lot of obstacles and challenges
ahead of us before we get to the one-stop, and I don't want to spend a lot of my
time getting into these guys' presentation, but that's just a little bit of
background of why we're here today. The contract is up the end of this month. We
will have -- the presentation that you see today will be available to make to
the legislature when they come back into session.
So with that, we have Rob Harrison from CTR here
at the end of the table and Bill Stockton with TTI who will be making the
presentation today. And Rob will be doing the introduction.
MR. HARRISON: I thank you, Ed, and good morning,
commissioners. We are very pleased to give you our preliminary findings at this
stage.
We put together a joint university approach to
this problem. As Senator Shapleigh himself stated, there's 19 linear feet of
reports of one sort or another on the border, and he suggested that we ought not
to contribute to that.
I would like to pay some remarks to the TxDOT
research program. The TxDOT research program has done some outstanding work in
this area and there are a number of researchers in Texas who have a very
detailed understanding of the problems and the issues, and we wanted to include
those in our program. So we had a joint TTI-UT approach but we were very
concerned that we had a full university and research input into our work, and so
we had an advisory group based from the other universities, including border
entities, in order to help advise us.
In response to Senate Bill 913 which called for
this one-stop facility, we were to look at the feasibility and the conceptual
design of such a process, so our project purpose in six months was to develop a
prototype design that expedited the flow of trade by reducing the time taken to
go through a facility but yet had one that supported all the federal and state
inspection and interdiction missions. So it was expediting trade flow as well as
allowing interdiction to take place, and we also wanted to build in flexibility
for future needs.
In many of the sites that we work in, they're
very crowded; there hasn't been the space given for new technologies. We've had
new technologies like mobile x-ray facilities which can't be fitted because of
the space, so our idea was in our designs -- which is one of the deliverables --
we would provide enough space for flexibility in this issue.
We had several assumptions. Our assumptions were
that no mission could be skipped over, all inspection missions are absolutely
essential; there would be no compromise in terms of the integrity of the system;
that it would incentivize shippers to use some of the technologies that we are
going to recommend -- in other words, the incentive is that they can move faster
through that, be more productive, and we gain efficiencies from that process;
and we wanted to make sure that all vehicles were subject to inspection of one
sort or another. In other words, even where technologies allow no stops, we
would have some kind of randomized system to allow inspections of one sort or
another to be carried out.
Our first phase, which is coming to its
conclusion, was to focus on what we call future greenfield crossings: one at
Anzalduas in the Valley is identified; Eagle Pass is very interested also in
having one. We, first of all, started with the new crossing sites; a second
phase focus could be looking at retrofitting of those issues that we've
identified into the current sites that trucks use.
We're looking at northbound commercial sites only
because in the southbound system, for trade at least, very little is done on the
U.S. side. Most of the activity on the border for trade is northbound, covering
all the various interdiction processes which cover the traditional customs, one,
of identifying rules of origin and whether taxes need to be levied, as well as
drug enforcement and vehicle safety.
We wish to be consistent with the General
Services Agency. This the agency that builds current sites. In our outreach
program we've visited with them many, many times. We were given a very thick
manual which they give to their architects when a new site’s being developed. So
the characteristics in the plans that we have developed in the first phase meet
the requirements of GSA.
We've had some quite good relationships, I think,
with GSA, to the point where they are willing to give us some staff support in
terms of really looking at how we might apply some of the issues in retrofit.
We are not inventing any technology; the
technologies that we are recommending are current and they're evolving and
they're becoming better and cheaper, and we hope this is the basis for further
refinement.
Our outreach was extensive, dealing with border
communities who are extremely sensitive about their economic activities and the
importance of these economic activities in their areas. We were careful to have
an extensive program of outreach and we were trying to figure out exactly how
many meetings we've probably had, but we've seen well over 200 people; we've
probably had about 30 meetings of all sorts.
What we actually did in terms of structure of the
report was we, first of all, developed what we called internally a straw man; we
actually developed a basic plan using the binational study. The binational study
was recently completed about 18 months ago. This was quite an extensive federal
study costing over $2 million, so it seemed appropriate to at least base our
initial plans on the results of this study.
We developed a set of plans and with that we
went, first of all, to federal and state agencies. Thereafter, as we got the
feedback from these agencies and also the feedback from our advisory group, we
then went to the border communities and we've had a number of meetings: we've
had three meetings in El Paso; we've had three meetings in Laredo; two in
McAllen; and about two in Brownsville, as well as several meetings in Mexico
with Mexican officials.
So basically, we've seen Customs, Immigration,
DPS, and we've identified similar kinds of thoughts that are developing on the
Mexican side, and I think this is one of the findings of the work, that this is
a very timely and important piece of work because it mirrors other efforts to
address the same issues.
So I think that this is a possibility of really
making some progress here because Customs are thinking about restructuring their
activities, the Mexicans are thinking about expediting trade, and really, what
the ultimate gain should be, I think, the ultimate objective, is a binational
system.
So we're looking only at northbound in the first
phase but one that truly is efficient and truly productive will be a binational
process, and we seem to think that there's evidence in our work and in our
meetings that that is possible in the near future.
With that, I'm going to pass it over to Mr.
Stockton; Bill Stockton is the co-investigator on this project. I'd like to
thank Bill and his team at TTI for the excellent work that they have done, and
Bill will take you through this.
MR. STOCKTON: Good morning. I'll advance this on.
I want to mention a couple of things that I think are important to note, based
on what Rob was saying. The magnitude of the delay awaiting processing -- not
processing delay but the delay awaiting processing is really what we are
targeting in this, and in essence, it's a dead time for anyone.
At current time, it may be anywhere from two to
four hours for a northbound commercial vehicle waiting in the queue to get to
the initial contact with the U.S. Customs Service -- which is the first point of
contact they have in the United States -- and our vision of how we do this is
through the implementation of technology, we actually just eliminate the dead
time. We haven't messed with anyone's processing; everybody will continue to
process their inspections as they do now, but we believe that you can cut that
delay time from however long it is now -- two, four hours, sometimes longer,
sometimes less -- to 20 minutes or less as they approach the border and go
through all the processes.
It requires a lot of participation on the part of
the shipper, the broker and the carrier to make that happen because, as you'll
see when I walk you through this, there's an expectation that not only do they
invest in the technology itself -- and that's going to be really a modest
investment on their part -- but that they also invest in the time to provide
complete data to a generalized database that governs the whole crossing process.
That database is not something that we're going
to have to create or even imagine; it's already in process. There's a joint team
effort at the federal level to develop the International Trade Data System which
is, in essence, the database that our recommended prototype would implement.
They don't have a way of implementing it yet but they do have the database
envisioned and team led by Immigration and Naturalization Service is taking the
lead. What we've done here, we think, moves that a step toward reality.
MR. LANEY: I have a question for you. Once you
make the first contact with the processing, how long does it take, on average?
MR. STOCKTON: Now?
MR. LANEY: Yes.
MR. STOCKTON: It's probably not all that long, 15
minutes. If you're cleared, then, from the time you actually pull up to primary
inspection, which is where the exchange of paperwork takes place, and everything
is in order, it may be less than that; it may be more like ten.
MR. HARRISON: I think it's less than ten,
actually.
MR. STOCKTON: It's just getting to that point
that's difficult.
I don't know what's going on here -- we got a bad
connection? Well, possibly I can take you through this; it won't be quite as
effective, but we’ll --
The process, as we envision, has seven locations,
a minimum of seven locations, where there's automated processing of vehicles. In
essence, we trade an electronic or automated data processing exchange for what
is currently a manual exchange, and we think that will make for a substantial
reduction in time.
We've got these seven stations. At each of the
seven stations, three things happen: we identify either the driver or the
vehicle, depending on what we're checking at that particular station; we do a
status check against this database that I was mentioning to you that would give
us an understanding of where they are in their suitability for crossing; and
then finally, we would issue instructions to the driver.
I'm really apologizing for this; it worked fine
earlier. Maybe somebody can advise us what might be going on. I'll go ahead and
walk you through this.
The first, and one of the more important
locations, is actually in Mexico as you approach their export station, and that
export station is represented by this little blob right here. We would have two
things happen at that location. One is there would be the ability to make the
first electronic detection of the vehicle, the on-board transponders, and we
would open at that point the data file for that trip so that everything related
to that trip would be available to the agencies doing the processing.
The second thing we would do is right here would
be weigh and motion scales. No one is served by having an overweight vehicle get
to the U.S. side of the border and then have to be dealt with on that side; it's
complicated and time consuming.
So we would weigh the vehicles; we would have
signs that would instruct them, if they are clearly overweight, to return or
divert from their route, change their load, and then attempt to re-enter the
U.S. This would require cooperation on the part of the Mexicans, and certainly
all of the Mexicans that we have discussed this with think that is no difficulty
at all. In fact, something very similar to this is being implemented in Laredo
now on Bridge 4. The two options that they would receive then are to proceed or
to return.
Now, the one that you're probably not going to be
able to see very much of, and I'll just tell you about, this roadway here simply
makes a U-turn and comes back into -- crosses the border and gets in this queue
to the primary gate. A couple of things happen at this location. Right down in
this area right here, that's where we detect what kind of equipment the truck
has on board and determine whether or not they are eligible for express
processing.
If they are eligible, then they go into an
express lane which is a lane that is designed to accommodate this express
movement. If they don't have the proper technology on board, then they get into
the conventional lane and they are processed just like they are processed on
December 14 of 2000.
Another thing that happens --
MR. JOHNSON: Bill, let me ask a question.
MR. STOCKTON: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Currently, I'm assuming that a very
small number of the trucks that come northbound are capable of going into the
express lane or are equipped to do that. Over what period of time will it take
to get to where a preponderance of the truck traffic is equipped to proceed in
the express lane.
MR. STOCKTON: There's really kind of a two-part
answer to that, maybe even three. The equipment to actually participate in this,
as we envision it now, is no more complex than your EZ tag for a toll road, and
you'd have a tag for the tractor, a tag for the driver, a tag for the trailer,
and a tag for the cargo, so you could identify those four elements separate and
apart from each other. They would all be included on the data for that trip that
you had sent to the inspecting agencies, but you'd have all those identifiers
there -- so whatever a toll tag is going to cost nowadays, a very small
investment.
There are always going to be trucking companies
that are not properly equipped. Actually, as recently as last week we began
toying with the idea of what kinds of temporary markers we could put on them.
Are there temporary toll tags that we could either issue as they enter and use
it to track them all the way through, or are there bar codes that we could slap
on the side and cause them to deactivate two hours later after they pass through
the process? I mean, we're looking at ways -- how do you make this work?
The most expensive part is going to be on the
side of the agencies of implementing the technology for detection, and more
expensively, the development of a unified or integrated database.
MR. HARRISON: If I can add a couple of comments
there.
There are no vehicles currently using this system
at all -- that's the first part of your question. The second is that the
responsibility for most of the information on the driver, the tractor, the
trailer and the cargo will be the broker or the shipper; they will enter the
system. All that the tag will say is "truck number 6" and that six will then
trigger the database the different entities will look at electronically.
As to how fast it would be adopted, we think it
will be adopted very quickly by a key sector who are interested in efficiency,
adjusting time and reflecting the move away from maquiladoras who are making
jeans and apparel to very high tech projects that are being built very
efficiently, being built in 24-hour cycles, with cross-docking with FedEx and
UPS who need these kinds of facilities.
We think that once one starts doing it and the
benefits are clear, others will very closely follow. There will always be an
element that won't want to do that and they'll be dealt with conventionally.
And perhaps a bit like toll tags, we might start
off with the express lane being one or two and most of the business responsible
for conventional and it will shift across as it shifts. It will shift at
different rates at different ports of entry, depending on the maquilas and the
type of trade.
MR. STOCKTON: The other thing that happens at
this site is that we envision a visual inspection, just a roadside visual
inspection by Texas DPS that would identify any obvious road worthiness
problems. We've got bald tires or a bumper hanging off or something like that
that's a little more difficult to pick up with a toll tag type of identifier.
And the reason we do that, they could be current on their inspections and
therefore not be required to stop anywhere else, and if we didn't have the
ability to flag them, then they could escape without detection. So what we would
do in that case is simply flag their electronic file.
The next step is to check the driver, and in
essence, basically here we would use video identification of the driver --
roadside camera -- to match against the identity that was submitted with the
trip data pack so that the INS agent, or whoever it is looking at this -- and we
figure, at least in the early going, it would be a human comparing one image
versus another -- would confirm who the driver is, and would authorize passage
through the system or require them to pull in for further processing of one kind
or another.
The next place that we stop is equivalent to
primary inspection now, and this is where all the other vehicles would be queued
right in here awaiting processing. At this point anything that's irregular about
the file, whether it's incomplete, there's an error, or there's something that
hasn't been attended to -- it could be for the driver, the tractor, the trailer,
or the cargo -- they are then directed to go into secondary inspection, this
area right here. And all of this is the secondary federal compound.
If everything -- and this is where the incentive
comes in -- if everything is clear on their records, then they would go into
this express lane which goes around the perimeter of the facility and they
wouldn't have to stop again.
All vehicles are subject to random inspection;
they're all subject to inspection for cause. The goal here is to reduce the
number of vehicles that are delayed for no reason. Any vehicle would be subject
to being called into secondary for random inspection.
The next stop is, for those vehicles that are
sent to secondary inspection, we want to be sure and check them as they exit.
And if there's anything missing, then they are told to return; if not, they are
told to exit.
The next check point is really the final one for
federal inspections under this particular prototype. At this point, any vehicle
that's been sent around the express lane or any vehicle that has exited from
secondary inspection -- in other words, 100 percent of the vehicles are
rechecked one last time to be sure that all of their files and necessary
processing is complete -- and then they are told either to return or to exit.
And I might add we also envision in this area
right here a violator trap for those who don't choose to comply. There would be
the normal Customs people there to intercept anyone that didn't comply
voluntarily.
The final check point is a vehicle safety
inspection. At this point the files for the vehicle, the trailer and the driver
are checked for irregularities, completeness, or expirations of any permits that
they have, or any fees or fines that they owe. If anything is required, then
they are sent into the vehicle safety inspection facility for processing; if
not, then they receive a sign to exit.
The border crossing prototype that we've
developed here is seven stations. It has been reviewed with all of the primary
inspection agencies, with the U.S. government, and Texas DPS, and it has been
reviewed with all the key stakeholders.
This is a good bit like the straw man that Rob
referred to that we started with, but we've made refinements along the way based
on input from shippers and trucking companies and Customs Service and INS and
DPS and anyone else who had a suggestion -- we've incorporated all of those. So
it's kind of a committee of the whole, I guess, that has developed this final
document.
We believe that it provides an adequate level of
inspection control for the inspection agencies, and of course, that's their
principal concern. Their concern is not facilitation; their concern is control,
but it also provides incentives for voluntary compliance and participation by
the trade community.
MR. HARRISON: I think I'll just add one thing to
Bill's point here, that these are not stops. They look as if they might be
stops; they are, in fact, identification stages. Just like a FedEx package that
goes through Bergstrom, when it arrives at Bergstrom, it's actually scanned
about 12 times as it goes through the facility. These are scanning points where
we can actually track a vehicle. But it is possible and we've designed it so
that a vehicle can go through without actual stopping if it has the appropriate
technology and does not pull up any records that require it to be inspected.
MR. JOHNSON: Bill, you used the description
"adequate controls." Considering what I believe to be the facts, that the two
most important state agencies that are affected here is the Department of Public
Safety and Federal Customs, is "adequate controls" sufficient for them in their
minds?
MR. STOCKTON: Well, the choice of the term
"adequate" was mine.
MR. JOHNSON: And I apologize for honing in on
that.
MR. STOCKTON: No. Well, it's a good question.
We've not changed anything that is part of their current scheme of operation,
and in fact, we have implemented double checks that they don't have right now.
So in some respects, it's more control, better tracking than they have right
now.
MR. JOHNSON: Is the other side of that at least
the equivalent of what they have currently?
MR. STOCKTON: Absolutely.
MR. HARRISON: I'll just add that when Bill made
the presentation at Juarez, which I think was a meeting that you attended,
afterwards we had a representative from the U.S. Customs say that they have been
working on a program that looks very similar to this one, and he was very
interested and wanted to talk to us further about it. So I think there is this
meshing that's now possible in this process.
MR. STOCKTON: One of the things that we have
envisioned is that there would be -- to make this work very smoothly, to make it
work as we've identified, it requires some pre-processing by the
broker/shipper/carrier, but it also requires some pre-clearance by U.S. Customs,
and that is probably going to be the toughest nut to crack of all of them.
It would, at least in concept, require that
Customs be at the dock of the maquiladora and they seal the trailer and the
cargo and they put the identifier on it and that information goes in the
database, and 15 minutes later that truck arrives at primary for processing, and
they would have to endorse how that works. That is going to take longer to
reconcile between the two nations, and with the U.S. Customs Service, than just
about anything else that we envision here. The technology and everything else
will happen faster than that does is my guess.
What we're working on right now -- and I don't
have any ideas that are good enough to trot them out -- is how do you either
simulate that or how do you isolate that one element so that you can implement
the rest and still minimize the amount of time that's spent in delay. And we
think it's possible to do that even without the Customs pre-clearing a
particular cargo.
Right now, for example, at this location, about
60 percent of the vehicles -- and Rob, you'll correct me if I get this wrong --
about 60 percent of the vehicles that arrive at primary do a quick exchange of
paperwork and they're released to go. So it's that 60 percent that don't have
any problems, that are probably, in many cases, recognized, reliable
carriers/shippers that are allowed to proceed. That's the 60 percent that we're
targeting.
So we don't think the absence of advanced
processing by Customs prevents us from doing any of this; it just prevents it
from being implemented in its fullest.
MR. HARRISON: Another point that's been raised by
some communities is the concern that any congestion in DPS would filter back
through the system and it would become a parking lot, and again, that's not
possible in the system. We have assurances from DPS that they would adopt our
particular process when their own facility was full, and it won't back into the
federal facility at all. Indeed, a maximum of 5 percent of the vehicles at each
station will be looked at by DPS.
So the DPS system works well with the federal
system; there's no reason for putting DPS any distance from the federal facility
because one won't affect the other.
MR. STOCKTON: Some of the benefits that we
believe are evident in this particular project that accrue to the various
stakeholders: the trade community and the border cities benefit substantially
from the reduced delay and the reduced congestion.
Admittedly, if you're looking at northbound, then
the communities that benefit from the reduced congestion are all south of the
border. There's no Texas-side congestion associated with northbound processing;
all those queues back into our border cities in Mexico. It's the southbound
processing that will benefit Texas cities.
It accommodates the safety inspections, and the
state of Texas and the citizens of Texas all benefit from that. The inspection
agencies and the trade community benefit from the simplified data exchange.
There are -- I believe it’s 104 federal agencies that require some sort of data
exchange for an import -- not every import, but that's 104 agencies involved
with data.
The intent of the International Trade Data System
that I mentioned earlier is to minimize massive overlap that is caused by up to
104 submissions so that it's simplified for the broker and the shipper and all
the federal agencies, and they simply use what portion of that data they need.
The agencies also benefit from the flexibility
we've built into this. I'm going to back up just a little bit.
One of the things Rob mentioned earlier is how
crowded facilities have become. These are, for example, represent x-ray
facilities that you would put in one of these crossing facilities. Customs
Service would like to x-ray every vehicle -- I mean, that would be their goal. I
don't think that would ever be practical but they would like to get there, and
they're moving and the x-ray equipment gets faster and smaller all the time, not
necessarily cheaper.
But what we find is that circulation in these
facilities is very difficult because they've been so crowded. And so we
recommend that there be a little additional space included in the facility to
provide for those things we don't envision now that may come down the road.
MR. LANEY: I may have missed it while I was out,
but what's the total acreage requirement for something like this?
MR. STOCKTON: Well, it depends on how big your
crossing is going to be or how many trucks you're going to process. This
facility right here, we estimate to be about 3,500 trucks which is a very large
facility. And that would be somewhere between 110 and 125 acres to accommodate
the whole thing which would make it about 50 percent larger than Laredo 4 is
right now. Is that about right, Ed?
MR. WUESTE: That’s about right. I think Laredo 4
is about 88 right there, the federal facility.
MR. STOCKTON: And that's just the federal.
MR. WUESTE: Right.
MR. HARRISON: Yes, I think there are
opportunities for reducing the acreage. DPS has already made some suggestions
about how they're going to adapt their planning. So the interesting thing about
trying to identify it at this stage is that it can be part of presidential
permit.
Typically what happens is when the communities
are most able to provide land, we have less direction to give them as to how
much it should be, so it tends to be less than really what is required when
ultimately the actual bridge and facility gets built. I think in this way we
might be able to give some guidance as to how much land needs to be set aside by
a community wishing to have a new bridge and get round some of the problems that
we've had at some of the bridges that have been built in the last five years.
MR. STOCKTON: And when we mentioned this in some
of our border meetings, I think we've had positive receptions, even to the idea
of setting aside large amounts of acreage, from developers along the border who
are envisioning further border crossings, so there's no one that's gasping for
breath over the idea of 125 acres, particularly since it has some benefits
associated with it.
I might just point out that because the
inspection agencies -- the federal inspection agencies don't have the built-in
incentive to make this a priority that others have. And so we've tried to make
sure that we've included the kinds of benefits that accrue to them: the future
flexibility in the design of the facility; the technology that will allow for
more productive processing, and thereby, reducing staffing requirements so they
can spend their time inspecting vehicles and carrying out their mission instead
of traffic management which many of them do right now.
Our conclusions are, in essence, that one of our
first tasks charged by the department was is this feasible, and the answer is a
model border crossing is feasible. It is a near one-stop; as Ed and Rob have
both said, it's actually probably either no-stop or two-stops, one or the other.
The technology is available or nearly so. As I
mentioned the institutional challenges associated with creating a database are
probably larger than anything else.
The vehicle safety facility is feasible, either
inside or outside the federal compound. What I'm showing you here is outside the
federal compound. In essence, you have a security fence right here that
separates the federal compound here with the state-operated vehicle safety
inspection facility. We designed this both ways. There are some pretty distinct
traffic circulation and security advantages to the external versus the internal.
In the internal this facility would be inside the
fence and it would share traffic circulation space with this side of the federal
facility. Based on the discussions that we've had with a bunch of the
stakeholders, they seem to be concerned about the congestion associated with
that, and we think that while you could do either one, this is probably better
suited to smooth traffic flow.
As Rob mentioned, this is really best suited to
future crossings. We are in the process of identifying the principles included
here and we'll be working with the department to look at what possible retrofits
could be applied to existing crossings along the Texas border.
It's going to require substantial multi-agency
and multinational cooperation to be implemented in its fullest, and we also
believe that this isn't just well suited to any one location but it could work
along any location along the U.S.-Mexican border.
MR. WUESTE: I'm going to turn it back to Rob.
MR. HARRISON: I think, finally, we have a set of
deliverables that are part of our contract which will be delivered at the end of
this month. For the purposes of the meeting this morning, we have a set of
participants, the people that we've been working with, and we also have an
executive summary, a three-page executive summary that you can look at just to
be more familiar with the work.
We will be developing a handout, principally for
the legislature and we're currently working on that. There will be a package
based on animation to give an idea of how you would go through this facility,
and finally; a set of plans that can be looked at by different agencies in the
costing process.
And I think, with that, we are open to questions.
MR. LANEY: I have one question for you. You
mentioned when you closed the retrofit issue. By far the largest volume of stuff
is subject to the existing crossings issue between federal and state and so
forth. How feasible are retrofits? I mean, I know it's preliminary; you haven't
finished your study and so forth, but you've got some elements here that look
like they can be tacked on to what exists from the federal standpoint already.
MR. STOCKTON: We think there's some
possibilities. The keys to success here are not so much the physical changes but
it is processing changes or data exchange. And so with that being the case, we
think that there are probably some places where you could do this.
One of the things that is a barrier is the
absence of the Customs Service being able to do pre-processing right now. We
think that there are some border crossings where we could actually go down --
and I have to say that it varies by port director for the Customs Service; some
are very innovative and anxious to move.
MR. LANEY: But don't we already have, in El Paso,
I think, some pre-processing with respect to Customs, at least as to commuters
and workers and so forth, I guess. I don't know what the name of the system is.
MR. WUESTE: It's a designated commuter lane,
right, in El Paso. It's an immigration-led effort.
MR. LANEY: It's sort of a little beginning. I
know it's sort of basic, but it's the same principle, I presume.
MR. STOCKTON: In fact, that's what we use in our
discussions with Customs, that INS is already doing what we're doing, and its
frequent, cleared, no-risk travelers are allowed to use the designated commuter
lane, and I think the same thing can apply to Customs.
What we're doing right now is we're working on
how would you go about implementing maybe not all but elements of this to get
the benefit of some of it, even if you can't do it in total. So I think the
answer is that a lot of the retrofit opportunities are going to depend on how
willing the Customs Service is to participate.
MR. LANEY: Thank you.
MR. NICHOLS: I have a few questions. On the
processing end early on, you said it was probably currently under ten minutes.
MR. HARRISON: Yes, the processing.
MR. NICHOLS: You've got some trucks that just go
on through after the exchange of paperwork and you have some that are inspected
at multiple stages. Is ten minutes the average of both of those?
MR. HARRISON: Yes, it was an average taken that
was being --
MR. STOCKTON: No, actually, I don't think Rob is
including -- the ten minutes is from primary here, if you have everything in
order and there are no other stops that you would be, from the time you arrive
there, do your paperwork exchange and then depart.
MR. NICHOLS: Currently.
MR. STOCKTON: Currently.
MR. NICHOLS: But if you actually have to be
inspected, depending on what you get into, then it
just -- okay.
MR. STOCKTON: It's much longer.
MR. NICHOLS: So the ten minutes -- by doing it
electronically if everything is in order, the ten minutes drops down to -- is
that where the big time is picked up?
MR. STOCKTON: Go ahead, Rob.
MR. HARRISON: Yes. We talked to David Higgerson
quite extensively in the Valley about this issue and he felt that the window of
opportunity could be a minute to a minute and a half in terms of processing.
MR. NICHOLS: And 60 percent was the number that
you're running them basically on through.
MR. HARRISON: Yes.
MR. NICHOLS: So the big savings on one side is
the 60 percent drops from ten minutes or just under ten to basically one minute,
So you're moving them through eight or nine, substantially, faster on that side.
On the processing side -- are there substantial improvements on the actual
processing that the DPS and the Customs do if it's chosen to be inspected?
MR. STOCKTON: We really haven't spent any time on
how they would process. I suppose one processing change that we are recommending
is that if you are sent into secondary inspection and you have three agencies
that are going to inspect something -- Food & Drug is going to look at it and
USDA is going to look at it and Customs is going to look at it. Rather than
going to a Customs dock here and an FDA dock here and a USDA dock here, our
recommendation is that all the processing take place at one spot. You only go to
one berth and stay there and the inspection comes to the truck instead of the
truck going to the inspection.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So the real savings in time
that you've discussed -- one is the exchange of information electronically
versus multiple pieces of paper and a moving processing that's going to be
fairly short on 60 percent, but the other 40 percent that's individually
inspected has not envisioned any major improvements of time.
MR. STOCKTON: There are some improvements to
them, and let me illustrate. I think important to note is that right now there
is no express lane of any kind, and so everyone joins a very long queue of
trucks. The delay that we're trying to eliminate is how much time it takes you
to get from crossing the border, or leaving Mexican export, to that place right
there. That's where the bulk of the delay is and it's time spent waiting; it's
not processing time.
And so if we can create an expedited lane where
all the processing takes place in an automated way, and it is exactly like the
EZ pass lanes versus the toll lanes on any toll facility in Texas right now. I
mean, that's, in essence, the difference.
MR. NICHOLS: So one of the major improvements in
time is the actual express lane as opposed to the electronic chips and
technology.
MR. STOCKTON: Right. It's the creation of the
express lane.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So in retrofitting existing
stations, the physical ability to have an express lane is probably one of the
primary things and electronic is a secondary.
MR. STOCKTON: That's right. And that's going to
be one of the key physical -- that may be the physical characteristic is do we
have the ability to partition exiting approach roadways to provide for an
express lane versus a conventional processing approach.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Second area of question: on
the electronic chips, what we're calling the toll tag, one for the truck, one
for the driver, one for the load, and those kind of things, the businesses, I
would assume, that are routinely shipping are the ones that would be the primary
targets to use these chips. To get those chips with that information, is all
that process in one central area in Mexico or in the States, or where?
MR. STOCKTON: Well, the way the system is
envisioned -- and here we kind of go back to the federally-designed
International Trade Data System -- is that whether it is the shipper or the
broker, one or the other would send a data file at the time a truck is leaving a
dock, or maybe prior to that truck leaving a dock, and that data file would
include everything that is required for the crossing.
All the data would go to this integrated database
operated by some -- either INS or Customs. And so that's where all the data
would go.
MR. NICHOLS: So the company in Mexico will
electronically wire or email, or whatever you want to call it, to someplace in
the States that would enter all that data and then assign a number back to the
chip? I'm thinking about the security of the information, how do you get the
chip in an expedited manner?
MR. STOCKTON: Well, what it is is when they
submit the data file -- and it may be that -- I'm not sure who assigns a trip
number, but they assign a unique trip number to that shipment coming across the
border. And that trip number includes the identifier -- I think it's a long-held
identifier -- includes your toll tag number for your vehicle and a different
unique identifier for the driver, cargo, et cetera.
And so those identifier numbers for those chips
are sent with the data file that includes what the cargo is and all that sort of
thing, and those things in combination become the unique trip so that when that
vehicle arrives and the initial detector picks up the identifier tag for
anything -- the tractor or the trailer -- probably the ones most easily picked
up -- then when it picks those up and it calls up any of those, that whole trip
comes up so that we know that with this tractor on this specific trip is this
driver, this trailer and this cargo. So it all comes up together on the data
file that was submitted maybe 15 minutes ago, maybe an hour ago.
MR. WUESTE: One of the issues that industry is
dealing here now is coming up with uniformity in the transponders or toll tags,
or whatever the technology might be when this is finally implemented, to make
sure that the truck with that transponder -- for example, when it crosses in
Laredo and then it hits the weigh station at Devine, they can read that
information and go right on through. And then when it gets up into Oklahoma and
travels on the toll road up there, it can pay the tolls with that same
transponder.
So there has to be uniformity, and that's
something they're wrestling with right now because you just can't have sole
source with one company making the transponders; you've got to recognize there
are going to be a number of companies out there, but they have to use some kind
of a system where they can all be tied together.
I was at a meeting in Washington several weeks
ago where there were several industry reps there, a couple of manufacturers of
transponders that are dealing with this issue. I mean, it's going to be a while.
MR. NICHOLS: So they're still working on that.
MR. WUESTE: Right.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay, thanks.
MR. HEALD: I have one question. I guess, Ed, I
might ask you. This being a one-direction model facility, would there be any
value in TxDOT taking the lead role in developing a two-direction, working with
the Mexican government, or are we just talking about a repeat on the other side,
or is it possible to put a two-direction on the same side of the border?
MR. WUESTE: Yes, it would be. As far as TxDOT
taking the lead, I think you've got to get the feds though involved there,
because when you're dealing with Mexico, you pretty well have to deal with the
federal level. It's possible, sure.
Now, Laredo right now has weigh in motion scales,
but the City of Laredo put them in for southbound traffic at the new bridge
where they actually will be weighing them and actually paying the toll through
technology. But it's strictly a weigh in motion and toll collection, is it not,
Rob?
MR. HARRISON: Yes, it is. I was thinking of the
North American Trade Automation Prototype, the NATAP initiative, which was some
three or four years ago now, and this was an initiative undertaken by the three
customs ministers of the three countries, Canada, the United States, and Mexico,
and their notion was that we ought to be working on common databases, that to
have this different set of paper for Mexico and different set of paper for
Canada just wasn't efficient and wasn't smart.
So I think that ultimately the idea of having a
full binational system with a common database for both entities is the
appropriate way to go; that's our appropriate sort of aim.
And when we've talked about some of the -- in our
outreach, in our meetings, we've had Mexican officials at these meetings, and
they've been very interested in sharing information like weigh in motion. And if
weigh in motion data can be moved to several sources for street and highway
planning, for bridge fees so you pay on weight or equivalent standard axles
instead of number of axles, as well as identifying the safety limits that are
required in state and federal laws on both sides of the border, once you get a
system that's shared by a number of entities, then it's much more appropriate
for this kind of national crossing.
MR. JOHNSON: Could we just touch a little bit on
the time issues? Obviously, to these transporters, time is money. Also, there's
a time factor having to do with clean air as these trucks are waiting in the
queue and their engines are running.
The incentive, we hope -- and I think it's
probably one of the premises -- is that the incentive is there to have
everything in order and get to go through the express lane, and we hope to see a
preponderance of the trucks ultimately end up developing that and being able to
proceed. And thus, the time from entry to exit is diminished and we move more
trucks through the system that way.
There's still going to be some who don't qualify
to go through the express lane. Is basically the time: one, from entry to exit,
going to be reduced or changed in this process, and secondly, have we assumed
that there will be fewer trucks in the queue and so the time that they're
waiting to get to the entry point is going to be reduced? You know, I'm just
thinking about the time issues here.
MR. STOCKTON: We haven't done the simulation that
would give you more of a definitive answer, but I would say that it’s -- once
again, referring to the toll road analogy or toll plaza analogy, as you move
more vehicles into the EZ pass lanes, the wait associated with conventional toll
collection in the other lanes gets shorter. So the presumption that we make is
that you do move enough of these vehicles into the express lane so that
conventional processing is actually shorter.
There's a company out of the D.C. area that's
doing a lot of simulation of border crossings, and they've told us that when
they get a little farther along early next year, they're anxious to take the
prototype and use some of their real data sets that they have and run them
through and see what happens, and we'll probably have a little better answer
after they've done that. But we anticipate that even the conventional processing
will be faster.
MR. HARRISON: I think that you've raised a very
interesting point because there definitely are peaks with trade trucks: the
southbound peek is really in the morning because Mexican customs dues have to be
paid on the day that the trailer is crossed, so they tend to be crossed the same
day.
The banks open at 9:30 so you start to get this
flow coming through, and a big peak in the afternoon northbound, so our entry
points have a big peak in the late afternoon.
If we only look at it from a national
perspective, from a Texas perspective, we're going to ultimately have lines
going into Mexico, and we have to figure out how to make that efficient. The
sentry system has to be binational which is the commuter lane. If the commuters
are queuing in lines with everybody else in Mexico and only break into express
lanes when they get onto Texas territory, that's obviously going to be less
efficient.
So I think that this will only fully work and
we'll only get the best efficiencies when it is binational and the express lane
extends into Mexico.
MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions?
MR. LANEY: Let me just add my compliments. This
is very valuable. Appreciate it, Ed.
MR. JOHNSON: Is there any other business that
needs to come before this briefing?
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: Gentlemen, thank you for the work
that you've done; it's been very enlightening.
I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. LANEY: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second.
MR. JOHNSON: We'll stand adjourned at 8:30. Thank
you very much.
(Whereupon, at 8:30 a.m., the staff briefing was
concluded.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: December 14, 2000
I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages,
numbers 1 through 42, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript
prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum
before the Texas Department of Transportation.
12/18/00
(Transcriber) (Date)
On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731 |
