E-ZPass and national interoperability

[Brandon]

I hope SunPass never becomes a member of EZPass. Interoperability would be excellent but I'm a firm believer in keeping local control.

They should be able to, even including keeping their own branding.  ISTHA has their own branding (I-Pass), and keeps a lot of the local control, so SunPass should be able to do likewise.

Though on the flipside, the private company that owns the long-term concession to collect tolls on and operate and maintain the Indiana East—West Toll Road is (again, according to TOLLROADSnews (here)) getting rid of the I-ZOOM transponder brand and transitioning everything to E-ZPass.

The difference being that EZ-Pass and I-Pass are fare more established as brands while I-Zoom was not.

[hobsini2]

At every mainline entrance (Beginning of the toll road, not the ramps) to the Illinois Tollway system there are signs erected that show both the I-Pass and EZ Pass logos. I would imagine as far as branding goes for other "local" transponders, like Sun Pass and Pike Pass, that would eventually join the EZ Pass group, there would be similar signs.

[cpzilliacus]

IMO, this could be a Great Leap Forward for North American toll interoperability.

TOLLROADSnews: Kapsch declares E-ZPass IAG protocols open standard, and discusses sticker tags

Kapsch which owns the intellectual property rights to the E-ZPass IAG electronic toll system through the 2010 purchase of Mark IV IVHS says it is renouncing any proprietary claims to the protocols. They should now be regarded as an open standard for others to use and compete with. They plan to publish the specifications and code so that anyone can build to it.

Georg Kapsch chief executive officer of the Kapsch Group told us the company has a longstanding commitment to open standards as good for customers through improving competition and allowing choices of suppliers for a compatible product.

A statement out of the Tysons Corner VA offices says the move is a "contribution to support national electronic toll interoperability and industry compliance" with the US MAP-21 mandate for national interoperability by 2016.

[Scott5114]

Sounds like Kapsch is concerned that if they don't allow interoperability and by opening up the protocol, EZPass is gonna drop them in favor of 6C.

[cpzilliacus]

Sounds like Kapsch is concerned that if they don't allow interoperability and by opening up the protocol, EZPass is gonna drop them in favor of 6C.

Before Kapsch bought them out, apparently Mark IV (the company that developed the transponder now usually referred to as the "IAG" transponder) jealously guarded its very proprietary technology. 

I suspect that Kapsch figures they will make more money by effectively making the IAG transponder an "open" technology.

[cpzilliacus]

From TollRoadNews
North Carolina and E-ZPass interoperable from January 3, 2013
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6332

Also it sounds like Florida and E-ZPass aren't too far off from being interoperable.

And also this from the same source: Florida and North Carolina announce interoperability to begin mid-2013, Georgia to join too REVISED

[jrouse]

I apologize for joining onto this thread so much later but I wanted to add a few observations:

California's toll operators have been pushing Caltrans for a number of years to make changes to the Title 21 specifications to allow for 6C.  The toll operators want to lower their costs (sticker tags are cheaper) and also have read-write capabilities on the tag, something that isn't included in the current Title 21 specifications.  The other tolling agencies in the Mountain West and the West Coast use 6C or, in the case of California, are looking that direction.

While I understand that some may say that EZPass is the way to go, EZPass doesn't use 6C, and while I heard that they were showing some interest, they recently made their technology an open standard, which tells me that they may be moving away from 6C and are going to push hard to have their current protocol be the national standard. 

I think what may happen is that there will be a two-tier system, similar to what is planned in North Carolina.  They use either 6B or 6C technology, but they also plan on issuing a hard case tag that can be used on EZPass systems (at least that's what they say on their website - is that still the case?)  So here in California, assuming we go 6C, we would use dual protocol readers that would read 6C and whatever the national standard would be.

[vdeane]

I don't foresee E-ZPass ever going 6C.  Around here, vehicle classification is embedded into the tag and is by axle, so if a vehicle is pulling a trailer, the tag has to be physically changed to a different one.  Naturally, this is an issue with sticker tags.  You'd have to switch to a system that uses cameras to determine the vehicle class rather than reading that info off the tag.

[cpzilliacus]

I apologize for joining onto this thread so much later but I wanted to add a few observations:

California's toll operators have been pushing Caltrans for a number of years to make changes to the Title 21 specifications to allow for 6C.  The toll operators want to lower their costs (sticker tags are cheaper) and also have read-write capabilities on the tag, something that isn't included in the current Title 21 specifications.  The other tolling agencies in the Mountain West and the West Coast use 6C or, in the case of California, are looking that direction.

I suppose some of the longer toll roads in California (such as the I-15 HOV/toll lanes in San Diego County and the TCA toll roads in Orange County - and maybe the new LAMTA HOV/toll lanes) might want to be able to write back to the transponder (the E-ZPass IAG tags do handle that, as they must, given the long "closed" (ticket) toll roads in the East).

While I understand that some may say that EZPass is the way to go, EZPass doesn't use 6C, and while I heard that they were showing some interest, they recently made their technology an open standard, which tells me that they may be moving away from 6C and are going to push hard to have their current protocol be the national standard.

It wasn't the E-ZPass IAG (now E-ZPass Group) that made the standard an open one, it was the (relatively new) owners of what used to be the Mark IV transponder and related equipment, Kapsch. As I understand it, the previous owners were very protective of their proprietary standards, and were unwilling to share with others, and I suppose that Kapsch decided that was a losing strategy, and is in the process of putting their 915 MHz technology in the public domain.

I think what may happen is that there will be a two-tier system, similar to what is planned in North Carolina.  They use either 6B or 6C technology, but they also plan on issuing a hard case tag that can be used on EZPass systems (at least that's what they say on their website - is that still the case?)  So here in California, assuming we go 6C, we would use dual protocol readers that would read 6C and whatever the national standard would be.

The North Carolina system is up and running, though it has been reported that some patrons of the only North Carolina toll road (currently), the Triangle Expressway got billed twice because they had a 6C transponder and an E-ZPass unit in their vehicle at the same time (details here).

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass Group has OmniAir designing program to certify non-Kapsch readers and tags as compliant

With Kapsch having announced it was forgoing intellectual property rights to the E-ZPass core code the certification of additional suppliers' equipment is seen as follow-up toward interoperability and competition.

The E-ZPass Group announcement says the certification program "leads to improved competition, and potential for reduced costs."

National interoperability of electronic tolling will require some mix of:

- substitution of multiprotocol (MP) for single protocol readers

- adoption of multiprotocol transponders

- expanded video tolling capability

- swap-out of legacy protocol transponders  for those on  the agreed IOP list

- new or expanded back office arrangements for clearing of out-of-area transactions, both hub-based and peer-to-peer

[mtantillo]

TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass Group has OmniAir designing program to certify non-Kapsch readers and tags as compliant

With Kapsch having announced it was forgoing intellectual property rights to the E-ZPass core code the certification of additional suppliers' equipment is seen as follow-up toward interoperability and competition.

The E-ZPass Group announcement says the certification program "leads to improved competition, and potential for reduced costs.”

National interoperability of electronic tolling will require some mix of:

- substitution of multiprotocol (MP) for single protocol readers

- adoption of multiprotocol transponders

- expanded video tolling capability

- swap-out of legacy protocol transponders  for those on  the agreed IOP list

- new or expanded back office arrangements for clearing of out-of-area transactions, both hub-based and peer-to-peer

Another interesting aspect of this which I am actively working on: what will the new "Nationally Interoperable" symbol look like?  We have a joint committee of IBTTA and NCUTCD looking into this. 

The way I envision a system working is that you get a message from your ETC account provider asking if you want National interoperability on your account.  If you opt-in, you may have to swap out your transponder for a dual mode one, and might have to agree to have your license plate info on file and always updated.  Then if, say you have E-ZPass, you will be notified that you can use your transponder anywhere that you see "E-ZPass" or the new nationally interoperable symbol.  But be forwarned that in some cases where you see the national symbol and not E-ZPass, the transaction may occur via video and not transponder reads, so it is critical that you have up to date license plate info on file.  The only places where this won't work is where "absesnce of a transponder means something", such as in California HOT lanes (with the exception of LA's) where they say "bag the tag" if you are an HOV...so there is no video system looking for those without tags that could be used to do video tolls.  This is why the rental car toll programs don't work on the HOT lanes in California and Washington State. 

[mtantillo]

I apologize for joining onto this thread so much later but I wanted to add a few observations:

California's toll operators have been pushing Caltrans for a number of years to make changes to the Title 21 specifications to allow for 6C.  The toll operators want to lower their costs (sticker tags are cheaper) and also have read-write capabilities on the tag, something that isn't included in the current Title 21 specifications.  The other tolling agencies in the Mountain West and the West Coast use 6C or, in the case of California, are looking that direction.

I suppose some of the longer toll roads in California (such as the I-15 HOV/toll lanes in San Diego County and the TCA toll roads in Orange County - and maybe the new LAMTA HOV/toll lanes) might want to be able to write back to the transponder (the E-ZPass IAG tags do handle that, as they must, given the long "closed" (ticket) toll roads in the East).

While I understand that some may say that EZPass is the way to go, EZPass doesn't use 6C, and while I heard that they were showing some interest, they recently made their technology an open standard, which tells me that they may be moving away from 6C and are going to push hard to have their current protocol be the national standard.

It wasn't the E-ZPass IAG (now E-ZPass Group) that made the standard an open one, it was the (relatively new) owners of what used to be the Mark IV transponder and related equipment, Kapsch. As I understand it, the previous owners were very protective of their proprietary standards, and were unwilling to share with others, and I suppose that Kapsch decided that was a losing strategy, and is in the process of putting their 915 MHz technology in the public domain.

I think what may happen is that there will be a two-tier system, similar to what is planned in North Carolina.  They use either 6B or 6C technology, but they also plan on issuing a hard case tag that can be used on EZPass systems (at least that's what they say on their website - is that still the case?)  So here in California, assuming we go 6C, we would use dual protocol readers that would read 6C and whatever the national standard would be.

The North Carolina system is up and running, though it has been reported that some patrons of the only North Carolina toll road (currently), the Triangle Expressway got billed twice because they had a 6C transponder and an E-ZPass unit in their vehicle at the same time (details here).

NC fixed that bug.  I tested it with both a SunPass and E-ZPass mounted, only the SunPass was charged.  Paid a bunch of other ones with just SunPass and just E-ZPass and they not only registered just fine, but posted to my accounts before I even woke up the next morning!  All of these transactions occurred with a Georgia Peach Pass sticker on the windshield at the same time (can't remove it!). 

That said, I would never drive through a toll booth with more than one "valid" tag outside of the read protect bag.  Normally I have an E-ZPass (IAG spec), a SunPass (6B spec) and a PeachPass (6C spec) on my windshield at any given time.  And pretty much anywhere along the east coast (except NC), only one of the three will be read by any toll plaza equipment and only one of the three would be accepted.  In the case where the toll plaza equipment can read more than one of them, I assume the algorithm is to ignore any invalid tags and keep looking for a valid one and then charge it (as in, that algorithm was what told Triangle Expressway equipment to ignore my PeachPass, which presumably it could read). 

But safely stored in the read protect bag in the console are two additional E-ZPass tags, and since all of the three would be considered valid at any E-ZPass toll facility, I make sure I keep the other two tightly sealed away so I'm not charged on any other than the one I want to use.  Unfortunately, since E-ZPass is pretty "balkanized" in terms of only giving discounts for those with in-state E-ZPass accounts, and because I'm indecisive about which discount I like the most (haha, more like just maximizing discounts based on a careful analysis of my travel patterns), I have three and play musical E-ZPass.  Unfortunately, this "transponder discrimination" kind of goes agains the spirit of interoperability, but it is fairly common practice, being the practice of 9 out of 15 E-ZPass states (I count NY and NJ, even though it is just one of several agencies in each state, MTA and NJ Turnpike respectively, that "discriminate").  Hopefully national interoperability won't involve more games like this of charging out-of-state transponders higher tolls just to make money. 

[cpzilliacus]

Another interesting aspect of this which I am actively working on: what will the new "Nationally Interoperable" symbol look like?  We have a joint committee of IBTTA and NCUTCD looking into this.

That's not an easy thing to determine, especially when there are so many different transponder "brands" out there.  If there were only three or four (E-ZPass, SunPass, TxTag and FasTrak), then it might be reasonable to just post them all.

The way I envision a system working is that you get a message from your ETC account provider asking if you want National interoperability on your account.  If you opt-in, you may have to swap out your transponder for a dual mode one, and might have to agree to have your license plate info on file and always updated.  Then if, say you have E-ZPass, you will be notified that you can use your transponder anywhere that you see "E-ZPass" or the new nationally interoperable symbol.  But be forwarned that in some cases where you see the national symbol and not E-ZPass, the transaction may occur via video and not transponder reads, so it is critical that you have up to date license plate info on file.  The only places where this won't work is where "absesnce of a transponder means something", such as in California HOT lanes (with the exception of LA's) where they say "bag the tag" if you are an HOV...so there is no video system looking for those without tags that could be used to do video tolls.  This is why the rental car toll programs don't work on the HOT lanes in California and Washington State.

Maryland and Virginia have always asked for vehicle registration numbers that are supposed to correspond to each tag, presumably so that the toll road back-office operations have a whitelist that shows that the vehicle is supposed to have a transponder, in the event of a misread or no read.

I wonder if a SunPass patron driving in E-ZPass territory (Virginia and north and west of Virginia) would get billed anything extra for the video tag lookup? 

The "bag the tag" approach seems pretty clunky to me.  Much better to do as LAMTA, and issue a FasTrak switchable transponder and require all HOVs to have one.

[mtantillo]

Another interesting aspect of this which I am actively working on: what will the new "Nationally Interoperable" symbol look like?  We have a joint committee of IBTTA and NCUTCD looking into this.

That's not an easy thing to determine, especially when there are so many different transponder "brands" out there.  If there were only three or four (E-ZPass, SunPass, TxTag and FasTrak), then it might be reasonable to just post them all.

The way I envision a system working is that you get a message from your ETC account provider asking if you want National interoperability on your account.  If you opt-in, you may have to swap out your transponder for a dual mode one, and might have to agree to have your license plate info on file and always updated.  Then if, say you have E-ZPass, you will be notified that you can use your transponder anywhere that you see "E-ZPass" or the new nationally interoperable symbol.  But be forwarned that in some cases where you see the national symbol and not E-ZPass, the transaction may occur via video and not transponder reads, so it is critical that you have up to date license plate info on file.  The only places where this won't work is where "absesnce of a transponder means something", such as in California HOT lanes (with the exception of LA's) where they say "bag the tag" if you are an HOV...so there is no video system looking for those without tags that could be used to do video tolls.  This is why the rental car toll programs don't work on the HOT lanes in California and Washington State.

Maryland and Virginia have always asked for vehicle registration numbers that are supposed to correspond to each tag, presumably so that the toll road back-office operations have a whitelist that shows that the vehicle is supposed to have a transponder, in the event of a misread or no read.

I wonder if a SunPass patron driving in E-ZPass territory (Virginia and north and west of Virginia) would get billed anything extra for the video tag lookup? 

The "bag the tag" approach seems pretty clunky to me.  Much better to do as LAMTA, and issue a FasTrak switchable transponder and require all HOVs to have one.

Texas is actually going to have a lot of input on the symbol project...their rules supposidly preclude posting more than a certain number of payment types.  The symbol in the draft 2009 MUTCD was similar to a Wi-Fi symbol, but it wasn't adopted.  Needs to be simple, recognizable, and able to be heavily advertised. 

And yes, I think all E-ZPass agencies are supposed to ask for vehicle info (you mention MD and VA, I can confirm that for MA and NY as well).  Though I think some agencies are getting lazy and if you don't have your account with that agency, they will just send the violation notice out and it is up to you to get back to them saying you have a valid tag with another agency. 

In terms of "how many vehicles vs. how many tags", sticker tag agencies are much stricter than E-ZPass.  Georgia Peach Pass wrote the license plate number of my car on the foil bag when they sent my tag (this tag is meant for THIS CAR ONLY).  NC QuickPass will only let you have one vehicle per tag, and it is a pain to change...so their "hard case dual protocol" transponder isn't necessarily portable..it is physically, but not terms of service wise.  Florida with a SunPass portable tag lets you list many vehicles (I have my own and my parents' cars and we share that transponder).  And E-ZPass lets you have multiple vehicles per tag, or multiple tags per vehicle (probably only possible in states where you purchase your transponder...I ended up with a second Maryland tag when I purchased the Flex transponder).  The only E-ZPass state  that is really strict about having license plate numbers matching is MA....I read on MTR years ago that a Mass tag on a Mass toll road could read just fine, but they could randomly audit the license plate and fine you anyway if your license plate doesn't match.  Otherwise, you are basically free to use an E-ZPass in a vehicle not listed on your account, but you take the risk if it misreads...and indeed that happened to me in New Hampshire last summer, had to pay $19 for a $1 toll when the rental company got back to me. 

But yes, I would not be surprised if interoperable tolling via video would occur at higher toll rates.  Afterall, agencies don't want to encourage bulk use of their toll roads relying on video tolling...meaning someone with no intention of going to FL opens a SunPass account (no monthly fees, essentially free transponder) and uses it in Maryland where they have to video toll each transaction to bill back to FL.  But that seems to go against the spirit of interoperability to charge more.  Hopefully any video tolling is only used as an interim measure....the ultimate goal should be to have transponder tolling everywhere with dual mode transponders and readers. 

Now as for me, somehow I don't think I have to worry about my vehicle not being on a "whitelist"...I think its pretty safe to say my car can pay tolls in more states than 99.99% of vehicles in North America...haha! My concern is actually if I ever have an E-ZPass tag misread and they have to look up my license plate number and then see its listed on three activce E-ZPass accounts in three states, that I'll get triple charged.  If only the different agencies gave discounts to each other's tags.....

[1995hoo]

....

The "bag the tag" approach seems pretty clunky to me.  Much better to do as LAMTA, and issue a FasTrak switchable transponder and require all HOVs to have one.

The other potential problem with the "bag the tag" approach is the sticker tags. I can speak from experience that the SunPass Mini works just fine if you simply tape it to the windshield instead of following the mounting instructions. But I'd guess that most people don't know that and instead have theirs stuck permanently to the glass because that's what they're told to do (I do keep the license plate info up-to-date as a precaution). No easy way to prevent that from being read if you encounter a compatible facility. I haven't been on an NC QuickPass road, so it hasn't mattered to me.

I remember back in the Smart Tag days, Virginia didn't even provide a "no-read bag." (The SunPass Mini doesn't come with one either, for obvious reasons; don't know about the full-size plastic version.) I assume this was because it didn't work anywhere but Virginia, although it was still an annoyance because the Smart Tag interfered with an E-ZPass and vice versa. I guess if you don't have a no-read bag you need to keep some aluminum foil in the car if you regularly encounter interoperable facilities.

I suppose that sort of issue is another problem to address with interoperability.

[roadman]

At every mainline entrance (Beginning of the toll road, not the ramps) to the Illinois Tollway system there are signs erected that show both the I-Pass and EZ Pass logos. I would imagine as far as branding goes for other "local" transponders, like Sun Pass and Pike Pass, that would eventually join the EZ Pass group, there would be similar signs.

Before the Massachusetts Turnpike re-branded as EZ-Pass after the MassDOT "merger", the "(obnoxious bank advertisement) FastLane" signs had small tabs reading "EZ-Pass Accepted".  And both NHDOT and the NY Thruway had supplemental signs approaching their mainline barrier plazas reading "Fast Lane Accepted".

[1995hoo]

At every mainline entrance (Beginning of the toll road, not the ramps) to the Illinois Tollway system there are signs erected that show both the I-Pass and EZ Pass logos. I would imagine as far as branding goes for other "local" transponders, like Sun Pass and Pike Pass, that would eventually join the EZ Pass group, there would be similar signs.

Before the Massachusetts Turnpike re-branded as EZ-Pass after the MassDOT "merger", the "(obnoxious bank advertisement) FastLane" signs had small tabs reading "EZ-Pass Accepted".  And both NHDOT and the NY Thruway had supplemental signs approaching their mainline barrier plazas reading "Fast Lane Accepted".

Virginia still has the old Smart Tag logo up next to the E-ZPass logo on many of the purple signs on the Dulles Toll Road. I doubt there are all that many devices branded solely as Smart Tag still in service due to battery-life issues, so I suspect it's just a case of their not wanting to replace the signs just for that issue. Unlike the examples you cite, these weren't (I guess "aren't" is more accurate) supplemental signs.

[hobsini2]

So is there a realistic timeline in sight for EZ Pass interops coming to current non EZ Pass states? And if so, which states/agencies could be joining?

[mrsman]

In the Mid-South thread, bugo reported that OK's Pikepass and Dallas area NTTA tags are becoming interoperable in August 2014.

To what extent are there technological issues to make these and other toll tags in the USA interoperable with E-Z Pass?  I recall that Mass, Illinois, and Virginia each had their own tags that later became interoperable because they utilized similar technologies.  But how much more can be done here?

I guess one question is if State A has a system that cannot be easily converted to E-Z Pass, would it make sense to force State A to change all of their transponders and readers to being E-Z Pass compliant, or would it make more sense to design a new state of the art national system and have everybody (including E-Z Pass) update their systems.  And if we're doing that, maybe we make switchable transponders (like required on some HOT lane systems for HOV use [Los Angeles area, I-495 in Virginia]) a standard as well.

[doorknob60]

As great as it would be for one transponder to work across the US, I think this Relevant XKCD sums up the issue quite well.

Add BreezeBy as another more obscure transponder type. It's literally only used by one bridge, although it's the only toll road of any kind I use with any amount of regularity (as in, a few times a year; not enough to warrant getting a transponder). The Northwest (outside of Seattle) doesn't really have any toll roads.

EDIT: Well, looks like they're trying. That's good

Good to Go Reciprocity:

Currently WSDOT and the Port of Hood River are using the same type of transponder for the electronic tolling. Our intent was to be able to read both the Good To Go transponders and our own, BreezeBy. The readers have been changed to be able to read both at this time in all lanes.

You will be able to use one transponder but you will have two accounts, one with us and one with Tacoma-Narrows. You will put money on the accounts individually and any statements will be independent of one another.

Note: You cannot use your Good to Go until we activate them on our system.

[mtantillo]

In the Mid-South thread, bugo reported that OK's Pikepass and Dallas area NTTA tags are becoming interoperable in August 2014.

To what extent are there technological issues to make these and other toll tags in the USA interoperable with E-Z Pass?  I recall that Mass, Illinois, and Virginia each had their own tags that later became interoperable because they utilized similar technologies.  But how much more can be done here?

I guess one question is if State A has a system that cannot be easily converted to E-Z Pass, would it make sense to force State A to change all of their transponders and readers to being E-Z Pass compliant, or would it make more sense to design a new state of the art national system and have everybody (including E-Z Pass) update their systems.  And if we're doing that, maybe we make switchable transponders (like required on some HOT lane systems for HOV use [Los Angeles area, I-495 in Virginia]) a standard as well.

I don't think it makes sense for anyone to try to "force" anyone to change out all of their equipment. E-ZPass uses antiquated equipment, but will not be changing their technology anytime soon because they represent the vast majority of all toll road users in the US. The other toll authorities don't feel the need to change their more modern equipment. So the solution will likely involve dual-mode readers that can read more than one type of tag, or dual mode transponders that can broadcast to more than one type of equipment. Any new national standard will likely use one of the newer technologies as the primary means of communication (6C seems most likely), but will also have the technological ability to interact with E-ZPass equipment.

The direction we seem to be going in is regional agreements for interoperability to start off. Currently we have: E-ZPass and NC, NC and FL, FL and GA (in the works...assume this will logically mean GA and NC too), TX (only NTTA facilities though) and OK, OK and Kansas (in the works). I'd have to say this is a pretty good start considering a national standard hasn't been decided upon. 

What makes this really confusing though is that in the past, it was that if A was interoperable with B, and B was interoperable with C, then A was also interoperable with C (E-ZPass was interoperable with FastLane, and when Smart Tag became interoperable with E-ZPass, you could use a Smart Tag in a Fast Lane and a Fast Lane in a Smart Tag lane).

Nowadays with the piecemeal interoperability happening organically, you could very well have A with B, B with C, but not A with C. You already have that with North Carolina (NC and FL, NC and E-ZPass, but not FL and E-ZPass....also, Toll Tag and TxTag, Toll Tag and PikePass, but not PikePass and TxTag).

This can be very confusing to users, especially if A knows that their tag is accepted "anywhere you see the B logo", and C's facilities will use C as the primary logo but say "Transponder B accepted". This is an issue that IBTTA is currently trying to sort out.

I'm not sure if switchable transponders would work interoperably. They don't in California (where you have multiple agencies that issue FasTrak tags, if you don't have a switchable one from LACMTA, you pay the full toll regardless of how many in the vehicle) or in E-ZPass territory (where only two operators issue Flex Transponders, MdTA and VDOT). For one thing, E-ZPass Flex transponders have two switch positions (HOV off, or HOV on, with HOV defined as 3+), and LA's have three positions (1, 2, 3+). E-ZPass Flex will work like a normal E-ZPass outside of the 495 Express lanes regardless of the position of the switch, whereas LACMTA's switchable FasTraks have to be switched to the "1" position to be used on other toll roads outside of LA County. I think the average person would get confused trying to understand the different rules for the switchable transponders and facilities that it won't be part of any initial interoperability arrangement.

I do wish that E-ZPass Flex had a 3 position switch like LA's FasTraks do. This would allow more acceptance of E-ZPass Flex for HOV applications in areas where an HOV is legally defined as 2+.

[1995hoo]

Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall the FL/NC/E-ZPass issue stems from North Carolina offering two devices, a hard case and a sticker. The hard case works with E-ZPass and SunPass while the sticker works only with SunPass. (This based on the QuickPass website: https://www.myncquickpass.com/en/about/transponder_flyer.pdf )

It raises the prospect that clearly E-ZPass and SunPass CAN be fully compatible if the E-ZPass jurisdictions simply issued a new generation of transponder, correct?


(Edited to add: If they didn't charge a $20 fee upfront for the hard case device, I'd consider getting QuickPasses for our cars and cancelling my E-ZPass and SunPass accounts because I'd just need the one device. But it's cheaper not to do that.)

[mtantillo]

Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall the FL/NC/E-ZPass issue stems from North Carolina offering two devices, a hard case and a sticker. The hard case works with E-ZPass and SunPass while the sticker works only with SunPass. (This based on the QuickPass website: https://www.myncquickpass.com/en/about/transponder_flyer.pdf )

It raises the prospect that clearly E-ZPass and SunPass CAN be fully compatible if the E-ZPass jurisdictions simply issued a new generation of transponder, correct?

(Edited to add: If they didn't charge a $20 fee upfront for the hard case device, I'd consider getting QuickPasses for our cars and cancelling my E-ZPass and SunPass accounts because I'd just need the one device. But it's cheaper not to do that.)

Yes...or a sticker in addition to a transponder "want to use E-ZPass in Florida? here. stick this on your windshield."  Likewise, when FL phases out their legacy transponders, they should have an extra reader channel available to accept E-ZPass.

I thought about going the QuickPass route. But I didn't, because NC QuickPass's terms of service are written as if it is a "HardCase sticker"...meaning it is a clunky box but is not considered "portable" or "mobile", and there must be a 1 to 1 license plate to transponder ratio. Easy enough to get an E-ZPass from the source of your choosing and a SunPass for $5. The only place you have to be careful with that is in NC, because they accept both, so you should really only have one valid transponder mounted to be safe about the double charging issue (if your SunPass is a properly mounted sticker, that means you'll be using that to pay and should dismount your E-ZPass). Though I know for a fact that at least some toll authorities have software in place to weed out multiple valid transponders...I performed a little experiment on the Dulles Toll Road with 3 valid E-ZPass transponders mounted and only one charge ever posted (to the tag which was installed in the correct location, but IMO has the weakest battery/signal due to a couple of mis-reads).

[1995hoo]

Yeah, we already have two E-ZPasses on one account and a single SunPass Mini. The latter is mounted with scotch tape and works perfectly well, but you're correct that I'd remove the E-ZPass if we ever drive on a North Carolina toll road, simply because it's easier to remove that one. When I got the SunPass Mini they still had the deal where you paid $5 but got $4.99 of toll credit to be used within 30 days, so it was essentially free (aside from maintaining a $15 balance). I understand that deal is gone.

Thanks for the comment about North Carolina requiring 1:1. We have three cars listed on both our E-ZPass and SunPass accounts. No reason for a third E-ZPass transponder because with two people, all three cars will never be driven at the same time, but I listed the third car because I sometimes put a transponder in it and I figure I might as well list the car in case the device fails. No reason for even two SunPass devices because we always take the same car to Florida (the one most comfortable for long drives, naturally).

The hard-case QuickPass looks rather different from any E-ZPass I've ever seen. What's interesting is that apparently new Virginia E-ZPass transponders are a different shape from the square devices most of us have had for many years, but they still don't look like the QuickPass. Weird. Do you have any idea how the member agencies choose what sort of device to use? Obviously in Virginia the Flex device is one thing, but aside from that, it's interesting to discover the devices are different and I wonder why that is and whether there is any significance to it.

[DevalDragon]

Wikipedia has the best chart of the different EZ Passes and the monthly charges, if any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass#Fees_and_discounts_by_state

The differences in monthly fees, discounts and deposits is staggering.