TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass Group not expecting others to join for national IOP, compiling list of protocols, meeting MPR manufacturers (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6216)
QuoteE-ZPass leaders today denied they expect other toll blocs around the country to join E-ZPass as part of the implementation of national interoperability (IOP) although they say they expect some new members. PJ Wilkins executive director was asked this question directly in an hour long internet hookup - a "Webinar" - organized by IBTTA and the E-ZPass Group (EZPG) Thursday.
QuoteNC should be operating as part of E-ZPass before the end of the year. But there were other ways of achieving interoperability that could come out of discussion with the various toll technology blocs (our term, not Wilkins.)
QuoteThe three EZPG presenters were firm on NIOP as being based on transponder-reader transactions with only a minor role for video tolling or license plate reads and motor registry lookup.
QuoteOnly transponder reads can offer the needed accuracy, they said, and the difficulty of dealing with the same alphanumeric on an array of different license plate types makes image based tolling too uncertain.
More toll groups should consider joining EZPass. I do not use toll roads frequently, but if either KTA or OTA (Kansas and Oklahoma respectively) joined EZPass, I'd be slightly more inclined to get their transponder because then I could use it if I ever went to Chicago or the East Coast. If KTA and OTA were interoperable with one another, I'd definitely get one, EZPass or no, since although I don't use Kansas or Oklahoma turnpikes enough to justify having one, together I probably would.
If some sort of national standard is desired, it's obvious that EZPass should be the choice since it's the most widespread. Instead of forcing everyone to adopt PikePass or something else that's only in one state, why not use the one that's already accepted in multiple jurisdictions?
is Florida interoperable yet?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 05, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
If some sort of national standard is desired, it's obvious that EZPass should be the choice since it's the most widespread. Instead of forcing everyone to adopt PikePass or something else that's only in one state, why not use the one that's already accepted in multiple jurisdictions?
I agree.
And I do
not think that plate imaging is the solution to interoperability, based on extensive personal experience with license plate reader technology. There are just
too many formats, and
too many fonts, and
too many format variations in license plates across North America for this to work in a 100% or even 99% reliable way.
One of the suggestions in the TOLLROADSnews article was to go with multi-mode transponder readers at toll payment points (and entry points on "closed" toll roads like the Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey Turnpikes).
One of the accepted transponders could be the "traditional" Mark IV (E-ZPass) transponder, and another might be the inexpensive "6C" transponder (I think that's the one in common use in Florida), though there is
presumably an upper limit to the number of transponder models that could be read by transponder readers.
And even though I have not driven on a toll road outside of the E-ZPass "footprint" in a long time, there is
substantial traffic between SunPass territory in Florida and the E-ZPass states of the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest states. And even though there are not that many people that routinely drive cars between the Atlantic and Pacific coast states, many commercial vehicles do this - frequently. And then there are (smaller [compared to E-ZPass]) "islanded" transponder areas in places as diverse as Ontario, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas.
Not yet. I maintain both a Sunpass and an E-Z Pass account for my travels.
We missed the boat on this. There should be one national (international counting Canada) standard for transponders. Higher end cars should come with the transponders built in, evidenced by a light on the dash, etc.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 05, 2012, 12:45:19 PM
And then there are (smaller [compared to E-ZPass]) "islanded" transponder areas in places as diverse as Ontario, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas.
Quebec is also an island.
Quote from: deanej on October 06, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 05, 2012, 12:45:19 PM
And then there are (smaller [compared to E-ZPass]) "islanded" transponder areas in places as diverse as Ontario, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas.
Quebec is also an island.
Add California (FasTrak) and Washington (Good2Go) to that list of "islanded" transponder areas.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 06, 2012, 06:58:12 AM
We missed the boat on this. There should be one national (international counting Canada) standard for transponders. Higher end cars should come with the transponders built in, evidenced by a light on the dash, etc.
I think all motor vehicles sold in new in North America will eventually be equipped with some sort of standard, built-in dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) transponder, maybe 5.9 GHz.
Consider that the (recently approved) MAP-21 law mandates national interoperability within four years, as TOLLROADSnews wrote:
QuoteFausti was asked about 5.9GHz a USDOT favorite and said it might have a future in the longterm if safety applications see it being adopted by manufacturers or mandated. But that was all too uncertain and too far off, he suggested, to be useful in meeting the 4-year goal of national interoperability (NIOP) under the federal MAP21 mandate.
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 06, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
Might be cheaper to build them in to all vehicles. As I understand it, air conditioning is sold as standard equipment in many vehicles across North America, even in places like Alaska and the Yukon Territory (where it's not usually needed).
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 06, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
I have one EZPass. My wife and I share it. She gets it when she is traveling to states with toll roads, and I keep it for my travels. We only pay one fee.
Multiple transponders, one for each vehicle, would mean multiple fees.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 06, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
I have one EZPass. My wife and I share it. She gets it when she is traveling to states with toll roads, and I keep it for my travels. We only pay one fee.
Multiple transponders, one for each vehicle, would mean multiple fees.
Possibly. Some toll agencies don't charge fees. ISTHA does not for I-Pass (fully compatible with EZ-Pass). I just got a letter today telling me to trade in my transponder since it is near the end of its life (got it 9 years ago), and the trade will be dome at no cost.
Quote from: Brandon on October 06, 2012, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 02:41:52 PM
I have one EZPass. My wife and I share it. She gets it when she is traveling to states with toll roads, and I keep it for my travels. We only pay one fee.
Multiple transponders, one for each vehicle, would mean multiple fees.
Possibly. Some toll agencies don't charge fees. ISTHA does not for I-Pass (fully compatible with EZ-Pass). I just got a letter today telling me to trade in my transponder since it is near the end of its life (got it 9 years ago), and the trade will be dome at no cost.
FTE/SunPass and WSDOT/Good to Go! also do not charge fees, though WSDOT will charge a fee after 24 months of non-use. However, some toll agencies in Florida may charge a non-use fee, or deactivate the transponders and charge a fee to reactivate them - I think OOCEA does this.
When I was planning on taking a trip from Orlando to Chicago and researching E-ZPass transponders, I eventually chose ISTHA/I-Pass because of its lack of fees in general and (of course) its interoperability with other E-ZPass states. There are certain fees for using the Indiana Toll Road, and Indiana's i-Zoom charges fees for using Illinois's toll roads, but it's something so small that it really had little effect on my trip.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 06, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
I have one EZPass. My wife and I share it. She gets it when she is traveling to states with toll roads, and I keep it for my travels. We only pay one fee.
Multiple transponders, one for each vehicle, would mean multiple fees.
But see, you're breaking the rules. When you get a transponder, it's supposed to be associated with a specific vehicle. You're not supposed to share them.
Having the transponder built in would then just enforce this, which is currently difficult (and not done, hence why it's blatantly violated by a lot of people).
Quote from: Duke87 on October 06, 2012, 05:12:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 06, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
I have one EZPass. My wife and I share it. She gets it when she is traveling to states with toll roads, and I keep it for my travels. We only pay one fee.
Multiple transponders, one for each vehicle, would mean multiple fees.
But see, you're breaking the rules. When you get a transponder, it's supposed to be associated with a specific vehicle. You're not supposed to share them.
Having the transponder built in would then just enforce this, which is currently difficult (and not done, hence why it's blatantly violated by a lot of people).
Not for every agency.
WSDOT (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/GoodToGo/faq_GeneralInfo.htm): The tolling system does not require that each pass be matched to a specific vehicle license plate. Therefore, your movable passes can be used on any of the vehicles listed on your account.
FTE (https://www.sunpass.com/faq): You may use your SunPass Portable personal transponder on another vehicle that has the same number of axles, as long as the vehicle and license plate are listed on your account information. Transponders issued to commercial accounts are interchangeable between vehicles, regardless of vehicle type or axle count. For your convenience, the SunPass Portable transponders may be easily moved from car to car. However, all vehicles and license plates must be listed on your account information.
If you're talking about E-ZPass Interoperability Group transponders, I-Pass allows sharing between vehicles. According to their Terms of Agreement (http://www.illinoistollway.com/web/pages/terms-and-conditions), "Use your I-PASS only on the vehicle(s) listed by make, model, and license plate and with the proper number of axles and tires specified on your application." There is nothing prohibiting sharing transponders between vehicles.
E-ZPass New Jersey (https://www.ezpassnj.com/en/faq/tags.shtml): [Y]ou may transfer a tag between vehicles as long as they are of the same vehicle class. There are penalties for using a tag in a different vehicle class (i.e. Car tag in a tractor-trailer).
Quote from: Duke87 on October 06, 2012, 05:12:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 06, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
I have one EZPass. My wife and I share it. She gets it when she is traveling to states with toll roads, and I keep it for my travels. We only pay one fee.
Multiple transponders, one for each vehicle, would mean multiple fees.
But see, you're breaking the rules. When you get a transponder, it's supposed to be associated with a specific vehicle. You're not supposed to share them.
Having the transponder built in would then just enforce this, which is currently difficult (and not done, hence why it's blatantly violated by a lot of people).
No, a transponder can be shared between vehicles. With ISTHA, an I-Pass can be shared between different vehicles so long as each vehicle is registered as a user of that transponder with them. It's a great way to keep from making a mistake with a rental car.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 06, 2012, 05:12:33 PM
But see, you're breaking the rules. When you get a transponder, it's supposed to be associated with a specific vehicle. You're not supposed to share them.
Having the transponder built in would then just enforce this, which is currently difficult (and not done, hence why it's blatantly violated by a lot of people).
Not so in California. All vehicles listed in a person's FasTrak account (by license plate number) can use the same transponder. FasTrak users also have the option to request additional transponders but depending on the tolling agency, they may incur additional fees. For FasTrak users in the San Francisco Bay Area, we're allowed two transponders at no cost but must pay a monthly fee for any additional transponders.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 06, 2012, 05:12:33 PM
But see, you're breaking the rules. When you get a transponder, it's supposed to be associated with a specific vehicle. You're not supposed to share them.
Mine's from West Virginia, and you're allowed to share transponders if the vehicles are registered with the turnpike authority. My Vue, my truck and my wife's Vue are all registered. I called them back in the winter when I was issued new plates with new numbers.
Funny story as to how I came to have a WV EZPass, which does charge a nominal fee. My wife was planning a trip to an area that uses EZPass, and I ordered two fee-free ones from the Peace Bridge authority. I think Peace Bridge requires one tag per vehicle. I ordered them in plenty of time for them to arrive, but they didn't get shipped in time. (They were being shipped out of Florida). So I ended up taking an afternoon off work and driving to Charleston to pick up one in person.
Of course the Peace Bridge tags finally arrived, and they've never been used. I ought to find them and send them back and get my $50 back. Someone else is now handling Peace Bridge's EZPass tags now. I think it's the NY Thruway. I got a notice but forgot about it, and found it last week while cleaning off my desk at work.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 09:43:13 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 06, 2012, 05:12:33 PM
But see, you're breaking the rules. When you get a transponder, it's supposed to be associated with a specific vehicle. You're not supposed to share them.
Mine's from West Virginia, and you're allowed to share transponders if the vehicles are registered with the turnpike authority. My Vue, my truck and my wife's Vue are all registered. I called them back in the winter when I was issued new plates with new numbers.
Huh. Well, not so in New York! If you register another car, they send you another transponder for it. Any fees which may be levied are per account, though, not per transponder, so there is no financial reason to break this rule - people just do it for convenience.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 06, 2012, 10:51:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 09:43:13 PM
Mine's from West Virginia, and you're allowed to share transponders if the vehicles are registered with the turnpike authority. My Vue, my truck and my wife's Vue are all registered. I called them back in the winter when I was issued new plates with new numbers.
Huh. Well, not so in New York! If you register another car, they send you another transponder for it. Any fees which may be levied are per account, though, not per transponder, so there is no financial reason to break this rule - people just do it for convenience.
That's actually really nice that additional transponders don't come with additional cost. I know the first transponder for ISTHA's I-Pass comes with a deposit, and additional transponders probably incur more deposits, too. You have to purchase WSDOT's Good-to-Go! and FTE's SunPass, though account registration is free and any initial deposit fully goes towards tolls. I'm sure there are perks and disadvantages to each agency's way of handling things. For example, NY's system would have been great when I got a second SunPass transponder for my parents and tied it to my account, but since the SunPass Mini included a rebate equal to the purchase price in tolls, it wouldn't have really made any difference. However, families with multiple cars all wanting to stay under the same account and not have to worry about remembering to bring their transponder with them would be great.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 06, 2012, 12:48:59 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 06, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
Might be cheaper to build them in to all vehicles. As I understand it, air conditioning is sold as standard equipment in many vehicles across North America, even in places like Alaska and the Yukon Territory (where it's not usually needed).
AC is needed in winter just as much as summer, for a different reason: to de-fog the windows.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 06, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
I have one EZPass. My wife and I share it. She gets it when she is traveling to states with toll roads, and I keep it for my travels. We only pay one fee.
Multiple transponders, one for each vehicle, would mean multiple fees.
Not in Maryland. We have five vehicles on my E-ZPass account (three in my family, two that belong to my Dad). As long as we charge $1.50 per month to any one of them (we do), there's no fee.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 06, 2012, 05:12:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 06, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Why does a transponder need to be built into a car? Is there anything wrong with having it on the windshield? Seems kind of a waste to sell a car with a transponder in it to someone in, say, Montana that will never need it...
I have one EZPass. My wife and I share it. She gets it when she is traveling to states with toll roads, and I keep it for my travels. We only pay one fee.
Multiple transponders, one for each vehicle, would mean multiple fees.
But see, you're breaking the rules. When you get a transponder, it's supposed to be associated with a specific vehicle. You're not supposed to share them.
Maryland is indifferent about this, though they do ask that the registration plate number be kept current online (in the event of a misread).
Quote from: Duke87 on October 06, 2012, 05:12:33 PM
Having the transponder built in would then just enforce this, which is currently difficult (and not done, hence why it's blatantly violated by a lot of people).
See above. I think the policy may vary by issuer.
It seems likely Florida will be able to accept EZPass faster than the other way around.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is my understanding of the situation:
Florida has only two major agencies, and the turnpike is replacing their old dual mode readers with tri or quad mode. The two channels are programmed for the older Allegro and the newer 6B sticker channels. When they get a third channel they can easily program it for EZPass. (If they get fourth channel, or else retire all their Allegro units with tri-mode they could program in 6C and bring in Georgia), and other agencies are transititioning to 6B and 6C too.
Going the other direction, there's all kinds of different EZPass agencies and reader technologies, so a comprehensive update is going to be harder. Also, Minnesota uses the same technology as EZPass but seems to have zero interest in linking up. I haven't been able to find out if Minnesota's readers are capable of more than one channel, but I doubt it.
Quote from: Mdcastle on October 07, 2012, 08:15:06 PM
It seems likely Florida will be able to accept EZPass faster than the other way around.
Not so sure either party wants to have "one-way" interoperability. In that sense, I refer to all of the E-ZPass Group members as
one entity.
Quote from: Mdcastle on October 07, 2012, 08:15:06 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is my understanding of the situation:
Florida has only two major agencies, and the turnpike is replacing their old dual mode readers with tri or quad mode. The two channels are programmed for the older Allegro and the newer 6B sticker channels. When they get a third channel they can easily program it for EZPass. (If they get fourth channel, or else retire all their Allegro units with tri-mode they could program in 6C and bring in Georgia), and other agencies are transititioning to 6B and 6C too.
6C sounds like the possible winner to me.
Quote from: Mdcastle on October 07, 2012, 08:15:06 PM
Going the other direction, there's all kinds of different EZPass agencies and reader technologies, so a comprehensive update is going to be harder. Also, Minnesota uses the same technology as EZPass but seems to have zero interest in linking up. I haven't been able to find out if Minnesota's readers are capable of more than one channel, but I doubt it.
As I understand it, there is one E-ZPass standard that its members must meet. That doesn't mean that E-ZPass toll agencies have to buy hardware and softeware from one vendor, but there is one standard that they all must adhere to.
I am speculating, but I would think that the E-ZPass membership might decide to start honoring a "second" type of transponder, quite possibly 6C. If that were to be done, I think E-ZPass would want
all of its members to honor that "second" transponder.
Regarding Minnesota, the closest E-ZPass group toll agency currently is the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority around Chicago. But there have been other users of the E-ZPass Mark IV transponders without being E-ZPass members. Virginia's SmarTag was independent of E-ZPass (and not connected to E-ZPass) for quite a few years, as was Maryland's M-Tag (Maryland joined E-ZPass several years before Virginia did).
TOLLROADSnews: National interoperability SECOND THOUGHTS (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6219)
QuoteIn our earlier report of the IBTTA/E-ZPass Group (EZPG) 'webinar' we suggested a conflict in approach between the Alliance for Toll Interoperability (ATI) and the EZPG which is probably more a difference in emphasis and healthy competition in approaches. ATI's hubs happen to have been used so far to clear transactions between tollers that mostly originated in license plate imaging, but they are a back office transactions clearing network, and can process any kinds of transactions.
QuoteThe E-ZPass Group wants to emphasize high levels of performance in transponder-reader transactions and their focus for now is on how to do interoperability at the front end.
QuoteThis is more a difference in emphasis or focus rather a conflict. For the foreseeable future - certainly within the 4 year MAP21 timeframe for interoperability - there will be vehicles without transponders, so whether you like it or not there will have to be cameras and an effort to clear interstate transactions from camera imaging and license plate reads.
The interoperability discussion is pretty interesting coming from someone about as far away from EZPass territory as can be (California). If this does become reality, it will be interesting to see how California is going to handle it. I don't have any knowledge about the interworkings of FasTrak except that we use transponders that are read from overhead readers.
While most toll facilities in California use cameras to snap pictures of license plates if the transponder malfunctions, the I-680 Express Lane from CA-84 to CA-237, the I-880/CA-237 Express Lanes and the future I-580 Express Lane through Livermore all do not use cameras and, according to a local transportation columnist, there are NO plans to install cameras on these facilities. According to published reports, the HOV lanes on CA-85, CA-237 and US 101 through Santa Clara County are to be converted to HOT or Express Lanes within the next few years. Whether these facilities will get cameras for the purpose of toll collection remains to be seen but if the existing Express Lanes are any indication don't expect cameras any time soon.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 08, 2012, 02:13:21 AM
The interoperability discussion is pretty interesting coming from someone about as far away from EZPass territory as can be (California). If this does become reality, it will be interesting to see how California is going to handle it. I don't have any knowledge about the interworkings of FasTrak except that we use transponders that are read from overhead readers.
The FasTrak transponders are not, as far as I can tell, compatible with any other electronic toll collection technology in North America. TOLLROADSnews calls the FasTrak technology
Title 21 in this (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6216) article. More about Title 21 technology in TOLLROADSnews correction article here (http://tollroadsnews).
Why should California be interested in toll interoperability? For commercial vehicle traffic, which
does operate between the E-ZPass states and California (especially the Bay Area).
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 08, 2012, 02:13:21 AM
While most toll facilities in California use cameras to snap pictures of license plates if the transponder malfunctions, the I-680 Express Lane from CA-84 to CA-237, the I-880/CA-237 Express Lanes and the future I-580 Express Lane through Livermore all do not use cameras and, according to a local transportation columnist, there are NO plans to install cameras on these facilities. According to published reports, the HOV lanes on CA-85, CA-237 and US 101 through Santa Clara County are to be converted to HOT or Express Lanes within the next few years. Whether these facilities will get cameras for the purpose of toll collection remains to be seen but if the existing Express Lanes are any indication don't expect cameras any time soon.
Not having cameras is a gold-engraved invite to toll violators (and
IMO, a
big mistake, even though most drivers are honest) - the Virginia Department of Transportation did not have cameras on its transponder-only lanes (ungated) on the Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267) for many years, though it had to install them when VDOT joined the E-ZPass Group (apparently it is a condition of membership in E-ZPass).
The TCA toll roads in Orange County, Calif. are planning to convert to cashless toll collection in the coming years. I wonder if they will be installing cameras at their toll collection points?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 08, 2012, 09:13:51 AM
The TCA toll roads in Orange County, Calif. are planning to convert to cashless toll collection in the coming years. I wonder if they will be installing cameras at their toll collection points?
According to the TCA website, they already have cameras installed at toll collection points along their toll roads. A quick look at Google Maps seems to confirms that cameras are already in use. I believe the only facilities that do not have cameras are the S.F. Bay Area Express Lanes on I-680 and I-880/CA-237. All Bay Area toll bridges have cameras at the toll plazas with the Golden Gate Bridge converting to all electronic tolling by March 2013...
Quote from: Mr. Roadshow column in the San Jose Mercury NewsThe toll takers will be gone by March. Once the conversion is made to all electronic tolling, there will be three ways to pay: use FasTrak; set up an account and get a bill in the mail and charge it to a credit card; or toll-lane cameras would record your license plate number and send the registered owner of the vehicle a bill.
Link to Full Article (http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_21700462/roadshow-golden-gate-bridge-get-median-barrier-lose)
Back on the subtopic of multiple cars sharing an account:
Even though I drive through Texas from Oklahoma to México every year, I have still not bought a TxTag. If I were to buy one, I would be able to use it on the new bypass around Austin (which I currently do not use because I don't trust pay-by-mail) as well as the Camino Colombia.
Instead, I have a Camino Colombia Day Pass account, which I was able to set up over the phone a couple of years ago when the Camino Colombia went cashless. We've always had two vehicles going, but which second vehicle is going (and what my current license plate number is) changes year to year. So I just call the toll road authority and ask to change the vehicle information on my account. Sometimes it's a struggle to find someone who actually knows how to do so, but I've always been able to.
So 2½ years ago, I created the account with my minivan's information plus our friend Ray's Honda Civic.
1½ years ago, I had them remove Ray's Civic from the account and add our best friend Adam's GMC Sierra–though I forgot to update our address at that time, having moved to a different neighborhood.
This past June, I had them remove Adam's pickup and add our youth pastor Josh's Toyota Highlander, update our address information, update our license plate number (it had changed), and add money to the account. It took a while for them to find my account, since I had lost our account number, but it all worked out in the end.
Eventually, when we end up living in México full-time, I'll probably just get a TxTag. But, for now, the Day Pass account is the easiest way for me without submitting to pay-by-mail. And, especially with the recent tag office fiasco here in Kansas, I simply don't trust the toll road authorities to have my current information on file enough to do pay-by-mail.
I do think that eventually there will be a national "crossover" for toll transponders. It is already proven that you do not need to have an EZ Pass if you have an I-Pass for it to work in New York. I am sure that there are other Passes that can be used interchangeably between toll systems. I think it would be most cost effective to the states that have electronic tolls to be able to carry all such transponders. So if you have a Pike Pass it could work on the Golden Gate Bridge or a EZ Pass can be used on the Dallas North Tollway. It may be a pipe dream at this time but it should be coming very soon.
Quote from: xcellntbuy on October 05, 2012, 04:18:17 PM
Not yet. I maintain both a Sunpass and an E-Z Pass account for my travels.
I've heard from one of the Illinois Tollway officials at a public meeting that Florida is the most requested for interoperability with the I-Pass transponder.
I don't suppose there is a list with all the different transponder/tag systems somewhere on the web?
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 13, 2012, 10:41:47 PM
I don't suppose there is a list with all the different transponder/tag systems somewhere on the web?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_toll_collection_systems#United_States should probably suffice.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 13, 2012, 10:20:24 PM
I do think that eventually there will be a national "crossover" for toll transponders. It is already proven that you do not need to have an EZ Pass if you have an I-Pass for it to work in New York. I am sure that there are other Passes that can be used interchangeably between toll systems. I think it would be most cost effective to the states that have electronic tolls to be able to carry all such transponders. So if you have a Pike Pass it could work on the Golden Gate Bridge or a EZ Pass can be used on the Dallas North Tollway. It may be a pipe dream at this time but it should be coming very soon.
I-Pass is E-ZPass with different branding.
Quote from: deanej on October 14, 2012, 11:31:48 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 13, 2012, 10:20:24 PM
I do think that eventually there will be a national "crossover" for toll transponders. It is already proven that you do not need to have an EZ Pass if you have an I-Pass for it to work in New York. I am sure that there are other Passes that can be used interchangeably between toll systems. I think it would be most cost effective to the states that have electronic tolls to be able to carry all such transponders. So if you have a Pike Pass it could work on the Golden Gate Bridge or a EZ Pass can be used on the Dallas North Tollway. It may be a pipe dream at this time but it should be coming very soon.
I-Pass is E-ZPass with different branding.
Right. And if the E-ZPass Group becomes interoperable with SunPass, I suspect that means (implicitly) that I-Pass will be interoperable with SunPass as well, since I think it reasonable to regard I-Pass as a subset of E-ZPass.
And that is exactly my point why it will happen down the line soon.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 14, 2012, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: deanej on October 14, 2012, 11:31:48 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 13, 2012, 10:20:24 PM
I do think that eventually there will be a national "crossover" for toll transponders. It is already proven that you do not need to have an EZ Pass if you have an I-Pass for it to work in New York. I am sure that there are other Passes that can be used interchangeably between toll systems. I think it would be most cost effective to the states that have electronic tolls to be able to carry all such transponders. So if you have a Pike Pass it could work on the Golden Gate Bridge or a EZ Pass can be used on the Dallas North Tollway. It may be a pipe dream at this time but it should be coming very soon.
I-Pass is E-ZPass with different branding.
Right. And if the E-ZPass Group becomes interoperable with SunPass, I suspect that means (implicitly) that I-Pass will be interoperable with SunPass as well, since I think it reasonable to regard I-Pass as a subset of E-ZPass.
Becoming interoperable doesn't mean they would become a member agency of the E-ZPass group though.
I hope SunPass never becomes a member of EZPass. Interoperability would be excellent but I'm a firm believer in keeping local control.
Quote from: realjd on October 15, 2012, 11:27:06 PM
I hope SunPass never becomes a member of EZPass. Interoperability would be excellent but I'm a firm believer in keeping local control.
Unless I am mistaken as to how the E-ZPass IAG works, FTE/OOCEA/MDX would not give up any actual control of anything by joining E-ZPass. They would just use a standard transponder model and standard E-ZPass branding.
What exactly do you think they would have to give up control over?
Quote from: realjd on October 15, 2012, 11:27:06 PM
I hope SunPass never becomes a member of EZPass. Interoperability would be excellent but I'm a firm believer in keeping local control.
The E-ZPass Group is not about giving up local control. I am pretty certain that the group does not tell its members (which include large public-sector toll roads like the Pennsylvania Turnpike as well as smallish private-sector concessions like the Dulles Greenway and the Chicago Skyway) how to run their roads.
More from TOLLROADSnews: OmniAir making bid to have its Certification Services subsidiary plan testing programs for E-ZPass interoperability effort (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6233)
QuoteThe EZPG executives were interested in hearing details of the OCS' testing for their first qualified toll technology, the 6C sticker tags, the 3M/Sirit system having completed certification in September.
QuoteThe E-ZPass Group is looking at different options for managing testing as part of their effort to establish how to handle tags from the various state toll blocs in Texas, Florida, California and other places with different electronic toll or RFID protocols.
QuoteAffiliate membership is now being offered by the EZPG for tollers with different electronic (transponder-reader) technology but who have proposals for interoperability. North Carolina Turnpike with 6B+ protocol and TransCore 6B+/E-ZPass dual protocol transponders plus multi-protocol readers is set to be the first affiliate member later this year.
QuoteThe TransCore equipment in use in North Carolina has been found to meet EZPG standards.
Quote from: realjd on October 15, 2012, 11:27:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on October 16, 2012, 07:16:33 PM
Quote from: realjd on October 15, 2012, 11:27:06 PM
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 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6071))) getting rid of the I-ZOOM transponder brand and transitioning everything to E-ZPass.
Quote from: Brandon on October 16, 2012, 07:16:33 PM
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.
There's one small issue with keeping local branding, and that's making it abundantly clear to joe six-pack that his transponder can be used anywhere in the network. Maybe co-branding, or some sort of "Accepts transponders $foo and $bar" signage might work, but what if every member of the EZ-Pass IAG exclusively used their own branding? You'd have a mess (speaking from a purely PR perspective). I suppose this would be less of an issue if there were true national interoperability (then it's just a matter of knowing that my transponder works *everywhere*), but as it is now, I think EZ-Pass branding for the association is important.
Quote from: Compulov on October 17, 2012, 03:19:51 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 16, 2012, 07:16:33 PM
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.
There's one small issue with keeping local branding, and that's making it abundantly clear to joe six-pack that his transponder can be used anywhere in the network. Maybe co-branding, or some sort of "Accepts transponders $foo and $bar" signage might work, but what if every member of the EZ-Pass IAG exclusively used their own branding? You'd have a mess (speaking from a purely PR perspective). I suppose this would be less of an issue if there were true national interoperability (then it's just a matter of knowing that my transponder works *everywhere*), but as it is now, I think EZ-Pass branding for the association is important.
Virginia had that for a while (and still does, to some extent), with the SmarTag (old, Virginia-specific Mark IV) "brand" displayed along with E-ZPass (both are in purple).
Quote from: Brandon on October 16, 2012, 07:16:33 PM
They should be able to, even including keeping their own branding.
why? I don't care who operates a toll road. I never think to myself "oh, I should take CA-73; it's run by Orange County Transit Authority". it's either "I wanna pay 4 bucks to save some time" or "I don't".
it's not like there is competition among toll roads that makes brand awareness critical.
Quote from: Compulov on October 17, 2012, 03:19:51 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 16, 2012, 07:16:33 PM
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.
There's one small issue with keeping local branding, and that's making it abundantly clear to joe six-pack that his transponder can be used anywhere in the network. Maybe co-branding, or some sort of "Accepts transponders $foo and $bar" signage might work, but what if every member of the EZ-Pass IAG exclusively used their own branding? You'd have a mess (speaking from a purely PR perspective). I suppose this would be less of an issue if there were true national interoperability (then it's just a matter of knowing that my transponder works *everywhere*), but as it is now, I think EZ-Pass branding for the association is important.
Heading east into Ohio from Indiana, there are signs approaching the Westgate Toll Barrier that say that the Ohio Turnpike accepts I-Pass, iZoom and E-ZPass. The Indiana Toll Road likewise has I-Pass logo signage. Since the ITRCC has recently discontinued the iZoom branding, and replaced their signage, the Ohio example is probably one of the last places left to show an iZoom logo.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 17, 2012, 02:57:51 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 16, 2012, 07:16:33 PM
Quote from: realjd on October 15, 2012, 11:27:06 PM
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 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6071))) 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.
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.
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 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6247)
QuoteKapsch 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.
QuoteGeorg 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.
QuoteA 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.
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 25, 2012, 04:27:26 PM
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.
Quote from: stonefort on December 27, 2012, 03:31:30 PM
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 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6325)
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.
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.
Quote from: jrouse on February 07, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
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).
Quote from: jrouse on February 07, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
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.
Quote from: jrouse on February 07, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg202004#msg202004)).
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass Group has OmniAir designing program to certify non-Kapsch readers and tags as compliant (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6854)
QuoteWith 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.
QuoteThe E-ZPass Group announcement says the certification program "leads to improved competition, and potential for reduced costs."
QuoteNational 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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2013, 06:17:32 PM
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass Group has OmniAir designing program to certify non-Kapsch readers and tags as compliant (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6854)
QuoteWith 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.
QuoteThe E-ZPass Group announcement says the certification program "leads to improved competition, and potential for reduced costs.
QuoteNational 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.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 08:48:29 PM
Quote from: jrouse on February 07, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
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).
Quote from: jrouse on February 07, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
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.
Quote from: jrouse on February 07, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg202004#msg202004)).
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.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 17, 2013, 08:07:14 PM
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.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 17, 2013, 08:07:14 PM
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.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2013, 11:30:46 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 17, 2013, 08:07:14 PM
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.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 17, 2013, 08:07:14 PM
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.....
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2013, 11:30:46 PM
....
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.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 21, 2012, 06:42:22 PM
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".
Quote from: roadman on December 18, 2013, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 21, 2012, 06:42:22 PM
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.
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?
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.
As great as it would be for one transponder to work across the US, I think this Relevant XKCD (https://xkcd.com/927/) sums up the issue quite well.
Add BreezeBy (http://www.portofhoodriver.com/bridge/ETC%20Info.php) 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 :)
Quote
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.
Quote from: mrsman on July 18, 2014, 11:51:36 AM
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+.
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.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2014, 04:59:31 PM
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).
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.
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.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 18, 2014, 04:45:51 PM
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+).
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+.
I think a 3-position switch is going to become a necessity regardless of what system is chosen for the national standard due to the fact that HOV is classified as 2+ on some roads and 3+ on others.
There has been a lot of talk up in northern California about converting all Bay Area FasTrak users to the switchable transponder and to require all users of the HOT/Express Lanes to have transponders whether they're solo drivers or carpools. If the Bay Area adopts the switchable transponders, I'd expect the remaining tolling agencies to follow suit.
Quote from: DevalDragon on July 19, 2014, 01:46:19 AM
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 article doesn't list the extra charge in Indiana for I-Pass (Illinois) users.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 19, 2014, 09:37:08 PM
Quote from: DevalDragon on July 19, 2014, 01:46:19 AM
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 article doesn't list the extra charge in Indiana for I-Pass (Illinois) users.
any one can edit wikipedia
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2014, 05:28:13 PM
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.
The old square E-ZPasses were the first generation IAG-spec tags from Mark IV. When E-ZPass was introduced, part of the deal was sole sourcing of the readers and tags from Mark IV, in order to guarantee interoperability. Some other agencies (IL, VA, MA, MD) went with equipment from the same source, not because they had to but because they wanted to be interoperable with E-ZPass in the future.
Then E-ZPass had a procurement out for 5+ years for "next generation" technology. In that time, Mark IV was bought by Kapsch and the IAG rebranded itself as "the E-ZPass Group". The new rectangular E-ZPasses are the next generation transponders from Kapsch, which were ultimately selected as part of the procurement. Eventually, all E-ZPasses will be the new style. Some agencies bought new tags right away, others had to exhaust their supply of old tags first. But the new tags cost about half as much to manufacture, so agencies like them, especially ones that give them away for free. Eventually, as batteries wear out, the old tags will be replaced with new ones.
E-ZPass Flex was obviously a special design from Kapsch to solve a specific need in Virginia, and Maryland bought onto the concept to help its residents who use the 495 Express Lanes in Virginia.
North Carolina is not a full E-ZPass Group member, they are an affiliate member. Therefore they are not bound by the sole source equipment procurement. So they are using their own equipment that was tested in the lab to ensure it can properly interface with E-ZPass. I believe they are using TransCore readers and tags (the 6B+ protocol that is the primary protocol in NC is proprietary TransCore). So that is why there is a different design. It has more functionality than an E-ZPass because it communicates on two protocols: 6B+ for NC and FL, and IAG for the other E-ZPass states.
It is interesting to note that in Northern Virginia, TransCore is the contractor in charge of the Dulles Toll Road's toll collection system. Despite that they have their own readers and tags and even their own proprietary protocol under their own patents, they had to purchase readers and tags from Kapsch. Even now that E-ZPass IAG protocols are open source and TransCore makes E-ZPass readers (for travel time computation purposes in NYC), the full members have to get readers from the Kapsch procurement for toll collection purposes.
See the following article from Toll Roads News:
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/are-we-there-yet-a-test-of-national-toll-interoperability
After reading this article, I gather that there may not be too many technological obstacles to interoperability, but the bigger difficulty is bureaucracy. Let's find a way that people can register their license plates on one web site, and the information will be forwarded to every toll agency in the country. Whether I have a transponder or whether the battery is out or whether I don't have a transponder, I will be registered as a user and only pay the charged toll and no additional "violation" fees.
But if you use plate registration, how does one choose how to pay? For example, if I for some reason want to pay cash on the Thruway, I can just take the transponder out of the car. And speaking of the Thruway, what would happen if a hypothetical transponderless vehicle pulled up to a cash booth expecting to do an electronic toll transaction (as the signs say "E-ZPass accepted in every toll lane") based on the plate? Currently, the attendant uses the presence of a transponder to determine whether to push the button that will cause the traffic light to go from red to green or to give the person a toll ticket. I don't know if the Thruway cameras even operate unless a violation occurs. And then you have authorities like the Bridge Authority that have gate arms; if a transponderless vehicle pulls into an E-ZPass lane on those bridges, even if registered, everyone will be sitting there for a very long time. This would also have the effect of people using rental cars being forced to use the rental company's way of paying even more than they are now.
There's also the issue of vehicle class. What you sometimes pull a trailer, but not all the time? Vehicles with trailers pay a different toll rate, and therefore need to be registered separately. Currently, one would have two registrations: one with the trailer, and one without, and swap the two tags as needed. The system would need to be changed so that it could dynamically identify the trailer and associate it with the vehicle pulling it. Additionally, most toll authorities out here use axle-based classes, but camera based methods use length-based class determinations (which is a problem for more than just tolling; NYSDOT can't use camera-based methods of getting a traffic count in certain locations because of this, for example).
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 01:27:10 PM
But if you use plate registration, how does one choose how to pay? For example, if I for some reason want to pay cash on the Thruway, I can just take the transponder out of the car. And speaking of the Thruway, what would happen if a hypothetical transponderless vehicle pulled up to a cash booth expecting to do an electronic toll transaction (as the signs say "E-ZPass accepted in every toll lane") based on the plate?
ISTHA would just call it a V-Toll based on the plate and car. You'd be charged the rate for the transponder instead of cash, and it would be assumed that the transponder did not read for some reason.
NYSTA does the same. But what if you want to pay cash for some reason? I've actually had some experience with this. In one instance, when moving out of the apartment I had during my internship, Dad and I swapped vehicles as he had a business trip to Albany (I lived with my parents in Rochester at the time) and my mattress was in his truck and needed to go home with me, so he took my car, and I took his truck; I took out the E-ZPass both because I didn't feel like paying to tolls and because Dad needed receipts of all toll transactions. In the other, I paid cash when I was using a rental car to go to a job interview with IBM (which is IBM's corporate policy, no exceptions, even if you're not an employee) and I paid cash on the Thruway because I didn't know how their reimbursement of all expenses would be affected by using the rental company's toll pass.
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 02:35:24 PM
NYSTA does the same. But what if you want to pay cash for some reason? I've actually had some experience with this. In one instance, when moving out of the apartment I had during my internship, Dad and I swapped vehicles as he had a business trip to Albany (I lived with my parents in Rochester at the time) and my mattress was in his truck and needed to go home with me, so he took my car, and I took his truck; I took out the E-ZPass both because I didn't feel like paying to tolls and because Dad needed receipts of all toll transactions. In the other, I paid cash when I was using a rental car to go to a job interview with IBM (which is IBM's corporate policy, no exceptions, even if you're not an employee) and I paid cash on the Thruway because I didn't know how their reimbursement of all expenses would be affected by using the rental company's toll pass.
Here, in Illinois, all you need do is ask the attendant for the receipt. Of course, that doesn't work with the unattended ramp plazas. Then again, you could print off your transactions as evidence as well. With a rental, here, you just take your own I-Pass. ISTHA doesn't seem to worry too much about it as long as it is recorded properly.
"Just take your own I-Pass" won't work if all the tolls are processed by license plate.
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 02:35:24 PMIn the other, I paid cash when I was using a rental car to go to a job interview with IBM (which is IBM's corporate policy, no exceptions, even if you're not an employee) and I paid cash on the Thruway because I didn't know how their reimbursement of all expenses would be affected by using the rental company's toll pass.
IBM requires you to arrive in a rental car and pay cash for tolls on the way there?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 24, 2014, 09:05:25 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 02:35:24 PMIn the other, I paid cash when I was using a rental car to go to a job interview with IBM (which is IBM's corporate policy, no exceptions, even if you're not an employee) and I paid cash on the Thruway because I didn't know how their reimbursement of all expenses would be affected by using the rental company's toll pass.
IBM requires you to arrive in a rental car and pay cash for tolls on the way there?
They require a rental for all trips over 50 miles. I wouldn't know about the tolls - this is the only time I've ever dealt with a rental car so I have NO clue how billing for the tolls actually works, and I wanted to be sure I wouldn't be stuck with the surcharge. Seriously, I had to mail a form, attach receipts, and bug their outsourced HR a few times to get reimbursed for all my costs (everything except the rental, hotel, and per diem meal rate, so essentially gas and tolls).
So, you are saying that if you travel more than 50 miles for a job interview with IBM, you have to rent a car to get there?
There are people in eastern Kentucky who live more than 50 miles from a rental agency!
See, if the government had such a policy, the media and public would be all over it. When a private company has a policy, no one knows or cares. In the end, it's the public that pays for it anyway (And I don't care if you say you don't buy their products. If the supermarket or convenience store has a computer system that has IBM parts to it, then yes, you indirectly do pay for it).
How much of the toll processing today is done by public agencies, and how much by outside contractors?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 25, 2014, 09:41:49 PM
So, you are saying that if you travel more than 50 miles for a job interview with IBM, you have to rent a car to get there?
There are people in eastern Kentucky who live more than 50 miles from a rental agency!
I think it has something to do with liability. It's something everyone who had an IBM interview at Clarkson tends to complain about - just not me, because my car needed to go in for its annual inspection/remove snow tires/service check appointment around the same time, so the two dovetailed quite nicely.
Big news from Georgia today: their PeachPass system is now interoperable with SunPass (and by extension, E-Pass and LeeWay) in Florida and NC QuickPass in North Carolina!
Peach Pass users MUST have their license plates listed on their account to take part, which indicates to me that in at least some cases, the actual transponder will not be read (most likely in NC where both reader channels are used by 6B+ (FL and NC) and IAG-spec (E-ZPass), with no third channel available for Georgia's 6C transponders. But Georgia should certainly be able to read FL and NC's 6B+ transponders with the second channel on their readers, and FL should be able to read Georgia's 6C transponders directly once they finish phasing out their old legacy SunPass transponders and can dedicate that second channel to 6C.
News release:
http://peachpass.com/interoperability
Although toll pass interoperability is something that seems to be happening at a snail's pace outside of the Northeast's E-ZPass network, a lot of baby-steps have happened in the last couple of years:
-NC QuickPass and E-ZPass interoperability in early 2013 (NC QuickPass users must have a hard-case transponder)
-NC QuickPass and SunPass interoperability later in 2013
-NC QuickPass/SunPass/PeachPass in November 2014
-NTTA (Dallas) TollTag and Oklahoma's Pike Pass in 2014
-Oklahoma's Pike Pass and Kansas's K-Tag in 2014
As far as I know, K-Tag will not work on NTTA/vice versa, and PikePass will not work in Texas beyond Dallas/vice versa. So it is essentially as if Kansas, Oklahoma, Dallas area, and Rest of Texas are considered their own "areas", and each is interoperable with adjacent "areas" but nothing beyond that.
As for license plate tolling, I don't see why that can't be implemented soon. National interoperability will have to rely on both license plates and transponders for some time to come. Those agencies with gates will just have to adopt to the times. Valerie brings up valid points about NYSTA and NYSBA's current operating parameters that could get in the way temporarily, but at the end of the day, an artificial bureaucratic, "we're going to be inflexible and hide behind the rules" attitude will likely cave to progress and matching the rest of the country. I know at some transportation agencies, an attitude like that will get people disciplinary action pretty quickly....creative thinking to "get as close as you can to the standards without using it as an excuse to hold up the project" is what the people are demanding.
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 05:59:48 PM
"Just take your own I-Pass" won't work if all the tolls are processed by license plate.
Add the license plate of the rental car to the account (like you are always told to do by E-ZPass), and it should process. I know with E-ZPass you have to add it as if it were your own car and then remember to take it off again. But with some more customer-service friendly toll agencies (SunPass in FL), they will allow you to add a rental car and set an "expiration" time. As long as you do that, rental tolls will be properly charged to your account, and it automatically expires at the time you set so you don't forget to take it off.
Quote from: Brandon on October 24, 2014, 03:34:08 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 02:35:24 PM
NYSTA does the same. But what if you want to pay cash for some reason? I've actually had some experience with this. In one instance, when moving out of the apartment I had during my internship, Dad and I swapped vehicles as he had a business trip to Albany (I lived with my parents in Rochester at the time) and my mattress was in his truck and needed to go home with me, so he took my car, and I took his truck; I took out the E-ZPass both because I didn't feel like paying to tolls and because Dad needed receipts of all toll transactions. In the other, I paid cash when I was using a rental car to go to a job interview with IBM (which is IBM's corporate policy, no exceptions, even if you're not an employee) and I paid cash on the Thruway because I didn't know how their reimbursement of all expenses would be affected by using the rental company's toll pass.
Here, in Illinois, all you need do is ask the attendant for the receipt. Of course, that doesn't work with the unattended ramp plazas. Then again, you could print off your transactions as evidence as well. With a rental, here, you just take your own I-Pass. ISTHA doesn't seem to worry too much about it as long as it is recorded properly.
If you have a New York State issued E-ZPass, you can actually click on the individual transaction number in transaction view and it will let you print a receipt for that transaction for expense reporting purposes. The rental toll pass would work to pay, but you would likely not receive your invoice from them for several weeks, making expense reporting annoying. Plus it is rather expensive with the added fees. So you might as well just bring your own toll pass (and link the license plate of the vehicle to it in case something happens or they only do video tolling).
Quote from: vdeane on October 25, 2014, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 24, 2014, 09:05:25 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 02:35:24 PMIn the other, I paid cash when I was using a rental car to go to a job interview with IBM (which is IBM's corporate policy, no exceptions, even if you're not an employee) and I paid cash on the Thruway because I didn't know how their reimbursement of all expenses would be affected by using the rental company's toll pass.
IBM requires you to arrive in a rental car and pay cash for tolls on the way there?
They require a rental for all trips over 50 miles. I wouldn't know about the tolls - this is the only time I've ever dealt with a rental car so I have NO clue how billing for the tolls actually works, and I wanted to be sure I wouldn't be stuck with the surcharge. Seriously, I had to mail a form, attach receipts, and bug their outsourced HR a few times to get reimbursed for all my costs (everything except the rental, hotel, and per diem meal rate, so essentially gas and tolls).
Companies often require a rental car for long drives on business trips because if you took your personal vehicle they'd have to reimburse for mileage which is currently 56 cents per mile (set by the IRS). Rentals are cheaper for them.
It's also pretty standard for companies to require paying cash for tolls to avoid the "convenience fees" that the rental car companies charge. The policies on that almost always have exceptions for electronic-only toll roads.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 12, 2014, 02:56:15 PM
As for license plate tolling, I don't see why that can't be implemented soon. National interoperability will have to rely on both license plates and transponders for some time to come. Those agencies with gates will just have to adopt to the times. Valerie brings up valid points about NYSTA and NYSBA's current operating parameters that could get in the way temporarily, but at the end of the day, an artificial bureaucratic, "we're going to be inflexible and hide behind the rules" attitude will likely cave to progress and matching the rest of the country. I know at some transportation agencies, an attitude like that will get people disciplinary action pretty quickly....creative thinking to "get as close as you can to the standards without using it as an excuse to hold up the project" is what the people are demanding.
NYSTA isn't a big issue here; I think they're the one agency in the entire state with modern toll booths. NYSBA, MTA, etc... that's another story. They're gonna have to finally buy cameras.
Quote from: realjd on November 12, 2014, 03:47:33 PM
....
It's also pretty standard for companies to require paying cash for tolls to avoid the "convenience fees" that the rental car companies charge. The policies on that almost always have exceptions for electronic-only toll roads.
I found myself thinking about this issue once in the context of recovery of attorney's fees and litigation costs in federal court. There isn't any case law yet on the issue of whether a party reimbursing costs must reimburse ORT fees. That is, it's pretty standard that you can recover the amount of a toll as part of the travel costs if it was reasonably necessary to incur a toll going to or from court or a deposition or whatever. What's not clear is whether you could recover a fee charged for using such a facility without a transponder.
It seems to me it would be reasonable for a judge to allow recovery of the fee if the toll facility explicitly offers toll-by-plate
and if the person isn't using the road frequently other than for purposes of the litigation (that is, if a person commutes on that road every day using toll-by-plate, it'd be reasonable for the judge to say "you'd incur that cost anyway" and allow only the specific toll charges assignable to the case). I'm thinking of the Homestead Extension as an example, as they specifically state you get charged a single $2.50 monthly administrative fee.
If the facility does not offer toll-by-plate and you use the road en route to court or a deposition, I do not think it would be reasonable for the judge to allow an administrative fee as a cost. I'm thinking of the HO/T lanes here in Northern Virginia where if they send you a bill in the mail, they charge you $12.50
per individual trip. It's in the nature of a penalty for using the lanes without a transponder and then failing to pay online within five days. I don't think it's reasonable for a judge to order an adversary party to reimburse you for what's in essence sort of like a traffic ticket.
Quote from: vdeane on November 13, 2014, 01:04:26 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on November 12, 2014, 02:56:15 PM
As for license plate tolling, I don't see why that can't be implemented soon. National interoperability will have to rely on both license plates and transponders for some time to come. Those agencies with gates will just have to adopt to the times. Valerie brings up valid points about NYSTA and NYSBA's current operating parameters that could get in the way temporarily, but at the end of the day, an artificial bureaucratic, "we're going to be inflexible and hide behind the rules" attitude will likely cave to progress and matching the rest of the country. I know at some transportation agencies, an attitude like that will get people disciplinary action pretty quickly....creative thinking to "get as close as you can to the standards without using it as an excuse to hold up the project" is what the people are demanding.
NYSTA isn't a big issue here; I think they're the one agency in the entire state with modern toll booths. NYSBA, MTA, etc... that's another story. They're gonna have to finally buy cameras.
Believe it or not, MTA actually has cameras (this was big news to me when I spotted them the other month). Not for violation enforcement but for "big brother" keeping close watch on who is traveling through the city, looking for the boogeyman. They just need to hook them into a violation processing system. As for NYSBA, we're talking about 5 toll plazas total. The big issue with video tolling as I see it are the entry points to ticket toll roads. I know for a fact that NY Thruway, NJ Turnpike, PA Turnpike, and Mass Turnpike do not have any kind of camera on entry ramps. So if you blow through an exit toll booth, they will either: 1) charge based on "past travel history", 2) charge the max toll, or 3) charge an independent "image toll rate" that is higher than the average trip but less than the maximum toll. They make no effort to try to match an entry point to an exit point, which would be required for any type of video tolling.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2014, 02:23:46 PM
Quote from: realjd on November 12, 2014, 03:47:33 PM
....
It's also pretty standard for companies to require paying cash for tolls to avoid the "convenience fees" that the rental car companies charge. The policies on that almost always have exceptions for electronic-only toll roads.
I found myself thinking about this issue once in the context of recovery of attorney's fees and litigation costs in federal court. There isn't any case law yet on the issue of whether a party reimbursing costs must reimburse ORT fees. That is, it's pretty standard that you can recover the amount of a toll as part of the travel costs if it was reasonably necessary to incur a toll going to or from court or a deposition or whatever. What's not clear is whether you could recover a fee charged for using such a facility without a transponder.
It seems to me it would be reasonable for a judge to allow recovery of the fee if the toll facility explicitly offers toll-by-plate and if the person isn't using the road frequently other than for purposes of the litigation (that is, if a person commutes on that road every day using toll-by-plate, it'd be reasonable for the judge to say "you'd incur that cost anyway" and allow only the specific toll charges assignable to the case). I'm thinking of the Homestead Extension as an example, as they specifically state you get charged a single $2.50 monthly administrative fee.
If the facility does not offer toll-by-plate and you use the road en route to court or a deposition, I do not think it would be reasonable for the judge to allow an administrative fee as a cost. I'm thinking of the HO/T lanes here in Northern Virginia where if they send you a bill in the mail, they charge you $12.50 per individual trip. It's in the nature of a penalty for using the lanes without a transponder and then failing to pay online within five days. I don't think it's reasonable for a judge to order an adversary party to reimburse you for what's in essence sort of like a traffic ticket.
The difference lies with "are you supposed to get on the road without an E-ZPass or not". In the case of the 495 Express Lanes, the answer is no...the sign clearly says "All Users E-ZPass Required", so in effect any administrative fee is a penalty. In the case of the ICC, the Tobin Bridge, or the Henry Hudson Bridge, you do not have to have an E-ZPass, so I would think any administrative fees would be fair game. At least if I was approving an expense report for one of my employees, that is the standard I would use...perhaps the Feds may seem differently.
As for someone using a toll road on the way to a business meeting..."reasonably necessary to incur" seems like a valid standard. If someone spends a 12-hour day in the field and spends a few dollars on the 495 Express Lanes to get home faster, I don't mind. If someone wants reimbursement for a $25 toll on the 95 Express Lanes because they overslept, then I might question it. If someone is paying the "Notice of Toll Due" rate on the ICC when I know they have an E-ZPass, I would probably politely suggest that they use E-ZPass and print off a copy of their statement so as to not overpay for no good reason.
I know my parents avoided the Homestead Extension on their way to Everglades National Park last winter because they were "scared" of all-electronic tolling and didn't know how it worked. They had such a miserable experience on US 1 heading through Kendall and Coral Gables that my dad said "screw it, we're taking the toll road back no matter how much it costs." He asked me what he needed to do next time we were on the phone, and I realized that although I had forgotten to give him my portable SunPass transponder for this trip, their vehicle was still listed on my SunPass account. Sure enough, I logged into the phone app and there were the four tolls posted at $1.02 each, based on license plate image rather than a transponder read, but still at the SunPass rate.
At any rate, I think a reasonable person would think it is okay to take the Homestead Extension for business reasons, and reimburse any and all tolls and fees associated with that trip. However, if the person had even one non-reimbursable charge on the same statement with the $2.50 fee, the "you would have incurred that anyway, so we won't reimburse that" would hold true for the admin fee, but the tolls would be reimbursed at the higher $1.30 bill-by-mail rate at which they were posted on the statement, rather then the less expensive SunPass rate.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 13, 2014, 03:43:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2014, 02:23:46 PM
Quote from: realjd on November 12, 2014, 03:47:33 PM
....
It's also pretty standard for companies to require paying cash for tolls to avoid the "convenience fees" that the rental car companies charge. The policies on that almost always have exceptions for electronic-only toll roads.
I found myself thinking about this issue once in the context of recovery of attorney's fees and litigation costs in federal court. There isn't any case law yet on the issue of whether a party reimbursing costs must reimburse ORT fees. That is, it's pretty standard that you can recover the amount of a toll as part of the travel costs if it was reasonably necessary to incur a toll going to or from court or a deposition or whatever. What's not clear is whether you could recover a fee charged for using such a facility without a transponder.
It seems to me it would be reasonable for a judge to allow recovery of the fee if the toll facility explicitly offers toll-by-plate and if the person isn't using the road frequently other than for purposes of the litigation (that is, if a person commutes on that road every day using toll-by-plate, it'd be reasonable for the judge to say "you'd incur that cost anyway" and allow only the specific toll charges assignable to the case). I'm thinking of the Homestead Extension as an example, as they specifically state you get charged a single $2.50 monthly administrative fee.
If the facility does not offer toll-by-plate and you use the road en route to court or a deposition, I do not think it would be reasonable for the judge to allow an administrative fee as a cost. I'm thinking of the HO/T lanes here in Northern Virginia where if they send you a bill in the mail, they charge you $12.50 per individual trip. It's in the nature of a penalty for using the lanes without a transponder and then failing to pay online within five days. I don't think it's reasonable for a judge to order an adversary party to reimburse you for what's in essence sort of like a traffic ticket.
The difference lies with "are you supposed to get on the road without an E-ZPass or not". In the case of the 495 Express Lanes, the answer is no...the sign clearly says "All Users E-ZPass Required", so in effect any administrative fee is a penalty. In the case of the ICC, the Tobin Bridge, or the Henry Hudson Bridge, you do not have to have an E-ZPass, so I would think any administrative fees would be fair game. At least if I was approving an expense report for one of my employees, that is the standard I would use...perhaps the Feds may seem differently.
....
I thought that was more or less what I said. Of course, judges' reactions to these sorts of things may well vary around the country depending on the ubiquity of both toll roads and all-electronic tolling; I also suspect reactions might vary based on how the administrative charge is determined, whether "per-trip" or per some specified period of time. I do
not think it would be proper for a judge to hold that, for example, because the witness lives in the New York City area with its plethora of tolled bridges, it is unreasonable for the witness not to have an E-ZPass such that the reimbursable cost should be limited to the "E-ZPass rate" instead of the "toll-by-plate" rate.
BTW, in the overall toll context (not limited to all-electronic tolling), "reasonably necessary to incur" also means you look at things like the routing. Just because there's a toll-free option doesn't mean the toll-free option must be considered realistic or preferable–for example, in view of the added distance and time involved it's not reasonable to contend the witness should have taken the western side of I-695 around Baltimore to avoid the tunnel toll, and it's not reasonable to contend the witness should use US-27 from Orlando to Miami to avoid the Turnpike toll. In both of those cases the use of the tolled facility is utterly reasonable.
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 02:35:24 PMIn the other, I paid cash when I was using a rental car to go to a job interview with IBM (which is IBM's corporate policy, no exceptions, even if you're not an employee) and I paid cash on the Thruway because I didn't know how their reimbursement of all expenses would be affected by using the rental company's toll pass.
I'm not quite sure I'm following here. Are you saying that if you go to a job interview with IBM they will reimburse you for your travel costs even if they don't hire you? Because if so, wow. Every job interview I've ever traveled to I did so on my own dime.
Quote from: realjd on November 12, 2014, 03:47:33 PM
Companies often require a rental car for long drives on business trips because if you took your personal vehicle they'd have to reimburse for mileage which is currently 56 cents per mile (set by the IRS). Rentals are cheaper for them.
It's also pretty standard for companies to require paying cash for tolls to avoid the "convenience fees" that the rental car companies charge. The policies on that almost always have exceptions for electronic-only toll roads.
Interesting policy. I have driven my own car hundreds of miles for work and gotten expense reports approved for it with no trouble. I get more questions about why I drive rather than flying than I get about why I drive my own car rather than renting one. :-D Of course relative to airfare I'm saving them money, so yeah.
Even still, I would argue that it doesn't necessarily actually save the company money for an employee to rent instead of using their own car. If I were to have rented a car for my most recent trip it would have resulted in a considerably smaller expense report, but between having to get to the rental place and everything it would have easily consumed an extra hour and a half of my time. When you consider how much an employee's time costs, the gap can easily close (unless you want to screw your employees over and tell them that the extra time required doesn't count as company time and can't be charged for). Additionally, being forced to rent a car would make it a lot more difficult to combine business trips with personal travel, which given the opportunity to roadgeek is of course something I do whenever I can. I just make sure the extra miles are left off the expense report and driven on my time.
As for tolls, my tendency to meander my way home usually results in fewer tolls being incurred than otherwise would, so I'm actually saving my company a bit of money by roadgeeking since of course I don't ask to be reimbursed for tolls I didn't pay. :sombrero:
Quote from: mtantillo on November 12, 2014, 03:03:02 PM
If you have a New York State issued E-ZPass, you can actually click on the individual transaction number in transaction view and it will let you print a receipt for that transaction for expense reporting purposes.
Never even thought of doing this. I just print out a recent transaction view and circle the relevant ones with a red pen for the purpose of generating a "receipt". It contains dollar amounts along with date, time, and location so all the necessary info is there.
The one time I had to rent a car for work I brought my own EZPass tag rather than using theirs. Because neither I nor my company wants to pay the stupid fees.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 14, 2014, 10:58:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 02:35:24 PMIn the other, I paid cash when I was using a rental car to go to a job interview with IBM (which is IBM's corporate policy, no exceptions, even if you're not an employee) and I paid cash on the Thruway because I didn't know how their reimbursement of all expenses would be affected by using the rental company's toll pass.
I'm not quite sure I'm following here. Are you saying that if you go to a job interview with IBM they will reimburse you for your travel costs even if they don't hire you? Because if so, wow. Every job interview I've ever traveled to I did so on my own dime.
Yep. And the company I had my internship with paid me 55 cents a mile to drive down from Clarkson. Those are the only places that have ever paid me interview travel expenses though.
I don't think I've ever had a job interview (aside from phone interviews and ones conducted on campus) that didn't involve some roadgeeking. And interview for an internship involved clinching NY 250; the one at the internship I got involved driving on new routes just going directly there and allowed me to take my first sign pictures in Utica. I took sign pictures and did clinching for both the IBM interview and the one for the last company I worked for, and my NYSDOT interview involved clinching US 20 between NY 28 and I-88.
Dusting off this thread . . .
It appears that when the interoperability starts rolling out, there may be a new sign symbol for it; mention of this shows up on Page 3/6 in this document, (http://ibtta.org/sites/default/files/documents/Interoperability/KNUCKEY--IOP%20TESTIMONY%2020150930%20Tom%20Knuckey%20Final.pdf) and on Page 4/4 of these meeting minutes for the Minnesota MUTCD committee's January 2016 meeting. (//http://)
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 26, 2016, 10:56:15 PM
Dusting off this thread . . .
It appears that when the interoperability starts rolling out, there may be a new sign symbol for it; mention of this shows up on Page 3/6 in this document, (http://ibtta.org/sites/default/files/documents/Interoperability/KNUCKEY--IOP%20TESTIMONY%2020150930%20Tom%20Knuckey%20Final.pdf) and on Page 4/4 of these meeting minutes for the Minnesota MUTCD committee's January 2016 meeting. (//http://)
Once upon a time there was a proposed sign for the MUTCD (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordsutch/2312812510/), although it wasn't adopted apparently.
Quote from: lordsutch on March 26, 2016, 11:41:03 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 26, 2016, 10:56:15 PM
Dusting off this thread . . .
It appears that when the interoperability starts rolling out, there may be a new sign symbol for it; mention of this shows up on Page 3/6 in this document, (http://ibtta.org/sites/default/files/documents/Interoperability/KNUCKEY--IOP%20TESTIMONY%2020150930%20Tom%20Knuckey%20Final.pdf) and on Page 4/4 of these meeting minutes for the Minnesota MUTCD committee's January 2016 meeting. (//http://)
Once upon a time there was a proposed sign for the MUTCD (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordsutch/2312812510/), although it wasn't adopted apparently.
According to the PowerPoint presentation I saved regarding the proposed updates for the 2009 MUTCD, it looks like the ETC interoperability symbol sign was adopted by FHWA but reserved for future use and not placed in the manual. When the 2009 MUTCD was being proposed and adopted, interoperability was envisioned but no significant effort to achieve this was yet underway.
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted language at its June meeting for new MUTCD language for the national interoperability symbol.
Funny thing is, there was no symbol shown in the proposal!! That symbol is being developed by a committee combining engineers and marketing folks involved in the toll industry. These folks will also come up with the name for the interoperable network, in addition to branding and a symbol. The symbol proposed in the 2009 MUTCD draft was rejected as it looks too much like the wi-fi symbol.
The thought is that the new symbol would be "stuck onto" the local ETC brand symbol, in the corner or wherever there is space. The engineers do not want to install new (larger) signs with room for another symbol, so the thought was "wherever it fits". There was some discussion over whether or not use of the symbol should be mandatory, and I think it was left as Guidance, as toll industry officials feel that information should be shared via postcards and email to ETC account holders, rather than posted on signs.
--------
At this point in time, everyone knows that the October 1, 2016 deadline won't be met. But the industry hopes to have an implementation plan in place by then. The thought is that there will be a new national standard ETC protocol, and systems would quickly convert to read both their local protocol and the national one, and dual mode transponders issued to those who opt into national interop. Video tolling of license plates associated with toll accounts would fill in gaps, and a clearinghouse would be established to handle transactions across regions. Then toll agencies will have a decade or so to phase out legacy equipment in favor of the new national standard, which is likely to be one of the sticker tag formats. This is at least what industry chatter suggests.
But meanwhile toll agencies seem to be making progress negotiating IOP agreements. By the end of 2017 we are likely to see FL, GA, SC, NC, TX, KS, and OK all interoperable with each other as SC is looking to join FL's block and the TX/OK/KS block is working on complete IOP, and then linking the two would give a good chunk of the country access to one system. E-ZPass is the elephant in the room here as they use ancient equipment, but comprise of more than 3/4 of the toll industry, so they have effective veto power.
I've been looking for a good source of info which discusses the current status of IOP and the challenges associated with migration to a national standard. This article, while covering from a Minnesota perspective, covers the topic very well and concisely: http://streets.mn/2015/10/01/mn-pass-lacks-electronic-toll-collection-interoperability-and-technology/
Enjoy!
Looks like the first major progress has been made, although it is imperfect (and possibly confusing). The Central Florida Expressway toll roads will accept E-ZPass this spring (and will soon offer E-ZPass compatible transponders). However, Florida's Turnpike and other roads will not accept E-ZPass. That said, this is helpful for tourists from the Northeast who go to Orlando and Disney, as they will encounter compatible toll roads going from the airport and around Disney World.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/traffic/os-ezpass-central-florida-tolls-20171109-story.html
So what happens if you drive on one of those roads with both an E-ZPass and a SunPass on your windshield? Is the recommendation simply to stick the E-ZPass in the center armrest or the glovebox or whatever? (Not totally a hypothetical question since we will probably drive on FL-417, at a minimum, on our Christmas trip next month.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 11, 2017, 09:41:15 PM
So what happens if you drive on one of those roads with both an E-ZPass and a SunPass on your windshield? Is the recommendation simply to stick the E-ZPass in the center armrest or the glovebox or whatever? (Not totally a hypothetical question since we will probably drive on FL-417, at a minimum, on our Christmas trip next month.)
You might need to use an RFID-blocker baggie to be sure the E-ZPass isn't read. It's also possible they're planning on "accepting" E-ZPass without reading the transponder (by looking up plates in the IAG database when there's no EPass or SunPass read), in much the same way they already "accept" the 6C tags from NC and GA.
Quote from: lordsutch on November 12, 2017, 12:37:46 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 11, 2017, 09:41:15 PM
So what happens if you drive on one of those roads with both an E-ZPass and a SunPass on your windshield? Is the recommendation simply to stick the E-ZPass in the center armrest or the glovebox or whatever? (Not totally a hypothetical question since we will probably drive on FL-417, at a minimum, on our Christmas trip next month.)
You might need to use an RFID-blocker baggie to be sure the E-ZPass isn't read. It's also possible they're planning on "accepting" E-ZPass without reading the transponder (by looking up plates in the IAG database when there's no EPass or SunPass read), in much the same way they already "accept" the 6C tags from NC and GA.
It is welcome to see more and more agencies accepting E-ZPass. Even though the EZ-Pass technology may not be as modern or as superior in a technological way as the systems in Texas, Florida, or California, it is the system that is used in at least part of 16 states that together represent 40% of the US population, so in some ways it is the default national transponder.
The Orlando area certainly gets many visitors from the Northeast and Midwest who can benefit by this. Hopefully, this will encourage other areas to follow suit, especially the other toll agencies in Florida.
Quote from: mrsman on January 04, 2018, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on November 12, 2017, 12:37:46 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 11, 2017, 09:41:15 PM
So what happens if you drive on one of those roads with both an E-ZPass and a SunPass on your windshield? Is the recommendation simply to stick the E-ZPass in the center armrest or the glovebox or whatever? (Not totally a hypothetical question since we will probably drive on FL-417, at a minimum, on our Christmas trip next month.)
You might need to use an RFID-blocker baggie to be sure the E-ZPass isn't read. It's also possible they're planning on "accepting" E-ZPass without reading the transponder (by looking up plates in the IAG database when there's no EPass or SunPass read), in much the same way they already "accept" the 6C tags from NC and GA.
It is welcome to see more and more agencies accepting E-ZPass. Even though the EZ-Pass technology may not be as modern or as superior in a technological way as the systems in Texas, Florida, or California, it is the system that is used in at least part of 16 states that together represent 40% of the US population, so in some ways it is the default national transponder.
The Orlando area certainly gets many visitors from the Northeast and Midwest who can benefit by this. Hopefully, this will encourage other areas to follow suit, especially the other toll agencies in Florida.
Central Florida toll road is near the auto train and has links to the non EZ-pass one will that one bill EZ-Pass users the penalty rates? Give them unlimited gates over X days with no penalty
I did some quick street viewing Central Florida toll road has Epass and Surpass logos at tolls. Some are just sun pass logos on parts of them. Say they put an we take E-pass E-zpass and surpass near the auto train on ramps that will confuse people and sending them a bill with $100 a POP base fines will kill tourism.
E-zPass has a history of local names with the EZ-pass logo mainly just at the border points with idea being push that our logo = e-zpass.
also E-pass to E-zpass users sounds like an local name based on E-Zpass
So then are more of these blue signs going up in FL? How will people know that it means interoperability?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 04, 2018, 07:45:09 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 04, 2018, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on November 12, 2017, 12:37:46 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 11, 2017, 09:41:15 PM
So what happens if you drive on one of those roads with both an E-ZPass and a SunPass on your windshield? Is the recommendation simply to stick the E-ZPass in the center armrest or the glovebox or whatever? (Not totally a hypothetical question since we will probably drive on FL-417, at a minimum, on our Christmas trip next month.)
You might need to use an RFID-blocker baggie to be sure the E-ZPass isn't read. It's also possible they're planning on "accepting" E-ZPass without reading the transponder (by looking up plates in the IAG database when there's no EPass or SunPass read), in much the same way they already "accept" the 6C tags from NC and GA.
It is welcome to see more and more agencies accepting E-ZPass. Even though the EZ-Pass technology may not be as modern or as superior in a technological way as the systems in Texas, Florida, or California, it is the system that is used in at least part of 16 states that together represent 40% of the US population, so in some ways it is the default national transponder.
The Orlando area certainly gets many visitors from the Northeast and Midwest who can benefit by this. Hopefully, this will encourage other areas to follow suit, especially the other toll agencies in Florida.
Central Florida toll road is near the auto train and has links to the non EZ-pass one will that one bill EZ-Pass users the penalty rates? Give them unlimited gates over X days with no penalty
I did some quick street viewing Central Florida toll road has Epass and Surpass logos at tolls. Some are just sun pass logos on parts of them. Say they put an we take E-pass E-zpass and surpass near the auto train on ramps that will confuse people and sending them a bill with $100 a POP base fines will kill tourism.
E-zPass has a history of local names with the EZ-pass logo mainly just at the border points with idea being push that our logo = e-zpass.
also E-pass to E-zpass users sounds like an local name based on E-Zpass
We were in Florida last week and the week before. The E-ZPass interoperability was not yet up and running as far as we could tell, at least based on the utter lack of any signage and there being no charges posted to our E-ZPass account (though I should note we do have a SunPass and it was properly charged, so that could also explain the lack of E-ZPass charges).
The CFX press release (https://www.cfxway.com/agency-information/newsroom/news-releases/central-florida-expressway-authority-joins-e-zpass-group/) says it's to be sometime during "spring 2018." We only used three toll roads anyway–the new Wekiva Parkway segment of FL-429 southbound when we first arrived, the full length of the main segment of FL-429 when we arrived and on our way back to the Auto Train at the end of the trip, and eastbound Alligator Alley on Dec. 22–and of those three Alligator Alley is not scheduled to have interoperability. (We didn't use the Wekiva Parkway segment on the way back because I diverted west to finish a clinch of FL-46.)
The thing that will potentially become very confusing for some users is when a road like FL-429, or more likely the well-established FL-417 on the other side of Orlando, switches toll agency jurisdiction. Both of those roads are partially Central Florida Expressway facilities and partially Florida's Turnpike Enterprise facilities, with the change of jurisdiction marked by roadside signs that probably don't mean much to most people. In the past that hasn't been an issue because both of them accept both E-Pass and SunPass. But going forward, only the CFX facilities are supposed to accept E-ZPass, not the Turnpike facilities, so that's likely to be a bit of a problem when E-ZPass users understandably don't understand why one toll plaza on a road accepts E-ZPass but another a few miles further down the road does not.
Regarding tourism and the Auto Train, Amtrak still offers maps to people at the station while you're waiting for your car, though I seldom see anyone other than elderly people requesting them. Their map recommends FL-46 to get to I-95 and I-4 to get to Disney World and points west. No doubt the FL-46 recommendation is due in part to not wanting to recommend toll roads, though it could also just be an old map they've never updated. The bigger issue will be for people whose sat-navs guide them onto the toll roads. This may be a topic for another thread, but I found it interesting to note last week that the sat-nav in my wife's car (a 2015 Acura TLX) told us to stay left for the ORT lanes on FL-429, whereas on past trips the sat-nav in my car (a 2004 Acura TL) would tell me to exit right to the cash lanes. I wonder what sort of programming convention they use for those sorts of places. I had assumed they probably routed you to the cash lanes for the same sort of reason they don't route you onto HOV facilities–defaulting to the option that is least likely to get you into trouble if you don't qualify for the "special" lane. But maybe that isn't true anymore.
Incidentally, I meant to post this in a Florida thread last week, but I'll mention it here instead. Driving on the main segment of FL-429 on the CFE portion, I was amused to see they used EXIT TABS with the SunPass logo to indicate SunPass users could use the ORT lanes at the toll plazas! See Street View image linked below. (The "exit tab" could arguably be in the wrong place on this sign if you're a stickler for right versus left.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6183126,-81.5366145,3a,75y,174.52h,90.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1IEy_a4E1hi4HBNgw6mtMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2018, 11:41:07 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 04, 2018, 07:45:09 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 04, 2018, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on November 12, 2017, 12:37:46 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 11, 2017, 09:41:15 PM
So what happens if you drive on one of those roads with both an E-ZPass and a SunPass on your windshield? Is the recommendation simply to stick the E-ZPass in the center armrest or the glovebox or whatever? (Not totally a hypothetical question since we will probably drive on FL-417, at a minimum, on our Christmas trip next month.)
You might need to use an RFID-blocker baggie to be sure the E-ZPass isn't read. It's also possible they're planning on "accepting" E-ZPass without reading the transponder (by looking up plates in the IAG database when there's no EPass or SunPass read), in much the same way they already "accept" the 6C tags from NC and GA.
It is welcome to see more and more agencies accepting E-ZPass. Even though the EZ-Pass technology may not be as modern or as superior in a technological way as the systems in Texas, Florida, or California, it is the system that is used in at least part of 16 states that together represent 40% of the US population, so in some ways it is the default national transponder.
The Orlando area certainly gets many visitors from the Northeast and Midwest who can benefit by this. Hopefully, this will encourage other areas to follow suit, especially the other toll agencies in Florida.
Central Florida toll road is near the auto train and has links to the non EZ-pass one will that one bill EZ-Pass users the penalty rates? Give them unlimited gates over X days with no penalty
I did some quick street viewing Central Florida toll road has Epass and Surpass logos at tolls. Some are just sun pass logos on parts of them. Say they put an we take E-pass E-zpass and surpass near the auto train on ramps that will confuse people and sending them a bill with $100 a POP base fines will kill tourism.
E-zPass has a history of local names with the EZ-pass logo mainly just at the border points with idea being push that our logo = e-zpass.
also E-pass to E-zpass users sounds like an local name based on E-Zpass
We were in Florida last week and the week before. The E-ZPass interoperability was not yet up and running as far as we could tell, at least based on the utter lack of any signage and there being no charges posted to our E-ZPass account (though I should note we do have a SunPass and it was properly charged, so that could also explain the lack of E-ZPass charges). The CFX press release (https://www.cfxway.com/agency-information/newsroom/news-releases/central-florida-expressway-authority-joins-e-zpass-group/) says it's to be sometime during "spring 2018." We only used three toll roads anyway–the new Wekiva Parkway segment of FL-429 southbound when we first arrived, the full length of the main segment of FL-429 when we arrived and on our way back to the Auto Train at the end of the trip, and eastbound Alligator Alley on Dec. 22–and of those three Alligator Alley is not scheduled to have interoperability. (We didn't use the Wekiva Parkway segment on the way back because I diverted west to finish a clinch of FL-46.)
The thing that will potentially become very confusing for some users is when a road like FL-429, or more likely the well-established FL-417 on the other side of Orlando, switches toll agency jurisdiction. Both of those roads are partially Central Florida Expressway facilities and partially Florida's Turnpike Enterprise facilities, with the change of jurisdiction marked by roadside signs that probably don't mean much to most people. In the past that hasn't been an issue because both of them accept both E-Pass and SunPass. But going forward, only the CFX facilities are supposed to accept E-ZPass, not the Turnpike facilities, so that's likely to be a bit of a problem when E-ZPass users understandably don't understand why one toll plaza on a road accepts E-ZPass but another a few miles further down the road does not.
Regarding tourism and the Auto Train, Amtrak still offers maps to people at the station while you're waiting for your car, though I seldom see anyone other than elderly people requesting them. Their map recommends FL-46 to get to I-95 and I-4 to get to Disney World and points west. No doubt the FL-46 recommendation is due in part to not wanting to recommend toll roads, though it could also just be an old map they've never updated. The bigger issue will be for people whose sat-navs guide them onto the toll roads. This may be a topic for another thread, but I found it interesting to note last week that the sat-nav in my wife's car (a 2015 Acura TLX) told us to stay left for the ORT lanes on FL-429, whereas on past trips the sat-nav in my car (a 2004 Acura TL) would tell me to exit right to the cash lanes. I wonder what sort of programming convention they use for those sorts of places. I had assumed they probably routed you to the cash lanes for the same sort of reason they don't route you onto HOV facilities–defaulting to the option that is least likely to get you into trouble if you don't qualify for the "special" lane. But maybe that isn't true anymore.
Incidentally, I meant to post this in a Florida thread last week, but I'll mention it here instead. Driving on the main segment of FL-429 on the CFE portion, I was amused to see they used EXIT TABS with the SunPass logo to indicate SunPass users could use the ORT lanes at the toll plazas! See Street View image linked below. (The "exit tab" could arguably be in the wrong place on this sign if you're a stickler for right versus left.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6183126,-81.5366145,3a,75y,174.52h,90.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1IEy_a4E1hi4HBNgw6mtMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Those tabs were added a while back as Orlando originally didn't post Sunpass signs at all, and many people got confused and thought they had to stop and pay tolls, and the design of the original signs was not conducive to adding the logo with just a simple small sticker. Technically Sunpass is accepted to both the right and left, so I'd say its shuldn't necessarily be on the left.
Sort of related to this thread, my parents have 2 E-ZPASS' from Virginia, just so if we do go to the "Toll Coast" , we don't have to constantly stop and pay cash. It would be nice if everywhere used E-ZPASS, but I doubt 100% of the US, Canada, and Mexico will ever switch to it. Some might, but others won't, for one reason or another.
QuoteThose tabs were added a while back as Orlando originally didn't post Sunpass signs at all, and many people got confused and thought they had to stop and pay tolls, and the design of the original signs was not conducive to adding the logo with just a simple small sticker. Technically Sunpass is accepted to both the right and left, so I'd say its shuldn't necessarily be on the left.
That's true, but since the sign on the right also has the E-Pass and SunPass logos in the top right corner, I construe the "exit tab" as referring solely to the ORT lanes. (BTW, our sat-nav would tell us to "exit left" onto FL-429 at those ORT lanes. I found the choice of wording odd because I view it as the cash-payers being the ones who have to exit to the right to stop and pay.)
Quote from: MCRoads on January 06, 2018, 11:47:18 PM
Sort of related to this thread, my parents have 2 E-ZPASS' from Virginia, just so if we do go to the "Toll Coast" , we don't have to constantly stop and pay cash. It would be nice if everywhere used E-ZPASS, but I doubt 100% of the US, Canada, and Mexico will ever switch to it. Some might, but others won't, for one reason or another.
That's more or less why I have a SunPass. We live in Virginia, but most years we visit relatives in Florida twice a year and I hate stopping to pay cash at toll plazas, especially on roads like the ones near Orlando where you have to pay a couple of dollars every few miles.
One thing your parents ought to know about having a Virginia E-ZPass is that the terms and conditions say that if you don't use the transponder at all for a six-month period, they can cancel your account for inactivity. In practice, they don't do that–first they send you a letter saying your account will be cancelled unless you use the transponder or call them to say you want to keep the account open. I got one of those letters once about 12 or 13 years ago and when I called to say I wanted the account to stay open they said OK but also said that if I didn't use it in the next six months, the account would be cancelled without further notice to me. I have no idea whether they still do this because with the advent of the HO/T lanes I typically have at least two transactions per week.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2018, 09:04:20 AM
QuoteThose tabs were added a while back as Orlando originally didn't post Sunpass signs at all, and many people got confused and thought they had to stop and pay tolls, and the design of the original signs was not conducive to adding the logo with just a simple small sticker. Technically Sunpass is accepted to both the right and left, so I'd say its shuldn't necessarily be on the left.
That's true, but since the sign on the right also has the E-Pass and SunPass logos in the top right corner, I construe the "exit tab" as referring solely to the ORT lanes. (BTW, our sat-nav would tell us to "exit left" onto FL-429 at those ORT lanes. I found the choice of wording odd because I view it as the cash-payers being the ones who have to exit to the right to stop and pay.)
Is there any reason to encourage those with an E-Pass or a SunPass to exit and use the tollbooths? It seems like there is enough room for drivers to go through the ORT lanes and still safely merge to the right if they want the next exit.
[This wouldn't apply to many of the older style plazas like on NJTP or PA Tpk where everyone jockeys for position and it is nice to know that if for some reason you can't get to the ORT lanes, you can still pay w/o cash at the booths. For the style of turnpike depicted in the link, one has to physically exit the highway to get to the booths so there is no reason why a car with a sunpass or epass could not just continue on the main highway lanes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2018, 09:04:20 AM
One thing your parents ought to know about having a Virginia E-ZPass is that the terms and conditions say that if you don't use the transponder at all for a six-month period, they can cancel your account for inactivity. In practice, they don't do that–first they send you a letter saying your account will be cancelled unless you use the transponder or call them to say you want to keep the account open. I got one of those letters once about 12 or 13 years ago and when I called to say I wanted the account to stay open they said OK but also said that if I didn't use it in the next six months, the account would be cancelled without further notice to me. I have no idea whether they still do this because with the advent of the HO/T lanes I typically have at least two transactions per week.
Yep, they still do this. However, they sent it to my email - I never got a letter in the mail.
Quote from: MCRoads on January 06, 2018, 11:47:18 PM
Sort of related to this thread, my parents have 2 E-ZPASS' from Virginia, just so if we do go to the "Toll Coast" , we don't have to constantly stop and pay cash. It would be nice if everywhere used E-ZPASS, but I doubt 100% of the US, Canada, and Mexico will ever switch to it. Some might, but others won't, for one reason or another.
Canada has like 2-3 differnt ones does Mexico have 1?
Quote from: mrsman on January 07, 2018, 06:15:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2018, 09:04:20 AM
QuoteThose tabs were added a while back as Orlando originally didn't post Sunpass signs at all, and many people got confused and thought they had to stop and pay tolls, and the design of the original signs was not conducive to adding the logo with just a simple small sticker. Technically Sunpass is accepted to both the right and left, so I'd say its shuldn't necessarily be on the left.
That's true, but since the sign on the right also has the E-Pass and SunPass logos in the top right corner, I construe the "exit tab" as referring solely to the ORT lanes. (BTW, our sat-nav would tell us to "exit left" onto FL-429 at those ORT lanes. I found the choice of wording odd because I view it as the cash-payers being the ones who have to exit to the right to stop and pay.)
Is there any reason to encourage those with an E-Pass or a SunPass to exit and use the tollbooths? It seems like there is enough room for drivers to go through the ORT lanes and still safely merge to the right if they want the next exit.
[This wouldn't apply to many of the older style plazas like on NJTP or PA Tpk where everyone jockeys for position and it is nice to know that if for some reason you can't get to the ORT lanes, you can still pay w/o cash at the booths. For the style of turnpike depicted in the link, one has to physically exit the highway to get to the booths so there is no reason why a car with a sunpass or epass could not just continue on the main highway lanes.
there are a few places where the ORT point is to close to the exit so you have to take the slow lanes and they have ETC only lanes at the ones where need to use them.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 08, 2018, 09:19:05 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on January 06, 2018, 11:47:18 PM
Sort of related to this thread, my parents have 2 E-ZPASS' from Virginia, just so if we do go to the "Toll Coast" , we don't have to constantly stop and pay cash. It would be nice if everywhere used E-ZPASS, but I doubt 100% of the US, Canada, and Mexico will ever switch to it. Some might, but others won't, for one reason or another.
Canada has like 2-3 differnt ones does Mexico have 1?
Canada has a lot because each toll road/bridge has their own, with none being interoperable. Of the top of my head, I can think of separate transponders for ON 407, A-25, A-30, NS 104, and the Confederation Bridge. There could be more out west.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 08, 2018, 09:19:05 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on January 06, 2018, 11:47:18 PM
Sort of related to this thread, my parents have 2 E-ZPASS' from Virginia, just so if we do go to the "Toll Coast" , we don't have to constantly stop and pay cash. It would be nice if everywhere used E-ZPASS, but I doubt 100% of the US, Canada, and Mexico will ever switch to it. Some might, but others won't, for one reason or another.
Canada has like 2-3 differnt ones does Mexico have 1?
Mexico's primary electronic toll system is called IAVE (Identificador Automático de VehÃculos), and it is the system used on highways that are under the control of CAPUFE (Caminos y Puentes Federales), which is the federal highway system.
Note that not every highway bearing a federal highway shield is administered by CAPUFE. For example, the
Autopista Premier (Agujita–Allende, Coahuila) (https://goo.gl/maps/eXgKYhxKZWp) is operated on concession. It is federal highway 57D, categorized by the SCT as "Red Federal de Cuota" (despite Google Maps thinking it's a state highway), but it is not administered by CAPUFE. I don't recall seeing a IAVE lane (though I could be mistaken), and I can't find any reference to there being one either.
A list of IAVE toll booths is
here (http://www.capufe-iave.com.mx/resources/pdf/TRAMOS%20CARRETEROS%20PAG%20WEB.pdf) (.pdf warning).
A list of IAVE-interoperable toll booths is
here (http://www.capufe-iave.com.mx/resources/pdf/MULTITAG.pdf) (.pdf warning).
Quote from: mrsman on January 07, 2018, 06:15:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2018, 09:04:20 AM
QuoteThose tabs were added a while back as Orlando originally didn't post Sunpass signs at all, and many people got confused and thought they had to stop and pay tolls, and the design of the original signs was not conducive to adding the logo with just a simple small sticker. Technically Sunpass is accepted to both the right and left, so I'd say its shuldn't necessarily be on the left.
That's true, but since the sign on the right also has the E-Pass and SunPass logos in the top right corner, I construe the "exit tab" as referring solely to the ORT lanes. (BTW, our sat-nav would tell us to "exit left" onto FL-429 at those ORT lanes. I found the choice of wording odd because I view it as the cash-payers being the ones who have to exit to the right to stop and pay.)
Is there any reason to encourage those with an E-Pass or a SunPass to exit and use the tollbooths? It seems like there is enough room for drivers to go through the ORT lanes and still safely merge to the right if they want the next exit.
[This wouldn't apply to many of the older style plazas like on NJTP or PA Tpk where everyone jockeys for position and it is nice to know that if for some reason you can't get to the ORT lanes, you can still pay w/o cash at the booths. For the style of turnpike depicted in the link, one has to physically exit the highway to get to the booths so there is no reason why a car with a sunpass or epass could not just continue on the main highway lanes.
I don't know why they post the logos for the cash lanes on the one seen in the link I posted, as there is no exit right after the toll plaza. I suspect it's simply a reassurance thing so that people don't feel compelled to make last-minute lane changes, or alternatively perhaps it's there so that if for whatever reason the ORT lanes are closed, people know they can still use their transponders in the other lanes? (I encountered a situation on the PA-43 toll road some five or so years ago where the ORT lanes were closed for roadwork, so it's not a totally hypothetical notion on my part.)
An interesting observation about how my West Virginia E-Z Pass is billed.
My recent trip to the Delaware meet took me through three toll facilities -- the Bay Bridge, the entrance ramp to the southbound WV Turnpike at Beckley, and the toll booth at Ghent. My reads for the two WV facilities showed only the transponder number. My read for the Bay Bridge showed both transponder number and license number. (A WV E-Z Pass can be used in more than one vehicle as long as the license plate number is registered. MdTA must be doing some cross-referencing between transponders and camera recordings.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2018, 09:58:41 AM
An interesting observation about how my West Virginia E-Z Pass is billed.
My recent trip to the Delaware meet took me through three toll facilities -- the Bay Bridge, the entrance ramp to the southbound WV Turnpike at Beckley, and the toll booth at Ghent. My reads for the two WV facilities showed only the transponder number. My read for the Bay Bridge showed both transponder number and license number. (A WV E-Z Pass can be used in more than one vehicle as long as the license plate number is registered. MdTA must be doing some cross-referencing between transponders and camera recordings.
Or your tag wasn't read, and they looked up your account via the tag number.
Due to the literally hundreds of thousands of tag reads a day, there would be no reason to check a valid read. What would they do if a tag was in a car which didn't have a registered license plate...take away the payment, mail a bill and hope that person sends in a payment? That would be more costly and time consuming, and then there's no guarantee they'll be paid anyway.
In this case, I'm thinking there was a problem with the lane equipment which simply didn't read your tag.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 10:07:02 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2018, 09:58:41 AM
An interesting observation about how my West Virginia E-Z Pass is billed.
My recent trip to the Delaware meet took me through three toll facilities -- the Bay Bridge, the entrance ramp to the southbound WV Turnpike at Beckley, and the toll booth at Ghent. My reads for the two WV facilities showed only the transponder number. My read for the Bay Bridge showed both transponder number and license number. (A WV E-Z Pass can be used in more than one vehicle as long as the license plate number is registered. MdTA must be doing some cross-referencing between transponders and camera recordings.
Or your tag wasn't read, and they looked up your account via the tag number.
Due to the literally hundreds of thousands of tag reads a day, there would be no reason to check a valid read. What would they do if a tag was in a car which didn't have a registered license plate...take away the payment, mail a bill and hope that person sends in a payment? That would be more costly and time consuming, and then there's no guarantee they'll be paid anyway.
In this case, I'm thinking there was a problem with the lane equipment which simply didn't read your tag.
The signal I got indicated a valid read.
Dusting off this thread (although I'm open to this post being moved if another thread would be more appropriate) . . .
Starting on Page 129 of the July 2020 Kane County (IL) Transportation Committee agenda is an interesting read (once it loads) into what may be involved in getting interoperability with E-ZPass.
https://www.countyofkane.org/Lists/Events/Attachments/5458/AG%20PKT%20-%2020-07%20KDOT.pdf (https://www.countyofkane.org/Lists/Events/Attachments/5458/AG%20PKT%20-%2020-07%20KDOT.pdf)
I know I'm dusting off this thread as well, but I found a nugget in an RFP for cashless tolling in Kansas. In Attachment 13 of the below file, there is a list of major tolling agencies and their transponder technology. What is interesting is this "EZG Agency" column, which seems to match the first three digits of E-ZPass transponders (to identify the issuing agency). To me, it seems E-ZPass IAG is taking the reins of any interoperability (consistent with their decision to be "open source" for other tolling agencies). Even the 407 ETR is listed in Canada with an EZG Agency ID (011).
https://www.ksturnpike.com/assets/uploads/content-files/KTA_RTCS_Request_for_Proposals_Attachments_Part_2_Addendum_3.pdf
Quote from: MASTERNC on May 16, 2021, 08:20:59 PM
I know I'm dusting off this thread as well, but I found a nugget in an RFP for cashless tolling in Kansas. In Attachment 13 of the below file, there is a list of major tolling agencies and their transponder technology. What is interesting is this "EZG Agency" column, which seems to match the first three digits of E-ZPass transponders (to identify the issuing agency). To me, it seems E-ZPass IAG is taking the reins of any interoperability (consistent with their decision to be "open source" for other tolling agencies). Even the 407 ETR is listed in Canada with an EZG Agency ID (011).
https://www.ksturnpike.com/assets/uploads/content-files/KTA_RTCS_Request_for_Proposals_Attachments_Part_2_Addendum_3.pdf
I'm pretty sure 407ETR uses the same transponders/technology as the E-ZPass IAG - MarkIV/Kapsch. I thought 407ETR might join the IAG someday, but I guess either the different currency and/or the international border have so far prevented it from happening. Also may be that neither 407ETR nor the IAG members are really interested in making 407ETR "In Network" so to speak
ISTHA had the EZG Agency ID (015) long before it joined the IAG - pretty sure MarkIV used it just to differentiate transponders for different agencies, but it is also beneficial for interoperability
If memory serves, ISTHA said, back in the day, that their readers would read E-ZPass transponders, just would not charge them before joing the IAG and full interoperability
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 16, 2021, 08:25:59 PM
If memory serves, ISTHA said, back in the day, that their readers would read E-ZPass transponders, just would not charge them before joing the IAG and full interoperability
Same with Virginia. They had their own SmarTag transponders that were not integrated with E-ZPass IAG (but still compatible with it) until then-Gov. Mark Warner ordered VDOT to join the IAG, which was accomplished in 2004.
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 16, 2021, 08:25:59 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on May 16, 2021, 08:20:59 PM
I know I'm dusting off this thread as well, but I found a nugget in an RFP for cashless tolling in Kansas. In Attachment 13 of the below file, there is a list of major tolling agencies and their transponder technology. What is interesting is this "EZG Agency" column, which seems to match the first three digits of E-ZPass transponders (to identify the issuing agency). To me, it seems E-ZPass IAG is taking the reins of any interoperability (consistent with their decision to be "open source" for other tolling agencies). Even the 407 ETR is listed in Canada with an EZG Agency ID (011).
https://www.ksturnpike.com/assets/uploads/content-files/KTA_RTCS_Request_for_Proposals_Attachments_Part_2_Addendum_3.pdf
I'm pretty sure 407ETR uses the same transponders/technology as the E-ZPass IAG - MarkIV/Kapsch. I thought 407ETR might join the IAG someday, but I guess either the different currency and/or the international border have so far prevented it from happening. Also may be that neither 407ETR nor the IAG members are really interested in making 407ETR "In Network" so to speak
ISTHA had the EZG Agency ID (015) long before it joined the IAG - pretty sure MarkIV used it just to differentiate transponders for different agencies, but it is also beneficial for interoperability
If memory serves, ISTHA said, back in the day, that their readers would read E-ZPass transponders, just would not charge them before joing the IAG and full interoperability
I think 407 is perfectly happy charging people their large bill by mail fee and would rather not lose that.
Quote from: vdeane on May 16, 2021, 09:33:25 PM
I think 407 is perfectly happy charging people their large bill by mail fee and would rather not lose that.
Not to mention, there is only a national interoperability mandate, not an international one. No agency in Canada has any legal obligation to figure out how to accept US transponders... and none have any real reason to. How many American vehicles drive on 407ETR anyway?
Quote from: Duke87 on May 17, 2021, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 16, 2021, 09:33:25 PM
I think 407 is perfectly happy charging people their large bill by mail fee and would rather not lose that.
Not to mention, there is only a national interoperability mandate, not an international one. No agency in Canada has any legal obligation to figure out how to accept US transponders... and none have any real reason to. How many American vehicles drive on 407ETR anyway?
Agreed regarding lack of an international mandate.
Though in the case of commercial vehicle licensing and commercial vehicle fuel use, the U.S. and Canada are seamlessly integrated when it comes to the IRP (International Registration Program - apportioned tags for heavy-duty and medium-duty trucks and commercial buses that cross state or provincial boundaries or the U.S./Canada border) and IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement - reporting of miles or kilometers logged in every IFTA-member state or province unless they only operate in one state or province, in which case IFTA is not relevant).
A friend that drove on Highway 407ETR with Maryland registration plates got a bill several months later in the mail, so the management of the road apparently does want its money from drivers of U.S.-plated cars and trucks. He was able to pay the bill by calling an 800 number and giving them a credit card number.
Not sure that they can do much if a U.S. driver refuses to pay, however. That might be a motivation for toll road operators in eastern Canada (I define as Ontario and places to the east of Ontario) to join the E-ZPass IAG.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 17, 2021, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 16, 2021, 09:33:25 PM
I think 407 is perfectly happy charging people their large bill by mail fee and would rather not lose that.
Not to mention, there is only a national interoperability mandate, not an international one. No agency in Canada has any legal obligation to figure out how to accept US transponders... and none have any real reason to. How many American vehicles drive on 407ETR anyway?
Enough that they have the ability to bill several states, at least.
Plus not only does Canada not have an obligation to become interoperable with the US, its toll agencies aren't even interoperable with themselves. There's no equivalent of E-ZPass or the SunPass/PeachPass/QuickPass zone over there. There's even the absurd situation where the Montréal area has two toll bridges that each have separate transponders that aren't even interoperable with each other.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 17, 2021, 12:35:48 PM
Not sure that they can do much if a U.S. driver refuses to pay, however. That might be a motivation for toll road operators in eastern Canada to join the E-ZPass IAG.
I was going to say, perhaps the biggest argument for interoperability beyond the convivence of tourists would be so the Thruway has an easier time collecting tolls from all the Canadian drivers that used to use it in the before times (and hopefully will one day again).
How is PeachPass working in E-ZPass states now? Do all the E-Zpass states have the capability to read sticker tags now?
Quote from: Mdcastle on May 19, 2024, 09:25:34 PMHow is PeachPass working in E-ZPass states now? Do all the E-Zpass states have the capability to read sticker tags now?
I believe so. I know Illinois and Indiana do. I was doing research for my Key West road trip and my I-Pass will work in Florida now.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 21, 2024, 01:57:19 PMQuote from: Mdcastle on May 19, 2024, 09:25:34 PMHow is PeachPass working in E-ZPass states now? Do all the E-Zpass states have the capability to read sticker tags now?
I believe so. I know Illinois and Indiana do. I was doing research for my Key West road trip and my I-Pass will work in Florida now.
One would hope they do, given that Illinois has switched to sticker transponders.
The E-ZPass agencies are slowly getting serial number allocations for ISO 6C sticker transponders. For the nerds, see: https://www.ibtta.org/sites/default/files/documents/Interoperability/NIOP%20ICD%20Appendix%20C%20-%20RELEASED%2020240223.pdf
NC recently announced that QuickPass stickers now work in all E-ZPass states so I assume most if not all agencies have upgraded to multi-protocol readers. Its only a matter of time before stickers become the only option.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 17, 2021, 12:32:00 AMQuote from: vdeane on May 16, 2021, 09:33:25 PMI think 407 is perfectly happy charging people their large bill by mail fee and would rather not lose that.
Not to mention, there is only a national interoperability mandate, not an international one. No agency in Canada has any legal obligation to figure out how to accept US transponders... and none have any real reason to. How many American vehicles drive on 407ETR anyway?
well an mandate should
ban foreign transponders fees
limit local only discounts (maybe commuter discounts are ok) But stuff like the Key Bridge turnaround toll discount should be for all EZ-users
limit fallback / read fail video toll fees (and also need to count all video tolls with in X hours as one if say they give you an few ones with waved fees so that roads with 4-5 tolls in an small area don't eat them up)