Cashless Toll Roads and the need for standardization

[cbeach40]

407 will probably never standardize with any US system because it's a private company and they make money off of leasing transponders

if any thing canada may get one transponder for all.

or they can change an higher but less then the video change foreign transponder fees for EZ-pass and / or bill at an exchange rate that they profit on.

I don't think Canada will get one transponder for all, as there are very few tolled roads, and they are all very far from each other. As for charging an EZPass higher, I feel like they would rather charge the camera charge since it's way easier, no need to retrofit any gantries to accept EZPass and etc.

That's always the weird thing that a lot of non-Canadian posters on here, where they view Canada and our transportation systems as some unknown amorphous thing. For example, Michigan and NY State have a lot more integration and impact on Ontario than any province besides Québec. It's rather decentralized, and it would make no sense for Ontario to even think about commonality with BC as opposed to, for example, E-Z Pass. (or maybe the Eee-Zed Pass) 

Back to the original point, 407ETR Concession has their road until 2098 and the tolling services for 407E (Hwys 407 eastern extension, Hwy 412, and Hwy 418) until 2046 (give or take some years). It's not going to budge, and why should they? It's geographically removed from any other toll agency and politically far removed from them (like, ya know, a whole different country). There's no business case for it and there's no political pressure. Honestly users here are just happy the two roads have one seamless bill, most they don't care and they don't need it to be seamless with US systems.

[kalvado]

407 will probably never standardize with any US system because it's a private company and they make money off of leasing transponders

if any thing canada may get one transponder for all.

or they can change an higher but less then the video change foreign transponder fees for EZ-pass and / or bill at an exchange rate that they profit on.

I don't think Canada will get one transponder for all, as there are very few tolled roads, and they are all very far from each other. As for charging an EZPass higher, I feel like they would rather charge the camera charge since it's way easier, no need to retrofit any gantries to accept EZPass and etc.

That's always the weird thing that a lot of non-Canadian posters on here, where they view Canada and our transportation systems as some unknown amorphous thing. For example, Michigan and NY State have a lot more integration and impact on Ontario than any province besides Québec. It's rather decentralized, and it would make no sense for Ontario to even think about commonality with BC as opposed to, for example, E-Z Pass. (or maybe the Eee-Zed Pass) 

Back to the original point, 407ETR Concession has their road until 2098 and the tolling services for 407E (Hwys 407 eastern extension, Hwy 412, and Hwy 418) until 2046 (give or take some years). It's not going to budge, and why should they? It's geographically removed from any other toll agency and politically far removed from them (like, ya know, a whole different country). There's no business case for it and there's no political pressure. Honestly users here are just happy the two roads have one seamless bill, most they don't care and they don't need it to be seamless with US systems.

They don't need to, but can they benefit from being seamless? That is the big question : carrot is more effective than a stick.
Obvious disadvantage is having to play by the rules of a bigger group; obvious advantage - easier collection and lower expenses. If some monopolistic games (charge everyone in every possible way, and fine them otherwise) make them more money that an honest sale - then there is just no carrot.

[roadman65]

Sun pass, PikePass, KTag, EZPass, IPass, and other transponders need to be interchangeable if they want a nationwide cash less toll system.

[vdeane]

There also has been much progress in the past 4 years integrating systems. You can now buy a pass like the Uni which works in 19 of the 29 states with toll roads, including pretty much the entire east coast, with no monthly fees or anything. Much of the other states offer toll by plate as well. I imagine they will continue to integrate systems over the next couple years

That's just them and NC QuickPass, though.  Otherwise, the E-ZPass and SunPass zones are still separate.  There was talk of them being interoperable by the end of last year, but that obviously hasn't happened, and it wasn't the first time the two systems have said they would become interoperable and then didn't, either.  I'll believe it when I see it.

And given that I already have a transponder (and one with no costs/fees, a rarity), "get a new one" isn't really the interoperability answer I want to hear.

They would still need cameras to charge violations to people using the road without a transponder; otherwise, why would anyone get one?  And at that point, why not do bill by mail?

I was making the assumption that those cameras were in place.  And billing by mail still comes with an expense. 

One of the great things from the state's point of view about the tags is that the driver pays up-front and it "auto-refreshes" when it gets below a certain figure.  I have had about $15 in my Ipass account for six months now.  It's like an interest free loan to the Illinois Tollway.

Bill by mail means you have to collect after the fee is charged, and you aren't going to collect 100%.  From the state's POV, the tag system is a no brainer.

Is there really any more expense to running bill by mail than what is needed to send violation notices?  The question wasn't between having both and being bill by mail only; it was between having both and being transponder only.  The latter is rare.  And without bill by mail, you basically are telling non-locals that they can't use the road.  Nobody is going to get a transponder for a vacation (well, I know a roadgeek or two who will, but most people won't).

Of course, bill by mail isn't the greatest interoperability solution either, given the extra costs/fees, and I've read enough horror stories of things going wrong to want nothing to do with it.  When I was down in Florida heading to/from Overseas Highway, I ended up taking an extra half hour to hour each way slogging up/down US 1 because of that, since the Turnpike doesn't take cash down there.

They don't need to, but can they benefit from being seamless? That is the big question : carrot is more effective than a stick.
Obvious disadvantage is having to play by the rules of a bigger group; obvious advantage - easier collection and lower expenses. If some monopolistic games (charge everyone in every possible way, and fine them otherwise) make them more money that an honest sale - then there is just no carrot.

Users?  Probably, especially now that the Thruway is cashless.  The company?  Probably not.  The same reason I would want them to be interoperable is the same reason they wouldn't want to be - to get out of their outrageously high fees (I think they might charge the camera fee per trip rather than per bill, too).  And, of course, my refusal to use bill by mail due to all the horror stories across many toll agencies.

[bwana39]

Credit cards work on one of two systems or both. Magnetic Strip or Chip.

There are several transponder systems in use for tolls. None of the systems (as opposed to the branding) are interoperable. Just standardization to one communications standard would be a giant step forward.

[1995hoo]

There also has been much progress in the past 4 years integrating systems. You can now buy a pass like the Uni which works in 19 of the 29 states with toll roads, including pretty much the entire east coast, with no monthly fees or anything. Much of the other states offer toll by plate as well. I imagine they will continue to integrate systems over the next couple years

That's just them and NC QuickPass, though.  Otherwise, the E-ZPass and SunPass zones are still separate.  There was talk of them being interoperable by the end of last year, but that obviously hasn't happened, and it wasn't the first time the two systems have said they would become interoperable and then didn't, either.  I'll believe it when I see it.

....

One point of clarification: The referenced Uni transponder is a CFX device that works on both E-ZPass and SunPass facilities, along with the Quick Pass and Peach Pass facilities. What it doesn't offer (this is why I don't have it) is E-ZPass Flex compatibility.

[SEWIGuy]

407 will probably never standardize with any US system because it's a private company and they make money off of leasing transponders

if any thing canada may get one transponder for all.

or they can change an higher but less then the video change foreign transponder fees for EZ-pass and / or bill at an exchange rate that they profit on.

I don't think Canada will get one transponder for all, as there are very few tolled roads, and they are all very far from each other. As for charging an EZPass higher, I feel like they would rather charge the camera charge since it's way easier, no need to retrofit any gantries to accept EZPass and etc.

That's always the weird thing that a lot of non-Canadian posters on here, where they view Canada and our transportation systems as some unknown amorphous thing.

Actually that's how I view Canada in general.

[MCRoads]

407 will probably never standardize with any US system because it's a private company and they make money off of leasing transponders

if any thing canada may get one transponder for all.

or they can change an higher but less then the video change foreign transponder fees for EZ-pass and / or bill at an exchange rate that they profit on.

I don't think Canada will get one transponder for all, as there are very few tolled roads, and they are all very far from each other. As for charging an EZPass higher, I feel like they would rather charge the camera charge since it's way easier, no need to retrofit any gantries to accept EZPass and etc.

That's always the weird thing that a lot of non-Canadian posters on here, where they view Canada and our transportation systems as some unknown amorphous thing.

Actually that's how I view Canada in general.

Canada isn't that different from the US, just don't have insane amounts of interstates (freeways? Limited access national roads?). For me, the translation enigma is Mexico. There road system looks like a clusterf*ck, tbh.

[kphoger]

For me, the translation enigma is Mexico. There road system looks like a clusterf*ck, tbh.

Anything specific that I could maybe help explain?

[cbeach40]

Canada isn't that different from the US, just don't have insane amounts of interstates (freeways? Limited access national roads?).

In terms roadway design, etc yes. In terms of administration, it's completely decentralized to the provinces. No national standards for design*, no national MUTCD, the federal government just will cut cheques for high profile projects and partially fund nationally important routes (TCH, major highways, airport/seaport access roads, etc), but no say in how the roads are actually built and operated.


* - there are nationally adopted standards, but that's because the provincial DOTs pooled their resources to develop them, not dictated from above by an FHWA-type agency. And even then, for example Ontario's "supplement" to the design manual, that spells out their own variations on it, is almost as long as the manual itself, as each province can and often does have their own interpretations and variations from it.

[andrepoiy]

Canada isn't that different from the US, just don't have insane amounts of interstates (freeways? Limited access national roads?).

In terms roadway design, etc yes. In terms of administration, it's completely decentralized to the provinces. No national standards for design*, no national MUTCD, the federal government just will cut cheques for high profile projects and partially fund nationally important routes (TCH, major highways, airport/seaport access roads, etc), but no say in how the roads are actually built and operated.


* - there are nationally adopted standards, but that's because the provincial DOTs pooled their resources to develop them, not dictated from above by an FHWA-type agency. And even then, for example Ontario's "supplement" to the design manual, that spells out their own variations on it, is almost as long as the manual itself, as each province can and often does have their own interpretations and variations from it.

Yeah, this is evidenced by the different signage design in the different provinces. I'd say that the road design also varies, as I just feel that Ontario freeways just feel rather different to be on compared to other jurisdictions' freeways.

Also, the TCH isn't even signed at junctions in Ontario, and the TCH is pretty much an afterthought in Ontario, meanwhile Western provinces have all joined forces to number their TCH highways "1" and "16", so you can see the decentralization here.

[vdeane]

no national MUTCD

There's this.  Someone even brought a copy to a roadmeet once (the 2018 CSVT meet, I believe).  I get the feeling it's not anywhere close to as binding as the US MUTCD, however.

[I-39]

How about this? Toll roads that are part of the Interstate system have to have commonality among transponders. The non interstate tollways will be left up to the states.

[jeffandnicole]

How about this? Toll roads that are part of the Interstate system have to have commonality among transponders. The non interstate tollways will be left up to the states.

That doesn't solve the problem.

[kalvado]

How about this? Toll roads that are part of the Interstate system have to have commonality among transponders. The non interstate tollways will be left up to the states.

Since those toll interstates don't get federal money, how about just dropping those designations?

[kphoger]

How about this? Toll roads that are part of the Interstate system have to have commonality among transponders. The non interstate tollways will be left up to the states.

That doesn't solve the problem.

Bingo!

[cbeach40]

no national MUTCD

There's this.  Someone even brought a copy to a roadmeet once (the 2018 CSVT meet, I believe).  I get the feeling it's not anywhere close to as binding as the US MUTCD, however.

Exactly, no binding power at all. Like the TAC design manual, it's a collaborative effort with DOTs pooling resources to create the publication. And each has their own interpretations and variations on it.

[andrepoiy]

no national MUTCD

There's this.  Someone even brought a copy to a roadmeet once (the 2018 CSVT meet, I believe).  I get the feeling it's not anywhere close to as binding as the US MUTCD, however.

Exactly, no binding power at all. Like the TAC design manual, it's a collaborative effort with DOTs pooling resources to create the publication. And each has their own interpretations and variations on it.

Even the Ontario OTM has no binding power with non-provincial routes...

For example, have a look at the signs on the Gardiner Expressway, Don Valley Parkway, and E.C. Row Expressway, which are all municipal freeways. A lot of them are bad attempts at the sign designs on the OTM, and a lot of the other signs do not follow OTM standards at all.

Some 407 ETR signs are also terrible.

Hamilton's Red Hill Valley Parkway and Lincoln Alexander Parkway emulate the OTM signs well enough though, for some reason.


Standard Ontario exit pull-thru sign:


Non-standard exit sign on Don Valley Parkway:



Non-standard exit sign on Gardiner Expressway:



Non-standard exit sign on E.C. Row Expressway:



Really strange-looking diagrammatical sign on 407 ETR

[Avalanchez71]

no national MUTCD

There's this.  Someone even brought a copy to a roadmeet once (the 2018 CSVT meet, I believe).  I get the feeling it's not anywhere close to as binding as the US MUTCD, however.

Exactly, no binding power at all. Like the TAC design manual, it's a collaborative effort with DOTs pooling resources to create the publication. And each has their own interpretations and variations on it.

Even the Ontario OTM has no binding power with non-provincial routes...

For example, have a look at the signs on the Gardiner Expressway, Don Valley Parkway, and E.C. Row Expressway, which are all municipal freeways. A lot of them are bad attempts at the sign designs on the OTM, and a lot of the other signs do not follow OTM standards at all.

Some 407 ETR signs are also terrible.

Hamilton's Red Hill Valley Parkway and Lincoln Alexander Parkway emulate the OTM signs well enough though, for some reason.


Standard Ontario exit pull-thru sign:


Non-standard exit sign on Don Valley Parkway:



Non-standard exit sign on Gardiner Expressway:



Non-standard exit sign on E.C. Row Expressway:



Really strange-looking diagrammatical sign on 407 ETR

I see a greenout on Dougall Avenue.  Was that PR 3B?

[cbeach40]

I see a greenout on Dougall Avenue.  Was that PR 3B?

It was, yes.

For the era they were installed that one and the DVP ones would have been within standard at the time. For the 407ETR one, that was made a contractor and while the layout is okay, stylistically it's off.

[andrepoiy]

I see a greenout on Dougall Avenue.  Was that PR 3B?

It was, yes.

For the era they were installed that one and the DVP ones would have been within standard at the time. For the 407ETR one, that was made a contractor and while the layout is okay, stylistically it's off.

I don't know if QEW West is really a good idea either.