ACCESS Oklahoma

[Scott5114]

Not going to happen until California allows other tolling agencies to exchange private information (which requires California to update their privacy law)...

Why would they need to exchange anything other than the transponder number? "Hello OTA, this is Caltrans, we have a toll charge for $4.20 for Pikepass transponder 0118-999-88199-9119-725-3..." That should be enough for OTA to look it up. Ditto for any FasTrak tag scanned in Oklahoma.

[Great Lakes Roads]

From the April 7th OTA meeting:

SUBJECT: Information Technology Division
DATE: April 7, 2026
Agreement Regarding Interoperability Of Toll Systems entered into by & Between CUSIOP and EZIOP Entities

Submitted for consideration and approval of the Authority is a request to authorize the Director to negotiate and execute an Agreement regarding Interoperability of Toll Systems on behalf of the OTA as a member of the Central US Interoperability Agreement dated March 7, 2017 and the EZIOP Entities (entities that own or operate toll facilities and are parties to the E-ZPass Interagency Group Second Amended and Restated Operations Agreement dated October 14, 2021). The Agreement will serve as the underlying agreement to achieve interoperability between these parties' respective electronic toll collection systems.

Staff has reviewed the above item and recommends for approval.

Central hub region joining the E-ZPass group? I like what I'm hearing!

E-ZPass hub will be joining the Central hub region in phases.
PHASE 1 (Summer 2026)- IL, IN (ITR and Cline), MD, NC, OH, PA (PTC), UBP (MI and VA)
FUTURE PHASES- DE, FL (CFX), GA, KY, ME, MA, MN, NH, NY, RI, WV

E-ZPass will be accepted in OK, KS, CO (E-470 Public Highway authority), and TX (NTTA and Central Texas Regional Mobility Hub)
*HCTRA and NW Parkway will be accepted at a later date

Timestamp- 26:42

Decided to post this from the thread about tolling interoperability, and this is only phase I of integrating E-ZPass into the Central Hub region.

[kphoger]

Not going to happen until California allows other tolling agencies to exchange private information (which requires California to update their privacy law)...

Why would they need to exchange anything other than the transponder number? "Hello OTA, this is Caltrans, we have a toll charge for $4.20 for Pikepass transponder 0118-999-88199-9119-725-3..." That should be enough for OTA to look it up. Ditto for any FasTrak tag scanned in Oklahoma.

If the state of California needs to send me a bill in the mail, then they need to be able to get my address somehow.

In states with pay-by-plate, this means that the toll enforcement agency has to have made arrangements with the DMV of the offender's state to look up their name and address (personal information) by license plate number.  I imagine there are similar arrangements that have to be made between toll agencies.

In your second example, remember, it isn't actually Caltrans that's going to be sending the bill, but rather OTA.  So, when OTA calls up Caltrans on the phone (ha!) and asks for the name and address associated with FasTrak number 9876543210—then what?  California just gives them the personal information of one of its citizens, for only Oklahoma's benefit?  Now, the "bill" may be electronic, and the "call" may be electronic, but the privacy issue still remains and would need to be resolved by prior legal arrangement between states.

[I-55]

Not going to happen until California allows other tolling agencies to exchange private information (which requires California to update their privacy law)...

Why would they need to exchange anything other than the transponder number? "Hello OTA, this is Caltrans, we have a toll charge for $4.20 for Pikepass transponder 0118-999-88199-9119-725-3..." That should be enough for OTA to look it up. Ditto for any FasTrak tag scanned in Oklahoma.

If the state of California needs to send me a bill in the mail, then they need to be able to get my address somehow.

In states with pay-by-plate, this means that the toll enforcement agency has to have made arrangements with the DMV of the offender's state to look up their name and address (personal information) by license plate number.  I imagine there are similar arrangements that have to be made between toll agencies.

In your second example, remember, it isn't actually Caltrans that's going to be sending the bill, but rather OTA.  So, when OTA calls up Caltrans on the phone (ha!) and asks for the name and address associated with FasTrak number 9876543210—then what?  California just gives them the personal information of one of its citizens, for only Oklahoma's benefit?  Now, the "bill" may be electronic, and the "call" may be electronic, but the privacy issue still remains and would need to be resolved by prior legal arrangement between states.

Mentioned this a couple months ago here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=3028275

For transponder interoperability, there's zero reason why any agency would need more information other than the transponder serial number and maybe an assigned license plate (which is only used if the transponder has trouble reading and the license plate can identify an existing E-ZPass account for billing).

Example: I have I-Pass. My transponder (like all I-Pass sticker transponders) starts with 014. Those 3 numbers indicate to all E-ZPass member agencies that the tag belongs to the ISTHA. When I use out of state toll roads, ISTHA still manages my balance, they just send whatever ITRCC, OTIC, PTC, etc. invoiced. As you correctly pointed out, the only agency that directly bills the tagholder is their home agency. None of those agencies probably know anything about me other than "transponder 014 XXXXXXXXXX passed through Plaza XX at XX:XX:XX PM."

[Scott5114]

If the state of California needs to send me a bill in the mail, then they need to be able to get my address somehow.

No, they don't.

1. Caltrans sends OTA proof that they processed Pikepass transponder #0118-999-88199-9119-725-3 at the Rancho Santa Mochila toll plaza at such and such time and the amount due is $5.
2. OTA pays Caltrans $5. Caltrans no longer cares about anything that happens after this point.
3. OTA, who knows that Pikepass transponder 0118-999-88199-9119-725-3 is attached to account #8675309, deducts $5 from that account and lists a toll for Rancho Santa Mochila on its statement. Since Caltrans already has its money, because OTA paid it on its customer's behalf, they never have any need to share that customer's data with Caltrans.
4. If for some reason the customer does not pay OTA, that's between the state of Oklahoma and the customer. The state of California remains blissfully unaware of this and can focus on state of California things, like not replacing road signs and coming up with new and bizarre synonyms for "bridge". (Raise your hand if you know the difference between an "overcrossing" and a "separation"!)

As I-55 says above, this is more or less how it works within the EZPass zone, so I see no reason why it shouldn't work outside of it.

[kphoger]

If the state of California needs to send me a bill in the mail, then they need to be able to get my address somehow.

No, they don't.

1. Caltrans sends OTA proof that they processed Pikepass transponder #0118-999-88199-9119-725-3 at the Rancho Santa Mochila toll plaza at such and such time and the amount due is $5.
2. OTA pays Caltrans $5. Caltrans no longer cares about anything that happens after this point.
3. OTA, who knows that Pikepass transponder 0118-999-88199-9119-725-3 is attached to account #8675309, deducts $5 from that account and lists a toll for Rancho Santa Mochila on its statement. Since Caltrans already has its money, because OTA paid it on its customer's behalf, they never have any need to share that customer's data with Caltrans.
4. If for some reason the customer does not pay OTA, that's between the state of Oklahoma and the customer. The state of California remains blissfully unaware of this and can focus on state of California things, like not replacing road signs and coming up with new and bizarre synonyms for "bridge". (Raise your hand if you know the difference between an "overcrossing" and a "separation"!)

As I-55 says above, this is more or less how it works within the EZPass zone, so I see no reason why it shouldn't work outside of it.

Thank you very much.  I tried to understand his explanation, but I couldn't wrap my brain around it.  I understood your explanation.  (I'm a bear of very little brain.)

Also, you gave me a great chuckle at 'Rancho Santa Mochila'.  Holy Backpack Town.

[Scott5114]

Also, you gave me a great chuckle at 'Rancho Santa Mochila'.  Holy Backpack Town.

It's a name I've been using with Jake to mean "any random California city you've never once heard of but inexplicably contains 142,000 people". It turns out there are a lot of those, and most of them have Spanish names that don't make a whole lot of sense.

[Plutonic Panda]

Also, you gave me a great chuckle at 'Rancho Santa Mochila'.  Holy Backpack Town.

It's a name I've been using with Jake to mean "any random California city you've never once heard of but inexplicably contains 142,000 people". It turns out there are a lot of those, and most of them have Spanish names that don't make a whole lot of sense.

I was at a bar in Rancho Mirage one time and accidentally referred to the city as Rancho Cucamonga. You would've thought that I asked to fuck the guy's wife. He got so offended over that like it was unreal. Almost wanted to fight me because of it.

[Scott5114]

Also, you gave me a great chuckle at 'Rancho Santa Mochila'.  Holy Backpack Town.

It's a name I've been using with Jake to mean "any random California city you've never once heard of but inexplicably contains 142,000 people". It turns out there are a lot of those, and most of them have Spanish names that don't make a whole lot of sense.

I was at a bar in Rancho Mirage one time and accidentally referred to the city as Rancho Cucamonga. You would've thought that I asked to fuck the guy's wife. He got so offended over that like it was unreal. Almost wanted to fight me because of it.

"sorry man to me they're both just suburbs of Jurupa Valley"

[kphoger]

I was at a bar ... and accidentally referred to the city as Rancho Cucamonga ... He got so offended over that ... Almost wanted to fight me because of it.

Either that guy was very, very drunk—or else you've left out some parts of the story.

[The Ghostbuster]

Or Plutonic Panda just made an unintentional innocent mistake.

[kphoger]

Or Plutonic Panda just made an unintentional innocent mistake.

Oh, I'm sure that was the case.  I'm just wondering if something happened between "unintentional innocent mistake" and "almost wanted to fight".

[Plutonic Panda]

Or Plutonic Panda just made an unintentional innocent mistake.

Oh, I'm sure that was the case.  I'm just wondering if something happened between "unintentional innocent mistake" and "almost wanted to fight".

No, I mean it wasn't like he got up and was like let's squabble. He just got a little squirrelly. He might've been one of those type of people that just fucking playfully joke around I don't know. I didn't feel threatened. I was amused, but it was kind of funny.