http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/22306060/2013/05/21/starting-next-year-only-e-z-passes-will-be-allowed-to-pay-tolls-on-tobin
My other half forwarded me parts of this Boston article (which I can't get to out here) in which they talk about plans to change the Tobin Bridge so that "only E-Z passes will be allowed to pay tolls". The article mentions that Logan Airport could be next.
I can't get to the article so I'm not sure if the plan is to go all-electronic, or if the quote that, literally, you must have an EZPass in order to drive it, is true.
Old news - see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8875.msg211469#msg211469
And the plan is to go all electronic, not EZ-Pass only. If you don't have a transponder, you get a bill in the mail. But since when did the media let the facts get in the way of printing a story with an "anti-govimitt" angle.
Here's the official MassDOT blog post about the Tobin Bridge electronic tolling and future plans:
http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2013/05/massdot-plan-revolutionize-toll-collection.html (http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2013/05/massdot-plan-revolutionize-toll-collection.html)
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single road in this country that is "transponder-only" that does not allow those without a transponder to get a bill in the mail, or have a free alternate right next to it (in the case of some HOT lanes/Express Toll Lanes that do in fact require transponders). I doubt any government would want the bad publicity associated with being the first to do this.
I like the idea of all-electronic tolling, provided there are accomodations made for visitors or others that might not readily be able to get a bill (rental car customers come to mind). Otherwise, to all those who don't want the government snooping on you, guess what, pretty much all toll lanes are under video observation, including cash lanes...they already have your license plate number if they want to look it up.
Quote from: mtantillo on May 21, 2013, 07:39:34 PM
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single road in this country that is "transponder-only" that does not allow those without a transponder to get a bill in the mail, or have a free alternate right next to it
Florida's Turnipke has several interchanges which are SunPass only, and the Pennsylvania Turnpike has a few that are EZPass only. Both consider using one of those interchanges without a valid transponder to be a violation and will hit you with a fine accordingly.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 21, 2013, 07:59:10 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on May 21, 2013, 07:39:34 PM
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single road in this country that is "transponder-only" that does not allow those without a transponder to get a bill in the mail, or have a free alternate right next to it
Florida's Turnipke has several interchanges which are SunPass only, and the Pennsylvania Turnpike has a few that are EZPass only. Both consider using one of those interchanges without a valid transponder to be a violation and will hit you with a fine accordingly.
My bad, should have clarified that not every access/egress point would necessarily be available, which applies to little sleepy interchanges serving office parks off the PA Turnpike, as well as the entire GWB lower level during off-peak hours.
QuoteTo the best of my knowledge, there is not one single road in this country that is "transponder-only" that does not allow those without a transponder to get a bill in the mail, or have a free alternate right next to it (in the case of some HOT lanes/Express Toll Lanes that do in fact require transponders).
I want to say the Westpark Tollway in Houston falls under this category. I'm pretty sure it did at one point...not sure if it's still the case.
https://www.hctra.org/tollroads/
QuoteThe Westpark Tollway, Katy Managed Lanes and the Northeast section of the Sam Houston Tollway are all-electronic tolling. All-electronic tolling means there are no toll booths, and no cash payment is accepted. An EZ TAG or other interoperable Texas toll payment tag is required.
The Katy lanes are express lanes. The Sam Houston Tollway is a tolled freeway with free frontage roads (Beltway 8). The Westpark parallels various minor surface roads; I'd say it definitely counts.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 21, 2013, 07:59:10 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on May 21, 2013, 07:39:34 PM
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single road in this country that is "transponder-only" that does not allow those without a transponder to get a bill in the mail, or have a free alternate right next to it
Florida's Turnipke has several interchanges which are SunPass only, and the Pennsylvania Turnpike has a few that are EZPass only. Both consider using one of those interchanges without a valid transponder to be a violation and will hit you with a fine accordingly.
In the case of the PA Turnpike, those EZ Pass Only exits/interchanges (of which there's only two or three) were that way from the get-go; plus, there's an older, non-EZ Pass alternative interchange located within 10 miles of such. The same can
not be said regarding older toll interchanges or facilities like the Tobin Bridge.
Given the fact that all the river/harbor crossings (except MA 99) northeast of Boston are toll facilities (and have been such since their inception); converting even
one of those facilities to an
EZ Pass ONLY type would be a major transportation access issue (not to mention a P.R. nightmare and legally questionable).
Quote from: mtantillo on May 21, 2013, 10:13:49 PMMy bad, should have clarified that not every access/egress point would necessarily be available, which applies to little sleepy interchanges serving office parks off the PA Turnpike
I wouldn't necessarily call the recently-opened PA 29 interchange (EZ Pass ONLY - Exit 320) a sleepy interchange.
Quote from: NE2 on May 22, 2013, 03:32:57 AM
https://www.hctra.org/tollroads/
QuoteThe Westpark Tollway, Katy Managed Lanes and the Northeast section of the Sam Houston Tollway are all-electronic tolling. All-electronic tolling means there are no toll booths, and no cash payment is accepted. An EZ TAG or other interoperable Texas toll payment tag is required.
The Katy lanes are express lanes. The Sam Houston Tollway is a tolled freeway with free frontage roads (Beltway 8). The Westpark parallels various minor surface roads; I'd say it definitely counts.
Don't Texas toll roads offer some form of "Pay-by-Plate"? I know I've talked to plenty of people involved in the toll industry who like to talk about "ZipCash" everytime we discuss how Pay-by-Plate works in the various states.
Quote from: mtantillo on May 22, 2013, 12:58:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 22, 2013, 03:32:57 AM
https://www.hctra.org/tollroads/
QuoteThe Westpark Tollway, Katy Managed Lanes and the Northeast section of the Sam Houston Tollway are all-electronic tolling. All-electronic tolling means there are no toll booths, and no cash payment is accepted. An EZ TAG or other interoperable Texas toll payment tag is required.
The Katy lanes are express lanes. The Sam Houston Tollway is a tolled freeway with free frontage roads (Beltway 8). The Westpark parallels various minor surface roads; I'd say it definitely counts.
Don't Texas toll roads offer some form of "Pay-by-Plate"? I know I've talked to plenty of people involved in the toll industry who like to talk about "ZipCash" everytime we discuss how Pay-by-Plate works in the various states.
The three toll roads mentioned have the same equipment on their toll gantries that will snap a photo of your license plate if you don't have a transponder. The difference is, what they send you in the mail is a citation for driving the road without a transponder, not a bill for the toll. This happened to a friend of mine who wasn't aware of this requirement.
Heh, interesting. My apologies for misunderstanding. After doing a little research, I realize that while TxTag is the statewide interoperable transponder, any pay-by-plate arrangements are made with each individual toll facility. ZipCash is only for NTTA facilities. Austin area toll roads have a different arrangement. But Houston has nothing. Shame on them.
Although we actually got into this debate at a NCUTCD meeting a few years ago when someone asked "what the heck is the difference between a 'processing fee' and a 'fine' for using a toll road without a transponder?" This was a very important discussion topic, since the signing for one vs. the other is very different (the former is signed like a toll road that accepts cash, since theoretically you need not warn anyone in advance that no cash option exists if they will receive a bill...while the later is signed as "XXX Toll Pass Only"). So long as the "fine" doesn't have any points attached (they couldn't, as they have no idea who was driving the vehicle), isn't it essentially a processing fee? The other side said it was an issue of order of magnitude of the mark-up, but no one could really seem to draw the line at what constituted a fine vs. a processing fee. For example, "the rules" say "thou shalt not drive on the I-495 Express Lanes without an E-ZPass." If you do and Transurban has to track you down, you'll pay a $12 "fine" on top of the toll amount. However if you go to Transurban within 5 days of your mis-deed, provide your credit card number, license plate number, and approximate date of your "violation", you'll only pay $1.50 on top of your toll. Is this a "fine" for misuse of the lanes? Or is this just a convenience fee for those who might be in a rush once a year and don't have E-ZPass? I would certainly argue the latter, and I in fact, have encouraged people to give the lanes a try before bothering to sign up for E-ZPass, and to only sign up if they think they'll use the Express Lanes regularly. E-ZPass in Virginia and Maryland have monthly fees, which could easily come out to be more than a measly $1.50 "fine" for using the lanes without one.
Then lets look at Quebec on the A-25. Assuming they can find you (those with US plates have supposidly been able to use the A-25 for free), they tack on a $5.00 "processing fee" onto the toll. I mean, lets think about this. Montreal is not exceptionally wealthy compared to DC...yet Quebec considers $5.00 to be a "processing fee" while Virginia considers $1.50 to be a "fine". Something doesn't add up. Don't even get me started about using an all-electronic toll facility in a rental car....some of their "processing fees" will make any "fine" levied by a toll agency for using the road without a transponder in your own car look like peanuts.
To bring this back on topic...the rental car issue could be a challenge for Tobin Bridge and the Harbor Tunnels being so close to Logan Airport. How will the rental car agencies ensure that every car leaving their lot is equipped with a toll transponder? Keep in mind that the rental car toll programs (PlatePass, Rent-A-Toll, etc.) work in most states by way of photo capture of license plates, but they WILL NOT WORK in E-ZPass territory without a physical transponder box in the vehicle. All of the brochures explicitely state this. So the guy who drives his rental car from San Francisco to Boston, will that car have an E-ZPass transponder in it? (it is still un-clear if rental agencies equip all of their cars with E-ZPass transponders, even the ones from, say, the West Coast). If not, how will the next renter who gets stuck with that car get it back into Boston if there is no way to pay cash, and no way to participate in the rental car toll program without a transponder? And people wonder why I carry my own toll transponder with me when I fly somewhere far away...I'm sure the pilot would have a fit if he/she knew, seeing as it is a "portable electronic device" that can't be turned off!
Presumably if the rental car does not have an E-ZPass in it, the toll equipment would photograph its license plate and mail the vehicle's registered owner (in this case the rental car company) a bill, just like if you drove your car without a transponder. Then the rental car company would track you down to pay it, along with their "fee".
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 22, 2013, 10:47:26 PM
Presumably if the rental car does not have an E-ZPass in it, the toll equipment would photograph its license plate and mail the vehicle's registered owner (in this case the rental car company) a bill, just like if you drove your car without a transponder. Then the rental car company would track you down to pay it, along with their "fee".
Yes. The toll agency gets their money no matter what. The problem is, if this happens, will the rental car company bill it to me similar to a parking ticket or red light camera ticket (or a toll violation if the driver opts out of the rental car toll program and drives through an electronic lane anyway), with a $25+ processing fee? Or will it make its way back to the "rent-a-toll" company and I'm only charged the more reasonable processing fee that the rental company's toll program contractor charges ($4 a day...in that range?) The problem is that the "rent-a-toll" companies are used to getting bills and violation notices in the mail for states that use video as the primary tolling method for rental car tolls, even where video tolling is not available to the general public (Florida, Texas, Washington State, Colorado), but in E-ZPass states, the tolls are billed via transponder statements using a live transponder....meaning on roads like the ICC or soon to be Tobin Bridge, video tolling is available to the general public but not to "rent-a-toll" customers because rent-a-toll in E-ZPass lanes ONLY works if there is a transponder in the vehicle. Getting a video toll invoice from an E-ZPass state toll agency is the exception, not the normal pre-arranged deal they have with toll agencies in states such as Florida. This makes me think it might be billed similar to a parking violation (High processing fee) rather than a "rent-a-toll" transaction (more reasonable fee).
https://www.platepass.com/TollAuthorities/AboutPlatePass.html There's a link to one such "rent-a-toll" company: PlatePass.
Colorado, Florida , North Carolina, the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, Texas, Washington and Puerto Rico
...All vehicles with participating rental car agencies are pre-enrolled and no advanced commitment or contract is required to use PlatePass. (MT comment: because the rental car companies simply turn over the license plate number of every vehicle in their fleet to the toll agencies...even if the vehicle is registered in California, FL Turnpike Enterprise has access to that data and knows to bill a toll to the correct rental car company toll contractor).
Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States
Participating rental car company customers can also use PlatePass while using the E-ZPass toll roads in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern region of the United States. Customers can ask for PlatePass transponders at rental locations in the Northeast, which will allow them to use the E-ZPass electronic toll payment system. (MT comment: because it actually costs money to outfit a car with a transponder [approx $20 per E-ZPass transponder], it doesn't make sense to outfit cars based outside of E-ZPass territory with E-ZPass transponders...but the rules clearly state you have to have the transponder to take part in the e-tolling scheme in those states)
I'd say the difference between a fine and a processing fee is that, if it's a fine and you repeatedly incur it, the toll road will escalate the matter and perhaps ban you from the property.
Anyway, this bridge requires a transponder, requiring a 40+ mile detour to avoid it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabash_Memorial_Bridge
Quote from: NE2 on May 23, 2013, 12:06:58 AM
Anyway, this bridge requires a transponder, requiring a 40+ mile detour to avoid it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabash_Memorial_Bridge
That's crazy, IMHO; especially since there's no nearby alternate route (I'm surprised there wasn't a legal challenge of sorts).
What if the motorist is either a tourist or using a rental (not from a nearby agency)?
Quote from: mtantillo on May 22, 2013, 11:04:44 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 22, 2013, 10:47:26 PM
Presumably if the rental car does not have an E-ZPass in it, the toll equipment would photograph its license plate and mail the vehicle's registered owner (in this case the rental car company) a bill, just like if you drove your car without a transponder. Then the rental car company would track you down to pay it, along with their "fee".
Yes. The toll agency gets their money no matter what. The problem is, if this happens, will the rental car company bill it to me similar to a parking ticket or red light camera ticket (or a toll violation if the driver opts out of the rental car toll program and drives through an electronic lane anyway), with a $25+ processing fee? Or will it make its way back to the "rent-a-toll" company and I'm only charged the more reasonable processing fee that the rental company's toll program contractor charges ($4 a day...in that range?)...
In general, the rental car company will just charge your credit card automatically for the whole bill. Since you did not agree to the rental company's toll program, they're not going to retroactivally "allow you" to participate in the program, which means the rental car company would get sacked with the $25 charge.
When motorists agree to rent a car, they agree to the above. If the credit card is no longer valid (card # was closed, at max limit, etc), only then is a bill sent to the renter.
Another toll facility falls victim to the EZ-Pass phenomenon...
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 23, 2013, 08:13:59 AM
Quote from: NE2 on May 23, 2013, 12:06:58 AM
Anyway, this bridge requires a transponder, requiring a 40+ mile detour to avoid it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabash_Memorial_Bridge
That's crazy, IMHO; especially since there's no nearby alternate route (I'm surprised there wasn't a legal challenge of sorts).
What if the motorist is either a tourist or using a rental (not from a nearby agency)?
Then they presumably get hit with a fine just as anyone else would. That, or if you have the forethought you set up an account for their transponder.
What I don't get is why they went through the bother of creating their own transponder system when other facilities in Indiana and Illinois both are already part of EZPass. That's just ridiculously feudal and customer-unfriendly of them.
QuoteAnother toll facility falls victim to the EZ-Pass phenomenon...
Not true. IIRC, the Tobin Bridge already had EZPass. If you want to call this a phenomenon, call it the "all-electronic tolling phtenomenon".
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2013, 03:55:18 AM
QuoteAnother toll facility falls victim to the EZ-Pass phenomenon...
Not true. IIRC, the Tobin Bridge already had EZPass. If you want to call this a phenomenon, call it the "all-electronic tolling phtenomenon".
Actually, the Tobin Bridge had been "(obnoxious commercial sponsorship)Fast Lane" until it, along with the rest of Massachusetts' toll facilities, were officially re-branded EZ-Pass. However, Fast Lane was compatible with EZ-Pass.
FastLane, Like iPass, was just E-ZPass with a different brand.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 23, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
What I don't get is why they went through the bother of creating their own transponder system when other facilities in Indiana and Illinois both are already part of EZPass. That's just ridiculously feudal and customer-unfriendly of them.
How were they even allowed to do that?
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2013, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 23, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
What I don't get is why they went through the bother of creating their own transponder system when other facilities in Indiana and Illinois both are already part of EZPass. That's just ridiculously feudal and customer-unfriendly of them.
How were they even allowed to do that?
Well, INDOT has never signed onto EZPass. The Indiana Toll Road has, but it's privately owned and operated, so it's a completely separate entity.
As for how they are allowed... well why wouldn't they be? I don't know of any state having mandated that agencies within its borders accept a given electronic tolling system. This bridge is not the only toll facility in "EZPass territory" that does not accept EZPass (cf. Dingman's Ferry, Atlantic Beach, and Ocean Drive), although I do believe it is unique in the respect that it has its own form of electronic payment - those other bridges are cash only.
QuoteThe Indiana Toll Road has, but it's privately owned and operated, so it's a completely separate entity.
Privately operated, but still owned by the state.
Quote from: mtantillo on May 21, 2013, 07:39:34 PM
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single road in this country that is "transponder-only" that does not allow those without a transponder to get a bill in the mail, or have a free alternate right next to it (in the case of some HOT lanes/Express Toll Lanes that do in fact require transponders). I doubt any government would want the bad publicity associated with being the first to do this.
TX 255 is TxTag-only; unlike every other Texas toll road, they do not allow pay-by-mail, although you can prepay by the day without a tag, presumably because TxDOT doesn't want to mess with pay-by-mail billing for drivers with Mexican plates. http://caminocolombia.org/english/faq.php
Quote from: Duke87 on May 24, 2013, 06:10:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2013, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 23, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
What I don't get is why they went through the bother of creating their own transponder system when other facilities in Indiana and Illinois both are already part of EZPass. That's just ridiculously feudal and customer-unfriendly of them.
How were they even allowed to do that?
Well, INDOT has never signed onto EZPass. The Indiana Toll Road has, but it's privately owned and operated, so it's a completely separate entity.
As for how they are allowed... well why wouldn't they be? I don't know of any state having mandated that agencies within its borders accept a given electronic tolling system. This bridge is not the only toll facility in "EZPass territory" that does not accept EZPass (cf. Dingman's Ferry, Atlantic Beach, and Ocean Drive), although I do believe it is unique in the respect that it has its own form of electronic payment - those other bridges are cash only.
I would have had something to say about it if I were the feds. With INDOT using the most expensive and least friendly option possible (seriously, who wants to have more than one transponder, and what idiot makes a separate transponder for one bridge?), the bridge connecting two states (thereby being 100% interstate commerce), and the nearest bridge being over 40 miles away, it's just begging for the feds to step in and shut them down.
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2013, 05:44:07 PM
FastLane, Like iPass, was just E-ZPass with a different brand.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 23, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
What I don't get is why they went through the bother of creating their own transponder system when other facilities in Indiana and Illinois both are already part of EZPass. That's just ridiculously feudal and customer-unfriendly of them.
How were they even allowed to do that?
Fast Lane was no more or less different with, say NY E-ZPass than NJ E-ZPass was to NY E-ZPass.
They were allowed to do it because it is not an interstate or NHS route, so the state DOTs could do whatever they wanted (presumably, INDOT contacted ILDOT since the bridge connects to IL). If it was NHS or interstate, the Feds would be involved to say, "no can do."
Quote from: mtantillo on May 26, 2013, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2013, 05:44:07 PM
FastLane, Like iPass, was just E-ZPass with a different brand.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 23, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
What I don't get is why they went through the bother of creating their own transponder system when other facilities in Indiana and Illinois both are already part of EZPass. That's just ridiculously feudal and customer-unfriendly of them.
How were they even allowed to do that?
Fast Lane was no more or less different with, say NY E-ZPass than NJ E-ZPass was to NY E-ZPass.
They were allowed to do it because it is not an interstate or NHS route, so the state DOTs could do whatever they wanted (presumably, INDOT contacted ILDOT since the bridge connects to IL). If it was NHS or interstate, the Feds would be involved to say, "no can do."
Why not? Do the feds mandate how tolls must be paid? The feds mandate if a road can be a tolled road, but I've never seen anything stating they tell the states how those tolls must be paid.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tollpage/t1part4.cfm claims that the Sam Rayburn Tollway is on the NHS. I think you need a transponder to use it.
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2013, 05:44:07 PM
FastLane, Like iPass, was just E-ZPass with a different brand.
In fact, FastLane actually predated EZ-Pass. When EZ-Pass was introduced in other states (especially the NY Thruway), the Mass. Turnpike Authority modified FastLane so it was compatible with EZ-Pass and visa-versa. It wasn't until late 2010 (after the MassDOT "merger") that the system was re-branded.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 27, 2013, 10:10:02 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on May 26, 2013, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2013, 05:44:07 PM
FastLane, Like iPass, was just E-ZPass with a different brand.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 23, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
What I don't get is why they went through the bother of creating their own transponder system when other facilities in Indiana and Illinois both are already part of EZPass. That's just ridiculously feudal and customer-unfriendly of them.
How were they even allowed to do that?
Fast Lane was no more or less different with, say NY E-ZPass than NJ E-ZPass was to NY E-ZPass.
They were allowed to do it because it is not an interstate or NHS route, so the state DOTs could do whatever they wanted (presumably, INDOT contacted ILDOT since the bridge connects to IL). If it was NHS or interstate, the Feds would be involved to say, "no can do."
Why not? Do the feds mandate how tolls must be paid? The feds mandate if a road can be a tolled road, but I've never seen anything stating they tell the states how those tolls must be paid.
I think the Feds would chime in if you were to take, say, I-95 and make it transponder only, basically saying that those from outside the area have to have a way to use the road without researching, doing something in advance like setting up an account. Unless, of course, you had ways to obtain tags on the go in advance of the crossing, and they were well signed (say if you made I-95 transponder only but sold tags in rest areas leading up to the rolled section). I'm not sure where the Feds would draw the line, my guess is at NHS/ non-NHS level.
Removed excessive triple-quote and extra broken quote tags. -Connor
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 27, 2013, 10:10:02 AMDo the feds mandate how tolls must be paid? The feds mandate if a road can be a tolled road, but I've never seen anything stating they tell the states how those tolls must be paid.
Printed on all US paper currency (
Bold and
Underline added):
THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATEIMHO, the above-statement should trump
all overtly excessive cash restrictions/prohibitions by a toll agency. No agency should be allowed to prohibit cash purchases at a facility where there's no reasonably located alternative. In the case of the PA Turnpike EZ-Pass Only interchanges; those were placed
in addition to the existing conventional toll-plaza interchanges not instead of.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2013, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 27, 2013, 10:10:02 AMDo the feds mandate how tolls must be paid? The feds mandate if a road can be a tolled road, but I've never seen anything stating they tell the states how those tolls must be paid.
Printed on all US paper currency (Bold and Underline added):
THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
IMHO, the above-statement should trump all overtly excessive cash restrictions/prohibitions by a toll agency. No agency should be allowed to prohibit cash purchases at a facility where there's no reasonably located alternative. In the case of the PA Turnpike EZ-Pass Only interchanges; those were placed in addition to the existing conventional toll-plaza interchanges not instead of.
This is a very often mis-understood assumption regarding that statement.
Direct from the US Treasury Website: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
QuoteI thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 28, 2013, 10:56:42 AMThis is a very often mis-understood assumption regarding that statement.
Direct from the US Treasury Website: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
QuoteI thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Fair enough, but those examples
still allow usage of some currency to be used for payment transactions (no pennies, but all other coins and bills allowed/nothing higher than $20 bills but $1s, $2s, $5s, $10s & $20s accepted); not an across-the-board, flat-out prohibition of
all currency. That's the difference.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2013, 11:27:54 AMnot an across-the-board, flat-out prohibition of all currency
QuoteThere is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2013, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 28, 2013, 10:56:42 AMThis is a very often mis-understood assumption regarding that statement.
Direct from the US Treasury Website: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
QuoteI thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Fair enough, but those examples still allow usage of some currency to be used for payment transactions (no pennies, but all other coins and bills allowed/nothing higher than $20 bills but $1s, $2s, $5s, $10s & $20s accepted); not an across-the-board, flat-out prohibition of all currency. That's the difference.
I think the question is, do you have to accept payment directly at the "point of sale" in currency? If so, then mass transit systems that make you purchase a token prior to entering the faregates would be in violation. I don't see how roads would be any different...you can pay using your currency, check, credit card, etc, just not at the exact moment you pass the toll collection point. You either have to pay in advance (buy a toll transponder) or after the fact (get a bill).
oh sweet fiduciary Jesus; not the 'legal tender' discussion again.
can a mod please find the other thread where this was discussed into the ground a year or two ago?
Quote from: mtantillo on May 28, 2013, 12:17:24 PMI think the question is, do you have to accept payment directly at the "point of sale" in currency? If so, then mass transit systems that make you purchase a token prior to entering the faregates would be in violation. I don't see how roads would be any different...you can pay using your currency, check, credit card, etc, just not at the exact moment you pass the toll collection point. You either have to pay in advance (buy a toll transponder) or after the fact (get a bill).
Getting a bill in the mail after the fact from the toll agency isn't the issue
provided that the amount charged
is equal to the posted/advertised toll at hand. However, an unfamiliar/unsuspecting motorist getting a bill in the mail that includes a toll
plus a unbeknownst stiff fine/violation (from one or two of NE2's listed examples) for a facility that has no reasonable nor nearby alternative is where I and others take issue with regarding cashless tolls going too far.
According to my sources, the Tobin Bridge AET project will include signing advising drivers of both the transponder and bill by mail toll rates.
Quote from: roadman on May 28, 2013, 05:13:44 PM
According to my sources, the Tobin Bridge AET project will include signing advising drivers of both the transponder and bill by mail toll rates.
Good to know.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2013, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 28, 2013, 05:13:44 PM
According to my sources, the Tobin Bridge AET project will include signing advising drivers of both the transponder and bill by mail toll rates.
Good to know.
The Henry Hudson Bridge has signs at least 4 miles in advance with 5 exits between the sign and the bridge. The toll is posted on the signs, and represents the pay-by-mail/non-NY E-ZPass rate. NY E-ZPass tagholders are given a special discount, so the "general" rate is the one signed.
This is slightly different than the ICC in Maryland, where the E-ZPass rates are the same regardless of where the transponder is issued, and the pay-by-mail rate is higher. In this case, the signs display the toll rates, but clearly indicate that it is the E-ZPass rate that is signed. The processing fee for the ICC is reasonable: 50% of the toll (so if E-ZPass toll is $1.50, the bill-by-mail toll is $2.25). Florida has signs that state that a processing fee is added, and their fee is reasonable as well (bill-by-mail tolls have a $0.25 markup over SunPass rates, and every month, the statement has a $3 processing fee added for the entire month).
Two more thoughts. The ICC added the pay-by-mail option as a result of the EIS process pushing for it as an environmental justice issue...in otherwords, going transponder-only would disproportionately affect low-income residents. I'm sure FHWA would persue it as an EJ issue if other facilities tried to go transponder only with no way for those without a transponder to use the facility and no nearby alternative. Why they didn't in the case of the Wabash toll bridge is beyond me.
Another thing I wonder about. I wonder what states Indiana DOT has agreements with to collect tolls on their Wabash crossing? Many times, on all-electronic facilities, if you are from very far away, you get a free ride, because they won't bill you, because they don't have lookup arrangements in place and it is too expensive to track you down. Of course, if you make a habit of "free rides" they will then invest the money to track you down for financial reasons. But in the case of the Wabash crossing, if you were from far away and had no idea it was an all-electronic toll bridge, and it was too late to detour 40 miles around it...chances are, they wouldn't even bother trying to collect the toll from you. Plus, I'm sure it is a small enough operation with friendly midwesterners in charge where they would likely be willing to work out an arrangement to pay if the driver takes the initiative to contact the bridge owner. But after that one potentially free trip, you have no more excuse to not get a pass, because you know the bridge is an all electronic transponder only facility.
Quote from: roadman on May 27, 2013, 06:07:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2013, 05:44:07 PM
FastLane, Like iPass, was just E-ZPass with a different brand.
In fact, FastLane actually predated EZ-Pass. When EZ-Pass was introduced in other states (especially the NY Thruway), the Mass. Turnpike Authority modified FastLane so it was compatible with EZ-Pass and visa-versa. It wasn't until late 2010 (after the MassDOT "merger") that the system was re-branded.
All these systems use the same equipment. These systems operate like a mob. Insomuch that the equipment manufacturers won't even sell you their stuff without the written permission of the regional consortium.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2013, 05:05:19 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on May 28, 2013, 12:17:24 PMI think the question is, do you have to accept payment directly at the "point of sale" in currency? If so, then mass transit systems that make you purchase a token prior to entering the faregates would be in violation. I don't see how roads would be any different...you can pay using your currency, check, credit card, etc, just not at the exact moment you pass the toll collection point. You either have to pay in advance (buy a toll transponder) or after the fact (get a bill).
Getting a bill in the mail after the fact from the toll agency isn't the issue provided that the amount charged is equal to the posted/advertised toll at hand. However, an unfamiliar/unsuspecting motorist getting a bill in the mail that includes a toll plus a unbeknownst stiff fine/violation (from one or two of NE2's listed examples) for a facility that has no reasonable nor nearby alternative is where I and others take issue with regarding cashless tolls going too far.
Take it up with the US Supreme Court then.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 29, 2013, 08:48:01 AMTake it up with the US Supreme Court then.
If I used the road and was blind-sided by the fine; I would indeed, at the very least, request a hearing and contest the charges.
I have done so on other traffic-related matters and have, fortunately, won.
Real-life example (this one was listed in
The Boston Herald): in the early years of FastLane, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority posted yellow
15 MPH speed advisory panels (MUTCD W13-1P) at all the toll plazas rather than the more standard white regulatory sign panels (MUTCD R2-1). One motorist going through a Mass Pike tollbooth was pulled over by a state trooper for speeding through the booth and was cited a ticket (for going either 25 or 30 in a 15 zone).
Unbeknownst to the Statie, the motorist he pulled over just happened to be employed with a traffic sign contractor; so he (the motorist) knew and was very familiar w/MUTCD standards & guidelines. Later on, he looked at the toll plaza and realized that the posted sign was indeed an advisory panel and not an actual speed limit sign.
He contested the ticket, and to the shock of the trooper (who was present at the hearing); the speeding ticket charges were dropped. Shortly after that incident, all the
15 MPH advisory panels were replaced with
SPEED LIMIT 15 regulatory signs. Side bar: some other streets in the Worcester area also had similar advisory panels posted (where a speed limit sign should have been used). After the above-hearing, the advisory panel signs were replaced with speed limit signs.
The problem I have with the Wabash crossing is that not only is it all-electronic with it's own transponder (creating an interoperability headache), but it doesn't even have a pay by mail option. That bill it sends is actually a violation notice and citation for violating Indiana law!
Key points highlighted in
BoldQuote from: vdeane on May 29, 2013, 11:17:34 AM
The problem I have with the Wabash crossing is that not only is it all-electronic with it's own transponder (creating an interoperability headache), but it doesn't even have a pay by mail option. That bill it sends is actually a violation notice and citation for violating Indiana law!
Well put, the above is exactly my bone of contention.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 29, 2013, 11:33:27 AM
Key points highlighted in Bold
Quote from: vdeane on May 29, 2013, 11:17:34 AM
The problem I have with the Wabash crossing is that not only is it all-electronic with it's own transponder (creating an interoperability headache), but it doesn't even have a pay by mail option. That bill it sends is actually a violation notice and citation for violating Indiana law!
Well put, the above is exactly my bone of contention.
I think myself, PHLBOS, and vdeane are completely in agreement on this one. Even if they are willing to accept the "I didn't know it was AET" for the first offense, doing it with a violation notice as opposed to a friendly warning..and maybe an application for a transponder...would come across as a lot less offensive.
New Hampshire's procedure for dealing with people who go through the Hookset ORT lanes without a transponder is that they send them a bill for the toll amount plus a one dollar adminstrative fee.