EZPass rate border (in-state vs. out of state rates)

[ixnay]

http://www.timesunion.com/7dayarchive/article/States-are-in-an-EZ-Pass-border-war-11289926.php

Summer is prime driving season, but New Yorkers who pay attention to their toll bills may be confused.
If you are taking the Massachusetts Turnpike to Boston, for instance, you'll pay more on your E-ZPass tag than your neighbors in the Bay State.
And if you want to hit the beach in Middletown, R.I., crossing the Newport Bridge will cost you $4, while Rhode Island residents pay 83 cents on their E-ZPass transponders. ...

The states appear to be stuck in neutral when it comes to resolving the dispute.

ixnay

[02 Park Ave]

The NYS Thruway has started charging more to motorists with out-of-state E-ZPases.

[Brandon]

ISTHA does not discriminate between the state/agency of issue for an E-Z Pass.  All get the same 50% off the cash toll rate.  Indiana tried some of this BS a few years ago when they introduced iZoom (their E-Z Pass banding).  ISTHA told Indiana that they would start to charge Indiana E-Z Passes at the cash rate.  Indiana backed down and gave I-Pass users (of which there are more I-Pass users in Indiana than there are Indiana E-Z Pass users) the same discount (since discontinued for all ETC users).

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-04-23/news/0704220273_1_indiana-toll-road-transponders-zoom
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-06-15/news/0706150357_1_indiana-toll-road-transponders-electronic-tolling

[cpzilliacus]

Maryland, I am ashamed to say, engages in "transponder discrimination" (on most of the state's  toll crossings and toll roads, Maryland E-ZPass holders pay less than holders of non-Maryland transponders).

I think there should be a toll road users bill of rights enacted by Congress that would forbid "transponder discrimination."

[kalvado]

Maryland, I am ashamed to say, engages in "transponder discrimination" (on most of the state's  toll crossings and toll roads, Maryland E-ZPass holders pay less than holders of non-Maryland transponders).

I think there should be a toll road users bill of rights enacted by Congress that would forbid "transponder discrimination."

So far, transponder discrimination was able to stand legal challenges.. Logically, there is always an argument about cost of processing small transaction across different agencies.
And still I prefer transponder discrimination to administrative fees AET agencies love to impose...

[SP Cook]

"tax not me or the, but the man behind the tree". 

This is an issue, and, if we ever lose the fight to keep tolls off roads built to be free, it will get far worse.  Imagine a state selling a virtually free pass to state residents, but sticking it to everybody else.  Politicians, to the extent they care about anybody, only care about people that can vote for or against them.  The problem is that, eventually all of us are going to be out-of-state motorists.  The cost of a road trip could explode with confiscatory tolls in every state.  Not to mention the devistation it would cause to the trucking industry.  And their customers (you and me consumer).

Just looking at the websites, it seems that MA will sell a transponder to anybody, while NY provides discounts to state residents only, and past that, to residents of specific locations within the state.

As to WV and our corrupt turnpike administration, a WV EZ Pass charges $1.20 per toll, rather than $2.  You can also buy a yearly pass for $300.  Under the new governor's plan, tolls would go to $3, but a pass would go down to $15/year.  That is really dangerous if it sets a precedent all over the country.  Further, if you read the governor's proposal it moves the sale of passes from the turnpike (which will sell one to anybody) to the DMV as a part of the registration process (and thus to state residents only).

[wanderer2575]

"tax not me or the, but the man behind the tree". 

This is an issue, and, if we ever lose the fight to keep tolls off roads built to be free, it will get far worse.  Imagine a state selling a virtually free pass to state residents, but sticking it to everybody else.  Politicians, to the extent they care about anybody, only care about people that can vote for or against them. 

Not any different than municipalities that impose taxes on hotel rooms and rental cars -- taxes that will essentially be paid only by nonresidents.  I'm not arguing in favor of transponder discrimination; simply pointing out that it's not setting any precedent.

Maryland, I am ashamed to say, engages in "transponder discrimination" (on most of the state's  toll crossings and toll roads, Maryland E-ZPass holders pay less than holders of non-Maryland transponders).

I think there should be a toll road users bill of rights enacted by Congress that would forbid "transponder discrimination."

Perhaps the basic issue is that, like taxes that are split up into a zillion different pieces (sales tax, income tax, property tax, gas tax, tobacco tax, etc.) instead of just presenting each person with one grand total, revenue from transponders is also split up into multiple components -- monthly/annual service charges, interest earned on prepaid account balances, and the actual tolls.  The turnpike authority counts on getting all these components.  If you're using an out-of-state transponder, the authority loses those first two parts of what it's built into its revenue model.  They need to make that up somewhere else; hence an increase in tolls for those users.  Again, I'm not necessarily defending it, but just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that angle.

[spooky]

"tax not me or the, but the man behind the tree". 

This is an issue, and, if we ever lose the fight to keep tolls off roads built to be free, it will get far worse.  Imagine a state selling a virtually free pass to state residents, but sticking it to everybody else.  Politicians, to the extent they care about anybody, only care about people that can vote for or against them. 

Not any different than municipalities that impose taxes on hotel rooms and rental cars -- taxes that will essentially be paid only by nonresidents.  I'm not arguing in favor of transponder discrimination; simply pointing out that it's not setting any precedent.

Maryland, I am ashamed to say, engages in "transponder discrimination" (on most of the state's  toll crossings and toll roads, Maryland E-ZPass holders pay less than holders of non-Maryland transponders).

I think there should be a toll road users bill of rights enacted by Congress that would forbid "transponder discrimination."

Perhaps the basic issue is that, like taxes that are split up into a zillion different pieces (sales tax, income tax, property tax, gas tax, tobacco tax, etc.) instead of just presenting each person with one grand total, revenue from transponders is also split up into multiple components -- monthly/annual service charges, interest earned on prepaid account balances, and the actual tolls.  The turnpike authority counts on getting all these components.  If you're using an out-of-state transponder, the authority loses those first two parts of what it's built into its revenue model.  They need to make that up somewhere else; hence an increase in tolls for those users.  Again, I'm not necessarily defending it, but just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that angle.

You can take the devil's advocate argument a step further and say that it is not an increase in tolls for out-of-state users, it is a discount on tolls for in-state users. 

I believe this was the model in Massachusetts before the switch to AET - the harbor tunnels were a set price for cash toll payments, but Mass FastLane/EZ-Pass users got a "discount" of 50 cents off that price.

[AlexandriaVA]

No need for new legislation...the Constitution already forbids state border tarriffs and the Interstate Commerce Clause should be sufficient for these situations.

[kalvado]

No need for new legislation...the Constitution already forbids state border tarriffs and the Interstate Commerce Clause should be sufficient for these situations.

More difficult than that... for example:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-rid-1_09-cv-00153/pdf/USCOURTS-rid-1_09-cv-00153-0.pdf

[PHLBOS]

The NYS Thruway has started charging more to motorists with out-of-state E-ZPases.

I have to wonder if such was in response to Massachusetts instituting transponder discrimination when the Mass Pike converted to AET last fall.

Just looking at the websites, it seems that MA will sell a transponder to anybody, while NY provides discounts to state residents only, and past that, to residents of specific locations within the state.

Not quite.  When I applied for a MA E-ZPass account earlier this year (I reside in PA); I initially received a rejection letter from MassDOT due to my residence.  I wrote back stating my reasoning for applying for a MA-issued E-ZPass (I make several trips along the Mass Pike every year due to having family that live in MA) and they eventually (or reluctantly) approved my application.  So getting an instant approval from a remote out-of-state agency isn't always a guarantee.

[kalvado]

Just looking at the websites, it seems that MA will sell a transponder to anybody, while NY provides discounts to state residents only, and past that, to residents of specific locations within the state.

Not quite.  When I applied for a MA E-ZPass account earlier this year (I reside in PA); I initially received a rejection letter from MassDOT due to my residence.  I wrote back stating my reasoning for applying for a MA-issued E-ZPass (I make several trips along the Mass Pike every year due to having family that live in MA) and they eventually (or reluctantly) approved my application.  So getting an instant approval from a remote out-of-state agency isn't always a guarantee.

Which is, actually, an interesting point. Ability to acquire multiple transponders was one of legal reasons allowing discrimination to stand.
On the other hand, RI case I linked earlier, is where one has to have RI transponder AND be RI resident (RI mailing address, I assume) to get the discounted rate.

[Brandon]

Just looking at the websites, it seems that MA will sell a transponder to anybody, while NY provides discounts to state residents only, and past that, to residents of specific locations within the state.

Not quite.  When I applied for a MA E-ZPass account earlier this year (I reside in PA); I initially received a rejection letter from MassDOT due to my residence.  I wrote back stating my reasoning for applying for a MA-issued E-ZPass (I make several trips along the Mass Pike every year due to having family that live in MA) and they eventually (or reluctantly) approved my application.  So getting an instant approval from a remote out-of-state agency isn't always a guarantee.

On the other hand, ISTHA will hand out an I-Pass (E-Z Pass) to just about anyone, anywhere in the US.  There are even folks in California who get one as long as they think they'll spend enough time in Chicagoland to make it useful.

[roadman]

The NYS Thruway has started charging more to motorists with out-of-state E-ZPases.

I have to wonder if such was in response to Massachusetts instituting transponder discrimination when the Mass Pike converted to AET last fall.

Massachusetts has always had "transponder discrimination" since they first adapted their original "(blatant commercial advertising) Fast Lane" system to accept E-ZPass transponders some years ago

[RobbieL2415]

I have an MTA B&T Ez-pass over a MASSDOT Ez-pass for one reason: the B&T and NYSTA discounts are flat-out better. Especially when NYC bridges are $15-20 for the eastbound crossing.

[jp the roadgeek]

I have an MTA B&T Ez-pass over a MASSDOT Ez-pass for one reason: the B&T and NYSTA discounts are flat-out better. Especially when NYC bridges are $15-20 for the eastbound crossing.

I went with the MassDOT one because there's no fee, I don't use it that often, and it's usually for the Mass Pike when I do. 

[J N Winkler]

So far, transponder discrimination was able to stand legal challenges.. Logically, there is always an argument about cost of processing small transaction across different agencies.

And still I prefer transponder discrimination to administrative fees AET agencies love to impose...

Perhaps the basic issue is that, like taxes that are split up into a zillion different pieces (sales tax, income tax, property tax, gas tax, tobacco tax, etc.) instead of just presenting each person with one grand total, revenue from transponders is also split up into multiple components -- monthly/annual service charges, interest earned on prepaid account balances, and the actual tolls.  The turnpike authority counts on getting all these components.  If you're using an out-of-state transponder, the authority loses those first two parts of what it's built into its revenue model.  They need to make that up somewhere else; hence an increase in tolls for those users.  Again, I'm not necessarily defending it, but just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that angle.

These devil's-advocate arguments look convincing on the surface but don't really hold up.  Taking as an example an occasional user who runs $5 a month in tolls and has a $10 replenishment threshold (not the default with ISTHA, where I get my E-ZPass, but still selectable by the user), 5% interest for one year on $10 is 50c, barely the amount of a single tollbooth transit.  E-ZPass may have a higher cost basis because of legacy overheads (e.g. active transponders which have to be distributed with batteries and require periodic replacement), but there is no reason for the marginal cost of processing a toll charge from a foreign E-ZPass to be more than a very small fraction of the toll charge.  In the newly created Central States interoperability consortium (K-Tag, PikePass, TxTag, TollTag, EZTag), the cost of processing a toll charge for a foreign transponder (passive type) is 5c plus 3% of the toll (minimum toll on any of the systems involved is probably over 25c by now).  The amounts involved in ongoing instances of transponder discrimination are much, much greater.

Considering that the cost of manual toll collection runs to around one-third of the tolls collected, it makes economic sense for turnpike agencies--even ones with E-ZPass' legacy overheads--to eat some or all of the marginal costs of interoperability for foreign transponders in order to promote transponder takeup and thereby keep more of the tolls for themselves.  That, as has already been pointed out in this thread, is a business decision some E-ZPass agencies have made even though the E-ZPass consortium itself allows transponder discrimination.  The Central States one does not.

S.P. Cook's point is key.  The instances of transponder discrimination that exist are designed to satisfy local political interests ("commuter as voter," particularly in the case of Rhode Island and the NYC MTA).  Measures such as linking transponder issue to state of residency represent metastasis of bad policy.

[Duke87]

I personally accept the practice as a general reality of traveling out of state and don't concern myself too much with it. Simple reason being, in theory, it's all a wash in the end.

When people argue in favor of forcing agencies to stop charging higher rates to out-of-state tags, the general presumption seems to be that the current discounted rate will be applied to everyone and drivers will save money while the toll agency loses revenue. But, this is a false presumption because anyone who operates a toll road has a budget to balance - and therefore giving a discounted rate to everyone by necessity will raise said rate over what it currently is. This will be obfuscated by the fact that the rate hike won't be immediate, but it will impact the magnitude of future hikes. So ultimately we're not talking about $4 in-state/$6 out-of-state versus $4 for everyone... we're talking about $4 in-state/$6 out-of-state versus $4.25 for everyone.

Realistically, everyone engaging in transponder discrimination is more or less just as fair as no one doing it. Though everyone doing it favors drivers who remain mostly local while no one doing it favors drivers who travel a lot. Meanwhile the current situation where some places do it and others don't specifically favors drivers from places that do, while drivers in places that don't are stuck paying slightly higher tolls because their agency won't give them a larger discount at the expense of out-of-state drivers.

[kalvado]

I personally accept the practice as a general reality of traveling out of state and don't concern myself too much with it. Simple reason being, in theory, it's all a wash in the end.

You're somewhat right here.
Somewhat - because many toll agencies are considered cash cows, so they are not balancing a budget - but someone determines how much funds can be extracted from motorists.
You may say that such approach is the core approach of capitalism. But, unlike "regular" capitalism, it is difficult (if possible) to shop out for better road. 
So motorists end up paying for remote untolled roads/bridges they don't use, public transportation, canal maintenance - and what not. Which makes entire toll deal stinky like a skunk.

Now, a more interesting question - why EZpass users deserve the discount to begin with?
I can see few reasons:
1. Early push to have EZpass widely adopted. By now that is basically irrelevant.
2. Easier and cheaper toll collection. Does that deserve a discount? Maybe - but it makes sense if charge is slightly higher for interagency transfers. How much that costs - given that convenient payment option also saves time and effort for the driver?
3. Commuters who have to use toll road - because government choose to build a toll road for them - and untolled road for someone else; despite both paying same taxes. That is where resident frequent-driver programs make sense for me.

Now what doesn't make sense to me, is steep ($2-4) discount for NYC crossings (any EZpass, as far as I understand), where main goal of very steep toll is to push people into using public transportation to begin with?  If anything, those who come from further away - and likely would drive anyway - deserve to be treated easier.

[jeffandnicole]

I personally accept the practice as a general reality of traveling out of state and don't concern myself too much with it. Simple reason being, in theory, it's all a wash in the end.

You're somewhat right here.
Somewhat - because many toll agencies are considered cash cows, so they are not balancing a budget - but someone determines how much funds can be extracted from motorists.

Well, no matter how much or how little money you have to spend, there's always a budget to be balanced.  Having more money coming in generally equates to better and more timely maintenance.  It also means that larger projects can be done in a shorter amount of time.  Projects that may be competing for funding for literally decades on a state level can be engineered, designed and built in relatively short order by a toll road.  And those improvements entice people that could otherwise drive for free, albeit slower, on other roads choose the toll roads for the convenience, even though it'll be more costly.  But, all of that is still factored into the overall budget.

3. Commuters who have to use toll road - because government choose to build a toll road for them - and untolled road for someone else; despite both paying same taxes. That is where resident frequent-driver programs make sense for me.

For most people, the toll roads have existed for decades.  They know when they buy a house and get a job what the expenses will be in advance.  Yes, on the tax level they pay more because of that road.  But it should be no secret that road is there.

In areas where they are building toll roads, thanks to the internet those projects are more widely known in advance more than ever.  For home buyers oblivious to such a toll road, they didn't plan on using such a road in the first place, so they are welcome to use the road that's currently in place.

The ones that are truly screwed are those that have an existing home/job, and suddenly a free road is turned into a toll road

Now what doesn't make sense to me, is steep ($2-4) discount for NYC crossings (any EZpass, as far as I understand), where main goal of very steep toll is to push people into using public transportation to begin with?  If anything, those who come from further away - and likely would drive anyway - deserve to be treated easier.

Because those NYC crossings are so expensive to begin with, the discount isn't all that steep, percentage wise, compared to other discounts at other facilities.  EZ Pass customers are still paying around $10 - $12, even with the discount.

[SP Cook]

Couple of points.

- For it all to be a "wash" is the idea that your home state screws others, and you get screwed elsewhere and it all comes out kinda even.  That assumes that a motorist's driving in his home state will equal his driving in another state.  OK, I get daily commuters with toll bridges and like that, that is just a cost of living in the suburbs and you take that into account.  But as to the more rural inter-regional toll roads, we all know that there are plenty of vital links where the %age of out-of-state users is huge.  Letting me as a state resident drive for darn near free on my state's toll roads and letting me get screwed over everywhere else assumes that I have a lot of use for my state's toll roads, which often I do not. 

- As stated, a lot of state's exercise limited oversight on their toll roads.  My state's toll road was audited and was doing massive fraud.  Illegal "investments" in make work jobs.  Unauthorized donations to HS bands and even churches.  The only fair way to operate a toll road is to eliminate the toll commissions and have all $$ flow directly to the state and have the work on the road done by the regular DOT.  Otherwise they will just waste or steal most of the money.

[hbelkins]

I don't have an E-ZPass for a discount on toll rates. I haven't used it very much the past few years, and it's coincidental that most of its use the last couple of years has been in its home state (West Virginia).

I have an E-ZPass for convenience's sake.  I have it so I won't have to stop at toll booths and fumble for change or my wallet. If I get a discount because I paid my tolls cashlessly, so be it. The alternative is to shunpike, which isn't always an option.

[kalvado]

Well, no matter how much or how little money you have to spend, there's always a budget to be balanced.

Making my point simple: there are two ways of balancing: first one is adjusting spending to match expected revenues; second one - to plan some generous unrelated spending and squeeze revenue accordingly.  It is not about maintenance, it is about funding MTA and PATH through tolls.

3. Commuters who have to use toll road - because government choose to build a toll road for them - and untolled road for someone else; despite both paying same taxes. That is where resident frequent-driver programs make sense for me.

For most people, the toll roads have existed for decades.  They know when they buy a house and get a job what the expenses will be in advance.  Yes, on the tax level they pay more because of that road.  But it should be no secret that road is there.

In areas where they are building toll roads, thanks to the internet those projects are more widely known in advance more than ever.  For home buyers oblivious to such a toll road, they didn't plan on using such a road in the first place, so they are welcome to use the road that's currently in place.

The ones that are truly screwed are those that have an existing home/job, and suddenly a free road is turned into a toll road

Just looking at that from the other side: many toll roads don't get outside financing - but I still pay tax on the gas I burn on that road. This is called "double dipping". Works a bit different for trucks, but I am talking about commuters.
I am sort-of kind-of OK with that for my limited toll road usage; but someone using toll road daily may legitimately complain. Commuter plans are basically the answer from my perspective.

Now what doesn't make sense to me, is steep ($2-4) discount for NYC crossings (any EZpass, as far as I understand), where main goal of very steep toll is to push people into using public transportation to begin with?  If anything, those who come from further away - and likely would drive anyway - deserve to be treated easier.

Because those NYC crossings are so expensive to begin with, the discount isn't all that steep, percentage wise, compared to other discounts at other facilities.  EZ Pass customers are still paying around $10 - $12, even with the discount.

Well, isn't NYC crossings pricing is congestion-based in nature? If that is the case, it makes no sense to help those who drive into the city on a regular basis. Reducing lines at toll plazas is the only excuse..

[J N Winkler]

I personally accept the practice as a general reality of traveling out of state and don't concern myself too much with it. Simple reason being, in theory, it's all a wash in the end.

It is not, in fact, a wash.  It is a situation that leaves winners and losers depending on how a person's mileage is allocated among agencies that engage in transponder discrimination.

When people argue in favor of forcing agencies to stop charging higher rates to out-of-state tags, the general presumption seems to be that the current discounted rate will be applied to everyone and drivers will save money while the toll agency loses revenue. But, this is a false presumption because anyone who operates a toll road has a budget to balance - and therefore giving a discounted rate to everyone by necessity will raise said rate over what it currently is. This will be obfuscated by the fact that the rate hike won't be immediate, but it will impact the magnitude of future hikes. So ultimately we're not talking about $4 in-state/$6 out-of-state versus $4 for everyone... we're talking about $4 in-state/$6 out-of-state versus $4.25 for everyone.

I am not actually arguing that transponder discrimination should be prohibited so that every user can be given the same discount, and in fact I would expect a modest (but no more than modest) increase above the discounted rates if transponder discrimination were prohibited.  This is actually a feature rather than a bug.  The underlying reality is that, with the exception of a differential in processing costs that is very small between native and foreign transponders (so small, in fact, that it is dwarfed by the minimum toll), it costs the agency the same amount of money to handle a given car whether it has (for example) New York or Kansas plates.

Experience shows that transponder discrimination has nothing to do with higher processing costs for foreign transponders--it has everything to do with offering a politically attractive subsidy for near customers at the expense of remote ones.  In the case of densely populated metropolitan areas, this subsidy actually worsens congestion because it protects local users from being charged for the congestion-related costs they place on others.

[jeffandnicole]

NYC crossings are basically priced to help build the new PANYNJ-owed World Trade Center.  Remove that from the equation and the tolls fall nearly in half.