Why All the Toll Bridges on the NJ/PA Border?

[NJRoadfan]

The Amtrak rail line bridge across the Delaware River in Trenton is the dead end point for any barge traffic. Going North past Trenton the Delaware River gets pretty ordinary.

Look up "fall line".

[Bobby5280]

Didn't know it was 2-way now. I haven't driven up there since the late 1990s.

I lived on Fort Wadsworth from 1986-1990 due to being a military brat. I'd started college at an art school in Manhattan and moved to Brooklyn to finish when my parents got stationed elsewhere. The Verrazano Bridge and historic Battery Weed fortress was a short walk out the back door. South Beach was nearby, which is the only place I've seen LOTS of horseshoe crabs washed up on shore. It's easily the most scenic place we were ever stationed, and we've had beautiful surroundings in other places like Yuma, Arizona and Iwakuni, Japan. IIRC, the one-way toll for the Verrazano Bridge back in the late 80's was $3.50. Seems like a bargain now. With everything shifted to electronic tolling it makes sense to get rid of the one way tolls and just keep tabs on all traffic movements in both directions.

[1995hoo]

One-way tolling on the Verrazano began in 1986 because of air pollution concerns for nearby residents. I remember we had a discussion here when there was a proposal to restore two-way tolling in which someone pointed out that Congress had forced one-way tolling and thus Congress had to repeal that mandate, which finally happened in late 2019 (it took a while longer to implement because of the need to install the appropriate equipment).

In the department of things younger people today might find baffling, when the Verrazano opened, the toll was 50¢ and the guy who paid the first toll paid it with a single coin. (The toll collector kept the coin for himself and replaced it with 50¢ of his own money.)

[Rothman]

It's Verrazzano...

[1995hoo]

It's Verrazzano...

But it wasn't in 1964 and 1986, the two times for which I specifically referred to it by name. I didn't use the name when referring to 2019–20.

[Rothman]

It's Verrazzano...

But it wasn't in 1964 and 1986, the two times for which I specifically referred to it by name. I didn't use the name when referring to 2019–20.

The name update was a correction to make it accurate.  It's not like a new bridge was built or they changed who the name referred to.

[1995hoo]

It's Verrazzano...

But it wasn't in 1964 and 1986, the two times for which I specifically referred to it by name. I didn't use the name when referring to 2019–20.

The name update was a correction to make it accurate.  It's not like a new bridge was built or they changed who the name referred to.

Of course it was a typo in the original documents. Doesn't mean anyone else is wrong to use that spelling when referring to the period when it was spelled that way, but if you prefer, I can just call it the Narrows Bridge like many people did when it opened.

I'm not about to use the other rather offensive name my late grandmother used to refer to it (hint: second word is "Gangplank").

[tmoore952]

It's Verrazzano...

But it wasn't in 1964 and 1986, the two times for which I specifically referred to it by name. I didn't use the name when referring to 2019–20.

The name update was a correction to make it accurate.  It's not like a new bridge was built or they changed who the name referred to.

Of course it was a typo in the original documents. Doesn't mean anyone else is wrong to use that spelling when referring to the period when it was spelled that way, but if you prefer, I can just call it the Narrows Bridge like many people did when it opened.

I'm not about to use the other rather offensive name my late grandmother used to refer to it (hint: second word is "Gangplank").

I'm the one who originally brought up the Verrazano/Verrazzano Bridge in this thread. It came up in a addition I made to a discussion about one-way tolling in NYC. And I also stated later that I had not been up there since the late 1990s, so I didn't know about the change and also didn't hear about in the media.

I'll gently suggest, when bringing up things like this, that something is also added which actually contributes to the thread. That's what I try to do. IMO, in my short time here, too many interesting threads get derailed/hijacked by arguments over terminology or wording.

Or maybe we've just run out of useful things to say about this??

[epzik8]

It's Verrazzano...

Wasn't it misspelled on at least one sign in the area of the bridge itself and very few people noticed?

[storm2k]

One thing to remember is that the one-way tolling is a thing that happened over time for all of the various bi-state agencies (including the Port Authority of NY/NJ). Pretty much every bridge (and tunnel) was built with two-way tolling, and at various points from 1970 through 1991, tolls for the NJ-bound direction were eliminated and the tolls towards PA or NY were doubled. I'm actually a tad bit surprised that we're not hearing more agencies looking for a return to two-way tolling with the moves to AET so they can capture people who might look to leave NJ via a free means and return via one of those crossings since there's no toll back to NJ.

[Bitmapped]

One thing to remember is that the one-way tolling is a thing that happened over time for all of the various bi-state agencies (including the Port Authority of NY/NJ). Pretty much every bridge (and tunnel) was built with two-way tolling, and at various points from 1970 through 1991, tolls for the NJ-bound direction were eliminated and the tolls towards PA or NY were doubled. I'm actually a tad bit surprised that we're not hearing more agencies looking for a return to two-way tolling with the moves to AET so they can capture people who might look to leave NJ via a free means and return via one of those crossings since there's no toll back to NJ.

There are added costs for equipment installation and maintenance for tolling both directions. Processing costs, as a percentage of revenue, are also higher. That being said, with AET, I'd prefer seeing two-way tolling as a matter of fairness.

[roadman65]

One thing to remember is that the one-way tolling is a thing that happened over time for all of the various bi-state agencies (including the Port Authority of NY/NJ). Pretty much every bridge (and tunnel) was built with two-way tolling, and at various points from 1970 through 1991, tolls for the NJ-bound direction were eliminated and the tolls towards PA or NY were doubled. I'm actually a tad bit surprised that we're not hearing more agencies looking for a return to two-way tolling with the moves to AET so they can capture people who might look to leave NJ via a free means and return via one of those crossings since there's no toll back to NJ.

There are added costs for equipment installation and maintenance for tolling both directions. Processing costs, as a percentage of revenue, are also higher. That being said, with AET, I'd prefer seeing two-way tolling as a matter of fairness.

With Staten Island one way tolling works to some degree as there are no free means off the island for vehicles. One must eventually pass the other way.

Key Biscayne in Florida is another as well as Sanibel Island.  One can only enter and leave via one crossing so no one can really shunpike and either crossing one must use both ways being those islands have no outlets to any other roads leading off the islands.

[tmoore952]

I'm actually a tad bit surprised that we're not hearing more agencies looking for a return to two-way tolling with the moves to AET so they can capture people who might look to leave NJ via a free means and return via one of those crossings since there's no toll back to NJ.

I was thinking along the same lines -- that with AET it would be very easy to go back to two way tolling.

When I lived near Trenton, I used to try to avoid tolls all the time using the method you describe.
It is a lot harder logistically if you live south of there, since there are no free bridges south of there.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm actually a tad bit surprised that we're not hearing more agencies looking for a return to two-way tolling with the moves to AET so they can capture people who might look to leave NJ via a free means and return via one of those crossings since there's no toll back to NJ.

I was thinking along the same lines -- that with AET it would be very easy to go back to two way tolling.

When I lived near Trenton, I used to try to avoid tolls all the time using the method you describe.
It is a lot harder logistically if you live south of there, since there are no free bridges south of there.

"Very easy" also equals "Very expensive".

A toll agency will have to purchase double of everything. Increased unpaid tolls. Double the research reviewing tag numbers.  Increased mailings and charges.  Double the maintenance.  Yet the overall revenue would be about the same.

Look at DE's I-95:  It has 2 way tolling, so people just avoid the toll plaza 2 ways instead of 1 way since there are reasonably close free alternatives.  Some people, such as me, will often avoid it one direction and pay it the other direction, which at least cuts down on what I was charged.  With 1 way tolling, I'll be more inclined to avoid it the tolled direction completely, deriving DelDOT of all its revenue.

And with the DRJTBC from Trenton on North, same thing.  As above, look what you're doing - you're already avoiding the toll.  So why would the Commission add more tolls to opposing traffic, just for people to avoid them again? It would be a smarter option to add one-way WB tolls to the *free* bridges, so motorists don't have an easily ability to avoid the toll completely.

[tmoore952]

I'm actually a tad bit surprised that we're not hearing more agencies looking for a return to two-way tolling with the moves to AET so they can capture people who might look to leave NJ via a free means and return via one of those crossings since there's no toll back to NJ.

I was thinking along the same lines -- that with AET it would be very easy to go back to two way tolling.

When I lived near Trenton, I used to try to avoid tolls all the time using the method you describe.
It is a lot harder logistically if you live south of there, since there are no free bridges south of there.

"Very easy" also equals "Very expensive".

A toll agency will have to purchase double of everything. Increased unpaid tolls. Double the research reviewing tag numbers.  Increased mailings and charges.  Double the maintenance.  Yet the overall revenue would be about the same.

Look at DE's I-95:  It has 2 way tolling, so people just avoid the toll plaza 2 ways instead of 1 way since there are reasonably close free alternatives.  Some people, such as me, will often avoid it one direction and pay it the other direction, which at least cuts down on what I was charged.  With 1 way tolling, I'll be more inclined to avoid it the tolled direction completely, deriving DelDOT of all its revenue.

And with the DRJTBC from Trenton on North, same thing.  As above, look what you're doing - you're already avoiding the toll.  So why would the Commission add more tolls to opposing traffic, just for people to avoid them again? It would be a smarter option to add one-way WB tolls to the *free* bridges, so motorists don't have an easily ability to avoid the toll completely.

Part of the reasoning for one-way tolling, as least initially, was to cut down on the need for human toll takers (and [I hope it was at least] a desire to be kinder to the environment by reducing emissions from idling).

Anyway, that was the perspective I was looking at as far as AET -- no humans to worry about.

But I do see what you are saying wrt to infrastructure etc.

OTOH, IMO driving around the toll makes sense if it is easy to do, and it is worth it timewise. That generally isn't the case north of Easton anyway.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Explanation of the Delaware NJ bridge:

The former crossing at Delaware was the original Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railway bridge over the Delaware River. When they built the new bridge (still there), they sold off the old structure to Reverend Henry Darlington, a local Episcopal minister. He turned into a road toll bridge to cross the river. He was the toughest person to sell to the bi-state organization that bought up the private bridges. Most people sold for under $100,000 in that time period, Darlington held them hostage for $275,000 in 1932 (about $5MM now). The bridge was there until 1953, when the Portland-Columbia Bridge was built and they dismantled it. 

[lstone19]

That holds true even out on the West Coast. All of the toll bridges that cross San Francisco Bay (SF-Oakland Bay Bridge, San Mateo-Hayward Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and Dumbarton Bridge) charge the toll for traffic inbound to San Francisco, while no toll is charged for outbound traffic across those bridges.

But then you have the three north-south bridges over Carquinez Bay and its extensions. Like the other state operate bridges (the Golden Gate Bridge is separate), they charge going from the Alameda/Contra Costa County side to the other. So for I-80, the Bay Bridge is a westbound toll but the Carquinez Bridge (Vallejo) is an eastbound toll.

When I lived in the South Bay, this did set up a great shun-bridging opportunity when going wine-tasting in the Napa Valley. It was go north on the peninsula and across the Golden Gate Bridge (no-toll direction), then return home over the Carquinez Bridge (no-toll direction) and then down I-880 to the San Jose area.