PA Turnpike News

[deathtopumpkins]

-I agree that nobody is forced to use a toll road, but the issue isn't that, but rather than nobody's preventing you from using it either (and thereby incurring a debt).
-Taking, for example, the CA 91 toll lanes, they seem to consider any use of the facility without an electronic payment method as a "violation"; i.e., a toll evasion. If I have only cash, and have every intention of paying my debt, how have I committed a violation by using the road, if I haven't been prevented from doing so? Yet they charge a fee for this "violation"; I'm a bit curious about the legality of this, and I suspect that under some amount of scrutiny it might be found improper to charge a fee or penalty for selecting a perfectly permissible means of settling a debt.
-There is the argument that motorists are indeed prevented from using the road by the erection of signs, i.e., official traffic control devices. Only problem there is that if I violate an official traffic sign, my debt then is with law enforcement, on behalf of the state, not the tolling agency, which me be a quasi-public non-governmental organization, or even a private entity. I wonder if they funnel the violation fees to the appropriate governmental agencies in those cases? The line has always been fuzzy between governmental units and public authorities.
-All of this is mostly a theoretical exercise; I'm not suggesting that cashless systems can't exist (after all, they're already all around us). I'm just saying that it would involve a level of complexity slightly beyond your typical "all-electronic" system as they exist now.

I think the legality of this is settled by the fact that the road gives you ample warning that you cannot pay by cash, usually even announcing that there will be a fee if you don't have a transponder. If there's a sign that says you need a transponder or you will be charged a fee, then that's the case and you know if you don't have a transponder not to take the road.

I'm sure there are examples of the same situation in other places besides roads (I was thinking split cash/credit pricing at gas stations, but they usually charge more for credit, not cash).

[1995hoo]

The United States Treasury disagrees with those of you who argue that anyone is REQUIRED to accept cash in payment of a debt:

(Question:) I 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?

(Answer:) 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.

[agentsteel53]

nobody is forced to use a toll road

certainly not forced, but it is a hell of a lot more ornery to get from, say, Oakland to San Mateo, without a toll than with one. 

[empirestate]

The United States Treasury disagrees with those of you who argue that anyone is REQUIRED to accept cash in payment of a debt:

(Question:) I 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?

(Answer:) 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.

Actually, I believe that supports the position when read carefully: "legal tender for all debts" does mean that cash, when offered as settlement of a debt, does legally and unequivocally extinguish that debt.

It's also correct to note that accepting cash is not required. A hotel patron cannot say, for example, "I am going to sleep in one of your rooms, and you will accept my cash as payment." In parallel, the hotel owner may say "I have a room available, but I will not let you have it if you are only offering cash as tender." In other words, the hotel owner has the right to decline to create a debt with the customer. But at the same time, if the patron has already slept in the room, and learns upon checking out that cash isn't accepted, he still has the right to offer cash as payment. Presumably, the owner can still refuse to accept it, and I guess that results in him waiving his right to collect on the debt, though I'm not certain how that's legally resolved. (The quote in this case being "I have slept in your room and am therefore in your debt; my cash, which you have the right to decline, does by my offering it nevertheless satisfy that debt."

Which brings up this question:

I think the legality of this is settled by the fact that the road gives you ample warning that you cannot pay by cash, usually even announcing that there will be a fee if you don't have a transponder. If there's a sign that says you need a transponder or you will be charged a fee, then that's the case and you know if you don't have a transponder not to take the road.

I do wonder whether simple notification is sufficient? For example, if the hotel has a sign posted that cash isn't accepted, but it has fallen down, or the patron otherwise doesn't notice it, and has no criminal intent, can the owner still refuse cash at checkout, while still expecting the debt to be satisfied? Is the burden on the owner to prevent the patron from using the service? I'd think so, because there are various ways in which a person can consume a product or service before paying for it, even in violation of a merchant's policy, without any ill intent.

I'm sure there's plenty of case law on this, and we're probably due for a thread split here.  But it's interesting, a sort of chicken-and-egg question, and I do wonder how all-electronic tolling gets around the problem (if it truly does).

[Compulov]

^ I am not a lawyer, but I'm under the impression that what the law says is less important than what you (and your adversary) think a judge or jury would accept should the matter end up in court.

[vdeane]

Sad but true.  For example, EULAs are technically illegal under current contract law (there's not negotiation or meeting of the minds, which contracts require, just "agree to use the service or don't and we keep your money anyways!  And we can change the terms at any time for any reason with little or no notice!  And there's nothing you can do about it!  HA HA HA!), but judges have ruled otherwise.  Ditto for everything in the bill of rights except for the third amendment.

[jeffandnicole]

nobody is forced to use a toll road

certainly not forced, but it is a hell of a lot more ornery to get from, say, Oakland to San Mateo, without a toll than with one. 

Imagine if that toll road wasn't there.  In fact, it wasn't before the road was built.  So that other road was the only option.

[NE2]

nobody is forced to use a toll road

certainly not forced, but it is a hell of a lot more ornery to get from, say, Oakland to San Mateo, without a toll than with one. 

Imagine if that toll road wasn't there.  In fact, it wasn't before the road was built.  So that other road was the only option.

The toll bridge replaced a toll ferry...

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: Penn Pike debt soaring on Act 44 payouts for transit/free roads - tripled in 5 years

2012-08-28: Preliminary $-numbers for fiscal year 2012 show the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's (PTC) debt now standing at close to $8 billion, a near threefold increase over the past five years. In FY2007 total debt was $2.71b, while at end FY2012 it was $7.95b - 2.95-fold higher.

In that time toll revenues - the commission's major source of revenue - went from $593m to $779m, a 31% increase. These are unaudited numbers that the commission says should be regarded as preliminary.

The good news seems to be that America's oldest automobile era pike has  managed to cut operating expenses considerably - from $363m in FY2007 to $303m in FY2012.

Tolls minus op exp then go from $230m in FY2007 to $476m in FY2012, a better than two fold increase. In our extremely simplified version of the Penn Pike's accounts their net - before debt service, depreciation and capital spending - was improved substantially by strong toll increases on the one hand and and economies in operation costs on the other.

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: Pennsylvania auditor general tells legislators state Turnpike will face bankruptcy within "no more than a couple of years"

2012-09-25: The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission will face bankruptcy in "no more than a couple of years" according to the state's Auditor General Jack Wagner speaking to a joint hearing of the transportation committees of the state legislature in Harrisburg Tuesday. Wagner called for an immediate repeal of Act 44 - the 2007 law that committed the Turnpike to $450m/year payments to the state department of transportation, PennDOT.

Following Wagner the Turnpike's CEO Roger Nutt said the Turnpike faced no crisis and has a sound financial plan for funding the $450m/year payments over the 50 years to 2057 as provided by Act 44. Rating agencies had not downrated the Turnpike's bonds in three years.

The state auditor general Wagner began by calling the Turnpike Commission's approach to paying $450m/year to the state DOT "film flam financing."

Without the toll revenues from I-80 envisaged by its primary sponsor state senate leader Vincent Fumo the Turnpike was only managing to make the PennDOT payouts by adding substantially to debt each year. With the addition of its own debt financing this was adding a "crushing debt" burden on the Turnpike books, Wagner insisted.

He drew an analogy with a householder who was able to meet his own mortgage payments on his house but is suddenly required to take on servicing his his neighbor's mortgage as well. And only does so by taking out new loans each year.

[cpzilliacus]

Philadelphia Inquirer: Pa. Turnpike using "˜flim-flam' financing: auditor-gen.

Pennsylvania Turnpike officials are using "flim-flam finance" to cover the turnpike's increasing debt, and the toll road could be bankrupt in "a couple of years," state auditor general Jack Wagner told legislators Tuesday.

But turnpike chief executive Roger Nutt said toll increases on motorists and truckers every year will provide enough money to prevent financial calamity.

State lawmakers are considering whether to rewrite a 2007 law that requires the turnpike to provide $450 million a year for public transit and road and bridge projects around Pennsylvania, in addition to paying for the costs of operating the 545-mile turnpike system.

[ARMOURERERIC]

Is there a total that the PTC has paid via act44 and what fraction of PTC debt does that represent?

[cpzilliacus]

Is there a total that the PTC has paid via act44 and what fraction of PTC debt does that represent?

I understand that it's $450 million per year, even though the PTC is not collecting a dime from I-80 motorists (the $450 million assumed that the PTC was going to be collecting a lot of revenue from I-80 tolls).

The TOLLROADSnews article above also said:

In five years of Act 44 payouts to PennDOT by the Turnpike its debt has risen from $2.6 billion to $7.3b. And it has gone from having a balance sheet of net assets of $156m to having negative net worth of $1.4b.

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: Pennsylvania sec trans Schoch: "safer" to lift burden of debt on Penn Pike by repeal of Act 44

2012-09-26: Barry Schoch the Pennsylvania secretary of transportation said toward the end of a long hearing in the state legislature this week that it would be the "safer" course to repeal Act 44 and lift the burden of debt on the Turnpike and get alternative funding for PennDOT. Schoch disagreed with Jack Wagner the state auditor-general who said the Turnpike's use of new debt to fund the legislated payments of $450m/ year could cause a financial crisis within as little as "a couple of years."

Wagner urged the immediate repeal of the law requiring the $450m/year payments. We reported yesterday Turnpike CEO Roger Nutt's all-out defense of Act 44 and his complete rejection of the Auditor General's alarms.

By contrast with Nutt, secretary Schoch made a point of saying "I am not opposed to repeal of Act 44."

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: Penn Pike ops chief says ticket system replacement difficult decision with AET committed

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is spending about $8 million to replace its ticket dispensers and readers. 119 entry lanes are getting a new automatic ticket issuing machine (ATIM) cabinet. 148 exit lanes at toll collector booths are getting new ticket readers and receipt printers.

The new equipment will be in use less than five years because the need for tickets will end with the conversion to all electronic tolling scheduled for mid-2017. Craig Shuey, chief operating officer tells us they considered trying to keep the old equipment going, but decided the risks of the old ticket system collapsing before mid-2017 were too great.

[roadman65]

I noticed that is some ramps on the PA Turnpike between it and PA 132 in Bensalem where the old Neshaminy Plaza used to be.  I am guessing that is part of the new I-95 and PA Turnpike project, but I see it has not made it to street view yet.

I see it on google satelite, but when you move down to street view status there is just woods there.  Is this going to be a relocated US 1 interchange, a new EZ Pass only interchange, or another exit to relieve traffic in that area.

Also, I noticed that there is no ramp from EB PA 132 to SB US 1 at the nearby cloverleaf.  How does EB to SB make it movements being that there is no sign at Old Lincoln Highway that would be the only way this missing movement could be made.   Is this lack of signage a mistake or has it been removed and never replaced as this would not be the first time a sign vanished and never replaced?

[akotchi]

I noticed that is some ramps on the PA Turnpike between it and PA 132 in Bensalem where the old Neshaminy Plaza used to be.  I am guessing that is part of the new I-95 and PA Turnpike project, but I see it has not made it to street view yet.

I see it on google satelite, but when you move down to street view status there is just woods there.  Is this going to be a relocated US 1 interchange, a new EZ Pass only interchange, or another exit to relieve traffic in that area.

Also, I noticed that there is no ramp from EB PA 132 to SB US 1 at the nearby cloverleaf.  How does EB to SB make it movements being that there is no sign at Old Lincoln Highway that would be the only way this missing movement could be made.   Is this lack of signage a mistake or has it been removed and never replaced as this would not be the first time a sign vanished and never replaced?

The new interchange is an E-ZPass only exit and entrance for eastbound Turnpike traffic, which has nothing to do with the I-95 project.  This is before where the new mainline toll plaza will be located.

Last time I was down there, there was signing (trailblazers) on eastbound Street Road at the Old Lincoln Highway intersection directing traffic to U.S. 1 SB to turn right.

[Roadsguy]

Yeah, Old Lincoln Highway is a corner-cutter for both directions. It's also choked sometimes. PennDOT does have ROW to make it four lanes, though.

The new ramps are just slip ramps to Street Road, primarily built because of nearby Parx Casino, as akotchi said. The new plaza will be east of there between the Galloway and Richlieu Road bridges.

[roadman65]

I noticed that the two Harrisburg Interchanges are Harrisburg Westshore and Harrisburg East.  I was wondering why the I-283 interchange is not Harrisburg Eastshore?  I noticed to the the ticket says Harrisburg W. to fit it in the same as its counterpart having Harrisburg E.  The signs for I-83, the last I have seen, did not say Westshore but West as well.

[PHLBOS]

I noticed that the two Harrisburg Interchanges are Harrisburg Westshore and Harrisburg East.  I was wondering why the I-283 interchange is not Harrisburg Eastshore?  I noticed to the the ticket says Harrisburg W. to fit it in the same as its counterpart having Harrisburg E.  The signs for I-83, the last I have seen, did not say Westshore but West as well.

In the 22 years I've been in PA, the I-83/I-76-PA Turnpike interchange has always been known as Harrisburg West.  Which matches all the signs, toll tickets, maps etc.  Out of curiousity, when was it referred to or called Harrisburg Westshore?

[MASTERNC]

Philly.com: PA Turnpike Chief Resigns
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20121009_Pa__Turnpike_chief_resigns.html

[cpzilliacus]

Philly.com: PA Turnpike Chief Resigns
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20121009_Pa__Turnpike_chief_resigns.html

Wonder if he got tired of being asked all of those questions about Act 44 and the huge amounts of cash that the PTC has been sending over to PennDOT, SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County?

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: Penn Pike CEO Roger Nutt retires after 19 months because of heart problems, he says

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: Penn Pike's debt-to-fund-handouts model continues to be issue in state legislature - 3 years of insolvency

2012-11-13: State auditor general Jack Wagner said again today in a legislative hearing that the Pennsylvania Turnpike "will go over a financial cliff at some point" unless it is relieved of the obligation to hand over $450 million each year to the state DOT for free roads and transit subsidies. He called the mid-2007 law (Act 44) requiring the payments "a financial noose" around the neck of the Turnpike.

The Turnpike "faces bankruptcy" the auditor general said if it has to keep borrowing more to make the handouts. It was "not a sustainable business model." Wagner alluded to the top of the toll rates/revenue curve where losses of traffic equal the percentage by which toll rates are raised and no more revenue can be extracted from the Turnpike.

He called this a "tipping point" at which the financial model could be overturned.

Turnpike officials say this isn't a present threat, that it has a sound longterm financial plan, that the Turnpike bonds are still highly rated and the management of the Turnpike is aggressively cutting costs to produce an operating surplus that can help pay for its interest and state-handout obligations.

[Mr_Northside]

The Post-Gazette had a story (concerning trans. funding) that refrenced this stuff as well....

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/road-to-transportation-policy-detoured-662006/

He recommended lawmakers repeal a 2007 law that requires the commission to provide $450 million each year for improvements to roads, bridges and public transportation in the state.

Representatives of the turnpike testified the commission could meet its obligations by increasing tolls about 3 percent each year. A financial adviser told lawmakers there is strong demand for bonds issued by the turnpike.

"The issue here is a choice of how do you finance it," Secretary of Transportation Barry Schoch said after the hearing. "His feeling is that running into debt on the turnpike is not a good choice, and I respect that opinion. I think from our perspective though, as we said today, we can manage it at the turnpike."

So they can meet their "obligations" by raising tolls 3% each year? Nifty.
The problem is the notion of raising tolls 3% EVERY year should not be acceptable to anyone associated with making transportation policy. 
Obviously, toll rates do need to increase every so often, what with inflation and all (and, as much as I'd hate seeing gas prices rise, the gas tax should too), but 3% annually seems excessive and unsustainable in the long run.

The bottom line is Act 44 is complete, total, and utter BULLSHIT!  And I don't have any faith in Harrisburg to do anything about anytime soon.