News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Boston: Tobin Bridge to go EZPass only?

Started by froggie, May 21, 2013, 12:37:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

lordsutch

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


vdeane

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

mtantillo

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."

jeffandnicole

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.

NE2

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.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

roadman

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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

mtantillo

#31
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

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

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.


PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

deathtopumpkins

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.
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

mtantillo

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). 

agentsteel53

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?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

PHLBOS

#38
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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

According to my sources, the Tobin Bridge AET project will include signing advising drivers of both the transponder and bill by mail toll rates.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

mtantillo

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. 

MTH

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.
The internets will never last.

jeffandnicole

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.

PHLBOS

#44
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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

vdeane

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!
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

mtantillo

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. 

roadman

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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.