New York State Thruway

[webny99]

The Thruway is currently CLOSED in both directions between Exit 30 (Herkimer) and Exit 29A (Little Falls) amid heavy lake effect snow in the area. This has created a gnarly traffic situation on local alternate routes, seemingly compounded by an accident on NY 5S south of Little Falls that had through traffic in both directions routing through Little Falls at one point.

Now, based on what I can tell, it looks like the connector from the Thruway to NY 5S/NY 169 South is closed to westbound traffic which means all westbound traffic is being forced through Little Falls. (Note: this is unconfirmed, but strongly probable based on current traffic conditions and the need to keep traffic coming off the Thruway moving.) All in all, a nightmarish scenario that should cause NYSDOT/NYSTA to consider turn lanes at the intersection of the Thruway ramps and NY 169, and traffic signals at that intersection and NY 5/NY 169 in Little Falls.

[Rothman]

All of Herkimer County is under a travel ban.

[steviep24]

The Thruway is currently CLOSED in both directions between Exit 30 (Herkimer) and Exit 29A (Little Falls) amid heavy lake effect snow in the area. This has created a gnarly traffic situation on local alternate routes, seemingly compounded by an accident on NY 5S south of Little Falls that had through traffic in both directions routing through Little Falls at one point.

Now, based on what I can tell, it looks like the connector from the Thruway to NY 5S/NY 169 South is closed to westbound traffic which means all westbound traffic is being forced through Little Falls. (Note: this is unconfirmed, but strongly probable based on current traffic conditions and the need to keep traffic coming off the Thruway moving.) All in all, a nightmarish scenario that should cause NYSDOT/NYSTA to consider turn lanes at the intersection of the Thruway ramps and NY 169, and traffic signals at that intersection and NY 5/NY 169 in Little Falls.

Just saw on the news that there was a pileup on the Thruway in that area.

[jeffandnicole]

The Thruway is currently CLOSED in both directions between Exit 30 (Herkimer) and Exit 29A (Little Falls) amid heavy lake effect snow in the area. This has created a gnarly traffic situation on local alternate routes, seemingly compounded by an accident on NY 5S south of Little Falls that had through traffic in both directions routing through Little Falls at one point.

Now, based on what I can tell, it looks like the connector from the Thruway to NY 5S/NY 169 South is closed to westbound traffic which means all westbound traffic is being forced through Little Falls. (Note: this is unconfirmed, but strongly probable based on current traffic conditions and the need to keep traffic coming off the Thruway moving.) All in all, a nightmarish scenario that should cause NYSDOT/NYSTA to consider turn lanes at the intersection of the Thruway ramps and NY 169, and traffic signals at that intersection and NY 5/NY 169 in Little Falls.

Spending limited funds to have infrastructure in place to handle rare traffic issues caused by rare events is rarely a good use of funds.

[vdeane]

Meanwhile, the Thruway had a lane closure on I-87 for construction north of I-84, causing 15 minute delays for travelers with a multi-mile backup.  What the hell?  Since when do they work on holidays?  Granted, that drive sucked period.  Traffic was some of the thickest I've ever seen (the only comparable event I have is when a roadmeet was held on the same weekend as one of the Jewish holidays a couple years ago); it was like driving I-90 on Labor Day, which I specifically aim not to do.

[webny99]

All in all, a nightmarish scenario that should cause NYSDOT/NYSTA to consider turn lanes at the intersection of the Thruway ramps and NY 169, and traffic signals at that intersection and NY 5/NY 169 in Little Falls.

Spending limited funds to have infrastructure in place to handle rare traffic issues caused by rare events is rarely a good use of funds.

Even though a "rare" event may have prompted my comment, the Thruway/NY 169 intersection seems problematic well beyond just this event. Having a two-way stop controlled intersection at a major regional junction and Thruway access point just isn't a good idea at the best of times, much less with any added traffic (which *any* sort of incident on the Thruway could cause, not just a closure). The current setup involves a high percentage of traffic exiting the Thruway and turning left, or stopping to wait for thru traffic before turning right, so basically any additional traffic causes an immediate LOS failure of the intersection. On top of which, devoting additional emergency responders to traffic control during a major incident is also a very poor use of limited funds and resources.

And, in a strategic location right near a Thruway entrance, the intersection's LOS is never going to get better over time. There's always going to be drivers exiting looking for services, and there's always going to be occasional mainline incidents that require drivers to seek alternate routes.

I haven't done a traffic study so I can't speak as to normal conditions at the other intersection I mentioned (NY 5/NY 169), but I was genuinely stunned to see that it wasn't signalized already. Basically all traffic from Little Falls, Dolgeville, and points north passes through that point to reach the Thruway, so there's almost no way a signal isn't warranted there in regular conditions, much less with any added traffic.

[webny99]

Traffic was some of the thickest I've ever seen (the only comparable event I have is when a roadmeet was held on the same weekend as one of the Jewish holidays a couple years ago); it was like driving I-90 on Labor Day, which I specifically aim not to do.

To be fair, today is essentially the winter equivalent of Labor Day, especially with with the weekend's snowfall providing prime conditions for winter sports. Adding to this, poor road conditions on Saturday/Sunday would have likely caused more people to travel today instead.

[kalvado]

Traffic was some of the thickest I've ever seen (the only comparable event I have is when a roadmeet was held on the same weekend as one of the Jewish holidays a couple years ago); it was like driving I-90 on Labor Day, which I specifically aim not to do.

To be fair, today is essentially the winter equivalent of Labor Day, especially with with the weekend's snowfall providing prime conditions for winter sports. Adding to this, poor road conditions on Saturday/Sunday would have likely caused more people to travel today instead.

I don't know how it was further west, but in Albany area message was a little short of "shelter in place"...

[Rothman]

All in all, a nightmarish scenario that should cause NYSDOT/NYSTA to consider turn lanes at the intersection of the Thruway ramps and NY 169, and traffic signals at that intersection and NY 5/NY 169 in Little Falls.

Spending limited funds to have infrastructure in place to handle rare traffic issues caused by rare events is rarely a good use of funds.

Even though a "rare" event may have prompted my comment, the Thruway/NY 169 intersection seems problematic well beyond just this event. Having a two-way stop controlled intersection at a major regional junction and Thruway access point just isn't a good idea at the best of times, much less with any added traffic (which *any* sort of incident on the Thruway could cause, not just a closure). The current setup involves a high percentage of traffic exiting the Thruway and turning left, or stopping to wait for thru traffic before turning right, so basically any additional traffic causes an immediate LOS failure of the intersection. On top of which, devoting additional emergency responders to traffic control during a major incident is also a very poor use of limited funds and resources.

And, in a strategic location right near a Thruway entrance, the intersection's LOS is never going to get better over time. There's always going to be drivers exiting looking for services, and there's always going to be occasional mainline incidents that require drivers to seek alternate routes.

I haven't done a traffic study so I can't speak as to normal conditions at the other intersection I mentioned (NY 5/NY 169), but I was genuinely stunned to see that it wasn't signalized already. Basically all traffic from Little Falls, Dolgeville, and points north passes through that point to reach the Thruway, so there's almost no way a signal isn't warranted there in regular conditions, much less with any added traffic.

My word.  There is simply no traffic at the NY 169/Thruway interchange.

[bmitchelf]

While getting the link for the new I-81 plans that dropped, I accidentally clicked my bookmark for the Thruway site, and I'm glad I did, because I found this gem:

CONTRACT TAA 25-8 / D215011 TOLLING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF TOLL GANTRIES AT I-90 INTERCHANGES 25 AND 25A AT MILEPOSTS 153.8 AND 158.5 IN SCHENECTADY COUNTY

I guess they must have been having too many issues with having to guess whether to charge people tolls.

What exactly is the issue if they have gantries in between and on both sides of those exits?

[kalvado]

While getting the link for the new I-81 plans that dropped, I accidentally clicked my bookmark for the Thruway site, and I'm glad I did, because I found this gem:

CONTRACT TAA 25-8 / D215011 TOLLING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF TOLL GANTRIES AT I-90 INTERCHANGES 25 AND 25A AT MILEPOSTS 153.8 AND 158.5 IN SCHENECTADY COUNTY

I guess they must have been having too many issues with having to guess whether to charge people tolls.

What exactly is the issue if they have gantries in between and on both sides of those exits?

They skipped one reader there - probably because exit 25A is a special one. Free connection from I-88 to nearby free interstates is a part of the deal, but existing gantries (one missing!) do not allow for certain determination of who should be billed and who doesn't.

[bmitchelf]

While getting the link for the new I-81 plans that dropped, I accidentally clicked my bookmark for the Thruway site, and I'm glad I did, because I found this gem:

CONTRACT TAA 25-8 / D215011 TOLLING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF TOLL GANTRIES AT I-90 INTERCHANGES 25 AND 25A AT MILEPOSTS 153.8 AND 158.5 IN SCHENECTADY COUNTY

I guess they must have been having too many issues with having to guess whether to charge people tolls.

What exactly is the issue if they have gantries in between and on both sides of those exits?

They skipped one reader there - probably because exit 25A is a special one. Free connection from I-88 to nearby free interstates is a part of the deal, but existing gantries (one missing!) do not allow for certain determination of who should be billed and who doesn't.

Which one is missing?

[kalvado]

While getting the link for the new I-81 plans that dropped, I accidentally clicked my bookmark for the Thruway site, and I'm glad I did, because I found this gem:

CONTRACT TAA 25-8 / D215011 TOLLING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF TOLL GANTRIES AT I-90 INTERCHANGES 25 AND 25A AT MILEPOSTS 153.8 AND 158.5 IN SCHENECTADY COUNTY

I guess they must have been having too many issues with having to guess whether to charge people tolls.

What exactly is the issue if they have gantries in between and on both sides of those exits?

They skipped one reader there - probably because exit 25A is a special one. Free connection from I-88 to nearby free interstates is a part of the deal, but existing gantries (one missing!) do not allow for certain determination of who should be billed and who doesn't.

Which one is missing?

Honestly speaking, I am at a loss. Looks like it's a full compliment, at least now.
I also remember those discussions about uncertainty of who exited at 88...

[vdeane]

While getting the link for the new I-81 plans that dropped, I accidentally clicked my bookmark for the Thruway site, and I'm glad I did, because I found this gem:

CONTRACT TAA 25-8 / D215011 TOLLING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF TOLL GANTRIES AT I-90 INTERCHANGES 25 AND 25A AT MILEPOSTS 153.8 AND 158.5 IN SCHENECTADY COUNTY

I guess they must have been having too many issues with having to guess whether to charge people tolls.

What exactly is the issue if they have gantries in between and on both sides of those exits?

The issue is that movements for 25A-26, 25A-25, and 25A-24 are free, but the movements for 24-25, 24-26, and 25-26 are not, so the system needs to determine if you used exit 25A or not (traffic being tolled is intermixed with traffic riding for free for all mainline gantries from 24-26 and the exit 26 ramp gantry).  Currently they try to guess based on what gantries read your E-ZPass, but that takes a really long time (it takes multiple weeks for tolls involving that stretch of Thruway to post) and probably isn't 100% accurate.

From the description there, it looks like they might be extending the virtual ticket system from 25A to 24.  Then again, they might just be using it to augment their existing guesswork.

[lstone19]

From the description there, it looks like they might be extending the virtual ticket system from 25A to 24.  Then again, they might just be using it to augment their existing guesswork.

It has to be the former. The latter makes no sense. The whole reason for not replicating the 15 to 50 ticket system was perceived congestion issues with ramp gantries at high volume interchanges. Once they add ramp gantries at 25 and 25A, the reason for not having that area be a VTS goes away so it might as well be a VTS (but then this is the Thruway who seems to believe why implement a simple solution when a complicated solution is available).

I suspect after that's done, there will be another contract to remove the 25-25A and 25A-26 mainline gantries.

[bmitchelf]

While getting the link for the new I-81 plans that dropped, I accidentally clicked my bookmark for the Thruway site, and I'm glad I did, because I found this gem:

CONTRACT TAA 25-8 / D215011 TOLLING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF TOLL GANTRIES AT I-90 INTERCHANGES 25 AND 25A AT MILEPOSTS 153.8 AND 158.5 IN SCHENECTADY COUNTY

I guess they must have been having too many issues with having to guess whether to charge people tolls.

What exactly is the issue if they have gantries in between and on both sides of those exits?

The issue is that movements for 25A-26, 25A-25, and 25A-24 are free, but the movements for 24-25, 24-26, and 25-26 are not, so the system needs to determine if you used exit 25A or not (traffic being tolled is intermixed with traffic riding for free for all mainline gantries from 24-26 and the exit 26 ramp gantry).  Currently they try to guess based on what gantries read your E-ZPass, but that takes a really long time (it takes multiple weeks for tolls involving that stretch of Thruway to post) and probably isn't 100% accurate.

From the description there, it looks like they might be extending the virtual ticket system from 25A to 24.  Then again, they might just be using it to augment their existing guesswork.

It seems like that should all be covered by the number of gantries and which ones you pass through from what I can see, but it also could have been easier to just keep the gantries on exits in that stretch.

[vdeane]

From the description there, it looks like they might be extending the virtual ticket system from 25A to 24.  Then again, they might just be using it to augment their existing guesswork.

It has to be the former. The latter makes no sense. The whole reason for not replicating the 15 to 50 ticket system was perceived congestion issues with ramp gantries at high volume interchanges. Once they add ramp gantries at 25 and 25A, the reason for not having that area be a VTS goes away so it might as well be a VTS (but then this is the Thruway who seems to believe why implement a simple solution when a complicated solution is available).

I suspect after that's done, there will be another contract to remove the 25-25A and 25A-26 mainline gantries.

Yes, the former does make a lot more sense, but this is New York... never underestimate the length NYS government will go to force things to conform to a pre-existing process.

While getting the link for the new I-81 plans that dropped, I accidentally clicked my bookmark for the Thruway site, and I'm glad I did, because I found this gem:

CONTRACT TAA 25-8 / D215011 TOLLING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF TOLL GANTRIES AT I-90 INTERCHANGES 25 AND 25A AT MILEPOSTS 153.8 AND 158.5 IN SCHENECTADY COUNTY

I guess they must have been having too many issues with having to guess whether to charge people tolls.

What exactly is the issue if they have gantries in between and on both sides of those exits?

The issue is that movements for 25A-26, 25A-25, and 25A-24 are free, but the movements for 24-25, 24-26, and 25-26 are not, so the system needs to determine if you used exit 25A or not (traffic being tolled is intermixed with traffic riding for free for all mainline gantries from 24-26 and the exit 26 ramp gantry).  Currently they try to guess based on what gantries read your E-ZPass, but that takes a really long time (it takes multiple weeks for tolls involving that stretch of Thruway to post) and probably isn't 100% accurate.

From the description there, it looks like they might be extending the virtual ticket system from 25A to 24.  Then again, they might just be using it to augment their existing guesswork.

It seems like that should all be covered by the number of gantries and which ones you pass through from what I can see, but it also could have been easier to just keep the gantries on exits in that stretch.

It probably would be easier if they operated like the MassPike does, using the gantry reads to plot out your trip and then charging a single toll for the trip.  Unfortunately, they charge each gantry read (or two, in the case of virtual ticket systems) as an individual toll, so 24-25, 25-25A, and 25A-whatever all need to determine if a toll is to be charged or if the $0.00 toll for using exit 25A is to be used instead.  Notably, it's not just gantries, but there's a time factor; I once traveled from 24-25A for a wedding and then 25A-26 for the reception, and it correctly charged $0.00 for both.

I also had it once incorrectly charge $0.00 for 25A-24 even though I had driven 34A-25A in the same trip.  No idea what happened there.  It might have been the same trip they charged the 45-44 toll twice (and if it wasn't, it wasn't too far off from that trip), so wonky things were happening around then.

[kramie13]

The issue is that movements for 25A-26, 25A-25, and 25A-24 are free, but the movements for 24-25, 24-26, and 25-26 are not, so the system needs to determine if you used exit 25A or not (traffic being tolled is intermixed with traffic riding for free for all mainline gantries from 24-26 and the exit 26 ramp gantry).  Currently they try to guess based on what gantries read your E-ZPass, but that takes a really long time (it takes multiple weeks for tolls involving that stretch of Thruway to post) and probably isn't 100% accurate.

From the description there, it looks like they might be extending the virtual ticket system from 25A to 24.  Then again, they might just be using it to augment their existing guesswork.

Why is it free ride when traveling from exit 24 to exit 25A but still a toll from 24 to 25, despite the distance from 24 to 25 being shorter?

And why was this "backwards-ness" carried over to the all-electronic tolling?  Wouldn't it have been easier to make exits 24-25-25A-26 a free movement, similar to what the Mass Pike did in Springfield and Worcester?

[kalvado]

The issue is that movements for 25A-26, 25A-25, and 25A-24 are free, but the movements for 24-25, 24-26, and 25-26 are not, so the system needs to determine if you used exit 25A or not (traffic being tolled is intermixed with traffic riding for free for all mainline gantries from 24-26 and the exit 26 ramp gantry).  Currently they try to guess based on what gantries read your E-ZPass, but that takes a really long time (it takes multiple weeks for tolls involving that stretch of Thruway to post) and probably isn't 100% accurate.

From the description there, it looks like they might be extending the virtual ticket system from 25A to 24.  Then again, they might just be using it to augment their existing guesswork.

Why is it free ride when traveling from exit 24 to exit 25A but still a toll from 24 to 25, despite the distance from 24 to 25 being shorter?

And why was this "backwards-ness" carried over to the all-electronic tolling?  Wouldn't it have been easier to make exits 24-25-25A-26 a free movement, similar to what the Mass Pike did in Springfield and Worcester?

When highway network in Albany was designed, I-88 was envisioned to be continuing further. Long story short, part of I-88 money was used for Thruway to avoid duplication. Projects were scaled back, so I-88 ends where it ends and not in Vermont. 
The way it works now, transition from a free interstate (I-88) to another nearby free interstate (I-890, Free-I-90 in Albany, I-87 northway) is free, connection to longer haul Thruway is not.
Probably feds did not pay for entire stretch, hence some tolls are still there. And people in Albany area didn't fight foot and nail to make it totally free as Buffalo folks did.

[kramie13]

The way it works now, transition from a free interstate (I-88) to another nearby free interstate (I-890, Free-I-90 in Albany, I-87 northway) is free, connection to longer haul Thruway is not.

But travel between exits 24 and 25 is still tolled, despite being "free interstate to free interstate".

Someone could "cheat the system" here - getting on I-890 exit 25, going west for an exit, getting off at I-88, then turning back east to get off at free I-90.  Hence the reason for completely free movements between exits 24-25-25A-26.

[kalvado]

The way it works now, transition from a free interstate (I-88) to another nearby free interstate (I-890, Free-I-90 in Albany, I-87 northway) is free, connection to longer haul Thruway is not.

But travel between exits 24 and 25 is still tolled, despite being "free interstate to free interstate".

Someone could "cheat the system" here - getting on I-890 exit 25, going west for an exit, getting off at I-88, then turning back east to get off at free I-90.  Hence the reason for completely free movements between exits 24-25-25A-26.

You have to value your time, gas, and car mileage very low to do all that to save a quarter or two.

[vdeane]

The issue is that movements for 25A-26, 25A-25, and 25A-24 are free, but the movements for 24-25, 24-26, and 25-26 are not, so the system needs to determine if you used exit 25A or not (traffic being tolled is intermixed with traffic riding for free for all mainline gantries from 24-26 and the exit 26 ramp gantry).  Currently they try to guess based on what gantries read your E-ZPass, but that takes a really long time (it takes multiple weeks for tolls involving that stretch of Thruway to post) and probably isn't 100% accurate.

From the description there, it looks like they might be extending the virtual ticket system from 25A to 24.  Then again, they might just be using it to augment their existing guesswork.

Why is it free ride when traveling from exit 24 to exit 25A but still a toll from 24 to 25, despite the distance from 24 to 25 being shorter?

And why was this "backwards-ness" carried over to the all-electronic tolling?  Wouldn't it have been easier to make exits 24-25-25A-26 a free movement, similar to what the Mass Pike did in Springfield and Worcester?

As @kalvado mentioned, it has to do with how I-88 was built.  I-88 was intended to run a bit south of its actual route, cross the Thruway near exit 25, and then follow the NY 7 corridor through Niskayuna and Colonie and connect into the NY 7 freeway into Troy.  NYSDOT cancelled the portion between the Thruway and Northway, and it was decided to widen the Thruway and build exit 25A instead with the money that would have been used for I-88.  Since the money was federal, a deal was struck where the state would remove Thruway tolls for I-88 traffic.  Since the exit 24-25 movement isn't I-88 traffic, it still have a toll even though other movements there are free.

As for why they still do it with AET even though Massachusetts made free sections?  Like I said, never underestimate the lengths NY will go to to preserve the current way things are done even when implementing something new.

(personal opinion)

[lstone19]

As for why they still do it with AET even though Massachusetts made free sections?  Like I said, never underestimate the lengths NY will go to to preserve the current way things are done even when implementing something new.

I believe in the past the NYSTA has said that they lack the legal authority to drop any tolls due to the bond covenants. Yet somehow tolls went away (except for the one-way truck toll) between 14 and 15. I'm old enough to remember when the Spring Valley plaza (north of 14A despite the name) was the end of the ticket section and 15-Suffern and 16-Harriman were normal "get ticket/pay toll" ramp plazas (neither exits 14B nor 15A existed nor did the 15-Woodbury mainline plaza). The first change in that added the 15-Woodbury mainline plaza, converted 14-Spring Valley to a fixed toll plaza, removed the 15-Suffern ramp plaza, and converted 16-Harriman to a three options plaza (SB exiting traffic had a normal pay with your ticket, NB exiting traffic paid a fixed toll, and ALL entering traffic paid a fixed toll which for NB traffic was then deducted from their ticket toll). Converting Spring Valley into the one-way truck toll came later. IMHO, having NB entering traffic pay the fixed toll at 16 before getting the discounted ticket later on the ramp avoided a potential dangerous point of confusion for motorists and showed innovative thinking from the NYSTA that has been sorely lacking of late.

[SignBridge]

As for why they still do it with AET even though Massachusetts made free sections?  Like I said, never underestimate the lengths NY will go to to preserve the current way things are done even when implementing something new.

I believe in the past the NYSTA has said that they lack the legal authority to drop any tolls due to the bond covenants. Yet somehow tolls went away (except for the one-way truck toll) between 14 and 15. I'm old enough to remember when the Spring Valley plaza (north of 14A despite the name) was the end of the ticket section and 15-Suffern and 16-Harriman were normal "get ticket/pay toll" ramp plazas (neither exits 14B nor 15A existed nor did the 15-Woodbury mainline plaza). The first change in that added the 15-Woodbury mainline plaza, converted 14-Spring Valley to a fixed toll plaza, removed the 15-Suffern ramp plaza, and converted 16-Harriman to a three options plaza (SB exiting traffic had a normal pay with your ticket, NB exiting traffic paid a fixed toll, and ALL entering traffic paid a fixed toll which for NB traffic was then deducted from their ticket toll). Converting Spring Valley into the one-way truck toll came later. IMHO, having NB entering traffic pay the fixed toll at 16 before getting the discounted ticket later on the ramp avoided a potential dangerous point of confusion for motorists and showed innovative thinking from the NYSTA that has been sorely lacking of late.

Probably a smarter generation of people running the Thruway Authority fifty years ago.

[kalvado]

As for why they still do it with AET even though Massachusetts made free sections?  Like I said, never underestimate the lengths NY will go to to preserve the current way things are done even when implementing something new.

I believe in the past the NYSTA has said that they lack the legal authority to drop any tolls due to the bond covenants. Yet somehow tolls went away (except for the one-way truck toll) between 14 and 15. I'm old enough to remember when the Spring Valley plaza (north of 14A despite the name) was the end of the ticket section and 15-Suffern and 16-Harriman were normal "get ticket/pay toll" ramp plazas (neither exits 14B nor 15A existed nor did the 15-Woodbury mainline plaza). The first change in that added the 15-Woodbury mainline plaza, converted 14-Spring Valley to a fixed toll plaza, removed the 15-Suffern ramp plaza, and converted 16-Harriman to a three options plaza (SB exiting traffic had a normal pay with your ticket, NB exiting traffic paid a fixed toll, and ALL entering traffic paid a fixed toll which for NB traffic was then deducted from their ticket toll). Converting Spring Valley into the one-way truck toll came later. IMHO, having NB entering traffic pay the fixed toll at 16 before getting the discounted ticket later on the ramp avoided a potential dangerous point of confusion for motorists and showed innovative thinking from the NYSTA that has been sorely lacking of late.

Probably a smarter generation of people running the Thruway Authority fifty years ago.

Why would it be smart to drop any tolls? Authority needs money to pay off the bridge, they need every penny they can get.