Mackinac Bridge congestion

[vdeane]

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

Honestly, the best solution is probably to make it one-way so they can add a couple more lanes in one direction and not have the other direction stopping at all.  E-ZPass interoperability would probably help a little bit, but it wouldn't be a full impact unless the international crossings started accepting it too.  It does feel weird to have one-way at an isolated location like that, but in this case, it's lot like there are other roads between the UP and LP, so the percentage of users who get a free ride or pay both directions despite only traveling one way would probably be low.

If they really wanted to, they could even use AET in the non-stopping direction to retain two-way tolling (with the current rates, as opposed to the double rate for one-way) for MacPass, similar to how Maine uses AET to retain a virtual ticket system for in-state E-ZPass users (out of state and cash users pay fixed rates upon entering and at certain locations on the mainline, even a couple of exit tolls for the interstates).

[SEWIGuy]

My response was to webtv99 when he said "since it's clear that the Midwest is still well behind the Northeast" when it comes to EZPass adaptability. But they really aren't. This is the only case where there isn't a system in place in the Midwest.

Except they are.  The Northeast is largely all-electronic by now.  In the Midwest, it's just Illinois and a handful of newer facilities.  Ohio only just recently provided ORT lanes on the mainline Turnpike.  Indiana still doesn't.  And, as I mentioned earlier, utilization is lower.  I think I remember someone posting here that E-ZPass utilization around Buffalo was only 40% a decade ago.  And the rationale given was the same tracking stuff that @KelleyCook posted.

The question was about EZ Pass compatitbility. Not if they are "all-electronic" or had ORT lanes.

[Rothman]

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

Go to E-ZPass or toll by plate.  If congestion is caused by the toll plaza, then get rid of the plaza.  Also gets rid of the cost of paying toll-takers.

[JREwing78]

If they really wanted to, they could even use AET in the non-stopping direction to retain two-way tolling (with the current rates, as opposed to the double rate for one-way) for MacPass, similar to how Maine uses AET to retain a virtual ticket system for in-state E-ZPass users (out of state and cash users pay fixed rates upon entering and at certain locations on the mainline, even a couple of exit tolls for the interstates).

It would be interesting to see the accounting for that kind of situation. Obviously, they would have an immediate toll collection with E-ZPass. Mixing toll-by-plate both ways in with cash collection for SBD only gets sketchy. Would it be fast enough to link up the vehicle with the toll in real time, and allow the driver to settle up both directions at once?

What if we towed the travel trailer up north and left it for the season - can it pick up the vehicle AND trailer license plates? Would it understand what to do when it returns with no trailer?

How long would the MBA allow for the return trip before billing by mail? It would need to account for someone spending a couple weeks in the U.P. before returning home. OTOH, at some point they have to get paid - does it get billed out 3 or 6 months later when there's no return trip?

What if you're a college student or native Yooper spending the holidays downstate? Would they be asked to pay ahead, and then have a credit for the return trip north? Is there an expiration date for that credit?

I'm starting to understand the MBA's reluctance to make a substantive change. I don't see an obvious way to reduce staff or overhead. Going electronic introduces delays in getting paid. It's confusing for a population which only grudgingly accepts the need for tolls at all on the Bridge, and loudly rejects tolls in other circumstances.

And, no matter which way is chosen, they would have to hike fares on at least the toll-by-plate folks to cover overhead. Depending on what implementing E-ZPass costs, those tolls might have to go up too.

Though, to be fair (pun intended), the fares on the Bridge are pretty cheap; if you can afford to haul up a McMansion on wheels with a 6-figure wanna-be big rig, you can swing $20 to safely get it over the Straits.

[hobsini2]

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

I am going to disagree with this assessment. Years ago when ISTHA decided to create the I-Pass, they first used the middle 2 lanes of each mainline plaza. You still had to stop at the booth as if you were paying with coins. Then Hot Rod Blago came along and implemented the ORT that is now on the system. The wait at the toll booths had been eliminated and vehicles could breeze by at the intended posted speed. Once people saw how convenient ORT became along with the interoperability with the EZ-Pass system, electronic tolling in Illinois went way up. Prior to Covid and according to the ISTHA website, 90% of tolls collected in 2018 were by transponder.

So yeah I do think if the Bridge went onto an interoperability with the EZ-Pass system, the congestion would go down. How much? That remains to be seen.

[Flint1979]

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

I don't see how the idea of having it makes much sense as the majority of people crossing the bridge are from Michigan which does not have any other toll roads within the state so how many people from Michigan actually have EZPass would be a good question and if there aren't much then it would be pointless to make the Mackinac Bridge into EZPass. People need to remember Michigan is not an EZPass state.

[vdeane]

If they really wanted to, they could even use AET in the non-stopping direction to retain two-way tolling (with the current rates, as opposed to the double rate for one-way) for MacPass, similar to how Maine uses AET to retain a virtual ticket system for in-state E-ZPass users (out of state and cash users pay fixed rates upon entering and at certain locations on the mainline, even a couple of exit tolls for the interstates).

It would be interesting to see the accounting for that kind of situation. Obviously, they would have an immediate toll collection with E-ZPass. Mixing toll-by-plate both ways in with cash collection for SBD only gets sketchy. Would it be fast enough to link up the vehicle with the toll in real time, and allow the driver to settle up both directions at once?

What if we towed the travel trailer up north and left it for the season - can it pick up the vehicle AND trailer license plates? Would it understand what to do when it returns with no trailer?

How long would the MBA allow for the return trip before billing by mail? It would need to account for someone spending a couple weeks in the U.P. before returning home. OTOH, at some point they have to get paid - does it get billed out 3 or 6 months later when there's no return trip?

What if you're a college student or native Yooper spending the holidays downstate? Would they be asked to pay ahead, and then have a credit for the return trip north? Is there an expiration date for that credit?

I'm starting to understand the MBA's reluctance to make a substantive change. I don't see an obvious way to reduce staff or overhead. Going electronic introduces delays in getting paid. It's confusing for a population which only grudgingly accepts the need for tolls at all on the Bridge, and loudly rejects tolls in other circumstances.

And, no matter which way is chosen, they would have to hike fares on at least the toll-by-plate folks to cover overhead. Depending on what implementing E-ZPass costs, those tolls might have to go up too.

Though, to be fair (pun intended), the fares on the Bridge are pretty cheap; if you can afford to haul up a McMansion on wheels with a 6-figure wanna-be big rig, you can swing $20 to safely get it over the Straits.

I think you're overthinking it.  I wasn't envisioning bill by mail at all; cash users would simply pay a one-way toll in one direction, free ride in the other, while transponder users would pay half the one-way fare each direction, similar to how the Maine Turnpike has a virtual ticket system for (in-house) transponders and a fixed-price barrier and ramp setup for everyone else (yeah, it's weird).  Or they could just do straight one-way tolling for everyone.

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

I don't see how the idea of having it makes much sense as the majority of people crossing the bridge are from Michigan which does not have any other toll roads within the state so how many people from Michigan actually have EZPass would be a good question and if there aren't much then it would be pointless to make the Mackinac Bridge into EZPass. People need to remember Michigan is not an EZPass state.

In a way, it kind of is, because Bay City takes it.  And again, what is the downside of offering interoperability to those who want it?  This "Michigan is not an E-ZPass state" thing seems like an attitude that is opposing it for the sake of opposing it.

[SEWIGuy]

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

I am going to disagree with this assessment. Years ago when ISTHA decided to create the I-Pass, they first used the middle 2 lanes of each mainline plaza. You still had to stop at the booth as if you were paying with coins. Then Hot Rod Blago came along and implemented the ORT that is now on the system. The wait at the toll booths had been eliminated and vehicles could breeze by at the intended posted speed. Once people saw how convenient ORT became along with the interoperability with the EZ-Pass system, electronic tolling in Illinois went way up. Prior to Covid and according to the ISTHA website, 90% of tolls collected in 2018 were by transponder.

So yeah I do think if the Bridge went onto an interoperability with the EZ-Pass system, the congestion would go down. How much? That remains to be seen.

I would guess that there are a bunch of Michigan residents who already have EZ Passes or IPasses anyway.

[SEWIGuy]

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

I am going to disagree with this assessment. Years ago when ISTHA decided to create the I-Pass, they first used the middle 2 lanes of each mainline plaza. You still had to stop at the booth as if you were paying with coins. Then Hot Rod Blago came along and implemented the ORT that is now on the system. The wait at the toll booths had been eliminated and vehicles could breeze by at the intended posted speed. Once people saw how convenient ORT became along with the interoperability with the EZ-Pass system, electronic tolling in Illinois went way up. Prior to Covid and according to the ISTHA website, 90% of tolls collected in 2018 were by transponder.

So yeah I do think if the Bridge went onto an interoperability with the EZ-Pass system, the congestion would go down. How much? That remains to be seen.

I would guess that there are a bunch of Michigan residents who already have EZ Passes or IPasses anyway.

AND I will point out, that making MacPass part of the EZ Pass system makes it easier for your citizens who travel to Chicago, Indiana, Ohio, etc.

[Molandfreak]

In a way, it kind of is, because Bay City takes it.  And again, what is the downside of offering interoperability to those who want it?  This "Michigan is not an E-ZPass state" thing seems like an attitude that is opposing it for the sake of opposing it.

I guess something I didn't realize is the fact that the Bay City toll bridge accepts E-ZPass could pose a problem for residents of that city, who receive special transponders that enable them to cross the bridge for free. Since MacPass is a sticker, there is no way to turn off the tolling function and residents would be charged from the sticker anyway. Still, this would only be a potential problem for another four years.

EDIT: Never mind, BC Passes are fully compatible with the E-ZPass network, not a separate transponder type. This kind of renders the whole argument that Michiganders would have no use for it hilarious since there are folks fewer than 200 miles away from the Mac regularly using E-ZPass. https://baycitybridgepartners.com/tolling/faqs/

[vdeane]

In a way, it kind of is, because Bay City takes it.  And again, what is the downside of offering interoperability to those who want it?  This "Michigan is not an E-ZPass state" thing seems like an attitude that is opposing it for the sake of opposing it.

I guess something I didn't realize is the fact that the Bay City toll bridge accepts E-ZPass could pose a problem for residents of that city, who receive special transponders that enable them to cross the bridge for free. Since MacPass is a sticker, there is no way to turn off the tolling function and residents would be charged from the sticker anyway. Still, this would only be a potential problem for another four years.

EDIT: Never mind, BC Passes are fully compatible with the E-ZPass network, not a separate transponder type. This kind of renders the whole argument that Michiganders would have no use for it hilarious since there are folks fewer than 200 miles away from the Mac regularly using E-ZPass. https://baycitybridgepartners.com/tolling/faqs/

This reminds me of the years where E-ZPass was accepted in Florida, but only on some of the Orlando toll roads, not the rest of the state.  Except even then, FDOT was working towards full interoperability (just very slowly), while there's no indication the other toll crossings in Michigan are.  But you never know - the Atlantic Beach Bridge near NYC eventually joined, after years of resisting and nearly creating their own version of MacPass.

[Flint1979]

If they really wanted to, they could even use AET in the non-stopping direction to retain two-way tolling (with the current rates, as opposed to the double rate for one-way) for MacPass, similar to how Maine uses AET to retain a virtual ticket system for in-state E-ZPass users (out of state and cash users pay fixed rates upon entering and at certain locations on the mainline, even a couple of exit tolls for the interstates).

It would be interesting to see the accounting for that kind of situation. Obviously, they would have an immediate toll collection with E-ZPass. Mixing toll-by-plate both ways in with cash collection for SBD only gets sketchy. Would it be fast enough to link up the vehicle with the toll in real time, and allow the driver to settle up both directions at once?

What if we towed the travel trailer up north and left it for the season - can it pick up the vehicle AND trailer license plates? Would it understand what to do when it returns with no trailer?

How long would the MBA allow for the return trip before billing by mail? It would need to account for someone spending a couple weeks in the U.P. before returning home. OTOH, at some point they have to get paid - does it get billed out 3 or 6 months later when there's no return trip?

What if you're a college student or native Yooper spending the holidays downstate? Would they be asked to pay ahead, and then have a credit for the return trip north? Is there an expiration date for that credit?

I'm starting to understand the MBA's reluctance to make a substantive change. I don't see an obvious way to reduce staff or overhead. Going electronic introduces delays in getting paid. It's confusing for a population which only grudgingly accepts the need for tolls at all on the Bridge, and loudly rejects tolls in other circumstances.

And, no matter which way is chosen, they would have to hike fares on at least the toll-by-plate folks to cover overhead. Depending on what implementing E-ZPass costs, those tolls might have to go up too.

Though, to be fair (pun intended), the fares on the Bridge are pretty cheap; if you can afford to haul up a McMansion on wheels with a 6-figure wanna-be big rig, you can swing $20 to safely get it over the Straits.

I think you're overthinking it.  I wasn't envisioning bill by mail at all; cash users would simply pay a one-way toll in one direction, free ride in the other, while transponder users would pay half the one-way fare each direction, similar to how the Maine Turnpike has a virtual ticket system for (in-house) transponders and a fixed-price barrier and ramp setup for everyone else (yeah, it's weird).  Or they could just do straight one-way tolling for everyone.

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

I don't see how the idea of having it makes much sense as the majority of people crossing the bridge are from Michigan which does not have any other toll roads within the state so how many people from Michigan actually have EZPass would be a good question and if there aren't much then it would be pointless to make the Mackinac Bridge into EZPass. People need to remember Michigan is not an EZPass state.

In a way, it kind of is, because Bay City takes it.  And again, what is the downside of offering interoperability to those who want it?  This "Michigan is not an E-ZPass state" thing seems like an attitude that is opposing it for the sake of opposing it.

So one bridge in the Lower Peninsula currently uses it. A bridge that can easily be shunpiked btw. Still no need for Michigan residents to go out and get an EZPass.

[rhen_var]

A good compromise between those who want to use an EZ-Pass and those who want to use cash would be to install EZ-Pass/pay-by-plate ORT gantries in the center 1 or 2 lanes in each direction, and keep the other lanes as cash lanes.  To prevent cash payers from holding up the EZ-Pass users they could install electronic BGSs on the approaches to the toll plaza that could have both lanes open to all traffic in low traffic volume times and dynamically change the left lane to EZ-Pass only and the right lane to cash only in times of congestion.  A marketing campaign combined with selling transponders in nearby stores could be used to encourage drivers to adopt EZ-Pass, and in a decade or two when adoption reaches a high level the remaining cash booths could be demolished.

Another (completely overkill) improvement would be to add an EZ-Pass only left entrance from EB US-2 to SB I-75 in the same design as the entrance ramp from Wealthy Street to NB US-131 in Grand Rapids.  That would help speed things up for ORT drivers when the entrance ramp from US-2 to I-75 backs up for miles.

[Rothman]

The Michiganders that are anti-E-ZPass are only setting themselves up for full-on toll-by-plate.

[Molandfreak]

If they really wanted to, they could even use AET in the non-stopping direction to retain two-way tolling (with the current rates, as opposed to the double rate for one-way) for MacPass, similar to how Maine uses AET to retain a virtual ticket system for in-state E-ZPass users (out of state and cash users pay fixed rates upon entering and at certain locations on the mainline, even a couple of exit tolls for the interstates).

It would be interesting to see the accounting for that kind of situation. Obviously, they would have an immediate toll collection with E-ZPass. Mixing toll-by-plate both ways in with cash collection for SBD only gets sketchy. Would it be fast enough to link up the vehicle with the toll in real time, and allow the driver to settle up both directions at once?

What if we towed the travel trailer up north and left it for the season - can it pick up the vehicle AND trailer license plates? Would it understand what to do when it returns with no trailer?

How long would the MBA allow for the return trip before billing by mail? It would need to account for someone spending a couple weeks in the U.P. before returning home. OTOH, at some point they have to get paid - does it get billed out 3 or 6 months later when there's no return trip?

What if you're a college student or native Yooper spending the holidays downstate? Would they be asked to pay ahead, and then have a credit for the return trip north? Is there an expiration date for that credit?

I'm starting to understand the MBA's reluctance to make a substantive change. I don't see an obvious way to reduce staff or overhead. Going electronic introduces delays in getting paid. It's confusing for a population which only grudgingly accepts the need for tolls at all on the Bridge, and loudly rejects tolls in other circumstances.

And, no matter which way is chosen, they would have to hike fares on at least the toll-by-plate folks to cover overhead. Depending on what implementing E-ZPass costs, those tolls might have to go up too.

Though, to be fair (pun intended), the fares on the Bridge are pretty cheap; if you can afford to haul up a McMansion on wheels with a 6-figure wanna-be big rig, you can swing $20 to safely get it over the Straits.

I think you're overthinking it.  I wasn't envisioning bill by mail at all; cash users would simply pay a one-way toll in one direction, free ride in the other, while transponder users would pay half the one-way fare each direction, similar to how the Maine Turnpike has a virtual ticket system for (in-house) transponders and a fixed-price barrier and ramp setup for everyone else (yeah, it's weird).  Or they could just do straight one-way tolling for everyone.

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

I don't see how the idea of having it makes much sense as the majority of people crossing the bridge are from Michigan which does not have any other toll roads within the state so how many people from Michigan actually have EZPass would be a good question and if there aren't much then it would be pointless to make the Mackinac Bridge into EZPass. People need to remember Michigan is not an EZPass state.

In a way, it kind of is, because Bay City takes it.  And again, what is the downside of offering interoperability to those who want it?  This "Michigan is not an E-ZPass state" thing seems like an attitude that is opposing it for the sake of opposing it.

So one bridge in the Lower Peninsula currently uses it. A bridge that can easily be shunpiked btw. Still no need for Michigan residents to go out and get an EZPass.

Nobody has answered my question of who, exactly, would be hurt if the MBA began to accept E-ZPass. Bay City residents are an example of some who would be helped, since both systems utilize stickers rather than removable transponders—a resident wishing to use both systems would need two stickers cluttering their windshield. There truly is no legitimate argument to keep these toll systems separate.

[Flint1979]

If they really wanted to, they could even use AET in the non-stopping direction to retain two-way tolling (with the current rates, as opposed to the double rate for one-way) for MacPass, similar to how Maine uses AET to retain a virtual ticket system for in-state E-ZPass users (out of state and cash users pay fixed rates upon entering and at certain locations on the mainline, even a couple of exit tolls for the interstates).

It would be interesting to see the accounting for that kind of situation. Obviously, they would have an immediate toll collection with E-ZPass. Mixing toll-by-plate both ways in with cash collection for SBD only gets sketchy. Would it be fast enough to link up the vehicle with the toll in real time, and allow the driver to settle up both directions at once?

What if we towed the travel trailer up north and left it for the season - can it pick up the vehicle AND trailer license plates? Would it understand what to do when it returns with no trailer?

How long would the MBA allow for the return trip before billing by mail? It would need to account for someone spending a couple weeks in the U.P. before returning home. OTOH, at some point they have to get paid - does it get billed out 3 or 6 months later when there's no return trip?

What if you're a college student or native Yooper spending the holidays downstate? Would they be asked to pay ahead, and then have a credit for the return trip north? Is there an expiration date for that credit?

I'm starting to understand the MBA's reluctance to make a substantive change. I don't see an obvious way to reduce staff or overhead. Going electronic introduces delays in getting paid. It's confusing for a population which only grudgingly accepts the need for tolls at all on the Bridge, and loudly rejects tolls in other circumstances.

And, no matter which way is chosen, they would have to hike fares on at least the toll-by-plate folks to cover overhead. Depending on what implementing E-ZPass costs, those tolls might have to go up too.

Though, to be fair (pun intended), the fares on the Bridge are pretty cheap; if you can afford to haul up a McMansion on wheels with a 6-figure wanna-be big rig, you can swing $20 to safely get it over the Straits.

I think you're overthinking it.  I wasn't envisioning bill by mail at all; cash users would simply pay a one-way toll in one direction, free ride in the other, while transponder users would pay half the one-way fare each direction, similar to how the Maine Turnpike has a virtual ticket system for (in-house) transponders and a fixed-price barrier and ramp setup for everyone else (yeah, it's weird).  Or they could just do straight one-way tolling for everyone.

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

I don't see how the idea of having it makes much sense as the majority of people crossing the bridge are from Michigan which does not have any other toll roads within the state so how many people from Michigan actually have EZPass would be a good question and if there aren't much then it would be pointless to make the Mackinac Bridge into EZPass. People need to remember Michigan is not an EZPass state.

In a way, it kind of is, because Bay City takes it.  And again, what is the downside of offering interoperability to those who want it?  This "Michigan is not an E-ZPass state" thing seems like an attitude that is opposing it for the sake of opposing it.

So one bridge in the Lower Peninsula currently uses it. A bridge that can easily be shunpiked btw. Still no need for Michigan residents to go out and get an EZPass.

Nobody has answered my question of who, exactly, would be hurt if the MBA began to accept E-ZPass. Bay City residents are an example of some who would be helped, since both systems utilize stickers rather than removable transponders—a resident wishing to use both systems would need two stickers cluttering their windshield. There truly is no legitimate argument to keep these toll systems separate.

Bay City is a city that I am very familiar with. It's only about a 15 minute drive from my house to downtown Bay City. People aren't going to use the toll bridge when there are three free bridges that you can use to cross the river in Bay City, also if you are coming from Saginaw depending on where in Bay City you want to be you would cross the river in Saginaw and drive up M-13 into Bay City. This has been talked about to death in this area and most people know to avoid the Liberty Bridge. Furthermore Bay City should have asked again when Whitmer became governor for the state to take over the bridges.

[Flint1979]

I don't see who would be helped by having an EZ-Pass in a state that doesn't have toll roads. We have a few toll bridges in Michigan but they are so far and few in between that it's rather pointless to have a transponder.

[wanderer2575]

I don't see who would be helped by having an EZ-Pass in a state that doesn't have toll roads. We have a few toll bridges in Michigan but they are so far and few in between that it's rather pointless to have a transponder.

One more time:  Who would be helped are those travelers (even if a relatively small number of them) who use the few tolled bridges in Michigan and also use (even if relatively infrequently) any of the other toll facilities in the Midwest/Northeast that operate with E-ZPass.  If a tolling authority is going to install an electronic tolling system anyway, it makes sense to go with the one that every other tolling authority in the region uses.  That at least offers some extra convenience to region-wide travelers, even if their numbers are small.

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to have EZPass. I'm saying that it's not likely that it would contribute much to relieving congestion on those heavy travel days.

I am going to disagree with this assessment. Years ago when ISTHA decided to create the I-Pass, they first used the middle 2 lanes of each mainline plaza. You still had to stop at the booth as if you were paying with coins. Then Hot Rod Blago came along and implemented the ORT that is now on the system. The wait at the toll booths had been eliminated and vehicles could breeze by at the intended posted speed. Once people saw how convenient ORT became along with the interoperability with the EZ-Pass system, electronic tolling in Illinois went way up. Prior to Covid and according to the ISTHA website, 90% of tolls collected in 2018 were by transponder.

So yeah I do think if the Bridge went onto an interoperability with the EZ-Pass system, the congestion would go down. How much? That remains to be seen.

What are the counts of vehicles frequently (let's say at least a few times each week) using the Illinois Tollway, and what are the counts of vehicles frequently using the Mackinac Bridge?  I expect that a few travelers will have an E-ZPass and that would move things along a bit, but unlike Illinois there are not nearly enough of them to warrant dedicating any number of lanes to ORT.  Doing so would just add to the congestion at busy times.

[hobsini2]

I don't see who would be helped by having an EZ-Pass in a state that doesn't have toll roads. We have a few toll bridges in Michigan but they are so far and few in between that it's rather pointless to have a transponder.

This may sound like a dumb question but is the EZ Pass allowed on the toll bridges to Canada? If so, there's your answer.

[SEWIGuy]

I don't see who would be helped by having an EZ-Pass in a state that doesn't have toll roads. We have a few toll bridges in Michigan but they are so far and few in between that it's rather pointless to have a transponder.

I know a ton of people who have iPasses in Wisconsin and Iowa. Because it must makes it easier to travel in Illinois and beyond. Honestly it seems like it would make it more convenient for everyone involved - how could they NOT be helped?

[webny99]

I don't see who would be helped by having an EZ-Pass in a state that doesn't have toll roads. We have a few toll bridges in Michigan but they are so far and few in between that it's rather pointless to have a transponder.

This may sound like a dumb question but is the EZ Pass allowed on the toll bridges to Canada? If so, there's your answer.

Yes, at least at Lewiston Bridge, Peace Bridge (with a 50% EZPass discount!) and as of more recently, the Thousand Islands Bridge.

I assume it's also accepted at the Rainbow Bridge but I honestly haven't used that bridge in so long that I can't remember for sure.

[Flint1979]

Also the congestion is on the bridge where it's narrowed down to one lane for most of the length of the bridge.

[Brandon]

So one bridge in the Lower Peninsula currently uses it. A bridge that can easily be shunpiked btw. Still no need for Michigan residents to go out and get an EZPass.

I think you (and the bridge authority) underestimate how many Michiganders already have an EZ Pass or I-Pass for traveling through Illinois and Ohio to popular out of state destinations.

[vdeane]

I don't see who would be helped by having an EZ-Pass in a state that doesn't have toll roads. We have a few toll bridges in Michigan but they are so far and few in between that it's rather pointless to have a transponder.

This may sound like a dumb question but is the EZ Pass allowed on the toll bridges to Canada? If so, there's your answer.

No to the Michigan ones but yes to most of the New York ones (Ogdensburg and Seaway over the St. Lawrence being the two exceptions).  Given this, if the Michigan ones joined it would be quite convenient for anyone cutting through Canada to get between Michigan and New York.

[Brandon]

I don't see who would be helped by having an EZ-Pass in a state that doesn't have toll roads. We have a few toll bridges in Michigan but they are so far and few in between that it's rather pointless to have a transponder.

This may sound like a dumb question but is the EZ Pass allowed on the toll bridges to Canada? If so, there's your answer.

No to the Michigan ones but yes to most of the New York ones (Ogdensburg and Seaway over the St. Lawrence being the two exceptions).  Given this, if the Michigan ones joined it would be quite convenient for anyone cutting through Canada to get between Michigan and New York.

That might put some pressure on the 407 ETR to join EZ Pass as well.