PA Turnpike News

[mgk920]

Almost $40 in car toll on the full east-west turnpike ??  Back in the 1970s it was about $6.

That is fairly close to even with inflation over that time.  $6 end-to-end in 1973 or 1974 was likely looked upon the same way then that we look upon that $40 now.



Mike

[Beltway]

Almost $40 in car toll on the full east-west turnpike ??  Back in the 1970s it was about $6.

That is fairly close to even with inflation over that time.  $6 end-to-end in 1973 or 1974 was likely looked upon the same way then that we look upon that $40 now.



Mike

Yeahbut the level of investment in upgrades to the east-west turnpike don't really justify any increase at all, given that the original toll revenue bonds were long since paid off, and the new bonds for the east-west turnpike upgrades don't justify it.  The problem is that the bulk of the toll receipts are spent elsewhere from the east-west turnpike.

[Alps]

Almost $40 in car toll on the full east-west turnpike ??  Back in the 1970s it was about $6.

That is fairly close to even with inflation over that time.  $6 end-to-end in 1973 or 1974 was likely looked upon the same way then that we look upon that $40 now.



Mike

Yeahbut the level of investment in upgrades to the east-west turnpike don't really justify any increase at all, given that the original toll revenue bonds were long since paid off, and the new bonds for the east-west turnpike upgrades don't justify it.  The problem is that the bulk of the toll receipts are spent elsewhere from the east-west turnpike.

Truth. The 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, all seem to be solutions to a non-existent problem. The Turnpike should have been widened to 6 lanes entirely by now, and I-476/PA 9 should have been four lanes with full shoulders by now. At that point, tolls should have been retired if that was in the original agreement (this I do not know), and only the new roads should have been tolled. Fun factoid: I bet none of the other roads can support themselves on the tolls they generate.

[Beltway]

Truth. The 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, all seem to be solutions to a non-existent problem. The Turnpike should have been widened to 6 lanes entirely by now, and I-476/PA 9 should have been four lanes with full shoulders by now. At that point, tolls should have been retired if that was in the original agreement (this I do not know), and only the new roads should have been tolled. Fun factoid: I bet none of the other roads can support themselves on the tolls they generate.

IMHO, the 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, were very worthwhile projects, but should not have been funded by revenues from the mainline turnpike (E-W and NE Ext) that should have been spent for upgrades and maintenance on the mainline turnpike. 

Even maintenance is lacking in many places on the mainline turnpike where sections are several years behind needed repaving schedules.  PennDOT's toll-free Interstates generally are much better maintained today than the mainline turnpike!

[qguy]

At this link

www.paturnpike.com/geninfo/Final%20PTC_CAFR_11-10.pdf

is a PDF of the latest available annual financial report for the Turnpike. The revenues and expenses balance sheet summary is on page 28 of 137 of the PDF (page 22 of the document). It shows that in FY11 the Turnpike operated at a loss of over $523 million. The most galling aspect of that, though, is that $450 million of that is a transfer to PennDOT mandated by so-called Act 44, passed by the PA legislature and signed by then-Gov. Rendell in 2007.

IOW, not only is the E-W mainline possibly supporting the outlying toll roads, but the entire system is definitely supporting the non-toll, non-Turnpike road system Commonwealth-wide.

[Beltway]

At this link

www.paturnpike.com/geninfo/Final%20PTC_CAFR_11-10.pdf

is a PDF of the latest available annual financial report for the Turnpike. The revenues and expenses balance sheet summary is on page 28 of 137 of the PDF (page 22 of the document). It shows that in FY11 the Turnpike operated at a loss of over $523 million. The most galling aspect of that, though, is that $450 million of that is a transfer to PennDOT mandated by so-called Act 44, passed by the PA legislature and signed by then-Gov. Rendell in 2007.

IOW, not only is the E-W mainline possibly supporting the outlying toll roads, but the entire system is definitely supporting the non-toll, non-Turnpike road system Commonwealth-wide.

"In FY2011 the Penn Pike had revenues (almost entirely tolls) of $759m, operating costs of $360m, depreciation of $281m for an operating income of $117m. However it had interest expenses on borrowings of $333m and legislated payments to the state DOT under Act 44 of $450m. Net losses were $523m, which the state auditor general has said are putting the Commission on the road to certain bankruptcy."

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6076

[Scott5114]

Truth. The 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, all seem to be solutions to a non-existent problem. The Turnpike should have been widened to 6 lanes entirely by now, and I-476/PA 9 should have been four lanes with full shoulders by now. At that point, tolls should have been retired if that was in the original agreement (this I do not know), and only the new roads should have been tolled. Fun factoid: I bet none of the other roads can support themselves on the tolls they generate.

IMHO, the 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, were very worthwhile projects, but should not have been funded by revenues from the mainline turnpike (E-W and NE Ext) that should have been spent for upgrades and maintenance on the mainline turnpike. 

In Oklahoma, OTA calls this practice "cross-pledging". A few of Oklahoma's 10 turnpikes cannot sustain themselves, and instead leach money from the more popular turnpikes (mostly the Will Rogers and the Turner, which both carry I-44). Cross-pledging has come in handy to build badly needed but unprofitable ventures when ODOT was too broke to do it, like the Cherokee Turnpike, which bypasses a dangerous winding section of old SH 33 (this highway is now Scenic US 412). Since it's a rural area that doesn't really have much thru traffic (other than maybe Tulsa—NW AR traffic), the Cherokee probably wouldn't have justified itself on revenue alone. Unfortunately cross-pledging has also led to stupid pork projects like the Chickasaw Turnpike.

So whether cross-pledging is a good idea or not depends on whether you think the means justify the ends of getting some expensive projects done on the toll authority's dime instead of the taxpayer's.

[NJRoadfan]

Remember that in NJ, the New Jersey Highway Authority (ran Garden State Parkway) couldn't support itself. Not because it didn't have enough volume, but because raising tolls was politically unpopular. So they merged it with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which happened to have a toll road that could subsidize the low Parkway tolls.

[cpzilliacus]

Truth. The 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, all seem to be solutions to a non-existent problem. The Turnpike should have been widened to 6 lanes entirely by now, and I-476/PA 9 should have been four lanes with full shoulders by now. At that point, tolls should have been retired if that was in the original agreement (this I do not know), and only the new roads should have been tolled. Fun factoid: I bet none of the other roads can support themselves on the tolls they generate.

IMHO, the 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, were very worthwhile projects, but should not have been funded by revenues from the mainline turnpike (E-W and NE Ext) that should have been spent for upgrades and maintenance on the mainline turnpike. 

In Oklahoma, OTA calls this practice "cross-pledging". A few of Oklahoma's 10 turnpikes cannot sustain themselves, and instead leach money from the more popular turnpikes (mostly the Will Rogers and the Turner, which both carry I-44). Cross-pledging has come in handy to build badly needed but unprofitable ventures when ODOT was too broke to do it, like the Cherokee Turnpike, which bypasses a dangerous winding section of old SH 33 (this highway is now Scenic US 412). Since it's a rural area that doesn't really have much thru traffic (other than maybe Tulsa—NW AR traffic), the Cherokee probably wouldn't have justified itself on revenue alone. Unfortunately cross-pledging has also led to stupid pork projects like the Chickasaw Turnpike.

So whether cross-pledging is a good idea or not depends on whether you think the means justify the ends of getting some expensive projects done on the toll authority's dime instead of the taxpayer's.

In Maryland, the MdTA (the state toll road and toll crossing agency) puts all revenue in one "basket," and the bonds it sells have recourse against that "basket" of tolls.  At least since the MdTA was created in the early 1970's, that's the way that toll road and toll crossing bonds have been pledged (it might have been different in the years prior to that).

[cpzilliacus]

IOW, not only is the E-W mainline possibly supporting the outlying toll roads, but the entire system is definitely supporting the non-toll, non-Turnpike road system Commonwealth-wide.

Don't a lot of those diverted toll revenues end up in the wage and benefit package that is paid to hourly transit workers - in particular the employees of SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County?

[Alps]

Remember that in NJ, the New Jersey Highway Authority (ran Garden State Parkway) couldn't support itself. Not because it didn't have enough volume, but because raising tolls was politically unpopular. So they merged it with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which happened to have a toll road that could subsidize the low Parkway tolls.

That explains why the NJHA was so shoddy - the NJTA is still trying to bring the Parkway up to speed with the Turnpike over 10 years later. Anyway, now the NJTA seems to have figured out how to raise Parkway tolls. And if 75-cent directional tolls ($1.50 every other plaza) seems like a jump from 35 cents, well the tolls started at 25 cents in the 50s. Suddenly, not so bad?

[empirestate]

The Thruway exits are officially named but they are not shown on any public facing signs or documents.  I believe Exit 26 is "Schenectady West" and Exit 25 is "Schenectady East". Exit 34A is "Collamer".  Exit 39 is "State Fair".  Exit 38 is "Electronics Park".  I believe many of the others are named by control destination.

Any idea where these are listed?  Even the toll tickets don't use those!
I would have also thought that Electronics Park would be exit 37.

Well, make your own list! What would you name them? I've thought about that before.

[machias]

Ohio Turnpike used to (still does?) have names for its exits. Did the Indiana Toll-Road or New York Thruway name their exits?

The Thruway exits are officially named but they are not shown on any public facing signs or documents.  I believe Exit 26 is "Schenectady West" and Exit 25 is "Schenectady East". Exit 34A is "Collamer".  Exit 39 is "State Fair".  Exit 38 is "Electronics Park".  I believe many of the others are named by control destination.

Any idea where these are listed?  Even the toll tickets don't use those!
I would have also thought that Electronics Park would be exit 37.

My bad, Exit 37 is Electronics Park, not Exit 38.   I think Exit 38 is just called Liverpool.

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: Penn Pike chooses HNTB to manage move to AET/cashless tolling

2012-07-20: The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission announced today that HNTB had been selected after a competitive procurement to manage conversion of the Turnpike system to all-electronic tolling (AET.)

The Turnpike in a statement today said that AET "offers numerous advantages to motorists and the agency, including enhanced safety, a cleaner environment, improved customer convenience and operational efficiencies."

[cpzilliacus]

I guess that we can't take that news seriously, then?



OTOH, even a duffer will nail one every now and then.



Mike

Cashless tolling is (finally) starting to catch on in a big way, though it has taken a while.  California has had it for years on I-15 in San Diego County and on Ca. 91 in Orange County; and Ontario has had it from the start on Highway 407. 

But Florida has converted two toll roads in South Florida to cashless; NYMTA Bridge and Tunnel is going in the direction of cashless at the Henry Hudson Bridge; there is at least one cashless toll highway in Texas; the HOV/Toll lanes on I-85 in Georgia are all-electronic toll collection; and now we have the ICC in Maryland and the Tri-Ex in North Carolina open with no cash accepted.

The HOV/Toll lanes on I-495 in Virginia will not be accepting any cash either.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission announced quite a few months ago that it was going to study a transition to cashless toll collection.

TOLLROADSNews has (accurately) reported about all of the above.  Even if some people at FHWA don't like its editor.  And if he gets something wrong (and sometimes he does), he appreciates corrections.

All-electronic tolls are definitely the future - it is expensive to handle that much cash.  I have watched cash being picked-up at two toll facilities over the years, and it is a labor-intensive and expensive process to collect, count, transport and account for all of that money. 

[vdeane]

Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?

The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).

[cpzilliacus]

Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?

I think the intentions are for the N.J. Turnpike Authority to convert the  Garden State Parkway to cashless first.  Maybe because it handles less out-of-state traffic (and the northern portion does not allow trucks)?

The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).

Hence E-ZPass, which is issued by a lot of states in the East, and will be expanding south to include North Carolina in the near future.

Rental car companies are now equipping their vehicles with toll transponders (at least in E-ZPass territory) to avoid the high charges associated with toll-by-plate.

But speaking of non-locals, the bigger outrage (in my opinion) is electronic toll discounts granted only to in-state vehicles.  That should be forbidden by federal law.

[empirestate]

Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?

The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).

Also, for a truly all-electronic toll system, you'd have to actually prevent cash payers from using the road. As we know, cash is legal tender for all debts; anyone who finds his way onto the toll road thereby incurs a debt to the tolling authority, and therefore has the option to satisfy that debt with cash. But if there were, say, a gate that only opens upon receipt of an electronic payment, you would prevent cash payers from getting onto the road in the first place and prevent that debt from being incurred.

(It's the same as buying something from a web site that only accepts credit cards. If you don't have a credit card, you don't get to have the item, and therefore you have no debt. But on the other hand–and this has happened to a friend of mine–say you try to check out of a hotel and are told they don't accept cash. They would thus waive their right to collect on the debt, because you have already used the service and can expect to pay for it using cash.

[Alps]

Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?

The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).

* The NJ Turnpike is planning to do just that, but of course the toll union will continue to have a say. Part of the plan may be to move toll takers into other positions as they become available, but I can't see that as a workable process due to the timeframe involved.
* I would imagine the Parkway would go AET first because it can be done on a plaza-specific basis. In fact, it may go one interchange at a time. Interchange "6A" (US 130) is another low-hanging fruit on the Turnpike system. Otherwise, the rest of the Turnpike probably goes at the same time.
* Chicago area has the highest non-tag AET fees I've seen - double the toll rate for billing. Other agencies have the fee as low as 25% to 30% above the tag rate. Right now E-ZPass discounts are in the 20% to 25% range, so this certainly doesn't seem onerous like you imply.
* Regarding the owner being billed regardless of who drives - the same thing happens with photo enforcement of speed and red lights. Up to the owner to collect from the driver. That's established enough now that I don't think it will pose a stumbling block.

[jeffandnicole]

Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?

The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).

Also, for a truly all-electronic toll system, you'd have to actually prevent cash payers from using the road. As we know, cash is legal tender for all debts; anyone who finds his way onto the toll road thereby incurs a debt to the tolling authority, and therefore has the option to satisfy that debt with cash. But if there were, say, a gate that only opens upon receipt of an electronic payment, you would prevent cash payers from getting onto the road in the first place and prevent that debt from being incurred.

(It's the same as buying something from a web site that only accepts credit cards. If you don't have a credit card, you don't get to have the item, and therefore you have no debt. But on the other hand–and this has happened to a friend of mine–say you try to check out of a hotel and are told they don't accept cash. They would thus waive their right to collect on the debt, because you have already used the service and can expect to pay for it using cash.

You are certainly permitted to pay your toll with cash.  When you receive your bill, you can go to the authority's headquarters and pay with cash at that time.  You are also not required to use the toll way.  If you don't want to pay the toll, you are welcome to find another route.  It may not be as fast, and it may take you 3 times as long, but no one is forcing you to use a toll road.

As for open-road tolling, my first experience with it without the proper tag was in South Florida.  I went thru 3 toll points.  About 45 days later, I was sent the bill showing one of the pictures, 3 tolls for $1.00 each, and a $2.50 service charge.  All in all, I paid $5.50 for 3 tolls, which from the area where I live, seems like a bargain!

On the website that I was provided to view the images, they were amazingly clear.  2 of the pics were the front of the vehicle (since NJ has front tags). I could easily see inside the vehicle.  It makes me wonder what people see going on in the vehicles!!!

[vdeane]

Hence E-ZPass, which is issued by a lot of states in the East, and will be expanding south to include North Carolina in the near future.

E-ZPass wouldn't help me in Texas, Kansas, California, Ontario, Quebec, or anywhere else outside of the E-ZPass system.

[Compulov]

Hence E-ZPass, which is issued by a lot of states in the East, and will be expanding south to include North Carolina in the near future.

E-ZPass wouldn't help me in Texas, Kansas, California, Ontario, Quebec, or anywhere else outside of the E-ZPass system.

Wasn't there some talk about using high speed cameras and some sort of cross-collection system to allow for interoperability? That is, you don't need to be able to use the same tag everywhere; instead, there'd be a centralized db which would send the charge back to the home agency for payment. Yes, I do realize this means trying to get very political agencies to work together, but seeing how this would (could?) be a mutually beneficial arrangement, I think it'd be best. Beats having to track down and collect cash tolls from vehicles not in the system (and ideally, would allow the agencies to avoid a service fee).

[1995hoo]

Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?

The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).

Also, for a truly all-electronic toll system, you'd have to actually prevent cash payers from using the road. As we know, cash is legal tender for all debts; anyone who finds his way onto the toll road thereby incurs a debt to the tolling authority, and therefore has the option to satisfy that debt with cash. But if there were, say, a gate that only opens upon receipt of an electronic payment, you would prevent cash payers from getting onto the road in the first place and prevent that debt from being incurred.

(It's the same as buying something from a web site that only accepts credit cards. If you don't have a credit card, you don't get to have the item, and therefore you have no debt. But on the other hand–and this has happened to a friend of mine–say you try to check out of a hotel and are told they don't accept cash. They would thus waive their right to collect on the debt, because you have already used the service and can expect to pay for it using cash.

You are certainly permitted to pay your toll with cash.  When you receive your bill, you can go to the authority's headquarters and pay with cash at that time.  You are also not required to use the toll way.  If you don't want to pay the toll, you are welcome to find another route.  It may not be as fast, and it may take you 3 times as long, but no one is forcing you to use a toll road.

....

You can also mail in a cash payment if you wish. I think most people would agree that it's foolish to do that, but nothing's stopping anyone from paying that way. The "NO CASH" signs simply mean that there are no tollbooths anywhere along the route accepting cash payments (compare to some toll roads where the booths are unmanned at certain hours such that an E-ZPass, exact coins, or a credit card is required).

Hence E-ZPass, which is issued by a lot of states in the East, and will be expanding south to include North Carolina in the near future.

E-ZPass wouldn't help me in Texas, Kansas, California, Ontario, Quebec, or anywhere else outside of the E-ZPass system.

Wasn't there some talk about using high speed cameras and some sort of cross-collection system to allow for interoperability? That is, you don't need to be able to use the same tag everywhere; instead, there'd be a centralized db which would send the charge back to the home agency for payment. Yes, I do realize this means trying to get very political agencies to work together, but seeing how this would (could?) be a mutually beneficial arrangement, I think it'd be best. Beats having to track down and collect cash tolls from vehicles not in the system (and ideally, would allow the agencies to avoid a service fee).

"mtantillo" of this forum mentioned a couple of months ago that Florida was ready to allow E-ZPass users to use the SunPass lanes via an arrangement where the SunPass video enforcement would read your license plate number and then before the "toll-by-plate" bill goes out it would query the E-ZPass database for that plate number, find that you have an E-ZPass, and bill your account (meaning you wouldn't even need to have your E-ZPass transponder with you). The problem is that it's not as easy for the E-ZPass agencies to turn around and do the same thing. The issue is that some of the E-ZPass members–the one that comes to my mind immediately is the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (or whatever its new name is)–persist in using the old toll machine gates in the "E-ZPass Only" lanes, such that when you go through those lanes you have to come to a crawl until the arm goes up to clear the way. The arm won't go up if you don't have an E-ZPass. I know this is not totally unique to those facilities in New York City, as last summer (2011) the Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami had a similar setup on their "C-Pass Only" lane ("C-Pass" being their proprietary transponder that was being phased out this year in favor of SunPass). So because SunPass, for example, is not compatible with E-ZPass, the SunPass won't activate the arm in the E-ZPass lane and you get a tailback, which is precisely what automated toll collection is supposed to eliminate.

I have no idea whether this problem can be overcome in a way that allows those agencies to maintain the old toll machine arms if they insist on doing so as a means of fighting against toll cheats. Obviously the better solution is to remove the arms and use video enforcement in the same manner Florida proposes to do, but perhaps some of the agencies feel that they'd wind up dealing with non-transponder drivers going through those lanes (which is exactly why they persist in using the annoying arms) and I guess they don't want to go to the expense of sending bills to one-time users and the like.

[Compulov]

"mtantillo" of this forum mentioned a couple of months ago that Florida was ready to allow E-ZPass users to use the SunPass lanes via an arrangement where the SunPass video enforcement would read your license plate number and then before the "toll-by-plate" bill goes out it would query the E-ZPass database for that plate number, find that you have an E-ZPass, and bill your account (meaning you wouldn't even need to have your E-ZPass transponder with you). The problem is that it's not as easy for the E-ZPass agencies to turn around and do the same thing. The issue is that some of the E-ZPass members—the one that comes to my mind immediately is the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (or whatever its new name is)—persist in using the old toll machine gates in the "E-ZPass Only" lanes, such that when you go through those lanes you have to come to a crawl until the arm goes up to clear the way. The arm won't go up if you don't have an E-ZPass. I know this is not totally unique to those facilities in New York City, as last summer (2011) the Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami had a similar setup on their "C-Pass Only" lane ("C-Pass" being their proprietary transponder that was being phased out this year in favor of SunPass). So because SunPass, for example, is not compatible with E-ZPass, the SunPass won't activate the arm in the E-ZPass lane and you get a tailback, which is precisely what automated toll collection is supposed to eliminate.

I have no idea whether this problem can be overcome in a way that allows those agencies to maintain the old toll machine arms if they insist on doing so as a means of fighting against toll cheats. Obviously the better solution is to remove the arms and use video enforcement in the same manner Florida proposes to do, but perhaps some of the agencies feel that they'd wind up dealing with non-transponder drivers going through those lanes (which is exactly why they persist in using the annoying arms) and I guess they don't want to go to the expense of sending bills to one-time users and the like.

Those arms need to go the hell away. DRJTBC got rid of their gates in 2010 because they now have high speed cameras to catch violators. (Reference: http://www.drjtbc.org/default.aspx?pageid=1697 ). Why can't other agencies follow suit? I'm looking at you Burlington County Bridge Commission! 
Does anyone have any numbers on the effectiveness of a gate (which, at least in the BCBC and DRJTBC lanes, you were able to bump out of the way) vs. collections after the fact using video tolling? I know the NJTA has had some collection issues from their top offenders, but what % of violations end up getting collected in the end? A criminal is a criminal... no point in holding back innovation if only some are abusing the system.

[empirestate]

You are certainly permitted to pay your toll with cash.  When you receive your bill, you can go to the authority's headquarters and pay with cash at that time.  You are also not required to use the toll way.  If you don't want to pay the toll, you are welcome to find another route.  It may not be as fast, and it may take you 3 times as long, but no one is forcing you to use a toll road.

....

You can also mail in a cash payment if you wish. I think most people would agree that it's foolish to do that, but nothing's stopping anyone from paying that way. The "NO CASH" signs simply mean that there are no tollbooths anywhere along the route accepting cash payments (compare to some toll roads where the booths are unmanned at certain hours such that an E-ZPass, exact coins, or a credit card is required).

That's all quite true, but it raises a couple of issues:

-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.