E-ZPass on the Mackinac Bridge?

[Flint1979]

1. It doesn't make much sense to get a transponder for a one-off trip,

The same argument can be made for the majority of Michigan drivers who might travel on an out of state toll road once every 2 or 3 years.

And I forget the exact number, but an incredibly high number of Michigan residents have never been across the Mackinac Bridge.  There just doesn't seem to be a demand for EZ Pass.

Yeah I bet if I went around the Lower Peninsula especially this part of the peninsula there would be a number of people that would say nope never been across the Mackinac Bridge. There really isn't a demand to be in the U.P. and myself I go up there often because I have a place in Cedarville but when I go I'm in the U.P. for a couple weeks straight and don't cross the bridge again until I'm coming back to Saginaw.

[SEWIGuy]

It is not that big of a deal to stop, pay and go really. It's pretty well known that it costs $4 to cross the bridge so you can have your money ready well ahead of time. Surveys have been done and have shown that very few Mackinac Bridge customers use other transponders. Why would they use a transponder that very few of their customers have?

This question has been answered multiple times. Why don't you read the last few pages and report back.

Then why is the discussion still going on?

Because you are unwilling to accept the obvious answer.

[Rothman]

"Not needed" is a pretty low bar.  By that standard, very few innovations would be worth it from that standpoint.  Again, there is no harm in implementing E-ZPass at the brige and it would be a simple improvement with some level of benefit.

Well hey, while we're at it, why not build a bridge across Lake Michigan between Muskegon and Milwaukee, or Muskegon to Chicago, or both?  The cost would be astronomical, the tolls would be astronomical, it would be extremely impractical and absolutely unnecessary, but so what?  The important thing is that you could put E-Z Pass on  the Wisconsin and/or Illinois sides and these cheeseheads and Illinoisites would get orgasms about paying tolls because they don't actually feel like they're paying a toll with E-Z Pass.   But in all seriousness, there is a big drawback to implementing E-Z Pass on The Mackinac Bridge: Once that happens and E-Z Pass is implemented, Our state government, especially under its present leadership would say "well since we now have E-Z Pass let's start tolling every major freeway."

Mac's already tolled and operated by a semi-public authority.  So, that wouldn't happen (i.e., MI would have to set up a whole new authority and given the fact the MBA has already existed with its MacPass, it's totally unlikely that the proposal to toll everything would be made just by adding E-ZPass).

[Rothman]

Only $25

For some, "only $25" is the choice between food and shelter.  Surprised this argument has been going on as long as it has.

You're also not going to be able to drive through the tollbooth at 75 mph, so why bother?  Stop for ten seconds, hand over four bucks, then drive on and enjoy the scenery.  EZPass is only good for people in a hurry.

Even just drviing through a booth at 10 mph is far faster and more convienent than the following:
1. Wait in line behind everyone else.
2. For those of us who don't have passengers to get the money, holding up the line to get out our wallet and money.
3. For those of us who don't use cash often, having to stuff a large amount of change back into our wallet after breaking a 20 (and then later having to find some way to get rid of the change that makes said wallet feel inconveniently thick).

Trust me, I know.  When I went off to college, getting E-ZPass was one of the first things I did because I didn't want to be fumbling with cash while driving myself on the Thruway.  Family gatherings gave me the ability to compare/contrast the cash experience, as my parents didn't get E-ZPass until the Thruway went AET.

Also, this idea that toll plazas would need to be reconfigured is ludicrous, to the point where I question whether the people against E-ZPass in this thread have ever driven on roads like the Ohio Turnpike, PA Turnpike, NJ Turnpike, or the Thruway prior to AET implementation.  They could just switch the MacPass lanes to E-ZPass.  Easy peasy.  In fact, I would think it would have been easier and cheaper than creating their own proprietary transponder that works nowhere else, which is what they did.  Maybe that's why MacPass is more expensive than even the 407's transponder.

Come to think of it, Buffalo was the area in NY (with electronic tolling) with the lowest E-ZPass usage rate, and I want to say that the Ohio Turnpike was the last major toll facility east of the Mississippi (and possibly the whole country) to implement a transponder.  Plus the Wabash Bridge was famous for having its own proprietary transponder despite being in E-ZPass territory.  Is there some Midwest cultural thing against electronic tolling and interoperability?

I would hope that the Macinac Bridge is not like the Atlantic Beach Bridge, which has refused E-ZPass mainly because they're a corrupt political patronage operation that doesn't want anyone to know what their financials look like.  That, and the people on the island see the tolls as a way to keep out-of-towners out (among a bunch of other measures, like parking restrictions and implementing a maze of one-way streets).  They're so obstinate against E-ZPass, they're even considering going AET with no transponder - bill by mail only (presumably their commuter decals would still somehow be accepted).

Do you guys think your lifestyle is threatened or something?  Want to use cash?  You don't have to get E-ZPass.  Why force those of us who would rather use E-ZPass to use cash instead just because you hate change (pun not intended)?  I couldn't care less if you want to be a Luddite or not, I just don't want to be inconvenienced as a result.

Honestly, I wish every single toll facility on the continent took E-ZPass (and also that any remaining cash-only or cash-only-below-a-certain-amount places would take credit cards; cash is SO inconvenient, though bill by mail is worse).

Well if that's true then you should very well know that during the week there are absolutely no lines at the toll booths and on summer weekends-especially holiday weekends-traffic is going to be backed up for miles and your E-Z Pass isn't going to get you through that parking lot any quicker.  In fact, since there is no room to expand or add lanes, a few of the toll booth lanes would have to be dedicated to E-Z Pass, which means fewer facilities to handle the paying of tolls, which means longer waits and even  longer backups!

Eh, just change it over to AET and toll-by-plate.  No problem.

If they already have a pass of their own, then we are really only talking about keeping the status quo and just increasing transponder compatibility of their system.

[Flint1979]

It is not that big of a deal to stop, pay and go really. It's pretty well known that it costs $4 to cross the bridge so you can have your money ready well ahead of time. Surveys have been done and have shown that very few Mackinac Bridge customers use other transponders. Why would they use a transponder that very few of their customers have?

This question has been answered multiple times. Why don't you read the last few pages and report back.

Then why is the discussion still going on?

Because you are unwilling to accept the obvious answer.

That is the answer that the Mackinac Bridge Authority is going to give too.

[vdeane]

But in all seriousness, there is a big drawback to implementing E-Z Pass on The Mackinac Bridge: Once that happens and E-Z Pass is implemented, Our state government, especially under its present leadership would say "well since we now have E-Z Pass let's start tolling every major freeway."

The only places that has happened is in Pennsylvania (which has failed in the past but the current effort looks to be more successful) and Connecticut (failed, in large part because they wanted to toll commuter traffic passing through on I-684 to significant protest from New York), and Connecticut doesn't have any toll roads, so E-ZPass has nothing to do with it.

In fact, since there is no room to expand or add lanes, a few of the toll booth lanes would have to be dedicated to E-Z Pass, which means fewer facilities to handle the paying of tolls, which means longer waits and even  longer backups!

You guys still haven't explained why they couldn't just convert the existing MacPass lanes to accept E-ZPass.

If they already have a pass of their own, then we are really only talking about keeping the status quo and just increasing transponder compatibility of their system.

They do, which is what makes the strong opposition from even forum members to interoperability so hard to understand.  Why they went with their own system instead of just joining E-ZPass like the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority did is beyond me.  There is literally no downside.  They could even have kept the MacPass brand and issued sticker tags for those who didn't want a hard-case transponder, just like RiverLink down by Louisville.

[Flint1979]

MacPass is intended for people that cross the bridge on a daily basis.

[Rothman]

This link: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151--571899--,00.html has the overview for Michigan's 5 Year Transportation Program. Details on the plan are at this link: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/Five-Year_Transportation_Program_713823_7.pdf

Some highlights:
Rebuilding I-69 from Fenton to M-54 (Dort Highway)
Fixing I-196 in W. Michigan
Rebuild I-96 in Oakland County to include "Flex lanes", similar to US-23 in Washtenaw & Oakland Counties
Work on M-37 in the Traverse City area
Continued work on the I-94/US-31/Bus. I-94 interchange and adjacent roads near Benton Harbor
Work on US-41 in Houghton
Reconstruct I-94 in Jackson County

I just glanced over the document so I don't know if this includes the just passed Infrastructure Plan in Congress

No E-ZPass on the Mac?

[Terry Shea]

"Not needed" is a pretty low bar.  By that standard, very few innovations would be worth it from that standpoint.  Again, there is no harm in implementing E-ZPass at the brige and it would be a simple improvement with some level of benefit.

Well hey, while we're at it, why not build a bridge across Lake Michigan between Muskegon and Milwaukee, or Muskegon to Chicago, or both?  The cost would be astronomical, the tolls would be astronomical, it would be extremely impractical and absolutely unnecessary, but so what?  The important thing is that you could put E-Z Pass on  the Wisconsin and/or Illinois sides and these cheeseheads and Illinoisites would get orgasms about paying tolls because they don't actually feel like they're paying a toll with E-Z Pass.   But in all seriousness, there is a big drawback to implementing E-Z Pass on The Mackinac Bridge: Once that happens and E-Z Pass is implemented, Our state government, especially under its present leadership would say "well since we now have E-Z Pass let's start tolling every major freeway."

Mac's already tolled and operated by a semi-public authority.  So, that wouldn't happen (i.e., MI would have to set up a whole new authority and given the fact the MBA has already existed with its MacPass, it's totally unlikely that the proposal to toll everything would be made just by adding E-ZPass).

It's already being discussed!  It would just be adding fuel to the fire.

[Rothman]

"Not needed" is a pretty low bar.  By that standard, very few innovations would be worth it from that standpoint.  Again, there is no harm in implementing E-ZPass at the brige and it would be a simple improvement with some level of benefit.

Well hey, while we're at it, why not build a bridge across Lake Michigan between Muskegon and Milwaukee, or Muskegon to Chicago, or both?  The cost would be astronomical, the tolls would be astronomical, it would be extremely impractical and absolutely unnecessary, but so what?  The important thing is that you could put E-Z Pass on  the Wisconsin and/or Illinois sides and these cheeseheads and Illinoisites would get orgasms about paying tolls because they don't actually feel like they're paying a toll with E-Z Pass.   But in all seriousness, there is a big drawback to implementing E-Z Pass on The Mackinac Bridge: Once that happens and E-Z Pass is implemented, Our state government, especially under its present leadership would say "well since we now have E-Z Pass let's start tolling every major freeway."

Mac's already tolled and operated by a semi-public authority.  So, that wouldn't happen (i.e., MI would have to set up a whole new authority and given the fact the MBA has already existed with its MacPass, it's totally unlikely that the proposal to toll everything would be made just by adding E-ZPass).

It's already being discussed!  It would just b adding fuel to the fire.

All the more reason to allow E-ZPass on the Mac, then.  If MI is going to toll all roads through some separate initiative, might as well convert everything to be E-ZPass compatible.

[Terry Shea]

But in all seriousness, there is a big drawback to implementing E-Z Pass on The Mackinac Bridge: Once that happens and E-Z Pass is implemented, Our state government, especially under its present leadership would say "well since we now have E-Z Pass let's start tolling every major freeway."

The only places that has happened is in Pennsylvania (which has failed in the past but the current effort looks to be more successful) and Connecticut (failed, in large part because they wanted to toll commuter traffic passing through on I-684 to significant protest from New York), and Connecticut doesn't have any toll roads, so E-ZPass has nothing to do with it.

In fact, since there is no room to expand or add lanes, a few of the toll booth lanes would have to be dedicated to E-Z Pass, which means fewer facilities to handle the paying of tolls, which means longer waits and even  longer backups!

You guys still haven't explained why they couldn't just convert the existing MacPass lanes to accept E-ZPass.

If they already have a pass of their own, then we are really only talking about keeping the status quo and just increasing transponder compatibility of their system.

They do, which is what makes the strong opposition from even forum members to interoperability so hard to understand.  Why they went with their own system instead of just joining E-ZPass like the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority did is beyond me.  There is literally no downside.  They could even have kept the MacPass brand and issued sticker tags for those who didn't want a hard-case transponder, just like RiverLink down by Louisville.

Well gee, since you seem to know exactly how our state is run, how all states are run and seem to have a tyrannical nature, why don't you just run our state?  You'd probably have to challenge our governor to a duel, but you couldn't possibly do any worse.  I just don't think you'd do any better and we're sick of tyrants!

[Terry Shea]

Ok.  You out of staters are right.  Put E-Z Pass on the Mackinac Bridge.  Take over Lansing and make it happen.  Then venture up to the straits and do the work yourself.  Hey, here's an idea.  While you're there, why not build a twin bridge that could be E-Z Pass only?

[Rothman]

Ok.  You out of staters are right.  Put E-Z Pass on the Mackinac Bridge.  Take over Lansing and make it happen.  Then venture up to the straits and do the work yourself.  Hey, here's an idea.  While you're there, why not build a twin bridge that could be E-Z Pass only?

No need to go to Lansing...the MBA's in St. Ignace...know thy own state...

[Terry Shea]

Ok.  You out of staters are right.  Put E-Z Pass on the Mackinac Bridge.  Take over Lansing and make it happen.  Then venture up to the straits and do the work yourself.  Hey, here's an idea.  While you're there, why not build a twin bridge that could be E-Z Pass only?

No need to go to Lansing...the MBA's in St. Ignace...know thy own state...

But the state capital is in Lansing.  Or are the tyrants going to move that too?

[Rothman]

Ok.  You out of staters are right.  Put E-Z Pass on the Mackinac Bridge.  Take over Lansing and make it happen.  Then venture up to the straits and do the work yourself.  Hey, here's an idea.  While you're there, why not build a twin bridge that could be E-Z Pass only?

No need to go to Lansing...the MBA's in St. Ignace...know thy own state...

But the state capital is in Lansing.  Or are the tyrants going to move that too?

Ok...

Look, the bridge is operated by an independent authority that is based in St. Ignace.  Therefore, if I wanted to lobby someone for E-ZPass on the bridge, I would go there, not Lansing, despite the capital being in Lansing.

[vdeane]

But in all seriousness, there is a big drawback to implementing E-Z Pass on The Mackinac Bridge: Once that happens and E-Z Pass is implemented, Our state government, especially under its present leadership would say "well since we now have E-Z Pass let's start tolling every major freeway."

The only places that has happened is in Pennsylvania (which has failed in the past but the current effort looks to be more successful) and Connecticut (failed, in large part because they wanted to toll commuter traffic passing through on I-684 to significant protest from New York), and Connecticut doesn't have any toll roads, so E-ZPass has nothing to do with it.

In fact, since there is no room to expand or add lanes, a few of the toll booth lanes would have to be dedicated to E-Z Pass, which means fewer facilities to handle the paying of tolls, which means longer waits and even  longer backups!

You guys still haven't explained why they couldn't just convert the existing MacPass lanes to accept E-ZPass.

If they already have a pass of their own, then we are really only talking about keeping the status quo and just increasing transponder compatibility of their system.

They do, which is what makes the strong opposition from even forum members to interoperability so hard to understand.  Why they went with their own system instead of just joining E-ZPass like the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority did is beyond me.  There is literally no downside.  They could even have kept the MacPass brand and issued sticker tags for those who didn't want a hard-case transponder, just like RiverLink down by Louisville.

Well gee, since you seem to know exactly how our state is run, how all states are run and seem to have a tyrannical nature, why don't you just run our state?  You'd probably have to challenge our governor to a duel, but you couldn't possibly do any worse.  I just don't think you'd do any better and we're sick of tyrants!

Wow.  Wanting interoperability between two different toll transponders is tyrannical?  Wow.  That said, I wouldn't be surprised if your "couldn't possibly do any worse" comment with respect to your governor comment is a sentiment shared with all the other people on this thread staunchly opposing E-ZPass too.  I figure this is just come cultural issue regarding keeping life from becoming "fast paced" and also a way to rail against the "East Coast Elites" or something like that.  It's the only theory that makes sense, at least unless someone manages to come up with a reason (that's actually true and not just a misconception or bad assumption) for why interoperability would be actually detrimental to them.

[SEWIGuy]

It is not that big of a deal to stop, pay and go really. It's pretty well known that it costs $4 to cross the bridge so you can have your money ready well ahead of time. Surveys have been done and have shown that very few Mackinac Bridge customers use other transponders. Why would they use a transponder that very few of their customers have?

This question has been answered multiple times. Why don't you read the last few pages and report back.

Then why is the discussion still going on?

Because you are unwilling to accept the obvious answer.

That is the answer that the Mackinac Bridge Authority is going to give too.

And you'll both be wrong.

[rhen_var]

"Not needed" is a pretty low bar.  By that standard, very few innovations would be worth it from that standpoint.  Again, there is no harm in implementing E-ZPass at the brige and it would be a simple improvement with some level of benefit.

Well hey, while we're at it, why not build a bridge across Lake Michigan between Muskegon and Milwaukee, or Muskegon to Chicago, or both?  The cost would be astronomical, the tolls would be astronomical, it would be extremely impractical and absolutely unnecessary, but so what?  The important thing is that you could put E-Z Pass on  the Wisconsin and/or Illinois sides and these cheeseheads and Illinoisites would get orgasms about paying tolls because they don't actually feel like they're paying a toll with E-Z Pass.   But in all seriousness, there is a big drawback to implementing E-Z Pass on The Mackinac Bridge: Once that happens and E-Z Pass is implemented, Our state government, especially under its present leadership would say "well since we now have E-Z Pass let's start tolling every major freeway."

The state legislature has already tasked MDOT with studying the feasibility of implementing toll roads on freeways, even without E-ZPass on the Mac: https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/07/mdot-to-study-toll-roads-for-michigan.html

[Terry Shea]

Ok.  You out of staters are right.  Put E-Z Pass on the Mackinac Bridge.  Take over Lansing and make it happen.  Then venture up to the straits and do the work yourself.  Hey, here's an idea.  While you're there, why not build a twin bridge that could be E-Z Pass only?

No need to go to Lansing...the MBA's in St. Ignace...know thy own state...

But the state capital is in Lansing.  Or are the tyrants going to move that too?

Ok...

Look, the bridge is operated by an independent authority that is based in St. Ignace.  Therefore, if I wanted to lobby someone for E-ZPass on the bridge, I would go there, not Lansing, despite the capital being in Lansing.

But you'd have to take over Lansing to impose tolls elsewhere.

[Terry Shea]

"Not needed" is a pretty low bar.  By that standard, very few innovations would be worth it from that standpoint.  Again, there is no harm in implementing E-ZPass at the brige and it would be a simple improvement with some level of benefit.

Well hey, while we're at it, why not build a bridge across Lake Michigan between Muskegon and Milwaukee, or Muskegon to Chicago, or both?  The cost would be astronomical, the tolls would be astronomical, it would be extremely impractical and absolutely unnecessary, but so what?  The important thing is that you could put E-Z Pass on  the Wisconsin and/or Illinois sides and these cheeseheads and Illinoisites would get orgasms about paying tolls because they don't actually feel like they're paying a toll with E-Z Pass.   But in all seriousness, there is a big drawback to implementing E-Z Pass on The Mackinac Bridge: Once that happens and E-Z Pass is implemented, Our state government, especially under its present leadership would say "well since we now have E-Z Pass let's start tolling every major freeway."

The state legislature has already tasked MDOT with studying the feasibility of implementing toll roads on freeways, even without E-ZPass on the Mac: https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/07/mdot-to-study-toll-roads-for-michigan.html

Yes, I'm well aware of that.  No need to encourage the tyrants further.

[Flint1979]

It is not that big of a deal to stop, pay and go really. It's pretty well known that it costs $4 to cross the bridge so you can have your money ready well ahead of time. Surveys have been done and have shown that very few Mackinac Bridge customers use other transponders. Why would they use a transponder that very few of their customers have?

This question has been answered multiple times. Why don't you read the last few pages and report back.

Then why is the discussion still going on?

Because you are unwilling to accept the obvious answer.

That is the answer that the Mackinac Bridge Authority is going to give too.

And you'll both be wrong.

Yeah the Authority that runs the Mackinac Bridge is going to be wrong on what transponders they want to use at their fare plaza. I don't believe that for a second. They have said very few of their customers use EZ pass so what benefit is there?

[Rothman]

It is not that big of a deal to stop, pay and go really. It's pretty well known that it costs $4 to cross the bridge so you can have your money ready well ahead of time. Surveys have been done and have shown that very few Mackinac Bridge customers use other transponders. Why would they use a transponder that very few of their customers have?

This question has been answered multiple times. Why don't you read the last few pages and report back.

Then why is the discussion still going on?

Because you are unwilling to accept the obvious answer.

That is the answer that the Mackinac Bridge Authority is going to give too.

And you'll both be wrong.

Yeah the Authority that runs the Mackinac Bridge is going to be wrong on what transponders they want to use at their fare plaza. I don't believe that for a second. They have said very few of their customers use EZ pass so what benefit is there?

Of course very few of their customers use E-ZPass if they don't have the compatibility...

[Rothman]

Ok.  You out of staters are right.  Put E-Z Pass on the Mackinac Bridge.  Take over Lansing and make it happen.  Then venture up to the straits and do the work yourself.  Hey, here's an idea.  While you're there, why not build a twin bridge that could be E-Z Pass only?

No need to go to Lansing...the MBA's in St. Ignace...know thy own state...

But the state capital is in Lansing.  Or are the tyrants going to move that too?

Ok...

Look, the bridge is operated by an independent authority that is based in St. Ignace.  Therefore, if I wanted to lobby someone for E-ZPass on the bridge, I would go there, not Lansing, despite the capital being in Lansing.

But you'd have to take over Lansing to impose tolls elsewhere.

Perhaps you need to read the quote chain again.

[vdeane]

Ok.  You out of staters are right.  Put E-Z Pass on the Mackinac Bridge.  Take over Lansing and make it happen.  Then venture up to the straits and do the work yourself.  Hey, here's an idea.  While you're there, why not build a twin bridge that could be E-Z Pass only?

No need to go to Lansing...the MBA's in St. Ignace...know thy own state...

But the state capital is in Lansing.  Or are the tyrants going to move that too?

Ok...

Look, the bridge is operated by an independent authority that is based in St. Ignace.  Therefore, if I wanted to lobby someone for E-ZPass on the bridge, I would go there, not Lansing, despite the capital being in Lansing.

But you'd have to take over Lansing to impose tolls elsewhere.

I don't get where you got this idea that Rothman and I want to toll all the roads in Michigan by having the Mackinac Bridge be interoperable with E-ZPass?  What we've been saying is that whether the bridge takes E-ZPass or not doesn't affect whether Michigan would toll anything else or not.  If they're already proposing it, then clearly not having E-ZPass on the bridge isn't acting as an impediment.

For the record, I'm not exactly a fan of tolling everything.  The interstates were intended to be free.  If I had my way, tolls would only be allowed on major bridges/tunnels (like the Mackinac) or as dynamically priced HOT lanes with a requirement for parallel free lanes (exception for I-66 inside the Beltway, as it was never open to SOVs during rush hour due to the special arrangement that allowed it to be built at all and the conversion to HOT lanes didn't actually take away any free capacity).  Remaining toll roads (like the Thruway) would then be required to become free once all current bonds are paid off, allowing the interstate system to finally fulfill Ike's vision of a US Autobahn.

[vdeane]

The trolls are never going to give up on this.  They are either bots or bullies.  They aren't going to give in or give up until the moderators lock this thread.  It's ultimately what they want.

Wow.  First "tyrants" and now "trolls".  What noun starting with T will you guys think of next?  Why is it so hard for you guys to believe that what we want is exactly what we say we want and nothing more - to move closer to meeting the interoperability mandate Congress placed in MAP-21?  We were supposed to have it so that every transponder would work on ever road with electronic tolling across the country by October 2016.  If only Congress had put in place penalties for non-compliance...

That said, mods feel free to split this discussion into its own thread.