Should there be a national toll road user's bill of rights imposed by Congress - at least on toll road agencies that issue bonds with interest exempt from federal taxation?
IMO, yes.
Suggestions for such a list:
- a ban on "transponder discrimination;" (MTantillo's great phrase, which I have adopted);
- no Breezewoods and similar non-connections between limited-access "free" roads and toll roads (because Congress is to blame for Breezewoods, Congress should fund a mandated Breezewood remediation effort);
- nationwide toll transponder interoperability;
- a uniform way of resolving disputes;
- a uniform way of telling motorists what the cost of using a toll road will be (within reason) before they enter a toll road;
- public disclosure of the amount of toll revenue diverted to non-toll road uses (e.g. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, N.Y. MTA Bridge and Tunnel and MWAA, among other offenders); and
- a uniform and nationwide toll classification schedule.
What Congress should not do is to tell toll roads and toll crossings what they should charge.
Your thoughts?
You're putting together a bunch of different issues:
*fairness: transponder interoperability, knowledge of what a toll is before you enter (but how would this work? minimum to first exit? maximum to the end?)
*desire to see the country without stopping: no "Breezewoods"
*your own personal dislike of rail transit and helping those less fortunate or who choose to pollute less
Quote from: NE2 on December 04, 2014, 04:03:00 PM
....
*your own personal dislike of rail transit and helping those less fortunate or who choose to pollute less
WTF? :rolleyes:
Re: nationwide toll transponder interoperability, etc: This is kind of draconian if you think about it. Toll roads, and especially bridges are (or can be) owned by private companies, and if not, states or multi-state partnerships. Why should Congress get to control how tolls are collected, especially if they receive no federal funding? Regional interoperability is coming about organically, without government control. I wish some of the smaller bridges in New Jersey (hear by Atlantic City) accepted EZ-Pass instead of something they cooked up, but tehy're private companies, so we can't really force them too.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2014, 03:48:18 PM
nationwide toll transponder interoperability
Makes more sense out east, but west of Texas, there isn't a lot of toll facilities. California has a quite a few, and Washington has some as well. I don't think either of us would benefit from a national standard. If Oregon started to build toll facilities, then I could see the case.
I understand the point of a national standard, but it's going to be a hard sell to Olympia. We can't even pass a transport budget, let alone fund the implementation of a national tolling tag that would stand to benefit virtually no one except rental car agencies. That's not say that it can't happen (I don't think it would cost that much), but
right now, it's unlikely that Olympia would set aside any money for it.
Honestly, more people from the Seattle area drive to the Lower Mainland of British Columbia than they do to SoCal. I would rather see a Canada/USA toll authority given the growing number of toll bridges in Vancouver.
I like everything else you've mentioned, though. Seems like a pretty good idea to have some sort of national law.
Here's the thing: in a few areas (New York, mainly), rail systems and crossings have the same operator. It all goes into a big pot and distributed as needed. Also, bridge tolls in the area function as a congestion charge. Encourage people to carpool, use mass transit, and keep their cars out of dense urban areas.
One thing we don't need is to put Congress in charge of more stuff. Classifications are pretty standardized as it is. Interoperability will happen as agencies see the benefits of doing so (more users, fewer toll takers required, etc). Also, as NYSTA, TBTA, Port Authority, PTC, and quite a few other operators are state agencies, such regulations would effectively constitute a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2014, 03:55:19 PM
Your thoughts?
1 - No toll $$ should be spent on the police. When a new freeway opens, nobody frets about how to pay the random taxers for their "services". Same should be for toll roads. Whatever amount of "service" the random taxers wish to provide on the toll road should be funded out of their regular appropriations.
2 - Obviously there should be one, continent-wide, toll transponder with one clearing house. IMHO, the trucking industry should would gladly pay the tiny overhead costs.
3 - Tolls should be set at a financially sound basis to repay the bonds and then tolls ended. No toll money should ever be spent on anything else. People that like communal transit should pay for communal transit. People who want to use tolls (or any other form of tax) to get people to drive less or whatever should be dismissed as the loons they are.
4 - When bonds are paid off, tolls end.
5 - Other than the toll takers themselves, toll roads should have ZERO employees who are not found in a normal freeway highway district. PR people, etc.
6 - Toll roads should not charge any additional $$ to exit and re-enter, (a much easier thing to do with transponders than previously) thus fostering PRIVATE FREE ENTERPRISE service providers at exits.
7 - No toll $$ should be spent on foolish boondoggles like Scamarack.
8 - No toll money should be "invested" in anything. 100% of the profit should be spent to retire bonds.
I don't like toll surcharges. There should be no charge to have a transponder, no monthly fees, nothing of that sort. I might be okay with some sort of deposit.
Also, if toll-by-plate is done, where they send you a bill at the end of the month or you pay online or whatever, there should be no surcharge for that, either. Paying 5 dollars or so for the privilege of being tolled is just not right.
First off, there is a congressional mandate in MAP-21 for national transponder interoperability. Prior to that point, you had E-ZPass, which was a national model in interstate interoperability, and then you had a bunch of other toll agencies doing their own thing. A whole lot of talk about interoperability, and no meaningful action. Finally Congress said enough is enough and slipped the language into the transportation reauthorization bill that national interoperability needs to happen by October 2016. A lot of why it is painfully slow to get these agreements in place is because each agency wants to bureaucratically negotiate an agreement with every other agency on a peer-to-peer basis rather than find a consistent national solution. No one could agree on anything. So now that there is a mandate out there, we are seeing slow but meaningful progress. I have no doubt that by October 2016, we will be most of the way there in terms of interoperability. There may be some holes, some holdout agencies, some tolling done by video instead of by transponder, and some "dual mode" transponders to bridge technology gaps, but ultimately a rudimentary system will be up and running.
"Transponder discrimination" sucks! It is dumb. It is nothing more than a money-making scheme for toll agencies to grab money from someone who lives far away and doesn't vote in that jurisdiction. It does not cost anything more to process an out-of-state E-ZPass transaction vs. an in-state one, so why are out-of-state people who do the right thing, the green thing, the thing that saves the toll agency money on toll collectors/back office invoicing, why are those people being penalized simply for living in a different state? That is against the spirit of interoperability. To the best of my knowledge, this is a uniquely northeast phenominon that occurs in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York (TBTA only), New Jersey (Turnpike off-peak discount only), Maryland, and West Virginia. Each and every other state within the E-ZPass network, and other interoperability schemes have two toll rates...electronic and cash/bill by mail. Electronic tolling is electronic tolling, no matter which state issued your device.
This article illustrates the absurdity of the practice: http://archive.lohud.com/article/20120602/NEWS02/306020062/E-ZPass-can-cost-cash-price-out-state-many-pay-more-unknowingly
I particularly enjoyed the comment about carrying around a "bucket of E-ZPasses", since I do just that to counteract the transponder discrimination. A search of some other forums indicates that I'm not the only one...apparently a lot of people in NYC area carry accounts from both NJ and NY for getting discounts on both MTA facilities and the NJ Turnpike. Why should that be necessary if we have interoperability? The whole purpose of interoperability is so you do not have to open up multiple accounts!
A ban on Breezewoods...not sure how I feel. That might be going a bit too far to force a state to construct something that the same Congress forced creation of. It would certainly be nice, and Congress could propose funding the connections, but not sure the states should be forced to accept it or else.
Not really sure the best way of telling someone what the toll price is in advance of a toll facility, especially on distance-based facilities. I think that either the information should be posted on signs (for any facility that takes cash, or any all electronic facility that has variable tolls), or should be published somewhere that a driver can look it up in advance of their trip. Right now there is a requirement that the fact that you are entering a toll road be posted on signs. I would prefer they take it a step further and let you know if they do not accept cash payment....right now if it is all-electronic but they do a bill-by-mail system, they only have to tell you it is a toll road. That I disagree with, since there are some people who won't mind paying a toll, but would mind paying by plate (rental car customers who could get slapped with huge surcharges).
Public disclosure of diversions....why not? Transparency is good, right? FHWA on their new interstate tolling schemes requires that money only be spent in that corridor, and prohibits diversion away from that corridor. Meanwhile, older toll authorities do what they want with the money. I guess there is no way to prohibit them from doing that, but at least tell people that 60% of your toll to cross the Verrazano from Brooklyn to Staten Island goes to support subways connecting Brooklyn to Manhattan. I don't have issue with tolls supporting transit in that particular corridor (which is why I am not adamently opposed to MWAA's subsidizing the Silver Line with DTR tolls), but I am opposed to MTA/TBTA's diversion of bridge toll revenue to transit that serves a vastly different population and corridors. If they want to have money from Manhattan toll facilities go to support trains that bring people to Manhattan, fine, but they are charging people that generally are traveling between the outer boros where there is not very good transit.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 04, 2014, 04:18:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 04, 2014, 04:03:00 PM
....
*your own personal dislike of rail transit and helping those less fortunate or who choose to pollute less
WTF? :rolleyes:
SPUI being SPUI...
Quote from: mtantillo on December 04, 2014, 07:47:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 04, 2014, 04:18:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 04, 2014, 04:03:00 PM
....
*your own personal dislike of rail transit and helping those less fortunate or who choose to pollute less
WTF? :rolleyes:
SPUI being SPUI...
Yeah, I know that, but usually when he feels the need to be an asshole he manages to say something that's still related to the topic. This had nothing to do with anything, hence my response.
Congress should get involved in how interchanges are built? I thought the regular complaint here was that Congress should leave the roads to professionals.
The market will sort out interoperability and toll rates. The rest of this strikes me as not something to trust politicians with rather than professionals, however bad it may seem now. Trust me, I read the news–Congress is no good at this stuff.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
5 - Other than the toll takers themselves, toll roads should have ZERO employees who are not found in a normal freeway highway district. PR people, etc.
Except Kentucky highway district offices have PR people. You may have even met one of them in Charleston a few years ago.
But to take your point and expand on it, it bugs me that you have multiple state agencies within one state government, one in charge of the toll roads and others in charge of every other road. You have it in Pennsylvania and in New York, and doesn't New Jersey have different agencies for each of its three main toll roads? Seems like a waste of money to me. When Kentucky had toll roads, they were under the purview of the Bureau of Highways/Department of Highways/Transportation Cabinet, however the name of the agency evolved. There was a Division of Toll Facilities that was part and parcel of KYTC, not its own separate agency.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2014, 03:55:19 PM
Should there be a national toll road user's bill of rights imposed by Congress - at least on toll road agencies that issue bonds with interest exempt from federal taxation?
I think there should be a requirement here for tolled facilities signed as interstates, including HOT lanes on interstates, to fall under this bill of rights.
I also think there should be a requirement for a reasonable period to pay missed tolls.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 04, 2014, 10:02:34 PM
I also think there should be a requirement for a reasonable period to pay missed tolls.
No.
In that case, there should be a consumer's bill of rights, which allows someone to take whatever they want from a store, with a reasonable amount of time to pay for what they took.
The only exception for tolls would be when there's absolutely no signage entering a highway, or nearing or at a toll booth, that the entire plaza or individual booths are cashless. But when there are booths stating "Cash" and "EZ Pass Only", that's the driver's fault if they enter the wrong lane.
^ It's very easy to pick to pick the wrong lane on some of the ramp plazas in Chicagoland, and I've heard stories of people from downstate not being able to weave over in time to access the cash lanes for some of the mainline plazas (which seem to usually have only 3/4 mile advance notice.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 04, 2014, 10:42:24 PM
^ It's very easy to pick to pick the wrong lane on some of the ramp plazas in Chicagoland, and I've heard stories of people from downstate not being able to weave over in time to access the cash lanes for some of the mainline plazas (which seem to usually have only 3/4 mile advance notice.
Please. New York doesn't tell you where the cash and E-ZPass lanes are until the plaza itself. Even if there's traffic, you can get over. Much of the rest of the northeast is the same way.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 04, 2014, 10:42:24 PM
^ It's very easy to pick to pick the wrong lane on some of the ramp plazas in Chicagoland, and I've heard stories of people from downstate not being able to weave over in time to access the cash lanes for some of the mainline plazas (which seem to usually have only 3/4 mile advance notice.
Wimps not driving assertively in the big city.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 04, 2014, 09:50:17 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
5 - Other than the toll takers themselves, toll roads should have ZERO employees who are not found in a normal freeway highway district. PR people, etc.
Except Kentucky highway district offices have PR people. You may have even met one of them in Charleston a few years ago.
But to take your point and expand on it, it bugs me that you have multiple state agencies within one state government, one in charge of the toll roads and others in charge of every other road. You have it in Pennsylvania and in New York, and doesn't New Jersey have different agencies for each of its three main toll roads? Seems like a waste of money to me. When Kentucky had toll roads, they were under the purview of the Bureau of Highways/Department of Highways/Transportation Cabinet, however the name of the agency evolved. There was a Division of Toll Facilities that was part and parcel of KYTC, not its own separate agency.
In New York, not only are there separate agencies, but they are insulated from accountability from voters, BY DESIGN. Mr. Moses didn't want we the people interfering with his projects.
In NJ, there used to be 3 agencies for toll roads: South Jersey Transportation Authority for AC Expressway, New Jersey Turnpike AUthority for the Turnpike, and New Jersey Highway Authority for the Parkway. The Turnpike Authority took over the Parkway, so now there are only 2.
NH has the DOT "Turnpike Bureau" manage their toll roads. MA has MassDOT operating the Turnpike (but that is a very recent thing, the MassPike used to be separate). DelDOT operates the toll roads in Delaware just as they do any other road....in fact they even spend the toll money on all the other roads in the state. VDOT manages some toll roads, but has generally been turning them over to private concession companies, one by one. Florida Turnpike Enterprise is another "District" of FDOT, although structured slightly differently to operate "more like a business and less like government" or something like that. I think the Cross Island Parkway in Hilton Head is managed by SCDOT, but not sure.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 04, 2014, 11:02:05 PM
In New York, not only are there separate agencies, but they are insulated from accountability from voters, BY DESIGN. Mr. Moses didn't want we the people interfering with his projects.
Please. New York has ~1,100 authorities. Not including NYSDOT, NYSDEC, or one of the state
departments that maintain stuff, there are
at least 10 authorities that are
only transportation-related, including the interstate and international authorities. Furthermore, the authorities don't communicate. And I don't picture them going away or merging any time soon, because they're effectively independent of the state.
In Michigan, the Mackinac Bridge Authority is a separate agency with its own board appointed by the governor, but there are some connections with MDOT. The MDOT director has a seat on the board, and MDOT appoints the MBA executive secretary with the approval of the MBA board.
The International Bridge Authority's employees are officially all employed by MDOT, and that authority is integrated into the MDOT structure, with the proviso that MTO and the Canadian government appoint a number of IBA board members.
I don't foresee either going to ETC at any point. There are pre-paid cards as an option for commuters, but given the relative distance from any other toll facilities, I just don't see them adding transponder options.
The trouble I have with stepping in to stop transponder discrimination is that the cure may be worse than the disease. As things stand, everyone at least gets discounts on the toll facilities that they use most frequently, and only has to forego the discount when they travel to a different state. If you were to make a rule saying that you can't selectively apply discounts the result would not necessarily be that the existing discount now applies to everyone, since the agency would lose revenue by doing that. Most likely the discount for everyone would be cut, or even potentially eliminated. Indeed, if you are going to make noise about it being unfair to discriminate based on where your EZpass is from, there might then be pressure to say that it is also unfair to charge EZpass and cash different rates and you might see that regulated away as well. Which then means higher tolls for everyone.
I don't like the idea of congress mandating interchanges be built. This sort of meddling is needless micromanagement.
I fail to see the value of "a uniform way of posting toll rates", since it's not like the toll rates are secret. You can look them up on the agency's website, and so forth.
Uniform dispute resolution... eh. Driving through an electronic toll lane without a transponder requires being either stupid or oblivious to your surroundings. I therefore have no sympathy for people who find themselves in this position, and no desire to see my tax dollars being spent on making it easier for them to atone for their stupidity.
Tolls must disappear when bonds are paid off... yeah, no. The problem I have with this is that it distorts traffic patterns in a counterproductive manner when you have a toll facility and then a parallel facility of similar utility that is free. For example if you are going to toll one bridge across a river, any other nearby bridges across the same river need to also be tolled in order to avoid driving large numbers of people to shunpike. NYC is the worst offender for this - Battery tunnel is $5.33 each way and no one uses it. Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges are free and frequently jammed with traffic, causing tons of traffic on the BQE in the process. Either all of these crossings should be tolled or none of them should be tolled. Whether the construction bonds for a facility have been paid off is, from the perspective of a motorist on the road, completely arbitrary.
As for the matter of using toll revenue to fund transit operations, it is unideal since it places an artificially large burden on certain links in the road network. But in large cities, public transit is important and vital to their continued function and the money to run said transit has to come from somewhere. In a sane world the revenue not gained from fares would simply come from general tax funds, but we don't live in a sane world, we live in a world where politicians love to take money away from transportation (transit and roads) to fund some other pet project or to balance the budge without raising taxes. So, at least in the MTA's, case, there is a very significant political benefit to them taking revenue from tolls: it's money Albany cannot easily take away from them, and it is a tax that can be hiked without elected officials worrying about losing their jobs over it. I don't like high bridge tolls but I'll gladly take high bridge tolls over a subway system that falls apart from lack of maintenance.
Just adding my two cents...
Quote from: mtantillo on December 04, 2014, 07:46:10 PM
First off, there is a congressional mandate in MAP-21 for national transponder interoperability. Prior to that point, you had E-ZPass, which was a national model in interstate interoperability, and then you had a bunch of other toll agencies doing their own thing. A whole lot of talk about interoperability, and no meaningful action. Finally Congress said enough is enough and slipped the language into the transportation reauthorization bill that national interoperability needs to happen by October 2016. A lot of why it is painfully slow to get these agreements in place is because each agency wants to bureaucratically negotiate an agreement with every other agency on a peer-to-peer basis rather than find a consistent national solution. No one could agree on anything. So now that there is a mandate out there, we are seeing slow but meaningful progress. I have no doubt that by October 2016, we will be most of the way there in terms of interoperability. There may be some holes, some holdout agencies, some tolling done by video instead of by transponder, and some "dual mode" transponders to bridge technology gaps, but ultimately a rudimentary system will be up and running.
Like jakeroot said, the benefit of national interoperability is minuscule out west in California and Washington so I would expect these agencies to be the holdouts with cost being the determining factor. Pay-by-plate would be an option on the toll roads and bridges but many of California's HOT lanes do not have cameras at the tolling point.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2014, 04:21:01 PM
Re: nationwide toll transponder interoperability, etc: This is kind of draconian if you think about it. Toll roads, and especially bridges are (or can be) owned by private companies, and if not, states or multi-state partnerships.
I might want to point out that California mandated interoperability at the state-level but this happened as the first tolled facilities (other than bridges) were set to open. Each of the tolling authorities knew ahead of time, if they wanted to implement electronic tolling, they would have to use FasTrak.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
1 - No toll $$ should be spent on the police. When a new freeway opens, nobody frets about how to pay the random taxers for their "services". Same should be for toll roads. Whatever amount of "service" the random taxers wish to provide on the toll road should be funded out of their regular appropriations.
Then who is going to be doing toll enforcement? In California, the tolling agencies contract out the toll enforcement to the California Highway Patrol and will use toll revenue to pay for it. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for the police to patrol a private company's toll road?
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
2 - Obviously there should be one, continent-wide, toll transponder with one clearing house. IMHO, the trucking industry should would gladly pay the tiny overhead costs.
Pssshh, yeah right. Do you think these tolling agencies would allow a middle man handle all of their toll revenue? I didn't think so.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
3 - Tolls should be set at a financially sound basis to repay the bonds and then tolls ended. No toll money should ever be spent on anything else. People that like communal transit should pay for communal transit. People who want to use tolls (or any other form of tax) to get people to drive less or whatever should be dismissed as the loons they are.
Tell that to the Golden Gate Bridge and Transit District and you'll be heartily laughed at. In addition to operating the Golden Gate Bridge, this agency also runs commuter bus and ferry service from the north bay to San Francisco. Setting the bus and ferry fares so these services fund themselves would result in horrific congestion on the bridge because of people piling into their cars and making the drive to San Francisco instead of taking the bus or ferry.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
4 - When bonds are paid off, tolls end.
... and the tolling agency has to dissolve because it no longer has a source of revenue. If that's the case, who is responsible for maintenance or improvements? The state DOT?
The Tenth Amendment argument somebody mentioned is unlikely to get very far because tolled highways can be deemed by Congress and the courts to affect interstate commerce regulation of interstate commerce (or, as the Supreme Court once called it, "intercourse between the states") is a power given to Congress in Article I, Section 8. It's been construed pretty broadly. Back in the 1950s or 1960s a motel in Georgia refused to obey federal civil rights laws requiring them to allow blacks to stay overnight; they claimed they were an in-state business nowhere near a state line. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying their business had an effect on interstate commerce and so could be subject to federal law. (The case was the Heart of Atlanta Motel case, if anyone wants to find it.)
Given that kind of precedent, it's easy to conclude they'd reason the same way as to ETC interoperability, which certainly has more of an effect on commerce–yes, even on toll roads far away from state lines, like Route 130 in Texas–than a discriminatory motel somewhere in Georgia.
Also, Congress could always tie interoperability to highway funding–if a state's agencies don't comply with interoperability, the state loses federal highway funding. Congress has already done that sort of thing several times, such as with the old National Speed Limit. Nevada sued over that one and lost: the courts found there is no right for a state to receive federal highway funding, so Congress can put conditions on receipt of funding as long as those conditions don't violate some other substantive part of the Constitution (such as, say, requiring the state to establish a particular state religion, which would violate the First Amendment).
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 04, 2014, 10:42:24 PM
^ It's very easy to pick to pick the wrong lane on some of the ramp plazas in Chicagoland, and I've heard stories of people from downstate not being able to weave over in time to access the cash lanes for some of the mainline plazas (which seem to usually have only 3/4 mile advance notice.
ISTHA already gives 7 days to pay via their website, no penalty (unlike some other toll authorities). You merely pay the cash rate. How much more time do you need?
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 02:58:10 AM
Just adding my two cents...
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
4 - When bonds are paid off, tolls end.
... and the tolling agency has to dissolve because it no longer has a source of revenue. If that's the case, who is responsible for maintenance or improvements? The state DOT?
God help us if IDOT had to ever take over the tollways. They can barely maintain what they have and drag their feet whenever improvements are required.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 02:58:10 AMQuote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
4 - When bonds are paid off, tolls end.
... and the tolling agency has to dissolve because it no longer has a source of revenue. If that's the case, who is responsible for maintenance or improvements? The state DOT?
That's how they've done it up here. All tolls were lifted on A-10, A-13, A-15, A-40, the Champlain and Jacques-Cartier Bridges, etc. a few decades after completion. In the OAQ's case, it was dissolved and taken over by the MTQ. In the JCCBI's case, it's still around but is entirely funded by the federal transportation ministry.
On the A25 bridge, the tolls should be lifted after about 30 years. I'm not sure what's the plan for A30Express, but I assume it's similar. I'm not sure what will happen with the two agencies that manage them.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AMI fail to see the value of "a uniform way of posting toll rates", since it's not like the toll rates are secret. You can look them up on the agency's website, and so forth.
Due to the annual Act 44-related toll increases for the PA Turnpike; the PTC stopped listing its toll rates on its toll tickets it gives to non-EZ Pass users several years ago. One needs to remember that not everybody that uses roads (even long-distance travelers) is savvy enough to check the toll information (either on-line or whereever) beforehand. Occasional travelers aren't going to fork over the monthly/annual fee just to maintain an EZ Pass account for a facility that they
may only use once a year.
I'm guessing that CP's comment/suggestion could be a reaction to how the PTC stopped lising its toll rates on tickets.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AMUniform dispute resolution... eh. Driving through an electronic toll lane without a transponder requires being either stupid or oblivious to your surroundings. I therefore have no sympathy for people who find themselves in this position, and no desire to see my tax dollars being spent on making it easier for them to atone for their stupidity.
You're preaching to the choir here. Today, there are many drivers out there that just blindly follow their GPS' without realizing that conditions (toll lane openings/closings) can abruptly change either without or before the info. is transmitted to their GPS/Smartphone.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AMAs for the matter of using toll revenue to fund transit operations, it is unideal since it places an artificially large burden on certain links in the road network. But in large cities, public transit is important and vital to their continued function and the money to run said transit has to come from somewhere. In a sane world the revenue not gained from fares would simply come from general tax funds, but we don't live in a sane world, we live in a world where politicians love to take money away from transportation (transit and roads) to fund some other pet project or to balance the budge without raising taxes. So, at least in the MTA's, case, there is a very significant political benefit to them taking revenue from tolls: it's money Albany cannot easily take away from them, and it is a tax that can be hiked without elected officials worrying about losing their jobs over it. I don't like high bridge tolls but I'll gladly take high bridge tolls over a subway system that falls apart from lack of maintenance.
The comment/suggestion was likely directed towards many agencies diverting funds to non-road projects only to find themselves in a financial bind when it comes to funding construction/maintenance projects for their own roadways/bridges/tunnels. The fore-mentioned PTC's Act 44 and the DRPA's near-20-year practice of using toll revenue to fund non-transportation-related economic development projects along the Delaware River waterfront are indeed poster childs of such raiding (aka
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul).
Quote from: mtantillo on December 04, 2014, 07:46:10 PM
Public disclosure of diversions....why not? Transparency is good, right? FHWA on their new interstate tolling schemes requires that money only be spent in that corridor, and prohibits diversion away from that corridor. Meanwhile, older toll authorities do what they want with the money. I guess there is no way to prohibit them from doing that, but at least tell people that 60% of your toll to cross the Verrazano from Brooklyn to Staten Island goes to support subways connecting Brooklyn to Manhattan. I don't have issue with tolls supporting transit in that particular corridor (which is why I am not adamently opposed to MWAA's subsidizing the Silver Line with DTR tolls), but I am opposed to MTA/TBTA's diversion of bridge toll revenue to transit that serves a vastly different population and corridors. If they want to have money from Manhattan toll facilities go to support trains that bring people to Manhattan, fine, but they are charging people that generally are traveling between the outer boros where there is not very good transit.
Based on your comment, I would imagine that you're in favor of some of the fair tolling plans that have been espoused by Gridlock Sam Schwartz and others. Basically, toll the East River bridges at the same rate as the Battery and Midtown Tunnels, but at the same time significantly reduce the tolls on the Triboro and non-Manhattan MTA crossings. I would add that on top of such a system it would be great if all the toll crossings be either two directional or all the crossings be one-directional, to avoid toll shopping. So if the Verrazano is going to charge Brooklyn to Staten Island, all of the crossings in Brooklyn/Queens should charge going away from Brooklyn/Queens. Charge higher for the Manhattan crossings.
The idea is that by having every crossing charge something, you eliminate toll shopping for non-Manhattan trips. Traffic is more evenly distributed. And total MTA toll revenue will be the same, even though users of the Verrazano and Whitestone will pay a lot less than they do now. Essentially, the trips that have a subway alternative would be more expensive than the trips that only have a bus alternative.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
The trouble I have with stepping in to stop transponder discrimination is that the cure may be worse than the disease. As things stand, everyone at least gets discounts on the toll facilities that they use most frequently, and only has to forego the discount when they travel to a different state. If you were to make a rule saying that you can't selectively apply discounts the result would not necessarily be that the existing discount now applies to everyone, since the agency would lose revenue by doing that. Most likely the discount for everyone would be cut, or even potentially eliminated. Indeed, if you are going to make noise about it being unfair to discriminate based on where your EZpass is from, there might then be pressure to say that it is also unfair to charge EZpass and cash different rates and you might see that regulated away as well. Which then means higher tolls for everyone.
I believe the idea of stopping transponder discrimination is that toll agencies can still offer commuter plans, except that they should not be based at all on which agency issued the transponder.
A driver who uses a toll crossing 5 times a week should get a higher per-use discount over someone who uses the crossing 3 times a year.
A driver who uses an E-Z pass off-peak should get an off-peak rate, regardless of which transponder they use.
A driver who lives in a place that is basically surrounded by tolls (and would have no way to escape without paying a toll) should get residency discounts (regardless of transponder) above those received by the general public. Grand Island, NY and Staten Island, NY and residents of the Rockaways get these discounts.
But if we create a rule where there is no monthly fees on the transponders, then likely every EZ-Pass would be the same anyway. And that is the ultimate goal, people should only pay for the tolls when they cross, not at other times.
And if we need to add more to the bill of rights, let's have the interoperable transponder should be a flex-transponder. More and more HOT lanes are being built, so you need to have some way for HOV users to use it for free.
Quote from: NE2 on December 04, 2014, 04:03:00 PM
*fairness: transponder interoperability, knowledge of what a toll is before you enter (but how would this work? minimum to first exit? maximum to the end?)
Good question. Why I wrote "within reason."
Quote from: NE2 on December 04, 2014, 04:03:00 PM
*desire to see the country without stopping: no "Breezewoods"
No, because Breezewoods are the scene of minor and sometimes pretty spectacular crashes, and are a source of wasteful and slow and stopped traffic, which usually means greater emissions (since you express concern about the environment below).
Quote from: NE2 on December 04, 2014, 04:03:00 PM
*your own personal dislike of rail transit and helping those less fortunate or who choose to pollute less
You will need to do better than that, Spui. Rail transit patrons tend to be more wealthy (http://reason.org/blog/show/dc-metro-rider-incomes-top-100) than other users of the transportation system.
Regarding "pollute less," tell me again where rail transit projects get their traction power from? Hint: it probably needs to be from
baseload generation, which quite possibly means coal-fired generation, at least in the East and South.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2014, 04:21:01 PM
Re: nationwide toll transponder interoperability, etc: This is kind of draconian if you think about it. Toll roads, and especially bridges are (or can be) owned by private companies, and if not, states or multi-state partnerships. Why should Congress get to control how tolls are collected, especially if they receive no federal funding? Regional interoperability is coming about organically, without government control. I wish some of the smaller bridges in New Jersey (hear by Atlantic City) accepted EZ-Pass instead of something they cooked up, but tehy're private companies, so we can't really force them too.
It is actually already mandated to happen by federal law by 2016.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 11:44:00 AM
No, because Breezewoods are the scene of minor and sometimes pretty spectacular crashes, and are a source of wasteful and slow and stopped traffic, which usually means greater emissions (since you express concern about the environment below).
If you're going to pass laws for safety and air quality, it's illogical to single out toll roads. You should be pushing comprehensive road regulation.
QuoteRegarding "pollute less," tell me again where rail transit projects get their traction power from? Hint: it probably needs to be from baseload generation, which quite possibly means coal-fired generation, at least in the East and South.
Finish the analogy: how does the per-person, per-mile pollution of that power generation compare to that of automobile commuters crawling along highways?
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2014, 03:55:19 PM
Your thoughts?
1 - No toll $$ should be spent on the police. When a new freeway opens, nobody frets about how to pay the random taxers for their "services". Same should be for toll roads. Whatever amount of "service" the random taxers wish to provide on the toll road should be funded out of their regular appropriations.
Given that some tolled segments of the highway network have greater needs for policing and motorist assistance patrols, I disagree with that. And some toll agencies have their own police forces (two that come to mind (there are others) are the MdTA Police and the CBBT Police).
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
2 - Obviously there should be one, continent-wide, toll transponder with one clearing house. IMHO, the trucking industry should would gladly pay the tiny overhead costs.
I suspect they would want help from the four-wheelers and two-wheelers to pay for same.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
3 - Tolls should be set at a financially sound basis to repay the bonds and then tolls ended. No toll money should ever be spent on anything else. People that like communal transit should pay for communal transit. People who want to use tolls (or any other form of tax) to get people to drive less or whatever should be dismissed as the loons they are.
I disagree, for this reason - toll roads have to be
maintained (and it is usually mandated in the trust agreement or trust indenture between the agency operating the toll road and the trustee representing the bondholders). As for diversion to public transit, I do not agree with it, but plenty of states do it (New York and Pennsylvania probably being the largest in the U.S. in dollar terms).
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
4 - When bonds are paid off, tolls end.
Used to be the policy in Virginia. But apparently not any longer.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
5 - Other than the toll takers themselves, toll roads should have ZERO employees who are not found in a normal freeway highway district. PR people, etc.
Toll agencies, even if they have an all-electronic toll collection system, could outsource the maintenance to the state highway agency, or to the private sector. But most of them have large in-house maintenance forces. An exception may be some toll roads in California. I think that Caltrans provides maintenance on the TCA toll roads in Orange County.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
6 - Toll roads should not charge any additional $$ to exit and re-enter, (a much easier thing to do with transponders than previously) thus fostering PRIVATE FREE ENTERPRISE service providers at exits.
No disagreement, even if the toll agencies have on-toll road service plazas, as most of the older toll roads do.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
7 - No toll $$ should be spent on foolish boondoggles like Scamarack.
No disagreement, though
I would like to stop there at some point, just to look at it (
and based at least in part on some of your comments).
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
8 - No toll money should be "invested" in anything. 100% of the profit should be spent to retire bonds.
If you mean things like train lines (which is where the greatly increased toll dollars on the Dulles Toll Road are going), then I agree with you. Some pretty expensive diversion of toll revenues to unrelated things (other than transit) have been done by the Delaware River Port Authority (bridges across the Delaware River near Philadelphia) [which
also runs its own transit line], the New York State Thruway Authority [it runs most of the canal system in New York State], and the Delaware River & Bay Authority (joint Delaware and New Jersey authority), which also runs airports.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 12:38:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 11:44:00 AM
No, because Breezewoods are the scene of minor and sometimes pretty spectacular crashes, and are a source of wasteful and slow and stopped traffic, which usually means greater emissions (since you express concern about the environment below).
If you're going to pass laws for safety and air quality, it's illogical to single out toll roads. You should be pushing comprehensive road regulation.
I agree, though it is mostly toll roads (and especially one toll road in Pennsylvania) that practices Breezewooding its patrons.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 12:38:51 PM
QuoteRegarding "pollute less," tell me again where rail transit projects get their traction power from? Hint: it probably needs to be from baseload generation, which quite possibly means coal-fired generation, at least in the East and South.
Finish the analogy: how does the per-person, per-mile pollution of that power generation compare to that of automobile commuters crawling along highways?
It depends on many things, starting with the source of the energy that generates that electric power. If it is nuclear, solar or wind, then the pollution is close to zero. If it is coal or bunker fuel, then it is more.
I want some accountability on the billing side for the toll road user's bill of rights.
+ Fees limited initially to some percentage of the actual toll. (My own experience in Austin: stated fee for pay-by-mail per the web site: $1.80. Actual bill: $9.95)
+ A billing system accessible by the consumer. (I should be able to look up my license plate and pay. I shouldn't have to wait on the billing system to generate a bill to receive some account number I need in order to pay. This lets them add late fees to the first generated bill.)
+ A reasonable requirement to establish that a bill has been received (such as certified mail with return receipt) before escalating to the legal charges.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 04, 2014, 09:50:17 PM
Except Kentucky highway district offices have PR people.
Every NYSDOT region has a public information officer as well.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
The trouble I have with stepping in to stop transponder discrimination is that the cure may be worse than the disease. As things stand, everyone at least gets discounts on the toll facilities that they use most frequently, and only has to forego the discount when they travel to a different state. If you were to make a rule saying that you can't selectively apply discounts the result would not necessarily be that the existing discount now applies to everyone, since the agency would lose revenue by doing that. Most likely the discount for everyone would be cut, or even potentially eliminated. Indeed, if you are going to make noise about it being unfair to discriminate based on where your EZpass is from, there might then be pressure to say that it is also unfair to charge EZpass and cash different rates and you might see that regulated away as well. Which then means higher tolls for everyone.
I would say that discriminating agaisnt out of state transponders is unfair but that charging more for cash than transponder is fair since cash users require a toll taker (ditto for bill by mail), as long as the difference is reasonable (ie NOT like A-25 or ON 407).
Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2014, 09:17:05 AM
God help us if IDOT had to ever take over the tollways. They can barely maintain what they have and drag their feet whenever improvements are required.
Ditto for NYSDOT/NYSTA. We've already seen it with I-84 - it now closes every winter because, for whatever reason, Region 8 can't seem to plow it properly.
Quote from: US81 on December 05, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
I should be able to look up my license plate and pay. I shouldn't have to wait on the billing system to generate a bill to receive some account number I need in order to pay.
If you're going to be that proactive about paying your toll, why not set up an account and give them a method of payment like a credit card?
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: US81 on December 05, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
I should be able to look up my license plate and pay. I shouldn't have to wait on the billing system to generate a bill to receive some account number I need in order to pay.
If you're going to be that proactive about paying your toll, why not set up an account and give them a method of payment like a credit card?
If you're not from the area and not likely to be back, why should you need to set up an account for a one time charge?
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 02:58:10 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
1 - No toll $$ should be spent on the police. When a new freeway opens, nobody frets about how to pay the random taxers for their "services". Same should be for toll roads. Whatever amount of "service" the random taxers wish to provide on the toll road should be funded out of their regular appropriations.
Then who is going to be doing toll enforcement? In California, the tolling agencies contract out the toll enforcement to the California Highway Patrol and will use toll revenue to pay for it. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for the police to patrol a private company's toll road?
Toll enforcement or traffic law enforcement? They are two separate things. If it's toll enforcement you're worried about, that can be done by license plate photography. If you're worried about speed enforcement, then I'd argue that on a private toll road, there is or should be no such thing as a speed limit that the violation of which becomes a legal matter. I don't think it's against the law for me to drive 80 mph on my own property, even if the speed limit on public highways is no higher than 70 mph.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 02:58:10 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
4 - When bonds are paid off, tolls end.
... and the tolling agency has to dissolve because it no longer has a source of revenue. If that's the case, who is responsible for maintenance or improvements? The state DOT?
That's what happened in Kentucky. The tolls were merely to pay off construction bonds. Maintenance was always the responsibility of the state DOT, if I recall correctly.
-- removed personal attack --sso
Quote from: US81 on December 05, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
+ A billing system accessible by the consumer. (I should be able to look up my license plate and pay. I shouldn't have to wait on the billing system to generate a bill to receive some account number I need in order to pay. This lets them add late fees to the first generated bill.)
When I crossed the Port Mann Bridge outside Vancouver, BC (which is an electronic-only toll bridge), I was able to jump on the internet almost immediately and pay the toll. You entered in your state/province, and your license plate number, selected the vehicle type, and paid it. It doesn't check to see if that plate actually crossed the bridge, but rather archives the payment for later examination. When the system gets to processing your plate, it checks to see if the user has paid the toll, and (like in my case), when it saw my plate was already paid, it just tossed it aside.
As far as I can tell, this allows one to pay for their toll ahead of time, which is really helpful for people who are not from Canada.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
The trouble I have with stepping in to stop transponder discrimination is that the cure may be worse than the disease. As things stand, everyone at least gets discounts on the toll facilities that they use most frequently, and only has to forego the discount when they travel to a different state. If you were to make a rule saying that you can't selectively apply discounts the result would not necessarily be that the existing discount now applies to everyone, since the agency would lose revenue by doing that. Most likely the discount for everyone would be cut, or even potentially eliminated. Indeed, if you are going to make noise about it being unfair to discriminate based on where your EZpass is from, there might then be pressure to say that it is also unfair to charge EZpass and cash different rates and you might see that regulated away as well. Which then means higher tolls for everyone.
But in some parts of the U.S., using more than one toll agency's toll road or toll crossing on one trip is quite possible and quite reasonable. And I am not just speaking of long-distance over-the-road truckers either.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
I don't like the idea of congress mandating interchanges be built. This sort of meddling is needless micromanagement.
It is in the national interest to have a seamless highway network. Breezewooding is not that, and I while I do not believe Congress should tell Pennsylvania is remediate
the Breezewood, I do believe it should tell them to remediate
all of their Breezewoods, or face the loss of the federal tax advantages granted by Congress to the bonds issued by their turnpike agency.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
I fail to see the value of "a uniform way of posting toll rates", since it's not like the toll rates are secret. You can look them up on the agency's website, and so forth.
I agree that the toll rates can be found online, but tough to do when driving.
But some idea of what the toll will be before you enter (within reason) is a good idea.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
Uniform dispute resolution... eh. Driving through an electronic toll lane without a transponder requires being either stupid or oblivious to your surroundings. I therefore have no sympathy for people who find themselves in this position, and no desire to see my tax dollars being spent on making it easier for them to atone for their stupidity.
And what about all-electronic toll roads like North Carolina's TriEx, Maryland's ICC and Ontario's 407? Even the creaking Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has said it is going to go all-electronic in the relatively near future.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
Tolls must disappear when bonds are paid off... yeah, no. The problem I have with this is that it distorts traffic patterns in a counterproductive manner when you have a toll facility and then a parallel facility of similar utility that is free. For example if you are going to toll one bridge across a river, any other nearby bridges across the same river need to also be tolled in order to avoid driving large numbers of people to shunpike. NYC is the worst offender for this - Battery tunnel is $5.33 each way and no one uses it. Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges are free and frequently jammed with traffic, causing tons of traffic on the BQE in the process. Either all of these crossings should be tolled or none of them should be tolled. Whether the construction bonds for a facility have been paid off is, from the perspective of a motorist on the road, completely arbitrary.
Is that a justification for tolling the other East River crossings that are now "free?" ;-)
But perhaps more to the point, could a state like New Jersey take over its Turnpike and Parkway if they were suddenly to become "free?" As I understand it, the Garden State's Transportation Trust Fund is shaky now, and could not handle the addition of thousands of new lane-miles to have to maintain.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
As for the matter of using toll revenue to fund transit operations, it is unideal since it places an artificially large burden on certain links in the road network. But in large cities, public transit is important and vital to their continued function and the money to run said transit has to come from somewhere. In a sane world the revenue not gained from fares would simply come from general tax funds, but we don't live in a sane world, we live in a world where politicians love to take money away from transportation (transit and roads) to fund some other pet project or to balance the budge without raising taxes. So, at least in the MTA's, case, there is a very significant political benefit to them taking revenue from tolls: it's money Albany cannot easily take away from them, and it is a tax that can be hiked without elected officials worrying about losing their jobs over it. I don't like high bridge tolls but I'll gladly take high bridge tolls over a subway system that falls apart from lack of maintenance.
My problem with diversion of bridge and tunnel and toll road toll revenues to transit is that it does not always have any benefit to the people and businesses paying the (usually higher) tolls. Perhaps
the most-egregious example being Pennsylvania's Act 44 (since diverting Turnpike toll revenues to SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County does not benefit Turnpike customers in any way), not the N.Y. MTA's Bridge and Tunnel giving millions to the MTA's transit properties, for the valid reasons you cite above.
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2014, 01:27:35 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: US81 on December 05, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
I should be able to look up my license plate and pay. I shouldn't have to wait on the billing system to generate a bill to receive some account number I need in order to pay.
If you're going to be that proactive about paying your toll, why not set up an account and give them a method of payment like a credit card?
If you're not from the area and not likely to be back, why should you need to set up an account for a one time charge?
That's a good point.
In the S.F. Bay Area, toll "violations" are handled quite differently between the BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) and the Golden Gate Bridge District.
If you cross a BATA bridge in a FasTrak lane but don't have an account, you will get a toll violation notice in the mail for the amount of the toll plus a $25 fine. You will then have the option of opening a FasTrak account and have that $25 fine put into your account.
If you cross the Golden Gate Bridge, which switched to all electronic tolling earlier this year, without a FasTrak or Pay-by-Plate account, you have three options. Pre-pay the toll up to 30 days in advance, pay the toll within 48-hours of crossing or wait for the district to send you a bill at which time you have 21 days to pay the toll with no penalty.
What would make sense to me: a parking area after the bridge so you can stop and pay the toll by phone, along with a kiosk for those without smartphones to do the same. If the kiosk is broken, any extra fees associated with pay-by-mail are waived.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: US81 on December 05, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
+ A billing system accessible by the consumer. (I should be able to look up my license plate and pay. I shouldn't have to wait on the billing system to generate a bill to receive some account number I need in order to pay. This lets them add late fees to the first generated bill.)
When I crossed the Port Mann Bridge outside Vancouver, BC (which is an electronic-only toll bridge), I was able to jump on the internet almost immediately and pay the toll. You entered in your state/province, and your license plate number, selected the vehicle type, and paid it. It doesn't check to see if that plate actually crossed the bridge, but rather archives the payment for later examination. When the system gets to processing your plate, it checks to see if the user has paid the toll, and (like in my case), when it saw my plate was already paid, it just tossed it aside.
As far as I can tell, this allows one to pay for their toll ahead of time, which is really helpful for people who are not from Canada.
Yeah. Some agencies will literally not let you pay until an invoice is generated. At that point it is too late to avoid excessive rental car fees, etc. If I am in an unfamiliar area, I might not realize I'm going to use a toll facility. At least, after I discover that I have used a facility, I should be able to settle up online before a bill goes out.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: US81 on December 05, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
I should be able to look up my license plate and pay. I shouldn't have to wait on the billing system to generate a bill to receive some account number I need in order to pay.
If you're going to be that proactive about paying your toll, why not set up an account and give them a method of payment like a credit card?
Because some agencies will not process "video tolls"...they make you get a transponder, or will send you a bill. Or what if someone doesn't realize they are going to use a toll road until after they pass the gantry...but they are adament about not getting a bill sent to the owner and want to settle up on their own (for example, a rental car customer who might be subject to $25 fines per toll transaction).
Quote from: NE2 on December 05, 2014, 03:04:33 PM
What would make sense to me: a parking area after the bridge so you can stop and pay the toll by phone, along with a kiosk for those without smartphones to do the same. If the kiosk is broken, any extra fees associated with pay-by-mail are waived.
Spui, where room is available, that is a good idea.
For toll roads with service plazas, there should be a provision for the toll to be paid for the entire journey at any toll plaza "inside the gates" of the toll road.
I suppose on I-95 in New Hampshire, that means stopping at the liquor store to pay the toll.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2014, 01:28:15 PM
Toll enforcement or traffic law enforcement? They are two separate things. If it's toll enforcement you're worried about, that can be done by license plate photography. If you're worried about speed enforcement, then I'd argue that on a private toll road, there is or should be no such thing as a speed limit that the violation of which becomes a legal matter. I don't think it's against the law for me to drive 80 mph on my own property, even if the speed limit on public highways is no higher than 70 mph.
On private toll roads in Virginia, you can
definitely get a summons from the VSP for speeding. Happened to a friend on the Dulles Greenway (Va. 267) some years ago.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2014, 01:28:15 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 02:58:10 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
4 - When bonds are paid off, tolls end.
... and the tolling agency has to dissolve because it no longer has a source of revenue. If that's the case, who is responsible for maintenance or improvements? The state DOT?
That's what happened in Kentucky. The tolls were merely to pay off construction bonds. Maintenance was always the responsibility of the state DOT, if I recall correctly.
At one time, VDOT used to maintain most toll crossings and toll roads in the Commonwealth, a notable exception was the CBBT, which has always been tolled and maintained and policed by its "own" agency, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel District.
Now most of those toll roads have been turned-over to other entities, though the VSP still enforces traffic laws on some of them (not on the Dulles Toll Road, also Va. 267, where traffic laws are now enforced by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police).
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: US81 on December 05, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
+ A billing system accessible by the consumer. (I should be able to look up my license plate and pay. I shouldn't have to wait on the billing system to generate a bill to receive some account number I need in order to pay. This lets them add late fees to the first generated bill.)
When I crossed the Port Mann Bridge outside Vancouver, BC (which is an electronic-only toll bridge), I was able to jump on the internet almost immediately and pay the toll. You entered in your state/province, and your license plate number, selected the vehicle type, and paid it. It doesn't check to see if that plate actually crossed the bridge, but rather archives the payment for later examination. When the system gets to processing your plate, it checks to see if the user has paid the toll, and (like in my case), when it saw my plate was already paid, it just tossed it aside.
As far as I can tell, this allows one to pay for their toll ahead of time, which is really helpful for people who are not from Canada.
That, IMO, is a right way to do it.
I'm curious: Does anyone have a sense for which toll agencies will send out a bill for a single trip and which of them just write it off unless you have enough unpaid trips to exceed some kind of threshold?
What made me ask that is that I'm thinking of one of our trips to Miami a few years ago when we decided to go over to Key Biscayne and I drove into the "C Pass" lane at the Rickenbacker Causeway plaza thinking it would be compatible with SunPass (because I had been led to believe all Florida's transponders were compatible). Got up to the gate arm and they had an 8.5-by-11 piece of paper taped up saying "This Is Not a SunPass Facility" (that is no longer the case). By then it was too late to back up. Gate arm eventually went up, we went on our way, and I was never billed for the toll. I suspect the agency that operates the causeway considered it not worth the cost of generating and mailing a bill to someone in Virginia for a single unpaid trip when the toll was something like $1.25.
It makes sense to me that some toll amounts are too trivial for them to bother, but I'm curious if anyone (Mike?) has some kind of data on different toll agencies' approach to that kind of thing.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 04:18:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2014, 01:28:15 PM
Toll enforcement or traffic law enforcement? They are two separate things. If it's toll enforcement you're worried about, that can be done by license plate photography. If you're worried about speed enforcement, then I'd argue that on a private toll road, there is or should be no such thing as a speed limit that the violation of which becomes a legal matter. I don't think it's against the law for me to drive 80 mph on my own property, even if the speed limit on public highways is no higher than 70 mph.
On private toll roads in Virginia, you can definitely get a summons from the VSP for speeding. Happened to a friend on the Dulles Greenway (Va. 267) some years ago.
....
The high-occupancy/toll lanes see a good amount of State Police activity because part of the deal for the private consortium putting up the money to build them was that they would also provide enough funding for the State Police to add additional manpower.
It makes sense to me that a private toll road would be subject to standard law enforcement. In most places the state will have to allow the road's construction in the first place, which means the state may put conditions on the right to build and operate the road. One of those would be allowing the appropriate authorities to enforce speed limits, DUI laws, and the like.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 05, 2014, 10:33:31 AM
I'm guessing that CP's comment/suggestion could be a reaction to how the PTC stopped lising its toll rates on tickets.
Yes, though i have had an E-ZPass for as long as they have been available in this part of the world, so it has been a lot of years since I paid a toll on the Penna. Turnpike with a ticket, though I did go through it just recently on the Kansas Turnpike, which did not honor my E-ZPass. ( ;-) )
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2014, 04:22:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 04:18:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2014, 01:28:15 PM
Toll enforcement or traffic law enforcement? They are two separate things. If it's toll enforcement you're worried about, that can be done by license plate photography. If you're worried about speed enforcement, then I'd argue that on a private toll road, there is or should be no such thing as a speed limit that the violation of which becomes a legal matter. I don't think it's against the law for me to drive 80 mph on my own property, even if the speed limit on public highways is no higher than 70 mph.
On private toll roads in Virginia, you can definitely get a summons from the VSP for speeding. Happened to a friend on the Dulles Greenway (Va. 267) some years ago.
....
The high-occupancy/toll lanes see a good amount of State Police activity because part of the deal for the private consortium putting up the money to build them was that they would also provide enough funding for the State Police to add additional manpower.
It makes sense to me that a private toll road would be subject to standard law enforcement. In most places the state will have to allow the road's construction in the first place, which means the state may put conditions on the right to build and operate the road. One of those would be allowing the appropriate authorities to enforce speed limits, DUI laws, and the like.
Agreed.
When the Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) HOV/Toll lanes in Orange County were opened (then a private facility, but since sold to a public agency), an agreement was signed between the toll lanes operator and the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans regarding law enforcement, including how much in the way of CHP personnel were to be assigned to patrol those lanes. Even though the operator of the toll lanes is required to patrol them with freeway service patrol vehicles at all times 24/7, because there are
no shoulders on either side of those lanes for most of the way, having CHP close by is probably important - especially during peak traffic times.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
The trouble I have with stepping in to stop transponder discrimination is that the cure may be worse than the disease. As things stand, everyone at least gets discounts on the toll facilities that they use most frequently, and only has to forego the discount when they travel to a different state. If you were to make a rule saying that you can't selectively apply discounts the result would not necessarily be that the existing discount now applies to everyone, since the agency would lose revenue by doing that. Most likely the discount for everyone would be cut, or even potentially eliminated. Indeed, if you are going to make noise about it being unfair to discriminate based on where your EZpass is from, there might then be pressure to say that it is also unfair to charge EZpass and cash different rates and you might see that regulated away as well. Which then means higher tolls for everyone.
I believe the idea of stopping transponder discrimination is that toll agencies can still offer commuter plans, except that they should not be based at all on which agency issued the transponder.
Strongly agreed.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
A driver who uses a toll crossing 5 times a week should get a higher per-use discount over someone who uses the crossing 3 times a year.
Agreed ... unless the tolls are part of a demand management plan, as they are on Maryland's ICC and the HOV/Toll lanes in Virginia and California.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
A driver who uses an E-Z pass off-peak should get an off-peak rate, regardless of which transponder they use.
Absolutely.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
A driver who lives in a place that is basically surrounded by tolls (and would have no way to escape without paying a toll) should get residency discounts (regardless of transponder) above those received by the general public. Grand Island, NY and Staten Island, NY and residents of the Rockaways get these discounts.
I have no problem with that.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
But if we create a rule where there is no monthly fees on the transponders, then likely every EZ-Pass would be the same anyway. And that is the ultimate goal, people should only pay for the tolls when they cross, not at other times.
I think the goal should be to encourage anyone that crosses a toll road or toll crossing - even infrequently - to have a transponder. And they should be no charge, and the cost recouped by toll revenue (even if that means that frequent users subsidize infrequent users slightly).
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
And if we need to add more to the bill of rights, let's have the interoperable transponder should be a flex-transponder. More and more HOT lanes are being built, so you need to have some way for HOV users to use it for free.
I would want it to be an option (only states using such transponders now are Virginia and California).
Remember that trucks are issued a blue transponder because they are heavier and larger, and they do not need a break because they have more than one person in the truck.
Since we're telling states and their contractors how much money they can make, there has to be a provision that food offerings at rest areas must be at a price comparable to an average based on a survey of similar food outlets in the immediate area, just like gas.
Only if this rider is attached will I support your bill.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2014, 03:55:19 PM
Your thoughts?
4 - When bonds are paid off, tolls end.
A problem with this is that tolled crossings who have paid off their bonds will no longer have a source of income to use for future capacity improvements. This can be seen in the Hampton Roads area with the formerly-tolled tunnels now badly needing capacity improvements that there is no money to pay for. This led to the reinstatement of tolls on some of the tunnels, which caused a huge public backlash.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2014, 07:56:44 AM
The Tenth Amendment argument somebody mentioned is unlikely to get very far because tolled highways can be deemed by Congress and the courts to affect interstate commerce regulation of interstate commerce
You wouldn't even necessarily have to use the "interstate commerce" argument. You could use the "post roads" clause of Article 1 Section 8, which is more specific and therefore stronger.
Also, motorists must be free to have any road service (e.g. AAA) handle their car, rather than some extortionate monopoly.
Quote from: kkt on December 05, 2014, 05:30:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2014, 07:56:44 AM
The Tenth Amendment argument somebody mentioned is unlikely to get very far because tolled highways can be deemed by Congress and the courts to affect interstate commerce regulation of interstate commerce
You wouldn't even necessarily have to use the "interstate commerce" argument. You could use the "post roads" clause of Article 1 Section 8, which is more specific and therefore stronger.
You could, but for whatever reason, Congress hasn't cited that clause in the past. Either way, though, I think it's quite clear the Tenth Amendment argument wouldn't fly.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 05:46:46 PM
Also, motorists must be free to have any road service (e.g. AAA) handle their car, rather than some extortionate monopoly.
Did the "extortionate monopoly" have to commit to better service, including speedier removal of wrecks/breakdowns from travel lanes, in order to get the government to give it an exclusive for road service on a particular road? Even if there is no exclusive, if your vehicle is in the way of other travelers, I doubt the police will -- or should -- let you turn away the first available tow truck so you can wait for AAA.
Such exclusive arrangements seem common in major cities in Quebec. I don't know what the experience has been.
Quote from: oscar on December 05, 2014, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 05:46:46 PM
Also, motorists must be free to have any road service (e.g. AAA) handle their car, rather than some extortionate monopoly.
Did the "extortionate monopoly" have to commit to better service, including speedier removal of wrecks/breakdowns from travel lanes, in order to get the government to give it an exclusive for road service on a particular road? Even if there is no exclusive, if your vehicle is in the way of other travelers, I doubt the police will -- or should -- let you turn away the first available tow truck so you can wait for AAA.
Such exclusive arrangements seem common in major cities in Quebec. I don't know what the experience has been.
As I understand it, those "extortionate monopoly" providers usually take AAA cards (in at least some states), and are required to comply with a pretty tough set of requirements, and their prices are subject to close review (and in some cases regulation) by the toll road agency.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 12:38:51 PM
QuoteRegarding "pollute less," tell me again where rail transit projects get their traction power from? Hint: it probably needs to be from baseload generation, which quite possibly means coal-fired generation, at least in the East and South.
Finish the analogy: how does the per-person, per-mile pollution of that power generation compare to that of automobile commuters crawling along highways?
It depends on many things, starting with the source of the energy that generates that electric power. If it is nuclear, solar or wind, then the pollution is close to zero. If it is coal or bunker fuel, then it is more.
Per passenger mile energy usage varies a lot:
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml
This depends largely on the average number of passengers per vehicle. New York City has trains that are well-used at all hours of the day and tops the list in terms of efficiency. Other systems do not perform as well if they are less crowded. But really what drives it is off-peak usage. Systems that mostly just serve commuters and see little ridership midday and on weekends will not have good overall efficiency numbers. Systems that serve all sorts of trips for all sorts of purposes will do better.
Of course New York is also special because of it's 24-hour "city that doesn't sleep" culture. People in New York will be out and about at all hours doing all sorts of things and using transit in the process. Compare this to a city like Cleveland where if it's not rush hour, everyone just drives wherever they're going and the trains run basically empty. Never going to be efficient like that.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 10:41:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 12:38:51 PM
QuoteRegarding "pollute less," tell me again where rail transit projects get their traction power from? Hint: it probably needs to be from baseload generation, which quite possibly means coal-fired generation, at least in the East and South.
Finish the analogy: how does the per-person, per-mile pollution of that power generation compare to that of automobile commuters crawling along highways?
It depends on many things, starting with the source of the energy that generates that electric power. If it is nuclear, solar or wind, then the pollution is close to zero. If it is coal or bunker fuel, then it is more.
Per passenger mile energy usage varies a lot:
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml
This depends largely on the average number of passengers per vehicle. New York City has trains that are well-used at all hours of the day and tops the list in terms of efficiency. Other systems do not perform as well if they are less crowded. But really what drives it is off-peak usage. Systems that mostly just serve commuters and see little ridership midday and on weekends will not have good overall efficiency numbers. Systems that serve all sorts of trips for all sorts of purposes will do better.
Of course New York is also special because of it's 24-hour "city that doesn't sleep" culture. People in New York will be out and about at all hours doing all sorts of things and using transit in the process. Compare this to a city like Cleveland where if it's not rush hour, everyone just drives wherever they're going and the trains run basically empty. Never going to be efficient like that.
Agreed that per-mile use of energy varies a lot. Depends on type and size of engine, among other things.
New York City is unique among urban areas of the United States for many things, starting with the amount of employment located in New York County (Manhattan), and the superb transit system that serves same - the subways, the passenger railroad systems from Long Island, the Hudson Valley, Connecticut and New Jersey. Add in the buses that come in to the Port Authority for good measure, and you have a very large percentage of transit ridership in the nation.
As one expert that I respect said, transportation in the United States is about two places - Metropolitan New York City and the rest of the United States. The Metrorail system of Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia is so far behind (even though it is #2 in terms of patronage) that just one of the New York City subway lines (such as the IRT Lexington Avenue Line) carries more patrons than the entire Metrorail system serves.
I believe that forecasts for the new Second Avenue Subway predict that it will also carry more people than the entire Washington system.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 06:56:24 PM
Quote from: oscar on December 05, 2014, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 05:46:46 PM
Also, motorists must be free to have any road service (e.g. AAA) handle their car, rather than some extortionate monopoly.
Did the "extortionate monopoly" have to commit to better service, including speedier removal of wrecks/breakdowns from travel lanes, in order to get the government to give it an exclusive for road service on a particular road? Even if there is no exclusive, if your vehicle is in the way of other travelers, I doubt the police will -- or should -- let you turn away the first available tow truck so you can wait for AAA.
Such exclusive arrangements seem common in major cities in Quebec. I don't know what the experience has been.
As I understand it, those "extortionate monopoly" providers usually take AAA cards (in at least some states), and are required to comply with a pretty tough set of requirements, and their prices are subject to close review (and in some cases regulation) by the toll road agency.
The last time I needed service on the New Jersey Turnpike was twenty years ago, but they had local contracted providers then, and instead of taking AAA they accepted $$$. I've heard of these arrangements on various roads, but I have no idea how current any of them are.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 05:46:46 PM
Also, motorists must be free to have any road service (e.g. AAA) handle their car, rather than some extortionate monopoly.
I had forgotten about that. 100% agree.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 06, 2014, 01:22:18 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 06:56:24 PM
Quote from: oscar on December 05, 2014, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 05:46:46 PM
Also, motorists must be free to have any road service (e.g. AAA) handle their car, rather than some extortionate monopoly.
Did the "extortionate monopoly" have to commit to better service, including speedier removal of wrecks/breakdowns from travel lanes, in order to get the government to give it an exclusive for road service on a particular road? Even if there is no exclusive, if your vehicle is in the way of other travelers, I doubt the police will -- or should -- let you turn away the first available tow truck so you can wait for AAA.
Such exclusive arrangements seem common in major cities in Quebec. I don't know what the experience has been.
As I understand it, those "extortionate monopoly" providers usually take AAA cards (in at least some states), and are required to comply with a pretty tough set of requirements, and their prices are subject to close review (and in some cases regulation) by the toll road agency.
The last time I needed service on the New Jersey Turnpike was twenty years ago, but they had local contracted providers then, and instead of taking AAA they accepted $$$. I've heard of these arrangements on various roads, but I have no idea how current any of them are.
They still have those arrangements on the NJ Turnpike. They are put out to bid every few years, although for the most part the same companies win, because they know exactly what the NJTA requires and are already equipped with such. I believe if you have AAA, you can submit the receipt to them and they'll reimburse you.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2014, 08:50:08 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 06, 2014, 01:22:18 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 06:56:24 PM
Quote from: oscar on December 05, 2014, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2014, 05:46:46 PM
Also, motorists must be free to have any road service (e.g. AAA) handle their car, rather than some extortionate monopoly.
Did the "extortionate monopoly" have to commit to better service, including speedier removal of wrecks/breakdowns from travel lanes, in order to get the government to give it an exclusive for road service on a particular road? Even if there is no exclusive, if your vehicle is in the way of other travelers, I doubt the police will -- or should -- let you turn away the first available tow truck so you can wait for AAA.
Such exclusive arrangements seem common in major cities in Quebec. I don't know what the experience has been.
As I understand it, those "extortionate monopoly" providers usually take AAA cards (in at least some states), and are required to comply with a pretty tough set of requirements, and their prices are subject to close review (and in some cases regulation) by the toll road agency.
The last time I needed service on the New Jersey Turnpike was twenty years ago, but they had local contracted providers then, and instead of taking AAA they accepted $$$. I've heard of these arrangements on various roads, but I have no idea how current any of them are.
They still have those arrangements on the NJ Turnpike. They are put out to bid every few years, although for the most part the same companies win, because they know exactly what the NJTA requires and are already equipped with such. I believe if you have AAA, you can submit the receipt to them and they'll reimburse you.
That's good to know. Somehow I think 1992 is outside the statue of limitations, but, next time.
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 05, 2014, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 04, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2014, 03:55:19 PM
Your thoughts?
4 - When bonds are paid off, tolls end.
A problem with this is that tolled crossings who have paid off their bonds will no longer have a source of income to use for future capacity improvements. This can be seen in the Hampton Roads area with the formerly-tolled tunnels now badly needing capacity improvements that there is no money to pay for. This led to the reinstatement of tolls on some of the tunnels, which caused a huge public backlash.
Which is why expensive (
and expensive to maintain and operate) toll crossings should probably
not be de-tolled.
It may be reasonable to reduce the tolls to cover the cost of operation and maintenance, and to build up a cash reserve to pay for at least some part of the heavy maintenance needs that such crossings
will require.
I do not have a problem with toll roads (that do not have expensive tunnel and bridge components) being de-tolled.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2014, 08:50:08 AM
They still have those arrangements on the NJ Turnpike. They are put out to bid every few years, although for the most part the same companies win, because they know exactly what the NJTA requires and are already equipped with such. I believe if you have AAA, you can submit the receipt to them and they'll reimburse you.
Most arterials in NYC have this arrangement too (denoted by "ROAD SERVICE BY PERMIT ONLY" signs at the entrance ramps).
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2014, 01:27:35 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2014, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: US81 on December 05, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
I should be able to look up my license plate and pay. I shouldn't have to wait on the billing system to generate a bill to receive some account number I need in order to pay.
If you're going to be that proactive about paying your toll, why not set up an account and give them a method of payment like a credit card?
If you're not from the area and not likely to be back, why should you need to set up an account for a one time charge?
That's a good point.
In the S.F. Bay Area, toll "violations" are handled quite differently between the BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) and the Golden Gate Bridge District.
If you cross a BATA bridge in a FasTrak lane but don't have an account, you will get a toll violation notice in the mail for the amount of the toll plus a $25 fine. You will then have the option of opening a FasTrak account and have that $25 fine put into your account.
If you cross the Golden Gate Bridge, which switched to all electronic tolling earlier this year, without a FasTrak or Pay-by-Plate account, you have three options. Pre-pay the toll up to 30 days in advance, pay the toll within 48-hours of crossing or wait for the district to send you a bill at which time you have 21 days to pay the toll with no penalty.
And the key reason for the difference between BATA and Golden Gate policies is that there is a cash option for BATA crossings. It is a moving violation to be in a lane that you are not supposed to be in, hence the fine. Whereas for Golden Gate, everyone is welcome, there is no cash option, and options to pay for those without transponders are provided. IMO that's very fair.
Contrast that to some East Coast facilities (Henry Hudson Bridge and the ICC come to mind) that are also all-electronic, but provide no option for those without transponders, other than a relatively hefty fine. Part of the goals with national interoperability would be to avoid these types of fines for most people.
The Henry Hudson provides the option to pay by mail.
As does the ICC and all other Maryland Toll facilities (including ones with a cash option).
Quote from: mrsman on December 07, 2014, 07:47:28 AM
Contrast that to some East Coast facilities (Henry Hudson Bridge and the ICC come to mind) that are also all-electronic, but provide no option for those without transponders, other than a relatively hefty fine. Part of the goals with national interoperability would be to avoid these types of fines for most people.
Incorrect. Both the ICC and the Henry Hudson offer pay-by-mail for vehicles without E-ZPass transponders.
Speed limits should be set by the toll operators. That's how we got the 85 MPH speed on Texas 130
Quote from: texaskdog on December 07, 2014, 09:41:57 PM
Speed limits should be set by licensed engineers paid by the toll operators.
FTFY.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 07, 2014, 09:41:57 PM
Speed limits should be set by the toll operators. That's how we got the 85 MPH speed on Texas 130
They usually are. And that's why some speed limits are set way too low. The DRPA, for example, has a blanket 45 mph max speed limit, regardless of the road or bridge characteristics.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2014, 10:13:29 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 07, 2014, 09:41:57 PM
Speed limits should be set by the toll operators. That's how we got the 85 MPH speed on Texas 130
They usually are. And that's why some speed limits are set way too low. The DRPA, for example, has a blanket 45 mph max speed limit, regardless of the road or bridge characteristics.
Yes, but state maximums are usually set by law. To encourage people to use them, toll roads
typically have the highest safe speed limit allowed by law. That's why the Ohio Turnpike, for example, went to 70 and dropped truck limits before the rest of the state. That's how we get TX 130's insane speed limit and 65 on the New York State Thruway in developed areas that are, on other roads, restricted to 55.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2014, 10:13:29 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 07, 2014, 09:41:57 PM
Speed limits should be set by the toll operators. That's how we got the 85 MPH speed on Texas 130
They usually are. And that's why some speed limits are set way too low. The DRPA, for example, has a blanket 45 mph max speed limit, regardless of the road or bridge characteristics.
and ISHTA's 55 - which points to CPZ's fix.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 04:41:17 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 05, 2014, 01:35:18 AM
The trouble I have with stepping in to stop transponder discrimination is that the cure may be worse than the disease. As things stand, everyone at least gets discounts on the toll facilities that they use most frequently, and only has to forego the discount when they travel to a different state. If you were to make a rule saying that you can't selectively apply discounts the result would not necessarily be that the existing discount now applies to everyone, since the agency would lose revenue by doing that. Most likely the discount for everyone would be cut, or even potentially eliminated. Indeed, if you are going to make noise about it being unfair to discriminate based on where your EZpass is from, there might then be pressure to say that it is also unfair to charge EZpass and cash different rates and you might see that regulated away as well. Which then means higher tolls for everyone.
I believe the idea of stopping transponder discrimination is that toll agencies can still offer commuter plans, except that they should not be based at all on which agency issued the transponder.
Strongly agreed.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
A driver who uses a toll crossing 5 times a week should get a higher per-use discount over someone who uses the crossing 3 times a year.
Agreed ... unless the tolls are part of a demand management plan, as they are on Maryland's ICC and the HOV/Toll lanes in Virginia and California.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
A driver who uses an E-Z pass off-peak should get an off-peak rate, regardless of which transponder they use.
Absolutely.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
A driver who lives in a place that is basically surrounded by tolls (and would have no way to escape without paying a toll) should get residency discounts (regardless of transponder) above those received by the general public. Grand Island, NY and Staten Island, NY and residents of the Rockaways get these discounts.
I have no problem with that.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
But if we create a rule where there is no monthly fees on the transponders, then likely every EZ-Pass would be the same anyway. And that is the ultimate goal, people should only pay for the tolls when they cross, not at other times.
I think the goal should be to encourage anyone that crosses a toll road or toll crossing - even infrequently - to have a transponder. And they should be no charge, and the cost recouped by toll revenue (even if that means that frequent users subsidize infrequent users slightly).
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
And if we need to add more to the bill of rights, let's have the interoperable transponder should be a flex-transponder. More and more HOT lanes are being built, so you need to have some way for HOV users to use it for free.
I would want it to be an option (only states using such transponders now are Virginia and California).
Remember that trucks are issued a blue transponder because they are heavier and larger, and they do not need a break because they have more than one person in the truck.
That's not exactly true. There are a lot of solo truck drivers who stop every night. The ratio of solo vs multiple drivers is very lopsided in favor of solo.