Re: only very loosely related to PATH fare increase

[Sancho Panza]

On 9/27/2011 10:07 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> AFAIK, there are no modern toll roads in the NE US.

What is antiquated about the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway?

[Steven M. O'Neill]

There are toll-booth collectors.

--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo

[Sancho Panza]

On 9/27/2011 10:21 AM, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/27/2011 10:07 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, there are no modern toll roads in the NE US.
>>
>> What is antiquated about the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway?
>
> There are toll-booth collectors.
>

A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles
use E-ZPass.

[John Levine]

>>What is antiquated about the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway?
>
>There are toll-booth collectors.

The GSP has rebuilt many, perhaps most of the toll plazas so the
majority of the traffic goes through full speed lanes with a toll
gantry overhead.

Also what about the Atlantic City Expressway, where a lot of the
exits have tolls and have never had collectors?

R's,
John

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>On 9/27/2011 10:21 AM, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2011 10:07 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> AFAIK, there are no modern toll roads in the NE US.
>>>
>>> What is antiquated about the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway?
>>
>> There are toll-booth collectors.
>>
>A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
>can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles
>use E-ZPass.

Modern toll roads photograph the plates of antiquated drivers
and send them a bill.

[John Levine]

>> A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
>> can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles use E-ZPass.
>

>At full highway speed?

They call it E-ZPass Express. Several of the rebuilt GSP tolls have
full speed lanes. The exit 1 barrier at the south end of the Turnpike
has some express lanes, too. There aren't any current plans to stop
accepting cash.

These roads are over 50 years old. Rebuilding old roads is more
complicated than building new ones.

R's,
John

[Stephen Sprunk]

The road doesn't need to be rebuilt, aside from putting up a couple
simple gantries and ripping out the old toll booths. NTTA has done it
to dozens of ramps and multiple plazas here. In typical American
fashion, the politicians spend far longer arguing about it than it takes
to actually _do_ the work.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[Paul D. DeRocco]

> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote

>
> A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
> can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles use
> E-ZPass.

They're primarily for drivers who rarely use the toll roads, and for whom
the monthly fee (often $1/mo) would be a pointless waste of money. If all
states used the same system (CA uses FasTrak), and there was no monthly fee,
I'd get a transponder, but I only find myself on a toll road a few times a
year, maybe twice in CA and once in MA.

--

Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 27-Sep-11 14:47, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote
>> A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
>> can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles use
>> E-ZPass.
>
> They're primarily for drivers who rarely use the toll roads, and for whom
> the monthly fee (often $1/mo) would be a pointless waste of money. If all
> states used the same system (CA uses FasTrak), and there was no monthly fee,
> I'd get a transponder, but I only find myself on a toll road a few times a
> year, maybe twice in CA and once in MA.

That's poor implementation. Elsewhere, transponders are free, the only
monthly fee is for optional paper statements ($2/mo, unavoidable if you
don't have a transponder account and therefore get paper invoices), and
there is a significant (33-50%) discount for using a transponder.

[John Levine]

>The road doesn't need to be rebuilt, aside from putting up a couple
>simple gantries and ripping out the old toll booths. NTTA has done it
>to dozens of ramps and multiple plazas here. In typical American
>fashion, the politicians spend far longer arguing about it than it takes
>to actually _do_ the work.

Ah, so the details of charging people without transponders will
magically take care of themselves? Building the gantries is the
trivial part.

If you were going to do this on toll roads in NJ, to get reasonably
good coverage you'd need not only to have a process for charging
people with NJ plates, but arrangements with at least the adjacent
states of NY, PA, and DE, and given how close they are, probably also
CT and MD. Since these are existing roads, there's also some issue of
a transition plan, and revisiting some of the nonsense like the fact
that some but not all E-ZPass agencies charge a monthly fee.

This isn't impossible -- the 407ETR in Toronto finds me in NY and
bills me when I drive on it -- but it's not like in Texas where you
can make a deal with the local DMV and be done.

R's,
John

[Sancho Panza]

On 9/27/2011 3:22 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 27-Sep-11 13:43, John Levine wrote:
>>>> A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
>>>> can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles use E-ZPass.
>>>
>>> At full highway speed?
>>
>> They call it E-ZPass Express. Several of the rebuilt GSP tolls have
>> full speed lanes. The exit 1 barrier at the south end of the Turnpike
>> has some express lanes, too. There aren't any current plans to stop
>> accepting cash.
>>
>> These roads are over 50 years old. Rebuilding old roads is more
>> complicated than building new ones.
>
> The road doesn't need to be rebuilt, aside from putting up a couple
> simple gantries and ripping out the old toll booths. NTTA has done it
> to dozens of ramps and multiple plazas here. In typical American
> fashion, the politicians spend far longer arguing about it than it takes
> to actually _do_ the work.

A fascinating example of that is occurring with the new version of the
beloved Exit 8 at Route 33. It will meet the Hightstown bypass.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 27-Sep-11 18:04, John Levine wrote:
>> The road doesn't need to be rebuilt, aside from putting up a couple
>> simple gantries and ripping out the old toll booths. NTTA has done it
>> to dozens of ramps and multiple plazas here. In typical American
>> fashion, the politicians spend far longer arguing about it than it takes
>> to actually _do_ the work.
>
> Ah, so the details of charging people without transponders will
> magically take care of themselves?

All that takes is a minor (and, technically, optional) change in the law
about going through a tollbooth without paying.

> Building the gantries is the trivial part.

Doing that, and removing the old toll booths/plazas, without closing the
road is not exactly trivial.

> If you were going to do this on toll roads in NJ, to get reasonably
> good coverage you'd need not only to have a process for charging
> people with NJ plates, but arrangements with at least the adjacent
> states of NY, PA, and DE, and given how close they are, probably also
> CT and MD.

You don't need any more of an "arrangement" than already exists for the
above and other law enforcement purposes: any state can ask any other
state for the registrant of a particular license plate.

Once you have that info, and enough unpaid tolls to make the effort
worth it (according to NTTA, five transactions), you send them an
invoice. If they don't pay it, you mail them a citation for failure to
pay the tolls, which goes into the court system like any other.

This already exists in multiple places, if you wish to examine in detail
how it works.

> Since these are existing roads, there's also some issue of
> a transition plan,

Fortunately for everyone else, NTTA has provided multiple examples of
exactly how to do just that. Just like they provided the example of the
first ETC system in the world, which dozens of other agencies have
already copied (poorly, in most cases).

> and revisiting some of the nonsense like the fact that some but not
> all E-ZPass agencies charge a monthly fee.

That's stupid, but it's not really necessary to fix it to go all-ETC.

> This isn't impossible -- the 407ETR in Toronto finds me in NY and
> bills me when I drive on it -- but it's not like in Texas where you
> can make a deal with the local DMV and be done.

Huh? AFAICT, our system is nearly identical to theirs; the only
difference is that their only toll road started that way, whereas we had
to retrofit it to several toll roads, bridges and tunnels that had
previously accepted cash.

[spsffan]

On 9/27/2011 12:47 PM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>> "Sancho Panza"<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
>> can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles use
>> E-ZPass.
>
> They're primarily for drivers who rarely use the toll roads, and for whom
> the monthly fee (often $1/mo) would be a pointless waste of money. If all
> states used the same system (CA uses FasTrak), and there was no monthly fee,
> I'd get a transponder, but I only find myself on a toll road a few times a
> year, maybe twice in CA and once in MA.
>

And I've only found myself on a toll road once or twice in the past 10
years. One of those was the Golden Gate Bridge, which is not really the
same thing.

But, if the idea is to eliminate the federal (and perhaps state) fuel
tax and replace it with tolls, then you and I would both be using toll
roads regularly and would find ourselves in need of a transponder. Once
toll collection spreads to the entire Interstate system, we're all going
to have one.

In the meantime, there will still be a need for a few cash lanes on some
toll roads and things like the Golden Gate Bridge, which is the only 1.2
(or whatever) part of a 1200 mile US Highway 101 that is subject to a toll.

Regards,

DAve

[John Levine]

>> Ah, so the details of charging people without transponders will
>> magically take care of themselves?
>
>All that takes is a minor (and, technically, optional) change in the law
>about going through a tollbooth without paying.

No, it requires all of the nearby states to agree to provide address
info to toll agencies so they know where to send the bills for
non-transponder use. This is administrative, not law enforcement, and
it is not trivial. I gather that Vermont still does not provide
address info to Ontario for the 407.

In some places, they don't let you renew your registration if you have
unpaid tolls, which is a huge political can of worms, particularly
when you realize that OCR'ing license plates is not 100% accurate.

>You don't need any more of an "arrangement" than already exists for the
>above and other law enforcement purposes: any state can ask any other
>state for the registrant of a particular license plate.

Billing is not the same as law enforcement. But it's clear I'm
wasting my time arguing here. Sorry to intrude on your personal
reality.

R's,
John

[Paul D. DeRocco]

> "spsffan" <sps...@hotmail.com> wrote

> But, if the idea is to eliminate the federal (and perhaps state) fuel tax
> and replace it with tolls, then you and I would both be using toll roads
> regularly and would find ourselves in need of a transponder. Once toll
> collection spreads to the entire Interstate system, we're all going to
> have one.

No argument there. As long as it's a transponder that can be read at full
freeway speeds.

> In the meantime, there will still be a need for a few cash lanes on some
> toll roads and things like the Golden Gate Bridge, which is the only 1.2
> (or whatever) part of a 1200 mile US Highway 101 that is subject to a
> toll.

Technically, there is a break in US-101 at the bridge. From
www.cahighways.org:

"Golden Gate Bridge. Lastly, note that the Golden Gate Bridge is not part of
US 101. The Golden Gate is maintained by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway,
and Transportation District."

[Cynthia Smith]

On 9/27/2011 11:30 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 27-Sep-11 18:04, John Levine wrote:
>>> The road doesn't need to be rebuilt, aside from putting up a couple
>>> simple gantries and ripping out the old toll booths. NTTA has done it
>>> to dozens of ramps and multiple plazas here. In typical American
>>> fashion, the politicians spend far longer arguing about it than it takes
>>> to actually _do_ the work.
>>
>> Ah, so the details of charging people without transponders will
>> magically take care of themselves?
>
> All that takes is a minor (and, technically, optional) change in the law
> about going through a tollbooth without paying.

Umm, what states with tolls DON'T have this already?

>
>> Building the gantries is the trivial part.
>
> Doing that, and removing the old toll booths/plazas, without closing the
> road is not exactly trivial.
>
>> If you were going to do this on toll roads in NJ, to get reasonably
>> good coverage you'd need not only to have a process for charging
>> people with NJ plates, but arrangements with at least the adjacent
>> states of NY, PA, and DE, and given how close they are, probably also
>> CT and MD.
>
> You don't need any more of an "arrangement" than already exists for the
> above and other law enforcement purposes: any state can ask any other
> state for the registrant of a particular license plate.
>
> Once you have that info, and enough unpaid tolls to make the effort
> worth it (according to NTTA, five transactions), you send them an
> invoice. If they don't pay it, you mail them a citation for failure to
> pay the tolls, which goes into the court system like any other.
>
> This already exists in multiple places, if you wish to examine in detail
> how it works.
>
>> Since these are existing roads, there's also some issue of
>> a transition plan,
>
> Fortunately for everyone else, NTTA has provided multiple examples of
> exactly how to do just that. Just like they provided the example of the
> first ETC system in the world, which dozens of other agencies have
> already copied (poorly, in most cases).

And if their system is so great (haha), HOW MANY STATES does it work in
without requiring a separate account? Or is it just a one state wonder
that doesn't even exist outside a single state in the country? A system
that requires separate tags/accounts/registrations when you cross a
state line is beyond silly.

[Cynthia Smith]

On 9/28/2011 12:52 AM, John Levine wrote:
Sorry to intrude on your personal reality.

Amen! The Sprunk comments ignoring realities of toll collection,
billing, collection efficiency vs fuel tax, enforcement, and labor are
amusing though.

[Cynthia Smith]

On 9/27/2011 5:18 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 27-Sep-11 14:47, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>> "Sancho Panza"<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote
>>> A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
>>> can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles use
>>> E-ZPass.
>>
>> They're primarily for drivers who rarely use the toll roads, and for whom
>> the monthly fee (often $1/mo) would be a pointless waste of money. If all
>> states used the same system (CA uses FasTrak), and there was no monthly fee,
>> I'd get a transponder, but I only find myself on a toll road a few times a
>> year, maybe twice in CA and once in MA.
>
> That's poor implementation. Elsewhere, transponders are free,

Free? Or are the costs just hidden elsewhere, like in the sizable toll
overhead compared to 0.26% spent on fuel tax collection?

the only
> monthly fee is for optional paper statements ($2/mo, unavoidable if you
> don't have a transponder account and therefore get paper invoices), and
> there is a significant (33-50%) discount for using a transponder.

And I'm sure it works 100% and there are never any violations sent
improperly, right? And how many states does this single account work in
again? Hopefully it's not just a little local one-state kind of deal
that can't cross state lines.

[Cynthia Smith]

On 9/28/2011 12:33 AM, spsffan wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 12:47 PM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>>> "Sancho Panza"<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>> A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
>>> can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles
>>> use
>>> E-ZPass.
>>
>> They're primarily for drivers who rarely use the toll roads, and for whom
>> the monthly fee (often $1/mo) would be a pointless waste of money. If all
>> states used the same system (CA uses FasTrak), and there was no
>> monthly fee,
>> I'd get a transponder, but I only find myself on a toll road a few
>> times a
>> year, maybe twice in CA and once in MA.
>>
>
>
> And I've only found myself on a toll road once or twice in the past 10
> years. One of those was the Golden Gate Bridge, which is not really the
> same thing.
>
> But, if the idea is to eliminate the federal (and perhaps state) fuel
> tax and replace it with tolls, then you and I would both be using toll
> roads regularly and would find ourselves in need of a transponder. Once
> toll collection spreads to the entire Interstate system, we're all going
> to have one.

Or a lot of transponders, if one were to follow the "we can't even cross
the state line" backwater model that Texas uses.

[Cynthia Smith]

Why does maintenance change the highway number? I-78 is maintained by
DRJTBC between PennDOT and NJ DOT, but it still I-78.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 27-Sep-11 23:52, John Levine wrote:
>>> Ah, so the details of charging people without transponders will
>>> magically take care of themselves?
>>
>> All that takes is a minor (and, technically, optional) change in the law
>> about going through a tollbooth without paying.
>
> No, it requires all of the nearby states to agree to provide address
> info to toll agencies so they know where to send the bills for
> non-transponder use. This is administrative, not law enforcement, and
> it is not trivial. I gather that Vermont still does not provide
> address info to Ontario for the 407.

There is already a national system in place to share driver and vehicle
licensing information. It wouldn't surprise me if Canadian provinces
weren't included in that.

> In some places, they don't let you renew your registration if you have
> unpaid tolls, which is a huge political can of worms, particularly
> when you realize that OCR'ing license plates is not 100% accurate.

If the license plate in the invoice's photo doesn't match your plate, it
should be a trivial matter to resolve that.

My state automatically suspends your driver's license if you have
warrants for unpaid moving violations (or lapsed insurance). However,
you have multiple opportunities over several months to dispute a toll
before a citation is issued.

>> You don't need any more of an "arrangement" than already exists for the
>> above and other law enforcement purposes: any state can ask any other
>> state for the registrant of a particular license plate.
>
> Billing is not the same as law enforcement.

The information needed is the same.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 28-Sep-11 08:11, Cynthia Smith wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 11:30 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 27-Sep-11 18:04, John Levine wrote:
>>>> The road doesn't need to be rebuilt, aside from putting up a couple
>>>> simple gantries and ripping out the old toll booths. NTTA has done it
>>>> to dozens of ramps and multiple plazas here. In typical American
>>>> fashion, the politicians spend far longer arguing about it than it
>>>> takes
>>>> to actually _do_ the work.
>>>
>>> Ah, so the details of charging people without transponders will
>>> magically take care of themselves?
>>
>> All that takes is a minor (and, technically, optional) change in the law
>> about going through a tollbooth without paying.
>
> Umm, what states with tolls DON'T have this already?

I assume all states with toll roads have a law authorizing a citation
for people who go through a tollbooth without paying. Ideally, the
transition to all-ETC would be accompanied by a change in the law to
require toll authorities to give people a reasonable opportunity to pay
a toll invoice before a citation is issued. If not, drivers without a
transponder may be afraid to drive on toll roads and trust that they'll
have said opportunity.

>>> Since these are existing roads, there's also some issue of
>>> a transition plan,
>>
>> Fortunately for everyone else, NTTA has provided multiple examples of
>> exactly how to do just that. Just like they provided the example of the
>> first ETC system in the world, which dozens of other agencies have
>> already copied (poorly, in most cases).
>
> And if their system is so great (haha), HOW MANY STATES does it work in
> without requiring a separate account?

One, but four different toll road systems. State law doesn't currently
require anything more, and attempts to connect with other nearby states
using the same transponder technology have so far been unsuccessful. I
can register my same transponder in those states (with a separate
account) if desired, but .

> A system that requires separate tags/accounts/registrations when you
> cross a state line is beyond silly.

It's annoying, but due to our geography it's simply not relevant to the
vast majority of drivers. Ditto for the systems in California,
Colorado, Florida and Georgia. Few people will ever drive far enough to
run into a toll road their transponder doesn't work on.

Obviously, if all limited-access highways in the country were tolled,
things would have to change.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 28-Sep-11 08:15, Cynthia Smith wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 5:18 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 27-Sep-11 14:47, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>>> "Sancho Panza"<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote
>>>> A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers
>>>> who can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the
>>>> vehicles use E-ZPass.
>>>
>>> They're primarily for drivers who rarely use the toll roads, and for
>>> whom the monthly fee (often $1/mo) would be a pointless waste of
>>> money. If all states used the same system (CA uses FasTrak), and
>>> there was no monthly fee, I'd get a transponder, but I only find
>>> myself on a toll road a few times a year, maybe twice in CA and
>>> once in MA.
>>
>> That's poor implementation. Elsewhere, transponders are free,
>
> Free?

Free to the user. Just call up the toll authority and they'll mail you
a transponder at no cost; the transponder itself costs less than the
postage.

>> the only monthly fee is for optional paper statements ($2/mo,
>> unavoidable if you don't have a transponder account and therefore
>> get paper invoices), and there is a significant (33-50%) discount
>> for using a transponder.
>
> And I'm sure it works 100% and there are never any violations sent
> improperly, right?

I'm sure there are occasional invoicing errors; that's why there's a
dispute resolution process, and no citation can be issued while that's
underway.

[Cynthia Smith]

On 9/28/2011 10:12 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 27-Sep-11 23:52, John Levine wrote:
>>>> Ah, so the details of charging people without transponders will
>>>> magically take care of themselves?
>>>
>>> All that takes is a minor (and, technically, optional) change in the law
>>> about going through a tollbooth without paying.
>>
>> No, it requires all of the nearby states to agree to provide address
>> info to toll agencies so they know where to send the bills for
>> non-transponder use. This is administrative, not law enforcement, and
>> it is not trivial. I gather that Vermont still does not provide
>> address info to Ontario for the 407.
>
> There is already a national system in place to share driver and vehicle
> licensing information. It wouldn't surprise me if Canadian provinces
> weren't included in that.

Are you talking about law enforcement sharing or are you claiming that
arrangements have been made to share this information among every entity
for toll enforcement?

>
>> In some places, they don't let you renew your registration if you have
>> unpaid tolls, which is a huge political can of worms, particularly
>> when you realize that OCR'ing license plates is not 100% accurate.
>
> If the license plate in the invoice's photo doesn't match your plate, it
> should be a trivial matter to resolve that.
>
> My state automatically suspends your driver's license if you have
> warrants for unpaid moving violations (or lapsed insurance). However,
> you have multiple opportunities over several months to dispute a toll
> before a citation is issued.

Citation? And how does the citation provide proof that the recipient is
the (alleged!) violator?

>
>>> You don't need any more of an "arrangement" than already exists for the
>>> above and other law enforcement purposes: any state can ask any other
>>> state for the registrant of a particular license plate.
>>
>> Billing is not the same as law enforcement.
>
> The information needed is the same.

So you are claiming that information sharing legally applies to both
equally? If not, whether the information is "the same" is not very
relevant. And are you claiming that plate OCR is fail proof? Ha! If it
was, nobody would need tags, not even your vaunted NTTA. :)

>
> S
>

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 27-Sep-11 23:33, spsffan wrote:
> ... Once toll collection spreads to the entire Interstate system, we're
> all going to have [a transponder].

It still wouldn't be a requirement, but it'd probably save you a lot of
money.

> In the meantime, there will still be a need for a few cash lanes on
> some toll roads and things like the Golden Gate Bridge, which is the
> only 1.2 (or whatever) part of a 1200 mile US Highway 101 that is
> subject to a toll.

Why continue to have expensive, inefficient, traffic-congesting cash
lanes rather than go all-ETC and let non-transponder users pay their
tolls by mail?

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 28-Sep-11 00:29, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>> "spsffan" <sps...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> But, if the idea is to eliminate the federal (and perhaps state)
>> fuel tax and replace it with tolls, then you and I would both be
>> using toll roads regularly and would find ourselves in need of a
>> transponder. Once toll collection spreads to the entire Interstate
>> system, we're all going to have one.
>
> No argument there. As long as it's a transponder that can be read at
> full freeway speeds.

Reliability depends on the reader more than the transponder.
Single-antenna readers seem to be reliable up to about 80mph and quit
working entirely at about 110mph. Dual-antenna readers intended for
mainlane gantries don't seem to have any problems up to 150mph, which is
the fastest I've tried. (Both assume proper mounting; read speeds drop
significantly if not.)

[Cynthia Smith]

You're so right! Truckers and drivers never cross state line, just like
the NTTA!

[Cynthia Smith]

On 9/28/2011 10:31 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 27-Sep-11 23:33, spsffan wrote:
>> ... Once toll collection spreads to the entire Interstate system, we're
>> all going to have [a transponder].
>
> It still wouldn't be a requirement, but it'd probably save you a lot of
> money.

Versus the gas tax with its tiny 0.26% collection overhead? Not very
likely. Toll collection is very expensive, with automation, and much
higher still without.

>
>> In the meantime, there will still be a need for a few cash lanes on
>> some toll roads and things like the Golden Gate Bridge, which is the
>> only 1.2 (or whatever) part of a 1200 mile US Highway 101 that is
>> subject to a toll.
>
> Why continue to have expensive, inefficient, traffic-congesting cash
> lanes rather than go all-ETC and let non-transponder users pay their
> tolls by mail?

False dichotomy.

[Sancho Panza]

On 9/27/2011 11:34 AM, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/27/2011 10:21 AM, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>>> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/2011 10:07 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> AFAIK, there are no modern toll roads in the NE US.
>>>>
>>>> What is antiquated about the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway?
>>>
>>> There are toll-booth collectors.
>>>
>> A mere shadow of what they used to be, for the antiquated drivers who
>> can't handle the modern age. More than three-quarters of the vehicles
>> use E-ZPass.
>
> Modern toll roads photograph the plates of antiquated drivers
> and send them a bill.
>

Apparently that does not seem too effective:

"Got an unpaid toll violation? The New Jersey Turnpike Authority
strongly suggests you pay up. Now.

How strongly? They are willing to suspend your registration, impound
your car, file a civil suit and even have you arrested for theft of
service if it goes unpaid.

Turnpike Authority officials are stepping up collection efforts of the
estimated $10 million in unpaid tolls in the wake of a projected $55
million to $57 million shortfall in revenue to fund operations due to
the economy and a year of bad weather that has depressed traffic volume
on the Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway. So far, revenue has been
off by $37 million for the past eight months on the state’s two biggest
toll roads.

“We want to get the word out. Revenue is down, and we can’t tolerate
violators,” said Veronique Hakim, the Turnpike Authority executive director.

Hakim estimated that about $10 million total is lost annually to drivers
who cheat on tolls either by using the exact change or E-ZPass lanes
without paying or customers who run up charges on an E-ZPass account
with a low or no balance.

Losses from exact-change lanes on the Garden State Parkway account for
$4 million alone. Video technology used to catch the license plates of
E-ZPass violators is being employed in exact-change lanes, she said.

“This is an area we started looking at,” said Hakim, who added that the
policy for going after toll violators is not new.

Officials finalized and will post the Turnpike Authority’s violations
enforcement policy on the agency’s website. Letters advising people that
they are in violation have been sent. Another incentive to get current
is that on Oct. 17, the administrative violations fee increases to $50
from $25.

Turnpike Authority financial officials also updated the commissioners on
Tuesday about the latest costs from Hurricane Irene, which include $3
million in damages and cleanup costs and $4.3 million in revenue lost,
said Chief Financial Officer Donna Manuelli.

While truck traffic on the Turnpike is up 0.3 percent, that gain was
offset by August losses in car traffic and revenue on the Parkway
losses, said state Department of Transportation Commissioner James Simpson.

“August was a washout,” he said, and noted that the hurricane and wet
weather put a damper on discretionary driving.

Simpson said the Turnpike Authority will look for internal efficiencies
in operation to absorb the revenue dip, and he said that it will not
result in a toll increase beyond the scheduled rise in rates to take
effect this January.

“There is no need for a further (toll) increase,” he said."--app.com

[John Levine]

>I assume all states with toll roads have a law authorizing a citation

>for people who go through a tollbooth without paying. ...

Yes, you assume a lot of things.

I don't know what weird rules Texas may have, but in Florida and
Ontario, it is perfectly legal to drive on an open tolled road
without a transponder. When they take a picture of your plate and
mail you a bill, that's not a violation, that's just a bill. If you
don't pay it, then it becomes a violation.

Whatever agreements exist for law enforcement don't apply to sending
bills. That's why they need new agreements.

As a recent message about NJ toll evasion noted, there are serious
open toll evasion problems unless they can hold up plate renewals for
nonpayment. They found the same thing in Ontario. I suppose this
might be hard for a Texan to understand, but in the northeast we have
a lot of states right next to each other, and vast numbers of people
from NY, NJ, CT, PA, and DE drive on each other's roads. That means
that not only do they need to be able to hold up plate renewals in
their own states, they need to be able do it in other nearby states.

The only way that has any chance of happening is via reciprocity,
which is only going to happen when most of the states have or are
planning enough open tolled facilities to do something about it.
(Vermont doesn't give billing info to the 407, likely because there
are no toll roads in VT, so they don't care.)

So, no, it's not just putting up gantries, and the toll faeries will
not magically collect all the money.

R's,
John

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 28-Sep-11 09:29, Cynthia Smith wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 10:12 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 27-Sep-11 23:52, John Levine wrote:
>>> In some places, they don't let you renew your registration if you have
>>> unpaid tolls, which is a huge political can of worms, particularly
>>> when you realize that OCR'ing license plates is not 100% accurate.
>>
>> If the license plate in the invoice's photo doesn't match your plate, it
>> should be a trivial matter to resolve that.
>>
>> My state automatically suspends your driver's license if you have
>> warrants for unpaid moving violations (or lapsed insurance). However,
>> you have multiple opportunities over several months to dispute a toll
>> before a citation is issued.
>
> Citation? And how does the citation provide proof that the recipient is
> the (alleged!) violator?

You're welcome to dispute the citation in court, where the prosecution
will introduce evidence to substantiate the charge, eg. photographs. A
warrant is only issued if you fail to show up for court, as with any
other citation.

> And are you claiming that plate OCR is fail proof?

No, see above.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 28-Sep-11 12:00, John Levine wrote:
>> I assume all states with toll roads have a law authorizing a citation
>> for people who go through a tollbooth without paying. ...
>
> Yes, you assume a lot of things.
>
> I don't know what weird rules Texas may have, but in Florida and
> Ontario, it is perfectly legal to drive on an open tolled road
> without a transponder. When they take a picture of your plate and
> mail you a bill, that's not a violation, that's just a bill. If you
> don't pay it, then it becomes a violation.

So, yes, they have laws against not paying tolls. Thank you.

> Whatever agreements exist for law enforcement don't apply to sending
> bills. That's why they need new agreements.

No, they don't. Even under existing law, whether to file a citation
against an offender is discretionary up to the statue of limitations.
If they were to _choose_ to send an invoice first and not file a
citation if you pay on time, that would be legal.

As stated previously, I would prefer that they be _required_ to follow
that procedure, but there's nothing stopping them from doing it voluntarily.

> As a recent message about NJ toll evasion noted, there are serious
> open toll evasion problems unless they can hold up plate renewals for
> nonpayment. They found the same thing in Ontario.

There has to be some sort of penalty, yes.

> I suppose this might be hard for a Texan to understand, but in the
> northeast we have a lot of states right next to each other, and vast
> numbers of people from NY, NJ, CT, PA, and DE drive on each other's
> roads. That means that not only do they need to be able to hold up
> plate renewals in their own states, they need to be able do it in
> other nearby states.

That would definitely improve collection rates, but there are alternatives.

[John Levine]

>> Whatever agreements exist for law enforcement don't apply to sending
>> bills. That's why they need new agreements.
>
>No, they don't. Even under existing law, whether to file a citation
>against an offender is discretionary up to the statue of limitations.

Well, now that we've been reminded three times that you aren't able
to understand the difference between a bill and a citation, or why
that might be important, we can stop.

R's,
John

[Phil Kane]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:18:33 -0400, Cynthia Smith
<c.sm...@spam.invalid> wrote:

>>> In the meantime, there will still be a need for a few cash lanes on some
>>> toll roads and things like the Golden Gate Bridge, which is the only 1.2
>>> (or whatever) part of a 1200 mile US Highway 101 that is subject to a
>>> toll.
>>
>> Technically, there is a break in US-101 at the bridge. From
>> www.cahighways.org:
>>
>> "Golden Gate Bridge. Lastly, note that the Golden Gate Bridge is not part of
>> US 101. The Golden Gate is maintained by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway,
>> and Transportation District."
>>
>
>Why does maintenance change the highway number? I-78 is maintained by
>DRJTBC between PennDOT and NJ DOT, but it still I-78.

According to three colleagues who drive The Bridge daily, there is
signage for both US 101 and State Hwy 1 on The Bridge as well as at
both ends. As noted, The Bridge is maintained by the District, not by
CalTrans. No big deal - it's all taxpayer money one way or another.
--

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 28-Sep-11 17:11, Phil Kane wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:18:33 -0400, Cynthia Smith
> <c.sm...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Technically, there is a break in US-101 at the bridge. From
>>> www.cahighways.org:
>>>
>>> "Golden Gate Bridge. Lastly, note that the Golden Gate Bridge is not
>>> part of US 101. The Golden Gate is maintained by the Golden Gate
>>> Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District."
>>
>> Why does maintenance change the highway number? I-78 is maintained by
>> DRJTBC between PennDOT and NJ DOT, but it still I-78.
>
> According to three colleagues who drive The Bridge daily, there is
> signage for both US 101 and State Hwy 1 on The Bridge as well as at
> both ends.

Are they sure there's not a "TO" placard above the US-101 shield (or the
directional placard)? That's what the MUTCD would indicate in that case.

Even if not, it is not uncommon for states to deliberately post signs
that are technically incorrect (for some obscure administrative reason)
where they believe doing so would reduce driver confusion.

For instance, one of the shortest Interstates in the US is IH-345 in
Dallas--but there aren't any highway signs for it, nor will you find it
on most maps. It's signed as US-75, and that is how it shows up on most
maps, but US-75 actually begins at IH-345's northern terminus (at
SH-366, which is signed only as "TO IH-35E" at that end and "TO US-75"
at the other). Signage that correctly noted that trivial distinction
would do nothing but confuse drivers trying to get through an area that
is already confusing enough.

> As noted, The Bridge is maintained by the District, not by CalTrans.
> No big deal - it's all taxpayer money one way or another.

In theory at least, maintenance of the Bridge is funded by tolls, not by
state or federal fuel excise taxes.

I suspect California has the same restriction as Texas: only the state
DOT can _number_ highways; local agencies only _name_ roads, including
toll roads, since they aren't part of the state highway system.

[Prince Buster]

There is all sorts of that hugger-muggery going on. NYS 'Touring Routes' are posted on county roads in Sullivan, Dutchess and Ulster Counties(NYS 55 in Sullivan being the best example. NYS 55A is maintained by the City of New York, and State highway numbers are posted on city owned streets in many states. US 46 is posted past it's END milepost at the Broad Street junction in Palisades Park, and is considered to end at the state line on the George Washington Bridge(owned by the Port Authority) by NJDOT(according to their straight line diagrams-mp 72.01-77.96 which extend along US 1-9 and the IH 95).

[spsffan]

Thanks for that Phil. I thought I recalled seeing "US 101" shield shaped
signs on the bridge itself. If someone wants to claim that the Golden
Gate Bridge is not technically part of US highway 101, fine. They can
roll that up in a copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate and put it in
their pipe and smoke it! But for the rest of us, the Golden Gate Bridge,
parts of Van Ness Avenue, Lombard Street, the Ventura and Hollywood
Freeways, are all part of US highway 101.

Shesh!

[Cynthia Smith]

On 9/28/2011 2:45 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 28-Sep-11 09:29, Cynthia Smith wrote:
>> On 9/28/2011 10:12 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 27-Sep-11 23:52, John Levine wrote:
>>>> In some places, they don't let you renew your registration if you have
>>>> unpaid tolls, which is a huge political can of worms, particularly
>>>> when you realize that OCR'ing license plates is not 100% accurate.
>>>
>>> If the license plate in the invoice's photo doesn't match your plate, it
>>> should be a trivial matter to resolve that.
>>>
>>> My state automatically suspends your driver's license if you have
>>> warrants for unpaid moving violations (or lapsed insurance). However,
>>> you have multiple opportunities over several months to dispute a toll
>>> before a citation is issued.
>>
>> Citation? And how does the citation provide proof that the recipient is
>> the (alleged!) violator?
>
> You're welcome to dispute the citation in court, where the prosecution
> will introduce evidence to substantiate the charge, eg. photographs. A
> warrant is only issued if you fail to show up for court, as with any
> other citation.
>
>> And are you claiming that plate OCR is fail proof?
>
> No, see above.

Oh how very nice that I'm welcome to dispute a phony citation (not even
just a toll authority bill, but a citation!) in court. Will the court
charge me non refundable cash for that privilege, a la Massachusetts?

[Stephen Sprunk]

You're also welcome to dispute the invoice _before_ a citation is
issued. In the case of bad OCR, that should be trivial to do: just call
customer service, ask them to look at the photo themselves, and they'll
correct the charge.

> Will the court charge me non refundable cash for that privilege, a la
> Massachusetts?

States do that? Here, you only pay the court if you lose; if you win,
court costs are charged to the prosecution.

[Cynthia Smith]

Of course they will. It will work just as wonderful as E-ZPass
Violations Customer Service or fighting a bogus camera ticket charge, no
doubt.

>
>> Will the court charge me non refundable cash for that privilege, a la
>> Massachusetts?
>
> States do that? Here, you only pay the court if you lose; if you win,
> court costs are charged to the prosecution.

Well now you know. I'm glad I could educate you again.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 29-Sep-11 22:02, Cynthia Smith wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 10:42 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 29-Sep-11 07:01, Cynthia Smith wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2011 2:45 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 28-Sep-11 09:29, Cynthia Smith wrote:
>>>>> And are you claiming that plate OCR is fail proof?
>>>>
>>>> No, see above.
>>>
>>> Oh how very nice that I'm welcome to dispute a phony citation (not
>>> even just a toll authority bill, but a citation!) in court.
>>
>> You're also welcome to dispute the invoice _before_ a citation is
>> issued. In the case of bad OCR, that should be trivial to do: just
>> call customer service, ask them to look at the photo themselves, and
>> they'll correct the charge.
>
> Of course they will.

What possible reason could they give a court for prosecuting someone who
is proven innocent by the toll authority's own evidence? Where would
they even find a prosecutor willing to take the case? They wouldn't
just be laughed out of court, the judge would likely fine them for
wasting the court's time--and you'd have a great civil suit against them
to boot.

[Cynthia Smith]

On 9/30/2011 1:06 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 29-Sep-11 22:02, Cynthia Smith wrote:
>> On 9/29/2011 10:42 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 29-Sep-11 07:01, Cynthia Smith wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/2011 2:45 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> On 28-Sep-11 09:29, Cynthia Smith wrote:
>>>>>> And are you claiming that plate OCR is fail proof?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, see above.
>>>>
>>>> Oh how very nice that I'm welcome to dispute a phony citation (not
>>>> even just a toll authority bill, but a citation!) in court.
>>>
>>> You're also welcome to dispute the invoice _before_ a citation is
>>> issued. In the case of bad OCR, that should be trivial to do: just
>>> call customer service, ask them to look at the photo themselves, and
>>> they'll correct the charge.
>>
>> Of course they will.
>
> What possible reason could they give a court for prosecuting someone who
> is proven innocent by the toll authority's own evidence? Where would
> they even find a prosecutor willing to take the case? They wouldn't
> just be laughed out of court, the judge would likely fine them for
> wasting the court's time--and you'd have a great civil suit against them
> to boot.

You've clearly missed the "safety" camera scam appeals process that is
plaguing the nation. Move into an intersection to allow an ambulance to
pass while the light is red? GUILTY! The photo proves you were passed
the line. NEXT! Even in mid-2011, when a fellow in Maryland proved
(via arithmetic) that a speed camera ticket was inaccurate (his company
fleet had been receiving dozens), as soon as he left the courtroom, the
judge continued finding others guilty from the same camera.