And let's actually hear it for the Mass Pike

[jducoeur]

On a more positive note, I'd like to compliment the folks with the state highway department -- the transition of the Mass Pike is going better than I would have believed possible.

As it happens, I was actually *on* the Pike during "D-Day" last Friday evening, as they were shutting down the toll booths. (Just happened that I was coming home from Low Company at that hour.) They clearly hit the ground running -- by the time I took the Pike again a couple of days ago, a bunch of the booths were already gone, some key traffic patterns had been rerouted, and despite the dire warnings of, "It's likely to be like a snow storm", traffic was flowing pretty well. The acid test will be Thanksgiving, of course: I'm really curious whether the traditional hour-long backup at Exit 9 finally goes away.

I'm amused by the new fare model. Folks from out of town, be warned that driving into MA is going to hit you with a fair-sized bill in the mail -- the rates aren't crazy, but designed to cost a good deal extra if they have to bill you. And I'm curious: has anybody seen any actual algorithm for the way they've designed the new rates? I've actually been reading the eensy-weensy "this is how much money we just charged you" signs by the side of the road, and the ratios between the various fare classes appear to be *wildly* inconsistent. Like, it was 25/30/60 at one of them, and 30/60/100 at another. I can't find any rhyme or reason to it.

But all that said, it's looking good. It's tricky to compare the new fare model to the old one, since they think completely differently about it, but it *feels* like it's slightly cheaper for those of us with an in-state EZPass, and it's certainly easier and faster. It's a bit squicky from a privacy POV (surely somebody needs to write a murder mystery that involves one spouse tracking another through their highway bills), but it does seem likely to work well...

Comments

[jducoeur]

I can understand that, although keep in mind that they're not actually *preventing* anybody from doing anything, just making it somewhat more expensive if you're not signed up. (Although nothing like as insanely expensive as going through an EZPass lane without a transponder used to be.)

Still not a trivial consideration, granted, and I agree about the surveillance state, but in practice I suspect it's not much worse in that respect than it has been for some years already...

[desireearmfeldt]

True; you can still drive on the highway. And I think you can technically still give cash to the bus driver (though I've never tried it).

It just seems like a trend we haven't quite thought through all the consequences of, if taken past transition to its logical conclusion. Like many things. :)

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the incredible privacy-demolition of cell phones. Worse, by far, with smartphones.

Abysmal for smartphones with certain software on them, like Facebook.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

"more expensive" often approximately equals "prevented for poor people".

[jducoeur]

True, and that's what I was thinking of above. But the fee structure is essentially designed so that out-of-state visitors (who on average have more money to spend) are effectively subsidizing the people who are using the highway to commute. In practice, that is *probably* an overall win for the blue collar folks to whom it matters most, who have a strong incentive to get a (free) transponder and save money...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Don't you wonder how this impacts interstate trucking?

[jducoeur]

Hmm. Interesting question, but I wouldn't speculate on that without first looking into whether there's a different rate for 18-wheelers. (And whether there was before.)

[fredrickegerman.livejournal.com]

Er, tried to get an EZPass transponder without owning a car?

[There was a huge thread on this at work as many of us are carless, and rentals tend to charge (say) $8/day for letting you put $3.50 on your EZPass at the start and end of your week-long journey.]