Toll leakage?? What the heck does that mean? If they are talking about not catching tolls because of no front plate I am definitely not convinced that is an issue. I don't have a front plate on the 308 and it catches it every time I cross the Narrows Bridge no problem. Even if I had a front plate on it I'm not sure the cameras would see it because it would be so low and under the bumper. I sent another email to Rep Clibborn but once again got no reply. Rep. Angel was the only one on the entire list who bothered to respond to my email.
Are any of you guys constituents for the committee chair? Or better yet, campaign contributors (or could be)?
You got her running!! Way to go John.... we'll have to do a C&C when it gets warmer so I can finally see your car. Jedi
No not yet. I get one thing done and something else happens. I'm now looking at pulling the starter. Thought I had it for a minute.
I received emails from both Rep. Jan Angel and Rep. Judy Clibborn today. Jan Angel wrote: "John I brought all these forward to deaf ears. Please send an e-mail to Rep. Clibborn and Rep. Armstrong asking for a hearing --- Last day is Tuesday probably too late." I emailed Judy Clibborn back already. Judy Clibborn wrote: Hi John, I have been concerned about this bill in the context of the tolling that will be done in many areas across the state. In particular, I am concerned that we could lose revenue on tolled facilities like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and Highway 520 where photos of both licenses are used. Losing revenue means we have to increase the tolls to make up the difference. I am sending you the input I received from the tolling dept. of DOT to see the concern. Thank you for your interest in this issue. Judy From WSDOT: We are very concerned with the elimination of the front plates as it will have a revenue effect on TNB and SR 520 that now use photo-tolling. We take two images of the front plates and one of the rear plate. We do not take images of the side of the vehicle. The front plates are more reliable since they are not blocked by trailers, hitches, spare tires or other devises placed on the back of a vehicle. If we cannot identify a vehicle because of a blocked view of the rear plate then we lose that toll and have increased revenue leakage. The Tolling Expert Review Panel in their work noted that license plates are the one common basis to identify every vehicle, in-state or out of state. They also noted that approximately 20% of all our tolling on SR 520 will be based on license plates due to infrequent users who will not find it reasonable to set up a Good To Go! account. Attached is a detailed memo that our General Tolling Consultant prepared in 2010 when this topic came forward. Here is an excerpt regarding toll revenue loss: Toll Facility Estimated Annual Toll Transactions ($3.50 avg toll assumed) SR 520 32,850,000 SR 16 (TNB) 16,425,000 Estimated Annual Unprocessable Toll Transactions (1%) SR 520: 328,500 SR 16 (TNB): 164,250 Estimated Annual Revenue Lost Due to Unprocessable Toll Transactions SR 520: $ 1,149,750 SR 16 (TNB): $ 547,875 Total = $ 1,724,625 Image Unavailable, Please Login
I got the same email from her this afternoon. I still find it VERY hard to believe that 10% of all the tolls will be uncollectable because of a misread plate. How many are they missing now? I don't know, it sounds like typical political rice bowl guarding to me. We'll see I guess.
Really? That is their reasoning? One or two toll spots is the reason for not eliminating the front tag for an entire state. Wow, if they are saying that they could loose that much income due to obstructed tags they should be fired. With today's unemployment numbers I'm sure there would be line of people who could solve this "challenge".
Well apparently math was never really my best subject! Okay so one percent is a bit more believable than the 10% I initially read the numbers as. I still don't buy that it's that high though.
I was feeling a little left out because you guys had all recieved notes earlier - but here is the note I received today: Im still fighting for this one havent received a hearing yet and time is running out. Stay tuned. Jan Angel State Representative Legislative District #26 Phone: 360-786-7964 [email protected] Serving Bremerton, Port Orchard, Manchester, South Colby, Southworth, Olalla, Gig Harbor, Lakebay, Burley, Fox Island, Longbranch, Vaughn and Wauna At least he is humoring me with an attempt.
Take note Washington State: many other states just to metion a few, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New york, that come to mnd, that have numerious toll bridges and roads and seem to find a way to collect tolls without the need of a front license plate on collector cars. Lest we forget the millions of dollars (by their own admission),the DOL lost in uncollected tolls by choosing the lowest bidder and that company's inability to provide a working automated collection system. Then lets not forget the DOL's decision to not pursue the uncollected millions due to the DOL by the terms spelled out in the legal and binding contract signed by the company and the director of the DOL. Once again our state stumbles over pennies while failing to collect the millions owed. Oh well it's just our state government in action. If they were really interested in collection of tolls, they would have pursued the lost millions (the contractor was bonded) rather than the few thousand dollars from missing front license plates. Tha'ts my take on the situation, Howard Musolf 1981 308gtsi 1982 400i Cabriolet 1988 Lotus Esprit turbo
In Oklahoma, don't ever remember having front tags, and at on time was listed as having the most toll roads in the US, but can never recall the state not being able to collect on tolls.
This is why I don't use a good to go pass - don't want a ticket in the mail. I got a fix it ticket in my FORD GT a couple years ago - had to go to the police station with plate attached to avoid paying the ticket. Bought one of the tow hook plate attachments from mower axle. Its in the garage ready to go for the next occassion.
Uh I may not be thinking like a bureaucrat, but this seems like a no-brainer. Rep. Angel is enthusiastic about the bill which would save $26 million. Estimated Annual Revenue Lost Due to Unprocessable Toll Transactions SR 520: $ 1,149,750 SR 16 (TNB): $ 547,875 Lose = $ 1,724,625
Guys, Our entire government, US and state are a total mess due to lack of common sense. I highly doubt you can convince these folks representing us to figure this out, but they sure know how to ask for money. What bothers me about this state is they allow "collector vehicles" to operate w/o plates because they assume these cars are driven only for parades and shows, yet some-many collector cars are driven daily. I think you may get a better reaction if you sold them on charging people for a front plate exemption. Example, charge each car/plate a nominal 40-$80 or something like that for the "privileged" of running around w/o out a plate. This would cover some of the phantom lost revenue they are talking about and legitimize the whole thing. It can be argued that the difficult to read rear plates are only missed some of the time, not all the time.
Good idea. Still, them worrying about lost toll revenues when we are losing millions due to the unpaid state gasoline tax that is supposed to be used for road improvements on the reservations is way bigger than this. Might want to point this out, next time you contact your local Rep. and they say they won't hear this.
It doesn't sound like money is going to do any good if they are already ignoring a $24 mil gain over a $1.7 mil lose.
That would be a pretty good idea. They could easily enough design and make a set of plates that would designate that the car it's on has paid the fee and is exempt from having a front plate.
Ticketed at FoS for no front plate parked on side street. Pulled over downtown Seattle and given a warning another time. Many (44 cars) were with me when I was pulled over for no front plate in Winthrop a few years ago warning there as well. When the Narrows camera/system went crazy last year I received 49 tickets in the mail for just one of my cars. All rear plate photos and not one from the front. Vic I'd bet just driving around and getting the occasional front plate ticket would be easier than lobbying to get a front plate exemption Pre-Paid legislation through.
I haven't had any trouble with my 308 and it only has a back plate. The only time I was hassled about it was when I was pulled over for "something else"!? It's legal now that it's licensed as a collector car but even before that I never had a front plate on it. Of course I haven't driven it across there lately because, well, I haven't driven it lately. That's another story though!! I don't think floating the idea of people being able to pay for a front plate exemption would fly either. You wouldn't see the big savings from having NO front plates, and it would add more complexity to the sytem which would likely end up costing more than the fees would bring in. Just my guess but it may be worth bringing up anyway??!
No tickets happen on the narrows with no front plate. I cross it 2-3 times a day in various cars 3 of 18 have a front plate
Excuse my ignorance, as I am a Canadian living here, but has bill HB 1219 passed? It clearly states that: (iii) One license plate if the registered owner of the vehicle requests only a license plate for the rear of the vehicle for privacy purposes, because the vehicle is a collector vehicle, or because the design of the vehicle is not conducive for the placement of a license plate on the front of the vehicle. Can't think of any Ferrari that is conducive to a front plate
That's a good question but it looks like that bill still hasn't passed either. It looks like it has at least been through committees though. There is a process in place now to get an exemption from having a front plate, but it goes through the State Patrol for approval and they don't seem to be swayed by logic at all. If the new system does away with the SP approval it would at least solve the issue for most folks. I'd still like to see the front plate done away with just for pure fiscal reasons.
