So much for conventional wisdom. The usual way this happens is that, instead of buying a system, a district 'partners' with a contractor in exchange for a slice -- often a BIG slice -- of the pie. The district is stuck with the operating expenses just like it has with the non-automated version, but it also pays a lease fee. Almost immediately after conversion, tolls go up to cover the shortfall.
Then of course there's the unintended consequences:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/10/BAE2UC2NQ.DTL
"Electronic toll evaders were responsible for $31.4 million
in unpaid bridge tolls in the 2006-07 fiscal year"
"Now the authority plans to begin upgrading its 12-year-old
array of toll-collection and enforcement equipment so that
its cameras produce clearer images of license plates and are
not as apt to lose them during transmission"
+---
| This is a "newish" system, and it's already in need of "upgrading" ...
|
| And yet, there are (costly!) bugs:
+---
"Some 600,000 FasTrak customers have troubles with their toll
tags and have their tolls deducted from their accounts after
their license plates are photographed and entered into the
system. The authority pays its service center operator 9 cents
for each photo it reviews, and the cost adds up quickly,
McMillan said"
"To reduce the number of FasTrak customers whose transponders
aren't read, authority officials plan to replace older
transponders, which may have weak batteries, and remind
drivers to properly mount the transponders on their windshields."
-----
Before FasTrak was implemented, the Bay Area bridges were already notorious for being inefficient at collecting money to pay for the mantenance of the bridges: workers, supervisors, security, enforcement, etc. added up to overhead of nearly 70% of the $2 toll at the time: $0.30 per dollar went toward the actual purpose of maintaining the bridge, and that covered something like 15% of the total cost. The (twice raised, now $4) current toll is still not enough; it is underperforming the estimates and will have to be raised again, with an ever-dwindling percentage of revenue going to maintaining the bridge.
So why do it at all? Especially when you factor in the other costs to society: toll booths slow down traffic, cause congenstion, increase pollution and are otherwise a HUGE net drain on GDP. Remember the (now debunked) story about President Clinton getting a haicut and shutting down LAX? Some disc jockeys here in San Francisco pulled a truck onto the Bay Bridge during rush hour and gave each other haircuts, creating one of the biggest backups in history; in the ensuing legal rumble that followed, the settlement was for them to pay for two days of tolls, making the bridge "toll free" ... guess what? There was NO backup, traffic flowed freely, commuters reported the fastest, lowest-stress commute ever.
Oh, and CHP reported it was the safest commute day on record.
Tolls? No thanks. Just maintain the fucking bridge.
/jordan