Dave & Friends Variety Hour

Interesting how most of the things I have to rant about concern driving. I imagine it�s related to the unpleasantly large amount of time I spend sitting in my car every week. If you live in or drive through Massachusetts, you are familiar with FAST LANE. It�s the Bay State�s version of what everyone else in the Northeast quadrant of the United States knows as EZ Pass, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority�s electronic toll collection system. The purpose of this rant is to discuss how the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has failed to use electronic toll collection to make traveling on the state�s highways as safe and efficient as it could be through the poor design, ineffective signage and inconsistent positioning of toll plazas on the state�s highways.

My first complaint concerns efficiency and relative toll booth positioning. Going into and coming out of the toll booths, those who are using a FAST LANE pass can expect to be moving faster than those who are stopping to hand their change to a toll collector since the electronic toll collection system only requires the driver to slow to 15 miles per hour (a speed limit most drivers seem to ignore, having discovered that the technology works at over 30 miles per hour). Therefore, two things would make sense. First, FAST LANE booths should be easy for drivers from all lanes to access as they approach the booths. There are toll plazas on in the Boston area that require drivers in the far left lane to cross two lanes of traffic to reach a FAST LANE booth, an activity that is difficult, stressful and dangerous in rush hour traffic. Second, FAST LANE booths should be consistently positioned in the same location at every toll plaza, regardless of whether there are two booths or eight. This is currently not the case, and would not be difficult. All the state would need to do is make a set of rules and consistently apply them to all the toll plazas in the state. For instance, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority could stipulate that if there are two booths, the right booth is FAST LANE and the left booth is not, if there are three booths, the right one is FAST LANE and the left two booths are not, if there are four booths, the outside lanes are FAST LANE and the inside lanes are not, and so on.

My second grievance is related to signage. The toll plazas should be better marked. The signs on the toll booths rely on color rather than clearly printed information to indicate which booths accept FAST LANE and which booths require cash, which works best for those who are already familiar with the signs, and in heavy traffic it is often difficult to change lanes once one is within sight of the booths. For these reasons, a sign about a half of a mile before the toll plaza that informs drivers of which booths are for paying a toll collector and which booths require an electronic transponder with a simple, clear image would help drivers avoid unsafe and difficult last minute lane transfers.

Third, why does the state bother with toll booths that serve both cash and electronic payments? Every toll plaza has at least two booths, and since it is not necessary to place an employee in a FAST LANE booth, and a plaza with two booths generally sees a low volume of traffic, it does not make sense to permit hybrid booths. On the approach, it is difficult to distinguish a FAST LANE-cash hybrid booth from a FAST LANE booth, and therefore drivers who plan to pay cash avoid them. When possible, FAST LANE drivers also avoid hybrid booths because they don�t want to be slowed down by drivers who have to stop to make a cash payment. Consequently, these lanes are unpopular and see little use.

Many of the concerns I have discussed above deal with efficiency and usability. However, this last complaint is almost exclusively related to safety. Many very high volume toll plazas have more toll booths than highway lanes entering and exiting them. Some even have twice as many booths as lanes, or more. This arrangement seems to create terribly unsafe situations. Approaching the booths the highway widens, providing aggressive lane hoppers the opportunity to cross seven or eight lanes to get to the booth they want, and leaving more timid, incompetent or oblivious drivers trapped in a seemingly laneless sea of cars. Once through, the cars exiting the toll plaza are forced to rapidly (usually in the space of about one-half mile) squeeze back into the tight two to four lanes of highway. Again, lane markers and signs do not really help with this process, and aggression seems to win over caution. These megaplazas are unsafe, and do not seem to contribute greatly to efficient highway travel.

All of the concerns I have presented regarding the ease of use, efficiency and safety of Massachusetts toll booths have fairly simple, inexpensive and reasonable solutions. Although I imagine it is an unlikely prospect, I would love to see the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority apply such standards to the design of toll plazas, and road systems in general in Massachusetts. I don�t think I�ll hold my breath.