$50 fee for toll violators is fair, judge rules in suit arguing it should be lower (2024)

A judge’s opinion upheld the N.J. Turnpike Authority’s $50 administrative fee charged to toll violators after two drivers sued to have it rolled back.

Superior Court Judge Alberto Rivas, sitting in Middlesex County, sided with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority in an opinion that said a $50 administrative fee charged to toll violators was not excessive and wasn’t used by the toll road as a money maker, as a 2017 lawsuit brought by two drivers charged.

The $50 fee “is neither arbitrary or capricious” and “fairly represents the cost incurred by the NJTA in processing and collecting a toll violation,” Rivas wrote in an opinion released on Jan.10.

The class action suit was filed in 2017 by two out-of-state drivers over the violation fees, contending the Turnpike Authority, which also runs the Garden State Parkway, has overcharged drivers since the fee was raised in 2011 to $50, because the costs to process a violation is about $25.

They claimed almost 4 million drivers had been overcharged $185.6 million over six years, and said they sought a roll back of the fee, refunds to drivers who overpaid and a do-over of the 2011 legal process that raised the fees from $25 to $50.

Rivas based his decision on the testimony of two experts who considered what expenses an administrative fee should and shouldn’t cover.

“The $50 administrative fee is neither a fine nor represents unauthorized ‘profit,’” Rivas wrote. “The efforts expanded by the NJTA to collect a toll without assessing an administrative fee was credibly testified to at the hearing.”

Turnpike Authority officials said they were very pleased, but not surprised by the judge’s decision.

“We knew we had a strong case and were confident we would prevail. The toll system on the Turnpike and Parkway is designed to make the drivers who commit violations pay most of the costs of enforcement,” said Tom Feeney, an authority spokesman.

“Drivers who don’t commit toll violations should not have to pay higher tolls because of those enforcement costs,” he said. “The court listened to the testimony and determined that the $50 fee fairly represents those costs.”

The lawsuit was remanded to Middlesex County by a state appeals court for further fact finding in 2019.

But the case isn’t over until appellate court judges make a final ruling, said Attorney Matthew Faranda-Diedrich, who represented the drivers.

“We are obviously disappointed with this result and disagree with the conclusions reached in the Judge’s report, but the case is far from over,” he said. “The Appellate Division has been involved in this matter for the past several years. They will be reviewing the judge’s report and they will be making the ultimate decision on whether the $50 regulation is valid or invalid.”

Plaintiffs James Long and Homer Walker also filed suit in federal court, and that action has been on hold pending the state court’s review.

“We will have an opportunity to argue facts and law to the Appellate Division that we believe will positively impact the outcome of the case, and hopefully benefit millions of New Jersey motorists,” Faranda-Diedrich said.

The judge’s decision cited testimony from the Authority’s expert Stephen Turner, a toll road expert who has worked for several toll agencies.

The process to collect payment from a toll violator starts before a violation notice is issued, because the Authority or its contractor checks whether the vehicle’s owner has a valid E-ZPass account. If it does, the person is billed only for the toll.

That corrected an issue with the state original E-ZPass system which generated paper violation notices, even if a technical issue prevented reading of a transponder and paying a toll. That angered drivers with E-ZPass accounts, who complained about filing multiple appeal forms every time their tags weren’t read.

Turner testified motor vehicle records are checked again to determine if there is an E-ZPass account connected to the motor vehicle’s owner. The toll is charged to that account if an E-ZPass account is found. That work is done by Authority employees.

The E-ZPass contractor then takes over, issuing the violations notice and following up on payment or issuing follow up notices and handling customer service and payment. Turner calculated the cost per violation to be $77.05.

But Faranda-Diedrich argued that a violation only takes place once the initial APR notice is sent and that those costs shouldn’t be considered part of the fee.

The judge agreed with the Turnpike’s analysis that a toll violation occurs at the time a vehicle goes through a toll lane and the toll is not collected. “Intent is irrelevant to this definition of a toll violation,” he wrote.

Please subscribe now and support the local journalism YOU rely on and trust.

Larry Higgs may be reached at lhiggs@njadvancemedia.com.