Taking Its Toll:
Reducing Congestion On Maryland Toll Roads
Nicholas A. Ferris
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Allison J. Healy
University of Maryland, College Park
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2
Alternatives-Criteria Matrix 3
1.0 Introduction 4
1.1 Existing Tolls 4
1.2 Traffic Trends 5
1.3 Recent Improvements 7
2.0 Statement of the Problem 9
2.1 Statement of the Goal 9
3.0 Alternatives 10
3.1 Promoting E-ZPass Use 10
3.2 Expansion of E-ZPass 12
3.3 Improving the E-ZPass Billing Scheme 13
3.4 Encouraging Carpooling Through Toll Roads 14
3.5 Toll Facility Sponsorship 17
3.6 Eliminating Tolls 19
3.7 Increasing Tolls 22
3.8 Congestion Tolling 23
4.0 Final Recommendations 27
5.0 Acknowledgements 28
6.0 Works Cited 29
Cover Photo Source: Maryland Transportation Authority
From rush hour at the Fort McHenry Tunnel to summer weekends at the Bay Bridge,
congestion at Maryland‘s toll facilities is a major source of delays for the tens of millions
of drivers who pass through them each year. Some commuters regularly spend half an
hour or more in the stop-and-go traffic approaching toll plazas. Recent efforts to relieve
toll congestion, such as the E-ZPass electronic toll collection system, have achieved some
success but have yet to be widely adopted by drivers. As more vehicles vie for use of
Maryland‘s roads, the lines at toll facilities will grow longer—possibly to the point of
crippling the interstates and highways meant to be convenient driving routes. Thus,
innovative and immediate actions should be taken to ease toll congestion and prevent it
from returning in the future.
Current toll facilities can no longer handle the rapidly increasing demands made upon
them by Maryland‘s motor vehicle population. As a result, commuters passing through
toll plazas face numerous problems: long lines (up to ten minutes during rush hour);
elevated levels of pollution; additional wear and tear on their vehicles, resulting in
hundreds of dollars in maintenance costs per year; and delays with significant economic
consequences, such as lower work productivity.
To determine a course of action to reverse the current trend of toll congestion.
The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) should overhaul its existing facilities to
incorporate new methods meant to alleviate congestion on Maryland toll roads. We
recommend the MdTA investigate the possible implementation of the following
Increased marketing of the benefits of using E-ZPass.
Expansion of the E-ZPass program into neighboring states not currently supporting
Varying billing structures to encourage non-frequent toll users to subscribe to
Additional benefits for carpoolers who use toll facilities, such as exemption from
tolls, special carpool-only toll plaza lanes, and the establishment of ―slugging.‖
Sponsorship of toll facilities to allow for toll-free driving during peak hours.
Elimination of some or all toll facilities in Maryland.
Increased tolls to encourage drivers to take alternate routes.
Congestion tolling that would charge toll users rates proportional to traffic conditions
on the toll road.
Minimize fiscal Maximize wait time Maximize public
cost reduction support
E-ZPass promotion Moderate Low-moderate Moderate
Low-moderate Moderate Low-Moderate
Toll sponsorship at
non-peak times None Moderate Moderate-High
Low Moderate Moderate
Elimination of tolls
High High High
None Low Low
Varying billing and
Low Low Moderate
E-ZPass to additional states Low-Moderate Low Low
Low Moderate High
0 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000+
Wait Time Reduction
Low Moderate High
0 5 10 15 20 25 30+
Percent Wait Time Reduction
Low Moderate High
0 15 30 45 60 75 85+
Public Approval Percentage
1.1 Existing Tolls
Drivers in the state of Maryland have the leisure of traveling virtually toll free. However,
there are currently seven toll roads located throughout Maryland: the John F. Kennedy
Memorial Highway (part of I-95), Baltimore Harbor Tunnel (I-895), Fort McHenry
Tunnel (also part of I-95), the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (eastbound toll) in Anne Arundel
County, the Thomas J. Hatem Bridge (part of U.S. 40, eastbound toll) at Perryville, the
Francis Scott Key Bridge (part of I-695, Baltimore Beltway, northbound and southbound
tolls), and the Governor Harry W. Nice Bridge in Charles County (southbound toll). All
Maryland tolls are operated and maintained by the Maryland Transportation Authority
John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway:
The first section to appear in Maryland was the toll Northeast Expressway,
opened in November 1963. The John F. Kennedy Highway extended from the
official end of the Harbor Tunnel Thruway at Moravia Rd. The toll section began
at White Marsh Blvd. (MD 43) and continued all the way to the Delaware line.
Today, the only toll on the old JFK Highway in Maryland is $4.00 over the
Susquehanna River Bridge charged eastbound only.
Thomas J. Hatem Bridge:
This bridge extends 1.4 miles over the Susquehanna River from a point near
Perryville, Cecil County, to a point near Havre de Grace, Harford County. It was
opened to traffic on August 28, 1940.
Francis Scott Key Bridge:
The four-lane Francis Scott Key Bridge extends 1.6 miles across the Baltimore
Harbor. The Bridge opened in 1977 and is part of the Baltimore Beltway (I-695).
There is a toll collection plaza for both northbound and southbound traffic.
Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge:
The Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge (Potomac River Bridge) crosses
the Potomac River from Charles County, Maryland, to King George County,
Virginia. The Bridge opened in 1940 as the Potomac River Toll Bridge. The Nice
Memorial Bridge has two lanes and is 1.7 miles long. Tolls are collected from
William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge:
Also, known as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, it is one of the longest over-water
steel structures in the world. It spans 4.35 miles of the Chesapeake Bay from
Sandy Point on the Western Shore to a point near Stevensville on the Eastern
Shore. The parallel bridge that was later built consists of three lanes, and is now
referred to as the westbound span, while the original bridge is the eastbound span.
This busy bridge holds nearly 65,000 vehicles a day and carries a toll of $2.50 for
2 axle vehicles, collected eastbound only.
Baltimore Harbor Tunnel:
This 18-mile thruway opened to traffic on November 30, 1957. Designated
Interstate 895, the tunnel provides a major north-south bypass of Baltimore City.
Fort McHenry Tunnel:
The world's only eight-lane underwater tunnel for vehicular traffic, the Fort
McHenry Tunnel is located just south of Fort McHenry between Locust Point and
Canton, crossing the Baltimore Harbor under the Patapsco River. As part of
Interstate 95, the tunnel links the southern and eastern areas of Baltimore City. It
opened to traffic on November 24, 1985. This tunnel is subject to major
congestion and backups during peak hours. A toll of $1.00 is collected at both
ends of the tunnel.
1.2 Traffic Trends
Whether it is the morning commute or the weekend drive to Ocean City, drivers in
Maryland tend to favor the roads that will get them to their destination the fastest.
Everyday, commuters pack onto I-95, I-695, and I-895 by the thousands. Similar figures
can be found for U.S. 50—especially on hot summer weekends. Oftentimes, these roads
provide the only viable route across geophysical barriers, such as harbors, rivers, or
In 2002, on any given day, an average of 121,000 vehicles traveled along I-95 through
the Fort McHenry Tunnel. Another 67,000 drivers passed through I-895‘s Baltimore
Harbor Tunnel daily. Along U.S. 50, the William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial (Bay)
Bridge regularly saw nearly 69,000 vehicles each day; that number would more than
double on busy summer weekends.
Ft. McHenry Tunnel Harbor Tunnel Lane Bridge
1997 109,109 55,152 60,842
1998 109,778 58,686 62,896
1999 111,650 59,750 64,050
2000 114,334 64,120 65,212
2001 115,489 65,344 65,843
2002 121,020 67,260 68,438
Figure 1.2.1: Annual Average Daily Traffic At Maryland Toll Facilities From 1997 to 2002 (Source:
Maryland Transportation Authority)
To provide a basis for comparison, Figure 1.2.1 shows the Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) for these three toll roads from 1997 to 2002. In just six years, the volume of
traffic passing through the Fort McHenry and Harbor Tunnels increased by 12,000
vehicles each, while the Bay Bridge AADT rose by almost 8,000.
Figure 1.2.2: Annual Average Daily Traffic At Maryland Toll Facilities Through 2003 And Projected
Values Through 2020 (Source: Maryland Transportation Authority)
Annual Average Daily Traffic
Ft. McHenry Tunnel
110000 Harbor Tunnel
Figure 1.2.2 illustrates how these figures will evolve over the next two decades. By 2020,
the Fort McHenry Tunnel could face an AADT of 170,000 vehicles, and the Bay Bridge‘s
AADT may increase to 100,000. These numbers indicate that motor vehicle traffic on
these two toll roads could increase by more than 40% from 2002 to 2020. The most
startling increase could be seen in the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, where the AADT in
2020 may reach 138,000—more than double the figures seen in 2002 (Combined
Statement of Toll Revenue and Expenses).
1.3 Recent Improvements
One of the primary missions of the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) has
always been to monitor traffic congestion on Maryland roads. In recent years, MDOT has
undertaken several projects meant to control traffic levels on major highways such as
variable road signs to divert users to other roads when congested. Recognizing that toll
roads are a vital part of Maryland‘s transportation infrastructure, the MdTA is also taking
steps to ease congestion, especially at its toll plazas where long lines can sometimes back
up traffic for miles. The most important of the MdTA‘s efforts to solve this problem has
been the implementation of the E-ZPass electronic toll collection system.
The E-ZPass works by having an antenna electronically reads the user‘s account
information from your transponder when approaching the toll plaza. Then it
automatically deducts the toll amount from the user‘s prepaid account. Once the
transponder is read and account money is deducted by the antenna, a green light flashes
to tell the driver to pass through. The transponder is a small electronic device that is
installed on the vehicle‘s windshield behind your rearview mirror. A driver‘s prepaid
account is opened with the MdTA. Prepayment options by cash, check, money order, or
credit card are available. If prepaying by credit card, customers may choose to replenish
their account automatically when it reaches $10.00 to ensure sufficient funds. Paying by
any other method takes longer because information must first be mailed to the MdTA.
This frees drivers from the hassles of cash, coins, tokens, or tickets. Drivers can complete
an application online, by phone, or by coming into a service center. E-ZPass is accepted
wherever the E-ZPass logo is displayed. States supporting E-ZPass include Maryland,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Delaware, and West Virginia.
Customers only need to open one account to be able to use any toll facility‘s E-ZPass
lanes; there is no need to register at each toll.
Processing Method Average Vehicle Processing
Capability Per Tollbooth Per Hour
Manual Toll Collection 400
Figure 1.3.1: Average Vehicle Processing Capability Per Tollbooth Per Hour By Different Toll
Collection Methods (Source: Maryland Transportation Authority)
Benefits of the E-ZPass include discount plans for commuters. Some toll facilities
provide all E-ZPass customers a standard automatic discount when they use the E-ZPass
lanes with no special enrollment for the discount. Frequent users and commuters can save
even more money on toll roads, bridges, and tunnels that offer discount plans over and
above the standard discount. These discount plans may have residency requirements,
vehicle occupancy requirements, time of day restrictions, or number of trips
requirements. Other benefits include not having to come to a complete stop at a toll both,
which reduces toll congestion, reduced auto emission and fuel consumption (Maryland
Transportation Authority). Figure 1.3.1 compares the average number of tolls that an
E-ZPass tollbooth can collect per hour compared to that of manual toll collection. These
numbers show that E-ZPass is three times more efficient than cash or ticket collection.
In the fiscal year ending 2002, tolls collected through E-ZPass transponders accounted
for $35 million, or 19 percent, of the $181 million collected at Maryland toll booths
(Combined Statement of Toll Revenue and Expenses).
2.0 Statement of the Problem
Current toll facilities can no longer handle the rapidly increasing demands made upon
them by Maryland‘s motor vehicle population. Recent efforts to relieve toll congestion,
such as the E-ZPass electronic toll collection system, have achieved some success but
have yet to be widely adopted by drivers. As a result, commuters passing through toll
plazas face numerous problems: long lines (up to ten minutes during rush hour); elevated
levels of pollution; additional wear and tear on their vehicles, resulting in hundreds of
dollars in maintenance costs per year; and delays with significant economic
consequences, such as lower work productivity. This congestion problem will only
continue to grow if effective solutions are not immediately identified and executed
2.1 Statement of the Goal
The purpose of this paper is to identify several economically feasible alternatives that
would not only ease toll congestion now but also keep it from becoming a problem again
in the future.
3.1 Promoting E-ZPass Use
Electronic toll collection systems, such as MTAG and E-ZPass, have been in place at
Maryland toll facilities for several years. Thousands of Marylanders use the E-ZPass
system because it saves them time and money. This is especially true for commuters who
work in Baltimore City but live elsewhere; E-ZPass lanes allow subscribers to avoid long
toll booth lines, and frequent users can save money with commuter plans. By eliminating
the need to handle coins and bills, E-ZPass has the potential to greatly reduce tollway
traffic (Earle). If all vehicles were equipped with the E-ZPass transponder, congestion at
tolls might be eliminated altogether (Sipress).
Toll revenue figures suggest that, despite the benefits of using E-ZPass, most people pay
in cash (E-ZPass Customer Service And Violations Processing Centers Demonstrated).
Less than 20 percent of all toll income in 2002 came from E-ZPass users. Lack of
E-ZPass use is even more pronounced outside of Baltimore City. At the Bay Bridge, for
example, only 10 percent of tolls were taken from E-ZPass accounts.
One reason for this disparity may be that not all avenues of advertising E-ZPass and its
benefits have been explored. Several states that have implemented E-ZPass have also
developed innovative programs to increase awareness of E-ZPass. Many of these
programs originated in or were adopted by New York, where E-ZPass use is as high as 45
percent on some roads (Ante).
While the E-ZPass program is completely managed by the Maryland Transportation
Authority (MdTA), intermodal cooperation to promote E-ZPass could have an impact on
the number of people aware of and interested in the program. One
Maryland Department of Transportation modal with which all
vehicle operators must eventually come in contact is the Motor
Vehicle Administration (MVA). Prominently featuring E-ZPass
literature (such as posters like the one in Figure 184.108.40.206) and
sign-up forms at MVA locations could particularly increase
awareness in newly licensed drivers and drivers who have
recently moved to Maryland. The State Highway Administration
could help promote E-ZPass with additional signage along its
roads leading up to toll facilities (Dr. Gridlock).
Figure 220.127.116.11: A If new customers will not come to E-ZPass, then perhaps
possible E-ZPass E-ZPass can go to potential new customers. Mobile vans could
advertising poster. travel to large businesses—especially those located within
Baltimore City—to provide non-E-ZPass users with an easy way
to sign up. MdTA personnel would staff these mobile vans, and they could answer
questions and dispel doubts commuters may have about the operation and benefits of
E-ZPass (Peace Bridge Authority: EZPass).
Most national store chains offer gift certificates that allow their possessors to buy
merchandise exclusively from their locations. ―E-ZGifts‖ would make this opportunity
available for the E-ZPass program. The recipient of an E-ZGift would receive a pre-paid
trial E-ZPass subscription. Following its expiration, the recipient could renew his or her
subscription or return the E-ZPass transponder with no further obligations. The number
of users returning their transponders following the trial offer would directly correlate to
the percentage of satisfied E-ZPass users. In New York, a recent study revealed that this
number can be as high as 97 percent (Thruway Customers Give Big Thumbs Up To
When credit cards became more widely accepted as a method of payment in stores, more
people started using them. Similarly, if E-ZPass could be used for other purposes beyond
the toll booth, then being a subscriber would become much more attractive. In New York,
some fast food drive-thru lanes are equipped with antennas that automatically deduct the
price of a customer‘s purchase from his or her E-ZPass account (Hesseldahl). Several
states allow E-ZPass accounts to be used for airport parking fees (Brown; Message From
The Chairman). Any facility dealing with vehicular transactions—gas stations, private
parking garages, and even parking meters—could support payments by E-ZPass (Sforza).
In essence, E-ZPass has the potential to become the credit card of driving. A widespread,
multi-purpose E-ZPass would result in added exposure for the benefits of using E-ZPass
at Maryland tolls (Frequently Asked Questions).
Intermodal cooperation to promote E-ZPass awareness may prove vital to the success of
the program. The cost of such a joint effort would be limited to signs, posters, and
additional training for non-MdTA employees on E-ZPass.
Mobile vans could potentially reach many people who could use E-ZPass but simply do
not know enough about it. One or two MdTA personnel and a van are the extend of this
alternative‘s fiscal costs.
E-ZGifts would fall under the customer service framework already in place for E-ZPass.
Thus, additional costs to implement it would be virtually nothing.
A multi-purpose E-ZPass program has the greatest potential to spark interest in E-ZPass
use at toll facilities. However, it also comes with the greatest amount of risk and fiscal
cost of these marketing strategies. It would find its largest audience with drivers who
frequently use parking facilities, especially at airports. Additional research into this idea
would reveal whether or not the interest exists to justify the high costs of constructing
E-ZPass equipment at a wide variety of locations.
Without a revitalized marketing strategy, the E-ZPass program could soon find itself on
hard times (Commissioner‘s Report). Intermodal cooperation and mobile vans appear to
have the best cost-to-impact ratios. E-ZGifts would cost practically nothing to implement
and would provide people with an inexpensive gift idea for friends or family. Expanding
E-ZPass beyond the toll booth could prove to be the most successful of these marketing
strategies, but the high risk involved may be too much to justify its realization.
3.2 Expansion of E-ZPass
Currently there are seven states implementing the
E-ZPass system: Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York,
New Jersey, West Virginia, Delaware, and Massachusetts
(see Figure 18.104.22.168). E-ZPass was first instituted in 1993
to help reduce congestion at toll booths in the lower
Hudson Valley and near Buffalo. By the end of 1994, the
system already had 90,000 subscribers. New York
thruways processed more than 105 million E-ZPass
transactions in 2002. Today approximately 45 percent of
all New York thruway transactions are conducted using
E-ZPass. The number of E-ZPass tags in use overall in
Figure 22.214.171.124: States New York is over 2.7 million (EZ-Pass Evaluation
supporting E-ZPass. Report; EZ-Pass Network). Maryland has recently
(Source: Peace Bridge converted their electronic tag system, called MTAG, to
Authority) the E-ZPass system. This helped to attract more travelers
to purchase the E-ZPass because of the expansion. There
are millions of users already taking advantage of the benefits of E-ZPass in all seven
states employing the system.
An additional goal of the E-ZPass program should be to expand the implementation of
E-ZPass to a larger region, completing a seamless electronic toll system for the
northeastern United States region. This expansion would reduce toll congestion
everywhere. In September 2000, the New Jersey Turnpike‘s system was installed and is
compatible with all existing and future E-ZPass installations in the Northeast region. This
E-ZPass system is also compatible with toll roads, bridges and tunnels operated in any of
the seven states. With one account, E-ZPass motorists may use toll facilities wherever
they see the E-ZPass sign without ever having to roll down their windows and pay cash,
increasing the total productivity at each toll plaza (Agreement on E-ZPass Contract
Another option worth considering would include having the U.S. Secretary of
Transportation support the standardization of E-ZPass to reduce congestion. States
without electronic toll collection systems could receive federal funding to implement
Ohio should be considered a prime candidate for E-ZPass expansion. The Ohio Turnpike
does not accept E-ZPass however, the Commission has implemented a new program
called Ready Toll, which allows commuters and frequent travelers on the Ohio Turnpike
to receive a prepaid toll card. If the E-ZPass Consortium could convince Ohio to switch
from Ready Toll to E-ZPass, it could encourage more motorists to subscribe. Ohio would
benefit by having more vehicles purchasing the E-ZPass and helping to reduce
congestion, while other E-ZPass states would benefit by having another state accepting
E-ZPass so that travelers to Ohio could still use their E-ZPass accounts (EZ-Pass and the
Ohio Turnpike…). In fact, 75% of Ohio Turnpike users are out of state (Intrastate
Another state to focus on acquiring for the E-ZPass Consortium would be Virginia.
Presently Virginia has the Smart Tag Program which is very similar to the E-ZPass
system. The conversion to E-ZPass would be minimal because they already have the
main devices, such as the antennas for their Smart Tag Program. Due to the large number
of Maryland residents who commute to Virginia, expanding this system would attract
many more buyers (Intrastate System).
Expanding E-ZPass to other states would have no significant fiscal costs for Maryland.
Other states would have to modify their existing systems; although with a long-term
partnership with Maryland and other states, it would be an intelligent investment. Even
states without existing electronic toll collection systems could see E-ZPass as a wise
choice, especially considering all of the benefits the system provides. Commuters during
rush hour could save anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes by using E-ZPass. In
addition, noxious emissions around tolls could be reduced 45-75 percent per affected
mile, and fuel consumption would drop 6-12 percent per affected mile. These benefits of
implementing the E-ZPass system would create more incentive for other states to
participate (Agreement on E-ZPass Contract Reached).
3.3 Improving the E-ZPass Billing Scheme
Upon registering for the E-ZPass, usesrs can elect to receive a bi-monthly statement,
which will detail all transactions by vehicle, location and toll amount, as well as any
payments previously made. Users can call 1-800-333-TOLL at any time to check their
account status. For credit card users, E-ZPass makes it convenient to maintain an E-ZPass
account by automatically replenishing the account when it becomes low. However, funds
deposited into an E-ZPass account expire after 60 days and are lost if not used within that
time frame (E-ZPass Frequently Asked Questions).
If the expiration date were longer (or eliminated altogether), more people would purchase
E-ZPass. Some drivers may feel that the expiration date is too soon. While only
commuter plans currently offer Maryland drivers discounts on tolls, expanding this
discount to all E-ZPass users would attract more people to subscribe (E-ZPass Frequently
Extending the expiration date would only require minor modifications to the existing
system. More drivers would purchase the E-ZPass if it were suited towards ―casual‖ use.
People who are apprehensive to purchase the E-ZPass would now reconsider because
they may use their money without having to worry about it expiring. Commuters would
also prefer having no expiration because they would not have to ―count‖ trips to make
sure they receive their discount (Letter to the editor for Dec. 1, 2001). Another incentive
for users is taking into account the inflation. One dollar today is worth less in the future;
so to prepay a large amount would be wise for the consumer if there was no expiration.
Concerning the revenue that would be lost with no expiration date, this cost would be
easily recouped for numerous reasons. In addition to the benefits listed in Section 3.2.3,
electronic toll collection is significantly more cost efficient than a manual collection
3.4 Encouraging Carpooling Through Toll Roads
Carpooling, in theory, is an effective solution to traffic congestion on any busy road. If
every commuter combined trips with two other commuters, the number of vehicles being
driven at any given time would drop by two thirds. Bottlenecks would virtually
disappear, long waits at toll plazas would no longer be an issue, and drivers would save
hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline and auto repairs. Unfortunately, the
fundamental concepts of carpooling are flawed.
For three or more people to share a ride, a number of conditions must be met. First, they
must all be traveling toward the same general destination. Obviously, there is no point in
carpooling when passenger destinations are ten miles apart. Second, schedules must be
similar. One person with a 9-to-5 schedule cannot carpool with someone on a 7-to-3
schedule. Unexpected overtime can further hamper efforts to carpool. Third, carpoolers
must live in the same general area, or at least along the commuting route.
Finding people with these common characteristics can prove difficult. Even when
carpooling is an option, many still choose to use their own car in case of an emergency or
other event that would not fit into the carpooling schedule. So despite the fact that
thousands of commuters travel along common routes everyday, particularly into
Baltimore City from the surrounding counties, carpooling has never quite caught on in
While it would be virtually impossible to achieve 100 percent carpooling, there are
several incentives not implemented widely in Maryland that could make the idea of
carpooling more attractive.
Maryland, particularly in the Baltimore area, needs a centralized ridesharing program.
Such programs allow drivers to find and contact others who share their commuting routes
online. Several websites exist that provide this service, such as CarpoolConnect.com and
Howard Commuter Solutions (Carpool Connect; less bottlenecks – more nature).
However, these programs only cover limited areas or lack support from county and state
transportation departments. A ridesharing website operated and maintained by the
Maryland Department of Transportation would more easily allow commuters to be placed
To ease the minds of drivers who fear sudden emergencies, illnesses, or unexpected extra
hours, MDOT could provide a guaranteed ride home program. With this program, a
registered carpooler would be reimbursed for taxi fare should an emergency occur. The
North Bethesda Transportation Center operates such a service; this program could be
expanded statewide by incorporating all local guaranteed ride home programs located
throughout Maryland (Guaranteed Ride Home Program).
While High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes would require the construction of new roads,
there exists a simpler solution that would directly benefit toll users. Some states, such as
California, allow vehicles with three or more occupants to pass through designated
carpooler lanes at toll booths for free. Three drivers who would normally pay two dollars
a day in tolls would save over $1500 each year if they carpooled and were exempt from
paying the toll (Commute Incentives).
A peculiar carpooling solution known as slugging (or ―instant carpooling‖) also has
potential in Maryland. In this system, a person who needs a ride to work shows up at a
designated slugging stop. A driver who wishes to take advantage of High-Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes or toll-free carpooling would drive to the slugging stop, announce
his or her destination, and pick up one or two passengers with the same destination. This
system works both ways of the commute. Slug lines can be found in Northern Virginia
where trips to and from Washington, D.C. are common and HOV lanes cut commute
times in half (see Figure 126.96.36.199). Passengers (called ―slugs‖) get the benefit of a free
ride, and drivers who would normally commute solo get to use the HOV lanes. Slugging
has existed in many locations throughout the United States, including Northern Virginia
and California, for decades and enjoys tremendous success (What are casual carpools?;
LeBlanc). A similar system could
be established for commuters to
and from Baltimore City if
carpooling offered a substantial
and immediate benefit (such as toll
A ridesharing program operated by
the Maryland Department of
Transportation would require
several information technology
personnel to implement the online
system and at least one to maintain
it. However, anyone with an
internet connection and a desire to
carpool could potentially benefit.
A guaranteed ride home program
would certainly eliminate one
excuse people could have for not Figure 188.8.131.52: Slug lines from Northern Virginia
carpooling. Unfortunately, to to Washington, D.C. (Source: Slug-Lines.com)
reimburse thousands of carpoolers
for an average of four or five
emergency trips per year would cost millions of dollars. Alternatively, businesses already
participating in the Commuter Choice Maryland program could receive additional
incentives if they cover the cost of the guaranteed rides home.
Allowing carpoolers to pass through tolls for free would obviously decrease toll revenue.
If even just ten percent of the 121,000 daily drivers through the Fort McHenry Tunnel
carpooled and avoided the one dollar toll, this would translate into a $13 million loss of
toll revenue each year. This amount may, in the long run, be less than what it would cost
to construct additional lanes on existing roads or new roads altogether and would have
the same effect as construction. In addition, an option to allow non-carpoolers to use the
carpool lanes for a higher than usual fee (perhaps triple or quadruple the standard toll)
would provide a revenue-generating alternative for drivers running late to work.
Many Maryland drivers would be apprehensive about driving with total strangers if a
slugging system found its way to this state. Perhaps surprisingly, the overall safety record
of Northern Virginia‘s slugging program has been impeccable. And because it is not
operated by any state department (though most slug lines have informal websites
available to list routes), it would cost little to implement (LeBlanc). The primary obstacle
to the successful operation of a slug line from outlying counties to Baltimore City would
be advertising pick-up locations. Existing park-and-ride lots or stores looking to make
some money from morning commuters are just some of the locations where slug lines
could be started.
Since the problem in question is how to relieve toll congestion, the most relevant of these
options would be toll-free carpooling. Raising the standard toll at, for example, the Fort
McHenry Tunnel while letting carpoolers pass through designated lanes for free (or a
heavily discounted rate) would certainly encourage more people who use I-95 in their
daily commute to carpool. Under this pricing scheme, a non-carpooler who uses a
two-dollar toll plaza to and from work about 300 days a year would spend $1200
annually at the toll booth while carpoolers would spend little or nothing. Even without a
state-wide guaranteed ride home program, the cost of emergency taxi fares would still be
low in comparison to the savings a carpooler would receive.
3.5 Toll Facility Sponsorship
Roadside billboards and informational signs advertising various products and businesses
have been a source of revenue for advertising companies for as long as there have been
roads. The theory behind such forms of advertising is that drivers have nothing better to
look at while driving; they cannot simply change the channel or flip a page to bypass an
The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) has already experimented with the
sponsorship of Maryland toll roads. In April 2003, it put out a request for companies
interested in advertising on the Bay Bridge. In exchange, the advertiser would cover the
cost of tolls for travelers using the bridge on certain summer Friday evenings. While no
companies responded by the original deadline, the Maryland Lottery offered to sponsor
these free rides. In addition to saving drivers $2.50, the sponsorship evenings helped ease
congestion on the Bay Bridge because there was no need for drivers to come to a stop at
toll booths (MdTA Toll Rates; Shaver).
The benefit to the advertiser was two-fold. First, it reached a relatively large audience in
a short period of time. Second, it provided a free service to thousands of potential
customers. Psychological theory suggests that people who receive something for free
often feel compelled to reciprocate the generous act. In this case, it would mean
purchasing products from the advertiser (Rhoads).
All parties involved—the MdTA, the advertiser, and drivers—stood to benefit from this
Sponsorship at toll facilities need not be limited to the Bay Bridge on Friday nights. Any
of Maryland‘s toll facilities could support such a campaign, and advertisers would pay a
fee proportional to the number of vehicles traveling through the tollway during the
sponsorship period. In theory, if enough advertisers could be found to cover tolls at all
facilities at all times, then wait times at toll plazas would be drastically reduced. In
reality, however, it would be difficult to find one or even several advertisers willing to do
The sponsorship program used at the Bay Bridge toll plaza could be modified to work for
limited but recurring periods at other facilities, such as the Fort McHenry Tunnel. As
with the Bay Bridge program, allowing drivers to use toll roads for free during off-peak
hours would encourage more drivers to divert their commutes to these periods so that
they may take advantage of the offer. At the Fort McHenry Tunnel, tolls would be lifted
for all two-axle vehicles (larger vehicles would receive a discounted rate) during the hour
immediately preceding and immediately following each of the peak morning and evening
commuting periods. Regular tolls would resume during peak time and all other non-peak
times (including weekends).
As an added incentive to attract sponsors,
advertising would remain on display even
when tolls are being collected. Only during
designated off-peak hours would these
advertisements be accompanied by signs
informing driver that their tolls were indeed
being paid by a sponsor (see Figure 184.108.40.206).
Sponsors would be billed only for drivers
Figure 220.127.116.11: Drawing of a programmable who traveled through the tollway during
display board that could be used at the Fort designated off-peak times, but their
McHenry toll plaza. advertisements would reach all toll users.
Advertising rates would directly correlate to
the average off-peak time traffic at the toll facility.
In the case of the Fort McHenry Tunnel, which has a daily average of 120,000 vehicles
and collects about $124,000 in tolls per day, an advertiser would pay approximately
15-20 percent of the day‘s tolls (roughly $20,000 for a 24-hour period). Since the
advertisement would remain on display all day, the sponsor would pay approximately 16
cents per vehicle impression—a relatively inexpensive rate for such a high-profile
location (Combined Statement of Toll Revenue and Expenses).
Sponsors who sign on for extended periods of time could receive bonus incentives,
Free advertising on the MdTA website (as well as those of other relevant MDOT
Discounted advertising rates with other MDOT modals (such as the Maryland Transit
Preferred customer status for advertising during holidays and other times where
higher than usual volumes of traffic are expected;
Free or discounted MDOT services;
Toll advertising on weekends, when free off-peak tolls would not normally be in
The primary obstacle to implementing an Authority-wide sponsorship system would be
attracting advertisers. More research is needed into whether or not such a system would
be practical. However, with an attractive incentives package, such as the one listed above,
many interested sponsors could be expected to come forward.
The fiscal cost of toll sponsorship would be minimal for MDOT. Aside from billboards
and displays, the program would operate on currently existing toll plaza facilities. Any
lost toll revenue would be recouped from advertising fees. Even incentives packages for
repeat sponsors would be inexpensive to provide. In addition, toll facilities would not
need to be manned for several hours each day which translates to added savings for the
The MdTA could stand to profit from the toll sponsorship program should advertising
space be in high demand. If more sponsorship offers are made than could be fulfilled
using MdTA facilities, then the MdTA could increase advertising rates beyond an amount
sufficient to cover lost toll revenue. For instance, assume that the base rate for leasing
advertising space at an MdTA toll facility is $20,000 per day, and this amount exactly
covers the toll revenue lost during designated off-peak hours. If competition for space
were high, MdTA could increase this amount to $25,000 per day and earn an additional
$5,000 beyond what regular tolls would have brought in.
Assuming plenty of interested advertisers could be found, an Authority-wide toll
sponsorship program would have significant rewards for all parties involved. The MdTA
would save money on toll collector wages and may even make a profit above standard
toll revenue if the program is very successful. Advertisers would reach thousands of
drivers and passengers daily and provide a large number of those with a reciprocal
service. Commuters and travelers who take advantage of toll sponsorship could stand to
save hundreds of dollars each year on tolls as well as a few minutes in line at the toll
3.6 Eliminating Tolls
For transportation policy planners, the primary objective is mobility--the safe, efficient,
cost effective, and convenient movement of people. However, the very nature of
transportation involves creating a balance between mobility and organization. In
Maryland, this balance is achieved on some roads by instituting tolls. While some people
consider tolls a way to control traffic, others point to the delays that toll collection can
In general, the stop and go activity occurring in and around toll plazas causes reason for
safety concern. The increased risk of accidents between drivers who are digging out their
wallets and looking for change, while rolling down their windows. And the risk after the
toll, when everyone is rolling up their window, putting away their wallet, and trying to
merge. As a reference, NJ Citizens Against Tolls (CAT) organization found a large
number of accidents (11, 427) at and within 2.8 miles north or south of toll plazas over a
four-year period. Notably, after the introduction of E-ZPass, the number of accidents
increased. The organization also found that the total number of accidents are evenly
spread in the 2.8 miles north and south of toll plazas, most likely drivers finagling their
position upon entering a plaza and trying to get to a proper lane and accelerating upon
leaving a plaza (Neveil).
These problems can all be avoided by the elimination of tolls. Rather than having to stop
and pay a user fee, the driver can just continue with their commute without any
interruptions. Even with the implementation of E-ZPass in Maryland, backups and
slowdowns still remain a problem. Not every car using these toll facilities will have the
electronic transponder. The Fort McHenry Tunnel, for example, would benefit greatly
from the elimination of tolls. This facility suffers from major congestion at both ends of
the tunnel, considering a toll is collected both ways through the tunnel.
The main concern surrounding the elimination of tolls is the lost revenue for the MdTA.
However, the cost associated with the maintenance of toll facilities as well as the salaries
for toll collectors represent a significant amount of money being spent each year. While
revenue would inevitably be lost when eliminating tolls, through innovative revenue
generating strategies such as a consumer gasoline tax, this revenue can be redeemed
(Keane). In regards to eliminating tolls in Maryland, the question of how much tax
burden are citizens willing to bear would need to be investigated. According to Douglas
Holt of the Chicago Tribune, in Illinois, where elimination was being considered, a poll
showed 59% of citizens in Chicago and 66% of those in the suburbs liked the idea of
eliminating tolls on highways in the area. According to the poll results, the respondents
are more unhappy about the resulting congestion that higher taxes.
Aside from the Illinois initiative, CAT has developed a financial plan that will
justify the elimination of tolls in New Jersey. This plan looks at how the costs of
maintaining toll facilities have burdened citizens in the past and that eliminating
these facilities would actually benefit the state financially. The plan CAT
proposed to New Jersey requires a six-month ―toll phase out‖ period that would
provide ample time for the transition. It would also provide time for the orderly
downsizing of collection and other forces, which would include training and
outplacement for former toll collectors. Following the end of tolls, a sale of toll
collecting assets will take place (see Figure 18.104.22.168).
While the elimination of tolls
is a viable option for various
states, Maryland is not
currently in an economic
position to deplete its
incoming revenue. In the
latter portion of this decade,
this option can be further
explored when the economic
status of the state has
New Jersey‘s CAT group has
put forth a greatly researched
and detailed plan that can be
Figure 22.214.171.124: Political cartoon demonstrating the modified and implemented in
philosophy of the Citizens Against Tolls. (Source: CAT) Maryland (Scarry). Though
tolls are more prevalent
within the state of New Jersey and Maryland only has seven tolls throughout the state, the
CAT plan could be adjusted to work here (Kolata).
With the elimination of tolls in Maryland, hundreds of jobs would be abolished.
However, commerce in Baltimore and its surrounding areas would benefit from the lack
of tolls, and more jobs would quickly find their way into the region.
Figure 126.96.36.199 shows the fiscal year ending 2002 cost of running each of Maryland‘s toll
facilities compared to the total revenue generated at each facility through toll collection
and other means. Three of the seven tolls brought in over 85 percent of the total net
revenue, and one toll facility—the Susquehanna River Bridge—finished with a negative
net revenue value. While eliminating all Maryland tolls may not be possible, four of the
tolls contribute little to the MdTA‘s net revenue in the first place, and removing only
them would be more financially feasible.
Toll Facility Gross Revenue Total Operating Costs Remainder
Susquehanna Bridge $3,275,886 $3,596,528 $(320,642)
Potomac R. Bridge $7,434,748 $3,146,815 $4,287,932
Bay Bridge $31,958,371 $6,691,907 $25,266,463
Harbor Tunnel $20,173,509 $10,953,462 $9,220,047
Key Bridge $10,712,144 $6,986,461 $3,725,683
JFK Highway $71,692,195 $18,356,236 $53,335,959
Ft. McHenry Tunnel $46,456,969 $13,745,447 $32,711,521
Figure 188.8.131.52: Toll Facility Revenue and Cost Comparison for the Fiscal Year Ending 2002
(Source: Maryland Transportation Authority)
Arguments have also been made stating that not only would the elimination of tolls be
detrimental to Maryland‘s economy but also that it would fail to alleviate congestion
around toll plazas. Commuters would be less inclined to carpool or take public
transportation, seeing the elimination of tolls as a free ride. Consequently, taxation
through other means would make this ride not free for any Maryland drivers, regardless if
they use the facility. The only free ride that would be issued would be for those using the
facility from out of state, where they are not hassled with any of Maryland‘s taxes.
3.7 Increasing Tolls
Tolls plazas experience severe traffic congestion during rush hour traffic periods. As
more drivers enter the traffic world each year, this congestion seems to be progressively
getting worse. The current capacity of several Maryland tolls is at its peak. Many
travelers chose to take the toll roads due to the inexpensive costs of traveling through
Most of Maryland tolls have not been increased for a prolonged period of time. One of
the most recent increases was the doubling of the Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge toll. In
November 2003 the toll fee was increased from $1.50 to $3.00. This increase will allow
the state to raise money for more than $4.7 billion in capital projects over the next 20
years (Maryland Transportation Authority).
To help reduce the amount of toll users, Maryland could increase the cost to travel
through its tolls. Maryland‘s tolls are significantly lower than many of its counterparts in
New York. For example, the five-mile-long Chesapeake Bay Bridge only costs $2.50 to
travel. On the other hand, New York‘s Verrazano Narrows Bridge is almost one mile
long. The cash toll for two-axle vehicles is $8.00 (Verrazano Narrows Bridge).
Comparing these two monumental bridges shows that Maryland‘s Bay Bridge is four
times as long as the Verrazano-Narrows and one third of the price to travel (see Figure
184.108.40.206). Maryland has not increased the price to travel across this major travel route in
years, and with congestion rising each year, consideration should be given to an increase.
While increasing this toll would not directly alleviate congestion, it would accumulate
additional funds to plan for future expansion that would.
Bridge Length Toll Fee New Cost
Bay Bridge 4.3 miles $2.50 $8.00-12.00
Verrazano-Narrows >1 mile $8.00
Figure 220.127.116.11: Length and Fee Comparisons for the Bay Bridge and Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
(Sources: Maryland Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority
3.8 Congestion Tolling
Congestion tolling, also known as variable pricing, is a relatively new concept that
several states have recently embraced. Transportation policy makers have taken this idea
from other sectors of the economy, such as telephone service, where customers pay
higher prices for service during high-demand hours. The main goal in implementing this
idea is to change the consumption pattern of tolls. Congestion tolling requires
time-variable tolls, where fees are higher during peak hours and lower or non-existent
when toll roads are not congested. Time-variable tolls can be based on a fixed daily and
weekly schedule, or they can be dynamic, meaning that rates are always changing
depending on the level of congestion that exists at any given time. (Road Pricing)
Off-peak toll discounts and relatively higher peak tolls would encourage drivers to travel
during less congested hours, or use carpools, vanpools, or public transportation.
There are several reasons why transportation authorities have considered using this
particular pricing plan. These include continuing growth in urban demand; realization
that construction of additional road capacity may not always be possible or desirable; the
introduction of new electronic tolling technologies, such as E-ZPass, which have greatly
reduced implementation costs; a desire for cost-effective strategies to reduce
mobile-source air emissions and energy consumption; and the need for improved revenue
sources for bridge repairs (Congestion Pricing: A Primer). When considering the
implementation of congestion tolling, according to the TDM Encyclopedia, an effective
and fair variable toll pricing system should reflect the characteristics listed in Figure
Easy for users to understand
Convenient and does not require vehicles to stop at toll booths
Charges are comprehensible and predictable before the trip is undertaken
Traffic Authority Perspective
Traffic impacts-does not require each vehicle to stop at all toll booths or in other ways delay traffic.
Efficient and equitable-charges reflect true user costs.
Effective-reduces traffic congestion and other transportation problems by changing travel behavior.
Cost effective- positive return on investments.
Implementation- minimum disruption during development phase, as well as the ability to be extended
in the future.
Benefit/Cost-positive net benefits (when all impacts are considered)
Political acceptability- public perception of fairness and value
Environment- positive environmental impacts.
Figure 18.104.22.168: Characteristics of a Variable Toll Pricing System (Source: TMA Encyclopedia)
Time is a precious and sometimes costly commodity. The entire cost of a trip on a
congested road includes not only the traveler‘s own time and vehicle operating costs but
also the costs that each traveler imposes on all other travelers by adding to the level of
congestion. Congestion tolling results in more efficient use of limited road capacity by
encouraging those who value their trips at less than their full cost to shift to off-peak
periods, carpool, or use less congested routes (Charles). Any shift of travelers would
benefit the remaining peak period travelers since travel delays would decrease.
Ultimately, such shifts would result in less need for additional capacity on toll roads
(Travel Off-Peak to Avoid Bay Bridge Congestion).
Electronic tolling, such as E-ZPass, plays a crucial role in the success of congestion
tolling, for it allows drivers to pass through the toll plazas without having to stop and pay
the toll attendant. Electronically, the variable fee is instantly retrieved from the driver‘s
pre-paid account, providing a smooth, efficient transaction. These types of electronic
pricing systems tend to have lower costs, greater user convenience, and price
adjustability, making congestion tolling more feasible. Because Maryland already has an
electronic toll collection system in place, minimal provisions would necessary before
implementation (Road Pricing).
Although congestion tolling is a relatively new policy, it does not go without precedents.
While Singapore first imposed congestion pricing in 1975, other countries did not
experiment with such a policy until the 1990s. In the United States, such programs did
not appear until a federal program called the Value Pricing Program was created
specifically to study the feasibility and support pilot tests of variable tolling on facilities
in California, Texas, New York, Florida, and other states in the nation.
The following examples show some implementations of this policy and the effect it had
on driving patterns.
California: SR 91 Express Toll Lanes
In 1995, a privately built and operated toll way was built on the median strip of SR 91 in
Orange County, CA. This ten mile expressway uses Electronic Tolling, ―FasTrak‖, to
collect variable user fees, depending on congestion. There are 14 separate price blocks,
ranging from $ .75 at the off-peak to $4.25 at the peak. Originally, carpools of three of
more riders were able to use the facility free of charge, while all others paid the variable
toll fee. However, recent changes have imposed fees on all vehicles while allowing High
Occupancy Vehicles to receive a discount. More than 9 million tolled trips were made on
the facility in 1998, with revenues of approximately $20 million.
Florida: Variable Bridge Toll Pricing
The program in Lee County, Florida implemented variable tolls for the Cape Coral and
Midpoint Bridges. Half price tolls are granted in the times just prior and after the peak
hours as an incentive for motorists to adjust their travel times. However, discounts only
apply to those motorists who are in the LeeWay program and have an electronic
transponder with a prepaid toll account. The program is deemed a success by its ability to
move traffic out of the peak congestion period as well as providing improved service to
bridge patrons. This project is supported by a federal Value grant that covers any revenue
lost through toll discounts.
New York: Variable Pricing Travel Impacts
In February 2001 the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey changed from fixed to
variable priced tolls with lower tolls during off-peak periods. Four months later an
evaluation on the effects of variable priced toll schedule was released. In this evaluation,
an emphasis was placed on how the traffic patterns were affected at the agency‘s Hudson
River crossing. As suggested in Mobilizing the Region #324, the Port Authority‘s
substantial discounts (see Figure 22.214.171.124) for E-ZPass users, off-peak drivers and
over-night drivers, and carpools have already led thousands of travelers to make
decisions that reduce traffic congestion (Road Pricing).
CASH E-Z Peak E-Z Off-Peak E-Z Overnight
Cars $6 $5 $4 N/A
Carpools N/A $1 $1 N/A
Trucks(per $6 $6 $5 $3.50
Figure 126.96.36.199: Toll Rate for the Hudson River crossing.
(Source: Tri-State Transportation Campaign)
Although the off-peak discounts were slight, ($1.00 per trip, a 16-20 percent discount) the
effects of the congestion tolling were significant. It was found that there were 7 percent
more vehicles using their facilities between midnight and 6am in 2001. The agency also
said there were significant increases in traffic between 3-4pm (prior to rush hour) and that
3,350 more trips were made each day during the off-peak hours, 9am-3pm (Daganzo
Congestion tolling is an effective method in easing congestion along toll roads and is a
viable option for Maryland. When this pricing scheme is used with an electronic tolling
device, passage on toll roads is made more efficient. Maryland‘s existing electronic
tolling system, E-ZPass, is equipped with the timetables needed to connect the present
system to a variable tolling system. Therefore, implementation of the system would be
time- and cost-effective (Toll Projects).
Variable pricing is not necessary for all of Maryland‘s toll roads. However, when
considering the level of travel and congestion during peak hours, the Fort McHenry
Tunnel and Bay Bridge are perfect candidates. This new pricing system has been deemed
a success in several states, such as California, Florida, and New York and New Jersey,
and would work equally well in Maryland toward reducing peak period congestion,
saving commuters‘ time, and smoothing traffic flow around toll facilities.
4.0 Final Recommendations
Congestion on Maryland toll roads is already a daily problem for thousands of
commuters. At the current projected rate of traffic growth, Maryland‘s toll facilities will
experience extreme congestion levels by 2020, crippling portions of I-95, U.S. 50, and
other toll roads. Without an efficient interstate and highway system, the impact on
Maryland‘s economy could be catastrophic.
All of the alternatives presented in this paper have the potential to help alleviate some of
this congestion, and each one deserves further consideration and research. In particular,
congestion tolling and encouraging more drivers to use E-ZPass through additional
marketing and incentives would provide the highest degree of congestion relief for the
lowest fiscal impact, based on the success of similar programs in other states.
Whatever options are adopted by the Maryland Transportation Authority, it should keep
in mind that many of the alternatives mentioned in this paper are merely temporary
measures. Nothing can stop the natural population growth of Maryland, so any efforts to
address toll congestion may not be able to stand up to the ever-rising number of vehicles
on the road. Within 20 or 30 years, the toll congestion crisis could return, and pricing
schemes and technological advances may not be able to stop it. While currently
unfeasible for obvious economic reasons, the elimination of some or all Maryland tolls
may eventually be the only option left.
Christine Routzahn, UMBC Shriver Center
Roy Meyers, UMBC Political Science Department
Carolyn Jasmin, The Secretary‘s Office
Peter Arrey, The Secretary‘s Office
Joseph H. Foster, The Secretary‘s Office
Jeannie Fazio, The Secretary‘s Office
Delores E. Liely, Maryland Transit Administration
Daniel F. McMullen, III, MdTA
Timothy J. Reilly, MdTA
Steven E. Welkos, MdTA
Alice L. Brooks, MdTA
Lori A. Vidil, MdTA
Richard A. Pagano, MdTA
6.0 Works Cited
Promoting E-ZPass Use
Thruway Customers Give Big Thumbs Up To E-ZPass. 29 Aug 2000. New York State
Thruway Authority. 5 July 2003.
Commissioner‘s Report. Sept 2002. New Jersey Department of Transportation.
5 July 2003. <http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/
Dr. Gridlock: Getting E-ZPass—and Transponders—Was Easy. 24 Apr 2003.
The Washington Post. 5 July 2003. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
Sipress, Alan. Privacy in America: Traffic Surveillance Devices. 8 Oct 2000.
The Washington Post. 5 July 2003.
Earle, Rick. Turnpike Drivers Wait In Long Lines. 17 Mar 2003. WPXI. 5 July 2003.
Hesseldahl, Arik. Fast Food Eats And Runs. 21 Aug 2002. Forbes. 5 July 2003.
Kennedy Airport‘s E-ZPass Plus Information. 5 July 2003.
Message From The Chairman, Rev. Michael A. Farano. Jan 2003.
Albany International Airport. 5 July 2003.
Frequently Asked Questions. Delaware Department of Transportation. 5 July 2003.
Peace Bridge Authority: EZPass. The Peace Bridge Authority. 5 July 2003.
E-ZPass Customer Service And Violations Processing Centers Demonstrated.
23 July 1999. New Jersey Turnpike Authority. 5 July 2003.
Ante, Spencer E. ―Solving Here-And-Now Problems Someplace Else.‖ Business Week.
23 June 2003: 79.
Sforza, Daniel. ―New Jersey Looks at Expanding Services Provided By EZPass
Transponder System.‖ The Record. 29 May 2003.
Brown, Margaret Anne. ―NY LaGuardia To Get E-ZPass Parking This Summer.‖
Business Travel News. 24 Mar 2003: 36.
Expansion of E-ZPass
EZ-Pass and the Ohio Turnpike…. The Ohio Turnpike State Commission.
19 June 2003. <http://www.ohioturnpike.org/faq_index.html#EFAQ>.
Intrastate System Toll Bridges and Tunnels in the United States. Federal Highway
Administration.4 July 2003. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/pdf/T1pt1.pdf>.
EZ-Pass Evaluation Report. Aug 2000. New York State Thruway Authority.
5 July 2003.
EZ-Pass Network. Peace Bridge Authority. 4 July 2003.
Agreement on E-ZPass Contract Reached. 11 Mar 1998. New Jersey Department of
Transportation. 5 July 2003. <http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/98newsez.htm>.
Improving the E-ZPass Billing Scheme
Letter to the editor for Dec. 1, 2001. 1 Dec 2001. 5 July 2003.
E-ZPass Frequently Asked Questions. MTA Info. 19 June 2003.
Encouraging Carpooling Through Toll Roads
Carpool connect – search to find carpool matches. 5 July 2003. 5 July 2003.
LeBlanc, David. Slug-Lines.com. 23 June 2003. 5 July 2003.
Guaranteed Ride Home Program. 5 July 2003.
less bottlenecks – more nature. July 2002. 5 July 2003. <http://www.carpooling.com/>.
Commute Incentives. 5 July 2003. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc.
What are casual carpools?. 11 Feb 2002. Environmental Defense. 5 July 2003.
Toll Facility Sponsorship
Rhoads, Kelton. What Can Social Influence Do?. 1997. 3 July 2003.
Shaver, Katherine. Md. Seeks Advertisers Willing To Cover Bay Bridge Tolls.
2 Apr 2003. The Washington Post. 3 July 2003.
MdTA Toll Rates. 15 July 2003. Maryland Transportation Authority. 15 July 2003.
Combined Statement of Toll Revenue and Expenses. Maryland Transportation Authority.
3 July 2003. <http://www.mdta.state.md.us/mdta/
Keane, Angela G. ―To Toll or Not To Toll.‖ Traffic World. 16 June 2003: 11.
Neveil, Ray. Citizens Against Tolls. June 2003. 3 July 2003.
Holt, Douglas. ―Drivers Want Toll Taken Out of Driving.‖ Chicago Tribune.
16 Nov 1999: P.1.
Kolata, David. ―proposals for tollway ‗reform‘.‖ 18 Apr 2000. Environmental Law and
Policy Center Listserv. 3 July 2003.
Scarry, Donald M. ―Removal Of Tolls On The Parkway.‖ June 2001. New Jersey
Economics. 3 July 2003. <http://njtolls.com/d2tod3.htm>.
Verrazano Narrows Bridge. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 6 July 2003.
Kozel, Scott. ―Chesapeake Bay Bridge.‖ 3 May 2003. 5 July 2003.
Daganzo, Carlos F. and Reinaldo Garcia. ―A Pareto Improving Strategy for the Time-
Dependent Morning Commute Problem.‖ Transportation Science. Aug 2000:
Travel Off-Peak to Avoid Bay Bridge Congestion. 5 July 2003.
Road Pricing: Congestion Pricing, Value Pricing, Toll Roads and HOT Lanes. 27 May
2003. TDM Encyclopedia. 3 July 2003. <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm>.
Congestion Pricing: A Primer. Nov 1999. Tri-State Transportation Campaign.
3 July 2003. <http://www.tstc.org/reports/pricingprimer.pdf>.
Toll Projects. 2003. Transcore. 3 July 2003.
Charles, John A. Congestion pricing is inevitable. May/June 2001. Cascade Policy
Institute. 3 July 2003. <http://www.cascadepolicy.org/../pdf/env/inevitable.htm>.
Illidge, Paul. ―For whom the road tolls.‖ Toronto Star. 17 Mar 2003: A23.
Samuel, Peter. The History of Tolls. 1998. 4 July 2003.
Combined Statement of Toll Revenue and Expenses. Maryland Transportation Authority.
3 July 2003. <http://www.mdta.state.md.us/mdta/
Maryland Transportation Authority. Maryland Transportation Authority. 1 July 2003.