Bay Bridge fee--what if you commute daily...any breaks? (Baltimore: subsidized, closing)

[eav1221]

For people who commute to and from work and have to cross the Bay Bridge, is there an EZ Pass break so you don't have to pay the 6 bucks EACH and EVERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY TIME? Seems unfair to the residents to travel for work. Just wondering.

Thanks,
eav123

[xxengineerxx]

Yes..there is commuter plan
https://www.ezpassmd.com/en/about/plans.shtml

William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial (Bay) Bridge Discount Plan: Pay $2.10 per trip for 25 trips that are valid for 45 days. The total cost for used and unused trips is $52.50.

[Henry Bowman]

If anything, I think commuters should have to pay more since their living on the Eastern shore for the cheap housing is still dependent on the Western shore jobs and will be the cause of our needing a replacement bridge soon.

I don't see why I should be subsidizing your commute.

[longnecker]

Originally Posted by Henry Bowman

If anything, I think commuters should have to pay more since their living on the Eastern shore for the cheap housing is still dependent on the Western shore jobs and will be the cause of our needing a replacement bridge soon.

I don't see why I should be subsidizing your commute.

Totally agree. Everyone should be charged/treated equally.

[xxengineerxx]

Originally Posted by longnecker

Totally agree. Everyone should be charged/treated equally.

Ya...Maryland Politics mindset! Yahooo! lol

[Richard Martin]

Originally Posted by Henry Bowman

If anything, I think commuters should have to pay more since their living on the Eastern shore for the cheap housing is still dependent on the Western shore jobs and will be the cause of our needing a replacement bridge soon.

I don't see why I should be subsidizing your commute.

He ALREADY pays more to live there, despite the cheaper housing. I don't know if you've noticed it or not but cars aren't exactly cheap these days. They're closing in on $30,000 for an average price now. He's probably replacing his car twice as often as you do simply because of a much longer commute. He also has to cross the bridge for medical care, real shopping and a whole host of other reasons.

Whether there is a better quality of living on the Eastern Shore is debatable. But that it is cheaper is just plainly false.

[Henry Bowman]

Originally Posted by Richard Martin

He ALREADY pays more to live there, despite the cheaper housing. I don't know if you've noticed it or not but cars aren't exactly cheap these days. They're closing in on $30,000 for an average price now. He's probably replacing his car twice as often as you do simply because of a much longer commute. He also has to cross the bridge for medical care, real shopping and a whole host of other reasons.

Whether there is a better quality of living on the Eastern Shore is debatable. But that it is cheaper is just plainly false.

The difference being that I'm not subsidizing their car, shopping, medical care or a whole host of reasons. I am subsidizing their commute.

If someone wants to live over there and come to the economically viable part of the state to work, then let them do it on their own dime and not mine.

I contend that people who live on the Eastern shore and work on this side of the bridge should actually pay MORE than everyone else because they are the largest benefactors of the bridge and also the greatest cause of wear and tear.

I could care less if the bridge falls into the water or not. Would have no effect on my day to day life altogether. For those living on the Eastern shore that are largely dependent on that bridge, it's a different story.

Don't even try to act as if those over there are some sort of disadvantaged class of people.

[ryeguy9]

Originally Posted by Henry Bowman

The difference being that I'm not subsidizing their car, shopping, medical care or a whole host of reasons. I am subsidizing their commute.

If someone wants to live over there and come to the economically viable part of the state to work, then let them do it on their own dime and not mine.

I contend that people who live on the Eastern shore and work on this side of the bridge should actually pay MORE than everyone else because they are the largest benefactors of the bridge and also the greatest cause of wear and tear.

I could care less if the bridge falls into the water or not. Would have no effect on my day to day life altogether. For those living on the Eastern shore that are largely dependent on that bridge, it's a different story.

Don't even try to act as if those over there are some sort of disadvantaged class of people.

First, there are some basic misconceptions here to the stated "elementary"observations. The bay commuter IS paying more for the bridge that they use often, not less. And a taxpayer is not paying anything for subsidized bridge tolls for bay commuters. That doesn't make sense. There are a multitude of subsidy programs that do cost tax payers money. Bridge tolls are not one. When the Maryland transportation agency calculates bridge upkeep expenses they do many things. They calculate the average number of users annually for example. They then take that number and calculate where toll prices need to be for bridge funding and upkeep...apart from any other legislation or bills allocating money for the bridge. The price they come up with for tolls is not $6. It is closer to the $2-$3 range that bay commuters pay. They charge $6 because the vast majority of the bay bridge users only utilize the bridge once to a couple times a year. They make the toll higher because people are more likely to oay a higher price if they only use the bridge occassionally. So where bay commuters will oay somewhere around $500-$700 annually. An occasional user will only pay $6-$60 annually. That's a huge difference and a fair system. The commuters do pay significantly more for a bridge they use more.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by ryeguy9

First, there are some basic misconceptions here to the stated "elementary"observations. The bay commuter IS paying more for the bridge that they use often, not less. And a taxpayer is not paying anything for subsidized bridge tolls for bay commuters. That doesn't make sense. There are a multitude of subsidy programs that do cost tax payers money. Bridge tolls are not one. When the Maryland transportation agency calculates bridge upkeep expenses they do many things. They calculate the average number of users annually for example. They then take that number and calculate where toll prices need to be for bridge funding and upkeep...apart from any other legislation or bills allocating money for the bridge. The price they come up with for tolls is not $6. It is closer to the $2-$3 range that bay commuters pay. They charge $6 because the vast majority of the bay bridge users only utilize the bridge once to a couple times a year. They make the toll higher because people are more likely to oay a higher price if they only use the bridge occassionally. So where bay commuters will oay somewhere around $500-$700 annually. An occasional user will only pay $6-$60 annually. That's a huge difference and a fair system. The commuters do pay significantly more for a bridge they use more.

You forgot to add the part where the toll increases of the last couple years are going not to the Bay Bridge facilities but to pay for the underutilized Inter-County Connector.

[Cruzincat]

There are also commuter plans for the Baltimore tunnels and for the tolls on I 95 north of Baltimore. If anyone is subsidizing commuters it would be the people from out of town or out of state that are just passing through.