Comments on: Your Baby and EZ-Pass

By: Lee Watkins

Lee Watkins — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:43:23 +0000

the people who have EZ pass here in Baltimore are the ones with above-average incomes. Someone who has EZ pass probably also has decent heath insurance coverage.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:04:06 +0000

@karthik: Here’s a quote: “We find that reductions in traffic congestion generated by E-ZPass reduced the incidence of prematurity and low birth weight among mothers within 2km of a toll plaza by 10.8% and 11.8% respectively.”

It was not whether or not the family had an EZ-Pass in their car(s) but rather whether they lived close a toll plaza. For those who lived within 2km of a toll plaza they compared the kids who were born before EZ-Pass was introduced and those born after.

By: karthik

karthik — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:50:39 +0000

Did they correct for income disparities? Maybe families with EZPass have more money…health and wealth are directly correlated…

By: Wendie Siverts

Wendie Siverts — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:12:38 +0000

The first study presumes the negative health effect is caused by traffic congestion, but could it also be caused by exposure to repeated rapid acceleration of vehicles exiting the toll booth?

By: Tony Toews

Tony Toews — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:28:00 +0000

What about the busy border crossings? The lineups at some border crossing are perpetual. For example the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver has always had at least a half hour wait in my experience.

Whereas border crossings on the prairies or even at Abbotsford 20 miles away are much less congested.

I’ve often thought that there should be stop lights about 30 or 50 car lengths back from the busy border check points such as the Peach Arch crossing. Let the cars in while the “buffer” fills. Then turn the light red and urge everyone to shut off their vehicle and open the windows and enjoy the weather. Then when the buffer empties turn the light green and let the buffer fill up and turn the light red.

By: Vincent Clement

Vincent Clement — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:20:00 +0000

I don’t see how reducing peak-period travel times and increasing traffic volumes are bad things? Ramp meters aren’t designed to curb rush-hour congestion. They are designed to control the flow of rush-hour congestion. Instead of five, six or ten vehicles entering the highway in one big block and causing congestion around the on-ramp, vehicles enter the highway at a metered interval, reducing congestion.

I agree with your last paragraph. The whole “fuel consumption of 5.5 million gallons” is meaningless without something to compare it to. What if those same people in Minnesota used local roads and consumed, 6.5 million gallons? That would be a reduction of 1 million gallons, which would be seen as good for the environment.