Congestion toll in Boston?

Are Atlantic/Purchase/Surface roads state roads? I assume yes, but correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming yes, the state can set up tolls on the surface roads that basically catches all drivers coming off the Big Dig exits. What's clever here is that pass-through traffic on 93 would be free, and the toll really would act as a congestion charge for entering downtown from the Big Dig.

I'd place a similar toll at the end of the Leverett Connector to catch the 93 commuters who exit there as well.

The state can send the revenues directly into the MBTA operating budget.

/pipedream
 
Shepard said:
Are Atlantic/Purchase/Surface roads state roads? I assume yes, but correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming yes, the state can set up tolls on the surface roads that basically catches all drivers coming off the Big Dig exits. What's clever here is that pass-through traffic on 93 would be free, and the toll really would act as a congestion charge for entering downtown from the Big Dig.

I'd place a similar toll at the end of the Leverett Connector to catch the 93 commuters who exit there as well.

The state can send the revenues directly into the MBTA operating budget.

/pipedream
Click to expand...

The challenge with this approach is people start jumping off 93 earlier to avoid the downtown tolls, and then create even more traffic issues on secondary roads into the city. You basically recreate the Central Artery avoidance traffic patterns that existed before the Big Dig tunnels were created-- and they were horrible!
 
JeffDowntown said:
The challenge with this approach is people start jumping off 93 earlier to avoid the downtown tolls, and then create even more traffic issues on secondary roads into the city. You basically recreate the Central Artery avoidance traffic patterns that existed before the Big Dig tunnels were created-- and they were horrible!
Click to expand...

Add tolls on the bridges over the Charles too.

It's a bit harder south of the city, but you could make small tolls at the southern exits and have it creep up as you get closer to Boston.
 
tysmith95 said:
Add tolls on the bridges over the Charles too.

It's a bit harder south of the city, but you could make small tolls at the southern exits and have it creep up as you get closer to Boston.
Click to expand...

Maybe just Morrissey Blvd. and Mass Ave is enough.
 
tysmith95 said:
You're 100% correct, but it'll still take years until fully autonomous vehicles are on Boston streets.
Click to expand...

Probably longer - Boston was one of the biggest corner cases at least for Google's team. There won't be enough critical mass of AVs on the road for at least a decade.
 
I was just reading today and London (which already has a £11.50 daily congestion charge, ≈15 USD *each day*) is adding a pollution charge next month which raises that fee to £24.00 a day, or about $31.50 DAILY, for cars not meeting certain emissions standards (mostly pre-2006 petrol cars and pre-2015 diesels). Applies to both private cars and rideshare vehicles. I doubt we could even get a $2 daily charge passed over here. And one specifically targeting older vehicles would get thrown out as discrimination against low income households.
 
How would a congestion charge impact companies starting or expanding here? I would think it would have a negative effect on new jobs.
 
The delay that too many drivers using underpriced roads impose on *each other* wastes an enormous amount of time.

A metro area that has roads that do not move freely can't grow.


Free moving roads can support economic growth. particularly if the congestion charge has been reinvested in transit that moves workers to and from jobs in the Central district.

You cannot act as though congestion is free and only a congestion charge is expensive.

The economic theory is that congestion imposes a deadweight loss on a metro area. Congestion saps the productivity of everybody while making nobody more productive.

A congestion charge saps the wallets of people who choose to pay it, but it also gives them the benefit of a free moving Street. Not only that congestion charges are reinvested in mass transit which will also perform better.
 
TallIsGood said:
How would a congestion charge impact companies starting or expanding here? I would think it would have a negative effect on new jobs.
Click to expand...

Consider there are about 250 work days in a year. If the congestion charge is $2, that is $500 per year. Not too hard to account for that in people’s salary. It’s a drop in the bucket for a growing company. It might be a small burden for cheap labor intensive work (like a factory), but those jobs are moving out of downtowns, not in. Of course the point is for people to avoid the charge, not actually pay it.

Even if the charge is much higher like $10 per day ($2500 per year) it’ll only be that much more effective at discouraging trips that aren’t “worth it” and funding transit better and faster. As Arlington explained, congestion pricing is merely an acknowledgement of reality that roads and congestion are not in fact free at all.
 
tysmith95 said:
Add tolls on the bridges over the Charles too.

It's a bit harder south of the city, but you could make small tolls at the southern exits and have it creep up as you get closer to Boston.
Click to expand...


Come on now. Don't you think that you're getting a little ridiculous? :rolleyes:
 
Jahvon09 said:
Come on now. Don't you think that you're getting a little ridiculous? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This whole thing is ridiculous. The last time we took our orders from London willingly was in the 1770's. If you try to pass congestion pricing the voters will crush it via a referendum in the next election. Otherwise this is all just fantasyland thinking aside from higher fees on rideshare companies.
 
1) this isn't about taking orders from London it's about applying something that has been proven in London, Stockholm, Singapore, and many other global cities... And where the people if they had to vote it over again would vote for it.

2)in 1895, we borrowed another great Urban transportation idea from London*: the Subway.

The taxi is a French idea. Internal combustion, Anglo-German. Relax, you are already living in a global city built with great ideas from elsewhere.


* And Budapest, though still under construction
 
Arlington said:
1) this isn't about taking orders from London it's about applying something that has been proven in London, Stockholm, Singapore, and many other global cities... And where the people if they had to vote it over again would vote for it.

2)in 1895, we borrowed another great Urban transportation idea from London*: the Subway.

The taxi is a French idea. Internal combustion, Anglo-German. Relax, you are already living in a global city built with great ideas from elsewhere.


* And Budapest, though still under construction
Click to expand...

Great, but the voters will still crush this at the ballot box, an outcome you don't seem to be considering. I'd also suggest that you do not become the public face of this movement as you have a way of putting people off. ;)
 
I'm kind of counting also New York City having a successful demonstration of a politically popular and economically beneficial congestion zone.

Congestion zones get adopted and end up being popular wherever congestion itself is choking off economic development and frustrating too many people who have no other way of solving it except through a congestion charge (spent on transit)
 
Arlington said:
I'm kind of counting also New York City having a successful demonstration of a politically popular and economically beneficial congestion zone.

Congestion zones get adopted and end up being popular wherever congestion itself is choking off economic development and frustrating too many people who have no other way of solving it except through a congestion charge (spent on transit)
Click to expand...

And Massachusetts will vote against "Manhattanization" again.
 
Arlington said:
1) this isn't about taking orders from London it's about applying something that has been proven in London, Stockholm, Singapore, and many other global cities... And where the people if they had to vote it over again would vote for it.

2)in 1895, we borrowed another great Urban transportation idea from London*: the Subway.

The taxi is a French idea. Internal combustion, Anglo-German. Relax, you are already living in a global city built with great ideas from elsewhere.


* And Budapest, though still under construction
Click to expand...

If congestion tolls were put on the ballot, do you think it would pass?
 
mass88 said:
If congestion tolls were put on the ballot, do you think it would pass?
Click to expand...

Depends on who gets to vote.

People inside the zone: definitely by a wide margin

Bostonians: almost certainly

State-wide: not a chance in hell
 
^ I would say there should be majority support in

1)any place with zone 1A commuter rail fares (or that could be incentivised by offering to put them in zone 1A)

2) any place where a majority of CBD bound commuters today go by bus or bus-rail, so Everett Chelsea Winthrop Revere.

I would expect Weston, Lincoln, Lexington and Milton to be initially skeptical, since they drive a lot but would not trust the predictions of how much faster their car commute could be if the core were uncongested. I would think they would come to support it after implementation because the value of the time they save is likely several times the charge they'd pay.
 
fattony said:
Consider there are about 250 work days in a year. If the congestion charge is $2, that is $500 per year. Not too hard to account for that in people’s salary. It’s a drop in the bucket for a growing company. It might be a small burden for cheap labor intensive work (like a factory), but those jobs are moving out of downtowns, not in. Of course the point is for people to avoid the charge, not actually pay it.
Click to expand...

While it's a drop in the bucket, it's not really $500 either. In order for the worker to receive an additional $500, it's probably at least $700 of gross pay. That $700 ends up having additional indirect costs associated with it, such as fringe, overhead, and G&A, not to mention the additional Social Security tax. So that extra $500 drop in the bucket is really $1500+, PER PERSON as a cost to the company itself.

You are right that it almost definitely wouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not a company can remain a going concern. Just realize that the math is much less simple (and surprisingly more expensive) than you're boiling it down to with "2 * 250 = 500".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top