Congestion toll in Boston?

CBCArch61 said:
I was thinking Bowker too initially because it would catch a ton of flow off of Storrow. Getting that "far" west should also look at including the Fenway area and Prudential areas. The aim is obviously to capture folks who are commuting into the city rather than residents. Presumably there would be an exemption for residents? How does Manhattan handle residents?
The map starts to look like a gerrymander political map haha.
View attachment 68813
Click to expand...
I do think we need to ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish -- specifically with the boundaries. And what are the unforeseen consequences?

The maps using the Mass Pike and similar high volume arteries as boundaries basically say you cannot get out of the South End or Longwood headed west (Pike) or north (93, 1), without entering the congestion zone. (Or you bypass the congestion zone on neighborhood streets through Brookline and Alston/Brighton.) Is that the desired outcome?

The Pike, Storrow and 93 are real problem children in a downtown congestion zone, because they run through the heart of it. They are all congested, but they are also the only real connection for east-west to north-south regionally inside 128. Are we really telling someone in Wellesley that their preferred route to Logan should be 95 north to 1 south to 60 to 1A? More than twice the distance of using the Pike.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I do think we need to ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish -- specifically with the boundaries. And what are the unforeseen consequences?

The maps using the Mass Pike and similar high volume arteries as boundaries basically say you cannot get out of the South End or Longwood headed west (Pike) or north (93, 1), without entering the congestion zone. (Or you bypass the congestion zone on neighborhood streets through Brookline and Alston/Brighton.) Is that the desired outcome?

The Pike, Storrow and 93 are real problem children in a downtown congestion zone, because they run through the heart of it. They are all congested, but they are also the only real connection for east-west to north-south regionally inside 128. Are we really telling someone in Wellesley that their preferred route to Logan should be 95 north to 1 south to 60 to 1A? More than twice the distance of using the Pike.
Click to expand...
No. The congestion zone is entered when you *exit* the Pike. When you stay on the Pike, you wouldn’t enact a charge. It is for surface roads. The Pike is a convenient boundary because it’s not as porous as a surface road. The gantries can be placed on each of the bridges that carry traffic over the Pike and on the off ramps that lead directly into the congestion zone. Someone driving on the Pike from Wellesley to Logan wouldn’t not pay the congestion charge.
 
bigeman312 said:
No. The congestion zone is entered when you *exit* the Pike. When you stay on the Pike, you wouldn’t enact a charge. It is for surface roads. The Pike is a convenient boundary because it’s not as porous as a surface road. The gantries can be placed on each of the bridges that carry traffic over the Pike and on the off ramps that lead directly into the congestion zone. Someone driving on the Pike from Wellesley to Logan wouldn’t not pay the congestion charge.
Click to expand...
OK that part works, but how do people near but outside the congestion zone get to the Pike? First entrance outside the zone is Allston/Cambridge.

Also it is not really hyper efficient using the Pike as a boundary -- you still have to put gantries on every road that CROSSES the Pike (or any other boundary). In Boston the south and west boundaries are going to be expensive with lots of entry points. If you use the Charles and Harbor on the north and east that is more easily controlled.

In many ways Manhattan was easier to set up controls -- bridges, tunnels (already with EZ Pass Readers!) and all south bound avenues at 60th Street.
 
Last edited:
JeffDowntown said:
OK that part works, but how do people near but outside the congestion zone get to the Pike? First entrance outside the zone is Allston/Cambridge.

Also it is not really hyper efficient using the Pike as a boundary -- you still have to put gantries on every road that CROSSES the Pike (or any other boundary). In Boston the south and west boundaries are going to be expensive with lots of entry points. If you use the Charles and Harbor on the north and east that is more easily controlled.

In many ways Manhattan was easier to set up controls -- bridges, tunnels (already with EZ Pass Readers!) and all south bound avenues at 60th Street.
Click to expand...
I mean, NY has more cameras and "checkpoints" than you think would think, and theres a couple of options. You can set it so its not quite so literally on the bridges over 90, but displaced a little onto the roads leading into the zone - leave Marginal Road outside of it, have the cameras on Arlington/Harrison etc, or you add a camera on the on ramp to record exits from the zone - drivers who immediately enter and exit can then be exempted.
 
A bad idea that won't die. People aren't in traffic because they want to be. They're in traffic because they have to be. T is unreliable and if you have to switch multiple times from some combo of bus/subway/commuter rail fugeddaboudit. Also if you have to make a stop on your way home, like say to get a kid out of daycare for example, that's not workable using public transit. Finally, rush hour in Boston is pretty much 6AM to 10 PM. Are we all supposed to work overnight and if so can you get my employer to agree with that?
 
Rover said:
T is unreliable and if you have to switch multiple times from some combo of bus/subway/commuter rail fugeddaboudit.
Click to expand...
These are issues that take money to fix? So where to get this money? A question for the ages oh wait.
Rover said:
Also if you have to make a stop on your way home, like say to get a kid out of daycare for example, that's not workable using public transit.
Click to expand...
I mean that's entirely dependent on where you need to stop. Most childcare centers in Boston seem to be pretty transit accessible already. Ideally of course most possible stops would be within a 10 minute walk of where you live and therefore only a short detour but Boston is still a ways off from getting there. But like, there's no rule that says you're not allowed to take an extra bus to get home. Yes, it takes more time. You're taking a detour, of course it does.
Rover said:
Finally, rush hour in Boston is pretty much 6AM to 10 PM. Are we all supposed to work overnight and if so can you get my employer to agree with that?
Click to expand...
?????
 
TheRatmeister said:
These are issues that take money to fix? So where to get this money? A question for the ages oh wait.

I mean that's entirely dependent on where you need to stop. Most childcare centers in Boston seem to be pretty transit accessible already. Ideally of course most possible stops would be within a 10 minute walk of where you live and therefore only a short detour but Boston is still a ways off from getting there. But like, there's no rule that says you're not allowed to take an extra bus to get home. Yes, it takes more time. You're taking a detour, of course it does.

?????
Click to expand...

I think many of us are deeply skeptical the money will be spent on improving the T or CR in a meaningful way in our lifetime.

This is Massachusetts, nothing gets done here and when it does get done its 20 years too late.
 
I’m somewhat for a congestion zone, but wish the state would instead do whatever needs to be done to toll 93, and maybe 95 as well.
 
It's cute how much trust some people have in how the T spends it's money and I write that as a big admirer of what Eng had been able to accomplish!

The part about taking the train to the bus to pick up your.kids and get them somewhere else after work? Usually where you choose to put your kids is driven by availability and price not closeness to a bus stop I'm guessing people proposing that don't have kids? Especially multiple kids doing different events after work?
 
Last edited:
Rover said:
It's cute how much trust some people have in how the T spends it's money and I write that as a big admirer of what Eng had been able to accomplish!

The part about taking the train to the bus to pick up your.kids and get them somewhere else after work? Usually where you choose to put your kids is driven by availability and price not closeness to a bus stop I'm guessing people proposing that don't have kids? Especially multiple kids doing different events after work?
Click to expand...

You'd guess wrong

Anyway, what is your idea?
 
393b40 said:
I think many of us are deeply skeptical the money will be spent on improving the T or CR in a meaningful way in our lifetime.

This is Massachusetts, nothing gets done here and when it does get done its 20 years too late.
Click to expand...
Now that is definitely a reasonably concern. Reforms to everything engineering, contracting, and project management really shouldn't wait.
Rover said:
It's cute how much trust some people have in how the T spends it's money and I write that as a big admirer of what Eng had been able to accomplish!

The part about taking the train to the bus to pick up your.kids and get them somewhere else after work? Usually where you choose to put your kids is driven by availability and price not closeness to a bus stop I'm guessing people proposing that don't have kids? Especially multiple kids doing different events after work?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you need to cross the city on errands multiple times every weekday then you might want a car. I sincerely hope that does not apply to very many people.
 
Revenue from a Boston congestion toll should be used to fund the Red-Blue Connector, and also the BL extension to Lynn. These top priority transit projects are a logical use of such funding as they would help reduce commuter auto traffic into Boston.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Revenue from a Boston congestion toll should be used to fund the Red-Blue Connector, and also the BL extension to Lynn. These top priority transit projects are a logical use of such funding as they would help reduce commuter auto traffic into Boston.
Click to expand...
I'd also add OLX to West Roxbury, GLX to Nubian, and a new Red Line station at Neponset/Port Norfolk.
 
Last edited:
The T got billions from the millionaires tax. There will never be enough money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
Charlie_mta said:
Revenue from a Boston congestion toll should be used to fund the Red-Blue Connector, and also the BL extension to Lynn. These top priority transit projects are a logical use of such funding as they would help reduce commuter auto traffic into Boston.
Click to expand...
themissinglink said:
I'd also add OLX to West Roxbury, GLX to Nubian, and a new Red Line station at Neponset/Port Norfolk.
Click to expand...
Rapid transit projects are great and all but if we're taxing people driving into Boston then money should also be spent on improving how people get into Boston. Regional rail, essentially.
 
themissinglink said:
I'd also add OLX to West Roxbury, GLX to Nubian, and a new Red Line station at Neponset/Port Norfolk.
Click to expand...
Definitely agree with all this except you cant do olx to west rox without glx to needham. The good thing though is on a price per mile benefit analysis glx to needham scored highest as in it was the cheapest line with the maximum benefit compared to the rest.

The fact that both olx and glx have to be done together wasnt factored in anywhere in that study, but I doubt that would drive it down, if anything for how short olx is and how many people it would benefit it probably still tops the list with both combined or close to it.

-As far as the red infill station at neponset how if there still no proposal for this from the mbta?
 
TallIsGood said:
The T got billions from the millionaires tax. There will never be enough money.
Click to expand...
The millionaire's tax is split in half, 50% towards education, 50% towards transportation, state-wide. Transportation, despite Healey's campaign around "Fixing the T" with this funding, includes highways, regional transit authorities, and the T. The MBTA only receives a very small portion announced every year. Of that funding, most of the money initially went to operational safety initiatives instead of capital projects.

Two years totaling $240m in funding is a little shy of billions. On the scale of expansions that are being discussed in this thread, we're a long ways out from having the money to do these wish lists with fair-share funding alone.
The MBTA received $240.8 million of Fair Share revenue for Capital Investments over these two years. In FY 2024, $180.8 million went toward infrastructure improvements for the commuter rail, bridge repairs and replacement, and signal improvements on the T, among other important improvements.
Click to expand...

The T needs a stable, dedicated capital-investment fund. Without knowing what resources will be available two, five, or ten years down the line, there’s no way to plan major projects with any real precision. An operation of this scale should really be forecasting a 5-10 years ahead. The current CIP tries its best with what the T has, but we have a long way to go before the T can function "on paper," let alone in practice.

Let's say we establish a consistent line of funding for capital investments, the current CIP clearly outlines the T's (financially constrained) initiatives:
1764517989972.png

Note how little expansion is discussed, and as such reflected in the investments:
1764518021569.png


Long story short, there's a lot to fix before the T doesn't get tarred and feathered for investing in expansion while the current system demands $23BN in investment.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Revenue from a Boston congestion toll should be used to fund the Red-Blue Connector, and also the BL extension to Lynn. These top priority transit projects are a logical use of such funding as they would help reduce commuter auto traffic into Boston.
Click to expand...
Add North-South Rail Link to that, and the other low hanging but needed extensions like OLX to West Roxbury, and we would have a massively more useful system for the people deciding to leave their cars at home.
 
Rover said:
A bad idea that won't die. People aren't in traffic because they want to be. They're in traffic because they have to be. T is unreliable and if you have to switch multiple times from some combo of bus/subway/commuter rail fugeddaboudit. Also if you have to make a stop on your way home, like say to get a kid out of daycare for example, that's not workable using public transit. Finally, rush hour in Boston is pretty much 6AM to 10 PM. Are we all supposed to work overnight and if so can you get my employer to agree with that?
Click to expand...
The T isn't fully to blame for people "having" to be in traffic. The model in the US has made it essential to sit in traffic because we became obsessed with cars and requiring space for cars at every establishment that we build. The T became unreliable because the overinvestment in this car infrastructure and under investment in transit (subway and regional rail). That isn't just a MA issue either, that is the USA as a whole. The idea of a couple transfers is also an inconvenience that is derived from the US's investment in car culture, so shifting away from that seems like an inconceivable approach.

You're not wrong though in saying folks don't take the T because it is inconvenient. I have discussions weekly with friends and my wife when doing different things because driving or calling an uber is more convenient. If our model was based more on a centralized or regional transit system, things such as daycare would presumably build near there (this is discussing within the transit zones of course, rural areas are different stories). There is a price to be paid when everyone is able to customize their travel to themselves, just like any other system that is catered to a specific individual instead of a more societal approach.

The idea of Congestion Tolling isn't necessarily about penalizing driving, but essentially charging a convenience charge for those that choose to drive into the city. There is obviously a lot of complications with city residents and how the charge works for/against them, but for folks who are choosing to drive from the 128/495 worlds there are options other than driving as long as folks are willing to make adjustments to their schedule. So if those folks wanted to continue having the convenience of their personal vehicle at their office in town, then a convenience charge does not seem like such a bad price to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top