Congestion toll in Boston?

[JeffDowntown]

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.

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.

 

[Stlin]

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.

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.

 

[Rover]

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?

 

[TheRatmeister]

T is unreliable and if you have to switch multiple times from some combo of bus/subway/commuter rail fugeddaboudit.

These are issues that take money to fix? So where to get this money? A question for the ages oh wait.

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.

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.

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?

?????

 

[393b40]

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.

?????

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.

 

[FK4]

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.

 

[Rover]

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?

 

[KCasiglio]

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?

You'd guess wrong

Anyway, what is your idea?

 

[TheRatmeister]

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.

Now that is definitely a reasonably concern. Reforms to everything engineering, contracting, and project management really shouldn't wait.

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?

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.

 

[Charlie_mta]

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.

 

[themissinglink]

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.

I'd also add OLX to West Roxbury, GLX to Nubian, and a new Red Line station at Neponset/Port Norfolk.

 

[TallIsGood]

The T got billions from the millionaires tax. There will never be enough money.

 

[TheRatmeister]

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.

I'd also add OLX to West Roxbury, GLX to Nubian, and a new Red Line station at Neponset/Port Norfolk.

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.

 

[JeffDowntown]

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.

But projects like BLX are also about getting people into Boston (people who likely drive today).

 

[stick n move]

I'd also add OLX to West Roxbury, GLX to Nubian, and a new Red Line station at Neponset/Port Norfolk.

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?

 

[FormFollowsBudget]

The T got billions from the millionaires tax. There will never be enough money.

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.

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:

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

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.

 

[HenryAlan]

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.

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.

 

[CBCArch61]

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?

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.

 

[millerm277]

The idea of a couple transfers is also an inconvenience that is derived from the US's investment in car culture

No? More transfers are viewed as a more inconvenient trip in every place on the planet that I have been.

Being on the same vehicle for an hour is simply much less effort and stress than having to transfer multiple times is for the average person. And crucially, it's also fewer points for something to go wrong.

What does come back to typical North American problems is frequency + reliability issues, though. The less frequent the connecting service, the higher the time consequences of a missed connection. The less reliable the services, the more frequent the missed connections/the more padding you have to build into your schedule for them.

When you've got both issues, anything more than a single transfer starts to look like an outright ridiculous choice of means of travel and if you can travel in some other way you do.

 

[HenryAlan]

I won't dispute that most Americans, and perhaps most transit users world wide don't like transfers. But if the frequency is there, I personally don't find them to be the least bit bothersome. It's a fine trade-off for a broader list of destinations. When I visited St. Petersburg back in the 90s, I went with some of the locals I had met to a jazz club that involved a bus, to Metro, to tram for the trip. Each time, the transfer mode was right there and ready to go when we arrived. I came away from that experience with the opinion that the system there was really good (despite badly aging equipment), specifically because you could reasonably use it to get somewhere that had no direct service. I think frequency and ease of transfer are the killer apps for transit, not single seat rides.