Congestion toll in Boston?

Scott said:
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to the idea (or any good idea) if the money would actually go toward fixing the problems. Unfortunately, we are not seeing an additional $6B worth of tax money spent on improvements to education and the transit since 2023 like we were promised. That money was supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed because the voters would never have approved it otherwise because they know we have seen this bullshit time and again
Click to expand...
So write the law (that's not even being proposed, just being casually studied for best-practices research) to hard-wire the funding into transit sources that can't legally be redistributed elsewhere. Like New York quite very explicitly did. Problem solved.

Seriously...this is not a thing to hand-wring over. If a congestion pricing measure is ever to garner support in Massachusetts, it's pretty clear because of past Legislative shennanigans that the distribution of funds will have to be explicit, enforced, and legally protected so fairweather pols can't raid the cookie jar. But if they're studying best-practices by doing research on New York, the City probably already knows this up-front.
 
Scott said:
I cannot support this because there is no way to ensure that the money will actually go to transit. The so-called millionairs tax and the the cigarette tax are examples of the bait and switch. One minute we are told about all the good it will do and then then they spend the money on their favorite pet projects allowing another generation to start smoking and the MBTA to rot.
Click to expand...
By this standard you effectively can't support any taxes or fees intended to be directed to something. Even if the money goes there, money that currently goes to those things could be redirected, leaving the total spent on it unchanged.

The obvious benefit of funding sources that have to be sent to the MBTA by law even in the worst case, is that it reduces the % of the MBTA's funding that is dependent on the yearly whims of the state legislature.

-------

Now, with that said, I have pretty significant qualms with a NYC-like congestion charge in Boston with the current scope of MBTA services/frequency, which compare....extremely poorly to what the NYC metro area offers someone who wishes to avoid having to pay the charge.

I could maybe see implementing a charge solely on weekday AM peak entries to Downtown. That's about the only time it would seem reasonable to me with current services.
 
millerm277 said:
By this standard you effectively can't support any taxes or fees intended to be directed to something. Even if the money goes there, money that currently goes to those things could be redirected, leaving the total spent on it unchanged.

The obvious benefit of funding sources that have to be sent to the MBTA by law even in the worst case, is that it reduces the % of the MBTA's funding that is dependent on the yearly whims of the state legislature.

-------

Now, with that said, I have pretty significant qualms with a NYC-like congestion charge in Boston with the current scope of MBTA services/frequency, which compare....extremely poorly to what the NYC metro area offers someone who wishes to avoid having to pay the charge.

I could maybe see implementing a charge solely on weekday AM peak entries to Downtown. That's about the only time it would seem reasonable to me with current services.
Click to expand...
What are you new here? Yes, it is impossible in Massachusetts to support a new tax with any reasonable belief that it will be used for its intended purpose and that needs to change. Don't tell me about the good it will do when you cannot reasonably guarantee the problem will be addressed with the money.
 
Sorry, but other than a garage in Quincy, which is marginal on the "transportation" bucket, is there any evidence of the fair share/millionaire tax going to anything but education and transportation (including roads)? We do have free community college and school lunches. Several regional bus systems are fare free.
 
Don't believe the excuses and the obfuscation. There has not been $6B worth of educational or transit improvement since 2023, period. Not even close. We will never see the improvement that taxpayers voted for. We will never see a NSRL or the Red Line to Arlington. Heck we can't even do the most basic expansions because the money set aside just disappeared. People should be pissed about that
 
SO...WORD...THE...LAW...SO...THE...MONEY...CAN'T...DISAPPEAR.
👆

This isn't hard, people. New York did exactly that despite being eleventy times as corrupt as Massachusetts. And if City of Boston is specifically studying the New York example, they're going to know all that right up-front and know how the legally airtight bonding allocation played a crucial role in the measure garnering the support to pass at all.
 
Yes^ that is the right way to do it. Otherwise the money will disappear into the general fund forever
 
Justbuildit said:
Sorry, but other than a garage in Quincy, which is marginal on the "transportation" bucket, is there any evidence of the fair share/millionaire tax going to anything but education and transportation (including roads)? We do have free community college and school lunches. Several regional bus systems are fare free.
Click to expand...

I will concede that using the funds to plug the operating gap left by sunsetting ARPA funds for the MBTA did feel like a bit like a bait and switch. Hooray, we avoided seriously damaging cuts to service or large fare increases, but status quo ante bellum wasn't what it was sold as.

That gripe aside, yes I agree I don't see these funds as having disappeared into mysterious black holes. I'm not aware of anything more questionable than the Quincy parking garage.
 
@Scott I very much disagree with your notion that we shouldn't support the concept of a congestion toll because we don't yet know where the money is going. My belief that we could burn the money and it would still be good for the city aside, I echo others in saying that there is no proposal on the table, so to be opposed to a non-existent proposal based on how it is proposed, makes no sense.

That being said, I sympathize with your gripe about the Millionaires' Tax. According to the state's own documents (you can read this year's budget briefs here, for example), the state has collected $9.1B, but I can only find an allocation of $2.4B. That doesn't mean that $6.7B is unspent, but it is at best an opaque reality. At the very least, it should be enough money to fund actual capital investments, like Blue to Charles, and until we see that happen, it's understandable to question the how the state is spending this money.
 
bigeman312 said:
@Scott I very much disagree with your notion that we shouldn't support the concept of a congestion toll because we don't yet know where the money is going. My belief that we could burn the money and it would still be good for the city aside, I echo others in saying that there is no proposal on the table, so to be opposed to a non-existent proposal based on how it is proposed, makes no sense.

That being said, I sympathize with your gripe about the Millionaires' Tax. According to the state's own documents (you can read this year's budget briefs here, for example), the state has collected $9.1B, but I can only find an allocation of $2.4B. That doesn't mean that $6.7B is unspent, but it is at best an opaque reality. At the very least, it should be enough money to fund actual capital investments, like Blue to Charles, and until we see that happen, it's understandable to question the how the state is spending this money.
Click to expand...
I promise I will stop after this. I support the concept. A congestion tax is a user tax so that is okay with me. I am only opposed if it lacks strong legal wording to ensure that the money would be used for the voters intended purpose and not become a slush fund for the most powerful's pet projects. If the pols get to pick the winners and losers we all lose and nothing will get built
 
Not sure why we can't discuss the pros and cons of congestion pricing before we see an actual proposal. For example, the MBTA is a limited reach hub and spoke system with no connectivity between lines outside of the shawmut peninsula. That forces people to drive their cars. No amount of congestion pricing revenue is going to fix that. Now go look at the NYC system. Lots of connections throughout the system. For example, if you're traveling from Brooklyn to Queens, you don't have to go into Manhattan. If you're going from Newton to Harvard, you do. Highly unlikely this accomplishes much aside from pissed off voters who already think the state is expensive to live in.
 
Rover said:
Not sure why we can't discuss the pros and cons of congestion pricing before we see an actual proposal. For example, the MBTA is a limited reach hub and spoke system with no connectivity between lines outside of the shawmut peninsula. That forces people to drive their cars. No amount of congestion pricing revenue is going to fix that. Now go look at the NYC system. Lots of connections throughout the system. For example, if you're traveling from Brooklyn to Queens, you don't have to go into Manhattan. If you're going from Newton to Harvard, you do. Highly unlikely this accomplishes much aside from pissed off voters who already think the state is expensive to live in.
Click to expand...
To go from Newton to Harvard Square, you don't HAVE to go via Park Street. You can use a bus connection, but it tends to be a bit slower.

But on the your parallel, from many points in Brooklyn and Queens, the fastest subway transfer is via Manhattan. While there is some cross-borough service, it is minor compared to the dominate flow in and out of Manhattan.
 
Rover said:
Not sure why we can't discuss the pros and cons of congestion pricing before we see an actual proposal. For example, the MBTA is a limited reach hub and spoke system with no connectivity between lines outside of the shawmut peninsula. That forces people to drive their cars. No amount of congestion pricing revenue is going to fix that. Now go look at the NYC system. Lots of connections throughout the system. For example, if you're traveling from Brooklyn to Queens, you don't have to go into Manhattan. If you're going from Newton to Harvard, you do. Highly unlikely this accomplishes much aside from pissed off voters who already think the state is expensive to live in.
Click to expand...
MTA is notoriously manhattan centric but theyre building the ibx to help fix that problem. We are starting to see more radial lanes taking shape in the US which is a much needed developmentl. I definitely agree that the mbta is constrained by the way it funnels everything through downtown, but regional rail + nsrl would definitely help a lot to connect the region together a lot more outside of the core city, even if it still goes through downtown.
 
I don't get this objection at all:
Rover said:
Not sure why we can't discuss the pros and cons of congestion pricing before we see an actual proposal. For example, the MBTA is a limited reach hub and spoke system with no connectivity between lines outside of the shawmut peninsula. That forces people to drive their cars. No amount of congestion pricing revenue is going to fix that. Now go look at the NYC system. Lots of connections throughout the system. For example, if you're traveling from Brooklyn to Queens, you don't have to go into Manhattan. If you're going from Newton to Harvard, you do. Highly unlikely this accomplishes much aside from pissed off voters who already think the state is expensive to live in.
Click to expand...
One shouldn't have to enter a congestion zone driving between Newton Highlands and Harvard, so why would they be negsatively effected by a congestion zone? Am I missing something? Isn't the proposed zone generally agreed to be specifically for the Shawmut Peninsula-ish (plus Back Bay-ish)?
 
bigeman312 said:
I don't get this objection at all:

One shouldn't have to enter a congestion zone driving between Newton Highlands and Harvard, so why would they be negsatively effected by a congestion zone? Am I missing something? Isn't the proposed zone generally agreed to be specifically for the Shawmut Peninsula-ish (plus Back Bay-ish)?
Click to expand...
It's not clearly entirely to me how someone going from Newton Highlands to Harvard would need to enter the congestion zone.

Highly doubt a serious congestion zone would extend all the way to Harvard. Perhaps there's a confusion between tolled motorways vs. a CBD congestion zone?

Red = estimated minimum congestion zone
Blue = congestion zone amended to include Seaport, Longwood Medical Area, Fenway Park/Kenmore, Kendall MIT, and Back Bay.

1792953774623.png
 
Regarding inclusion of the Longwood Medical Area, what about patients in poor health that can't take public transportation? Same question could be asked about Mass General downtown, Tufts Medical Center, and Boston Medical Center. I assume some sort of reasonable accommodation would be provided so they are not subject to the toll.

On a different note, shouldn't Logan be part of the congestion zone? With Logan Express, the Blue Line, and private bus carriers serving the airport, this area strikes me as a better candidate for inclusion than LMA.
 
OldColony said:
Regarding inclusion of the Longwood Medical Area, what about patients in poor health that can't take public transportation? Same question could be asked about Mass General downtown, Tufts Medical Center, and Boston Medical Center. I assume some sort of reasonable accommodation would be provided so they are not subject to the toll.

On a different note, shouldn't Logan be part of the congestion zone? With Logan Express, the Blue Line, and private bus carriers serving the airport, this area strikes me as a better candidate for inclusion than LMA.
Click to expand...
LMA is better suited for inclusion inside the congestion zone rather than airport.

You could stop the congestion zone at the western edge of the Common; but Back Bay, Kenmore; Fenway Park are all prime for inclusion in the congestion zone.

And LMA traffic is super bad; we might as well just end it at the western edge of the LMA on the outskirts of Brigham Circle and Brookline Village.
 
OldColony said:
Regarding inclusion of the Longwood Medical Area, what about patients in poor health that can't take public transportation? Same question could be asked about Mass General downtown, Tufts Medical Center, and Boston Medical Center. I assume some sort of reasonable accommodation would be provided so they are not subject to the toll.
Click to expand...

That patient would pay a congestion toll to enter LMA, just like a patient in poor health taking public transportation to LMA would pay a fare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top