A-Line Reactivation

Matthew said:
The poorest don't own cars, and therefore, don't benefit from the subsidies being poured into roadways and parking lots. They do pay taxes for those things though.
Click to expand...

Mathew -- try again -- If the poorest don't own cars --arguable by itself -- but anyway -- they don't pay gasoline taxes and hence do not pay for roads

No like everything else the roads and transit are payed for by the middleclass and in general they do have cars

So the question is do you walk, bike, drive or take the T -- even just the decision between driving and taking the T is complex and depends on many factors beyond just the direct cost including:
1) the nature of your job -- e.g. do you have to be there on a hard schedule, on call (24X7), or is there leeway and flextime, etc.
2) nature of your family -- are you a mom with young kids in school, day-care, etc.
3) both your origin and destination location
4) ease od access to the T -- frequency, hours
5) ease of parking, magnitude of conjection on roads ,etc.

Changing prices of driving to T-ing will only peripherally influence the above factors if at all -- so the trade-off will not be always clear-cut

That's why we should be providing cholce -- as much as possible letting people live where they want, build their businesses where they want and travel how they want -- places that implements this cholce most completely will be more successful than places that force people to accept alternatives that they would ordinarily not choose -- all other things being equal.
 
Everyone pays for roads through property tax, state income tax and sales tax. They also pay for roads implicitly through zoning codes that require minimum parking allotments, even when the owner of the property does not want to build the parking, they are still forced by the city to provide it. That is a forced waste of land which counts as a subsidy of driving.
 
Matthew said:
We already do that. Just subsidizing roads benefits the rich the most -- the folks who can most afford to drive and park everywhere.
Click to expand...

And congestion road pricing is going to fix by pushing out least able to pay? The current subsidization system is still more egalitarian. We can drive the same roads at the same time and fight for the same parking spots in the garages, lots, and street. You're right the parking will favor them still, but at least they still have to sit in the same traffic. Congestion pricing means they now get to enjoy easy driving while the a good section of us would no longer be able to afford driving at the same time as them.


Matthew said:
Because we give away roads for free, they automatically become the number one choice for travel. This influences land use and planning - minimum parking requirements and wider roads - thus we end up with the situation where people are forced to buy a car, even if they can't really afford it. The reduction in options stems from the fact that we don't charge for usage of roads, and instead force everyone to subsidize them.

The gas tax isn't sufficient as you know, and anyway, it's a little silly. The revenue from the gas tax is dedicated to producing more and more roads. That doesn't make any sense. We don't do that for any other kind of consumption tax. For example, the sales tax on books doesn't go towards producing more books. Actually, a portion ends up in roads. Since the gas tax isn't sufficient to pay for our roads, they are significantly funded by local taxes on property, state taxes on income, and sales tax.
Click to expand...

Roads are the number choice for travel because even taking the train require a road in between to walk on. Roads become a problem when we start making our architecture and city scape around cars. The reduction in options and deadening of our city is from our cultural mania and political administrative choices. Plenty of cities around the world have avoided the same damage despite they also allow usage of the roads for "free." I think that argue that there are other causes than before we didn't put a variable toll.

I'll give that lowest income people still pay taxes indirect with local/state property taxes and state income taxes. But at the same time, do you really imagine the implementation of congestion pricing means the removal of the post of taxes in property, sales, and state income?

Matthew said:
Demand-based road pricing will be a boon for drivers of all incomes. Especially for people who need driving time reliability, or those who like to have direct control over their costs. It can be used to lower taxes, promote alternative forms of transportation, and reduce congestion. It's a win-win-win. But people are afraid of change, and many prefer hidden costs they don't have to think about to explicit costs they need to weigh, even if it will save them money. And also tolling has sucked in the past, but it can be done seamlessly now. The funny part of this discussion is that drivers will actually see way more benefit from road pricing than I will, most likely.
Click to expand...

Matthew, you are far too optimistic on the win-win-win-ness of this. Can you also possible see that implantation will just be a toll road that the toll it change changes from time to time? Adding a toll would obviously bring some to take alternative transportation and keep some from driving at a certain time, but an uncongested road because people are priced out of using it is a strategy that allows those who can pay for it (and before already) enjoy more benefits to them. Your belief it will lower taxes is very debatable based on previous history of government and thus the argument it will save us money. And this is a strategy where people who weigh (assuming there is an alternative form) of transportation as less preferable is not only more preferable not because its service got better but the person got priced out.

Matthew said:
What's done is done. But what can we improve? I argue that we don't want to make changes which raise the volume of cars commuting into the city because that necessitates more parking lots and wider roads, and both of those destroy the city. To start with, tolls. It doesn't make any sense that you can enter the tunnels in some ways without paying a toll. They cost a lot - pay for them! Demand-based road pricing is the only way to control congestion, but even if you don't do that, tolls are only fair.

I'm not sure which Big Dig numbers you are referring to there.
Click to expand...

Your measuring stick of avoiding stuff that raise volume of cars seem to be quite wide. Let's try to take this to practical cases. Does this mean you want to leave low hanging fruit issue like 95-93 intersection as is or would you fix it as they been planning for years about that issue? What about smart signal lighting which reduces congestion by better timing of the lights? I would imagine you would push more publish transportation projects would I would approve. But your statements about roads and cars seems to say that you would block such improvements back you would justify that more convenient driving from short wait at lights will lead to more cars which you disapprove.
 
Road pricing does not push out people. It makes people think before they use. Just like with any product you buy at the store. Instead of buying the fanciest food at the store, I go for value. I read the cost/unit and the ingredients, and look for generic alternatives. Similarly, instead of driving at the most "expensive" times, someone might choose to drive at a cheaper time. Or use their bicycle, T pass or feet instead.

Personally, I feel that if variable road pricing is not combined with lowered taxes (of some form) then it probably isn't politically palatable and maybe not even worthwhile. Heck, the only value of variable road pricing to me is the lowered taxes, really, since I don't own a car! ;)

My measuring stick is pretty simple: will it result in more city-destroying parking lots and dangerously wide roads? And the root behind that is: will it hurt walking and living in the city? So the 93/95 interchange probably won't affect that. The "smart" signalling might though. My experience with "smart" signalling is that it's rather dumb, actually, when it comes to dealing with people on foot. But I'm willing to see the idea and if it is just about making cars go fast at the expense of pedestrians, or not.

For example, I don't believe that any city which wants people to walk should ever have push-button activation of walk signals. Drivers would not put up for having to press a button, why should walkers? And half the time, the buttons don't work here anyway. You press and wait and the lights cycle around fully, and then you wonder why you aren't just crossing like everyone else is. NYC, SF, Chicago, and Montreal do not do this to their citizens. Why do we?

I had some experience with the super-"smart" traffic lights while out in the Bay Area/SJ last summer. They had all kinds of sensors and control systems for detecting cars. Push the walk button and you'd wait. And wait. And wait. Until the system decided to fit you into the cycle. Pretty obnoxious. One time in SJ we waited about 10 minutes and finally gave up. Luckily, since SJ is a fake city, there was no traffic.
 
Matthew said:
Road pricing does not push out people. It makes people think before they use. Just like with any product you buy at the store. Instead of buying the fanciest food at the store, I go for value. I read the cost/unit and the ingredients, and look for generic alternatives. Similarly, instead of driving at the most "expensive" times, someone might choose to drive at a cheaper time. Or use their bicycle, T pass or feet instead.
Click to expand...

Why can't people just use ride their bike anyway without road pricing? It's more than just because people are not thinking about it. Having a car and driving is already expensive enough to think about value. Argue as you wish that it is heavily subsidized roads are, driving a car is still not so cheap no a driver will not consider alternatives. So road pricing to get people to take the train is a strategy to price out people. If the only difference before and after implementation is just the price, then people are only looking at the train not because it got better, but driving is now too expensive.

Applying this to Boston, this means I prefer to see a decent T. I won't be surprise if our T was better, it would be even more patronized. It won't need congestion pricing to make that happen. If we ever make the investment to the T.


Matthew said:
Personally, I feel that if variable road pricing is not combined with lowered taxes (of some form) then it probably isn't politically palatable and maybe not even worthwhile. Heck, the only value of variable road pricing to me is the lowered taxes, really, since I don't own a car! ;)
Click to expand...

I sense smugness in the air...

Since this, discussion, is put forward. It does make a person look up more information. One of the information I read with congestion pricing, there is not a whole lot of talk of tax cuts. In fact, the few places that have implemented, like the Stockholm example that was used in the article you linked, there was no tax cut with the congestion pricing. The existing proposed ones like NYC does not have any tax cut either. Basically, in practice, this is another way for government to take more money. The idea that the forces of the people means any proposal will only go through with a tax cut is idealistic.

So for you, this means you won't see any tax cut. Even if you drive, my sense the only really palpable improvement is you have the option to pay and enjoy a easy ride to work at 8:30 AM now.

Matthew said:
My measuring stick is pretty simple: will it result in more city-destroying parking lots and dangerously wide roads? And the root behind that is: will it hurt walking and living in the city? So the 93/95 interchange probably won't affect that. The "smart" signalling might though. My experience with "smart" signalling is that it's rather dumb, actually, when it comes to dealing with people on foot. But I'm willing to see the idea and if it is just about making cars go fast at the expense of pedestrians, or not.

For example, I don't believe that any city which wants people to walk should ever have push-button activation of walk signals. Drivers would not put up for having to press a button, why should walkers? And half the time, the buttons don't work here anyway. You press and wait and the lights cycle around fully, and then you wonder why you aren't just crossing like everyone else is. NYC, SF, Chicago, and Montreal do not do this to their citizens. Why do we?

I had some experience with the super-"smart" traffic lights while out in the Bay Area/SJ last summer. They had all kinds of sensors and control systems for detecting cars. Push the walk button and you'd wait. And wait. And wait. Until the system decided to fit you into the cycle. Pretty obnoxious. One time in SJ we waited about 10 minutes and finally gave up. Luckily, since SJ is a fake city, there was no traffic.
Click to expand...

Sound like what you experience is a fail for smart signal lighting. If done right, it is suppose to create better green waves to defeat congestion while eliminating time where you sit at a light and there's nothing around you. All meanwhile the system also give timing to pedestrians. It sounds like the one you walked on had engineers who did not design with any thought to pedestrians.

But that's not my point. It doesn't even have to be smart lighting. How about just green wave lighting? You see that in NYC and somewhat in Boston where the timing of the lights means drivers will get to drive down multiple green lights cascading down the street before stopping again. Boston seems to be horrible with that (and anything with lighting in general - especially pedestrians lights). A better timing system means cars get to utilize green lights better and pedestrians are not harmed if a car in this scenario. But this does make driving more convenient. Which I am wondering in your mind that you want to have a system where the lights are all timed to go a block at a time. Seeing your measuring stick is very broad and flexible.
 
Matthew said:
Personally, I feel that if variable road pricing is not combined with lowered taxes (of some form) then it probably isn't politically palatable and maybe not even worthwhile.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a potentially good idea. Some places like British Columbia have already done tax swaps (though in their case a carbon tax) seemingly successfully. Maybe a road pricing tax swap would work well.
 
Matthew said:
Heck, the only value of variable road pricing to me is the lowered taxes, really, since I don't own a car! ;)
Click to expand...

Either this statement is incorrect, or you are completely economically independent of the transportation network.
 
I would support upgrading 93-95 only if it can be done within the existing footprint, without taking any houses or additional land.
 
Can someone remind me what most of this recent discussion has to do with the A Line (or even the corridor it used to run along)?
 
DominusNovus said:
Double deck, like 93 is north of the city?
Click to expand...

If he's referring to the 93-95 interchange near Route 128 station, which I think he is, then it is more than capable of being done with zero land taking. The state already owns the land around there in the aftermath of the canceled SW expressway, and the interchange's required fix is essentially ripping out the never-to-be-finished cloverleaf and dropping a triangle/Y junction in there instad.
 
HenryAlan said:
Don't short change our driving needs. I envision quad decking the entire system once the first layer build-out is complete.
Click to expand...

I think you've got me here, mind running by that by me again without going over my head?
 
DominusNovus said:
I think you've got me here, mind running by that by me again without going over my head?
Click to expand...

I posted in the wrong thread. I wrote that thinking we were in the KMW super highway system thread. But even there, my comment would have been misplaced, because the desire is for ever wider highways, with greater and more expansive eminent domain takings. Quad decking would never work for that particular fantasyland.
 
HenryAlan said:
I posted in the wrong thread. I wrote that thinking we were in the KMW super highway system thread. But even there, my comment would have been misplaced, because the desire is for ever wider highways, with greater and more expansive eminent domain takings. Quad decking would never work for that particular fantasyland.
Click to expand...

Well, my theory is that you can doubledeck the highway for various stretches, which simultaneously would double capacity without knocking anything down. Of course, it'd be expensive. Won't stop me from braintstorming various ideas.
 
DominusNovus said:
Well, my theory is that you can doubledeck the highway for various stretches, which simultaneously would double capacity without knocking anything down. Of course, it'd be expensive. Won't stop me from braintstorming various ideas.
Click to expand...

I suspect it'd be cheaper and much to just knock down the houses and businesses in the way and widen the roads to 12 or 14 lanes like in Texas instead of double-deck.
 
Man, it's been a long time since this thread resembled anything about the A-Line restoration...
 
Inbound Washington Street was a mess just an hour ago or so. Backed up from Brighton Center to Oak Square. Opted to go to the Green Line instead. Need a dedicated ROW for the A-line :)
 
^ Bury the A Line and elevate the B Line while we're at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top