Not when they aren't using it. That's kind of the problem.
Commuters Ditched Public Transit for Work From Home. Now There’s a Crisis.
- Thread starter Frankie811
- Start date
Not when they aren't using it. That's kind of the problem.
I'm not on board for congestion pricing, but I think on a different reasoning despite it sounds similar. Historically and currently, cities that have run transit well have done it without congestion pricing. There are cities that does it now but it is still a recent development. So I'm of the mind that if we want our cities to be like more of those cities, our cities have be more like those cities - which congestion pricing has historically has not been one of them.
This isn't to say it can't be in the future, but the context is all of these transit systems are facing a funding crisis - so this means it needs money from someway, somehow. It could be money from congestion pricing, but it successful cities has been funding by various means. Hong Kong profitably relies on commercial rents on top of its stations. Meanwhile Tokyo Metro relies (but reliably) on MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism - aka their national government) and TMG (Tokyo Metropolitan Government) to fund their system. Meanwhile in Europe cities like Paris relies on a local payroll tax to keep their system funded. MBTA used to be funded.
Even in Massachusetts we have a local example of an agency that is typically reputed to run well: Massport. They have a reliable source of funds simply because the nature of the airlines industry where every flight to Logan is very reliable and lucrative source of funding.
My personal thematic observation that I noticed of all of these successful systems is they all share a consistent and reliable funding that is in amounts large enough to run the system and more. Congestion pricing could raise such capital (assuming it's in large enough quantity to cover the true budgetary needs), but just saying "Implement congestion pricing now" is just dogmatic. It ignores how so many praised transit systems seem to keep succeeding. It even closes out thought and analysis if it even raises enough funds to cover the budgetary gap of respective transit systems. Not mention such dogmatic statements invites the concept to become politicized. Modes of transit been politicized into identity politics, but we don't need to turn a budget crisis into invite cars into the discussion and frame it transit-mode fight which ultimately becomes political and then finally political identity.
----
In short, the context has been looming/actives budget crises. There's are multiple ways to get the gap closed in the various cities. With examples of various successful systems and where they all provide various different solutions. So can we not bring up in congestion pricing like it's an obvious panacea? Especially it involves transit systems that have questionable reputations. One way to really sour congestion pricing is people paying into a system but the money is just enough to keep it in a status quo but the status quo is a terrible state (also congestion pricing to distribute levels of traffic versus prices that fund other modes are transit may not be in alignment).
Ultimately we have a funding priority issue. In the other cities and here, the other constant theme that I keep seeing is people are always willing to move hell or high water when it comes to car-related infrastructure, like the highway in Philly. But when it comes to other modes, despite all the noise from various politicians and advocates, it's always some multi-year long process and struggle. Sometimes the barrier really is funding and/or engineering - you can't buy something if you literally have no money and you can't make a baby faster than 9 months. But things like the highway in Philly shows is there's a lot more money available if certain decision makers care enough to do it.
This isn't to say it can't be in the future, but the context is all of these transit systems are facing a funding crisis - so this means it needs money from someway, somehow. It could be money from congestion pricing, but it successful cities has been funding by various means. Hong Kong profitably relies on commercial rents on top of its stations. Meanwhile Tokyo Metro relies (but reliably) on MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism - aka their national government) and TMG (Tokyo Metropolitan Government) to fund their system. Meanwhile in Europe cities like Paris relies on a local payroll tax to keep their system funded. MBTA used to be funded.
Even in Massachusetts we have a local example of an agency that is typically reputed to run well: Massport. They have a reliable source of funds simply because the nature of the airlines industry where every flight to Logan is very reliable and lucrative source of funding.
My personal thematic observation that I noticed of all of these successful systems is they all share a consistent and reliable funding that is in amounts large enough to run the system and more. Congestion pricing could raise such capital (assuming it's in large enough quantity to cover the true budgetary needs), but just saying "Implement congestion pricing now" is just dogmatic. It ignores how so many praised transit systems seem to keep succeeding. It even closes out thought and analysis if it even raises enough funds to cover the budgetary gap of respective transit systems. Not mention such dogmatic statements invites the concept to become politicized. Modes of transit been politicized into identity politics, but we don't need to turn a budget crisis into invite cars into the discussion and frame it transit-mode fight which ultimately becomes political and then finally political identity.
----
In short, the context has been looming/actives budget crises. There's are multiple ways to get the gap closed in the various cities. With examples of various successful systems and where they all provide various different solutions. So can we not bring up in congestion pricing like it's an obvious panacea? Especially it involves transit systems that have questionable reputations. One way to really sour congestion pricing is people paying into a system but the money is just enough to keep it in a status quo but the status quo is a terrible state (also congestion pricing to distribute levels of traffic versus prices that fund other modes are transit may not be in alignment).
Ultimately we have a funding priority issue. In the other cities and here, the other constant theme that I keep seeing is people are always willing to move hell or high water when it comes to car-related infrastructure, like the highway in Philly. But when it comes to other modes, despite all the noise from various politicians and advocates, it's always some multi-year long process and struggle. Sometimes the barrier really is funding and/or engineering - you can't buy something if you literally have no money and you can't make a baby faster than 9 months. But things like the highway in Philly shows is there's a lot more money available if certain decision makers care enough to do it.
Last edited:
Was this written by ChatGPT?
No, it was not. It reflects my thoughts and I spent a good amount of effort writing it. The citation of the funding of other cities are pulled from prior knowledge and Googling to verify that it was true. If I manage to write my post with out grammatical errors, that's actually an accomplishment because I struggle to write my posts without making critical grammatical errors. It took me a lot of time to write up my post.
If you disagree, I wanted a rebuttal, not you being a dick saying I asked ChatGPT implying everything I said is somehow a lie and/or bullshit. I debated with Matthew for years on this board about congestion pricing, I never really agreed with him but I respected his responses and insight. But regardless of my stances, I do believe in the reasoning behind my points and post it to put it be challenged and questioned. You're a dick.
Yeah, I didn't know about that situation until recently. With the projected timeline to re-open, they might as well throw in a Blue Line extension too.
What I’m trying to get across is that “infrastructure spending” is consistently popular amongst both parties. Politicians love it because it is something tangible that they can point to as an accomplishment. It scarcely matters where the money is actually spent because the funding mechanisms are extremely opaque and the lengthy construction times blur causality and responsibility. This already happens quite routinely!
Just think for a second of all the ribbon cuttings at all the new major airport terminals in the past decade and remember the median American flies zero times per year.
Last edited:
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Not going to happen while Boston is trying to coerce companies into forcing remote employees into the office. They introduce congestion pricing, and the laptop class that just got forced back into the city, kicking and screaming, will throw a fit.
Delvin4519
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2022
- Messages
- 820
- Reaction score
- 1,477
What about a LEZ (Low Emissions Zone) around the city, like most European and Japanese cities? What is Boston even doing not having an LEZ at all? Or we could have both a LEZ and congestion pricing, and milage taxation.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Wouldn’t really change anything. A large chunk of the white collar workers in Boston decamped to the suburbs in the past 3 years, and the city wants them back. If its a toll, or being told they have to drive hybrids, its still going to piss off a bunch of people.
Boston has to decide: do they want the economic vibrancy that comes with all those white collar workers coming into the city regularly, or do they want to control congestion and/or emissions?
I say the city and state (and adjoining cities, like Cambridge) should embrace the WFH revolution and help everyone get what they want.
- Streamline the process of converting office buildings into other purposes. Residential, medical, whatever.
- Add tolls or congestion charges or whatever the desired solution is.
- Take the revenue from the first two and use it to improve internet across the state.
- Great opportunity for the second and third tier cities.
Boston’s chief industries - education, healthcare, and finance - all need people in person to greater degrees than a generic mix of white collar jobs (finance less so, but for regulatory reasons it does). So, it will survive and thrive in the shift. We just need leadership that will accept the change and work with it.
But as long as Boston wants to go back to 2019, all we’re going to get is gridlock, in every sense of the word.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,114
- Reaction score
- 15,007
This does sound like a win win, but I cant help but think about one major factor. The suburbs, are the suburbs, are the suburbs. If people want to wfh from outside of Boston what is actually keeping them in Massachusetts? Its extremely expensive here and a lot of ppl hate the weather. If Boston decides that it doesnt want these people back then what reason would they have to stay in Massachusetts at all? If they put in congestion pricing and encourage ppl who live in the suburbs to never come to the city, I dont see why anybody would stay in the state. We have an extremely extensive rail network with loads of untapped potential. I dont think it necessarily has to be all wfh or 2019 congestion, theres a 3rd option that is there for the taking and that is regional rail. If they need to make some hard decisions, then they need to make some hard decisions about finally taking rail serious because it literally is the path fwd that would fix so many of our problems.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
I agree that congestion pricing or analogues could scare people away. I’d toss that under the bus in a heartbeat, myself.
I’m not sure about regional rail as a solution to this particular issue, however.
Massachoicetts
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2019
- Messages
- 573
- Reaction score
- 712
https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2023-Q1-Ridership-APTA.pdf New APTA Report shows Boston MBTA System has made significant gains over the past year, although I didn't read it, some were saying that it passed Chicago's. But Boston is really outpacing other cities.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,114
- Reaction score
- 15,007
Congestion pricing should only be used to encourage ppl to take other means of transportation. If those means do not exist though, then its just a new tax. So if the state is serious about considering congestion pricing then they need to build regional rail first, that way there are other options for commuters to take. It should be something that comes after the other commuting options are in place, that way its used as a tool to nudge commuters to take the other means vs an unnecessary new expense that doesnt change anything.
Highwayguy
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2020
- Messages
- 189
- Reaction score
- 464
Hard agree. There’s also the equity component to look at with congestion pricing. Because of our aversion to densify around transit and/or in the inner core, so many working class and blue collar folks have been priced out to the outer burbs or the gateway cities of Lynn, Brockton, ect… The biotech CEO who lives on top of Porter won’t be paying the congestion charge, but the guy who makes his coffee at Dunks probably would.
For me? Schools, family, and human rights. I can't speak for anyone else, though.
Totally agree on this. When I was downtown, most of the "rich folk" I knew simply walked to work. If we want congestion pricing, we need to make sure that significantly improved transportation options are available for people who will be more dependent on transportation.
Yeah, but for getting to/from downtown Boston at least, there *are* other means of transportation.
In other cities that have set up congestion pricing (like London or now NYC) the congestion fee zones cover relatively small parts of their cities. The zones only cover spots that are dense with transit options, but are heavily congested by cars. That's downtown Boston. As bad as the MBTA is these days, downtown still has two commuter rail stations, lost of busses, and the convergence of 4 subway lines.
This map from the Boston Region MPO shows what they call the Boston Business District. You might redraw some of the lines, but that makes a pretty plausible congestion fee zone. No need to first redesign regional rail or anything
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,745
- Reaction score
- 8,605
For me: ditto on all of the above, plus: the world-leading life sciences industry that is necessarily in-person (wherein my wife works), the universities and their ecosystems (which maybe you meant within "schools"), the breadth of arts/sciences cultural institutions that are matched/bested in other places with same or greater cost of living, but less so (at least at this breadth) in places of lower cost of living
Re congestion pricing: I'd much rather see a suite of policies and improvements that bolster the efficacy (and encourage use of) non-car travel, as well as designating various individual downtown streets as non-car, rather than have congestion fees
Koopzilla24
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 1,126
This is exactly why New York is the only place in the country that can effectively and equitably implement congestion pricing right now. The NYC metro area is the only one with the extent and frequency of service, at least during peak commute times, to be a like for like switch from driving to transit in terms of convenience. That and the region already overwhelmingly takes transit.
Here in the Boston area it’s very dependent on what part of the suburbs can reasonably get to work in a timely manner on transit compared to driving even in traffic. There’s a reason Salem and Beverly have more passengers than Framingham or Worcester, and the Providence Line has the most ridership by far. Service is either frequent enough that missing a train doesn’t completely mess up your commute, or fast enough that it competes with driving even when there’s no traffic. What we do have though is a great backbone and plenty of 128 park n ride stations. Improved service to these stations would go a ways towards getting suburbanites’ cars out of the city.