Congestion toll in Boston?

[DZH22]

You're obfuscating. I'm not asking for faith. I'm asking if you would be fine with a hypothetical congestion toll if the funds directly paid for road costs. Simple yes or no.

I said flat out I would be willing to pay as a zero-sum game, where the total of the tolls (plus the gas tax and whatever other taxes are funding them) totally paid for the roads and maintenance. Not a penny less, and not a penny more.

The problems are multiple though. First, as proven with the Mass Pike, they kept the tolls even when they were no longer needed to pay for the road (ie they use them as a profit center). Second, the automatic tolls are a further tracking system where we are lurching towards the reality of George Orwell's 1984. Third, if you aren't improving the alternatives (as in, the T sucks with or without a congestion toll) then it's just a regressive penalty for the poor to middle class folks who aren't privileged enough to live directly on the T.

 

[bigeman312]

A congestion charge should be used to pay for the roads, period.

A congestion charge should be used to pay for the best solutions to congestion. Period.

 

[Justin7]

I said flat out I would be willing to pay as a zero-sum game, where the total of the tolls (plus the gas tax and whatever other taxes are funding them) totally paid for the roads and maintenance. Not a penny less, and not a penny more.

Good. Thanks.

Do you agree that there are external societal costs to your driving that are not directly encompassed by "road maintenance," particularly if you drive a car powered by fossil fuels, and would you be in favor of a hypothetical carbon/pollution tax that helped to mitigate these costs?

 

[DZH22]

A congestion charge should be used to pay for the best solutions to congestion. Period.

The best solutions for congestion would be to either relocate people out of cities and to wide-open states like Montana or Vermont, or to basically have a plague wipe out half the population. I don't want to pay for either of these things.

 

[kmp1284]

The best solutions for congestion would be to either relocate people out of cities and to wide-open states like Montana or Vermont, or to basically have a plague wipe out half the population. I don't want to pay for either of these things.

You'd probably be very happy in Montana.

 

[JumboBuc]

How much is your yearly insurance for taking the T? What are the extra yearly fees? Did you need to earn (and renew) a license to ride? Do you need to pay for the yearly T inspection? Do you pay separately for the train's fuel or is that part of the price of admission?

Also, how are you "helping to pay for transit lines" beyond paying for your monthly pass to ride?

Taxes subsidize roads and taxes subsidize the T. User fees alone do not cover the total cost of roads and user fees alone do not cover the total cost of the T. That's the point here. Claims to the extreme on either side (i.e., "I pay for my car so I shouldn't have to pay for the T" or "I pay for the T so I shouldn't have to pay for cars") run into the same logical fallacy. The argument you appear to be making is the former of the two. Others have raised the latter as a rhetorical counterpoint to yours. Both sides of this argument are equally misguided, but only yours appears to be authentic while others are just playing debate club.

If a driver truly believes that they pay for roads so they shouldn't pay for the T, then that driver should also believe that roads should be 100% paid for by user fees. It is inconsistent to believe both (a) roads are a public good and should be subsidized by general funds; AND (b) one who pays user fees for roads should not be required to pay any additional fees to fund alternate modes of transportation.

Either transportation is a public good or it's not. If it is, then subsidies from drivers to transit users are okay. If it isn't, then drivers should pay their own way for the roads. If you agree with neither of those propositions you're trying to get a free lunch.

Do you have a road that runs by your house? If you ever needed emergency services, would they use that road or take the T to get to you? Do you ever go to stores or restaurants in your area, and would they be able to stay supplied without trucks on roads?

Yes, people who don't have cars use roads for trucking and deliveries and emergency services and etc. But people who don't have cars also pay for the trucking and delivery and emergency services and etc that use roads. If roads were funded 100% through user fees, the cost of goods that use roads would reflect these user fees. So if one doesn't have a car and doesn't directly pay road user fees but does buy things that are shipped to one's house on roads, then one does indirectly pay the user fee cost of the road through the price of that purchase. There's nothing inconsistent or unfair about this.

 

[DZH22]

Good. Thanks.

Do you agree that there are external societal costs to your driving that are not directly encompassed by "road maintenance," particularly if you drive a car powered by fossil fuels, and would you be in favor of a hypothetical carbon/pollution tax that helped to mitigate these costs?

We're getting too far outside the scope of this thread. I mean, when we talk about societal costs, think about how many marriages are saved when one of the spouses gets in their car and drives around for a while to clear their head during an argument. You advocate against cars, but is it somehow better to breathe in dirty tunnel air everyday? I didn't feel particularly healthy on the trains myself. Also, isn't it easier to spread diseases when everybody is jammed together like cattle?

By the way, I have never been mugged in my car, but I HAVE been mugged in a subway station. Of course, if a congestion toll was implemented that was too high, what would be the difference at that point?

At the end of the day, humans are probably on pace to destroy the planet and the cost of me driving or not driving is not going to be the deciding factor by a longshot.

How about instead of me paying a fee to drive into the city, you all pay a fee that makes it easier for me to live in the city? Does that sound like a wholly unfair, garbage idea? There ya go then.....

 

[DZH22]

You'd probably be very happy in Montana.

I don't say this enough but I probably hate you the most out of anybody on this site. What are you even doing here? You live on the other side of the ocean and couldn't possibly be more condescending about your privileged situation. You are the walking embodiment of "let them eat cake." Go away, and worry about your own city.

 

[DZH22]

Yes, people who don't have cars use roads for trucking and deliveries and emergency services and etc. But people who don't have cars also pay for the trucking and delivery and emergency services and etc that use roads. If roads were funded 100% through user fees, the cost of goods that use roads would reflect these user fees. So if one doesn't have a car and doesn't directly pay road user fees but does buy things that are shipped to one's house on roads, then one does indirectly pay the user fee cost of the road through the price of that purchase. There's nothing inconsistent or unfair about this.

So non-drivers still need to partially pay for the roads as the price for doing commerce in this state. As a non T-rider, what do I get out of the T? Roads are necessary, and they serve EVERYWHERE, not just Boston and not just specific points. Every single structure has a road that leads to it. Without roads, people who lived in the Back Bay would be trudging through swamps on their way to the T. Roads are necessary while the T is a luxury designed to improve transit throughout the city. Of course, it's not REALLY a luxury in the common sense of the term, but nonetheless it is to serve a relatively small portion of people in the state.

The inconsistency is that none of the services I use require or utilize the T to provide that service. The roads are needed for commerce, and the T is not.

 

[Justin7]

We're getting too far outside the scope of this thread. I mean, when we talk about societal costs, think about how many marriages are saved when one of the spouses gets in their car and drives around for a while to clear their head during an argument. You advocate against cars, but is it somehow better to breathe in dirty tunnel air everyday? I didn't feel particularly healthy on the trains myself. Also, isn't it easier to spread diseases when everybody is jammed together like cattle?

By the way, I have never been mugged in my car, but I HAVE been mugged in a subway station. Of course, if a congestion toll was implemented that was too high, what would be the difference at that point?

At the end of the day, humans are probably on pace to destroy the planet and the cost of me driving or not driving is not going to be the deciding factor by a longshot.

How about instead of me paying a fee to drive into the city, you all pay a fee that makes it easier for me to live in the city? Does that sound like a wholly unfair, garbage idea? There ya go then.....

So essentially, you want other people to foot the bill for your convenience and if your actions have consequences, fuck it, someone else's problem. I went out of my way to try to find common ground, but the willful ignorance is tiresome. Fool me twice I guess.

 

[JumboBuc]

So non-drivers still need to partially pay for the roads as the price for doing commerce in this state. As a non T-rider, what do I get out of the T? Roads are necessary, and they serve EVERYWHERE, not just Boston and not just specific points. Every single structure has a road that leads to it. Without roads, people who lived in the Back Bay would be trudging through swamps on their way to the T. Roads are necessary while the T is a luxury designed to improve transit throughout the city. Of course, it's not REALLY a luxury in the common sense of the term, but nonetheless it is to serve a relatively small portion of people in the state.

The inconsistency is that none of the services I use require or utilize the T to provide that service. The roads are needed for commerce, and the T is not.

This comment in no way addresses any point I raised.

Of course roads are necessary. That's so obvious it doesn't even have to be stated. And the same goes for the T. But do you truly believe that if the T were to shutdown today the Boston economy would not be affected? If not, then the T is needed for commerce (just as roads are).

I went out of my way to try to find common ground, but the willful ignorance is tiresome. Fool me twice I guess.

Yeah, same. I tried to be agreeable and take a moderate approach. But I guess when one has dug in one's heels on ONE SIDE of a debate, even a moderate conciliator looks like an enemy.

 

[DZH22]

So essentially, you want other people to foot the bill for your convenience and if your actions have consequences, fuck it, someone else's problem. I went out of my way to try to find common ground, but the willful ignorance is tiresome. Fool me twice I guess.

You want me to foot the bill for you to take the T so what's the difference?

 

[DZH22]

To everybody in favor of a congestion toll, I have 1 question only.

How much more would YOU be paying if this toll was enacted? It's very easy to spend other people's money.

 

[kmp1284]

I don't say this enough but I probably hate you the most out of anybody on this site. What are you even doing here? You live on the other side of the ocean and couldn't possibly be more condescending about your privileged situation. You are the walking embodiment of "let them eat cake." Go away, and worry about your own city.

You hate me the most? You hate other people here too? That's an extraordinarily strong word and it's scary that you have that level of an emotional feeling towards someone you've never even met. What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[DZH22]

You hate me the most? You hate other people here too? That's an extraordinarily strong word and it's scary that you have that level of an emotional feeling towards someone you've never even met. What the hell is wrong with you?

Everybody else I reconciled with. But something about you disgusts me beyond reason. I guess hate is a very strong word, and would have to be saved until after I had the (dis)pleasure of meeting you in person. How about.... you are the person I dislike the most on this site? Is that better wording?

 

[JumboBuc]

To everybody in favor of a congestion toll, I have 1 question only.

How much more would YOU be paying if this toll was enacted? It's very easy to spend other people's money.

The entire point of a congestion toll is that it makes people pay for whatever share of congestion they create. That's the entire point. Seriously. The entire point.

So if person A finds they they pay a lot for the congestion toll, that means that they create a lot of congestion! And if person B finds that they don't pay much of a congestion toll, that means that they don't create much congestion.

The. Entire. Point.

 

[DZH22]

The entire point of a congestion toll is that it makes people pay for whatever share of congestion they create. That's the entire point. Seriously. The entire point.

So if person A finds they they pay a lot for the congestion toll, that means that they create a lot of congestion! And if person B finds that they don't pay much of a congestion toll, that means that they don't create much congestion.

The. Entire. Point.

So you are in favor of adding a toll that wouldn't affect you at all, but would affect me. Got it.

 

[JumboBuc]

So you are in favor of adding a toll that wouldn't affect you at all, but would affect me. Got it.

I have no side in this debate. I honestly am on the fence about a congestion toll. Note that I have never advocated for one on this forum. I see benefits, but I also see downsides. Note all those points about "public goods" I raised above, that you seem to have breezed through in anger.

I'm just trying to think rationally and impersonally. That's it. It's not about me versus you, it's about understanding the issues and incentives at stake.

A carbon tax? That I'm totally for. A congestion toll? I dunno, tough question.

 

[Ruairi]

Prob mentioned a few pages back but Michelle Wu has proposed making the T free.
I think a congestion tax/toll is the perfect way to pay for this.

 

[JumboBuc]

Prob mentioned a few pages back but Michelle Wu has proposed making the T free.
I think a congestion tax/toll is the perfect way to pay for this.

Ugh, I feel pretty confident that I would not support this.