Congestion toll in Boston?

[DZH22]

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.

A key part of examining this argument is to look at posters' motivations for which side they fall on.

It seems to me that, out of all the people in favor of adding this toll, none of them would actually be the ones PAYING for it. That tells me all I need to know right there.

 

[kmp1284]

A key part of examining this argument is to look at posters' motivations for which side they fall on.

It seems to me that, out of all the people in favor of adding this toll, none of them would actually be the ones PAYING for it. That tells me all I need to know right there.

So only cigarette smokers should be allowed to opine on the cigarette tax?

 

[Arlington]

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.

I'd probably shift my annual downtown trips from
20 transit (usually kiss-and-ride...my wife drives me to a rail station)
10 SOV
2 Lyft

To
30 transit (I'd go more often and shorter notice, believing there'll be better transit options*)
6 SOV
1 Lyft


Something like that. So me, I'd pay about $30/year more in congestion charges and another $20 in increased use of the T?

For DZH22:

How much of your own time do you currently spend sitting in jammed traffic per week in or near the proposed congestion zone?

From your commute, it sounds like you technically avoid the congestion zone on both your commute and your "evening walks" So you'd be zero.

But if you could pay $ and unjam the traffic around you each day, how much would you pay?

If your answer is "I'd never pay anything to switch to faster traffic" it suggests that you value your own time at $0/hr.

If you currently value your own commute time (and the time of those around you) at zero, that's a problem. It makes you highly willing to waste everybody's time.


*Such as increased frequency and capacity on both the Orange & Red, but also better Green Line, particularly if they fund the Type 10 and the upgrades needed to handle it.

 

[DZH22]

For DZH22:

How much of your own time do you currently spend sitting in jammed traffic per week in or near the proposed congestion zone?

From your commute, it sounds like you technically avoid the congestion zone on both your commute and your "evening walks" So you'd be zero.

Where is the congestion zone exactly? Would there be signs or anything obvious telling me the streets to avoid? Typically I leave work after 6 so if the zones ended at 6 I could walk without paying.

However, many of my favorite places to park are probably near or within the congestion zones. For instance, the boathouses on Memorial Drive become infinite parking after 5:30, and I love to walk the river. I also park on the Beacon Street bridge over the Pike on days the Red Sox aren't playing. Other places include near Davis, Porter, Harvard, by MIT (right off Mass Ave), Highland Ave Somerville, Beacon Street Brookline, Summer Street by convention center, and a personal favorite street in the financial district that becomes up for grabs (and always open) after 7 pm. This is far from comprehensive but a good idea of the typical places I cover. When my destination is "a good walk" I do try to avoid the worst of the traffic.

Ultimately, the extra costs to me would depend on whether the zone went to 6 or 7pm, was still active on the weekends, and how easy it would be to avoid certain areas. I would assume that driving near Alewife/Fresh Pond wouldn't be quite in the zone since it kind of defeats the purpose of steering people towards mass transit. When I leave work I am right on the outskirts of everything, but it would be alarming if every direction toward urbanity came with a toll attached. The suburbs are not conducive to my walks.

 

[Ruairi]

Where is the congestion zone exactly? Would there be signs or anything obvious telling me the streets to avoid? Typically I leave work after 6 so if the zones ended at 6 I could walk without paying.

However, many of my favorite places to park are probably near or within the congestion zones. For instance, the boathouses on Memorial Drive become infinite parking after 5:30, and I love to walk the river. I also park on the Beacon Street bridge over the Pike on days the Red Sox aren't playing. Other places include near Davis, Porter, Harvard, by MIT (right off Mass Ave), Highland Ave Somerville, Beacon Street Brookline, Summer Street by convention center, and a personal favorite street in the financial district that becomes up for grabs (and always open) after 7 pm. This is far from comprehensive but a good idea of the typical places I cover. When my destination is "a good walk" I do try to avoid the worst of the traffic.

Ultimately, the extra costs to me would depend on whether the zone went to 6 or 7pm, was still active on the weekends, and how easy it would be to avoid certain areas. I would assume that driving near Alewife/Fresh Pond wouldn't be quite in the zone since it kind of defeats the purpose of steering people towards mass transit. When I leave work I am right on the outskirts of everything, but it would be alarming if every direction toward urbanity came with a toll attached. The suburbs are not conducive to my walks.

Leave your car at alewife and take the red line to Kendall for free. One less car on the road, and you still get your walk. It might not be as convenient as now but it won’t cost more and it’s a small price to pay for a cleaner city.

 

[DZH22]

Leave your car at alewife and take the red line to Kendall for free. One less car on the road, and you still get your walk. It might not be as convenient as now but it won’t cost more and it’s a small price to pay for a cleaner city.

To retain my free parking (as opposed to the $9 Alewife garage fee) I'd have to walk 3/4 of a mile each way. Then, how is it free to take the red line?

 

[Arlington]

BOSTON GREEN RIBBON COMMISSION (CARBON FREE BOSTON)
From Page 56 of 120 in
Carbon Free Boston Report (https://www.greenribboncommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Carbon-Free-Boston-Report-web.pdf)

Longwood-Back Bay-Downtown-Seaport

Boundaries are roughly:
WEST: The Brookline city line (Emerald Necklace) & BU Bridge
NORTH: Charles River Basin, Dam, & Harbor
SOUTH: Heath St- SW Corridor Park-I-90-W 2nd St
EAST: Reserve Channel (Pappas Way)


IF CAMBRIDGE THOUGHT ABOUT IT
(I added these additional places that are (1) well-served by transit and (2) crushed by cars at rush hour)

Harvard Sq-Mass-Main-Kendall-Lechmere

You already have Harvard & MIT implementing high parking fees, limited parking, shuttle buses, and pro-bike policies, and indeed, MIT is one of the highest % commuters arriving by bike in the nation.

(I'd say not Porter-and-Outward nor Cambridgeport nor Inman Sq)
But I would say that increasing parking charges in Alewife, adding 2 stories to the garage, and building CR Station with pedestrian overpass would be part of the solution in Alewife)

 

[Ruairi]

To retain my free parking (as opposed to the $9 Alewife garage fee) I'd have to walk 3/4 of a mile each way. Then, how is it free to take the red line?

I’d use a congestion charge to eliminate t fares

 

[DZH22]

They are proposing 4.4 out of 48 square miles and comparing it to London's 8, without mentioning London's total is 607 square miles.

Also, wouldn't it be counter intuitive to further increase parking charges at Alewife? I thought you were trying to dissuade cars from driving all the way to their destinations.

 

[bigeman312]

Logistically, I don’t believe the Seaport should be included in the zone. At least to start. Rather, I believe the Fort Point Channel should be the cutoff. This is logistically an easier barrier, as there are fewer roads in/out, and the Seaport is also so abysmally underserved by transit from most locations, that it seems wrong to include them before any transit upgrades are made.

I’d like to see an area roughly bound by Fort Point Channel, the Harbor, the Charles River, the Fens, Huntington, and the Pike.

 

[Arlington]

They are proposing 4.4 out of 48 square miles and comparing it to London's 8, without mentioning London's total is 607 square miles..

There's really no point to be made here. It doesn't matter how big your regional government is or how many suburbs you have (or have not) been politically merged with. Nor does it matter how many ring roads out (to 128 or to 495) the city government does nor does not go.

The ONLY question is: what is the "congested center" where driving can be improved by a congestion charge, and where sufficient transit can be offered as an alternative?

For London that happens to be this core, which spans several "legacy" jurisdictions (The City == The City of London, 1.12 sq mi )+ most of the City of Westminster + bits of Clerkenwell, Marylebone, etc.

The image above actually comes from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Inner_Ring_Road
The ring road was chosen as boundary because it is a good place to say "how about going around, instead of cutting through?"

Had Boston actually built its own inner ring, we'd probably have found that that ring of highways would probably have made a natural boundary. As it is, we have leftovers of the highway era (SW Corridor was going to be I-95) that happen to be useful as boundaries.

Also, wouldn't it be counter intuitive to further increase parking charges at Alewife? I thought you were trying to dissuade cars from driving all the way to their destinations.

I'm trying to dissuade people from congesting each other, trying to increase average traffic flows, and trying, as a matter of equity and expanding choices, to fund an increase transit alternatives (expand the Alewife garage the two-stories-higher it was designed for; build a Fitchburg stop, allow people to cross the Fitchburg on foot or bike.) But I this off topic here. Alewife is a place with bad traffic were raising prices and increasing capacities seems called for, but it isn't a congested core.

 

[kmp1284]

I'd suggest the inclusion of zips 02210, 02110, 02111, 02113, 02114, 02115, 02116, 02118, 02108, 02109 and 02199. Include a 75% discount for property owners qualifying for a residential abatement and a 25% discount for renters. In order to accommodate occasional visitors for business meetings, medical appointments, court appearances, etc. I'd suggest giving each person(registered auto) two free visits per year before incurring charges.

 

[Arlington]

^ That's roughly what the Green Ribbon Commission proposed, but they included 02215 (BU Bridge to Kenmore Sq)

I'd rather give every resident in the district $200, but also charge $150 per year for a residential parking pass, and then let them decide whether to go car free (and pocket the $) or to spend the money on 1 car & their first 10 charges. (Revenue negative or neutral for car-free and car-lite residents)

 

[TallIsGood]

^Goes into the state's general operating budget, like ALL sales taxes.

^Goes to the infrastructure and operation of the vehicle licensing, registration, and inspection system: directly used by motorists, and not anyone else.

The only $ you spend that goes toward transit is part of your 24cents per gallon, which, assuming your car gets, say 20+ MPG, results in substantially lower contribution than imposed on those riding the T.

1% of the sales tax goes to fund the MBTA. Excise tax goes to the towns as you note, but the towns in the MBTA area have town contributions.

 

[TheRifleman]

I’m assuming city and state employees would be exempt from this right?
Like there lifetime pensions, state healthcare, along with promoting millions of dollars of tax incentives to billion dollar corporations to build on prime property?

If they wanted to prevent a congestion then why did they give away millions to corporations to build in the city?

The city could have invested some of that money in the mbta.
If the economy is so good then why is the city and state running in the red?

This is not a congestion fee it’s the start of the income inequality zones..
Keep subsidizing the corporations with the taxpayers money only to wall off there priceless real estate locations on the water by creating a wall of fees to get there along with no actual transit to get to the seaport

 

[Arlington]

It is a congestion fee, designed to change people's willingness to be traffic.

Its burdens are paid by the rich and anyone who needs to drive faster on a particular day.

It's benefits are felt by the poorest workers (bus riders in households that can't afford a car) and anyone else willing to ride Transit on any particular day.

 

[Kinopio]

What "supercommute" are we talking about here? The adjunct professor in the Fenway who got priced out of the city and had to move to Billerica? That's a "supercommute" in your mind? After screwing them once on the housing, we should intentionally punish them as well?

Having drivers actually pay for the roads they use and the pollution and destruction they cause isn't punishing them. It is making them pay for what they are using after getting it for practically free for decades. Why should Bostonians have to just deal with the noise and air pollution suburban drivers create here? Why should suburban drivers get to take up so much of Bostonians valuable property? Make them pay. Nothing is free.

 

[Kinopio]

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.....

Your post has so many bad examples. You know what America needs more of? More angry people driving! Go for a damn walk instead. Its healthier for everyone. How many marriages are ended by a driver killing someone's spouse?

People spread diseases on the subway? Its adorable how you ignore that car emissions cause deadly diseases like lung cancer. 4.6 million people per year die from air pollution! But you are more concerned about maybe catching a cold on a train?!? And you are more concerned about getting mugged on the T than you are the 35,000 Americans killed every year by drivers?!?

You are destroying the planet, putting peoples lives in jeopardy, taking up tons of space and money yet you don't think you should pay any fee? You want future generations to live in the mess you helped create. This type of selfishness will be the end of us.

 

[DZH22]

You are destroying the planet, putting peoples lives in jeopardy, taking up tons of space and money yet you don't think you should pay any fee? You want future generations to live in the mess you helped create. This type of selfishness will be the end of us.

I read your posts on universalhub and frankly, beyond this one mention you are not worth responding to. You are so far to the extreme you make Arlington look like a hummer driving, pro-fracking conservative in comparison. I am not going to continue this conversation with you and will likely never acknowledge you again.

 

[HenryAlan]

From this thread, it's pretty clear that DZH22 is a troll. I'd advise people to act accordingly when they consider how and whether to respond to him.

As for whether congestion pricing is a good idea, I like it in the abstract, but the devil is in the details, and I agree with some others who have suggested that any place trying it needs to have some very solid public transit already in place. Personally, I think the T is pretty solid, at least in the areas considered for congestion pricing. But T accessibility does become a larger issue the further you get from the core.

Any experiment with this idea needs to have some types of mitigation baked in, such as assistance for low income drivers and discounting for people who might have limited access to transit. But yes, let's look at this more, let's figure out the details and then move forward, because congestion allowed to fester is a complete waste of resources.