Congestion toll in Boston?

I strongly disagree with what DZH22 is saying, and at times his responses have been rooted more in trolling than honest discussion, but DZH22's base response to congestion zone tolling is in line with how much of the populace will respond.

We've seen the yellow vest protests in France that, while rooted in other issues, were ultimately triggered by fuel taxes.

We, as a species, are destroying the planet. One of the worst things many of us are doing, as a individuals, is regularly driving large, single-occupancy, fossil fueled vehicles into city centers that are well-served by transit, especially at high congestion times. Yet, there is extreme backlash to forcing people to pay for their own destructive habits. DZH22 is clearly not the only person who is enraged by this concept.

So ... how do we move forward?

It's very clear that a huge contingent of the population is blindingly selfish. Rather than denigrate them, how do we work with these people and, yet move beyond these destructive behaviors. This board's support for these concepts is not represented of the population at large. There's a huge amount of people who will NEVER vote to protect the environment over their own destructive, self-interested habits. Washington state voted down a carbon tax in November. So ... how do we move forward?
 
TheRifleman said:
Nah we should continue to listen to trolls like you ---Need more Taxes. Our govts can't even balance a budget in good economic conditions.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed where I called for more taxes. Can you point me to the post? Thanks!
Why is state continue to be in the red with our booming economy?
Click to expand...
It's not. Massachusetts has a balanced budget.
If the state was worried about congestion why did it allow Uber and Lyft to be legalalized as the taxi drivers pay for Medallions to have access to be drivers in the city? But the state is so worried about congestion? Don't forget about the Auto Industry bailouts?
Click to expand...
May have been a mistake, but try putting that genie back in the bottle.
Uber and Lyfts are another main issue causing gridlock? All those taxi drivers lost on their investments by having medallions only for them to become worthless as the cities allowed everybody to run their own taxi service.
Click to expand...
I agree with your critique of ride sharing.
 
I am grateful for DHZ22's participation. The reality is that there are people who *like* their long drive. They consider their time alone in the car to be a great time for me time, decompression, listening to an audiobook. A majority of people are introverts, and many of them drive. Their commute falls somewhere between "no big loss" and a "net win" (They probably don't get what the problem with congestion is, or why the rest of us feel the need to fix it.)

I even know a guy who supplements his income by being an Uber driver just for the duration of his commute from New Hampshire to Woburn. His long commute is a moneymaker and sometimes a good conversation.

Everyone who considers their commute to "the congested core" to be a "win" in their life is going to consider the congestion charge an "unfair" imposition. The cheapskate rich (picture: John Paul Getty arguing over payphones) but also the paycheck-to-paycheck upper middle and middle class with a car.

Particularly those who like long drives, where their extra 10 minute of congesting-each-other is a small % of the commute (and saving 10 minutes of congestion on 60 minute commute to the hinterlands isn't as big a win as saving 10 minutes of congestion on a 30 minute SOV commute Seaport to Brookline)

"The Burden" of congestion pricing will be "borne" by (and resented by) the people who, in essence, are being asked to change their time or mode of commuting against their will. That's going to be people in the middle, who are already near the breakpoint of driving vs transit. Or people who feel that the world offers them no alternative to driving (even though they have way more freedom and assets--like a house and car--than the carless poor)

WINNERS: PEOPLE WHO ASSIGN A HIGH VALUE TO THEIR TIME AT WORK OR LEISURE (but commuting is "chore time")

Anybody who values their leisure time (or work time) at more than $50/hr is going to be happy to pay $10/day and save a 12 minutes in traffic. This will be a mix of:
1) People who make high incomes
2) People who are pressed for time (late for an appointment)*
3) People who really hate traffic, and will pay as a "luxury they can't afford"
It is a mistake to call these people just "the rich" but they do probably skew higher income.

4) The T and any bus operator, who are paying for the bus and driver
5) Uber/Lyft/Taxi/The Ride who care about the cost of traffic
6) UPS/FedEx/UPSP who care about the speed & cost of truck delivery
7) Online shoppers
8) Shippers & merchants of food, office supplies, trash, construction etc (Sysco, WB Mason)

WINNERS: PEOPLE WHO LIKE RIDING TRANSIT (EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A CAR)
1) It is like free money & validation for a choice you'd already made


WINNERS: PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY CAN'T AFFORD A DRIVING COMMUTE (OR RAIL COMMUTE)
1) People who don't own a car
2) People who can't afford the added insurance & parking costs of a commute.
3) People who can't drive a car (vision/mobility impaired)
(presumably their either not working downtown, or are using a bus to get there)

LOSERS (MAKES A FIXED CHOICE MORE EXPENSIVE)
1) People who just committed to buying a car and moving to the burbs. Just like they most-resent higher gas prices (or taxes), these government charges "bite" because they put their thumbs on the scales of household choices and expenses
2) People who like their time in the car to the core
3) People who don't mind their long commute to the core


SMALL WIN
1) People who really would rather be riding transit but feel the drive wins "on balance" They'd welcome more transit and a clearer reason not to drive.

==========================

The thing is we *know* from London that the Winners outnumber the Whiners by about 2-to-1, but there are real "losers" AND we also know it is important to not impose costs without offering some benefits (outer burb transit), and in particular if you end up offering poor drivers too little (punishing the poor).

What I'm reading now (and the study they link to)
Downtown driving tax could fix traffic without pricing out the poor

*My understanding is that, just like the HOT lanes in LA and Virginia, "regular folks" end up liking having the choice of:
a) Workable transit that saves me money and hassle
b) Having their occasional drive be expensive-but-worth-it (thanks to more reliable roads thanks to variable pricing)
 
Last edited:
HenryAlan said:
Sorry, I missed where I called for more taxes. Can you point me to the post? Thanks!

It's not. Massachusetts has a balanced budget.

May have been a mistake, but try putting that genie back in the bottle.

I agree with your critique of ride sharing.
Click to expand...

Sorry I misread your post. I deleted my response
 
I'm not gonna presume DZH22 is trolling. But he is at least not a good debater. As I watch, I have to wonder if the arguments against congestion charging is better without his "support".

My view that if we do congestion charging, it's should be the Singapore model. They were the one of the first to do it and the one that made the most sense. A world class transit both in coverage and in quality, tons of congestion, space at an extreme value.

WINNERS: PEOPLE WHO ASSIGN A HIGH VALUE TO THEIR TIME AT WORK OR LEISURE (but commuting is "chore time")


WINNERS: PEOPLE WHO LIKE RIDING TRANSIT (EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A CAR)


WINNERS: PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY CAN'T AFFORD A DRIVING COMMUTE (OR RAIL COMMUTE)


LOSERS (MAKES A FIXED CHOICE MORE EXPENSIVE)
Click to expand...

I have to view things in the context of Boston and I do not see it is as so obvious as you are painting. The only one I can calculate of how things would likely play out for the context of Boston and the only ones undoutable to end up happier are the rich - they won't mind the extra money while get to commute with far more leisure. In the current state of Boston, I foresee a far too likely scenario that our version will be less happier. The rich gets happier. The middle are mixed are either trading for longer commutes times or dealing with a higher daily cost. While people keep including the poor as winners, when viewed in the context of Boston, it stands far too likely the poor now have to deal with even more overcrowding (so also getting the stick).

Then there a few other things too:

1. Compared to London, our poor are far more likely to still be using a car. To speak that the poor take trains so they won't be affected at all is extremely debatable (or to be a beneficiary is also debatable but distracting to discuss right now), America is infamous in that our poor ironically get stuck with driving more. This lends that the poor may actually get more negatively impacted.
2. Our transit networks have some major gaps in coverage. Regardless of the arguments that transit users are "winners" because more funding will lead to better transit. Places like Hyde Park, Everett, or Roxbury are getting the short stick (also places like the Seaport). We are going to start charging to nudge people to... what kind of transit?
3. The constant argument the new revenue will makes the transit users as winners cannot be used in this context. This is Boston. I remember being here back in 2007 with BadTransit still existing screaming about the MBTA while I still hope it will all be sorted out when I graduate. 12 years later and one of UHub's post today is another train breakdown so people will have to wait 27 minutes for the next. Until the conditions actually change, the current view we what we have now plus new users - with all the new stresses as well as the largely longer commutes for such users. To say we can use congestion charging to fund fixes is a totally different discussion (a discussion about how to fund the MBTA) and also disingenuous to link improvements given we have a ton (theoretically) already in the pipeline.
 
It sometimes stuns me the degree to which the average person has no conception of externalities, but even many people who have taken at least one introductory economics course at the post-secondary level have completely forgotten whatever they learned. The idea that everyday economic behaviors (such as driving) have negative impacts on the world above and beyond any gas taxes or fees they pay is simply beyond them.

It's also very easy to spot which people here are providing thoughtful, well-researched commentary, and which are providing rage-filled diatribes with no particularly deep thought attached beyond a selfishness that refuses to consider the points made by others. I agree that even the latter category of posters here make the occasional good point, albeit while reflecting the broader (selfish, ignorant) view of transportation and congestion.

I'm not completely sold on a congestion tax, but something needs to be done. That "something" should probably be a few things in tandem, such as increased gas taxes and/or congestion charges, pension reform at the T, greater accountability on the whole at MassDOT, and rethinking our overall tax structure.
 
bigeman312 said:
I strongly disagree with what DZH22 is saying, and at times his responses have been rooted more in trolling than honest discussion, but DZH22's base response to congestion zone tolling is in line with how much of the populace will respond.

We've seen the yellow vest protests in France that, while rooted in other issues, were ultimately triggered by fuel taxes.

We, as a species, are destroying the planet. One of the worst things many of us are doing, as a individuals, is regularly driving large, single-occupancy, fossil fueled vehicles into city centers that are well-served by transit, especially at high congestion times. Yet, there is extreme backlash to forcing people to pay for their own destructive habits. DZH22 is clearly not the only person who is enraged by this concept.

So ... how do we move forward?

It's very clear that a huge contingent of the population is blindingly selfish. Rather than denigrate them, how do we work with these people and, yet move beyond these destructive behaviors. This board's support for these concepts is not represented of the population at large. There's a huge amount of people who will NEVER vote to protect the environment over their own destructive, self-interested habits. Washington state voted down a carbon tax in November. So ... how do we move forward?
Click to expand...

you have to incentivize it. You cant just toll people and give them nothing tangible in return. 'You're money will go toward improved public transit' wont cut it. That's why I believe that doing something radical like abolishing T fees might work. You take the financial angle out of the argument for a congestion tax by providing a free alternative.
There'll be far less sympathy for someone who's put out because it's not as comfortable and convenient for them than if they're financially put out. You take out the risk of a yellow vest reaction.
You might also increase the likelyhood of public/private partnership with the T. As companies might want to cash in on the goodwill of supporting a free subway system. They're not investing now because the T has a terrible rep.
So between corporate sponsorship and a congestion tax, we could have a free T system that would improve the environment, reduce traffic levels (which would encourage more biking) and be more economically fair.
Obviously, there's a million reasons not to do something like this but if we aimed for it and even got half way, it's a win.
 
Coyote137 said:
It sometimes stuns me the degree to which the average person has no conception of externalities, but even many people who have taken at least one introductory economics course at the post-secondary level have completely forgotten whatever they learned. The idea that everyday economic behaviors (such as driving) have negative impacts on the world above and beyond any gas taxes or fees they pay is simply beyond them.
Click to expand...

I agree. So how we do we implement policy that combats these externalities, in a society in which the average person is (willfully) ignorant of said externalities, and completely unwilling to support a system that forces them to change their behaviors?

Global emissions were at an all-time high last year.

So, what do we do?

If most people are unwilling to accept that they are a part of the problem and their behavior needs to change, what can we do? If most people are unwilling to support a system that discourages their harmful behavior, what can we do?

EDIT: Ruairi has a good response above.
 
Ruairi said:
you have to incentivize it. You cant just toll people and give them nothing tangible in return. 'You're money will go toward improved public transit' wont cut it. That's why I believe that doing something radical like abolishing T fees might work. You take the financial angle out of the argument for a congestion tax by providing a free alternative.
There'll be far less sympathy for someone who's put out because it's not as comfortable and convenient for them than if they're financially put out. You take out the risk of a yellow vest reaction.
You might also increase the likelyhood of public/private partnership with the T. As companies might want to cash in on the goodwill of supporting a free subway system. They're not investing now because the T has a terrible rep.
So between corporate sponsorship and a congestion tax, we could have a free T system that would improve the environment, reduce traffic levels (which would encourage more biking) and be more economically fair.
Obviously, there's a million reasons not to do something like this but if we aimed for it and even got half way, it's a win.
Click to expand...

I would love to know:

A) What fraction of MBTA revenue comes from the farebox?

B) How much money can be saved by not collecting fares? (e.g. no need for AFC 2.0, no vending, no turnstiles to fix, etc)

C) How can ops be improved by not collecting fares and how does that translate to money? (e.g. a route with 40 trips per day is sped up by X% allowing 50 trips per day with the same number of buses/subway cars)

D) What are the downsides? (usually "free" things get abused in one way or another)
 
fattony said:
I would love to know:

A) What fraction of MBTA revenue comes from the farebox?

B) How much money can be saved by not collecting fares? (e.g. no need for AFC 2.0, no vending, no turnstiles to fix, etc)

C) How can ops be improved by not collecting fares and how does that translate to money? (e.g. a route with 40 trips per day is sped up by X% allowing 50 trips per day with the same number of buses/subway cars)

D) What are the downsides? (usually "free" things get abused in one way or another)
Click to expand...

In Wu's Globe piece it mentions that fares make up 20% of operating costs. Beyond that I don't know the numbers and admit I'm probably out of my league posting here.
I'd love to see the answers to your points, especially D.
I believe we need to move away from the idea that the T should balance it's books. We don't do that for roads, we shouldn't for rail.
It's kinda off point on a congestion tax thread but I think, in about 10 years, there'll be free or almost free public transit all over the world being financed by congestion tax. We need to get people out of their cars.
 
ant8904 said:
While people keep including the poor as winners, when viewed in the context of Boston, it stands far too likely the poor now have to deal with even more overcrowding (so also getting the stick).
Click to expand...

The idea is to make the car-free poor's commute better by making it:
1) faster: If iit goes all the way to the core, the bus moves faster in less car traffic in & near the core (or a busway that gets easier to "see", )
2) more frequent (both because the bus moved faster on each "turn" and because we'd invest the congestion charges in more buses--the fastest way of "improving transit"
3) more reliable & less crowded rail (which is coming on the Orange, Red, & Green (Type 10)...these are already on their way. It would be great to turn on congestion zones once they are in place 2022 ~ 2025.


I'm going to ask you to stipulate (based on a knowledge of the bus routes and Boston demographic maps, such as those explicitly included in the Green Ribbon Commission's report) that the no-car poor begin with a walk to a bus (or Mattapan trolley), then they generally:

1) ride buses all the way to the core (100/110/120 series or 43) where they may switch to Green/Orange at Haymarket
OR
2) ride a bus to get to the Orange Line OUTSIDE the core, connecting at Malden/Wellington/Sullivan (from the North) or Forest Hills/Ruggles (from the South),
OR
3) do bus-to-Blue OUTSIDE the core
OR
4) do bus-to-Red OUTSIDE the core at Andrew/Broadway or
OR
5) connect at Ashmont
OR
6) A grab bag of other bus-only places like Watertown (70/70A) or Brighton Center (86/57), Medford Sq

All these places with bad transit also have lower income people who commute by car.

Gotta make sure they really get a bus worth taking, and a subway worth connecting to.

But also recognize that at least *some* of the poorests' commute is on a fancy subway that the rich use from near their house, but that the poor get to by bus.

Same goes for Commuter Rail. Let's use the Congestion charge to make sure that it offers higher frequencies for more of the day, both making it more competitive with the car, and making it more worth a park-and-rail or bus-and-rail commute.
 
Last edited:
If we are so worried about carbon emissions and overall pollution why did we bailout and subsidize the auto industry to continue to build more cars and trucks when it’s clearly we have acreas of cars and trucks that were never purchased just sitting in parking lots.

Why would the cities not regulate the Uber and Lfty taxi service driving in and out of the city. It’s clealy the reason why they had a specific # of medallions to hand out?

Now they want to tax the everyday working class family trying to enjoy Boston?
 
TheRifleman said:
If we are so worried about carbon emissions and overall pollution why did we bailout and subsidize the auto industry to continue to build more cars and trucks
Click to expand...
Because those new cars and trucks have the potential to be cleaner and more efficient than our current fleet.
 
TheRifleman said:
If we are so worried about carbon emissions and overall pollution why did we bailout and subsidize the auto industry to continue to build more cars and trucks when it’s clearly we have acreas of cars and trucks that were never purchased just sitting in parking lots.

Why would the cities not regulate the Uber and Lfty taxi service driving in and out of the city. It’s clealy the reason why they had a specific # of medallions to hand out?

Now they want to tax the everyday working class family trying to enjoy Boston?
Click to expand...

If a working class family has the spare cash to visit Boston for a day and spend money on parking, meals, perhaps a museum, etc. they can sure as hell pony up an extra five bucks. If they can't then they should be taking the T or perhaps not spending the money if things are that tight.
 
So the taxpayers coughed up 80 billon for auto industry bailout since 2008 for all those years making piece of shit cars trucks. Only for the obama adminstration to create cash for clunkers program to promote more Americans to buy those cars. This entire concept alone has created congestion. Now they want to tax it? We would have been better off letting the entire industry fail. Ride bikes and invest in countries infrastructure instead.

Instead of our govt bailing out corporations wouldn’t it make sense to invest in a vision for transit for the overpopulated cities?

It just seems our corporations are getting bailed out and those bailouts are creating problems that should have not really existed. Now the overall public has to pay additional tax on this problem. Crony capitalism where our leaders are picking the winners and losers.

Most working families drive into Boston to work. There is more workers servicing the city than fat cats that find it more accessible to drive in instead of waiting in the cold for a broken down mbta train. Now they have to pay an additional $25 a week extra $1300 a year based on the congestion tax. Income inequality at its best.

If the automobiles are the problem to global climate change why did our leaders bailout the industry? Just let t fail invest public infrastructure instead that benefits the majority.

Why did city leaders allow Uber and Lyft to pickup passengers when it was clear that the city regulated this for certain amount of taxi drivers to purchase medallions to contain the amount of passenger cars in the city? Why did Uber and Lyft get a pass on this? Was it because the auto industry experienced a surge in sales over that time so the lobbyists paid off the sacks of shit in the govt? What happened to the crying about global climate change now?

It’s like a cycle. The corporations get bailed out/need tax incentives, then corporations have to reinvest some that money into then into the democrats & republican coffers. Then when money runs out they need to raise taxes.

Let me tell you something- your govt officials are stealing your precious Time away from loved ones and family being on this planet by allowing this type of corruption. This is what is driving up useless costs & regulations. Tax more, govt needs to spend more. Worker harder and harder.

Its time to wake up. Term limits for all these political hacks
 
Last edited:
I wonder what the projected $250 million extra in taxes annually from recreational marijuana willl be able to do for the state. Thats a sizeable amount of tax revenue added that didnt exist just 2 years ago, hopefully they really use it the right way to make some much needed improvements. Its projected to eventually become 1 billion annually in tax revenue, a lot of major things could be done with that type of cash that we could only dream of before.
 
stick n move said:
I wonder what the projected $250 million extra in taxes annually from recreational marijuana willl be able to do for the state. Thats a sizeable amount of tax revenue added that didnt exist just 2 years ago, hopefully they really use it the right way to make some much needed improvements. Its projected to eventually become 1 billion annually in tax revenue, a lot of major things could be done with that type of cash that we could only dream of before.
Click to expand...

This tax revenue is trying to save the pensions and healthcare for govt workers. I’m not saying govt workers should not be entitled to retirement funds but there needs to be a pension reform especially now that private industry do not support pensions because Wall Street cannot produce 5-8% returns to support the program without our super low interest rates or some type of QE programs or some other scenarios from the federal reserve bank & the United States treasury.

Imagine the state and city law enforcement used to arrest our citizens for this crime and ruin their life now they want to make money from it.
 
Yea its honestly been one of the bigger mistakes in our history. Jail in its essence is/was used to contain dangerous people so they cannot harm people in the community. Putting addicts or drug users in jail vs treatment was a massive mistake. Luckily part of the money made is going to be used to help people who were jailed for marijuana offenses. I think its great the amount of money that will be made I just hope it doesnt go into politicians pockets, use it to improve the state. If we can do that it will be great, because theres really no other way that well be able to make that type of money again, so I really hope to see it go to good use. Electrifying the commuter rail I would think would take a couple billion... well I have a pretty good idea where we could find some money.
 
Who exactly here in the city of Boston working on a theoretical congestion tax had anything in the world to do with “cash for clunkers”? These non-sequitors, droned on about in lengthy diatribes, are pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top