Congestion toll in Boston?

[TheRifleman]

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.

The entire point is you have the govt promoting buying vehicles with our tax dollars only to cry global warming and traffic congestion. Now the local govts are crying too many cars on the roads.

We bailed out the auto industry 80 billion. Why? if you are going to cry about too many cars on the road.


I have been very consistent in my posts over the years trying to warn everybody about the traffic scenario going on in Boston and the surround areas. The casino when that opens will just add to the frustration

 

[kmp1284]

Cash for Clunkers could actually be looked upon as a success from both an environmental and economic perspective in that it accelerated the replacement of less fuel efficient cars while simultaneously providing a shot in the arm to the struggling auto industry. A lot of people at the lower end of the economic spectrum were able to ditch older and comparatively costly gas guzzlers in favor of more efficient and safer cars with lower operating costs. I would speculate that very few of these people had the realistic option of living a car-free lifestyle.

 

[Rover]

Congestion pricing is a horrible idea made by people who's hearts may be in the right place. I say this as someone who's ridden the T to work almost every day for the last 20 years.

The Boston transit system is a hub and spoke design. It can get you (maybe) from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time, but can't handle point A to point C connecting at point B. London and Paris may be able to do this, but not here. There's no way to connect to other lines outside of the center of the city (downtown to north station).

Implement congestion pricing and you screw people who have to be at work between 8AM and 7PM because their employer or clients require it and who will be fired if they don't work the hours requested of them. $1200 bucks out of pocket a year is a big hit for security guards, nurses, delivery people, academics, waiters, and a lot of entry level people who aren't commuting from Weston. Exactly what problem are we trying to solve here? Can somebody point to a economically healthy city that doesn't have to deal with congestion?

 

[Arlington]

Congestion has no benefits, why wouldn't you try to reduce it?

 

[Arlington]

You all don't realize what a joy it would be to actually drive in Boston on a weekday in a Sunday level of traffic.

Or have your bus move like they do on Sunday.

This is what makes people LIKE/PREFER CONGESTION CHARGES BY 2 TO 1 (70%ish to 30%ish)

London didn't get that level of approval by screwing average folks.

It is also like bike paths: people imagine all kinds of fearful downsides, and then are later embarrassed at their original objections.

 

[Riverside]

You all don't realize what a joy it would be to actually drive in Boston on a weekday in a Sunday level of traffic.

Or have your bus move like they do on Sunday.

This is what makes people LIKE/PREFER CONGESTION CHARGES BY 2 TO 1 (70%ish to 30%ish)

London didn't get that level of approval by screwing average folks.

It is also like bike paths: people imagine all kinds of fearful downsides, and then are later embarrassed at their original objections.

Alright. Let's all just chill for a second. Responses like this are talking at cross purposes.

The core argument in favor of congestion charging is that it charges people for choosing behaviors that have a cumulative cost on society, thus discouraging those behaviors and improving the overall situation, both through reduced congestion (easier for buses, easier for the remaining drivers, reduced pollution) and through improved funding for public projects, like mass transit.

The objection that's being raised is that congestion charging would penalize people who don't have a choice with respect to engaging in these costly behaviors. That is the concern you need to address.

You might argue that congestion pricing will improve circumferential bus service, and therefore address one commuting pattern that is often only feasible by car these days. But it's a chicken-and-egg problem, particularly since there is a trust issue with respect to the T's ability to provide reliable service; to many people, the T trips over its own feet all the time, so I think it's understandable that there would be skepticism at the claim that Things Would Be So Much Better simply with fewer cars on the road.

Besides, the particulars of improved circumferential bus service would matter greatly. As others have said, speaking vaguely of transit improvements isn't enough, and it's perfectly fair to call bullshit on that.

I still have not seen an answer to my earlier question: what are the demographics of the car users in downtown, Back Bay, Longwood and the Seaport? Without that datum, this is a useless discussion.

The Green Ribbon Commission study that Arlington linked has about 2 pages on congestion prices (out of a 120 page report). There is no actual concrete proposal of substance here to discuss-- no proposed times, no clear boundaries for the zone, no proposed exemptions for this population but not that, no specific parallel improvements to roads or public transit, no serious proposal around actual fees. This idea will live or die in the details, which ultimately are what most of the objections in this conversation have been about. Going on a polemic does nothing to help.

 

[Arlington]

Did you mean to say "radial" bus (into the core from outlying)?

Circumferential commutes (burb to burb) are essentially unaffected (unless they pass through the core). But passing through the core on 93/90 will remain mostly unchanged directly(but may get a little easier by car as you reduce radial car commutes).

 

[Arlington]

If, in addition to the coming Red/Orange/Green signal and the vehicle size upgrades, and a bigger faster bus system, we also built larger park and ride facilities (structured parking at Anderson/Woburn & Riverside, Alewife, Dedham, etc., ) Where are the places or who are these people in Logwood-BackBay-Downtown-Seaport that still "must drive?"

 

[odurandina]

We need a $5~8 Uber/Lyft peak hr/MBTA hrs of operations surcharge.

Tolls? i'm not crazy about it, but if it will help build the MBTA, then they should probably do a modest graduated toll.

We all want to see an MBTA expansion done to the max, myself included.

 

[Arlington]

Note that one of the things that TfL (London) is building with congestion charge revenue is Crossrail (their NSRL + EWRL)

For Boston it would make sense to combine the charge with funding West Station & Regional Rail.

 

[Riverside]

Did you mean to say "radial" bus (into the core from outlying)?

Circumferential commutes (burb to burb) are essentially unaffected (unless they pass through the core). But passing through the core on 93/90 will remain mostly unchanged directly(but may get a little easier by car as you reduce radial car commutes).

No, I meant circumferential, though I agree the term is less precise than ideal. I'm referring to a commute that either requires a transfer from a radial rail line to a slow circumferential bus route, or otherwise requires an in-and-out trip on rail. Some examples I'm thinking of:

• Davis to Longwood
• Dudley to Kendall
• Quincy to Back Bay

If, in addition to the coming Red/Orange/Green signal and the vehicle size upgrades, and a bigger faster bus system, we also built larger park and ride facilities (structured parking at Anderson/Woburn & Riverside, Alewife, Dedham, etc., ) Where are the places or who are these people in Logwood-BackBay-Downtown-Seaport that still "must drive?"

This is what I'm talking about, right here. There's no way to answer your question about who "must drive" and where, since you've just vaguely stipulated a "bigger faster bus system." That's like saying, "if we cure all the diseases, what need would there be for doctors?" Well, realistically, we wouldn't actually cure all the diseases, so we'd need doctors to treat whichever are left over.

Likewise, we're not actually going to get a public transit system that supports every single commute, so those "must drive" commutes that will still be left over are by definition dependent on the details of your proposed expansions of service.

Again, if we want to actually have a productive conversation, we need data.

There are four areas mentioned in the Green Ribbon Commission study (the only Boston-specific study that anyone has brought to this discussion): Longwood, Back Bay, Downtown, Seaport. I would want to know, for each area:

• the share of private car users during working hours, including carpools and rideshares
• where those journeys start and end
• the socioeconomic demographics of those users (to understand the impact a charge would have -- presumably the salaried surgeon would more easily absorb the charge than the nursing assistant on an hourly wage)

I would then want to see specific proposals for how those journeys could be accomplished, without incurring unreasonable monetary or time cost, through public transportation, along with any improvements needed to accomplish that.

Frankly, if we want to discuss congestion charges in Boston at the theoretical level (which is the most we could honestly do at this point), let's at least restrict the proposed zone to the Financial District and perhaps the West End, areas with clear and unambiguous transit access. Everything else has too many variables in terms of possible transit enhancements.

To be clear, I support congestion charges, with the universal caveat that I don't support doing stupid things. And I think it's perfectly fair to want to have the details that I've laid out above before getting onboard with the idea.

 

[Arlington]

Davis to Longwood works well on the 47 (via Red @ Central) now (I've done it starting on the 94 in Medford). It would work even better if traffic in Longwood Kenmore and BU were reduced.

Same for anything bus dependent from Dudley via Downtown. Lighter downtown traffic (picture Sundays)would be a huge win for the Silver Line.

 

[Ruairi]

:

• Davis to Longwood
• Dudley to Kendall

• 
  These trips are about 45 mins at peak times, seems reasonable enough.

 

[ant8904]

You all don't realize what a joy it would be to actually drive in Boston on a weekday in a Sunday level of traffic.

That Sunday level of traffic doesn't feel so great if a class of people exist who prefers to keep their money. Well then, that person should take transit if that person care about the $1.2k a year or $XXX amount of money. Well, then that person is going to spend is now tacking on an additional 30 minutes each way.

Now you may say the that 2:1 London approval means it won't happen here. That people won't give such approval numbers if people are getting screwed. Well, to my understanding, London have a much more extensive and reliable system than Boston (and both much less to Singapore). Maybe people "nudge" to transit because they have an option to keep the money while not having to trade saving money by paying with time. But in the context of Boston, that may not hold up because our system is not London.

Yes, we have ATO systems, New Orange and Red line trains, and Type 10 are officially in the works. But wasn't the Orange Line trains should have been ordered like 10 years earlier? Isn't the current Red line ATO suppose to be modern but they messed up? Didn't we like a cumulative of 5 years doing signal upgrades between Malden and Haymarket with all the bustitutions and apparently we still need to do a real signal system upgrade? Am I suppose to calculate in the Type 10 when they haven't even finish planning much taking bids for contracts and much less actual construction allow Type 10s?

Until it is tangible, even though I keep to optimism that it is coming (there's even a thread I made guestimating a year that it may starts to feel different), I cannot treat as real until it's real. I have to consider the scenario of the ways things are now combined with such a charge - and I can see a far too likely scenario of less traffic, but at a higher cost of living, and even more crowded MBTA. Yes, I forgot to factor that buses that are going straight into the city are winners as I have to imagine less congestion means they will get in faster. Still doesn't change the other trips.

As used this analogy in a different thread before recently. I like to stack the deck. The chances of the good outweighing the bad becomes much higher when we know things like the transit this idea wants people to be nudge to is actually in position to provide it - ideally with comparable commute times, making it really stacked when trade-off doesn't mean much additional time to save money.

 

[Arlington]

Politically, the practice has been to impose the congestion charge when some tangible level of transit improvement has been achieved.

Unacceptable: trash talking the T as if no sane person commutes (Northside)- Longwood now to make the choice-to-congest look more sustainable. (I've done either CR to E or bus-Davis-47 and it is about an hour vs about :55 by car)

For Boston, final GLX + "new Orange & Red" and signals would be appropriate "alternatives have improved enough. Coming c. 2022 ~ 2023.

Then say: your new congestion $ are paying for the Green's Type 10 fleet and commuter rail double deckers and electrification (& faster service, more often), and electric buses.

A Central Square CZ (or bus lane) would also be a nice way of making it possible for the 47 to drop curbside at the Red Outbound, instead of hiding out on a sidestreet. Will we hear sob stories about how working folks drive on Mass Ave?

 

[dhawkins]

I think besides the ride share surcharge, luxury "livery" plates (as in Chevy Suburban and stretch Lincolns') should have a surcharge. The State should also redirect the Convention Center fees on car rental surcharges to the T now that the convention center has been up and running (on the books as TIR 05-1: Convention Center Financing Surcharges). Come to think of it, are there any other existing surcharges by the state that should be re-directed? Vanity plates- Save the T

 

[jl326]

If, in addition to the coming Red/Orange/Green signal and the vehicle size upgrades, and a bigger faster bus system, we also built larger park and ride facilities (structured parking at Anderson/Woburn & Riverside, Alewife, Dedham, etc., ) Where are the places or who are these people in Logwood-BackBay-Downtown-Seaport that still "must drive?"

My comment here isn't really part of the grand scale of the debate discussed, but there actually isn't a great (read: convenient) way to get from Seaport to Backbay via public transit, for example. Currently, the option is: walk to silver line, red line to DTX, switch to Orange line to Back bay, walk. That's a bit silly and inefficient for what is essentially about a two-mile trip. If/when pressed for time, Uber ends up being the better option, unfortunately. Riding a bike currently is not an option (too damn cold). Maybe getting an electric scooter for use during the warmer months would work.

 

[jklo]

My comment here isn't really part of the grand scale of the debate discussed, but there actually isn't a great (read: convenient) way to get from Seaport to Backbay via public transit, for example.

Take the commuter rail at SS?

 

[Arlington]

I am going to assume that
(1) the Back Bay and Seaport are high income households (or want to live that way, like rich kids in low pay internships). They probably make $20 to $60 an hour (or much more)

(2) that Uber/Lyft are their best commuting option."

(3) that the Uber/Lyfts will spread their $10 congestion charge over a 10 ~ 20 ride day shift (amounting to a $0.50 to $2 increase in the cost of a within-zone commute

(4) which most will find saves 5 minutes (the commute will be much faster in lighter traffic) at cost of $2, which is a savings of $24 an hour, and so a very normal service to save yourself time when your working wage is $20 to $60 an hour.

*When I lived Willow St in Beacon Hill and parked in the common garage (at the nights only monthly rate) I actually drove to my job in the Design Center in the Seaport (and watched the Silver Line being dug). I rented a garage spot at both ends my trip. I was not low income, and would have no hesitation to charge that person--the yuppie me--$5 or $10 for the privilege of congesting downtown.

 

[Rover]

Davis to Longwood works well on the 47 (via Red @ Central) now (I've done it starting on the 94 in Medford). It would work even better if traffic in Longwood Kenmore and BU were reduced.

Same for anything bus dependent from Dudley via Downtown. Lighter downtown traffic (picture Sundays)would be a huge win for the Silver Line.

Really gotta call this one out. In rush hour, I've had trouble getting from the stop on Comm Ave by the BU Bridge to Central in 45 minutes if you include wait time between when the bus is supposed to arrive and when it actually does after fighting through the traffic around BU's South Campus. You also have a nice several block stroll to get to the Central Square T that you neglected to mention occasionally in bad weather (like that season we call "winter"). Getting from Medford to Longwood via public transit in 45 minutes? Only if you have a jet pack.

If you live along Route 2, and are trying to get to Longwood, or BU, or New Balance, or Northeastern lets say. You would have to 1) take a bus to Alewife and fight insane traffic to get into the station (I deal with this every day). Then take the Red Line all the way to Park St. THEN take the B line (to BU), or B line to 57 bus (to Allston) or the E line to Longwood or NU. At what point is it much much much easier to just drive? Again, its a hub and spoke system. Any congestion pricing scheme needs to take that into account.