Congestion toll in Boston?

[Arlington]

It's unclear what you're calling out.

Yes the 47 gets stuck in traffic.if it is getting stuck in traffic that argues for a congestion charge (or exclusive bus lanes) not that imposing congestion in an SOV should continue to be free at rush hour.

but from Belmont Center or from West Medford (or Malden)on a commuter rail train to North Station and from there straight to NU or Longwood on the E runs about an hour. Call it 1:10 including the walk? I drove it the other day and it was a solid hour.

These are alternatives which can be traded off against the other. In no way can you say that someone must drive this trip because the transit alternative is catastrophic.but I can say that a congestion charge would make the drive better and the bus better by even more.

So when you are making that trade off, it would be fair to charge an extra five or $10 to the driver to ask"is it really worth it what you are going to do to everyone else on the road? "

If it is worth $10 that would be awesome because then we could actually take the $10 has a toll and let you drive on an uncongested Road.

And a hundred million dollars a year would Bond about a billion dollars worth of borrowing that would fund higher frequency commuter rail all day and more buses.

 

[Riverside]

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.

snip

Yes, this is a good example, specifically the Route 2 origin (which would decidedly not include Belmont, Medford or Malden). Consider also the number of opportunities for delays or missed connections -- the 77, the Red Line, the Green Line, potentially the 57 (although I think that trip to Allston could theoretically be made without driving through any area proposed for congestion charges). Yes, traffic can cause unexpected delays, but it is easier to change plans en route in a car to mitigate the delay.

Arlington, what are your thoughts on the Route 2 example?

Ironically, I don't think the the problem per se is the hub and spoke design of the system. The problem is that Boston has an asymmetric core. I think congestion pricing restricted to the Financial District (with exemption for I-93) would be relatively uncontroversial, since there is good transit access and because few people pass through downtown surface streets to get somewhere on the other side of the city.

But unfurling out the wings to Longwood, Back Bay and the Seaport is where we get into trouble, both because the transit system isn't designed for those to be destinations, and because they start to cut into cross-metro journeys that aren't actually destined within the zone (e.g. South End to anything on the other side of the Charles).

 

[JumboBuc]

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

"Congestion has no benefits" really isn't at all true. Sure congestion/traffic in and of itself is not good. But congestion is a result of travel, and travel is absolutely a contributor to many things that are good. As (I believe) you have pointed out many times, one can't be in traffic, one can only be traffic. And the only reason one would ever choose to "be traffic" is because it is better than the alternative.

The way to address traffic is to provide people with better options. I am 100% in favor of that. But policies that seek to reduce traffic/congestion/VMT just for the sake of reducing traffic/congestion/VMT are ignoring all the overall increases in social welfare that require travel as an input.

Taking your logic to the extreme: a daily congestion tax of, say $500 / day, would sure as hell reduce congestion. The roads would be wide open and clear. But, obviously, that would not lead to a net increase in overall welfare.

My doubt around the overall benefits of a congestion tax is rooted in a skepticism that such a policy would actually generate better options. Sure, in the perfect world, the congestion money would be used to improve transit services so everyone could just substitute away from driving to more efficient forms of transportation. But I have seen just about no evidence indicating this would actually happen. This is a region that takes literally decades to run a legally mandated light rail extension along existing right of way, and when we finally get the damn thing done it costs over a billion dollars. I can't help but think that in practice, a congestion tax would just make driving more expensive while delivering little to no better alternatives to driving. Maybe traffic would free up a little as people are forced off the roads, but everyone who is forced off the roads would suffer. Does that really make us better off in the aggregate? I'm doubtful...

 

[Rover]

It's unclear what you're calling out.

but from Belmont Center or from West Medford (or Malden)on a commuter rail train to North Station and from there straight to NU or Longwood on the E runs about an hour. Call it 1:10 including the walk? I drove it the other day and it was a solid hour.

.

You keep making two rosy assumptions, neither of which occur much in real life.

1) You aren't factoring in the time it takes to get to the transit stop from your front door. With your car the journey begins the moment you leave your driveway and you're comparing that to when you step onto the train from the platform. That implies that you either a) live steps from the train station or b) sleep in the train station, thus you waste no time getting there.

2) You're also making a major league leap until the realm of unreality by assuming all of your transit connections not only work on a timely basis (the bus is leaving a minute after your train arrives where you transfer) but you're also assuming these schedules all work to get you to your workplace by a set time demanded of you by your employer. No offense but if you think two bus connections and one T connection can get you on time to where you're trying to go you either work for the T's customer service department or are a relative of someone who does!

 

[HenryAlan]

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.

Or, you can take Silver Line to South Station, followed by one of the 93 daily trains that runs from South Station and Back Bay each day.

 

[Riverside]

^ Not exactly. Even during the outbound peak, it’s a pretty uneven schedule, with gaps ranging from 2 min to 14 min, in terms of SS to BBY. During the morning commute, headways of westbound trains frequently exceed 20 minutes. Case in point, exactly 3 trains leave SS for BBY between 8am and 9am. The 7am hour is a bit better, but still very uneven (15, 5, 5, 5, 17).

And even going in the friendlier direction (BBY to SS), you’re looking at unpredictable headways on the order 10 minutes, until 9am after which you’re in the 20-30+ range.

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it does have a lot of caveats.

 

[Justin7]

http://www.philly.com/transportatio...es-subway-bus-transit-solutions-20190129.html

Recent related article from Philadelphia identifying congestion remedies from other cities. Actually uses Cambridge as an example and has a short quote from Jeff Speck concerning congestion tolling.

 

[cden4]

Or, you can take Silver Line to South Station, followed by one of the 93 daily trains that runs from South Station and Back Bay each day.

That's not a free transfer though.

 

[Arlington]

But policies that seek to reduce traffic/congestion/VMT just for the sake of reducing traffic/congestion/VMT are ignoring all the overall increases in social welfare that require travel as an input

Nope. Congestion Zone Charges (CZC) act in lots of ways and are carefully aimed at the negative productivity of travel--time you waste yourself, and wasted time you impose on others. That's why they apply only in certain districts at certain times--so that they target "externality time & place" rather than travel, generally.

I agree: Travel is productive but congestion is anti-productive.

Just like burning coal to make electricity is productive, but externalizing CO2 and Coal Tar and Fly Ash are anti-productive.

Congesting everyone else's travel is negative production--is a costly externality--a sludge of production that we allow these productive people to dump on each other and bystanders on the bus, and ruin some, most, all, or even more than all, of the sought gains of driving.

FIRST CZC OFTEN JUST CHANGES PRODUCTIVE TRIPS

The CZC says "stop doing this good thing in a way with crushing externalities" (more-than-$5 in deadweight losses). No change in personal productivity occurs (but big congestion loss reductions occur) when:

1) Shifting trips out of the prime period (see a movie in the Seaport after hours--I recommend Tuesday evening at the Icon Theater...$5 tix $10 parking with validation)
2) Shifting trips out of the prime place (go to the Apple Store in Burlington, not Back Bay; go to a Beth Israel or MGH satellite facility for that lab test)
3) Shifting the mode of trips (park-and-ride, kiss-and-ride, bus connect) or, yes, take Lyft instead of my old garage-to-garage Beacon Hill to Seaport commute


SECOND THE SOV TRIPS ARE BY DEFINITION MORE PRODUCTIVE

4) If a $5 charge removes 5 minutes of congestion (that could be removed no other way), everyone with a value of their time and car lease >$60 gets a clear net productivity win. This includes:
- The highly compensated
- People with nice leased cars
- The business traveler / tradesperson "on the meter"
- Most delivery / logistics operators
- A bus with 20 people on it has a value of probably $400/hr. Heck, empty positioning moves get more productive (than they can ever possibly be in current congestion)
YOU ACTUALLY GET MORE TRAVEL PER MINUTE WITH A CZC.

AND THE "LOSSES" ARE SMALL

5) Many (those with time worth <$60/hr who still choose to drive) will suffer relatively small losses. Small compared to their personal situation, and small compared to the societal benefits of letting them enter the core from pure "willingness to be traffic" (They can't just say "It costs me $2000/year" they need also to admit "it saved me 2000 minutes in traffic")

6) It is also hard to show large losses in a shift to improved transit.

 

[Rover]

The CZC says "stop doing this good thing in a way with crushing externalities" (more-than-$5 in deadweight losses). No change in personal productivity occurs (but big congestion loss reductions occur) when:

1) Shifting trips out of the prime period (see a movie in the Seaport after hours--I recommend Tuesday evening at the Icon Theater...$5 tix $10 parking with validation)

2) Shifting trips out of the prime place (go to the Apple Store in Burlington, not Back Bay; go to a Beth Israel or MGH satellite facility for that lab test)

3) Shifting the mode of trips (park-and-ride, kiss-and-ride, bus connect) or, yes, take Lyft instead of my old garage-to-garage Beacon Hill to Seaport commute


.

Again, this is where the argument gets condescending and hurts the cause. Not everybody can or wants to conform to your desired schedule. I'm not sure why that's not getting through but this is like talking with biking advocates who want everyone of all ages to bike in any kind of weather because they do. Your 2nd point is a great example. You're automatically assuming that people are choosing to drive into town, and fight traffic for doctor's appointments and lab work instead of going to a satellite facility closer to their house? Um...okay?

Also, you continue to place way too much faith in the system's ability to connect you from A to B to C in a timely fashion. I live in Arlington and although I'm just taking a bus from roughly the center of town to Alewife and then the Red Line to downtown, its a solid hour on its best day to go from bus stop to my building. That's with one bus to T connection all going in the same direction (west to east). I have zero confidence if I had to take a bus to a train and then to a bus again that this would be a quicker trip if I were going to say Longwood or Assembly Square.

 

[bigpicture7]

Again, this is where the argument gets condescending and hurts the cause. Not everybody can or wants to conform to your desired schedule. I'm not sure why that's not getting through but this is like talking with biking advocates who want everyone of all ages to bike in any kind of weather because they do. Your 2nd point is a great example. You're automatically assuming that people are choosing to drive into town, and fight traffic for doctor's appointments and lab work instead of going to a satellite facility closer to their house? Um...okay?

Also, you continue to place way too much faith in the system's ability to connect you from A to B to C in a timely fashion. I live in Arlington and although I'm just taking a bus from roughly the center of town to Alewife and then the Red Line to downtown, its a solid hour on its best day to go from bus stop to my building. That's with one bus to T connection all going in the same direction (west to east). I have zero confidence if I had to take a bus to a train and then to a bus again that this would be a quicker trip if I were going to say Longwood or Assembly Square.

I have no intention to condescendingly judge particulars here, because I do believe you raise some valid points here & there...

Rather I want to weigh in more generally:
When it comes to policy formulation, sometimes it's not about peoples' "wants." Sometimes peoples' "wants" are wrong.

Examples:
-Cigarettes were/are a serious public health risk - not just to the smoker, but also to adjacent people in restaurants, etc. Yet, many people wanted to smoke. We taxed the shit out of cigarettes and banned them in public places - and smoking dramatically dropped. It was the right thing to do.
- Single-use plastic bag bans (e.g., in Boston, Cambridge, and elsewhere): this policy cuts back on society's use of non-renewable resources. Many people continue to want the convenience of such bags...well, now they have to pay for that convenience...and many are deterred from paying and/or truly believe in the cause, and go out of their way to bring their own bags.

Again, I am speaking generally here:
Policy is not just about what people want.
Indeed, policy should reflect societal values about what is right.
So, yes, sometimes we need to constructively debate what is right.

 

[Arlington]

Again, this is where the argument gets condescending and hurts the cause. Not everybody can or wants to conform to your desired schedule.

How did "everybody can or wants to conform" become the standard for anything?

Yes, I must look like a real jerk being unable to muster 100% universal praise for congestion zones, when every other mobility solution regularly has universal assent.

All I'm promising is that about 60% of people (and 80% of "the poor") will like it and that 30% of people (maybe 50% of "the middle") won't. Sorry if that isn't good enough for you.

Technically, very far from "everyone" needs to change behavior or conform in any way.

First, The $5 charge, while extremely specific in what it says is antisocial behavior, is fully-open-ended in the range of options you can chose to avoid it, any mix of timing, mode, or where you do business (home office? suburban satellite). And fully-open-ended in saying "for just $5 you can have a shorter more predictable rush hour drive" Somewhere out there, there's somebody who'll switch from transit to driving. That's OK too.

Second, "Drive Alone" is already a minority (smaller than 40%) only 38% of commute trips in the WHOLE of Boston (I'm going to say it is only ~30% of "Congestion Zone" trips)

All-of-Boston Mode Shares:
Bike 2.4%
Walk 14.3%
Transit 34.0%
Carpool 5.7%
SOV 38.9%

And let me swag that in the CZ, this would look like:
Bike 3%
Walk 16%
Transit 37%
Carpool 7%
SOV 27%

With only 34% involving a car, seems like a 60/30 Approve/Disapprove is within reach.

In Sweden, everybody surprised each other in how much traffic stayed away in the early days of the test--and nobody could think of any one reason why, except that everybody must have (1) underestimated the value of "no congestion" (such that they weren't willing to pay $x for it) and (2) actually had one out of the many ways to avoid driving (time, location, mode).

Initially, they stayed away, imagining that the CZC was a "pure tax" and being unable to imagine that driving really got better in a way that was "worth it." Over time, they returned to driving when they realized that driving uncongested was totally worth paying the CZC.

Your 2nd point is a great example. You're automatically assuming that people are choosing to drive into town, and fight traffic for doctor's appointments and lab work instead of going to a satellite facility closer to their house? Um...okay?

I am assuming that SOME are making this choice. Needn't be much more than 5% of all car trips for it to be (1) highly effective and (2) higly preferred.

I'm not going to back off of my #2. Beth Israel has facilities in Needham, Chelsea, Plymouth and Framingham. CZ rely on a million people having a million different trip parameters. Some hard-to-count number live near the tipping point between driving IN and driving OUT.

Somebody in Somerville-Charlestown will drive out to Chelsea instead of into Longwood (or take the Orange Line to Ruggles & bus it).
Somebody in Newton will drive out to Needham instead of into Longwood (or take the D to Longwood and walk it).
Somebody in Milton will drive out to Plymouth instead of into Longwood (or this'd be a good place for better bus transit)
Somebody in Medford will drive out to Needham for reasons we can't entirely know or predict right now (combine with a trip to You-Do-It, telling themselves they can spend the extra $5 saved on robot parts?)

And yet, on the days they need to drive into Longwood, they'll find it is really fast and predictable when they pay the CZC $5 (in addition to $5 ~ $10 parking)

Now multiply that effect, not just across Beth Israel, Brigham, Childrens, & MGH, and not just across all the clinics like Dana Farber Longwood, and Harvard Vanguard Kenmore, but across every industry (tech, law, EDU) and retailer that has locations both in and out of the CZ. (I checked: all of the above have satellites outside the CZ)

And that's just the "location" choice before we get to "mode" or "time of day"*


* I always wondered why crazy-expensive PET /CAT/MRI machines "downtown" don't have an extra 4 or 8 hour shift "off peak" which might better serve all kinds of people. In fly-in markets like Miami, the scans run more hours per day and cost half as much.

 

[Arlington]

What I'm reading:
Lessons Learned From International Experience in Congestion Pricing (2008)

Stockholm and London have not explicitly looked at socio-economic impact. Mostly they've been content with (1) The Transit Class really likes it and (2) Overall, people like it
It may be that the rich and poor have outvoted the middle.

Singapore has studied the equity and the middle income(s) are the least happy

Equity Impacts

The results of modeling analysis based on before and after user survey data suggested that the losers would include those destined to the RZ who switch from cars to buses or to less desirable times, those encountering increased congestion on by-pass roads outside the RZ, and those who continue to drive, pay the charges but whose value of time saved is less than the charge. On the other hand, transit riders, after some initial increase in crowding, began to enjoy much better service as public transportation was expanded significantly over time. Similarly, HOV 4+, motorcyclists and pedestrians enjoyed significant increases in travel benefits. This group who likely benefited constituted a majority (52 percent) of the pre-ALS trips to the RZ.

Attitudinal surveys carried out after the introduction of ALS pricing also provide indications regarding equity across various dimensions. Pedestrians, taxi riders and residents outside of RZ found the impact of the ALS as neutral or negative while cyclists, bus passengers and residents within the RZ judged the ALS as favorable. Car drivers and passengers judged the ALS as mildly unfavorable. Overall, middle income travelers felt adversely affected by the ALS.

Several evaluations based on before and after travel data and stakeholder surveys allow some equity related findings to be examined more empirically. The data on shift from cars to buses as a result of ALS in 1975 show that the increases in transit are fairly uniform for low, medium and high income peak period travelers to the RZ – a change of 25, 34 and 28 percent bus share, respectively. A priory expectation would have been a higher percentage of low income travelers shifting to buses as compared to the higher income groups. The evaluators concluded that, overall, there were only small differences among income groups in modal response to the ALS. There was also no evidence that trip times increased or decreased more for any particular income group. All in all, the evaluators did not find that low income travelers suffered more than high income ones due to the ALS pricing.

Addressing the fairness of pricing in Singapore, supporters claim that without pricing there was, and would be, a great imbalance between the travel conditions enjoyed by car drivers (a minority of travelers) compared to the majority who use alternative modes. The ALS is perceived as far from unfair because it is said to have redressed a greater inequity and has allowed much greater increase in public transportation and road efficiency.

Yet here, the "the middle" are likely in the unfamiliar position of being in a minority. And being "in the middle" apparently means rich enough own a car, while still having a low-enough value of one's own time that they don't mind wasting it in traffic.

 

[jass]

I didnt see if it was mentioned, but as of last Saturday, all Uber/Lyft etc and Taxi rides in Manhattan have an added $2.50 or $2.75 fee to go to the MTA.

 

[Arlington]

This isn't exactly the "equity" report, but it has a lot of useful data.
http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/6f3d9f5a-2204-4378-84db-80c789e4ff21

It is the source of this image (which only says how people LIVING IN a zone go "OUT" to work). Still, you can see that for the cluster of:
Longwood
Fenway
Back Bay
Downtown (Beacon Hill + West End + Downtown + North End)


"Walk-Bike" ends up having a 50% share, and car and public transport each at 20%.
I'm going to say that the people in these would probably rate a congestion zone a about 50-50 (they'd resent the charge, even though mostly they walk-bike)

Seaport (is that "South Boston Waterfront" ?) is nearly 50% car (not surprising)

Then when you look at some of the poorer neighborhoods, the question is: where are these jobs they are driving to?

 

[34f34f]

Arlington, I (and surely countless others) really appreciate your research and well-formed arguments. This is clearly a critical discussion to have—thank you for elevating the conversation with data, reports, and links.

 

[Arlington]

Arlington, I (and surely countless others) really appreciate your research and well-formed arguments. This is clearly a critical discussion to have—thank you for elevating the conversation with data, reports, and links.

Thanks! To show my bias and my age, I've liked the idea since I was a grad student and saw the preliminary results from Stockholm and Singapore at the Transportation Research Board in the mid 1990s

The idea of Lexus Lanes (High Occupancy Toll roads) emerged at about the same time, for the same reason, and with the same LexusRich&BusPoor vs "the middle" equities. And as far as I can tell, the reason Americans like HOT but not CZC is that HOTs generally involve building new roads right under the toll gantries but CZC generally involve building non-roads (or adding transit vehicles) not "right there"

I also "learned in school" that people hate HOV lanes when they take a lane of an existing road, but readily accept them when an HOV lane is added. A classic example of framing and Loss Aversion bias, but clearly why we've seen lots of new HOT facilities added (Virginia & L.A. leap to mind) but congestion charge still hasn't gotten the right "transit offset" to feel like a win.

 

[Rover]

bigpicture and Arlington the problem with all of this is the T's reach and reliability. Its nice to tell people to eat their peas because its good for you. The problem is, voters will rebel if they're being told they have to eat rotten peas (the MBTA). You will see a referendum on the ballot to repeal this law, just like what happened with indexed gas tax increases, if the other side of the equation isn't solved (the T's reach and reliability again).

Now some would argue you need money to improve the T and a $5 congestion charge helps in that regard. Sure, but from the start the people you're trying to force onto the T will still be dealing with a system not built to handle cross town and multiple connection trips. You have to solve that issue BEFORE trying to hit people with a significant fee (again, $1250 per year out of pocket is a lot of money for working class people based on 5 days a week 50 weeks a year). Otherwise the combination of people who need to drive due to factors outside of their control (T can't easily get them from home to destination) plus those who are now dealing with broken down trains and unreliable busses while pension costs continue to skyrocket will consign this policy to the trash can after the next election.

Its not a bad idea. Your heart is in the right place. But, what's dooming this effort is the T itself. You'd also have to be damn sure the traffic utopia you describe actually occurs (weekday commutes are like current Sunday commute) because cutting commuting times by 5 minutes isn't going to matter to enough people IMHO.

 

[TheRifleman]

It's tough to argue about creating a new congestion fee tax which would promote more drivers to use the MBTA. When in fact the same politicians/Govt agencies continue to suppress smart developments based on the MBTA lines.

For Example:
Why does Harbor Garage and South Station continue to sit suppressed when these are well positioned for the MBTA lines to support less congestion for the overall public?

Malden Center/ Assembly Row/ Station Landing were great developments outside the city. Why isn't Boston thinking this way?

Why doesn't our Govt agencies offer tax incentives to make sure these developments are all residential?

 

[bigeman312]

What if a very small congestion zone was piloted for proof of concept? Just an area of Downtown Boston, from Government Center to Chinatown to South Station, that does not apply to vehicles passing under Boston on I-93. This area is already incredibly well-served by mass transit and nobody should be "driving through," anyways.