Congestion toll in Boston?

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.


The Seaport is a mess at rush hour. (very small congestion zone)
Maybe these agencies should have created a infrastructure plan before issuing out unlimited amounts of corporate incentives to build on wide open priceless land.

Most people driving downtown Boston, Govt Center, Chinatown have access to to take the MBTA and I believe majority in volumes do.

Need to promote and build smarter then when all those ideas and resources are exhausted that's when we create a congestion tax.

I don't agree with comparing transit vs cigarette, gambling, drug tax.
Transit is freedom to get to point A-B on your PERSONAL TIME.
 
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.

I think a tax in the tunnel for thru-traffic is justified to pay for the damn thing.


An easy way to do downtown congestion pricing is to add a fee on what is already paid for - parking and ride hail.

I would:
-Raise the price on parking meters
-Add a tax on all garage parking spots (public and private)
-Add a fee to all taxi or uber trips that enter the zone (what NYC just did)

Use that revenue for the MBTA + bike improvements (including Hubway)

All that can be done much quicker than setting up a congestion cordon.
 
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.

Yes, all of this.

I get the theory, I get the incentives, I get all of it. A congestion tax would definitely make sense in the perfect world. But pushing people to substitute away from driving can be very burdensome when driving's substitutes often don't work very well, and there's little indication that they will improve. This is way more pertinent for commuters into Boston than Boston residents.

What separates transportation from other behaviors that can influenced by targeted fees is that (a) transportation is a necessity; and (b) transportation networks and infrastructure are largely centrally planned by government and unresponsive to economic incentive (while private behavior is responsive to economic incentives).

Point (a) separates congestion from something like smoking, because smoking has no intrinsic value. If everyone up and quit smoking today the overall economic engine of society would not suffer. Smoking has no (significant) redeeming qualities, so limiting it is (pretty much) only a good. Congestion is not like this. If traffic went away totally, a whole lot of economic output and valuable activities would be lost.

And on point (b), think of the difference between a carbon tax and a congestion fee. Upon implementation of a carbon tax, for example, the private sector would, through the powers of innovation, ingenuity, and profit-seeking self interest, come up with new low-carbon sources of energy and production. Through the private sector, the economic incentives created by a carbon fee would directly bring about the carbon substitutes we need. In the face of a congestion tax, the private sector simply can't do this. By their very nature, public transportation networks need to be planned and executed by a central planning authority. Since central planning authorities don't really respond to economic incentives, increasing the economic incentives to improve public transit isn't all that efficient. So a congestion tax would likely increase carpooling (which would be good and doesn't need government action), but it wouldn't necessarily help public transit.

As an example of this, the prevalence and success of Uber and Lyft clearly demonstrate that there exist substantial economic incentives to create and expand alternative transportation networks as a substitute for individual driving and car ownership. But these incentives have not made public transit better.

Also, an important thing to remember is that places that have benefited from congestion taxes (e.g., Singapore, London) have MUCH better public transit networks than Boston does, so the alternative substitutes to driving exist and are better.

And City of Boston reports that list stats pertaining to Boston's transportation mode share look at Boston residents, not Boston workers. For example, from Table 7, 48.4% of Fenway residents walk/bike to work and 28.6% take public transit BUT from Table 6 97.9% of Fenway workers are not Fenway residents and 71.4% are not even Boston residents. I have little doubt that a congestion tax would not affect Boston residents nearly as much as it would commuters. But commuters are important! Someone like Michelle Wu doesn't have a single constituent who commutes into Boston, so of course she's going to advocate for policies that benefit Boston residents (her constituents) at the expense of commuters. That doesn't mean that those policies are a net win for overall welfare.
 
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...

Rover,
You seemed to have skipped over this part...
I do believe you raise some valid points...I want to weigh in more generally....

I continue to agree that you are raising salient points about needing viable alternatives when introducing policy to restrict something.

However, I think you are slightly off with this part:
Its nice to tell people to eat their peas because its good for [them]

There are a lot of people who feel, with regard to my anti-cigarette smoking policy example, that the factor that pushed public support past the tipping point there was the data on secondhand smoke's effects on bystanders. Anti-smoking policy was no longer about taking away peoples' personal freedom. It became about mitigating a negative public health impact on society. That's what it took to achieve the necessary support.

So, the key question here may indeed be about whether this is an "eat your peas" example, or a "look what we're doing to each other" example.
 
Here's an idea:
Congestion charging works by scanning cars' license plates, right?
So it should be easy for the system to ascertain the car's "principal place of garaging"

Why not do an adaptive congestion charge that charges you if you live close to a transit alternative (that meets some criteria), and doesn't charge you if you don't?
 
I'd have no problem starting with a pilot drawn narrowly around a place with:
1) indisputably great transit
2) An obvious way to "go around or under"
3) still sufficient roads within the CZ to decongest and be worth it

I'd start with
Old Boston + Back Bay & SW Corridor Park
- but leave Storrow & Bowker for getting "around"
- Obviously 93 & 90 would let you cross under
- "worth it" to see Beacon, Comm, Atlantic, etc decongested

Then I'd expect a clamor to add
"Tall Seaport" (Wharf Co + new grid walkable from Silver Line tunnel)
- but leave Summer & D for "going around"*
- Puts Bank Pavillion & BCEC outside the CZ
* Note that at the end of Summer is the Downtown CZ

MIT-Kendall
- everything within the Grand Junction RR + Mass-Main triangle
- but not MA28 or Mem Dr (these would allow "going around")

Ken-Fen-Long
BU Central to Kenmore
Longwood & Boston Latin
- but not Riverway (so you can "go around" on the West)
- but not Park Dr & Fenway(so you can "go around" on the East)
 
Last edited:
I'm excluding the Seaport, if that wasn't clear.

No matter which zone you charge downtown, Chinatown you are still basically charging to get into Boston. There is a lot of public tax dollars that helped boston really build up.



However, I think you are slightly off with this part:
Its nice to tell people to eat their peas because its good for [them]

There are a lot of people who feel, with regard to my anti-cigarette smoking policy example, that the factor that pushed public support past the tipping point there was the data on secondhand smoke's effects on bystanders. Anti-smoking policy was no longer about taking away peoples' personal freedom. It became about mitigating a negative public health impact on society. That's what it took to achieve the necessary support.

So, the key question here may indeed be about whether this is an "eat your peas" example, or a "look what we're doing to each other" example.

Comparing cigarette tax vs a congestion tax is lunacy.
Cigarettes are actually proven to cause cancer and a negative affect for the public health.
As of driving most likely is a negative affect but most honest hardworking citizens are FORCED to drive to support their families which bases on value of their personal TIME.

If there was other proper solutions to the overall public like better
#1 Better Infrastructure (Upgradable Transit)
#2 Smarter Developments located on the MBTA
#3 Allowing the corporations to have unlimted tax percs to build in one location has only hurt congestion.
 
Last edited:
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?

Boston has a ton of TOD across the neighborhoods.
 
Here's an idea:
Congestion charging works by scanning cars' license plates, right?
So it should be easy for the system to ascertain the car's "principal place of garaging"

Why not do an adaptive congestion charge that charges you if you live close to a transit alternative (that meets some criteria), and doesn't charge you if you don't?

People would be up in arms over privacy concerns. Additionally, identifying those mystery criteria would be a total quagmire. Also, this wouldn’t address congestion caused by rideshares.
 
I would not get into the "judgy" question of what constitutes "living with good transit".

The focus has to be on "the congestion we're making for each other" and that's a question of where you are (on the road in a congested zone at a congested time) and not anything else.
 
^The problem that Rover and others have raised, though, is that avoiding a car is a steeper "ask" of certain people, compared to others, based on where they are originating (and can even border on being socially inequitable).

I get that there's fairness in basing the charges on congested zones/congested times ...but that's only one end of many peoples' commutes, and the other end can differ dramatically.

I agree with Riverside that there are likely intractable issues surrounding the "criteria"

...but at the end of the day, we need to acknowledge that CZC this might make things harder for some people than for others. It's not like the plastic bag ban that has a near equal inconvenience effect on everyone (though, even that was met with "inequity" concerns about its' effect on the poor and elderly)

Regarding privacy:
You would simply create "zones" at both ends. People would get assigned some zone number based on their registration address...and their home address wouldn't need to be accessed by the system.
This doesn't solve the fact that people would fight chaotically about where to draw the zone boundaries. So it's probably a non-starter (I agree). But I don't think privacy is going to be the main reason.
 
^The problem that Rover and others have raised, though, is that avoiding a car is a steeper "ask" of certain people, compared to others, based on where they are originating (and can even border on being socially inequitable).

Counterpoint, the current system that creates massive congestion for buses is a huge ask for lots of poor people who string bus connections together and is most definitely socially inequitable.
 
Counterpoint, the current system that creates massive congestion for buses is a huge ask for lots of poor people who string bus connections together and is most definitely socially inequitable.

I agree that's a fair point. Can we distill a couple of key points of agreement from these pages and pages of thread discussions...

In order for CZC to be fair and effective:
1) The presence of viable alternatives to car commuting must exist when/if CZC is rolled out (and this can be a strategic mix of near-term low hanging fruit, and longer term transit system improvements. Example of near-term: free bus travel to cut down on the ridiculous boarding queues and associated bus delays associated with fare collection). Stated another way: the T shouldn't be absolved from this...it should be part of a systemic blended improvement. If the T continues to suck to the extent it does, then we're not ready for CZC. I've seen these London CZC success story examples: but their transit system is amazing compared to the T.

2) The roll-out must be equitable. I realize it will never be perfectly equitable. But it can't have a dramatically suckier impact on certain population subsets than others. I say this while fully agreeing that it is reasonable to design policy around the betterment of society as a whole at the expense of some sacrifice from individuals. But if that sacrifice is 40 minutes from Person A and zero minutes from Person B, then this is untenable.

I am not some naysayer implying we won't be ready for CZC for 40 years. I really do believe there is low-hanging fruit / creative solutions that could enable Boston to take on CZC. But we can't just expect to be able to (and expect to win support for) implementing CZC without other coupled systemic improvements.
 
Equity really REALLY favors speeding up buses for poorer neighborhoods when they loop through downtown. Could just be bus lanes (but then both middle class *and* rich SOVs will complain)

The problem with CZCs is that they "take" from 10% of commuters (middle-class drivers) to create benefits for 60% of commuters.

But we know that people fear losses many times more than people seek gains (such as bus riders want/seek).

Nestor Ramos's opinion piece is behind the Globe's paywall, but LiveableStreets Alliance summarized it as:
When black riders are spending 64 hours a year longer on MBTA buses than white riders, and only 8% of the T's bus stops have shelters, it's clear that our bus system needs a lot more investment to address inequity than just stickers.
"If you want to see how racism has moved from signs and slurs to systems and structures, a slow ride across the Tobin on a 111 bus packed with minority riders is a pretty good place to start."


Fairmont Electrification
Red-Blue Connector
Bus Signal Priority
Silver-under-D
Bus Shelters (&heated ones)

These are all things that would benefit Boston's lowest income commuters. Eventually the City is goingn to have to address their needs.
 
But if that sacrifice is 40 minutes from Person A and zero minutes from Person B, then this is untenable.
Invalid example & this cannot be the test.

Invalid Example Because:

Being unwilling to pay $5 to save 40 minutes implies a value of time of $7.50/hr Being unwilling to pay $10 to save 40 minutes implies a value of time of $15/hr. These are legitimate self-worth numbers, but are typical of retirees and other non-workers who can probably move this trip out of peak time-and-place fairly easily (they have a flexible schedule).

I don't see how we can plan a system of rush hour commuting around people who value wasting 40 minutes at below $5 or $10 to themselves.

Or, to the extent that having such a low value of time applies in a Boston CZ, they are actually typical of a bus rider (who would not be asked for an additional :40 of delay)


Cannot be the test because:

1) Every new policy in a metro area of 1million is going to have a ONE WORST EFFECTED PERSON who it "looks wrong" to compare to anybody.

2) Policies we have now are asking people (somewhere) to sacrifice 40 minutes on a bus, we obviously didn't stop ourselves from from implementing that policy (maybe because THAT WORST EFFECTED was a person of color?)
 
Last edited:
Arlington, you and I are taking two different yet mutually useful perspectives.

You are assessing the logical validity in order to validate the scheme.

I am saying "in order to win public support, the alternatives need to seem viable and the system needs to seem equitable". You can have the most sound logic in the world, but if people feel slighted, they are going to actively protest your policy change before the change is even implemented. All I am saying is that if people hated the T less (e.g., if fixing the T was part of the policy roll-out), you might get a smoother embrace of the change.

You yourself just said that speeding up the busses is necessary for equitability.
And I am simply saying: couple these things...make that improvement in conjunction with CZC to increase the perception of viability and fairness.

If you somehow manage to ram CZC through, then, yes, your logic suggests that people will find a way to deal with it as-is. My suggestions are, instead, targeted at "how one might garner more public support"
 
Every CZC has been coupled with big step ups in transit--new bus & rail vehicles, and usually a new subway or NSRL (paid for by the $) and that comes on top of the natural improvement in bus & taxi as streets decongest. Every. One. Ever.

What seems to be happening here is "I'm sure they'll take the $5 but I'm not sure they'll spend it on transit, or that the streets will decongest"

These are not original objections. They were fully-present in London. The mayor might have seemed brave when he unilaterally imposed it (and over much opinion-survey & other political opposition).

But he was not brave. He knew the science. Be assured that once the science works, you get a quick 2-to-1 realization that the CZC is good and people can't imagine life before it.

And all this emoting, while politically real, also politically vanishes.

It really is like bike paths or the Poyton Rotary*. People oppose it because they fear the unknown, and overstate the danger of "losing" and understate their chance of "winning" but will tell you later they were in favor of it all along.

* Poynton Rotary:
Poynton Rotary
 
Last edited:
If this could be unilaterally imposed, and then sentiment tested later, then I agree it's a totally different ballgame.
 
If this could be unilaterally imposed, and then sentiment tested later, then I agree it's a totally different ballgame.

Well, in this case, the question is can Boston unilaterally adopt and find a place in its own budget to run a circulator bus service (as DC has) such as:

Kenmore - Boylston - SS -Seaport
NS-Congress-Seaport
Longwood - Kenmore -Central

Otherwise, yes, this is going to take a protracted negotiation with the T & the burbs to implement the transit.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top