Congestion toll in Boston?

[Rover]

^ I would say there should be majority support in

1)any place with zone 1A commuter rail fares (or that could be incentivised by offering to put them in zone 1A)

2) any place where a majority of CBD bound commuters today go by bus or bus-rail, so Everett Chelsea Winthrop Revere.

I would expect Weston, Lincoln, Lexington and Milton to be initially skeptical, since they drive a lot but would not trust the predictions of how much faster their car commute could be if the core were uncongested. I would think they would come to support it after implementation because the value of the time they save is likely several times the charge they'd pay.

Two big faulty assumptions here. First is the class warfare angle. Somehow the high money people with $$$ to burn would care about paying 2 more bucks a trip, but the low income people would have a smile on their face about taking a much more meaningful bite out of their paychecks. The second is that this would actually reduce traffic in a noticeable way. With increased population growth that's a dubious assumption.

Recall when the state tried to index the gas tax. Putting aside our own personal view of the merits of that proposal, it got recalled. Same thing would happen here, based on factual evidence of recent history.

 

[Arlington]

Your positions turn out to be mutually contradictory.

You can't say both that everyone will hate it and that nobody's behavior will change enough to decongest downtown.

Some motorists will hate it, and choose not to pay it, and switch to another mode or a less congested time for their trip. Their choice will decongest downtown.

The reason the poor can't all hate the congestion charge is that very few of them drive and park downtown ever (for workdays) and quite a few are in buses that get stuck in today's traffic

Opposition might be about 50% but it is not going to be 100%.

 

[DominusNovus]

As the self appointed fiscal conservative, I’d say that the biggest challenge isn’t so much the actual $ values or the specific implementation. It is that there isn’t much trust in Beacon Hill to actually use the money for transportation purposes (and never find ant excuse to dip their hand in the jar). Even if they do, it takes them so long to get anything improved that we’d be paying for congestion tolling for a decade before we saw any improvements in the T.

 

[Rover]

Your positions turn out to be mutually contradictory.

You can't say both that everyone will hate it and that nobody's behavior will change enough to decongest downtown.

Some motorists will hate it, and choose not to pay it, and switch to another mode or a less congested time for their trip. Their choice will decongest downtown.

The reason the poor can't all hate the congestion charge is that very few of them drive and park downtown ever (for workdays) and quite a few are in buses that get stuck in today's traffic

Opposition might be about 50% but it is not going to be 100%.

Did you happen to ride the Red Line yesterday by any chance?

Nobody said opposition would be 100%. It only needs to be 50% and that's going to be easy to clear.

But what I wrote earlier is that while some people will switch behaviors, its going to have a negligible effect as population growth fills in any miniscule time savings you may achieve. Voters aren't going to make that distinction. They're going to see that they were promised an easier commute if they ponied up, yet the commute is still steadily getting worse (due to population growth). That will cause them to revolt and send this idea packing.

 

[stick n move]

I dont think its fair to do a congestion toll until the commuter rail is a viable alternative. Do the NSRL and electrify the system then do a congestion toll all day long.. put the money towards paying it off. Do it on 93 as well. For lots and lots of people they cant take the commuter rail right now because of the infrequent service and it doesnt connect to the rest of the network. If the commuter rail is a great alternative and people then still choose to drive, the tax is fine imo. Dont just toll people who live out west, if the north and south rail lines are connected and people still choose to take 93 instead of transit tax them too.

Its unfair with a disconnected and infrequent commuter rail network though, but if the deal is that the commuter rail gets fixed so its fast, connected, and efficient then I see no problem with tolling people who choose to take both 93 and 90 vs the commuter rail and a congestion tax at peak times. It will make more people choose to take the commuter rail, but it has to be a viable alternative or then its just unfair and people are being taxed who have no other options.

 

[mass88]

What about giving people some type of a tax incentive to use mass transit?

 

[tysmith95]

I dont think its fair to do a congestion toll until the commuter rail is a viable alternative. Do the NSRL and electrify the system then do a congestion toll all day long.. put the money towards paying it off. Do it on 93 as well. For lots and lots of people they cant take the commuter rail right now because of the infrequent service and it doesnt connect to the rest of the network. If the commuter rail is a great alternative and people then still choose to drive, the tax is fine imo. Dont just toll people who live out west, if the north and south rail lines are connected and people still choose to take 93 instead of transit tax them too.

Its unfair with a disconnected and infrequent commuter rail network though, but if the deal is that the commuter rail gets fixed so its fast, connected, and efficient then I see no problem with tolling people who choose to take both 93 and 90 vs the commuter rail and a congestion tax at peak times. It will make more people choose to take the commuter rail, but it has to be a viable alternative or then its just unfair and people are being taxed who have no other options.

It is a viable alternative for people who work office jobs at normal hours. For people working weird hours like nurses, yes it's not.

That's why the best congestion tax would be during rush hour. Have it only be a rush hour congestion tax, when congestion is the highest. Rush hour is when the commuter rail is convenient.

 

[tysmith95]

What about giving people some type of a tax incentive to use mass transit?

You can get transit passes tax free from most area employers.

 

[stick n move]

It is a viable alternative for people who work office jobs at normal hours. For people working weird hours like nurses, yes it's not.

That's why the best congestion tax would be during rush hour. Have it only be a rush hour congestion tax, when congestion is the highest. Rush hour is when the commuter rail is convenient.

Its really only a viable alternative for people who live in the suburbs and commute to Boston and work near whichever station their train goes to, and if transferring only have to make 1 transfer. For people doing the reverse commute from Boston to Waltham or Framingham for example its not. For people south or west of the city who work north of the city or vice versa its not, and even for people who just work downtown what should be a 1 seat ride is a pain in the ass. If the NSRL happens you could live in Framingham and work at GE in Lynn. You could also have a 1 seat ride from Natick to downtown. You could live in West Roxbury and work in Lynn. It opens up so much for the metro area beyond just bringing the commuter rail downtown. It truly becomes a great alternative when it connects the whole metro area with fast efficient service and not just (insert suburb)-to downtown, its so much more. Theres all kinds of scenarios like that that open up and make the commuter rail become a major asset vs just a decent alternative for limited 9-5 only commuting into the core from the suburbs scenarios.

 

[Rover]

Another problem with this scheme is the notion that "rush hour" is like from 8-9AM and 5-6PM. Anybody caught in traffic at 5:30 AM trying to get to the airport to catch the shuttle can tell you differently. Or who's trying to get out of town on 3 o'clock on a Friday.

The unintended consequence if you put the congestion pricing at a certain time of day is that people will be on the roads earlier to avoid it, thus extending "rush hour" even further.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Another problem with this scheme is the notion that "rush hour" is like from 8-9AM and 5-6PM. Anybody caught in traffic at 5:30 AM trying to get to the airport to catch the shuttle can tell you differently. Or who's trying to get out of town on 3 o'clock on a Friday.

The unintended consequence if you put the congestion pricing at a certain time of day is that people will be on the roads earlier to avoid it, thus extending "rush hour" even further.

Getting people to shift optional trips outside of the rush hour zone is actually an intended consequence of time-based congestion pricing. The city has more vehicle capacity still available at some hours of the day than at peak commuter times.

I agree that rush hour need a pretty broad definition. And perhaps there is always some charge, just a higher charge at the peak periods.

 

[stick n move]

Its a reactionary bandaid though, straight up. We should address the real problem of why so many people from outside the city are driving in the first place. If they have a better option theyll take it. If the commuter rail took the same amount of time as driving, but you dont have to worry about parking its still a big upgrade.

 

[FK4]

I support the concept of a congestion charge, but there are obvious problems with regressivism, as stated all over this discussion. Another issue that has not been seriously considered is the fact that Boston is tiny and the traffic issues plague a greater swatch of the metro region... any charge should think about at least including parts of nearby municipalities.

However, before rushing to something that will be extremely complicated, it's laughable that increasing the gas tax isn't being seriously considered. That's a very easy intervention, and one that truly will have significantly less of an economic impact on lower-income drivers (since it would be much less of a financial imposition, distributed more widely). The state might consider creating gas tax regions, as well, so greater Boston could have a higher tax and the western a lower one, for example... with regional tax collections going toward that region's transportation needs.

 

[bigeman312]

Is there a mechanism in place for a county-specific (ie Suffolk County) gas tax? Or a municipality-specific (ie Somerville) gas tax?

 

[DominusNovus]

I dont think its fair to do a congestion toll until the commuter rail is a viable alternative. Do the NSRL and electrify the system then do a congestion toll all day long.. put the money towards paying it off. Do it on 93 as well. For lots and lots of people they cant take the commuter rail right now because of the infrequent service and it doesnt connect to the rest of the network. If the commuter rail is a great alternative and people then still choose to drive, the tax is fine imo. Dont just toll people who live out west, if the north and south rail lines are connected and people still choose to take 93 instead of transit tax them too.

Its unfair with a disconnected and infrequent commuter rail network though, but if the deal is that the commuter rail gets fixed so its fast, connected, and efficient then I see no problem with tolling people who choose to take both 93 and 90 vs the commuter rail and a congestion tax at peak times. It will make more people choose to take the commuter rail, but it has to be a viable alternative or then its just unfair and people are being taxed who have no other options.

Agreed. We’re a financially sophisticated society, we know how to spread out costs and revenue to get this done. Speaking as someone who takes 93 in every day, I would certainly bear a toll if it funded an alternative for most of the other jerks clogging up the highway (I’d take the CR if it made sense for my job). The authorities need to prove they can spend the money properly before they’re given anymore, and I think that having the money already spent is a pretty effective way to do that.

 

[stick n move]

The authorities need to prove they can spend the money properly before they’re given anymore, and I think that having the money already spent is a pretty effective way to do that.

Thats a good point.

The NSRL, electrification... with 15 min headways close to Boston and 30 further out, and high level boarding platforms is soooo much bigger than just getting people from Waltham to South Station for work in the morning. It opens up half the state to commuting by rail as a legitimate and viable option over driving.

A family out west in Framingham can now take the commuter rail up northeast of the city for a family visit to Gloucester or Rockport for the day. Someone who lives in Quincy can now take the train through the city to work out in Waltham at the tech companies. Someone in West Roxbury can work on jet engines at GE aviation in Lynn. A couple from framingham can catch the train for a 1 seat ride to the garden for a Bruins game. A mom in Worcester can take her kids to the aquarium for the day on a 1 seat ride. A dad in Chelsea can take his son to a game at Fenway via Yawkey station. A dad in Meltose can take the train through the city to a Pats game at Gillette, hell a family in Braintree if they want can go skiing all the way at Wachusett. All of these and more by being able to pass through Boston and the Southwrn lines connecting to the North. Its sooooo much bigger than just going from Framingham to Haymarket for your 9am job and leaving at 5. This literally connects the entire eastern half of the state by train giving a REAL alternative to driving. We already know its going to be done one day, so kicking the can is money left on the table in productivity. Luckily theyre doing the feasibility studies now and I fully expect this to finally be on the table... because theres NO choice.

 

[DominusNovus]

Thats a good point.

The NSRL, electrification... with 15 min headways close to Boston and 30 further out, and high level boarding platforms is soooo much bigger than just getting people from Waltham to South Station for work in the morning. It opens up half the state to commuting by rail as a legitimate and viable option over driving.

A family out west in Framingham can now take the commuter rail up northeast of the city for a family visit to Gloucester or Rockport for the day. Someone who lives in Quincy can now take the train through the city to work out in Waltham at the tech companies. Someone in West Roxbury can work on jet engines at GE aviation in Lynn. A couple from framingham can catch the train for a 1 seat ride to the garden for a Bruins game. A mom in Worcester can take her kids to the aquarium for the day on a 1 seat ride. A dad in Chelsea can take his son to a game at Fenway via Yawkey station. A dad in Meltose can take the train through the city to a Pats game at Gillette, hell a family in Braintree if they want can go skiing all the way at Wachusett. All of these and more by being able to pass through Boston and the Southwrn lines connecting to the North. Its sooooo much bigger than just going from Framingham to Haymarket for your 9am job and leaving at 5. This literally connects the entire eastern half of the state by train giving a REAL alternative to driving. We already know its going to be done one day, so kicking the can is money left on the table in productivity. Luckily theyre doing the feasibility studies now and I fully expect this to finally be on the table... because theres NO choice.

I agree with all of those points, and I think the groups supporting NSRL really should use them in their marketing. The biggest upside, in my opinion, is that as things get more and more congested, political will to improve the transit system will increase. The downside is that the will to implement tolling before they implement improvements of any sort will also increase (though hopefully not as quickly) and we could end up in the scenario in which we're paying more for the same level of access to the city.

 

[Kinopio]

A congestion toll is not "unfair" to people who choose to commute by car. What is unfair is the billions drivers have taken out of the pockets of non drivers. What is unfair are the pedestrians run down in crosswalks by drivers. What is unfair are suburbanites driving into Boston and spewing toxic exhaust that shortens the lifespans of Bostonians. What is unfair is all the valuable property and money Boston gives to drivers who don't even live in Boston. Drivers have gotten enough welfare. Time for them to start paying for the damage they cause and the resources they hog.

 

[TheMagicMan]

A congestion toll is not "unfair" to people who choose to commute by car. What is unfair is the billions drivers have taken out of the pockets of non drivers. What is unfair are the pedestrians run down in crosswalks by drivers. What is unfair are suburbanites driving into Boston and spewing toxic exhaust that shortens the lifespans of Bostonians. What is unfair is all the valuable property and money Boston gives to drivers who don't even live in Boston. Drivers have gotten enough welfare. Time for them to start paying for the damage they cause and the resources they hog.

What is causing the overall congestion in Boston?
Lack of infrastructure and transit upgrades?
Is it the # of Lyft & Uber drivers that should be regulated to drive into the city compared to the taxi drivers that are required medallions?
What has been the overall growth of Boston in the last 10 years?

"Boston and spewing toxic exhaust that shortens the lifespans of Bostonians." Is that True

 

[bigeman312]

What is causing the overall congestion in Boston?

Geometric inefficiency on an under-priced, un-managed, limited resource (space).

Lack of infrastructure and transit upgrades?

These things (as well as pricing) encourage people to use the limited space in a geometrically inefficient manner, which causes congestion.

Is it the # of Lyft & Uber drivers that should be regulated to drive into the city compared to the taxi drivers that are required medallions?

Lyft and Uber cars do exacerbate the aforementioned problems, but are subject to the same market and spacial forces that cause the overuse and geometrically inefficient use of our roads by single-occupancy vehicles.

What has been the overall growth of Boston in the last 10 years?

About 80,000 or about 12%.

"Boston and spewing toxic exhaust that shortens the lifespans of Bostonians." Is that True

Yes.