Weston CEOs would be more likely to move their office to the city as traffic won't be as bad.
Congestion toll in Boston?
- Thread starter statler
- Start date
Weston CEOs would be more likely to move their office to the city as traffic won't be as bad.
I find it highly unlikely that companies will move offices around based on whether or not congestion pricing happens, but that's just me. Seems like there's a lot more that goes into that decision that the current traffic patterns. Why do I say that? Because despite horrific traffic companies still seem determined to locate in the center of the city.
Agreed.
Though infrastructure will have an affect. If there aren't enough transit options for people to get in or around the urban core, the economy will suffer.
I'd be curious if there's a study that shows more detail behind the vehicular traffic. Meaning, how much is due to 1) commuters, 2) trucking/deliveries, 3) construction, 4) govt (police/fire/school bus/public transit) and lastly 5) ride sharing.
TheMagicMan
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 0
With the amount of construction going on in the Seaport is the Silver-line bus really adequate without creating a Uber and Lyft congestion zone. Is there any plans of putting other ways of transportation in this area?
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 481
Don't you think that is a bit of an overstatement? They aren't closing the roads, they are putting a toll on them. And the toll is going to be a couple of dollars, not a couple hundred. Most people who drive today will continue to drive with the toll. The goal is for only a small percentage of drivers to change their behavior.
Certainly increasing transit options will be great, but I still don't see how it is in any way necessary. Politically important, yes, but not important for the continued functioning of Boston's economy.
TheMagicMan
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 0
The state should start considering a case for an overall 10% transportation tax in the future for all Mass Residents.
Totally agreed.
I will point out that a congestion tax reducing vehicle traffic by 10% will reduce congestion by much more than 10%.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Politics is the art of the possible. And charging a ‘10% transportation tax’ (I hesitate to ask, 10% of what?) is not possible.
But tell you what: this is a state with a referendum process. Its pretty straight forward - collect enough signatures and get the Sec of State to certify that your referendum would be legal. If you think it is a good idea to institute such a hime, go ahead and pitch it to the voters.
TheMagicMan
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 0
Are you one of Kinopio's relatives?
No
The 10% transportation tax could represent Mass residents overall all income. It could help fund new transportation ideas or funding woes in the future along with the congestion tax.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,887
So you are suggesting nearly tripling the income tax? Fortunately, we don't need nearly as much money as that for transportation. Maybe you should reconsider your proposal.
TheMagicMan
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes. The goal is to decrease traffic and reverse the global warming effects on this planet.
Currently 11% of the state budget goes towards transportation.
It would certainly decrease traffic in Massachusetts. Almost everyone who can afford to would move elsewhere.
I fully support a congestion charge in the region of $15/day but this kind of extremist rhetoric from the off-the-cliff left is what turns the general population off of new taxes and fees in any form and any amount regardless of how it's being spent.
Not true, at all. Most of the people in my downtown office use the T to get to work.
You must work with some real pushovers. Ask them if they'd happily pay three times their current state income tax for transit and transportation improvements.
Better yet, ask them what discretionary expenditures they'd reduce or eliminate to make up for such a reduction in net income.
It wouldn't cost 3 times the current state income tax for transit improvements. That would be insane.
The MBTA receives $847 million in subsidizes from the sales tax, about half of what it costs to run the MBTA. Massachusetts receives about 28 billion dollars a year. So a 3-4% raise in the income tax would about double the subsidizes that the MBTA receives.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
10% income tax, on top of the current 5.09%. As someone who vehemently disagrees with your rhetoric, allow me to present this: if I had wanted to really be uncharitable to you, I would have assumed you meant 10% on income, because that is literally the most insane thing you could propose to tax 10% of in order to get your trains. Do that and you’d turn even the People’s Republic of Northampton more Republican than it was when Calvin Coolidge was mayor. Hell, you’d probably flip Democrat held offices in neighboring states, based on the fear this hike would stoke.
I thought it was nuts when I just figured you might mean an excise tax on automobiles or maybe gas. But no, you went straight for income. This is as pure an example of Poe’s Law if there ever was one. 10% income tax hike for trains. I have to stop typing, I’ve run out of ways to explain just jow insane that is. It bears no connection to reality whatsoever.
Of course it wouldn't. I was responding to the magic mushroom's zany idea for an added 10% transportation tax on top of the state income tax. Maybe I shouldn't have wasted my time responding at all.