Congestion toll in Boston?

In Virginia, the HOT never took untolled lanes, but sometimes added a toll option to priorly-HOV-only Lanes on inner I-66 and I-395 and I-64 (Norfolk)
 
tysmith95 said:
Could HOT's take up already existing lanes? Or would it require highway expansion.

I wouldn't be surprised if HOT's on I-93 S from Medford to the Tunnel cost $40 to go 5 miles every morning, as traffic there is mental.
Click to expand...

The highways in the metro area cannot afford to have lanes taken for this. Adding a lane would be the only realistic option. Ideally you would have an addition full travel lane added in each direction where people are charged by the distance they travel (see Atlanta) and also allow buses to drive in them. Imagine true express bus service from places like Waltham, Newton and Natick right into Boston.
 
I'm not sure that there is space on the Pike to add another lane, unless you want to raise it in more places and put it above the railroad tracks.
 
tysmith95 said:
I'm not sure that there is space on the Pike to add another lane, unless you want to raise it in more places and put it above the railroad tracks.
Click to expand...

The prospects for expanding the Pike, through whatever means, through Newton are ZERO.

Politically DOA.
 
tysmith95 said:
I'm not sure that there is space on the Pike to add another lane, unless you want to raise it in more places and put it above the railroad tracks.
Click to expand...

On the Pike* the "congestion charge" solution is to dynamically toll the whole thing from Natick to Logan. Tolls at rush hour should rise to ensure that it never slows. Tolls at off hours should fall to ensure it is always being fully used.

* and any other tolled facility like the Tobin, Sumner/Callahan, & Ted Williams
 
tysmith95 said:
I'm not sure that there is space on the Pike to add another lane, unless you want to raise it in more places and put it above the railroad tracks.
Click to expand...

It would be tough sledding to say the least. Just like adding congestion tolls is going to be tough sledding.
 
Lots of data. First, let's take this one: "Moving 5% of rush hour drivers off the road can increase traffic speeds by 20% or more"

That's essentially why July & August have faster-moving traffic at rush hour: each week of the "summer vacation season", about 5% of the rush hour drivers are elsewhere vacationing. If you have a 128 commute, you see this every year the first full week after July 4th and it lasts until late August (I haven't quite pinpointed it, observationally, because it seems to get intermixed with "new job / new school / new daycare/ new route" confusion that overlaps vacations in the 2 weeks before Labor Day and lasts 'til mid September)

But if you're on an interstate highway at rush hour the next 6 weeks, make note of your average trip times and then compare them to, say, the 1st week in October.
 
Last edited:
Only a small share of commuters — approximately one in 50 [2%]— from Boston’s surrounding communities both drive into the region’s central area and come from households that make less than median household income.
Click to expand...
So the appeals to "what about the workin' guy who drives into the city from a place where there is no transit" are true, but only for a tiny segment]. Tinier when you consider that these below-median households are likely in low(ish) income transit pockets in Medford, Malden, and Everett-Revere, rather than the big-lawned districts of Bedford, Burlington, & Lexingon, and, being in Zone 1A, they're probably NOT *THAT* FAR from a bus that could be upgraded.


If the goal is to move just 5% from driving at rush to either (1) not driving or (2) not at rush, then the incentives can gently target the 10% who are "nearly-indifferent" and it should not take much to tip them into a new mode or new time.


An overwhelming 98% of commuters who live around Boston either come from above-median-income households, don’t commute into the city, and wouldn’t be subject to tolls or take other modes of transit.


Toll increases could still negatively impact the 2% who drive and are below median income. Yet their small number points to the feasibility of providing discounts or waivers: Shielding these drivers would not undermine a policy’s ability to reduce congestion and/or raise revenue for improved public transportation. New York has already taken this approach, exempting residents who make less than $60,000 per year.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer to mail a check each month to EVERY households whose W2s/1099s show: low income, a job in the city, and a home in the burbs. Maybe $100 and say "you can spend this on congestion tolls or trade it for a T-pass"

Simply exempting from the tolls is subsidizing driving only. Subsidizing mobility (and letting each household choose each month) would actually be "mode neutral" and "employment positive" as a good policy should be.
 
Last edited:
I'm amused by anybody who considers 75-100K a year living in Massachusetts to be wealthy, particularly if you have kids to support. From a political standpoint, the failure to understand that point is why the author's proposal is doomed.

But to pick out a few more points, he's doing a bait and switch by comparing the congestion pricing proposals for Boston to the LA and Chicago examples, where you're charging the people who want to use a dedicated high speed lane more money depending on the time of day to zip through the city. Virginia past DC does the same thing. That relies on wide highways, which we don't have the space to do. Otherwise its probably the best idea of the bunch.

Also, the Stockholm example is amusing when you dig into it. The city did a massive upgrade to its transit system beforehand. That's a tradeoff I'd take but don't consider very likely and I'll note I've yet to see a proposal for Boston that follows this approach...
 
But would this have to happen concurrently with expanding some of the lots at the park-n-rides? I've heard that Alewife/Oak Grove/Quincy/Wonderland/128 often fill up half way through morning rush. Also unless more trains/longer trainsets are added, more riders = longer dwells = longer trip times. These will all contribute to driving as a more attractive option.

Of course there are also plenty of underused stations across the network which would welcome extra ridership.
 
Rover said:
I'm amused by anybody who considers 75-100K a year living in Massachusetts to be wealthy, particularly if you have kids to support.
Click to expand...
Didn't say it was wealthy. Said it was above the median.
But it sure as heck ain't "poor" which is probably down at the 25%ile or lower.
And it probably isn't working class, which might be the 25% to 50%ile.
 
sneijder said:
But would this have to happen concurrently with expanding some of the lots at the park-n-rides? I've heard that Alewife/Oak Grove/Quincy/Wonderland/128 often fill up half way through morning rush. Also unless more trains/longer trainsets are added, more riders = longer dwells = longer trip times. These will all contribute to driving as a more attractive option.

Of course there are also plenty of underused stations across the network which would welcome extra ridership.
Click to expand...

It seems like it would be far more productive to run all subway lines out to 128 and build parking garages there. So, Orange line runs from Westwood station (where there's already a garage) to....Reading? North of Malden anyway. Blue goes out to Lynn and Salem. Red goes out to Lexington/Hanscom. Southern end of Red line is already at 93/128/3 and Green Line is as well although that's a long ride in. Not only would this reduce congestion but you'd also alleviate the pressure on those interior parking garages which would now primarily serve the people in the inner burbs.
 
Arlington said:
Didn't say it was wealthy. Said it was above the median.
But it sure as heck ain't "poor" which is probably down at the 25%ile or lower.
And it probably isn't working class, which might be the 25% to 50%ile.
Click to expand...

While you never said wealthy, Rover pointing out the actual income numbers rather than percentile and/or medians does means the argument "what about the working guy" is still valid. Because the $75k person with a partner and kids who works in the Boston area is above median income. But is it high enough that their new expense is negligible or the time save if kept driving is an acceptable trade-off?

And for the context of Boston, don't say the money will help fix the T. Right we have multiple articles saying the T is funded but needs time to actually implement them - time to bid and install new trains signals, new electrical equipment, and, most visibly, new trains. And a lot of that remains years away. So arguing the revenue will fix it both have an issue that it is asking the citizen to just pay but not see results for years and have questions of causation because a lot fixes that is theoretically will bring us back to functionality is theoretically already coming. Right now, there is nothing directly tied to to the charge. So the only promise is enjoying summer traffic for the other ~38 weeks of the year.
 
If Boston used the money for Circulator buses (imagine them for the length of Brookline Ave, Congress Street and a Gold Line from NS/Haymarket to East Boston & Airport) that would go a long way to tying commuter rail to people's final work destinations in Seaport or Longwood.

I am sure we aren't going to get a Congestion Charge without something they can implement before the charge takes effect, probably a mix of both first mile solutions (from the suburbs to rail Transit) and last-mile solutions for faster better more frequent connections from rail stations to employment centers.
 
Rover said:
I'm amused by anybody who considers 75-100K a year living in Massachusetts to be wealthy, particularly if you have kids to support. From a political standpoint, the failure to understand that point is why the author's proposal is doomed.

But to pick out a few more points, he's doing a bait and switch by comparing the congestion pricing proposals for Boston to the LA and Chicago examples, where you're charging the people who want to use a dedicated high speed lane more money depending on the time of day to zip through the city. Virginia past DC does the same thing. That relies on wide highways, which we don't have the space to do. Otherwise its probably the best idea of the bunch.

Also, the Stockholm example is amusing when you dig into it. The city did a massive upgrade to its transit system beforehand. That's a tradeoff I'd take but don't consider very likely and I'll note I've yet to see a proposal for Boston that follows this approach...
Click to expand...

Ideally 93, from the 3/93 split in Braintree to the Mass Ave exit, would be 4 full travel lanes in each direction, with a full breakdown lane on both the left and right shoulders and then down the middle you would have a permanent, 1 full travel lane with a full breakdown lane that is tolled heavily. Give people the option of paying a premium for a faster rid into the city. The current HOV lane setup is less than ideal.
 
Rover said:
It seems like it would be far more productive to run all subway lines out to 128 and build parking garages there. So, Orange line runs from Westwood station (where there's already a garage) to....Reading? North of Malden anyway. Blue goes out to Lynn and Salem. Red goes out to Lexington/Hanscom. Southern end of Red line is already at 93/128/3 and Green Line is as well although that's a long ride in. Not only would this reduce congestion but you'd also alleviate the pressure on those interior parking garages which would now primarily serve the people in the inner burbs.
Click to expand...

Rover -- it says that you are a senior member -- perhaps you are aware that this concept is older than the Apollo Program dating to pre-MBTA

However, its a non starter -- take the Red Line extension in the mid 80's it stopped at Alewife and the "future" Red Line to Hanscom became the Minuteman Bikeway and by the way hosts a major MWRA sewer line underneath

To dig all that up and put in Red Line to Hanscom would approach Big Dig in complexity, be impossible to sell to the residents of the towns of Arlington, Lexington and Bedford

The only Line with the ghost of a chance of a major extension outward is the Blue Line
 
We need a halt to new construction anywhere inside 495
 
whighlander said:
HUH?>?>?>>>???
Click to expand...

Trying to squeeze more capacity out of our existing infrastructure is just going to induce more demand and won't help reduce congestion. And expanding transit is cost prohibitive. Metro Boston is just built out.

I am mostly just trolling, but yes our infrastructure has clearly reached capacity and it is negatively impacting quality of life and productivity. The solution isn't more, the solution is less
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top