Congestion toll in Boston?

[millerm277]

The idea of a couple transfers is also an inconvenience that is derived from the US's investment in car culture

No? More transfers are viewed as a more inconvenient trip in every place on the planet that I have been.

Being on the same vehicle for an hour is simply much less effort and stress than having to transfer multiple times is for the average person. And crucially, it's also fewer points for something to go wrong.

What does come back to typical North American problems is frequency + reliability issues, though. The less frequent the connecting service, the higher the time consequences of a missed connection. The less reliable the services, the more frequent the missed connections/the more padding you have to build into your schedule for them.

When you've got both issues, anything more than a single transfer starts to look like an outright ridiculous choice of means of travel and if you can travel in some other way you do.

 

[HenryAlan]

I won't dispute that most Americans, and perhaps most transit users world wide don't like transfers. But if the frequency is there, I personally don't find them to be the least bit bothersome. It's a fine trade-off for a broader list of destinations. When I visited St. Petersburg back in the 90s, I went with some of the locals I had met to a jazz club that involved a bus, to Metro, to tram for the trip. Each time, the transfer mode was right there and ready to go when we arrived. I came away from that experience with the opinion that the system there was really good (despite badly aging equipment), specifically because you could reasonably use it to get somewhere that had no direct service. I think frequency and ease of transfer are the killer apps for transit, not single seat rides.

 

[sneijder]

So if those folks wanted to continue having the convenience of their personal vehicle at their office in town, then a convenience charge does not seem like such a bad price to pay.

In a region that's beleagured by recent (and ongoing & neverending) inflation in cost of housing, food, and essentials, it's going to be politically impossible to get an additional "congestion toll" cost in place, especially when lower income folks are already disproportionately likely to live in transit-poor areas (and have greater dependency to drive). In NYC you can kind of get away with it, with 24/7 transit and greater CR coverage with the Metro North/LIRR running at least 1 TPH to basically the entire network, and reasonable travel times & reliability with electrification. With MBTA commuter rail, much of the commuter rail network simply has no trains for several hours at a time and travel times that can barely compete with rush-hour-congested driving trips.

Like most of us here, I would love to see congestion tolling in place, but the only way I see it being possible is if the toll were bundled with a major MBTA fare cut (i.e. subway/buses to basically free and CR to near-subway fares), and both go-live at the same time. Then hopefully the toll rate can be set appropriately to offset the loss in fare revenue (+ more).

 

[millerm277]

In a region that's beleagured by recent (and ongoing & neverending) inflation in cost of housing, food, and essentials, it's going to be politically impossible to get an additional "congestion toll" cost in place, especially when lower income folks are already disproportionately likely to live in transit-poor areas (and have greater dependency to drive). In NYC you can kind of get away with it, with 24/7 transit and greater CR coverage with the Metro North/LIRR running at least 1 TPH to basically the entire network, and slightly better travel times with electrification. With MBTA commuter rail, much of the commuter rail network simply has no trains for several hours at a time and travel times that can't even compete with rush-hour-congested driving trips.

Like most of us here, I would love to see congestion tolling in place, but the only way I see it being possible is if the toll were bundled with a major MBTA fare cut (i.e. subway/buses to basically free and CR to near-subway fares), and both go-live at the same time. Then hopefully the toll rate can be set appropriately to offset the loss in fare revenue (+ more).

I'm not exactly supportive of the idea but if the cordon is narrowly defined and (unlike NYC's implementation) you only charge it at all during the actual peak weekday hours, I don't know that it really impacts any significant # of lower-income people.

Boston both is and is not like NYC in terms of it's downtown parking situation. It is like it in that it is quite expensive 9-4 M-F. Pretty much no one lower-income is driving in then to pay $40 to park for the day.

It is not, in that there are very cheap options to park outside that time range and the night/weekend transit situation is significantly more limited. I can park downtown in Boston for like $10 for 24hrs on the weekend, I can't in the middle of Manhattan.

I'd be curious what studying a weekday AM Peak (6-10AM?) only charge would model out to for likely effects. That neatly sidesteps most of the edge cases.

 

[CBCArch61]

In a region that's beleagured by recent (and ongoing & neverending) inflation in cost of housing, food, and essentials, it's going to be politically impossible to get an additional "congestion toll" cost in place, especially when lower income folks are already disproportionately likely to live in transit-poor areas (and have greater dependency to drive). In NYC you can kind of get away with it, with 24/7 transit and greater CR coverage with the Metro North/LIRR running at least 1 TPH to basically the entire network, and reasonable travel times & reliability with electrification. With MBTA commuter rail, much of the commuter rail network simply has no trains for several hours at a time and travel times that can barely compete with rush-hour-congested driving trips.

Like most of us here, I would love to see congestion tolling in place, but the only way I see it being possible is if the toll were bundled with a major MBTA fare cut (i.e. subway/buses to basically free and CR to near-subway fares), and both go-live at the same time. Then hopefully the toll rate can be set appropriately to offset the loss in fare revenue (+ more).

There is definitely a collateral damage part of the conversation (which I have mentioned in my earlier posts) that needs to be acknowledged for lower income households. I would be interested to see data points that comparing driving commutes with household income. I would be interested to see if folks driving into town from the burbs are lower income folks, or if those lower income folks are already living in town adjacent to transit (maybe because a car is too expensive to own/insure/maintain vs. paying a rent premium)

I disagree with the notion that MBTA would need to cut fares in conjunction with a congestion toll. I disagree with the notion that we need to cut MBTA fares at all. The biggest improvement that MBTA would have to make is frequency! If the bus/train/regional rail is coming on time and at a regular interval, then a fare is completely justified. There are already low-income programs in place to help low income households with fares anyways, so the biggest improvement would need to the frequency and dependability of such transit.

The two biggest adjustments the MBTA fare system needs to make in my book is a distance-based transit fare and time gap for when I tap my card (30 minutes?) to when I would get charged again for a second tap (this would also require a lock out so folks don't tap multiple times to fare jump). An example of that second item would be I tap my card to get on the Red Line at Shawmut and I get to DTX for a one stop transfer to the Blue Line (via the Orange Line) and for some reason I leave DTX to walk over to the Blue Line (orange line delayed, service interrupted, etc.), I don't believe that justifies paying another fare.

No? More transfers are viewed as a more inconvenient trip in every place on the planet that I have been.

Being on the same vehicle for an hour is simply much less effort and stress than having to transfer multiple times is for the average person. And crucially, it's also fewer points for something to go wrong.

What does come back to typical North American problems is frequency + reliability issues, though. The less frequent the connecting service, the higher the time consequences of a missed connection. The less reliable the services, the more frequent the missed connections/the more padding you have to build into your schedule for them.

When you've got both issues, anything more than a single transfer starts to look like an outright ridiculous choice of means of travel and if you can travel in some other way you do.

While multiple transfers are annoying, I completely agree with @HenryAlan that as long as the transfer modes are there, or at least will be there within a reasonable amount of time, then transfers are not that bad. I completely agree with your that the biggest issue with North American transit is the frequency/dependability. Improve that and the possibility of multi-transfer travel is not that bad. Every week I go Red>Orange>Blue to get to a job site. Sometimes I go Red>Silver>Walk, but for the most part it is a multi-transfer commute. Still WAY better than driving during peak times and then paying to park.

 

[bigeman312]

… Every week I go Red>Orange>Blue to get to a job site. Sometimes I go Red>Silver>Walk, but for the most part it is a multi-transfer commute. Still WAY better than driving during peak times and then paying to park.

Important to note that for this trip (presumably Camberville or Dorchester/Quincy/South Shore -> East Boston) no congestion charge would be enacted even if you did drive.

It’s getting lost in the conversation how narrow a proper congestion zone would be in Boston. For all of the doom and gloom, most of the car trips cited in this discussion would be improved by a congestion charge. Someone driving from Wellesley to Logan or Dorchester to East Boston would pay no charge and have less traffic to contend with. The only car trips that would be charged would be those entering surface streets of Downtown, North End, West End, Beacon Hill, Chinatown, Leather District, Bay Village, Back Bay. This narrow area is served well from nearly every direction with one seat rides from park and rides and too dense to accommodate everyone’s single occupancy automobiles.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Important to note that for this trip (presumably Camberville or Dorchester/Quincy/South Shore -> East Boston) no congestion charge would be enacted even if you did drive.

It’s getting lost in the conversation how narrow a proper congestion zone would be in Boston. For all of the doom and gloom, most of the car trips cited in this discussion would be improved by a congestion charge. Someone driving from Wellesley to Logan or Dorchester to East Boston would pay no charge and have less traffic to contend with. The only car trips that would be charged would be those entering surface streets of Downtown, North End, West End, Beacon Hill, Chinatown, Leather District, Bay Village, Back Bay. This narrow area is served well from nearly every direction with one seat rides from park and rides and too dense to accommodate everyone’s single occupancy automobiles.

I don't understand the logic of neglecting the South End, Fenway, Symphony areas from the congestion zone. They are every bit as congested as the above areas.

 

[bigeman312]

I don't understand the logic of neglecting the South End, Fenway, Symphony areas from the congestion zone. They are every bit as congested as the above areas.

The idea is to implement it in the area that best fulfills the following:

1. Overly congested with automobiles beyond what can be handled spatially by the existing street network
2. Densely populated
3. Very well served by mass transit from nearly all directions
4. Easy to bound with entry points that don’t inadvertently encompass areas that would be inappropriate to include in a congestion zone.

There are those who would like to see the entire Boston area go car-free as soon as possible, but that’s not feasible. There are those who want to drive a single occupancy automobile into Downtown Boston at peak times, but it’s not feasible to spatially accommodate everybody who wants to do that. So, then it becomes drawing a line in a way that alleviates congestion in a politically feasible manner.

The narrowest neighborhood that best fulfills all four above is the North End. Fanning out from there, one has to draw the line somewhere. The South End and Fenway are not terrible candidates, as they fulfill points 1 and 2 very well, but neither fulfill points 3 or 4 nearly as well as the area north of the Mass Pike, east of Bowker.

 

[FK4]

There is definitely a collateral damage part of the conversation (which I have mentioned in my earlier posts) that needs to be acknowledged for lower income households. I would be interested to see data points that comparing driving commutes with household income. I would be interested to see if folks driving into town from the burbs are lower income folks, or if those lower income folks are already living in town adjacent to transit (maybe because a car is too expensive to own/insure/maintain vs. paying a rent premium)

I disagree with the notion that MBTA would need to cut fares in conjunction with a congestion toll. I disagree with the notion that we need to cut MBTA fares at all. The biggest improvement that MBTA would have to make is frequency! If the bus/train/regional rail is coming on time and at a regular interval, then a fare is completely justified. There are already low-income programs in place to help low income households with fares anyways, so the biggest improvement would need to the frequency and dependability of such transit.

The two biggest adjustments the MBTA fare system needs to make in my book is a distance-based transit fare and time gap for when I tap my card (30 minutes?) to when I would get charged again for a second tap (this would also require a lock out so folks don't tap multiple times to fare jump). An example of that second item would be I tap my card to get on the Red Line at Shawmut and I get to DTX for a one stop transfer to the Blue Line (via the Orange Line) and for some reason I leave DTX to walk over to the Blue Line (orange line delayed, service interrupted, etc.), I don't believe that justifies paying another fare.

While multiple transfers are annoying, I completely agree with @HenryAlan that as long as the transfer modes are there, or at least will be there within a reasonable amount of time, then transfers are not that bad. I completely agree with your that the biggest issue with North American transit is the frequency/dependability. Improve that and the possibility of multi-transfer travel is not that bad. Every week I go Red>Orange>Blue to get to a job site. Sometimes I go Red>Silver>Walk, but for the most part it is a multi-transfer commute. Still WAY better than driving during peak times and then paying to park.

I completely agree. Transfers are fine—if the connection is not a long wait. Lack of frequency is why I usually choose to drive to work, rather than wait for an often unpredictably long time for a connection due to not working a normal schedule. If frequencies improved, I would never drive to work.

 

[Rover]

I think our congestion tolling friends need to consider how this plays out for voters commuting into the city. In a time of economic uncertainty and rising prices, you're going to screw working people who need to be at work when their employer tells them in order to give the widely unpopular T even more money. While I appreciate Eng's work, he can't erase 40 years of incompetence and a bad reputation overnight. Plus, we just passed a law (millionaires tax) to give the T billions more dollars in funding.

I get that at the Bikes Not Bombs meet and greet or the all you can eat kale fest at the vegan co-op , this might seem like a popular idea. However try to stick yet another tax on voters and they will launch a repeal referendum the first chance they get.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I think our congestion tolling friends need to consider how this plays out for voters commuting into the city. In a time of economic uncertainty and rising prices, you're going to screw working people who need to be at work when their employer tells them in order to give the widely unpopular T even more money. While I appreciate Eng's work, he can't erase 40 years of incompetence and a bad reputation overnight. Plus, we just passed a law (millionaires tax) to give the T billions more dollars in funding.

I get that at the Bikes Not Bombs meet and greet or the all you can eat kale fest at the vegan co-op , this might seem like a popular idea. However try to stick yet another tax on voters and they will launch a repeal referendum the first chance they get.

I agree about the need to be fair to working class people. People below a certain income level could be granted an exemption from paying the congestion toll, based on their form 1040 income, or also be exempt if they don't need to file income tax. Whatever the details, a low-income exemption could be workable.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I think our congestion tolling friends need to consider how this plays out for voters commuting into the city. In a time of economic uncertainty and rising prices, you're going to screw working people who need to be at work when their employer tells them in order to give the widely unpopular T even more money. While I appreciate Eng's work, he can't erase 40 years of incompetence and a bad reputation overnight. Plus, we just passed a law (millionaires tax) to give the T billions more dollars in funding.

I get that at the Bikes Not Bombs meet and greet or the all you can eat kale fest at the vegan co-op , this might seem like a popular idea. However try to stick yet another tax on voters and they will launch a repeal referendum the first chance they get.

ROFL. This was exactly the same doomerism that we heard in NYC and congestion pricing has only been a success. How many "working class people" are really driving into downtown Boston for work everyday? This isn't the 1950s. They take mass transit mostly. And those who do "need" to drive save enough time to make it worth their while.

 

[KCasiglio]

I think our congestion tolling friends need to consider how this plays out for voters commuting into the city. In a time of economic uncertainty and rising prices, you're going to screw working people who need to be at work when their employer tells them in order to give the widely unpopular T even more money. While I appreciate Eng's work, he can't erase 40 years of incompetence and a bad reputation overnight. Plus, we just passed a law (millionaires tax) to give the T billions more dollars in funding.

I get that at the Bikes Not Bombs meet and greet or the all you can eat kale fest at the vegan co-op , this might seem like a popular idea. However try to stick yet another tax on voters and they will launch a repeal referendum the first chance they get.

You can virtue signal with ad-hominin and long debunked talking points, but if you think driving into Boston from the burbs and parking is the commute mode of the working class all you're doing is demonstrating how detached you are from the reality of working people and of the transportation network. Working class people are less likely to own a car, drive less if they do, and disproportionately do not live outside 128 until you get to the gateway cities...in which case they're working there, not Boston.

Where is the voter backlash in Virginia? Where was the voter backlash in NYC? Where is a bit of evidence to support your claims?

EDIT: Politeness

 

[HenryAlan]

Kale is delicious, and Bikes not Bombs is doing great work to make bike riding and job skills accessible to disadvantaged youth in Boston. But it's hard to take seriously a statement from somebody who uses them as a punching bag.

 

[KCasiglio]

Three takeaways for Boston from NYC’s congestion pricing scheme - The Boston Globe

After a year of the first American program of its kind, there’s enough data to recommend the idea.

www.bostonglobe.com

So far, the program has been largely successful. It has reduced the number of cars on the roads, improved commute times, and even contributed to a drop in traffic-related deaths. The streets in the congestion zone are also receiving fewer traffic noise complaints.

[...]

This past summer, 67,000 fewer cars were entering Lower Manhattan every day compared with historical averages, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Other analyses earlier this year also showed a reduction in traffic, with average car speeds increasing by as much as 20 percent during rush hour within the congestion relief zone.

As a result, public transit has also improved. Buses have become more efficient, reliably moving faster. The average bus speed increase doesn’t seem too impressive — about 3.5 percent — but some buses are moving nearly 30 percent faster, and virtually all bus routes that interact with the congestion zone have seen an improvement in speed.

[...]

Part of the reason for that back and forth was public opposition to congestion pricing. In December 2024, for example, less than a third of New York City voters supported it. But just as was the case with other cities around the world that have tried congestion pricing, the program got more popular after residents got a taste of its benefits. According to a YouGov poll in August, public support and opposition for congestion pricing have almost entirely flipped, with 59 percent of New York City voters supporting keeping the toll in place.

 

[Charlie_mta]

ROFL. This was exactly the same doomerism that we heard in NYC and congestion pricing has only been a success. How many "working class people" are really driving into downtown Boston for work everyday? This isn't the 1950s. They take mass transit mostly. And those who do "need" to drive save enough time to make it worth their while.

The NYC congestion toll has an exemption for low income people, and a credit on a low income person's state income tax. See https://www.mta.info/fares-tolls/tolls/congestion-relief-zone/discounts-exemptions

 

[Stlin]

The issue that I think is most salient is this: Lower income folks are more likely to work jobs that require them to be in at odd hours. NYCT is 24hr service, the MBTA is not - a nurse who needs to be in for a waterfall shift from 8pm to 4am may not have another option other than to drive to at least the employee shuttle lot if they want to get home after their shift. Someone needs to get in at 4:30 am to open the downtown Dunks at 5am, Bartenders need to get home after last call at 2am, etc, etc, especially once you add in folks who live in eastie and need to get back there with no bikeable option.

It'd be easy enough to implement hours of operation, such that a scan in/out during "T not operating" hours is exempt, but otherwise a decent chunk would be need to spent on overnight service.

 

[KCasiglio]

The issue that I think is most salient is this: Lower income folks are more likely to work jobs that require them to be in at odd hours. NYCT is 24hr service, the MBTA is not - a nurse who needs to be in for a waterfall shift from 8pm to 4am may not have another option other than to drive to at least the employee shuttle lot if they want to get home after their shift. Someone needs to get in at 4:30 am to open the downtown Dunks at 5am, Bartenders need to get home after last call at 2am, etc, etc, especially once you add in folks who live in eastie and need to get back there with no bikeable option.

It'd be easy enough to implement hours of operation, such that a scan in/out during "T not operating" hours is exempt, but otherwise a decent chunk would be need to spent on overnight service.

Agreed that, like NYC and Virginia, it can't be a flat rate at all hours, and shouldn't be in effect while the T is not running. That said, the current system often requires those people to pay for ubers home at the end of their 2am shift. When discussing overnight T service, the lack of demand generated by this admittedly niche constituency (speaking as someone for whom "food service employees living in Eastie/Revere is the core of my social circle) is held up as a reason not to do it. It thus doesn't hold that this niche constituency is a reason to not do congestion pricing.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

The issue that I think is most salient is this: Lower income folks are more likely to work jobs that require them to be in at odd hours. NYCT is 24hr service, the MBTA is not - a nurse who needs to be in for a waterfall shift from 8pm to 4am may not have another option other than to drive to at least the employee shuttle lot if they want to get home after their shift. Someone needs to get in at 4:30 am to open the downtown Dunks at 5am, Bartenders need to get home after last call at 2am, etc, etc, especially once you add in folks who live in eastie and need to get back there with no bikeable option.

It'd be easy enough to implement hours of operation, such that a scan in/out during "T not operating" hours is exempt, but otherwise a decent chunk would be need to spent on overnight service.

Totally fair. Which is why the charge at night is a lot less, basically the same as a subway ride.

 

[KCasiglio]

Worth noting too that we're talking about a very broad gammit of proposals. Is this a zone-based toll like London and NYC? Is this doing dynamic pricing on limited access highways inside 128? Including 128? Non-federal highway roads because of funding conflicts?