Traffic Disaster Looming in BOSTON

Arlington said:
Exactly. Calling unpriced roads "freedom" is an almost Orwellian lie

A lie that dangles a false arbitrage of moving to a vastly-cheaper exurban home and believing that somehow "the system" will insulate such people from the costs by providing a 50-mile commute at near the same price as a 5-mile, 10-mile or 15-mile one--or at a tiny cost relative to the home cost and tax savings to be won by moving to NH.

That New Hampshire commuter's home gobbles up ~50 car-lane-miles of asphalt at peak times every day to keep it connected to a job in the Seaport--the kind commute that constantly demands add-a-lane projects at 5x the rate of a home in Woburn.

Each mile of driving at, say 22.5mpg pays just 2 cents in motor fuels tax (call it 45c/gal 25c to state and 20c to feds).

Regardless of when they drive to the Seaport, a person from Woburn pays 20c for a 10 mile to get there and those from NH pays $1.00 for a 50 miles. At uncongested times, this is probably a fair price for wear & depreciation of the road.

But at peak times, neither pays anything close to paying for *capacity* and neither comes anywhere close to paying for the delays that they impose on everyone else (everyone wastes everyone else's time in the "you are traffic" world)

Worse, the "Live Freeload or Die" NH commuter runs his/her infrastructure deficit and imposes congestion costs along 5x as many lane-miles and affecting perhaps 3x as many abutters as our "Woburn" commuter (they both might come close to paying for *resurfacing* what each car uses, but too many people have moved too far out such that they demand added lanes, which either cost billions or cannot be added by any feasible price or method--either inducing congestion or forcing trips (e.g. freight) to go at economically less-efficient times.

The freedom to swing your commute ends where our congestion begins.
Click to expand...

Arlington -- I said nothing for or against tolls or other means of managing traffic

My point is that the Town, City, Metro Region MA, New England, US, etc, -- needs to do what in the IT world is called Net Neutrality

Plan and construct all manner of transportation infrastructure including allowing private firms to construct tolled transportation facilities as well and then:

Enforce the safety regulations [such as minimum speed limits and how wheeled vehicles interact with each other and pedestrians],

and then watch things as they evolve

and every few years tweak your on-going plans as necessary

But most importantly, the infrastructure should be paid for primarily by those who use it -- it's not logical, or fair to ask a dirt-rich but cash-poor farmer in the Pioneer Valley to pay for someone's free recharging of a Tesla at Alewife
 
whighlander said:
Arlington -- No it was something called Freedom
Click to expand...

It's called socialism, actually. When a society decides to heavily subsidize an optional lifestyle choice, no other word more accurately describes that process.

You have decent trolling skills, I'd rate you three out of four stars, but you are wasting your time here.
 
HenryAlan said:
It's called socialism, actually. When a society decides to heavily subsidize an optional lifestyle choice, no other word more accurately describes that process.

You have decent trolling skills, I'd rate you three out of four stars, but you are wasting your time here.
Click to expand...

Henry -- go back to what ever it is that you ordinarily do

The world is done with its recent experiment in Socialism because as Lady Thatcher once said "sooner of later you run out of other peoples' money"

However, Sir Winston said it best if a bit less pithy:
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Click to expand...
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu164131.html

We are done with deVal -- soon we'll be done with Obama -- but in both cases it will take years to undo the damage
 
whighlander said:
Arlington -- I said nothing for or against tolls or other means of managing traffic

My point is that the Town, City, Metro Region MA, New England, US, etc, -- needs to do what in the IT world is called Net Neutrality

Plan and construct all manner of transportation infrastructure including allowing private firms to construct tolled transportation facilities as well and then:
...
But most importantly, the infrastructure should be paid for primarily by those who use it -- it's not logical, or fair to ask a dirt-rich but cash-poor farmer in the Pioneer Valley to pay for someone's free recharging of a Tesla at Alewife
Click to expand...

I used to think private toll roads were a good idea, but the reality is that roads are a public utility (just like the internet, phone, electric, water are) and rate of return regulation or plain old gov't ownership--are probably better solutions than thinking you can just unleash toll builders.

Besides, Boston ain't Houston: we don't have the *physical space" to widen most key arterials at any price. This implies we have to go straight to de-congesting tolls (dynamic pricing on highways and/or a congestion zone in the Boston/Cambridge core)

In a world of decongesting tolls, whighlander's original NH-commuter-in-a-Honda would discover *very* fast that NH drivers will have a hard time outbidding all the other commuters between home and Boston.

Exposed to real market pricing of road capacity at rush hour, NH would immediately see that extending the Lowell & Haverhill MBTA lines is a much better deal for adding marginal capacity into Boston at rush hour than trying to outbid, say, Billerica drivers mile-for-mile day after day.
 
Arlington said:
I used to think private toll roads were a good idea, but the reality is that roads are a public utility (just like the internet, phone, electric, water are) and rate of return regulation or plain old gov't ownership--are probably better solutions than thinking you can just unleash toll builders.

Besides, Boston ain't Houston: we don't have the *physical space" to widen most key arterials at any price. This implies we have to go straight to de-congesting tolls (dynamic pricing on highways and/or a congestion zone in the Boston/Cambridge core)

In a world of decongesting tolls, whighlander's original NH-commuter-in-a-Honda would discover *very* fast that NH drivers will have a hard time outbidding all the other commuters between home and Boston.

Exposed to real market pricing of road capacity at rush hour, NH would immediately see that extending the Lowell & Haverhill MBTA lines is a much better deal for adding marginal capacity into Boston at rush hour than trying to outbid, say, Billerica drivers mile-for-mile day after day.
Click to expand...

Arlington -- given current developments with respect to splitting the Tolls on the Tobin [in and out] and soon on the Harbor Tunnels -- we just may soon have a chance to see your hypothesis tested
 
HenryAlan said:
It's called socialism, actually. When a society decides to heavily subsidize an optional lifestyle choice, no other word more accurately describes that process.

You have decent trolling skills, I'd rate you three out of four stars, but you are wasting your time here.
Click to expand...

I actually read and respect Whigh posts.
I think he is highly educated with his thoughts.

He is not a TROLL.
 
whighlander said:
Arlington -- given current developments with respect to splitting the Tolls on the Tobin [in and out] and soon on the Harbor Tunnels -- we just may soon have a chance to see your hypothesis tested
Click to expand...

The policy of bi-directional tolling, while it should allow us to make better, more even use of some facilities (by not imposing "toll bypass" traffic on Chelsea in strange ways), is really not enough to call it a test.

My concerns center on:
1) a congestion perimeter around the core with no free leaks (or higher parking charges both on-street or off, which at least deters commuter trips)

2) miles-and-congestion-based tolling that really lets NH commuters feel the price of every bit of capacity they consume when they choose (a) to use a lot of lane miles and (b) to do so at peak times. [Not just NH, really, but all suburbs: greater Billerica, greater Brockton, greater Framingham, greater Danvers. Sorry whigh, transport-wise, Lexingon is just part of greater Billerica ;-)]

Bi-directional tolls on Pike@Allston, Pike@Ted Williams, Sumner&Callahan, Tobin to/from, still have way too many leaks on 93 (north and south), 99 (from north), and Memorial/Storrow/9 (from west), and 2 (from northwest)

The Feds might never let me impose tolls on 93. If I could I'd put a toll at the Gas Tank (on the South) and at Medford (on the North).

I would define a congestion zone (which it costs top $ to enter (whether you park, deliver, carpool, or taxi/uber). Basically:
  • FiDi (but not residential North End)
  • Beacon Hill - MGH - West End
  • Seaport
  • Prudential (but not residential Back Bay)
  • MIT "decimal" buildings, MIT E-Buildings & Kendall-Galleria-Lechmere

And define special "costly-to-park" zones, where driving is unrestricted, but commuter parking is made very expensive. Basically:
  • Harvard Cambridge
  • Harvard Allston
  • MIT W00, NW00, N00 buildings
  • Longwood
  • Northeastern
  • BU

Revenue to be spent on:
  • NSRL
  • Red-Blue Connector
  • Silver under D & Fleet Expansion
  • Indigo & Silver to Mattapan
  • Grand Junction CR or light rail
  • Lowell Line to Pheasant Lane / Haverhill line to NH border
  • HOV lanes on Rt 2/128 from Waltham/Bedford
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
The policy of bi-directional tolling, while it should allow us to make better, more even use of some facilities (by not imposing "toll bypass" traffic on Chelsea in strange ways), is really not enough to call it a test.

My concerns center on:
1) a congestion perimeter around the core with no free leaks (or higher parking charges both on-street or off, which at least deters commuter trips)

2) miles-and-congestion-based tolling that really lets NH commuters feel the price of every bit of capacity they consume when they choose (a) to use a lot of lane miles and (b) to do so at peak times. [Not just NH, really, but all suburbs: greater Billerica, greater Brockton, greater Framingham, greater Danvers. Sorry whigh, transport-wise, Lexingon is just part of greater Billerica ;-)]

Bi-directional tolls on Pike@Allston, Pike@Ted Williams, Sumner&Callahan, Tobin to/from, still have way too many leaks on 93 (north and south), 99 (from north), and Memorial/Storrow/9 (from west), and 2 (from northwest)

The Feds might never let me impose tolls on 93. If I could I'd put a toll at the Gas Tank (on the South) and at Medford (on the North).

I would define a congestion zone (which it costs top $ to enter (whether you park, deliver, carpool, or taxi/uber). Basically:
  • FiDi (but not residential North End)
  • Beacon Hill - MGH - West End
  • Seaport
  • Prudential (but not residential Back Bay)
  • MIT "decimal" buildings, MIT E-Buildings & Kendall-Galleria-Lechmere

And define special "costly-to-park" zones, where driving is unrestricted, but commuter parking is made very expensive. Basically:
  • Harvard Cambridge
  • Harvard Allston
  • MIT W00, NW00, N00 buildings
  • Longwood
  • Northeastern
  • BU

Revenue to be spent on:
  • NSRL
  • Red-Blue Connector
  • Silver under D & Fleet Expansion
  • Indigo & Silver to Mattapan
  • Grand Junction CR or light rail
  • Lowell Line to Pheasant Lane / Haverhill line to NH border
  • HOV lanes on Rt 2/128 from Waltham/Bedford
Click to expand...

Arlington -- I don't in principle have a problem with the concept

Of course as we all know not only is the "Devil in the Details" -- BUT -- there is the immutable "Doctrine of Unintended Consequences"

As a result I think that I would favor a gradually phased approach -- try some and see what happens -- in particular I'd lean on the private sector to build and operate some tolling and congestion testbeds

Finally the revenue raised from these kinds of things will not come close to paying for the NSRL -- that is something of another entire category

The rest of your hierarchy of projects you wish to fund somewhat suffers from the candy store with gramps effect -- i.e. the kid's eyes get real big when there seems to be a new unlimited source of funds

The Single most valuable and achievable Transit and Traffic mitigator -- Silver Line under D. This is a triple winner:
  • Silver Line doesn't have to deal with road traffic at an intersection that will only continue to congest as construction moves more that way
  • Improves surface traffic flow as there doesn't have to be any concern for a big long bus
  • Enables All Electric -- all underground service from South Station to a new Silver Line Way Under station -- with a Special Silver Line Way Shuttle independent of all the other routes

as a bonus the development potential for Silver Line Way air rights and the adjacent parking lot is substantial. It also comes with the further potential for branching an underground Silver Line to the Marine Industrial Park and Black Falcon -- although this is not trivial due to the Ted William Tunnel approach segment
 
Whigh I think congestion zones have been proven many times over to be both effective and low in negative impacts I don't see a need for phasing as if for some unknown reason an unusual and surprising negative externality appears it would be quite simple to just stop charging a fee. However I find the possibility of any issues to be unlikely.
 
citylover94 said:
Whigh I think congestion zones have been proven many times over to be both effective and low in negative impacts I don't see a need for phasing as if for some unknown reason an unusual and surprising negative externality appears it would be quite simple to just stop charging a fee. However I find the possibility of any issues to be unlikely.
Click to expand...

Citylover -- one issue is how much to incorporate withing the congestion pricing zone -- that's why you test it first on a small scale

You need for example to allow for the residents and their contractors to have ordinary access without a fee -- these people are not normally bringing cars into such a district except occasionally
 
whighlander said:
Citylover -- one issue is how much to incorporate withing the congestion pricing zone -- that's why you test it first on a small scale

You need for example to allow for the residents and their contractors to have ordinary access without a fee -- these people are not normally bringing cars into such a district except occasionally
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy now to incorporate this into your speed pass transponder. I know the garage behind my building does. Pretty simple. The contractors would be for a time period only. Resident's would as well, but longer period of time.
 
whighlander said:
You need for example to allow for the residents and their contractors to have ordinary access without a fee -- these people are not normally bringing cars into such a district except occasionally
Click to expand...
You don't need to do that, and probably shouldn't, particularly for contractors.

While the congestion charge raises the cash cost of doing business, it more than pays back any commercial vehicle in terms of staff-hours no longer spent in traffic (UPS/FedEx love it) and no longer spent circling the block or working odd hours to find parking.

In the end, it lowers the cost of doing business within the congestion zone, so no exemption is needed or wanted.

Residents schemes are pretty basic too:
1) Full exemption
2) Full exemption as long as they don't move
3) Full exepmtion as long as they don't cross a perimeter line

As I would draw the lines, these are very non-residential areas (see upthread) where I exclude North End & would exclude north-of-Newberry Back Bay and south-of-SW Corridor Park South End. Congestion zones focus on non-residential.
 
Last edited:
Seems that a lot of the conversation assumes that demand will remain steady or continue to grow if costs and times for transportation into the City are increased. Sure people might switch to public transportation, but more likely people will just not come into Boston if their costs/travel times go up too much.

Maybe that is fine. Just demand/congestion management. Cities are really about what people can walk around to, not driving or transit.

And I think in general it would be good to send more development to the regions other cities for a while. But these thought experiments shouldn't assume that jobs and people can't move away from Boston or that all growth is sustainable or even desirable.
 
tangent said:
Seems that a lot of the conversation assumes that demand will remain steady or continue to grow if costs and times for transportation into the City are increased. Sure people might switch to public transportation, but more likely people will just not come into Boston if their costs/travel times go up too much.

Maybe that is fine. Just demand/congestion management. Cities are really about what people can walk around to, not driving or transit.

And I think in general it would be good to send more development to the regions other cities for a while. But these thought experiments shouldn't assume that jobs and people can't move away from Boston or that all growth is sustainable or even desirable.
Click to expand...

THe argument against pushing development out to the regional cities is transit.

The regional development will, by definition, be more car dependent, and that is not a long-term sustainable concept. Concentrating development in a dense urban core makes the region less car dependent, hence more sustainable in the long term.

But you have to augment the transit option in the core along with the development. That is still easier than trying to create from scratch reasonable transit options in far flung regional centers. (And no, the sketchy bus service in these regional centers does not make a dent in this.)
 
Commuting to work in Burlington or Quincy or Taunton isn't going to get any easier, either.

Employers will choose a location that gives them best access to as many talented people as they need: the market is most liquid in the center.
 
JeffDowntown said:
THe argument against pushing development out to the regional cities is transit.

The regional development will, by definition, be more car dependent, and that is not a long-term sustainable concept. Concentrating development in a dense urban core makes the region less car dependent, hence more sustainable in the long term.

But you have to augment the transit option in the core along with the development. That is still easier than trying to create from scratch reasonable transit options in far flung regional centers. (And no, the sketchy bus service in these regional centers does not make a dent in this.)
Click to expand...

You don't need expensive rail transit to have dense downtowns in the regional cities where people can live and work in an economically sustainable city. You need walk-ability and a few buses to move around parts of town which are a bit too far to walk and that is it.

Car dependency is not an inherent ill. It is just another transportation option with plus and minuses like buses, trains, planes, bicycles, walking, wheelchairs.

And even the most rail friendly European countries are still dependent on cars. Cars are going to stay a pretty dominant part of the transportation mix for the foreseeable future.


Boston is not Manhattan and isn't likely to ever be like Manhattan with its efficient grid of streets and subways. Even if that were desirable. Boston has an urban core, a relatively close-in ring of less dense suburban residential areas and then a number of satellite cities which are between 20 minutes and an hour out depending on the time of day and the mode of transportation.

It makes sense to utilize the existing transportation networks and focus development not just in the center (which is getting harder and harder to build out more), but in the existing satellite cities with their own dense urban cores.

We just need enough job diversity within those cities to support living and working there. The only real issue with that from a transportation perspective is for families with multiple incomes that it is hard to have both jobs located in close proximity to home. But that is also a challenge in Boston, Cambridge, etc where jobs can be somewhat temporary and one year you have a 5 minute commute and the next you are 45 minutes away without the flexibility or any desire to relocate because you are settled into your neighborhood.
 
tangent said:
You don't need expensive rail transit to have dense downtowns in the regional cities where people can live and work in an economically sustainable city. You need walk-ability and a few buses to move around parts of town which are a bit too far to walk and that is it.

Car dependency is not an inherent ill. It is just another transportation option with plus and minuses like buses, trains, planes, bicycles, walking, wheelchairs.

And even the most rail friendly European countries are still dependent on cars. Cars are going to stay a pretty dominant part of the transportation mix for the foreseeable future.


Boston is not Manhattan and isn't likely to ever be like Manhattan with its efficient grid of streets and subways. Even if that were desirable. Boston has an urban core, a relatively close-in ring of less dense suburban residential areas and then a number of satellite cities which are between 20 minutes and an hour out depending on the time of day and the mode of transportation.

It makes sense to utilize the existing transportation networks and focus development not just in the center (which is getting harder and harder to build out more), but in the existing satellite cities with their own dense urban cores.

We just need enough job diversity within those cities to support living and working there. The only real issue with that from a transportation perspective is for families with multiple incomes that it is hard to have both jobs located in close proximity to home. But that is also a challenge in Boston, Cambridge, etc where jobs can be somewhat temporary and one year you have a 5 minute commute and the next you are 45 minutes away without the flexibility or any desire to relocate because you are settled into your neighborhood.
Click to expand...

I think that job density issus is huge though. It becomes a chicken and egg argument.
 
tangent said:
You don't need expensive rail transit to have dense downtowns in the regional cities where people can live and work in an economically sustainable city. You need walk-ability and a few buses to move around parts of town which are a bit too far to walk and that is it.

Car dependency is not an inherent ill. It is just another transportation option with plus and minuses like buses, trains, planes, bicycles, walking, wheelchairs.

And even the most rail friendly European countries are still dependent on cars. Cars are going to stay a pretty dominant part of the transportation mix for the foreseeable future.


Boston is not Manhattan and isn't likely to ever be like Manhattan with its efficient grid of streets and subways. Even if that were desirable. Boston has an urban core, a relatively close-in ring of less dense suburban residential areas and then a number of satellite cities which are between 20 minutes and an hour out depending on the time of day and the mode of transportation.

It makes sense to utilize the existing transportation networks and focus development not just in the center (which is getting harder and harder to build out more), but in the existing satellite cities with their own dense urban cores.

We just need enough job diversity within those cities to support living and working there. The only real issue with that from a transportation perspective is for families with multiple incomes that it is hard to have both jobs located in close proximity to home. But that is also a challenge in Boston, Cambridge, etc where jobs can be somewhat temporary and one year you have a 5 minute commute and the next you are 45 minutes away without the flexibility or any desire to relocate because you are settled into your neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Tangent -- well stated

One of the Greater Boston area's huge advantage over competing areas is the diversity of work and housing options

If you want to live and work in Boston / Cambridge you can, or you can commute into the core from a suburb or even a semi-rural outer suburb in a reasonable amount of time

However, if you should want to live in say Lexington and you work in say bio or high tech -- well you can work and live inside the boundaries of an affordable town or work / live just a town / city away -- alternatively you can live even further out and commute into Lexington/ Waltham / Burlington -- and while somewhat less easy you can even live inside the core and commute out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top