Which atrocious highway-on-the-Charles would you remove first?

[Matthew]

My only solution to this would to be constructing a tunnel for thru traffic underneath Storrow Drive. (I know a lot of you are going to say "Dont you remember the big dig?" Yes, I do, but I dont think adding more exits to the pike would be sufficient.) Above, a more narrow Storrow Drive could be constructed, along with bike paths and parks.

"Only solution"?

I mean look, if we're going to consider $10 billion 'solutions' then perhaps it might be wise to first consider cheaper alternatives.

How about putting tolls and charging the market price for using Storrow Drive, based on demand?

Oh yes, I can already anticipate all the objections: "Awww but c'mon, roads are meant to be FREE! You can't charge for freedom! We deserve to sit in traffic!"

Or, "politics will never allow charging for use of Storrow Drive."

I acknowledge politics, but I also acknowledge that it's incredibly irresponsible to ignore alternatives to a massively disruptive environmental nightmare that a full-length tunnel would be. And I think it's fair to put the order of magnitude cost at $10 billion to fully implement such a monster.

P.S. Welcome to archboston!

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'm all for tolling the highways. People don't appreciate what they get for free and the highways we have are falling apart and need rehabilitation. America has been coasting on the achievements of past generations too long and the unwillingness to raise the gas tax or toll highways is an entitled attitude that will doom us.

 

[George_Apley]

The last thing we should do is increase capacity on any of the river roads. They're filled with induced demand to the max as it is...

 

[whighlander]

Let's start with the must haves the rest can be debated after the Turnpike is fixed.

It is clear that the Pike has to be the 2 way connection between:
1) Logan
2) South Boston Innovation District
3) Back Bay
4) developing 'New Balance District"

To meet that requirement there needs to be;
1) W bound off-ramp to Back Bay
2) E bound-on ramp from Back Bay
3) better connectivity to New Balance area
4) replacement of all toll booths with 2 lanes of High Speed Open Road Tolling and 1 or 2 lanes for people without transponders --- in-bound only -- see I-95 in New Hampshire

This what I wrote 3+ years ago 08-31-2011, 04:43 PM

I'll stand by it except for the Open Road Tolling will be transponder and camera -- no human toll takers

I would add redesign of the Alston Toll area to service Harvard's Kendall-wanna-be and the Olympic Pool

 

[stefal]

"Only solution"?

I mean look, if we're going to consider $10 billion 'solutions' then perhaps it might be wise to first consider cheaper alternatives.

How about putting tolls and charging the market price for using Storrow Drive, based on demand?

Oh yes, I can already anticipate all the objections: "Awww but c'mon, roads are meant to be FREE! You can't charge for freedom! We deserve to sit in traffic!"

Or, "politics will never allow charging for use of Storrow Drive."

I acknowledge politics, but I also acknowledge that it's incredibly irresponsible to ignore alternatives to a massively disruptive environmental nightmare that a full-length tunnel would be. And I think it's fair to put the order of magnitude cost at $10 billion to fully implement such a monster.

P.S. Welcome to archboston!

Thanks!
I completely understand what you're saying; that's why I should have mentioned it was a crazy/Overly expensive solution. For the record, I did do a little research on the environmental aspects of tunneling next to a river like the Charles, and its possible; the Dutch did it; it just costs billions.

 

[ant8904]

"Only solution"?

I mean look, if we're going to consider $10 billion 'solutions' then perhaps it might be wise to first consider cheaper alternatives.

How about putting tolls and charging the market price for using Storrow Drive, based on demand?

Oh yes, I can already anticipate all the objections: "Awww but c'mon, roads are meant to be FREE! You can't charge for freedom! We deserve to sit in traffic!"

Or, "politics will never allow charging for use of Storrow Drive."

I acknowledge politics, but I also acknowledge that it's incredibly irresponsible to ignore alternatives to a massively disruptive environmental nightmare that a full-length tunnel would be. And I think it's fair to put the order of magnitude cost at $10 billion to fully implement such a monster.

P.S. Welcome to archboston!

1. I have thought about that before, it doesn't have to be full length buried tunnel. I remember my first post here (or one of the first) is basically platforming over short sections. How much if we just platform around BU Beach for one?

2. Why do we always have to clash on congestion tolling. Like that parking lot commuter rail or other times we talk about this. How does tolls truly address the problem? It manipulate behavior, but the same 20,000 people (or whatever the number) still number still need to be transported only now modified by disincentive of cost.**

 

[FitchburgLine]

For as long people believe that demand for auto trips is the ONLY COMMODITY ON EARTH apparently totally unaffected by cost (save housing *sigh*), we will continue having this stupid discussion. I'd love to see a proof of the complete price inelasticity of auto trips, and I imagine the Nobel economics committee would as well.
In all seriousness, we price mass transit to help pay for its costs, but apparently usage fees on far more expensive (from an externality standpoint) roads are apparently completely impossible.
Imagine if the MBTA decided to implement free fares on the green line, then was totally bewildered by excessive crowding and suggested spending billions of dollars to allow more free trips. This would be totally ridiculous; for roads its modus operandi.

 

[WormtownNative]

As far as tolls go, I am fine with it. But please, please PLEASE toll 93 if you're going to toll the Pike. As someone who commutes from Worcester to Malden, (and would take the T if I it meant I could be to work in an hour and a half, not just an hour and a half to South Station) I see the insane traffic levels that take their toll (not an intentional pun!) on the Pike and 93. We need to pay for those services. Cars and their necessary infrastructure are not free.

It could be argued that we place too much importance on the car and not enough emphasis on public transit. I know in Worcester this is particularly the case.

That said, toll booths suck. I love NH's system of high speed tolls with some regular toll booths for the people who don't have E-Z pass. The sooner MassDOT finishes installing the high speed tolls, the better. IMO, a couple gantries on I-93 would be great as well.

 

[fattony]

As far as tolls go, I am fine with it. But please, please PLEASE toll 93 if you're going to toll the Pike. As someone who commutes from Worcester to Malden, (and would take the T if I it meant I could be to work in an hour and a half, not just an hour and a half to South Station) I see the insane traffic levels that take their toll (not an intentional pun!) on the Pike and 93. We need to pay for those services. Cars and their necessary infrastructure are not free.

It could be argued that we place too much importance on the car and not enough emphasis on public transit. I know in Worcester this is particularly the case.

That said, toll booths suck. I love NH's system of high speed tolls with some regular toll booths for the people who don't have E-Z pass. The sooner MassDOT finishes installing the high speed tolls, the better. IMO, a couple gantries on I-93 would be great as well.

Great points. Even modest tolls can have a major impact on commute times and frivolous trips AND generates revenue. With the advent of open road tolling, the cost of implementing new tolls will go way down and hopefully we will see more. I believe there are new federal guidelines easing the restrictions on tolling interstates.

Republican governors tend to favor "fees" over "taxes" so ... let's hope Baker makes a move in this direction. Probably won't come up in a first term though...