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

[BPLange7]

Again Matthew, Congestion Pricing is not "something too-sensible-to-happen". If we do tolling, it is to cover the the cost of having the infrastructure, the cost to service the users. We should not use pricing to keep people from using it. Money does not just represent how strongly a user wants to use a service - thus pricing by congestion will just filter out the unnecessary usage, it will filter out that some people will be weighting against how much money they have to spend.

The ones with the most money will enjoy less traffic and would not be bothered weighting it against if the trip is really necessary. The ones with less with be calculating both the options to making the trip and resources. Again, that idea you push is not win-win (I recall that was part of your argument before) and not "something-too-sensible", it is not an idea is so plain obvious that it needs no argument.

This isn't a toll road in the middle of Western Mass we are talking about - There are several other transit options in the area for alternate usage that we should be driving people to use. How can we encourage people to take the T instead of driving when the toll is $1 and a T fare is $2? First, we need to be able to fund our infrastructure. After that, funds raised can go directly to public transit improvements. Its a positive feedback loop that drops the need for expensive highways in the future.

 

[fattony]

The ones with the most money will enjoy less traffic and would not be bothered weighting it against if the trip is really necessary. The ones with less with be calculating both the options to making the trip and resources. Again, that idea you push is not win-win (I recall that was part of your argument before) and not "something-too-sensible", it is not an idea is so plain obvious that it needs no argument.

You admit, right here, that congestion pricing will work. The only thing you don't seem to like about it is that rich(er) people will continue to use the road for frivolous trips while poor(er) people will be the ones removed from traffic.

Matthew makes an excellent point that the revenues from rich(er) or careless people making frivolous automobile trips can subsidize alternatives to auto use for the wider population.

You are making the case that is unfair that poor(er) people can't have the same luxuries (frivolous automobile trips) as rich(er) people. That is not reasonable and more importantly it is not working.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Again Matthew, Congestion Pricing is not "something too-sensible-to-happen". If we do tolling, it is to cover the the cost of having the infrastructure, the cost to service the users. We should not use pricing to keep people from using it. Money does not just represent how strongly a user wants to use a service - thus pricing by congestion will just filter out the unnecessary usage, it will filter out that some people will be weighting against how much money they have to spend.

Congestion pricing attempts to cover the costs of having the infrastructure. But not just the cost of repaving the road in 15 years. Also the costs drivers impose upon one another in the form of lost time or wasted fuel, and the negative externalities congestion creates (air pollution, etc.).
We do it for air travel and rail travel and utilities.

 

[bigeman312]

ant8904, do you also believe that every other commodity we use in daily life should only be priced based on cost to produce, and not on the market supply and demand?

Enjoy your long bread lines, Comrade.

For the record, congestion is a cost as well: it's a cost of not having the infrastructure be reliably available. Congestion pricing lowers the cost of congestion by exchanging time for money. In addition, the revenue from proper pricing can be used to subsidize very nice bus service, which is much more progressive than the status quo.

Right now, the highway facility is for all intents and purposes only available to people who own automobiles, with little dribbles of bus service (that gets stuck in traffic) by comparison. People who own automobiles tend to be richer than people who do not own automobiles. Therefore the status quo is regressive. For the vast majority of people, there is a very high priced tollgate on the highway: the cost of owning an automobile.

However, the implementation of congestion pricing and the use of revenue to provide good, high quality bus service, lowers the toll on the highway to that of a bus ticket.

In addition, even if you aren't rich, but rich enough to own a car, then getting stuck in traffic is still a high cost. Possibly even higher a cost than for a richer person. Usually, it is less affluent people who are more time-starved because their jobs are more stressful, and they have less control over their schedule. So perhaps under the status quo, the rich and the poor get stuck in the same traffic, but it may very well hurt the poor more. Regressive, as I said.

But as I said before, it's too-sensible-to-happen because people like you would rather sit, stew and rage in traffic -- and make up ridiculous excuses. Also, I suspect, for many drivers (likely not on this forum) the idea of doing something progressive such as enhanced bus service is distasteful. Might bring the "undesirables" to their community. You know, the usual NIMBY crap.

+1,000,000,000

Just so that I can add something, even though you eloquently stated what I believe to be true:

Using Google Map's "Typical Traffic" feature, the Allston Tolls should have Inbound Congestion Pricing:
M-Th - 7:30-10:00
F - 7:30-9:30

Even just raising the toll to $2.00 during these hours would be huge. Especially coupled with increased investment in the Framingham/Worcester Line. To be truly effective, investments need to be made in fixing the crossover/track issues between Beacon Park and Wellesley Farms.

 

[ant8904]

I operate what I think create the best effects. Not by whatever capitalism or communism or whatever ideology. A capitalistic maketizing approach or a communistic approach are all tools. When it comes to bread, the capitalistic system of private groups competing to selling bread has (mostly – at least in viewing there’s no lines and no one is starving, debatable of how we done in healthiness where some food companies have made some questionable stuff in the name of profit) worked.

When it comes to transportation, I do not view congestion pricing Comm Ave on market demand is the right approach. It’s not communistic, it about that it is not justified and unnecessary. Traffic and cars is shifting downwards organically anyways and despite our reputation, it is not so bad that I think it is needed. Not to mention weighting the cost of stress and productivity from waiting in traffic versus the cost of pricing needs something to compare if we are going to use the argument that the current system costs more via congestion.

Edit: I got 3 posts in the time I got to write this respond to Matthew. I will have to respond later now.

 

[bigeman312]

I think there is a distinction to be made between Comm. Ave and the Mass Pike.

Comm Ave is a public space that is part of our urban fabric. It is open for use by pedestrians, cyclists, cars, and people using public transportation. It should be treated as such.

Mass Pike is an exclusive, expensive, unsustainable right-of-way, that detracts from our urban fabric. It is overused and overcrowded by car-owners who have the membership to use this exclusive right-of-way, often at the detriment of those who do not have this membership, either by choice or by a lack of means. It should be treated as such.

I feel as if you know this and introduced Comm Ave as a Red Herring to detract from the actual argument at hand: congestion pricing on the Mass Pike.

Let's nip that Red Herring the bud and not discuss the obvious in-feasibility and undesirability of tolling Comm. Ave and actually discuss Mass Pike congestion-tolling in Boston and the inner suburbs.

 

[Matthew]

Comm Ave? I don't think there's enough call for that, unless we're talking about a London-style cordon system, which I would support but that's bigger. I thought we were talking about just the Pike.

My arguments have nothing to do with ideology either -- I'm interested in what works. And we know what kind of problem this is: a tragedy of the commons. And we know what the solution for that kind of problem is: market based pricing of the resource. We have abundant historical evidence to the fact that there is no other way known to deal with this kind of problem.

If you truly want to solve "congestion" in a way that will produce free flowing traffic then there is only one known way to do it. And I'm not saying that it's easy. There's a lot of details of the implementation that need to be worked out. But it fundamentally comes down to the fact that we have a scarce resource that is being overused because it costs too little.

The funny thing for me is that it really matters very little to me personally on a day-to-day basis whether or not the Mass Pike is properly priced in dollars, or whether drivers get stuck in traffic and pay the price in time wasted. For me, this is about the economically correct answer: you want something that works, here's what it is. I like efficiency, I guess it's the engineering nerd in me. But I'm not the one getting stuck in the traffic. I'm not the one trying to commute from the western burbs. I would like to see public transportation boosted with more bus options, and I would like to see all the problems with the Worcester line fixed, because it would be very good for all the people in the region. And I can appreciate that. And it would be nice to tell friends who drive that they can reliably count on the Mass Pike being uncongested. But I really have nothing to personally gain from fighting with stubborn drivers about congestion pricing. If you want to sit and stew in traffic, so be it. It's your loss.

 

[ant8904]

This isn't a toll road in the middle of Western Mass we are talking about - There are several other transit options in the area for alternate usage that we should be driving people to use. How can we encourage people to take the T instead of driving when the toll is $1 and a T fare is $2?

By not sucking is a good start. Cars has plenty of cost in-and-of itself that saying the T far is $2 and the toll $1 dollar that give much more comparable. Just noting and compare the fare and the toll price is lacking into the calculations of commuters on taking modes.

First, we need to be able to fund our infrastructure. After that, funds raised can go directly to public transit improvements. Its a positive feedback loop that drops the need for expensive highways in the future.

When I look at the funding numbers of the state. We taking in billions from many sources already. I think the state of our infrastructure reflect more from our government priorities than lack of funds. I asked before in a previous post at looking budget numbers and I ask again now that why we can't fund things now. The budget has grown bigger, but somehow we can't seem to do anything to funding infrastructure. Even if every dollar is spent right and we are choosing to stortstring infrastructure rather than other areas, why can't we shortstring a different area for once?

Matthew makes an excellent point that the revenues from rich(er) or careless people making frivolous automobile trips can subsidize alternatives to auto use for the wider population.

You are making the case that is unfair that poor(er) people can't have the same luxuries (frivolous automobile trips) as rich(er) people. That is not reasonable and more importantly it is not working.

I find this far too black and white. Car trips are not only frivolous and un-frivolous. And I don't think it takes enough account of wealth. Aside from the above that I believe we have a priority problem than true funding constraints, the great amount affected would be middle rather than the poor.

Congestion pricing attempts to cover the costs of having the infrastructure. But not just the cost of repaving the road in 15 years. Also the costs drivers impose upon one another in the form of lost time or wasted fuel, and the negative externalities congestion creates (air pollution, etc.).
We do it for air travel and rail travel and utilities.

Long distance air and rail travel are different from local distance commuter traffic. Utilities are heavily regulated to keep as close as possible towards providing at cost rather than at profit-motivated capitalism (and when left to free-reign towards profit-motivated capitalism, we got Enron. Come to think of it, our cable and internet has been similar to this too though on a lesser scale so far).

 

[ant8904]

I feel as if you know this and introduced Comm Ave as a Red Herring to detract from the actual argument at hand: congestion pricing on the Mass Pike.

I been here long enough I think I can state that I don't arguing using red herrings (at least intentionally) trying to derail topics like a troll. I said Comm ave before of the quote below.

For the record, I often see the EB evening backup from atop Comm Ave in passing. I find it amusingly notable that the so-called "peak" direction is almost always flowing freely, while the "reverse-peak" is almost always slow. But as CSTH said, it's due to the interchange, and there's basically nothing that can be done about it, beyond something too-sensible-to-happen like congestion pricing.

That is why. I read the interchange to mean Kenmore Sq. and the solution to its congestion is congestion tolling.

Let's nip that Red Herring the bud and not discuss the obvious in-feasibility and undesirability of tolling Comm. Ave and actually discuss Mass Pike congestion-tolling in Boston and the inner suburbs.

Mass Pike tolling with prices based on time of day has some merits. I won't agree it's so sensible and obvious that it's fall in the category as "too-sensible-to-happen". But I can agree its possible enough good outweigh the bad.

 

[ant8904]

Comm Ave? I don't think there's enough call for that, unless we're talking about a London-style cordon system, which I would support but that's bigger. I thought we were talking about just the Pike.

Post above noted why I said Comm Ave. Personally, I don't think Boston needs a cordon system. We have traffic problems, but I don't see it's bad enough for that. But I need to look at numbers between Boston and London before I really stand by that.

My arguments have nothing to do with ideology either -- I'm interested in what works. And we know what kind of problem this is: a tragedy of the commons. And we know what the solution for that kind of problem is: market based pricing of the resource. We have abundant historical evidence to the fact that there is no other way known to deal with this kind of problem.

If you truly want to solve "congestion" in a way that will produce free flowing traffic then there is only one known way to do it. And I'm not saying that it's easy. There's a lot of details of the implementation that need to be worked out. But it fundamentally comes down to the fact that we have a scarce resource that is being overused because it costs too little.

That's depends on the objective here. Do we want to fully solve "congestion"? No one like a traffic jam, but for some it might be preferable to deal with some traffic than get priced out. Remember you said congestion is an equilibrium? Keep in mind not all levels of congestion are the same, an equilibrium of minimal congestion. Yes, the paradox of building stuff can and will induce demand, but congestion of a 1 lane road versus 2 lane (there's more nuances than that, but I'm not to add extra paragraphs to note choke points and etc) are not the same congestion.

The funny thing for me is that it really matters very little to me personally on a day-to-day basis whether or not the Mass Pike is properly priced in dollars, or whether drivers get stuck in traffic and pay the price in time wasted. For me, this is about the economically correct answer: you want something that works, here's what it is. I like efficiency, I guess it's the engineering nerd in me. But I'm not the one getting stuck in the traffic. I'm not the one trying to commute from the western burbs. I would like to see public transportation boosted with more bus options, and I would like to see all the problems with the Worcester line fixed, because it would be very good for all the people in the region. And I can appreciate that. And it would be nice to tell friends who drive that they can reliably count on the Mass Pike being uncongested. But I really have nothing to personally gain from fighting with stubborn drivers about congestion pricing. If you want to sit and stew in traffic, so be it. It's your loss.

This is not the first time you bring up the argument. Mentioning you have no skin in this has always bother me. And I think I can better articulate it this time where I was mum before. Doesn't this argument can also may mean you are too removed? It can mean you're being impartial, but can also mean you saying you won't be affect either way that you can't judge from that point of view.

That said, this can basically be broken to "paying with time" versus "paying with money". Commoditization to "paying with money" as the primary element is not something I think plainly obvious at the optimal. I should note that optimal is more than just continual free-flowing traffic.

 

[Matthew]

That's depends on the objective here. Do we want to fully solve "congestion"? No one like a traffic jam, but for some it might be preferable to deal with some traffic than get priced out. Remember you said congestion is an equilibrium? Keep in mind not all levels of congestion are the same, an equilibrium of minimal congestion. Yes, the paradox of building stuff can and will induce demand, but congestion of a 1 lane road versus 2 lane (there's more nuances than that, but I'm not to add extra paragraphs to note choke points and etc) are not the same congestion.

Perhaps that's why we get nowhere. People don't really want to "solve congestion."

Anyway, I will reiterate: congestion pricing opens the door for an expansion of really good public transportation options that make the Mass Pike more accessible for people with less money, and people who really cannot afford to drive (whether or not they have a car). Using the highway for more and better bus service is much less regressive than the status quo of having it be a morass of private cars.

Furthermore, data seem to show that highway congestion could be alleviated by diverting just a few percent of the total volume. I'm quite sure that we could easily find a few percent of current users of the Mass Pike who would happily use better bus and train options if they were available. Or shift their trips to less crowded times of day. I think it's quite possible that tolls could be reduced BELOW current levels during several times of day.

That said, this can basically be broken to "paying with time" versus "paying with money". Commoditization to "paying with money" as the primary element is not something I think plainly obvious at the optimal. I should note that optimal is more than just continual free-flowing traffic.

I can accept that there are other goals for transportation facilities than zero congestion. But a congestion pricing-based toll scheme, I argue, is much better for achieving goals such as equitable access, pollution reduction, maintenance, and the improvement of the surrounding urban environment.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Recent work at McMaster University by Matthias Sweet demonstrates that congestion places a significant drag on regional economies (so is worth trying to mitigate). It impedes both job growth and productivity growth.

The modeling of US city data suggests remedies that are being discussed above:

Results suggest that the strict policy focus on travel time savings may be misplaced and, instead, better outlooks for managing congestion’s economic drag lie in prioritising the economically most important trips (perhaps through road pricing) or in providing alternative travel capacity to enable access despite congestion.

 

[cozzyd]

It's too bad the Worcester line doesn't have a good park and ride near 128. The price of parking could fluctuate inversely with the cost of the tolls.

 

[underground]

It's too bad the Worcester line doesn't have a good park and ride near 128.

It will if they loop the DMU route down to Riverside as currently planned.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It will if they loop the DMU route down to Riverside as currently planned.

Eh? There's already been a park-and-ride there for 65 years. It's called the D Line.

The Indigo proposal to Riverside is primarily an enhancer for existing transit users who either don't have enough bus connectivity or bus frequency in Newton. It's not going to draw anyone off the D, or have more than trace effect on overall Pike traffic.


Now...if you want to draw some cars off the Pike, Indigo up the Fitchburg Line, plunk that 128 park-and-ride at Routes 20/117, and don't pussyfoot with the headways. That's where the backups coming on/off the Pike interchange stretch to every day on the NW quadrant of 128. Cut those volumes off at the pass and it'll make a tangible difference.

 

[underground]

Eh? There's already been a park-and-ride there for 65 years. It's called the D Line.

Right, but he's asking about the commuter rail.

It's not going to draw anyone off the D,

It can take 90 mins to ride the D to/from downtown during rush. Compare that to a CR making a handful of stops. Seriously, Riverside to Downtown is a slow and painful death. CR to/from a Riverside stop will be ~20 relatively pain free minutes. I guess the ultimate decider is what the pricing is like.

Now...if you want to draw some cars off the Pike, Indigo up the Fitchburg Line, plunk that 128 park-and-ride at Routes 20/117, and don't pussyfoot with the headways.

Oh, hell yeah. That's already on my project shortlist for when I'm made Benevolent Dictator of Massachusetts. Once it's done, Waltham is the new Somerville (is the new Cambridge) instead of Medford, Everett, or whatever else the real estate blogs are pimping these days.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Right, but he's asking about the commuter rail.

Well...commuter rail is irrelevant at 128-proper. The Worcester Line is for diverting MetroWest traffic well before it hits the Weston tolls. That's where you currently can't throw enough rush-hour trains to satiate demand. They already pack 7-car bi-level trains full of sardines at rush hour. They just need more/faster/less-unreliable service from whence that came from, and the overdue investment in track infrastructure to make that happen.

Diversions off 128 before that traffic hits the Pike really have to happen at the 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock positions around the beltway to have a tangible effect on lowering volumes at the Weston tolls and into Newton. Needham you don't have any good options for unless you're willing to do the Green Line spur to Highland Ave. But Waltham/20/117 is very practical for that and the inner Fitchburg Line's got tons of unused capacity, connecting buses at every stop, and transfers to 3 out of 4 subway lines on the last 2 stops. So of course...Waltham's nowhere to be found on that 2024 magic pixie dust fantasy map.

It can take 90 mins to ride the D to/from downtown during rush. Compare that to a CR making a handful of stops. Seriously, Riverside to Downtown is a slow and painful death. CR to/from a Riverside stop will be ~20 relatively pain free minutes. I guess the ultimate decider is what the pricing is like.

7 minute headways beats 15 minutes...every...single...time.

Auburndale-South Station takes 28 minutes for 6 stops. Now add 4 more stops: West Station, New Balance, Newton Corner, and Riverside. It's not going to be less than 45 minutes per rush hour trip under Indigo.

Does Green frequently suck? Yes. Will Indigo draw many people away from Green? No. Definitely not when ability to transfer to every subway line and other GL branch gets factored in. Riverside's not the key stop for that route...the Newtons and Allstons who don't have better options except shitty buses are. Indigo and the D do entirely separate things.

 

[underground]

Sorry, I'm not following this discussion. Dude said it would be great if there was a Worcester Line park and ride near 128, and I said there would be. I don't disagree with you at all, but I'm not sure what it has to do with whether or not there will be a Worcester Line park and ride at 128. Which there will be if that project gets done as planned.

 

[Equilibria]

Diversions off 128 before that traffic hits the Pike really have to happen at the 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock positions around the beltway to have a tangible effect on lowering volumes at the Weston tolls and into Newton. Needham you don't have any good options for unless you're willing to do the Green Line spur to Highland Ave. But Waltham/20/117 is very practical for that and the inner Fitchburg Line's got tons of unused capacity, connecting buses at every stop, and transfers to 3 out of 4 subway lines on the last 2 stops. So of course...Waltham's nowhere to be found on that 2024 magic pixie dust fantasy map.

Unless you think the traffic is coming from Weston, Wayland and Marlborough on 20 or entirely from the North on 128, the question should be whether you can take more traffic off of the Pike by providing DMU service to Porter and North or Yawkey, Back Bay, and South. They're entirely different commuting markets.

You want to talk about a trace effect on Pike traffic, let's look at the number of commuters willing to transfer from a train to a bus after driving to a park-and-ride.

 

[cozzyd]

7 minute headways beats 15 minutes...every...single...time.

Auburndale-South Station takes 28 minutes for 6 stops. Now add 4 more stops: West Station, New Balance, Newton Corner, and Riverside. It's not going to be less than 45 minutes per rush hour trip under Indigo.

Well, that's with a big train before track improvements. The distance is only ~11 miles. 1 minute / stop + 30mph average between stops gives you roughly a half hour trip. The O-Train DMU in Ottawa travels 5 miles (with 5 stops) in 12 minutes, so a half hour trip doesn't seem unreasonable.