Congestion toll in Boston?

[statler]

Traffic toll eyed
Congestion toll charge considered for rush-hour commute

BOSTON. Boosting tolls during rush hour and video tolling are two options that may be implemented when the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority replaces its aging toll system in the next few years, transportation officials said yesterday.

With its Fast Lane system now 10 years old and its cash collection system in place for more than 50 years, the agency has been looking to dramatically upgrade its toll collection technology and improve its old methods.

According to Turnpike official Steve Jacques, many options are being considered to both improve riders? commutes and bring in additional revenue. Over the next 20 years, the state?s transportation system is facing a shortfall of nearly $19 billion.

Under congestion pricing, commuters would be charged more during rush hour, while video tolling would capture drivers? license plates and bill the owners monthly. In addition, another option considered is ?open road? tolls, which allow drivers to avoid booths altogether but track the distance they travel using transponders.

Not all the options will be used, according to Turnpike officials, but it is important the new toll software have state-of-the-art technology. The companies that will be considered by the Turnpike must have these capabilities to win the bid, said Jacques.

?If the board elects to implement congestive pricing somewhere the future, we will be able to handle it. Today, the vendor can?t handle it,? Jacques said. ?Part of the menu that we?re sending out ... we want to have all the new advancements that are available, so you don?t ever have to go back.?

A request for proposals for the project will be issued later this year. The hiring will likely not occur until mid-2008 and implementation of the new system would happen in 2009.
In addition to collection system changes, fares on the Mass Pike will also jump starting in January. Officials will recommend what those hikes will be next month. Then, after a series of public hearings, the board will vote on the hikes in October, according to Mary Jane O?Meara, the Turnpike Authority?s acting executive director.
Greg St. Martin
Link (http://www.metrobostonnews.com/us/article/2007/08/22/04/3820-72/index.xml)

[Ron Newman]

NYC is working on something like this. I'd prefer to let them shake the bugs out of the system first.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Does Boston really need congestion pricing? Would you just charge people once they cross Mass Ave from the South and West and when they come in from Cambridge and Charlestown?

NYC needs it desperately but we can also handle it. How would the T handle the extra load?

[czsz]

Doesn't this amount to admitting there were far, far cheaper means to reduce traffic in the city than burying and expanding the 93?

NYC is working on something like this. I'd prefer to let them shake the bugs out of the system first.

London has had it for years; it's the model New York is working off of. No need to wait to see how it plays out in Manhattan as well.

[kennedy]

One of the best traffic/toll systems I ever saw was in Florida. The sunshine pass or whatnot. For FastLane, we need to slow down to go through, but the Sunshine Pass lane, no slowdown is necessary. They go right through there 60+. Miami has their traffic systems down, and as with the parking prices, I'm all for congestion pricing. Encourage the T to grow. And carpool, it would be good for the enviroment.

[JoeSixpack]

Just when, I wonder, did the state decide they were a for profit entity?

This is crazy. That a price gouging structure would be implemented for the use of a public thoroughfare is insane.

There is not even any process in place, that I know of, which would legally keep these collected funds for being sucked into the general fund.

Just like the "sin" taxes charged, this is an unfair collection of funds from a few to boost the coffers, by means of a shortsighted enthusiasm of the disaffected.

Why on Earth should the Transit system be subsidized, and the existing roadways taxed? Why should corporations be given incentives to open shop, and the employees be charged more to go to work?

In a day and age when our roadways need significant and continued maintenance, this seems to drive the congestion toward the secondary roads, which are under valued and under maintained to begin with.

[jass]

Fantastic, this would mean suburbanites who barely find a need to come downtown will no longer enter the city at all.

Long live suburban strip malls.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Just when, I wonder, did the state decide they were a for profit entity?

When they had bills to pay and all the people who used to pay taxes left for the suburbs.


This is crazy. That a price gouging structure would be implemented for the use of a public thoroughfare is insane.

The Pike is not a public thoroughfare, it is a turnpike, which by definition is built to make money from people using its convenience.


There is not even any process in place, that I know of, which would legally keep these collected funds for being sucked into the general fund.

In Mass, this is a legitimate concern.


Why on Earth should the Transit system be subsidized, and the existing roadways taxed? Why should corporations be given incentives to open shop, and the employees be charged more to go to work?

Do you want to pay higher taxes to pay for better service or pay to drive into the city and the money go to fixing roads and transit? Or do you want to keep all your money and have all the infrastructure you need to get to work fall apart?


In a day and age when our roadways need significant and continued maintenance, this seems to drive the congestion toward the secondary roads, which are under valued and under maintained to begin with.

This won't drive congestion to other roads, it will stop some people from driving and thus ease the congestion, which is the real point.

[czsz]

all the people who used to pay taxes left for the suburbs

I could be wrong, but the suburbs are still in the state (well, mostly), no?

[vanshnookenraggen]

I was referring to people leaving Boston, specifically.

[jass]

Tolls are unfair and create boundaries. A gas tax affects only those who drive most.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Tolls are unfair and create boundaries.

Only when they are mandatory. You don't HAVE to use the Pike, you could take Route 9. You are paying a premium for convenience.

A gas tax affects only those who drive most.

Gas tax goes into paying for upkeep of roads so saying it is unfair is ludicrous. You wanna repair potholes yourself?

Also, that is sort of the point, to get people to drive less.

[czsz]

He wasn't saying the gas tax was unfair. He was saying it's fairer than congestion pricing, since it effectively taxes the amount you drive, and not where you drive.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Ok, but you are still paying for the convenience of driving in a city with less cars. It also helps the pedestrian and biker who are usually an after thought when it comes to traffic planning.

[jass]

He wasn't saying the gas tax was unfair. He was saying it's fairer than congestion pricing, since it effectively taxes the amount you drive, and not where you drive.

Exactly.

Congestion pricing would make a line around Boston, and many people who simply choose not to cross it. Its like the state tax thing at the border. People simply cross into NH to shop. This would work the opposite way, people would stop coming downtown. They wouldnt ride the T, theyd simply shop elsewhere.

Meanwhile, gas tax means the people who want to live in the suburbs have to pay wherever they go.

[belmont square]

Congestion pricing would make a line around Boston, and many people who simply choose not to cross it.

A congestion charge will certainly result in fewer people coming into Boston, but how dramatic would the change be? If you're traveling into downtown today from the North Shore via Route 1 or Route 1A, or from the west via Pike, you're already paying at least $3 to enter Boston. Since you can't assume an on street parking space in downtown or the Back Bay, you're probably looking at a minimum $10 to park while you're shopping (or $20+ if you're parking for 8 hours while working).

It's not like a congestion charge will take us from $0 to whatever the congestion charge will be. It already costs at least $10 to drive into Boston from the burbs when you factor in parking.

[nico]

If the method doesn't involve tolls and the slowing/stopping of traffic, will the charge be applied on 93?

[vanshnookenraggen]

Probably not. In NYC the charge won't affect people who are just passing through or abound the edges. If a congestion charge was installed in Boston then there would probably just be cameras at the on/off ramps on I-93.

[nico]

^
Just passing through? What makes you think that 93 is any different than Rt. 1 on the north of Boston (which is the same road as 93 through Boston)?
93 isn't a bypass road; it's not like 128/95...it goes straight through the heart of downtown. If anyone should pay a toll, it's people on 93. On winter mornings traffic backs up at least to Spot Pond in Stoneham, and on occasion all the way to the New Hampshire border. Traffic is always horrendous coming into the city on 93 from the south; yet when you're going against traffic in either direction it's a breeze. People aren't passing through, they're using 93 just as they would use Rt. 1 or the pike.

[briv]

From the NY Times:


April 1, 2008
City Council Approves Fee to Drive Below 60th

By DIANE CARDWELL (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/diane_cardwell/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

The controversial proposal to charge drivers in the busiest parts of Manhattan took a major step forward on Monday, with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Speaker Christine C. Quinn (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/q/christine_c_quinn/index.html?inline=nyt-per) wrenching approval from the City Council by an unusually slim margin.

Under intense pressure from the mayor, Ms. Quinn and their allies that continued almost until the voting began, council members approved the plan to charge most drivers $8 to enter a zone below 60th Street by a vote of 30 to 20, with no abstentions and one absence.

At a news conference after the vote, where Mr. Bloomberg made a rare appearance on the speaker?s side of City Hall, officials sought to play down the narrowness of their hard-won victory, among the closest of this administration in a body that typically votes in near unanimity.

Approving the proposal, Ms. Quinn said, would send a message to the Legislature that the ?people who were elected to represent the New Yorkers who live in our five boroughs are sick and tired of our streets being clogged with traffic, we?re sick and tired of the children who live in our city literally having to fight to be able to breathe, and that we see congestion pricing as a solution to this problem.?

But the ultimate fate of the proposal now resides in Albany, where the intentions of lawmakers whose approval is needed remained unclear. Gov. David A. Paterson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_a_paterson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_l_bruno/index.html?inline=nyt-per), have expressed their support. But Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/sheldon_silver/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who has derailed Mr. Bloomberg?s ambitions in the past, remained noncommittal, telling members of the Democratic conference on Sunday night that he would not take the issue up until the state budget was completed.

If the Assembly waits to act until after the budget, it could threaten the bill?s chances in the Senate, because it would come before the Legislature as a stand-alone item, making approval more elusive. Several council members complained as they voted that the mayor had reneged on a promise that they would not be asked to take up the measure until the State Legislature had agreed to support the proposal.

But other council members took the vote as a sign that Mr. Silver would ultimately back the plan, since Ms. Quinn had said privately that she would not call for a vote until she had an indication that it would gain approval from the state.

But Mr. Silver said that he had made no such assurance.
?I told her it?s not before us until they vote on it,? he said. ?And we will deal with the issue after we pass a budget.?

Speaking to reporters with Ms. Quinn, Mr. Bloomberg seemed particularly defensive about Mr. Silver. Asked if they had any indication that leaders in Albany would approve the proposal, Ms. Quinn said that she had received calls from Mr. Paterson and Mr. Bruno urging that the Council ?move as quickly as possible and do what we did today, so I thought that was a very good sign.?

In response to a question about Mr. Silver, though, Mr. Bloomberg approached the lectern, sidestepped the question and then cut off the line of inquiry, saying they could not speak for Albany leaders.

Technically, the Council approved a measure known as a home rule message, which is a request for the State Legislature to pass the plan as outlined in a bill introduced into the Senate. The Legislature has until April 7 to approve the program or risk losing roughly $350 million in federal money to help offset the costs of starting the plan. Mr. Bloomberg has said that much of that money would go toward increasing bus service in underserved areas.

Although the administration and the Council?s leadership were able to gain support with promises of programs, projects and political aid in upcoming campaigns ? as well as threats of taking those things away ? opposition remained strong. Several council members argued that it was unfair to essentially tax residents to move around their own city, that even after they voted to support the proposal, the Legislature could approve a different version, and that revenues would not necessarily go toward the promised transit improvements.

?This plan, while wrapped up in three incredibly important and laudable goals,? including cleaning the air, reducing traffic and paying for mass transit, said Lewis A. Fidler, a Brooklyn councilman who strongly opposed the plan, ?is designed to deter people from coming into a part of the city if they can?t afford it.?

He added: ?What?s next? We?re going to charge a user fee to come into Central Park because it?s crowded??

Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting.
LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/nyregion/01congestion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

[vanshnookenraggen]

Yes but of course Albany is probably going to shoot this down. It is times like this I wish the city was it's own thing, like DC only with actual representation. This is where having the capitol in the major city is helpful.

[Lrfox]

He added: ?What?s next? We?re going to charge a user fee to come into Central Park because it?s crowded??

^Yeah... that's probably what they'll do.

This would be a smart move for Boston as well. London has one of these and the two people from the London area I've discussed it with are very supportive (though, they are on the progressive thinking end when it comes to city planning/ mass transit). I think it's only logical that Manhattan would be the first adopt this type of policy in the U.S. and Boston would have to do some upgrading to the mass transit system, but it's not unreasonable at all.

My biggest question would be how do they go about enforce it? I'm not so sure the people on the Upper East Side would particularly receptive to toll booths stretched across the avenues, but how else to do it? The ensuing back ups would be terrible (albeit probably no worse than they already are). Does anyone have any clue on how Manhattan proposes to to go about setting this up? it should be easy to do on the bridges and the tunnels, but I'm really curious to how they go about doing this on the avenues.

[jass]

Same as london, no physical barriers, just cameras that take pictures of license plates.

[Lurker]

If you thought nepotism and graft was bad in the city, wait until all the cash from congestion charge gets poured into the trough. I see such a fee as a big incentive for people to stay in the suburbs and other places which aren't regulated. London is large enough and critical enough to get away with such robbery, but fat chance of it working as planned here.

[Lrfox]

^But if you only block off the central parts of the city, people will drive as far as the nearest accessible commuter rail or rapid transit stop much like many already do today. I think you would see those suburbanites driving to stations like Wellington, Quincy Adams, Quincy Center with more frequency (which would mean larger/updated parking at the suburban stops), etc instead of all the way in. Of course, the ones who don't mind paying the fee and can afford itwill continue to drive in; but it will encourage more carpooling ($8 split 4 ways = $2 a head) and reduce the vehicular traffic in the core of the city.

I just can't see a fee on cars affecting a city like Boston (despite its relative size to NYC or London) negatively considering its relatively vast mass transit system. You really think charging drivers to enter the city center would keep people out? Most of those people rely on the city for work, healthcare, etc. and would continue to do so, even if it meant altering their method of commute. If anything, a congestion toll could help increase support for mass transit improvements. Also, for the shoppers and suburban families, lift the tolls on the weekends, traffic isn't nearly as heavy on a normal Sat. or Sun (or holiday) as it is during the week. Hell, maybe it could only be in effect from 6am-7 or 8pm Mon-Fri. I doubt it would deter people from going into town though.

[Matthew]

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson_how_to_solve_traffic_jams.html

Very nice short presentation on Stockholm's experience. After the [equivalent of] 1-2 Euro charge was instituted, 20% of traffic just disappeared overnight, and this improvement has persisted. When they did take away the congestion charge, the traffic congestion re-appeared almost immediately. So it was re-voted back into place, and since then the popularity of the idea went from 70% against to 70% in favor of the tolls.

[Kahta]

There's already a pretty heavy congestion charge in the form of time for anyone traveling on I-93 at peak times, and it could be argued that the cost of parking serves as a congestion charge.

[MBTAddict]

There's already a pretty heavy congestion charge in the form of time for anyone traveling on I-93 at peak times, and it could be argued that the cost of parking serves as a congestion charge.

People flood the road causing that traffic because the cost of parking is low enough for it to be worth it.

The idea of congestion pricing is to remove enough cars from the road so that the ones that are left get a nice, easy ride to and from the city. I don't understand why more people who prefer to drive aren't willing to pay to have their ride be that much nicer.

[omaja]

There's already a pretty heavy congestion charge in the form of time for anyone traveling on I-93 at peak times, and it could be argued that the cost of parking serves as a congestion charge.

One could argue that... but then again, another would argue that clearly neither time nor parking is valued high enough to reach an equilibrium. Traffic in Boston is still atrocious even with long travel times and high parking rates.

[kmp1284]

Congestion pricing would serve more to disincentive people from coming into Boston than it would function as a viable revenue stream. It might be a deterrent for cars, but it would also be a deterrent for people who would visit the city to conduct business/shop/dine/etc. Boston is not London or Singapore. It's not that hot of a commodity that you can get away with taxing people to the hilt and they'll keep coming back for more.

[jass]

Congestion pricing would serve more to disincentive people from coming into Boston than it would function as a viable revenue stream. It might be a deterrent for cars, but it would also be a deterrent for people who would visit the city to conduct business/shop/dine/etc. Boston is not London or Singapore. It's not that hot of a commodity that you can get away with taxing people to the hilt and they'll keep coming back for more.

Yes, these people will just go to the theaters, world renowned museums, famous shopping street and 5 star restaurants in worcester.

[Matthew]

Stockholm is London?

It's not intended as a revenue source. It's 1-2 euro, so maybe $1 here.

The funny thing is that 20% of the traffic suddenly disappeared, and if you watched the presentation, you'd know that it's a complete mystery as to where it went.

People in surveys swore that they did not change their habits. Yet the traffic was gone. And when the toll was removed, the traffic returned almost instantly.

Watch the video, it's only 6 minutes.

[kmp1284]

theaters

Not many people go more than once a year.

world renowned museums

There's only one of those.


famous shopping street

Everything worthwhile can be had in Natick.


5 star restaurants

I don't think Boston has any.

[statler]

And yet people will still spend millions of dollars to live here.

Weirdos.

[underground]

Everything worthwhile can be had in Natick.

Intentional or not, I nominate this for "High Comedy Post of the Year."

[KentXie]

I just did a research paper on Vickrey, the father of congestion pricing and about the system implemented in London. Here's an article that explains it very neatly

http://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf

If the extra fee can go into public transportation improvement like London, then this is definitely something Boston should consider. According to the article, many businesses saw an uptick in activity after the implementation, proving that it would not provide a disincentive to travel to the city center (not surprisingly as tourists are more likely to take public transportation than to drive around the city, thus they are relatively unaffected by the fee and, since the fee goes into public transportation, they get to enjoy the new improvements. Don't let other people try mislead you by saying it will scare people away.)

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Congestion pricing would serve more to disincentive people from coming into Boston than it would function as a viable revenue stream. It might be a deterrent for cars, but it would also be a deterrent for people who would visit the city to conduct business/shop/dine/etc. Boston is not London or Singapore. It's not that hot of a commodity that you can get away with taxing people to the hilt and they'll keep coming back for more.

Most of the people that come into the city to shop or dine are not driving in at 8:30AM and leaving at 5:00PM. They, presumably, aren't the targets of the Congestion Toll. And if they were planning to travel during those times, they may change their behavior for these non-essential trips (Voila! The toll worked!!).
People coming into the city for business don't really have a choice. They can either change their behavior (commuter rail, MBTA, rearrange meetings, etc.) or pay the toll for the luxury of spending less time in traffic (again, the toll worked!!).
And spare me the, "Businesses will all move to Waltham" routine. Office vacancies in Boston don't spike every time the Pike toll increases.

[KentXie]

Most of the people that come into the city to shop or dine are not driving in at 8:30AM and leaving at 5:00PM. They, presumably, aren't the targets of the Congestion Toll. And if they were planning to travel during those times, they may change their behavior for these non-essential trips (Voila! The toll worked!!).
People coming into the city for business don't really have a choice. They can either change their behavior (commuter rail, MBTA, rearrange meetings, etc.) or pay the toll for the luxury of spending less time in traffic (again, the toll worked!!).
And spare me the, "Businesses will all move to Waltham" routine. Office vacancies in Boston don't spike every time the Pike toll increases.

Well said.

[JohnAKeith]

I agree, it's "congestion" pricing - so, only when there's congestion.

I was waiting for the "if we raise the price of going to Boston, people will stop going there" argument.

We don't live in 1970. The city today has a vibrant class of people who live and work here. It can exist / succeed without all the suburbanites.

People will go elsewhere for the cultural activities? I'll believe it when they open the Museum of Fine Arts, Billerica.

I remember John Sununu when governor of NH said something like hosted a bunch of people from around the country and took them out to a great restaurant and a show ... in Boston, Massachusetts.

[kmp1284]

We don't live in 1970. The city today has a vibrant class of people who live and work here. It can exist / succeed without all the suburbanites.

No, it really can't. A few hundred formerly wealthy old wasps and Jews, Hipster pricks, uppity gays and probably two hundred thousand on the dole is not a sustainable population model.

[Shepard]

Kmp - I demand proof of your boundless wealth and casper skin tone via timestamped pic with personalized message to Ab.

Otherwise I suspect you're a gay black teenager living on his mothers sofa in the projects with nothing to do all day but troll here.

[massmotorist]

There are problems with congestion pricing. They have nothing to do with the economic theory of it. This thread contains lots of confused people, on both sides.

First off, civil liberties. In order to do it properly, it would need to apply to all roads, not just interstates. Otherwise you're just going to push traffic to secondary roads. The only way of accomplishing this in practice is by ubiquitous government surveillance of some kind, whether through GPS or other means.

Secondly, in order for it to be nimble enough to work, pricing would need to set administratively, so the barriers to price increases would be very low. And, inevitably, administrators would be squeezed between institutional incentives to maximize revenue and political pressure to keep pricing low. You'd get the worst of both worlds. Some level of pricing during the 18+ hours per day when the roadway is below maximum throughput, and not-high-enough pricing during peak hours.

But let's be reality-based here: if you set aside civil liberties concerns, and it if were administered by some incorruptible benevolent dictator, such a scheme would increase actual economic welfare of the people of this state significantly. Maximum vehicle throughput occurs between 45 and 65 mph. The goal of the scheme would be to make sure speeds never fall below 45 mph during the ~4-6 hours a day where that can occur.

So it would allow more cars to come into the city. Get it? This is why it boggles my mind that urbanists/ped/bicyclist groups favor such a plan so much. Its purpose is to increase vehicle operating speeds during peak hours and maximize roadway throughput, allowing more cars to enter the city.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

First off, civil liberties. In order to do it properly, it would need to apply to all roads, not just interstates. Otherwise you're just going to push traffic to secondary roads. The only way of accomplishing this in practice is by ubiquitous government surveillance of some kind, whether through GPS or other means.
You don't need "ubiquitous" surveillance. You just need to know if people cross into Boston during a time when the toll is active. This need be no more intrusive than the FastPass lanes at the A/B tolls.
Secondly, in order for it to be nimble enough to work, pricing would need to set administratively, so the barriers to price increases would be very low. And, inevitably, administrators would be squeezed between institutional incentives to maximize revenue and political pressure to keep pricing low. You'd get the worst of both worlds. Some level of pricing during the 18+ hours per day when the roadway is below maximum throughput, and not-high-enough pricing during peak hours.

You talk about congestion pricing like it's some theoretical construct. As if it's 1930 and we're discussing whether or not the atom can be split. Spoiler alert: congestion pricing has been successfully implemented in Europe and Asia.

So it would allow more cars to come into the city. Get it? This is why it boggles my mind that urbanists/ped/bicyclist groups favor such a plan so much. Its purpose is to increase vehicle operating speeds during peak hours and maximize roadway throughput, allowing more cars to enter the city.

Urbanists don't hate cars for the sake of hating cars (at least I don't). Most of us hate the externalities cars cause. Gridlock, smog caused by idling in traffic, parking lots, the need to increase road capacity to keep up with PEAK demand, etc. By leveling out traffic levels you reduce all of those things.

[massmotorist]

You don't need "ubiquitous" surveillance. You just need to know if people cross into Boston during a time when the toll is active. This need be no more intrusive than the FastPass lanes at the A/B tolls.

If it's that simplistic, it's useless. Roads, neighborhoods, and areas around Boston are at various levels of capacity and must be priced differently in order for this to be at all helpful. And if you price the interstates but not the secondary roads and minor arterials you're going to drive traffic congestion up in those places and negate most if not all of the gains you made. And if you price the secondary roads and minor arterials you're getting a lot closer to an ubiquitous surveillance society, but without the efficiency gains you would get from direct GPS tracking.

[KentXie]

If it works in London, I don't see why it wouldn't work in Boston. In fact, more communities in London are petitioning to be included in the congestion pricing zones.

[MBTAddict]

I feel like in Boston it's another case of "Well, it'd be hard to do here so let's not even try."

Yes, congestion pricing would be confusing ti implement here, but it wouldn't be impossible by any means.

[omaja]

If it's that simplistic, it's useless. Roads, neighborhoods, and areas around Boston are at various levels of capacity and must be priced differently in order for this to be at all helpful. And if you price the interstates but not the secondary roads and minor arterials you're going to drive traffic congestion up in those places and negate most if not all of the gains you made. And if you price the secondary roads and minor arterials you're getting a lot closer to an ubiquitous surveillance society, but without the efficiency gains you would get from direct GPS tracking.

Current congestion pricing schemes aren't anywhere near as complex or intrusive as you describe. London charges a flat rate of £10 per day with discounts for vehicles registered as autopay, and higher rates if paid after the day of travel. You simply set up a boundary and charge any vehicle that enters the area during the defined timeframe.

It is very simple and has yielded great results for London and Stockholm - I would think such a setup would actually be wildly successful in Boston, especially if the revenue went towards beefing up MBTA service.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

If it's that simplistic, it's useless. Roads, neighborhoods, and areas around Boston are at various levels of capacity and must be priced differently in order for this to be at all helpful. And if you price the interstates but not the secondary roads and minor arterials you're going to drive traffic congestion up in those places and negate most if not all of the gains you made. And if you price the secondary roads and minor arterials you're getting a lot closer to an ubiquitous surveillance society, but without the efficiency gains you would get from direct GPS tracking.

THE ATOM CAN NOT BE SPLIT. FULL STOP.

[gooseberry]

Congestion fees in Boston would just a tax on people who can't afford to live in T accessible areas and don't have an extra 3-4 hours a day to spend taking the T vs. driving.

(I'm fully prepared to be called all sorts of names for writing this, so go ahead)

[massmotorist]

Current congestion pricing schemes aren't anywhere near as complex or intrusive as you describe. London charges a flat rate of £10 per day with discounts for vehicles registered as autopay, and higher rates if paid after the day of travel. You simply set up a boundary and charge any vehicle that enters the area during the defined timeframe.

It is very simple and has yielded great results for London and Stockholm - I would think such a setup would actually be wildly successful in Boston, especially if the revenue went towards beefing up MBTA service.

The lack of complexity results in significantly less economic efficiency and does not solve traffic problems outside Boston (where 90% state residents live). Also, "setting up a boundary" involves a whole lot of major and minor arterials, collector roads, and local roads. That's a whole lot of surveillance and a whole lot of overhead.

[omaja]

What kind of an area are you thinking of? All of Boston? Just Downtown and Back Bay? Something in between? London's congestion zone is only around one square so it isn't like we'd see literally every road into Boston under surveillance.

Also, the goal of the congestion charge is to decrease traffic specifically in the designated zone; has nothing to do with intrasuburban congestion and doesn't make any claim to, either.

[Shepard]

Congestion charging is really only the tip of the iceberg, albeit an important one.

Those who claim, as if it's an end in itself, that congestion pricing will reduce traffic and urban core automobile congestion - and by implication make driving into the city faster/quicker/more convenient for those willing to pay - have really missed the point.

The point is: what do you do with the street now that it has fewer cars.

Having been in Central London over the past few months, I would wager that more than 40% of all major-artery pavement is dedicated to bus/bike lanes (as an aside, bus/bike lanes do not work for bikes, but this is a separate issue entirely). There are intersections where entirely new pedestrian plazas have been built out at un-needed and unnecessary pavement. None of this would have been possible without the congestion charge. To me, this is the real goal.

[aaaaaa]

I'm curious about the following portion of your argument MassMotorist. You wrote, First off, civil liberties. In order to do it properly, it would need to apply to all roads, not just interstates. Otherwise you're just going to push traffic to secondary roads.

I agree, this may be the case temporarily. So, let's assume traffic is increased on secondary roads which subsequently increases congestion and commute times. And, let's assume that time is money as it most certainly is in a capitalist society. At some point the extra time required to commute via these secondary roads become such that it would outweigh the cost of the congestion fee pricing. Theoretically this would lead to some sort of balance without the need to charge congestion pricing on all secondary roadways. Maybe it would force some people onto the commuter rail where available. Your thoughts?

I'm for it for several reasons, but mostly just because I want to see what would happen. :)

[JohnAKeith]

No, it really can't. A few hundred formerly wealthy old wasps and Jews, Hipster pricks, uppity gays and probably two hundred thousand on the dole is not a sustainable population model.

I'm not Jewish.

[JohnAKeith]

1952: "Must be nice to be able to afford to live in the suburbs."
2012: "Must be nice to be able to afford to live in the city."

[novitiate]

Congestion fees in Boston would just a tax on people who can't afford to live in T accessible areas and don't have an extra 3-4 hours a day to spend taking the T vs. driving.

(I'm fully prepared to be called all sorts of names for writing this, so go ahead)
I would say that one of the first things that congestion money should be used for, if such a plan is implemented, would be to reduce the fares on the commuter rail, which are currently quite high.

In general though one might end up with a cart before the horse problem, where you want to use congestion money to improve public transit, but better public transit is needed before one would want to implement the charge.

[MBTAddict]

In general though one might end up with a cart before the horse problem, where you want to use congestion money to improve public transit, but better public transit is needed before one would want to implement the charge.

Simple fix: issue a bond based on projected future revenue from the charge, then pay it back as the charge is implemented.

[davem]

Allright, lets talk logistics, assume this would happen.

Where would the boarder be? Arlighton and Stuart/Kneeland St, just segregating the downtown core? Or further out at Mass Ave to keep people out of the Back Bay and South End as well? What about Fenway, would one be implemented there during game days? Or the LMA, which is as much if not more of a traffic disaster than downtown?

I think the biggest issue with implementation here is that we have small clusters of density with extreme traffic, separated by relatively calm and less dense areas. You can't easily just draw a box around one area. Although, perhaps if there were just small "bubbles" that you get charged for entering it would help better distribute traffic, similar to the proposal for closing Mass Ave in Cambridge here and there.

Would you get charged for going on Storrow, 90 or 93 if you are just passing through and not actually getting off downtown?

[Semass]

Congestion fees in Boston would just a tax on people who can't afford to live in T accessible areas and don't have an extra 3-4 hours a day to spend taking the T vs. driving.

(I'm fully prepared to be called all sorts of names for writing this, so go ahead)

By show of hands, is anyone here priced out of Brockton or Lawrence? Anybody?

[AmericanFolkLegend]

These arguments that it can't be done (Boston is too dense, too many secondary and tertiary streets, impossible to find the right pricing scheme, etc.) is so bizarre.

Say you don't think it's fair, or you hate taxes, or there are more efficient alternatives, or you like sitting in traffic... but don't argue that it can't be done. It's been done successfully in London. That argument is over.

[choo]

Allright, lets talk logistics, assume this would happen.

Where would the boarder be? Arlighton and Stuart/Kneeland St, just segregating the downtown core? Or further out at Mass Ave to keep people out of the Back Bay and South End as well? What about Fenway, would one be implemented there during game days? Or the LMA, which is as much if not more of a traffic disaster than downtown?

I think the biggest issue with implementation here is that we have small clusters of density with extreme traffic, separated by relatively calm and less dense areas. You can't easily just draw a box around one area. Although, perhaps if there were just small "bubbles" that you get charged for entering it would help better distribute traffic, similar to the proposal for closing Mass Ave in Cambridge here and there.

Would you get charged for going on Storrow, 90 or 93 if you are just passing through and not actually getting off downtown?

I think the first goal should be to maximize economic productivity of the region by appropriately using the infrastructure. Currently, the primary traffic issues come from 9-5 suburbanites driving to work on the pike, 93 N/S and 1. People crawl in this for an 1.5 hours each way each day. I think there is less of a problem of intracity traffic- trying to deter people from driving from back bay to downtown. I would bet that most of this comes from people that drove into work downtown and then drive to a restaurant in Back Bay before driving home, and less the guy who lives in the South End (lookin at uppity Mr. Keith :). When I commuted from the suburbs before I was able to move into the city- you had to leave a 7 to get in by 9. If you can essentially offer people the option to pay $3 and they get to leave at 8 and be at work by nine many would pay it. Many others would say, I'll take the CR.

I think it be placed on the main highway entry points. I think a lot of people will shift their schedules (work 11-7), work from home, take the T/CR. With gas prices where they are, I am sure $3, which is currently < a gallon of gas, would actually be justified by fuel savings alone. Drive 45 min at 55 mph vs 90 min at 30 mph- so for people that pay the toll its nearly a breakeven.

That money can then be diverted to lowering the CR, so people have further incentive. Plus more people coming in on Mass transit, means more people using mass transit/hubway to do intracity travel. Meaning there is a huge, vocal constituency that says, update GL signals! Shorter OL and RL headways. SL to RAIL!

Many flaws, but I think a good way to incentivize economically maximizing behavior and infrastructure development in a way that actually works out for those that drive too!

[Shepard]

Here's a maximalist view of what a charge zone would look like - pretty much how I define the CBD.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4966/czonef.jpg

[Matthew]

So it would allow more cars to come into the city. Get it? This is why it boggles my mind that urbanists/ped/bicyclist groups favor such a plan so much. Its purpose is to increase vehicle operating speeds during peak hours and maximize roadway throughput, allowing more cars to enter the city.

Did you watch the video (http://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson_how_to_solve_traffic_jams.html)? Stockholm's experience was a consistent 20% drop in traffic volume. See just over 4 minutes into the video for the bar chart.

Honestly, road space pricing is a win-win, there's something for everyone. Motorists get reliable, hassle-free commutes. The city gets to deal with fewer cars. And there's a bit of money to use on improvements such as public transit or road repair.

I'm especially intrigued by the way support swung from only 30% approval to a massive 70% approval rating after it was implemented.

[omaja]

Here's a maximalist view of what a charge zone would look like - pretty much how I define the CBD.

I was about to draw up my own but it would have looked basically the same. :)

How it would work: Put monitoring equipment on all surface streets leading into the zone and charge vehicles upon exiting 1/90/93/Storrow within the zone. Through traffic on 1/90/93/Storrow (defined as people traveling on one or connecting to/from one of the aforementioned routes) would not be charged.

I also like the idea of a variable charge like they have in Stockholm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_congestion_tax#Amount_of_tax_to_pay). That would likely be much more amenable than London's fixed £10 charge for entering the zone, which ignores peaks between 7AM-6PM that it is in effect.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

No! No! No! It won't work in Stockholm or Singapore or London or Boston. There's too many secondary streets. And it's an impact on our civil liberties. And the tax will be inefficient. And we'll never get enough unicorns to deliver the transponders....

[jass]

How about we start by simply tolling the central artery?

If Obama's thugs complain, simply have a light fixture fall, and declare it will take 4 years to repair (thus closing the tunnels), unless a toll is approved, at which point repairs can be expedited to 24 hours.

[massmotorist]

These arguments that it can't be done (Boston is too dense, too many secondary and tertiary streets, impossible to find the right pricing scheme, etc.) is so bizarre.

Say you don't think it's fair, or you hate taxes, or there are more efficient alternatives, or you like sitting in traffic... but don't argue that it can't be done. It's been done successfully in London. That argument is over.

To be a bit hyperbolic to make my point, Communism was done "successfully" in the Soviet Union. That doesn't mean I want to replicate it here. England has absurdly low civil liberties protections and CCTV cameras everywhere. I don't want that in America, and neither should you.

I'm not questioning its technical feasability. I'm saying in order to get it done we'd have to do things that would infringe upon liberties unacceptably. And without doing those liberty-infringing things, it wouldn't work.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

How about we start by simply tolling the central artery?

If Obama's thugs complain, simply have a light fixture fall, and declare it will take 4 years to repair (thus closing the tunnels), unless a toll is approved, at which point repairs can be expedited to 24 hours.

Perfect. Accuse the feds of thuggery, and then advocate extorting them and saying fuck you to every commuter who uses the tunnel in order to get a tolling exception...

[saulblum]

I'm saying in order to get it done we'd have to do things that would infringe upon liberties unacceptably. And without doing those liberty-infringing things, it wouldn't work.

When there are mass protests about the TSA feeling citizens up in order to travel around their own country and the police conducting warrantless searches on the T, we can talk about how much the citizens of this country love their civil liberties.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I'm not questioning its technical feasability. I'm saying in order to get it done we'd have to do things that would infringe upon liberties unacceptably. And without doing those liberty-infringing things, it wouldn't work.

But again, why does it have to be any worse than requiring Fast Pass transponders? Do you feel like your civil liberties are violated every time you get off the Pike at the A/B tolls?
(I realize the counter argument to the A/B tolls is that you could take Rt 9. But with a congestion tax I'd argue that you could take the MBTA/CR. Or only drive into Boston outside the 6:30-9:30AM and 3:30-6:30PM windows. Or ride a bike. Or whatever. Again, your changing people's behavior, which would be the whole point!)

[Matthew]

I'm not questioning its technical feasability. I'm saying in order to get it done we'd have to do things that would infringe upon liberties unacceptably. And without doing those liberty-infringing things, it wouldn't work.

I disagree, you can do it with toll transponders just like we already use all over the country.

Also, the "communist" argument was really outlandish.

[Shepard]

I think, logistically, when you have a situation as in Boston where many small streets could potentially lead into "the zone" you'd be better off going with random enforcement (temporary photo setups) at constantly shifting places within the zone. This leaves it up to the driver to have bought a day/week/monthly pass or pay a large fine if caught in the zone without one. Also give BTD parking enforcement the ability to ticket for noncompliance as well.

[mass88]

I think a congestion toll charge is an interesting idea and it could work. But knowing how this state and city run things, I have little faith they will be able to implement such a thing without messing it up and having it take forever through the red tape.

[jass]

Perfect. Accuse the feds of thuggery, and then advocate extorting them and saying fuck you to every commuter who uses the tunnel in order to get a tolling exception...

The feds are being extortionist thugs by not allowing localities to set their own tolling rules.

Just playing the same game by the same rules.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Well if you don't want the feds to set the rules, devolve funding for highways back to the states. The feds are allowed to set the rules for things that the feds have a heavy hand in funding.

Edit:

Did the state request an exemption for tolls on the tunnel and have it denied? I was under the impression that the ban on tolls on interstates was for two reasons: 1) The feds fund Interstates, so states shouldn't raise money off of them. 2) Interstates function to ease transportation amongst the states, and tolls can create a barrier to that.

It's not unprecedented for the feds to grant an exception for tunnels, is it? If it's a funding issue they have, earmark a percentage of the toll's earnings to the federal infrastructure bank.

[jass]

Well if you don't want the feds to set the rules, devolve funding for highways back to the states. The feds are allowed to set the rules for things that the feds have a heavy hand in funding.

Edit:

Did the state request an exemption for tolls on the tunnel and have it denied? I was under the impression that the ban on tolls on interstates was for two reasons: 1) The feds fund Interstates, so states shouldn't raise money off of them. 2) Interstates function to ease transportation amongst the states, and tolls can create a barrier to that.

It's not unprecedented for the feds to grant an exception for tunnels, is it? If it's a funding issue they have, earmark a percentage of the toll's earnings to the federal infrastructure bank.

Mass didnt apply for a waiver, but Penn did two years ago and it got denied.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Mass didnt apply for a waiver, but Penn did two years ago and it got denied.

I'm pretty sure that two years ago, the feds weren't rolling out the pilot program they've got now for tolling interstates.

That aside, the Big Dig cost us $24 billion and climbing last I checked. On that basis alone, I'd expect tolls to be approved.

[JohnAKeith]

Based on how the casinos' revenue pie was divided up, I agree; the state won't do a good job of congestion toll pricing. The state legislature and governor saw this huge pot of cash coming its way from the casinos and slot parlors but have promised all the money away, so little of it will remain for any debt reduction / tax reduction / new projects.

At least that's how I see it, without having delved into the numbers.

[massmotorist]

But again, why does it have to be any worse than requiring Fast Pass transponders? Do you feel like your civil liberties are violated every time you get off the Pike at the A/B tolls?
(I realize the counter argument to the A/B tolls is that you could take Rt 9. But with a congestion tax I'd argue that you could take the MBTA/CR. Or only drive into Boston outside the 6:30-9:30AM and 3:30-6:30PM windows. Or ride a bike. Or whatever. Again, your changing people's behavior, which would be the whole point!)

I disagree, you can do it with toll transponders just like we already use all over the country.

Also, the "communist" argument was really outlandish.

I oppose eliminating cash lanes on tolls roads for the same reasons. I believe strongly that you should be able to get from "here" to "there" without having your travel logged, recorded, or written down.

I wasn't saying congestion pricing = communism, I was saying implementable ≠ desirable

[omaja]

I'm pretty sure that two years ago, the feds weren't rolling out the pilot program they've got now for tolling interstates.

That aside, the Big Dig cost us $24 billion and climbing last I checked. On that basis alone, I'd expect tolls to be approved.

I wouldn't bet on it for the foreseeable future. The FHWA pilot was for three slots and they are all reserved: 70 in MO, 95 in VA and 95 in SC.

[Kahta]

That aside, the Big Dig cost us $24 billion and climbing last I checked. On that basis alone, I'd expect tolls to be approved.

Including interest is not an honest way of calculating the cost of something, but it is an effective way for politicians to be dramatic.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I wouldn't bet on it for the foreseeable future. The FHWA pilot was for three slots and they are all reserved: 70 in MO, 95 in VA and 95 in SC.

Yes, but the fact that there were any slots at all is a good sign in my opinion. I fully expect the Big Dig to be tolled eventually. It just might take a while.

Including interest is not an honest way of calculating the cost of something, but it is an effective way for politicians to be dramatic.

If you want to have a semantics argument over what parts of the sum total of every bill ever received in relation to the purchase of something count as the 'cost' of the purchase and which ones don't, we can have that conversation.

Personally, I don't think that's relevant to the issue at hand - the Big Dig should have been tolled, should be tolled, and eventually will be tolled.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I oppose eliminating cash lanes on tolls roads for the same reasons. I believe strongly that you should be able to get from "here" to "there" without having your travel logged, recorded, or written down.

You know there are cameras on the Pike Tolls, right? Even at the cash lanes.

[massmotorist]

You know there are cameras on the Pike Tolls, right? Even at the cash lanes.

But they don't log your plate unless you're a violator. Sure, if someone wants to review film for 10 hours looking for plate numbers, they can, but the point is to create friction in the process. The tracking that can be done today certainly could be done 50 years ago, it just took a lot more money and manpower back then. And ensuring that tracking takes money and manpower is the most surefire way to ensure government resources aren't used to track people when they shouldn't.

Besides that, I'm for Pike toll elimination anyway.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

But they don't log your plate unless you're a violator. Sure, if someone wants to review film for 10 hours looking for plate numbers, they can, but the point is to create friction in the process. The tracking that can be done today certainly could be done 50 years ago, it just took a lot more money and manpower back then. And ensuring that tracking takes money and manpower is the most surefire way to ensure government resources aren't used to track people when they shouldn't.

Right, and the cameras are presumably on some finite loop (i.e., every 48 hours the camera tapes over itself). So, a reasonable solution would be for you to recommend that the transponder identifiers are erased periodically (i.e., after 48 hours the transponder becomes anonymous and only the revenue/traffic count is recorded). But you didn't suggest that because:

I'm for Pike toll elimination anyway.

So instead, over the last week, you've laid out this laundry list of counterfeit arguments about why a congestion tax wouldn't work, when the reality is: YOU DON"T LIKE TOLLS. That's not a crime. You should have just said "I believe the gas tax is a sufficient revenue source and I don't want to be charged for congestion externalities." It's not a particularly controversial stance and we would have saved a lot of AB board space.

[davem]

I think that a congestion charge for getting off the pike (and any other road) downtown would more than make up for abolishing the A/B tolls. 128 should stay however, as an intensive for taking it around the city instead of through. I am also a full supporter of adding tolls at 128 on both sides of 93 as well.

I hate paying tolls and go through great lengths to avoid them personally, but that's my prerogative. Come to think of it, I probably waste more net money in gas, wear and tear, and time then I do by skirting around toll booths anyway.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I think that a congestion charge for getting off the pike (and any other road) downtown would more than make up for abolishing the A/B tolls. 128 should stay however, as an intensive for taking it around the city instead of through. I am also a full supporter of adding tolls at 128 on both sides of 93 as well.

I hate paying tolls and go through great lengths to avoid them personally, but that's my prerogative. Come to think of it, I probably waste more net money in gas, wear and tear, and time then I do by skirting around toll booths anyway.

You may be technically right, but I'd bank on the revenue difference being minute enough that it's a wash - and besides, trading one toll for a different toll feels like opening a can of worms that really should stay closed. Nothing but trouble is going to come of that.

Re: tolls at either end of 128... I'd much rather see the tolls specifically targeted at the Big Dig itself - particularly if paired with a road diet for the Rose Kennedy Freeway. (Obviously, the exits onto those roads would be tolled as well.) There's no reason we can't have both, of course - as part of my ongoing desire to see as many future road infrastructure projects paid by tolls as we can possibly get, I'd be more than happy to see the 93/95 mess in Woburn fixed and paid for by tolling it.

And, for the record, I oppose a congestion toll on the basis that for the same amount of headache, legal/political concerns and assorted miscellaneous bullshit, we can get 5 times the revenue and a similar level of traffic reduction by making sure that street parking in the city of Boston is never cheaper than $6/hour. (And make the price go up if too many meters are active, and make the price go up if it's a peak demand time - if it's high noon and 80% of the city meters are being occupied, you ought to be gouged $25/hour or more to park on the street.)

[massmotorist]

Right, and the cameras are presumably on some finite loop (i.e., every 48 hours the camera tapes over itself). So, a reasonable solution would be for you to recommend that the transponder identifiers are erased periodically (i.e., after 48 hours the transponder becomes anonymous and only the revenue/traffic count is recorded). But you didn't suggest that because:



So instead, over the last week, you've laid out this laundry list of counterfeit arguments about why a congestion tax wouldn't work, when the reality is: YOU DON"T LIKE TOLLS. That's not a crime. You should have just said "I believe the gas tax is a sufficient revenue source and I don't want to be charged for congestion externalities." It's not a particularly controversial stance and we would have saved a lot of AB board space.

If I thought that I would say it. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

If I were benevolent dictator and I could be certain that things would be set up precisely according to my specifications and that it would remain that way into perpetuity, I would be for congestion pricing. But we live in the real world, not anyone's fantasy world. When you open up a can of worms, you can never be sure where it will go.

So looking at a program as if your perfect legislation will be passed, your ideal executive branch will implement it, and it will be set in stone forever is pointless and silly. The sensible thing to do is to look at a program's benefits and costs under the most likely scenario in terms of legislation and implementation, and also assign due weight to the worst case and best case scenarios.

In this particular case, I could go through all the obvious logistical issues of why this information would need to be retained (billing and billing disputes?), the simple fact that laws limiting retention are easily changed, etc, but it seems you're only interested in finding angles to question my motives.

[datadyne007]

Not sure where to put this, but we talk about Open-Road Tolling all the freaking time and now Gov Patrick wants it!

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12009283299089/gov-patrick-wants-ma-to-move-to-open-road-tolling/#ixzz2EeGjCbnG

[mass88]

Not sure where to put this, but we talk about Open-Road Tolling all the freaking time and now Gov Patrick wants it!

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12009283299089/gov-patrick-wants-ma-to-move-to-open-road-tolling/#ixzz2EeGjCbnG

I will believe it when I see it. On the Herald, some people who commented were thinking this could lead the state to start charging people drive on several different roads not currently tolled.

[datadyne007]

I will believe it when I see it. On the Herald, some people who commented were thinking this could lead the state to start charging people drive on several different roads not currently tolled.
The SE Expressway should be tolled.

[bigeman312]

The SE Expressway should be tolled.

The Zakim Bridge should be tolled.

[mass88]

The SE Expressway should be tolled.

People will flip out if that were to happen. You would talking about tolling the two main expressways into the city.

As of now, I am going to assume the plan is to use transponder in car vehicles to go through the tolls and those without to pay cash still. I am basing this off of what I have seen in other states.

If that's the case for Mass, they would have to make some upgrades to the SE expressway to make room for the tolls, increasing the cost and the ire of some drivers.

[dshoost88]

In Florida, they've just about gotten rid of toll booths from the FL Turnpike system (or will be rid of them soon). Something like 80% of the cars in South Florida have a Sun Pass transponder on their windshield--it's the size of a credit card--and the others that use the turnpike/tolled roads without Sun Pass get sent a bill in the mail. There are cameras at paypoints that read the car's license plate and then send a bill to their house after a month for the number of trips they made along the toll road without a transponder.

So aside from the open-road tolling overhead infrastructure they'd need to build above the highway in a couple places, the SE expressway wouldn't need any additional land to accommodate such a system.

Also in Miami/Fort Lauderdale, they've turned the HOV lanes on I-95 into open-road tolls with adjustable pricing during rush hour. They do this to maintain at least one or two lanes that move at least 50 mph at all times. Something MA could try along I-93 within the 128-loop.

[davem]

I've been thinking about this a lot since my last post:

In my head the ideal solution would have two toll barriers. One at 128 to discourage through traffic from passing through the city, as well as encourage people coming in to park and take the train/subway/bus. The fee would be minimal, a couple bucks, and would be open road to alleviate any traffic concerns. Still eliminate the A/B tolls, as once people are inside the city we want them to take the highway vs clog local streets or storrow.

Then a congestion charge at the city center. This would be very high during peak hours ($5 or higher) to strongly encourage alternate transportation. Off peak it would be the same price as the T, and when the T is closed it would cease to exist. Delivery trucks would either be exempt, or pay a small flat fee. Livery would be exempt. Through traffic on 90 and 93 would be exempt as well. I think the argument about surveillance / tracking could be alleviated by having the cameras pointed so that they can only see licence plates not drivers, as well as software that encodes the licence plates to they can not be used for any purpose other then billing. There is no reason to have the cameras even record anything, the entire process could be automated.

The 128 tolls would fund road improvements, the congestion charge would go straight to the T. I would propose toll bonds to fund a drastic overhaul of the subway to be able to handle a third more traffic with much better efficiency. Once the bonds are paid back the funds should be used for aggressive expansion.

I don't like the idea of tolling the central artery directly, as I believe people would opt for traffic and local streets vs paying them (a la taking storrow vs the pike).

Essentially, this is forcing people to pay for the connivance of sitting in their cars when there is already an existing mode, and then paying more as the level of duplicate service increases. The fact that the T is currently a disaster is irrelevant, as the bonds would fix this issue before the tolls went into effect.


I also strongly support replacing all meters (and installing more) with variable price systems. I would imagine if the meters were networked they could track in real time which are occupied and therefore update prices instantly.

[Matthew]

Sounds interesting. One quibble I have is that I would separate "small" delivery trucks from "large" delivery trucks as a class of vehicle. The larger ones cause so much damage and danger to the city that their use should definitely not be exempt from fees (or at least, not during waking hours). Small trucks, on the other hand, should pay less. I think the city has a big interest in encouraging the use of city-street-appropriate trucks for deliveries. Such properly-scaled commercial vehicles should even be prioritized in some ways over private cars, in the name of promoting commerce.

The exact details of the separation or scale, of course, left to be worked out.

[massmotorist]

The Zakim Bridge should be tolled.

The SE Expressway should be tolled.

*Sigh*

You can't toll existing interstate highways.

The prohibition is statutory and the only exemptions were for a pilot program whose slots are filled. Politically, the prospects of this changing any time soon are between zero and nil.

[Commuting Boston Student]

*Sigh*

You can't toll existing interstate highways.

The prohibition is statutory and the only exemptions were for a pilot program whose slots are filled. Politically, the prospects of this changing any time soon are between zero and nil.

Revenue maximization, my friend.

Once the pilot program turns out to be a resounding success, the odds in favor of more pilot slots being created go from slim and none to pretty good.

[Matthew]

On FOX25 they just said that Patrick is "considering" tolling 93.

Of course they just freaked out about Psy performing at the White House, so I'm not sure their "reporting" is worth a damn.

[dshoost88]

*Sigh*

You can't toll existing interstate highways.

The prohibition is statutory and the only exemptions were for a pilot program whose slots are filled. Politically, the prospects of this changing any time soon are between zero and nil.

Uhh, actually you can. (http://www.95express.com/home/FAQ.shtm)

[omaja]

^ Adding an entirely new toll facility is not the same as tolling existing routes. This would only work if they added lanes to 93, for example.

[JohnAKeith]

Well, our governor has sleepovers at the White House; maybe if he asked pretty please, the president would let them put tolls on 93.

[BostonUrbEx]

Toll all the roads, eliminate the gas tax, lower the drinking age to 18, give DC the finger.

I have my campaign promises all lined up.

[massmotorist]

Uhh, actually you can. (http://www.95express.com/home/FAQ.shtm)

This involves conversion of HOV lanes and the addition of extra lanes. It does not involve wholesale conversion of an interstate highway.

Revenue maximization, my friend.

Once the pilot program turns out to be a resounding success, the odds in favor of more pilot slots being created go from slim and none to pretty good.

You're talking in terms of abstractions. Look at concrete, real-world veto points. In order for an expansion to happen, Congress would need to authorize it. Have you looked at the House of Representatives lately?

[jass]

^ Adding an entirely new toll facility is not the same as tolling existing routes. This would only work if they added lanes to 93, for example.

No lanes were added in Miami.

[Semass]

Toll all the roads, eliminate the gas tax, lower the drinking age to 18, give DC the finger.

I have my campaign promises all lined up.

Or:
Eliminate all the tolls, increase gas tax, lower drinking age to 18, give DC the finger.

[BostonUrbEx]

Or:
Eliminate all the tolls, increase gas tax, lower drinking age to 18, give DC the finger.

I'm not in favor of subsidizing the operation of cars which are already cheaper to operate. Tolling is how the market would keep sprawl in check. Gas tax is absurd. You're essentially billing people with hybrids and electrics less when they may very well be driving just as far, or further, and putting just as much wear on the road.

[Matthew]

The purpose of a gas tax under such a circumstance would be to alleviate the negative externalities of gasoline production and combustion. It could also be encompassed under a carbon tax, if that were ever to appear.

[massmotorist]

The purpose of a gas tax under such a circumstance would be to alleviate the negative externalities of gasoline production and combustion. It could also be encompassed under a carbon tax, if that were ever to appear.

Exactly. You accomplish the dual goals of funding transportation and helping the environment, but in an economically efficient way that doesn't regulate certain types of vehicles out of existence with the cudgel of CAFE standards. I get to keep my ~15 mpg muscle car, and I'll gladly pay more to do so. At the same time lots of people will give theirs up, and the envornment will benefit. Win-win.

[omaja]

No lanes were added in Miami.

Yes, there were; they added a lane in each direction, restriped the roadway and designated the existing HOV lanes as the 'express lanes'.

[jass]

Yes, there were; they added a lane in each direction, restriped the roadway and designated the existing HOV lanes as the 'express lanes'.

They took away an existing free HOV lane , and destroyed the spirit of carpooling. So they took what was free and made it paid.

"but HOVs can go for free!"

BS. Its like sending in a letter to mcdonalds to get a free monopoly play piece.


Then they did narrow lanes to restrip a new lane. Road wasnt widened though. No new construction.

[omaja]

'Destroying the spirit of carpooling'? Give me a break. People who actually carpool still get to use the express lanes free of charge. All you do is send in a carpool registration. Not too terribly difficult.

Net-net, though, they added a lane in each direction. Doing so meant no loss of general purpose lanes, which is the point. We don't have dedicated HOV lanes on 93 to convert to HOT so it would take a legislative miracle or new construction to make it happen in MA.

[massmotorist]

'Destroying the spirit of carpooling'? Give me a break. People who actually carpool still get to use the express lanes free of charge. All you do is send in a carpool registration. Not too terribly difficult.

Net-net, though, they added a lane in each direction. Doing so meant no loss of general purpose lanes, which is the point. We don't have dedicated HOV lanes on 93 to convert to HOT so it would take a legislative miracle or new construction to make it happen in MA.

Dan Winslow proposed converting (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/04/24/state-lawmaker-proposes-toll-for-i-93-hov-lane/) the "zipper lane" south of Boston to an HOT lane.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I get to keep my ~15 mpg muscle car, and I'll gladly pay more to do so. At the same time lots of people will give theirs up, and the envornment will benefit. Win-win.

The flip side of that coin is that not everyone getting bad mileage is getting bad mileage because they can afford it and don't care. Increasing the gas tax is regressive for the landscaper driving a 20 year old pickup because that's all he can afford.
Not saying we shouldn't increase the gas tax. Just saying the "win-win" is not so clear cut.

[Matthew]

Better to deal with that through income tax credits or some similar mechanism -- keeping the gas tax or carbon tax simple. Regardless of what vehicle is being used, or who is using it, the effect of consumption of a gallon of gasoline is basically the same. That's why an excise tax makes a lot of sense. Regressive or progressive doesn't enter into it.

Offering a kind of blunt discount on the gas tax by letting its value lapse through inflation is very ad-hoc and silly.